KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva - Tetzaveh
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva, Shiur #10, for Parshat Tetzaveh, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
This is KMTT, and this is Esruvik. Today is Wednesday, Hretadar, and we have the pleasure of welcoming back Rabinham Intavori, who unfortunately was unable to give the share last week when he was ill, and he has returned to say the weekly share called the weekly in Mitzvah. After the share, I'll be back with Sihalah Hayomit. This week, Shabbat Parashat Zahor, where we read the mitzvah of remembering Amalek and we also mentioned the mitzvah of Maria Samalek, of destroying Amalek. There are two parashas in the Torah where they talk about Amalek. The parashah in Bishalah, which records the historical event at the time of the Fort Worth Amalek, Khadzbarq says, Khadzadzi Karimba Seyfeh, the Simba Aznayoshua. The simple interpretation means that Khadzbarqq al-Masha write this down in the Seyfeh, in the book, and teach it to Yoshua. Khimahro emchheh, ezheh, malaek mita raddeshamayim, because I will destroy the memory of Amalek in this world. And Torah ends that parashah, Khyad al-Kayskah, muhamalah shambamalek. The war is between Gharna Malek, Midor-Dor, for all eternity. In parashat, he says, the parashah that we read, this shabbat, as the maftir, the Torah emphasizes that you should destroy Amalek. Khimahro timchheh, ezheh, ezheh, malaek, mita raddeshamayim. First, it says, "The choreh teh shah sah leh, malaek." Remember, Amalek. And then it says, Khyad mahro timchheh, no timchheh, malaek, malaek, ezheh, malaek, mita raddeshamayim. You should obliterate Amalek from this world. Rashi and Khomish tries to reconcile the two parashiyot. Whereas, in parashat beshalah, it seems that the mitzvah is not incumbent upon banesuil. Rather, that I could just bear who said, "I will destroy Amalek." On the other hand, in parashat, Khyad say, it says, mahro timchheh, ezheh, malaek. You should destroy Amalek. So, Rashi explains in parashat beshalah, Khotob Zodzi Karimba, say, "Right there. This is the historical lesson that we should remember." And that's one mitzvah. That's parallel to the mitzvah that we read in Kitesa, it's the Khoyat. The only thing is, we learn here Khotob Zodzi Karimba, say, that the zhira also should be mita raddeshamayim. But the zimba zna'yoshua, Rashi explains, the zimba zna'yoshua hamakhnizat yisrae alarats shiit sabet yisrae ala shalemnod gmullo. Teach this to Yoshua, who will be the one according to Rashi, who will be the one who brings Baneshaal into Arjesrae al. And therefore at that time, he should pay Amalek their true desserts. Kanyamazki moshheh, Kanyamazhaal, the moshheh shiit sabet yisrae ala shalemnizat yisrae alarats. This is already a hint that Yoshua is the one who will bring Baneshaal into Arjesrae al. This opinion of Rashi explains that both in Kitezay and in Bisharach, there are two mitzvahs mentioned. One mitzvah is remembering Amalek, either Zakhor or K'tavzad zikarimba zetak, and the mitzvah of destroying Amalek in Kitezay, it says Timchad zikarimalek, but in Bisharach it says, the zimba zna'yoshua. This apparently is an allusion to the idea that the mitzvah of Muhyasamalek doesn't not apply until Baneshaal enter Arjesrae al. As the Ramam says in Hilchus Malach in Perikalith, there are three mitzvahs that are incumbent upon Baneshaal, when they enter Arjesrae al, one to appoint a king, one to destroy Amalek, and one to build the Bishabakhira. The Ramam says, the order is that appointing a king is a precondition for Muhyasamalek, minuimelek called them the Muhyasamalek. Apparently this mitzvah is a mitzvah that applies to the community when they enter Arjesrae al. They as a community, as an entity, as a nation, have a mitzvah of Muhyasamalek, but that mitzvah apparently did not apply before Baneshaal came to Arjesrae al. The zimba zna'yoshua. This mitzvah was taught to Yoshua in order that Yoshua should understand some mitzvah that applies to him when he comes to Arjesrae al. The Ramam says in Hilchus Muhlach and Perikalith, halochah, hey, v'hein mitzvah, tasei la abedzerhamalek. There is, similarly, we'll explain that in a moment, there is similarly a mitzvah to destroy the memory of Amalek, shinemah, timcha, zehhamalek. And there's another mitzvah, oh mitzvah, as I say, the scar tamid maasafah, hara, imbarivasu. There's also a mitzvah daraisa to remember their evil actions. The Ramam preceded that mitzvah of Amalek by explaining another mitzvah. Mitzvah, as I say, dachim shivasamamim. There's a requirement, the mitzvah, as I say, to wipe out the seven nations who live in Arjesrae al at the time when Yoshua entered Arjesrae, when Yoshua entered Arjesrae al, the seven nations that live there were involved in this mitzvah of Ha'Harengtachamimim. Destroyed it. Then the Ramam says, call shiboliyado echadmiham vallohairago, hairei ovir, ovir balotasei, shinemah, losahayakamisham. The Ramam says anyone who has a chance to kill one of the shivasamimim, and did not do so, contradicted the lotasei, shinemah, lotahayakamisham, adattari said, do not leave anyone alive. It's noteworthy that the Ramam did not say this in connection with Amalek. In connection with Amalek, the Ramam wrote that there's a mitzvah, say, to destroy the memory of Amalek. La abet ha'malek. But he did not say, call shiboliyado echadmiham vallohairago, hairei ovir balotasei, shinemah, losahayakamisham. The Ramam then says, someone who could have, an individual who could have met with one of the Amalekim, and destroyed him is over some sort of any sardiram, did not say that at all. Apparently there's a distinction between the concept of mihyasam, alek, and ha'ma shibasamimim. We'll get back to that later. But I'd like to first point out that the Ramam adds, at the end of mitzvah dallid, the mitzvah, say, lakharim shibasamimim. The Ramam adds, at the very end, there is a mitzvah of destroying shibasamim, ukhvar avad-ziram. However, their memory has already been forgotten. This, of course, refers to the concept that the genealogy of nations was destroyed at the time of Sama'ayif. And we say, bil-bel-as-so-mas. Today there are no longer any nations that existed upon that time. People who live in Greece today are called Greeks. But biologically, genealogically, we do not assume that they are the descendants of the original Greek people. And so, with the mitzvim, and obviously so much more so, with the yavusim, the gushim, the heaving, they don't exist today. For all practical purposes, we don't have any such person today. So therefore, the mitzvah of ha'ma shibimimim does not apply this man as there. It is a mitzvah, no, I guess, adhara. It's a mitzvah that would apply for all generations. If we had one of the seven nations, there would be a mitzvah to kill him. However, there is no such person today. Ukhvara vaziram, the mitzvah does not apply today because we don't have any such person. And it's famous that the rambam in halacha hai, when he discusses amalek, does not add that phrase ukhvara vaziram. The rambam says the mitzvah of destroying amalek applies. And it seems to be that it applies today. Even though, biologically, genealogically, you should assume it would be the same as shibhasamimim, kvara vaziram. But the rambam did not say that. It's well known in the name of Vibhayim that he explained that amalek is not merely a biological phenomena. Shibhasamimim is a lock in biology. There's a mitzvah to destroy the shibhasamimim. And any descendant of the shibhasamimim, there would be a mitzvah to destroy. If today we do not have such a descendant, then this mitzvah by definition could not apply. However, amalek, according to abhayim, is not just a biological consideration. There is a concept called amalek. The concept of amalek is the root of evil in the world. You sow dharaba olam. If there are people who are so evil, without any redeeming grace whatsoever. People who wage war, who want to kill people just because they want to kill people, just because they're evil. The rambam would rule that these people are amalek, even bismanase. This, of course, is a very dangerous concept because who is going to determine who is amalek? How would we implement a chalacha? This is beyond the capability of myself and certainly not to give a sheer and to discuss any possible practical ramifications of such a concept. However, in the world of Torah and the world of thought, the prime explained that anybody who represents amalek, in the words of the rambam, the mitzvah by amalek is to remember his evil actions. In order to stimulate our hatred to an amalek, and it's well known that the rambam thinks amalek like any other nation can do chuva. An amaleki, a biological amaleki, who would do chuva, who would accept the chavamis, is accepted, and we have perfect permission to allow him to live and to welcome him into our community. A source for the rambam may be, since a source for the concept of this rambam, as the lucid they bear a pain, might be from the famous madrish that the madrish says that Haman, the pusset, says Haman ben am dassala gawki, Haman seems to be a descendant of a gaga, the descendant of amalek. The madrish asks, was he really a descendant of amalek? Was he biologically, he was homin, by a logic of the sense of amalek? Ella colte has been colte, tell ya. He was evil, he was mean, he was rotten, he wanted to kill the Jews for no reason, except for the fact that he disliked Jews, hated Jews and wanted to kill them. This seems to be that a source that amaleki is not just a biological phenomena, but it's a concept in the world of thought. Therefore the rambam would not say, ukhvara vaziram. This does not mean to negate that amalek might also be a biological phenomena, anybody in amalek. The natural sense of amalek should be destroyed. Those descendants do not exist today, kvara vaziram. But the only thing we do have left is the concept of rabbah, oh I'm the concept of evil in the world, that mitzel would apply today as well. This would raise many other issues that we will discuss. Is this a shi'il on the individual, a shi'il hai yahre, or is this a shi'il vazibur? Is this a national requirement? Obviously if we're talking about killing individuals, then you could discuss whether it's a shi'il hai yahre, or shi'il vazibur. If there's a mitz, is there an isr to kill, one person you could say that there is an isr to allow anyone to live. However, in the ideas to wipe out the nation, to wipe out a concept, it would be very difficult to imagine that the mitzv would be a shi'il vazir, the mitzv should be a shi'il vazibur. Therefore, the rabbam, when he discusses the mitzvah of shi'il hai yahre, the rabbam says, "Kol shi'il ba'li'ah, doh ekhadmiyyam, volohar, rah goh, ovib alotah sai." Any individual who has the capability of destroying one of the seven nations, and does not do so, transgress alotah sai. But the rabbam did not say that by mihyasam alek. By mihyasam alek, it seems to be a mitzvah sai'il vur, a requirement that's incumbent upon the community. But there is no such requirement on any individual. Therefore, an individual who met an amalek, who did not kill him according to the ramam, does not seem to be over any isr to. It would be interesting to contrast the shitas hai rambam, this opinion of the rambam, with the opinion of the sai'il hai yahre. In the sai'il hai yahre, it says, "By the mitzvah of hai yahre gashab shi'il sai'il amim." By the mitzvah of killing the seven nations, the ramam sai, the sai yahre adds one word dimension. Anybody who could have the opportunity to kill one of the shitas hai rambam, without endangering himself. That caveat is not found in the ramam. Miblicia is talking vedafa, without endangering himself. That seems strange because war always involves some sort of sakana. How could there be a concept of going to war and saying, "You got to war only if there's no sakana." The mitzvah on the mitzvah, taf rafai, when that mitzvah, the mitzvah, the mitzvah discusses this point and says, "Sarithiyyun, this requires further clarification." The nihiduhr, "Hola, mitzvah sakana," it's true that all mitzvahs are, can be abandoned, not need to be fulfilled when there's a question of sakana. The kamakah mitzvah zuah, tahratsip sa lil khammalli, imayam. But this mitzvah, the tahratoldas, to fight, viyaduah, tahrallas, blotismah, dinaanay, is, the tahrat doesn't rely on miracles. O bidarachol, nairagim, shnayazfannim, asam alhammah, the normal concept of war, people do get killed. The tahratoldas to go to war. If the tahratoldas to go to war, then the tahratoldas to be involved in sakana. So how could the ramams, the hihinuk say, that you should go to war, you should destroy khammalli, shi istaki, without being endangered. Fitzarahiyu, and therefore he says this requires further clarification. The answer, of course, would be simple. If there's a hihi vatsibur, if there's a hihi of to go to Milhama, you're right, hihi of Milhama is a hihi of, that applies to a community, and in that community of war, it's natural, normal. Unfortunately, that people will be killed in both sides. Therefore, if the tahratoldas to go to war, obviously the tahratoldas will be killed in both sides. Therefore, if the tahratoldas to go to war, obviously the tahratoldas, to go to war, and even though there is a life-threatening situation, but the war warrants entering such a situation. However, in shi istamamamim, there's no mitzvah of going to war. The mitzvah is each hihi of hihi of, it's a hihi of each individual. Each individual who would kill one of the shi istamamamim, fulfills the mitzvah. And therefore, anyone who does not kill one of the shi wastamamim, when he has a chance. And the hihi of adds the caveat, believe she is stuck in the davar. Then, he's mavato in asse, and he's over a lot asse. But in the hihi of sa'malek, on the other hand, the sai frahinoch says, the hihi of sa'malek, the rahmah, the hihi of sais, mitzvah tah for each dalek, zos minah, mitzvah sa'mutala sa sibakulam. There he says, again, clearly, this is a mitzvah that applies to the entire community. And he quotes that Gimah and Sanhedrin davra from the base, that there are three mitzvahs that apply when we come there to Swail. We've pointed out Rashi says, the sinbaznayoshua, this is the mitzvah that applies for your shawl when he enters there to Swail, to the appointed king, to all the base abhira and to the strahmahalek. But however, the hihi then goes on, not like the rahmahm, and says, the m-s kegam alkohyakhid m'israelas rahim mutal hachihi of lhargamul abtamanalalam. However, this is the hihi of hayakhid also. According to the safe rahimur, there are two alahhs. By shivas amanim, dalahhs to kill each individual, that's certainly a hihi of hayakhid. By amalek, there's a hihi of hazibur. The hihi of hazibur is to kill the entire community of amalek to destroy amalek, and this mitzvah applies when you enter it to Swail, when you have a malaq, applies to the whole hihi of hazibur. However, he says there is another hihi of hazib, hayakhid, imyashkohyakhbyadam. Now, that is an interesting phrase. He doesn't say miblica, you're stacking, but he doesn't say without endangering himself. He says imyashkohyakhbyadam. Could we interpret imyashkohyakhbyadam to be a parallel phrase without endangering himself is questionable. He says again, ubaliyado ekhanuzamalek, vihisipekbyadallargo. Yaisipekbyadallargo means he could do it. Does it mean endangering himself? That is not as clear in the mitzvah malaq as it is in shivas amanim. As shivas amanim, it's clear that you do not have to endanger yourself. By amalek, it's not that clear. But according to the hihi know if there are definitely two hihi of him. There's a hihi of hayakhid and a hihi of hazibur. And that hihi of hayakhid is vihisipekbyadamabuchozman. That mitzvah doesn't seem to apply only unbanne astral entererge astral with amalek. Vihisipekbyadamabuchozman. I would like to suggest that the two mitzvahs would depend upon the real definition of the hihi of machiyas amalek. If machiyas amalek is biological, the same as it is by shivas amanim, then it's possible to say there would be a hihi of hayakhid to kill each individual. Amaleki. I would then, of course, use the phrase kvaravad zikram to this side of the hihi of hayakhid as well. The ramen doesn't have this whole concept of hihi of hayakhid. But in the state of the hihi of hayakhid is mentioned, I would say that if you think by shivas amanim kvaravad zikram, you would say the same as true by amalek. However, besides the hihi of hayakhid to kill each individual, there's a hihi of hazibur to destroy amalek and to wipe out evil in the world. This hihi of would seem to me could not be a hihi of hayakhid, just not within the capability of hayakhid to wipe out evil in the world, wipe out the whole nation of amalek. Therefore, this hihi of would seem to be the hihi of hazibur, which does not apply to the hihi of hayakhid. So, according to the ramen, I have a hihi of hayakhid by shivas amanim, whereas by amaleki, I have a hihi of hazibur. On the other hand, according to the state of hayakhid, I have a hihi of hayakhid both by amalek and by shivas amanim. But by shivas amanim, I do not have a hihi of hazibur, I only have a hihi of hayakhid, whereas by amaleki, I have a hihi of hazibur and a hihi of hayakhid. This would raise another issue, namely, are women obligated in this mitzvah. The ramen says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. Mitzvah says it's a hihi of hazibur. By the mitzvah of mitzvah of mitzvah of mitzvah of shivas amanim, we are the safer hihi of hayakhid. This mitzvah of the mitzvah of wiping out shivas amanim applies both to male and female. Women are also obligated. The mitzvah is to kill every individual, every individual of shivas amanim, and whoever has the capability of doing so is mukhihi of a woman, a man, makes no difference. By mukhihi of malaik, in the mitzvah of malaik, so the real clue to it is in the mitzvah of zhihi of malaik. There's a mitzvah to remember in malaik. The safe rahihinuk says in mitzvah tabhihi shgimmul, the mitzvah to remember in malaik, no hayakhid says mitzvah zhil bhol mukhul mukhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul makhul. This is an eternal mitzvah to remember in malaik. However, he says, biskari, this mitzv only applies to men, keelaham lasasamulhamma vinikmasa aoyev. Because they are the ones who go to war, they are the ones who avenge the enemy. Laulinashim, he says clearly the mitzvah of zhirasamalayk, the mitzvah that we do, this shot is parashas dakar. The safe rahihinuk is a Risharun who says that women are not obligated in this mitzvah at all. This is a mitzvah that applies only to men. Why? Because keelaham lasasamulhamma. The mitzvah is argued with the safe rahihinuk on two counts. He says in general, this is a mitzvah that says, "Shalua smangama." This is not a mitzvah that's contingent upon time. And therefore, we require some sort of a hiddish to tell me that women are not obligated in this mitzvah. And he says, what's the reason? keelaham lasasamulhamma vinikmasa. The explanation of the rihinuk is that women don't go to war. He says, women do go to war. I feel the kalamehupasa. Whether women go to war, not go to war, the rihinuk argues with the mitzvah. The rihinuk women do go to war in that. An issue which is not now the time to discuss. However, the second issue is relevant to the rihi of a paashasamalaik with the rihinuk. The mitzvah says, who told you that the mitzvah is rihi asamalaik, is contingent upon the mitzvah of destroying a mitzvah. Maybe they're two separate mitzvahs. There's a mitzvah of remembering amalik. In order just to remember evil in the world. Just remember the concept of amalik. The mitzvah of mihi asamalaik doesn't apply. It might not apply to women, but that would not mean the mitzvah. The rihi asamalaik will not apply to women. You see that the saverahimul can contrast the two mitzvahs. And the saverahimul said, if your women are not kayif in mihi asamalaik, and therefore they're not kayif and paashas al-khar as well. In the mitzvah of mihi asamalaik. If it's a rihi-vatsibor, and the rihi-vatsibor is a concept of going to war, then somehow we can understand the idea of the saverahimul. That women don't go to war. Mihi asamalaik is a mitzvah of war. On the other hand, shivasamim is a mitzvah of individuals. Women are kayif in the mitzv individuals, but not in the rihi of war. However, the rihi-vatsibor himself said, they're two mitzvahs by amalik. There's one rihi-vatsibor, and there's one rihi-vayachid. What about the rihi-vayachid? Should that apply to women? If you would ask me, it would seem to me obvious that it should apply to women. The same way the mitzvahs as shivasamimim applies to men and women according to the rihi-vatsibor. The mitzvah of mihi asamalaik, as individuals, as the concept of kolshabal, the other rihi-vatsibor, the rihi-vatsibor, the rihi-vatsibor. That rihi-vatsibor should apply to women as well. And surprisingly, we find in the rihi-vatsibor, the rihi-vatsibor should apply to women as well. He says clearly, this mitzvah only applies to males. Very difficult to understand. This mitzvah of destroying shivasamimim applies to men and women. Why doesn't this mitzvah destroy amalik? If it's a concept of tibor, nihah, I understand. Concept of tibor is milhama, women are exempt from milhama. But if you say it's a mitzvah of each individual as well, like the hinuk does add, al-vir al-zil-bali-ad-o-heqamimimimimimimimimimimimimimimimalik, so why should he say this rihi-vatsibor applies to only tizahari? The minhikas hinuk, of course, ask this question. He asks first that even if it would be a war, women would be haiv. [In Hebrew] [In Hebrew] Even if it means going to war, women are exempt. My argument is a little different. I understand that you could argue that with women, going to war is not a concept for women. The gimmer of kalamikapasa, we can discuss at different times. However, the hinuk of ayahkid, which seems to be clear in the saverah kinuk, that there's a hinuk of ayahkid as well, why would that not apply to women as well? The other problem in the hinuk is, when he'd said, as we mentioned before, "Yeshkachbiyyadam." "Yeshkachbiyyadam" means with sakana or without sakana. If you would interpret that the saverah hinuk thinks you should kill individuals of amalek, even with sakana, he just says, "Yeshkachbiyyadam." "Yeshkachbiyyadam" means if you can do it. But it could be, it could be, you endanger yourself. Then you might suggest that there is really a basic hirah of makiya-samaalek, according to the saverah hinuk. The basic hirah of is like the Ramam said, is the hirah of atsibur. And that mitzvah is with danger. Even if it involves danger. The mitzvah is a hirah of only upon the king when he went there to Israel. However, mitzvah, if we may know, there is a mitzvah which is some sort of an adjunct to this mitzvah, which we learned from the original mitzvah that besides the original mitzvah, there is another variety of the mitzvah which is the hirah-yakid. If that would be true, then the hirah-yakid would have to conform to the hirah-tibur. Even though it would only be hirah-yakid, it should apply to women, as well as men. It should also only apply when there is no case of sakkhana. But since we would assume that the mitzvah of the hirah-yakid stems from the hirah-tibur, perhaps the laws of the tibur would apply even in this case. And therefore, it would only apply to men and it would apply to them even if they would have to endanger themselves. We mentioned before that there is a mitzvah of destroying amalek. With over, the mitzvah would have been to kill the last one of amalek, not to kill each individual. By shiva-sama-meme-lo-sah-hyakanushama, there is a mitzvah per se of killing every single person. By shiva-sama-yakid, the mitzvah's tibur-sah-yakimalek, to destroy amalek. And again, the se of hahino's shidish would be that the hirah-yakid would apply to anyone would then be a very big shidish. Because it would seem that the mitzvah is to eradicate doing killing, let's say, the 20 amalek left in the world. So killing 19 would be a hekitimsa to get to the 20th. But the real mitzvah would be to kill the 20th person, to kill the last person. Like the ramam says, mitzvah sah-say-la-ab-e-ze-ramalek. The mitzvah is to destroy amalek, whereas by, and there's no particular al-ah-ta of la-sah-hyakanushama. We mentioned before that according to the ramam, the way we've kind explained, amalek is not just a biological concept, it's a concept of evil in the world. The ban on salivah-chik used to explain the pastlok in parashas-kis-say-ze, that we read the shab is, as-shir-kur-ba-der-hek, vais-an-e-vuh-kal-an-hek-shalim-a-char-hek-a-yak-a-yak-a-yak-a-yak-a-vul-la-yar-la-hekim. Amalek attacked us when we were on the road, when we were weak, he attacked the stragglers, the weak people in Amistre'al, and La-yar-la-heem. La-yar-la-heem, who wasn't yar-la-la-heem, is a question in Mefarsheem in Khumish. Was it amalek that wasn't afraid of God, was they attacked some of the Jews who were not yar-la-heem? Being that as it may, the Torah specifically explained the situation under which amalek attacked. Varian explained that there are different reasons for war in the world. Some wars, a war of self-defense, can certainly be justified. There are wars that we understand that people fight, whether we would agree with them, whether we would say it's correct, proper to do so, is questionable, but at least we can understand the motive. There is a concept of war for imperialism to conquer other lands. There are religious wars that people fight to show or to bring their source of the morality of the world into the world. Whether we agree or not, at least I can understand there is such a concept. There is a concept of fighting, for the thrill of fighting, for an aggressive war where you have a macho type of thing where people want to show their strength. The Torah specifically explained that all these causes of war did not apply to amalek. Asher-Kar-Kar-Baderach attacked you on the road. It was not self-defense. Amalek attacked the Jewish people. Baderach on the road, we had no land. There was no reason to conquer. There was nothing to conquer. They attacked a weak segment of the people. There was no thrill. There was no excitement in having such a war. Voloia Realohim, it wasn't a religious war either. So why did they fight? What was the reason for the attack of Amalek? There is no reason other than pure, unadulpt-rated hatred and evil. This is the concept of Amalek. The concept of Amalek is like a snake, a nakhash, which has no benefit from killing people. It is the nature of the snake. There is no benefit for the snake to kill people. But it is the nature of the snake. It is the evil, nature and character of a snake. Therefore we pass him the Mishma and Bhavakama by a nakhash. If anyone who kills a nakhash is doing emeritus act, the same would be true of Timras Zecha Amalek, removing the concept of Amalek from the world. Of course the ultimate concept of the world is to rebuild the glory of Akhaj Baruchu, which was somehow diminished by Amalek. There is a hand on the throne of God. And as we know in the medrich case is an abbreviation of the word Kisei. Kisei is some sort of abbreviation of Ytkei Vavkei. The throne of Akhaj Baruchu, the dominion of Akhaj Baruchu in this world, the name of Akhaj Baruchu itself, is not complete in this world. And therefore we dive in. Vraya Hashem Le Mele Haqala Aretz. Vayama Hu Ya Hashem Akhaju. You have been listening to Harab Benjamin Tovari, the share on the weekly Muswa for Parshat Tizaveh. Now for today's Halaqala Yomit. The Umarah in Baruchat Aretz says that Allahm Ihannes Adam Shihul Shneep Tachimavaita Knesset, Vahakah Yit Baruch. First and should enter the Shihul, the amount of two doorways into the Beitak Nesset and only afterwards Daven. There are three explanations given in the Vishanam for what the Samaqah means, not for its reason, but for what the words actually mean. The two quotes, all three, as does the Shoshan Aretz. The first explanation, which is the first, it's given by Tostrot under Aretz, is that it refers to the distance, when one enters. A Shul, one should not Daven right next to the doorway, but one should enter at least the distance, the width of two doorways. Al-Pidin, the, doesn't mention it here, but Vishanam explained that the amount, the width, the minimum width of a doorway is brought for Him. So two doorways is eight for Him, one should enter, eight for Him into the Shul and not Daven next to the door, eight for Him is not a lot. It's about 80 centimeters, not even a meter, two and a half feet. One should not Daven next to the door, but one should enter further in. The reason would often appear to be obvious, someone standing by the door gives the impression that he's on his way out. He came in just to Daven but he's believed it's quickly as possible, he wants to be the first one, the first one to leave. And I think the idea is that you all, it's not only that one should Daven, in a Shul. You should stand here and not there, you should stand within the walls and not outside the walls. The reason why, when Daven's in a Shul, is because one is supposed to spend time in Shul. He is the first one to do in the Shul. I want to dwell in the house of God. And the message is not just a space where one dabbens, it's Beeth Hashem. You're visiting God in His house, so you don't stand by the doorway and quickly give Him a message. If I was dropping by my neighbor's house, I wanted to tell him that his car, he left the lights on his car, I would knock on the door and not bother going inside. But you come to spend a little bit of time with the car, you're visiting God. Before you should speak to Him, come all the way in and sit down in a proper place. The Shorana Roor Mahabha Pascans, it's mentioned in Sami Shonim, that if this is the reason, then if there is a Makom Kavua, and it's your Makom Kavua, then the Shul is very crowded, they're not wasting any space, there are seats all the way in the back. And your seat is a seat that's very close to the door, that's okay. Because it's not that this space is bad, the space is within the Shul. The reason why this space is bad is because it's not Yeshivat Kava, you're not actually sitting in Shul, dwelling in Shul, you're just peeking in. So if you have a Makom Kavua, then it's okay. Second explanation given by Sami Shonim and quoted in the tour is, this is the explanation of the Mahram, the Mahrami Ruttenberg, is that when one is next to the door, one is liable to be distracted by the outside. Those who are standing by the door, but you're looking outside and then things happening. Because it's the street and that'll distract you and it interferes with one's Kavana. According to this, the Mahabha says, if the door is not a door to the outside, but a door to an enter room, to an entrance hall, then there's no problem because there are always things happening, but the outside is especially attractive, the street traffic. But if it's just to another room, then it's okay. The third explanation given by Sami Shonim is the second explanation of the svet in Vrachot, is that Sineep Tachim does not refer to distance but to time. When one enters Shul, one should wait the amount of time that's called passing through two doors and only afterwards, and only afterwards. It's similar in its reasoning to the first idea. Those who are not just dropping by and giving a quick message. You come in and you first you sit down or stand up, whatever, but first you make yourself at home and then you speak. And then you speak to God. The Shoshnap Tachim, of going to this explanation, is hard to imagine. It means the same thing as the first explanation. It seems that it's eight fakhim. The amount of time it takes to walk eight fakhim is less than a second. It seems an amazing halakhada, and so you should wait three quarters of a second and not immediately. It's almost the same thing. So offhand, I think the explanation would have to be, it's the amount of time it would take to go through two different doorways. In other words, to pass through two rooms. To enter a door, pass through a normal-sized room and get to the next door. Which means that when you enter, sure, you should see us entering the room and also entering the next room. Then going inside is like a hallway, and the place, the living room, the dining room, where you sit with God, where you stand before God and speak to him. The prima godim says that this third explanation refers to the time after you get to your seat. Not the time you enter the room. Since two fakhim is not distance from the patter, he says it's not even time from the patter, from the doorway. It's when you get to your place, don't start talking right away. First, wait a little bit, he doesn't explain how much time, she waited a little bit, and then Daven. That's the prima godim's fetish it's not mentioned in the individual. The shohannabuk concludes that the nakon nakush nakon nakushim, that you should be makhmir, like all three pyrushim. There was not Daven next to the doorway, not Daven immediately, and also not be Daven in a place where you're looking outside and being distracted. I think that would probably play even through a window, which looked out onto the street. If all three exceptions to the room apply, in other words, you have a makhom kavua there. So then it's okay, according to the first thing, and it's not looking outside, but only to another room. It was okay, according to the second explanation, and you've waited the minimum amount of time, then there should be no problem. However, the Romani postkim will say that under no conditions, the exceptions mentioned in the shohannabuk do not apply, and you should never Daven next to the doorway. And they claim that that is why they claim it as a halacha, that when you build a shoh, there should be a room within a room. In other words, there should be an anteroom, some sort of an entrance room outside the shoh popper, which would be considered to be the outer doorways to the shoh. And if for nobody darps right next to the door, that next to the true door, and there's no outside to look at, and then there's no problem. And that's why the minig is to have an anteroom. Thus it may seem a strange thing, because we would never think of building a building without an anteroom. They have to hang up their coats, they have to have a bulletin door, there's all sorts of things. It's just normal architecture. But in more ancient times, when real estate was expensive and building costs were high, and shohannabuk do not have an anteroom. You walk in, you're inside. I was going to say, no, it's better to build it with another room, so that you never have a situation, whereby you're just popping in, either in time or in space, and not detaching yourself when it's going outside. I just threw an all-three paper shim, and before you darps. Halacha the Maisa, again, eight for him is not very much, I think the idea behind the halacha should perhaps be fulfilled, even beyond the technical shear. Diving next to the door indicates something about how much you feel at home, where you really want to be, how fast you plan to leave, one should enter a decent amount into shore, wait a certain amount of time, not come at the very last second and immediately begin to dive in. The idea is that we should view as sure as a place where we are visiting, and not just passing through in order to leave a small message with Akalosh Barucho. And that's it for today. Tomorrow's shear will be in Parshata Shavua, for Parshata Tzavir. Until then, this is as a big we should view Kultur, Vyontov, speaking from Ishivat Hanateon in Gushation. This has been KMTT. Ki Mitzian Tetsay Tora Uddvara Shambirushalayim.