KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Erev Shabbat Parashat Beshalach
Erev Shabbat program for parashat Beshalach
This is KMTT, and this is Azubic. Today is Friday, Yudbet Bishvat, Ere Shabbat Kaudesh Pashat Bishadach. In Pashat Bishadach, in the beginning of the Pasha, we have a Pashat that is seemingly completely out of place. Pashat Yudhret, which is very, very beginning of the Pasha, it says, "By a save Elohim et alam deruhamid baar yamsuf, bahamu shim a lubinet samirat smith's name." Says that God turned the people away from the short path. He took them in deruhamid baar, the way of the desert. Yamsuf, deruhamid baar yamsuf goes through yamsuf. That's the path that they're on. Tupsukim later, he explains what that means, "by isum is sukout, they love sukout by ahanu baetam biktayamid baar." So the first step in this journey, God has laid out this long path, and the first step is, from sukout to a time in the beginning of the desert. In between those tupsukim comes a pasuk, which in itself is not difficult, but its placement is very difficult. "By ikah, moshah et almohik sifin mohr." "Khi, asvah, isvir, vinais, ere mohr." "Bakol, yifqol de lahim et remah alitemit, atmohtaimi zayfrem moshah." Took the bones of your safe with him, because the other safe had imposed an oath on the Jews, saying, "God will redeem you and save you some day, and you should take my bones with you." The pasuk itself is a very nice pasuk. It tells us that moshah abainah when he left, mitzvayim took the bones of your safe with him. But with this pasuk comes in between two other pasukim, which are extremely close, tupsukim which are describing the path of binais soil, from mitzvayim, setting hand on the journey towards ereti seil. That's what the beginning of this pasuk is back. So one pasuk says that God is sending them der echamidbar yam suf, and then it says, "Vais sumi sukot re'achanoube et tambik seil midbar." They're on their way. They're now in the edge of the midbar, the way which will lead them to yam suf, and we know what's going to happen in the continuation of the pasuk. And in the middle, pasuk, yutat, between yutret and paft. The 19th verse of this parak says that moshah abainah took the bones of your suf. What is this pasuk doing here? Put it someplace else, put it before the pasha, put it in the end of the pasha. What does it have to do with the fact that they are going not through the way of the plishjim, but through the way of the desert through yam suf. Baba al-hebstin, the author of the Talat mima answers this question by reference to a majush on the pasuk. Pasukin t'ilim, which we say in hallelujah, hiyam rahavayanas, hiyadentusavla hazadas, what does it mean, hiyam rahavayanas? The sea, saw, and retreated. What did the sea see? What did the sea see? And then we treated. The sea split, because God told it to split. What did it see? And we coiled or we treat. So the majush answers, the sea saw the bones of your suf being carried by moshah. And then, and then it split. Apparently, the majush is saying that the sea didn't want to split. Even though God had the creed that it should and moshah abainah stood at the edge of the sea, and according to different majush, nakshon, benaminadab jumped into the sea. The sea didn't want to split, but then it saw the bones of your suf, and see the word in the pasuk vayyannos. It didn't just split. It ran away. In other words, the bones of your suf forced it, forced the sea to flee from before moshah. And that's how the splitting of the dead sea took place. So therefore, the baq says, that's why this pasuk comes where it comes, because it explains the path of the naysul. God said they should go, de rahamid vayyam suf. God said they should go through the way of the desert, through yaham suf. How are they going to do that? Oh, because moshah abainah takes the bones of your suf with him. And therefore, they now leave a time when they go to the edge of the midvahr and the way to yaham suf. In other words, when it says the gong, de raham suf, de rahamid vayyam suf, you will ask, that's impossible. Yaham suf is an impenetrable barrier for them. The answer is none of them. They're going through yaham suf, and moshah takes your suf's bones, which will be their ticket, which will be their way, in fact, to breach the suf. Okay, that's a very nice thought. The question that it raises, though, is somewhat more serious, but why? In other words, why, in fact, is the way to breach yaham suf, the bones of your suf. What a chazal trying to tell us, and why is the sea more impressed by the bones of your suf, than by the knee of the Jews and the word of God and the staff of the staff of moshah. So, I think the reason is really clear if we understand the position of your suf, vis-a-vis his brothers in Egypt, as well as the meaning of kriyat yaham suf in in chazal. Whenever chazal wants to mention a paradigm for a miracle, they'll say kriyat yaham suf, and not just an example of a very impressive miracle, something that's very spectacular, but they use it to indicate a very difficult miracle, a miracle that was hard to perform. Obviously, theologically, that doesn't make any sense at all. There are no hard miracles. If God is the source of all miracles, it's not hard. He can do anything, and therefore, it's not intrinsically more difficult to split the Red Sea than it would be to have a flying ant. But nonetheless, chazal will use this faith. Say, "Kashe" something about it, "kriyat yaham suf." "Kashe" is the vugansha yisra'el, "kriyat yaham suf." They need God's ability to be a matchmaker, to create matches between among the Jews is as difficult as "kriyat yaham suf." Why is "kriyat yaham suf" the paradigm for chazal of a difficult, of a difficult miracle? I think the answer is because chazal saw the splitting of the sea and understood that this perhaps was the reason that what God was trying to show the world, or the Jews and the Egyptians, when he split the Red Sea, the splitting of the sea put the water in a position that was totally unnatural and basically long for the water to be. The nature of water is to go down. Water comes from the sky and falls on the earth, and when it comes into a basin, it gets accumulated in the basin where we call a sea, that water should stand against the nature of water. It's not just that God did something which is unusual or impressive. What God didn't create yaham suf was, for a certain period of time, to change water. "You're not water. You're going to be something else. You're going to be a war." As Pasuk says, "Bam, mayim, lahem, khamma," literally, and the water became a war. So the water is not water. It becomes a war. And not that again. That's difficult for God. It's no more difficult than it is creating the water in the first place. Miracles are just an expression of creation. But as an example to us of what can be done in the world, khiyat yaham suf means that God doesn't only have to work with nature, but he can literally stand nature on its head. Now, what's the problem here? The problem is that the water is upset. The water says, "Why should I live a life of falsehood? Why should I be far into my own nature just to let the Jews pass? Find another way to let the Jews pass." And the answer to that question is the bones of your safe. Why? The bones of your safe. Because Yosef was the individual who lived a life that was far into his nature. Yosef was the individual who was Ghanov-Gunafi Meretsayvim. I was stolen away from my father's house. He was his father's favorite son, who learned Torah with his father, with the darling of the family. The one who got the many- the many colored coat, the konatapasim. He was stolen away, sent to a totally foreign land, and he lived there for the rest of his life. Most of many of those years without his family. Even after his family comes to Egypt, they at least live in Goshen. They live as Jews. He continues to live as an Egyptian. He dresses as an Egyptian. He talks as Egyptian. His job is to be Egyptian. Yosef lives a life that is indeed unnatural for him. Because against his nature, it's foreign. He's in the skies the entire time. He's alienated from himself. And therefore, Yosef's bones are an answer to the sea in two senses. One, he says, "If I can do it, you can do it." If God's will and God's wisdom leads to a situation where I have to live in Egypt and not in Eretzkinan, and not in Israel, and not in my father's house, and not in my father's ways, and not in my father's clothing, and not the way I myself am, then that's what I did. So you can do it too. But even more deeply, I think there's a deeper sense here. Because what does it say in the Pazook? It says that Moshe Obein, who took the bones of Yosef, "Why? Tihashbeya, he should be at the naysalimon." Yosef had imposed this oath on the Jews. "Pakod yifko de dohimetrem, vah habittem et atimotaimi zayetrem." He hadn't merely said, "Take my bones with you." He said to them, "God will. Pakod yifko. God will remember, redeem, you, and therefore take my bones with you." Yosef had promised the Jews. Hundreds of years in advance, "she pakod yifko de dohimetrem," what does it mean pakod? Pakod literally means to remember, but to remember and to come and do something. Pakod means to remember and to fix, to return. "Pakod yifko de dohimetrem" means that God will return you to Eretisrael. Now, Yosef, he who was the stranger in a strange land in Mitzvayim, is the one who had made the promise, who had said whose words we go over and repeat. He had said, "God mends and returns things to where they should be. Pakod yifko de dohimetrem." So therefore Yosef's bones are not merely an example to the sea to act like yourself, but also a promise. If you're asked to do something that is against your nature, but there's a promise that God indeed makes sure things return to where they really should be. And in response to that, both the example and the promise, so the red sea split, agreed to be split. "Hayam ra'ah," it saw Yosef's life in Yosef's example, and remember Yosef's words, "Vayanas," and it fled, retreated, recoiled, and allowed the Jews, and allowed the Jews to cross. And therefore it's not merely an explanation of the splitting of the Red Sea, but it's in fact the basic promise that lies at the base of the redemption, the redemption of Egypt and of all redemption. God has given a promise, "Pakod yifko de dohimetrem." God makes sure that things return to where they should be. The Jews will return to Eretisrael. The water will, Jerusalem et Tanoh, will go back to its strength, the way it should be, as the verse says later on in the parishion. Everything comes back to where it should be, even if for a short period of time, or a long period of time, or perhaps hundreds of years, it has wandered and been forced to be in situations which are far into it, but the promise of redemption is based on, among other things, is based on Pikida, remembering where you're supposed to be, and putting the situation back, mending the situation to reflect the way things really, really should be. At this point, I should be introducing our guest for this Eretis Shabbat program. And here I have an admission to make, and basically an apology. This has been a difficult week here in El Anshvat. We've had more than one funeral, and more than one Nihoma Velem. That's the bad part, and somehow these things crept up, and I didn't have a chance to actually organize this program the way it should be organized. There's also a good side. This Shabbat, in Shabbat, in Shabbat, is a Shabbat, a special Shabbat dedicated to the topic of gula, of redemption, and it already started on Thursday. We had some guest speakers, and a symposium at night, and I was involved in that as well. So between the difficult part and the good part, I have not arranged a proper program for this Eretis Shabbat program. Despite those excuses I just gave, it's my fault. I'm guilty. And I apologize now. This program will be shorter. I didn't want to cancel the program altogether. This is the first time that we haven't maintained the proper schedule in KMTT, and it will not be, I hope, a sign of things to come. But there is no guest for this program. The middle section of today's program between the introduction and al-Hayomid, you just heard, it's an apology. You can look at it as a kind of Musa. Instead of having a guest speaker by Tapasha, I'm giving Musa not to you, I'm giving Musa to myself, but you're all invited to share in it. And therefore, we now proceed to today's Halaqah Al-Hayomid. Talking about Kriyachma, there's a Halaqah, mentioned in the Gama'a quarter in the Shuchan'aq. It's not well known because it doesn't have that much practical amplification, except occasionally. The Gama'a says, "How Ume'a, modim, modim, mister kinota." If somebody, being a hazin, says, when he's repeating the Shum'an'aq, out loud, modim, modim, he says modim twice, as mister kinota, we silence him. That means we fire him, we take him away, we don't let him be the hazin. The word then says, "It's the same thing is true for Ume'a Shum'aq." If you say Shum'a twice, it was also mister kinota. The Gama'a then quotes a brighter that has the same idea, but doesn't say mister kinota. So, what distinguishes between where they repeat the whole "passoc" or just one word, they're both bad. And the "makhaba" passing the Shuchan'aq doesn't need to distinguish. She says, "You don't repeat a word twice, Shum'a'aq, you don't say Shum'a'aq, you're not supposed to do it. Why not? Why can't you say modim, modim, modim, mister kinota, modim, mister kinota, it appears as though there are two powers, although the person believes in two powers, meaning two gods, or two deities, or two strength, two powers. And therefore, if anyone does that, we fire him, we take him away. This is Al-Aqah's quote in the Shuchan'aq. It right away raises the problem as to what would happen if you had to say it twice. Why would you have to say it twice? Well, because the first "passoc" of Shum'a must be said with Kavanah. In order to be yourself, the mitzvah of Kriyachma, Kriyachma isn't saying words, it's, it's, it's reciting, it's, it's, it's, it's declaiming, it's proclaiming the meaning of Shum'a. And therefore, you need Kavanah both to the meaning of the words and to the inherent idea of Shum'a, a Pledge of allegiance to God, we call Kabbalat 'omochu'chamaim. So, suppose you said Shum'a, but you didn't have Kavan. You realized later on that you had said the words, but you hadn't said Kavan. You hadn't used Kavan. You're not your take Kriyachma, you have to say it again. But you can't say it again because you know, let's say Shum'a twice. So, they're trying to discuss this, this problem, or some Akran would think that there's such, under such a situation. There is no reason, you're not saying it twice because you want to say it twice. You're saying it twice because you have to, the person doesn't count. So, it's okay. Then, the Akran who added reasons how to, how to permit it. For instance, the Bach says, you can pull us between them. Maybe it's a Shum'a, or Shum'a Shum'a Kannu, Shum'a Khad, Shum'a Shum'a Khad, Shum'a Khad, you're pledging allegiance to two gods. But if you say it, then you pause in between certain amount of time, then it's okay. How much time no one knows for sure. Some Akran have thought that you should leave the amount of time it would take to finish the entire chapter, the entire parak, Shum'a and the after. Logically, I don't think that's really true. I think you have to have the amount of time that it doesn't appear to be which they will show you out. If I was talking to two people and saying I believe in you, I believe in you, it would be right after, right after the other. The amount of time that goes by, that's someone who hears it wouldn't put the two sentences together. That's one point in the Bach. Another point in the Bach is that if you say it quietly, it says Mirzi Kishdevashir, it appears to be two powers. It appears to whom, to someone else, people who are listening. And therefore, if you have to say it, why say it quietly? Adirachronim claimed that perhaps the whole prohibition is only Bitzibu. Remember, the original Halacha was Modim Modim. That was specifically talking about Ahazan. That's the whole context of the Gamare. Mishtakinoto, we silence him. You don't silence yourself. You silence the person who you've sent to be the hazzan. So the original context is Bitzibu. Some are going to think the whole Israel is Bitzibu because the sensitivity of HaZal, that you might sound as though you accepted two powers, has to do with doing it in public. If you're more or less in private, you don't really believe in two powers. It just sounds like you might have believed in two gods. It's not a problem. So that's a third, a third, a third haZal. Alachamizah, some alachamizah, I think Joachoshon says that if you have to repeat Shmatu'i, so do it, but do it together all the different, cool it together, say it quietly with a pause and do it with Bitzibu, not Bitzibu, not in public. Okay, so that's Alachah. It's relatively rare, but that's Alachah. The Beyja Seif quotes an opinion that says it's not only Modim Modim in Shmashmah, the two examples born in Gomara. Suspense that you now want to say Amen Amen. Once again, you're saying Amen to God. So if you say twice, it's Milzik Shtayoshir. The Beyja Seif himself rejects his opinion. He says, he doesn't think so. It's against the Gomara. Agamara doesn't mention it. Therefore, it's natural. Haran pointed out that it is mentioned explicitly in Youshammiz. Youshammiz says, Amen Amen, you should not say. It could still be a Mahloket. The dispute between Youshammizah and the Bible, and we pass on like the Bible. That's what the Viacobendent says. Viacobendent says, it's Jewish. Youshammiz, but the Gomara is against it. And therefore, the reason is because there's nothing wrong with the Amen. Amen. Shmashmah is a special thing. It's the Declaration of Faith. Modimodim, you speak directly to God. Amen. So he says, you would agree. If you agree twice, you would be even more. And in fact, he recommends saying, Amen Amen specifically word in the Shmonessai. Viacobendent says, the best thing is to say. Yous. It's not prohibited. It's even recommended. But there are many Hronim who thought that the Yoush really exists. One should not say, Amen Amen. It's a complicated question. Why? Because at least two places in Tanakh, we find someone saying, Amen Amen. One is in Pashat Sotar, in the Torah, when the priest, when the Kohain, imposes an oath on a Sotashi, answers, Amen Amen. On the other end of Tanakh, and say, for Nachhemiah, you have an assembly of the Jews who received the Torah, they received Mitzvot, and they answer, they have a bit. They sign a covenant with God, and they answer, Amen, Viacobend. So some Hronim says, there's a difference between Amen, Amen, and Amen. When you put in the above, when you put in the end, so you're not saying it to two different people, you're saying it to one person, and Amen twice. Amen, Viacomend means yes, and even more so, yes, which we said, Amen, Amen, then it seems like you're addressing two different, two different edges. So, Amen, Viacomend is better than, is better than Amen. There's another interesting point that's made by Samachronim that the word Amen has two different uses. Amen means yes, but that's two different uses. If I say Amen after a bhachah, it means I agree. You're required, I'll be there. If you hear a bhachah, you must answer Amen. This person has said something to God. He said, he made a bhachah, blessed are you who was brought bread out of the ground, because he wants to eat bread. You either agree or you don't agree. You say, Amen, to say, I also, I agree, I also wish to bless God, even though I'm not eating bread. There's another Amen that's not said after a bhachah, but it's said after a request. If I say that I would like this and this and this and this, Amen means, and yes, that's what I want. So, Samachronim say that if you say, Amen, Amen, but once you meet it in the first sense, once you meet it in the second sense, there's no problem. Because the problem is only if you say the same thing exactly twice, who you're addressing, you're addressing two different gods. But if you say two different things, even if it's the same word, there would be no problem. So, for instance, in a, if it was a bhachah, which was a request, let's say you heard somebody make a bhachah with an anu, where he's asking God to send them a cure, but he finishes by saying, Baruch, Attah, Asshem, Rufehi, Holei, Amo'is, so you can add a mane to the bhachah and a mane to the request. Okay, so this, I don't know how much Alachamites it is. It's an important point because Alachah is quoted in Schochonach. The Machabere says it is not pamma maina maina, Rama says it is a problem. As I pointed out, a bhachah of m didn't pass against the Rama and says, you can say amena maina maina. Another acronym say, well, maybe amena maina maina maina maina, maybe it depends on the context. There's a certain sensitivity involved, but as I pointed out, the apsukiim, which have it and makes it a very difficult thing to say that it's a sur when we find that the Jews did it in time of Nachhemia unless you'll think of some way to distinguish between the two cases. There's a discussion in Yachronim whether or not, once you've got to a mane to a mane, maybe it applies to everything. You should never repeat something twice immediately without a pause because if you're speaking to God and you repeat it twice, it sounds like you're speaking to two people. So that's not in the bhavli or the washami, but if you already extended it from Odin to Schma, from Schma to a mane, maybe you should keep going. So I don't think anyone will actually pass katalachalamisa this way, but it's a consideration when discussing passable lusrad, whether one should do it. In Schma it's alachalamisa. The very ancient minute of saying schma israel at the end of Yom Kippur, the end of N'ilah. So to be sure we've already said, not twice, but only once because it's schma. On the other hand, we say, also an ancient minute of saying Hashem Uedokem seven times, and that could really sound like multiple powers, multiple gods, you're saying Hashem Uedokem, Hashem Uedokem, maybe each one of them is seven different gods. So there are thoughts of those defense that he says, it's not what you mean, you mean to ascend from God as king over this world over the next world and over the higher world, and if it's okay. In other words, the question arose, there's a certain sensitivity involved, but you're able to sometimes manage to go away with it, schma, which is explicit. So little says, don't say schma twice, only once, which is our minute, that's what's in the makhs of him, schma's so only one time. I'd like to add that I think that since the prohibition in the Gomorrah is a prohibition of mexicistevishriad, it is true that the Gomorrah is very sensitive to that because there was a real live option in the time of the Talmud, there were actual sects that had, they were dualistic, they had two powers. The problem arises because of good and evil. How do we explain the nature of evil in the world? And the simplest answer is the answer in Babel, the Gomorrah Babel, it was the official religion of Babel. Zolashianism recognizes two gods, god of good and a god of evil. And even in El Tiselle, the kataminim, the gnostics, dualism has a very basic function in religious philosophy because it does solve certain problems. Today, it's not a live option. If you heard Ahrasen say modemodem, none of us would imagine or suspect him of being a dualist. It's not exactly something which people belong to. Unless one claims that one shouldn't view it in terms of actual sects, but in terms of philosophy, the philosophy of dualism where the people admitted on that is in fact a very attractive one. One might be officially a monotheist, and yet we do find people more, I think, in Christianity than in Jews who relate to evil as being a powerful force that at least practically speaking in this world is sort of equal to God. We know that we all believe that God is the stream of everything, but practically speaking, you have, even in Judaism, you have the concept of a citra acha, the other side, and sometimes in Kabbalah, it's related to as though it were practically speaking, powerful, a reshut, a power. And I think the reason is because dualism does, in fact, lie deeply in the soul of man, even if we've been trained to be monotheists, but you come across powers that appear to be against God, against what we want, and there's a natural tendency of people to divide the world into two. So maybe even if there isn't a sect, one should, nonetheless, be suspicious or be tried to uproot any possible mention or reference, or even a hint to this kind of philosophy. Again, I think Al-Acha-Namisa, although the Halakh is quoted in the Shuchanar, and we follow it, but in terms of applying it to more situations and widening it to each and being makhmir, my feeling is you shouldn't, you don't have to be makhmirness, it's not a real, it's not a real problem, it's more of a Halakhah, which is quoted, which is which is Sukhah. We don't have to run around looking for more ways in which to extend it. Unless, as I said before, unless one views it as a philosophic problem and not merely a sectarian, a sectarian problem. As I said, that's it for today, finishing a little bit early. I'm sorry, I apologize again. Imita-shan won't happen again. This is KMTT wishing you a shabbat shalom un vorach. Next week on Monday, where we turn to a regular scheduled programming, Monday, this year will be by Rabbi Iyokan, Imita Khot. Next Friday, Imita-shan will have a serious and hopefully even better than usual. Try to make it up, add a shabbat program, till then shabbat shalom, Migo shaat shalom, famishibat shalom. This is Azubek, and this was KMTT. Kimit shiom, tesetora un vorachan mirushalaim.