Q&A- Army Drafting, Black Hats & Types of Zionism (Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz)

I mean, I'm not sure if I fully understand the question. The question is that you say a nation-state is a more modern idea. And in the ancient world, there was what? What did you say was there? More tribes and principalities. Right. Okay, that that that is very true. In other words, obviously, the concept of nations we have a tradition there are 70 nations based on the children of Noah. All of the nations were ethnic groups, people that shared a common ancestry. The Jewish people are a nation other than gayrim that share a common ancestry, and that was the basis of nations. The modern states, which may comprise many many different types of ethnic groups, but they're under one central government is a relatively modern phenomenon. Again, now the question suggests that this is something that we get as we approach Messiah as a sign of um You know, again, it's an interesting question. I I I'm not sure why that would necessarily be a a Messianic phenomenon. The concept of nations aggregating different ethnic groups, because the truth of the matter is in a small measure, you you actually see a little bit of a reversal of the phenomenon. In other words, exactly what happened was that a lot of nations that were artificially cobbled together by different ethnic groups actually fall apart. Czechoslovakia is an example that, you know, goes back to the Czech Republic and and Slovakia. So, the truth is um I'm not sure if the nation-state is the final step before Messiah or it's a state that's going to disintegrate and go back to the original level. Because we've seen already a number of movements in Europe going back to the original level. I'm just trying to think what the connection might be. I mean, one connection might be similar to the Tower of Babel. What what is the issue? Migdal Bavel is a very very mysterious story. What exactly is the Tower of Babel about? And without getting into all of the details, the simple idea is the aggregation of humanity to kind of create something that is superior to God in their minds. That, you know, we we we bring together everybody, we speak one language. So, it could be that the nation-state might essentially be regarded as a rebellion against God. And in that sense, it might be the idea that before Messiah comes the Mishna says in Sota a malchus dehafech leminus governments will turn into heresy and apostasy and rebellion against God. And at some level, you could trace the secularization of the world to perhaps the creation of nation-states. But again, that that would have that that's kind of a doctoral dissertation type of thing, tracing religious heresy to the modern nation-state. But I think there may be a connection, and in that way, it may be pre-Messianic because the Gemara tells us that one of the signs of Messiah is that governments will become more and more secular and more and more against Hakadosh Baruchu. But something something to think about. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, so I guess on a similar note, but will we be able to identify other nations and also be able to analyze someone like Amalek, who you said that we need to destroy? Yeah, so obviously, there's a mitzvah to destroy Amalek. All the poskim say that bizmana zeh we are unable to identify Amalek. There's a tradition in the name of Rav Chaim of Brisk that any nation that wants to destroy the Jewish people is by definition Amalek. Obviously, that would have fit Nazi Germany. However, many people say Rav Chaim is not referring to the mitzvah of destroying Amalek. He's referring to the spiritual power of Amalek. Meaning, Amalek is not just any nation that wants to destroy us. Amalek is a particular nation. The koach of Amalek may be dispersed among other nations that want to kill Am Yisrael. Rav Saadia Gaon records a tradition, interestingly enough that Armenians are considered to be descendants of Amalek. Now, we have in the old city, right, of Jerusalem, we have the Armenian Quarter, and you see them sometimes, the Armenian priests or the ones with the black habits and everything else. They're a relatively benign group, and in fact, Armenians themselves suffered a pre-Holocaust Holocaust. In fact, many say, you know, in the beginning of the 20th century the Turks annihilated I think it was millions of Armenians. And that was the precedent for Hitler's Holocaust. When people said to Hitler, "You'll never get away with it." He said, "Who remembers what the Turks did to the Armenians?" So, it's an interesting irony that Amalek itself would be a victim of of of a Holocaust that's similar to what befell the Jewish people. But this is a mesorah of Rav Saadia Gaon. In terms of other nations, we really don't know because as as as the first question suggested the modern nation-state is an amalgamation of all sorts of different ethnic groups. So, we no longer have pure nations. We just don't have pure nations. So, because we don't have pure nations, we can't really apply the halachic categories to them. Yeah. Is there the idea of that a Jew commits suicide, we don't put their grave or something? I'm not exactly sure what we do, but is there a halachic basis to say that um Can you just kind of like talk generally about that, I guess? Yeah. Yeah, so here there is an interesting divergence between theory and practice. Maseches Semachos, which is actually a called a smaller maseches dealing with mourning. It's not part of the Mishna, but it's a braisa that that that that is quoted in in the Gemara and in the Shulchan Aruch basically says that if one intentionally takes his life he does not have a share in the world to come. We don't sit shiva for him. Uh the halacha says we do not bury him with other Jews. It has to be at a distance of four amos, etc. So, we treat suicide as a very very great sin. Suicide is treated like it's murder. Uh you know, because the same way you cannot take somebody else's life, you're not allowed to take your life. So, a suicide is a very very very chomer aveira. At the same time, the poskim say that that only applies if a person was of sound mind only if a person was not acting under depression, a person was not acting under severe pain. And if a person was acting under those circumstances, not that it's permitted to commit suicide, but rather we don't judge the person harshly because the person was kind of unable to control himself because of his despair. Now, it then turns out in kind of a catch-22 type of reasoning that we then determine since no normal person who was not suffering severe pain or depression would ever take his life by definition we treat virtually every suicide as a person who acted under compulsion, and we do observe shiva, and we do bury him, and we do say kaddish. And and and everything else. So, again, I was when I was a rabbi, I I did have um family members of congregants, not not not the congregant per se who unfortunately took their own lives. And in almost all of and in all of the cases we did observe the normal rituals of of shiva. I don't want to get into yet another controversial issue, but many of you might have heard of the Chaim Walder saga, very very sad story in which it culminated after many many years of abusing people, it actually culminated in his taking his own life at the very end. And people are discussing, putting aside the abuse issue, which is obviously very very serious issue. But just focusing on the suicide Rav Gershon Edelstein, the rosh yeshiva of Ponevezh kind of took the position that this was a person who acted under severe depression because uh of all the attacks on him, whether they're true or not. Even if they're true, but nevertheless, it could drive a person to suicide. Others considered this to be a premeditated act in order to garner sympathy. Again, I don't want to really judge that, but that would be the type of discussion that we would have. Now, the issue of suicide gets very very interesting because in Tanakh, we have several instances of suicide. And the question is whether it's justified or not. One is King Saul, Shaul HaMelech at the end of his life. Um He was struck in war by the Philistines, but as he was dying, he asked his arms bearer to kind of finish him off. And when the arms bearer refused, Shaul took his own sword and he killed himself. Now, the question becomes, all right, Shaul, do I consider that to be a sin? Shaul had sins, or do I consider that to be halachically legitimate? And the poskim give different answers to it. One of the answers is that Shaul was afraid that he would be taken prisoner by the Philistines, he would be tortured, he would be humiliated and would be forced to bow down to their idols. And some poskim learn, this is not necessarily the halacha that the same way you have to be willing to give your life before you worship idols if you are afraid through torture that you're going to break down, you are supposed to take your life. So, he took his life in order to avoid forced torture that could lead to avodah zarah. Others say he took his life as part of a military operation because he thought if he would be humiliated that would have a devastating impact on the combat morale of the Jewish people so he took his life in order to save So it wasn't all altruistic suicide. Yeah, but there going to be questions. The second example of suicide is Shimshon. Shimshon the mighty judge when he was blinded he was taken prisoner by the Philistine. In the last moments well at the end of his life he asked Hashem to give him one last burst of strength and he pulled down the whole Palace in which he said I will die with the Philistines. So he's committing suicide but again one would explain that he's committing suicide like a soldier commits suicide he's committing suicide in order to vanquish the enemy. So that might be permitted. So so there's an interesting discussion about it. Yeah. When it comes to tefillin we have Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam opinions on what you know the order of the scrolls and whatnot. So but what what did they do before Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam? Right. This issue about the two pairs of tefillin which are really the the same except in the order of the parshiyots which by the way is be the avid meaning it's a major dispute. If you do the wrong one you're not yet say the mitzvah. Just a little as a little aside Refael Volozhin wear Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin? The Gra did not wear Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin. And the Gra said if you want me to be out say every opinion of tefillin I would have to wear 64 pairs of tefillin. And the Gra went through different opinions so he says you know why you're only doing Rabbeinu Tam do this sheet and that sheet and that sheet and that sheet as the Vilna Gaon said obviously we can't do 64 pairs of tefillin so he didn't see a reason to do two but okay. But the question becomes what did they do before? I mean right Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam lived we know when they lived they lived in the 1000s the 11th century. So what were the tefillin of Abaye and Rava and and everybody else? So the truth of the matter is remember that Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam are explaining passages in the Gemara. So essentially Rabbeinu Tam is claiming this was always the meaning of tefillin and Rashi is saying it was always the meaning the other way. Now the question still becomes so they didn't invent the machlokes the machlokes is an old machlokes but the question still becomes how do you get such a how does such a machlokes start? I mean Hashem gave the mitzvah of tefillin actually even before Har Sinai he gave the mitzvah of tefillin in Mitzrayim. And presumably we're we we were given the halachos of how to make them how to wear them. So who was the first guy who did it wrong? Meaning you had either Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam or maybe a third way. And this goes down to Moshe Rabbeinu who got it from Hashem. And then at some point there was a deviation. So even if you make the deviation much much earlier than Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam and you and you have to say that the question is how do you get such a mistake? You know it's one thing in the Gemara I see this is why tefillin is so difficult. There are many many shailos in the Gemara which are kind of one-time unusual shailos. For example the Gemara says in Pesachim that when Erev Pesach fell out on Shabbos there was a time that the chachamim didn't know if you shecht the korban Pesach on uh I'm sorry Pesach fell out on Shabbos do you shecht it on on Shabbos or whatever it is right? They didn't know. Pesach Erev Pesach falls out on Shabbos. Because the truth of the matter is it didn't happen for a few years didn't right didn't happen that often. And people didn't remember maybe there was a machlokes. So I understand that things that come up occasionally people can forget. And then they have to use kal vachomers and they have to use different ways of learning. But a mitzvah that is done every day of the week except Shabbos how do you do it wrong? So your question although the your exact question maybe is not so difficult because as I say the machlokes was much earlier but I still I still you still have a very big problem how did such a machlokes introduce itself? Now if it would have been a machlokes where either way you're yet say and the question is only what's the preferred way that wouldn't be so bad either. Because different people did it different ways. For example Rav Hai Gaon says this. Give you another example. The Torah says on Rosh Hashanah you're supposed to blow a teruah sound. So there were three different views what is a teruah? A teruah is a broken sound. Is it what we call a shevarim? Ah ah ah is it what we call a teruah? Da da da da da da da or is it both? Three different versions. We may we do all three. So Rav Hai Gaon asked a kasha until Rabbi Abahu is an Amora different people were doing different things. Some people only did one some people right? So people were getting it wrong. How did that happen? So Rav Hai Gaon's answer is the Oraysa any one of those sounds is good. So you had three different ways of doing it. Everybody was yet say. Rabbi Abahu wanted everyone to have achdus in their minhag so he made you do all three. So that's an example where before the combination you were yet say all three ways. But tefillin is really shver because tefillin you're not yet say like Rashi you're not yet say like Rabbeinu Tam and like Rabbeinu Tam you're not yet say like Rashi. So you have a real question how does that get introduced in the mesorah of Torah Shebaal Peh? It's really one of the most difficult questions. I I don't have a tremendous tremendous answer but I can tell you that there are rayos that the machlokes Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam goes back a very very long way. So it did not start with Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. By the way they tell a story the Vilna Gaon tells the story and it's probably above him myself. You know Rabbeinu Tam is Rashi's grandson right? Everyone knows I hope you know that. Rabbeinu Tam is Rav Yaakov ben Meir Rashi's grandson. It's also brought down that Rashi wore tefillin the whole day. So they tell the little story when Rabbeinu Tam was a little baby and he was sitting on his grandfather's lap he pulled Rashi's tefillin off off his head as if to say you know these aren't right you know. Type of thing. But who knows? Yeah. 20 years ago there was a book that came out that was between Orthodox Rabbi and Reform Rabbi. So these two Rabbis were doing an event together at the 92nd Street Y. And someone asked Rabbi Ryman the Orthodox Rabbi what would you tell someone let's say he's a 22-year-old kid in NYU no connection to Judaism he has an hour on Sundays. Either he can learn with Rabbi Hirsch or Reform Rabbi. Or he could watch HBO for that hour. What would what would you have responded in that circumstance? What what did Rabbi Ryman respond? He said HBO. HBO. Yeah yeah the question was this was actually a very very interesting project. A Rabbi from Lakewood Rabbi Yosef Ryman collaborated with Rabbi Amiel Hirsch who was a very prominent still still a very prominent Reform Rabbi in New York and they were explaining their different world views and they went on the road they did book tours and the like eventually I think the Rabbanim in Lakewood told Rabbi Ryman that he should not collaborate with the Reform Rabbi in such a public way because that would be giving legitimacy to the Reform Rabbi as well by being on the same podium. By the way that's an issue that I myself have have have faced sometimes. And the particular question that was asked was uh if a Jewish student had one hour a week and you could decide how he would spend that hour and his only two choices were to learn Torah with the Reform Rabbi Rabbi Hirsch or to uh do nothing watch HBO or whatever it would be what is a better use of his time? Do you say I'll learn Torah or do you say yeah keep away from the Reform guy? So Rabbi Ryman I'm told answered better to watch HBO. Um it's a very tricky question because I'll tell you it really depends what he would be learning with with uh with Rabbi Hirsch. Meaning to say uh if he'd be learning theology theology meaning the meaning of God the meaning of Torah the meaning of mitzvahs then maybe HBO might be the better option. Because he's going to be getting poisonous ideas HBO might be emptiness. HBO might be battala HBO might be waste of time but at least it wouldn't be a poisonous theology that would be false. If on the other hand Rabbi Hirsch as many Reform Rabbis would teach about the social justice values of Judaism hilchos tzedakah hilchos kibbud av v'em some interpersonal even though I do understand the danger of a of some Reform venom going in I would think l'chola pachas there's an exposure to Torah values. I mean we have a similar issue that that replays itself quite a lot. You know when I was growing up the Conservative movement did not have day schools. So as a result any parents who wanted their kid to have more of a Jewish education would send their kids to an Orthodox school whether they were conservative or reform. So in my own class my own school most which was an Orthodox day school most of my classmates were not show me your Shabbos at all. I grew up with with non show me your Shabbos. It was also co-ed but that's another that's another discussion. Now today the conservative movement has its own day school they're called the Solomon Schechter and even the reform movement actually strangely enough although in principle the reform movement was very much against day schools. They always wanted they always advocated public school as the model of getting integrated into society or at least secular private school but the reform movement started having their day schools as well in which there would be half a day of so-called Jewish education. So the same issue would be should I encourage let's say non-religious parents to send their kids to a reform day school or is it better for them to go to a public school and just have secular secular values. I believe Jacob Weinberg says in Israel actually answered to that question the secular school would be better which would be similar to what Rabbi Reinman said. On the other hand you know I don't know because I can tell you this I know quite a lot of people who began their journey to Judaism by exposure to the reform and conservative movement. In other words they have been sometimes way stations towards a greater engagement in Judaism. So instead of looking at it as they get corrupted into our because it's very often it can actually be a transitional stage. So for many people at least in retrospect the fact that they participated in their reform temple was something that brought them closer to Hashem. But you can see two dangers. Now there's one danger is that it can divert them into a bad path as opposed to HBO which is neutral so to speak. So at least they're in a holding pattern where we can move them to Judaism later. But there are cases where it's been a helpful transition. Now I mean I I I certainly am very hesitant to take issue with my my own Russia Shiva you know and again in all in all questions. I can tell you ahead of time if there's a disagreement between myself and Weinberg he's right. I can just tell you automatically he's the case. But it is something to think about at least in retrospect. You know the Rambam even writes that Christianity this is a censored passage Christianity was a useful transition to take people away from paganism towards a monotheistic belief in God. Even though Christianity was false and perverted and everything else but it took people out of the paganism role. The question is whether reform might have that same same type of possibility. So I don't know. I I I think that maybe it's too dangerous to advocate but at least after the fact it has been helpful to to people in different ways. Yeah. What do you think of the idea of drafting all the Drafting all the in exchange for one year mandatory Yeshiva for all Israelis prior to military service. That's very interesting idea. The question was just to repeat the question. Obviously the Haredi world is is pretty opposed to any type of mandatory draft and you know but maybe we could negotiate and the question is what if we say we will send all the Haredim to the army if every Israeli must have a mandatory one year in Yeshiva. Well I'll tell you that one thing I'll tell you for sure if we ever made such a proposal the draft the Haredi thing would just be killed in the water that's for sure. So maybe it's a very good negotiating tactic to make to make that offer but you never know because I'm telling you that the secular Israeli world is more scared of Yeshiva than the Haredim are scared of the army. So that's one thing. But I think the problem is is the problem basically is exactly the the the rule that's the the Gamara says two people are wandering in the desert and I have water and the water is enough that I could make it to the to the oasis. If we split the water we're both going to die that's the assumption. There's not enough water to get both of us to the oasis. So what do I do? Famous Machlokes Ben Petura who's otherwise not mentioned is only mentioned once in all of Shas says I got to treat you equally we both drink the water and if we both die then we both die but at least both of us live a little bit longer than we otherwise would live. Rabbi Akiva says wait a second it's true that you got to care about other people but you don't do so at the expense of your own life and therefore if you have the water you are supposed to use the water to keep yourself alive. Now this is a similar principle in the sense that if you view now that's part of the part of the question but if you view the army as a very very dangerous atmosphere for the religious life of your children you're not supposed to compromise the religious life of your children because of a possible benefit you'll give somebody else's children. So yeah it may very well be that requiring that all Israelis go to Yeshiva may produce a certain gain religiously but I as a parent and I as a community I'm not going to sacrifice my community in order to achieve that possible speculative uncertain contingent goal. So I think there would be an issue of what's called Kaddish in in such a such a situation. Or to put it a slightly different way you don't gamble with what you definitely have in order to achieve a possible uncertain gain. Meaning right now I have religious kids. I put them in an atmosphere where there's a great great they may go off the but I'm doing it as a gamble that I might get other kids who are not religious to become religious. Well you don't throw away what you have in order to possibly get something that you don't have. That's another way of of putting it. Now whether or not the army is so bad that that's a very very different issue. Let me point out that the Haredi opposition to the military service is based on two different ideas and they really they overlap but they're not the same idea. One is the idea that you don't take people out of full-time Torah learning and force them into military service. Now that's an issue that applies to Torah learning and the reason is because we recognize that Torah learning is essential for the survival of Israel. Now that argument the Torah learning argument would only apply to people who are learning Torah. That wouldn't apply to a Haredi who is working or not in a Yeshiva. The second argument is is the second argument it's not the same argument is that even for somebody who is not full-time learning but if they're Haredi if they're a very observant the army is a dangerous negative atmosphere for them. Right so there is the Torah learning argument and there's the Haredi atmosphere argument. These are two different arguments although they obviously overlap. But either way one has to understand that the concern is with compulsory draft. Meaning to say if an individual person comes to me or comes to you know comes to a Rabbi or a Russia Shiva and says they want to go to the army we can have a discussion about that. Meaning to say it is entirely possible for any given individual the army might be a positive experience. It might be an experience of discipline. It might be an experience of I mean I know people who go to the army and they're other people they're in Shamayim. I also know people who have gone to the army and have unfortunately become less meticulous in mitzvahs and in some extreme cases even throw the whole thing over. So army can be very good and army can be very bad and it depends very much on an individual assessment of the situation. So the opposition of the Torah world of the Haredi world to the army is not an opposition to the army it's an opposition to the mandatory nature of conscription that does not take into account the individual situation of every person. Okay so we could be against that but we could also be in favor of individual people going into the into the army. You know if you look at pictures oh first of all the issue of Israel having a draft you know Israel is one of the last countries in the world that still has a draft anyway. Most countries today do not have a draft. The United States got rid of the draft. Now I remember when I was in Yeshiva during Vietnam a draft was a real problem right? In fact the Yeshivas were overflowing during Vietnam because that is how you got your draft exemption. I mean I you know if you remember it was 4D what I don't remember it was but there was you know the famous exemption for theological students. But the United States got rid of the draft and they went to an all volunteer army. And the truth of the matter is that many people have argued that Israel should also go to an all volunteer army. And I just want to point out it's just a matter of propaganda. This is not your question, of course. That when people say, "Oh, Haredim are not serving in the army, you know, etc. They're shirking their national duty." People don't realize how many secular Israelis get out of serving in the army. It's not like only a religious thing. Uh, plenty of college students get military exemptions, graduate students, and the like. So, it's not like people portray it as if everybody in the in the Israeli society not only is in the army, but they're, you know, highly dangerous combat duty. Except for the religious people that don't do anything. First of all, uh, more than half of the people in the army are basically office jobs. And second of all, plenty of people get out of the army, uh, on secular grounds. So, it shouldn't be portrayed as the religious people shirking their uh, their duty. Now, at the other side of the coin, I I want to give you the other side of the coin. Again, I'm I'm digressing, but just want to say that, uh, the Torah world, even if we are opposed to mandatory draft, either because of the Torah learning aspect or because of the Haredi atmosphere aspect, we need to have hakaras hatov to people who do serve in the army. They are doing a service for the Jewish people. They are doing a service for the country. They are giving us a benefit in in trying to create a peaceful a more peaceful society. And we need to have hakaras hatov. And and as I said many many many times, if we would have hakaras hatov for what the hayalim are doing, then I think, uh, the hayalim and the soldiers and the society would have hakaras hatov for the learning of Torah. So, uh, the idea that sometimes, uh, people might spit at a soldier or something around here, but sometimes you hear about these different stories, is very very despicable. Uh, that one should have gratitude and appreciation for every segment of Israeli society. Uh, that includes policemen, firemen, uh, garbage collectors, uh, soldiers, of course, because all of them are doing things that are helpful. And they will get some sakhar for it because they are helping uh, the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael. Yeah. Can I ask you a little bit about Miriam bas Bilgah? Yeah. Yeah. So, Miriam bas Bilgah, I you know, I I I don't know a tremendous amount of Miriam bas Bilgah. I mean, this is the end of Maseches Sukkah. Uh, remember that, uh, the Kohanim were divided into 24 mishmaros. 24 watches. And that means one week every week they would have a mishmar of Kohanim who would be in charge of doing the avodah. And the mishmaros would change on Shabbos. Shabbos afternoon, a new mishmar would come and replace the old mishmar. Now, if you think about this, if you have 24 mishmaros in the course of a year, that means, uh, a mishmar would serve twice. Now, some mishmaros would serve twice and some only once in a year. In other words, because 24 is not divisible 52 is not divisible into 24. But let me let me also remind you that during the Shalosh Regalim, during the week of Pesach and the eight days of Sukkos and Shavuos, all the 24 mishmaros would serve in the Beis Hamikdash at the same time. And they would have to do lotteries to determine which Kohanim would do the avodah. So, there are 24 mishmaros minus the Shalosh Regalim. And, uh, one of the mishmaros The mishmaros are family units, right? Families of Kohanim. One of them, uh, was called Bilgah. Bilgah was the family, um, the head of the family of one of the mishmaros. And, uh, Bilgah was treated with much less respect than the other mishmaros. So, for example, the Mishna gives examples that every mishmar had its own cubbyhole where they would put the big day Kohuna that they wore. Uh, Bilgah's cubbyhole was closed up, etc. Meaning Bilgah was always given the, uh, idea that, uh, even though they're they are a mishmar, but, you know, we don't treat them with that much respect. And the, uh, Mishna in in not the Mishna, the Gemara in Sukkah gives a braisa that this was not always the case. But this stemmed from, uh, an incident involving a woman from the family of Bilgah, Miriam bas Bilgah, that it mentions that she had intermarried with a Greek official. This is really during the Hasmonean period. And at a time of great persecution, she took her shoe and she hit the mizbeach and she called him mizbeach Lucas. Lucas means wolf. "Wolf wolf, you eat up all the korbanos of the Jewish people and you don't help them at the time of their tzaros." She was very very disrespectful towards Hashem, towards the mizbeach, towards the korbanos. She mocked the Ribbono shel Olam and she herself intermarried, uh, with a with a And the Gemara asks, "Okay, Miriam bas Bilgah did a very bad thing, but why do we punish the whole mishmar?" And the Gemara explains that what a child says are things they must have heard from their parents. And therefore the whole atmosphere must have been corrupt, must have been perverse. And therefore there was a kenas on the mishmar of Bilgah. So, that's as as much as I know. Do you Are you thinking of something something beyond that? You know, I I I I I I do, but I'm trying to remember what he said. I I actually remember I actually remember I have a mental picture in my mind when he quoted the Gemara about the wolf. He hit he was hitting the table. I I actually I actually have a visual picture of the Rebbe, but I and I remember liking that word a lot, but I don't remember what it is. I I will I will I will check it out. I will check on it and get back to you. Yeah. Um, that Gemara you mentioned about, uh, things that children say coming from their parents or something. Yes. Do you have Do you happen to know off the top of your head where that is? It's the very end of Maseches Sukkah. It's It should be the last, uh, the last amud of Maseches Sukkah. Uh, yeah. And assuming one can intellectually discover Judaism or just God's truth, how come the biggest philosophers and intellects like in the secular world don't come to the same conclusion? Yes, the question is if Judaism is a logically provable system, then how could it be that there are such great philosophers who have not always come to that particular conclusion? Uh, is there some flaw in their philosophical thinking? Um, so first of all, let me point out just that that the claim that Judaism is a logical system is a is a true claim. Uh, but it's not provable in the way mathematical theorems are provable. Meaning to say, uh, the so-called proofs of Judaism are really in the nature of logical probabilities. It's important to know that because when you oversell the the, um, the fullness of the proofs, uh, then you're making a disservice because people will point out this issue and that issue and that issue. And Judaism never claimed to be 100% provable like a mathematical theorem. And one of the reasons for that is because God wants free will to exist in the world. And if you have 100% inevitability, you've negated the possibility of free will. So, there has to be a certain amount of concealment. Nevertheless, the case for Judaism, uh, is a strong one. And there are strong logical probabilities uh, that support the essential truths of Torah. So, why do so many people overlook them, even great people? Uh, the short answer would be that, uh, when you when you accept Judaism or you accept God even, that creates certain implications on your life. And we have a very very strong resistance not to create systems that are going to impose obligations and responsibilities on me. So, in many ways, philosophy actually becomes psychology. Uh, meaning to say, we like to think our minds are so objective that all we're looking for is the unvarnished truth. When in fact, what we perceive as true is going to be colored by our tivus, by our yetzer hara, by what we want to be so. Right? You find what you look for. And a person is biased against the idea of mitzvos, of obligations, of restrictions. And that is why even the greatest philosopher can be led astray. Uh, I think I I I mentioned Did I mention it today? I think I mentioned it today. An example or maybe I mentioned with another group. But I don't forgive If I'm repeating, forgive me. Uh, you know, many of you know the Bible codes, right? So, the Bible codes is based on the idea that equidistant letter spacing you can find the encoding of future events. I mean, the events have happened already, but in Amalek, every seventh letter will spell Hitler, you know, etc. And that is often offered as proof that the Torah must be a divine document because only God could encode those future events in the Torah at various places. And they show that in terms of randomly finding these things, it would be like one in a trillion. It It wouldn't be possible. Right? So, the Bible codes is touted as kind of proof of the divine origin of the Torah. Again, I'm not advocating I'm I'm not resting my emunah on the Bible codes because there are questions about methodology. But what I want to share with you is that one of the uh, biggest supporters of the Bible codes, who wrote a book on it, his name is Michael Drosnin. And Michael Drosnin really really believes in this. He says, "It's impossible for a human being to do it." But Michael Drosnin is also an atheist. So, he has a kind of a big problem. How does he explain this superhuman phenomenon when he doesn't believe in God? So, Drosnin posits there must be a super advanced group of aliens who have mastered time travel, who can go into the past and the future, and they are the ones who wrote the Torah. So, here's how it works. Belief in God? No, that's illogical. That doesn't make sense. Instead, I will posit aliens that have mastered time travel. Now, I would say in the realm of probabilities, you know, the latter is is probably less likely uh than the former. But, you see, the difference is aliens don't challenge me to change my life. God does. So, I would rather go with the aliens than go with God. So, that's kind of the built-in bias we have not to find God in the world because there are going to be too many implications to the way we live our lives. And that we don't want. We want that freedom. Yeah. Um it appears to me that uh parnassah seems to run very much uh Derek Taylor, for example, like if someone has a good job, um you you would think it's for a high-paying job, you think it's probable that for the next year or the year after the year after it it has a certain amount of balance and peace like um have a certain amount of comfort. And this seems to be quite predictable based on stuff someone what they earn and all these skills they have, the job they have. So, how do we reconcile this uh seemingly Derek Taylor kind of thing with the idea that that the par- your parnassah is set other on Rosh Hashanah Rosh Hashanah or even the idea I've heard that uh Hashem will provide based on the children you have there's a parnassah that comes with each child Yeah. Yeah, this is a very, very excellent question. It's a question that uh frankly uh still confuses me after after so many years. Uh particular I'm going to add to make your question even more difficult. Uh the Chofetz Chaim of Lubavitch makes the point repeatedly in a number of times that you will never get a cent more than Hashem allocates to you on Rosh Hashanah. Hashem decides on Rosh Hashanah what your parnassah is going to be. And uh whether you do a little or do a lot, you're going to get that same thing uh and nothing is ever going to change. The question is, of course, uh l'chatchila, that's not what we generally see. Now, it's true. It's true that sometimes a person could work 10 jobs and be bankrupt. And sometimes a person can do nothing and win the lottery. Uh those things happen. But, usually, you're 100% correct. In the normal way that life operates, the person who works more gets more money. The person who works less gets less money. And if you work overtime, you'll you'll have more money to take home. If you don't work overtime, you'll have less money to take home. Which means to say, your parnassah seems to be a variable of your physical effort in the world uh as opposed to being a predetermined fixed a quantity that is assigned to you on on Rosh Hashanah. Now, the answer that is given uh for that question is to my mind not a great answer. It's not a totally satisfactory answer. And they basically say that Hashem's allotments to you is in itself based on your doing a certain amount of hishtadlus. Meaning like this, Hashem says, "I give you this amount of parnassah, but you have to put in X amount of effort to unlock that divine beneficence. So, if you do less than that amount of hishtadlus, you will not get that beneficence. If you do that hishtadlus, you will get it. But, if you do more than that hishtadlus, you won't get anything extra. Now, I understand that, but to me that's not a very helpful idea because it doesn't really tell you what what what is what is the hishtadlus that you need to do in order to unlock it. But, the reason why the teva you'll tend to get more is because that could be factored in to the hishtadlus that was a condition of Hashem giving you that particular bracha. So, you'll never get more than was decreed for you, but without the right hishtadlus, you're you will get less. Nothing or less. Now, there's another approach. And I don't know how this is going to be integrated. Uh the Rambam writes, now this is a a Rambam that most of the Torah world does not follow today. This is a very unusual rule unusual concept in the Rambam. The Rambam says that the idea of hashgacha pratit, the idea that God is managing your life, is something that only applies to the righteous. For most people most time, Hashem leaves you to the normal operation of the natural world subject to your praying for salvation or whatever it is. Now, if you accept the idea that hashgacha pratit is limited to the righteous, then it does turn out that most people most time are governed by the laws of nature, which would include, you know, the more you work, the more you get, etc., etc. Uh the problem is, how will you reconcile the Rambam's idea that hashgacha pratit is limited to tzaddikim with the fact that on Rosh Hashanah, the parnassah is decreed for everybody? That seems to be an inconsistency. How can you talk about no hashgacha pratit and talk about a g'zeirah on Rosh Hashanah how much you're going to earn? Those two ideas are contradictory in and of itself. Uh it's a big uh it's a big problem. Uh I also want to point out, though, that the Rambam's view has well, it's interesting that the Rambam's view is generally not even what we teach. Right, we teach hashgacha pratit all the time. And that is the sheet of the Ramchal and the Derech Hashem. And that is the sheet of the Mekubalim. And that is the sheet of Chassidus. And by and large, that has become the sheet of the Torah world. I mean, it's almost like if somebody were to say the Rambam sheet, they would be accused of being an apikorus. Uh so, it's an interesting Rambam that people do not pay attention to, but it may be a possible answer to your issue. But, as I say, it's very problematical because I don't know, honestly, how you can reconcile the Rambam's sheet with the idea of mazonos being decreed on Rosh Hashanah. So, the only answer I can give you is that your mazonos is decreed on Rosh Hashanah subject to the condition of hishtadlus. And uh therefore, if you don't do the right hishtadlus, you're not going to have access to that to that fortune. But, it's a very, very difficult question. Uh yeah. If the Bnei Yisrael had hit the 50th level of tumah um in the time, what about that makes them irredeemable? That certainly wouldn't be a question on like Hashem's abilities to redeem a people. Um but what about teshuvah? And like is there I guess is there a, you know, point of no return in that case? So, like why why is that the 50th level would have been a no-go, but 49 was almost there and why not? Right, right. So, the question is the the famous teaching of the Arizal that the Jewish people in Mitzrayim, and that's the 1/5 that survived, uh was on the 49th level of impurity and they were sinking fast. And even if they would have remained in Mitzrayim for the few minutes that it takes for dough to become chametz, they would have hit level 50. Level 50 is irredeemable. Uh they could not be reclaimed. So, the question is, what is it about level 50 that makes it impossible uh to come back? Uh does that mean there's no teshuvah? Uh I mean, certainly Hashem could do anything. Hashem could could uh you know, change any situation. Uh the short answer is we don't know. It seems to be that hitting the level 50 uh destroys the holiness of your neshamah. There is no spark of holiness left. And if there's no spark of holiness left, there is nothing from which teshuvah can come. Teshuvah has to come from a regeneration of from within of a spark of kedushah. Uh when the spirituality is dead, there is nothing to ignite. But, interestingly enough, Rav Chaim Volozhiner says a very interesting idea. He says the idea that once you hit the 50th level, you're irredeemable, is only before the Torah was given. Once the Torah was given, the Torah can bring a person even out of the 50th level. So, this hopelessness that the 50th level engenders, baruch Hashem, is no longer hopeless. The Torah can do anything. That's what he says. Uh yeah. Does dina d'malchuta dina apply in Eretz Yisrael? Yes. So, the question is, dina d'malchuta dina, the the halachic obligation to obey the secular law of a government, halachically we're obligated, does that apply to the laws of the state of Israel? Does it apply in Eretz Yisrael itself? So, uh famously, uh there is uh a statement of the Ran in Maseches Nedarim that says dina d'malchuta dina does not apply in Eretz Yisrael and the reason the Ran gives is that the predicate of Dina de malchusa dina is that a government can condition your right to be in their country on your accepting their laws. Meaning the United States can say, "We let you stay in America because you agree to live by the laws." But since in Eretz Yisrael no Jew can be excluded because this is the country Hashem gave us, the malchus cannot condition your staying here on acceptance of the laws. This is the Ran. Now a lot of people apply this to the modern state of Israel and they say, "Oh, I don't have to pay Israeli taxes, uh etc. etc." Now, it's important to understand that the Ran is not talking about a Jewish state. The Ran is talking about I mean, the Ran lived in the 1300s. The Ran is talking about the foreign occupation of Eretz Yisrael and in many ways one could say that the Ran is basically saying we don't consider a non-Jewish government a legitimate government of the Jewish country. In other words, it has nothing to do with whether I have to obey the laws of a Jewish state uh because a Jewish state might be a bonafide government. Now, if you're in Neturei Karta and you take the position that the Jews themselves don't have the right to make a state until Mashiach, then ain't no chinami, they're not a government either. But all I'm saying is you don't you cannot tell from the Ran whether he's a Neturei Karta or not because he's simply not talking about that issue. So, I would say that's important to know that the Ran is bechlal not a raya uh to this contemporary issue. Now people then raise the question, "Well, is Israel a Jewish state? What does it mean to be a Jewish state? Is a Jewish state the same as a religious state? Is the state of Israel a religious state?" Well a lot of the office a lot of the officials are obviously not. Some of the officials are. Uh but officially the government is not a religious government. On the other hand, the Rambam is mashma that malchus Hashmonai was considered to be a legitimate Jewish government even though the later kings of Hashmonai were also not religious. They were uh Hellenist. So, the Rambam is mashma when there's Jewish sovereignty that has the din of a legitimate Jewish government even if they're not shomer mitzvahs. That's one point. Of course, people then make the other argument, "But what about the fact that there are Arabs in the government? Arabs in the Knesset what it whatever it be." Well that's an interesting issue, but still they happen to be a minority. If Israel ever turns, God forbid, into an Arab majority, then you'd have to rethink that particular uh situation. So, all I'm saying is that uh invoking the Ran to say I don't have to listen to the laws of the state of Israel is incorrect and that is why both Rav Elyashiv and Rav Zalman Auerbach did pasken that in spite of the Ran Dina de malchusa dina should be followed even in Medinat Yisrael uh because it is a legitimate Jewish government even if it's not a religious government and the Ran is only referring to non-Jewish governments. Now, I want to add something to this that's very very important. Uh people often ask shailos about lying on applications for various government benefits. Right, I want to misstate something. I want to misstate my income etc. And people say, "Well if Dina de malchusa dina doesn't apply in Eretz Yisrael, which anyway it does, but let's assume it doesn't, so that means I can lie to the government." See, that's a mistake that's built on another mistake. First of all, as I say, Rav Zalman and Rav Elyashiv said Dina de malchusa dina does apply. But second of all let's even assume I don't have to follow Israeli law. I don't have to pay my taxes. I don't have to follow their regulations. But I'm not allowed to steal from them. That's a separate issue. So, when I'm trying to get money from them the issue is not Dina de malchusa dina. The issue is gezela. And even if you extrapolate from the Ran that Dina de malchusa dina doesn't apply, so I don't have to obey a government law when I am fraudulently applying for money I'm stealing. And that's important. A lot of people don't A lot of people are collapsing the two questions, Dina de malchusa dina and stealing, when in fact they are two different questions. So, that's another thing that I think it's important to keep in mind. Uh yeah. So, can you describe like the sequence of events that happen like when when Mashiach comes? Yeah, well uh the Rambam himself tells us that uh you know, we're not sure of everything. Before Mashiach comes, there's going to be many many wars, many dislocations. These are called the wars of Gog and Magog. And uh we don't know if we've had them already. Were they the Holocaust? Were they Arab-Israeli conflict? Were they the Soviet The Cold War, the Soviet Union, etc.? Will it be something worse? Uh they say b'shem the Gra that that this was a mesorah in Lithuania that was an oral mesorah that the war of Gog and Magog will last 12 minutes. And for 200 years nobody understood what type of war can last for 12 minutes. Unfortunately, today we do know a war that can last for 12 minutes. That would be, God forbid, a nuclear war. So, it's amazing what the Gra might be talking about. So, those are the wars of Gog and Magog. They are described in Yechezkel. By the way, there's even a description in Zecharya which ties into nuclear war. It talks about people's flesh melting off their faces. A pasuk? Mm. You know, that unfortunately would would be characteristic of of things like nuclear holocaust and the like. Uh but the Rambam writes on that, he says, "We don't know the details of Gog and Magog and uh one should not spend time figuring that out because they do not bring a person to avas Hashem or yiras Hashem. So, one know you'll know it when it happens, but you're not going to know it as you'll know it after it happens. You'll then be able to point to it, but you're not going to really know it as it's happening. Now, once Mashiach comes, so the Rambam says Mashiach essentially has two jobs. Mashiach's job is to rebuild the third Beit Hamikdash and Mashiach's job is to bring all the Jewish people back to Eretz Yisrael. And when that is done, he will usher in a worldwide reign of peace, an amazing thing. He will not be the ruler of the world. There'll still be England, France, etc., but they will all acknowledge Mashiach as the spiritual leader of the world. They will uh regard Yerushalayim and the Mikdash as the spiritual center of the world. Uh there will be peace. There will be shalom. Uh but the Rambam says other than that, the Rambam's opinion is that life is going to be normal. Which means in other words, you're still going to have to get a job. You're still going to have to wait for the bus, uh you know, get your Rav Kav and and everything else. In fact, it'll be crowded here, a little more crowded and the like. So, the Rambam learns the Messianic era is not a miraculous era. It is normal life enhanced with peace, the Beit Hamikdash, prophecy, wonderful wonderful things, but it will still be b'derech hateeva and people will still die. Even Mashiach will die. Mashiach will die succeeded by Mashiach's son. It'll be a hereditary monarchy. At some point in the future, there will be resurrection of the dead, which will be eternal life, but that's not when Mashiach comes. That'll be some point later than Mashiach. So, even though the Navi Yeshayahu has some very famous verses right? It says the uh wolf will lie down with the lamb, right? V'gar ze'ev im keves. The Rambam says that's all a mashal. Literally, the wolf is still going to eat the sheep. You know, that's not going to change. But the Ra'avad argues. The Ra'avad and other rishonim argue and they talk about Yemos Hamashiach as being a very miraculous era. So, we'll as you say, we'll wait and see and uh hopefully we will bizocheh to experience it. Yeah. Like that um to go back to 2,000 years ago, Jews weren't really known for science and technology and development, things like this. But um after the Enlightenment when people you know, what when when Jews went off the derech somehow like then Jews became known more for things like this, for um philosophy and then science and technology and the like. You talk about all the Nobel Prizes and things. What what is the reason Hashem would be rewarding people for this? Um for it if they're going off the which I'm sure there's some of them that are religious, but most of them probably aren't. People that are in fields in good fields. And what um like what were these people supposed to have done with their lives if they achieved all this, but maybe they were really just supposed to learn another mesechta instead of curing cancer? Yeah, yeah, that that's yeah, that's a very very interesting question. Um well, first of all, the the statement that before the Enlightenment, Jews were not prominent uh in in science and in philosophy is is not entirely clear clear. I mean, first of all, Maimonides, the Rambam, was acknowledged as a very, very great philosopher and physician going back to the Middle Ages. So, there were Jews who were exceptional in those fields. And in fact, there are books books in English on the role of Jews in science and philosophy in the Middle Ages and even in the ancient world. So, there there were contributions. But you are correct, certainly, that maybe the explosion of Jews in all sorts of scientific endeavors is a product of the Enlightenment. And the reason that's so historically could be very easily explained. And that is Jews the Jewish people for centuries, centuries, and centuries had a very strong emphasis on learning and on knowledge. It was typically channeled into Torah learning because number one, that is our religious obligation. And number two, it was the only opportunity available to bright people because many, many avenues of secular learning were simply closed off. Now, with the Enlightenment, it was the Enlightenment kind of got rid of that second reason. The Enlightenment opened universities to Jewish people. And as a result, many people now had other outlets away from learning in which they could cultivate those other creative aspects. So, in a sense, on one hand, we can be very proud of the accomplishments of Jews. But then we want in those fields, but then we wonder gee look at all the great told me they are coming. That were lost. So, one thinks for example, we talk about let's say someone like Albert Einstein. I don't know if Albert Einstein didn't cure cancer, but you know, he made some very great discoveries in physics. He articulated theories of the universe. So, let's imagine that you were Albert Einstein's Rebbe. I tell Albert Einstein was a told me they are coming. And he goes to you and says you know, I really like physics and I kind of think that's my talent. Is Are you Are you supposed to talk him out of it and kind of say, "Stay in your Shiva, you know, forget about all that stuff." Now, of course, you never know who he's going to be. Would Albert Einstein's life have been more significant had he stayed had he gone to Slabodka than pursuing discoveries in physics? Now, you might answer, "Yeah, because, you know, who cares about relativity? You know, okay, you can live without E is MC squared or whatever." Okay, but let's take other examples where somebody did something that's tangibly improving the life of the world. Somebody discovers cancer. I'm sorry, a cure for cancer. Let's assume we have a cure for some cancers. If he would have been in your Shiva, he wouldn't have done that. Right? Would his life be more valuable if he would sit and learn? That's a very, very difficult question. Generally speaking, the Torah is the highest, greatest thing you can do. So, if somebody says uh is it better for me to be a cancer researcher or to be a religious Jew and learn Torah? Then clearly, being a religious Jew and learn Torah is better. But on the other hand, if the choice is full-time learning versus not full-time learning, that's a much more difficult question because although learning keeps the world alive but not every person is intended by God to be a full-time learner. Hashem needs doctors and lawyers and accountants and cancer researchers. And it could very well be that a person's divine mission in life was to find the cure for cancer. But it still has to be within the framework of Hashem's Torah and Hashem's mitzvahs. That's going to be the challenge. So, if you're positing it as a binary choice, I either I'm faithful to God or I do my cancer research, I would say be faithful to God. But if the simple if the choice is full-time learning versus that, that's a more difficult question. And I think that there are different answers that you can give. It is not everybody's toches to be in kollel their entire lives. Every people have different missions in life and we need to try to identify what our missions are. Yeah. Can we Can we explain the definition of Zionism and why many Koreans are Zionists? Well, Zionism doesn't have a single definition. Zionism is Well, there's political Zionism, there's religious Zionism, secular Zionism. It has many, many different meanings. Zionism is essentially a movement to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people. In one version of Zionism, it wasn't even connected to Israel. Herzl was willing to consider Uganda. But generally speaking, we connect the Jewish national homeland to Israel. Now, secular Zionism is a nationalistic movement that is not connected to Torah and Judaism. And it looks at the Jewish people as a national entity. Now, obviously a religious Jew would be opposed to a secular Zionism because we believe that our national identity is based on a Torah that God gave us. And any attempt to separate Jewish identity from Torah is a false statement. Now, religious Zionism believes that the establishment of a Jewish homeland is connected to the spiritual mission of the Jewish people to live in Eretz Israel and to create a society that serves Hashem. We will call that dati leumi, religious nationalism. Now, there you get into the issue of the Neturei Karta where some say we are not supposed to have that vision until Mashiach comes and establishing a state, even if it's religious, is wrong. So Haredim that are against Zionism are against Zionism for many, many different reasons. It's not a single reason. Reason number one is that secular Zionism denies Torah. Reason number two even religious Zionism often collaborates with people who are either non-Torah or even worse, anti-Torah. So, even if you are coming in as a religious person, you are collaborating and working with non-religious people. And as a result, they will influence your decisions. Reason number three would be the Neturei Karta vision that statehood is essentially prohibited for us until Mashiach comes. Right? So, these are kind of three different reasons. And different gedolim have different intensities in how they connect to those reasons. Many gedolim were not against a state of Israel in principle. But they were against it in practice because they felt working with anti-religious elements would compromise and dilute a person's commitment to Torah. Now, there were gedolim who were religious Zionists. I mean, Rav Kook was Of course, he died before the state of Israel, but he was obviously a religious Zionist. Rav Elyashiv himself, I wouldn't call Rav Elyashiv a religious Zionist, but Rav Elyashiv worked for the Rabbinate. He worked within the Beit Din system of the Rabbinate. Rav Pesach Zvi Frank, who was mamish one of the gedolei hador, worked within the Rabbinate structure. So, there were many who did work within the what you might call the Zionist state and they did not adopt any Neturei Karta position. But as I say, the primary opposition to Zionism was that it was seen as a parallel to the nationalistic movements of the 19th century. If you know your 19th century history, you know that the 1800s was a period of great, great nationalism in which different groups were fighting to establish their own countries, etc. either by a process of unification like in Germany or just a process of revolution. And Zionism was seen to be connected to those nationalistic movements and it was not connected to worshipping God. And it was seen as a substitute for Torah. That Torah was no longer a defining characteristic. It was national identity. Um Religious Zionism came a little later. Political Zionism, well, it's a little tricky. As an organized movement, there was first political Zionism, then there was religious Zionism. But there were books on religious Zionism before Herzl. So, the religious idea of statehood preceded Herzl, but it didn't really get organized until Herzl started the secular or political Zionistic movement. And And the like. So, those were different different issues. You know, if you If you remember Volozhin, you had the two great Rosh Yeshivas. You had the Netziv and Rav Chaim Soloveitchik who married the Netziv's granddaughter. They were the two great Rosh Yeshivas in Volozhin towards the end of Volozhiner's term. And the Netziv was a moderate supporter of Zionist activity. He supported the building up of the Yeshuv in Eretz Israel. He supported immigration of Jews to Eretz Israel. He supported financially the Zionist movements. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik was absolutely a kanai. He was absolutely a zealot. He called the whole Zionist movement a merida against Malchus Shamayim, a revolt against the kingdom of heaven. Ad kdei kach, that there were very, very chashuve people who later became gedolim who were doing a secret Zionist movement in Volozhin. The person who later became Rosh Yeshiva of Slabodka, Moshe Mordechai Epstein, was a bachur in Volozhin and he organized a secret Zionist club. And Rav Chaim got wind of it and Rav Chaim didn't know who was in it. He demanded from a bachur that the bachur give him the names of every member of that club. He was going to kick them out of the Yeshiva. Uh it is recorded that the bachur did not comply with the request. So, imagine Moshe Mordechai Epstein, if God forbid, he would have been kicked out of Volozhin. I don't know what what would have happened. Would he would he have remained from? Who knows what happened? As it was, he became one of the greatest Rosh Yeshivas of the next generation. But Rav Chaim was going to root them out, root and branch, uh because they were treif. So, you see among gedolei Yisrael there were different approaches about this. What do they say about the Briskers? They say the American Soloveitchiks are the Zionists and the Israeli Soloveitchiks are the anti-Zionists. The ones who live here are the ones against and the ones in America were the ones who were more connected to Zionism. Okay, uh yeah. Um I'm adding to your question from uh someone outside. In the Gemara in Sotah on daf 20 amud alef and Bava Metzia also on amud 20 amud alef, it said talked about Noah ben Adam. It says that if a man is going to jump in a furnace and to embarrass someone in public. And the Gemara learns this from he says from Tamar um But it's question is but who who says that if Tamar did speak up against Yehudah, she would have been believed? How could there be embarrassment and how could there be embarrassment if no one would have believed her? Right. So, the question is I'll repeat the question. The Gemara tells us it is better for a person to throw themselves into a fiery furnace rather than embarrass anybody and the proof is because Tamar who I got pregnant with Yehudah and Yehudah didn't know he was with Tamar because her face was was covered. So, she was going to be burnt at the stake for committing adultery uh and she did not say Yehudah is the one that did it. Uh she just said indirectly the one that gave me this staff is the one and if Yehudah wouldn't have admitted she would have gone to her death before she would embarrass him. So, the question that the person is asking is well uh you're telling me you're not allowed to embarrass somebody even if that would save your life. Well, what's your proof? Let's say she would have said Yehudah did it. Uh who says she'd be believed? I mean uh you know, uh number one, she's a woman, but number two, if she's the one that's going to be killed, you know, she's not believed to kind of get herself get herself out of it. So, if that's so, you don't have a proof because maybe you are allowed to embarrass somebody if it'll get you out of the embarrassment or get you out of the uh death. But in this case, it wouldn't have worked anyway. So, what's the uh what's the what's the point? Uh that's that's a very good question. I have I have to think about that. Uh in terms of whether she would be believed, again, I kind of alluded to this. Why would she not be believed? See, on one hand, uh you could say well, she's a woman. A woman is not kosher for a testimony. But under B'nei Noach courts, a woman is kosher for testimony. The only question is she's an ogeya b'davar because she's saying it to save her life. So, the question is would an ogeya b'davar be believed in a court of B'nei Noach? That would be the shaila. I think it may very well be that she would be uh believed under those circumstances. Another possibility would be this. Another possibility would be that Well, first of all, I would say that Yehudah I think would be embarrassed even with a false accusation. I mean, to say there's no embarrassment that I think is not so much of a question. But I think what would have happened would be that if she would have said it uh he would have admitted that that he was the one. In other words, uh he would be so embarrassed that he would have to admit the truth. He would not be able to So, in a sense, even if she's not believed, it would have saved her life because he would have come forward. But what she did not want to reveal it even if that would make him come forward. So, maybe that that would be the malach. But the other malach would be that maybe she would be believed because under dinei B'nei Noach, both anisha and an ogeya b'davar might have nemanus. Yeah. So, uh you spoke about uh Ezra. Yeah. I'm wondering like what other significant roles did Ezra play? And what changed any other like uh met uh big uh minhagim that Jews used to do before that? Well, again, Ezra who was the leader of the Jews when they returned to Bavel at the beginning of the second Beit Hamikdash, Ezra came one year after the dedication of the second Beit Hamikdash. So, Ezra founded the group that's called the Anshei Knesses Hagdolah. And they did tremendous things. I mean, number one, they enacted Krias HaTorah on Monday and Thursday. Moshe Rabbeinu enacted Krias HaTorah on Shabbos d'Rabbanan. Uh Ezra and the Anshei Knesses Hagdolah, they wrote the Shmoneh Esrei. They wrote the Birkas Krias Shema. They wrote the seder of tefillah. Uh Yom Tov, Shabbos, chol uh uh so, really almost everything we do, they kiddush, havdalah, all of the nuschaos that we have are from the Anshei Knesses Hagdolah. Ezra combated intermarriage. He made people divorce uh or send away their non-Jewish wives. Uh Ezra established the yichus of Klal Yisrael, who was a mamzer, who was not a mamzer, etc. He purified the lineage of Am Yisrael. And in fact, Chazal describe Ezra as a second Moshe Rabbeinu. And they said he would have been deserving to have been given the Torah to Am Yisrael had Moshe not preceded him. And that's why he was zocheh to change the writing because in a sense, he did give us a new Torah. It's the same Torah, but he changed the writing from Ksav Ivri to Ksav Ashuri. So, Ezra is very very very great. Yeah. Um on similar lines, I know we we know that he you were saying the rabbi was speaking earlier today that like they changed all their sifrei Torah and their tefillin to the different scripts. Do all those previous scrolls become possul for usage or are they also like able to be Yeah, that's an interesting question and I have to say that one of the problems we have is we don't have any sifrei Torah that are tefillin that are in the Ksav Ivri. We don't have them. Like why aren't there any left over at all from pre-Ezra? But the truth is we don't even have regular sifrei Torah from Ezra's time. I mean, our earliest Torahs are much later than Ezra anyway. But you're asking me a theoretical question. Would a sefer Torah written in Ksav Ivri, which was kosher at the time, would it be halachically acceptable? Uh I believe that once Ezra was meshaneh the ksav, those Torahs now became possul. You would not be able to use them at that point. Ezra like write everything brand new at that So, everything had to be brand new. Everything had to be start start again. Yeah. Um but wait. What's the reason you were saying Tikun Klali and why is it not something that Why doesn't it seem to be something that you say? Yeah, so the view of Tikun Klali Tikun Klali is a collection of of 10 chapters of Tehillim from that Rav Nachman of Breslov suggests al pi kabbalah that helps a person with various uh sins that they might be guilty of uh zera l'vatala and the like and uh these Tehillim are said to help a person. Um you know, what can I say? I I I I can't I I there's nothing I can be against because saying the words of David HaMelech are always good. Tehillim are always good and uh it brings down a great spiritual benefit. Uh why it's not more widespread is simply because people don't like Breslov or they're critical of Breslov. So, anything that comes from Breslov, some people are going to possul. Uh and the problem basically is if I go into if I connect to Tikun Klali, am I connecting to everything Breslov is doing or only to that? But as a as an isolated uh thing, uh what could what could possibly be wrong with it? I really don't see what could be wrong with it. Other than I mean, again, according to many mekubalim, you don't say uh Torah sheb'al peh at night. So, maybe they would have a problem with Tikun Klali at night. But the truth is that in the among the Litvish world, we're not so makpid on that anyway. So, b'davka, uh a Litvish person wouldn't be so makpid on Tikun Klali. So, the Mesillas Yesharim says generally, this is something that you want to think about, that one of the ways you achieve closeness to Hashem is to be ragil to say Tehillim. Now, we look at saying Tehillim as things that, you know, uneducated people do, simple people do, you know, etc. Uh it's something that it's it's worthwhile for all of us to do a little bit. Um you know, besides Pesukei d'Zimra, of course. Uh and uh what could be wrong with it? Yeah. Um following up on my previous questions regarding Ezra, um I saw sometime ago, maybe a year ago, there there's a there's a book that talks about an argument. I think it's from like a Reform perspective but that Ezra might have been the one who since he changed so much that he might have been the one who wrote the Torah Yeah. and things like this. Yeah. And I know there's there's an argument in there. I haven't really gone through it myself but I was wondering if the Rav could expand on that. And then also um in regards to if we have uh sifrei Torahs today that are preserved other than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Um if not, why we do not accept the variances in the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have we have preserved what and where we got the main safer Torah that we have today that we use that does not exactly coincide with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yeah, yeah. So, uh the thing about Ezra, again, in the in secular academic world as well as the reform movement, Ezra is given a great deal of credit for various innovations including writing parts of the Torah. Uh and uh even the idea of matrilineal descent. The reform movement makes the claim historically that the idea that Judaism is based on the mother rather than the father, they claim was Ezra's invention when he made Jewish men expel their non-Jewish wives and their children. Now, suffice it to say that we do not accept that. We do not accept that Ezra changed anything. Ezra is described as a sofer, a scribe who faithfully transmitted the Torah of Hashem. And uh he is not regarded as an innovator other than his work in the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, which indeed had a great deal of a great deal of of of of innovation. Uh the issue about the authenticity of our Torah scrolls. So, the truth of the matter is I have to check. I do not believe we have physical specimens of Sifrei Torah that are older than the Dead Sea Scrolls right now. However, at various times in the early Middle Ages, we were in possession of older scrolls. And in the round the 8th 9th century, meaning the 700s, 800s, in Tiberias, there was a group of great great great Talmidei Chachamim who are called the Ba'alei Mesorah. And the Ba'alei Mesorah devoted their lives to preserving the authentic original texts of the Torah and all of the Tanakh, Nevi'im and Ketuvim. In fact, uh you can see their work. Their work is very obscure. I mean, you need a a book to and there are books. You need a book to explain it. But if you open up a Mikra'ot Gedolot, not not so much in Chumash, for some reason they don't print it in the Chumash, but open up a a Nevi'im, you will see different squiggles and different marginal notes that probably don't even make sense to you. Uh you know, you don't even know what they are. But they're noting every anomaly. So, if it says the word uh rachum, it might say, "This word appears 28 times." And it will actually list the times that it appears. Or if it says uh "If this word has three shins in it," it'll say, "This is one of five words that have three shins in the letter." In other words, the Ba'alei Mesorah made notes, footnotes, on every single structure, any single unusual structure, to preserve the the kri and the ktiv and unusual spellings. And uh these are called the Ba'alei Mesorah and they did have fragments that dated all the way back. And they worked for years and years. The greatest of the Ba'alei Mesorah uh was a man called uh uh Aaron ben Asher. And in fact, his whole family is called the Ben Asher family. Uh were families of of Ba'alei Mesorah. And the Rambam tells us in the Mishneh Torah that the Sefer Torah written by Ben Asher is considered to be the authentic Sefer Torah that we rely upon. Now, where is the Sefer Torah of Ben Asher? So, it's interesting that the Rambam says it was housed in Syria, Aleppo. Aleppo is a town in as a town in Syria. And that was the Ben Asher Sefer Torah. Unfortunately, uh it may have gotten lost. We're not sure. There were things that were retrieved from Aleppo, a codex. A codex is not a scroll. A codex is a bound book uh which didn't have a lot of the Torah and and there's a lot of uncertainty what do we have any part of the Ben Asher codex that the Rambam was talking about or is that something else that got there later? Uh but the Rambam himself uh says that our Sefer Torah is based on the work of Aaron ben Asher, who was uh the most reliable of the Ba'alei Mesorah. Uh maybe sometimes if we had a PowerPoint uh to look I mean, you you take out a Nach and and look at those notes that probably you may have never never have noticed. And you'll if you can figure them out, you will see they are all noting every linguistic structural feature of the Sefer. Uh one of the commentaries on Nach is Minchat Shai. Now, Minchat Shai is much much later, but essentially it is based on the Mesorah and he explains some of the Masoretic notes. That's why uh in academia, the Jewish biblical text is called the Masoretic text. Have you ever seen that expression? It is the text that is based on the Mesorah of Ben Asher. Yeah. Um it's two unrelated questions, but first is um um what what message um is the idea of a hair covering for women? Like what message is it with uh with the woman sitting I wouldn't think it's idea of hair covering because you know, you know, before they were married also they had their hair and uh A and B, which is completely unrelated, is that um how do we get nowadays like the different shiurim that we have of kazayit and kebeitza? How how come the these measurements that we have nowadays are so much bigger than than typical like olives and eggs? And like also we have heard also that people say like that that they used to be much bigger in the past. Like I heard that they they did they found um like seeds of like uh some of the fruits and like it was a specific knowledge that they found and they measured it and nowadays they found it to be the same exact size. Is that a true statement? Yeah, yeah. So, the first question is what is the spiritual significance of a married woman having to cover her hair? Now, a married woman covers her hair, at least in public, uh because we say that uh hair is sexually attractive. But this is a very unusual rule because this only applies to married women. Every other law of tznius, like the length of a skirt or or exposed arms, we don't differentiate between married women and single women. Kol Isha applies to a single woman, at least if she's a niddah. A single woman who's not a niddah, actually, there is no issue of kol Isha. But but once a woman is 11 years old, we assume that she's already menstruated and she's a niddah. So, normally the laws of tznius do not depend on marital status. The only law of tznius that depends on marital status is covering hair. So, to say that hair has to be covered because it's sexually provocative is a difficult svara really, because if that's the case, then single women should not cover their hair either. Now, there are some shittos that say single women yes, but we don't we obviously don't pasken that way. So, it would seem on a more deeper way that uh covering the hair is an enhanced aspect of privacy. It's more of a almost a reminder to the woman herself that now that she is married and connected to a husband, there has to be uh the notion of deepening and intensifying the relationship internally that she has with her husband rather than uh kind of advertising herself uh to the public. In fact, some some want to even say that that's the justification of a wig, right? But you know, you you you see many people many poskim are against wigs because if wigs are as attractive as human hair, what's the point? And that's why you see a lot of signs here, "No wigs." But those who defend wigs will argue that it's not a question of what is another person seeing. It's a question of the woman herself knowing there has to be a certain element of containment. So, that's much more of an internal recognition. Now, in terms of the size of kebeitza, what is an egg, what is a kazayit? Well, obviously, you know, uh the amount that many people eat is much larger than an olive, much larger than an egg. So, the chumra is based on a famous psak of the Noda b'Yehudah. It would be a little too long to go into it now. Where the Noda b'Yehudah tries to prove from the Gemaras that the size of the eggs and the size of the olives are only 50% of what they once were. And therefore, when you have to eat a kazayit, you have to eat two kezaytim. You have to eat two eggs because two is equal to what one was. And this is the famous shitta of the Noda b'Yehudah that is called nishkatnu habeitzim, that the eggs and the olives are only half the size. And that's why everything is double. And the Mishna Berurah paskens that we have to be choshesh for the Noda b'Yehudah whenever it's a mitzvah d'oraita. That's why you have to eat large amounts of matzah. And the Chazon Ish even makes it makes it larger. Now, he proves this from various texts. But you are correct that there's some empirical evidence of finding seeds and the like in which that seems not to be the case. So, that's a kasha. That's a kasha. But again, the Noda b'Yehudah might answer that maybe that's not representative. Meaning to say, if he if he proves from the Gemara that things are smaller, then the fact that you find something that's the same size, that's not going to automatically refute the proof. But you are correct. And the truth of the matter is that uh the ultimate logic of assuming there was such a change is not so is not so poshit. Yeah, we'll stop soon. Yeah. Um so, why do we wear like suits and black hats if that's like uh kind of the going where I mean more I mean suits or something like that. Why don't we wear like like traditional like Jewish like I mean like Well, the truth of the matter is there's nothing that's traditionally Jewish. I mean I mean let's imagine you'd wear the long flowing robes. So, you dress like the Arabs in Saudi Arabia, you know. One way or the other, there's not necessarily Although Hazal say, it's interesting. There apparently was some real Jewish levush because remember it says in Mitzrayim One of the things that was we didn't change our Jewish dress. So, that means there was something called Jewish dress. But in the course of the years, that really hasn't been preserved. So, as a result, the basic definition of Jewish dress is 50 years behind what the are doing. Meaning to say uh let them go ahead and establish a fashion and 50 years later it'll become a Jewish fashion because they're onto something else. So, you still look a little different, right? You look a little different from the Uh but it's not going to be a radical difference simply because there are certain things we've lost the mesorah for. We have lost the mesorah for. But I do know that some people have held that the the old like the Temani levush kind of wearing the flowing robes was more authentically uh Jewish and they say Rabbi Leib Diskin who came from Brisk. He was the rav of Brisk before the Soloveichiks. And when he came to Eretz Yisrael he refused to enter Yerushalayim till he put on the gold, you know, the gold kapotas of the old Yerushalmis. He did not want to enter Yerushalayim wearing the levush of chutz la'aretz that on some level was not a an authentic Jewish levush. So, there was such a feeling. Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld as well. Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld came from Hungary. But if you see the way he dressed he dressed like like an old Sephardi chacham. Uh so, there was such a concept. But by and large, most say that that was no better. I mean one is imitating Arabic dress and one is imitating European dress. So, one has no be'atza maila maila over the other. Black hats? Uh all right. So, black hats is an interesting issue. You know, the truth of the matter is don't wear black hats uh by and large, but they used to. You know who destroyed the hat industry was John F. Kennedy. Uh because presidents used to make a point of wearing a hat, a homburg even, you know. Uh and John F. Kennedy wanted to show his youthfulness in a cold January winter, January uh 20 1961 and he went there without a hat, you know, and that killed the whole industry. So, the only people who buy black hats in America are uh from Jews and for some reason a lot of blacks like black hats. I don't know why they they buy black hats. So, whatever it is, different style. Uh but they're the only the only people literally the hat industry is very very seriously depressed uh because of this. So, how did black how did hats start? Hats did not start as Jewish levush. Hats started to dignify bnei yeshiva by dressing them like uh like fancy gentlemen in Poland and Lithuania. Meaning there was a concept that many people looked down at yeshiva bachurim. Many frum Jews looked down. They looked down at them as non-productive. They looked down at them as poor. They looked down at them as uh not able to make a living. So, there was an emphasis in the yeshiva world. This sounds a little strange. On looking good and looking sharp. Being a sharp dresser. And the hat was not a sign of frumkeit. The hat was a sign that you were a sharp dresser. Because a Polish nobleman would never walk outside without a hat. Even in America in the 1950s, if you look at pictures, you see, you know, people wore hats. So, it's so fascinating. This is how fashion works. That what is now regarded as the uniform of a frum Jew was actually the uniform of a natty dresser. And it is and this was the cheshbon in the yeshiva to build up the self-confidence of bnei Torah that they shouldn't look at themselves as nebachshes and failures and the like. They psychologically needed to look good. Now, in davening, there's other things about covering your head etc. But that didn't require a hat. That could be a cap, you know, etc. Look at the Chofetz Chaim for example. Chofetz Chaim didn't I don't know. He didn't seem to have a hat. I mean like a black hat like we would have it. The Chofetz Chaim wore a cap. We people call it a fisherman's cap although he wasn't a fisherman. It was the simple cap of a of a working man. So, in terms of tefillah, his head was fully covered. But it wasn't like the rabbinic black black hat because the Chofetz Chaim was not interested in fancy dressing so to speak. So, the hat has a very different origin than the way we put it the way we describe it today. But again, I think hashgacha protis changes things. Meaning to say, when we need to be more separate from our environment so that which was designed to make us mix now becomes the hashgacha that helps us separate. So, things change their function. Hashem has reasons for things at different times. Okay, last question, yeah. For I know on Yom Kippur they bring down the shul in the black on Shabbos. And there was a black hat not included in that. And then there was Rabbi Yaakov Soloveichik who doesn't wear He didn't wear white, but he didn't wear black on Shabbos. He still wears a black hat. That's very You're going to have to ask him. You are correct that the mekubalim have a have a sheet of kabbalah that on Shabbos you do not wear black and some are makpid to wear white, but at least they don't wear black cuz black is hester panim. Black is midas hadin. Black is choshech and Shabbos is totally or. So, the question becomes how come the hat is black on Shabbos? I don't know. Apparently I mean I mean I'm just bringing a raya that the Rabbi Soloveichik wears a black hat. Apparently it doesn't apply to hats. But you should ask him why not? Why doesn't it apply to hats? What about shoes? Same thing. The shoes I assume are black, too, right? Although I've I've seen guys, but they're not talmidei chachamim necessarily. They're more like hippies. But I I've seen guys who they're all white on Shabbos including their pants, including their socks, including their shoes, even the hat. So, I've seen such a thing. But on the other hand, you are right. The chashuve talmidei chachamim keep the shoes black and they keep the hat black. Good question.