KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Erev Shabbat Program - Bo
Erev Shabbat program for parashat Bo, with Rav Ezra Bick and guest Rav Moshe Morris
This is KMTT, and this is Azubic, and today is Heishwatt, Erev Shabbat Kodesh Pashatbo. Today Heishwatt is the yod site, the Yomazikarong of the Swat Emmett, it's the 101st the yod site of the Swat Emmett. So I'd like to open with a comment to the Swat Emmett on today's Pasha. At the beginning of the Pasha, Kushboh who says to Moshad to go to Paral, voh el Paral, khi ani hirbhate et libhoh. For I have heart and his heart. So the Swat Emmett has the following comment. He says, "What is the message to the Jewish people from the fact that God says that power's resistance, power's evil, was a result of the fact that God made his heart strong, made his heart heavy?" But then it says, this tells you that in fact it's like that all the time, when we face our own inclinations, our own yeatsaha, our own perceived inability to better ourselves, that strength, the strength of the evil, the strength of habit, the strength of inability, to correct our own ways, it's not because the evil within us is that strong, it's because God has made it strong. And that is good. That tells us that if you truly desire and make an effort to overcome the eatsaha, to overcome your own habitual evil, your own habitual bad ways, then you can do that because it's not really that strong, the strength comes from God. But God is really on your side, God really wants you to be better, and therefore if you truly desire, then God's will is subject to your will. But at all times you should know that the apparent strength, people try to change things and they just feel they can't do it. Of course there's a tremendous strength there, but it's not the strength of the eatsaha, it's the strength of God. And therefore if you appeal to God, if you appeal to yourself, if you do Chuvah, you can truly overcome that, and Chuvah is therefore always, always possible. My guest for today's Al-Shabbat program is Halaiv Moshamaris, who will also speak about today's Pasha. One of the times that Paro contemplates sending away Banesra Elle, you ask Moshebino who's going to go, to which Moshebino applies? So everybody, us, the men, the women, our children, our cattle, and to this, Paro responds. He says, "Yehirheina Shemi-Machhem kashe-shah-shah-lach-es-chhem-ves-tah-prem-ru-u-ki-rah-an-negut-pnehrem." He says something that's not only difficult to translate, but even when you translate, it's not so easy to understand. The translation I like the best for the first part of the pastik, as Paro says to him, something which is both sarcastic, and which at the end of the day turns out to be ironic. The sarcasm is, "I'm not going to send you and your kids out." He says, "You and I are not going to be with you." Now, the irony is, of course, at the end of the day, he does send out the Banesra Elle, and at that moment, Akkadish Baruchu is with the Jewish people. But nonetheless, what is this issue about Akkadish Baruchu being with the Jewish people or not? Why is it that Paro would care whether or not a Shem is with the Jewish people? Does he believe in Akkadish Baruchu? Is he aware who he is? I mean, he starts off saying, "I don't even know who a Shem is." Has that changed? Is there some sort of understanding that Paro is obtained? And that's what he's saying to the Jewish people. That what you think it's going to be is never going to be the end of the pastik. The parish that I like about the end of the pastik is not just that he's saying to the Banesra, "Look, it's all been discovered." I know your real intentions. You're going to try to flee. And that's the evil that's Nege Panerhem. But it's more than that. It's that you're not going to be successful. He says, "Look, Moshe, Rebedo. Look." Look at that word, "Look." He wants Moshe, Rebedo, to see something. It's not going to work out. At the end of the day, it's going to be evil, not like you think. What is Paro talking about? Why does he care whether or not Akkadish Baruchu is with the Jewish people? And why does he want Moshe, Rebedo, to see that the end result is going to be evil? And what end result did Moshe, Rebedo, have in mind? I think the place to start to answer this question is with understanding a little bit better Sheamus Shem. I'm not so sure that Paro had the deepest understanding of Sheamus Shem. But it could be that he understood some element of what was behind the Jewish people's relationship to Akkadish Baruchu. There's two aspects to the Sheamus Shem. If you look at it grammatically even. One is hu hai yah hu ha behud yah. It kind of means Akkadish Baruchu is the ever-present one. He's eternal. He existed all the way in eternity, all the way back from before the beginning of the world. He exists now, and he will continue to exist after the world no longer exists. Unlike us finite beings, he's infinite, he's transcendent, he's eternal. But there's another aspect of Sheamus Shem. And that aspect comes from the verb lahaveh, to constitute. Akkadish Baruchu is the one who's constantly constituting the world. Baha'u'lli om hu hai desh at the olam. He recreates the world at every moment. And as Rebedo Hirsch points out that Sheamus Shem is in third person singular plural. Akkadish Baruchu is the one who makes sure that the world will always be constituted according to our needs, to our best educational needs. In other words, the transcendent God who is behind all of creation, he's also present in creation. He cares about creation. He interacts with creation, and he makes sure that it leads to what is best for mankind. What Paro is saying here to the Jewish people is that it's never going to happen. This God that you think exists, he's never going to be with you. Because why? How could Akkadish Baruchu be with you? If I Paro send you away, if I let all of you go, but since I'm never going to let that happen, so that is going to demonstrate that the Akkadish Baruchu is now with you. And it will prevent that eventuality from ever happening, and that is something that I won't let happen. But so what? Why does this bother Paro so much? What is the issue involved? Another way of asking this is why does Paro so stubbornly hang on to the Jewish people? Why is he willing to go to the very end to the last Makkad? Why won't he ever give up before, and I know that Akkadish Baruchu hardens his heart, but the hardening of Akkadish Baruchu's heart is just a continuation of his stubbornness that he began, or some say it's giving him the strength to give his behavior to continue to choose, to refuse to let Pnaestra go, but why? Why so far? It could be that here is represented a fundamental makhlokus between the nature of reality, and that's where ukirah and Nege Pnaestra. You the Jewish people want to say that the world is in some ways fundamentally good, that Akkadish Baruchu cares about us, that the Creator cares about us and is involved in our lives. He says it's never going to be. Even if it ever got to the point that I would send you all away, rah Nege Pnaestra, it's just going to turn out bad, because that's the nature of reality. In other words, don't be so naive Moshe Rebenu. Don't think that you can take a slave nation, and take them to the desert, and create some sort of fanciful ideological nation, which has never ever existed, based on some sort of notion of being an amkadosh and makhlok name. It's just never going to happen. He says it's just going to be bad, because that's the nature of reality, and I, parl, can't allow you to start trying. Because if you upset the fundamental understanding of the nature of reality, it's going to transform my whole society. It will make all of Mitzreim unstable. We have a social order, we have a reality by which things work, and I, as parl, is the king, and is what he thought of, even the god of Egypt, I can't let that happen. This notion of a conflict of ideas, I think, is well captured in the... Rashi in the Midrash points out that parl, the Saint of Israel, that he and his astrology saw that it's going to end in blood. That B'nei Isra'el was going to end, have blood of the sword, and that the whole project would end in ultimate failure. And this notion, this idea that Ra-nake-p'nei-hamnateh, that there's some sort of star named Ra, which is predicting the future of B'nei Isra'el, is that Ta'ana, a claim that both Moshe or B'neu and Akhadosh Barok will take very seriously. And that's what the Akhadosh Barok, Moshe or B'nei, is that Akhadosh Barok will go into the Midrash, right, at the Heitah ego. He says, "Why would you go and destroy the Jewish people? Why should you let the Egyptians say that you took up an Eisabir Ra, according to the conviction of the astronomical prediction of parl, according to the star Ra'el." He says, "You can't let that happen." And indeed Akhadosh Barok agrees, that can happen. Aviva Zornberg on this passage says that what's going on here is some sort of makhlochis about the historical interpretation of what B'nei-s are about. Parl has an interpretation of reality, and he's implying that interpretation of reality to the project of the Jewish people. He's saying, "It can't work. It can't work. You're not in two-to-three reality, Moshe. You're not in two-to-three reality of what the ultimate nature of the world is. And therefore, it's going to end in bloodshed. And I know that because I understand the astrological reality of the world. I understand the deeper nature of reality, and I see it's just going to fail. And this Moshe rebellion says to Akhadosh Barok, "You're right. I can't let that perspective win out. I can't let that t'anah be strengthened because the whole point, or at least one of the main points of Yitzid's shrine, is to fundamentally undermine that view of the world. It's to go and change the perspective of reality of a cold, heartless place, a place where there's no kedusha, no morality, where it's just destiny and fate. And death, that perspective can't be allowed to win out. And then, however, we see that even at the Chate Ego, this makhlok is still continued. And the Herpamid's rhyme, the embarrassment that Bines would feel if they ultimately failed, that was not removed until they got to Erich's throne, and all Bines' throne were circumcised. What is this embarrassment? It's that all for the whole forty years, the Bines' throne risked being... So long as the Jewish people had the threat of ultimate failure, of total destruction, now the perspective of the mid-stream, of the Egyptians still had a voice in the world. The second that Bines' throne made it to Erich's throne, and they circumcised themselves. They showed that the blood that the Egyptians saw was not the blood that they thought was going to be. It wasn't the blood of bloodshed, it was the blood of circumcision. And that moment, the perspective of the Egyptians was fundamentally undermined. But what's interesting here is that this whole makhlok is somehow another seem to revolve around blood. And after all, have you ever noticed that blood keeps appearing in the story of the Exodus? After all, have you ever noticed that blood keeps reappearing in the story of the Assyrians' rhyme? Akkodesh Braucho says to Moshebino, "If they don't believe the first two signs that they've given you, take some water and turn into blood." It's not the same blood of the makhl, of the makhat mitzram, or the first makhat. It's some sort of symbol that the Jewish people are supposed to understand. Akkodesh Braucho is sent Moshebino. And Sipora says, "You're ha-tam-damim." Then ha-tam-damimimimimulot, and she circumcises her son. And of course, there is the first makhav blood, and there's the blood of the current Pesach, and even in the Midrash, you have parl killing Jewish babies, laolenu, and bathing into the blood. Blood is everywhere. And what is this? I mean, note that somehow they're the same act of turning water into blood, symbolizing something radically different for the Jewish people than it symbolizes for the Egyptians. For the Egyptians, it's denying their God, it's striking at the heart of society. For the Jewish people, somehow it's a sign of redemption, of hope, and maybe the two of them are obviously related. But it's interesting to note this idea of the two relationships of blood come throughout the story. Ha-tam-damim, ha-tam-damimimulot, two types of blood. There's the blood before the baby is in danger and the blood after the baby... I mean, the blood is... the blood when the baby is in danger and the blood after the baby is in danger. And there's the blood of... of Ra, Nege... Penacham, and there's the blood of circumcision. What is this element of blood? Throughout all of Humash, Shphiraz-damim represents blood shed. Murder, the blood is the life, you know, of the animal and we can't eat it. And we take blood, we put it in his bag, it's from bond point side, it's some sort of, you know, you know, replacement for us who really, then somebody knows to deserve our blood to be shed. You know, sh-sh-sh-sh, pouring out blood is always some sort of another, a symbol of death. And yet, we have in the common Pesach and we have in the circumcision, we have with the Maichai... we live through our blood. It's a contradiction. It's... it just doesn't work according to the way of the world. And this is the whole point. It somehow or the Jewish people are able to take death itself. After all, what greater symbol of death can you have than taking a knife to the male reproductive organ? That symbolizes a threat to the future generations, which have yet to be born. And spilling blood in itself, as I said, is a symbol of murder, of killing. And yet, somehow through this, the b- the Jewish people are able to transform, transcend what should be the normal outcome of shutting blood and bring about a new history. This is none other than the story of Ein Mazli Israel. However you understand that, that Benet Israel, the whole story of Benet Israel confronting its rhyme, is the story of transcending destiny, of transcending history. After all, how could a slave nation hope to go and take on the Empire of Egypt? And what hope do they have? What resources do they have? What precedents do they have that they'll be successful? But that is indeed the message of the burning bush. That Benet Israel, who are the bush, and Egypt, which is the fire, which I'm with you within the bush. And you can transcend it, you can survive it, you won't be consumed. And this is the message about what reality really is. That at the end of the day, no matter how it appears, even though power can say with all conviction, that look, evil is the nature of reality. For those who understand the Jewish people, who understand, they understand even that, which seems to be evil, has within it an element of a Kurdish brothel. That he is one, he created everything, including death, including evil, including the fire's midst rhyme. But that since he is imminent in all of those elements, and since, as the shame has shame implies, he says, ultimately speaking, even those things, which seem to be asked to give the greatest not to Egypt, can be transformed and transcended, and to yet another way to actualize the divine plan for mankind. And so therefore blood itself had to be transformed. Death itself, as the mitch reams so understood and worshiped, had to be transformed into a symbol of life. And the Jewish people did that when they entered the holy land of Israel. They did that by mass circumcision. And instead of mass destruction through death, there's mass dedication to a Kurdish brothel, and mass awareness that he is one, and that his presence fills the whole world. And that is indeed the world in its essence is good and not bad. Good job. You have been listening to Avat Moshimaris, speaking about Pashatibal. On the Pashak that I mentioned in the beginning, Boel Paro Keanuj Patayat Libal, the rida has a comment that's actually very similar to the comment of the sbatamet that I mentioned in the beginning, not in terms of the philosophy that goes behind it, but in terms of its practical ramifications. Vashi, on the Pashak, Boel Paro Keanuj Patayat Libal, what is Moshim supposed to do? God says to Moshim, go to Paro, then doesn't tell him what to do there. So Vashi explains, what should he do? Vihitrabal and warn him. One is the wrong word. It means to admonish. There's a halacha that if a person is going to do a transgression, so he doesn't get a punishment unless he has had Hatraah beforehand. The two witnesses who are going to see him doing it have to say to him, don't do this, because if you do this, you'll get the following punishment. That's called Hatraah, it's a warning of the seriousness of what you're about to do. So Boel Paro, Vashi says, Vihitrabal, give him a warning. So the rida asks, but the continuation of the Pashak says that the reason why you should go is because Keanuj and your compatibility at Libal, because I have heart in his heart. If God is heart in Paro's heart, why should Moshim give him a warning? It won't have any effect anyhow. The only reason why you want somebody before he does a transgression, before he commits a transgression is in the hope that he will back down, repent and not do it. But Paro, God has promised Moshim that it won't make any difference. So why does he have to warn him? If the purpose of going to Paro was to tell him to send the Jews out, he has to tell them at some point that that's what he's coming to do. But to tell him that if he doesn't listen to God, he'll be punished is irrelevant. Even holarchically it's irrelevant. There's no point in doing hattara if the person has the ability to pay attention. So the rida's answer is that a necessity you have to conclude that Paro could do Chufa. This relates to, I believe, the topic of last week, not this week, but last week, Siyu and Pashat-a-Shavuat, the Pashat-a-Ava. And David Silverberg spoke about the notion of Ani-Hik-Bhat, the Atlebo. What does it mean that God said he's hard in his heart? Does Paro have free will, does not have free will? And yet the rida assumed that, yes, you can prove from this Moshim that he must have had free will for else. There was no purpose in doing the hattara. And that he says is exactly the meaning of the Pashuk. It's not merely what I'm saying, it's what the Pashuk means. Warn him key because Ani-Hik-Bhat, the Atlebo. And the Pashuk comes to tell us that even someone whose heart is hardened by God, supernaturally, he can always do Chufa. And that's why God said the Mosharabenu to go, because key for, it means, doesn't mean despite, but it means precisely because, precisely because I've hardened his heart, go give him an extra warning because he can still do Chufa, he can still repent. And that is precisely the point that God wishes to teach Benais as well, which is to teach Mosharabenu, which is to teach those who will learn from what happens. And Mosharabenu keeps going back to Palau each time with a new plague and a new warning and why has God invested in so much effort and time and Mosharabenu invested in so much effort and time in this endeavor with Palau. Because it's to teach us that no matter how hard one's heart appears to be or how hard a difficulty of changing one's way of action of true repentance would appear to be, Chufa is always possible. Why then did God make Palau's heart hard? Why did he make his heart hard? Indeed, to make it harder for the Chufa, no question about it. God was making it more difficult for Palau to do Chufa, but he could still do Chufa, it was still within his power because human being has, but Chufa of shit, has, has free will. I think a proof to this idea would be the way the person continues. Can you hear the word "laibor" with "laibor" with "laibor" with "laibor" with his heart and the heart of his servants? Why do we care about the heart of his servants? If it means, as we assume it means, that God has taken away Palau's free will. And if we recall that Palau is a total autocrat, Palau's a dictator, if Palau's heart is so hard that he will not let out the Jews, the Jews will not leave. It doesn't make a difference whether his servants are being broken by the plagues or not, because Palau will refuse, and Palau's word is absolutely, absolutely law. In fact, we find it later on at different points, his servants did break, before when they pleaded with him, let the people go, let the people go. And then Palau said no, because Palau has the last word. But if Palau does correct, that Palau has free will, and the harbati at Libor is to create a situation where there is more for his free will to contend with, then that's really a factor. Not only is Palau's natural inclination, as God has arranged against the Jews, and against giving in to Moshe's demands, but in fact the advice that he'll get from his advisors and from the people surrounding him is also against it. So therefore, the Chuvah, the Hurei Chuvah, the thought that perhaps he should do that, which is right, encounters more resistance, both in his own heart and in the hearts of others. If we're talking about the psychological contention between his Yitzah Talab and his Yitzah Hava, then his advisors and friends and family and surroundings is indeed a factor in what was God's will here to make it more difficult. To make it more contentious, to require a greater effort on his part, to do the right thing. To this, the Qidah adds, and even so, even though his heart was hard, and the heart of his servants was hard, nonetheless you should go and be matrech, you should go and warn him, you should go and give him a warning and admonish him, because there's still the possibility of his doing Chuvah exists, and this is indeed a lesson for all of us, for all time. Today's Hala Khayomit, we are continuing from yesterday. We said yesterday that Kriyachma has a time from about an hour before sunrise, until the end of the third hour. According to almost all we've shown him, this is its time media writer. It says, Bishak Bakhah Upakumera. Bakhumera, when you are getting up, the time when people arise. And the Gomara says that the time that we are passing, where we are sure, till the third hour, is because Benaimal Akhim, vista Kratz, get up a little bit later, but they don't get up later than the third hour. However, the Qasif Mishnah argues, based on his reading of the Vambam, that media writer, his mind Kriyachma is all day. He says Kriyachma twice, once during all day, and once during all night. And there are a number of Akhirim, who agree with this Shaita, with this interpretation of the Vambam. There will be enough Kamina, we'll just mention yesterday that anything that's the writer, so if you have a suffering, you have to do it again. So, since the media writer Kriyachma is all day, only me to have a note, it has to be said before the end of the third hour. So, that would affect the cases of Sathik, the questions of doubt. Now, the Magan of Ram asks, on the Shaita, how could it be? The Gomara says, in Bakhah's, Dafrath, Ahmed Bhat, that women are exempt from Kriyachma, because it's Mitzvat has said, Shazmang Rama. So, all we show them into it, but the normal interpretation is Kriyachma has a given time. The time is till the third hour. And therefore, it's Mitzvat has said, Shazmang Rama. It's a time-dependent mitzvah, which women are exempt. But according to the Kastamish, the media writer Kriyachma is all day. There is no time when one is not having Kriyachma. And since media writer, it's not a mitzvat has said, Shazmang Rama. So, women therefore should be higher vote. And if we do have another, they'll be higher vote as well. They'll be obligated as well. The answer that the Akhwanam did to this question is that even though Kriyachma is said all day, but there are two separate mitzvat. There's one which's about to say Kriyachma when you're awake, and that's all day time long. And there's a different mitzvah to say the same posture, to say Kriyachma at night. But the mitzvat at night cannot be said a day. And mitzvat they cannot be said at night. So, therefore, there are two different mitzvah, both of which are Hazmang Rama, both of which are time dependent. It's an interesting concept. It's not immediately apparent that it's really true. The fact is that you have to say Kriyachma is true twice a day, but you have all the time to say it twice a day. And the question is also a tactical one. Is it, in fact, two separate mitzvah? The Rama, for instance, in Seifah mitzvah, doesn't count it as two separate mitzvah. Although, for instance, he does count to feel in his two separate mitzvah. There's one mitzvah to put on to feel in Charles Orosch. And another mitzvah to put on to feel in Charles Yald. Rambhan, in his comments to the Seifah mitzvah, questions this discrepancy. If the Rama counts to feel in his two, then why doesn't he count Kriyachma as two? You can think of answers. The answer isn't so important as the fact that Rama, in fact, does not count Kriyachma as being two separate mitzvah. Now, that might not be relevant to our question. It might be a tactical cavity. How do you count mitzvah? It could be even though we count it as one mitzvah in terms of the 613 list. But nonetheless, it's two separate qmm, two separate fulfillments. And you don't summon up by saying what is Kriyachma all the time, once in the morning, once in a night. But you try to say Kriyachma in the morning, or during the day. And you also Kriyachma, you also obligate to say it at night. So, this is the answer that's given in order to defend the opinion of the Kestamish. In fact, most of Rama do not accept the opinion of the Kestamish. And mostly show them for sure, do not hold the way, even if the Rama does hold that way, which isn't clear either. And therefore, maybe the defense isn't necessary. However, aside from the Halaqa itself, it's an interesting point that is the review Kriyachma as being two separate mitzvah. Each one of which has a time. That may even affect conceptually. It means there would mean that there should be a difference between the way you say Kriyachma by day and the way you say by night. I don't mean there should be a practical difference. But it might in terms of the conception, if we ask behind it, there might be a difference to a firm in God in daytime. And a firm in God at night time. This would seem to be expressed by the bahat, which a company Kriyachma, which in fact are different. The bhakat Kriyachma Shacharit, and the bhakat Kriyachma at night, have a different aspect. The way it's usually explained is at nighttime, a time of exile, a time of darkness, a time when we don't see our way in the world. So Shma Ishaal, the acceptance of God, is more of Amuna. I know God is there. I believe in God despite the night. In daytime, we see we were going. We more or less feel God's hand. We don't have the same fear of the unknown. And therefore, the affirmation is common, more philosophic, more information of the truth, and less and affirmation of dependence upon God. If this philosophic idea is correct, it might have a bhakat reflection. In fact, these are two separate mitzvahs. And that's it for today. After I've finished talking, you'll be able to listen to the new gun for this week. You did Nefesh, the bhabhava, you did Nefesh. We'll be back next week, for the sixth week of the KMTT. Monday, sure, will be the regular weekly share of a Vavi Ayokan, Inhil Khot Bahat. Until then, we should view a Shabbat Shalom. This is Ezra Wirk in Gushatsyan, Nefeshivaat Hayatsyan. Koltov, you've been listening to KMTT, Kimitsyan, Taitzeitora, Udvar Hashemirushalaym. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪