Korach: The Land & the Law - Does Dina D'malchusa Dina Apply to Heaven?

Okay, good evening everyone. We have an amazing topic tonight. Parasidar are generously sponsored by Dr. of Sidra is also sponsored by my friend Isaac Yasovski his father Shabsi Ben Rabis Isaac whose was Tesan and forma Yafa Mala Esther Bas Lea tonight's shar is dedicated by my friend and neighbor Dr. Fuges in honor of his father's yard tonight. Alfamos guest tomorrow night. She'll be a male of hers family. Tonight's shir is dedicated by the Manila children in honor of their mother's birthday. In honor of Khani Manila's birthday, she should have many happy and healthy years. Tonight she is dedicated by Leelish Mayor Benval for family. Okay. Now I know everybody's anxiously awaiting the publication of Isua which is uh coming out for the upcoming three weeks. In the meantime, um, make sure you get a hold of The Darkness and the Dawn. So, you have reading material. That's not one of my books. No. No. Right now, we're only, you have to focus on this book. Now, I'm not promoting that book. Only this book. Okay. Um, the darkness and the dawn. This way, you have uh time to read it before the three weeks begin. And then once the three weeks start, you'll have the Yeshua. Okay. So, and his cohorts they galvanize a dispute against Mosha Rabenu they challenge Moshabenu's appointment of Ain they challenge Mosenu's appointment of Alit and Benu and they question the whole authenticity of Moshenu's transmission of the Tyra and Moshabenu summons Dan and Aram and interestingly they respond as follows take a look in the Moshe sent to call the children of what they say. We're not coming up. We're not coming. It's bad enough you took us out of the land flowing with milk and honey, namely Egypt to kill us in the desert. It's bad enough. You took us out of a good land to bring us to this lousy desert. Now you want to exert authority over over us. [Laughter] You didn't even bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey. And you gave us an inheritance of a field and vineyard. to not care. Even if you poke at our eyes, we're not coming up. So, a few things over here. Number one is why do they say two times they're not coming up? They already said they said we're not coming. So, why do they have to repeat again? Yeah, I knew that was bothering you. That's why you came tonight. You know, we read this um it's in the very beginning of the para. You ever wonder? I'm sure you've seen the para before. Why does it say two times? But the more difficult thing here is they say, "You know why? We're not going to listen to you because you didn't give us fields and vineyards." Yeah. And what if Mush would have given them fields and vineyards then they would listen? That's what it's that's what it's boiling down to. That didn't give them real estate. And if he would have given them real estate, then they would have listened to him. Why the emphasis on the fact that You didn't even bring us into a land where we could have a field and vineyard. What What's the emphasis what are saying that you didn't give us real estate? It's almost like they just totally ignored the previous para that it wasn't it was that said you're not going because of what you did. So they they're blaming Mosha for that. Yeah. They're they're uh they're saying Moshabenu, so to speak, uh he he pulled this whole stunt because he's never was going to bring us in. But what's the emphasis on the fact that you didn't give us um a vineyard or a field? How is giving them a vineyard of field, then they would have had to listen and now that he didn't give them a vineyard and a field, they don't have to listen? What's that? What's the emphasis on that? So let's take one thing at a time in terms of why they said in the writings that are attributed to the briskar in the printed in tshin me 1986 these are from the of the from the grizz mipash the brriskarov says as follows that there really two reasons why do had to listen to mabenu because mishabenu had two roles Number one, he's the Nasi. Nasi means he's the head of the Bezdon. He's the He's the highest ranking judicial authority. He's the Nasi. He's the Aved. In fact, the Gumar Ka learns out the way to summon a potential um litigant, the way to summon someone to court from summoning. So one source of the obligation to listen to is the fact that is the ofden but there's another pointu is not just the head of the not just the highest ranking judicial authority he's also the melik of he's also the king let's say the ram says on the was literally the king that's why he blew the many the ram talks about having the status of the king as a king they also had to listen to him In fact, perhaps as a king, it was a greater obligation to listen to because cannot forgo his honor. So they needed to listen to as a and they needed to listen to my as a king. So first they say we're not going to listen to you as the head of the and then they say we're not going to listen to you as the king. That's why the next got very angry as the he had the right to overlook his honor. But as the mel he had no right to overlook his honor because in fact in the he points out that both of these two sources of why they would have to listen to myu are alluded to in the puk. Namely first they say um mosha sends to call dan and aam. Now if Mosha the Gmoray Kan learns from here the obligation of Balinim to come to Bezden from the fact that Moshe summoned we also learn out that question are you allowed to believe Lashinhara you know believe lashinhara but if somebody mocks the agent of the court and the agent of the court reports to the court the court is allowed to believe it that we learn out from the fact that mashenu accepted what the messengers ers told him in the name of Das. So the first so to speak summoning of Dan was as much in his capacity as the then they say even if you're not the you're not the if you're summoning user you're summoning us as authority meaning as a mel we're not going to listen to that either. But then it comes out that in their response that summon them as mel what what is their response? We're not going to listen to you as melik. You didn't give us land. How is land a reason why they don't have to listen to myu as a king. Okay. We're going to delve in that um further. Now we're going to we're going to enter this topic. This is a major topic. We won't spoke about it when we're learning. And now we're going to delve into it in a completely different way. We're going to talk about the rule of means the law of the government is a law. Which means even though in the Torah it doesn't say that you're not allowed to drive a car if you don't if your car did not pass an inspection. It's not a it's not one of the 613 mitzv. It's not one of the seven mitzvah and it's not in the Mishna. Still, if the government says you can't drive the car unless it passes an inspection, then you're not allowed to drive the car unless it passes inspection. You have to follow the law of the land. Now, is that really true? Is that a custom? Is that rabbitic? Or is that biblical? If it's biblical, then it would be like eating pork. you know, could you cross the street if it says don't walk? Could you go over the speed limit if the speed limit is 55? Okay? And I'm not going to get into exact specifics, but we're going to talk about it generally. We're going to talk about it conceptually tonight. The law of is it or is it seems like it is biblical. quotes the is of the opinion is which means that if let's say the government says you have to give a certain item to someone else the says I would only have to give it to him I would own it however disagrees says is not rabbitic it is biblical It is biblical and agrees and most say so again that's very important because that means paying taxes and the like and you know putting money maybe in the meter let's say you go to the bank and you say I'm going to be in the bank for eight minutes the first five minutes I have free are you allowed so you say I don't know I'm going to gamble Now I'm going to gamble. It's not worth it for me to put in 25 because the likelihood of me losing $35 is is almost negligible actually on Central and Avenue. They're going to nail you, right? That you have people who they get joy. I don't know. They're just doing their job. But that's the question. Is a personal obligated to follow the law? says, "Not only is one obligated to follow the law, it is biblical to follow the law. It's what's the punishment?" What's the punishment in this world? No. Yeah. If you don't listen to you want to Trump, who knows? No, I'm saying I'll I'll see this guy. What do you get? You get an issa. Is it Malcus? It's worse. What do you get? We It could be anything. Cars. No. Nissa. What do you get? It could be uh What's the punishment? Look, the gar said there are a lot of things that could not go wrong in this world. A lot of things could go wrong wrong in this world. Yeah. You're what what if a person doesn't put on fillin? There's no punishment specifically, but but this is allow. No, it's not allow. It says you have to listen to where does it? Okay, once we didn't get to where it says anything right now, we're just establishing that it's so right now we're saying it's now the next step is where what exactly is the rationale? What what is the source of Okay, now that we've established the bish holds it holds it. I mentioned holds it right. So what is the source of does it apply in every country? Does it apply maybe only in does it apply only in the United States of America? Okay. So let's see. We're going to start sort of backward tonight for a certain reason. Andra says all taxes and levies and all the practices of the laws of kings that they accustom in their Medina. If you if you go over the meter $35 if you violate alternate side parking $55. You park by a pump 135. I don't know all the rules. Barashem, you know, then there's points and there there there's um t there's fines and points and so on and so forth. All of these rules have status. Why? All the citizens of a particular country accept upon themselves willingly the laws of the king. So you say, "Really? No one asked me?" Yeah, we asked you. You're living here. You're living here. You've accepted it. If you don't accept it, go to Guatemala. Yeah. Or go to uh Chile or go to North Korea. You want to live in the United States of America. Then that means you willingly accept the law and you're obligated to follow the law. The same way you can't bring a phone into a you know that otherwise you're you're desecrating the sanctity of the sh. Same way you can't talk by you can't violate the law. And if the government takes money away from Ruin and gives it to Shim, Shim is not a robber. Shim is following the because the government awarded him the money. The Chumas had concurs with the Rashbam. The rashbam the chum sadash and says we see that all rulers put different levies and taxes and if you have decided to live in a place it's an implicit acceptance upon yourself the laws of the land so you'll say and what am I doing what what am I violating if I don't follow these monetary codes you're stealing you're stealing You're a gazlan. You're stealing. So what does that mean? If you're stealing, that means you can't be an aid. We can't go at a at a wedding. They say, you know, do me a favor. We want you to be aid kaducian. Say, "No, no, no, no, thank you. Why? You're not feeling good. Don't get involved. You're not a kosher witness. You're a Gazlan. If you don't follow the legal monetary rules of the country you live in, you're stealing." What do you mean? I never accepted it. You did. You implicitly accept it. If you live somewhere, you accept it upon yourself. And even if you don't, the society that you live in accepts it upon themselves whether they like it or not. That's the opinion of the rashbam and the What about Israel? I didn't say anything about Israel. This would apply in Israel also anywhere. If you live um if you live in Yemen with the Houthis, you would have to follow their rule, their rules. Let's say you live in Iran. Then the rule is after and they tell you they won the war and everyone has to go into the central market and pay homage to the to the supreme leader. Then that's the rule. Then you got to follow the rule. Okay. Now that's one that's the rashbam. There's another uh approach to and that's alien. Alien says that dina now does this apply only to monetary law. What about if they say I can't go past the speed limit? So someone who goes past the speed limit again I'm not getting into well could you go up to 9 miles an hour because it really means 55 means 64. I'm not getting into that. You have to whatever I'm not here to interpret the law. I'm not a legalist. I'm here to say whatever the law is is according to the rashbam does it only apply to monetary law or does it apply to also personal conduct? Rabino says the way Dina de Makusadena works is Hefker Bezdon Hefkar that the rulership the monarchy the sovereignty the government has monetary ownership of your property and they could render it ownerless. In other words, you say why do I have to pay so much taxes? I went to work and uh why do I have to pay? The answer is because they own the money. Because whatever you own, they own. It's through the process of Hefkar Bezdon Hefkar. Now where does this come from? Who invested this power in the government. So if you look in the sukim was asked by the people to appoint a king and said do you know what a king is all about? You know if the king says that he wants to take your children to lead his chariots and to run before him then your children belong to him. Or if the king wants to take your kids to plow with, to harvest with, to go to war, they belong to him. If the king needs your daughters to clean the house or to cook, they belong to him. If the king wants your fields, they belong to him. If the king wants your servants, your maidervants, if the king wants your sheep, it all belongs to him. In fact, the on the Rambam says that the din of is learned out from the laws of a king. In Na'vi we see that a king is invested with a certain authority of ownership over your possessions. The chabina says that according to this approach of in other words the first approach of is there's a implicit acceptance of the law of the land if you live somewhere. [Applause] This rule is that the king is invested with monetary ownership of your property. In that case, would that apply to a prime minister or a president or only an actual king? If it's learned out from da melik, maybe it's limited to someone who has the status of a melik not every ruler, especially when their checks and and balances would have the status of a melik. But what I'm here today to share with you is the of the in which is the most accepted per and the raan has a stunning and the ran says following the law of the land only applies outside of the land of Israel. It does not apply in Israel. This is the famous of the ran that many reinum agree with. And the ran says where does come from? It comes from as follows. The government owns the property. They own the land. You want to live on their land. You live on their land with understanding that you follow the rules. Because if you So you say, "Why? I want to live on the land and not follow the rules." Then you're a gazlan. You have no right. You've decided you're going to live on the land that they own. The is you cannot go onto someone else's house if you don't follow house rules. That's just basic common sense. If you go somebody says come into my house, please take off your shoes. No, I don't want to take off my shoes. So, you're a gazlan. You're stealing. He only let you in on that condition. Says the take a look at number 12. Only by the rulers of the Gentiles do we say. They own the land. They could say, "If you don't fulfill my commands, get out of here. I'm going to send the ICE agents and deport you. You can't be here. If you don't, you cross on a red light. Get out of my country. You have no right to You're a Gazlan." But Jewish kings, we don't apply. Why? because they don't own the land. Well, we all own the land. All of Claris owns the land. Since we all own the land, we do not apply the rule of Would that would that explain the story with Navos? So, we'll discuss it after that according to the only applies in does not apply in Israel. Now the explains that according to the it doesn't matter if it's a Jewish king or a non-Jewish king. Doesn't matter if it's a Jewish prime minister or a non-Jewish prime minister. If you live outside of Israel, you must follow all the laws of the land. If you live in Arat Israel, you are not bound even if it's a non-Jewish king. In other words, whether if you live in you have to follow the government even if they're Jewish. If you live in Israel, then would not apply even if they're not Jewish. This is the the perish of the Ran is of the opinion is dependent on ownership of according to this that points out that it would not only apply by you don't have to be a melik. In other words, you live in a country. The country says give us x% of your earnings to as taxes. You're biblically obligated to do that. It would be more important than sedaka. People say why should I give the government the money? I'd rather give it to the says charity campaign. The answer is taxes are thea charity. Who asks you to give it? Who asks you to give it? Of course thear is going to come and he could pull any trick in he he's not going to get let you off easy. But taxes according to this would be there. Now, this would specifically apply to anything land related, especially meters because the meter, they actually own the spot. So, you can't say, "I'm going to take a chance. I'm going to park there. I'm not going to put in the quarter." And chances are, no. According to this, you don't own the spot. You have no right to go there. It would be stealing to go into that spot. according to this. Okay, this has many ramifications and I know it makes you uncomfortable and I don't care. I'm not here to make you comfortable. I'm not a service station. I'm not here to give you air conditioning or to make you feel good. I'm here to teach Tyra and it's important once in a while to understand that Tory is not what you think makes you feel good. There's certain it's more important to be MS than to feel like a righteous Jew. You have to first do the right thing and then you could do the things that make you fuzzy wuzzy and cozy. Anyway, if you wanted to feel cozy, there are other people you could go to. They could make you feel very cozy. Does the care whether it's a a mel by the proper definition or no according to the it doesn't matter exactly government being in trouble, right? The chabina says according to the it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be a king. It would be any government. Okay. This is the opinion of the which is the main namely it's dependent on real estate. If the government is giving you the real estate, which it is in the United States of America, you got to follow the rules. Okay? To burn down a show in their country. You got to burn down the show. So now we're dealing with two different uh opposing views. On the one hand, it's also other laws. So now we have to know which one is uh which one is more important. We look if your father tells you to violate, you have to listen to your dad. But if he tells you to violate the then of course you don't violate because he also has to listen to God. So it's the same thing with the government. You know it's the same type of logic government. Now this is not the subject exactly what laws you have to follow. You have to be a loyal citizen. We'll leave it at that. This is all by way of introduction. says now we can understand the words of say to look we don't believe you really spoke to God we don't believe in your authority but don't we have to listen to you because you're a mech whether you're a divinely sent agent or not you're the king aren't you the king so we have to listen to you so they say no you didn't give us real estate You didn't give us land. If you would have given us land, then we would have to follow you because you're the mel but you're a mel without land. This is like the land of Israel. We don't have to keep the laws of the government. We don't do does not apply. According to the ran, the puk reads so beautifully. You see that even the lumbus of the Torah fits into the words of the puk. Why are they saying we don't have to listen to you because you didn't give us real estate? Because as we pointed out from the brisk is saying there are two reasons potentially we have to listen to mash. Number one you're the listening. Number two you're the mel and so that we're not listening either. Why? Because you didn't give us real estate. Okay we said this on Sunday but this really got me thinking about the following idea. So what's the rale for? Not to listen to what's the rationale for them not to listen to. They don't really give a They just said they're not. They didn't give a ration. Now, so initi the laws of do not apply. This really got me thinking. In order for to apply, you need land. I was thinking, does apply? Do you have to listen to Hashem? because he's also a government. I mean if you have to listen to Hanasi Donald Trump Donald Ben. Yeah. Then you have to listen. In other words, does the law of apply to your say what what relevance? You have to listen to him because he's Hashem because he gave us the Tory. Doesn't he own? Do you doesn't belong to him? Well, he gave well one thing is he gave it to us. He gave it to us. But what got me thinking is there are times in history we technically did not have to keep the Tyra. But would we have to have listened to Hashem? You'll see where I'm going. Okay. There's a very well-known Garabas. The Gmorra says in the stood at the foot of the mountain. We learn out from here suspended the the mountain over their head like a barrel. He said if you accept the good otherwise I'm going to kill you right here under the mountain. I'm going to drop the mountain on your head. So basically to describe how Hashem gave the Tory to the Jewish people, he coerced us to accept the Tyra. He forced us to accept the Tyra. So the gamarra makes an interesting comment on this gamarra. What's a haka? If I coersse you into an agreement, are you bound by that agreement? You know, you go over to somebody, you put a gun to their head, and you say, "Here, do you agree to wash my floors every day?" Yeah. So now what the guy and the guy signs he has to wash the floors every day. That's not an agreement. He was coerced. You're not bound by that. So says, This is a great opt out clause for the Tyra. In other words, we don't really have to keep the Tyra because God shoved it down our throat. That's the Gomorrah. You know this Gomorrah. The Gmorrah says that God coerced us to accept the Tyra. To which the Gomorrah comments, this is a great optout clause for the Tyra. Tyus asks, "What do you mean this is a great optout clause? But the Gomorrah says that God made a treaty with Cla Israel and he made us swear on Harrison and Haral. So we're bound by the Torah because we took avo. But that's not binding either. You think he first he he suspends a mountain over our head, right? He says here, look, look up. There's a bunker buster bomb about to fall on you, right? You want the Torah? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We We love it. Right. So says, "No, we're not bound by that. It's because we were forced." So asks, "Yeah, but we swore because we knew that if we wouldn't swear, probably there more more ammunition where that came from." Okay. The garra then says, "So the Gmorrah asks, does that mean we're not bound by the Tyra?" The garra says, "No, we accepted it in the times of purava." So the reason we're bound by the Torah is because in times of pur we accepted it by comes the rashbah and the rashba asks, "So then what about for the uh years or the 890 years before we before the story of purim what we weren't bound by the Tory?" I thought you read the Naveim, we were punished quite a few times before the Purum story. But according to the Gamarra that since we were forced into accepting the Tory, we're not bound by the Tory. Ask the Rajba. So what happened for the 40 years in the Midbar and the 440 years before they first before they built the first B of Mikdash and the 410 years that the first B of Mikdash stood that means we weren't bound by the Torah. So why did God punish them? Asked the Rajma. You hear the kasha? If indeed if we have an apt clause, so why did Hashem punish us? So the rajba says, I'll tell you why. The truth is we were not bound by the Tyra. But then Hashem brought us into the land. And when he brought us in the land, there's a stipulation. And you want the land, you keep the laws. Otherwise, get out of here. Says the rajbah. In the beginning, there was an opt out clause. But he only gave us the land to be the Torah. Like it says, So the truth is that originally when we were init clause so Hashem kicked us out of the land. So Cla thought that we don't have to keep the Tyra anymore until in the times of Purim we accepted it by so I'm thinking about this. So think about it like this. When God gave us the Torah, were we bound by the Torah? Nope. So then why did why would he punish us for 890 years? The answer is because we're on the land. And if you're on the land, you got to keep the rules. What is that called? To me, that's called the bound us. So, you know, we know that whatever rules there are are based on what's in the Torah. It's almost as if what bound us until he gave us the land. Even though maybe the Ran would say, "But what do you mean he gave us the land?" He But he gave it to us. So, if he gave it to us, we own it. Do you know the doesn't apply. No, it doesn't apply to the government. The Ran says, right? The Ran holds does not apply to the government in Israel because they don't own the land. We own the land. But if we got it from so the stipulation, the understanding is we're we can only stay on the land if we keep the rules. Which gives me a very big insight into why is so important. You know, if you don't keep then all the clothes of the come. Why is Schmita so important? Because if demonstrates Hashem owns the land, if you don't accept that Hashem owns the land, basically for a thousand years, we didn't have to keep the Tory. So the foundation of the whole Tyra until Purim is the fact that Hashem owns the land and he gave it to us on condition we keep the law. So if you don't keep Shmita, there's no Tyra. You don't have to keep anything because if you don't believe Hashem owns the land, we're not bound by the Tyra. That's the Rashbah. The Rajba is quoted by one of the called I looked up the Rajbah. It does not appear in Rajba. But you know who quotes the Rajba? The Parasim. Yeah, the the Parasim quotes the Rajba. Again, it is not found in Rajba, but the quote it. And the Rajba says this amazing idea that before the story of Purim, the only thing that bound the Jewish people to the Tory is the fact that Hashem gave us the land. And if we're going to stay on the land, we better pay we better put a quarter in the meter and we better keep the 613 mitzvah. If you don't keep the by the way which gives you a much deeper understanding of the importance of keeping the Tory in because as much as you have to keep the Tory anywhere in the world there's there it becomes according to you're elevated that in there is which by the way works very well with the Ran says there's no to the government init Israel. Why? Cuz you Hashem gave you the land. So now we can't make a secondary stipulation. By the way, you can only be on the land if you follow what the you No, you I'm already I'm already subject to the law of a higher authority in this land. I can't now. The government can come. Now, by the way, that doesn't mean there's not the secondary um the rash bombs. The idea that if we're living here, we've accepted their rulings upon ourselves. There's still that element of but the main of the only applies in now the runs with this rash. There's an interesting says that the talks about three tiers of the three tiers. What are the three tiers? One for the mikdashine, one for the mikdashi and one for the galos the one for tyra. So the third tier of some some say it's for galos and some say it's for tyra. The parasim says according to the rashbah the leaving is because if we're not in the land we don't even have to keep the tyra anymore. You hear this before the purim story once hashem exiled us from is we actually were not obligated to keep the tyra doesn't mean we didn't have to. It means if we didn't we couldn't be punished. So leaving Israel was the greatest bet to it actually nullified the fulfillment of the whole Tyra because if we're not in the land there's nothing binding us to keep the Tyra. In fact if you look the parasim says in um if you look on the left hand column on page three in the cifree the sri says on the pik that Hashem's going to send to galos. So, Hashem says, "Even though I exile you, still continue to perform the mitzvah. This way, when you leave, it won't be something new. It's a mel. It's a mush to a king who got angry at his wife. He sent her off to her to his father-in-law. He says, "Do me a favor. Continue to put on makeup so that when I call you back, you're going to know what makeup is." Okay? I'm just I'm telling you what the matter says. Don't this is this is what it says. Okay? Right? The mush is a husband said the king sends away the prince the the queen. He tells her I'm banishing you but don't stop with the makeup because when I bring you back I need you to be in the routine of makeup. So the Ramban asks Hashem is telling us when we go into gullus we should keep mitzvah so that when we come back we don't forget how to do it. Why doesn't Hashem say that when we go into exile we have to keep mitzvah because we have to keep mitzvah. What's Kazal saying that the only reason we keep mitzvah in the gulos as practice we have to keep mitzvah in the gulos because we're we're expected to keep the mitzv the answer is no we're not before the story of purim when we went into gulos we did not hashem could not bind us to keep the tyra because hey since he coerced us to accept the tyra we have an opt- out clause the only thing binding us is being in the land once we left the And according to the par says we are not obligated to keep the says the further there's a rash in you know that they mocked us over shabas the said I don't understand when you live in Israel you don't keep shabas and then when you come to uh when you come to gullis you keep shabas which is by the way one of the most bizarre are phenomenon that we encounter in the gulas. You have people living in Israel. For whatever reason, they're not observant until they come to Brooklyn. It's a it's a very common phenomenon. It's a common phenomenon in the holy land for whatever reason. And that's so the says mock us. You're when the B mdra is standing, you didn't keep the Tory. Now God destroyed the B mikdash. Now you're keeping the Torah. So the param asks why are they mocking us? Maybe we learned the lesson because we didn't keep the Tory and the B mdash was standing and God banished us and he punished us. So we learned the lesson and now we're keeping the Tyra. Why are the Gyam mocking us? So the param says they're mocking us because how how counterintuitive is what kisra did when they were in the holy land and they were obligated to keep the Tory because since they're in the land they have to keep the Tory because of otherwise Hashem will say I'm going to throw you out of the land and we didn't keep the Tory now that we left Israel and we're not bound by the Tory because again before the Purum story we there was there was an opt- out clause And the only thing binding us was being init. So they mocked us. When you had to do it in the land, you didn't. And now dapka, when you don't have to do it, you're keeping it. That's why they're mocking us. The uh owns the whole world, not just Well, we'll have to see about that. He created you. You say that like you you know that he owns it. What? He told you you communicate. When was the last time you had a avo straight up that God came to you? It's interesting on that Rashi. Rashi doesn't say we see from here God created the owns the whole world. He says from here we see God owns Israel. He gave it which we're going to see. We're going to come to that the the par says that according to the rashbah we could understand the yermia and we know was and theukim and yermia say that yeria told the people leave Israel go to be and then God won't burn down the You hear what Yeria said? Ya said leave Israel then you'll be safe and Sidka said don't listen to him said don't listen to him. So it's what in the world is Yermia telling the people leave and then then Hashem won't destroy you saysim. Yes exactly knew they weren't keeping the Tyra. They're only liable to keep the Tyra if they want to stay in the land. If they leave the land, again, this is before the PM story. After the PM story, we're bound by the Tory because we accepted it willingly. Before the PM story, for those 890 years, the only thing binding us to keep the Tory according to the rashbah is being. So says the paradia told them, I have a great idea. go to BL then you could exercise the opt out clause of Mikmoa and then God won't hold it against you for not keeping the Tyra and he won't destroy the city and Sidia said don't listen to him you can't leave Israel and Sidkio was wrong they argued and um yeah is that what's your first name the is whether they agreed to the or not according to the held like the only thing binding us to keep the Torah is being and said nah even being in Israel didn't bind us so we might as well stay here again this is classic parim technique taking aim and making it that when you have figures in the that have a dispute like yo and the brothers argued whether the the brothers have the status of or only or so forth. Okay. Now, we're going to come to the next step because see the way I see it. What bound the Jewish people to keep the Torah before the Purum story is what I view as he gave us the land. If you want to be in the land, you got to keep the law. That's how I view it. that would bound us to keep the Tory before the PM story is comes the par and the parim asks on the ready this is one of the most classic questions of the parimas okay so if you go home tonight and somebody says to you zra what do you say you say what do you mean I went to a shar a shir what kind of shar just like you went to a parashir I thought you're a grown man. You went to a parishes here. Yeah. No, we learned lambdas. Lus, you learned the briskar. Yeah, we learned the kiss. No, but you didn't do a parish. No, we learned the parish. It's going to go very far. The param goes very It will earn you a lot of brownie points or at least it should. Okay. The this is one of the most well famous questions of the paras. The parim the garra says that before the purim story we weren't bound by thera because hashem forced us to accept thera asks the par what do you mean we weren't bound by thera if we're bound to the government because of then aren't we bound to through that's The param's question again the Gmorrah says that before the purum story we have a great opt out clause because we could say Hashem we don't have to keep the Torah you shoved it down our throat asked the parim maybe we don't have to keep the Torah as an agreement but what about also God is at least as strong as Hani Trump and if you have to listen to him of course you have to listen to Do you know the Now I already answered that question. That's exactly what the Rajba says because the Rajba says, "Well, if there's an opt out clause, then why did Hashem punish us?" To which the Rajba says, "Because we were on the land, and if you're on the land, you have to keep the law." And I call that so the parim's big his most famous question he ever asked. I think we answered it tonight. The the whole presentation I presented to you that according to the Rashba, why was God able to punish us before the Purim story? So what does the Rajba say? Because we're on when you're on the land, you have to keep the law. And we showed that logic of keeping the law on the land is who the rans asks what's the kasha? What's the garamar's kasha that we don't have to keep the because we were forced but what do you mean we have to keep the law because of so I would say exactly that's what that's how the raja explains the garra the when the raashba asked on the garra how could hashem have punished us before purim his answer is really the question the parraim has on the garra but this again let's just isolate the question the param's question on the garra is that how could the garra say that we didn't have to keep the tyra because we were forced. What about I want you to see it inside cuz at least at the Shabas table you're going to say it over the famous theim. It's on page four right hand side bottom. By the way, God sent you down to this world to do a lot of things. One of the things should be at least one time in your life to see the words of the parim. That should be on your bucket list. You know people have bucket lists on your bucket list. I would top 100 is at least one time in your life to see a he says in the bottom paragraph right hand side an opt out clause is only possible if you force your friend to do something a king who commands his servants to do something they have to do it they You can't I was coerced. So even if Hashem coerced us, don't we have to don't we have to listen to him? Now the says the rajma himself asks this question in the way he phrases this question that maybe we have to listen to because of so answers very interestingly the said I'm sorry the answers does not apply to is at all. You know why? Because what's Hashem going to say? You're you're in my land. You have to keep the law. If you don't keep the law, get off the land. I have a question. Let's say somebody comes to you and says, "You're on my land. Get off the law unless you get off the land unless you keep the law." What if I tell them, "The reason I'm on the land is because I inherited it from my father." Then nobody can impose any restrictions on me. The reason I'm on the land is you didn't give it to me. I inherited it. says the belongs to us because God gave it to Abraham and and we inherited it from him. So, Hashem can't turn around and say, "I'm the king. If you want to be on my land, you got to keep the law." I said, "No, I don't. I already inherited from Abra." So, the parish says does not apply to Israel. Why? Because we inherited it from Aramino. Take a look on the left hand side fifth line. If would not be in the presumptive status from the gift of Abraham if God would be giving it to us now then of course we could apply the rule because Hashem could say I'm not giving you the land unless you follow the rule the rules. If the reason we're and we're coming we can't say how am I supposed to emulate sounds like from what the the is saying that everywhere else but as you saw we're not supposed to emulate Hashem by doing everyone else is doing but we're not well is not what Hashem does to us it's what we have to do to him so we're not bound by it if we're not because nobody's is imposing any restriction because the land doesn't belong to them. Okay. So again the parish asked that how could the garra say there's an opt out clause what's the opt out clause I think we answered exactly that's what the rajbah says that's why we were that's why hashem punished us even before the purum story because since we were on the land we're obligated to keep the law but the param says does not apply to because we inherited it from Ara. You know who else asked this question of the Gumarra says that before the purum story we were not obligated to keep the law because Hashem coerced us to accept the Tyra. So the question of the par is what do you mean don't we have to keep the law because of you know who asked this question in the in number 19 in what what is called at the end he says what's the garra saying but god has to be as as strong as the government. So, here's the thing. Do you know the what if the government says, "Okay, Jews, you have to keep this law and nobody else." What if the law is not universal? What if it's a prejudiced legality? Do you have to keep it? No. Only applies if it's uh universally imposed. So the question is, so therefore says, you can't say would obligate us to keep the Tyra because Hashem doesn't ask all of mankind to keep the Tor. He only asks the Jewish people to keep the Tyra. If so, it's so to speak a prejudice law. We have to keep it because he's Hashem. But out government, you don't have to keep it because it's not universal. It's not If it's not universal, we don't have to keep it. But then you'll say, "What do you mean?" But what if Hashem is only our king and he's not the king of the nations of the world? What if Hashem is our king but to the nations of the world he appoints Malim to be their guide? So then in that case would apply because it is it's not a prejudice law. Hashem universally applies it to all of his subjects and only Jewish people are his subjects. Nations of the world are not his subjects. Or maybe Hashem can't hold us liable for keeping the Tory. But if you look through the words of the Nim, you'll find says almost every critique of the Jewish people is for not keeping the and the is universal. So for that we will apply. So says with this we can understand we say Hashem's ways are just all his ways are righteous. Why? But why did he punish us? He forced us to accept the Torah. The answer is because of I. But it's not a universal law. Yes, it is. Why is it not a universal law? He says as follows. He says the reason why Hashem punished Israel for acing the Torah even though we were co coerced. Number one, because we violated the Zitz is of corruption. We violated the Ben. That's a hash. And therefore, that's universal. And number two, if you're going to say, but it seems like Hashem also held us accountable for not keeping the mitzvah. No. And if we're the of Hashem, then Hashem is only our king. He's not the king of the whole world. The rest of the world, they have their own government system. And therefore, Hashem could hold us liable to Okay, Rabbi say. So, tonight we uh we studied the three main shitas of Dina Musad, the shittita of the rashbam that it is an implicit acceptance of the authority of the land you live under. We learned the opinion of alias that it's through hefer than heel and most importantly the it's hinged to the we explained that's why emphasized we don't have to listen to you as a mel why because you didn't give us we pointed out according to the ofan seems to have applied to the Jewish people in Israel before we accepted the tyra willingly And we learned the great question of the that how could the say that we were not bound by the Torah if uh if in fact maybe we weren't bound because of a willing acceptance but we were we should be bound because of have a wonderful evening. Do we have a minion?