KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Erev Shabbat Tetzaveh - Purim Torah
KMTT - Erev Shabbat Parshat Tetzaveh, Purim Torah, with guest Rav Shalom Berger
This is KMTT, and this is Azrubek, and today is Erev Shabbat Kaudesh Pashat Titsaver, 10th day of Adar. We read this week, Pashat Titsaver. Pashat Titsaver, as is well known, is the only Pashat Tova, that no Shavabainu's name does not appear, meaning the only Pashat when no Shavabainu has begun to appear, not including Sepa Beshit, but Mosef Shmoat to the end of the Torah, Pashat Titsaver is the only Pashat in which Mosef's name does not appear. Mosef, of course, is referred to in the very, very beginning of the Pashat, Vatat Titsaver, the Vatatat, and you shall command, the you is Mosef, but his name is not mentioned. The Medwash says the reason is, because Mosef said to God when he was arguing with him after the sin of the ego, of the golden calf, Mosef said to God, "Mechaynina Mysif raashe ka taffa." If you don't forgive the Jews, then I want you to erase my name from the book which you are writing. And therefore, the Medwash says, at least in one Pashat and Pashat Titsaver, that came true. His name was erased, his name does not appear in this Pashat. The way the commentators explain it is that we learn from this principle that one should not curse oneself. Because even though you have a good intention, even though it was said, altsani, it was said with a condition. If you don't forgive the Jews, then I wish to be erased, but God did forgive the Jews. But nonetheless, one's mouth, when one says certain things, they have an effect. The Mosef says that a klalaafilo altsani midkaim, if you curse somebody else, even altsani, altsadek who curses somebody else, even with a condition, and the condition is not met, it still becomes to a certain extent, but here we learn that even to oneself, Moshe Rebeners putting himself on the line, obviously, we admire him very much. It's a great mitzvah what he's doing. He's saving the Jewish people, but you have to pay a price. You've opened up yourself to a certain kind of punishment. No one is flawless, and by accepting upon himself this thing, then it really does apply. Of course, in this sense, because it's Moshe Rebeno, in a very, very minor sense, not mitzvah, forkah, nafah, in the whole book, but at least from one posture, the shah, he adds on the basis of this understanding of the midwash. He says that that's the explanation of the first pasuk. "Viatateh saver" is the nayh saver matalayam, why do you need viatateh saver? The whole viatateh saver is unnecessary, what is he commanding them? This pascha, and the previous pascha, is constant commands. So just say, you know, "Ikwe lecha" as following the previous pascha that said, "You should do this. You should do this. You should do this. You should do this." Now this, he says, "Patateh saver" is the point we just made. Moshe Rebeno tells the Jews that you shouldn't curse yourself, because if you do, you can be wiped out, just as I was wiped out from the following pascha, and then the pascha continues with the story of the shaman. And there are other reasons given in the mafah shim as to why Moshe Rebeno is not mentioned in the pascha. The gra simply says that the way we read the Torah, pascha, tatateh saver is always in the week of zayana dah, zayana dah always falls in the week before the reading of pascha, tatateh saver. Is the day Moshe Rebeno's death, Moshe Rebeno's the outside. And therefore, to symbolize what we minus of that, Moshe Rebeno, as his candle was extinguished, his light was extinguished in this week, so too the pascha reflects that by his not appearing in the pascha. The panekhraza gives a different reason, that Moshe Rebeno, way back in pascha at smurt, said when God had asked him, had told him, had sent him to be the leader, to free the Jews, he said shilah na beyateh shilah, panekhraza says that Moshe Rebeno was a cohain, and should have been a cohain, when he said shilah na beyateh shilah, send with somebody else, not with me, because of his great modesty, and God said okay, I will send, I will send Ahavon, instead, that's when Ahavon became the co-in instead of Moshe. So Moshe has lost the cohuna, has lost the ability to be a cohain. But it's a very, it's pascha ta cohna, the whole pascha deals with the inauguration, the dedication, how a cohain becomes a cohain, how Ahavon and his children became cohain him, and were sent to serve, were dedicated to serve in the mishkan. So Moshe Rebeno, who, such as that he's not a cohain, he's lost the cohner, so he also has lost his position in this, in this pascha. And if I can add, what is superdrus, the Fashrami Krakka, it's called the Reben, the Fashrami Krakka. There were a limited number of great figures in Jewish history, who were popularly called with a double title. One of them is a figure who's almost unknown today, it's amazing how someone could be so great as to be in popular, not just among London, not just in India, Shivaat. But the Reben Repecial was a figure who was known to every child in Eastern Europe at some time. And because he didn't make a safer and doesn't have a, he isn't quoted often la la, he sort of dropped out of the historical position. But he's always called the Rebe Repecial, the love of Krakka. The Rebe Repecial said that not only was Moshe Rebeno wiped out from Pashat, it's Rebe, because he said, Machininami Sifra from Moshe Rebeno in the same pascha, when he's arguing with God after the, after the Aegon, and God says, I'm going to send a angel to lead you. And Machininians says, no, only God. He said, I'm in Panera Hochim, Altalenumizah. If you don't come, you God don't lead us, then don't take us from this place. The angel that would have led them is Mihael. Mihael is Sam Sabah, Shah Yisra El, going to Chazal. He's the angel who is in charge of Israel. And he was supposed to be the Jews to sell, but Moshe Rebeno didn't let him. And therefore he was sent away. When did he come back? In Sephiyoshua. This is what, in the Madras in the Al-Kutyaoshua, when right after Moshe Rebeno dies, Yoshua is outside of the camp, and he meets an angel. And the angel says, Atabati, I am satsabash, I am Atabati, I am the angel of God. Now I've come. The Madras says, women, now I've come, he says, now I've come because for the last couple of years I haven't been here. For the last 40 years I've not been here because Moshe Rebeno didn't let me. He sent me away. But now that he's dead, I've come back. So whenever there is Moshe, the angel Mihael cannot exist. Atabatioshua said, in Titsaver, there is no Moshe. How many Subkim are there in Titsaver? There are 101 Subkim. And 101 Gomatriya is Mihael. So this tashao, Moshe Rebeno, is not present. Mihael makes a appearance, a hidden, slight appearance. Then of course he disappears for the rest of the Taran, the rest of the story of the Jews in the desert, to be reappears in the time of Yoshua. Our guest today on this Ere Shabbat program is Harab Shalom Burger, who is on the faculty of the Luxton Center for the Asper Education of Baridang University. And also, coincidentally, is one of my neighbors here in Alon Shtot in Ere Shisayah. With Purim Apanas, I wanted to revisit the popular and well-known Halacha that everyone seems to particularly enjoy Purim time, which is of course the midst of getting drunk. This is the midst of their peers Neshoshan Aarach and Aarachain Simantafre Shtadi Hei Sifbiht, where the Mahabharth Paskins, Hayav Inish-Liv-Sumay-Bupuria, Adlo Yadabin Aarachamamamamamamavarachmardhai. That a person should apparently get drunk to the extent that he doesn't know the difference between cursing Haman and blessing Mardhai. The Mahabharth, of course, is based on Aghmar and Magilland of Zionim Abed, which records that Rava, in fact, is the one who gave that Halacha on my Rava, Mahabharth, Inish-Liv-Sumay-Bupuria, Adlo Yadabin Aarachamamamavarachmardhai. Rashi says that Liv-Sumay-Mindli Shtakar Biyyan to drink wine to excess, to the extent that you are, in fact, drunk. From here the Mahabharth chooses to reach a halachic conclusion. Interesting is that that self-same Gmara in Magilla does something that the Gmara oftentimes does. The Gmara tells a story in order to illustrate the halacha that has just been presented. Be sure enough, here we have a story that seems to fit into that type of category. The Gmara then tells that Rava, the Rabbi-Zera of Dusudad Purim, Bahadehadadi. One year, Rava and Rabbi-Zera chose to have a Purim-Sud, the meal on Purim, together. Yv-Sum, they got drunk, Kammraba, Shachtay-Lareb-Zera. Just translating the word, it would appear that the Gmara tells us that Rava got up and slaughtered Rava-Zera. Lumachar, the next day, Boi-Raha-Mei-Bhai, the next year, sorry, the next day, Rava realizes what he has done. He prays on Rava-Zera's behalf and brings him back to life. Lushana, the next year, Omar-lei, Naiti-Mar-Vinavid-Sudad Purim-Bhai-Bhai-Bhai-Hadadi. Apparently Rava, in searching for a partner for the Purim-Sud, approaches Rava-Zera once again and suggests that perhaps they enjoy their Purim-Sud, together. Omar-lei, Rava-Zera, responds, Lo-Bhol-Shat-Ape-Shat-Amit-Rafish-Nissa. We really can count on the fact that a miracle will happen every year, and apparently Rava-Zera begs off. As one can well expect, this Gmara is not taken by the various commentaries that we show the name of the Akronim at face value. Perhaps the one who says it in the clearest fashion is the Rambam-Sandra-Bhav-Ramb, Benosha-Rambam, who in an essay that he wrote about Agadata in general, this essay appears at the beginning of the standard editions of the Ainyaka, of the collection of Agadatas and the Gmara. Rava-Rambam, Benosha-Rambam, talks about what do you do when you find odd stories, the Gmara stories that could not possibly have happened literally the way they appear. And this one specific example that Rava-Rambam brings is this case. And he says in general, Dibru-Hahmig-Bhushan-Havai, that the sages of the Talmud, when they tell stories very often, they exaggerate. And here he says, Vidimyeon Hahele-Kazir, this particular topic that I'm now raising, Masha-Mruvang-Gmarad-The-Migula, Rava-Rabhav-Rabhiz-era, Bhavdu-Sudatta-Bhade-A-Dade, he quotes Agamara-Kamrab-A-Shak-Tay-L-Rabhiz-era, by Rama-Rabhiz-A-Rabhiz-A-Rabhiz-A-Rambam, wants to explain the story. And he says that it, of course, does not mean that Rabhiz-era is killed by Rava. Rather, it means Sheikawu-Patsato-Kaburag-Dola-Shakharov-Lomita, Ulu-Godal-ham-A-Kah, Hevi-Shak-Tay, that the expression that Gmaru used as "Shak-Tay" really is an attempt to portray the seriousness of the injury that Rava-Kaz-Rabhiz-era in the course of his drunkenness. He said, "Perhaps even the injury was on the neck, and that's why it brings up the image of slaughter, who purish Vahayayi-Milashon-Bhayakimer-Hoyo." And he suggests that the idea that he brought him back to life, that Gmaru uses the expression "The Ihayi" merely means that he preyed on his behalf, that he recovered from his injury, and not in fact that he actually killed him. Similar to this we find in the acronym, the "Marshah" in his "Kibushad-Gadot" here on that same piece says pretty much the same thing. "Dovar Tamuhu-Lafarsha-Kippashtay" the "Marshah" says. It's very, very difficult to suggest that we should explain this story on a simple level. When you read the "Ritona-Lomar" it means that it appeared that he slaughtered him, the Agbarei-Khamrah, the "Kapilishtot-Yotar-Midai". Here he didn't actually injure him according to the "Marshah", but he pressed him to drink more than he should have. "Ad-Sha-Laf-Natalamut" until he in fact became ill, and it appeared, perhaps, that he would have reached the level of intoxication. The alcohol level in his blood reached such a level that it appeared that he might even die. "O l'chachnakte" "Nakte-Bilishon-Sha-Shrita" "Tishtay-A-Yin" "Nikra-Yideh-Hagaron-Makam-Shrita" because he had drunk so much. The drinking has to do with the area of the throat. Therefore, it also was considered that in a zip, he, so to speak, checked it him, that he slaughtered him. And the "Gmarah" says the "Dit-Pale-Lalab" "Sha-Laf-Sha-Laf-Natalamut-Mik-Hole-Yizah" again, that he just means that he preyed on his behalf that he should recover. So, certainly, one approach to this "Gamara" is that this didn't happen quite the way it appears. The "Gamara" is exaggerating the story in order to make a point. Now, the question, of course, becomes, well, what is the point of the "Gamara"? If we believe that, generally speaking, the "Gamara" tells stories in order to support the "Halahic" statement that appeared beforehand, at first glance, it would appear that this story doesn't fit into that category, that this story, in fact, seems to reject the "Halacha" as it was stated by "Rava", "Hai of Inishluksume-Bipuria Ad-Loyada-Bein-Ar-Haman-Libara-Mardra". That, in fact, is the position taken by "Rabein-wa-Frayim", who is quoted by the "Rishonim" by the "Bal-Hamor" and by the "Ran" in our "Gamara" and the "Standid-Gamara". Where "Rabein-wa-Frayim" is quoted is saying that the fact that the "Gamara" brings this story immediately after the statement of "Halacha" is, in order to tell us that, in this particular case, the "Halacha" was not accepted, we can see that something really terrible happened because of the people who followed this "Halacha" to the letter of the law, and as such, we have to learn that the "Gamara" is teaching us, in effect, that we should refrain from doing it. He is quoted as follows. "Midamaiti Allah Uvda", from the fact that the "Gamara" tells the story, "Kamraba, Vishakhta-le-rebiz-era", that "Raba" got up and slaughtered "Rabeiz-era", Ayyideidihifso, because he had become drunk, "Le Shannabak" in the "Amalay-Nav" in the Purim "Baha-Dadi", "Amalay-rebiz-era", "La-Vahol-Shatim" in Trachish-Nisa, from the fact that "Rabeiz-era" refuses to participate in this, in the Purim suit of the following year, "Mimele-idghimember-deraba", "Vilab-Shatim-der-derbiz-era", so "Rabeiz-era-Fraim" reaches the conclusion that clearly the "Gamara" is indicating to us that the "Halacha" is stated by "Raba" or "Rava", that one is obligated to become drunk, is rejected by the "Gamara", and it's, in fact, inappropriate to behave in this manner. The "Sabraha-Eshko", and this is one of the "Rishonim", and this is something that appears in the "Achornim" as well, argues with this understanding of the "Gamara". The "Sabra-Eshko" writes, "Vilihakote-ev-Nira" to "Mee-Kan-Raya-Ditzar-Ekh-Liv-Sume" The "Ilo" "Hava-le-le-Meemar" "Navad-Suddha-Baha-Dadi", below "Nib-Sam". In fact, this story does exactly what stories usually do in the "Gamara". This story proves that the "Halacha" is stated is the correct one. The "Sabraha-Eshko" argues that, "Were the "Gamara" rejecting the "Halacha" is stated by "Rava" "Tay-Eshko-Liv-Nira-Moo-Sume-Bapur-Ya", so then the end of the story should have been different. Rabbi Zeyra should have accepted "Rava's invitation to Purim-Suddha", but he should have said, after last year's experience, it's become clear to us that there is some danger involved in our trying to really be "Machmir", trying to be especially careful about the ruling that one has to get drunk. This year, we'll have Purim-Suddha together, and we will choose not to get drunk. From the fact that Rabbi Zeyra doesn't say that, he understands that "Rava" will, in any case, insist that drinking takes place during this meal. It's clear that still, at least according to "Rava", and that's the "Halacha" that we accept, drinking is, in fact, appropriate, and getting drunk remains a mitzvah on Purim. The, there are re-shone who understand this "Gomara" in a variety of ways. One particularly interesting approach is in a, appears in a perush of a re-shone that was recently published. It, is in a book called "L.F. Hamagein perush al-Agadot-Migilat-Missat-Migilah", written by Rabbi Shmarya Ben-Elio Ha-Aka-Riti, who was an Italian re-shone lived in the 14th century, and he gives a different type of explanation of this Agadata. And he says that, when the Maury describes the "Rava" in Rabbi Zeyra, eight Purim-sudah together, he says perush need to bow to do Yach-a-da-blish-tak-her-be-yen ha-cha-cha-ma. Venish-tak-ruma-o-d, Shahe-si-goo-pil-a-ot-be-yunam. That, this wasn't quite a physical Purim-sudah. Here were two people who sat together, and the food that they ate, the drink that they had, in fact, was an analysis and study of mystical ideas. An-manam, yu-an-raba-vah-sag-a-ta-o-nut-ro-mima-o-d-cha-par-ha-nish-mat-re-biz-er-mid-var-a-v-as-her-he-gid-shar-a-v-i-si. K'nik-saf-an-a-cha-li-st-alek-men-ho-lam-has-el-alot-el-ham-a-kum-as-her-biz-ser-l-a-raba-shar-v-i-si. Rob is success in reaching higher levels of mystical understanding. His description, this was so great that Rabbi Zerah, who did hadn't quite reached that level, had this tremendous desire to also to see that kind of thing. K'nik-saf-an-raba-vah-tay-him-a-sham-a-yim-a-v-nug-ham-u-shar-v-a-n-hush-kann-a-shah-a-hum-a-ot-a-m-a-l-a-d-huh-u-par-ha-mima-o-o-krav-a-l-hipp-a-raba-l-hipp-a-raba-mima-o-woo-par-a-shar-tay. So Rabbi Zerah's desire to reach these high levels of comprehension and understanding, actually took his very soul out of him, according to this approach, and that's the intent of the G-mara with regard to shah-tay. And then, of course, the next year, when Raba approaches Rabbi Zerah, what we are afraid of isn't a physical altercation. What Rabbi Zerah was afraid of was that yet again his desire to reach these high levels of mystical understanding would once again bring his soul to leave his body, and perhaps this time, Raba wouldn't be successful in putting the two of them back together. One of my favorite approaches to this G-mara is that of Rabbiakov, and then it appears in a standard parish in the back of the G-mara, where Rabbiakov ended points to a series of G-mara throughout Shas, in which it's clear that the chakami and chakami and chakmara were talented actors. And what Rabbiakov ended suggests is that Raba and Rabbi Zerah were in the middle of a festive Purim Surah, and the Raba turns to Rabbi Zerah and says, you know, this has gone a little bit beyond what a Purim Surah should be. They had to do something in order to sort of tone down the party, and they agreed that they would put on a little Purim skit that would get everyone's attention and sort of move them away from their focus on the festivities. The Rabbiakov ended in the right of the G-mara, that when Raba slaughtered Rabbi Zerah, it was all a lot of sleight of the hand, the hand fastened in the eye, the blood every place was just some tomato sauce. The people who were involved in this party thought that, in fact, Rabbi Zerah had actually been killed by Raba, when the people saw this, they all were saddened, and certainly the party died, so to speak. After Rabbi Zerah and His pal Meiham, Rabbi Zerah, who was lying there on the floor playing this role, peeks out and sees this deep sense of mourning that the entire party has upon seeing what they thought was a true altercation between Him and Raba. When Rabbi Zerah said that Rabbi Zerah, Rabbi Zerah, and Rabbi Zerah, he said that it really appeared that he was dead. He said that Rabbi Zerah had to pray on his behalf that he should recover. But certainly, Rabbi never did anything so severe. Well, what do we come out with all this? Well, the Mahabir rules that a person's obligated, if we go back to the Symanu, in the Gulf, we find that the Ramah rules, the Aishumrim, the Aishthakar Kolkach, Allah Yush, Teyotami, the Mudaw, the Shan, Omitoshi, Ashein, and Ayodea, been a Ruhaman, the War of Mordhai. The recommendation the Ramah has is that you should drink a little more than usual and then take a nap. And while you're asleep, you in fact will fulfill the opinion, as quoted in the Gmara, that you won't know the difference between Arahaman and the War of Mordhai. A message that certainly is always appropriate, maybe especially on Purim, that whether you choose to drink more or less, the point is to do it with the right intention. Shabbat shalom. You have been listening to Arahshalom Berghar, our guest for Prashat al-Saver. In the beginning of Prashat al-Saver, the first mitzvah is to be in oil, to prepare oil, which is used in the Mudaw. This oil is described as being katit, lamma or the word katit, refers to how oil is made. It's crushed, you crush the alves. You chop them up, the katit, to crush something and chop it up small, lamma or for the purpose of lighting. So this shaman, this oil is called katit lamma or. The Gmara says katit lamma or below katit limna hot. There are two things which oil is used in the beta midash. One is to light the minna or to make light. And the other thing is that oil is an ingredient in the minna hot. Minna hot are kobanot that are brought from plants, rather than from animals. What's called, I think, in the translations, the meal offering is basically flour. The flour is mixed among, with other things, it's mixed with oil. Oil and also spice, livona, which, if I remember correctly, I might be wrong, I think, is frankincense. So I don't know what frankincense is. It doesn't really make much of a difference to me. It's called livona. But the main ingredients is flour and oil. So that oil is not the oil that's described here. Katit, chopped up very, very finely. And the finest oil, the best oil, the first drops. The drops that come when you haven't crushed it in a press, but only chopped it up, that is lamma or. Because that's the purest oil. You can get more oil out of an olive. And that's by crushing. If we're putting it into the press and crushing it completely, then you get a glass drop of oil. But that oil is not as good, because it's mixed in also with some impurities that come from the body of the olive. So, katit lamma or, veloc, katit, limna hot. Why don't minna hot also need the best oil? It would be very, very expensive oil indeed. So lamma or, yes, it makes a big difference. It's apparently burns brighter and more beautifully. But limna hot, the Torah says, you can use cheap oil. Therefore, katit lamma or, not katit lamna hot. The vichyome Alexander explained these words and this halacha in the following manner. I'll try to say it in colloquial English. katit lamma or, veloc, katit, limna hot. katit means to chop up lamma or to the light. Low katit, but not chopped up. Limna hot, minna hot are those carbonate from wheat that we mentioned before. But the word minna hot also sounds like lahaniach to put something down. So loving Alexander said that you can understand that Pasek has given you the following advice. When you come to give Musa to somebody, when you come to chop him up to, I guess in English we would say, to take him apart. It should be lamma or to enlighten him. But don't take him apart, limna hot, to put him down. It's definitely acceptable even a mitzvah to give Musa to somebody and that might involve really whipping him apart. But you always have to remember that it's lamma or to enlighten him and not merely or primarily because you want to put him down. You want to put him down because you want to take him apart because you want to build him up because you want to enlighten him. For thee have a high omit. Tomorrow Shabbat, we read Pasek Zoho. The Torah is a mitzvah media writer. Zoho et asher asa daha amalek. Now the Gomara in mikidah says that this zhirah doesn't mean to remember, but it means to mention. How do we know that? Because it says Zoho and then Lotishkach. So Lotishkach means do not forget and therefore we know that the mental, the mental mitzvah. So Zoho means to actually say. An unusual, the Torah we find, this is another mitzvah which we are familiar with. It says Zoho and it means to speak. Zoho and then Yomah Shabbat, the kachau, which is the source for the mitzvah of kiddush of saying something. So here too, Zoho means to recite or to say. The Gomara says that this should be from a safer, which is understood by the Pasekim, to mean that we read Pasekach, Zoho means safer Torah. Is the reading from safer Torah media writer or is it only me darabannan? That's not so clear. Although the morality from the Pasek, but the derivation is a little bit unusual since it's learned from a comparison to Miguelat-a-Stair. Just like Miguelat-a-Stair is from a safer. So too, the kreat, the reading of Pasekach-a-Zoho remembering Amalek. And we all know that Miguelat-a-Stair is not media writer. So therefore, there's a makhloket among the commentators, whether or not the reading of Pasekach-a-Zoho is redo it. Kriyatta Torah is the writer. Some of them even say, since Tostro says that safer is the writer, the way to recite, to remember, to recall. Kriyatta Amalek, the mitzvah of Amalek is to read it from a safer Torah, but it doesn't say "bitzibur". The whole concept of Kriyatta Torah is the rabbanan. And so therefore, there are basically three possibilities. One is that you don't need a safer, you could be a makhandamitzvah by simply saying it. The rabban, for instance, says there's a mitzvah to remember once a year what Amalek did. It doesn't mention safer Torah. It's very possible they think you don't need a safer Torah media writer. Tostro says you need a safer Torah media writer. It's very possible he doesn't require Kriyatta Torah, "bitzibur", in sure with ten people. But there are... the true introduction says that the mitzvah media writer is to come to sure and hear it read "bitzibur". At least ten people, just like a regular Kriyatta Torah. In any event, we develop anan that applies. The banan made an institution at the way to the makhandamitzvah, "bitzibur" is to have a Kriyatta, which we call "pashazakhor", which is read the Shabbat before Purim. Obviously, the timing here is not the writer because Purim doesn't exist media writer, but since Purim deals with Haman and Amalek, so they're instituted that the mitzvah should be done once a year, and the best time for once a year to be done is the Shabbat before Purim. And when you have Kriyatta Torah. Since, according to many, we've shown it, you need a safer mediator, so the safer definitely has to be Kashiar. But there's another problem here, and that is that the person reading it, most of us, is only listening. But the mitzvah is "liscor", not to hear, and not to remember in one's heart. One has to actually say it, but we don't all say it, only the hazzan says it. So apparently the way in which we're all yours, say, is "shomayah". Kona, the principle that says that if you hear something said out there by somebody else, then it is though you said it. However, we, many posts can hold, and this is what's brought down to Shokanaruk, that in general, Shomayah Kona only applies if you also understand. Not just hear the sounds, but also understand. There is an opinion, opinion of Rashi, that says that in Hebrew, one doesn't have to understand, but most posts can hold it even in Hebrew, you have to understand what's being said. And therefore, according to those posts came in order to be, you would say, the reading of Pashaat Amalek. Not just saying something about Amalek, but the actual Pashaat, at least me to Abhanan, one has to say this Pashaat, and maybe even the writer, the exact Pashaat, that's found in the Torah. So, how do you see that? You have to understand the entire Pashaat. The Pasha includes one or two phases which might not be clear to everybody, even those who know Hebrew. If you look at the name of the Prophet, it's not the name of the Prophet, it's the name of the Prophet. So, once you look at the Mafashim and see what the name means, as well as the entire, as well as the entire person, that way, when it's sure to be Makhayam Nimitzvah in the best possible way. Another question in the post-game involves whether or not women are obligated in this Mitzvah. It's not mentioned in any of the early post-game, not in the Baba, not in the Shokanaruk. And although you might think that if it's not mentioned, that means that women are obligated, because usually if women is not obligated, that's what we have to be said. It's an exception after most Mitzvah women are obligated. But still, practically speaking, the consideration is the opposite. Since women did not normally go to shul in most times, and they are not obligated to hear Kriyatatova every Shabbat, if this Shabbat is different, I think we would expect the Shokanaruk to mention. For instance, Shokanaruk says that because it's a very important Mitzvah, so those people who live in small towns and small towns who don't normally hear Kriyatova because they don't have a minion in their town, they come for this Shabbat to the bigger city. That's the first we could have said, and women who don't normally come to shul at all would come to shul for this Mitzvah. So it's not mentioned. I'm saying there's an apparent assumption that perhaps they are not obligated. But the Binyan Seon says that women are obligated and the logic is really very simple. It's not a Mitzvah to say Shazmankrama, it's a Mitzvah to say. It's a positive commandment, but it has no time. The fact that we do it by now, you do it in one particular Shabbat, but the Mitzvah has to do it once a year. That means you should remember. And that's considered to be Mitzvah to say Shazmankrama has no particular time. So therefore, logically, women should be obligated. Seifah, you know, explicitly says that women are not obligated in Zechiwatama. And the reason he says is because women do not conduct war. What is his assumption? One is he assumes that women are not obligated in Mitzvah. They are not obligated in Mitzvah of war. Now, it's true that the Mitzvah says that in a given battle, women don't go to fight. But on the contrary, the Mitzvah also says that in Muhammad Mitzvah, so women participate. They just don't fight. They are in the support troops. They help provide food for the combatants. And that might be a part of the Mitzvah. The second assumption of the Hinoq is that there's a connection between Zechiwatama and Mitzvah. One is to destroy Amalek. And another Mitzvah, to remember Amalek. The Hinoq is implicitly combined into Mitzvah. He assumes that women are not obligated in the destruction of Amalek. And therefore, they're not obligated in the remembering of Amalek. This might be connected to what one has to remember. Seifah let us share Assalah, Amalek. It's not a connection to war. You should remember the evil that Amalek has done. Or does it also include, to remember that there's a Mitzvah to destroy them. The continuation of the Pasha'i is by YAH, by Nihr. When God gives you the opportunity, you should destroy them. And today, it's become accepted for women to make a special effort to, in fact, come and hear Amalek. And if you don't hear the first line, they make a special dominion so that they should hear Kriyat of the Pasha'at Amalek. Although, you know, a couple hundred years ago, this wasn't, this definitely wasn't the practice and it wasn't well known. But it's been accepted today that since there are some posts from within the women are obligated when we make a special effort to hear Pasha'at Amalek as well. That's all for today. We should give you a Shabbat Shalom. The whole tour, this has been Eswabek, speaking to you, from Ishivatar Ation, a new ministering to KMTT. Kimi Tseion, Tetsay Torah. KMTT is the Torah podcast, sponsored by Ishivatar Ation and the Israel Koshitsky Virtual Bake Man Rash. Shabbat Shalom, we'll be seeing you next week. Kimi Tseion, Tetsay Torah, Uzbar Hashem Yerushalayim.