KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Erev Shabbat - Mishpatim
Erev Shabbat program for parshat Mishpatim, with guest Rav Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani at Yeshivat Rav Yitzchak Elchanan.
This is Eswebeck and today is Yom Shishi, Arashabat Kodesh, Prashat Mishpatim, it's also Prashat Skarim. Prashat Mishpatim begins with the Pasukva Edomishpatim, a shirt, tassignifnehem, the vahra, the Edoura Mishpatim and these are the Mishpatim, has elicited both from Hazal, Duroshim, Drosia Shat, Prashim, throughout the ages, it's like an open invitation in order to say some sort of a Dosh, and today I want to relate to a comment made by the Hridah, the Hridah says that it suggests that the Vahayamishpatim and these are the laws that you should present before them, Mishpat, the kind of laws referred to as Mishpatim are civil laws, the laws of deciding, civil matters, monetary matters, two people, one person sues another, so there's a Mishpat, Ben Adam, the Chabirah, as to who's writing, who's wrong, who gets the money, who doesn't. Vie lehamishpatim, Hridah says the Vahab comes to tell us also not just Mishpat but also Shara, Shara means compromise. That when a case is decided, when a dispute is resolved, it can be resolved in one of two ways, it can be resolved by the principle of Mishpat, the law, the formal law, as collected and codified in Seifah or Shan Mishpat, in November, in the Gomorrah, in Seifah or Mitziya, or it can be decided on a different basis, one that is not codified, not as well codified, which is called Pshara, Shara isn't independent completely of Mishpat, you don't make it up out of a hat, but it doesn't follow the rules of Mishpat, it attempts to achieve a meeting of the minds, a meeting of the interests and a balancing of interests of the two sides, so Hridah says Vie lehamishpatim, these are the Mishpatim but also, also Shara and what's more, Shara is first, Vave, Shara, eil habishpatim, he quotes a comment of the Balaturim, the Balaturim, as is well known, after his commentary on the Torah, which is a straight-shot commentary, he added all sorts of hints, le mazim, gamatryot, which is more famous today, that's the part that's the Balaturim that's printed in many, many Khumashim, and the word Mishpatim, the Balaturim says, it's la Shaitivot, it's the letters, stand for habishpatim, heim mazim petit yudmim, hadayan mizuvir, shiyya asep, Shara, terem yasemishpat, hadayan, the judge is commanded to do Shara, to do compromise, before he does Mishpat, and why is this, and what is it, why is it in this parasha, maybe it's a good thing to seek peace and to make people happy, but why is it in this parasha, because the Gamara in Sanhedrin, dah vavam abet, where there's a sogya, abat shara, says that the idea of a dayan doing Shara is learned from two different sukhim, one person says, amet uishpat shalom, shiv tu beshahari heim, truth, and justice of peace, you should judge in your gates, and the Gamara says, what is mishpat shalom, if there's mishpat, if there's law, there isn't shalom, there is no peace, because one side wins, and one side loses, and it's probably a sore loser, and if there's shalom, there isn't mishpat, but apparently that's not true, yesh exists also, mishpat shiyya asep shalom, what is mishpat shiyya asep shalom, haveayi omayah zep shara, in other words the Gamara is saying that, although when we first look at shalom and mishpat our country victory, but there's something called mishpat, shiyya asep shalom, not shalom, but mishpat shiyya asep shalom, there is a law, a judgment which maintains or increases or contains peace, and doesn't ignore it. The second parashaq is almost the same thing, a slightly different expression, beihid david ulse mishpat utstaka, david amedah was a successful and wonderful king, because he did mishpat utstaka, law and sidaka, and kazawun ustod the word 'staka' in the modern sense, meaning charity, and not in its original sense, shalom sidak, meaning another term, another term meaning justice, so mishpat shiyya asepat shiyya asepat shiyya asepat shiyya, a law which also has generosity, it has chavity within it, a wei omeir, zon zop shawaq, and if we look at the ads, that's the context of the pastuk, the elamish patimashirta simif niham, vai vashi comments on the on the place, corne kazal, liif niham, velolif nihad yotad, liif niham means before qualified judges, rachmeratora, who have smiqah, they've been appointed to their positions in an unbroken chain going back to masha'vainu to see night, and you're not allowed to go for the law, for justice, to head your toe to simple people who haven't learned the Torah and are not qualified, but if we include shahraq into the pastuk itself as the qidah suggested, and as the balaturam said, vai lehamish patimashirta simif niham, then shahraq is also to be granted only to khachmeratora and not to other people, because you shouldn't think that shahraq is something that's done because we don't know the real law, we're uncertain, so let's make a compromise, if we're stuck, it's a complicated case, we're not sure what the right answer is, let's do a compromise now, a compromise is done even before law, because it's an expression of mishpah, shahraq, it's an expression of law, it's a different kind of a law, but it's also law, it's law shahraq shahraq, and therefore just as khachmeratora, the sinhedrin, apply the law, sautu, khachmera, sinhedrin, apply qachmera, apply pizua, apply, compromise, because compromise is not a compromise, it's not a giving up of true law, it's a different version of true law, one that does not fall in its holiness and in its application and its desirability from the letter of the law, which may be just, but has the detriment of actually being a violation of an equally important principle, the principle of peace. Our guest today is Halab Yarsi Blau, a Blau is the Mashiach Duchanee in Yishibat, Rabid Drak al-Hannan, Yishib upon of Yishib University, and is also the president of the religious designist of America, the organization that used to be called 'Mizakhya-Palmizakhi', that particular position has a very special part of my own heart, 55 years ago, my father was president of a Palmizakhi of America, and so I cannot help but take my hat off for the person who occupies the position today. Rablau was visiting Israel this week, and we've taken the opportunity to put him into this podcast, to put him on as a guest for KMTT, above Yarsi Blau. The part where we're going to read this Shabbos, 'Parshat Nishpatim' begins with the 'Ayla Hamishpatim ashaat asim with Nehem'. Rashi points out, in the name of Hazal, that 'Vra' Ayla indicates that the halakhot, the laws that are going to be discussed in 'Parshat Nishpatim' are a continuation, and in addition to those of Yisarit Adebroit, of the Ten Commandments, that were discussed in 'Parshat Yitro', and what is striking is the topics that are discussed in the beginning of 'Parshat Nishpatim'. The contrast with the lofty ideals of the Yisarit Adebroit, of Mamad Harsinai, divine revelation, a unique moment in human history, where, according to our tradition, not only did Moshe, Rabhenu, hear the divine voice, but the entire Jewish people heard the first to debroad directly from Hashem. The Talmud in the second Makot derives the number 613 as the mitzvot of the Torah, from the biblical verse 'Torat Siva Lanu Moshe', 'Torat Taf Vav Reish He' adds up to 611, and the other two, Anohi, the first two of the Ten Commandments, we heard all together directly from Hashem. The Midrish also says that not only the Jews who lived at that time, but the souls of all the Jews throughout history. And now let us return to the beginning of 'Mishpatim'. The first item discussed is the khi sichne evedevre, discussing the acquisition of the Hebrew slave, and while it is true that the Jewish concept of slavery is very different from that which we know historically as slavery, nevertheless, being a slave is clearly not a very desirous position in life. How did one become an Evedevre, he stole money as a mother object, and apparently spent what he stole on some items, I doubt very appropriate ones, and when he was caught, he did not have the money to pay back for that which was stolen. And the Bechtin, the rabbinical court, sells him for a six year period. The treatment of the Evedevre is remarkable, and that he is to be given equal rights to everything that the master has, even including the situation where there is only one pillow. Once he has to be equal, he, the slave, not the master, is the one that gets the pillow. However, one would imagine, after discussing the Ten Commandments, the Torah would not be talking about buying slaves, but rather talking about something noble and sublime. As we continue, there is a discussion about the Evedevre, the Hebrew slave, who refuses to leave after the six year period of slavery. And he says, "I want to continue, I want to remain married to a maidservant." And he becomes what's called the Evedhannitsa, the slave whose right ear is pierced. And that piercing is understood by Hazal and Poetan, by Rashi, either because of the low signal he heard in Assaritha de Broth, he shouldn't steal, and he did, or because of he heard about Waddai Haim, that the Jews are the slaves of the servants of God, of Asshem. Below Avadim, but not the slaves of other slaves of human beings. Remember we're discussing the Torah that's given soon after the Jews have escaped from the slavery of Egypt to enter Harut freedom. And this individual rejects freedom and wants to remain a slave. If we continue the next few verses, we get into people whose behavior perhaps is even worse. Discussion continues about a man who's willing to sell his childhood daughter into a form of slavery. And then the Torah discusses murderers. Let the Torah and Sinai teach us about positive things, high-level individuals. But I think there's something extremely significant in that which I just mentioned. The test of religion and the value of religious life is how it deals with the lowest levels of society with the most unpleasant of situations. It's not merely sublime moments, it's not merely inspiration, it's the total details of life. And life does include very unpleasant events and occasions. In that vein it's very interesting. We know that the Jews responded by saying Na'a-sev in Ishma, we're going to accept the Torah and then first listen or understand and study it. If we look at the end of the parashah, the initial response is really simply the one word Na'a-sev, which is appropriate for the Ten Commandments. Except the medrash contrasts the Jews with other nations who were offered the Torah, the Ten Commandments, and they wanted to know what was included and said we can't accept this, we can't accept that, while the Jews said we'll take it in totality. But if that's the case, the shift from Na'a-sev to Na'a-sev in Ishmaah is not merely saying Na'a-sev first, but incorporating the Nishma as well. And I think this follows very much from the Torah reading of Shabbat, of that which I have started to discuss with you. The Ten Commandments don't need great clarification. The laws of slaves, of murderers, later in the parashah, the details of the four different kinds of showmen, of people who take responsibility to watch objects, cannot be understood solely on the face value or simply looking at the biblical verses and translating them. It requires deep analysis, the oral tradition, trying to understand the fullness of the values and the laws that the Torah is teaching us. So it is only in the context of the El-Ahamish-Bhatim that these are also from Sinai, that we have to add the phrase, the Nishma, that we have to understand Torah, it's not enough that we accept it, we have to delve into it fully and try to grasp all it has to teach us. And of course it's remarkable that while we are focusing on understanding and questions and answers as some euchs study is consists of questions and answers, nevertheless our commitment is beyond our comprehension. And that's the notion of saying naseve nishma and saying naseve first, that even though we know that we have to understand, we have to study, we have to delve, nevertheless our commitment is not limited to that which we comprehend at this point. We're turning from a moment to the application of Torah to all types of people and all of life. This is the notion of what we call tarat kayim, a Torah that deals fully with life. And life includes all components and all kinds of people. And our notion of Judaism, whether it's the halacha, Jewish law, or Jewish thought and Jewish values is all encompassing. I have the opportunity now of being in Israel, of being in a long short speaking field, and people should realize the incredible opportunity and challenge that now exists to the religious Jewish community. The emergence of the state of Israel is an opportunity to apply Torah to all of life in a manner that did not exist for the past 1900 years. Not the notion that it's good that we have Jewish robbers. But if we have Jewish robbers, there's a halacha to deal with it. If we have Jewish people who can't handle freedom, there's Jewish law to aid us in dealing with them as well. It's a great challenge as well as an opportunity. Now with an election coming up in Israel, and I don't want to get political, but truthfully, if the religious parties actually won the election, there would be a great problem. Then we'd have to demonstrate that we can run a modern society on the basis of halacha of Jewish law and handle all the questions that arise. We'd have to produce not only great tamidecha kamim, great Torah scholars, but scholars who are knowledgeable in science and technology, making economics and political theory and able to truly run a state on the basis of Torah. So it's a great opportunity and a great challenge. Again, think back, parash at yitro, asaritadi wrote, profound, sublime, clear as can be. The awamish patim, complicated, confusing, dealing with many details, encompassing unpleasant situations and individuals, but the two were both given together on Sinai. This is our notion of the fullness of Jewish life. This is the challenge, and a challenge that we now have the opportunity to take on in a deeper way than we've had for thousands of years. The shpatim is a very difficult parasha, and some of the topics are very hard to understand the grasp, and applying them in different historical periods and in different environments is not easy. We have salivachik zeratatiklivracha, in a number of different ways. We iterated the notion that we are committed to the viability of a Torah way of life, of applying halakhah in all societies, in all times, in all situations and all cultures. This is, to a great degree, the challenge of our times. You have been listening to Raav Yasiblau, our guest speaker for this program for ere parashat mishpatim. Going to the other end, the other end of parashat mishpatim, at the very, very end of the parasha, we have one of the most famous Sukhim in Torah, because Moshe Rabhenu presents the brit, the covenant. You have been able to answer, call or share, everything that God has commanded, na a sabenishma. Na sabenishma has become a slogan of observant Judaism. Raav Yasiblau tend to think that this positive must be found in parashat yitra, with the 10 commandments were given to Benais. In fact, there it doesn't say that, in parashat yitra, before the Torah is given, the Jews answer Moshe Rabhenu, everything that God has commanded. Na a sabenishma, we will do. Here at the end of parashat mishpatim, it says na a sabenishma. Raashi, on a spot, says that this entire section, the end of parashat mishpatim, took place before a sabenishma, and that the Sukhim are not in order. Raashi has a general attitude towards many, many parashat, that the order, the historical order, is not preserved in the Torah. But according to many with Raashi, principally the Mambhan, we're dealing with some language took place after a sabenishma, after the great event. And then Moshe Rabhenu comes and enacts this covenant with the Jews, and at that point they say na a sabenishma. A sabenishma, why is a sabenishma such a famous expression, is it would like to review for those who know it, and enlighten those who may not, the grammar has a number of different statements, explaining that na a sabenishma was crucial, it was one of the most critical points in Jewish history, the grammar in Shabbat, the "pechhetamudad" 88a, has a following statement, darash rabbisimai, rabbisimai said, at the time, that the Jews said na a sab before they said nishma, so 60, 10,000, 600,000 angels came, to each and every one of the Jews, since there are 600,000 Jews, actually there are much, many more than that, there are 600,000 male Jews above the age of 20, but each one of them got 600,000 angels. I would assume that this might be exaggerated, but the point is quite clear, 600,000 angels came to each one of the Jews and tied on his head two crowns, one finna a saben and one finnishma. Rabbashi says that these crowns, what does it mean, crowns, niziv asrinna, I can't even translate that, from the from the aura of the holy presence of God, a little bit later, the mirror has a different statement concerning na a sabenishma, amar rabbi alazar, vish asi gdimuis al na a sabenishma, when the Jews said na a saben before nishma, a voice came out from heaven and said, who revealed this secret to my children, the secret that the angels, the ministering angels, use, daritiv bahu hashemah dachahab, giborekora, who said dbarol de schmoeba called dbarol, this is a pasoch, about the angels where it says, also that they are, they do God's commands and they listen to his commands, first do and then listen, just like the Jews who said do and listen, so a special voice, the heavenly voice came and says, how did the Jews discover this amazing secret, a secret of, a secret of the angels, where both of these statements are saying about an a sabenishma, we will do and we will listen, is that they are not human, the, the, the principle and the language used by the Gomara is, hikdimu na a sabenishma, they preceded na a sabenishma, but these, this, this statement, this idea of being a sabenishma, it doesn't belong to humans, it belongs to the second statement, it belongs to the angels, it's a secret of the ministering angels and the first statement also, as she explains, what are these crowns, it's not just telling you, you're a good person, you're a wonderful person, nizir hashrinah, it, it was the saying that sabenishma caused the heads of the Jews to glow, it's the glory of the holy presence of God in the world, I think it means it's truly not a human trait, we can admire, we do admire, na a sabenishma very much, but it definitely isn't the only option, nishma vinasa is a wonderful thing as well, and in a way it's more human, you, you should, most of the time, when someone presents something with me, I would insist on first hearing the details and only afterwards, doing what I've been told to do, but here, the Jews really transcended themselves, standing at the foot of Hasinai, they, they transcended the normal rational attitude towards accepting the oak of heaven, but as she says here in a number of other places, that the principle of na sabenishma is, as the language of the moment applies, preceding, saying first na sah and then nishma, in which case what does na sabenishma mean, it means that you accept God's will, not because it makes sense to you, not because you're impressed by this or by that or the contents, but it means subjugation to the will of God, and that apparently was this crucial point described by Ligmarah, that the Jews now have transcended being human or normal servants of God, and have become like ministering angels. There is another explanation that I know up to na sabenishma offered by the sphona on the pasha, he has a different explanation for what the words mean, he says na sabenishma doesn't mean that we'll do first and then hear afterwards, which technically is actually impossible, you just have to hear what you're going to do before you do it, so what she means, we will do and then we will understand, it does actually say nishma, we will hear, the sphona says it doesn't mean that, it means na sah, we will do, in order that we will hear, in other words it means we will do things not in order to receive this or that benefit, but the reason why we're doing things is simply because we want to hear them, we want to accept them, it's not so much an opposition to na sah, to nishma, as na sah, kaddai lishamah, we will do it because we want to hear more, because we want to be those who have received the Torah, in which case it refers not to blind acceptance so much as what she says, but it refers to pure acceptance, what we call lishma, the acceptance of the yoke of heaven, not for any perceived or possible benefit, spiritual or physical, that will derive from it, but simply that at this point in history the Jew said we accept the Torah because we want to accept the Torah, because we want to be the recipient of God's commands, we will do what God says because we want God to speak to us, we will do what God says because we want to be those who will hear what God has to say, if we won't do it God won't talk to us, we want to be he who is being commanded, among other things, although this is not definite, this might make more sense according to those who disagree with Vashi and say this took place after a sarah developed, a beauty of Vashi's shat that it's we will hear, we will do and then we will hear, make sense that they said before God told them anything, God hadn't given them any mispron, they said don't worry, we accept them all, once kaddai has given them ten minutes and they've heard them and understood them, then saying we will do and then we will listen is less marvelous, first of all at least some it's what they have listened and then they're going to do and that might affect the way they accept the others, so Vashi Deformed course says that this was said before before the giving of the Ten Commandments, but according to them I'm Bhan and and and the Roshbam and many other expert commentators that this is said after a sarah developed, it doesn't have that marvelous swing to it, we will do and we will listen, but this funnel shot makes a lot of sense, they have heard some it's about and they will say we will do those minutes about because we want to hear more, we will do them it's about because we want God to give all those minutes about to us and not to anybody else, we are the people who want to listen to what God has to say. In any event I quoted Tugamaris, there are many other major shim as well, which talk about in A7 Ishmael as being the epitome of the Jewish relationship to God, more than a sarah developed themselves, more than other things that Jews did, this was when they said they tied themselves to their destiny as God's people and it's the crucial moment in Jewish history. There's a fascinating passage in Chazal found in a Tosefta in Babakama and I'm mentioning this because I really don't understand it and I think we should think about it, it's bothered me for years on two different occasions on Shvua's night, I thought about it specifically on Shvua. I've gone to ask Rav Yutami Tao, what do you think, so this passage in Chazal, I waited enough years in between so we remember that I asked him previously, he tried to give me a different answer and frankly I don't remember what he said, it lonely clot really be, it wasn't, it didn't really enter my heart and therefore it didn't stick in my ears. What does what does what Chazal say, what does the Tosefta say, there's a Sugi in the Gamara there about a concept called Ginevat Dhat, there is a prohibition of Ginevat stealing, stealing money, there's another prohibition called Ginevat Dhat where I steal your mind, in other words I fool you, I've misled you, I've given you a wrong impression for this reason and for that reason and that's called Ginevat Dhat and it's a prohibition, just an example given in the in the in the Gamara, I said you shouldn't walk into a store and express interest in buying something if you have no intention of buying it, simply because you want to find out some information, because you are stealing the mind, you are misleading, you're giving the storekeeper false hopes and you have no intention whatsoever of fulfilling them. Halakha Lamaysa, it could be that today it's different, storekeepers encourage people to browse because they hope in the end maybe you'll become interested, so they don't mind as much, but the thing I thought it was also released in those in those circumstances, I'll mention that just as an example, what Ginevat Dhat is, it means force pretenses, giving the wrong impression, to which Tosefta adds a fatherless statement and Af Isra el Bikshul ignored the Atoshan Makam and the Jews as well sought to steal the mind, to mislead, to give a false pretense to the mind of God. When was that? When they said Na'a 7 Ishmaah. First time I read this Tosefta, I was floored, that 7 Ishmaah would be the banner of Torah observant Judaism, the greatest moment of the Jewish relationship to God is presented in Tosefta as a deception. They said Na'a 7 Ishmaah, they were trying to mislead God. They were trying to give the wrong impression, so I think what it means, first of all in terms of just the sight of the words, they weren't lying, they weren't actually deceiving God. I think what it's coming to say is Na'a 7 Ishmaah is indeed impossible. As I mentioned before, it's a trait that belongs to angels. And the Jews weren't actually angels. It could be they thought they were. In other words, at that given moment, standing at the foot of Hasinaah, hearing the voice of God, they really wanted to say and believe in the 7 Ishmaah. And therefore they said it, they weren't only stealing God's mind, misleading God, they perhaps were doing devadat asmahm, they were stealing the wrong mind. I think that's what the words mean. In other words, here's an occasion where you said something and perhaps you thought you meant it or you meant it in a literal sense, but it's not really true. It's not really what you're going to do, not because we know the future, the Jews will change their minds. It's really more than to be expected that someone should actually say a human mind, with the human attitude towards things, rational mind, could really say with a full and uncomplicated heart, an unequivocal heart, we will do and we will listen. And of course, assuming the Rashi explanation of the term, more common one. So that's what I think the Pshat in the Toseft is, but that still leaves the question as to what Hasinaah really tried to say. Are they really trying to say that this wasn't the greatest moment of Jewish history? And the 7 Ishmaah doesn't really mean what we think it means, because it wasn't really said with a full heart. That leaves a lot of questions open, this interesting Tosefta. But nonetheless, I don't think we have to take the words off our banner. It's been the banner of Judaism for Orthodox Judaism, observing Judaism for a couple of thousand years. And indeed, it is the ideal to which we aspire. Now, we switch over to today's Hasinaah unit. We've reached Shmanessee. Shmanessee is called by Hazar Tfilah. In other words, Shmaah and Bakhod of Kriyachma and Sukkayt Zimah are not actually Tfilah, they're not actually prayer. The word Tfilah in Hazar means what we call Shmanessee, the 18 Bakhod. And it has different Hasidah, then does Kriyachma. The obligation to pray is a makloket between the rambam and the balayatos thought, as to whether it's the orata or the rabbanan. The rambam says that Tfilah is midi orata. In the mabra, vatem eta shamalok echem. Eizuhi avodashuhi balayv, habe omel zotfilah. You should serve God with your hearts. The rambam, quoting the safi, asks, what does it mean to serve with one's heart? The word to serve, specifically normally refers to the service in the beta miktash, which is service of action, a vodata shamsheba miktash. But what does it mean to serve God with your heart? And Mr. Free answers, this is Tfilah. Nipul the rambam. Pascans a la chadamaysa, that Tfilah is an obligation in midi orata. Those false thoughts that Tfilah is the rabbanan. If Tfilah is the orata, then the mabam says in the beginning of a hot phila, the obligation is to pray. There is no set time and there are no set words. The words and the time, these were in fact established by Khazab, and the actual words therefore are the rabbanan. One of the differences between whether it's the orata or the rabbanan would concern whether or not it's mitzvata sesh as mangrama. If Tfilah is a media writer, then the mitzvata has no time. And if it's mitzvata sesh as mangrama, and that's why women are higher vodant phila, the Mishnah in brahats as explicitly, the women are higher vodant phila, patum ikreachma, bhaya bhit phila. Kreachma is a time-dependent mitzvata. Tfilah, tavining, s'mores, in other words, they are obligated. The rabbanan explains, because it's a mitzvata, I say, shea anas mangrama, because mitzvata media writer is generous all the time, all the way the rabbanan says once a day. According to Tossaford, that Tfilah is the rabbanan, and Tfilah, midrabbanan, sure he has different times, shahreach, midrab, midrabbanan, each one has its time. Therefore, he would appear that the mitzvata, which is the rabbanan, is a mitzvata sesh as mangrama. And in fact, the mitzvata, which says the women are obligated. So, Tossaford has the gusandigama that asks why, and the answer is, because it's rachami, because it's requests, because it's pleading. In other words, it really is a mitzvata, sesh as mangrama, but it's an exception. It's not a technical mitzvata, which it's possible to exempt somebody. What Trazada basically saying, according to the version of Tossaford of the gamaera, is that it's impossible not to pray. When Trazada established the mitzvata of prayer, they established it because it's a basic human need. It's your requests of God. It's your pleading. It's your soul. And therefore, it's just inconceivable to make a distinction between men and women, and therefore women are included. Now, for many generations, women did not, in fact, daven. And the Akhora Mask, why not? It's a Mishnah. It's an explicit Mishnah that women are obligated to daven. The Magana of Rahams made the suggestion that perhaps, and I'm being deliberately weak and vague in my formulation, he made a suggestion that perhaps it's because we hold like the rambam. The rambam says that it's a mitzvata for women to pray. However, the Magana of Raham pointed out that's only the mitzvata of the oriter. When the Babana instituted times, perhaps we should look at the mitzvata of the Babana to daven chachrit and minhra. And Ma'arev is in mitzvata of the Babana and chahazmah and grammar, which is time-dependent. And women are not obligated in it. The mitzvata of the oriter, which is not time-dependent, women are obligated, but that mitzvata has no time nor a said version. And therefore, women are fulfilled in mitzvah medi oriter to daven by saying anything at any time. So, Magana very suggested, well, modani might be sufficient, or of any other saying something to God, which will fill the mitzvata of the oriter in the mitzvata of the oriter, they are exempt. Why was the Magana of Raham somewhat hesitant to advance this theory? The theory, in fact, is extremely weak. First of all, who says that we pass connect to Rahamam? Secondly, all the Rahamam said was that medi oriter, women are obligated because it's a mitzvata, say, she ain't has Magana, because it's not a time-dependent mitzvah. Logically, when then chahazmim come and give times and form and content to the mitzvadi oriter, the obvious thing to say would be that they set this definition for the mitzvah and for those who are obligated in the mitzvadi oriter. And since there's no difference between men and women in the mitzvadi oriter, then it would seem normal to conclude that the times that chazal established was for everybody, for men and for women. It's true that now it's mitzvata, say, she has Magana, but since the inessentially, it's the oriter formulation, it's mitzvata, say, she ain't has Magana. So now it continues the same way, and chazal gave content to men and to women. They gave times to men and to women. There's surely no hint in the rambam that he thinks the women are not obligated. In the contrary, the man says men and women are shayev, or obligated in Tfilhar, and then he proceeds to define, and this is how you doven, in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening, which is said in Attic Maradas. The mission says that men and women are shayev, and shayev, and then proceeds to explain what the other hadra had. So even if you do hold like the rambam, there's no particularly convincing reason to assume that you should have a dual approach. I mitzvadi oriter, the women are obligated in, and another mitzvah, a different mitzvat of Abbanan, which women are exempt. There's no different mitzvah. The, what you call the mitzvat of Abbanan is the form that chazal gave to the mitzvah, to the mitzvadi oriter. And therefore, most postkim conclude that women are obligated to doven, and to doven, to doven like men. The mission of bull had an interesting compromise, you might say. He said, well women are shayevat in chacharit and minhra. However, they are exempt from marivh, and why is that? Because in the gmara, there's a controversy as to whether marivh is ruschut or kova. Whether marivh is obligatory, when I talk about women, I will talk about it in general. Is marivh obligatory? The schmanesser of marivh, or is it ruschut? It's a voluntary, a voluntary expression of prayer. The reason being that chacharit and minhra are parallel to kova not, to the sacrifice, the tamid of the morning, and the tamid of the afternoon. But there was no sacrifice at night. So the gmara says that marivh is parallel not to a sacrifice, but to the burning of the remnants of the sacrifices all night. Then there's a mahogit in the gmara, whether it's obligatory or merely voluntary. Paul's going to say that today it's obligatory, because amisar has accepted upon itself, even if it were voluntary in its original nature, but they've accepted upon themselves. So the michanaburh says, well, it's obvious that women have not accepted, because women don't govern. In his day, it was still true that most women didn't govern any tphila. So he says, well, they're wrong, they should damage chacharit and minhra, but it's not true that they've accepted upon themselves marivh, because they haven't. It's also isn't the most persuasive argument. The question is whether or not the abrogation, which is accepted upon oneself, is separated into the group called men and the group called women. Perhaps people who are under five feet tall have not accepted it. We don't normally check groups in that manner. Amisar, the Jews have accepted marivh, and it therefore becomes obligatory. But the saka of the michanaburh is two tphila today. I think that's what's taught in most schools today, two tphila today chacharit and minhra. In Malive, he still suggests that we have a good thing to govern, but you cannot say that it's obligatory. And the mappus came who disagree with that as well. In any event, according to the truth of thought, the reasoning that it's rachami and if they should do it, that it's petition, it's requests, and if for women should govern, it seems to indicate there should be no difference between men and women whatsoever. The idea of tphila is different than rituals, rituals sometimes men are abrogated, sometimes women are abrogated, sometimes common women are abrogated, but rachami, it's the it's the it's the autogen for one soul. The whole idea of distinguishing between different groups, I think, is what the gamara was rejecting. There has been, in the last 75 years, a real revolution in this matter. 75 years ago, I think most women were taught, and most women did, in fact, not Daven. Maybe they went to Shulan Shabbat, and I soon they said, "Malda Ani," and there was a tree note that women said, but women were not actually taught to Daven. When I was a child, in schools that we went to, taught women to Daven once a day. My children, 30 years later, were taught to Daven twice a day. And this is only in the last, really, in the last two generations. We've gone from zero to one to two. Basically, the attitude is, in fact, that one should not distinguish between men and women in Chile. Although I still think that what's been taught is that Maviv, like the Mr. Bruce said, that Maviv is an exemption. That's it for today. We'll be back next week, Monday, shear in a hot bar hot, another week of KMTT. This has been Azubic, broadcasting from Michigan to Michigan to Michigan. I wish you all a shabbat shalom. Shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom. You should all have a happy and good man to Michigan ebsarotovat. Until then, call to the shabbat shalom. You've been listening to KMTT. KMTT, shabbat shalom, shabbat shalom. [BLANK_AUDIO]