Rabbi Breitowitz Explains Some of Judaism's Most Misunderstood Practices

Hot button issue and I'm getting too much uh I won't say hate mail, that's a little strong, but uh too much mail, so no tocheiles discussion tonight. Okay. Anyway, [snorts] uh if it's not about tocheiles, feel free to uh to ask. Yeah. >> All right, here's a send-in. Why is there zero tolerance for pictures of women in the yeshiva world when the Torah abounds with explicit depictions of women? For example, we have a godata about prostitutes and marital relations, and Hazal darshans through King David's anatomy as a mashal. >> Yeah, so the issue is about uh the zero tolerance policy of pictures in of women in many religious publications. Uh first, let me just backtrack a little bit on something you mentioned in your question. Uh the shaila is sometimes raised that in the Gemara in particular, there's a lot of sexually explicit discussion. There are discussions about intercourse, about uh male anatomy, female anatomy, uh the Torah itself gives us stories about rape and and the like. And Rav Elyashiv was asked the question, is it proper, as it were, to censor these materials and not make them available either to younger children or even to unmarried singles. Uh should we not learn those sugyas in the Gemara and the like? And Rav Elyashiv uh gave us a very important rule that he says that anything that is in the context of limud haTorah will never damage your neshama, it will only strengthen your neshama. So, uh even if you're talking about sex and intercourse and rape and genitalia and menstruation and all of those things, when it is in the context of Talmud Torah, it is only pure, it is only good, and a child at any age can be exposed to it if they're capable of understanding it, and it will not have any negative damage. So, that's with respect to something that you had mentioned. Now, with respect to the pictures of women, the truth of the matter is Okay, I'm I'm going to get in trouble here too. This is a relatively recent policy. If you go back for example to a books and magazines that were even published in very Haredi environments years and years ago, maybe 20, 30, 40 years ago, you will actually see that there were pictures of women, albeit tzniut. There would be a picture of Sarah Schenirer. There would be pictures of a Bais Yaakov convention. There's a famous picture of the Chofetz Chaim where he's sitting outside of his house and there are some women in back of him and he's talking to Rabbi Chaim Volozhin and they had the picture of the woman. You can see her face and and the like. The notion that you have to blot out or Photoshop pictures of even women who are dressed tzniut is a relatively recent phenomenon and many have said that it's driven primarily by economics in the sense of the following way. The Chassidic world was always very very strict on this. That much is true. The Chassidic world has a thing about not sitting next to women, not showing women, not talking to women, etc. etc. etc. That was not the policy in the Litvish Torah world. And since Chassidus grows bigger and since Chassidus also pays for magazines like Mishpacha or whatever it would be, so many magazines thought that they would lose a customer base. They would lose a significant customer base unless they went all out. So what looks like a Frumkeit decision is in part an economic decision. It's not really a matter of Frumkeit and it's not a matter of principle. That that is one reading of it. That is one reading of it that this is a business decision. Uh that's one pshet and I think that is a very legitimate pshet. Uh the other way of looking at it is that b'chlal the Litvish world itself, by Litvish I don't mean Lithuanian in particular, I mean the Misnagdic Yeshiva world that's not Chassidic. So even if you're Germany or Poland, whatever, it's the same thing. The Litvish Chassidic non-Chassidic has gotten much more strict on intermingling of the genders. For example, uh both Reb Moshe Feinstein and Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky, their children got married in the United States. There was mixed seating, not mixed dancing, but mixed seating. Men and women, husbands and wives sat at tables. To uh my own Yeshiva, Ner Yisroel, the banquet was always a mixed seating banquet. I believe it's still the case, although I'm not sure, but last time I checked, that was still the case. This was a common practice even among the Gedolim of America. Now, in Eretz Yisroel today, and even in America today, in Yeshiva circles, this would almost be unth- unthinkable. This would just not be done today. So, there's a lot of chumras in this area. So, one might look at not publishing women as another chumra in the separation. Now, is that a good thing or is that a bad thing? So, again, there's a machlokes on this. So, I'm not going to take direct sides on it. Some people say it's a bad thing. It represents a fanaticism. It represents a departure from our mesorah, meaning the non-Chassidic mesorah, etc. Uh it is insulting to women. It delegitimizes women. It makes women feel that they're nobodies. And that's not derech eretz. On the other hand, the counter argument is that precisely because we live in a more degenerate generation, we live in a generation where sexuality is so out in the open, whether it's advertisements, whether it's the way people dress, uh whether it's the internet, that sometimes you have to go to the opposite extreme in order not to be caught up. Right? So, there would be a justification for being stricter than was the case in Europe. But, all I can say is historically, whether you look at it as economics driven, or whether you look at it as a need to compensate for the decadence of society, it is a recent phenomenon. This was not the This was not the practice in Europe, and uh there were many many many pictures of women, albeit in tznius contexts, and it's a relatively new uh new circumstance that that we are facing today. Uh yeah. Uh uh I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody? Yeah. >> Um what is the difference between kofer and apikoros? >> Between? >> Between being a kofer and >> Oh, kofer >> [laughter] >> Yeah, what is the difference between kefira and apikoros? Uh I don't know if there's any difference. I think we use them synonymously. I mean, the truth of the matter is I would say every kofer is an apikoros, but not every apikoros is a kofer because the term apikoros in the Gemara is wider than kefira. Kefira refers to a theological belief or a belief in something that is against the basic theology of the Torah. So, if I believe God did not give the Torah, or I believe God has a body, I am a kofer. And as a kofer, I'm an apikoros. However, Chazal say the term apikoros can be broadened to include other types of behaviors. So, for example, the Gemara says, "If you humiliate a talmid chacham in public, you are called an apikoros." Now, you're not a kofer per se because you could be totally frum, and your theological beliefs could be totally correct, but you have a bad temper, and you humiliate a talmid a talmid chacham in public. So, Chazal do call that an apikoros. So, I would I would basically say therefore, as I said, every kofer is an apikoros, but there are cases of apikoros that is broader than the term kofer, such as mevaza talmid talmid chacham, and the like. Uh yeah. >> Um I don't understand um the concept of Torah and when mission that says yeah. Torah is very It seems to imply that if they're working is very different. >> Yeah, the concept of Torah, all right. This is an interesting issue. We do have many a number of that praise the idea of combining Torah with doing work. One is but that itself it needs little explanation. Torah is good when it is combined with earth. So first and foremost, that particular mission in order to understand it, you need to translate the term. What does the word earth mean? In the there are a number of interpretations. Some interpret as good deeds. Which is a totally different issue. Some interpret it as good deeds. And some do interpret it as livelihood. But even if you don't look at the mission and as a source, we have other sources. We have the famous case Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai where the Torah says if you do the you will gather your grain. So Rabbi Ishmael says from here we learn that you have a livelihood and that's not Torah. And Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says have a livelihood. How is that when are you going to learn? He says forget about livelihood, will take care of you. The then says many followed the path of Rabbi Ishmael and they were successful. And many followed the path of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and they starved indicating that the normative is like Rabbi Ishmael even though as the Vilna Gaon says the can follow and should follow the of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai because remember the Gamara's lesson is "Harbe oso, many did like Rabbi Yishmael and they were successful and many did like Reb Shimon bar Yochai and they were not successful." The Gra puts the emphasis on the many. Now, the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah and in Pirkei Avos in the parish in Pirkei Avos has a whole arichus that anybody who is supported by the tzibur by the general community because he wants to learn, the Rambam's language is very strong. He's a mechallel es Hashem. He desecrates God's name and he is using the Torah as a kardom, as a shovel to dig with and the derech of a talmid chacham should be that you have a certain parnassa that you make a living from and then you can devote your time to learning and teaching without charging money. So, it appears very very clearly from the Rambam that as a general principle, the Rambam would be against the concept of kolel. The Rambam would believe in the importance of parnassa. That's true. However, everything has to be qualified in a few different ways. First of all, let's look at the Rambam's own life. How is the Rambam's own life consistent with this vision? We know that the Rambam was a doctor and the Rambam made his parnassa from medicine, but you know, that was only later in his life when he had no choice. For much of his 20s and 30s, the Rambam was in fact supported by his brother, Rav Dovid, who was a jewel merchant and only when Rav Dovid tragically died in the sea, on sea, did the Rambam have to get a job. So, the Rambam on one end says it is forbidden to be supported by for for your Torah learning, you have to have a parnassa, when the Rambam himself was supported [snorts] for his Torah learning for many many years. So, what are you going to say? That the Rambam would differentiate between family support and community support. Meaning, if your family, if your parents, if your in-laws want to support you, doesn't matter as long as they're able to do it. It could be a good thing. But to say, I want the tsibur, I want klal Yisrael to pay for my learning, that the Rambam seems to be against. That that's one difference. A second important difference is, look at the mashal, the Rambam says. Right after the Rambam says, "Hey, anyone who gets paid from the tsibur for his Torah learning is desecrating God's name, and he's bringing the Torah into disrepute, and therefore get a job." The Rambam says, "What do I mean by get a job? That you're osek in parnasa for 3 hours a day, and then you have nine of the daylight hours as well as the night hours to learn Torah. Yeah, get a job." So, I think many of us might say, "Okay, get me a 3-hour job. Yeah, that'd be wonderful." Now, here is the point that needs to be made. If you live in an economy, economic system, where those types of jobs are not around, and you're not going to be able to support a family on 3 hours of work, and your choice is kollel life or having to leave the world of learning and work for 8, 9, 10, or 12 hours a day, it might be that even the Rambam might be that kollel, if not optimal, would at least be the lesser of two evils. I mean, I know it's funny to say to describe it that way, but better to learn and be supported than to have a life where you're barely able to learn at all. Meaning to say, it could be that the Rambam was positing a certain assumption about working life that is not the case. Now, be it as it may, uh these words of the Rambam were very controversial. And as early as the Kesef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Cairo, who lived just a few hundred years after the Rambam, they immediately tried to say, "Well, times are different today. In the Rambam's time, although it wasn't that long before, a person could become a big talmid chacham and still be in the working world, but today it would be impossible for a person to really master the Torah without all of these exclusive years devoted only to learning, and therefore one could look at kollel as a hora'as sha'ah, kind of an emergency necessity to build up talmidei chachamim who would not otherwise be able to be created." So, the issue of kollel is a controversial one. I mean, it's a funny thing. You come to Eretz Yisrael, you come to the chareidi world of Eretz Yisrael, and it doesn't seem to be controversial at all. The assumption just is, "This is what you do, and there's nothing else to consider, and there's no alternative to even look at, and forget about what the Rambam says, and forget about what Pirkei Avot says, and forget about what Chazal say, uh they don't matter. Uh maybe Chazal were influenced by America or whatever whatever whatever it it it would be." Uh so, in many many ways, the idea that kollel is the expected pathway for everybody is a departure from what the mesirah of klal Yisrael was. In fact, in some ways, it is a post-Holocaust departure. You know, when the Holocaust happens and World War uh was over in 1945, so the Torah world I mean, 6 million Jews died, and the Torah world was decimated. The Torah world was virtually destroyed. And a certain decision was made by the Chazon Ish, other gedolim, that we are in a state of emergency, and we have to get every single person that we possibly can to be full-time learning, so we could produce the talmidei chachamim that could regenerate Am Yisrael. And the statement comes down in various versions of the Chazon Ish. Some say the Chazon Ish said we need two full generations of people learning Torah. Or some say he said 70 years of full-time Torah learning. Two generations, 70 years. And that became the norm. But what's interesting is the 70 years are up. It's been 70 years and more since the end of the Holocaust. So, the question is is it time I don't want to say change direction because Israel will always need them, of course. But is it time to kind of recognize the need for different alternatives, different options? You know, not everybody is cut out for full-time learning. And there is a psychological There's an economic issue. There's a economic issue, but I think more important than the economic issue is the psychological issue. If people are put in an environment where they do not feel productive, they do not feel that they're growing, they do not feel that they're accomplishing, that breaks their spirits. That takes away their joy, that saps their enthusiasm in Hashem. And that's going to affect their marriage, and that's going to affect their parenting, and that's going to affect a whole range of issues down the road. If they would be given alternatives where they could incorporate some type of working where they could support a family together with their learning. Again, the issue is not for me poverty. The issue is the psychological implications of poverty. I If if If a family is happy to be poor, they're genuinely happy because they're struggling and they're studying in Torah learning, and they're happy. I You know, I I don't feel any compulsion to say make a living and have more money. No. Is there a washer has some help there? If people are happy, they're sadikim, they're on that madrega, then that's perfectly fine. There's nothing I no reason to demand that they enter a job market. But the problem again I unfortunately I see it from that angle. The problem that I see in many situations is there is a lot of misery and a lot of unhappiness and a lot of stagnation. And then I think there's an ice to recognize that there have to be alternatives. Now this was recognized as far very long time ago already back in the 1970s. Rovshakh and Godol Hador Zichrono Livracha already recognized that there ought to be some type of parnassa institute, some type of trade not college you know he would not he was not endorsing university but some type of training model for people. And later Rov Steinman Zitsal also was advocating it. But just to show you how entrenched the system is, Rov Steinman who was certainly one of the great Gedolei Hador, he made this proposal shortly after a trip to America. And there were K'noim that said oh you see even Rov Steinman yeah how bad America is even Rov Steinman gets influenced by the materialism of the United States. Calling for jobs and the like. Right? So this goes back to the old idea that we only listen to Gedolim when the Gedolim say what we want to hear. When the Godol says something we don't want to hear all of a sudden they're not a Godol. They're not a Godol anymore. So I mentioned before the book by Rabbi Lopianksy many of you might know Rabbi Lopianksy the Rosh Yeshiva of Silver Spring who's son-in-law of the former Mir Rosh Yeshiva. It's called Ben Torah for Life in which he's a whole book devoted to the idea of how you continue your growth as a Ben Torah within the working world. Because when you create a model that the only way you're growing is full time. Okay so number one for some people that's a path towards misery. Number two, when you leave it, then you feel that you're a nothing. Right, in other words, it hits you in both ways. It hits you when you're in this world, and it hits you when you sleep when you leave this world. But if a person understands that a person has to serve Hashem in all of these matzavim, that even in the working world, you you continue to learn, you become a talmid chacham, etc., then indeed that makes it much more bearable to see meaning in my life. So, these are live machlokesim. I mean, people feel very, very strongly about this. Um I'm not so afraid of getting hate mail because the kana'im tend not to watch the this Q&A, so um so I'm relatively safe on this one. I hope, you know, you never know. Uh but this is an issue that that you need to consider. Now, one of the dangers in what I'm saying is though that it may result, and this is important, it may result in people prematurely terminating their connection to Torah. Meaning, yeah, even if in the long run you need parnassah, in the long run make a living, in the long run combine Torah with derech eretz, which in many ways for many, many people is the best way, and this is Rabbi Yishmael. But you still need a certain amount of time in your life where you focus primarily exclusively on Torah learning, because that's will give you a foundation. If you rush too quickly to simply get out of a yeshiva environment, that's not the greatest thing either, because you're not going to have the background, you're not going to have the foundation that will give you the tools to learn. So, the fear I have in what I was saying is that chas v'shalom people might use it as an excuse to kind of get out before they've built a a strong foundation. So, you do have to give yourself some time. Again, I mean, not everybody goes to Yeshiva, and that's unfortunate, and then we have to find something for them, too. But, if you're able to be in the Yeshiva environment for at least a few years, and really take advantage of it, then even if you're not going to go the Kolel for life pathway, and you'll go to whatever it is, law school, or you'll go into business, and you'll have a parnassah, you will have the capacity to make learning a major part of your life. Yeah. >> But, even if I say for like the elite people, let's say who are very skilled at learning, like what would be like from the from the from at least from the Rishonim, let's say in the Gemara, I mean, parnassah, it seems from from the Mishna that it's either it's a halachic choice, that it seems like that that's the best that is a that's the best thing to do. >> Well, I I think I think I think that's true, but even if that's true, you do have the Kessef Mishneh's point uh not the Kessef Mishneh's point, but the point that we don't have the career options that have that flexibility. Meaning to say, if the parnassah could be a small to part of the day, then that would be better than not having it. I I agree. But, the problem is that's not the parnassah we have. That's not the reality. So, given our realities, we might say less work is better. Now, I will tell you an interesting story with Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky. Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky lived the last decades of his life in Monsey after he retired from uh >> [snorts] >> the Yeshiva of Torah Vodaas. So, um he was Yeshivas Ohr Yisrael Tamidim when he was in Monsey. So, a man once went to him, and the man was a very successful businessman who learned a lot every day, and he had an opportunity to sell his company for a few million dollars, and he would be able to retire, and learn the whole day. So, he was very excited. He went to Reb Yaakov and said, you know, I can sell my business, I can retire, I can learn the whole day. Uh what do you think? What does the Rebbe think? So, Rebbe Yaakov said, well, obviously, I can't tell you not to sell your business and not learn the whole day. How can I tell you not to learn the whole day? But, he says, Rebbe Yaakov I'm not sure if that's the best idea for you. Because when you have a business and you're working, you treasure the hours you have to learn. You have three, four hours a day to learn, you look forward to them. They are the center of your day. You don't waste a minute. This person was very uh conscientious in that way. But, you have a whole day where you have nothing else to do with your life except learn. Okay, so let's have a long breakfast. Let me read the paper. There's a certain for many people, not for many people, not for everybody, there's a certain aimlessness and lack of direction where you have nothing else to do but learn. I'm talking about from an older person and the like. And Rebbe Yaakov said it would be better to have less time which you cherish more and you value more and you use more than to simply have large amounts of time in which you might not use them to the maximum. Right? So, he actually advised the person, "Hold on to your business. Work for a few hours a day. And then learn all of the time that you're able to learn." This was the derech I was reading I mentioned this morning that I'm reading a re-reading uh uh Jonathan Rosenblum's biography of Rebbe Dessler. A very, very interesting, very interesting book. Rebbe Dessler was an unusual person. I mean, we know him from his writings, but as a person, he was a very unusual person. And in Kelm, his father was a talmid of the Alter of Kelm. And his father and uncle were lumber merchants. And they would work on selling uh lumber for four hours a day. But, they wouldn't start till 2:00 in the afternoon. Meaning to say, they would learn till from shacharis to 2:00 in the afternoon. And then from 2:00 to 6:00, they would sell lumber. And then after 6:00, they would go back to learning and the like. And uh there were many stories there that if a customer with a very big order like came, you know, 5:05 or 5 minutes to 2:00, it wasn't during the allotted hours, they would not see him no matter what, no matter what amount of money they lost. If it was outside of the official working hours, they did not talk to the customer. Sometimes a customer shows up and says, you know, I got to make the deal now. If we don't make the deal now, that's it. They said, Sorry, we're not available right now. That is how they were Torah, even though they supported themselves through a In fact, they were quite wealthy. They lost their wealth in World War I, but uh Reb Dessler came from a wealthy family. Uh because this was their This was Torah in Yeah. >> So, the suggests 3 hours [snorts] of the day and then the rest of the day are hours that are not for learning. Um is that Is that a standard for everyone or is there flexibility for people to And how would you figure out how many hours a day should one work versus learn? >> Yeah, it's hard to say. I I I wouldn't say that the was giving us a rigid mathematical formula. Uh but the I think it's at least giving us an example that shows that the should be a relatively small part of one's day optimally, and overwhelmingly the day should be available for Torah, and and and so. So, that does mean that when you're looking for a so, you try to find a that takes as little time as possible. That's exactly That's exactly the point. That does mean and maybe here is something you can learn from Israel. You know, in America, it's understood by everybody, it's almost in your mother's milk or your your blood, that my goal, I mean, even if I'm a firm guy and I want to learn, my goal is to get as much money as I can. In other words, I will seek the job that will give me the most money. I'm not going to deliberately take a job that pays me less. But it could be in Hashkafa Satora. You have to be willing to make those compromises. Meaning you go for a job that may be less demanding, less hours, more freedom in order to give you the ability to learn. In other words, you make that sacrifice. Actually, it's not a sacrifice actually because you're giving up something less important for something much more important. And that is very, very foreign to the American mindset. In Eretz Yisrael, that's a norm. That's that indeed is part of the normal way of thinking that, you know, making money is not my not my ultimate goal. In America, we've become so materialistic that even when you're a person who learns and you're a person who's you know, works in a shame, but the concept that I'm going to I'm not going to like not make as much money as I can make, that's something is a very foreign idea, but that's an idea that we need to inculcate into our consciousness. Now, one of the hidden brochos of things like COVID, and we had it before COVID as well, is that society has reoriented itself to a a remote working environment. Meaning to say, a lot of things are done by Zoom, a lot of things are done by Skype. And this is this this development had begun even before COVID, but COVID really accentuated it. And once you're dealing with that type of flexible remote working environment, there can be a lot more flexibility regarding working hours. You don't have to be in an office, etc. And I know in the legal profession, again, I'm most familiar with the legal profession, there are all types of like part-time legal positions that were never available, you know, 20 years ago. They just weren't around. And it's possible for a person to work as an attorney 3, 4 hours a a which had never been possible. There was never such a muscle like that. Essentially, what you're doing is you're doing contract work for other attorneys. Meaning, there are lawyers who have full-time offices, and they need somebody to do a a particular thing, and this can be farmed out. And there are networks that doing that. So, obviously, you're going to make less money, but there are a clown. But you can make enough money to support a family with some dignity, and you'll be able to have a lot of time for learning. So, I think that these are new options, new working options that are available that can be very beneficial for you. >> Why does the Torah hype up the Torah? >> Say again, why what? >> Why does the Torah hype up the Torah? Like, there's a lot of times in the Torah where it will say, "Oh, it's so sweet. It's like milk and honey." >> [laughter] >> You You think it's self-promotion? Yeah, yeah. That's That's an interesting question. Why does the Torah have to hype itself up so much? >> [laughter] >> No, that's a It's a good argument. I never thought of it that way, but I would say that precisely because our Torah is so strong. Meaning to say, you're right. You're right. If we would be in the spiritually correct place, we wouldn't need any advertisements. We would feel the sweetness of the Torah. We would be drawn to the Torah. You know, the says that does not let us feel the pleasure of our when it learns. Our feels such unbelievable pleasure. If we would have access to that pleasure, we would never be able to stop learning. And what would happen is we couldn't eat, we couldn't sleep, we would die. Because we couldn't stop. And since God wants us to live, he doesn't let us feel the pleasure of the It's unbelievable. This is the So, in some senses, we're kind of skewed. Meaning, our are too strong, and therefore God has to remind us like a hitting us over the head with a hammer. Hey, this is good. This is good. This is good. You don't think it's good, but it's really good. And hopefully by listening over and over and over again, I'll internalize it and eventually feel it. But but you are correct. Ideally it ought to be natural. And be as it was a shame, the hope would be in our life that would become more natural as as we're doing it. Uh yeah. >> Could the rabbi expand on the idea of like like the hidden sadikim in a door? Like if people who knows who they are and what exactly it is it means have hidden sadikim? >> Yeah, so so first of all this is very interesting. The Gamara does say and it doesn't say hidden. That's very interesting. It says there are 36 sadikim at any given moment in time that keep the world alive. Now there are different views. Some say 36 in Eretz Israel, 36 in Chutz La'aretz. Some say 18 in Eretz Israel, 18 in Chutz La'aretz. But it does not say in the Gamara the term hidden sadikim. They could be well-known sadikim. The idea of the notion of hiddenness is based on the Zohar. The Zohar does talk about these sadikim are hidden from the world meaning to say either we don't know who that we know we we haven't heard of them or we know them but we don't regard them as sadikim. In Chassidic stories there are numerous stories the kind of like fairy tale stories about janitors or bus drivers and or whatever it is who are who are the hidden sadikim of the of the world. There's even a famous novel about a descendant of the 36 sadikim of the of the world. An interesting little story, somebody once said about the Vilna Gaon I am convinced that the Vilna Gaon is one of the 36 hidden sadikim in the world. So somebody said to him I understand the Vilna Gaon is such a great sadik but what do you mean a hidden sadik? The Vilna Gaon is famous around the Jewish world. He said, "Ah, as famous as he is, his true essence is absolutely hidden. We only see the tiniest tip of the the iceberg. So, sometimes even a famous person can be a hidden tzaddik because what we know of him is only a tip of min ha'yam. It's only a drop of the sea. The whole ocean is still invisible invisible to us. But, the idea of of hiddenness I think is connected largely to the notion of modesty because the truth of the matter is that the great nisayon that a tzaddik faces is ga'avah. Because a tzaddik looks at himself, he keeps the world alive, everybody depends on him. So, what could happen to a person? We talked about this morning the fatal flaw within a person. A person could have the ga'avah of conceit that everybody goes to me, everybody acknowledges me, everybody needs me. So, it's necessary to preserve the preciousness of that holiness that it not be exposed, it not be visible, it not be known, it not be recognized. Now, they say Rav Zalman Auerbach who grew up Rav Zalman Auerbach was a Yerushalmi. He grew up in what's called the old Yishuv. The old Yishuv in Yerushalayim are the Yidden that were here uh before the Zionist Aliyah. Not only before 1948, they were here before the 1890s, before the waves of Aliyah. Now, if they go back to the Vilna Gaon and even even before, the Sefardim are even older. So, Rav Zalman Auerbach, like Rav Elyashiv, Rav Elyashiv was born in Lithuania, but he came as a young child. Rav Zalman was born in the old Yishuv. And all of his friends are Yerushalmis. Now, what do the What do the old Yerushalmis do? They talk as they learn Torah their whole lives. They just their whole lives. So, some of these Yerushalmis become famous like Rav Zalman Auerbach. And some are just unknown people who learn Torah their whole lives. They're not Rosh Yeshivas, they're not Rabbanim. They just live their lives in tznius, modesty. They're enormous talmidei chachamim. You never heard of them. You know, you don't know who they are. So, they say that one of Reb Zalman's childhood friends was davening at the Kosel when Reb Zalman was there. And you know, everyone goes around Reb Zalman, they surround him, they ask him, and nobody, you know, goes to the other person. I mean, no no one looks at the other person. And Reb Zalman looked at the other person longingly. And he said, "I'm so jealous of the life that this other person has. It was a life of kedusha, a life of mitzvos, a life of learning, in which there never was kavod, there never was recognition. There was never anything but avodas Hashem." He says, "What a purity there is in that avoda. The avoda of even gedolim, as wonderful as it is, has a certain taint. It is the taint of kavod, it's the taint of adulation, it's the taint of recognition." And Reb Zalman actually expressed a longing to have that type of life. So, that's the idea of the hidden the hidden tzaddik. And he even said very beautifully, he said, he looked up at the sun and he said, "Is it any wonder that the sun shines on earth when there's such a man that lives in the world? In his zechus, he says, "In his zechus do you have the sun? In his zechus, you have the rain." This is how Reb Akiva Eiger described the hidden tzaddik that keeps the world. Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> Could the Rav please explain what saying the Shema Yisrael does before certain prayers or or mitzvos or whatnot? The unification of the name. is >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, this is uh you see it in many Siddurim. I think even the Artscroll has it for a lot of things. Uh before Tallis, before Tefillin, before counting of the Omer, uh you have a little few lines. L'shem Yichud Kudsha Berichu Ush'chintei. I am declaring this in the name of unifying Hakadosh Baruchu and his Shechinah. This is the Shem Yichud. Now, some people say it, a lot of people don't say it, right? It's not officially part of the Nusach Ashkenaz. And this really comes from the Talmidim of the Arizal. It's a Kabbalistic in origin. So, some say if you're not a Mekubal, why say it? Others do say it. Let me point out that as great a Posek, one of the greatest Poskim of the Acharonim, the Noda BiYehudah, Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, in the 1700s, wrote a long Teshuvah in which he was vociferously against the recitation of the Shem Yichud. He said if you're not a person holding in the secrets of Kabbalah, uh you have no business connecting to these ideas. They can be destructive if done by the wrong person. So, he Mamesh actually said it's assur for the average Jew to say L'shem Yichud. We seem not to Pasken that way. We seem to allow it even though it's not mandatory. Essentially, what's going on is this. I'm going to give you a very, very uh simple just technical explanation. And that is uh we talk a lot of times about why we've talked many times even here about the 10 Sefiros. These are the various attributes through which God's presence gets manifested. Uh the first three, Kesser, Chochmah, Binah or Chochmah, Binah, Da'as are called God's intellect, God's Mochin, God's brains. But starting with the lower seven, Chesed, loving kindness, Gevurah, inner strength, Tiferes, beauty, Netzach, eternity, Hod is glory, Yesod, foundation, and malchus. Uh those are called the middos. Those are the various character aspects of God, chesed, gevurah, etc. Now, of those lower seven, we actually divide them into two groups. The first six of the lower seven, chesed, gevurah, tiferes, netzach, hod, yesod, is called zeir anpin. Zeir anpin is the little face. It's like a little microcosm of God's essence. God's essence is so much bigger, but it gets like shrunken and concealed within the zeir anpin. Malchus is called, which is the last of the seven, is called nukvah, the feminine. The concept is because malchus receives all of the shefa from the zeir anpin. So, the zeir anpin and the malchus is actually a sexual union within God, which creates an enormous theological problem. That's why some have said that if Kabbalah's not properly understood, it's happy courses, because you're talking about uh multiplicity within Hashem, which chas v'shalom cannot be countenanced. But I'm just giving you the words. I'm not giving you the the underlying concepts here. That the shefa, the divine beneficence that enters the world, is when there's a unification of zeir anpin and the nekeivah, which is malchus, and that produces the bracha in the world. Malchus is also called shechinah, which is feminine. So, and zeir anpin is called kudsha b'richa. So, what you want when you do your mitzvahs is you want to unify the zeir anpin of the six sefiros with the nukvah of malchus that is called shechinah. And therefore, by unifying kudsha b'richa u'shechintei, you bring shefa, the inf- the uh influence, the beneficence of bracha into the world. Uh I don't pretend to understand this. I'm just giving you kind of the words what the words actually mean. And to put it in very simple English, essentially, you're praying to Hashem that your mitzvahs should be a source of blessing not just to you, but a source of blessing to the world. That is what you're doing. That's what you're trying to do. That my mitzvahs should bring Hashem's presence into the world. The technical Kabbalistic vocabulary is that I'm doing it by unifying the six spheres of Zeir Anpin, which is Kutzha Berichu, with the Shechinah that is called Malchus and Nukva. But you see, the Kabbalistic imagery is actually expressing, at least on some level, a relatively simpler idea that I want my mitzvahs to be done as a source of blessing for the world. That's what the Leshem Yichud. Now, the Nitei Gavriel again, but now you understand a little bit even with my superficial explanation, you understand why the Nitei Gavriel was not in favor of people saying it. Because if you simply look at it in its literal way, it's like Hashem has this wife that he copulates with, uh you know, and so on. That produces something, you know, it looks like there's like a male god and a female god, and they get together. And chas v'shalom, all of that is false. And in the language of the Mekubalim, that is called uh ketzitzah saneti'os. You're cutting down the sacred trees. You're going through the forest of sacred ideas, and you're just cutting them down. So, that's why the Nitei Gavriel was against it. Our men are against it as long as you understand that you don't understand, but you understand in a general way what you're trying to do, so that would be an okay thing to to have in mind. Yeah. >> Um what is the core of the month of Tammuz? What should we tap into this month specifically? >> Well, the month of Tammuz, uh it's interesting. There is a rashei teivot that they have among Chassidus. Uh it's not in order, but it says "Zarizin makdimin ve'osin teshuvah." What's Tammuz? Tammuz is tav, which is teshuvah. Mem is makdimin. Vav is ve'osin. And zayin is zarizin. So, if you rearrange the words, those who are zarizin, those who act with alacrity, those who act quickly, already start doing teshuvah in Tammuz. >> [snorts] >> Why is that so? Because we know that Rosh Hashanah is coming soon. Not so [clears throat] soon, the fourth of the year. But uh it's it's pretty soon for those who think about teshuvah and then the like. So, mimila, they say Tammuz is the beginning for zarizin, for those who are zarizin, those who do mitzvahs early, is the beginning of his'arerus teshuvah. Because the month of Tammuz, the month of Av, the month of Elul, of course, is the month of teshuvah. And that prepares you for the for the Yom the Yom Hadin. Now, it's interesting that Tammuz should have been an amazingly happy time. Think about this. Moshe Rabbeinu went up at Har Sinai on Har Sinai the sixth of Sivan, Shavuot. Uh we got the Ten Commandments, and then he went up to Har Sinai. He was on Har Sinai for 40 days. The 40th day that he came down from Har Sinai was the 17th of Tammuz. That is when he saw people worshipping the golden calf, and he smashed the luchos. Or they dropped from his hands because the letters flew away, whichever you look at it. Now, let's ask ourselves the following. What was the 17th of Tammuz supposed to be? Had there not been a cheit ha'egel, the 17th of Tammuz was the day that Moshe Rabbeinu brings the Luchos down from Har Sinai. That's not the day we heard the commandments, we heard it on Shavuos, but it's the day that we get it on the tablet. So, that would have been a day of Matan Torah Mamash. Instead, Yom Kippur came that day because Yom Kippur was the day that Moshe came down the second this with the second Luchos. But, had there not been a cheit ha'egel, there wouldn't have been a second Luchos. There only would have been the first Luchos. And that day would have been Shiva Asar b'Tammuz. So, that actually means that the koach of Torah that would have taken place had there not been a cheit ha'egel, still remains a residual force embedded in the month of Tammuz. And therefore, it is brought down that one of the koachos of the month of Tammuz is the koach to grow in Torah learning. Because this is the month in which we would have gotten the Torah, and even though it didn't work out that way, that spiritual koach is still there. So, that's something to think about. Yeah. >> So, we've I've heard the idea to say that like during times of Mashiach, we're all going to transition to the time of Adam HaRishon but without [snorts] the cheit. But, seemingly, that also would mean that we could still sin and go back to after the cheit. So, how do how do you understand that like >> Yeah, so that's that's a very interesting question. Will we have a yetzer hara after Mashiach comes? Will we be able to commit sins after Mashiach comes? So, there are many different memarei Chazal in this. There are quite a few memarei Chazal that actually say that when Mashiach comes, the yetzer hara is gone. There is no yetzer hara. We can only do good. We can't do bad. We cannot even choose, so to speak, to do bad, or at least we won't have a yetzer hara that's going to push us to do bad. In fact, I could take off that you know, it says at the end of Kohelet, you know, at the very end of Kohelet, HaMelech describes old age in very graphic terms, how the body falls apart and then everything else. And he says at the end of Kohelet, zachor es borecha bimei bachurusecha. Remember your creator while you're still young. Before the days come of which you have no cheifetz, no desire. Simple meaning is, like do teshuvah when you're still young before you get old and you know, you're not happy with your life anymore. But the Chazal actually say, you know what the days that you have no desire in? Those are the days of Mashiach. >> [snorts] >> Because you're not going to have a yetzer hara anymore. And therefore, you're not going to get credit for the mitzvahs that you do because you didn't have a struggle with the yetzer hara. Very strange. Yemos HaMashiach are described as the days in which you don't have a cheifetz because they're not days of sachar anymore. So that does imply, those mamarei Chazal do imply that uh there's no yetzer hara and therefore you're not going to commit chata'im. Now, I have a little bit of a kasha on this. The Rambam in Hilchos Melachim talks about like what is the purpose of Mashiach? We've talked about this question before and we never really had a complete answer. The Rambam says, ultimate reward is not Mashiach. Ultimate reward is your neshama is with Hashem in Olam Haba. Mashiach is what happens on this earth. And when Mashiach comes, you're going to die. We're going to die. Mashiach is going to die. He'll be succeeded by son of Moshiach, a hereditary dynasty that's going to be created. So, what's the purpose of Moshiach? Moshiach is not the reward mechanism. The reward mechanism is Olam Haba. So, the Rambam gives us an answer of what the purpose of Moshiach is. And the Rambam says, the purpose of Moshiach >> [snorts] >> is to give you an environment where you can do more Torah and more mitzvahs without any of the things that distract you. Because there'll be peace and there'll be shalom and there'll be righteousness in a Beit Hamikdash. And therefore, the Rambam's language is kiday shenishka liolam haba. Listen to this. The purpose of yemos Moshiach is to give us the chance to build up our Olam Haba by doing exponentially more mitzvahs because we're not going to have the distractions. So, here's my problem. I have a few problems with this. Problem number one is if you don't have a yetzer hara and you do mitzvahs, do you get reward for that? Are you Do you get more Olam Haba because I do more mitzvahs if I didn't have a struggle not to do those mitzvahs? I mean, the Rambam is telling me I get reward for the mitzvahs I do yemos Moshiach. So, that's one problem I have. How can you get reward for those mitzvahs if there's no yetzer hara? The second problem I have is really a generational problem. And that is >> [snorts] >> Moshiach comes before techiyas hameitim. So, when Moshiach comes, there'll be a certain number of people that are around. But there'll be many, many other people who are not around. People who died. They may have died the day before Messiah comes, although that's kind of a bummer, or uh they may have died 100 years, 200 years, 300 years, 500 years. So, in a sense, what's the fairness here? You know, God is creating this thing called Messiah. So, people can build up their mitzvahs without distraction and get olam haba. But that's a very selective gift. Because that's a selective gift only for those Jews who happen to be around when Messiah comes. Unless you posit that techiyas hameisim will bring the the rest back and they'll have a chance as well. That's really another question, doing mitzvahs after techiyas hameisim. So, anyway, it seems from the Rambam, if the Rambam says, without answering all of these questions, if the Rambam says there is um the doing of mitzvahs the moshiach for which you'll get reward, apparently there will be a yetzer hara on some level. But one might say it's a qualitatively different yetzer hara. So, which means yetzer haras can exist on many levels. You can have a low yetzer hara in which I want to be mechallel shabbos, I want to eat treif, I want to be mezana, rather I want to do avodah zara. Or you could have a yetzer hara in which um I'll learn something a little easier, not something a little harder. So, it could be the idea is that when Messiah comes, >> [clears throat] >> we will no longer have the base lowly yetzer haras. We kind of would have graduated from that madrega, but we will still have some spiritual struggles. And those spiritual struggles will be at a higher level, and for that I'll get sachar when I can overcome uh the temptation to the lower level that would still be good. That that might be >> According to the Rambam, is it possible to reverse Mashiach then if you seemingly have some sort of Mitzvah >> It It seems not, although the question is why not, but it seems that given the fact that we no longer have the Yetzer Hara that can pull us into real tumah. So at that level, if the choice is good and versus better or best versus better, it could be that that has no potential. That does not have the negative potential of reversal. Yeah. >> What What is the phrase in this in the Umakayam Emunaso? I mean, does that mean that he's he's actually going to perhaps people that died without faith will somehow >> Well, let's look at the translation. Umakayam Emunaso God will keep his faithfulness. Emunaso means his faithfulness Lishenei afar to those who are already sleeping in the ground, those who are dead. So I I don't think it would go as far as you're saying because it seems to be basically saying whatever promises God made to those who are gone, God will keep. But God's promise is good for only to those who believed in him. So if you understand Emunaso as Hashem's faithfulness, then it would not automatically lead lead to your conclusion. And then we do have unfortunately people who are not so hot to Techiyas Hamaysim. I'll tell you an interesting story about Rabbi Akiva Eiger. It's a It's a cute story, actually. That there was a person in Posen. Posen was the city in Poland Rabbi Akiva Eiger was the Rav of. That he was a lender with ribbis. He lent money with interest, which of course is forbidden to Jews. You can't lend money with interest to Jews. And when he died, the Chevra Kadisha demanded an exorbitant price for his grave. We're not going to give you a grave unless you pay 10 times what the cost of the grave is. I mean, a grave is a certain cost. They wanted to charge him 10 times. So, the family went to Rebbe Akiva Eiger. They were very upset. They said, "Listen, our our father may have been doing sins, but mechallel Shabbos, he don't get buried, etc. I mean, what is the right of the Chevra Kadisha to charge 10 times more for a grave?" So, Rebbe Akiva Eiger said, "Actually, it makes a lot of sense from a business perspective. Because most graves are short-term leases, because you get buried in the grave, but then you have techiyas hameisim. But since Chazal say that people who lend money with interest do not have techiyas hameisim, so it turns out he's getting the grave for good. At that point, they could certainly charge him more money because they're not punishing him. He's just It's not a lease. It's a He's purchasing right. So, that's what he said why they could charge him for more. Yeah. >> Um if if Hashem is perfect, um these you see many times in the Torah many examples where he seems to change his mind uh with his creation and and uh and you know, people who the human creation specifically, who he loves the most, the Jewish people, he started the world with uh he wanted to create the world with din, and then he added rachamim into it. You have, you know, the flood, uh multiple multiple examples. But if he's perfect, why does he need to change his mind and improvise as he goes? Right. That that that actually is a very good question. The Torah itself uses the words vayinnachem. God regretted. Right? By the mabul, it says he regretted that he had created man. That's the lotion of the translation. By the ego, he wanted to destroy Am Israel. Then Moshe prayed. And then that's a good by you know him. God's regretted the bad he wanted to do to the people. Now, the word regrets in English and in Hebrew connotes a change of mind. I thought one thing and then I changed my mind to something to something else. Uh similarly, although the word by you know him is not used, but you are correct. The idea that originally God wanted to create the world with rahamim, but he saw I'm sorry I'm sorry with din with din, but he saw that the world would not survive. So, we had to combine rahamim and din. Right? So, in all of these cases and there are many more, there's this notion of God changing his mind. Now, if God I'm just repeating your question. If God is perfect, how can he have a change of mind? I mean, that implies his original state of mind was a mistake and now he regrets it. So, the Rambam says in the more than a few him that you know, we have a cloud that dibra Torah the Torah speaks in human language. Meaning to say, the Torah describes God on the basis of his behavior the way we would describe a human being. Meaning, if I saw a human being who pulled out his gun and was about to shoot and then I see him put back his gun, we would call that regret because he changed his mind. So, when God starts doing something and then stops doing something, we call that regret. Even though it's not regret, it's part of God's plan in the first place. But, since operationally and behaviorally, it is a change of behavior, so we use the word regret. The Rambam says this is an expression of dibra Torah balashon bnei Adam. one. let's take the exa- the examples in particular that you brought up. Originally, we say how do we describe it? Hashem wanted to to create the world but then but he saw that the world could not exist, so he combined Rachamim and Din. Now, you read that and that sounds like oh, God originally wanted this and he changed his mind. But that's just what it looks like from our perspective. From God's perspective, it's simply making this point. God's ideal world would have been a world of Din. But God knew ahead of time that he had to combine Rachamim because the world couldn't exist. Meaning, it's not a sequential change of mind. It's simply expressing the difference between the ideal and the reality. Similarly, when it says God regrets by the Mabul, that doesn't mean God had a change of mind. It just means that if I make something and then I destroy it, we would describe it as regret, but it's not regret. It's just that God is responding based on the change of the human. It's not God that changed. It's humanity that changed. And God knew that ahead of time. In other words, God made man and now man is betraying the reason why they were created. So, God has to respond. That's not a change of mind. That's a change of circumstance which was built into the system to begin with. You see, in other words, the In other words, if the human being would have been the same and God would have changed his mind, that would be a change of mind. If the human being changes, God is not changing his mind. But I remember there was I have the Havdalah gazillion Havdalahs. I still remember there was a cabinet member in Nixon's administration who uh used to be liberal and then he became real conservative. So, uh and people accused him of like changing himself. He says says says, "I don't change. That's No, the society changes. So, I I'm exactly where I was. Society changes, so I react. So, I was a liberal when the guy made a society that was at a certain place. And when society goes real, real, real, real far to the left, I now become a conservative. I didn't change. I'm exactly where I was. Society changes. So, with God it's exactly the same way. God responds to human free will. So, when people are righteous, he gives them blessings. When people are not righteous, there'll be destruction. That's not God changing his mind. That's God responding to conditions that change, which were built into his original plan to begin with. Yeah. >> Just as a quick follow-up to that, then why could he not or would he not create an ideal world? >> Well, I think we're back we're back to the old situation of why did God create a world with free will? Meaning to say, why didn't God just create a world where all you can do is good? I mean, if you're saying, why didn't God make an ideal world? Well, what do you mean by an ideal world? A world where nobody could do evil. The answer would be, definitionally that wouldn't be ideal. Because goodness is goodness only when you have a capacity to go the other way. So, in a sense, evil is necessary for good. If God created a world where evil would be impossible, then my goodness would be no virtue. It would be the virtue of a machine. So, in a sense, evil is a cost of production, so to speak. In other words, God says, "Your good is good only if you choose it. So, that means I got to create a world where you could make a choice the other way and get away with it, at least in the short term." Uh yeah. >> Um uh just a focus on my question about uh working learning >> Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, yeah. >> Um so, if if you're not everyone was kind of paragraph was comes that the people who worked and learned it was better for them. >> Yes. It says many people followed that path and they were blessed and many people followed the other path and they were not blessed. >> Right. So, I was wondering today today why does it happen? And this is what I've been learning all day. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah, so so to some degree as I said earlier, to some degree this is actually an aftermath of the Holocaust. In other words, there was an idea and the Hazon Ish stated it that because of the extraordinary destruction of the Jewish people and the Yeshivas and Torah learning, we were in a state of emergency. And one could actually say that the full-time learning in some ways was a response to a state of emergency. That's why I'm saying that the time may have come where we need to re-evaluate uh this. And again, I will repeat that from my perspective, uh it's not the poverty that bothers me. It's the psychological reactions to the poverty. Again, a family that is happy being poor is a blessed family. You know, I have no reason to interfere with that. But there is a lot of misery in families and that's something that indicates this is not the right derech for them. No. >> Um so, a lot of what we do in the reason why I mentioned this guy is to take a closer look at how the relationship works. We say we'll be we'll be responsible for saying that Judaism is a is a transactional relationship. That we do things, but also we do want like, you know, a person that's scared to do an aveira that they'll be punished. They're excited or they're a bit skeptical and not giving me an honest conscious level. They expect something in that something in return. So, if you use this method >> Yeah. Well, well, the the short answer is that God set up access to Judaism uh with many many different points of entry. Meaning, there are a lot of points of entry that can connect you to the system. The lowest point of entry is indeed transactional. Meaning to say, I better do mitzvahs because if I do mitzvahs, I'll get good things in this world or the next world. And if I do aveiros, you know, bad things might happen in this world or the next world. So, that is frankly transactional in which I think I'm simply thinking about myself and my family. And I'm most motivated to good to good and avoid evil because of the consequences that will happen to me or to my family. That is called shalom lishma and that is called avodah meyirah, avodah out of fear of punishment. And the Rambam writes, indeed, that it's much better to do mitzvahs based on that motivation than not to do them. That's the famous statement. Do mitzvahs and learn Torah even not for the sake of heaven because mitzvah shalom lishma you start on that level, you come to the higher level. So, that motivator is there. God gave us basic, simple motivations. So, that even if I'm not the greatest tzaddik in the world, you know, I'm going to try. Once I know this stuff, I'm going to try to keep the Torah because I don't want bad things to happen. But the Rambam says that is the madrega only of people who are lowly. Although how vital we would be in that madrega. If we be in that madrega, we would all be tzaddikim gemurim. But that's a low-level tzaddik. The higher level is you serve Hashem out of love. You love Hashem. You want to be connected to him. Not because you want a reward, not because you want a big house, you want wealth, you want prosperity, you want kavod. You want to be connected to Hashem out of ahavah. And then the good becomes its own motivator. You're not doing good to get something. Now, I understand there's a little bit of a puzzle here. Well, why don't I commodify love and say that's what you want to get. I want to get my loving connection to God. That's an interesting brain teaser little puzzle. And that is, can ahavas Hashem itself become an egotistical goal. Mhm. That's a very deep question actually to think about that because, you know, some people are motivated for wealth and some people are motivated for love, right? Isn't that also an ego? The Tanya talks about it in various places, but there is a level of love which goes beyond even your ego. And that's the yearning to be connected to God even if that means I come into nonexistence. >> [snorts] >> And that's the higher level. So, the beauty of Judaism is that it's like uh it's like a suit that grows with you, right? Imagine Imagine you get a suit when you're a 2-year-old, like a little kid suit and as you grow it grows with you. It expands with you. That's what Judaism is. There's an entry level on a very basic level that might be suitable for a child. But as you grow deeper and deeper and deeper into it your access to the system uh gets a gets a more deeper, more meaningful connection. And then hopefully the hope would be that we reach a madrega of serving Hashem lishmah, which is a very very high level. Serving Hashem out of out of love and not out of fear. Yeah. >> Is this sudden? >> [clears throat] >> Isn't the status of halachos l'Moshe miSinai hard to believe? Why would Hashem choose about 60 halachos that are seemingly random and unrelated to each other to not include in the Torah? >> Yeah, that's a very excellent question and again it goes back uh basically to the hakdamah of the Rambam where the Rambam differentiates a very very important chelek between the general idea of Torah she baal peh and the specific idea of halacha l'Moshe miSinai. Many people make a mistake and they say, "Oh, anything that's the oral law was directly given to Moshe at Sinai and passed down." The Rambam says that's not the case. Uh the the actual laws that God gave to Moshe are relatively small in number. And the Rambam says around 50 or 55 of them, like fill in her black and some other things. But the bulk of the discussions of the oral law are not things that were specifically given to Mosha. Hashem gave to Mosha the midos, the the the 13 principles by which the Torah is interpreted, but then it's the chachamim of every generation that are using these things. That's That's why I've said many many times that when people feel like every word of the Gemara was given to Mosha at Sinai and handed down until it was on the danger of being forgotten and it had to be written down doesn't make a lot of sense because you open up a page of Gemara and you have people talking to each other. Abaye talks to Rava and Rava talks to Rav Nachman. They're not reading from something that was given to Mosha Rabbeinu. I mean Abaye is using his own words, his own speech, his own mind. What Abaye and Rava are doing in the Beis Medrash is exactly what you're doing in the Beis Medrash, although you know, a trillion times higher. But the same thing. I mean, when you talk or you ask a question, I mean, you're not saying something over that was handed down from Mosha. You're using your head to try to understand the Torah. Tannaim and Amoraim do exactly the same thing. So, it's a very important point and again, I've made this point a million million times. It's a very important point to differentiate between Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai and Torah SheBe'al Peh. Torah SheBe'al Peh is the entire corpus that's added in every generation even today with new psukim and the like. Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai are the specific rules that Hashem gave to Mosha. And the Rambam makes the point it is only a small part of Torah Shebaal Peh that is Halacha le Moshe MiSinai. So, the question again this long introduction to your question, so the question is well, if you look at the list and the Rambam gives you the list, although it's not a complete list that the meforshim point out that there are omissions on the list, they seem to be kind of arbitrary. A lot of them are laws about filling black square, you know, etc. Uh leather uh other are about Shemita and it's very very hard to understand like why didn't Hashem include them in the written text? It wouldn't have made the Torah that much longer uh to to put it in. Uh I I I It's a very excellent question. I can't give you an exact answer. I mean as a general answer I would say Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted to be mashrish in Klal Yisrael from the very beginning that the Torah does have bichtav and baal peh. Meaning, if Hashem were to simply incorporate everything in writing, we wouldn't understand the idea of an oral law. So, Hashem had to keep some things out of the text. But why those specific ones? I don't have an answer to. I'll I'll I'll think about it some more. Uh that's that'd be a hard question to answer. But why systematically there have to be some things outside of the text, I think is to create a certain validation and authority to the notion of the oral law. Now, someone did ask me a question. Someone did ask me a question, not from here, but from one of my uh emails about uh the first mention of an oral law given by Hashem is really in the Mishna. Meaning uh there weren't Now, remember, the Mishna is the end of the time, not the beginning of the time. The Mishna is written by the last Tanna, Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi. And the earlier Tannaim, Hillel and Shammai, although they interpret many many things, they don't make the statement that the Torah Shebaal Peh comes from Hashem. And the question is why doesn't it say that? So, one of the thoughts that occurred to me, and I don't know for sure, is that for most of our history there was no need to be madgish that the Torah Shebaulpe came from Hashem because that was a davar pashut. Everybody Everybody accepted it. But towards the tekufa of the Mishna we begin to have the Sadducees, the Tzedukim. And the Tzedukim did indeed deny the authority of Torah Shebaulpe. So, it was was precisely at that point that the Chachamim needed to emphasize certain ideas that didn't need to be emphasized at earlier points in Jewish history. Now, I have to match up the dates, but it could very well be that the emphasis in Chazal that Torah Shebaulpe came from Hashem may have been uh a necessary response to the Tzedukim's argument. Now, the Tzedukim, again, point of information, don't confuse the Tzedukim and the Karaites. Okay, they are very very similar in philosophy, but historically they are of different epochs. The Tzedukim, Sadducees, Tzedukim, be uh so-called because they were the followers of Tsadok who had been a talmid of the Tana'im but left. Uh they lived during the Bayit Sheni. They lived during the Second Temple period. Uh many of them were Hellenists, many of them were wealthy. Their philosophy indeed was they did not accept the authority of Chazal in the interpretation of the Torah, but the Tzedukim essentially became extinct by the Churban Bayit HaMikdash. And we don't know exactly what happened, but there are no Tzedukim after the Churban Bayit HaMikdash. They kind of just disappeared. Maybe they intermarried, you know, who knows. Now, the Karaites are much much much later. The Karaites are around the year 1000 or around the year in the 900s. Uh they are in the time of Rav Saadia Gaon. They are after the Babylonian Talmud. And they we actually have a founder. The founder of Karaism was David ben Anan who started off as a regular Talmud Chacham and when he didn't get a job that he wanted, he just started his own religion uh called Karaites. And they are called Karaim and that's based on Mikra that they only look at the Chumash or the Tanakh as a source of authority. So ideologically, they're very similar to the Sadducees but they are not related. There's no direct relationship. The Sadducees died out by the Churban Bayit HaMikdash and the Karaim got uh invented uh in the 10th century and Karaim there still are. There are Karaim even today. Uh there are Karaites uh Halakhically, they are treated as Jews by and large. They are treated as Jewish people. Uh but ideologically, they would be kofrim if not apikorsim. Yeah. >> Just a quick question. That the the Rabbanan that you spoke about is he at all related to the Amora? >> Say again, the what? >> Is he at all related to the Amora? >> Who is who? >> The the one who you said the one of the founders of the Karaite. >> Oh, that's Anan his name was. Anan. Is he related to the Amora with the same name? >> Rabbanan. >> Uh it could well it's not the same person, baruch Hashem, but it could be again Anan apparently was uh may have been a common name. I don't know if they're related or not but possibly it's so. But Anan did start off his life as what's called a Rabbanei, a Rabbinite scholar and it really was a very amazing thing. This whole religion got started because of a personal grievance. He thought he should have gotten a certain position as Rosh Yeshiva. He didn't get it so he's going to start his own uh own school. By the way, one thing about the Karaim is very interesting because they did not accept the Gemara. Their main learning was in Tanakh >> [snorts] >> and as a result they became very very proficient and skilled in biblical interpretation and Hebrew grammar, dikduk. After they cut their own muforshim like the Abravanel or the Ibn Ezra will occasionally, not that often but occasionally quote Karaite muforshim to give you the grammatical meaning of words. And in fact there is a book Chizuk Emunah written by a Karaite which is one of the best books ever written refuting Christian missionary claims. What it does is you know the Christians, as you may know if you have maybe you had the experience of debating with the missionary, uh takes different verses from the Sefer Yeshayahu and other places and tries to show that they refer to Yeshka and uh the Jewish Tanakh therefore prophesizes that Yeshka is going to be Mashiach and the like. So this is a book written by a Karaite who doesn't quote Gemaras, doesn't quote Midrashim. But he just goes over the grammar and the context of the psukim to show that the Christian missionaries take the pasuk out of out of context and to this very day anyone that is in [clears throat] the anti-missionary work studies this book. It is a it is a good book. There's nothing in there that's kfira. Now granted, he doesn't quote Chazal but he doesn't, you know, the book is not about disparaging Chazal. He just looks at the biblical text. And in many ways that you can if you think about it, that's a very effective way to deal with a Christian missionary. And what are you going to say? You're going to tell the Christian missionary what you're saying is wrong because uh Tosafot in Sukkah disagree? You know you know I mean uh that's not an authority the Christian accepts. So in many many ways we may obey to try to refute him from the biblical text itself >> [snorts] >> is actually the better way to do it. And this is a sefer called Chizuk Emunah. Yeah. Yeah. >> to ask is it uh the Yeshka the same story? He got in an argument with his teacher and his Gemara about it. Very similar to Karaites. >> Y- uh yes, yes, it is very s- It's somewhat It's somewhat similar. Uh this is a famous story. Now, there's a shaila, is this talking about the Yashke or another person? But you are you are correct. >> you say the story again? >> Yeah, yeah, this is a beautiful story. It It's censored in the original Gemara and well, in the Gemaras that we have, it was censored for hundreds of years. In the newer Gemaras, they put it back. And this is the original story. This goes back to a very important idea uh called Yamin Mekareves U'Smol Docheh. That means in your relationship to your student or your child, the right hand should draw people near, meaning the stronger hand should bring people close, and the discipline should always be with the left hand. Discipline should be weaker than love and support. And the Gemara gives an example of how catastrophic it is when you're overly strict. And it mentions that Yeshu again, Yashke, but we'll see in a moment is that the Yashke was a talmid of a tanna, and they were once at an inn, and the tanna said, "How beautiful is this ushpiza?" Now, this is a little ambiguous. Ushpiza can mean inn or ushpiza can mean innkeeper. A woman was serving them. So, Yashke took it to mean, "Oh, you're praising the woman. How beautiful the woman is." Which of course the tanna wouldn't say. And Yashke says, "Well, I don't like her eyes." So, the rebbe was very offended that that Now, all of a sudden we're talking about a woman. So, he like stopped talking to him and you know, put him in cherem. And for a number of days, Yashke was asking forgiveness, asking forgiveness, asking forgiveness. And the rebbe felt he hasn't gone through enough yet. He hasn't done chuva yet. Finally, there was the last day and the rebbe finally said to himself, "If he comes to me today, I'm going to forgive him." But, Yeshka came and the rebbe was in the middle of Sh'ma and he couldn't interrupt. As a result, this was Yeshka's last chance and he said, "Ah, this is it. I forget about it." And he went to Egypt and he got involved in magic and demonology and that's where he picked up all the skills that he used for his various tricks and the like. So, Hazal used this as an example of not being overly harsh on your students. That because this timer was overly harsh, that caused Yeshka to feel rejected and to leave. Now, historians have problems with this uh Jesus of Nazareth. The dates may not fit exactly, uh but the pashus of the gemara is it's talking about the Jesus of the Jesus, right? I mean, Jesus is just Greek for Yehoshua. His name was Yehoshua. Sometimes abbreviated Yeshua, but that's Yeshua is in Tanakh, too, as an abbreviation for Yehoshua, right? So, that's the story that we have in the gemara. Yeah. >> In this week's [clears throat] parsha, there's the episode of um Moshe hitting the rock with the staff. >> Yeah. >> Um and then uh on um line tes in chapter half, uh it says, "Vayikach Moshe es hamateh mi-lifnei Hashem ka'asher tzivahu." He Moshe took the staff from before Hashem uh as he was commanded. What does it mean to take it before Hashem? >> Okay, so lifnei Hashem means the staff is in front of Hashem, right? That's what it means. So, what does it mean the staff is in front of Hashem? So, generally speaking, this means it was in the Mishkan in front of the Holy of Holies because Hashem's presence is in the Kodesh Hakodashim and therefore anything that's in front of the Kodesh Hakodashim is called Lifnei Hashem. So, when Moshe takes something me Lifnei Hashem, he is taking it Thank you. He is taking it from its position before Hashem. Meaning, he had to That's This would mean I have to look at the before him, but it would seem that he went into the Mishkan and he took the staff from that from that location. >> What's the significance of devoting an entire pasuk to that like action? >> Well, I think the Torah might want to be maramez that we shouldn't accuse Moshe of a bigger sin because people like this Well, right? What Moshe Rabbeinu's sin is there's a lot of machlokes, but let's go with Rashi, right? Rashi understands that Moshe Rabbeinu's sin was uh that he shouldn't have hit the rock, he should have spoken to the rock. Now, okay, let's go with that approach that, you know, why did you hit the rock? But, on one hand, Moshe was commanded to take the stick. Now, God didn't command him to hit the rock, but God commanded to take the stick. So, by emphasizing that I should that Moshe took the staff from before God, it's emphasizing that the taking of the staff was a divine command, and as a result, Moshe's mistake is much more understandable. Meaning, if God had not commanded him to take the stick at all, and on his own, he simply takes the stick and hits the rock, we would have said, "What What's his hava amina? Who told him to do such a thing?" But, by emphasizing that taking the stick before God was part of God's command was to take the stick, that gives Moshe a little bit of an excuse. Now, it's still an aveira because God said, "Take the stick." God didn't say, "Hit with it." But, at least we understand the hava amina of what he did. So, it could be that the Torah wants us to understand that don't think Moshe is guilty of a gross violation of God's commandment. There was much more subtlety in his mistake. You see what I'm saying? In other words, uh Hashem wanted him to take the stick and speak to the rock. And that was Moshe's mistake. He thought, "If I take the stick, I'm supposed to use it in some way." Yeah. >> Um [clears throat] does the Is there a Ezra Is modern Ezra Is modern Ezra um apply Is it like binding among all single women today about I'm not going to the mikvah? And if so, why? >> Uh once again, I think you might be confusing two things. The The Takana of Ezra is about men that have seminal emissions, whether they're married or single, whether it's intercourse or not intercourse. And that's called the Takana of Ezra is they are not allowed to say brachot or learn Torah or Daven until they first go to a mikvah. That's called Takana's Ezra. And the Mish- the Mishnayos uh all presuppose there was such a requirement. You don't have to wait till nightfall, but you go to the mikvah and then you can Daven and say brachot. On that Takana's Ezra, we pasken that meikar hadin, the Takana of Ezra today is batel. It is no longer binding. And that is why, whether I'm a married man or a single person, if I had a seminal emission, I am permitted to Daven, learn, and say brachot without going to a mikvah. Right? So, that that's the the So, so that's the halakha. Takana's Ezra is batel. But still, when the Rambam brings the halakha that Takana's [snorts] Ezra is batel, he makes the point that even though it's batel, a Yarei Shamayim should try to keep the Takana of Ezra. And the Rambam says, "In my whole life, I've always kept I've never, you know, violated the Takana of even though it's not required. And that is the halachic reason for going to a mikvah every day. The halachic reason. There are other spiritual reasons as well. Uh now, it's also interesting that the takanas Ezra you could be mikayem even with mayim shuvim, water that's gone through utensils. So, some say takanas Ezra might work with a shower as well. Which would be a another reason why you'd be allowed to take a shower before davening. It might even be preferable to take a shower before davening because that way you may have a kiyem of takanas Ezra. Now, the other [snorts] thing you referred to, the notion that single women don't go to the mikvah is a much, much later thing because here is the point. In the time of the Mishnah and the Gemara, there is absolutely no question that single women did go to the mikvah. A way after Ezra. And the reason that was so is because in addition to a nida not being allowed to have relations with her husband, which is the only halachic way we pay attention to, a nida is also a tamea. So, when you're keeping the laws of purity and impurity, you know, if a nida touches truma, the truma is tame, the cohen can't eat it. Et cetera. Uh and be chlav, if a nida touches her son, her son cannot go to the har habayit. You know, different types of aspects like that. So, single women in the time of the beit hamikdash 100% had to go to the mikvah because of the laws of tumah vetaharah. Today, there would be no real justification for a single woman to go to the mikvah because all of us are tame anyway because of tumas meis, because we don't have parah adumah. So, all of us are tame. And the only reason for nida to go to the mikvah is to have relations with her husband. So, a single woman is not supposed to have relations, so there would be no no heter, right? So, that became a later minhag that developed. Now, an interesting little question I'll throw out. Again, I don't I don't want to get mail on this. Uh cuz I'm just going to give you a shaila. I'm not going to give you a psak. I just like bring out a shaila that people discuss. And that is, let's say you have a couple who are living in sin. I mean, it happens. A man and a woman are living together. They are not married. But at the same time, they're engaged in the process of close rebitshuva. They want to keep shabbos. They want to keep kashrus and the like. And you know, listen, just because they're living together doesn't mean I shouldn't help them keep shabbos, keep kosher, uh learn Torah, right? But here's the problem. Since the single woman hasn't gone to the mikvah, every relation that they have is a relationship of nida. Now, nida is an issur kares. Nida very chomer aveira. Nida you're chayav kares. Now, if the woman counts the requisite days and goes to the mikvah, you still have a sin. The sin is sexual intercourse outside of marriage. And that's according to the Rambam and the Mechaber, that is an issur d'oraisa. It's an issur d'oraisa of sexual relationships outside of marriage. But by having the woman go to the mikvah, I've lowered the sin from a chayav kares to simply be a lav sa'aseh. Is it proper? This question that I got a question. I'm not I'm not going to give you a I'm not even going to give you an answer. But is it proper to assist a sinner in downgrading their sin from a chomer aveira to a less chomer aveira? Or do you say the other way around? That by telling the single woman she can go to the mikvah, I'm giving a hechsher on a forbidden relationship, uh premarital uh sexual relationship, right? It's an interesting question. Now, I'm thinking to myself, I know of Maaseh but Rebbe Yisrael Salanter that Rebbe Yisrael Salanter left Lithuania, he left Lithuania and he went to Germany. Germany at the time, this is the same time with Rebbe Hirsch, and in Frankfurt but Germany was largely reform or secular. Right, Rebbe Hirsch was one of the great heroes who created the Kehillah but most of Germany was mamish mamish uh not connected to Yiddishkeit. There was one of the major ports in Germany on the North Sea was Königsberg. And uh although being a longshoreman tends not to be a Jewish profession, you wouldn't think that there aren't that many Jewish longshoremen, but for some reason all the longshoremen at the Königsberg port were Jews. Now, a port's busiest day, and this is true even today, happens to be Saturday. I'm not sure why, but Saturday is the main day for merchandise coming and being loaded and unloaded. So, all of the Jews in Königsberg were mechallel Shabbos before heshiah. Rebbe Yisrael Salanter spent hours and hours and hours with the longshoremen. He couldn't convince them to keep Shabbos. That that they wouldn't do. They would lose their parnassah. But he showed them how to do with a shinui. They could do it with a shinui and that would downgrade their transgression from an issur d'oraisa to an issur d'rabbanan. Now, you could have had the attitude, "Hey, if they're going to be mechallel Shabbos be ein kach u be ein kach, why should I help them?" But he felt it was kedai to reduce the severity of sin. So, I think to myself this might be an analogy in the case of the couple, but there is a difference because there you're downgrading from a doraisa to a derabanan. In the case of nida, you're downgrading from a chiyuv kareis to a lo [snorts] sasa, but it's still on the level of a doraisa. So, you don't have a raya on that particular issue. So, uh keep this question in mind and b'ezrat Hashem when you become rabbonim and you have to deal with it, so uh we can talk uh we can talk then. >> Isn't living together is not sort of part of marriage? But a lot of Russian Jews never had chuppah. >> Yeah. >> And they just live together. I thought one of the definition is to have common household. >> That's correct. >> the definition of marriage. >> Yeah, that that that Yeah, that is correct. >> says >> But the But >> you consider >> No, but the reason is No, there has to be intent You're correct, but there has to be in You can marry a woman by by intercourse. Yeah, 100%. But there has to be But there has to be intention that we want to be married. Now, if people are living together and they don't they don't consider themselves married, right? They don't consider that They know that they could leave without any commitment, so that wouldn't be a marriage. In other words, if two people live together in the belief that we are married, then then that may turn into a Jewish marriage. You're correct. But you have to have that intention. If the intention is this is a casual relationship, then for sure uh there is no marriage. Uh yeah. >> But he also brings a proof from the Gemara. >> From? >> From the Gemara over there. >> Yeah. >> And he he Ramak in Even Ha'ezer has a drasha um how to tell if people are married and if it's a sasa. But if you have dibbur Torah, what do you need to be careful from? >> I don't remember the Ramak says even dibbur Torah, he says what's what's what? >> He says if there is dibbur Torah, so I mean could it be that Yeah, I I I I think I think there would be a difference. I mean, Reb Elyashiv was basically not talking about using improper lashon, but he was saying that normally we try to avoid hirhurim, right? We try not to think about uh sexual matters and the like. And when you're learning certain sugiyos, uh it's been you know, it's impossible. That's what you're thinking about. So, that's where Reb Elyashiv said, "The hirhurim b'divrei Torah that are connected to sexual matters are not going to be gorem any type of damage to your soul. But, you still have to express them in uh tznius, a lashon naki. So, so the remark is referring to the lashon that you use. Reb Elyashiv was dealing with the with the musagim, the musagim themselves. By the way, I remember I mean, I'll tell you this. I mean, maybe it's a little immature. Uh when I was uh a bochur in high school, so there was no ArtScroll yet. There was no ArtScroll at all, but the only uh English translation they had of Gemara was Soncino. In the same way that uh you guys not allowed to use ArtScroll, we were not allowed to use Soncino either. Uh but, I remember there was a one daf in the second paragraph in Nedarim uh that talks about sexual behaviors. And the rebbe said, "We're going to skip this daf because it was not uh it's not tznius." I remember this. I was in 10th grade. Uh and I remember all of us were looking There was only like one uh Soncino in all of Ner Yisrael, but all of us were determined we wanted to get the translation of that of that daf. So, sometimes there's always this idea that when you make something forbidden for character, that can actually create more hirhurim, more involvement than if you just take it as part of life. Part of life, matter of fact, we cover it. And don't make a big deal over it. And then it's not going to be mazik you. It's part part of Torah. When you make it uh some type of special secret thing, then for character, that can actually backfire and and make it much worse. Yeah. >> Does Does anyone know where the Hasidim come from? >> Where the Hasidim come from? With with >> Where do you learn to not skip those things on >> Uh I'd have I'd have to check. I'd have to check what what the mocker what the mocker of this is. But there are a lot of things, you know, it's interesting just me me and you in the Indian not connected to what this question is. Uh there are a number of things that people sometimes say you're supposed to skip. Uh some people say you're not supposed to learn the third perek of Moed Katan. And that's because the third perek of Moed Katan are the laws of mourning. So if one's parents are alive, some say it's an ayin hara. So learn the laws of mourning because you're learning the laws of mourning, so God forbid you might invite mourning into your life. So some people say, "Don't learn your Yevamos." Because Yevamos is about a brother dying without children and the like. But the Chasam Sofer says a similar point to what Rav Elyashiv said about sexuality, although it's a different subject, and he said, "Limud ha Torah is not going to hurt you. So it's not going to hurt you with your horim, and it's not going to hurt you with ayin hara. It's not shayich to say that a certain limud of Torah is not good for me." Now again, maybe Kabbalah, maybe things I'm not on the madreiga to understand, that's a separate issue. But things I'm able to understand will only be for my good. So it's similar that the Chasam Sofer is kind of saying the same thing as Rav Elyashiv, although in a different uh context. Yeah. >> What is the actual translation of uh chas v'chalila? And then what is the difference between chas v'chalila and chas v'shalom, and do they mean the >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh So okay. So it depends really. Some say the original pronunciation should have been chas v'chalila. Now chas means shut up, be quiet. Meaning you're saying something like "Hush." You know, and halila is in the Torah itself. If you remember when Avraham Avinu was praying for Sodom, and he says to God, "If there are tzadikim in the city, you will surely not kill them. Halila l'cha. It is forbidden for you to do something that's unjust." So, halila is in the Torah, and that's a lashon that says you know, as it were, "Hashem, please regard this as forbidden for you." It's almost like a prayer. Now, if your garus has, so has I'm really speaking to you, has shut up, and halila, but the way we pronounce it has v'halila, so has means have mercy. Meaning you're speaking to Both Both words are speaking to Hashem. Has have mercy. V'halila, and may this bad action be forbidden from you. Okay? Now, halila is a lashon of the Torah itself. That's That's what I Avraham said to Hashem. Has v'shalom, I I don't know where the I mean, it's in It's in chazal, so it's already in the Gemara itself, but I'm not sure why it's substituted. Maybe Maybe the thought was halila is a little disrespectful. It's like saying to Hashem, "You can't do it." Shalom is just let May there be peace. So, you're not uh telling Hashem. You're not giving Hashem a directive. But as far as I know, if you're asking me, um are they used in different contexts? I I really think not. I I think they're used interchangeably, although they do have different translations. >> So, what What again is the word halila mean? And >> Halila means uh it is something profane or forbidden for you, God, to do. Like May May this be a forbidden thing for you, Hashem. So, that's why I was suggesting maybe a tiny bit disrespectful, so khas v'shalom, you know, have mercy and let there be shalom. That's a more innocuous way of of saying it. Yeah. >> So, um if there's a rav who's like a real expert in a certain area of Torah and they're very successful teacher and there's a lot of people who are, you know, improving their lives based on his teachings, but then, you know, um people find out that, you know, um in his own personal life, he's not really holding at such a high level in this area. Is it wrong to continue learning from him? >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is a really, really, really painful, difficult question and it's a question that unfortunately has become uh very practical uh in recent years in which uh there were teachers who were really phenomenal teachers, excellent, great, great, great teachers, who were guilty of various uh improprieties. Now, I think let me first answer the question the way you phrased it. You phrased it in a very genteel way. You said, "Oh, you know, great teacher, but he's not so right." Okay, so I would say this, based on the way you asked it, if it's simply a question that the teacher is not on the madrega that he's teaching, I mean, he's teaching about the ideal tzaddik or whatever it is, and he's not such a great tzaddik, I wouldn't automatically disqualify him. You know, we're all we're all imperfect. We have many, many chesronos and, you know, we're trying to, you know, advocate for a certain model, but we're not always on that madrega. Maybe we're almost never on that madrega. So, that wouldn't disqualify him per se. But, unfortunately, you probably meant this, unfortunately, there are things that are a lot more serious than that. There are teachers who have engaged in sexual abuse, uh they've engaged in in homosexuality, they've engaged in possi- possibly rape, uh some very, very serious issues which are not just they're not on the madrega uh that they're teaching. And there you really have a problem that halachically they might become they might be defined as a Russia. And really you should not learn from a Russia, but even then even then I might differentiate between different types of subjects meaning something that's a very and people would argue with me in this, but something that's a very technical subject. Let's assume they're teaching Aramaic grammar. Or even if they're teaching Mishnah halachas or halacha it might be that's not going to be tainted by the defects in their character. If they're teaching musar or hashkafa I think it's much more dangerous because at that point their particular yetzer haras come in and can be poisonous. I would also differentiate maybe between the written word and the oral word. I think the damage of a person's spiritual imperfections is much greater when there's a face-to-face contact than there is reading a book, right? So I can read a book written by a person who's not so good and that won't affect me in the same way as an actual interaction. But it's very very painful and it really it it I mean what I think of is that um when these things happen this is not only a tragedy for the victims, whoever's been victimized. And of course they're the main people who suffered. But it's a tremendous tragedy and maybe people accuse me of favoring rabbis taking the rabbis' side, but it is a tremendous tragedy for a rabbi because the rabbi had been a teacher, had been a mashpia, had been a person who reached a lot of people. And because of these flaws all of that was destroyed. All of that was taken away. And that's a tragedy for the rabbi and it's a tragedy for the Jewish people that we've lost a source of Torah. So it's a tragedy on all all sides of the coin. Yeah. >> You just spoke about the Asher story in the >> Yeah. Same. Yes, yes, yes. So, so you are correct. That's a very That's a very good text. Acher, call the other one, Acher, Elisha ben Abuyah, became a heretic. He denied God. And Rabbi Meir continued to learn from him. And people asked Reb Meir, "How can you learn from a heretic?" And Rabbi Meir said, "Acher is like a pomegranate. You know, you take the peel that you can't eat and throw it away and eat the good seeds. Or like a fruit where I throw away the pit and I eat the fruit. So, that that would be a precedent. But, many say that the ability to make that discrimination is only for someone like Rabbi Meir. You have to be on a higher level, meaning of a person who's very, very great in Torah can even read apikorsus, can read negative things and take out the good and reject the bad. But, for people on our level, it's it's it's it's going to be very, very difficult sometimes. You know, so it's a it's a difficult, difficult issue. It is a very painful issue. It's an issue that I mean, Baruch Hashem, the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority, we shouldn't think Sometimes the internet goes crazier. Uh there is a strong anti-frumkeit clan and a group on the internet, all sorts of different groups. So, whenever one rabbi has a failing, it becomes, "Oh, you see, all rabbis are perverts. I knew this all along. You You know, I mean, you got to take it in perspective. I mean, you're dealing with Baruch Hashem a minuscule, minuscule, minuscule number of cases, but even a single case, there are victims. There are people who suffered. And we have to uh be, you know, be concerned for them. Okay. Okay. All right, take care, everybody. Thank you for coming.