KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Weekly Mitzva 11 - KiTisa
Weekly Mitzva for Parashat KiTisa, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
KMTT. This is KMTT, the Torah podcast. Kimi Tseon Tetsay Torah. And today is Wednesday. Teeth Vaveda. Shushan Purim. It's Purim in Ushalayim. Kimi Tseon Tetsay Torah. If Tseon meant only Ushalayim, we probably would not be having this broadcast. Any Torah that would come out of Ushalayim today would be Purim Torah. But since for most of you, it's not Purim, I don't wish to subject you to Purim Torah. So today Tseon is called Arasisayim. And I am in Kushatseon. We're only 20 minutes away from Ushalayim. But our Purim was Tuesday. And we're going back to regular schedule of Torah. Today for Shushan Purim. Today's share will be the share of Aras Vina Mintovari, the weekly mitzvah for Pashaad Ki Tseon. Vayyam Rashaan Amosheh, kataval hata de Varimah ela, kyapya de Varimah ela karaat yidha britwet yisrayah. Akad Jbaril who tells Moshah to write down what he told him. Then he used a phrase because with these things, I created the covenant, the britwet with you. Rashi Yul Khomish explains, kataval hata de Varimah ela, vullo atarashayilikthav Torah Shabbapah. This is the source of the Ghemerah that we'll soon learn that you're not allowed to write Torah Shabbapah. The Ghemerin Gittin of Samhach says, kyapya de Varimah ela karaat yidha britwet yisrayah. Akad Jbaril who maintained the covenant but this way, and we learn that you're not allowed to learn dvarimah shabbapah, and dvarimah shabbapah, Iyatarashayilam rambhikthav. Apparently two halahas which seem to be connected. One is that you cannot learn Torah Shabbapah in writing. You should not commit it to writing. The other halah is that Torah Shabbapah should be written in that said ba'alpeh. The reason for this halahah could simply be understood in practical terms. The run in magila, on the fourth parak of magila, the run explains why you shouldn't learn Torah Shabbapah and why you shouldn't learn Torah Shabbapah brithav. It's because when you teach Torah Shabbap brithav, when you learn Torah Shabbap brithav, every letter is important. And therefore, when you teach it ba'alpeh, you don't hear every letter. For example, the word sitzit, is it said with a yudu, without a yudu? Do you darshan a yudu? You do not darshan a yudu. Basu kotosh vu shivat yamin is a famous example in the Ghemerah. If it does say with a vav, it doesn't say with a vav, is there a halahah that can be derived from it. If you learn Torah Shabbapah, ba'alpeh, then you don't see the word in front of you, you don't know the way the word is really written. So that's why the run explains that Torah Shabbapah should not be learned ba'alpeh. The Torah Shabbapah should not be learned ba'alpeh, according to the run, is because you need a rabbi, you need someone to explain it to you. There are many things that are a parish of Torah Shabbapah sabbath, and you need a melan mache if ba'alpeh wa shivat. Torah, according to the run, Torah Shabbapah, was not meant to be an auto-dedactical system. A parishion should have a rabbi to learn Torah, and therefore Torah should not be written, which would create a situation where people would learn without a rabbi. So it's a very practical a lacha. The Ifim Shabbapah sabbath, you cannot say ba'alpeh because you would not understand the Torah properly. And if ba'alpeh, you should have a rabbi, and therefore Torah Shabbapah sabbath should not be written, and therefore should not be written as Torah Shabbapah sabbath. The question would be to ask the nature of this halocha. Is it a real halocha darissa? Is it a halocha darabana? We shall name anachronim have discussed this in many many places. Vihidah, in the bhir hai o saif, raises the issue. Yais alaqar hai is surah did vamshipik saav, y yeto shanim hai pare, y evi darissa. He says, according to the simple chart of the Gomara, it's an isa darissa. The Torah told you to do it this way, and it can't be any other way. He then quotes Gomara's, and for example, there's a Gomara in Yuma, that on Yom Kippur, the kangadal read part of the Torah Ba'alpeh. They did not want to bring a saifatara in every case where the kangadal was going to read, and all kinds of issues were involved. And the Gomara says it's better that he should say this part Ba'alpeh. We've shown him there already asked, how could he say any part of the Torah Shabbapah, because it's Torah Shabbat. Saif, Torah Shabbat has to be written. From here we could learn, says the Birheya Saif, that it's only in Isa d'Rabbana, mid-arissa, there's no sachalah, it's an asmaktah. The Torah told us that the Reap Shabbat of the Torah is talking about the original crease of sabbres. Haqamim told us that this, there is a halah d'Rabbana on the drum shabik saav at arashalim and Ba'alpeh. But if necessary for other exigencies, we would permit people to say Torah shabik saav ba'alpeh. It's only in Isa d'Rabbana. The Hidai himself brings a rabbina yona, brings other people that discuss this issue and says that the Gomaras, there's no proof from this particular Gomara and Yuma, because we shown him say that in a case where something is well known and there is no possibility of a mistake, then you're allowed to say d'Rabb shabik saav ba'alpeh. This is a famous hater that is used for things that are shagubhifikal, things that everybody automatically knows by heart, even though it's Torah shabik saav, we somehow found the hater to say d'Rabbana. That's why, for example, people say that we can say shmah by heart because everybody knows it by heart or as Yashir, other parts of Tfilah that we know when we say them as parts of Tfilah, they're shagrubhifikal, everybody knows them well and there's no problem of making a mistake, so therefore, you're allowed. Therefore, the Hidah really wavered whether it's in Isra d'Arisa and Isra d'Rabbana, we can find in Ahronim, early Ahronim, we can find people who think it's D'Arisa, we find people who think it's D'Rabbana. Rabbashir Weiss has pointed out that in his opinion, this is neither an Isra d'Arisa nor an Isra d'Arisa. There's a category that is mentioned already in much earlier sources, but Rabbashir Weiss has elaborated in this idea in a number of places. There are some halahals that are of biblical origin that we see in the Torah, this was what Akkarishwara who meant, but he did not require us to do it. It's what he would call ratsanah Torah. I gave many years ago, in Yeshiva, a classic example of this, in the case of Sabalihayim. According to the opinion that Sabalihayim is D'Arisa, where does it say so in the Torah? We find places in the Torah where their issues are related to animals, and people in the Torah said, "Lama'i amaikitatatoncha." From there, it's difficult to learn that it's really an Isra, it's a statement of fact that occurred in a particular historical situation. The Torah asked, "Why did you do it?" But Rishanim really tried to raise it in the issue, "Where do you learn Sabalihayim?" If it is the Reisa, where do you learn it from? The Rezvaz, in Yeshiva, said that this is the Reisa, Avopesha Inbo, Isra, Vailin Boasay. The Rezvaz said this is a biblical concept, even though he admitted there's no particular place where the Torah says it's asa. There's no particular place where the Torah said that you do have to be careful about Sabalihayim, but nevertheless, it somehow is ratsanatara. It's something the Torah saw as a value which is a biblical, a value minatara. This concept could be applied here too. The halacha of dramsheba saveth or Isha al-Mrahlal Balpeh might not be in Isra de Reisa, might not be a mitzvah de Reisa, but it's certainly part of the Krisa's bridge that Akarash Baruch made with Knessa's Israel, and therefore somehow it is the ratsanat of Akarash Baruch who that this concept, this nesinatara, should continue forever. I'd like to try to explain this idea a little bit more. The Ramban and Rashi both seem to think that this isr, or this halacha, whatever we want to call it, of dramsheba saveth or Isha al-Mrahlal Balpeh, dramsheba al-Mrahlal Balpeh, isha al-Kasvam Isha al-Akhah Ole-Bitzibur. The Ramban in the introduction to mishnatara says mimos moshirabhainu vad-rebudhanasi, from the days originally, from the original days of moshirabhainu until the days of abudhanasi. There was no such thing as people learning in writing, but what did happen according to the Ramban is that every single person who learned Torah took his own private notes, not notes that could be used publicly, not a saver that could be printed or published, but each person had his own private notebook, and he used that private notebook to remind himself of Torah, and he used that notebook to teach other people. Rashi in Shabbat's davav mentions in connection with the gimmera saying there's a Magila Starim. Magila Starim is some sort of a hidden Magila, so Rashi explains, like the Ramban did in the Akdama Commission Torah, that the concept was that everybody took notes even though you're not allowed to write down different Torah, but that apparently only applies Bitzibur. Privately, a person would be allowed to write down Torah, and therefore you were allowed to keep notebooks, you were allowed to teach them notebooks, and you could not write down a public notebook, a public book, or publish or print a regular book. What is the reason behind this? What's the reason for the Easter being Bitzibur and not Biyahid? And what does it mean it's really the Ratsanha Torah? So I'd like to explain that you saw a foundation that really has been said by many people. But the first one that I know of who said this particular hidush is Rafchaim Simimin in a Safer of his Binyan Halacha. He says that basically the whole Halacha can be explained according to a Yushalni that's found as coded by the wiff in Masakhos Maghila. The Yushalni says, as quoted by the wiff, that there are a number of halachos that we learn in connection with Torah. I saw a Yushalni that a person Khazabar Inish to call you Mutagim Sameachamudah. A person was reading the Torah and was translating. And they said to him, Kishayim Shannithna Torah, Be'ema Kach Anut Suhimin al-Be'ema. The same way the Torah was given in the state of Amah, Amah's absolute fear, dread. So we have to continue treating Torah with Amah. But therefore the person that read Samoklamudah could be that he leaned, he reclined, he didn't stand up properly. And he was upset that he did not treat the Torah by Amida, the way it should be done. The Ghemarikosun, that they saw a person came to the Be'et Nayset. And he saw someone reading Mutagim by himself, one person by himself, Amalai, Kishayim Shannithna Torah, Ayide Sirsur, Khach Anut Suhimin al-Baiday Sirsur. The same way the Torah was given with an intermediary, Akhaddis Baruchul gave the Torah to Benaestrel through Mosheh. So we have to do the same. That's of course the source of our custom, that when we read the Torah, we have to have at least three people standing there. One, Ki'ilu, representing Noseh Natalwa. One, Ki'ilu, representing the Makabala Torah. And one, representing Ki'ilu, the mithabah, the agent in between. And Yushalmi has another Al-Aqah. A person was reading the Ta'agum et al-Kasafir. A person was reading the translation. Amalai As-al-Aqah. Devahim shannemu bepeh, bepeh, bepeh, beksav beksav. The same Hal-Aqah that appears in the Gamaran Gittin dafsamir appears in this Ushalmi. That person was reading something that's not Ta'ach beksav. He said no, Ta'ach bepah must be said orally and only Ta'ach beksav can be said reading. These three Hal-Aqahs appear together in Ushalmi and appear together as quoted by the riff and mikala. And Hain explained that they're basically all one Hal-Aqah. The one Hal-Aqah is, the Torah was given to us at Matin Torah. The way we were given the Torah, decreased as priests that Akhosh Barch, who made with us at the time of the Sinah's Torah, was not a one-time affair. The Torah told us, Ki'ilu, et al-Vayim'ala, karate, qabbu sis, israel. This Christ as priests that I made with you at the time of Matin Torah should exist forever. All the halachas of Torah should be done, kinesinosah. The best way to learn Torah is not to recount or to relate what we once learned, but to undergo the experience of ninesinah's at Torah every time we learn. So the same way the Torah was given is the way the Torah should be actually learned. And therefore these halachas are all basically one Hal-Aqah. The Torah was given ba'amida. The Torah was given ba'amah, and therefore people should stand when they learn Torah. The Torah was given with an agent with a middle man, so therefore we have to do the same. And the same Hal-Aqah would apply to the way the sinesinosah was given, but the sinesinah was given with sibor. This Hal-Aqah of lima'a'a'a'a'a'a'a can only be done in lima'a'a'a'a but sibor. Lima'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a doesn't have the concept of ninesinosah. The ninesinosah is the aim of the year of a the ninesinosah. The ninesinosah of the ranship itself, the ransha al-a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a is only al-Aqah but sibor. And therefore according to the ram-bam, ba'aqid you're allowed to write down Torah. It's only the only halacha is with sibor. The prime cinnamon that also brought a very interesting gimmera in Brahe's dafkhav base. The gimmera says that discusses there if a balscari is allowed in the in the vittara. A balscari is a person who has become richly impure. And the gimmera has the whole discussion, are they allowed to learn or not allowed to learn. A balscari says shounehubir gi'lus ubilvat shalayat siyas amishna. A balscari says he can learn normally. Ubilvat shalayat siyas amishna. So Raashi explains shalayat siyas amishna means bittami pehushayam. You can learn, you can learn simply, probably just to learn without iyun. But to explain tami pehushayam to explain the lambda's behind it. The balsc found was improper for a person who is a balscari. However, the aroch quoted in the gillion of the gimmera in dairn Brahe's brings a different pehush. But aroch, pehush, shalayim, shalayim, dafkhavir siyas amishna. dafkhavir siyas amishna, dafkhavir has a different shalayat. Then Raashi agrees that a balscari can learn tara. Divritara aina makablam tumma. There's no problem for a person who's tami to learn tara. But to teach tara, learning tara but zibur is a kiam kinesinasa, is a kiamma of bam mita. And it's a kiamba aima bhiyira. A person who's a balscari was oster to receive the tara. That's why we had to be prepared three days before makantara. So the kavachamir, if we couldn't have even been there at nesinasa tara, how can we be involved in the kiamba of tara kinesinasa, learning tara bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira. When there's no tara present, you're in a state of tumma. So you see from here that the isur of a balscari learning is only according to a balsi. Because of the reenactment of harsini, of mama harsini, a balscari would be oster to have a tara. But just to learn privately would certainly be mithur. Rav saliveshik once gave a shear where he explained a gumara that says that, I think it's a bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira bhiyira. Until the gumara says when he passed away, battle kavadha tara. Kavadha tara was no longer existed. Kavadha tara was somehow abandoned at the time of his patira. And the gumara goes on to say, and what was the problem? What was the reason that battle kavadha tara? So the gumara says, because until now they learned tara bhiyira. And from now on they learned tara bhiyira. Originally people used to learn standing. But now people became weaker, they couldn't learn any more bhiyira. But say there, okay, so they sat down for learning tara. It doesn't seem such a terrible thing. Battle kavadha tara means somehow the whole glory, the dignity of tara has become affected by the fact that people sat and learned. So I think Rav saliveshik explained that since the real kium of tara, the ideal kium of tara would be kinsinasa. The way the tara was given. So really, tara should be learned by amita. That would be a higher kium of tama tara. That would be a kium of tama tara kinsinasa. When you could do that, when people could learn effectively standing by amita. So then learning tara bhiyira would be a kium not just of learning, but of learning tara kinsinasa. Once people became weak, so they started learning tara bhiyira. It still is learning tara. And perhaps it's the most effective way of learning tara. But nevertheless, even though it's the correct way to learn under today's circumstances, we would say battle kavadha tara, the glory and dignity of tara, doesn't occur. The gamara that I mentioned in the name of Yochmazakai, the Gomarz and the McGillad afghafal if the Gomarz is it's Rabungamleo. Misha Maysh Rabungamleo, Yara the Holy L'Olam, Vayulumaidintar miyushaf, Vainu the San Misha Maysh Rabungamleo, battle Kavarathai. The Gomarad then goes on to say, Kastav echadomir vah eishay vahar, vahastav echadomir vahnokhiyok mati vahar. One pastak says that you should that Mosheh sat. One pastak says that Mosheh stood and it says, the Gomarath al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairaf al-Mairyokhiyokhiyokhiyokhiyokhiyokhi that when he learned he stood, but when he taught he sat down. Rabhaninamleo al-Mairyokhiyokhiyokhiyokhi did neither stood nor sat. He somehow was in a position in between standing and sitting. Rabihl-Himmar ai-biyokhimmar ai-nishiva loshin ai-loshin ai-kava. Yishiva means he really stood. Yishiva just means he dwelt there like vatas-ful-vikad-a-shid doesn't mean you sat there. Rava-ammar-rakas-muh-umu-ad-vikas-as-mih-yushif. Rava said the difficult part of Torah so he sat down. The easier part things they could understand better he stood up for. We would interpret according to our salvation's way of thinking, we would explain that really a person should learn vamita. That would be a tremendous scheme of the sinasatara. However, if that would interfere with your learning, if a person could not learn well through the difficult things which require much more concentration would be difficult to stand and concentrate. Therefore, we would allow him to sit down. But yet for those particular things, even though we would say at this time it's the best way to do it, you would say that you do not have the keem of kinesinasa. Rava-hotner explained that this halacha is actually the first halacha which preceded the giving of the Torah. Ki-a-pi-a-di-vaym-a-il-ka-rati-khabis-i-s-i-srael means the original Krisa Sabis was done through this method of learning Torah, Bixav, Bixav, and Balpeh Balpeh. And then he continues to quote the gamari that appears on the same page in Gittin of Samir, the pastor, the gamari-quatsa-pasa-khan-hoshaya, iktav-la-rubi-to-rasi-kamos-zarnar-shaf. The simple translation of the pastor could mean, "If I wrote down the majority of the Torah, they would appear as strangers." Rashi and Tossos, they are in Gittin, trying to explain exactly what this means. Tossos quotes that the nations of the world will write down Torah too. If they had Tarsha Balpeh, they would write it, therefore Binesha will be considered Zari. So you see that the Krisa's Greece is to limit this Greece only to Binesha. Only Binesha have the concept of learning Torah, Tarsha Balpeh, and this actually preceded Matin Torah. This, therefore, we could explain that it's not really a Mitzvah, it's not really an Easter, it's not really an essay, but in some way it's a prerequisite for the concept of Tamot Torah. The Krisa's Greece includes in it that Vamesha Balpeh, Tarsha, is even before Matin Torah. It's not just one of the regularism of the Torah, but it's a definition of the tzura, of the structure of the Krisa's Greece. And therefore, it's not part of the Torah, somehow it's even above the Torah. Raphotna goes on to explain that today we do write down the Torah, and it's well known that today everything is Bixaf, and we know that the reason for this is because of a special heather, Eis, last lo slasheh, may favor Torah saha. We were concerned that Torah would be forgotten today without svarim, without using all the tools at our disposal, it would be very difficult to imagine that people could grow to be Tamirikha. Therefore, we allowed people to write the Mishnah, and eventually today people write the Gomara, and apparently today everything is permitted, everybody writes everything, everything is already Bixaf. But Raphotna pointed out that the original Mishnah, when we began to write the Mishnah, we still had this concept of the heather to write down Torah is not the real way Torah should be learned. So therefore, he says some of the Mishnah was written in a way that a normal editor, a normal writer, could not fathom writing in such a way. For example, there's aalaka, not aalaka, but a method of learning the Mishnah called Hisuri Magsara. Sometimes we read a Mishnah that doesn't seem to be logical, the point A does not lead to point B, point B seems totally removed from point A, and the Gomara says Hisuri Magsara. That, well, we should add another line in the middle. You see that Raphotna says that even though the Torah was allowed to be written, we wanted to write, even the people that wrote the Mishnah, wanted to write the Mishnah in a way that would not be self-contained, it would not be able to be taught automatically to a person at a Mishnah. Even though we had a written Mishnah, it was to be used as a tool to help us learn Torah better, but it would not obviate the need to have a Redmi who could explain this Mishnah to us. It would not be in the place of having Torah Shabal-Pah, Torah Shabak-Sab, a partial header could be there, but it's not an Akira-Stavar-Natar. We're not removing something in Torah, we're just making things easier by having part of the Mishnah written down, but it's not that the original meaning was to write down everything clearly unequivocally so they would have no more need for a Redmi. We would not have any more concept of a Torah Shabal-Pah. Today, as I said before, somehow this header has become so rampant that everything can be written down and we have no problems. Today, holactically, everybody feels free to write Swarim in English, to write Swarim in any language, to print it in such a way that Torah can be accessible and actually be made in a situation where everybody can be utterly exacted by themselves. So we have seen that this Easter, or we're not really sure it's an Easter, this halacha of the Vamshim al-Pah, Iyat Torah Shailah Qasim, and the Vamshimah Sava Torah Shailam Rambal-Pah is really one halacha. It's not two separate halachas. There's one halacha and the one halacha is before the Torah was given, before the Torah was actually handed us, there was a Qasbris how the Torah should be given and how the Torah should be learned forever. And really, we see from here that learning Torah should not just be an intellectual experience. It should be a reenactment of Matin Torah. That would be the real theme of Tamil Torah would be, to learn Torah, Be'imah, Be'ira, Be'resas, Ba'amida, with all the habits, with all the customs, with everything that took place in Matin Torah, that's the way really Torah should be learned. We also learned a new idea that perhaps this is not a real halacha d'Orissa. Maybe it's not a real halacha d'Orabana and there are a chronim who say, Samusades, D'Arissa, and Samdrabana, but we learned from here a different concept. There's a concept called ratsana Torah. This is what the Torah meant. If necessary, we do not have to follow this law the same way we would have to follow a mitzvah d'Arissa and isa d'Arissa. We really could allow ourselves to find Haterim as they did in the time of the Koangaral on Yom Kippur, or as they did when we dove in and said parts by heart, because really the Isler is not formulated as an Isler. It's rather formulated as ratsana Torah. The ratsana Torah is that we should continue to learn Torah, Bizvakus, Kinesinasah, Be'imah, Be'ira, Be'resas, Be'zaya, including B'amida, if possible. On the other hand, we said that in order to Steig, in order for a person to really grow and learning, if necessary, he can learn Torah, Be'ishiva, he can learn Torah, even Torah Shbikr, Balpeh, he can learn Bizab, Torah Shbikr, Balpeh. In order to facilitate our learning today, we allowed all this to become mutter, and according to the concept that it's only ratsana Torah, you're not transgressing an Iser. Adraba, we're trying to grow ourselves in the miterah, so therefore we would feel, under this circumstances, this is the ratsana Torah in today's world. You have been listening to Harah bin Yamun Torah, the weekly mitzvah. And for today's hara hai yomit, we are going back to our series, we were talking about the Hothphila, we took off a little bit for Prasad Zohor and to Purim. Now we're going back to Thilah. Thilah is the kibun Eretisrael. Shohana Roach quotes in Simon Salidallu, "Yamayon made be Hoththah, it's Yalzil, Panabhke, Negate Eretisrael." It represents a three-fold system. If you're in Hoththah, you should face Eretisrael. If you're in Eretisrael, you should face Yushalayim, and if you're Yushalayim, you should face the mikdash, the beta mikdash, in the place of the beta mikdash. In fact, one says that if you're in the beta mikdash, which doesn't apply today, but want to be standing in the beta mikdash, then one faces the kodesh kodeshim. The shohana Roach Pascans that these aren't four different possibilities. It's merely a matter of approximation. Therefore, the shohana Roach says, "If you're in Hoththah, you should face Eretisrael, but you should Rehaven. You should mentally focus your Thilah on you, Shohana'im, and the mikdash, and kodesh kodesh kodeshim." In other words, the real focus is kodesh kodesh kodeshim, but it's meaningless. Hoththah is the facing kodesh kodesh kodeshim. Because facing doesn't apply, there's different one faces Eretisrael, but one focuses, so to speak, within rings, within rings. You're facing Eretisrael, but you're focusing your Thilah mentally towards the Shohana'im, beta mikdash, and beta kodesh kodesh kodeshim. Similarly, if you're in Eretisrael, you should face the Shohana'im, but the mikar bear adds, Rehaven, you should focus mentally to the mikdash and to the kodesh kodesh kodeshim, and similarly in your Shohana'im, you should face the mikdash, and focus on kodesh kodesh kodeshim. This is the reason why most Jewish kilot in Hoththahres, which were west of Eretisrael, and therefore they faced east, which is why it's almost synonymous. One says the direction of Thilah is called Misach, there's a whole art form called Misach, with all signs that were made in the case of the direction of Misach. Although Al-Pidin, one should not face Misach, one should face Eretisrael, and a simple look at the map will indicate that although almost all Jewish kilot in Hoththahres were west of Eretisrael, some of them were very, very, very far north of Eretisrael. In fact, the direction safe from Eastern Europe towards Eretisrael would have been not so much to face east, but to face south, slightly east. Nonetheless, almost all shoes were built facing due east along the side, the eastern focus. And the reason really is, is that we see for number places in Khazal, that Khazal think in very, very schematic for directional form, but only for directions. North east is not a real direction for Khazal. So it's probably justified to pick the major direction and face it of the four points of the earth. Although the grass said that that's true, you should face south. He was talking in Jonah, south is a better approximation of the direction towards Eretisrael than east. Instead, nonetheless, almost all kilot face is, and surely from the United States, east is really the correct direction. If one is, in fact, east of Eretisrael, if you're in China, or for that matter, if you're in Australia, then you should face west, because that's the direction of Eretisrael from where you are. In Eretisrael, so there are all sorts of directions. Here in Buchatyal, where south of Yushalayim, and the Tvida, the direction of Tvida is north. But once again, the same problem, really, that took place very often in Khazal, took place here. The shoes and the main shoe, the original shoe, in Alan Schwerth in Buchatyal, faces due north. Although, Yushalayim is not due north, but is north east about 15-20 degrees to the east of the north. And therefore, you'll see many people in the show who, in fact, do not face the front of the shoe, but face Yushalayim. Because Nalaka really is the face Yushalayim and not the face direction of the shoe, many people think that one should face the Alan Kurdish. The way Nalaka is formulated is the one should face Yushalayim, and one should put the Alan Kurdish in the same direction, because it's right to face the Alan Kurdish, but it's not really Hadakhad, one should have them towards the Alan Kurdish. And therefore, the way that Hadakhad is, is Pascan, in the Pascan, is that even if the Alan Kurdish is off, one should face Yushalayim. Unless, unless it's completely off, because if the Alan Kurdish is in the west, and you're facing east, then you have a real problem, because you're turning it back to the Alan, to the Alan Kurdish. But if it's just off by 90 degrees, the Pascan recommend facing Yushalayim. That's not the minute. And all the shows I've ever been in, including those which are both completely wrong, which sometimes happen for architectural or some other reason, so people face the Alan Kurdish. As a Mahalakata, Pascan, as to what's better, should one face the right direction and mentally include other directions, or will be, perhaps, one could face the Alan Kurdish, but think, so to speak, think east, think direction of Yushalayim. The best thing is the face Yushalayim, what if he's slightly faced Yushalayim, say, to the recantamised indicate that you're trying to push you to feel out towards Yushalayim, towards the base of Nidash, towards the place, which is called Shah HaShanayim. The zah Shah HaShanayim, the base of Nidash, is the gate, is the gate of heaven. And when they come out it's nice when the Raman quotes it, that another benefit of everyone facing Yushalayim is everybody faces the same direction. In other words, you're supposed to face Yushalayim, but since everybody faces Yushalayim, you now have a situation where all Jews pray to the same point, and that's a benefit in of itself. The fact that the unity of Jewish prayer is created by having one place on the globe, to which all I were to feel out are directed. Suppose one doesn't know where you Yushalayim is, it could be because you're blind, because you simply lost your lost track, you don't have a compass, you don't know where you are exactly, you've been driving around, and you can't figure out if you don't know where the sun is, you don't know what direction Yushalayim is. So then the Gomorah says, "You should do a mental focusing, rather than a physical focusing." And the Gomorah says, "You should face, you should focus towards Yushalayim, towards heaven." The Raman either had different gifts, or he interprets that to me, he says, "You should mentally focus towards Yushalayim." Which basically indicates that's the same place, whether it's Yushalayim for us, is Sha'al Hashemayim, it's the gateway to heaven. And obviously, in the end, I would feel out to God and not to a place, not to a building, not to geography. However, living on earth, there is this concept that Yushalayim is the portal to heaven. This is said explicitly by Shlomo Amedek when he built the Beethamikdash, that after he finished building it, he prayed to God that everyone, everywhere, when they wish to address God, they will pray to this place, to this city, to this building, and you will hear Vatate Shnamayana Shranayana. You will hear from the heaven. That's not a hyomit for today. We'll be back tomorrow with Poshata Sha'al Shevua. I hope that I'm sure that the she will be posted somehow. It's a vacation day here in Yushiva. Someone will come as special, if for some reason the she is not available exactly in the right time. Wait a few minutes. We're going to make an effort. I expect it to be very on time. We'll be back tomorrow. You've been listening to KMTT. Kimi Tseon, Teite Tora, with the Vahrashhem, Mughshalayim.