KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #13
KMTT - Berachot, Shiur #13, by Rav Yair Kahn
KMTT. Welcome back for another week of KMTT. I think this is our 12th week. Let's count a little bit, a little while ago. But I think this is our 12th week. And as we're getting closer to Pesach, we're going to start to change the programming a bit and then even the series which began three months ago, the one who called Bakhat of Akhana, the one that I give on Jewish philosophy will be winding up. We'll have new programming after Pesach. But already, this week of Kann will be giving in today's year, it's still on Hukot-Brahat but will be Hukot connected to the Seder, taken from, not from a Seder-Brahat, this experiment, taken from and based on Digmara in the 10th of Seder and similarly next week a different topic having to do with Bakhot and the Seder. I was told here I'll be giving the last installation of my series on Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages and next week in its place will be a Sheeran al-Acha of again Sheeran al-Acha for Pesach. As I think about what we've done in the last 12 weeks, I have this sort of revolutionary vision arising in me. Eleven years ago when we began the VBM, the Virtual Bait Midrash, I also felt that we were on the edge of a revolution, not because of the technology, but the technology is not revolutionary, it's not really much. What do we do? We're just using email but we're sending just, we're sending words, we could have sent it by mail. But the revolution was that we were really enabling people, everybody, to learn because before that the picture of learning in Amisau was that if you went to a Sheeran, you could hear a Sheeran in a really high level. But if you left a Sheeran, or if you never went to a Sheeran, you could learn a little bit on your own, maybe. If you had enough drive and enough energy, where you could go, you could go to your local Sheeran, maybe there'd be a Sheeran on some level, perhaps, or perhaps not, or perhaps there was no Sheer, or perhaps you just didn't have the ability to get out of the house, and today especially people just find it difficult to leave their houses. They're busy. They have all sorts of obligations and family and business, and people just, you know, if you weren't in a Yeshiva, you were able to learn. And the vision of the VBA was a window into the Bait Midrash, that we could send real Torah, really high level Torah, to everybody in their house. And that's an evolutionary, revolutionary and on a Jewish historical level. There's never been that ability. There's never been that opportunity for Jews to get really involved in Torah, to learn Torah, to learn Torah, to learn Torah, to learn Torah. Since, I think, since they left the desert and entered out of Israel, the desert, they went to Moshe Abbein, and they heard a good Sheer, a really good Sheer, every single day. But since then, the opportunity has not been there. Now, I'm not that naive in a sense. I know that a lot of people register from good intentions with the VBM, but not all of them are being the Sheeran on a regular basis. Again, you want to, but other things come up. You need the time, you need to set aside the time and all kinds of other demands on that same hour. And you have to juggle, and you have to juggle those demands and those obligations. But now we have KMTT. And I think KMTT is the final answer to that problem. Today, the VBM there, thank God, 25,000 subscribers. It's a little disappointing. My short-range goal is to have half a million. A long-range goal is something else. There will be some more juice. But I think we should have half a million subscribers. We have 25,000. KMTT, there's nothing else demanding on your time. If you're in a car and you're driving, the only question is whether you should listen to KMTT, or to AM, radio, AM, Pad or Pad. I don't think that's a contest. I know people, once they hear about it, will choose to listen to a show in KMTT and not to the endless talk on their radio. So once again, I'm having this revolutionary dream. I can see in my eyes the long-round expressway, which I used to travel on when I was still living in New York. It's called the World's Longest Parking Land. They have all these thousands of drivers cursing under their breath because it's not going to trap a jam. But then they're the KMTT subscribers. They're happy. They're hearing a great share. They're in the rush. In the country, if you get to the office too soon, you'll miss out on the Halakhayumet. The trap of jam is really, really bad. You can roll down the window, talk to the fellow next day, or have a little hagouta about what you're both listening to on the same KMTT, same KMTT broadcast. So I think there is a real revolution going on here because tower belongs to all of Amisam. Everybody should be learning tower the way Hashem gave it to Amisam. And hopefully, we're doing our part to help that dream come about. This is all my introduction to asking you once again to spread the words to all your friends and neighbors, co-workers. People you see jogging next to you in the park. Soon I hope there'll be a waterproof MP3 player taping with you when you go swimming. But whenever your ears are free and the rest of you is busy, then the Tarat, Tarat Hashem, the shoe of KMTT should be the things that fill up that space next to your ears. Today's share, as I said, will be by Raviyyakan, the shoe in Hillhot Pahot. The Hot Pahot of leather said there, the shoes I see already is a little bit longer than usual, and therefore, they will not be a Halakhayumet today. After discussing the din of Khidush, which is the first of the Abakosos, the Mishnah in Aweb Sakhim, Khufya Dalah Madalif, 114a, discusses the Halakhah of Karpas. The Mishnah says as follows, he view the fun of Matabhel Bahazarit. One brings your rakos in front of him, your rakos, which are needed in order to be yours in the midst of Karpas. And then he's Matabhel. But the example that the Mishnah brings is the Yerek of Khazarit. And it's very, very curious that the Mishnah specifically brought this example, because we know that Khazarit is something that can be used for more as well. The Mishnah on Lamentessomaralif, 39a, says his follows, the Eu Yerakos Shahadam Yotsevam Yidekobasopesak, the Khazarit, Petamkhah, Bakhachavina, the first example is Khazarit. In other words, Khazarit is an example of Moror. And the question obviously is, why did the Mishnah bring the case of Moror as an example of Kharpas, furthermore? The Mishnah on Khufya Dalah Madalif continues and states his follows, He view the fun of Matabhel Khazarit, Fakharose, and Ushnaytav afterwards when it discusses bringing the Mass in front of him and the Moror and the Kharose said in the Shnaytav Shilin, the example that's used for Moror is again Khazarit. In other words Khazarit is used in this Mishnah twice, one as the Yerek which is used for Kharpas, and also as the type of Moror which one will fulfill the Mishnah of Moror with. And the question obviously, the obvious question is, why did the Mishnah bring the example of Khazarit for Kharpas as opposed to any other possible Yerek? The Gomara on Khufya Dalah on Bays 114b, Khotre Shlakish who says that from the way that the Mishnah formulated the Kharpas and used the example of Khazarit, we learned a very very important Talah. Al-Mare Shlakish, Zothomare, it's supposed to be called Kabbana. From here we can derive a very very important din that Mitzvot, it's supposed to be called Kabbana. When one does the act of a Mitzvah, it's not sufficient. If one doesn't have Kabbana, it doesn't have intention, while he's doing that act, that he wants to fulfill the Mitzvah, he's doing this act as an act of worship, of being Makayim, a Mitzvah, which Akhav's Baruch, who commanded, then he's not yield to the Mitzvah. And therefore, Bayshakish says, when he ate the Kharpas, he ate the Khazarit not to be Yotzay the Mitzvah of Mareur. He didn't eat the Mareur of the Khazarit in order to fulfill the Mitzvah with intention that he's doing it because this is what God commanded, but rather he ate the Khazarit in order to be Yotzay the din of Kharpas, which is only a din midrabbana. He had no intention when he ate the Mareur to be Yotzay the Mitzvah of Mare, to fulfill the Mitzvah of Mareur. And therefore, he will not at that point fulfill the Mitzvah of Mareur because Akhav's Baruch, when he commanded us to eat Mareur, he didn't just say, do an act of eating Mareur. At the time that one does that act, one also has to have intention that he is fulfilling a Mitzvah when he does the act of eating the Mareur. And therefore, the Mishnah wants to tell us something and it hints to us that you should realize that there's a Halacha of Mitzos fikos kabana and even if the Khazarit was used for Kharpas, nevertheless, one will have to later on take Khazarit again and eat it as Mareur in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Mareur. In the ensuing shock of the Taria, the Gamara suggests that there's really no proof from the Mishnah that Mitzos fikos kabana. It's possible, the Gamara says, that Mitzos ain't sikos kabana, and when he ate the Khazarit as Kharpas, he fulfilled his Mitzvah of Mareur. The Gamara then asks, if so, why does he eat Khazarit again? Later on, and the Gamara answers, Kihe'cha tla habe hakei latinokos. In order that there should be some kind of a hakei. I mean, why do we eat Kharpas in general? We eat Kharpas in order that there should be a hakei latinokos. One of the major themes that we have on Lele la Seyder is the Mitzvah of Higartalavina kabiyomu lei mare. To tell over the story of Yitzvah from trying to the children. In order to tell over the story, what one has to do is to arouse the curiosity of the child. Therefore, there are many, many things that we do on Lele la Seyder, which are odd, which seem curious, in order that the child should begin to ask questions. We eat moraar at the time of Kharpas. We eat moraar again. Why are we eating moraar again? We already ate moraar. The child will begin to question, he'll be curious, he'll begin to ask. And therefore, the mission says even in the situation where one has no other Eric, and one is forced to use the moraar in order to be Makayim the dinner of Kharpas. Nevertheless, he should eat moraar again, even though he already fulfilled his Mitzvah, because Mitzvah's lo sihos kabana, even though he already fulfilled the mitzvah moraar, he should eat the moraar once again. Why? Ki hai hai hai dala hai hai hai lei kahi lei tinnakus. So, according to Rish Lakhish, the reason that the example of Khazird was used is in order to tell Sahalah Khah that Mitzos is three hos kabana, that if one did the action, but had no intention, one is not Yotse de Mitzvah, he did not fulfill the mitzvah. On the other hand, the other possibility is that the truth is that Mitzos ain sihos kabana, and when one ate Khazird, when one ate moraar for Kharpas, he fulfilled his requirement. He fulfilled the mitzvah of moraar. But nevertheless, the mission gave that example in order to teach us that even if one ate moraar for Kharpas and fulfilled his mitzvah, nevertheless he should eat moraar again later on. Why? Ki hai hai dala hai hai lei tinnakus. In other words, if he ate a different yeruk originally for Kharpas, of course he should eat moraar later on. He wasn t Yotse's mitzvah of moraar, and the Kharpas that he ate was in order to harass the curiosity of the child. But in a situation where initially he didn t eat a different yeruk, but he ate moraar and he already fulfilled his mitzvah of moraar. Why? Because mitzvah of sloth sihos kabana, nevertheless he should eat moraar again. Why? Ki hai said la hai hai hai kei lei tinnakus, and that is what the mission teaches us. The gomaraar concludes his follows. Pishita hai hai hai kei shahi rakos, vivarik a shahi rakos, boripiyadama, wa akhil, wa hai da mivareik akhilas moraar, wa akhil. Where you have other vegetables, then for Kharpas you use other vegetables, and on those other vegetables you make a boripiyadama, and later on when you eat moraar, you make the brakhah of akhilas moraar, the bei hai hai sah mitzvah. Hai hai de lekah el akhasa, however if one has no other vegetable, ba khasa and khasa like khasaar, khasa is something which is, which one can use for moraar. Mai, what is the dinden? Aamirah of huna, ahfuna said mivareik mei kara am moraar, boripiyadama, wa akhil. The brakhah that you make on the khasa is boripiyadama, the vissauf of akhale, al akhilas moraar, the akhil, and later when you eat the khasa for the second time, for moraar, you will make the brakhah akhilas moraar. In other words, apparently of huna holds, mitzvah's sihos kavana. So initially when you ate the khasa, when you ate the moraar, you should only make a boripiyadama, because you will not be, you'll say, the mitza of moraar. Later on, when you eat the moraar, then you should make the brakhah of akhilas moraar, because only the second time that you eat the moraar will you fulfill your mitzvah. So in other words, the quanta of huna, the akhale is mitzvah's sihos kavanaar, like the sihita of ragelockish, mitzvah's sihos kavanaar. So when you eat the khaarpas, even though you're eating khasa for khaarpas, the only brakh that you'll make is a boripiyadamaar, but you will not make an akhilas moraar. Mashe floriphista, rafhista asked the question on the funa, la akhah, shami le creis oimenu, hosa me boriphale, after filling your stomach with moraar, you're going to make the brakhah akhilas moraar, you've already eaten moraar. Alaam rafhista, me ikarnam rafhale, boripiyadamaar, the akhilas moraar, the akhil, the sof akhil akhilas khasa, below brakhah, according to akhilas moraar, when you eat the moraarar for khaarpas, you should make both the boriph dama, as well as the brakhah akhilas moraar. Later on, when you eat the khasa the second time, you don't make any brakhah at all. The simple way of understanding rafhista is that akhista argues on a funaar, and akhista says, mitzos, lo tsuihos khavana, and therefore since when you ate the moraar for khaarpas, you were makai in the mitzvah, you fulfilled the mitzvah of moraar, therefore you should make the brakhah boriphra dama and akhilas moraar, as well. Later on, when you eat the moraar, you won't be makai in any mitzvah, and therefore later on, you eat the moraar without any brakhah, because the only reason that you're eating the moraar later on is for, is in order that there should be haqayra latinokos. That's the simple way of understanding the shita of rafhista. However, tostos does not understand rafhista in this way. According to tostos, if rafhista would hold, that mitzvos lo tsuihos khavana, and you are yotsu, you fulfilled the mitzvah of moraar. Initially, when you ate the moraar, then rafhista shouldn't have said la akhah shamele kraisomenu, after having filled your stomach with moraar, you're going to make the brakhah later on. He should have said, if you're already makai in the mitzvah, later on, the brakhah that you make is a brakhah la batala. He shouldn't be saying, he shouldn't be making an argument, you've already filled your stomach, and therefore, it just seems odd that you should be making your brakhah later on. He should say something much stronger. He said, you're already yotsu the mitzvah. Later on, when you eat moraar, you're not yotsu anything. And therefore, if you make the bircos a mitzvah later on, you made a brakhah la batala. And therefore, tostos is makai dish, that rafhista agrees with rafhuna, that mitzvos suihos khavana. And when you eat the moraar, for a car pass, you do not fulfill the mitzvah, your requirement of eating moraar. You did not fulfill the mitzvah. When will you fulfill the mitzvah? Later on, when you eat the moraar, nevertheless, the brakhah should be made before you eat the moraar the first time. When you eat moraar, for a car pass, that's when you should make the brakhah of akhilas moraar. And that brakhah will relate to the moraar that you eat later on, with which you will fulfill your mitzvah, you will fulfill your requirement of akhilas moraar. At first glance, tostos is interpretation seems absurd. Why should you make the brakhah akhilas moraar? When you eat the moraar as car pass, if you're not fulfilling the mitzvah of moraar whatsoever, shouldn't the brakhah be made when you fulfill the mitzvah? Isn't tostos is saying something which seems ridiculous? When does one make a bircos a mitzvah? When one does some kind of a mechanical act, which has no halakhic significance, or should he make the brakhah when one fulfills the mitzvah, when one is mccaimed, the mitzvah? The sheet of akhunah seems to make much more sense. However, not only is the opinion of akhistah quantitosos a difficult opinion to understand, but the remark includes, "Hilcha sakabhasid dravhristah." The halakhah is in accordance with the sheet of akhistah. In other words, according to tostos, one should make the brakhah before eating moraar as car pass, even though one will not fulfill the mitzvah, and that brakhah that he makes will somehow relate to the eating of the moraar that he does later on. Tostos is aware that what he said is difficult, and therefore, he tries to bring the other examples where we find something similar. One example that tostos brings is the case of chauffeur. When we make the brakhah on chauffeur, we make the brakhah before was known as the kyos demi-yushav. The kyos demi-yushav is the blowing of the chauffeur that one makes before beginning the shmonah esri de tphila of busaf. That's called kyos demi-yushav. That's when we blow a full 30 kolos, straight kolos, to go through the entire set and possibilities of the mitzvah of chauffeur. Later on, we have what's known as kyos demi-yumad, which are kyos alsedera brakhos, where you have 10 kolos on each one of the brakhos of markhos, sekhronos, and chauffeurs. We blow 10 kols each time, which adds up to 30 kolos. So you have the kyos demi-yushav, and then you have kyos demi-yumad. According to tostos, the main kyos of the mitzvah of chauffeur is the kyos demi-yumad. We have the kyos alsedera brakhos, where we blow the chauffeur in the middle of kyos demi-yushav. That's the main kyos of chauffeur. Nevertheless, when do we make the brakhah of chauffeur? We make the brakhah of chauffeur before the kyos demi-yushav, and that brakhah that we make before the kyos demi-yushav somehow will relate to the kyos, the full kyos, the better kyos that we have when blowing the chauffeur later on during the kyos alsedera brakhos. So in other words, Tossos says we have another example where you make the brakhah before, you make the brakhah before blowing the chauffeur from the kyos demi-yushav, and after you finish the kyos alsedera, then you have kyos alsedera. According to Ashkenazim, and then you stop blowing the chauffeur during the kyos alsedera, that kyos alsedera that you have later on will relate to the brakhah that you made previously. Now the brakhah that you made previously is how will it relate to the kyos demi-yushav that you had later on. And of course, we know that there's a halacha. The halacha is that perchos amitza have to be recited over las yasun immediately prior to doing the mitzvah. Apparently with Tossos thinks is that as long as one begins or does a maisa mitzvah immediately following the brakhah, the continuation or completion of the mitzvah can come way later on, and nevertheless the brakhah that he made initially will relate to that later act. But if one made a brakhah and then didn't do anything, that brakhah would not be over las yasun and that would not be good. So according to Tossos, in order to make a brakhah over las yasun, one has to make a brakhah and then immediately do blow in the case of chauffeur who loathed kyos demi-yushav. Since he blew the chauffeur immediately, therefore the brakhah was hal, the brakhah was nitras, and that brakhah will also relate to the kyos demi-yumah that he does later on, which is the fuller and more complete qyum of the mitzvah of chauffeur. In a parenthetical remark, I'll just mention that the question of whether the qyos demi-yumah are the qyum in chauffeur, like Tossos claims or not, is the subject of a mahokas among the rishonim, a quantiramban, that qyos demi-yumah are not a qyum in chauffeur, but rather a qyum in fila. In other words, the chauffeur, the mitzvah of chauffeur, one completed totally during the qyos demi-yushav, and therefore the brakhah of qyos chauffeur does not relate to the qyos demi-yumah to whatsoever. Later on, when one blows the qyos demi-yumah, that's in order to enhance the fila, but the mitzvah of chauffeur has totally been completed. Nevertheless, according to the, according to Tossos, and according to many other qyos demi-yumah as well, the qyos demi-yumah are a completion of the mitzvah of chauffeur, and therefore the brakhah that were made before that the qyos demi-yushav relates to the complete perfection and completion of the mitzvah at the time of qyos demi-yumah, al-seidir habrahos. Tossos and qsakimah and quf-khafah amiralif, 120a, brings a number of different examples where this idea can be applied. There's a mahokas among me shown in which eating of the matzah is the main eating of the matzah. We eat matzah right away as part of motsi matzah, and at that point we make a bechasah motsi, and then we eat another kazayis, and in that second kazayis we make, we make the brakhah al-hilas matzah. Of course, we make brakhas together, but we, we have two different pieces of matz which we make the two different brakhas on. That's called motsi matzah, and that's when we make the brakhah al-hilas matzah. According to many of you shown in, the mitzvah of al-hilas matzah is being performed and fulfilled immediately when one eats that matzah. However, the rasabam and rashi on kufkh, you test my base, kufkhafah amiralif say that the main kum of al-hilas matzah is not the matzah one eats initially, but rad is the matzah one eats at the end of the sudah, which is what we call afi common. We eat a kazayis of matzah at the end of sudah, the matzah which is al-hassova, and that's the afi common. Nowadays, what we have is what is the afi common. According to rashi and rasabam, it's only later on at the end of the meal when you eat the afi common that you have the complete and fuller kum of al-hilas matzah. Nevertheless, rashi and rasabam ask how is it possible to suggest that the eating of the afi common, the matzah al-hsova is the, is the, is the kum, the fulfillment of the mitzah matzah. The bracha that we make al-hilas matzah is made initially, so therefore what they say is they, like rafikr-stah, la akha-shamila-krais-imenu, you're going to make the bracha al-hilas matzah later on by eating the afi common after having already eaten matzah. You've already eaten kazayis of matzah, two kazayis of matzah. All of a sudden, you're going to wake up and make the bracha al-hilas matzah later on, and therefore according to rashi and rasabam, even though one makes the bracha al-hilas matzah initially, when one first eats from the matzah, nevertheless, the full completion of the mitzvah, the fuller kum of the mitzvah, is when one eats the matzah al-hsova, when one eats the afi common. And the bracha al-hilas matzah, one made initially, will relate to the eating of the matzah that one does later on. And again, we have an over-la-siyasan, when one made the bracha al-hilas matzah, he ate matzah immediately, nevertheless, the bracha that he made can relate to a later event when one eats the matzah at the time of the afi common. Tosso on kufra formulale, bring another example of this idea, and again, from within la-la-saidah. However, this example is from the time of the base ha-miktash. Tosso says as follows, "We ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, we ha-miktash al-hsova, now according to Torah's, apparently at the point in which you eat the matzah together with the Quran Pesach, that is the main Qum of Aqedas matzah, let me explain myself, there are basically two different mitzvahs of eating matzah on the last day there. Nowadays that we have no Quran Pesach, nevertheless there's an independent Qiyu of eating matzah, which is learned down from apostak Be'er of Tohu matzah, and that Qiyu of eating matzah is not dependent on the Quran Pesach, when we have a Quran Pesach, when we don't have a Quran Pesach, we have to eat matzah, but there's another Al-Aqah beating matzah, which is dependent on the Quran Pesach, it says Al-Matsos Umm-Wom Yohu, you should eat the Quran Pesach together with matzah and with Moro, and when we don't have the Quran Pesach, the second mitzvah of eating Quran Pesach to get with matzah, Moro doesn't exist, therefore by the way, in our days the mitzvah of eating Moro is only the Rabara, because there is no separate mitzvah of eating Moro independent of the Quran Pesach. The Qiyu of Teet Moro is only based on Al-Matsos Umm-Wom Yohu, and therefore when there's a Quran Pesach, then one has a Qiyu of Teet matzah and Moro together with the Quran Pesach. However, when there is no Quran Pesach, there is no independent Qiyu to eat Moro, came along the Quran, and said, "Nudra Banan, you should nevertheless eat Moro, and therefore we eat matzah, we eat Moro, even though we have no Quran Pesach, matzah, we eat Minatora Mido-Orica, because there's a separate mitzvah of Be'erf Tohumatsos, while Moro, we eat Midra Banan, because there is no mitzvah Mido-Orica nowadays to eat Moro. At the time of the base of Midrash existed, so there was only one mitzv Moro to eat Moro together with the Quran Pesach, and according to many mitzvah, it's not even counted as an independent mitzvah, but rather the mitzvah is to eat the Quran Pesach together with matzah of Moro. That's one queue of eating Moro and matzah in the direction, there's one queue of eating matzah together with the Quran Pesach, while there's a second mitzvah of matzah independent of the Quran Pesach, Be'erf Tohumatsos. Now, when Tohumatsos says that according to Hillel, the bracha that you made Al-Aqis matzah initially relates also to the act that you'll be doing later on, what is he referring to? Is he referring to the act of eating matzah together with the Quran Pesach that you're going to do later on? Or is he referring to the independent mitzvah of eating matzah? Or one would say, the independent mitzvah of eating matzah, he already fulfilled. Later on, what's left from Timimakayim is the mitzvah of eating matzah together with the Quran Pesach, and that's the entire den of Korach. To eat the matzah together with the Quran Pesach, that is the mitzvah of Korach. So the mitzvah of matzah, the independent mitzv matzah, you're ready to fulfill totally. And later on, he will be fulfilling the mitzvah of Al-Matsos, Ummroum Yohulu when he eats the Quran Pesach together with the matzah Ummro. But if that's what Tohumatsos is referring to, then it's not the bracha of Al-Aqis matzah which relates to a later act. The bracha of Al-Aqis matzah relates to the mitzvah of eating matzah. Since when will one make a bracha Al-Aqis matzah on eating Korach? The bracha should be either a bracha only on the Quran Pesach, or perhaps of eating matzah of eating matzah Ummroum, like mentioned in the Ramban. But there should be no independent bracha of Al-Aqis matzah if the mitzvah that one does is eating the Quran Pesach together with matzah Ummroum. So apparently, according to Tohus, it's not that one totally fulfilled the mitzvah of Al-Aqis matzah when he ate the matzah initially. And that bracha will relate to the cube of eating matzah together with the Quran Pesach. A second means for no. According to Tohus, apparently, the full cube of the independent mitzvah of eating matzah is when one integrates the eating of the matzah together with the Quran Pesach. In other words, a more complete and perfect cube of eating matzah. The mitzvah of matzah, the better of Tohus matzah, is when that eating of the matzah is integrated with Al-Aqis Ummroum Yohuhu. So when one made the bracha of Al-Aqis matzah, the beginning of his meal, that bracha relates to the cube of Al-Aqis matzah of the better of Tohus matzah, that one will be mankind later on when one eats the matzah together with the Quran Pesach. That's probably what we see from Tohus. But in any case, as far as we are concerned, it's another example of making a bracha initially, doing the act immediately, while the cube fulfillment of the matzah will be later on, and the bracha therefore relate to that eventual cube of matzah, which will be only later on. To sum up, what we've seen is three different examples of this idea of making a bracha initially doing an act immediately, and that bracha relates to a more complete and perfect fulfillment of the matzah, which will happen only later on. Three examples were from Leila Sayyidir. Well, one example was from Rosh Hashanah. The example of Rosh Hashanah is that one makes a bracha on Shofar before Tkyos de Mi Ushav. That bracha relates to the perfect and more complete fulfillment of the matzah, which is Kia Sayyidir Habrachos, which only happens later on, where one blows the shofar within the context of Phyllis Musa. The three examples of Leila Sayyidir, the example of eating mora for karpas, one will make a bracha al-Akhilah's mora, when one eats the mora for karpas, even though he will, at that point, missus three hos kabbateh, he does not fulfill his mitzvah of mora, he will only fulfill his mitzvah of mora later on, when he eats the mora after the matzah, that's when he has the intention of eating the mora. Now the last of bracha that he made initially will relate to eating the mora later on at the point that he fulfills his requirement, at the point that his makai missmitzvah. That was one example. The second example is when one makes akhilah's matzah on the initial eating of the matzah, even though the more complete and perfect fulfillment of the matzah will be later on, when one eats the matzah for afi common, according to Rashi and the Rashban. And the third example was at the time of the vaisa mikdash, when one made the bracha al-Akhilah's matzah at the beginning of the meal, even though according to Helal, the fuller, the more complete fulfillment of the matzah is when he eats the matzah later on within the context of our matzah sonom yahul. The fuller, the more complete fulfillment of the misa of the ere of tokulah matzah is when the eating of the matzah is integrated with the keum of our matzah's umorum yahul. However, all the examples of tosos make sense, except for one example, except for the example that he began with. In all other cases, there is some, at least minimal, fulfillment of the mitzvah in the act that one does initially. When one blows the shofat keus to the yushav, it wasn't the perfect fulfillment of shofar. In order to have a complete fulfillment of shofar, one has to do the kyasigar brachos, but nevertheless, he was yotsa his mitzvah. He blew shofar with the intention of being yotsa the mitzvah, so the bracha relates to a later event when we'll have his perfect fulfillment of the mitzvah when he has the tkia al-sedera brachos, but nevertheless, the bracha relates not only to some kind of an empty maisa mitzvah, where there is no fulfillment whatsoever, but there is a basic fulfillment of the mitzvah, and therefore a bracha could be made before the kyasigar sama yushav. According to Rashi and Rashban, when one ate matzah initially, he had intention to be yotsa the mitzvah. It wasn't a case of mitzvah's kavana where he only did a mechanical act, and he didn't fulfill the mitzvah at all. But he had intention of fulfilling the mitzvah, but the mitzvah will be fulfilled in a more perfect way when he eats the matzah al-sover, when he eats it for Afikomah. And therefore, when he made the bracha, and he had initial basic fulfillment of the mitzvah, at least in a minimal sense, later on, that bracha will relate to the more complete and perfect fulfillment that he'll have later on. When one ate the matzah, according to Hillel, bismansha based habigar hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai. The more perfect fulfillment will be when he integrates the eating of the matzah together with our matzah among your hu. And therefore, there'll be a more perfect fulfillment later on. However, in all those three examples, the bracha makes sense because the bracha was made on an act that has a basic Qum hai mitzvah. It has some significance. On the other hand, in our case, since we're going according to the matzah, the armor, according to the opinion of the mitzvah, what did he do? He did an empty mechanical act with the mechanical performance. He didn't intend on being Yossa. He intended on eating karpas, not on eating morar, and therefore, the bracha relates to nothing. How could one make a bracha on eating karpas and have that bracha relate later on to eating of the morar? According to Tulsa's we see, apparently, that we don't look at what he did as simply being an empty mechanical act, even according to the opinion, that mitzvos trichos kavana, what he did has significant as being a maisah mitzvah. Even though he didn't have kavana, nevertheless, what he did was a maisah akhilas morar, and therefore, it has halakhic significance. However, the full keum will not be till later on. For example, Tulsa says according to Mandamar, mitzvos lo tichos kavana, if you would make the bracha later on, it would be a bracha la kala. Once you ate it kazaiza morar, when you eat morar later on, you did nothing. According to the Mandamar, mitzvos trichos kavana, even though there is significance to your act, you didn't fulfill the mitzvah, there is significance to your act, nevertheless, later on, since there was no keum ha mitzvah, you didn't fulfill the mitzvah, you could eat morar later on, and if you would make the bracha later on, it wouldn't be a bracha la matala. Because later on, since the initial act was not an act of complete fulfillment of the mitzv, you did the maisah mitzvah, but you lack the fulfillment of the mitzvah, therefore, when you eat the morar later on, it has significance. It was not an empty act. According to Mandamar, mitzvos lo tichos kavana, what you did later on is meaningless. I'll give you an example. Let's say one unsuckers, somebody would eat in a sucka, but have no intention of being the kind in the mitzv sucka. So, he wasn't a kind, he didn't fulfill the mitzv sucka, but was he over the issue of eating outside of sucka? Was him a bracha, they are saying, did his act have no meaning whatsoever, even according to Mandamar, mitzvos lo tichos kavana? Here, we might say no. True, he did not fulfill the mitzvah, but nevertheless, the act that he did was an act of eating in a sucka. And therefore, there was no bit le mitzvah either. What he did has significance of a mitzvah. He did a mitzvah mitzvah, and therefore, the bracha correlate to the mitzvah, which has significance. It's not an empty act without any meaning. I'll give you another example. Let's say somebody would eat a karam pessar, who's mancha, based in the shayakayam, and have no intention of being the karam pessar. So, somebody that's in you shalom, it doesn't eat a karam pessar. It's one of the few mitzvos that say that you have karam pessar. If you don't eat a karam pessar, you have karam pessar. What happens if you want to eat a karam pessar, but did not have karam pessar to be also the mitzvah? So, would he be karam pessar? True, he wasn't the kind of mitzvah of eating karam pessar. But he ate a karam pessar. He did the mise mitzvah. Would he be karam pessar? I would imagine one could claim that no, he wouldn't be karam pessar because the mise mitzvah, he did, and that mise mitzvah has significance. He didn't fulfill the mitzvah, but nevertheless he did what Akrash Brakou demanded. There's a gomara in Russia's Shana dap kaf kasimir alaif, which also deals with the sugev mitzvoshikos kavana. And there, the gomara says, to explain the mandam of mitzvosh lo tikos kavana, the gomara says as follows, "Mau de taym haasam akhom matsa amrakh manavah akhom." Akrash Brakou said eat matsa. And you ate matsa, you did the act. You did what the Torah demanded. You, you, you submitted yourself to the tivoi akhasim. So even though you didn't have intention, nevertheless you did what the Torah demanded. The Torah said akhom matsa amrakh manavah akhom. That's what you did. What I'm suggesting is even a coin to the mandam of mitzvosh trikhos kavana, nevertheless the statement is true. It's not that the mandam of mitzvosh lo tikos kavana, you've done nothing. It's an empty mechanical performance, but rather the Torah said eat matsa and you ate matsa. However, the mandam of mitzvosh lo tikos kavana, that's all. You've completed the mitzvosh, you've fulfilled the mitzvosh, you don't need anything else. A coin to the mandam of mitzvosh trikhos kavana, you did the act of the mitzvah and that has significance. But nevertheless, you did not fulfill your requirement and therefore it would be meaning to going ahead and repeating the performance and eating the matsa again. In order to fulfill the mitzvosh. So according to what we're suggesting, toso says an unbelievable parish that even the mandam of mitzvosh trikhos kavana, nevertheless the misa ha mitzvah doing the misa mitzvah without any kavana has halakhic significance. You've done what God demanded from you. You didn't fulfill your requirement because you didn't do it for the right intentions, but nevertheless you did that act of the Torah demands. And therefore the brachah can be made before that basic very very minimal level of doing the act of a mitzvah, of doing the misa ha mitzvah. And the brachah relates that misa mitzvah and there's significance to what you did. And therefore since there's significance to what you did. And the brachah relates that misa mitzvah later on. So that's a bit of overlast, yasan. You made the brachah. You did the performance of the misa which has significance. And later on when you will eat the mora with kavana to be yasim asa mora, the brachah that you made now will relate to that later event. You have been listening to our Ravi Ayokan show in Hillhod Brachod. And that's all for today. There'll be no hala hai yumid today. We'll be back tomorrow with a regular program in Jewish philosophy and hala hai yumid. This is as we've been wishing you kultov, migoshitian, kimitzian, teceitora, udvar asa me ruchadaim. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]