KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Gemara Berachot Shiur 08
KMTT - Shiur in Gemara Berachot, Shiur #08, by Rav Yair Kahn
"This is KMTT, and this is Azubic. Today is Monday, Yom Shinny, the 22nd day of Shvat. And I'm hoping that you had a very pleasant, very peaceful, and a very enjoyable Shvat. This Shvat when we were leaving Shwai Damal in the Shiva, in Shvat Haratsyan, so my son who just finished Sefa Millahim, asked me, it's been bothering him for a while, he asked me for the third time in the last two weeks, how I understood the fact that in Sefa Millahim you have basically a mark, you have a summation given to every single king. And in the middle period, not the children of Yoshiyahu, but the kings before that, most of them actually are good kings with the exception of Minasheh. Nonetheless, you find parallel to that that the prophecies that have been given to the prophets at that time are very prophecies of destruction. It bothers him very much, even when the king is good. The Prophet comes and says, "Yushalayim will be destroyed, and nothing will help." And we're heading just a downward path, there seems to be no correlation between the state of the Jews, of the Jewish kingdom, as defined in Sefa Millahim. And the prophecies that have been given at the same time, it disturbs him very much. So as we were talking, we were talking about this, looking at different possibilities, so we met Haravyak of Medan, the Rashi-Shiba, the new Rashi-Shiba Abi-Shiba, Tyration, and my son asked him this question, and Medan pointed out a very interesting fact, which he proposed as part of the solution. It is a solution, but I think it raises another question. He pointed out that Sefa Millahim has only one criteria for the mark, for the final mark given to a reign of a king. And that is Abodazada idolatry. It's slightly more complicated, there are three kinds of kings, those who are idolaters, those who worship God. In between, there is a reflection on the bumot, even when they are worshiping God, but the Jews practice to worship God, to bring sacrifices outside of Yushalayim on private altars, which is forbidden. And that's sort of a gray area, it's your worshiping God in your head, but you're not worshiping God the way he wants to be worshiped, which is basically also not worship of God. But that's the only criteria that Sefa Millahim is interested in. If we look at the VM, Nisha Yau and Yumi Yau, we find a great emphasis, in fact even an obsession with the social conditions in Israel, with murder and stealing and oppression and the widows and the orphans and mutual responsibility to the Jews to each other. And that's presented in many, many prokim as being the reason why God is upset and ultimately going to destroy the Jewish kingdom. So therefore, when we're done pointed out that your picture is warped, if you're only judging by Sefa Millahim, it appears to be out of whack, but if you see it in a larger context, perhaps the picture is clear. Of course this only raises a different question, why is in fact Sefa Millahim only interested in idolatry? And that's not the true picture, it's not even the most critical picture, because the most important thing that's going to take place will be in fact the destruction of Beit Ishan, of the First Temple and the First Kingdom. That's what Jewish history is about, and that's basically not reflected in the primary historical book of the Tanakh about this. So I'm leaving this question with you, I sent them to reflect on it, so then let's in my minor, because we spent Shabbat talking about this, and we will proceed to our regular share, which today, Monday, is the share of Raviye Akan, the next instalment in Ilhod Brahat. After the share, I will, as usual, will be back with the Al-Aqai Yomit. In last week's share, we discussed the Braqah that one makes on Perotah Eights, on Perotah Adamah, Boi Pray Eights, and Boi Pray Adamah, we discussed what happens if one takes those fruit or vegetables, and one destroys their form, if one takes an apple and makes apple sauce out of it, if one takes an apple and cooks it, does it retain it perotah sapri, or does one make the Braqah of Sha'conia bidvaro. In today's share, we're going to discuss the case of fruit juices. If one takes a fruit or vegetable and squeezes or cooks it and its juices, leaves the vegetable, what Braqah does one make on those juices. Regarding this issue, there's Vamara on 38A on Daflamir kesamiralif, which says it follows, "The ama amabra vashi, hai dupshe de tamain revakhin iluya Sha'conia bidvaro, maitaima zayaba amahu." If one takes the juice or dvash, more of a honey-like substance, from tkwarim, from dates, the Braqah that one makes is not the bikosapri, Boi Pray Eights, but rather one makes the Braqah Sha'conia bidvaro. My time or what is the reason, zayaba amahu, the juice or the dvash, is merely considered like sweat of the food it's at, an integral part of the food itself. The gabara continues, "Kimand," who does this sak go like, "ki hai tana de tsman, dvash tvarim, yain tapukim, komit, saunyot, ushare me perot, shotumma, rabi al zamkhayim ken makhomesh, rabi al shua potem, regarding all kinds of juices from fruit, according to Abil Lezzar, if one took fruit, which had a den of trumma, which has kdushas trumma. And somebody who is not a coin, a zar, drank the juices of these fruit, there's a makhokas among the tanaim, the tanaim disagreed, according to Abil Lezzar, it's considered as if he ate trumma, and therefore the punishment for somebody who eats trumma, somebody who's not a koi, who eats trumma, is to pay not only the worth of the trumma itself, but to add a komish, to add a fifth on top of what he ate. That's a contribal lezzar, in other words, according to Rabbi Lezzar, fruit juices are considered the food itself, and just like the fruit is considered trumma, so too the juices have a den of trumma as well. Rabbi Yeshua Pote, however, Rabbi Yeshua says, he does not have to pay ken makhomish, he does not have to pay anything, because the juices of the fruit are not considered to be trumma. And I quote Rashi, Rabbi Yeshua Pote, the zayaba almohu, it's merely sweat, the aim shame trumma kal alal, it's not defined as trumma whatsoever. However, this den has to be analyzed in the context of the mission at the beginning of the parak 35a, the mission over there says his follows. Kait-san revajima la pirot, how does one make a bracha over pirot over fruit? A pirotai-lan homer bhori prayer eights, on fruit of the tree he says bhori prayer eights. Hutzmen ayayin, she'll ayayin, homer bhori piyang ghatan, with the exception of wine for on wine he makes the bracha of a bhori piyang ghatan. Now, it's interesting that the Gomara looked at wine as an exception to the general rule of the bracha that one makes on pirotai eights, an exception to the rule of bhori prayer eights. However, wine, as we know, is the juice that comes out of the grape, and therefore wine had it not had its special bracha, should have been a charco near the bracha. The mission should have said that on things which normally get a charco near the bracha is charco, except with the exception of wine which gets a bhori piyang ghatan, but that's not what the mission says. The mission looks at wine as an exception to the general rule of a bhori prayer eights, the assumption or the conclusion that we come to from this formulation of the mission is that had wine not gotten a special bracha of bhori piyang ghatan, the bracha would have been bhori piyang ghatan. And in fact, the halacha is that if one made the bracha of bhori piyang ghatan on wine, one fulfills his obligation. One is yolte, and one does not have to repeat the bracha of bhori piyang ghatan. Now it's clear that if one made the bracha of bhori piyang eights on other fruit juices which are considered zaya bhamma which are only considering a sweat, then one wasn't yolte. If one took a piece of meat and made a bracha of bhori piyang eights, he is not yolte. Similarly, if one took the juices that came out of an apple, apple juice, and one made a bracha eights, he would not fulfill his requirement and would have to repeat the bracha of bhori piyang eights. If one made a lesser bracha, one would have to do a better bracha than one fulfills his requirement. If one made a bracha eights and one had to make a better bracha of bhori piyang ghatan, one fulfills the requirement. So you see that the basic bracha that one should have made on wine is a bracha eights. Even though wine is simply the juices that come out of the grape. Similarly, the gomara on 35D, Lamen Heyman Bay, says clearly that the bracha that one makes on olive oil, on chemin's diet, is bhori piyang, even though chemin's diet, olive oil, is the juice that squeeze out of the olive. The gomara has a whole discussion under what condition would want to drink olive oil plain. Such that the bracha would be a bhori piyang eights. Nevertheless, the gomara is explicit that when one drinks olive oil in the proper manner that would demand a bracha, the bracha should be a bhori piyang eights and therefore we find that both of the Michelin daflamen Heyman allen. As well as the gomara and daflamen Heyman bet, seem to suggest that the bracha that one makes on fruit juices is the bhori piyang eights and this, at first glance, seems to contradict the gomara and daflamen kestima dala, which says clearly that juices of fruit is considered zaya ba'alma is merely considered some kind of a sweat, it's not an integral part of the pre itself. There are two possible ways that we can resolve this contradiction. One possibility is that everything is a function of the norm. If one grows grapes and alums, mainly for their juices, therefore the juice of the olive or the juice of the grape, i.e. wine or olive oil, is considered the fruit of the olive tree, is considered the fruit of the vine, bhori piyang eights and this is the pre of the gomara and the gomara is the vine because the reason that people grow a vineyard is in order to produce wine, therefore specifically in cases of an olive tree, or in the specific case of a vineyard where the main purpose for growing the grapes and growing the alums is for the juices, in that situation the juice itself is considered the pre. However, when one grows apples, the main reason that one grows apple is not for apple juice, but to eat apples, so if one takes those apples and makes juice out of it, the bracha will nevertheless remain the bracha would be shakon yabikbaro. If this were true, then it would be possible that there may be other examples also where the juice would nevertheless be considered a pre. For instance, what about oranges? If nowadays most people grow oranges in order to make juice, would then the bracha, the orange juice be, bracha, or if there are specific oranges that are grown specifically and known as juice oranges, and they're grown specifically for making juice, in that situation with the bracha be, bracha, or to be shakon yabikbaro. If the only difference between olive oil, wine on the one hand, and other fruit juices on the other hand, is the question of norm, what it's normally grown for, then is it possible that as situation changes, as the norm is, regarding other fruit, that they're being grown for their juices, rather than for the fruit itself, the bracha may change as well. This basically is the opinion of the bracha, the bracha seems to suggest that the only reason that juices do not get the bracha of a beer chosapri is because they're not grown for the purpose of the juice, and therefore the juices can serve their bhaoma. The implication being that if one would grow it for the purpose of the juice itself, then the juice would be an integral part of the free, or maybe the main part of the free, and therefore the bracha and the juice would be a beer chosapri. The chazanish, following the leader bracha, questions whether or not the situation that existed at the time the Gomara can change, and therefore even though the time of the Gomara, oranges may not have been grown for their juices, nowadays that oranges are grown for their juices, the bracha may very well be bhoorai pre-hai. That's one possible way of resolving the contradiction between the Mishnah and Daflam and Hamid Allah, and the Gomara and Daflam and Kastaman Allah. The second possibility is to suggest that there's an objective difference between wine and olive oil on the one hand, and other fruit juices on the other. There's a Mishnah in Trumos, in the 11th parak, the third Mishnah of the Cenzas follows. Ein, ustim, tmaarum, devas, the lo tapu, kinyayim, lo sittonio, sremet, ushal, kopiros, ein, mishal, mottame, bhiyatang, the trumma of master sheini, ela zaitim, vaylavim, elvad. One is not allowed to take fruit of trumma or of master sheini, and squeeze them for their juices, and then prepare juices. One must eat them as a fruit. With one exception, that exception is zaitim vaylavim, when it's allowed to take olives and squeeze it for its oil, when it's allowed to take grapes and squeeze it for its first juices. The Mishnah continues, ein sokim abai mishim, ala, ela, ala yotse, mina, zaitim, umanah nabi. If one takes fruit which is ala, and squeezes them, and then drinks their fruit, one is not over on the isir of arla, with one exception, zaitim vaylavim, again, alavoyl and anadim are considered arla, all other fruit juices are not considered arla. Ein naveen bikurim mashkin, ela, hayotse, mina, zaitim vaylavim, if one has fruit which are bikurim, and one takes its fruit up to the miktash, one must take the fruit itself up to the miktash, with again an exception of zaitim vaylavim, one is allowed to take wine and alavoyl to the miktash, as bikurim, while all other fruit must be taken in its fruit form. Ein matami mishim, mashkin, ela, ala, ala yotse, mina, zaitim vaylavim. The only fruit juice which has been of tuma's mashkin is only zaitim vaylavim, ein makigim, al agarim, ein mishbeach, ela, hayotse, mina, zaitim vaylavim. The only fruit juice that one brings on to the mishbeach is only the yotse mina, zaitim vaylavim, i.e. alavoyl, which one takes on the bikt in the form of minaka, and yotim vaylavim, which one pours as nissur, alhammishbeach. From this mishna, one can reach the conclusion that it is a special halacha, a special exeres akasul, that zaitim and anavim have a din of a pre. All other fruit juices, as we said, are zaita ba'ama, simply, it's not the pre itself, but rather, it's some byproduct of a pre, it's simply zaita ba'ama, it's not the pre itself. However, when it comes to zaitim vaylavim, there's exeres akasul, that hayotse, mina, zaitim vaylavim have a special din of a pre. And therefore, yotse mina, zaitim vaylavim, one is makri vaylamishbeach. If one has arla, arla is an isso, which is hail on the pre. If one has a pre, which is arla, the juice of the zaitim vaylavim is considered arla, because it's considered the pre. However, any other fruit juice no longer has a din of a pre. When one takes truma and squeezes the fruit of truma, for it's juices, if it's any other pre, it's no longer considered truma, however, if it's yotse mina, zaitim vaylavim, it's considered truma, because the yotse mina, zaitim vaylavim have a din of a pre. According to this approach, there's a special jares akasul, a special alaka that wine and olive oil, hai yotse mina, zaitim vaylavim, is considered as defined as the pre. This halacha might not exist by any other pre, but regarding every other pre, the juices of the pre are considered zaita vaylavim. There's an interesting maklokas among the we've shown him, regarding the brakha that one makes on sugar. And right now, I'm talking about sugar that's made out of sugar cane that grows from year to year, and therefore, basically, sugar cane is considered, halachically, as an elan, as an eight. According to some gheronim, the brakha that one makes on sugar cane is a bhari prayait, under gheronim, quoted by the rambam, say the brakha should be bhari prayadamma. The rambam argues on both these opinions of the gheronim, and says the brakha should be shakon yabid varo, and his argument is very, very simple. The sugar is made out of the juice that comes out of the sugar cane, then one takes that juice and processes it and makes it into granulated sugar. The rambam says, how could the brakha that one makes on granulated sugar be better than the brakha that one makes on the juice itself? The juice itself would get a brakha of a shakon yabid varo. That's explicit in the gheronimara, on daphlamid kesimarala, that the juice that comes out of fruit is like a zayaba alma, and therefore shakon yabid varo. If we take this juice, and then we go ahead and cook it so that we end up with the crystals, the brakha should be no better than the brakha that makes, that one makes on the juice itself. That's the argument of the rambam. What did the gheronim think? What could the gheronim argue on the rambam? Such a simple argument. Obviously, the gheronim thought that since one grows the kingdom of sugar, the sugar cane, for the purpose of the sugar, therefore it's darkobakha, that's the reason that one goes the cane in order to make sugar, and therefore the brakha on the juice of the sugar cane should be like the brakha that one makes on wine, and the brakha that one makes on olive oil, had an afternoon for the special brakha that one makes on wine, it would have been a biakhasa pre, basically just like wine and olive oil have a dinner of a pre, so too, the juice that comes out of sugar cane has the din of a pre, and therefore the brakha should be a biakhasa pre, the only argument is should it be a berry pre, or is it a berry pre-autama? And this argument is regarding, look, on a different issue, since the sugar cane is not a pre-height, it's not a pre which goes on the eights, but rather it's the eights itself, is the brakha berry pre-high eights, or is the brakha berry pre-high a dama? On the one hand, one grows the sugar cane for the sugar, and therefore one might consider it pre-high eights, on the other hand, since it's the cane itself, it's not a botanical pre that forms on the cane, but rather it's the juice of the cane itself, therefore it might be a berry pre-high dama, but that's a different issue which I don't want to discuss, in this sheer, perhaps we'll discuss it in one of the coming shurin, but that both positions agree that the sugar cane should get a berry pre, when a pre-high eights or pre-high dama is a different issue, but it should get a berry pre, however the ramam argues on both, and says that the brakha should be a shakon berry because it's the extraction or the juices that come out of the sugar cane, and therefore it's like the vashtvarim, which is there by dama, and therefore the brakha should be a shakon berry pre-high eights, obviously the God only thought that it's not like the vashtvarim, it's not shakon berry because the cane is grown for the sugar, and therefore this is the perils of the sugar cane, the ramam on the other hand, perhaps thought that the reason that one makes a special brakha on daisin vahana vin, ajai yotimana dasivahana vin, is that there's a kasu, tirosh vietar, the Torah said, tirosh vietar, which is yotimana dasivahana vin, and since the Torah said explicitly, tirosh vietar, tirosh vietar have a den of a perils, however, are there any other juices that come out of any other fruit, will be a shakon berry pre-high eights, berry pre-high eights, and will be a shakon berry pre-high eights, now let's take a look at another sugar, the gamara brakha's, lama tesimara out 39a, says this follows, amra papa, shikali, it's simple to me, maya desuoka kesulka, maya desuoka kalifta, umaya de kulishanki, ekulishanki, the juice that comes out when cooking beets gets the brakha of the beets, the juice that comes from cooking vegetables, get the brakha of the vegetables, in other words, the brakha should be, when you take a vegetable and you cook it and you get juices from cooking the vegetable, the brakha is bore pre-high eights. This seems to contradict the sogya of may perils, if you take a fruit and you squeeze out the juice, the brakha is shakon berry, it's zayaba ulna, on the other hand, if you take a vegetable and you cook it, and therefore you get the juice of that vegetable, the brakha is biryosapri, bore preadama, this seems to be a contradiction between the two sogya. So first of all, there are opinions which understand the sogya and taflama taflama taflama taflama, it's different. For instance, the rahab, understands the sogya of maya desuoka, kesulka, in a different way. According to him, if you make the brakha on the vegetable, that potter, that covers the brakha that one has to make on the juice that comes out of the vegetable. In other words, if you would drink the juice that came out of the vegetable independently, you would make a shakon berry because it's zayaba ulna just like the gmara and taflama the customer hours. However, if you eat the fruit, then you don't have to make an independent brakha on the juice that came out of the fruit. For instance, if you made a brakha on the beets, you would not have to make an independent brakha on the juice that came out of the beets. If you made a brakha, if you cooked, for instance, potato and made potato soup, and you had whole potatoes as well and you made a biry preadama on the whole potatoes, you would not have to make an independent brakha on the potato soup. According to the rahha, of course, there's no contradiction between the two different sugars whatsoever. Toastless, however, did not accept the answer of the rahha, the explanation of the rahha, and he says as follows, mayi desuilke kisilke, the brakha in alaya bori preadama. You make a brakha preadama on the juices that come out of the beets itself. Af apishe aimba ela mayi, even though what you have in the juice that comes out of the beets is only the water, you cooked it in the water, the tama irakos, and the tama, the taste of the eric. Nevertheless, mibbariq alayim, kashe yibbariq alayirakos, the brakha that you make on the juice that came out and went into the water that you cooked the vegetables in, is the brakha that you make on the ericos, bori preadama. And then he says, alpha-garb-dah-mina-ma-el, even though we've said in the previous sogyo, on 38A, the may pails zayaba alma who, that juices that come out of fruit, is merely zayaba alma. It's only like sweat in the brakha in sha'aqo, yay shlakhalayq. One can distinguish between these two different sugyo. One can make a decision. However, tosses does not clarify what distinction one can possibly make. Of course, based on the rasheba, one can make a very, very simple suggestion. If we're talking about vegetables that are normally cooked, and maybe one normally makes soup out of them, then it's dar kobakakh, that's the norm, that's how one eats these vegetables. One takes potatoes and makes potatoes soup. And therefore, it's normal way of eating the vegetable, and it would be, it would retain, it's bechosapri. The only time that we say zayaba alma is regarding fruit that one normally eats whole as fruit. If one took them and squeezed them and made juice out of them, then it loses, it's bechosapri. However, it's something which is dar kobakakh. It's normally vegetables which are normally taken and cooked and made soup out of them. Then it will retain its bechosapri. That would be a very, very simple way of solving our problem based on the shita of the rasheba. The rashe, in a chuva, in one of his response, raises a different distinction between two different sugyo. According to the rashe, the difference is between a case where we cook the vegetable as opposed to simply squeezing the fruit. In a case where one cooks the vegetable, then the tom that goes into the water is the tom of the fruit itself. On the other hand, when we take a fruit and we squeeze it, what you have is the fruit, the juice of the fruit, but not the fruit itself. In other words, the juice that one has in the fruit is not an integral part of the fruit. It's not the body of the fruit, it's not the pre. It's rather the juices, it's rather the water, but it's not the fruit itself. Therefore, as zayaba alma, it's not the fruit, it doesn't get a bechosapri. If one would simply take a vegetable and one would squeeze it and take the juices that one has in the vegetable, that would also be zayaba alma and the brachorbi sha konyabigbaro. But what happens if we take either a fruit such as an apple or a vegetable and we cook it and then we cook it in water, then the tom, the taste that we have in the water is not the taste of the juices of the apple, but rather the taste of the apple itself has become liquefied and got into the water. Then using a principle called tom keikar that the taste, if the taste influences a certain certain food, that taste has a major impact and may actually define the food itself, that idea of tom keikar may have ramifications regarding the bracha as well. In other words, if one has the taste of the food itself, which does get a bechosapri, in the water, then that water itself would also get a bechosapri, or bei the pia8, if we're done with brachades, or pia dama, if the vegetable, it was the taste of the vegetable that went into the water. This concept of tom keikar we normally find regarding dimming of isse rehector. For instance, if one had a pot of meat soup and one dropped a little bit of milk in this pot, if the basic halakha is that if one notices the taste, if one can notice the taste of the milk in the meat soup, then it had a dimabhasa bakhala, but if there's so little milk in the soup that one cannot notice the taste, then basically it's motor. Normally we use the shear of shishim to know whether it can have the taste or can't have the taste, but the basic halakha is one of tom, one of taste. If one can notice the taste, it's also if one cannot notice the taste, then it's motor. The same is true regarding mahal sasuros. If one takes something which is asir, if one has some mahals which are asir, which are not kosher, and one puts it in a pot of something which is kosher, the criterion, the basic criterion, if we're talking about something which is a min bishayno mino, there are two different types of food, then the criterion is based on whether one notices the palm of the mahal sasuros, and one does not notice the palm. Of course, this cannot be applied to what's known as the taroas of min bimmino. For instance, if one has kosher wine and one drops in a non-coasture wine, then the question of taste is a significant question because min bimmino, one does not notice the taste of the wine anyway, and therefore one has to use a different criterion. But if one is dealing with min bishayno mino, for instance, one has one has a fruit juice, and one drops in that fruit juice, some non-coasture wine, that's min bishayno mino, if one can detect the taste of the wine, then we say tama keikar, we notice the taste, and since the mahals sasuros have influenced the fruit juice, therefore the fruit juice itself becomes user, and one is not allowed to drink the fruit juice. That's the idea of tama keikar. This is a mahal case in Ireland when the dinner of tama keikar is daraysa or not daraysa, but nevertheless, we have this concept of tama keikar. According to the rush, we take the concept of tama keikar, and we apply it not only to mahals sasuros, but we apply to brachos as well. We have water, but this water has to take not of the juice of the pre, but of the pre itself, because the way that the tama pre went into the water is nothing squeezing the fruit, but rather through cooking. Cooking is the way that tama is transferred, and since the fruit was cooked, therefore we have tama keikar, we have tama of the fruit or of the vegetable in the water, and therefore a bear kosapri is warranted. The shokan arach haskings vahalaka sfaros. It's even raised space, sif he, or sif kes, he says his faros. The vash has zavmet marin. The vahraka love shakom. The vash that comes from dates. The brach is shakom. What's the word of that form of kes? The kain al-mashkim hai yotsumi komide peros ktsvi zaitim hai naveem vivarik shakom, and the same is true regarding any juices that once squeezes out of fruit. The brach is shabish hai kom. The only exception, as we've mentioned before, has hai yotsim hai zaitim hai naveem. And then it continues. In hai lach yut, peros sha sharon obishlan bamayim. If the fruit was either soaked or cooked in water, aif al-pisha nikna's tam hapri bamayim, even though over here we could perhaps suggest tamki ikar, that the tam of the pre itself not simply the juice, which is eba alma, but the tam of the pre itself has gone into the water. Nevertheless, ai naveem vahrik al-osama mayim el-ashakol. Nevertheless, he rejects the the rush, and he says the brach is shakom. The harash kasab, however, the rush suggested the epsi sham nikna's tam hapri bamayim, vivarik brach is shakom. According to the rush, since the tam of the pre itself went into the water, the brach is sha dibaripades. So the shakorach brings the shita of the rush, but seems to pass again against the rush that if one either squeezes fruit or cooks the fruit, the brach is shakom yabidbaro. The brach amay shakos is brought down by the makhabeim in simim raishhei. Over there simim raishhei, sifbeis, aramayim sha dish lubhan yurakos, vivarikha brachha aksma sha dvarikha a la yurakos. Af al-pisha aimbham el-atama yarit. The habri mihib sha dib. If one takes the juices or the water that one cooks vegetables in, then the brach ha is bhore priha adama. The brachha that one makes in the vegetable itself, that's what one makes on the soup that one cooks the vegetables in. So even though the makhabe passkin, the gammandaflametes, that one cooks, one should make on the soup of those vegetables, one should make a bhore priha adama. Nevertheless, he was not willing to accept the sheet of the rush, that if one takes fruit and cooks those fruit, even though time of the fruit itself went into the water. Nevertheless, he got not accepted sheet of the rush and he says the brach ha that one makes is shakom yabidbaro and not the bhore sha dvarikha aksma sha dvarikha aksma sha dvarikha aksma sha dvarikha aksma sha dvarikha aksma sha dvarikha aksma. You have been listening to Ravi Ayakan in the weekly installment of Hukhot Brachhot. For today's hara hai yomit, we pass from the mitzvah of kriachma to the mitzvah of zhirat itziyat mitzayim. There is a mitzvah, a daily mitzvah to hear, to remember, to mention the itziyat mitzayim, the exodus from the exodus from you. Mitzvah, la, skir, itza ditzayim, bhore hai yom, o bhore hai la. Most of us are familiar with this mitzvah specifically from Haggadah to their pessah because the makhroket between Rabbanan and Ben Zomah as to whether the mitzvah is by day or also by day and by night is brought down in the Haggadah. In fact, there's a dispute as to whether nah chahamim abili disagreeing with Ben Zomah or whether or not they were simply disagreeing about the source. Ben Zomah has a source called yeme chah yah yah yah yah yah yah yah yah yah mim. The days call yeme chah yah yah all the days, what does it mean? All means even even the nights. And chahamim agree to la laha, but do not agree to the source. The more obvious interpretation is that chahamim in fact think that it's only in mitzvah by day and not in mitzvah by night. But nonetheless it would appear that it is such a mitzvah. It's mitzvah which perhaps we don't pay that much attention to since we do it automatically as part of kriyachman. We all think that this kriyachman then is and then this tfilah. But it's a very important mitzvah. God said you should do it twice a day. But once a day most postkin like Ben Zomah, that it's twice a day. And in fact it's very interesting mitzvah. There's a God wants us, God commanded us to to root our lives in the experience of the exes. Not only on pessah once a year, but that every day the, apparently the basis, the source, the experience during the day should be rooted in this primordial memory. We were slaves in Egypt and God took us out. In other words the redemptive hand of God is essential. It should be in your consciousness. Day and night you remember means you're supposed to remember it all the time by mentioning it by day and night. You remember it all the time. A Jew who's not connected to the redemptive power of God is disconnected from Jewish reality. The, the brighter that I mentioned, the makhilt, the peace that appears in Haggadah all imply that it is the oriter. And that's how most postkin say, in fact they say that it's the oriter twice a day. And the, the webinearona in B'chot suggests that it's the oriter by day, but the d'Rasha ben Zomah is only in a smach that's not really the oriter, it's only D'Rabbanan. And some Ahronim think that the Vambam and perhaps others think that in fact the mitzvah is only D'Rabbanan. The reason being that in the, the books of Monehamitzvah, there are certain books that are dedicated not to Halakhah, but simply recording the 613 mitzvah. So in the Vambam and the B'hag and in nearly all the others with the exception of the smag, the mitzvah does not appear. If the Vambam thinks that there's a mitzvah to remember Izziat mitzrayim every day, then it should have appeared in the sephamitzvah of the Vambam. There is a mitzvah of Kriyachmah in the sephamitzvah of the Vambam, but there is no mitzvah of the Uzziat mitzvah. So one of the answers given is that Vambam doesn't believe that we're such a mitzvah. And he means there's no such mitzvah of the media oriter, there's no mitzvah minatura, but there is of course a mitzvah of the media or Vannan. Again, as we saw in the past, the nafka means that the distinction would be what happens if you have a saffait, because if you're unsure then saffait the writer of the homerm, if you're unsure whether you fulfilled a de oriter mitzvah, you have to do it again, you have to do it, even if it's again, but if you aren't sure whether you did a mitzvah, but no, you don't have to repeat and do it again. So that would often be the distinction. However, it's not true, because the gamara says that saffait kara amet viatziv, saffait lokara amet viatziv. If you're not sure what you said, amet viatziv, the ba'cha, ba'cha tagula, which comes after Kriyachmah, you repeat it. And she says the reason being, because this is the way which we fulfill the mitzvah of zechirati, tziat mitzreim. And if you unsure you have to do it again, almost always trying to explain it the same way. It's the writer, and that's why you have to do it again. He who thinks, shagata, he thinks that the man thinks it's only the ba'cha, and would have to say even though it's the ba'cha, and here Kazau said it's important. It's, it's metaphysically important. The idea is important, and they made an exception to the rule of saffait the ba'cha, ba'cha, and the cooler, and they said this particular saffait is lechomer. This saffait you have to ensure that you did it, and if you have to repeat it. So again this simple shot is that it's the writer, but there is this opinion which appears in echomerim that perhaps it or part of it is only to have a nun. The nafkemin would not be whether you have to say it again. What other nafkemina could there be? It's also, I don't think, really connected, but echomerima is the question of whether women achayav in this particular mitzvah. If the mitzvah is only by day not by night, meteorite, then you could draw the conclusion that women are exempt in a mitzvah, because it's a mitzvat as sai shehazmah and grammar. The shagata, yeah, which mentioned in a previous halakhayomid, connected to kriyatshma, says even if it's by day and by night, but it doesn't mean it's all the time. It means there are two mitzvah, one by day and one by night. This is the same thing by kriyatshma. It is one mitzvah of kriyatshma, only by day and not by night, and one mitzvah of kriyatshma that's only by night, not by day. And if the shagata, yeah, he says that women are exempt from sriyat, it's the atmosphere, even if, as most post came saying, it's mitzvah by day and by night, but it's two mitzvah, one by day and one by night. His argument is not necessarily correct. Most achuanim disagree, if the mitzvah is by day and by night, twice a day, so it's not two mitzvah. It's one mitzvah that it's supposed to do twice a day, but it's time is, it's time is all the time. Even if it would be only by day and not by night, but midwa banan, it's surely by night. And then the question arises, which is a conceptual question, if you have a mitzvah, which is a time-based mitzvah, meteorite, but then midwa banan, it was extended to all time. So are women krei overt now midwa banan? Since the midwa banan level, it's not time dependent, therefore women are obligated, or since the basic mitzvah was time-dependent, and you assume they're for women are exempt, so the banan only speak to those who are already included in a mitzvah, meteorite. They changed the paradigms of the mitzvah, the meteorite, but they didn't address a new a nuzipur. So there is some question. I think, as far as I remember, most postkim agree that women are, in fact, obligated in the in the mitzvah, and that's why they say matriat siv. Since most women do not have a maviv, apparently the except the minagas, that they only have to do the mitzvah once a day, which I think theoretically is a bit difficult, although we've tried to, I tried to spell out how you could reach, how you could reach that conclusion. It does not kind of span to the opinion of most we show name. If quantum most we show name the mitzvah is twice a day by day, by night, then either the shagata area is right, two mitzvah, in which case women are exempt completely, or you hide all the time, in which case, they also hide twice a day, just like men would be haivim, are obligated twice a day. If one did forget, if one did forget, or one is uncertain whether one said a matriat siv. So then the question comes as to what exactly one has to do, because there's some unclarity in the mavivah, as to whether or not the mitzvah, is a matriat siv, a matriat siv, a matriat muna at night, a matriat siv by day, or the third chapter of kriat siv, which also speaks of yitziat mitzvahim. The most speaks about both of them. So most postkim agree, or postkim basically agree the bit yourself, says that if one knows he said, postkatsi t'it, but is not sure if you said a matriat siv, then you fulfill the mitzvah with postkatsi t'it, because it does mention yitziat mitzvahim. The vaytus siv quotes, in opinion, the ochotriim, in the name of the raspar, that no, you have to say both. And the vaytus siv rejects it, the bach claims that raspar never said it, in the raspar himself, in the perish to mersak and bachot, it would appear the opposite. But the pshadni ochotriim really does appear to be what the vaytus siv thinks he said, and vaytus siv says that it's wrong. But the question then comes, so we'll suppose you're not sure if you said both of them. you, you know,