Q&A: Angels, Demons, & Slavery in The Torah - Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

clarification. A few weeks ago, uh we were discussing drugs as part of a spiritual experience. I don't want to go into the whole topic, but I had mentioned as a little aside that in one of Arya Kaplan's books on Judaism and meditation, he mentions an idea that maybe prophets and mubalam may have used uh drugs, mushrooms or whatever it could be to reach certain meditative spiritual states. So I just want you to clarify uh Rabbi Kaplan himself was not saying that was the case. He said some say that that was the case but he actually says there is no evidence to that effect. So I wanted to make it clear. I don't want anyone to accuse Rabbi Kaplan of uh advocating it. He mentioned it and then said that there is no no particular proof. I just wanted to give that correction. Uh yeah. And there's a notion that when people are stalking away and studying that certain like uh natural disasters or wars will stop well because we're studying that there's a correlation between them somehow. And my question is is this to be taken literally whatever source they use for this idea. And if um that is true, if there are is there evidence that since certain period of time more people are studying Torah that there have been less wars as because of the Yeah, this is uh actually a very very good question. There are many many many statements throughout Khazal Mish Gomorrah Medish Zor especially that talk about the idea that the learning of Torah prevents suffering that would come into the world uh such as war, famine and the like. And the question number one is well number one we obviously see it's not failsafe because obviously people learn Torah and there's still all of these things. So the most you could say, even if you want to take it literally, is that it's better than it otherwise would have been. In a sense, that's a little unprovable because you'd have to imagine, you know, any given day what would happen if we wouldn't be learning, right? But at least the assumption is it might be worse. Uh so the truth is that's one possibility. One possibility is that it's not that learning Torah prevents everything, but learning Torah creates a world in which less of these surus are going to happen than would otherwise be the case. In fact, you do see, I don't want to call it a proof, you do see a little bit of a mini anecdotal evidence of this and that is every time uh the government moves aggressively to take away the draft affirmments for yeshiva students, there's like some terrorist thing that happens. I mean you actually see see this a little bit in microcosm. So the Tyra is a shir but you have to understand something else about spiritual laws and that is spiritual laws are a system in which many different principles are working with each other or against each other and sometimes they may dilute the effect. uh for example I'll give you an analogy which is not your question but people ask me this question a lot say if you give mas you give 10% of your earnings for you're going to be rich and the even says you are allowed to test God you can bet on it you can basically say I'm giving my to be rich now for some reason I get a lot of questions from Morse students about about this I guess they you want to be rich whatever it is uh But the problem is you got to be honest. You got to be real. On one hand, what khazal tell us we have to accept is true. On the other hand, I can't deny my eyes that a lot of people who give miser are poor or or at least not rich. Right? So how does one reconcile a myar kazal when you see the reality in your own eyes that it just isn't the case? So there are a few approaches. One approach actually is that the definition of rich. What is the definition of rich? First of all, Perkyo says a person is rich if they rejoice in their lot. So maybe the blessing of God is if I'm generous, he will make with micer he will make me content with whatever I have. And that's called wealth. Right? That's one answer. Another answer might be that uh even an average lower middle class person would actually be phenomenally wealthy compared to most of human history. If you look at what most of human history meant when you were poor, it meant you didn't have a piece of bread or a glass of water in your house. Today maybe there are some people but it's very hard to find a real poor people. So when it says wealthy, wealthy doesn't mean uh you know you'll be a billionaire. It doesn't mean you'll be Bill Gates. It could mean that you'll have a middle class standard of living which is defined as very wealthy. That's a second approach. A third approach is that the spiritual force that says sedaka gives you wealth may be canled or diluted by other aos that give you poverty. Right? So what happens is I'm doing something that's supposed to give me wealth but I'm also doing something that's supposed to deplete my wealth. These things are working in tension and therefore you might you might wind up you know either below the average or a little above the average etc. Meaning spiritual laws never work in isolation. They always work in interaction with other spiritual laws. Now lima Torah could be the same thing. Lima Torah is a force that brings peace, brings blessing into the world. But it's never operating in isolation. Right? There are other aasumara that do the opposite. So as a result, these are fundamentally untestable propositions because the overall picture is too complicated for a human intellect to totally master. I can't master the total picture. Meaning if I just had every in other words nothing else was going on except learning I might be able to then have a controlled experiment if it works or not. But learning is not the only thing that's going on. There's a lot of other things that are going on and they may have opposite effects. So in a sense all I could say is that Torah very definitely is a factor that brings blessing into the world. But that doesn't mean you're not going to have wars and it doesn't mean you're not going to have illnesses simply because there are other factors in the world that are operating in the opposite direction. That's why a person has to be very very careful. Uh again I I hope you understand that this does not detract at all from the statement from the truth of Khazal's statements. Kazal's statements are 100% true but they have to be seen in a totality of of context in which real life is more complicated. It's a multiffactorial type of analysis. Yeah. Um, so, so lot of secular bothered by the Torah's slavery. What do you think of the response to the Yeah. You know, there's an there's a book out. I want to get it. I didn't get it yet, but uh it's it seems to be a very interesting book. It's called it's written by Tom by a front person in English. It's called Is the Good Book Bad? Uh, the Bible is called the good book, right? And really, it's a book that is devoted to exactly this question, which is a very interesting question. And that is, you know, Torah is supposed to be perfect. It's God's will. Uh it's God's essence. And yet, there's stuff in the Torah that superficially we would regard as immoral. Uh sla most most people, most of our gut reaction to slavery is bad thing, not good to have slavery. But the Torah has slavery. Torah has Jewish slavery, non-Jewish slavery, right? How do you explain all of those things? A Malik, I mean, you know, there are number like, so this book actually goes through a number of things. I I haven't read the book, uh, but you know, I don't know what it says, but the topic itself, uh, it's a it's a very good topic for a book. It's a it's good to have a book that deals with this. But let me talk about slavery for a moment. There are two different mahim about how we would how we can reconcile a perfect Torah with something like slavery. Mahalik number one is that sometimes the Torah permits institutions simply because it would have been too difficult for a society at a given stage to give it up. So God tolerated it with the expectation that it would eventually uh go away in the passage of time. Uh now a classic example is the Rambam's opinion about Corbanos which is problematical to be sure. The Rambam says, "What's this thing about carbanos? Does God love barbecued meat? Like what's the what's the thing here?" So the Rambam says, "No, but the ancient Israelites were connected to idolatry, pagan culture." And in pagan culture, sacrifice was a very big deal. And not only animal sacrifice, but even human sacrifice. So if God were to say, "I only want you to serve me by Torah study and prayer," we wouldn't have been able to give it up. It was almost like an addiction. So God said, "I'll let you bring corbanos as a concession to your idolatrous impulses." But Hashem tolerates it. And with the passage of time, it's supposed to go away. Now, obviously, what does that even mean? The Rambam himself says, "When Mashiach comes, we're going to have Revk tries to explain it that Mashiach itself has different stages." you know, there's early Messiah, late Messiah, and at some point in the late messianic, maybe it'll be a 100,000 years after Mashiach comes, we will not do carbon. So, if you go with the idea that the fact that the Tyra gives you an institution doesn't mean it approves of it inherently, but it's simply giving you a framework to remove it from the excesses. You could look at slavery in a very similar way that slavery in the ancient world allowed abuse, allowed murder, uh allowed rape, you could do anything to a slave that you wanted. So the Tyra created a framework of slavery that is humane, that prohibits abuse. If you knock out the eye or the tooth of a slave, he goes free, etc. So the idea is the Torah does not endorse slavery. The Tyra permits it subject to regulation, but it would be better not to have it at all. Uh you could look at polygamy in the same light by the way that when Rabeno Gera mastered polygamy, he was actually reflecting a value of the Torah which is monogamous. But the Torah permitted polygamy because that's what people were doing. Now I'll tell you my kasha. I do have a kasha on that. My c on that is that the gumar says in makus kitten that if you have a non-Jewish slave an eb cananani you are not allowed to free your slave anyone who frees his kanani transgresses the of keeping them in a state of servitude and the gar gives a story that raelzar came in with his non-Jewish slave the shul and there were only nine people the slave would make the minion. He actually freed his slave to make a minion. That's a big loss. That's like paying $100,000 for a minion. And the Gumar asked the kasha, "How can he free a slave? You're not allowed to free a slave." And the answer is for a mitzvah, whatever it is. Now, my question is this. If slavery is not intrinsically something that the Torah endorses, it's simply a concession to human weakness, then faker, wouldn't it stand to reason that the better thing to do is to free your slave. That's a good thing. You ought to get a yashayem that you know, you don't practice slavery, right? So that's a big kasha I think and the notion that slavery is tolerated but not endorsed and not encouraged I think is contradicted from the that you can't free a slave. So there is a second approach to slavery which is absolutely not politically correct. So uh you know I'm a little scared to say it but uh the nitiv talks about it this way and in truth in truth Aristotle talks about it this way as well and that is slavery was a way of civilizing people who were immoral you talk particularly non-Jewish slavery you're talking about pagans you're talking about people without a moral val system of value they were in a sense regarded as savages and barbarians and The institution of slavery is you bring them into a Jewish home. They observe the shabas. They learn from morality. This we might call a paternalistic vision of slavery in which it's better for them. Now I understand you understand this was the same rhetoric that was used in the United States as a defense for black slavery. So, and I'm not going there. I'm not applying it to that situation but you can understand that this is a bit of a risky type of analysis but there is a mahalik in the maforim and again it goes all the way I mean Aristotle says it as well that slavery when it's properly constituted can be a way of civilizing and inculcating a sense of morality among populations that did not have it. So that would be a partial defense of slavery. So we have these two approaches. One is it is a tolerance for human imperfection. The other is it is an affirmative good as a means of civilizing decadent and univilized idolatrous pagan populations. Yeah. How do we visualize demons that are mentioned in Gomorrah? Like the it mentions the the Gamarra mentions demons almost casually like all the time. Oh, this demon antagonized this whatever like do how do we you know understand what that looks like and are they are they present today or did they like leave with the ureita sadoros or like yeah so first of all first of all it's an interesting point uh there is a lot of material regarding shadim mazikim in bavi and there's virtually no mention of shadim or mazik in shalomi so it seems to be kimat a mlo and Is there such a concept of shadim? Now of course in a maklo the bab and the shi we generally follow the babi and shadim do have their have their role. So there's a huge mlo here the ramam who is known for his rationalism basically says no such thing no such thing as demons. They don't exist at all. Uh when khazal used demons these were metaphors or symbols for various other things. So you might call COVID a demon. In other words, there's sickness in the world and there's depression in the world. So Khazal put the label of demon on these negative forces, but not that they were conscious creatures uh that were doing things. So the Ram basically says that no such thing as demons. Kazal used it metaphorically or sometimes Khazal would use the vocabulary of superstitious ignorant people because they'd understand it but they were using it to make a spiritual point. That is the ramshittita that all the stuff about shade is labka. Now some gamaras are very difficult to interpret that way because the garam in Brahos aaya gives you a whole thing to do how you can see a shade uh you know take something from a cat or whatever it is all sorts of uh different things that you do and then he says don't do it but okay uh the vilagon writes the birhagra writes about this shittita of the Rambam that in spite of the Rambam's greatness he was led astray by philosophia Harura with his preoccupation with a cursed Greek philosophy in which everything has to have logical sense and the and the vagon says of course there are shadim if kazal say there are shadim then there are shadim in cababala of course shadim have a very very big force they're even given an origin uh they come when after the death of cayen Adam separated from his wife for 130 years that's why he had chase at 130 and during those 130 years occasionally Adam had a seinal emission and from that seminal and emission children were created and those children became de are the demons that frequent the world and that's why u the sperm that talk about this talk about you know masturbation in terms of creating these you know billions of of children that inhabit the earth that is why there's even a minog in yushlay although it's not really followed by Americans that uh children do not escort their father's coffin or their parents' coffin to the grave because the idea is if some kids get to go all the kids get to go including the demonic offspring and we don't want them to show up therefore no kids go so all I can tell you is there's a big big makus here now somebody asked the katskarbi who is very asserbic well gee is the haka like the rambom or the vil nagon are there shadim are there not shadim and if there are shadim why don't we see them today and the katskarbi said of course there are shadim but once the rambom pascans they don't exist even the shadeim have to follow the rambom's decision so they kind of self-destructed uh in in in a sense so I I don't know again I mean logically I'm inclined to the ramban but once again maybe I'm led astray by the philosophy uh that the villagan talked about. So the truth is we we there are just a lot of things in the spiritual realm that we don't know but it but it is indeed a maklo. So if you were to say I don't believe in shadim you would be you'd have a good authority to to rely upon and that would be the rama. Now there is another thing about shadim that is similar to what is said aboutin harin is the evil eye right uh people look at you if you're too ostentatious you're showing off your wealth or anything else so you'll get an eye in har right so is is there such a thing as eye inhara right uh so there's a strange idea that if you believe in it will hurt you and if you don't believe in it it doesn't hurt you. It's a strange phenomenon in the spiritual world that sp certain spiritual entities come into existence based on how strong you believe they exist. If you believe they exist, they do exist. If you don't believe they exist, they don't exist. Some say sham are kind of a similar phenomenon. You believe in them, they become some type of force in the world. you don't believe in them, they don't have that that that force in the world. So, it's it's a little complicated. Yeah. Could you please expand on um the relationship a G should have with his for her biological family in terms of or in terms of or in terms of Yeah. Yeah. So, this is a good question and a very relevant question. uh a person converts to Judaism, they still have uh non-Jewish parents and even if it's a Jewish father, technically they're not related anymore. Uh siblings and the like. So what is the overall connection? So there is a rule, but the hakic rule is sometimes applied in an emotional context where it's inappropriate. It says when you are a converted person, you are a newly created entity who has absolutely no relation to your father, your mother or your sibling. Now that is you are not related to them. Uh you don't inherit their property etc. Now some I think misinterpret that a little bit to say well I'm no longer connected. I don't I have no connection to my mother to my father. They're not my mother not my father etc. I think by and large that is wrong. Now obviously if a person has embraced Judaism there has to be by definition a certain separation with a non-Jewish environment. You can't celebrate Christmas together right you can't go to hear the uh halleluah mass you know uh uh Christmas Eve and you know whatever whatever they stand up or clap whatever the minhagim minogim are. So of course there are going to be rules. There's going to be katras. There's going to be shabas. There's going to be not going to churches. Uh in fact um even even I got a shila today just just today mish and it's very painful shila. Uh a dare's mother died u and part of the service is in a church. Is he allowed to go to church service for his mother's funeral? Wow. I mean emotionally of course I would want to say yes. I mean haka might say no. You know you know. Uh so of course there has to be separation but hakura sat gratitude is a basic Jewish value and if these were non-abusive if these were good parents who gave you a home gave you a life gave you an education then you should love them and you should cherish them you should respect them and you should interact with them provided you do so in a way that does not compromise your Jewish your Jewish beliefs. So for example, Rab Vaji Ysef actually pascant that a ge can say kadesh for his non-Jewish parent. Now other people argue because they say kadesh is not for non-Jews but but that's a mah about kadesh but the overall idea of hakurat I think is very very very important. So, you know, you can still call them mom and dad and love them and uh call them on their birthdays, maybe celebrate something like Thanksgiving together. Okay, depend that may depend on how it's it's structured or some neutral day or or what whatever it would be. Now, in terms of nia, that is an interesting issue. Uh if for example, uh right, we know that a son is allowed to have ye with his mother and hug and kiss his mother. But since the ge is not related to his mother. And by the way, even if she converts, it's the same problem. Even if you're both Jewish, it's the same problem. You're not related to each other. So can a g hug and kiss his mother whether she's Jewish or or non-Jewish, you know, if she converted and and the like. So here the postcrim say we are make because the rule that a son and a mother or a daughter and a father are allowed to hug and kiss is not based on hakic relationship. It is based on the biological reality that in a normal person there is no improper sexual attraction between a mother and a and a son and a father and a daughter. That's a mitzio. And because that's a mitzio conversion does not affect that. So as a result uh yehood and nia uh are as permitted as they would be had they been uh Jewish and you've been born Jewish. So for that we are going to be lenient. Yeah. Um, can the RAV expound further on if if there is what the suffic um the mainstream talis that people use today and and the ones that hold that it is a suffic um whether or not it is true that if they hold it's a suffic that it would be considered carrying while wearing them in a rashus raim. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So uh right we we just read in last week's para uh the shabas before last the mitzvah of sits and the Torah requires that along with the white strings there be a pile a string and by the way there's a big mlo how many strings is that uh because are four strings that are folded over to make eight so some say is one of the eight meaning it's only half a string one Laban. Others say it's a whole string, which would make it two out of eight, meaning one out of four. Uh there are others that actually say it's two and two. You actually have that's the most expensive by the way, obviously, because the more the more money you have to pay. That would be four strings, four full strings, right? Many many different shittas and even how you tie them are complicated. But the problem is, I'm just going over a little background that is not just a color. It is a color, but it also is a color that comes from a very specific source. You can't just go to a a paint store and you know buy buy blue paint. It has to come from a an animal that is called in kazal the zone. And the kilazone is a specific animal aquatic creature. And the question is over the years we've lost identification of it. And the Gomorrah gives us various signs of how we know. And um most people who who endorse the have identified it as the Murik's truncalis which is simply a shellfish a certain snail with a shell that if you crack it and you take actually it's not the blood all the talk about it as the blood. It's not really a blood but it's a secretion from a gland that if you process it in a certain way it'll be. So those people who wear are confident that the murix is either for sure or it might be and if it might be what's wrong with with putting it on um there is another about that connects it to the cuttlefish that's red by breast again if they have the miser they have the misura but most say that that is absolutely incorrect The evidence for the murix is many many many many times much more stronger than the evidence of the cuttlefish and whatever it is. So I would not if you if you wanted to wear I would absolutely not recommend breast or redis for this for this purpose. So we've talked about it a number of times. I don't want to be in it. And that is what's the story about the opposition to because let's assume that somebody goes over the proofs and somebody says ah it's not 100% proof. Okay. Is it a 50% proof? Is it a 10% proof? Let's say it's a 5% proof. What's the downside? In other words, if I if I wear it either is good or it's not good. If it's good, I have a mitzvah. Okay, that's great. A mitzvah in Torah. If it's bad, I don't have the mitzvah of but all that means is I have blueed sites. But blue sites are kosher. In other words, it's a c I' and I've said a number of times that I don't have an answer for this. What and I've not I have never heard a good answer. What is the downside of wearing something that might be even if it might not be lit? There is no downside. Now your argument that somehow it would be carrying on shabas uh cannot possibly be true because dye that is absorbed in a garment is never considered a separate entity. So if the sites are kosher the color would be not a problem. Now Sternbach who is a guttlebra. So obviously anything sturbach says um one has to pay attention to claims that if it's not and you're wearing you are transgressing the the commandments of the Torah of adding to the Torah because you're adding to a mitzvah by wearing something that is beyond what the Torah commands. He said it uh but it it is mishapella because if I do something misop see if I if I knew it wasn't but I just decided you know forget about the I just want to wear blue because wearing blue is a nice idea just like that would be bisf because you're adding to the Torah but if I'm doing something because it might be realis anything you do because of a suff fake mitzvah cannot possibly be bisf now I didn't want to say this because I I didn't want to argue with with I I'm not I mean I'm not a madre argue with rush durbach in any way but I just heard we say the same point uh and he said that it's not you just said right off the bat that anything that you're doing because of a suffic mitzvah uh is not so I admit my my my hypocrisy here I I do not wearas because my rebum did not wear but I don't know why I don't wear tas I ought to wear may and maybe I will wear uh because why not uh you're doing a great great mitzvah well I'm sorry well you might you might be doing a great great mitzvah and if you're not doing the mitzvah there's no aa involved see if it will be an aa you can say well I'm not going to do a mitzvah mis if there's an aa if it's not right but that's not the case there is no a so if there is no a what is the downside so it's a bit of a it is it is a bit of a for me people will say well we don't have a misura on it well frankly so what uh it's very it's a we don't have a mis I would love to have a mis but if you have mitzvah in the Torah you got to do the best you can with the information that you have uh so a mis is the best information I agree But if neb I don't have a messiah so I got to do second level proofs. So all of the research on it is at least a second level attempt to reconstruct what the mitzvah would be. So really it's it's it's a pellet it's one one of the great unanswered questions. On the other hand it is a question why didn't revel people that they should wear? Now Rafim Kineski kind of uh finagled it a little bit. He said, "Well, if you learned the suga and you're convinced yourself, okay, but he but he didn't endorse it. He didn't say you should wear." He just said he doesn't have an objection. But it seems to me it ought to be more than that. There actually ought to be I mean, I'm just thinking out loud because I'm not I am I myself am not calling for anything. I'm But there but I don't understand why there's not more of a a call to be mad this mitzvah. So, um, all I can tell you is that, uh, you know, uh, I'm not only here to give answers. I'm also here to say there are questions. It's not only a Q&A. Sometimes it's just a Q without an A. Yeah. Um, so, uh, the says that he who hears Linara and listens to it is worse than the one who speaks it. Um if that's the case then why is Miriam punished and not Arab? Yeah that that's a very interesting question. Uh the does talk about the idea that the sin of listening to lashhara uh can in many cases be a greater sin than speaking lashhara. And part of that is because you're adding gasoline to the fire. Sometimes I might speak lashar because I'm very upset I'm very angry and I got to get it off my chest. But if I have a good listener that encourages me to go on and on and on and on and on and on and therefore in a sense uh the listener is a the enabler of all of the sins. So your question is if that's the case then why uh for the punishment of lashhara is Miriam the one who gets the more severe punishment of leprosy and iron does not get it? It's a very very good question. Uh, one of the answers simply is that Aaron couldn't be taken out of commission because he was the co-engt who needed to serve in the Bas Mikdash. So, you had to take somebody out of commission who did not have a job, so to speak. Uh, so Miriam was the uh fall guy uh for it. But spiritually, it could very well be that Arin Za was even worse. Yeah. First of all, sorry if this question is a bit not appropriate for a Q&A. It's not it's PC and everything but like uh um the Rambam says that there's 10 levels of angels that exist and like we mention some of them and when we say like Kiryat Shma and then I remember when I was reading Derek Hashem it talks about them as well but I was wondering if you could explain or expound on like the idea like how should we like think of the angels that are discussed by the Rambam that are in Schma. Um how should we like think about them in a sense? Well uh his question. Yeah. Yeah. The question Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Angels and demons are opposites, but but there is obviously a common a common commonality. The truth is um but everyone agrees that the angels exist though whereas the demons are kind of like Yes. Yes. Yes. The Rambam himself. Yeah. The Rambam who denies the existence of demons does talk about the different levels of angels. Uh part of the problem though is that if you look at the book of Yasco, chapter one of Yikes that talks about the divine chariot, you will actually see a very detailed visual description of what these angels, what some angels look like. And similarly, at the end of the book of Denal, you see descriptions of angels in terms of legs, in terms of arms, in terms of wings. You know the the popular pictures of angels are actually based on biblical descriptions. Yeshaya, the same thing. But part of the difficulty is though that you have to differentiate between prophetic visualization of spiritual entities and the actual existence of the spiritual entity itself. Meaning to say angels are not necessarily physical beings with bodies. But when the prophet connects to those energy sources, his mind converts it into visual pictures. But the visual pictures are not necessarily the ultimate reality. And the proof of that idea is that even God is visualized in certain prophecies. Even though God does not have an image, God does not have a form. But for example in Yesco's nava it talks about the throne that Yesco perceives and it says and on the throne there was the image of a man a ve a very faint vague unclear opaque image of a man. Rashi comments on that puzz I do not have permission to explain this. God is visualized and indeed in the book of Denal as well. The old joke that we say, oh, you know, God is not an old man with a long white beard. In truth, in in Danielle, God is described as an old man with a long white beard. That description is taken from Tanakh itself. But once again, we understand that's not what God is. That's simply how the mind and the imagination kind of reify. reify meaning put into tangibility various spiritual energies that exist in the world that the imagination converts them. So to some degree therefore when you talk about angels you're dealing with different levels of spiritual energy that God employs to carry out his objectives which are visualized in prophecy as beings with with bodies you know some type of spiritual body and the like but they don't necessarily reflect what they truly are in that sense even something like gravity you say gravity is an angel because gravity is a force that God employs employs to carry out his will. Electromagnetism is an energy is as an angel because something that God employs. So what I'm saying is it is possible to uh not necessarily look at angels as things but rather as energies that employs. Now, obviously, you're going to have a lot of problems with with this because many many Gomorrah talk about conversations that God has with the angels and conversations that humans have with angels, Moshe has with the angels. So, that would lend support to the notion that these are actual beings and not just energy points. But once again, uh these things can be understood on many many levels. Yeah. So, sorry to double up on questions. Yeah. Can you explain like what are the differences between the levels of the angels that Ramb Bomb describes? Obviously you don't have to go through each single one but like how are they different differentiated? Well again on a very very superficial level uh it's it's a question of of of closeness to God. Meaning to say God's beneficence, God's power, God's blessing is channeled through many many different levels. And the higher angels are more directly recipients than the lower forces. And again if you go back to chapter one of yesco you'll talk you'll see that there are the sarafhim and theanim there are the wheels of the chariot and then there are the chariot itself and these all represent proximity to divine energy uh meaning to say angels are lower if the veils between them and the creator are greater. So that's the basic idea. But a lot of the once again I mean a lot of this we don't really understand. This is just a very superficial idea. Yeah. Oh why is the shamas such a meaningful prayer and what does it really mean? Like I know word for word what it means but like so first of all it's interesting. Sha is not a prayer if you think about it. What are you praying for? There's not there's nothing in shama that you're praying to God about. So Schma is not a prayer. Sha is kind of a precursor to prayer. Prayer feli in the garra is always shimon shama is a profession of faith. It is a comm it's it is a commitment to a mission statement. Meaning to say when I begin my day in the morning and before I go to sleep at night I have to affirm preferably in a public way which is minion but at least in a private way if I'm not dominating with dominion I have to affirm what is my life's commitment. My commitment is uh to affirm that there is one God who created heaven and earth and this God will reward us for the good that we do and for the punish us for the evil that we do. That's the second part of Shma and he gave us a Torah that gave us direction. So essentially Shama is about committing yourself. The language of musay what does that mean? you accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. Okay? So it's actually incorrect to say uh I'm praying in schma. I'm actually not praying in schma. I am professing and then I pray in the share. Once I've accepted God, I'm now in a position where I can ask him for stuff. Uh yeah. So we know by the ark that when they when when the ark landed the animals seemingly all came out from the ark and they somehow I guess my question is how do animals when they if they all landed seemingly one place how did they get to other parts of the earth and the other earth and I guess a follow to that is is there idea maybe of pangia that we view that we know that like earth was originally like one form yeah uh you know again there's not a lot we don't know about this I mean the question is how did animals get to Australia and all those other all those other places. There are really two possible answers that that you can give. Answer number one is a mania thing and there's nothing wrong with that except except we would have to accelerate the timetable because we don't have like millions of billions of years to play with but the concept is that the earth had been united and then there were splitoffs and therefore there were kangaroos that got stuck you know in Australia and and everything else. Uh so that's entirely plausible. Uh the other possibility is theologically more problematical. I will just throw it out. And that is although the Torah does say that all life was wiped out in the flood except for the the animals and the people who were on the in the ark. Uh there are opinions that say the flood was in fact not worldwide. It it was focused in the areas where human beings lived and there may have been other areas in the world that didn't have human beings yet and as a result they were not destroyed and therefore there may be animals that are older than the flood because if you look at the basic idea and it makes sense logically actually although it's not the the normal understanding God destroyed the animals only because of the human beings since the human beings were evil and God destroyed them so he destroyed the animals as well. But if you had places where there were no human beings yet, then maybe there's no particular reason why God has to destroy it. So it could very well be nobody lived in Australia, nobody lived uh in southern Africa, whatever it is. So ma there might be animal forms that were not affected by the mobble at all. So that is a is a possibility it's a little less traditional. Uh yeah. Yeah. I was wondering what the rough thoughts you are on the two different approaches on Jewish outreach. uh let's say one side can focus more on I would say the stick over the carrot and in terms of just explaining things they give quotes of in terms of if you do this this will happen to you threats um as opposed to another side let's say who would use the Torah loves you even if you're doing these things wrong you're still I guess showing a lot more compassion a lot of times for some people they're listening to the same Torah and it sounds like it's not necessarily it's impossible to be on the same page yeah it's a very very excellent question. Um the truth of the matter is that uh there are some speakers I mean I'll mention them bizrai is probably uh the most famous one other people your own ruins and uh who really uh you know they're kind of the Puritan preacher like uh what was the guy's name I forgot Jonathan Edwards uh kind of you know the wrath of uh whatever it is the wrath of God will strike you and uh and then there are others that are more touchyfey God loves you and even if you're a sinner etc. The truth of the matter is the problem basically is in other instead of asking let's say what's the best outreach technique let's ask a more basic question like which one which side of it is true right which one is true right I I would I would answer right away uh whatever approach is is true is the one that you should use right which one is true problem is they're both true meaning to say there is a and there is aim there is a concept of being aware of punishment and Then there's a concept of God's rahim through chuva. Right? So this is not a question where one approach is false and one approach is true. This is a question of multiple truths and the question then becomes an educational one. Which approach is most effective in bringing people to God? Because nobody is lying here because the truth is, you know, I could talk about gem and that would be telling a a truth and I could talk about God's endless love and that would be telling a truth. So, frankly, different people need different motivators. Different people are motivated in different ways. But the general approach that at least I've gathered from most gdollum that I'm aware of most Ashkanazi gdom maybe it might be different uh is that we live in a very weak generation and when we overemphasize the stick and we overemphasize the punishments instead of motivating people to be better what often happens is people get so despondent they get so depressed that they simply reject the whole thing they kind of say what's the point I'm going to go to hell no matter what. So, I might as well not listen to this. As opposed to when you build a person up, that gives them motivation and encouragement. So, I I think there actually are very strong reasons to emphasize the love. And again, I want to emphasize I'm not suggesting distortion and I'm not suggesting lying. Lying is not a good cure of technique actually. But in terms of emphasizing certain ideas, I think it is appropriate to emphasize the ideas that are most receivable by people. Even in mushwarm there was this way you know um we have mus going back that really are full of very very vivid descriptions of hell raas which really a classic musher safer from atonement of of the Ariz has uh one of his gates is called shagen. It's like 50 pages about uh what what gahan what ganam is and the like but many people say not to even learn the rama today because it's something that's not going to help us connect uh to to our kadesh. So I think the path of of love and building people up is a better path because it is it is a more effective path and as a result uh it encourages people it brings people to Hashem. So I would go with it. On the other hand, some people need more motivation. Now, as I said, there may be an Ashkanazic Spartic difference here. Uh, Spartan for some reason uh tend to still be attracted to that oldtime religion idea of putting the fear of God uh into you. Uh so maybe for them it that that may still be an effective approach. I think in the astronautic world it largely has not not been that way. Yeah. Here's a sending in Shimona Esray. We are supposed to stand as we would before a king. However, when people shuckle vigorously with arms flailing in every direction, it looks absurd. No one would do this before a king. Isn't it better to simply stand still? Yeah. The idea of shuckling, right? Shuckling is uh moving around etc. Uh and there are two different sources for shuckling. The standard source is a gammoran braos that when Rabbi Yakiva would dab in the movements would be so intense that he would start in one side of the room and he would find himself the other side of the room like literally his whole body moves and it's based on a hill says call all of my bones proclaim hashem's greatness so shuckling is an expression of ecstasy now fascinatingly Ravuda Halevi. This is a pretty early Macar in the kuser gives a different origin for shakling. This is quite it's quite amazing. You would you would never guess in a unless you knew the kuser. You would never guess that he would say such a thing. He says it used to be when people would be learning or reading you know there weren't enough sperm for people. So a lot of people had to share. We had to like we had a little sitter or a little gamora and we had to bend over. So in order for you to be able to read it, I had to move back. So you could move forward. You would move forward and read. Then you would move back and I would move forward. So accredited to that shuckling has no transcendental uh importance at all. It was simply something that people did when they were sharing sedorim which doesn't apply today. Okay. But I will tell you this Mosha Feinstein and I remember seeing this with my own eyes and I read about it later. Dav ramrod straight. He did not shuckle. He would bow down the four times that you bow down and he was rammrod straight. Now the min among you know the fisher people is to is to shuckle a little bit at least a little bit. So Ramosa said he used to shuckle but here's what happened. When he was a rev in Stalinist Russia he was called in by the KGB or whatever it was was called something else in those days. uh because he was building a mika he was doing different things and he was so frightened he could have been he could have been killed he could have been sent to Siberia you know he he his life was in danger and he said he was so frightened he couldn't move after that experience he said if I have such moa for baser vam I at least have to have the same level of moa for hashem so since that experience he did dab and ramrod straight. So if you're asking me is there a mucker to dive in totally straight the answer is the answer is yes. But in defense of shuckling now this would depend on the person. The defense of shuckling is that sometimes movement can help focus our thoughts. You know you stand perfectly still your mind might wander. You're moving. You're connecting your body rhythm with the words you're you're you're saying. It is a way of focus. So even though it's true that when you stand before God, you're supposed to stand the way you stand before a king, but if something would enhance your cabana, that would be a justification to depart a little bit from it. And like the flailing arms and everything, too. Well, well, it depends. I mean, there are different shuckling styles. There's the uh there's the back and forth, there's the side by side, you know, they're different. There's the arms. But but even so, uh that too is a f essentially it's a focus for a kavan. A person says ah hashem like you're talking to hashem. Uh you can imagine this. I mean let's imagine you're pleading for your life to a person even you would you might actually talk that way. Please please please help me. Right? So it's not so unusual that if you're really really in a state of desperation you will use your arms. you will use your facial expressions right so in a sense it's a way of maybe putting myself in the realization of how dependent I am so yeah maybe you look crazy but again when someone's begging for their life they do look a little crazy I mean they're get on their knees and you know all these other all these other things so that would be part of what shuckling is uh yeah and I'm sorry already spoke about this um what is wrong with is or isn't with uh occasionally either drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana. It is one worse than the other. Yeah. Yeah. So um I'm not sure if I get censored in this. Sometimes uh people write me and they say that they notice that um 30 seconds of Torah anytime was cut out for you. I don't think there's a censorship but I have a little suspicion sometimes that if I give a short answer on this they they kind of blot it out. Okay, but say what whatever it is. Uh the the short answer really is that the way you ask the question, there is nothing wrong. The problem basically is can you keep it to that particular level? Meaning there's always a problem when you open yourself up to certain types of experiences you can easily get out of hand and uh it could lead to some disastrous consequences which can injure you both physically and spiritually. So it might be safer and prudent and more logical not to get yourself involved in a Pandora's box that can have some very disastrous consequences. If you are asking me is there something beets is there something intrinsically wrong with moderate drinking and even moderate marijuana use putting aside the law which is you know that's another issue. Uh the answer is there there is there is there is not there is not um one cannot make a strong case that mar moderate marijuana is significantly worse than alcohol. I know that people still debate it but uh more or less they're kind of on the same side of the spectrum. But again I'm not endorsing this because I fully recognize it can lead to dangerous complications if you cross certain boundaries. So it's sometime same thing with cigarettes. If you were to ask me, is there anything wrong with smoking one cigarette once a week? There isn't. But the problem is, you know, uh, one cigarette is likely to lead to repetitive behaviors and, uh, that would be a danger to your health, right? So, you got to you got to have kind of common sense here. You know, uh, in the United States, as all of you, I'm sure, know, there are a number of states that have legalized not just medical marijuana, but even even recreational marijuana. You can get get it in the supermarket. They have brownies now. Marijuana brownies. So, gummies. Uh what are they called? Gummy. Yeah. So, one of them is actually certified by the OU. The you can actually get kosher uh OU brownies. And uh people have criticized the OU like why are you certifying, you know, marijuana? And they say, well, we're just certifying the ingredients. We're not certifying, you know, we're not endorsing marijuana as a use. But it's it's controversial, you know. So, um you just have to be careful. That's all I'm saying. I am not going to say it's the biggest ara you could possibly do. Realistically, it is not. Uh yeah. Um as many may have experienced, um there's there is a significant difference between just I would say like stom doining in terms of spartim or like ripish doing specifically in the Ashkenazi world. Uh there's I could see pros and cons on both sides, you know, with with spardy dabbing, sugra in this case, you know, everything is sung out and said out loud the entire time. The con to that would be maybe it's a little distracting in terms of the kavana. The other the other end of the spectrum is the lipish approach is being quiet until the end of each specific maybe that's harder to follow along. So could the RAV kind of expound on the as far as be behind each kind of Well, well again I mean I I think I think in your question I think you identified it very well. you know, one of the uh I mean obvious have somewhat different new but but you're not really focusing in that and the differences are not tremendously major but one of the conspicuous differences that you notice uh is that particularly Zimmer for example word for word for word it's all sung together uh people say it together as opposed to Ashkanazim where you know sometimes in fact I see it's interesting when did the yeshiva change its meaning I'm a little curious about Uh the normal Ashkanazic Minug that I grew up with was that you do have a kazin for zimra, but uh everything is said silently until the last line, but now I've been noticing a new thing here. I don't know where it started where you don't even put a kazan up until I think we're inconsistent in the center but but uh a lot of times now I'm wondering where that started because that actually was not the uh the standard practice but be it as it may as we certainly don't say in unison. So part of the difference is uh I mean the mileas and the krinus exactly as you say it. uh on one hand we all say it together we're functioning as its seabore we are together as a minion not just for the amida but for every part of we say it word for word so number one it's it promotes unity and community and a sense that we're together uh number two by definition it's going to be slower and every word can be pronounced very very clearly that's a big big mile uh The mya of the Ashkanazic way is you go at your own pace. So some people can concentrate better by faster. This is interesting. We often think that a slower davening means you have more cavana and a faster davining means you have less kavana. Now, by and large, that that is pretty true, but it's not always true because sometimes, you know, if you're going really slow, once again, your mind wanders, you know, something's going to go in your head, right? Sometimes, you know, you want to say a whole sentence or even a whole paragraph and then you absorb it, right? Like just like you're reading a book, you know, you want to get the the whole idea. So, it's not always true that slow is best. Now, obviously, if you're just going to mumble and I'm not talking about that, but sometimes a faster dabbing can facilitate concentration. It focuses you. So, the Ashkenazic mode at least allows you to dive in at your own pace, so to speak, uh, and you're not distracted by other voices. It's a little quieter, uh, and the like. So, all I can say is that different men hug him developed. And I think this is a braha from Hashem because Hashem understands that different people need different ways of connecting to Hashem. The beauty of Ashkanazimardim tanim uh all the different rituals that we have and and we have you know different are not one either. There's Moroccan and Tunisian and Iraqi and Syrian and Ashkenazim is Polish and German etc. It's not all one thing is Hashem is saying that in his garden there should be many different types of flowers and the beauty of a garden is when flowers are different colors. There are different ways of approaching Hashem and each one is mile and I know for example a person actually a very great person Rav Pinke many of you might uh read Rafin's Rinkeas was one of the great great great khos in Erit Israel a tremendously inspiring uh person uh in Kira and in Jewish education generally and he tragically died in a car accident of Pesak really very tragic death I mean it was uh more 10 years ago, but it was really a tragic tragic loss for his family of course and for Ami Israel. Uh but Rafinis was an Ashkanazi you know died in the died in the world Ashkanazi but he loved the spartic kaduca of Musf because the spartic kaduca of Musf begins with the phrase we are giving to you God the crown. That's not in the Ashkan that's not in the Ashkenazic. And he looked forward to but he would go to a spartic minion after he dabbed after he dabbed he would go he wants to hear the kaduca of keter he wants to give that crown to hashem so people get inspired in in different ways that even the Ashkanazi would go to a sparty minan and of course which is not in it's the same but in a huge difference that the mitzvah of basanim is fulfilled every inardi minanim and not in Ashkanazi which only durstein when he was in America would David Shakris in a minion because he wanted to have birkas co him every time we what is the haha status of a couple being married by like a reform or conservative rabbi are they considered men yeah so that's a very excellent question and a very uh controversial question uh let's start off with some basics what makes a halic marriage, right? When are you married? So, generally speaking, uh when the gives the kala something of value, typically a ring, but any says, but the peop the person the most important people at the wedding, well, I would say the and the kala are number one and two. But after them, it's not the rabbi and not the photographer or the caterer or the or the band even. Uh but the most important people at the wedding are the witnesses. You have to have two witnesses who witness the marriage. If two witnesses do not witness the marriage, you're not married. Now, in order to be a witness, there are a lot of conditions. got to be Jewish, got to be men, got to be above bar mitzvah, cannot be related to each other or to the bride or the groom, and most importantly, must be hakically religious, must keep Shabbat and the like. Uh, according to some of the wall posters, if they own an iPhone, they're not kosher, but okay, but we won't get into that. We'll we'll we'll assume that they are kosher uh for that. Now, let's go back to a typical reformed marriage. a typical reformed marriage. Number one, even assuming that the ceremony was properly done, I gave a ring to the kala. Did I have share Shabbat witnesses who saw the marriage? Maybe I did. If I did, then there would be an issue. In other words, the point I'm making is it's not the reformed rabbi that would make it invalid. And it's not the reformed synagogue that would make it invalid. It would simply be the normal idea that you didn't have shmer Shabbat witnesses who witnessed the marriage. So as a result of Mosha Feinstein ruled as a general proposition that conservative reform and certainly civil marriages are not going to be valid because you didn't have witnesses. Now I want to explain you you may know this how amazingly important this rule is for yeshivas like because here's the thing unfortunately the divorce rate in the Jewish community has risen a lot and many kids who come to Bali chuva are products of second marriages this is mom's second marriage now if mom's first marriage was to a Jew and mom didn't get a pet from hubby number one. That means technically the kid that is born from marriage number two is a momser because they're born from an adulterous union even if there's a civil divorce. Now a mamzer has a very severe disability. A mamzer is Jewish and a mom does mitzvah but a mamzer cannot marry most other Jews. So according to Moshe there's a very beautiful solution to all of this and that is mom needs a get from marriage number one only if marriage number one was hahically valid and if marriage number one was conservative or reform and there weren't shmer shabas witnesses mom's marriage number one was never valid to begin with and if mom's marriage number one was not valid you don't need a get for marriage number one and therefore for marriage number two does not produce a mom. Now people ask the question, well wait a second, what if marriage number two is conservative reform? So doesn't that mean I'm in trouble? No, because that just means you're born out of wedlock. In other words, remember this. The definition of moms is a child born from adultery. A child who is born from a non-halikic marriage is not a mamzer. He's out of wedlock. But an out of wedlock kid has no disability whatsoever. So you see Rav Mosha literally saved I mean he he didn't you know he didn't change the to do this. I mean obviously this was his objective view but Rav Mosha literally saved thousands and thousands of Jewish kids who were born from second marriages from the stigma of moms. This is an enormously important opinion. Now I want to point out that Dravosha's position is not universally accepted. There are some great great rabbis who take the position that even if the original marriage ceremony did not have kosher witnesses if they live together with intercourse as husband and wife, the intercourse effects a marriage and as a similar to what you might call a hakic common law marriage idea and therefore they need a get. Okay. So Rav Mosha's not universally accepted but uh by and large uh the yeshiva world follows follows that ruling. Okay. So that's why there is no problem of moms. Yeah. Um many different times of the Torah the Torah uses a certain expression which says like literally like example like um in sacred how like a woman um touches a person in his private parts Torah says that you should cut off her hand you shouldn't have racking on her right right and like in places the Torah says like um if if the Torah's intention was never to be taken literally for these things. So why does the Torah write in such in such a way that that sounds literal? Yeah, that that's a good question on on Torah Shab generally. We do have a number of instances. You mentioned some of them uh in which the Torah says one thing and we have a misor a tradition from kazal that it means something else. Eye for an eye is the most famous right? It says if I knock out somebody's eye for an eye, right? the lextionus, the infamous lexionus. And yet kazal tell us over and over again that you don't knock out somebody's eye. It simply means you pay compensation for what you did. So the question becomes uh even if we accept those interpretations as legitimate. We say that's the misora. That's what God wants. And we're not questioning that. But the question is so why does the Torah write it that way? Why does it write eye for an eye if it doesn't mean eye for an eye? Why does it say if the woman squeezes the person's uh genitalia uh you cut off her hands? If the is you don't cut off her hand, once again, it's compensation for humiliation and and pain. Uh so it's a it's a very it is a very good question. Um the answer that's commonly given is that the Torah is indicating what the true spiritual reality should be even though operationally we're not able to impose it properly. meaning to say by right I caused somebody's eye to fall out I should lose that power of of eyesight but the Torah gave me a way out by compensation. So the Torah is expressing what you might call the spiritual reality of the sin and the Torah Shabalpe is telling me that that spiritual reality is not the way we would enforce the law. This is why by this might be one of the reasons by the way why in Kabala Torah is called midasin and tora is called midas because in many many cases the oral mura am amelates it mitigates some of the severity of the to uh and that's why in fact that even goes to the cababalistic idea uh that you've heard and we I think we've talked about this before that uh some of the mubalam say the says one should not learn mikra one should not learn tan at night and part of that is because night is a time of judgment and since is connected to judgment you don't want to intensify judgment with judgment that could bring down negative forces so that's why the toz learned at night which is connected to um in your entire like Jewish life. What was something that surprised you that you learned and why? I thought we need a happier question. Actually, I'm trying to think. Actually, I just read and I Why can't I remember it? I I read something yesterday that that genuinely surprised me um that I didn't know, but it was really just a a detail about Dravler's life that that surprised me. So, I would I don't think that's the global nature. Or maybe something that like you Yeah. Um like your favorite thing to study that makes you like super happy. Ah okay. Yeah that that positive questions. Yeah that I can answer a little bit questions. You know I heard um a rabbi rabbi was asked like uh what is your favorite safer? She says favorite safer? He says uh go into a candy store. What's your favorite candy? You know I like say I like all candy. He said like all. No but I I tell you I like very much uh I love the Tanya. Tanya is a beautiful, beautiful safer. Uh not not the easiest safer in the world, but sometimes uh it can really grab you, push you over the cliff uh with with insight and understanding and something you connect to your avote. So that's one of the favorites. And uh my another personal favorite I I love anything written by the Ramban. The Ramban is uh also very very beautiful in terms of integrating halaka, history, cabala. the Ramban was very echic. He didn't like just go in one particular direction. So I I get a particular joy in that. But you know, it's hard for me to be uh more specific, but I'll think about it. If I can come up with something better, I I'll tell you. Yeah. Yeah. Um what if any are the hakic uh ramifications bisman on two Jews um unmarried having relations men and women? Okay. Yeah. Now you have you have to be you have to be explained here. Okay. So we'll talk complicated. Yeah. So we'll talk about heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Okay. So the truth of the matter is this is a big big reonim. Uh according to the Rambam and the Shanor heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is an isurisa uh because the Torah prohibits putting your daughter into prostitution etc which is interpreted to mean unmarried sex and it's a violation of the obligation the mitzvah say to get married. Now I want to add a little complication here and this is very important and that is uh if a woman has had her period and has not gone to the mikvah forget about marriage not marriage when you have intercourse with a woman who had her period and didn't go to the mikvah you are transgressing the isa of intercourse with a mida which is an absolute of k so even though there's a mlo the ra and the say Premarital sex is an iser diorisa a love not a curus not a misa and other risha say as long as she's not a prostitute and you have a stable relationship she could be called a pleesh a concubine and dyakden brings a concubine is muter so there actually is a possibility of that type of relationship but if she didn't go to the mikvah there's 1,000% and is right. So people have to remember that people cannot use uh who maskesh which we don't use anyway but but even if somebody wanted to use pages that does not m the isita so that you have to be aware of um there was an organization in New York I I think they I haven't heard about it but I hope they disband it. Um, this was written up when I lived in Maryland. This was written up in the Washington Post. Even though it was a New York organization, was an awful kill Hashem. The organization was called Shalom Bias. And what was the organization? The organization involved religious women, religious women who could not find their shidim. So, they kind of signed up to be concubines or mistresses. uh with other religious men and this was said to promote scholas in in a number of bizarre ways because by basically saying that so whatever I don't want to get I don't want to get this was in the 1980s 1980s I don't want to get too explicit but the basic idea was that men were saying there was their wives were getting older they were overweight and less attractive and this gave them a sexual outlet outside of marriage and This allowed them to be happy with their wives etc. Now this was such a tragedy on so many levels. In particular, it was really a tragedy for these younger women who were from women. They were religious women and they were so hopeless that they would ever find a shik that they said, "All right, at least I'll get this. I'm getting, you know, I'm getting something. I'm getting something. I'm getting dinner once a month with a man, whatever it is." And then right so this really expressed the utter hopelessness of of the shik crisis that that existed and to some degree still exists. Uh so there were so and of who mages to a non-melik and the women went to the mikvah. The women went to the mikvah as single women to take off the nida. I hope such an organization is disbanded but uh that that's part of the issue that's going on. Yeah. Would it also be kil of marriage? Oh, okay. Okay. So, that's that's an interesting point. Uh the Gmorrah says the following. The Gmorrah says that no man wants to have intercourse in a promiscuous way. This is Adamus and therefore all intercourse is treated as marital intercourse. The Rambam brings a shittita of the gaim that actually says any man that has even casual intercourse with a Jewish woman is now married to her because he doesn't intend to make it promiscuous. That's the of the Rambam and the disagree with that. They say that if you look at the contextual passage of not making a via promiscuous that's referring to an already married couple who made a condition to the marriage. So when they have intercourse, they get rid of the condition. But when there's not a pre-existing marriage, uh we do say people have promiscuous intercourse. And that is why if you're a balchuva and you are with a woman and you're breaking up, you do not have to give her again. Otherwise, you'd have to give her a gift. Right. So we do not pasan that it morphs into a marriage. Yeah. Isn't there we say marriage that one of the way to is through through. Yes. Yes. So but you need witnesses for that. Yes. Yes. Okay. So here's the thing now. Obviously, when we say witnesses for sexual relationship, we don't mean uh there's a witnesses in the bedroom, you know, we don't mean that, but it just means they they're aware. They're aware. So, so based on that, the problem is the awareness of the community of the Orthodox community that you're living together as husband and wife. See, that was the argument against Raosha. That's what I said. As Ra Moshe said, if the two witnesses were not kosher at the wedding ceremony, you're not married. The other argument is but you had intercourse and religious people knew about it. Right? That would be the question. Yeah. Um recently there was I think it was Disney. I'm not sure if it was Disney. It was one of the big like cartoon movies that came out had um had a like a small like homosexual scene um in one of these cartoons. Yeah. And um like I think even before the movie came out like one of the one of the big producers in I think I'm pretty sure it's in Disney other big ones said that like they have more of an agenda now to try to normalize these things and um I just want to know I guess like if like um yeah what like should we not be showing like any cartoons or Yeah Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What should Yeah. What should be like what should be your response to that? Let me share with you a uh a medish which I I've mentioned before, but it's a really really important medish. The medish talks about the sins of the generation of the flood. And they did a lot of things, but it mentions one of the final sin that caused the flood. The final one was they wrote a cassuva for homosexual relationships. Now pay pay very very careful attention to that. It doesn't say they committed the sin of homosexual relationships. It says they wrote of cassuba. Now what is the significance of that? There's a very big difference between committing a sin that you admit is a sin but you know my tyra is too strong versus trying to redefine the sin as a mitzvah. And that is there've always been homosexuals. have always been people with with Tyus and again and I've said many times I'm not even in a position to judge because it is a very very difficult nission and who knows you know who who of us would know if we had such a nisson right so the issue is not to judge people not to condemn people but but but it is an a frankly it is an a you can't get around that so as long as you know it's an a so it's an aem has but when you start saying that that which the Tyra says is sinful now becomes a mitzvah with and withah and kuva that's a much worse thing and that's exactly the situation of what is happening in the general world and even in the Jewish world you know the non nonorthodox world but even in the open orthodox world which calls us up orthodox you have this this very very issue and that is it's not enough to be tolerant to be sympathetic to be respect respectful. All of that is good and I'm in favor of it. But now you have to validate. You have to approve. You have to celebrate. You have to treat it like it's equal. That you can't do. That you just can't do. That's a perversion. And uh for our children to be raised and again children should be raised with respect for all human beings 100%. And not to look down and not to you know make fun of people 100%. But to be taught that a gay relationship is just as valid as a heterosexual one is perverting Torah values. So you as a parent at least uh you have to unfortunately kind of look at the books and look at the uh cartoons you know at least ahead of time and uh recognize that a lot of things are not suitable for your children anymore. And that's too bad. Uh you know um I grew up uh watching television uh in those days. I mean, television was always a waste of time. There's no It was never anything productive in aami, but as a waste of time, it was relatively innocuous. I could give you a list of 20 situation comedies that were just funny. I mean, they were an awful waste of time. Yeah, granted, uh, but they were funny. There was nothing immoral about them. Today, that's not the situation anymore. Today, they're they're they're pushing agendas that are against the morality of the Torah. So, uh, the old TV, you know, Beverly Hillbillings or whatever it would be, you know, are very, very different than what's going on today. So, that's why you can't really extrapolate from what we used to do to what you want your kids to do today. Uh, yeah. So, besides the fact that the prophecies explicitly state Mashiach, you know, Ben Davidid is supposed to come, um, why does Mashiach have to come in the form of a person? Why wouldn't Hashem just directly uh reveal his presence, you know, in at the time of redemption? Um like what specifically depends on a human leader? Yeah. Um that's a very interesting question. The truth of the matter is um the older I get, the less I understand about Msiah because there are a lot of difficulties here because the Rambam clearly tells us that the ultimate reward for our mitzvah is not mashiach at all. The ultimate reward for our mitzvah is olab where our soul goes. And there in ol there's no guff there's no body there's no bas there there are no mitzvah you're just connected to z the glory of the shina. So your mashiach is a stage on earth until you die where you go to maba. So why do I need it? Why why do I need the most mashia at all? But apparently there's a notion that as the Tanya writes that the whole purpose of creation is that lowly man should bring godliness into the world by his action. And therefore it is part of God's to us that he wants us to be the architects of creating that perfect world. Because the greatest gift God could give you is to be like him. Of course, in the sharply reduced way. And therefore, as God is the creator, he wants man to be the creator as well. And therefore, heava wants the revelation of his presence to come through the actions of man. Uh yeah. What are the um shittas of um going in front crossing the street and going in front of a car uh during shabas especially in a highly populated Jewish area. Yes. So the problem is basically you know uh I I I cause a car to stop. Right. So the issue becomes that uh every time uh a person applies his foot to the brake, the brake lights turn on and you're causing the closing of circuits. You're causing a light to go on. You're causing malaka combustion again. Combustion. Uh when he start Yeah. When he pushes the accelerator again, you mean? Yeah. Right. You might be causing an extra acceleration. So uh the question is uh you're causing a Jew who's already violating chabas granted but you might be causing an extra activity of shabas desecration so that's a sin of lif naiva right in front of a blind person you do not place a stumbling block and that's understood to mean don't cause someone else to do an ara now if the driver is a even though you're not allowed to tell a to do mala I I don't think this would involve a problem because you're not really asking him to do mala that's it's his decision to stop, so to speak. Uh, so I I would say again, uh, if if you knew for sure that the person was a guy or if it's a neighborhood with even a 50/50 chance, you could assume it's a guy. But let's assume that it's here and it has an Israeli license plate, you know, so you kind of know it's a Jew. So, uh, I I would agree with you. I think I think it would be improper to cause a premature extra stop and acceleration because it may be a lifetime. Now, some people take the position, hey, he's driving anyway. He's stopping, going, stopping, going, stopping, going. Are we supposed to calculate the fact that this is one extra? Well, I think yes, one extra is one extra. Meaning, if you're causing something extra that otherwise wouldn't happen, I think there is a there is a problem, right? So, I think it's a good point to be careful about that. Yeah. that let's say you have a case where a Jew has to drive on child assisted to pick up um medication for a sick child or whatever it may be. He may have a question of turning on the headlights or the blinkers or once he comes to turn off the I mean I guess taking those extra Yeah. Yeah. So really it's a nightmare. In other words, I I urge everybody that if Shalom you're ever in a situation uh that you have to have transportation on Shabas, you try to go with a cab with a non-Jewish cab because the truth of the matter is although it's true that a Jew can take his wife to the hospital and drive but you know he's not able to park. He has to like leave at the first place even if the car gets towed away. meaning you can go crazy with you have to be very meticulous and try to minimize the malocus that you're doing. Now, it is brought down ultimately that if that's going to be so distracting and so frustrating, you won't be able to concentrate on driving. You're allowed to be lenient. But if you're able to have the presence of mind, you got to be very, very exacting. And that's really, really pretty crazy. I mean, you can't even go into a parking lot. You may have to leave your wife off at the emergency room exit, get out of the car, don't close the door because you'll be closing the the dome light, etc. and then somebody's going to tow your car or whatever whatever it would be. So, by all means, uh when your wife needs to go to the hospital on Shabas, try to get a cab to do it. Yeah. On the topic of Chabas, uh uh I remember being told, and I want you to tell me if it's true, that we're not you're not supposed to walk on grass because you might be ripping off the grass and you may also be inadvertently potentially killing bugs. Kill the killing bugs. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, is that true? You're not supposed to walk on grass? No. No. Well, we don't we do not pask in that way. There there is such an opinion there there is such an opinion that maybe you came across but lice we pos in such a case that's unintentional uh it's not what you want to do and it's not a certainty that you're doing it. So under those principles unintentional action that may produce a mala that's not a 100% certainty is permitted on shabas. So uh you don't have to worry about that. Uh yeah. Um so I'm trying to make a dash on and maybe you can help me steal from your wisdom. So you're still in in calendar? Yeah. Well, no I'm not but like in general for next year my parents or something. Um uh so ba based on Moshe's response uh Moshe uh intercedes on behalf of Israel after the spies and says if you kill us now then then uh everyone will think you didn't have the power to get us into Israel. And so based on that we could see that the the miracle required to get into Israel is greater than uh the miracles required to leave Egypt. And so why why then do we place such a great emphasis on leaving Egypt? We have pes we have the mitzvah to remember um not not that we don't have things connected to Israel but uh why is there seemingly a more more focus on. Yeah, that that's a very good question. I I I think what is so vitally important about Mitraim is that Hashem took us out 190 years earlier than he should have taken us out because we were on the 49th level of impurity. And if we would have stayed even another minute in Mitzim, the amount of time it takes for dough to rise, we would have hit level 50 and whatever that means exactly, we would be irredeemable. So the notion that God saves us in the nick of time at a critical moment where our whole existence could have gone in either direction makes that an enormously pivotal pivotal moment. meaning to say the following. As important as Erit Israel is, if we had to stay in the desert, we would still we could still be God's nation. But Yas Mam had that not occurred when it occurred, we would have been goners. We would not have had any we wouldn't have existed as a nation at all. So in a sense, Matra was like this emergency surgery that if it wasn't done that exact moment, the patient would have died. So I think that might be the special dimension of it. Yeah. Um um Oh, you first. Okay. Well, actually, you didn't have a question. Yeah. Yeah. Um in this week's part of Torah, there's 250 at least like 253 or something. Uh different incense offerings being brought at a single time. Where does that show up? Where does that come from? Did Michelle and Mosha set them up for failure? Well, obviously, uh, yeah, 250. In other words, the Nissimum, uh, the heads of the tribes, but not just the official 12, but a whole expanded list. Uh, they wanted to bring incense, and Hashem said they can bring incense in their own containers, so to speak. So, this was not incense that was brought on the Misbayak. Normally, incense is brought on a golden altar that's in the Mishkan. Uh, the golden altar of the Mishkan is very small. You couldn't have done 250 incense. Rather, each one brought the incense on their own bowl of coals called a sensor was the term that's used. And this is how Hashem said. Hashem said how they should bring it. So this was a one-time emergency special bringing of incense where Hashem would show that he had chosen our own over over everybody else. By the way, the nitiv says a very interesting point. The nitiv differentiates between Korak, Dustin and Aram on one side and the 250 num on the other side. Korak and Dav were primarily motivated by jealousy of Moshe. They wanted to usurp Mosha's role. They basically said that you know why should Moshe have all or Aaron have all the authority. The 250 were seeking deusm and they knew they would die. They knew from that when you bring incense not in the authorized way you're putting your life at risk. But their desire to experience the closeness to Hashem through this devos meant they were even willing to put their lives in danger. And the nitiv brings a proof that their motives were worthy. Although misguided and erroneous, but worthy. Because what does the Torah say you do with their pans, their coal pans? You beat them flat and you make them a cover for the Misbayak. Now the simple meaning is so that anyone who goes to the Msbayak sees those uh flattened metal and says, "Oh, I better not rebel against Gohanim." But the native says, "No, this was actually a badge of honor. God was memorializing people who gave their life uh for his service to Hashem." So he he puts them in a very different group. Yeah. Um so in regards to Torah, um after like the whole incident and Hashem opens the ground to take care of all the people who are rebelling against Moshe, um the Hashim commands Moshe to take staff and to put it um Mishkan and happy like like this is like like to prove also like how Hashem chose them. I guess I don't understand like after all these miracles and after all these um revelations that God has, how did anyone continue to question the motion islands like I guess question that also is like what what like how are besides how are how are like all like anyone else in able to question um or consider like Moshe being a person who's taking author authority on his own like Everyone knew that relationship from its time. Everyone knew that Moshe was was chosen. Yeah, it's very it's very difficult. Korak's rebellion is a very very difficult rebellion to understand. I mean what is Korak saying? Is Korak saying Moshe is making things up? Uh that's not very logical. Uh Elm Hashem told gave Moshe these things. What are you arguing with? Um it's hard to understand. I mean obviously you see how powerful cavode and diver is. In fact, it's so interesting that if you think about this, Korak's argument was egalitarianism. Korak argued everybody's equal. We're all holy. Moshe answers him, "Why are you complaining? Aren't you given enough honor?" Now, that's a nonsequiter. Korak didn't say, "I don't have enough honor." Korak says, "Everybody's equal." So, why is Moshe answering, "Don't you have enough honor?" Because Moshe understands that Korak has a hidden agenda. Korak is talking equality, but he really means I want to be the boss. Uh this is the history of revolutions. You know, some of you might have read George Orwell's uh animal uh farm, which is a parody of the Russian revolution in which the animals overthrow the humans and the animals become just as tyrannical as the humans. That's Korak. Korak says everybody's equal and then he he make him he would make himself a boss. What would life be under Korak? Kor would make himself a dictator. Now the one person who knew this was Mosher Rabenu and the other is the unsung hero of the Korak story. Mrs. Own Ben Pelis. Now on Ben Pelis is a guy who's only mentioned once. He's one of the revolutionaries but he's not mentioned as anyone who died and it doesn't mention he died in any way. So the Gammorra says in Sanhedrin Mrs. own Ben Pelis, you know, own Ben Pelis comes home from a campaign speech of Korak and every man is equal. You know, who needs gdole? Who needs authority? We can all make our own decisions. And she, as a good wife, kind of tells her husband, you're an idiot. Because what do you think's going to happen? If Moshe wins, you're a nobody. And if Korak wins, you're a nobody. What's the point here? Now, note, she didn't give him a from. She didn't say how can you rebel against Moshe. She didn't use religious arguments. She used pragmatic arguments. There is nothing to be gained here. This is not about equality. This is not about everybody will be equal before God. This is a power grab. And that's an amazing thing that she had the clarity of being able to see see through that. Yeah. How are what was the significance of the of the status? So I would I would say this I would say that Hashem wanted Aaron to be chosen by love and not just by punishment. Meaning to say all the other ways were punishing the rebellious. But God now wanted to show that Aaron is chosen by God giving a special divine gift. I think it was a way of showing I'm not just choosing you because the other people are bad. I'm choosing you because you're good. I think there was something positive in that. Yeah, this is an alumnist question. Um, why do we pray for Mashiach to come when the Amarim specifically prayed for that not to happen? Yep, that's a very very good question. Um although well okay I I don't think there's going to say they prayed I mean they said I hope it doesn't come in our time. The truth of the matter is this is a very very hard question. The truth is for many of us mashiach coming is not necessarily an advantage. I would like more time to do chuva. I would like more time to perfect myself. I would like more time to get my act together. Mashiach comes and I'm not ready. Then god forbid I might suffer go mog. I might suffer all sorts of things. So from a selfish standpoint, you might not want mashiach to come so quickly. But you pray for Mashiach not because it's good for you, but because it's for the glory of God. For the glory of God. I want his glory to be revealed even if I'm going to suffer in the process. So it's actually contrary to what people think. People look at praying for Mashiach is, "Oh, I have such a tough life. I want the Mashiach to come and pay my mortgage and and take care of me." says, "Mashia coming may not be perfect for you, for us, but I'm praying because it it creates the glory of Hashem in the world." So, it's actually a very selfless prayer of asking for the revelation of the Kabot Shay. Uh yeah, what are your thoughts on the staggering numbers of students who go for higher education or the Ivy League schools and in terms of them rejecting Hashem's ways and why do you think it's so prevalent within society that people who are open to other thought process talking about intellectual people who are not necessarily just going for the tas but are really thinking things through and why the numbers are so high in terms of them rejecting the shem ways and going towards just the regular secular way. Yeah. Yeah. Uh so if I understand your question uh correctly, you know, you're identifying um a disturbing phenomenon that has grown quite a lot in relatively recent years. It used to be that I mean there are always people who were religious and they stopped being religious but usually it was because of tyara it was too hard to keep culture. It was too hard not to be with women so I don't keep it anymore you know etc. and then one thing to another thing and then it's connected to drugs to alcohol all all sorts of things in which a person is off the derek but they kind of still acknowledge that the Torah is true have an offer person said I believe in Torah I believe in God I believe in mitzvah I just can't do that stuff right now you have a maybe a kind of a different challenge a little bit in which people come to the conclusion that I don't believe the Torah came from God I don't believe in God I don't I don't believe that uh rabbitic tradition is accurate in any way. In other words, they become mamish heretics. They become philosophical heretics. And tragically, this even happens among people. I mean, I I personally was involved with somebody who had learned in coal for years. He was married, had four children who were in Jewish day schools, and he decided didn't he didn't believe in it anymore. and he comes from a firm family and his wife he managed to entice his wife and uh his wife comes from a firm family. Both families are absolutely heartbroken and he described to me a scene that is so surreal it is hard to believe. His kids go to went to Jewish day school. They had they had the titas out and he says we have to have a meeting with our children telling them we don't keep kosher anymore and we don't keep shabas anymore. I mean, can you can you imagine that type of meeting? I have my children and hey, I we sit down uh mommy and daddy have to tell you something. You know, we don't believe in this anymore. I mean, what does that do? I mean, part I mean, I was asked to help, you know, help this. So, part of what I was trying to say is a very last resort is can't you fake it? Okay, you don't believe in it, but you have kids. Can't you just pretend that you know you keep these things? I mean, rituals have a value, Jewish continuity, community. And what happened was that the bo the man actually said he could fake. He he could live that way. He says his wife couldn't live that way. Whatever it is, his wife could not live a lie. He could live a lie because he says he was living a lie for many years already. So, he could do it. Uh, by the way, Kiraov education is absolutely ineffectual for people like this. What are you going to tell the person? arguments. Uh the person's heard the arguments a hundred times. Uh he may know the arguments better than the rabbi that's that's that's conveying it to him. Right? So this is absolutely this is almost an impossible audience to be mak because they're not coming from not knowing Torah and then they learn Torah. They're coming from knowing Torah and then rejecting it. And kazal already say kazal say this that the one who knows Torah and keeps Torah and leaves it is much more difficult than someone who didn't know who now learns Torah and the like. So I've been noticing this also uh more and more. I mean I wouldn't necessarily call it an epidemic yet but you know sometimes I be I'm walking in the street and like it's a secret thing. a guy from mirror will come to me and say you know I don't know if I believe this anymore I mean people I'm talking about people in the yeshiva world so I I actually have the same question I'm wondering why this epidemic happens this because this seems to be a different symptomology than the classic you know I can't control myself type of thing. Uh this seems to be an intellectual problem. Uh, I think it has to do a little bit with the um I mean I I don't want to blame yeshivas for it, but but yeshivas are sometimes a little close-minded. Meaning if you're a person that has questions and you ask questions and your rebi tells me religious kids don't ask these questions, don't be an apicoras. That type of rejection when your questions are not addressed and they're delegitimated, you will eventually kind of rebel. So the aaras is that when people have questions in amuna they need to be addressed. I mean that's the strength of a place like Osame where these questions are addressed. If you go to a mainstream yeshiva let's say mainstream black hat you can't even ask these questions but people still have the questions even if they can't ask them. So I I think it's very much connected connected to that which means ultimately it's kind of an emotional issue meaning when a person feels rejected and delegitimated they will go out and seek recognition in other in other areas. So uh you are correct in in identifying this as a real again I I don't think it's epidemic but it's much more than than I was aware of uh in the past. It's a different type of profile. Yeah. Yeah. Um, how do we ask in in terms of um when a touches mushall wine when it's unopened as opposed to when it is open or him opening it? You mean non mush or mush? I'm sorry. Non mush. Nonush. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So again, if it's nonmushial wine, meaning uh wine that was not cooked, wine that's unpasteurized. So we know the is that if a touches the wine the wine is traa the only wine that's is wine that was actually poured for now there's dissa a go touches wine that doesn't make the wine user but the raan and what is called stam so here you have to understand that in order for wine to be user the either has to touch the wine meaning put he puts his finger in the wine or the pours the wine or the shakes the bottle. So the truth of the matter is uh if it's an unopened bottle for sure there's no problem and meaning it's in other words you you have to break a seal but even if it's an open bottle if the guy simply touches the bottle and didn't pour from the bottle uh in many cases it'll be permitted. Okay. Where you have a problem is when a pours wine from the bottle, then you'd have an issue that not only what he poured is forbidden, but even what's in the bottle might be prohibited as well. And what about when the opens it himself for for Jews? Uh, opening the bottle, opening the bottle is not is not per se a problem really. Opening the bottle is not a can open a bottle for a Jew without making the wine stamenum. The problem is the pouring of the bottle is going to be the problem. Yeah. Yeah. So this is a big big makus again in the Gmorrah itself the Gmorrah only mentions go touching wine or pouring wine. He does not mention juice. And yet we have from the gonim the hill that says that since equate a person who desecrates Shabas publicly with an oateim so therefore a shabas far a wine and that's what most postimposan like however uh in the 19th century with the advent of the reform movement we have a very famous respanszm chuva from the bign Binyan Bignyan is the oric laner. Some of you might have seen the commentary oraclair. He was the rebi of hers. Ravakovinger was a big guy. Uh people always know him as hers's rebi but he he was a guttle a guttle in his own right. And eter introduced the concept of tino shaishba with respect to yay in which he said that most Jews who are not religious today were never raised to be religious. They were not rejecting the Torah. They just didn't know the Torah and therefore they would not prohibit wine as opposed to the people you were talking about. They might prohibit wine. Uh but the typical reform or secular Jew would not ask for wine. Now in the United States, many many many Rabanim follow the binion and I believe the official policy of Or is also to follow the bin. So we are pretty meat maker because a lot of our JLE people they're not shmer shabas and the mentors like to bring fancy wine. I mean normally yeshiva wine is mushul but mushul is inferior right? So if you're a connoisseur you're looking for I can't taste the difference but if you're a connoisseur you want an mushul. So the mentors always bring an mushul and it's passed around and there are non shabas. So the truth is we're so and the bign but I will tell you that yashv and and other postkim were very very machm and they they they would actually not allow the wine to be to be drunk. So if you're asking me personally how you should follow I would recommend that if you're having people in your home who are not shmer shabas either because they're family or guests uh you should only have mushel wine. If you can control what wine you buy, of course has another he has a on top of a number one he doesn't accept. Number two, he holds most mush wine is called ano mush. That's another he has a very strict definition of of mushel that it has to be brought to a boiling point and you know pasteurization does not bring it to a boiling point. So rebel yash is a double. Even if you have mushel wine, it's going to be user. But most do not possibly like rebel yash on that that nikuda either. Okay. Uh yeah. Um would be permitted for balani to enter a cemetery of uh yeah interesting. Uh well let me ask you let me ask you a a basic question first. Uh can a coain enter a cemetery of goim? I mean your question is assuming that as a do pashett he could enter a cemetery of goam that's not so pett because there is a mahlo in the gar itself but okay but we do pasin that he could enter a cemetery of goam uh because tumas oh being under the same roof only applies to a Jewish mace and not a non-Jewish mace so the question is what is the status of of kim uh there is no question that a karite is at least a suffic Jew. Uh in fact, most would say they're actually 100%ly Jewish even though they're corim or kofim or whatever it is. So a cohen could not enter the cemetery of a car, right? Just like a cohen could not enter the cemetery of a shab just because on some we treat him like a Jew, like a guy, we're not going to allow it for that. Um yeah, converts asking this question, are they still Jewish? I'm sorry. Say again. If a congress asks me, yeah, this is a very very important question that the Jerusalem Post and the Israeli press distorts all the time. You may have read you may have read uh in newspaper articles something like the Rabanut invalidated 10,000 conversions of Russian Jews because they stopped keeping Shabas. And you might get the impression, and that's maybe how you formed your impression, that if a ge stops keeping commandments, they're no longer Jewish. That is 1,000% incorrect. Once a non-Jew has properly converted, they are a Jew. If they stop keeping Shabas, it is the same as if a Jew stops keeping Shabas. A Jew who stops keeping Shabas is Jewish. A g who stops keeping Shabas is Jewish. Where you have a problem is this though. In order for the gayas to be valid, there must have been an intention at the time of the conversion to accept mitzvah. So if at the time the guy converted to Judaism, he never intended to be observant, then and only then we can invalidate the conversion. So there's a big difference between an insincere convert and a sincere convert who goes off the derk. A sincere convert who goes off the derek is 100% Jewish. An insincere convert who never meant to accept Shabas is not Jewish because the conversion is invalid. Now the question is how do you know? meaning to say somebody converted and then I see them a month later not keeping Shabas did they have a change of heart or did they never mean to keep Shabas that that that's where it's tricky and that's where a B then needs to investigate the circumstances but the general principle is a very very clear principle okay it's very important you cannot invalidate a conversion because the g stopped keeping mitzvah unless that indicated He never had intention to keep the mitzvah from the very beginning. Okay. Uh that's it. Okay. Take care. Be well. See you.