KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva #08 Mishpatim
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva, shiur #08, on Parshat Mishpatim, by Harav Tabory
This is KMTT kimitsu on tetsai torah and this is Azruvik and today is kraf dahlid shrat Today's shire will be given by Hara Benjamin Tovore, and it's the weekly shire on the weekly mitzvah This week for Pashat mishpatim After the shire I'll be back with Thalakha Yomit Our Shat mishpatim we learn That there is an evid who is sold by Bezden and We learn in Pashat's Baha'r There's an evid who sells himself Mokher Atzno and Mokhru Bezden they both work for six years and Go out Bishanin they go out after six years Whoever the Torah tells us that if they wish to stay longer Because they come and say Bim amoyo maha evid the evid comes to say a hafti ataduniyya to shtibid Benai I am happy. I love my master and my wife my children Lloyd say hapsi I do not want to go free The Torah tells us he can stay But he's called an evid nirtsa and what is the din of an evid nirtsa? You puncture his ear by the doorpost and he'll let them Keillou he re-enlists until Yovil until the end of the till the Yovil year when he goes out free rashi un kamesh quotes a famous kimara That why puncture his ear? What is the reason that we use his ear as a vehicle to create a nirtsa? And rashi says Ozan shishama al-haseenai khil even a surla vadim That ear that heard hakaduz baruchu say khil even a surla vadim you were servants to me a vadahim They're my servants for la vadim la vadim but they're not servants to other servants and therefore somehow The person who wants to be an evid who salt salt himself will talk on will talk later about a person who was sold by Beznan But right now a person who sold himself he Transgraced what the torus said khil even a surla vadim and therefore his ear is pierced The mafarsheem mizrachiyu on the spot and many other mafarsheem ask a very simple question at what point did he do the evaira? When did he sell himself when did he transgress the concept of khil even a surla vadim he did that at the time that he sold himself mohrul mohrats know personal sold himself at the moment he sold himself He transgressed whatever is to this is that will try to explain soon of khil even a surla vadim So why do you puncture his ear after six years? Why shouldn't you puncture his ear the first moment that he sold himself to be an evid? The same question can be asked about mohr. Beznan rashi says the Ozan that heard and I see nai lo tiknov Vahla kvagan that that ear that heard the prohibition of the torus not to steal and then went install anyway, so that ear should be punctured but the ear lobe is punctured but He did that evaira a long time before that he did the evaira of stealing way before six years are up and again the same question would be is why wait until six years to puncture his ear you should have done this earlier We'll go back to discuss first the case of mohr. Atzno What is actually wrong with the camp with mohr. Atzno it's true that the torus said khil even a surla vadim But what does that mean in halahic terminology the rambha manhil sahvadim Harek alif halah alif says his follows Evid every homo batara the ram says the evid every that we find in the Torah is Israel that either Beznan sold him against his will because of Gneva as well learn or a person who sold himself and the ramam says They didn't have mohr. Atzno is his follows Yisrael shehan ni bhiyossir But it's rarely became extremely indigent Nastno la tower ever schuslim khaas atzno then he has permission to sell himself She namar bechia muhra hiha imakwennim kha lah The tower is said in bahar bechia muhra hiha if your brother becomes law Yamuh is from the Hebrew namuh to become law with it argon with explains kyit ma skein it becomes a miss Cain unfortunate vinim khaalah and he sold to you Then the tower gave you permission Vangnogar shayil im khaait atzno ulats ni adamat You're not allowed to sell yourself to put away the money in a savings account Oh, like not ma'am score out okay, lean to her to buy something all the thing about hello even to repay Alone you're not allowed to sell yourself Ellen came circle a crumble bad We're talking about a person who was desperate. He has nothing to eat and therefore Nipios there he became extremely poor and he needs food Then he can sell himself Vain adam rashayim khaait that's much laishare kulok lum. I feel like super nishalo aha khaa khaa khaaitzno A person may not sell himself unless he absolutely has nothing even close He doesn't have and no that condition is allowed to sell himself What is really wrong with selling yourself? The random use the phrase Anglo rashus Nus no la tower rashus the tower gave him permission. Why do you need permission? Firstly we'd have to raise the question if an evity vry is on a different personal status than a regular chill In the Tosefta they quote a Different Pasuk then rashi does when the explanation of nirtsa Rashi said the reason you do Ritziya the reason you do the Dispunching of his ear is because he heard kil even a shalavani The Tosefta adds uparak mimenu all mal hushamayim vihim leech al-av or basavadam what the person did is he removed all mahushamayim Now according to what we learned before I understand a vada heim below a vadim la vadim You shouldn't be a servant to a servant, but why is that para kimenu al-shamayim? What does that mean that you removed from yourself al-mahushamayim? The real question is is there a situation or any reason why an evity vry does not have the same personal status as a regular chill the rambam in Hilchas is surmis bayak pergadallah yachu alah yud Says discusses the law of esna esna is a gift given to a prostitute the rambam says that if a person an owner of a slave an owner of an evity vry would give his Would an owner of a shivcha would give his shivcha to an evity vry But they'd have to pay for it. The owner would have to pay for it the rambam says that say Doubt in that case there would be a din of esna this would be considered a gift which is forbidden by the tower However, the same thing would be true by any joke Says the cast of michten. I Don't understand why you have to tell me it's the same as any joke. It's a culture king. I would learn this mukhavachammer Why? She ever had a new hire of the chala mitzvahs kamayas sur aili Because if the law is true by an evity vry then who is not high even chala mitzvahs Somehow he has a different personal status than a regular joke. He's not high even or mitzvahs Then it would be true by any other Jew The cast of misha did not explain what he meant a nochai of pochala mitzvahs the michten amelah on the spot Says la yardati kavanas maran I don't understand what what the base yells like because of michten I don't know what he was talking about the evity the chai of a pochala mitzvahs Because he really is high even or mitzvahs the he mishumed the nim karapakah kudushah so just because he was sold Does that remove any of the kudushah's Israel? The cast of michten are things that somehow he's part of a mitzvah's the michten amelah said what do you mean? He has the same kudushah's any other Jew. He's not part of a mitzvahs. We could suggest two different approaches the first approach is that he is Allowed to marry a chiffel kanas that same halocha that an evity kanani may marry a chiffel kanani show somehow That he does not have all the laws that apply to a regular Jew and therefore removing himself from the Easter of chiffel kanani itself is a hafka of at least some part of mitzvahs and Therefore if that would be true the evity would not have the same personal status as an evity as a regular Jew This of course would be contingent upon discussing what the easter of a chiffel is in general. What would be the relationship? Created by a chiffel kanas in Israel exactly what easter would they be over and that's beyond the scope of this particular shayur But that might be one approach that mafkiyats from mim mitzvah's because he's mutter of the chiffel kanas The other approach would be that somehow the evity indeed is mufka from a different concept of mitzvahs The washa me in broccals perigim Allah locha gimil says that an evity is part of my kriyashma You washa me says that an evity Does not have to say kriyashma. Why mishim shinnama shimah had because it says shmai shmai shimah shimah had Yatsa eva qiyesh lo adon acha but since you have kihilu two masters You're subjugated to your master in this world and you're mad subjugated to the master of all worlds So you can't say the words asha mahat now this you shall may be talking about an evity kanani and explains the reason that an evity kanani is part of mkriyashma in truth, however, that would be problematic because An evity has the same thing as women women are part of mkriyashma According to the mishin and broccals. They've come from a dalif and therefore an evity kanani is automatically part of mitzvahs So you won't have to tell me that evity kanani is part of from saying kriyashma Conceptually the idea of Being part of mkriyashma would apply to the evity of re as well The evity of re who has to adonim he would have a master in this world beyond the master of the evity by nishul islam that itself would be a problem, so it could be the easter of being removing yourself from certain mitzvahs is problematic and therefore the ram says nasnallahu ta'ul-tawi rishus the ta'ul-tawi gave you permission without that permission you would have not been permitted to do this the other possibility would be that the reason you need permission to sell yourself is Because I can sell my pen. I can sell my the objects that I own But I can't sell something that I don't own is the person really the owner of himself. Who do I belong to? It's very proud of all that a person belongs to the banishulala we are all servants soldiers in the army of akarishbaruh that means we really belong to akarishbaruhu I very often explain that the reason that the person is not allowed to damage himself to dukhavala to himself Is basically the same a laqah is doing damage to someone else We have a laqah for example That a person does not tear kriya if he's not wearing his own clothes The kriya of kriya applies when i'm wearing my own clothes But if i'm wearing clothes that belong to someone else and this is important in the case of soldiers in the case of doctors Who very often may be rachmanah with slant in a situation where they are a veer when someone passes away But generally they're not wearing their own clothes. They're wearing either hospital clothes army clothes So they don't tear kriya because there's somebody else's clothes. My body itself is not my body. I belong to akarishbaruhu Since I belong to akarishbaruhu How can I sell myself? Akarishbaruhu owns me. I don't not own myself So we have suggested really two reasons why a person Should not be able to sell himself. One is because he's mafkiya atsmo me mitzvos He removes himself at least from certain mitzvos And another reason is that he does not own himself. What would be the distinction between the two cases What would be the halakhic difference between these two cases the difference would be What would happen if a person did sell himself? Without permission. The ramam we learned is that a person Sold himself Because he was so indigent Nusnallottawa rachos the door game permission, but what happens if a person would do without permission? Well, we would say that if the reason would be Because he's mafkiya atsmo me mitzvos. He's removing himself from mitzvos. Then you could say That perhaps it should work It's true. It's an asir to do I'm not allowed to do such a thing I'm not allowed to remove myself from the personal status of being Involved in caduche as Israel with all the mitzvos that relate to it But if I did it anyway, perhaps the the mihiro is valid You would have to learn the sugya of milta dhamm-a-kman-a-la-tah-vidi-af-a-lamani something with the Torah for bad Ahalos that was forbidden by the Torah. What would happen if you did it anyway in general? This is a very famous makhlokas between Abaid and Ravan in the Gomara Tumura any halos any halakhic ramification that was created by doing something the Torah forbid for bad the question would be if the The thing in question actually has validity or not If the case of course in Tumura was a person the Torah told me I should not make a tumura But what happens if I did? So the Torah says in that case that what to do by and rava argue is that an exception or is that the general rule If you would learn milta dhamm-a-kman-a-la-tah-vidi-af-a-d-la-mani If you learned that something the Torah for bad the halos is not applicable then a person can sell himself at all That would be even if the Easterism of kyatsmom and amitzvos but there might be a different reason a person cannot sell himself because He just doesn't own himself and therefore even if he did sell himself It would not be valid. It would be similar to Case where I sold your pen. I took something of someone else's and I sold it. Of course the sale is not valid. I have no right to sell it. If you learn that I can't sell myself. I'm not allowed to sell myself Because I don't own myself then it's obvious that it won't work Even if I did it anyway because I just don't own the object. I can't sell it So we have learned an argument to question whether a person who did sell himself would be valid Theoretically a person could argue and say it is valid, but in order to say it's valid You would have to argue with both principles. You would have to say firstly that if a person sold himself and with math kyatsmom-a-mitzvos, Iovidmani, it did work and secondly you'd have to say that he doesn't own himself. In that case you could say that a person could sell himself Most achronim think that a person cannot sell himself. Whether it's for one reason of balut or milk of the mahma-la-la-tavid, that is questionable among achronim, but most achronim think that a person cannot sell himself If this is true, we could go back to our original question mochairat-smo Did he really transgress? Was he really over the concept of kyili banesha-la-vadim? The Torah gave him permission in such a case to sell himself Perhaps it's not really even against the ratsana Torah. The Torah in this particular case said Will give in to this present situation and we understand that under the given situation This is the best thing to do that a person can sell himself. We allow him to do it I don't know what's the best thing to do, but we'll certainly allow it and inconceivable that at this point the person should say Well, we'll punish him by giving him ratsia. We'll do this Puncturing of the ear. It just doesn't make sense now at this particular time. It's permitted to do what he's doing but six years later by now the Torah really didn't say that he can Sell himself because I understand the motives. The motives originally were Under duress. He had no other choice He was poor didn't even have any money for clothes didn't have money for food Then the Torah said okay, kyili banesha-vadim is not a problem At this particular point after working six years the assumption is that he's not in the same situation that he was originally Since this is true Why should he sell himself and the answer is given by the Torah because it's the hafti asad on the sht That's my night because he's satisfied. He's happy with what he's doing. If he's happy with what he's doing He's satisfied with what he's doing So that's not a reason to allow him to sell himself If that's true, then we wouldn't let him sell himself If he does it anyway, the Torah said you can do it. Okay First there is a concept of an idsa but at this point you up you're over an idsa of kyili banesha-vadim This point is really wrong. I allowed you to do it originally because there's no choice But now there is a choice you chose to do as follows right now you're over the easter of kyili banesha-vadim This avadis that he starts now after six years is really To be looked at as a an extension of the first avadis or somewhat as a new avadis It's not You do not have to say that he really just started six years ago and he continues until continues until he goes out or Till y'all fail if he wants to become an idsa Conceptually, it's a new concept of avadis at this time Yes, I know that if he would marry a shif raknanis and if he's allowed to marry shif raknanis And he did marry a shif raknanis. I would not say that after six years He has to divorce her and start all over again I would assume that for that respect it is a continuation of the original avadis but in terms of The idea behind it, it's really a new concept of avadis at this moment The original concept of avadis was the avadis of a destitute indigent Nebuch human being after six years It transforms itself into an avadis of a person who really wants to be an evad who likes to be an evad who enjoys a hafti is that don't eat each demons by night and therefore at this point we do ritzia In the case of mahrul best in there, it's a little more difficult because there according to the rashi You punish him after six years you give him this nirtha you do the ritzia Because originally he did the concept of lo signov therefore the question is obviously the same thing The lo signov he did me for six years and later on after six years, so he wants to be an evad I understand that you would Not like the concept of his extending his avadis But why do the ritzia because of lo signov? I would understand it if you told me you do the ritzia now because of kili venes al avadim Originally he was salt, but now he continues the mihira by himself. Okay. He was over kili venes al avadim But we learned that he's over the east of kili of lo tignov in the very beginning An interesting question comes up in general by an eva canani an eva canani sells himself I'm sorry not eva canani an evad who sold because he was he stole How does that work exactly the evad who sells himself The tower gave him permission to sell himself. Okay. We talked before that it may be difficult to say a person can sell himself but Maybe it's impossible to sell himself unless the tower gave you permission But my question is more. How does it best to sell him? It's true That he stole he owes money Bezden can enforce laws But how can bezden sell someone does this person really belong to bezden The rambam seems to say that he doesn't In parake base he'll say vadim al laha al if the rambam says eva divi Shem mahu bezden val mocharats mon nikmebakassat uber shavakassat bushtar And eva divi who sold by bezden or the mocharats know the modes of acquisition are kassat shavakassa bushtar Now in general we can ask the question which is not clear in the rambam kassat who does the money go to? The let's say someone stole something he owes. Let's say a thousand dollars He has no money to pay so bezden sells him and now he has money This money Who sells him exactly who pays the money the person who buys the eva had obviously The person who buys the eva obviously pays the money but who to him does he pay it so he radically he could pay it to the person who Deserves the money the person from whom the object was stolen It could be that you pay the money to bezden it could be that you pay the money to the to the evad who then would have a responsibility to Transfer the money to the niknav to the person from whom was stolen that is not clear in the rambam That's a discussion that we won't go into now But the case that we will go into now is the case of star the rambam says how do you write a star? Cause they've lost in the yar or a Harris hareini mochor lecha hareini konul lecha When i was in the hashtag the star is written in the first person It's as if the evad sells says i am selling myself to you i am being acquired by you and You give him the star so it seems that mochor bezden doesn't mean that bezden sells him It means that he sells himself just bezden requires him to sell himself and again the tower gave him permission to sell himself in particular case The tower required him to sell himself as bezden coerces him to sell himself in such a case So i also understand that he's not over keleba nayshil havadim at the first day Even though he sold himself according to the rambam By the way the miyiri apparently disagrees he thinks by a star of an eva mochor a mochor mochul bezden So bezden writes the star but according to the rambam It's clear that the person himself writes the star So He is allowed to sell himself. He's coerced to sell himself at the very Time that he steals Later on six years later, he decides to Re-up as it were to re-enlist So he continues and he's over keleba nayshil havadim but the mashi said he's over La signov at this moment La signov The answer that I could suggest i'll be drush would be that we look somehow at avedus As a punishment. It's not just That it's a part of it's a fact of life a person sells himself a person A person was sold by bezden and now you have money to do whatever it needs you have Apparently you look at it As servitude as a situation in which a punish a person is going in to be an eva That is the punishment for la tignov. It's not just that he has to pay and pay k-fell But in this particular case we punish him by putting him to avedus Is it a punishment for most people? It certainly is it's Psychologically debilitating to be an eva for many reasons And therefore the punishment of being an eva is sufficient for the eva era of La tignov However in this particular case the person at the end said a hafti is a dondi asi shi besbana is gefelthmir I like it here. It's good for him to be a servant. He enjoys it So therefore we see that what we thought originally was a punishment wasn't really a punishment So at this point we do the nirza We do the ritzia in order to punish him, but now with the punishment is really for the original eva era of la signov That's how I'd explain it a der ahedrush This topic whether a person's allowed to sell himself at all to be an evaed If it's right to sell it yourself as an evaed Are really two separate questions. One is there a halakhic at it to sell yourself? And secondly does the Torah look at it a scans or the Torah Neutral about it keep is it right to sell yourself to be a slave so we talked about the halakhic Heather it doesn't really work. It's such a sale of valid sale but besides that the Torah definitely Thought that somehow something was wrong Kili Vanessa la vani this would raise raise the issue Would a person allowed be allowed to sign a contract of work for another person? Is a person really allowed to be a poel for another person? If you get paid by time A person works for an hour. So I don't know even know exactly if that's a question I'm talking about a person who signs a contract for a long amount of time that he'll work for somebody else Is that permitted according to jewish law? for those people that remember Once upon a time the laws of baseball in the united states the before the curt flood started the whole revolution the concept of a contract was that the team owned you The team actually bought all rights to you and you could not go to sign up for a different team If they you if your negotiations for salary did not meet your Approval so you had no choice either you worked for your team or you did not play at all That is very similar to the concept of being an avid you're actually totally indebted to them the gimaira in bhavmat sia dafiram et alif says that A person who signs himself up for a contract can always Have Haratha he can always change his mind even if he began his work he can stop working And just say I don't want to work anymore and the gimaira says why? Because ke li vinaest a la vadim a bada yaym vu la vadim la vadim because they're servants so tousa says Therefore mikam kam Muthar la adam lahaskir atsma a person is allowed to hire himself out to other people dafka evadevery Sheinu yah kul aksa bro the inu yahte kadam is mandal abhishta shikwevam shumabada yaym tousa says that only in evadevery Who signed up and cannot renege cannot ducharata And he cannot go up before his time he needs a shtah shikwev so only he Is over ke li vinaest a la vadim? The groa on the spot quotes That it could be that signing a three-year contract Is already considered an instead of ke li vinaest a la vadim Because the Torah and sephat the variam says that a person works mishnas rasakhir Mishnas rasakhir is six years and evade works twice what a sakhir works Apparently a sakhir can be considered a sakhir until three years but once you're Involved in a contract more than a three-year contract so The groa quotes that this might be included In the isra of kri vinaest a la vadim we would have to study two questions to Really decide this issue of sahir. One is their kinyan aguif. In an evad, I have some sort of a kinyan. Exactly what type of a kinyan is a little complicated. If there is a kinyan, kinyan maman or kinyinisor in an evad. In a regular poel, is there a kinyan at all. The ramam seems to think there is. In hilhas mahiwa parak jid-gim-wah-lakat-as-laf, the ramam says that if a person by hires a poel, but he does not pay the proper amount, he deals in ona concept of fraud, and the ramam says, he uses the phrase in dealing with a person that you hire as a poel, who kon-neh-os-laf man. It is a makhirah, verhitim-kurum-im-kalam-i-sekhah. The Torah says, "There is a din of fraud when you buy things." And here I hired a person. Is that considered buying him? The ramam says, mipneh-kon-os-laf man. I do buy him for time. If that would be true, there might be some sort of a kinyan in a poel as well, in which case we really could raise the issue if a person could hire himself out for it to be a poel, because at least for three years, according to the way the groi explained, up to three years, after three years, according to the groi. Tulsa says, it's mutter. The question would be exactly, is there a kinyan? And the fact that he can have prarata, is that sufficient to say that he's not considered an evidence-free? I'd like to conclude with a piece of drush that my father used to say. The Torah says, "A hapti is hadoni a sishti besbandai." The person says, "I love my wife, my master, my master, and my wife, and my children. Loitzi hapti." My father used to say, "It's really a question of mentality." A person gives three excuses. A hapti is hadoni a sishti besbandai. A person says, "I'm happy with my master. I like him. I have my wife and I'm happy with her and I have my children. I want them." But the Torah says, loitzi hapti, that's the bottom line. The person is not interested in being free. He's not willing now to accept the responsibility of being independent. He entered a mentality of slavery. That itself is the major problem. Very often we look for things that excuses to try to rationalize why we want to do it. But sometimes the bottom line is, in this particular case, I don't understand the concept of apsma ut. I don't understand the concept of independence. I'd rather be subjugated to other people. This, the Torah tells us, is a negative trait. A person should be sho'af. A person should want to achieve independence in all areas. You have been listening to "Arabina mintivori," the weekly share and the weekly mitzvah. Today's had a high omit. We finished kriachma. We finished bakata gula. One stands for schmonesser. Before schmonesser begins, one says, this is a requirement mentioned in the gmara. And the gmara asks why it isn't a have-sake between gula and fida. We mentioned in a previous hada hai omit that there is a requirement to connect gula, the bakab gal yisrael, and fida. On that statement in the gmara, the gmara asks what about a schmonesser. Because we have another statement saying that one must say a schmonesser. fida hai omitivori. The gmara's answer is that a schmonesser. fida hai omitivori. Since razar said you have to say hai semsvatay tifthak before you begin davening, it's not before davening, it becomes part of davening. It's part of the schmonesser. And therefore, you are somerge gula to fida by being somerge gula to ashemsvatay tifthak. For that reason, the postkim say that although there is a minag, not mentioned in the gmara, it's a later minag, to say other psukim before schmonesser. These psukim should not be said in shahchareit or in arvet when you're being somerge gula to fida, but only in mincha vimusaf. So, for instance, today the kamin minag ashkah is to say kishem aishem ekra habugodalaylokainu, but only in musafa mincha not in shahchareit because in shahchareit, it will be a half-sake. It will be an interruption between gula and fida. Based on that argument, the question arises, What about when a kazan repeats moresser? Should he also repeat ashemsvatay tifthak? The kamin minag is not to, and the magena verham suggests that perhaps having said it before the first monesser when he daven for himself, when he repeats moresser again, it's immediate, and therefore, the reason why she hashemsvatay tifthak is in order to introduce davening, before one prays one has to ask for help and prayer, God helps us, we pray that God will help us pray. But you've already done that once and both Tfilot are included. However, the magena verham self seems to realize that it's a weak argument. The verb vassal vechik was rather insistent that one yes, repeat, hashemsvatay tifthak, based on the argument which we previously said. It's not an introduction to tfilah, it's part of tfilah. While it's an introduction to tfilah, it will be a half-sake. The reason why it's not a half-sake is because it's tfilah aritha, a long tfilah, part of schmonesser. If it's part of schmonesser, then you can't say one for both schmonessers. Each schmonesser, it's part of the structure of schmonesser, and therefore, one should repeat, the chassen should repeat, the shhemsvatay tifthak, before he begins. On the other hand, let's say, in mincha. So, when he said, when the chassen daven the first time, he also said, "ki schmonesshem echre habogodud echre," he knew that, he doesn't have to repeat, because that really is an introduction to tfilah, and perhaps even he shouldn't repeat it, because the tushmonesser should be contiguous without an interruption between them, at least, la chatrila. So, therefore, the proper way, if possible, is for the chassen to repeat, the shhemsvatay tifthak, but not any other person. The many most people do not do that, and the maganavan defends the minag somewhat reluctantly, but nonetheless, as apparently, one can rely on one ashemsvatay, for both of them. But if possible, it would appear that it's preferable to indeed repeat a shhemsvatay tifthak. A similar consideration takes place if we may skip forward somewhat at the end of schmonesser. The same statement in the grammar, which says the one should say, the shhemsvatay tifthak, before davening, says that one should say, "Yudarazan, imreifi, vergion, libi, the fanecha," at the end of davening. The same argument, the verb claimed, that he applied to a shhemsvatay, applies here as well. The chassen, when he finishes schmonesseray, should say, "Yudarazan, imreifi," although there is no explicit statement in the grammar that "Yudarazan, imreifi," it end of davening, is tifthak, but the two of them, ashemsvatay, before, and Yudarazan, after appear in the same statement of the gammarah. The gammarah asked about hefsek, before, and answered that, ashemsvatay tifthak, is not hefsek, because it's part of schmonesseray, why? Because Khazar required it, the same requirement of a shhemsvatay, before also requires Yudarazan, after. So therefore, it would seem to father that it also is tifthak, there is no nafkameen, there is no difference in terms of hefsek, because there's no hefsek at schmonesseray, but this more obvious requirement, that if it's part of schmonesseray, then you have to say it, would therefore apply, therefore the website, one should say Yudarazanamrefi, not only when one finishes one's private schmonesseray, but when one finishes the public repetition of schmonesseray as well. Again, the gammarah is not to do so, but the logic that all the posts can apply to the distinction between Hashemsvatay and Khazhem Hashem Akra would seem to imply that Yudarazan, after schmonesseray, is also an integral part of schmonesseray, it's appended, but it becomes integral, and therefore, it's no reason why one shouldn't say it, it does appear to be the correct thing to do, and it's that for highly recommended that Khazanam should say both Hashemsvatay before schmonesseray and Yudarazanamrefi after schmonesseray. That's it for today, tomorrow's share will be in poshata shavua, until then, wishing you a yom tovakol tov, this has been KMT and this has been Hasvabek, kimitzian tezei torah udvar hashemirushalaym.