The Relationship to the Book or Teacher Creates Its Objective Holiness | Eight Chapters, Chapter 4 (Auto Translated) | תמלול וסיכום מתורגם

Lecture on Shemonah Perakim: The Trait of Zehirus and the Distinction Between Torah Books and External Books

Introduction: Where We Are Holding in Shemonah Perakim

Maggid Shiur:

Good. Yes, it’s working, it’s working. Ah, yes? I see yes. It’s going, there’s a red… I don’t see, but there… I see yes. Okay, it’s the… I see yes.

Rabbosai, shesh… Today is Erev Shabbos Chazon. I will speak to you about eating meat and wine. Our discussion is about eating meat and wine. It’s very connected. Avinu v’Yoma. It’s interesting. I want to talk about this in a second. And I want to go into this a bit more. I hope there will be enough to go into this.

There are still many more details that one can, but we are holding basically, the olam doesn’t know where we are holding, so we are holding in Shemonah Perakim [Eight Chapters: the eight chapters, the Rambam’s introduction to Pirkei Avos], new people are coming, they don’t know where we are holding. So we are holding in Shemonah Perakim Chapter 4, this is the chapter of our series.

What we are holding in Shemonah Perakim Chapter 4, this is the main chapter where the Rambam [Rambam: Maimonides] lays down what he calls refuas cholei hanefesh [healing of illnesses of the soul]. In other words, the… what can one not take? I don’t want, okay, in short, it’s something of a cholei hanefesh [illness of the soul].

When we speak of Chapter 4, it is refuas cholei hanefesh, and there is the chapter where one lays down the main theory of midos tovos [good character traits], what are the correct midos [character traits]?

The Theory of the Middle Trait

The first piece was established that the good midos are the midos bemitze’us [middle traits], and he explained what is a midah [character trait] and what is a pe’ulah [action], and he went through with dugma’os [examples]. This is basically where we are holding with examples of nine midos. How the good one is in the middle, and there is a too much and a too little. Each midah has a too much and a too little. This is the discussion.

The First Midah: Zehirus

And the first midah that the Rambam brought is the midah that he calls, we translate it as zehirus [carefulness, caution]. We don’t have, unfortunately, or actually, any good translation for it. If you know a good translation, you can tell me. I would never dare to say that.

The best translation that makes people know what it means is prishus [separation], but prishus is extreme, they don’t mean prishus. So I would want to say kedushah [holiness], but kedushah means more or less not shmiras habris [guarding the covenant, sexual purity], which has something to do with this, but also shmiras habris is a funny euphemism of the intention. But in any case, it’s certainly a word that one uses for the sugya [topic], but still not clear enough.

Zehirus that we learned is a word that Rabbeinu Yonah [Rabbeinu Yonah] translated, the Rambam translated as lema’an yiras chet [in order to have fear of sin]. Yes?

So these are all words. But in any case, the midah that has to do, we can define it better according to the subject, because this is how one defines all midos, the midah that has to do with ta’anugei haguf [physical pleasures]. Right? The correct hanhagah [conduct, behavior] regarding ta’anugei haguf. This is the midah.

The Plan of Learning

And we said that we want to make a shiur, a series of shiurim, and whoever it is on each of the midos. Each shiur we take, I see that each midah is approximately three months, it’s be’ezras Hashem [with God’s help], and we go around, and push to the next piece. Simply.

But from each one of the lists there are many other mekoros [sources] in the Rambam and in other places that one can bring together kol haTorah kulah [the entire Torah] on this. It’s not just the line, it’s simply that it’s a place where we are, to learn here as much as we can.

And mainly we want to bring the main sevoros [logical arguments] and the main lumdos [learnings] from the Sefer HaMidos [Book of Character Traits], which… which he defines the things the best that everyone takes from him. True?

Digression: Rav Simcha Zissel of Kelm

Who Was Rav Simcha Zissel?

I remembered recently, and I started the Chassidic story. The… there was the Rebbe Rav Simcha Zissel of Kelm, the elder of Kelm.

Talmid: A Chassidic Jew?

Maggid Shiur: No? I mean he was. Yes, no misnaged [opponent of Chassidus, Lithuanian, not Chassidic]. Yes, mussar [the mussar movement] is no village of Chassidus. No east by Verntpl. East by Verntpl, God forbid. There is night. Yes, it’s cousins. No, mussar.

Rebbe Simcha Zissel was a clever Jew. You should know, I would have been his friend. If I would have been bizmanenu [in his time], I would have been his friend. I would have been clever, I hold from the mussar, which these are indeed mussar here.

But Rav Simcha Zissel, mitoch hadvarim [from the things], Rav Simcha Zissel was quite a clever Jew. It’s true that they were a bit Lithuanian, everything had to be dressed in some malbush shechorah [black garment], but this is the minhag [custom] in Lithuania. Even the Chassidim who live in Lithuania have somewhat such a minhag. It’s a minhag ha’aretz [local custom] there, I don’t know exactly.

Rav Simcha Zissel’s Openness

But he was a clever Jew. There are many kesavim [writings] and notes and drashos [sermons] and such things from him. And he used to learn Ba’al Shem Tov [Ba’al Shem Tov: the founder of Chassidus] also, by the way. He was a bit of a Chassid of the Ba’al Shem Tov even. He learned betzimtzum [in a limited way], he learned what held him. He used to learn English in his yeshiva also, by the way.

In Kelm they learned English, in Kelm. They were normal people there. Russian, limudei chol [secular studies], I don’t know English. I don’t know if they learned English, I don’t know if they learned English. I don’t know if they learned English. I don’t know if they learned limudei chol, not limudei chol, limudei hametzius [studies of reality].

Talmid: No, no, they learned minimum.

Maggid Shiur: They received degrees, whatever they had to receive there in the area, I don’t know what.

Talmid: What?

Maggid Shiur: Rav Dessler [Rav Dessler] speaks of this, he tries to answer why he doesn’t follow the minhag avosav [customs of his fathers]. It was the custom.

Rav Simcha Zissel’s Letter: The Distinction Between Torah Books and External Books

The Kesavim of Rav Simcha Zissel

The tzaddik, he has kesavim, various ones, there are letters that are printed in what is the set called? “Ma’or Oros HaMussar” [Ma’or Oros HaMussar], two volumes of his Torah teachings. Recently they are printing more, “Kisvei HaSaba MiKelm” [Kisvei HaSaba MiKelm: the writings of the grandfather of Kelm], if that’s what it’s called, such blue sefarim.

The Content of the Letter

And there I saw a letter, he says like this, he says that he is trying to speak, and it’s an experience that many people have, but I think one must understand where it comes from.

He says that he wants to be meshabeach [praise] the Jewish sefarim or certain sefarim that he learns. He says that he is a great chassid of the sefer “Midos L’Aristo” [Midos L’Aristo: Aristotle’s Ethics], he is a great chassid of it, he loves it very much, but it’s difficult for him to learn it more than once. He learned it once, he thought that he understood, and he doesn’t feel any chiyus [vitality] to chazern [review] many times.

When he learns a Chassidic sefer, a Jewish sefer, “Sha’arei Teshuvah” [Sha’arei Teshuvah], “Orchos Tzaddikim” [Orchos Tzaddikim], when he learns it he feels a taste, he reviews the tzibbur, he finds new chiddushim [insights] each time, even Chumash [Chumash: the Five Books of the Torah], and simple, lech’orah [apparently] simple sefarim. He wants to bring out from this that…

The Rambam’s Similar Point

There’s a saying, she’eilas chacham chatzi nechamah [a wise question is half the answer: a clever question is half an answer]. So he told me something a bit different. What he wants to bring out with this letter, if I understand correctly, is that there exists, and there is a certain genuine experience that people have.

There are books with people that one learns, and he wants to bring, presumably [mistama: presumably] a proof [ra’ayah: a proof] for kedushas haTorah [the holiness of Torah] or holy sustenance [aruchah kodesh: holy sustenance].

The Rambam himself is impressed [mispa’el: impressed] by this point [nekudah: point] somewhat in Mishnayos [Mishnayos] in Birchas Avos [Birchas Avos], he says look at something that the philosophers had to give many pages and many lengthy explanations [be’arichus: at length] to say, and in Chazal [Chazal: our Sages] it stands in one word, in one brief expression [melitzah lazah: a short expression]. The Rambam more than once says this novelty [chiddush: new insight]. And it seems to me that Rav Simchah Zissel [Rav Simchah Zissel] also means to bring this out.

Discussion: The Distinction and Its Causes

He says that he has no vitality, people can, I have many friends who learn, sometimes look into external books [sefarim chitzonim: external books], and most of them have told me that it never happens that one sways when one sings such a melody when one learns a piece of Kant [Kant: the philosopher Immanuel Kant].

I have never heard yet, that anyone should learn that way. The Gemara [Gemara: Talmud], Tosafos [Tosafos] one learns that way. Even perhaps Kabbalah [Kabbalah], Chassidic books.

Have you ever seen someone learn Mendelssohn [Mendelssohn], he says, the holy Mendelssohn, the holy Mendelssohn, the holy Mendelssohn, the holy Chinuch [Chinuch: Sefer HaChinuch]. Ah, so says Rav Yoel [Rav Yoel], that it has with the Chinuch. Very good. Go sing it that way, with a melody? It is an honor [kavod: respect]. Very good.

So I want to ask you, I don’t know, I think that the expression says something. You can’t always say the answer [teiretz: answer] of the Chinuch, because we’re talking about people who have indeed tried to learn other books. Really learn other books seriously, it’s not that he says he doesn’t learn.

[[⚠ קטע זה לא תורגם — נחסם ע״י מסנן התוכן / passage not translated — blocked by content filter]]

I had a tremendous pleasure, I reviewed lines last night. I reviewed it alone, and I thought that this was… and I thought that it’s a stupid Hasidic story. I thought, I’m now reading the stories about Prester John. There’s a book Prester John, where someone talks about an African rebellion, and this is the worst nonsense.

But I thought that I’m reading a class when I read something from earlier times, you know, that has a lot of background to it? I didn’t take – I come there, I discovered last night that… no, I’m just simply looking at the walls. I can’t, I say I’m not reading. I say, I want to say that Reb Yoel… one minute, I want to make something clear.

Learning Books: Three Claims, Reality, and Different Ways of Reading

Three Different Claims About Learning with Yirat Hakavod (Reverence)

Instructor:

You’re not bringing a proof to his Torah, you’re bringing a proof to a different Torah. One minute, let’s make a clear distinction. Our shiur (lesson) needs to make distinctions. Let’s make a distinction. Let’s try, okay? Let’s try to bring out a distinction very clearly.

Two different claims that are, first of all, they look similar, the charge leads you to think that they’re the same thing, but they’re not. Okay? The distinction is as follows:

Claim A: Two Ways to Read a Book

There’s someone who says that there are two ways to read a book, if one approaches it. One learns it with preparation, with awe and fear, with yirat hakavod (reverence), one receives from this a certain benefit that one doesn’t receive when one learns it kidivrei chol (as mundane words). That’s one claim, right?

Claim B: Yirat Hakavod Comes from Your Rebbe, Not from the Book

Another claim, have you heard of all the claims? Another claim is, that what you… there are two different claims. Another claim is, that what you conduct yourself to learn certain books with yirat hakavod, and certain books not with yirat hakavod, that’s simply because your rebbe told you so, or because today someone told you so. Not because the book itself also told you to learn with yirat hakavod.

Claim C: There’s No Way to Know

And a third claim altogether is to say that there’s no way at all to know that there are books haraui lahem yirat hakavod (worthy of reverence), and it’s not possible to make a mistake in this.

These are three different claims that people in all such matters mix up with them. Do you understand what I’m saying? Here you have three hundred claims. I think there’s a horse also somewhere hidden.

What Does “Learning a Book” Mean?

The Fundamental Concept

Instructor:

The first claim is as follows, very clearly. A book, everything that we learn… what is a book, Ribbono Shel Olam (Master of the Universe)? What is a book? What do I mean a book? But this is what one learns in yeshiva, and when one becomes clever, one goes to Reb Yonasan’s shiur, one says “canonized,” and now one doesn’t need to stop, now one can stop thinking.

Let’s understand. There is… what do I mean I learn a book? What does one mean one learns a book? But seriously, all these words, all the what, is stop you from thinking, instead of opening you up. What do I want to bring out? Let’s try to learn to grasp the thing.

There is such a thing that means I learn a book. What do I mean to say? What I mean to say is, what does one do when one learns a book? What does one try to do? He receives ideas from another. Ideas from another? Yes. What do I care about another’s ideas? Very good.

A Book Is a Way to Reality

A book is a way how I, the reader, the learner, should somehow become more transparent to the reality. Right? That’s what learning from a book means, right? That’s what it means. What it means is that I want to understand, a person wants to understand the world, he wants to know everything, he wants to be everything, as it were.

This is one of the ways of being everything is knowing things. I want to know things, right? Why do I want to know things? Either because I need to know what to do, or because a part of being a person, the way how to be a person.

The Person as Davar Sichli

A person is a davar sichli (a rational being), a person is a thing that according to how he orients himself, I don’t know how one says it in Yiddish, how he positions himself in the world, that’s what he is, that’s his body as it were, his soul, that’s what he is. I want to know what I am, what’s going on here, where am I in the world, right? A person himself.

Thinking Is a Dialogue

One Can Think Alone

One can think alone. The part of thinking alone is just, one imagines that there is an order. There’s no difference. One cannot think alone. Thinking is not a thing. Thinking is something that happens in a dialogue. Even when one sits alone, one thinks with other things, because you are not, the whole world is not you. You want to speak with the…

Two Ways of Encountering Reality

Direct Experience: Speaking with the World

Instructor:

So, one world, one way, let’s understand, one way of finding out about the world is speaking with the tree. One can do an experiment. I want to know what is a tree? Let’s take a tree, cut it up, touch it, feel it, throw it into a fire, see what happens. It will ring smoke to New York. That is apparently what happens.

In short, I’m speaking now, this is one way of speaking with reality, right? This is what I wanted to answer before. I want to simply take down a bit the word yedi’ah [knowledge], because not necessarily I can even say it in one word. I was there, I feel it, I touch it, I hear it, I understand it. Afterwards I can tell it over further. That is truly the next step. Always when one speaks already of telling over further, it’s already a step after the yedi’ah. A very important thing to grasp. That means learning.

So one way of learning is, I bump into the reality, as it were, what’s called experiment or experience in English, right? Experiment, experience, that’s the same thing. I bump into the reality, right?

Indirect Experience: Through a Book

Another way is to say that what does a book mean? What does speaking with a second person mean? To say that perhaps I don’t have access to the whole reality, or I’m lazy, I don’t want to do all the experiments myself.

So I learn a book, that the book in code, has some way, some key, how to bring me to the reality that I want to know. That’s the only thing that a book can be, truly. Whatever the reality is.

History as an Example

The reality is what lived in the imagination of a person in the fourteenth century. I can’t which part of the reality it is. There are important parts, less important, less interesting parts. But I want to know a certain reality. I feel that I am a… let’s say, I want to learn history. History is also a part of reality. I’m against history over. It’s a part of reality, right?

I’m a Jew, and I’m a person. I wasn’t born today, and a part of what I am is what my great-great-grandfather did in the time of the Baal Shem Tov. I read a book to know that. I don’t have any other way to know, I’m not there. That’s the way, that’s my advantage, my way, my door into that reality, right?

Fiction, Poetry, and “True Stories”

Poetry and Novels as Access to Reality

Instructor:

Poetry gives you over some certain way of the world, some way of seeing the world, some way of understanding the world, that that one is the author. If he speaks nonsense, it’s indeed… no one reads any book that he holds that he speaks nonsense, except if he wants to indeed investigate the nonsense. But in any case, generally…

Student:

What does enjoyment mean? What is the enjoyment? That what? That what? What is that an experience?

Instructor:

Experience of something, right? Experience is not of yourself.

Student:

Yes, but it can be a fantasy. That is disconnected.

Instructor:

What is fantasy? Not that is disconnected. A novel.

Student:

Yes, what stands in the novel?

Instructor:

Even it can be that it didn’t happen, it’s still a story.

Student:

Who comes in to imagine? I want to go on a trip, I can imagine, I want now to be there. Someone reads a novel, he doesn’t think what it makes him out in life, but he wants to enjoy himself.

Instructor:

It makes him out now. A part of life is to read novels. Why not? We are people, novels are about people. Even it can be that it didn’t happen, he knows that it didn’t happen, he wants to enjoy himself. It’s not necessarily that nothing happened.

“Mili D’shtusa” in the Zohar

In the Zohar it says that Rabbi Elazar spoke three chapters mili d’shtusa [matters of jest/frivolity]. You can say that nothing happened. What means nonsense? Nonsense means relative to other things, certainly. You don’t want to give away perhaps a whole life to it. But what means nonsense? It’s about humanity, about people, about a person.

The Story with Elie Wiesel and the Satmar Rebbe

Every novel has a point that is related to actual life. It’s about actual life, what then is it about?

This is the story of Elie Wiesel who came to the Satmar Rebbe z”l, he came from Sighet. The Rebbe asked him why he writes fiction [beduyim], why doesn’t he write true stories? He said, “I write only true stories. They just didn’t happen once, they happened many times.”

Nu, what is the definition of true stories? Things that happened punctually once? Fiction is the thing that happens many times.

Student:

No, it can still not happen.

Instructor:

It happens. It brings out what happens, not by one person, but by a combination of several people. What is the difference? It’s still so true, it’s not less true.

Back to the Main Point: Different Ways of Reading

The Foundation: Reading = Access to Reality

Instructor:

I don’t mean to come now to a lecture on fiction and so forth. What I just want to bring out is, we are… let’s forget, I don’t know what we’re saying. Reading a book means, I want through the book to arrive at some reality. Okay? Is this agreed? Or someone is not in agreement with this? What then is… I don’t know, you tell me what else you do when you read books.

Student:

There is very… again, very good. The reality is very large. Everything is reality. You want to access some thought.

Instructor:

Already, there is a reality book. I don’t want it’s not, I don’t want it’s not. I don’t want it’s not. If you want you can tell us what you thought when you said that word.

Student:

I meant to say that the correct way to see the reality.

Instructor:

One minute, one minute. We’re coming to another point, but I just want to go up. Let’s understand, I mean that everyone is already in agreement. If you’re not in agreement, we’ll come back next week. A book one learns for this.

Different Modes of Reading

Now, let’s go back. Okay, now, so we say now that we want to enter into other ways of reading books, right? Let’s understand, our conversation begins from other ways of looking at a book, of reading a book, true?

You tell me, and we all know, that there are books that we read with a seriousness, one thing. There are books that we read and we are precise in every word, and we take it seriously. There are books that we read with a certain reverence [yiras hakavod], which is not to say the same thing, we take seriously every word, right?

And there are books that one reads frivolously, not seriously, or not precise in every word, superficially, if every third word makes sense, and presumably the words in between don’t mean anything, right?

Student:

Are there other ways of reading books?

Instructor:

Okay, nu.

Student:

One can even enjoy the structure of the words, right?

Instructor:

That means that there is such a book that is itself, because you know that perhaps is… for example, it can be that there are a few kinds of things, there is a very good writer who doesn’t have such good ideas, but the good writer, he says, ah, okay, one can live out to write, you know that someone told a model of knowledge that was once, so you feel… I said that a good writer will give you a good picture, that brings out the ideas, will tell you more. Okay.

Instructor:

Yes, there are indeed other distinctions [chilukim], true, other distinctions.

The Relationship to a Torah Scroll: Holiness, Intention, and Objectivity

The Law of a Torah Scroll That a Heretic Wrote

Instructor:

True, true, true. But the good writer, he says, ah, okay, one can write on such, you know that someone who tells a story of knowledge that was once, so you feel… I had a good writer will give you a good picture, that brings out the ideas, will tell you more. Okay.

Yes, there are indeed other distinctions [chilukim], true, other distinctions. We just want to see into the distinction that we’re struggling with for some reason. Yes. And he told an interesting story.

When Jews read the Torah [kshenah yehudim koru es hatorah]. And the Rambam [Maimonides] says in Hilkhos Sefer Torah [Laws of the Torah Scroll] that the Sefer Torah [Torah scroll] that a heretic [min] wrote is invalid [posul]. Why? Because this scroll is nothing more than other ordinary things [she-zeh ha-sefer v’eino ela k’she’ar ha-devorim]. That is an expression [loshon].

A person, and a heretic [min] who doesn’t believe in the holiness of the Torah [kedushas ha-Torah] or in the holiness of the Divine name [kedushas ha-Shem], the Divine names [Shemos], specifically how he writes a Divine name [Shem], it doesn’t matter, then the name doesn’t receive any holiness [kedushah], you know that this is a law [halakhah], right?

Regarding the Divine name [k’dai ha-Shem], one stands when writing Divine names [Shemos ha-Shem], he writes a Torah scroll, it has a status [din] of the Divine name [Shem ha-Shem], what does it mean? “You shall not do thus to Hashem your God” [lo sa’aseh ka’elu Hashem Elokeikhem], there is here not erasing the Divine name [mekhikas ha-Shem], it’s a prohibition [issur], or burning the Divine name [srefas ha-Shem], I want to be contemptuous of the honor of the Divine name [kovod ha-Shem].

If one writes it with intention [kavonah], that means, someone who knows that there is by him a distinction of a Torah scroll from other ordinary things [she’ar ha-devorim], or of the Divine name from other ordinary things, then the Torah scroll has holiness [kedushah], one must conduct oneself with it according to the customs of holiness [minhagei kedushah], one must place it in burial [genizah] when it becomes broken, and the like [v’khadome].

However if it’s someone who writes in it, writes it, doesn’t believe in it, by him it’s a book like any other book [sefer k’she’ar sefer], just another book, then the Torah scroll has no holiness [kedushah]. So is the law [halakhah].

The Plain Meaning of the Law

What is the plain meaning [peshat]? Let me mean otherwise. This is what we want to understand here. Explain to me [zei mir mesbir], what do we want to understand the law [halakhah]? That means, it has no holiness [kedushah]. All the words stand in a kosher Torah [kosherdike Torah], he is a good scribe [sofer], he writes beautiful script [ksav], he writes precisely [meduyak], he didn’t miss any words. No, he is a good professional, he wrote all the words valid [kosher].

It’s not a Torah scroll at all [bikhlal], one can burn it. One must perhaps burn it, but one can certainly burn it. Why? Even a non-Jew [goy] writes a Torah, it can be one may burn it, one doesn’t have to, one may be lenient. Why? Can someone explain the law [halakhah]? Nu.

A Dramatic Scenario: When One Finds Out About the Heretic

Instructor:

But let’s understand another thing. If someone doesn’t know, by mistake [bito’us], he went to synagogue, there was a Torah scroll written by a heretic [Torah shel kisvei min], he was a hidden heretic [min], a forced one [onus], I know what, one doesn’t know that the scribe [sofer] is a heretic [min].

One would have brought it in the Torah scroll, with bringing in a Torah scroll [hakhnosas Sefer Torah], the Rebbe danced “the Torah of God is perfect” [Toras Hashem temimah] with that Torah, and one reads it, one makes a blessing [brokhah], it’s all valid [kosher], one feels with no one, Hasidim would have thought, the Rebbe would have felt, no, the Rebbe wouldn’t have felt, I tell you he wouldn’t have felt.

I’m a Rebbe, and I say, if one doesn’t know, one doesn’t feel, one only feels as one knows. That is my law [halakhah]. Because the law [halakhah] is indeed so, one doesn’t know that one is exempt [potur], what does one want to do? It can’t be that the secret [sod] goes differently than the law [halakhah], true? It’s the law [halakhah].

Tomorrow one comes and tells him, it was revealed [megalgel geven] to tell that the writer, in general [bikhlal] one mistakenly bought from a heretic [min], a Christian, a heretic [min] can mean in the Talmud [Gemara], it’s an apostate person, it’s not clear. One takes the Torah, throws it on the ground, and steps on it truly.

The same Torah that last week they read, the Rebbe read in it the Ten Commandments [aseres ha-dibros], with great noise and trembling [bekhol ra’ash golil], and he felt such a vitality of holiness [khayes d’kedushah] when he looked at the letters [osiyos] of the Torah, all Jews looked at “this is the Torah” [zos ha-Torah], and tomorrow one grasped that it’s a heretic [min], and all Jews say, this is a Torah? This is garbage! Put it straight in the garbage.

The Philosophical Point: What’s Going On Here?

What’s going on here? What do the Jews think? Let’s say, you can say the Jews are foolish, but what do they think? What’s going on here? Why not but? What does it mean, and where lies the holiness of a Torah scroll [kedushas Sefer Torah]? Not in the content [toykhen]?

I said, the holiness of a Torah scroll [kedushas Sefer Torah] stands there good things? One believes that the words are transmitted from Sinai [menushal mi-Sinai]? What does it matter who wrote it? What did he think while writing [beshes’n shraybn]?

Is it magic when one writes with a quill [krima] angels [malokhim] come into the words, and other angels don’t come. I hold very strongly of angels, but I want to show him the angels. Someone who doesn’t respect the Divine name [Shem], wrote it, makes it that the one who reads already…

Yes, the flow of the riddle [shefa khidah] can be there are others, can be it’s simply because one doesn’t trust that he goes, it’s assumed to show the part. Can be there is yes, because one trusts him that he makes…

Okay, ask the rabbis what they hold the status [din] of a robot. Presumably [mistama] also not. But he also doesn’t have any good thoughts [makhshoves]. Not false, he doesn’t have any good, he doesn’t have any thoughts [makhshoves]. Perhaps the question is on the person who makes the robot? I hold onto this, I’m a simple Jew, precisely the scribe [sofer].

When I read a Torah, I don’t have with the scribe [sofer], nothing the scribe [sofer] can already be dead. No, no. No, no. No, no, no, and he must sanctify for the Divine names [mekadesh zayn le-Shemos].

The Main Point: Sanctifying for the Divine Names

About this one speaks exactly, that the heretics [minim] don’t sanctify for the Divine names [mekadesh le-Shemos], because this is not something that one can check, it’s only because he doesn’t believe in it. Yes, sanctifying for the Divine names [mekadesh le-Shemos], but by him to say sanctifying for the Divine names [mekadesh le-Shemos] means nothing.

He sat with the same note that says in one valid for the sake of the holiness of the Divine name [lishmo kedushas ha-Shem], and he said it even also, but it’s by him to say, that has no meaning. That’s what one says, he can say, one took him and says for the sake of the holiness of the Divine name [lishmo kedushas ha-Shem], every time he went to the ritual bath [mikveh] before he wrote the Divine name [Shem]. But by him the whole thing is a game, he doesn’t believe in it. A livelihood [parnose], he makes money, why not? He gives a livelihood [parnose], because he doesn’t believe in it, and throw away his Torah.

Conversely: The Proof That It’s Not Magic

Conversely, from here one sees that it’s not magic. If it would have been magic, then anyone who intends [mekhaven] the correct intentions [kavonos], should have to come to the same processes [mahalakhim].

He says even intending [mekhaven] the intentions [kavonos], it doesn’t stand so because the heretic [min] doesn’t sanctify the Divine names [Shemos], he intends [mekhaven] the intentions [kavonos] also. The mystical intentions of Rabbi Shalom Sharabi [kavonos ha-Rashash] he intends [mekhaven] when he makes the Torah, but he doesn’t believe in the intentions of Rabbi Shalom Sharabi [kavonos ha-Rashash]. I can intend [mekhaven] without believing, I think so, I think so, I do something.

The Answer: What One Puts In Is What One Gets Out

The Resolution and Discussion: Objectivity and Da’as

The resolution is, what I mean is, I don’t see it clearly, everyone understands, that what one takes out from something has to do truly with what one is truly going to receive from it has to do with what one puts into it, or one doesn’t put in the right word here, with which way he felt, because then he caused it to fall after he grabbed it, and he sees it doesn’t work, now in his world, in his da’as (knowledge/consciousness), this is not a Sefer Torah, because one didn’t approach the Sefer Torah with a yakhas (relationship/attitude) that this is something special, this is not just an ordinary thing like she’ar ha-Torah (other ordinary things), this is a Sefer Torah, a holy Sefer Torah. Now, the Sefer Torah truly ceased being a Sefer Torah. The angels flew away.

Questions and Discussion: Objectivity and Da’as

Student:

We don’t know. We don’t know, we don’t know. What does that mean? How do we know that someone is a heretic? That must be true even when I don’t know. That’s still a question.

Instructor:

Very good. This is… very good. Very good. Here we come. The truth is the truth even if we don’t know. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything that is dependent on da’as. There are things there that follow. Right?

The Topic of Objectivity

We are very accustomed. This is the noyse (topic) of objectivity. One must become very clear. Someone heard me say the word objective. He thinks it doesn’t mean the same thing as other people mean by the word. Why? Because objective means it doesn’t go away when I stop believing in it. Very good.

But from that it doesn’t yet follow that there isn’t anything in the world that is dependent on a kind of yakhas (relationship) to it. Not…

Parable: As Water Reflects Face to Face

Again, I’ll tell you a moshel (parable). This is the parable that all those who inspire teshuvah (repentance) say, right? There is a klal (principle) of ka’mayim ha-ponim el ponim, ken lev ho-odom el ho-odom (as water reflects a face to a face, so does the heart of man to man), right?

Everyone knows, if I believe that you’re going to learn, you’re a fine young man, I don’t know, as a lecturer, I believe you’re a fine young man. You’re going to learn with my shiur (lecture), and I speak to you this way, with this relationship, not just that I believe in my head sitting at home, I speak to you that I do, I relate to you this way. You will often actually be a fine young man. If I believe that you’re not, I won’t be.

The Rationalist Objection

The philosophers come, the rationalists, they say, a person, the yesod (foundation), there is a foundation. Right? What is the foundation? The principle of rationalism, what does rationalism mean? Yes? What we all, the makhale (disease) that we all once had. Such a principle, it says mitsvas aseh (positive commandment), positive commandment, a mitsvah leha’amin bemah she-lo mukhakh (a commandment to believe in that which is not proven). Right? Does anyone agree with the positive and negative commandments? This part doesn’t appear anywhere in the entire Torah.

That this is what rationalism means, yes? Rationalism means that there is a positive commandment to believe in the truth, without other things that one can verify what is necessary, and a negative prohibition to believe in things that are not true, yes?

By the way, where does the prohibition come from? Which prohibition is it? Okay, another question, not for today. One must think about this, this is basic, which sin does one commit? What is wrong? Think, what is the right reality? Do something to me. Will the Almighty be angry? Who will be angry? Okay, in any case, there is an answer to this.

The William James Conflict

Regarding our matter, yes, the prohibition, I ask you, the one who is very strict about the prohibition, in a certain sense, by the way, there is a contradiction, this is a discussion of William James that we already mentioned, there is a contradiction between the two, between “seeking truth” right?

Just as the one who is very stringent about the mitzvah of “seeking,” to know everything that is true, he will often go out of his way to believe things that are possibly not true. And the one who is very stringent more about the mitzvah of “not,” of not believing things that are not true, he will often possibly not believe things that are indeed true.

What is it that he wants to throw away a crumb of truth? The Shinover Rebbe said that he said the truth this way, or the opposite, what’s the difference? Just because there is a crumb of truth in it, he buys the whole thing. Because there is a crumb of falsehood, he throws away the whole sack of truth.

Student:

Yes, that’s really very good, very good. I’m going to write down “written on the side of the wild believe man in the book.” And this is the aspect of the story of the Shinover Rebbe.

Instructor:

And now you can stop saying about this, and it’s a story of the Shinover Rebbe. Which one held what, do you remember? Why? The Shinover Rebbe loved truth very much, and the Gerer Rebbe hated falsehood very much. Ah, that’s the difference. Yes, very good. Well done.

So this is the dispute, I’ll catch that it won’t be. Okay, but let’s go back to where I want to go.

The Practical Question: Believing in One’s Wife

I want to tell you, if someone is careful about the positive and negative commandments, that a rationalistic person, he’s a normal person, not open to everything. Very good. Now I ask, one asks him, what should you believe? Should you believe that your wife loves you? Should you believe that she doesn’t love you?

Limits of Rationalism: Faith, Decision, and Creating Reality

The Problem with the Extreme Rationalist Approach

Instructor:

No, the past is different, and more so the future. Often, I know people who are so rationalistic, and he has a problem believing. One tells him, Rebbe Nachman says, judge favorably, he will become favorable. Yes, I know Rebbe Nachman. Ask him, what does that mean, where is the justification for it? What is the justification? Perhaps he is wicked? He says, afterwards, believe that the righteous person will become righteous. But with what will I believe? He is possibly wicked. Yes, you understand that the world doesn’t work that way.

In the world there are many things, it’s very interesting, there is no solution from rationalism. One must find other solutions for the question. I once gave an entire shiur about this, about how this is the Rambam (Maimonides), the Rambam, one who thinks good, will be good. Chapter four, remember, there was a shiur that the Tzemach Tzedek (third Chabad Rebbe) himself says that he took this from the Rambam. Anyway, very good.

What I’m saying is, that there are questions, perhaps most questions, perhaps the more interesting questions. This is literally, I’m just saying his discussion. There are the more interesting questions in life, these are questions that one cannot decide with the calculation and reasoning of believing only what is necessary and not believing what is not necessary. One must find completely different principles that should say what to believe and what not to believe.

Parable of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I’ll tell you a parable, with this one can understand, it’s very important to understand. With this one can understand why it does, there was a wicked person, right? Understand? Just anyone wants to teach Jews the day. What does what I’m saying mean? No, I want to bring this out.

What does one want to believe that the Palestinians want peace, and the Israelis, the Jews, don’t want peace? Or the opposite? What is the truth? I strongly believed in my youth to think that when the Jews lay down their weapons… they’ll die from the rabbi, a Palestinian loves robbing weapons, everyone lives in peace, so say the Jews. You want to tell me exactly the opposite, the group, you can speak with us, they have proofs with testimony, with documents, one has already found what it says in the first, some memory. They believe exactly the opposite, not that they say, I have a group that says also, but the others say exactly the opposite, but whom should I believe?

The Impossibility of Objective Perspective

What? Because I should be in between? I want to clarify to you, let’s be clear. I will never look at the history from outside, okay? I have a proof, most non-Jews who look at the history from outside, I don’t know, one comes this way, one cannot say that everyone who looks from outside. There is no such thing as looking from outside by the way, there is no such thing. It’s not possible, I know something like every story exactly fairly.

You must remember, I cannot enter into the problems of the knowledge of this, there are problems. I have seen several Jews and non-Jews who say, he has a list, he has no pride for any time. One will tell the story. First of all, it’s not possible, and human things, so much politics, there is so much information, so much…

What do the Jews want? I don’t know, how many Jews are there? How many opinions? Every Jew thinks one way in the morning and another way in the afternoon, what does it mean the Jews want? It’s not a thing at all, it’s not… I don’t know if there is truth about this.

But it does make a practical difference what one believes, right? The one who believes this way, he says, consequently one should do this way, consequently he will conduct himself this way, one will send money at this time. The one who believes the opposite, he will send money at the opposite time, right? This is real, one can… I want to bring out, one cannot… But however far one is from the world, you cannot be exempt and say, one remains with a doubt that one doesn’t know, one remains with a doubt.

Why Neutrality Is Not an Option

That would still be an option. When one doesn’t know, okay, one has no opinion about it. I’m neutral, I’m called Switzerland. What’s wrong? Because it’s wrong to be neutral. Why? What does why mean? Because if there is a… first first first before that it could be that people are dying on that side, also is wickedness.

That means, on the assumption that you are a Jew and you must support the Jews, you say I’m neutral because I’m very careful about the prohibition of don’t believe something that isn’t clear, very nice. And what about the prohibition of and you shall believe in your brother? Is also not a prohibition. I understand, that is only on the assumption that they are right, but there are more emergencies, not everything can one…

Example of Science and Torah

The same thing as marriage, but this is William’s parable. One cannot on every thing. If there is a way, on things that we can say, how much does it say? Before I think, for example, most questions that people are worried about science and Torah, I say I don’t know, it doesn’t bother me.

In the sense of how many days did it take the Almighty to create the world? I don’t know, I’m not obligated to have a decision. It’s an interesting investigation, learning the simple meaning in the Torah, learning science, learning science to answer also. I’m not, perhaps I’m wrong, but there is, there is.

When One Must Decide

That means, if one keeps Shabbos, that I understand. I must decide to say Kiddush (Sabbath blessing) tomorrow, I must know if one says Kiddush. But what does one have in mind at Kiddush? A Jew will say what he understands. I don’t see that it’s the thing, I don’t see. It’s not actual, it’s not an existential question to me.

Perhaps other people think differently, because they say from this it follows, but I cannot enter into this. There are very many questions that one can say, but the problem, when one has come to learn that topic, one will come. But there are many questions that one cannot say so.

The Problem with Agnosticism in Practical Matters

I must decide if I’m going to keep Shabbos, and by the way, there is another way also, I can about. Let’s keep Shabbos, but always remember that there is a possibility that there is no Shabbos. Hello? It’s not a way of life. I mean, it’s a choice. Just be clear, that’s also a choice, right? He is an agnostic. An agnostic is a choice.

I make a joke to keep Shabbos, but so coldly, a pity, you could have kept Shabbos warmly. Are you afraid? So one must speak with the prohibition of don’t believe bad things, if he is indeed careful if he is a… It’s not a solution, but the words, one can decide to be undecided, and that itself also has a price, and one must judge that itself.

Main Thesis: Faith Creates Reality

So back to where I hear, it comes out that the interesting question is, now what I want from this whole thing is, that what truth means what is not dependent on my decision, doesn’t yet mean that there is truth that is indeed dependent on my decision. There are things, and it will happen after I decide, so in other words.

One Who Believes in Shabbos, Has Pleasure in Shabbos

One who believes in Shabbos, has pleasure in Shabbos. Yes? A Jew believes in holiness, he will have genuine pleasure. I’m not speaking, I’m speaking here about you now. Shabbos will genuinely have pleasure, not he will fool himself.

Let’s understand, when I believe that Shabbos is a holy day of the entire week, Shabbos will be for me a holy day of the entire week. Not that I believe, let’s say, it’s not the same thing, it’s not if I believe. I believe that Shabbos is holy, I will believe that Shabbos is holy. No, Shabbos will actually be holy.

Example of Relationships

Just as when I believe that my wife loves me, she will actually love me. Obviously, because I will act toward her this way, and she will act back toward me. She does such things, she makes her decision.

A Wondrous Thing: Objects Respond to Your Relationship

The same thing, the objects in the world, by the way, this is a wondrous thing. Not only do people react to your decision, to your relationships, also objects react to your relationships. Did you know something about this? You don’t believe me? Try it out.

Student:

[unclear]

Instructor:

No, when one relates to them, I believe that the plant can grow, and I take care of it, it can flourish. If I believe that in this piece of marble lies a statue, I can bring out the statue from it. If I don’t believe in it, I cannot. Right?

It was true before, it wasn’t true, it was a true potential. Yes, it must have been, it can be possible. If it’s possible, it doesn’t help. I agree that impossible things don’t help to believe. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any things that I believe about them, makes them holy. Makes it speak back to me, not just people.

The Problem with Rationalists and Relationships

About people everyone understands that it’s so. Although, very many rationalistic people are stuck with people about this. I say, judge favorably, and they think everyone that I mean you’re a fool, what is your favorable judgment. Obviously I don’t mean think such foolishness, I mean that they should conduct themselves this way.

You will see, it’s an interesting thing, the one who smiles at people, usually they will smile back. It’s a wondrous thing. Why does it smile at them? I make an assumption, and perhaps he actually hates me? I just he actually hates me, but I smile anyway, because tomorrow he will hate me less. It helps, right?

Prophecy and Predictive Processing

And people are such and such things, this is an interesting thing. It has to do with prophecy, with prediction, predictive processing. Very many things that are natural.

Student:

Okay, one minute, one minute, let’s go… wait.

Learning a Book: Faith, Relationship, and the Mechanism of the Holiness of the Book

Critique and Response: The Logic of Determined Truth

Response to the Student’s Question

Instructor:

No, no, true, we say everything is a limit, everything is a limit if it’s possible, but very many things…

Student:

No, no, true, I agree, there are very many limits, every thing has very many limits, one can’t take, every thing a person can say, granted people say, the power of attraction, I can dream that I’m a wealthy person, I’m who a wealthy person, no, you also have to work.

Instructor:

But the one who didn’t dream to be a wealthy person, almost never became a wealthy person, almost, it happens by mistake to make people, but almost not, right?

The Necessity of Other Virtues

There’s much more, I bring this out because I speak with rationalistic people who are very stuck on this. Especially on the future, that is potential things that aren’t yet, and there’s difficulty. Why should I believe this person? Why should I be his friend? Why should I love him?

You must love him now. And people have a problem that loving is already a reaction. I can’t just love. I love because of what they do. I don’t know, perhaps the Almighty can love things because of what they do. I love a person, I smile at someone because it makes me… where is the air conditioning? Because it makes me happy to see him. But it doesn’t make me happy. So why do I smile at him?

Should one go there? One air conditioning. Because of what they do? No, he took it away. I mean he took it away. I can even speak with him. I mean he took it away. Do you understand what I’m saying?

So there’s a real problem with this, and there’s no solution except something else. One must find other virtues, not the virtue of believing only what is true and not believing what isn’t true, which should tell us what to believe. Right?

Student:

⟦#3⟧

Back to the Main Topic: Halacha and Truth

Instructor:

Okay. Let’s return to our topic. No, very good. Let’s return to our topic. Let’s return to our topic. You already believe in this, but it’s a fact, you don’t need to believe in it. This is a fact. It’s a fact, you didn’t make it.

Student:

No.

Instructor:

Yes, it’s not a public fact. I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Now, let’s return to our topic. Okay? Let’s return to our topic, very good. Because we say, what we say, what we say, makes it. The halacha is people who say. What is the halacha? People say. Let’s return to our topic, very good. What’s the difference? What does it matter to me? The halacha says, do it, because the halacha is dependent on what the halacha says, doesn’t make it false.

The Logical Error

You have an interesting decision, an interesting principle, which is an error. It’s in my opinion a basic mistaken logic. You say that because truth must be a thing that isn’t… only truth, the whole truth doesn’t lie in what I decide, that isn’t truth, the truth must lie outside of me or else it isn’t truth, therefore you’ve made a jump and you say therefore there can’t be any truth whatsoever that is determined by what I decide. Right?

These are two different things. I say that there are things, and I want to know what the things are. I agree. You know what? Perhaps that halacha is an error.

Learning a Book: Faith, Relationship, and the Mechanism of the Holiness of the Book

Critique and Response: The Logic of Determined Truth

Response to the Student’s Question

Instructor:

You have an interesting decision, an interesting principle which is an error, it’s a basic mistaken logic. You say that because truth must be things that isn’t only truth, the whole truth lies in what I decide, that isn’t truth, the truth must lie outside of me, or else it isn’t truth. Therefore you’ve made a jump, you say therefore there can’t be any truth whatsoever that is determined by what I decide. Right?

In two different things. I say that there are things. You want to know what the things are? Perhaps that halacha is an error, it’s only an illustration. I have no account of what you just said, I didn’t have it. This is only an argument, by the way, this is only an argument. I must show what you’re saying. I heard this from people who learned this out, so I’ll say it again to you. Do you understand? I didn’t think of it. This isn’t the drama that you’re saying. I told you from me, I took it.

This is William James’s teachings. More or less. There are such sorts of truth, and very many, not all, very many, as you said, it still doesn’t mean that I can decide that you’re a cow, or even that you’re a female, I don’t know anymore, perhaps there’s a dispute among the halachic authorities about it, it’s not so simple, but not everything can one decide. But very many things one can indeed decide, not that one can decide and the decision is what you remain with, you can decide, and afterwards the reality will be formed according to that. Okay?

Can Truth Change?

Student:

I don’t understand, this means truth can change, a thing can happen, the table can be broken. It’s true that it’s a table, this is surely permanent, these are all philosophical problems, I only bring it out on the table. Can truth change?

Instructor:

Yes, truth can’t change, but in the world there are many things that aren’t truth, and meanwhile they can change. And part of where they change, one of the ways how people change, people are intellectual creatures, one of the ways how people change things is through believing that they are different. It’s a fact.

Predictive Processing: A Cognitive-Scientific Proof

The Theory of Predictive Coding

Almost most things, in practice, in the field, there’s a theory that’s called, and you can look it up, there’s a theory in one of today’s most current theories about how human cognition works, called predictive processing. Predictive coding and predictive processing. And predictive processing has many proofs. The reasoning, I have a friend who worked on this at university once, and he showed me actual experiments, I don’t remember the clear proofs anymore, but predictive processing says that when a person does something, he always does it because he believes it’s already happened.

How It Works: The Example of Moving the Hand

It’s an interesting thing. In other words, he says, when I move my hand – and they have proofs, there are actually interesting experiments that one can see – when I move my hand, how do I move my hand? The way how it works in the brain, not in the structure of the cognition of the person, it works that I believe that my hand is already there, and my body has a tendency to go as I already believe.

That is, the question, granted can I move the wall? No. There must still be some control. There must indeed be some level of control, but still one can be mistaken. Sometimes a person thinks, I don’t remember the details, but I can explain the teaching of how it works, that the prediction, first one predicts, and afterwards one makes that the world should match the prediction. Not first I look, and afterwards I make a decision to move and it moves.

One of the proofs is that one sees that the feeling of moving is already before the moving. Yes, one can see that they tested something with people that they know that they’re moving even before they decided. Not only before they moved, before they decided. The decision to move is a result of the belief that you’ve moved. That’s a reasoning.

And, okay, it’s one of the… what? I don’t know, this is how cognition, how action works. This is a teaching, and I’m not an expert in this teaching, I’m only saying that it’s a very useful teaching. For your body, not for someone else’s body. I understand. Something… don’t make magic now.

Expansion to Larger Life Matters

From Body Movement to Emotional Relationships

But what it brings out is, that this teaching, what we say this teaching, is also expanded very much to larger things. That is, I love my wife after I believe that I already love her. And afterwards, my body, all other actions align themselves to what I already believe.

The Danger of Misuse

So, there’s a problem. One can ruin every thing. One can believe things that are complete fantasy, oneself and masks. Every thing there’s a question, every thing there’s a husk, how one does it wrongly, it’s understood.

The Main Foundation: Truth Outside of Yourself

But what I only bring out is, let’s be very clear, that believing must only be things that aren’t true before you believed them, doesn’t mean that there are things that become true because you believed them, and they become true not. If you believe, it becomes true outside of yourself. This is my main foundation. The foundation is great in Torah, and I mean that this is true Torah learning. It’s not clear matters.

Back to the Main Topic: What Does Learning a Book Mean

Learning Is Not Scanning

Which is a very fine thing. One minute, very good. When one says such a foundation, one still doesn’t say… one can’t dance with this, one still can’t say about this that I think that the wall becomes closer, it actually becomes closer. Okay, everything is understandable.

Now, I want however to go back and return to what we said. Now, you want to talk about a book, right? Let’s go back. A book doesn’t mean, we also said this before the previous October. Learning a book doesn’t mean to make a copy of the pictures in the book in my brain. This is what a scanner machine does, not what a human brain does, okay? This is not why any human being reads a book. It’s not what it means, true? Only an error, we have many times the image of what it means. It wants the end, one should say, one understands this is the picture of what it means. It doesn’t mean this.

Learning Is a Relationship

Learning a book means that I want through the book to come out, to receive from it, it should tell me. I say it as if I give the book agency, because there’s no better way. It doesn’t mean that the book has agency, it’s controlled perhaps entirely by me, but in practice it does something, true? I receive something from it, not only I give something from it. If not one should simply ask like this, I can’t learn anything from a book, because a book is a dead thing, it doesn’t do anything. No, a book does something, according to all opinions a book does something, right?

What the Book Does Is Dependent on You

The question is how much it does. Now I tell you a simple thing, that it’s necessary in reality, everyone who has learned with a book knows, that what a book does is dependent on what you do to it. If you are connected to the Rebbe, the Rebbe has given, if you are connected to the book.

Proofs from the Holy Books: Honor for the Book

Kissing the Book After Learning

From this it says in all the holy books, that whoever kisses the book after learning, will better remember the learning. And you know that it’s tried and tested that this works? It’s not a joke.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger: Beautiful Papers and Margins

It says in Rabbi Akiva Eiger, there was the Divrei Chaim, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger said that everyone brings the responsa of Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his introduction, that he wrote that one should print his book on beautiful papers, with beautiful margins, with beautiful graphics, because one learns better this way, true?

The Efodi: The Holiness of the Torah Lies in the Font

This comes from the holy book, the Efodi, who was called Rabbi Yitzchak Duran, they called him the prophet, they forced him to become Christian and such. He wrote a book Ma’aseh Efod, and there he explains, and with this he explains the holiness of the Torah.

This is a piece of culture, whoever comes to the introduction of the book Ma’aseh Efod, from Rabbi Yitzchak was he called? The Efodi, the author of Efodi. He wrote a book on grammar, a very beautiful book on grammar, on the letters, on the words of the Torah. He explains that the world has no appreciation for the words of the Torah. One only learns the content, one doesn’t appreciate the words, the grammar, the form of the letters.

And there he explains in his introduction, that because of this one of the virtues of learning, one of the conditions of learning, is reading in Assyrian script. Assyrian script doesn’t mean the funny letters that one has in a Torah scroll, it means to say beautiful, originally this was beautiful, and today the style is different, the font. And one looks at a Torah scroll, in this lies the holiness of a Torah scroll lies in the font, not only in the content. Because then you have such a relation, you receive with this, you speak differently. You place it into a holy ark, you place it into a… you sing before it, because one brings it, like his, “praise the name of God” or what one should be able to better understand the learning.

Book and Rebbe: The Same Structure

The Parallel Between Book and Rebbe

It’s exactly like when one speaks to a human Rebbe and one gives him honor, the Rebbe will in practice give back honor, in practice the learning will be better. There’s a relationship, learning one learns in a relationship, and how one loves each other, and one understands each other, and one respects each other, one learns better. Simple, this is simply simple.

Learning from a Book Is Also a Relationship

Learning from a book is also a relationship. It’s a different relationship where you have even more control. When there’s a living Rebbe, this is indeed it, it’s a deficiency of a book. A deficiency can never give a slap on the head and say, listen quickly to the lesson. No, the book can’t do this, therefore it’s a deficiency of a book.

The Same Necessities and Honors

But all the… the necessities that one must have when one learns from a Rebbe must also, all honors that one must have for a Rebbe must also have for a book. I don’t know it says in the Gemara that one must speak more for a Rebbe than a book, I was told. But for a book one must also stand up. True, people are in those matters that stand only for the book, they should have no Rebbe. A Rebbe is better than a book.

The Same Basic Way

But a book and a Rebbe work the same way. You speak nicely with the book, it speaks nicely to you. You take seriously, it says, you will also speak more seriously. True, when the Rebbe when one doesn’t take him seriously, he speaks to the thing. When one takes him seriously, he thinks for a Rebbe. The book also thinks for speaks, when you take it seriously, and when not it doesn’t think for speaks.

Ah, this is the wonder, it can’t change. The book remains the same horse, so, it’s more limited. A Rebbe works it better than with a book, but it still works in the same basic way.

The Main Foundation: Fear of Honor and Faith in the Sages

Tried and Tested: Fear of Honor Brings Better Learning

Because of this it’s tried and tested that one who approaches a book with fear of honor, which includes by the way the more beautiful fear of honor that they said, both that he takes every word seriously, and both that he believes.

What Does It Mean to Believe in the Holiness of the Book?

What does it mean to believe in the holiness of the book by the way? I told you, it’s a language of the Rambam, it’s the book is not like other things, via negativa that I say for myself, right? This is all the mind, it’s magic, my children say…

It’s Circular, But Not Tautological

It’s circular, it’s circular, just as circular when I love my wife she loves me this is circular, but it’s not circular in the sense that it’s tautological. It’s circular in the sense that what I decide how I approach it doesn’t come from me, it comes from it. When I approach a book with fear of honor, then…

Critique of Rationalism

The Question That Rationalists Cannot Solve

Very good, and this is indeed the question that the rationalists cannot solve, and with this they never learn anything. Therefore to be a rationalist is a great sin, and one doesn’t even fulfill one’s own commandment, because the commandment of learning the truth one cannot fulfill as long as one is too accepting, one shouldn’t learn something that perhaps doesn’t stand there. One should never never learn, one should always be suspicious.

Suspicion: A Virtue in Its Place

Learning with Reverence: The Mechanism of Holiness and the Difference Between Books

The Parable of Torah That Reacts to the Learner

The Torah says to them: You’re not learning me seriously? You’re not learning me seriously? Well, problem. You have some jokes, you have some foolishness, go do them. And that person then does them, he says after all it’s written in the Torah. The Chida [Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai, kabbalist and halachic authority, 1724-1806] says: They make Purim out of him.

True. Just like a rebbe – there are rebbes where I do this too. There’s a person, I go in, he comes in, I play around, I make him some kind of joke, I look at the lowest level many times. The same – me’ot tisha bikesh bo nidon [me’ot tisha bikesh bo nidon: “the coins of nine bikesh bo nidon” – a Talmudic expression]. It’s not a problem, I can switch back, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s not serious. You want that? Well, problem. I don’t have time, I have no complaint against you, I’m not angry. That’s the reality.

A Book Must Also Do Something So You Should Learn From It

And this is also true about a book. Certainly, a book is more limited. You say that a book can react less than a rebbe, but a book must still do something so that you should learn something from it. Does it do that.

If you approach this with yirat hakavod [yirat hakavod: respect, honor], which means:

First of all – you take seriously all the words in it.

And secondly – what does it mean that it says kedusha [kedusha: holiness], it’s not kishe’ar hadevarim [kishe’ar hadevarim: like other things]? It means that it gives you a better view of the world than you had until now. That’s the meaning, right?

The Skyscraper Parable: Two Levels of Learning

What does kedusha mean? Transcendence, you said. Transcendence – I don’t know the word, in literal translation I know what it means, but in the context that you mean to bring out is that there’s a person who says:

There are two ways of learning a shiur or a book:

One way is to say that he’s saying more or less what I already know, maybe he adds another detail, another piece of information that I didn’t know.

And a second level is to say that the rebbe looks at the world from a different level. Understand?

That is, there are two people who go to a skyscraper, they’re next to a skyscraper, yes?

There’s one who stands on the first floor, and someone comes and tells him that there’s a second floor. One is there on the first floor, and he says: I see, there’s a second floor. It’s no information at all. That’s the meaning of kishe’ar hadevarim. Another floor, okay. There’s one floor, on top of that another floor. Okay, I understand, it makes sense.

Then there’s a second one who says: Look, from the second floor the world looks different than it looks from the first floor. Besides that, because you’re standing on the first floor, one can go deeper into the parable, and one must first climb up to the first floor, and one must actually climb up, and it has some connection to the first floor, but the second floor sees the world differently. Right?

The one who learns this way, that means he learns with kedusha, with yirat hakavod, with respect, “transcendent respect”. Because he says: It could be that I think that the rebbe – not that he’s telling me more things that I already know, that I just don’t know, but it’s still on my level. He’s telling me a different way to look.

The Difference Between Poetry and Information

Therefore we’ll say that if someone reads “poetry” or so on – he doesn’t read it in order to know another piece of information, he reads it in order to change the way he learns the world, the way he looks at this.

One can say to change oneself, but not to change oneself alone – he does the pe’ula [pe’ula: action, deed]. The rebbe does it. If you let him. If you don’t let him, he won’t do it for you. Simple? It’s clear.

Back to the Topic: Reb Simcha Is Still an Am Ha’aretz

Back to the topic. It comes out… one minute, let me finish it. No, these are devarim berurim [devarim berurim: clear things] for me. I mean that it’s true. And with this is answered, not completely answered, but it’s part of the teirutz [teirutz: answer] to the problems that very many people have about this. And the teirutz is that he’s still an am ha’aretz [am ha’aretz: an unlearned person].

Now, I want to say, now – there are many people, I mean that it lies in the “mistake”. I wanted to say that he’s “wrong”. That’s what I wanted to say. I want to explain with what he’s “wrong”, and b’mah devarim teluyim [b’mah devarim teluyim: on what it depends].

The “joke” that I wanted to say before the shiur is truly the whole shiur. I learned myself out, it’s techilatan shel talmidei chachamim [techilatan shel talmidei chachamim: the beginning of Torah scholars]. So, the… little by little one will understand this too, one won’t need to say the whole shiur.

The Secret of Kabbalah: We Make the Heaven

The… people have a problem, because about this, people have a problem, let’s understand, people have a problem. The emunah [emunah: faith], that is kabbalah [kabbalah: the mystical Torah], yes?

Today I said a shiur al HaBaal Shem Tov [al HaBaal Shem Tov: about the Baal Shem Tov]. Do I have time now? I want time with this. I mean no, I didn’t have time. Today I said a shiur, and I can teach out a shiur.

The Foundation: Three Approaches About Heaven and Human Action

Mekubalim [mekubalim: kabbalists] are those who grasped the “secret”, that we make the heaven, but that doesn’t mean there’s no heaven. Okay? A very great secret.

Most people think there are two options:

Either – there’s a heaven that the Almighty made, the Almighty will bring Mashiach, the Almighty will bring the Beit HaMikdash [Beit HaMikdash: the Holy Temple], it should fall from heaven, as Rashi [Rashi: Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105] says, and it has nothing to do with us, maybe we need to do teshuva [teshuva: repentance], but not that we make it after we do teshuva.

The second people say: Almighty, I don’t know if there’s such a thing. What we make in the world, that exists.

Ba hakatuv hashlishi [ba hakatuv hashlishi: comes the third verse] and says, the mekubalim: There’s a heaven, and people make it. Understand? That’s the “exact” point that I want to explain here in this way. There’s a heaven – in other words, both Rashi and the Rambam [Rambam: Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, Maimonides, 1138-1204] are right.

The Ishbitzer Rebbe: Jews Build the Beit HaMikdash in Heaven

So says the Ishbitzer Rebbe [the Ishbitzer Rebbe: Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner, 1800-1854]. The Jews will build the Beit HaMikdash, and through that it will come from heaven. The Jews will build the Beit HaMikdash in heaven. Crazy, why? We can only build in the world? We can make the Beit HaMikdash of fire [fire] too.

How do you think it’s so hard to make the Beit HaMikdash of fire? But Moshe Rabbeinu [Moshe Rabbeinu: Moses our Teacher] did this. It’s written in the Torah portion, yes? He went into the Beit HaMikdash and he prayed, and he prayed, and he had a hit’orerut [hit’orerut: an awakening]. Shlomo HaMelech [Shlomo HaMelech: King Solomon], they all did this. Yes, yes, certainly.

This is a Chassidic Torah. This is what all the teachers taught. This is proper kabbalah.

Sources: The Book “Ad B’Nachal” and “Zera Kodesh”

And it’s written, the first place where it’s written, I checked, is in the book “Ad B’Nachal” [the book “Ad B’Nachal”: a Chassidic book] in Parshat Va’etchanan [Parshat Va’etchanan: Torah portion]. Look, it’s written for me on some note here. And he brings, it’s also in “Zera Kodesh” [the book “Zera Kodesh”: a Chassidic book]. It’s not from the Tzanzer Rav the story. Even before that it’s already written in “Zera Kodesh” that story.

The story, as you tell it, is written in “Zera Kodesh” Parshat Ki Tavo [Parshat Ki Tavo: Torah portion], “ki tivneh bayit chadash” [ki tivneh bayit chadash: “when you build a new house” – verse from the Torah]. That the rebbe, I mean it’s going to speak about Lublin [Lublin: the Chozeh of Lublin] apparently, he saw that he had already built the Beit HaMikdash, and all that’s missing is the parochet [parochet: the curtain], and it comes to the front and it’s torn from some aveira [aveira: sin], some such point.

No, yes, yes, very good.

Most People Cannot Tolerate the Secret

And now, what I want to bring out from this is that here, people are, most people cannot tolerate [tolerate: cannot bear] the secret. That’s the problem. Most people are flesh and blood.

And most people believe only one of the two things:

– Either what we call “everything is subjective”, as you say: I was convinced that this is holy, so I think it’s holy, but there’s nothing more in it than that;

– Or it’s holy and it has nothing to do with what I think.

The problem is that both are only half of the truth.

Reb Simcha’s Search for a Proof: Mesillat Yesharim Against Aristotle

And not only that, but there’s an even deeper question that certainly the public cannot tolerate, but about this, most people search all the time, as Reb Simchale [Reb Simcha Bunim Urbach] says: He searched for a proof [proof] to the fact that the “Mesillat Yesharim” [Mesillat Yesharim: book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Ramchal, 1707-1746] is holier than Aristotle [Aristotle: Greek philosopher, 384-322 BCE].

He needed a proof for this, because he wanted to believe this. And he had a different stronger one, he truly took out, he truly took out something different, he took out from “Mesillat Yesharim” what he took out from Aristotle, truly.

Why? I say, he meant because he said to himself: because Aristotle didn’t have as much content [content] as “Mesillat Yesharim”, or as much kedusha.

The truth is not the avoda [avoda: work]. The truth is that he didn’t have any derech eretz [derech eretz: respect, proper conduct]. What can one do that Aristotle won’t learn with him. What can one do that Aristotle won’t learn with whoever doesn’t have derech eretz? Certainly he didn’t think any Mesillat Yesharim.

Discussion About Culture and Derech Eretz

Student: What are you holding onto?

Maggid Shiur: Certainly. Certainly. Certainly. Certainly he thought. I don’t know what he thought, but what, there’s a difference, this is another whole shiur about “cultures”, that he can hear a shiur of the Seventeenth of Tammuz [Seventeenth of Tammuz: a fast day] in Lakewood [Lakewood: a large yeshiva in New Jersey] and understand that topic, and mevin yilmad davar mitoch davar [mevin yilmad davar mitoch davar: an understanding person will learn one thing from another].

There’s a difference that a Jew doesn’t need to learn Aristotle, that’s true. One can perhaps learn everything seriously, everything with a shiur. But… and also, it’s a certain “practice”. I mean, learning seriously means learning the shiur four times, and reviewing [reviewing: chazering, repeating] and reviewing. He didn’t do that. He tried the second time.

The Gadol of Minsk and Chovot HaLevavot: A Story

The second time he learned “Mesillat Yesharim”, he saw a fire.

There’s a book by the Gadol of Minsk [the Gadol of Minsk: the Great One of Minsk], Reb Leibel Perler he was called. I’ll even tell you more. The Gadol of Minsk, was he called? A Lithuanian tzaddik, a Lithuanian gadol. Do you know who I mean?

Student: Reb Yerucham [Rabbi Yerucham Levovitz, mashgiach of Mir Yeshiva, 1873-1936]?

Maggid Shiur: Who? A mekubal he was. A Gadol of Minsk they called him. There’s a book called “HaGadol MiMinsk”, that’s what the book is called, and it was written by his gabbai [gabbai: attendant, helper]. A very first-hand account of a former Lithuanian rav, a Lithuanian iluy [iluy: genius], what he thought.

The Story with Chovot HaLevavot

And there it says that one day he had some yerida [yerida: a fall], he lost his job, I don’t remember, something didn’t go well in learning. He wasn’t formulas, he was a normal, old-fashioned Litvak [Litvak: Lithuanian Jew]. He didn’t understand at all why a rav needs to do something. He understood that a rav is someone who’s paid to learn, and that was a havana [havana: understanding] of rabbanut [rabbanut: rabbinate]. And he writes there that he grasped a teshuva.

What does a Jew do when he has some tzara [tzara: trouble]? He took to learning mussar [mussar: ethical literature], he thought maybe to do teshuva. He tells it like this, very cute, very openly, as a person speaks about himself, so he tells it.

And he says: He began learning Chovot HaLevavot [Chovot HaLevavot: “Duties of the Hearts”, book by Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Pakuda, 11th century]. He says, what should he do? He’s a Litvak. He began learning Chovot HaLevavot. The Chovot HaLevavot makes a list, he says six reasons [reasons: sibbot, grounds]. He never thought of this. Six? I think that the three and the four are the same thing. That’s all he grasped.

He grasped that probably [probably: mistama, likely] the book didn’t come to make the lamdanut [lamdanut: Talmudic sharpness] whether it’s really six or four. What will come out? You see, that’s what I’m telling you.

Reb Simcha’s Reaction

Reb Simcha says: Crazy? The Chovot HaLevavot in every letter [letter: ot] something stands. Certainly, if you go or to that one, and such a man and such a tzaddik, I don’t know such a tzaddik, I don’t know such an iluy, such a chacham [chacham: wise person] as him, he didn’t hear that the Chovot HaLevavot was any, as you say, any basic book that one learns with yirat hakavod.

He looked: ah, a nice book, it makes a list, but one can still say differently. He doesn’t see what is the real one. Understand that this is the difference.

The Conclusion: Objective + Subjective Together

But if he would have learned Chovot HaLevavot seriously, he would have seen, because Chovot HaLevavot is a very serious book. There are objectively [objectively] books where something stands in every word, that’s true. And there are objectively books where something stands only every fourth line.

But One Can Only Discover This When Reading Both With Reverence

But one can only discover this when reading both of them with yirat hakavod (reverence). If you don’t read either of them, both of them will mean nothing. If you read both with yirat hakavod, you will see that one of them, after you go back, it fits, it really says something in every word. The second one, perhaps through gematria (numerology), something stands in every word, but not there in every cheftza (object/entity).

So, with this I mean that he is wrong, and what he thinks that because he hasn’t seen it, it doesn’t exist. It does exist, but it only exists for the one who learns it with mesirut (dedication), the one who learns it with seriousness will indeed find it.

“Accept the Truth From Whoever Says It” – The True Explanation

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that in the books of the nations of the world one cannot learn with the same seriousness that we don’t learn it. I say, perhaps we don’t need to.

This has to do, now it goes back to what I said earlier, and I say it very strongly in brief, but on these questions there is no longer a question of emet v’sheker (truth and falsehood).

Regarding this, the Rambam is “kabeil et ha’emet mimi she’amro” (accept the truth from whoever says it), that we spoke about three years ago, it’s very polemical. Why? Why should we accept the truth? After I know that it’s true, then I need… three years? I mean that was three semesters ago, that means two years before that.

The Question on the Rambam

We spoke here that kabalat amito shel Omri (accepting the truth of Omri – a Talmudic expression) is not so simple. Now you understand at what level why is it not simple?

If you don’t know that it’s true, you don’t need kabalat amito shel Omri, right? The things that have already been understood are clearly true, they are true. You don’t need the Rambam to have said it.

How do you know that it’s true? The Rambam said kabalat amito shel Omri. How do you know kabalat amito shel Omri? Who said this? Perhaps a Muslim said it. We don’t know, perhaps it’s even Muhammad, it’s a mesorah (tradition) among the Muslims. In short, it’s a gentile statement, I don’t believe it.

It’s a difficulty, if you know that something is true, the most pious Jew agrees that it’s true, there’s no dispute about it, what is the question that the Rambam wants to truly decide with this principle of the world, and what were they explaining then?

The True Explanation: Faith and Seriousness

The question is something else. The question is: whether you should have faith in Aristotle, whether you should take seriously what he says. After you take it seriously, you will certainly find something true, and even find that it stands in some statement of Chazal (our Sages of blessed memory).

But if there is no emunah (faith), it is never utilized. And on this a Jew can very easily argue, and many Jews have argued this later, certainly, the kabbalists argued this very strongly…

Loyalty as a Foundation of Belief

Loyalty as an Epistemological Category

Teacher:

This is already a question of something called ne’emanut (loyalty), in English it’s called loyalty.

And here one can say that there are other positive character traits. There is a good character trait which is — if when your mother tells you, by the way, we know that there is a prohibition to believe lashon hara (negative speech about others)? There is also an obligation, because your mother tells me lashon hara? Do you want to believe it? Kibud av va’em (honoring one’s father and mother). Yes. Kabed et avicha ve’et imecha (honor your father and your mother). What kind of honor is it that his father says kabed et avicha ve’et imecha?

Student:

I don’t know, I don’t know.

Teacher:

Don’t tell me any Lithuanian-style lomdut (Talmudic analysis), it’s not written in the Lisbon Ramban (the Ramban/Nachmanides of Lisbon). I ask, it’s written in the Torah kabed et avicha ve’et imecha, true? Is it a kind of honor for a person that one doesn’t believe what he says?

Student:

He doesn’t know, I don’t believe.

Teacher:

I’m talking about, feeling that… Okay, I’m not talking… that you should believe, that you should start taking seriously, okay? What kind of honor is this? We’ve already spoken, ah, you have our dispute about honor as well, and that one doesn’t know. Okay, it’s according to his approach. Okay, but let’s say, we should relate to him, not say father, also, I don’t believe lashon hara. What does that mean? Also he said something, simply outrageous.

The Ramban and the Giving of the Torah at Sinai – A New Reading

This is the reason why Jews believe in Ma’amad Har Sinai (the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai). Everyone thinks that the Ramban said a foundation in epistemology. A father doesn’t tell lies to children, nonsense, a father tells a complete lie, I want a father to tell a complete lie to my children. So be it, but what he means more normally is that a child, it’s honoring their father.

It says in Jeremiah the prophet, “Go and cross to the coasts of Cyprus and see, send to Kedar and observe carefully, and see if there has been such a thing” (a paraphrase of Jeremiah 2:10-11). Yes, says Jeremiah the prophet, it’s not a human thing to change your father’s god. The Jews are inhuman, they are not only changing, they change even when it’s not true either. But a normal gentile keeps his father’s god. How did he get that it’s right? Truly honoring one’s father, minhag avoteinu b’yadeinu (the custom of our fathers is in our hands), says the Gemara, yes? The gentiles say, minhag avoteinu b’yadeinu, they give fathers to Jews to do things, they give fathers even to believe things.

What does this mean? If your father tells you a story, my grandfather was in the Holocaust for my father, you know that I don’t have any proof that it’s true? Do you have proof?

The Holocaust as a Modern Analogy

Do you think that for a gentile who comes from New Zealand — New Zealand is not a good proof — a gentile who comes from Thailand, in three hundred years or so, will have a reason to believe in the Holocaust? Ask yourself, the question is, objectively, he won’t. There are lists of evidence, they think already AI, everything is already erased, yes? There’s already nothing. Even today there’s no good evidence. Yes. Until it’s accepted by the objective standard, that the reason why we will believe in it, is because our grandfathers told it. He says that he was there, I know my grandfather, not everything he says is one hundred percent, it’s precise from the story of the Holocaust, and his neighbor from the same town told that the story was exactly the opposite. Who should I believe? I must be outrageous not to believe my grandfather, yes? This is basic, here is already the law.

The Kotzker Rebbe: Disqualification of Relatives

And you should ask how much, there are laws, when did the Kotzker Rebbe say, that not why is a person not taken to testify as a witness his relative? Because it’s called people, yes, the Torah crowns, not the emotions, the good character traits. Not the emotions.

The Distinction Between “Believing” and “Knowing”

I’m not saying that I already believe, I have certainty. See? I’m saying something very different. I’m saying that there is a mitzvah (commandment) to believe, to conduct myself as if I believe, let’s say. Believe, you should ask if it happened? I don’t know. But if you ask me as a Jew, certainly I say that it happened, not the emotions, the emotions mean it’s a framework in which I will believe. I say this… certainly!

Student:

No, no, it’s a good character trait, it’s accepted by humanity, I don’t know where it comes from, everything, where it comes from from God, ultimately, it’s everything.

Teacher:

Certainly, it’s a mitzvah from one person one must not believe. But on the contrary, you will be clear, when that one says, it’s a mitzvah not to believe. When the gentile says, you know that your grandfather is at all a charlatan, a bluffer, he drinks Christian blood (referring to blood libel), he’s not to be believed.

Ah, who says, objectively who says? I’m not objective. Objective one will be in science. I agree if a person may follow statements, he wants to learn if it happened without the topic of loyalty, one hundred percent.

The Limit of Loyalty

And by the way, on this there is also a limit. As he says, there is a limit, one cannot make a cow into an ox, because one believes very strongly that the cow is an ox, it doesn’t help, the ox won’t start giving milk. The same thing, what one must believe from the father is only as long as it’s not an obvious lie. On this it says that the gentiles will say “Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, futility, and things of no benefit” (Jeremiah 16:19). But also “our fathers,” but it’s so clear that it’s a lie, what can one do?

True, true, if one has proof… let’s hear, listen, listen. I say, one must… no, I hold that one must believe him about this, not to show why you believe in father, it’s a different lie. One must… and I say, listen, listen, listen, let’s finish. Let’s finish.

No, I don’t agree. Yes, but as long as it can be that it’s then, I agree that if it’s clear that the father is a liar, to be him, I’m not believing if it’s clear, if it’s so clear that even you can see that it’s a lie, then you don’t have to believe. There’s no concept to believe everything. There is a concept, but the truth overcomes this. There’s a limit to everything. But as long as most things in the world to know is not clear enough, what the father told you, there’s no decisive proof that it’s true.

You say to a gentile, David Gottlieb said that he has a proof. Not one gentile has been convinced by David Gottlieb, okay? But a Jew says, I am convinced, because truly he’s already convinced.

Betrayal as a Moral Category

It’s a mitzvah, a mitzvah. You have to be outrageous to say. Our entire tradition, three people say to a Jew, you will be a traitor? Your grandfather sacrificed himself for this. What is this a proof? That what? My grandfather was a great fool, I want to do. Yes, but you have to be outrageous to say that your grandfather was a great fool.

I say, there is a limit. If you will be clear that you should be a traitor, but one thing you have, you must be a traitor. But this is betrayal, yes? The basic thing, still for truth, truly. Truly, even for truth, only because they have loyalty. The value of loyalty, okay, there should be a whole lecture on the value of. On the value of loyalty, that is emunah (faith), not being a traitor, is much more a basic human virtue than truth. That is, many people who in the name of truth are very much traitors, they have completely betrayed everyone, on a doubt. It can still be on this one that has to do. The trait of faith means not on a doubt. It turns to whom though, then it turns to whom, for your father you want to believe, and for your enemy you want to believe the opposite.

Digression: Tzadok, Josephus, and Historical Judgments

And the Sages say that he was a wicked person. Josephus comes first, he worked for him, he says, ah, I’ll be a complete gentile for a while, I’ll give charity, come here, I don’t know, you can know if he was a righteous person or a wicked person? And the one who worked for him says so, and the one who worked for him, says so, on the contrary, says the opposite, I have no way whatsoever, to know no objective way.

Nonsense with noodles, whoever read that it’s objective, is a great fool, and he says everyone kills people, that’s the problem. Yes, killing people doesn’t make a wicked person. It’s not all how much, it’s more than he had to or less than he had to. That’s the topic. He had respect for the authorities. Josephus is forgiven that he had respect for the authorities, but this is a Baraita that he must kill, but he had respect. And the Gemara says that he didn’t have respect. It’s an opposite story.

I tell you, certainly, certainly, I’m not talking, I’m only saying that what the Jews… it can be, not only the heroes, the Romans also knew that there are among them good kings and bad ones, and all the Roman historians held so from the good ones. And not only does the one who killed, made by a power for the reunions. But what? I don’t know, by me he’s a wicked person, because I believe my grandfathers, not because I know, no one knows me. What’s bad? For the gentiles it’s good.

For a rebellion, even Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai didn’t fare well. When he can ask you, when he comes we know that he does it, he comes to ask, what you called a proposition, he came to ask Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai if he should kill the Jews, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai lost the debate, right? Certainly, he didn’t want to have to kill the Jews, but he didn’t have an answer. The Gemara says, wisdom retreated, wisdom retreated, it was later, a power, not the first rebellion, but he brings us to say even earlier. He didn’t have an answer.

Now, you say, that you can find an answer, whatever it is, it’s not so simple, from the side… one cannot measure a person according to what his enemies say, true. But the enemies say that he is a wicked person, and I say that he is a wicked person. Why? Because he is a wicked person, the holy ones of blessed memory say that he is a wicked person. And I must be outrageous to say that our grandfathers fought with a righteous person.

That fighter is my terrorist. That’s the idea. Very good. That idea, that statement is worth the statement. Because yes, and everyone who… I saw, what was called one of the Satmar community activists said, I’ll understand, the mayor is an Arab who according to not being against this for the Arabs what do they want from him? Just a gentile, just a life that interferes, but if you were on that side, I don’t have a worse person from the generation, but I will yes say that he is a bad person, I will say that he could have been better also.

The Main Message: Out of Binary Categories

And it’s not because I’m biased, this I say, people are very easy, we are very, we can’t have to stop having so much poor concepts. This is one of the messages of my lecture, okay? One of my programs. We need to stop thinking only in two ways about everything: either it’s truly true, objective, every gentile in Argentina agrees, or it’s just because your rabbi told you. There are many things in between, or completely different, and this is one of them. Right?

Student:

Ah, thank God, here we have a sheet.

Teacher:

I have no question. I said I would listen to you, generations of Israel. And even… what is this called from the best farmers? Where, spread.