Rambam's Letters: Karaites | Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz | November 26th 2025

waiting. >> Okay. Okay, I guess um I guess I'll start. Um again, we're uh examining a very interesting personal letter uh that the Rambam wrote to a man who lived in Baghdad. Uh Yoseph Iben Iben Jabar, that happens to be his name, otherwise unknown to history. The Rambam made him famous. And Yoseph Iben Yabar is a self-proclaimed ammo orets. He says that he is ignorant. He does not know Hebrew well. Uh he did not learn in any yeshiva. But as he got a little bit older, we're not told exactly what his age was. He began to be interested in learning Torah. And he began just as a person might use art scroll or English translations, he began to read everything that he could in Arabic in terms of Torah literature. And as a result, he became very proficient in the Arabic nonfosophical writings of the Rama. Yoseph Gubar was not a philosopher. So the guide to the perplexed was not on his agenda per se but he did read the commentary to the Mishna which the Rambam had written in Arabic. Uh and he begged the Rambam to translate I'm reviewing a little bit the Mishna Torah the compendium which was written in Hebrew. And the Rambam uh said well he doesn't want to do that because he actually regrets a little bit that he wrote the Mishna commentary in Arabic uh because he prefers that people study Balasha. Yeah. Thank you. But he tells Yoseph Vivven and Jabbar that the Hebrew is very easy in the Mishna Torah and therefore if you just uh begin to study it you will pick it up very very quickly. Uh but the most beautiful part of the letter are the Rambam's words of encouragement to a person. He says, "Do not put yourself down. Do not be misal. Uh, do not call yourself an amaras. You are a lover of Torah. You are a student of Torah. And I regard you as one of my students." Even though the Rambam obviously had many brilliant students, but he said, "You're my student as well." And he brought out the stories of Rabi Akiva who didn't start learning Torah till 40 and became very very great. So it is uh it is very nice that we see maybe this different side of the Rambam. You know on one hand uh the Rambam was sometimes uh a bit angry at the different attacks that he had and he would often be very very critical. On the other hand you also see a loving caring site. It reminds me a little bit because it's it's not not a a complete association but you know many of you have heard of the ruggage veron of Yoseph Rosen who died in the 1930s roachon was a super genius quite literally uh just a genius um in fact he was the co-rabi in Dinsk with Simka the orame so that's a little city in the uh in in Latvia Dinsk had two great great great great rabbis but their personality ities were very different. The arsame ram simka was very gentle, very soft spoken. The rugach was a stormy fire of different associations. So for example, if you sent the rugach a shila, he would give you an answer just by giving you 50 references. He he would not answer anything. You would just say, "See this, see this, see this, see this, see this." And in truth, if you look at the references, they seem to have no bearing on the question. And to this day, to this day, there are full-time think tanks, Kovaleim, that are trying to decipher the chain of reasoning and association. As the recorder went from A to Z multiplied by infinity to get to a certain point without explaining the intermediate links and people are still working on those intermediate links. Uh so the thing about the ruggage was uh that the rugged shoe if people tried to tell him their Torah or whatever it is no they really got shut down. They say Raarin Cutler who was already known as a brilliant Roshiva in his 20s very much wanted to speak in learning with the rugat but he couldn't present himself as a Roshiva he would be destroyed. So he presented himself as a businessman who learns a little bit during the day and uh the record listened and the record said you know for a businessman you're not too bad that was like that was like the highest compliment. So the reason I'm bringing this in is you'll see the connection in a moment that once a Rav came to him and the Rav spoke in learning with with him and the rugver was very very nice to him. So the Rav said, "I don't understand. Everybody says, "You're so rough on Tommy." And the rug answered, "Yes, that's true. I am." So in a sense, the Rambam was a bit a bit the same. Although personality wise the Rambam was very different but in the sense that the Rambam was sometimes impatient with people who claimed to be learned an aryodite who truly did not really understand what they were talking about. But if somebody genuinely said, "I'm ignorant. I don't know." The Rambam treated them with a great deal of love and a great deal of of patience because they were honest and they were seeking the truth and it was not a matter of self advertisement or reputation. So I think you could see that the Rambam tended to be more critical of people who claimed the mantle of learning than people who honestly admitted that they were not so learned but they wanted to learn. But be it as it may, uh the Rambam's words are certainly a model for all of us who are involved in, you know, teaching people who have of limited backgrounds and whatever it would be that uh or how we relate to Jews with limited backgrounds and the like. Now, that was the first part of the letter. The second part of the letter which I'm not going to go over in detail but I didn't finish it is Rav Yoseph not R but Yseph Iban Jabar asked the Rambam a number of questions because Baghdad apparently was a hotbed of mymonades criticism and this is even before the guide to the perplexed which engendered a whole new series of criticisms in Baghdad they were even criticizing the Mishna Torah they said ah the Rambam doesn't know what he's talking about he's contradicting Talmudic sources And Yoseph Jabbar was not familiar with the Talmud at all. He didn't learn Gomorrah. But his hero is being insulted. So he basically says to the Rambam, "I'm hearing all of these questions. Can you just answer kind of yes or no? Give me short answers on all of these questions so I'll know how to defend you." As if you know the Rambam needs Yoseph Jabar to defend him. So as a result uh the Rambam takes the time to address around 20 different issues and explain them to in a in a relatively simple way. Now it's interesting these very since oh I'm sorry let me just give the um dedication for today. I got it a little later. Uh today's share is dedicated anonymously for the refu LMA of Ealina. Uh, may she have a we very much appreciate uh the support of Torah. Thank you very much. Yeah, I apologize for not saying it earlier. Okay. Uh, and uh, it's interesting the issues in the Yoseph Jabar letter actually resurface. It's interesting. Apparently they were major issues in the Rambam's time and they resurface in many other letters to rabbis to Roshivas the same issues but they are discussed in different ways. So it's interesting how the Rambo might take the same issue and to Yoseph Iban Jabar he gives a relatively simple straightforward answer and then when he's writing to Roshibas or he's writing to rabbis uh he gives different proofs Talmudic discussions and the like but it is interesting that apparently these issues that some of some of which you mentioned yesterday and I'll finish the list today uh these issues were uh major issues For some reason they engendered a lot of criticism against the Rambam and the Rambam felt a need to respond. But as I say just as says and the Rambam uses this verse you must train a youth according to his way and that's a very important clal in raising children and in teaching students that everybody is different and you must speak to them in the language that is accessible to them. So uh the Rambam is uh very consistent uh to the simpler person the Rambam responds simply and to the people who are in a higher level of air addition although the Rambam is more critical but the Rambam will respond with a greater degree of every addition uh you know people say that uh sometimes they make a mistake they say the sign of a learned person is I I have no idea what he's talking about meaning if I can understand him he must not be that Right. In fact, um I think it was um Martin Buber once said Martin Buber uh when he came to Hebrew University um I believe he did not lecture in Hebrew even though he knew Hebrew. So he said um I don't know Hebrew enough to be confusing to people meaning my Hebrew would be straightforward. No. So to be a scholar you got to be confusing. Uh the Rambam very much held uh the opposite the opposite idea. Okay. Uh if you remember uh the last thing that we talked about which historically is very interesting uh is that the Rambam was criticized for certain leniencies and the laws of Nida and such as the Rambam permits a nida to uh if if a need sits on a chair the husband is allowed to sit on the chair not at the same time necessarily but later. And the Torah says, "What do you mean? Uh, the chair that Anita sits upon is tame." So, how can you do that? So, the Rambam introduced here a very I'm going to repeat it a little because it is a very very important dichotomy in the laws of Nida. The Rambam differentiates between the prohibitions of Nida and the tuma, the ritual impurity of Nida. The prohibitions of Nita, meaning that which is forbidden in the time of Nita, refers to physical intimacy between husband and wife and by extension things that can cause sexual arousal such as hugging, kissing and the like. Those are the prohibitions of Nita and they of course do not go off until the requisite seven days and followed by by mikvah. Now there's a whole other area of the laws of Nita that today and even in the Rambam's time we actually don't even practice and that is a nita is a source of ritual impurity just like a dead body or just like a seinal emission or or the like and that would mean for example that a woman that's a nida at a minimum would not be allowed to go on the temple mount I mean that that's for sure the bas mikdash But a man that would touch a nida would be subject to the same level of impurity. And when the Torah says uh a man should not sit on a chair that a nida sat on, the Torah is not prohibiting the practice. The Torah is simply giving me definitions of tuma. That the tuma of nida moves from the neida to the chair and from the chair to the man. So the man who would sit in such a chair is not committing a sin but he happens to be tame meaning he couldn't go to the beta mikdash till he goes to the mikvah etc. And the same thing is true with food. The food that a need touches is tame. But so what I'm allowed to eat food there's no there's no a involved. The only thing is tuma will have repercussions regarding the temple. Now the kites this is where the ra brings it in which viewed the Torah in a very literal way. They looked at the word as a form of taboo. And they basically said, "Oh, if the Torah says to that means it's prohibited." And the Rambam says, "If that's where you're coming from, Yoseph Jabar, or that's where they're coming from, they shouldn't think they're righteous people. They shouldn't think they're sadikim." What has happened is Kraite biblical interpretation has permeated their consciousness and therefore now the Rambam then said, "Okay, listen. If the worst that happens is they're being strict for no reason. They're being machmishell. Okay, they're being mach even though it's carism. But the problem is the carites had a whole other apparatus that was very lenient. Remember that they basically said that if a woman who's not anida sprinkles water and a woman that is anida that purifies her based on the biblical verse, I will sprinkle upon you uh pure waters. Now there the Rambam says we can't play games with that because if minor a woman is not permitted to be with her husband until she goes to the mikvah and they're allowing the sprinkling of this water to allow marital union. They are transgressing is minor that are very very serious. So the Rambam says listen if you're being a carite in the limited sense of adopting stringencies even though that's foolish and wrong the Rambam says I will tolerate I'll I'll let you go with that but the problem is you know it comes as a package deal and uh the Ram therefore the Rambam cautions him not to follow the path of the carites now as I mentioned last week carites today are they exist and they have a synagogue etc. But I think it's fair to say that numerically at least without again I'm not intending to insult anybody numerically they are a marginal group. They are not a numerically significant group. Uh in the Rambam's time they were quite quite quite quite large. We were talking about tens of thousands of kites uh in Egypt. And as I indicated, um, the war against the karite, not not against karites as people, but the war against their interpretation of the Jewish religion is actually a major subthe in the Rambam. The Rambam doesn't explicitly talk about it that much in the Mishna Torah, but many have said that that is the underpinning of of many different formulations in the Mishna Torah are anti- kraim. Uh in those days uh the kirites were a major challenge uh to the Jewish religion uh particularly in Egypt uh and the Rambam felt he had to address it. Uh yeah practiced some biblical commandments um without what the interpretation of the laws that after they had already been with >> Yeah, you you you are correct. Uh again, I wouldn't call Ethiopians kites because that stems from a different movement historically. They were not connected to the Kaitites. So don't confuse them. But but uh in many many ways they pose the same problem because since they were Manutak since for centuries they were cut off from the rabbitic tradition. Then essentially they developed practices with great devotion great personal devotion and great miraffes. One has to have a lot of admiration for the struggles of the Ethiopian Jews and and their fidelity to Hashem and and what they believe the Torah said. But but you are correct. I mean essentially many of their practices are somewhat similar to the kerites because they were not connected to the toes. Yeah. >> One son wants to marry the daughter of a kite. >> What is >> so so here's the thing. Um at least in the Rambam's time and even until modern times the carites were given the status of Jews. They were considered to be Jews who were not observing the Torah. they were like non-religious Jews so to speak in the sense of rejecting the the oral law and the rabbitic laws. Uh so as a result um marrying a carite would be the same problem as marrying somebody who wasn't sharabas. There was no particular ceremony but obviously it's a problematical union because religiously they're holding in different places. In recent decades or recent centuries, uh, some Rabanim have been stricter with the carites, basically saying that in the course of time they may have accepted their own converts who arely still not Jewish and as a result there is from our perspective intermarriage and as a result me many would require Kairaim uh could not prove an unbroken Jewish lineage to uh to convert. Now, of course, in order to convert, they would have to renounce uh keratism. I mean, you can't convert somebody who says they're a karite because uh one of the conditions of conversion, orthodox conversion, is that they accept the system. So uh if you if you follow the strict view that carites need conversion bis manaz it would not be possible for um uh an orthodox Jew to marry a carite unless the carite renounced keratism. Now as I say though many postkim still consider karites to be hakic Jews. So there would be no conversion uh that would be uh required. Uh again it's an interesting movement. They have a website. Uh you could uh not that I'm encouraging it necessarily, but you could check some of their uh practices. And you know, because the car right well I'll tell you I I remember I may have said this, forgive me for repeating. Um I was once uh wandering around in the Harvard University library, the Whitner Library, which is really one of the great libraries in the world. And they have a huge huge huge collection of Jewish books. It's a huge repository of of cifra kodesh. Sometimes I wonder you know uh the garra says everything needs masle even the safer Torah you know. I wonder, you know, how come some Gumar ends up in a base medish where everybody's using it all the time and some end up in university library where it's not used that much, you know, it's the same book like why does, you know, the look of the draw, so to speak, masle. Uh, but I came across a whole section devoted to kite literature and I thought that was interesting because, you know, superficially if you don't think about it, you would think, oh, why would the carites have literature? All they have is the Bible. They have the Tanakh and they specifically reject, you know, interpretations and commentaries, but that's not really true. Uh they may reject our commentaries. They have their own commentaries on Tanakh and they even have their own sitter car. Well, they do obviously carite sitter. Now, what's in a carite sitter? Uh well, uh all of the things in our sitter that are from Tanakh. So the schma is there and zim the the chapters of tahillim are there they don't have they don't have an amida they don't have the blessings before and after but what they do have is they have their own poetic compositions in other words they don't just use tanakh they have a literature they generated poetry they generated prayer they even generated literature I maybe is not the right term but uh kariteic literature uh which they sometimes draw on the Gorrah as a source but not as an authoritative source meaning they will consult rabbitic literature in fact there were kerites who were very learned in Talmudic literature even though religiously they did not I mean just like you can have non-Jews who may know a lot of Talmud uh even though they did not regard the Talmud as authoritative. Now, because however, their primary focus was grammar and Tanakh, they became very very proficient in Hebrew language and grammar. And as a result, even our classical biblical commentaries commentators will sometimes quote Kyra Kraite interpretations of words. You look in the Ebenezra, look in the Abarbanel. Now, they'll often differ with the car rights, but they will consider them to be worthy of of being of being addressed. And um again, I forgive me for mentioning this, but um one of the best books to this day on refuting the claims of Christian missionaries, right? Christian missionaries always bring this Puk and this Puk and Isaiah and the virgin birth, all sorts of things. And most yeshiva guys like never even heard of of the Nihayahu whatever it is. In fact, I saw okay I mean listen I saw a YouTube video. Unfortunately there are Israeli Jews, Israeli Jewish kids who have become Christian missionaries. Regular Israeli kids. Well kid, you know, whatever young young adults. So they go over to these yeshiva guys uh and they start reading them uh a verse from Isaiah Yeshaya and they say, "What do you think? You think it's in the New Testament or the Old Testament?" So the kid says, "Oh, for sure this is the New Testament. You know, this wouldn't be it wouldn't be in our" And the guy says, "Well, it's whatever it would be." But but obviously the Christian use of psukim is often going to be a distortion conscious or not and our classical morum address all of these things. So here's the problem though. Uh if a Christian missionary tries to prove something from the pusk and you say that's not right because the garra interprets the puss differently. Their argument is going to be well who says the rabbitic inter I mean they don't they don't they don't accept that as an authority. So the good thing about a karite reputation of Christian claims is the kite reputation is not based on gamoras or ram or anything else. The karite interpret reputation is based exclusively on grammar, syntax, context, meaning you can't argue with it in a sense because they're not appealing to authorities that are not accepted in that Christian world. So one of the best reputations of Christian claims is a work written by a kite scholar Isaac or Yitzky uh in a a book uh that's called Amuna and the book is a kosher book in the sense that he doesn't espouse caratism in the book though the book is only devoted to the reputation of the missionary texts that are used and uh you can still get you can get this book you get an English translation I believe it's on Hebrew books uh for free and you can buy the English translation. He lived I believe in the uh 18th century the 1700s. Uh so it's been a while. It's not a recent book but it's still considered to be the best book because as I say carites did develop an expertise uh in dictuk and tanakh and the like. Uh, of course I may have um there's a story that the Rishim bring which I I doubt is true. uh that Rafaon the greatest and the last of the Babylonian Gonim apparently his yeshiva was across the street from a monastery and one time they were learning pukim and they came to a very very difficult puk safh told one of his why don't you go across the street and ask them how they translate this puk that's why was sending him to a monastery so it's recorded that the Talmud couldn't move. The Talmud just sat in the chair with his mouth open, a gape and said, "Huh?" And go and said, "What's the matter? You think we're not allowed to ask?" Uh, we have the famous teaching mim accept the truth from whatever source it comes. So the story although I personally do not actually do not believe the story but but the story that is recorded is that Rafaon sent uh the Talmud across the street to the monastery to see how the Christians and because you know the earliest Christians the early Christians certainly knew Hebrew well. uh and uh Jerome who was the church father who did the vulgate the Latin translation was fairly expert in lashes and he he read the the Jewish mortum that were around then I mean most of them were not around then that was way before Rashi so said obviously we we don't accept their religious claims but in terms of translation uh you can look at that too you know that's going to be okay yeah >> how would they interpret Um, how do the karites interpret? Yeah. Yeah. The question is I for an I. Uh, so the rabbitic interpretation is famously compensation, right? We don't apply the lextoianis. Uh, so the question is how would the carites interpret it? I'm going to have to check. I I believe that based on their idea would be literal. The question is why don't they apply it today? You know, it is interesting about car rights though. I want to point out that looking looking at the biblical text without rabbitic commentary doesn't always mean literal interpretation. People make a mistake when they think terrorites are hyper literal. That's not always the case. Uh one outstanding example is to fill in is to fill in. Uh, carites wear sites because the Torah says in Bidor to wear fringes on your garments, but carites do not wear fillin because they interpret that when the Torah says you shall tie these words on your arms and uh as ornaments between your head. It is symbolically referring to the notion that the Torah should be your source of strength and the Torah should be your source of insight which actually we agree with that aspect of it also. So this is an interesting example where the carite interpretation specifically is a deviation from the literal. Right? So this is tricky kind of the the common stereotypes literal versus interpretive is not fully true. The kerites do have an interpretive tradition as well. It's just not our interpretive tradition. So from our perspective it's considered to be uh heretical. Uh yeah >> say I didn't hear you. Oh the author. Yeah. Uh the name of the book is called Kizuk Amuna and the author is Isaac Trucky or Yitzk Truckucky T R O K I and uh if you Google that name it the book will come up for sure. Whether you'll get a free copy or not, I don't remember. Uh but you'll get information about uh about the book and it's considered to be to this day one of the best best uh books on refuting missionaries because you understand the idea here. When you try to refute a claim by bringing in an authority that the other side doesn't acknowledge, you're really in a vicious circle. What I'm going to refute a Christian claim by saying the Rambam disagrees with it. They'll say, "Well, who, you know, we disagree with the Ramba." But if you look at something internally, the dict and the syntax and the grammar, that's kind of something you can't argue with because even Christians would accept the text of the Bible as an authoritative an authoritative. Okay, that was a little bit of a digression, but as I say, uh, anytime we encounter in the letters, uh, something about Karim and the Rambam kind of uses it always as an excuse to give a dietry against Karim and others. Yose Vivian Jabbar simply asked him about certain aspects of the laws of Nida and the Rambam had his carite detector on and he said that's where that came from. It's important that I correct you that you don't move in that bad bad direction. And again, as I say, today I wouldn't regard this as a real threat. In the Rambam's time, it absolutely was a real threat to Hakik uh Judaism uh and and the like. Now, the next thing he brings, again, these are just a series of questions, and they're interesting. I'm not going to go over it in great detail, but the Rambam himself does not go over it in great detail. And this is an issue that still arises. pukim on clothing or jewelry. You know, I I get I I typically get a question about this like once a week uh from different people, right? Uh we have rings that have verses my betroth to me forever. Uh or even on talysis they might have pukim or they might have pukim on t-shirts. uh either hopefully not with the name of God but sometimes with the name of God sometimes without the name of God but they're still pukim from the or the nim and the kuim. So are you allowed to have pukim on articles of clothing or on jewelry? Uh so the Rambam's position actually is uh stricter than we pascin but the Rambam's own position is it is absolutely forbidden to put on jewelry and clothing because that is a disrespect to the holiness of kis hakesh. Uh now the raom was criticized for that and once again the ram just restates his position that you have cover. Now here it's important for me to add that the here is actually not like the Rambam and we actually view a more lenient issue that you are allowed to have them but but you have to treat it with a certain amount of kaduca. So the problem becomes going into the bathroom. That's right. See according to the Rambam even if you're not in the bathroom you're not allowed to wear it even outside. That's the Rambam. We don't pask like the Rambam. We pus and you are allowed to do it. But the issue becomes uh going into a bathroom. So the general rule is if you have three consecutive words in order even if it's a part of a puzz that's not a whole puzz but it's three consecutive words it has kadusha and you're only allowed to bring it into a betaise into a a bathroom uh if it has what is called a double covering over it. So for example, uh if you have uh let's well let's say a bracelet or whatever that has a fragment of a puzz. So a double covering would be if you're wearing a long sleeve shirt and you have a sweater, right? So the shirt sleeve and the sweater uh is a double covering. If you don't have a double covering uh you might be able to put it in a pocket. Now pockets can be called double in the but it depends on the pocket. Uh if the pocket is a separate little bag that is sewn into your jacket, that's double. Uh if it's actually the the the jacket itself, then it's not double. So you'd have to have a a plastic bag that you put it in and then put it in. So this is called kis bis a uh pocket within a pocket. And uh this is a general rule. I mean this is a rule for a lot of things. That's how you bring fill in it. If you have to go go to the bathroom, if filling is in a bag and it's in your suitcase, that's a double uh cover, etc. Muza, whatever it is. And this would also apply to jewelry and um and uh puss on clothing if if if there is a puss on clothing. So that's the as we pos. But it is interesting that this is a case where the Rambam was very very strict and the Rambam considered the whole practice of putting pukim on clothing or jewelry to be disrespected and the Rambam disrespectful rather and the Rambam defends that position. There are quite a few letters in the books of the igress or Rambam where the Rambam states it and restates it. Yeah. >> English. >> Yeah. So English is okay. English is okay. Uh and in addition, if the words are um are are changed a little bit. So you might say if we forget you that's already going to be much. Uh so uh in fact in wedding invitations you have a very similar issue because the truth of the matter is this idea of the three words of sukim are relevant not only on the issue of going into a bathroom but it's also relevant on giniza that you don't throw it into garbage you got to put it into sheamos. In other words, the halakus are going to be the same over there. And that's a big problem with wedding invitations where people often, you know, if they don't need them any old wedding invitation. I've seen people with actually I used to do it myself, but people keep like every wedding invitation they ever got. So they have a whole like library of wedding invitations. Uh including some that have gotten divorced for many years already, you know, but we still keep the first edition and the second edition. Uh but uh but many many wedding invitations have puk. So you got to there's a problem of sheamus but uh good graphic artists or good artists know how to change the pukum a little bit uh by changing word order or whatever it is. So even though it's expressing the same idea, it's not a puk and therefore you'd be allowed to throw it throw it away. Um okay. Yep. >> There's an issue with tattoos. You saw a closeup on that. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's uh Well, uh Okay. All if any of you are thinking of getting a tattoo with the shame hashem, um I strongly advise you anyway, not to get a tattoo, but not to get that one for sure. Uh well, number one, if a person, okay, let's first take a maybe a simpler case. A person has a tattoo of a PK without God's name on it. Okay, just a just the words. So the question is how do they take a bath? How do they take a shower? So this is going to sound very very strange to you and that is the rules of a toilet so to speak is actually stricter than the rules of shower. Uh meaning to say when they relieve themselves when they go to the bathroom they should cover them cover their sleeve up cover their arm up double kite double kite. Nevertheless they are allowed to take a shower or a bath even if that is exposed. Uh if the shower is clean and there's no um you know and it's well actually it's a little complicated because if it's in the if it's in the same room as the toilet, you actually do have a problem. But if it's a shower that's not in the room with a toilet and or if you have a shower stall that's treated as a separate room, then you'd have a leniency. Now a big problem though that's even worse is sometimes people tattoo. You know, they don't know. I mean, they know what it is, but they don't know the or they don't care. The shame hashemish. And sometimes it's yudk. They will tattoo y on their on their arm. Now, here you have a real problem because you're not allowed to erase the name of God. And the problem is that taking a shower might might cause partial er erasure. Uh although if it's a good tattoo that that actually won't happen. Uh but you you know you're not allowed to remove that tattoo. So that that's a real real shila. But but part of the part of the heter that some post can give is that if the tattoo artist was not a religious Jew and it's very likely they were not a religious Jew either they weren't Jewish or they obviously were not a religious Jew then they didn't have cavana in the yke to refer to the almighty god it is called a name of god that is written without intention for it to be a holy name of God and therefore those names can actually don't do not have holiness and they can be erased and the like. So that would be a hetra for a lot of lot of tattoos. Yeah. >> It would also be a problem if somebody wants to uh eliminate the tattoos or melt down a piece of jewelry that >> Yeah, that would be the similar problem that that that's correct. If it's shame hashem Yeah. Now, if it's not shame Hashem, seek him without shame hashem, you actually are allowed to destroy. You're not you're not allowed to throw in the garbage. But if you simply want to burn it, you you you would be allowed to. Uh but if it's shame Hashem, you wouldn't be allowed to. So that's where the shame hashem becomes more unless we go with the idea that the kavana was not for the name of of the almighty god. Now I think that's very true for tattoos. It may not be true for jewelry. I mean there are religious artists who make this jewelry and they do have intention that they are referring to and under those circumstances you would not be allowed to melt it down uh or or or whatever. No be allowed like some people they have something tattooed and they don't want it until they like add to it make like a butterfly or something else if they could they add to they're not erasing. So when you say add to add to in the sense that they would they would change the in other words they want to convert the yke to a butterfly. Yeah. Yeah. So that that's an interesting question but hically that's treated like a raer meaning to say if by moving you know by changing designs you no longer have an image of the name of god that is also treated like erasing the name of god that's called indirect eraser. Again I don't want to give a whole in this. Yes. Uh yeah. So in the word. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So that's much. So so that is much for something like shalom which is not a direct name of God. It would not be much for yudk or elohim. So you have to differentiate between uh direct names of Hashem versus uh attributive names of God where there's more more leniency. So shalom you could certainly uh obliterate or or whatever. Okay. Be as it may though, just with all of these little questions, you can see why the Rambam's position just makes life a little easier. Don't have any of these things on your jewelry. don't have any of the things on your clothing, it is not considered to be covered. But I just needed to say to be honest and not mislead you that this particular ruling of the Rambam uh we do not follow. Okay. Next issue that Yoseph Jabbar raises the Rambam does throw up his hands meaning there's a limit to the Rambam's patience on certain things. um he wants to understand the nature of the soul in Olamaba right the Rambam's idea remember the Rambam idea of Olah Mhaba this is a very very important idea it's become mainstream but it was controversial at the time the Rambam removes all vestigages of physicality and materialism from the world to come the Rambam says aba is an eternal existence without body without eating without drinking without physicality, without sexual union. It is the union of the divine intellect with the human soul in an eternal pleasure that cannot be described. Now, this I think is almost the mainstream definition of how most people would describe. But the only reason it's mainstream is because the Rambam said it. Uh after all, if you examine rabbitic literature, if you examine Khazal are chock full of very graphic physical descriptions. We have banquetss. We have golden tables. We have rivers of balsam oil. We have wine from grapes that was stored since the six days of creation. We have the wild ox and we have the leviathan. You know the old joke there. Leviathan is technically a fish. Uh and the wild ox is uh is meat. So why do we need both fish and meat? because some people don't trust Hashem's shikita. They're not going to eat God's meat. So God has to give them a a fish option. So the point is that kazal kazal are are full of physical graphic descriptions of paradise similar of course let's say to the Islamic descriptions which were kind of taken from that and to maybe some degree even the Christian descriptions. So the Rambam was very bold in stating these are 100% metaphorical. They are simply designed so we should understand that this is an extremely pleasurable thing and since we are material creatures we only understand pleasure on a material sense. So we have to compare it to some material pleasure. It is a metaphor. It is a mushel. And as I said many times, in fact, remember even resurrection of the dead, the Rambam deemphasized as it'll happen, but then it'll they'll die again. And Olaba is the only thing that is eternal. And this is very consistent with the Rambam's general maybe I shouldn't say it this way, general disparagement of the body. The Rambam Rambam was a doctor of course. So the Rambam knew a lot about the human body. uh but the Ram didn't have a great reverence for the body. He kind of viewed it viewed it as a hindrance as an obstruction and the real thing the real part of a human being are the soul and the pespesty the intellect. So the Rambam could not perceive of the purpose of dragging that body into some type of paradise. uh and of course he quotes Aristotle that uh touch is the most inferior the most animalistic of all human senses etc. uh and the Rambam admired Aristotle on that level too. So the Rambam is very consistent that it's only the soul that is eternal. A body cannot be eternal by definition. Now again people argued and I think we did discuss that a little bit we will come back and discuss it. So Yoseph Jabar who is a well-meaning good-hearted person says I want to understand the nature of the soul that survives forever. What is that nature of that essence? What is the soul? How is it different than than life, right? Life. So the Rambam finally says in a very nice way, very nice way. He doesn't put him down, but he says, you know, some things might be a little too deep for you at this uh stage. Uh not everybody is meant to be a deep deep philosopher. And the Rambam even says, "Listen, if you want to believe, this is kind of funny. If you want to believe that paradise, the body is going to go to Mabah." He says, the Ram says, "That's not true. But if you believe it, no big deal. It's not going to affect your life as a Jew. It's not going to affect your mitzvah." So the Rambam says okay I can tolerate or you can tolerate a little bit of inaccuracy in understanding very very deep matters because they don't go to the essence of faith unlike for example the Rambam says if you believe that God had a body that would be a bit more critical but if you're simply making mistakes regarding the nature of Maba body versus soul the Rambam says a certain amount of mistake stakes can be tolerated in life. Uh not everybody is meant to be a philosopher. So here this is the only question all the other questions are mainly this is the only question where the Rambam basically says you know you're not really ready for a full explanation of this particular issue. Um okay. Um now then again just to go over some of the issues uh the Rambam discusses um the uh the idea of a voluntary fast. Uh I mean this tell us not to encourage this today so much but in the literature starting from the Gmorrah itself uh there is a concept that a person might accept a voluntary fast for various reasons. It might be as a way of doing chuva. It might be because they had a bad dream that they're they feel as ominous and you're never sure is a dream a message from God or is a dream just a function of an upset stomach. You don't know. So there is in the a concept called fasting for a bad dream. And by the way that's considered to be so significant that you even fast on Shabas for a bad dream and then you have to fast during the week for the sin of fasting on Shabas. Okay. So it's like you double fast uh for that. Now by and large again I'm not going to be mic this by and large uh most postkim today discourage the idea of voluntary fasting simply because we might be losing more than we're gaining. Uh so let's say a person fasts but as a result of a headache or exhaustion their davining is less kabana their Torah study is less intense. So in a sense they've sacrificed their prayer and their Torah for extra fast days it's not worth it. Meaning what you would gain from your Torah and your is a greater spiritual accomplishment than you would gain from your fasting. So by and large if people come to me uh and they say in fact dropping fillin right classically the idea was if you dropped your fillin on the ground uh the classic idea was to fast one day and if god forbid a safer Torah falls on the ground and you see it some actually say some earlyic sources you fast anyone who saw it fasts for 40 days that doesn't mean you you eat at But it means that when you fast for 40 days. So all I can tell you is as a practical matter, we tend not to encourage any of these fast days simply because as we get weaker, as we get spoiled, however you want to describe it, uh it's very very important that we don't adversely affect our health and we don't adversely affect the more important mitzvah. But there is a big of that does deal with voluntary fast days, right? So it's there, it's in the books, you will find halos about voluntary fasting. By the way, I once had this occasion myself um when I was in Silver Spring was during hakafas during hakafas and um I was holding a Torah and um like some kid came behind me and you know crashed into me and I lost my balance and I fell on my back holding the Torah. Now, Barack Hashem, uh, it was a very, very lucky fall. First of all, lucky fall anyway. I didn't get hurt, but it was a lucky fall because the Torah remained on me. I was holding it. Just remained on me. So, as a result, there was no obligation to fast because the Torah did not hit the the Torah did not hit the floor. It was just on me the same way it was when I was standing up. So, that wouldn't that wouldn't be a problem. That would actually >> Huh. Uh I think I think I'm okay. It was around uh 15 years ago. I think I'm okay. The the Torah protected me. The merit of the Torah protected me there. Uh but you got to be careful. I mean the truth is you got to be careful. Um so Kafus is a problem where God forbid uh Toras can can fall. Uh I know Rabbi Yash didn't like when uh younger children sometimes got su. All right. It depends how strong the kid is, whatever it is. Uh but even adults, you know, kids crash into you or whatever it would be. So a person could could fall. So even if we're make that you don't fast, it's still a great tragedy for the Torah to fall. I mean, uh I don't mean to be on that. I just mean to be that man. We are not no way to uh give all of these extra fasts, but it is in theor and there's an interesting protocol for it. Now this wouldn't apply to a sudden fast like a Torah scroll but let's say a person wanted a fast lack of rain or whatever something like that today we we had our rain um so you actually formally accept a fast in the min of the day before. So if I want to fast let's say for a dream on Monday. So Sunday afternoon's min I declare mayor accept my fast as an atonement for my sins and the like right and the truth is to this day if you look in a sitter in the amida you will find a paragraph for the acceptance of of a fasting and the Rambam says that this is proper because you want to enter the fast day not just I didn't in other words you don't kind of say well gee It's 12:00. I didn't have breakfast yet. So, why don't I just finish this day off as a fast day? Uh, that doesn't work. The the holiness, so to speak, of a fast day is because the day was pre-desated as a fast day. So, you do it in the last prayer before the fast day, which is the min before you're entering the day. And that's true, by the way, even if your fast is going to start in the morning. So theoretically you might have said well why can't I do it in my but still you do it the day before the fast day even if it's a morning fast. Yeah. >> What was the question and what was significance in the answer? >> Yeah it's hard to know what the question is apparently. Um the question is simply described here is what is the procedure for accepting the fast? Um I'm not sure what his uncertainty was, what Yosephib and Jabar's uncertainty was, but the Rambam says that it is the Mina Mina uh before. Now the um now the next okay there there are a few others but I want to I want to do the last one because this is very very very fascinating. Uh everyone who goes to shaw knows that uh after we dive in the sha we have a repetition of the shimona that is called the repetition by the sibore uh we do this for shak we do this for maf when there's a musaf we do it for ma we do not do it for there is noar for I'll explain why that's so in a moment what is the purpose of khazar shots. So there was an original purpose that is largely obsolete today and that is there were people who either didn't know how to read or in those days they didn't have sided I mean not everybody had a sitter by heart so they were not able to say the amida they were not able to say their prayers so the min was the kazan would repeat the amida and uh the people who weren't able to dav on their own would answer a and the same way that I could be moyu and kdish the kazan would be moy us in the amida khazaras hash now the big problem is well okay maybe that made sense when there were people who showed up in shaw who didn't know how to read or didn't have a sitter so the kasm is mostly today nobody is yose by the kazin either we all dav in ourselves or and even if we dav in English or whatever language the is you're yay you are yay fela in any language right so the question is is there any purpose for khazar sashhats today why why do we do it why do we do it no longer serves the function of being mozzy people who are unable to d So the short answer is there are two reasons why we still have even though it's not serving its original purpose. Reason number one is it is the framework that allows for the recitation of kaduca. Kadusha is the praise of the angels to the almighty and kaduca requires a minion and kaduca can only be recited within the repetition of the amida. So even if I ded my own we need in order for there to be kaduca kadusha. The second reason is more of luma reason which is not really said by earlier authorities but salvage briskers have this tradition that they emphasize that sash is actually a fulfillment of in multiple levels. Meaning when I dive in the silent in a minion that is called betor I am dvening within a congregation but I'm still dvening as an individual. I'm not merged with the unitar is called to it is the actual communal prayer of us being joined as a group and therefore we have these two dimensions is the yid joining with the congregation to sibore is the corporate entity offering their prayer to God that's why the brisker Min is that people stand number one stand for and number two stand with their legs together just like uh they're dabbing the amid and they do not answer because you never answer on something you're being yay with and they feel you're being yay with now this second aspect of the Rambam does seem to adopt and the Rambam seems to view simply as a vehicle to enable Kadusha. Therefore, the Rambam comes to the following very very interesting conclusion. The Rambam besides being this great God, he was also a rabbi of Bashul, right? The Rambam was a show and the Rambam faced a problem that we still face talking during and especially during Musaf which is towards the end of the service people are getting hungry etc. So the Rambam said what I'm going to do is instead of a full we will just have the say like what called the the first three meaning and then the door and the rest people will dab in silently. In other words, if you were in the Rambam schol in Cairo, the way it would work would be that after the Torah is put away and they say the begins they go through kaduca and then people finish. Now there are two versions of that. Does it mean that they start this with the kazin or does it mean they don't start till after kadusha? Meaning there are two versions of the kadouch itself. Again, I'll be we're at the end. I'll I'll I'll spend a little more time on this. Uh but be it as it may, there was no there was no repetition of the ama. Now, what's interesting is the Rambam does not codify this in the Mishna. In the Mishna Torah, the Rambam has the regular sitter silence and sash. But privately he was mates that if you had a lot of talking and people were not listening anyway and that was a brah of weren't listening just give them the first three brahas with kadusha and we don't have now many yeites this very day many tim to this very day actually still follow this minute based on their difference to the raam and they do not have a full in So you could actually find this min uh even today but it's not so common even many many Yemenes have gone along with the standard min of a fuller yeah the importance of is there any how it should be said by other words is there any idea that how we For example, does it have to be power? >> Does it have to be intelligible? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh you know it is a very good point and uh it is it is unfortunate. Khazar Sash is important. Uh like Briskers for sure it's important and and the the words should be said number one loudly enough and distinctly enough that people can uh can hear it. uh and yeah uh when the words are are mumbled uh as they often are uh it may be a bra of in fact it's brought out that if you don't have at least nine other people who can hear the braos and to respond to them properly the blessings are blessings in vain so it's something to be aware of yeah >> uh that is a problem too I'm not sure if the ram addresses it But maybe that would have been another reason to get rid of Sashad. So the rabbi is killing two birds with uh two birds with one stone uh by abbreviating the amida. Okay, we'll stop here. Have a good week.