KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Medieval Jewish Philosophy #12
KMTT - Topics in Medieval Jewish Philosophy, Shiur #12, by Rav Ezra Bick
KMTT. Welcome to KMTT. Kimitsu on Tetsay Tora. And today is Tuesday. Ka fritt badal. Today is Election Day in Israel. This morning I got up to vote. I have a min hug on Election Day's in Israel to vote as early as possible. I still, I still get dressed, I still put on my best sports jacket. It was a difficult vote this year, like I tell you who I voted for. It was a very difficult decision and that was not the pleasant part. But nonetheless, despite the great difficulty I had in choosing who to vote for, I must say that I still address the election day in Israel as the Yomchad. I gave a tish in my house to my sheer last Friday night and I was talking about the sweat the voting. One of the boys asked me quite seriously whether or not I thought one should make a chagriano on the first time. The boys in my sheer, it's mostly the first time they're voting. They're 19 years old. So I had to say that I'm not, I don't think I'll be doing a chagriano with the chagriano with God's name, but the question, I guess, is because of the enthusiasm with which I spoke about them. It's something which has been said many times and sometimes when you teach something over and over again, we begin to think that it's trivial. But nonetheless, it's worth repeating, something which you've all heard. As much as we have problems in choosing who to vote for and our trepidation as to what will happen after the election, it's always important to remember what were our forefathers, our grandfathers, what would give a eager, the Vambam of Sajirgan have given to be able to vote in Midinati-Sayal, to vote for Malchoti-Sayal, irrespective of the outcome. And how many Jews did not have that opportunity and were not able to see that day. And so today is the Yomchag. Tomorrow may not be a Yomchag. We'll see who won. We'll see what happens after they win. But today, in any event, is a Yomchag. And today, Sajir will be given by myself, the Sajir in Jewish philosophy. This will be the last Sajir in this series. This week, at this time, will be a share in Hukhot Pesach, getting ready for Pesach. And in the summer, after Pesach, we will begin a different series, a new series, in general. Can't you tell? We'll try to switch. We'll have a new series beginning after Pesach. After the share, I'll be back with today's Halakhayomit. We have spoken in the last couple of weeks, a number of times, of the Mitzvah, of Avata Shem, of the love of God. This came up in the context of the Prasthay Krskash, who posits Avata Shem as the purpose and end of life of Torah and of creation, in contradiction to the Ramban, who speaks of the Ata Shem, the knowledge of God, as the purpose of life. But of course, Avata Shem is a Mitzvah, and obviously an important aspect of religious life, according to all philosophers and all, and all we're showing. Therefore, I would like to speak today about, to begin to address, to begin to address the principle of Avata Shem, the love of God, in the different thinkers, at least within the era, that we are speaking not about all the Mitzvah, it's an amazingly wide and varied topic, but we'll address two, perhaps three, thinkers who spoke about Avata Shem. One point, which we've already seen, has to do with where you place Avata Shem. The Prasthay Krskash places Avata Shem at the pinnacle, at the summit, at the end of religious life. All religious life is geared to, bringing one to Avata Shem. As opposed to the Ramban, who not only does not place it at the summit, but in fact places it, at least in the normal sense of the word Avata Shem, at more or less at the beginning. The Ramban in the Hoth Isadea Torah, where he defines the Mitzvah of Avata Shem and Yer Ata Shem, both the love of God and the fear of God. The Ramban explains that they read one to the knowledge of God, the Ramban describes how if someone views the world, he views the stars, he views the spheres, he views everything which God has created and realizes how much wisdom, how much greatness, how much goodness is invested in this world that God has created, thereby realizing or beginning to realize the wisdom and goodness of God, he immediately becomes filled with love of God, as well as fear, meaning interpretation or awe of God who was done on this. And as a result of that love of God, he wants to come closer to God and know him. Ramban immediately says and know him. So love of God becomes a catalyst, a psychological catalyst for the desire to know God. So that's one distinction, as to where we place Avata Shem. I'd like to speak today about what the meaning of Avata Shem is, it's a very difficult concept to define. In general, love is a difficult concept to define. Let's start with an example of someone who superficially agrees with a Frasic Resca. He places Avata Shem at the end, at the pinnacle of the religious life, and that's what Beno Bach gave him in Pecuda, the author of "Rovata de Vavort". "Rovata de Vavort" is a book, usually they often categorize as being muscer rather than philosophy. The distinction is somewhat artificial in the Middle Ages. "Rovata de Vavort", the obligations of the heart, that's the meaning of the name, and it's the meaning of the book. He has a long introduction explaining why he wrote this. It's just people who spend a lot of time trying to understand "Rovat haivarim", the obligations of one's limbs, meaning what we call mitzvat, mitzvat nasi out, mitzvat did you do with your body, and not enough time, "Rovat haivarit haivarit", the mitzvat of the heart. "Rovat haivarit" is divided into "Rovat haivarim". We've become so used to this terminology as a means of dividing books that more or less in your head, you call it a chapter, or a larger book, because each hour has, has, has "Prakim" at chapters, but it's another word for chapter, but we want you to realize that this is one of the first books to utilize this particular metaphor for division, and when the "Rovat haivarit" is divided into "Sharim" into "gates", he means it literally. There are gates in the sense that you go through one to get to the other, and it's important to realize that in "Rovat haivarit" the first gate is called "Shar haivarit", which is devoted to what for the Ramam is the end of religious life. It's devoted to the proofs of the existence and the unity of God. That's the first "Shar", the first gate of "Rovat haivarit", you pass to that gate, and you then enter the second gate, which in this case is called "Shar habirchina", and after "Shar habirchina" you come to "Shar havodata el ochim", and after "Shar havodata el ochim", you come to "Shar habirchina", et cetera, et cetera, the last, the tenth "Shar", the one you can only get to if you've passed through all the others, because the metaphor is meant literally by an "Rovat haivarit", you have to pass through each gate, each room, and get to the next gate. The last gate is "Shar havata sham", the gate of the love of God. This is superficially similar to "Rovat haivarit" the purpose, the end, the end result of religious activity is to reach the state called "Rovat ha sham", but if we look at the definition, what does he mean by the word "Rovat", we get a totally different picture, the exact opposite. "Merebakhia" in the first chapter of "Shar havata sham" explains what he means by those words. "Aveon ma yinyan havahit be dochim", what is this thing called "Rovat havah" the love of God, "Hu klot hanefesh un nittotab ba atzma el habarei", it's the yearning of the soul and its tendency and its leaning towards the Creator in order to cleave to his right, to his higher light. What does this yearning consist of, why does the soul yearn to come close to God? "Rovat haivahit" explains that the soul is a spiritual entity, in itself it is a purely spiritual entity and therefore it has a natural tendency to belong to other spiritual entities, the things which are similar to it and it, it naturally distances itself from that which is the opposite of spiritual entities, namely physical entities, but since the soul lives in a physical world it has to take care of its physical body and therefore the soul spends a lot of its time according to Rovat havahit, taking care of physical things, it has no choice, but "Hu kot hanefesh un nittotabhi yinyan shi o sifla aobba atzma", the soul begins to realize that by taking care of the body its choking itself and it needs light, your sifla aobba atzma, it needs light for itself, with the kabin of shat havah, the muzim atzma ta'ilabhi tizbakba maqshaftabhi reyobarayoneh, so it begins to yearn for that which will give light to itself and it wishes to come close to that thing, with avehilah, the kosifatla, it yearns and lust for it and that is the love of God. In other words, for Benobarcha, the love of God consists of the need of the spiritual soul to immerse itself in its natural environment. Love of man for God is the love of someone who's in a cave in the dark for the light, God is the light of the soul. In another metaphor used later on, it's like a sick person who yearns for a doctor, who yearns for medicine. You're looking to get back to your natural healthy state and avehilah, I'm not going to read it within, but avehilah continues and because of the academy he's established between body and soul, between the physical and the spiritual world, so he says quite explicitly that one who's engaged in love of God is oblivious, becomes oblivious by both nature and obligation, must be oblivious to concerns of the body. He says even more strongly a little bit later in the Shaha Ava Tashm that true love of God is in contradiction, it negates love of other people. Obviously his motto is a kind of romantic love, where you only love one. He says if you love God, there isn't any room left, there can't be really room left for love of others, and avehilah has in his more extreme passages descriptions of the true of avehilah Shem, filled with love of God and totally detached from his natural environment, including his family, including his fellow men, the love of God takes you out of this world, into the world where there was only, where only God exists, Ayn Ode Milvador. Vraste Kreskas, who speaks of Ava Tashm as the end of man, has a very, very different philosophical basis for it, and therefore has a very, very different, in my opinion, content and definition of what the love is. When Hastai's love of God is based on a statement he makes, that Hato'v, Ohev, Et Hato'v Vahashalem, the good loves the good and the perfect. It's a moral principle, it says if you're good, if you believe in morality, if you have morality, then you are in favor of morality. You love in his words, you love the good and the perfect. The good and the perfect means God and the first good is a person. The good, a good person, loves the good, the capital G and the perfect. We mentioned in a previous year that love for Hastai is very close to the concept of service. You love something, at least the expression of the love is that you do things for what you love. As you recall, I mentioned that Hastai says that God loves the world, not just that the world loves God. How do we know God loves the world? Because he created it. He must love the world, because he's doing things for the world, not for himself, he doesn't get anything out of it. So he's doing things for the world, for the sake of the world. That's called, that is called love. He created the world, he maintains it, he keeps it running, he keeps us running, he gives us things. That means that he loves, God loves the world. And if you recall, I mentioned that Hastai said that God loves the world more than the world could possibly love God. Because God's love for the world is based on his infinite capacity for love, even though the object of his love is not all that great. Whereas our love of God is based on our finite and incomplete capacity for love, even though the object of our love is perfection, is God. So the concept of love means service, and or allegiance. I think it better would be allegiance. Tevra Hatov, Hatov, Ohebita, Tovas Shalim. The good loves the good, meaning that we have allegiance to morality, to God who is morality and who is perfect. Now, that's a very different conception than the conception that we saw in our vinaubachia. For instance, one simple indication of it, the love of Hastai is reversible. As I said, we love God and God loves us. That is reversible. I think he really means that it's one. You know, God and man are in a loving relationship. The love of vinaubachia is irreversible. The soul yearns to return and immerse itself in pure spirituality, but there's no reason for God to yearn to be close to man on the basis of what vinaubachia has said. Incidentally, the same is true for the Rambam. Love of God in the Rambam is a kind of admiration. When you see something which is great and wonderful, you're filled with love and appreciation and admiration of it. There's no reason for God when viewing us to be filled with amazement and appreciation and love for the wonder that is called man. But for Hastai, since it's based on that the good loves the good, so indeed, imperfectly good man loves perfectly good God, but perfectly good God loves imperfectly good man despite the fact he's only imperfectly good, but nonetheless, because God is perfectly good, so therefore he's committed, what does good say? Good tells you to serve others and therefore God's goodness is expressed in his service of others and meaning he does things for others. The word service is a little bit strange here, but that's basically, it's basically correct. God is serving the world by taking care of it and therefore God actually loves, God loves the world as well. If I can make a parenthetical remark on the word I just use, I use the word service. It sounds, it sounds strange to speak of God serving man, but that's really based on the fact that we have I think for Hastai would say, we have a warped view of what it means to serve others. We assume that serving others is the attitude of the inferior to the superior. You serve someone because he's superior to you, but if Hastai says you serve someone because you're good, not because he demands it, but the inherent goodness in someone leads him to help, you don't like the word serve, to help others, to do for others. And therefore God who is infinitely good, so that's all he does is he does things for others. He maintains the world because God's infinite goodness requires, leads him to constantly be doing things for others. So service arises not because we've been dressed into service because we're inferior, but it's an expression you might say of superiority, not superiority to person you're helping, but an inherent value within yourself. So man serves God because he loves the good and God serves man because he also loves the good, he himself is good and he loves and he loves anyone who is good who reflects his own infinite infinite goodness. So the picture of love in a Beno Barca is a yearning which on the one hand is based on your need, man's soul needs to return to God because it's basically oppressed by living in a physical environment. I wouldn't use the word selfish, but it is based on one's needs, one's whackings, one's faults, one's problems and two it's it's a yearning of being close, it's a yearning to to to to immerse oneself within God. The love of God of Afghanistan is moral. It's expressed not by a desire to immerse oneself in God, but to act for God, to do things for God, to do his will or to do things for his name. If you remember them, it's about the hafta, the shema, the mitzvat, the love God mentioned in Torah is understood by Chazal first and foremost to require one to be most an afesh, to even to die for God's name, to be makadei, shame, shemaim, to to sanctify his name in all places. I didn't think I don't know that much about a about Spanish literature in the late 14th century, but I can't help to see when I think about if Chazte means by love. So I see the nature of love described by Cervantes in Don Quixote, which was written 150 years later, but is deliberately is among other things deliberately in Aquanistic. And Don Quixote is in love with his lady and it's expressed not by his looking for her and hugging her, but his roaming around the country side doing things in her name. She inspires him to do things. In fact, of course, the parody of Don Quixote is that she doesn't actually even exist. And I think that's closer to what Ralph Chazte means by love. That's why he says when I mentioned last week that a person who is alive doesn't wish to be dead and be in Olam Haba and in the embrace of God. He wishes to stay in this world. We can do things for God. Although God wishes man to come closer to him and achieve that embrace, that vikut that is Olam, that is Olam Haba. So we've just mentioned three different definitions of love. One is the Vampams kind of love. In the beginning of Hilkothi Sadayatara, with the Vampams love is close to admiration or adoration. It's the emotion that arises when you see something which is wonderful, magnificent, fantastic beyond your everyday experiences or expectations. Which is why it's so close to Olam, and the Vampams immediately ties Avatashem to Yeratashem. Depends on that Ava leads you to become close and Yerat leads you to step away. But the word Ora sort of covers both of them. You're in Ora, amazed, but you're a little bit taken aback because it's so much greater than what you're used to. The love of Hashem in Seperkavatavavad is a yearning to come close, a yearning to immerse oneself, to almost to disappear, klautanishamah, the expression he used, which I translated as yearning for God. But it also has the same shorush, the same root as to disappear, the otkala, to end oneself. You want to immerse, to bury yourself in God, almost to the extent of no longer existing yourself. This, he doesn't say, he doesn't say, he does speak of negating one's physical existence, but not of negating one's existence. The only philosopher that I can think of on one foot, who speaks of love of God as being negating oneself altogether, is the Mahaval in Sepernitivot Israel, and he speaks about Awat Hashem, the very beginning there, he connects Awat Hashem to Kidus Hashem, that's what I'll do, and Kidus Hashem, the highest expression of his is to die for God's name, if that's necessary. And the Mahaval connects all these two together and says that Awat Hashem is, you love God to the extent that Ayn Olmul Vadol, that he's everything, and therefore you really wish to be nothing. That's a very extreme expression, it may be more extreme than what Verenebaka had in mind, but it's not all that different. The Vavakastai's Awat Hashem is not at all in that direction, it's not based so much on amazing admiration, as it's based on allegiance and commitment. As I said, it's based on morality, it's root is in, only the good can love, and love is what good does. The good expresses love, meaning chesed, meaning doing things, meaning giving, love and giving are the same thing, love is a mild virtue. And that's why, for instance, Vavakastai would not come to the point that the Chobata Lava Vad came to, where love of God is in competition with love of others, on the contrary. According to Hashem, when you love others, you love your family, you love the poor, you love Amisra, you love all of humanity, that's not a contradiction to love of God, that itself is an expression of love of God, because it's all love of the good, the good gives to others. Of course, you give even more to God because He is Hatover Hashem. But loving good means that you give, loving good means that you serve, loving good means you serve everyone who needs to be served. And there's no contradiction whatsoever between love of humanity, love of one's family, and the love and love of God in Vavakastai. Now, for Vavakastai, love of God is also the key to the achievements of the religious life. I said, love of God is what man is meant to do, but it also is what is meant to happen to men. We know we associate this with Olamaba, and Vavakastai says that yes, because love is real, he is in this sense, he is a romantic. If two people are in love, then they are Devakim, then they are somehow joined and unified through their love, and therefore love of God, you achieve a kind of unity with God. This idea of unity is expressed by Vavakastai in a very dramatic manner, when he speaks about the opposite point, love of God for men, which I pointed out, it always goes together in Vavakastai. There's a famous question, which is not necessarily philosophic, it's a popular question, it has a philosophic basis in Mr. Tillingis. If God is infinitely greater than man, God is beyond any comparison to man, then how does he, how does he stand in relationship to man? Why is he interested in man? As I said, this is not necessarily a philosophical question, for instance, Hazal, in previous Italian times, asked or rather answered this question, when they say, "Vamakam shatamu-sig-du-la-tosh-la-kadosh-ba-vahu," in a place where you find God's greatness, there, specifically you find Anvid-tan-na-lu-to. That's where you find his, his not greatness, his, his meekness, his, his making himself small, meaning that he takes care of a better individual person. Truly, he runs the world. He's, he's involved in wars and kings and queens, but, but he also takes care of the small problem of the atone, the alma mater, the orphan, and the widows, and, and because, for God, there's no contradiction there. But, but, but, but this bothers people, of course, I had to say, because somehow, if you're that great, then how do you manage to get involved in, in, in small little trivial people? Philosophically, this was a part of this Italian, this is the Italianism. God's thinking, so God thinks about the graves of all thoughts, and therefore, God doesn't think about you at all. He thinks about himself in Aristotle. The "Vamam" of course, is not agreed in that, but, but, but the idea remains that God's thought should encompass pure thought, and if it becomes a question, how he thinks and is concerned about the fact that I, this morning, I went to shore and I came home where I was locked out of my house with what he had left and locked me out, and I was upset. But, Aristotle's ridiculous to think that God is concerned about something like that, and even that is the theory. And even non-philosophers have a certain feeling, you know, like, is God the great, involved in the movement of one person to the left, to the right? He fell, and he scraped his knee as God. Does God feel that pain? The prophetized answer to this question is, we're talking here about love, not about thought. And, of course, I said love, it's true. God is infinitely beyond man, but love connects things which are infinitely upon. Not that God becomes, comes down. God remains infinitely beyond man. But God's infinite love spans that distance, because love is not concerned with the greatness or super significance of the problem. God joins together, loves, excuse me, love joins together things which are infinitely apart, but that's precisely what love is able to do, that it puts them, it puts them together. So, speaking on the other side, when we love God, the same infinite gap exists, how can you love God? Now, number one place speaks of, does the servant girl love the king? It's too far beyond, beyond her personal expectations. But, of course, he says, no, yes sir, we love God, because the good loves the good, and to the extent that you're good, you love all the more pure good, perfect good, and perfection. And love doesn't, love bridges the gap, doesn't eliminate the gap, but love bridges the gap between, between two persons who, who, who have that love between them. And therefore, as it says, love is Olamaba, because when you're the vague big with God, when you cleave on to God, when you're somehow united with God, that is the eternal life of Olamaba. There are many, many other opinions. I think there is, as many thinkers as there are in Israel, that's how many fine shadings of meaning one could have to the concept of avata-sham. And, of course, you speak about avata-sham, you have to speak also about yurata-sham, the language of Krasai does not speak about it, but you have to speak with the two of them together, what the difference between them is. And there is, of course, a huge literature about this, not all a bit philosophic, because sometimes you have to sort of scrape new to the surface to see what a person means by the word ava, unnecessarily avata-sham, just whistling by ava. It's a human emotion, and it's honestly difficult to define. So even in the middle ages, I think we've only scrapped, scraped the surface. We've touched on the rambam and the minobachia, out of Krasai Kraskas, and, unfortunately, our time is up, both for today and for the series. And for the series itself, we've only scraped the surface of the great literature, which is Jewish philosophy in the middle ages. There's a tendency today to begin Jewish thought in the last 50, 60 years. Somehow the medieval philosophy, one because it's hard, the two because it seems somehow distant, scholastic, concerned with abstractions. People have a tendency to skip it in right away to go and read Hasidot or Musa or other kinds of literature from the last 50, 100 years. One of the things I've tried to show in the series is that the basic issues, the rational definitional issues, which were treated for the first time in an explicit manner in the middle ages of Sajigal and the rambam and the others we've mentioned, that those concepts lie at the core and the basis for any other expansion and extension of Jewish philosophy in thought that will take place later on. Aval Yotelimash and the Amal Khan, Khatupsham, much, much more than we have touched on. It's found in the original texts and the discussions, both in the topics we've discussed and in many other topics we haven't even gotten to. But that's all we're going to do in the series. Perhaps in the future we will come back to other topics in Jewish philosophy. I've enjoyed very much giving the series and I wish to wish you all well in continued study, in Torah, in Makhshavait, in Makhshavait Israel and this opportunity also to wish you a Grag Pesach Kashavasamir. For today's halachai yomit we're moving into Shmon Essay. Finally we're beginning to actually say Shmon Essay. There's a halachai, which everybody knows, that it's a source forbidden to be mastered, to have an interruption in Shmon Essay. An interruption would be if you went to speak about something else, for instance, if the person next to you when you're diving in sneezes, so you don't say gazun take them, because that would be half-sakk. But silence is also half-sakk. We mentioned this in, I think, in Sukhidazimah. Silence is also half-sakk if it's long enough and the length of a half-sakk of silence is Khede Ligmore at Kula, the amount of time it would take you, in this case, to say all of Shmon Essay. So it's quite a long amount of time. But one could have a situation where silence, simply stopping and saying nothing, could be considered to be a half-sakk as well. Question arises, it's a great makhloket, dispute among the Ushanim. Suppose you're diving, but you're diving a little bit longer than the Khazun. The Khazun is very started, Khazar Atasats. So in Shmon Essay, you can't be massive for anything. It's more strict than, say, Kriyachma. In Kriyachma, one is Onem Yishumah Kavon, for most postkim saying that if you, if someone, if it's Shul, if the Khazun is saying Kriyachma, and you're in Kriyachma, so you can answer Kriyachma. And in Heishmeh Baba for Karnish. But in Shmon Essay, you're not going to say anything about Sukh ever. So that's agreed by all the postkim. The Baha'u'llah ever suggested, and then it was quoted by many, many, we've shown him, that you can stop and listen. Because if you listen to the Khazun saying Kriyachma, we have the principle of Shomaya Keonah, one who hears someone else say something. It's as though he said it, assuming that one has intention to be fulfilled, and it's about to be Yahtzee. And the person speaking has the intention to be Motsi Yum. So on the assumption that the Khazun knows that that's his job, to be Motsi anyone who wants to be Yahtzee with him. Then the Baha'u'llah says, so you could not be Motsi, because you're not speaking, you're not saying Kriyachma, but you listen to the Khazun say Kriyachma. And therefore, you also fulfill the Mitzvah of saying Kriyachma. And look at what he says, that's what you should do. You are, let's say in the middle of Smadha Baha, you're in the middle of Shma Kaulayn, you will mold him. So you stop and you listen with Kavana to be Yahtzee, to the Khazun saying Kriyachma, and then you're Yahtzee. Of course this assumes that the Khazun is actually saying Kaddosh in a manner which you can hear. We'll talk about this a little bit in a few days, but in many, many cases, many, many shores, the Khazun doesn't say Kaddosh, Kaddosh, Kaddosh, Kaddosh, out loud. He says it together with its Yibu'n, he says, "Lumatam ba wuch yomairu, womashabh kimiyomim out loud." If so, then the Baha'u'llah won't work. You have to listen to the Khazun say it, you have to hear him say it, you know what to be, Yahtzee, the Shma Kaulayn. However, Telzfot says that one may not do that, and he has a very simple argument. He says, "If Shma Kaulayi is Kaulayi, if listening to someone say something, is as though you said it, well, you're not allowed to say things because that would be a half-second, therefore even listening would also be a half-second, not because you're being quiet, but in this case you're being quiet and having Shma Kaulayi on there. Your quiet is listening, and your listening is a form of speaking basically, Qantal al-Aqah. Listening is like speaking, Shma Kaulayi on there, but you're not allowed to speak, and if we're not allowed to listen with the covenant to be Yotse either. It's a catch-22 situation. If you're not allowed to say it's okay, but then you don't get anything, but if you are Yotse, the very fact that your Yotse is a half-sake. You don't have to talk that half-sake, you have to be engaged in something else, and listening, and as though you were saying Qutushah, is being engaged in sending us other than Tfilah, and if Yotse says one may not, it's a suh, you're ruining Shma Kaulayi, if you follow the Bahag's advice. Many of you have shown him agree with Tausvat, when Benignona says, well, it's a big makhloket, it's impossible to pass contest the case, whatever you do is the right thing, and this was quoted by many other posts as well, the minig is to follow the Bahag's advice, and not to worry about Tausvat's restriction. However, Yotse is really unclear, it's one of those things which is not, there isn't a final sak, and so I'm not going to pass the needle, I'm not telling you what to do. Tausvat himself says that he knows the minag was to listen at the power of the Bahag, but he recommended not doing it, they recommended not doing it, and that in this decision, I think more or less exists today, although many posts can say that you should follow the Bahag, and so it's basically left up to you, if you follow accepted, more or less accepted, then you should, if it happens to you, then you should stop and listen, but I think it should be aware of the fact that there is an opposite sak, literally opposite, it's impossible to follow both of them, and opposite sak, the one that definitely should not listen, one should keep saying schwannesse, you're not even not listen, because it's a sur to be marxik, it's one asik, this we have to add, the question is why is it so important to be outside, is there a mitzvah, is there a khiriv to hiktushah, it's hard to imagine the answer is yes, khushah exists, it's a good thing, it's an important thing, if one hears someone else saying khushah one should answer, however it's not as if you're losing out on a khiriv, it's a khiriv to davan, and it's a khiriv to put the davan properly without being marxik, I doubt that there's a khiriv to say khushah, and that sort of way is in, if there's really a subject, whether it's a good thing to listen, not to listen, it could be you should listen, because what do you lose, you just, so you didn't say khushah, you lost out an opportunity to be, to praise God in the most wonderful way, but you haven't actually transgressed any particular khiriv, so again they're two sides, and I'm leaving the nahra up to you. And that's all for today, we'll be back tomorrow with the weekly mitzvah of Aravina Mintivari. Until then, wishing you a beautiful day, a wonderful day here from Ghushat Sion, vivakata tora mitziion, you've been listening to KMTT, kik mitziion, tetsay tora u'drashim, Merushadaim. [BLANK_AUDIO]