KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Hilchot Berakhot - 10
Hilkhot Berachot, part 10, by Rav Yair Kahn
This is KMTT, Kimi Txion Te Zetora, broadcasting from Gushit Xion, and this is Ejubek. Today is Mande Yom Shini Vav Adar, and today's shear will be given by Haravya Yokan, the shear in Hilhod Rahat. I was speaking to somebody last week who called up, he is a user of KMTT. He wanted to, not just to donate, he wanted to organize a bunch of people together to help set up a fund which would support KMTT in the future. So we were talking about how to do that, and he asked me, and how many people actually listened to KMTT? You heard the 2000, so I had to tell him the truth. I think there were 2000 people who have listened to KMTT since the beginning, but on a daily basis, I'm proud to say, I think it's a good number, I'm about to say there are 200 and 20 about each day. So he was a little disappointed, actually I'm disappointed too, it makes sense, there should be 2000. There have got to be 2000 people who want to listen to KMTT every day. The reason why there aren't is because we haven't gotten the word out. So again, the only people to whom I can appeal, coupled by my budget of zero, my publicity budget is zero, so the only people to whom I can appeal are you, the users, and if anyone has any idea how to publicize it, if you have your friends or you know where to publicize it. Please do so, all right to us, and we're waiting to hear from you. Now, the ship from Afghan, and after the ship, we're back with the halakhayami. In today's year, we're going to deal with the din brought down on the Mishnah, and after them Amur Alif, 48, which says as follows. Valkulam im Amar Shahakon y Abidvaro Yatsa, after listing all the different brokhout that one makes ampero ta Ilan, Baripaya 8, Ampero ta Adamah, Baripaya Adamah, the Mishnah says im Amar Shahakon y Abidvaro Yatsa on everything. No matter what it was, whether it was a fruit, whether it was a tree, whether it was a vegetable, on everything if one said Shahakon y Abidvaro, he is yeltsay. Regarding this halakhah, there's makhlokus in the gamara and that mem amad baiz, valkulam im Amar Shahakon yatsa, itmah. Nafuna amar hutsmena path umena yayin, rabjochra amar afilupar fi yayin. There's a corintra of huna, the din of alkulam im Amar Shahakon yatsa includes everything baipaya 8, baipaya Adamah, but does not include two things, one baipaya gaffir, which is made on wine, and the other thing amotsu lakhamna arid, which is made on bread. Everything else, baipaya mizounos, on cakes, everything else it covers, but it doesn't cover yayin and past. Rabjocha in our argument says that it covers yayest and past as well. We're not going to deal with the shitha of Rabjocha, and even though that's the shitha, which is accepted, la halakhah, but rather we're going to deal with the shitha of rabjuna because the shitha of rabjuna contains within it a very, very big finish, which perhaps can shed some light on what kind of a bracha, what is so special about the brachos, of baipaya gaffin and haemotsu lakhamna arid. In attempting to explain what's so unique and singular, baipaya gaffin and haemotsu lakhamna arid, Rashi quotes Gomar later on, "The Gomar over there says his follows," "Shaalu espanzoma, vipnaima amru de varmabai makma sasuda, betochasuda, enamtun im bracha lolef naim, vlola kareem, amala hem, ho illu pat potatan," they ask Gomar, "Why is it that things that come within a sudha and which are for the sudha, which are part of the sudha, do not require a bracha, not a bracha lafaneha, nor a bracha lafaneha, if one eats things, if one washed for a motsi and made a bracha, motsu lafaneha arid, and then eats things in the sudha," there's a bracha lafaneha what it's referring to, but according to the standard prat, if one eats meat and fish within the context of that sudha, then the meat and fish don't require a bracha lafaneha, you don't have to make a bracha lafaneha, nor does it require a bracha lafaneha, the bracha lafaneha, the bracha lafaneha, covers everything that's eaten within the context of the meal, as well as the bracha lafaneha mazone covers the bracha lafaneha, one of everything that's eaten within the context of the meal, that's what Benzoma answered them, amala hem, ho illu patatra lafaneha, makhi yayin, naminifte raipas, if so, they asked, shouldn't wine also be parted by pass, why is it that if one drinks wine within the context of the meal, one has to make a separate bracha of a boi pracha fen, why shouldn't the wine also be included in the bracha lafaneha motsu lafaneha arid, and here the guava answers, shani yayin, the guava ram bracha lafaneha, yayin is different because it's guava ram bracha lafaneha, rashi says, guava ram bracha lafaneha, and the menbeza meralle 42a, bikha lumba, uma vahim, alab, vif alpish, shalou, hai ut sri kimish tiato, many times one makes a bracha a boi pracha fen unwine, even though one does not have to drink from the wine, rashi and dafaneha ambeza doesn't explain when it is that we will make a bracha of a boi pracha fen unwine when one doesn't want to drink the wine, rashi regarding this particular point is more explicit in the first study that we learned, regarding the din of rafuna, that shahako is potter everything except for yayin and passe, over there rashi says as follows, kusmena passe uma yayin, kidda amina le kaman shagor ram brachaot habe la atsmo, bik kiddush, vav dala, uvehe khatanim, it is gor ram brachaot atsmo, many times one makes a bracha for it itself and adding what rashi says, even though one doesn't want to drink the wine, in what context, kiddush, vav dala, bik khatanim, which is bik khatan suen, in all these cases, one has to make a bracha bracha fen, because one has to make kiddush, one has to make a bracha bracha bracha fen, because one has to make a bracha bracha bracha bracha fen, as part of the bik khatanim, the bik khatan suen, however the bracha over here is not made because he wants to drink the wine, but rather it's made within the context of a coast shell bracha. The problem with rashi's bshad is that this is a seemingly irrelevant point. Why do I care why one makes a bracha bracha gaffen? If he makes a bracha bracha gaffen because he wants to drink the wine, or if he makes a bracha bracha bracha gaffen, even though he doesn't want to drink the wine, but because he has to make kiddush and therefore he drinks the wine, what difference does it make? He makes a bracha bracha gaffen in order to drink the wine, whether he wanted to or whether he has to, because he has to make kiddush or has to make abdala, is totally irrelevant. Why does the motivation from drinking the wine make a difference, whether it's part of a coast shell bracha or a mitzvah, or whether it's because it's something that he wanted to drink because he has an appetite and he wants to drink wine or he eats thirsty, why does that make any difference? The point is that whenever one wants to drink wine for whatever reason, one has to make a bracha bracha bracha gaffen would seem to be a standard bechosanenenen, and just like every other bechosanenenen, we say that shahako is sufficient, so too should be the case regarding a bracha bracha bracha bracha bracha bracha gaffen. Secondly, the gamara and the malle from Basement, Basement allef, which says that a bracha bracha gaffen is not covered by the mochi, because it's goering bracha bracha asmo, sometimes one drinks wine, even though one doesn't want to but he drinks wine because he has to make kittish and abdala, why should that be a relevant factor regarding when one drinks wine within the context of the suit, because he wants to drink the wine, because he's thirsty, shouldn't he bechos amotsi be able to cover the bracha of bracha bracha bracha gaffen? It's a standard bechosanenenenenen, and again the motivation for why one drinks the wine should regarding this issue be irrelevant. In fact, we find that tostos rejected rashi's explanation and offered a different explanation. And after the fact of the day, tostos debarmat al ihaki, tostos says his follows. He brings the damn rashi's perish. Ummushani shani yai in de goin bracha latsmo, puri shrashi, de bahaabe in the komotu ba, uwahkam lahv aapish a insi kumistot, kegom bikidush, ubihat eryssen, vashbah puri shrashi, michim de sahku vahrik aa yai in bhori pia gaffen, uvitri lakshu ba anavir in bhori pia eights, vahasha maskim sha kon yabid vahro. In other words, according to tostos, goring bhachla asso means that hazal wa mittake in especial madbea brachaus, for wine, which is above and beyond regular bechosananin. Normally, what bracha does one make on fruit, one makes a regular bracha abhori pia eights, when one squeezes the fruit and drinks the juice, the bracha that one makes usually is shaku. And here all of a sudden, we come to wine, and there's a new bracha. It's neither a bracha eights, nor is it a shaku only with vahro but rather, hazal wa mittake in especial bracha, a unique bracha, bracha bhori pia gaffen, that indicates something special regarding the bracha bracha bracha bracha. And therefore, since it's such a special bracha, hazal wa mittake in such a unique bracha, a unique madbea, a unique nusukh for the bracha, therefore, it is not covered by the multilechaminarites. Okay, at least according tostos, we see, we have an indication that bracha bracha fen is a different bracha, a special bracha, it's a bracha, which is perhaps on a higher level. And therefore, hazal, the sages were mittake in, a special and unique wording for the bracha, which goes above and beyond the normal classification of bracha. There's something special, wine is something very special, bread is something which is very special, wine is the main type of drink, bread is the main type of food, which sustains life, and therefore, regarding these two items, the hazal wa mittake in, a special and unique bracha. Since the bracha is so special and the bracha is so unique, so, A, within the context of a meal, a fen made of bracha, hazal wa mittake in, hazal wa mittake in, and then one wanted to drink wine. The ha mosti will not pop to the wine, it was mittake in a special bracha for a wine, and therefore, you should make an independent buri pra gaffen. It shouldn't simply be included in everything else that's part of the meal, this is unique and singular part of the meal, it has a special significance, a special importance, and therefore, it also gets a special bracha. It can't simply be tough, be nullified, and be included in everything else, which is included in the meal, it's something which is special, unique, and therefore, it demands a special and unique bracha as well. Similarly, if one made a bracha of a shahako on wine or on pass, it might not be enough, shahako is a very, very, very simple bracha, it's there in order to be matir, hazana, in order to allow us to partake and to be nene, mina ola maza, and therefore, what makes a standard bracha, which covers everything, shahako, everything, nie abid varo, and therefore, when one makes a shahako, one is not considered being nene mina ola maza below bracha, getting benefit from this world without making a bracha, you made a bracha, but it's a very, very, very general bracha, it's a very general form of bracha. On the other hand, when referring to pasts and tiyyin, we hazawa, we're talking a special bracha, to relate to bread, it's something unique and important, to relate to wine, it's something unique and important. Here, the standard bracha, which covers everything, shahako, demid varo, is no longer sufficient sense of una. Here, you have to make a special bracha, goring bracha, la asmo, and therefore, shahako is not enough, one requires the special bracha, bracha, bari, pragafen, and the bracha, hav ha motsu, la hermina arats. That, basically, is the shita, octosos, and the shita, octosos is something that makes a lot of sense. What we're going to try to do is to appreciate the position of rashi, that, according to rashi, if rafuna says that if one made a shahako, it does not cover wine or bread, because wine, we'll see about bread later, wine is something which at times is drunk, even though one does not want to drink the wine, but rather because one has to drink the wine, kiddush, havdala, bechos, kasanina. In order to explain the shita of rashi, let's take a look at a gomarin eirvin dafmemumidbeys40b. The gomarin there discusses the shahaiyanu that one makes, anyomkippur, and the question is whether shahaiyanu in general has to be made al-alakos, does one say shahaiyanu, vikimana vikyanu, with a coast of wine, with a cup of wine, and therefore becomes some kind of a coastal bracha, or to make a shahaiyanu does not need a coast of bracha. So the gomarin says, what are we going to do anyomkippur? If we say that shahaiyanu needs a coast, what will we do anyomkippur? Heheavid. Iri varekh al-lei vishasilei, if one made the bracha shahaiyanu, and then one drinks the wine, kevin da amazman, kibile al-lei vasalei. The second that one makes the shahaiyanu, one has accepted upon himself yomkippur, and therefore he's not allowed to drink. Then the gomarin says, well, leinhehe. Perhaps he should simply make the bracha shahaiyanu on a coast shahabrakh, have a leinhehe and put it on the side. So the gomarin says, hamavari ex-sarakshri yitom. Somebody who makes the coast of bracha also has to take a taste of the wine. And then the gomarin says, lacefully, yunukah, let him give it to a katan. And then the problem is, perhaps if he gives it to a katan, maybe that will be badrinukah, atilamisrakh, and the katan will learn that it's mutter from two, it's mutter for people to eat onyomkippur, and therefore there's a problem. In any case, regarding the den of hamavari ex-sarakshri yitom, the one who makes the bracha also has to drink, it's clear for the gomarin that it's not that he personally has to drink the wine, but he can also give the wine to somebody else in order to drink. Rashi says, his follows, lacefully, yunukah, let him give it to a katan, a tinok, la acha shi varikalav, if the one makes the sha'kianu on the coast of bracha, let him give the bracha to a tinok. The hai shi yitom de ka amar, that the gomarin says, one has to taste, laav dafka ka amar amar, varik, it's not that the one who made the bracha, he has to taste the wine, do i think you sha'kianu? Because it's also okay if somebody else drinks the wine. The taima we shimmed the ganai who la coast of bracha, sha'lo yi hane a dami manulah out there. It's a ganai, it's a zilzul, it's a zip from its front of the coast of bracha, if one does not get any enough from the coast of bracha, if one would take a coast of bracha, and one would say a great praise for a karaj baracha, and then simply spill it out. That's a zilzul, that's a ganai, and the whole idea of a coast of bracha is to say praise to a karaj baracha when a glorified fashion, and therefore part of saying the praise to a karaj baracha when a glorified fashion includes not only saying the praise, but drinking or having somebody else drink the coast of bracha following the recital of the praise. What we see from over here is that the deen of havarek sarach shayetom is not that drinking is part, is an integral part of the culture of bracha. The main idea of culture of bracha is saying praise to a karaj baracha on the coast. It's a glorified way of saying praise to a karaj baracha when we say kiddishwah of dala on a coast, then we're saying praise to a karaj baracha when thinking of karaj baracha in a very very glorified fashion, and therefore we lift up a coast and we recite the praise. The idea of drinking afterwards is not an integral part of the culture of bracha, but if we would take that coast and we wouldn't drink it or we would spill it or we would leave it over, that would be considered a ganai. That would be considered some kind of a zalzo. That would be making fun of the coast and ridiculing the praise that we said. We said praise in such a glorified way in order that it should remain glorified and that becomes something which looks ridiculous. What we do is then we drink or we have somebody else drink the coast, and therefore we have a den of amabarekh sarach shayyitom. But according to what we said, the basic bracha, which one recites over the coast, is the praise, the kiddish, the ha'vedala, the sha'cha'yanu. The paray pragafen seems to be simply to allow one afterwards to drink, to partake of the cause, since amabarekh sarachayyitom, since it's important that one takes this koshabracha and instead of spilling it out, one actually drinks it. Therefore, aside from the kiddish and ha'vedala, the praise which one says, one has to say bracha pragafen as well and then drink from the cup. However, the main part of the koshabracha is the shira, the praise, the sha'cha'yanu, that one says in a glorified fashion over the coast. According to the formulation which we just suggested, the brar pragafen, even within the context of a koshabracha, functions merely as a bear kosanen. The bracha that one says on the coast, the shira, the praise that one says on the coast, is the kiddish, the sha'cha'yanu, is the bear kosanen. However, then there's an additional den, additional ha'vedala, that ha'mabarekh sarachayyitom, and therefore, in order to allow one to be towing, since it's asa'alitom nihangrosmen, one makes a brar pragafen as well and thereby one tastes from the koshabracha. However, if we read a little bit further in Rashi, in Erwin, we'll see that it's not so simple. Rashi writes his follows, diginayu le koshabracha shilaoye adami menulah out there, it's an agonai azilzul, for the koshabracha, if one doesn't benefit from it immediately, shilaoye bhir kosa'ayyitom, the brar pragafen, shilaoye lizorekh, because then the brar kos brar pragafen, that one made on this cup, is shilaoye lizorekh, it's for no purpose whatsoever. ummchitaim le achrinah, sha'apir dami, and therefore, if somebody else tasted from the wine, that's enough, because then the brar kos of the brar pragafen was no longer shilaoye lizorekh. So, Rashi seems to be suggesting that the possibility that one make the sha'ayana, and not drink it off from the wine, doesn't exist. According to Rashi, the reason how a barar kosha'ayyitom is not because the cup of wine simply will be spelled out, but it's because one make a sha'ayana, any barar pragafen, and therefore, the brar kos of barar pragafen seems, appears to be shilaoye lizorekh, and therefore, one has to drink. So, I don't understand why is it a brar kosha'ayyitom, shilaoye lizorekh, it's a brar kosha'avatala? If one doesn't plan on drinking the wine, and one makes a sha'ayana, something to say, the praise of the sha'ayana, on a kosha'ah, brar kosha, and it's young kippers, so you won't be able to drink the wine. So, why is it a barar kosha'ayyitom at all? Let him lift up a cup, and say, "Sha'ayana kippers v'yana lizmana za'ayyit." Why should he make a brar kosha'ayyitom? Barar kosha'ayyitom, furthermore, if he did make the brar kosha'ayyitom, then it's not a barar kosha'ayyitom, he has to drink, because it's a ganai, it's a zilzo for the culture of brar kosha, because it looks like a brar kosha'ayyitom, it's a brar kosha'ayyitom. It's a brar kosha'avatala? What does it mean? It's a ganai for the coast. It's a brar kosha'avatala. He made a bier koshan'ayyit, and he didn't drink from the wine. If somebody would pick up an apple, make a brar kosha'ayyit, and not eat from the apple, it would be a brar kosha'avatala. Why is Rashi here saying that it's a ganai, with a kosha'avatala? It's a ganai, it doesn't look right, it looks like a zilzo for a kosha'avatala, because you made the brar kosha'ayyitom and you didn't drink, and therefore it's a brar kosha'ayyitom, it's not a brar kosha'ayitom, it's simply a brar koshavatala? It's us that make a brar koshavatala. So we have two questions on Rashi. If he doesn't plan on drinking the wine, why should he get into this problem to begin with? Let him make only a Shaqian who are not a brar kosha'avatala in at all. Second of all, if he did make the brar kosha'avatala in, it shouldn't only be a problem of ganai, but it should be a problem of mamish a brar koshavatala? Moiverebira of Salvechik offered the following explanation in Rashi. According to Rashi, the brar kosha of Boi Pragafen, within the context of a kosha brar kosha, does not only function as a bir koshanenenen, but primarily it integrates into the praise itself. The brar kosha of Boi Pragafen that was instituted as part of the kosha brar kosha is not only in order to allow one to drink, but it's part of the shear and shevah that one has to recite over the coast. We said that the main idea of kosha brar kosha is what one recites over the coast, the praise, the shear, the shevah that one says in a glorified fashion over the coast. So, within the context of a kosha brar kosha, not only is the Shaqian who, or the kish and Abdullah per se, part of that shear, but the Boi Pragafen is part of that shear as well, and therefore if one wants to make a brar kosha of a Shaqian who, over a coast to be a kosha brar, it wouldn't be sufficient merely to say Shaqian who, because then there would be no relationship between the Shaqian and the coast, one has to say Shaqian who, and Boi Pragafen, while lifting up the coast of the wine, and then the brach of the Shaqian who relates to the coast, and it's been said over a coast of the Boi Pragafen. When one says kiddush, and once says Boi Pragafen, the Boi Pragafen is not there only as a birchos hannenen to allow one to drink the wine following the kiddush, but the Boi Pragafen is an integral part of the praise of the kiddush itself. When one makes the Boi Pragafen as part of the Abdullah, it's not merely a bird Pragafen which allows one to drink from the wine of the Abdullah following the recital of the Abdullah, but it's an integral part of the recital of the Abdullah itself, it's part of the Shira, and therefore since the bracha is being said, not only as a birchos hannenen, but as a birchos hshabaq, as part of the Shira which is said over the kosha bracha, in Shira Allah (A) and as part of the Shira which is being said over the kosha bracha, therefore even if one doesn't drink the wine, it is not a bracha levatala because it's being said within the context of Shira, not only in order to drink the wine, but also as part of the Shira then one is reciting over the koshas. And therefore there's no problem of bracha levatala, there is a problem, ha mavarik sa recheitom, it appears as a bracha shannetsriqah because the bircos berg Pragafen usually is a birchos hannenen, and even in the case of a kosha bracha, it usually functions as a bircos hannenen as well, and therefore it appears as a bracha shannetsriqah, and therefore we have a problem of ganai, and therefore ha mavarik sa recheitom. What makes a bracha must drink the wine as well, but if one doesn't drink the wine as well even though one made a berg Pragafen, we don't have a problem of a bracha levatala. The Gomara at the beginning of Aravip Sahin discusses a case of somebody that was in the middle of eating on Aravyamthover or Arav Shabbos, and the time for kiddish arrived. So the Gomara there has a number of different suggestions what one should do, according to the maskhana of the Gomara, the halaqah is "Pole smapa omokadish." He takes a mapa, some kind of a covering, he covers all the food, and then he makes kiddish, and then he can return and continue his meal. Tossfos in sakhim, kufkimloman beis 103b, brings you a shalmi, then in such a case one, if one is in the middle of the meal and one was drinking one in the meal, therefore he already made a berg Pragafen, that one doesn't have to make, when one makes kiddish one does not have to repeat and make a berg Pragafen as well. According to Tossfos, it appears that the berg Pragafen, even when it's recited within the context of kiddish, functions only as a berg Pragafen and therefore if menine a berg Pragafen is not required, for instance, over here where according to Tossfos at least, there was no hefsek, paris mapa omokadish according to Tossfos does not constitute a hefsek, and therefore to drink the wine of the kiddish one does not have to make a berg Pragafen, therefore one doesn't make a berg Pragafen at all, however based on what we suggested according to Rashi, that the berg Pragafen within the context of the culture of Bracha is not only recited as a berg Pragafen, but it's also recited as a berg Pragafs Shevah as part of the Shira and the Shevah that one makes within the context of a culture of Bracha, then one would require the Bracha of a berg Pragafen as part of the kiddish, as part of the Shevah of the kiddish, even though the Bracha may not be required as a berg Pragafen. This issue also comes up regarding the albakosos, the four cups of wine that we drink on Lele Seidir. The riff says as follows, "Ikos the Gomara, Ravina Ammar, Kolakhar, bechrad, mitzvifne asmul, each of the four kosot that we have on Lele Seidir is a mitzvifne asmul, each one is an independent mitzvah. Ver amir, Ravasa, I heard in the name of my my teachers, hoyo, bechrad, bechrad, bechrad, mitzvifne asmul. Sihim the vukhre, berg Pragafen, al kokasa, vakasa, one has to make a berg Pragafen on every one of the four cups of wine that we drink on Lele Seidir. And then he brings the raya. The raya that the riff brings tries to indicate that the hagada that one says between each kos is a hefsek. However, the initial statement was that since each one is an independent praka, and therefore it's considered independently, each one is considered an independent kos shalbrah. Therefore, one should make an independent berg Pragafen on each one. The question is what's the relationship between those two things if one says that one makes a berg Pragafen because we have a hefsek between the kiddish and the second kos, and another hefsek between the second kos and the third kos, and another hefsek between the third kos and the fourth kos, I understand. It's a regular denim of berg Pragafen, if one has a hefsek, one has to have another berg Pragafen. If one doesn't have a hefsek, one doesn't have another berg Pragafen. But what does this have to do with a statement of Ravina who said that kol echrad, bechrad, mitzvifne asmul, each kos of the dalot kosos is an independent kos shalbrah. So it's an independent kos shalbrah. But if there's no hefsek, one shouldn't need a berg Pragafen. From that lesson of the riff, it would appear that if each kop is considered in an independent kos albrah, even had then not been hefsek, it would have required a separate berg Pragafen. This is like the sheet of Rashi, and it's found explicitly in the shibole al-lekut. The shibole al-lekut says that each kop needs an independent berg Pragafen because each one is a berg Pragafen. In other words, the den of ancient shir al-lekut is what connects the berg Pragafen to the shir, to the praise that one says over the kos albrah. And therefore, not only the kidders of the first kos requires, has to be said over the kos albrah. But the berg Pragafen also is part of that kidders, which has to be said over the kos albrah. The second bragha, which is Asher-Gah-Allanu, the bragha on the gula on the redemption, not only the bragha of the gula, we said of a kos albrah. But the berg Pragafen also has to be recited over a kos albrah because it's part of the shira itself, and so forth and so on. So we see from the shibole al-lekut, and apparently also from the rabbosts of the teachers of the rif, that the four kosot, that we drink on la saitha, since each one is independently defined as a kos albrah. Each one requires a berg Pragafen independent of the question of hefsek. The rif brings further support to the shira from the fact that there's a hefsek as well. But the la shoon, since each one is an independent kos albrah and requires a berg Pragafen, indicates that there's a hef of a berg Pragafen, even if it's not required as far as the berg Pragafen's concern, as long as it's an independent kos albrah, that in itself creates a demand to make the bragha of a berg Pragafen. Of course, there are many we show them that argue on the rif, and claim that, for instance, the second kos, and the fourth kos, don't require an independent berg Pragafen, and their argument is that there's no hefsek. The hagadha is not considered a hefsek, and therefore, the third kosot, which comes after berg Hasamazza, or maybe that is considered a hefsek. However, the second kos, which is separated only by the recital of the hagadha, is not considered a hefsek, and therefore, the second kosot would not require an independent berg Pragafen. This shita certainly does not see a requirement to make a berg Pragafen merely based on the fact that it's an independent kos albrah, and their only criterion for a berg Pragafen is the hefsek criterion, which is similar to the shita that we found in tostos, according to tostos, berg Pragafen, even within the context of a kos albrah, is only said as a berg Hasamazza. If a berg Hasamazza is not required because there's no hefsek, the berg Pragafen is not recited either. However, according to Rashi, and according to the shibolya lekad, and perhaps Rabosev Shilahrif, we saw that the berg Pragafen is required within the context of a kos albrah, even when it's not required as a berg Hasamazza. And the explanation that Ralph Selvate suggested was that the berg Pragafen becomes part of the shira, part of the shiva that one recites over the kos albrah. Returning now to the Sugian brochos, it makes a lot of sense, tostosos did not accept Rashi Shita. Because according to tostosos, the berg Pragafen, even within the context of a kos albrah is only recited as a berg Hasamazza. And therefore, the only way of tostos to explain, going berg Hasamazza is that they were attacking a unique nisukh for the berg Hasamazza, and therefore, it's not covered by the standard sha kongya vidvar, which covers all of the berg Hasamazza. However, Rashi, who argued on tostos, and who suggested that the berg Hasamazza, within the context of a kos albrah is not recited as a berg Hasamazza, but rather as a berg Hasamazza, that's the idea of going berg Hasamazza. In other words, the entire brocha is not only a berg Hasamazza. But berg Pragafen at times functions as a berg Hasamazza sheva, as a berg Hasashir. And that's exactly what Rashi means when he says that at times, we make the brocha even though one does not have to drink the wine. One is making the brocha as part of the shira that one says over the coast, not in order to drink, not as a berg Hasamazza, but rather as part of the shira that one recites over the coast of wine. And that's what Rashi says over here, in our sogya, that shira kol does not cover the brocha of a berg Hasamazza, because berg Pragafen contains within it not only a standard berg Hasamazen, but it is also a berg Hasashir. It is a special shira, and shira kol does not contain that element of shira. However, everything that we said explains why sha kol doesn't cover berg Pragafen, because berg Pragafen is not only a berg Hasamazen, but it's a berg Hasashiva as well. What about the fact that Rafunu also said that sha kol does not cover berg Hasamazza, most of that can be read. We don't, we find ever that the berg Hasamazza also functions as a berg Hasashir, that it's a Gorin brocha latsmull. And the truth is that we do. It's not in the standard case, but never let the gomara says, on daf kof bovam in vase, impsakim. Zim'din sagi yin habe ka imna kami darab, zim'din de ka viva ale riftah makad i shariftah. Zim'din de ka viva le chamra makad i sha kamra. Many times I was sitting in front of rab. At times that he preferred bread, he would make kinesan bread. While at times that he preferred wine, he would make kinesan wine. In other words, at times bread can also be used in order to make kinesh. One can lift a piece of bread, make the kinesh, and instead of baripra gaffen, se amo si lecha mein airets. This indicates that not only can wine function as part of the chevach of a kosal brocha, but at times instead of a kosal brocha, one can make kiddish, can recite kiddish over a loaf of bread, which also is indicative of onyx habes, and in this context the bread also is functioning as the basis for the recital of the praise of the similar parallel to a kosal brocha, and the bierchas ha motsi in this context is integrated into the kiddish, and functions not only as a brocha of bierchasan enir, but also as a bierchas hashir. You have been listening to this year in Hillhot Barakat by Haravya Iokan. Today is hadachai yomit. The last hadachai yomit, we spoke about the importance of Tfilabitsibo, of davening with the minion. What is Tfilabitsibo? So the common assumption is that individual Jews who daven together, that's Tfilabitsibo. In other words, 10, minimum of 10, Jews, saying schmonestra at the same time, that is Tfilabitsibo. If you are less than 10, then each one is davening Tfilabiachid. That assumption would appear to be correct. It's quoted by many, many post-kim. Interestingly enough, the Ramam never says that. The Ramam has an entire chapter, Pericret, the eighth peric of a hot Tfilab, which is devoted to Tfilabitsibo, and in a hala, hala-hadal, he says kitzad, he, Tfilabitsibo, and he says something else, he says Tfilabitsibo is one person davening, and the rest listening. Even 10 Jews, so one person davening, and nine listening, because the tachazim is included in the minion, but that's called Tfilabitsibo. The post-kim assume that Ramam doesn't mean to negate the first possibility. The first possibility is obvious. Tfilabitsibo is davening together. Ramam wishes to add another form of Tfilabitsibo, which is one person davening for them all. They're joined, not because they're saying it together, but they're literally joined because it's only one Tfilab. One Tfilab, which is physically said by one person, but in fact it belongs, so hearing and participating, the Ramam says, answering a man, it belongs to all of them. The verb of salveic, thought that in fact the Ramam's language is very, very careful. He thought there were two concepts. There's Tfilabitsibo, and Tfilabitsibo. Tfilabitsibo is davening with a minion, in a minion, in a group. You davening in a group when everyone in the group davens at the same time, in the same place. Tfilabitsibo is one Tfilab that belongs to the group, belongs to the cloud, belongs to the Tfilab. And for that you have to have one person davening, everybody else listening. Halachalamisa, the verb thought, we do them both. First you daven, Tfilabalakhash individually, but together, ten people, ten or more people davening, Tfilabalakhash, silent shmanesso at the same time, that's Tfilabitsibo. And then there is Chazaratashats. It's true that the Mishnah says the Chazaratashats was instituted, in order to help those who did not know how to daven, in order that they should be fulfilled their obligation by listening. But it's also based on this Ramam. In Pericret, it's independent institution in itself. Tfilabatsibo, Nishma Atami, that's where Ramam begins. The Peric, to that, Hacibu is always heard. That is this other concept, not of 10 Jews davening at the same time, but of one Tfilab coming out of the Tfilab as one. How is that accomplished physically? How can one Tfilab come out of 10 people? Not by them saying it in unison, but by one saying, and the others, and the others listening. And that's Tfilabatsashats, the repetition of the Shmanessray, accomplishes that as well. In fact today, since everyone davens for themselves, we don't normally have people who don't know how to daven, who are professing obligation by listening to the Chazan. In fact, that's the only purpose left for Tfilabatshibu, Chazaratashats, Chazaratashats is Tfilabatshibu. Therefore, you have the following halakh, that if you come late to show and you've missed the Tfilabatash, you've missed Shmanessray, as it said first, so you come so late that if you begin to say it, you would miss Kadusha. In which case, the Gamersa, you should not begin to say it. You should wait and not begin Shmanessray, because then you won't be able to answer Tfilabatashat in the middle of your own Shmanessray. But what should you do? So many posts claim that you should daven together with the Chazan, because since the Ramam has said that the Chazan Tfilab is Tfilabatshibu, if you daven at the same time, then your Tfilab is joining Tfilabatshibu. Similar, if the ten of us daven together, then all of our Tfilabatshibu would be Tfilabatshibu. Here, your Tfilab joins the Tfilabatshibu, and therefore, you have the accomplishment, you're able to achieve Tfilabatshibu, even though you missed the ten people, joining the ten people who daven together. If this is true, then you have to say word for word together with the Chazan. You have to maintain the pace with the Chazan when you get to Chazar. You say to Chazar together with the Chazan, and you finish my Tfilabatshibu until the end, together with the Chazan, trying as much as possible to be word by word, I think, Halakh al-Amaisah. You should be in the same bhachah. Maybe not the exact same word, but the idea is to say milabimila, word by word, together with the Chazan. There's another institution that's we commonly see very often. I believe the practice of those in Ishi vote in Eastern Europe, but it's called in Yiddishah, Heikha Kadusha. That takes place where we realize there's not enough time to daven twice, one silently and one Chazarata Shats. It's a few minutes to shkir and you have to have a minha. Or for some other reason, it's simply impossible. There's not enough time to daven twice, so there's a permission, a special hetah, to daven only once. You have no choice, but what about Kadusha? So what people do is one person gets up, he begins to daven out loud, when he gets it to shad once it's to shad, and then he daven silently, everybody else daven silently at the same time. Notice it looks like a Chazarata Shats, but it's only the first time at the second time. It's only the first to be bhachat till Haqilah Kadash. How does that work? So the verb explained that it doesn't work. The reason why you can do this is because, aside from saying Kadusha in Chazarata Shats, it's also possible to say Kadusha in Tfilah bitsibu. In other words, normally tusha is said in Tfilah at Haqibu, which we call Chazarata Shats. But it's also possible to say Kadusha in Tfilah bitsibu, because tusha, as we said, it's Tfilah. But it has to be said in Chmanas, right? And bitsibu, Tfilah bitsibu, ten Jews daven at the same time, can also say Kadusha. The idea, as far as I know, maybe wrong, as far as I know, is found for the first time explicitly in Shoshana Vukharav, Shoshana Vukharav, the atmosphere is the kind of the bhach. And that just is what can say Kadusha in Chazarata Shats, one can say Kadusha in a minion that's davening Shmanas. But if that's true, then everybody has to daven. And therefore, if one is in the situation and one Jew, he's not really the chazen. He's simply, he's simply one of ten. He's davening out loud so that when you get to Kadusha, you can say Kadusha, the way it's supposed to be said, one person calling the Kadesh, everybody else answering, Kadusha. Or maybe he's just keeping us all online. But basically, all ten Jews here are equal. There is no chazen in the sense of Chazarata Shats kind of chazen. He's a leader. I think, very often in English, it says the leader says that the chazen. Okay, he's the leader. But in order to be able to say Kadusha, we have to have a minion davening, not a minion listening, because who are they listening to? They listen to someone saying his own private Kadusha. I think it might be possible to claim that it is, in fact, Pilat Hatsibu, he's davening everyone else is listening, but only the first three were hot. And afterwards, it beverts to being Thilah Bitzibu, since he doesn't say the whole thing at land. But O'Faren is no sanction for such an institution. Thilat Hatsibu is one person saying, the Hoshman Sre' out loud, everybody listening. And therefore, they're both saying that, no, this is really an individual Shman Sre, therefore, you need ten people to say the individual Shman Sre'at at the same time. And when they all get to Kadusha, they can say Kadusha also together, because it's a different kind of Thilah and a different kind of Kadusha. So this is different in the previous case. The previous case was you come late and it's Thilat of Ahazarata Shats, which you join. You attach your individual Thilat to the Thilat Hatsibu. This is a case of we all come at the same time, and we all say Shman Sre'at the same time, one person saying it out loud to keep us together, that allows us to say Kadusha at the at the proper time. That's it for today. Tomorrow, she will be in problems in medieval Jewish philosophy. Until then, this is Azubic. We should view a cultural vianto. Have a good day. You will listen to KMTT, kih mitzi aon tai tara ut vara shem miru shalayim.