KMTT - Berachot Shiur #14, by Rav Yair Kahn
KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #14
Welcome back to KMTT. Today is Monday, Hamie Sun and this will be the last week of KMTT before we will take a Pesach before we take a Pesach vacation. And it's really only a week and a half to Pesach, so we're also going to try to keep getting ready. Today's year, by Viscan, which will be in a court of health, but once again we'll concentrate on a court of health to have to do with the said of Pesach. This week we'll also begin with one time before Pesach. Hopefully we'll continue after Pesach. We're appealing and open for scholarships and dedications for the shirim. If you're interested, there will be a link on the webpage, or you can contact us directly. And today's shirim, this week of shirim, this week of shirim is dedicated in the memory of our Ham-Burman, the Zechar, our Ham-Benya-Akhov. And now for the share of Ha-Raf Khan. On the night of the shaytah, we recite the ha-gadah. The ha-gadah is basically the tool through which we're makayim, the mitzvah, of sipoy-yitziyat mitzrayim, telling over the story of the Exodus from Egypt. The ha-gadah at the beginning tries to establish exactly when we are obligated to fulfill this mitzvah. And we say as follows, "The gadah te-la-bin-cha-ba-yama-hu-le-mar," we quote the passek, the verse that says, "That you should tell over to your children on that day, saying, 'Bavorza a-sa-sham-li-bitzay-t-mitzrayim, because of this, God did for me when I came out of Egypt." From this passek, we learn that there's a mitzvah and obligation to tell over the story of Yitzi at mitzrayim. The ha-gadah then comments, "Ya-choh-mer-osh-choh-dush," who said that we have to tell over the story on Le-la-saytah, perhaps we should begin at the beginning of the month. Talmud-lo-mar-ba-yama-hu. It says, "Ya-choh-mer-osh-choh-dush-choh-dush-choh-dush-choh-dush-choh-dush," but rather on that specific day, apparently the day in which we came out of Egypt. IBAYO MAHU, if it means that day, YAHA MIMBA OYOM, why do we have to wait till the evening? Perhaps we can start already midday. That's there after all the time in which we bring the Paschal sacrifice, the kawana pessah. Tamud lo mah about VORZE. So here we make a Joshua from the term 'bawwor za'a sashalun li. 'Bawwor za' is pointing to something specific. Because of this, what is this referred to? So the 'Hagadah Kamen slohomarti Ela Beshashiyesh Matsahumurah Munachum li Fanecha.' The time is when the 'Matsahumurah' are in front of you. And the 'Mahilta' adds, 'Lifanecha al-Shlohannacha.' They're actually on the table. In other words, at what point are we obligated to be the kaimi the mitzvah of 'Sippo yitzvitz', right? At the point in which we can say 'Bawwor za'a, because of this pointing to the pessah, 'Matsahumurah', to Tamud lo miktoshur. Nowadays, at the 'Matsahumurah'a 'Bawwor za'a, these things, 'Matsahumurah'a sashum li vitzateem mitzrayim. And therefore we have a relationship between eating of the 'Matsahumurah' and 'Sippo yitzvitzvitzrayim.' The only time that we're obligated in 'Sippo yitzvitzvitz.' 'Yitzvitzvitzvayim' is during that time frame in which we have the mitzvah of eating the 'Matsahumurah'. When do we have the mitzvah of eating 'Matsahumurah'? On ' Let us say it' or not in the middle of the day, but only at night, 'Let us say it.' And therefore the same is true regarding 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' when not obligated from mid-day, but rather the 'Qiu' of the mitzvah begins only at night. There are two possible ways of understanding this relationship between 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' and between 'Matsahumurah', the relationship that's established through 'Bavwarsah'. One possible way of explaining it is that it's really coincidental. There's no intrinsic or inherent relationship between the two. However, the time frame in which we're obligated to be 'Mekai' in the midst of 'Sippo yitzvitzvitzrayim' is the same time frame in which we're also obligated in another mitzvah of eating 'Matsah' or the mitzvah of eating 'Matsahumurah'. Both obligations occur in the same time frame. It's not totally arbitrary and coincidental, but the same thing which generates the 'Qiu' of eating 'Matsah' at night as opposed to the day is the same factor which results in the 'Qiu' of reciting 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' at night as opposed to in the day. Now there's a common denominator regarding both, but it doesn't necessarily reflect or express a relationship between 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' on the one hand and 'Pessahmatsah' and 'Murah' on the other hand. However, there's another way we can explain this relationship as well. The 'Mishna vibsakim' when it talks about the 'Mishna of Sippo' which one does after filling the second cup of wine. The first cup of wine is the cup of kiddish. The second cup of wine is the cup over which we recite the main sections of 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim'. So the 'Mishna' says, 'Haviyu the fight of Matsah vikazarit vikazarit vikazarit vikazarit vikazarot sittav shillim' you bring in front of the person who says, 'The Agatha the plate' which has the 'Matsah', the 'Murah' or and then 'Kana Ben Shawel' then you begin to recite 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' which begins with the famous passage 'Manshstana' and the question is why do you bring this plate with the 'Matsah' and the 'Murah' in front of the person who says, 'The Agatha'. So 'Tosos' comments, 'Umayyad iksha' 'Oki' in 'Matsah vamurah' all of them, the 'Matsah vamurah' are on this plate. Why 'Sha' rate saa shillam vamurah 'Gatha', 'Matsah zu' 'Murah zet'. In other words, 'Tosos' limits the reason for bringing the plate because there is a section in 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' we will be saying later on 'Rabungam lil hai'a 'Omer' call me shillaw 'Amer' 'Gimmel du verm' 'elu pessa' 'loyat sai yie kamato' whoever didn't say these three things will not fulfill its requirement. What are the three things that you have to say? 'Petsah, matsah and murah' and when we get to the 'Matsah' we say, 'Matsah zu', this 'Matsah' which we eat, why do we eat it? What is its symbolic significance? And since we relate to the 'Matsah' specifically, therefore we want the 'Matsah' on the table, but the entire recital of the 'Hagada' of 'Sippo yitzvitzrayim' from 'Avadamha' 'Yinu' and 'Mittila' of the 'Avarazara' the 'Mannashtana' none of that requires the 'Matsah and murah' to be in front of them, but we bring the plate because there will be a section later on which relates to 'Matsah zu' 'Shanu' 'Omer' and 'Mara zesha' on the 'Woechli' that's why we bring the plate. 'Rabbino David' on the other hand says his follows, 'Kedesha yisapib yitzvitzayim' 'Sha' 'Sha' 'Sha' 'Matsah' 'Omer' in the 'Matsah' on the front of, the reason that we bring it actually in front of him is so that you can recite the story, we tell the story of 'Yitzvitzayim' when the 'Matsah' 'Mara' are actually sitting there in front of you, in other words, according to 'Rabbino David' we are interested that the 'Matsah and murah' actually be in front of you when you recite the entire 'Hagada' the plate with the 'Matsah and murah' in front of you not only because of that specific section, 'Matsah zu' 'Shanu' 'Omer' 'Omer' but rather it should be in front of you during the entire, entire retelling of the story of 'Yitzvitzayim' according to 'Rabbino David' apparently there's an inherent connection between the 'Sipur' and between the 'Matsah and murah' you don't only recite the 'Sipur' the story during the same time frame when you are also obligated 'Matsah and murah' but rather you recite it while the 'Matsah and murah' is actually in front of you and that's also what's indicated by the statement that we've seen in the 'Makota' 'Munachamu fanakha al-Shohanecha' when it's in front of you on the table at that point you recite if it's not on the table you shouldn't recite, at least not 'Lakhafrilo' the 'Munachafrilo' goes in the direction of 'Tosos' and he says 'Bismanshe' 'Yishmatsu maram' 'Nachamu fanakha' is when you're obligated 'Matsah mara' 'Hainu bismanshe' 'Mitsubim al-Matsuh mara' but it's clear that you don't actually require that the 'Matsah mara' be placed in front of you while you recite the 'Hagaga' so again according to the 'Munachafrilo' perhaps according to 'Tosos' the requirement of 'Munachamu fanakha' is not that you actually have to recite the 'Hagaga' over the 'Matsah mara' when it's in your presence but rather it should be during the same time frame that you're obligated in 'Matsah and murah' these two positions are 'Find expression' in another context as well we eat on 'Lakhafrilo' 'Matsah' which is referred to as 'Lakham only' the 'bread of oppression' however 'Kazamaikha drasha' 'Lakham only' means 'Lakhamshah' 'Onim al-Lavdwarmhabbe' the bread in which you recite many things or upon which you recite many things the 'Rakh' and 'Aftkuftesvalm vase' 115b says as follows what do you recite over the 'Matsah' 'Pirish 'Omra' 'Lavhagada' 'Matsah' 'Zusanu' 'Oglam' again he limits what you recite over the 'Matsah' to 'Matsah' 'Zusanu' 'Oglam' similar to what we saw in 'Tosos' however 'Rashi' and 'Aftwam' 'Advav' 36a says as follows 'Onim al-Lavdwarmhabbe' 'Shagomulavasah' 'Hallel' 'Onim al-Lavhagada' you say both 'Hallel' and 'Hagada' over the 'Matsah' in other words it's not limited to that one statement 'Matsah' 'Zusanu' 'Oglam' but the entire 'Hagada' including the 'Hallel' should optimally be recited over the 'Matsah' that's 'Lakhamshah' 'Onim al-Lavdwarmhabbe' 'Dvarym' 'Harebe' we find that 'Rashi' similar to 'Rabbina David' take a more maximalistic approach in other words the entire 'Hagada' should be recited over 'Matsah' and 'Barar' while 'Tosos' 'Oglam' 'Hasah' take a minimalistic approach the only reason that you need the 'Matsah' in front of you is to recite 'Matsah' 'Zusanu' 'Oglam' that one specific statement the entire 'Hagada' does not have to be recited over the 'Matsah' and the 'Marar' according to 'Rabbina David' and 'Rashi' we seem to note a integral relationship inherent relationship between 'Sipra' 'Ytsev' and 'Thryim' and the 'Mitzos' of 'Matsah' and 'Marar' and the 'Tamir' and the 'Miktash' 'Pesah' 'Matsah' and 'Marar' while according to 'Tosos' and the 'Rach' the two seem to be unrelated true you're obligated to do both within the same time frame however there's no inherent connection between the two there's an additional 'Gomara' in 'Sachim' which seems to indicate a more inherent connection between 'Pesah' 'Matsah' and 'Marar' and the reciting of 'Sipra' 'Ytsev' 'Zain' the 'Gomara' and 'Thaf' 'Kufta' 'Zain' and 'Bays' '1' '16' 'B' says his follows 'Amera' 'Avara' 'Avara' 'Bariakov' 'Summa' 'Pata' 'Milo' 'Marah' 'Gadah' 'Avara' 'Bariakov' said that somebody who's blind is not obligated from the Torah from Torah law to a 'Saita' 'Gadah' and his sources that it says 'Bavur' 'Za' 'Sashimli' 'Z' means that you can point to the 'Matsah' and 'Marar' and since somebody who's blind cannot point, cannot see and therefore cannot point, he's not obligated by Torah law to 'Saita' 'Gadah' Andaktikmara comments, "Vaha'ama maremara shall tinul rabana deviravyo safe, man dhamma agaritabiravyo safe, amu ravyo safe, man dhamma agaritabiravshas, amu ravshas." Both ravshas and ravyo safe were blind. Nevertheless, when maremara questioned those that spent the sadhirbar of yo safe and of shas. Who recited agada? The answer was, Ravyo safe recited agada. In other words, they were the ones who said agada, everybody else listened. And nevertheless, they fulfilled the requirement. The question that maremara is asking is if it's true that somebody who's blind is not obligated by Torah law to recite agada. How could Ravyo safe and of shas have publicly recited agada and enabled the others around who simply listened to them to fulfill their requirement if they themselves weren't obligated? In general, if I want to help you fulfill your obligation, and I will recite something for you, for instance, if you want to hear kiddish, and I will recite kiddish for you. The only way that I can help you fulfill your obligation is if my obligation is the same as yours on the same level as yours. If I'm hired by Torah law and you're hired by Torah law, then I can recite the kiddish for you and you fulfill your requirement. If I'm obligated by rabbinic law and you're obligated by Torah law, then I cannot recite the kiddish for you. Similarly, regarding agada, if fashas and ravyo safe who were blind were not obligated by Torah law, but only obligated by rabbinic law, how could they have recited agada for all the rabbis who were sitting around their seder table? They were only obligated by rabbinic law. Everybody around the seder table was obligated by Torah law. Rameshish and ravyo safe should not have recited agada for them. The gmara answers, kasavirabhannan, matzabismarazedrabhannan. These rabbis who sat around the table of rameshish and ravyo safe, they believed that matzabismarazedrabhannan, and ravyo safe, and all those around the seder table, they all felt that matzabismarazedrabhannan. That matzabismarazedrabhannan, what this gmara seems to indicate, is if matzabismarazedrabhannan, we're not obligated to eat matzab, and we have no carbon pessach, we're not obligated to eat more from Torah law either. In other words, the only obligation that we have to eat matzabismarazedrabhannan, is the obligation of eating from the carbon pessach, the pessach. The Torah says amatos un romeo hoo hoo. You should eat the pessach lamb together with matzabismarazedrabhannan. If we have the carbon pessach, then we're obligated from Torah law to eat matzabismarazedr as well. However, if we don't have the carbon pessach, then the mixa of eating matzabismarazedrabhannan. Therefore, the gmara says, since matzabismarazedrabhannan, dravyosef and obtratious were able to recite the hagada for all the rabbis that sat around the table. But the question here is obvious. What is the relationship between matzabismarazedrabhannan and between seaportious and Torah? Even though matzabismarazedrabhannan, nevertheless the seaportious and Torahan should be dorisa, seaportious and Torahan is not dependent upon the carbon pessach. And therefore even if matzabismarazedrabhannan, why should that affect the seaportious and Torahan? Apparently, the gmara feels that if matzabismarazedrabhannan, and nowadays what we don't have to face a mixa, we can't bring the carbon pessach, we're not obligated by Torah law to eat, pessach, certainly not. And matzabismarazedrabhannan, we're not obligated to be a seaportious and Torahan either. In other words, seaportious and Torahan is dependent upon matzabismarazedrabhannan, but if we would say matzabismarazedrabhannan, even though from Torah law, we're not obligated to eat the carbon pessach nowadays, and we're not obligated to eat more nowadays. If nevertheless, we view matzab as independent of the current pessach, because there's a separate person by matzabismarazedrabhannan, which says, "by ereptochu matzos," by matzabismarazedrabhannan, but there's an additional person which says, "by ereptochu matzos," and this indicates to us that your high of matzabimidr or isa, whether or not there's a current pessach, then seaportious and Torahan would be for seaportious and Torahan based on Torah law as well. This gabara establishes a clear connection between the mitzos of pessach matzabismarazedrabhannananan, and seaportious and Torahan. We're only obligated in seaportious and Torahan if we are also obligated from Torah law in pessach matzabismarazedr. If, however, we're not obligated in pessach matzabismarazedr, we're not obligated from Torah law in seaportious and Torahan either. This would seem to contradict what the mincha-skinah claims that Torah, by saying, "bezmansha matzumarazedrabhannaka," is only establishing the time of the year in which it's high of to be missape, seaportious and Torahan. In other words, it only tells us that your high of an all-year dollar, on that lassader, that's when your high of an seaportious and Torahan, but you don't need that matzabar be actually in front of you. According to what we're seeing over here, that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, if we wouldn't be obligated from Torah law in eating matzum or maru or colored pessach, then there would be no mitza of seaportious and Torahan either. Perhaps, one could interpret this kamari in a different way. One might claim that even though one is haivin seaportious and Torahan without matzae, even if matzabismarazedrabhann, one is haivin seaportious and Torahan, nevertheless, under those conditions, there would be no difference between somebody who's blind and somebody who's not blind. The only reason that we said that somebody who's blind cannot recite tagada is because he's not able to say bahavorzah. That aspect of bahavorzah, where he points out to the matzah and he says matzazushan ruachum al shumah, that aspect is not possible nowadays, that matzah is drabhadr. If matzah is drabhadr, we wouldn't need the potential, the possibility of pointing out to the matzah and saying matzazushan ruachum al shumah. Because we're not obligated in matzah. It would be like the current pessach. Pessach, zushah, hai yu, I will say nu ochlim al shumah, but we're not actually pointing out to anything because there's nothing to point out to. If matzabismarazedr is draisa, then we have to point out matzazushan ruachlim and that somebody who's blind cannot do. And therefore that aspect, which cannot be accomplished through the blind person, he also cannot, a blind person would not be able to recite for somebody who's not blind either. However, if matzabismarazedr is drabhadr, it's not Torah law, but based on rabbinic law, then that aspect of bahavorzah, where you point out to matzah and you say matzazushan ruachlim doesn't exist. Matzah, shayyu, I will say nu ochlim, but not that we ourselves eat, because we're not obligated to eat matzab by Torah law. And therefore there would be no difference between a sumah, somebody who's blind, and somebody who can see. So, rabbiose, if I'm not sure, shayyu, so we've decided to have God the hell that there's no issue of bahavorzah, because matzabismarazedr is drabhadr. But the midst of seapurizi is not dependent on matzah, and everything else can be said based on Torah law. To summarize this share up until this point, we noticed that there are two different ways that we can relate to the connection between seapurizi and shayyu, and shayyu. One way is to say that it's really a coincidental relationship. They both coincide and collide, and we're obligated to do both during the same time frame. But we don't have to really relate to one to the other, except for that specific statement of matzah zu shayyu ochlim al shumah. The other way is to look at the two as being much more integrally related, and therefore we are interested in the matzah and more actually being mu nakhlafanaab during the entire recital of the story, the retelling of the story of it's seapurizi. Assuming that there is a relationship between the two, let us try to analyze what exactly is the nature of this relationship. The Mishnah dav kufte zain van alif brings the famous seapenten ramgamliya, which we recited in the hagadah as well. Ramgamli al hai yah omir, kauch lo amar shtoshit vermei wil pessach loyah sai yay kehobaso. When anybody who didn't say these three things on pessachom, they'll say they did not fulfill his requirement. According to the ramgam, the requirement that he did not fulfill is the Mishnah of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso. In other words, seapurizi hai yay kehobaso. We not only tell over the historical events that went on on la lassayda when Amishol came out of Egypt, but we also have to discuss those specific symbolic acts which we do on la lassayda as well. We eat matzah. Why do we eat matzah? Why do we eat pessach? Why do we eat matzah? Why do we eat matzah? Why do we eat matzah? Why do we eat matzah? We have to explain the mitzvos halayla as well. And it's all included under seapurizi hai yay kehobaso. And that's why the ramgam brings this hagadah down in parakzai. In parakzai, in hilchos komatamatza, is the parak in which the ramgam discusses the mitzvah of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso. And within that context, he says that not only do you have to tell him the story and begin with ganusim and then finish bishvach and Derek Shayla Uchuba and Manishta'a and all the different halakas of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso. He says that the mitzvah of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso is that the mitzvah of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso is that the mitzvah of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso is that the mitzvah of seapurizi hai yay kehobaso. The ramban, in a parenthetical comment at the beginning of Brahos, in the mochamazashim, in his hasagos on the bottom of the ore, says his follows. Kosh lo ama gible verme el verme el verpesach, lo yah se yay kehobaso. It didn't fulfill its requirement totally, but you did fulfill it on the basic level. V'eloshi et sa'rach lo hai sa'rach lo hai pesach matzo mora, because we don't obligate you to repeat and eat once again the pesach matzo mora. In other words, had we interpreted lo yah se yay kehobaso that you did not fulfill your requirement whatsoever, then you would have been obligated to eat pesach matzo and mora again. But since on the basic level you fulfilled your requirement, however, simply didn't fulfill the requirement the way you should have, therefore, we don't obligate you to eat. Once again, the pesach matzo mora. So lo yah se yay kehobaso, which means according to the rabban, an incomplete fulfillment, refers to what mitzvah. Which mitzvah did you fulfill, but not completely, not totally? The answer is, the mitzos of pesach matzo mora. In other words, what was not fulfilled completely was matzo. If I don't know why I'm eating matzo, then I did not fulfill my requirement of eating matzo. In other words, in order to be makayim the mitzvah of eating matzo, it's not enough to eat the proper sheer within the proper amount of time, and to do totally the mechanical performance. But I have to have an understanding of why I'm doing it as well. If I don't know why I'm eating matzo, then there's a pagam echissar on something lacking in the mitzvah of eating the matzo. Similarly, we find that according to the rush, if one ate matzo without leaning back, without what it's called as seba, he has to eat the matzo. Again, in other words, he didn't fulfill his requirement of eating the matzo. In other words, when you eat the matzo, you have to do it in the proper way. It's not only a mechanical performance, but rather, it has to be done in the way that indicates what the matzo symbolizes. If the matzo symbolizes the gula of the redemption, then what has to eat the matzo beh seba, leaning back, and what has to understand and appreciate what the matzo symbolizes. Without that, there's something lacking in the mitzvah of the matzo. When we eat the morar, we have to know what the morar symbolizes, that the morar symbolizes the bitterness of the shibud, of the avas of the slavery in Egypt and of the terrible oppression. Therefore, in order to be yotsay to fulfill totally the mitzvah of morar, we have to understand why and what the meaning of eating morar is. Similarly, we find that the morar says, "Bala, morar, lo yotsa." If you swallowed the morar and didn't taste it, you didn't have to fulfill your requirement. Because the entire idea of morar is to taste the bitterness. And if you swallowed it without tasting the bitterness, then you might have technically done an achila performance. However, what you lacked is the entire soul of the mitzvah of morar, which is understanding what it means to feel the bitterness, to understand the symbolism, and all that was missing. I would like to suggest that the rambam and the rambam reflect two different positions on the relationship between sipo yitiya sinsrayim and pessah, masa, and morar. According to the rambam, the primary mitzvah is sipo yitiya sinsrayim, and the pessah, masa, and morar are aims which help the person recite and we tell the stories. In other words, you shouldn't only tell over the story and have some kind of a boring lecture, but it's a show and tell. Not only do we relate the story, but the story was related also to eating the pessah, masa, and morar. And therefore, part of the mitzvah of sipo yitiya sinsrayim is to explain why we are eating the pessah, masa, and morar. It's all included in the mitzvah of sipo yitiya sinsrayim. It was the major mitzvah of Lele Seder, to pass on and educate future generations, to explain all the mitzvahs that we do at night, in order that the telling over the story shouldn't simply be a dry lecture, but should include actions and retelling through replaying and reenacting the entire Exodus story. And therefore, not only do we tell over the story, but we eat the pessah, masa, and morar which is a way in which the story is told as well. As a matter of fact, the rambam in the famous verse, the halda, vadar, haivadam, liro sesasmo, kiwu, huya samsrayim, has the gear sa lahairo sesasmo. He has to show himself as if he is now coming out of its rhyme. In other words, the mitzvah of sipo is not only to tell the story, but it's also to show the story, to act it out to your children as well. And therefore, not only is the sipo, the verbal sipo critical, but also actions and performances are a way in which we tell the story as well. And therefore, it's important to understand and to appreciate what the symbolism of those actions are, otherwise it becomes meaningless. However, according to the rambam, who basically puts the entire thrust on the eating of the pessah, masa, and morar. However, in order to make the mitzvah of pessah, we have to understand how all these things fit in. In other words, it would be possible, according to the approach of the rambam, to take an even more far-reaching approach and say that the entire sipo is sipo is actually a way of embellishing and appreciating within context of the entire story, why we eat the pessah, masa, and morar. And as a matter of fact, we find a similar idea expressed by the rambam in a different context. The rambam in the sephra mitzvos, at the end of the mitzotah say, quotes all the different mitzvos which in his opinion, the rambam left out. Among them, he says the rambam left out, the mitzvah of the bracha on limatore, and he says, don't think that the mitzvah bracha on limatore should be counted together with learning Torah. Because the two separate mitzvos, just like bringing the kurim, the first fruit, is counted separately than the mitzvah of mikrabi kurim, or signing the parasha of the kurim. And just like eating pessah, masa, and morar is a separate mitzvah, and the mitzvah of sipo is not included within the mitzvah of pessah, masa, and morar. In other words, the rambam creates a certain relationship that bircastatore to tamatore is like mikrabi kurim, tahavas bikurim is like sipo is to achilas pessah, masa, and morar. In all these cases, we had the primary mitzvah performance, and we have the explanation of that mitzvah. The major mitzvah is tamatore. The bracha is recited before in order to allow us to learn and to appreciate what learning is. The major mitzvah is bringing the bikurim. The mikrabi kurim is order to understand and internalize what the meaning of bringing the bikurim is. The major mitzvah is eating pessah, masa, and morar. And the entire mitzvah of sipo is counted independently is there in order to first understand and appreciate while we're eating pessah, masa, and morar. According to the Ramban, the entire focus has switched, and the major mitzvah, the primary mitzvah is eating pessah, masa, and morar. While the sipo is sipo comes to embellish and to enhance and to help us understand why we're eating pessah, masa, and morar, and give us an entire context to understand the symbolism of the gawula and the shibud, et cetera. Perhaps one could suggest that in contrast to the Ramban, which we explain viewed, the mitzvah of sipo is trying, going outward, I have to tell it and show it to others. According to the Ramban, we view the major mitzvah of Lala Seder as going inward. It has to be something which affects me. And the way in which I internalize the religious messages of Yitzvah, not only understand them intellectually, but actually internalize them emotionally and experientially is by playing them out and viewing myself and re-experiencing those experiences that Amishvah went through in its rhyme. I have to experience this shibud, experience this slavery, in order to be able to experience the redemption. And therefore the sipo is said in order to help us be experienced. Me and my children will be experienced the sipo yitzvah's rhyme and the divine revelation that we achieved. So while according to the Ramban, the mitzvah of Lala Seder are basically outward to tell and to show to others, according to the Ramban, the mitzvah of Lala Seder are basically inward in order to experience, re-experience myself. And I use the tools of telling over the story and acting out the story in order to help me re-experience those great religious revelations that we achieved on Lala Seder. And the truth is that there's no contradiction between these two, and one can perhaps suggest that the relationship between sipo yitzvah's rhyme and aqil's pastaq mat seder maurar is bidirectional. And really there are two different major foci of the mitzvah of Lala Seder. On the one hand, we have to go outward and tell others and pass it over to other people and to our children and our children's children so that the tradition of Yitzvah's rhyme be maintained throughout all generations. On the other hand, we also have to turn inward, and we have to appreciate and internalize and re-experience through re-enactment those great dramatic events of Yitzvah's rhyme. And I will invite you to go to Google and our day and age. And for the jayom'et, the jayom'et of the sweep, we will be doing the aspect of the jayom'et, the issue of chamez, aside from the issue of the jayom'et, and the issue to have an awesome chamez, which is part of the jayom'et. And there is an additional Yitzvah in chamez, which is really unique, and one is not permitted to have chamez in one's house during the time of the Yitzvah in other words during pessah. The way you have ever, the way you must say, you cannot be seen, you cannot be found, which both of them are interpreted by chamez in the same way, but more or less in the same way to me, you cannot have comrades of yours, any place in your possession. It's also a mitzvat-a-sei of tashbito-sah-omib-ba-te-cham, that you should eliminate. The hashbit means to eliminate, to eliminate any, the word is sa'al, it means chamez, to eliminate any chamez from your houses. This mitzvah is called mitzvah-b-u-chamez, the word the Torah is la hashbit. In chamezah, it's leva air, the makhoketan-a-im, that be who decides ain beu chamez ela serifah, that the way to eliminate chamez is by burning. It's a chameem'et muem hashbat-a-to-be-hold-a-var. Asmati-la-yam, abdul-ra-la-la-wa, you can throw it into the sea, you can scatter it in the wind, of you the holes, it should be burnt. Many posts came back to the mitzvah-b-u-dah, and therefore, we are mikayam, let mitzvah, at least in some chamez, by burning the chamezah and eva pessah. But you have to rid of all your chamez, because if you're not rid of all your chamez, one way or another, you'll be transgressing the love of Va'il-a-il-b-ayim-a-te. But this reason has now instituted midra-ba-nah, and also bidikah chamez, that you have to look, because perhaps you want to rid of all the chamez, if we have to search for chamez before chamezah. Today, because we spent so much time cleaning the house before pessah, it's become somewhat ceremonies, as you basically know, we should know. All the chamez is, but nonetheless, the mitzvah, the rabbanah, it remains. Al-A-l-A-l-a-maysah, I think, that given the fact that we have cleaned the house in the week or two before pessah, going from room to room, that knowledge is important. Or it's not for that, then you have to do bidikah chamez really supersonally, checking every single possible hall, and I think it would take for you. I have a chance to take you several hours. Given the fact that you basically know where the chamez is, so I think a lot of chamezah, someone can rely on that, and I wouldn't say do it superficially, but to do it in a manner that's appropriate, in other words, you can do it much, much more quickly. Nonetheless, I still find it strange that people can finish a house in ten minutes, basically only looking for the crumbs that the wife has put down in advance. You do have to go over every place, to make a symbol chamez, and to look there, I don't think you have to look there with a microscope. If you look there, to make sure no one's forgotten it, no one's overlooked this place by accident, you're more or less covering the bidikah. At this time, my own experience takes me 40 minutes to do my house. The car has to be done in every place, which one might put chamezah, and I think the most important place, which sometimes is rest out, is your car. It's definitely a place where chamezah is brought into. If you go on a trip or something, you take food with you in the car, and it's also a place which might not be cleaned up for a place like in the general spring cleaning. In any event, bidikah permit should also include one's car, la ojaneur. It wasn't in la ojaneur, so cause I'll speak of a candle. That gives you a very good light. Based on the way, cause I'll describe the light, it would seem, and most folks can agree, that an electric light is not any worse if not, might very well, in fact, be better. We all have a certain feeling that you should do. Taka no kasal the way they were done, and I agree, and I have to admit to what I do is I carry a candle and a flashlight. A flashlight so I can see better, and a candle to do it the way my father and my grandfather and my great father did it. A lot of the mice, I think, that a flashlight is indeed good. Some folks can somewhat skeptical about that, but most folks may agree that an electric light, meaning a flashlight, is in fact excellent. You can focus it properly, it gives a good light in the dark, and therefore, that's a good way to do bidikah. It's a nice thing to take a regular candle with you as well. All of bidikah permits is also reliant on another halakham, called bidokhanets. The kammar says that the mitzvah of tashbito to eliminate kamait is fulfilled by bidokhanets, and bidok is done balaise. The bidok balaise psyche, doesn't mean bidok, bidok also means to eliminate, but it has the connotation of a mental elimination. And the kammar says that bidok is done balaise, but it's done in one's heart, meaning in one's mind. There's makhfoketushanim, what does bidok mean? According to the banetam, bidok is hefkah. You change the ownership of all the kamait that you own, to being hefkah, to being unowned, to be ownerless. And since only kamit which belongs to you may not be in your house, but kamit which belongs to others, you may keep in your house, which is the basis for the sale of kamait to a guy. There's also kamit which has no owner either. It's also not yours. Lecha y atavo ehr, it says lo yera el lecha, kamait should not be seen to you, and to you is interpreted to mean to belong to you. So, a banetam says kamit which is own of this, is not included in Bayari by Matsay, and what's more, you fulfill the mitzvah of tashbito, and he says that's what bidokhanets means. Other is shaunim, primarily the rambhan, said that bidok is not a chance for a legal ownership, to be an ownerless, but bidok is a mental, a mental elimination, a mental elimination of importance. There's some fine differences in the different versions of the rambhan which we're not going to go into, but bidok means thinking about this thing, that it's worth us, unimportant, almost like non-existent. There's a difference in the measure of the bidokhanets. So, as it remains to do, it says, "le batel, bele haveske a fradara." It should be batel, and it should be haveske, ownerless, like the dust of the earth. That's based on a banetam, but because according to the rambhan, that's not the meaning of it. What's more, the rambhan says, that ownerless kamait you are, you do transgress, by the way by Matsay, only kamait which belongs to someone else to agree. But not kamait which has no owner at all. So, therefore, in fact, one should not say the word haveske, even on the banetam, if you don't say it, it'll still work. And you should say, "le batel, bele, bele haveske a fradara," which is exactly the formation of the rambhan. It is in my eyes, like dust. And that eliminates the technical ease of violin, by Matsay. The reason why you start to look at it is because, as I was saying, you might have some decent, nice piece of cake left over, and when you find it, you will not be included in the beetel because it's not in your eyes as nothing. So, it's a blue sky, your face, yeah. It's appealing, and it has importance in your eyes, which is an important point for understanding beetel. Beetel only works if you're really mvertero. And you have no connection, you have no feelings, nothing to do with the stomach, it's nothing, it's dust in your eyes. It's impossible to do beetel, and to say, and in eight days from now, I will take the thing back. I will have a different attitude towards it. If you know, in eight days, you're going to want to eat this, then you're not mvertero, though, you're not eliminating being in your mind. Now, that's different, and you'll see that from it, if you consult for seven days, even though you know you're going to buy it back later, but right now it doesn't belong to you. But if Beetel is mental denigration, mental elimination, then it has to be done forever. This thing has no importance in my eyes. And for now, we're suspicious of whether people can actually do beetel well. The line says that people don't do beetel well when you're dealing with serious food stuff, not with clums, but with real food that they have in the house. And therefore, we don't rely on beetel, but we get rid of it physically. Just to sum up quickly, the decontamates are done on the night when it's possible to search better because of the nature of light and darkness. You do be cut from it at night, be all hummets. The burning of the hummets is done in the morning of Ephesa and by the fifth hour, the fifth hour of the day. So the hummets, all the hummets in your possession should have been eliminated, and the house should be hummets free. Tomorrow will be back. The shoe, which usually comes on Tuesday, the shoe in Jewish philosophy, has finished its series. It will be a sheer tomorrow, sheer la halaha, on the issue of kithnehot, on Ephesa, which we've given by Harav Mordachai Friedman. Until then, you've been listening to KMTT, call to the bakat attoranitsion, kithnehitsion te sei torah, with varashem mirushalaim. [silence]