KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Erev Shabbat Parashat Va-eira
Erev Shabbat program for parashat Va-eira, with Rav Ezra Bick; guest - Rav Ronnie Ziegler, Director of archives of the MeOzar HaRav Foundation, discusses recent publications of Rav Soloveitchik
This is KMTT, and this is Ezra Beck. I'm sitting here in Gushit's Young. The KMTT is a project which has a vision out of Ishivatarit's Young in Gushit's Young. Actually, it's a direct continuation and result of a project which has been running here for 11 years called the Virtual Beck Medash. Many of you are familiar with. The VBM works on email, text, no audio. And for the last 12 years, for the last 12 years, the VBM has been sending between 15 and 20 shoe rim week to today about 20,000 people all over the world. And this year, the VBM decided to simply continue developing and we've gone now into audio and audio on these are the broadcasts which you're listening. The VBM itself is quite a large project and is supported by its users. Together with a very generous donation, an annual donation that's made in honor of Ishivokushitskyzal, which is why the VBM is called the Ishivokushitsky Virtual Beck Medash. Ishivokushitsky was a great philanthropist in his life and after his passing, after his death, 11 years ago, has continued to be a great philanthropist through the instrumentation of the Virtual Beck Medash. This project, the KMTT project is now in its pilot stage, so the pilot stage is being made available by a generous grant from the Kushitsky family. It's a continuation of their commitment to spreading Torah in this manner. And that's why, in the meantime, so long as the pilot keeps running, we have the funds to maintain this program. Shivat Haaretzion is the parent institution on which the VBM, KMTT, and as well as a number of other projects, all west. And so actually, you can really view the broadcast as a kind of radio at Sion. This is the broadcast of Ishivat Haaretzion, Torah in Ishivok. This is in the Beit Medash. The original model of the VBM was to open up the windows of the Beit Medash and have people be in the Beit Medash without being in the Beit Medash. And that's what KMTT is as well. The Beit Medash is to some extent closed. You have to actually be inside and sit at a table to be able to learn to run the Beit Medash. And KMTT is broadcasting the Beit Medash of Ishivat Haaretzion, the Beit Medash of Torati Sahel, to the entire world. This week's Pashaad Vayva. This is the Ere Shabbat program, or weekly Ere Shabbat program for Pashaad Vayva. In the beginning of the Pasha, you have the Torah describes and says that Ashram says to Mashaabangu to go to Paro. Then immediately afterwards, there comes this lineage. It lists the children of Yaakov, the children of Uvein, the children of Shemaan. Then the children of Leviin gets no Shemaabangu. Then it stops. And then afterwards, it says that God tells no Shemaabangu to go to Paro. It's the exact same process that appeared before the lineage. It's very difficult to know what's going on. And there's a big discussion among them of Hashem. Was he told twice? Is it the same thing? Why is it told the same thing? It's one very, very interested explanation that I've heard that says the following. It's the exact same thing. God told Mashaabangu to go to Paro. Then the Torah tells us exactly how Mashaabangu is related to Yaakov. In context of other children, it sure doesn't continue after Leviin. But it brings you all of Uvein and all of Shemaan and then all of Leviin. And then it tells us again that Mashaabangu is being sent to God. Who Mashaabangu is? It's the same Mashaabangu I just told you, who was a grandson of Kahat, son of Levi, the son of Yaakov. He's the one who was told to go to Paro. Why does it tell us he was the same Mashaabangu? Because let's face it, Mashaabangu is a very strange Jew. His education is Egyptian. And he's coming to the Jews from Midyan, where he spent the last couple of years, as a shepherd for Kahat and Midyan, for Yitra. He's not rooted sociologically, educationally, in the Jewish people. So the Pacific is one telling us, and I think the Pacific is telling Mashaabangu, that Mashaabangu is not an emissary from outside. Mashaabangu, it gives us the lineage of Mashaabangu, because well Mashaabangu to be some sort of an Egyptian prince who likes the Jews, or a Midianite freeman who wants to help the Jews. Someone who's coming to liberate the Jews from outside, he wouldn't be able to do it. The reason why Mashaabangu can be God's messenger to Paro. Who Mashaabangu? I share a matter of him, I share. Lech Al Paro. The reason why Mashaabangu can do that is because he really is a Jew. And I think not just telling us that, but also telling Mashaabangu, while making it clear that it's true to Mashaabangu, that Mashaabangu is indeed rooted despite his education. Despite his upbringing, despite the years that he spent away, and the fact that he never actually was a slave in Egypt, and Quentin Chazar, neither was Avon because Shavit V was not enslaved, but especially Mashaabangu, he was never a slave in Egypt, but he's just as much rooted in the Jewish lineage as the other Jews, and that's why he can represent God and represent the Jews before Paro. The idea that someone can come from outside, not merely to the Jewish people, this happens in other contexts as well. Someone can come from outside in a sort of eternalistic manner. I'm free, I'm able, I wish to give this over to you. There's a basic flaw in that sort of a picture. And in this case, you don't have to lower yourself, but you have to have the identification and the rootedness in the people whom you're trying to help, to come from outside, to come from above, and simply grant them, bestow upon them, the benefits of your superior education. It can't be accepted. Mashaabangu not merely has to speak to Paro, but he also has to speak to the Jews. He has to represent the Jews to Paro, and he has to speak to the Jews from within themselves. And Mashaabangu has achieved that, and that's what the Pusukas telling us, "Don't think Mashaabangu is coming from the moon to save the Jews." Mashaabangu is the son of a mom, the son of Kat, the son of Levi, the son of Yakov. My guest today is Harav Ranizigla, who is the director of the archives and of research at the Talas Harav Foundation. Talas Harav Foundation has been printing for the last few years, books and collections of essays of rock-sullivatric on different topics. The latest book, which is probably not yet in the bookstores, is a collection on Hagapessa. In this particular case, at least some of the lectures in the book, I actually heard, and therefore I know that it's a very, very good book. We've asked Harav Zigla to tell us a little bit about his work and what we can expect in the future from the books of Harav-sullivatric. Harav Ranizigla. Roussullivatric used to say that he inherited a genetic disease from his family, and that was the reluctance to publish. They used to say in his family, not everything that his thought should be said, not everything that it said should be written, and not everything that is written should be published. Consequently, his father and grandfather published almost nothing in their lifetimes, and Roussullivatric also published relatively little in his lifetime. However, he did leave hundreds of unpublished manuscripts. These were not just notes or jottings, but they were fully written and edited essays. He left instructions to his children upon his death that they should do with his manuscripts as they see fit. His son published a very important volume of the Rouslumdus, entitled "Igratha Greed", letters, mostly corresponded between the Rouslumdus and his father, and his daughters have published since his death the six volumes of the Rouslusophical writings, the most recent of which appeared this week. It's entitled "Festival of Freedom, Essays on Pesach and the Hagada". And in an occasional series on KMTT, I'd like to discuss these new posthumous volumes published of the Rouslumdus, and I'll start this week with the first of them, which is entitled "Family Redeemed Essays on Family Relationships". The laws governing parent-child and husband-wife relationships would seem to be clear instances of "Béonadam le Chavero". However, we know that "Kabéreta viejavetimecha" is usually classified as a mitzvah, "Béonadam le Mako" between man and god. And there are also many "Mamre Chazal" about the divine dimension of the marriage relationship. For example, the Gomar and Sota, "Amar b'a'kiva", "Ichiva", "Ichiva", "Shaz", "Zahu", "Shrina" "Bénehem". There are many explanations for this, but in Family Redeemed, the Rov develops a doctrine which gives this concept new depth. According to the Rov, family relationships are inextricably bound up with the God-Man relationship. Let me quote a passage from the book, and then we will discuss it and interpret it. The Rov writes, "The relationship of God to us and our relationship to Him lend themselves to description and interpretation in finite human categories. The Jew has learned to confess his faith in and his impassioned love of God by telling the story of people whom he loves and with whom he seeks to identify himself. Judaic faith and theology are linked with finite experiences and meaningful human relations. And now here's the key sentence, "By developing proper human relation structures, the Jew learns how to love, revere, and serve God." Now, which human relations is he talking about? The continuation of this passage, he specifies two relationships. A person's relationship with his or her parents, and a person's relationship with his or her spouse. And in order to understand this, let's define a couple of terms in the Rov's philosophy. Much of Rov Soloveitch's thought constitutes a philosophy of man. In other words, what is the nature of man? He says man, he means human beings. And how does Halacha help man confront God, confront the world, and confront himself? The foundation of his concept of man is the claim that man is incomplete. And this incompleteness results from two situations that are built into the very essence of his being. First, that man is finite in relation to God's infinity. Second, each person is either male or female, and each one is incomplete without the other. Now, the awareness of one's incompleteness is what the Rov calls loneliness. And hence, the lonely man of faith and other works. Now, dealing with this condition of loneliness and even overcoming it is what he calls redemption. For him redemption is not just when the Mashiach comes and the whole world is redeemed, but redemption is something that can happen to the individual. The building of connections to others, one's parents, one's spouse, one's community, Klaali's style, all of these help one overcome loneliness partially. And they point the way towards the ultimate overcoming of incompleteness via one's connection to God. Now, the Rov says that the parent-child community and the husband-wife community are both a reflection of and a prologue to the exalted community of man and God. And I'd like to focus on these two definitions, a reflection and a prologue. In what way do these family relationships reflect and constitute a prologue to the man-god relationship? They reflect the man-god relationship. Family relations can reflect this, the man-god relationship. They exhibit qualities that transcend normal human relations or qualities that would seem to be unique to a transcendental relationship, to the man-god relationship. And this is the case with both of these family relationships. In the parent-child relationship, the parent exhibits a totally selfless love and the child exhibits a sense of identification and a sense of finding his origin in his parents. And the unique aspects of a child's relationship to his parents receive halakic expression for the Rov. A philosophical idea is meaningful if it's expressed in the halakah. And certainly the child has many unique halakic obligations towards the parents. For example, there are unique mourning observances for one's parents. Twelve months of mourning as opposed to the usual one month. The kriya that one does unapparent is different. It's kriya on the heart, as opposed to any other relative. There are severe punishments for striking a parent, for cursing a parent. And most of all, the obligations of kibbutumora. In other words, khabetitavikavetimecha and ishimovavivtyro. These kibbutumora, these terms, are usually translated as honor and fear. But the Rov interprets them differently. He defines them more along the lines of not honor and fear, but rather love and awe. And of course love and awe are feelings that one is supposed to experience in relation to God. He says regarding kibbutum, the norm of kibbutum is interpreted in categories of love. It's not just honor. And it manifests an experience of entic unity, of a thou union. In other words, that there is union in terms of one being, one's being between the parent and child, as there is between man and God. He is what he says with regard to mora. Ishimovavivtyro is even more striking. He says what the Torah meant, with its command of mora, is an inner relationship of admiration, profound veneration and awe. One must revere his parents. They should arouse in his soul a craving, a longing, a deep fearful love, a tremor and a great joy. These characteristics do not belong to the sphere of human mundane experiences. They stem from our transcendental awareness and are exclusively within the realm of the man-God confrontation. Similarly, the Rob writes elsewhere in the book that the husband-wife relationship also reflects the God-man relationship. It possesses two unique characteristics that are not characteristic of any other human relationships. And these are what he defines as total commitment and unchangeability. He says these are two unique traits of the God-man-relate covenant and they are indicative of the metramonial community as well. What does he mean by total commitment? It means that the relationship between husband and wife is not just a contractual agreement, regulating one's rights. Rather, it is total. It encompasses every aspect of one's personality, the deepest recesses of one's being, a sense of absolute belonging and togetherness. And what does he mean by unchangeability? I mean, Judaism does allow divorce, so what is unchangeability? He says that generally human love, eros, male-female love, is something capricious, whimsical, it's looking for change. However, just as in the man-God relationship, the husband-wife relationship teaches man to find love in identity and in continuity. To summarize what I've said so far about the reflection aspect, man's relationship to God is based upon two things, his origin in God and his covenant with God. The origin aspect is reflected in one's relationship with his parents, which gives rise to unique haloic duties. And the covenant aspect is reflected in one's relationship with his or her spouse, which transcends other human contractual relationships. Now, given the unique characteristic shared by human-family relationships, and the God-man relationship, it becomes clear how these family relationships serve not just as a reflection of the God-man relationship, but also as a prologue to them. As Ralph Sullivan said in the passage that I quoted, "By developing proper human-relation structures, the Jew learns how to love, revere, and serve God." In other words, one builds a relationship to God via his relationships with people, and this is true, I think, in two senses. First, by exercising certain emotions with regard to other people, one learns how to exercise these emotions with regard to God. For example, Morah, for one's parents, points to reverence for God. The fidelity and devotion of husband and wife trains one to practice these virtues with regard to God. That which brings one to feel connected to his parents, love, reverence, gratitude, recognition of dependence. All of these should awaken the same feelings with regard to one's ultimate source, namely God, who creates and sustains mankind. The sanctity involved in the relationship of husband and wife can help one develop the property of Kadusha, which is necessary for the God-man relationship. A couple's mutual commitment to each other and to their commonly held values can intensify and can pave the way for commitment to God. In fact, the very sense of loneliness and incompleteness that leads one to search for completeness through marriage and the ability that one develops in marriage to open and share one's existence. These are all very important components in developing and establishing a relationship with God. Thus, the first sense in which family relationships are prologue to the God-man relationship is that we learn to practice certain emotions with regard to people, and then we can employ these relationships with reference to God. The second sense in which one builds a relationship to God via one's relationship with people is that these human relationships, these family relationships themselves, become bound up with man's relationship to God. This is especially apparent within the threefold community of father, mother, and child, wherein the parents can imitate God most closely and become his partners. The beginning and the raising of children entails imitation of God on many levels, creation, teaching, unconditional, and boundless chesed. When the parents build a family based on the values of sanctity and religious commitment, they thereby are worshipping and drawing closer to God. By raising their children with proper values, that in itself is an act of worship. They bring their children into the eternal Masara community. They make them part of the chain of tradition. They grant them not just haisha, not just temporal life, but haiola, eternal life as well. I think that, homologically speaking, we can find this reflected very nicely in a comment of Rabena Baha'i and Parsha Truma. In general, when the Tara talks about the two cruving that were in the Kaudesh Kaudashim on top of the Aron, it uses the term "shnay" cruving. However, in Parsha Truma talks about "shnay" cruving. Now, in general, whenever we see the term "shnay", like "shnay-si-ri" or "shnay-banay-o-na", we infer from this holically that the two have to be identical. However, when it says "shnay" cruving, Rabena Baha'i wants to say that this says that they should be identical, but not exactly identical. They should be similar, but except for one thing, the Hamek Dava makes a similar duke from "shnay" cruving. He suggests, if so, the two cruving were not the same. There was some difference between them. Because it says "shnay" cruving, they weren't identical. And he offers two suggestions to explain what the difference was between the two cruving that were in the Kaudesh Kaudashim. His first suggestion is based on a famous Gomara and Yoma, Dafnun Dalad, that the two cruving were male and female, and that on Yom Kippur, they would unfold the parochet, and everyone would see the two cruving embracing each other. And they would proclaim, "ru' uchibat-rem-lif-na-ma-com, ke-kibat-se-ha-one ke-vah." So one is that the two cruving were male-female. His other suggestions, based on the Marenchagiga, where Dafnun Dalad talks about the creatures that had four faces. It says, "One was pnead-dam, and one was pne-kruv." And there are several interpretations offered as to what is a crew. The Gomara says, "Kruv" means, based on an Aramaic word, "it is a child." So it said, "Oh, but we already said pnead-dam, there's a human face." So the Gomara answer is, "No, one was an adult, and one was a child." In other words, the four faces were an eagle and a lion, I think, and a-dam and a-kruv, an adult and a child. And I think that we can say that both of Rabinu-Buhayi's suggestions are true, homologically speaking, we can say this. The centrality of the husband-wife relationship and of the parent-child relationship is symbolized by their presence in the Kodesh-Kodashim, in the holy of holies. And in fact, the Srinath, the divine presence, speaks from between them. In other words, in the Kodesh-Kodashim, we see the very significance of the husband-wife and parent-child relationship because when these are locked in an embrace, then God speaks from between them. Shabbat shalom. We have been listening to Ravi Rani Ziegler. By the way, Ravi Ziegler is also there to enchief of the virtual Baitland Rash. In this week's Pasha, it says that Masha Rabinu comes and he speaks to the Jews, and the Jews don't believe him. The Lord Shambu and Mashaan, because of Ruhu, who made Abu Dakasha, they didn't hear, means they didn't listen, they didn't accept. But Masha Rabinu had said, "Because of Kotsal-Ruhu, the shortness of spirit, the Abu Dakasha, and the hard work." Then Masha Rabinu goes to the garden, says, "Hain bin Azer al-Oshamuelai." The Jews didn't listen to me, "The Eryishma-Eindi-Pawauauauauauauauauauauau." Listen to me, "Hazakama," this is one of the cases, the explicit cases in the Torah, "Bakal-Bakoma." "Bakal-Bakoma" means if something is true of a case that's "Kal," that's on a light standard, on a light status, then surely it'll be true for that which is of a heavier status. "If in Israel, didn't believe me, so parro is a more difficult case, he surely won't believe me." All of my friends should ask, but the past success that this is a specific reason why the Jews didn't believe him. Make kotser or wa'k, or may ha'vodak kasha. Parro doesn't suffer from kotser wa'vodak kasha. He doesn't work hard, he's not a slave. So it could be between you and me that parro for sure is a more difficult case than the Jews. But that's not what the past success. The past success the Jews didn't believe, were shared because they were out of breath and because they were working so hard. The spirits were broken, maybe powerful believe him. Where's the kal-vahomeh? So we've already had La Pian answer in the following manner. He said, "What does it mean kotser wa'k?" And the previous passage, our last week's passage in Prasad Shmoop, where sure Beno comes to the Jews, forms a few signs, and it says, "On the spot, via a mana, the people believed." 'Cause I'll comment, it's an amazing thing. He spoke to him for a few minutes, via a mana, all of them. All of them, Moshe Beno was so worried they're not going to believe, they behave more conveniently, he said to God, but it's not true. They believed in modern spot, and by Yiktruva Istachabu they bowed down the thank-gafus in the Mosheh of Beno. So how is it that a few succum later, Moshe Beno comes, tells them that he spoke to Parro, he has a message. Lao Shmoop, Moshe, we kotser wa'k, we've got kasha. So where the daply answer is, "Kotser wa'k?" Doesn't mean they were out of breath, 'cause they were working so hard. It means shortness of spirit. The fact that the Jews heard a speech, Mosheh of Beno, and believed him, because they're really good people, they want to believe. But then, they go home, situation doesn't change, they're still slaves, they still get up in the morning, they have to work hard. Parro is still this awesome, fearful, terrifying character. This shortness of spirit, the amount of belief they have is good for a day or two. It doesn't last, it doesn't match up with reality. The belief is in their heads, but actual reality says the same, and a belief in your head isn't strong enough, Ravelia says. That what you believe in your minds isn't strong enough to really change the world if the world doesn't change. Similarly, it's also Drashav Chazal, also on last week's partial, "Moshua Beno speaks to this as kenim." And it says, "The Mosheh of Beno and this is kenim, go to Parro." Right there, it says, "Moshua and Avon go to Parro." Sahasal said, "What happened to this kenim?" It says, "They're all left to go to Parro." And then it says, "Moshua and Avon come to Parro." "What happened to this kenim? What happened to the elders?" Sahasal said, "Well, as they were walking, so too disappeared over here. They made a little turn, another one part apart, went over hill, two more didn't make it. They passed an open doorway, three more jumped into the thing, but time they got to Parro's house, only Moshua and Avon were left." So, what does that mean? They didn't believe, but they did believe, they went out with Moshua. So, it's the same thing, the closer they got to Parro, the more the reality of the fearful power, the awesome strength and timiny of Parro, the more that reality became apparent. So, the thoughts, the beliefs in their heads, true beliefs, genuine beliefs, but they pay all by comparison. They don't have the same amount of reality to stand up to this terrifying situation. So, therefore, I value it says, that's the calvahomer, if Beno is for El. When they believed, on the basis of a tradition passed down to them by their fathers and they know who God is, who's promising, because I also was in the tradition of Ava Hamid-Sakbiyakov. And they believe, but a belief in their heads cannot sustain them for more than a few minutes. So, Parro, even when Moshua will do miracles and all kinds of science for Parro, but it doesn't have the same backbone. So, who believe also, but how long would last when the situation doesn't change? That's exactly what happens in this week's passion, next week's passion. A number of times, Parro says, "You're right, I believe in what you're saying, I see that it's true." "I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe God is righteous, and I and my people are evil." I think Moshua Beno goes and pulls away the plague, and the walls of the palace of the same walls and the courteous top power were a great many years, and Parro all of a sudden says, "No, I'm not sending anybody out." What happened to his belief? Was he really lying the previous time? Was he totally hypocritical? I don't think so. He believes, but the belief was in his head. He quotes a saying of a bit of a blazen, student of one of the prime disciples of a resource, Solanta, who says, "The Adata Hayom, Vaashevota Ela Vahreha." He says, "The distance between not knowing, and yes, knowing is enormous, between lawyer day or video day, but the distance between the Adata Hayom, you should know today, and Vaashevota Ela Vahreha, and you should return it, you should bring it in, you should inculcate it. Simulated into your hearts is even a greater distance. The distance between ignorance and knowledge is shorter than the distance between knowledge and true assimilation into one's personality, and that's what the Kotsarua, Vahvota Kasha of the Jews refers to. It was in their heads, but when you face reality, in your head isn't good enough. You have to use that belief that's now been put into your head, and you've accepted. You have to use it immediately to change the reality. So if the reality stays the same, then beliefs, true beliefs, even faith, real faith, is not on the same level of concreteness as the walls, the chairs, the slavery, the situation that the Jews are found in. And this, of course, is true in other areas, in all areas of life as well. We have commitments, we have beliefs, we make up our minds to do A and B. If it's not carried out into action right away, the situation stays the same. Whatever you believed in yesterday is weaker today, and after two days, it becomes transparent. After three days becomes a phantom, after four days, it becomes smoke. And that's exactly what happened to the Jews, when even the Jews, who had a whole long history, that led them to believe. But in Mitzis, in reality, if nothing starts to move, if the belief doesn't lead them to start walking out of Egypt, then it didn't in the beginning. Then these little beliefs in your head get put aside, they don't have real roots in reality. And when it comes time to hear the same speech again, you can't even listen to it, and the Jews really go home. And when Mitzis was left, that's how it feels, holding an empty bag. But today's Al-Aqayomit, we're continuing, we're still at the edge of Suqayt al-Zimbar, and this time we're right after Yishtabakh. I quoted a few days ago the Reif, who, when he explained Suqayt al-Zimbar and said this Baruch, Amarr, before Suqayt al-Zimbar and Yishtabakh, after Suqayt al-Zimbar, then it concludes, therefore, when it's now allowed to interrupt, to have a half-sake from the beginning of Baruch, Amarr, until after Shmon Essay. There's a missing link there. We know from the Gomara that you now want to speak in Burkhat, Kriyachma. I think what this class is explicitly. In Shmon Essay, of course, now I want to speak. You now want to speak during Percayt al-Zimbar, for the reason not to be explained, because you have a bhakha before and a bhakha afterwards. But why can't you talk between Yishtabakh and Yishtabakh, after Suqayt al-Zimbar, and Baruch, in the beginning of Burkhat al-Zimbar. The Vif says since you can't talk to a bhakha after Shmon Essay. There's one small link here which is missing. This Al-Aqah, the Vif, is quoted by all the posts. It's quoted in the tour. The Vif had said, says that the reason is indeed implicit in what the Vif had explained, because Vif had quoted, as I mentioned last week. The Vif had quoted the Amarr Hazal. Suqayt al-Zimbar is based on what Hazal say in Burkhat. No-lam is sadaradam shvakhabshan makham bhakha kakhi palalam. It should always arrange the praise of God and only afterwards dabbin, only afterwards of requesting. So since the reason why a sape-sqayt al-Zimbar is as an introduction to Shmon Essay, therefore you should not be mapsic between Suqayt al-Zimbar and what comes afterwards. Truth is, the logic is not impeccable. Because something has to proceed, you should praise God before you request. Doesn't mean you have to praise Him and immediately request. It means you shouldn't request things about God without some sort of introduction. But does it really imply that one has to, as soon as one praises God, immediately have the request. And indeed, the Vibenu Yona, the book called Tamideva, Vibenu Yona. Vibenu Yona says that he thinks the Vif means it's a good idea. It's a good idea, but it's not a view. It's not a view of Vibenu Yona. And then the rest of the two does not understand it that way. In other words, they understand that it's really awesome. However, certain sources of Nushanim, and then it's quoted by most post-Kunalachas, say that it's still on a lesser level than the other hapsecks that we're familiar with. It really is no one unit that consists of Suqayt al-Zimbar, Yahtseh and Shmon Essay. It's not like Shmon Essay, which is one thing, or even Suqayt al-Zimbar, which is one thing. So therefore, they say that if one has one of two things, either Saqayt Mitzvah, something that's involving the service of God, for instance, sometimes you dive in early and you can't put on it atalit yet, or you don't have it atalit. It's atalit and if you didn't come in the middle of Suqayt al-Zimbar, so the post-Kunal says you should wait until after you start to put it on. Then with the Vibenu Yona, the Vibenu Yona has nothing to do with what we're doing there, but it's Saqayt Mitzvah, so it's okay. What Saqayt Rabin suddenly has to do with serving the community. It's because it's a lesser degree of integration, so we allow a certain kind of a half-sec. Some post-Kunal don't agree with that either. It's not mentioned, for instance, in the tour. But no one says the explicitly among the Rishonam against this idea. It's fun to say for Ashkel. And therefore, most post-Kunal's say Al-Aqala Maisa, you should not be Mitzvah in Suqayt al-Zimbar, you should not be Mitzvah in. You should not be Mitzvah in the outside, you should not be Mitzvah in Shmon Essay, you should not be Mitzvah in the outside, you should not be Mitzvah in the outside, it's for a very important reason, a very important reason means not for yourself, but suddenly it's either the service of God or the service of the Jewish community, service of the Kila, service of the Davening, service of the people who you're Davening with. And that's the source for different menhagim, which in fact did insert things between Ishtabach and Yal Tzad, the one which we're most familiar with. It's still done today. It's during the Satchum Echuvah, the saying of Shuramadot Mima Makim, between Ishtabach and N-Bachum. It goes against what they've said, you shouldn't be Mitzvah, it's something else. Okay, it's Satchum Echuvah, it has an important role, it's not a private Hevsek, and therefore, according to most of these proschemes, it's permissible and that's very the menhag. In different times in Jewish history, the Bama mentions that the time between Ishtabach and Bachum was a time when people would come and do Satchiwabe, if you had a problem, if you had a complaint, that you wanted the community to take care of, so you would come to Shul, and you would stop the Dafening and say, help me, wanted they used to do that between Ishtabach and Bachum. It's called Satchiwabe, so you'll have to do that. They used to sometimes have appeals, anything which you had to galvanize the community, you had to appeal to the community, so this was the time to do, you had to have attention because they started Dafening, it's very clever, and the Hevsek is not as bad as not as serious. And that's all for today. I want to wish you a very good Shabbat Shalom. This is KMTT. Broadcasting from Grishat Shul will be back on Monday. We've just finished the fourth week of KMTT. Next Monday, we will be back for more. She do them for more broadcast. On KMTT, the Torah podcast, Kimi Tseon de Zay Torah, Wudrara Shamioshalayim.