KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - The Weekly Mitzva 02
Rav Binyamin Tabory, the weekly mitzva for parashat Vayechi
This is KMTT and this is Asubic. The day is Wednesday, the day she will be given by Harabin Amin Thabali in the weekly series called the weekly Nesvah. Today's Nesvah is from Qashat, Vayateh. The share will be exactly 31 minutes when the share is over, I will be back with a Harab Yomit. In Thabashat Vayateh, Yaakov gives the Brekhoth to the sons of Yotseif and each one gets his individual Brekhah. Each Ashokibha-Katobirah-hotam, each one got his unique special Brekhah. The valoon was told the Hoth Ya-min Yishkon. He will live by the seashore. The Urukhoth on the Yotseif, he is going to be involved in business, where his brother Yisakhar is called a Hamil Gauram, Vawaitpannamishtatayim, someone who is like an animal, working very hard. Rashi explains that Zavulun was involved in Prakmatyar, Zavulun was involved in business. Whereas Yisakhar was involved in learning Torah. But not only did they have two separate functions, they actually merged into one. Rashi quotes the Midrish, "Hayazvulun o sakrib pakmatyar, umansima zon machebit yisakhang." Veyimos kimbatura. Zavulun was the financier who worked in business, but he used to support the shavits of Yisakhah who learned Torah. And Rashi further adds, "This is referred to by Mosheh, and when he gave his pakmatyar kimpatashat visataprakah, Mosheh said, "Smakazvulun bi tiktah hav yisakhaba aolah." Zavulun, be happy when you go out. The assumption is he goes out into the market, he goes out into the world, he does business. The yisakhaba aolah hav yisakhah shall offer be happy in his oil, in his tent, in his world of Torah, or how rash of Torah, the tent of Torah. This partnership between Yisakhah and Zavulun seems to be an organic concept, that it's a very nice idea that Zavulun and Yisakhah somehow have this partnership. It's interesting that the tour and the Shoshavara both quote such an arrangement, however they quote it a little bit differently. The tour says, "In siman raishmin bet yoradea siman raishmin zav, spikrah, kol echadmyslal haiad bitamut Torah, bein ami bein ashiyas." Everyone is required to learn, no matter who you are, whether you're rich, whether you're poor, whether you're healthy, whether you're ill, whether you're young, whether you're old. Yaz aspihlu ani amha jahalap takhim. A poor man who cannot afford much, but yet he has to take time to learn. A fiwu bali shaobadim, a person who is involved with penosa, a person who has a family. Hayad likwalos manonot Torah. Everybody must have a specific time to view it, to learn Torah. Beyam uvalayba, both in say and night, directed. Torah then says umish yi afshal alumomot bitamate, I know yoradea klalomot. If someone cannot learn, he simply does not know at all anything about learning, he does not learn. All mittmated data is mad, or someone who is too busy, just he cannot find time to learn. So the Torah says yaspikrah, kol echadim alumdim, he should support other people who do learn. Vite kashavlau, tikilu hula mebatsnau. This support of other people is considered as if he actually learned himself. And he quotes our madrish, kimoshid al-shuhazal, bapasuk smaqasudulumditzikrah, bi sakhabhi sakhabalalah. As is quoted by hazal in our madrish, that vulun and isaka are some our partners. The shulranarach also quotes this halacha, but he quotes it a little differently than the torte. The shulranarach siman raishmimbaaz says, nish e epsalulumot bitamate, nishi, yoradea klalomot. omipneatyildot. siyyashpol yaspikrahim alumdim, this is a direct quote from the Torah, but it's only part of the quote. The shulranarach said, if you can't learn, then you should give other people support, enable them to learn, but he's missing those extra words that the shulranarach that the Torah wrote, tehashaibululuumditzikrah, it's as if he learned it by himself. However, the ramah does add those words. Apparently the makhabir, the shulranarach left it out on purpose. The Torah quoted, said, tehashaibuluumditzikrahimbaaznul, the shulranarach left it out, those words, the ramah added them. And then the ramah goes on to say, nachol adamlatnot imchavirul, shuyasudba ta'r, vuy anci lo pannasah, viyachalok i lo besakhar. A person is allowed to stipulate with his friend that he will learn, and his friend will sustain him or support him while he's learning, and they split the reward, yachalok i lo besakhar. The grah on the spot points out that the ramah is based on our marriage, that we see that if the haram's ruin had such a partnership, apparently it's not just an agadic statement, it's a source analah to tell us that the myths of tammatore should be done by a person himself, but a person who can't do it, or he has no time, or he's incapable of doing it, can achieve the same sakhar as limutora if he makes a tonai, it's noted that in the shulran in the ramah, it says, viyachal adamlatnot imchavirul, apparently you need to stipulate beforehand, that you will do this. The Vilma Gham calls another a number of other sources that show the importance of supporting tawra, but not just agadic statements to say that it's a good idea to support tawra. Tawra needs support, but the tawra says the grah cult sukiim a phryani le makhazikimba. The people that support them makhazikimba, it's an a phryani, it's a tree of life not just for those that learn tawra, for those that support tawra. Il namark a phryani la amiglimba, if the tawra had said, if the person who had said, a phryani le makhazikimba, then I would have understood that it's a phryani for amiglim, for those that are actively involved in studying tawra, but the person uses the word la makhazikimba, those that support tawra. So it seems that this source would also hint at the fact that there can be a partnership like yisakh harensruin, bezela hochma bezela kesseth, somehow the kesseth and the hochma merge together. The grah explains the name of the medrish atidakadoshma kuda, so teil the kupala ba lea mitzvot. The reward, the kupa, the special comes sort of a canopy that's given to the person who was involved in mitzvah is the bonet tawra and the seil a kesseth, those that have supported tawra. Shimon ahi azaria, the gimari mentioned, the grah quotes it here, that shimon the brother of azaria, who was greater, shimon or azaria, but the marah mentions them equally to show that one supported the other and they received the same award. However, as the rahma adds one more important caveat, this, tonight, they can be done before a person ends tawra. The before person begins to study, it's actually a tonight that's acceptable to share the rewards of your business, share the rewards of the other's learning tawra, it's acceptable arrangement. However, the rahma very shilkhana rah rules that this is only when you do this before you learn. The stipulation is made before the person learns, a vow, a sakvatawra, a person who already learned tawra, a no yah holding kodalah, kokah, vishnul ma munchi tain lo, but a person who already has learned he has no right to sell his share for a money that a person will be paid after the fact, to grow again point to a gamara in masehah sotah, dasqaf ala. The gamara tells a story about hilah and shivna, hilah and shivna, aah hai hai hai, they were brothers. hilah asakvatawra, shivna asakvat iskah, hilah learned tawra. Now we have to remember that hilah learned tawra and the legends of hilah alpabadi are well known, hilah learned tawra in utter, utter poverty, he literally had nothing to eat, no arrangement had been made with him. hilah had learned and shivna did business, nessulf, big mark points out carefully, nessulf at the end, after a certain period of time, amalay, tannah al viniflok, let's join together, let's pull our resources and share. Yastabat kohvamra, the heavenly voice came out, it is a person who will pay no matter what he pays, he should be shamed, who should be shamed, obviously the gamara refers to hilah. Now it's interesting that hilah was so poor, literally he had no clothes to wear, he was freezing, he had nothing to eat, now comes a time when he could put himself in a normal situation, but when Maris says after he learned he cannot do this, both Yavuzullah, it would be some sort of a shame or disgrace. On the other hand, before he went to learn, assuming that from now on he remained poor, hilah could have accepted this money, it's only after you learn that you can't make this arrangement. Now, I'd like to analyze a little bit, what does this mean, this arrangement? The demon staka means that anybody who needs help is allowed to take staka and obviously there's a hil for people to give staka, staka is mentioned in the rambam, in hookot matnat and the yin, that this is the sign of the naysra'al, this is one of the traits of the naysra'al. The rambam uses very poignant words, nimah akh wa yarachimalah akhm yarachimalah, we're all brothers, we're all children to God, therefore since klai is still our old, our old children to God, therefore we're all brothers and obviously one brother should have some sort of compassion, mercy, love for his brother and support him when necessary. So obviously supporting Torah is a great mitzvah, is this what we're talking about? That it's a loin, hilkhot staka that a person should give money to people that learn Torah, but moreover a person could make such an arrangement and not only give staka but receive the reward for learning Torah. So apparently this is not found in the words of staka. The rambam did not quote this at all, we'll discuss that later. However, both the shulkhonara and the tour quoted this in hilkhot samatara. Apparently it's a hawahah in hilkhot samatara that a person can make such an arrangement. It would be questionable whether a person may touch an arrangement, let's say a businessman can make $100,000 a year and there's a thamit kacham balmish pachah who wants to learn the whole time. So they make an arrangement, let's assume the arrangement is really 50/50. The thamit kacham is going to get $50,000, it's learned Torah full time and the businessman who actually earned $100,000 is going to give the poor man, the thamit kacham is going to give him $50,000. Does the rich man, the balabai, does he have to give the staka? On one hand he gave already half of his earnings, he gave much more than one tenth of his possessions, of his earnings. The halakhe is that you have to give the staka the fact that we have a limit to the person to give the person. You shouldn't give more than 20% of your money for staka. Is this arrangement part of staka, it seems that it's not, it seems that the poor, the rich man is making the business deal, he's buying the illu, he's buying the reward for learning Torah, he's sharing in the Torah of the other, it's a business arrangement. So then for this year he probably would have to say that he only made $50,000, but on that $50,000 I assume he would have to give normal staka, this is not to be considered staka, this is to be considered, a share of the kosamat over, the ramban does not quote this case at all. The ramban never, to the best of my knowledge, relates to the agatek statement which he perhaps interpreted as an agatek statement, of the marriage that Yisaka and Zulun made a deal together. The ramban is very vociferous about accepting money for setting Torah. The ramban says in Tarek, "Vimlou" of Hilk of Tamatara, "Kolamesti na libal shi'a'at" "Battara ba loya sa ba laka" "Bispanist mina'at staka" "Hairi zi shi wa sashat" "Ubizatat" "Tara the havamara das" "The gurm ra'al atmah" "Vinat al-Hai mina'a'la ma'bra" "Latisha" "Uxla" "Lahannal" "The debaita'la ma'zaa" "The ramban thinks" "That anyone who thinks that he can learn Torah" "And he won't have to work" "And he'll take" "Sak" "The ramban says" "This is a hilash'a" "It's a disgrace of God" "It's a shame" "Bizatatara" "It's a shame it's a disgrace to Torah" "The light of the that" "The light of the Jewish religion" "seems to be diminished" "The gurm ra'al atmah" "He causes pain and trouble to himself" "Vinat al-Hai mina'a'la" "He's removing himself from the world to come" "Lahannal" "Vinat al-Hai mina'la" "The person is not allowed to get benefit from Torah in this world" "The ramban amplifies this point in his Mishnah in Turkey" "I thought" "In the Mishnah, I'll pass you" "Kaidam lakhpargor" "Don't make Torah into a tool that you use for your own financial benefit" "So it would seem logical that the ramban would not accept this idea of Yisakhar's loom" "At least it's not mentioned in the ramban" "One could argue that even according to the ramban this arrangement could be done" "It would only be when a person takes saka" "It's pineapple nad saka" "But this is not really considered saka" "This is really considered" "A business arrangement" "Once the heredity could argue that the ramban would agree to this arrangement" "However there's no hint of this in the ramban himself" "In the ramban it seems to be that he would be opposed to the idea" "Because of Mishnah, of Yisakharo, won the ramban" "God through a lengthy discussion to explain why it's true that he is in favor of Tamirokhamim who need to be supported" "He is in favor of their receiving support" "And he claims that in the generations in which we live that it's very difficult to continue learning and grow and become a Tamirokham" It would seem that perhaps even the Ramban would realize that in today's generation the situation is different. And he adds by saying, "Kom kom shal ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'l ha'mana'ag. If we're not sure, really, look at the kazim. Now, in the kokasmei, it's called "it's not a gimit a'kra'b," not gimit a'kra'b, not gimit a'kra'm an'acipra. We have seen that kazmei feel due before and after the Ramban. Do take money from the community. It says, "Perhaps it's based on the concept of "it's not a concept that would not succeed." We would not be able to produce the American kamim if not for the possibility of public support. The komikra, in any case, the Ramban never quotes this ha'laha, and it seems to be that he would not agree to the concept. If a person does give saka for the katat ora, I would assume the Ramban would also think it's a kimimit saka, but to make this arrangement, probably would be, according to Ramban, just a lot of saka. It wouldn't be a'laha, as we said in the shochanara, "Hu'in the washanam, the tour," that it's the kimit sama-tara. Another reason why the Ramban might not agree to the sama-tara is because the Ramban is very emphatic that everybody should learn Torah. Every single person should learn Torah. The Ramban says it makes no difference who you are, what the situation is, how poor you are, how rich you are, how busy you are. Everyone must learn Torah. In fact, the Raman quotes the kimira that uses examples of people who showed how you can learn Torah even in a very difficult situation. As we were talking about Hillel, who learned Torah, and then at the end, according to the kimira, seems to have been willing to sell it until the Gbatsko came in and said, "You shouldn't do it." Even Hillel is an example, a paragon of virtue, that if a poor man comes and says, "Look, I was too busy working. I had to work." And I was poor. I had to go around asking for charity. All kinds of problems, simply because he's poor, Hillel will be the one who will be the prosecuting attorney to say that I did it, where I was so involved in Torah that I had no way of making living, yet I did it anyway. So, the Raman feels that anyone should learn Torah. The question would be yes. According to the Shoshanara, that a person could make this arrangement, does it really imply that if you need not learn it all, the person who supports Torah, who gives money to a tami to kakam, and therefore gets the reward for learning Torah at split of the reward. With that, he's possible to say that he doesn't have to learn it all. The Masha Vaystin, as a chuva, that's printed in Igrat Mashahele Gdalid, Yarudaya Gdalid, with a long essay about this topic, he gives all kinds of guidelines to people who really do want to make such an arrangement. But according to the Ramban for sure, and according to the concept that everybody must know Torah, this would simply not excuse the person from learning Torah at all. It would only mean that he does share in the reward of a person who learns full time, but apparently the person who is supporting Torah would still have to learn Torah at least sometimes interested me enough. Is this a good idea for a tami to come to do? According to the Ramban, we said it doesn't seem to be a good idea, whereas according to the chuva, doesn't explain the role of the tami to come in this issue. The tami to come is actually giving up reward for a mitzvah. We saw that after you learn Torah, you cannot give it away at all. But before you learn Torah, is it a good idea to give up your reward for learning Torah? There's the same story about the Vilma Gaur. I have no source to prove that this is an accurate story, but the story is told that one year the Vilma Gaur did not find an ethnic. In Europe, the climate was such that it is very difficult to find vegetation, and they simply could not get an ethnic. Two students of the Gaur were very, very concerned that the Arab did not have an ethnic. They went on a trip all over Europe to see whether they can find an ethnic someplace. They finally heard that there was this farmer someplace who had a beautiful ethnic. They went to see the esrok, they went to see the farmer, and they found that he really had a beautiful esrok, and they asked him to sell it. So he said, "I'm a farmer. It's true that I'm not at a mitzvaham, but I also live from person. I want to fulfill the mitzvah myself." So they kept raising the price and saying, "We'll pay you more and give you more," and he refused. Eventually, they told him, "This esrok is for the Vilma Gaur." The cavernal, with the way the Vilma Gaur fulfills this mitzvah is unbelievable. You're only a very simple person. You'll fulfill the mitzvah in a simple manner. The Vilma Gaur will fulfill this mitzvah in a greater manner. So, sell it to the Vilma Gaur. The farmer allegedly replied, "I will give it to the Vilma Gaur as the present in one condition." The condition is that I get the reward that he does for this mitzvah. The students agreed that they felt they had no choice. They came back to the Vilma Gaur. They brought him the esrok. And the Vilma Gaur said, "This is really a beautiful esrok. How much did it cost? The tummy them said it cost a lot." So the Gaur said, "God, I don't mind what did it cost. I'll pay whatever it is." Finally, he had to admit that they gave away the reward of the mitzvah. They gave the Vilma Gaur's reward to the farmer. The Vilma Gaur reportedly said, "Bara Hashem. I am very happy. I always learned Torah. I always fulfilled mitzvahs. And I always was a little bit nervous. Maybe I'm doing the mitzvah. Maybe I'm letting Torah in order to receive the reward. And we know from picky avos. Al t'yukhav 'adhi ma'masham shimit 'a rahvam an 'atle kebil pras.' Don't be like servants who serve your master just because you want the salary. You want the prize. But serve God lishmah." So the Gaur apparently said, "This year when I take my esrok, I know for sure that I'm doing the mitzvah lishay mitzvah." If this story has any halakic validity, I don't know if it has any validity if it happened at all. But even if it did happen, if there's any halakic validity to this, then the t'amit rahvam, who gives away his share in learning Torah, actually has a special unique significance that he's really going to learn Torah lishmah. I have not found anyone who says specifically that it's a meritist act on the part of the t'amit rahvam. What the shokhav related to was actually the part of the person who's supporting Torah. And he has a special award. If the shokhav said, "Snaqah vuulun dasikah," then he said, "Hih saqah ba'alah." If the shokhav said, "Hih saqah vuulun dasikah," then he said, "Hih saqah ba'alah." "Zuulun, you'll be happy." Then he said, "Hih saqah," I'll try to explain that word in a minute. If the shokhav said, "Hih saqah in your tent," so I understand, "Hih saqah in his tent is happy." He learned Torah, "Tikuday asha mishah in the samsri lei." The words of Torah are straight, clear. Misamri lei, they cause happiness. "Snaqah vuulun dasikah," what does that mean? "Zuulun should be happy when he goes to work." Interestingly enough, I found two interpretations of the Pasukh snaq vuulun dasikah, related to our issue. The Prishah, in his commentary in the tour, says, "Yaisht al-Saresh, dersa samal-gramar, dersa-mann-an-an-sung-havana-ra-kim-bishah-tul-sah-tul?" "Snaqah vuulun dasikah." When you have money, the joy, the pleasure of having money is when you spend it. The konneba-adna-shul, the konneba-adna-atna-atna-shul, person uses money and buys what he desires, buys what he wants. "Snaq vuulun dasikah," the Prishah used the word "basikah," and when you spend the money. "Zuulun is only happy when he spends the money." "But Yisakhar al-Halaqah," "Yisakhar" "has his-simhah in the tent." "Odobo al-Aziz," they are inside the tent, learning Torah, "belie of sakahas," without spending. Without expending what he has, without using what he has, the very fact that he is in the O.L. Learn Torah. The Prishah assumes that the pleasure, the "simhah" that was mentioned in connection with Zuulun, is not connection of work. Is not connection of making money. The connection of "simhah" is when you spend money. "Snaqah vuulun dasikahas." According to this interpretation, Zuulun is in effect not on the same left, but not on the same left as Yisakhar. Yisakhar al-Halaqah has the "simhah" at all times. Zuulun has the "simhah" when he spends money. It should be pointed out that the "draqah" of Zuulun comes before Yisakhar. The "draqah," both of Yisakhar, both of Yisakhar, puts Zuulun before Yisakhar. "Snaq vuulun dasikahas" the "simhah" of Zuulun actually precedes the "simhah" of Zuulun. Rafudnair in pakhan Yisakh explains that Zuulun and Yisakhar actually share the "simhah." They share the learning Torah and the "simhah" of learning Torah, which is a special "brachah" for the person that makes such an arrangement, the "simhah" of Zuulun arrangement. If a person, for example, would bite Zuulun to someone else. There's a person who needs a pair of Zuulun, and he can't afford Zuulun by himself. So the person would go out and pay for the "tillings." So the person who brought the "tillings" is obviously involved in Gamilah krasadim. And if we would chalk it up to his credit, he'd be listed in the book as "getting credit for Gamilah krasadim." But he would not get credit for "tillings." The person for whom he bought the "tillings." And that's the person who gets the reward for buying "tillings." He would get a "mitzvah" of Gamilah krasadim developing somebody else put on "tillings." Yisakhar special. He learns Torah. But Zuulun, who enables entillings Torah, has the "simcha" of being involved in the "mitzvah" of Gamilah krasadim as well. He is fulfilling and getting the reward of Gamilah krasadim through this special relationship. Therefore, "smack" of the "dulun" is very commendable for him for this "dulun" and "yisakhar." They both share their reward, not that "dulun" or "yisakhar" is at a higher level. They simply share the reward for "linnikarah." "Smack" of the "dulun" is very good. You have been listening to "Hara Vina Mitzvah" in the weekly "mitzvah" of "tillings." For today's "Hara Ha'Yomit," I wish to go back to the beginning of the Shokanah book, where we were a few days ago. The "tillings" down from the own "exhorses." That "till," it's a good idea. It's a good idea to say, before that I'm in the beginning, there's a number of "pashyot," the "pash" of the "akidah," the "pash" of the "man." I said it, I did that, and "pashata" called "banot." The "bait" is safe. On the tour, it explains what the idea behind each of these "kriyot," each of these different "pashyot" is. The "akay" that teaches one devotion to God. The man teaches one pen and some God says the "bilt." It's very important. And the "korbanot," is because of the famous "meger" which says that in the times when the honor of "korbanot," in the "shama," "parin," "satayno," the "visitashing" of the "sukim," dealing with the "korbanot," takes the place as well we have brought a "korban." These sources are 900 years to 1000 years old. I think today, less and less people actually say "korbanot" and the other "pashyot" which you found in the "sibur" between "gukotashata" and "babokshama." Probably because we tend to come to "shul-late." And the first thing that you skip when you're late is "pashyot hakorbanot," which includes also the "akidah." The minute today, and not included even in the "sibur," is not the sake of "sha-taman," and not the same "satayno" as the "diver." So the "diver" has a halakhic problem behind it. The "korbanot" in the "korbanot," which includes also the "akidah." The minute today, and not included even in the "sibur" is not the sake of "sha-taman," and not the "satayno" as the "diver." Because they were afraid that people would think that only the "asatayno" which was said by God are true Torah, and that's why we decided every day, but not the "asatayno." That abolition found in the "gamare" is the basis for the custom not to show special respect to "asatayno" for instance. When we read "asatayno" the "diver" so the minute "gai" then "hag" is to stand. Many people can say you shouldn't stand, either you say it or you should stand for the beginning and the end, not just for those who came, so that people should not think that this is the real Torah and not the rest. Based on "akimara," even though the Torah is just in way after the "gamara," and the Torah's explanation by your "satayno" explains is because that's only the "tibur," we're signing it all together, or perhaps as part of "piyachma," but just to be cited by yourself would be okay. But a later post came, more or less said, that we should now recite the "satayno" developed, and the man also, for other reasons, having to do with capitalistic background, is no longer said by anybody. But to see the way we still include the "kobana." Interestingly enough, the Torah in that list, which is taken from, as I said, the "bahag," and other go-on exercises, does it mention "patatayno" by "patata" kobana? What he means, the "sukim," in the beginning of "a yika," in "fashat," "a yika," and "sab," dealing with "kobana" or "la," "kobana" katat, "kobana shlamim," and the different kinds of kobana, which at different times in your life you might have to bring or want to bring, including kobana katat, and kobana katat, there's a problem, whether or not, if you really want to obligate it to bring it, you haven't done a sin, which obligated you to bring the katat, should you be saying, "It's a kobana." Apparently, many people still thought we'd take the marriage very seriously. It's really as though you brought a kobana. But if you're not a kobana katat, you can't bring one, or you cannot volunteer to bring the katat. And since it wouldn't be a real katat, in fact, it would be in the beginning of "tash," it would be prohibited. You're not allowed to bring "kulana nazadak," and you're not being a non-kobana as a kobana. So the other kobana one can volunteer to bring. The katat is impossible. So some person thought you shouldn't say, "Pashatatatat," and other persons thought you could say it, but you shouldn't say afterwards, little yihi ratsane that says, "Let this be as though he's really good." But the kobana katat, he doesn't mention. Only at the very end, in the post-game, the shokana rok, was to say, "That is also a nak." There's also a nak to say, "Pashatatami." Why was "Pashatatami" like that? The answer is very simple. The individual kobanaatam, individual, either obligations or possibilities. You, as individual, sometimes will bring a katatat, if you have to, and you can volunteer to bring a shlamim, or an allah, or an inhaa, or a toda, different kobanaatat that a person could bring. You could, instead of bringing it, you could say the "pashat," and that's as though God's eyes were brought to kobana. But kobanaatamid is not put by individuals, but by claryswell. The Jewish people as a whole, every day, bring a samid in the morning, and a samid in the afternoon. For me to say the "pashat," in the original minak is quoted in the Baha'i and in the Torah, for me to say the "pashatatami," is meaningless. Who are you to be saying this? Anuswala has to say. And therefore, it wasn't included in the minag as defined by the two. Interesting Lina, for Vinayona, because of the lumbai, in Blochot, says the exact opposite. He doesn't mention the "pashat" of the different kobanaat. But he does say that he citing the "tumbid" in the morning is an obligation. Not a piece of good advice, not a toda lumbaat. He thinks it's an absolute obligation. He mentions this in a different context, in which we know that he really meant it, that it really is an obligation. He says that the "pahrim" should be "tumbid" and "tumbid" should be "tumbid". You're not allowed to say things which were written, things which were written from the Torah by heart. Just as you're not supposed to write down, excuse me, you're not supposed to write down things which were meant to be by heart. You're not supposed to write it down until that law was changed. The question of the first game is, well, we doubt it in the morning. We say, "Kriyashmavahat" etc. The answer of the "bhenayana" is that those things which are obligatory of obligatory recitations can be said by heart. And therefore, you can say, "Kriyashmavahat". And then, the "bhenayana" says, and that's for you can also say, "kobana-tumbid", because kobana-tumbid is also an obligation. Why is there an obligation? Because the same average, the average says in the time when they're under kobanaat, the recitation of the "pashat" takes its place. Whatever the "bhenayana" is logic, the "bhenayana" says, the individual kobanaat you mentioned before, are not obligatory. You don't have to bring a "shlamid" or an "olam". They're merely voluntary. But kobana-tumbid is obligatory, true, not on you. It's obligatory for "amisa", but it's obligatory, and we are all "amisa". And therefore, ignore the difference between "sibu" and "yahre" community. And in the "bhenayana" comes to the conclusion that since bringing the kobanaat "tumbid", kobanaat "tumbid" is an obligation for the Jewish people. Therefore, the Jewish people are obligated, when there is no "bhenayat" to say the "pashat" instead. This applies only to the "tumbid", which is an obligation, and not to the voluntary "tumbid", that a person could bring. Personally, and this is my own minute, I do come late to show, and therefore I really have time to say all the kobanaat. But I've made it my habit in the last few years, after the words of "whenayona", to always say the "pashat" of kobanaat "tumbid". In our "sibu" room, after we "pashat" at "tumbid", "sabu pene" is "sabu pene" is "sabu pene" in the "kobanid" "tumbid" is "shite" for "yahre" for "y". There appears another "pashat" of "yahre" is "dirt" to honor the "pneashem", which is not from "pashat" to "nim". In fact, the "pahat" was opposed to saying it, but this is very mentioned in the "mishonim", based on a different "megris" that says, that "pashat" that says, "kobanid" will do it "safuana" with "neashem". It's a "fungal" if "neashem" on the north side of the altar, which is before God. The northern side of the altar is defined as being before God. When one decides that "pashot" God attempted to remember his seat before God. And he accepts our prayers, our coming before him to Darwin, as well as we were standing before God. It's based on this "megris" that this "pashot" has a special kind of remembrance for God. Because of the "safuana" that "nimashem" it was added. And also, the "wim" was said after the "ok" done. And now we see the "wim" which we cited after "kobanid" to me. My own personal "minaga", and I think this is my opinion, a good idea, is to follow a "banoyana" and to make a special benefit to say "kobanid" every day. Because in the "banoyana" it's actually an obligation. And in some way, we are managing to fulfill, not in the best way, but still we are managing to fulfill the obligation of the Torah to bring a "kobanid" every day in the service of God. Same the other "kobanid" is, as the Torah said, merely a "good idea", "tolllllll", it's a suggestion, it's definitely a "good suggestion". And if you can manage to say even the "pashot" or "aizumu komancha" "safim" in the "mishnayot" which also basically cover all parts of the "kobanid" the Torah's absolute divide, it's a very good idea. But if any "yonder's" idea is in his own opinion, an obligation, then the fighting would make the greater effort to do so. I'm aware of the fact that most people today, I own definitely acting generation, it goes down and down. These parts of the "tfilah" are becoming not really optional, but almost non-existent. And for instance, here in the "kobanid" all the "minyanim" begin from either book or hold it as they begin after the "kobanid". The "minya" scores are seven, then at seven o'clock exactly, "kazan" begins, "sucay" is amount. That allows you to say it by yourself, I think the assumption is that very few people are actually saying, those parts of the "tfilah". Especially in these days, when we are hoping, and waiting, and sensing, the imminent return of a "podata" "kobanid" that may not be a "mino", I think it would be a good idea if we once again reconnected ourselves to the actual "minya" "kobanid" in the manner, which is possible today, sort of a virtual "koban". And as the same, the "pashyat" in "Wichrobaniana" recommend. That's all for today. Tomorrow's "shiyur" on Thursday will be in "Pashata Shabua" and will be given by "Havad David Silverberg". Until then, "koto nigushatsiyo", this is "KMTT", "kimi tion tete tore" with "vav hashem niyoshala". [BLANK_AUDIO]