KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Avodat Hashem #03
KMTT - Avodat Hashem #03, by Rav Moshe Taragin
This is KMTT and this is Eswabek today, it's Tuesday, I am Sliche. This is KMTT. It's a day when you don't say "tachman". It's also a day when the prohibitions of Suwata Omer are suspended and therefore it's the barber's holiday and there when you can take a haircut during Suwata Omer. There was a third halacha once that used to exist. It doesn't exist any longer. When I was a child, you weren't allowed to wear sneakers, sport shoes to school except for one day a year. Like Vomie, you could come to school in sneakers. Today's shoe is by Ramesh Tiger and is the weekly shoe on essentials of Abodata Shem. After the shoe, I'll be back with the halachayumet. The next year, we'll elaborate upon the mitzvah of Tufila. The second of the three mitzvahs, which Shimon Hasadik, one of the final members of the Ancha Kinesus Agidola, in the early period of the second mitzvah, the second mitzvah, which he noted, was a pillar of the world and of religious experience. Ashlosha, Devarim, Holom, Omaid, Al-Tara, Al-Avodah, Vyagamilas, Hasadim. The mitzvah of Tufila is, of course, a challenging mitzvah, the very famous story. The Tamidim of the Baal Shem Tov. Ask their Rebi, the first Hasidic master of the Baal Shem Tov. How they could discriminate between authentic Hasidisha Rebeim and charlatans or imposters. Evidently, in the first couple generations, or at least in the first generation of Hasidic activity, there were several Hasidic Rebeim who really weren't authentic or worn genuine, who traveled the land offering talisman and charms and healing powers rather than religious inspiration and Torah. And the Tamidim of the Baal Shem Tov inquired how they could discriminate between the two. The Rebi, the Baal Shem Tov, responded to his Tamidim that if any Hasidisha Rebe would suggest that he has a foolproof solution to Kavana, to Davening, to proper focused Davening, anyone who offers a foolproof solution is definitely a faker because a solution doesn't exist. And the Baal Shem Tov was articulating to his Tamidim that part of the success in Tfilah is the ongoing struggle, recognizing the difficulty of Tfilah in general, particularly the challenges of the modern era, which the concept of space has changed so dramatically, and space and geography is crucial to Tfilah, and I hope to speak about this in next week's Shreemir Tashm. The modern era in which time is less available, which our focus is more disrupted. Certainly the challenges of Tfilah are very, very overwhelming. But as long as a person is aware of the struggle and of the responsibility and mandate to continue to revive his attention towards Davening and reinforce his commitment, then perhaps an awareness of the difficulty and of the struggle is more than half of the battle, and more than half of the success in that battle. The Gomarim Brachos, on Daflamid base, cites his follows. (speaks in foreign language) There are four experiences within religion which require constant reinforcement, and to be revisited, and to be checked and explored. (speaks in foreign language) (speaks in foreign language) Clearly a person's Torah study, as I mentioned in the past two Shreem, must be inspected, must be bolstered on a constant basis, my sintov, impiety, ethics, personal integrity. But the third in that list of religious experiences, aspects of religious performance which must be constantly analyzed and inspected, is Tfilah. The Gomar cites the Pasak Tfilah Minayyin, Shannemar, Kaveel Hashem, Chazak Viamets Lebecha, the Kaveel Hashem. And in this context, the term Kaveel Hashem, which literally means to seek, to wait, to expect, to go to Yernphirim, here is seen as a metaphor describing Tfilah. Kaveel Hashem, to Daven, to Yernphir, Prasuakar, Chazak Viamets Lebecha, strengthen your resolve, strengthen your conviction, the Kaveel Hashem. And then once again continue the ongoing odyssey, the ongoing journey towards successful Tfilah. These two Shreem will attempt to articulate some of the basics, the foundations of Tfilah. The basic Kaveonos, obviously Kaveonos is a very subjective and personal element. No one person's Kaveonos should or will be similar to another person's Kaveon. But then Shreem will attempt to explore the basic guidelines and parameters of Tfilah. Of course, a famous Makhlokis exists between the Rambam and the Rambam. Whether it's Essay Minhatora, demanding Tfilah, at least once a day exists. According to the Rambam, based on the Gomara in Taines, Dafbezim and Aleph, the Gomara in Taines says, "Azul hiyavoda shibileith, what is the worship of the heart?" In this case, not just the worship, but the work, the toil, the literal term of avoda. Heve omrizot Tfilah. When the Torah writes, "Eli avdo bechol of Avraham of the cholnaf shibhem," (2nd parshis kryaf kryashima) Azul hiyavoda shibileith, the Gomara in Taines, claims, "Heve omrizot Tfilah." The Rambam interprets this Gomara literally and suggests that there exists at least on a daily basis a Mitzvas Essay Minhatora to Dafbezim. Perhaps the Mitzvas does not require Dafbezim at a certain time. If Dafbezim can be performed at any stage of the day, obviously no particular text is required aside from text which incidentally may be included in Dafbezim, such as Shmoana Essay, and the like. Excuse me, such as Bírchas Kryashima, and the like. But a person must dive in on a daily basis to fulfill the Mitzvas of Avoda shibileith. The Rambam argues with the Rambam claiming that no such Mitzvas exists. The Gomara in Taines, which attempts to derive the experience of Dafbezim from the phrase "Avoda shibileith," that Gomara is not affixing the Mitzvah to a biblical command or to apostate, but rather looking for an Asmah for just a reference or an illusion in the Torah towards Tfilah. But ultimately there is no Mitzvas Essay to Dafbezim. The Rambam cites the Gomara in Brakhos, which we will elaborate upon in a few moments. The Gomara suggests that Khazal instituted or legislated Tfilah. As an extension of Corbonos in Beisamiktash, Tfilos can negate Timidim Tiknum to capture and symbol the experience of Corbonos. According to one position in the Gomara in Brakhos and Dafbezim, they were legislated not to sustain the experience of Corbonos, but to capture those moments in which the Avos Daven, Dafmysra Knacov, Tfilos, Avos Tiknum. Either way, whether Tfilos reflect the Avos or Tfilos reflect Corbonos, the Gomara in Brakhos employs the term "Tiknum," highlighting, according to the Rambam at least, that there is no biblical source for Tfilah. That Tfilah is merely a rabbinic institution, a takanamidirabhanan, in order to perpetuate one of the aforementioned moments in Jewish history, Corbonos or Avos. Even the Rambhan, of course, agrees that there is one predicament, there is one context in which Tfilah is mandated at a deir isolevel, the Rambhan concedes, based on Lipsochim and Parsha's Bhalosa. Sakhara describes that when a national crisis erupts, plague, famine, war, Al-Hatsar, Hacer Eresrem, Bariosem, Bakhatsal-Sousbin-Escartan-Le-Than-Shem-Leucachim, even the Rambhan believes that Tfilah beest-Sarah, praying and supplicating to Akhosh Barkh when a time of national crisis. Of danger, that even the Rambhan agrees is Tfilah-Midir-Aisa. That would be Tfilah mandated at a biblical level. But the daily regimen of Tfilah, according to the Rambhan, is purely Midir-Abhan. However, beyond the source of Tfilah, whether we acknowledge a biblical source or place it squarely upon rabbinic legislation, what are the themes? What are the contours? What are the emotional imperatives or guidelines of Tfilah? I would like to begin by analyzing the Gamaran-Brahos-Ravab. My analysis is loosely based on some of the writings of Arversaal, of H. Exhir-Sarah-Kardash-Le-Braha. Several of his svarim contain his ideas upon Tfilah, and my ideas are merely an elaboration of some of the things I read authored by the Rambhatsal. The Gamaran-Brahos cites an argument between a Biosibir-Brahanina and Ibn Shua-bin-Lavi about the original symbolic source of Tfilos. Viosi claims that the Tfilos symbolize the experience of prayer which the others initiated, which the others launched, whereas Ibn Shua-bin-Lavi suggests that they are meant to sustain the daily experience of karbanos connected to Midir-Brahos. The Gamaran, as well as the Rishonim site, various halachic manifestations, halachic consequences of this makhlokus. For example, if a person is negligent, an omitzil Tfilah, in the time frame for that Tfilah has passed, can he repair, can he offer a Tfilah in place to substitute for the mists Tfilah, what is known as Tashloman? And certainly the possibility or opportunity for Tashloman may only emerge in the wake of the precedent of karbanos. Karbanos and based on mikdash are an experience which do allow some form of Tashloman. If Tfilos emanate from karbanos, perhaps they too allow Tashloman, allow some sort of recovery process, offering an extra Tfilah during the ensuing time frame, and of course this is how we posk it. Whereas conceivably, if Tfilos were merely instituted, based on the precedent of the Avos, we may not have similar mandate to authorize Tashloman. In the Rishonim site, various other differences, as well as perhaps discriminating between various forms of Tfilah. Perhaps Tfilah's musaph is more closely structured or more closely constructed on the model of karbanos and some of the other Tfilos. Even though I had a halachic level, there may be some discrepancy between Tfilos, premised on Avos, or Tfilos, premised on karbanos. It's clear that at a thematic level, the motif of Tfilah is based on the dual precedent of Avos and karbanos. Ribiosi brebchanin aribijoba levi merely argue which of these two precedents, which of these two anchors is primary and should dictate halachic categories. But in terms of penetrating the essence of Tfilah and illustrating the experience proper, it's undeniable that Tfilos are structured on both the experience of karbanos, as well as the experience of Avos. And the question is why are there two precedents invoked for Tfilah? Why can't Tfilah be pitched on one precedent, on one historical experience? Had Tfilos been posited merely as an extension of the prayers of the Avos? We may have reached the following conclusion, a conclusion which perhaps would suffocate our own Tfilos. It's one thing for Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov to interact with Akur Jibarahu, to receive his visitation, his revelation, to sign into an act of confidence, and ultimately to speak to him with the human tongue in the form of prayer. These were unparalleled individuals, great spiritual heroes who climbed unattainable spiritual heights, strikingly, without a Torah legislated, because I'll speak of the Avos as having fulfilled some primordial form of Torah, some primordial form of Halacha. But whatever level of Torah and of Jewish law they adhere to, whatever level of God's word they had received, it was certainly not the extensive, elaborate, comprehensive system of Torah, which was legislated and delivered at Harsina. And yet despite the lack of revelation and of legal legislation, they were able to reach a level of encounter and a relationship with Akur Jibarahu that was unparalleled. And as a consequence or an extension of that encounter, they spoke, they prayed, they requested, they praised, they shared the emotional inner world with Akur Jibarahu. That does not necessarily authorize prayer for every man for the common individual. These were surpassing individuals who scaled previously unattained heights. For them, prayer was a natural expression of their daily encounter. What gives us average, ordinary, blemished and mortal human beings, the same prerogative to pray to Akur Jibarahu? Have we reached the level of Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov? Had Tfilos been based solely on the experience of our Avos, it may have remained an elitist experience, reserved only for the salient, accomplished, religious personalities. It may be in each generation a few, maybe a Vilna Gown here and a Rambam there, but certainly not every man. For this reason, Hazal established an alternate precedent, an alternate template for Tfilos, the template of Kribannas. The beginning of Parshas Vayikra employs a very, very intriguing word to launch the description of Kribannas. Adam, Kiyakar of Meqim, Kribannashed. Suddenly, the reappearance of the term Adam. Typically, the tower employs the term ish, but Adam? Hazal cites various Drashals surrounding the employment of the term Adam, but the common denominator between these Drashals is that the term Adam suggests a universalization or democratization of Kribannas, that Kribannas are offered to every man. Scholar and layman, religious hero, an average ordinary person, and in this case, of course, as the term Adam suggests, even to a Gentile. There are several Kribannas which a Gentile is permitted to offer. Kribannas are meant to be a sweeping, collective experience. Obviously, the Kribannas of Tamidim themselves contain a sweep in their very essence. These are Kribannas, the seaboard, that are not authored or offered by one particular individual, but are offered to Akaraj Barrojo on behalf of an entire nation twice daily. May Samiktas itself, the site of Kribannas, serves as a locus for the encounter between an entire nation and Akaraj Barrojo. The young Kipper ceremonies are meant not to offer isolated Kribannas as much as to reinvigorate and cleanse the baysamiktas from the acquired tuma of yearly entry, and perhaps mistaken or unlawful entry. The Kipper al-Akodes, the Torah, writes in Parshis A'hareimos. Meetram al-Spinei Surah al-Mipishiyam, Le Cholghatosa, sprinkling the blood on various segments of the miktas. When the Aaron Akodesh, or near the Aaron Akodesh on the Parochas on his behalf, Apinimi, was meant to address each nook and cranny of the miktas, and cleanse it from its acquired tuma. Rather than achieving kapara in a direct sense, the Kribannas were meant to, as it were, unclog the arteries of our relationship with Akaraj Barrojo, and once those arteries are unclog, then our relationship can continue to pump with life and vitality, and our atonement would be natural. The miktas to the Kribannas are a communal, national experience, and the Torah underscores the national nature and the democratic nature of this experience by launching the section of Kribannas with the term Adam, Kiyakar of Mikim, Karbanashem. Subsequently, there will be Kribannas that are designated, that are targeted for specific individuals, and indeed, there are Kribannas, which are reserved for the leadership. Asher Nasi'yakta, the kwengado brings special Kribannas, and Nasi who sins, brings a special Kribannas, based in the greater the responsibility, the greater the stakes, the greater the accountability must be. Because our darshins Asher Nasi'yakta, Asher Adar, fortunate, is a generation, describing the term Asher, or Asher. Playing on the term Asher Nasi'yakta and interpreting it to refer to the term Asheray, fortunate is a generation whose leadership acknowledges its faults, begins the penitential process of achieving atonement rather than hiding, or denying flaws, or miscues, Asher Nasi'yakta. But the experience of Kribannas is primarily a democratic experience, extended to every man. And for this reason, Hazal insisted that Trillos be modeled not only on the experiences of Avamiz Rakhanyaka, of the surpassing men of achievement, but on Kribannas as well, to democratize and extend Trillos to every man. Having established the role which Kribannas play, what role do the Avas play? Why not merely model Trillos upon Kribannas its democratic, its sweeping, it applies to every man? Why is there a need for the precedent of the Avas as well? Every day towards the end or towards the beginning of the first section of Davening, what we call in general Kribannas, which includes much more, we recite a few prachim from the Tara, delineating Kribannas. Amishna, or Perik of Mishnayos, from Zvakhim, the fifth Perik of Zvakhim, Azehum Akoman, and what is known as the Brysadrabi Ishmael. A Brysad enumerating the thirteen exegetical tools of interpreting the Tara, kalvachomer, klaluprat, etc. This section is meant to capture, to satisfy the requirements suggested by the Gamaran kedushin. The Gamaran kedushin claims that a person should divide his Tara study into three equal components. A third of the time he should spend studying text, biblical text, a third of the time studying Mishna, and a third of the time studying Gamara. Li'alam yashlashadam, yashalashadam shinnosaf, should divide his Tara study into three. Of course, at a practical level, we don't adhere to this formula for all types of reasons suggested by various we shown him. But in order to still symbolize this three-part division, as the first section of Davening concludes when we begin to circuit a Zimra, we symbolically recite a few prokim of the Tara, a parak of Mishna, the fifth parak of Zvakhim, and of course Brysadrabi Ishmael. To symbolize Gamara, Brysadr is a form of Gamara. Of all the prokim and chas to select, for Mishnaios, why was the fifth parak of Zvakhim chosen? Well, it's only appropriate that a parak describing karbonos be recited. We're trying to mourn the absence of Asa mikdash to transform our three laws into a pseudo-carbon. But why the fifth parak of Zvakhim? The fifth parak of Zvakhim is the only parak in Chas, which contains absolutely no Mahlokis. Mahlokis and dispute is the cornerstone of Tara Shabbapah. It's the engine that fuels the process, debate and discourse and elaboration and interaction. And yet, surprisingly, almost mysteriously, the fifth parak of Zvakhim contains no recorded Mahlokis. Why of all the prokim is this unanimous one? Because when it comes to karbonos and desha mikdash, there is a very little, if any, margin for error. When a person stands in front of our karush bar, when front of the Mahlokmacham lachim and interacts and offers a karbon, he has to be careful about how, where, when karbonos is a world of structure, of regiment, of discipline. Every karbon has a particular location, where it should be sacrificed, where the blood, what types of animals. You would think that when a person stands in front of our karush bar, who overflowing with emotion, infusing his love and his faith, there should be more room for personal expression, for ad hoc, for ad-libbing. And everything is structured. You can't bring any type of animal, shar or kessive always key, volade, only certain types of animals. You can't check where you'd like. You can't sprinkle how much you'd like. It isn't a personalized experience, but rather a regimented, disciplined, and structured one. Why? Perhaps the structure, stifle, spontaneity, and personal expression. The answer is the structure preserves the sanctity of the experience, the integrity of the encounter, and the sense that we're not interacting with a friend or a brother or a spouse, but with the Mahlokmacham lachim lachimacharush barco, with or a bonus in all of them. Unknowable, transcendent, distant, different than ourselves. The structure and regiment of karbonos protect the experience of karbonos against, perhaps, arrogance, human arrogance, humanization of a karush barco, and violating the necessary boundaries between man and god asham, lachim, shamaim, lachim, the arthas, asham, lafneadam. The experience of karbonos is one which invites the peril, of abdicating the transcendence, the sense of unknowability of a karush barco. Certainly, in a general sense, the section in tara, which best highlights the tragedy of karbonos and basamiktash, perhaps endangering the very delicate boundaries which a karush barco demands, which reflect our acknowledgement of his transcendence to the passage, which bas captures this as a passage in partish meaning. Nada vanavir, were so thrilled, were so euphoric. On the day in which the Mishkan was erected, and which a karush barco, shrina descended, the entire nation, witnessed this descent, and sung, and praised, in their haste, in their joy, in their faith, in their love. They offered a strange sacrifice. Bhakuvam ejzara, a sacrifice which wasn't sanctioned, which wasn't legislated. They felt at special moments called for extraordinary karbonos, and they violated the boundaries, and they entered inappropriately, whether they entered inappropriately because the karbon wasn't documented, or the karbon wasn't ordained, whether they entered inappropriately because they were somewhat intoxicated, as Rashi suggests, whether they entered inappropriately because they failed to consult with the appropriate channels of leadership. Either way, all these opinions suggested there was a haste to lunge into the karushakadashim, to lunge into the karushakadashim, but into the Mishkan to celebrate this great day. The boundaries were violated. The distance, the transcendence of a karush bar who was compromised, people would get the impression that a karush bar who can be addressed, can be experienced, khalilah vahas, as another human being, through our own discretion, through our own judgment. A karush bar who punished them severely, and perhaps the punishment didn't match the crime, but a demonstration was necessary. Bhakravaya karash, yapane kalame kave, a karush bar who demanded, that his kadusha be sustained and be preserved. Therefore, their lives were taken in a very, very demonstrative fashion. The structure and regiment of karbonos are necessary to maintain boundaries, to maintain the sense of distance and of awe, so that our relationship with a karush bar who does not descend or deteriorate into a humanized, paganized interaction. Too much ava sasham eliminates the true presence of a karush bar who, too much ava person, can run the risk of turning a karush bar who lay the vahas, transforming him into a human referent, a human concept. Of course, too much yurasham ayam can perhaps eliminate man from the equation. Religion is an encounter between man and god. Too much ava eliminates the true essence of a karush bar who, too much yurah, can eliminate the human presence and the human role and the human voice. And karbonos are an attempt to maintain a delicate, fragile balance between yurashasham and ava sasham, a balance which perhaps is endangered, the moment a human being enters the house of a karush bar. For this reason, karbonos are so regimented and structured. For this reason, when it comes to the location of karbonos where and when and how, there is no margin for error. There cannot be too much mahlokis. Mahlokis was not tolerated. Whether you see mahlokis as the deterioration of the mahsara, or whether you choose to see mahlokis as the creative part of the process of unfurling the mahsara, either way, a zelmakoma on the 5th parac of Zvakim does not admit mahlokis. Either no mahlokis existed or reviewed anasi when he redacted the Mishnah, chose not to cite mahlokis. As an extension of karbonos, fila exhibits the same level of structure, the same discipline. Very often, orthodoxy is accused for being too resistant to change in fila. Some of the more modern forms of Judaism have tried to liberalize fila by injecting greater personality, greater spontaneity or personal expression, altering the liturgy, altering the timing, altering the very structure of fila to allow more personal, intimate, and counter with a karzbarjo. An orthodoxy has perennially been accused of a stifling, suffocating regiment, which does not allow for any personal expression. The liturgy remains intact, structure, the language. Part of our response is it is precisely that structure and that regiment, which maintains the sanctity of fila. The integrity of our encounter with a karzbarjo to remain or to retain a karzbarjo's transcendence, specifically within the experience of fila and the approach of man to speak to God, which greatly, greatly imperils this distance. So, fila, as a stem of karbonos, does exhibit regimentation and structure, does exhibit discipline. However, fila should also incorporate a human voice. Within the standardized liturgy, within the regimented structure, within the precise or dained, inalienable manner of fila, each person's fila should be animated by his own emotional world, by his inner life, there should be a human voice. No two people should read the brachas of shmon yesterday the same way, the brachas que ishma the same way. It should be galvanized and electrified by the human heart. If fila's were modeled solely on karbonos, we may not allow, we may not invite that personal element. Fila perhaps would be severed from the emotional inner world. Fila perhaps would be regimented in structure or ceremonious, official, and formal, but it may not have pulsed and reverberated with human impulse, with human emotion, with human fears and hopes, with love and aspiration. And precisely for this reason, hazal sculpted fila, one of the alternative models of us, fila, kanyako, were human beings, who prayed from different vantage points, who dove in from different emotional contexts. Averm's fila was different from yitzhaks, and his fila, yitzhaks, was different from yakos. Midsashan next week will describe the different stages of their fila, the different emotions, the different models, and templates of fila, which each of them instituted. But the common denominator was that their fila's were different. And their fila's were a barometer of their emotional religious state. And hazal desire, this emotional investment, this emotional infusion, cannot break the structure. Emotion has to be captured within structure. Shouldn't it be stifled and suffocated, but it must be incorporated within a structure that is maintained, that is preserved, so that the sanctity and the purity of the experience is sustained. But it is underwritten by a wild, ferocious, emotional world, different states of mind, which a human being undergoes, and fila's the natural outlet for the human heart, for the human soul. To dove in is to be human. To speak to God is to be a religious human. The first Mishnah and Babakama mentions various forms of damage which a person is accountable for. One of the words mentioned in the Mishnah is the word mava. There's a debate between Rava and Shmuel as to the exact identity of mava. According to Rava, mava refers to damages which a person commits. Mava is a adam. The Gomar and Babakama suggests. Why is mava is a adam? Mava refers to the act of speaking. According to Rasa, mava, mava, not just the act of speaking, but the act of requesting into a bayon bayon. To speak is an affirmation of the human experience. Nefish, it's Elma Lokim, the divine image, is interpreted by uncles to refer to Nefish Mimal as speaking cognitively articulate human being. Praying, channeling cognition and speech towards facilitating an encounter between Akrash Barjo is the deepest and most intense affirmation of the religious experience. That encounter, that experience, of course, should be fueled and animated by the emotional inner world of an ova dashem. And Sphela's connect of us ensures that there is a role and there is a function for human emotion and for human expression and for personalized Sphela. As long as that spontaneous eruption of the human heart is firmly, firmly pitched within this classic and conventional constraints of Sphela and of karbanas. You have been listening to Rava Moshataragan, a weekly sheer on the essentials of the vaudattashem. Today's Elma Lokim, yesterday, we spoke about Yayulal at Sonimalefi at the end of Davening, which Alachalamisa, the Mishtaburah, and many, many other posts can say that you should basically say twice, once immediately after the vahra'av and vahre'at amo'i slabashalam, which is its proper place because it's part of Shmana's way. It's the conclusion of Shmana's train that we should be right after the vahra. And it's also permitted, then even recommended to say it again, after Elachai Nitza, before you finish, before saying, "O sashalamamamamamamamamu, we are sashalamamu." What is Elachai Nitza? The Gamau speaks of takhanunim, shalakaha, tifila of petition, requests that one makes after tifila, after Davening. And there is no set text. In fact, in the Gamau, there is a wrong section which quotes the different phi-lota, which was said by many, many different khachamim. One of which is Elachai Nitza, found in our sigurim, but there are at least seven or eight others. I think the point the Gamau is making is that every khacham, every vahra'av said a different phi-lota. And it's called Alachalay, takhanunim, shalakaha, tifila. A person is voluntary, a person may utilize this position, his standing before God, to add a somewhat more personal, request, a somewhat more personal prayer. The Gamau states, the Gamau bahra'at states that if one has to go back in Srinashay, one's forgotten, a part of Srinashay, which is necessary, for instance, yalavir varnosh rarash, or bathein talumatali varnoshah during the winter. So if you're still in the middle of Srinashay, you can go back, because if you have the other two, it's say, or to bukata-shanim, for bathein talumatali varnoshah. But if you really finish Srinashay, then you have to say the whole thing again, to go back to the very, very beginning. The Gamau states that if you're saying takhanunim, shalakaha, tifila, if you're saying all the kainitza, in other words, even though the tactical you finish Srinashay, the mandatory part of Srinashay, but if you're still saying all the kainitza, then you can go back to the place where you made the mistake. So that's an important halakhic napkamin, all the kainitza, allah kainitza, allah kalamaisa, we pass on like the mamaa, that as long as you haven't broke in your stance, you haven't taken the three steps backwards, you may go back to, for instance, on a shortage to it saying, to say the allah be able that you forgot, you don't have to go back to the beginning of the tifila. Many post-kim world that, let's say, as I mentioned yesterday, let's say you're saying allah kainitza, and the hazen has started repeating Srinashay and he's gotten up taktusha, so based on the chuvadhi rasba, they hold that you can answer taktusha, even though you could not answer taktusha in the middle Srinashay, but there's not the middle Srinashay. As I mentioned yesterday, you say you're the latsan first, because that is part of Srinashay. But after you've said you're the latsan, you can answer taktusha in the middle of allah kainitza. Many post-kim world that, if that is true, but if you also have to go back to say, yeah, whatever, you're above that you missed, then you shouldn't answer taktusha. Why? Apparently the logic is as far as, if you're going to answer taktusha, it's because it's really, you're ending Srinashay. This part, you don't have to say it. So you can answer taktusha, of course it's a half-sick, but you'll have to be half-sick because you're being half-sick, you're interrupting and ending. It's okay to enter Srinashay now, because you didn't have to say it at all. But since you're ending Srinashay now, you then can't go back to it's say, for the other day of all, because you finish Srinashay. When you finish Srinashay, you have to go back to the beginning. It sends to repeat the whole Srinashay, unnecessary, is really incorrect. But therefore, once you're not answered taktusha, therefore leaving yourself still in the middle of Srinashay, how is it the middle Srinashay? You artificially lengthened Srinashay. Therefore, you're in the middle, since you're in the middle, you can go back to it's say. Is that sakt correct? The mush of fine stain in it's true, but as I mentioned, he simply assumes that it's not true. It says you can answer taktusha, and then you go back to it's say, and say, "Ya'll be able." And I think the logic is, the question is, what is the exact status of saying, "Ya'll be kind of Srinashay." There are two possibilities. One is that one may artificially lengthen Srinashay. And that is the reason why he's still saying, "Ya'll be kind of Srinashay." And you remember that you forgot the other way, you can go back to it's say, because you're still in the middle. You've lengthened Srinashay, if you're in the middle Srinashay. But if you're in the middle Srinashay, you shouldn't be Mavsik. So why can you be Mavsik? Because this is, you artificially lengthen Srinashay, you can artificially, or by force, and Srinashay at this point, since you don't have to say it. Having in the Srinashay, you can echo back to say, "Ya'll be able, therefore, it's better not to end Srinashay." But there's another possibility. The truth of the Mavsikay, that's all based on seems to say as follows. He says, even though the Gommera says, you can go back to saying with saying, you can still answer kadusha. I think what it sounds like he's saying is that it's an in-between status. Yulangatson is an integral part of Srinashay. Now, what kind of Srinashay is, after Srinashay? The text that he did, the title is, tachanunim, shala-akhar, ha-ta-fila, petition that is after dabbinim, after Srinashay. However, you're still considered to be standing in the presence of God. It's an intermediary state. It's not part of the fila, not part of the bhakat. But you're still standing before God. In the bhakat it says, you can go back to it. It says, since you haven't left your audience with God, you don't have to stop Srinashayay again. You can go back into the middle. But you have really finished monasteray, and you've been going back to the middle. Since you've finished monasteray, it's okay to say, tusha, it's not a haphsik. It's not a haphsik, and a standing before God, tusha, is not antithetical to standing before God. It isn't antithetical towards the bhakat of Srinashayay. So therefore, I assume there's the reason Mamusha Feinstein says, one can both answer tusha, because it's not a haphsik, but even so, you can go back to the middle of Srinashayay, to pick up whatever you left off, whatever you missed, because so long as you are still standing in the presence of God, you can go back to the middle of Srinashayay, you're not to say the whole thing over again. So this is a dispute among the postkim. So I repeated many postkim say one shouldn't do that. I saw the Srinashayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayaayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayay pains. Basically, we've learned now, these two opinions on what are the tachanunim lakharat feela, what is alokainica. It's basically halakhachli, there's none of a fixed text, but there's an opportunity if something which you wanted to add, perhaps didn't add in the bakhat of srinashay, or something which you didn't want to add, it doesn't really fit into any bakha, but it's an opportunity to request, to speak to God on a personal level, and to communicate with the karish bakhal and ask Him for what your heart, for what your heart requires. That's it for today. You've been listening to the share of "I'm Aftaragan, I'm Essentials and Adattashan" and "Baihavah Hayomit". You've been listening to KMTT, the Torah podcast. The bakhat Aftarvah mitzian vitzian, kimitzian tezeit Torah udvarashhem mirushalaym. [ Silence ]