Speaker 1: Welcome to Jewish History Uncensored with Mark Shapiro. This is
Speaker 1: season sixteenth, episode twenty nine.
Speaker 2: I just I feel it's appropriate to mention we lost
Speaker 2: another giant this week. That's you see his picture there
Speaker 2: of Goadalia Dove Schwartz. I mentioned also because, as I said,
Speaker 2: one of his grandsons has been a longtime listener. Just
Speaker 2: a couple of things I'll say about him. You can
Speaker 2: know well, first of all, hold on me, stop sharing.
Speaker 2: You can read about him on very good article reb Intense.
Speaker 2: I thing it is in intense Intense tank Ritensky whatever
Speaker 2: I don't know from Chicago on the the Larehouse. Although
Speaker 2: I do have to point out that he says, hold
Speaker 2: on a second, I'll get it. He says in the
Speaker 2: article I'll read you the exact words here that Rabbi
Speaker 2: Kadali Dov Schortz is the first second generation American Tomkchum
Speaker 2: to publish goduche Tora. That's that's clearly not correct. Rabbi
Speaker 2: Gadali Dov Schwartz did publish a safe Fair in nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty nine, but we had plenty of American tell me
Speaker 2: I'm in publishing red Tor beforehand. By Gifter, for instance,
Speaker 2: and I think it's ninety forty four in the tapio
Speaker 2: he's publishing, and we have many others if you look
Speaker 2: in Paradise, so then you might want to say, well,
Speaker 2: maybe he's the first to publish a safe their first
Speaker 2: that is American born. I don't know why this language
Speaker 2: at a use second generation American. Now he means American born.
Speaker 2: That's not true at all either. I'm going to show
Speaker 2: you now what I believe is the first Safer ever
Speaker 2: published by an American born Towers scholar. And I know
Speaker 2: we have many scholars of all sorts of areas. Listen
Speaker 2: to us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe,
Speaker 2: I believe this is it. It's called Osarasota. It's a
Speaker 2: commentary on the laws of Helasota and the Rama's Mission
Speaker 2: of Torah, written by none other than ELIZARDSP. Revel. That's
Speaker 2: Bernard Revel's son. And this was published in nineteen forty one.
Speaker 2: I believe this is the first Safer ever published. He
Speaker 2: published all this for him as well, but this was
Speaker 2: his first. This is after his father passed away. His
Speaker 2: father died young el Revel also he died. I think
Speaker 2: in his fifties. Also never married.
Speaker 3: Dove.
Speaker 2: Bernard Revel has no descendants, and I believe so the
Speaker 2: bibliographers with us can correct me if I'm wrong. This
Speaker 2: is the first stay forever published by an Americans in
Speaker 2: terms of rabbi the value go Schwartz's work. You can see. Actually,
Speaker 2: we have so many things I want to show you.
Speaker 2: I'm going to delete this for now. You can see
Speaker 2: this this work, it's called the Charredula. It's a collection
Speaker 2: first of all of hollfic things the answers he gave.
Speaker 2: But even more than that, and which is most interesting
Speaker 2: is the first half of it. It's a historical overview
Speaker 2: of American Orthodoxy. Anyone who wants well, we have histories
Speaker 2: of American Orthodoxy. We have one in particular, this one
Speaker 2: of Jeffrey Gurak. What this is more of a social history.
Speaker 2: If you want to know the harmonic literature, literature from
Speaker 2: the nineteenth century before let's say nineteen World War two,
Speaker 2: great rabbis were here in far funk places from Bangor,
Speaker 2: Maine to Mapuli or Vermont to Omaha, Nebraska. You had
Speaker 2: real first quaess. Tell me to who, for financial reasons
Speaker 2: were first to come to America. And they were all
Speaker 2: over the United States, and a published story. And if
Speaker 2: you want to do a history of the way, I
Speaker 2: would do it of you know, the history of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: Looking at the rabbinic urture halaha, Rabbi Schwartz's first hundred well,
Speaker 2: actually it goes up to uh two hundred pages, two
Speaker 2: thirty one. Well, they skid the first part of this
Speaker 2: dealing a biographical skitch, so about one hundred and eighty
Speaker 2: pages dealing with castrous and mc close and conversion. Very
Speaker 2: very nice. His grandson. Well, first, let me show you
Speaker 2: a picture that they have in this book, because we've
Speaker 2: been we've mentioned this idea a lot already here. It
Speaker 2: is so when he received an honorary degree from yu
Speaker 2: Is there he is. He's in his his gown, cappin gown.
Speaker 2: I showed you last week from the MTJ boys, a
Speaker 2: few of them. I didn't mention instantly last week that
Speaker 2: MTJ that that big book I have gives oglist of
Speaker 2: all the rabbis serving at the well. This was when
Speaker 2: it came out about ten years ago. As rabbis in
Speaker 2: American communities in Israel, she was et cetera, very impressive.
Speaker 2: I had no idea that there were so many musmaching
Speaker 2: distinguished musmaching from mt J. One more thing I just
Speaker 2: want to show you so I thank Rabbi Godalia Dove,
Speaker 2: Schwartz's grandson who gave this to me and I wrote
Speaker 2: about this last year. The rove wrote a letter which
Speaker 2: about the It appeared in the book About in Nattie
Speaker 2: Helscott's book Community, Covenant and Commitment, and before that it
Speaker 2: appeared in let me show you that I don't know
Speaker 2: the title page here The Sanctity of the Synagogue. However,
Speaker 2: the original letter of the Rove was found in the
Speaker 2: archives of Rabbi Gadaliudolf Schwartz as in his house. You
Speaker 2: can see it on top here confidential members or a
Speaker 2: bit of a council only. And it actually and this
Speaker 2: might be the only copy that survives from the fifties
Speaker 2: and Rabbi Schwartz's grandson sent it to me. It has
Speaker 2: a very interesting point in it which anyone who wants
Speaker 2: to write about the Rove needs to know about, because
Speaker 2: he has a couple of paragraphs here. You can go
Speaker 2: to the Sparing blog in November of twenty eighteen and
Speaker 2: you can I included those paragraphs which he speaks about
Speaker 2: how sometimes you can't just you can't give an answer
Speaker 2: that people want. He says, Taku is a very prominent
Speaker 2: and characteristic, featured persha welpa. We members of the local
Speaker 2: Commission are not partners in a contracting firm whose task
Speaker 2: it is to provide every member of the Brineral Council
Speaker 2: of America with a queer cut answer to his problems.
Speaker 2: Why often the solution will lose us. We are beset
Speaker 2: by grave doubts. We face many alternatives, not knowing which
Speaker 2: to choose, which to choose, since each is supported by
Speaker 2: sound logical reasoning. We cannot be guided in our decisions
Speaker 2: by emotional factors or pragmatic arbitrariness, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And then he says that the decision sometimes seem to
Speaker 2: inconvenience some of our members. And uh so this is
Speaker 2: a very important passage by devalued of Shorts, by the way,
Speaker 2: served as a Rabbi of the as the basin of
Speaker 2: the r Senate. Okay, let us move on a couple
Speaker 2: more things. We're gonna get to next week. We'll get
Speaker 2: to the issue I want to deal with. Uh oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: saying God's name that Mosha asked at the end of
Speaker 2: last class, can you say God's name? We'll get to that.
Speaker 2: Just too much to do today. Oh okay, two more things,
Speaker 2: dreamer things. Actually this will take it's probably totenov uh.
Speaker 2: Do you know this book? I just want to clarify
Speaker 2: last week. This is Daniel Sperber's great the volume five
Speaker 2: of his study of Minhagime. I know a lot of
Speaker 2: people were surprised about last class what I said about
Speaker 2: the minoga, and then I said to the implication of
Speaker 2: the schoch also, so let me show you what I'm
Speaker 2: talking about. Then it's in Jena Diomo. If you look
Speaker 2: in the Tour sim On six seventy three. What the
Speaker 2: tour says is that when you write down the ariskonika,
Speaker 2: you don't make a sake that is with other lights. Therefore,
Speaker 2: he says the last one, the okarone, is not for knica.
Speaker 2: So there, what is it for? The tour says it
Speaker 2: is for the light. So if you use it, you're
Speaker 2: using a light, You're not using a minoa. And then
Speaker 2: the tour says that ain't shame shamashall of we do
Speaker 2: not call this hand all the shamas while light because
Speaker 2: khama who am, because we already used the shamash to
Speaker 2: light the manoa. So we see from the tour they
Speaker 2: had two lights. Now, if you look in the s
Speaker 2: what does he say here? He says as follows. He's
Speaker 2: not so clear his language. He's quoting the tour, but
Speaker 2: he's not one hundred percent clear. He says vanoa gami
Speaker 2: near no suff He says, we're accustomed to light an
Speaker 2: additional naire, additional candle kadesh englisha yell or no suff shot.
Speaker 2: He says that, so that if you use it, you'll
Speaker 2: you're not using the manoa. Now, what's not clear about
Speaker 2: the shoa here is because uh, he's actually referring here
Speaker 2: to the second light, not the shamas. He's referring to
Speaker 2: the one you like. Afterwards, you see that if you
Speaker 2: read the door and that the Ramo says, say, oh
Speaker 2: that is in Poland and safe rock manasa. It's on
Speaker 2: a shamash. So there must says in our lands, we
Speaker 2: don't have this separate can't look light candle. We just
Speaker 2: have the shamash. So we see that the chaufrone even
Speaker 2: and what's the reason, Well, the reason is there's too
Speaker 2: there's the one you light it with, and then there's
Speaker 2: the one, the one that you use so that you
Speaker 2: don't get benefit from the light of the Manoah, and
Speaker 2: we use the shamash for that. But you see, that's
Speaker 2: what I meant when I said to chafe the chauf.
Speaker 2: He sort of abridges it so it's not really clear,
Speaker 2: but he's voting the tour that's the Roma understands them.
Speaker 2: And when he says to no near no stuff, that's
Speaker 2: after lighting the candles. Uh, that's referring to the second
Speaker 2: the second one you're light You like two things before
Speaker 2: we get to big question last week, which I think
Speaker 2: you will find of interest, is Susannah with us? If not,
Speaker 2: I'm going to hold off till she is with us
Speaker 2: because a show like this, if she doesn't write it,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna hold off till next week, uh for Susannah,
Speaker 2: And that way we won't I'm here, Oh, Susanna is here. Okay.
Speaker 2: So Susannah made a very good point last week about
Speaker 2: how sometimes even in Taanacha, you have things that don't go,
Speaker 2: don't go in accordance with the rules. So I want
Speaker 2: to show you a couple of things here delete this,
Speaker 2: here's to uh to hell him some of these telling
Speaker 2: we know very well lamitvove you'd babs. What does it
Speaker 2: say here screen up here? Alta vote amy rego gaval
Speaker 2: let not the foot of pride overtake me the al
Speaker 2: timy daney and let not the hand of the week
Speaker 2: could drive me away. What is this word al to
Speaker 2: vote amy. It's a very strange word.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: You would expect to say ta voili. We don't have
Speaker 2: the new mude ending in a case like that. But
Speaker 2: this it rhymes, you see the no ending to the
Speaker 2: day to d tenny dainty. So you have TiVo ani.
Speaker 2: Another example, look over here, this is uh number man
Speaker 2: look at zion. Let's talking about the different sacrifices, and
Speaker 2: it says, oh of the hatah alta burnt offering and
Speaker 2: sent offering, hast thou not required. Wouldn't your hata? It
Speaker 2: should be hata. But again the rhyming o the rata.
Speaker 2: Here we go Another example into hill looking gimmel amri
Speaker 2: Leloheim saying to God man no ra masaka, that's a
Speaker 2: man no ram saca. Uh, that's that's not unusual. You
Speaker 2: would like you would assume it would be man poro
Speaker 2: no ra no rhin. Perhaps is there another one I
Speaker 2: want to show you? So look at the here five
Speaker 2: vers five. Looking at verse five no verse eight, the
Speaker 2: Ani bors bar lining by a tech it's strange. You'd
Speaker 2: expect maybe berra. Yes, I mean that's not grammatical per se,
Speaker 2: but it's just unusual. Okay. So now where where do
Speaker 2: I get all these examples from? And there's many, many
Speaker 2: more examples I can give you. I get it from
Speaker 2: this book. Actually this book. I found a very interesting
Speaker 2: book years ago called Parijamlitza The Safer Tailor by uh
Speaker 2: Lithuanian who went there to sorrow wrotesfari men and he
Speaker 2: came to America William Grossman's in English in Hebrew Zev
Speaker 2: Grossman book. The book has an approbation by William Chomsky.
Speaker 2: William Chomsky, who's a great Grimmerian, is the father of
Speaker 2: none other than Noah Chompsky. I don't think William Chomsky,
Speaker 2: who was one of the leading scholars of Hebrew, as
Speaker 2: far as I know, he was an anti Zionist. So
Speaker 2: Broceman wrote this book, and uh, he points out something
Speaker 2: which I find really interesting. He says his follows. You
Speaker 2: don't just speak about to Hilen. He gives an example here.
Speaker 2: Look in now this is Parahuftest thirty five. What does
Speaker 2: it say here the Asila Aronovanov? And thus show you
Speaker 2: do to Aaron and his sons? Sorry an khola short cvc.
Speaker 2: All that I have commanded osaka is about why have
Speaker 2: you ever seen this word osaker? You never say it?
Speaker 2: See that, but notice it's it's for the rhyme, the
Speaker 2: csila aronovka cohola sht cvc osaka. That there's an example
Speaker 2: where even in toward itself, we see variations from what
Speaker 2: we'd expect normal grammar when it quote should be in
Speaker 2: order for the rhyme. I was looking in this book.
Speaker 2: It's so interesting the because at the end it gives
Speaker 2: his books and lo and behold he published this book
Speaker 2: initially where he published it then in the forties, the
Speaker 2: forties or fifties here no fifty four, yes fifty four,
Speaker 2: so he has the last pages. Look at this Timuno Speakadolia.
Speaker 2: He sold pictures of the great rabbis Rashi Rambam, Joseph Kara,
Speaker 2: the Rama, the provisions Almond of readers, collars sure the
Speaker 2: kitzky and on a card, and that you could put
Speaker 2: him on the uh this is the put him on
Speaker 2: the you're the wall of the school or the base madris.
Speaker 2: So this is the rabbi cards. We all know about
Speaker 2: rabbi cards, right. I used to collect them. Ze's ellis
Speaker 2: the indefatigable zev He has an article came out a
Speaker 2: few years ago, Godolan cards and the commodification of rabbis things.
Speaker 2: I used to collect these cards.
Speaker 4: At My.
Speaker 2: Brother also did that. My brother's bar mitza for the
Speaker 2: tables of the seating instead of like one, two three,
Speaker 2: it was different. Adobi So had the beni skai and
Speaker 2: this and that, and then we had some giant ones
Speaker 2: hanging on the ceiling. One of them looked like this.
Speaker 2: This is of course the famous of Verbuhona Las. I
Speaker 2: took this. It's a huge it was like three feet
Speaker 2: and I brought it to JC where I was a student,
Speaker 2: and I hung it on the wall of our classroom.
Speaker 2: And I come back a day or two later and
Speaker 2: it's not there, And people told me that Rabbi tights
Speaker 2: took it off. So I didn't understand. Why would Rabbi
Speaker 2: tights take off the poster of Verbohonen. I know, I
Speaker 2: didn't know then, and Rohana was controversial in some of
Speaker 2: his views, but it's still not a reason to take
Speaker 2: him off. I went to Rubbi tights and he said
Speaker 2: that the room that was my classroom, they use it
Speaker 2: since we use it for Dovini Minha. You can't have
Speaker 2: a picture even of a godl on it because it's used.
Speaker 2: You could say someone could like that in that direction,
Speaker 2: whatever he says, in a show, you don't have pictures
Speaker 2: of Godoba. I guess not bolthough, in if you go
Speaker 2: into that room I showed you two weeks ago, the
Speaker 2: small not the big show. But like the base minors
Speaker 2: in Tunis, they have pictures of the great Tunisian rabbis
Speaker 2: in the actual show itself. And don't get me started
Speaker 2: by Ahabad. Obviously they have a picture of the Rebbe. Okay,
Speaker 2: the last thing I want to do now is I
Speaker 2: want to give an introduction for a minute, and then
Speaker 2: we'll get to the question and this will take us
Speaker 2: like five more minutes or so. We spoke about poetry
Speaker 2: a bit. We spoke about how it doesn't have to
Speaker 2: always be in accordant with grammatical rules, Ashkenazim. For instance,
Speaker 2: if you read the Aloc's poetry, it's in accordance with
Speaker 2: and Tchernikowski. It rhymes Ashkenazi. So it's not that the
Speaker 2: Alok is row. That's how the Ashkenazim pronounce it. Not
Speaker 2: in to reading. I'm talking about poems. The the best
Speaker 2: example of this, which you all know, even if you
Speaker 2: don't realize. You know it is a tikvah a tikfa,
Speaker 2: which uh we all know, and how it sungs. But
Speaker 2: also they say the meter not so good at meter
Speaker 2: is the same thing, but it's Ashkenazic. The whole thing
Speaker 2: is Ashkenazik. And it's strange because Israelis today all recite it,
Speaker 2: but it's not done. For example, we don't say odo
Speaker 2: av da tik it's old lo avda ha tikva, not
Speaker 2: a tik va. Uh, it's Leo the not Leotai, Ceo,
Speaker 2: not Coo. And that's okay because again that's uh, it's
Speaker 2: written and it's sung by Ashkenazi. Now why do I
Speaker 2: give this as an introduction? I give this as an
Speaker 2: introduction for the following reason. Last class I read as
Speaker 2: follows and show you what I read. I was reading
Speaker 2: aDNA ram, we are pronouncing it. And I said, uh,
Speaker 2: the second bottom line there das Ara and Mel pointed
Speaker 2: out to me, and then we had a correspondence and
Speaker 2: gave me permission to cite him that when I said
Speaker 2: the Ira, it actually is incorrect. It should be the
Speaker 2: era because look you see though I'm right there, just
Speaker 2: like over here Bira. And then he said that, uh,
Speaker 2: it's the only reason we say the chan valira is
Speaker 2: because of because of the tune the song. And he said,
Speaker 2: points out look above here we say the second line,
Speaker 2: what do we say as I'm melech. We don't say melech.
Speaker 2: We say as I'm melech with the accent on the end.
Speaker 3: And his point is and I.
Speaker 2: Said to him, I'll speak about this next week. And
Speaker 2: Mel says he doesn't know what's there to discuss. The
Speaker 2: correct stress is clearly marked in the sitter. And you
Speaker 2: do see the line there in the art under Melach
Speaker 2: under our era. Bye, someone is I hear someone? So
Speaker 2: someone has to be muted.
Speaker 5: This line.
Speaker 2: We know it's the meteg in the tower, we call
Speaker 2: it in the hummush, we'll call it a guy you here,
Speaker 2: it's a metic By the way, the don't always rely
Speaker 2: necessarily that the metics correct. For instance, I found that
Speaker 2: art Stroll gets in the bekosa shakra. Arts Throw gets
Speaker 2: it right in the morning, it's we have a broth
Speaker 2: called Sarki. He has sorry uh to make sure I
Speaker 2: don't confuse the two dispute. Actually that word the last word,
Speaker 2: it's sky. But as arts Grow gets it right, Koran
Speaker 2: gets it wrong. Koran has sa sali. It's definitely it's
Speaker 2: a meal l for the reasons that we spoke about.
Speaker 2: But Korn gets the first brough right. Sure, Nassan v Na,
Speaker 2: art Stroll gets it wrong. We know that it's a
Speaker 2: it's a pusslen In art Scow even tells you it's
Speaker 2: an eel. So it's not exactly. But this is Mell's point.
Speaker 2: Every sinner I checked, I checked all the sea during
Speaker 2: they all put the the dash there Mell Ira Ira.
Speaker 2: So they all agree, and yet I'm gonna tell you
Speaker 2: now that in my opinion, they're all wrong. And therefore,
Speaker 2: although mel says that he wonders what they're discussed, the
Speaker 2: correct stress is currently marked on the citter. I tell
Speaker 2: you right now, the correct stress is not marked on
Speaker 2: the sitter, and all these see Duriam are wrong for
Speaker 2: the reason I'm going to explain. Now, Yes, the word
Speaker 2: melick is to be written if you just have the
Speaker 2: word melic. We know that whenever there's a three two segles,
Speaker 2: it's the first syllable. So, for example, the word you
Speaker 2: don't say, which incidentally in Benching Benching is an example
Speaker 2: of where the song does mess it up. Who knows
Speaker 2: saying lastmas are we pronounce it when it should be lessen.
Speaker 2: But okay, so that's with a song you can, uh,
Speaker 2: I guess be incorrect. But my point is that this
Speaker 2: is not even incorrect. And let me explain to you.
Speaker 2: And I'm going to prove this to you in two
Speaker 2: ways and then mel and the rest. You'll either accept
Speaker 2: it or you won't accept it. Let me explain to
Speaker 2: you why. Because if a poem is written from the
Speaker 2: beginning to be pronounced a certain way, even if it
Speaker 2: doesn't fit in with we call grammar, then it is
Speaker 2: that's the way to do. So when Nel says that
Speaker 2: there are people in his shoel who go against the
Speaker 2: tune and put the stresses on the correct syllables, I say, no,
Speaker 2: they're putting this stresses on the room syllable because you
Speaker 2: can't argue with the author. And let me explain to
Speaker 2: you what I mean. Now, the author intended it to
Speaker 2: be written in a certain way, and in poetry doesn't
Speaker 2: need to be guided. So for example, here you can
Speaker 2: see I don't know. Let me just read you the
Speaker 2: first two lines. How this works. It goes as follows.
Speaker 2: You have eight syllables, and it goes no stress stress,
Speaker 2: no stress, stress, no stress. So it goes uh, don't
Speaker 2: oh lum a share ma lah the tenm call yeah,
Speaker 2: sear nivra let a nasa the tref so call zai
Speaker 2: me chef mo kru. So you see very clearly that
Speaker 2: the way the poem is set up. But we don't
Speaker 2: know who they wrote this poem. It's a medieval apparently
Speaker 2: in Spain. We don't know wrote You see very clearly
Speaker 2: that the way it's designed to be read, it's not Melach.
Speaker 2: And if someone recites the song and tries to make
Speaker 2: it as I melf instead of Melas, he's going against
Speaker 2: the intent of the author. And the author is entitled
Speaker 2: to create a poem the way he wants. And as
Speaker 2: for how I recited the end of the line value
Speaker 2: rah not val Ira. Just look at how they are
Speaker 2: the Manasco Cibo makr the a s Schanva, a e
Speaker 2: ra Hashemi, the low e ro. It is obviously designed
Speaker 2: to be read that way, despite the fact that if
Speaker 2: you take the word itself the era, it should be
Speaker 2: the era. But that's not how it's supposed to end.
Speaker 2: So now, if you're still not convinced, I will convince
Speaker 2: you now for the simple reason that a lot of
Speaker 2: people were thinking that this is the Ashka Nazi. We
Speaker 2: like to use tunes that don't go on a chord
Speaker 2: with grammar. But obviously the sardine they get it right.
Speaker 2: They'll get it right. Let me play you how the
Speaker 2: Fardim read this, and you will see they all read
Speaker 2: it the way I just said, for the simple reason
Speaker 2: that this is how you're supposed to read it. So,
Speaker 2: although so those Fahamim telling you the tune is wrong,
Speaker 2: the tune is right. And how do I know this? Well,
Speaker 2: let me play you just a couple I could do more.
Speaker 2: I found online. What you can find today is amazing.
Speaker 3: Here is.
Speaker 2: This comes from Central Asia. The caucus is just read
Speaker 2: how they I'm not gonna be able to read them
Speaker 2: all with for all of you. But listen to all
Speaker 2: these different sward and how they read it. And listen,
Speaker 2: let me make it loud so you can hear a
Speaker 2: bit go.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: Okay, So here you have in the middle of Asia.
Speaker 2: They read it properly. And then this isn't because of
Speaker 2: some tune and some Ashkenazi invented in Germany. How about
Speaker 2: the end? Let me get it to U the closer
Speaker 2: to the end here?
Speaker 3: Well is it?
Speaker 2: Oh my, no, same man that goes oh manica ver uh.
Speaker 5: Uh uh.
Speaker 2: They had stored him have extra verses in it. So
Speaker 2: there you see it here do we have up here's
Speaker 2: North Africans. Look how the North Africans recited.
Speaker 5: Oh sam la me? Did him cold?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 5: Your name? Uh me? Not so cool as I may shame.
Speaker 2: Okay, there you go again. Let me show you another
Speaker 2: one here we oh, actually, let me show you. I
Speaker 2: think I have one more I want to show here. Oh,
Speaker 2: here's two miss I want to show you at the
Speaker 2: end here two thirty two. I made a mark here.
Speaker 2: Listen how the last lines are.
Speaker 5: Be we sov we.
Speaker 2: Actually sorry that was the wrong one. We're a different
Speaker 2: one now okay? Whatever, Well I have here I'll play
Speaker 2: from the beginning. This is to tunis oh.
Speaker 6: Man be the ram go'sly it nash.
Speaker 5: The stoke gold as I mean.
Speaker 2: Man laugh mal laugh uh. And if I can find
Speaker 2: it quickly here these are preserving the traditional tunes.
Speaker 5: We sov we be they.
Speaker 6: And we uh I mean.
Speaker 2: And finally, oh, actually one more thing I want to
Speaker 2: show you, and then we'll be done for today. But
Speaker 2: I think you'll find those interesting because those are traditional tunes.
Speaker 2: There's a yem night wine also.
Speaker 3: Mhm, not back any co.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going home.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure looking back any con yet not.
Speaker 5: Every talk I tell him here, let me.
Speaker 2: Get down, and then uh, just to play you at
Speaker 2: the end, Oh.
Speaker 3: Is it not? Is it not?
Speaker 4: Here?
Speaker 3: I don't arget it all.
Speaker 2: I era not a era. And the last thing I
Speaker 2: want to show you in this is I found on
Speaker 2: that very site they have a sitter from sixteen sixteen
Speaker 2: in Germany. And look how they market at the end
Speaker 2: here at the bottom here, look how they divide it
Speaker 2: the ecra the era. They divide all the endings there
Speaker 2: bit's Sarah, so that you know they're separated. So that's that.
Speaker 2: It says at the top here it says shear me
Speaker 2: at he to stay to new oak, stay to new oak.
Speaker 2: That's it's not exactly it's it doesn't always have that.
Speaker 2: But what this means is that the a tade is,
Speaker 2: for example, the shava or the that's the first, yeah,
Speaker 2: odd dome, that's the first thing, and then straight to
Speaker 2: oh uh you see the set and how that follows
Speaker 2: the model share the the tade is the first, the chava,
Speaker 2: followed by the next syllable, and then the new oat
Speaker 2: ma la. Then you go remco yeah see her. That's
Speaker 2: not every verse does that, but uh, most of the
Speaker 2: verses do that. So I rest my place that the
Speaker 2: way it should be pronounced is malech, even though that's
Speaker 2: not the grammatical, but that's how the poet intended it.
Speaker 2: He intended it to be ira rah because he wrote it,
Speaker 2: and he intended us to recite it that way, and
Speaker 2: if you look, Jews all over the world recite it
Speaker 2: this way. This is some Ashkenazic sort of uh thing.
Speaker 2: I see, we say, I'll get back to you that
Speaker 2: now about that, So I I that's that's my point.
Speaker 2: Very good. Let us move on now. But I think
Speaker 2: I made my case there that this isn't a. We
Speaker 2: had plenty of examples of pronunciation mistakes that uh that
Speaker 2: there were tunes go against the grammatical rules because we
Speaker 2: just invented the two. But here's an example where the
Speaker 2: author of the poem wanted you to say fade a
Speaker 2: certain way, and as I showed you the first two lines,
Speaker 2: it has to be melef because it goes unaccented, accented,
Speaker 2: unaccent accent, et cetera. Okay, my friends, we now turn
Speaker 2: to the safer. We went longer than I ever went,
Speaker 2: but I thought this was as you know, those who
Speaker 2: with me for many years' we don't actually we just
Speaker 2: keep going like what is it rebby tarphone? Uh you
Speaker 2: know we we says it in Turkey of us that
Speaker 2: we're not going to be able to finish everything and
Speaker 2: uh a fatha fothball. Also, you can say, because I
Speaker 2: put on the YouTube, I give a little description of
Speaker 2: what we talked about. But someone emailed me the other
Speaker 2: day that all I mentioned was the actual things in
Speaker 2: the book we speak about it, and I don't even
Speaker 2: speak about all the other things. But okay, we returned
Speaker 2: to the safer. I'm in the middle of the letter.
Speaker 2: This is page two thirty seven in the letter to
Speaker 2: Rabbi Mazu's Simon Puffi Dowd and as I mentioned that
Speaker 2: I would write him, I would save up a lot
Speaker 2: of questions or comments and then send them them. So
Speaker 2: this has maybe ten different things. The next thing is
Speaker 2: as fathers he said in he comes out, you know
Speaker 2: with this weekly rashets. So in one of them he
Speaker 2: said his follows. He quoted the Rumbumb. First of all,
Speaker 2: we all know, or we should know, that if someone
Speaker 2: says eat this non kosher food or I'll kill you,
Speaker 2: you're not supposed to be killed. You're supposed to eat it.
Speaker 2: The only exception would be if the person was doing
Speaker 2: that in a way that's say, to cause you to
Speaker 2: destroy it, wasn't doing it for his own benefit, but
Speaker 2: to destroy Judaism, something like that. But leave that aside.
Speaker 2: From now, we'll get back to that. But generally we
Speaker 2: all know that except for the three big things, a
Speaker 2: vote asara shistamin, killing someone someone says kill this person
Speaker 2: or I'll kill you, or certain sexual moralities, martyrdom is required.
Speaker 2: And Rabbi Mazous said quotes the that the the Rumbumb's
Speaker 2: position that there's there's no, the rum mom doesn't just
Speaker 2: say you don't up your life. Let's say, if someone
Speaker 2: says eating non kosher, the Rumam says you're you have
Speaker 2: the status of a suicide. If someone comes up to
Speaker 2: you with it, puts a gun to your head and
Speaker 2: says eat on young Pipper or I'll kill you, and
Speaker 2: you say, well, I'm going to be pious. I'd rather
Speaker 2: be killed. The rumbus lush on is horaisingki. It's like
Speaker 2: you're a suicide because, after all, the Torah tells us
Speaker 2: when to give up our life and when not to.
Speaker 2: And it's not your life. It's not your life to
Speaker 2: decide what you're gonna do with it, just like we
Speaker 2: all know it's not our bodies. We can't just do
Speaker 2: what we want. We can't decide that I want to
Speaker 2: give up life now I'm going to just commit suicide
Speaker 2: or something. Well, you can't say I'm just gonna you know,
Speaker 2: I don't. I can't eat non kosher, I can't eat
Speaker 2: on young Pipper and therefore kill me. The Rumm's very
Speaker 2: harsh about however, this on earth, they so safe. It's
Speaker 2: troubled him. He didn't agree with this, and he said
Speaker 2: straining him Rabbi. He says, many great people disagree with
Speaker 2: the Rambam that if you choose you, you it's like
Speaker 2: super irrogatory. If you miss a din, if someone says
Speaker 2: I'll kill you unless you eat or something, uh, then
Speaker 2: you and you decide to be martyred, you're considered pious
Speaker 2: and holy. And so we're gonna get back to this
Speaker 2: in a second. So we have a dispute here. The
Speaker 2: rum says you can't Chochnard quotes people who say you can.
Speaker 2: Ravan Mazous explain, what does it mean?
Speaker 3: What is the the.
Speaker 2: Chan i should say mean when he says that if
Speaker 2: you are killed and didn't violated, it's considered a great action.
Speaker 2: Ramazou says he did amidst of a godola the keys
Speaker 2: Hashem and he uh and Raban Maszoos writes he sanctified.
Speaker 2: And how does he say Hashem? He says, hey with
Speaker 2: a dash? So I wrote to Ramazous, is this a typo?
Speaker 2: Hey with a dash? Because the word it should be
Speaker 2: hashen hey shin man, the sanctify God's name? Where does
Speaker 2: this come from? This whole idea? It comes from this
Speaker 2: puzzle right here. Let's see we got the puzzle here Vayikra. No,
Speaker 2: it's not that here kra Peric twenty two, verse thirty two.
Speaker 2: What does it say? It says, you shall not profane
Speaker 2: my holy name as shame cud she's got I you
Speaker 2: should not profane my holy name, and uh, you should
Speaker 2: sanctify me. But the word here is shame. You see,
Speaker 2: that's where you get the idea of hello Hashem, because
Speaker 2: the it's not it's not as in God. That's my point.
Speaker 2: So if you say k hsham, it should be uh,
Speaker 2: you should just use hey, because when we use hey
Speaker 2: with a dash that refers to God. I also have
Speaker 2: another pet peeve that here. You see here people write
Speaker 2: as follows hilo hashim. That's the word hashem. That's how
Speaker 2: we write God, hushm God. That's not the name. If
Speaker 2: when you say hashm, it's and look here, look at
Speaker 2: the in the article. Why is kiddish is and hillo
Speaker 2: there lowercase and hashem hashem as in God God.
Speaker 3: But it's not.
Speaker 2: It's not God. It's not Kiddish of God. And the
Speaker 2: author here knows is not Kiddish of God, but he
Speaker 2: still writes hushim capital age. If anything, it should be
Speaker 2: small h a dash capital s if you want a GM,
Speaker 2: but not hushim, So I asked ram Azous. Though Mazus
Speaker 2: he knows everything, he writes hey, kiddish hey, and so
Speaker 2: he replieses me it really is the same thing, because
Speaker 2: he doesn't really answer the question. He says, uh, look
Speaker 2: in the pussle here vidash de bot in Israel, I
Speaker 2: will be sanctified. So he says that when you are
Speaker 2: sanctified God's name, you sanctify God. So therefore it's okay
Speaker 2: to write hey with the dash. Okay, leave it there.
Speaker 2: I still don't like it because people when they see husham,
Speaker 2: just the hey and the dash, they assume it means,
Speaker 2: you know, sanctification of God when it's not. But the
Speaker 2: bigger question is as follows, and this is when I
Speaker 2: this gets us into a very very important issue here.
Speaker 2: As I said, the Rambam holds it. If you say,
Speaker 2: if you would martyr yourself when you're not supposed to be,
Speaker 2: you're a suicide. However, the problem is that this is
Speaker 2: the position of the Rambam in the Missionta. But the
Speaker 2: ROBM has another word. It's called agherrisha shamad. The Garisha
Speaker 2: Shamad was written the Rambam. You had this the rise
Speaker 2: of this radical Islamic group called the Almaha. Yes, they
Speaker 2: were the Hamas or the Islami Jihad of medieval times. Now,
Speaker 2: the typical Muslim approach is as it says in the Quran,
Speaker 2: is there is no compulsion in religion. But there's all
Speaker 2: sorts of interpretations over what that meant. The mainstream interpretation
Speaker 2: was that for people of the book, that is Jews
Speaker 2: and Christians, you couldn't force them to convert. All you
Speaker 2: could do is keep them in like in a second
Speaker 2: class status. Dim me but Pagans, of course we're having
Speaker 2: a choice conversion or death. But there were the others
Speaker 2: who interpreted that first in a different way. And the
Speaker 2: Almohads they had a notion of conversion or death. They
Speaker 2: came into Spain and they gave people this choice conversion
Speaker 2: or death or the Rambam and his family fled to
Speaker 2: North Africa. They would then make their way to or
Speaker 2: to throw and then Egypt. Now the Ramum was asked
Speaker 2: the question because the people in Spain and in Morocco,
Speaker 2: what most of them did not all the die in
Speaker 2: the Fez, for instance, was burnt at the steak were
Speaker 2: told because he refused to convert. But what most of
Speaker 2: them did was convert to Islam outwardly. What does it
Speaker 2: mean to convert to Islam. It's not it's not so
Speaker 2: complicated like in Judaism. There's no meal or anything that's required.
Speaker 2: What's required is you say the shad. If you say
Speaker 2: it once with meaning there is no God but God.
Speaker 2: Not there's no God but Allah. There's no good Allah
Speaker 2: as God. There's no God but God. And Mohammad is
Speaker 2: is propheted. You say at one time with meaning, you're
Speaker 2: a Muslim. All you have to do is say that.
Speaker 2: And that's and most of the Jews, but the overwhelming
Speaker 2: majority of Jews, that's what they did. And they lived
Speaker 2: as secret Jews, but outwardly as Muslims. In fact, that
Speaker 2: Irma tells us that the Muslims knew that the Jews
Speaker 2: were not living privately as Muslims. I guess they figured
Speaker 2: over time they would become a Muslim. The question did
Speaker 2: the Rambam live as a Muslim? It's an interesting historical question,
Speaker 2: as he says that all of us have to live
Speaker 2: like a Muslim. So was he speaking the royal we
Speaker 2: or was he referring to himself, and he says that
Speaker 2: we all have to do this. Now, it's not a
Speaker 2: problem quote religious problem, because the rom I's going to
Speaker 2: tell you that's what you should do. But this was
Speaker 2: the biggest it's a big historical issue that the Rama
Speaker 2: himself has to live as a Muslim. Okay, so the Rombum.
Speaker 2: The problem was these Jews were challenged by this scholar.
Speaker 2: We don't know who this scholar was. The ram treats
Speaker 2: him as if he's nobody. But he couldn't have been
Speaker 2: a nobody because when he issued his ruling that all
Speaker 2: these Jews are basically i at the status of idolators
Speaker 2: because they're living as a Muslim, the Jewish community was
Speaker 2: thrown into a quandary. If he was some nobody, they
Speaker 2: wouldn't have cared. So when this unknown scholar issues this ruling,
Speaker 2: they write to the Rambum, and the Rambum issues this
Speaker 2: marvelous work the Garrison Shamad, which is the defense of
Speaker 2: the Jewish community under siege, explaining that what you're doing
Speaker 2: is absolutely correct. There's no obligation to marry yourself because
Speaker 2: Islam is not idolatry. Uh, there's a big difference between
Speaker 2: the response in the Christian lands when you were obligated
Speaker 2: tomorrow to yourself. That doesn't mean that the people who
Speaker 2: are not strong enough to allow themselves to be killed,
Speaker 2: as many Jews in France and Germany did, but in Spain,
Speaker 2: for instance, in Portugal, well Spain, let's spit to Spain now,
Speaker 2: most of them did not. It seems the majority converted
Speaker 2: from thirteen ninety one to fourteen ninety two, and many
Speaker 2: of them later then tried and fled to North Africa
Speaker 2: or the land of Israel. The difference is that they
Speaker 2: although they were not treated as evil, but there was
Speaker 2: understood there was a sin, and they were given various
Speaker 2: penances chuva to do. But in what Arama was saying
Speaker 2: is that what you're doing is absolutely correct. There's nothing
Speaker 2: wrong with because it's not idolatry Islam, and therefore all
Speaker 2: they want us to do is make a statement that
Speaker 2: you know, God is God and Mohammas's prophet to save
Speaker 2: our lives. We make a statement. According to Rama, there's
Speaker 2: no mass said, no action of idolatry. Incidentally, this position
Speaker 2: a rumbam, which seems to make a lot of sense,
Speaker 2: was subject to dispute the writs of a the baas,
Speaker 2: because you get into a big one should discussion here
Speaker 2: has I'll say that for these, for given a choice,
Speaker 2: you a votera zara or death, you have to choose death.
Speaker 2: What's the what's the real issue here? The rom Bomb
Speaker 2: holds that the issue is you can't do an action
Speaker 2: of a votazara. The action of a vota azara is
Speaker 2: so terrible that you have to the harvilov, you have
Speaker 2: to accept martyrdom. So with his mom there's no action
Speaker 2: of vota zara. It's a monotheistic religion, so of course
Speaker 2: you don't marty yourself. However, the rit of Va criticizes
Speaker 2: the ram Bomb, and then the rabbas and others, and
Speaker 2: the rivas says the things the Rambam's wrong. He says,
Speaker 2: the real problem is not the action of idolatry, bowing
Speaker 2: down to the cross or whatever, to the idol of Zeus.
Speaker 2: The issue is rejection of the Torah. That's the capital offense,
Speaker 2: denial of the Torah. When Hazau looking for an example
Speaker 2: of denial of the Torah, the example was obviously bowing
Speaker 2: down to an idol kraza in the days a rassal,
Speaker 2: there wasn't a conception of a religion that's monotheistic. Every
Speaker 2: religion was idolatris. So when rassal speak about you know,
Speaker 2: an action of idolatry, that's showing rejection of the Torah.
Speaker 2: But now with Thesam, the rich Vuff, for instance, says,
Speaker 2: we have to get the essence. The essence is denial
Speaker 2: of the Torah. And when you accept a psalm, by definition,
Speaker 2: you're rejecting the Torah because Islam teaches that the Torah
Speaker 2: has been fraudulently written. We've we've altered it. The real
Speaker 2: authentic text is preserved in the Quran, the authentic teaching,
Speaker 2: and therefore, by accepting Islam, you reject the Torah. The
Speaker 2: rich Vas says, and this is what Shati says in
Speaker 2: the Gamara, that is the actually not just the d fathers,
Speaker 2: they all. That is the capital offense, denying the Torah.
Speaker 2: So if it's denying the Torah, if that's the capital offense,
Speaker 2: well then if you're giving the choice virtual Islam or death,
Speaker 2: you have to accept offurse. That's a big mahaukus mungery
Speaker 2: shown me. Is it the action of a votasara the Masa,
Speaker 2: which like the Ramam holds, or the the rejection of
Speaker 2: the toa. Let's leave this aside for now, because in
Speaker 2: the Garrisa Shmad, although the Ramam strongly defends this position
Speaker 2: of his that it's it's only if it's if it's
Speaker 2: no action of the motazaari, you don't eat some word
Speaker 2: of yourself. The Rambam also says, but if you want
Speaker 2: to be piss and you want to be holy, and
Speaker 2: you allow yourself to be martyred, you're kuddash, you're holy,
Speaker 2: You've you've reached a great height. So he leaves it
Speaker 2: as an option, which he does not leave in the
Speaker 2: Mission of Tower, where he says that if it's if
Speaker 2: you're not obligated to and you aie yourself to be killed,
Speaker 2: it's as if you're a suicide. So Rabbi Kaf, the
Speaker 2: great Rabbi Kafe, we've spoken about already, he already deals
Speaker 2: with this in his note on his edition of the
Speaker 2: Rambam's letters, and he says the Ramam changes mind. When
Speaker 2: the Ramam wrote the Agreta Schmad, he was young. Later
Speaker 2: on he changed his mind and he didn't accept this
Speaker 2: idea that you can be pious and volunteer voluntary martyrdom.
Speaker 2: I guess you can call it. He rejects it. Rab
Speaker 2: I mean sorry. Rabbi Shane Lot in this work, his
Speaker 2: Important Edition of the Letters, he has a different approach
Speaker 2: to explain this contradiction. He says that, first of all,
Speaker 2: he points out that we're dealing with an unusual case anyway,
Speaker 2: because in a time of chamad, in a time of persecution,
Speaker 2: you're supposed to give up your life for anything. If
Speaker 2: Romo says, you don't have to, Sir Chatte wants to
Speaker 2: argue that this is maybe not a real schamad because
Speaker 2: the Muslims themselves knew that the Jews it was just
Speaker 2: for show on the outside, and that privately they were
Speaker 2: still being Jewish. He he has a whole different approach.
Speaker 2: He rejects he doesn't accept a Rabbi u Kaffer's idea.
Speaker 2: He says that he says, in the case of where
Speaker 2: it's a shmad aha shmad, then the ram bomb would
Speaker 2: allow you to be a public martyr, a voluntary martyr,
Speaker 2: but not in other cases. So he tries to make
Speaker 2: that argument. It's it's not clear if there's a contradiction,
Speaker 2: how to explain it. Robby Mazou says he thinks the
Speaker 2: simplest answer is as follows. He says, the ram Bum's
Speaker 2: position is and always is that it's it's forbidden to
Speaker 2: be a martyr, a voluntary marder. However, if you go
Speaker 2: ahead and do it anyway with the avada. But if
Speaker 2: you go ahead and do it anyway and you have
Speaker 2: good intentions, we're not going to treat you like a
Speaker 2: suicide you regarded ex post facto. This is like someone
Speaker 2: had you asked the question, we would have said not to,
Speaker 2: but if you went ahead and did it, we regard
Speaker 2: you as holy. Interestingly, this is the exact position of
Speaker 2: Crime Solvation. I saw his new volume, third volume. I
Speaker 2: have to get a essays came out from my favorite
Speaker 2: press Litman library. But that's his That's how Time Salvation
Speaker 2: understands what was going on, because you have a strange phenomenon.
Speaker 2: You have people in ashdie ass not just committing suicide,
Speaker 2: killing their children. How can you kill your children? There's
Speaker 2: no source? So what are we gonna call them all heretics?
Speaker 2: So are we gonna call them evil murderers? Not bury
Speaker 2: them in Jews cemetery? He said, that was impossible. Even
Speaker 2: the Rabbis who assume what they do is absolutely wrong,
Speaker 2: understood they did it because they thought it was the
Speaker 2: proper thing. And therefore, although we will never tell anyone
Speaker 2: to do that ex post facto, we have to regard
Speaker 2: them as kdoshi. And that's how I'm Salvation reads the
Speaker 2: all they are, all the discussions as like ex post facto.
Speaker 2: And that's what Rebamazu says. The rama's position is that
Speaker 2: when the Rama says you're holy, it means that if
Speaker 2: you will, a simple person decides to like just think
Speaker 2: we're back in Germany or in Spain or something like that,
Speaker 2: and ann juk and says, eat this non kosher and
Speaker 2: someone says, no, I will never do that. I would
Speaker 2: rather die than meet that. Uh are we going to
Speaker 2: assume that? And and he's martyr and a were going
Speaker 2: to regard him as a suicide. It's supposed to. Yes,
Speaker 2: the ra mom gives the hawaha. But in the real world,
Speaker 2: if the person intended proper, proper you know, chuva or whatever,
Speaker 2: if he intended to do this, uh to serve God,
Speaker 2: we're not going to regard him as a suicide. Although
Speaker 2: then what's the realm I'm talking about. Then in a
Speaker 2: mission Tarr when he says you were a suicide, it's
Speaker 2: a problem. That's why says he changed his mind. By
Speaker 2: Massous thinks no, Ramazous thinks that that's the Missionaris like
Speaker 2: the theoretical that this is the halaka and you tell
Speaker 2: anyone you understand as the suicide, but expost facto will
Speaker 2: regard the person as a coddas. I'm not sure if
Speaker 2: this is the best answer either, but this is uh
Speaker 2: so we have three approaches to how to deal with
Speaker 2: this very unusual apparently change in the Ramum's position. Is
Speaker 2: there some notion of voluntary martyrs in medieval Ashkena's voluntary
Speaker 2: modern martine was taken for granted, and there's all sorts
Speaker 2: of Gothic sources you can cite about people like the
Speaker 2: village young people jumped off the boat and martyr themselves
Speaker 2: so they wouldn't be taken back to Rome, and all
Speaker 2: sorts of other examples. But the Rumbum is opposed to
Speaker 2: voluntary martyrdom. Then it makes perfect sense. It's not our bodies.
Speaker 2: We can't decide on our own what to do the
Speaker 2: next part of the letter, it's also I think of interest.
Speaker 2: Rabbi Mazus in his weekly Tora Journal newsletter set as
Speaker 2: follows that if you're sending letter, there's a city in
Speaker 2: Israel called Bytel, it's a I was there. I was
Speaker 2: there last summer. No, not last summer, least January a
Speaker 2: year ago almost. I was in Betel. First time ever
Speaker 2: was in Baytel. Went to Sham. That was interesting. First
Speaker 2: time I went to see. The Samaritans have a museum there.
Speaker 2: It's it's really very interesting if you get over the
Speaker 2: fact that we were stopped in a traffic jam right
Speaker 2: in the middle of an Arab village and my wife
Speaker 2: is thinking we're all going to be killed and everything.
Speaker 2: But the driver showed us is gone. But still but
Speaker 2: that was. But if you ever to Baydown, it's it's
Speaker 2: it's it's worth seeing. And I went to where is
Speaker 2: a Eliezer, Mohammed Harbor, all those places. Okay that Bethdel
Speaker 2: is a big city. I mean it has lots of
Speaker 2: people there seven their lives. They have a winery as well.
Speaker 2: We'll see if the wine from Bakedel beginning in January,
Speaker 2: if it can still be labeled from Israel or has
Speaker 2: to go back to hertors so here, So what is
Speaker 2: this Bakedeal? Is this a hall we name? Can you?
Speaker 2: Can you say the name Maydeal? Can you write? Can
Speaker 2: you send them letter to Bakedell? In Hebrew? You send letters,
Speaker 2: So whenever I send lyterst Israel, I used the Hebrew
Speaker 2: and I just wade in English as it'll get there.
Speaker 2: Raby A Zou says that if you send a letter
Speaker 2: to Beatedale, you should write it as one word Bethel
Speaker 2: or make a line between the Aliph and the Lhama.
Speaker 2: So Bethdale. Because you're not l is one of the
Speaker 2: names of God, You're not supposed to write it. We're
Speaker 2: gonna get to the names. I just said the name. Well,
Speaker 2: we'll get to about next week about using the name
Speaker 2: of God other than the tetragrammaton in Tora study. I
Speaker 2: think most of her sending me stuff, and I found
Speaker 2: some good stuff. What I know Aroumzus's follows. I understand that,
Speaker 2: and that's not the men. No one does that. But
Speaker 2: I said to him, first of all, the bek safe,
Speaker 2: the bear ko safe is the da I'm your azubi
Speaker 2: just commentary, and he brings different opinions. The question is
Speaker 2: that the word Beatedeale appears in Tora, first appears in
Speaker 2: brac She's let me show you this isn't a new city,
Speaker 2: you see. Hold on seconds here if you look in
Speaker 2: here somewhere I believe, Oh yes, here, So look in
Speaker 2: plus eight. Uh, this is at the way beginning where
Speaker 2: it says that Avraham moved to the east of Baydale.
Speaker 2: So apparently already you see that there's a Bagdale in
Speaker 2: the days of Avraham. Well, if there's a Bagdale in
Speaker 2: the days of Avraha, then the words it's obviously not
Speaker 2: a god's name. It's just the name of the city beforehand.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: The problem is we have later in Racis where Yakov
Speaker 2: names the place is Baydale, and some people even say,
Speaker 2: some commentaries that the Beaydale we just saw with Avraham
Speaker 2: is named in anticipation of what Yakov's gonna do. So
Speaker 2: what's the other issue? Is is it when we say Bakedale,
Speaker 2: do you mean house of God? Or is this just
Speaker 2: the name of a city. If it's just name of
Speaker 2: the city, it doesn't matter what originally it was. And
Speaker 2: I when you get out in my letter, is that
Speaker 2: the after after I mentioned the dog quotes opinions in
Speaker 2: both ways. The hustom Sofur says that this word bagdale
Speaker 2: that we see in Torah is not holy. You have
Speaker 2: all these names, if they're holy names, the sofa has
Speaker 2: to have a special kravana. I think, and I think
Speaker 2: he even recites it's us thinking he recites it's a
Speaker 2: holy name. Sometimes it will go to mechfield before maybe
Speaker 2: even today, before writing it.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And then there's letters that are on holy even though
Speaker 2: named Eloheim Elohimahirim that sound in Yeshiva, we'd always say
Speaker 2: l Mariam and the red uf el Us. No, no, there,
Speaker 2: it's Elohima Irim because it's foreign gods. That's not a
Speaker 2: holy name. The hustom sources is not holy and therefore
Speaker 2: the soufiing are not the kadish that name. And what's
Speaker 2: the hustom Sofur's proof. Take a look at unculus Uncles
Speaker 2: does not translate bakedale based bagda oha. What is he right?
Speaker 2: He doesn't translate it the house of God, the word
Speaker 2: he would use if it's holy. He just writes bedel.
Speaker 2: So it's just a city name, that's all. So I
Speaker 2: said to Rabbi Bazoums. I don't know why it's so
Speaker 2: simple to you that with selfer and the positions of that,
Speaker 2: it's it's not a holy name. Why do you feel
Speaker 2: that when you write it you should have the line?
Speaker 2: I said, do you really both think that the meaning
Speaker 2: of Beakedeal was bagda lha house of God? And then
Speaker 2: I said, there regal, there are many synagogues in America
Speaker 2: that are called Bethel. And I said, but with regarding
Speaker 2: these synagogues, there's no question that when they say hell,
Speaker 2: they refer to God. Every synagogue and an Orthodox synagogues
Speaker 2: too are called Bethel. And yet when they use the word,
Speaker 2: are they not naming it after a city they intended
Speaker 2: to mean house of God. Well, if that's the case,
Speaker 2: I said, I don't know why the rabbi is never
Speaker 2: rebuked the ballabat Dame that you should call a synagogue
Speaker 2: Bethel because when you write the name Bethel, then you
Speaker 2: are really writing God's name, because they ended the mean
Speaker 2: house of God. So these are the two questions I
Speaker 2: have for of Mazus. One, I guess with Kula that
Speaker 2: we should be able to say Daytel, we're send the
Speaker 2: lighter to Daytel, because Sofur and others and others that
Speaker 2: what about all these shows, including Orthodox goals that I
Speaker 2: think in Newton, isn't it where where where you can
Speaker 2: type it in where they're our shows are at Bethel.
Speaker 2: They're definitely in Brooklyn. I think you even have the
Speaker 2: Bethel people can write it in where they know of
Speaker 2: Bethel Orthodox synagogues. And that's I said, that's a problem.
Speaker 2: How do we allow synagogues that have the name Bethel
Speaker 2: if it's God's name? So I see we're already at
Speaker 2: the end. So we will will get the answers next week,
Speaker 2: and we'll also actually it's a good time to then
Speaker 2: speak about this whole issue of saying God's name. We're
Speaker 2: gonna see it dispute between Ashkenazim and swardin Spardin don't
Speaker 2: even believe in saying things like kale et cetera. Oh
Speaker 2: there you go, brokeerk. That's right, young Isrobetho. That's where
Speaker 2: I spoke it. That was the I spoke last year.
Speaker 2: Burrough who was there, it was with us. Fact Borah
Speaker 2: who's with us. He will testify next week we speak
Speaker 2: about sotmore or what he's where he brought me. So
Speaker 2: you see my Sotner connections. But uh, I think I
Speaker 2: guess that fell and young Is are different synagogues namerge.
Speaker 2: How do the rabbis allow us to call synagogues bethel?
Speaker 2: So we will get to the questions. We'll get to
Speaker 2: Rabbi Mazu's answer next week. A couple other interesting things
Speaker 2: we'll see from Rabbi Mazou's trump, how to understand the
Speaker 2: meaning of sooking based on the trump? And are we
Speaker 2: down to the truck? We'll see that next week. And
Speaker 2: Rabbi doctors wait to hear the Kannai the extremist Mark Shapiro,
Speaker 2: what he says about rabbi doctors and how Rabbi Mazus
Speaker 2: speaking as one myself. But but how Rabbi Mazous defends
Speaker 2: the Rabbi doctors because after all the reshow name uh,
Speaker 2: We'll get to that, and then we'll move into the
Speaker 2: into sotmore. What is Mark Shapiro doing with one of
Speaker 2: the greatest sotmer tell me and my relationship to Sotmar
Speaker 2: and sot Mar. We're going to criticize him, no question,
Speaker 2: but they really get a bad rap. There is so
Speaker 2: much good and sot mare which people don't usually see.
Speaker 2: And we will get to that next class. Time flies
Speaker 2: oh when when we remign Jool, we'll hear that I
Speaker 2: will be here next week before I get to the questions,
Speaker 2: but double next week because Nichol Christmas Eve I we're
Speaker 2: getting a special talk, special class on shouldn't we be
Speaker 2: studying Torah on that night? And we'll get to that. Yes, okay,
Speaker 2: Rob Matanki, that was the name of the rabbi, so
Speaker 2: anyone's interested. Rob Daliodov Schwartz h really a great time
Speaker 2: of fuckholm the based and not just in Chicago but
Speaker 2: the RCA. You can read what he wrote in their house.
Speaker 2: And Daniel Chill says Schwartz's first job was in a
Speaker 2: rabbi in Providence. In fact, in the yeah, well this
Speaker 2: actually the Safer is written when I believe when he say, uh,
Speaker 2: let me pull it up for you to show you
Speaker 2: when he was a rabbi. Then he was an English town.
Speaker 2: He has a haskama there from Varro and Cutler in
Speaker 2: the Safer Ravarron Cutler was yeah, the same first called
Speaker 2: I'm looking at it now, Devray Reggash. Now this is
Speaker 2: fifty nine. This is after he was in Providence. This
Speaker 2: is he was an English town, New Jersey. He was
Speaker 2: also in problem he was. He was not a student
Speaker 2: of the ROV by the way, Schwartz. Of course anyone
Speaker 2: who was at Yeshiva College Ushan had relationships with the
Speaker 2: Rov R six year, but he was not. He was
Speaker 2: uh the palao. I think also romotion, shots, kiss and
Speaker 2: in other words, who were the lift shuts. But the
Speaker 2: Rove was not like you think of people who are
Speaker 2: went through yu with the ROV. That was not his
Speaker 2: main rebby. I don't even know if he was ever
Speaker 2: even in the sheer. Larry says, I wonder if this
Speaker 2: has to do with what they were using for light.
Speaker 2: When I used to use candles, I use the shamash
Speaker 2: both for the lighting and afterwards to be the youthful light.
Speaker 2: But now that I use oil, I have one oil
Speaker 2: light used to serve as a youthful light, but I
Speaker 2: light the other lights with a flame starter. I wonder, okay,
Speaker 2: what they use nair, we use this candle. They don't
Speaker 2: mean candle, they mean and when the when the Gamarra
Speaker 2: speaks about neare, it means a what's the what's the
Speaker 2: word I'm looking for? Not a not a jug but
Speaker 2: a lamp? There, thank you Ellen, And that's that's the shot.
Speaker 2: Of when you're learning on Friday night. You can't learn
Speaker 2: next to the nare because you'll tilt it. I mean
Speaker 2: you'll tilt it if it's a candle, you know't uh.
Speaker 2: But but because though the oil starts going out, so
Speaker 2: you move it so that the oil then continues and
Speaker 2: you can so I don't know. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I don't think it has to do with that. What
Speaker 2: you suggest. And you wonder why you light the useful
Speaker 2: light last, it seems that you should light it first.
Speaker 2: There's no time you would be making use of the
Speaker 2: sacred lights. You have to look in the tour. The
Speaker 2: tour has asked this question. He said, you make the braha,
Speaker 2: then you light everything, and then afterwards then you light
Speaker 2: the other light. If you light it, I guess you
Speaker 2: could light it. Let me read you what the tour says.
Speaker 2: You could light it. I guess beforehand. But that wasn't
Speaker 2: the practice because I probably the reason is because the
Speaker 2: first thing you're supposed to do, the mitza the midst
Speaker 2: is the first thing you do, then you do the
Speaker 2: other thing. If you do that, that's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 2: You just stop. On the top of my head. It's
Speaker 2: not the midso, so you wouldn't do that, And uh
Speaker 2: Mel says, are poetic forms of words, This says kuma
Speaker 2: azer cicero, which is a better form of coom. Yes, well,
Speaker 2: that we have all the time. That's called the cordative.
Speaker 2: That's the technical term in uh in Biblical Hebrews cohertative.
Speaker 2: And there's another type like eschmerah, whyesmore schabat eschmera, I
Speaker 2: shall indeed.
Speaker 3: You have that.
Speaker 2: That's not the cordative. I forget what that's called. In English.
Speaker 2: The coherdative is like let us niche marahab let us
Speaker 2: observe shabat versus eschmerah, or I will indeed observe shaba.
Speaker 2: I don't know really. If you look in the grammars,
Speaker 2: they always say that hey, at the ending, when it's
Speaker 2: not the coerdative, when it's the other term which I
Speaker 2: can't remember these fancy terms, that it's uh emphatic. But
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think that's correct, that it's
Speaker 2: more poetic. David says another rhymnistics partials. When you promises
Speaker 2: his father toak that involve at the end of both
Speaker 2: of them, which interesting is a brilliant rhetorical tool to
Speaker 2: win over the argument with Yako for using to bring
Speaker 2: down the young by Huda using Yako's own words he
Speaker 2: had used, Uh, I mean uh if I'm pronouncing you right,
Speaker 2: very nice, Okay. The difference is, though, that what I
Speaker 2: showed you osa osaka is that that's not a normal form.
Speaker 2: That's not even a regular form. That's just like a
Speaker 2: form used just to rhyme with the kaka osa uh.
Speaker 2: And that that was pointed out by Grossman in his book.
Speaker 2: I had never known that or thought of that. So
Speaker 2: it's a you can see on hebrewbooks dot org. It's
Speaker 2: a nice if you're interested in these sort of things.
Speaker 2: It's a nice book.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: Helthic's in English. And one says that the Central Asian singing,
Speaker 2: the accents weren't as you said. I'll have to listen
Speaker 2: to it again, I said, certainly, mouth was I thought.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: Someone privately says that if you listen to ben O
Speaker 2: Weis's rendition of Adonolum, which is said out a loud
Speaker 2: and no shoes will keep menshnas all our milerra everything
Speaker 2: is include melech and also a ira. You may also
Speaker 2: find it I'm a home mauritious ashkna site. I tried
Speaker 2: to get for the renditions of ben Oies there in Dartmouth,
Speaker 2: but so far they haven't yet given me permission. And
Speaker 2: then you say the fact that it's not set out
Speaker 2: out of being a dobbining for all to hear the tradition,
Speaker 2: and for all to hear the tradition from this pronunciation
Speaker 2: is lost. That's right, we don't say it anymore. Incidentally,
Speaker 2: the it seems that it was originally supposed to be
Speaker 2: said at night. I don't know, or if not at night,
Speaker 2: first thing in the morning, because remember ishan va ai
Speaker 2: rah so uh, I shouldn't say at night in the morning,
Speaker 2: that's the original place to say it, right when you
Speaker 2: get up, because you said I gave my soul to God.
Speaker 2: And now that I get up he as, I.
Speaker 5: Had the privilege of learning a don't a long word
Speaker 5: for word.
Speaker 4: We're a broyer, and I asked the question why the
Speaker 4: many shoes not say it? He said, it's about because
Speaker 4: it's all a couple of amshumyam, and you should everyone
Speaker 4: should be studying dobbining with I don't alone.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you for that, Howard, I don't know why
Speaker 2: we don't say it the usual Susanna says, the usual
Speaker 2: truth for the is like that also accents in the
Speaker 2: wrong place. Yeah, And I think my point basically that
Speaker 2: the sum up is that we have plenty of examples
Speaker 2: in the dobbining that the accents are in the wrong.
Speaker 2: They really are in the wrong, but it's not such
Speaker 2: a big deal because it's a song, so songs we
Speaker 2: can it doesn't really change the meaning unless it's of
Speaker 2: perfect and it's above. But my point with I don't
Speaker 2: know m is it's not, you know, wrong, because the
Speaker 2: python himself wanted you to sing it that way. That's
Speaker 2: how he wrote it. Oh yes, Barry says, rebegation siegull showl,
Speaker 2: that's Bethel. Yes, that's what I was thinking of. What
Speaker 2: about g DSD rather than go o D. That's the dispute.
Speaker 2: There are some who say it's there's no reason to
Speaker 2: do that, and others say no, that God's name, even
Speaker 2: in non Hebrew languages, also has to have uh shouldn't
Speaker 2: be written, It shouldn't be raced. I should say there
Speaker 2: also shouldn't be written.
Speaker 5: Some would say yeah, uh.
Speaker 2: Ah, so then I didn't really I forgot this. I
Speaker 2: read this. Yeah. Bark says that Regalia of Schwartz was
Speaker 2: the young rabbi, the youngest all Borough Park years ago,
Speaker 2: the one we've been speaking about. He gave the he
Speaker 2: took over the daff Yomi in Burrough Park, I believe
Speaker 2: after by Schmulkommen Mursky who took it over. And then
Speaker 2: I think, uh, that that was the big duff yon
Speaker 2: me I when I ask, can I make my article
Speaker 2: on little available to participants? Well, they are. The talk
Speaker 2: is going to have new stuff, lots of good new stuff.
Speaker 2: But if I make it available beforehand, no one's gonna
Speaker 2: want to come and hear me. So I will, uh,
Speaker 2: And we do have there's an earlier version that we
Speaker 2: put online, but this is before YouTube and it was
Speaker 2: nine years ago. So Rabbi Kellman things putting on one
Speaker 2: more time so everyone could hear it and go on YouTube.
Speaker 2: And uh, who remembers it. I'm like you who listens
Speaker 2: to it every year. Most people don't remember it. And finally,
Speaker 2: rab Mel says my Rabbi quota of Ramone's new Safer
Speaker 2: and a shiro Tonight. Ramone says one can like either
Speaker 2: before or after the other candles. Well, Normally we think
Speaker 2: of the shamash as the one you used to light
Speaker 2: the candles. The problem is, if you have one of
Speaker 2: these oil lambs, you have a shamash, but you can't
Speaker 2: really use it to light, and so they use another candle.
Speaker 2: When you like the shamash, you don't need the shamash.
Speaker 2: Shamash is not uh, you know, it's not how almost
Speaker 2: we've seen now you're in the gamara. But but if
Speaker 2: you do have it, you can't have it. On the
Speaker 2: same line things like that, Daniel says the anymology of
Speaker 2: doctors from the Latin meaning teacher rabbi means teacher rabbi
Speaker 2: doctor is redundant. No, I would disagree, because doctor is
Speaker 2: telling you you haven't You've been awarded based on nontover knowledge.
Speaker 2: That's why you're given doctor the rabbi. Although the whole
Speaker 2: idea of smich as began in the astronautic world might
Speaker 2: be bag stun what they were doing at the universities,
Speaker 2: at least that's what the critics said. But doctor is
Speaker 2: not for totra knowledge. It's doctor is for either quasi
Speaker 2: tower knowledge or secular But doctor is important, and I
Speaker 2: believe Joe Biden should be given her title. She worked
Speaker 2: for it. And if you don't know what I'm talking about,
Speaker 2: just google doctor Joe Biden. The blogosphere and the news
Speaker 2: is going wild about someone who dissed doctor Jill Biden.
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 lecture on Zoom, please visit
Speaker 1: torahmotion dot org. Please rate and review us in your
Speaker 1: favorite podcast app, or even better, tell a friend to
Speaker 1: give the podcast to listen