KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #12
KMTT - Berachot, Shiur #12, by Rav Yair Kahn
This is KMTT, and this is Azubic. Today is Mandayamshini kaf Adar, and we are back for another week of KMTT. Kimi Tsiyon Tezeitora, brought to you by Ishivatar Ition and Israel Koshitski, virtual vatement rush. Our service statistics tell me that there are a whole bunch of people out there who are listening to KMTT, but who are not registered with us on our mailing list. So I'd like to ask you more as a favor to yourselves and to myself. It's important every now and then, not too often, we do send out notices by email of changes, of news that relates to how it listens to the KMTT podcasts, and it really pays to be on the mailing list. So go to the website at www.kimitsiyon.org That's kimitsiyon, K-I-M-I-T-Z-I-O-N.org. You'll see on the left side a button to click on in order to register. If for some reason there's anyone listening to this, who doesn't know what the Israel Koshitski virtual vatement rush is, so I would suggest you go to the VBM's website at www.vbm-tourer.org and subscribe to the VBM, which will send written serum to you by email. There's 16 different serum in almost every possible area of Torah. And when you do have time to actually sit and learn Torah, v Torah, and not just listen to KMTT, that's another wonderful option. Today's share, as usual on Mondays, is the share of Ravi Ayukan in Hukhat, Bharat. We're going to continue our discussion of the Mishnah 40a dafmamum al-Raf. The Mishnah says as follows, "Birhek apirashe el-enbori piyadam wa yatsa. If one inadvertently made the bracha bari piyadamah, which is normally made, on vegetables, if he made that bracha on fruit that grows on a tree, he fulfilled his requirement. However, in the opposite case, vahapirashe aras bari piyadashe el-lyatsa. If one made the bracha bari piyadas, which was not too kind, which was established for fruit that grows on the tree, if he made that bracha on vegetables, then he did not fulfill his requirement. Then the Mishnah brings the last case, vahul kulam im amar shakon yabudvaro yatsa. If on both these cases, whether pero sa ej or pero sa adama, he made a shakon yabudvaro, he fulfilled his requirement. We already discussed the makhlokas of huna and abyo khanan. If this din al-kulam im amar shakon yabudvaro yatsa includes bread and wine, past and yayin as well, or it's limited to misonos, to pero sa adama, to pero sa ilan, but it was never said regarding past for yayin. At first glance, the din that opens up the Mishnah, vireh a pero sa ilan bari piyadama yatsa, is the same din as the final din of the Mishnah, vahulam im amar shakon yabudvaro yatsa. In both cases, you have a more general bracha, and it covers a more specific case. In the case of vireh a pero sa ilan bari piyadama, what you did was that you took something which is more specific pero sa ilan, and you said bari piyadama, even though ilan is more specific, it's not only a fruit of the ground, but it's a fruit of a tree that grows in the ground. However, it's also included in the more general bracha, and therefore one of the filters requirement. The same is true regarding the final din of the Mishnah. Vahulam im amar shakon yabudvaro yatsa. Shakon yabudvaro is the broadest base. Shakon yabudvaro, everything, was created by a Kurdish bracha whose word, and therefore it covers everything, even the more specific cases of vireh a pero sa ilan bari piyadama, of the mizoros, et cetera. However, we find a very interesting rishamhi that might challenge our assumption. The rishamhi is found in parak shishi halakhabes, and it discusses a story which is also found in the bawli, but there's a variation between the way the story is related in rishamhi and the way it's related in the bawli. According to rishamhi, the story goes as follows. Barakapara, Barakapara, found himself with two of his tambi din, and they brought to them a few different things to eat. At the chameon, pargon, vahakunya, vikaflutin. Pargon is something, it's some kind of pargio, something made of chicken, whose bracha is shakon. Akhonya is some kind of fruit that goes on a tree, whose bracha is bawli piyadama. Amru, nivarekh al-kaflutta, do patar akhonaysa, let's make a bracha on the kaflutta, which is bawli piyadama, because that will cover the bawli piyad as well. Below patar, pargisa, however, will not cover the shahako that one has to make on the pargisa. Should one do that, or perhaps nivarekh al akhonaysa? Should we make a bracha on the bawli piyad, lo patar lo den vlogen? Then we won't cover either the pargisa, or the kaflutin. Kafat shahad, ubirakh al-pargisa shakonayabid vahro. One of the tambi din got up and jumped, and made a bracha shakonayabid vahro on the pargisa. Ghakhe klechabre, his friend, smiled, laughed, made fun of him, amhle ba kapara lola zag gurgaran el lachal loglan. I'm not angry at the one who jumped in eight food, but rather I'm angry at the one who made fun of his friend. Zeh asab begargun luso, a talam luglagta. He jumped in the eight, the chicken because he was hungry, but why did you laugh at him? Lo zamar, and to the other one who jumped and made a bracha, he said, khakha mankhan, zakha mankhan. Even assuming there's nobody here that's smart that you can ask what you should make a bracha first, is there not somebody who has more experience, who's older that you could have asked? Amrula yatsa shnasan acha maisu. Both of these tambi din died within the year. Amrab yossi, ha'azlinaan, train, vlogosha maniminaklum, two people, two tambi din died, but we still don't know the alacha, what's the alacha over here? When you have a situation where you have a very friend, an eight, a very piaadamab, and a shakha mankhan, what bracha should you make? My cadain, mistabra, mivarekh, alachaflutta, shakha manniabid warot, feil alow. The pneimosha understand the conclusion of the ushami as follows. You should make a bracha on the kaflut, which is a very piaadamab, and that will cover the bari piaa8s as well. Because of the din, the first din of our mission is a birekh al-piaa8s, pero sa ila and bari piaadamab yatsa. However, you shouldn't make the bracha shakha manniabid warot, which would cover both the eights and the aadamab. Because shakha manniabid warot, feil alow, it's a less of an important bracha, it's not an important bracha. In other words, based on this understanding of ushami, to make a bracha bari piaadamab, to cover bari piaa8s, is something that can be done likaatrila. However, to make a bracha shakha, to cover bari piaadamab or bari piaa8s could only be done bidi evid. It should really not be done. If it happened, so it happened. In other words, the ratio of the mission is something that one can proactively do. It's something that can be done likaatrila, one can go ahead and make a bari piaadamab, to cover bari piaa8s so that there shouldn't be a problem of making a bracha shainatsuita. We have to make a bracha both on this and both on something else. However, when the choice is shaakha to cover that bari piaa8s or bari piaadamab, then one should not make the bracha of shakha. You should make an independent bracha of bari piaadamab or bari piaa8s and a shaakha as well. So according to the ushami, there's a distinction between the ratio of the missiona. Bari piaadamab yatsa, where it's not only a dimbedi evid, but it could even be done likaatrila, so that one should not have rewebrachos, which by the way, we don't pass them like this. And the safea, which says that if bari piaadam shaakha only evid bari yatsa, that's something that could only be done bidi evid. That's the way the payment osha understands the ushami. So in other words, we have a distinction between the ratio and the safer, and of course, we're going to have to try to explain this distinction. Based on what we said in the last year, that shakha only evid bari was a totally different type of a bracha, where it contains no shaakha at all, and it's limited to being a matir, one can certainly understand this ushami. However, today we're going to look at the sugya from a different perspective. Let's start by taking a look at the gomara on dafnem omeralith on 40a. Based, in order to explain the first of the mission of biracha pera sa ilan boy piaadam yatsa, the gomara says his follows. Man tan de ikar ilan arahi, amra of nachman bai yatsraak, rabhiyuhu dehi dithnan, yavei shaayan, vinixa sa ilan, mayvi vieno kore, rabhiyuda omer mayvi vikore. The gomara asks, who is it, who is the tanah who holds that ikar ilan arahi? That the main part of an ilan, the main aspect of an ilan is the kaaka. Kaaka is the main thing. Amra of nachman bai yatsaak, rabhiyudahi dithnan, rabhiyuda, it's rabhiyuda who said in the mission in bikore. Yavei shaayan, mayvi vinixa sa ilan, the tanah kamma says, mayvi vieno kore, rabhiyuda omer mayvi vikore. The dint of mayvi, the ilo kore, or mayvi vikore, is when one brings a bikurim, one normally also has a mikra bikurim. There's an entire parash that one says. And part of one of the things that it mentions in the parashab is saying, giving thanks to our karash barokhu for giving us the land upon which we grew our fruit. You say, you say, minadama shanatatali. And the question is, if I have a field, however that field right now can no longer produce the fruit that I want to bring to the basic mikgash within the context of bikurim, could one still say minadama shanatatali? In other words, if one has a field, but the trees on that field were cut down. Or one had a field and he had a well in the field. And the only reason that the fruit was able to grow was because of the water that came from that well. But the well dried up, and therefore the fruit can no longer grow. Can one take the fruit that previously grew before that she was cut down or before the well dried up, bring it to the basic mikgash, give it to the kowain and say the parashab bikurim. And within the parashab say, minadama shanatatali. Thanking karash barokhu for the land that he gave me in a situation where this land can no longer produce the fruit. The town of Kama says no. You can no longer say the parashab mikra bikurim. Rabi-hud says you still can. Because the kwan-tabi-hudab as long as the land exists. So even though this particular tree doesn't exist, but the main thing of bikurim is taking for the land. Because the land can always potentially give new fruit. You can plant a new tree, you could have irrigation, you could bring water. As long as the land is there, we still land as being the primary reason that the fruit rose. In other words, when a fruit grows on a tree, I relate it to the land. I see there's proudest of the land. I think I'll cut a karash barokhu for the land, not for the tree. According to the town of Kama, if the tree is no longer there, then I can't thank for the fruit. Because the fruit grows comes not from the land, the fruit comes from the tree, not from the land. And therefore, if the tree no longer exists or the tree is in a situation since the well dried up, where it can no longer give fruit, one would no longer say the mikrah bikurim. However, kon trapiuda as long as the land exists, one can still recite the mikrah bikurim. Based on this kamara, Tosto says his follows. Venera daha laka krabiuda, desatam lantana kavase. Vim birecha, pero sa ilam, boi piadamayatsa. It would appear that regarding the maklokas, in the mikurim, halaqa is like abiuda. Because over here, we have a stam mishna, a mishna that is not a tribute to anybody in particular. And normally, the halaqa is like a stam mishna. And our stam mishna says that if you made a bari piadamayatsa ilam, you fulfilled your requirement. And according to our dumara, this halaqa and the mishna goes according to his sheeta, according to abiuda. And therefore, since it would appear from our parek, in case of mavarkim, that we pass in birecha, pero sa ilam, boi piadamayatsa. It follows from that that we also pass in like abiuda. Because what Tosto says is assuming that according to the tannakama in bikurim, that nixa sa ilam would not say mikrah bikurim, then it would also be true that if one made the bracha, boi piadamayatsa ilam, one would not fulfill his requirements. Because I don't look at the fruit as coming from the ground. I look at the fruit as coming primarily from the tree. And therefore, if I made a bracha bari piadamayatsa, what did the adamayatsa do with the fruit that go on the tree? It didn't grow on the ground, it grew on the tree, and therefore I have to say, bari piadats, bari piadamayatsa simply doesn't fit. However, the ramban in hilchos bikurim, paskin like the tannakama. That nixa sa ilam, vyave shambayan, one does not say mikrah bikurim. But nevertheless, in hilchos bracha, he paskins our missiona. That if one made a bracha bari piadamayatsa ilam, one for filters requirement. The racha bah in our sogia asked the question on the ramban. The ramban would seem to be contradicting himself. The kastin mishna on the ramban asked this question as well. And in order to explain the ramban, he brought in a ushami which brings two different opinions regarding this issue. The first opinion in ushami in parak vavalakabhe is like our gamara. Babihiski abhishaym ab yaku barachad dravyudahi, dravyudah abhiratat elaotikashim, armor ab yosi divya kohi. Our missiona goes both according to uda and according to tannakama. Peyra sa ilan bekhlaal pero sa adama. The aim pero sa adama bekhlaal pero sa eights. In other words, pero sa ilan is the more specific category. Peyra sa adama is simply a broader category which covers pero sa ilan as well. But since pero sa adama is the broader category, therefore, if one made a bracha bari per eights, it cannot cover the broader category. For instance, bari pia guffin is more specific than bari pia eights. Guffin is a specific kind of eights. It's something that goes on a vine. And that's the bracha that kazawa matakein for drinking wine. If one made a bracha bari pia eights, it covers all kinds of eights in, including the guffin as well. Eights is a broader category. Guffin is more specific category. The same is true regarding pero's. Pero sa ilan covers all fruit that grows on trees. Pero sa adama includes everything that grows from the ground, whether it goes from the ground directly or it goes from the ground via a tree. Nevertheless, it's a broader category. Therefore, he says this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of mikrabi kurim, whether I'm able to thank a karish bari pia in a situation where I have land but I no longer have this specific tree. Because the question of mikrabi kurim is the question of giving thanks to a karish bari pia eights. How can I give thanks to a karish bari pia eights on fruit that grew in the field that can no longer give any more fruit? So even though it could be that adama is a broader category than eights. Regarding the question of brachos, nevertheless regarding mikrabi kurim, that won't be enough. Let's try to appreciate what exactly is the miklokas between these two different opinions in the Ushami. One, that's similar to our gamara in connecting rabi huda in the mishna and bikurim with our mishna, and the other opinion that says one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It seems to me that there are two different ways that we can understand the den of the mishna, bire k arpero sa ilan bari pia adama yatsa. One way that we could explain the den of the mishna is that pero sa ilan are pero sa adama as well, and therefore the brachah bari pia adama covers pre-high eights as well. Maybe you weren't specific as much as you should have been, but nevertheless, you made a brachah which relates directly to pero sa ilan. That's one way that we could explain the den of the mishna. The other way that we could explain the den of the mishna is that the brachah bari pia adama was never metuka on pero sa ilan, and it doesn't relate to pero sa ilan. However, if in a case where you made a mistake, since the brachah that you made is not shakir, it does fit, it's suitable for pero sa ilan. Pero sa ilan can be considered a bire pia adama, therefore the brachah of bire pia adama is enough in this case where you made a mistake. Let me rephrase what I just said using categories that we've established in previous puri. One way of explaining it is that the brachah, every brachah which contains not only the aspect of the makti or hanah, allowing one to have hanah, by having a brachah before one per takes from pleasure of this world. But it includes shabakh as well, there's a certain amount of shabakh, and one is more specific, and one talks and gives shabakh about this thing that I've created that I'm getting hanah from, that brachah includes the aspect of shabakh as well. The question in our Mishnah is, does the shabakh of bire pia adama apply to the case of pero sa ilan as well? I gave shabakh to a pero sa ilan regarding pero sa ilan, the shabakh was not as specific as it could have been, but nevertheless this brachah can contain not only the hater to get hanah from this world, since I made a brachah, but it contains shabakh as well. You could have said more specific shabakh, however, however, bire pia adama is shabakh which relates to pero sa ilan as well. Or perhaps there's no shabakh at all, because bire pia adama was mitukan on vegetables, because vegetables are pero sa ilan, pero sa ilan, fruit aculan, trees is not pero sa ilan at all, but nevertheless the de-evid, the brachah, bire pia adama can at least serve function as a matir, since it wasn't a lie, since pero sa ilan are also to a certain extent pero sa ilan, pero sa ilan also indirectly grow from a tree, and therefore there's a brachah that at least is not shaker, it's not a lie, and therefore this brachan can be used to a matir eating from the pero sa ilan in a situation of a mistake. This might be the makhlokas between the two different opinions in the ushami. If we say that it's talloy in the makhlokas in bikurian, that's only if we agree to the opinion of rabiha keba, that ikar ilan arahu, what does ikar ilan arahu mean? It means that I look at pero sa ilan as being basically pero sa adama. There's a conduit, the conduit is a tree, but nevertheless I look at pero sa ilan as being pero sa adama. So you could have said a more specific shavakh, you said a more general shavakh, but nevertheless pero sa ilan are pero sa adama, and that's exactly what the ushami says. The ushami doesn't say ikar ilan arahu, the ushami has a different phrase. The ushami says the corintra of yudah, alvides to ilanos kikashim. He looks at ilanos as being straw that grows. In other words, the fruit basically comes from the adama. It doesn't come from the tree, the tree is simply a conduit, but the fruit grows from the adama itself, and therefore any fruit that goes on a tree is a pre-ha adama. So you could be more specific and say, what kind of pre-ha adama is this? Is this a pre-ha adama that grew directly on the ground, or is it a pre-ha adama that grew indirectly from the ground? But it's a pre-ha adama, and since it's a pre-ha adama, the brocha, buri pre-ha adama, goes on pero sa ilan as well. The shavakh, buri pre-ha adama, is perfectly suitable for pero sa ilan, and therefore the brocha contains not only a matir, but it contains a shavakh, albeit a low level of shavakh, because it's less specific, but it contains the element of shavakh as well. However, that's only a quantra of yudah, who looks at the fruit that goes on a tree, as fruit that grew in the adama itself. Ikar ilan arahu, the main part of pero sa ilan is the arah. I look at the peros as having grown out of the ground, and therefore as long as the ground exists, I can say in mikrabi kurm as ha-dama a-shana sa-tali. However, the second opinion says, I'm not concerned with the mishnabi kurm, mishnabi kurm is irrelevant. Divriha kauli, pero sa ilan bhiklah pero sa ha-dama, vane pero sa ha-dama bhiklah pero sa-8s. In other words, since pero sa ilan are a more specific category of pero sa ha-dama, therefore, if once said, baripya-dama, it wasn't a shakir. It's included in pero sa-dama. Pero sa-dama is a broader category, and this is irrelevant of whether or not I relate pero sa ilan to the adama, and I consider the pero sa ilan as being the pero sa-dama. The question is only one question. The question is, is the braha, do the words, the words that I said, can it cover in some way pero sa ilan? Yes or no? The answer is yes, because even if I don't view the pero sa ilan as being pero sa-dama, nevertheless, there's no doubt that the pero sa ilan could not have grown had it not been nourished by the adama, and therefore, from a certain perspective, they are fruit of the ground as well, whether I view them that way or I don't view them that way holocically. But nevertheless, it's not a lie. And therefore, the braha, bidi evid, pimakha dehana, even though the chevakha burha-dama might not relate to pero sa ilan. Let's consider an additional gamara. The Mishnah on 40b, Daphnima with Baiz, says his follows. Haiyu the fun of Minim Haarbei, if one had a lot of different types of fruit, if one had a lot of fruit, then one had a lot of fruit. If among these fruit, he had certain fruit, which are part of the chevakha minim, the seven types of fruit, shenestabha behana eretis fael, rita saura, which are rita saura na frupa, gefen, teina, veriman, erisei, shemin, devash, then one should make the braha, the brahi, parades, and those items. However, if he didn't have one of the chevakha minim, then there's no cadim and there's no preference for making the braha on a specific type of fruit as opposed to a different fruit. Krakam says, "No, you always make the braha on what you personally prefer." The gamara and Daphnima al from Raul, 41a, says his follows. Amr ula makhlokas kishpe shabir al-sem shavot. The entire makhlokas of whether you go after personal preference or whether you go after the shenestabha minim is only when we're talking about things that all have a body prayer aids. Wihuda sava min shiva adif, frabhaan and sabri min hadevadif. Rabbi huda goes after min shiva, the shenestabha minim, while according to our banan, you go after personal preference. Aa vobesha ain behra al-sem shavot, however, the brahkot are not exactly the same. divre ako, mivare khaose, vekhoose, un vare khaose. Everybody agrees that you make a braha on one, and you make a braha on the other. For instance, let's say you had vegetables and fruit that grows on trees, then you make a braha on one, and then you make a braha on the other. What's interesting is that the Gomara doesn't say which you make a braha on first. Do you first make a braha, bhari piyadama, and then bhari prayer aids? Or do you first make a bhari prayer aids, and then bhari piyadama? From pastas of the loss of the Gomara, the order doesn't necessarily make a difference. However, based on what we learned, that if you made a braha, bhari piyadama, it covers braha prayer aids. We would assume that if you made the brahi piyadama first, on the vegetables, you would no longer be able to make the brahi piyadama aids on fruit. However, rashi argues. Rashi says as follows. Vah fagav ditz naan, bhire kha piyos hai elan bhari piyadama yatsa, even though we learned now in the Mishnah, that if one made a braha, bhari piyadama on fruit that goes on trees, he fulfilled his requirement, hai nimili bhari bhari bhari piyadama. Vitah, ubir echalea, bhari piyadama. That's when I picked up an apple and accidentally made a braha, bhari piyadama on that apple. Avalts, known visite, if you have a radish and an olive, ubir ech alats known, you made a bhari piyadama on the radish, loaned if tara zite. Then you have to make a brahi prayer aids on the zite. In other words, according to Rashi, the dinner of the Mishnah and dafmamamad alif, bhire kha piyos hai elan bhari piyadama yatsa, is only when one made a mistake. One picked up a fruit, one intended to make a braha on that fruit, he made a mistake instead of saying bhari piyad aids, he made a braha bhari piyadama, he was the ultimate, he fulfilled his requirement. However, if one planned on making a brahi piyadama on a vegetable on a tomato, then that braha covers only the tomato. It does not cover any peyos hai elan, which one wants to subsequently eat. Tamida Reganayona, Arguan Rashi, and seis phallos. The Afa gavshishaninu bhir ech al peyos hai elan bhari piyadama yatsa, even though we learned that if one makes a braha, bhari piyadama and peyos hai elan, you worry out, say, so why does it say over here, vivarekh alseh, vivarekh alseh, first you make a braha and let's say the vegetables, and then you repeat the braha and make a braha on the fruit, zelkshe miska vin de varekh alseh, a preastro. That's only when you had kavana to make that this braha brahi piyadama should be on that fruit. Avila hai hai hai, seis bhisha, sha ama brahi piyadama, lonest kavin de varekh al preya echs, saurekh laksa, ulevarekh, brahi piyad ech, sheinon ifta bhir alseh, bhir alseh, bhir alseh bhir alseh bhir alseh, in other words, according to Rabin Yona, if one made a braha on a vegetable, brahi piyadama on a vegetable, and one had intention of eating not only this vegetable and other vegetables, but fruit as well. Then the braha brahi piyadama would cover all the vegetables and the fruit that he intends on eating. Well, according to Rashi, the entire din of bhir ech bhir ech bhir ech bhir ech bhir ech bhir ech bhir ech bhir ech. Based on what we said, I would explain to Mahlokas, Rashi and Tamidra, Rabin Yona as follows. If we look at brahi piyadama as being a braha on bhir ech bhir ech as well, and the chevach of brahi piyadama includes perosa ech, because perosa ech are also perosa adama, then Rabin Yona is right. If I make a braha on one fruit and I plan on eating other fruit, then the brahi piyad tai made on one fruit, covers all the fruit. If I made a braha brahi piyadama on one vegetable, it covers all the vegetables. all the vegetables. Baripar eta one on one prayer eta covers all the all the perosa eta. As long as you add kavana it covers everything because the bracha baripar dama is khaa on perosa even as well. The bracha baripar dama is a bracha on perosa even because perosa even are perosa a dama. One could have made a better bracha. One could have could have offered more specific shavach. However, one made a bracha that covers perosa elan as well because perosa elan are perosa a dama ikar elan arahu and that makes a lot of sense according to Rabi Huda the shita Rabi Huda and then our mission would be limited to Rabi Huda. However, according to Rashi we can suggest that it's not that perosa elan are a pre-haa dama. Perosa elan are not a pre-haa dama. However, when one said the bracha baripar dama, it wasn't a shekir and therefore at least one is not in the category of being nanem inha ulama zebali bracha. One said a bracha which makes sense. The words are not absurd. The words cover what one did and therefore if one made a bracha baripar dama on a pre-ha etz, then since it wasn't an absurdity, since it wasn't false, therefore one was allowed to eat from the pre-haa etz. However, pre-haa etz is not a perosa elan. And therefore if one made the bracha on a vegetable, why should it cover the perosa etz? After all perosa etz are not perosa elan. It's only when one made the bracha on the pre-haa etz itself, then we have to ask ourselves the question, bidivid. Was it false or can it fit? Do those words fit? Or was what he said a total absurdity? And the answer is the words do fit and therefore is not categorized as being nanem inha ulama zebali bracha. However, the bracha is not perosa elan, because perosa elan are not perosa edama. Based on our interpretation, one should then explain the ramba as follows. According to the ramba, perosa elan are not perosa edama and therefore the bracha cannot work within the format that Ravi Huda might have suggested. The bracha, baripa edama, is not kaal. It was not said on perosa elan. However, if one made the bracha on perosa elan since he didn't say something which is an absurdity, therefore he's at least not categorized as being nanem inha ulama zebali bracha and therefore bidivid the bracha can in fact work. The question is why did the ramba choose to go according to one opinion in the Ushami rather than accept the bhavali? Well, either according to the Kestan Mishnah, the ramba paskan like the bhavali. I'm sorry, like the Ushami. But perhaps one could also give it another suggestion. It's interesting that the loshon of the gumara is as follows. Mantana de ikar elan arahu. Who is the tana that holds ikar elan arahu? And then it brings down our vihudah in bhikudah. The gumara did not say mantana de massinesin. Who is the tana of our mission? Rather, mantana de ikar elan arahu. The gumara really never said that the din of our mission only works according to our vihudah. The gumara basically is saying who is the opinion that the bracha, baripa edama, could work on perosa et le chattrile because perosa it's our perosa elan. Who is that tana? The answer is rabi uhudah. However, there's another possible way of explaining our mission. The other way of explaining our mission is like the other day in the Ushami, which the bhavali couldn't agree to as well. In other words, according to the tana kama, that ikar elan arahu. And that you don't say mikrabi kurim. Nevertheless, that day I can accept the din of our mission, but for a different reason. Not because perosa elan are perosa edama. And the bracha is kraal on the perosa elan, but simply, so as not to be categorized, vidiyeved as a na na mina olamazeba lo bracha. You made a bracha. The bracha that you said is not absurd. The bracha fits. It's not a lie. And therefore, you're not considered na na mina olamazeb below bracha. According to this, the gamara never intended unlimited the mishna to the shita of rabi uhudah, but rather understood that there are two different ways of understanding the mishna. Who is the tana that understands the mishna according to the understanding that perosa elan are perosa edama. And the bracha can be kraal, le katrila on the perosa elan. And who is the opinion that denies that, rabi uhud is the opinion that accepts that, ikar illan aru. However, according to the tana kamba, that's not true. Since we say yakun rabi wa laka karabim, and we usually pass like a star mishna, the rabi uhudah chose to pass, can it be cool if, like the tana kamba, like rabi uhudah, but nevertheless, our mishna, that biracha, or perosa elan burra pera dama yaksa, is ojir mipsak, according to the rabi as well, as is said explicitly in the Ushalmi. To conclude, based on the way we explained our Ushalmi that we began with, it's very, very simple. If one accepts that, according to Ushalmi, according to the opinion that perosa elan are perosa edama. And the bracha is kraal, le katrila on perosa elan, because you did say shaabakh, perhaps not as good as shaabakh, as you could have said. However, the shaabakh bari pera dama covers perosa elan as well. Therefore, to say bari pera dama on perosa elan can be done le katrila. However, shaakko on pre ha dama, or perosa elan, is certainly only be deveid, because as we said in the previous year, shaakko is not shaabakh on perosa elan perosa edama, but rather, it's only a matir. It only allows one to get her not. It only defines one as not being categorized as a nene minna lama as a blow bracha. And therefore, if one made bracha kone bivaro on the pariote, be deveid. It might cover the perosa elan or perosa edama, but le katrila, it should certainly not be done. However, perosa edama, le katrila, working for perosa elan, that, according to one possible understanding, what we attribute to rabuda, certainly can be suggested in Yushali. Today's had a high omit. You saw the makhabir who said that you have to put your feet together when you dive into which the rabuda added yesh omorim, kushombeib le tpaleil y rekhlefanaab shaaloshap siyot, darakirub, bhagashadid waa, shatsarekh lassad. Rama says yesh omorim, the rasam who said that when we fall and begins to dive in, we want to take three steps forward. Rama explains this is darakirub, vhagashadid waa, shatsarekh lassad. It exhibits a coming close and preparing oneself to do that which one has to do. The makhabir ala has not found indigamara, as you might have imagined from the language of the rabuda, yesh omorim, with those who say, it's based on a sefaha'u kahir, medieval German work, who brings this minag. It's quoted by the Rama as we just saw the halacha, and basically it's found in mishanim among those sources which are known collectively as sifuta de vey vashi. There's a whole collection of works which more or less relate to vashis, tell me them they quote rashi a great deal, and this halacha is found here in sefaha'u parades and sidurashi in the makhs of vitri, that's where this halacha was brought, but afterwards it's more or less accepted by all the akhraim, and the vash does not mention halacha, and the aliwaba claims that the vashis shite is that halacha only applies if you're diving at home. In other words, the ideas you're finding your own will. You have to take three steps to speak to enter God's presence. Again, I remind you of the principle I mentioned a few times ago. All these halacha are based on the idea that if you love, represents amidal, ifne, amelach, standing before the king. And so here, Plupur says, the aliwaba explains what Plupur is saying, that if you're in your house, you have to enter God's presence. So you take three steps forward. It says if you went to shore, you've walked the shore. Within the shore doesn't make a difference where you stand. However, all the akhraim reject this and they claim that the minag applies in all places, as we all do, you take three steps forward when you begin to dive it. The common minag is to see people taking three steps back and then three steps forward before they begin to dive it. Most akhraim understand this is not being mandated, and it's just the minag that arose because you wanted to make sure that you had the three steps to take. So you sort of speak of clearing the space behind you. How would you know how many, how to work forward? In other words, you really don't have to do it, and that's more or less what the mission of your past comes in. There are some akhraim based on the Russian or the Sephirokach who claimed that no, you're supposed to take three steps back and then three steps forward. It's hard to see what the reasoning would be. The reasoning might be something in Kampala. Basically, most of the poets can hold that it's not actually necessary. It's merely a done and done to make sure to like measure out the steps one is going to have to take. In the end of the fila, as we shall see, this is mentioned in Nigemara. The end of the fila one takes three steps backwards. That many is a Gomara. And there, the akhraim that you do return to the place should begin. The opposite direction you take three steps backwards, and then after waiting for the period of time, it takes three steps forward. That's all found in the Gomara, but in the beginning of the fila, to take the three steps forward, to begin to davening, this does not have a tamburic macar. Again, the idea is really very, very essential. It indicates something very, very important about fila. When one begins to daven, when it is leaving one's normal place, the mundane area, your own life, your own occupations, and you enter into God's presence, you enter into an audience with the king, and three physical steps that we take, mentally they project us, out of where we're found, and into the presence of Melechma Chaim La Chaim, Bibonha Olamim. That's it for today. Tomorrow's sheer will be in issues and problems with medieval Jewish philosophy. Last week I didn't give the sheer because of Purim, the sheer will be given tomorrow, and until then, this is Ezra Bik wishing you, called to hear from Gushit Seon, and for Melechma Chaim La Chaim La Chaim La Chaim La Chaim La Chaim La Chaim La Chaim.