KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Gemara Berachot #11
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #11, by Rav Yair Kahn
'K-M-T-T' and this is Azrubik, today is Mande, Yom Shini, Yud Gimmel Adar, Taina Sester and tomorrow of course is Perm. And Raudesh Adar, the month of Adar, the period of Perm, the days of Perm and the days of that which the Mikidah says, "Vinafocho", days that which our enemies planned, Cibru, they had a sparrow. The logic said they were right, the logic said would be days in which one could hurt the Jewish people and they were correct. Adar, Vinafocho, Khashbokhu overturned it and said, "Dafka, the opposite will be true". These days were some sort of logic, some sort of sparrow, some sort of fate says that days in which it's possible, it's likely, it's even probable that plans against the Jews will be successful. Specifically on these days, Khashbokhu overturns it, changes the course of logic, changes the course of history and if you matter the ashes of destruction, salvation arises. Rashi says that the Simcha of Khodesh Adar, the happiness of Khodesh Adar, is because Perm is not only great in and of itself, but it's the beginning of the development of Khodesh Nissan, Khodesh Nissan of course, is the month of Ghoula, by definition it's the month of Ghoula. It's Khodesh Adar, the month of spring, the month when all Ghoula, all redemption begins but even the beginning requires a seed before the beginning and so on Perm, we plant the seed which will flower and Khodesh Nissan on Pesach. His shoe is the shear in the Lord Bakhod of Raviayakan. In last week's shear, we discussed the Amara and that memory of a Gaze, 40B, we have brings them a hoax between Raghuna and Raviokana. The mission of their says, Vahal Khulam im Amar Shahakol Yatta, if you said Brakhav Shahakol on anything, you'll say, Itmaar, Raghuna Amara, Khodesh Nappasim nayayayim. This cloud that Shahakol covers everything, has one exception, actually two exceptions, Pasayayayim. If you make a Shahakol on bread or on wine, you're not Yocha. Raghav Yocha and Amar, Afiduh Pasayayayim. The country of Yocha and Shahakol covers even Pasayayayim and we Pasayayayil Al-Halaqah like Raghav Yochaayim. Last week we discussed what's so unique about the Brakhah and Pasayayayim, but this week I want to discuss a different issue. So tomorrow here discusses the question of making a Shahakol on Pasayayayim and bring the sheet of the opinion of Raghuna, that if you make a Shahakol on Pasayayayim, you're not Yocha. The previous case of the Mishnah, says it's followed. "Pireh al-Pairosha-Ilan voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, voripriadhamma yatza. The requirement in Yochaayim, even though you're supposed to make a Brakhah boripriad aids, if you made a boripriadhamma, you fulfilled your requirement. On the other hand, if you were supposed to make a boripriadhamma, for instance, on vegetables and instead you made a boripriad, then you did not fulfill your requirement. Then afterwards, the Mishnah continues and says, "Akhulam im amar shaakol yatza, voripriadhamma yatza, on either case, both the boripriad aids, as well as boripriadhamma if you made a Shahakol yatzaayim." This leads up to the mahokas, because Yochaayim is the Mishnah only referring to Buripriad and boripriadhamma, but not to pass in Yayim, or is it referring to everything, voripriadhamma or shaakol yatzaayim. But what would happen in a case where you made the Brakhah boripriadhamma or boripriad aids on pass or on Yayim, for instance? If on Yayim, one made the Brakhah boripriad aids or boripriadhamma, for that matter, would you prefer boripriadhamma? Is it only shaakol? Is that a contrabahuna you don't feel you're requiring? Or is it also regarding boripriadhamma or is it also regarding boripriadhamma or boripriadhamma as well? Similarly, regarding the Brakhah and pass, if one made a boripriadhamma on pass, is one Yochaayiday for boripriadhamma or perhaps over here, again, a contrabahuna, one did not propose his requirement, because as Akuna said, on pass and on Yayim, one has to make a special and unique Brakhah, just like shaakol doesn't constitute that special and unique Brakhah. So too boripriad, or boripriadhamma, would not be a special, special Brakhah as well. Since the halakha is like of Yochaayiday, that shaakol does fulfill, do you feel free required by saying the shaakol on pass to Yayim? The case that I mentioned is not really discussed. If Yochaayid was shaakol, then Yocha, or certainly should be Yochaayiday, with boripriad to boripriadhamma. However, it's not really that simple. For instance, the Ritzvah brings an opinion that if one made a boripriadhamma on lahem, one is not Yochaayidayah, one did not propose an alignment, because according to him, once it has changed, in to lahem, it's no longer a priadhamma, in order for a less of Brakhah to cover a potentially higher Brakhah, if you have to make a better Brakhah, and instead you made a less of Brakhah, it's only when that less of Brakhah includes the higher the higher type of food as well. For instance, a boripriad is also a boripriadhamma, it also grows in the ground. It's the source of the eelon as well, and therefore an eelon, and the fruit of it eelon, can also be considered a boripriadhamma, because it is the fruit of the ground, not only is it the fruit of the tree. However, if I say that lekham has undergone a process whereby it's no longer defined as a pre, it's no longer a fruit, it has totally changed, first it was changed from wheat into flour, and then one took that flour and one made dough out of it, then one took that dough and put it into the oven, it's no longer a fruit, it's now bread, therefore boripriadhamma is no longer applied, it's no longer applicable, because bread is not a pre-a-dhamma, bread is bread, accordingly the ritba claims that if one made a shahakkol on pass, he would be Yotse, according to AmYochenan, according to AmYochenan, however even if Yothenan would agree that if one made a boripriadhamma on pass, one would not be Yotse. When the ritbaa itself sounds like if one would make a boripriadhamma or boripriadhamma on wine, one would be Yotse dekhova, because a wine has not undergone such a drastic process, it has not totally lost its identity as being a pre-haa-eights, kazau or a taqein, a better bracha, however, it's still a pre-a-eights, it's the juice of the grape, and therefore it's still defined as a grape, in one of the previous shuram when we discuss made perils, we discuss the fact that wine still has a dim of a pre-a-e, and therefore the bracha boripriad-eights would still apply, and since every pre-a-eights is also a pre-a-dhamma, the bracha boripriadhamma would apply as well, however, the magna brahman, Srinrichs raises the possibility that one would not be Yotse dekhova, one would not be full of requirements if one made a boripriad-eights or a boripriadhamma on wine, it's clear that according to these opinions, then certainly Rapuno would also agree that if one made a boripriad-eights or boripriadhamma on wine or on bread, one would not be Yotse dekhova, however, if we assume according to those opinions that one is Yotse dekhova, when one makes a boripriad-eights or boripriadhamma on past the Yai in a controlled Yofanan, then we can ask ourselves the question, why did Rapuno argue only on the end of the Mishnah, Valkulam ima-marshakon yamid vahriyadza? What about the previous case, when one made a boripriadhamma on pero-se ela, what is the din of a boripriadhamma on wine, or boripriadhamma on bread, or boripriad-eights on wine, what would be the din in that case, according to Rapunah, if one conceives that it's still classified as one, however, since Y, and still classified as a pre, however, since Y and past, Y and bread gets a special brahka, boripriad-eights and boripriadhamma on that special brah. The reason that there's room to question what the din would be in a quantra of kune in this case is because there's a basic difference between the brahka of Shaqul yamid vahriyadza and the brahka of boripriad-eights on boripriadhamma. In a number of different contexts, we see that the brahka of Shaqul is perhaps a totally different type of brahka. For instance, the dhalakha of Ikarvatapeil, the Mishnah and Memdala Madal at 44-8 says and follows. If one wanted to eat something very, very salty, and he eats a piece of bread simply because it's a little bit too salty, but it doesn't want to eat the bread per se, he's only eating the bread in order to make it easier for him to eat that harrying or that pickle, whatever it is, then the halakha is that he makes brahka only on the maliach, only on the salty item but he does not have to make a brahka on the patari, it's along with it. And the Mishnah says his follows, zaqul, koshu ikar, vivarik alha ikar, upul karatapeilah, when everyone eats something that has both ikar as well as tafel together with it, something which is the main reason that he's eating and something which is simply secondary of secondary importance, then one makes a brahka only on the ikar and one does not have to make a brahka on that which is tafel. The question that's brought up in the Ramab is what happens if one ate the tafel before the ikar, what happens if one wants to get his mouth ready to eat the maliach, he eats bread first so that it should take away the sharpness of the salt, but he doesn't eat the bread because he wants to eat bread, the only reason he's eating the bread is in order to enable them later to eat the maliach to eat the salty item. What does one do in that case? Does one say that the brahka that he will make later on, on the salty item, will cover retroactively the bread as well? Or does one say no that one over here has to make a brahka on the bread and therefore it should make a boat see? And later on, perhaps since the bread in this case is not the main item, it could be that making a brahka on the bread in this case will not cover the salty item and therefore we have to make an additional brahka on the salty item. This question also relates to another issue which we're not going to discuss in this year and that's exactly how that then of calls to ikar, we know that it works. When it says you're a brahka, ikar, po-tas-tafel, how exactly does that allow to work? But that we're not going to discuss in this year. What I would like to discuss is the shita of the Ramab. We raise two different possibilities. One possibility is you break a brahka only on the ikar and even though you ate the pasta beforehand, you don't make a brahka on that at all. The other possibility is that you should make a motsalah from the arts in the past and later on perhaps make another brahka on the malia. The Ramab says it's felt since you're eating the tafel first, the brahka that you should make on the tafel is sha-koh nieb-be-goro. At first glance, the shita of the Ramab seems absurd. If it requires a brahka and independent brahka, you should make a motsalah. If it doesn't require a brahka, you shouldn't make a brahka at all. What's the logic of making a brahka or sha-koh on bread that you eat as a tafel prior to the ikar? Le chahora, what you have to say is as follows. Even though you're eating bread, you're not eating it qua-bred, as bread. You're eating it in order to service the malia that you're going to eat later. And therefore, it doesn't have the status of bread. So even though physically it's a piece of bread, nevertheless you're not relating to it as bread. And therefore, it doesn't require the special brahka, the unique brahka, which is reserved for bread. So why do you make a brahka on it at all? The answer is very, very simple. You learn at the beginning of Kehsim-a-Barkim, as-sila-a-dum-li-a-nous-min-a-alama-za-bla-brahka. One of the reasons that one makes a brahka is because it's a prohibition. One is not allowed to get ha-na from things in this world. One is not allowed to get ha-na by eating fruit or of food in this world without making a brahka. Even though the bread is coming as a tafel, it's what we'll be eating later, since one did not yet eat the malia, and one now is getting ha-na by eating the bread, it demands a brahka, but what brahka does it demand? It only demands a brahka as a makir. The element of shebaq, to give praise to Akhar's brahaka for creating bread, is not necessarily here at all. We mention it in the first year, that every brahka-sanane, a brahka-naam, usually contains two different ideas. One idea is to be makir ha-na to allow us to get ha-na from this world. The second idea is to say shebaq, to give shebaq to Akhar's brahaka. In this case, when one is eating, the bread only as a tafel, but not eating a qua bread, the only brahka that's acquired here is a brahka of a makir, a makir for the ha-na to allow one to eat the bread, because by eating the bread one is getting ha-na, even though it's only serving a secondary purpose, the primary purpose is the maliaq, which he will eat later, nevertheless he is getting ha-na, and therefore it's impossible for him to put that bread in his mouth without making a brahka, but what brahka does he have to make? Does he have to relate to bread as bread, and therefore does he have to be the brahka on lechaam, containing the shebaq, which is demanded by eating lechaam? No. The only brahka that he has to make is a brahka of a makir, and therefore all he has to say is shaqul, miyyabhi karo. There's a big mahokus who's shown him regarding what brahka one makes, when one eats food, not for the sake of eating food, but when it's food for ha-na's sifua, the gomara on the phlamid vavamrala, 36a, discusses the case where somebody drinks sheminzais for the purpose of rifua, which basically three different shittos in the rishonin, but the sheet that I want to concentrate on is the shita of the ra'a. According to the ra'a, if one eats food for the sake of rifua, the brahka that one makes is a shaqul, then in other words, if one is drinking the sheminzais and getting ha-na'a from the sheminzais, the taste of the sheminzais itself, then one will make a barhkais. However, if he's not getting ha-na'a from the taste of the sheminzais, the only ha-na that he's getting is ha-na'a sifua. Then one makes a brahka of shaqul, the other barhkais. Now again, it seems a little bit strange. Since he's not getting any ha-na'a from the tham of the sheminzais, he's the taste of the sheminzais, from drinking the sheminzais per se as food, as sustenance, but rather the ha-na'a is getting is medicinal ha-na'a, why shouldn't he make a brahka at all? And if a medicinal ha-na'a is defined as ha-na'a, then let him make a regular bonafide barhka ate, why is it that if he gets medicinal ha-na'a, he makes a shaqul, while if he gets, if he benefits from the sheminzais as food, as sustenance, or from the taste, then he will make the brahka of barhkais. And again, the answer is similar. That it's true that ha-na'a sifua is considered ha-na'a, and therefore it's usir leha'anos, you know, lama zabla brahkais. It's usir preem, it's prohibited for him to get the benefit from drinking the sheminzais for medicinal purposes without making the brahka of, without making the brahka of the machia. However, one is not relating to the sheminzais as a pre-ha'ais, as something which is a food item, but rather only for its medicinal value. And therefore, since the ha-na'a will be here, it's not ha-na'a that one gets from food, but rather it's a medicinal ha-na'a, therefore the brahka that one should make is the shaqul in the end of the brahka. This issue comes up in another context as well. Most we show them whole, that the brahka that one makes when one eats less than a ka-na'ais is a regular brahka we show them. The only reason that a ka-na'ais is needed is for brahka a-krona. However, regarding brahka we show them, even if one takes a taste, one has to make a brahka we show them. There's a shita of rabbina yoga, that if one eats less than a ka-na'ais, then the brahka that one makes is not the regular normal brahka that one will make on that type of food, but rather the brahka that one has to make is a shaqul in the ebb and burro. And again, what we're seeing is the same, is the same shita, the same idea, that if one eats a ka-na'ais, then one is related to the food as food, because one is eating a whole entire ka-na'ais of the food. However, if one takes just a little bit and puts it in his mouth, so it's true he's gotten a-na'ais, but it's not a-na'ais a-kila, because he didn't do a-kila, a-kila is eating a ka-na'ais, but rather it's only a little bit, it's only a little taste. So he got a-na'ais, so he has to make a brahka. As-sala-adum-na'ais, al-ais-sala-la-mahazab-la-brahka. However, the shvakha that's required for a-na'ais, a-kila is not required in this case, and therefore, brahka is one make, when one is benefiting, when one is getting ha-na'ais, when one is deriving ha-na'a from food, however, one is not getting ha-na'ais a-kila, the brahka that one should make in that case is shvakhaal miyyabid warah. Within this context, one should know the ga-ma'ais, and that flamid has it on base, 38d. Because tomorrow, with yesterday's, that if one eats peros, shvakhaal darath a-fila-san, then one makes a shvakhaal miyyabid warah. It marces his problems. Khol shvila-so, vooripya-dama, shvakhaal shvakhaal miyyabid warah, the shvakhaal shvila-so shvakhaal miyyabid warah, shvakhaal booripya-dama, if originally, this, if what, the brahka was a booripya-dama, in other words, it's something which is normally important in its raw state. And you went ahead and cooked it, then after cooking it, you make a shvakhaal miyyabid warah. However, if in its raw state, it's not usually eaten, and you eat it in its raw state, that's the case of shvakhaal miyyabid warah, and it's normally eaten only after cooking it, then only upon cooking it will you make a brahkaal booripya-dama. In other words, the only time that you make a brahkaal booripya-dama is when you eat something like kidderech akhil-so, as it's normally eaten, when you eat the fruit, as a fruit, as a fruit is normally eaten, then you get ha nah as akhil-so shvila's pre, and therefore you make the birha-sah pre, however, if you're not eating it as a fruit, even though biologically botanical you eat it as a fruit, nevertheless, the brahkaal will only be a brahka of shvakhaal miyyabid warah, so why should you make a shvakhaal miyyabid warah or some kind of a fruit or some kind of a vegetable? The answer is because you're not eating it as a fruit, in the way that this fruit or vegetable is normally eaten, but rather you're eating it in some way which is not ordinary, nevertheless, you're getting ha nah. Since you're getting ha nah, you have to make a brahkaal to allow you to get the ha nah. What brahkaal does one make in order to allow one to get him to get that a nah, even though he's not eating it as a fruit, the answer is again, sha kon yuye vidivaro. One final opinion that I want to relate to in this context is "Tossfoss on that map Gila v'raalith, 43-8". Tossfoss over there is discussing the brahkaal brahkaal, brahkaal, what brahkaal does one make on the summer? And there are sometimes that you make a brahkaal, say the summer, there are sometimes that you make a brahkaal, say the summer, say the summer, and there are sometimes that you make a brahkaal, meaning the summer. Tossfoss over there discusses the case where you don't know exactly what brahka you should make. It says it follows, "Un misha holecha ba'it, triyesh shaam desaamim, somebody who's walking in a house and there are a lot of the sun, a lot of fragrances there. triyesh shaam named sama riach bhan, kumasakkul, he doesn't know what type it is, imimimim, eights, imimimid adama, jishmifar shim shaam vayas sha kon yuye varo, dal kulam imimirashakon yatsa. brahboshimikouti hai hai hai hai omeir shi vaiach brahkaal, there's one opinion that you make a brahkaal, maybe something that makes a lot of sense, brahkaal, maybe something is the parallel to shaam kon yuye varo, it basically is talking about all the different types of a samaim, you don't know whether it's after in the summer or after in the summer, make a brahkaal, maybe in the summer and makes a lot of sense. However, Tossfoss has been the different shooter that in such a case you should make a shaam kon yuye varo, why should you make a shaam kon yuye varo, the answer is obvious. The samaim is hanah, you're getting hanah, it's not hanah, sakidah bhatanah, when you know exactly what type of the samaim is, whether asse or asse, then you will make that brahkaal or asse, but if you don't know what kind of brahka to make and you're looking for a brahka which will allow you to get the hanah of the reah, the type of brahka that you make is shaakal, niyya vidavaro. Now let's return to the case of rahkula. Rahpula said, based on the mishtah, kulaam, im amar shaakal yuye vidavaro, yascha, kutzmana pasa manayayim, pasa niyayim, require, they have a special brahka, kazaa we'll attack in a special brahka, special beah kasa shaabakh regarding pasa niyayim. And therefore, if you make a shaakal, yuye yuye yuye yuye, now shaakal is the opposite side of the coin, it's totally the opposite case of burqah death in most of the la kimnarets. Most of the la kimnarets is the highest form of shaabakh that kazaaal wa metakein, as far as matayah brahka sakim sir. However, shaakal is a brahka in which the element of shaabakh is almost non-existent. It's whenever you have to, you need a brahka to be matra hanah, when the element of shaabakh is not necessary. That's when you make a shaakal yuye vidavaro. And therefore, normally, on a regular type of food item, whether it be Burmami zonos or Buri Priya 8 or Burqah Dama, where Khazal, rakhatrila said, you should add shaabakh. But if you don't, it's not so terrible. There, if you say shaakal, you fulfill your requirement. However, regarding Buri Priya, Burqahtig, burqahtig, burqahtig, and haem otsilahmarets, yuye hazal wa metakein, a special brahka, goryim brahka la asmah. Here, the shaabakh is needed according to Akruna, and one cannot do without that shaabakh. If one only made a shaakal yuye vidavaro, which does not contain any shaabakh, but only allows hanah, that's not enough for these two special, two special items for past and for yayim. However, what happens if one made it, Buri Priya Dama or Buri Priya 8, is not only a biokha samaaktig, it doesn't only allow hanah, but it contains shaabakh as well. It's not only that basic level, let me make a brahka to allow me to get hanah from this world, because Akruna brokha created the world, shaakal yuye vidavaro, and therefore I have to somehow, somehow attribute it to Akruna brokha, shaakal yuye vidavaro, and then I'm allowed to get hanah from this world. However, when one makes a brokha of Buri Priya 8, Buri Priya Dama, one adds shaabakh, specific shaabakh, to what he's eating. If my shaabakh might not have been specific enough, he didn't say Buri Priya gefid, he didn't say hamotsu lakha minah aras, however, the element of shaabakh does exist, at least in a lower and lower form. In this case, would Akruna have arpied as well? We have no way of knowing, but Akruna stated it didn't only on the end of the mission, but Akruna of Imama's shaakang yuye vidavaro, which is basically only a bit of a amount here, yatsa husbanda pasma nayayayi, because pasma nayayayi requires shaabakh as well. Special shaabakh. What happens if one made a brokha that has lesser shaabakh, arm pasma nayayi, would one beyoce a coin trakuna or one would not, or would one not beyoce, who really have no way of knowing, and the truth is that when we show him and the postman didn't discuss it, because the halakha is the right habiyokha, but nevertheless, it was an interesting way to relate to a very, very basic issue in terms of an entire map of brokha, from bhir kosashako to bhir kosashako in one hand, is a brokha, which is their own to maktir hanah, to allow one to get hanah, minah al amasir, minah al amasir, in cases where you don't have to relate to the thing that you're eating, as a food item, you're not eating it, as akhila, akhila is pre, but really you're only getting hanah out of it, and then you have to make a brokha to maktir hanah. On the other side of the spectrum, one has two special brokha that we're talking to the special aspect and characteristics of wine and pus. Those two brokhas of moselachina aras and bhir khaa getha, and in between we have brokhas which don't function only as a maktir, they add a certain amount of sheba kha as well, however they're not quite that high score of sheba that the hazawa we're talking in the form of brokhas efen, and moselachina aras but hazawa we're talking a brokha, akhori brokha lach. There's that form of sheba one does not have, so the fact that akhula says, akhula, maktir ama shaikum, draa loyas akhutsman ahasma nayayan, we have no way of extrapolating and claiming that akhula would also claim that we wouldn't be able to say if one made a brokha eight and brokha daba, perhaps yes and perhaps no, we really have no way of ascertaining for sure, but as I said before, it really has no naktir mina hazawa misa. On the other hand, our analysis and conceptualization of the brokha of shaikum, what type of brokha it is, that has many different naktir mina hazawa misa as I mentioned. You have been listening to the shaikum in a hot brokha of aravya yokan. Today is a lachayum it, we would devote one day to purm, none enough, one lachayum it about purm. Today is tannet is there, like any tannet, for those of you who actually catch the podcast on time are catching it, today on monday, any tannet is primarily a day of chubha, as soon as we forget that, we're busy fasting, it doesn't require a lot of work but it does tend to influence one's mind, especially on tannet is there, but you're getting ready for purm. But any tannet is by definition a day of chubha, and before we get to the simcha of brim, it's necessary to repent, do chubha, to prepare yourself properly, to be worthy of the gouda. Alachayum it, I want to talk about the mitzvah of Mishlach Manot, there's three mitzvaht on purm, purmitzvaht on purm, purmitzvaht on purm, Mishlach Manot and Matanot love your name, giving gifts of food to our friends and charity, to the poor, mitzvah of course of mikram mikrame gila, vin mikrame gila, mitzvah of sudah, Mishlach Manot, sassan the mikrame, mikrame, mikrame, mikrame, tishname, ayah. The tromatadeshan says that the reason for mikrame, mikrame, is to provide food for the sudah, it's intimately connected with mitzvah of sudah, so that is the way you celebrate, the way you celebrate, but you should send, you should celebrate together, how do I celebrate together with you, we don't make massive parties for all of us, necessarily, but I give you a little bit of food for your sudah, so the mikrame, mikrame, mikrame, is food, but food for the sudah, other mikrame learn that, no it's simply to create veyot, this is an independent mitzvah, it's not part of the sudah, but Hazal saw that purm requires a strengthening of the bonds of krausa, what could be more true today, when we see before our eyes, the bonds of krausa are unraveling, and therefore purm is just in time, mishloch, manot, iishnare, ayah, remember that you're not by yourself, you can't exist by yourself, the gula, purim is not for yourself, and so we share food with others, because by sharing the food, by sending a mana, it's a gift, by sending a nice little package of food, one strengthens the rehut, iishnare, ayahu, one to his friend, you strengthen the friendship, the difference between the two has to do with the factor, kon to tumata dashiin, the food should be indicated that it's for the sudah, and therefore the makrame verb says that you should not give foods which it's possible to eat them now, but they don't look like they're meant to be eaten right away, and the gula agrees, so you shouldn't send an uncook chicken, of course that I could cook it, you could cook it the same day, you send it in the morning and cook it for the afternoon, but it doesn't seem like it, that's what you meant, and it has to carry the meaning that I'm providing for your sudah, and therefore it says that you should send food which could actually be used in the sudah, and it can be used even for dessert, most of us tend to send happy food, meaning cakes, candies, that can be dessert, but it should be something which seems to be indicated, it carries a tag, so to speak, that it's meant to be used to be used today, going to the second opinion that I mentioned, that probably wouldn't be necessary, you send it which can be eaten, it creates friendship, it creates a kilvah, it creates closeness between the people, between the people who receive it, and I saw a question there, when I'm asked as to whether or not canned goods would be good according to the Maghain of Raham, and the very fact that they're in cans means they're the ma and yam do yami morabi, they indicate that they're meant to store it, because that is meant to store it forever, the other thing is meant to store it, and I don't think it's really a problem, something which needs to be cooked, needs to be developed, needs to be prepared, should give things which don't need to be prepared, so they could use it right away, why are you making him work, supposed to make him happy, supposed to make him eat, canned goods can be eaten right away, the fact that you can also be stored, that's an added, that's an added bonus, I don't think a lachamis is any problem in it, but the question is indicative of the kind of thought that should go in to Sanocha lachmanas, I do think that I want you to make an effort to not sense everything, sometimes there's a little bit of candies in this, aim it at this uda, aim it at immediate enjoyment, aim it at increasing the community, our friends, the ability to have simcha on Purim, Purim is the day of unmitigated simcha, it's not mixed in with great philosophy, it's not mixed with other things, we're simply having simcha that we are alive and able to serve Serfakadosh Barucho, that's it for today, wishing you all a happy Pray the kapurim, we should see simcha's, we should have a surot tovat, vinna fauhu, the months and the days that our enemies plan against us, plan to destroy us, plan to hurt us, there seems to be no lack of such instances, like a spauhu, even as we even when we don't see it, because spauhu is turning their plans against them, we should all be zulcha, the goulash, the mob, and harabi, amainu, the viatmashir, the canu, amain, there'll be no sheer tomorrow on tuesday, no KMTT tomorrow for tuesday, which means the sheer in Jewish philosophy in the middle ages, will not be given this week, we'll be back on wednesday with the shiyu in the weekly mitzvah of harabina min tavoi, until then this has been Aswabek, you've been listening to KMTT, khi mitzian, tezei torah, budvar hashem miyoshalayim, kaltu.