Q&A: Aliens, Divorce Rates & Souls - Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

to make it earlier, but I'm here now. Yeah. >> Um I find that the harder I pray and not see results, um the more resentment [snorts] and anger I feel towards Hashem for like kind of ignoring me. And there's a second part to my question. What participated this was um I I have a few friends that are breast and they they told me about like this sigula that lovers have of learning for sorry praying for six hours straight. Um that comes from Reblin and then like they have like I've heard stories of like people like not getting what they were praying for after praying for six hours straight without breaks. And um I tried doing it and I realized when I was like a few hours in that like there's a part of me that felt like if it wasn't going to happen that it would just it would like affect my my amuna kind of and I just stopped. So I didn't want it to to do that. Like I felt like I would have been too upset if it didn't work. I just didn't want that. So I was curious also if some there's something that's more not a breast love thing but something that's more like mainstream that's like a thing that you can do that's like >> yeah so uh again I always have to repeat the question uh to be sure that people hear it online uh there's a number of questions regarding uh one is uh that um says that the more he davins uh the more angry he gets at god because he feels that god hashem is not answering him and therefore he gets frustrated it uh he mentioned uh a breastlift practice uh that if you dive in six hours straight uh without any break that's a tremendous sigula and >> [snorts] >> uh you tried it but you called off the experiment uh in the middle because uh you were afraid that if god forbid it wouldn't work uh it would even have a more devastating effect and ml how do we deal with the idea that um you know we davin hashem does not always seem to answer are felas and what does that say about fela generally and and and the like so it's interesting that you know just a little comment you know breast mentioned six hours uh you know the vil mone writes it's interesting uh maybe he was directly spec speaking about that practice he says that how important davining is and davining is not bal tora god forbid but one shouldn't davin more than three hours a day so he actually gives a number of three hours but dafa not six hours because at some point it becomes say a bit Torah. But I think you know the understanding is the really the famous remark of the puner. Somebody asked the puner in Yiddish it sounds betterish which in Yiddish means uh why does God not answer me? So the says you put you're putting your comma on the wrong part of the sentence effort. He answers comma nish no. In other words, instead of saying, "Why doesn't he answer?" He answers no. Now, you might say, "Well, what are you playing semantic games where you're moving the comma?" You like, "What what what difference does it make?" But the truth is there's a tremendous difference. When you say, "God doesn't answer me." You're saying, "He ignores me. I don't count. I don't matter. He doesn't care." That's very, very painful. He answers no is a different thing. He looks at me. He considers me. He looks at my situation and he determines what is best for me at a given moment in time, which may not be what I want, but it's what I need. Not that MC Jagger is a Macarthur that I should quote, and I have to say I've not heard the whole song. I have not heard the song, so I have not been I anything, but I know the line. Uh, you don't always get what you want, but you get what you need. And uh sometimes kaduca can come from the most unusual even tame sources and that is a very very good line. You know is not about getting what I want. I don't always get what I want and sometimes what I get is things that are very very hard to be makabel but they taka are what I need from someone who knows exactly what I need at that time. So you make a big mistake. You know the garra says that there are certain things that are actually sinful and one of them is called now to ask what do you mean to think deeply about your that's a good thing it says in the Mishna we say every day that there's no she there's no quantity so is a good thing or is a bad thing so toss answers quite [snorts] logically in terms terms of cavana and deos and and you know the effort you put into it that's a tremendous thing but the iman that I got to have my prayer answered no I don't have my prayer answered I get upset that's a bad thing because you're setting yourself up for failure God does not work for you God is not your employee to kind of carry out your orders you don't give orders to Hashem >> you talk about what you need and you try to develop a connection to then you'll see what happens. So you really have to have a different attitude. Meaning to say I don't mean to be critical of you. I mean generally we all have to have a different attitude. That fela is not so much about getting specific things from God. It's about connecting to God by describing to him your struggles and your vulnerabilities. And that's the real need. That's the real need. The real need is that connection to that fela can can give you. And if that's the case, then uh you then get into a modality where you accept what Hashem puts in your life at that point and you try to understand a a gamsu a gamsu letova. And of course this depends very much generally on having a modality of satov. You know, sometimes we're so focused on what it is that we need that we don't have. And we all have needs that we don't think about what we do have. And overwhelmingly, you know, you think about why doesn't God answer me? Well, I mean, look at your life for most people. I mean, I know sometimes there'll be harder cases, you know, okay, I need a hundred things. The aster only gives me 97 of them. Well, that's not too bad of a batting average, you know, but we don't focus on the 97 that we have because of the three that for whatever reason is deciding that we don't have at the time. So, the more you have I think the less angry you're going you're going to be. But it is interesting that even the vil nagon, you know, the ultimate litak, the ultimate masid, the person who learns 22 hours a day with only four naps of a half an hour each did say that up to three hours of is a good thing. So he didn't say six, but he said three. So uh it's not a bad thing to be marila in that way. Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> Is there a concept brought down from this farm or Gumaras that nishamos choose their destination before they're born so to speak into a body? Um, and if so, like I've heard something where it's like nishamos choose their parents for example and then sometimes that person might even have like how do we reconcile the fact that that person might have like a makus with their parents throughout their lives. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is an amazing thing. I believe uh it's Rabeno Bakaya his famous commentary on the Torah in Zabra the very end of the Tyra Rain Bakaya says that before a nishama is born it's like going to buy a car the nishama looks at the different possible lives it might have and the nishama makes a choice now again it's not clear uh is the does does nish have absolute discretion or you know hashem you know gives you certain options so to speak. Uh but there is indeed a teaching of which is based on Kambala that the nama chooses its life. Now you may say that's a very odd situation because so many lives are filled with pain. So many lives are filled with difficulty. We often think including conflicts with our parents. We often think oh if only I would have you know a different set of parents or different community or even a simple even a simple question like you know hey an is a shama is holy why would an issa be choose to be born in a non-religious environment right I mean choose to be you know may whatever it would be and the answer is you see a very profound idea here that all of those trials all of those difficulties is what my shaman needed My nishama needed it. I needed to be in that journey. I needed to be in South Dakota or I needed to be in LA and not in Mayarim for those number of years. And uh that was part of my journey. It's quite quite amazing. It's a remarkable idea that all of the things that we think we had to avoid and not go through or wish we didn't have to go through, we needed to go through. And that brought out the potential of our nishamas to accomplish what it is that we are supposed to accomplish. Now we have to factor in that means the following. Um everything I was put into I chose and I needed that. But that doesn't mean I make the right choices and how I respond. I mean there are plenty of people who may make choices which are totally destructive, totally bad. uh and and those were not the things their nama chose. The nachama chose the the environment over which there was no bak involved on a human conscious level. But how you then choose to respond is your responsibility and we can make bad choices. There's no question we can make bad choices. Uh but that's a separate issue. But at least potentially anything over which we did not exercise bak as a human being our nishama chose that would be the best for us. So what's important to think about is this you know um just to make it um in the realm of psychology you know you come to us and uh you know some many of you are relatively new to learning but even someone that's learned for a long time it's very easy to get an inferiority complex right you're invited to a house for shabas and uh not only does does the six-year-old speak much better Hebrew than you or me speak uh you know on a good day I can I'm as good as an 11-year-old uh But you know they know Gomorrah and all sorts of stuff and you know you're thinking to yourself and I'm going to have to learn like for 25 years to know what this maybe six years old and to know what this 13-year-old knows and you kind of you know feel very inferior that I come from wherever I come with my background but you have to know that the same way that the mayarim person who comes from 50 generations of great rabbis has something that you don't have you have something they don't have. The uniqueness of your experiences are designed to bring out a special quality in your in that you know that's good and your second rate rather your first rate in a different way needed you to go on that particular path and your nishama which after all is of the essence of God made the choice that this is the road that will optimalize my growth as as a person. So again, it's an amazing rebain of in that way. Yeah. >> I just wanted to talk about two things that you mentioned previously that I didn't understand. The first one is in terms of prayer that you can't for something to change. Maybe I just didn't understand what you were explaining. It doesn't help to for something because you can't get a his mind. Maybe I just misunderstood it. And the other thing is in terms of you were discussing some of the things being parables in in I've heard quoted that Adam and Eve was was a parable. How how does that make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, uh your question about when I said you can't pray for certain things to change, I I'm not sure exactly uh what you're referencing. I mean the one thing I can think about is one example is the mission in Brahos that says you can't pray to change the past meaning the the Mishna gives an example if you hear [snorts] you you know you walk into a town and as you approach your neighborhood you hear a scream that somebody is being harmed. So if you pray may it be your will Hashem that it not be my family uh that's a prayer that's uh by definition a wasted prayer because whoever it is it already is first of all it's interesting that you shouldn't necessarily pray it shouldn't be your family simply because that means it'll be somebody else's family right so okay but putting that aside uh the prayer is not going to be effective because that's called so lisha Now there is a uh is it so if if it's already happened but nobody knows it happened and an example would be uh can I pray let's assume that my my grain was harvested and I don't know how many bushels [snorts] are in the granary so once I know there's 100 bushels I cannot pray hashem please make it 105 because I know it's 100 but let's assume I didn't measure it yet. Can I pray, you know, whatever it is, can you make it more than it is? So that's that's a mus. Is that called a past event that already happened or is that called an event that's not yet and therefore it's to ask Hashem for a miracle. This is sometimes an approach that post can take regarding genetic testing of defects. Uh now obviously any type of defect that is correctable by medical science you should check out and have it corrected but let's assume right this happens a lot uh women are pregnant they have all sorts of tests they have ultrasounds they have different genetic testing to uncover things like down syndrome or other types of genetic illnesses which they can't do anything about I mean once I mean it's just a condition so the question is is it kadai is it permitted is it proper to check it out. So there are some postcum that say it is better not to check out something which cannot be corrected because once I check it out and shalom it says down syndrome that's not going to change Hashem is not going to change that because that would be an open miracle and the principle of says you can't really ask Hashem to change the past but until I know that there's a problem even though it's already happened in a sense It's still so some postkum will actually tell you not to do genetic testing for things that are not correctable. Others will say you know it happens it happens and the like right? So that that is a uh but other than that once something is ya you can't be misspo now kineski had a very interesting approach to this. Let's assume somebody is suffering from a disease that based I say advanced cancer based on medical science is not curable. There's nothing they can do. So what do you do? Are you miss pow that hashem should just take away the the cancer. Right? So many say well some say particularly breastliff say be miss po for an ace be miss po for a miracle that the cancer should go away others take the position that it's not proper to be miss pow for an open supernatural miracle but kamineski said be miss pal that they discover a cure because cures are discovered and made the point. Since Hashem never gives you a a maka without a rafua, there is in the world some mitsus of cure. And praying for a cure is not in the nature of a miracle because that is the normal process of medical science in which we do discover cures for diseases. So to pray for spontaneous remission of cancer would be praying for a nice nigla which some say is not a proper subject of but to pray for rafua well he gives two reasons why it's good number one rafua is called derva and number two rafua this is also very important rafua benefits everybody not just your case when I pray for spontaneous remission I'm praying for my ka when I pray for rafua I'm actually praying for all that suffer and that itself is a great great succ of parable. Uh this is um a difficult issue. Meaning uh are we permitted to say that any particular part of the Torah of Hashem is meant to communicate a parable, a mush and is not meant to be taken literally. Now obviously it seems pretty pretty clear that at least from a venu onwards we do very much believe in the historicity of the events of the Torah. There was an avam, there was a, there was a yakov, there was a mitzim. And even though there are modern academic scholars, some of which are even in left-wing orthodoxy that even talk about the obos as mythical archetypical figures. Uh that's certainly not our our belief system. We believe that the Jewish people other than Gramm are physically descended from human beings uh who were of the name of Avam and Sor and Yiz and Rifka and Yakov and Raka and Zilba. So I think once you get to Avramino less mandol there is no source that would allow you to apply metaphorical interpretations even though I'll tell you that even in the left-wing modern orthodox world or open orthodox world they do that even there but that would not be acceptable. The main issue however deals with particularly Adam in Yanim of Briasam the creation of the world and the story of Adam and Kava in Dan Aen maybe even extending to Noah and the Mabble but but let's talk about Adam and Kava the garden of Eden and and the like there uh it is understood that there's a lot of mystery there what exactly is the Sadas was there a talking no uh what does the Nash repres Was the nash an actual animal? Was the no the kok of evil that is pictured as as a nash? So here uh even here even here most certainly understand it in a very literal sense understanding that there are deeper meanings. First of all, I do want to point out that the issue uh is the Torah history or metaphor in a way is a false dichotomy because it's not history or metaphor. Sometimes history is metaphor. Meaning to say things happened literally, but they do represent deeper spiritual truths. That for sure is the case. That for sure is the case. That represents spiritual forces, etc. So history and metaphor do coexist but the question you're asking is are there cases where it's only a mshel and it's not meant to be to be literally. So the truth is uh there are some sources that indicate in theim the ram suggests the possibility now he doesn't say yet that it is but he suggests the possibility of metaphoric interpretation. Uh so uh even then if you're asking me can I point to a reishon that definitively says something is a metaphor in my sebrracious I cannot but I can point to rein that say that this is a legitimate possibility of interpretation and that would be various passages in the >> but then these days it is quoted as that is that is it based on a real There's no one that said it, but it is a possibility. >> Well, once again, it seem it seems to me that the def the definition of saying that something is a legitimate possibility. I think definitionally that means it wouldn't be Epicurus to describe it that way because because then you would be making it an illegitimate possibility. So as a result even if there's no resh that endorsed it but if a reishon said it is a an interpretive possibility I think that takes it out of the category of epic courses nevertheless um I would say this for me to interpret something in a way that the rishim did not openly interpret I in my own humility I have to say that I you know I'm very prone to error meaning to say it's not epic I don't think it's upourus but but I think I would have to say that who am I to come up with something that was not embraced by the great great vishum that came before me. In fact, I'll say something that you you may you know uh you may again I may may get my hate mail uh for that is people sometimes say well only the resham could say it we cannot. Well I will tell you something that may sound very very radical but I don't think it's that radical. If a reishon said you are allowed to interpret something then that means I am allowed to interpret it that way. I that by definition there's no such thing as a rehon license. There's not like a license that said, "Oh, you're a reishon, therefore." The reishim explained to us what is legitimate interpretation, what is not legitimate interpretation. If a reishonne said, "This is a legitimate way of interpreting the Torah," then it's legitimate for me as well to interpret the Torah. The only thing is I'll repeat what I just said. The fact that the rishim were so much greater than I and they did not employ that interpretation for a certain part of the Torah should be a signal to me that I shouldn't employ it, but not that it's illegitimate, just that it's wrong. Plenty of things are wrong which are not a courses. I've said uh you know a million times that uh being stupid is not aus. It's just being stupid. Uh so I could say all sorts of wrong things but that does not mean I'm a co-fair and that does not mean not be courageous. It just means that hey you know I ought to be a little more humble and know that my is probably not right if the great great people who came before me didn't say it that way. So I know that um Rabbi Jonathan Saxsa again sometimes controversial uh in the uh yeshivisha world uh does make a lot of uh he writes quite a lot about the story of Adam and Eve being metaphorical. The truth is his proposition is not well supported if he means that commentaries actually say it but he does have support that commentaries say it's the Rambam it's a legitimate possibility of interpretation. So that much uh is is sourced. Yeah. >> Here's a send in. [clears throat] For a new person interested in Yiddish kite, how much can we bend or withhold hala? For example, if he wants to start keeping shabas, do we tell him everything at once, each malafa, etc. or start slowly and introduce everything over time? >> Yeah, this is a really really uh excellent very very important practical question that is somebody's new to Yiddish guy. They're exploring. They're getting their feet wet. Uh, and uh, they want to start keeping chabas. So, what do I do? Do I tell them everything they're not allowed to do on chabas right away or do I feed them information gradually and perhaps deliberately withhold certain information? So, so, so again, I can't lie, that's for sure. But, you know, but don't tell them about uh the toilet paper or what whatever whatever it it would be. Now, the pashta is when you first approach this from a pureic standpoint, you say, "Well, gee, uh, how can I not tell the Jew all the information, um, I'm causing them to sin?" Uh, if I'm not telling them what is forbidden and they think they can do all these things, then I'm go and is it not? Is it not putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person you know quite literally in the sense that I'm facilitating a vera so that would be the argument that once somebody wants to keep shabas you got to tell them everything the counterargument uh is this that you have to look at the long term and that is if by telling a person all of these things number one even for the immediate shabas they may not listen to you but number two even if they're going to do everything initially, but if they're doing it too fast, if they're doing it beyond their capacity, at some point they're going to break. At some point, they're going to crash. And when they crash, they will be worse off than they were when they first approached you. So in lifa, we have to consider not only the immediate effect of what I'm doing, but the long-term impact of what I'm doing. So yes, if I don't give you all the information, I'm causing you to sin on this shabas, this shabas or whatever number of shabases. But if this is a structure that is more likely to result in permanent shabas commitment in the long run, it's worthwhile to go slow. Now the vil nagon in his parish admish does not explicitly address it in for shabas actual violations but the vil nagon throughout the safer mish talks a lot about the need to go very slow in spiritual levels that if you try to do too much at one time you fail and you lose even the madreos that you have. uh the analogy is a building right you have a building of a 100 stories but if you try to build the hundth story before you have 99 stories things are not going to stand and therefore uh one of the great responsibilities of anybody who's involved in kiraokim whether it's with any yeshiva or whether it's with families or whatever is to gauge what people are ready for and kind of give to them in the manner that they can assimilate it, they can grow with it in order that they shouldn't get broken. Now that's a very difficult decision because sometimes we underestimate what a person is ready for. Sometimes they are ready, right? And we got to have confidence in them that Hashem will help them make the right decisions. So we shouldn't kind of just like, you know, raising a child, you know, at some point the child is ready to ride the bike without training wheels, right? You don't want uh a 14-year-old kid to still have training wheels on his bike. You know, you kind of want to progress him to the next level. So, that's important too, not to, you know, under feed the person, but at the same time, not to give them too much. Uh again you see this I mean listen uh you see this in our yeshiva quite often uh in which people try to re reach certain madreos and then they they sometimes I mean bashm sometimes they're mats other times they crash others times it's very very devastating I mean I I still remember it I was I was once talking about something about uh you know that for many people maybe full-time colo is not the ideal they need to have a parnasa. Okay, controversial. So I remember a guy was arguing with me. He says, "Parnasa, what's the you have amuna and hashem? How do you work? Where's your amuna? Where's your thing? Where's of course you don't need parnasa. You don't need a plan. You don't need it." Then then I said I was retreating a little bit. I said, "Okay, at least you need a plan." You know, something said, "No, you don't need a plan. You don't need a plan at all. Hashem will take care of you." So I kind of felt like I was the epicurus in the room. Uh I have to say I get no joy in this but I believe the person is not even a sham shabas today because he was setting himself up to the high madrega of rabiish shiman bario and he really wasn't there. So now again I I I I can only speculate that maybe if he would have been involved in a plan and a parosa maybe things could have been different but but I think that's an example of a person reaching for a very very high madrega that can actually be destructive to them. Now I I want to say your question is more difficult because here we're dealing with Madreos. No coll versus working. Uh you're raising a concrete question about Kash I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Kashas and Shabas you know. Yeah. So that is more difficult because there you're actually allowing direct violations. Nevertheless, uh many say that the same methodology is going to apply in that type of issue as well. Yeah. Who's ascendant? I sometimes pray in a spartic minion here in the US where I'm the only lady. Their shimona estray is a little faster than mine. So I'm so I'm usually unable to wash the hands of the colony because I'm still ina. Is it preferable for me to quicken my shona estray so that I can wash the colan or better to forego that mitzvah and fray at my normal pace again assume I'm the only ley there? >> Yeah. So this is referring to I guess an Ashkanazi and his minion although I don't I don't see that as a difference here. and uh he's a ley and one of the few uh honors that Levim still have today is they get to wash the hands of the kohanim before they den of course in sparticim they den every day even in problem is the ley is still dven and therefore he misses the chance so should he rush his amida should he rush his shona to be able to finish in time to wash the hands of the levim I think by and large no I I think that fel is more important. Now if he would be a coane that's an interesting shila because there is a mitzvah say in the Torah for a coain to to den even then I think there's a strong that he should not uh hurry up his his but I think for a ley for sure uh the bakavana would be more important on the other hand everything depends on a measure of common sense meaning if he's almost finished and he would just have to speed it up a little bit maybe a little But if this would be a major impact on his kavana is extremely important and if you miss some things you miss some things for it's to miss. Yeah. >> Um this is the often mentions that says there can be no compar. >> Yeah. >> Although the rabbi has also mentioned that there are um person this question mentioned that he saw a ina I believe 17 uh which say says that Hashem can overlook Hashem can overlook um you know the soar idol worship relationships and murder but not beta can't be forgiven this seems to imply this this is a shami which was long before the seems to clearly imply that that only isn't isn't forgiven but can be forgiven. So how is the coming later contradicting? >> Yeah. Yeah. So the question is uh the the famous passage of the zohor that all aos have chuva except for the emission of zera levata sperm in vain. Uh so the question is the shami seems to say that hashem can forgive every avenor except for Torah which implies zerata would have would have shua and forgiveness. How can the zor argue with the usali if the zor came later? So first of all depending you say the zor comes later. It depends if you are a mabel that the zo is from the zor is earlier than the so could be a maklo in that way. Um but again the short answer that I want to bring out is was what I say often is the balatana's understanding. The balatana says that when the zor says there is no chuva for servatala it does not mean there is no chuva. That's a do pashut that shuva will be a capora for everything. It just means that shuva is difficult. It takes a lot of effort. 100% there is chuva. Now people ask me oh well the zora doesn't say that. Okay it makes no difference. The balatana says that's what the zor means. I mean if I would if I were to say that's what the zora means you could ask me that the lush is not mashima that way. The balatana knew the zor very very well and this is his interpretation of the zor. And by the way, that's also the interpretation for the usami. When the usami says there's no forgiveness on balora, it doesn't mean there's no forgiveness. A person does chuva for that too. But it means it's a it's a hard process of chuva. So kazal used the lush and there's no capara to refer to the notion that the chuva is a difficult difficult process. Yeah. Um, is there any macar for the way the women lear dress and the part two of this question is how do how to react to things like lear when people you know cross the line? >> Yeah. Lear I haven't been following lear in in recent uh recent years. Um there's still a movement le to around. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I don't want to say things because I don't remember the prem but to the degree that there was abuse and all sorts of other things then it's it's rishious and uh you know there's no limitus that we should have for for destructive pernitious abusive societies. Now, if you're talking about the way some women dress, like the full uh body cover, is there a muker? There actually is a muker. There there is a muker. I mean, the Rambam uh in some passages of the Rambam describes women dressing that way. But the thing to remember is that a lot of the depend on what are considered to be the societal norms. Meaning, halaka has minimum standards. So no matter what society does you know a woman's knees have to be covered you know that's not going to change if if society women wear wear shorts or whatever it is but beyond the minimum boundaries what society even the goyam consider to bea can go beyond the so the raam lived in Islamic societies that had very very strong standards of sneas so that became the way a Jewish woman dresses as well but when You live in more modern times where he there's tremendous prizes. So we can't use prizes. Okay, let me be sure you understand this. We certainly cannot use prizes to go beyond our minimum standards. But it does mean we don't have to maximize the standards beyond the minimum. So as a result, the mccyus that people bring from the Rambam really would not apply that much in in modern modern society. In fact, some have made the argument that to dress in a way that is conspicuously different than the way Jewish women typically dress is in itself a breach of sneas. Very interesting sor because sas is not only about uncovering body parts. It's about attracting attention to yourself. So if a woman dresses in a super sineastic way that causes people to stare at her as an odd thing that itself is a lack of you're drawing attention to yourself. So therefore rebel yasha for example uh other great kdam uh years ago already said this was not a proper hanhaga of a basis. Yeah. >> So, one of my friends had to get his filling fixed. So, he went to the whatever film repair shop and he paid them. And in the meantime, while they were fixing it, they gave him a spare, you know, pair to fill in. So, what is his status? I'll pay that pair fill in. Is he a borrower? Is he a renter? Is he some type of other shower? >> In other words, uh he a person got his fill in repaired. So, he was given a loaner. He was uh given a uh another pair of fillin to wear in the interim. So in dina shomim uh what is his status? Is he a showell that is a borrower or is he a renter and there are you know nafkaminas I mean if nothing gets lost there's no problem but as you know a show is kayov even for an accident even if there was a flood there was an earthquake there was a tsunami and the villain got swept away a show has to pay for those damages except for normal wear and tear called meas If on the other hand you are a you are a renter like you're paying you to rent a car. So a renter is like a shar you're for geneva and aveda if it gets stolen or lost but you're not kay for what is called an onus. So the question would be the guy that gets the loner fillain uh is he called a shoel or is he called a sulker? So the truth is there are two ways of looking at it. On one hand, you can call him a shoel because he's getting the loner fillin for free. He's not paying for the right to use those fillin. It's being lent to him, which would make him a show. On the other hand, it is in the context of a transaction in which he is paying money to get his fillin uh villain fixed. But I would say this. I would say that given the fact that intrinsically there is no on the part of the fill in store to give them a loan repair. They do it kind of out of the kindness of their heart and also to get business and the like. So I would say I would look at it as a separate transaction. It's separate from the money you're paying to get your fill in check. You're not paying any money for the loaner filling. So I think you would be a show and you would be of you know that's what I would think. Yeah. Here's another sentence. There's a mitzvah stated in many places in the Gomarra to respect the wishes of the recently deceased. Does this apply to someone that was killed by a basting or committed suicide? >> Yeah. Uh by the way, it doesn't have to be recently deceased. Uh the Garra has a concept of mitzvah. There is a mitzvah to carry out the wishes of a person who dies. Uh that refers specifically actually to his property. He left instructions in a will that he wants things to be done with his property. It doesn't necessarily apply to other things. Like if somebody said I want you to go to this yeshiva as opposed to that yeshiva, you're not like to obey that wish or I want you to leave yes or something like that. But his property there is a mitzvah. Uh so the question becomes does that even apply to a person who was executed by the baston who was a Russia who committed a sin. uh and and and and the like. Uh but pashas the answer is yes. Uh but some would say the following. Some would say that mitzvahim is a component uh that applies to children and it's based on kud of v. It's an it's an expression of honoring parents and therefore you'd have to ask the question am I to honor a parent that was executed by bast that will get you into aim is there a mitzvah of on a Russia on a parent that's a Russia some say yes some say no on the other hand I'm thinking out loud even like the opinions that say there is no mitzvah of ka on a Russia but when the Russia was actually executed and did shuva before his his death he's no longer a Russia and as a result it would seem that there would be kib and therefore there would be mitzvah even for someone that was executed I'll be pas okay yeah >> what's the Jewish perspective on potential of alien life and potential multiple universes and those ideas >> yeah so the question becomes uh what does Judaism say about extraterrestrial life whether it's in this universe like Mars or whatever it would be or even the very intriguing idea of the multiverse the mult alternative universes uh so let me first talk about uh this universe and you know can there be life on other on other planets so uh interesting question uh let me point out that the Rambam himself says says that the planets themselves [snorts] uh can be kind of intelligent life although that kind of they perceive and understand. Now scientifically we would have a lot of difficulty with that but it would seem that if the planet could be intelligent life there could be intelligent life on the planets. Now the question would be what is the nature of that intelligent life? Do they have a Torah? Is it a different Torah? Did God give different Toros to different lives in different planets and the like? Um it is hard to know but Bashtas probably uh the intelligent life that would ex that might exist on other planets would be in the nature of angels. uh they probably would not be bal uh they probably would just be angelic spiritual forces that can exist and maybe can communicate but they would not be mugg with Torah. We seem to understand by and large that there's one Torah because remember we don't make the claim that Torah is only earth. Torah brings tikkunim rectification to the universe as a whole. Which would imply that there can only be one Torah that does that. Because if you're going to tell me, oh, there's the Torah for Earth and the Torah for Mars and the Torah for Jupiter and the Torah for Neptune, then you can no longer look at the Torah Sashem as being Msak in the whole universe. So, I think if we do regard extraterrestrial life, it would be in the nature of Malim and the like. Now, can there be an alternative uh universe, multiple universes, multiverse uh concept? Um I I think we'd have a lot of difficulty with it. I I I'm not clear how we would assimilate an alternative universe into a Jewish uh religious thought because once you're talking about an alternative universe, that would imply alternative everything. um which could mean an alternative Torah which would contradict once again the primacy of the Torah as the essence of Akadesh B. I mean, after all, you're not going to posit in a multiverse different gods. That would be a bodhisora. And since the Torah is an expression of God's will, you couldn't really posit alternative Toras at that point. Now, the multiverse idea is really speculation. I mean, there's no it's not it's not like for sure, you know, we have a scientific consensus on it. It's speculative thoughts. And we would probably say that that's not the probable direction of where Judaism would go on that particular issue. Yeah. In the back here, >> whether the uh the commentary that Korak went down to Korak went down in the pit alive, does Kor have a share in the world to come? >> Yeah. So the question is uh does Korak have a share uh in the in the world to come? So there are a number of mamar kazal that says korak does not have a share in the world to come. Uh on the other hand I mentioned the Arizal the Arizal in cabala uh talks about korak even coming back with the resurrection of the dead and korak being cohain. In fact the Arizal is a whole that korak's mistake that he was entitled to kahuna was jumping the gun in point because he saw with kodesh that he would be zoka to kahuna but it wasn't the right time. In fact, I mentioned on Shabas that the Arizal says in Ms. Shabas, we have the PK sadikar the sadic will flourish like the palm tree. If you look at the last letter in those three words, sadikaru spells korak that korak will have a takum will have a tikun even uh in the with kahuna. So all I can say is there seems to be a big mlo. Now the GR rea Basra does say that Korak to this very day proclaims from Geanim Moshe MS to MS Misha is true and his Tyra is true. But the Aizal seems to look at that as a kind of a zus that Korak has to be that proclaimer which will ultimately result in his reunification to claw Israel. Uh yeah, >> let's say for example um someone buys something and um he bought from his own free world and afterwards he regrets says oh no like it was a really bad idea for me for me to buy this. Is he able to apply the idea of to this or is um he not able to apply it because he chose to buy that item with his own free will. >> Yeah, this is a very very excellent question. So we say whatever God does to me, whatever happens to me is letova is for my positive benefit. What about things that I did as a result of my choice, my bakira in other words uh the example you gave was I bought something that turned out to be a really bad investment. The thing was no good for me etc. So do I say gamulatva even if it's something that I don't like you know it must be for my good because everything hashem does is for my good or do I say no it's not gamula whatever hashem does is for your good this was your decision this was your ability to make bad decisions right so it's not gamula on uh on something that is a function of your again it is A very very excellent question. Uh the way Rav Saddok deals with it is really through a paradox and Rav Saddak basically says on one hand we live in a world again this is not going to make full sense to you because it does not make full sense to me. I I don't fully understand it but he says that we live in a world of which combines free will and divine determinism in the results of your actions. that yes prospectively when I have to decide to do something or not do something I have free will to go either way once it's done it was the will of God that that happened so yes when I have to decide what I buy I got to be responsible I got to think about what the right decision to do uh what the right decision is once it's done and it turns out to be negative I have to look that as part of Hashem's plan as well. The plan that I would fail, the plan that I would mess up, the plan that I would do something wrong is factored in tokades. Now, this is a big paradox. This indeed is a paradox because if you're truly you are a master of your faith, then mima if if there are bad consequences, it's because you made a bad decision. And yet says, "Hashem does not always allow us [snorts] to act against our interests." So the fact that he allowed your to be carried out indicates that Hashem had a purpose in that as well. Maybe the purpose is to teach you a lesson, not to be irresponsible. That could be the lesson. He wants you to have that mistake so you learn from your mistakes. One could analogize it, give a superficial analogy to a parent that will let a child do something stupid. So the child chose to do something stupid, but the parent let it happen. Why? Because that is one of the ways we learn, right? We learn from mistakes that we make. And that's part of Hashem's calculus to let your free will manifest itself in that particular particular way. Which means it's really a practical question. You make you make a mistake. You goofed. So you ask yourself, what does Hashem want me to learn? I the practical answer is very simple. What does Hashem want me to learn from my goof? And then there's a gamula in it. I've learned something. Right? People say often that we learn much more from our mistakes than from our successes. And the reason is very simple. If I'm successful, I didn't learn anything because I that just confirms what I already know. When I make a mistake, I've learned ah this is not the right thing to do, right? So, I learned from my mistakes more than I learned from my successes. Yeah, >> there's another sentence. The rabbi has once talked about why he doesn't necessarily wait for a second person to say if he finished dabbing after. Could the rabbi tell the reason for it? And the reason why most people wait to say it was someone else. >> Yeah. Yeah. the idea that after my Friday night so we say vulu uh and if I say it but sour that's fine but let's assume I finish moness later so the mishnabura brings the mishnabura brings that it's a proper minog to try to say it with another person you go over to somebody else say it together even if they already said it because you're testifying that akaresh is the creator of heaven and earth and testimony should be with uh two aim. So I go over to somebody's to make it an adus. Now this is brought down by the Mishna Bura that this is a proper min. So many many people are no that uh they want to have Now lice I just want to point out that even like the Mishna Bura you're not really dealing with hilos mish I mean after all uh two brothers cannot be witnesses. Can I say by with my brother? the answer as I can and I don't need kosher witnesses and the like but okay so the min the other way is from the kazinish the kazinish actually says he's on the mishna and he says that yubafka shouldn't get another person because that implies there's some doubt that has to be clarified by witnesses you only have to have witnesses when we're not sure what happened we have to have witnesses but the fact that hashem created the world is so pushut and obvious to us that for me to say oh I got to have a w a witness to affirm it that's kind of taking away from its truth so it's really a makus uh the uh the misha and the and the kazinish yeah >> so currently my mom and both of my aunts either because they were widows or they were divorced are with uh non-Jewish Christian um partners either they're married engaged or in a relationship. So, I know that >> with my mom and both my aunts, I need to, if anything, be closer with them than I was before. But regarding the partners that they're with, I I'm not exactly sure what kind of relationship I'm supposed to have with them. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This unfortunately uh this is a major problem um mainly in American life form and Eric Israel. It's not too big of a problem and hopefully it should never be a big problem here. In the United States, intermarriage or the relationship of a Jew and a non-Jew whether it's in marriage or not within marriage is enormously enormously big. Uh in many many places in the US intermarriage is up to 70%. That means seven out of 10 marriages in which one person is a Jew, the other person is not a Jew. That's mauville. That is terrifying. uh because well number one if the woman is not Jewish the kids are not Jewish and number two uh if the kids are Jewish is even worse because they're not going to be raised Jewish by and large okay so the question that virtually every fra you know this is like it says by by Mitz by there was no house in which there wasn't a dead body this is true in the from world there's like no family which does not have either immediate or indirect an intermarriage issue of how to be miss. Now uh your first point is 100% correct. Uh you need to have a relationship with your aunt your aunts uh your mother too. He said yeah of course and uh whatever mitzvot you can help them do whether it's kdish or whatever it is do for them. they're they're Jewish people and even if they're doing something that's not proper that doesn't mean the other mitzvah don't count and by all means uh give give them and and you know learn Torah with them whatever whatever different ways you would interact with them uh in a Jewish setting and as a in a familial setting as well. So the question becomes, okay, so that's fine. That's how I relate to the Jewish part of the equation. How do I relate to the non-Jewish part of the equation? Do I just ignore them? Do I make believe they don't exist? I walk into my mother's house and there's this non-Jewish guy who happens to live there. Do I say, "Hi, Mom." and just, you know, don't even acknowledge. Well, you understand that, you know, maybe in theory that would be the best way, but in practice that's not going to work. Meaning, once we understand that you have to have a good relationship with your mother and even with your aunt, then we understand you're going to have to have some relationship with this guy. And in many, many ways, you know, the guy is not a bad guy. I mean, it's not the goy's fault. I mean, they don't think there's anything wrong here. And why should they think there's anything wrong? In fact, it is extremely difficult to make any case against intermarriage uh that's not based on Torah values. Meaning to say, if someone doesn't keep the Torah, what's my argument why they shouldn't go with the GL? Are we racist? Okay, if you believe in Torah, you believe in you believe in religion. So, okay, these are the halos that we have to keep. If you don't believe, what am I supposed to tell a non-religious Jew? why they can't marry a non-Jew. It's extremely difficult. I mean, there are arguments that are made, but it's extremely difficult to make a secular case against intermarriage. So, this guy is not a bad guy. Okay? So, as a result, I think by definition, you have to be polite and there's, you know, a big difference. Before they started a relationship, you tried to discourage it. Once it's a fatal complaint, you have to accommodate it to a certain extent. Derek Menite, how are you doing? Hello. Try to avoid lonos that know legitimate the relationship per se like you know don't send them an anniversary card or something like that. You know, don't acknowledge this as a union. But in terms of the derit that you have for another human being, say how are you doing? You can ask him about uh his job or his life or whatever it is. And in that way, you know, you're making a kdish hashem as well. They see that a religious orthodox Jew treats human beings in a respectful way. And that's kind of the best the best you can do. But all I'm saying is if you have a goal that you want to, you know, have a good relationship with your mom or your aunt and maybe bring them to mitzvah, this is the only possible way that this could be done. So sometimes you do have to accommodate in that way. Let me just point out I I mentioned before uh Rebecca Kamineski you know the minug in Europe was that if god forbid a child intermarried the parents regarded them as dead and they would sit shiva and they would never talk to that child again that that's what it was ravy kamineski said that uh in the 20th century uh that is no longer the appropriate response in Europe which was largely a homogeneous religious society at least until the 20th century. So somebody who intermarried was going out of their way to rebel, going out of their way to spit on Judaism, going out of their way to reject. So as a result, we push them away. Today, intermarriage is not rejecting Judaism. People just don't think it's wrong. So as a result, Raakov said it's important to try to keep a connection to the person no matter what and in that way whatever you might be an influence uh for the good. Uh yeah, a child or young adult young adult that experiences pain before they turn 20, can you attribute that to um his future sins or sins of his parents or not of a guil? >> Right. Right. So this is an interesting question. Uh the garra says that baston shall mala that that although in terms of human accountability as soon as I'm 13 a bon can punish me for my aos malus and the like but hashem the baston of shmayam does not punish me till I reach the age of 20. Uh because you need a higher level of maturity. So the question would be well if that's true if heavenly punishment do not befall a person until they reach the age of 20 how do we understand the pain and the suffering from shamayim whether it's disease or or even death that befall a person before the age of 20 since the basin shall not punish uh below the age of 20. So the answer is uh everything you said is correct. Number one, there is a concept that they may be punished for the sins of their father's parents. But but I think there's a problem with that because it seems like this. It seems that 13 to 20 seems to be a neutral zone because it seems the concept that you could be punished for the sins of your parents is only until your bar mitzvah and that's why the parents make the braha. Now there are two interpretations. Some say, "Thank God I'm not responsible for this kid." Like the parent is saying, "It's not my problem anymore." But no, some say the other way around. Thank God that my child is not going to get punished for my sins. I like that better. That's a more generous type of braha. Uh so according to that, that terrorist wouldn't be a good terrorist. So to say that between 13 and 20 I'm getting punished for my parents' sins seems to contradict this in Bakrani that I'm no longer going to be punished for my parents sins once I'm 13. Uh the other possibility Gilgo is indeed possible indeed Gilgo could Gilgo reincarnation punishment for pastas our shak at any age including birth right after after birth. Now you mentioned a a third possibility. What would what >> for future sins? >> Future sins like Ben Sora. In other words, the person is judged uh based on what he will become. Uh that's possible, but again that would be a contradiction with the Ishmael principle of Asher Husham uh and uh and and and and the like. Now it also might be like this. It might be that the rule of Ben Estim uh is not necessarily a physical age but it may refer to a certain state of maturity. So you might have a 15year-old who in understanding is already a Benim his nishama is like a benesim and perhaps under those circumstances the dinay would be meaning it's only in that we look at fixed ages is more looking at spiritual age and spiritual age may be different than physical age by the way theam cipher interestingly enough says under denak >> [snorts] >> That's exactly how it is. You know, under the Mrs. theam says and the punishments can be very severe. Violation of the Noahite code can be capital punishment like even theft says theam there is no automatic age of majority. There may be an 8-year-old who will be judged as an adult and there may be a 15year-old who will still be judged as a kam. So theam cipher says the assessment of culpability in a noite setting is based on spiritual maturity. It's not based on a fixed age. Yeah. [clears throat] >> How is the t how is the tikun hakli introduced to revi nasman? And then are there other um like formulas of tahillim similar to tikuni that have other effects? >> Yeah. Yeah. So the tikun kli which is meaning the general rectification for sins for all sins but specifically for are the designated chapters of tahillim uh that raman uh indicated uh should be said. Uh where did he get them from? and the like. So, uh again um it is cababalistic. He was not the total originator. It's based on both Ramach and and Kisal in which certain timug. Uh now you're asking me are there other compilations of Tahillim that work for other things? Absolutely. So many many many many uh the in particular compiled a whole bunch of different groupings of for specific things and indeed you can get in many it'll tell you you know this chapter these two chapters are good for this and these two chapters are good for this and they're very very specific you know uh if you have a hangail there's something you can say if you have a hangover there's something else you can say you know uh so over the years the makubal him uh used to heal him like uh almost like chemotherapies very specially targeted medications but at the end of the day I want to make a very important point at the end of the day it is not so much what you say it is how you say it >> your cavana is the most important thing in your t people are always asking what hillim are good for and yeah we can usually find what are good for this or that but the truth is the most important thing is whatever tollim you say you say it with kabana it will bring the mercy of hashem uh into the world so uh we shouldn't overemphasize specifically what you say we should emphasize more of the way that you say it and the heart that you bring to it yeah >> in regards to kob at what stage should you risk your own level of Judaism to help someone else and bring them closer for example like if you missed a garure to give an inspirational talk or if you take a care of trip and then you're away from your family and stuff like that. >> Yeah. So this is the uh very very difficult important issue of uh to what degree do I compromise or sacrifice or lose some of my own spiritual growth in order to bring other people to Akadeshu through Kirv such as missing a Gmorra or missing a kusa to be macar somebody or to give whether it's to give a talk or just to be marov somebody or going on trips where I'm going to be away from my family although I think that's may may have a different nuance and and the like. So let me just share with you a a vort a beautiful beautiful vort from theam cipher uh the chuvasam cyher ina uh starts with a drash in which au is referred to by the by hashem in the as a oavi aim is the one who loved me and points out that of all of the aites and really Of all of the biblical personalities, Ara is the one who is described as the one who loved God. Why is Ara called the one who loved God? So theam cipher says because Arabu spent his whole life bringing Hashem to other people. Ara was the first really kov worker. Ara spent his whole life with Oodor to bring them to Hashem. Now surely Abraham could have separated himself from those rishim. He could have focused on his own spiritual elevation. He could have contemplated God through meditation, through prayer, through removing himself from involvement with sinners. And yet because he loved God more than he loved his own ego and his own accomplishments, he was willing, this is the cipher, he was willing to sacrifice his own spiritual growth in order to make the name of Hashem beloved in the eyes of others. So theam cipher is clearly saying it's a great great madrega to be willing to sacrifice even some of your own aliyah to be mar that's what you see from that's why wrote this moreover we have a similar point from salanter salanter grew up uh towards the beginning of the 19th century the first third of the 19th century and in Leita at the time in Lithuania at the time there were small groups of people. There were never large numbers who were kind of hermits. They were called pushim and and basically they kind of lived alone. They separated from their families for the whole week. They only came home on Shabas and they just concentrated. They were hermits on Torah mitzvos. They were not involved with anybody. They didn't even talk during the week except it was the Torah. And so Silantre was initially very very attracted to a life which was totally focused on avodashem and spiritual growth. But then he decided that that's great for him but what's happening to everybody else? Meaning there's a responsibility to bring Hashem to other people. So he said he would give up his spiritual growth that he could get by isolation in order to be miff. So that is one side of the like everything else there's always two sides of the at least two sides of the story some by more than that that is one side of the story meaning should I be willing to give up some of my rrook to be mar the answer is yes because you love god and if you love god you want to spread godliness in the world it's both it's both an expression of loving hashem and loving your fellow Jew it's a combination of both of those ideas however there is another side to the And that is but what if this will have a detrimental impact on me? What if I'll become less religious? What if I'll become right? It's like a broom, right? A broom wants to sweep up the dirt, but the broom gets pretty dirty, gets pretty filthy, right? So what's going on here? So I think we have to be mahalik between a person in the beginning of their career so to speak and after they've been learning for a while when you you have to give yourself time where your primary focus is on your spiritual growth. You got to absorb Torah. You have to learn hala. You have to kind of be less involved in the world out there because you don't yet have that much to give. You have what to give. I don't mean to suggest everybody has what to give. But until you build yourself up sufficiently, there's too much of a danger that the non-religious world will have more influence on you than you will have on the non-religious world. So, as a result, if somebody were to ask me, they're in yeshiva and they want to be involved in Kiru. It really depends. I'm not saying it's an all or nothing. There may be different avenues in which you could still be involved, but you have to make your primary focus, [snorts] your learning and your growth. And if that seems a little selfish, it's a selfishness that's an investment in yourself to then be able to give to others. When you've learned, when you've absorbed Torah, when you have a good knowledge, when you're very strong in your faith, then you're ready to give, then you're ready to share, then you're ready to even sacrifice some of the aliyah that you could have gained by focusing on yourself. But you got to be careful not to jump too early. You make the jump too early, you may not have enough to give and you may be adversely affected. Um I'm sure people have heard over the years the famous mashal they say kutler but I think it's one of those mashal that maybe many people have said that you got to be like a kdish cup that overflows meaning to say you fill up the cup to the top and then it overflows and fills up the surrounding cups. Your kirv should come from the abundance of the Torah that is within you. Now I know there are different philosophies. Kabad may have a different philosophy here. Kabad may have a philosophy. Hey, as soon as you know the olive base, [snorts] go out and teach. Again, I'm oversimplifying. I don't want my kabad friends to but there is a philosophy that says you know the olive base, teach the olive base. Okay? And I and I I can understand that as well. Whatever you have, go out and teach it. But the other philosophy is that you need to build yourself up because there's a big challenge dealing with that environment. Now the only thing is in your second example there's another point I have to make as well. See your second example about traveling away from my family. See there you're dealing with a different nuda. That's not simply I'm giving something up to be mare rather I'm hurting my family in being m. Now then you have to realize that when you have children putting aside your wife even when you have children your primary obligation is to be sure that your children are getting what they need and if that means to curtail your care of because of your kids your kids have priority there's no question um you know there was a great rasha from the datumi world but a very very a great manstein um He he was naive a few years ago and he was the Russa of Gosetion again probably the one of the preeminent uh datomi yeshivas uh in the country and he used to live in Katamon I don't know if you've ever been katamon has the famous they have a certain uh minyanim and katamon that are kind of around the clock and and and the like and he used to live in Katamon and uh every shabas he would spend a lot of time learning with his son. So somebody went over to him and said, "Oh, you know, Raarin, I'm so impressed that even though you run a big yeshiva, you make time to learn with your son." So he said, "What do you mean make time to learn with my son? My obligation is to learn with my son. I make time to run a big yeshiva, too." That's a beautiful perspective. My obligation is to my children. And if they are taken care of, I then broaden what I can do. beyond but I can't use my activities beyond to neglect my children. So that's why your second example you need that that greater clarification. Yeah. >> During sometimes rooms can get very crowded and >> sometimes what I didn't >> rooms may get very crowded and I know or I've heard you're not supposed to walk in front of or behind people. >> Yeah. >> If you have something you have to do such as welcoming [laughter] etc. >> Yeah. >> Um how far should you go to like to go do that mitzvah versus stay still and not >> yeah this is really is maybe one of the hardest uh to keep and and and I I always wonder myself how were schuls laid out in the time of the Mishna and the Gomorrah this idea that you're not supposed to walk for amos in front of a person for Amos that's six to eight feet I'm not supposed to walk in front of somebody that is dominating Ezra How on earth does that work? I mean in any in any minion that is virtually impossible. It's virtually impossible unless you d I mean some people are lucky if I'm dabbing in a certain position maybe but but by and large right? So what do I do now? They they tell a story about Mosha that Ramosha Feinstein uh after Mina had to go to a very very important meeting was a very dolem a big big big meeting about a a major issue in Claw Israel and he just wasn't moving he finished doning and u he wasn't moving and people were saying well we we have to go we have to go we have to go and Ramosha couldn't do it because somebody was dabbing and he would have to walk in front of that person Raosha said There is a wall in front of me. This is like a stone wall. If I have to wait here two hours, I am going to wait here two hours. So took it absolutely very very humel if you have a mitzvah certainly like dening. So in such a case you're allowed to walk. Uh the question becomes but what if it's not a matter of dening? What if it's just a question I want to go to breakfast? I want to I want to get out of here like am I stuck to the last guy you know who's dvening. So there some people do have a leniency uh if the davener if there's a table in front of him. So the table might be considered a heapsic which would allow you to pass. So that would be a that would be a heter. Uh but it's the luck is very very hard to keep and if you can somehow circumvent and take a route uh where you're not walking in front of him within four amos that would be the best thing to do. You try to keep it when you can. Sometimes it it won't be possible. Yeah. >> I know the last time I asked you about the question that turned into kind of a state of the union on on jewelry specifically. U this one's going to be more about uh another issue that that is is on the rise is specifically divorces kind of in human orthodox world >> and so for that what do you see as some of the cause of those those marriages dissolving where once rate was quite low. Yeah. >> And then second just because we're in a room of of kind of here >> in terms of advice for us or or sources to go to in terms of building and especially early on um you know kind of good best practices for you know relationships and and creating that early model foundation for lasting success in marriage >> right right well you know c certainly it's the case that the divorce rate has risen in every segment of society it's risen among Jews and it's risen among orthodox Jews so you could be the most from whether it's yeshiva nowashem it is lower than outside of that but it's really really gone high even in our yeshiva you know there there are divorces that sometimes happen after less than a year uh in in marriage and the like so there are really two things I think there's a general issue and then there may be a specific issue that may apply to oric populations and the like the general issue is that people today and I don't mean to be some grouchy old man lecturing I'll include myself too the good old days you know but people today you know [laughter] not like When I was growing up, people today are not used to working for things. We're used to instant gratification. You know, our grandparents didn't always have idllic, perfect marriages. They had problems, too, and they had tensions, too. Think about people coming here after the Holocaust and the like, but they understood that you work it out and you try to do what you can and life is not a bowl of cherries and I don't have to be happy all the time. Remember Fitler on the roof? Uh, right. The question is, do you love me? Right? Remember the idea that uh what's love 25 years, you know, I worked for you and all that all that stuff. So, there was kind of a sense of duty. There was a sense of commitment, meaning I'm not in it to be totally happy all the time or totally gratified all the time. We have a longer vision here and we're willing to work at it. What happened today is that our our ethic of that type of commitment is no longer here. We live in a throwaway society. if things don't work, you know, I mean, there used to be a whole industry of fixing things. In your Schlam, we still do it, you know, uh, you fix a phone, you fix a computer. Uh, that's not the mentality today. Today, you throw it out and get a new one. So, that's been applied to marriage, too, in which doesn't work. I'm not happy today. Well, let's get rid of it. I want something else. And part of it is Hollywood, Hollywood culture, and part of it is blal a certain selfishness and egotism. and uh you know looking after me which is very pervasive both for men and for women and and the like. So obviously uh you try to counter that with an education that stresses that stresses responsibility and the notion that in life there's going to be struggle and in life there's going to be hard work and not every day is going to be you know not every day is going to be exciting but we stick to it because it's a commitment. uh you may want to check Reverend Victor Miller Miller may be too strong sometimes uh but what he says about divorce and you stick to it no matter what there's kind of a loyalty not even to the other spouse it's a loyalty to the marriage itself like as if the marriage is a separate thing that I got to take care of now with respect to the unique problems of balchuva bal chuva have maybe another problem in addition to everything I just head which applies to Balshuas like everybody else. I think a Balshua has another problem because their identity is not entirely uh established yet. They're still in flux. They don't know exactly >> depending on the person who they are, where they fit in. And that by definition is going to introduce a certain tension in marriage. Because if I don't really know who I am, so I may marry somebody thinking I'm X when in and therefore I need someone X when in fact I turn out to be a Y and things change and when my identity is in flux and I don't have a clear picture of the type of life that I want and that is proper for me. So that's not a good time to get married. Now I know that marriage in the f world is kind of a right of passage, right? There's certain things you got to do. you know, at a certain point in Yeshiva, you get a black hat and uh then uh whatever your way of sit is out and then you get married, right? There's a certain progression. It's kind of a checklist in which I check off the items of making it in the religious world. Well, when it comes to a hat, maybe that's harmless. When it comes to marriage, that's not a good thing. You kind of look at marriage as something you got to check off on your list is sometimes a recipe for a very severe failure. So as a result again I mean in a way you know early marriage is better than late marriage in many many ways in many many ways. On the other hand if a person's identity is not well grounded yet they may be not ready to get married and I think that's a source of a lot of problems in the Baltuva community. So there is the general selfishness and egotism that permeates society and then there is the identity crisis that of course and people who are not balu may also have identity crisis. I'm not suggesting exclusively but particularly when I'm making my first foray into religious life I don't necessarily know where I belong and who I am and therefore maybe I'm not yet ready to to get married. Yeah. when Khazal would make certain gazeros or takanos, how did they get widespread so that everyone knew about them as soon as possible because communication was obviously way different back then and like did everyone have to wait for the new safe fair to come out and then whatever like how did it how did it go that everyone knew what to do eventually? >> Yeah, that that's a real real good question. uh the issue of communication kazal mainly the Sanhedrin inlay made takonos they made gazeros that are binding on the whole Jewish people and now the Jewish people many lived in Arat Israel but actually a majority of the Jewish people throughout the uh this period did not live in Arit Israel they lived in Bavl they lived in Mitzim they lived in Italy they lived in other c they lived in Rome they lived in other countries now uh you didn't have instantaneous communication. You didn't have emails or faxes or WhatsApp or or whatever it is. So there would be a lag time between uh the date of a takana, the effective date of a takana and the time that people would hear about it. The short answer is that they did send messages. We have in the Gomorrah itself uh stories of Rabin Gamlo sending the head of the Sanhedrin sending messages to the Golola about Roshesh about Yamov. So it did take time. Not only that, by the way, uh there seems to be an interesting idea and we we know very little about operationally how it worked that many takas and gazeras were given a probationary period because you actually find in the Gammorrah that certain takas were not accepted by most of the seabore or uh it did not spread load meaning apparently a lot of takas were made on a certain provisional way that they have to be accepted. by the people and they weren't always accepted and then they would be repealed. So it would be fascinating that we just don't know the details of that. We don't know the mechanism. We don't know how much time did they all lot for probation to see if the seabore is able to live with it or not to live with it. But those principles are are there. >> Uh yeah. So unique in that with complaining about the month and saying how like they're basically tired of it and they call like and my question is that I know like mentioned before says that um the fact that many were complaining for water wasn't necessarily a sin because they're very very thirsty. I was thinking a similar question also like here also like and then they if someone is being served three times a day the same exact food it would get difficult. I'm not justifying the way they express it. >> Yeah. But I'm sure that they had different tastes and things of that sort. But what exactly was a b is that why did hashem decide to bring the from the attack specific like a copper snake? Why did it have to be in that way? >> Yes. So the question is that we know that throughout the bin Israel complain about water and and lack of food and the Rambam lays down a fundamental idea that by hitting the rock we're going to read in this week's para right the great sin of Mosha Rabenu actually makus what the a is but let's just go with the simple understanding of Rashi that Moshe hit the rock in anger and he was supposed to speak to the rock or or like the Ramban he called some rebellious ones. Uh and because of this it was decreed that Misha Rabenu cannot enter Erit Israel. So the Rambam in the Praim says that the real Ara was Mosha Rabenu got angry at the Jewish people. The hitting of the rock was a manifestation of anger. He wasn't thinking. Now why was it a sin for Mosher Rabenu to get angry? So the Rambam writes because the Jewish people didn't do anything wrong. Miriam died. The traveling well of Miriam stopped. They didn't have water. Somebody complains they don't have water. There is nothing wrong with complaining because they need water. So the so the Rambam writes in the program. I know I'm just giving you the background that there is no sin for a person who is crying out because they don't have what they need to be alive. Now so your question is so why by the man when they complained about the man uh obviously Hashem Hashem was angry Hashem was angry at them and indeed Hashem gave them the Slav gave them the quail uh which resulted in their dying etc and the mafa. So what's the difference? So again, I mean I mean you're asking the question, but but but I think you yourself said the difference. The difference is water is necessary for survival. The man gave them what they needed, especially according to Kazal that it could taste like whatever they wanted it to taste like. They wanted steak. They wanted ice cream. They didn't have ice cream in those days. It could be whatever they wanted except for onions and garlic that affect nursing. So I think in a sense wanting meat is a luxury. I I I think that's the pious meaning to say if Hashem has taken care of you but you're upset because you want more. All right has a that why don't you accept what hashem gives you a wealthy person is happy with what he has. So to ask between not having water and not having steak uh you know there is there is a big a big big difference there. Uh hashem expected them to be on a higher madrea. Is this the para they were asking for for meat also? >> Asking for what? >> Is this the para they were ask were they asking also for meat here? >> Well well may may not have been asking for meat but they were saying we remember all the good maybe they wanted a vegetarian diet. Remember all the good food we had in Mitra. So they were saying the man does not satisfy us. The man is monotonous. Now again if you didn't have kazal that the man could taste like whatever they tasted you know maybe your tina would be you be more of a tina even then one would wonder because they could survive on the mun but if it could taste like whatever you want by the way there's a medish pa but now you um medish pia is an interesting this just means an enigmatic medish it's an irregular medish but they over the years uh aonim compiled books of unusual midrussian and one of the unusual mad Rashim is it brings the story of the man and it says man Shabas the complaint of the man is the source for lighting Shabas candles. So what's the what's the shas of complaining about the man with lighting shabas candles? The answer is very pious. The man could taste like whatever they wanted. Elm, it didn't look good. Oh, so you see that part of enjoyment of food is what you see what you're eating, not just the taste. Therefore, you light shabas candles because that contributes to the onic shabas of enjoying what you're eating. Of course, that would fit like the shitos that say that the main place where you light shabas candles is the moil, the place where you eat. So, you'll be able to see the see the food. >> Specifically, the copper >> Oh, yeah. The co the copper snake. This this section doesn't seem like in the text that that were complaining about food and punish them like there's there's bread or water and we're just tired and then comes through the congress. >> Yeah. Yeah. By the way, that as you know that is the uh symbol of the American Medical Association, the copper snake. Uh and that's from the Nashos. By the way, just to remind people that was preserved in Claw, Israel as a remembrance of that miracle until the time of Hamel where he destroyed it. He destroyed it because people were turning it into a an Aodora type of thing. So it was no longer a memorial of Hashem taking care of them. They turned it into an idol. Therefore, he felt he had to destroy it. Um well part of part of the lesson of the is that we have to understand that the maka of Hashem is ultimately itself the rafua meaning whatever suffering hashem sends us is the source of the healing that will bring us to chuva and introspection. So therefore the at least in in representation the very thing that was killing us is ultimately the thing that will bring us to a better place and that's really a perspective on how you view Ysurin generally that the trials and tribulations that I get in life are the vehicles of purification. Uh yeah, >> I think we learned in Broncos that you should respond on men at the volume or lower volume to the person dominating for the seabboard. That doesn't seem to be common today. And is that is that something we should still follow? And is that the the fault of the the people responding to the men or the fault of the person praying for not praying louder? >> Uh well, I don't know. I I don't want to assign fault. It depends on the situation. Sometimes the kazan is too low and sometimes the is too loud. But you're correct. It's based on the gum that you should try to modulate yourself with the with the problem is though once again we get into you know each of us has our own a main style. So we we we tend to answer at a certain volume modulation uh but the khaz will be a different kazin every time. So, so it's hard to consciously match up, but you try to match up when you can. Uh, yeah, in the back. >> Um, so particular this uh particularly a question for people who um maybe were were weren't always religious or weren't always as religious as they may become later. But whenever somebody um does grow in life and then they have um deep regrets about things that from their that they now know and really feel were were terrible sins. Um, how should they um like make it an immediate point to go about doing chuva for those things or should they just focus on on on your new your new proper life on that growth? Don't don't interrupt that to to to do to do cha for the old life and just take care of that by your kipper or should they say no like like you know it was a serious thing obviously it's something serious things that that maybe now you realize you have to do chuba for should you stop everything and do chuba and um and the second part of my question would be and and what about just not for um chuba just for date things not not this bigger question of like big old >> past when's the proper time to do chuba should you stop everything in your chuba Yes. So, so Rabeno Yina says Rabeno Yina wrote Zarishon. He was the nephew of the Ramban and Rabenuina wrote the great safer called Share Chuva. But he then wrote a much shorter work called Yoda Chuva which is like a very brief summary of the principles of Chuva. And if you look at the art scroll Makur uh for Yam Kipper, you'll actually see a whole translation. The whole yodat chuva it's a very short thing like five pages is in the arts grar and the first thing raen says in yodat chuva is a very very interesting thing he says the first step in coming close to hashem by chuva is not to think about your past and regret it but to forget about your past and look at this as the as the cliche goes this is the first day of the rest of your life because if you think about things too much then you get overwhelmed with your mistakes. You feel depressed, you feel guilty, you feel subraen, you lose your energy and you lose your impetus and then you're mired in because your mind is so connected to that negativity. So he says that he doesn't give you a time frame per se but he says you first have to concentrate on building yourself up by generating light. You don't attack the darkness by taking a baseball bat and hitting the darkness. The darkness disappears by the light that you generate in positivity in mitzvos and masima. So he does suggest that you don't confront your past until you've built up a pretty strong foundation of Torah and mitzvos. Uh you're well established in in your path and then you're ready to take on the challenge. Eventually you got to look back. Eventually you got to try to rectify. Eventually you got to confront the demons. But that's not the first thing you do. The first thing you do is your marb or so in truth. Therefore in the process of chuva there's a certain element of you put it behind you. You don't think about it and then you go back and you think about it but from a position of strength and not from a position of weakness. That's psychologically a very very important point not to think about my sins that much at least initially because my job right now is to build myself up and rebu says you should look at it as if you were born today. Today is a new beginning. What happened yesterday is not my affair anymore at this point. But again, as I say, in the long run, you do have to confront it. way to know when it's time to >> you know it it it's hard to know every person has to do their own assessment uh but you know and we we can make mistakes sometimes we do it too early or too late that's very true but essentially we try to understand ourselves when are you when are you strong when are you good when are you committed when can you take looking back at a difficult past and you know you try to do the best that you can and try try to you know know yourself well enough and this is where you know uh your come in and this is where your if you have friends that you can fight in can help you a lot in this in this too sometimes you know we can't make the judgment call ourselves we need to go outside ourselves a little bit but at the end of the day you have to be the one that makes that decision yeah >> um often times toos will that are >> I'm sorry who will >> tossus will quote other garamaris and he'll make references to them and he won't bring enough um context from the other places for us to even have any remote idea of what he actually is trying to say when to compile um the work um was his expectation that we already know shots that we're able to know all these different things off the top of a head did he expect us to go and check it up um check up or did we simply not need to know those things that he's quoting and can understand toos without those sources. >> Yeah, that that's a very excellent question. Um, now it is said no the bal toos had yeshivos in France and Germany. They're called the baltosos. The founders of those yeshivos were the grandchildren of rashi like raenutam but eventually there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of tidim and that's why toos by the way were written by different people. The toos and mak shabas are not the same authors as the toos and mas. That's why it's yua that you cannot ask a contradiction from toos to toos unless it's a person unless a person is mentioned. But but if it's a tossos without a person you know written by different people over different times right so you can't ask a contradiction. Now it is said though that the way the tomos yeshivas were structured is each student was responsible to know an entire track date. So if we're learning bakama I have 35 students in my share your job is to know brahos by heart and your job is to know shabas by heart and your job is to know and kitten and kaducian and kin. So every line we learn in Bakama, the Brahos guy could raise accasha from Brahos and the Shabas guy could raise the kasha from Shabas and the tovas were compiled by the individual disciples mastering the trackct tape. So they could ask any type of kasha or inconsistency from that track date. Right? So you see that it may be that not every tomat at least at initial level knew every track date but there was somebody in the shar that did and that was the basis of the toos discussion. So what is expected of me though I'm learning a toos and I didn't learn all of these mectos. Um you know you're right uh that that's it's a lot of extra work. uh you have to look it up. You have to try to figure out the passage and you'll learn a lot. You'll learn a lot. I mean that's why Tossis is a way of learning a lot of Gomorrah because in any tossis you might have to look up five or six or even more Gammoras and get into it. Now without attacking the yeshiva system this is actually a strong argument that uh you should actually learn a lot of Gamarra and Rashi before you even get to toss. I mean let's imagine we had a different type of system in which we spent two or three years just doing gamarra rashi without any tossus at all and you kazar so then you'll find I mean you didn't finish but you'll find that a lot of tossim will not be so hard for you because you'll already know the gamaras that are being referenced in other words this may be an argument in favor of extended plain gammorra learning as a preparation for tossus but if we don't do it that way because we want to introduce TOSS earlier. That means you're going to have to look it up. However, let me point out another thing though. Depending on the toos, it's hard to generalize. Sometimes you can learn a tossos without fully going through the proof texts. In other words, toos asks a question and tries to prove the question from a gamorrah. and Tossos gives an answer and tries to prove the answer from the Gomorrah. But sometimes it's only the nature of a proof meaning you can follow the argument even without knowing the proof. It's like I understand the question I understand the answer I didn't fully look at the proof text. Sometimes that is possible. It is possible to learn a tossos. I mean it's the second best way of doing it. It is possible to learn a tossos without going into the proof because the proof is simply supporting a freestanding question and answer. However, that's not always going to work. Sometimes the question itself only makes sense by virtue of the proof text and then you do have to look it up. You do have to look it up and spend time uh in trying to understand what's going on. Other times you're you are able to skip it and save it for later later analysis. Uh yeah. >> Are there are there a lot of open references to barba throughout? >> Yeah. Are there a lot of references to bar? The answer is the answer is no. The barba revolt again just to be sure people know what that is exactly. Uh the Jewish people uh waged a war against Rome between 66 and 70 which culminated in the basikt. It was an attempt to overthrow Roman rule. Arim were not in favor of that war. Arim warned the zealots of Baronim not to engage in that war. But this was in violation of theim and it resulted in now the temple was destroyed. Generally speaking the year that we give 70 of the common era between 68 and 70 is the most common date that's given. Around 60 years later, 130 we had a second revolt. This is after the Kurban led by Shimon Ben Kosa that Rabaka called Barba the son of a star. Rabika thought he was Mashiach. And this was a second attempt to overthrow Roman rule in Arit Israel. Uh Rabaka thought Bara was Mashiach. Rabaka actually began building a third base on Mikdash uh under Barokba. Baroka was initially very successful. There were 900 villages that were liberated from Roman rule. I mean they're small but 900 villages. There are coins that were minted. Shimon Ben Kiva Ni Israel. And yet eventually what happened was in 135 the barba revolt was mercilessly terminated in betar and uh not it's not not modern betar but the town that's called betar in the garra and the casualties in the aftermath of barbar were much much worse than the bas mikdash devastating devastating casualties so the question become now remember so that's 135b is 70 followed Barba and the death of Rabaka 135. The Mishna was written around the year 200 after the Barba revolt. Right? So by the time the Mishna is written, it's after Barba at a time at a temporary time when conditions were relatively okay for the Jewish people, you know, went and came and went. So the question is uh does the Gomorrah make, uh detailed references to the Barok revolt? The answer is no. Uh it doesn't talk about it. The usual talks about it a little bit more than the Bavi. That's true. The Bavi I believe does not even mention I have to check but I believe the Bavi does not even mention Bara as a person. I might be wrong. Uh the Bavi talks about another guy who's called Baroma and it seems to be a pseudonym for Barba but there is no direct mention. And again, I I here uh I permit the hate mail to correct me if I'm wrong because I I can't say I'm 100% true. Uh but I believe the Bobby does not mention Baru by name. And all of the stories we know about Barb are from the Tommy Drew Sheli in Tus Mak's Tinus and the like and um why Khazal don't talk about Barba that much is very very interesting but they seem to have regarded it as a fiasco and a tragedy. And you're dealing with a difficult situation because you had Rabi, the greatest of the who put all of his eggs in the barba basket and that decision resulted in tremendous tremendous tragedy. I think the had difficulty how to kind of >> how to understand well the brings that when said Mashiach. So one of the said to him grass will grow out of your hands in the grave before Mashiach comes. So don't I mean there were that disagreed with Rabaka but Rabi Aka was the greatest. So Lammya this does raise a question and I'm not prepared to to really answer it. I mean was Rabi Aka wrong? Did Rabi Aka make this awful awful mistake that cost well the Gomorrah says millions of lives? All right. said the foresh say it must be an exaggeration but the numbers in the garra are astronomical it's in the millions although as they say I mean the m before say it this was a gma so the standard understanding was that barra potentially could have been mashiach the generation wasn't worthy see how do you the ram's language is this rakiba thought barka was mashiach ad shaherag Bavonos until he was killed because of sins. So there's a little bit of an ambiguity in the Rambam's formulation. Does he mean Bara was killed because of our sins? meaning he was Mashiah but Hashem took him away or does he mean barba had his own aus which shows he wasn't mashiach which is actually a more difficult proposition because that would indicate raba was totally wrong so there are different ways of learning one is but rabaka was right eli the generation didn't rise didn't rise to the challenge >> so historically speaking it wasn't like shops where like he went off to and started doing bad things right >> well As far as I know, the usual does not record him going off the derek, except for the idea of ga, meaning the idea of attributing the one that is mentioned is the idea that we don't need God. You know, we're powerful enough to do this on our own, which would be the Ga, but it wasn't like Shabsite who converted to Islam. It wasn't wasn't that particular story. So once again um Khazal kind of covered it up because they saw the dangers of false false messianism as we see in Jewish history later. Uh well starting with Yashka himself and then of course Shabsight and a number of other cases. In fact the Rambam has a whole letter about false mashiach way before Shabites. Okay. Uh last question or finished. Okay. All right. Thanks a lot and have a good week.