KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Weekly Mitzva - Emor
The Weekly Mitzva for parashat Emor. Rav Binyamin Tabory discusses the mitzva of sefirat ha-omer.
This is KMTT, and this is Esri Vick, and we're back for another week of shiurim. Oreo shiurim from the Vaik midrashabhi shiva ataracion. Today is Monday, tat bhiyar, 25th day of the omeir. And we've started this the second week of our summer session. Remind you there have been a few changes, some new courses, and specifically for today, Monday's shiur will be the shiur, which in the winter time was up to Voori shiur on Wednesday. After Voori is continuing with the midrashabhi of the week. We started last week a parallel to KMTT in Hebrew, which is called Keshit. And very satisfactorily, the first week saw between three and four hundred people listening to every shiur. To be honest, that's more people than listening to the English shiur, which is somewhat surprising to me. Wednesday's shiur, the special shiur on Wednesday, Yomat's Lut, which was a sichaab, Arapa Mital, from the Vaik midrash in Ishiva ataracion, which we broadcast and made available to all of our listeners, has been heard by over a thousand people, which is a very good feeling, it was a very good sicha as well. But again, I'd like to find ways to get the word out. We don't have more listeners to the English KMTT broadcasts, despite the prevalence of ipods and computers and traffic jams. Hold over the English-speaking world. I think that's because we haven't gotten the word out. And the basic way we can do that is to use the listeners. So if you're enjoying this shiur, make sure this week to tell at least one of the person about it. Give them the web address www.kimition.org. That's K-I-M-I-T-Z-I-O-N. That's O-R-G. And if they need help, help them to subscribe and to join on this, the daily learning, the daily learning of a shiur, kvaiitimla torah, for taking in tonutora, limutora every day. Today's share again is by Dr. Voy, the weekly mitzvah. And afterwards, I will be back with the halo hai omit. Parashat Immar, the Torah tells us of the mitzvah of counting Shrassa Umair. There is a Zusachit-machamimahotah Shabbat, miyamah ve'a kamit umairatunu-sah. Shiwa shabbatot timimot ti'yena. We have to count weeks, seven weeks, from the day that we bring the ummah. Then the pastor continues. Adim macharatah shabbatah shiwait, chispul hamishim yom. You continue counting until the end of fifty days. This mitzvah of Shrassa Umair is codified in the rambam in four halahos. The entire gamut of the laws of Shrassa Umair, the rambam are found in this four halahos, which are in halo hai ostimitimumusapim. Paraxayim halah hai bays, until halah hai hai hai. The rambam says, mitzvah sai, lispahr shabbatot timimos. There is a mitzvah that counts seven weeks. As the Torah says, this is a machimah hai ostimimahotah shabbatah shiwait, or mitzvah lim nosya hai yomim imashibulos. The mitzvah is the count the day is together with the weeks. Shrassa shiwait, lispahr shim yom are possible. And the rambam says, shah hai, vulamana balailamana balailamana balailam. A person forgot to make a count for you at night, counts it in the day time. The inmani melamumad, and you can make the bracha, or you should make the bracha, as you're standing. O Birkhazamitzos should be made while you're standing. The rambam goes, oon of course, in manamiyushavyasah, but if you did count while you were seated, you're here to the mitzvah. The rambam says, this mitzvah, analah hai hai hai balail, al kohishmi sreil. Smitvah applies to man, when every man, u bhukhamma kam, u bhukhausman. Now that point is important. Pukhamma kam bhukhausman means the smitvah is not only an arachistreil, it's in the entire world. Bhukhausman means that even this man has that when a person might argue that today we don't have a, we don't bring the ome there, perhaps the smitvah, not a pry, we'll get to that later. The rambam certainly passes me into the surahisah. Even the smitvah says, there's a mitzvah, say, of kam, u sreil-sreil-sreil-sreil-sreil-sreil. Now shimba vadim-pthoorim-mimena. This is a mitzvah, say shazmangramah, and women, and a vadim, or pate. The last alah is the one that we want, that I'd like to discuss. The rambam says, the surahis-le-varach-pukha-lai-la, (speaks in foreign language) You should make the bracha, the bracha-samitzvah, before you count the bracha-samitzvah. (speaks in foreign language) The person counted without making a bracha, so he was yesterday the mitzvah. He doesn't have to count again. This, according to the rambam, seems to be like any other mitzvah, that a person should make the bracha before. He does the mitzvah, (speaks in foreign language) If he did the mitzvah without the bracha, he was yesterday the mitzvah. The rambam is generally of the opinion, that you cannot make the bracha after you did the mitzvah. And if you, therefore, if you counted by mistake without making the bracha, you don't feed the bracha. (speaks in foreign language) Is there a hiddish in this halacha that the rambam says you make a bracha? The rambam has a section called (speaks in foreign language) And in the end, it's in parachialis, the rambam gives all the rules of brachos. And we know the general rules of brachos, is there any point to repeat, to say again, (speaks in foreign language) on there, that you make a bracha on this mitzvah. In general, it would be an interesting study to go through all the particular mitzvah in the rambam and say, does he repeat again in each individual case that there's a bracha? Or does he rely on the fact that we know that there's brachos and we've learned here that you make a bracha before you do a mitzvah? Be that as it may. The rambralis discusses, is there a hiddish in this particular halacha? I'd like to suggest a number of points that are important to understand before we realize why the rambam really says that there's a bracha. And there are a lot of reasons to consider that perhaps there should not be a bracha or there should be a different bracha, or we'll see all the different possibilities. The Gomara in Menachos is the soldier of countings, and the Gomara has, is in it, it seems to be two perhaps three opinions. The Gomara says, Menachos. That's Samachos. I'm with Alice. The Gomara says, I'm Rabbi, Mitzvah Libinli, Yami, or Mitzvah Libinli Shavoi. There's a mitzvah to count the days and a mitzvah to count the weeks. Rabbi Volandevir, ashy, Mani, Yani, and Mani Shavoi. Now that might be a different opinion, it just could be the same opinion. That Rabbi Volandevir, ashy, used to count the days and weeks. So that's what Rabbi said. Mitzvah Libinli, Yami, Mitzvah Libinli, and Mitzvah Libinli Shavoi. And Rabbi Volandevir did it. That could be one way of learning Shavoi. But the Gomara then continues with a maima. A maima, Mani, Yani, Voland Mani Shavoi. A maima are according to the simple shot the way Rashi learns Shavoi. After he said, a maima counted the days. He did not count the weeks. He said, "This is ashyamikdash." And therefore Rashi said, "Zilchas biyomisaki. Therefore it's enough to count the days." Now, a maima's opinion in the Gomara seems fairly clear that we count the days. We don't count the weeks because it's ashyamikdash. Because it's ashyamikdash. Because Mani's there. Since we don't bring the on there. Therefore, we are not really Muhui of Minatore at the Countess. But because it's ashyamikdash we count. So this is ashyamikdash. You do it somewhat not wholeheartedly. You do it to count the days without the weeks. Mani, Yani, Voland Mani Shavoi. Of course, the question is obvious. Just because it's ashyamikdash, why shouldn't you do it properly? It's not the count the days of the weeks. Just because it's ashyamikdash. And one could learn the symbol Psharapad. A maima wanted to show that this is not a daray. So he somehow wanted to demonstrate that I'm not going to fulfill a mitzvah daray. In fact, if a person would really think that there is no mitzvah daray. But he would somehow say a mitzvah daray. Or do something to demonstrate mitzvah daray. So perhaps it would be a problem of pothosis. To say that a mitzvah darablanan is somewhat daray. And might itself be a problem. Maybe what a maima wanted to do is simply to demonstrate that there is no such aloha of daray. So I'll show you that I count differently than I would have counted mitzvah daray. Assuming that that's what a maima is like. The question is why did Abai disagree with him? Abai thought mitzvah limin the yomim, mitzvah limin the shavoi. You should count both yomim and shavulos as opposed to a maimar who did not count as shavulos. So why did Abai think so? Why did Abai really count both days and weeks? A priori we could suggest a number of possibilities. We could simply learn that basically Abai agrees with a maima. The mitzvah today is Zechalimiktosh. It's possible. The mitzvah today is Zechalimiktosh. And yet, although it's only, Abai disagrees with the principle of saying Zechalimiktosh should not be done properly just because Zechalimiktosh do it correctly, do it up in the proper way, the way they did in the mitzvah, make those count days and weeks. And he wasn't afraid somehow this would demonstrate any problems with being a dariis. So it just says, since it says, "Zechalimiktosh should do it correctly." The other possibility is to think that a maimar thinks that the mitzvah today is Zechalimiktosh. Abai says no. It's the mitzvah dravana. It's not just the mitzvah dravana, which is a category by itself. There are certain things that have come instituted as Zechalimiktosh. For example, they instituted Kaurik, we say, in Agata, Zechalimiktosh, that we say in Agata, that this mitzvah of Kaurikt, this manah zah, is only a Zechalimiktosh. So, Abai thought Zechalimiktosh maybe you should do it in a correct fashion the way you did it, and the time is based on miktosh. Some may be thought it today. It's dravana. Maybe Abai thought it's a real mitzvah dravana and therefore it's not just a Zechalimiktosh. If it's a mitzvah dravana, you should do it correctly. Perhaps he might have thought it. If it's a mitzvah dravanaiktosh, I would have agreed with a maimar, but he doesn't think so. He thinks it's a mitzvah dravana. The third possibility is that Abai just agrees and says that today it's not just mitzvah dravanaiktosh. It's not just a Zechalimiktosh. Today, counting Zechalimiktosh is a mitzvah dravanaiktosh. Like the ramam probably did learn that way. I'm probably learning that Abai thought that counting Zechalimiktosh is a riza. And therefore counting days and weeks. With Abai thought that counting Zechalimiktosh is a riza. And therefore counting days and weeks. But right now, we'll say there are three possibilities of the reason to capture some of his manners there. It's either dravanaiktosh or dravanaiktosh. In fact, when we show him, we can find traces of all these opinions. The ramam, as we saw before, said clearly that the mitzvah of counting is free of his manners there. The mitzvah dravanaiktosh is a mitzvah dravanaiktosh. So, the mitzvah of dravanaiktosh says that you are allowed to count Zechalimiktosh. Near it, the bhishmashis. You can count Zechalimiktosh. You can count Zechalimiktosh. Even though it's bhishmashis. Why? Because Kavansh is a sphikadravanaiktosh. Since bhishmashis is a sphikyamtosh, and sphikyamtosh is a sphikyamtosh. And sphikyamtosh is a sphikyamtosh. And sphikyamtosh is a sphikyamtosh. And sphikyamtosh is a sphikyamtosh. And when you're allowed to look at Zechalimiktosh, so enter that sphik and count Zechalimiktosh. In fact, there may be people who think it would be a Hebrew. It would be more proper to count. So, early to somehow get the whole day of the counting, the day that I counted, to get it in, to begin as early as possible. That's true. The run in the beginning, in sashin. The end of sashin has an opinion that the first night of theory should certainly count early. In order to get the whole sphere included, the whole bad whole period of time included, in your counting. But even if, even if we would not do this only on the first night, perhaps we really should do it every night. Maybe there's sashin. Hidor. Of course, tell us you may do it. I said maybe it's even a Hidor to count early. And sphikyamtosh and rely on this sashin. Tozusimunacha in McGilla dafchaf raises the issue. Tozus says that Acha Shabirik al-Aslira omai yiratsum shibana bezamigdish. Tozus quote amineg. Many people have this meaning. After you count sphira, you say this yiratsum shibana bezamigdish. Tozus says, "Tozus seems to say that you would do this. You would say this because a mitzvah that's sashinamigdish should be accompanied by such a statement. And that's why, by kareh, we do say sashinamigdish kiddal. Ka hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai. Tozus says, "Really in a bracha? After you count sphira, you count the yirats and the seems from this tozus that he thinks that today we count sphiraik al-Mikdish like our name or things. But perhaps he thinks that we really count because of the hilmikdish. But he holds like a bye that we would count anyway. The whole thing, yummy and shibui. So tozus says, "Masha ain't king but kiashef of the luluf." Tozus says, "By kiashef of the luluf, you don't say yiratshef." So obviously tozus is, "Nikasha, why is it true that by kiashef of the luluf which we also have some sort of a zeha mikdish, we don't say this yiratshef." And tozus answers, whatever he answers is. My point in tozus is just to explain that somehow he thinks that bismana za, you can't see our zeha mikdish. So we really have three opinions at least. What is the halakhab saying of counting sreasamr today? According to the rama mister, isa, according to tozus in menachal's, "Pahil, today is a hil drabana." Whereas according to tozus in, "Mikdila seems to be the hilf would be a hilb zeha limikdish." The fourth opinion is very well known, rabbina yirukham, has said in his saver, "Told us adam makhava." Nithidah can say for adam. Nithid, kamishi, hilikrisi, he says, "A very amazing shayd in a maimah." He went differently than we said before. The Gmarys says, "Abai a maimah manli, yam nipalamam nishabui." The simple shaydah, according to Rashi, seems to be that a maimah can't live the days that he can't live the weeks. He said, "It's only second, mikdish. I only do a mitzvah part partially." The rabbina yirukham says, "That actually, mitzvah didn't, mitzvah didn't tell her. According to the real Torah, loa, they're two mitzvah. There's a mitzvah limina yarmi, and a mitzvah limina yarmi. They're two different mitzvahs, the mitzvah can't live the days of a sira, and a mitzvah can't live the weeks. These two mitzvahs, this man-based amikdosh, and the place amikdosh was extant, and we actually brought the carbanha on there. We brought the on there. So then you would really count both yam nishabui, and you would make two brahas. Today, this man has there. So he said, "If you look carefully mitzvahim, you'll see that only one of these tsukim is really connected inherently, directly with the on there." The Torah says, "Usthaiit em lachhem imachra sashabas." "Miyom adiyyah hame sa amrat nufa sashaba sashaba sashaba sashaba sashaba sashaba sashaba sashaba sashmimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimim But the next person says, "Ad be machra sashabas sashabas sashabas." And this mitzvah is not contingent upon bringing it on there. So today, Rabbi Rosham explains this brilliant Hiddish, Abbai counted both, maybe Abbai counted made to Brakhos. But Abbai named them Mani Yami for the Mani Shabuiz, that's how they didn't count the weeks. He counted the weeks too. If you're doing your mitzvah, he did it properly. But Mani Yami means he made a Brakhon Yami, did not make a Brakhon Shabuiz. He made a Brakhon on the days because he said, "This mitzvah is the right. Even business has that. And therefore, you make a Brakhon." The mitzvah that's only Zechal and Mikdosh is the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah is today only Zechal and Mikdosh. And Rabbi Rosham says in the mitzvah, which is only Zechal and Mikdosh, you don't make a Brakhon. So we really have already now four she does. What is Zalah, Shab, is Mani Yami. According to Tosses, in Menokas, Drabanan, Tossmigila, it's Zechal and Mikdosh, according to the Ram Man, it's the right sequencer of Eni Rosham, near two mitzvah. It's Mani Yami, only one is the right sequencer of the other is Zechal and Mikdosh. Now when the Ram Man said, "You make a Brakhon, we have a simple shab, according to the Rosham, you should really make two Brakhos." The Ram Man Paskin, against what Rabbi Rosham thought was the opinion of Amemar, but he Paskin, like Abayay, which you made two Brakhon, and according to Rabbi Rosham, he would have made two Brakhon in the sumises. The Ram Man perhaps is emphasizing that you make one Brakhah before you can't see us on there. Bismana's there, they're both all right. So, the Ram Man disagreed with Rabbi Rosham, said, "The day in question, Miyama, Biakama, mitzvah, mitzvah is the date. It doesn't depend whether or not you brought it on there. It could be that the Ram Man said, "You could bring the Ram Man to Zechal, don't forget the Ram Man thinks that makriva, nafabhi shen shambayi, it's the Ram Man thinks today we could bring kabana even without Abayayas, mitzvah, which obviously is an issue by itself, but it's the time of Kravasama, the Ram Man says, "You don't have to bring it on there." So therefore, it's the right side, it's the right side, so maybe you should make two Brakhos, the Ram Man says, "No, no, no. It's one mitzvah." And if you look and say, "For I mitzvah, if you'll see the Ram Man says more clearly that out it, don't make this mistake of thinking that fear is two mitzvah. You might have really thought that fear is two mitzvah, now be more careful and realize that even though we say mitzvah, nimni, yumni, mitzvah, surely it's one mitzvah." So that's my first suggestion. Why would the Ram Man say it's a mitzvah account? Three are some are with a Brakhah, what's the hiddish? Well, one hiddish is that you don't make two Brakhos. You might have thought you'd make two Brakhos. Another point that should be made here is there is another opinion of what is the Brakhah itself. The Ravyara, in his Shindushan's paper of Yohalik Beyze, Simeon Tovkov Kropov, says apparently a different Nusa for the Vryra's mitzvah on Sversa on there. I'll do this a little backwards. The Mahadeer of the Ravyara, after this, says, quotes Agra in, or a hyen, Simeon Tovkov Ktais, the Grah apparently assumes that the Ravyara, the different Brakhah, and he quotes the Grah's phalas, F-shah-shu-kam-shu-rab, Yoham-kang, the phi'an, Nusa-shah-shah-l-a-ham, She-kah-sab-lamab-es-fira-shah-hi-yam, v'nishmami-di-vayam-shu-sime-abrakhah. The Grah said that it seems that the Ravyar thought that the Brakhah of Simeon there is not a separate Brakhah, somehow the spira and the Brakhah merge into one. You would say, I shayk-a-shah-shah-shah-shah-hi-yam, whatever it is, and the Grah is medaic this from a line of the Ravyar that apparently he had, and after it's a kah-man-shah-mah-di-vayam-di-vayam, although we're not going to say the Grah said this in a vinizua, but because of his intellectual scholarship, he somehow guessed, or used deduction to infer what was the text of the Ravyar, and later on in our edition of the Ravyar, it really says clearly like that. Ba-sah-shah-sima-di-n-wa-siyum, and he goes on to explain why that's true, that according to the Ravyar, the Brakhah and the spira merges together with the counting of the Omeh. You explain this point why the Ravyar thinks, though, is beyond the scope of the time I have, but society to say that the Ramam would disagree with this Ravyar as well, and say, this is the Bhir-sah-sama-svah like any other mitzvah, in other words, the Brakhah and the mitzvah to be separated, and not to be made in one long statement according to the Ravyar. There might be another point that we could use to explain why the Ramam would have to point out this as a Brakhah, and this is the fact that we ask him that if a person forgets one entire day, then you do not continue counting theta with the Brakhah. The Ramam doesn't even discuss this particular Al-Akhah, if a person skips a day, what does he do? Tosa says, "If you skip a day," Tosa brings an attempt in my focus, whether you can continue counting or not continue counting. We're a Kashmir, and say, "If you skip a day," since it's my focus, we've shown him, we would continue counting without a Brakhah. The Ram doesn't refer to this issue. The premier God then asks the question, "If you hold, that Syria is actually one mitzvah, and every night is not an independent mitzvah, but the mitzvah is to reach the least day." That's the reason for the opinion, that if you skip a day, then you cannot continue counting with the Brakhah, because the mitzvah is not to count each night. The mitzvah is to reach the combination of the Ramamah the last night. Of course, you count every night in order to reach the end, but there's no end in itself to count every night. It's only a means to reach the last night of Syria counting. So the premier God then asks, "Why would we make a Brakh every night?" There's no mitzvah every night. It's only what you would call some sort of a hashim. You can't get to the end without counting each night. Therefore, obviously, you have to count every night, but there's no mitzvah to count every night. So I thought I may have given this answer. I know it is printed in Rob's Zolty's paper, but many others have already said the same thing. Here we have a big kiddish, that counting every night is a mitzvah. The kiyyamah mitzvah is only the last night of before shivuah. When you actually fulfill this mitzvah, according to the opinion, that it's one mitzvah to count and it's not a mitzvah every night. According to that opinion, so you make a Brakhah anyway, every night, even though there's no kiyyamah mitzvah every night that you count is a mitzvah. So therefore, the kiddish here is that when you have a mitzvah, the kiyyamah mitzvah, the Brakhah is made in the mitzvah, so even though the kiyyamah mitzvah will be at a later date. This issue, whether you make a Brakhah, the mitzvah, the kiyyamah mitzvah can be raised in many cases, just for example, there's an opinion that the ikr of shofar, the real mitzvah of shofar is when you blow shofar inshmanah's way. Whether it's inshmanah's way itself, shofar is a shat, but the kiyyamah is to say the sukhimah mouth is the kunoshu shofaros together with the shofar, together with the blowing. And the blowing that we blow, and what we call tikiyyam shofar before, what we call tikiyyam shofar before you blow shofar before you stand shmanah's way, according to some people, that's not the ikr of shofar. So if that's true, why don't you make it, why do we make the Brakhah then, how to make the Brakhah when suddenly it's subsidiary, secondary to the ikr of shofar. The answer of course is that when you do blow the shofar tikiyyam shofar, you're doing the mai samitha, you need to stall and keep to those people that will do it, that will continue davening and shawl and hearing shofar shmanah's way, saying shmanah's way, hearing kafar's a shat, so then you're really going to be kind to mitzvah, but right now what you're doing is defined as the mai samitha's, you make the Brakh on the mai samitha. This British explains why you make a Brakhah every night, perhaps around them, we might interpret that around them, make a Brakhah every night, even though it's only one mitzvah, it's a cantilever's night. The last fool came to their prima garden, to answer sort of the cash of the prima garden that you make a Brakhah every night. Of course, I said that I'm not really sure what the Raman thinks about skipping a night. Maybe the Raman really thinks the opposite, that even if you skip a night, you can continue counting every night with a Brakhah, if that would be true, then the opposite would be the shish. Varshans, if they are slira, call you on bayam, every single day, I make a Brakhah before I do the mitzvah, because every night is a mitzvah, even if I skip a day, I can continue counting with a Brakhah. As I said before, at that point to me, it's not clear on the Raman, what do you think about such a case where a person would skip it another day? I would like to suggest another shish in the reason the Raman says that you make a Brakh every night. There is a discussion not why we are allowed to make the Brakh every night, which I said is the cache of the Pigma Guardian, but a different question, should a person really make the Brakhah every night? Aren't you a little bit afraid that you might skip a night? So I discussed before if a person did skip a night, but let's say you've been skip a night. A person, let's say for the past 10 years, I tried to count through a song there. I never remember, because some people have the custom of doubting merit now in certain countries that matter very late. So they go to an early minion, so they go to a minion that they feel a swear that he counts fear and all kinds of discussion that's on him when you go to a minion, which is early, what do you do at that minion about counting stress on this? Some people have a custom that counts without a Brakh at that time based on a mitzvah, but maybe some of them says, "No, I don't want to count early. I want to wait till it's still tasted to solve him." I'll wait till later to count. And it came out that he, because of that, he forgot one night, he just forgot totally. So if a person said, "I've done that for many years," the mitzvah raised the issues for women who are participating in stress on them, according to almost every opinion of the world, because it's the mitzvah that shows my grandma. So the mitzvah really raised the issue whether they could, perhaps, should count the stress on them, because they are risking a Brakhah la Vatala every single night. So there are a chonin who really raised the issue whether a person who is nervous, or women who aren't used to counting stress on them, or perhaps, really whether they should count the last summer with a Brakhah. The rambam might say, in such a case, the hiddish might be, "The Vahrshin Sirasomer." A person should make the Brakhah every night. Because, maybe you don't have to take it to a count, it's hard to show them that maybe I'll forget. But I could say even sharper than that. The good thing you could make a Brakhah every night, because right now, this is considered a mitzvah. This is a mitzvah. And even if I do forget tomorrow night, perhaps that doesn't change the fact retroactively that I did yesterday's a mitzvah, what I did yesterday is a mitzvah. It's true that because I forgot, according to some opinions, I cannot continue counting with a Brakhah because I'll never reach the chonin mitzvah. Since I know that I won't reach the chonin mitzvah, perhaps this will not be considered even a mitzvah. But what I did count was the possibility of reaching the end of reaching the chonin mitzvah, perhaps the Brakhah that I made tonight could never become a Brakhah lathala. So here, an interesting question, if a person is not sure, let's say, in the past he's had very bad experiences. He forgot every year to count, to continue it, to never reach the end of Jerusalem, or should he really count every night with a Brakhah, perhaps the chitish year is to say, as far as the Tharah lathala, you really shouldn't make the Brakhah every night because the Brakhah is in the mitzvah, could be that it never could become a Brakhah lathala. The list, possibility that I'd like to raise, is a question whether you can make the Brakhah in the daytime. When the Ramam said, you can, there's a mitzvah to count, the Ramam says, that shahah lathala lathala mona bayon. The Ramam says, if you did best count at night, you count in the daytime, does he mean with a Brakhah or without a Brakhah? Does he mean, this is a question also, in terms of the minahas, a person counted at night, can he count in the daytime? The assumption is, that if he counts in the daytime, perhaps he could count with a Brakhah. We are mashing in both, keep your name, we're mashing with it to say that if a person forgot at night, then he should not count in the daytime with a Brakhah. But he can't continue with acts from then on with a Brakhah, because there's the makhlokas if you can count in the daytime, and there's makhlokas if you skip a day, whether you can continue counting. So we've asked him, that we say, spake, spake, lakula, in order to say, you could not continue you'd have to be mashing or do different issues, you'd have to be mashing and say you can't count in the daytime, and he mashing and say that since you can't count in the daytime, you skip the day, then you cannot continue. We've asked him, spake, spake, lakula, that you count in the daytime without a Brakhah, and you continue with night. What would the Ramam think about this? Perhaps the Ramam wants to tell me that you do continue to count in the daytime with a Brakhah, which seems to be the halakh and halakhas of kimos, Shah fakulamunabalaylamunabayyam. But then, in halakhas of say, the Ramam says, ditzarekh was varekh buchalayla, bhajmannamar shifsamunabas rasvallramar. Here, ditzarekh was varekh buchalayla, perhaps he thinks that the mitz is only to count at this night, and somehow it's if it's the effort counting daytime, in which case maybe he really doesn't think that we're allowed to count in the daytime with a Brakhah, but again, this is not clear. The issue that we've raised in this particular shi'ur is to discuss the Brakhah sryasamar. The bottom line is the Ramam Pascans, the sryasamar today is bismana zay, sarayfah, and you make a Brakhah. I just discussed all kinds of different opinions that we found to raise a hiddush about this Brakhah. And we saw there are people who think that you make two Brakhas sryasamar, there are people who think that even the one Brakhah should be combined together with the sryasamar. We also saw that you make a Brakhah on the maisam, it's not just the qima mitz, so therefore you make a Brakhah every night. And we said the person, perhaps we could derive from here, we couldn't, and first from here, that if a person, even if a person is not sure that he's going to continue and very nervous about it, he can continue counting with a Brakhah. As we end the sryasamar to cut some of the people based on the sryasamar. We also understand the shi'ur with the ratsamar that we should be zocha to see the based on mikdash when we'll certainly be mikandish to sryasamar according to all the things the ratsamar. And not only that, according to some things, will be became two mitzvah ratsamar. You have been listening to Rabin Yominta Vori in the weekly mitzvah for Pashat Emol. Today's hala hai yomit. The gmara in Brakhot says that one bows in Shmoness re in four places. In the first Brakhah, Tari'la Basov, the first Brakhah in the beginning and the end, and in Bhakat Modim, the first Brakhah of the last section, Tari'la Basov. In other words, the first Brakhah begins Bhakatash Em, that's Tari'la in the beginning, and the end of that Brakhah is Bhakatash Em, again of Brakhah, two places in which one bows. In Modim, Tari'la Basov, in the beginning and end, one one says Modim, which is the beginning of that Brakhah, and at the end, the Brakh, the Bhakat, the Bhakat, which is at the end of that Brakhah, it's not really four different places, it's too Brakhot, Tari'la Basov. Now the first Brakhah begins with Bhakah, for a different reason altogether, theoretically every Brakhah should begin with Bhakat and end with Bhakah, where you have a series, a chain of Bhakat, then intermediary ones do not need a introductory Bhakat Shmonesser, which is 18, 19 Bhakat in a row, only the first one begins with Bhakah. So the first one has Bhakat in the beginning and a Bhakat in the end, or Bhakat end in Bhakat. So Modim does not have one in the beginning, but only one in the end, and the first Brakhah does have one in the beginning and one in the end. Therefore it comes out at three out of the four Brakhah to have a Bhakat. But the real principle is not to bow on Bhakat, but to bow beginning and end of these two Bhakat. Nonetheless, despite what I just said, post skimming and commentary is noted, the connection, the grammatical connection between the word Bhakat and its root, which is similar to the word for Bhakat, which means knee, and from this it throws the minag, not mentioned in the grammar, that all one says Bhakat, one bends the knee, and one says attah, you bow from the waist, and this is sanctioned in many post skim. When you get to Modim you don't have this play on words, Modim doesn't have the word Bhakat, reminding us of Bhakat, and therefore there wouldn't appear to be any reason to first bend the knee and then bow from the waist, but nonetheless since that's the way one bows and Shmana Srei, I think the minig is to do it there as well. Intimestically enough the Vambam says that there are five places in which one bows, and we'll get to this somewhat later, after we finish Mana Srei, the fifth place that Mana says is after you finish Mana Srei, and he's referring to Tahranu, to the phillata poem. The Vambam groups all five together, first Bhakat, beginning and end, Bhakat Modim, beginning the end and after you finish, you bow again and say Tahranunim, you say Tahranun. I think it has very, very significant understanding Tahranun, but that's for a much later, a much later time we'll get to that in a few weeks. The Gomorrah continues and says that if someone wishes to bow in a different Bhakat Modim Srei, we don't permit it, you're not allowed to add extra bowings to Shmana Srei, the only bow and which one bows is the first Bhakat and in Modim. The word that says, however, if in the middle of Bhakat, not in the beginning of the end, he wishes to bow in Shmana Srei, that's okay. This dual statement, not to bow in other Bhakat, but it's okay in the middle, is the source for a wide-ranging discussion as to whether one is allowed to bow in other places in the Bhakat, outside of Shmana Srei. Now we know of a few places in which the Mana goes yes to bow, for instance, in Bhakat. It's not mentioned in the Gomorrah, it's not mentioned in most of the postkamita, in most of the Shmana at least, that one bows during Bhakat with a hazen or a zibur. It's a fairly universal minute to do so. When we spoke about Kaddish a few weeks ago, I pointed out that the tour says that one bows five times during the Kaddish. Everybody bows during the lane of Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim, Nakhnamodim. There is a baron that's done there and there were other menhagim to bow in other places during Haalayal and during Nishmat, also different places and each one of these places, postkim raised the question, does this violate the Gomorrah saying not to bow in necessarily? Of course, one could claim the Gomorrah is talking about only Shmana Srei. But nonetheless, the statement that one should not bow, unnecessarily in other places, the place that are mentioned is specifically Haalayal and Nishmat or Bukat Amazan, does appear in the postkim. The question is, how is that different from bow in the middle of a bhokha, which Gomorrah says explicitly is okay. The rule of thumb, which is offered by the Tazen, is more or less accepted, is that where one mentions that I, the person davening, wishes to thank God, I am now thanking God, and then it's okay to bow. However, if you're speaking about the general praise of God, or the general thanking of God of the whole world, or how God is worthy of praise, one should not bow. That would be like other bhokhs in Shmana Srei. The exactification of the rule itself is debatable in different places, and therefore, while that's theoretical rule, I think the practical rule of Lakhlamay says that those places with a minig is to do it, and a minig has been sanctioned by Khali's song, over many years, it's okay to do so. And that means it's a Scottish, it's bhokhu, it's Alainu, et cetera. And other places, if you have a particular feeling you'd like to bow because you think it's appropriate, so then the rule applies that one doesn't bow. What's the idea behind this? I think the idea is really, very simple. Of course, it's a good thing to bow to God. It means that we are subject to him with the servants of God, but that itself is problematic. Why? Because to say that you're a servant of God is a bit of a prideful action. Of course, we're servants of God, everyone's a servant of God. But to say, well, I'm a servant of God, I do something which the rest of the sibo is not doing is not really modesty, but in fact, as a boast, because to be a servant of God is quite a few steps higher than being a free man, not in God's service. To be a servant of God is, in fact, to be the servant of the king, and it's like to be the prince of the king. And therefore, it's inappropriate to do whenever you feel like doing it. The idea of being part of the sibo, we're all, amisam is the servant of God, and not to claim, or I am a particular servant of God who God is entrusted with some sort of task, is an important part of expressing the proper relationship, which we all have to God to do that which he wants, and to serve him as all creatures should, and not to place ourselves in a more prominent position by claiming that we are less permanent, although it was a more subject, more servile before him. That's Elahaimid for today, and that's the end of our broadcast for today. You have been listening to KMTT, the Torah podcast, broadcast on my Shivat Aretzion in a lunch for Israel, you remember to learn Torah every day, and to spread the news to your friends about this unique method of engaging the Tamut Torah on the highest level. And we'll be back tomorrow, tomorrow's year, by Harab Moshe Tarragan, on Essentials in Avodata Shem. Till then, kultur vibukat atoramitsion, kimitsion teceitor a udvarashem miyoshalaym.