Rav Yitzchak Breitowitz: It is Through My Spirit that You Achieve Success

You see your tomorrow [Music] Okay. Hi everybody. Thank you for coming. I'm sorry a little late today. Uh as always uh we are praying for the victory of our in all the fronts of the war, the lasting unity of the people of Israel and for all of those whose health has been affected by the war and of course for the safe return of all of the hostages that are still alive. Uh in addition, this year is sponsored by Dr. David Dwiskoff. Thank you. in honor of families that suffer from parental alienation as well as a raffle for yil Ari Ben Ruth and Sarah Miriam Batama. Uh let me just say a few words about parental alienation. Uh I hope that none of you have any firsthand experience with it. uh but if either you do or you're aware of it, it is a very very very serious and tragic problem with uh drastic repercussions not only for the spouses but more importantly even for the children and their emotional well-being. Uh this simply means that when there are divorces which are tragic but they sometimes have to happen and the Torah allows for it. uh when one parent kind of tries to uh brainwash the other parent in demonizing uh that person uh often with false accusations uh that can poison the relationship of a child with their mother or with their father. Uh it is an awful awful awful thing. uh one has to know that even if a husband and a wife cannot live together as husband and wife, they have a moral, religious, hakic responsibility as parents to do what is best for their children. And to use children as a pawn in whatever unresolved conflicts uh husbands uh ex-husbands, ex-wives have with each other is really a you know a crime against humanity. It's a crime against against children. So um it is something that's worthwhile uh to speak about uh the notion of parental alienation. I know there was a suggestion. I'm sorry you have to remind me. You wanted to connect it to to Miriam. Just remind me of the association. Um what's what's the problem with uh speaking from within the family? Oh okay. Okay. So uh at least a little bit of an analogy can be seen uh in the para itself at the end of para spaloska where you remember that Miriam uh speaks truthful even truthful lash negative statements about her brother Moshe and she speaks to Aaron and by the way the lashar is about Moshe being separated from his wife and Miriam who was an extremely righteous and saintly person was immediately punished because In addition to the general sin of lashinhara driving a wedge in the shalom that exists in the family is an extra level of a that boru does not uh does not tolerate. So although parental alienation was not the issue there but it does remind us of the great grave consequences of sewing device divisiveness uh within the the family unit. So as I say my braha is that none of you should ever none of you or your children should ever face these particular issues but they do exist in the real world and I thank uh Dr. Wisko for uh bringing it to our attention and having us think about this uh in a positive way. Um I myself am a lawyer although I don't practice law but I do want to accuse my profession of contributing to this in some way because often it happens to be that many divorce attorneys are very very aggressive and they feel that the way they'll be successful to help their client is by demeaning and abusing the other side. So in a sense uh I'm not going to blame all lawyers. Certainly that's not true. But uh the legal community bears a certain amount of blame for uh the parental alienation that is so uh so prevalent. I'm familiar with it more in the United States. Uh I am actually familiar with a number of cases but I I gather it exists here here as as well. Okay. Uh in addition aliyah Shama Yonatan Israel Ben Davidid the brother of Kaya Fineold. Oh Ben Yonathan you saw Ben Davidid Mosha the brother of Kaya Fineold. Number one. Number two for the parents of Mike Klene in memory of mom and dad Joanna and Yehuda Klein. Number three, for the mother of Aliyah Acriman, Simma Basmoi, who had the zus to raise and now leave behind seven amazing shirre mitzvot committed to Torah life grandchildren. That is a great accomplishment indeed. Uh finally, Ibon is turning uh to uh you to help facilitate the purchase of more sets of fillin for the courageous soldiers who have requested them. Due to the major call up of the reserves, the Miloim, uh there has been an uptick in requests for its fill-in. At present, we have received additional requests now for 15 pairs and the requests keep coming. One can contribute via the website and send a memo that the donation is for the army fill-in fund. This is a wonderful, wonderful opportunity. It's an opportunity to create Abas Israel. It's an opportunity to assist people in doing chuva, returning to a kadesh. I mean imagine people want to do people who might be kilon that's that's why they don't have their own pair of fillin and they want to wear fillin I mean how can we in good conscience not respond to the call of someone who is asking for an opportunity to serve in that way and of course as mim we certainly believe that uh the spiritual mitzvot will bring in the military effort as well so it's a matter of national security not just the and the chuva but in fact we're protecting Israel by getting involved in this. So once again to uh for creating a fund and uh may you be have even more and more demands that will have to be met because every demand is a turn towards truva. Now, somebody sent me a poll. I don't know if you saw this poll. Frankly, I don't believe it, although I hope that it's true that in the age group of 18 to 29, I think that was the age group, a majority of Israelis between the ages of 18 and 29 are fully Shammer Shabas. Is that is that possibly true? The survey says that's what it is. I cannot believe it. But, uh, if it is true, is that from CNN? fake news. Who knows? But that was the poll somebody sent me that it was a poll that said the majority in that particular age group 18 to 29 surveying the entire population of Israel, not just or you know obviously including everybody the population as a whole are now are now sharing news. Although again I have to admit the cynic in me has trouble believing it. But you know I hope I'm wrong. I hope that I'm just being cynical and uh I will be proven wrong. Be as rasm. That's a wonderful wonderful sign. And as somebody said, maybe it's an example of the old adage of no atheists and foxholes, meaning an a people do turn to to Hashem under those circumstances. Okay. So, uh we had a long introduction today, but now let's uh get into the the para a little bit. Uh I'm going to really start at the very beginning of the para. The beginning of the para is Hashem uh commands Aon that he is given the co-enul is given a special mitzvah of lighting the manora in the mishkan later in the basa mikdash and uh it's interesting that although the the muff ask a question it's interesting that the daily lighting of the minora actually does not require a cohen not only do you not need a coen god that for sure you don't need a coen gadal. You don't even need a coen head jot. You don't even need a regular coenora is one of the services, one of the few services in the temple that can be done by a non-co. Now there is a logistical problem because the manora is located inside of the mishkun building or in the base of mikdash inside of the heo and a nonoen is not allowed to enter the he. So how could a nonoane light the minora if he can't even enter the he? So the Rambam says he can use a long stick as a wick meaning to say he has a long stick like a 10-ft uh thin pole and he ignites it and he stands outside of the he and you know sticks the stick in there. So you don't need a cohen at all. Is kosher bizour. There's an interesting anomaly though because in lighting the manora there's actually two different mitzvos that have to be done every day. There is what is called hataos. Hatvaos is preparing the lamps, replacing the new oil, new wicks and that's done prior to the hlak. Hadlaka is done in late afternoon. Hatava is actually done in the morning. It's not done right before it. And these are two separate mitzvah. Now what's a little strange isos could even be done by a non-co can only be done by a coane not a coen guttle and I I'll get to that even there you don't need coen guttle but you need a coing now at first glance this seems a little peculiar because we would normally view as simply a preliminary activity ity to lighting meaning the mitzvah is to light but automatically I got to prepare the oil and put in the wicks. Uh we would call that a ha means a preparation for a mitzvah. The actual purpose of the mitzvah is to light a manora every night you know late afternoon and it would burn through the night. So the question would be why would the Tyra impose greater requirements for the preliminary activity i.e. you need a cohane and it does not impose such a requirement for the main activity which is so there's actually the Bali Muser say there's actually a significant important lesson here and that is sometimes it is the preparation that you bring to a good deed that is even more important than the actual good deed itself because the preparation involves your commitment, your care, your passion, the good deed once everything is set, you know, it's like you know that's the final thing. So the final thing like you know anybody can do but all of the preparation is very significant. This is something important I think for husbands sometimes you know when we make sum for dafomi or you know you know big celebrations. So we sometimes forget all of the infrastructure that went in to enabling people to learn the home environment and the like but remember that the preparation of the of the candles might even be more important than the lighting of the candles itself. And that's kind of a rem here. Okay. But be it as it may, the question I want to raise is simply a very simple question. In the beginning of parata, the mitzvah of lighting the manora is given to the coen problem is that's not so either way. It's not so the actual lighting could be done by a non-co and even the can be done by a cohen but it's not to the coen. So why does the Tyra seem to indicate that Samura is a function of Coen God? So the soprano says a very fascinating idea. The soprano says that even though halically lighting the manura does not require a coen and certainly not a coen god but for the 40 years the Jewish people were in the desert the coen god had to do it because the entire 40 years had the status of a yum kipper now I don't mean they had to fast obviously they didn't they didn't fast I mean they ate month but it means on yum kipper we know there's a special rule that the divine services have to be done by the co-engole including manora and says the saporno that the holiness of the mishkan in those 40 years was equal to yam kipper and therefore the yam kiper rules applied to lighting the min that's aish of the of the soporno if you remember I don't want to repeat this at length when we looked at paras in vayikra that gives the kipra service if You remember I I shared with you a thought in the name of the vil nagon that since it doesn't mention it describes the whole order of going to the holy of holies but it doesn't mention yum kipper till the end and the vil nagon actually says for the 40 years of the desert aon could do the yum kiper service any day he wanted and thereby gain entry into the kotes it's only leot that this is limited to yum kipper because the mish the 40 years of the desert had an elevated status of kaducatipurim. So the soperno thought here is the same as the vil nagon thought regarding the entry into the keshakim which is mutar meaning could do it anytime he wanted provided he followed the yumiper protocol of the goats and all of that all of that ritual okay but now let's move to rash's comment rashi raises the question at the end of last week's para so we talk about the dedication of the mishkan Ro kesh Nissan dedication of the Mishkan and every day a head of a tribe a nasi brought different corbanos animal offerings gold silver incense flower and the Torah repeats it 12 times you know Yehuda brought a to z and then same thing it's repeated 12 times now I'll talk about the repetition this is quite amazing this is by are the largest repetition in the Torah. You know, people ask, "Oh, why does the Torah have this extra VV or this extra olive or this extra thing like every little extra thing we have dashas here over and over and over and over and over and over again when the Tyra could have just said it could have given us what Yehuda brought. they were the first one and then it could have said and each nasi brought the same thing right I'll talk about that but here was what Rashi says so this took place the beginning of the second year from the exodus and it took place the first 12 days of Nissan meaning every day a ni brought now shabet ley was not a nussi that brought this carbon shabet levy didn't bring the reason you have 12 without Levy is because you count Ephraim and Manacha as two. That's 12 without Levy. So when Aaron saw that his tribe was not invited so to speak by God to bring a Corban, Aron had Khalisha Sadas that means Aron was depressed. Aaron was saddened because he thought that perhaps because of his participation in theel in building the golden calf he was seen as undeserving and unworthy all the nimon quite logically is although he's a coin but he's the head the top ley every coin is a ley so Aaron would have been the one who would have brought those carbanas but shave ley was excluded. So Aaron said, "The buck stops here. It must be because of me." So Hashem said to him right afterwards, "Don't feel bad about this. I am giving you a mitzvah that's even more important than the corbanos of the nim. You will be given the mitzvah of lighting the manora." And the medish explains the carbanos of the nim were a one-time thing. I mean this was only brought that year. It was not repeated. The mitzvah of lighting the minora will last whenever there's a b mikdash. And interestingly enough, the Ramban says perhaps there's even a prophetic illusion to the miracle of Kaneka which is celebrated by lighting candles. And although you don't need a co to light kaneka candles but the miracle of kaneka came through the kohanim who are theim your portion is greater than their portion. You are given the mitzvah of lighting and setting up the candles. And of course to take it to take the allegory further, the light of the manora is also symbolic of the light of Torah, the light of Hashem that permeates the world. And you, Aron, as a co are a vehicle for the spreading of that light. And that is an eternal gift that is not even limited to a bas if you remember the ha it's going to be the ha of this coming para we also read it on kaneka it overlaps the ha and it's a vision of the navi zakaria beautiful beautiful vision zakaria is one of the very last prophets it's after the 70 years of the babylonian exile and a small group of Jews returned to Israel And it's very very difficult. Most of the Jews did not return and they're struggling under foreign domination of Persia at this point. And even though the small group is back in Arit Israel, many of them feel demoralized. They feel rejected by God. And there are Jews that are engaged in intermarriage and desecration of Shabas. You similar types of problems to what we face. And Zakaria has a glorious vision of two olive trees and a big gold manora. And there are pipes leading from the olive trees feeding the manora. And miraculously oil is flowing from the trees filling up the lights of the manura which then get ignited on their own. And imagine the oil gets in there and it flames up. And Hashem says in a very immortal, you will not achieve victory with your heroism and your strength. It is through my spirit that you will achieve your success in life. And it's the spirit of Hashem that gives us success. And that was symbolized in that vision. by the light of the minora. So it's no accident why Hashem says your portion is greater than their portion. Your portion represents the light of Hashem that permeates the the world and give strength to those who would otherwise be despondent. That's why a Jew doesn't lose hope. you know, in many many ways, you know, we're not in a logical uh the fact that Jews exist at all is is not a logical proposition. Um, this was a problem that Arnold Toinby faced, right? Uh, Arnold Toinber was a very very famous British historian and he wrote a massive work called a study in history. Now again, his historians have discredited a lot of the work, but but at the time this was one of the classic works in history. And what he did was he analyzed 50 ancient civilizations, Sumerianss, Babylonians, uh, Assyrians, all all the way through the Romans. And he tried to map the different factors that account for the rise and fall of civilizations. And thus he was able to create a matrix of which factors are conducive to building a civilization and which factors are conducive to destroying a civilization because he saw common patterns really a work of genius looking at 50 ancient societies. Problem is his brilliant theory explained 49 out of his 50 groups. It did not explain uh the Jewish people because based on his own theory, there ought not to be Jews in the world. Uh because he talks about the need for a ter common territory, the need for a common language. Uh Jews for a lot of our history, we did not have ownership or even access to Israel. Most Jews did not speak Hebrew. Now there's a number of the factors that create civilizations didn't exist. So, you know, I defend to Tong B was an anti-semite. But I say, you know, listen, if I wrote a 10,000page book and the book works out perfectly except for the Jewish people, I would be pretty, you know, angry at them too. Hey, they ruined my book, right? So, I don't blame him so much uh for his anti-semitism and the like. But because of this, Toyinby threw up his hands in frustration, symbolically at least, and he said, "Okay, I consider the Jews a fossilized people, like a fly in amber, you know, like you'd find a dinosaur fossil, meaning they shouldn't be around at all." and um Yakov Herzog who's you know the president of Israel's uncle Yakov Herzog the son of Chief Rabbi Herzog who at the time I I believe at the time may have been the Israeli ambassador to the UN a very brilliant person he was he was from he was a Tom and also very very learned in a whole variety of of disciplines uh went into a big debate with tobby are the Jews a fossilized people this is called the herzog tombbby debates. You actually can see some old black and white videos on YouTube in Oxford, a lot of American universities in which tobby, you know, defended his thesis that the Jews are a fossilized people and Herzog tried to argue the Jews are vibrant and very much alive, etc. But here is the thing. There is more than an element of truth in Toinb's hypothesis because Toinbby basically made the argument under the laws of history there ought not to be a Jewish people. Therefore, the Jewish people are ahistorical. They have no legitimacy within the framework of historical causality. You know, the funny thing about that statement is he's actually right. Uh there is no logical reason why there ought to be a Jewish people. You know, we're not used to the idea of civilizations disappearing because they tend today not to totally disappear. But, you know, in the ancient world, this was pretty common. I I mean, think about this. Where are the Assyrians? You know, where are the Babylonians? Where are the ancient Persians? Where are the ancient Greeks? Where are the ancient Romans? I mean, they're gone. the notion of a whole civilization just kind of disappearing. Yeah, I mean there's probably some genetic fragments mixed in here and there, but as a civilization, they're gone. So the notion that, well, civilizations never really disappear. That's absolutely false. Civilizations certainly disappear. So why shouldn't the Jewish civilization disappear? Makes no sense. So Toinbi is right. Toinby was a professional historian and within the laws of history there should not be an amra. So our existence is a miracle. The truth of the matter is this is one of the to me at least one of the most powerful arguments uh to even prove the existence of God and that is the existence of the Jewish people makes sense only if there's a divine creator that gave me Israel a a a purpose. So as a result this going back to Aon this is kind of the symbolism of the light of the manura. You will not achieve success by your strength by your heroism. You will achieve success only by the light of hashem that infuses you. And that's the great great vision of the manura. Okay. Now the way Rashi quotes the medish Aaron was simply upset because he was not offered an opportunity to bring a carbon with the other nium and therefore hashem is communicating to him I have not rejected you I have something bigger for you and that's the manura but the vilon brings a slightly different medish that is actually a bit perplexing that what upset Ain was not that ley didn't bring a corban but Ephraim brought a corbin on Shabas. Now how do we know this? Because keep in mind that uh if you look at the order of the Nissim the seventh Corban is the tribe of Ephraim and we know that the Kanuka began on Sunday. So day seven is shabas. So shva defraim brought a corban on shabas. So that upset iron. When aon saw that shim brought a corban on chabas that upset him and he needed the reassurance of the mitzvah of the minora. So the question is why would that why would that upset? I mean I understand the way Rashi brings the medish the medish is very logical. Aron is upset because he was not given an opportunity to bring a corban. So he quite logically connected it to the rejection because of the ego. So Rashi's understanding is a relatively straightforward understanding. But to simply say that he was somehow upset because Shva Ephraim brought the Corbin on Shabas. Why would that upset him? By the way, a little aside, this is a digression. Uh the Vil Nagon says, how do we know that Sha de Fryan brought a Corbin on Shabas? Maybe Shabas they didn't bring a Corbin at all. Because as a matter of pureic logic the corbanote of the nim should in fact not be brought on shabas. Why is that so? Because the rule about shabas corbanote is the only corbanote that are brought on chabas are the communal offerings of the nation like the daily corbent tamit and the musf offerings. Individual offerings. If I want to bring my burnt offering my peace offering I cannot do it on shabas. Now the nim are bringing these corbanos as individuals. It's not the corbin of the tribe. It's the corbin of the nasi. So as a matter of logic the carbon of the nasi shouldn't be dash. So how do we know that shv is number seven but who says they brought on chabas? Maybe he brought it on Sunday. In other words, the first six, one, two, you know, uh, Sunday to Friday, Shabas, no corbin, then they started again the second week, right? How do you know sha fry and bread on shabas? So, the vil nagon says an ingenious explanation. This is a digression, but it's such a fascinating uh thought, a tiny bit complicated that I wanted to share it with you. Hashem said when he when he commanded the nim to bring their carbanos, he said one per day. One nasi per day. So here's what the vagon interprets it. He says there are going to be two days of the week which will only have one nasi bring a corban, but the other five days there will be two nsim bringing corbanos. How is that? So if you posit shabas, it works out exactly that way. Week one corbanos were brought from Sunday through Shabas. That's seven. Week two, there are five more. It was Sunday through Thursday. So that means five days of the week had two nim meaning week one Sunday was one nasi and week two Sunday was one one nasi which days of the week had only one nasi bring Friday and shabas mash if I posit that they didn't bring carbonos and shabas so that means week one was 1-6 Sunday to Friday. Week two was 1-6. So, six days of the week had two nim and Shabas had no ni. There is you don't have two days where only one ni brought. So therefore, it's mukra that the nim did bring their offering in chabas textually. Therefore, Shva Ephraim number seven brought in on Shabas. That's mamish an ingenious vote. A little complicated. I hope I hope I made sense in presenting it. Uh but let's go back to the main question and that is why would that upset Aaron so much? Why would Aaron be upset that Ephraim brought the carban shabas? So here uh there is a thought from the safer uh this was raarin levano he was the rabb he was a ra in Latvia uh very very died in the holocaust and he was also a member of the polish parliament which he represented Jewish uh interests. Uh those of you who uh might might know or know of the famous Washington attorney Nathan Leuen uh very good friend of mine from for many many years and he he lives like in I think most of the year now because I think he's largely retired uh he is a grandson of Levan uh the raer of the srashian uh and says the following is worried about the ego. But here's the thing. Aron has a certain compensation. Aon did effectively make the eagle by collecting the gold, throwing it into the fire and the ael emerged. So in terms of deed, Auron did a pernicious deed. But Aon's makaba, his thought was pure. Ain's thought, the medish tells us, was not for our bodhisara. Aaron's thought was pure. What was Aaron's thought process, this is a little odd, but the medish says this? A knew that a significant segment of the Jewish people had intention to serve a vodora. And a vodora is an exception to the normal rule that Hashem only punishes deed and not thought. Because God even punishes thought. So the Jewish people would be punished for a thought of a zora. But Aaron felt bad because that would discredit God because the the observers who do who can't read thoughts are thinking that God is punishing the Jewish people for no reason. So Aaron had a cabana to kind of give hashem an open reason to be mahanal by bringing out the thought into action. Uh he gives a mushel the vilong gives a mushel to a faithful servant of a king and this was a faithful servant who loved the king and always wanted to protect the king. But the king was arbitrary and kind of crazy. Maybe a little like like Trump in that way. And sometimes if the servant did the smallest thing, the king would say off with his no, the king would do off with his head. So the servant did a tiny insignificant thing and the king ordered his execution. The servant loved the king so much that he took a tin of hot soup and he dumped it all over the king. How is that an act of love? Because if you're going to kill me, I want to give you a good reason. I don't want people to think of you as a nut. I'm going to give you a legitimate reason. So he says Aron knew that so many Jews were because of the and Hashem punishes, but Aron was afraid that people would think Hashem was unjust. So he wanted to give Hashem a reason. Again, it's a it's a strange argument, but this is stated in the Medish. The point is though that Aon's MV was pure. Aron's Misa was wrong. Now let's look at Ephraim. Ephraim is the son of Yoseph. Now if you remember Yoseph's encounter with Potifar's wife. So the truth is at some point Yoseph actually was ready to be with her. His maka was to do an a at the last moment he refrained. So Yoseph and Auron represent opposites. Aron had the right thoughts and did the wrong deed. Yoseph had the wrong thoughts but did the right deed. So which does God focus on the thought or the deed? So says the dash fo this is what bothered Aaron. When Aaron saw that sh Ephraim who comes from Yoseph was given the special honor a unique honor of even being able to bring his corban on Chabas. Even though Yoseph was guilty of a bad thought, what is Aaron's conclusion? That God doesn't care about the thought. God only cares about the deed. And Yoseph passed. So Aaron now feels bad because if I see from Sha Defen that the deed is more important than the thought, then I'm in big trouble because of the where my thoughts were pure and my deeds were bad. Because I see from the shim that the icker is the deed more than the thought. You see this is the idea. So this actually explains the medish why it was particularly shim yose in other words that created the consternation because the defect in Yoseph was the opposite of what the defect in Aaron was. And therefore, iron thought this would be a judgment on him that he would be punished and rejected for his bad deed even though he had a positive thought. And therefore, Hashem had to reassure him that you're reading too much into this, so to speak. And and you're given the great merit of the minora and the light. Okay. is a little as they say pillistic uh but it's an interesting contrast between iron and iron and um and yoseph okay now after the mitzvah of there is a ceremony formally designating the levim uh they shave all their hair they're like newborn babies etc and they become designated as the assistants to the kohhanim in all ways. So I want to share with you a Mishna in that emerges from theos in this para. The Mishna says there are certain disqualifications of Kohanim that do not disqualify Levim and there are certain disqualifications of Levim that do not disqualify Kohanim. A cohane is disqualified by physical blemish. A cohane has a broken leg, a broken arm. The same way you cannot bring a corban with a blemish, a coane cannot do a voda in the mishkan or the ba mikdash if there's a blemish. So the pul of a coane is mum. But there is no poul of age. There is no mandatory retirement age for kohanim. If a cohen is capable of doing the aida at 90, he can do so. By levim whose job it is to sing and and to carry things and the like uh they have different jobs. They have jobs as gatekeepers. They have jobs as singers. They have jobs as musicians. They have jobs in terms of uh uh carrying the mishkan and the like. Once there's a bas mikdash that kind of no longer exists as a function but they have different tasks. So for levian it's the other way around. A ley is not pusslebum. Even if a ley has a blemish he could still sing, be a musician, even carry if he's physically able to do so. But a ley does have a mandatory retirement age and the age is fairly young especially uh from my vantage point it's really really young. Uh the ley starts working at well that's another steer what's the starting point. One pussk says he starts at 25 the other pussk says he starts at 30. So Rashi explains there's like a five-year apprenticeship uh where he works under somebody's supervision and then at 30 he can be his own guy whatever that means exactly and kazal derive from there that if you're engaged in some professional activity and you're not successful after 5 years it's time to move on by the way as a little aside uh this kazal is invoked by yeshiva students all the time uh they've been in Yeshiva for a number of years and they say I've been here 5 years I have not achieved success time for me to go. So if the now sometimes that happens to be true. So it's not always you don't always try to refute it but if the rashiva wants to refute it there are two different ways they refute it. One is the warm and fuzzy approach and the other is the tough love approach. Uh the student says kazal say if you tried hard at something for five years and you're not successful move on. So the tough love approach is who says you tried? You think what you did counts like trying, right? So that's the tough love. So it doesn't count. The clock didn't start yet. That's the tough love. The warm and fuzzy says, "Who says you didn't accomplish? Maybe you didn't accomplish as much as you hoped, but listen, when you came, could you read Rashi? And now you can read Rashi. Hey, you're not a failure. You accomplished something, right? So there are two different ways. You can either attack the I put in the effort or you can say you can attack the failure idea. Okay, that's the beginning. But the terminus point is age 50. Age 50. When he's 50, he's out. Now there is a mlo exactly what is he out for? That's actually a a complicated discussion but there is a mandatory retirement. So the Mishn makes this interesting correlation without explaining it. That which invalidates the coane does not invalidate the ley and that which invalidates the ley does not invalidate the coane. The coane is invalidated with blemish and not years. The ley is invalidated with years and not blemish. Now how we know that is pretty clear. That's just looking at the verses. In other words, you don't I mean it's a very explicit derivation. But the question is is there any logic to this? Why exactly uh do we have different standards for coane versus versus ley? And what does it signify? So there is actually this is a a bit of a simplification of a much longer thought that is developed by the alterb the balatanya zman of leade augmented by his grandson the third rebi of of kabad um you know the alterbi wrote in addition to tanya um he actually wrote or not actually he didn't write it himself but was written his discourses which are actually much more complicated ated and deep uh are in two and one is Torah and the other has a different name for some reason to bracious and why the safer it's really one safer because why the braces has one title and has another title seems to be an accident of printing. They were printed in two different cities and the printer just gave it a title and therefore the two different printers happened to choose two different titles and the different titles were never corrected. But this is in lie Torah and uh here is what the alterbi says. The alterbi said that the coen and the ley represent two different ways of serving hashem. The coim represents serving Hashem by absolute obedience to the letter of the law. If one if one studies the laws of Corbanos, one sees how intricate, how detailed they are. There is no room for creativity. There is no room for innovation. There is no room for spontaneity. You got to follow the rules. If you deviate from the rules, in many many cases the Corbin will actually be invalid. The whole thing is invalid. I'll give you a very simple example. A Cohen wears a uniform. Cohen Guttle has a different uniform. But the Cohen wears called big day. Now a regular Cohen is dressed in white linen garments. In fact, the same way the Cohen Guttle dresses Kipper, a regular Cohen dresses that way the whole year. So, let's say he would like to augment his uniform by putting on a nice tie or scarf, add a little color to the wardrobe, looks nicer. Well, you know, there is a principle that if a Cohen does the avod with an extra garment on himself or he wears a sweater cuz it's cold. Remember the surface of the basic is outdoors except for minor in the heel but the carbonas are all outdoors. So it could be raining it could be it could be very very cold. The coin has to go barefoot. So if he wears socks or slippers or a sweater or a necktie it doesn't affect the quality of what he's doing. The whole puzzle this is called maruba beadim extra garments puzzle I'm using this just as an example that the life of the coain is very focused it's rule specific it is consistent it got to be done the same exact way every single day the world of ley is a world of emotion and spontane ity because the primary avod of the ley although the levy has many tasks but the primary aod of the ley is musical accompaniment both by instrumental music and by um and by vocal singing uh of course we've lost the actual tunes some some have suggested that uh the gregorian chance might be a partial preservation of what music was like in the Bas Mikdash because the Gorian chants are very ancient and they may go back to Roman times and Rome in turn was familiar with what they did in the Bas Mikdash and the early Christians were of course Jews and they may have been familiar so who knows I have no idea if that's uh true uh but the music was very much part of the service and by the way this is a little rem why why do reformed synagogues call themselves temples This goes back to the early 19th century because they wanted to have organ music in the service and they knew that halaka didn't allow musical instruments on chabas at least. But they did know that in the ba mikdash they did play musical instruments even on chabas. So they figured by calling their synagogues temples they would be halically legitimating the use of musical instruments on chabas. So the temple goes along with the organ. Uh because again you have to understand the early re the earliest reformed synagogues were not officially breaking with orthodoxy yet. They were trying to claim that they were working within fact well the term I mean obviously the term orthodoxy didn't even exist either. I mean there is no orthodox until there's reform. Uh so it's an it's a little bit of an anacronism to talk about the orthodox but whatever the hikic way things were. So the original reform were trying to claim they were within ala and therefore temple musical instruments uh and and oh by the way it's interesting that just as a digression forgive me for digressing in Kraco uh which was the one city one city of Poland that largely physically I mean people were killed but the building survived because it was the capital of Nazi occupied Poland and unlike Warsa 95% of which was destroyed both by German bombs and then by allied bombs. Uh Hans Frankie Makshima who was the Nazi governor general of Poland gave orders that none of the buildings he didn't care about the people obviously but none of the buildings in Krakco should be destroyed. So to this day Krakco has many many beautiful Jewish buildings many many I mean the synagogues are largely empty. There are some active synagogues but they're there as museums or whatever it would be. So I remember I was to be in Kraco once and you know you see all these different shores and cemeteries great gdole through mo people going all the way back sorisher the bashakov of Kraco first bashakov u so there's one building in Kraco that's called the temple this was the reformed temple in Kraco so what's so reformed about it so you walk in there's a makita and there's a shast there, you know, it looks like a, you know, a modern Orthodox synagogue, we'll say. So, what's reform about it? Why was it called the reformed temple of Krakov? Because the rabbis drussa was given in Polish instead of Yiddish. So, in in in Krakco that's called reform already. So, reform meant different things. you know there there there was reform that was real reform no kosher no no no no no no no yamakas no talis and then there's reform which is you know 100% tala but the rabbis spoke in Polish instead of yish that was so in in Poland already that was called reform so Hungary Germany had a very def different definition of reform in fact I myself experienced that in Baltimore um many many years ago maybe the the early 1980s I gave a um a rambomir in a shash. All right, whatever. Say for hamzvos. And after the shar, somebody went over to me and pulled me to the side and said, "Read this. Read this document on the wall." So apparently it was a document from the sofair that says uh it is forbidden for any rav uh to give a share in any language other than Hebrew or Yiddish. So he told me, you know, we're supposed to follow that rule in this shaw. It was whatever it is. So he told me, I have a hatchet. The hatcher he gave me was if you don't do it in the shaw, if you do it in a side room, it's okay. So he told me I have to giving it in English, huh? You were giving it in English. I was giving it in English. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. So I was I was transgressing the Sofur's that you can only give or in a banesset in a banet only in Yiddish or or Hebrew. I think he said maybe maybe only in Yiddish maybe not even in Hebrew which has its own problems but he said the hetra would be you can give English in in a side room. Yeah. I was thinking when you were comparing the with the Yeah. The different standards that were applied to each Yeah. Even with a culture aiming there are very different standards like I know a boy cannot be a culture as far as a will. Yeah. I mean honestly what I was told cuz that's my field they didn't even say 18 or 21. They said it has to be a mature boy. There has to be physical signs of Oh because it's real real estate. mean at rate of 1821. Yeah, I I think okay, I don't want to get into the details of there. I think those those are special rules regarding real estate transactions, meaning it's not it's not a general rule. A 13-year-old can in fact be a witness, but there are certain areas where um you require a greater level of maturity for certain types of transaction. Okay. Well, we can talk about that. Okay. So, be it as it may, right? So, here is the thing. The co-ang lives the life of rules and the ley lives the life of emotion and feeling and spontaneity. I want to point out that although it's true that eventually the tahhillim became the official music of the basikash but that's not a hikic requirement. In other words originally levim were allowed to improvise. They could bring their own poems. They could bring their own compositions, play their own musical arrangements, right? So, it's very different than the Cohen. The Cohen represents the world of rules and the ley represents the the world of emotion and feeling and spontaneity and creativity. Now each modality of divine service has its strength and has its weakness. The world of rules has a great strength because it promotes consistency. You see when you're serving Hashem based on your feelings, based on your inspiration, that may be a wonderful thing, but that comes and goes. There are days you're not so inspired. There are days that you're not so moved. But in the world of rule, you know, listen, I got to Davin chakras even though I don't feel like it so much. I got to learn Torah even though I'd rather, you know, go to the beach. You're committed to the rules. So even when you're not inspired, you're going to go out. I mean, I know people like that. You knew people like that. You know, I I I when I was in Silver Spring, very dear member of my show, uh was an elderly man. He's not alive anymore. And uh he grew up in America before there were yeshivas. He he didn't really go to yeshiva, but somehow he remained sharabas all of his life. And he would not miss a minion for anything. I I remember him you know uh there was like 10 inches of snow and he would be trudging to sh would take him like 40 minutes to walk three blocks and he didn't look at it like some supreme sacrifice that he made you know this is what you do a Jew goes to show this is it noas there was no sophistication to it kind of although he he happened to be a very intelligent person in fact he worked for the CIA although he never never talked about it but but in terms of his ammuna in terms of his basic adherence to no question. Right? So the mila of the world of rules is that it's consistent. The world of emotion goes up and it goes down. The of the world of rules is that sometimes your service can get mechanical and superficial. You're just doing the same thing over and over again and it may lack a passion. In the world of emotion, it's exactly the opposite. The strength of the world of emotion is you bring passion to schmack excitement. The downside is of course lack of consistency. It comes and goes. So ideally a Jew needs to combine both of these aspects. Uh I should also add too that the downside of the world of emotion is that it tends to become a narcissistic journey towards your own spirituality in which you're not serving God but you're feeding your own ego makes me feel good etc. Why do I have to keep all these rules? Now here is what the balatana says. He says when you're a rule oriented person, he says you don't get s you don't you don't get disqualified by age because in a sense the longer you do it the more habitual it becomes meaning you're not going to lose that commitment to just the example I gave you of the 90-year-old person you're not going to lose the commitment to rule by virtue of age because the more you do it, the more it becomes ingrained as your habitual behavior. So that's why the coane who lives in the world of rules is not disqualified by age. What can disqualify him? M which symbolically can mean physical disability. Meaning what's going to stop the guy from going to show his physical limitations. At some point there may be physical limitations that kick in. At that point it's beyond his control. So that's why the world of the co is limited by physical disabilities but it's not limited by age because age only increases a greater commitment to the habits of a lifetime. With the world of emotion is exactly the opposite. The big in the world of emotion is burnout. Meaning as you get older, you might lose the enthusiasm. That's a serious problem. Right? I I see this in myself every day. You know, uh or uh is a lively crowd. They're always having parties, always going somewhere, right? If I if I if I if I were fully committed to the social program of my yeshiva, uh I would be at I would be at a wedding every night and a vort and a bris and a pigeon ab, right? So I'm a little antisocial. So uh I get myself out of some of these things. Uh but you see the guys sing and dance and leitic and passionate. You get older, you know, it's harder to get involved in all of that. In fact, I used to say, you know, I was a Reverend Silver Spring for many years that what is the dividing line between kid and adult. So I suggested the dividing line is on Simka's Torah. Do you try to stop hakus or do you try to prolong a cuff? This is this is a perennial fight, right? The old grouchy people uh are always trying to stop our cuff. you're going too long and the young enthusiastic people always want to keep on going right so I remember a time when I would look at those people who want to stop the hakavos you know or says oh those are the old grouchy people now that I become an old grouchy person I look at these kids you know just to just you know they have no consideration so what was always a source of humor to me is that you know because I was in the show for 25 years I remembered the I remembered these people as kids who had prolonged the hakapas and I remember them as adults when they would try to stop the hakapas. I says, "You've transitioned uh from enthusiastic kids to a grouchy not old man but you know grouchy middle-aged middle-aged guy." Uh but that's what happens. So the problem of the world of the ley is burnout by age. It's at a certain age. You're burnt out. you know, you're not capable of the enthusiasm that has to be generated. But physical disability in some sense doesn't limit you because passion in miraculous ways can sometimes transcend even your physical limitations. Now I'm not referring to the Christian things uh you know those probably fake things where the guy in the wheelchair you know gets up and start dancing uh because he's inspired but but the truth is there is something like that intense emotion can give a person a kak to go beyond their physical limitations. So you see it's a beautiful idea that in the world of rules age works in your favor but you'll have physical limitations. In the world of emotion age can hurt you but when you're below the age and you still have your passion on fire the physical limitations don't stop you right and that's why the ley and the coain work in two different modalities. Now ideally you know uh you know the famous saying of the safer it's also a beautiful song and the title of a beautiful book mishkone e in my heart I build a mishkan a dwelling place for god every one of us is a ba mikdash a place where god's presence rests so in a sense here's the thing. Every one of us is a basikdash or a mishkan. Just as the mishka needed both the Cohen and the ley in the construction of our own Mishkan, we have to incorporate the Cohen and the Levy. We have to incorporate number one a absolute firm commitment to follow God's rules whether we're inspired or not. and not to ignore something because we don't think it know inspires us. Follow the rules. Be a coang. Do your job. But at the same time, we can't allow ourselves to become passionless, dry, mechanical, superficial. We have to do it with joy and with passion and with excitement. the world of the levy. So we build our mishka by combining the coain and the ley because the mishka needs the coen and the levy in order for the avoida to be to be complete. Right? Right. So this is a thought we need to think about that um and it's hard sometimes because sometimes you know you'll find that people are so fixated on rules that they somehow don't bring their heart to their avod. And sometimes people who seem to bring their heart to the avod have an impatience with the rules. The they don't understand how the rules help them. One is the ley without the cohen one is the cohen without the ley. You got to combine them about. So wish you a wonderful week and a good good chall. Thank you. Sure. [Music] My birthday is your sh