KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot #05
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #05, by Rav Yair Kahn
KMTT. KMTT. Kimi Xiong, et cetera. Dvarashemi Ushalayim. And this is Azubek, podcasting fami shivat harachion in Gushethion. Today is Monday, Alishvat. Today is Oshodeshvat. According to Beitjamai, Oshodeshvat is Rosh Hashanah the either-not. We pass the like Beitjram, the two Beitjmat, the fifteenth day of Shvat is Rosh Hashanah, but according to Beitjamai, Rosh Hashanah the either-not, the day in which we begin to count a new year for the purpose of counting the years of trees having to do with Ahil Rosh vid, Ahil Rosh Trumatumasrat, that they would be today Oshodeshvat. We hold that as another two weeks on Two Beitjmat. Today's year is the weekly share of Ahil Karan in Ahil Roshod. The share will be 35 minutes and will be followed by Ahil Rahayomit. In your previous two shurim, we discussed the Brakhah of Kamotsi Lecha Nha'aretz. I would like to dedicate this year to the Brakhah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot. The Brakhah that's made on pastries, on cookies, on cakes, when one takes the five different grains and makes added it something aside from bread. Then what makes the Brakhah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot? The Gomara on 36B, Nama government debt, says it's foul. Gufa, Rav Ushmuel Da Amitra Vaih, Kausah Yeshpom Mecha Mecha Mecha Mecha Meemu, the Vahrkim Allah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot. Anything that has within it of the five grains receives the Brakhah, Baurae Minaimu Sonot. Then the Gomara brings another statement of Rav Ushmuel, the Itmanami, Rav Ushmuel, the Amitra Vaihum, Kausahul Mecha Mecha Mecha Meemu Sonot, the Vahrkim Allah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot. Anything of the five grains gets the Brakhah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot. Ushriha, we need both of these statements, both the statements that said Kausahul Mecha Mecha Mecha Meemu, anything that has within it of the Kausah Mecha Meemu Sonot as well as well as the statement Kausahul Mecha Mecha Mecha Mecha Meemu, any of the five grains a week gets the Brakhah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot. And the Gomara works for exactly what the distinction between these two statements is. Ushriha, we need both. The Ishmuel Mecha Meemu Son Kausahul, if it would only say anything of the five grains, Hava Meemu Sonot, into the Amit, it has been one of the five grains, one of the five grains gets the Brakhah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot as long as it is in its pure form, not part of the mixture, but it is in a pure form. If you eat something made out of wheat alone, or something made out of barley alone, something made out of spelt alone, all those things would get a Baurae Minaimu Sonot. Hava Ayudaita Arowbe, if we would take that wheat and we would make a mixture out of it, assuming that the grain itself, the wheat itself, is not the primary ingredient in that mixture, then we would not necessarily get a Baurae Minaimu Sonot. The Ishmuel Mecha Meemu Son Kausahul, therefore, we need the second statement of Rahu Shmuel, call Shayeshbo Mecha Meemu Son Kausahul, anything that has within it of the five grains, a mixture that has within it, one of the ingredients of the mixture is the five grains, gets the Brakhah of Baurae Minaimu Sonot, the Ishmuel call Shayeshbo, if it would say anything that has within it one of the ingredients of the grains, gets the Baurae Minaimu Sonot, Hava Meema, then I might think, if one of those five grains are in the mixture, then it gets the Baurae Minaimu Sonot, Kausahul, Hava Mecha Meemu In, but always with Dokhan, no, if you would put in that mixture, rice or millet, then you wouldn't get a Baurae Minaimu Sonot only because it's within a mixture, in other words, the five grains within the mixture gets a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, however, rice or millet in that mixture does not get a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, no, we shouldn't the idea to aerobe it, Hava, Etebe Ene, Meema, if it would be independent and separate, then you would make a Baurae Minaimu Sonot on rice and ores, therefore, Kamaashul on the other statement that Baurae Minaimu Sonot calls Shayeshbo Mecha Meemu Sonot, who do the Baurae Minaimu Sonot, only of those five grains does well make a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, La Afruqae Ores Lidokhan, if you have something of those five grains, then you make a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, even if it's in a pure form, but any other thing that you might consider a grain does not get a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, and therefore, you got these two different statements of Rahu Shmuel, both of which are necessary. In other words, Rahu Shmuel taught us two different halakot. One halakha is that the five grains within a mixture, even if those grains are not the primary ingredient, that mixture would get a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, that's one hittish Rahu Shmuel. The second hittish Rahu Shmuel is that one makes a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, only on the five grains, but on nothing else. The second statement that one makes a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, only on the five grains, but on nothing else, on Ores Lidokhan, on rice or millet, one will not make a Baurae Minaimu Sonot. That second statement is then challenged by the Gomara, and the Gomara in the end proves that, from a number of different bridal, that the brighter hell, that on Ores, you do make a Baurae Minaimu Sonot, and that's how you passkin halakha Misa. We pass Malaswa Misa, one who eats Ores, makes a Baurae Minaimu Sonot. Based on the above, most you've shown him in postkin, passkiness follows, regarding the din, the first bin of Rahu Shmuel, that if you have a mixture, and one of the ingredients in the mixture is one of the five grains regarding that, then they passkin like Rahu Shmuel, that bin was adopted, that din was never challenged, and therefore they passkin that halakha, that if you have within a mixture, one of the five grains, even if it's not the primary component, the braka that you make on that mixture is Baurae Minaimu Sonot. For instance, you could have a soup, and that soup can have, can have some kind of a cereal in it, or some, some kind, one of the grains in that soup, mixed into the soup totally. Sometimes one puts, one puts, one can put, can put the kamakha, put flour into the soup, or other grains, as long as the grains are added. As long as the grains are added, there's some nutritional purpose. However, if the grains are added, simply, for instance, if one wants to make hamburgers, one takes a matzamiel, or breadcrumbs, and puts it in with the chopped meat, and the order that should hold together, or one with the filth of the fish, or the like, then one would not make a barmani muzanos, even though one of the components of this mixture, chopped meat, and eggs, and the breadcrumbs, has breadcrumbs as well. Nevertheless, there, the role they play, the function of the breadcrumbs is totally subservient that we're not going to get the brakha of boweri muzanos. However, if you have a mixture, and one puts in muzanos, grains, cheers made out of one of the grains, for to add taste, to add nutritional value, then one would make a barmani muzanos. So, that halakha was adopted by, by the shokhanaraka, that's how he passed it. However, the second in the brakha of boweri muzanos, only to one of the five grains, and that rice should not get a barmani muzanos, that halakha was rejected by, by the gomara, and therefore also rejected by the shokhanaraka. So, we're able to split between the two in the brakha of boweri muzanos, even though they sound very, very similar, and we're able to adopt the one while we reject the other. However, as I mentioned before, this is how most of the shonin, and the postkin pasta nalagamara, the rasprabhringer tradition of the gahonim. The gahonim are the stage that preceded the bishonim, that argue, and that put the two denua brahwinish world together. The raspras says it follows, "Vittimhele almashra isi vipirushagonra paizal." And I'm surprised at what I saw in the in the purish of rasprabhaygon, who said in the name our rasprabhudagaon, that even though the gomara rejected rasprabhringish world, nevertheless, since we know we have other gomaras, that tell us clearly that the halakha of rasprabhring is buried in the zonos. We have otherwise that support the same term rasprabhish world. Therefore, we know that we cannot accept the rejection of rasprabhish world, and we pasta nalagamara, both of you. In other words, according to a paizal gom, according to the nalagamaraon, and later on, also brought down the name of the brahwinish world, all three are of the gahonim. They say that the two denua brahwinish world go hand in hand. You can't accept one and reject the other. If we have specific māras, that tell us that we pasta nalagamaraon, regarding the question of the mixtures, that if you have grains as a minority and ingredients within the mixture, you make a buried in the name of the zonos. Then, it's clear that the brahwinish barhwinish zonos is only on the five winds and on nothing else. Now, the question is, what's the relationship between these two different halakhas around which well? Why, in fact, should we pasta nalagamish world, regarding one den? Well, we don't pasta regarding both denua together. What's the connection between the two? One is a question of ikāvitatel, that the five grains are very, very important ingredients, and therefore, in its their minority, nevertheless, you would make a brahha on. A brahha barhwinish zonos, you always go after the main ingredient in a particular mixture. So, the first tells us that the five grains are always have a certain amount of hachibas of importance. They are always ikāv, as long as they replace their traditional value of their taste, they play a major role, even though they might be a minority as far as the percentage is concerned, but nevertheless, it's the most important ingredient in this particular mixture. That's one denua rāvish moi. The second denua rāvish moi is regarding what, you know, species of food, of grains, of things that grow, what are considered grains, and what are not considered grains. Rather, what gets a barhwinish zonos, and what doesn't get a barhwinish zonos? They seem to be two separate halakha. In order to explain the gāonin, one has to look for some kind of a common nominate between these two different halakhas. For instance, one can claim a spouse. The same factor that tells us that the grains are important, and therefore, they're not nullified within a mixture, is the same factor that gives those grains, the brākhā barhwinish zonos. In other words, one can claim that what the important factor over here is one of hashivas, one of the quarters. The five grains have hashivas. What is the hashivas? The importance, the significance of the five grains. One can make bread out of the five grains. This potential bread, I decide to make something else, cake, cookies, but it potentially can become bread, and therefore, the five grains have a certain amount of significance above and beyond a normal vegetable or fruit or even meat. You cannot make bread out of an apple, out of meat, out of fish, and therefore, that hashivas, that one has the five grains, doesn't appear in anything else. So if you take the five grains and put it in a soup, your nutritional value, since the five grains have hashivas, have importance, have significance. They are not buttell, they're not toughll, they're considered the ikār, and whenever you have a mixture that has ikār and tafel, you always make the brākhā based on the ikār. The five grains are always the ikār. That same factor of significance, of importance, of the five grains, because it's potential bread, is exactly what gives it the special brākhā of barhwinish zonos. I mean, after all, the five grains should have gotten a bhari priyār dhamma, it grows in the ground, doesn't grow on a tree, it's something that grows in the ground, and therefore, wheat, barley, oats, it should all be a bhari priyār dhamma. But instead of getting the regular brākhā of bhari priyār dhamma, we give it a special brākhā of bhari, meaning, zonos. Why does it get a special brākhā of bhari, meaning, zonos? Because it's important, because it's significant, what's it's significant, it's significant, that it could potentially become bread. So what we're seeing is that the same factor that tells us that regarding ikār pākhā, within a mixture, one makes it bhari priyār dhamma, zonos on the grains, is the same factor that gives the grains its special brākhā of bhari and zonos, and therefore, if oré within a mixture, does not get a brākhā of bhari and zonos, then apparently oré's rice does not have this special significance, because rice cannot become bread. We don't pass the ikār priyār dhamma nui, or ikār priyār dhamma nui thought that rice was one of the grains and you can make bread out of rice. We don't pass the ikār priyār dhamma nui. And therefore, we hold that you cannot make bread out of rice. If you can't make bread out of rice, then it doesn't have the special significance of the five grains. Well, that would have two different expressions. Expression number one, within a mixture, within a tarovis, you would go after the roll, the majority food, rather than the rice. Secondly, if you eat it independently, the brākhā would not be bhari and zonos, because it's not especially significant food. You'd make the regular brākhā of bhari priyār dhamma. One can offer an alternate explanation as well. Almost, they are actually the opposite. According to the first explanation, bhari mean zonos is a special brākhā, and therefore, it's only made on something which has special significance, something which potentially could become bread. The five grains could potentially become bread. The second approach is that bhari mean zonos is actually a brākhā, which is, perhaps it doesn't have any meaning significant. As a matter of fact, what does the word "ma zon" mean? You make a brākhā bhari mean zonos. The zonos is anything which has nutritional value. The dhammaar that says that kāmī zām, anything has nutritional value, except for malach and mayim, except for salt and water, and salt don't have nutritional value. And therefore, there's a hai yādām, it's brought down in the dīrā lākhā, there's a hai yādām, that possibly just follows, that if, by mistake, you made bhari mean zonos on any food item under the sun, aside from water and salt, you know, say, "Nakā khili, you only make it on bread." But if one made of bhari mean zonos on an apple, on a pear, on a tomato, one is yote, because the brākhā of bhari mean zonos applies to anything that has nutritional value, which includes anything under the sun, aside from water and salt. And therefore, what is a muzzle? A muzzle is something which has nutritional value. One could perhaps claim that when you have a mixture that has grains, one of the grains in it, well, the reason that it gets a bhari mean zonos is not because the grains are the dīrkhā, because you don't make a brākhā of bhari mean zonos on grains, on hepsa of grains, but rather you make bhari mean zonos on muson, on anything which is considered muzzle. So, if the grains are a significant ingredient, even though maybe not a majority ingredient, but the grains are a significant ingredient in the mixture, I might view the entire mixture as muzzle. I might not view the entire mixture of wheat. I don't consider wheat as necessarily the major component, and I don't consider it as a kār, but I consider it the mixture as muzzle, because the soup that has a lot of kemākh of wheat, of flour, inside, I might view as being muzzle. I might consider it muzzle, even though I wouldn't necessarily say that the flour is the major component or ingredient. Of course, if that were true, the question is, what happens if I would take rice and I would add to this mixture? Would rice make the entire mixture into muson as well? I don't need a special kāshima significance importance of rice, and therefore, the potential of becoming black and brown is irrelevant. Rather, I need something which transforms the mixture into muson. Well, if wheat can transform the mixture into muson, it barley can transform the mixture into muson. Why can't rice transform the entire mixture into muson? Apparently, rice is not muzzle. Vidyabif, one made the brākhā, brain made in musonos on rice, one is yōtsi. That's what the kāshima said. But the kāshima, it's not what we would consider a classic form of musonos, and therefore, if it's within the mixture, it doesn't get musonos. That would indicate that even when it's independent and separate, in its pure form, it wouldn't get musonos either. A nakdāmina between these two different explanations might be the question of the brākhākh krona. What brākhākh wanted you make when you have the five grains as one of the components in a mixture, where it's not the major component. In other words, it's not the majority component, I would say, but it's a significant component. So, the brākhā that you make, the brākhālā fānaha is burning in musonos. What about the brākhālākhāra? What brākhākh you make after eating it? If I would say, that it's a question of ikārvatāfāl, that the major component here is the wheat, then I would consider the entire mixture, perhaps, as wheat. And even the brākhākh krona would be Allah mākhya, maybe with the condition that at least you have a kāsāyis, but they are kīrās, at least when you eat a kāsāyis, you eat a kāsāyis of one of the grains. On the other hand, if I view the entire mixture as muson, but I don't look at wheat, or one of the grains as necessarily the major component, but nevertheless, I look at the entire mixture as muson, that probably will affect the brākhākh we showed up. You make the brākhākh we use onos. However, the brākhākh krona of Allah mākhya, of Allah mākhya, of Allah mākhākāl, is a brākhākh rākh rākh on one of the Hei mini-a-dāgā, or one of the zai-yin-yum shi-stāp-kabhām-hehān-he-hir-tī-sra-l. And therefore, the brākhākh we showed up would be a brākhākh rākhākh rākhākh rākhākh rākhān-he-sra-lāgā would be a brākhākh rākhākh. This question regarding the brākhākh rākh rākh is a mākhlokas problem between rākhī and ta-tī-tī-sāsās, and that meant out from the days. There, they're discussing the question of pasta-lava kīsāyin, and one of the ways of explaining pasta-lava kīsāyin is that it's a minority component within the mixture. Rashi says that the Brakhari Shona is born named Nizanos and the Brakhah Akhone is born in the Fashos and Tossos argues and he says Call Shangejbomih Chameshos miyyadadan just like the Brakhahim Shona is born in Nizanos the country of Nizanos so to the Brakhah Akhona is alamrkya. So you have a more focus between Rashi and Tossos and it might be dependent on this question. Does is the den of having one of the grain within the mixture? Does that define the entire mixture as? being that grain because the grain is the primary component because of its special significance and importance or Does the entire mixture become muzzled and therefore the Brakhah of Burmih Nizanos is an apical and a propany of Brakhah However, I don't look at the entire mixture as being one of the grains. I look at it as being muzzled But I don't look at it as being as being one of the grains of course now that we Did such a wonderful job in explaining the shitha of the Gaonim. We have to go back and explain You know the shitha of all the Rishonin and the shitha of the Halacha that we that we accept One of the statements around shwah while we reject the other Now basically but according to what we said the solution should be very very simple and it's not anything. Oh sure in other words regarding the question of the grains within a mixture There since it's only a minority component. I don't look at the entire mixture as being muzzled but rather the reason that it would get a Burmih Nizanos is because I look at the grains as having special significance and importance and only the five grains have the significance and importance because you can make bread out of those grains and Therefore only the five grains within the mixture would get a Brakhah of Burmih Nizanos However, if you would put rice in that mixture even though the Brakhah of rice By itself might be balmih Nizanos. Why not because it's important that you can make bread out of it But because it's muzzled rice and milk is muzzled just like just like the grains are muzzled But the difference in rice and milk is that you cannot make bread out of it and therefore rice and milk are muzzled But they're not important. In order to have the din of a minority ingredient within the mixture Getting the Brakhah of Burmih Nizanos That's not because it's muzzled because it's only minority ingredient that can't consider the entire mixture of muzzled because a small percentage Might be one of the grains. The reason that you get the Brakhah of Burmih Nizanos when you have one of the grains in the mixture is because That grain is significant and important. It's one of the chamezis meaning that you can make bread out of The chamezis meaning yes rice and milk. No, however, if I take Grains or rice and milk independently and I want to eat it Then my I ask only one question. Is this muzzled or not? Does it have nutritional value or is it is it especially satiating? Is it muzzled or is it not muzzled? It's not part of a mixture it's independent and regarding this we passed in against rubbish Well that not only do the five grains have the status of muzzled But rice and milk have the status of muzzled as well So we've explained the goniam. We've explained most of the reshawning But there's still one sheet of one opinion in the severe, which is which still bothers Which still bothers my mind. That's the sheet of the Rambam in the wrist They distinguish between Ores and Dohan between rice and between millet The Rambam writes as follows Ores shabishlo or shaasam y menupat the freedom of article of boiling muzzled out the best of boiling if I show rice that you cook or that you made some kind of a bread out of Some kind of a patty you really can a bread out of rice The broccari we shown is boiling muzzodos and the brocca Akrova is boiling a pashos We'll not show you a moorah in double a hair But that's only on condition that wasn't part of a mixture Elo Ores la vado Avel pat Dohan O pat shall shaam in a kidney of If you have bread made out of millet or any other type of kidney of Bitquilam of a shaco the himself boiling a pashol rock Then the broccari shown it in shaakol and bhaja kon in the pashol and the question is obviously Where did the Rambam? Learn that once you make a distinction between past and between Dohan But between Ores and between Dohan between rice and between millet Why did he adopt the the he of the Gomadra, the mother rejected Rambam shmul only regarding Ores But not regarding regarding Dohan and the truth is the question the Gomadra asks to this prove Rambam shmul relates specifically to Ores not the Dohan, but what's the Sivara? What's the logic behind behind the distinction and secondly if one takes a look at the Gomadra even though the Rejection of Rambam shmul is only from Ores It's much simpler if one we put Ores and Dohan together and reject Rambam shmul regarding both once Rambam shmul rejected if one rejection regarding both the Gomadra Would work much much more smoothly. I don't I can't right now go into an exploration of why In order to explain the Rambam, I think we have to look at another halacha in her cuskham to matzah There the Rambam in Parek vavalaha hay right is followed. Hah ose isa min hachitin uma nah Ores In yeh sbhaktam dagan yotse bai de khabatou if one made a dough out of wheat and rice together and then one took this dough and made matzah if That dough has the taste of Gagan I eat the taste of wheat then one is yotse de khabasa with that matzah the right bid immediately state the fellows Rely the who she yes some Dagan could be she yoko kazayatou kazayatou Pras yoko Enu in other words in order to be yotse you have to have enough wheat matzah, but there's pass How much matzah do I have to eat? I eat a a kazayas of rasa and therefore if I will eat a a Pras of this mixture of Ores of rice and wheat so if I would eat in higher pras I would get at least a kazayas of a wheat matzah out of that entire mixture and therefore I could be yotse but if I I didn't have a kazayas but there are less pras so if I ate in some time mixture So I have less than a kazayas of wheat matzah, so I'm not yotse. I need a kazayas of wheat matzah in order to fulfill my obligation But according to the Raman pant we don't need a kazayas of wheat matzah alone as long as it has the taste of Gagan And that's efficient that could be even be if it's less than a kazayas and the question is how does that work? the answer is that It's not that Ores simply doesn't nullify the wheat and therefore I could be yotse with the meat alone But rather somehow the Ores combined with the wheat as long as it has a taste of wheat the Ores and the wheat mixture together is in itself matzah and therefore if I can eat a kazayas of this mixture together I ate a kazayas of kazayas of kazayat matzah and I'm yotse any day hope The same we find in Hochoskala of the Raman The Raman their rights In the Hochos be cool in with Parekh Baba Lakhir ala if that's where the Raman names all of Hochoskala Hama Arid Kemakhhitim the Kemakh Ores if one took Flower of wheat in a flower of rice the Asa Meihan isa and made it go out of it in the Hochba Tham Dagan Chayemus bakhala if it has the taste of wheat Then one is Chayem when it's obligated to be Mahfeshhala the inlafthura and if not one does not did you Mahfeshhala Again, we see that according to the Ramban You can create a mixture of wheat and Ores and the Ores combined with the wheat again The Raman over here again doesn't mention kazayas of the Chayemus pras And you see that the rice Combined with the wheat to create a dough which is higher than common Just like the the rice combined with the wheat to create a To in order to bake matzah to become part of the matzah, and you don't need it cuz I speak with their thiros pras This combining is called the Richard will call this graira It's it's it's it integrates into the mixture and it's and it's added to the to the mixture And the mixture in its entirety Becomes becomes hala becomes higher than the chala in its entirety. It becomes it becomes matzah This special didn't graira that or is combined with wheat and everything becomes Hi, the chala already becomes matzah is mentioned only by or is it does not appear by appear by the okan to whatever reason There is no parallel din by dokan by million. It only appears by order Therefore, I wanted to just to follow it. It could be that according to the Ramban The reason that or is get the barium zonos independently is not because or is because rice The bracha of burning zone sunrise is because it's not on its nutritional value and not because it's got you with it's important The bracha of burning zonos on rice is because of its importance It's important because or is also can potentially become bread not alone, but within a mixture of kamach of Regular wheat of flour wheat flour it can become bread always has the potential of becoming bread And therefore or is also has the that importance of the five grains However, under what conditions can it become bread? I obviously when you mix it with great one the grain Oh, well, it's alone and potentially can be mixed However, when it becomes mixed with something else when you take that that rice and you put it in a soup When you take that rice and you put it in with chopped meat, or you make some kind of a stuffing for a fried chicken Then you by mixing you with some alternative ingredient Then you nullify the possibility that the or is can become bread. It's potential as bread has been totally neutralized In other words, we suggested before that according to the other we shown in the bracha of burning Zonos on or is independently it's because of its nutritional value its muscle not because of its importance as potential lekker while the reason that you have a the dinner of Eker of a toftail when you put the five games into the next year is because of its importance of these five grains that Contempting come black and that applies to the five games. However, it doesn't at all apply to to rice What we're suggesting down the roundbound is that according to the roundbound what gives the special status to the five grains both regarding the dinner of Napping kabatail in a tarobas that in the mixture you make part in the name Zonos as well as the fact that we give a special status when it's alone and we give it a bracha of burning Zonos is because the five grains are Important their special significance and therefore their bracha becomes elevated to a bracha of burning Zonos when they put it we're going to tarobas then they are looked at as a major component even though they might be a minority component But they looked at as the primary component because of its special importance Regarding both of those didn't both the dinner called Shigeshpo as well as the name of culture who both of those didn't are based on the Significance and importance of the five grains as being potential at it What the ramam adds when we reject ramish will regarding within and we say that you do make a binary results on rice It's not because all of a sudden we rethought The bargaining results on the five brains and we said it's not because of their elevated status as potential bed But rather it's because it's muscle. No It's based on its elevated status Because it's potential lechin or is this potential lechin as well. However, when it why is our potential lechin? Not because it independently could become like and we don't pass the lack of your commitment Or as alone cannot become like him, but always even according to a hundred has the ability to combine With the grain and when it combines with the grains and he always self becomes like him So always even though we don't accept our biolh and menuri We don't accept our biolh and menuri in his radical form that always alone is one of the grains and candy made into lechin But even the chakamu argue with your biolh and menuri agree that always is distinct and Or as can become like him when it combines with kimba Trita and the time of the gun is maintained as Matter of fact of your chamenuri also distinguish between or isn't okay But your community was only there always can become dokan you never mentioned So that same distinction applies to hakamu arguing of your chamenuri But on the second day level according to biolh and menuri always alone can become made into bread Well according to hakamu arguing over your chamenuri or is alone cannot become bread But always combined with kimba Trita can be kimba Trita as long as time the gun is retained That's really kimba Trita So always also has significance when does it lose significance? When you mix it with something else and all of a sudden goes in a different direction And you mix it with something else then or is loses that special status that potentially Become brand and therefore it will lose a special breakup of burning the zonos That's a bit that applies only to or is it does not apply to dokan and hence the round them in the rip Split between or is it between dokan when the Gomara When the glory of jeffy robin schmuel and forced Ravish both can see Regarding or is the ramen lift said that's too by or is because or is can potentially come left him And therefore the significance of something which is potential left him might apply to or is as well But never to do her and therefore or is gets a burning the zonos however dokan dokan will not You have been listening to our via car that was the fifth installment in this year on her hot workout If you listen to this year and you enjoyed it as well as the other shurm during the week of kmtt Then I think it would be a good idea if you told your friends as well You could view it as the kind of payment for this week's year get at least one other person why one? Tell everybody you know about kmtt given the address on the web www kmitzion.org that's k-i-m-i-t-z-i-o-n.org And let them get on to the podcast as well That way when you meet them at lunch you'll be able to talk about the shoe that you both heard or driving into work Okay, enough of that a high omit we've Said to get a similar we said it's the bar Razen said kaddish and her bar both in kaddish and in bar room There is a al-hakk issue that arises the minhag In both places is that there's a certain amount of bowing the text place in boho for instance in Orky-lot Israel to the best of my knowledge But has in bowels when saying boho bowhu at ashama vahrach in most key lot or key lot tashkana's yot And many many key lots vahr diot the congregation bows when answering boho hashama vahrach lowlam bed similarly in kaddish In here, it's found in more poskim. It's found in the tour and the beta safe The chazen is supposed to bow at different places There are different versions went to battle the beta safe says that except in minhagas about five times when he says it's kaddell when he says Yesh mera bar when he says it kaddell with it barach bishtabach when he says We're gonna rule the ailer and when he says we move on main five times Well other minhagam as well, but the way the tour faces it is that it's a few of In both cases the grower was opposed the bill in the ground said the grower says that one is not allowed to bow inchman s-ray At other places other than the places which chazal said you should namely twice in the first bachah When you begin boho hashama and again of rahav and twice in the first bachah of the last section of modem When you say modem and when you have the end of that bachah According to the background is the fifth place we all do it because it it's the fifth in that series We say oh such a lot when you finish the one says you're not allowed to bow in other bachah only in those five So the grass said the mission I'm not a bow at any time other than those five places inchman s-ray So the grass said once you're not bow in Kaddish and he's quoted as saying you should not bow for boho either The arachashal conference then accepts the critic dukitik of the gras But suggests that perhaps so you shouldn't really bow you give a little nod In other words, it's not enough of a bow to be considered to be most if our takanat kazal by adding extra bowings other than that mentioned in the Gomara Because you just sort of tilt your head. You don't actually bow It seems to me to be a strange suggestion But I'm not sure either it is if it isn't if it's not a bow then there's no reason to do it And if it is a bow then you have the power to grow a raised almost all post game do not accept what the grass said Minigi song is not to accept the grass said it's interesting. I remember when I was a child I think most has done and did bow during Kaddish It seems to be one of those Minhagen which has radically in the last 2030 years has started to disappear I really see a hazen doing it or an avial doing it But it's mentioned in all the post game that forgot boho is not mentioned so much in the post games mentioned in later Of post game as being a minute that they saw whereas in Kaddish it's mentioned as a halacha And and apparently we just not cautious for the girl the minute gives that inch one s-ray The good I said you shouldn't do it after the show necessary It doesn't about it doesn't appear to be a problem. There are other places with the minigas to bow As far as I know everybody bows in Orlando. I think the girl might have the same problem Many people bow when they say they'd give me don't entachlan if they say You give me doubts found them say you give me don't Some some people bow at that point as well So the minute is that it's okay and to do it and the most people are not cautious most post game are not cautious for the grass the grass critique In boho So the hazen bows most people the congregation bows as well. And then the hazen repeats But look Hashem of a record on that. There were some issue who said that this was not necessary But the but the brush and a binary owner Both agree that that you should the Maramootenberg apparently did not Tashpitz calls Maramootenberg and saying that the hazen does not have to repeat it The brush says that he should Question goes back to question raised in the Gomara I look at Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Schmael whether the hazen should say Bahu et Hashem Or Bahu et Hashem Amaborach Why is repeat Amaborach Rabbi Schmael says to include himself. He shouldn't just tell other people to bless God You should include yourself. So you say Bahu Hashem Amaborach Meaning I also say he's Mavorach The reason to answer Bahu Hashem Amaborach la Danve had the hazen should repeat it Is for the same reason in which case the Maramootenberg argue you don't need them both If you say Hamaborach You can very include yourself Why you don't have to actually say it as though you're answering to yourself Bahu Hashem Amaborach la Danve had But the the rush password is both things both to say Hamaborach in the Command in the court of the Tzibur and then after the Tzibur to say it to say it as well They're not gonna run quotes to say for a good dad that if the only nine Jews plus you plus the hazen in shul So you should say together with the Tzibur but Bahu Hashem Amaborach la Danve had there should be ten people saying it and not say it afterwards Let me show you disagree. You don't understand why it's necessary You know to say it all together. It's being said Bitzibur The ten Jews here hasn't has one job to tell you to say it the nine Jews answered. That's called Bitzibur That's called the minion and then if the hazen also says it because the rest of you should also say it So he also says it says it by himself. That means that it's not saying it but sibur We require a minion to Bahu because this is the Bahu Hashem Amaborach The answer is the the entire structure of I call you answer and I repeat that whole thing is called It's called Bitzibur and that's the common and accepted minute as well That's all for today. Tomorrow. She will be the sure in Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages given by myself Until then Kottur, Migush Etzion. This is as a book for KMTT. Kimitsion, Tetsay, Torah, Uddvar Hashem, Niyoshalaym