KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Parshat Hashavua - Teruma
KMTT - Parshat Hashavua, shiur for Parshat Teruma, by Rav David Silverberg
And this is Azubic. Today is Thursday. Bét Adar, second day of Haudesh Adar. Today's Shil will be given by Arav David Sobuburgh, who the veterans among you will remember from about five weeks ago when he gave the Pashata Shilwashir. The Sobuburgh prepared the Shilwashir two days in advance, in quite a rush, and he was on the way to the hospital with his wife, and they're expecting a mitzvah shamma baby any minute. We haven't heard any news yet, that's why I think it's any minute. Shilwashir Atova and Bissah Atova. Today Shilwashir is in Pashata Shilwashir. After the Shilwashir I'll be back with the Haudhahayomit. Arav David Sobuburgh. Pashas Shilwah of course introduces the the commandments regarding the the Mishkhan, the actual structure of the Mishkhan as well as the various Kalim, the furnishings inside the Mishkhan. I'd like to discuss in this year this week are various issues related to the construction of the Aravn, the the Ark, which of course contained the the Tulohos, the two tablets that Moshe were done from Harsini, as well as the Sefrittara and so on. The Torah says regarding the Aravn, we had Sakhthadar Abattaba Oszahav, the nasa-ta Ababa Pahamo-sav, that they had to make four golden rings on the on the four Pahamo-sav, and the four Pahamo-sav argument sake will translate to word Pahamo-sav's corners. Shaita-bosa-tadah-hah-sus, Shaita-bosa-tadah-sansh, and these two rings on either side of the Aravn. We are sisavadayat's H.T.M. and they were to make Manastra a word to construct two post made from A sati-tim, the same material from which the Aravn itself was built. The T.P.sav-samsahav liked them, liked the Aravn itself, they were to be plated with gold. They have a sisavadim, a tabosa-tadosa-tadah-sus, and the badim, the post were to be inserted inside the rings along the sides of the Aravn, the sisavadim and that's how the Aravn was transported, they were transported with poles. You'd have one navy, or I should say, to the Vamai, either side of the Aravn, with the pole on his shoulder, and in that way the Aravn, when Bineshah would travel in the mid-bar, that's how the Aravn was transported. The Torah does not tell us where exactly the rings were placed. Rashi, in his parish Al-Atara, Rashi writes, "Uwe-saviyo-sawiyonos, sama-hakapora-sawiyunusunos, shtaimikan or shtaimikan, that the four rings were placed on the upper corners of the Aravn. On the top of the Aravn, that's where you would find the taba-os, near the kaporas, the kaporas, of course, being the covering over the Aravn, that's where the rings were. The Rambhan disagrees with Rashi, the Rambhan claims that the rings were not along the top of the Aravn, but they were rather situated along the bottom of the Aravn, and the Rambhan brings two proofs, or at least two arguments, to support his claim. First of all, the Rambhan claims that would be too heavy for the Laveam to carry the Aravn, if the rings and hence the poles were situated on top of the Aravn. You kind of picture it, the Laveam carrying the Aravn with the poles on their shoulders and the Aravn hanging down in between the two sets of the Laveam, the Rambhan claims that that would have been too heavy for the Laveam to carry. Secondly, the Rambhan says it would be much more respectful for the Aravn if it was held up high as they were carrying it. If the Aravn is dangling in between the two sets of the Laveam, that's not so respectful for the Aravn. Certainly, the Aravn deserves more respect than that, and therefore, the Rambhan claims it would be much more dignified for the Aravn if the poles were on the bottom of the Aravn such that such that the Aravn in its entirety would be held up high on top of the Laveam's shoulders as they transported the Aravn. Other Maforshin came to Rashi's defense and claimed that his position is correct. The Lavusha Ora, one of the classic commentaries on Rashi's parish, he advances three arguments in support of Rashi. First of all, he claims an interesting idea, it's interesting observation. He says that according to the Rambhan, if you think about it, when the Aravn was at rest, when it was in the Kaurashaka d'Ashim, he means the poles were lying flat on the floor. So the poles were lying on the floor, and Rashi says it would be very difficult for the Laveam to have to lift the Aravn holding the poles, picking the poles up from the ground. By the same token, putting the Aravn down on the ground would mean you have to go all the way down. I mean, the room for your fingers would be very difficult for them to place down the Aravn on the ground when they finished carrying it, when they reached the destination. Recall that the Aravn was plated with gold, so it was a very heavy item, and so the Bush claims that would have been too difficult for the Laveam. Secondly, he claims the opposite of the Rambhan, that to the contrary, would actually be more difficult for the Laveam to carry it, if the entire weight of the Aravn, the entire Aravn was resting on their shoulders. If the Aravn was kind of hanging in the middle, because the poles were inserted along the top of the Aravn, then that would have been easier for the Laveam, rather than having the entire Aravn lying on their shoulders. Finally, he claims in the Laveam, that if the Laveam carried the Aravn from the bottom, meaning with the poles along the bottom of the Aravn, then the two Laveam walking behind, right, the two Laveam in front and two on either side behind, that the vision of the two Laveam walking behind would be impaired, it would be obstructed by the Aravn, if the Aravn hang down, so they could see in front of them. But if the Aravn was held on top of the shoulders, so the two Laveam walking back, we wouldn't be able to see where they were walking, and that could have been dangerous, and it's, he feels it would be impractical. The Maharal in Guraye, he actually quotes Push from the Gomara, that Rashi Spashar is the correct one. The Gomara, both the Manafa Staff Tsarifes, as well as the Numa Dafman Dalid, the Gomara says that the Rashi Ha Badim, the ends of the Badim of the poles, protruded against the Parochis. Nobody was able to actually see the edges of the Badim of the poles, but you saw their protrusion against the Parochis, and the Parochis, of course, being the curtain that divided in between the Khodesh and the Kaudesh. And according to the Gomara, the Badim used would protrude against the Parochis. Gomara's Ahavim, and perhaps the Badim actually tore through the Parochis, such that people outside were able to see the actual poles, and that proves from a passive, that's not correct, and that only the protrusion was visible, whereas the poles themselves were not visible. So vast Jews, as the Maharal, it seems clear that the poles were in the air, meaning they were on top of the around. If the poles were on the bottom of the around, and thus they were actually lying on the ground, so then they wouldn't protrude, they wouldn't rip through the Parochis, so they wouldn't even protrude against the Parochis, they wouldn't go underneath the Parochis, and then they would indeed be able to see the actual Badim against what Gomara says. Unless you might want to say that maybe the Parochis hung all the way down and dragged along the floor, and for that reason the Badim did not actually were not actually visible. So to that, the Maharal responds that that would not be very respectful, that wouldn't be very dignified to have the Parochis hanging on the floor, undoubtedly the Parochis either did not reach the ground or reached or just barely touched the ground. Either way, if the Badim were resting on the floor, as the Ramban claims, presumably they would have protruded all the way through, and they themselves would have been visible, not just their protrusion. So that's interesting Raya that the Graya brings from the Gomara against the Ramban's Pshat. Many of them are Farshim, dating back as early as the Rush, quoted by his son the tour in the Parochat tour, Al-Atora. The Rush brought a different Raya against the Ramban, for the Gomara with Sakhal Shabbos, Daft-Sadi-Bays. The Gomara there is discussing the Malakhov Hotsa, the Malakhov carrying on Shabbos, which of course we learned from the transportation of the Calum of the Mishkan, and amidst that discussion, the Gomara is trying to figure out how high the Mizbuhos were held when they were transported, because that sets the precedent for the Malakhov Hotsa. And over the course of the discussion, the Gomara claims that whenever you carry a heavy burden with poles, the way you do it is, the most efficient way of carrying it, is to position the poles one-third of the way down. One-third of the way down of the item, that's the most efficient, the easiest way to carry the given object. So it seems pretty clear that this is how they transported the Calum of the Mishkan. Like Rashi says, it was towards the top. It wasn't on the bottom as Ramban said, but rather it was towards the top. Several more forces bring this Kasha against the Rabban, the Panama Fos by the Balafla, and others they bring this they bring this question. I saw in Raf Shavel's notes to the parish Ramban, he mentions that the Klyklemda, the Klyklemda, brings an answer in the name of the Hasamso for the Hasamsofer suggests. Perhaps the Ramban held that the Gomara was not referring to the Aron, only the Mizbokos, or the other Klyklem, only they were carried in this fashion, but as far as the Aron itself, as I'll say, that the Aron was noceus, no self, the Aron really didn't need to be transported, really didn't need to be carried, the Aron of course is symbolic of the actual presence of the Srinad self, so it really did not require human beings to transport it, it could get around by itself. So therefore, quite conceivably, says the Hasamsofer, it's possible that they didn't have to carry the Aron in the most efficient manner, meaning they didn't have to figure out based on the physics what is the easiest way to transport the Aron. So therefore, the Poles were necessarily positioned in the most efficient way when transporting the Aron, and therefore the Gomara is not really referring to the Aron, referring to only the other Klyklemda. The problem with saying that though is that Ramban himself in arguing against Rashi, he brings the argument that the Aron would have been too heavy according to Rashi's shot. Ramban felt, according to Rashi, that the Poles were, they ran along the top of the Aron, that would have been too heavy for the Livium to carry. So you see that the Ramban is sensitive to this issue as to how the Livium would manage carrying the Aron, according to the Hasamsofer's assumption, the Ramban is the Ramban held that it was not necessary to work out the efficient way or the easiest way of carrying the Aron because essentially the Aron carries itself. So this answer for the Ramban seems to be, seems at least the first, that's a little difficult to understand. Anyways, this is my focus between Rashi and Ramban as to where the tabos, where the rings were positioned and where, whether the Poles ran along the top of the Aron or the bottom of the Aron. There's another interesting my focus as to how many rings there were, how many rings were there in the, on the sides of the Aron. The simple reading of the Pasek, and this is one of the more obvious approach and this is what the vast majority of the Farshev hold, including Rashi the Rashi-Bam, the Ramban and the Ababa-Bennell, that's also Medrash-Le-Kartov. All these sources say very clearly that there were four rings on the Aron. There were two on one side, two on the other side, the Poles were inserted, each pole threw two rings on either side of the Aron and that's how they carry the Aron. The problem is the formulation of the Pasek. The Pasek says (speaks in foreign language) you make four rings and you put them on the four corners, (speaks in foreign language) and two rings on one side and two rings on the other side. So again, most professionals say that what it means is the second half of the Pasek is clarifying. How do you put four rings on the four corners? You put two rings on one side, two rings on the other side. The problem is the conjunction, ooh, it says you put four rings on the four corners, ooh, straight tabos and two rings on one side and two rings on the other side. So according to Tosvos, in Masek as Yomata Feynbeis, Omanadev, according to Tosvos, those are four extra rings for other rings. The first half of the Pasek speaks of four rings and then in addition to that, you have straight tabos at Sadoevas, ooh, straight tabos at Sadoev Haschinese. What leads Tosvos to to reach this conclusion besides the formulation of the Pasek, Tosvos is dealing with the contradiction, or it appears to be a contradiction between a Pasek here in Pasek Shruma and a Pasek later inflammation in Pasek by Mibar. Here in Pasek Shruma, the Pasek says Bithabosa Aronihuha Badim La Yosurumi Manu, that's in Parah of Hay, Pasek Tes Vov. The Torah requires that the Badim the poles of the Aron remain in the rings of the Aron. They remain attached to the sides of the Aron and should never be removed. In fact the Tamara the Renuma says that whoever removes the Badim from the sides of the Aron is located. He gets Marcus, it's a mitzvosa safe from the Torah. The Ramau quoted him, he brings it down as one of the in a safe Ramitzvosa is one of the mitzvosa's. He talks about it also in Paseklei Hamiktash. There is an acid the right to remove the poles from the sides of the Aron. Yet if we look at Pasek by Mibar, Parak Dalid, when the Torah is describing the procedure for travel, for preparing the Mishkhan when it came time to travel. This is the Mibar, Parak Dalid, Pasek Vov. The Torah says that the Kohanim would come and into the Kauroshakadoshim and they would cover the Aron, this Samu Badaf and they would place the poles along the sides of the Aron. At least that's what it sounds like, the Samu badaf, they place the poles. The implication of course being is that the poles were not already attached to the sides of the Aron and therefore the Kohanim were required to attach the poles. That's the question that Toss was trying to deal with. So what they explain is that there are eight rings and two sets of poles. There are eight rings and four poles. There are two sets of poles which remain permanently affixed to the sides of the Aron and then there are two poles that were permanently affixed to the sides of the Aron and then there were two additional poles which were used for transporting. The first set of poles that wasn't for transporting, they were not for transporting the Aron but that was part, that was the way the Aron was supposed to look. It was supposed to have these two poles in it. Then when it came time to carry the Aron you put the two other poles inside the rings and that's what the Puss was referring to in Pashos by Mirbar. So that explains not only the contradiction that the two Psukim are referring to do two different sets of poles but Toss's claim it also explains the awkward formulation in the Pussuk. The Pussuk as you mentioned implies that there were that there were two sets of four rings and now we know why there were two sets of four rings because there were two sets of poles. That is the approach that Toss was taking in Masek as Yoma. The Malbim here in Pashos Truma, he says something very similar to Toss Toss. He also says that there are eight rings and however that there was only one set of poles. There were two poles and the way it worked was the two sets of rings were positioned a little bit differently. While the Aron was stationary the poles were inserted in rings that were positioned in such a way that was not so comfortable for transporting it. When it came time for transporting the Aron they had to move the poles into the other set of rings which were positioned in a way which allowed for easier transportation of the Aron and that's what the Pussuk is referring to in Pashos by mid-breast. The Malbim too claims that there were eight rings only he holds that there was only one set of poles that would just move to the different rings when it came time to move the Aron. The Ibn Ezra is Parasharach in Parashakatsu. He holds like the standard view that there were only four rings but in his Parasharach he likewise claims that there were eight rings. However unlike the Malbimatosvos he claims that the Badim were never moved. There were eight rings for through which the Badim were inserted and the other four rings were just for decoration. They were a decoration part of the way the Aron was to look. They didn't serve any function. They didn't contain anything. There were no poles inserted in them. They were just there for decoration. So just to summarize this point most of them are fortunately the best majority of the freshmen held. There were only four rings on the sides of the Aron to hold the two poles whereas Tussvos and Ibn Ezra Parasharach and the Malbim they held that there were actually eight rings along the sides of the Aron. Getting back to Tussvos' point Tussvos asked regarding the contradiction between the Pussuk here in Tumor which said that the poles were not allowed to be removed from the sides of the Aron and the Pussuk and Pashos by Mibar which states that the Kohanim had to place the poles on the moment it was time to travel. We do find other answers given among the Mafarshem different from what Tussvos explained in Reza kazuma. Ibn Ezra has a very clever explanation there in Pashos by Mibar for the Pussuk with Samois Badov. Ibn Ezra says for Samois Badov does not mean that they inserted the poles inside the rings. The Samois Badov means that the Kohanim would place the poles on the shoulders of the Lviv. The poles of course were already in place because the poles were never removed from the sides of the Aron but the Kohanim they were part of their responsibility was to lift the Aron off the ground and then place it on the shoulders of the Lviv to kind of give them a head start to allow them to then transport the Aron. That's how Ibn Ezra gets around the problem. Interestingly according to one Ghirsa of Gomara, Masekazuma and that same Dafai and Bezum and Aleph we have yet another explanation yet another possible resolution to this question. There's a very difficult and enigmatic passage in Masekazuma, Dafai and Bez where the Gomara asks Sakasha, the Gomara asks to steer between Tupasakim but it's not clear which Tupasakim they're asking a steer of from. The Quran says Rabi Yossi, Rabi Khannina, Rabi Yossi, Rabi Khannina, he had the following problem with Tupasakim. See if it says in 1 Pasuk, "Bait taba al-sarun yiyu al-baddim wa yosurumi menu" that the poles had to remain in the rings of the Aron. Uxiv and according to our Ghirsa, the Gomara then asks, it also says, "Huvai is badav, badavos" that the poles had to be brought were inserted into the rings. Now it's of course not clear at all how those two Pasukim contributed to one another. So Rabi has his Ghirsa and we find among them a farshim, Dafai is on approach, we find different approaches among them a farshim and he's been explaining this Gomara. There is one Ghirsa which appears in the safe from most of the Kainim, Al-Ataro, which is a collection of permission by the Baliya tozfos. It also appears in the Parishari vah. According to their Ghirsa in this Gomara, the Gomara is asking the exact question that tozfos raised. The second puzzle that the Gomara is mentioning here is that Pasukim approaches, but maybe Rabi Samo is badav that says that the Kainim had a place at the Badim along the sides of the Aron. That's exactly the question the Gomara is coming to address. But then the question becomes, what's the Gomara's answer? The Gomara resolves this contradiction, the Gomara says, "Huketzad, missparkin v'ain nishmatin" that the poles would be removed. I'm sorry, the poles could be this large but they couldn't be removed altogether. Meaning, as Rashi explains, the ends of the poles were wider than the middle section of the poles, such that the poles could be jostled. They could be moved to and fro within the rings, but they can never be removed from the rings because the ends of the poles were simply too wide. So how does that answer the question? What does that have to do with the contradiction between the Pasukim Prashis Truman, the Pasukim Prashis by Mirbar? I sort of Minacham Khashar in one of the front notes in Torah Shleema, he suggests that according to the Mush of Zekanim and the Reva, according to their gears in the Gomara, the Gomara's answer is as follows. Since the poles could be moved within the rings, they couldn't be removed, but they could be jostled and pushed in one direction or the other, it was very likely that by the time the Kohanim came, when it was time to travel, the Kohanim came to get everything ready for travel, it was very possible that the poles would be uneven, that it would there would be longer on one side of the Aron and shorter on the other side of the Aron, which would of course would make it very difficult for the Livyam trying to carry the Aron, and that's why that's what the Pasuk means, with some ways by that, but it doesn't mean they would now attach the Badim, attach the poles to the sides of the Aron, that's not what the Pasuk means. The Pasuk means is that they would have to adjust the poles, they would adjust the poles to make sure that the poles were evenly distributed, so to speak, along with sides of the Aron, so that's, that would be another way of resolving this contradiction between the Pasuk here in Truma and the Pasuk in Parshas Bamidbar. The next issue that I want to discuss is the strange word in the Pasuk, "Pamosov", I mentioned before that for argument's sake we will translate it as corners, and that's in fact how most Maforshim explain. Pasuk says that you, that the four rings of the Aron were to be placed on the four pamos, on the four corners of the Aron, however the Ibn Ezra, in his parish aroch, he claims that this is the, this is not the correct interpretation of the Pasuk. I'll read you with Ibn Ezra writes, "Yeah, the Ibn Ezra here in Pasukid base, he says kipasti bakhalhamikra, I searched throughout all of Tanakh for the Mazzasi pam shihuzavios, I have not found that the word pam is ever used in reference to corners. Rakmidashran regal, it only refers to feet, and he brings the Pasuk in one from Safar Yishayyaw, Parakavav, raghvei aunee pamaydallim, Pasuk in Safar tehilim, Parak, Pehe, Pasak yidalid, Vyasayim, the derakpe almav, and a Pasuk in Shrashir, Mayafufu, Amayach, and there it means feet, and therefore going to be Ibn Ezra, it means that the Aron had feet, the Aron did not lie flat on the ground, rather the Aron stood on little feet, and Ibn Ezra thought that that would actually be more dignified, the Ibn Ezra says of Raghvei, he says, "Aqin, it's raghdi, the pharesh, therefore I have no choice but to explain kiraglaim, how you the Aron, that the Aron had feet, kidairq bezoyon hushay, shayva, aron ba arats, it would be, it would not be dignified for the Aron to lie flat on the ground." Okay, so therefore he says that the four rings were situated in the bottom of the Aron, near the feet, the Rambhan quotes the Ibn Ezra's theory and he disagrees. The Rambhan here says, "The end of our Nihonim klau, the Ibn Ezra is incorrect." He says that that is not true at all, that the Aron would be sitting on feet, and he claims that we find the word pamaos referring to footsteps. Mayafuf, he actually quotes the passing of charshim, the Ibn Ezra quoted, "Mayafufa-a-mayach-banu al-in-bas-nadiv", it means footsteps, he also quotes a plastic from Safer Shofdin, Madua Ikharup-Amei-Makavasavam, she was Devor and Safer Shofdin Parakei, where clearly 'Amei' refers to footsteps. So according to the Rambhan, it means footsteps, and what it means is it was along the bottom of the Aron, remember the Rambhan, as I mentioned before, the rings were situated along the bottom of the Aron, and he claims that the word pamaos refers to footsteps, refers to the people who are transporting the Aron, and that's how the Rambhan explains. Anyways, there's a mafufa between the Ibn Ezra and the Rambhan, as to whether the Aron had feet, or whether a light flat on the floor, it's interesting to know that Rashi, here in his parish Al-Ataro, and on Parakei-Amei-Pasa-Yuri, says explicitly, "Vyasur, Aron, Kain, Aronos, shall seem below rug-lime", so Rashi says that the word 'Aron' itself actually refers to a kind of chest that lies flat on the ground without any feet, so Rashi clearly disagrees with the Ibn Ezra, and Rashi explicitly holds that the Aron did not have any feet. The last point I'd like to discuss is a different comment of the Gomara and Yuma Tafai in Bayes regarding the construction of the Aron. The Torah says that the Aron was made from Asehi-Tim from Sheetim word, but it was plated inside and out with gold, and the Gomara sees this as symbolically very significant. The Gomara says, the quotes Rava are saying, that Kotami-Tafai-Tim has to be the same inside and out, its interior has to correspond to its exterior, so two-atami-Tafai-Tim has to be the same way. Tafai-Tafai-Tafai-Tafai-Tafai gives the impression, he gives his very noble image, he conducts himself in a very honorable and respectful and noble way, that really has to be the way he actually is, he has to be inside the way he gives his appearance of dignity and honor, that's really the way he should truly act and should truly be. It's interesting that several of Farsham raised the question, if that's true, if the Torah wants to have the Aron constructed in such a way that conveys this message of consistency between exterior and the interior of Atamr-Tafai, if that's true, then why not make the Aron entirely of gold, why was it made of wood and only plated inside and out with the gold, why not make the the Aron in its entirety out of gold. So this question was asked in a number of different sources, the Robocini Bali Atosfos, the perishable Robocini Bali Atosfos Al Atora, they give a very pragmatic answer, they say that it would just be too heavy, why we spoke earlier about the fact that the Aron was made of gold, that from a Farsham trying to figure out, what would be the best way for the Lviv to carry the Robocini Bali Atosfos to say, look, if you made the Aron two and a half Amos by two and a half, if it was made entirely of gold, that would be too heavy for the Lviv to carry, so it had to be made of wood, which was a little bit lighter, and it was plated inside and out with the gold to convey this message of consistency of Tohoku Varro. The Midrishtanhuma in Pashasvayakal gives a different explanation, the Midrishtanhuma views the wooden substance of the Aron as symbolic of poverty, contrast to gold, which is of course the symbol of wealth of affluence. The wood, the wood is symbolic of poverty, and the measure says that if you see Atama Khakaam who's poor, you should still respect him, even though he is not necessarily, he doesn't come across as aristocratic, as the wealthy people of his time, nevertheless he still deserves respect because of the gold on his interior and his exterior, so therefore the wood from which the Aron is made from refers to, I guess, what we call the Gashmiyos, his material, the Taman Khakaam's material condition, so to speak, the fact that he does not necessarily have as much money as other people, and nevertheless we just will treat him as a golden object, which is will treat him with nobility as a prominent and distinguished individual because of his Torah knowledge. The I saw in a saver called Yalqud Yehuda, this is a saver written by Ravi Huda, Ginsburg goes around in Denver, Colorado in the earlier part of the 20th century, he was a very interesting explanationist to the symbolism here of the wood, the wood that the Aron was made out of wood and played it inside out with gold. He claims that even the Taman Khakaam has to be made of what other human beings are made out of. You can't have a Taman Khakaam made totally of gold, who's completely perfect, who has no human frailties, who has no human tendencies, who's completely angelic and otherworldly, the Taman Khakaam too, the leader of a community of Ravi, he also has to have basic human qualities, but he has to be plated with gold inside and out, he has to be refined, it has to be on a higher level, but that doesn't mean he has to be a human being who's just who has perfected himself to one extent or another, who has developed himself, who has raised himself, and he wants to say perhaps that's the symbolism of what the Ravi was made entirely of gold. That the Ravi was made entirely of gold, so the Akhud Udda suggests that the Rajush that so too, Taman Khakaam who's made entirely of gold, if Taman Khakaam is too perfect, if he's not human at all, if he's made only of gold and not of wood, people wouldn't be able to carry him, they wouldn't be able to handle him, they wouldn't be able to learn from him, he wouldn't find a place, he wouldn't find an audience, he would not be able to inspire and to influence people if he's made entirely of gold, and that's why the Aron is made primarily of wood, Taman Khakaam is a human being, he's not an angel, he's not in another world, he too has the same drive, the same inclinations, the same needs as other human beings, however he's played it with gold, he has worked on himself, he has refined himself, he's developed himself, and he has worked to live his life on a higher level, not that he's entirely made of gold, but rather that he's played it inside and out with gold. Shabbat shalom. You have been listening to Arav David Silverberg in Poshata-Sharua. For today's halo'ai yomit we're in halo'at fila, the shuhan'aruch pascans, shuloh y amad be ma'kum ga'vua. The grammar says that one should not stand on a high place when davening, because it's written mima amakim kratir hashem, I pray to you from the depths, and therefore one should not pray from a high place. The explanation, I think everyone agrees, this means, is that fila comes literally from the depths, the depths of the heart, but also the depths of where one is standing. To stand on a high place you have the danger of somehow a kind of pride, a kind of looking down on others, maybe even on guard, on the world, on your own situation. Standing in a low place allows one to daven with the proper heart, not only with the proper physical position. The proschem say that this wasn't in a low place, every place is a high relative to some other place. A low place and a high place means relative to its immediate surroundings, so if the place that you're standing on is large enough to be a place in and of itself, doesn't have a relationship to another place, then it's okay, so either if it's dalid al-dalid, it's four amot and four amot, or if it's ten fucking high, according to the sampos scheme, or if it has mokhitzat, for instance, the chazan, dalsan de bema, de bema is large. It's dalid al-dalid, and sometimes it even has a wall around it, so then you don't measure that in relationship to the rest of the shul, it's a place in and of itself, as opposed to standing on a chair or on a very small elevated thing, standing on in some sort of a podium or a stool, that is what is meant as being a suh. What does it mean to be high? So the proschem say, twitvahim. Twitvahim is about 24, 25, maybe 27 centimeters, about 11 inches, because less than twitvahim in many, many places in Allah, kas, consider to be part of the ground. Every ground has a bump, just a bump in the ground, it's not a distinct elevation. So the proschem decided that twitvahim is the issue, and nonetheless, the waitel serfings, an opinion that stand on a chair or a stool or a pillow, even if it's less than twitvahim, is a suh. And it's for a completely different reason, basically, it's not based on the gomara itself, the gomat talks about mimamakim, as opposed to not being mamamakim, that as we said is a law implied, but the proschem is another consideration, that if you're standing on a narrow, a narrow stool, even if it's not twitvahim, but you will be insecure, and there's a general halacha that you have to maximize kavanah, you have to maximize your intention, and to stand in a place or in a manner which necessitates that you think about yourself, you think about maintaining your balance, but if someone's going to bother you, so there's a whole string of halacha which forbid that sort of a thing, because it interferes with kavanah. A very well-known, but unfortunately overlooked halacha, is that when it's not allowed to hold anything, while saying schmanessui, which you'd be concerned about if it fell, a sittler is an exception because it's so recht vila, you won't drop it because you're using an interferes, but to hold your watch in your hand, or some other valuable thing, is forbidden because it interferes with kavanah, culture can't bend venocia, if that's true, if you know how to hold a watch, you show you how to hold your baby, since you would be very much concerned if you dropped him, and interferes with kavanah, it's quite common to see young people, who they brought a young child to shul, which is a question in and of itself, and comes schmanessui, and they can't leave him sitting, because then he'll start to annoy and bother other people, so they pick him up and they double with the child in their arms, and back to our topic, so there's this halacha board in the Beecher safe, which you're not to stand even on something which is low if it's insecure, because it's very narrow, and you have to maintain your balance, it's now what the grandma is talking about, it's a different halacha. Here's a halacha of insecurity and kavanah, there's a third halacha mentioned in the tour that says that one should stand without anything interferes between one's feet in the ground, and basically that, some postcom thought you shouldn't even dive in on a small rug, a large rug might be ready, like we said, a macomb if they had snow, an independent place, but just a small rug, like what's called another religion, the prayer rug, might be forbidden, and then some shul they had there, so they asked, the halacha is very, very strange, it's based on a beautiful idea that the tour mentions a number of times, and that is that someone who's diving is like a kohain, who's been in a sacrifice, because thilah is in place of sacrifices, so the mitzpalel is in place of the kohain, now a kohain who's been in a sacrifice has to stand directly on the floor of the Beitamiktash without any katsitsa, any interruption between his feet and the ground, so therefore you should be a kohain, you should stand the same way, saying that kohain is a little bit strange, because if it were to be true literally you couldn't wear shoes either, a kohain of Beitamiktash was barefoot, his foot had to touch the floor of the Beitamiktash, he didn't wear shoes, but we all wear shoes of course, so and also the kohain has no, actually has no basis in niggamurah, so the way the posts can treat these ideas is that they're nice ideas, they're not exactly literally meant to be taken in the exact form in which they were said, you should stand close to the ground, so you can wear shoes but you shouldn't sit on top of something, and even that it's only the kohain that's a good idea, it doesn't have the way most posts can assume, it doesn't have final halacha validity, so again when you're not having a high place, more than to be for him, if it's small enough so that it relates to the surroundings, and one should also not stand in a manner which causes insecurity and a need to maintain a special effort to maintain one's balance. As I said, post-game all allow one to dive on a high place, if it's large enough, or if it's surrounded by walls, since the lakhr is really one of one's heart, one should dive in mimamakim from the depths of one's heart, so I think you should also fulfill this in the way that that makes sense too, that fulfills your own expectations, so it could be, I think a chaz in davin going to be mad doesn't have a problem, but sometimes in the back of the shore there might be a raised platform of some sort, it might meet our lakhr qualifications of a separate place, but you really have to also dive in mimamakim, so make sure that you really don't standing there doesn't give you the feeling that you are over the rest of the congregation, so then which happens when we're standing in high prices, personally those who are familiar with Ishaevat Haaretzion know that the back of the Beit Midrash is what's called the Hebrew the rampa, the ramp, it's an elevated section, it's where I sit, when I learn, but I never dive in there, even though it's perfectly okay, mi pakina hai isha teit havaha, in the massets, okay, and many people obviously do dive in there, but in the 30 years I've been in Ishaevat Haaretzion I never dive in there, I just don't feel comfortable because you're looking down on the horizon, you're looking down everybody else, if you close your eyes, this to me I feel that I'm somehow over them, and it's not conducive in my own mind, this is personally a completely private and personal thing, it's not conducive to proper to proper tphila, that's it for today, we're back tomorrow with the Ere Shabbat Togem, you've been listening to KMTT, Kimi Tion, Teite Tora, this is Ishaevak, English Ition, wishing you a call to, until tomorrow, Kimi Tion, Teite Tora, Uddvar Hashem, mi rushalaym.