Speaker 1: Welcome to Jewish History Uncensored with Mark Shapiro. This is
Speaker 1: season sixteen, episode thirty.
Speaker 2: Five, and this is the thirty fifth class. So it's
Speaker 2: great that we've been here so many weeks together, so
Speaker 2: let us continue. I want to pick up on something
Speaker 2: last week, as we always do.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: First of all, we are talking about names and how
Speaker 2: they were turned into and from Nat asked the question
Speaker 2: about how clin becomes a cut and we gave a number,
Speaker 2: and I knew there was many more. Afterwards, someone texts me,
Speaker 2: I didn't mention David Weiss, who becomes Hallivni. That's a
Speaker 2: good one. We have many of those. Okay, let me
Speaker 2: say something else though this is not really relevant to
Speaker 2: per se to anything we have done. But it's from
Speaker 2: a proclass before one of the earlier series, which you
Speaker 2: can go to tore in Motion. But since we've spoken
Speaker 2: on aspects of Hebrew and now you're getting those who
Speaker 2: are listening to ry weed or you're getting even more
Speaker 2: into it, I thought i'd share it with you. I
Speaker 2: think you'd find it of interest, and it relates to
Speaker 2: the things that we've done in the past. Someone emailed me.
Speaker 2: In an earlier show I mentioned the concept of schma
Speaker 2: prose mashem. That's why I pronounced it for now. This
Speaker 2: is the means that God watches over the simple people.
Speaker 2: And this is derived in the taumud that and you
Speaker 2: see this going throughout then that if something is done
Speaker 2: by many people, we assume even if it could be dangerous.
Speaker 2: So I'm not going to say it's forbidden because so
Speaker 2: many people are doing it. Uh. And there's many, many discussions.
Speaker 2: Ever mosta Finction actually mentions this. That's the basis of
Speaker 2: his response, I'm about permitting smoking. Of course, it was
Speaker 2: later pointed out years later has pointed out that only
Speaker 2: applied when it wasn't so clear that it was forbid,
Speaker 2: that it was really dangerous. But once if it's a
Speaker 2: vadi danger, then you don't have this concept of God
Speaker 2: protects the simple. Now I just mentioned so, so why
Speaker 2: am I mention this all to you? Because the person
Speaker 2: who wrote to me wrote, schomer passim sfardak, you'd say, patim,
Speaker 2: and I want to show you something here. Now, this
Speaker 2: is the sort of thing I think even when we're
Speaker 2: long gone, I think you'll remember by the way this
Speaker 2: pussuk we say it. It's in hello, we don't say
Speaker 2: in our rushlo dish, it's in a hufti. But I'll
Speaker 2: show you right now. Uh. But on other days we
Speaker 2: say hello, we do say it. If you google, I
Speaker 2: think I even have it here. Let me see I google, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I googled. Hold on a second, if you google h
Speaker 2: here showmar pasaium, you could see all sorts of articles
Speaker 2: on show more passim, showmre petai em. And yet I
Speaker 2: didn't mention this to this person who emailed me, but
Speaker 2: he might be listening. Now. If you look in the
Speaker 2: pussok the pussocks into Hillem one sixteen, we know this pussic.
Speaker 2: I'll have to keep smell because I said it's in hello,
Speaker 2: look in pussockvove. The word is not schomer passim, even
Speaker 2: though I grew up saying showmar pasaim. Also, if you
Speaker 2: look carefully, you see it's show meer pasa yim. That's
Speaker 2: how it has to be pronounced. And if you google
Speaker 2: this petaim and pasaim, there are some people who get
Speaker 2: it right. But uh, everyone says showmar pasilium, including if
Speaker 2: you google see one of the real Godoli Strow. But
Speaker 2: that's not what it says. It's pasa yim that alif
Speaker 2: is not does not have a sound. Other places we
Speaker 2: have the So for example, in in Peric, what peric
Speaker 2: is this until the one nineteen If you look at
Speaker 2: verse one thirty, the last word, it's pessayem and that's
Speaker 2: how you have it. In many places. In Tanach the
Speaker 2: root is pay tough youod pessi petti uh, so it's
Speaker 2: pesa yim. Why there's an oliph there, it's not clear,
Speaker 2: but we have this this idea that you have olives
Speaker 2: which are are not pronounced. I'll give you another one
Speaker 2: if you want to see an olif that's not pronounced.
Speaker 2: A lot of people get this wrong, including people who
Speaker 2: have the name. What am I speaking about? So for example,
Speaker 2: we have the name Daniel. Maybe some of the people
Speaker 2: listening to us are Daniel. And then you have the
Speaker 2: female name Daniella. So if the affreage person, if you
Speaker 2: ask them the name, how to pronounce the name, they'll
Speaker 2: say Donielle, donnie and an L. That's say, under the
Speaker 2: alephf Donielle Doniella and yet and that's how it's uh
Speaker 2: written in the English. I want to show you this though.
Speaker 2: Here's the Book of Daniel. Take a look at there
Speaker 2: he is. And in verse eight or number verses, how
Speaker 2: is it written? It's written Donny yale. That's how the
Speaker 2: name is pronounced. It should be d A n I
Speaker 2: y e y l don. Then it's a dugation it
Speaker 2: because it's the Donni yelle, that's how the name is pronounced.
Speaker 2: And doni yella it's the name of my daughter. But
Speaker 2: uh so we have lots of examples of this. Incidentally,
Speaker 2: this is a good one. I like, uh here I
Speaker 2: pulled it up before. Uh. This is in Bob midbar
Speaker 2: Perico levin U plus a Dallad. Almost everyone when they
Speaker 2: pronounced this word, the first word they say hasafsuf. It's
Speaker 2: not it's hassafsuf. The oliph is not pronounced. Even though
Speaker 2: the word is asafsuf. Uh it's not pronounced. Uh okay,
Speaker 2: and we'll we know this the word ban nechA your sons.
Speaker 2: You don't pronounce the the urinate.
Speaker 1: So well.
Speaker 2: A lot of examples. Oh one more I brought up
Speaker 2: here in benching here looking Tillham thirty four, verse ten.
Speaker 2: Many people say, you're your ou it's yeru ushem. The
Speaker 2: alephi is not pronounced so for the person who asked
Speaker 2: me about the question about Ramosha Feinstein and Paseim that
Speaker 2: got me off into that. Let me put this down here. Okay.
Speaker 2: The other thing I want to just pick up I
Speaker 2: don't have so much like in previous weeks is I
Speaker 2: want to return and I think Rabarie lay for mentioning
Speaker 2: a few things. Just so we mentioned the last class
Speaker 2: with Ramanosha Cline and a couple of things here I
Speaker 2: want to show you by the way, I when I
Speaker 2: listened to it, I saw I made a mistake. No
Speaker 2: one pointed this out. I said that Ramanosha c Line
Speaker 2: and Elieuisel were at Buchenwald and then Auschwitz. Of course
Speaker 2: it's the reverse. They're now Schwitz and then Ay they
Speaker 2: were being tryed. Uh uh. They come from the Hungary
Speaker 2: and being they were deported there and then at the
Speaker 2: end they they moved them to Buchenbault. I mentioned, I'll first,
Speaker 2: I'll show you something interesting. I mentioned, uh, how Ramanasha
Speaker 2: deals with rough cook. So here let me just show you.
Speaker 2: Here's one of the pages is Mishnah a Haut. I
Speaker 2: don't know what volume this is. Here, Oh it says
Speaker 2: that says at the bottom volume ten. If you look
Speaker 2: on the right hand side here, Look how we are
Speaker 2: first to kiss fe Romban. Doesn't say massada of cook
Speaker 2: or rov cook. It's ho sauce cook, that's all. And
Speaker 2: then he has in another volume volume I found I
Speaker 2: searched on the Ozerma and uh, this is from volume eight,
Speaker 2: took on the left here where my marker is kiss
Speaker 2: a Romban cook, so he won't even say hrov cook. However,
Speaker 2: very interestingly, posthumously they published a volume of mission. He
Speaker 2: didn't publish it, his children published it. And lo and
Speaker 2: behold among the writings, they have a letter to none
Speaker 2: other the Rabby Greenblatt, who we now know well. And
Speaker 2: look what he writes in the letter. He writes right
Speaker 2: at the bottom there he writes, Rebbi green Blad has written,
Speaker 2: had written to him and cited Cook, and he writes
Speaker 2: back to him with the titles rof Cook. So well
Speaker 2: left with the question here is it that that Rabbi
Speaker 2: Greenblat changed his mind. It's it's hard to imagine because
Speaker 2: we don't really have a date here, but uh, I
Speaker 2: think perhaps had he published it himself, that is when
Speaker 2: he wrote to Rabbi Greenblat knowing who Rabbi green Blade is,
Speaker 2: he were first to of Cook. One way. We don't
Speaker 2: know what Rabbi Clin would have done had he published
Speaker 2: a safer himself. It could have been he would have
Speaker 2: removed that, or he never published this letter. Actually this
Speaker 2: letter was found among his writings. Maybe that's why he
Speaker 2: didn't publish it. I don't know, but I when I
Speaker 2: said he never mentions ro Cook in a positive way.
Speaker 2: That was based on the old Otmo. This is the
Speaker 2: new one I got recently, and in the posthumous volume
Speaker 2: he has it. But we we dealt with the rohmbamb
Speaker 2: last week and reby Klein's position. That's the just to
Speaker 2: remind you of this, what does the Rambam say if
Speaker 2: anyone who accepts upon him verses Chapter eight, verse eleven,
Speaker 2: in hechris mokrim, if you accept upon yourself the fulfillment
Speaker 2: of the seven mits vote, and you're precise in your observance,
Speaker 2: you're considered one of the pious of the gentiles, and
Speaker 2: you have a share in the world to come. And
Speaker 2: then the Rambam says that only a pies if he
Speaker 2: accepts them, fulfills them because God commanded them. But if
Speaker 2: he does it based on his own intellectual convictions, he's
Speaker 2: not a resident alien. That is, he's not a garreto chef.
Speaker 2: He's not one of the pious of the gentiles, nor
Speaker 2: of their wise men. That's the old the gears of Oh,
Speaker 2: and we said the other gear is Elhem. So the
Speaker 2: first thing is and I just want to stress this
Speaker 2: because I don't know if it was clear if Barry
Speaker 2: says I should stress it. The Rambamb never says incidentally here,
Speaker 2: although rough Cook interprets him this way that if you
Speaker 2: read it el Mehem, it doesn't mean he's saying that
Speaker 2: these people have a share in the world to come.
Speaker 2: In fact, the source that many people think the Rambamb
Speaker 2: is based on this is Madrashic source is explicit that
Speaker 2: if you do the Cheva mitzlispine Noah, just for your
Speaker 2: own intellectual conviction, you get reward in this world, but
Speaker 2: not in the next world. So if I imply it otherwise,
Speaker 2: although roff Cook does say that, then other people believe
Speaker 2: that as well, because it does say that the pious
Speaker 2: of the nations have a share in the world to come,
Speaker 2: But that doesn't mean the Rombamb understands just pious the
Speaker 2: way we think of it. Could be that the Rambam
Speaker 2: understands it to mean that you have to have a
Speaker 2: understanding of where these laws come from. It's hard to
Speaker 2: imagine if you know the Ramans philosophy. But the rough
Speaker 2: Cook himself acknowledges that, I'll be up shot. That could
Speaker 2: be the read that is is a reading, and Rabari
Speaker 2: Laibe shows me that the Hooter of Cook's own son
Speaker 2: accepts that reading. But so I just want to mention that.
Speaker 2: The other thing is that Rabarie Labe thinks that when
Speaker 2: I described Ramanasha Klin is having a particulars exclusivist view,
Speaker 2: it's really not correct. It's not like we're going to
Speaker 2: see today the Kousenberger, because all Rabbi Manasha Klin is
Speaker 2: doing is following the Rumbum the way he understands him. Well, first,
Speaker 2: let me just note that the Rumbum could be understood
Speaker 2: different ways as well. But second of all, what I
Speaker 2: said about Ramanasha Colin is that he actually says that
Speaker 2: all the non Jews are reshine because they don't observe
Speaker 2: the shov myspost because God gave them, which I said
Speaker 2: is a very unusual view, and you really don't find
Speaker 2: that among others. It's very it's not that common, let's
Speaker 2: put it that way. But leaving that aside, I myself
Speaker 2: said Rabarier that the Rambam's own view is particularistic. We
Speaker 2: said that I developed the whole idea, that this notion
Speaker 2: that we have that anyone can have a share in
Speaker 2: the world to come and all these things, and we're
Speaker 2: not like that. We don't have this conception of there's
Speaker 2: no salvation outside the Senegague. I said, the rumbumb doesn't
Speaker 2: have that view. So I already mentioned that. What I
Speaker 2: would also say, however, is that there's a reason why,
Speaker 2: at least in the circles that I am, this approach
Speaker 2: to the rom bomb is not so accepted because it
Speaker 2: doesn't it doesn't feel good, it doesn't feel right, and
Speaker 2: we have other traditions. So I do think from a
Speaker 2: nashaklient has its own take on it. But I said
Speaker 2: last week already, and I first want to say that
Speaker 2: the rambambs it is theself particularistic because even with Ella
Speaker 2: mirhach Me maybe didn't stressed enough with Ella Mihchach may
Speaker 2: Am it depends how you understand a huss It is
Speaker 2: a husted above or below the rachm. But listen, we
Speaker 2: could find plenty of examples in the Rombomb, or may
Speaker 2: not plenty a bunch of examples in the Rombomb that
Speaker 2: what he says, very few people today would feel comfortable with.
Speaker 2: That is the whole point of humanity is intellect, and
Speaker 2: if you don't feel like an animal. There's all sorts
Speaker 2: of things that the Romam says that people would not
Speaker 2: feel so comfortable with the notion of a nebachapy chorus
Speaker 2: that if you don't know any better, you're a heretic
Speaker 2: notion in the world to come. We'll get into this later,
Speaker 2: the dispute and the realm and the rife, but there's
Speaker 2: many things in the rom Bomb that are just they're
Speaker 2: hard to stomach today for people because we have another
Speaker 2: tradition also that just emotionally we're more attached to. That's
Speaker 2: not to say the realm's not right, but at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, we can never determine who's right
Speaker 2: on these things, so it makes sense that people are
Speaker 2: more inclined to one versus the other. Okay, let's leave
Speaker 2: that there, and let's move on. Okay, my friends, we
Speaker 2: are picking up in the safer number one twenty nine.
Speaker 2: If you were call. This is to ramanach Amram And
Speaker 2: the last thing we spoke about is I introduced you
Speaker 2: to his response them. And there's a few questions. The
Speaker 2: first is the rumbum that we saw where the rumbum
Speaker 2: says that here we show to you again. I found
Speaker 2: a number of commentaries this week. I was looking at
Speaker 2: it to discussed this rumbum where are we here? It is?
Speaker 2: It's in Hikos the Laws of Murder, chapter four in
Speaker 2: see where is it? Test nine? Here you go. He
Speaker 2: says that although there are other sins that are more
Speaker 2: serious than murder, they do not present a serious danger
Speaker 2: to society as murder does. Even idol worship and needles
Speaker 2: to say, incests, which we said is sexual immorality and
Speaker 2: the vials of shabas are not considered as severe as murder.
Speaker 2: For these sins involve man's relation ship with God. Well,
Speaker 2: murder is man's relationship with alow Man. So murder is
Speaker 2: the worst because it leads to destruction of society and
Speaker 2: idle worship and violations shabis, they're not as severe. So
Speaker 2: then what are the sins that we said that are
Speaker 2: more severe than murder? That was the question. So I
Speaker 2: raised that too with the Rabbi Kam and he has
Speaker 2: a very long response him. I'll just call attention to
Speaker 2: the highlights of it, in which he goes into this
Speaker 2: in great detail. He raises the question, for example, what
Speaker 2: about hilahem hilasm to say, just say that you can't
Speaker 2: repent for this, you can repent for for murder. Now,
Speaker 2: the rombamb says that he says this in two places
Speaker 2: as far as I know, and he'll three places, Kristchuva
Speaker 2: and Hillstaeos. He says that a murderer has no share
Speaker 2: in the world to come, But that only means if
Speaker 2: you don't repent, if you repent, even a murder as
Speaker 2: a share in the world to come. Now, this idea
Speaker 2: of the Rumbam where he says that a murder has
Speaker 2: no share in the world to come, it's hard to
Speaker 2: know where this comes from. It doesn't appear anywhere in
Speaker 2: the Gomorrow. There's been a lot of discussions where this
Speaker 2: comes from. The Kassa Mishna on the spot says in
Speaker 2: Hokros Chuva, where the rama says this that I don't
Speaker 2: know where he gets this from, but we actually do
Speaker 2: know where he gets it from. The Raman provides a
Speaker 2: source in his commentary on Ovos, which I don't know
Speaker 2: if the Kssa mission had in Hebrew. He says, he
Speaker 2: quotes the tota as saying as follows, for three things,
Speaker 2: man is punished in this world and has no share
Speaker 2: in the world to come, and one of the three
Speaker 2: things is murder. Now we don't have this toa but
Speaker 2: the in Peya Perikz is very similar, where it says
Speaker 2: you're punished in the next world. But clearly the Rama's
Speaker 2: version is that you have no share in the next world.
Speaker 2: And we have other medieval sources that say this is well,
Speaker 2: so maybe hil la chem is worse. He discusses that,
Speaker 2: and he gives example, what's the hillah. There's been a
Speaker 2: lot of discussions about hila hm in recent days. Rabai
Speaker 2: ganak right, and I'm gonna come back to this in
Speaker 2: a few minutes with the next part of the shuva.
Speaker 2: He says, well, we are living through today. He says,
Speaker 2: we are seeing the greatest Khila shem in my lifetime.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And if you don't know what I'm referring to you
Speaker 2: just haven't been reading in the news. And he said
Speaker 2: this before the Antifa actions in bene Brock and everything
Speaker 2: in the last couple of days. They're going to kill
Speaker 2: someone if they don't stop them. But he just he's
Speaker 2: just referring to going without masks and everything. Uh So,
Speaker 2: we all know the Hilo shem is and what is
Speaker 2: the margive example of hila shem If a great tourist
Speaker 2: scholar does something and people learn to do wrong because
Speaker 2: of that, it's not just an individual problem. It's a
Speaker 2: hill of shem Rashi. He cites Rashi that jtebi if
Speaker 2: you cause other people to sin, that's a hill uhm.
Speaker 2: And he gives all sorts of examples of hull us m,
Speaker 2: and then he says if people see, no, I don't
Speaker 2: need to go through all these it's mostly it's a
Speaker 2: dekim do something or important people. If an average person
Speaker 2: does it, it doesn't really matter. For for a long time,
Speaker 2: I said that I had a sort of Hiddish that
Speaker 2: there is no hil washm anymore, in a sense that
Speaker 2: today you know, Jews would be arrested and do things
Speaker 2: and no one will win. Jews as a whole. They
Speaker 2: won't blame the Jewish people. They would say, look, we
Speaker 2: know they're bad people in every group, so that's just
Speaker 2: Jews doing it. But we've reached the point now where
Speaker 2: I don't I think we have to say there is
Speaker 2: kilos m because when you have entire communities acting like
Speaker 2: they're not bound by the same walls as everyone else,
Speaker 2: and with impunity or breaking it, obviously everyone's gonna look
Speaker 2: at it and say that's the tora. That's what it
Speaker 2: leads to. There's no escapingess anymore. But he begives other
Speaker 2: then he gives other examples. So for instance, what's considered
Speaker 2: a worse We like to say, we don't want to
Speaker 2: say things are worse. You know, sins are worse, but
Speaker 2: we do know that the punishments that's how that's one
Speaker 2: way we judge how something is. And so for example, murder,
Speaker 2: if you commit murder, you are you're punished with the
Speaker 2: sword herik uh that they chop your head off, right,
Speaker 2: So uh, that's but if you violate chabbists and other things,
Speaker 2: that's scila. That's considered worse. So in a sense it's worse.
Speaker 2: That could be what the Rambamb means. Now the Rambamb said,
Speaker 2: though he appeared to say that Chabas is not worse.
Speaker 2: I'll get back there in a minute. And Russian hora,
Speaker 2: he cites this why I cited in my letter to him.
Speaker 2: The Gamara says that Russian hora is the worst sin.
Speaker 2: The thing is, there's many examples where they say this,
Speaker 2: all the sins put together equal this, or all the
Speaker 2: mits put together. Those we usually assume are hyperbole, although
Speaker 2: they do say about Russian hora that, but when you
Speaker 2: kill someone, you kill one person Russian horror, you kill Uh.
Speaker 2: You know it's not just he killed the one, but uh,
Speaker 2: it's h I mean everyone who repeats it and et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cet and accepts it, you're causing all this trouble.
Speaker 2: In the end, what he concludes is as follows that
Speaker 2: what the Rambam means, let me show you the Rambamb
Speaker 2: again inside so you can see what he's how you
Speaker 2: have to read it. And it's not just him, it's
Speaker 2: or Nahama Benevich. If you look at Anakharma Benevich's commentary.
Speaker 2: He also says that since we know that stoning is
Speaker 2: worse than let's say herig with the sword. Therefore, certain
Speaker 2: things are worse. So, for example, he says, here, although
Speaker 2: there are sins that are more serious than murder, they
Speaker 2: do not present as serious as danger a society as
Speaker 2: murder does. Then he says, even idle worship, and he
Speaker 2: will say incestor violence and shabas are not considered as
Speaker 2: severe as murder, for these sins involved man's relationship with God. Well,
Speaker 2: murder also involves man relationship with his fellow man. What
Speaker 2: you have to read it is that when he says
Speaker 2: that even idle worship is not considered as severe as
Speaker 2: murder with regard to this idea that he says in
Speaker 2: the previous sentence that they don't present and the serious
Speaker 2: danger society as murder does. But from another standpoint, idolatry
Speaker 2: is even worse than murder. From so, when the ram
Speaker 2: mom says that there are other sins that are more
Speaker 2: serious than murder, he's referring to all these other ones.
Speaker 2: But when he says they do not present a serious
Speaker 2: a danger society as murder does. That's when he says
Speaker 2: idle worship it's only that it doesn't present this serious
Speaker 2: dangered society. But in other respects, it's worse. That's the
Speaker 2: best you can do. And that's what Nahara and Benovich says. Also,
Speaker 2: when you have you can judge in a verra two ways.
Speaker 2: You can judge it by what the punishment is, or
Speaker 2: you can judge it by its effect in society. And
Speaker 2: that seems to be the way to read the Rumbam
Speaker 2: that in terms of effect on society, murder is u
Speaker 2: is the worst, but other sins are worse in other ways.
Speaker 2: Look idle worship, he says. Idle worship in this respect
Speaker 2: is not as serious because it doesn't present a danger
Speaker 2: to society. I'm not sure why. I understand why. I mean, murder,
Speaker 2: you kill someone. But if everyone started, if you start
Speaker 2: worshiping idols, if you start violating shabis, that will spread
Speaker 2: to society as a whole. So that would need to
Speaker 2: be expounded upon as well. But we can leave that
Speaker 2: the second part of the question. It was a short one.
Speaker 2: I just asked him about using a tape recorder. Remember
Speaker 2: tape recorders, most of us remember tape recorders. Can you
Speaker 2: or on a computer? Actually a yes, but the same thing,
Speaker 2: tape recorder? Can you erase God's name? I mean, I
Speaker 2: knew the answer. I'm just as curious the sources, and
Speaker 2: of course the answer is yes. Because it's not written,
Speaker 2: it's not considered a permanent writing, and therefore the answer
Speaker 2: is you can. The last question, though, is the really
Speaker 2: interesting one, and that is I asked him about psychological
Speaker 2: reasons for violating Schawbis. The question is as follows. Let's
Speaker 2: say the doctors say that this person has to smoke
Speaker 2: because if he doesn't smoke, he's gonna go crazy and
Speaker 2: it could cause his death. Who knows he couldn't jump
Speaker 2: off a roof, he could, uh, he could, uh, he
Speaker 2: could harm himself, all sorts of things. He needs to
Speaker 2: smoke on shabs and you can give many examples of
Speaker 2: this that someone psychologically needs psychological I need to turn
Speaker 2: on the television. If I can't, I'm telling you I'm
Speaker 2: gonna kill myself. Of course, this raises the question. People
Speaker 2: could always threaten to do things, but what do you do?
Speaker 2: And before we read his response, I want to remind
Speaker 2: you of what the post sake in Lakewood said. I
Speaker 2: played this for you once, but it was a long
Speaker 2: time ago, so I'm gonna play it for you again.
Speaker 2: And uh oops, I got to share the sound. Also
Speaker 2: listen to this because this will be Uh. This is
Speaker 2: eye opening, but is not gonna see be what Robert
Speaker 2: Hacham says. And I don't know how far you take
Speaker 2: this here he is he says it, and then it
Speaker 2: wasn't clear. Perhaps he says it again. Listen carefully.
Speaker 3: I posted listen in the pastaisa. I want to make
Speaker 3: it clear now. Anybody in recovery, anybody doing a step
Speaker 3: work and has a haushash that he needs help. He
Speaker 3: has to make sure that his recovery is rock solid.
Speaker 3: He has a haushage that he has to call a meeting,
Speaker 3: call into a zoom meeting, attend the meeting, call.
Speaker 2: Up, attend the meeting. That means getting in your car
Speaker 2: and driving to the meeting.
Speaker 3: I guess sponsor whatever shouldn't make anyes, No, shouldn't make anyus.
Speaker 3: He has to make sure not to start on that
Speaker 3: slippery slope. Forget about shoppers, forget about you have to
Speaker 3: forget about him, kipper. You have to make that call
Speaker 3: and you have to log on. You have to attend.
Speaker 3: You must avoid that slippery slope. Baby shold should bench
Speaker 3: just all have a hormonos on old us.
Speaker 1: He you can.
Speaker 3: Pasking this lionester before. I want to make it clearer now.
Speaker 3: Anyone with mental health issues, behavioral problems, addictions working on
Speaker 3: a slow steps na essay doesn't matter. He has to
Speaker 3: make sure that his recovery is rockstylidy. Has to stay
Speaker 3: away from the slippery slope. If he thinks he and
Speaker 3: she thinks this shosh that he must speak to a sponsor.
Speaker 3: He must travel to a meeting, join a zoom meeting.
Speaker 3: Whatever it is. Whenever shop is young doesn't make a difference.
Speaker 3: He should not hesitate. We shouldn't think maybe maybe it
Speaker 3: isn't He should make sure. He should make that cool.
Speaker 3: He should log on whatever it is. He has to
Speaker 3: reach out to help, to sponsor to a meeting. You
Speaker 3: must get help, and has to stay away from the
Speaker 3: slippery slope. This is a poster. Baby should have a moment.
Speaker 2: Okay, he says, it's a posture to aha. Here we
Speaker 2: deal with someone. If you in some program, Let's say
Speaker 2: you're acovering alcoholic, you're a covering drug addict or something,
Speaker 2: and you feel it's a problem, and you feel you
Speaker 2: need to call your sponsor. You're having an inclination that
Speaker 2: you're gonna you want to take some drugs or something.
Speaker 2: You can get in your car on Shavis and a
Speaker 2: young kipper and drive to the meeting. Because of the
Speaker 2: psychological thing that then you'll start. Uh, it's a slippery slope.
Speaker 2: And remember this is far removed. I mean, because you're
Speaker 2: allowed to violate these things for pikuokfish, but the pikook
Speaker 2: nefish is not today. Presumably it's you're gonna get back
Speaker 2: in that slippery slope and you won't be able to
Speaker 2: pull yourself out of it, and that could be then uh,
Speaker 2: you know, uh, six months a year down the road.
Speaker 2: So this is a very liberal sok. I think from
Speaker 2: the road from the post sake there in Lakewood. Because
Speaker 2: of psychological reasons, Uh, you can do what you do
Speaker 2: what you feel. Remember this is an independent judgment. No
Speaker 2: one can tell you what to do except for yourself.
Speaker 2: You're the one who's struggling with addiction, and you feel
Speaker 2: you're in recovery, You're you're you feel you need to
Speaker 2: do this. He says, go ahead and do this. And
Speaker 2: that was sort of the same question I asked. Uh
Speaker 2: in the book, I said that we're not dealing with
Speaker 2: psychonista fascio's a matter of life and death from I
Speaker 2: could have said kill himself, but I said that someone
Speaker 2: he feels he needs to. It's that he needs to smoke.
Speaker 2: It's not that by not smoking he's going to die,
Speaker 2: but he feels he's going to. He's going to and uh,
Speaker 2: what should he do? I said this issos for psychological reasons,
Speaker 2: and uh, roberta Cham says that. First of all, he says,
Speaker 2: how can you Uh, smoking is a terrible thing. And
Speaker 2: he goes onto a couple of pages how bad smoking is,
Speaker 2: and therefore, how can we permit someone to violate, just
Speaker 2: violate shop us by smoking, saying it's gonna help him
Speaker 2: when we know it's bad for him. But I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, you're not going to based upon the logic
Speaker 2: of the we just saw the rabbi, you're not gonna
Speaker 2: die from one cigarette, but maybe you'll you'll go crazy
Speaker 2: if you don't have I don't know. It was a
Speaker 2: theoretical case. You don't haves a kasha from the mice.
Speaker 2: So we say in Yeshiva, you know you have a
Speaker 2: crazy case. I guess where I say, he feels he's
Speaker 2: going he's gonna die if he doesn't take it, So
Speaker 2: don't say, well, whoever heard is such a thing that
Speaker 2: that's the case I'm giving you. Who knows he's recovering.
Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be smoking. It could be drugs
Speaker 2: and he's smoking. Uh, I don't know, Uh what do
Speaker 2: they smoke? Heroin? I don't know what they smoke. And
Speaker 2: his argument, basically, I'll just summarize it, is that we
Speaker 2: don't we don't take into account these psychological things. These
Speaker 2: there's there's craziness that he's going to you know, we're
Speaker 2: not concerned that if he's going to smoke a cigarette
Speaker 2: otherwise if he don't, he'll come to a great difficulty
Speaker 2: that it appears to him that he's going to die.
Speaker 2: He gives an example like, let's say someone said, we
Speaker 2: don't we don't tell someone that they can jump off
Speaker 2: a roof if they say they need to jump off roofs,
Speaker 2: we don't let them smoke. But that's sort of dodging
Speaker 2: the issue. His fundamental point is that we don't allow
Speaker 2: violation shops that people have a craziness that they need
Speaker 2: to do this. So I guess maybe you can make
Speaker 2: a distinction with the rabbi from Lakewood. It's not a craziness.
Speaker 2: You're calling the uh the sponsor. But if this all
Speaker 2: has to do with the person's individual understanding. If some
Speaker 2: guy needs to be calmed down and he feels that
Speaker 2: if you doesn't have the cigarette, he's gonna go crazy
Speaker 2: and they might hurt himself and he feels that way,
Speaker 2: is that really much different than what we just saw.
Speaker 2: Someone feels he needs to drive to the sponsor because
Speaker 2: if he doesn't go to the sponsor, you can tell
Speaker 2: him the job is he needs to do that. I
Speaker 2: get the feeling that Reberchacham would say, because of his craziness,
Speaker 2: that he needs to speak to the sponsor. We don't
Speaker 2: let him drive on shobis to calm him down and
Speaker 2: then talk him out of it. I could talk you
Speaker 2: out of you don't need to drive to Joe Schmoe,
Speaker 2: your sponsor. And I mean, and what is that? I
Speaker 2: don't know. It's a I don't know how to answer this,
Speaker 2: but because I I don't know how much, so you know,
Speaker 2: we we give to the individual to tell you he
Speaker 2: needs to do something. At least Reverberchakam doesn't think if
Speaker 2: it's a craziness, But I don't know if everyone would
Speaker 2: agree with it. We just saw from the Lakewood Rabbi
Speaker 2: that you can just violate shobbists because someone feels they
Speaker 2: need to speak to a sponsor because maybe you'll fall
Speaker 2: off the wagon. I think it's a very liberal sock
Speaker 2: and very open minded and looking at it through a
Speaker 2: psychological lens. But I wonder. I don't think Rebert Hacham
Speaker 2: would agree with it, and I wonder if others. So
Speaker 2: that that's the you know, so it goes on like
Speaker 2: ten pages, it's full of learning. He was never a
Speaker 2: great rabbi, well known figure, but you see he really
Speaker 2: has his hand on many sources, and he could be
Speaker 2: right about this thing. Because ain't load of ourself. Then
Speaker 2: if every time someone feels they but again, I won't
Speaker 2: take that back. Do people really fake being suicidal? If
Speaker 2: someone says I'm suicidal, I need a cigarette. If not,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna kill myself. I think psychologists, maybe we have
Speaker 2: some listening to us, tell us that you have to
Speaker 2: pay attention if someone's suicidal, and for us it might
Speaker 2: be crazy. But is someone saying that so he could
Speaker 2: violate shopie or someone's saying it because he really needs
Speaker 2: to I think the Rabbi from Lakewood's point was that
Speaker 2: it's not for us the second guess they have to
Speaker 2: make that decision. And so if anyone wants to do
Speaker 2: some achuva or an article on psychological factors. One person
Speaker 2: instantly wrote me about this. He's writing this article, he says,
Speaker 2: on psychological factors in haw Ajah, and he thought that
Speaker 2: this was helpful for him. This response, Okay, everyone, we
Speaker 2: are finished with this. We are now on number one
Speaker 2: thirty and I'm going to introduce you now to a
Speaker 2: new figure, very really interesting figure. And this is right
Speaker 2: here Rebbie Jusil j Huda Halberston, who was the Kousenberger
Speaker 2: Rebbi Kousenberg, as he says, from Romania. It was different
Speaker 2: parts of Europe sans Kousenberg. Kousenberg incidentally had kulos. It's
Speaker 2: known as it also had a big rabbi, Rabbi Glassner,
Speaker 2: right Mosha Schmael Glasner, the door Revi. But so you
Speaker 2: have the Kousenberger Rebbi. He he suffered terribly in the war.
Speaker 2: I think he lost his wife and I believe eleven children,
Speaker 2: and he survived and he remarried and had children. He
Speaker 2: went to Israel. He established a hospital there, the famous
Speaker 2: hospital in the Tanya. We have a correspondence of him
Speaker 2: with the Ben Gurion before he went to Israel. So
Speaker 2: he really did accomplish a lot. And oh here it
Speaker 2: says has seven more children. And none of us can
Speaker 2: imagine the difficulty the life he had and his losses.
Speaker 2: So God forbid far from me to judge anything we're
Speaker 2: going to see here, but it's certainly something that we
Speaker 2: need to examine. And I'm not in the business of
Speaker 2: censoring and covering it up. It's in his faring. Some
Speaker 2: Hasida Gregby's are not that learned. They just have positions.
Speaker 2: But then you have others who are real te me
Speaker 2: coming in. They recently released I had it. I mean
Speaker 2: I've quote it from it, but I hadn't released it.
Speaker 2: There was a conversations between Rebiriak of Weinberg and Jako
Speaker 2: of Hertzog. I was claim Herzog's brother of Herzog's son
Speaker 2: who died young unfortunately, but U Yako Hertzug visited by
Speaker 2: Weinberg in Montreal, Switzerland, and they had they have a
Speaker 2: tape and they transcribed it and in there Rabbi Weinberg
Speaker 2: speaks about a certain Hasidic Rebby as being a complete ignoramus.
Speaker 2: And there were Casiitic Rebby's who were When we say ignoramus,
Speaker 2: I like to think when they say that, they mean
Speaker 2: compared to the Lithuanian Godoli. That's what Jachoa Hertzug says
Speaker 2: to him. You mean you don't really mean like a no,
Speaker 2: but like you couldn't even understand a missiona and Reby.
Speaker 2: Weinberg says, no, no, he was a complete ignoramus. And
Speaker 2: we it's never been a job qualification to be Hasidic
Speaker 2: greby that you have to be a great tom Ham.
Speaker 2: You have to be competent, but you don't need to
Speaker 2: be a great And we have examples where they're they
Speaker 2: don't know very much, let's put it that way. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, we have some Hasida Grebby's who were unbelievable.
Speaker 2: I done nim enormous temmimim authors of swar Him and
Speaker 2: all the RaBaD Rebbi's, or most of them, were like that.
Speaker 2: The gher Gerrosidos obviously Satmar, the Hungarian Hasido Krabby's Munkoch.
Speaker 2: These are Godoli, Gadolia throw and the Monk and the
Speaker 2: Koisenberger also a very very great Tam author of many
Speaker 2: Sfarim and Honlah and Humish. So I mentioned that because
Speaker 2: you can't put him in the category like, uh, you
Speaker 2: know the stam Rebbies. Now again, Rebby, you're born into it.
Speaker 2: So this never, as I said, it's not part of
Speaker 2: the job qualification that you need to be because you
Speaker 2: got the throne, whether you you know, whether you have
Speaker 2: something profound to say or not. But he really was
Speaker 2: a great tomkchm. What I began to see when I
Speaker 2: started studying his writings. So this goes back already many
Speaker 2: many years ago. Although the letter the next letter is
Speaker 2: from Rabechim Rappaport to me someone we've spoken about Rabaheim
Speaker 2: report is I began to see something in his writings
Speaker 2: that really I haven't hadn't seen in other writings, and
Speaker 2: that is advocacy of not just opposition to non Jews,
Speaker 2: but teaching of hatred to non Jews. I'll read you
Speaker 2: some passages and this troubled me. And I understood his background,
Speaker 2: but I was curious as to what if by Rapaport
Speaker 2: had any insights into this, What leads someone to write
Speaker 2: this and actually put forth this as an ideology, an
Speaker 2: ideology of actual hatred, that we should raise our children
Speaker 2: on hatred. I'm not talking about ethnocentrism here. I'm not
Speaker 2: talking about keeping to ourself that you find. Of course,
Speaker 2: that's the typical thing you grew up with, say society,
Speaker 2: and not just necessarily society. But certainly I grew up
Speaker 2: hearing that in Yeshiva. But that's an ethnocentrism. It's maybe
Speaker 2: a feeling of you're better, or feeling of contempt, but
Speaker 2: not the Hersheian idea of chosen people because chosen for service,
Speaker 2: that sort of thing. But okay, that we understand. But
Speaker 2: actual hatred very very strange to have, at least I thought.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: I wrote to Rubli Rappaport about this, and he says,
Speaker 2: you wrote to me about the shades, that there's this
Speaker 2: new idea of the Koizenberger that you have to usually know,
Speaker 2: you have to hate the non Jews, and this is
Speaker 2: a great Indian that this is one of the essences
Speaker 2: of Judaism, that you should look at all the nations
Speaker 2: in a bad way, that they're all bad, and that
Speaker 2: I pray says that Jews should have it good and
Speaker 2: the non Jews should only have it bad. And I'll
Speaker 2: read you some other passages. Now this these arenother sort
Speaker 2: of things that obviously you want publicize and out there.
Speaker 2: But look, it's important to know that, uh, that it exists.
Speaker 2: And also it's also the problem is when you see
Speaker 2: passages like this, and there's others. I once gave a
Speaker 2: talk on xenophobia in among certain figures. It also complicates
Speaker 2: matters because we have people who in many ways are
Speaker 2: great and we respect them, but they say certain you'll
Speaker 2: see so I regard as outrageous things and we don't
Speaker 2: disown them, and we don't reject them. We take the
Speaker 2: good and the bad as it were, understanding that people
Speaker 2: are complicated. So why does that make Why does that
Speaker 2: muddy the wooters? Because other communities have the same thing
Speaker 2: you have. For example, in the Black community, they have
Speaker 2: this relationship with Farracan, and Jews want them always to
Speaker 2: condemn Pharracan and everything, and they like to say, well, no,
Speaker 2: of course we don't believe in the anti Semitic things,
Speaker 2: but we still you don't want to have a relationship
Speaker 2: with Farrakan because he says all sorts of good things
Speaker 2: as well, and we don't believe in throwing him out,
Speaker 2: and Jews don't like that, and Jews say, no, you
Speaker 2: have to qutly reject it. But the problem is we
Speaker 2: have it the same thing. We have people who are
Speaker 2: in our community that we learn from, and yet they're
Speaker 2: also we have this double where we say, well, we
Speaker 2: don't accept that you have. In the Muslim community, you
Speaker 2: have figures who are important figures and they've said problematic things,
Speaker 2: and often we demand that they they throw them out,
Speaker 2: and it's difficult for them to throw them out. And
Speaker 2: I'm not saying they shouldn't throw them out, but you know,
Speaker 2: it's difficult for us to throw people out, and we
Speaker 2: don't want to throw people out, and we do we
Speaker 2: do the same things. So when I learned about this,
Speaker 2: it became I don't have an answer to this, but
Speaker 2: the whole issue with them, but not just Farrican, the
Speaker 2: Black community has other figures like this who've said all
Speaker 2: sorts of anti Semitic or quasi anti Semitic stuff, and
Speaker 2: we demand action, and yet we are in the same situation.
Speaker 2: And I think you can appreciate it's not so simple
Speaker 2: for them to throw these people out when, on the
Speaker 2: one hand, have done all sorts of good things, and
Speaker 2: they've said some bad things. We have things also that
Speaker 2: we would find troubling, and so I don't have an answer. Sure,
Speaker 2: I'm just raising it. It's made it hard for me,
Speaker 2: harder for me to know what to do.
Speaker 1: So let me so.
Speaker 2: Rebby Rappaport writes back to me that, uh, this thing
Speaker 2: you pointed to is found throughout his writings, and he
Speaker 2: gives me all sorts of examples. He quotes for examples,
Speaker 2: commentary and rummage about the non Jews, that even the
Speaker 2: best of them, there's a tuma Strichhlim with snowosam. You
Speaker 2: have to hate them. And he says he includes in
Speaker 2: this even Harassideo Mussolam, because look, Rassi muslm. But that
Speaker 2: doesn't that that's between them and God doesn't mean us
Speaker 2: oil Lomm. It's gusso gooi woe is one who's going
Speaker 2: to find something positive about the non Jews. He talks
Speaker 2: about when he came to Hebby Rapport goes on, I
Speaker 2: don't need to cite all the passages. It's troubling for me,
Speaker 2: but he talks. He quotes something from another book of
Speaker 2: his that when he came to America, he says, be
Speaker 2: thirty years before it, after the war, and I wanted
Speaker 2: to say something against the United States. Everyone looked at
Speaker 2: me like I was crazy, and saying that you're thinking
Speaker 2: of the non Jews in Poland And and Hungary, but
Speaker 2: the non Jews in America are different, and why would
Speaker 2: you speak this way about them? And he replies that
Speaker 2: it was not long before they realized that America is
Speaker 2: no different. That look what Roosevelt did, that they didn't
Speaker 2: bomb the trains, the tracks to Auschwitz. And he goes
Speaker 2: on and on, and he says that he had experiences
Speaker 2: in the war that even the so called good nan
Speaker 2: Jew and non Jew from Holland turned out to be terrible,
Speaker 2: and he says that he says, it's true that you'll
Speaker 2: find sources and he says, I've seen many Sadikim that
Speaker 2: would never speak bad about anyone. Remember of Cook writes,
Speaker 2: I don't know he want a cooder of Cook. Maybe
Speaker 2: that Sadikim is a very Joe. You know, you have
Speaker 2: to love everyone and think the good of everyone until
Speaker 2: you see that there's something band He says that that
Speaker 2: and he says that's also found in the Holy books.
Speaker 2: Is now what we're taught that you're supposed to feel
Speaker 2: good about everyone and have a positive view. He says,
Speaker 2: that's only before we've seen biz my name you because Sheroi,
Speaker 2: miss rich Algol who meet us as. He says, yes,
Speaker 2: it's true that in the Holy Books it says that
Speaker 2: you treat everyone with dignity and you should respect everyone
Speaker 2: and anything. But that doesn't apply anymore because we've gone
Speaker 2: through the Holocaust and we've seen what they can do.
Speaker 2: And Reboy Rappaport says that the only way to understand
Speaker 2: the extreme statements of the Koisenberger is precisely because of
Speaker 2: what he went through during the Holocaust, and he himself
Speaker 2: tells us this, but he makes it a whole theology
Speaker 2: here that don't tell me. He says that the Sarium
Speaker 2: say you have to relate a certain way. He says,
Speaker 2: we who lived through the war while all the non
Speaker 2: Jews did nothing. Uh, he says, that's different again, be's
Speaker 2: my name you because Sharoi, miss Richli, we meet us as.
Speaker 2: It's almost like he's acknowledging that this is what in
Speaker 2: theory you should do. But it's too difficult because we
Speaker 2: see how bad they are. And Rubbi rapport. Ends his letter.
Speaker 2: He says that after the war, the attitude was we're
Speaker 2: going to kill cold gooide any non Jew we see,
Speaker 2: we should kill him. He says, in truth we never
Speaker 2: killed anyone because a Jew is not capable of spilling blood.
Speaker 2: But it's against our nature. But that's how he says
Speaker 2: the feeling was, and I'm sure that was the feeling
Speaker 2: Ellie Weisel at the end of Night, Actually you need
Speaker 2: to Naomi Simon, who spoke for Tory Motion about bass alcohol,
Speaker 2: had an article she discovered us. If you look at
Speaker 2: the first version of Night. In the Yiddish, he does
Speaker 2: speak about revenge, and at the end of it he
Speaker 2: talks about how when they got out of the camps,
Speaker 2: the boys wanted to go to the local town to
Speaker 2: rape German girls as revenge. But in the Night, in
Speaker 2: the English version and the French version, and he says,
Speaker 2: there's never any thinking of revenge, and so he really
Speaker 2: changed it. In the In the the Night that's directed
Speaker 2: in Yiddish to Jews, there is a strong feeling of revenge,
Speaker 2: but in the more universalistic, humanistic and there's nothing about revenge,
Speaker 2: only drawing positive lessons. And Elieuisel never explained that change
Speaker 2: why he changed it, and even after Simon's article appeared,
Speaker 2: he was always a lie. He never explained it. But
Speaker 2: Robert Airport doesn't give any insight other than this that
Speaker 2: we have to understand that he's responding to the Holocaust. Listen,
Speaker 2: it's striking. It's I wouldn't want this to be translated
Speaker 2: to English. I wouldn't want this to be taught. The
Speaker 2: problem is it might be being taught in certain groups
Speaker 2: and the Cuisenbergers, but it's such an unhealthy you know,
Speaker 2: even though I can understand why he feels this, but
Speaker 2: it's it's troubling to read it and look, Eliuisel lost
Speaker 2: and any other people lost, terrible, terrible I but leaving
Speaker 2: a side of the vesel has Yiddish, which was initial,
Speaker 2: maybe the initial years of the war. I think we
Speaker 2: have Juguluisel by his entire career. It's how do you again?
Speaker 2: They lost eleven children and a wife. I'm not gonna
Speaker 2: say anything about that, but in terms of a philosophy,
Speaker 2: in terms of ashkafa, obviously you can't be teaching we
Speaker 2: can't be teaching hatred of anyone. It's the worst thing imaginable.
Speaker 2: But you have this, and this is a This is
Speaker 2: the Kleousenberger. He's not some nobody. And that's with all
Speaker 2: the great things he accomplished. By the way he loves
Speaker 2: old Jews. He says that all Jews. Whereas in certain
Speaker 2: extreme Casitic groups they believe in hating those Jews who
Speaker 2: are heretics and who don't observe, his attitude is very different.
Speaker 2: He loves old Jews. It's very Hasidic. So I don't
Speaker 2: know what to make of this. You have passages like
Speaker 2: this in medieval times as well. It's part of the tradition.
Speaker 2: We can't hide it. Our tradition is so large you
Speaker 2: can find all sorts of stuff in it. But this
Speaker 2: is important for us. When you see these terrible things
Speaker 2: in Christian texts, the way they describe the Jews and
Speaker 2: all the terrible things, understand that we've also had things
Speaker 2: in our text. Granted that our things are in response
Speaker 2: to what they are doing to us, but nevertheless, today
Speaker 2: no one's doing anything to us. And then if you
Speaker 2: have this idea today, it's just there's no justification anymore.
Speaker 2: So that that's the problem when you write things down
Speaker 2: like this, even when there's is perhaps justification. That's Simon Kufflam.
Speaker 2: And then we go to Kulam and alf and another
Speaker 2: letter from reclined Rapport. This is the title of the
Speaker 2: responds to miss as follows. We're on page two eighty one,
Speaker 2: and this introduces us again to something we've seen already,
Speaker 2: necessary beliefs. I already explained to you what a necessary
Speaker 2: belief is. It goes back to the rombum. The rumbum
Speaker 2: in the Guide of the Perplexed, Book three, Chapter twenty
Speaker 2: eight introduces us to this idea of a necessary belief.
Speaker 2: The realm says, there's two types of beliefs that you
Speaker 2: find in the Tora. Those beliefs which are absolutely true
Speaker 2: here holding the guide for the perplex right here, for example,
Speaker 2: the belief in the God's unity or that he's not
Speaker 2: a body. That's absolutely true. But then the remm says,
Speaker 2: there's other beliefs that are taught, taught by the Torah,
Speaker 2: which is necessary for the abolition of wrongdoing or to
Speaker 2: get a noble quality. That is, there's other beliefs that
Speaker 2: are taught not for their own sake, but in order
Speaker 2: to achieve some good, some value. And he gives one,
Speaker 2: for example, the belief that God has violent anger against
Speaker 2: those who do injustice. The Remam says that one of
Speaker 2: the necessary beliefs is and you could see he quotes
Speaker 2: quotes a verse. What is the verse he cites? It
Speaker 2: says that in this is a verse in Shimos, my
Speaker 2: rat shall wax hot, and I will kill and so
Speaker 2: on Chapter twenty two does God have anger? Emotions? Anger?
Speaker 2: God doesn't have emotions, and the Terra describes God as
Speaker 2: having anger. So you could say the Tarres speaks in
Speaker 2: the language of man that if this was a person
Speaker 2: who did this, you'd assume its anger. But the Ramum
Speaker 2: doesn't say that. What he says is that this is
Speaker 2: a necessary belief, that it's necessary. So what does that mean? So,
Speaker 2: according to the commentators in the Rambam, the standard commentators,
Speaker 2: what he's saying here is that the Torah teaches a
Speaker 2: belief that that has a surface level and a more
Speaker 2: profound level. The intellectuals understand that God doesn't have emotions,
Speaker 2: so when it says God gets angry, that just means
Speaker 2: that God responds in a way that if it was human,
Speaker 2: you assume its anger. However, it is a necessary belief.
Speaker 2: If you look on the commentaris on the spot. They
Speaker 2: say that the masses are supposed to take this literally.
Speaker 2: That is, the Torah is written on two levels. It's
Speaker 2: written for the masses and it's written for the elites.
Speaker 2: The masses are supposed to read this, and they're supposed
Speaker 2: to really think God gets angry, and that'll keep them
Speaker 2: in line because they don't want to get got angry.
Speaker 2: He's gonna get angry at them for he in his
Speaker 2: letter to me, Yeah, So for example, he quotes the Barbonell,
Speaker 2: he says that God Shakia ms shown me Paul, that
Speaker 2: God doesn't get angry of al Sifria, Kodish, the Cyfria
Speaker 2: Kodesh attributed to him Kadeg the Hafri has shown me
Speaker 2: me on show. So as the Barbeau explains this, this
Speaker 2: is the shot of the Ramba. The scriptures, they're not
Speaker 2: just for the elites. They attribute God having anger. So
Speaker 2: the masses see this, and then when they become more intellectual,
Speaker 2: more advanced, they know it's not to be taken literally,
Speaker 2: but they are supposed to take it literally at first.
Speaker 2: This isn't like God having a body, where the Ramo
Speaker 2: says every one must be taught. He doesn't have a body.
Speaker 2: The mass is supposed to understand us, and the Rama
Speaker 2: gives another example. He says, it's a necessary belief that
Speaker 2: God responds immediately. That is, if you pray well, God
Speaker 2: will respond immediately. The odd the when you're more advanced,
Speaker 2: do you understand that's not true. If it's your time,
Speaker 2: it's your time. You know, all the prayers in the
Speaker 2: world aren't going to help you. But apparently the masses
Speaker 2: is supposed to believe that the only reason their prayers
Speaker 2: weren't answered because it didn't pray well enough. That's I
Speaker 2: don't think we have masses like that this today, but
Speaker 2: that's what the people, even our so called masses, I
Speaker 2: think are a little more sophisticated. But I don't know.
Speaker 2: If he tried to explain to the average person that
Speaker 2: God doesn't have anger, then maybe they'll, you know, the
Speaker 2: whole reason they don't want to they don't sin, is
Speaker 2: because God has anger. The Rambum gives another example that well,
Speaker 2: I don't need to give up more examples. So this
Speaker 2: is a major theme in the Rambu, and the scholarship
Speaker 2: is always divided. So what are the necessary beliefs? The
Speaker 2: Rumbum gives you two. Are there other necessary beliefs? The
Speaker 2: problem seems to hint in many places that he is
Speaker 2: saying things as a necessary belief. So the rem says
Speaker 2: one thing in one place and more radical thing in
Speaker 2: another place. The more conventional thing is out there and
Speaker 2: everyone can see it. The more I guess radical idea
Speaker 2: of the rom bomb he covers it up. It's not
Speaker 2: so clear. It's always it's even not so clear if
Speaker 2: that's what he's saying. But the Ramam in the introduction
Speaker 2: to the guy tells you who's going to contradict himself.
Speaker 2: And the conventional teaching is going to be out there
Speaker 2: for the masses to see. And the more I guess
Speaker 2: profound teaching which the mass is not supposed to see,
Speaker 2: you have to dig deep to get it. So the
Speaker 2: rambamb already tells us therefore that he has necessary beliefs,
Speaker 2: And in the Guide for the Replex he speaks about
Speaker 2: other things that the masses need to accept on faith.
Speaker 2: But the intellectuals will understand it's not true. So the
Speaker 2: big arguments among the scholars is various ideas of the
Speaker 2: roum bumb is it when the realm says this thing here?
Speaker 2: Is it a necessary belief or does the rom bumb
Speaker 2: really believe it? So that that's an issue in the
Speaker 2: scholarship of the Rambam. So I wrote this article unnecessary belief,
Speaker 2: so I go through the whole debate. What I was
Speaker 2: interested in doing in this article is citing, and this
Speaker 2: is one of the themes I've always been interested in,
Speaker 2: where you have in traditional texts the same ideas you
Speaker 2: have in academic works. And he responds, I sent him
Speaker 2: the article ahead of time. We spoke about this article already,
Speaker 2: and he said, he gave me another example of a
Speaker 2: necessary belief. According to the commentary Shamptov that the Rambam says,
Speaker 2: the Rambam says that there's he in one place. He
Speaker 2: says that you know he employed, He says, remplies, I
Speaker 2: forget now that there's no death without sin. But really
Speaker 2: the Rambam believes that there is death without sin, and
Speaker 2: this is just a necessary belief. That's what a commentary
Speaker 2: Shumtov is. But then the rapport raises a good question,
Speaker 2: which I'll try to answer now about. But I just
Speaker 2: told you about the necessary belief about God being angry.
Speaker 2: Drum says, this is necessary belief. The mass is supposed
Speaker 2: to believe this, it's a necessary belief. It's not a
Speaker 2: true belief. And yet if you look in the Mission
Speaker 2: of Torah, right, and Duramam tells you in what chapter
Speaker 2: is this? Oh, I don't even know what chapter in
Speaker 2: the mission. I think it's in Hmm, I don't I
Speaker 2: don't remember whi chapter of the mission tar it is?
Speaker 2: But oh you hear it is perakal it off your base,
Speaker 2: he says. Duruma himself says in the Mission of Torah
Speaker 2: that God has no anger. And when it says God
Speaker 2: says I gem angry, that's supposed to be understood figuratively.
Speaker 2: Sir Amrapera raised the question what's going on here in
Speaker 2: the morning of him He says that this is a
Speaker 2: necessary belief that the mass is supposed to accept and
Speaker 2: believe that God really gets angry, and only the intellectuals
Speaker 2: in all otherwise. But here you have in the Mission Torah,
Speaker 2: he says, it's straight out. So how could it be
Speaker 2: a necessary belief if it's in the Mission of Torah,
Speaker 2: which is uh, anyone could pick it up and read it.
Speaker 2: And he gives it as a question. He says, Betail Buzzamuna,
Speaker 2: it says by saying it explicitly in the Mischatar, the
Speaker 2: rob seems to have totally abolished the necessary belief because
Speaker 2: he's telling everyone that God doesn't have anger. And I
Speaker 2: don't think it's necessarily a contradiction, because the people who
Speaker 2: are reading the Missionatara are not part of the masses.
Speaker 2: They are already the elite. The Rambam when he writes
Speaker 2: necessary beliefs in the Morn of Uhim, is not a soud.
Speaker 2: It's not a secret. He's not hiding it. It's not
Speaker 2: like some of the other necessary beliefs that the common
Speaker 2: hatter's point to where you have to go beneath the surface.
Speaker 2: The realm im is saying it straight out. So it's
Speaker 2: so that this is he's explaining why the Tara writes
Speaker 2: it in a certain way. The Missionatara is not a
Speaker 2: work for the masses. And if you can read the
Speaker 2: Missionataro already you're able to understand that God doesn't have anger.
Speaker 2: It's not an emotion. That doesn't change the fact that
Speaker 2: the average man on the street, who in the Rama's
Speaker 2: day was great ignorant that it's uh It's important for
Speaker 2: them to really believe that if I do this sin,
Speaker 2: God will be angry at me. What you're supposed to
Speaker 2: explain to the masses that God really doesn't have anger
Speaker 2: and this and that that's already too complicated and there's
Speaker 2: no reason to explain to them because it's not a problem.
Speaker 2: To believe that God has a physical form, then you're
Speaker 2: a heretic. So the Rama says everyone must be instructed
Speaker 2: that God is a physical form, everyone including the ignorant.
Speaker 2: But to think God has a God has emotions like this,
Speaker 2: that's uh he until they're willing to move beyond it.
Speaker 2: The Rama doesn't have a problem with this, and okay,
Speaker 2: so that's uh that. That's how I would explain it,
Speaker 2: although he leaves it as a question what to do
Speaker 2: with that? Oh, I already see it's nine to twenty six,
Speaker 2: So let me just say, well, what we're gonna get
Speaker 2: into next week and then take questions next week. We
Speaker 2: returned to another thing from rather Appport about the issue
Speaker 2: of fear of the showgig. We all know that there's own,
Speaker 2: there's show gig and me, and you do something intentionally
Speaker 2: and you do something without knowing accidentally, so you don't
Speaker 2: know what schabas. Let's say what about beliefs. We'll deal
Speaker 2: with the major dispute between the Rama and the Riva
Speaker 2: and what the lababach Rebby had to say about this,
Speaker 2: That is, is there such a thing as what Rahaimslovchik
Speaker 2: termed the nebahapy chorus? Can you be a heretic without
Speaker 2: knowing any better?
Speaker 1: Or no?
Speaker 2: Do we assume that if you don't know any better,
Speaker 2: you don't know any better. This is a major dispute
Speaker 2: that begins in medieval times and takes us all the
Speaker 2: way the contemporary days. And I raised a question because
Speaker 2: there's something that labavich Rebbi said which seemed to contradict
Speaker 2: everything I thought I knew about the Lbabachrebby and how
Speaker 2: he related to these matters. And we'll deal with a
Speaker 2: couple return to Revy Maazousi, deal with a couple more
Speaker 2: things dealing with theology, and then we're going to get
Speaker 2: into some some political stuff and some literary stuff and
Speaker 2: historical stuff, all sorts of We're going to move into
Speaker 2: area as history of of great rabbis, of a scullas
Speaker 2: some all sorts of stuff. Just wait. Ruben a Mosic,
Speaker 2: the rugged shover Delmetago, Yeshiva University, the rash bomb on
Speaker 2: the first pasoka brat chase, uh, how to pronounce certain words?
Speaker 2: There's the letters are along between read me and Rabbi
Speaker 2: Masu's Rabbi salavachik a bunch of stuff. So but where
Speaker 2: we're really uh? We now are about uh. We're less
Speaker 2: than one hundred pages from the end of the book.
Speaker 2: So we were making we're making progress here. So let
Speaker 2: me get to the questions now and see what was
Speaker 2: said here today. I learned much from the questions as
Speaker 2: Jules and Carlos at the beginning. You can see behind
Speaker 2: me have the encyclopage. Day I get here. They did
Speaker 2: a new encyclopaga about ten years ago, but I still
Speaker 2: like this one. And uh, it's still a great work.
Speaker 2: The Jewish Encyclopedia is still a good work. Believe it
Speaker 2: or not. You can go to the Jewish Encyclopedia online
Speaker 2: and you can find still good articles. Obviously you needed
Speaker 2: a new encyclopedia. Josan cyclopedia was before the Holocaust, before
Speaker 2: the state of Israel, before the whole twentieth century. But
Speaker 2: it's still it's still good. And that says the latest
Speaker 2: issue of the journal of Allandaver Society that arrived in
Speaker 2: the Mail a few days ago has an article with
Speaker 2: Rebbel Joseph garrel beck Offer titled Schumarasi Hashem and the
Speaker 2: novel Coronavirus. Okay, well not then you could inform him
Speaker 2: if you want that it's a pasaiem Uh. I didn't
Speaker 2: know that they they were restarting it. I'm mel set.
Speaker 2: I think that they were restarting it. I spoke about
Speaker 2: the journal. But yes, it's uh. It's pronounced uh pasaim.
Speaker 2: There's no no vow under the alphuh. So Barr said
Speaker 2: that what we saw from the rabbi from Lake who
Speaker 2: was staying for people in recovery, yeah, well what does
Speaker 2: that mean. That's what we're dealing with, someone who wants
Speaker 2: to stop what they're doing. Obviously, if anyone who wants
Speaker 2: to speak into a sponsor is struggling with addiction, that's
Speaker 2: what it means. Anyone struggling with addiction and people in
Speaker 2: recovery are different than regular people. Anyone who's struggling with
Speaker 2: an addiction. And he said that explicitly, is he's including anyone.
Speaker 2: If I'm struggling with an addiction, I'm trying to get
Speaker 2: out of it. Then that's recovery. I'm trying to recover.
Speaker 2: It's not a medical thing. Anyone who's trying to get
Speaker 2: out of their addiction. If I need to speak to
Speaker 2: my sponsor, if I need to get a hold of them,
Speaker 2: he won't answer the phone because the job is if
Speaker 2: I need to get in my car and go over there,
Speaker 2: that's what he said. Suzanna says, I know of from
Speaker 2: psychiatrist who said that a particular patient with a psychotic
Speaker 2: disease should could play video games on shobists to maintain
Speaker 2: as equal librium. This is this sort of thing that
Speaker 2: I don't know how you can really give specific answers
Speaker 2: because everyone is different, and I think we saw that
Speaker 2: with what the rabbi from Lakewood says. You have to
Speaker 2: know yourself why I'm getting in the car or why
Speaker 2: I'm getting on the zoom. And obviously if you're getting
Speaker 2: on the zoom, you're not getting on to check the
Speaker 2: news and things like that. Otherwise you have the old
Speaker 2: conservative hector. You could drive to Sholann Shabis, but you
Speaker 2: can only go to show on shabas. You couldn't do
Speaker 2: anything else, and that never could last because if I'm
Speaker 2: driving to show on shobas. Then what's the problem to
Speaker 2: be stopping off at the gas station or stopping off
Speaker 2: at them? All, Howard says, was the posting from Lakewood
Speaker 2: talking about calling the sponsor or driving to the sponsor.
Speaker 2: He said both. He said calling the sponsor, which you
Speaker 2: could say is durabona. But then he says traveling. When
Speaker 2: he says traveling, he doesn't mean walking there because he
Speaker 2: doesn't have to tell you that traveling means getting in
Speaker 2: the car. I guess you'd take a cab. That's better
Speaker 2: than driving. But he said, do whatever you need to do.
Speaker 2: I don't know if all the other posting would agree,
Speaker 2: but that's what he says. You can can send you
Speaker 2: the link whatever you need to do, including traveling to
Speaker 2: go there. Maybe the AA doesn't you need to be
Speaker 2: there in person. You need to be at the meeting.
Speaker 2: That's the context. They have a Tuesday night meeting and
Speaker 2: you need your Friday night meeting, and you need to
Speaker 2: get to the meeting, and you can't walk there. David
Speaker 2: Eisen says Apropo Chew Vote and Mental Health and entire
Speaker 2: Safer of Chew Vote is about to be published by
Speaker 2: of the only Rosenswag entitled not very interesting, You're only
Speaker 2: rosen Swag. He actually teaches that Linden now where my
Speaker 2: daughter is. He's one of the young up and coming
Speaker 2: Rude Scionist rabbis and has written a number of volume
Speaker 2: I think it's three if I'm a mistaken maybe two
Speaker 2: of chew Vote. So he's publishing, David says on mental health,
Speaker 2: I guess he would deal with this issue of mental health.
Speaker 2: Mental health is something we know a lot more about
Speaker 2: than we know previously. If you look in the early rites,
Speaker 2: dah mentions that you know they what is the word
Speaker 2: he uses, I forget the Hebrew term. It means melancholy.
Speaker 2: It's like he speaks of having melancholy. We see earlier
Speaker 2: figures speak about you know, this bad ruach upon them.
Speaker 2: Today we would be able to categorize it very differently.
Speaker 2: And that's one of the areas I think mental health
Speaker 2: that post came today. I think I know of Usher.
Speaker 2: Weiss is also interested in that the answers you'll get
Speaker 2: will be different than years ago because we understand it
Speaker 2: much more than in previous years. Jay Yellen says perhaps
Speaker 2: an addict is viewed differently because he has an essence
Speaker 2: lost his free will, and as different stas an ordinary
Speaker 2: person who has free will. That's a very good point.
Speaker 2: That he doesn't have free will he can control, so
Speaker 2: he'd be in a different position. But I don't know
Speaker 2: the only thing I would say to that is the
Speaker 2: question I had was dealing also with someone who sort
Speaker 2: of wasn't ordinary. He felt that he had to smoke
Speaker 2: or he'd go crazy, or any you can give any example,
Speaker 2: But where do you do what I've got to say?
Speaker 2: Someone says I have to eat the tarfus or I'll
Speaker 2: go crazy. I don't know where we already mentioned the
Speaker 2: Gamur has the case. See my question was the Gamur
Speaker 2: has the case that you can't even speak to this
Speaker 2: woman that you feel you need to uh talk to
Speaker 2: even if it calls you to die because of Benosi Serrail,
Speaker 2: you'll turn the daughters of Israel to a f care.
Speaker 2: So my question was, well, maybe in that case you
Speaker 2: couldn't do that, because then you turned the Benosi ceural
Speaker 2: into afcare. But if you didn't have that, it was
Speaker 2: just between you and let's say God, you'd be able
Speaker 2: to I don't know though what the ya Yakov, I
Speaker 2: don't know, when would an ordinary person have this. If
Speaker 2: an ordinary person has such strong feelings, doesn't that make
Speaker 2: you mean they're not ordinary? I don't know Howard says
Speaker 2: the post take from Lakewood doesn't seem to be seeking theoretically,
Speaker 2: he seems to have knowledge of actual cases. Indeed he does.
Speaker 2: As Barrel pointed out, this is an organization. There's this organization,
Speaker 2: what does he say, I'm moudim that deals with people
Speaker 2: with problems of substance abuse. This is a problem in
Speaker 2: Lakewood and other Hiati communities, and they recognizing that this
Speaker 2: is a reality and they have to do something with it.
Speaker 2: So uh, and they've had it, You've had overdoses, you
Speaker 2: have all sorts of things. Obviously, if someone can't get
Speaker 2: to the sponsor or can't do something and overdoses instead
Speaker 2: decides to take the drugs and ends up dying, clearly
Speaker 2: this was a mistake. And any rabbi who said to
Speaker 2: him that he shouldn't, you know, call the sponsor go
Speaker 2: on zoom has bought on his hands. By the way, well,
Speaker 2: before we go further with the questions, it is one
Speaker 2: more thing I wanted to mention, because we're talking about
Speaker 2: the Koch Newish. I forgot to mention this. I'm going
Speaker 2: to say something which I think some of people listening
Speaker 2: I might get hate mail, but it's what I think,
Speaker 2: So why don't I say it? It's my feelings. Uh
Speaker 2: Rabbi Hachan was talking about newfish and he develops what
Speaker 2: pikoch nefish is, and that because you feel you're going
Speaker 2: to well, you need to smoke it or anything like that.
Speaker 2: That's not the kooch netfish. We are living through incredible
Speaker 2: times because the whole idea of pikooch nefish needs to
Speaker 2: be rewritten or re understood, at least the way everyone
Speaker 2: thought about it. If you would have told me a
Speaker 2: year ago that we'd be seeing what we'd be seeing,
Speaker 2: we never would have believed it. Because knefish is supposed
Speaker 2: to be the biggest thing in the world other than
Speaker 2: you have to give up your life, you have to
Speaker 2: you have to violate young kipper instead of if you
Speaker 2: have to save your life. And yet we are witnessing
Speaker 2: people who have giant weddings five thousand people weddings, no masks,
Speaker 2: with no concern whatsoever about bikorochnefish. It's it's an incredible thing.
Speaker 2: People and these are the same people who are so
Speaker 2: medoctic on the small list most instant. If they've been
Speaker 2: hugging because in their court they did this, then that's
Speaker 2: that's the valuevlar. But on bikoochnetfish and isn't just the
Speaker 2: theoretical concern. The numbers in these communities are astounding and
Speaker 2: the carnage is unbelievable. How to explain this, I don't
Speaker 2: know how to explain this. I don't understand it. I
Speaker 2: what I'm gonna say now, I said people will maybe
Speaker 2: will attack me, but I to me, I'm looking at it.
Speaker 2: It seems like it's reform to a type of reforign Judaism,
Speaker 2: because and I know Raby Weinberg and the Rov would
Speaker 2: agree with this. Theholahs says, for instance, if you were
Speaker 2: to say you're ill like Regelia Feinstein was, and the
Speaker 2: doctor says you will die unless you eat on young kipper,
Speaker 2: then you have to eat on goodper You can't if
Speaker 2: you say no, no, I'm too pious, I'm I'd rather
Speaker 2: die than eat. That's that's that's reform Judaism. That's your
Speaker 2: reforming Judaism. The laches you have to eat and by
Speaker 2: the way that the Sadducees were religious. The sad Ducees
Speaker 2: did dull sorts of religious things. They were more strict
Speaker 2: than the rabbis in certain areas, so were the cat rights.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't mean they weren't reformers.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: So I this this idea that pikouoch netfish. We are
Speaker 2: seeing that entire communities have said pikouch netfish is not
Speaker 2: applicable because we need to have giant weddings, and we
Speaker 2: need to have giant simhas, and we need to do
Speaker 2: all this. And this is piko nefish, something that we
Speaker 2: violate your young kipper for and uh and yet it's
Speaker 2: irrelevant pich ne fish. It's it's uh I I people
Speaker 2: are gonna be writing about this for years. How to
Speaker 2: explain how otherwise observing communities do not seem to care
Speaker 2: about the tourist veraibeham that you have to live and
Speaker 2: not put yourself into danger needlessly, Jay says Jako of Rebik.
Speaker 2: Kelman is a German bachelor of Canada. Yes, he was
Speaker 2: gonna be Chief Rabby of England. He was chosen, then
Speaker 2: he got ill and unfortunately he passed away. He was
Speaker 2: he became close to rob Rijak of Weinberg. He was
Speaker 2: a tumultover versus Alma Meltzer. A great figure, Bark says,
Speaker 2: the Nasha Katta and a kind of deep connection to
Speaker 2: the Kousenberger Rebbe indeed he did. You can read there's
Speaker 2: all sorts of good stuff about the Kousenberger, and they
Speaker 2: published his correspondence with Ben Goryan and his true vote.
Speaker 2: There's in the book of the Godolian that I showed
Speaker 2: you that I had that piece on the stipe where
Speaker 2: there's a thing in there about the Kousenberger. Someone privately
Speaker 2: emails me of a Rabbi Abraham Ye, doctor Abraham Torski,
Speaker 2: who also did a lot of work with addictions and
Speaker 2: mental health. I can say that, especially an addict who
Speaker 2: feels shaky in his sobriety and needs to talk to
Speaker 2: a sponsor or to go to a meeting, this in
Speaker 2: indeed can be a life threatening event. The slippery soap
Speaker 2: can be very steep, and someone who has been cleaned
Speaker 2: and sober slips and starts using again is very likely
Speaker 2: to overdose since they will be using the same amount
Speaker 2: they used to stop before stopping. They could then they
Speaker 2: could tolerated dose. They cannot now I think, uh, I think,
Speaker 2: but this comes from knowing the personal sense, I mean
Speaker 2: understanding this, and it took a while for people to
Speaker 2: understand how dangerous these addictions were. And I'm not sure
Speaker 2: that all the rabbis would go as far as what
Speaker 2: we just saw with the post Sake from Lakewood against
Speaker 2: Rabbi Torski with the eye. When I was at Harvard,
Speaker 2: you know, he's famous with Abraham Torski, so people would
Speaker 2: they would confuse Abraham with Isdor Torski. They are in
Speaker 2: totally different areas and he is a big tamakochem rebby
Speaker 2: Doctor Abraham Towrski even has correspondence with the Snipler, but
Speaker 2: he's not a post Sake. I don't know if he
Speaker 2: ever gave suck on this, but you did see the soaka.
Speaker 2: This is one of the biggest post scheme in Lakewood.
Speaker 2: And I don't know anyone disagrees with what he says.
Speaker 2: I just found it interesting. Justin asked, aside from contradicting sources,
Speaker 2: how are Howard stam do with the elitarian Israel visa
Speaker 2: VI non Jews healthcare. I don't know, obviously, Jews go
Speaker 2: before non Jews in all these areas. But for him
Speaker 2: it's it's only it's not really practical. It's all theoretical.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not practical in a sense that how
Speaker 2: we deal with them per se. It's just an attitude.
Speaker 2: He's presenting an attitude, and he himself acknowledges that because
Speaker 2: of what we saw during the Holocaust, we can't view
Speaker 2: non Jews. Maybe the non Jews the olden days were
Speaker 2: better than our non Jews. Our Jews are world though.
Speaker 2: I think we usually assume it's just the opposite that
Speaker 2: Abba says, we pray hash you come, dumb mom. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but who is the who is the dumb mom? The
Speaker 2: mom is the the bad people, it's not. I think
Speaker 2: it was Rebbe Lao who said it yadvahev uh. I
Speaker 2: think it was very low, that we don't blame children
Speaker 2: for the sins of their ancestors, and that a new generation.
Speaker 2: It's a new generation. I mean, what are you gonna So, yes,
Speaker 2: we do pray. We're not like the Christians. It was
Speaker 2: amazed when I started working with Christians that this idea
Speaker 2: that you'd say that we want this person to be punished,
Speaker 2: and all they have this a very different perspective. Even Columbine,
Speaker 2: if you know Columbine, the uh, these kids came in
Speaker 2: and they shot up killed a number of students. Well,
Speaker 2: so they put up crosses in memory of the students killed,
Speaker 2: and then they put up crosses in memory of the
Speaker 2: killers who killed themselves, because in since they do were victims.
Speaker 2: It's I've had people tell me that that we shouldn't
Speaker 2: even wish evil on Hitler. We should hope that he's
Speaker 2: found his peace and that leave it to God. I mean,
Speaker 2: we don't have that view obviously. We say, but who
Speaker 2: is the dumb Who is the dumb one? It's it's
Speaker 2: not the it's the people who responsible for it. It's
Speaker 2: not the the innocent person, especially not the Hasidium. Most
Speaker 2: o them you can find plenty Piseiic Howard, but if
Speaker 2: you google Psayim and Petayim you will find them as well.
Speaker 2: So and David tells us the Israel Ministry of Health
Speaker 2: report today the spread of COVID among the great popular
Speaker 2: community Israel is six times that of the general population.
Speaker 2: And they announced today the Rabbi doctor Torski as coronavirus
Speaker 2: people get it even if they try their hardest. People
Speaker 2: get it doing normal things. Family members come over. What
Speaker 2: I'm referring to, though, is events when you know it's
Speaker 2: a problem when you go and you have huge weddings,
Speaker 2: which and huge events, and you have family gatherings when
Speaker 2: you're told not to, and that's exactly what happens. That's
Speaker 2: that's what I'm referring to. And I can't understand why
Speaker 2: people would do it, and it so was Avramyoshu Heschelb
Speaker 2: and Duvorolavi. I will let me just say one more
Speaker 2: thing and then one with this. So you hudn Meshi Zahov,
Speaker 2: the head of the Zaka, who comes from the most
Speaker 2: extreme you know Mtary Carter type background, has a complete
Speaker 2: turnaround and does amazing work. Well, his brother died recently,
Speaker 2: and then his mother died, and while he was sitting shiva,
Speaker 2: his father died. So if you saw in the news
Speaker 2: of Corona, you saw the great attack. He attacks the rabbis.
Speaker 2: He says they have blood on their hands because they
Speaker 2: were said, there's no big deal. You can get together.
Speaker 2: And what happened was he told his mother and his
Speaker 2: family is an extended family. They all got together for
Speaker 2: Akhnika party I look, I understand his sorrow, but you're
Speaker 2: blaming the rabbis. I don't know. Everyone needs to be autonomous.
Speaker 2: It's yeah, the rabbit I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Does that community in that community, Maybe it doesn't. The
Speaker 2: rabbis have I think they need to have some responsibility
Speaker 2: for not speaking out, but there also has to be
Speaker 2: some autonomy that that.
Speaker 4: They don't think of that community. Whatever the rabbi says
Speaker 4: is what they do better or worse. I'm not I
Speaker 4: don't disagree with the you're saying, but I just think
Speaker 4: that's how that community works.
Speaker 2: The rabbi say, that's taur and that's it. Heard immunity.
Speaker 2: I understand they think they think they think that they're
Speaker 2: immune now, but they were doing this in March and
Speaker 2: April when you know the pe. We have people in
Speaker 2: this show listening to us who are from Brooklyn and
Speaker 2: they will tell you when you saw in the news
Speaker 2: the bodies were piling up every day every day, terrible
Speaker 2: carnage and whatever happened, that's our big an act, aust
Speaker 2: whatever happened to be cook.
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: toronmotion dot org. Please rate and review us in your
Speaker 1: favorite podcast app, or even better, tell a friend to
Speaker 1: give a podcast to listen