KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Erev Shabbat Emor
KMTT - Erev Shabbat Parshat Emor - Rav Soloveitchik Letters
This is KMTT and this is as we're back in today is "Eru Shabbat", "Shabbat kodesh poshat emol", "Yudalid viyyar", today is "Pesakshani", there's a minhug to try to eat matzah, and "Pesakshani" is "Eru Shabbat kodesh" and "Yudalid nissan", they were able to bring it on "Yudalid y'ah", "Hala Khalamayr" is the only thing that's special about "Pesakshani" is that we don't say "Tachlan", but there is this minhug of eating matzah and it's not easy on a Friday to remember to do it, since our main meal will be on "Shabbat" will be tomorrow, truth is, every year on "Pesakshani" I say the matzah from "Pesak", intending to eat it "Shmur matzah", I think 19 out of 20 the last years I've forgotten, still the few minutes to try to remember, to try to remember today. There's also a special day coming up, this year matches, in its days, the year of "Itziyat mitzvahim", "Pesakshani" says the "Pesakshani" "Pesakshani" "Pesakshani" came to meet "Pesakshani" on the 15th day of the second month, the 15th day of "Yah", and then they had no food to eat, where she explains that "Pesakshani" brought with them from "Itziyat mitzvahim" finished, and they complained and the man began to fall the next day, now they were Sunday, "Tedzai" in "Yah", so the day the man began the "Gomara" in "Shabat" that "Pedzat mitzvah" explains that that year it was actually a Sunday, that year they reached "Mitzvah" sin on "Shabas", and the Sunday of "Tedzai" in "Yah", just like this year, Sunday's "Tedzai" in "Yah", was the day that the man began to fall. "Gomara" and "Bakat" says that "Moshavabinu" was "Nitakein", he enacted "Bukat Hazan", the first "Bukat" of "Bukat" "Mazan" was written by "Moshavabinu" that they should bench, they should make a "Bukat" after eating, eating "Man". So "Dish Shabat" is the beginning, Sunday is actually the day, when the man begins to fall and "Bukat Hazan", "Hazan et olam kulobutuvo", the first "Bukat" of "Bukat" "Mazan" was recited "Mihtakanat" "Moshavabinu". It's an interesting question asked by Joseph Engel. He says, "How could you possibly bench on "Man"? Benching "Bukat" "Mazan" is said only on "Shabataminim", it's not said even on "Oshabataminim", it's said on "Shabataminim" and then you also need that it should be "Mazebia", it should give you, it should give you sustenance and it should make you feel full and you only make it on grains. But only those grains which are mentioned in the "Pasurk" of "Shabataminim" "Eirazchital" "Songab" "Eirazchital" "Songab" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" "Eirazchital" But the man is not one of the "Pairazch" "Eirazchital" "Pairazchital" is not one of the three crops of "Eirazchital" "The seven fruits, the seven produce" "Which Eirazchital" is is is exemplified. So how do you make "Bikataminizan" on man? That's a abusive angles question. So one one answer that other simple technical answer is that the "Mazebia" "Bikataminiz" "Eirazchital" was "Mittakein" "Bikat" "Hazan" "The question is why is he "Mittakein" why did he make an enactment? It's the writer, it's Minnatora. So, the Madane Yomtov in Vahot explains that the obligation Minnatora, to say, "Bakat Amazon," is found in Seifah Dvamim. And it's found in Seifah Dvamim after ready the occurrences which took place in the end of Seifah Dvamim. It took place, namely, the war of Seifah Dvog, and the capture of the territory which is, in fact, east, east of the ordained, with the territory of Seifah Dvog, which later on became the territory of the two-in-a-hat-shatim, Uvein God, Vahot Si Shabat Minnacher. So, the Madane Yomtov claims that the Chia, "Bakat Amazon Minnatora," is connected to Ereti Seifah. As you see, it says, uve Ereti Seifah is, for the land which he has given you when you eat, which is why you only make "Bakat Amazon" on those things which are exemplified as growing in Ereti Seifah. So, he says, the Ereti Seifah, this obligation only began after they began to capture Ereti Seifah as found in the fact that the Pasuch is found in Seifah Dvamim, in Paschat, in Paschat Akif. Musharabainu made a takhanah, made a rabbinic enactment on the authority of Musharabainu that they should say, "One bhakat Amazon after man." So, that's a practical answer. I mean, it was bhakat Amazon on man, it's dip in the makat Amazon on Shabat Minniam, it's the same bhakat, but it has a different kind of obligation. But there's another answer, somewhat more complicated and interesting answer, of the Chtham Sophia. The Chtham Sophia says that man wasn't a regular miracle, wasn't it? Something new came down called man. He says, "The man is the pinimiyyut. It's the inner spiritual essence which blesses the crops of Ereti Seifah." What happened in the Midebah, in the desert, was that God, there was no physical food, but God showered on the Jews the spiritual essence which blesses the Peiralt, the produce of Ereti Seifah. He claims in an extension of this Droscha that because of that, the Peiralt in Ereti Seifah that did grow at that time while lacking the spiritual essence, it was mere external superficial true fruit, which is why the M.O.E., the Kannani, the nations in Ereti Seifah and Ereti Seifah and Ereti Seifah, which were eating that fruit, they were missing the normal spiritual sustenance which had sustained them when they lived in Ereti Seifah. They were missing out on the benefits of basically living in Ereti Seifah, which is why later on it said about them that they are our bread. K'ilah Khmeinuheim kalayv says, "We can easily conquer them because they're just a shell. They're missing the spiritual essence. We ate for the last 40 years. We've been eating the spiritual essence which should have been sustaining them. They'll act in the essence. Therefore, they'll be easy to conquer." But at any event, beginning with that point, Tham Sufah says that Man is the true essence of Peiralt Ereti Seifah. So therefore, you can make Bukat Amazon on the Man because it is Shivat Aminim, Shinid Bahab, Baham, Ereti Seifah. Man is the innocence in its spiritual essence, has the quality of Peiralt Ereti Seifah. I think what he means is that in the country, the reason why Peiralt Ereti Seifah, you say Bukat Amazon is because they have that spiritual essence. So the man is the essential quality which in fact allows Bukat Amazon to be said on any Peiralt because Ereti Seifah is different. Why is it different? Why is the Peiralt Ereti Seifah? The special fruits of Ereti Seifah, why are they different than all other fruits and produce in the world? Because they have this special bhachah from God, the bhachah which is found inherently in the man. In any event, there is a minute mentioned in some commentators to make a special effort on this Shabbat. I think it should be on Sunday actually, on Shabbat and on Sunday in Bukat Amazon, specifically in Bukat Amazon, in memory of Mosheveinu who enacted the beginning of Bukat Amazon. The first Bukat Amazon was said on this date. It's actually, the date is actually Sunday, Tazain, Tazain Biya. But the date mentioned in Tawab when it all began, the posture begins is that they came to meet Balthin on Tazav Biya, which is Shabbat, and they complained because there was no longer any fruit left from the stores that they had taken out of its name. Our guest today for this Arabic program is Harab Rani Tseagla who has a number of times in the past. We've had a series of little talks about the books of the Tawatara Foundation, and Raab Tseagla will speak to us one more time about a different book, one of the books published recently, "Bai Harabh Salvejik Zetsal", the books published by the Tawatara Foundation, Raab Rani Tseagla. Today I'd like to speak about a book that's very different than all the other books of Raabh Salvejik that we've put out. The book is called Community Covenant and Commitment, Selected Letters and Communications. This is a unique genre, all the rest of the works of the Raab that are coming out are more philosophical, ideological, halakhic. This book is Letters which place him within his historical context and show him as a human being, for example. If you would look at the difference between the Rambam's letters and the Rambam's philosophical writings, the difference is as stark as night and day. In his philosophical writings, if you would not know who wrote the Mornav Uchim, and you would read the book, you would learn his positions on a very large number of philosophical issues, prophecy, providence, creation, but you wouldn't know anything about where he lived, when he lived, what public issues he faced, whether he had a family, what he did for a living. None of that would be evident from his philosophical writings, but when you start reading the Rambam's letters, you see him as a historical figure, as a three-dimensional human being, you see the public issues that he had to contend with, you see him giving, you know, warmth and support to his students, you see his scorn for some of his opponents, you see a well-rounded human being. With Raph Soloveic in his philosophical writings, you do get more of a sense of the person than you would from the Rambam, but it is truly in the letters that you see him as a person situated in 20th century America, dealing with certain issues, confronting various people, and the issues that are unique and specific to his time, and you see him dealing with them with warmth, with sensitivity, with caring, with nuance, as one would expect. Although the nature of a collection of letters is that it deals with many different themes, I would say that there is a unifying theme to maybe 80% of the letters, and that is the theme of the necessity of preserving the autonomy of Halacha and of Judaism. This is a theme that comes up in most of his works, in one form or another, and in this book we see its practical ramifications, not its theoretical grounding. In terms of his other works, Halacha Man and Mado Dechmidod, which is his eulogy for his uncle Rebelville, those works deal with the autonomy of the Halacha system. Raph Soloveic asserts in them that Halacha has its own way of looking at the world. It constitutes an independent cognitive realm, and it must be studied and applied according to the tenets of its own internal logic, not according to the foreign categories of historical economic or sociological causation. It Halacha possesses its own methodological integrity, and therefore it has no need to justify itself before people who challenge it based on foreign assumptions. In Raph's work The Halacha Mind, he establishes a philosophical basis for his assertion of the cognitive and methodological autonomy of Halacha. In The Lonely Man of Faith, Raph deals with the human side of this dimension, not the philosophical side, but the experience of the autonomy of Halacha. He asserts there that there are really two conflicting impulses in man, which he terms majestic man and covenantal man. Majestic man seeks to conquer the world and to subdue it. Covenantal man seeks to submit himself to God and to enter into relationship, and the problem is that modern man follows the line of majestic man and ignores covenantal man. What this means is not that modern man is agnostic or atheistic. Rather, modern man has subdued religion, which is the realm of covenantal man. He is subdued religion itself to the desires and the tendencies of majestic man. Let me read a passage from Lonely Man of Faith, and this will lead directly into our discussion of the Raph's letters. He writes about modern man that he of course comes to a place of worship. He attends lectures on religion, and he appreciates a ceremonial. Yet he is searching not for a faith in all its singularity and otherness, or I would add in brackets in terms that we've been discussing till now in its own autonomy. Now back to the quote. Yet modern man is searching for religious culture. He seeks not the greatness found in sacrificial action, but the convenience that one discovers in a comfortable serene state of mind. He is desires of an aesthetic experience rather than a covenantal one, of a social ethos rather than a divine imperative. In a word he wants to find in faith what he cannot find in his laboratory or in the privacy of his luxurious home. His efforts are noble, yet he is not ready for a genuine faith experience, which requires the giving of oneself unreservedly to God, who demands unconditional commitment, sacrificial action, and retreat. Western man diabolically insists on being successful. Alas, he wants to be successful, even in his adventure with God. If he gives of himself to God, he expects reciprocity. Now I'm skipping a little, and here's the key line. Therefore modern man puts up demands that faith adapt itself to the mood and temper of modern times. It is precisely this demand that faith adapt, that's the end of the quote, it is this demand that faith adapt itself to the mood and temper of modern times, namely the mood and temper of majestic man. It is this demand that most threatens the independence and legitimacy of covenantal men's religion as a leader of orthodox Judaism. The rub was very sensitive to this threat, and on a number of fronts he directed practical efforts at countering it. A unifying theme of many of the halakhic decisions contained in this book and many of the public activities that he advocated is the need to preserve Judaism's autonomous position and halacha's position in the face of external oppressions for accommodation, to modernity, watering it down, forgoing the singular approach of Judaism. Let's now examine a number of instances, a number of the letters in the book, which we can divide into several different categories. First, in terms of ritual change, the rub to very strong public stands against changes in synagogue practice. The integrity of halacha, he thought, was not a matter subject to public approval. In mid-20th century America, orthodox Judaism was perceived as being under retreat, and the rubs resolute, but sensitive stand on issues primarily that of the magitza, helped turn the tide in favor of orthodox Judaism. When the rub fought the battle for the preservation of synagogue practice that had been hallowed by generations, he didn't just say "this is the way we do it" end of discussion. Rather, he presented explanations that could appeal, could be understood by modern men. This, I think, is a major contribution of the rub and of this book in particular, that he's not just saying that the way we do it is the way we do it. Rather, he gives very, very compelling reasons analyzing the sources of Jewish law and uncovering the ideas that lie behind them, which dictate that the synagogue service, for example, has to be conducted in a certain manner. For example, let's talk not about the magitza, another innovation. People wanted to make the synagogue service more pleasing, more acceptable, yet they didn't understand the Jewish philosophy of prayer as derived from the sources of halacha. So, one of these changes that people wanted to make was to have the cantor face the congregation during prayer, instead of facing the ark. The rub wrote that "this departure corrupts the very idea of prayer which calls for complete forgetfulness of man as a worthless and wretched being on the one hand and unqualified surrender to God on the other, watching the audience during the recital of prayers by the cantor, is tantamount to a demonstration of the opposite sort. It is arrogance and haughtiness on the part of the congregation and its representative in giving preference to a social get-together over man's encounter with God." Therefore, the rub said that when dealing with the halacha grail, one had to be guided by halacha's internal logic and values and not by external considerations. Another area that the rub was very concerned with was the propriety of creating new rituals. Each ritual he said had its own internal logic, and one couldn't tamper with it or insert other things into it unless they were consonant with the internal logic of the ceremony. For example, the Seder was the most widely followed ritual among the Jewish community, and it still is. So, people thought if people are already gathered together at the Seder, let's commemorate the Holocaust at the Seder. The rub felt that the Seder has its structure, it's about the emergence from slavery to freedom, and to insert mention of the Holocaust, there made no sense. One should mark the Holocaust on other occasions that are appropriate to it. Tisha Baa, Vasar Abhate Vett, fast days, but not in the middle of the Pesach Seder. It just didn't make sense according to the structure and meaning of the Seder. In one of the letters, which I think is very interesting, there was a proposal a little more than 50 years ago to mark the 300th anniversary of the settlement of Jews in America by having a special service conducted in synagogues across the country on a certain Shabbat. This was in 1954, and the Synagogue Council of America, which was an umbrella group for synagogues of different denominations, sent out pamphlets to all the congregations saying this is the service that we should do. The rub was asked whether the Shules of the Rabbinical Council of America, which was an Orthodox organization, should follow this. And the rub had very harsh words about this new-fangled ceremony. He said, for example, the following, "The whole service conducted by some rabbi of the Synagogue Council should not and cannot be accepted by the RCA. The service suggests to me both religious infantilism and Christian Methodist sentimentalism, which exhausts itself in him singing and responsive reading. As a matter of fact, in order of service by the Methodist churches, by far superior to the approach employed by the Synagogue Council, I am not as much disturbed by the problem you raised as by the whole character and structure of the service, which contains very few Jewish themes and a lot of high school commencement nonsense." Another similar proposal was a proposal sent out by the religious Zionist group the Mizrahi to Shules in America and in the diaspora on an order of prayer to be instituted on Israel's independence to Yom Hatzmöt. And the rub was asked about it. And he felt that there were two reasons why this contravened his principle of the autonomy of Halacha. First, lay groups can't dictate to rabbinic groups. And second, the suggested proposal itself was not in consonance with Halacha. Here's part of the rub's answer. He says, "I do not feel that the RCA ought to mail out to its members the program prepared by the Mizrahi. My feelings on this matter were prompted by twofold reasons. First, the order of service was arranged in a non-halachic and non-scharly fashion and breeds meaningless ceremonialism, which is not only alien, but also contrary to our Halachic tradition. I'll just add that he particularly objected to the recital of Halal at night on Yom Hatzmöt while the Gmara says that Halal can never be recited at night with the one exception of Pesach night." So the rub goes through the various halachic reasons why this is unacceptable. Then he continues, "Second, I do not believe that a rabbinical body like the RCA should disseminate any kind of material dealing with a religious subject which was prepared by a different organization, especially a laygroup. The first prerogative of the rabbinate is full and unlimited sovereignty in all matters pertaining to Halacha in observance. It is below our dignity to serve in the capacity of a mailing agency for any group regardless of the latter distinct merits and accomplishments." This principle of the rub of the autonomy of faith applied not only in the confrontation of covenant with majesty, but also applied to the relationship between different religions to each other. Historically, he said, "each faith community has developed its own unique way of relating to God, and each must respect the other's integrity. This means that we shouldn't dictate to Christians, for example, what their belief should be, and they shouldn't dictate to us what our belief should be." He said, "We should work together with other religions on matters pertaining to the general welfare of mankind, such as combating disease, alleviating human suffering, protecting human rights, helping the needy, etc. However," he said, "it was pointless at best to engage in dialogue on matters of creed. Each faith speaks its own language, and it would be illegitimate for one to request of the other to interpret itself in alien categories." An extension of this position was his strong objection to holding interfaith services. As I said, we should cooperate with other religions on matters relating to human welfare, but not on religious matters. That makes no sense. Each religion speaks its own language, has its own faith, and has to conduct itself according to its own internal approach. The Rov wrote when he was asked about interfaith services. He said, "We are ready and willing to encourage interfaith projects, as long as they are held within the confine of secular activities. No joint worship, however, can be encouraged. We are loyal citizens of our great country, and we're committed to all its institutions. However, joint action and common effort are commendable. Hence, joint action is commendable in all areas of mundane endeavor, yet one's relationship to worship of, and dialogue with God is an inner experience, most intimate, most personal, and most unique. Each community worships God in its singular way. "Glaikschaltung," the German word, which means "making things equivalent." This distorts the very essence of the religious experience, and he adds in another place, "I am fully aware of the great American heritage of religious tolerance, and I cherish this ideal with all my heart and soul. However, true tolerance expresses itself, not in "Glaikschaltung," as in equating two incommensurate systems of values and principles, such as Judaism and Christianity present, but rather in granting the opportunity to all faiths to promote their worldviews and practices within unique historic and theological dimensions, and to thrive in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect. Yet while practicing this great virtue, we must be constantly mindful that the very essence of religion expresses itself in individual character and singularity, which cannot be obliterated if religion is not to be stripped of its soul. In an analogous sense, but clearly with much greater fraternity and sense of mutual responsibility, the Rov recommended cooperation with other Jewish denominations in matters relating to Jewish welfare and Jewish survival, the state of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and so on, but not in matters relating to creed or observance. If other groups did not accept the autonomy of halacha, then there was nothing to discuss with them in that realm. However, obviously on the level of Amisrael, there was much that had to be done together with them. Now, in the state of Israel itself, there was an even greater danger of the encroachment of the state into religious affairs than there was in America, and this subject vexed the Rov greatly. He brought it up frequently in his addresses to the Mizrahi, and in fact one of the reasons that he did not take up the job of Chief Rabbi of Israel when it was offered to him about in 1960, was he had concluded that the Chief Rabbinate was not autonomous. It was subject to political pressures and would have to carry out the dictates of political parties, and that he was not willing to accept, and there are many letters in the book relating to his refusal to accept the position of Chief Rabbi for that reason. Now, all these actions that I've mentioned so far present the Rov in the light of sort of a defender of the faith, but this shouldn't overshadow the fact that he advocated active engagement with society, and he recognized the religious value of Adam I, of majestic man's attainments. Both sides of engagement with the world and commitment to the covenant had to be maintained, without one being allowed to eradicate the other. Just as he urged moderns to remember the covenant, he emphasized that covenantal life did not have to fear engagement with the world. The role of covenantal religion was not to retreat into a corner, or to provide majestic men with the validation he seeks. Rather, it was to bring sanctity into all realms of existence, including the cultural realm of Adam I of majestic men. For example, regarding the founding of a medical school under the auspices of Yishim University, the Rov wrote, "The Orthodox community can win the respect of others by focusing on and excelling in three areas, one, living their personal lives on a higher ethical religious level, two, defending their principles and ideals in a forthright and uncompromising manner, three, demonstrating to the world that the Torah Jew need not cower in a corner, and gaze with sadness and resignation as life in the world passes pass him by. Similarly, he expressed his affinity with religious Zionism in broad and sweeping terms, it related not just to the state of Israel, but to an entire world view. He said, "For me, Mizraki is not only a political organization to whom we must gratefully acknowledge its contribution to the building of the land of Israel. It is also an ideological movement with an all-embracing philosophy that is no less relevant for Jewish life in the diaspora. We are not meant to build Noah's ark. Our prayers are for everyone. It is our desire to purify and sanctify the modern world by means of the eternal vision, constant in its purity and grander, expressing the transcendental perspective with and divine calm within the stormy seas of change and metamorphosis that is known as progress. It is our belief that Judaism has the means to give meaning and significance value and refinement to the multifaceted existence of modern life. We do not need to fear progress in any area of life since it is our firm conviction that we have the ability to cope with and to redeem it. I personally subscribe to this outlook with every fiber of my being." Perhaps the overarching message of the Rob's public activity as expressed in this book was the need for Orthodox Judaism to have the courage of its convictions. Orthodoxy had no need to fear confronting the challenges and opportunities of the modern world, for he had absolute confidence in the towards ability to, as he put it, cope with and redeem all realms of human endeavor. Nor, when confronted with majority groups that held a different viewpoint, did Orthodoxy have to try to ingratiate itself with them or compromise its principles in order to curry favor with them. By setting forth its principles with dignity and with humility, he would only gain respect. This engagement with the outside world would be valid only if Orthodoxy maintained sight of its covenantal foundations. If the engagement with the surrounding world could not be conducted while maintaining the integrity of Orthodox principles, then there was no need to be afraid of retreating into ourselves for a period of time, as he counseled the head of a rabbinic organization. There was a certain project that they suggested that the RCA participated and the Rob answered as follows. This is letter 12, I believe, in the book. I noticed in your letter that you are a bit disturbed about the probability of being left out. Let me tell you that this attitude of fear is responsible for many commissions and omissions, compromises, and fallacies on our part, which have contributed greatly to the prevailing confusion within the Jewish community, and to the loss of our self-esteem, our experience of ourselves as independent entities committed to a unique philosophy and way of life. Of course, sociability is a basic virtue, and we all hate loneliness and dread the experience of being left alone. Yet at times there is no alternative, and we must courageously face the test. My monadies of old was aware of such bitter experiences. So, to conclude, I would say that even though the issues that the Rob addresses in this book are issues from 50 years ago, and it could be debated whether under current circumstances he would take the same position, that's a fruitless debate. The point is that we can glean from his approaches to these issues his general values and a general approach to issues. So, regardless of what we would say about the specific issues that he addresses here, given that we live in a different time in a different place, our surrounding culture is different. What matters to us is that we must have, we must try to glean from the sources of Halacha, the essential positions of Judaism, and maintain them with a sense of dignity and confidence, and not feel the need to weaken the autonomy of our position due to various pressures. We should stick to our positions and present them with the same reason, reasoned approach that he employed. Thank you very much. You have been listening to Harvav van Etsigler, speaking about the philosophy of Rabbi Josef Dov, Adeebu Salvechik, Zejratzalikwivarach. Today's pasture, in the beginning we have laws of Kouna, laws applying to Akhahain. One of them is Apasuk, which Halacha is difficult. Lo yikuhu kohaburm shambu fadzakanam lo yikalaykoh vivsaram lo yisotu saratzat. Their Kouna are enjoined not to do koha to strip their hair and not to shave their beards and not to make cuts in their skin. All these three things are forbidden to all Jews and not only to Kouna. Making cuts in your skin and stripping your hair were customs that were done as Avelut as part of the morning by non-Jews and they were forbidden to the Jews to debase their bodies in this manner and also a prohibition on shaving and shaving with the raisin. So the law talks about why it's mentioned for Kouna as well. There's a comment of the morale thiskin. The next person says, katoshim yu lei lai'am, ba lai'koha lu shambu lei m. The call name should be holy to their god. That next show in general, the number of times it says the call name are holy. What's the connection between that and these three is sur been mentioned here. The morale thiskin says that the katoshim yu lei lai'am and they shall be holy, sacred, to their god is the reason why god told them not to cut their hair or strip their hair and not to shave their beads and not to and make cuts in their skin. He says, what's the point? He says, look at the way priests of the non-Jews lived in a Christian country. Look at the way the priests of the non-Jews, the way they dress, their special clothing, their special haircuts. There's a tanshu which was customary for most of the history of Christianity, a special way of cutting ones here. From that the term in Yiddish and in Hebrew it's gone out of fashion to refer to a Christian priest as a galaq, one who has shaved his, has shaved his heads. That's a special way of cutting their hair to indicate that they were priests. So the Marigousan said why is that? Because they wanted people to know that they were priests. They dress special in order to receive the respect and the attitude. People would honor them and respect them and view them as being holy people. So they dressed in a special manner, special clothing, special appearances, special haircuts. So god said to the Kornayis for El, you don't have to change anything. You will be, you know, your actions will broadcast holiness. The sacred will shine from your lives but you shouldn't and you don't need nowhere to be appropriate for you to try to attract the attention to shine your holiness by dressing and acting and taking special haircuts in a special manner. This is an image I think we very often feel certain people. They dress in a special manner in order to indicate that they are spiritually superior. Well, this can said god told the Kornayim you look just like everybody else. Don't make funny cuts in your hair and don't, don't, don't, don't shave your beads off and don't, don't, don't make marks in your skin and you can extend that. Don't wear special clothing, don't, don't act in a special artificial manner to say we are the chosen of God. We are the sacred, separated, unto God. Kornayim, katoshim, you, the lion, the lion, the lion, the lion, you will be marked as Kornayim because of the way in which you act, which reflects sanctity and holiness. And that will be the means by which people will recognize and honor and respect you and not by the artificial marks of clothing, tansha, and the design of one's beard. Today is a la chayomit. Take a exception, a timeout from our series on Tfilah. Start talking about the man and the boccata mazon. So we'll give one a la chay relating to that. Baphraim Palaji asks again about how Moshe Babenu said to make boccata mazon, release the first boccata mazon, boccata zan, on man. Prasuk says that the man, Prasuk and Bishallach, says, boccata amok, it's a pychit bidrash. The flavor of the man was very, very sweet, like honey. Prabhavadhi says, if your bread is sweet, it's called patababakissen. Patababakissenin is something which is in its ingredients like bread. It's made from grain and water. But the number of different explanations, many different, we've shown them at least three explanations of what the pabakissenin means, but one of them is that it's been sweetened. Because it's sweetened, it's dessert and not the main underpinning of a soda, like bread. It's not major sustenance, it's a sweet. And if you don't make boccata mazon, you say, you say a la mija. So if Prabhavadhi asks, the man was sweet, it's a pychit bidrash. It was like honey. So how could you make boccata mazon? The Prabhavadhi's answer is that you should remember the patababakissen you don't make boccata mazon unless kavasu dalahem. In other words, the patababakissenin is not that it's not bread. It is bread. But in order to make boccata mazon and bread, it has to be the social function of bread, which is the main sustenance of the meal that everything else is added to as flavor and variety. But dessert, sweets, abiten for the flavor. You don't stuff yourself on them. You don't build up your body on them. It's not a staff of life. And therefore boccata mazon is for that thing which is sustaining you. But if a person, for whatever reason, chooses to be koveya sudha, al patababakissenin, he establishes his main meal. He bases it on. Patababakissen, the sugar and the honey, doesn't prevent boccata mazon. It's the being dessert that prevents boccata mazon or being a sweet, being a snack. But if it's your main meal, if it's the main part of the meal, then there's no difference between any of this. So the man was the only thing they ate. Obviously it was kviyut sudha. And therefore he says you make boccata mazon. And man, despite the fact that it's sweet. So I remind you of the hanakha, which is becoming more and more common. Patababakissenin, something which is technically of the ingredients of bread. It's flour and water. But it has extra ingredients. So those ingredients say we do not make boccata mazon on them. But that's only true if those ingredients basically change the function of that bread, of that kind of cake from being the staff of life to being a snack. So that's the reason why you make anamircha on cake. Because it's dessert. It's not the main course. But if that's not what happens, if the way we eat, for one reason or another, socially, in general in our society, or particular decision of yourself, treats this particular cake, this baked good, as being the basis of the meal and not a snack, then you do make boccata mazon on it. This takes place in one of two ways. It takes place either because of the amount you eat. Kriutsa uda, according to the gmara, has a particular shiur, if you eat three baked sims, three eggs worth. Then that's called the suda in itself. It's not a snack anymore. The whole thing is a suda. And therefore, let's say you're eating ice when I was a kid. I used to do it at night. If I go to sleep, I read a book, drink apple juice, and finish off a box of chocolate chip cookies. If you finish up a whole box of chocolate chip cookies, that's called a suda. And you have to bake, bench. You have to say boccata mazon, despite the fact that you thought it was only a cookie. It's not a cookie anymore. It's a form of bread. The fact that it has extra flavors, chocolate, and sugar, etc., doesn't change but being bread if it is being the main part of the suda. Secondly, sometimes, even if you only eat a little bit, but the fact that we've added flavor hasn't really changed, hasn't really changed the nature of it. Because socially, it's eaten as part of the meal, middle of the meal, and not as a snack. Just today, the truth is, we have a different attitude towards sugar. We add sugar to almost everything. It's a sweetened halo, for instance. It's a customary that the halo, the shabbat, have been sweetened. Some people thought that you cannot make boccata mazon, and then because the patababak is thin. But halo, halo, maisa, I think that's incorrect. Since you are cavera suda, first of all, you're eating it as the halo for the shabbat. And so, it doesn't bother sending more having sugar. It still looks like bread. You treat it as bread. You don't snack on sweetened halo as you eat sweetened bread. By us, it's bread. And therefore, that's no longer called patababak is thin. It's called piyotsu-da. And you have to say boccata mazon on that kind of bread, that kind of quotation mark bread. It's called bread opieden. It performs the anchor of the suda, kriyutu suda, and is not being treated as a snack that's eaten between meals. That's it for today. We should view a shabbat shalom, hoping to hear from you, that you should hear from us. Next week, we'll be back on Monday with the shiyo, the mitzvah, hashe vu it, the mitzvah of the week with our aftervory. And until then, shabbat shalom un vorach kultov, you've been listening to KMTT. For broadcasting fami shivat harachion, KMTT is a project, abi shivat harachion, and of the Israel Kashitski Virtual Batemidlash. Our website, www.kimitsion.org, k-i-m-i-t-z-i-o-n.org. You've probably been already, if you're listening to this, but give the address to your friends, bring more people into the circle of those who learn tower every day, getting a shear from KMTT. KMTT'si-on-t-z-i-to-ra, with varachion, miru shalom.