KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Parashat HaShavua - Beshalach
Parashat HaShavua for Parashat Beshalach, by Rav Yitzchak Blau
This is KMTT. And this is Ezra Beck broadcasting punctuation. Today is Thursday. Yud alif shvat. And we're having a storm. If you listen very carefully during the shear, I think you'll be able to hear the wind howling in the background. Normally we do this in a room that's relatively, relatively soundproofed, but there's quite a storm building up. Breqacham will be getting some rain, which is a good thing. But it's still be some little bit of interference in the shear. I figure since it's whole chart'er it's a style, I could try to take it out using the software which I don't understand. But think of it as being worked'er it's a style. Worked'er it's a good thing. It wanted to fail with the shear too much. Today's shear in Pashatah Savua will be given by Haravitsad Blal, who is a ram in Yishiwatami style, in effect, a neighboring community, to Gushit Yal, and the shear in Pashatah Savua for Pashat Bishalach. The shear is 29 and a half minutes long, and after the shear I will be back for the Halaqai Yomit. When we think about Amya Sirl complaining in the mid-bar, we tend to think about the stories in Safer Bamidbar, the story of the Maraglim, the stories of complaining for food. This is the history of complaints of Amya Sirl. However, the history of complaining really begins quite earlier, and in Pashat Bishalach we actually have three stories of complaints. I'd like to look at these three stories in depth, and compare the quality of the complaints in Pashat Bishalach with the complaints in Safer Bamidbar, as well as understand the different reactions that Hashem and Moshe Rabinoh have in response to these complaints. Let's start with the three complaints in Pashat Bishalach. So the first complaint is immediately after Shear at Hayam. Here the Jews have left Egypt, there's been Makot, there's been the miracle of Kriyad Yamsof. The Pashat Bishalach immediately following the Shearah, we already have complaining. Here we are in Parak, Tedvav, Pashukhe Bet. So they go for three days and they cannot find water. They come to a place called Marah, they at first think there's water, it turns out that that water is too bitter to drink. One imagines this would be a cause for greater disappointment, three days without a source of water. It looks like their problem is solved, and it turns out that this water too cannot be, cannot be utilized. So if people turn in complaint, La Ilona Am al Moshelymore managed it, it's the complaint to Moshe. Now in Bamidbar we're often used to the fact that complaints are greeted with a harsh response. Sometimes Moshe is angry, sometimes Hashem is angry, sometimes there's a punishment, sometimes Moshe turns to Hashem and says, "How can I leave these people?" Here we have none of the above, what's Moshe's response? "V'i'itzake l'ashhem," "V'i r'aywashhem eights," "V'ashsekhe l'hamayim," "V'im takul ha'amayim," "sham," "samsam l'ohokhul m'ishbabhisham n'issam." No problem, Moshe turns and davins t'ashhem. Hashem explains what the solution is, put the eights in the water, it will sweeten the water of Marah, and we can move on. The response is purely solved the problem, no anger and no punishment. Then a bit later we have another complaint. In the beginning of paraktid Zion, where you assume a limb by a vocal adapineesal mid-barcine, a cherbeni limb of NC9, the hamishah, seriom, achodashashinil, let's say tambiritz mitzrayim. So here we are on the 15th of year, so it's exactly a month after the beginning of Yitzia mitzrayim. While you loan a caladapineesal al-moshab al-a-run-bamit-bar, and there's another complaint, again this is the same verb of "tlu-na" to complain, "vayyom-ra-lambineesal-mit-e-nut-e-nut-e-nut-e-nut-e-nub-ya-ra-shambiritz mitzrayim." "The Shiptainu al-seer ha-ba-sar vah-hleinu-lak-am-la-so-va." "Kyot-se-tanu-a-tanu-a-lamit-bar-a-za-la-hamit-et-kala-kala-has-e-baraf." It would have been better to die in Egypt. There we had food, we had meat, we had bread, and here we have no source of food in the mid-bar in the desert. So before we had a complaint about lack of water, here we have a complaint about lack of food. And once again, the response does not seem to be that harsh. I should point out that about a month later, it could be that their food supplies from Egypt have run out at this point. It has been as we suggest, they have been a month of foodstuffs with them. Now it's run out, they don't know where their next meal is going to come from. They turn to Mosheh, what's the response? "Vayyom-ra-sham-mo-sheh-nim-amt-tlu-ha-m-la-kam-la-sham-ayim," et cetera, et cetera. They'll get them on, and that will be okay. Once again, the complaint is not responded to with any kind of harshness or punishment. The third complaint in Parshat Bishalach does elicit a bit of criticism, although no punishment. In Parig-Yud-zai in Pasagalif, now a sukla-dap-neh-s-sal-mib-bib-bar-sind-lama-se-m-op-y-a-sham-re-h-nub-r-fid-im. "Vayyom-ra-sham-mo-sheh-nim-ra-sham," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And there's no water, and once again, the people turn and complain to Mosheh. Now here are the verb shifts. "Vayyom-ra-sham-mo-sheh," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. "Vayyom-ra-sham-mo-sheh-nub-nim-ra-sham," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Now here I notice two things. We have a verb shift. The verb is no longer "tlu-na." It's "vayyar-ev-mir-vah." There's a quarrel that the people have. Secondly, for the first time, Mosheh faults the people. It seems to sound a critical note. "Vayyom-ra-sham-mo-sheh-nim-ra-sham," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. "Vayyom-ra-sham-mo-sheh-nim-ra-sham," et cetera. Then, the pasta continues by Tzmashamamlamaym, they are thirsty. By Yall and Hamam al-Moshev, Yall and Hamam al-Moshev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Hamam al-Mazhev, Yall and Ham So, for the first time we have a negative note, so to sum up what we have in Prashat Bishalach before we look at Baymidbar and former contrast, we have three stories of complaints. The initial complaint in Midbar Shur when they lack water, the second complaint on the 15th of the hour when they are lacking food, and then they receive the mud, they were told that complaint is Benilam of Insinai. And the third complaint in Rifidim, once again for a lack of water, here for the first time there is a critical response, but no punishment throughout the entire Prashat. If we turn to Baymidbar, we have stories of complaining, not just complaining, but very similar complaining, complaining about lack of water, complaining about lack of food. So, let's look at three complaints in Baymidbar. So, we'll begin with Baymidbar Parikiralaf, and here we're in Prashat Balaotra. And here the Torah says, "Baha'i, I'm very beginning of Parikiralaf. Baha'i, I'm committing on a name, Rabazne Hashem, Vaishmashm ichaar apo, vativarbam ichaashm, a tochalbik ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam ichaam. The people are mittoninim, which we'll discuss a bit later, the exact etymology of this verb, but some form of complaining. And right away, it's a very harsh evaluation of this complaint in response. First of all, it's Rabazne Hashem. It is evil in the ear of God. It sounds evil. Vaishmashm, God is angry, vativarbam ichaashm, and there's immediate punishment. Very different reaction to the reaction in Pasheed Pishalach. This continues to the next story, right? This first story is the place known as Tavera. Then we move on to the enough story known as kibrodha tavera. In Pasak dala de perikidala fasaf. Sufashebe kibrodha hita bu tavera. Vaishuvu vayif kugambene Israel, Vaayomu miyahi leno basa. Here again, there's a request for meat. Again, this bamibaridala sounds familiar, to sounds comparable to schmotezain, a request for food. Once again, there's a certain longing for the supply of food in Egypt. Sekharnot had daggash and nochabem mitzrayam krinam. We remember the fish we had in Egypt, free fish. Atake shuimvat ichimat ichaamat ichaamat ichaamat ichaamat ichaamim. There's foodstuffs that were available in Egypt. Now, of course, it's quite odd to think back to a period of slavery as a time of material bounty. But nonetheless, it may be so that it was easier for them to procure a fish there, right? The different suggestions went with the nochabem mitzrayam krinam means. You've been, as we suggest, that it's a bit of an exaggeration, but fish was at least cheap, right? Fish was in abundance near the Nile, and therefore, it went for a relatively modest price. Other morphosomes, such as the ramban, and truly say it was free. If you want slaves to work a long day and produce, you need to give them food. So, army's soil, with all its problems in Egypt, did have access to food. They were able to eat, easily, and survive. And that's what they're remembering now. So again, there's this request for food. There's this panic. Where is our food supplying the desert? Here, once again, the response is much harsher, both in evaluation and in punishment. In paso yud, we've had here the following, "By Yhara Pashema-Ode, God is exceedingly angry with them, uve nae nae moshah-rah, and the eyes of Moshets' evil, an evaluation that we did not have in parash of bishalah." So again, the height, the contrast becomes heightened. Here, seemingly is parallel complaint, the request for food. And here, there's anger, and there's punishment in a much more immediate sense. Of course, there's also a parallel to the complaint about lack of water. For this, we have to move from parash of bah-rah to bamid-bar par kraf, right? The famous story of the sin of Moshebano, the prevents him from coming there to Sural. Here also, we hear in parakraf pastagalif, about a place called mid-bar sin, valoya maimla, da, they don't have water, a kalu al-moshah of our own, and they say, "Again, we want water." Now, here, there is no punishment for the people, although the repercussions for Moshe are quite serious. But we again seem to have a story that's rather parallel to what happened in Shmoop. Now, this dual parallelism, in terms of asking for meat and asking for water, actually motivated one mafarish, it's a maverick position, to claim that these are really the same story. In Reviosi Pichars-Shar, one of the balayatos vote, in his commentary, he suggests that these are two sides of the same story, and we hear about certain details in one episode that we did not hear in the other episode. He actually compares it to what we have is, with stories such as the maraglim, right? If one looks at the accounts of the maraglim in bamid-bar, and the accounts in Safer-Dvarim, one discovers different details that one did not know from the other account. So, that's the bakhars-Shar would have it, the stories in Shmoop, Tedxion, you'd zia, and focus on certain details, the fact that Amisrael needed sustenance in the mid-bar, and Hashem provided, and the mid-bar apparently works more on the negative, focuses more on the complaining aspect of Amisrael. Now, I think this is a difficult interpretation to maintain, but I should point out the bakhars-Shar's arguments for this interpretation. So, in Shmoop, Tedxion, when the people complain that they're hungry, so Hashem's response is not only to send them on, but there's a brief mention of something else as well. In Perik, Tedxion, Pasigyud, Gimmel, Baheeva, Erba, Tal, Haslav, Atah, Saitamachane, Wabok, Atah, Shikwah, Tal, Saitamachane, there's a slav, there's a certain bird that is brought up. Now, of course, when we hear the word slav, we think about the response to the request for food in Balotra. It says the bakhars-Shar, the mention of slav in Bishalaka, suggests that these are two sides of the same coin. The mention, two of his other examples, he argues that the request for water, the request for water in Shmoop-Yudzai and his takes place in Midbars-Cin, the request for water in Balotra takes place in Midbars-Cin, says the bakhars-Shar, quite reasonably. Maybe there's a, these are really one in the same, Midbars-Cin and Midbars-Cin are one in the same place. His third suggestion has to do, his third proof, really I should say, has to do with the phrase Masat-Mriva, that in Shmoop-Yudzai-en, when we're hearing about the complaint about the water, we hear at the end of the story of Yer Qashimakom Masat-Mriva, al-Riv-Bineh Yisrael, right? It's because Masat-Mriva, because Amis saw a quarrel there. In Dvaram-Lamid-Gimmel, when he's talking about Arunakouen, so we're here to Makhov-Rish, Vraqal-Ishr-Sidaka, as Sharonissi-Toba Masat to convey well-made Mriva. Sounds like somehow Arun-Cin, Arun has some problem based on the story of Masat-Mriva, says the bakhars-Shar, well, Arun's problem dates from the mid-Bakhaf, and if Masat-Mriva is meant to be connected to the same terminology in Shmoop-Yudzai-en, that would indicate that these are the one and the same story. These are the bakhars-Shar's various arguments. Now, I think one can offer several arguments against this. First of all, the pal of the Makhlim is debatable. Clearly, the second half of the Makhlim happens in Safid-Vraim. It's quite obvious that Safid-Vraim is a recap of previous episodes of the Torah and previous mitzvot, with a specific focus on certain details, right? Certain focus that Safid-Vraim has, whereas the same story to other places in the Torah, it's less obvious the Torah would be prone to do that, but there has to be a good reason why the Torah would break up the story into two parts. However, there's a more fundamental problem. In the story in Bumid Bar, when they're asking for food, they not only say that we don't have a source of food, they say as follows. Here we are back in Bumid Bar, they say Bumid Bar, Bumid Bar, Prasigla, Vatana, Shaini, Yvesha, Enkul, right? Our souls are parched. We don't have anything. Bilti al-Haman, Inenu. What we have to look at is the month. That's the only food stuff that we have to look for it to. This, of course, suggests that they have the month already for quite a while before they make this complaint, which seems to pretty clearly indicate that the food complaint to Bumid Bar, al-Hav, is not the identical food complaint of Shmo'tad Zion. Shmo'tad Zion is before they have the month and they're hungry. Bumid Bar, you know, Al-Hav is already the second year and they have the month, but they want something else. They want the meat or the free fish of Egypt. And indeed, the different reactions to these two stories, and as we will now proceed to argue, the different nature of the complaints really would seem to argue against the Bakhoshar. That these, in fact, two separate stories. Now, let's think about what the difference between the two stories are. Two sets of stories, I should say. Now, the most obvious difference one would say is that there's the beginning of a national career and further in the career. Right after leaving Egypt, we perhaps we should say, "Amisrael is allowed to make some rookie mistakes, but they're not used to what it means to be religiously responsible. They're not used to functioning with the Rebonasholum. It's true that they've witnessed, you'd see Amitraim and they've witnessed the Makot, but there's still a religious maturity that cannot be found overnight. And perhaps from that perspective, the complaints of that first few months in Shmoat, Tedvah, through Yitziah, and can be somehow forgiven, can be understandable. When it gets to the second year in Bhai Medvah, there should be a greater sense of religious seriousness, a greater ability to deal with difficulties, greater trust in the Rebonasholum. Perhaps for that reason, Bhai Medvah receives a harsher reaction than the complaints of Shmoat. But perhaps it's more than that. It's not just a question of the passage of time. Let us look at the three complaints in Shmoat more carefully. Shmoat, Tedvah, as we noticed, begins with a complaint for water. They go three days without water. They finally think they've achieved a source of water. They've arrived, and yet that water is too bitter. And the people complain. Now, one might suggest here that this is a legitimate complaint. They don't know yet what the nature of their existence in the mid-bar will be. They don't know what the nature of the divine involvement is. Perhaps at this point, it's quite reasonable to complain that they don't have water. And indeed, most of the responses simply to Daven, right? And Hashem, the Rebonasholum, does not seem upset either. One could say the same argument about the lack of a flow of food. Again, Hashem has taken care of them recently, but they don't know exactly how life in the mid-bar is going to work. They're not so sure about the future of Jewish existence. And not having food, they get nervous. This is a position that is taken explicitly by the Barbernel. The Barbernel and Shmoat, the very end imperative of, it's page Kuflam and Gimmel in the standard editions of Barbernel. It says as follows, he "made by air" (mizashi-srel-hayalam-a-kum-lith-lonay-m-mahalik-hat-tambim-in-bar). They had a place to complain. It was not at a place. (Mifnashi-l-hayalam-lak-am-lak-l-l-a-kum-l-l-a-kum-l-l-a-kum-l-a-sa-r) (Kikvar-tam-kal-amik-n-n-av-a-lak-am-shot-seum-im-im-it-sa-im.) As the Vanessa argued, "Barbin-al-holds, they finished all their supplies, their foodstuffs from Egypt, the Henry of Shrihe-kim-al-am-a-sa-im-ba-raif, and clearly food is a necessity. We're talking about a mass of population, we're talking about people worried about feeding their children, not knowing where the water and food are going to come from. This is a reasonable source for complaint. Therefore, we might suggest that it's not just that they are in their infancy of relationship with the abonah shawm, but the complaint per se is really reasonable." So, step one is to say that not every complaint is problematic. So, perhaps Shmo-t-t-vav, and Shmo-t-t-zay-an, Moshe and Hashem do not respond with anger because the complaints are really quite reasonable. However, we noted that the third complaint that Bashar al-Aq in paragid-zay-an already seems to shift ground a bit, not that there's any punishment that emerges, Hamisul seems to be emerged unscathed. Nevertheless, Moshe seemed to be a bit harsher, right? First, towards the people, mat-t-t-v-un-im-ad-i. Then, in Moshe's conversation with Hashem, Oedmat U-sqaluni seems to be a growing frustration with the people. Now, here, several mat-farshem say if you read the Sukhum very carefully, there's a sense that something different happened. First of all, we might note that the verb changed. The verb for what the Amisul did in Ted Vavinte-zay and was just by Ilonu, just the Tuna. In Shmo-t-t-zay-an-bad, we have a new verb for him. Vayyar-v ha-mam-mosh-he. Vayyar-v is more serious, it's deeper. It's not just a complaint, it's a quarrel. Perhaps something else is going on. Amisul is not just complaining because they don't have water. There's certain quarrelsome quality to the Amisul that is coming to the fore here. There might be several other clues to this idea. The first time we hear that the thirsty is in Passe-gimmel, Vitz-mosh-he-mam-lamayim. Now, one could say that we only hear that in gimmel, but obviously the thirsty they ask for water. Then, it seems to suggest that the thirst really only shut up later. That the people are complaining about their dearth of water before they're actually thirsty. Again, perhaps suggestive of the fact that there's some kind of deeper and more problematic complaint going on here. Finally, the benesra makes an inference from the phrase Vayyar-v ha-mam. And I believe he's working off a contrast between Passe-golf and Passe-gbet of Perikid-zain. Perikid-zain begins with Vayyar-su-kala-dah-bina Israel. They're all traveling from Midbarsim. Passe-gbet is Vayyar-v ha-mam-mosh-he. It benesra points out what happened to kal-ha-m. The benesra suggests that this means that there's more than one group within the population. And according to the benesra, there's basically a division. They're those who are generally thirsty, generally concerned, phal, ami-suel is going to survive in the midbars. And they perhaps can be forgiven just as we saw in Ted Vavinte-Zain. But suggest the benesra, there was another group who was really interested in the quarrel, per se. They were interested in the mri-vah. The shift of the verb, the lack of the call indicates a certain problematic group interested in complaining. And perhaps we have our first important split. We'll see another model in a second. But a split between those cases where one complains because one has a legitimate gripe, one has something truly to be worried about. And those who just like to complain, perhaps to think of analogy to this, I had mentioned many people who would go to, not many people, some people in a shul, they're happy to go to shul every day. We're not so excited though about the davening and the rabbi speech. But if there's any fight in the shul and the argument then they're all excited, right? They're looking for a little action. The complaining and the argumentation becomes an end of its in itself. And this, of course, is something much more religiously problematic than a mere request for water. And perhaps that would explain the greater anger, the greater frustration of Moshe Ravenu to the quest in Para Givesein. He already does a sense of complaint for the sake of complaining, a desire to be difficult, a desire to stir up a bit of action. So perhaps that might help explain the transitions from Shmoat to Vump to Zain on the one hand, to Shmoat you Zain on the other hand. Now perhaps this split could also help us understand what's going on in Safer Bamid Bar. And I'd like to suggest that there's a third model at work there as well. If we go back to Safer Bamid Bar, Yudh alif, we saw the first complaint that was rather ambiguous, right? The first complaint was, "But here I'm committed to the name Ra'a Baznayas Shem, and we don't ever hear what the complaint is. We just know that it's evil in me, according to our Shem." Now what is the etymology of the word mithoninim? Here there is a three-way debate among them in the first Shmoat. The binesra says that the alif of nun here relates to sin. Quatsapassa que n'yem yau, where it says makshabbot oneik, where it means sin. But here I'm committed to name means the people were sinning. Now here of course one might wonder, well what was the sin and why would the Torah keep quiet about it? So the Ramban points us out, he says if it's just a sin, or it's unusual for the Torah to say, the people sing in a very general and broad fashion. The Torah should tell us what the sin is. So the Ramban suggests that the binesra is incorrect and that the root alif of nun is actually from the word to complaint. He cites a pasik in eicha ma'yutonena dumkhai. There alif of nun is the complaint, although one might note that even here the complaint is still not explicated. What is the complaint? We don't know. We have a mysterious complaint. There's a third approach of rashi. Rashi has a different alif of nun form. He relates it to a pasik in shofitim. There, after shimsho and has become interested in plush di woman, the pasik says, kimi as shemi, this is really from God. Ki toa nahum avakashmi pushed him. Now there perhaps the best translation of toa nah, the alif of nun, there would be a pretext, a stratagem. At which point, raheam kimitonenim would mean the people are looking for a pretext. Now it seems fairly clear, both according to Ramban and rashi, that by midbury and alif might reflect what we found in shmote yazain. Raheam kimitonenim, according to Ramban, they're complaining. What are they complaining about? We don't hear. Perhaps once again, this indicates that the complaint has become the end in and of itself. Does it desire to complain, a desire to disturb some controversy? According to Rashi, of course, this is the case. Midtonenim, they are searching for a pretext. They're looking for a way to challenge, the rebonushal, or perhaps to challenge Moshe rabbina. That's what's happening here. One might add, I believe, this furnace says this, that that's also the kimitonenim, that kafadi my own. It's like they're complaining you. It's almost an act. There's not a real sense of discomfort. The reality is that they're doing quite well, but there's this desire to portray oneself as in trouble too. Again, stir up a little action to complain. So again, this restores us to the model of shmote yazain. Perhaps the beginning of memory at alif is the same thing, a complaint for the sake of complaining. However, now let's move to a third model, the second story in my midbury and alif. Here we hear about that stuff, so one thing meat, right there upset that there's no meat, and we pointed out that they say, what about the free fish we had in Egypt? And again, we pointed out the oddity. We tend to not think of Egypt as a material paradise. It is kind of funny that that's how Am Yasser al is thinking about it. And we pointed out a different profession to deal with the word 'rinam'. As the bineser says, it's just cheap, not really free. The rebon suggests it was actually free, that the Egyptian taskmasters did at least supply food to the slaves. Rashi here has a third comment, a quote on Chazal. And in the chamalibu, it's very adamant that she often is that Rashi is actually the Pshah here. But here, I think nacham is really onto something. Rashi says, no chalibu mitzvahim kinam wa reskinamim. Rinamim mitzvot, free of mitzvot. For Rashi, the complaint here is quite different. It is not a legitimate complaint, nor is it even a complaint for the sake of complaining. Rather, it's a complaint about something very specific, but something one is embarrassed to complain about, and one finds another way to voice one's displeasure. Again, we have to think of Amisrael in mitzvahim. It's true that their slaves. It's true that the life is pretty bad. But they do not live a life of grand religious and ethical responsibility. They have not yet heard of the bulk of Turin mitzvot, right? A slave in general is often not made, not great moral domain. The man's are not made of the slave. And that's what Amisrael is used to. Now, this is postmatin Torah, right? They've heard about a whole host of mitzvot. And one imagine there might be a certain discomfort, a certain rebellious quality from this mitzvot. And according to Rashi, it's almost Freudian here, in which they're talking about freedom, about things being free, and perhaps what they're saying is free fish, but they're really thinking about personal freedom. They're thinking about a life devoid of responsibility, the life devoid of moral commands. And this is something that there's a certain attraction to. And perhaps now we can suggest that there's really three models. There's a model of complaining when it's legitimate, schmoeted, vovin schmoeted Zion, then we move to the second model of complaining of the sake of complaining, schmoeted Zion and by Nibriad Haulif. Perhaps now we have a third model, a model of complaining when one does have something to complain about, but it's a problematic source of complaint, one would like to be free of rules and regulations. And one, cleverly or not so cleverly expresses that complaint about some other pretext. And here this might be indicated in a few other things in the, in the Sukhim here. Notice the shift of complaints. Right? First they say, then they say, they shift from meat to fish. Now again, one could say they're just listing various food items, but I would suggest when you're just looking for a pretext, you're not so consistent. The point is you really want to complain about the mitzvot, about the fact that you're restricted this way. So a whole host of things stumble at, just fall out of your mouth without any coherent reason. There's Bazar, there's Daguya, there's Mitzallian, whatever it is, they're just upset. This also might be reflected in a later verse. Later in Pasegura by Nibriad Haulif, we hear of a schmoet Moshete on Bochalamish Bukhotab. Moshe hears that the people are crying according to their families, Islafetakolu, and that's the Pasekdenes with the Vayikar, Fashimot, of a name Mosheira. Now here, Bochalamish Bukhotab is kind of a surprising phrase. Right? We hear them crying. Why is it important to know that they cry according to family units? They cried in another way, would that be different? Would it be a different kind of crying? So here one could say several things. One could say that the crying according to family units indicates some kind of public ritual of crying, wasn't just isolated individuals here or there, perhaps there was some kind of mass movement. Rashi once again, citing Hazal, says they know something deeper is going on. Bochalamish Bukhotab, Rashi says Al Iskemish Bukhotab. There's a sense of tension because of the laws of Rayot, the laws of family purity, the laws of sexual modesty. These are something that, again, Amisrael as slaves in Egypt might not have been used to the Torah's guidelines. Now there's a certain amount of difficulty in accepting them. And again, if one reads deeper here or one reads more deeply, one discovers that indeed the complaint is really about restrictions. And several commentaries, super commentaries on Rashi advanced this idea. There's a commentary by the Berha Torah where he suggests that the Basar is really a different kind of Basar. That they say Basar, but they're thinking about broader physical hedonism, relating back to Bochalamish Bukhotab. Now I realize, according to the Berha Torah's commentary, it's talking more specifically about sexual matters. But I think there's no reason to limit it that way. I think Rashi's insight could be broader. The Amisrael is frustrated by the restrictions and many respects by obligations as well. And that's the complaint that is coming forth. And one might argue that this is in fact the worst of the three models, that the second model, there's certainly something religiously problematic about it, the desire for complaining for the sake of complaining. But when the complaint is even more deeper in a sense, when one is upset with being restricted at all, then one is really not ready for religious life. Then one is basically saying that this is not for me. I am not a person for obligations for leading a moral religious lifestyle. And notice the shift. When Vermiberi and Aleph, after the minute of the Onanim, instead of a "char apo," Hashem is angry, here we have a "char ap Hashem ode," the additional word. God is very angry. He's exceedingly upset. And the other addition of a name Moshe Ra. This is evil in the eyes of Moshe Rabino. I would suggest that this reflects the shift from the second model to the third model. This kind of complaining there's truly no place for. And God is extremely angry, Moshe sees it as evil. This is something that really cannot be accepted. It occurred to me when I was thinking about these three models, that I'm a teacher in a Shiva, and this is something that I think we often deal with. When our students come with various complaints, or perhaps even not teachers, anyone deals with it, any parent who's dealing with complaints. So sometimes I think we have to make this kind of threefold distinction. Sometimes there's a temptation to ignore all complaints. To view, as a teacher, it's an unfortunate temptation to see every single complaint as the weakness of the students, as the laziness of the students. If they were truly strong, well, they would overcome it. It behooves us to realize some complaints are legitimate. I would argue that's what's being conveyed in Shmoat, Tedva, and Shmoat, that the lack of anger on the behalf of Moshe Rabino, and from the Rebono shawam, is trying to tell us something. Some complaints are indeed legitimate. Amiswel can't find the source of water. They're just new to the mid-bar. Amiswel does not know where their food is going to come from. One can complain. Not every complaint should be viewed with suspicion. Not every complaint should be responded to with anger. That's Shmoat de Vavic Shmoat de Dine. Then, of course, sometimes we have to admit that people just want to complain. This, of course, is problematic. This is Shmoat Yudzai, and the mid-bar Yud alif de Mitoninim. However, the worst of the three, of course, is the last motto. And here, unfortunately, when this happens, this, I think, calls for a harsher hand from on behalf of those representing the authority of the institution. When it turns out that those complaining are indeed not just complaining because they're truly lacking something, not just complaining because they want to complain, but they really do not like to be told what to do in any sense. There's a desire for freedom, almost this childish yearning for a life devoid of responsibility. And, of course, again, one still needs to understand where this comes from, but this calls for the harshest hand of the three. And, indeed, by Khar, Fashim, Ode, and Imoshirah. So, perhaps, the various complaints of Shmoat, Ted Vavic, Yudzai, really are an important addition to our thinking of Amisul's history. As I started out, we tend to think of Amisul's complaining as really a story of Safer Bumidbar. But as Bishakh makes quite clear that this is something that begins from the dawn of the trek of Amisul through the mid-bar. And the three models of complaining we've looked at certainly help us get to a richer understanding of the Torah and a richer understanding of how to respond to complaining in general. You have been listening to Pashat al-Shavua from Ravi Yitzrat Blau. And now, for today's al-Achayomit. We mentioned in yesterday's al-Achayomit that there is a al-Achayom problem concerning Ancing Amain after the Buhr-Achayom-Achayom-Achayom-Achayom-Achayom-Achayom-Achayomit. And therefore, the Beit-O-Saf recommends finishing the Buhr-Achayom together with the Hazaa. So that the question of Ancing Amain does not arise. That's not a widespread custom. A more well-known version of the same problem consists of the last Buhr-Achayom after Kriachma, the Khad-Gueli-Sail, it's the third Buhr-Achayom of the Khad-Gueli-Saf. Which immediately precedes Shman-Achayom. And there there is a explicit Hala-Achayom in Nigma-Achayom that one should be Sammer-Gul-A-Lit-Fida. One should put together Gula, the Khad-Gueli-Sail and Tfida and Shman-Achayom. And the person will understand this as a relatively, again, high, level of Haffsec. One should avoid any Haffsec whatsoever between Gula, Vit-Fida. And then the question of Ancing Amain to the Hazen's Buhr-Achayom. The considerations are similar to what I described yesterday. The content of this Amain, what does this Amain mean? If the Hazen says Gai-Sail and I say Amain, I'm saying me too, I agree. So the content of my Amain is Gula. And that's why some argue that it's not a Haffsec. You're not talking about something else. You're not talking about the stock market. You're talking about the Gula. On the other hand, it's not what it says in the city. It's not part of the Buhr-Achayom itself. It's an addition. And the Buhr-Achayom of Gai-Sail was when you said the Buhr-Achayom, Gai-Sail. And so therefore there's a dispute among the post-Kim whether or not it's permitted to say Amain. After Buhr-Achayom is Gai-Sail or whether that would consist of, about constitute, a Haffsec between Gula and Tafila in order to avoid this dispute. So it's recommended to do something that will free you from the obligation to say Amain. The Mishneh Buhr, when discussing this, has three suggestions. One suggestion is the one I mentioned yesterday that you should finish Gai-Sail together with Tarzan. If you finish at the same time, since one has not permitted to answer Amain to one's own Buhr-Achayom, the most post-Kim say you could not answer Amain even to another Buhr-Achayom at the same time. Because you also finish your Buhr-Achayom then you cannot say Amain at the end of your own Buhr-Achayom. That's the Mishneh Buhr's first suggestion. The second suggestion is you should start Shman-Achayom a little bit early. Shman-Achayom will still be saying, "Are you selling? You already have started Shman-Achayom Shman-Achayom." Everyone agrees. You're not allowed to be much sick. You can't answer it to anything. Therefore you will not have to answer Amain to the Gai-Sail of the Gai-Sail. His third suggestion is that you should lag behind the Gai-Sail. If you're in the middle of the Buhr-Achayom, it's some place before the actual saying, "Buhr-Achayom." So also you cannot answer Amain because you're in the middle of a section and you should not be in that particular Buhr. Interestingly enough, he doesn't mention the idea which is most commonly done today. In most shows that I've been in, it has become a custom of the Hazen not saying Gai-Sail, saying it under his breast, saying it quietly. If nobody hears it, nobody has to answer Amain. Mr. Buhr was written a little bit over a hundred years ago. If he doesn't mention this possibility, it's because he never heard of it. And yet that today is the possibility of practice in most shows. In fact, somewhat really incongruously, I've been in shows where in my view, where we don't say Gai-Sail by Pifosh Manasar, the Sashkivaino, followed by Kaddish. I've heard people when they finish Kaddish, Nakhasar finishes Kaddish, he says Imu Amain. He doesn't say Imu Amain out loud, which makes a sense at all. There's no problem in being massive between Kaddish and Shmanasar, in a country. He said Imu Amain is supposed to say Imain. But without no reason, people have gotten into this habit of sliding into Shmanasar, very, very quietly. Why doesn't Mr. Buhr mention his possibility? It's apparent, and the fact that he doesn't mention it, that it's incorrect. The vinegar is no more than 60, 70 years old. No one knows when it started. Apparently, it started an issue about, and it took the Jewish world by stone. But many people seem to point it out that it's incorrect. The tahazan has to say the bhahat of Kriyachima out loud. The original tahkanah, Kriyachima has a den of Tzibu, or Kshmanasar, you say Kriyachima bitzibu. Tlamam begins his discussion of Tvilabatzibu. He says what is Tvilabatzibu? The tahazan says Bohr, and then he says Kriyachima out loud, and the people listen. All they can say with him. So, some folks can tell, Raveen Confidence said it's a tahkanah. The tahazan said that the tahazan should say the bhahat of loud. It's true that when he said it, the people could be outside. People who do not know the tphilat on their own. They couldn't say it by heart, or they couldn't say it at all. The tahazan would be motsi then. But even today, when you say it yourselves, because you do know how to dahkanah, but they still are tahkanah, they both said it in a more extreme version. They've said that the den of Tzibu, this is its form. What does it mean tphilabatzibu? It's not just dahkaning together. The form of tphilabatzibu is that one person dahmins everybody, and even though they can also say it themselves, which is even better, because why we lie on so much, we say it yourself, but the tzibu aspect requires it to be this framework of one person saying at loud, everybody else listening to what he's saying, and also saying it themselves. Therefore, the tahazan has to say the bhahat of loud. We lose the tzibu aspect, the tzibu framework, of bhakot kriyachma. Now, today, in some more traditional, older tzadhi shawls, the tahazan says the entire bhakot kriyachma, asaam. Asaam doesn't do that, and many other shawls don't do that, but with Hank and claimed, you still have to do it correctly, and therefore you can do the minimum. The minimum of a bhakah, in order to be able to say, is samukla khatima, main khatima, and khatima, align or to, right before the end of the bhakah, which sums up the topic, and then the bhakah itself. That means that's why tzazanim always do that. They say a little bit, and they say, "Bhakah," you say, "Aukha dasha tzayonta yubin, eskehulanum, ehehrali aro, bhakot khatashaam, et sahraamawat." That's the minimum amount that a person could say to be able to do this bhakah, and if for the khatan, today we still do the minimum, at least the minimum, but he has to do this, that. That means in the last bhakah, he should say, "Go on, aina, shan, sakot, dashaamaw," bhakot khatashaam, gah asaam. And therefore, the way to avoid the problem is to go back to the suggestions that the Mishnebuhr mentioned. The best one there is to say together with the khatan. Stannak, from that way early, might be a problem, we should start together, and the best thing to do is really to say, gah asaam, the khatan says it out loud, and everybody else says it out loud at exactly the same time. They finish together, you then cannot answer, "Amen, you've avoided the problem of whether one should answer a main or should not answer a main, and one starts from an essay immediately. This is my hoot, "gulad, et vida," combining, and connecting together, "gulad, esaal," and "tvida," "le elo que esaal." That's it for today. Tomorrow we'll be back with the evershabbat program for Pashat Besharach. Until then, this is Azubic, wishing you a good day, called to from Gushatshyan, you've been listening to "KMTT," "Kee mitzi ont et cetera, udvar asaamirushalayim."