KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Berachot 04
KMTT - Berachot Shiur #04, by Rav Yair Kahn
KMTT. We are back after Shabbat Basha'at Shmoot. Today is Monday, Haaf Gimmel. Haaf Gimmel Tevet. And today's shear will be the weekly shear in a hot pahat by Ravi Ail Khan. This is the fourth instalment in this series. Today's shear is exactly 33 and a half minutes long. After the shear I will be back with the Aloha Yomit. Last Thursday there was an error and the expected Haaf Gimmel to not appear at the end of the shear. Instead of that you heard a repeat of my introduction. So today's Haaf Gimmel will be that broadcast, the one that was not sent. We slightly out of order as opposed to a relationship to Friday's Haaf Gimmel. I don't think they'll make a difference. So after the shear of Haaf Khan there will be a Haaf Gimmel. And now we have the pleasure of hearing the fourth instalment of the Haaf Gimmel Tevet Ravi Ail Khan. Our share last week dealt with the issue of Brakhaz HaMotsi Lakhim Naaraz. The Brakhaz that were normally made some bread. We discussed whether the Brakhaz HaMotsi Lakhim on bread or whether it's a Brakhaz on a sud. Today we're going to define what exactly is Lakhim. What is defined as bread regarding the din of HaMotsi Lakhim Naaraz regarding other demon as well. This gamara in Sakhim, the phlamad-dainimr-dala, 37a, which brings makhlokas between Rabbi Yoh-nun and Rishlokas. The makhlokas centers around the case where instead of baking bread, in an oven, the bread was baked in a pot. One took a pot, put in dough, and without adding water, one turned on the fire and baked the bread in a pot. Is that considered a phia or is that not considered a phia. According to Rabbi Yoh-nun, a phia-bikdera baking in a pot is considered a phia and therefore it's high of the chala. While according to Rishlokas, it's not considered a phia and therefore it's pata from chala. Now chala is also taking chala, which is the haphrasha of the things which are given to a gnome, given to a coin when it's tahr, is only bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya bhaya. So we see that according to Rabbi Yoh-nun, if one instead of baking in an oven, baked in a pot, according to Rabbi Yoh-nun, it's considered a bread. While according to Rishlokas, it's not considered a bread. Toast floss over there brings the shita of Rabbi Ritam. Rabbi Ritam says that that entire Gomara is discussing a case of Belila Raka. Belila Raka is a very, very loose batter, a liquidy type of root batter, where a lot of water was added to the flour, and the result is a very, very liquidy batter. If one took that liquidy batter and then baked it in a pot, according to Rabbi Yoh-nun, it's Kairi Yoh-nun, it's Kairi Yoh-nun, while according to Rishlokas, it's not Kairi Yoh-nun. However, if instead of a liquid batter, one took flour and added only a small amount of water and needed it, had a thick dough, then according to everybody, both according to Rishlokas, as well as according to Rabbi Yoh-nun, it's Kairi Yoh-nun, because one had the process of kneading, Lisha kneading, which defines it as bread. The Shitha of Rabbi Yoh-nun is based on a mission in Nakhala, Perat al-F Mishnehay, the first parak to fix the fifth Mishnah, which states its follows. Isa sha'at rilasa sufganim vesophas sufganim tturam in Aqala. Trilasa isa vesophas sufganim, trilasa sufganim vesophas isa hai yahvas pakhala. In other words, dough that began as a sufganim. Sufganim is something which is not considered bread, and ends as sufganim, is patr from hala. However, if it began as dough, which is sha'at and hala, and ended as sufganim, or if it began as sufganim, but ended as dough, then it's sha'at and hala. According to Rabbi Yoh-nun, the Mishnah means it's follows. Trilasa sufganim is referring to belila raka. It's referring to the point of needing the dough, of needing the dough. They did the flower and the water together. Trilasa sufganim means that what was made was a luke spatter. Sophas sufganim means that it was baked properly in an oven or a quarantabialkin, even in a pot. If you have both conditions, trilasa sufganim, in other words, a luke spatter, and sufas sufganim, in other words, not proper baking, then it's patr from hala. But if you have either trilasa isa, which is needing a proper dough, not a luke spatter, but belila ofa, which is a proper dough, then even if it's sufas sufganim, which means that in the long run, it wasn't baked, but rather it was cooked in water, or trilasa sufganim, if you had a luke spatter, the sufas isa, and in the end, instead of cooking it, you baked it properly chayevas pahala. In other words, a quarantabialtahm, in order to create bread, which is chayevan chalah, you have to do one of two things, either belila ofa, proper kneading, creating dough, or proper afiya, proper baking, in an oven or a quarantabialkin, even a pot, which is parallel to an oven. However, if you both have a luke spatter, in other words, you did not have proper kneading, lisha, as well, you did not have proper baking, you cooked it in water, then it's patr from hala. Therefore, abinutam claims that the homa locust between the schlakishin of yochnad, whether baking in a pot is considered baking or not, is only relevant to a case where one did not have a proper batter. But if one had proper batter, the way that it was cooked or baked is absolutely irrelevant. It's chayevan chalah, even if you cooked it actually in water. Therefore, the only way to explain the gamara in sakir, the makhocust for schlakishin of yochnad, as to whether or not baking in a pot is considered proper baking, is if one is dealing with a loose batter. A loose batter is only chayevan chala if it went through the proper process of baking. Trillasa sufganen mis sofa isso, even though the beginning was a loose batter, in the long run, it eventually was baked and therefore chayevan chala. However, if we're dealing with trillasa isso, something which began with velila abba, it was an actual dough that was needed water together with flour and it was needed in a real fashion, it becomes a real dough, not just simply a liquid batter, then it would be absolutely irrelevant whether sofa sufganen or sofa isso, whether in the final analysis it was baked properly or whether in the final analysis it was cooked in water, it would be totally irrelevant, the lisha itself, the kneading of the dough itself is enough to makhaya chala. Duramban, in the beginning of Helchos chala, understands the michna in chala differently and therefore he argues on Rabero Tal. According to him, the entire michna is dealing with isso, isso means a real dough, isso, trillasa sufganen mis sofa sufganen, which is what is stated in the michna, and therefore we're not dealing with a loose batter at all, but rather we're dealing with a real dough that was needed properly, trillasa sufganen means that at the point that you needed it, you had intention to make sufganen, instead of making real bread you intend to make sufganen, which is only cooked. Visso fas sufganen, and in the end you actually cooked it, under those conditions is pot de minachala. However, if when you kneaded your dough, at the beginning you intended on making a proper bread, trillasa isso, when you kneaded it you planned on making a real bread and baking it. Visso fas sufganen, but after kneading it you changed your mind, and you cooked it instead of making a proper bread, or trillasa sufganen, if at the point of the leash show when you kneaded the dough, you intended on cooking it, and not making a proper bread. Visso fas esa, however, you ended up changing your mind and baking it properly, trillasa sufganen, then on those two situations you're trying to knead it. But according to Ramban, you certainly need trillasa isso, in other words, that at the beginning you actually have a real bonafide dough. And then the question is whether you intended on using that dough to make a proper bread, or you did not intend on using that dough to make a proper bread, or whether you actually made a proper bread or didn't actually make a proper bread. If you both lacked intention to make a proper bread, and in the end you did not make bread, then you patterned a chala. But if either you had intention to make bread at a time, or you didn't intend to make bread, but in the end did decide to make bread, under those two situations, then it scribed a chala. According to the Ramban, the Gomareim sakhim cannot be talking about loose batter, because hadapen loose batter, even a coin trap yohannan, that baking in a pot is considered real bonafide baking, it would still be paturnhala, because it lacked the leecha, it lacked the kneading of the dough, which is the requirement to be chai evenhala. And therefore according to the Ramban, the Gomareim sakhim is referring to a case where you took dough, and it was kneaded properly, and it is considered bellehava. If at the time that you kneaded the dough, you planned on cooking it in a pot, or you eventually cooked it in a pot, that according to the Gomareim, you baked it in a pot. According to the Gomareim, that baking in a pot is considered bonafide baking, your chai evenhala. While according to the Gomareim, that baking in a pot is not considered baking, but rather it is something similar to cooking. Then you are not chai evenhala, because at the time that you kneaded the dough, you did not have intention for what is halachically defined as baking according to the Gomareim sakhim. Summarize the different opinions. According to the Gomareim, there are two different makhai evenhala. Either the Lisha is makhai evenhala, kneading the dough along bellehava is enough in order to be chai evenhala. Even if in the end you did not bake it but rather cook it. On the other hand, Afiya alone is also sufficient in order to be chai evenhala, even at the beginning you left kneading of the dough, you left Lisha and instead you had a very very loose batter. One of those two acts, either Lisha or Afiya, are sufficient in order to be chai evenhala. While according to the Rambhan, basically you just have one makhai evenhala. Lisha is makhai evenhala. However there is a snide, there is a condition. In order for Lisha kneading the dough, in order for Lisha to be able to be chai evenhala, it asks about belisha which is done, al-da-safiya. Lisha which is done with intention for Afiya or that Afiya was eventually done. If the Lisha was done and there was no intention for Afiya whatsoever and one planned on cooking the dough, and that's what eventually one did, then this type of Lisha cannot be makhai evenhala. Up until this point, we've discussed the Heave of Khala, but as I mentioned at the outset of this year, it's possible to compare the Heave of Khala with Lechhem regarding the dinabir kasamotsu. After all, only Lechhem is Khai evenhala because it says "Vahaya bahaklakhem" in Lechhem Haaretz. Tostos in Brakhos discusses this issue from the perspective of Rabena Tama. And Brakhos gaflam and Jain base diva masq al-lechhem, 37b. Tostos says his follows. Umitrila hai arat saloma rabbinutam de dafke hai adim bahchala, de mitzasq al-ba-odan isa dech siv ari-sot echhem, bahol shayum ehtrila isa hai yagim bahchala. Ava mina moti peturim da ashav hai m sufkhai. In other words, Rabena tama thought initially that the Heave of Khala in a case of Khilasa isa vesot fa sufkhaani. If initially you needed a proper dough, but in the end, instead of baking it, you cooked it, it might only be Khai evenhala because the Heave of Khala, point in which you take Khala, is when you need the dough. And therefore the critical point in time, according to Rabena tama, is the point of leechah when you actually need the dough. But regarding Birchasamotsi, we are interested more in the result. Is it bread, or is it an arpere? And in order to be considered bread, it has to have been baked properly, and the fact that in the initial stages it was needed properly may be irrelevant. However, Rabena tama eventually changed his mind. And it's explicit in the tosses in sakim, daflama dainrin, on a day, dibamas called the kulayama. Then near Rabena tama, dakhina mina vakhana la vamotsi. Then in a case where you had believer Ava and eventually cooked the dough, you're not only is it Khai evenhala, but the bracha that you make on it is moti as well. In other words, according to Rabena tama, in order to be considered leechah, regarding the din of Birchasamotsi, you need one of two things, just like by Khala. Either believe Ava, a real dough, or a thea. If you have believe Ava, and then you cook the dough, it's Khai evenhala. If you baked the batter, even though you lacked a bona fide dough, that's also Khai evenhala, and the same is true regarding the Birchasamotsi. According to Rabena, we said that Rabena requires leechah, al-dassafia. It makes a lot of sense, that requirement of leechah, al-dassafia, that you would do the kneading, with intention of afia, is a din only in Khala, because as we said before, the heave of Khala is Khala, takes place, generated by the leechah, by the kneading. Because the Pasuk, by Khala, is not only by Abraham, but it says, "Reishit, are you so take him?" You take the first dough, and therefore at the point that it becomes a dough, that's the point that the heave of Khala takes effect. But the fact that you need to do the kneading of the dough, with intention to bake it, indicates that at the point that you need the dough, you have to intend to make bread. And therefore, it would make sense that the Birchasamotsi, which is not generated by the point of needing by the leechah, but rather is a function of the resultant bread, requires both leechah as well as afia. First, you do leechah, you do believe the other, you actually create a real dough, and that's simply a loose batter, and then you take that dough and you bake in the oven, and then you have bread. And therefore, in order to be Khala at the point that you did the kneading of the dough, you have to at least have intended on making bread, or you actually made bread in the end. But nevertheless, in order to have the Birchasamotsi, you need actual bread. Your intention at the beginning will not help you. If in the end, you cooked it and did not bake it. According to this, you have a makhlokus between the Birutam and the Ramban, regarding the Birchasamotsi in two opposite situations. One situation is when you have a real bonafide dough, the leela aga, but instead of baking it in the oven, you cook it, for instance, a bagel. A bagel, if it's not, I'm not going to discuss whether, what happens if you bake it later, but if you take dough and you cook it, and you don't bake it at all, you take dough and you cook it, according to the Ramban, it would not be a makhlokusi, because it's not bread. It was never baked, it was only cooked. While according to Rabena Taam, since it had beleela aga, one of the two conditions that are required, even though it lacked the second condition, nevertheless, it's considered leham, because you only need one of the two different makhlokusi. Either Lisha or Afir, you don't need both. While according to the Ramban, it would make sense that you need both. That would be one nafka mina, one difference between the position of the Ramban and the position of Rabena Taam. The other nafka mina is the opposite case. If one took a loose batter and baked it properly and made some kind of a sponge cake, I'm not now dealing with the issue of Pasala Makistan, if one added all kinds of sugars or other material. If one took flour and flour and made a loose batter and then baked that in a pan and it rose, is that, assuming that it has sura-salaqim, not dealing with the additional requirement that whatever baked has to have a sura-salaqim, assuming that it has the sura of leham, it looks like leham, it has an appearance of leham. According to Rabena Taam, since it had one of the two different maisalqim, it had Afir, even though it lacked Lisha, the brachah would be a mochi. While according to the Ramban, that you need both Lisha as well as Afir, then the brachah would not be a mochi, rather it would be a borim named shonos. That leha aura would be the two different positions of Ramban and Rabena Taam in its application to the brachah and mochi. There are those that understand the Ramban a little bit differently, but that would be certainly a valid way of explaining the Ramban and Rabena Taam in applying the different positions to the question of bhir khas and mochi. However, what's characteristic of both Ramban as well as Rabena Taam is that basically there's a comparison of the hiyu of hala with the definition of leham regarding bhir khas and mochi. If we take a look at Tamidha Rabena Yona, we'll see that it's not so simple. If we take a look at the trachah, before we take a look at the brachah and mochi, we'll see that the bhir khas and mochi is the bhir khas and mochi. Then, we'll see that it seems to me that the teacher, Rabena Yona, this is Tamidha Rabena Yona referring to their teacher. It's possible to distinguish between these two different categories. You needed a dough properly and you had belila, belila ava, you made a real bonafide dough. Even though later on, it was cooked in water, it's khas and hala. In other words, the point of the hiva of hala is the leeche, the point of the kneading, irrespective of what happens later. It's just like Rabena Tam holds, that belila ofa alone is sufficient. Even if later on, you intended on cooking the dough, that's true regarding the hiva of hala. Rabena Yona says, "Shaqih of hahala tole begillgul" is in the leeche in the kneading of the dough. "Abel" is not dependent upon the misalisha, but it's dependent on whether or not you have leeche. "Wizekkih ofa" and "Shaqih ofa" are in the leeche in the kneading of the dough. Since later on, you took this dough, which was kneaded properly, and hiai even hala, but you took it. And instead of baking it, you cooked it. It does not get the bracha of hamotee, and one does not make verhasa mazom after eating it. In other words, the contrabena yona, the requirements of hala and the requirements of bread are two different requirements. What creates the hiva of hala is dough, leeche, right? Dough. Making dough is makhay of hala. Even if you don't intend on making bread out of it. However, what creates the den of leeche regarding verhasa mazi and verhasa mazom is something which actually, from the final result, became bread. And therefore, not only was it kneaded properly, but it was also baked properly in enough. Let's take a quick look at how this issue was resolved in the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and arachai, simen kuf samhe kess. Sif yu gimmo, we'll find the following sak. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. We'll find the shokonara and verhasa mazi. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara and verhasa mazi, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If we take a look at the shokonara, we'll find the shokonara. If one takes a look at the magna brahme, the magna brahme loaded the fact that it fed bhilasan rakha vedakimahod. It's very, very, very loose. However, if it would have been simply a regular loose bada, but not dakimahod, we're like a very, very loose pancake or something. If we would not be dakimahod, then the brahma would be a malti. And that's what the ramasa is explicitly. The hein, if you dalad, the hein dalva shibli lassa rakha of obitanur. Below magna shibli, dino capas. If someone had a liquid batter and then baked in an oven without any water, baked in an oven, dino capas, un rakha lea, ha malti, lishos, brachos. And this seems to be going according to the shita of rabeinahod. Similarly, if we take a look at hilchos kala in shokanarach, yordaya sibn shin hakhrath tess sibghimal. We'll find the makhabhir pasikindas fahros. Isa shibli lassa rabha. Biggilgala al daras levashla oletagna ola sotha sufkanim. Olyyab shabha kama, vasakein patura. If one took regular dough and did believe the ava, in other words he actually needed it, however, his intention at the time of the lisha of the kneading of the dough was to cook it and not to bake it. Then your patura from hala. Again, this is the shita of rabeinah. Gilgala lassa smanu lachim, however, if at the time that you kneaded the dough, you intended on baking it and making proper bread. Vinaim lachabashla, you changed your mind and then you cooked it or you fried it. Ha'yabhir shekvan aschai nishas gilgo. Then your haibinahhala, because already at the point of the kneading of the dough, you already became haibinahhala. Gilgala al daras sufkanim, if you kneaded the dough, intending on cooking it, then nim lachla sotha lachim, and then you changed your mind and you actually baked it. Ha'yabhir s, then your haib again. This is a clear sack of the rabeinahhala. This is exactly how the rabeinh explains the mishna in hala. However, we will also find that machabhir has been foreign as follows. Isas Shebli lassaraka, the afabatanur obi machaband, if you had a loose batter, which you baked in the oven, bein sher tiyach wa hai kahindik, bein sher hindik wa hai kahindik, hai kahindik wa hai kahindik wa hai kahindik. If it was baked in an oven or in a pot, because he passed like a vinayokana, that baking a pot or a pan is also considered baking. As long as you didn't cook it in water, but you used some kind of a quasi baking process, then it's haibinahhala. So regarding this issue, the machabhir seems to be possible to mean that it's sufficient to have a fia. And you don't need both belila other as well as a fia, but belila even have belila rabeinhala. And afterwards you have a fia, that's sufficient to be hai vinhala. And that's also what we saw regarding the birchasabotzi. If you have belila rabeinhala and a fia, that's enough to machabhir and mochi as well. In other words, it appears that the machabhir accepted rabeinh, regarding belila ofa and afterwards visual, that even if you needed the dough properly, if you didn't actually bake the dough, then or didn't intend to bake the dough at the point of the kneading, it's neither hai vinhala nor does it get a birchasabotzi. However, regarding what makes something into bread, what makes it into bread basically is a fia. A fia is the one and only criterion which makes something into bread. Whether you take something which is a loose batter and baking properly, or whether you take something which is a thick batter and break it properly, as long as it has suras halechaan, after the baking process, it's considered bread. So therefore regarding birchasabotzi, if it was baked, then the bracha is mochi lechaannares, soft batter or regular dough. As long as it rises enough that it has suras halechaan. If it's belila, rabeinhala old, and it doesn't even look or appear as lechaann, then clearly it wouldn't get a birchasabotzi lechaannares. But if it does have the sura of lechaan, it doesn't make a difference, according to the machabhir, whether it went through the process of lecha or did not go through the process of lecha. The same is true regarding hale, as long as it was baked properly, then it's haive in hale, even though it wasn't needed properly. In other words, according to the machabhir, there are two machive in hale. You have one machive in hale because of the lecha alone, even if it wasn't baked, as long as you intended on baking it at the time. That might not help you regarding the mochi, because in the final result you did not have bread. You cooked it. But if when you kneaded the dough, you intended on baking it, not cooking it, then it's haive in hale, because the kimkhala was already hale, even if later on it did not become bread. But if you made a loose batter, and the lecha, there is no lecha, there is no kneading, the kapasim machive in hale, nevertheless it could be haive in hale if you bake it, because there are two machive in hale. One machive in hale is racist, are you so sehemmed? The beginning of your dough. The second machive in hale is the hai habe habe habe lecha maharets. If you actually make bonafide bread, and bonafide bread is made through baking, it's irrelevant whether it was kneaded or not kneaded. As long as you eventually baked it, it becomes bread. It's defined as bread. And therefore, even though previously you did not do a proper lecha, and therefore it wasn't hai habe hale at the time, if eventually you baked it, the baking itself, the fact that right now you have bread, that's what makes you take hale, makes you, makes you be mouth-visioning hale. And therefore, regarding the hale, you have two different points which could be hai habe. However, regarding the shamed lecha, what makes something be defined as bread, there is only one criterion, and that criterion is baking. If you bake it, and it has the true of lecha, it rises to some extent, and it looks like a regular bonafide bread, then the brakha is ha mochi lecha-maharets. And it's irrelevant whether it was a loose batter, blue lecha, or whether it was a real bonafide batter that you'll know that you kneaded properly, and it has blue lecha habe. As long as you baked it, and it rose and it has true of lecha-m, you have to make the brakha ha mochi lecha-maharets and be across the muzzle afterwards. That's the mous-de-psak of the makhabra. So again, to summarize, we saw the shita of the rabbina-tamra. The rabbina-tam says that there are two different ways, two different masalaqim, either one alone is sufficient to be makhive in hale or to create lecha. One is blela-ava, lecha, and the second is afia, either or one or the other is sufficient in order to create lecha-m. While according to the rabban, the way we interpret the rabban is that you kneaded both. In order to be considered lecha-m, you have to do lecha-alda-safia, or lecha-and-eventually-afia. It has to be both a real dough, and then you take that dough and you bake it. And then it's considered lecha-m. However, if you have blela-raka, you have a batter, a loose batter, and then you bake it, or if you take a real bonafide dough and then you cook it, in order of those two situations, you would not be hai of bear kasamote. We saw that, according to the rabbare, there's a distinction between the hea of haala, which is based on lecha, or maybe that two hai of haala, basically the hea of haala. There's a hea based on the lecha in and of itself. And the bracha of hamote, which is made on something which is already considered lecha-m, what defines something as lecha-m, is a hea is baking. And it's irrelevant whether you took a loose batter or you took a real dough. But what is mahay of haala is, A, the mycelicia leading it, as long as you have a proper intention at the time. And B, even if you took a loose batter and you never did the mycelicia, there could be a second hea of haala, if eventually it became real bonafide bread, and how does that happen? How does that happen? Through real baking, through a hea, even if you, what you baked, was a loose batter. As you can hear, I've changed recording the bounces. And there is an amazing, strange noise in the back on here. It's going to go away in a few minutes. Not sure why it's happening. We have to get another recording device. We'll let you suffer a little bit with the coupling paper sound that you hear in the back. Be assured that when the few minutes is going to go away. Today's haala hai yomit, I would like to return once again to the portion in Davening between the Kota Shaka and Sukade Zimba and Balok Shama. We discussed kobanot last week. There is another section which is found in all the Sidhuheem, beginning with the words "Lolam, Yehae, Adam, Yehae, Shamae, and Besaitel, the Dhuwe, Umo Deh, Al Haime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe, Aime, the Dhuwe. Like kobanot, and perhaps even more, this is a section which has suffered hard times. Many people leave it out. I'm sure the reason is again because you come a little bit later sure, you're in a rush. And it seems appropriate to skip this particular section. What is the origins of the section? The text comes from a safer code per chedra beleza. Pechedra beleza is a midrash rachamim, an unusual one. It's different than almost any other midrash that we have. It may very well be a relatively late midrash, but most sources view it as being an authentic midrash rachamim. And the statement appears there. The first line, "Lola mihayadam" isn't a text of a prayer. It's a directive. A man, "Lola mihayadami raishamaym," a person should always be, "have fear of heaven in his heart." He should confess, acknowledge the truth, speak truth in his heart, and he should get up and say. And then it appears, A, tphila. Now the chedra not only quoted tphila, they quoted the directive as well. So you start saying from, you yourself say, "Lola mihayadami raishamaym." What is the meaning, what is the significance, and what is the purpose of this particular tphila? Interestingly enough, the text that I just quoted is not that which appears in most cheduim. Most cheduim have an inundation, they have an extra word. The text of chedra, but as it says, "Lola mihayadami raishamayim besetam," a person should always be fearful of heaven in secret. People who read this didn't understand it, but you have to have the rachamayim. You have to have fear of God only in secret, what about in public? In public you can act anyway you want. One should be dover emet bil vavo. You should speak the truth in your heart, but not in your heart. Tell the people you're allowed to lie. Sounds like they have a recommendation for hypocrisy. So they added the word uvigalui. Lola mihayadami raishamayim besetam uvigalui, which changes the whole meaning. It means now you should tell the truth and you should be fearful of heaven everywhere, whether in public or in secret. Even in secret, of course in public, but even when you're by yourself and no one's looking, God is looking, you should also tell the truth and also have the fear of heaven. However, the text, that's not the authentic text. In all the manuscripts of picket, the ballazer, and in all the early ceduim, which quote the text, the reha-gaonim, misudairishonim, the text is "Lola mihayadami raishamayim besetam." Why? What is the meaning of this text? So let me first shame explain that the text may very well have been written at a time of persecution, and in any event refers to persecution. It refers to religious persecution whereby one is constrained in public from showing one's face. And therefore, the statement is, in any event, "Lola m," under all conditions, no matter what you may have to do in public, either because in a true persecution it's because it's a danger of life, and perhaps even in other situations where it's not the danger of life, but we don't always acknowledge the truth 100% in public. I'm not talking about necessarily doing averot, meaning sins, but one does not testify and acknowledges the truth in other situations where it may not be appropriate. "Lola mihayadami raishamayim besetam," in the recesses of one's heart, in the privacy of one's home, "what has to be totally fear-having, raishamayim, umo de alayimet," and acknowledge the truth, the doveramet to the world, and speak the truth to oneself, to one's heart. And then you should say the following, the following, fila. What is the point here? We know the emphasis on Judaism is overwhelmingly on what you do, on actions. It's not, it's not massyot. That's 100% true, and that's what distinguishes Judaism from saying Western words from Christianity. Judaism consists of doing with thought. However, there is another side, and it's rare, it doesn't have a lot of expression. And here the fila says that the inner truth, one's inner fear of heaven, one's inner face, has a tremendous importance, which has to be constant. That's the basis on which we, on which we act. Now the central part of this fila is, we say, ashrinu matokhalkainu, manimhgoralainu, which also fits into the steam. In other words, we may be having a hard time, but we really believe that having the faith of a Jew is ashrinu. It's wonderful. It's the best portion we can have. Matokhalkainu, manaimgoralainu, mayyapha yukshatainu, shanakno amlimhgor yom. Shanakno amlimhgor yom, shanakno amlimhgoralainu, shanakno amlimhgoralainu, shanakno amlimhgoralainu, shanakno amlimhgoralainu, shanakno amlimhgoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, shanakno amlimhoralainu, later on you say kriyachma, as part of the regular davening, you say the full kriyachma, you state with its bhakarot before hand in the bhakar that comes afterwards, one in the morning and two in the evening, that's mitzvah, regular mitzvah kriyachma. But in order to point out that we have a mitzvah, while saying kriyachma, or while living our lives all the time, to be miyahade at ashemid bhakar, to testify inwardly to our loyalty to nothing else other than God. That's the truth, God is the unity, and the soul unity, and the soul authority in the world for us. So to make sure we understand that, came along this section and separated out. Anakno amimh, we say, lo alla mihayadam, and the oral circumstances. Whether you can do an action, you can't do an action, you know, the time for an action, you're unable to do an action. It's forbidden in untainted death, perhaps to do an action. This doesn't apply to our times, but it applies to many times in Jewish history. In any event, there's a principle of Judaism, which is not really a matter of action, but a matter of heart. Lo alla mihayadam yoraysha mayim, umo de alla imayimh, you have to constantly, without any wavering, without any giving in, or modification due to external circumstances, which do affect our actions. But, the verumet bil waver, the truthman in our heart, must be unwavering. And so this section was set aside to repeat that to ourselves, and to testify to ourselves. And it comes with a ending, with a hati mat, bhgaha. Al bhg, bhgaha-sham, amakkadesh, et shim hgha-barabim. There is a halakhic question where the one should say the bhgaha. Many posts can object to the bhgaha, because they have a principle that any bhgaha that's not mentioned explicitly in the Talmud, should not be said, hos bhgaha-t, we don't say bhgaha-t, unnecessary. Hos insis bhgaha is not found in the qamara. It's found only in percative alaizah. So many posts came, as well as they are read for other reasons. Having percavolistic reasons, made it into a non bhgaha. Instead of al bhgaha-sham, amakkadesh, et shim hgha-barabim, you leave out the sham, bhgha-barabim, you leave out the sham, bhgha-barabim, is also a variant, which is the one that I am to say, amakkadesh, et shim hgha-barabim, third person, instead of second person. Even if you don't make it into a form of bhgaha, it's like a surah bhgaha. It's an attempt to say something similar to a bhgha. But nonetheless, we are making a bhgha-an-wah. So I think we're making a bhgha-an and it's the bhgha-av, the hudah-sham. And somebody who here wanted, krazal, or the gonim, wanted, then the very, very beginning of the day, as the text says, yasqing viyomar. You should, early in the morning, as soon as you get up, you should say, "My day is in front of me. It might be complicated. I might come into contact with circumstances which will prevent or minimize my ability to be a constant testimony to the kingship and the kingdom of God. But the first thing I say is that in my internal world, I declare my total dedication to yarachamayim, to the truth. I acknowledge the truth and I speak truth to myself. I may, perhaps, either lie or if not lie, not tell the whole truth to others. We don't run around the streets, testify all the time to myself. I have to be 100% committed to the truth and only to the truth. I'm recommending. I can't do one of that. The tour of the yarachamayim recommends that one should make an effort to say this particular section. When I was younger, I didn't say it. I always came late to show, and it was the first thing that I stopped saying. And once you begin to do it often enough, you don't even think twice. I started saying it again after first seeing the source in the purkeda of alaza, learning the background, the historical background, to the section. It's an affirmation of faith under adverse circumstances and precisely because I was not living under adverse circumstances. I was living in a free country, and in a Jewish society, I thought it was important specifically because I was not being persecuted to reaffirm the truth, the personal truth of Judaism, under all circumstances. And so for the last 40 years, approximately, I've made it a point not to skip the section unless under dire circumstances, where there literally was no time left, and sometimes even then I say it after the davening when I have more time. I realized that in the last two weeks, for those of you who haven't skipped any sections, I've added both kobunot and lo lami hai adam yerisha maim. Just added about four minutes to your davening. It's not a lot, but once one is used to a certain schedule, it can be significant. So once again, I wish to recommend paying attention to a very, very interesting, fascinating section in davening. It has content which is different than anything else we do. You almost never emphasize the need for internal faith and internal truth, but obviously it's important. And so giving it two minutes a day to repeat to ourselves what this fila says, that everything is God and we're committed to God, and we commit ourselves to his word, to the fear of heaven, and to kiddush shimau. Hopefully then, in the rest of our day, we will be able to fulfill kiddush shimau, the sanctification of God's names in God's name in as many ways as is possible. That's it for today. Tomorrow we'll be back with a special program for El Shabbat, as usual. Until then, call Tofnikushatsyan. This is KMTT. Kimit Siyeon. Tefte Tora. Udvar Hashem Mirushalain. [BLANK_AUDIO]