Speaker 1: Welcome to Jewish History Uncensored with Mark Shapiro. This is
Speaker 1: season sixteen, episode thirty one.
Speaker 2: I have so much to do. I try to do
Speaker 2: within fifteen to twenty minutes just responding to people. Some
Speaker 2: people have told me that's their favorite part. Others maybe
Speaker 2: are annoyed because they want to cover more ground. It's
Speaker 2: eon versus the kiyas. I guess you could say from
Speaker 2: yeshivo lingo. But a lot of stuff is building up,
Speaker 2: and at the end we'll probably have to have one
Speaker 2: class just wrapping it up. In fact, I have a
Speaker 2: big correction to do. Mel's going to be happy, but
Speaker 2: thanks to Howard Handler. But I think it's a correction.
Speaker 2: But we'll get to that next week because there's other
Speaker 2: things I want to do, and I think since so
Speaker 2: many of you were with me on the Christmas Eve talk,
Speaker 2: at least I can spend just two minutes on that.
Speaker 2: Because I do this. Why do I make these corrections
Speaker 2: Because I'm a I guess perfectionist, and I want when
Speaker 2: I say it to be perfect, so if I misspeak.
Speaker 2: And I have a lot of sympathy for the politicians
Speaker 2: because when you're just speaking straight, so sometimes you say
Speaker 2: things that are incorrect. So I'd like to clarify you.
Speaker 2: So just and I listened today to the talk. I
Speaker 2: spoke about how we have this concept that even though
Speaker 2: something was permissible in the past, because the idolators did it,
Speaker 2: we can't do it. And I said it like a bumma.
Speaker 2: You know, these altars, they used to be permissible now
Speaker 2: there then they became not. Actually what I meant was
Speaker 2: a which you also offer us. So here you see it.
Speaker 2: For example, the pus it says you shall not sit
Speaker 2: up for yourself a monument, save where it says which
Speaker 2: God hates san so Rashi's quoting the tomorrow what's it's
Speaker 2: a monument of one stone? But then the next Rashi
Speaker 2: it says, God commands you to make an altar of
Speaker 2: not just one stone, but a bunch of stones. Because
Speaker 2: even though if you look into the Hummus you see
Speaker 2: Yakov set up but sea others in ton off. But
Speaker 2: once the idolators started setting it up, as it says,
Speaker 2: it was dear timid Day's in the patriarch, but now
Speaker 2: he hates it since these people, that.
Speaker 3: Is the the the.
Speaker 2: Eight idolators made it a statue for Idolatry, So Uh.
Speaker 2: And this concept, by the way, that things that were
Speaker 2: used to be okay are no longer. That's actually mentioned
Speaker 2: in the Pakaditzkak. He mentions that's the lot of encyclopedia.
Speaker 2: He quotes someone who says that do you know why
Speaker 2: we don't pray with our hands up in the air? Uh?
Speaker 2: For example, I think I have it here. Uh. Yes,
Speaker 2: look in embraces in huff bays, impared your doll huff bays.
Speaker 2: What does it say? It says uh Avram said to
Speaker 2: the King of Sadon, I have lifted up my hands
Speaker 2: to the Lord. And also in schmos I found in
Speaker 2: perih tests pussa huff tests mosher Aben who says, uh,
Speaker 2: here look in pussa huff tests a process cup pie lsm,
Speaker 2: I will spread forth my hands.
Speaker 3: Into the Lord. So we don't do that anymore.
Speaker 2: We don't talk him like this with our hands up
Speaker 2: in the air. And the explanation is given because the
Speaker 2: non Jews do it. So that okay, that's the first
Speaker 2: thing I wanted to do one of you, in speaking
Speaker 2: about I said that Jesus had some good things, because
Speaker 2: after all, it comes out of the Jewish environment. So
Speaker 2: it's some good things. And I couldn't remember the expression
Speaker 2: that was used. And what I meant to say was
Speaker 2: what he said. What's is good he says, is not new,
Speaker 2: and what's new is not good. But it actually I
Speaker 2: first found it not said about Jesus. Hunoff Albert in
Speaker 2: his studies on the Missioner says is follows. For those
Speaker 2: of you who know Greek, no German, I don't know
Speaker 2: if Howard's with us. He says about isaacah Avi's book,
Speaker 2: he said, hell good, this annoyus nour iss So the
Speaker 2: book has good and new. What's good is not new,
Speaker 2: and what's new is not good. And this is how
Speaker 2: we Fayak of Weinberg says it. In the Three d
Speaker 2: As Volume four, page two twenty eight. He uses the
Speaker 2: same expression. What he came up with novel ideas is
Speaker 2: not good umashu tov and what's good is not uh
Speaker 2: is not it's not something new. But and I in
Speaker 2: speaking of this, we speak about the golden rule. So
Speaker 2: I said the golden rule. It's not if you have
Speaker 2: the gold you make the rules. It's Christians do unto others.
Speaker 2: Now we have Hello says, don't do to others what
Speaker 2: you don't want done to yourself. And Christians always say, well,
Speaker 2: that's good, but it's not as good as a golden rule.
Speaker 2: And there's so many drush us explaining why we have
Speaker 2: the idea, what's paitful to you? Don't do to others?
Speaker 2: Not do it not in the positive sense? And why
Speaker 2: is the explanation is in the gold the negative golden rule.
Speaker 2: But I just threw out that we also have in
Speaker 2: our sources the positive golden rule do unto others. Incidentally,
Speaker 2: Confucius also has the negative golden rule, so we're not alone.
Speaker 2: But I threw out that we have a positive golden
Speaker 2: rule in our sources also. So someone challenged me. I
Speaker 2: like being challenged, but someone challenged me, where do we
Speaker 2: see in our sources golden a positive golden rule? And
Speaker 2: I get the challenge because you know, like I said,
Speaker 2: you can go online all the people explain why, Dafka,
Speaker 2: it's vital to have the negative golden rule, because the
Speaker 2: positive golden rule, how can you ever really what it
Speaker 2: says I have to How can you really love someone
Speaker 2: as much as you love yourself?
Speaker 3: It's impossible.
Speaker 2: That's why they do the negative golden rule. What it
Speaker 2: really means is don't do to others. But I threw
Speaker 2: it out, and so let me tell you what I
Speaker 2: had in my so hold on.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: In Hilhos avel, Rabat writes it as avel. In uh
Speaker 2: in chapter thirteen Halacha one, it's talking about how you
Speaker 2: have to visit the sick, come for mourners, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And look at the end of uh Halaha
Speaker 2: one where he says love your neighbor as yourself. This
Speaker 2: charge implies that whatever you would like other people to
Speaker 2: do for you, you should do for your comrade. In
Speaker 2: tar amidstos called verchata harim assey at san la rimslos,
Speaker 2: here the rumbum quotes the principle the positive golden rule.
Speaker 2: And obviously the rumbam is part of our tradition. So
Speaker 2: if you look in hilhost A a l chapter fourteen,
Speaker 2: verse one, you see the rabam. And so where does
Speaker 2: Ramum get this the rumbum? Usually he doesn't make things
Speaker 2: up like this. Rahert Sog says he must have had
Speaker 2: a rabbinic so, which we don't have because the standard
Speaker 2: rabbinic sources they have to raff They give the negative
Speaker 2: golden rule, and that's where you get all the drushes
Speaker 2: about why the negative rule golden rule is better than
Speaker 2: the positive, but the real mom posts they have to
Speaker 2: and he quotes the positive golden rule, so he must
Speaker 2: have had some sort of madrashic texts that so uh
Speaker 2: for the one who challenged me, where do we have
Speaker 2: a positive golden rule? I can't show you on hazab
Speaker 2: and I show you the rumbam and that's in our tradition.
Speaker 2: That's basically just as good. Just for those who weren't
Speaker 2: with us Thursday Night, Robbie Hoodertz Hanking. If you recall
Speaker 2: we had a number of to vote by him at
Speaker 2: the beginning of our series. We're in class thirty one now,
Speaker 2: but if you go back to classes one through ten,
Speaker 2: he's dealt with him a lot. He passed away and
Speaker 2: you can read about all sorts of uh interest and
Speaker 2: a very interesting piece on Layerhouse. Look, he's been ill
Speaker 2: for the last few years and it hasn't he wasn't
Speaker 2: able to contribute. Next week, hopefully I will read you
Speaker 2: something that he called my attention to and said I
Speaker 2: would like it, something he wrote. I'll share it with
Speaker 2: you hopefully next week, and but Rebbie David Spurling, I
Speaker 2: think that's I think that's the name. Has a very
Speaker 2: nice piece in layerhouse. I highly recommend it. Okay, A
Speaker 2: couple more things. A rafa in Israel. He heard the
Speaker 2: talk or we watched the talk that I said ram
Speaker 2: we spoke ram as and ra meat that the women
Speaker 2: use this title. They turned it into ra meat. And
Speaker 2: he's even though it's an abbreviation, not to mention the diminutive.
Speaker 2: He says, he's in the idea, or he's been the
Speaker 2: last few years. He says the idea. He says, even
Speaker 2: though it's incorrect. I don't know why he says incorrect.
Speaker 2: If ISRAELI is toady, do what it's not incorrect. He
Speaker 2: gave me a bunch of examples. Here are three examples
Speaker 2: where Russia k vote in Israel and the Ideaf have
Speaker 2: become they for women. They had the tough ending. So
Speaker 2: for example, mefa cage aino katsin my shack. I guess
Speaker 2: I had pronounced it. So if it's a woman, it's
Speaker 2: ma shakite. And he have a few other examples, and
Speaker 2: I guess the diminutive it's not uh. They don't. It
Speaker 2: doesn't imply diminutive like we said, cough Copete and Sasaki,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Daniel maybe Daniel Sperling. Thank you, Howard. The
Speaker 2: check it out on their house. Okay, they forty already.
Speaker 2: I promised you this, and I'm going to get to it.
Speaker 2: But I do also have to deal with what I
Speaker 2: said Mike, uh, his issue about tom Wood. But let
Speaker 2: me just read this quickly. We have someone who lives
Speaker 2: in Israel, although I think he might call it the
Speaker 2: Zionist state, not Israel, and he's been listening to us
Speaker 2: for many, many years, and he he's not sometmer. Is
Speaker 2: there the quasi Zionist the ones that does. But I
Speaker 2: spoke if you were called about Rabbie Greenbutt and that
Speaker 2: he fought in there y'asu, and I mentioned that he
Speaker 2: I asked it, did you see any killings? He said not.
Speaker 2: I mentioned Bagan denies that there is a massacre, but
Speaker 2: I'm assuming there was a master. I mean, that's uh,
Speaker 2: that's the Israeli authority, the Jewish agency authorities acknowledged this.
Speaker 2: And I said, so that's the massacre. We can be
Speaker 2: able to compare that has quoted me one versus all
Speaker 2: the massacres from the other side. And obviously it's not
Speaker 2: just Scuscia cial and there's many and look he continues
Speaker 2: to our day, Yeah, there have been plenty of massacres.
Speaker 2: If you want to get your innate yourself a square
Speaker 2: named after you in Ramaala or something, killing one, two
Speaker 2: or three is not enough. You have to, like let
Speaker 2: off Obama and Sparrow or something, you killed ten. Then
Speaker 2: you'll get your your name and lights and everything. So
Speaker 2: what he writes to me is that, uh, that's only
Speaker 2: one of the massacres, and he mentions a couple others,
Speaker 2: a village da Wa Yema in which there was it
Speaker 2: seems uh no reason to doubt it that the number
Speaker 2: of people uh innocence were executed. He quotes cases of
Speaker 2: a lot of cases of rape that happened in forty
Speaker 2: eight war. This is all documented by Benny Morris and
Speaker 2: his book and Terrible Things done in the nineteen forty
Speaker 2: eight war. So all I would say is is follows.
Speaker 2: First of all here a sound. First of all, war,
Speaker 2: as they say, is hell, and every war has had
Speaker 2: terrible things. If you what's the most just war, you
Speaker 2: can imagine the war of the allies against the Nazis,
Speaker 2: and yet there were war crimes carried out by American soldiers,
Speaker 2: by British soldiers, by French sols, obviously by Soviet soldiers.
Speaker 2: I mean the amount of rapes that went on with that.
Speaker 2: So I don't feel I need to defend blindly if
Speaker 2: the evidence is there, and Benny Morris in his book
Speaker 2: nineteen forty eight and others has documented there's no it
Speaker 2: wasn't just Darius, you know, though that was the biggest.
Speaker 2: There was other things, and there were there was all
Speaker 2: sorts of rapes and things that were not proper. We
Speaker 2: don't need to defend that that that's wrong, and they
Speaker 2: had things happen in war, and I do believe that
Speaker 2: the other side it's worse. But this doesn't undermine I mean,
Speaker 2: the person who writes to us referst to in October
Speaker 2: the nineteen forty eight, the Zionist militia. I mean, we're here,
Speaker 2: we do with an idea for already, but I don't.
Speaker 2: I mean, all this talk about bad things, that doesn't
Speaker 2: undermine the justice of the cause anymore than the justice
Speaker 2: of the cause against the Nazis was undermined because that
Speaker 2: you had soldiers who did things that are improper, and
Speaker 2: so the you don't undermine Zionism by pointing out that
Speaker 2: you had soldiers who did to evil things and wrong things.
Speaker 2: You're going to have that in every war. That's my
Speaker 2: only response I can say to the person who wrote
Speaker 2: this about I can have a list, double triple as
Speaker 2: long as what the Arabs did. So that's all I
Speaker 2: would say. And I also there's one more point. I
Speaker 2: think people forget it. The actions of terrorism carried out
Speaker 2: you're good and and these were terrorism. In some cases
Speaker 2: they were terrorism against innocence and soldiers or anything. These
Speaker 2: were never advocated by the great rabbis we have, These
Speaker 2: were condemned. These and I don't feel we need to
Speaker 2: defend some of these things. Bombs, hand grenades thrown into
Speaker 2: crowded groups, which happened in the thirties in particular. These
Speaker 2: are wrong and we're not. I don't think any of
Speaker 2: us say that we're perfect and most perfect. The wars,
Speaker 2: of course, were fought differently. Then we can't be anachronistic.
Speaker 2: People drop bombs and civilians that's what they did. But
Speaker 2: we can acknowledge my correspondence. I say to you that
Speaker 2: there were things that were done which were improper. And
Speaker 2: what I can tell you also is that if right now,
Speaker 2: when Israeli were to go into an arid village and
Speaker 2: shoot up three people everyone, we'd all be shocked. And
Speaker 2: yet if it happens the other way, they hand out candy.
Speaker 2: So I you know the idea that that there's a
Speaker 2: that there's an equivalence here. And also when it comes
Speaker 2: to Marie, I have no Marie are a bunch of Marxists.
Speaker 2: Basically you can know about were they were pro Soviet
Speaker 2: after the founding of the state. Lechi was a pro
Speaker 2: Soviet organization. Chamir did sort of like a double and
Speaker 2: about face on that. But these are people with many
Speaker 2: of these people and including in their good I don't
Speaker 2: have por values. The Lech was pro Soviet and so
Speaker 2: they're not our heroes. So we can acknowledge there were
Speaker 2: some bad things there. But this doesn't by any means
Speaker 2: create an equivalents. And I don't want to play the
Speaker 2: game of citing all the terrible things that because, like
Speaker 2: I said, you can cite terrible things that American soldiers
Speaker 2: did and French soldiers did against the Nazis, what does
Speaker 2: that show you chose that people are human and they
Speaker 2: do and they do bad things. That's all I would say.
Speaker 2: And I encourage everyone to read Benny Morris's book. Benny
Speaker 2: Morris's had left this who became a right winger even
Speaker 2: in he even believes that the forty eight and even
Speaker 2: later there should have been complete separation of citizens, ause
Speaker 2: it would have had to peace in the end, so expulsion.
Speaker 2: But he's an honest historian, and he some of the
Speaker 2: stuff he writes about it is very difficult to read.
Speaker 2: But okay, I'm gonna leave for next week something not
Speaker 2: sent me and some other stuff about Trump. I just
Speaker 2: want to end with one more thing before we again,
Speaker 2: because I promise. Oh, and I do have to say,
Speaker 2: I apologize to well thinking about doctorates, I apologize to
Speaker 2: read Biselli Achik. Here's his doctoral dissertation. Unlike the others
Speaker 2: I said, I think it was like eighty pages. Lo,
Speaker 2: and behold it's not. It's a hundred and what is it?
Speaker 2: One hundred and ten pages, so a little bit bigger,
Speaker 2: but again not the size of a doctor dissertation that
Speaker 2: today you'd expect in America or in Germany for that matter.
Speaker 2: Here it is. Here's the if you go to the
Speaker 2: Wikipedia page or for by cell of a Chick, you
Speaker 2: can find what I discovered in East Berlin before it
Speaker 2: was West Berlin from myself. So me and the last
Speaker 2: thing I want to speak about and then we'll go
Speaker 2: right into it is that I I and this really
Speaker 2: continues with what we did last class, because we're going
Speaker 2: to get toakha couple Schwarts. For those who want to
Speaker 2: see the great couple of Schwartz, here he is again.
Speaker 2: I showed you the picture of him speaking before them
Speaker 2: groups from the twenty first of kiss Lev which was
Speaker 2: three weeks ago or something like that, and no one
Speaker 2: had masks. And someone said, well they all sot Mao
Speaker 2: has a immunity, but apparently not everyone because the Rebbie
Speaker 2: in Williamsburg they have two rebbies. He got COVID this week.
Speaker 2: So what can I tell you?
Speaker 1: But he he.
Speaker 2: We spoke about it a couple of strange stories in
Speaker 2: the tomorrow and I gave my theory that this maybe
Speaker 2: was not intended for everyone to see, that this is
Speaker 2: like an internal book from rabbis to other rabbis, so
Speaker 2: they can criticize other rabbis in a way that surely
Speaker 2: not for ours to hear, and that that explains why
Speaker 2: some of these unusual passages. So I was challenged by
Speaker 2: a night the Talmud is it's supposed to be for everyone.
Speaker 2: I'm making a seam likeg it's only for elites. So
Speaker 2: let me just say a few words about this and
Speaker 2: I well, first of all, when when various godobling were
Speaker 2: asked about translating the Talmwood, many of them opposed it.
Speaker 2: Then many of them, in particular when it came to
Speaker 2: the adot, said not to because the masses are not
Speaker 2: supposed to see this. Now, they were referring in particular
Speaker 2: to passages that dealt with anthropomorphism, god wearing to fill
Speaker 2: in that sort of thing. But I think it's the
Speaker 2: same idea that the masses would not be able to
Speaker 2: understand these agadot, and therefore it's not for them. So
Speaker 2: this isn't really my hiddish. The idea I just applied.
Speaker 2: I just extended a little to other areas. But what
Speaker 2: do I mean when I say the Talmwood is obviously
Speaker 2: everyone started with Talmud. In fact, you can see sources
Speaker 2: that tell you we'll see the rama minutes and more
Speaker 2: others that you have to teach your children. Viewer of law,
Speaker 2: you have to teach him gamara. That's not what we're
Speaker 2: dealing with. Obviously, you have to teach everyone has to
Speaker 2: be talking tomorrow. The question is what happens to the
Speaker 2: people who don't continue in the gamara and then they
Speaker 2: they they're educate, their gamora education remains what it was. Well,
Speaker 2: in Europe, it would be when you're twelve years old,
Speaker 2: because that's basically when you finished later and went to work. Obviously,
Speaker 2: everyone has to be given the opportunity to learn gamora
Speaker 2: because that's really how you enter into intellectual Judaism, the
Speaker 2: whole tradition. But historically that was only for the elites.
Speaker 2: What we have in modern times is a popularization of
Speaker 2: tom Woods study, which we never had before. It didn't
Speaker 2: start with art scroll. Don't forget Rabbi Steinzeltz's translation had
Speaker 2: the huskma of Ramosha fine steam. And not only that,
Speaker 2: let me share with you something that people don't even realize.
Speaker 2: This popularization began in the nineteenth century. Even well, you
Speaker 2: had the translation of Pinner of the Talmud with the
Speaker 2: hustband suffer for gave an approbation for here you see
Speaker 2: a book Ha Madrich, which appears in the early part
Speaker 2: of well the early part of the twentieth century. This
Speaker 2: is basically like a copy of Gamara, and you can
Speaker 2: see it here. It's so this is what the pages
Speaker 2: look like. You have the the Gamara and it's it's
Speaker 2: basically a raw It's like Shrinze. So you might say, well,
Speaker 2: why is who says this is significant?
Speaker 3: Look?
Speaker 2: Who uh gave the approbations for this? Well, first of
Speaker 2: all it begins the first page of Vitil Inspector of
Speaker 2: Coveno and some Sparta crabbis, and then you continue. It
Speaker 2: took a while they were where is it? Have it here?
Speaker 3: Ah?
Speaker 2: The uh?
Speaker 3: There are other husk.
Speaker 2: You see of all these rabbis printed, because there was
Speaker 2: a second edition, and among them you have here Remo Liver.
Speaker 2: You see down here real health Deeseimer. So you did
Speaker 2: have popularization of the tone. What have you have people
Speaker 2: who believed that we should encourage the masses to learn
Speaker 2: and make it easier for them, although these masses are
Speaker 2: not even the bar masses, because at least they can
Speaker 2: read Hebrew. However, there also was a different tradition. Let's
Speaker 2: not forget what the Rombum says. The Rombum says in
Speaker 2: the introduction of the Mission too, there is here here.
Speaker 3: What does he say?
Speaker 2: He says that when you when you study that when
Speaker 2: he wrote this book, the Mission Tara, a person should
Speaker 2: first study the original law, and then study this text,
Speaker 2: the Mission Tara, and comprehend the entire or all firm
Speaker 2: it without having to study any other text. So the
Speaker 2: rom Bum tells you that for the typical person, you
Speaker 2: won't need to study anything other than the Mission of
Speaker 2: Tora and the Torah itself, Ummish, you don't need to
Speaker 2: learn Gamara? So who needs to learn gamarra? Obviously the
Speaker 2: rom bumming knowledges that to tell me Hami the big
Speaker 2: people need to learn because any of the pasta Shai
Speaker 2: was But the Rambum's already telling you that the average
Speaker 2: person is not going to need to learn gamar And
Speaker 2: now how this stims with what we're going to see
Speaker 2: in the rambamb himself in a second, we'll see. Furthermore,
Speaker 2: we know that Satahadrek tells you that before Mayor Biluffi
Speaker 2: and Spain who started writing commentaries, they only study the
Speaker 2: Riff And I say, only the average people to tell
Speaker 2: me Jamim only studied the riff. Only the super people
Speaker 2: would study otherwise, So we see this as a tradition.
Speaker 2: And now I want to read you something from Vadiosa
Speaker 2: appears in his response in the Cavadas, volume six, number
Speaker 2: fifty two. It's actually summarized by his grandson. You can
Speaker 2: just google this she or Daffiomi or Vadiosif. And here's
Speaker 2: the question. If someone learns every day at dafiomi Shir,
Speaker 2: does he fulfill his obligation of learning tone every day?
Speaker 2: And he begins by citing the gamara, which we'll see
Speaker 2: from the rambum in a minute, that everyone should split
Speaker 2: their day into three, which is Mikra, Mishna and talmud
Speaker 2: and the ram inside in the second. But then he
Speaker 2: goes on to say that the the Ahronim doubt the
Speaker 2: dealt with this, and he quotes the shop. You're not
Speaker 2: gonna believe me, but here here it is. It's in
Speaker 2: the shop and you're a day race memvov and it's
Speaker 2: Simon hey. The shot quotes the drisha. He says, some
Speaker 2: bala bats him every day learned Gamara rashu tosos the
Speaker 2: low sharp post game. They don't warn any halasa, and
Speaker 2: then he goes on they bring a proof for this.
Speaker 2: Then if you learn halafa every day, move to the
Speaker 2: b Olamhaba. And but then he goes on lee near
Speaker 2: y Sifria post scheme Dina Taraka, Moharif and Wai rush
Speaker 2: the ze Karatar, saying he says that we I think
Speaker 2: you have to learn the halafas halfa far they call
Speaker 2: believe in Gamara perishosis. He says, you don't fulfill the
Speaker 2: midst of learning terror if you just learn Gamara Rashi
Speaker 2: and tostiv Us, there's no practical hallafa thing there. And
Speaker 2: therefore vad Yosef concludes, if if you're able to, you
Speaker 2: should learn every day Daffyomi and also share in halaha.
Speaker 2: But if you only have time for one share, oh, wellhalaka,
Speaker 2: you shall learn halafa king. But if you only can
Speaker 2: learn one, you should do halaha. Now it's obvious why
Speaker 2: this won't work, because Hala for most people is dry
Speaker 2: and and Daffioli has become a whole social experience and
Speaker 2: it gives strength to Orthodoxy. But RACHAMAVADYOSIV says he doesn't
Speaker 2: like it. He thinks that if you can only learn one.
Speaker 2: Shear it should be halasa, because that's not for you
Speaker 2: to learn tomorrow. If you only have one, you should
Speaker 2: una if you have time for both. But obviously, like
Speaker 2: you said, it doesn't work. And Daffyomi is able to
Speaker 2: inspire people and give them something which Alaka couldn't, and
Speaker 2: Uh in the lithuani Yeshiva world would not follow over
Speaker 2: values approach. They obviously believe everyone who can should wear
Speaker 2: in goamorrow.
Speaker 3: What I.
Speaker 2: Just want to conclude with though, well let me show
Speaker 2: you the tomorrow so that you see what I'm talking
Speaker 2: about here it's it's an amazing run bomb. Here he says,
Speaker 2: as follows. So here the rum mom says a person,
Speaker 2: this is from the gamar, can you shoot? You have
Speaker 2: to divide your study time to three. One third should
Speaker 2: be the written law, one third ural law, and one
Speaker 2: third conceptualizing. So SoRs things like that, and drum says
Speaker 2: in twelve, how is this express if you're a worker
Speaker 2: three hours a day in work and nine hours a
Speaker 2: day in tourist study. Many people have commented today we'd
Speaker 2: be happy if people who are workers spend nine hours
Speaker 2: working in three hours learning. But he says three so
Speaker 2: you're supposed to spend three hours reading the written law,
Speaker 2: three of the ural law and three of scars, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And then later when you're advanced, you can really just
Speaker 2: focus on gamorrow itself. You don't even need to spend
Speaker 2: I'm really on the written to our regis occasionally. The
Speaker 2: point is, though, that this is for people who are
Speaker 2: already advanced. What I was speaking about was people who
Speaker 2: never made it for whatever reason. So you do with
Speaker 2: a fifty five year old and you'll have time to
Speaker 2: learn an hour a day, what should you do? I
Speaker 2: think in the Yeshiva world you should learn gamar, and
Speaker 2: that's the American approach. But others have a different approach.
Speaker 2: And I'll end with an example of this.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: I have a little book here. This is a book
Speaker 2: that it's an attack here published by smart types all
Speaker 2: against art scroll popularization. And there's an article and also
Speaker 2: on the journal or you, sirall, if you look in
Speaker 2: volume fifty, there's an article there by a Rabbi MORTEHAILI Guerrillik.
Speaker 2: He's rubed by garlk of yu Son, and he goes
Speaker 2: off into how the whole idea of that the masses
Speaker 2: are not supposed to learn. He says, in the earlier
Speaker 2: years there was a fever for riff lere Mishnayas Gabran Yakov,
Speaker 2: and that's what they should do. Even he says Daffi
Speaker 2: only to have its time only agreed with it because
Speaker 2: of the musculium and the reformers, And it was just
Speaker 2: that the people would get a sense that Talmud is
Speaker 2: so important, but not really that they should Rabehaian Rappaport
Speaker 2: has a very long response to this, This idea of
Speaker 2: this elitist idea to talmut is only for the elites.
Speaker 2: So well even at that, But that's what I meant,
Speaker 2: Mike when I said this idea had something that I
Speaker 2: think it's clear that many people do share this idea
Speaker 2: that Talmud study is not for the masses, that everyone
Speaker 2: should enter. We hope that everyone becomes a tumultus or reality.
Speaker 2: It's not going to happen in there. For what are
Speaker 2: you supposed to do with your time? In the run bomb,
Speaker 2: there is speaking about someone who's able to learn. But
Speaker 2: if you're not able to learn, what's better to sit
Speaker 2: with a or to sit with the You know, this
Speaker 2: was unimaginable before our day because we didn't have English commerce.
Speaker 2: So you have many people who are even the book
Speaker 2: I showed you the Madrich, a bunch of Hungarians came
Speaker 2: out opposing this popularization of the Talmud. But I have
Speaker 2: to say that with all art, stroke can be supported
Speaker 2: because if you look at the Godoli who gave the
Speaker 2: Huskama to the bo Camadrich, you see that these were
Speaker 2: the greatest of Lithoeni. You don't have the Hungarians there,
Speaker 2: but you have the lifshore world, you have the started world,
Speaker 2: and it's basically the first steinsold. So we I think
Speaker 2: that's the mainstream tradition today. It doesn't take away from
Speaker 2: the fact what I said, however, that I do think
Speaker 2: that some of these stories in the Talmud, like were
Speaker 2: never meant for everyone to sing. Remember the riff doesn't
Speaker 2: have a gun ta, he only has a lot. Okay, everyone,
Speaker 2: we'll get to the other thing next week. Let us continue.
Speaker 2: I mean, move my books over here. I'm gonna show
Speaker 2: you some great stuff today. Incidentally, I don't know if
Speaker 2: any of you know this book. This is the work
Speaker 2: of the Rumbum, at least we think it's the Rambum
Speaker 2: and Rebi Retsabi has a commentary on it. He deals
Speaker 2: with the names of God and Sukhim, and he thinks
Speaker 2: that Bethel is a holy name. I wasn't able. I
Speaker 2: was looking and looking find any explicit hector to erase
Speaker 2: God's name. This goes back to last week when it's
Speaker 2: written in transliteration that is a Hebrew name in English characters.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking, maybe you could say Bethel. You don't have
Speaker 2: in mind God's name, you haven't mind the synagogue. So
Speaker 2: I guess maybe that's the hector. Thank you Barrie late
Speaker 2: for sending me that the the author of the Kitzer
Speaker 2: the he wrote a book Bushkasa Sofa. He does say
Speaker 2: that you can't say all he can't write it, and
Speaker 2: he quotes of Zieberstein. So unless you come over with
Speaker 2: the hector that Bethel doesn't refer to God, it just
Speaker 2: revers to the place. I think it's a problem, but
Speaker 2: we'll leave that. We're in the middle of now where
Speaker 2: I a couple of shorts. I introduced you to him
Speaker 2: last class, and I want to now we're gonna deal
Speaker 2: with something with Yako Kamenetski. Yakov Komenetsky. He really was
Speaker 2: very unusual. He wasn't he was a Lithuanian roseshiva, U
Speaker 2: a great roseshiva. But all you have to do is
Speaker 2: look at his commentary on and Maslakov and you see
Speaker 2: that he's not a typical uh Lithuania torrescat or the
Speaker 2: stress on Dick Dook on Trump and everything like that.
Speaker 2: In fact, let me show you something now that will
Speaker 2: blow you away. I mentioned it in Limits of Orthodoxology.
Speaker 2: But uh, for those who don't remember, don't uh, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna show you something. He has this great, great commentary.
Speaker 2: Just I'm just giving you as an example of one
Speaker 2: example of how unusual he is. You will never find
Speaker 2: anything like this in you know the uh Gadoli worried
Speaker 2: about humish, certainly from Lithuanian world. The Pussak says in
Speaker 2: uh perakhoff luff gimmel in vaikra It says you should
Speaker 2: not go don't uh, don't follow the practices of the
Speaker 2: non Jews and uh Rebe Kamenski points out that when
Speaker 2: the Rambam cites this Pussok in the Missionatara, what does
Speaker 2: he called for? Cited as hukos hog you not how go?
Speaker 3: How go you?
Speaker 2: So he goes on he discusses this and then he
Speaker 2: comes to the end. Here he says that I'll just
Speaker 2: read it to you the fourth half on I saw
Speaker 2: in the addition of thea from which have the notes
Speaker 2: from kiss te Kim and who put this together Huff Dollard, Ginsburg, London,
Speaker 2: nineteen oh nine. We'll get back to this in a
Speaker 2: second Shahevi Nuska.
Speaker 3: He brought a.
Speaker 2: Source in from the Samaritan Hummish that it does how
Speaker 2: you and also combat Targooming, which seemed to have the
Speaker 2: word how go you? Not how going? As the text
Speaker 2: there the why should can't I accustom safer Rambam, And
Speaker 2: he's saying, maybe the Rambam's text was different than our
Speaker 2: Tara text and had the word go you, how go you?
Speaker 2: Not hag you? That's pretty incredible to make that sort
Speaker 2: of insight. What he's referring to is this book ramiche
Speaker 2: kumche Tora. Here's the English title page were Latin by C. A. Ginsburg,
Speaker 2: which has the different notes. Here's the the page we're
Speaker 2: looking at. So in here it is plus twenty three.
Speaker 2: You see, so if you go down to the bottom
Speaker 2: in the note here verse twenty three, it says other
Speaker 2: books have, How go you and what does he give
Speaker 2: an example? Well, that's a manuscript. Then Kretschen is the
Speaker 2: m and then this is the Sivim, the Seituagint and uncles.
Speaker 2: This is a critical pentitude lower criticism, and Rabayaka of
Speaker 2: Kamenetski is using it.
Speaker 3: Not only is he using it, but uh, do you
Speaker 3: know who C. D. Ginsburg is?
Speaker 2: A second? I think I have where did I have it? Here? Around?
Speaker 3: And and and he knew this as well too. Uh,
Speaker 3: this is what I think.
Speaker 2: Again, I D pushed you out a mistake here?
Speaker 3: Who is C. D.
Speaker 2: Ginsburg? His name is Christian David Ginsburg. He's an apostate
Speaker 2: who was an experta. So here we have Ravaka of
Speaker 2: Kamenetski offering that perhaps the Rombums version of the Torah
Speaker 2: is different than ours, because because he cites the Pustle differently,
Speaker 2: and maybe he had the version that's preserved in the Samaritan,
Speaker 2: the Tuk and the different Targo meme. And had Dosranko
Speaker 2: Fromski knows this. He knows this because he's using a tanach,
Speaker 2: which is a critical tanah, you know, lower criticism, providing
Speaker 2: alternate texts put together by a Mashulman named Christian David Ginsberg.
Speaker 2: That is not the sort of thing that the typical
Speaker 2: roast yeshiva is due. I do have to say, however,
Speaker 2: that it's it's unfortunate that Rivyakov fell into this trap
Speaker 2: here because the rumbumb doesn't have that at all. If
Speaker 2: you look in the good rom bombs, which I guess
Speaker 2: weren't around his day, for example, the the Mishnatura of
Speaker 2: the Franco edition, you see that it's the same puss Hugoi.
Speaker 2: It's not hog And that's all the different to the
Speaker 2: important text of manuscripts. In fact, the famous one that
Speaker 2: has the rahmbam. I'll show you right now his signature
Speaker 2: at the end of it. The Oxford manuscript that also
Speaker 2: has AGOI. So yes, we have texts that have am,
Speaker 2: but that's not what it was before the rumba. Here here,
Speaker 2: I have a beautiful volume here and you see it here.
Speaker 2: This is it's a text. It's the This is the
Speaker 2: text which has the rumbum. I'll show you his yeah,
Speaker 2: hold it up.
Speaker 3: For you.
Speaker 2: Right right, Who got miss free on the motion? This
Speaker 2: is a a reproduction of that's safer Mada and save
Speaker 2: for Alva of the manuscript. The Ramam didn't write the manuscript,
Speaker 2: but he says it came from it was copied from
Speaker 2: his own manuscript. And that's we have more signatures than
Speaker 2: the rumbum. But that's the that's the famous one. Okay.
Speaker 2: So why do I mentioned this about Ryaka Kamenetski because
Speaker 2: ri he says an amazing thing, which like how thet
Speaker 2: he is going to deal with We have a puzzle
Speaker 2: in devartment to our where we hear Deuteronomy chapter four,
Speaker 2: verse nineteen. What do you make of this puzzle? Care
Speaker 2: that says, and let's now lift up thine eyes into heaven,
Speaker 2: and when you see the sun and the moon and
Speaker 2: the stars, even all the hosts of heaven, you be
Speaker 2: drawn away and worship them and serve them, which the
Speaker 2: Lord thy God has allotted into all the people's under
Speaker 2: the whole heaven. And he's gonna say, you can't do that.
Speaker 2: What do you mean God has allotted unto all the
Speaker 2: people that they should worship them. That means that they're
Speaker 2: allowed to do this. What does it mean God gave
Speaker 2: it to them? If you look in Rashi, Rashi explains, well,
Speaker 2: God sort of gave it to them. They can make
Speaker 2: a mistake on it and he doesn't care. They can
Speaker 2: worship idolatry. But if you look in the Rashbomb and
Speaker 2: other commentaries, what they seem to be saying is whereas
Speaker 2: I have a rush bomb, I think here rush bomb,
Speaker 2: what I uh here? If you look in nineteen sha
Speaker 2: means well one that's the shot to light up I
Speaker 2: guess no, no, no no, that's one version to that.
Speaker 2: They gave him the sun to as they could see. Well,
Speaker 2: if the ecrep shot, what's the mame shot? Rush Bomb says,
Speaker 2: I mean loved on God gave them the stars and
Speaker 2: the sun to worship, because he's not really that concerned
Speaker 2: to what they worship. But not like in the Rashi
Speaker 2: sense that it's negative. Here it seems that it's uh,
Speaker 2: He's allowing them to worship. It's not a concern for
Speaker 2: him and the the Xavoca Bobo uses this pussle to
Speaker 2: prove that the concept of Sheeto that we spoke about
Speaker 2: that as long as the nations recognize that there's some
Speaker 2: higher power, they can use these intermediate forces. That's how
Speaker 2: Xavakabola they justifies the idea of she took that we
Speaker 2: spoke about that nanjows are allowed to the Pussic is
Speaker 2: almost explicit on it. Rush Bomb's almost explicit on it.
Speaker 2: Uh in what he's saying. So what does Reacha Kaminski
Speaker 2: say If you look at his msli alcohol on persius
Speaker 2: veskana this pus he says. He says, this follows he
Speaker 2: thinks that there is a fundamental dispute about a jotasar
Speaker 2: foreign worship. Now, according to the Rambam, it's it's all
Speaker 2: nonsense idolatry. But according to ain't ba Mama, she car
Speaker 2: they alkohakal they idol said that yourship the stars all
Speaker 2: that they have no value and not when you worship them,
Speaker 2: you're also wasting your time. But he says, the ramband
Speaker 2: holds that God has put into the structure of the
Speaker 2: world that every nation has a has like a a god.
Speaker 2: It's not a god, a god with a small g
Speaker 2: I don't know what you call it. A force, a power,
Speaker 2: mush be a he calls it in the and that
Speaker 2: has coohmass powers that could affect and benefit its nation.
Speaker 2: That is, every nation worships certain gods, and those gods
Speaker 2: have authority and can benefit them as long as it
Speaker 2: doesn't refer to Israel, so what is but it's forbidden?
Speaker 2: The issor of Lodizara is that the nations are forbidding
Speaker 2: to worship these forces rather because their power comes from God.
Speaker 2: So the nations have to worship God, and then the
Speaker 2: powers will be given to these idols. But he says,
Speaker 2: in o them. But if nevertheless, they don't worship God,
Speaker 2: but they worship these powers, who is poly must be these?
Speaker 3: If you worship let's say.
Speaker 2: Zeus, not supposed to these social worship gods, and then
Speaker 2: they don't go through Zeus. But if you do worship Zeus.
Speaker 3: It will help you king. And he says this is
Speaker 3: the meaning of the puss that God.
Speaker 2: Must be and then he quotes a Pussic in chaf
Speaker 2: Team where as a proof for this, here's the pus
Speaker 2: Key quotes, where is it your cheft? This is a
Speaker 2: Pussic in chapter eleven where uh Gift our own is
Speaker 2: making war against them. So Gift sends to uh them,
Speaker 2: don't you know, don't make war with us? What would
Speaker 2: happen to all the other nations? And he's telling the
Speaker 2: story and in in pussa huff doll it he says,
Speaker 2: will doubt not possess you. Know, as he's saying, keep
Speaker 2: to yourself. You don't know to worry about uh going
Speaker 2: to war against us. Willout not possess that which Ramosh
Speaker 2: thy God giveth thee to possess you. Now it's keep
Speaker 2: what you have, whatever your God gave you, and anyone
Speaker 2: who fights with us will destroy them, et cetera. Soakov says,
Speaker 2: although the Raal Balgan that interprets this as derek halag
Speaker 2: like it's a mocking thing. It's like they say, you know,
Speaker 2: you're God, but not a real god, but a phony god.
Speaker 2: But Rivakov says, according to the view of the Ramban
Speaker 2: lo Isa coven Us.
Speaker 3: Hella coven Us, so he wasn't mocking them. He was
Speaker 3: saying the shot.
Speaker 2: Mash that that your God uh Kamosh does have the
Speaker 2: power to uh help you and give you things in
Speaker 2: all the tins, et cetera, et cetera. The point being,
Speaker 2: Rizakov holes that the world is created in such a
Speaker 2: way that there are these forces out there that are
Speaker 2: connected to the different nations, and the nations are benefited
Speaker 2: through these forces through God, that is, the God provides
Speaker 2: these powers with their ability and Therefore, the benefit of
Speaker 2: the nations goes through these powers, but the benefit of
Speaker 2: the Jews comes directly from Russiam. However, the powers already
Speaker 2: exist there there, and if the nations choose to short
Speaker 2: circuit and not worship God, go directly to the intermediaries
Speaker 2: or the the the underlings. They have powers. Just like
Speaker 2: if a king, there's a there's princes or dukes. You
Speaker 2: can go directly to the duke. Maybe the duke has
Speaker 2: independent power. Rivyakov says, I know this might strike some
Speaker 2: of you as even blasphemy, but he says that these
Speaker 2: and he says, this is the shot of the Ramban,
Speaker 2: that these forces that are created by God have independent
Speaker 2: ability to respond. It's built into nature that although it's
Speaker 2: a sin to approach them without going to God, if
Speaker 2: you do, it'll work. It's no different than like a
Speaker 2: magnet or something that God created the magnetism. But you
Speaker 2: can do the magnet on your own, or you can
Speaker 2: light fire on your own. And this is part of
Speaker 2: the structure of the world. Just like we have free will,
Speaker 2: these powers can act, et cetera. That's what he says.
Speaker 2: I first heard this concept when I was in high
Speaker 2: school in tenth grade and a teacher Riiseman.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 2: Since it's passed away, I don't know if he's related
Speaker 2: to the rise the famous Raby Risemon. And I remember
Speaker 2: in class him saying once that you couldn't why did
Speaker 2: all these nations out there worship these idols if they
Speaker 2: didn't get anything from it? So he said that he
Speaker 2: thinks that there must have been something. There must have
Speaker 2: been something in nature that by worshiping the idols something
Speaker 2: there was some return by definition built in no different
Speaker 2: than like if you eid a matchine the lights up
Speaker 2: the fire. So too that if you worship the idols
Speaker 2: that they had this authority, you shouldn't do it, but
Speaker 2: if you do it, it it exists. And I remember thinking,
Speaker 2: this is the craziest thing. This is the Rambuan would
Speaker 2: say this is complete heresy, but that's what he said.
Speaker 2: And then I find I don't know if he was
Speaker 2: a Termads person, but Ravyakov says the exact same thing.
Speaker 2: And that's what this letter is about, because I had
Speaker 2: sent Rabahai Rappaport wrote a piece about this. How it
Speaker 2: really what he's saying, what Yakov is saying, it's not
Speaker 2: what it's not in the Ramban on the surface it seems,
Speaker 2: but it's really not there. And Rabbi Schwartz agrees that
Speaker 2: Rubbert Upward's correct. Not is this not found in the Rumban,
Speaker 2: but the Rumban in another place explicitly speaks differently. He
Speaker 2: quotes the Rumban in Yusro, where the Rumban says that
Speaker 2: the nation's hush food. They thought that the gods, yesham
Speaker 2: Nihois like Teva, they thought this, but it's not true.
Speaker 2: They never had this ability. So it's a fundamental dispute
Speaker 2: between Rabbi Schwartz. Although Rabbi Kamenevsky is reading the Ramban
Speaker 2: this way, which is very difficult to read because the
Speaker 2: Ramban is and any. He sits another plussic where the
Speaker 2: Ramban Mishbuting says that they thought this. They thought that
Speaker 2: the the the the gods with the small gi had
Speaker 2: this power. But that's so, I don't know what you do.
Speaker 2: So let's say you show to your satisfaction that the
Speaker 2: Rumban doesn't say it, but does Rizakov still thought it.
Speaker 3: So even if he's.
Speaker 2: Wrong about the Rumban, he still thought that this was
Speaker 2: a kosher opinion. Maybe the Ramban never said it, but
Speaker 2: he thought this is a kosher opinion to explain the
Speaker 2: way the world functions, that there's forces, and really, when
Speaker 2: you think about it, I don't. I don't have the
Speaker 2: reaction to here when I was in high school. What
Speaker 2: if you believe in demons. Let's say the people believe
Speaker 2: in demons or astrology. They believe that these were created,
Speaker 2: these things or demons. Let's say we're created, but then
Speaker 2: they have powers. You have all these traditions about angels rebelling. Fine,
Speaker 2: the ron mom sees this as superstitions, but you have
Speaker 2: it in sources. It doesn't take away from God, from monotheism.
Speaker 2: It doesn't take because God is still the ultimate authority.
Speaker 2: But just like humans can go around and kill people,
Speaker 2: they are free will and they are created, so too,
Speaker 2: God created forces that if people choose to go to them,
Speaker 2: they're sinning. But the forces at power, just like you
Speaker 2: can go to an evil person and ask you to
Speaker 2: hire and to go kill someone. So Ravakov believes the Ramban.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: Vakov personally believes that he believes the Ramban held that
Speaker 2: not just in this world is their free will that
Speaker 2: goes against God. That even in the opera worlds you
Speaker 2: have this, and raus Schwartz thinks absolutely not. But the
Speaker 2: very interesting position of of of Dako Kamenetsky, Well, there's
Speaker 2: been a lot written on the Ramban, his view of
Speaker 2: the Scapegoat and what he has. He has some passages
Speaker 2: there that it's really it comes very close to like
Speaker 2: a sort of alternate powers. This has been written about
Speaker 2: who someone recently wrote an article on this and on
Speaker 2: the the the other powers in the in the Ramban.
Speaker 2: It's very it's very cabitalistic. It's if you're not into that,
Speaker 2: it's it strikes you as as dualistic, almost almost idolatrous even,
Speaker 2: but you have to understand it's a different perspective of
Speaker 2: the universe than we're usually taught in ours. When you
Speaker 2: send out the scapegoat, what are you sending it for?
Speaker 2: Where where you sending it? To the idea you have
Speaker 2: these ideas that there's some sort of other like power
Speaker 2: in the desert sort of thing. I don't need to
Speaker 2: into that. I'm going to skip number one seventeen in
Speaker 2: the in the Safer that just deals with an issue
Speaker 2: I asked them about. I was wrong. I misinterpreted something
Speaker 2: that the Hassam Sofer said, so he corrected me and
Speaker 2: the Rambo. But I want to get to now number
Speaker 2: one eighteen, which is on page two forty five, and
Speaker 2: this is Rabbi Rappaport. Back to Rabbi Rapaport now, and
Speaker 2: I need to give an introduction here. The title of
Speaker 2: this is what is the words referring to secular knowledge? Me,
Speaker 2: what's he talking about? Well, the Rumbum wrote a letter
Speaker 2: to the scholars of Southern France. The scholars of Southern
Speaker 2: France a page up here. We're basically sympathetic to the
Speaker 2: rumbumb to the study philosophy, most of them, but not
Speaker 2: all of them. And they didn't they didn't have I mean,
Speaker 2: some like the me Erie, were more than others. We
Speaker 2: spoke about the Rabbino Yona, although he was he studied
Speaker 2: under an unusual person who was really the great opponent of.
Speaker 1: The rum Bum.
Speaker 2: But they were not many of them were not totally
Speaker 2: on board with even if they were sympathetic philosophy to
Speaker 2: everything the rum Bub stood for. And he wrote a
Speaker 2: series of letters. See he responds that he explained certain
Speaker 2: problematic elements in the mission of Tara that they had
Speaker 2: asked him about and he wrote a very long letter
Speaker 2: to the scholars, and the premier scholar was Jonathan of Unel.
Speaker 2: Just last year by Charles Sheer translated this. He calls
Speaker 2: it the Grand Epistle to the Scholars of Unel, where
Speaker 2: the rumbumb before getting into the the objections that they had,
Speaker 2: the alt of objections, well, there wasn't so much objections
Speaker 2: often as explaining what the Ramba meant. He has this
Speaker 2: very long letter in which very malitsa poetic and in
Speaker 2: this letter, among other things, he says as follows, I
Speaker 2: believe I pulled it up here the original, So yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe I didn't. Well, I'll tell you, yeah, I
Speaker 2: don't think I made the hold it up. Okay, I'll
Speaker 2: tell you what he says. D Rumbum says, calls us out.
Speaker 2: D Rumbum says that he studied all the secular studies
Speaker 2: he did were like catabajot O folks were perfumers and
Speaker 2: uh cooks and and bakers. And he says that these
Speaker 2: were not they're they're not the essential My essential thing
Speaker 2: is Torah. These are sort of like the secondary things,
Speaker 2: and they make tower look good in the eyes of
Speaker 2: the nations. He's downplaying the significance of secular studies as
Speaker 2: the secondary. Actually, this would be what we would say
Speaker 2: in Toromanta probably or maybe some forms of Toromanta. Actually
Speaker 2: I don't know and not not not Norman Lambs, Toromano,
Speaker 2: others so others Uma. But that's the problem is which
Speaker 2: I raised, is that if you look in the mission
Speaker 2: of Torah, and you look in the Morenauchi, these secular studies,
Speaker 2: at least some of the secure studies science, philosophy, metaphysics, physics. Uh,
Speaker 2: these are not secondary things. These are essential. We've spoken
Speaker 2: about this already essential for Tonra's study. You can't fulfill
Speaker 2: the midst of if you don't know science.
Speaker 3: This is basic.
Speaker 2: Look in hil Is Sodia Toner the first four chapters.
Speaker 2: And that's not my submarracis my sco my subracis. That's
Speaker 2: the big thing, he says, Uh, the little things really
Speaker 2: is the other forms of tom was starting the thing
Speaker 2: we do every day, daffi only.
Speaker 3: But philosophy is higher.
Speaker 2: How could the Rambams say in writing to them, the
Speaker 2: secular studies it's sort of like a side interest of him.
Speaker 2: It doesn't define him. So what Professor Torski and his
Speaker 2: introduction to the Codamimonodes. He says, what the Raman's referring
Speaker 2: to there is not metaphysics, physics, chemistry, that sort of
Speaker 2: thing that helps us understand the world. He's referring to,
Speaker 2: let's say logic and mathematics. Maybe, but I don't seem
Speaker 2: the language in the rombamb My argument, and I wrote this,
Speaker 2: and this is what right Reports responding to, is that
Speaker 2: I think the Rambam's letter is written with an eye
Speaker 2: towards who's receiving it. That although the people in that
Speaker 2: he's writing to were sympathetic to the study of philosophy,
Speaker 2: but only as like a secondary thing. They were were
Speaker 2: open minded people who believe that when you reach a
Speaker 2: certain age, even the Rushbah, the band against the study
Speaker 2: of philosophy, was like under twenty five, when you reach
Speaker 2: a certain age, you can study it. But they didn't.
Speaker 2: They didn't buy into the romans whole idea that my
Speaker 2: Rati's and Lisa Markova is the Secrets of the Tonra
Speaker 2: I mean is for his science, physics and metaphysics. So
Speaker 2: I think the Rahmbam's letter and I have an article
Speaker 2: which I give a number of examples in which the
Speaker 2: Rambam writes things that seem to appeal to certain people,
Speaker 2: they're not necessarily affecting his his inner feelings. So I wrote,
Speaker 2: Report is responding to me, and he says that, well'sk
Speaker 2: at the beginning of it. What he what he says
Speaker 2: basically is that.
Speaker 3: He says that.
Speaker 2: I call He says, you called this a munajrat a
Speaker 2: necessary belief and not a true belief for the Rombum.
Speaker 2: And he says, I don't think that's the case. He says,
Speaker 2: What I think is the case is that the Rumbum
Speaker 2: is writing the FDA in accordance to the opinion of
Speaker 2: the people who is writing to. And as the point is,
Speaker 2: though I said that exact same thing, I don't know
Speaker 2: where Robert Report got this. I sent them an essay
Speaker 2: of mine to read. What I did is I have
Speaker 2: a whole article like it's send to anyone where I
Speaker 2: speak about the idea of necessary beliefs in the rom Bum.
Speaker 2: The Rambum says that there's a concept of necessary beliefs
Speaker 2: versus true beliefs. A necessary belief is what you want
Speaker 2: people to believe, even if it's not true, but it
Speaker 2: has certain value. Religious value, political value. The Rumum thinks
Speaker 2: the tower itself has necessary beliefs. The Rumbum speaks that
Speaker 2: says that the tower speaks of God being angry, and
Speaker 2: he says it's important for the masses to believe that
Speaker 2: God really gets angry, even though God doesn't have emotions
Speaker 2: that the intellectuals understand. When it says God gets angry,
Speaker 2: it doesn't mean it in a literal sense. But the masses,
Speaker 2: the ram Mom says, before they are supposed to take
Speaker 2: it literally. Later, if they can, they'll be able to
Speaker 2: expand themselves and understand that it's not really literal. But
Speaker 2: God responds in a way that you would think he
Speaker 2: has anger, because humans would respond that way if they
Speaker 2: had anger, you know, they destroy a city or something
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 3: And the.
Speaker 2: There's a whole of type of analysis the Rombum that
Speaker 2: focuses on necessary beliefs, because the rom Bum sometimes writes
Speaker 2: things and elsewhere writes things differently, So why was he
Speaker 2: writing it one way and writing in some of his
Speaker 2: letters he says things that he says differently in the
Speaker 2: Morn and the ram Moum hints in a number of
Speaker 2: places that what he says is the necessary belief. That is,
Speaker 2: it's not as true belief. It's not the belief for
Speaker 2: the intellectuals, it's the belief for the masses. And the
Speaker 2: rur Mom tells us that the masses are not supposed
Speaker 2: to be let into the true beliefs. That he tells
Speaker 2: us explicitly in the moreno Vouchim that there are certain
Speaker 2: things that the masses can't be given the truth that
Speaker 2: by definition that means that they're being given something which
Speaker 2: is what we call it necessary truth, that it's necessary
Speaker 2: for them to believe it, but it's not really the truth.
Speaker 2: And in discussing this concept in the rom Bumb I
Speaker 2: gave other examples where the rombumb expresses himself in a
Speaker 2: way that doesn't really reflects his true view. I'm calling
Speaker 2: a necessary belief, because a necessary belief is a belief
Speaker 2: that people, let's say, the masses are really supposed to
Speaker 2: believe until they're able to move beyond that. He wasn't
Speaker 2: writing to the scholars of France and saying that they're
Speaker 2: supposed to believe this. He wasn't trying to indoctrinate them
Speaker 2: like in other places will try to indoctrinate the masses
Speaker 2: in certain ideas, because he feels without this, they won't
Speaker 2: be able to stay on the proper path.
Speaker 3: I think rabbis today do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Rabbis will speak very differently from the pulpit than they
Speaker 2: will in private groups. There are certain things you don't
Speaker 2: want to say publicly, because raf Cook himself says Raff
Speaker 2: Cook says that you shouldn't say something publicly, even if
Speaker 2: you know it's true, if it will negatively affect the
Speaker 2: faith of someone, that someone's not sophisticated, they can't understand
Speaker 2: about evolution power, he says, don't speak about it. So
Speaker 2: for that person, you give them a certain truth. In Buddhism,
Speaker 2: this is called necessary means. That is, the simple people,
Speaker 2: you need to teach them a certain way that they
Speaker 2: can appreciate.
Speaker 3: The intellectuals, you do.
Speaker 2: It in a different way. This this parallel, and we
Speaker 2: have that's the exact parallel with the rob is doing
Speaker 2: necessary means. We teach our children differently than we treat
Speaker 2: that teach adults. So what I was saying is that
Speaker 2: when he wrote to the scholars of France, because they
Speaker 2: are not thought, they're not philosophally in calling the way
Speaker 2: he is. He writes a certain way. In another article
Speaker 2: I post, as I point out Cook Roff Cook is right.
Speaker 2: He has this letter where he writes to the leaders
Speaker 2: of to try to explain why he's why he supports us, say,
Speaker 2: the settlement of the irreligious, and we all know off
Speaker 2: Cook's opinion. Of Cook's opinion is that the eureligious have
Speaker 2: much to gain, have benefit us, and that they provide
Speaker 2: the physicality and we're the spirituality, but they're they're also
Speaker 2: vital for the creation of the rebuilding of this new land,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. And that they are going to
Speaker 2: teach the religious about strength because we the religious, have
Speaker 2: forgotten what it means to have strong bodies and we
Speaker 2: only have the spirituality, but the irreligious have the physicality.
Speaker 2: So we're gonna give them spirituality, They're going to give
Speaker 2: the physicality. This a whole dialectic, it's basic, drific What
Speaker 2: does he do when he writes to the rabbis that
Speaker 2: he says, we need to encourage he's irreligious because they're
Speaker 2: the ones who can build the roads, and they're the
Speaker 2: ones who can, you know, build things, because that's what
Speaker 2: they do. And without any relevance to the theological significance
Speaker 2: that he sees in the irreligious. So I think the
Speaker 2: same with the rumbum that he writes to the scholars
Speaker 2: of France. He's saying to them that in words they
Speaker 2: can understand. And that's exactly where the rabbitport says. So
Speaker 2: if he does a show only and he goes on,
Speaker 2: he says, we find in other places Shathilgdolistro, even great
Speaker 2: rabbis didn't attempt to convince the recipient of a letter
Speaker 2: what they were saying. Rather, a shoemol hamofi mal rather
Speaker 2: wrote to them in accordance to with how they their perspective.
Speaker 2: And he said, by report says, and he's correct that
Speaker 2: this has not do with necessary beliefs. And and he says,
Speaker 2: because what that means that the rambo thought he could
Speaker 2: uh convince them of it, that he would try to
Speaker 2: convince them and they he wouldn't have any reason to
Speaker 2: keep them in their their their beliefs. But that's not
Speaker 2: that that's not what it means at all. Uh. And
Speaker 2: I point out in the note that this is exactly
Speaker 2: what I said in my article. I pointed out the
Speaker 2: same thing. And my rapport must not have seen the
Speaker 2: final edition of my article. But the concept is the same,
Speaker 2: that they're not everything great rabbi is right, reflects their
Speaker 2: true opinion all the time. I know this is radical
Speaker 2: maybe for some people. One with this that you often
Speaker 2: find great rabbi saying things that are are for the audience,
Speaker 2: or that they contradict themselves. They're in a certain circumstance,
Speaker 2: they'll respond a certain way. You have stories, robs Acheck,
Speaker 2: he responded different ways to different people. Well, some people,
Speaker 2: some people are not ready for a certain SoC Let's say,
Speaker 2: let's speak in terms of holakau. Some people whereby salivate
Speaker 2: chiku in nefasherav or chefter quote. I think it's afterever.
Speaker 2: The next one quotes him as saying, in those days
Speaker 2: are solvation. You see kraft cheese. And he held that
Speaker 2: the vinasakum, there's no issue. It's a vegetarian. But if
Speaker 2: Salik told the Yeshiva students the Snagel students, don't tell
Speaker 2: your Ballabat team that this is permissible, because the Ballabat
Speaker 2: team it's alchave mowering king. That's a principle that not
Speaker 2: everything you should be made public for everyone. So you
Speaker 2: respond differently to different people. That's that's sort of like
Speaker 2: a uh, the rabbi is listening to me. I probably say, well,
Speaker 2: I'll duh. Of course we know we can't say everything
Speaker 2: the same thing instead of saying everyone. But it's sometimes
Speaker 2: problematic when you see people writing in letters. I saw
Speaker 2: of Weinberg. He writes one way to someone from the
Speaker 2: Ayeshiva world in a different way, not necessarily always a
Speaker 2: kind tradiction, but just the different stress. So when he
Speaker 2: writes to someone in the Yeshiba world, he'll talk about
Speaker 2: the problems that the state of Israel, you know, the
Speaker 2: Secui re Zionists, and he just had that. You think
Speaker 2: he's an a gouddiest. But then you see him ryan
Speaker 2: to a Msraki person about in the state of Israel
Speaker 2: is the greatest gift given to us from God? It
Speaker 2: is it a contradiction now, But when he's writing to
Speaker 2: one person, so where does his heart really lay. Maybe
Speaker 2: it's the a gouddist or maybe with the Masraki that's
Speaker 2: what I read about in the book. But this is
Speaker 2: you see this with the Rambam. Also, lat says it,
Speaker 2: anyone who studied the Rambam knows that you have different
Speaker 2: stresses and sometimes even perhaps contradictions. So with this will
Speaker 2: end what we're going to pick up next class. We're
Speaker 2: going to go to the ballatonia. Wait, do you see
Speaker 2: what the balatonia says totally in opposition to what the
Speaker 2: Hasidium at least many Hasidim will hold today. Then we'll
Speaker 2: get into what I thought we might get to the
Speaker 2: very troubling passage with the tour, and if we get
Speaker 2: to it next pass we'll get into a little bit
Speaker 2: of a batte din appeals courts whatever, Well, where do
Speaker 2: we have our lawyers here? You're often told in Yeshiva
Speaker 2: that this whole conception of appeals courts and the Israel
Speaker 2: bote did system is taken from secular because tour doesn't
Speaker 2: know about appeals courts. And so we'll hear what was
Speaker 2: going on in Prague?
Speaker 3: And what's.
Speaker 2: Let me get the question, is now time really flies?
Speaker 2: Let me see we have a nice big crowd tonight
Speaker 2: over sixty, Thank you all for coming. iPad says in
Speaker 2: pre war the pre war army may not have been perfect,
Speaker 2: but it was not an army of a state till
Speaker 2: after independence, an underground organization. Most of fighting Arab size
Speaker 2: or former armor is often trained by the British. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but in May already have forty eight. You have the
Speaker 2: idea as along with I have to say with irregular
Speaker 2: because it took a while to get Lachi and they
Speaker 2: are good and joint into it. But we do have
Speaker 2: I am not going to deny it. There were some
Speaker 2: incidents where there were human rights violations, there were killings,
Speaker 2: there were rapes that happens, happens in every war, and
Speaker 2: it happened in the idea of it happened in nineteen
Speaker 2: forty eight. Much more, I don't know of any cases
Speaker 2: like this where in sixty seven or the other wars
Speaker 2: they weren't really you know Ebanon. I don't know if
Speaker 2: cases like this. In nineteen forty eight. There was a
Speaker 2: lot of chaos, and unfortunately you had terrible things happen.
Speaker 2: The things that were not were supposed to be above that,
Speaker 2: but it was a difficult circumstance. There was a lot
Speaker 2: of hatred and not justifying it. And some of these
Speaker 2: people were men of volume and were selling who did
Speaker 2: these sort of things. Some of these if you read
Speaker 2: some of these people, these were founders of State of Israel.
Speaker 2: They had no Jewish values. There had no helpe. I'm
Speaker 2: not sounding like an anti Zionist, but they had no
Speaker 2: Terra values. Toror was the furthest thing. They had no
Speaker 2: Jewish values. They for the many of them human life,
Speaker 2: I mean some of them even in the underground a
Speaker 2: civil war. They could have imagined a civil war they
Speaker 2: you had in the underground. Some killed Jews who they
Speaker 2: thought were collaborators. There's no question that members of the
Speaker 2: underground not Bigan, because by the time he got involved
Speaker 2: with it, mostly things were kept were carefully and they
Speaker 2: weren't throwing bombs just into crowded markets or things like that.
Speaker 2: The King David Hotel was a military target, and as
Speaker 2: long as you assumed that military targets are valid, it's
Speaker 2: a valid target. They even called and they they they
Speaker 2: warned them to leave. They're true their work cases where
Speaker 2: they are good and killed British soldiers that they had
Speaker 2: kidnapped in response to the execution of Jews who were captured,
Speaker 2: and they warned them, if you're gonna kill these, we're
Speaker 2: going to kill yours again. Today I think we'd have
Speaker 2: a problem with that, but that's and I don't know
Speaker 2: if that's immoral in wartime as part of response. But
Speaker 2: I but my whole point is I don't think we
Speaker 2: need we don't need to defend if someone in forty
Speaker 2: eight did a terrible thing, he did a terrible thing
Speaker 2: to simpose that, but that doesn't We've never advocated this,
Speaker 2: and we don't glorify this, and we don't think this
Speaker 2: is a great thing. We don't build monuments for people
Speaker 2: who do things like this, and we don't cheer when
Speaker 2: we see this. In fact, we're embarrassed if we'd find
Speaker 2: out something like that happened. And so they all that
Speaker 2: talk about this and that it doesn't a terrible thing
Speaker 2: that this person did that person, that it doesn't destroy
Speaker 2: the it doesn't really uproot the Zionist idea. One thing
Speaker 2: is going to do with the other. And really, if
Speaker 2: Israel wanted to act, they could have killed them all.
Speaker 2: They could have uprooted them all. And so these are
Speaker 2: sort of exceptions. That's my feeling. Small You're good left.
Speaker 2: The stern Gang actually stern gang. They don't like the
Speaker 2: words stern Gang, stern group. Stern Gang is a negative.
Speaker 2: You can call them terrorists. But they were also formed
Speaker 2: because the British failed to protect Jews in their territories
Speaker 2: as they were supposed to. That's really the Hagan Nah
Speaker 2: you're good and is stern gang. They were about getting
Speaker 2: rid of the British. That was enemy number one, imperialism.
Speaker 2: And I have to say not that you're good. During
Speaker 2: World War two, they are good.
Speaker 3: Stop the war.
Speaker 2: They say, the most important thing now is not the
Speaker 2: war against the British, it's the war against the Nazis.
Speaker 2: And they believed in joining together. Lehchi refused to call
Speaker 2: off the war. Lechi sent people into be Route to
Speaker 2: meet with the Nazis. Lechi was willing to ally themselves
Speaker 2: with the Nazis to fight the British. And after the war,
Speaker 2: Lehchi became pro Soviet, not pro American, pro Soviet because
Speaker 2: they thought that Soviets would Now there were people like
Speaker 2: uh Cohen who who didn't have this perspective, but El
Speaker 2: Dodd and Yell and these were all in the Soviet camp.
Speaker 2: So I shed noh, I have none. There's no soft
Speaker 2: spot in me for Lehi. You're good is different though
Speaker 2: you're good. They they fought with dignity and honor, and
Speaker 2: I believe and that was but it was you know,
Speaker 2: the British. Surely imperilss and British were That's really what
Speaker 2: it was. It wasn't it was to force the British out.
Speaker 2: Now did it force them out? Eventually they would have left,
Speaker 2: but they probably wouldn't have left till later. Most of
Speaker 2: the colonies of the India they didn't leave till good
Speaker 2: fifteen years later. Susanna says that even when speaking about
Speaker 2: young israel I, guess it's new Rochelle. If you have antibodies,
Speaker 2: everyone was there there must wear a mask. Well, you
Speaker 2: were gonna have to wear masks because until we assume
Speaker 2: that until everyone has until everyone has had a chance
Speaker 2: to get the vaccine, we have to wear masks because
Speaker 2: we have to protect them. But for these people who
Speaker 2: are gonna say I'm not gonna wear a mask because
Speaker 2: I don't believe it. If everyone has had a chance
Speaker 2: to get it, we don't have to go around with
Speaker 2: masks because some idiot decides they don't want to get vaccinated.
Speaker 2: If that's the case, that's I don't have to then
Speaker 2: be inconvenienced my whole life, like I says. Not only
Speaker 2: the British not protect Jews, they often actually worked with
Speaker 2: Arabs the target Jews.
Speaker 3: That is true.
Speaker 2: They did not protect the Jews, and that was the
Speaker 2: in the Haganah focused on that. The the air gun
Speaker 2: and the lechi really did hitdn't protect the Jews as
Speaker 2: much as they did the reprisal attacks when Jews were attacked.
Speaker 2: And but that was the mains, the mainstream was the Huguanah.
Speaker 2: That was their job or the and then then yet
Speaker 2: the Palmach of course Paul March incidentally also had a
Speaker 2: lot of leftists and the U palm groups. But the
Speaker 2: job of the year gun and the Lachi was to
Speaker 2: drive the British imperiodalists off the land of Israel. Safer
Speaker 2: ing Aco of popular as a got into particular for
Speaker 2: the masses, yes, time's correct, and and but that those
Speaker 2: won't be arm masses. These are at least masses who
Speaker 2: can read Hebrew, who can understand it. iPad says, if
Speaker 2: you should have had lost, make no mistake, both Syria
Speaker 2: and Egypt would have gained territory, but there would not
Speaker 2: have been a new Arab Muslim state. And wore no,
Speaker 2: of course not there wasn't a conception of the Palestinian
Speaker 2: national identity. Then that would have been mh. They were
Speaker 2: living from nineteen forty eight to nice sixty seven. There was,
Speaker 2: they were. It was part of Jordan's so uh, there
Speaker 2: wouldn't They would have probably split it up. I mean
Speaker 2: Jordan would have taken a lot. Uh, yeah, there wasn't.
Speaker 2: I agree with that. Or cite some in Hebrew that
Speaker 2: we'repe Jews are above them of astrology and above the stars.
Speaker 2: But there's Kuote, there's co hosts and the tuma, et cetera.
Speaker 2: He's reading, Actually, I think you're reading directly from I
Speaker 2: think you're reading directly from I can't. I don't have
Speaker 2: it here is are you reading? I don't know what
Speaker 2: you're quoting. If you're quoting from yarkom Nesky, but he's
Speaker 2: not the Yes, yes you're reading. Yes, I think you're
Speaker 2: reading from Narco komensk Uh.
Speaker 3: No you're not.
Speaker 2: You're not dreaming.
Speaker 3: So but did you find this deeper?
Speaker 2: Charitable Dove says, can we then justify hagiographies because they
Speaker 2: perhaps necessary beliefs, at least according to those authors. That's
Speaker 2: in my book on the censorship. That's what I was
Speaker 2: accused of doing, and I believe so. I believe that
Speaker 2: for certain communities don't we do this with our children.
Speaker 2: When you tell your children's stories, do you tell them
Speaker 2: all the facts? My father always gave the example that
Speaker 2: you know in in elementary school, in high school, we
Speaker 2: tell them that the Civil War is for to free
Speaker 2: the slaves. Then now, when you get more advanced, you
Speaker 2: realize that I was much more complicated than that, that
Speaker 2: Lincoln was not an abolitionist. So yes, when we tell
Speaker 2: our children, we tell don't tell them all the facts.
Speaker 2: We don't tell them all the all the details. So
Speaker 2: in certain communities, if the if the if the leaders
Speaker 2: in those communities believe that the individuals should be kept
Speaker 2: ignorant and should be kept at the level of children.
Speaker 2: I'm sophisticated. I it doesn't bother me. These biographies do
Speaker 2: not bother me at all, because in those communities that's
Speaker 2: what they feel is necessary. So the Rambum wasn't necessary.
Speaker 2: An elitist, No, that Rambum was definitely an elitist. He's
Speaker 2: an overt elitist. He says explicitly in a Missiontara that,
Speaker 2: for instance, the philosophy, it's only people who have filled
Speaker 2: their bellies with tomwood, so it's only for the elites.
Speaker 2: So he's definitely an elitist. However, the rambum is a
Speaker 2: community leader. He's not an ivory tower person like you
Speaker 2: take these other philosophers. You have the Islamic philosophers of
Speaker 2: Arrowize Alfarabi people like that. The Rambam is a communal leader.
Speaker 2: So the Rambam has to be on two levels. He
Speaker 2: has to be for the people, but he's also writing
Speaker 2: for the elites. And as I said, he's overt. He
Speaker 2: says it explicitly that the certain things are only for
Speaker 2: the elites. And how do you write only for the elites?
Speaker 2: Because if you're writing and anyone can read it, especially
Speaker 2: since he wrote the more Lui in Arabic. So he
Speaker 2: says in the introduction of the morning, he's going to
Speaker 2: contradict himself. He's going to write like in a code.
Speaker 2: He's going to contradict himself so that only the elites
Speaker 2: will be able to see what he's saying. The masses,
Speaker 2: it will go right over their heads. They won't even
Speaker 2: notice the contradiction. So that's how the rom bomb came
Speaker 2: up with his approach.
Speaker 3: Buru says, not.
Speaker 2: Everyone can be can handle being told to abavach Rebi
Speaker 2: is Mashiah. So the Rebbe's proceeding don't always reveal it.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's the parallel Burro. I think the
Speaker 2: ones who don't reveal it, it's because there they think
Speaker 2: that they won't the people will stop donating money to
Speaker 2: them because they won't realize that their local rabbat houses
Speaker 2: is Messianic. But I have to say that I am
Speaker 2: certain that the abbot houses I know that I'm in
Speaker 2: my town and others are not. So. I know some
Speaker 2: people are cynical, but not all Aabaud believe that. Does
Speaker 2: anyone have a link er of hankin Slavaya on YouTube?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I didn't see it. I would like to see it.
Speaker 2: Nell says, the PLO was established a few years before
Speaker 2: sixty seven. Yeah, the PLO was established. It was created
Speaker 2: by the Arab countries as a as a as a
Speaker 2: proxy to destroy. It was created to destroy Israel. There
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with the West Bank occupied territories
Speaker 2: or anything uh our factor. These were all created. These
Speaker 2: were created by the Arabs and really by the KGB.
Speaker 2: The whole, the whole, this whole Palestinian movement is created
Speaker 2: by by the Arabs and by the KGB to try
Speaker 2: to basically destroy Israel, and for the sake of historical accuracy,
Speaker 2: had the idea. It's often bandied about, however, that there's
Speaker 2: no conception of Palestinian nationalism before. That I think is incorrect,
Speaker 2: because you already see Hajomina Husseini, he was the leader
Speaker 2: of the Palestinian national movement. There was a sense, even
Speaker 2: if these people were Syrians and others. We have on
Speaker 2: record the Syrian Foreign Minister saying that we created the
Speaker 2: Palestinian people as a as a as a proper and
Speaker 2: a tool. However, there was at least the beginnings of
Speaker 2: a Palestinian national identity. I mean the Haja mean now
Speaker 2: Husseini is uh is really the founder. We're one of
Speaker 2: the founders of the whole Palestinian national movement. So it's
Speaker 2: not well, what would have happened is the Arabs where
Speaker 2: Jordan would have taken over Syria, and then they would
Speaker 2: have had to put down the Palestinian national stories. I
Speaker 2: think it's historically inaccurate to say that there was no
Speaker 2: Palestinian nationalism before, you know, before the sixties, and that
Speaker 2: it's all creation of the destroy all creation in the
Speaker 2: nineteen sixties. But and I'll just add do well, if
Speaker 2: you don't know hajjaman Osani. Of course he spent the
Speaker 2: war years in Berlin and Hitler maybe the only non
Speaker 2: German that the plan to reveal was revealed for the
Speaker 2: plan of the final solution. It was revealed, and we
Speaker 2: have a complete protocol of this. It's it's significant that
Speaker 2: Hitler chose to reveal this to hajjo Mina Hossein, who
Speaker 2: was not an Aryan. But as they say, he had
Speaker 2: the same goals as the arguing, you know, uh killed
Speaker 2: the Jews and destroy the democracies. So that's an important point.
Speaker 2: David Dowen the one with this, David Dollen, professor in
Speaker 2: in Florida. He wrote a book. It's actually it's the
Speaker 2: two things. It's a defense of Pope Pious. He thinks
Speaker 2: that and David Dallin's a deserved rabbi as well, that
Speaker 2: Pope Pious was given a bad rap and there's all
Speaker 2: this attacks on Pope Pious for what he didn't do
Speaker 2: during the Holocaust. His argument is he did more than
Speaker 2: people think, and that it wasn't that he's evil, maybe
Speaker 2: he's incompetent, but he says all these attacks against Pope Pius,
Speaker 2: we forget the true villain, the real villain, and that
Speaker 2: is no other than Hajjo Mina Hosseini, who really was
Speaker 2: an ally of the Nazis. When you think about it,
Speaker 2: the founding father of the Palestinian National Movement was an
Speaker 2: ally with the allied with the Nazis. And okay, we
Speaker 2: will end uh with this ipats Is hit We're awarded
Speaker 2: honorary Orion stars and some Japanese who's saying yes. You
Speaker 2: can see a video of hajo min Hosseini visiting. They
Speaker 2: brought in there were you had Bosnian. The officers were Serbian,
Speaker 2: but Bosnian. They raised a poncer division of Bosnian SS troops,
Speaker 2: so you had Bosnians.
Speaker 3: The Muslims.
Speaker 2: They ever bring him in from all over the Muslim
Speaker 2: world to fight on the side of Hitler. This is
Speaker 2: sort of like the Unknown Story.
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 visit
Speaker 1: torenmotion dot org. Please rate and review us in your paper,
Speaker 1: podcast that, or even better, tell a friend to give
Speaker 1: a podcast to listen. The thing then tacked their name