Hadran by the Lubavitcher Rebbe on Mesechta Chagigah

we begin in one moment [Music] yeah y okay welcome everybody to the hrin to learning the hrin presented by the it deals both with the opening of the and the conclusion of the it's a please open your Source Sheets if you go to the usa.net you have the source sheets and the truth is we could post it in the zoom but it's also on the yeshiva.net on the homepage the first thing you have Source sheets let me open it here okay beautiful let me post it in the chat chat okay okay those of you who are on Zoom if you go to the chat I just sent a link to the source sheet so you can open it there and follow inside you can also see it on the usa.net I'm just opening my so so we can have it inside here okay just by the way at 2:30 I'm going to do this hrin in Hebrew so those of you who are more comfortable in Hebrew I'm going to do it for the crowd and or Hebrew speakers it's going to be on our YouTube channel in Hebrew and on our website in Hebrew if you go to Lil mode. that's our website in Hebrew it's going to be there live and uh also on our YouTube channel in Hebrew and um we're going to do this year I it'll be a little different but the same theme in L kides okay for was trying to get comfortable here cuz somebody added a monitor so I have to get used to it okay okay I hope by now everybody opened the source sheet so we could begin today we begin you English huh do you have English no you know if you go to project if you go to the website project it's go to that website project.com and there they have materials in English it's the second of this week okay thank you no problem so we begin to learn now that was presented by the at a long a series of talks on the beginning and the completion the end of the is now starting and will soon be finishing so it's extremely appr propo for many many thousands hundreds of thousands of Jews perhaps even more are embarking now on a journey of to explore to learn from beginning to the end and this of the is a h that deals both with the beginning of the primarily with the conclusion of the the re presented this at the lam Al that is the 20th of of 1971 as I mentioned in previous that we learned together the re would make a few a few a year sometimes three or four or five six sometimes I see him on the whole sh or on the whole on the whole R and sometimes a see him on an individual usually it was at all the yard sites because by a yard site there's a debate in whether you fast or you by the they have they have so to be everybody would always make a of so there was the Y of his father of the 20th of his father passed away in 1944 in Kazakhstan in Exile the rabbi of in Ukraine his yard so the re would each year make a and make a long was is his mother's yard site she passed away in 1964 would make a we' make a on where they finish sometimes on the whole also make a usually which is the yard set of his father-in-law usually there was a and sometimes other occasions there was also a seeum sometimes on his birthday that year the Y of his mother he made a and uh and now I just wanted to look something up now right I was looking up what made I remember we learned it together was we learned it a few months ago in the beginning of that was that year and this is in the summer now this this was published in volume 16 one part of the HR another part of the was published in volume 16 because it was a long with different aspects so today Project where they learn every week this week we're learning the so I'm going to give a share today on the part of the ofum and then in a few weeks will have the she on the second part of the the end of the G which is be will announce and notify the about it this I'm very I don't know if the word is excited but I'm extremely excited and enthusiastic about this she because I remember this she was given this was given before I was born I was born a year later but many many years ago when I was I heard this on tape on recording then we listen to tapes in the tape recorder and uh it didn't just blow me away it wasn't just moving and transformative but it was an exceptional display of how to learn we're not just a ver at the end of the nice a nice lesson a little many of the Reb had on the laid down fundament ideas in how to learn the the would explore different Su of the especially the beginning and the end explain it according to the and according to the with tremendous lus and and and as we will see in this one it's Unique because here as I once heard from heard from the great Luan that theb takes you back to Theus in other words sometimes you could learn things and each situation is just an individual discussion about that particular topic and you try to understand it but here it's like going back to the backend program of TOA seeing the TOA from a bird's eye view and taking many different debates that seem completely disconnected from each other and showing the underlying paradigms of thought that guided the tan and on a practical legalistic level level of but it also translates into philosophy and into psychology and into understanding the soul and all the way into the Practical day-to-day life of a person so you have the scope of Judaism the and the nister the revealed part of and the mystical part of and the spiritual Dimension all the way down to the most practical level but the primary focus of this hrin is the lumus understanding was lot of raid in the but we we'll see here that we have here a a a a perspective of how the Reb learned and tried to teach people how to learn to be able to really capture the most fundamental uh Dimensions within the argument to be able to trace it back to its original core and then you see sometimes connections between things that seem so disconnected but really they are part of one larger Mosaic and tapestry that manifests itself in many different dimensions of Life all the way down to the Practical aspect of life this she is going to be divided into three sections the first section is going to be the introduction where we're going to learn the end of and I just have to say it's a little complicated especially if you're not familiar with this type of learning so you may be tempted at some point to say this is not for me but I guarantee you with God's help we're going to try to explain it so that everybody will be able to understand it at least on a basic level and uh it's well worth it after that we're going to go to second part of the she second part of the she is going to be exploring the world of Hill and Shi expressed throughout Mish andar throughout the whole tal one aspect of the inner world of Hill and shamai and the schools that they created there's the school of Hill the school of shamai the last part of the year is going to be bringing it back to the conclusion in the beginning of and then applying it to a person's daily life in our relationships with ourselves with other people with our children with the Jewish people individually collectively and with Hashem let me give now a brief introduction so that you should be able to understand what is going to be unfolded inum Hashem tells to build the Tabernacle to build the mishkan and all of the pieces of furniture in the Mish among them you had two altars the the copper Altar and the golden altar the copper altar is discussed inuma the golden altar is discussed at the end of the golden altar was an altar that remained in the that was roofed with the tapestries with they had a roof the tapestries that was inside the mishkan and later inside the BD where most Jews would not enter even though the Kim would go in to do the service there and they would go in every day to Bow all of the Kim that served but that was off limits to most people that was the golden altar it was made of OA wood it was built from but it was plated with gold on that M they used to burn incense every single day every single morning and afternoon there was a Cen who would burn incense on the golden Altar and again it was plated because it was really made of okia wood under the gold that was one M it's called a because it was inside the inside then there was the in the outer altar that was already in the Courtyard of the mishk or later in the courtyard of the bik known as the AAR later when it move when they built when SCH built the bik in Jerusalem this is known as because the T says in and then in that it was it was as follows it was built as follows the walls of the Tabernacle were made of copper coated wood so again the walls were built of okay but it was coated with copper now the hollow interior was filled with Earth every time the mishkin was set up the mishkin would travel in the desert over the 40 years so they would take this altar that was Hollow they would transport it and then they would set it up again the walls were made out of wood but it was coated with copper so it's called and the interior of it was made of Earth that's why the T says in it's a made of Earth but the walls were made of wood and it was coated with copper okay I hope that was clear now we go to the next step Next Step the T says that utensils most utensils for example metal utensils wooden utensils utensils made of gold of silver of copper of other metals iron can become T if let's say a dead sheret a dead weasel Falls in to a pot made of metal or to a pot made of wood or to a bowl of water a cup of water these are they are susceptible to impurity now in our days the laws of Purity and impurity are not part of daily Jewish life only in a few very small instances but you have to understand that in the time of the bikes the laws of Purity and impurity were as relevant and as uh as uh as what's the word I'm looking for they were as relevant and uh so much part and parcel of the fabric that daily yeah the daily fabric of Jewish life because much of Jewish life especially in Isel especially in revolved around the laws of Purity and impurity so there was a deep conscientiousness and sensitivity to these laws so people are not so familiar with them today and sometimes people just shut down when you start hearing the word to Manar but please don't you'll because you'll understand the principles here so let's say you have a Tuma a source of impurity that falls into a vessel The Vessel now becomes impure now most vessels it's not a problem you put it in a mikah in a kosher Mikvah and the vessel is now pure it's fine there is an exception called clay which means an earn wear vessel that's made of mud and straw and it's baked in the oven or in the sun here you can't put it into the Mikvah because it's porous and you have to dissolve it you have to break it and then it becomes pure and then you can put it back together but most of the vessels let's shut this most of the vessels you put it in the Mikvah and it becomes it becomes pure but here there are there is one important that we have to understand the teaches us that clay not which means a wooden vessel that has a cavity that has an interior is susceptible to Tuma a wooden bowl a wooden spoon a wooden barrel if it's flat if it's Clay it's not susceptible to Tuma biblically only on a rabic level but if it has a cavity inside let's say it's a bowl right and it's made of wood it's susceptible to Tom but there's an exception clay if you have a wooden utensil that's made to be stationary it's large it's very large and therefore it's really designated to stay in one place and not to move so we learn out from the T that it's not susceptible to T the reason is I'm not going to get into the details now but the gar discusses this in because in par the T speaks about different utensils that are susceptible to T and it compares the wooden utensil to a sack a sack just like other garments is susceptible to Tuma garments susceptable Tuma that's why if somebody died in a person's home remember in the old days were no hospital so people died in homes person dies in somebody's home everything that was under the same roof now becomes T if it's susceptible to T so it's a very serious situation if you're a Cen and you're going to serve in the b mikdash or you have to eat carbonis or you have to eat holy food you have to know what's happening that's why the laws of Tuma were so important especially for K but really for all Jews because Jews would travel to the B mikdash Jews would eat carbon sometimes so you always have to know the laws of T and Tara so if you have a wooden utensil that's big it's a big wooden vessel that's not made to move around the turer Compares it to a sack a sack is made to carry that's what we use a sack for right when it's empty we carry it when it's filled we carry it so we learned from this that the only type of wooden utensil that is ma is a wooden utensil that's going to be like a sack which means you could carry it around when it's full you can carry it around when it's empty but if it's a big wooden utensil that's made to be stationary you're not going to carry it around when it's full it's very hard and it might break it's too much weight it's too vulnerable so therefore it's not okay once you understood this introduction let's now go to the next step and here we're going to look inside the last mission of open up your Source streets if you haven't done yet and let's see inside okay follow carefully this is a last mishna of says the mishna okay I guess here we need another little introduction and that is we have a problem there was a group of Jews known as which meant they could have been very fine people and and sometimes uh very sensitive and good people the challenge is that they often did not know the nuances of the laws of Purity and impurity so they weren't always scrupulous either because of ignorance or for other reasons in the laws of tum and Tara so they were always afraid the sages were afraid that if they don't know the laws they may be impure or their food may be impure their vessels may be impure but they don't know it now all year it's not such a challenge but P all Jews came to the there was a that's the opening of all Jews are obligated all male Jews are obligated to come pus to the bik and they would roam around the Mountaintop the Temple Mount and they would roam around the B Mikes and they would bring offerings and of course people touch things especially if you're coming all the away from a far place maybe from Babylonia or from a remote place you're come to the B mikdash and you may touch vessels you may touch the altars you may touch the man a who goes into the and he's an he doesn't know the laws of Tara you may touch the you may touch a lot of these things so what happened after the festivals they had to take all the vessels from the bikas that might have been touched by somebody who was not cautious or was unaware of the laws of Tara and they had to to put it all into the Mikvah to purify it that's what the mishna says what would they do what was the process of removing everything after to purify the says the they used to take all the vessels of the B mikdash and they would immerse them in the Mikvah fascinating any vessel that was used any utensil that was used in that might have been touched over y if it was stored away and nobody touched it then was no problem but if it might have been been touched over y you had to put it into the on they used to say to the people who were there who may have been ignorant he zaru please be careful be careful as the mishna continues please be careful I'm sorry a few words fell out here don't touch the table there was a table with showbread in the and the were who would go in would go in every day there may be a who was he was not careful with the laws of don't touch the table you know why because the table always has to be there because the T says that the the bread has to be always they didn't want to have to take the table and put it in the mik take it out so therefore they said please nobody touch the table so the table will remain immune and then the M continues all the utensils in the B mikdash had doubles and triples you had a second set and you had more than two sets you had extra sets copies in case throughout the whole year a vessel may become T you don't want to get stuck remember they used a lot of utensils in the B mik they used forks and of course they used knives and they used bowls and they they used various types of spoons and various types of pliers so many different vessels that were used and they could become T so they always had an extra set and a third set to be able to replace it until the other ones are purified now the mishna continues here's the key all the utensils in the B needed to go to the after besides the golden Altar and the copper altar those were the only two that didn't need besides the table didn't need because nobody touched it but everything else that was touched had to go to the Mikvah why did the altars not have to go to the Mikvah obviously they would need a big Mikvah he couldn't put it into a small Mikvah but why didn't they have to go to the Mikvah they can also become T kapper could become T wood can become T gold can become T gold is a metal copper is a metal wood becomes T the answer is the answer is because the defines these alars as Earth and Earth is not susceptible to t you can't make earth T and even vessels that are made from Earth clay if it's not baked in the oven if it's baked in an oven it's called clay but clay if you take just Earth and you turn it into a vessel it's so cheap it's not ma even by the way stones are not ma if you make a vessel out of stone rock it's not maab but Earth is and the T calls the altars Earth this is this is's opinion that's why I'm not worried about the altars I don't care if somebody was impure even if somebody say touched the corpse and he didn't know he was unaware and he comes and he touches the M I'm fine it's Earth it's not because the altars were plated they were covered the G is going to explain says the what does mean that the altars are considered Earth so the explains it comes to the Copper alter it says build for me an alar made of Earth ad is Earth like Adam it's called Adam because he came from the and as I explained the altar of copper was filled with Earth in the mishkan and then there were walls of wood plated with copper but the T says it's clearly so the T excluded it from the world of tum what about what about the other wasn't filled with Earth it was remember wood plated with gold it say it speaks about the families that were transporting the that were transporting the vessels when they traveled the and the alars that's very significant when the Torah says in the plural it juxtaposes it equates the altars with each other Miss the T could have just said one Altar and another altar the fact that it's put together in one word is very significant this is how the stages learned every word and the way a word was phrased became significant it's called is not just ju in the same verse it's in the same word so we compare we equate the golden altar to The Copper Altar and just like the copper alar says is called Earth therefore not susceptible to T so the the golden alar is also not susceptible to T so they didn't have to go to the mikah after the altars were good it would have been a very big headache the Mana for example you had to take to the mikah take to the mik that's why they were different Minas but the M didn't have to take to the mik everything seems clear right good somebody's asking a good question by the way you can ask your questions you can ask your questions on the website on the.net you can in the comments or you can ask your questions in the chat on the zoom I'm going to take the question but somebody's asking I don't understand the M was wood wood that was stationary it was a wooden vessel that was stationary so what's the problem good good good wait wait let's learn the next piece say because they're plated thear says this doesn't make sense on the contrary that's a reason to say that the altars should be impure not pure re elazar says the reason the altars are Pur because they're compared to Earth fine say because they're plated but I don't understand the G says if they're plated that's a reason that the M should be T because metal becomes t gold could be t w Copper's T becomes T the altars are plated okay they're plated so that's a reason to be them says thear you're right you have to understand the text differently argue withar they don't agree with it rear says the altars are T because they're compared to Earth the say sorry I look at the plating I look at the cover and because I look at the cover so therefore the covers are gold metal copper they're T wow that's a huge that believe that the altars became T and they had to go to the mik but there's another way of learning the Mish they're not arguing the rabbis are actually responding to rabz they're telling him as follows this is how Rashi explains it why did you tell us that the reason the altars are pure is because they're like Earth I have a better reason they are wooden utensils that are made for stationary positions they're made to be in one place like you asked clay why does have to give this whole PP that the compares the altar to Earth calls it an alter and the second is compared to the first one forget about it let's say it wouldn't have been Earth let's say it would have just been wood okay sure wood it's made to be in one place so it's not M so what were you thinking you were worried because the altars are plated so therefore they're not considered wooden utensils they're considered metal utensils and metal utensils are susceptible to T even if they're in one place even if they're large and they're made to be stationary if they're metal they're still susceptible to Tuma that's why you didn't give the reason of clay eight says sorry sorry the plating the cover is subordinate to them my bottle the plating is subordinate to the wood and therefore it's t why because it's CL in other words reaz says the reason the altars are pure is because they're compared to Earth said there's no need for that you don't need to go there there's a much simpler reason because they are wooden pieces of furniture that are large and are made to stay in one place they're not made to be mobile they're made to be in one place and because they're made to be in one place therefore they are not susceptible to T either play with metal but they say BT the cover is buttle it's subservient it's subordinate it's surrendered to that which is under the plating because it's just a cover the cover doesn't substitute the substance so therefore we don't look at the plating we look at what's inside we don't look at the outside we look at what's inside you look at what's inside it's wood the golden altar is made of wood the COO altar is made of wood and wood that's stationary is what is that's how the respond to this is the second explanation first explation actually argue with says the Alters are say they are why because they're play it and because they're plated we don't look at the Earth we look at the fact that they are metal the second interpretation in the gor is no agree with that it's pure but for a different reason reaz says it's pure because it's like Earth and say it's pure why because it's a wooden utensil that's made to be stationary even though it's plated the plating is buttle it's subordinate to that which is under the now the ram the ram this is how Rashi learns the gamarra but before we finish the piece of gamarra we have to understand how the rambam learns the gamar the rambam learns the gamar very differently the rambam says as follows the rambam in pnas in his commentary on Mish in the r his com says and he explains this gamor he says this is the meaning of the gamar he says we have to understand this piece of gamar very differently okay now tune in here to what the rambam says the rambam quotes a that tells a says a fascinating the says the T speaks about vessels that are susceptible to T and the T says in any K any vessel in which you do work inside of and that K can become T so from here our sages learned out in that the only type of vessel that's going to become T is a vessel that doesn't have a it doesn't have a it doesn't have a cover it's not plated why so the ra explains the reason is as follows because the Tuma didn't touch that which is under the plating it only touched the cover because the T doesn't go beyond the cover of the vessel so if you have a wooden vessel that's plated with gold or with metal says the r such a vessel won't become T even if T touches it you know why because the vessel itself didn't come in contact with the Tuma what came in contact with the T the cover of the vessel but the cover of the vessel doesn't have substance it's Buttle it doesn't have a real msas because it's whole entity is just to cover it's a protective or protection or a decoration for the vessel so the vessel itself is not t because it didn't come in contact with the Tuma the cover of the vessel is not t because the cover doesn't have significance it's Buttle it it's it's like it doesn't have a strong identity because it's just there as a plating for the substance so therefore the r says the holds that any vessel that has a plating has a covering even if the plating on its own is something that's susceptible to to the vessel is also for example wood covered by metal not because again the vessel itself didn't come in contact with the T the T says the only way a could become the T has to come in contact to the V with the vessel itself if it came in contact with the plating over the vessel the vessel is not M the plating itself is also not Tom why because it's Buttle it doesn't have real substance doesn't have real value real significance because it's just there as a cover it's just there as a as I don't want to say as a cover up but as a protection as just plating for design for the vessel itself says this is the meaning of the says why don't the altars become T because they're compared to Earth because they're plated and the T touched what the T touched the gold or the copper so that's not going to become T it's just a cover and the M itself that's made of wood is also not going to become T why is it not going to become because the Tuma only touched the cover it didn't touch the M itself so therefore the r says that that is the meaning of the because the is plated So based on the such a vessel will never become tmy and therefore you don't have to send them to the mik this means this means RAB elazar would say the plating is a reason to become t the the issue wisdom is is compared to Earth and Earth doesn't become say no the reason it's is because it's so therefore you don't need any other reason you don't need any other reason even if it wouldn't be even if it wouldn't be the very fact that it's plated means it has no substance and therefore it doesn't become tummy and the K itself doesn't become tummy because it didn't come in contact with the Tuma so therefore the this means that Rashi and rambam have a very serious argument how you learn say gamar because according to Rashi the fact that the metal is a plating over the wood theia wood of the m is covered with gold or with copper that covering is actually a reason to make it t it's a reason to make it t the covering according to rash right according to rebar it's not t why because it's like and according to the the way actually explained it why is it because it's Clay it's considered stationary wooden vessel that's not and as the gar explains and rash explains that the called the so we see that the tah regards it as wood not just as copper and gold the Torah defines it as wood so it's Clay eight that's why it's not ma but if you would focus on the if you would focus on the plating of course it would be a reason to be M according to the ra it's the opposite it's because it's plated it's the plating that saves the K it's the plating that saves the M according to the is the problem because it's covered with metal has his reason and have his their reason why it's pure because it's according to the it's the that saves it as we explained because it's only a covering it's only a covering and insiders a therefore the protects the from and the itself doesn't become and here the Reb raises the big question question say that the r the rush even expresses himself the rush expresses himself a fascinating expression on the rambam what does he say the rash says that the ramb looked at the mishna he didn't see the he didn't look at the gar the says in the r the r is very difficult with arar why is the ra so difficult with arar because when you read the what does it look like in the first version the gar says that say it's t why is it t because it's because it's plated and if it's plated it should be T so we see that the G clearly holds that the say that if it's plated it should be T then the G says a second version that say it's so Rashi explains it beautifully that you were worried about what you were worried that you can't say because there's a and therefore you went to don't worry about it the is bottle don't look at the forget about the the is bottle and therefore it's from both versions of the it seems that that is a reason for not for comes the and says no the first version of the gar is is a reason for T the second version of the gar is a whole different world is a reason for it actually works nicely with the word but the says it doesn't seem like from the language of the that that's what saying that the is a reason for for for because the first version of the actually said clearly that is a reason for so even in the second reason it seems like what was your problem because it was and therefore you don't want to say is a problem but according to the no is actually a reason for T and the rush and Theus which means the feel that this is a difficult way of learning the G and theb asks the question why wouldn't learn like Rashi which seems like a very straightforward way of learning it why does the ramb have to argue with Rashi and see the argument between and the in a completely different way than Rashi especially when you see the language of the gamar it seems much more consistent with and learns complely different than as we said according to is a reason and according to the r is a reason for T now this is the introduction now let's go back to the we finished the argument now comes the last piece of changes the language the whole language now changes what we call a go back to your sources Scholars the fire of purgatory does not rule over them it does not rule over them and he gives a whole from the salamandra that if somebody you smears the blood of the salamandra they're immune to fire because it comes from the fire the salamandra is fire because is fire certainly is immune to the light of the fire of does not rule even among the Sinners of Israel look at the golden altar the golden altar was wood plated with gold and yet and yet if you could mute yourself put yourself on mute the zoom if you just put yourself on mute please thank you the golden altar was the gold the golden altar was gold covering wood after so many years you would think one of two things would happen the gold would become ruined from so much fire every day you're burning incense on the gold the gold should get ruined it wasn't such so so thick and also it should penetrate and the wood should get burnt it doesn't happen the M remains intact so he says is all Sinners of Israel who are filled with Mitzvah like a pomegranate is filled with seeds certainly certainly the fire of can't rule over them the altar even though there's a fire that burns on it but because it's an altar and it's protected and the wood is under the gold so the gold is not ruined and even though the gold is thin the wood is not ruined even though the fire is burning on it it should destroy them as it doesn't get destroyed certainly even the Sinners among Israel who are filled with Mitzvah like the pomegranate they're not worse than the Altar and therefore the fire of gam doesn't rule over them this is how ends now the obvious question is I could understand the connection between the previous piece of the gamar to the last piece talking about the golden altar but a middle he interposes it with the whole piece about Aus scholar the fire of gam doesn't rule over him because of a salamandra how does that come in here now you can't say it's an introduction to the second statement Lish because as the Reb said then in Ain with this is the source of it he brings the second one he doesn't bring even bring the first one so how do we understand the continuation here of the G and what's exactly the connection to the okay so you have a golden altar it's covered with gold under it is wood it doesn't get burnt because it's a holy item what's the connection to the PO is to The Sinner of Israel and also is this connected to the whole theme before it's just we spoke about the altar let's put in something about the golden altar is there a thematic connection so most people think they learn gamar it's just you know a nice V that to end it off but the Reb said it's not that way every line in gamar is meticulous and thematically connected and integrated so what is the Thematic connection between this final Su this finishes the opening the first part of the sh discussing the questions at the end OFA we now change the subject completely and we're going to take a journey into the world of H and Shai and the school of H the school of Shai at the end we're going to come back to so put this put put this on the side on the side burner but hold on with this for a few moments we get back to it at the end of theb at the end of the so let's now go to your Source sheets we're going to go I gave the introduction so we're going to go in the we're going to learn parts inside we're going to start from we did a whole introduction which is a little complicated you have to learn it well maybe you have to review it if you go to the if you go to your Source sheets and you scroll down we go to page 311 the last the last line giml I'm going to read I'm going to read in Yiddish and I'll translate I'm going to read fast because I want to get through the subject I want to get through this the theme there is a famous Jewish custom that we connect the beginning of a tractate with the end and the reason is not just you know it's cute that the end and the beginning are connected but because there is always a connection between the the beginning and the end which means we're going to be able to understand the end of and see how the same ideas reflected in the beginning as we will be explained later to understand the perspective of the r at the end of why he rejects the view of Rashi and why he learns the whole gar differently and the reim themselves don't understand why the rambam did it the rash said he didn't look into the gamar imagine saying that under R he doesn't mean he didn't look into the gamar he means he he missed the gamar so to speak he he looked at the mishna but because he was writing in his commentary on but he didn't go through the gar at least not in the proper depth and says there's a problem in the ra the they struggle with the R so the Reb says you want to understand the r you have to understand as follows the is for to this is critical to understand B sh and B have hundreds of arguments throughout the gamar shamay and Hill themselves also argue they lived around a century before the destruction of the second bikes and they created schools of learning the school of Sham in the school of Hilla now there are many arguments between them so the rebba says as follows you could say that each argument should be explained locally based on the specific topic that they're exploring he says but it's much more logical if you see what we call a if you see that there's a Common Thread a common way of thinking that pervades their opinions in so many different areas and categories it's logical to assume that it's based on a fundamental way of looking at of looking at the world you understand this is the very important principle here that's what the gamar has an expression in many places the gar will quote a certain and it says he's following his he's following his view somewhere else even though it's a completely different topic in other words if I see two people I don't want to psychoanalyze it but it's it's a very important principle if you see two people let me just uh this mute this you mind putting yourself on mute whoever is uh if you see two people arguing I'm not now talking about vindictive arguments but even a v you see two people arguing about a 100 cases right a couple is always arguing about different things you come to an expert what does the expert say let's find out the underlying argument it's one argument it's not 100 arguments it's not it's one argument that you haven't resolved since okay so that's in something that we have to repair we have to fix but it's true on every level when you see Bish arguing about so many different things you could say each argument is about that issue the re says no when you see that there is a Common Thread in each of the arguments it's logical to assume that there's a perspective a paradigm that underlies their views and it's coming out in each argument in that unique fashion in fact as the once said when he made AUM on he said because if not really every argument is just an isolated self-contained issue you don't see a view and the said everything in is every view in is representative of a whole sh of a whole perspective so he says the real way of understanding to is getting to the skeleton getting to the core tracing back the argument to the core principles of what was at stake and then you will see how all the arguments in many different areas are manifestations of one principle on the other hand if all the arguments are identical then you don't have to repeat them just say it once and give me the principle the idea of course is that in every one of these debates the principle comes out in a little bit of a different fashion or in a significantly different fashion and if you would have one and not the other one you wouldn't have known one from the other in the language of it's called now what's the connection with our we're talking about the answer is based on a story thear tells a story that there was a bris and They Carried the knife on shabas for the bris who F who who allows that Razz has a mishna in chabas that not only are you allowed to make a bris on chabas you're even allowed to cut wood to make a fire to form a knife for the brisan chabas cuz all the preparations for a Mitzvah are part of a Mitzvah and when they did this the says were very upset why was a Shay and rash say shab page 170 130 rebelar was a shay he was a student of B and we know we don't follow bami we follow B so why did that Community follow hasn't allow the m to carry a knife in in a public domain on chabas that's not the right thing the M has to bring the knife before chabas you can't do circumcision before shabas whatever you can do before shabas you have do before shabas what do we see from here rebelar follows B sh and as he says in foot 27 there's a in where there's an argument of and and says something is strange about this argument because bam and B's views are interchanged and it should be the other way around one second we're not we're talking about abzar the answer is it's obvious that abzar followed the school of shamai and when abzar says something it's the school of B so the Reb says if you want to understand reer here in AR and the argument with you have to understanda was following B Shi the rabbis were arguing with him they were following B when we can get to the core of bami and B what was some of the fundamental issues they were arguing about we'll be able to come back to the end of and understand the argument here what is this so the we know that we know that is divided into six so the Reb is going to go through every s there every one of the six sections in Chas and there's many more examples but he didn't when he said the he said is tired so he he he said there's many more examples but he's going to give one example from just to give you a taste of what the argument is about now I should say this because some people are thinking this there is another another discussion completely different there's a difference oftion about arguing about versus potentiality versus actualization but that's a whole different that's a whole different idea revealed or excavated a new way of studying and understanding many of the arguments of if we have time at the end I could connect it with the other explanation of but let's discuss what we're learning here now we start with tra for [Music] going to learn one more paragraph and explain let's explain the mishna says in BR it's a very famous mishna in what's the text for the blessing on the candle what do you guys say at home what do you say at home you hold like you say the one who creates the illuminations of fire the lights of fire says no says you sayem created the illumination the light of fire what's the argument so the gar says holds there's one fire there's one light in the fire B says sorry look at the flame what are you going to see you'll see there's many illuminations there's many colors take a look at a flame burning and what are you going to see you're going to see white you're going to see red you're going to see yellow you may see some other colors you may see blue you may see black right don't say he creates the lights of fire many lights many colors many illuminations that's the argument by the way by the way there's a quote from Rashi here that you see in every fire many colors and Rashi brings three red white and yellow when the Reb said this over it didn't make it into this because this was really a completely different subject the Reb said in parentheses so to speak he says here you see how in every Rashi there is cabala there's cabala why because in cabala this Paris R who passed away in 1570 inas one of the greatest cabalists he has a book called The Orchard of pomegranates and he explains in the portal of colors that are the three basic colors of cabala which areer kindness is white gura is red and tiis is is yellow just parenthetically says the I don't understand B didn't know that a flame has many colors I'm asking you my kid looks at a flame and he knows that it has many colors and B says what type of argument is this very hard to understand so you're going to say they're arguing about the physical facts that every person with eyes can look at a flame and see various colors Here We Begin the actual explanation is of the opinion that when you have to define a law of T you look at things based on the found ation of their General all-encompassing perspective in other words the way they're grasped from an all-encompassing bird's eye General view the first impression that is very significant and in that defines the reality the way treats reality we're going to explain more it's similar to a famous principle in a judge can only give a verdict based on what his eyes see the judge may know that there were may know or speculate or hear have hairsay or imagine other circumstances background situations but ultimately he knows we're limited so he can use his eyes which means he has to use his common sense and his eyes to see the reality and judge based on that so the Reb is just using that as a principle and as he brings it footnote 35 was one of the greatest rabbis in the 18th century R the rabbi of Prague in asks a fascinating question he says let's say a Jew does a capital sin and then he does tra he repents God accepts repentance everybody can do chuva so there shouldn't be any Capital punishments there shouldn't be any corporal punishment there should be no punishments because a Jew can do chva and the says that's true but you can destroy all of law all of Jewish law all of law you could destroy that way the person did truva God accepts truva he says the bottom line is we don't know what's happening in people's hearts I can judge yes it's right you may have done truva and God knows and therefore if it's a Heavenly punishment God will take away the punishment but I'm a judge I'm human I'm mortal I'm frail I can judge a person based on the two tools that I have the tools that I have is I don't know how to see what is happening in the depth of your heart and the says if you don't say this way any person who does a capital crime will come to bed and start crying and say I did trua last night I did trua okay my dear boy give me a hug go home I did CH he says so there's no more punishment so there's a so he why does he mention theud here because he's trying to bring out that everyone agrees with this we can't judge people based on what's happening in the depth of their emot itions why because then there's no reward and punishment but B says when something is happening in physically in front of your eyes that's what we look at we look at what you see is what you get said that Theus says you have to primarily think about things from a much more nuanced and detailed perspective you need to dissect you need to analyze even if that requires investigation and inquiry and in that view is much more important that's how you define reality or as he puts it in footnote 36 to use a little bit of a different language footnote 36 in the bottom of the page says I want you to establish reality based on the situation the way it appears before you the way it appears before you your subjective experience obviously you can't be bias and you can't take bribes talking about an authentic person if you have no Integrity get out you have no connection to you have no connection to get out if you have biases and blind spots and agendas and politics we're not talking about that but we're talking about the fact that every person is subjective every person has eyes every person has a mind you have to see what you see and that's how you define reality according to B says no you have to actually go away from your own perspective and analyze the details the nuances of the particular person or the particular aspect or circumstances its reasons the details the results that's what primarily should be established now I want to explain what this means but let's first see the answer here with so here's the difference knows that there are many colors in a flame but the blessing is as the mishna says you make a blessing when you enjoy the light or at least you could enjoy the light so he says the blessing is from en joying of the light now I want to ask you a question if you need a fire to warm you up or you need a fire to be able to see what's happening in the room does it make a difference which color it's red it's yellow it's black it's blue it's white light it's black light it's dark light I look at a candle and I'm enjoying that there's light in the room I'm enjoying the heat I'm enjoying the bonfire I'm enjoying the fireplace I'm enjoying the light of course B knows that there's many colors but B says that's irrelevant for the the blessing we thank you gave me light says no remember wants you to get nuanced wants you to dissect to analyze to compart mentalize oo if you look deeper into the flame you're enjoying the fire but you're enjoying all the colors of the flame that's how you make a now let me just explain this a little a little a little deeper because here's a big problem the way most people read this and I can't say most many people read this and understand it is B superficial B deep you got the wrong if you think B sh is superficiality B is depth you got it wrong I'll prove it to you the gar says in a few places who was sharper B who was deeper B so what happens here when the Reb said over the when theb said this he said the AL writes in that the word sh comes from the word evaluation the speaks insight about somebody who evaluates everything shamai is an evaluat so said shamai was a better dissector than hillo because evaluation is always about dissection and Analysis take a look in footnote 34 don't think didn't know how to get the how to analyze sharper than the even wants to know why the is like when was sharper they were sharper so don't say just looks ficially okay there's there's a flame red white yellow black blue let's go let's move on let's move on let's just look says no no no no no let's deliberate let's go deep he says that's not the's sharpness is targeted on discovering the general definition the summation or even deeper to find find in every detail how it's really part of one cohesive picture now this needs explanation so I'm going to take a minute to explain this the way I understand it and I think the best way to explain it and you'll see why I'm using this metaphor why I'm using this metaphor you'll see later why I'm using this metaphor okay here's a question I want to ask all of you a question whoever is listening now a replay what captures more of a truth of a person if I take a picture of you the way you're here I go to the zoom or I go to your your table your couch wherever you s I take a picture of you and I have your face I have your physique I have your head I have your torso I have your body I have your feet or you go to the hospital and we take X-rays and the x-rays show everything that's happening inside which do you think is more authentic my friends we all know the X-ray is far more authentic a picture is just the outer the external the X-ray is the internal so now I have a question why don't you guys put up on the walls of your dining room kitchen living room family room bedroom X-rays of all your children X-rays of your parents X-rays of your grandparents go to the hospital get the x-rays and hang them up on the room isn't that much more authentic don't give me a picture of my son's teeth take an x-ray from the dentist office what it really looks like don't don't give me a picture of his face give me an x-ray from inside let me see the CAT scan let me see the MRI let me see what's happening in the arms in the legs in the stomach let's see what's happening in the internal intestines hang that up on the wall Ms right you're all laughing for me why you laughing you're laughing because yes when you're sick you need an x-ray but that's not the person the person is the picture no that's outside no that's the person when you're sick I need to find the infection I need to go deeper I need to see what's happening you will see that this begins to explain to us what's Happening Here bami is not a superficial person B Shi says what you see is real that's the picture take a picture of the person and hang it on the wall that's what wants and as we will see it's because B Shi is much more demanding he's much more exacting he's much much in many ways more stringent from B Hill B Shi is as it says in zo he's very strong he's very principled B says what you see that's the truth and you know what I could be very sharp I know it you're looking at a flame enjoy the flame it's one flame Bas hillo says we need x-rays we need to go deeper we need to be nuanced now you'll see this is so fascinating what I find it fascinating is because there's going to be a lot of lumus it's going to go into a lot of different but the way it translates into human behavior and the way it translates how we look at ourselves and we look at our children and we look at other people and the shows that sh and have two different views of how you look at people and how you define them is incredible and why nowadays the is only like and yet the says in the future when mhia comes is going to shift to B Because B has a truth that b doesn't have and yet like so I want to explain to you what he's saying in this footnote 34 it's not that b is superficial B is sharper but Bashi always looks in the pr and he says I want to see the clown I want to see the bottom line I want to see the summation I want to see I don't want to see X-rays I want to get a picture of the person that's where celebrates life that's where lives I could talk about if I'm giving you a science class a chemistry class about Flames I can talk about colors has no problem but this is interesting in footnote 33 the quotes a fascinating interpretation of the Von 33 Theon has a commentary on Mish and he says look said why so the says talks about the element of fire in its pristine Source speaks about the fire that we view that we when we strike a match or we create a fire we create the element of fire only has one the fire that we observe has many colors that's why B sh is B what God creates and B is the fire that we constantly create whenever you create a fire it's not the the pristine source of fire it's the actual physical IAL concrete manifestation of fire in our world in our environment the says it's a little difficult this piece of the vone because at the end the gor says that B and B both agree you could say Bor and and the only reason B chose is because of the language of the as he brings from and there and it's in 33 So based on the Von there should have been a serious difference between B and B okay but that's just theb always likes to reference different different types of interpretations in this in this in in in in the various discussions throughout the we finished with at least one we only got one he's not doing all he's doing one even though there's many more let's go next oh this is a famous argument between the school of Shai and the school of Hill everybody know knows this K where are we Zion I think it is right what does 41 say but it goes to how do we dance before a bride listen to this says how do you dance in front of a bride every bride according to who she is says you praise each bride according to her beauty and her prominence her her virtues her stature her greatness B says in front of every bride you dance and you say she's gorgeous and gracious and kind I don't understand he's just giving examples of very visible deformities what happens if you have a person who can see or a person who's lame says you're not let a lie you don't call a short person tall you don't why because you're not let a lie find the right things to say don't say about about every single person she's gracious and kind and he's he's amazing find what they're amazing in but the person they actually have certain deformities you're lying according to you if somebody buys something from the marketplace and you know what it was a lousy sale they can't return it so do you tell them that it's beautiful or you tell them that it's disgusting heavy of course you should say it's beautiful we all know this in life sometimes somebody very close to you buys something they can't return it and they're all proud of it and they're happy and they come to you and they say what do you think so do you say it's horrible it's dis it's disgusting maybe that's what you should say you should be honest B says not what you do you praise it this is the argument so B says every kala you pray according to her authentic qualities find who she is what she excels and then talk about that b says no there's a generic text for every wedding she's beautiful she's gorgeous and she's gracious B sh accuses of exaggeration and lying it's deception you're being politically correct stop lying tells we do it all the time people buy things you don't like it you still say it's nice ask ask I don't understand B sh holds you a lot of lie I'm sorry B holds you a lot of lie B is asking a good question you're not let a lie why lie if a person is not gorgeous they're not beautiful why say it if a person is not known for their graciousness and kindness and super benevolence why say it why lie find something else to say does Bill really believe that truth doesn't matter you just say the right thing to make everybody feel good and look good and according to B does he really believe that if somebody buys something from the marketplace and he can't return it or she can't return it you should say oh wow you wasted all your money this was the stupidest thing you ever did this was a really foolish sale is that what holds no they're following their their View as say the CL they could get the explanation is as follows B sh holds says you accept the reality of something the way it's perceived from a general perspective you don't do x-rays in unless you have to to certain situations but generally the way your your mind your eyes grasp it from a general perspective you take a picture of somebody that's what they look like that's who they are that's what B says that's how asks of you to Define reality now at this this bride or this groom these particular qualities are not visible the gar uses qualities the gar speaks about challenges that are visible there's a reason for it because my eye tells me I'm sorry it would be a compliment that from my perspective is dishonest so the Bai says find the virtues to talk about B doesn't say You Lie B says as follows we do take X-rays we do analyze we do dissect we do tune in the details to the various factors let's think about this why is there a wedding now this groom took this bride as his wife she is for him his soulmate he wants to spend B the rest of his life with her in his eyes she's gracious she's the most gracious person in the world she's the most beautiful person in the world as he brings 44 star what does say there's three things that we have such graceful feelings towards the place you live if you live in New York it's my place New York other people think it's horrible but for you New York and for this one I live this one my whatever it is this is my place your coat your computer your car somebody else may have a nicer one but it's mine and then there's the grace that a woman has in her husband's eyes She's mine and that's what makes her the most is beautiful She's mine and I'm hers and that's why the gamorra continues and says mik from here the sage has learned that you have to be integrated with people your mind your perception your D has to be it has to be mixed up with people what does this mean what this means is that you have to get to know people people have different perspectives a they say Shas no two people look alike and no two people think alike and no two people have the same struggles and no two people have the same way of looking at the world and you have to start evaluating each person from his or her Paradigm and perspective what does the mishna say don't judge a person until you do not reach their place who says it Hill footnote 46 H say you can't judge somebody until you don't reach his space and the says space doesn't only mean physical space space includes every concept of space I cannot judge you until I do not know where you live until I don't understand your space until I can tune into your space and space again means geographical space psychological space existential Place spiritual Place physical Place emotional SP and then you could learn how to be integrated even with Bri even with simple creatures but you have to understand people so B is not telling you to lie when you say is just telling you you came to this person's wedding can you take off your own glasses at the wedding and put on the's glasses and dance in front of the kala and say she's the most gorgeous gracious person in the world and dance in front of the and say he's the most handsome amazing guy in the world because for this kala and for this that's the truth but for this you have to strip yourself from your own Paradigm maybe you would have not chosen this kala or this I hope not there's one Kala you choose somebody else but for this she's everything of course she's I'm not lying says b says the G the CL is what establishes in reality is not the x-rays not the details not the nuances what you see I can't say for this is a lie's world it's a lie and we're getting a little deeper into bami with each step because things are going to become clear that b Shi actually B shami actually doesn't believe in x-rays not because he doesn't believe in x-rays but because B Shi could live in a world where the outer and the inner are always synchronized so the outer tells you the whole story of reality that's how B lived and that's how he believes determines reality see it and that's what it is and in every detail you could see the CLA and understand the CLA This Is A Lie sorry they're not arguing if you're allowed to lie they're arguing how defines reality let's go to the next step here the argument changes completely different different realm the laws of nid the laws of a woman during her cycle for [Music] we have now two other examples but here it becomes even more emphatic because in the first case we see shamai will be lenient and hillo will be stringent usually shamai was stringent H was lent the fact that they can reverse their views shows how attached shamai was to this world view he's even ready to defy his norm and become lenient that's how deep this world view is pervasive he's not just always stringent or always lenient real people are not that way real people have a paradigm that for them is really authentic and that's how they live that's their trajectory and Hill and H and Shai here transform their regular opinions the second case is also fascinating because it's about a story it's about a story of sham and Hill you don't only see what they preached you see how they lived it's called the says the strongest thing is a when you have a story how they actually lived not just their school not just their students not just what they taught but sh themselves here we [Music] go for okay this is argument between Shai and H in the beginning ofus and in the beginning of what is the argument the argument is as follows if a woman and we're talking about a woman who doesn't have a fixed time for her cycle her monthly cycle her monthly menstrual cycle Shai says a woman suddenly checks and she sees blood so he says die you assume that the impurity began from that moment when she checked so let's say yesterday she touched truma she touched holy food or she touched a carbon a holy sacred offering it doesn't become t i she's now a Nida she's in the cycle and that creates an impurity until the cycle is over and she goes to the Mikvah but Shi says Shai says I understand but D Shan it's enough to say that right now she is T until she becomes tired you don't have to go back retroactively to yesterday Hill said no you go back to the last time she examined herself he's much more stringent so let's say she checked herself for blood on Sunday on Wednesday she checked herself a second time and Wednesday she saw blood Sunday she didn't so even Monday and Tuesday whatever she touched if it was holy food it became impure why because Hill says you don't know she examined herself on Sunday so we know that till Sunday everything was good but she didn't check herself till Wednesday so maybe it started Monday maybe it's started Sunday night maybe it started Tuesday morning I don't know so B says be stringent and anything that she may have touched that could have become impure between from one examination to another examination you have to assume that it's t that's what holds that's the argument asks the asks the B on the bottom of the page what's the logic behind the argument so say as follows shamai says listen there's something called in aak what's aaka kazaka means um the presumed state of a person that's what kazaka means presumed State based on what she was previously maintain the status quo in other words a woman generally yes a woman has a cycle but generally we don't assume that she's bleeding a woman can consider herself pure until the cycle begins so B says this is what the gar says presume her State based on what she was previously so B Shi says now she examined herself she sees there's blood but yesterday I'm going to presume that there was no blood I don't have a reason to say there was blood go back and presume that she remains in the same state based on what she was previously until that status quo is defied based on certainty so therefore he says yesterday I don't there was blood and we could keep everything pure Hill argues he says no no no Kaka Works say let her maintain the status quo let let's attribute to her the presumed State based on what she was previously that's true if there was no if the only change would come from an external Factor but let's understand that a woman naturally every single month there's something that happens in the blood the uterus breaks and gets dissolved and therefore there's blood it's something that comes M she sees it because of Dynamics in her own body so this is a change that's happening naturally it's expected to happen and it happens from within so therefore Bas Hill says I can't assume the status quo that she's pure and I say till the last examination when I know for sure she was pure I assume it's t what's the argument doesn't know about what the biological Dynamics says it's not based on practical arguments of reality everybody knew what the other one knew it's based on how how Jewish law determines how we view reality in terms of Jewish law briefly Shai holds you look at something the way it is the way it's seen by you or not seen by you in front of your eyes a woman now started to bleed she examined herself and she sees there's blood d this is what you look at yesterday I have no reason to say there was blood I maybe there was maybe there was but she didn't see it yesterday she saw it today when she examined herself so therefore I can go back to the kazak and I say she's presumed to be pure now you see it now the status changed now she's tumy now she's a bill says we take X-rays we don't allow oursel which means it's insufficient with what your eyes see investigation scrutiny dissection analysis details why did she see blood she just saw blood randomly no there a it's a part of the biological clock of a woman it's part of how God created her body if that's the case so you can't just say she's be T she's presumed to be in a state of Purity because something randomly may have happened now it's not random this is a natural process that happens in every month and you're not sure when remember there's talking about a woman who doesn't have a fixed cycle doesn't have a vess so therefore B says you got to go back all the way to the previous examination they're not arguing in the facts they're arguing how studies facts B sh wants the bottom line the summation what I see a what I see she's not sorry I find other compliments fire it's one fire at lights up my house it warms up my house yes there's many colors but that's not what is concerned with I see a flame and the flame is One Flame here I see blood that's it yesterday I didn't see blood so don't you see blood nowday didn't see blood I go back to I assume she's pure yesterday she was pure b h says no get deeper get understand the Dynamics that's what looks at now it becomes even more clear from the next story wow this is the big story let's remember the story shab 31 a what's the story the story is there were three Gentiles who came to shamai each one had a different story the first one said I want to convert but I'm only accepting the written tit not the oral tradition the second one says I want to convert but I need you to teach me the whole T while I'm standing on one leg on one foot the third one said I'm ready to convert if I could become the high priest Shai rejected all three he pushed them away why that's not conversion a convert who says I don't accept half of T A convert who says I need to become the high priest a convert who says I only have 30 seconds you can give me a you can give me crash course in 30 seconds sorry that's not conversion B hill hill not B Hill accepted them the gamor says the three people met they all converted to Judaism and they said the stringency of shamai would have thrown us away from the world the benevolence the humility the piety of H brought us close to the asks I don't understand for the whole thing doesn't make sense we know that a convert has to accept the whole TI we also know that we don't try to accept converts just because somebody says I want to convert it's not an inion in fact we try to persuade them otherwise here the converts came and CLE cly said that they're not ready they were making all types of conditions that are completely inconsistent with Judaism if somebody comes and says I'm becoming a convert so that you should make me the high priest or I'm becoming a convert but I'm not accepting T I'm not ready to accept the whole TI I'm not even ready to learn I have only one leg to stand on 40 seconds teach it to me you don't accept him so how can Hill accept them so you're going to say that no they were genuine they weren't serious with these St ulations so why did shamai reject them he didn't know how to read people and you see at the end they became converts and they were authentic so Hill was right so what was shami's perspective theb says again this has to do with two World Views B Shi doesn't take x-rays in not because x-rays don't don't don't exist not because they're lies B actually here is where you see b b says what a person says that's what I take seriously what my eyes see what my ears hear that's real I listen to what they're saying and how they want to become converts and you know what they said the bad they said the wrong thing this one wants to be K this one wants to learn the whole on one foot this one doesn't accept I'm sorry I can't accept him B sh says the truth is what you see the truth is this is what they're saying this is how has to treat them they're not ready for conversion I'm sorry go find another religion you're not for Jew for Judaism it's a very serious thing Judaism what does Hill do Hill says you know what you actually have to analyze them and you have to see what is behind their words sometimes people are not expressing themselves correctly sometimes people's words can Eclipse their true intentions now you get to understand that Bashi is not superficial bami in a way is deeper Bashi says you know what people's words should not Eclipse their intentions people should be worked out bill says people are complicated I'm looking at these three converts and I'm listening to them and I know the truth they want to be real converts but you know what they have blockages they have different issues that are unresolved maybe one of them doesn't understand what a kind GLE is maybe one of them doesn't really get the nuances of Judaism he has to be taught he thinks he can have it on one foot maybe one of them doesn't know what teral you know sometimes people come to me and they oh the rabbis invented all these laws I don't follow the rabbis they're corrupt they don't know what is they don't know about the immune system of they don't know about the Integrity of I could reject them I could say oh it's B say sorry no no no no analyze take an x-ray look what's happening in you'll see people are complicated people are nuanced yes people are complex they're saying one thing and they mean something else that's b b says that's not how Works we're going to see later why the is like B Because B is talking about a much more perfect and true world that's why I said b in a way is deeper than b but his depth is a different type of depth but Hill's depth is nuanced it's compartmentalized it's dissected it's seeing different parts of people B Hill sees dissonance they're saying one thing they mean something else they may not even understand what is going on inside of them I see three authentic people who really want to be Jewish I'm going to make them Jewish and you know what he was right because they wanted to be Jewish B wasn't rejecting Al for B that's not how works for Works in a way you see it you hear it and that's how you define it that's real that's real the picture that you take from a person and you put on the wall that is the person and therefore B Shai says I keep on saying B Shi here it's shamai it's not B sh it's shamai shamai rejected sh shamai rejected them next now we come to another one fascinating argument I'm going to say it inside test we already did we did remember what do we do in May is but we also did one more in May the story with the three converts we did right we did did we do we did nikin we did adus which is also Tes because we did the woman with and now we do are you allowed to put on one table chicken with cheese B sh says no problem you're not allow to eat chicken and cheese biblically you're allow to eat chicken and cheese because chicken is not meat but the rabbis prohibited chicken and they treated it as meat so we don't eat chicken with milk we know that we don't eat chicken with milk but can you put it on one table B says yeah put it on one table don't eat it B is more stringent here again B is stringent he says don't bring it up on the table and don't eat it what's the argument what's the argument they both hold you not let it eat chicken and milk why does B Shi say put it on the table B says don't put it on the table why what are they arguing about usually B is strict but here B is lenient so he's not following his regular view he's always more stringent what happened here oh now we understand of sh says I look at something the way it is the way it appears that's the real truth from theic point of view bringing up chicken putting chicken on a table with his cheese there's no problem that's not forbidden just look at the fact the man put chicken on the table where there is also pizza or cheese a cheesecake just look at what happened is there any problem no just look at this act independently there's no problem having chicken on the same table like cheese is not an issue problem is eating them eating them consuming them together follows his view says look at everything not just in a self-contained way see it also as a cause for factors that are going to evolve from it look at both things look at what it is a result from and what will result from it in other words contextualize it in the entire look at the whole Spectrum from the beginning to the end yes scrutinize look what happened before look what's going to happen after I know putting Chicken on the table with with pizza is not a problem I know but I always look at what's the next step what's the result what are the ramifications yes I analyze the details let's understand once it's on the table a person's at people have addictions people have inclinations people are sometimes very instinctive and impulsive that's who we are we're weak people we're frail so what happens I'm a little hungry and they're both on the table together maybe I'm going to forget maybe I'm not going to forget but ultimately I'll eat them together B again he goes deeper what do I mean deeper he dissects the details he looks at everything not just for what it is but for where it came from and where it may be going when the Reb said the in yish theb said says why did he put it on the table he doesn't want to eat it that's what said this is a guy who has issues with food he loves food he's a stickle gloton what do I mean is a Bala why does you're eating you're eating cheese why do you need chicken on the table you're eating chicken why do you have mil on the table the guy likes food to be around he's a all time oh so even though this is not forbidden once you're a Bala what's going to happen you know nobody eats one piece of potato chips right unless you're really disciplined you don't need one piece of chocolate right there's one piece there's a second piece are you're not supposed to eat the second piece of chocolate but it's there so bill says sorry no bringing up chicken on the same table like mil nextus I'm going to say this is outside this is laws of Purity we already did one about the woman with Nida that was from Nida but here's another one and there's many examples but the said we're going to choose one from sayas what's the one from say this is I'm going to say it outside there's a chapter 28 of C it speaks about which means covers of Scrolls it didn't have books like we have today says before the printing press you're talking about B sham and B so you're talking about sham and Hill lived in the first century after the Common Era before the Common Era and the school of sham and Hill lived during that time says many many years before printing before the 15th century when printing was developed in Italy means covers of Scrolls so B says whether they're decorated or not decorated they become T if a dead weasel touches these coverings these covers of the Scrolls they become t b says no if they're not decorated they're T if they're decorated they're pure they remain tired if they're not decorated they're just simple simple coverings they become tame if they're if they're decorated they remain tired unlike B what's the argument what's the argument so the as he brings explains the based on AR and the key is there's two concepts it's something called a tick and something called a which means a tick is you're using this covering to protect the scroll you simply want to protect it so it's something that the person needs I'm trying to protect the scroll from theft or from mice or from other insects or Lizards or from climate change the weather whatever it is certain part of the house that may be leaks I'm trying to protect it so in other words it's here for me the covering is called it's a utensil that's used by a person because I want that book and the is that a utensil that a person uses is acceptable to Tuma but if you have a cover that's not there to protect the book it's just for decorative purposes I'm not gaining anything out of it the book is gaining something out of it so it doesn't it's not t that's what explains based on Aid in other words a vessel is T only because it serves a person because really T relates to a person a living animal can't become t a person becomes t t is based on a higher level of there's more if the utensil is for a person I'm trying to protect my book that yeah but if it's just decoration for the book the book needs it right as one of the commentaries say Ain right we don't put jewelies jewelry is for people not for books you want to put jewelry on a book it's for the book but it's not Ma so the Reb says so what's the argument now we'll understand the argument when you have decorated decorated covers of Scrolls it's made for beauty so B said if it's made for beauty it doesn't become T if it's not decorated it's just made for protection so then it is T So theb says as follows now we can understand the idea B sh always says you look at something from a general perspective you look at it holistically you see what it is the way your eye grasp the reality that is the reality in a holistic General fashion we don't start taking x-rays so now when you see a book has a covering a scroll whether it's decorated or not decorated we don't analyze both of them are ultimately helping the book helping the scroll they're protecting the scroll that's the fact they're covering the scroll so it becomes tum B says no take an x-ray take a look at the designs take a look at the decorations this shows you there's a different purpose the decorated Scrolls their job is for the beauty that's called it's buttled to the K it doesn't have a ga of a k it's just to decorate the K so it's not t but if it's not decorated o this is not for decoration this is not for beauty it's a tick it's to protect it it's to protect the K so it becomes tummy it also seems like when it's there to protect a Kaye it has on it the level of a k when it's just there for beauty it's just like an extension of the K so therefore it's not t and indeed here too we see that holds like hold like again the same idea that followed follow ah Bas on all of this let's see based on all of this let's come back to the end of I'm sorry yeah let's come back to the end of and all will become clear and we'll understand the view of the rambam the argument between at the end of follows these two views of and the ramb holds that who was a student of B and the rabbis arguing with him are following the world views of sh and of that's why the r learns the gamar the way he learned it because the r didn't just see arguments as isolated arguments the rambam put arguments in context he saw the arguments as manifestations of the of the of sh so when the ram can explain an argument as part of that way of looking how understood life and he'll put it that way that's why the r chooses his explanation now let's understand rezar holds that the the covering of the M would make it t you know why because what you see is what you get this is called a copper and every detail of this is called a detail of or this is a copper altar it's a golden altar copper and gold we know that it's only the plating it's only the covering and under it there's something else and if under it there's something else therefore maybe the should be redefined Reb says no since the way you look at the M what do you see you see gold and you see copper and even if you look at the details every detail of the m is gold or copper they're and therefore if the to wouldn't Clearly say that this is like Earth it would be M that's view because this follows the view of Shai hold you don't need the to be compared to Earth you're right it's called copper it's called gold these are metals that's true but if you get into the X-ray level if you get into a deeper level it's just a cover and a cover is always subservient to that which is under the cover and therefore that takes precedence over the cloud according to B Shi there's a cloud there's the general picture and there are the details the general picture triumphs over the details the general picture this is gold and copper so if this is gold and copper says it should become T ah it's only a cover but that cover is what stands out I don't take a picture I don't hang up x-rays on my home's wall on the walls of my home I hang up the cover the outer cover the say no I know there's a cloud there's a general picture but there's the details and that's what takes precedent so therefore I don't need a special Lim from a PK that the Miss can't become T because it's Earth no says these are just covers and covers don't Define the K and the Kay doesn't have access to the Tuma the itself doesn't become T because it's subservient it doesn't have real significance and the K itself is not t because it didn't come in contact with the T like we learned before from the and therefore the r says the argument fits beautifully with the general views of and throughout and with the views because follows sh follows sh and the here follow so the rambam sees this argument as just a continuation of that argument that pervades so many not all but so many of their arguments in ch this is another one and the Reb brings in footnote 66 another argument that's Mish like this one Mish chapter 11 amazing argument Mish footnote 6 I'm going to say it very briefly we all know that a person dies God forbid anything that's under that roof becomes T what happens if the person dies in a room and there's a door that goes into the other room if that door is open if there's an opening to go into the other room the Tuma travels but if that opening is stuffed up the Tuma doesn't travel it's like a wall how much opening does there have to be you need an opening of a hand breath and then the Tuma could travel into the other room what happens asks the mission if a person is lying in that opening a person is lying in that opening B sh says the person blocks the Tuma B says no if you open if you look inside of a person you'll see see there's a cavity there's there's openness in the person there's an empty there a in the person and it's a so therefore the Tuma goes through the person what's the argument here the say B looks at a person this is where I got the X-ray example from B looks at a person he sees a person I'm sorry a person is not an OP a cavity a person is an entity a person is one big entity you block the T B says no no no no take an x-ray there's flesh there's skin but under it there's a there's openness so the Toma travels who's right they're both right it's a different way of looking at a person if I take an x-ray I see what's under the skin what's under the flesh you see what's happening internally if you don't take an x-ray a person is just one big barrier one msus one G one sck flesh it's not a there's no open space here of a b says no the pus of a person is a yes we take X-rays we look at the details we get into the nuances we look at the not at the knows what B is saying but it's a way of how defines reality the same is true with thear he sees the covering that defines the reality and that's why it should become T that's his view the tah says it's like so doesn't become T say I don't look at the covering I look what's under the covering I look what's happening on a deeper level on a more nuanced level I dissect I analyze that's what I did with kalova that's what I did with the converts that's what I did with the flame that's what I did with the woman who's Aida that's what I did with the chicken and the fish and the and the cheese that's what I did with the covering of the Scrolls I analyzed what the cover looked like it's not just protecting the scroll it's decorated that's what I do that's what I do here too I'm not looking at the cover oh if you're looking at the M itself the M itself is not going to get T because the T didn't touch it and I should just add as he says in 67 there are those who explain the ram that the reason it doesn't get is because it's Clay and the covering is bottled to the clay like we explained before it's the same idea as he explains in 67 that the is bottle to that which is inside that's the key Rashi has a different rash says right that would have be because it's so therefore you don't look at the clay but the is bottle and since the is bottle so therefore the say it's a the is a reason to be right would be a reason to be but it's is B it also brings out the same point but according to the r it's even more emphasized that the whole sh of the is that the is a reason to be because it's completely not significant on its own according to this according to this we come back to the beginning of what's the beginning of the beginning of is there's an argument between and fascinating argument there were two offerings that the Jews brought when they went up yam when they went up to there was and is the carbon that was for it was burnt on the altar completely was burnt on the altar parts of it but the rest was eaten by the and the the owners says has to be more expensive two of silver the one says the opposite is less expensive the is more why so the gar explains in that b sh holds that the is more significant because it all goes to God so it has to be more expensive the also goes to people so it's less expensive says no the is better because there's two consumptions Hashem eats it the altar but also people eat it what's the argument B doesn't agree that that which is for God is more significant than that which is for people he disag agrees with B Shi so theb says no it's the same argument according to B Shi you look at the carbon generally you have a it gets completely consumed on the altar it's a carbona that's more significant it's more valuable it's more holy than that which only partially goes to God so that's why the you spend more money on it's more valuable it's more sacred but if you go more details it's the other way around says the second is in the same category of it's also why are we eating it it's not just people eating meat people eating steak they're doing aah in fact it was a a you said before you ate it and when the made it it says that the owners get atonement from the owner from the K meeting it in other words it's like God eating it and the people who are eating it as the gar says it's it's like the master giving his servants of piece like God giving you to eat so from a general perspective this is going to hem this is going to people but from a if you go if you go into the details it's hasem eating it twice one through hasem through the and one through people that's also it's also an of it's also they're doing a this is a from so it's like hasem having so to speak two meals one on the Altar and one through the people they're eating it as as the explains in the same idea so therefore says you you you you pay more for the this explains the end of the what's the connection about not affecting the and not affecting The Sinner the why after the mishna and the gar about the coverings of the M which is the place where Hashem dwelled and the gar explains the view of the Ron that when you look into the details you see a covering that is subservient to the K it's subservient to the k so now the gar says this is reflected in every Jew who's also a m because we follow is like and when you dissect the details of a person when you take an x-ray when you see what's going on in the depth of a person you'll see that even the negative things by the is by the Sinners don't constitute their Essence it's just a it's just a cover up and it's completely sub cient and it melts away when compared to the essence the essence of every Jew is goodness is Holiness is Divinity so how can the fire of geham rule over them when they are pure goodness and Holiness and godliness I do his negativity and toxicity and sins he says that's the that's the cover and B already told us that is it's completely butle completely dissolves and becomes insignificant when you could see the pure essence and now we come to the final point the final if which I'm going to say outside you could look at it inside it's beautiful inside but I'm just going to say it outside this is the last if what's the last SI B teaches us how you have to look at a Jew and we go back to the argument with the and the kala you remember B said you speak about the bride the way she is B said no every bride you say she's beautiful and gracious Hashem and the Jewish people are called called a groom and a bride the word shamai means evaluation shamai evaluates every Jew and his or her behaviors and says you have to see how he's behaving how he's living and that's how you react to them that's how you relate to them the word h Hill means a Halo light as it says in Ali the candle is shining on my head H bring brings a flame and he lights up Hilo a Halo and he shows the pus he says let's take an X-ray let's take a CAT scan let's look at the deeper layers when we dissect and analyze a person and you'll see that internally every Jew is pure goodness and I'll prove it to you if somebody buy something from the market and you think it's bad do you say it's beautiful or ugly he says who chose these Jews Hashem went to the market and he chose the Jewish people so now when you're talking to Hashem do you say wow you chose a beautiful me or you chose an ugly MEC you chose a beautiful item a beautiful color you chose a horrible col ah you say externally I don't see it I see a Jew who's spiritually deformed I see a Jew who's spiritually blemished that doesn't change the truth doesn't change his internal reality it doesn't change his Essence I'm not lying and saying he's doing a mits when he's doing a sin but the fact is that the chose him and took this says look at the Jew and say but there's a condition you have to be integrated with people said you have to understand what people go through you have to understand the that exist in this world you have to understand the Journey of a in said the an angel finds always blemishes in the Jewish people in all the stories the find AAS they always find the wrong things he says but when a Mal comes down into this world they don't even withstand a small test because in heaven it's easy to be sacred you want to understand you have to look at the Journey of a soul you have to look at the body you have to look at the situation in this world you have to look at their background yes you have to take an x-ray and see everything and then you'll reach the truth and say Hashem knew what he was doing she's a beautiful and amazing bride and he says this is the lesson for everybody you know the said that when mashia comes is going to be like B because then T will be removed from the earth and then the outside can reflect the inside and the outside should reflect the inside there's Absolut there's a seamless flow between the inside and the outside if the inner person is healthy it comes out on the outside but when you know that a person is sick you need an x-ray because you have to see how the outside and the inside are not consistent with each other when mhia comes the world will be a beautiful place is like you see it on the outside in G and with a lot of you have to be able to know that is like you see by a Jew said something negative so you could tell yourself oh spiritually this is a blind Jew a lame Jew how can I even have a connection with you and a love to you says b don't look with eyes of Flesh don't look at him with with bu with eyes of Flesh don't look at the coverings Hashem chose him and took him as his own she is a and if you see this person it's so that you should shine a light on the person and help reveal his pus to himself help reveal to herself who she is when you believe in them they can believe in themselves you know why you met this person you know why this is your child you know why this is your friend you know why you came in contact with this person that you should help them see themselves you should light a flame beh be a and we know in these days this like and theor says that now is not even an authority because in this world is only like B don't look at a Jew only from your external eyes of Flesh always see the internal truth he's a and your job is to bring that out in the most revealed way he said that's how you dance in front of a Kala that's how you bring joy to the kala and to the and the Jewish people and that's what brings the the ultimate marriage the med says the ultimate between and the will be Mia comes then the could be like because all impurity will be removed from Earth and then even from the most external eyes of Flesh in the most revealed way when you will look at a Jew the way he or she looks externally you'll also be able to say okay thank you very much have a wonderful day the second part of the hrin we're going to continue where we get into the whole part of see you back in two weeks three weeks I okay got to go to the next shear and are almost