KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva - Vayakhel Pekudei
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva, Shiur #12, on Parshat Vayakhel-Pekudei, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
and today is Wednesday, and yesterday 21st of March was the spring equinox, the daytime and the nighttime are equal. This is called in Halakha, in Hebrew, the tukufah, tukufahtah aviv, is the day when the spring begins. This has halakic significance, it's not merely a astronomical date, because the hagapessach has to be in the aviv. In other words, hagapessach must form after the equinox. So there's no other halakha that's related, you don't even get nakase tachanon, but the day of the equinox, which falls either on the 21st or the 22nd, depending on the year, is a halakic significance, the day and the night are equal, it's the beginning of the halakic spring, halakic aviv. Today's shoe is by Arabina Minterwari, the weekly Mitzvah for Pashat, by Akapakude. This Shabbat, Pashat, the Akal tukude, we read also, "Pashat Akhodesh". This first Mitzvah that was given to Pena Yisrael, Akhodesh Azalahhem. In this Pashah, some of the laws of Khabantessach are mentioned. One of the laws that it's mentioned is dhalakha of eating Khabantessach, and it says, "The Akhluat abasabalayla has there". We must eat Khabantessach from this night. There is a Mahloka from the Gomara between Reba-leza-ba-la-za-ya-ba-la-za-ya-ba-la-cha-min to what this Pashat means. The Gomara is found in Sakhim and in Masechaz-Brahos, the Gomara says that according to Reba-la-ba-la-za-ba-la-za-ya, we have to eat Khabantessach mid-araysa until Khazat. And we know there the time is "Adhazat" - "Vaiibah-hatsuya-la-la-la". The time of the miracle of Akodesh Berghu coming through at Makas-Bakhoros is Balai-Wazizat-Hatsos. And therefore, the Allah is that Qampasak should be eaten midaraysa until Hatsos. Then the Kiva says, "No," the Torah says, "Ad-Sha-Sri-Pazan." You can eat the Torah, according to the biblical law, you can eat Qampasak all night until Ora-Bokir. It says, "Hid-ish of Torah," then it's only eaten for one day, as opposed to a regular carbon shlamim which can be eaten longer, the Qampasak can only be eaten one day. So we learn, according to the Kiva, you can eat the Qampasak until Ora-Bokir. And according to the Elizabeth Nazaria, you can only eat Qampasak until Hatsos. The halakic ramifications for us today would be based on that same Ghemarim sakhim that Qufqah on the base, the Ghemarim says, "Om-ah-rava, Ora-Matsa, this man-ah-Zah-hatsos, dre-bazan-azaria, lay-ah-zay-dih-hav-a-sa." Ghemar says, "This mak-lokir, sid-ni-bazan-hah-bazan-hah-hah-min, about Qampasak, has relevance even at the time when there is no Qampasak because Matsa should be eaten at the time of the Qampasak. So Matsa is an independent mitzvah, and today, Matsa, we pass Qampasak as a sivdah-raysa. But yet, the time of Matsa should correspond to the Qampasak, so therefore according to the Qampasak, today, halak-lokir-naysa, if a person would eat Matsa after Qatos, he would not fulfill his obligation. The Qampasak says, "It's obviously true, it's very obviously true." So we have a mak-lokir, sid-ni-bazan-hah-hah-min, and the ramification of the halak- this mak-lokir, sid-ni-bazan-hah-hah-sa, is "dismana-zayat," what time does the person have to eat Matsa? Of course, according to the Qampasak, we could ask the question, "Why can we really eat Qampasak early?" The Torah says, "The Akhwa-zab-zab-zab-a-lai-laz-a." That's the definition of "bala-zayat," what's the time of "bala-zayat," where "bala-zab-zayat" holds that "bala-zayat-zayat" is "bak-at-zayat-zayat-lai-laz," actually, it's time for Qatos. Now this would obviously be impractical, I don't know how it would be even theoretically possible to fulfill it, but it would seem that according to the "bala-zayat-zayat," the Qiama mitz-lah has to be at Qatos, and therefore halak-lokir should have been that we really should eat kampasak, matsa-baz-naysa, exactly. And therefore we shouldn't have been able to eat the mitzvah earlier, the word "compassah" earlier. We could explain that "reblazib" and "azaria" holds that there are two "alachas" in mitzvah. There's a "alachah" of the "may-sa" mitzvah. The time when you're supposed to do the mitzvah. At what time do you do the mitzvah? But the gracious, when is the key on the mitzvah? What time do you fulfill the mitzvah? According to the mitzvah, you would seem that the key on the mitzvah should be eaten by "hatos". The "my-sa" mitzvah, what you do to make sure the "compassah" is eaten is to eat it before "hatos". It's impossible and practical to say that someone should eat it at "hatos". But apparently the key on the mitzvah of the "achos" seems to be the "quentable" mitzvah. It should have been eaten. And the "quentable" mitzvah is an "azaria". After "hatos", you cannot be your say "cub-n-pasah". When does it become "no-sa"? When does the "cub-n" really become "no-sa"? So, according to the Kiva, "no-sa" means "cub-n" whose time is over and you are over an "isur" of leaving over a "cub-n-pasah" the time is eaten. And it's "lava", "nita-klasah", that you are supposed to, afterwards, somehow adjust the "lava" by fulfilling an "asei" of "bladeschus ruffle", burning it. Here, it's an unusual case because the Torah says, "By no subimin rad bokeh baishus ruffle". The Torah said you should burn it in the morning. According to "rebakeva" theoretically, it should be burned in the morning. There's a side problem with burning "kasimunyantif", burning "no-saunyantif" is a side issue that we won't discuss. But in "rebakeva", the "pasah" doesn't make sense. It becomes "no-sa" in the morning. You can eat it until the morning. And from that time on, then you're not allowed to eat it. It becomes "no-sa" and it's "chaiif-sa" because it was of an "azaria". So, it's a very unusual case. The "cub-n", it cannot be eaten after "hatos" but it seems in the "pasah" that "no-sa-imin rad bokehbaishus ruffle" that it becomes "no-saunyantif" in the morning. "Thosus" in "grakus" has to ask this question. "Thosus" has to ask how could it be that it's only "no-saunyantif" in the morning, but you can't eat it after "hatos". "Rashi" in "sakim" really says that it does become "no-sa" according to "hazimunyantif" in "azaria". So, according to "thosus", it doesn't seem to be "no-saunyantif" until the morning. However, "rashi" says "hatos" in "sakim" "hatos" in "baze" may "hatos" have been "no-saunyantif" according to "baze" in "sakimunyantif" it really is "no-saunyantif" but you can't burn it because of "sakimunyantif" and he says that "thosus" says according to "rashi" "thosus" "lo-saunyantif" in "rad bokehbaishus" "thosus" you can't leave it until the morning. It doesn't mean it becomes "no-saunyantif" in the morning. It becomes "no-saunyantif" in "rad bokehbaishus". The only reason "thosus" says "lo-saunyantif" in "rad bokehbaishus" is "lo-saunyantif" "thosus" tell me that until the morning there's no concept of doing "threepa". "threepa" is only in the daytime, even though I said there's a side pattern of doing "threepa" "threepa" "lo-saunyantif" but "thosus" says "no-saunyantif" "thosus" "lo-saunyantif" is not a "threepa" at night, it's only "threepa" in the morning. But according to "rashi" it becomes "no-saunyantif" right away according to "baze" "lo-saunyantif" "that the arsemeach" and "risk guitar in general" understood that "the carbon passach" is not just a regular "compassach". It's also a "shlamim", it's not just a regular "shlamim", it's also a carbon passach. They explained that there's two "dinimim" in carbon passach. There's one "din" of a "shlamim" which theoretically could be eaten longer than a regular carbon passach. According to "baze" it can be eaten to "thosus". So "the arsemeach" and "risk guitar in general" both think that according to "baze" perhaps the carbon could be eaten to "thosus". It couldn't be eaten as a "kiyumamitsu" of the carbon passach. The carbon passach can only be until "thosus". But as a "dinifshlamim" the Torah did not say that you cannot eat the "shlamim" until the morning. So as a "dinifshlamim" you could eat it until the morning. But after the morning it becomes "noususu" even though a regular "shlamim" becomes "noususu". After two days this becomes "shlamim" in the morning of the first day. And also in the "bakkabash" the "shrapl" be that as it may. The "maklokas" between the "relessive" and "azaria" is simple. According to the "belessive" and "azaria" we have to eat the "compassach" till "hatsus". According to "hatsamim" you have to eat the "compassach" or "morning". You can eat the "compassach" till or "habbok" till the morning. Of course we all remember the first "mishn" and "shas". The "mishn" and "shas" says that "kriyashmah" can be said in the morning. "Kriyashmah" can be said all night. However "midaray sah bhishakpukhav" "kimakhabhishakpukhav" "kalkazmah shaplkhav" "shaplkhav" we learned that you can say "kriyashmah" at night until the morning. But "midre ponah" in the "habbok" coming to say "you should not eat" "you should not say kriyashmah" after "hatsus" In order to make sure the person does "kriyashmah" in time. Now a person doesn't say "kriyashmah" in time, he didn't commit any "habbah". He just did not fulfill the "midre ponah" of saying "kriyashmah". But yet "kakamim" instituted a "habbok" in order to make sure that a person would not go to sleep would not take a map, would not do something to make him cause him to forget. To say "kriyashmah" "kakamim" said "you have to say "kriyashmah" before "hatsus". In that case of "kampasak" it would seem that this "yug", this "dindra bhannan" of saying of being making the time early, of making sure you eat "kampasak" before "hatsus". It would seem to me that this "yug" should be much stronger. Because if you don't say "kriyashmah" as I said before, you committed an act of omission. You did not say "kriyashmah". But "kampasak" if you don't eat it on time, besides the importance of eating "kampasak", but it creates an Easter. There is an Easter called "nausak". So if you don't eat "kampasak" so it's true that you eat "kampasak" but let's say a person didn't eat "kill" after "hatsus". So the "yug" would mean that he shouldn't eat it. "midra bhannan" a person should not eat "kampasak" if "kampasak" even though that would mean that he didn't eat it. So some people think that this "yug" applies even to "kampasak". The ramban says clearly in "hilsus" "kampasak" "kampasak" "kriy bhannan bhannan" "kampas" "kampasak" "kannan" "kampasak" "kapasak" "kapasak" he says "minatoura" "kakalalala" "kalalala" "kalalala" "kalalala" "murashah" "midra" "yugali" "kannikampasak" but even by "kampasak" "kampasak" "kampasak" "kampin" "put in this "yug" I said it's a little surprising because it means that after "hatsus" it really becomes "hatsum" "yugabhannan" but "hatsum" this "yugabhannan" is going to create a "yugabhannas" "tausus" says a little bit like the ramban Tossos says that even according to Rablanan, there is a siyog, however he says, "Aspilu iba de abar al-Dibreha kha'anmin" below al-Kha'an kha'an kha'an kha'an siyog, lo nifza, vah al-kha'an kha'an kha'an siyog. When we come upon this ik if siyog de abar al-Dibreha kha'anmin lo al-Kha'an kha'an kha'an kha'an siyog. Tossos has really, there is a siyog, it's like the Ramban says. I don't know what the Ramban would say in this case. What would happen if a person after Tossos remembered that he didn't come past, what should he do? According to Tossos, it says clearly, he was over the Drahbanan, he did not fulfill the siyog with Drahbanan, but yet, nevertheless, he should eat the come past. Tossos says, "This is akin to the case in Brahas," the gimman Brahas has a story of Mais ish shabob, one of your shabob, even if you have the base Amishta, according to the story, the children of the gimmeo came on from some sort of the base Amishta, maybe with a wedding, a kha'an sana, they came up from the kha'an sana, and they told their father that we forgot, that we didn't pay attention, we didn't say kriyashma. So he said, "As long as Amurash Aqar has not appeared yet, so then you can still say kriyashma." So you see, for me, that even though you transgress the siyog drahbanan, you did not fulfill these. Siyog drahbanan, still you could say kriyashma. So Tossos says, "The same would be here," but there is a siyog, and according to kha'an, you really have to eat it before kha'asals, even according to the opinion that kha'an has not hakala lai lemidaraysa. But yeah, if you did it after kha'asals, but the average, you did not fulfill the drahbanan, but you were kind in the midst of the right side, and it's better to do that than to leave it to come to the to know, sir. Rashi in the Gemerian Brachus, when the story of the children of the Gamleel adds one caveat, the Rabinjona elaborates on this point, but Rashi in Brachus says that the story of Rabin Gamleel tells us that in a case where Isna's rashi says, in a case where there was an onus, it was an onus, and they did not read the kriyashma before kha'asals. Not just that they didn't do it, but some sort of an onus occurred. What was the onus perhaps? They were involved in the midst of Mr. Mahasamakala, maybe they are Shushminim, and they were part of the really upbeat game, but now if the kha'asals that come to see us, we could discuss exactly what the onus is, but Rashi says, when there is an onus, so then you're allowed to say kriyashma afterwards. It seems from Rashi in Rabinjona, as I said, elaborates upon this point. It seems that according to Rashi, even kriyashma, you don't say if the kha'asals, kha'an and told you not to fulfill the midst, they have to kha'asals. There is a tossus in Sukhadah of Gimmel, that tossus says that sometimes Rabin'an told you not to do something, and if you do it according to biblical law, but you do not fulfill the Drabanan, then even with Rabin'an, you didn't fulfill the midst. So there is no such thing as fulfilling the midst of the after the time kha'anim said. So kha'an had that power, according to tossus, to take away the qiyimamitsa, manage to take it away, to save the midrabana on you, do not mechanism the right side. Tossus says that this does not apply to qa'an pasa, by qa'an pasa, le khatilah, you should eat till kha'asals, by the after qa'asal, midrabana, and however, after qa'asal, according to Rabinqiva, according to the people, that all you can say, you can eat qa'asal all night, then you can eat qa'asal, you have to qa'asal. But as I said before, according to Rabin, there is a shyad, and I don't know what the ramam would think, if you, if kha'asals passed, according to the qa'anim, the way we pasa'an, that according to the ramam, the ramam pasa'an said, pasa'a, midrā'is, as nekha kha'alalaywa, but there is a shyad durabana, and what would happen if the kha'asals, that's not clear. So let's try to find out how do we, how do we really pasa'an in this case. So I said before, the ramam says that really there's no practical difference between a of Akiva and the blasphemous Azaria, because the halacha is that we have to follow Ha'amim. And according to the halacha is that we have to follow the Ha'amim who say that even according to the opinion that, "Compessachnecha kalalaylma midirabana" and it should be eaten by herself. Why did the Ram pass like the blessed like the Akiva? So first of all, we have a general principle, the halacha ke baqiva mikha vero. Generally when there is a makhlokas between the bhikiva and one other person, we generally pass like the bhikiva. Even though in this particular case there are a number of mishnayas that have a sum of the mishna. A mishnaestamite, an anonymous mishna, generally follows a principle that when there is an anonymous mishna we pass like that an anonymous mishna, halacha ke stamishna. But here, it could be the Ram has this general principle, we pass like the bhikiva, even though there are some of the mishnayas against the bhikiva. However, I am going to point out that the story that we say in that gudha somehow shows that we pass in the kashmat that the kampasa can be eaten all night, mimela masa can be eaten all night. The famous story that we know about all those tanayim who were sitting in venebrak, the halayim is sappen bhid siyat mitzayim kolo su alayla. They told the story bhid siyat mitzayim all night. Now since we say that akhilas masa is compared to akhilas masaq. That was rather salacha kukhraf, that akhimasa bismana zet is compared to the time of eating kampasaq. Therefore, these people that sit up all night, they obviously pass in that the sipu yis isn't saiyim, the mitzu, the mitzu, the mitzu, the mitzu of lele say they apply all night. Therefore, that story itself might indicate that we pass makr bhikiva. Of course, that story was told in venebrak. And venebrak was the city of rabhikiva. Rabhikiva was the maradasa. So the raya that in venebrak, they did that, is not necessarily a proof that we pass in that way. Even more, the story of course tells the names of the people that were sitting at that unusual say there. Also, alayla, they stayed up all night, discussing the mitzu of vaisas. So, we have the mitzu, venebrak sat there as well. And everybody asks the question, why, Rabhala, venebrak sat there? Okay, according to the other ktannoyim, most of the people that were there, they really held that sipu yis isn't saiyim could be all night. Maybe they held that midarayasa, the sipu yis isn't saiyim was all night, the mitzu of kampasaq is all night, the mitzu actually, that's maradasa is all night. So we have Elizabeth and Azayyas sat there, and for sure, he holds that the mitzu is only until katsos. So why did he sit there? So people say, in general, that about that story, it's a very strange story, because tameedim came and interrupted their rebate. How could tameedim come in and say, yes, mankriyas, mushal shakas, how did they have the audacity to interrupt their abunim? So we have to remember the story happening in venebrak. Venebrak is an unusual city, perhaps, who's always an unusual city, therefore the katsas and what happened in venebrak are not such strong katsas. However, the fact of Elizabeth and Azayyas sat there only proves that sinsr mikiva was the love of venebrak, and they sat there all night. If Elizabeth and Azayyas were a good guest, and perhaps he really felt that the mitzu should be done until katsos. Maybe himself ate the matsa before katsos, but if nothing wrong was staying up the rest of the night in learning Torah. The rest of the night, presumably, they didn't tell, just read agada. They probably learned to let him in shalalah, because they probably had a hadshirim all night. So with Elizabeth and Azayyas, it might very well have stayed up to learn Torah. That does not indicate that the halakah is that your mikayyas and sivitim is time called alayla, even according to Elizabeth and Azayyas. So therefore, there's no proof, even from the story, that they really held that sivitim since his own night. Maybe we know there were bikiva halves that made the rice come past us all night. The fact that he stayed up all night is not an indication they got together, a goof to minikah khammim. They got involved in learning, they stayed up all night. We see in Yeshivas, occasionally, the glaze gets so involved in the sivitim, they stay up all night. It's no proof that they hold that you really have to stay up all night. That particular case happened in bebrak, there's no proof, because the ram does pass him, according to bikiva, as I said, that he holds khammim past us all night, but he holds there's arhakah. Now this arhakah, I said, is a little bit more strong than arhakah of Kriyashma. Kriyashma, the arhakah, is only to make sure that you do the mitzvah. Here, the arhakah is more than that. I'm afraid that a person might wait till Amunashakaar. He might not distinguish, correctly, between before Amunashakaar, in which case, he could create a real avera. It could be that we're afraid that he actually eat the khammim past us after Amunashakaar, in which case, he's doing a real Easter. So, also, siv minikah gokir, then the saminikah gokirbation is throughout for once it comes Amunashakaar. I mean, I'll eat it. Maybe that arhakah here is a severe arhakah, to make sure that a person really doesn't commit an avera. Kriyashma, the arhakhikah, the minavera is an unusual phrase, the arhakhikah, the minavera doesn't mean a real avera, it means avera with saminikah, the saminikah, it doesn't mean he transgressed, he did something wrong, it meant he omitted saying Kriyashmaar. The arhakhikah, the minavera, might really be a arhakah to prevent him from doing an Easter of eating khammim past us after, after it becomes a nosa. So, the Rama Pascans, like Rabbi Kiva, with arhakah, the rajba in Brakhah's death test, the rajba in the very beginning of the rajba in the certain editions, this is the only part of the rajba, it's quoted, other editions have an edition, but in the original first printing of the rajba, it says that according to Rabbi Kiva, asilu, asilas, sachim, asilimidrabbana, asilamrashana, it seems that Rabbi Kiva agrees there's a siyyad by most things, but by Hekta halavim, by Kriyashmaar, there's a siyyad to do it only before katsas, but there's no sachah hakad of by Kriyashmaar. In other words, according to the rajba, we're allowed, according to Rabbi Kiva, tikkhah, pasa, lekha, tila, adar abokir, and the nala, the mitzv of natsa, according to Rabbi Kiva, is lekha, tila, ada bokir. So therefore, I would understand why there should be no siyyad. I've said before that if you don't say kriyashma, true, it's an act of omission. It's an ikkhil mitzv, I say, it's not mikkhah in the mitzvah. But the rajba might argue, to tell me nati khame, tikkhah, tila katsas, would mean, first of all, I'm not mikkhah in that great mitzvah of eating khame, pasa. Okay, that might be similar to Kriyashma, maybe more, might be less, I mean, they're not in Kranzal. This is, I really can't tell you which myth is more important. They are heless Kranzal, Kriyashma. But here, in the case of Kranzal, when Kranzal, come and tell you not to eat it after Kranzal, if we would really learn, not like I mentioned before, like according to Dr. Samayak and Ramacham. If we would learn that if the Kranzal, like Rashi said, if you really don't eat it after Kranzal, that's according to his menazar, you're not allowed to eat it after Kranzal. By the court, but if you hold that, according to the Kriyashma, you can't eat it after Kranzal. It's not like ptosis. Who says that, did the Everat, even according to the, if there is Aaxak, are you still can eat it after Kranzal? If you hold, you can eat it after Kranzal. So what you're doing is saying with your Abdundon, you should create no sign. That would be a tremendous finish. So therefore, maybe that's the reason that Rashiba would disagree. Rashiba says, that according to Abdundon, there's no, there's no few under Abdundon at all. So we have, so far, the Ramba and the Rashiba. The Ramba and many other, we've shown him, think that Al-Aqah is like Revakiva, that midaraysa, you can eat till Kranzal, the Kavan-tasa, and therefore, you can eat mat-sah, midaraysa, cholalayla, but maybe even by mat-sah, there's Aaxakah to eat by Kranzal. According to the Rashiba, by Kranzal, there's no such Aaxakah. And therefore, it would seem totally illogical, there should be such Aaxakah back. And that's mat-sah. And it seems that we would be allowed to eat mat-sah, midaraysa, midaraysa. All night, the seder could be held all night. So I said before, the Ramba passings, like Revakiva, Tossos, and many other, we've shown him, Taskin, like Rev. Elizabeth Nizaya. Tossos is found in Sakhundas, in McGilladakra palace. And Tossos says, (speaking in foreign language) We pass him to Rev. Elizabeth Nizaya. Why? And as I said before, the number of stammenish nayas, the sum of anonymous missionaries, they pass him like Rev. Elizabeth Nizaya. And therefore, we pass him to stammenishna against Revakiva, and we pass him that Kranzal can be only eaten until Tossos, midaraysa. And then Tossos goes on to say, (speaking in foreign language) Since we pass him like Rev. Elizabeth Nizaya, therefore, we have to be careful to eat the matsa before katsa. (speaking in foreign language) The heat of today of eating matsa's araysa, and the aftercomma. And according to Rashi, Tossos and the Ramba, it seems to be that the Ikar, as he left matsa, the main keum of eating matsa's at the time of the aftercomma. So therefore, the aftercomma should be eaten by katsa's, because we pass him like Rev. Elizabeth Nizaya. Now, I said before, even if we pass him to vakiva, you could still argue and say that we should eat the matsa before katsa's, because even according to Revakiva, there might be a sea of drapanan to eat, not like drapishva. It could be that even Revakiva would agree that midarabanan can eat if the katsa's. The Tossos and the keum has one cooler out of the halyosho, artharabicaman, ain laxmikolaxsharimidravana. He says, this remre that I just said, that you should eat the keum patsa's before katsa's, the main lee should eat the matsa before katsa's, the main lee have to eat the aftercomma before katsa's. This remre would not apply to the halyosho if the paisa, after the after the epicamran, 'cause he says, this halyosho is drabanan, so we're not maksmi with this halyosho so much. So, so far, we have basically two opinions, shimid patsling, which afterwards divide. According to Tossos we patsmikolazamas, we patsmikolazamas are here, and therefore there is no kokumus, you have to finish the say there, at least ain laxmikolaman, until katsa's. The remreaman, other we've shown in patskin, like ripakiva. However, even according to ripakiva, there might be a siyyad, Maklokus ramminirashva, in which case, you would have to finish the say there, even according to them, if the siyyag applies to come patsa's, and the siyyag applies to matsa as well, then you have to finish the say there also by katsa's. And the shoshanara really rules this way. The shoshanara says in arachain, sininta'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a. When the person finishes the suda, (speaking in foreign language) When you finish eating the afficarman, when you finish, so when you finish the meal, then you eat the afficarman. And the shoshanara rules that this time should be eaten before Chata. In Cimmon, Ta'a'in, no. It says there, and I'm sorry, in Taba'in's mind, "I ha'i zai'il ech ha'al kadum kataas." The shokunar, the makhate rules that you should say, you should eat the a'ticoman, you should eat matzah before kataas. The ramu'a or the ha'ga, in the shokunar, says, "Even Ha'alil, the yakdi matznoshigam ha'alil ikra'at kadum kataas." Even Ha'alil, she said before kataas. I said before that, Ta'al sis in Medillah says that you can say the ha'alil after kataas, he says, "No, even Ha'alil, you should say before kataas." And of course the mishnabura and the sharas in the viralacha bring the somaklokas. They say that we pass in like the bequiva, like the replacement as Arya, as Ta'al sis does, but even according to the ramam, they might be a siamdara'banan, and therefore they rule, this should be mishnabura, rules that if a person for some reason, once even start the seder, you didn't even begin, you're up to kataas already, and now it's time to eat the first time you're up to mata. The first brahashi, that's matzah, is they have to kataas. This happens, people, or mai rishba, say there, they make kiddish, they talked a lot about the seder, they learned, they were kind, they were kind, they were kind, they were just some kind, and now we're up to eating the first kasayas, and now it's time to make a brahah. So, can you make a brahah? That's kataasas pass. According to the ramban, the discus vera is always ravelana, mida rais jukrito night. So, then you would have to learn, if the gus vera applies to matzah, applies to kataas, it would be, but the average, what would be? But according to it, but as of an asaria, it's really not the time of eating mats anymore, for sure you could not make the brahah afterwards. So, the sifmabura really tasks, that if a person did not eat kataasas, did not eat the matzah before kataasas, yo rlano belo brahah, then you should eat the matzah without a brahah. He says, you should eat the matzah, because first of all, there's no eastern eating matzah, it's not like eating kantaasas, kantaasas, there's no eastern eating matzah after kantaasas. So, I was thinking of the mikai mina mitzvah. So, according to the mikai mina mitzvah, according to the mitzvah, you're definitely not mikai mina mitzvah, according to the mikai mina mitzvah, according to the mikai mina mitzvah, according to the mikai mina mitzvah, according to the mikai mina mitzvah, according to the mikai mina mitzvah, according to the So, therefore, the best thing to do would be to eat it without a Brahma. It happens in many homes that the Seder, we try very much to eat the matzo before after come, before the kasos, as I said, according to Mr. Burian Ali, allowed even to make the Brahma after kasos. But it comes in many families that they get involved in the Hagoda, then they get involved in the Suda, and it's kasos, and they realize they have a problem. They haven't finished the meal. So, what do you do? You just say, "Well, what do I do? I have to fulfill the Shoshanara. The Shoshanara says to eat the matzo before kasos, even eating after coming before kasos, even to finish out before kasos." So what do I do? I just should skip the meal. So it's well known that there's a children of the Abni-Nayser. Other people mention the other people's name, but the Abni-Nayser's a children, Shin-Pi-Yala, who says a very interesting idea. He says that you could eat after they have to come on. But the Mishnah says, "Emmavthi m'chapasakabakamma yin al-tideftabakamma." So the Abni-Nayser explains very simply, "When you see a person can eat after coming, how long can he have to eat? How long does he have to wait?" I mean, today I eat breakfast. How can you eat breakfast? It's after the Abni-Kamma. The answer is simple. At the time that you could be m'chai in the mitzvah, so you have to fulfill the mitzvah with the tama m'chapasabhif. According to what I said before, it's a very, very nice idea. According to the Elizabeth Nazaria, the kiyyama mitzvah has the kiyyama mitzvah has the kiyyama. The kiyyama mitzvah has the knife of the mitzvah of eating the matzah earlier. It's the kiyyama mitzvah of earlier. But the real kiyyama mitzvah has the time of the kiyyama mitzvah, so you should have tama m'chapasabhif. You should have some sort of a feeling that you're eating the matzah now, that you have the kiyyama mitzvah at the time of katzos. But if going to the Elizabeth Nazaria, then it would seem that you could eat after katzos if you were allowed to eat. The only time you're not allowed to eat after the afterkamma is the time that you can kind of mitzvah. But since you can only m'chai mitzvah katzos, if the katzos you could eat. Whereas according to katzah kamma, you can eat kamtasakh, you can eat the matzah even at Amrasharah until the morning. So that's how the naysah came up with this patent, it's a very famous thing. That's how the naysah said what a person should do if he realized that he didn't eat the meal yet, as he should say, he should take a piece of matzah, and say as phalas, if the ha'lokh is like of Elizabeth Nazaria, then I mean this to be a kamma. And if the ha'lokh is not like of Elizabeth Nazaria, but it's according to katzah kamim, then I do not mean this to be a kamma. I mean this to be a regular piece of matzah, but I mean it. Then he should wait till after katzos. Now that we're after katzos, a person would say, if the ha'lokh has been in really like Elizabeth Nazaria, then I'm allowed to eat now, now we can have his whole meal. If the ha'lokh is like ha'hamim, then he didn't eat after kamma yet. If the ha'lokh, if he didn't eat after kamma yet, then he can continue eating the meal until he's the matzah, and fulfills the mitzvah, before Amrasharah. What we've learned today is that there's a matzah lokh if the ha'lokh is ha'lokh, exactly when katzah should be eaten. The ramification of this ha'lokh would be bismana zah, when should a person eat matzah, when should a person fulfill the mitzvah, so if I say there. We mention this as a myriad of opinions, exactly how do we passkin, even according to Rabbi Kiva. We have a question exactly what he means miduraysa, what he means midurabana. So therefore, we should remember that the shakun aras passkin, the katrila that a person should eat matzah and say ha'lil finish the say there before katzah, of course, the piyutim that you say at the end of the ha'gada certainly can be said after katzah. The point of the ramah, this khamma, is to say ha'lil, whereas this khamma says ha'lil, I said, even tosa doesn't think tosa says, we only have to kampasa, the matzah, until katzah. Therefore, we should try to finish the fill out. I say that this year, we think matzah and we hope that next year, we know ha'lil shaman is vah'lil, sakun, ashiyagiag, kir, ashiyagiag, dhamma makim is bhahra san, but no dellah shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda shahadda. You have been listening to Rabbi Niamin Tawari, the weekly mitzvah for Poshad kitisa. Today's al-Akhai Yomit is actually something we mentioned once in the past. It's the next al-Akhah in Shoshad al-Akh, Siman Sadivav. The title of the Siman is shayimna kal ha'tra doth kedeshayhehahvain. Now the Siman in general deals with the fact that when saying shmareseh, when davening, one has to ensure that one has total kavanah. And the way that's done is by preventing any thing that might interfere, anything, any outside interference with one's davening. The actual ha'laha quoted in Shoshad never is that you're not allowed to hold anything in your hand. The Muhammad says, 'Loya has be a doth fi'lin, you never hold fi'lin, for doth saver me kitwa kadesh, you never hold a saver, for doth karamileah, not a vessel or a plate that's full, for doth sakinumah al-bikikah, if nayshuli bore the hand shulohippu, because you're afraid they might fall. The gomorah doesn't say that reason, the gomorah doesn't say that reason, the gomorah doesn't say that you never hold things, just a number of things you never hold in your hand. Vashi gives the explanation that because these are things which if they fall, the example is given, saqin, a knife, money, bread, fy'lin, which you don't want to fall because they're holy, if you worry that they will fall, therefore you have to pay attention when you hold it. And that, the attention that's needed to hold something, it's not very great, but nonetheless it's taking away from the kabana tat fi'lin, kabana tat fi'lin, you are nowhere, you're simply before God, and you should not have to be aware, you should not have to pay any attention whatsoever to your environment, because that's Vashi's reason for the salah. And therefore the pro skim derived from Vashi that doesn't apply to everything, it only applies to those things, but there's a reason for the person to be worried that they might fall. So we have two examples here, or actually three kinds of examples, things which are holy, it's also for them to fall, to your embassy rule, karam lei hai, which it's difficult to hold, because it's full, or things which you especially worry about the falling a knife, because it might fall on your foot, or money, because it's valuable, or kikka, be severe, because it'll be ruined if it hits the floor. I mentioned once, and I think it's obvious, it's not in the list, but based on this you never to hold a child in your hands, but you're really worried about dropping a child, a second of the fact that the child also is difficult to hold, he might square, he might move, and a lot of clearly would apply, although you see it all the time, young parents who bring their little children to show, and don't know what to do with them during smanessary, so they hold them. It would appear to be against the salah. The gomara says in sukha, that in you shalayim, the minagwaz, that on sukhaat, this now explains the people would come, the khachamim, khachmayu shalayim would come to shul with their love, and they would dove and holding the love, they would say kriyachmawu to the love, they would say schmawu to the love, only when they went home would they put the love down. The gomara asks, how can they do that, how can they dove and holding the love, it's also to hold anything in your hand, the gomara says, since the love is mitzvah taiyom, there is no problem, and that she explains that, because it's mitzvah, it doesn't interfere with one's kavana, now psychologically it's not clear why that should be true, the person will be very worried because it's mitzvah, he'll be very worried by dropping it, but apparently the reason is that psychologically it's not a separate thing, when one's divining, one can't be concerned about money, but something of a mitzvah, it doesn't contest, it doesn't interfere with the kavana of tfila, because it becomes part of the kavana of tfila, when it's standing before God and things one does as a mitzvah, even if you have to actually pay some attention to them, but they consider to be all one kavana because it all has to do with service of God, I think psychologically you're able to integrate it together, because it's not, it doesn't involve a separate part of your mind so much, from this sleep or skin derived, an important tahla kha, which is not explicit anywhere in nikmah, then one can hold a sinner, if one davens from the sinner, the gross says you're not allowed to hold even kitfila, I call this, even a holy book, what it's to do is different, not because it's different in its nature, but because it's your davening from it, so based on the way I explained, I explained the love, even more so, a sinner, you might be concerned about holding it, but the attention you pay to the sinner doesn't contest, doesn't write a rival, the intention of kavana of tfila, becomes part of the kavana of tfila, therefore one who davens from the sinner, we spoke yesterday about davening with your eyes closed, the davening from the sinner, one who davens from the sinner, because it adds to his kavana, there's also no problem of holding it while one, while one is davening, the poskim, some poskim claim that this is not only hala kha in schmarese, the language of the kamari is loit palel, the language of the shukhanu is loit palel, as you said a number of times tfila means schmarese, some poskim said look to other things which require kavana, for instance, kriyachma, in fact, the kavana for kriyachma might even be greater, necessity, the level of kavana for kriyachma might be greater than that for schmarese, and if we can move in fact, poskim is one should not hold anything in one's hand while saying kriyachma as well, other poskim is agreeing, it's not mentioned in the gmavana, they say it might be the higher level of kavana, but it's different kind of kavana, kavana for schmarese, you're not in this world, you're standing before god, kavana for kriyachma is kavana for the words, and you're capable of doing that even if you have to hold something, you're not fearing for your life, you have to hold something, but in Michigan, in fact, poskins that at least one should try, the katrila, one should not hold anything in one's hand even for what's saying kriyachma, or other trilat, other things which require kavana, in any event, if one does hold something, for whatever reason, it doesn't invalidate the trilat, and one does not have to dive in again, unless, in fact, really did ruin your kavana, and again I say, I think that someone was holding a squirming baby in his hands, it's very likely that it really has interfered seriously with this kavana, and it's very possible that it's not your thing, it has to be considered within the context of whether or not it really had the effect of lowering the trilat beneath the minimal level of kavana, which means at least for the first bhaja, as we'll shortly say, you need kavana for kavana, it could be, in fact, it could in fact be a problem, and the poskins say that if it's something which you have to pick up, let's say, something fell, and if you don't pick it up, a sitter fell, if you don't pick it up, that in alone will ruin your kavana, because you're worried about it, so then you'll have to pick it up, let's say you begin to dive in with avocera, and then you remember that, oh, there's a special tilayom, you have a yava, you don't know it by heart, so you'll have to pick up the sitter, but if you don't know where the sitter is, you begin to look for it, that's a problem, so obviously, when you prepare the sitter, what's going to say, look, if, in fact, you're not going to be able to say a yava, without a sitter, it's better to say it and have a momentary interference with kavana, but then we turn to the tilayom, they're not to say it at all, so although they suggest I want you not to look for a sitter in the middle of diving, if you have no choice, then obviously, it's permitted, that's it for today, we'll be back tomorrow with the shiul on poshad ashavua, you have been listening to kmTT, and this is as we were wishing you the kat ha tora mitzian, cult of kimitzian tece tora with varashem yurushalayim. [BLANK_AUDIO]