What? Yeah, well not, but Antoninus we call him. He may have been Antonius, Marcus Antonius, we're not sure. But in Hebrew, in Aramaic he's called Antoninus.
Antoninus was not a bad person, he was a good guy. You know, he was a Roma, but he was a close friend of Yudanasi. They grew up together, right?
They grew up next door to each other in Sipori. They maintained their friendship into adulthood. And one became the Roman governor, the other became the head of the Jewish people.
So this was a tremendous window of opportunity to write things down. Marcus Antoninus provided money, political and military protection, and he really enabled the writing down of the Mishnah. So it was really a moment to be seized.
Right? Carpe diem. Carpe diem.
Also, Rebuda Nasi... was really the right person in the right place in the right time. So he had the political ability because he was friends with Antoninus. He was also de facto leader of the Jewish people because he was descended from the house of David. He has excellent command of Hebrew.
He had an incredibly impeccable reputation and he himself was wealthy. Yeah, money always helps. That's a good question. I think he wanted to ensure that it would be eternal, because he didn't know if Aramaic would be forever, the Lingu of Raga.
The same reason the Rambam, the Rambam's work that he wrote as a guide for every Jew in every place and every time, that you must have, right, a guide for the perplexed. You could be a great, excellent, good Jew without knowing the ins and outs of how Aristotelian philosophy can be synthesized with Judaism, right? how many people know that? No one, right? I mean, you can be a good Jew, but the Mishneh Torah, which is the Rambam's guide to how to be a good Jew, what we believe, how we behave, that he wrote in Hebrew, not Arabic, because he wanted to be for all Jews, all places, all times.
Right? So I think a similar probably with the Mishneh would make sense. Right. To some degree.
Should we do a... Okay, some questions will be... Yeah.
When Yehudah Nasi did write down the Oral Law, what things did that change in the nature of the Torah by writing it down? It no longer speaks to your teacher, your teacher speaks to the person in the night. It may have reduced that somewhat, but the way he wrote the Mishnah, he wrote it in such a way, we discussed this, that he wrote it in such a cryptic way that you can't really understand it unless you do intensive study with teachers, etc.
Which is, of course, what is that? That's the Gemara. So it did engender that type of discussion in Gemara, but what else changed? Yeah, it was much more... Much more concrete, you know what I mean?
Less flexible. Something's written down, becomes a little less flexible. Yeah, I mean, does anyone else want the AC? I mean, I think the windows are open, it's very... I think it's comfortable in here, I don't know.
Yeah, it's more of a breeze. Yeah, move. Okay, so yeah, less flexible, clearly.
What is responsa literature? How would you describe that? When did it begin?
When's the earliest? Right, but specifically? More specific.
Generally, yeah, Shalot U'shuvot are questions that people asked about Halakha and rabbis were right to respond to it. Yeah, earliest response was with the Goanim. The Goanim, most of the literature of the Goanim, who were like one or two generations after the end of the Gemara, we're talking about 8th, 9th, 10th century, a lot of their response was responsive.
People would ask questions. then write questions back to you know babylon people in spain would ask someone in babylon tell us about the sitter so he'd write back he sent them a sitter of umram go on we have a sitter from rama that's from the chugas of the going him um uh someone asked rub shreerah got on about a history of the taurus while there we have this massive letter of I'm sure gone with the entire history of the oral law. Why was it significant in the development of the Torah Shabbat Pair? What was significant about it?
That's one component. What else was it doing? It was also, because in the Teshuvot, rabbis almost never would just answer with a one-liner.
Yeah, it's okay. I get questions on WhatsApp all the time. My answers are usually, yes, that is a reliable hesher, or no. I wouldn't drink water from that rabbi, etc.
Right? I'll give you the names later. But basically, but they're usually one-liners.
But traditional response in literature, what's the response? The whole thing. He goes back to the sources, shows you the line of reasoning.
It's classic Torah Shabbat. You couldn't get more Torah Shabbat pair than that. Right?
In other words, going back as far as you can in the sources, right, showing the line of reasoning going from Sinai to... Opening your window in the air conditioner, whatever, you know, on Shabbat, running an ATM in your private bank, I don't know, that type of stuff, that's what Charles Stewart, so it's really classic Torah Shabbat in that sense. We gave some examples, what were some examples of that?
I believe we discussed electricity on Shabbat, for example. We discussed the electricity on Shabbat idea that obviously electricity was not used until, I don't know, 150 years ago, so I don't know when. So the Talmud doesn't discuss electricity. The Rishonim don't discuss electricity. How do you know what to do in terms of electricity on Shabbat?
So that's classic Torah Shabbat pair. We have the tools, we have the mechanism. And great rabbis like Avram Yeshayah Karelitz find precedent in the Talmud to discuss it. What exactly was the electricity thing? How did he come out?
What was his conclusion? Why is electricity prohibited on Shabbat? What did the Chazonish say? Yeah, Chazonish, which is the more accepted view by consensus, is that when you... When you close a circuit and now electric flow goes through that machinery or computer etc, you know what you've just done?
You've just turned it from a non-working device into a working device. It's as if you've built a utensil. You know it's like he compared it to the Talmud which says putting a pin in a whitewashing brush to connect the end, the brush with the pole, you put a little pin in, doesn't take much effort, but without that pin Useless.
Brush will fall off. You won't be able to do it. So you've just built something. So that's the Chazanish, which is fascinating.
What is the authority of the Torah Shabal Peh and Durabbanon? And is there a difference? What's Durabbanon?
What's Torah Shabal Peh? Yeah, correct. We discussed this. Chanukah, right? The Gemara says, where did Hashem command us to light a Hanukkah candle?
Hanukkah happened after Tanakh is over. Tanakh ended, there's no more prophets, it's a few hundred years after that. Hashem, so we make a bracha, Yeah.
Right, right. So you have something like a halacha, what we call halacha l'moshe mesinai, which is a halacha that goes back to Moses at Sinai, is that the beautiful fruit mentioned in the Torah that you should hold in your hand on Sukkot is not kiwi, and that's wrong, right? That's, the authority of that is that as we have a tradition going back to Sinai, that your tefillin should be black. All the way back, right? However, that you should light Hanukkah candles, wash hands before eating bread, what's the origin of that?
That's not Torah Shabbat Peer, strictly speaking. That's Rabbinic, Rabbanan. What's the authority of Rabbanan?
Anyone remember? Devarim? By what authority can a rabbi tell me or tell the Jewish people to light Hanukkah candles?
They're not prophets. Where did Hashem do that? That's what I'm asking. You're right. As long as they specify that it's the Rabbanan.
Ah, that's a different thing. Right. But where does it specify?
Is it from the direction you promote it down? No, no, that's oral law. I'm talking about the Rabbanan.
Exactly. Right? It says in Deuteronomy chapter 17, we are told that when something is beyond you, you don't understand, you have a question, blood, wounds, disputes, etc.
Well, who should you go to? The Levim, the Kahanim and the judges in your day. And they will tell you the matter of judgment according to the Torah that they instruct you, you shall follow. right you shall not deviate from that which they tell you neither right nor left so that means that the torah is commanding me to listen to the sunhedrin so if the sunhedrin makes a decree that we have to light hanukkah candles guess what i'm commanded by the torah not to rebel against the sunhedrin so therefore that's why i have to listen now you have a good point That's only if a senior rabbi, like if some guy here argues on the Sanhedrin, no offence to anyone, but that's meaningless.
He's an ignoramus. Who the hell is he not? Right? I don't know. You ask some guy on the street, what do you think about this cancer drug?
Right? He says, ah, you know, it's meaningless, right? If the guy is a muffler, he is brilliant, he's a great Torah scholar, and he argues with the Sanhedrin, that's a capital crime, because he's rebelling against their authority, right? However, we're all enjoined to follow the Sanhedrin as we have to follow the Torah.
I mean, if it's an explicit verse, nothing to talk about. Even if it's not, though, if it's an oral tradition, again, you have to listen to it. But even if it's not an oral tradition, it's a rabbinic injunction, decree, muqtza, whatever it is, Hanukkah candles, etc., you still have to listen. In fact, some say it's a Torah commandment to listen.
alright so now Yes, there is this idea, which is that also there are restrictions. For instance, if the rabbis claim, if I ask my rabbi, why do I have to light Hanukkah candles? And he says, because it's written in the Torah that you have to light Hanukkah candles. That's a no-no.
That's called Baal Tosif. He has added to the Torah. If the rabbis don't claim that their decree is Torah, then that's cool. If they claim it's Torah, for example, if I ask my rabbi, can I have a turkey, smoked turkey with Swiss cheese on rye?
And the rabbi will tell me what? It's osser. And I say, why is it osser?
If the rabbi says, because the Torah says don't eat meat and milk, he has now committed a sin, aside from lying. The sin is, don't add to the Torah. What the rabbi should say is, well, according to... Torah, biblical law, it is indeed permitted but the Sanhedrin decreed that it is prohibited to have even poultry with milk even if it's cold and consequently that's why you cannot have the sandwich.
Fine. That's cool because he hasn't added to the Torah. That's called bal tosif, don't add. What is the concept of law bashamayim hi?
Explain more. I'm not saying wrong. Say, the rabbi has to say it. I'm not saying it's right.
No, you're not saying it. I was going to say one of the Sifta Rebbe things. You're saying right, but say better. No, like this.
That. The means for us to adjudicate a law of the Torah is not through trying to figure out the prophetic, getting a prophetic insight into it. It's probably what you meant. In other words, rather it's the use of the intellect. So if I, we're having an argument, I'm arguing with some other rabbi and I say, I'll prove that I'm right and I do a miracle.
The other rabbi's attitude would be, that's very impressive, but it doesn't mean a thing, right? I didn't hear any logic from you, you didn't bring me any proof, just a miracle. We're not interested in miracles, we're interested in voices from heaven.
Right, I had a dream that your meat is not kosher. No, meaning, right, forget it, right. So rather, loba shemani means the Torah is not. And the famous story is the Gemara in Bava Mitzia, in the story of Reb Leiezer and Reb Yeshua. Anyone remember this?
The fish, yeah. Huh? The fish.
It's a little backwards. Yeah, no, the fish is a different one. The fish and the law.
That's right. The walls collapse. The water goes backwards.
The tree moves. A voice from heaven says, Reb Yosef is right. So that's where Reb Yeshua says, listen.
Ahmad al-Raglav, he stood on his feet and he said, The Torah is not in heaven. And in the Torah it says you shall follow the majority of the sages. We're the majority.
You're the minority. You've done some impressive miracles. Fantastic. Right?
maybe the NFL will get you to come to one of their parties. But it's not the type of thing that adjudicates halacha. So that is a very, very central idea.
We also discussed the phrase, These are those are the words of the living God. So how do we understand that? There are two rabbis. They both have a huge disagreement. Shammai Hillel.
Right, whatever. Abaya, Rava, etc. So what does the Gemara say?
Eilu v'eilu div'l'kim chayim. They're both the words of God. How is that even possible? What does it mean? So Rashi says, Rashi says in Kisubas that, look, when you look at some logic or law or idea, every person's mind sees it somewhat differently.
He says sometimes you might be right, sometimes the other one person might be right in certain circumstances. So he says it's quite possible that both rabbis are right. Now they're both looking at the same law, meaning something from the Torah, but their minds, people's minds work a little differently.
See things differently. things a little differently and therefore it's not it's not incorrect to say they both are the words of god mean they're both from the torah god has the ability to that's that's how rashi looks at it we look at things in different perspectives uh it said the maharal says god has the capacity to create the world as multi-dimensional so he says for example when you say something is tamay impure for example if I would ask you is a pig tamay or tahor what would your answer be tamay tamay but the maharal says it's true but it's not completely tamay You could wear a pigskin jacket, elegant. You could play football with it.
You could... You could have a liver transplant, yes, you could use insulin made from the pig, right, etc. The heart valve transplant is the most common thing from pigs, right. No problem. You could use a pig bristle pastry brush.
Gross as it may seem, but that's what chefs used to use before the invention of silicon, right. So these are all fine. When you say a cow, is it tahor or tamay, the answer is?
Mostly tahor. Mostly tahor, but are there parts of the cow that you cannot eat? Yeah.
absolutely and where the haylev the gidd hana share the blood etc so he says everything's got dimensions of of purity everything's got dimension of impurity says the Torah right so a little right now obviously that's within certain parameters it's not a free-for-all right if someone tells me that it's in my yeah I know that the Bible says you cannot steal but I feel it's okay What the heck with that? That's not Elul by Elul, right? There's parameters, right?
The parameters are, certainly, the text is going to be central here, and the methodology. So the sources and the methodology, right? If my source is a Torah source, my methodology is Torah methodology, then it can be a legitimate view, right?
I contrast that, for example, with reform, the reform movement. The Reform Movement do not use either the texts, the sources of the Torah exclusively, nor do they use Torah methodology. So that's going to be a bit different from what we call Elu v'Elu.
Correct? Remember this? Anyone remember this? Good, good.
A couple of people. In the Torah Shabbat Pair, one of the central features of the Torah Shabbat Pair is that it represents a partnership between God and the Jewish people. So we discussed two beautiful ideas, one from... The base Halevi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, who pointed out that the tablets of the law, had the entire Torah been written down, what would the Jewish people's relationship be to the Torah?
Anyone remember this? We'd be like the ark in which the Torah is placed, which is holy and we have reverence, but the Torah and the Jewish people, the ark, and the Torah... We'd be two separate entities. When the Torah is written, is mostly oral, what are the Jewish people?
We're no longer the ark in which the Torah is placed. The way he puts it is we are the parchment upon which the Torah is written. That is much more holy than the ark, right? We're the actual parchment of the Torah.
Because where is it written for much of history? On the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. It's a very beautiful idea.
We discussed this in the source book, I believe. Another idea which we mentioned from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, pretty sure it's the only thing I actually remember from high school. I went to Lubavitch High School for four years. I only remember one thing from the Rebbe.
Okay, whatever. Anyway, so, which was that he says, what's the difference between Shavuot coming up and Simchas Torah? Shavuot is when we receive the Torah on Sinai. And what do we do on Shavuot?
We have a yontif, we learn all night. And some of us... eat cheesecake right and on simchas torah when we complete the reading of the torah and start the cycle again what do we do on simchas torah we go crazy yes we dance we sing we party we rave etc right so so why the rabbi asked do we have greater celebration on simchas torah which is really a much later type it's like a this rabbinic law of reading the Torah over the course of the year.
We finish it then, we start it then. Surely we should have the greatest celebration on the day that we received the Torah from Mount Sinai. So the Reb Abba Terebi's answer was?
Reaccepted. It's a human-involved piece of Torah. He says, Shavuot, we were passive recipients. Simchas Torah, we are active participants. We are partners with God.
And the oral law is very much that type of idea of a partnership with the Kodesh Boruchu. Because every rabbi's personality, mindset, etc., and where they live, etc., it all becomes part of the Torah. It becomes part of the Torah.
You're not living in a vacuum, but the beauty of it is that we are living Torahs and that is part of the Torah. So we have this amazing partnership. Zohar. So here's a bit of a trick question.
It's not really a trick question, but it's... Is the Zohar part of the oral law? Torah Shaba'u'peh.
I was going to say it's more like a similar transmission, but it's not an argument. Well, depends who you ask. The vast majority of Aharonim, Sephardi, Ashkenaz, Hasidic, Mesnadish, would say that the Zohar or the Kabbalah is part of the transmission of Torah Shaba'u'peh.
There is a minority view, Rambam, who says no it ain't. It's not part of it. Right?
So, but the majority of scholars today in the Jewish world believe that the Kabbalah is an intrinsic part of the Torah Shabbat pair. Yeah? Someone says that... The Kabbalah.
He doesn't accept it. Yeah. Yeah, right, the Zohar wasn't even published yet, but the Kabbalah in general, he did know some books of the Kabbalah.
There was the Sefer Yetzirah existed, Sefer HaHechalois, right, be rejected. I mean, there are Kabbalists who maintain. There's a letter...
I don't believe the letter is true, but the Rambam met some Kabbalists later in life and he said, had I known this, I would have written differently. You know, it's a very convenient letter, but I don't know. Anyway, all right, but generally, now, but the Zohar itself, when did the Zohar emerge? So, well, traditional view is that the bulk of the Zohar was written by Roshan, by Yechay and his students back in the second century CE, around the same time as the Mishnah.
There are Rabbonim, Rebbe Yaakov Emden, and others who maintained that there were many, many later interpolations into the Zohar. So the Zohar we have is really a hybrid of ancient Rav Shimon bar Yochai origin and some more modern stuff. When I say modern, I mean 13th century, right? There are those who say it was invented by Ramosha de Leon in the 1300s in Spain. That's not accepted in the traditional Jewish view.
That's secular academics. But how is it connected to the oral law? How would you say that Kabbalah... in any ways connected to halacha what's the is there a relationship between kabbalah and halacha yeah so rabbi yoshibir soloveitchik um actually said something like that he said that he said that halacha is the way he put it in traditional soloveitchik form is the quantification of the spiritual in physical terms halacha quantifies the spiritual in physical terms, which is a great way of putting it. And obviously, like, Kabbalah will be explaining that connection.
Yeah, that's what it's trying to do. True. Yeah.
I used to sometimes just for fun Shabbos afternoon I would read sentences from halakhic man so that my kids would like be in hysteria just from right now just read a sentence the neocanthian ontology of this idea is blunt and the kids would just be like is that english I say yes that is english right okay anyway so um yeah but I think the answer is probably no okay um Why was mysticism Kabbalah? Why was it taught in a more restricted fashion than regular Torah Shabbat? Okay, one second. Sorry.
Are you everything okay? I'm just in the middle of teaching. I'll call you back later. Okay, bye.
Okay, so, yeah, briefly, so Rav Hutner has a lengthy introduction, he says he gives three main differences between halacha and Kabbalah type stuff. Number one, in halacha there's a buffer zone, a gap between the study and fulfilment. You learn about tefillin and you make the mistake of thinking that tefillin has to be put on your head and your left leg.
Now, there's going to be a time buffer between the time you do that learning and the time you do it, right? Which means you might even figure out that you were wrong. Number one, when you learn something in Kabbalah or in...
philosophy the sphere of fulfillment and the sphere of study are the same as soon as you study it BAM you're already in the sphere of fulfillment because where do you fulfill ideas of emunah hashgafa mashava in the brain that's where you learn it too there's no gap right as soon as I learn the wrong thing I'm doing the wrong thing make sense When it comes to halakha, I'm learning it at one point, then maybe two hours later, two days later, a month later, I'm doing it. When I learn something about God, belief, my viewpoints of the soul, etc., as soon as I learn about it, that is when I'm fulfilling it. Because the area of fulfillment is up here, which is the same as the area of study. So there's no buffer zone.
Secondly, if I make a mistake in halakha, other people might be able to see it and correct it. If I limp into davening with tefillin on my leg, almost certainly, unless you're in England, someone will correct you. England, they're about to serve.
Right, in other places, New York, right, someone will probably slap you around upside your face, I think is the correct term, upside your head. That's right, slap you upside your head and correct you. So that's a good thing. On the other hand, if I walk into shore with a misconception about God and the Spherot and I'm praying to something which is not God, then can anyone know that? No?
So here I am looking very frum. And I might be an oivet avodazora, an idolater standing next to you, right? There's no one who can know that, which is not a good thing because no one can correct me.
Third reason he gives as a difference is that... Third reason is... That as opposed to other areas of halacha, for example, areas of halacha, I mean, I don't know, kashrut, tefillin, shabbat. So if you make a mistake in Hilchot Shabbat, does that affect every other area of your life? Not necessarily.
You make a mistake in Philemon, it doesn't necessarily affect every aspect. On the other hand, if you make a mistake about your relationship with God, that type of is much more far-reaching in its consequences. It's much more global.
So for those three reasons, we are a lot more careful about teaching Kabbalah and deep Jewish philosophy than we are about everything else. Makes sense? Okay.
Okay. Anyone remember what else we discussed? I'm trying to remember all the subjects we discussed.
Oh, yeah. No, anything else? Not just Kabbalah. What else did we cover? Are they rebellious elder and stuff?
Oh, one important thing, yes. So one of the conditions of the Zaken Mamre, oh, this is an interesting point, which I think is important. The details of it, not so important, but one of the things we pointed out was the Sanhedrin, one of the functions, when the Sanhedrin had a discussion about anything, Two rules.
One of the rules was, who speaks first, generally? Yeah, the most junior. Why? We don't want to stifle debate.
So if the most senior member speaks first, everyone's like intimidated. No, he spoke, right? So who am I to argue?
So we're actually au contraire. In fact, there's an idea that if there hasn't been discussion, it's not valid. So where do you see this manifested?
In a couple of places. Number one, Let's say a rebellious elder, a brilliant Torah scholar, disagrees with the Sanhedrin. So he hasn't yet gone to Jerusalem to discuss it with them.
He believes something is prohibited. They think it's okay. Should he follow his own conscience at this point, or should he say, I submit to the Sanhedrin? What would you say? It's not a yes or no.
Conscience or the Sanhedrin? Should follow his own conscience. In fact, the Gemara says, correct. Right, but, and the Rambam and the Ramban both agree on this, which is this.
When is he considered a rebellious elder? After it has been discussed by the Sanhedrin and he's been outvoted. Up to the point where he has not yet discussed it with the Sanhedrin, he is not a rebellious elder.
Why not? What's the logic? Not exactly.
What's the logic of why is he not a rebellious elder until it's been discussed with the Sanhedrin? He's still rebelling, but you're close. Yeah, you're all right. In other words, the validity of the Sanhedrin's ruling is somewhat minimized because they haven't heard all opinions.
Maybe if they hear this dissenting opinion, they'll say, yeah, he's got a good point. He's got a good point. Right now, once they heard his opinion and outvoted him anyway, he's got to have the humility to say. They're as smart as I am. 23 of them.
They all think I'm wrong. Okay, end of story. I'm wrong.
But up to the point where he has not yet presented his view, their majority vote is not quite... Not quite authoritative. And one of the ramifications of this is in modern times, the Chazon Ish says the following. Let's say you have a rabbi you ask most of your questions to, whose name is Rabbi Chat GPT, probably. Right?
Chas v'shalom. Anyway, so you have a rabbi you ask most of your questions to, and that rabbi... Here's a minority opinion. He disagrees with most rabbis in the world disagree with him.
You are entitled to follow your rabbi even though most rabbis disagree. Why? Same reason. Did they have a meeting of all the rabbis, hear what he said and then refute him and outvote him?
No. Right? They're all, he's sitting out there wherever you live in Richmond, Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia.
Is that the capital? Right? So your local rabbi, I don't know if there's a rabbi there, probably Chabad.
Right. So your local rabbi says, I don't know if the other rabbis in America heard what he said. Maybe they'd say, yeah, he's got a good point.
Maybe. Right. So. So therefore, a majority is only valid if there's a if the voice of the minority has been heard.
There's one other place where this is represented. Anyone know? There's a really weird halacha. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yes. Everybody. Everybody. What? Everyone.
Everyone? A unanimous vote in favour of a capital punishment, right, would be, that means the guy would not be punished, he would not be killed. So there are a few opinions as to why that's so, but one opinion is because there's got to be some minority arguing for him. There's got to be a dissenting opinion.
When the dissenting opinion has been outvoted, okay, suburb, right, but until that point... Right, not valid. So that's an important point in the way, methodology of the Torah Shaba'al Peh. Anyone have any questions on anything that we... What's the Rav's favorite book in the whole of the law?
I would have to say Pirkei Avis. I love Pirkei Avis. Love it.
That answers the question. What's your least favorite book? It's a good friend of mine.
You didn't like his book. I don't agree with everything he says, but I wouldn't say it's my least favorite. Okay, all right, we'll stop here.
I assume that Rabbi... Rabbi Rofe, I believe, sent around a schedule of the finals. There'll be an F501.