Speaker 1: But welcome to Jewish History Uncensored with Mark Shapiro. This
Speaker 1: is season sixteen, episode thirty six.
Speaker 2: Okay, hello everyone, Welcome again, especially for those of us
Speaker 2: in the New York area living through the biggest snowstorm
Speaker 2: we've had in many years. I want to begin. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: we lost three more important people this week. If you're
Speaker 2: not aware of it, I'll share it with you. Say
Speaker 2: something about each one. The first is they called himr
Speaker 2: of Dovad Rachellem David Slivachik, the son of Revel, although
Speaker 2: really the last person born in Brisk who could have
Speaker 2: would have remembered the Torah world of brisk obviously, uh,
Speaker 2: someone who carried on the Brisker dynasty, the Brisker method.
Speaker 2: Let me say one interesting point about him, though, because
Speaker 2: if you know a bit about brisk you'll know that
Speaker 2: he was very extreme and big anti Zionist, all sorts
Speaker 2: of extreme stuff. But he's not sot Mar. And what
Speaker 2: I mean by this is, as follows the sool in
Speaker 2: my opinion of Sotmar, isn't the Antiseionism. I mean that's
Speaker 2: people in his freedom of thought, if they want to
Speaker 2: be Antizialionists. Of course, I don't like it if they
Speaker 2: are ally with non Jews against Israel, but usually they don't.
Speaker 2: But I'm not such a Mazaki person that it bothers
Speaker 2: me so much if wants to be anti Zionist. What
Speaker 2: bothers me is that I think is the real sool
Speaker 2: is that the degrade tower scholars that are not in
Speaker 2: their camp. And we have we saw that you vote
Speaker 2: of rebbel Avi nearror of Hero's hanking about this that
Speaker 2: was never a trait in the Salivachik family. In fact,
Speaker 2: you can look in uh if you're just interested, you
Speaker 2: can go to u shii a.
Speaker 3: V.
Speaker 2: Michilimdsalavchik Drushagada. I found one of the volumes in which,
Speaker 2: after pages of blasting Zionism how terrible it is. And
Speaker 2: if you think that, uh, he thinks Zionism destroys the
Speaker 2: hope for Misha. If you think there's anything positive in
Speaker 2: the state of Israel, you have a problem, Uh, real
Speaker 2: extremist stuff. But then he says, and listen carefully to this, Sarmadabri.
Speaker 2: He says everything we said. This is after all the
Speaker 2: pages about how Zaionism is the worst possible thing. He says,
Speaker 2: Zehu al Hashita. He says, this is referring to the
Speaker 2: the idea, the Lolas al zelba an ashimh Redem a
Speaker 2: feel and he explains that we're not talking about individuals.
Speaker 2: And if you have Orthodox Jews who make a mistake
Speaker 2: and who follows Zionism a sore. He says, it's forbidden
Speaker 2: to degrade a Tamadraham and you have to at least
Speaker 2: hegi mam, but dere herritz and uh. And he goes
Speaker 2: on that this is He says, in all the years,
Speaker 2: I never heard my father degrade anyone, and also Rebraim
Speaker 2: never would degrade anyone. We know Repaiim Dafko went to
Speaker 2: the funeral of Schmoll Mulliver to let people know that
Speaker 2: the dispute was only an ideological the early Desionists. Well,
Speaker 2: it's Zionist, but also he's a good Obisroo to know
Speaker 2: that the dispute was only ideological, and this is a trait.
Speaker 2: Even ruff Cook is respected by the cell of HX.
Speaker 2: So it's although philosophically they are no different, and I
Speaker 2: shouldn't say they're no different than somethmore because their opposition
Speaker 2: to Zionism is not because the Gimos, the three. It's
Speaker 2: because of the heretical nature of secular Zionism, and also
Speaker 2: they thought that establishing the state would lead to mass
Speaker 2: uh deaths of Jews in the war. But in practice
Speaker 2: they're the same as Satmar and the toy Kart and
Speaker 2: the rest. They do not believe there should be a state. Uh,
Speaker 2: there should there shouldn't have been a state there They
Speaker 2: they think Zionism is a demonic basically, Uh, it's a
Speaker 2: way of turning Jews into irreligious like the Gulib. But
Speaker 2: in terms of how you deal with people who are Zionists,
Speaker 2: so we know that in some are they degrade routinely,
Speaker 2: not just Zionist rabbis, that they would degrade Ruby Steinmann,
Speaker 2: all sorts of there is unfortunately, all about degrading people
Speaker 2: disagree with them. It's an unbelievable sort of backwards type
Speaker 2: of education. But among the Briskers it's not that way.
Speaker 2: It's the Sheita, only the Sheita, and uh, look they're
Speaker 2: they're entitled to have to have that view. In fact,
Speaker 2: this is the famous story that Revolval was very friendly
Speaker 2: with for Mayor Barilane. So one then Mayor Bilan, his
Speaker 2: relative was once visiting him. So someone one of the
Speaker 2: extremists says, why are you so friendly with him? He's
Speaker 2: as a Zionist, So he said, he's Mischbacher, he's family.
Speaker 2: So for family, you know, that goes for the riskers
Speaker 2: above all ideological conflicts. So someone else, another rabbi was there, said, well,
Speaker 2: then then we should feel the same thing with Riff Cook.
Speaker 2: He thinks that all I've called you throw was his family.
Speaker 2: So why do we criticize riff Cook for reaching out
Speaker 2: to the irreligious. Uh, he's in his mind they're all family.
Speaker 2: So that's he's ninety nine years old. So but you know,
Speaker 2: at that age, when you get the virus, it's tough.
Speaker 2: The next person who we lost this week the same day,
Speaker 2: actually is Rabbi Shiner, Vitzak Shiner. He's the Russishiva, the
Speaker 2: comminists Yeshiva. He's born in America, Pittsburgh. He was he
Speaker 2: learned in yu or in those days is called Yeshivak,
Speaker 2: and then he went to Tarvadas. It says here he
Speaker 2: taught in Montreal, Switzerland. In the sixties. He was a
Speaker 2: rebby became closer to Birik of Weinberg, and then he
Speaker 2: became head of the Kaminists Yeshiva. In fact, here I'll
Speaker 2: show you a tidbit for those here. This comes from Hamasmid,
Speaker 2: which was in nineteen forty the Yeshiva college magazine or
Speaker 2: you knew not magazine, a yearbook. And here it has
Speaker 2: a picture of the chess team. And let me enlarge
Speaker 2: it for you a little bit. And who's on the
Speaker 2: chess team none other than is a door shiner. Is
Speaker 2: the door shiner is none other than Rabbi Jitsak shin Er.
Speaker 2: The problem is, I don't know who which one of
Speaker 2: these The picture is not that clear. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: which one is Rabbi Shiner. I guess I could figure
Speaker 2: it out if I enlarged it enough. But he was
Speaker 2: on the chess team, and uh, big Rosseshiva, big tim
Speaker 2: of Hacham. So that's unfortunate. And finally, the last one
Speaker 2: we lost, and we mentioned him last week that he
Speaker 2: was ill, is Rabbi Abraham Towrski therapist speak. Just so
Speaker 2: you remember one thing, Rabbi doctor Abraham Towrsky invented something
Speaker 2: that we all know. Well, So let me just play
Speaker 2: it for you.
Speaker 3: The week before married, and I was dovening, and I
Speaker 3: remember the spot not that I was at in the
Speaker 3: shool and I was dovening chakras, and I came to
Speaker 3: the phrase because she right we asked. I said, save
Speaker 3: your help your people, and bless your inheritance, live in love,
Speaker 3: and elevate them unto eternity. And as I was saying that,
Speaker 3: I started thinking to myself as he was. Next week
Speaker 3: the week after that, my younger brother got married, So
Speaker 3: I sang it at his wedding, and it caught on
Speaker 3: and some people were at the wedding and went to
Speaker 3: Israel and they brought us son to Israel. And a
Speaker 3: few weeks later a neton tune came from Israel, and
Speaker 3: this was the tune. It was a brass a song
Speaker 3: with a braslidon.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Then later I heard it's a how bad song?
Speaker 2: Okay, what do I care?
Speaker 3: I can't copyright it anyway, right, So.
Speaker 2: That's uh how sia the song We all know that's
Speaker 2: from Abram Tursky. But that's not why he he's you know, important,
Speaker 2: he's important for all he did in terms of addictions
Speaker 2: and all sorts of psychotherapy and Judaism. So another big
Speaker 2: loss a couple other things. Things. I've been having conversations
Speaker 2: with the r C a city they needed to know
Speaker 2: where they're trying to figure out, now what to do
Speaker 2: in terms of a vice president who's a woman, how
Speaker 2: do you call her? And we say, uh, nasiv s minehu,
Speaker 2: what should we do? So in Israel, apparently you know,
Speaker 2: segan is used, uh, And I learned that for vice
Speaker 2: president the word is segan meet remember not so that
Speaker 2: that we we had this discussion about the uh you
Speaker 2: know this youod tough endings. So even though I originally
Speaker 2: assumed it's, uh, it's a strange ending, that's uh, that's
Speaker 2: what it is.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: Two more things Ravaril from marriage I saw writes we
Speaker 2: saw her by Kats's past thing about violating shabas if
Speaker 2: you're under addiction. He just wants to stress that experience
Speaker 2: has shown that alcohol and drug addictions are not like
Speaker 2: other addictions that uh, once you uh, it's uh if
Speaker 2: you fall back, it could uh it could really lead
Speaker 2: you down really a terrible slippery salt. So it's really
Speaker 2: different than the other case. So we were speaking about
Speaker 2: Robert says, we spoke about the Kousenberger's Rebby's hatred of
Speaker 2: non Jews, and I raised the issue that you know,
Speaker 2: we have these rabbis that we don't want to disown him.
Speaker 2: I just raised in my mind the question of Farakahn,
Speaker 2: that we have a problem where you know, in the
Speaker 2: black community they don't want to disown him. And I
Speaker 2: raised the issue that you know, I see where they're
Speaker 2: coming from, because we sometimes can also have the problem
Speaker 2: about Victor Miller, for instance. I mean, some of the
Speaker 2: stuff he says is outrageous, really really racist stuff. Does
Speaker 2: that mean we just get rid of him? So it's so,
Speaker 2: But Robert writes that Farrakhan's different because he no longer
Speaker 2: he used to be a fringe character, but now you know,
Speaker 2: he's recognized by the leadership of the Women's March and
Speaker 2: several congress people. Different ballgame. Look, obviously I wish Faraghin
Speaker 2: would be gone. He's all trouble, evil man. But that's
Speaker 2: not what I was talking about. What I was talking
Speaker 2: about was the the issue that so for instance, that
Speaker 2: black politicians just seemed to be connected. This picture incidentally,
Speaker 2: never came out during the election. A black photographer took
Speaker 2: it and one published a picture till after Obama was
Speaker 2: no longer in office because he thought that would doom
Speaker 2: his presidency. Uh, and we have. It's the only point
Speaker 2: I was trying to make is that it's I see
Speaker 2: from the black perspective that they they like so many
Speaker 2: of the things. He says, that they often find it
Speaker 2: hard for them to condemn him completely, even though I
Speaker 2: like them too. I wish they would. But all I
Speaker 2: was saying is that I get it to a certain degree,
Speaker 2: because we have that problem as well. And one of
Speaker 2: the rabbis in my book, redouve le Or, someone wrote
Speaker 2: to me saying it was a disgrace that I included
Speaker 2: a letter from him, because he's a racist, they say,
Speaker 2: And you know, I don't. I don't know what where
Speaker 2: to draw the line. Two more things we spoke. I
Speaker 2: gave you my spiel last time that I think that
Speaker 2: the Extrasidium, that what they're doing, it's like a form
Speaker 2: of reform Judaism, not caring about the hm, not caring
Speaker 2: about the haahas of the kach Nefesh. And then I
Speaker 2: said the fact that they're strict in all these areas,
Speaker 2: so what the sad uses are strict? The Carwrts were strict,
Speaker 2: sometimes more than the rabbis and all and behold in
Speaker 2: Rabbi Mazusa's Parsha sheet last week, what is he cites
Speaker 2: an example of the cart rights. I mean I knew
Speaker 2: the example, but I'll show you.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: He speaks about this example that it's in u vayikro
Speaker 2: what are we here? Chapter three? If you look in
Speaker 2: this pusak verse nine where it talks about hello, oh
Speaker 2: ah yeah, which it's we translate the choice part of
Speaker 2: the tail. But the car rights understood this as like
Speaker 2: connected the ray lev that's uh, and they connected just
Speaker 2: like you can't eat the ray lev. You can't eat
Speaker 2: the uh, the tail, whereas we think you can eat
Speaker 2: the tail. So there's an example where the car rights
Speaker 2: were stricter than us. Look, I there's an old joke
Speaker 2: which they say, why do we say in Rashon Zamerbach
Speaker 2: actually said this, Why does it say and done else?
Speaker 2: Sadiki valrasidim? Why do we put sadiki before hasidim? Because
Speaker 2: you don't start up with hassidium, you know in MASDM
Speaker 2: so uh, I don't want to start up with them.
Speaker 2: That's my opinion. Okay, Then the last thing I want
Speaker 2: to say before we begin, and we have lots of
Speaker 2: good stuff. Is uh, you know this is a pretty
Speaker 2: unique class, and that we have people who are not
Speaker 2: in the Orthodox world who listen to it on YouTube.
Speaker 2: I don't know if live. We have people monern Orthodox,
Speaker 2: we have people right wing, we have Harasidi, we have Sotomore,
Speaker 2: we have so a lot of people know things about
Speaker 2: certain things, they don't know things about other things. So
Speaker 2: let me just take two minutes because someone emails me
Speaker 2: and uh, ask any question about because we dealt earlier
Speaker 2: questions about Coalesha and what I'm going to tell you
Speaker 2: now might be shocking for some of them. But I'm
Speaker 2: and I'm not the rabbi here. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: defend you know, you can ask your Agoras. I'm just
Speaker 2: telling you how it is in the modern Orthodox world.
Speaker 2: Coalesha is not taking the way it is in the
Speaker 2: Haaradi world. You can see, for instance, most recently r
Speaker 2: emotional listen sing as a whole piece on this. I'll
Speaker 2: just read you his conclusion. He wrote in Hebrew and
Speaker 2: English that he says we may summarize as follows under
Speaker 2: circumstances in which the song does not arouse sexual desire,
Speaker 2: does not emphasize femininity in a sensual manner, and the
Speaker 2: listener estimates that he will not come to have sexual thoughts.
Speaker 2: We should not forbid listening to a woman's voice. So
Speaker 2: it's all based on individual feelings. And then he says,
Speaker 2: this means that nero is not a problem participation in
Speaker 2: official ceremonies. You can hear a woman do star spangled
Speaker 2: banner or anything that you know. It's up to you individually.
Speaker 2: So that's what he says. Now, the fact is that
Speaker 2: as far as I know, every single modern Orthodox school
Speaker 2: in America has girls singing, usually singing in groups, but
Speaker 2: sometimes it at least as of a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: Ramas Yeshiva of North Shore women girls solos as well. Furthermore,
Speaker 2: it goes more than this. I'm gonna show you something
Speaker 2: right now which will be astounding. It's not just and
Speaker 2: it's not even a street acous head there because we're
Speaker 2: not dealing with holy songs. You have a yeshiva competition
Speaker 2: battle of the bands in a New York area of
Speaker 2: all the yeshivas modern orthodoxyeshivas, even the more right wings participate.
Speaker 2: Massifta of Woodbury participates, and girls sing. So I'm gonna
Speaker 2: show you something. If it troubles you can turn away
Speaker 2: or something. But I'll just show you quickly so you
Speaker 2: know what I'm talking about. And I'm doing this for
Speaker 2: you in the Haredi world to listen because I know
Speaker 2: you're gonna be astounded by this. And again I'm not
Speaker 2: here to defend or anything. I'm just saying this is
Speaker 2: what it is. I'm gonna show you Maya Note to
Speaker 2: her second place. And this is in the Monerothos world.
Speaker 2: This is not surprising, but here these are girls from
Speaker 2: Maya Note, which is a separate sex school in Bergen
Speaker 2: County that we already said it's it should be Maya Note,
Speaker 2: but they call it Maya Notes. So just watch this
Speaker 2: for a second and understand this is uh this and
Speaker 2: this takes place every year when you can have Yeshiva
Speaker 2: competition and this is for boys and girls night stay up,
Speaker 2: cashing in my badup some nights, a co h D
Speaker 2: some night and it's real performance, like look still not
Speaker 2: shine for.
Speaker 3: Why don't we bring the rules already? I would never
Speaker 3: want high.
Speaker 2: So obviously this would never happen in the Harabian You
Speaker 2: just think this is crazy. But by the way, I
Speaker 2: think even the boys singing is crazy, because why should
Speaker 2: at Yeshiva? You could say, I mean sing secular songs
Speaker 2: like this massiffa woorder buried the Jewish songs. I'll give
Speaker 2: you an example. These are the guys who won first place.
Speaker 2: I feel like new sunglasses, like a brand new So
Speaker 2: this is not unusual for anyone who lives in the
Speaker 2: New York area knows the modern Orthodox schools. And I'm
Speaker 2: just giving this because the question I was asked about
Speaker 2: girls singing, it's like so far out of left field
Speaker 2: without any understanding of what actually takes place in the
Speaker 2: modern Orthodox that you can actually have events where girls,
Speaker 2: granted are singing together, but still are actually performing and
Speaker 2: running around on the stage. And that's that's I'm sure
Speaker 2: you have that in Israel. Also on the religious ignness.
Speaker 2: But let me leave that at there. Okay, everyone, let
Speaker 2: us return to where we were. We were getting into
Speaker 2: the rum bomb again. I'm gonna show you some interesting things.
Speaker 2: And I do want to actually correct something I said
Speaker 2: last class when I said that the rum bomb, because
Speaker 2: this is gonna be relevant to what we're gonna do
Speaker 2: today as well, I said he doesn't have a problem
Speaker 2: with someone thinking God has emotions. I shouldn't have used
Speaker 2: that language. He of course he has a problem because
Speaker 2: you're not supposed to think God has emotions. What I
Speaker 2: meant is that he doesn't regard you as a heretic.
Speaker 2: It's not one of the thirteen principles anything like that.
Speaker 2: So he can be a little he's a little laid back,
Speaker 2: and if people make the mistake, and they don't. The
Speaker 2: Rambamb in a number of places is willing to allow
Speaker 2: the masses even if it's wrong to carry on with
Speaker 2: mistaken ideas. So, for instance, one of the most famous
Speaker 2: examples of this is as follows, what does the Rambam
Speaker 2: say in the missionatoah hijos Massuza which chapter four he
Speaker 2: says alahafour. It's a common custom to write God's name
Speaker 2: Shahdae on the outside of masusa, opposite the empty space
Speaker 2: left between the two passages. There's no difficulty in this
Speaker 2: since the addition is made outside. Those however, who write
Speaker 2: the names of angels, sacred names, et cetera, on the
Speaker 2: inside of the mezuza have no share in the world
Speaker 2: to come because they knowify the Mitzvah. They turn the
Speaker 2: Mitzvah into a kamea talisman. The round bomb thinks it's foolish.
Speaker 2: It's meaningless to write God's name on the outside. Also,
Speaker 2: but you're not affecting the Mitzvah. There's nothing about the Mitzvah.
Speaker 2: You're just doing something foolish. So I people want to
Speaker 2: do something foolish, that's okay. Well, when you're actually on
Speaker 2: the inside, in the cloth where the Hebrew writing is,
Speaker 2: if you're gonna write gods, special holy names and angels
Speaker 2: names there, then you're getting involved in the Mitzvah, and
Speaker 2: that's that has to be uprooted. That's incorrect. So the
Speaker 2: round Boumb's tolerant. I said this to a friend of
Speaker 2: mine because a friend of mine, a very learned guy
Speaker 2: in t Neck. You might listen to some of the classes.
Speaker 2: He wrote a letter to the Jewish Link last year,
Speaker 2: because the Jewish Link publishes the most crazy stuff sometimes.
Speaker 2: Actually it was two years ago. I mean, you have
Speaker 2: people coming to read poems. Once someone came bring holy water.
Speaker 2: You know Jews have holy wooter too, And you have
Speaker 2: these cabalists, a self style cabalists that you can call
Speaker 2: and meet them. It's like they take out these big
Speaker 2: ads that Rabbi so and so will be meeting people.
Speaker 2: You have a woman who comes and she has this
Speaker 2: molten lid. She does hocus pocus to remove the ion ara.
Speaker 2: And he writes an article saying there that this is
Speaker 2: this is an outrage and this is a him and
Speaker 2: it's a disgrace. And I wrote to him, I said, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the raal mom is more tolerant that if
Speaker 2: it doesn't if people feel they get something from it. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the rom Im is willing to let it
Speaker 2: slide as long as it's not you're not taking the
Speaker 2: midst of itself and using it as a as an amulet.
Speaker 2: If people want to have their their their gatherings where
Speaker 2: they all these sort of things they do, they're hollow
Speaker 2: baking and all that for the the to get rid
Speaker 2: of the ion horahs. Uh, the ra Mom's okay with
Speaker 2: all of that. Now, this is going to be very
Speaker 2: relevant to what you do with what we're going to
Speaker 2: see now, because we're going to see something where the
Speaker 2: ram Mom is not so tolerant of. And before we
Speaker 2: get into that, I need to show you, uh a
Speaker 2: the rombum. The Rumbam says as follows, there actually is.
Speaker 2: It's it's a rare book and that it's very hard
Speaker 2: to find, but it's a there's a translation of Safer
Speaker 2: Mada of the Rumbam together with the commentary. There's there's
Speaker 2: the criticisms of the rivad and a little bit of
Speaker 2: a commentary by the translator. The translated's name is rabby
Speaker 2: Simon Glaser. He was a rabbi in a number of
Speaker 2: places in America. Also was a rabbi earlier in in
Speaker 2: Canada in Montreal. I believe it was not Toronto. I
Speaker 2: think it was Montreal. In one of Ira Robinson's books
Speaker 2: about the rabbis in Montreal, he deals with him in
Speaker 2: the custrous controversies he was involved in. Instantly or I
Speaker 2: Robinson has a new book coming out on none other
Speaker 2: the Rabbi Judol Rosenberg, the famous Golamudol Rosenberg, and who
Speaker 2: was the rabbi of the show. I guess that Rabbi
Speaker 2: Kelman used to be the rabbi of But so this
Speaker 2: is that trans If you've never seen the translation, here
Speaker 2: it is so this isn't peric gimmo halacha Zion. Let
Speaker 2: me read it to you here in Hebrew and translated.
Speaker 2: He says misha he mary Grin, meaning there's five people
Speaker 2: are called mini. Now the translator has atheists here. Atheist
Speaker 2: is not really the translation heretics. I would say, oh, Mayer,
Speaker 2: one who says shane sham l l loa as we
Speaker 2: said it's pronounced, it's not pronounced l o ha. It's
Speaker 2: not pronounced. It's it's we spoke about this. I think
Speaker 2: it's called the furtive patava. We have that with. There's
Speaker 2: different ways of pronouncing it in this Fardic world. They
Speaker 2: pronounce it generally, not a low and loah, it's l
Speaker 2: o wah. Also, for example, you have like how do
Speaker 2: you pronounce it's a yah reyak? Is it ya reach
Speaker 2: or is it ya ray yach with different but everyone
Speaker 2: knows you don't pronounce it l oh. It's like the
Speaker 2: word noah. It goes beforehand and instantly the word sham
Speaker 2: there Homer sham la the word sham. There's so much
Speaker 2: written about it. What does it mean? People don't know
Speaker 2: what to make it. It's simply an Arabic word that's
Speaker 2: been brought into Hebrew. Doesn't you can't translate it. It's
Speaker 2: uh so one who says there is no God van
Speaker 2: oman Hig there's no ruler, I guess of the world.
Speaker 2: That's uh, that's a heretic. The second one is there
Speaker 2: is a ruler y sham Manhigue of Alhinschnai mojosir. There's
Speaker 2: more than one God. Now this is the one we're
Speaker 2: interested in. The third one o mayor sham Ribond someone
Speaker 2: who says that there is one God of al shuguf Ubaltmuna,
Speaker 2: but he has a form, a physical form. Uh, you
Speaker 2: believe that you're a corporeal god, You're a heretic. That's
Speaker 2: what the Ramam says. Now look at the rivat I
Speaker 2: mean largest for you. The Riva, the great revit right
Speaker 2: says his follows. He quotes the Ramba, the Amabuna. One
Speaker 2: who says that God has a physical form is a heretic.
Speaker 2: Altho Amara Abraham Amaravram the right that says, Vlama mean,
Speaker 2: why is the ram I'm called this person a heretic
Speaker 2: ramat Man? There there were greater and better people than
Speaker 2: the Rambam who followed this opinion, that is, who believed
Speaker 2: God had a physical as a physical form. Why they
Speaker 2: believe this? The fima sharau Mikra speak based on what
Speaker 2: they saw in scripture. After all, God walks in the
Speaker 2: garden Moses is the his back, the back of his head,
Speaker 2: the jossaerdos. But more what they saw in the Agadote.
Speaker 2: You have all sorts of anthropomorphic a godot to God
Speaker 2: wears the fill and things like that. He's out all
Speaker 2: sorts of things adeos, which confused people. So the Riva
Speaker 2: doesn't believe this. He says that these people are confused,
Speaker 2: but they don't know any better. These are Look, the
Speaker 2: Va knew that Arama was great, and he says that
Speaker 2: these are very great people, and they were misled by
Speaker 2: what they saw in the Torah and in Hazal to
Speaker 2: think God has a physical form. Incidentally, on the spot
Speaker 2: here the MiG DAOs, the Migdalos is one of the commentaries.
Speaker 2: He says he can't accept what the Riva says that
Speaker 2: he says that the Gamura tells us that he tells
Speaker 2: a story where a guy sold his animal to a
Speaker 2: nan Jew and the nan Jew had to sell the
Speaker 2: animal back because the animal wouldn't eat let's say food
Speaker 2: that Turumus and Myceros weren't taken from. And the Gamura
Speaker 2: derives from this that God watches over even the animals
Speaker 2: of the righteous, and the Migdalo says, if God watches
Speaker 2: over the animals the righteous, all the more so he
Speaker 2: watches over the righteous. So you can't have how could
Speaker 2: there be people greater than Aramam who thought this? Refshemto,
Speaker 2: who's a medieval philosopher defender of the Rambam, says that,
Speaker 2: you know, the Rivat says godoling vetovi me menu greater
Speaker 2: and better than the Rumbam. He says, maybe they were
Speaker 2: godoling heavier, the Toviman, better looking than the Rambamb, but
Speaker 2: certainly there there weren't any great scholars. But the Rivot's
Speaker 2: comment raises a few interesting issues, which for the purposes
Speaker 2: of these classes we're not going to get into. I'll
Speaker 2: just raise them. First of all, who are these gadolin
Speaker 2: vetovi me menu uh? The Rivat had respect for the Rambam,
Speaker 2: and he's saying people greater than Ramma thought God had
Speaker 2: a body. The Ramam himself mentions that that he met
Speaker 2: sages who were not sure of whether God has a body.
Speaker 2: People tell me that, And then he met some who
Speaker 2: it's not that they weren't sure, they were certainly had
Speaker 2: a body, and anyone who thought differently, they said he's
Speaker 2: the heretic. And there's many sources you can bring on
Speaker 2: this that perhaps even some of the greats of uh France,
Speaker 2: of North in France, but we have many reports. That
Speaker 2: doesn't mean a body necessarily like ours. It could be
Speaker 2: like is the most pure body you can imagine, but
Speaker 2: a form nonetheless of some sort. And there's nothing explicitly
Speaker 2: anywhere in the Tower that says there's no physical form,
Speaker 2: or for that matter, in the Tumud explicitly, And if
Speaker 2: you want to read certain passages, you can read them
Speaker 2: that way. So this is an old dispute. I don't
Speaker 2: need to get into the historical dispute. What I'm interested
Speaker 2: in is that the Rumam says these people were heretics.
Speaker 2: The Riva says they're not heretics. They don't know any
Speaker 2: better now. The Rifa, presumably the Riva didn't even regard
Speaker 2: us as heresy, but many later people after the rom
Speaker 2: Bomb use the Rivus model. They assume that the Ruma's right,
Speaker 2: it's heresy to believe God as a physical form, but
Speaker 2: they adopt the Rombombs the Rivas perspective that if you
Speaker 2: don't know any better what we can call Kathira Bashowgig
Speaker 2: unwitting heresy. So this then becomes even though as I said,
Speaker 2: I don't think to rive On himself regarded this as heresy,
Speaker 2: he just regarded as wrong. A lot of things can
Speaker 2: be wrong and not be heretical. At least there's no
Speaker 2: evidence they regarded as heresy. Many others later did regard
Speaker 2: as heresy. And this then creates a big dispute there
Speaker 2: of a showgig. If you're an unwitting heretic, you have
Speaker 2: the rombamb who clearly says doesn't matter heretics a heretic
Speaker 2: as Recrimesalvechich famously said Neber Chorus. If you're a heretic
Speaker 2: because of Neber you don't know any better. You're still
Speaker 2: a heretic. And this position is held by the Barber
Speaker 2: now a whole group of authorities down to modern times.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, the other side, you also have
Speaker 2: great figures. You have touch baits yucf Albow and down
Speaker 2: to our day of cook even of I believe Rm.
Speaker 2: Mosha Stern beholds this position because during the Sliffkin controversy
Speaker 2: he said that Sliffkin's books are heresy. So someone I
Speaker 2: know who's initial said to him, well, without Sliffkin, is
Speaker 2: he an api chorus? And Rav Sernbach said, no, he's
Speaker 2: not an opp chorus, but the books are heresy. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't you know what's going on here? If isn't
Speaker 2: the definition of a heretic one who believes in heresy.
Speaker 2: But my friend explained it to me that he assumes
Speaker 2: there are stern baholds like the Riva, that if you
Speaker 2: don't know any better, your view is heresy, But you
Speaker 2: yourself are not a heretic. Why incidentally, does Rev the
Speaker 2: Rambam have this position? He responds seemingly to the Riva
Speaker 2: in the morn of Vuchi. He explains, you know, he
Speaker 2: responds to opinion that looks like the Rivet's opinion. Sir
Speaker 2: if Kaf says he must have had the Ribet's criticism
Speaker 2: the Rmbam for the Rambamb, immortality is natural. It's not
Speaker 2: a reward. The merea first told us have told that is,
Speaker 2: if you live the way you're supposed to and and
Speaker 2: larger intellect the way you should, then when you die,
Speaker 2: your soul lives on. That's what immortality is it's not
Speaker 2: a reward per se given to you by God, so
Speaker 2: that God therefore, well, he'll be nice and give you
Speaker 2: a reward because you don't know any better. It doesn't
Speaker 2: work that way for the rohmbamb. It's a natural process.
Speaker 2: Rabbi Boi, in the introduction to his book With Perfect Faith,
Speaker 2: tries to make this idea palatable of the roumbomb and
Speaker 2: he compares it that I think the way he says
Speaker 2: is it's like if you never took algebra, you won't
Speaker 2: understand calculus. I think those are the words he uses. Therefore,
Speaker 2: it's not that if we say you can't take calculus,
Speaker 2: it's not we're punishing you. It's just that, uh, it's uh,
Speaker 2: you haven't entered that realm. Raviosef Albo, the author of
Speaker 2: the famous work Say for a Kurm, is the primary
Speaker 2: defender of the view that a cooepher a show gig
Speaker 2: an unwitting heretic does not make you a heretic. That is,
Speaker 2: you're not regarded as a heretic if you believe in
Speaker 2: heresy unwittingly. A corner of Yosef Albo, and this is
Speaker 2: right at the beginning of his book, say, for a kurring,
Speaker 2: if you believe that God has a body or anything
Speaker 2: heretical based on how you misint the Torah or Rabinic texts,
Speaker 2: you are blameless and uh, and that's that's the dispute
Speaker 2: we're speaking about. A recent author, Menachem Kellner, in one
Speaker 2: of his books, asks well, how far would your sof
Speaker 2: albill take this. Let's say he met someone like Mordechai
Speaker 2: Kaplan and how far are you going to take this
Speaker 2: idea of a fear of a show gig? But really
Speaker 2: that's a misunderstanding. Revocef Albo is clear. He's talking about
Speaker 2: people who believe that their view is the Tora's view,
Speaker 2: but it's actually heretical view. Like they say that the
Speaker 2: Torah teaches that God has a physical form they but
Speaker 2: they believe that's the Tora's view. He's not referring to
Speaker 2: people who will say that Toras says this. I understand
Speaker 2: that Tarras says this, but I reject the Torah and
Speaker 2: I have a different view that Those are not what
Speaker 2: I was speaking about. He's speaking about people who believe
Speaker 2: that their heretical view. They don't think it's heretical. We
Speaker 2: think it's heretical is what the Torah teaches for them.
Speaker 2: He regards this as a show gig, and they're not
Speaker 2: regarded as heretics. How far you take this? This an
Speaker 2: interesting question when it comes to Reves alb. What about
Speaker 2: a Jew for Jesus, someone who actually believes that Jesus
Speaker 2: is God. I've tried to work it out that he
Speaker 2: wouldn't go that far, because if you actually believe, let's
Speaker 2: say that a person is God, then you're real a
Speaker 2: voda zara. You don't even have a religion anymore. So
Speaker 2: it's not like you could say, fear of a show gig,
Speaker 2: you don't have a religion. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe
Speaker 2: I mean it's a very liberal position in our era
Speaker 2: of disputes in the Orthodox world, where lots of people
Speaker 2: like to call the other heretics. If we would adopt
Speaker 2: this position, which I say is a touch Bates, it's
Speaker 2: the ebb, it's the rud buzz down to ruff Cooks, commersions,
Speaker 2: and many others, then we wouldn't have any of these
Speaker 2: disputes because everyone could say you look at open Orthodox
Speaker 2: and you could say, well, I think that you have
Speaker 2: a heretical idea but I know you think this is
Speaker 2: in ligne with Toras, so you're not heretic. It would
Speaker 2: be It would make a lot of sense and help
Speaker 2: us deal with RaBaD because everyone can acknowledge that, even
Speaker 2: the extreme messing, I believe that this is what the
Speaker 2: Tara teaches. So you could even if you want to
Speaker 2: think it's heresy. I don't think it's heresy, because what's
Speaker 2: heretical about thinking the your Rebby's machiac. You could be
Speaker 2: wrong unless you think Borinu, you think he's a creator
Speaker 2: or something. But so it's an interesting position. Now the
Speaker 2: question is how does this all relate to Simon one
Speaker 2: thirty two in the book, page two eighty three. Because
Speaker 2: I found something in the Lebavate Rebbe that I found astounding,
Speaker 2: and I wrote to a Chian rapport. Lebavach Rebby says
Speaker 2: as follows in a letter to I don't know who
Speaker 2: this Rabbi Zimmer is, but I wrote to Rerian report
Speaker 2: of course, the great Rabbad scholar. The Rebbe says this
Speaker 2: follows that there's a difference between sharp language curses and
Speaker 2: you know, harsh stuff you say when it comes to ideas,
Speaker 2: when you speak about let's say a party there, I'd
Speaker 2: say misraki or anything like that. And when you're dealing
Speaker 2: with an individual that is sharp language, like like you
Speaker 2: said times like the riskers, you could say that Misrahi
Speaker 2: is heretical the idea, but the individuals you don't treat
Speaker 2: him that way. Okay, so far enough makes sense, But
Speaker 2: then the proof Then what the rebbey says as follows
Speaker 2: Dug Maladovar. I'll give you an example, he says. The
Speaker 2: Rambamb poskins like we just saw Omer Shahu Goofu bats
Speaker 2: Munah raise him in the ram Mom says, if you
Speaker 2: think that God is a physical form, you're a heretic.
Speaker 2: And then the rebby says, costoom, it's obvious that the
Speaker 2: that the ram Bomb will not say God forbid this
Speaker 2: about pony or pony should be him off. He wouldn't
Speaker 2: say this about an individual. So the rebby says that
Speaker 2: they're according to the rom Bamb, if you believe that
Speaker 2: God is a physical form, you're a heretic. But the
Speaker 2: rebbe says, but if there was an individual in the
Speaker 2: ram BAM's day who actually believed and said God has
Speaker 2: a physical form, the Rambam wouldn't call him a heretic.
Speaker 2: So I wrote the rector, what do you mean the
Speaker 2: ramon call it tick. That's the whole point in the
Speaker 2: rom bomb. The Rombam says, how O mayre notice do
Speaker 2: Romo doesn't say you think it a whole shave do?
Speaker 2: Ramom uses the language oh maher. So the question is
Speaker 2: is this love dafka or reflim Hersman wants to argue
Speaker 2: that we don't treat people like heretics unless they publicly
Speaker 2: voice it. That is a private heretic. If someone tells you,
Speaker 2: for instance, privately his view, he doesn't publicize it, he
Speaker 2: could still be a member of our community in good
Speaker 2: standing as well as he doesn't make trouble what God
Speaker 2: does with him. And that's something else. But he wants
Speaker 2: to say that the Rambam's language oh mare is actually precise.
Speaker 2: But certainly if you get up and publicly say I'm teaching,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna open to Yeshiva tomorrow and I'm going to
Speaker 2: teach that God has a physical form and everyone who comes,
Speaker 2: I'm going to teach you that. Uh, how could the
Speaker 2: rambab not say about me that I'm a min not
Speaker 2: be chorus? And yet the Rebby says he wouldn't say
Speaker 2: that because it's only speaking idea is not about individuals,
Speaker 2: and this of course fits in with the whole jabbah
Speaker 2: I guess philosophy. But I wrote to Rubbi Rappaport, what's
Speaker 2: going on here and run the report himself says this
Speaker 2: seems very strange at first, because the ram bomb is
Speaker 2: very Brewery, very clear that you're a heretic. And that's
Speaker 2: the whole point of the critic of the Rievud's response.
Speaker 2: How could the Rambam call these great rabbis heretics? The
Speaker 2: answer is they weren't heretics because they didn't know any better.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And Rapport says, it's maha, you know, it's it's strange
Speaker 2: how he says, how could you say that the rambamb
Speaker 2: loki him out small much possible? How could the Rambamb
Speaker 2: not have held this when he's telling us that all
Speaker 2: these people think that we have to regard them as heretics.
Speaker 2: And Rubby Rapport explains his follows. He says that the
Speaker 2: explanation of the matter is first, he says, let's understand
Speaker 2: something that in the Rombam's day, there were many people
Speaker 2: who thought God had a physical form, and he cites
Speaker 2: in the note first of all the passage I gave
Speaker 2: from the letter of the rambamb On treesa massin and
Speaker 2: other places. We have the letter of the Ramban the letter.
Speaker 2: The Rumban writes to them that I've heard. So we
Speaker 2: don't know. Maybe the Rumban was misinformed, but he says,
Speaker 2: I've heard that. One of the things you're upset about
Speaker 2: what the Rumbam is is that because he says that
Speaker 2: God has no physical form, and the Rumban says, what
Speaker 2: are you talking about? We all believe that, but he
Speaker 2: was of the opinion that that's what the scholars of
Speaker 2: Northern France thought. Thebi ropport also cites something else, which
Speaker 2: it's good you're sitting down. I am the one, I
Speaker 2: believe who discovered this passage. When I say discovered, obviously
Speaker 2: the person who published it and knew it, but I'm
Speaker 2: the first one who wrote about it. Unfortunately, I didn't
Speaker 2: know about it when I had my book. When I
Speaker 2: wrote my book on the Thirteen Principles, where I would
Speaker 2: included it. I did mention it in subsequent posts, and
Speaker 2: I've translated the entire passage there's going to be a
Speaker 2: jubilee volume coming out for by moshous Shama of Flatbush.
Speaker 2: So I have a whole translation and discussion of it.
Speaker 2: But the Rias of the it's Isaiah Troni the Elder,
Speaker 2: in his commentary ins and Hedron says that Hayyu Michaud
Speaker 2: Hashim Shamehem Treluh, that there were sages of the Talmud
Speaker 2: knew how many krals keeps shoot Tom and what they
Speaker 2: thought here Krsmuna. The Riaz says that there were even
Speaker 2: sages in the Talmud who thought this. I know this
Speaker 2: sounds heretical and uh, but that's what the Riaz says.
Speaker 2: And this explains a problem because how can you have
Speaker 2: medieval Ashkenasa stagents who thought this what they just made
Speaker 2: it up? How would they make it up? The answer
Speaker 2: is that they had it on a tradition. They must
Speaker 2: have had this. I believe there are two traditions and
Speaker 2: then there were and the Riaz says it explicit that
Speaker 2: there were those who thought that. So uh, this was
Speaker 2: a view which the ram bomb was able to uproot.
Speaker 2: A mistake in view. But people give the rahmbamb all
Speaker 2: the credit. That's a mistake. It's not just the Rombumadoo
Speaker 2: and others. So the Rabbi Raport begins that you have
Speaker 2: to understand this was a common view and the rambamb
Speaker 2: of course he uproots it. He puts in his thirteen principles. Uh,
Speaker 2: it's in other places. But then he then, uh, what
Speaker 2: to do with the Labava Trebbu. Well before we didn't
Speaker 2: get to that. Rebby Rappaport quotes for Bahon Wasserman. Bahona
Speaker 2: Wasserman deals with this passage and he has a problem
Speaker 2: also with this passage because the the the Ramam has
Speaker 2: another place where he deals with car rights, and he
Speaker 2: says that when you have to when you deal with
Speaker 2: kara rights. Who are heretics? They don't accept the oral
Speaker 2: law because that they they misinterpret the Torah because you
Speaker 2: can't interpret it her without the oral tradition. I like
Speaker 2: to say, maybe the shock people, but it's true that
Speaker 2: Judaism is not based on the Torah. It's based on
Speaker 2: the Torah and the oral to tora. That is, we're
Speaker 2: not Chi rights and we're not Christians. Judaism is not
Speaker 2: based just on the Tora. You cannot understand the Tora
Speaker 2: without the what Jacob News used to call the dual
Speaker 2: Tora to toras and anyone who just reads the Tora
Speaker 2: without bale will be violating a left and right as
Speaker 2: well as all sorts of other problems. Uh so, but
Speaker 2: Revona Wassaman has a problem because he says the Rumbam
Speaker 2: here says, you're a heretic if you believe God is
Speaker 2: a physical form. It doesn't matter why. And he quotes
Speaker 2: or climbsl of Achek. He's one of those who quotes
Speaker 2: them that heretic ef you don't know any better. But
Speaker 2: then what about the car rights? The real mom says,
Speaker 2: with ca rights even though they're heretics, we have to
Speaker 2: bring them close with bonds of love because they don't
Speaker 2: know any better. They've been raised this way and we
Speaker 2: have to try to bring them close to traditional Judaism.
Speaker 2: And he's the Rambam ends it by saying, don't kill
Speaker 2: them too fast, because you know, if we had based
Speaker 2: and you kill the heretics, he says, the chatsloy Maha Damahargan,
Speaker 2: you know you take give him a chance. Well, what's
Speaker 2: going on here? How could how could the Rambam say
Speaker 2: if you think God is a body you're a heretic
Speaker 2: even if you don't know any better. But here the carrots,
Speaker 2: they don't know any better. Uh, we try to bring
Speaker 2: them close. And uh what Rebbi rapport explains and I
Speaker 2: think this is there's no doubt this is the answer
Speaker 2: is and Revevel cell of Atri says the same thing
Speaker 2: to brisker Rov is that it's not a contradiction at all.
Speaker 2: In when the Realm deals with the karats and nos Mamrim,
Speaker 2: he's talking about how we relate to them, that since
Speaker 2: they don't know any better, we try to bring them close.
Speaker 2: It's not talking about kape shamaya as far as God
Speaker 2: is concerned. If they don't, if they don't know any better,
Speaker 2: if their heretics, they're heretics. Uh So when Hillos Chuvo,
Speaker 2: when the Romm says, if you think God is a
Speaker 2: physical form, you're a heretic. That's uh vis a the
Speaker 2: God that you're you believe a false idea. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: not your fault. But that's where prime salve I just said,
Speaker 2: chorus is still not be chorus. But uh, we're we're
Speaker 2: gonna if we meet someone who doesn't thinks God has
Speaker 2: a body, because he's raised that way, we'll try to
Speaker 2: change his mind.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: We won't treat him like a heretic until he uh
Speaker 2: you know, is uh fervent in his belief. It doesn't change.
Speaker 2: Rebbi Rahnan has a different opinion. Actually, ram Hahnan develops
Speaker 2: the idea that when it comes to false ideas about God,
Speaker 2: it's because people are not really show gig they they were,
Speaker 2: they weren't really good astray they because they want to sin.
Speaker 2: They convince themselves that of all these heretical things, which
Speaker 2: is a very We've spoke about this idea in the
Speaker 2: classes of our Mahanna and you go back to the tapes. Uh,
Speaker 2: it's a very hard position. It doesn't take into account
Speaker 2: a real moral atheist. And furthermore, what about all the
Speaker 2: other e karim which have nothing to do with uh,
Speaker 2: you know, God, Why would someone deny them? It's and
Speaker 2: Reba Rapperport says the same thing. So then what about
Speaker 2: how to explain the lebavach Rebey's position? Uh, he says,
Speaker 2: hold on, so let me move on, let me skip
Speaker 2: a few things. So he believes that what the Rebu's
Speaker 2: saying is that, uh, when the Rambam says, when he
Speaker 2: says that the Rambam would not call an individual heretic.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what he's talking about. If the Rambamb met
Speaker 2: the rabbis of Northern France, that's what the Robber Appaport says. Mt.
Speaker 2: Sarfatminu Bakshama, who believed in God's corporeality. I don't know
Speaker 2: if this is true that the rabbies of Northern France
Speaker 2: were corporealists. All we have is really the Ramban reporting
Speaker 2: what was said, and other people attack them. We don't
Speaker 2: have anything with one exception from the rabbis of Northern France.
Speaker 2: We have this very strange text called Kataftami by Moosha Taku,
Speaker 2: which he's a corporealist. He assumes that God can assume
Speaker 2: a physical form if he wishes. But we the idea
Speaker 2: that the other stages of Northern France. I don't think
Speaker 2: we have evidence that they believe that the mass is yes,
Speaker 2: but the rabbis, I don't know. But whenever, that's what
Speaker 2: Rubber Rapport says. That this is what Tobabach Rebbi is saying.
Speaker 2: Just like with the car Wrtes who don't know any better,
Speaker 2: we treat them well we're not talking about their faiths.
Speaker 2: You know, uh vis a vis heaven, so too the Rambama.
Speaker 2: And he meets one of these corporealists, he's not going
Speaker 2: to go up to them and say you're a heretic.
Speaker 2: He's not called them heretic. He's going to try to
Speaker 2: bring him close. He's going to try to educate him. Yes,
Speaker 2: they are a heretic. But uh and this is just
Speaker 2: like in a Habat shu. But like any show, how
Speaker 2: many people come in. They're complete heretics. They don't believe
Speaker 2: in anything. They can even go to haba sho. Guy
Speaker 2: can eat on young Gepper. I was in a kbad
Speaker 2: schoo onants and these guys. He tells me he's an atheist,
Speaker 2: he doesn't believe in God, but he likes coming here
Speaker 2: because the rabbi is so nice, and he gives the
Speaker 2: rabbi a lot of money. So, uh, well, we're gonna
Speaker 2: stand up in front of everyone say this guy's a heretary.
Speaker 2: Of course not, but he is so uh you know
Speaker 2: that that's so so that's what he's saying. The rebbe
Speaker 2: uh intended that, but it's not referring to their actual fate.
Speaker 2: I guess you could say of their soul or anything
Speaker 2: like this. It's just that Lojaya Mahari from a vazzo.
Speaker 2: Some he wouldn't he wouldn't call them publicly. He would heretics. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they are heretics, but he's not going to go attack
Speaker 2: them because they don't know any better. That's that's what
Speaker 2: And he goes in his last paragraph, he says, we
Speaker 2: haven't actually not the last paragraph, one of the one
Speaker 2: of the last paragraphs. He says that this approach, we
Speaker 2: see it elsewhere, and he mentions the Sprebi and this
Speaker 2: is what I said as well. He says, if you
Speaker 2: read the Sapa Rebbi's writings, he attacks everyone for who
Speaker 2: accepts the state of Israel like a co fair. But
Speaker 2: yet we know that he was friendly with people like
Speaker 2: the bells Rebbe or of ourn color. Sir Rapport says
Speaker 2: that so too. He he had to distinguish between the
Speaker 2: belief and the person. I think there's a big difference
Speaker 2: here though, because my point when I say about the
Speaker 2: Sata Rebi is sat Rebbi used this language, but he
Speaker 2: didn't think Varron Cutler is a heretic. He said that
Speaker 2: if you accept the state it's Feira, but he uh,
Speaker 2: and he did think it's Kir, but he didn't think
Speaker 2: it's Revron Cutler is a heretic, but the Rambamb is different.
Speaker 2: I think what Lbava Rebbey's point is, the Rambamb would
Speaker 2: think that these people are heretics for believing God in
Speaker 2: a physical form. How could you not, the Rambam says explicitly,
Speaker 2: but you treat them nicely because you're trying to educate them.
Speaker 2: That's a difference. And then he right before he ends
Speaker 2: his letter to me, he says that, okay, now I
Speaker 2: don't need to He just ends that the the the
Speaker 2: Lebava Rebby held equal. He cites a letter from the
Speaker 2: Lava Rebby where we see, even leaving this aside, that
Speaker 2: the rebbe held like the Rivat, that they're really believed
Speaker 2: in the idea that a kop for bishogei, one who's
Speaker 2: unwitting heretic is not even visa vi heaven is not
Speaker 2: regarded as a heretic. And Rapport says that's also Sitkuboli
Speaker 2: that in Kabbalah they also teach this. So it's an
Speaker 2: important idea that we an important dispute which we could
Speaker 2: spend a couple hours on going through the various sources,
Speaker 2: but it's it's valuable to remember. And I think the
Speaker 2: upshot is that if you follow this position which they
Speaker 2: attribute to the Riva. Not sure, because I don't know
Speaker 2: if the rive I really do things are doing with heresy,
Speaker 2: but it's certainly jose Balbo and Natash Bates and others.
Speaker 2: It opens up all sorts of liberalizing possibilities that you
Speaker 2: can completely reject people and think their views are even
Speaker 2: literal heresy, but since they think it's in line with
Speaker 2: Tower teaching, they are not to be regarded as heretics.
Speaker 2: Obviously you can't. You don't want to teach people these views,
Speaker 2: but you can relate to them with dignity as toward
Speaker 2: Jus and good standing count of an dominion. You don't
Speaker 2: have to worry about their wine. All the things that
Speaker 2: you hear people when they want to view someone as
Speaker 2: rahabad or left being Orthodox, all these things. They use
Speaker 2: all those examples. But all you do is look at
Speaker 2: uh of Yosef Albo, and you see uh. You see otherwise.
Speaker 2: In fact, for Yosef Albo they give Actually I'll get
Speaker 2: to it because the next responds and also deals with
Speaker 2: the same issue and the I don't know if we
Speaker 2: will a least be able to start it today because
Speaker 2: we have a few more minutes. So now we we
Speaker 2: finished with one thirty two. I actually think this is
Speaker 2: a very important letter in setting forth the ideas of lsdeos.
Speaker 2: I guess you can call it. And we have a
Speaker 2: very similar letter related letter, I should say, the next
Speaker 2: one from Rabbi Mazu's. We're gonna I see now twelve
Speaker 2: straight letters from me and Rabbi Mazou's. When I get
Speaker 2: to a later letter, I'll tell you more about Rabbi Mazous,
Speaker 2: how I connected to him, why I think he's important.
Speaker 2: Why despite the fact I do not hold of doesn't
Speaker 2: mean I share in all his views and philosophical views. No,
Speaker 2: it's not that at all. Here we are I never
Speaker 2: buy one hundred percent into what anyone's going to say.
Speaker 2: And uh, he doesn't feel you need to. But they're uh,
Speaker 2: they're of course. I have my own views and all
Speaker 2: things I think differently of. But Alex I think, as
Speaker 2: I've said before already, he's one of the most special
Speaker 2: rabbis in terms of his wide ranging knowledge.
Speaker 1: I just.
Speaker 2: Over shabiss I was reading this book. This is a
Speaker 2: new book called terras Scholmo. It's about Rashelmo Goren and
Speaker 2: it's talking about how unusual all the things of Goren knows.
Speaker 2: And then he says, there's two other rabbis in our
Speaker 2: day who can be compared to rov Goren in that respect,
Speaker 2: and that is that he says, Rabbe ma A zus
Speaker 2: Rashomo Fisher from itery, each one of them are different.
Speaker 2: Rov Goren did have great knowledge, but he didn't have
Speaker 2: the sort of wide ranging knowledge we're speaking about. It
Speaker 2: is a great book, by the way, and Rafshomo Fisher
Speaker 2: he has enormous knowledge, philosophical knowledge. I showed you his
Speaker 2: book on his edition of Haste Crescos and others. But
Speaker 2: he doesn't have, as far as I know, the wide
Speaker 2: ranging partial note and other things. But so we're gonna
Speaker 2: see many letters. And the first letter it's the question
Speaker 2: is the title of it is if someone holds a
Speaker 2: principle of faith in accordance with a view that's rejected,
Speaker 2: is that it is to be regarded as a heretic.
Speaker 2: This goes back to nineteen ninety two. So before we
Speaker 2: even get to the letter, let me give you a
Speaker 2: bit of a summary. I'm in a background of this.
Speaker 2: Whatever we deal with theology, we start with the Rumbum.
Speaker 2: He's the greatest. There's no question about it. When I
Speaker 2: say he's the greatest, he's the greatest alargist. Also, it
Speaker 2: doesn't mean the others are not great, and I don't
Speaker 2: think it's an insult, but in terms of his influence,
Speaker 2: and that's going to be important because I think one
Speaker 2: of the things I'm going to say is that you
Speaker 2: can never throw out the rumbum in my opinion, and
Speaker 2: not just my opinion, the idea that you can ever
Speaker 2: say that the ram BAM's view is invalid because the
Speaker 2: other rabbis disagree. That to me is going to be
Speaker 2: out of the out of bounds, which we wouldn't necessarily
Speaker 2: say about others. But what was did a robbam have
Speaker 2: a conception of that theological matters can be decided? That is,
Speaker 2: you can have a debate on theological matters and if
Speaker 2: the majority decide one way that the rom Bomb's position
Speaker 2: and is uh is void or anything like that. In
Speaker 2: other words, do you passin ala on theological matters like
Speaker 2: you do on allockic matters, that's the question. And I
Speaker 2: have a whole article on this I can send anyone.
Speaker 2: But my claim is that the ram Bomb did not
Speaker 2: have this conception, not with regard to dogma. Certainly not
Speaker 2: with regard to dogma, as we'll see, but not with
Speaker 2: regard to other matters Jewish thought either. Let me first
Speaker 2: speak about dogma, because that's what Remazus is going to
Speaker 2: deal with and which I actually do not accept what
Speaker 2: he says. For reasons. I'll explain, can dog must be
Speaker 2: decided in a logic fashion? And it's often claiming that yes,
Speaker 2: they can, according to the rambamb and this is very obvious.
Speaker 2: It's it's so clear. Uh, And no one actually disagrees
Speaker 2: that Rama holds us I think, but they think others
Speaker 2: hold it differently. Dogmas are eternal truths, eternal verities. That is,
Speaker 2: they're eternal because the reality they describe is eternal. If
Speaker 2: you say that God does not have a physical form,
Speaker 2: it's not because the Rabbi is decided God doesn't have
Speaker 2: a physical form, and they decided differently than that would
Speaker 2: be an acceptable belief. No, this is the theological truth.
Speaker 2: It was never decided. That's what it is. And if
Speaker 2: all the Rabbis get together tomorrow and decide that God
Speaker 2: has a physical form, well, these rabbis are all wrong,
Speaker 2: because God not having a physical form or any other
Speaker 2: theological truth is an eternal truth. It's not decided by
Speaker 2: the rabbis. It has always been this way and will
Speaker 2: always be this way. And according to the Rambum you're sharing,
Speaker 2: the world to come depends on this. So, as I said,
Speaker 2: if the majority of the rabbis get together and decide
Speaker 2: God as a physical form, it doesn't change anything. On
Speaker 2: the contrary, you would be obligated to oppose the rabbis.
Speaker 2: The old paradox we spoke about earlier, you'd be obligated
Speaker 2: to be a zukin mamray. If we have a son hedron,
Speaker 2: the son hedron declares that we all have to believe
Speaker 2: that God has a physical form, we would still be
Speaker 2: obligated to say that this son hedron are teaching heresy
Speaker 2: and we reject them, and uh, it doesn't matter. We'd
Speaker 2: have to be executed. I guess does zuking momra Because
Speaker 2: it's like I heard from my father once that Abraham
Speaker 2: Lincoln at a cabinet meeting he would ask take a
Speaker 2: vote and uh, you know how many eyes and you
Speaker 2: know the cabinet ten people raise their hand, and the
Speaker 2: nose he'd raise his hand. He'd say, the nose have it.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Uh, if you're right, you're in the majority. So if
Speaker 2: the from the Ramama's perspective, he's always in the majority.
Speaker 2: The fact that a lot of other people disagree doesn't
Speaker 2: change anything I have written, and I have not yet
Speaker 2: been contradicted. So I assume it's correct that all the
Speaker 2: medieval philosophical reshow name, in fact, perhaps all the reshow name,
Speaker 2: we're in agreement with the wrong bomb that dogmas don't
Speaker 2: change with time. In other words, none of the is
Speaker 2: shown name. No one is able to find one of
Speaker 2: the medieval writers. I say medieval because we're gonna see
Speaker 2: a more recent writer, and not just more recent, a
Speaker 2: very important figure the custom sofa. You can't get much
Speaker 2: more important in that. But none of the reshown him,
Speaker 2: as far as I know, when no one has pointed
Speaker 2: any out. Assume that something that used to be a
Speaker 2: dogma is no longer so, and what used to not
Speaker 2: be a dogma now is so. In other words, if
Speaker 2: it used to be heresy, then it's always heresy. And
Speaker 2: by the same token, if it wasn't heresy in the past,
Speaker 2: it can't be heresy now. The only way such changes
Speaker 2: could happen is if the will of the rabbi is
Speaker 2: determine what's a dogma. So, in other words, you can
Speaker 2: have in this generation the Rabbi is determined, you must
Speaker 2: believe this, and the next generation a tournament. You must
Speaker 2: believe that the opposite. But that means that dogmas are
Speaker 2: determined by the rabbis. That doesn't make any sense for
Speaker 2: the rambamb or the medievals. As I said, a dogma
Speaker 2: is an eternal truth, and it doesn't matter what the
Speaker 2: rabbis say uh that if then the rabbis are wrong,
Speaker 2: if this is what in the Rambam's opinion. Incidentally, this
Speaker 2: the position that dogmas change is actually advocated by none
Speaker 2: other than Soul Berlin in the work be Summim Roche
Speaker 2: Rafshaul Berlin in his forgery Besummi Roche puts in to
Speaker 2: the mouth of I'm not sure if it's the Russ
Speaker 2: or an anonymous re shown there this idea that every
Speaker 2: generation dogmas change. In fact, Solomon Schachter wrote a famous
Speaker 2: article called the dogmas of Judaism. He cites this. He
Speaker 2: cites this, he knows it's written by Saul Berlin, and
Speaker 2: he cites it as written by Saul Berlin. But he
Speaker 2: likes it. He says, this is how we should think
Speaker 2: of dogmas, that they change, but this is not a
Speaker 2: traditional view. What I'm going to end, I'll end with
Speaker 2: this is that we see this that I'm correct. I
Speaker 2: believe in how the people argue and disagree with the rumbum.
Speaker 2: When they want to show that the Rumbum's incorrect, that
Speaker 2: a position is not a dogma, what do they do.
Speaker 2: They cite a tana, They cite an a mohra. When
Speaker 2: Rebbi the Riaz wants to show that the Rumbam's wrong,
Speaker 2: that belief in God's incorporeality is not a dogma, he
Speaker 2: agrees it's true, but it's not a dogma meaning you
Speaker 2: become erotic. He points to the fact that there are
Speaker 2: sages in the Tamud who believe this. So therefore, if
Speaker 2: there's stages in the Talmud, it can't be a doctrine
Speaker 2: because we see some sages of the Tumult held this
Speaker 2: and they're not heretics. In other words, They never say that, well,
Speaker 2: it used to be okay for this those sages, but
Speaker 2: now the Halah has been decided that the dogma is this,
Speaker 2: and therefore it's forbidden. No, they try to refute the
Speaker 2: rumbum and say what the Rumbam says can't be a
Speaker 2: doctrine a dogma, namely that if you disagree, you're a heretic.
Speaker 2: And what's the proof. The proof is that this great
Speaker 2: Ama he held this, and if he held it, and
Speaker 2: obviously he's in a heretic by definition, it can't be
Speaker 2: a dogma. They never say, well, he could have said it,
Speaker 2: but we can't because it's now changed. The fact that
Speaker 2: the Amorra said it means that it's not a dogma.
Speaker 2: We will see next class, however, what jose Valbo has
Speaker 2: to say about this and the Hustom Sofur, because the
Speaker 2: hustom Sofur actually does adopt the position that dogmas change
Speaker 2: in opposition to the position I just set out. And
Speaker 2: then we'll see what Rebbi Mazoos says about this. I'll
Speaker 2: try to defend my position as well. And then all
Speaker 2: next week, all sorts of all sorts of good stuff,
Speaker 2: we're gonna move into different areas away from theology, okay,
Speaker 2: into some politics perhaps as well. We've spall oh sorry,
Speaker 2: nine to thirty one. So let me take the questions
Speaker 2: and comments. I hope today we raise some interesting issues.
Speaker 2: David Eisen says that Twiski's will specify that mourners are
Speaker 2: citing new eulogies. Instead, he asked they sing a popular melody. Well, okay,
Speaker 2: well that's where we spoke about.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: The Barry Hartman says, I spared by Shaya Miller Tom
Speaker 2: Winter of Dovis Salve and did he write anything about
Speaker 2: the love? When you say did he write anything about
Speaker 2: the rove? I don't do. The Rabbi salivk Uh they
Speaker 2: they didn't. I mean they they It's not like they
Speaker 2: they they kept them out of the fold. Uh by
Speaker 2: his brother of doved Salvation's brother, a Mayor Salaveachik in
Speaker 2: the book they published about him a couple of years ago,
Speaker 2: two big volumes called Mayor, and he says that head
Speaker 2: Yasha Baar not become Asiini, he would have been the
Speaker 2: gooddle for all of us, because he says that we
Speaker 2: know that he was greater than all of us. Two
Speaker 2: grandchildren of the love Ramyor Twiskytening. We're Tom Meetinger of Dove.
Speaker 2: Salvh es they went to risk because if you're in
Speaker 2: Israel and you want to know where brisk is, you go,
Speaker 2: you go to brisk Uh the Yeshivash. Yes we know that, Felixeran,
Speaker 2: he says, Hakhamavadio josef Aloud not live cole Isha. Actually
Speaker 2: it's more than that. Go back to the the the
Speaker 2: earlier classes. We had well not live. Yes, well we
Speaker 2: spoke about this that in his uh in the a
Speaker 2: bi Ohmer he says that you can't if you recognize
Speaker 2: the person, you can't listen to it. But then he
Speaker 2: says explicitly in the he changed his mind. It's in
Speaker 2: the bee oh Mare, but just in a little place
Speaker 2: you won't be able to find it. But in the
Speaker 2: letter here from his son, he says they changed his mind.
Speaker 2: And he said that even watching television, it's it's okay.
Speaker 2: So uh, if you want to watch the Mayanoak girls
Speaker 2: and you want to rely on Hakhamavadya, you can watch
Speaker 2: them if you feel it's appropriate for you. That's the
Speaker 2: whole point. If years ago Nashama Karlbach used to perform
Speaker 2: and the advertisements for her performances used to say, concert,
Speaker 2: let's say this for for women and for men for
Speaker 2: whom it is permitted. What does that mean for men
Speaker 2: for whom it is permitted? I'd never heard of this
Speaker 2: going to Yeshiva, so I actually her post sake. Now
Speaker 2: she's reformed, she's left it all. But in those days
Speaker 2: she followed at her post sake was by Morteai Tendler,
Speaker 2: So I asked him about this, and he said that
Speaker 2: this is exactly what we saw. That if a man
Speaker 2: feels he's going to be sexually aroused, he shouldn't go.
Speaker 2: If not, it's like other areas where it's left. And
Speaker 2: he claims, I don't know if it's true, but he
Speaker 2: claims that that's his grandfather's position ramotion as well. But
Speaker 2: these ads would say for men for whom it's permitted,
Speaker 2: that's uh. Burr says important point. Didn't see them seemed
Speaker 2: only females there, No, no, no, they's the audience is
Speaker 2: male and female, like it's said. Not only that. We
Speaker 2: even have bands that are boys and girl bands. They
Speaker 2: combine them. The JC my alma mater band is boys
Speaker 2: and girls and it's all the high school kids. From
Speaker 2: all the areas and all their parents. It's it's it's
Speaker 2: this isn't like you have in bass Alcohov where you
Speaker 2: have performances and uh, only the the mothers come. No, no,
Speaker 2: it's it's everyone there and you can jay. Rabbi Helma says,
Speaker 2: not done in Toronto, mothers of community. As far as
Speaker 2: I know, I didn't see the question. Oh the men,
Speaker 2: I didn't see it. Oh you are the men in
Speaker 2: the audience. Yes, they're men in the audience. They're men
Speaker 2: in the audience. Listen, I was in the audience. My
Speaker 2: son is performing. The son, my son who wakes up
Speaker 2: every morning to do mischnayas before dobvining. He also is
Speaker 2: a performer and he plays the guitar and sings. So
Speaker 2: but everyone was there, including the principal of the school.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's you don't know who's singing to you
Speaker 2: go there by the way, you don't know if it's
Speaker 2: boys or but everyone. But but all the plays they
Speaker 2: always have girls singing joint. In my kids school, they
Speaker 2: always have two. You can't have solos. But uh, the
Speaker 2: Zemer Festival Hasidi sponsored room is Rachi and nine side
Speaker 2: women singing solo. Chief Rabbis Veriti Strol used to sit
Speaker 2: when women in the soldiers women would sing. They sat
Speaker 2: now listen. I'm sure in their mind they were learning
Speaker 2: tower and things like that, but they didn't get up.
Speaker 2: We have pictures of them sitting there when they would sing.
Speaker 2: Because you have a song, let's say about the how
Speaker 2: a song about Israel or about the Holocaust or something.
Speaker 2: So again, I'm not it's not for me to be halaha.
Speaker 2: I'm just pointing out for the person who asked me
Speaker 2: like this far a question at the modern Athodox girls,
Speaker 2: and I'm saying, what kind of question is that the
Speaker 2: mono Othosk girls have girls singing in groups there from
Speaker 2: performing it's not uh uh racing at twisky funeral. Singing
Speaker 2: aloud in a cemetery seems problematic. Uh why would it
Speaker 2: be problematic to singing a cemetery. It's problematic to say
Speaker 2: to Hillem in a cemetery of cord the rambam because
Speaker 2: you're not allowed to learn towra it's liligo rush. But
Speaker 2: do we rinald the dolphin the cemetery if you read
Speaker 2: the raalm bum carefully. But we don't hold by that,
Speaker 2: so we will be the problem with singing in the cemetery.
Speaker 2: You're not having a concert in the cemetery. You're not
Speaker 2: doing anything like that. Yakoviellen says, if he recalls correctly,
Speaker 2: Refuserski quotes the section of his book or aboudo Poscia. Yes,
Speaker 2: he not only quotes that, he goes into great detail
Speaker 2: because this is a famous uh issue between the Rambam
Speaker 2: and the Riva. Where about godoling Vatovini menu? In fact,
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any question. Gadolin Veatovian menu means
Speaker 2: greater than a rambum, but says, what does he mean
Speaker 2: Adolin Vetovin menu? He means there were goodoling Vitoving not
Speaker 2: greater than than him, the rum bamb Goadoli Vetovian menu
Speaker 2: greater than us. That is, there are people greater than
Speaker 2: us who thought out of a physical form. There are
Speaker 2: Sah didn't want to read it as if there because
Speaker 2: the Rivas insulting the Ramam. When he says that Goadoli
Speaker 2: vetovinan menu, it's hard to this comes. I think it's
Speaker 2: a verse. In it's a verse in tanach god Vetovi Manu.
Speaker 2: So until the case, until the I don't know if
Speaker 2: anyone had that interpretation that it means godovetovi among us.
Speaker 2: I think it's clear. The ra, the riva, jabs, the
Speaker 2: rambam a few places like that. Someone privately texts me
Speaker 2: that I may recall vadios its chivy chabas and mirosl
Speaker 2: urbane We're present was published in Amayan. But I mean
Speaker 2: we spoke about the the chuva the and I dealt
Speaker 2: with it, and the quest is on uh ravadio safe.
Speaker 2: I didn't even remember. I'm gonna mark that down.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: I think he says, there, close your eyes, don't make
Speaker 2: a little sham, don't stand up, uh uh and leave,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Wait me, the rabbi is not happy. The
Speaker 2: chief rabbis are not happy to have the girls get
Speaker 2: up and uh. But the the other only option is
Speaker 2: to get up and walk out, and they thought that
Speaker 2: that would create ill will, so they would close their
Speaker 2: eyes do things like that. Listen what I just showed
Speaker 2: you from the girls of my note. It's not really
Speaker 2: rock of Weinberg Briolac of Weinberg's head. There is explicit
Speaker 2: two things. That's two parts. Part number one it has
Speaker 2: to be Trey Cully two songs sing together, which I
Speaker 2: guess you have. And the other is it has to
Speaker 2: be holy songs, and that's clearly singing fun or the
Speaker 2: other music that's that's not holy songs. So you can't
Speaker 2: cite the stretch for this. So you have emotion emotional
Speaker 2: Liechtenstein that it's not gonna be aroused. I don't know
Speaker 2: who says it's, uh, maybe it will be I. I
Speaker 2: it's if I was running to school. I don't think
Speaker 2: I would do that, but whatever you gotta. You gotta
Speaker 2: give the kids some outwits. And can you have a
Speaker 2: battle of the bands and say girls are not allowed
Speaker 2: to perform? It would be hard with these crowds, So
Speaker 2: I don't know. David says I proposed the question if
Speaker 2: Swiffkin should be considered a heretic. See his latest blog
Speaker 2: post announcing publication of his book Rationalism Versus Mysticism, his
Speaker 2: most controversial, most controversial work. I don't think it's his
Speaker 2: most controversial work. Sosas the sheer Cooma. Yes, sher Coma
Speaker 2: is a text, but what is sher coma? The ra
Speaker 2: mom thought this was some heretical work by these Byzantine types.
Speaker 2: Sheer Coma portrays God in gigantic size that to be
Speaker 2: taken literally, it's it's not clear the rabbi, yes, Riverial Zimmer,
Speaker 2: that's the rabbi he wrote to and David gave the link.
Speaker 2: Anyone could watch there to the delivered escorted to the
Speaker 2: grave with the thegooning he composed in terms of getting
Speaker 2: back to Borrows question, is the appropriate? The only thing
Speaker 2: I know that would be inappropriate. This is actually stated
Speaker 2: by Ruffi Causill j Huda Greenwald. I know we have
Speaker 2: one person from Columbus who listens to the classes. He
Speaker 2: was a row for many years in Columbus. He wrote
Speaker 2: the book Cobo Alvebloswitch for many years was the standard work.
Speaker 2: He attacks the modern Orthodox rabbis. I don't know what
Speaker 2: the definition of a modern North shrabbi was in his day.
Speaker 2: He died. I think in forty five he speaks to
Speaker 2: them that when they would carry the coffin, the rabbi
Speaker 2: would stand and stand in front of the coffin, walk
Speaker 2: in front of it and reciting to Hilim. He says
Speaker 2: that comes from the volume. I'm thinking, though I've been
Speaker 2: to funerals, do we ever have funerals where our rabbis
Speaker 2: walk in front of the coffin reading to Hilim or something.
Speaker 2: I think we do, but Rabbi Greenwald, maybe we don't.
Speaker 2: I can't remember now. But Rabbi Greenwald says that that's
Speaker 2: an example of taking a non Jewish practice hookahs a
Speaker 2: volume walking in front of the coffin. Yes, I could
Speaker 2: send you by I can send you the link if
Speaker 2: you want about Remayer Salavacik. You want me to share
Speaker 2: the U R L or the Maya O clip, I'll
Speaker 2: share it to you.
Speaker 3: Know.
Speaker 2: Let me just let me just show you something.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: We're having some doubts. I was here. Hold on a second,
Speaker 2: we close up. I think here, here you go. It's
Speaker 2: all one group, one room. By the way, this is
Speaker 2: the first here. Okay, you can see a man or
Speaker 2: two there. Take my word for it. They're all The
Speaker 2: room is full of men because it's the same they
Speaker 2: went uh right before the boys. They're all uh, they're
Speaker 2: all together. It's all uh. It's all one group. In fact,
Speaker 2: if I can, that's the Messifica of Waterbury. If I
Speaker 2: pull it up here, I can show you quickly the
Speaker 2: JC it's it's a boys and girls group mix. But okay, whatever,
Speaker 2: I don't need to. It's a it's a co ed group,
Speaker 2: co ed audience. All the parents are there actually, since
Speaker 2: so we have just one more minute here, I will uh,
Speaker 2: you don't mind holding on one more minute because not
Speaker 2: that Baro doubts me. But I'm going to show you
Speaker 2: something right now, my friend. I'm going to show you.
Speaker 2: Hold on a second, my alma mater. Here you go.
Speaker 2: I believe I have it here. Hold on a second. Oops, okay,
Speaker 2: I'll show you next class, the the the BREWA one.
Speaker 2: I don't know why I I can't see it now,
Speaker 2: but I don't wanna. I don't want to waste your
Speaker 2: time on on that. But take my word for it.
Speaker 2: You don't need to take my word for it to
Speaker 2: show it to you. Hold on a second. Maybe I
Speaker 2: got it here. I'm looking quickly at the.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I'm seeing all the bands. I don't see the JC
Speaker 2: band here. But okay, let's get back to the questions.
Speaker 2: Let's finish up. Well. The reason the girls sang in
Speaker 2: the front is because when the girls it was like
Speaker 2: a battle of the sexist sort of thing. So when
Speaker 2: the girls sang, all the girls went to the front.
Speaker 2: When the boys sang, all the boys went to the
Speaker 2: front to cheer on. That's the that's how it worked. No,
Speaker 2: no boys left when the right wing ones. You know what,
Speaker 2: maybe Messifita of Waterberry, they might have left when the
Speaker 2: girls sang, I don't know. I can tell you you're
Speaker 2: trying to find the host for the Mono Orthodox. I
Speaker 2: get it. I get it. Very nice. The was these
Speaker 2: and these are the words of the living God. And
Speaker 2: I'm sure that some members of a se okay hard
Speaker 2: to believe with the rise of from kind of monoon
Speaker 2: circles and none of this have changed in these themes. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's an interesting point, and I'll end with this is
Speaker 2: the last thing. The schools are much more liberal than
Speaker 2: the Shoals if you look at modern Orthodox high schools,
Speaker 2: because they pull in from a wide, much wider range,
Speaker 2: and in fact, you have many people who are not
Speaker 2: really Schomer Schambas in some of these schools. The schools
Speaker 2: are and have always been more liberal than the Shoals.
Speaker 2: The Shools would never have anything like this. In fact,
Speaker 2: the rabbis, when the rabbis of the when the rabbis
Speaker 2: come to events at the schools, and when the teachers
Speaker 2: are at the events. And let's say you have a
Speaker 2: play and then you have the girls singing two girls,
Speaker 2: the rabbis get up and the rebbies get up, and
Speaker 2: they walk out, and it's demonstrable when they get up,
Speaker 2: you see them uh. And you never would have this
Speaker 2: at the shoals, but you have it at the schools.
Speaker 2: And and these are all the schools. And Missift of
Speaker 2: Woodbury allows their students. Maybe they tell their students when
Speaker 2: the girls sing to leave, but their students participate in uh,
Speaker 2: in this battle of the bands.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And that's this quasi gadi uh sort of place. But
Speaker 2: it's an interesting and land with this bar it's it's
Speaker 2: an interesting point. There is a real distinction between the camps,
Speaker 2: the schools and the shoals. The shoals are much more
Speaker 2: traditional and and are moving much more traditional that things
Speaker 2: that will never be allowed at the shoals are allowed
Speaker 2: in schools. Then yes, I'm sure the rebbies tell their
Speaker 2: tell their students that they should leave. And I'm sure
Speaker 2: my son comes back, he's gonna be he's gonna be
Speaker 2: very angry that how we ever, you know what, just
Speaker 2: I will just show you one more thing and then
Speaker 2: we'll end with this because he listens to to some
Speaker 2: of these just so shep a, Uh, show you something
Speaker 2: here so you can see the this is the guy
Speaker 2: my son. I'll show you who now is learning Uh
Speaker 2: all day all night. And uh, I asked, I'm telling
Speaker 2: you he had COVID but I so I told him
Speaker 2: that he has to go get his uh, try to
Speaker 2: find a place where they'll give him a vaccine because
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, if they have extra
Speaker 2: as an Israel, they'll give it to him. And uh,
Speaker 2: he says, no, it's Dean of the Mahusse. He can't
Speaker 2: go because the government says you can't. I said, it's not.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day, they'll give it to you.
Speaker 2: He goes, no, No, it's den in the Mahusea Dina.
Speaker 2: I can't. So this is this is the the Kushner
Speaker 2: and uh, my son is the guitar player. So they're
Speaker 2: not gonna win any Grammys or anything. But uh, listen,
Speaker 2: at the modern schools, you got to give them these
Speaker 2: sort of outlets. They're not they uh, and most of
Speaker 2: the kids turn out very very nicely and everything. You
Speaker 2: got them play their music, do their things. And my
Speaker 2: son's a bigazan. You should hear his mussaf and okay, well,
Speaker 2: and Dina Mahussel trumps cook fish. That's what I said
Speaker 2: to my son. I said, they're gonna throw it out.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day, Israel has a pony
Speaker 2: of vaccines. And he said no, he says, it's dinner, Mahusa, Dina.
Speaker 2: I have to wait until the government says uh.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: I think as you get older, dinner Mahusse, become a
Speaker 2: little more cynical on this because you realize that the
Speaker 2: government rules are not necessary. I remember we asked were
Speaker 2: seeing this because when I was in Israel, you had
Speaker 2: these rules. You weren't allowed to change money. You know,
Speaker 2: people would go according to legally you weren't allowed to.
Speaker 2: You can only do them in the bank, so people
Speaker 2: go to Allenby Street and other places. This sidium would
Speaker 2: change it. But we were mock pid on it. At BMT,
Speaker 2: we're very MAMACHTI we're very mock pid. And I remember
Speaker 2: me and my friend Jeff k where like Dina the Mahusadina,
Speaker 2: it's it's us, sir. This guy from Revron Crevron was
Speaker 2: right near be empty. He came over to change money,
Speaker 2: and my friends started screaming at him. Get out. He's
Speaker 2: violin dinna masina. But then we asked. Reine said, you know,
Speaker 2: the government's not mock ped on the small amounts, so
Speaker 2: he doesn't think it's a problem, you know, changing small amounts.
Speaker 2: But I get it because I see my son with
Speaker 2: the dinner machusdina. I also had it as well. Okay everyone,
Speaker 2: thank you all, and uh actually died a BArch. I
Speaker 2: don't get this. I get more than achas on the
Speaker 2: kreasata and on the and on the the mussaf. But okay,
Speaker 2: it's okay to play the guitar. Also, he leads the
Speaker 2: cums that says he does all this stuff. There's there's
Speaker 2: worse things to do for high schoolers. Believe me, very preper.
Speaker 1: This series was originally recorded in twenty twenty and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one as part of an ongoing lecture series. To
Speaker 1: sign up to attend the electure on zoom please is
Speaker 1: it toren Motion? Do please rate and review us in
Speaker 1: your favorite podcast apt or even better, tell a friend
Speaker 1: to give a podcast to listen