KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Jewish Philosophy
KMTT - Topics in Medieval Jewish Philosphy, Shiur #07, by Rav Ezra Bick
This is "KMTT" and this is Azubic and today is "Tetzayin Schrat" it's one day after "Tubus Schrat". Today is Tuesday. Today's share will be given by myself. It's a weekly share on major issues in medieval philosophy. Today have been discussed "Hasakha pratid" divine parvignance. The last two weeks moving on to the the next topic but it's actually the same topic the application of the topic of "Hasakha pratid". The most crucial application the problem of evil the existence of evil in the world and what that says about "Hasakha pratid" what that says about God's role in the world. The problem of evil is one of the most central problems in any philosophy of religion and it can be treated in one of two ways. It can be treated as a problem to which I seek a solution meaning somehow get out of the problem or it can be used as we will eventually see as the key to a re-understanding of "Hasakha" itself. Not merely a problem to be eliminated but in fact an opportunity to redefine and understand for myself in a far deeper and more sophisticated manner the basic relationship of God to the world specifically to people how he operates why he operates not merely an answer but a understanding. What is the problem of evil it's important for us to define it logically because that will help us understand what possible solutions there can be and then see which solutions are appropriate perhaps from a Jewish point of view and then we'll see what solutions have been given. The problem of evil is a logical problem it shows that there's something wrong there's a contradiction in the basic assumptions that theists of monotheists make about God and the world. There are three theological statements which are made by theists the combination of which stand in contradiction to a basic empirical fact about the world. The three theological statements are one that God is all knowing omniscient two that God is all powerful omnipotent and three that God is good. If God knows everything and God can do anything and God is good then there should not be any evil in the world but there is evil in the world and therefore one of those assumptions is incorrect. There is a hidden assumption in the third theological statement that God is good in order for us to reach the conclusion that there should not be any evil in the world and that is an assumption or a definition of what it means to be good. The assumption states that if someone is good he will do all in his power to eliminate evil. Once you make that assumption then if God is good he will do all in his power to eliminate evil but God is all powerful and therefore there can't possibly be any evil left because God is doing everything in his infinite power to eliminate evil there can't possibly be an evil but an empirical statement there is evil. You see that there is evil and therefore there is a problem here. In its more extreme forms the problem of evil could be used as if the God does not exist. At least God as you understand him, as God as dear as understand him. Or it could be used to at least undermine one of the theological assumptions that have been made. What would a solution to the time of evil be? So logically you'll have to attack or modify one of those assumptions, one of those theological statements. For instance a couple of weeks ago I mentioned the possibility that one can say that God is not all powerful. John Stuart Mill specifically, not a Jewish philosopher, John Stuart Mill used the teleological proof of God that we discussed finding God in the design of the world to prove that God or somebody who we will call God exists who is capable of designing and maintaining this immensely complicated world that we know. Such a individual is way beyond anything that we can imagine. And John Stuart Mill thought it would be appropriate to call him God. But he in any event is no greater than he who could design and maintain this world which indeed is tremendous and fantastic. Very very smart, very very capable but not infinitely capable so if occasionally there's an earthquake. It doesn't happen every day. Occasionally there's a tsunami. If other things break out, pestilence, disease, etc. God is still much much greater than anybody we know and Mill just feels comfortable with calling he who is seven billion times more capable than you and nine trillion times more powerful than you calling him God. But traditional Theism does not allow that to be the definition of God's power. God is infinitely powerful and infinitely good and infinitely sagacious infinitely knowing of what's going on in the world. And I think the reason we discussed this with this question about more of the reasons for that is because someone who is relative to us ten times a million times greater than us should not be worshiped. Just as I don't worship a powerful king even though he's three times more powerful than me you should not worship a powerful king of kings who is a million times more powerful than me. God is infinitely greater. He's in a different order of being and therefore the reverence or worship with which we address him is appropriate. Even in the middle ages once the Greek notion of infinity had been used to express the biblical notions that we find. It was just assumed Jews, Christians and Muslims alike that God is all powerful. He can do anything which can be done. Interestingly enough the Ramam among other things is not the Ramam's full position but the Ramam among other things does use a version of that attack. He addresses the statement that God is all powerful and the Ramam says all powerful infinitely powerful means that God can do anything that can be done but things that cannot be done that are logically impossible God cannot do either. This is a point that the Ramam makes in a number of places. It was generally accepted universally accepted I think in the middle ages. Something which is impossible to be done cannot be done than can be done by God either. That is not a diminution in God's power because he can do anything assuming that it makes sense the thing that you're talking about. The example I think many people have heard in third grade at some point is can God make a stone so every God cannot pick it up. A better example simply pointing out what the logical problem with describing to God the ability to do the impassibility can God make a triangle with four sides. It's impossible by definition. A triangle has three sides that's what the word means and therefore triangle with four sides is a logical impassibility. How does what does that have to do with the problem of evil? The Ramam claims that the world which means a material world forms pure ideas expressed in matter can't possibly be perfect because matter by definition by logical necessity will always accept the form imperfectly. In other words a circle is perfectly round but nothing in that material can be perfectly round and therefore a mountain has the form among other things of stability but a material mountain has there has to be a flaw there and therefore it logically will fall down. This is not to explain the Ramam's whole opinion whole approach to the problem of evil but he does mention this that there will be a logical impassibility for even God to create a material world that would perfectly reflect the design that God wants to reflect. So this is a natural world that could explain why occasionally not often there could be earthquakes or tsunamis etc. Although the Ramam would still have to face the question as to when the material failed, when matter failed why doesn't God step in and somehow fix it because he should throw the power to do so. I merely mention this as an example of how you take the theological statements we made you try to examine any one of them and if you can finagle it in some way you could have a solution. Limiting God's power is either not acceptable to Jews or doesn't actually explain all the facts. There are clearly things which could have gone one way or the other and they go badly, people die young, children die young, birth defects etc and God is responsible. It's within his power to eliminate these things and he doesn't do so. Another possibility which would not be popular with Jewish philosophers or with Western Theists in general would be to limit God's knowledge. Only through that because the fact that God's omniscient is a logical necessity to define the power of evil but it's not really a target that could be attacked. It wasn't that important to target but if God doesn't know what's going on in the world as in fact Aristotle did not think he knows. Then even if he was all powerful but not known at evil he wouldn't be morally required to eliminate it. The Babaag for reasons we're not going to go into did in fact think that God does not have knowledge of particulars, does not know of particular facts but only of generalities and therefore is not in fact knowledgeable about the existence of evil. Babaag still has to explain why God is responsible for what in which evil is possible that is somewhat easier to answer. I mention that again as a possibility if you define it as I've defined it then attacking the statement that God is all known ago it's some way modifying it might provide might provide an out. There is another possibility and that's to attack the fact the pragmatic and empirical fact that I mentioned that there exists evil one can claim there is no evil. That would seem to go in the face of common sense but there are philosophies not Jewish philosophies which don't mind going in in the face of common sense. One can say that evil is an illusion. Sounds a little eastern, it is eastern, it's Indian. Jews have never said that. Why haven't Jews ever raised that possible approach? Well one thing you might say because they have a certain healthy psychology about them but I think the second reason is because of the Torah. One of the results of arguing evil out of existence will be that we should be apathetic in the face of what other people think is evil because it's not really evil but the whole Torah is based on the fact that there is evil in the world and you're supposed to fix it. If someone is sick you don't say sickness isn't bad you go and you run and you get a doctor. If someone's drowning in the lake you don't say death is not bad you have to jump in and take them out. If you haven't jumped and take them out you are liable for his death. The whole Torah is based on giving the responsibility of the world to man and saying there are good things in bad things. Do the good things and avoid the bad things and eliminate the bad things and attack the bad things. It would be al-tah, haramik al-becha. You have to eliminate evil from your midst. The belief that everything is good, if God is good then everything he's done is good which would seem to indicate a very high degree of dependence and belief, perfect faith in God. Everything in the world is good because God has made it, leads definitely psychologically and I think even logically to what's called pacifism. A pacific approach to the world meaning we don't intervene, we don't meddle, we don't attack the world. Pacifism as a theology is not merely you don't have wars with weapons but also you don't combat anything because everything is God's will and if it must be good so you don't go to the doctors, they're about Christian sects which don't call in doctors but that's never been a Jewish approach. Even the opinion expressed by the membrane which was discussed in a much later time that said you shouldn't go to the doctors he said well you should go to God, you should pray, you should go to a prophet. He has to do more with the nature of physical nature and God's will but not with a anything less than negative approach to disease, disease is bad, it's evil and therefore you have to eliminate it, if you have to eliminate then you're entitled to ask the question why doesn't God eliminate it? So this approach which is quite popular in certain areas in the world but it's not it's not a possible approach, it's not a possible approach for Jews and never has been in Jewish in Jewish philosophy. There is a variant of this last opinion which I'd like to mention it's not actually a logical answer to the problem of evil but it sometimes ways to mitigate, to make the problem less, less fierce and that's to say well we have to evaluate evils in a proper scale. So the evils you're talking about like disease and earthquakes and tsunamis and all sorts of miseries all belong to the physical world but there are other goods in the world, there were spiritual goods, closeness to God, feeling God in your life, eventually being in Olam Habah in the world to come and those goods are far greater the scale of spiritual good, it's far greater than our normal scale of physical good and therefore I say that even though there are people who are miserable sadik verado, a righteous person who is suffering but by definition being a righteous person he's also filled with great spiritual benefits, perhaps even spiritual joy, spiritual pleasure which outweigh tremendously the physical suffering which has afflicted him. I say that's not actually an answer to the time of evil because you still have to explain why there is physical suffering, in other words if this sadik verado, who has tremendous joy and happiness in his spiritual life, if you also had a slightly better physical life he'd be even happier and therefore you can't logically claim that oh it's true that God sometimes reflects the righteous but it's okay because it's only small, it's only small change because even small change even if this was true has to be answered. I also think for the same point I made before that as Jews, as a lotic Jews we can't belittle the importance of physical power. Again you have the same result, you see a righteous person who is suffering that's saying that's not so bad. Okay so he's sick and it's covered with boils and he has great suffering and pain and his children are dying and the world is collapsing about him but you know he's practic in Olam Habah so who cares, if who cares you're going to wind up not doing anything about it, the Torah says suffering is terrible. It can't be emphasized that suffering is terrible in order to get you to do something about it. Nonetheless the point might be well taken, the raw Jewish philosophers will mention of Krasek Kreskis later on who among other things makes this point, you do need a proper scale and it's difficult for us in this world to have a proper scale but you do need a proper scale of suffering and happiness and one has to take spiritual suffering and spiritual happiness into account and also to understand the different measure by which it is measured. But that's not a tack that alone I think will be taken by any Jewish philosopher. It has been taken sometimes by non-Jewish, I will know philosophers, non-Jewish theologians or non-Jewish cultures. There were periods for instance where Christianity has a civilization and I think the church as well pushed that point to the forefront. So for instance when the Spanish very very Catholic kingdom basically enslaved the Indian population of South America and sent the inhabitants of Peru to the gold mines but also sent them feasts, the missionaries were hand in hand with the Kraskidore and sent the missionaries to convert the natives. There were times when quite explicitly, quite explicitly the argument was made. It could be that it's not the greatest life in the world to be a slave in the Peruvian gold mines beaten ravaged by disease and dying young but but still remember that we've saved their souls because they were pagan worshipers beforehand who sacrificed their children and ate each other's and trails and now they have achieved true happiness by getting to know God. If I sound slightly cynical I suspect at a time, at least for the Spanish kings, that might have been cynical or maybe they really believed it and perhaps even the priests who were the forefront of the missionaries working hand in hand with incredible cruelty might have also believed it and it does indicate the danger of belittling in one way or another. Just as one should not say that evil doesn't exist you have to be careful when you say that we might exist but it's not that bad. It allows you again this is not a logical argument but psychologically culturally it allows you to to get away with a lot of things and the history of of Christian kingdoms kingdoms that were very much not merely where the kings were christian but they considered themselves christians. The Spanish kingdom defined itself as being in the service of God and didn't see a problem in engaging in incredible cruelty while accompanying it with a spiritual message which they sometimes argued overcame and justified the other things which they were doing. Okay so what are the options that that we do have how to tackle this very difficult problem. First thing I want to say is that it's a very difficult problem. The problem of evil was raised by Yumeo Hanavi as a problem not as an answer. He was a prophet but all you could say in his prophecy was to God lama der Rishai insalecha why do the evil prosper? That's the parallel to the question why do the righteous suffer? He said I'm going I believe in God but I'm going to argue with God because I don't understand his point and I think it needs to be argued and he doesn't get an answer. The book of Eov is dedicated to this problem and it's not easy to find the answer in Eov. Anyone who discusses the family of evil will try to put his divvy into Eov but you read Eov and tell me if you figure out the answer. It's very dear it's discussed at length many many chapters it's hard to say that the book of Eov simply presents a simple solution to the power. Thirdly any thing that we're going to say in our theological philosophical discussion is not the same as applying oneself to a real to a real case. This is a very important point. We're discussing a philosophical justification not that it's incorrect or we get around to it not that it's necessarily incorrect but there is always a golf between my suggesting a theory and when suffering takes place to yourself or to someone near you and you have to speak to them then the theory is somewhat pale. This has been the theories of wrong. The theories I think can provide a basis for finding within oneself the ability to face the personal existential problem that evil creates for those who suffer because of it but the theories themselves are not the existential solution they're the theoretical solution so anything I say now which to someone who has suffered will might sound at times to be trite it's okay it's meant to be trite but it does provide I think my own personal belief in the value of theology it provides a basis for which someone can through hard work and through great faith and belief help to overcome his own problem. No given individual case will be explained there is always the question of the unknown why God shows we're suggesting reasons why God could be responsible for this in this evil but I don't ever know how to explain why God did x, y, and z the theory should be able to explain why God could do anything which we see happening in the world but nonetheless any given case the answer always comes down to as Yumiya will basically say that I don't know the answer or the way of salvaging explain the hope we don't know the answer but you just have to have trust and faith in God now we can start discuss the possible answers we're not going to get to with this will take more than one week okay today we just discussed the beginning of the end so the first step that everyone thinks of because it's found all over the Torah it's essential to the Torah's attitude is that the justification for all suffering in the world is sin of course the question understood that the question was sadik but I think there's a righteous person and he's suffering if it was evil doers who were suffering we would not have asked the question even that stage is not that obvious the vow back for instance thought it was a problem why evil people suffer because where does a suffering come from the suffering is evil and if evil is evil it can't come from God that's a metaphysical question not a moral question it's not why God makes evil doers suffer because I know the answer the answer is justice but but where does suffering come from where does disease come from so when I could deal in in metaphysics the most Jewish philosophers didn't think that the suffering of the evil of evil people was a problem but we know that the righteous have suffered the innocent to suffer so the first step would be to begin to think well maybe it's not true maybe all the suffering that I see is somehow connected to sin one very simple first step you think he's righteous he's really not who knows what goes on in the hearts of the people about us that's a perfectly good answer it logically sounds the problem the question is what you're willing to save every single person who's suffering more than myself for instance I will say is a greater evil is it is a less righteous person than myself it will lead to a great deal of complacency in the past of those who are not suffering and and it's morally unjustifiable so no one will say that but the Raman for instance will say that no I will say that I just have a much more sophisticated way of measuring evil and measuring righteousness Raman lays down as a principle before he even begins to discuss how to deal with family evil his principle is aim is serene below of all suffering is caused by sin Raman is not willing to consider the possibility that there is suffering which is not connected to sin I'm using the word not connected because what Raman is going to do is he's going to stretch the connection not merely to cover cases of crime and punishment but nonetheless or may not be punishment but all suffering is a result of sin how does the Raman do this he does this in a number of steps in the end he says I might not have covered all the cases but I think this is the right correction I'll do this quickly what the steps Raman does you probably have heard of these things in one context for another Ram put some altogether in a book he wrote about the final evil a chapter in a band safer called torata adam which is the laws of mourning and death and the last section of that is Shahagamul to explain reward and punishment and maybe discuss this problem the band the band's first step he says remember there's this world and the next world there's no person who's a perfect sardic so the people we call sardic and people we call righteous have one or two minor minor sins and a lot a lot of myths about which they deserve they deserve reward god has an interest they're in the next world to only give them every word and therefore in this world he will correct he will inflict the punishment which will redeem them from those few sins they have you who cite is limited you only see this world you see them suffering but if you saw the whole picture this world in the next world then you would not think that there is an exception to the rule of ain eis surin below avant you would not it would fit into the picture of reward and punishment of course you say but I can it's true I can't measure this person's sins who knows what sins he's done and I don't know what even the appropriate punishment would be but I can compare to somebody else he's definitely more righteous than his neighbor and his neighbor who is evil is not suffering the man says well the opposite principle applies to the evildoers god has an interest in not having to give them any reward in the next world and therefore he gives them all the reward for their one or two good deeds in this world saving their punishment for the next world another woman says is there's almost an opposite it's paradoxical almost an opposite principle at prayer this world is a scene of prior early reward in punishment for the part that's less important so if it's a deacon for the righteous god gives them all the punishment which they deserve in the short period of time called this world so that they can be only reward only bliss only spiritual beautitude in the next world and those who are basically no good but even they have some good deeds so god pays them off so to speak in this world so he's able to give them unmitigated punishment in the next I don't mean to be cynical but you can almost get the impression from the man around that the normal state of affairs should be tzadik baralom and rashabatovno tzadikim should suffer and the veshim should prosper then we ask a larger question why do any tzadikim who don't who don't suffer just let them have the minds first step knows he basically says stretch your your vision and it's not merely looking this for the next world but understand that there was a principle at work that says give off the side the the side dish so to speak which is punishment for the righteous and reward for the for the evil doers pay that off in this world so that the next world can express the true truth about this person's personality then everybody admits that doesn't mean explain everything so he goes to another principle he says well there's something called shogank there is unintended crimes sins that people have done but it's really it's sad he's really righteous he didn't mean to do anything but everybody has slip ups and so perhaps because he wasn't careful or he didn't check in advance he didn't mean to do it at all he was shogank he was it was an unintended sin on his part the man says it could be doesn't deserve punishment but sin is real sin contaminates the soul and the cleansing of the soul can in fact be painful and therefore God in his mercy God in order to bring your soul to its good again in the next world will will will cleanse it among other things through suffering in this world so here we've done is we're saying there is no suffering without sin but sin isn't only deliberate premeditated sin there are all kinds of sins some which you may even be aware of which are somehow connected to you and they also require atonement or cleansing cleansing is a better way than atonement because it's not that you're guilty and therefore you must suffer but you're dirty and therefore you must be cleansed the man has another stage which raises interesting philosophical questions we're not going to talk about those questions no man was a capitalist and he says if you still have a problem then there is a secret answer the secret answer is reincarnation which for our purposes means you're also carrying sins from a previous from a previous existence man doesn't mean that you're guilty you're not you're a new personality man didn't think they would be born as we are that's a misinterpretation of man's reincarnation but again the soul is calving the stains the the burden of everything that it's gone through and therefore it has to be cleansed and therefore to our perspective what we don't see this is we don't see beyond the death or la maba we don't see before birth when i could talk about reincarnation today the point is when van believes that he can explain all the evil in the world by widening the perspective of sin to include unintended sin and pre-birth sin and even even hear hoorayaveva the thought arose in your head and defining punishment not as punishment but as as reaction as cleansing and everything can be seen in that way and then van says you know he might still have a problem believe in god in others what's the problem there were innocent children people just couldn't manage to accumulate any sin first reincarnation was seen to explain almost everything but maybe there's no doubt for you okay you have to believe in god anyhow trust god this is the right approach so what the man is done is he hasn't said that evil doesn't exist he said that it's not true the fourth the three and a half the assumption of god is good it's not true that a good being has to eliminate evil because a good being we all agree does not have to eliminate punishment he doesn't have to eliminate the evil that's in response to sin and then in the banquet situation whereby the good god is responsible for a great deal of suffering because there's a great deal of sin in one form or another out in the world which has to be taken care of we're going to perceive next week to go in a different direction from the man the man is basically saying there is no unjustified evil unjustified suffering meaning unjustified by sin next week we will discuss the approach of rasta kreskas the watha of the arasham who literally ceases the bow by its horns and says yes there is evil that is not justified by prior sin and it's done by an infinitely good good being so stopping now sort of in the middle of our discussion i presented to a man really on the on the edge of uh the edge of a stick that there's a man is much more complicated than i presented but i think the point my point was to reflect on the man's approach you might say it's a traditional approach but traditional in in a non-traditional definition punishment suffering evil in the world is a response to man's sin man's sin because he has freedom of will allows him to sin and god and god response you've been listening to the weekly share in the problems of jewish philosophy for today's hala kaya yomit going back to kriyat sma you may have heard people it's not a common minute you may have heard people read kriyat sma a bit tah amim the way that one reads the Torah with troth the tamei the tamei atava it's more common among uh straddic congregations relatively rare among ashkenazi congregations but there are people who do it it goes back to a statement of a single vision the beno yona is quoted in entomidere beno yona in the second part of the heart states sort of offhandedly that kriyat sma should be read bit tah amim he prises as an explanation for a statement of the komare in sachim but the komare sachim doesn't actually say that the komare says you were mafsik in the wrong way the people of yuhro would read Torah without being mafsik and verminio says that means that they didn't read it the tat amim this statement of a beno yona is quoted by the two leha laka the Torah says you should read kriyat a torab bit tah amim the Bechah safe speculates that perhaps all the beno yona meant was you should read the Torah the way that the tat amim imply that we should read it in other words you should read it syntactically correct remember that in the Torah itself is even the ends of sentences aren't marked how do we know where a sentence where a passuk ends because yesh tah amir mikra the trump says self passuk so beno yona says maybe all that's the Bechah safe says maybe all that's what verminio yona meant you have to read kriyat sma in a way that makes sense that it's it's syntactically correct in other words you pause at the end of a sentence you you you divide the sentence up also in a parallel manner to tah amir mikra but it doesn't really mean tah amir mikra the vermah in the in the daki motion on on the Torah says well you know our custom is not to do it he says but you should try he more than accepts the Bechah safe he says we don't hold like verminio yona the minute of the kilo that i know they don't know no one reads that way but it is important to to to pronounce the sentence in a meaningful manner and so that you should do in any of it you know make sure you understand what you're saying and you pause in the right places and you raise your voice and you reflect in a manner that indicates as one one speaks you you you you have come as in and and and and and periods in the right in the right place and that's that's what actually the mah passuk ends neshokhanah it's interesting because the Bechah safe was the one who really questioned the Bechah yona but the Bechah safe in the end in the shokhanah work quote nah rah one should read kriyat sma bit tah amir mam and there must says no you don't have to but then the doctor came makmirim those were very careful make a make an effort based on what he says in dakimah she means that you should make an effort to read it to read it to read it correctly there is an alternative explanation to a Bechah yona and that is not what the Bechah safe says not that one should read in a semantical manner or even that a Bechah yona said you should read the tah amir because tah amir will lead you to read in a semantical meaningful manner but it could be that the Bechah yona really thought you should read the tah amir kran the reason is very simple because kriyat sma is a mitzvah to read sukim and the Bechah yona might have thought that reading sukim just like you have to read the letters and you have to read the vowels which aren't written but you have to pronounce the right vowels you can say ve e hafta you have to say ve hafta that's not in the letter that's in the Torah but we know that that underneath that alif or associate with that alif is a certain vowel the Bechah yona might think that the tah amir which tah amir says come from aunshayk nessa takdala the part of the Torah as it's given so proper reading is proper reading the tah amir it's not to create a semantical way a meaningful sentence but it's there because it's part of the law that says read with the correct pronunciation also means read with the correct term if you're bearing on a said that and often mostly shown and don't agree because no one else mentioned it an argument against it would be that you're not actually reading the tah amir kriyat sma because you're not reading from a tah amir you're reading from a tah amir you're reading from a sitar which means that alpidin you're reading by heart but I'm not so sure that that's really an argument because it would appear from the gammamir that it's it's possible to read the Torah by heart you just die the alsai it's not the way that that's the way that you're allowed to read but readings it actually misnomia the word kara doesn't mean to read it means to recite so the gammamir says that you know you can read by heart or you can read mito kaktav from the text you're supposed to read from the text migilata step for instance you're allowed to read a little bit by heart so I think the fact that we're not reading from a safe atorra which means because it's not the din of kriyat atorra bitzibur that's done you know with aliyot that's done in on Mondays and Thursdays but you're still reading sukiin from the Torah and it's possible the banyan of thought that proper reading is bita amir again debate is safe from self says it's not necessary even when he passes is that you should do it the rama says the meaning is not to do it but both of them agree two things one is it is important to read correctly meaning to read in a meaningful manner which requires you to understand and also to to pronounce the words such a way that it's not enough understanding your heart you have to actually say in a way that makes sense sometimes we get so caught up in a sing song different kind of tune not the tune of kriyat atorra but a tune of our own that you sometimes hear people you know reading in a manner which actually makes no sense so that's one it's really important too the remember in an event did say that hamad dr kim yachmiho one it would be a good thing to do this there were not in the dark emotion says though that you know it's a problem he was not used to it if he tries to be bita amir it might affect his kavanagh and kavanagh is more important than tami having the proper intention when when we it's much more important than a a dikdok making sure that you say a tipro and a nakta or as a kev katan in the right place it's like a catch 22 since we don't do it so you're trying to do it we difficult and we'll affect your and we'll affect your kavanagh he who gets used to so gets used to doing it so it won't uh won't hurt us kavanagh i think in fact the world aid is kavanagh because again he's being the person in a manner which is uh which makes sense the the tami might not by accident they they reflect the proper inflection proper semantic uh rather syntactic in a understanding of the of the berserk but aloha misa that's what alma says since most of us aren't used to doing it it's difficult to start doing it especially at a relatively advanced age and therefore aloha misa you don't have to do it if you can it's a good thing and that's why but basically when he's telling shows one or two people who have trained themselves to do it well uh a makpir on this most people including masa bhanim most people who know my makpir and many things are not necessarily makpir on that uh it's aloha which exists quoted in the tour and is weakened by the beach or safe and more or less denied not in theory but in practice by the by the mama that's uh that's it for today we'll be back tomorrow with the wednesday share of rabinham interbollywood the weekly mitzvah for pastrati drow until then this is as we back in gushethian cult of this has been kmct kimit sian te cetora udvar hashem mirusha dain