KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Berachot 03
Hilchot Berachot, with Rav yair Kahn, shiur #03
This is Ezra Burke in Gushitian, a very, very cold Gushitian, and today is Monday. Tebedek. Today's year, as of Monday, will be given by Haravi Ayokan, Anhil Haat Barahat, based on the Gomorrah in the sixth paragraph of Barahat, Parak Keatsad in Vahim. Before I pass over the microphone to Raph Khan, we have made efforts, a significant effort, I believe, to improve the quality of the sound. It will be a little bit inconsistent this week. We have to actually go out and buy better equipment, but we are using, now, borrowed better equipment. I think you should be able to hear the difference ready in today's broadcast. Again, I want to ask anyone who has any comments, any suggestions. We need the feedback, there's still a trial basis, this is a better stage program. Anyone who can help us out in any way by commenting whether it's good, whether it's bad, how he's able to manipulate the files, put him on his MP3 play again to his car, please write to us at kmttsion.org or kmttsion.org.im. After the share, why I have asked Khan, I will be back for today's Al-Ahayomit. And now I will be able to ask Khan in a short part. The previous Shurim were introductory in nature, and so far as the discussion revolved around Virgo's Hannonin in general. Today, we're going to start talking about a specific brahman, the mission at the beginning of Kaitan Brahmakim, Daflamirheem Al of 35A, says his follows, Kaitan Brahmakim Al-Aparul, how do we make a Brahmakim parul, our paratha Ilan, fruit of the trees, who amir bhari prayates, you make the braha bhari prayates, hut nayayang, there's one exception, the braha they make unwine, shalayain homer bhari pragafim, unwine when makes a bhari pragafim, has a special braha. Vah paratha airets on fruit of the ground or vegetables who amir bhari prayadama, we make the braha bhari pranama, hut nayapat, aside from the braha that we make on bread, shalayapat homer hamotsilatim minarets, from bread we make a special braha motsilatim minarets, but I would like to discuss the special braha that one makes on bread, hamotsilatim minarets. Let us begin by taking a look at a gomara on Daflamirheem Al-Aparul, 39A, which has a very very strange theme regarding the braha al-ha-motsilatim minarets. The gomara says this follows, "A'mir al-fiyyah-barashi-pats-nu-mar-bhikar-a-rahl-vashin-alayah-ha-motsi." If one takes dried-out bread, dried-out pieces of bread and puts it in a pot, one nevertheless should make the braha al-ha-motsilatim-barats. U-priyid-rah-rahl-hir, a-fiyyah-barashi-al-hir, dama-rah-rahl-hir-saurach-shatik-la-brahha-im-a-pat. According to a-fiyyah, one cannot make a motsilatim-a-arats on pieces of bread. One has to make a braha al-motsilatim-a-arats on the entire bread, because surach-shatik-la-brahha-m-an-apat, what does surach-shatik-la-brahha-m-an-apat mean? It means that as one makes the braha, he begins cutting the whole loaf of bread, and at the point of the completion of the braha is the point in which he separates the bread as well. Therefore, according to U-priyid-rah, if the bread was already cut or broken, one can no longer make a motsilatim-a-arats. Ma-qif-la-rah-rahm, ma-ish-shat-s-numa-d-la-w, you should be kik-a-ya-brahha-pus-a-kha-ya. Why should one not make a motsilatim-a-arats on its quarantra-priyid-rah on its new-o-o-which-is-dried-piece-of-brah, because when you make the braha, you make it on only a piece, and not on the entire loaf. Al-a-pat-nami, if you would take an entire loaf of quarantra-priyid-rah, and you cut it while you're making the braha, kik-a-gann-rah, when you complete the braha, a-pus-a-gann-rah. You completed the braha on a piece, al-a-mah-rah-rahm-a-arats-a-kha-kha-kha-bout-s-a-a. First, you make the braha, and only later do you cut it. But first, you should make a braha on a complete loaf of bread, and only subsequently should you cut the bread. Okay. This is, oh, is it very, very strange thing. Regarding other items which we eat, we don't find a similar decision. In discussion, that one has to first begin to cut while one makes the braha in complete cutting while one completes the braha, or that one cannot make a braha on only a piece, and it has to be a complete loaf. We don't find that these didn't regarding other brahas. This is a didn't that we find specifically regarding the bierchas-ha-mauci. Why should bierchas-ha-mauci? We different than all other brahas-ha-kha-gann-rah. The pairing of this indicates that bierchas-ha-mauci has some unique quality or unique aspect, and therefore, it has special meaning as well. Another indication of the singularity of bierchas-ha-mauci is found in the Rashba and Daflamid Dainen vase 37b, where it quotes a very, very strange sheet of the brahiid. Pasta the brahiid-zal, the enwax-na-mauci-e-la-ba-o-kha-tazayid. With papa mikazayid, the term of brahiid-zal, the result may amgible. In other words, regarding all other types of foods, the shear is needed only for the braha-ha-kha-gann-rah. We have to have a kazayis in order to have a braha-ha-kha-gann-rah of brahiid-zal, so according to most we've shown him, or an alamikya, or an alamikya, or an alamikya. We have to have a rivis, or a kazayis. But regarding the brahi-shona, we say asil-adam-lit-on-cloon, believe braha, you're not going to get it any ha-na-ba-o-kha-dha without making a braha. And therefore regarding the brahi-shona, the amount is relevant. If you're going to eat a kazayis, or less than a kazayis, of an apple, you would make the same barhi-prayids. If you ate a kazayis, you would also follow the eating with the barhiid-zal. But the shear is not relevant regarding the brahi-shona. According to the rivis, there's one exception. That exception is a mochi. Even though you're making the brahi-shona on bread, if you make on less than a kazayis of bread, then you only make a burning zone. In order to be high of a braha, of ha-mochi-lacam-na-rah, you have to eat a full kazayis of bread, and without that full kazayis, it doesn't warn the braha-mochi-lacam-na-rah. But the question is why should this be so, and again what we see is that there is something unique about the braha of ha-mochi-lacam-na-rah. Let's consider another sudhu. The gomara-andak-mem-al-kam-in-baze, 41b, says its follows. Amr-a-papa-ra-pap-a-sad, hil-kata, it's a-hala-ha, devarim ha-ba-im-mach-mat-as-u-da-b-it-o-k-as-u-da-in-to-unim-bra-ha-lo-gif-nam-r-lo-lac-ra-ham. Things, items of food, that one eats, that come during the meal, because of the meal, do not require a separate braha-mat-before-hand and not afterwards. The shalom-mach-mat-as-u-da-b-it-o-k-as-u-da-to-unim-bra-ha-lac-fam-the-in-to-un-im-bra-ha-lac-ra-ham. If they don't come because of the sudha, but they do come during the sudha, then they need a braha-lif-nam-ha, one has to make a braha-san-anim before eating, the-in-to-un-bra-ha-lac-ra-ham, but it doesn't require a separate braha afterwards, the braha-mas-on will cover everything that was eaten within the context of the sudha. The aha-ra-has-u-da, but if one eats it foul in the sudha and that's the issue of desserts, they have to unclean the way of the table, and it's a big-mach-focus among the post-human among the rich-owned with exactly what aha-has-u-da means. To unim-bra-ha, ban-a-fam-ban-a-k-ra-ham requires a braha-l-before-hand, as well as a braha afterwards. Since we're discussing bhir-has-ham-hot-si, let's discuss the first case. Under what conditions does the bhir-has-ham-hot-si patter other items that one eats within the context of the meal? Regarding this, we have a big-mach-focus among the bhishani. Rashi basically takes the approach that anything which counts the toh-has-u-da, ma-ha-has-u-da are themed which are tah-tah, which are secondary to the bread. For instance, any type of the spread that one will put on the bread or something that one dips the bread into, things that come through la fait et tah-tah, those are things which are tah-tah to the bread and therefore the bhir-has-ham-h-hot-si will patter them. And according to Rashi, this is part of the general ha-lah-ha, that when everyone has an ikr and a tah-fel, one makes a braha on an ikr and does not make a braha on a tah-fel. If one has, for instance, a dmishan daf mim dah in the mouth, he view the front of Malia shila upat al-law. If some has, let's say, a pickle or something which is very, very sharp or very spicy or very salty, like a piece of herring and one wants ikr herring, but because it's so salty, one also eats bread, then one only makes a braha on the herring and one does not have to make a braha on the bread. There are clouds, the mishan continues. Kaushu ikar vu-mok-felah, vireh al-aikar vu-tah, pothar-tah-felah. Any time one has two items of food, one which is primary and another one which is secondary, one only makes a braha on the primary food and does not have to make a braha on the secondary item of food. So if the primary food is the herring and the bread or the crapper is simply secondary, one makes a braha only on the primary food which is the herring. According to Rashi, that's exactly what's going on in the Gomara of Gavain bhitoshasudha makma sasudha. There are things that come that are secondary to the bread. The bread is the main part of the sudha and things which are secondary, which are puffled to the bread, do not require an independent braha. Rashi says, dvara-bhayim bhitoshasudha makma sasudha, lala-fait bhainikar vu-tah, they come to simply to eat together with the poth. Aim to him braha, dahaabul ut-felah, they are secondary and therefore they don't need a braha. While things that come long makma sasudha, Rashi says, dala-t-felah, they are not puffled to the bread. The aim of bhitoshala lakam, they're not included in the lakam in order to putter to the braha of bhir kasamatsu. And therefore one has to have a separate braha. According to Rashi, if one would make a bhir kasamatsu, and then bring fish or bring meat or bring spaghetti, one would have to make an independent braha because these are not things that are puffled to the poth, they're not things that one eats alongside together with the poth. One takes a bite of bread and afterwards one would eat the meat. The meat does not become puffled to the poth in the same way. And therefore the explanation of Rashi, the point of explanation of Rashi, one would have to make an independent braha when one eats meat or chicken or soup, along with the meal. The ridvah explained to Sugi in a different way. And this is where he says, amalahim, ho'il uppat patatant purush, lakmi dint-felah, the lo-mikrit-felah-klam, elakshan-eh-hali-no, it's not because it's been a ikar-ve-tafel, because tafel is only when it is eaten together simultaneously, ki-gond-varnhaba im-la-fait-a-tapat. Awa-koh-he-ha-da-la-la-fait-lo-mikrit-felah, since it's not coming in together, it's not considered felah. Awa-koh-ha-ha-ha-la, ho'il uppat patatatant, nishum-de-patu-ikar-sudah, uppat-hashu, vuhu-kidar-f-tart-kulat. He says, pat, making a braha-an-pat, patters all other things that you eat, because pat-lakim is the main part of the sudah, and therefore it has a certain amount of significance and importance which enables it to patter all other brah-hot, when those things come, makm-mah-tasu-dah. Da-koh-da-dah-da-felah-asu-kid-felah, if ishi-pat-ikar-sudah, uppat-ikar-sudah, le-koh-a-dah-mikrit-kol-da-varshe-voh-ah-ra-ve-mah-mah-tasu-dah. Since the pot is the ikar-sudah, therefore the brah-ha on the pot includes anything which is part of that sudah, and therefore anything which is the davar-ha-ba-mah-mah-sasu-dah is included in the brah-ha-sudah. It's possible to claim that the ritva is suggesting a totally new way of understanding the brah-ha-an-pat. A brah-ha-an-pat is not a brah-ha-mishona-an-le-kim, but rather it's a brah-ha-mishona-an-a-sudah-an-miyo. You are making a brah-ha-an-miyo, and therefore everything which is included within that niyo is covered by that brah-ha-wishona. Therefore, davar-ha-ba-mah-ba-mah-sasu-dah-ve-to-hasu-dah are included in the brah-ha-ha-mah-arats, because the brah-ha-sah-mah-sudah-mah-sudah-mah-sudah was not only brah-ha-an-bread, it was a brah-ha-an-the-meal, and anything which is a brah-ha-an-the-meal, and anything which is a part of that niyo therefore is included in the brah-ha-ha-mah-sudah-ha-mah-sudah-mah-arats. Let's test our theory on the Suga of Pas-ha-la-ba-kiss-tim. The Gomara on then based on our 42A discusses the issue of Pas-ha-la-ba-kiss-tim. Pas-ha-la-kiss-tim, we'll see what the exact definition is later, this is a big mah-hok-se-mangri-shon-im. That's what Al-Munna says. Al-Marshmul, Halakha-kabimuna, Al-Mah-la-le-hoo, and Al-A-lafakha-kabimuna. This is the question whether you say Al-Mosh-e-la-kabimuna-aratsan-pas-la-bakiss-tim, or whether you make a burial name zonos. Al-Mah-la-le-hoo, Al-Mah-la-hoo, me-al-mah-mosh-tim-shmul-la-kabimuna, and Al-Mah-la-le-a-laf-kabimuna-aratsan-pas-la-bakiss-tim. As-shani-hatsam-de-kabas-tum-de-sah-laf-sah-laf-la-yoo, they're different because it was cauver-su-da-and-a-pas-la-bakiss-tim. In other words, pas-la-bakiss-tim-de-corn-tal-la-kabimuna is something which is not exactly bread. It's either the miz-la-lous rolls that they make are because of the leecha, the kneading of the dough was done not with water but with juices. And that's one example of pas-la-bakiss-tim. According to another shita, pas-la-bakiss-tim is if you took a dough but you made pockets and you put fruit or vegetables. For instance, many claim that pizza would have a din of pas-la-bakiss-tim. According to the gumara, pas-la-bakiss-tim, you make a boy named Zola, some pas-la-bakiss-tim. However, if you're cauver-su-da on pas-la-bakiss-tim, then you would make a multi-lechaminarats. The gumara, pas-la-bakiss-tim, and that's on a din of days, which discusses another case of something which is similar to pas-la-bakiss-tim. Turok-tim, or cub-la-bakiss-tim, or cub-la-bakiss-tim, or cub-la-bakiss-tim, or cub-la-bakiss-tim. The gumara, and that's on a dress, 38A, says, "What rock did you make on cub-la-bakiss-tim?" On Malay, mista-vak-nam-a-hu, do you think that it's bread, gug-la-biyam-u, and therefore you should make a boy named Zonos. Marzut-a-cau-bakiss-tim-da-say-duyah, Marzut-a-was-cauver-su-da on this gug-la-bak-am-a, and this gug-la-bak-am-a, and this gug-la-bak-a-bakiss-tim-da-ara. In other words, if you're cub-la-bakiss-tim-da-an-it, then you make a boy-su-da on it, however, if you're not cub-la-bakiss-tim-da-an-it, then you would make a boy named Zonos. The rambam pask-gizis-cumara in Hochos-Brakos-per-gimm-o-hala-hates, and he says his follows. Is-a-dosh-an-a-fate-bakaka, that was baked in the ground. Kamosh-a-har-biyim-soh-nam-i-bar-out-o-fiyim. Hawil-be-ain-al-er-su-a-kapast, simply doesn't have the form of bread. The var-a-a-lay-bakira-bori-nam-zalot. The same is-a-soh-la-soh-nam-i-bar-out-o-nam-i-bar-out-o-fiyim. If you needed the dough together with honey or with oil or with milk or you added all kinds of spices and then baked it, the only crepe-pat-tab-a-kiss-nim, a-fopi-shoo-pat, even though it's basically defined as bread, the var-a-hala-a-lay-bar-in-yam-zalot. You make the brah-a-bar-in-yam-zalot. The mukhava-soh-da-te-am-i-bar-a-kam-o-soh-nam-i-bar-out-o-soh-nam-i-bar-out-o-tay-bakira-tab-a-kiss-nim. In other words, according to the rambam, the pat-to-a-kiss-nim is basically categorized as lechen, as bread. However, it's bread that lacks because of the way it's formed, like the form of lechen. It has, it's not a lechen, which one is normally covet-a-soh-u-da-an, and therefore, it loses its brah-ha of hamotee-lechen min-ha-arets. This idea also comes up in the rambam, in hu-soh-me-tum-a-kiss-nim-a-kiss-nim. We are the rambam and pascains, mat-ta-sha-la-sha-ba-be-me-peyros. Yo-soh-ba-y-de-ho-vasso-a-pessach. If you would take mat-ta and you would knead it, knead the dough, with juices, then you yo-t-tee-de-ho-vasso-a-pessach. In other words, according to the rambam, it hasn't been a bread. In order to be yo-t-tee-de-ho-as-matha-an-pessach, you need lechen only, and therefore, it has to have the basic statuses of bread. If it has the statuses of bread and it has not reached kimuts, then you can use it for mat-ta. However, if it doesn't have the statuses of bread, then it can't be welcome only. What status does dough that was kneaded with juices, and then baked has, does it have the statuses of bread or does not have the statuses of bread? In both places, the rambam, both in Hökals-Bruchl's, in Hökals-Kam-e-sub-at-za, ramboms is clearly that it has the status of bread. It's considered past, it's considered bread. However, because of its form, because of other things that were added, it doesn't get the brachal-ham-o-sula-hame-na-areth, unless you are calvea-al-a-sul-dah. In other words, according to the rambam, if you have something which is considered bread-bra-t-t-ta, as an object is defined as bread, nevertheless, you would not make it a bread. You would not make a brachal-hame-o-sula-hame-na-areth, unless it's something which is not bread, which one is normally calvea-sul-dah-pan. But, for instance, pizza with people eating that's not considered clear-sula, whether it is or isn't, I'm not going to discuss right now how much it might depend on how much you eat. But if something that you just take here, say here, you just take a bite out of a conistra or something that one is not normally calvea-sul-dah-an, then the brachal is burning in zones. Even though you're eating bread, in other words, eating bread is not enough. The brachal-hame-o-sula is not a brachal that one makes some bread. It's one makes some bread when he is calvea-sul-dah-an-de-bred. The rahra, the arhalevi, goes even further. The rahra, the arhalevi-sul-dah-an-de-bred. In other words, the rahra says that the rahra, the rahra, the arhalevi-sul-dah-an-de-bred. However, the gamara and aha-an-de-based, which discusses as Pasul-vakistan, Pasul-vakistan based on the according to the rahra, is not past, it's not bread. But nevertheless, if you're calvea-sul-dah-an-de, you would make a ha-mul-sula-hame-o-sula-hame-o-sula-an-de-bred. According to the rahra, it's clear that the brachal-hame-o-tih is not a brachal-hame-o-sula, the one makes some bread. As a hexa, but rather, it's a brachal-hishona that one makes on a sula-dah. And therefore according to the rah, you can make a mocha lahaminar, it's on the surudah, even if you're not, if you, if you don't have bread. Passa lahakistan is not bread, but nevertheless, since if you're kawe'az surudah, when eating, passa lahakistan, you would make a mocha lahaminar, what are you making the brahaha on? You're making the brahaha on the surudah, not on the bread, you don't have any bread. Similar to the rahmab, in the rahmab we saw that even if you're eating bread, passa lahakistan, according to the rahmab, is bread. But even if you're eating bread, it doesn't want the brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar, only if you're eating bread upon rich or kawe'az surudah, then and only then will you make a brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar, so we saw two opposite sides of this question in the rahmab, according to the rahmab, according to the rahmab, you have a case where you eat bread and you don't make a mocha, because there's no clear surudah. According to the rahmab, you have a case where you didn't eat bread, but now let's you make a mocha lahaminar, because it was a kaviyya surudah, but either according to the rahmab, or according to the rahmab, we see that the brahaha samotee does not coincide so clearly with bread. Rather the brahaha samotee is a brahaha that one makes on a surudah and not necessarily a brahaha that one makes on bread. At this point, we can go back to the rahmab, what did the rahmab say? The rahmab said that if in order to make a brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar, you have to have a casea of bread. And this, we don't find regarding any other brahaha, but according to what we said, it makes perfect sense. If you didn't have a casea of bread, then there's no, it's not a surudah at all. It's not a brahaha that one makes on bread as a kavta, even less than a kazayis of bread is a kavta of bread. However, the brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar, is what makes on bread which lends itself to a surudah. And that is only according to the rahmab, if one would eat a full kazayis. If one does not have a full kazayis, then that's not a surudah at all. And therefore, we wouldn't worry, the brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar, which is a brahaha we shown on surudah. Before going back to the surudah of bhitiya-tah-pas, let's take another look at the surudah-mamam out from days that discusses the vahram-bhayim, the tau-kasudah-mah-masasudah. Over there, we find a surudah of ha-mocha here, which goes further than the papa. The amra-bhayya-pas-potes-comine-mah-hau, the yain-poter-comine-mashkin. We're going to leave the issue of wine aside for now. But what does abkhir say? Pass-potes-comine-mah-hau. In other words, according to abkhirah, apparently the brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar would cover everything eaten within the context of the surudah, whether it's mah-mach-masasudah or not mah-mach-masasudah. The brahaha of ha-mocha lahaminar is part of everything. This is an extreme expression of the idea that we've been developing that the brahaha of ha-mocha is not a brahaha on bread, for either it's a brahaha on the surudah. And therefore, according to abkhirah, it includes everything that's eaten within the context of the surudah, whether it's normally served the surudah. It doesn't only serve the surudah, whereas vah-mach-masasudah or not mah-masasudah, it's irrelevant. The brahaha on the bread includes everything. And obviously, we're not dealing with the issue of ikr-vatafel, but rather, we're dealing with the concept of a brahaha, which is all-inclusive, which covers everything, which is part of the surudah. Okay, now let's go back to the shita of rakhia regarding the siyyasapas. We saw that if he has said that one has to make the brahaha while cutting the bread, sha-tif-ma-brah-ma-na-pas. The brahaha should be completed when cutting of the past is completed. And what is he making the brahaha? Is he making the brahaha on the bread, or is he making the brahaha on the bith-siyya of the bread, on the cutting of the bread? If you were in normal, bih-hwa-san-an-an-n, then you would be no doubt that one makes the bih-hwa-san-an-n, on what one plans on eating. But if we're talking about a brahaha, we showed up on a surudah, what is bith-siyyasapas if not the beginning of the meal? Breaking bread. Breaking bread is the beginning of the meal. You're making the brahaha mochi not on the bread. You're making the brahaha mochi on the meal. And the meal is initialized by breaking bread, which is the bith-siyya. In order to illustrate this, shabh-hiya said, make the brahaha while breaking the bread. While cutting the bread, that's when you should make the brahaha. It's not a question of hectic, but rather it's a question of what the brahaha is focusing upon. According to Abh-hiya, the brahaha is a brahaha on the bith-siyya-sapas, not on the past-pas-siyya. Not on the bread-pas-siyya, but rather on the breaking of the bread. Therefore, he has this strange ceremony of making the brahaha simultaneous to the cutting of the bread, and having the final slice when the bread is completely cut come at exactly the same time as the completion of the brahaha. Rava argues on Abh-hiya, because he says you should make a brahaha on a whole piece of bread. But he also looks at the bith-siyya as being something unique. And therefore, he says you should make the brahaha before the bith-siyya-sapas. Why make the brahaha before bith-siyya-sapas? Cut the bread and make the brahaha on a piece of bread. Why should you make a brahaha on a whole of the bread? It's possible to claim that a whole of is more hushu than a piece of bread, and therefore it might be preferable to make the brahaha on the whole of. But it's very, very possible, and even according to Rava, the brahaha and kaka-sayya should first make the brahaha and afterwards cut the bread, because the brahaha is going on not only on the past, not only on the bread, but on the bith-siyya-sapas. An awryya to this idea of proof is the fact that the rambam brings this halacha down and helps us brahaha's parat-sayya. In parat-sayya, it's not where it discusses the different brahaha's that you make, and when you make them. But rather, it's a brahaha which discusses things which are know-how during the soon day. Para-xayim in the rambam, hokus-prachos, beguin-tas-fahos. In hagos-rabos, na-guh-hak-me-is-al-des-sayya-dah. The Kulan-dah-hir-sayya, there are many-min-hagim that hak-me-is-al-wir-mani to do during the suda, and it's mishim-dah-hir-sayya-dah-sayya-duh-hay. Kishina-khas-las-las-sayya-dah-hag-al-sayya-dah-sayya-dah-tima. These are things which are based on etiquette. Okay, now let's get to halacha-bays. Balha-bays-varah-ham-ot-si, u-mash-tuh-hab-rah-fuh-first-he-compleast-tuh-brah-vah-ah-hah-hah-hah-hah-khas-poh-sayya, and only later on does he cut from the bed. So, according to the rambam, the din-of-of-rah-ba, which is in the glory here, the T.S.a-pahos, is brought down in parak-xayim, which discusses-min-hagim-of-sayya-dah. In other words, why does rava insist that you have to complete the brach and afterwards due to the T.S.a-pahos? Apparently, the rava understood that this halacha is halacha in su-udah, because the bracha is a bracha on the su-udah, and therefore, he insists that the bracha should be completed before doing the batiya-fah-pahos. In other words, to summarize this here, what we saw is that it's very, very possible that the unique bracha-tham-ot-si-la-kham-na-arats, which is kind of on the top of the period of brachos, are a hierarchy. You start with charcoal in every baro, which is the most basic bracha. If you have fruit, if it's a vegetable, you make a brach-pah-dham-na, if it's a prya-8, you make a brach-pah-a-a-t, and then you get the brach-pahos, which is on sub-con-front of muzz-on, you take the wheat, which is, if you eat it as a fruit, as a vegetable, you make a brach-pah-dham-na. If you make it into some kind of muzz-on, you make a brach-pahos, and if you make bread out of it, then you make a muzz-on-na-arats. That's, you know, the top of the pyramid on this entire system of brachos. Why is bracha-tham-ot-si-t, such an exclusive bracha? Either because lekham is something, a keph-sa, which of cauver-sa-udah, but nevertheless the bracha is a bracha, which one makes on lekham un bread, where perhaps what we suggested is that the bracha-tham-ot-si-la-kham-na-arats is not a bracha-on-lekham-per-se, but rather, it's the bracha-tham-ot-si-la-wem-atakein for a su-udah, to bracha that what makes on a su-da. And it's very, very possible that both halachas are true, and there are times that you make a bracha-on-bread, not within the context of a su-da, and there are times that you make bracha-ham-ot-a-kham-ot-a-arats, and it covers the entire su-da, but all that's beyond the context of this particular shear. If you have been listening to a raviaya-kham, in this shear, on hihu-hot-ba-hot, based on the saka-ba-hot, that current seems to have gotten cut off for the last second. Nothing important, I hope, is missing, in an event which I could even make sure. And now for today's havaha-yum-it. In the last havaha-yum-t, I mentioned a raha of citzit, a connection between citzit and keba. And therefore, I'd like to continue today in relationship to mitzvah-titzit. Although I mentioned last week that citzit is not a mitzvah-tih-yum-it, one is not half the word citzit, if one is not wearing a four-cornered garment, none of that is for skimbing down the shohanna-loch. I mentioned the sources last week, but one should make an effort to where citzit, and that's why today, even though there are no four natural four-cornered garments, which we normally wear, but we artificially produce it. What is called today, a talit. There's two kinds of talitot, talit catan, a garment that's worn all day, underneath one's other clothing. In order to be able to fulfill, the idea mentioned in the medrish, which I quoted last week, David Amelach said, "Look how I'm surrounded by mitzvah-tih-tih-tih-tih behind me." And you should be surrounded by mitzvah, even when he's not paying attention to it. And that's why there was this artificial invention called a talit catan. During that, anyone wears a talit catan. What is the size, the minimum size of a garment, of a beaded? The pasoc, one of the pasocim, which abrogates one to which citzit, speaks of a scere-tih-haseva, which you cover yourself with. A garment is something with which one is covered. And therefore the minimum amount, the minimum for a garment that is abrogated in citzit is an article of clothing which a child would be covered with when he went outside. It's enough that the garment would cover a child who's going outside. What does that mean exactly? So to cover means that this is the basic garment he's wearing. He's wearing a tie, even a shirt. Today we call it a cloak, a talit. It's the garment which, if this was what he was wearing, he would be considered to be covered in a manner which we appropriate him to walk in the street. Hala kalamaisa. There are two opinions as to what that means. One, the largest shoe is ama al ama, a ama, a cubit by a cubit, a square cubit. The second opinion, more minimalist opinion, says that it's enough to have three-quarters of an ama by one-half an ama. Now there's another controversy as to what the amount of length and ama refers to in terms of our modern methods of measuring. These two opinions go by the names of their most prominent proponents. The shiroha of the hazonish is that an ama is the equivalent of about 57 centimetres, which in American measure would be about 22.5 inches. The opinion of the gachna is that an ama is 48 centimetres, which is slightly less than 19 inches. Therefore if we look for the combination of the most maximum and the most minimum shoe for a talit, for a talit katan, the larger opinion combined with the larger measure of the hazonish comes out to be 22.5 inches by 22.5 inches. The minimal opinion would be the smallest shoe of three-quarters of an ama by half an ama, combined with the gachna of having an ama at 48 centimetres comes out to approximately 15 inches by 10 inches, 15 inches long and 10 inches wide. So a talit katan should be at least that size. It's quite common if you can go into a store and buy a talit katan, it is smaller. For children we show you buy smaller ones. But when it out, that would be the smallest possible size. If you buy a smaller one, basically you should not be making a boja on it because since you are not fulfilling a mitzvah of chichit, because this comment is not obligated in chichit, therefore you can't make a boja. In fact if a skinnedness agree whether one could wear a talit katan that is smaller than the minimal size, in the street on shavat, outside of an agroof, because since the chichit do not fulfill the mitzvah, therefore they are not part of this small garment and therefore you are basically carrying them rather than wearing them. Their opinions to both sides, both opinions assume that one is not fulfilling a mitzvah, then the question arises whether or not the chichit sit are nonetheless considered to be worn or they being carried. That's the minimum size of a talit. When one dabbens, it's customised through a talit gadol. What is a talit gadol? A talit gadol is a garment with which you, with which an adult would cover himself when going outside. In other words, it should be the size of a cloak. Sometimes when sees people wearing talit gadol, which doesn't even quite reach their waist, which obviously cannot be worn as a garment in the street, if that was the only garment you were wearing. So a talit gadol should be something with which measure to your size. And then how big you are would conserve at least minimally as a cloak, could be a mini cloak, but it has to be at least something which one could appear in public, perhaps in Roman times, and still be acceptable. Which, practically speaking, which garments are obligated in chichit sit? A talit has to be four-cornet. We don't normally have any natural four-cornet garments anymore, but there are some things which could possibly be four-cornet. For instance, a scarf, a head scarf, or a neck scarf. The post can say, "It's been the same for Sukh, Asheotah, asheba, the garment covers you. It means it covers your body. Something which only covers your head is not five-inch it. Similarly, something which only covers your neck, you wear it as a scarf against the wind, a neckerchief. We'll not be high in chichit, because it's not a garment asheotah, "Sheba, you're not covering your body with it." There are many reasons which post can advance to why a scarf, which is usually four-cornet, is not obligated in chichit. One reason is that it's normally folded. You always wear it when it's folded. When it's folded, it no longer has even the minimal sheer of a talitkatanda we mentioned in the beginning. Now, it's true that a talitkatanda was also folded when you wear it. It's different folds. But those are accidental. In other words, one puts it on in its full size. And as one wears it, it gets bunched up here, whereas a scarf around one's neck is folded in order to be worn. That's the only way which it's worn. And therefore, some post can say that that alone would reduce its actual size. The size is not a size when it's unfolded, but when it's folded, that size is less than a shoe. Third reason why a scarf would not be higher than cichit is what we mentioned last week. The Rama holds that the idea that the vidama not express that cichit are two in front and two in back is la halacha. A garment has to be such, cichit have to be worn in such a way that they are two in front and two in back. When you wear a scarf, you have all four corners in front of you and all four cichit were you to place them would be in front of you. And therefore, according to the sake of the Rama, a scarf is not higher than cichit. This is also the reason why, practically speaking, most of us do not put cichit on a suit jacket. Even if the corners are squared, are real corners, are not rounded. Round corners are not corners in a la halacha. Four corners means four pointed corners. But you very often have a jacket which has four corners, two in the bottom and two on top in the collar. But they're all four are in front and therefore, based on the stock of the Rama, you would not have to wear cichit. I do recall a situation where it turned out that we were wearing a genuine four corner garment. In the summertime, we would spend time in the country, we would go swimming in the lake. And when leaving the war to go back to where we were staying, which was a short walk and it was somewhat cold, it would be common to take a towel, a large bath towel, which was large enough to meet the minimum share I mentioned before. And drape it around oneself and basically wear it. No one thought of it as being worn. We thought it was just a towel, but you were actually wearing a four corner garment. It was a kind of a cloak. And la halacha, it would appear that if it meets the other standards of what is obligated and cichit, namely that it belongs to you and it has four corners, that you would have to put cichit on such a towel. Therefore, you shouldn't do it. You shouldn't wear a towel, this is a large one, a round one's self, sloping it around one's body as a garment, because it becomes basically a moment holder. It becomes basically a real toilet, a kind worn thousands of years ago as a regular garment. That's it for today. Tomorrow's shoe on Tuesday will be given by myself. It will be the shoe in medieval Jewish philosophy. Until then, I wish you a cold tooth, some gush its own anatomy file. This was KMTT. Kimi Tion, Taitrei Tora, Uddvah Hashem, Miyosh Alayim. [BLANK_AUDIO]