The Real Reason Antisemitism Exists - Rabbi Daniel Glatstein

This Torah class is brought to [music] you by torahanytime.com. Okay, good Yom Tov everyone. Hope everyone's having a wonderful Yom Tov. We're going to speak about a topic tonight that makes us uncomfortable. And but it's an important topic. It's a contemporary topic. It's O made all of Parak. And it's on everybody's mind. And that's the topic of anti-Semitism. There was a study this week in New York City that more than 55% of hate crimes in New York City were against Jews even though the Jews are only about 10% of the population. Can you imagine? 10% of the population, more than 55% of hate crimes. So, what comes around goes around. Let's begin. What we'd like to do today is try to understand the root, the etymology, the source of anti-Semitism. The rationale of it, the psychology of it. What is it sourced in? One of the most well-known passages in the Haggadah of course Vehi Sheamda. Vehi Sheamda Lavoteinu Velanu. We say Shelo Echad Bilvad Amad Aleinu Lechaloteinu. It wasn't only one who stood up against us to destroy us. Ela Shebechol Dor VaDor Omdim Aleinu Lechaloteinu. In every single generation they rise up against us to destroy us. VeHakadosh Baruch Hu Matzilenu Miyadam. And the Ribono Shel Olam saves us from their hand. What I'd like to focus on is the Smichus, the juxtaposition. Because right after this iconic passage in the Haggadah the Baal Haggadah continues Tzei U'Lmad Ma Bikesh Lavan HaArami Laasos LeYaakov Avinu. Go out and learn what Lavan tried to do to our forefather Jacob. Ma Shmita Etzel Har Sinai. We just said in every generation they rise up against us to destroy us. Okay. And then the Haggadah says we should go out and learn what Lavan wanted to do to Yaakov Avinu. What does that have to do with the above mentioned idea that in every generation they rise up against us to destroy us? The Baal Haggadah made a statement. The Baal Haggadah said that in every single generation they rise up against us to destroy us. Whether it was in the time of the Holocaust, time of the Inquisition, or in 2026. So, why would the Baal Haggadah then say go out and learn what Lavan HaArami wanted to do with Yaakov Avinu? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? One of the greatest Gedolim in Poland in 19th century. He wrote Sheilos U'Teshuvos Yeshuas Malki. Rebbi MiKutna. Rebbi MiKutna. One of the Gedolei HaPoskim in Poland in 19th century. Actually, my grandfather's grandfather my father's father's mother's father was a Talmid of Yeshuas Malki Rebbi MiKutna. He helped him publish the Sefer. Says Rebbi MiKutna, these are not two isolated ideas. Rather, Tzei U'Lmad is saying if you don't accept my thesis that in every single generation they rise up against us to destroy us, I'm going to prove it to you. If you think that that it's hyperbole, it's exaggeration, it's just figure of speech. It doesn't mean every single generation. Maybe what the Baal Haggadah means is every 250 years or so they rise up against us to destroy us, but there has to be lulls in the action. I'm sure there's societies of equality, egalitarianism, democracy. Not actually in every generation they rise up against us to destroy us. No, the Baal Haggadah says. Go out and see. Did anyone ever smooth talk us like Lavan? Lavan goes to Yaakov. You just left me. You didn't let me hug and kiss my sons and daughters. How could you leave me like this? It wasn't right. I did so much good to you. Lavan sweet talked Yaakov Avinu. Lavan seems like he's our friend, he's our supporter, he's our advocate. And yet we know, no. Nobody wanted to destroy the Jewish people like Lavan. So, the Baal Haggadah is not bringing an isolated idea. Oh, Shelo Echad Bilvad Amad Aleinu Lechaloteinu. And now a second idea is Tzei U'Lmad Ma Bikesh Lavan HaArami Laasos. No, says Rebbi MiKutna, the Baal Haggadah is saying if you don't think that this is literal. If you think there are generations that they're not O made Aleinu Lechaloteinu. Tzei U'Lmad. The proof is in the pudding. Even Lavan who sweet talked to Yaakov Avinu, who said he wanted to kiss his descendants, nobody wanted to destroy the Jewish people like Lavan HaArami. It's a proof Shebechol Dor VaDor Omdim Aleinu Lechaloteinu. I would like to begin by analyzing a phrase in Chazal. There are basically two general traditions from Chazal about the root of anti-Semitism. We're going to focus on one of them that appears first in Rashi in Parshas Vayeishlach. We all know that Yaakov Avinu after 22 years he's coming back to return to the Holy Land. He's coming back with his family, with most of his children that were born already. And rearing his ugly head is Esau. Esau was coming with 400 men. Esau was primed to attack Yaakov Avinu. Yaakov uh uh prepares for every possible eventuality. He offers a gift, he prays, and he prepares for war. And as Esau encounters Yaakov Avinu, we don't know what will this encounter look like. Will Esau attack? Will Esau have a change of heart? We have a very unusual phenomenon. I believe the first time this phenomenon appears in the Chumash. Vayaratz Esau Likraso Vayichakehu Vayipol Al Tzavaro Vayishakehu. And probably we're all familiar on the word Vayishakehu you have the first phenomenon in the Torah of dots on top of a word. You can look in the Sefer Torah on the word Vayishakehu there are dots on top of the word. Very unusual. We know that there's something called Nikudois, we have vowels, vocalizations, but these are dots on top of the word. They don't help us, they don't aid, they don't facilitate pronunciation. There's a tradition from Chazal as we're about to see that when you have dots on top of a word somehow [snorts] it means the opposite of what it says. The dots indicate that even though it says A it should be understood in the exact opposite way. So, Rashi brings two interpretations. First Rashi says, Rashi says there's a Machlokes about how to interpret these words. Rashi quotes the Sifrei in Behaaloscha. Says Rashi, some explain it that even though it says that he kissed him, he didn't actually kiss him wholeheartedly. Instead he kissed him so to speak half-heartedly. He gave him a fake kiss. Like when you kiss your second cousin at a wedding. You know. It it wasn't necessarily on your agenda that night to go to that wedding hall to give that individual a very big kiss, but you kissed him anyway, you know, you had no choice. So, even though it says he kissed him, he didn't kiss him wholeheartedly. And then amazingly Rashi quotes Bereishis Rabbah. And it's very telling that Rashi quotes this Medrash. Amar Rebbi Shimon Ben Yochai. Rashi quotes the Rashbi. The great Tanna Rebbi Shimon, Talmid Rebbi Akiva. What does the Rashbi say? Look at these words. These are epic, historic words. Amar Rebbi Shimon Ben Yochai, Halacha Hi Biyadua. These are three words that are very rare. Do not apply do not appear elsewhere in Chazal. Halacha Hi Biyadua. It is a Halacha. It is well known She'Esau Sonei Yaakov. That Esau hates Yaakov. Ela Shenichmeru Rachamav Al Esau Pam. Even though it says he kissed him but on the other hand we know that Esau is the avowed enemy of Yaakov Avinu. Esau hates Yaakov. So, you would have understood the Pasuk to mean he didn't really kiss him. Yes, it says he kissed him, but you would have understood that it doesn't actually mean he kissed him wholeheartedly. He kissed him half-heartedly. That's what you would have thought. Comes the dots. And the dots say no. Even though you would have thought he kissed him half-heartedly. Why? Because Halacha Biyadua She'Esau Sonei Yaakov. Comes Chazal, come the Pasuk in this instance, Nashko Bechol Libi. He kissed him with all his heart. Very interesting. So, Rashi brings two conflicting interpretations. Either it means, well, let's take it literally, he kissed him. And the dots say no, he didn't actually kiss him wholeheartedly. Or we would have assumed he didn't kiss him wholeheartedly. And the dots say that in this rare instance he actually kissed him wholeheartedly. But what we want to focus on are these unusual words of Rashi quoting Bereishis Rabbah. Halacha Hi Biyadua. We all know there are two general sections of Torah, mikhtzei sin Torah, parts of Torah. There's halakhah and aggadah. There's the area of Torah of practice, of how we accord ourselves to ma'aseh. And then you have something called aggadah. Aggadah are the aggadic teachers, the moral teachers, the teachings, the ethical teachings. If I were to have asked you, when Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is analyzing the psychology of anti-Semitism, is this halakhah or is this aggadah? We all would have said this is aggadah. This is not halakhah. What's the halakhah over here? And yet Rashi chooses to use the following expression, halakhah hi bi adua. A halakhah? How is anti-Semitism a halakhah? Why does Rashi, quoting Bereishis Rabbah, utilize expression halakhah hi bi adua? By the way, it's such a question and it's so mysterious that none other than the Yismach Moshe, you know the Yismach Moshe is the patriarch, the progenitor, the father of Satmar, but he was a few hundred years ago. He was in the times of the Chasam Sofer. Actually, in Shivas Chasam Sofer, you have a number of teshuvos in between the Yismach Moshe and the Chasam Sofer. And the Yismach Moshe writes, it's got to be that the words of Rashi are a toss sofer. Rashi could not It Chazal could not actually mean this is a halakhah. This is There's no halakhah here. There's no halakhic decision. There's no halakhic ruling. It must be, says the Yismach Moshe, the word halakhah is a toss sofer. What it should say is halo yihu bi adua, is it not known? But the word halakhah, the Yismach Moshe says, would not be an accurate terminology and in fact it was not in the original text of Chazal. That is the opinion of the Yismach Moshe. However, as we're going to see, nearly in all the texts of the Midrash and in all the acharonim that quote Rashi, they take this phrase very literally. If Rashi says halakhah and if the Midrash says halakhah and nobody changed the girsa for hundreds of years, then these words are the accurate words and Rashi says what he means and therefore it behooves us to understand why does Rashi utilize the word halakhah? Here's another interesting question. Rashi in perek gimmel, pasuk ches in Bereishis, he tells us what his modus operandi is in explaining the Torah. You know, it's it's a very important yediah. Very often you have Rashi quotes a Midrash. The Ramban will ask two or three questions on Rashi and then the Ramban will say, "No, that's not the explanation." The Ramban will offer a different interpretation. And you wonder, what's the Ramban doing? Rashi's quoting a Midrash. You could ask as many questions as you want on the Midrash, but the Midrash is miSinai. You can't dismiss the Midrash. What's the Ramban asking on on Rashi? Rashi's merely quoting a Midrash. The answer is very important. The answer is Rashi tells us in the beginning of Bereishis, perek gimmel, pasuk ches, va'ani lo vasiti ela l'pshutei shel mikra. My job in explaining the Chumash is not to tell you a explanation or a commentary, even though there are 70 perushim to the Torah. And actually, in an expanded sense, we have a tradition the Chafetz Chaim brings every pasuk has 600,000 interpretations. And the Megaleh Amukos says, perhaps that means 600,000 in remez and 600,000 in drash and 600,000 in sod. Nevertheless, there is one authoritative pshat in the pasuk. And all the rishonim are fighting, are vying, what is the one definitive simple, straightforward, compelling explanation for the pasuk. And Rashi says that his job and his ambition and what his commentary is trying to accomplish is he's offering the the one pshutei shel mikra. And the Ramban says, "No, I have three questions on you. So, despite the fact that you're quoting a Midrash, it's a valid drash, but it's not pshat." Now, when Rashi formulates his pshat, he could quote a Midrash Rabbah. He could quote a Sifrei. He could quote a Sifra. Rashi would usually go and quote the Midrash that's on the pasuk instead of doing what is called mi merchak tovi lachma, instead of quoting a source that is distant from the commentary to that particular pasuk. On this word On this word, vayishakehu, we have two sources in Chazal. We have Bereishis Rabbah on this pasuk and we have the Sifrei in Beha'alosecha. The Midrash Rabbah on the pasuk says, "When you have words and you have dots, if there are more dots than letters, then you should interpret the dots. If you have more letters than dots, you should interpret the letters. And in this word, you have an equal number of dots and letters. Therefore, it could go either way. And Midrash Rabbah, if you look at number seven, quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who basically says the same thing that Rashi brings from the Sifrei, that even though Esav typically hates Yaakov Avinu, at that particular moment, Esav kissed Yaakov Avinu b'leiv shaleim. Rashi doesn't quote the Midrash Rabbah on the pasuk. For some odd reason, Rashi goes to the Sifrei in parshas Beha'alosecha, that the Sifrei, instead of quoting Rabbi Shimon Elazar, quotes Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. And Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai formulates this idea, halakhah hi bi adua she'Esav sonei l'Yaakov. So, why does the pasuk say he kissed him? At that moment, he kissed him with all his heart. So, many ask, why is Rashi quoting the Sifrei in Beha'alosecha, the Rashbi, instead of quoting the Midrash Rabbah on that very pasuk? So, in some of the books on the Holocaust, many of the historians, many of the philosophers, use this to explain that even at a moment when the gentiles, when the akum, they show us favoritism, they shine their countenance on us, they shower chesed on us, even at that very moment the Rashbi is revealing halakhah hi bi adua, that deep down, tamun b'libai, the nature is Esav sonei l'Yaakov. But as we're about to see, there may be a very important reason why Rashi feels that he needs to quote the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and not Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Actually, this year is an audible. I was going to speak about the ethics of war, a continuation of last year, but I couldn't help myself. Today is Yud Tes Nissan. Yud Tes Nissan is the yahrzeit of a gaon that many are familiar with his name, but many don't really know a lot about him. This was the preeminent gadol in Klal Yisrael before the Holocaust and during the Holocaust. Talking about Hagaon Rabbi Menachem Ziemba, Hashem Yimkom Damo. Rabbi Menachem Ziemba, my grandfather was a ben bayis by Rabbi Menachem Ziemba. He was in his house in Warsaw regularly. Rabbi Menachem Ziemba had a sefarim shrank. In his sefarim shrank, he didn't have sefarim. He had manuscripts. He wrote a commentary on the whole Yerushalmi. He wrote a commentary on the entire Rambam. He wrote tens of thousands of pages of chidushei Torah. We barely have anything left from the writings of Rabbi Menachem Ziemba. Actually, only three of the sefarim of Rabbi Menachem Ziemba survived. If we would have had all the publication of Rabbi Menachem Ziemba, we would have had hundreds of sefarim on kol haTorah kulah. After Rabbi Meir Shapiro, he was invited to be the rosh yeshiva of Chachmei Lublin. He was invited to be the the chief rabbi of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz invited him to become the rosh yeshiva in Torah Vodaas. He was the greatest lamdan, unequivocally, in all of Europe. We have three sefarim left from Rabbi Menachem Ziemba. You have Tzitzis Chaim on Shabbos, on carrying on Shabbos. You have Gur Aryeh Yehudah, which Rabbi Menachem Ziemba wrote in the memory of his only son that he lost, Gur Aryeh Yehudah. And he wrote a third sefer in honor of his chavrusah, who was also a tremendous gaon, who was the son-in-law of Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. Actually, Rabbi Gedaliah Schorr said, "The three sefarim that Rabbi Menachem Ziemba wrote l'iluy nishmas three individuals that didn't have any heirs and had no one to remember them, those are the three sefarim that survived. The sefarim that were literally meis mitzvah, preserving the memory of three meis mitzvah, those were the only three sefarim that survived." Actually, Rabbi Menachem Ziemba had an opportunity to be saved from the Warsaw Ghetto through the church. They were going to save three of the gedolim of Warsaw. And Rabbi Menachem Ziemba said, "Okay, you can I could be saved? Could I save my manuscripts?" He said, "No, you can't save you won't be able to take any of the manuscripts with you." Reb Nachum Ziemba said, "If I can't save my writings, l'ma'an li chaim." But actually, there's more to the story. There was a court case and three of the Gedolim of Warsaw presided whether they were allowed to leave the Warsaw Ghetto. Actually, I'll I'll say you know, there's a lot of controversy. Did Reb Nachum Ziemba support the uprising? Did he not support the uprising? My grandfather was Reb Nachum Ziemba's lookout during the uprising. My grandfather told me many times Reb Nachum Ziemba absolutely supported the uprising. But we'll let we'll leave that argument to brew. Reb Nachum Ziemba, Reb Dovid Kahana Shapiro, and Reb Shimshon Shtakhamer, they presided over the court case and they ruled they paskened they were not allowed to leave their kehilos in Warsaw during the uprising. Today was the yahrtzeit of Reb Nachum Ziemba. He was murdered al kiddush Hashem Shabbos Chol HaMoed 83 years ago uh to this day. Actually, I had the opportunity today to interview the biographer of Reb Nachum Ziemba, one of the most prolific writers literally in our time is a Yid by the name of Reb Dovid Avraham Mandelbaum. I'm sure you're familiar with some of the seforim that he wrote. First of all, there was a classic sefer al haTorah, a pilpulistic sefer called Pardes Yosef HaChadash. He wrote that. Anyone who learned Daf Yomi, probably you've seen over the years sefer Daf al Daf. He wrote on the entire Shas. He wrote the biography on Reb Meir Shapiro. He wrote the history of Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin. He wrote the biography on the Eretz Tzvi, the Kozhiglover. He put together all the seforim of Reb Meir Dan Plotzki, the Kli Chemdah. He put together something called Chidushei HaGaramaz. Chidushei HaGaramaz, Chidushei HaGaon Reb Nachum Ziemba. By the way, he also put together Sha'alos u'Tshuvos Eretz Tzvi. Those are the chiddushim of the Kozhiglover. Reb Elyashiv on Shabbos afternoon, what Reb Elyashiv do Shabbos afternoon? You know, on Shabbos you're supposed to learn material like chiddushim. You're supposed to learn something you don't learn during the week usually. Reb Elyashiv spent Shabbos afternoon, his Oneg Shabbos, Sha'alos u'Tshuvos Eretz Tzvi. Anyway, this is a we have a rare chiddush from HaGaon Reb Nachum Ziemba shot in this Rashi. Says HaGaon Reb Nachum, "Why is Rashi quoting the Rashbi? Reb Shimon bar Yochai. Of all the Tana'im, only the Rashbi understands anti-Semitism. Why is Rashi quoting the words of Reb Shimon bar Yochai?" Says HaGaon Reb Nachum Ziemba, "Sociologists have studied for centuries. What's the reason? What's the root of anti-Semitism? Is it because we're socialists? But on the other hand, we're capitalists. Is it because we're too industrious? Or are we leeches on society? Are we too religious or are we too secular? Whatever the cause that you want to pin anti-Semitism as, you could always find in a different era or in the very same era other streams that conduct themselves in the exact opposite way and one common theme is they still hate us." Says Reb Nachum Ziemba, "That's why Chazal quote the Rashbi. Cuz there's one thing that Reb Shimon bar Yochai specialized in. The Rashbi was doresh ta'amei d'kra. The Rashbi was a rationalist. It's interesting. The great kabbalist, the great mekubal, the author of the Zohar, he was a quintessential rationalist. He could explain the reason for anything. He could tell you why we wear tefillin. Why we wear tzitzis. Why we keep Shabbos. He could tell you why we don't wear kilayim. But says the Rashbi, there's one phenomenon in this world I just throw up my hands in despair. There's no rationalization. There's no explanation. There's no rationale. And that is it's just a fact of life. Halacha hi b'yadua she'eisaav sonei li Yaakov. There's no logic. There's no rationale. Even I who could explain every mitzvah in the Torah, I cannot explain the logic of anti-Semitism. That's why it's none other than the Rashbi that teaches Klal Yisrael halacha hi b'yadua she'eisaav sonei li Yaakov." That could be the reason why Rashi quotes the Sifrei in Beha'alosecha instead of the Medrash Rabbah on the pasuk. The Sifrei in Beha'alosecha is Reb Shimon Elazar. But to be able to quote the Rashbi and to be able to say this is not a logic, it's not a rationale, it's halacha hi b'yadua, it's the fact of life, it's like gravity. It's just the laws of physics. Halacha hi b'yadua she'eisaav sonei li Yaakov. But as we're about to see, the acharonim take these words very literally. That when it says halacha hi b'yadua, this doesn't mean an aggadic teaching, it literally has halachic ramifications. So I'll share with you a few of the possibilities. Reb Yonasan Eibeschutz in the Knesses Yechezkel Actually, Reb Pinchas Hirschprung was another talmid of Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin. You know, there's a machlokes in the end of Horiyos, who's greater? Sinai or oiker harim? It's a great debate. It rages until this day. Who's considered a a more eminent talmid chacham? Someone who has wide-ranging knowledge or someone who could analyze and probe to the depth of the matter? A bakki or an amkan? It's a big raging machlokes and the Gemara in Horiyos concludes, who's greater? Sinai. Someone with wide-ranging yedios is considered more eminent than somebody who could probe to the depth of the matter. Now, many acharonim say that nowadays, where everything is already written down, and if it's not written down, you can just Google it, so it's better to be a oiker harim than it is to be a Sinai. But the conclusion of the Gemara in Horiyos is Sinai yodif. So Reb Pinchas Hirschprung, who was one of the generation's greatest beki'im, he would he would jokingly ask, "Well, wait a second. A Sinai is greater than an oiker harim? What's Sinai? Sinai is a a garden. Sinai is a Sinai is a mountain. So let the oiker harim Oiker harim literally means the uprooter of mountains. Let the oiker harim come and be oiker Sinai. So what's the Gemara saying? Sinai is greater? It's greater to have wide-ranging knowledge? Let the probing analytic talmid chacham come and just uproot the mountain of Sinai." So he would jokingly say, "Yeah, that talmid chacham, he could do that. He just can't find Sinai. He doesn't know what page he's on. He can't find can't locate him." Anyway, so Reb Pinchas Hirschprung would say Reb Yonasan Eibeschutz says like this. This is a a little halacha l'ma'aseh. Very interesting halacha. What's the halacha if somebody is eating pig at the table, are you allowed to eat kosher food at the same table as somebody eating non-kosher? Is it permitted? In Shulchan Aruch it's called halacha halacha, eating at the same table. Are you allowed to or not allowed to? Or are we worried while you're eating the kosher, you might pick up a piece of his treif sandwich. The halacha is it's completely it's permitted. There's no issur at all. You don't need a save a separate table cloth. You don't need a separate place mat. There's no concern that you're going to forget and partake of the person's non-kosher. However, if you're eating milchig and the other guy's eating fleishig, you're not to eat at the same table. Either you have to have a separate place mat or you have to have a separate table cloth. There's an issur halacha issur halacha. So you need to have a heker at the table. By the way, on Pesach, it doesn't even help to have a separate table cloth. It doesn't help to have a separate place mat. If there is a Jew or an a non-Jew eating chametz on the table, even if you have a separate place mat or and a separate table cloth and a heker, you cannot eat kosher l'Pesach food at the same table that someone is eating chametz. And the reason is very simple. When it comes to milk and meat, as long as there's a heker on the table, so we're not afraid you're going to grab a piece of his food. But maybe the wind will blow and a crumb of his food will fall into your food, big deal, who cares? It's batel b'shishim. Even if a little piece of his food falls into your food, it will still be okay. But chametz on Pesach, if the wind blows and a little crumb of his chametz falls into your food, chametz on Pesach is not even batel b'elef. So the halacha is on Pesach, you cannot eat kosher l'Pesach at the same time that someone is eating chametz at the table. Says the Chayei Adam, "What if the table is 100 miles long? Can I eat kosher l'Pesach on one side and he's going to eat chametz on the other side?" No, says the Chayei Adam, "Lo plug." You cannot Someplace can even right if you're on an airplane on Pesach and the guy next to you takes out his tray and you're eating your food, so if it's during the year and he's eating pig and you're eating your food and he's a little bit sloppy, and he's, you know, spritzing his food all over the place. Are you allowed to eat your kosher food while he's eating? You're allowed to. We're not necessarily concerned something will spray, and if it does, it's bottle. On Pesach, you shouldn't do it. You have to be careful. If a crumb of his food falls into your food. What's the halacha if you have two people that don't like each other? Could one of them eat milk and one of them eat meat at the same table without a placemat, without a hecker? You're allowed to. So, could a Yisrael and an Oved Kochavim u'Mazalos, one of them eat milk on the on one end of the table and the other one eat meat on the other? The answer is they're allowed to. Do you need a placemat? No. Do you need a hecker? No. Why? Because it's not only a Godic teaching, it's halacha he bi'adua she'eisaav sonei Yaakov. It has halachic ramifications. The psychology of an Oved Kochavim u'Mazalos is a constant that it has actual halachic ramifications. There's an amazing teshuvah in Igros Moshe about a a time about 40 years ago where the schools in England were not being funded by the government. And many in the Jewish community felt that it was unfair that the public school system was being funded and the yeshivas were not being yeshivas were not being funded. When should I stop? The supper, you know, so 3 minutes. Okay. We'll end with this. So, the suggestion was that since the England was subject to international law, they asked Rav Moshe if they should sue the government in England in international court to get funding for the yeshivas. Says Rav Moshe in his opinion, it's a really bad idea. You could do whatever it takes to try to influence the government in England from within to get funding for the yeshivas, but to sue England in international court, it could cause an international riot. Says Rav Moshe, when Rashi says halacha he bi'adua, Rashi purposely utilizes the word halacha. Why? Because if it's just an Godic teaching, then maybe you'll say it's a psychology. And if you see it to be prevalent, then you could you could be concerned for it. And if it's not applicable, then you could ignore it under the circumstances. Rashi says the word halacha, says Rav Moshe. Halacha is a constant. It means that irrespective of the generation, irrespective of the time, irrespective of the face that they're putting on, buried deep within is a deep animosity. Says Rav Moshe, based on Rashi's terminology of halacha he bi'adua, it's a bad idea to sue England in the international court. There many other there many other halachic ramifications of these words of Rashi, halacha he bi'adua she'eisaav sonei Yaakov. One last one is, you know, there's a halacha in Hilchos Shabbos that under certain circumstances, if you don't tell the Oved Kochavim u'Mazalos to do a melacha, but you merely say, "If somebody puts out this fire, ein o hefsed." Meaning, you sort of intimate that you'll pay them if they put out the fire. So, the Gemara utilizes the following logic. The Gemara says, Oved Kochavim adaita d'nafshay oven. The gentile will be doing it on his own accord. He's not doing it for you. He's not doing to show kindness to you. He's doing it on his own accord. So, when I'm saying, "How do Chazal know? How does the Gemara know? How could the Gemara take it as a davar pashut that the the guy is doing it for himself? Maybe he's doing it for you. Maybe he's a nice guy. It could be. Don't you have to be concerned? It's a safek d'oraisa possibly. It's ma'aseh Shabbos. So, say Chazal understood, based on the teaching of Rav Shimon bar Yochai, halacha he bi'adua means there's a fact of life. Meaning, it's in their blood. I'll just add off. If you could take a look in my grandfather's memoirs, he writes that in 1947, he was in Marienbad, and he met Rav Bloch, the Telzer Rosh Yeshiva. And they bumped into a Nazi. And the Nazi told my grandfather and the Telzer Rosh Yeshiva, he said, "Why are you trying to hunt us down? It's not our fault. It's not our fault. You can't blame us. It's in our blood. We have no control." These are the words of Rav Shimon bar Yochai, halacha he bi'adua she'eisaav sonei Yaakov. And as Rav me'i'Kutna says, it's not hyperboly. It's not in most generations. The Haggadah says b'chol dor v'dor, and the proof is in the pudding. Say Lavan Ha'Arami l'asois l'Yaakov Avinu. Even a democracy, we still apply the constant halacha bi'adua. Sh'yach. So, this is the end. You've just experienced another Torah class brought to you by [music] TorahAnytime.com.