KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva 03
The Weekly Mitzva, shiur #03, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
KMTT, kimit sion tece tora udvarasan u salayam. This is a today's podcasting from Kishaktyan, in Aotisayam. Today is Wednesday, Yudhat Bithad. And today's share will be given by Rabinhamtabore, in his weekly series on the weekly nitzvah. I got an interesting letter this week. I just took a MTT, from someone who said the following. He said, "Yashakah, on the seerion." He has started walking in order to listen to the seerion. Now we really hope that the seerion contributes to your spiritual health, that as it turns out to offer contributing to one's physical health. As people will start walking and exercising. It's something in order to have time to listen to the seerion. And that's Nagyalandamat, Yashakah. We even are doing better than we thought. Then a letter last week in someone who said that we've made commuting bearable and even enjoyable. I wonder what happens if on some sort of a non-Jewish holiday, no traffic jams, where the people will be disappointed because there won't be enough time to listen to the seer. People get up in the morning and they're looking forward to a good traffic jam, so they can hear a good shear. Then we really had a revolution and a transformation in the relationship between Tohra and our daily lives. And now the feel of Rabinhamtabore. Moshe's first visit outside the palace in which he lived. Tohra tells us that he saw two people fighting. He may stay on the shin if we need to see. Two Jews are fighting. The Yamalarasha, Moshe turns to one and says, "You're a rasha, lama takaria. Why do you hit or are you going to hit your friend?" The ether to hit a friend, to hit anyone, is mentioned in the Gamara in Sanhedrin, Nuretamatab, relating to this pasak. Tohra already has admonished us not to hit anyone. The Tohra is in connection with a rasha. When the Tohra says there is a real rasha. A person who really is Hayav Makot, anybody who is Hayav Makot, is automatically considered a rasha. The Tohra says in connection with hitting the rasha, that you have to be careful to give him the prescribed number of lashes of Makot. Because if you add to it, then you'll see Flakotah, Elah Makaraba. You are apt to add to the amount of lashes he should get, and that would be disgraceful. You're friend would be disgraced. This ether, of course, relates to hitting someone actually. Arpa Suk was interpreted by Hazal to mean even more than that. Lama takaria, the La Shona takaria, the word takaria in the future tense implies that he hadn't actually hit him yet, but he threatened to hit him. He seemed to hit him. Digima learned from here quoted by rasha, he won the spot, called Hamirimyad al-Habir-o-lika rasha. Digima actually uses the word called Hamad-biyachabir, yadaw al-Habir-o-dikmarism and that's an legend, that's an incredible bit. And Digima says Hamad-biyach-yadaw al-Habir-o-a-pisha-lika-o-lika-lika rasha. A person who lifts up his hand, even though he did not hit his friend, is called the rasha, lama takaria, lama lui ikita lonemak. It does not say that why did you hit him? Lama takaria, why are you going to hit him? Afa-pisha-lika-o-nika-o-rasha. Even though you didn't hit him, you called the rasha. The ether of hitting someone, of actually hitting someone, that I mentioned is derived from the pasa kulayo sif. It's quoted by the rambam, in huhat-havel-mazik, parekha-yadaw al-Hala. Digima says asdul-a-dan-la-habbal, bin-ba-as-no-bin-ba-habir-o, to create a wound. Qavala is forbidden, whether you create the wound in your own body or in someone else. The law-a-hum-e-l-du-ba, not just the person who does this act of qavala, of damage, of meaning someone. El-a-kora-make-adam-kasham-is-ra'el, but if you hit someone. But the rambam here says, we'll get back to it later, ha-make-adam-kashar-mis-ra'el. Some sort of a unique personality in adam-kashar-mis-ra'el. Ben-kat-an-ben-kadaw, whether he's young or old, perhaps even children below the age of our mitzvah. Ben-is-ben-i-shah, whether men or women. Now the rambam says one more phrase that's noteworthy. Derech-nitz-ay-on. If someone wounds somebody or hits somebody, Derech-nitz-ay-on, nitz-ay-on seems to be a word meaning fighting. As we learned in ar-pasha, the naish-de-an-ashim-id-rin-nitz-im. Two Jewish bellows are nitz-im, are fighting. The rambam seems to say the 'is-r' to hit, and perhaps even the 'is-r' of qavala. It only applies when it's Derech-nitz-ay-on, in a spirit of fighting. Interestingly enough, there is another text. Quoted by achronim, in reading the sermon. It was traditional that the text says, "Harese, ben-katan-ben-kadaw, ben-is-ben-i-shah, Derech-biz-ayon." Another text says, "If they do it in a way of disgrace, in a way of shame." Although in the rambam of Shat-se-fanko, there is no hint of such a text, but, I remember hearing from that celibate, many times, that the word could be read, might have been some sort of a text that he had of Derech-biz-ayon. And in fact, the tar-a-shleimah of qashr quotes such a text. He doesn't say where he got it from. He just says, "The ish-goshim Derech-biz-ayon." The text that would say Derech-biz-ayon, in a manner of disgrace, would be quite apt if we look at the source for this admonition in the tar-a. I mentioned before that the tar-a-shleimah says, "In connection with a person getting maukot." A person who is a rasha. A person who is shayyah maukot. He must receive lashes. The tar-a-shleimah says, "However, you have to give him the exact amount. Ten-yo sif-lakot-al-idam-akarabah, lest you give him more than necessary. The nikra-a-hik-a-lay-neh-a in your friend will be disgraced. Apparently, the ish-er is connected to the nikra-a-hik-a-lay-neh-a, that he is disgraced. Therefore, the reading that, oh, I said, doesn't appear in rahm-de-fankah edition, but there is a good reason to assume that there was such a text. Derech-biz-ayon, in a manner of shame or manner of disgrace, do you get maukot? Then, of course, the question would be raised. What would happen if you hit someone not to derech-biz-ayon or derech-biz-ayon? What exactly does hitting mean? That much if I'm still was asked, if the person gives another person a shot, I give you permission to hit me. Is it, in that case, would it be us if you hit me? I gave you a shot. In general, if we were discussed that a person could give another person a shot to damage him, to dukh-a-valah, that would be a different issue completely. A person might not have any balut, any ownership or mastery over his own body. Am I allowed to cut myself? The Ramam said, "As-tul-a-dham-lah-voh-bein-ba-as-no-bein-ba-ha-veron." A person cannot do damage, ha-valah. A person cannot do to himself either. So, to give a person permission to dukh-a-valah, obviously, wouldn't be acceptable, because I can't give but myself permission to dukh-a-valah to myself, I could certainly not give permission to someone else. In regards to payment, the issue might be different. If I do ha-valah, not only is it us, but I have to pay. If they have a person who gave me permission, it very likely could be that I don't have to pay. The person can waive the money that is coming to him. That might be applicable, but he still would be us-er. If it would be us-er, to do such a thing to hit him would be us-er. Perhaps there would be no payment. Interestingly enough, if a person hits somebody and creates a ha-valah, he has to pay him. Because he has to pay him, he doesn't get mochoped. A lot of the time the touch will mean, a love, an is-er, which is going to be repaid, paid somehow. In such a case, you do not get mochoped. If a person would do ha-valah, less than a shabaputah, if I really would cause a wound in someone, but the wound does not incur any financial damage that could be repaid. In such a case, the man-am-roof-parak-hey-al-a-ha-gim-al-avil-hot-hob-elimazik, am-a-kez-ha-be-ra-cha-be-ra-cha-in-ba shabaputah-lok-a. If a person hits someone, but there is no financial damage, you get mochoped in such a case. It's ironic that a person who does a major damage can pay money and be exempt from lashes. However, the person that does minor damage and doesn't really incur financial loss, that person will get mochoped. If I gave somebody permission to do ha-valah, so then he wouldn't have to pay me because of mochila. But the ha-ka-a is a-ka-am-am-am-am-am. It is a-ka-a that involves financial loss. The fact that a mochila doesn't change the nature of the Easter, and therefore, you still wouldn't get mochoped. It's as if he paid me the money which he is obligated to me. He really is obligated to money. There's a-ka-a-sh-ya-sh-ba shabaputah, but he didn't pay it because I was mochaled. That's considered as if I paid it, as if he did pay it. Therefore, there would be no mochoped in such a case. But that's in the case of ha-valah. What would be the case where a person just said, "Hit me without creating a ha-valah. Would he be able to give him permission?" Here, the definition of the Easter would come into play. If the Easter is "d-a-sh-nitz-ay-on", or "d-a-sh-nitz-ay-on", or "d-a-sh-nitz-ay-on" is in a manner of fighting, or "d-a-sh-nitz-ay-on", or "no matter of disgrace", then it seems to me that it should not apply, because this is not a disgrace. They're not fighting. A person gave me permission to hit him. Very often, people come over and slap each other in the back, hit each other in a friendly way. This would not seem to be involved in the Easter at all, if we would assume that the Easter is "d-a-sh-nitz-ayon" or "d-a-sh-nitz-ay-on". Now Masha finds to do this as this question. In Shilat, Shilat, he got Mashaar overha'in, Helikim, of Timal Aynhrat. And Masha, interestingly enough, quotes the text of the Ramban, as if it seems that he had the text of reading both of them. He doesn't quote it actually as the text of the Ramban, but he just says, 'Mattan lo ver chutla habobo habobo habirasha habala', if a person gave a person permission to do habala, then he says, "There's two of Kashmirim," as I said, "Before you don't have to pay." But he said, "What happens if it's a habala sha'in, basha vertutta?" I asked you to hit me, but you created a wound, unintentionally. But you created a wound that is not financially, that does not create a financial watch to me. Then in such a case, according to the gimmeri, according to the Ramban, you somehow should get Malcolm. You did habala. But you did habala without a sha'in, 'Mattan lo vertutta.' So, Masha says, "Boshet mistabirasha al-habbalakta nakazo, shugambalot saa'r," "Bolobo shat, aim dei'an za'in za'in za'in, ubi za'in." And Masha quoted the two words together. But he says, logically, it seems that for such a minute type of habala, which doesn't really have pain, it doesn't really have any shame. It's less than a sha'in, "Boshet, maybe you created a job of blood." 'Aim za'in za'in za'in za'in za'in za'in za'in za'in za'in, ubi za'in, ubi za'in. This is not considered an ishir, aim za'in za'in za'in. By the way, apparently the Masha thought the ishir habala, not just the ishir habala, but the ishir habala also depends upon verhir habala, ubi za'in, ubi za'in. Then the Masha continues. Kishina, tenglau, the shugt, aim makpitau, sha'in no ubi habalaot saa'idou loya sif. Bruh desu prasbam, if I gave to somebody permission, and he's very friendly, just gives me a pan on the back, or he gives me a little flap. Then Masha says, "You're not even over the ishir habala, because it's only done as a matter of friendship. There's hoq as a joke." And the ishir, the Masha says, "El ano, au ver eluqeshu, verhir habalaot saa'idou loya'in, ubi za'in. You're only over the ishir when it's both." Ramesh, it seems to say, both in a manner of fighting and disgrace. Could the isha pramam sha'am and as it appears in the ramam, in my ramam, it doesn't appear. In my ramam, it appears only Dara nithayon. Ramesh, apparently, thought Dara nithayon is automatically there. In the main little ishir mokot. And therefore, of course, there could be no mokot. The ramam said in connection with hitting someone, hamakya adam kashe. If you hit someone who is a adam kashe, or only some sort of a respectable type of person, this would seem very difficult. Because in Arahlaha, the one that we started with today's parasha, sayomel lara sha'amatakir yaha. Masha said to one of them, "Why are you going to eat now?" "Sure, we're not talking about the isha'am and hakaw per se." Well, we're talking about the concept of hame rimya ada habiro. But it doesn't seem that hame rimya ada habiro would be mokotam or would be more severe than the law of hitting someone actually. In our case, the two people who hazala have identified as the tannvaviram, Rashi explains, as we will understand from later on a homage, that they were actually the sha'im. Rashi points out on the past. "Mama taqir yaha, why do you eat rai echa?" Rashi says, "What's rai echa?" That you're partners. You're both friends. You're both connected. Rashi says, "Because you're both rai echa'im." So the isha of haramakya, the isha of raising your hand against someone, certainly it lies. Even if you raise your hand to a rasha, why would the isha of hitting someone, not apply to a rasha? In fact, the ramban himself, almost every other place where he discusses this isha, does not put in the phrase adam kasya. For example, in saitha hamit sloth, misa lotha sai, sashmat, the 300 misva, the negative misva, the ramam says, this is the isha of hitting a hote, the original force. A person cannot hit, even if you're a person is rai echa'im mokot, you have to be careful to give him the precise number of mokot, and then you'll see for a kotot, you shouldn't give him more than that. The ramam goes on to say, un misa lotha sai, it's the same isha, he has a ramayha, kot ko ish mis rai, the same is applies to anyone. So it doesn't seem that the isha only applies to adam kasya. Why the ramam really used the words adam kasya'r, in hil hab kebele mazik, is an interesting question, but from all the parallel sources, it doesn't seem to be the isha only applies to adam kasya'r. kow ish mis rai, and the ramam goes on ima kotayana, un un misa linsha lotha kotayana. If we're required, we're abrogated, we're adured not to hit even the hote, even the one who is a sinner, sha'ar kaladam lokosha kein. Obviously, anyone else is also included in the isha, not just the person's kaya mokos, but everyone. And the ramam adds there, in tai tham, it's not our case, kaladam abiyya, dawg, have your own lack of tonic arasha. Raising your hand to hit someone is also arasha. So, no, shanam abiyam abiyam abiyya, yam abiyam abiyya. What does it mean, that is kobirasha? In general, in ala kaas, what does it mean, when I call a person arasha? Now, to call a person arasha is arasha, the command tradition says, that calling people certain names actually requires certain, a tonic and certain punishment. The gmara says, if you call somebody arasha, you call somebody arasha, an abiyya, somebody amam's there. All those, the gmara says, wrong, obviously, it's not proper, and there's a certain punishment attached to each one. When the gmara says, the person's called arasha. So, it could very well mean, simply one thing, I'm allowed to call in arasha. The ether of calling a person by some sort of pejorative term does not apply in this case, in this case. The person's allowed to, you're allowed to call them arasha. You govern and say, you're arasha, arasha, what are you doing? So, is there any other practical napskimina, any other practical difference between a person who is called arasha? Are you allowed to call them arasha? Does this have any halakhic significance that a person is arasha? Well, the first question we would have to ask is a person, a suleidu, in general, we have a principle that a person who is, who does an abiyya, which has Makkot in it, is a suleidu. The daughter said you're not allowed to have an aide, arasha. Arasha is not allowed to be an aide. What is the arasha and halakhat? So, the gamara learns that anybody who does an abiyya, which has Makkot in it, any abiyya that a person would do, that creates an abigation, a hiyu, of giving him Makkot, automatically called arasha. This seems to be based on the Pasluk, vayya in bin hakotarasha, the Pasluk in connection with Makkot, says that if a person vayya in bin hakotarasha, while you're hitting the rasha, the gamara automatically called the Makkot, any person who does any abiyya, which is Khayv Makkot, in bin hakotarasha, that's the way we pass him, that he is called arasha, anyone is Khayv Makkot, and is Pasluidu. A person did an abiyya, for example, alab shaybal Makkot. If a person did an abiyya, which does not have any action in it, for example, if a person keeps krami santasak, he didn't sell his krami santasak, so it's an act of omission, he did not destroy his krami santasak, he bought his krami santasak, so important, he got shalakmanis, so important, he got a lot of shalakmanis, and he didn't have, he didn't think about getting rid of his krami santasak, so that is alab shaybal Makkot, when he got the krami santasak, he just left it over, he didn't do anything, he kept it in his possession, so that's alab shaybal Makkot. He does not get Makkot, according to this, he would not be Pasluidu, because he didn't have a rashaybal Makkot. What about our person, that he's called arasha, would he be Pasluidu? We found an amazing opinion of the rahvan, quoted by the Hagoutman, and quoted by many other people, in disconnection, Magdhi, Hagoutman, only out to parakay, of hilkhov kobilamazik, says, Pasukaravan, se paskindi, no kindly kolasha. Okay, that's the first thing I mentioned before. We say that the law applies to him, that is kobil rasha. Pasluidu, and he is Pasluidu. Because he's called a rasha, in this case, he is considered Pasluidu. For example, if there would be a case, that normally two people will have a dispute in deninable notes. In some cases, times the law would be that a person could swear, and take a shavua, and get the money, what we call nijbaba no teil. In this case, since he's a rasha, he would not be allowed to do that. The other person would be the one who would take the oath. He would not be allowed to take the oath. But he goes on to say, this applies to other cases, as well. In the case of Aniyamaapik Baharara, ubahehevna ta lamimunundikarasha. In that case, the Gaimang Kedushin has the case where a person was involved in some sort of a transaction. I'm not going to go to the details whether it was a found object or something to buy in this tour. But one person was already involved in deninable notes. He was involved in doing something. Another person came along and saw what was happening, and he decided to beat him, to jump the gun and somehow get it before the other fellow. Even though the other fellow had somehow been involved in the action before, Aniyamaapik Baharara, a poor person who is involved in some sort of a business deal and some sort of an action. Another person came. So, the Gmas says nikarasha. Then he's called in rasha. That seems to be a total law based on Muffler. Is it really a law that he'd be called in rasha? Yes, the Gmas says it's called in rasha. But what does that mean? Does it mean you're allowed again to call him named? The Ravana apparently thinks that in all cases whether Gmas says a person is called in rasha, he is personal label. The way to somehow mitigate this point would be to suggest a kshara, suggest a compromise. Not every place where the Gmas calls a person in rasha would even be put through label. Depends what the original source is, what the original Allah is and what's the kihilo, what is the division to which we categorize this isir. A person is nikarahara, a person who is involved in a business deal. Another person takes this deal, takes the deal over for him. You might argue, is this just a halacha of musser? A proper attitude or proper action. Or is it somehow involved in midrabana? And somehow because of the rabbinic law, somehow he's like a god's one. He's somehow as if the object already belongs to the first person who made the effort. And the second person would therefore be akin to a god's one, albeit midrabana, not really. In that case, somehow we could understand that it's past the latest midrabana. But I'm assuming that the isir is only in isir drabana. And he's past the latest midrabana. And the person is nikarahara. Even if you would assume he's past the latest, you would assume he's past the latest only midrabana. In that case, it would be more logical to think that you really are past the minut Torah. It's really more past the last one. And that's for one of two reasons. One, because this isir seems to be a real isir of the Torah. Only about papa kharara seems to be like a real drabana. But this case seems to be a real isir drabana, a person who is makhehavero. According to the ramban, this is included in the isir of pinyosa. If the ram quote didn't say ram itself, he seems to think it's drabana. The reason we should say, perhaps makheh's own drabana, because midrabana is an isir which does not involve money. It's an isir which does not require makheh. So therefore, you could say the isir of maimimyad is really an isir drabana. But since it's an extension of isir of khar khar, then maybe midrabana, I should say, is past the latest. In fact, the base yose, when he quotes the ramban, it seems to say that maimimyad Akharo is also midrabana. In similar medallit, he says, what seems to me a big hidush. He says that there's an isir drabana in makheh, in maimyad Akhavero. There is an isir drabana in doing that. And any time you do an isir drabana, which has makheh's, you have drabana. You're past the latest midrabana. If a person did an isir drabana, for which there is a hid makheh, then obviously, these past the latest, as we said, because he's a russia. However, if a person does an isir drabana, the base yose seems to think that he would be high if he would be past the latest midrabana. That's a very big hidush. That every person who does an isir drabana, that means for every isir in the Torah. A person who would do that a vera, he would be past the latest midrabana. And there are big differences if a person's past the latest midrabana, or past the latest midrabana. A person's past the latest midrabana, so whatever happened, for example, get me a kedushin. It didn't actually happen. Since they required him, these people are past the latest midrabana. So it really never happened to act. The action never happened to be with the witnesses. If they're past the latest midrabana, if they're only past the midrabana, then the action really dislikes in front of witnesses is that a kashima. And therefore, you have to check the facts and see what you would do in such a case. There's another reason why it seems to me very simple that a person who is meeting yada Khavera in the karasha and is past the latest. Because we tried to look before for a definition of what a rasya is. We know that every rasya is past the latest. Al-tasha is rasya. You're not allowed to have a rasya and not allowed a rasya to give a base. Al-tasha is rasya. And I said before, what is a rasya? So that Allah could determine that a rasya is the person who didn't have a rasya shimokati, didn't have a rasya which requires the punishment of getting mokati of getting rasya. Al-tasha shimokati, for example, a lab-shainbo-mat, a lab, for example, speaking about Lushmanara, which is a lab-shainbo-mat, and therefore you don't get mokati, so therefore you would see him. You're not past the latest. According to basey al-sak, remember, it could be that anybody who speaks Lushmanara should be past the latest Punjab on, and I said it would be an amazing hitish. But here, in our particular case, there is a very good reason to say that he's past the latest minatara, because the tara said he's a rasya. This is an unusual case, where the tara said, "Vayomel la rasya, lama takariyaha." Mosh is said to the rasya, "Why are you going to hit your friend?" So the gamir learns from here that of magbiyya, ya dawgha virho, amirinya dawgha virho, nika rasya. The very fact that you raised your hand, if someone, means you're a rasya. So if that's true, then anyone who hits someone else is a rasya, who not just hits someone, a person who's going to hit someone, is called a rasya. And if that would be true, then of course he should be past the latest minatara, not midrabana, because it's a vayra that has based on another esur, or just an esudrabana thrown in there. It's a real esudaray. So to hit, to raise your hand to someone, and amirinya dnika rasya, the tara called him a rasya. If the tara called him a rasya, then he should be past the latest minatara. Why did no one seem to suggest this? It seems to be that the raswan was a hiddish, he tried to explain, "Where do I know that a person with Mirinya is called a rasya?" I know it because any time the tara, the grammar calls the person a rasya, is past the latest. Why doesn't he say more clearly, and it seems to me to the point that this case is a unique case where a person was made in Yadakhavir on nekara rasya, the gimmeras said, "Han magbir yadokhavir on nekara rasya?" Apparently, the pasuk, vayon melarasya, lamata karyaka, is not taken to be literally an esudarayya for which you could be called a rasya. The random uses a word different than the gimmeras. The gimmeras says nekara rasya. The random, and he'll call the mastic parake, "Han magbir yadokhavir offa bishol karya rasya, he is a rasya." Not just he's a nekara rasya. According to the random, the point is even stronger. The person should really be a rasya. The tara cult matches nekara rasya. He is a rasya. And if he is a rasya, then I can understand more like he's past the latest. Apparently, they interpret this really as an asmakta. They quote, to call him a rasya, is really only a loose interpretation of the parake. The literal interpretation of the parake does not mean that the person with someone is a rasya minatoa. And why would that be true? Though, it seems to me that it's true for what we've said before. Valyomelarasya lamata karyaka. Now, when the tara says, " Valyomelarasya, why does the tara call them a rasya?" There might be two reasons. One might be because he is about it. Someone is called a rasya. But in simple kshat and hummish, if we would learn, like rasheek, that according to Hazal, that we're talking to Dattangaviram, who were rasyaim? Valyomelarasya is the same as saying. He told one of them. But they were both rasyaim. They were rasyaim, not only connected with the fact that one raised the hand to the other. They were rasyaim because they were rasyaim. They were known to be rasyaim. Valyomelarasya lamata karyaka. So the gamari that calls them a rasya might not be taken literally. It could be that there is an isa dharaysa. It could be that it really is us, or the harinya dakhaviram. But it doesn't necessarily mean that automatically the tara would call them a rasya. Maybe that's only rasmaha. Therefore, we're left with two options. He's not a rasya. He didn't have a rasyaim, not a rasyaim, not a rasyaim. So we could say three possibilities, either he's kasya, which no one says clearly, but because of silence, it doesn't seem to be that mostly we think he's postulated. The person that we found, that says he's postulated, is the raswan. And I said we could interpret the raswan to say that he's postulate, the smid raswan. That's the way the baseo, say, the simon la medallat, seem to think. I suggested that it would be possible to say it's possible to say it's postulate, the smid raswan. It's called the rasya. But apparently that idea has been rejected by the raswan himself, as well as by everyone else. So today's have a high limit. We have previously begun the davening. We mentioned coconut, a few days ago. Again, close to the beginning of the actual davening. Just a few days ago, the minag in most of the shows is to have to say a cabbage before the beginning of the davening. This is found in the older text, in the text of the Grand name, of the original name. And based on the rama, that actually makes no sense. Because the rama says that see love at sea bull begins only with the staba, with boho, actually. And the rama says that they create definition. He says, "ti la tatsibu" okay. That is "ti la tatsibu" will look like, as opposed to "ti la be ahead". He says, "The cotton goes and says "carish" and then boho. So could you say no? I think it should be said, basically, "ti la tatsibu". It's being said, each individual by himself. Nonetheless, there's a common customer, this one, there is a raven, to have at least one carish and in some places, among Ashkenazi, and two carasians, in the beginning of the davening, a cabista, and a banana, and a carasian, and in the carasian, a cabista, a tom, after mismas, sherkana kata ba'it l'aib. I just want to mention what it's called, and poor instinct, in the saying of "carish". And "ti la tatsibu" in the hot, says that the most important line of "carish" is, of course, "i ji hai sme ra ba" "a ba waqla lama mael mea". So "tats" points out a correct way to separate the words, to pass the words. And the sentence is, "i hai sme ra ba'ma ba'it lama mael mea". In other words, may his great name be blessed, forever and forever and forever. And the other possibility, as opposed to saying, "i hai sme ra ba'ma ba'it lama ba'it lama mael mea". May his name be great. May his name become magnified and blessed. In other words, question is, is "raba" an adjective, sme ra ba, his great name, or is "raba" either the adjective, but is the object. His name should become great. It's a thermologic, to the second reading, because the beginning of this is, "it ra ba'it lama ba'it lama ba" The third name should be, "it ra ba'it lama ba'it lama ba" But, after the bell, after the Buddha, Yhe'i Shmeh Rabaa, the Vahra, his great name should be blessed by the name of the name of the mayor. Secondly, in the continuation, you get to appoint it, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba'laf, it's a ba Second in the congregation, you get to appoint it, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a laugh, it's a and then the people answer, "Reacal, you should be blessed." But of course, we're all familiar with the extremely common, the prevalent name of God, in Kazal, which is "Kritya Bhikul", "Hakadesh Bhikul", and it seems of a woman, but that's the way we should understand the kind of says well, and the Kazan says, "Shnad, the Kritya Bhikul", the name of the holy one blessed be. And then the congregation answer to that Bhikul. In fact, so they answer, "Amen" at this point, "Amen" at this point, "Amen" at this point, "Amen" at Bhikul, and in the ancient Ashkenazi Shubhilm as well, it is "Amen" here, "Amen" says "Kritya Bhikul", and the continuation answer is "Amen". When the people start saying "Bhikul", not sure, and they will be at least, in some hundred years, the day I came in 250 years ago, already complained, about the fact that people are saying "Bhikul", because one should answer "Amen". Here in particular, is insisting on saying "Amen" at the time, but with the people, it's having to do with how many "Amen"s are in Kaddish. But it is still there in the Bishonic versions of Kaddish, in Ashkenazi Shubhilm, "Amen" at elsewhere, where it appears "Amen" here. So either one answer is "Bhikul" or "Amen", but that's an answer to the line of the Kazan, which was "Bhikul", et cetera, "Shnad, the Kritya Bhikul". Either answer either "Bhikul" or "Amen". There's also a, there's like a passing problem, a problem of pausing in general in Kaddish, because the Kazan, when he gets close to the end of the line, and he cites in such a way that people should answer. So for instance, in the continuation of the same line, we say that "Amen" is "Bhikul" or "Bhikul" or "Amen". There's also a, there's like a passing problem, and the national tendency to say "Tushmahatal bhikatah", "Bhikulm" and "Bhikulm" are not in the one name, but of course, it's, it's not a major point, but of course it's, it's, a line we call "Bhikatah", "The Shingatah, Tushmahatah", "The Nakhamatah", "The Nakhamatah", "The Nakhamatah", "The Nakhamatah", all of the places that we can set in the world, "Kriyimwannang", and you, the people, are speaking to, should answer a name. Two warm reports between, called "Bhikatah bitushmahatah", "The Nakhamatah", and then, "The Nakhamatah", the new one name, doesn't really make sense. It's all the places which is set in the world, "The Nakhamatah" - God should be, God is more magnified in all of them, and people presents a name, "The Nakhamatah". So, if the lady is going to be opposed, it should be between "The Nakhamatah" and "The Nakhamatah". Finally, in the end of "Karish", not all "Karish" in, "Bhikatah bitushmahatah", "The Nakhamatah bitushmahatah", "The Nakhamatah bitushmahatah", "The Nakhamatah bitushmahatah", "The Nakhamatah bitushmahatah", the way that the mother expresses how once it says, "The Nakhamatah bitushmahatah", is, that one takes three steps back, the one doesn't have to say, one takes three steps back, then the "Tanksha-lum" is "Molum", the "Tanksha-lum" is the "Nalum", then you know. The post can point out what that means, how does one give peace to one's left, gives peace to one's right, when you say "Ocesha-lum", then what not, you're giving peace to your left, who you assessha-lum, "Alainu", you're giving peace to your right, and therefore, there is a back right and many others have skinned, that the proper way to say "Ocesha-lum" is, to take three steps back without saying anything, and then you say, "Ocesha-lum" and "Molumat", when you bow to the left, who you assessha-lum, "Alainu", you bow to the right, that will cause you to bow to the right, you bow in front of you. So these are having to do more with habit, most people, most of the time, will start saying, "Ocesha-lum-lumat" as they walk back, and by the time they're bowing to the left, they're very up to who you assessha-lum, "Alainu", they're about to the right, "Vaccala-lum-lum", and you know a name. So again, it may not be a major distinction, but the post can say that one should take the steps back before one begins, "Ocesha-lum", require the slight pause, take three steps back, and then you say, "Ocesha-lum-lum-lumat" to the left, who you assessha-lum "Alainu" to the right, that will cause you to fly open one lane in front of you, then one waits, two seconds, and one returns to one's place. That's it for the program for today. Tomorrow will be a seal developed with Prasata Sargua. Until then, called to a niggu-sati-on, this is KMTT, kimchi-on te-te-tara, u-da-a-sen-lial-shalay. [BLANK_AUDIO]