KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Parashat Acharei Mot-Kedoshim
KMTT - Shiur on Parashat Acharei Mot Kedoshim, by Yael Ziegler
KMTT - kimitsu-yeon tetsai tora - today is Thursday, shio in poshata shabubu will be given by Mrs. Yael Ziegler. Afterwards I'll be back with the hala hai omit. Today I'd like to focus on the opening parasha in poshata karrimon and that is the kra parak tetsai-in, the parasha popularly known or more commonly known as avodatiomakipurim. Of course this is the terra portion which we read on Yomakipur, we read the parak which tells us about the evoda that the Klamgadol did in the Beethamikdash on Yomakipurim and yet when we first glance at the parasha we immediately note that there are some curiosities in calling this or some questions in calling this parasha avodatiomakipurim, most especially the fact that the parak never even tells us until the 29th pasuk that in fact this evoda is meant to be done on a particular day of the year. We read in poshata kaftet, bahitala khammukukat olam bahodesh shashvihi bahsore lahodesh ta new eknefshot ekhem baholah hai latah sous raqba gereha garbato khamm. So that this evoda that we do, we do it in the 7th month on the 10th day, that we only learn at the very end of the parasha. And that end of itself I think is worthy of note and certainly is worthy of examination. Some other questions which arise when we first glance at this parak is for example in poshak alif we begin with dabir hashem el mousheh, aha rei moch ne vene aharon the corvatam lifne ashem vamutu. So we refer back to the story of Nadav and Avihu, which took place at the beginning of parak yud, the question of course being, why do we return now to an earlier story? What is the connection between Nadav and Avihu's death and this parak here? The other thing I think that is worthy of note, and of course many different infar shim offer various explanations for these questions. The other thing that I think is worthy of note here, that all of which eventually come together to form a particular idea, is the fact that this parak of avodath yomha kippurim doesn't appear in any of the khagan section in tannach. Now there are plenty of places where in fact we do read about yomha kippurim. And of course we have in parashat emor, and just a few parashyot in Safer Vaikra. And the question of course is, why is this parak, if this parak is really centered on the major activity that amisrael is required to engage in, amisrael is required to focus in on anyomha kippurim, why does it appear outside of the context of the khagan of yomha kippurim itself, why does it appear here in Vaikra Paraktazain? I think that although of course there are many different explanations for each of these questions, it seems to me that all three of these questions lead us to one particular conclusion, and that is that this parasha is not about yomha kippurim. The avoda here is not rightly called avoda at yomha kippurim. Instead what I would call the avoda here, that the khagan-gaddal engages in when he comes into the kodeskodashim, I would call it the avoda of chuvah. This is the avoda of chuvah, it is indeed performed on the day that is seen as the culmination of the chuvah process, but it is actually simply a depiction of the avoda of chuvah, and not necessarily or specifically the avoda of yomha kippurim. Actually, when we read in Pasegimmel, "Bizot y avo aheron el hakodash" is with this kind of avoda that aheron can come into the kodash, the gra here, the villegoin, and the nateev here indicate that aheron could do this avoda whenever he wished. He was not at all limited to yomha kippurim. Now it happens to be, of course, that every year we do perform this avoda on yomha kippurim, because yomha kippurim, of course, is the ultimate day, the ultimate opportunity of chuvah. But that is only an afterthought, because the primary purpose of the parasha is to explain how we go about engaging in the chuvah process. It's a secondary factor that says, oh, and by the way, the time that you always do this chuvah process is on yomha kippurim. This is perhaps what leads both the gra and the nateev to say that aheron could do this at other times of the year as well if he felt that in fact it was necessary. It also clarifies why the sins of nadav and navihu are connected to this this parak. It's the event of nadav and avihu's punishment of death, their immediate and cataclysmic punishment of death, which necessitates a parasha designed to inform us how to do chuvah in order to prevent death as an immediate punishment for future sins. The center of this avoda are these two ere-isim, which the koyingadal offers on behalf of congregation. What I'd like to do is to try to understand what is the idea behind the avoda of chuvah. Is there some sort of philosophy of this avoda of chuvah, which can clarify what is the central feature of chuvah that takes place here in an yomha kippurim, but more specifically in the Beitamik dash when the koyingadal decides, determines that in fact it's necessary that I'm still engaged in some sort of avoda of chuvah. I'd like to begin by drawing on an essay that Raph Salvechik writes, actually he says this essay during the Assyrite-Meit Chuvah, it's one of the essays which appears in Al-Hachuvah, and it's the essay is called Bior-Hara-Vihalato. The Raph begins with an interesting gmarignoma, an interesting and well-known gmarignoma, which records a makhloket between two statements of Raph Salvech. The gmar begins with saying it says, the gmarignoma and dafte vavamudbet amare Raph Salvechik, gidolat chuvah shez donot na asot lo kishka got. Shezna amare suva hystere l adha shema lokhecha kik ka shouta bavonecha. So the gmar says, Raph Salvechik says, great is chuvah, because his intentional sins can turn into mistakes. God can view his intentional sins like mistakes, and they bring a proof text. The gmar says, ha avone mezidhi vikka kraile makhshol. Usually an avone is something which is done intentionally, but in this passage the avone is called some sort of michshol, a stumbling block, which indicates that God now views our intentional sins as something that we did by accident. The gmar goes on and says, but in fact Raph Salvech seems to have said something else, which contradicts this statement of Raph Salvech, this statement they just quoted. The gmar says, inni, is that? Is that so? Vaha amare shulakhecha kidolat chuvah shez donot na asot lo kishka got. But Raph Salvech actually said something much more, much more extremist and much more interesting. He said, great is chuvah, because the intentional sins can be turned into merits. And here again the gmar brings a proof text. The gmar ends by answering lo kashya kame ava kameyura. The gabara answers saying, this is not a problem here. The one statement of Raph Salvech was talking about chuvah me ava, and the other statement was talking about chuvah mea rah. Now, the Raph asked the obvious question on this passage in the gmar animal. He says, you know, one can certainly understand how sins can somehow be transformed into mistakes. But to suggest that they can become merits is obviously very peculiar. How can violating Shabbat be viewed in God's eye as a merit? In what way could this increase one person's worthiness before God? And this question generates the Raph's description of two different types of chuvah. Perhaps it's an extension of the answer of the gmarah, chuvah mea rah, chuvah mea rah. The Raph suggests that the first statement that Raph Salvech makes, that your sins can be recast as mistakes, refers to the person whose chuvah involves a process of beour harah. Beour harah is the extirpation of evil from one's life. In this approach to chuvah, the sinner wipes away his past in preparation for a pure future. He takes to heart the words of mecha, who describes God throwing sins into the depths of the sea. In this process of repentance, the former sinner becomes a different person entirely. With no affinity whatsoever to his former self, this kind of val chuvah is described by the rambam in her chuvah. He changes his name, komar a ni achir, the a ni o to hai shah sa otan ha maasim. And he says, I'm a different person. I'm not the same man who did those things. According to this kind of chuvah, or according to this perception of chuvah, the idea is that the person disconnects themselves entirely from their past. According to the Raph, this would involve some sort of act of divine grace whereby God commutes this new person's former intentional sins to mistakes because of the sincerity of the person's experience of chuvah. When, however, according to the Raph, do the sins become merits? The Raph answers this in a very interesting fashion, and he says that the other kind of chuvah that one can do is not be your harah, but rather what he calls hai latarah. And this is when the sinner, instead of scorning his past, channels it and utilizes it for his future. That is hai latarah, the elevation of evil. This type of chuvah utilizes the past in order to elevate the future. Now, how does one accomplish this? The Raph offers actually two very intriguing examples as to how one might ennoble his sinful past before he actually, before we actually get to the Raph's examples, I think we have some interesting Gomara's, actually some interesting words which may enlighten us in a direction different than the one that the Raph gives. So, for example, there is the Gomara that describes to us Rachalakish's life, his previous life, before he became a Raph, before he became Itamachacham. And there's a famous Gomara in Vamitzia and Daf Pey Dalid, in which Rachalakish is swimming and Rachalan sees him swimming and he sees how strong he is. And he says to him, your strength should be used for Torah. And of course, Rachalakish retorts while your beauty should be used for women. And Rachalan says, well, if you come to the base medrash and you learn, then I will give you my sister and she is even more beautiful than I. Rachalakish does eventually agree and he comes back to the baby drash with Rabiyacham. And immediately afterwards, the Gomara records an interesting makhloket between Rachalakish and Rabiyacham as to when weapons are makhabaltuma. Now, I won't go into the details of the makhloket, but the end result of the makhloket is in fact that Rabiyachann is rejected, his position is rejected. The idea being that Rachalakish is more capable of understanding about how weapons work in order to render decision in this matter. Now, while this story, if you would read the continuation of the Gomara, doesn't have an extremely happy ending, the message of the story, I think, may be directly related to what the rub is trying to say here. How can one ennoble his sinful past? How can he use his past in order to elevate his future? Well, perhaps in this particular example, what we see is a very practical example of a former robber who, instead of pretending that his former life didn't exist, is able to use his knowledge from his former life in order to enhance our understanding of halakh. So, he uses his knowledge of weapons in order to render a halakhic decision involving the tuma of, or what is, in fact, a completed weapon and therefore when it's makhabaltuma. The rub, however, doesn't give this example. The rough talks about two different examples of halat-hara, both of which I think are very intriguing. In the first example, the rub speaks of how a person can only fully appreciate something after he experiences its loss. This is a common theme in Rev. Selvesic's writings and he says, "This is true certainly about losing people and is also true about the loss of God." And therefore says the rub, only after one has experienced a state of sinfulness, only after a person has lived through the agony and loneliness of feeling distant from God, can a person truly appreciate his relationship with God. And therefore, the balshuva who returns to God with an alarming realization of what he has almost lost, can acquire a newfound appreciation for his relationship with God. This, in turn, can invest his spiritual life with greater fervor, with more devotion, with more love. This is halat-hara, using the pain of the sinful past in order to infuse the future with more meaning. This is the first example that the rub gives of halat-hara, not to ignore the experience of sinfulness, but rather to allow it to accompany a person into their future in an attempt to try to elevate the future by using the past. And the Rev offers a second example of what can constitute halat-hara. This is perhaps an even more intriguing example. In this example, the Rev points out that the experience of sinfulness is fundamentally different than the experience of righteousness. Avodat Hashem is, or I should say, the opposite. The experience of sinfulness involves unparalleled passion, fervor, excitement, and desire that a person channels into this experience of sinning. This is not found. There is no equivalent, says the Rev. When we talk about a person who is doing what is good and proper. Therefore, the person who has been sinful in his past, says the Rev, has the singular opportunity to use his newly discovered reserve of energy, single-mindedness, passion, and intensity, and channel them towards service of God. In other words, this man has finally experienced something which he couldn't have experienced in his initial experience of Avodat Hashem, says the Rev. And therefore, he is now in the position of attaining a more passionate expression in his Avodat Hashem when he returns to God after having had the experience of sinfulness. This new fervor, says the Rev, can raise him to great heights, can pull him closer to Akrash Barahul. These are two examples of how one might achieve or how one might go about implementing the kind of Chuvah that the Rev calls Alat Hara, the kind of Chuvah that Rish Lakhish says Gidolat Chuvash's donot nasot lok his huyot, great as Chuvah because his intentional sins have turned into merits. This is the manner in which one may transform sins into merits. Because in this scenario, his sins actually propel him forward to his spiritual condition that he could not have attained otherwise. Well, obviously, Halathara seems to be the preferable type. It's obviously desirable that we should rather turn our sins into merits than simply into mistakes. And of course, Halathara, therefore, is being presented by the Rev as the highest form of Chuvah. However, the Rev can see that there are certain sins, perhaps there are certain even scenarios which simply cannot be elevated. There are certain kinds of experiences which should not, must not be used towards the future, but must be completely extirpated from the world. Some sins are so penetratingly evil that nothing good can come of them. They must be completely destroyed in order to progress. And therefore, we have two types of Chuvah which are available to us, says the Rev. There is Beorhara, there is the model of taking your sins, throwing them into the deepest depths of the sea where we never want to encounter them again. They must be totally eradicated from the world. And then there are circumstances in which one can utilize their sins in order to channel them towards a better future, a higher future, a more spiritual future. It seems to me that the center of Avodata Chuvah in Vaikra, Paraktat Zion returning now to our topic also represents these two different kinds of Chuvah. And in fact, what we do have here in Vaikra, Paraktat Zion is this paradigm of Chuvah. That's what we mentioned previously. I wouldn't call this Avodata Yomaki Purim. I would call it Avodata Chuvah. And of course, the center of this Avoda, as we mentioned before, are these two Sirei Yizim, which the Coen Godol offers on behalf of the congregation. It seems to me that these two Sirei Yizim are in fact meant to be or do in fact represent these two different kinds of Chuvah, which the Rev delineates in his essay Beorhara the Toh. Let me just state for clarification that the Rev does not, in fact, make this correlation between the two Sirei Yizim and Beorhara the Halatara. But I think if we examine the Avoda of these two Sirei Yim carefully, I think that we see that in fact, these two Sirei Yim do in fact represent these two kinds of Chuvah. Well, let's look at the Sire Hamish de Leach. The first Sire is called the Sire Hamish de Leach. This goat is sent away today. This goat, over whom Vidoy was said, bears the sins of Amish or El, and must be completely removed from the camp. We detach ourselves so completely from this goat that the person who sends the Sirei needs to wash himself before he can re-enter the camp. This is a total divorce from the Sirei. This Sirei bears the sins of Amish or El that require Beorhara, that require extra patience of evil. And in fact, what it seems to me is that the experience of taking this goat and sending him into the Medbar, bearing the sins of Amish or El, to die never to re-enter the camp again. We have to completely divorce ourselves from any contact with this goat. This goat represents the part of Avodata Chuvah, which focuses on Beorhara. The other Sirei, of course, is known as the Sirehara, or alternatively, the Sirehla Shem. This goat, which also bears the sins of the people, it is, of course, called the Sirehara. Is it Corban? It's a regular Corban. It's brought to God in the Beit Hamikdash. It is part of our ongoing constructive relationship with Hakan Sparachu. The blood of this Corban is brought Elmi Beit La Parocha. The Sirehla Shem draws us closer to God. Now this Sireh, also, of course, bears the sins of Amish or El. And in this particular scenario, it seems to me that this goat represents the idea of Ha'alatara, of our ability to take our sins and use it to bring us closer to God. Elmi Beit La Parocha, Leit Karab, the Corban that we use in order to bring us closer to God. It seems to me that the central idea that underlies this particular avoda of Chuvah, the one that takes place on Yom Ha'kippurim, reflects in a very precise manner the two different kinds of Chuvah that the rub poses as the two ultimate ideals of Chuvah, one being, of course, more ideal than the other, but of course Beit La Parocha also being necessary in certain particular circumstances. So what the Coingado is doing here by taking these two Sirehim, who are both equal, of course, the Ha'zalatas, we take these Shneisi Reizim, and we do two different avodas within each of which represent these two different kinds of Chuvah. Now in order perhaps to complete this Shire, I want to turn to actually another passage, another story in the Torah. And actually it's the Parocha that we read, of course we read Beit La Parocha, we read on Yom Ha'kippur. I want to talk just for a few minutes about the Parocha that we read on Rosh Hashanah. And of course there are two days of Rosh Hashanah, and so we read two different Parocha out, and it seems to me that there's a correlation between the idea that we just presented about this Parocha, our Parocha here in Beit La Parocha, would I call avodata Chuvah, and the two-part share that we read on the two days of Rosh Hashanah. And in fact, for many, many years, I always was struck by the similarity between this avodah of Yom Ha'kippurim, the Sihir La Hashanah, and the Sihir La'zalah, and the story of Avraham's, the command that God gives to Avraham as to how he must interact with his two sons, of course, in this test of Avraham's Emuna. The first story, of course, being the sending away of Yishma El into the Medvar, the second story being Akkadati Trak. And these are, of course, the two-part share that we read on Rosh Hashanah. I think it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to understand why one might correlate between the Sihir La'zalah and the story of the sending away of Yishma El into the Medvar. And the Sihir La Hashanah and the story of bringing Yitzhak as a Corban, a story which, of course, doesn't come to fruition, but the point of which is that Avraham is willing and ready and capable of doing, in fact, this act. Now, for many years, I felt that these two partsia were somehow related. And eventually, it came across a footnote in... I believe it was in Pirkei Mo'adot, a revoir. It might have been in Pirkei Bresheit, one of Revoirier's essays, where he actually also makes this correlation when he says the Sihir La Hashan is Yitzhak and the Sihir La'zalah is, in fact, Yishma El. What is the meaning of these stories for the idea that we've been posing here today, Avodata Chiva? I think that, in many ways, Avraham's life can be seen as the paradigmatic process of Chiva, of repentance. He begins his life with the command Lechlecha, and he ends with the very same command. At the beginning of the story of the Akheda, this is the culmination of his experience of movement. His entire life is a movement. It is described as a dynamic process, meant to lead him from his origins, where Terech, his father, worshipped idols Mayaver Lanahar to his destiny in the land of Kanan, engaged in a relationship with God. He is in this constant dynamic process. Avraham is, in many ways, the paradigmatic Valchuvah. Now how, in fact, does he go about this dynamic process of movement? Well, Chazal tells that God tested Avram 10 times. Why did God test Avram 10 times? Not because God didn't know and advance the outcome of these tests, but because we have here, perhaps, a purification process, one that leads Avram further and further from his idolatrous roots and closer and closer to God. Although, of course, the precise identity of these 10 tests that Chazal speak of in Avram's life is a matter of exegetical debate, there is no doubt that the sending away of Ishmael and Akkadate Trak appear to be among the last tests in Avram's life. These tests represent the final movement in his lifelong journey away from his previous existence and towards his aim of Avodata Shem. It is these events that establish Avram as the epitomobal Chuvah atayadate, says God after the Akkadah, Kiyaray Elo Kim Ata. And this would explain why the story of Akkadate Ishmael and Garush Ishmael focused on Avraham rather than on Ishmael. These stories are an integral part of the depiction of the life of Avraham and more particularly an integral part of the dynamic process of repentance that characterizes Avraham's life. Let's talk for a minute about Garush Ishmael. What does, what about Akkadate Ishmael, ultimately for Avraham, is part of the process of Chuvah. Why is Ishmael sent away? Ishmael, we're told, is Mitsahhek. Rashi maintains that Ishmael transgresses the three sins of Yereg, Valyav, or the three sins for which a Jew is required to accept death rather than to transgress a vodhuzarash fikutamim gilayarayat. It seems that these sins are so evil and so threatening that there is no choice other than to extirpate them from the house. And the question for Avraham is, can you do B'orhara in this situation? Can you demonstrate that you are capable even of the Chuvah of B'orhara with the most precious part of yourself, your future, your son? And of course, the answer is yes. Now, I want to talk for one minute in the one and a half minutes that I have remaining. On the story of Akkadate Tclak, of course, this parak is undoubtedly the culmination of Avraham's career. I would say the culmination of his Chuvah career. There are innumerable attempts to explain the idea behind the Akkadah and certainly not going to claim that I am explaining the idea behind the Akkadah, but I am going to bring one idea. It is intriguing that Revkuk explicates the Akkadah in a very similar manner in which the Rev describes Alath-Hara in his essay in Al-Achuvah. Recall that the Rev said that one of the two examples for utilizing the past in elevating one's future is to harness the tremendously intense energy found in sinfulness and lacking in Avodata Shem in order to channel it towards Avodata Shem. Only once one has experienced that kind of fervor will he know how to use it, thereby creating a potential for a former sinner that is not accessible to a person who has always been a righteous person. A Revkuk maintains a very similar thought about the Akkadah. He says that Avraham, who grew up in the surroundings of child sacrifice, of Avodazara, must utilize the passion that was heretofore absent in Avodata Shem, but which is a passion that is unique to idolaters and directed towards God. In other words, Avraham is meant to learn from his past that was steeped in an environment of idolatry and to elevate his future by incorporating that passion in his present life. Of course, God does not really want him to sacrifice his clock. He simply wants him to demonstrate how he can utilize his background towards Avodata Shem. Revkuk goes so far as to say that this event is a watershed moment for Avodata Shem. Revkuk actually says, and I'll tell you where it is because I'm sure some people are interested in looking it up. It's in Igrotaraya, volume two, in the Revkuk edition, the Mosader of Revkuk edition page Shin Aintet. Revkuk actually says that we're not for this event for Akkadat itself. Humanity would be faced with a choice either to maintain a passionless, cold, sterile, religious experience or a fervent, wild existence of sinfulness. However, Avraham teaches us how to take his past and infuse it with the passion and use it for his future of Avodata Shem. And therefore, here in the story of Avraham, in the story of Avraham's interaction with his two sons, we have here an example of Biur Hara, Vihalat Hara. And therefore, I think we, these, these partio are read during the period of a Sarah Yme Chuvah, the stories of Avraham in which he, he complies his Chuvah process vis-a-vis his sons by showing that he can engage in Biur Hara and Ha'alat Hara in the most personal arena of his life, that is his relationship with his sons. And then we culminate in the reading of Avodat Ha'chuvah or Avodat Yomaki Perim in Vai Krapher to Zion, in which we substitute these two C.E. Reem as the paradigms of this kind of Chuvah, the Chuvah that involves, on the one hand, Biur Hara, on the other hand, Ha'alat Hara. And so, when the Rev talks about, when Rev-Salvech talks about these two different kinds of Chuvah as being the two ultimate experiences of Chuvah, I believe that that idea finds expression in the different partio that we read, Anyom Kippur, and on Rosh Hashanah. I wish everybody a Shabbat Shalom and Khagad Smaw Uzzamah. You have been listening to the Sheer in Pashatah Shavua of Mrs. Yael Ziegler. Today is a La Ha'yomit. Yesterday, actually, two days ago, since yesterday, there was no broadcast due to Yomat Smaw Uzzamah. Two days ago, on the last Ha'alah Ha'yomit, I spoke about the status of Hashem Sifataytif Ta'ch. Is it an actual full-fledged part of Shmon Essay or an introduction to Shmon Essay? And I mentioned a number of, enough community, number of differences between the two possibilities. Another difference in Ha'alah Ha'yom concerns what would be if somebody began to Daven. He said, "A Shhem Sifataytif Ta'chu Fiyyogitilah Ta'chah." And then, he heard the Ha'azan saying, "Kadish," or just then the Khahal came up to Bo'chu, or Kadusha. Would he be allowed to answer "Kadish" and Kadusha after having shared Hashem Sifataytif Ta'ch? So, if you accepted the opinion that "A Shhem Sifataytif Ta'ch" is not actually part of Shmon Essay. Shmon Essay is Barahot, 18 or 19 Barahot. It's an introduction, which is, in the words of the Gomara, Tfilah Alirta, an extension of Shmon Essay, but not part of Shmon Essay. Then, one could stop and say, "Kadusha." And then, when going back to Davening, say, "A Shhem Sifatayt" again. The point is, you have to say it again because it has to introduce Shmon Essay. One shouldn't be massive between a Shhem Sifatayt and Shmon Essay. But, there's no problem saying it twice, and therefore, the first time you said, "A Shhem Sifataytif Ta'chah." And so, Barahot, and Sifataytif Ta'chah, and Sifataytif Ta'chah. And then, go Daven from the beginning, which means Barahot, Shhem Sifataytif Ta'ch. But, if a Shhem Sifataytif Ta'chah is actually part of Shmon Essay, and you've begun Shmon Essay, even though you haven't begun the Barahot, but you've begun Shmon Essay, it's a sur, presumably, this is the argument, it's a sur to be massive, interrupted in the middle of Shmon Essay. Not only in the middle of a Barah, but even in the middle of Shmon Essay. And therefore, under this condition, since you've already started Shmon Essay, it's too late. You continue saying Shmon Essay, and you forget about answering Barahot, Qadushah, or Qadush. There's a, there's a side point here, which may surprise some people, if they were Ta'chah. If you're in the middle of Shmon Essay, and you're here, Qadushah, Qadushah, or Barahot, is there anything you can do other than simply keeping on going? We'll discuss this at a later time when we get to Qadushah, but in any event, you can't answer. When you're controlling that Seikdushah, or Seikdushah, or answer Barahot, when in the middle of Shmon Essay, and therefore, if a Shmon Essay is the beginning of Shmon Essay, you would, you should not be able to, you could not answer anything you heard from the Qahal at that point, because you're in the middle of Shmon Essay. As I pointed out, there are two opinions about this matter. In the general question, Mr. Brewer seems to pass, that Shmon Essay is only an introduction to Shmon Essay, and therefore, he ruled that if you had forgotten to say a Shmon Essay, and you're ready in the middle of Shmon Essay, you don't have to go back, you shouldn't go back, whereas the Moshe Feinstein disagreed, and said that even if you, if you start Shmon Essay, and you haven't said a Shmon Essay, you're missing part of Shmon Essay, you have to go back, and repeat the whole thing from the beginning, including saying a Shmon Essay, again. That's it for today, we'll be back tomorrow with a special Edel Shabbat program for Prashat Ahmad Gudashim. Until then, kotov, you've been listening to KMTT, ki mitzian, tezei torah, wud varashim, mirushalain.