Welcome to Judaism Demystified, a podcast for the perplexed.
Join us as we explore some of the most fascinating Jewish and
Torah related topics with our esteemed guests.
By tackling some of the biggest questions you likely won't find
addressed elsewhere, we aim to shed light on important issues
and inspire a return to the fundamentals.
Enjoy the show. Thank you for joining the
Judaism Demystified podcast. It is a pleasure to have Rabbi
Leap tag with us. It is such an honor and we
appreciate you making the time we wanted to.
Before we begin talking about the Gusanach method, a topic
that we've discussed a few times on the podcast, we'd like you to
first introduce yourself. Tell the audience a little bit
about yourself and your background.
So I want to begin with a question because what you just
asked me, I always ask my students, because Passover is
coming up, you know, Pasa and I asked my students, pretend you
were never a Seder, but you read the Bible and it was your job to
tell the story, the Exodus to a group of people when you had 10
minutes. So where would you start the
story and where would you end this story?
Again, pretend you were never a seder.
And you asked your students to think for a minute.
I mean, it's not easy for some of them.
And to think for a minute, based on what you remember from your
Bible study, from studying Tanakhra, Yeah.
Or your Jewish education, how would you tell the story of the
Exodus? Where would you begin and where
would and where would you end? Personally, I would begin with
the story of Yosef, like getting sold into slavery and that whole
that whole story. OK.
And where would you begin to? Be fair, I I would have I would
have just started with them already being in Egypt, and then
I would have just started from from the beginning of schmot
with Moshe's birth until until. There's both legitimate
opinions. I can start with the birth of
Moshe. I can start with the birth of.
I mean, I think well. You said I had 10 minutes.
That's why I said that. Yeah.
OK.
If I have 10 minutes, I'm probably just going to start
with Moshe. 'S birth, that's how.
What's that movie called? Prince of Egypt.
Yeah. It's also Davie Moses.
I can start with the burning Bush.
I can start with the new Pharaoh.
I can start with Dako with the wagons.
I can start with Yostf and his brothers, Right?
Yep. I can start, but I wouldn't
start with Craig. Like, but I was born in Akron,
OH, that's that's where I was born.
So your introduction depends on now where would you end this
story? The Exodus?
It's a tough one. You can end.
After entering the land. You can end after Yamsuf.
You can end my Mother Sinai. Yeah.
But then if you have 10 minutes, again, I'm I'm taking the 10
minutes. OK, I'll give you 15 minutes.
OK, 15 minutes if I have 15. Minutes.
Burning in the desert and then end and then ending up in the
land. I think I would end there.
OK, you can end up getting to the land of Israel.
Yes, you end up in Harsenai and you can end up getting out of
Egypt. You're splitting the sea.
That's the answer is you always hear no, those 3 answers, I'd
like to associate them with three different Yamahas are
people. So if you're if your audience,
if they're keep pastor God people, you know these kind of
people, you know everything. It's about the land of Israel.
Of course, the story ends with we get the land of Israel.
If you're I called would call, I would say black Yamaka, but more
more in the Karidi world, you answer Harcena, because that's
why we came out of Egypt to get to the Torah.
That's the essence of Judaism. And if you bring no keeper, you
know, if you're a secular Jew or a non what we call a secular
Jew, you'd end with freedom splitting in the sea.
Now it's called is it freedom from?
Is it freedom 4 or freedom 2. Now all three answers are
correct. There's a value in freedom in
itself because no one should be oppressed.
But freedom 4 is more of the biblical theme.
There's a reason why God took you out of Egypt was to become
his people to keep the Torah. But God doesn't want his people.
He wants a nation keeping Torah to be a nation in either land.
So again, all three are correct, but you, it goes into freedom
from freedom 4, freedom 2. But, but, but when you ask that
question, that's where you're teaching methodology.
But the question is when you read Torah, it's what message
you're getting out of it. We'll discuss the methodology.
You're going to ask me about Kush methodology, but I'm going
to give you an example of it. I still have to tell you where
I'm from. Where would you begin?
That's more important. That's another thing.
So I was born in Akron, OH, but I'm not going to start there.
And my father was a show rabbi in a small little town.
So I went to the public school for I've been with my father.
That was a big advantage. I wasn't stuck in the luck.
I didn't go through the yeshiva system.
Most, most, most big, I mean most people who like have an
impact, who are people who didn't go through the regular
system and people who didn't. And because they see it better
from the outside. Anyway, that went away to high
school to Baltimore. And everyone else was going to 0
for after 12th grade. And I was starting Fathom back
in the 70s. So I got I went to Israel for a
year and got brainwashed and then and I stayed, they did, I
went to Cal, I did Hess there and then I went to Goshen.
They got stuck there. Pretty much.
There wasn't really a plan. Careers just happened by chance
kind of thing. So we'll get that in a minute.
Now, just for the fun, I'll start with the Exodus.
It no one in their mind, no one would have started with Lovan.
No one started with Tara, correct?
No one and and. And.
But that's what we do. But it's over the place, isn't
it? We start with we are slaves in
Egypt and then we jump something about Tarak and we jump about
love on. We never mentioned Moshe.
We didn't mention Yosef and his brothers, but but we our Seder
is so complicated. But no, if you take a step back
and study it where it's coming from, I'm going to give you an
example of gush methodology there.
There's got to be logic to it. But the the key in in instead of
the standard. There's always, you know, I'll
give you another one more question.
Now we'll get to where I'm coming from.
What word is going to be most found in in NAGID?
But what word are you going to see more than any other word?
Just take a wild guess. You're telling the story, the
axis. What word do you think is going
to come up a lot? Avadim.
Yeah, if that that makes a lot of sense, maybe Egypt, something
like that. So, but the answer Shinet Amar.
No, he's quoting, Yeah. Always every other line you're
coding a verse. Now what's our custom Shinamar
you quote the verse and you you're in a Zimmer mode.
You know, you just read the verse and I guess must mean
something and my goal is to read the text because this is ancient
texts. I have to read the Haggadah, but
but because I want you to do is look up that verse.
There's a reason they're quoting it, the step behind it and and
if I can give example of the gush methodology, if because I
were quoting a pussy, they're assuming that just you know, the
plastic, you read it, you know it's context.
Everybody they could say give Clemist as much respect as you
give the newspaper, because when you read newspaper article
you're assuming now we the sentences make sense, but
there's a flow from sentence to sentence.
An internal logic. Yeah, it's called, it's called
the Davar de Boralphanavo. It's called Satoshi Micra.
Now that doesn't mean there's, there's deeper messages, but
the, the, the first thing you need to do is study the text.
We call it objective analysis. Now the question is, what's your
underlying assumption when you study the text?
It was what, what text you mean? What, why was it?
But what's the purpose? Why was it written?
So I'll give you like a quick example from creation.
Did God tell us the story of creation to know that he
created, to know how he created, to know why he created or to
understand why we're chosen? No, when I'm, when I'm reading
Stephen Brasheed, I'm I'm reading a history book, a an
authentic history of here's how creation happened and getting
the facts what it is. Or am I getting a book that was
written to explain to the Jewish people why they're chosen?
It's two different approaches. So if I'm assuming divine
authorship, that's of course our assumption.
Again, how God, how God transmits it.
That's a technicality. No, you would have certain
assumptions you're making, but the main, the most important
belief is that there's a God. We we know that he is, we know
what he is, but there's a God and we take that for granted.
And he chose us to be his people.
It only makes sense that if God's choosing a people, he
would give us a book to understand why we're chosen.
So when I receive Rashid, I'm reading a book that God gave us.
My assumption is, I think Rashid goes, that that it was given to
us in preparation for our Sinai. The book was written for a
nation that went through slavery, just came out of Egypt.
It's on this roller coaster of history going to these amazing
events. It's been suffering as slavery,
witnessing great miracles. They're about to become a
nation. They need a book to understand
where they're coming from, where they're going to why they're
chosen. How come there's 12 tribes who
this God is? What's our relationship with
other nations? Now, when you read the book that
way, how you read the book, how you interpret the book is very
different than I'm reading a book of history or a book of
theology or book about how not to bring up a family.
If you understand my joke, there's someone's looking for a
book, how to bring up a family. Don't read, don't read, don't
give them a punish. But if you're if you don't like
to understand what's the meaning of chosenness and what's the
meaning of what's the meaning of why God chose you and wise
they're Jewish people. Then you read saturation.
Now I can learn family values from the book, but the book
wasn't written to teach you, you know, family values.
I can learn it from it, but that's not the goal of the book.
So that's if you want the approach.
That's pretty much the approach that I that I, my main Rebbe is
rebel banoon. I'm sure you've heard him quote
all the time. He's and then there's a whole
all the people that quote. There's like, there's so many
amazing teachers, but there is no one defined gush methodology.
There's no Gush approach because we argue left, We argue with
each other all day long. And that's the Jewish approach,
we argue. I love the the videos where
sitting down on like the, I don't know, it seems like a
little like orchard or garden. I don't know where they're
sitting. And then I'll see like, you
know, Rahman Bazak and Armadan and you know, they're like
arguing with each other, but with the biggest smile on their
faces. It's just so it's just a, it's
a, it's a, it's a very refreshing, beautiful thing.
So our Jewish tradition is to argue in search of understanding
that there is no one, that that's the beauty of the Torah.
No ego, no ego arguments. It's open.
It's open for, it's, it's intentionally open.
God wants us to argue and and it's through that argument.
I'll give you one example. Like the Arcada story, this
happened. Of course they must have a
message, but it's almost impossible.
Did Album do the right thing, do the wrong thing?
Could he? Was it possible?
Was a test? You could possibly test that,
but but the study of the story, this story becomes a catalyst
that creates a discussion of what happens when you have
conflict between basic morality and divine command because you
follow divine command, but you have to follow your, your
conscience and your, your moral compass.
What do you do when they conflict or that no, that's,
that's a life challenge, isn't it?
So the Akita story sparks a discussion of how to deal with
that conflict and and the what what the beauty of hommesis is
that through that discussion of the conflict, that's how you
build your your understanding. How do you deal with the
conflict? You argue about it and you see
the different sides of it. But the the message of the Al
Qaeda story is our discussion of it because it's taking two
values putting against each other and it's not questioned
out from do the right thing, the wrong thing.
We're not sitting back and judging, but the biblical
characters. That's not our goal.
Our goal is what do I learn from the story?
Is he a good guy? Is he a bad guy that that let
God judge that God's giving a story study because it's through
that study and discussion of who's the right thing in the
wrong thing. I'll give you an example from
you know, you mentioned Bazaq and you know, and she's one of
my best friends and we she moves all the time.
I. Absolutely love her when?
I'm Bazaq, love him. So there's there's the Tanakhi
Mayun in Ghosh every summer. So one year by chance, he and
Rafsanit. You must have, you've heard of
Ekman and Salmon also. He's like, it's a pedagogue,
both of them. They probably, they're such good
teachers. They're they're they're like,
and their approach is solid, but they they're really good.
They both thought the story of Schem and, you know, Dina with
Nadine. Yeah, Dina and Shimbunumavi.
Oh, I know this. So what did we learn from this
story? Now there's a theory that maybe
people's political understanding might affect how they interpret
things just by chance the but what's both are unshaped shot
like Shutoshamicra. Rob Standard reaches the
conclusion that Shimon or maybe did the right thing because they
get the last word in and he does a beautiful analysis of the text
of the story, proving that that they're right follow and more
exactly the wrong. But Bazaq does the same literary
analysis the point and proves that they were wrong and it's
what they did was a disaster because Yahoo got the last word
in. Now who's right?
No, that I bring as an example. God wanted there to be an
argument between Rabba, Zak and Rasam, because sometimes you
need Shimon and Levy, and sometimes it's disaster for
Shimon and Levy. It all depends on where they
argue over how How necessary was it to wipe out the City of
Scheme? How big was the City of Scheme?
How innocent? Or how everyone has to put
details into the story to figure out to do the right thing or the
wrong thing. You don't kill.
You don't kill innocent people, but you have to say you're
Israel today is cutting the same dilemma.
You have to defend yourself. You have to save your sister,
and you have to take military action.
But how do you balance the need to take military action and the
need to, you know, respect human life and not punish someone
who's not deserving a punishment?
OK. However, however, though both
Bazak and Samet, I, I remember actually reading this, I don't
remember the details anymore, but I've I've seen this back and
forth in in in one of the books, they both in order to arrive at
their conclusion. And this is an interesting point
here. They're analyzing the text, like
you said, Chuto Shalmicre in a very high level.
So my question to you is, so you're so part of what I'm
getting from what you're saying is, is that the text is in a
sense open-ended towards our voices to come in and to in a
sense engage in the, in the, in this, in this tension, tension,
yes, thank you tension that the text brings out, however.
On the other hand. That would seemingly imply to
me, while you were saying that, that Bazak would have a certain
position. Bazak has a certain position
externally about this tension and then he's reading it into
the text. And then you would have Sam, or
if Sammeth has a certain position and he's reading it.
But that's not what they are doing.
No, no, I, I So I'm getting off. You got my question.
Yeah, yeah, I got OK. What I do with teacher training
is that you have to differentiate between objective
analysis and subjective interpretation.
Students get mixed up all the time.
The first step in anything is objective analysis.
What's the text? Now the books are begging
subjective interpretation. Based on that objective
analysis, understand. But I can't undertake, I can't
suggest a subjective interpretation if I didn't do
the analysis first. So you can argue maturely over
the objective analysis, but that is objective.
You should be able to reach a conclusion that everyone agrees
on. Now, what's the meaning of that
text? What's what's the
interpretation? No, it's what message is behind
the text that we argue on. And that's our tradition, but
partially argued left and right. Did Adam do the right thing
going down to Egypt? Remember, there's a time of
famine. So there's one approach.
The whole reason that we have to go down to Egypt as a nation and
suffer for hundreds of years is because Adam didn't have a muna.
He should have stayed in everything.
So he left the famine. You know what your kids have to
suffer and go down to Egypt. That's approach.
That's a famous approach. Is that shot?
Maybe I can learn from the story.
Then when there's a famine, you have to be, you know, logical.
And no, you can't. So make you can't so make
holidays. You can't depend on a miracle.
And you should go down to Egypt. Should you lie about your wife?
Shouldn't you lie about your wife?
You know, is that the right thing or the wrong thing?
But what I learned from Avram Vino, I'm not sure, but we
discussed that issue. But that story sparks a
discussion. But the overriding message is,
you know, what's your what's the right thing to do?
I think how much calls it la Soti Hashem.
You want to do what's right in God's eyes, but what's right in
God's eyes. So there's a beautiful Ramban
that's I think it's like the most important, like Ramban to
ever learn in the varying chapter 6.
That's where we're right after the SHMA in in verses 16 and 17
and 18, he says, you know, Shmorti Shmuel and called me
Soto Hashem. And then first keep all these
laws who accomplished without and then Vasita yasha Ben
Hashem. So is that Yasha Ben Hashem is
equal to the mitzvot or in addition is an equal sign or a
plus sign between them? And Raban says beautifully,
there's no way you can write a book to explain to you what to
do 24/7. But what can Kummish give you
and give you? I call dots on a graph and give
you basic ideas and I have to extrapolate that the goal of
studying Kummish is not keeping the laws, studying the laws and
applying them to new situations and always asking yourself what
would God want me to do in any situation?
And I'd build that Hashkafai, build my understanding based on
studying the stories and their deeper meaning.
But I'm in search of doing what would God want me to do but to
make it alive and applicable in every generation.
I'm always searching as a servant of God, what would God
want me do in any situation. And the mega themes in Flemish
of your nation chosen to serve God, your nation that represents
God by how it behaves. You're a model nation.
You don't tell the people what to do.
You act in a way that other people can learn from.
And then you have to strive your best to do what's right in the
eyes of God. That requires study and self
introspection and and and healthy argument.
And you achieve that through arguing maturely with each
other. And, and there can be 12 tribes.
It doesn't be one only one path. There are many paths.
The umbrella that keeps everyone together as we we're in, we're
God's people, and we've tried our best to sanctify God in the
way we run our lives. Beautiful.
Yeah, I was going to. I was just going to ask about
there. There are obviously critiques of
the method. What are some common critiques
that you get, you know, that you find to be a challenge perhaps,
or even you find to be just silly, but people just persist
with these? Questions.
So here, here's the problem. If clinic is a book to study,
not just read that. I'll give you an example how I
prove that to my students. It's a when you study creation,
so beautiful story. You know, day one, day 2, day
three. And there's a pattern to it,
like in in the gush method, you study the the structure of the
story. So every story begins with by
your mayor Lukim with the command, followed by an
execution, followed by evaluation and Brahua Marvier
who Silva via mode. It's God's commanding God's
doing and God evaluates, you know, day by day.
And then you take a look. So what is it that God makes
every day? So day one, he makes light.
Remember day 2, the the, the shaman up there and the strip
pace of water. Now it's you know, it's a story
of creation, but when you study it, what do you notice that day
one is parallel to day 4? I'm sure you're aware of that,
right? Day one is our day three, the
road. You know, when did God make day
and night? That's a great that that proves
a story. You can't take it literally.
Day 2 God takes to be in heaven the waters above and the waters
below. Day 5 is going to be the fish in
the sea and the birds up in the sky, and day three God mixed
land and day six and mixed land animals.
You can't miss the parallel. But clinicians didn't say look
at the parallel, but there's no doubt there's a parallel there.
The fact that there's a parallel that is to ask about literary
structure. The fact that there's a parallel
and there's a match, that's begging interpretation.
Now how do you interpret it? We argue about that.
We try our best to understand what could be the meaning and
it's through that argument we try to understand the meaning of
the. So what's like really
interesting in creation is that on day three, instead of one act
of creation, there's two acts of creation.
That's why there's two evaluations.
Everyone knows pomain Quito, but that's because there's first God
makes land and sees that's good, and then he makes the better
life. He starts with vegetation,
what's called bird praise and bird pia de ma.
But there's two stages of creation that related to each
other, but the two separate acts.
On day six, he makes animals, evaluates, and then he has
another act of creation making men So so that jump from from
land to life that would like that there's a quantum leap in
creation. There's a similar jump from
animal to men. No, but why is God setting that
up? Knows what?
What can I learn from the fact that day three and day 6 have
two acts of creation instead of 1?
And so on day three, you know, there's a big jump from land to
vegetation wool. That's a quantum leap in in in
development. And is this is there a similar
leap between God making animals and men?
One of the key points I think of Telenole King is that man's
different than animal, even though he's similar to animal.
So what do you do with the fact that you're part of the animal
Kingdom, you're part of nature, you have animal instincts.
Are are we a super duper ape or we have Telenole came?
Are we a is there something godly about us?
Why did God give us our ability to be creative?
And what does it mean to be the image of God?
You know, we can also think and do things and evaluate and do
them. So this week we read Parsha
picude. So what what happened?
Truman said that God commands Vasita, Vasita, Vasita.
And what do we do? We do we become partners with
God in creation. Now, instead of God commanding
and God doing, God commands and where's people that we do it?
The part of that actually is, you know, what Benti was just
bringing up before that it's a we engage with the text, with
this methodology obviously very much so that we find these
classic structures and these literary motifs and
parallelisms, everything. And naturally we find we, we
come across our own Hindu Shim. That's what just happens.
We, we have aha moments. The the difficulty that might
the challenges that you'll get maybe from certain pockets of
the religious world will be like, well, you know, who are
you to to come up with? Subjective who?
Who? Who has license?
Does everyone has the obligation to do objective analysis?
Who has the license to suggest subjective interpretation?
And and to follow. Yeah, question.
And, and just to follow with that by showing that there is a
literary structure running throughout the Torah now, it
brings up the question of historicity from the perspective
of if, if everything here is if we're finding parallels and
chiasms, so we're getting a literary structure.
So then what does it inform us about what actually happens,
right? So that, in my opinion, does
make a difference. I sometimes get in trouble for
that, but God, I'll tell you how we say it in the Shiva is that
are you studying Mashikatouf or Mashikara?
It's the big argument among our teachers.
The only Grossman, he's the big ex.
He's the big fan of you study mashikatouf lo mashikara,
meaning here's what's written and I get the message from
what's written. Now, some people do the opposite
numbers opposite, but they're on a treasure hunt or, you know, a
like a mystery thing. And I have to figure out what
happened. Reading between the lines, this
must have, this must have happened.
So first I studied the text. I start comparing, you know,
hearing that and I have to make assumptions.
This must have happened. This must have happened.
And then I sort of tried to deduce what actually happened
and I learned from what happened.
Or do I learn from what's written?
You understand the difference. Do I study Mashikatouf or
Mashikara does Do I learn the lesson from what's written?
Oh, there's no listen from what happened.
It's a it's a total if you follow this from Medan Shurim,
He's always in search of what happened.
He's ingenious of his ability to deduce events to figure out
things happen. He's like doing like Charlotte
Holmes on things. But sometimes, you know, that's
what rubber Psych always disagrees with him, he says, but
you know, if you follow the arguments and she'll say, you
know, say, Oh, it's very beautiful, almost a little
Mushika too. You know, it's a nice part.
But now, now it's what the role of Midrash is wonderful because
what's Midrash? Do people miss them?
Midrash in ancient times, no one wrote books or op eds or had
podcasts, but people had opinions.
So if you're living in the tender Tanaim, how do you expect
your opinion about life, about your insights as how do you
share your, your, your vetting song, your ashkafah?
So there was a genre called midrash.
You always opened up with a verse or some insight on I'll
give you an example because it's like a week, two weeks before
face off. Let's say you want to give a
lesson in differential education of what's called
kanochlinaddafi.co. So I can say, you know, there's
different ways of teaching children give a whole, you know,
the whole thing about how to how to teach advanced kids, you
know, challenge kids whole thing.
What's Sumid rush? Do they notice?
There's four times in Komish where a parent answers a child,
three times preceded by a question and one time even
without a question. But there's four times where a
parent answers the child. Now they use that, they they use
that, that, and now they use that realization and associate
those four times with four different types of children.
Now hummus isn't teaching you this for different types of
children. That's life.
Then there's the there's there's the you know, the kids who the
goody goody kids, there's kids with the attitude, there's the
kids that aren't motivated, the kids who don't have the ability.
There's all different types of kids.
And what the myth is teaching you is that, like when you when
you tell the sailor, don't answer the question, answer the
child. So that what's the measures
beautifully do. It takes the questions from
hummus and and associates each question with the different type
of child. So like the hams question, like
in Flemish, it's wise God giving all the laws and I've got to
change what are the laws? And we said open up a, you know,
open up a second. If he keeps asking what are
laws? He's motivated already.
He wants to learn more. So teach him laws if the kid has
an attitude problem. So we take, you know, what's
this to you now in Clemish, those actual questions.
That's not the topic of the questions.
The cops are totally different. But I'm sort of stealing the
questions and using what the midrash does isn't coming to
explain Flemish. It's using Clemish as a
springboard to give up her a lesson.
That's beautiful. And then that's what the rabbi's
do. But I can't turn that.
Oh, that's why Hemish was written that way.
No, it's Hemish didn't have the four sons that these four
questions answers to teach you that there's four different
types of children. I can figure it out on my own,
but the Midrash is using that, the fact that there's four
different types of questions and answers between parents and
children and using that as a springboard to give over a
lesson about differential education of kind of another fee
darko. But that's classic Midrash.
But to appreciate the Midrash, you have to understand what
they're doing, But you can't mix that up with.
That's what the that's why it's called Midrash and Upshot.
Beautiful. And I actually sorry I
interrupted Benji's question. So I think it got skipped over.
I wanted just to go back to that Benji's question regarding the
fact that there's so many new interpretations that are coming
out in, in, in, in from Ghosh and critics might say what right
do do. We have to do.
We have to essentially come up with things that, you know, our
greatest, you know, Khazal Rishonim Mahonim.
If not, you know, how do we just come here and just, you know,
open up all these? So what what they always love to
quote as the famous rush bomb in the beginning of Pasha Todot,
where Rush bomb was a young, you know, student finding things
about what's elutodot mean. And he respectfully argues with
his grandfather, with Rashi. I'm sure you're familiar.
And Rashi says the the the hamit.
I. Never understand why people
never like. Why is that glossed over?
Like, come on. Why?
Because it's super dangerous, because you get what's called an
English nurse Skype. That's true.
The second, the second you open up interpretation to the to the
to the, to the public, you get, you get and you need quality
control. Now, in my opinion, who decides
those? If, if Ramban was told you can't
argue with Rashi, we wouldn't have Ramban.
No, it's if, if, if Ramban grew up in the, in the arc called the
Shiva road, right where Rashi's Rokhakodesh.
And you know, that's absolute truth.
And how can you dare question Rashi a we never have Ramban,
right? And, and, but Ramban is awesome.
So Ramban, he always opens now Pearshakuntur.
See, he quotes Rashi and respectfully disagrees.
And I think Rashi would want him to disagree.
That's what's called debate. Meet Russia.
We argue over what's the deeper meaning of the text.
That's what what Parshanim do, right?
That's why I try to teach my students.
If you want to appreciate Parshanim, the commentators, the
commentators all did objective analysis.
And in light of that, they share with you their subjective
interpretation. But if you didn't do but they
don't share with you the objective analysis, they assume
you did that. See what people get stuck with?
No, when a Rambam writes something, he's assuming you
know the Surya. Same thing in in in the time
would also now. If you know the Surya and you
said it, you were bothered by the same problems.
You appreciate their commentary and you can learn from them
tremendously. If you just read the commentary
without doing the footwork beforehand, you can
misunderstand the commentary. And when you can, you can.
That's something to really appreciate.
The, the, the most important part about what you call the
gostera, the objective analysis is simply to appreciate the
Parshani. It's to preach, to be able to
understand the Rashi, Ramban and Benezra.
You know, all the class of a three and seven properly.
You have to do play the same game they did and you can.
It's always the proof they did that objective analysis, but
they don't share that with you. They only share with you their
interpretation. Did they see a literary
structure though? You.
You can. You can.
That's what we talk about all the time.
They they don't walk it through it, but you can see from their
interpretation they're onto something.
Yeah, you say that now. You.
Can also see from Khazao there's definitely intertextuality going
on of the rush. Oh, of course, that's because
you have that there. It's, I'll give you an example.
Yeah. What's the right methodology?
So Rabbi Schmo has 13 principles of how to how to, how to do
subjective interpretation. Right.
Kalaprad. Kalaparo now you can argue what
are the principles of interpretation.
Rabbi Kiba is there is every ultra Torah Rabbi smell was
different. You have you have you have
different approaches and they're all legitimate, but they all
share the goal of you know what does what what message is God
trying to give to us? I'm I'm maybe a bit more
postmodern. I'm claiming that God wants us
to argue that the media is the message.
No, that's global Shami. But if you're striving to do the
right thing and it's through the argument and striving and trying
to understand, that's how you grow.
To be fair, this idea that you bring out that Isham wants us to
like the tension brings out the the the the discussion with
which we then, you know, argue or or have a dialogue better
word, right. I think that first of all, Rabbi
Sacks Allah Shalom always spoke about this how how you'll see
like Avraham, even in the Tanakh itself, Hashem wants the naveen
to be arguing with God. Yeah, one could argue that's
what prayer means. There's that.
My joke. I got a joke right here.
That's what is to argue clean. You go to a court.
Now you're not arguing. Oh, I'm right, God, you're
wrong. You're arguing your case.
Listen to Moshe Rabin, but listen to Moshe Rabino and he's
trying to explain God, it's in your interest.
You're more forgiving. Remember when Moshe praise and
and tells God, don't you know, don't break the covenant, bring
the covenant back. But you can't be so strict.
Next time you need to be forgiving.
We want to be your people. So it's like a great example of
objective analysis and interpretation.
When you read the flood story, OK, you can't miss the
connection between the flood story and Mount Sinai.
Are you aware of that? There's so many thematic links.
40 days, 40 nights, you know, much like I mean Hashem just
motion on our own. Let me kill everyone else, make
you the only one. You know the the covenant
afterwards by. There's just so many parallels.
Even the entrance to of of Moshe's character coming through
the a little mini arc. Right, tape.
Tape has only those two stories. That's it.
Hamish is screaming. I call wake up and smell the
Hamish that, but it's begging interpretation.
Now. What's the meaning of it?
Go argue. There's something deep going on
that that you know, it's about the road of tikkun about, you
know, about fixing. I claim the capitalists are the
earliest Bible critics. I mean, their whole point is
don't take it literally, take it seriously.
There's something really deep going on with Hamish and they're
giving you deep life lessons. I'm talking about like not the
not the only capitalist, the real capitalist, like the Ramban
type of Kabala Ramban when he says, oh, what do you think we
care about digging wells? When when you say digs wells,
but that represents finding God knows God's hidden have to find
them. You have to dig up.
We have to, you know that I did, Hester.
You can't see God. You can perceive God, but if you
don't look for him, you won't find him.
There's so many deep ideas there and they're on to something
really big. But if you just, you know, if
you, if you misunderstand that, you can go in the wrong
direction. That's like this approach is
dangerous because it can be misunderstood.
And it is. It's always misunderstood and
then it doesn't mean anything goes.
And the fact that you can say anything you want.
You need quality control, but you need that's like you need
humility and respect now. But, but, but I'd like to claim
my my, my time. What's the time now complain
about about academia. It to get it to write a paper
master's APHD, you have to come up with a topic that no one ever
heard before. You have to come up with your
own fetish, right When you're searching for a fetish, you end
up with, you end up with don't search for fetish because you're
blinded. And briskers who don't
understand the brisker approach make the same mistake.
I have to find like I have to find a Hakira.
You don't look, you don't look for Hakira Hakira's.
You know what that is? There's no word for translate it
right. It's got to find you.
Then you study you you, you study for understanding.
In your search for understanding, a light bulb will
go off. I just realize something the the
the Hiddish has to find you, not you looking for Hiddish.
So in in academia, I have to come up with something new.
So you, you got to come up with some and it's usually your goal
is to find something new that no one ever said before.
And your goal isn't to understand the text in, in, in
real Judy, in real study in, in our study is your goal is to
understand the text, understand Devar Hashem.
And in your search of what's Devar Hashem, you might uncover
something that someone else didn't notice before.
And then you share it with your friend.
Now 99% of the time, what you're saying is ridiculous and you
have to recognize that and therefore you test it with your
friends and you discuss it. And that's what the beat Me rush
is about. But you have an idea.
Hey, hey, that makes sense. Oh, that's good.
And then it, it started catching on.
That's, that's, that's our tradition.
That what made Rashi great because Rashi is great and
everyone accepted Rashi now that's yeah and when I.
Find that to be so beautiful. By the way, the bit I can just
like envision the bit Midrash where people are learning Hamas
and they're learning it critically with, with, with
trying to, to, to, to arrive at, at an understanding of the text.
And then I can see a student having an idea and he bounces it
off, you know, his Havruta or his Rebbe or whoever, you know,
whoever he feels like doing it. And this conversation ensues
about this idea. I can't find a better way to get
people so excited to learn Torah like from I think that's just,
it's a, it's a, it's AI feel like especially like I, I went
through somewhat, I went through the Shiva system to a certain
extent, not fully, but you know, it's a little bit of a stifling
atmosphere because you're sort of you, you're, you can't really
ever really grow within your own mind.
You're kind of having to just conform to, to ideas all the
time. Now, of course, that doesn't
mean to just take, you know, just, you know, do whatever you
want, say what I want to think, whatever you want.
Obviously we're not talking like that, right, But like in this
type of serious atmosphere, right, where, and especially
with homage, because that's it's just, you know, people don't
even learn homage much these days.
It's like, you know? To sit there with.
It's really like, it really bothers me when I hear that OK,
but to, to, to, to sit there and to really like open your mind
while learning homage, but while engaging with it very seriously
and trying to understand it for what it is and then having these
ideas pop into your mind and then bouncing it off with I, I
just think that that's a very healthy, exciting, vibrant
atmosphere. That's why I have.
A four year old. What time?
I have a four year old son. I say this all the time.
Probably the fifth time I said this on the pad pad, I'm
speaking it into existence. My dream is for my 4 year old
son to come to RHC on after after high school was at the
show. That's my dream.
But I really think that it fosters a, a love of Torah, a
love of not just a love of Torah.
I mean love, a love of, of engaging with the Torah.
Do you know what I'm saying? Yeah, I sketched.
David Foreman has a great sport. We smooth all the time.
So he's he's amazing. I'm sure you've.
Huge fan. Yeah, yeah.
So David says this new approach, like you guys, we've been doing
it for years. It's called a devarthora, right?
Everyone who gives their Torah says something no one ever said
before. But usually it's not serious.
You follow. So the accepted approach to
saying things, they're just cute.
But like, no one had saying something good.
Oh, that's forbidden. No one said.
There's nothing wrong with saying something, you know, say,
say, say that. But hey, say hey, that makes
sense. That's the most is that the more
correct or the more it makes or the more that it's actually
compelling. It's scary to that person.
It's threatening to that person who who who feels like wait,
like so. So now I have to rethink my
entire understanding of how I've I've had Hazal pictured in my
head. Do you get what I'm saying?
It's. Yeah, So that, that that's a
chance education. Now, on the flip side, I'm, I'm
a big fan of people who don't like this approach.
And they're probably right because because part of being
Jewish is keeping not changing anything, you know what I'm
saying? And we do what our parents did.
And and you need 99% of people doing that.
No, but you always need, you know, 5% envelope.
OK, you know what's that? But but you need that, that no,
that push back up. I'll share with you something a
little more modern. There's another reason for the
modern approach. It has to do with returning to
Israel for two reasons. One is you're living in the land
of Israel. Everything becomes alive.
You know, you see the places, the way you look at Kummish when
you live in Israel and and that's already something
amazing. Just the land thing.
That Raviel Banuon, that's what I learned from him the most.
You know, you see the places you understand you stand and you
stay your hole and look at you know, the Jordan River Valley
and you reach there for Yeshua on the story of the spies.
You know, you know the and you just see the story in front of
you. You see about Moab.
You can picture most of you just picture everything the harder
for the whole thing, but you understand much better when
you're there. But more than that for 2000
years, we're in exile. We don't have sovereignty, We
don't have a state that's so we we we we don't have the idea of
the idea of being a nation in the surface of God.
We're individuals, a community serving God.
They give a nation serving God. How do you serve God a nation?
How do you have an army that represents God that acts in a
way that's how do you have a gut?
How do you run a government? So we have we have we don't have
a missile on that. But all these topics are that's
half of Hamish like all laws of arena of running a nation and
and now they become realistic and how to apply them.
So so that's one side of it. The other side is the medic
study of Tanakh was a big boost for Christianity.
Why, because when you study thematically, you can't miss the
importance of nationhood and the land of Israel.
Now one of their proofs that God left you in case you realize
that there's a you know, they start with there's we had old
they stole they hold by the Old Testament.
But God, you know, our covenant with God was broken and God has
a new covenant. That's why it's called a New
Testament. We of course disagree with him
and we hold it. We're still God didn't fire us.
He just, you know, we went through rehab.
The the proof, the proof that it's gone, you know, you know,
was the fact that we have to return to our land.
And that's why, you know, the church and don't it was so much
against the state of Israel, you know, being formed again.
It goes against their their their whole ideology.
But now that we're back, hey, we're back in our land again.
The the, the danger of thematic Bible study is in many ways it
supports it. No, it's so clear the importance
of nation that in the land of Israel that if it's gone for
2000 years, wake up. You know, God left you.
Now that we're back, So that whole that now that we're back,
I can go back to that thematic approach because now it's
supporting our understanding of Judaism because because the
Christians use that approach to prove to you that you're not
chosen that they're right. But now that whole argument,
this is gone. So returning to our land for
many reasons opens up a whole new way of looking at Clemens,
which which was kept by the what was, you know, kept under the
radar because it supported Christianity too much.
Not it's not supporting Christianity, right, but a main
contention of Christianity that God left you because you haven't
returned to your land. But now that we're back in our
land. So, so the danger of that
thematic study is not as like it used to be.
And, and the meaning of that study and its application in
day-to-day life is super important.
So that's why it comes to life, because it's now it's it's I.
Think, I think another thing to just to add to that, I think
there's a few things that the modern, you know, reader and
learner of, of Torres is exposed to is artifactual evidence,
which the Rishonim and all them maybe did not have obviously
have the things that we have and also our answers to questions
have to be a lot more refined today because the challenges are
much greater. We're dealing with biblical
criticism that's forcing us to to be even more meticulous in a
way that they're posing questions that weren't posed
before, so now we have to answer questions that weren't answered
before, so it must be our generation that is engaging.
It's going to be more sophisticated.
It's not apologetics that they, the Bible critics, they do the
same detective analysis, but the conclusion is multiple
authorship. You follow so and the, Gersher
wrote. It's there's, there's, there's
in you find different what's called Buchino.
It's for Breuer's whole beauty approach.
But God does that on purpose to teach you, you know, there's a
very complex understanding of life in our relationship with
God. It's like Sharim, there's a
relationship with God is complex and it's, you know, it's how to
relate to God. Life's complex.
There's all those complexities to appreciate the complexity of
our relationship with God. God uses multiple names to to
help teach us how to do it. That's called the rough
salivations Adam one and Adam 2. Because if you have complex
molecules complex, you know, physical things, you need
complexity equations to to describe them.
So the complexity of the Bible when you understand hummus is
being written not to tell you what happened, but to understand
your relationship with God. So the different names of God
all are part of, of the hummus approach or method of teaching
you how to deal with that complexity and how to you know,
so that's, that's that's very deep in the approach.
But the danger of that approach is, hey, you might think that
their conclusions are right. So you begin with MO.
Now that that God is allowed to use multiple names to give over
his message. Now the question is what, what
do you learn from the fact that God makes 2 brutal without him?
If he knew one with God's name, you'd give off K, you know, and
one with God's name of the king doesn't mean there's two gods.
It means that's why we scream our Samuel King say it seven
times. I actually happen to think that
the the literary structure, as much as it garners questions and
criticisms, as we spoke about before, one thing I think that
it actually clearly takes away is the question of multiple
authorship. It is very difficult to say that
there's multiple authors, yet a. Cohesive.
Cohesive literary structure that's running throughout all of
it's very, very difficult. So for all the criticisms that
come about it, I actually think it solves one of the one of the
chief issues that have been raised in the last 200 years.
Besides the fact that Casuto himself, I think he mentions.
I don't know this from a historical perspective, but I I
trust Kasuto when he says that there's not one ancient, ancient
Near East document ever found to have Yeah, yeah, it's a theory
which is not in now we found one.
OK yeah, yeah. But theories in my.
Opinion I'm saying the theories are are they don't hope harder
when when you study in depth. Now if you if your assumption is
it's an historical text right? So you can't you can't miss the
contradictions, but if the contradictions are intentional
to teach you complexity and don't take it literally, take it
seriously. So it's through those it's
through the what's called the throat that I learned from them
that that's one of the days that attorney dress shipment.
No, that that's so that's a much more mature approach, much more
complex approach to it. But it that Broyer always used
to call them the Bob Gracie call them plumbers.
No, they do The Dirty, they do The Dirty work.
You know, they do the they open that.
But but his conclusions are totally different guys.
I wanted to know if you, if you have time just to give her for
the audience a little bit of a taste of your style and your,
your, your, your insight. I came across your essay in the
Tormentillon book on who sold Yosef to Mitraim.
It is a it's spectacular. And I wanted to know if you can
give a few minutes so that the audience can get a little bit of
a taste for, for your, your, your approach and the way you go
about certain things within the text.
So I wanted to know if you can give a little bit of a outline
and presentation for your essay of who sold the brother who who
sold yourself. Almost everything but called
called. OK Everything I've come up with
was never in search of the hitters, but rather in the
middle of teaching. I teach a lot.
So when people ask me what's the best way to learn a book, I say
find someone to teach you to you learn.
You learn something by teaching it because when you teach it,
you have to understand it. We have to explain to somebody
else. That's why I did Haruta learning
also teach something. That's a way to learn something.
I always say teachers for an assignment, don't give them a
test. Tell them take what you learned.
Teach it to a parent, teach it to a no to a peer or something.
And then and then share with this what what happened when you
taught it. But when you have to teach it to
somebody else, then it helps to clarify it.
I would say that the class has happened in the students head
you, but they didn't class study.
But in the middle of teaching something, a light bulb goes
off. Oh my gosh, I just noticed
something knows when you teach something, that's when you begin
to notice things because your mind is engaged because when you
have to explain to somebody else, it's got to make sense.
And I think that I think it makes sense to say the
assumption that is supposed to make sense.
But again, beginning what's, what's your assumption?
What's the purpose of the book? But when when you study the when
you study the story done the technicalities of who?
So do you say they'll just look at there's there's a bit of
realism in the story and and the text is there for those.
When you read it carefully, you'll find it.
Now there is an example where if you don't know the topography or
geography of Israel, you wouldn't begin to understand,
you know, the whole nobody said like lift up the size and they
see when you're on a Tuel and you see the view and you can
see, you know, Trans Jordan from, you know, from the top of
the hill and you can see cars coming down the hill from, you
know, 10 copies. You can't see a person, but you
can see a caravan. And then you know how long it
takes to go there and you know, the desert and that, you know,
there's pitch some in the winter, there's water and then
in the summer there's no water. And if you want to hide A body,
you know, I want a place that people aren't going to be there,
but there's a trade. It just, it's just you put
realism into the story. But I, I didn't look because I
didn't, I wasn't looking for a new way to read it.
In the middle of teaching it, it just dawned on me, Oh, that that
makes sense. And that, and that's some things
you want to don't look for a fetish to study something and
teach it and discuss and argue about it.
And, and that's how you find things.
And sometimes you do things. And here is what I said, you
know, that's you argue with yourself a lot of times.
But what you pray for, and I think on Chavez, is that you
want to serve Hashem, what's called the Viterra de Bendel of
Cabinet. So the danger in Bible study, I
plead guilty sometimes, is that you take your scuff and you read
it into it. Yeah.
And that happens too often. In other words, you take the
Bible, you're not looking for what's your.
I have my political opinion and I read it into.
I can find my political in any story.
I can find my political opinion right being your left wing, so
I'll tell you it's something I'd like to teach us.
Ramban talks about when it says in Pasha Todot AKA Vescher
Shabbafen Bukhali by Shwarmich Marti, you remember the plastic.
It's a rich. I always say the Tuki Manrisha
and the first aliyah people know thanks to Monday and Thursday
thanks to leaning. So like the amount of commentary
on the 1st aliyah, it's 10 times more than commentary in the rest
of the and there's some, there's some sections I call, I call
Schviez syndrome, where by the time you get to the end of the
parsha, no one knows it and there's no commentaries either
because you run out of the steam by then.
But the so Ramban, the first Ilia.
So he's bothered by what is it says Abraham by smarmish
Martimis for Thai Remember Abraham kept all these things.
So the parsha want to know what's each thing referring to.
So that's the famous Rashi where the about kept the entire Torah,
you know, the whole the Rashek approach.
Now every every other person disagrees and I don't think
Rashi meant it literally either, but that's a different
discussion. Now the Ramban says what was
vice mummy Shmarti, how do you watch God's guard?
So Rahman says no, what did Abram do?
He looks in Abram's life. Where did Abram watch God's
guard? So whatever him do, he explained
the belief in God and argued with idol worshippers.
That was he was as he defended God publicly, he stood up for
God. He explained the existence of
God and he argued with idol worshippers to bring people to
follow God, you know, and but they argued with, with idol
worshippers to put them in the right direction.
And, and that was part of Alpha's greatness.
Now what? What would an academic person
say? What's Ramban?
You tell me what's Ramban doing when he's reading the text?
Why would why would Ramban see Avramavino?
No, why would interpret by smarmish Bhati watching God's
guard by arguing with idol worshippers and standing up for
God. I mean, because he projected his
own views, his own experiences, maybe on on the text.
Yeah, what what a famous experience is that?
The Oh, OK, so the the disputation of.
Yeah, yeah. OK.
So what he was saying, academia is what's Rumban doing.
He's looking for like. He's reading the text looking
for his own like. He's reading.
Himself in his life now, but if you know the history behind it,
Rumban's commentary in Clemish was the disputation was towards
the end of his life. Nobody got he won, got a free
one way ticket to Israel afterwards and there's like 6-7
different changes he made when he got to Israel, including
that's it. Ramban reinterpreted Commish
when he found, you know, when he found the coin and reinterpreted
what's what he called where Kevin Russell is because he
believed his tour guide. You know what's but but how far
was it away? When?
Yeah. How far is Kevin Russell from
load key brought to arts the boat throughout that Remember?
So it's key brought to our it's a short distance or long
distance. And that depends where you put
Keva Rachel. Anyway, that's all different
topics. Where where Keva we know where
Keva Rachel is, where where she's actually buried this
different story. But that's, you know, that's a
famous argument among among among commentators.
But but we know there's like six or seven commentaries that he
changed afterwards and he wrote them afterwards.
But his main commentary of how much was written before the
disputation. So I'd like to tell my students
Bramban isn't reading his life into Torah.
Bramban wrote his commentary on how much weighed before then
Ramban is living his life based on his commentary.
You understand the difference. It's not that Bramban read into
our story because of his life experience.
Abram lived his life based on his Torah study.
That's that's Bramban interpretora and he was inspired
by his interpretation and that that's why he stood up to the
plate. I was willing knows he saw
that's what Abram did when Abram was Corey Bashem Hashem.
He stood up for his values and you argue with other people and
that was his greatness and in light of that understanding,
Rambam was willing to take that challenge in and defend Judaism
in front of the church. He.
Saw it as a call to action. Yeah, as a call, yeah.
And I think that's and when you see the historicity behind this
Pirosh that that's that's proper tourist study, you understand
that that it's that it's not it's not.
I have my opinion and let me find my opinion and furnish.
It's striving to study, furnish. What's the right thing to do and
living your life based on your on your what's called a search
of what's the benefit to try and search your best ability to
understand what God wants. But but and not to taint it with
my with my pen, which isn't so easy to do.
Of course not. Yeah.
Yeah, but some people do it, you know, way too often this.
So we call them partial sheets on, you know, they give out and
true every Friday. So there's every set of
political approaches. And then let's prove my hush
Kafa from from this story and that story and therefore right
right wing, whatever you're going to do.
But that, that, that becomes, that's even more dangerous.
But that I try to keep politics out of things for sure, for
sure. Beautiful love it.
So we really wanted to thank you once again.
This was really amazing eye opening.
We urge everybody to read all of the books put out by the Gush
Yeshiva. You know Magids.
And I encourage people to argue with them also.
Argue with them also. And we we love when people
argue. That's what that's the most
important thing and and we have to argue with ourselves also.
But you're in search of the goal isn't to come up with the
finish. The goal is to understand by
Hashem. And again, as time changes and,
and history changes and we have the challenge of starting a
nation and, and everything becomes alive, but, but to do it
with truth and search, that's the that's the most important
thing to do. And, and people who disagree
with the approach 100%, they're it's a legitimate approach not
to agree with the approach because it's dangerous.
It's dangerous across the street.
Also it's. Dangerous.
It's an approach that has to be taken with your extra mime and
seriousness and honestly, anyone who who really takes the time to
read the material in gush, see that the the the This is why we
want to also bring us. We're trying to bring goose
people on to the podcast so that they could see that the people
that are bringing all these incredible Hindu Shim have
you're at Shamim and are very serious and this is not it's not
like you know that that's part of the reason why we want to
have you know, you on and and and and groom it.
By the way, if you can put in a good word for us and I would
love to have a problem, but Zach, I don't know how his
English is. But that would be like, you
know, but no, but seriously, the, the, the, the whole team at
Ghosh, that, that, that whole faculty, it's, it's incredible.
We're, we're pushing it because we believe in it and it's
inspired us and we wanted to, to inspire others.
And I know how much time and effort and, and, and passion and
love that you, that you put into every single idea that's put out
in those books. And we appreciate everything.
I'll show you an idea in closing.
Somebody reminded me that's in Hollywood for Shabbat.
That's called in residence this weekend.
And one of my ex students reminded me of something I said
years ago on a teal or on a Shabbat or whatever it was we
were. You know, we're in a Shabbat
somewhere and we're near site and there was a building site
next next door and there's a sign in Hebrew under
construction. It says Sakana Kanbunin or that
means in Hebrew danger. Now here we're building.
I'm saying it's basically like like every construction site.
There's like a it says construction site like keep away
or be careful. So by chance it was, I saw that
sign and I gave him the Sikha about, about the land of Israel
and it's dangerous in Israel. Goodbye.
But why is it dangerous? There's second out starting a
state. Why?
Because you're building something.
No, you can't build something without taking without there's
dangers. So one approach is don't build
anything. No, if you're worried about the
building site, so I can say, OK, let's not build or I can build,
but we're a hard hat. Like protect yourself.
But if you're going to build something, there's dangers.
Being aware of the dangers that you can't be careless when
you're building, you have to take, you know, safety
precautions, but you have to build.
And when you build, there's inherent dangers.
You have to be careful of them, but the, the it's dangerous in
Israel because we're building, you're building a state, but
doesn't mean not to build. You have to build something when
you're, when you're have the approach and you're studying
Torah, there's dangers in in approach, but that's not a
reason not to build, but do it carefully and be aware of the
danger. But that's not a reason.
The fact that it's a dangerous. So it doesn't mean not to do it,
but that also means that everyone should be on the
construction site. And therefore, if there's, it's
totally legitimate approach, it doesn't like it brings it
sometimes the dangers that way. It's it's what's called risk
risk management. Same thing when you said when
you send a kid to yeshiva, know where do you send them?
You know, a place that's going to inspire them, a place that's
going to look, it depends on the child and brokers.
And there's lots of different, you know, gap year programs and
you have to pick the one that the student needs that, you
know, fits his religious needs. But with that idea, I've been
you guys are building something also, you know, using the
Internet for good reasons, you know, people listening, but
hearing different opinions and hearing alternative approaches.
That's that's that's how we grow, but we have to do it
respectfully. That's the the I would like I'll
and one last last line is there's always good reasons for
Sinatri Nam and got it. There's always reasons for
baseless hatred. And that's our sometimes our
biggest national problem. That's and there's no there
shouldn't. That's exactly there's that's
what Sinatri Nam is when and and be aware of that all the time.
That's that that's a real message of the O safe story.
But that's we have to be careful.
That's we we have to see each others as partners and argue
respectfully and and look, tries to understand the other side,
but also be that the entire side and together that's how we build
a nation. OK.
Anyway, thank you so much. This was so important to do.
We really appreciate your time.
Thank you so much. And we have thank Yaakov
Beasley. It was his idea that I should.
Wonderful. Now, now that we're on the
topic, let's let's thank Ravi Yaakov Beasley.
He he went out of his way, emailed us, tried to get you on
the podcast and we he was amazing on the podcast as well.
And we're very thankful and grateful that the network we've
created also just being even connected to these great rabbis,
is just such a. Yeah, really, it's an honor.
It's a real honor, so thank you so much.
OK, OK. Have a good week.
OK, bye, bye.