Rav Yitzchak Breitowitz: The Hidden Truth of Israel's Kings

You see your tomorrow. Okay. Hi everybody. Uh we do have a small crowd tonight, but thank you for coming and as always uh we're dedicating our shar to pray for the protection of um Israel uh the lasting unity of the people of Israel which will lead to victory and we pray for all of those whose health has been affected by terror and for the and protection for all of Israel and for the very soon uh refu Taos basel and dove ben shashana. May all of them have Israel and aliat in memory of clonamus benom whose yard site was the 28th of a literally today before hashem. He was able to leave Germany with his two children shortly after Crystal and and obviously that enabled him to establish a family that continues to this day. In memory of the mother of Abrami Fine, a good friend of ours, Miriam Batra Shimon Levy. May Hashem have mercy on him also on the 28th of A. And congratulations to Rava Ramy for finishing the six orders of the Mishna the whole shas on her yard sitem. It should be a true nama for her and it should also be a great sus for you uh to finish shass and may you to do it many many times. In addition uh we are approaching the month of El. The month of El is approaching the yum. So in preparation for the upcoming Yamim toim Yonet has begun its campaign to collect for financially stressed families and in order to distribute food vouchers to recipients 100% of the contributions will go directly to the families in need. So it really is a 100% and asal teach us and we say in dinghoura it is chuba it is prayer and it is the giving of that have this tremendous power to cancel the evil or the negative decrees that exist. So this is a time in which indeed we should be marba increase our stucka and a link to contribute can be found in the YouTube description box uh below and on the web page. May all of us be particularly in the merit of the uh that we do. Uh we are approaching of course Roshesh El. This is the very end of the month of Av and as we talked about last week uh El is a time of great closeness to Hashem. Uh these are called ye raton days of divine grace where Hashem is making himself very very accessible for us. And here I just want to talk a little bit about para shaftim the para that we're reading and its connection really to ly but let me preface it with a general observation on safer devarim safer devarim are mosher raenu's farewell speeches now to some degree it is a review of things that happened before and that that's why the rabbitical name for safer devim is mishna tora which means means a repetition of the Torah, Mishna Torah. In fact, that's exactly what Deuteronomy means. Deuteronomy is Greek for the second law, the repetition of the law. On the other hand, although that's true to a large extent, it is also absolutely the case that the book of Dvarim contains new mitzvos that do not appear anywhere else. Meaning, safer davor is far more than a repetition. There are new commandments. For example, the mitzvah of yamim does not appear outside of safer devarim. Uh the mitzvah of get the idea that a woman can be divorced via a get procedure that does not appear outside of the book of zarim. Now the Ramban makes perhaps the obvious observation that there is certainly no question that Mosher Rabenu didn't make up anything. Meaning if Moshe is giving us a mitzvah, it's because God already gave him the mitzvah at Sinai, but for whatever reason, Moshe was not empowered to reveal it until later. Meaning, you have to understand there's a big big difference between when did Moshe get the Torah and when did we get the Torah. Moshe was given all of the mitzvos at Mount Si, the 40 days. But Hashem did not authorize him to reveal those commandments except over a 40-year period. So there are many commandments that we didn't get till the last day of Mosher Rabenu's life. Okay? So be sure you understand this. The Jewish people did not receive the Torah in one fell swoop. They received the mitzvah of the Torah in dribbs and drabs in a peacemeal fashion over 40 days. So the Ramban says it's not sorry not 40 years. 40 years. So the Ramban says any new commandments in the book of Dvar were undoubtedly given to Moshe but for whatever reason Mosha Rabenu was not told to reveal them until a certain point. The Ramban points out that many of the mitzvah in the book of Dvorim are especially helpful for the Jewish people that are going to be entering Aritis, meaning they were less necessary in the desert and therefore they were not given. But now there's going to be a new challenge. Moshe is going to die. Remember the book of Dvarim begins Rosheshvat which is only five weeks before Mosher Rabenu's death. The whole book of Dvaram are the speeches of the last five weeks of Mosher Rabenu's life. So what he's doing is he's preparing the new generation for the challenges that they're going to face in building a society in Erit Israel especially since they will be building the society without Mosher Rabenu who is going to die without entering Erit Israel. So a very good example of this idea is the need to establish authority structures, different spheres of authority. You might even call it to use a an American term separation of powers. Mosher Rabenu was more or less a oneact show. Mosher Rabenu combined everything. He was the political leader. He was the religious leader. He was the prophet. He was the lawgiver. He was the intercessor in terms of prayer. Mosher Rabenu combined many many roles in one. But once Mosher Rabenu dies, there are going to have to be different institutions in Kal Israel that will be asserting different aspects of authority. And that is what emerges in this para. Melik, the king, the idea of a monarch that represents political authority. The Sanhedrin, the judges that you listen to, they represent religious authority over the interpretation of the Torah. That's the job of the Sanhedrin. Then you have prophet prophecy. Now prophecy, interestingly enough, is not a source of authority. In fact, the is that if a Nvi tells you what the is, you don't listen to him because the Torah is not in heaven. So the Melik is the political leader. The Sanhedrin are the interpreters. The Naveim are notic interpreters. But remember, prophecy is discussed in the para as well. But prophets you might call are the religious leaders in the sense of giving us messages of spiritual inspiration and calls to Chuva coming from God. Okay. So we have political leadership, we have hakic leadership, we have religious spiritual leadership and then finally we have the lower system of basins which are there for individualized dispute resolution. Right? The high Sanhedrin of 70 is there for definitive halic determination just like laavale a supreme court but the lower buten are not there to create new hala so to speak but they're there to resolve disputes so one of the major themes in the book of chauffeam is you might call it decentralization of the authority that had been vested in Mosher Rabenu as a sole individual and essentially his shoes have to be filled by many many different institutions. Call it se separation of powers, call it decentralization of authority but that is a major major theme. So now I just want to point out a few observations on these different types of authorities. Uh let's first talk about melik. Now, it's a very interesting question. Is there a mitzvah on the Jewish people to appoint a mel? Now, the Torah seems to say yes. Sim is an imperative. You shall appoint for yourself a king. The Rambam so declares the Rambam declares that when you come to Erit Israel and the judges have achieved a state of peace, the next step is to appoint a meal. Now the obvious question is this and this is a famous famous question that all the Risham grapple with. If there is a mitzvah to have a monarchy, a mitzvah to have a melik, then why when the Jewish people requested a king in the days of the nihabi gave them a tremendous to a tremendous muser by saying you want a human flesh and blood king because you are rejecting Hashem as your king. And had you truly accepted Hashem as your king, you wouldn't want a flesh and blood king because again the way they asked it was we want a king like all the nations have. So the question is there's a contradiction. I mean the Tory itself says you shall have a king. And by the way that negative language like all the appears in the Torah too. The Torah says when you say I want a king. So how could Schmoo be angry? So because of this the Rambam has to give a maybe a doic answer and the Rambam says there is nothing wrong with having a king and there's nothing wrong with asking for a king but their motives were not proper. Their motives were to circumvent the Torah. Their motives were not to be governed by the Torah. So it wasn't the actual request that was tra. It was the motive behind the request and because their motivation was not proper gave them a temporary malus that was destined to fail. Because here's the thing, Yakovu said that sovereignty over the Jewish people must always reside in the tribe of Yehuda. Lo Yosur Shvet Mahuda. The Davidic line is from Shvet Yehuda. And yet the very first king of Israel was Shvet Binyam, Masha Hamelik. So the Rambam says by definition that was set up to fail. By definition that was a temporary malus and God gave them a temporary malus because they act they asked with an improper motivation. Now this itself raises some interesting questions because the the the book of Shoil is Mashma that the only reason Sha forfeited Malus was because of his sin in not totally eradicating a malik. And if Sha had fulfilled the request that God had given him or the command that God had given him, Sha's malus would have been eternal. Meaning it's very different than the Rambam. The Rambam is understanding that Shaul's Malus by definition would have to terminate. The Sukimo say the opposite that had Sha not sinned his malus would have been eternal. How does that fit with the Davidic line and Mal Shahuda? That's a difficult question. So I I I I once discussed this question many many years ago maybe more than 40 years ago and one of the women in the shar gave a very ingenious answer she said for sure Malus would have gone to been to Shva Jud would not have stayed but here's the thing one of Davidid's wives was Schol's daughter Mik Batshaul and theoretically the malus of David could have continued continued from Mik instead of Batba. So indeed Shaul's malus would have stopped for sure but had he not sinned the Davidic line would have continued from Mik B uh and because of the sin it did not continue with Mik. Mikl had no child it continued from BV that's a very good good answer. Okay. Now this is how the Rambam learns because the Rambam understands that is a mitzvah and because it is a commandment you immediately have a problem. How does that fit with the story of and the Rambam has to give the answer that the Rambam gives. And indeed most reshim that minino is a mitzvah. That does raise a question. So why don't we appoint a king? Now it's it's an interesting question. But most reaim do count the appointment of a king as a positive commandment. There is however one very notable minority opinion and this is very fascinating and that is the opinion of the aarbanel. The Abarbanel, Don Yitz, Don is the title of Spanish nobility. Don Yitzkabanel was the finance minister for Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. He was one who financed uh Columbus and he lived at the time of the Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews from Spain. and a Barbanel was so valued by the king that they were going to give him an exemption that he could remain Jewish and remain in Spain. He refused to take that on and he went into exile on the 9th of A 1492. He was at the head of the procession. and he was the leader of the Jewish community and the Rabinell spent the rest of his life uh with his children first in Portugal and then in the citystates of Italy, Naples, Florence, Venice and that is where he wrote much of his great voluminous commentaries and in his commentary both to the book of Dvarim Parim and in the book of Shuel Arbanel and this is very very rare writes at length how monarchy is not an ideal form of government. That monarchies create dictatorships, monarchies create a lack of accountability, monarchies create abuses of power. And he writes that to him the ideal system of government is not a monarchy but it is a similar to the Italian citystates which were run by what we would call representative democracies or republics in which people would vote uh as for their leadership and there would also be term limits because if there's no term limits this is a problem both in the Knesset era and more so in the United States uh what happens basically is at some points. You can do what you want because you're not going to be held accountable. But when there's term limits, you realize you can't be too oppressive because the very people you're oppressing might win the next election uh etc. and the like. So the Barbaranel actually praises it's very very rare. He praises democracy or technically if you want to be pedantic the republican form of government. Well, you know the difference. uh putting aside the democratic party, Republican party which has no relevance to definitions. Uh the difference between a democracy and a republic is a democracy is where every single citizen expresses an opinion. New England had that for many many years. They had town meetings when they were small towns. So everybody shows up and everybody votes. That's called a democracy. A republican form of government is when the general population elects representatives who then decide. So technically, if you want to be pedantic, let's say the United States or Israel for that matter is not a democratic government. It is a republican form of government. Again, nothing to do with the party names, Democrat or Republican. So the Abarbanel praises quite literally uh the uh elected republican form of government with term limits and he learns that is not a mitzvah. It's simply a permission meaning if you're not on a madrega and you're spiritually inferior and you say you want a king okay you can have it but don't expect a yashikawak and that's the way he understands the story in schmo so this is quite unique and there's no question that theel is very strongly influenced by the events in his own life and in fact he says that he says he knows how monarchies work. He knows how kings get corrupted with arrogance. And he talks about Ferdinand and Isabella. You know, it's reminiscent of I think what Winston Churchill once said. He said, "Democracy," which he meant republican democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government ever created except for everything else." Yeah, democracies are slow. They're inefficient. There's gridlock. you know, when you have dictatorships, things can be done very quickly. Trump is trying to kind of create that type of system. But even he, you know, is up against the wall. There are things he cannot do as a self-proclaimed dictator and in many ways perhaps it's good uh that that he that he cannot. Uh so the point I want to make is that there apparently is a huge makus reaim. Most of the resham assume that monarchy is the ideal and there's a mitzvah to have a king. The ibarbanel says at least until mashiach comes monarchy is actually a sinful improper arrangement that God allows the Jewish people to have but it's certainly not the ruton hashem. Okay. So that's a in which the learns is not a mitzvah. It is simply a a reluctance permission that God gives and hence the nishel was angry. So that that's one interesting makus. Uh the nitiv tries to make a compromised position on this. And the nitiv says it would be ideal not to have a king but once the nation feels they need it. It then becomes a mitzvah, not just a rishas because he makes the point that in an ideal in an ideal Jewish society, fear of God would be so powerful that we would just keep the Torah because Hashem said to keep the Torah. We don't need kings. We don't need governments. We don't need structures. People will naturally be honest, God-fearing, law-abiding. But if society kind of degenerates so that there's crime and lawlessness and the like so that which would would be improper actually can become mandatory. You see there's point in other words it's somewhat similar to draw a totally unrelated analogy but it reminds me a little bit. You know people say um is art scroll this is really nothing to do with it but you'll see the analogy. Is art scroll good or art scroll bad? Is it good that we have art scroll or is it bad that we have art scroll? So some might say it this way. It would be better if we wouldn't have needed it. But once we need it, it's a wonderful thing that we have it. So it is a wonderful thing, but it would have been better had there not been such a need because people would be educated enough to go to the original Makoras. Now that has nothing to do with the topic of Melik granted but the nitiv is making a very similar argument. It would have been wonderful had we not needed a king but if we need it then we need to have it we need to have it at that point. So the has kind of a compromised position. uh just one little aura about about a melau that's very very interesting and at least one of these thoughts will be very relevant to yam no and that is Rav Albo the great Jewish philosopher uh wrote a classic safer on the fundamentals of faith called safer ho karim the book of fundamentals essentially the overall structure of the book interestingly enough one might have thought it would have controversial uh but and today it would have been controversial but it it was widely accepted is he differed with the Rambam. The Rambam says there are 13 principles of faith that a Jew must believe in. And if a Jew does not believe in any one of those 13 principles, even if he's religious, even if he's observant, even if he keeps all the commandments, but he is theologically flawed, he is a co-fair, a heretic, he is an apicorous, and he does not have a share in the world to come unless he does cha. This is a very extreme judgment. Meaning even if he's totally observant of the Torah, the Rambam maintains that a denial of anyone of the Yudgy amuna classifies someone as a heretic or an Apicorus who does not have a sharabah. Although of course there's always the possibility of chuva. Reseo wrote a whole book attempting to demonstrate that there are not 13 principles of faith. You have to differentiate between what are called eurim roots or sharashim same thing versus anafim that are branches. And his argument was many of the things that the Rambam classified as ear are actually enough. Now let me illustrate this a little bit. his he maintains there's only three fundamental principles of faith that a Jew must believe in. Uh issue number one or principle number one is there is one God who created heaven and earth. Number two, there is some principle of reward for good behavior and accountability for bad behavior. That's called sarish. And number three, Hashem revealed his will of what is good and what is evil through divine revelation of the Torah. So the three principles are now to illustrate in a tangible way the difference between Rao and the Rambam, let's take something as the following. The Rambam's 12th principle is I believe in the coming of a Mashiach and even though right this is the the one that's sung a lot and even though even though these are not the Rambam's words but this is a paraphrase of the Rambam even though he delays wait for him every single day. So number 12 is number 13 is there will eventually be a resurrection of the dead. So let's assume you have a person who says I believe in God. I believe in Torah and I believe that every mitzvah is going to be rewarded. Every a is going to be punished in some way. But I don't believe that resurrection has to be physical. The most important thing is the soul gets reward with God or I don't believe there has to be a human being that's a mashiach. So according to the Rambam such a person is an apicoris a kofair he doesn't have a share in allah because both and are amuna now rase alba would say the following he would say the only thing that's e here is there is a reward and punishment system. Mashiach and are branches as to how that reward and punishment system works. So even if I deny the branch, I am not co-fair in the ear. So I'm not an API co. Now here we have to be very very very careful. I'm I'm taking off some time from the main part of the shar to clarify a point. Sometimes people will paraphrase this by saying Ravose Albo did not believe in physical resurrection or Ravose Albo did not believe in a human mashiach. Absolutely false. Ra believed in every single thing the Rambam believed in. Their belief systems were identical. He believes in a mashiach. He believes in the only mus between them is not the substance of the beliefs but how you classify beliefs. Are they ear or are they enough? So Ravalo's point is if I believe in but I don't think it takes the particular form of I may be wrong I may be foolish I may be stupid but being an idiot is not the same as being an apicorus and that's an important lesson for today as well but again again I I I want to emphasize this point reveso is not changing what the correct belief system of Judaism is he is simply saying that a certain amount of mistakes don't put you outside of the fold. You are mistaken but you're not outside of the fold as opposed to the Rambam that might quite literally exclude you. Okay. So that's the general theme of Safero Karim. Now, Sephor Karim often goes on in very interesting digressions and that's why I'm bringing it in because he raises an interesting question. Schol was the very first king of Israel and Schaamel was a very righteous person and God gave him the commandments to eradicate Amalik and Sha did fulfill the commandments around 99%. He spared the king of Amalik that Shmo eventually killed and he spared some of the sheep, some of the animals of Amalik to be brought as carbonos. Sho comes back and Shul basically conveys the message from Hashem and that is one strike and you're out. You're finished. Hashem has given your malus to a person that is better than you. That's now I discussed a few moments ago that according to the Rambam schol wouldn't have lasted anyway but perhaps David's malus might have been perpetuated via mik and that chance was now taken away. Now so with sha we could describe it as one strike and you're out. No second chances. Now David sees this woman Batva bathing on the roof and David is attracted to her and what does David do? Uh David sends her husband uh to war and he puts an order that he should be in the front and he gets killed by the enemy. Uh and that enables David to marry Bacheva after he was basically was with Bacheva. Uh so David seems to be guilty seems to be guilty number one of adultery with a married woman because he had intercourse with her before her husband was killed >> and number two at least indirectly guilty of murder. indirectly because David deliberately ordered that he be sent to a very dangerous part of the front which would result in his death. Now Nusan the Nvi tells David how serious these aas are. Now, now it's true that the Gomorrah says about David that anyone that says David sinned is making a mistake because technically David Hamel did not commit adultery and he was not guilty of murder. The Gomorrah explains, "David Amelik was not guilty of adultery because every soldier in King David's army would give their wives a get before they went to war. So in the event they were missing in action, which is still the situation we face, the women would not be aot if they could marry and then if the husband returned, they would remarry each other. So technically BVA was a single woman. So there was no adultery. And in terms of the murder, well the garra says ora was actually deserving of death because David gave him an order. This was an opposite order. In other words, okay, this part of the story people don't talk about that much, but this is a very disturbing story. David is with Bacheva. Uh he gets her pregnant. David wants to cover up that pregnancy by ordering Ora home from the battlefield to have a conjugal visit with his wife so that David could then say that this is Orya's child. Ora refused to come home because he didn't want to leave the battleground. So at that point David said send them up front. So the Gomorrah actually says Ora disobeyed a royal order for that he is deserving of death. So the Gomorrah says as a matter of technicality David is not guilty of any sin. Although the Gmorra does not explain the cover up. The coverup seems to be to be an enormous problem but that's not even addressed. The only thing the GU ever focuses on is the adultery and the murder. It does not focus on the cover up and that that's actually a problem that I have. But putting that big question aside. The basic idea here is that Davidid was technically in the right. And that's why the Gmorrah says anybody who says David is guilty of a sin is making a big mistake. But I want to add to the Gmorrah. Anyone who says that David didn't sin at all is making a big mistake as well. The Gomorrah does not mean David is not guilty of a sin. It just means he's not guilty of adultery and murder in their grossest way. What does the prophet Nasan is not alive anymore? Nassan is now the prophet Nathan Nusani, right? So Nasanovi comes to David and says, "David, I got a question to ask you. There's a rich man and a poor man. And the rich man has flocks of sheep. And the poor man has one little lamb. And the rich man makes a banquet and he takes that little lamb of the poor and he slaughters the lamb, leaving the poor man with nothing at all. What do you think should be done to such a selfish man? And David answers with some hyperbole actually. Such a man deserves to die. Although theft is not a capital crime but such a man is so wretched and evil and Nusani is a real dramatic moment. Nothing. He points to the king and says, "You are that man. That's you. Who do you think you are?" Which means David had all the technicalities on his side. But spiritually, Hashem knew his heart. And spiritually, David knew his heart. So because of this David suffered tremendously. The whole book of Shoil from that point onwards is about all the tribulations that David felt but Cheva got pregnant from David and that son died was born and died very very young. The rebellion of Abshalam where a son tried to kill his father was the consequence. Duffford suffered tremendously. But the one thing that didn't happen is Hashem did not take away the malus from Dovet and his children. Ravi Albo asks a fascinating question. Why is it that when Sha commits an Ara that's it? There is no second chance and when David commits an aa that in many ways is worse because Sha's a vera was a sin of omission. He didn't carry something out at least in a spiritual way. His adultery, murder, cover up, sheer and he suffers. He does suffer. He does not get a free ride, but he keeps the mas. Why is Sha given a much harder time than Doug? Survival gives two interesting answers. Both answers are interesting. Answer number one is he differentiates between sins that are failures in carrying out the duties of a melik versus sins that are simply the personal yateshara and tya that a person has. Let me give you a secular example. In the United States, the Constitution says a president may be impeached, removed from office uh only for what is called high the language of the Constitution is high crimes and misdemeanors, a term that's totally not defined. Now, remember Trump once made a statement that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and nothing would happen. Well, there's an interesting machus among constitutional scholars. If committing a crime is an impeachable offense, let's imagine a president just shot somebody or a president raped somebody. Now, could a president go to jail? Actually, he could. A president could go to jail, but could he be removed for office? There are many constitutional scholars that say impeachment is what you do when he abuses the office of the presidency like by taking bribes by committing treason. But if he stammers hits people with a baseball bat or rapes or murders, that's a crime, but that's not an abuse of the position of office. And therefore you can actually have the anomaly of a president who would be president of the country but he would be in jail. Now there's a mcclo so to speak among constitutional scholars whether a stam crime is the basis for removal. But here's what says schol's failure was a failure in carrying out the duties of a melik. A melik had the responsibility of eradicating a malik. Sha failed to carry out those responsibilities. As a result, he gets removed. David zeros are personal sins that are connected to a yateshara of Gilearayas. So says Ravalo personal sin does not necessarily remove you from office. only those sins that represent an abuse of the power of the office. Now Lama that first terret that first answer is difficult on a number of fronts. First of all, even if that's true in a secular political office, it doesn't make that much sense that that should be true in a position that the Torah creates where a king is supposed to be a role model of righteousness and goodness to simply say his aos don't count. But I want to point out that uh in the impeachment issue, this was actually part of the issue about um adultery and the like are not necessarily grounds for impeachment. That was applying Ravalo was applying that lumbus by Amel. Okay. But then Raabo gives a second answer that's a very powerful answer and a very relevant answer. He says the difference between Sha and David is not in the magnitude of their sin. Maybe Sha Zra was I'm sorry. Maybe David Zu was worse than Sha Zra. But the issue is how do they respond when the sin is called to their attention? When Shmoel confronts Sha after the war against Amalik. So Shmoel says to Sha, why have you not carried out the commandments of God? And what does Sha say? So the first thing is he denies it. He says, "I've carried out everything that God has said." Denial. And then Shel says, "Why do I hear the bleeding of the sheep? You can't deny it anymore." So Sha blames other people. I was afraid of the people that were making demands on me. So Sha at least in this particular context is evading the responsibility for his actions by either engaging in denial, equivocation or blaming other people for dragging him down. When Nasen Hanavi comes to David and gives David the parable of the rich man and the poor man and David says in outrage, "Such a man deserves to die." And Nasavi says to David, "You are that man." David only says two words. I have sinned to God. Now, what's interesting is all of the excuses that the Gomorrah gives him. She had a guess. He was kaya because he didn't listen to my order. He had all of those excuses and he didn't want to use them because he knew that in his heart there was sin. So says Raabo and this is a powerful thought. Leaders can make mistakes. Leaders can sin. Leaders can be na with their Yateshara. But to remain a leader you have to acknowledge it. You have to accept responsibility and then you can move on. And the greatness of David Aamelik was not that he was immune from sin but that he took the responsibility for his action and then did chuva. You can't do chuva until you acknowledge at least to yourself that you committed something wrong. As long as you're living in a state of internal denial, chuva becomes impossible. And where did David learn this precious quality? From his ancestor, Yehuda. Yehuda sleeps with someone that he thinks is a prostitute. It happens to be his daughter-in-law. When he sees his daughter-in-law pregnant, who is really supposed to be married by the third son, he's going to burn her at the stake. and she does not want to reveal his identity because she doesn't want to humiliate him. And the Gomorrah says it is better to be thrown in a fiery furnace rather than embarrass somebody publicly. She was going to die, but she sent the man that gave me this staff and this money belt. That was Yehuda giving her a deposit. He is the man that I was with. Meaning, if Yehuda admits, so be it. If not, she'll go to her death. Yehuda comes forward and says sutka mi she is more righteous than me. So a leader is not someone even a spiritual leader is not someone that's perfect and doesn't make mistakes but someone that makes mistakes. someone that's flawed in some way but takes the responsibility for their action. In fact, uh to go a field that's actually why Malus was not given to Yoseph. Yoseph could have been a Malik. Yoseph was a Malik because when Yoseph is subject to temptation, Yoseph doesn't fail. Just says no. When Yehuda is subject to temptation, he fails. but acknowledges his responsibility and does chuva. A melik who is perfect who never makes mistakes is not a role model for me because I make so many mistakes. I need someone who makes mistakes but shows me how to rise above them. And that was the my love yehuda. That's the my love. And if Albo says that is the difference between sha and David in the sense of taking responsibility for your action. You know it reminds me a little bit rough hutner all the way back in the 1970s once made an interesting observation about the genre of gdolean biographies. Right? We have uh many many biographies of great great rabbis. And uh when Rafner said this, there were much fewer than there were then. But Rafutner pointed out that sometimes the biographies do a disservice because they paint paragons of absolute virtue which have no connection to the type of life that I'm living or that my children are living. something like when he was four years old, you know, he started fasting every Monday, Thursday, uh, Monday. Uh, and he finished the Babylonian Talmet at 5 and the US at 6 and the writings of the at 7 and his bar mitzvah instead of giving a devar to Torah, he just recited the whole tour in Bose, you know, by heart. And, you know, you look at these stories and they're amazing, super genius stories. And you know, they're interesting because they're interesting precisely because they're like so unbelievable. But then you ask, okay, what's the message to me? What's the message to my children? What exact? Because as great as my kids might be, they're not they're not they're not that, right? So what's going on? So Rafner pointed out that you have to know that all the many not all were actually very very brilliant, but not all. Not all. But you also have to know that they had their struggles. They had their failures. They had their mistakes. They had their doubts. They had their uncertainties. And sometimes it would be a tremendously useful lesson to me if I could know what the Kazones went through when he was 14 years. I'm not saying there is, but an example. And Rafner says, "Knowing the failures and struggles of great people can actually be much more instructive than just reading about their unbroken successes. To what degree would that be lush and harat?" Again, you might have heard of this. I mean, Rey Kineski's son uh Nasen Kamineski uh wrote a tremendously interesting book uh which was never totally finished. the making of a godo which is supposed to be supposed to be a biography of his other father Kamatki but it started branching off into footnotes digressions excurses footnotes of the footnotes of the footnotes of the footnotes extremely difficult to read in that way there's like 80 pages of text and around 900 pages of footnotes and digressions and the safer got put in because he decided He wanted to write a book that just told the unvarnished truth about the very revered figures that we know from Europe. And these were stories of so- and so had a girlfriend, you know, whatever it would be. So and so I mean listen, nobody was a mass murderer. Rest assured of that. We're not talking about that. But different struggles, you know, should I stay in learning? Should I pursue a career in university? And he got put in. No, no, he didn't. The book the book got put in because it portrayed a less than perfect picture of Gdole Torah. And Ra Nasan defended what he did repeatedly by saying it is the truthful depiction that's actually going to help people a lot more as they understand all of these struggles. So what's interesting is the book has a very interesting is not alive anymore. Um and he himself was Rashev. was not stam he was a aim himself. Uh but just to give you an example uh when making of a guttle was was being sold in swarm stores before the ban on it. So which was like $25 a volume. So you can get uh I think it was two volumes. You can get for $50 you got two volumes as soon as it got banned. So he listened to the ban and he he refused to sell the book for a while because it was banned. But people were selling their own copies on eBay. Uh, is it e eBay? Yeah, eBay. For $500. So, the best way to increase the sale of your book is to get it banned. When there's a on a book, I'm not saying this is right, but when there's a book, everybody wants to buy it. So, that's what happened with the making of a gun. So, eventually, I think RNA just put it on the he people were buying it anyway. So, he put it on the internet. So, I think you can actually get it on the internet again. He he wrote a follow-up book which he which he instructed should not be published till after his death uh describing his thoughts on the banning of making of the gutle whatever. Okay. I I'm not sure I did not actually see that book. I'm not sure if it's out there. Okay. Um I I'm not into into necessarily discussing that controversy although it's a very very fascinating controversy but I am using it for the point that the safer says that the difference between sha and is not the magnitude of the sin but their willingness to take responsibility and the notion that even a leader who fails spiritually and still deserve to be a leader as long as he shows us how to get up again. And Rafner writes over and over again that sadic is not the person who doesn't fall. He's the person who falls and gets up. And that's what the puss says in Mishva sadik that sadic falls seven times and gets up. Art Sadic is not the one who doesn't fall. Art sadic falls but then shows us you don't give up. You keep on going. You come back through chuva. And that was the greatness of David. And as as the swarm say that is why the malus was given to David rather than Yoseph who was a perfectly righteous person because Yoseph is the paradigm of not sinning. Yehuda and David are the paradigm of sinning but then getting up from that sin and taking responsibility. So that's a thought about malus. Now one final thought about elo is that in addition uh to the authority structures uh in this para once again there is a reference to ar mikl which occurs a few places in the Torah cities of refuge. the idea that when you kill somebody inadvertently the goal ladam can kill you until you seek refuge and protection there. So the babe has a very interesting observation about the ar mikl and he says the following uh ar mikl only existed in Israel or east of the Jordan which also had kadusha of Israel. There is no institution of Miklat in. So if I killed initiate I I I can take advantage of the or but I got to come here meaning the Gadam could kill me until I reach Erit Israel and the Mikla. So on one hand there is a rule that a court system Sanhedrin does exist both in Arit Israel and meaning you can have a Sanhedrin init but the miklad only exists in Arit Israel or a leard. So the Rebi says the following when it comes to judging a person says do not judge a person until you're in their place. reading we have to have separate but for you can't have an Israel based in decide what the standards of fact that's a problem even today right somebody's in college campus kir okay so the shila would be um am I allowed uh to give a shir if a woman shows up uh and her shoulders are exposed so he'll call up some pos well what is the pos going to say in other words does not change I'm not suggesting changes but you need someone who is familiar with the local conditions of the situation and the gdole have recognized that when Rav Mosha was asked about issues in Erit Israel he said you have to ask and raash would say the same thing about questions in America and even within Eric Israel if yash would be asked about something in Tel Aviv, he would say you have to ask a post in Tel Aiv because there is a notion that although does not change at every whim, but it is very situationally sensitive and therefore you need someone that is familiar with the situation and that is why the Sanhedrin has to exist everywhere. Israel. But when it comes to the Miklat, the Miklat is a punishment phrase. Now remember this, all of the arikllet were also Levite cities. They were cities whose resident population were sadikim, were teachers, were the spiritual manag of ami Israel. Now why does a person go to an air mikl? We mentioned this a few weeks ago. A person does not go to a near mikl for a totally unavoidable accident. You only go to a near miklut if you were negligent. It's not premeditated. That's true. But you were negligent. You were careless. You didn't stop at a stop sign. You were going beyond the speed limit and you ran over a child. Meaning you go to an Mika as a punishment for your callousness. your carelessness, your lack of regard for life. So what does the Torah say? When you're a person who has demonstrated an indifference to life, you need to be put in a better, higher, more spiritual environment. So that's what an air mikllet is. Meaning we put a person to be with the Levim, to be uplifted. The Rebby was saying that this should theoretically be the philosophy of a prison system. You know, one of the major problems with incarceration is you can take an 18-year-old kid who may have his first defense of marijuana or whatever it is and he's thrown into a prison system that has mass murderers, rapists, and the worst types of criminals. So, who are his role models? Who are his population? Who are his influences? people that would drag him lower and lower and lower and lower which is why the recidivism rate in prison is like 80% extremely high. The Reby's point is if somebody fails because of defects in character that is a function at least in part of the negativities of the environment that they're in. So you don't put them in a more negative environment. You try to put them in a more positive environment. And that's the lesson of the year mikah. Now I understand that's not suitable for everybody. If someone is a violent, dangerous person, that's a separate type of issue. But generally speaking, whatever philosophy of incarceration you're trying to implement should be geared towards rehabilitation, a positive atmosphere, and something that builds on the potential good within a a person. Right? That's the air miklet. Now what's interesting is I mentioned last week that one of the ramazim for the month of el is the famous verse in shirim anod I am for my beloved my beloved is for me and the first letter of the four words that's one that's probably the best known but interestingly enough there is a second reme that's from the Torah itself Torah itself and that's the remes of mikl now it's not a parim it's in parishim but it's mikl which is discussed in parim and it says the following for he who did not wait in ambush premeditation elimar something for him for nonp premeditated murders. I have given you a a place that you may run to. So here is the rem. If you take the words, God has prepared a place of refuge. Once again, it spells l. So l is encoded in a puk that is dealing with the array mikl. So the question becomes what does miklat have to do with l and the short answer is that every sin that we commit is a form of murder. Hashem gave us a life. Hashem gave us a soul and that life has a finite amount of time. hopefully 120 or more, but it's finite in which we're able to fill it with goodness, mitzvah, and holiness and virtue. And every time we don't use those seconds, those minutes, those hours, those days, those weeks, those months, we kill time in negative ways. That is a form of murder. We are murdering ourselves. We're murdering ourselves but but we're hashem we're not murdering ourselves based but we're showg we're careless we're not paying attention we're not thinking enough we don't value what life can be strongly enough so all of us are wrote him the shogg We need an air mikl. L is the ear mikl in time. You have two types of refuges. There is a refuge in geographical space which is the miklat the ar miklat. And then there is an ear miklat in time where hashem designated a time of year where you try to contemplate, you try to meditate, you try to think about the direction that our lives are going and how to make it more positive and how to make it more meaningful. So the reason why the month of El is encoded in the para of yikat is that all of us are wrote of our own lives. Now it's been well said one who wastes time for no reason is guilty of suicide. I mean I mean think about this. It's a very dramatic thing. If, god forbid, one were to take their life even though they only had five minutes left, they would be guilty of suicide because they took five minutes of life and they took it away. Okay? I mean, that would be the right Hashem would judge the person as a suicide. Again, I'm not dealing with theic issue of extreme depression or pain. That that's matter. But it is suicide. So what's the difference between somebody who shoots himself the last five minutes versus somebody that just wastes five minutes in lush and horror whatever it is you took the life and you destroyed it for that duration. So all of us are wrote but we are shog because God knows we're not acting out of mal maliciousness and Hashem gives us the mic to give us atonement to give us purification and that is the precious opportunity of this time of year. So bas may we merit to use this opportunity wisely. Thank you. You my birthday party.