KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva - Yitro 07
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva of Parshat Yitro, Shiur #07 in this series, by Rav Binyamin Tabory. Lo Tachmod and Lo Titaveh
KMTT. Kimi Xiont et cetera. And this is Ajavek. And today is Yut Sein Schrat Wednesday, and we will now hear the regular Wednesday share of Aravina Mintervoy on the weekliness farm for Ta-Shat Itra. The share will be 34 minutes, and after the share I will be back with Aravina Mater. [typing] The Torah tells us, "Lotachmod bei y'echa." "Lotachmod et cetera y'echa ve'avdova matobeshirobachamorov, the cholishul re'echa." In two separate phrases, the Torah told us that there is an isler of "himud." "Himud" means somehow to desire something. Eret's hemda is a desired land. [typing] But the Torah divided into two phrases. The first phrase is "Lotachmod bei y'echa." "The house of your friend." A second phrase would be "Lotachmod et cetera y'echa, his wife." Aravdova, his servant, his amatow, his female servant. "Sharobachamorov, his animals, and any possessions." The cholishul re'echa. "Any possessions which he has." I'd like to try to explain why "echa tre'echa" is divided from "bait re'echa." "Bait re'echa" is a general statement, "Lotachmod bei y'echa." And later on it says, "Lotachmod et cetera y'echa." In a sartati blood in parashat, "whetranan," it similarly says, "Lotachmod et cetera y'echa." Again, the Easter of "hrimud" applies, but this time only to "echa tre'echa." And then the Torah says, "Lotach-tre'echa," "tre'echa." "Tre'echa" somehow also means "to desire." "Bait re'echa," which includes "sade'u avdova matow-sharobachamorov, the cholishul re'echa." It includes his field, his animals, his servants, and everything he owns. Let's begin by trying to define exactly what the Easter of "hrimud" is. The gimmer says in "Bav-mitziyya dafhei" that if a person thinks, the gimmer says the person who takes something from his friend, that he desires, so the gimmer says he's over an Easter. So the gimmer says, "But if he pays money, people don't think they're over an Easter." So the gimmer says, "But even if he spends money, he's over the Easter of latach-mout." He's still desired something that belonged to someone else. The gimmer answers, "Lotach-mout" but "Lotach-mout". People somehow think that if they pay money, they're not included in the Easter of latach-mout. It's true that latach-mout isn't Easter, but the Easter of latach-mout only applies when you don't pay money. But if a person would pay money, he's not over a latach-mout. That's the answer to the question. But if that would be true, a person would think that latach-mout applies when he takes something without spending money, without paying for it, wouldn't that be the Easter of Geza? So what would the Easter of latach-mout mean? The gimmer answers that a person would think that you're over too laughing. When a person steals, he's over one laugh. But when he desired the object, and therefore he stole, so included in the Easter of Gezaula, there's another Easter called latach-mout. So that's what people think. Doesn't necessarily mean that that's true. It means that's what people would have thought. People might have thought that latach-mout is only the case where you don't pay money. But if you do spend money, there's no Easter of latach-mout. But when you don't, when you take something without permission, without paying money, you're over too Easter in. Interestingly enough, you do ask, what would be the difference if a person would be over too Easter when one Easter? Generally, the mission in Macos discusses a case where a person can be over many laughing at the same time. And what would be the practical difference if he's over the many laughing? So the practical difference would be that he'd get malcos. The mission in there in Macos explains cases where a person can get one malcos, two malcos, three malcos. So here, you would think that when Tulsa says there's two laughing involved, you might think that it means that there are two kinds of malcos. You get malcos both for latigzel and for latach-mout. Of course, that would be very difficult to say. Because for latigzel, we generally assume you don't get malcos. Latigzel is a laugh Hanita classé. It's a laugh which can be repaid, which should be repaid. It's attached to the Mitzvahs, I say, a vahacious exhale. And therefore, there's no malcos on latigzel. When latach-mout would there be malcos? We'll try to discuss why there shouldn't be malcos at all in latach-mout. But according to Tulsa, somehow the difference between one Easter and two Easter would have to have some ramification. It's very difficult to imagine that Tulsa's would really think that even people would assume you get malcos twice, both for gzayla and for haemod, when it seems that neither one really has a punishment of malcos involved. The rambam en elchaz gzayla, peric alephalachatez, says that a person who's homemade, whatever your homemade, heh phi dallabbe, rehim vihi phi dallabhachala kachon manu. A person who pleaded with Samari begged, somehow used always influence that he has, in order to try to get someone to give something to him, af al-pihi shinatando dameem rabim, even though he paid a lot of money. Habei is the ovabala-tah seshnamala-latach-mout. The rambam says you don't get malcos, but you're ovabala-tah-say of latach-mout. Even if you paid money for it. A person who paid money, received the object in question, he was ovabala-tah-mout. But the rambam says the reason you don't get malcos is when they shamed al-maz-tay. This is a lab which is done without an action. In general, a lab done without an action is a lab shamed al-maz-tay and you don't get malcos. For example, a person who would just leave comets on pessach. You bought comets, you got a lot of comets for shalakmanas. And you left your comets in your house. And you didn't get rid of it or pessach. So there you offer latach-mout. But since you didn't do an action, you don't get malcos. So the rambam says latach-mout is an esa shamed al-maz-tay, because you desired something. Desiring has nothing to do with actions, so therefore you don't get malcos. And the rambam says, the ano ovabala-tah-say-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha. However, the esa of latach-mout is not an emotional esa that I should just think. I desire somebody else's object. The esa of latach-mout, you're over here when you take the object in question. Kiyyin-she-neh-neh-a-mai-duram quotsopassach. Lotach-mout-kess-a-visa-va-leh-en-vila-kach-tala. He says, the pussach says, don't do he-mout and take the object. So it says he-mout-chih-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha. From the very phraseology of the rambam, it seems that there is a masa in the esa of he-mout. the Ram says, "Himud Shiyeshwamasa." "Himud" which has an action, the action being that you take the object in question. If that would be true, then it should be a case where you do get Marcus until the lab. "Shiyeshwamasa." The writer disagrees with the Ram. And the Ram, the writer says, "Lola iti devalta mea gaddomise." I never saw a bigger problem than this. "Hai khan masa gaddo minitilat saheifats." "Where did you ever see an action that's bigger than taking the object itself?" A person took the object. "That's an object. That's a very big action." "Hai yala lon maamut naishu hai abhita shulomim." The writer says, "I agree with the idea that you don't get Marcus from the taqomot." Because basically the Easter is when you take something without permission. So in that case, you're a gazlin. But a gazlin is hai yala shivat aqzayla. That's a laifanita klasay, a laif which is attached to an asay, and a laif which is attached to an asay, you don't get Marcus for it. So he's according to the right of it, hai yala, shivat aqzayla, you do have to return the object. You stole an object. The person did not agree to sell it. So therefore, basically, "Himud" is a laif shiyeshwamasa. Because the master is taking the object, but you don't get Marcus. It seems that both, according to the ramam and the right of it, you don't get Marcus from the low taqomot, but for different reasons. According to the ramam, you don't get Marcus from the low taqomot, because the low taqomot is a laif shaimo master. But the right of it says it's a laif, shiyeshwamasa, but it's nita kratashulomim. Nita kratashulomim. I say nita kratashulomim. According to Tossus, as I pointed out before, it would seem somehow that at least people think you do get Marcus from the low taqomot, and therefore people would think you do all your overbishnei laughing. How would we explain the ramam? The ramam really said that you don't get Marcus, because it's a laif shaimo master, but it's a l'chore. It seems to be a real laif shiyeshwamasa. The maginishne asks another point. He raises another issue. He says that according to the ramam, "I took something beaser." "La taqomot" means that I bought it, paying money, but paying money beaser. So he says this is contingent upon the classic mahlokas, of komilsa dama rachmana latavidi of it mani la mani. Famous mahlokas between Abai and Rav and Mesakas Tumura is in the case where the Torah said something should not be done, and the person did it anyway. For example, the Torah said, "Don't make tumura." Now it got into the Mesakas Tumura. The person said, "Do not do tumura." So what would happen if a person created a situation in which the Torah forbade, the Torah said, "You can't make it tumura," and he did make it tumura. So is it how? Does it take effect or doesn't it take effect? "Milsa dama rachmana latavidi," something the Torah told me not to do. Iavid, if he did do it mani or la mani, did it work or not work. So the gamma goes through a number of cases. The gamma says that the famous mahlokas between Abai and Ravah, every case that they bring up in Shaz, the gamma explains why that might be unusual according to the other opinion. The Homikr, in our case, where a person took an object according to the Ramban by paying money, but according to the Ramban, that's in Israelotach. If he raises the issue, why is the Kenyan actually effective? Why does it really belong to you? The Torah forbade, discalos, the Torah said, "You shouldn't do it." The answer to both questions has been raised by many, many achronim. I'd like to point out the way the Cytler put it. The Cytler explained, and as I mentioned before, many, many achronim say a very similar idea, that the Easter basically is an Easter of Himod. Even according to the Ramban, that the Easter of Himod is only realized. When you take the object, the Easter of Himod is the Easter. The Easter is ballet. The Easter is a person who does tachbulot, who thinks of all kinds of ways of acquiring the object. The Easter is to plan, to arrange, to get the object. But until you take the object, then that's not a complete concept of Himod. Himod means that I did so much Himod, that I thought about, so much how to do it, that actually I accomplished. "Lotach moth, kessa, visavel, alayhampala kaktalaq." I didn't do Himod, I, you never had to do Himod, which would lead to taking it. So taking it is a shear of Himod. The Easter is not taking it at all. The Easter is the Himod, sha'im, evilly denikirah. The Easter is the Himod that you did, which makes you realize that eventually you take the object. That's the Easter. So if with that Easter is a laugh, sha'im, amasseh, the question of the machinichna falls away by itself. There is no Easter in the halos of buying it. The Easter is in the Himod, sha'im, evilly denikirah. And that Easter is according to the Ramam, is a laugh, sha'im, amasseh. The stypler himself brings other examples of such an idea. He says, for example, there's a din of machashibakachim, a person who thinks the wrong thought at the time of the arba avodas, of the different types of avodas that you do when you bring a carbon. So the Torah said the Easter is la yikashib. It seems to me that the Torah thought the Easter is thinking. And opidin, because the Easter is thinking, it's considered a laugh, sha'im, amasseh. But a person who just thought about doing the wrong avodas or doing the avodas in the wrong time or the wrong place, that's not the Easter of la yikashib. La yikashib is to do one of the avodas without the proper intention or with better yet with the wrong intention. So is this a laugh, sha'im, amasseh, or a laugh, sha'im, amasseh, because just the yikashib, just to think about it, is not the Easter. The Easter is to do the avodas sha'im, it's to do the avodas, which has a wrong intention in it. Therefore, you could say, the masseh is the avodas with improper mashava. But the ramam ruled, it's a laugh, sha'im, amasseh. If it's a laugh, sha'im, amasseh, this type of says it's the same thing. The Easter is la yikashib. But the shear of la yikashib, one is a person really over the Easter la yikashib when he does the avodas with the improper mashava. But the Easter is not me avodas, the Easter is in the mashava. Therefore, of course, if you do do it, like in the hard case of stealing, of not stealing, of taking something by paying for it, it's how. The kinyin is how the Torah never forbade this particular halaas. The Torah just said, the Easter is sha'im. This, of course, would fit in with another makhlokas between the ramam and the rifu. The ramam says that a person forces his friend, begs his friend, pleads with his friend, to give him something that he wants, or to sell him something that he wants. So you're over la tachma. The right that says, that's only in the case, below am I ratsani. If the person at the end did not agree that he wanted, a person makes a formal decoration ratsani. I could hold a gun to your head. And you say ratsani, I say that I want, that you want to do it at the end. So the very fact that you said you want, takes away the element of coercion and halaah. So the rifu says in the case where it's ratsani, then there's no isir la tachma. It seems that the ramam would say the isir of la tachma, it even applies to the case where the person says ratsani. So let's go again. According to the rifu, the isir is only if you did not say ratsani. And in that case, you coerce the person. And actually what you're doing is even if you took it and paid money, but you did it against his will, it is considered an act of gizalah. So lo tachma is really the action of taking the thing without the person's permission. So therefore, according to the rifu, it would seem it's a laugh. I took the object without his permission. I don't get malchus, as I said before, because it's a laugh. According to the ramam, it would seem that if you do say ratsani, it's irrelevant to our issue. The isir la tachma is that much remod which led to lekiha sachafetz. The isir is the isir which eventually led to the fact that you took the haifetz. So even though the fellow did say ratsani, the heim would remain the same. There's a story told about one of the rasidos y reves, I think it was one of the gera reves who had a very, very big library. And he was a real bibliophile, loved saran very much. Apparently there was a gerasid who had also a large library, of which he was very proud, and he once invited the rebi to come to look at his library. So when he came to the library, the rebi who normally did not go to visit other people, in this case wanted to go to see this beautiful library. He took a tour of the library at the end of the day. So the rasid said to the rebi, what do you think? And the rebi said, oh, wonderful library is very, very excited. So he said, "Rebi, do I have a svarim that you don't have that you would like to have?" So the rebi said, yeah, there are two particular svarim that you have that I really would like to have. So the rasid said, oh, I'm so proud. I'm so pleased that I have svarim the rebi really doesn't have. Why the way? What two svarim are they? And the rebi refused to tell him. So he kept asking the rebi, no, please tell me what the svarim are. The rebi said, I don't want to tell you. At the end, the person said, "Rebi, I'll tell you why I'm trying to get you to tell me what they are. Because whichever two svarim they are, no matter how dear they are to my heart, I'd like to give those svarim as a present to the rebi." So the rebi said, I know that's what your intention was. I knew that you wanted to give it to me. Therefore, I'm not allowed to tell you because by telling you, I'd somehow arranged for you to give it to me. And that would be the isse of la tachmoth. According to the version of this story, which I heard, the fact that the rebi liked the svarim and wanted them, that he did not feel was an isse of la tachmoth at all. The fact that if he would have told him that I want those svarim, knowing that that would somehow almost coerce the hasse to give those svarim to the rebi, he felt that itself would be the isse of la tachmoth. There's another isse in the Torah called "Lotit-Ave." In Asarza-Dipros, in Vessranan, the isse of la tit-Ave is added. In our Partians' history, Lotit-Ave is not mentioned at all. However, in Vessranan, Lotit-Ave is raised for the first time. There, the Torah says also breaks it into two phrases. Lotachmoth isse of la tachmoth. The isse of haemoth applies to your friend's wife. When the Torah adds, "Lotit-Ave-Ave-Ave-Ave" you shouldn't even desire the house of your friend. There's an isse of tachmoth. It also seems to be a type of desire. Your friend's house, your friend's field, his avid, his servants, his animals, everything he owns. Are these two separate isseum or are we either a repetition of the same thing? Some say from Amitzvah, some of the Bishonim, I think, the smag and others, consider this one isseur. Lotachmoth and Lotit-Ave, why did Torah change the language of Lotachmoth and Lotit-Ave? According to the smag, I'm not sure, but it's basically the same isseur just repeated twice. The ramam, however, and other isseum and count this as two separate isseurim. The ramam says that both in safe amitzvahs and in Mishneh Torah, the ramam says there's a difference between the isseurim and the isseur of Himod. Himod is, as we explained before, a person who desires, and hihmid-a-la-ve-raimim. He somehow coerced the person, begged him, pleaded with him, and took away something, even if he paid for it. However, the ramam says, Lotachmoth is not an isseur just of desiring something. However, by Mit-Ave, he says that somehow this isseur is an isseur of belief. He says, "Kallam, ita-ve-beit-o-o-ish-to, vikhe-lav-shek-a-ve-o-the-hol-kay-o-te-ba-mish-a-d-vallim-shek-sh-a-lul-lut-not-an-im-an-o." Anybody who desires the objects that we were referred to before, ke-van-shek-sh-a-sh-a-bilib-o-aik-ne-de-vals-de, once he began to think, not just that he desired it, he began to think, how do I acquire such an object? When If Thali Boba Davar, and he somehow seduced himself into thinking about this, a vabala tasa. Shannama lauti tatha. Vain tava a la belay vilvat. The Adarama said clearly, the isra of tava is belayv. It doesn't mean that you acquire the object and you'd even go to acquire the object. You just thought I wanted so much that let's begin to think how I could go about acquiring it. In this story that I mentioned before about the gereb, there's no isra of tava either according to the rama. Because it's true that Rabbi desired it, but he had no intention. He did not think at all about doing something to acquire it. Not just he didn't do something to acquire. He didn't think at all about doing something to acquire. In fact, the negative is true. He specifically was careful not to do something that would cause him to acquire this object. So the isra of tava, the rama says in the isra of belayv. And then the rama adds, ha tava may viyali de kimud. Tava is the first step. And tava will eventually lead to himud. Once a person is involved in the isra of tava, then eventually he'll do something which really serves as a way of acquiring the object. Vahimud may be the degeza. Eventually he would could lead to gereza. Because it's true if the balim agree according to the rama then it's not gizala. It's only kimud. But imlora tzua balim, limkha. If the owner really refuses to sell, even with all the influence and persuasion that he tries to employ. Yavali de gereza. Eventually he'll reach the hands, he'll get into involved in gizala itself. Sinema have come to batim for gosloh, he quotes the pasloh that they had rimaud. They desire the house and eventually they even stole it. The rama then goes on so far to say, it's so drastic, that a person who is involved in rimaud, which leads to tava, which leads to gizala, eventually he might even kill the person whose object he desires. And he quotes examples found in Tanah that we can see how terrible this avera could be and the ramifications to which it may lead. Now if we would look at the suk at the ramaam and back to the sukim, we'll see something interesting. The ramaam says that the esur of tava applies even with your heart. The esur of lotach mode is only if you do something to accomplish it. But in the Torah in Vesskannan, the esur of lotach mode applies to Eshe's rayaha. The esur of himud applies in Vesskannan only to the wife of your friend. Lotach mode, as opposed to other things, appears in our parashan parashas. Lotach mode, charalha, ma'ol, bhala shaweekh. But in the saver, the verm the esur is added of lotach abed, that extra esur, that a person should not even desire. That the Torah says applies to bhaitriyaka, sade'u, abdaw, amatosh, rabakha, ma'ol, bhala shaweekh. The way the ramaam explains the difference between himud and tava, so the esur of himud only applies to everything. The esur of litavote of this inner desire only applies to objects like bhaitriyaka, sade'u, abdaw, amatosh, rabakha, ma'ol. It doesn't apply to Eshe's rayaha, which should be strange. That would mean there's a humra in the case of your objects that you're not allowed to even have tava. But according to the pshutoshamikra, according to the simple shot of the words, this esur of tava doesn't apply to wives. It only applies to objects. The esur of himud applies to bhaitriyaka. The smag pointed this out, and the smag says give out. It seems now that according to the ramaam, the esur is more humra by objects than by Anishishish. It's inconceivable that the humra of desiring somebody's book or somebody's pen or somebody's house, should be more severe than the esur of desiring his wife. And according to the ramaam, that would be true. The esur of litavote applies to wives, litavote included in the pshutoshamikra, and bhaitriyaka only refers to bhaitriyaka, sade'u, abdaw, amatosh, but not to Eshe's rayaha. The diyok of the pshukim that the smag asked seems to be true. However, the ramaam himself said clearly that it's not what he thinks. The ramaam in hilchus gazela says, hachomeit haver, abdaw, o amasso, o baseo verheilafshach havera. In parek alif of halocha persa, hilchus gazela, the ramaam says himud applies to eved ama bhaitriyaka. Caul davosh efshul shikh nayumimenu. I'd like to point out specifically the object of himud according to the ramaam seems to be anything that can be acquired from my friend. The ramaam adds the phrase, not just a person who's homet, and he says abdaw, amasso, basedo verheilafshach havera. He doesn't, by the way, does not mention ishta. He doesn't they call it homet ishta. But he says, caul davosh efshul shikh nayumimenu. Himud only applies to things that ditorah said that you can acquire from your friend. I could buy it. You own a cow. You own a book. You own a television. Whatever you own, I could force you to sell it to me. I could take it away from you. And then legally, if you say, as we pointed out before, it's mine. I've really bought it. But amal verlatachmud. You can't buy somebody else's wife from him. Nobody can sell their wife. And the idea of forcing someone to sell it, the most you can do, is perhaps force somebody to, divorce his wife and you would have to talk about, get moosa. If we get really could be done or not. But you certainly cannot force your friend to sell you, sell you his wife. According to the Rambam, it seems to be the Isro of Himmud does not apply to women. How does this fit in with the Psukiin? That does seem a little bit difficult. Because the Torah says, in Yistro, lotachmud, "eishas viyachah". In Basranan, it also says "eishas viyachah". Apparently, the Isro of Himmud, when it refers to "eishas kibbeo", the Ram himself would also have to explain that's really referring to lotata. In the other cases, lotachmud means lotachmud, don't do Himmud, which will reach. They have eventually, which will come to a mass. But by "eishas ish", although the Psukiin would be problematic, it would seem the Rambam thinks there's no "eishas" of Himmud, because you can't buy it from someone. So therefore, the Rambam is careful. In Halocha's task, he doesn't say "kol komet ishto", "kol komet avdo o amaso". However, in Halocha's Yud, the Ram says "kol hamis ave baseo o ishto baheil of shokha vero". In Halocha Yud, when he talks about the Isro of Thava, there he does include wives, because the Isro of involved in "eishas ish", is really an Isro of Thava. It's not really an Isro of Himmud, because you can't buy it from someone else. As I said before, the Rambam would have to somehow learn the Psukiin a little differently than we're normally accustomed. But, this would explain to us why the Torah did phrase the different objects separately. The Torah said, for example, in Pashas Yistro, "lo tachmald baseoiyaka". "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka". "Bai ish" is a more general statement. The Isro of Himmud applies to all the things now. "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka" is the more general statement. In the Isro of Himmud, the Rambam really doesn't apply. That would somehow mean the Isro of litavot. In Vaisranan, it would seem even more precise. The Torah says, "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka". For "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka". In the case of "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka", there the Isro, by definition, should be "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka". Again, why the Torah used the word "lo tachmald" seems to be problematic according to the way the Rambam explained it. But, "eishas wiyaka" is separate, because "eishas wiyaka" the Isro always was litavot. In the rest of the Psuki, "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka" said, "Bai ish" ish, "lo tachmald eishas wiyaka" ish. He and the Torah really added a new Isro, an Isro of Tava. The Isro of "eishas wiyaka", there is no new Isro involved in Vaisranan, because that's the definition of the Isro that's found in Isro as well. What I've suggested is, I admit, rather difficult in the way the Rambam learned the Psuki. But, it seems to me very precise in the way the Rambam quoted the Halacha. Again, the Rambam says in Hilchaus, "Gazaela achomaid avdo amasso obesla vacayla v'keil of sha'havera". "Bai ish mud", "eishas ish" is not mentioned in the Isro of "himud", because "himud" only applies to things, "hef sha'il iknos nivenu". However, in the case of Tava, the Ramb says, "Misavah beisso awishto", "eishto" is included, because Tava can be relating to things even which you cannot acquire. Occasionally, Tava will lead to Lee de Chimud. In the case of Aishas ish, I don't know if Himmud would apply, but the Isro of Tava would still be there. Other Mefarsham have tried to explain what would be the real difference between Himmud and Tava. I'd like to mention the idea of Rabbi David Svihafmen who said that there is a difference between the words Tava and Himmud. He said, "Himmud" is something that's desired. I want the object. The object in itself is the thing that I desire. For example, you have a pen. I also have a pen, but I like your pen. I like the pen that you have. So, he says, "That's called Himmud, Adavalnechmaad." The thing that I'm looking for is a desired object. Arachisrael is Arachimda. Arachimda, a land that's desired. Unfortunately, we have too many fights over the people who desire Arachisrael. But Himmud is in a land that's desired. But Tava is an appetite. Rabbi David Svihafmen claims that Tava is in the case where you're missing that object. You don't have that object. A person who is poor and wants food, your food, or he wants your money. So, that is an Easter of Tava. It's not an Easter of Himmud. It's not that he wants this particular object. He's not looking for something. Pashukhaselo, he's missing something. So, he claims the Easter of Himmud would apply to all people. Even a rich person could be also over the Easter of Himmud. Tava refers more to a person who is lacking something. And therefore, he wants the object. He claims, therefore, the Easter of Tava doesn't really apply to an Aishis. Because ain adaam mith avela ashekhavelo makmachain l'Oisha. I might desire your wife according to the Rabbi David Svihafmen because she's kamda, because I desire her. That, according to him, would be included in the Easter of Lotachmud. That's not the way we explain the Ramam. However, he thinks that Himmud means, when I desire something which I just like the other object, Tava is a case where I'm lacking something. The Easter of Tava, he claims, would not apply to an Aishis. Because Lama Yisab adaam mith aishis. A person who has Tava means he's missing it. A person is not married, he wants to be married. But he doesn't need to be married specifically to this person. So, how does he deal with the Pashukhim? He says the Torah in Vasconan said, "Lotachmud." The Easter of Tava only applies to women. The Easter of Lotachimud doesn't apply to women. This is obviously the opposite of what I explained in the Ramam. David Svihafmen explained that the Easter of Himmud applies to objects, but cannot apply also to an Aishis. But the Easter of Tava does not at all apply to an Aishis. And I claim that, according to the Ramam, the opposite would be true. The Easter of Himmud can apply to all things. The Easter of Himmud, as opposed to an Aishis, would really be the Easter of Tava, not the Easter of Himmud. Whereas the Easter of regular things, the regular objects, could be both Tava and Himmud. You have been listening to our Octoberi, the weekly mixture, for Pashukhitra. Today's had a high omelette. We move towards the end of Kriachma. Meinad Koli-Sarel is for the Khazan to repeat the last three words of Kriachma and Shema Lokeshim Emet. The reason is, because of the Medrash, that says that there are 248 words in Kriachma. 248 can they get a Vareya Adam. According to Khazan, there are 248 organs in human body. And Kriachma has the same number of words. The idea being that Kriachma, which is the acceptance of the Ocarhavan, should be said with every single organ and organ, as we're totally, totally subject to heavenly rule, and we don't leave anything out. The problem was, that there aren't 248 words in Kriachma. Counting Baruch-Sarel form of Kotalan Vare, there were only 245. And therefore, the minigarovals, based on a passage in the Zaha, that the Khazan repeats as Shema Lokeshim Emet. He says an extra three words, and those three words fill out the 248, 248 words. If there's no Ghazan, what do you do? So, there's another minigarovals saying, "Khel manath na iman," before him. But this, as we pointed out in a previous halachayomit, is indeed problematic, since it might be a half-saked, and embanker was very much opposed, although he's shown it as well, so he's shown it and defended. And that's more problematic. Bitziboor, there will appear to be no reason to say, "Khel manath na iman." "Be a Khegma, you're by yourself." You don't have the Khazan's extra three words. There's a reason to do it. But again, there are many of us who are opposed, some who defend it. But everyone agrees. It's a minigar, which is accepted universally. Hasan repeats, Has Shema Lokeshim Emet. There's some question exactly how he does that. Name because they say Emet the first time. Why does one say Emet? The Khamal says that there should be no hapsie between the end of the Pasha'a, which is Aniyya Shema Lokeshim. South Tasot, that's the end of the third Pasha'a. Emet is the beginning of the 'gra'a. Emet v'yatsayivoor. And Wuna is the beginning of the 'gra'a, which ends Gali's cell. If Mer says, "You should not be master between Has Shema Lokeshim and Emet." And that means nothing master, it means to put it together. Of hand, I wouldn't imply that the Khazan is repeating the last words of Shema. You should say Emet twice. Indeed, the 'gra'a opposed saying Emet twice. He says, "The Khazan should say Emet Shema Lokeshim and Emet." But many proscammy accepted the minig is when the Khazan finishes. He also has to very, very say Emet in order not to have any interruption between his and the Pasha'a. Has Shema Lokeshim, Aniyya Shema Lokeshim and Emet. And then he repeats Has Shema Lokeshim and Emet. Question is, how many extra words are there? Emet is a very in extra word. And if the second Emet is also in extra word, we have four extra words. So, apparently they're counting Aniyya Shema Lokeshim. That's 245. Emet, Aniyya Shema Lokeshim. You've negated to 248. The next Emet, that doesn't count today. That's the very beginning of the next Faha. It's a funny kind of arithmetic, but that is the minigal. And again, it's Pasha'an Lalacha. Even though it doesn't occur in the source enigma, this is Pasha'an Lalacha. The sensitivity for having a half-sake now as opposed to before Kriyachma is much less. Between the bhachan of Ava'aba and Shema, so it's much more problematic and controversial. And I did it to put in words which don't belong there. They come with us name Aniyya. Or even as I mentioned, even answering a name. There's a discussion. But after Kriyachma, before beginning the next Faha'an, that's just a bhachan of a framework. Bhachan isn't directly on Kriyachma. It's after Kriyachma after all. So therefore, there's much less sensitivity. And Pasha'an basically accepted the fact of this Nuhai. Or released Bhachan, saying words which are not exactly part of Kriyachma, they're extra. But they become part of Kriyachma by being repeated for him. What is implied by Pasha'an is that everybody should listen to Bhachan when he says those words, because we're all trying to reach 248 words. Nuhazan is saying it for us, because we didn't have Shamayaka on it, but Nuhazan said it in third by us. It's as though we said it. And if we were gotten to 248. Second point, like to add today, is that in Kriyachma, Kriyachma is a mitzvah. It's a mitzvah nahtara kotemoskoski. And Pasha'an, kotuber kumayaka, twice a day to say Kriyachma. Like any mitzvah, one should have karana to be upset and it's not. It was not just to have, like anything in that thing, have intention to understand the words, but like any mitzvah, including those which are not verbal, once you have intention, then I'm doing this in order to be mitzvah. And so, the Kriyachma, before and against Kriyachma, one has to intend, I'm doing it in order to observe the mitzvah of reading Kriyachma and, except until the other heaven every day, as well as the intention when you say the words of Kriyachma, especially the first for suk, which is karana is necessary there and cannot be in, cannot be a way, have a karana for the internal meaning of the words. Shmai sah. Shem el kaino. Shuhu, shuhu, akhad, vain, vain akhad. The third part of Kriyachma, Pasha'an tis, is a observance of a different mitzvah. The mitzvah of the suk, itzyah, mitzrei, which is a daily mitzvah to remember the access from Egypt every single day. And therefore, when one gets to the third Pasha'an, one sure of a Kriyachma, it's best if one would have also karana, the intention to be makain, the mitzvah of the mitzvah, the mitzvah of the suk, the mitzvah of the suk, the mitzvah of the suk, itzyah, mitzrei. One should, it's probably not an arcade, most of us can think that it's not lots of hot karana, you don't even have to have karana, but the avant, avant, with a trailer, one should have the proper intention from its family and does it, and this particular chapter, this third chapter of Kriyachma is there more to fulfill an additional mitzvah. The mitzvah of the suk, itzyah, itzyah, itzyah, itzyah, itzyah, itzyah. And therefore, it would be important and necessary and right to have the karana right before saying it all, when beginning it, that we are now observing this edition of the suk, you don't say that loud, you know, I say things, but the karana, belay, the internal mental intention should be to makain that mitzvah. That's it for today, we'll be back tomorrow with a share on Pashat Hasadwah, which will be given this week by Ravi, Ravi, Ravi Walthish. Until then, call to, you've been listening to KMTT, kimitzion, teksel toran, utranashem yurushalayim.