KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Parshat HaShavua Parshat Vayikra
KMTT - Parshat HaShavua, Shiur on Parshat Vayikra, by Rav Ezra Bick
KMTT. Welcome back to KMTT. Today is Thursday. Alif Nisan, the first day of Khodesh Nisan, Khodesh Aviv, the month of spring, and of course Khodesh Agula, the month of Haggapassah, the Nisan Nigalu, or the Nisan atidin le Higa'el. The original Ula, the original redemption was in Khodesh Nisan, the redemption from Egypt, and Khazal say that the future redemption will take place in Khodesh Nisan as well. I am Azwabek, and today's share is in Pashatah Shavua, and as it turns out, it is my turn. And therefore I have no one else to introduce, but I will be given today's share in Pashatah Shavua, Pashat Vayikr. Today's Pashat, Pashat Vayikr. This is the first Pashat, Sefer Vayikr. Sefer Vayikr is called Toratakarnim. And as we know, most of the Sefer is indeed dealing with the Mikdash, with Kolbanot. The other world is having to do with the Karnim. In other words, it more or less surrounds what we call Avodat Vaytamikdash, the service of God in the Vaytamikdash. Sefer Vayikr deals totally with Kolbanot. And I would like to discuss today the understanding of what a Kolban is, at least within the context of the Sukhim of Sefer Vayikr. The word Kolban is not as obvious a word, its meaning is not as obvious as we might think. We're used to translating it as sacrifice. The Kolban is a sacrifice. Lahah Kriv is two sacrifice. And the word to sacrifice is also associations in English. We associate with the meaning of giving something up so that for someone who would bring a sacrifice by the very use of that word in English, you emphasize that he's losing something. He's voluntarily relinquishing something to God, for God. Of course, the analogy of the word Lahah Kriv in Hebrew doesn't carry that connotation. At least not semantically. The showage of Lahah Kriv would appear to mean to come close. Kriv. So Lahah Kriv means to bring, it's to bring something. To bring the Kolban. The Kolban is something which is brought, brought close, brought close to God. Even in the Sukhim that we deal with in this, in especially the first time the word koban appears in the very beginning of the of the of the parasha. So it says, adamki a kriv mikam koban lachan, he who sacrifices a sacrifice. I'm suggesting that it means to bring a sacrifice. Takriwa koban haem. And so Gimmel says, im Allah koban no minabakan. If you bring a koban of of cattle, there's a haa taimim yakri venu. You can still translate this as the sacrifice. You should sacrifice it. Now, petak omorade yakriwa otam, to the entrance of omorade, he should lachriwa. It doesn't mean yakriwa otam el petak omorade. He will sacrifice it to Elmin's too. He will sacrifice it to the entrance of omorade. Or finding the only translation possible here is that he will bring it to the entrance of omorade. He will bring it up. He will make it close. He will bring it from where it's far away. And we close to omorade. Tupsukum laden pasukai, we begin the actual ceremony of bringing the koban. Bishahat et ben habakar with nayashem. He slaughters the bull. Before God, the karivu ben habakar ona kowanim et adam. Bishah kowat adam ona nizbar savivah shapata hab ona. So, here you have the word lachriwa. Use not about the animal, but about the blood. The karivu ben habakar ona kowanim et adam. And the sons of Adam ona kowanim will lachriwa the blood. And they shall throw the blood on the misbeach, on the altar. Savivah shapata hab ona. I don't think we would say in English that one can sacrifice blood. You understand, this means to sacrifice an animal. What does it mean to sacrifice the blood? Furthermore, what does it mean at all? What is being done here? What is being done is explicitly said in the continuation of the pasok. This is our kowen et adam ona nizbar savivah. What do you do with the blood? You sprinkle it. You throw it on the ona nizbar. So, what does it actually mean the karivu ben habakar ona kowanim et adam? If it literally means that they should bring the blood close to the misbar from the place where the animal was slaughtered, the pasok in the pashat will make sense. Rashi is concerned about this understanding these two verbs, the karivu, visaku. They should rah kariv and they should throw the blood. And Rashi says, based on the kamara in svarimbi, karivu zu kabbalah. What is Rashi saying here? There are, according to the Torah Shabbat prayer in al-Akhad. There are four, four actions that are done as part of hakravah, as part of a sacrifice of a kowen. This shrita, the slaughtering of the animal, kabbalah, the blood is received into a vessel, hola ha, the blood is brought to the misbar and zu rika, the throwing of the blood. So, it's necessary to find a derivation where the pasok describes four different actions. Shrita is quite explicit. Shrita is quite explicit. There is one verb which appears between Shrita and Zu rika and that's very krivu. Rashi says, the krivu zu kabbalah. Not what you'd expect. The krivu could be hola ha. That would appear to be a decent and obvious shat to bring something close, means to, to bring it. It's almost the same word. Rashi says, no, zu kabbalah. Shihi arishona, umashma aa, lashona laha, lamanus den. Rashi says, the shat really is hola ha. The shat of lah kriv is to bring close, simply to move, to move the blood from where it is. However, we know that aa laha, ehh, of the tarashi bapah, that it means kabbalah as well, lamanus shi tei hen, both kabbalah and antalah. So, here the word vakrivu simply means to bring something close. This gives us, I think, our first step in understanding what is a koban. If all kobanot are called kobanot, irrespective of what is done later on, there's, there's burning, there's slaughtering, there's throwing the blood, but it's always called a koban, then a koban should be understood as something which is brought close to God. That philosophic idea, which one could develop and has been developed by many before Shihim, is that what's being brought close to God is not necessarily the animal but the person who is bringing it. And we'll have to see how that, how that develops with the endips of him, but that is undoubtedly an extension, a development of the basic idea, but the word vakrivu means to, to come close to God. If you understand this in context, it begins to give us a, a first step in understanding the, the essential necessity of koban. If one brings a koban close to God, it means we're starting from a position of distance. And this philosophically in Jewish makshavas, a very, very important point. There is a gap, there is a distance between man and God and the avodat vatamikdash, the avodatakobanot is a method of bridging that distance. What I think the point is, is that by definition, one should not imagine that the natural state of man and God is one of closeness, because then God is not God. You can be close to an idol, avodazarah, idolatry, and paganism places man off and very, very close to God. But God, the creator of heaven and earth, creator of all, melach machayam elachim, is by definition distant, a distance exists, the gap between man and God is defined as being huge, perhaps even infinite. God is transcendent, that if he's not transcendent, we would not be worshiping him. And therefore the problem that I think the pasteurah is addressing by super use of the word, someone says a dhamkhir kriv, the pasteurah is addressing what happens when a man comes close to God. How does he do that? How does he bring himself close to God? How does he bridge this gap? That's the first meaning of the word koban. What I like to investigate is the details. What exactly in the bringing of a koban brings man close to God? The manban, in the beginning of the Pashaan, Pasuktet, let me read Pasuktet before we read the man. It's the last Pasuk of this first section, the first section describing ola minabakar, a koban which is called the koban ola, which is defined as all of it is burnt. Nothing is eaten by either the kahhen or the person who brought it. So that's the first section here. And this is a ola from bakar, which is a bull. And the Pasukt describes Pasuktetet very red, the blood is flown on him is bare. Then we've shitted the ola. And in the animal is cut up into pieces. The blood is thrown on the altar. Now they place fire on the altar, but the word is arranged. The animal parts are placed on that fire, on the wood, which is on the fire. The koban is burned on the altar. Or is burnt on the altar, ola, a ola minabakar goes up. Something which goes up is she re'ach nihar lashem, a fire, a fire offering, which is a pleasant, a pleasant odor before God. Words are very difficult to understand. The rambhan uses this Pasukt to discuss the meaning and reason for kobanot. I'm reading from the rambhan. Rambhan first quotes the rambhan, which we're not going to discuss. Rambhan has a particular understanding of kobanot based on historical perspective of abudazara, of idolatry in ancient times. Rambhan doesn't like that interpretation, it says the following. He thinks the better interpretation is, the better and the better. It's better in his eyes to accept the reason which is given. He doesn't say who gives this. It's basically based on the Ibn Ezra. What is that? Ki, ba'avoshimasse, binayadam nikbangim, bemakasharva, ubedibu, wa masseh. Human actions are dependent, are derived from thought, speech, and action. Therefore God has commanded that when a man sins, and he brings a koban, he should place his hands on it, parallel to action, not with his hands, unvout, because there's an element of action, vidwa deh, befiv, kinagid, ha'dibur, someone who brings a sacrifice confesses over the sacrifice he's in, that's against speech, the suraffa isha karabakh rayocha hain klei amakhsharava, and the part that's burnt is the inner parts of the behemoth, inner parts of the animal, including the kidneys, which Rambhan says represents thought and desire. And he goes on in details, bhakraiyim, the legs, the limbs, kinagidya davaragrabshaddadam, asim komenakto, he's burning the limbs of the animal which are parallel to his hands and feet, which do all his actions, vidwa khadam, alanizvair, kanagidamob bin nafshah, and he throws the blood on the otah, because the blood is like his soul. What is the purpose of all this? That a man should think, when he does these things, that he has sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it would be appropriate that his blood should be spilled, and his body should be burnt, would not for the mercy of God who takes in its place the koban, which is blood instead of blood, in other words, the blood of the animal, instead of his blood, nephesh, tachat nephesh, and the soul, a life, instead of his life, and vrashay evreha koban, in the limbs of the animal, instead of his limbs. That is, what is the idea that a man is expressing here? That the basic meaning of a koban is, the koban represents an exchange, a substitute for the man himself. The idea that a man is expressing is that one brings a koban, what one is doing is one is sacrificing oneself, one is giving up, one's own blood, one's own fat, one's own meat, one's own limbs, which is appropriate because man has sinned, but the mercy and grace of God allow one to replace this aspect with a substitute. The most dramatic part of that says is about everything about a koban. He explicitly talks of the meat, the limbs, the inner portions, the blood, but the last point is really the clearest because the Torah repeatedly says that blood is life. In fact, the prohibition of eating blood is explained because "dumb" is life, the mobin of shohu, and is always connected to sacrifices. The blood of an animal is brought as a sacrifice, and you may not eat it for the blood is its life. So although, again, if a man says this about every aspect of the koban, the place where it's its most clear and most well-based in the language the Torah repeatedly uses is the throne of the blood under his bear. The man does that, he is basically giving up his own life. Now, this is very different than the idea that I opened up with. "Man, want to come close to God." Hey, and not coming close to God, you're symbolically destroying yourself. You're saying, "Since I sinned," and the man explicitly says that, we're talking about a sin, not all koban out of birth is sin, but the man is thinking of a koban sattat. And perhaps other koban out are also no explicit sin, but in the back of the man's mind, you ring a koban because you feel inadequate. A person who has sinned has to say to God, "I am nothing, I'm worthy of death," but you will accept this in its place. You know, the man commends this explanation of koban out. And what I'm saying is, and I'm not agreeing with the man 100 percent here, I'm saying the man's explanation makes the most sense about not so much on prasuktat where he expressed it, but on the prasuk we began with, prasukheg, visakru, et adam alamizbir, salivashe pata hau anwar. The swelling of the blood sacrifices are intimately connected with blood. In fact, what I mentioned in the beginning, the halakhic definition of the four avodat are all the cold, bakhazal, avodat adam, and that's what they do. You slaughter, which is spilling the blood. You receive the blood in a vessel, you walk with the blood to the misbir, and you throw the blood on the misbir. Halakhically, this is not explicitly in prasuk, but halakhically, if you do that, the koban is accepted. Yatsayi dekhova, kapara, the atonement aspect of a koban, is achieved when you do, this is the rikata, dam, algabaim is bir. When the blood is thrown on the misbir. If you've done that, even if everything else goes wrong, the portions, which need to be burned, disappear, they get lost. The person who had to bring the koban has fulfilled his application. This fits in very well, I think, with the koban scheme, but what about the second part of a koban? In our own heads, we say you bring a koban, you bring a sacrifice. What do you bring in? You've been an altar fast. You're what is an altar. I think everybody would say, "Allter has this fire and on the altar things burn." As we cut the dam, there's nothing late to the fire. If I saw it right before end, the blood is thrown in prasuk, hey, only in prasuk, zai, in the seventh prasuk, does it say, "That nut nubine alranaka and ashen on his bear." There was no fire, necessarily. Nothing was burning on the altar when the blood was thrown. The fire is for the meat or for the fat. If we look later on and see which portions are sacrificed, it's a very prominent part of all sacrifices. All sacrifices include it. The minimum is trelev, parts which are fanny. That's what the fire is for. In our own minds, we would think that's the main part of a sacrifice. Perhaps we're gone. Perhaps we misinterpret it. Make a mode as well as at length and halakhic significance as we cut the dam. But the paasuk, which in fact cites because it seems to be a summation of what happens, is about the burning of meat on the fire. The kibber ukhlaib ukhlaib ukhlaib ukhlaib ukhlaib. The ktir hakahhei et hakola nizbe'r aulah ishei re'a nihra'a krashan. The koban is called an ola because it's burnt, it goes up. That's where its name comes from. It's called an ishei, because it's being burnt. And the paasuk says the re'a krashan. It's very strange and intriguing phrase. A pleasant smell before God, that goes on the fire, on the paasuk that's being burnt, that's not said about the throwing of the blood. So what is the significance of the ktir hakahhei et hakola nizbe'r aulah? I think the answer is found. It's a very simple point which you have to pay attention to. It's very easy to overlook it. What does the word the hiktir mean? In kandex it means to burn. Aktara, the action called Aktara, is the burning of the parts of the animal on the misbe'r. But of course it doesn't mean the same as the self, which is literally to burn. For instance, if parts of a koban are left over beyond the date on which they may be eaten, different koban are not eaten in either in one day or in a day and a half. Whatever's left of is called the notan, left of. What do you do with notan? It's rafu, it's burned. Another example, coming up in a week and a half, hameds be pessar. Before pessar, what do you do with hameds? You burn it, so femotan. You would never say shemaktir, nimotan. Notan, never would tell us to say that you maktir, notan, you so they fatan. Slay, fry is a negative thing. To get rid of something, you burn it. Laktir is not a negative thing. You want to get rid of something, you don't laktir at all. Laktir means you, it definitely has a positive notion to it. We hear the positiveness. Laktir, you laktir to something. You laktir, the meat to God. What does the word laktir mean, literally? The shawosh, katar, kuf, tatresh, means smoke. There are two kinds of haqtaranitara. One is haqtarat kobanot, the other one is haqtarat kotad, which is incense. It's being burnt in the beta meat dash, and it produces smoke. The word katar means smoke, and it will laktir means to turn something into smoke. Of course, you do that by burning it, I agree. But the emphasis is not on the flames, the flames that they beforehand notice the tasuk, but the tasuk sense, which I've very, very twice. They, the karnim should put fire on the misbech and put wood on the fire, and then you put the animal parts on the wood that's on the fire and share alamisbech. Now, obviously, Pat is speaking, it would be very difficult to light a behemoth, to light meat. You have to make a big fire out of wood and then do it. I agree that's true, but the sak is emphasizing that the karnim make fire, then they simply place the pieces of animal on top of the wood, which is on the fire. You never find the word that they should light the animals. There's a fire on the misbech, but what they are doing is laktir eta kola misbech, a la isher. It goes up in fire, but the action placing fire is one action, and doing haqtarat turning something into smoke is another action. What is the meaning? Why would the Torah say that one turns kobunot into smoke, one turns meat into smoke? So, it seems to me clear that the idea being expressed here, and all I'm doing is, I think, I think, or I'm doing the same "shat" in a word. "Shat" in a word, which we've tended not to pay attention to, it's the literal meaning. Just like laktir, the literal meaning means to come close, not to sacrifice laktir. The literal meaning is to turn something into smoke and not to burn it. Why is the Torah say that we should turn kobunot into smoke? It seems to me that clear that the idea being expressed here is turning something physical into something spiritual. Now, we're all well educated, we know that smoke is also physical. It consists of carbon compounds and water vapor. But still, in terms of the symbolism, in terms of the kind of physicality that's smoke, and it's the closest thing you can get to spiritual and still be something you can see with your eyes. And the smoke eventually disappears, it dissipates, and it goes up and has all the elements, which, if it's possible to visualize, turning the physical, so that you can hold in your hands a piece of meat, a piece of an animal, and turning it into spiritual, one does that, in fact, by setting it on fire. And watching the smoke go up, to God. The word "reiach", which means smell, is also the word "ruach", which means spirit, means wind, means spirit, and Jesus out treat reiach as being the most spiritual or physical senses. Right? When the "shamai" teara, when the soul, the extra soul departs, when sei shavat, you give it a little bit of extra feeling on its way out by smelling. We call it "semiim". So "reiach" is "ruach", and the "ruach" comes from the "a-shan", and the "a-shan" comes from the "beimah". I think the idea that's being expressed in this part of "kobana", because we have two parts. "Malachat-hadam", the sprinkling of the blood, which is clear to me, is the ramban symbolism of spilling your own blood, and "hak-tah-ra-ta-e-verim". Not burning of the "a-verim", but the "smokefication". If I may make up my own word, the "smokefication" of the animal, of the physicality, and an animal specifically represents the dwarf physicality of our existence, of our own existence. So if the "dhamm" is the "nefesh", the "dhamm" is my spiritual existence, the animal's flesh is my own physical, or the world's physical existence, and a kobana turns that into spiritual. In other words, here we're closer to the original meaning that we described in kobana. It's a bridge between the physical world in which we live, and the spiritual world, the world of God, to which we aspire. So I think we have two separate ideas, present in kobana. "Pasuk", "hey", and "Pasuk", "tant". Every kobana has "zreikat-hadam", and every kobana has "hak-tah-ra" of something, "hak-tah-ra" of some of the physical parts, the minimum, that which is brought in a kobana, and most of the shalom is eaten by the people who were brought by the man who brought the kobana, but the part that's burnt is the "fats", the "hayvah". And I once heard a very idea, which I think it's maybe only symbolic, but I think it's probably true, that the "dhamm" represents the quickness of man, the life of man, the spirit, the blood is flowing, and we think that someone has a lot of blood, and he's very active, and "fats" is sluggish. That is the gashmi of it, it's the physicality, and the slowness, the coarseness, which is associated with anything which is at both alive, but has that aspect to its life. This I think explains an idea which is brought by the man in other places, and it's based on one or two lines in the gmara that kobana, especially the "davee" kobana, "tameid" is the parallel and the coars of God's giving "vakhat" to the world, specifically "panasa", every day took "kobanot" "tameecha shahreit" and "tameecha bena arban", the morning "tameed", and the afternoon "tameed" was born in the "mikdash", and in parallel to that, God sent a physical good to the world. You bring up a "koban" and live with rains on your crops. What's the connection? I mean, if you can say about any mitzvah, you do a mitzvah, don't be good here. But what's the technical connection between "kobanotameed" and physical good, sustenance, and sustenance to the world? So I think what we just said is the idea, if we have turned the physical world into the spiritual, we've bridged our world to the world of God, then that bridge works in both directions. When it rains from heaven, of course the idea, the picture of rain coming from heaven is more than anything else, expresses the idea of something physical coming down from heaven, from above, from the spiritual. Again, we all know that what it doesn't come out of the sky, so to speak, it comes out of clouds, the clouds come from the ocean, I agree, but the picture of God opening up His heavens and sending them rain in us is that somehow God's spiritual existence is the cause of, in the end, water and wheat, and things that grow from the ground. So we take things from the ground and then we turn them into smoke, and God takes things from the heaven and turns it into ground, into earth, into water, which also with these sustains life. All this, all I've read is the first nine Sukhim, these ideas are repeated over and over again in each individual koban, that's in the Pasha, you have koban ola in two versions, then you have koban mincha, then you have koban et shlamim, then you have koban khatat, the koban asham, and they have different ideas and different aspects, but all of them have this basic structure, and each time the Prasupi beats it, both these things. First of all, get them down and throw around in his bear, and two, take those parts, either all or part, which will be burned, place in his bear, rehik tihyun, hakon hain, et hakal, or some other parts, but the kirtir, alan is there, and that's the rehikun hok, isha rehikun hok, la sham, and the part that becomes the literally pleasant smell, ruach rehik, the thing which comes out, it doesn't mean rehik, again it's a metaphor, but God so to speak, smells the koban, means that you manage to get something up towards God, and he so to speak ingested. I'd better send a metaphorically, of course, but we turn the physical thing at something which can be smelled, which can be ingested by God, and that idea is the parallel and complement to the idea that is explained by the ramban, that by throwing the blood on him his bear, we have not turned physical into the spiritual, but we've indicated that we ourselves are should be spilled, our blood, my man says the throne, the blood is spilling the blood, yishpach damo, he says, our blood is spilled because of who we are in relationship to God, but then we have another role altogether of being the bridge between this physical world, so distant to God, so transcendent, so that one and a second with man in God, the world in God, form a unity of sustenance, and spirituality. Today's havachai yomit, we will get intishman astray a little bit later, actually after pessach, so sort of skipping to the aftershman astray, in the sense of what do you do if you find all of a sudden that you're davening and you will as you're very davened, probably doesn't happen to young people, but it does happen to people, happens to me, sometimes when you're used davening at a certain time, and this amazing you daven earlier, catch an early minion, and then you forget, you go, the regular time, you wind up davening again, so the gamma says, in dafropalef in bhakat, and that's the sak of the shokhan of the shokhanaw. Now the gamma has a statement in the name of Avyokhanan, hala vai shiit palehadam, called a yomkula, and basically that's the name of Avyokhanan, we have an institution called filat nidava, the person is a lot of daven, extra filat, it's true, the post can say that this mana is there, one shouldn't daven't filat nidava, one should not daven, a valantavit filat, and the reason is because we don't daven with kavanna, and therefore he may be better off not, enough that we daven it, filat that we have to daven, and our kavanna is not so good, but the daven extra filat and daven without kavanna will really be scandalous, really be in front to God, but we have to daven, there's a reason to daven, those you hear in the middle of shmon ese, and if you stop now, then all the bhakat is settled and become a bhakalavatala, so a natural connection is to find some way of finishing shmon ese, and filat nidava will offer an option, none the less the post came almost all the past can, that one does not complete the shmon ese, one stops immediately, and the explanation given is that since you began with filat, as it's filat rava, not as it's filat nidava, you began it as an obligatory daven, and not as a voluntary daven, you can't change it in the middle, just to explain this sentence, from this we learn that the difference between an obligatory shmon ese, and a voluntary shmon ese, is not merely in whether you have to do or you don't have to do it, it's the nature of the shmon ese, and what we call in Biskatok, it's the krepsa of the tfilah, a shmon ese, that's rava, and a shmon ese, that's nidava are two different shmon ese, and if you began the tfilah, because you thought it should be rava, you cannot switch it in the middle, it's too late to switch in the middle, you also can't complete it because you're not kaya, and if you have to stop right away, the rava proskim who disagreed, the vashbar, nichuva, disagreed, and thought that a quantaviyokhanan you could complete it filat, as it's filat nidava, and the rava evid as well, nasagah on the wif, the rava also says the one who completed filat, and almost all postim against it, and the shokhanah rava paskins, and the other postim, that one does not complete it filat, one ends it immediately, there is one exception, that's the rava, and the rava says that this is true, however, filat arvit is different, if you were davining mayv, and you remember that you were very, very davined, then you can complete the shmon ese, as it's filat nidava, what's the logic, the logic is simple, filat mariv is defined as being rasut, as being nanobligatory, the rava says we paskin that arvit to filat a quavab, but arvit is rasut, now even though the minna giz, amiswah has accepted upon itself to davined mayv as well, therefore you don't have the option of not davining, it's not not obligatory in the actual practical sense, however, in theory, the nature of the filat is that it's voluntary, once again this is based on the point I made before, if since today it's obligatory, so what does it mean that arvit is rasut, but as we pointed out, no, it's the nature of the tfilah, and as I already explained that today mayv is obligatory because amiswah accepted upon itself to davined mayv, but what they accept to davined is the tfilat al rasut, it's in a obligatory, meaning you have to do it, but it's a tfilat al rasut, the nature of the tfilah is still a tfilat al rasut, but you have to davined, because we should in hobab, and not merely whether you have to, you don't have to, but it is the character, the nature of the tfilah, and therefore according to the vambam, tfilat mayv remains rasut, although you have to do it, and therefore in the middle you can finish it, because you don't have this internal contradiction between the beginning which was harvah, and the end which was, which was rasut. This harah al-vamam is not quoted in the shohannabar, even though the Beit yourself did quote it, and he in fact he quoted it without this agreement, but in the shohannabar it's not quoted in this engenders, a great makhlokit among the akhonim, how one should passkin, has the shohannabar passkin against the vambam, one of the reasons might be that it may be true that the vambam disagrees with the vambam, there's an unclear vambam, a sagar the vambam, a kamat the vambam on that vambam, or that he just not write it, for some other reason, and therefore there may be some postkam say you should come passin like the vambam, and some postkam say one does not passin like the vambam, in other words some postkam say that you could complete an additional maharir, if you quote yourself in the middle, and some say that you cannot, halaq alamizah the bottom line since the vashbah disagreed with the entire halaqah, he thinks you can complete anit fila, and here the vambam says in an event maiiv you can complete, so some postkam think that halaq alamizah you can learn the vambam, although it might be best to also live by the vambam, you should add something, to make it necessary for this to be that that take in place, and then you can perhaps rely on the vambam, that's how some contemporary postkam passkin, although again it would appear to be, it might be best to say the vambam as well, he just doesn't mention it, so this is very, this uncrowd is to how the great postkam passkin, and this makhlogit actually remains in force till today, but some postkam think that if this happens to you, when you really don't want to end in the middle, so you can rely on the vambam, and in the background as well, the vashbah who disagreed with the entire halaqah, and you can complete it as ait fila, fila, that's it for today, tomorrow we'll be back with the arab shabbat program for shabbat vaiikah, until then, which in you called to bhikat, hatora, mitzion, this has been as vhibek, and this has been KMTT, ke mitzion, teceitorah, udvar ashem mirushalayim.