How to Relate to Arbitrary Halachic Details (Part 1 - WILL BE REVISED IN PART 2) Artwork

Machshavah Lab

My name is Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss. My goal as a Torah educator is not merely to teach my students my OWN hashkafah. Rather, my goal is to equip them with the foundations, the methodological training, and the tools which will enable them to arrive at their OWN understanding of Judaism and cultivate their OWN relationship with Hashem and His Torah. This podcast is devoted to the shiurim I give which are geared specifically towards that end. As such, the range of topics covered here will be diverse. There will be shiurim on Jewish philosophy, Chumash methodology, aggadic midrashim, maybe even some non-Jewish philosophy as well. Merriam-Webster defines "laboratory" as a place providing opportunity for experimentation, observation, or practice in a field of study. I call this podcast "Machshavah Lab" because this is where we will conduct Torah "experiments" by exploring questions, texts, and ideas in an effort to develop our machshavah in a "hands on," exploratory, firsthand manner.

All Episodes

Machshavah Lab

How to Relate to Arbitrary Halachic Details (Part 1 - WILL BE REVISED IN PART 2)

March 12, 2026 • Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss • Season 24 • Episode 26

0:00 | 1:48:04

Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!

DISCLAIMER: I almost didn't post this shiur because it wasn't as clear as I hoped AND because we revised it in Part 2. I'm happy with Part 2, but I'm posting Part 1 for the sake of thoroughness and transparency. Just know that if you listen to it, you should NOT expect the level of clarity that I typically aim for.

Length: 1 hour 47 minutes
Synopsis: This week (3/12/26), in our Thursday night Machshavah Lab series for women, we took up a question I've wanted to address for a while: How should we relate to arbitrary halachic details? Of course, this would entail first taking up the question: ARE there arbitrary halachic details? According to the Rambam, the answer is: yes. The plan was to learn through the Rambam's treatment of this topic in Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:26, through my own idiosyncratic lens, which I refer to as "Pillow Theory." We would then segue to a different guide for the perplexed: Rav Kook's Linevukhei ha-Dor. However, we ended up spending all of Part 1 on the Rambam. I presented my current understanding of Pillow Theory, but we left questions unanswered. In Part 2, we came back, revised Pillow Theory, and answered all our questions before turning to Rav Kook.
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:כו, מג, מח
תלמוד ירושלמי פאה א:א:טז
בראשית רבה מד:א
-----

This week's Torah content is sponsored by Seth Speiser, in honor of the yahrzeit of his father, Rabbi George Speiser (Rav Yosef ben Dovid). Rabbi Speiser was a kind and gentle soul as well as an Intellectual and a scholar. He received smicha from Rav Hutner at Chaim Berlin. His love for teaching and making puns was only outweighed by his love of family.

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-Schneeweiss
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H

SPEAKER_00 0:11

Okay, starting again. Um Mokshava Labs here. Um this January, I during my annual cabin trip, I discovered this book, which is called Le Novoke Hador, uh Ravkuk's Guide for Today is Perplexed. So this was a this is my first exposure to Ravkuk. Apparently, it's a very atypical exposure to Rav Cook because he wrote this book in 1904. This is the last thing he wrote before he made Aliyah. So I think you people hear Rafkuk and they automatically assume, you know, Israel, um, which is a good association. But um, this was a philosophy book, and um, he did not title it from my understanding. But essentially, I mean, he says in the introductory chapters that he basically is trying to write, he's trying to do what the Ramam did in his day, but for the the issues that were going on in the 19th century. So in the Ramam's day, there was a huge conflict um between uh, you know, what we now call Greek philosophy. Back then it was, you know, philosophy, science, et cetera, you know, the cutting-edge uh realm of intellectual uh you know culture and exploration, uh, a conflict between that and certain ideas in the Torah. And um there were people who were perplexed in the sense that that you know they had these principles from from you know this rational discipline from outside of Torah. And in their mind, it contradicted certain things in the Torah. So um, in certain cases, you know, it had to do with God, like things about God, uh God's incorporeality, uh, whereas the Torah you know describes God in physical terms. Big issue was uh Aristotle uh held that the universe was eternal, and the Torah holds that the universe was created. Uh, so that was a huge conflict. Um, and so the Ramam, and there are other issues as well. So the Ramam wrote this book to try to bring people out of their perplexity um and teach them the true understanding of Torah and like you know, correct their mistakes about Torah, but also correct their mistakes about science and show where Aristotle was wrong or where uh or why the Torah's arguments are better. So in Rafcook's day, obviously, you know, long time later, there were many, many other things going on. Think about the you know 19th century, and you know, you have um uh huge explosion, you you're you're in the you know, scientific era, you have evolution, you have geology, you know, age of the universe, you have uh, you know, um nihilism, you have all these uh topics that the people in that day were perplexed by. So he wrote this book to address those topics, okay? And um it this was recently translated by a friend of mine, Rabbi Aryeh Sklar, um, and published by Kodish Press. And so I read it and I was just totally enamored, and I just want to give a bunch of sheer on it um because I don't know Ruff Cook, but I feel like I will only really learn him properly if I'm giving sheer on him. So this is the first of those sheer him. Okay. Um, and this is one of the first chapters that jumped out at me. This is chapter nine. Um, he has a lot of stuff here in the reasons for mitzvos, okay? Tameha mitzvos. Um, and we're gonna deal with a specific question. Um, but you know, this is a huge, huge topic. Um, I've uh complained about this uh with a lot of people that I don't know why Tameha mitzvos, the study of the reasons for the mitzvos, is not does not play a bigger role in Jewish education. Uh for me, you know, maybe because my Rebbe Rabbi Moscow, which was always oriented towards the practical, or maybe I'm just very selfish and I want to know how the mitzvos benefit me, I feel like how could Jews go through life keeping halakha and like not want to know how what the reasons are for every single thing? I'm not talking the halachic reasons, like the study of halacha is its own science, but like how does this actually improve my life? You know, so for me, Tami Mitt's has always been a very, very big part of my Judaism. And you have all the Rishonim, not all the Rishonim, you have many Rishonim who who write explicitly with the intent to like unpack the reason for the mittos. You know, you have the Seprachinoch who gives a reason for every mitta, you have the Ramam in the Mornibuchim, the whole last part of the book is devoted to the reasons for mitos. You have the Ramban on Khmesh, you have Rab Bag on Khamesh, you know, you have um all of these like uh you know uh people who like you know Sadigon. So, you know, but I I feel like this is just undertaught. Okay, so um I have written a ton of articles on this. Um, one of the articles is called, hold on. Uh just one second. I'm gonna share the screen in a second. Okay, here we go. Hold on. So one of the articles, which needs to be updated, is called Are the mitzvos arbitrary or the pillow mushle? Okay, and my nickname for this is pillow theory, and I'll explain what that means. But this is one of, to me, one of the big foundations of um understanding the reasons for mitzvos. I wrote this in 2013. Okay, so the plan for tonight is like this is I'm gonna go through the pillow, pillow theory emerges from one chapter in the Ramam. We're gonna read through almost that entire chapter, see where our learning takes us. But I my goal is to introduce you to pillow theory. And then pillow theory creates a solution and a problem, okay. And for the longest time, the problem was one that I did not have a solution to. And then Ruf Cook gave me the solution. Okay, so there's gonna be like two halves of this year. One is Ramam's uh what I call pillow theory on the Ramam's philosophy of reasons for Mitsus. That's gonna create a problem, and then we'll answer it with Ruf Cook. Okay, that's the the sketch of tonight. And what I do envision, I'll just say this outright. You know, lately what I've been doing, you know, the biggest sheer that I give are for YBT for the Sunday shear, the community shear. And what I've been doing for the last, you know, many years is I'll take shear them that I give to you guys, uh, you know, to my women's shear groups, and I will then build on that for the YBT shear. This is the first year I'm giving where I'm deliberately going into this. You guys are the first foray into this. Uh, and we're gonna like just unpack this, explore it, see where we go, and then hopefully I'll turn this into a uh uh a more polished year later on. So I'm I'm fine being like less polished here. Okay, so um fact. Ramam did not write the Mur Navukim in uh Hebrew, he wrote it in Judeo-Arabic. Uh, and lately, what my process has been is whenever you have a translation um and you don't know the original language, I don't know Judeo-Arabic, it's good to use many um translations. So lately I've been using three translations uh sorry, six translations. Okay, there's Ruf Kathah, who was a uh 20th century Ramam scholar. There's Rogbili, who is a modern Ramam scholar. He's like in his 40s, maybe 50. Goldstein is uh the edition on Alhatorah for most of the Mornivukim, for much of the Mornevukim. So these are three Hebrew translations. Then you've got Friedlander, which is in the public domain in English, not super good. You've got Pinais, who is a very good English translation, but English was not his um first language. He was a like multilingual guy, but English was not his comfortable language, so he uses weird words. And then Goodman is the latest translation. So lately, what I've been doing is I've been taking all six and then feeding them into AI and creating a synthesized translation that gives extra weight to Kothik, Makhbili, and Penis, but tries to make it readable. So that's what this translation is. And I I am experimenting with Claude. So if you don't recognize this English translation, like it's because this is a this doesn't exist anywhere other than on my computer right here. So we're gonna read through this. Um, if we need to look at the Hebrew, we will, and let's just read and uh and and learn, okay? Um and we'll we'll do as we usually do of taking notes as we go. Um uh but then again, I'm gonna I have an agenda here is to get to pillow theory. Okay. Just as the speculative thinkers among the adherents of religious law are divided over whether God's actions, maybe he exalted he be exalted, follow from his wisdom or from his will alone, with no end in view whatsoever, so too they are divided over the very same question regarding the commandments he gave us. Okay, pause. So this is in the Ram in the Morning Bucham 326, okay. In earlier chapters, or really in the chapter before this, he talks about um the question of whether God's actions, actually, no, I think it's in um a couple chapters uh that he touches on this, whether God's actions have a purpose or not. Okay, um, and this is a big question among like uh theologians, all right. So we hold that God's actions do have a purpose. So he's saying, but but there are people who hold that God's actions are arbitrary, all right. Uh again, not a Jewish view. So he says, just as people debate about God's actions, whether they're arbitrary, um, so too um with the mitzvos. Okay. Do the mitzvos have um reasons, meaning do they stem from God's wisdom uh or are they just pure will? God says it um and that and and then therefore you have to do it. Okay, anyone know the uh uh the cutesy way to frame this question uh about uh mitzvah's being good? Hoodie is that answer or you have a question?

SPEAKER_05 9:18

Can I ask it or do you want to wait?

SPEAKER_00 9:20

Uh just let's do this first. Uh anyone know the uh what I'm thinking of here about the goodness of the mitzvos? It's a cutie thing. Good to know. I'm not degrading it because it's cutesy. The the classic way to frame the question is is uh are the mitzvos good because God commanded them, or did God command them because they are good? Okay, I'll say that one more time. Are the mitzvos uh actually I'll I'll put this in our notes here, right? So the uh in other words, hold on a second here. Notes is um is that um are the mitzvos good because God commanded them or did he command them because they are good? Who wants to just unpack that just to flesh it out, make sure we all understand here which side is which? Yeah, Vanessa?

SPEAKER_04 10:10

Okay, so either the mitzvot are inherently good because they come from God and God is inherently good.

unknown 10:16

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 10:17

That says less about the mitzvot and more about God, or by turns la um the mitzvot themselves are good, and Hashem is bringing that goodness into the world by giving out the mitzvah.

SPEAKER_00 10:25

Okay, good, good, right. So the first view, God commanded them, uh uh they're good because God commanded them, that really is saying that the mitzvot have some degree of arbitrariness, that that really anything God commanded we would call good and view as good just because God commanded it. But according to that view, theoretically, like God could have commanded anything and then we would have just viewed it as good. But according to the second way, no, there is a world, and in the world there are cre human beings and there are actions, and certain actions are good and certain actions are not, and God, of course, God created the world, and then God commanded those actions that are actually good in the world for us. Okay, so that's like the way that this question is classically uh framed. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 11:09

Can you please explain the distinction between uh that his actions fall from his wisdom or from his will alone? Because I don't understand the difference.

SPEAKER_00 11:17

Right. So the way the Raman was using it is that wisdom means that there is something that that an order or harmony or a rationality uh or a benefit that can be understood. Whereas from his will alone is this view of uh that God just like um either that that God just does stuff randomly or that God's will is totally beyond human understanding. Okay, and therefore it's like practically inscrutable. And that'd be like, you know, such is God's will. Like that's it. You know, there's no no understanding. It's like a uh, you know, uh uh it shuts off all inquiry. Okay. Um, and again, the the he he's here here he's just shorthand referencing like that first line here um about whether God's actions follow from his wisdom or will. There are are many chapters before this that where he discusses that. He's just extending that discussion into Mythos. So for our purposes, so he's gonna talk it out now. He says, Some among them seek no reason for the commandments at all and say that the laws follow from the will alone, right? God wills it, uh, and that's it. Others say that every commandment and prohibition follows from wisdom, that each one is directed toward a specific end, and that all the commandments have reasons, that they were given uh on account of some benefit. So that I think hoodie answers your question better is that this is saying, uh, I'll color code it, right? So this is saying wisdom that the mitzvos follow from wisdom and each one has a benefit and an end. And then will uh is the view that uh that there's no point or not ability to seek any reason, and it's just God wills it. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 12:52

So it seems like you could ascribe one of those to the first part of that um chicken or egg statement, and the second part to the other, no? Meaning wisdom okay, yeah, right.

SPEAKER_00 13:03

So the the this is good are good because God commanded them is uh is will, and then commanding them because they're good is wisdom. Is that good? Yeah, Alex?

SPEAKER_06 13:17

I'm curious if there's a better approach objectively from like a perspective of like if you hold X, that is better than Y. Like, is it better to do mitzvote because Hashem is good and commanded them, or because they're good for us?

SPEAKER_00 13:32

Okay, good question. Uh, I don't know. I just want to look something up really quickly here. Uh give me one second. In so I'm just gonna read an excerpt from this uh uh peanase uh translation here uh about um God's actions. Uh so you know again, just quick summary here. Again, this is a whole chapter. Raman says that there are only four kinds of actions, uh, which this translation says futile, frivolous, vain, or good. Okay. Um, and he says, after he defines all of them, he says, Um, a man endowed with intellect is incapable of saying that any action of God is vain, futile, or frivolous. According to our opinion, that is, that of all those who follow the Torah of Moshe, Rubinu, all his actions are good and excellent. Um, as it says, and God saw everything that he made, and behold, it was very good. Consequently, everything that he has done for the sake of the thing is necessary for the existence of the thing, uh aimed, uh sorry, is necessary for the existence of the thing aimed at or is very useful. Um, so he would say I mean he's gonna this is gonna be fleshed out in our chapter, but he would say that if you're just doing this because God commanded it, um then you're really not appreciating God's goodness because we hold that God's goodness is understandable, and like we can like he did this for a reason, and you're probably also not gonna get the benefits from from the mitzvah. I mean, yeah, we're gonna get into this, but uh, I'll say for for now that doing it with understanding is better than doing it just because God said so. Uh, and that's why the Ramam devotes all the last chapters of the Morrah to explaining the reasons. Okay, so he goes on. The position held by all of us, the multitude and the learned alike, is that all the commandments have a reason, though we do not know the reasons for some of them and do not grasp the manner in which they conform to wisdom. The texts of scripture are explicit about this. Um, uh, righteous statutes and judgment, that's uh um hukim myshpatim tzadikim, righteous. So again, righteous implies that um uh uh that there is a righteousness in them, that they're you know, that they are not just, you know, in other words, if if they're they're not actually good, you could just say hukim and mishpatim, but huh, like righteous ones, that's implying that there is some virtue in them. Okay, and also these the judgments of God are true, they are altogether righteous. Uh Mishpathem Sadku uh sorry, um MS uh Sadku Yahdav. They are righteous together. Okay. So that's he's saying that's what our position is. Now he says the multitude and learn alike. I mean, unfortunately, there are people now who do hold that that there are mitzvahs that have no reasons. I don't know if the Ramam is being accurate or optimistic, uh, that people back then, you know, also like he said, even the masses held that gods uh mitzwas have reasons. Um, but you know, where do people get confused now? What are the mitzvahs that people think don't have reasons? By people I mean just like you know, many average Jews. Yeah, chukim, right? So chukim, which you know loosely translated as statute. So he says, uh, so there are people who think that hukam don't have reasons, and he's gonna disabuse of us of that notion now. Those commandments called chukim, such as sha'aniz, that's the prohibition to mix um wool and linen uh in your garments, milk and meat, and the Sira Mishtala, that's the scapegoat on Yom Kippur, about which the sages said, These things I have prescribed for you, you have no permission to question them. Um uh I think question is not the right word to uh to criticize them. Um, and the Satan brings charges against them, and the nations of the world object to them. The multitude of the sages do not believe that these are matters that have no reason at all and for which no purpose ought to be sought. For that would mean, as explained in the previous chapter, that God's actions are purposeless. On the contrary, the multitude of sages believe that these commandments certainly do have a reason, that is a beneficial end, but that it is hidden from us either because of the limitations of our intellect or the deficiency of our knowledge. Okay, so uh let me just take notes here just so we can more easily talk about this here. Um so he says so uh we maintain that all the mitzvos um stem from God's wisdom and have reasons, and um, but some of them we don't know uh we don't know. Okay, uh even hukim uh have reasons, um but the those reasons are hidden as a result of the limitations of our intellect, okay, or the deficiency of our knowledge. Okay, and uh by the way, um uh my uh uh my theory about why he has to say both limitations of our intellect or the deficiency of our knowledge is that sometimes it's because we're not thinking deeply enough or we don't have enough knowledge, uh enough like um intellectual ability to uncover the mitzvos, but sometimes it is um we're missing facts. So for example, um Rambam holds that many mitvos uh exist to uproot Avodazara practices. And the reason why we don't know um the reasons now is because those Avodazara practices uh were extinct now. So one of the examples he gives is he says, milk and meat, he doesn't, you know, not mixing milk and meat, he doesn't, he says, I don't fully know the reason, but I suspect that there was a vodazara ritual that involved milk and meat. So the Ramam did not know, he was speculating, but then like I don't know how many years ago, but like very very recently, they found through archaeological excavations an Avodazara recipe for some temple service that involved cooking a kid in his mother's milk. Okay. Uh and so so like when they found that, then like Ramam was vindicated, you know. So that I would call like a lack of knowledge, not not that the Rama didn't have the cognitive ability to figure it out, it's just that there was no way to confirm it. Yeah, Deborah?

SPEAKER_02 19:37

Can you hear me?

SPEAKER_00 19:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 19:39

Okay, um, just like a quick question over here. Not you don't need to answer over here right now, but with the Avolazara thing, uh, does that mean does that mean that there are some mitzvo that currently don't have a benefit? Like is the Lambaum saying that all mitzvos always have a benefit, or just at some point there was a purpose for each of the so uh I'm not saying this based on here, but based on uh other stuff that he's written.

SPEAKER_00 20:01

I think he would say that there are mitzvos that no longer um serve a purpose, but they did. And um, I gave a shear, uh, a Sunday shear called Um how the seemingly outdated aspects of Torah are actually evidence for its perfection or something like that. And um I the argument I made there is that um what we should see is we should see many mitzvos become obsolete, and that is a sign of the Torah succeeding, you know. So an example that is easy, uh uh, you know, let's say like an example that is um more debated, you know, but I'm of the opinion of those who hold that the Torah permitted slavery um because it was unrealistic to uproot it at the time, and then it endowed the institution of slavery with humanity, but the Torah's goal is to like get rid of slavery from humanity, where everyone is going to be equal as Selma Kim's. So then all of the laws of slaves are gonna be redundant or uh obsolete, not obsolete in the sense that they're not binding, but that we won't need them anymore. Um, but if you want a non-controvers and controversial example, you know, uh what would happen if the Torah was so successful that nobody stole from each other anymore, right? Now you're gonna look at all of these halojas of stealing and say, well, you know, these things don't serve a purpose. Well, what we would say is, yeah, yeah, they did serve a purpose, but it's achieved the purpose. We're we're a society that is post-theft now, you know. So that's like my understanding that that there are mitzvos that will drop off because we they've achieved their goals. And then there are other mitzvos that are necessary all the time, like you know, uh uh you know, tfila and vihapulreka komocha, like those will, you know, those are like perpetual values.

SPEAKER_02 21:39

Oh, that's that's really cool.

SPEAKER_00 21:40

Yeah, it's it's that's a shear I recommend listening to. Um uh yeah, I go through uh some examples there. Okay, uh good question though. All right, next. In view, then uh sorry, in their view, then, meaning the view of the sages, all of the commandments uh have a reason. That is, every commandment in a prohibition has a beneficial end. Some of them are commandments whose beneficial purpose is clear to us, such as the prohibition against murder and theft. Others are commandments whose benefit is not clear, such as the prohibition of or law, uh, that is not eating fruit uh from the first three years of a tree's growth. Um And Kilahakaram, uh, that's uh forbidden mixtures in the in a vineyard. Um, those whose benefits is clear to the multitude are called Mishpatim, those whose benefit is not clear to the multitude are called chukim. Okay, so mishpatim equals uh mishpatim equals um uh mitzvos whose reasons are clear to the multitude, uh i.e. they're obvious, and then uh the os obvious, and then hukim are mitzvos whose reasons are not clear to the multitude, and then that's what he is calling uh hidden. Okay, but they all have reasons. Okay, moving right along. The sages again, stop me if you have a question. We're almost at our main topic. The sages always said regarding the verse, for it is not an empty thing for you. Um, so this is in um I wrote about this also recently. Hold on. Um empty. Yeah, uh in Hazina last year. Did I quote the Hebrew? Um, so I'm just gonna quote from my my post because I uh I have it here. So in Devarim it says, um, set your hearts to uh Dvarim 32, 46 through 47, set your hearts to all the words that I testify against you today, that you may command them to your children to observe them and to perform all the words of this Torah. Kilo Davar Reiku Mikem. So literally that means for it is not an empty thing for or for you. Okay, like um uh okay, that's how we would translate it. Uh for it is your life, and through this matter uh you shall prolong your days upon the land that into which you are crossing the Jordan to inherit it. Okay, but literally, kilo dovareku mikem, literally mikem means from you. So there's a drusha in the Ushami Peya 1-1 that says, Ramana says, Kilo dov reku, for it is not an empty thing, and if it is empty, it is mikem, it is from you. Why? Sh'inatemya gamebo, because you are not toiling sufficiently in it. So the Rama quotes this and says, Um, it is it if it is empty, it is because of you, meaning that the giving of these commandments is not an empty matter without a beneficial purpose. And if any commandment appears that way to you, the deficiency lies in your own understanding. You already know the well-known tradition uh among us that Shlomo knew the reasons for all the commandments except for Para Aduma. Likewise, they said that God, that's the red heifer. Likewise, they said that God concealed the reasons for the commandments so that people would not treat them lightly, as happened to Shlomo with respect to three commandments, whose reasons are explicitly stated. Um, so that's the king's uh the provisions about the king to you know amass uh too many wives and riches, etc., uh lest his heart become haughty. And so he said, Ah, you know, I'm Shlomo, I'm wise, like I can get, you know, this mitzvah doesn't apply to me. So then he got around it, and then he that ended up being his downfall. All of their statements follow this principle, and the language of scripture points to the same conclusion. So that's Ramam's point here is that there are there are many statements of Hazal uh which indicate that they were of this position uh and believed that the mitzvos have reasons, all of them. Okay, that's the end of the intro. All right, though those are the premises. Okay, any questions before we go on? And again, I know the topic of um Tommy Mitsus is huge. So um if you ask a question, it doesn't mean I'm gonna answer it. But any questions here uh before we go on? Get to the the the main uh the main course. Okay, so he raises a problem. However, I found a text of the sages in Bracius Rabbah 44.1, which appears at first glance to suggest that some commandments have no reason other than the commandment itself, that no other end and no real benefit was intended by them. This is their statement there. So I'm I'm quoting from the Hebrew. What difference does it make to God, or literally, what does he care, whether an animal is slaughtered by cutting from the front of the neck or from the back of the neck? Okay, Haviomer, one must therefore say, that the mitzvous were only given to refine people. Uh Shinemar, as it says, Imras ardashem Surufa, the word of God is refined. Okay, so the problem here is uh so the problem is Rabbah seem to indicate that there is no reason. Oh, and I should just say factually, by the way, factually, the way you do shrith to an animal is through shit, the we saw our name is through shritha, which is cutting the um with a for let's say for um uh behema, for uh like a domesticated animal, cutting the esophagus and the trachea uh with a sharp knife. Okay, so that is shit, and then the this thing that is um uh cutting it from the the back of the neck is called n'hira, which I think I read somewhere that the the term is pole acting. Um, and you can imagine, like, I mean, physically, how do you describe the how would you compare and contrast those two slaughtering processes? Is um, you know, shita with the esophagus and trachea versus chopping the back. Like experientially or for the human or for the animal, how would you describe the two? Yeah, uh, hoodie?

SPEAKER_05 27:32

Wouldn't the front be faster, like cutting off life faster and be less painful?

SPEAKER_00 27:37

Yes, correct. Right. So if you cut the esophagus and trachea, it's gonna die pretty fast. And then you're gonna really have to like hack at the neck, and it's gonna be very I don't think you can just slice it and get into because you got a spine there, you know, and maybe I don't know, animals very well. Um, so it's yeah, it's much more painful. Yeah, uh Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 27:55

I was also thinking like front to front, like you know what you're looking at, like you're you take the weight of the life you're taking a lot more seriously, but just like surprise taking it from the back. Like that's kind of like a sneak attack. Like, that's just like taking advantage of the animal.

SPEAKER_00 28:07

I don't know, that's like what came to mind instead of the actual upright animals, then yeah, sneaking up and like cutting it would be uh would be a problem. But I I'm I'm pretty sure that uh uh I I don't know how it's done now, but I'm pretty sure that um that back then when you have a cow standing there, it's good you're gonna be oriented to the same direction to the cow, whether you're cutting it from the bottom or from the top. I'm pretty sure. Yeah. I have no idea how it's different. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 28:38

I mean, I would just actually contest that because I would say, in fact, the animal not seeing it coming coming might be more compassionate versus freaking out.

SPEAKER_00 28:47

Right. Um, yeah, Alex.

SPEAKER_06 28:50

It feels to me like coming from the back is a false sense of compassion, of like, oh, I don't need to look at this animal and humanize it. Also, it's kind of like internally harder when you're like eye to eye with a creature to kill it in that way.

SPEAKER_00 29:05

Well, so that's what I'm saying to Vanessa is I I'm pretty I could be ignorant here. I'm pretty sure we don't flip the cow upside down or swoop in from the top. I think like like I think the you you're standing in the same place when you cut the the cow. I I think. I don't know. Something to fact check that.

SPEAKER_06 29:23

I've been to slaughterhouses before.

SPEAKER_00 29:25

Well, even to modern slaughterhouses.

SPEAKER_06 29:27

Yeah, that's true. That's true.

SPEAKER_00 29:28

Right. I don't know how they did it back then. I don't think they had contraptions, you know. Yeah, I mean, so we'll have to ask if you'll get help.

SPEAKER_06 29:36

I mean, I I have a lot of families back, like when they lived in Russia. They would have like a cousin who's a shoket and comes to the house and would like do shrieta on the animals they had, and based off of how much parents have said it. Um it I don't understand.

SPEAKER_00 29:49

I I literally I don't understand how it works. So it's crazy how the animal does or does not see you if you're cutting from the top, from the the back of the neck or the bottom. Imagine a kid it's a cow.

SPEAKER_06 29:59

Right. I mean, again, I haven't seen a shita in person live. But to my understanding, if you were doing it from the back, you would be coming like from its shoulders. Whereas from the front, you have to be in front of the animal. I mean, again, I don't know. Maybe it's all right.

SPEAKER_00 30:16

Yeah, this is a factual matter, so we can discuss this with a shoke.

SPEAKER_01 30:19

I have a showhead on the skin.

SPEAKER_00 30:21

Yeah, okay. Um yeah, okay. Um, some some people in the chat are vegetarian. Um uh okay. So um, yeah, and then it ends off by saying, um, the only purpose of the mitzvos is to refine people. Okay, so that seems to indicate that there's no purpose, right? And it doesn't matter to God. Okay. So he expresses the question a little bit more. He says, um He says, though this statement is very strange and no, it has no parallel elsewhere in their words, I've interpreted it, as you shall presently hear, in a way that does not depart from the general tenor of their other statements and that does not contradict the universally accepted principle, namely, that one should seek in all the commandments an end that is beneficial in its effects on existence. For uh, it is not an empty thing, meaning that there is a reason for it. And he says, I did not say to the seed of Yaakov, seek me in emptiness. I am God who speaks righteousness, who declares what is upright. So, in other words, he's going firm with the fact that that everything God says is is righteous, it's not arbitrary, and that there are reasons. Okay, one methodology point here. Um, what is the Rambam's? Uh, this is gonna be too hard for me to ask the question without giving a hint. Okay. He says this has no parallel in the other words of the sages, and he's interpreting it in a way that does not depart from the general tenor of other statements. So I just want to bring to your attention a methodology point, which is midrashim do not have to be consistent. Okay. Uh each midrash is written by uh an independent author, and midrashim in agada, you know, non-halakic midrashim, were not handed down at Tina. Okay. So theoretically, there is such a thing as a das Yahid as a minority opinion in midrashim. So theoretically, you could say, yeah, all the other sages hold that there are reasons for mitos. And then the author of this statement did not hold that. But you see that the Rambam does not want to say that. He wants to uh to give this sage the benefit of the doubt and assume consistency with the general position of the Torah according to the other sages, unless we had absolute evidence that that's not the case. Okay, so I just want to say that methodologically, it's not that that all midrashim have to be consistent with each other. There is such a thing as a disagreement and a minority opinion. But generally speaking, if given a choice between saying that all the sages agreed that Mitzuls have reasons versus all of them but one, we want to assume that all of them agreed. Okay, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 32:53

Um, my question is doesn't Hashem have the Mita of Rahamim? So it's kind of doesn't make sense to me to say God wouldn't care how you shuffle the animal because wouldn't he?

SPEAKER_00 33:05

Okay, right. So that's another question. It's interesting that the Ram doesn't bring it from that angle, but he could argue that like one of them is more cruel than the other. Now he will bring that up, but uh but not in the question. That's gonna be in his answer. Okay, so here's what he says. Okay, this is where we um this is where we have uh pillow theory, okay. And some of you are gonna be traumatized, not traumatized, some of you are gonna be shocked by this, okay? Okay, what every sound-minded person ought to believe concerning this matter is what I will now set forth. The generalities of a commandment necessarily have a reason, and we were command, and we're commanded on account of a specific benefit. It is the particulars about which we say that they are purely the result of the commandment alone. Okay, so this is the Ramam's thesis. Okay, is the general uh principles of a mitzvah have uh reasons, but the particulars do not. Okay, he's gonna give a bunch of examples and uh and uh we'll we'll uh flesh this out. Okay. For example, so this is where he's gonna say what Hoodie said, I think, uh killing animals for the purpose of obtaining good food, its benefit is clear, as we shall explain. But the requirement that the slaughter be done by cutting and not by sorry, by shrita, uh and not by the esophagus and windpipe be severed at a specific place, these and similar requirements are for the purpose of refining people. This is made clear to you by their example, slaughtering it from the front of the neck versus slaughtering from the back of the neck. I've cited this example only because it appears in their words, meaning in the midrashi said cited, but in truth, since necessity brought us to eating meat, the aim was to bring about the easiest possible death achieved through the simplest means. For severing the neck can only be done with a sword or something like it, whereas Shrida can be done with any instrument. Uh, and to ensure an easier death, the condition the condition was imposed that the knife be sharp. Okay. So it feels I don't know if anyone's getting this sense, it feels like he pulled a fast one. Okay, because uh he says like this. Um so he says, let's go with example number one, okay, which is uh shritha. So he says that, hold on. He says okay, so he says for shit, um the um actually I think I have to skip ahead in the uh in this thing. Uh so I this is where he explains the reason for shritha. Um so really the there's two things. There's uh there's Avermanachai, the prohibition to eat a limb from a living animal. Um and then there's uh shitha. So he says, in this is in the Morning Bookham 348, it is prohibited to cut off a limb from a living animal and eat it, because such an act would produce cruelty and develop it. The Gentile kings used to do this, and it was also done for Avodazara, namely they would cut a specific limb of an animal and eat it. So forget the Avodazara for a second, okay? This is something that for some reason I did not um understand until like I don't know, like late in my development. So I I want to make sure that everyone else is on the same page. Why on earth would anyone cut a limb from a living animal you know to get the meat? Like who would do that? Like it does seem like very, very cruel. So like what why would they do that? Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 36:26

Uh I mean, I don't want to sound super ignorant here, but is it there are there some like at least Asian dishes where they literally do eat animals like octopus or other things where they're kind of not quite dead? Okay, so that could be taste better. I should have just answered, like it could be effects of taste.

SPEAKER_00 36:40

Yeah, okay, good. So I think that is a reason. Uh whether that reason applied back then, I don't I don't know. Maybe that's what he means by the kings, actually, because it's like super fresh. So that's plausible. Yeah. Vanessa?

SPEAKER_04 36:52

I was gonna basically say the same thing. Like these days, like it's the same thing of eating veal. Like that's a super young cow. Even now, like the cows we eat are like a year old, maybe too. Like they're not like well matured, like people prefer to taste of young. That's where I go. My thoughts.

SPEAKER_00 37:07

Okay, but what does that have to do with cutting a limb from a living animal?

SPEAKER_04 37:10

Oh, it's like more fresh, like versus a dead. Oh, okay. Never mind. Sorry, no, you're right. I crossed two topics together. Okay, fine, right. Yeah, uh, Alex.

SPEAKER_06 37:21

Sorry, I was trying to get the meat button. Um, I I think one could have a false sense of compassion that it's nicer to not kill something. Therefore, if you want the meat, it's better to just take a piece, which obviously is insanely cruel, but I can imagine a very distorted view getting there.

SPEAKER_00 37:38

Okay, I hear that. Uh hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 37:41

I another thing could possibly be, especially because in this example he specifically uh notes a gentile, a king. Yeah, uh, it's just it's a power thing, no? Like, you know, in terms of like power over the animal and a sense of like, I don't know, that's where my mind went.

SPEAKER_00 37:55

Okay, I I hear that also. So my my impression, and I this is not from the Rama, but this is I I don't know where I read this or heard this, is that uh, you know, back then there was no refrigeration, right? So if you kill an animal, then you better be prepared to slaughter it and butcher it and prepare it and like somehow handle the meat, whether it is like drying it or selling it or whatever, you know. So the thing is, is like if you could get away with cutting off a limb and then keeping the animal alive, so you'll have the fresh meat, but then you won't like kill the source of your meat, you know. So you'll you'll you'll you'll again, it's very inhumane, but you'll take off pieces of it, you know, in a way that it could still be alive, so that you'll have that fresh meat source there and then cook it as needed, and then you only kill it when you need to. So so I I that that's what I uh was under the impression of also. Um, so again, the reasons that people gave are are also viable. And I think the fact that he emphasizes the king, yeah, it does, it grosses me out as well. And I think we actually hold now, not hold. I think we know now that if meat is done that way, I think it actually is worse quality meat because I think something about when the animal has a stress reaction, like it somehow like, or certain animals maybe can change the uh you know, we really need a shoket in this year right now because there are a lot of things we don't know, clearly. Um, but um uh yeah. Okay, so so that's the baseline here. Um uh okay, sorry, hold on a second. So then he then he says about shrikita. He says the commandment concerning the shitta of animals is necessary. The natural food of man consists only of plants that grow from the earth and of the flesh of animals. And I I know he didn't recognize mushrooms, okay. I they they thought that I think they thought that that fungi were were plants, okay, but uh um okay, and the finest meat is that which is permitted to us, something no physician would dispute. Okay, since the necessity of good nourishment requires killing the animal, the aim was to bring about the easiest possible death for it. It was therefore forbidden to cause its suffering through a defect of shita, through nahira, or through severing a limb while it is still alive, as we've explained. Okay, so let me present this this uh this uh little contradiction here. Yahudi?

SPEAKER_05 40:04

Sorry, I'm just stuck on something that I feel like is a basic premise that you're going on here, which is I don't understand why. Isn't that the mitzvah? Like, I don't what is the mitzvah aside from shita? There's no mitzvah. Is there mitzvah to eat animals? Like I don't understand.

SPEAKER_00 40:18

Okay, so there are two there are two um kinds of mitzvos. Okay, um might be more than that, but uh two kinds of mitzvah susei. There are mitzvos suse where you are positively obligated to do the action, and then there are mitzvos where you don't have to do the action, but if you do it, it has to be through this halakha. So so the thing is is like, for example, everyone has to put up a mezuzah, or uh, or maybe that's a bad example, every every man has to say Krishma twice a day, right? Like there's no choice, or like every uh Jew has to eat matta on Pesa. But then Shritta, no, you never have to do Shita in your life, but if you want to eat meat, it has to be done through Shita, you know. Um is that what you're asking about? Or you're asking about something different?

SPEAKER_05 41:08

No, I don't understand his original point. I mean, what's he separating here? He's saying there's the the the the mitzvah is the general mitzvah is good, and then this is kind of like additional stuff that's this is what I'm gonna this is what I'm gonna uh flesh out here, okay?

SPEAKER_00 41:24

So uh I'll I think this will this will the I'm gonna try to articulate your question here, okay? So he says like this. Um he says, for example, um uh he says, um killing the animal um uh sorry, the the Torah, the Torah requiring us to kill an animal before eating it definitely has a reason, okay? Um and that's before eating it, as opposed to hacking off parts of it while it's still alive, okay. Okay, but there is no reason for um for uh shritta versus nahira, as the midrash says. Okay, um okay, but then the problem is like this. Okay, this is the the problem is but then the Rambam goes on to say that Shita is more humane, okay, and that's why the Torah commanded it. Okay, so doesn't doesn't that that contradict his point um uh his earlier point uh that shita has no has no reason. So I I I think is that what was confusing you is that like he says let me tell you it sounds like he's saying very simple he says there's the generalities of the mitts of that have reasons, and there's the particulars that don't. For example, in Shita, killing the animal has a reason, but the way you do it does not matter. But then he says, the reason why the Torah says you should do Shita in Sendakira is because it's more humane. So like it sounds like he's just like undermining his own thesis.

SPEAKER_05 43:16

Yeah, that was also actually very confusing to me. Yeah, um, but I can't take credit. And but really what I was asking was just I didn't understand that he was saying the Torah was requiring us to kill the animal before eating it, and that's okay.

SPEAKER_00 43:27

So yeah, yeah, right, right. So that that so the way to think about it is you know, um the the Bnei Noah only have the myths of Aver Minachai, that it's user for them to eat a linen from a living animal. So functionally, that requires them that they have to kill the animal before they eat it. Okay, we have Aver Minachai, and then on top of that, we have Shita. All right, yeah. Okay, so um, so this is the problem with the Ram's example. Okay, before we solve it, uh I want to go through another example that the Ramam gives. And this is the one that really riles people up, especially Reverse. Okay. Uh Reh Hersh um really does not like this. Okay, so he says like this The example that truly illustrates the matter is the particulars of uh of particulars is the Korban. The commandment to offer sacrifices has a great and clear benefit as I will explain. But that one sacrifice should be a lamb and another a ram, and that their number should be a specific number, for this, no reason can possibly be given. In my view, whoever occupies himself with finding reasons for any of these particulars suffers from a prolonged delusion. He does not resolve any difficulty, he only multiplies difficulties. Now, here's an extreme statement. Whoever imagines that a reason can be found for such particulars is as far from the truth as one who imagines that the commandment as a whole serves no real purpose. Okay, so let me just state this here. Okay, so the example number two is korbanos. Okay, so he says that um uh okay, this is not I don't have to say for example. Okay, so he says, um there is a reason for the general institution of Corbanos, okay, which uh according to the Raman has to do with getting rid of a vodazara, okay. Um but the particulars, uh, for example, um what type of animal, what number, you know, what quantity, okay, etc., uh have no reason, okay. And whoever thinks they have reasons suffers, uh is delusional and is as far from the truth as someone who thinks that that there are no general reasons. Okay. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 45:42

Are we right now going um are we exploring so we're not meant to think about the actual reasons, and that's not the point here. You're just bringing up anything that's not what we're focusing on.

SPEAKER_00 45:52

Well, what he's what the Ram, let's say what the Rahm is trying to do, and then what we're trying to do, okay? What the Ram's trying to do is he's trying to explain the statement of Chazal that seemed to undermine his thesis, which is that you have this one, you have all these statements that say that the mitzvos have reasons, and then this one statement that says it doesn't matter to God whether you cut from the front or the back. So his answer is the mitzvos have reasons in their generalities, but not in the particulars. And now he's walking us through examples of how to make that division between the generalities and the particulars. So his first example is with shkita. The generality of shit is don't eat from live animals, so kill them. The particular is how you do it. In Korbanos, the generality is offer, offer sacrifices to God, but the particulars are lamb or ram or goat or cow and six six cows, seven, sorry, six lambs, seven lambs, etc. So he's trying to like walk us through these uh these examples. Now, what we are doing is we're trying to make sense of how the Raman can say these things and how he's even being consistent. Okay. So uh let me just read one more paragraph, okay, and then we'll flesh out the problem here. So he says, so so so now the so what what question do you have then about when he says um like it doesn't matter whether uh it doesn't matter what the what the quantity of uh animals is. Uh like if you're if you're bothered by that, what what bothers you? Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_03 47:16

Um I guess to me, it doesn't seem like it should be so clear-cut. Like there should be a line where it's like the quantity is the thing that doesn't matter. Like maybe there's some like some different possibilities for what it could be, and there's something that makes it not completely determined by a philosophical reason, but to say that there's just no reason at all seems like that's way too big of a jump for the other.

SPEAKER_00 47:37

I'm gonna I'm gonna put it in emotional terms because I think it it uh in this case it helps to like feel the problem. Okay, it feels very weird and bad and disrespectful. I'm not I'm not putting that in your mouth, that's how I feel. To say that like all these halajos of Corbanos um uh have no reason whatsoever. Okay, like like you know, saying that I mean, I know this is what you're getting at tomorrow, but like saying that, like, okay, fine, maybe at a certain level of detail we'd be fine with this, but like saying that like really, like it does not matter that the Corbin Pesa has to come from a uh a goat or a sheep and not a cow, like that that's arbitrary. Like that sounds weird. Or let's say like all the numbers of the Corbanos in let's say the Mustafa of Sukhis, you start with 14 um uh 14 uh uh parim, you know, 14 bulls, uh, and you go 14, 13, uh 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and then you have one at the end and it adds up to 70. Like it's arbitrary, like it just sounds in like like incredible, like it doesn't seem to make sense. Like, like what what about all the reasons given by Hazal and others for these details? Yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 49:02

This might be too dumbed down of a question, but if the details don't matter, why do we have the details? Like just for flavoring? Like from like, you know, like did Hashun just want to color in the coloring book? Like what what's the like what you know what I mean?

SPEAKER_00 49:16

Okay, if we don't care about all the details, like what are we doing? Okay, if the details have no reasons, why do we even need them? Okay, uh right, that's a great question. Okay, uh, Deborah.

SPEAKER_02 49:31

Okay, so with like the Carbonos example, and you said Rev Hirsch gets upset. So I know like Rev Hirsch and Jacob Milgram, like they do give reasons for these details that the Rombom is saying are are you know have no reasons. So I I want to know, like, does the Rombom is the Rombom saying they have no reasons because he couldn't figure out a reason but Rev Hirsch maybe and Jacob Milgram uh uncovered a good reason, or is there something like inherent in the type of animal that made the Rambom say no conclusively this has no reason?

SPEAKER_00 50:03

Okay, right. So what what uh what was the Rambom's calculus in determining that a particular has no reason, especially uh sorry, especially given the existence of other Khachamim, other Chachamim uh who hold that that there are reasons, and then I'll I'll say that like you know, did did the Ramvam just try and not find uh a reason and then conclude that it doesn't uh have one? And I'll say, if so, how does he differentiate between between this failure to find and the failure to find that Hazal say um if it's empty, it's because you're not toiling hard enough, right? Because the Ram himself quoted that twice in the same paragraph. He says, if you don't find a reason, you're not looking hard enough, right? So, like, how does he how does he do this? By the way, shout out. Um, Devor is mentioning Jacob Milgram Milgram. For those who don't know, but I'm saying this because we're we're gonna start safer Vyikra next uh next week. Um uh to quote um my my Tommy Dout Rifki Elman's grandfather, um uh Professor Um Elman, uh Yitzh, uh that's her father, Yitzi Elman. Um what's his name? Uh Jakob Elman, Yaakov Elman. Uh he Yaakov Elman said uh he held that that Milgram's commentary is the greatest, I think he says the greatest Torah commentary written on Vyakra. Okay. Uh this is a not religious uh Milgram was not an Orthodox Jew, but he wrote a comment, an extensive commentary on Vycra, where he explains all of the uh reasons for everything. So um if you're interested, then uh yeah, that's something to recommend. If you're if you're looking for a book for uh Vyakra, then uh then that's that is one to note. Yeah, a hoodie. Uh it's uh Mil Milgram. Um that's how you spell it, that's his name. Uh I don't know what his book is called. Um uh yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 52:18

Are we sorry? Are we ignoring something he said though in the beginning? Which is not I don't think he said there's no reason to these extra parts. He just qualified it as a different type of reason, right? He said for the refinement of people.

SPEAKER_00 52:33

Am I wrong in remembering that? Okay, so the Gemara, or sorry, not the Gemara, Hazal said it's to refine people, but the Ramam. Yeah, Rahmam says, um uh okay, so here are the statements. They're purely for the the the result of the commandment alone, which is an ambiguous uh phrase, but then he said, hold on, whoever no reason can possibly be given. Okay, that's another extreme statement. And then, in my view, whoever occupies himself with finding reasons for these particulars suffers from a prolonged delusion. Um, and uh and whoever imagines a reason can be found for the particulars. So, like it does sound like he is saying that there is no reason. And I just want to, before we go on, I just want to um, we're almost done with this um uh this thing. I just want to finish reading this, and I'll take the other questions uh because it's the end of the excerpt. Know that wisdom required, or if you prefer, necessity brought about the existence of particulars for which no reason can be given. It is, as it were, impossible that the law should contain nothing of this kind. The nature of this impossibility is as follows. If you ask why a lamb and not a ram, that same question would arise if a ram had been specified instead of a lamb. Some particular species must necessarily be chosen. Likewise, if you ask why seven lambs and not eight, the same question would arise if it were eight or ten or twenty. Some particular number must necessarily be specified. This is analogous to the nature of the possible. It is certain that one of the possibilities will be actualized, but it makes no sense to ask why this possibility and not another. For the same question would arise whichever possibility was actualized, understand and grasp this well. And then he concludes by saying when the sages consistently say that there are reasons for all the commandments, and when they say that Shlomo knew those reasons, they are referring to the benefit of commandment in its general sense, not to an inquiry into its particulars. Okay, uh, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_03 54:30

Okay, so my question is about scope, I think. Um in terms of, I think I kind of asked this before, but like the scope of general versus particulars. And I think that um you see it in the realm in different places, and it's not clear to me, like it's it doesn't, you don't get a general, I don't I'm not getting a general takeaway in terms of that. Um, when you just hear it the first time of the way that I felt was that like general would mean like the heading, like the type of mitzvah is like a one-sentence summary, and then everything else is particulars. But if you I don't I don't I think that would be pretty um bold to say that everything but the one-sentence summary does not have a reason.

SPEAKER_07 55:06

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 55:07

Um yeah, and I I think also in this thing where he's saying um, this is maybe a separate question, I'm not sure, that um that you know there must be something specified. It doesn't necessarily mean that it could be it, it's it's six and not seven, but it's and I know he was giving other numbers, but like it's six and not a hundred, like there might be a reason for that. You know what I mean? Like there might be some allowable possibility, but it doesn't mean that there's no reason, like it's just completely all from like nonsense.

SPEAKER_00 55:36

Okay, good. All right, good. So I like the way you asked the question, which is that he did seem to give the sense that like only the barest generality, like kill the animal, bring Corbanos, those have reasons, but all the other details are particulars. But it does seem hard to believe that. And I wish I could just show you, I wish I could just pull a uh, you know, uh matrix like download the information into your head of like seeing the exam, you know. This is chapter 26. The Ram spends almost all the rest of the chapters in the Mornibuchim going through the reasons for mythos, okay? And he gives a lot of reasons for particulars. So, like, I wish I could I could show you just many examples where it does seem like he gives reasons, okay? Um, and uh I will go through a couple more examples. Um, so I think that's a good question. Yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 56:20

Okay, I really like that question from the mark. I have two questions. One of them is very concrete, one of them I'm gonna have trouble articulating. So the first one that seems like a logical fallacy. You just read the part. Could you scroll down? I want to quote it. Uh yeah. Where he's like, it doesn't matter if it's a sheep or a ram, because you could just ask if it's a ram or a sheep. No, like you could just say like bring a sheep or a ram. Like he picked one. Like that's that's just not true. Like that's just a weird logical drama. The Ram's smarter than yet. That's why I'm really confused as to how he like makes a statement that like can so easily be questioned, or maybe I'm missing something. I've got four hours of sleep, so like maybe I'm missing something, but that just doesn't no, I agree.

SPEAKER_00 56:56

And and again, just to uh just to uh you know, my favorite example of this is why do we slaughter the the the you know uh uh sheep on on Pesach?

SPEAKER_04 57:07

They were the Egyptian deity and yeah, it was the Egyptian deity, right?

SPEAKER_00 57:10

So you're really gonna tell me, like, if I give that as the reason, that's a pretty plausible reason. And if Ron says, Well, if it were a cow, you would have asked that also. Really? Like it's our like I don't think so. Like, this is a reason that makes sense, you know?

SPEAKER_04 57:23

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 57:23

Okay, good.

SPEAKER_04 57:24

Okay, that's my first question. Then the second question, I think this ties into come Tamara's question for basically. Uh yeah, I guess it is a question of scope. Like, it's the same issue. Like when you presented it in the first place, like it sounds wrong and bad. This is gonna be more failings on than facts, but I think I I think there is something factual. When we hear, like, oh, like the midsport might just be arbitrary and like it just comes from God's will, that feels bad, right? Like, we don't like that answer. So I think when the Um is saying like the particulars don't matter, but like the generals are fine, I feel like that's just an extension of the same problem. Okay, that's uh right. Like when you're saying like God's like our ability to connect to God is like limited in a sense, and like, oh, those that stuff doesn't matter, you gotta do it anyways. Like, really, like that futility just doesn't feel right.

SPEAKER_00 58:10

Okay, so tell me if this is your question, okay. If if so, great. If not, then this is still a good question, which is that Ramvam began our chapter and spent the whole previous chapter um uh driving home the point that everything God does and commands has a reason and nothing is arbitrary. Uh um okay. So why isn't he bothered by that by saying that these particulars are arbitrary? Was that your question?

SPEAKER_04 58:49

Basically, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 58:50

Okay, okay, good. So these are all good questions. Okay, so here's what I'm gonna do. We're gonna switch now into my explanation mode, okay? And uh I am um I wanna be have uh transparency here. So I wrote that article that I mentioned in 2020 uh 13, okay. Um, and I'm gonna share with you the model that I got that uh I was working with then. Um I'm not gonna go back to really test out this model, I would really have to learn through all the Ramams Tame and all the other chapters to really test it. And I have not done that yet. So treat this as like a working theory, okay? So this is what I'm calling pillow theory, okay. Um pillow theory. Okay, so pillow theory states that um in every mitzvah, okay, there are three tiers. Um uh sorry, in every mitzvah's uh structure, let's say, okay, in every mitzvah structure, there are three tiers, okay. Um tier one is is uh the generality, okay. Uh the generalities which have a primary purpose. Tier two is particulars that also have a purpose which may or may not serve the primary one, okay? And then tier three are particulars without a purpose. Okay. I'm gonna walk you through two examples that don't have to do with mitzvous, and then I'm gonna show you in the Romans examples um the ones that do have to do with mitzvous. Okay, so example number one, surprise, surprise, is a pillow. Okay. Um why can I not go back? Hold on. Okay, so example one is uh is uh a pillow.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:53

Okay, so um what would you say the purpose of a pillow is? Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:11

Okay, to provide comfort for your head when lying down. We'll use a again, uh like a pillow for your bed, okay? Uh when lying down. All right. Oh, so uh so here's the thing. Oh actually, sorry. Tier one example is is um is uh oh sorry, hold on a second. Yeah, so that that's the purpose, okay? So so this purpose will directly dictate uh certain aspects of the pillow's uh structure, okay. So for example, what's gonna be the quality that we prize most? Softness. Softness, okay. Softness, okay. A pillow will need to be uh soft enough to provide comfort, but uh solid enough to provide support, okay? Right. So if a pillow is um I don't know what the soft uh what would just be yeah, I don't know where the line would be drawn. Okay, tier two. Okay, so that'd be like a t so a tier one feature would be softness, okay. But here's tier two, okay. Let's say the the material, okay, the particular material okay, that pillow is made of might be chosen based on the primary purpose. Okay. Um, so for example, um uh you know, we use um down feathers because they are super soft, okay. Um okay, or they might have a purpose which is not directly related to the primary one. So what would be another reason for uh uh choosing or rejecting the material for a pillow that is not directly related to the pillow's primary function? Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 1:02:58

Um durability, uh longevity, ease of care.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:03

Yeah, durability, ease of care. I didn't hear your second one.

SPEAKER_05 1:03:06

Uh longevity is it, but I don't know if that's the same as pillow.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:10

Right, yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:03:12

I was gonna be more specific. Like, if you imagine, let's assume the pillowcase is part of the pillow and not like get into semantics. Like for girls, when you focus on like a satin pillowcase might be good for your hair. That's not the point of sleeping. Like, you don't sleep on the pillow because you care about your hair, but like if you find sleep, you might like be cautious about like what you're doing to your like the secondary gas rates.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:31

Okay, good. We're right. Okay, so I'm gonna add a bunch of these things here, okay, is like like um uh uh aesthetics cost safety. So for example, I think asbestos is very soft, but the only reason we don't use it in a pillow is because we don't want pillows to give you cancer, okay? Um so uh or or let's say like I'm sure there are things that we don't use because uh they're you know uh flammable in a way that like would be dangerous or whatever, or like it would inhale, you know, uh the you know, fiberglass or or plastics or whatever. Okay. So so these are all reasons, but they're not related to the primary reason, okay? But tier two featured designs could be related to the primary reason, all right? They don't have to be though. Okay, but now here's the here's the thing, okay. Tier three, okay, is particulars that um, or actually, let me give another example of a tier two, okay? Um uh the size. Okay. So what size are we aiming for with a pillow? Yeah, Vanessa?

SPEAKER_04 1:04:35

I thought I thought it would be in tier one, but like something that like has to fit your head. If it's the size of a house, it won't work. Like it needs to be able to serve the function.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:42

Right. So it does, it's true. It does fit it does fit the um uh uh it does serve the purpose, right? Is that that um it has to be big enough to support your head, okay, but if it's too big, then you can't use it. Okay. So tier three though is particulars that that are only chosen because something had to be chosen. Okay. Um, so for example, all right, um uh you know, we have a reason for using um uh feathers, okay, uh, because they're soft. And we have uh we have a reason for using down feathers because they are super soft, okay, and available, let's say, okay. But why the feathers from this particular duck instead of that one? Okay. Or from this um like from from from the ducks in in this part of the state instead of another. Those particulars have no reason vis a vis pillow at all. Okay. Like it could you could just swap out something else and it would be fine. Okay, or another example is is you know, in the pillow size. Um so let's say for example, you know, um how big is a pillow? Like let's say like between two to three uh actually sorry, I'm gonna do the size. I just want to jump to another module here, okay? Um uh just to just illustrate this. Um so example number two is a stop sign. Okay. So what would be a tier one feature of the stop sign? Yeah, hoodie?

SPEAKER_01 1:06:41

It would have to say stop on it and follow the regulations of saying stop, okay?

SPEAKER_00 1:06:46

So this directly serves the purpose, okay? What would be a tier two feature where it has a reason, but the reason is uh and the reason might serve the purpose and it might not. Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_03 1:07:01

Maybe it's a bright color.

SPEAKER_00 1:07:03

Yeah, okay, right. The color red, right? Oh, sorry, bright color, yeah, bright color, okay. Bright, bright color, um, which catches your attention. Uh yeah, hoodie. Uh height of the height. Good. The the general height, um uh which uh which makes it visible. I guess height and uh and size, right? Um and size, which make it makes it visible uh on the road. Yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:07:32

Same vein location. Same vein like physical spot.

SPEAKER_00 1:07:36

Yeah, like it can't be right. Yeah, neither. Okay, right, right. Um uh uh location range. Okay, all right. But now tier three, okay, what is something that is totally arbitrary in terms of in terms of the uh the stop sign? Yeah, Tamara.

SPEAKER_03 1:07:57

Maybe that it's an octagon.

SPEAKER_00 1:07:59

Yeah, octagonal shape, okay, right? So they could have made a stop sign a pentagon, and it would have served exactly the same function. And if it were a pentagon, we would say, well, why not an octagon? An octagon, why not a pentagon? Okay, octagonal shape. Yeah, who do you have? Another one? Um material used. Okay, good. Material, right? So so material would be something that um uh that could be in tier two in the sense that it does need to last, but like anything that lasts, it doesn't really matter. Actually, I'm gonna say um another one is which bright color? Okay, if all stop signs were bright yellow, I think that would also work, right? Uh, you know, we associate red with stop because of all the stop signs that are that are there, you know? Um the exact height range, okay. So for example, um, you know, I don't know how tall stop signs are, but let's say like like five feet to seven feet, you know, makes sense. Okay, but it could have been 4.9 feet, okay? And that part's arbitrary. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:00

But don't certain circumstances um maybe relegate something that would be in tier two or even tier three into a higher tier. Like, for example, um, the color red might have to be chosen if all the other colors are already taken by design and things like that.

SPEAKER_00 1:09:14

Right, correct. So, so here's the so I actually did uh before I did uh ask uh one of my AIs um why are stop signs uh octagonal. And so it was chosen because it was the only sign at the time uh that like like they wanted to make they just wanted to choose a unique shape. And it was, it hadn't been claimed. And there were a lot of square signs, a lot of circle signs, and they wanted so that you could like it would draw your attention to it, even if you couldn't read the word stop, you know. So that was the thing. So yeah, this is an interesting question you're raising, which is that um, which is that certain features are dictated by the thing itself, like in a vacuum, and certain things are dictated by like the system or by other stuff. And and you might allocate a certain structural feature into one place or another, depending on that. Okay. Um, I'm gonna do now a third, uh, a third um example uh that the Ramum does not give in the chapter we read, but I think this is to me, this is the best example, which is the Arba Minim. Okay. Um Arba, I was Arba Minim, yeah. I think it's Arba Minim. Okay, so um okay, so what what would you guess the tier one teach uh feature is before we read it in the Ramum?

SPEAKER_03 1:10:33

Yeah, tomorrow in our own.

SPEAKER_00 1:10:39

Okay, right. So that's the primary purpose, right? So since the primary purpose, the primary purpose is to thank Hashem for the produce, so then what would be a structural feature that that the Arbimenim would have to have? Yeah, Vanessa?

SPEAKER_04 1:10:57

It would have to be produce.

SPEAKER_00 1:10:59

Yeah, right. It'd have to be some growth, okay, right? Some some associated with with with growth or produce, okay. Um the the um the the species would need to be you know things that grow. Sorry, things that grow. Okay, but now watch what the Ram does in his explanation of uh of the Arbum Minion. So this is later on in the Murnubuchim in 343, or I guess earlier. It appears to me that the four species of the Lulav, and again, Lulav here is saying all four, are an expression of joy and gladness for going out from the wilderness, which was a place without seed, fig, grape, and pomegranate, and without any water to drink, to a place of fruit trees and rivers. Okay. Therefore, in order to remember this, we take the most beautiful of its fruits and a fragrant plant and beautiful leaves, and the most beautiful of herbs, that is the willows of the brook. These four species have three common denominators. First, they were plentiful in the land of Israel at that time, and everyone was able to obtain them. Secondly, they are exceedingly beautiful in their appearance and aesthetic qualities. Some of them, namely the citron and the myrtle, are fragrant, but the date palm and the willows have neither a good or a bad smell. The third quality is that they retain their appearance for seven days, which is not the case with peaches, pomegranates, asparagus, nuts, and the like. Okay, so so there he's saying an interesting thing. Okay, he's saying tier two features is the particular species, okay, which were chosen because A, sorry, because A, they were plentiful in Israel. Okay, B, um, they are beautiful, and C, they they last. Okay. But according to this, um theoretically, you could have God could have commanded us in other species that that serve all these same purposes. Okay, like there's nothing inherent, according to this explanation, about about these things that you can only thank Hashem with these things. You could certainly you could thank Hashem with asparagus, it's just that it goes bad, and the Torah doesn't want you holding moldy asparagus, you know. Uh, or another example that the Ram doesn't mention is um the Gemara says that uh uh the you know the Gemara asks, um, why can't we use oleander? Which I don't really know what oleander is, uh so uh and answers um because it's poisonous, um poisonous, and uh and derach darche noam uh the hol nasivo nasivo seha shalom. That that um sorry, what are we saying? Sorry uh that the Torah must be associated with pleasantness. Okay, so this is kind of analysis to what hoodie was saying earlier. This is not stemming from the Lulav itself, this is stemming from a general characteristic of the system that God doesn't want us handling poisonous uh uh plants. Okay, so these are tier two features. Okay, now what would be a tier three feature structural requirement of of the Arbum Minion? Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 1:13:58

Which trees, like which plant it's from, which which area of the land?

SPEAKER_00 1:14:02

Okay, right. You could say which area of the land. Uh, I'm thinking though, in terms of uh I just want to uh clarify my question here, in terms of um things that are hallockally required, but don't fit into tier one or tier two. That we'd say that they're arbitrary. Yeah, Dvorah.

SPEAKER_02 1:14:22

Uh number, number of meaning.

SPEAKER_00 1:14:24

Okay, good. The number of meaning, right? The number of of species could have been three, it could have been five. Okay, there's no, and if it was five, we will come up with all these symbolisms for five and uh uh you know, and and not four. And if it was three, same, well, three avos, you know. Um the number of species, yeah. What else, Vanessa?

SPEAKER_04 1:14:42

Maybe a hot take, but like the size and the color and all that aesthetic appearance that doesn't actually like that.

SPEAKER_00 1:14:48

Size and exact appearance qualifications. So there are general reasons. So for example, Luluf has to be four tvachim, uh, and the reason given is so that it's wavable, okay? Like it has to be like you have to like see it, you know, wave or whatever, right? Um, but guess what? Right. If it was three tvachim, it could also wave. Or if if it said five, it would also wave. Or let's say, like, like um, you know, there are very, very detailed requirements for the um, you know, for which leaves can be intact and which ones not. The Torah could have come up with other requirements here. Okay. So those are arbitrary vis-a-vis the primary purpose and secondary purposes. And what the Rama means is so now I can answer the this uh this this other question here, um, which is uh the question that um Vanessa was asking earlier about like uh the color in the book question, um, which is, and Vanessa, I see your hand. I mean I'll call you in a second, I just want to carry this point through, which is um, so why do such details exist? What would you say? Like, why not just omit them from Halaha?

SPEAKER_01 1:16:01

Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 1:16:03

This is a pure guess, but wouldn't it first of all help with solidifying it in people's minds and remembering it and like doing it the same like the the same Nassau? Like if it's a very generalized okay.

SPEAKER_00 1:16:16

No, that that's good. Okay, so in other words, is uniformity that's one reason, uniformity and continuity uh of a system, okay, uh as opposed to everyone just you know uh accomplishing the purpose in whatever way they choose. And by the way, you see that reform Jews and like Christians who like doing mitzvos, you know, it there's no unity at all, and like it just doesn't last. So there's the that that's one reason. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_03 1:16:51

Um, I think also in addition, there's also a benefit of having to keep halo. Like, I think if you just say it's if it's too big, you're not getting so much um like mitzvah practice. I don't know exactly what to say, how to explain it.

SPEAKER_00 1:17:03

Okay, um so the way it sounds to me right now almost sounds like a tautology. Like, why do we have why are halakos so detailed so that we get practice in doing details?

SPEAKER_03 1:17:17

So I know you're not saying that, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying I'm saying that there's a benefit which I haven't specified of following the commandment of God, which has particulars, yeah. Like a like a personal benefit of doing that activity.

SPEAKER_00 1:17:33

Uh okay. Okay, good. So um that is gonna be the approach that Roof Cook takes. Okay, so uh I will not write that now because we're gonna see that from Roof Cook. I think you'll tell me if that's what Ruf Cook is saying. Yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:17:47

My audio is going in and out, so if Tamar said this, sorry, but like so you don't like go crazy trying to figure out which one it could be, like with so many possibilities, you could just like lose yourself. Like, oh, like is this little love better or is that little love better? Like this one's 4.4 to Foxam, and this one's 4.5. Like just like the details, like keep you like like you just know, like this is what the idea looks like. Like, this is what these are normal parameters, this is what you have to work with. Okay, or is that more of a tier two thing?

SPEAKER_00 1:18:14

I feel that, but I'm not sold on it because I think that that some people have the opposite approach, is that the details create problems, you know. Um, but I I have made that argument before, which is that in I'll give you okay, I'll give you the argument. I I wrote a thing. If anyone is a fan of John Steinbeck, uh Davora, um uh there I wrote a an article a long time ago. Uh thank you for acknowledging that in the chat, called Guilt Holock on the Grapes of Wrath. Um, and um there is a character who um uh Casey, who's a preacher, who makes all these comments about how he says that, like um uh for anyone else it's a mistake. But if you think it was a sin, then it's a sin. A fellow builds his own sins right up from the ground, you know. Um, or he's uh he says uh Uncle John scratches the earth uh deeply with long rusty hair. He knows uh he's talking about Casey. He note about sin. I asked him about sin and he told me, but I don't know if he's right. He says a fellow sinned if he thinks he sinned. So I go on to write about how basically, like in certain religions, you know, the whether or not you're fulfilling God's will is like totally dependent on your emotions, you know. And then you get people who either are too lax or too hard on themselves, and like people are just like ending up guessing what God wants because of this. But this, like, I I think this, I think this is now I'm talking myself into saying that I accept what you're saying, is that like like this way you know exactly what what you know what is valid in God's eyes, uh, and you don't need you know guesswork uh uh or subjectivity. Is that what you're saying? Yes, exactly. Okay, good, good. All right, yeah, I'm sold. Yeah, Dvora.

SPEAKER_02 1:19:57

Okay, it sounds like I guess less inspirational than the other ones. Um, but I I do think that there is a benefit to everyone's mitzvah looking roughly the same. Like you should you should look around and everyone it it won't feel like we're all following one same Torah if uh my Lulov is like a teeny tiny nub and someone else's Lulov is like eight feet long.

SPEAKER_00 1:20:18

Okay, good. So to me, that is a reason, but I would lump that under the uniformity and continuity of the system. Um, that uh that it has to be unified and look unified, or the look helps the unity. Uh also I'm gonna attack that onto here, which is that that um it should also be perceived uh by the participants uh as or adherents, I guess. The adherents as uh as unified, right? Yeah. Uh hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 1:20:46

Um isn't this also a way to make these things objectively a higher level or more beautiful or just nicer, you know, etc. Okay. So yeah. Just in case you're not getting what I'm saying, because I I think you might help me need to help me articulate it anyway, but let's say like there's a difference between a certain level, like you're saying, like the pillows, right? There's a there's objectively like there's a better pillow and a less better pillow depending on how it's created. So here also when we're talking about Torah, you want the things associated with Torah and Alpha to be uh a higher elevation and like okay.

SPEAKER_00 1:21:16

So I could we call this a quality control, uh right? In the sense that like like let's say, for example, the the fruit of the beautiful tree has to be beautiful, but but like the halachos ensure a certain minimal standard of beauty, that they're not dry, that they're not blemished or whatever, you know. Yeah. Um, Tamar.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:36

Um, I was gonna say also, um, this might not be in the scope of the type of answers we're looking for, but but outside of um the benefit to the practitioners, there's also like there is a halachic system, and I think part of what makes the Torah what it is is the fact that there is a system, and if the Halachos had such little detail, maybe that would not allow for the structure of mitzvos that we have. You know what I'm saying? Like, like in terms of like like the theoretical system that we learn that's part of being Jews, you know what I'm saying? Right.

SPEAKER_00 1:22:07

So are you saying for the sake of our learning that because we place such an uh heavy emphasis on like Tamatora, for example, you need a certain level of like system material or or like like uh in that in order to be able to study it? Or is that not what you're saying?

SPEAKER_03 1:22:27

Yeah, I'm saying that there that these things exist in this theoretical the learning world also, and that maybe this is the right structure for the learning world.

SPEAKER_00 1:22:37

Okay, so uh I'm gonna give you two answers that I don't know if either is exactly what you're saying, but I think what you're saying is gonna fit into one of them or the other. Okay. So um Rabbi Cheat wanted to ask the question, um, you know, why I think this is on the tape mitzvos one, if I remember correctly. Um uh he asked the question, why is halacha so complicated? Okay, and he said there's two ways to view it. You could say that God could have given simpler mitzvos, but then he endowed halacha with this complexity and richness for a reason. Okay, the other way to say it is halacha could not be any other way. Okay, so according to the first thing, I and I don't want to put words in the rov's mouth, but um the in in halachic man, okay, um the rov like paints a portrait of what it's like to live a life where you're surrounded by and immersed um that's not he's well immersed. Immersed in the cyst in the beauty of the Chachmah of Halacha. Okay. Um and and then he goes and talks about what the reasons for that are, but he really put the emphasis on the experience of a halachic man. And my my way I always um think of it is like uh either I I think I quoted this in a shear in a woman's share recently, uh or I'm having a deja vu right now, where I I said it's like um like either uh you're looking at the world through infrared uh glasses or like the matrix where you see like all the code, you know, that like the way he describes Halakhman, like Halakhman, you know, looks at a brook babbling, you know, uh and water going, and he's he's seeing it through the halachos of mikvah, and like he sees you know the sun setting, and he thinks about it in terms of all the halachos unifying astronomy and tfilah and korbanos, and he looks at like you know, clothing and he's looking at it through the lens of chakmah. So it's like you've got life and you've got this like beautiful system of halacha that is layered on top that gives you chakma to occupy yourself in and ties everything into your service of God. So that would be an answer. I'm not saying that the rub is taking a stance on on Rabbi Chait's answer, but he is saying that like there is this quality that seems to be by design that Halacha is getting at. Okay, but uh I'll I'm gonna go to Rabbi Chate's answer, then I'll call you after Hoodie, is that Rabbi Chait argued that um that Halacha could not have been otherwise, okay? And the example he gives is he said, like, like, you know, sorry, it can't have been otherwise because Hashem is the source of all Chachmah, okay, and of all Chachma and everything he says and does must be structured with Chachma. Okay, so the example he gave is he said, you know, if you if you drop a spoon, I think this is an example, if you drop a spoon and you tell uh a kid, you know, pick that up and give it to me, okay, all that matters is that the kid gets what you're saying and accomplishes uh your your will. Okay. But when Hashem says, pick up a Lulav. Um, so everything must be uh conceptually sound and beautiful, uh because uh because Hashem is the source of all wisdom and all his acts have wisdom. Okay, so in other words, there must be a conceptually coherent and beautiful definition, legal definition, legal definition of pick up and of Lulav, you know, and it'd be like if you said it would be like if you said, let's let's okay, this question that we're asking about Halakha saying, like, why does it have to be so technical and complicated? If you're looking, if you're studying physics, okay, and you look at a anything in the universe, you look at a galaxy, you look at like like you know, a cell under a microscope, you look at a bodily system, and you said, why does it have to be so complicated? Like, what do you mean? Like, if you said, why does it have to be so many laws of nature here? Like, no, like it is this is Chachma. Everything is through Chachma. You can't have like a blank space in the universe where it's just like, oh, this thing just works simply, you know? Like, no, everything is is is is beautiful Chachma there. Um, um, oh, so now Rufka, you're trying to give my Rafcooks here? Thanks. Uh yeah, that's um ignore ignore the chat. Ignore the chat. Um, yeah, uh Hoodie. You can give your own shear later, Rifka, if you want, okay? I'm gonna give my Rafcooks here. Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:27:39

Uh so isn't is it true that Hashem created the mitzvah with the human being in mind, right? He created a certain human and then he created mitzvahs that work with the way he created us, almost I'm wrong. So then in that case, wouldn't it make sense that these particulars could be to make these mitzvahs either more palatable depending on the situation, or more doable or more manageable? Yeah, just that could be also up or down, right. Like kind of what you were saying with the slavery and other instances where things shouldn't don't make sense except when you take into account human psyche.

SPEAKER_00 1:28:18

Correct. Yeah, that that that is definitely the case. Um, yeah. Uh I just realized I didn't address what Tamar said. So, Tamar, the quality you were saying that that there's a certain quality that emerges from the the the nature of halachos that God wants us to have. And not naming exactly what that quality is, I think that is analogous to what the Rav is saying. It might not be what I don't know if you were saying what the Rav was saying, but like that's the kind of thing that you're talking about, right? Like there's some overarching quality that we get from being involved in halochos of this nature that that's why God made these details. Is that yeah, that's the type of thing that I'm talking about. Yeah, okay. So before we go back to the Ram's example with Shita and Korbanos, I just want to say, what was the Ram I'm getting at, though, when he says that there is no reason? And if you said one, if you you know, if it was seven rams, you'd say, why not eight and eight, why not seven? Or why not that if you if it was this way, you know, if it was a ram, then you would say a lamb. What was the ram I'm getting at there when he says there's no reason? Like, I feel like we're not getting um, like I feel like the all of these are good reasons, but the Ram saying there's no reason. Yahudi.

SPEAKER_05 1:29:28

I thought I was understanding that he was trying to say, stop trying to find the reasons, not so much that there are, like he was trying to point out how if you spend all your time trying to figure this out, or almost like in a way to get people to not make up reasons or kind of like misunderstand the reasons or spend too much time on the reasons without that warning does come from what he's saying, but like he did say that there is no where'd it go?

SPEAKER_00 1:29:53

That's purely for the commandment alone, no reason can possibly be given. Uh anyone who imagines a reason can be found for these is removed from the truth, particulars for which no reason can be given. So I don't think he's saying what you're saying. I think he's saying that no reason can be given at all.

SPEAKER_05 1:30:07

Okay, so it can be that like he wants it to be the reason that doing the mitta should not be because of the reason.

SPEAKER_00 1:30:13

No, he's not talking about talking about motives. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 1:30:21

I think he's saying uh I just completely lost my train of thought. I think he's saying that there might be like there might like Hashem gave us those things to do, but that's not the purpose of the mitzvah. Like the mitzvah in question is like has its own purpose, not not the seven or eight, right? But he does have a purpose in like ordering us to offer a sacrifice. Like how that manifests, there might be reasons why he gave us a manifest, but it's not like they don't stem from that original purpose. Like if we're talking to give our tier examples, like whether it's six or seven or eight, that's don't confuse that with a tier one purpose. Like, don't give that its own don't say that that has a reason. Am I speaking English?

SPEAKER_00 1:31:03

Uh yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:31:05

Um I don't get what you're saying, sorry.

SPEAKER_00 1:31:16

Like I'm completely burned, sorry. Okay, that's that's fine. That that that happens. So what my understanding of Rom I'm saying here is Ram is referring he's referring specifically to tier three reasons that only uh uh like you know, you know, sorry, three T tier three features, okay, that are only there because some feature needs to be there. Okay, so for example, you know, stop signs must have a shape, okay? They must have a height, um, they they must have have a color. Um, so so the thing is is like the there there can be certain aspects of that will have reasons. Like we said, it has to be a bright color, but among bright colors, there is no reason why it is red and not yellow, you know, or it must have a shape, but like why octagon and why pentagon? There is no reason at all. Okay. But but it it must so and that the the the place where he says this most uh clearly is he says this is analogous to the nature of the possible. It is certain that one of the possibilities will be actualized, but it makes no sense to ask why this possibility and not another. The same question would arise whichever possibility was actualized. So he's talking specifically about this thing where like it did have to be some way. And if it has to be some way, then you can't you can't say that there's a reason for this. But what you can do is if it didn't have to be some way, if there are multiple choices, so then you could have a tier two reason that has some secondary uh uh consideration, or a tier two reason that serves the primary one or a tier one feature. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_03 1:33:09

So I thought that we were asking why the halaha doesn't say it can be octagonal or a pentagon, whatever, and have choices. You know, I thought that was the question. And if that's not the question, then can you spell out like more explicitly how the Rama answers that question?

SPEAKER_00 1:33:24

Yeah, okay. So so I I I I hear the question there. So so give me one second. Yeah, okay. So you know, maybe maybe the way to look at it is like this we just gave a ton of reasons why halakhic details exist, okay? So that's why we care about this level of of particularity, all right? And we can imagine a world where where there where the legal system doesn't extend to those particulars, okay? But like like let's take the first one, right? Uniforming and continuity, right? So so we want there to be a unified legal system, and therefore details serve that. But once we have that, and now we have this detail, if I said why unify us with this way instead of that way, they're the Rom saying that there is no reason. Okay. Um, you know, uh in the same way as let's say, like, you know, uh to give a parallel example with this with the street signs, street signs need to be uniform throughout the United States, okay, or throughout a state. I don't I don't know at what point it became the whole United States, um, because uh we want there to be unified traffic laws. Now, once you have that, you're gonna have to have a regulation for how high and how low to make the the the stop sign. But once you get to a certain level of detail and you say, I'm sorry, five feet is good, but 4.9, uh 4. Uh nine feet is no good, that is arbitrary. Like everyone could have just said 4.9. So there is no reason whatsoever, other than the fact, like there is a so it's hard to answer your question. There is a reason why we want uniformity, and the detail is part of the uniformity, but why legislate it this way instead of that way? There, there's no reason.

SPEAKER_03 1:35:11

Right. Okay, and then the reason that we want uniformity is all the reasons that we said about exactly.

SPEAKER_00 1:35:15

Yeah, that that would be those do have reasons, correct. Yeah, or it's like Rebu saying that God speaks with Chachma and you have to define it legally, you know, or you know, to create this like experience of halacha, you know, but halacha could have created been created with a different set of details, you know, not necessarily this one. Yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:35:36

I guess my only last question is, and this might be too big for 838, but how is the Ram deciding whether a detail is like a tier one detail or a three tier three detail? Like we have the example of Korban Pesach before. Like he's saying that like whether it's a sheep or a ram or a cow is arbitrary, but like we like know like all of our understanding of the korban pesach is like the that was the Egyptian deity, and like they were rejecting each each, like that all like really it's not like an arbitrary thing, like that's true. That's exactly how we conceptualize all of like Pesoch and like the holiday, and yeah, like how I don't get how he's making his criteria, like we haven't learned that much in Smith's name.

SPEAKER_00 1:36:15

So what you have to do, actually let me just do something real quick here. What you'd have to do is you'd have to go through his um his uh you'd really have to learn through his chapters on the reasons for mitzvos and um and see what methodology, you know, and and see like what methodological rules he has, what intuitions he has. Um I'm trying to see what where he talks about the Corbin Pesoch here. Give me one second if I could just find it. Um, because I think he does. Hold on. We're actually gonna stop before we do Roke tonight. Uh it's too late now. Um uh yeah, what we could do real quick next time. Um uh okay, hold on a second. Uh is this it? Uh Corbin, Corbin Pesa. Sorry. Um Okay, we've got Mr. Leah. Okay, I'm I'm close to it. Uh can't find it. Um sorry. Um yeah, maybe I will not be able to find it this time. Okay, hold on. Uh, okay. Yeah, all right. I can't find it really. So you're asking a good question, Vanessa? It's all good.

SPEAKER_04 1:37:42

It was it was just an example for like a larger framework question.

SPEAKER_00 1:37:45

Yeah, yeah. Let me just give let me just go back to his example of Shita here, okay? I I I want to end uh uh with with that, which is so tier one now we're saying is like this, okay, is is tier one feat uh struck structural feature of Shriita is the animal must be dead before we eat it, okay? And then in terms of that, it doesn't matter how we kill it. Okay, uh that's that's what the midrash was saying. Okay, so in terms of the prime the primary purpose of Shita is that God wants us to eat from dead animals, not from living animals. Okay, but tier two is once the Torah legislates uh sorry, legislates that we kill an animal before eating it, then um it specifies Shriita Shriita for other reasons, okay? Developing um uh you know, like I'm sorry, um uh uh minimizing cruelty, um uh enabling uh an you know an easy method, right? Notice he said that that uh uh it's uh knives are more readily available than swords, you know. So that that that helps with this. Um connecting it, you could say maybe connecting it to Corbanos, right? That the um slaughtering meat for um uh for eating is the same as slaughtering it for corbanos, unless this is part of the corbanos thing also. Okay, but then tier three is uh the the uh the legalistic details of shita um that are only there because the legal system needs to define that level of detail, okay, for the reasons we mentioned. Okay, so in other words, it it it God does have a reason for the general purpose of Shita, which is that God does not want us eating from living animals. So he says kill the animal. Once he says kill the animal, there are even reasons to that, but they're not primary reasons. So you could say in terms of killing the animal, it doesn't matter to God whether it is uh from the front or from the back. But then once he's legislating it, the Rama himself gave a reason for this, which is that it is a more merciful way to kill the animal. But then there are truly uh arbitrary details that are not um that uh that have no reasons what whatsoever. Yeah, Deborah.

SPEAKER_02 1:40:28

Okay, so I'm still kind of stuck on the calculus question from earlier. So like let's say, like back to the pillow example. Like, let's say I don't remember someone, someone gave a reason like, oh, you could use satin because it's better for your hair. So like let's say I just had no idea about it. And then I would say, oh, satin, that choice was a tier three choice. Like, is the Rombom uh can are there are there details, is the Rombom saying definitively what is and is not tier three, or like like with you know rehersh and Milgram talking about the specifics of the animal, maybe Rombom thought it was tier three, but no, they find that it's actually tier two.

SPEAKER_00 1:41:02

Right. So uh that that's kind of what I was trying to, and doing a bad job answering to Vanessa, is the only way to answer that question is by learning through all the Ramas Tom and Mitzos and all the mitzvous and getting a sense for what he holds uh does have a reason and what he holds does not have a reason. And I don't know if you can, I don't know if there's like a uh uh a learnable methodology, like it might come down to intuition about what the Ramam thought on certain things, about what what he thinks is a structural feature and what is not. So um, and I think that's the best we could do is just use our understanding of the mitzvos. Um, I did there was someone who um um Shmuli Phillips, who wrote uh Judaism uh reclaimed and Tamil reclaimed, he had a theory that um the Ramam only gave reasons uh for mitzvos in the Murnebuchim on things that are um not subject to Mach Lokus. I think that was his theory. Um, and that he held that anything that was subject to machlokis, which was determined by the Khachamim and was not received by Moshe Tsinai, that he automatically relegates out of tier one. Um, but I I might be misstating his theory. So there might, I'm I'm bringing it up because there might be like you know, principles like that, but I I don't know them. So I can't answer your question, but the I can say the only way to answer is by learning the Rams uh Tom Mitsos and then uh and seeing if you could get principles from that. Uh Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:42:24

Okay, I think your Shita example helped me. Like, I just want to make sure my thought process is working well. So I'm gonna go back to the Korban Pesach example and see if I can answer it in like these this tier system. So like Hashem commands us to give the Korban Pesach to show our allegiance to God, to show that we're like shucking off the Egyptian whatever. And then the tier two might be it's a sheep because the Egyptian deity happened to be a sheep, but like the Egyptian deity might have happened to be a ram, and then it would have been a ram, but like there is a secondary purpose, but it's not the exact purpose of the korban pesoch. And then tier three might have been like you have to do the korban pesoch and you have to put it on the lintels, and you have to like try to paste it with a myrtle branch and not a myrtle. Yeah, willow. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:43:04

I got it.

SPEAKER_04 1:43:05

Yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_00 1:43:05

Okay, good. That's that's that that would be a I can't vouch for whether that is accurate, but that's the kind of thinking that that this is supposed to promote.

SPEAKER_04 1:43:12

Yeah, yeah, that's my only question. I'm sure it might not be accurate, but the the framework working is what it's helping. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 1:43:18

Good, yeah. Uh hoodie.

SPEAKER_05 1:43:20

Is it important for us to be able to distinguish between tier one and tier two? Like, do we have to know what's tier one and tier two? Because it's all it's all halafa, right?

SPEAKER_00 1:43:28

So, yeah, not in order to fulfill the mitzvah. You don't have to know because the halaf only requires that you do it, not that you know the reasons, but in order to get the most out of the mitzvah, you would need to study the reasons for the mitzvos, and then you would need to be aware of these three categories so you don't mistake one thing for the other. And that's why the Ramam would like, I think the Ramam and Rehearsh would really butt heads on this because rehears says every single detail of every single it seems to say every single detail of every Corban has a reason. And Ram would say that that at some point reverse is going to delusion category territory. I mean, you know, he's like making stuff up. Uh, whereas reverse seems to have a different uh a different understanding of this. I don't I don't know what how what the mock locus would be.

SPEAKER_05 1:44:08

How that um is that also an answer to the next question, which is um, is Tom and Myth uh two and three or just two? Tier two and tier three or just two?

SPEAKER_00 1:44:18

Uh Tom of the myth is one and two.

SPEAKER_05 1:44:21

One and two?

SPEAKER_00 1:44:22

Yeah, the meaning the structural features that that God gave for a reason, uh you know, for the main reason, and then things that are are um uh that serve other reasons. That's what when we say Tom, unless I'm misunderstanding your question.

SPEAKER_05 1:44:34

Maybe just because you just said I said, why do we have to distinguish between one and two? And you said because you have to understand the reason. I guess you were saying two explains.

SPEAKER_00 1:44:42

No, I'm saying like in other words, if a person does not know, let's say with a stop sign, if the person doesn't, if the person thinks that the word stop is as important as the color red, then they don't really understand what the purpose of stop signs is. Right?

SPEAKER_05 1:44:58

And we need to understand the purpose of stop signs because in order to be able to use them properly. Do you? Yeah, I would I would Well, I don't think I don't know if I agree. I'm saying maybe it's a bad analogy to stop signs around the standards alpha, but you absolutely get the full benefit of a stop sign just recognizing what you're supposed to do with the same thing.

SPEAKER_00 1:45:16

Oh, you need just by doing it automatically? Okay, fine. Yeah, that's true, right? Yeah. Um, but yeah, you need you would need to understand the reasons for mitos in order to get the maximum benefit out of them. And I don't understand the reasons you need to differentiate between the between one, two, and three.

SPEAKER_05 1:45:29

Okay, because if you conflate one and two, what happens?

SPEAKER_00 1:45:32

Then you are mistaking something primary for something secondary or vice versa.

SPEAKER_05 1:45:38

And so I guess so. Like Do they have different weights? Is kind of also what I'm getting at. Is it like a derbon deriza type thing where like there's different weights to those parts, or that's something I think?

SPEAKER_00 1:45:46

I think just in in rationality, like like again, I'll use a uh this is a kind of a dumb example, but like if you're um you know, if you're a kid and like your your mom says, you know, look both ways before you cross the street. And oh no, that's a bad example. If your mom says, you know, um, you know, put on your red coat before you go out, you know, your red winter coat before you go out, and you think that the main purpose is that there's some special property to red, and you're not it's not getting through your head that like, no, the red coat is the one that is the warm one, you know, like you're misunderstanding that then you're gonna end up with like some distorted notion of like what the purpose of your mom's command was, you know. So I think if you mix up these categories, you're gonna get to some distorted notion of um of what the uh of what of what the mitzvah is. Yeah. Uh okay, I I I I also want to wrap it up for tonight. Um, so we did not get to roof cook, which is what I wanted to get to, but that's fine. I'd rather take our time. Um I I don't know if we're gonna have shear next week. Now I really do want to have shear next week. Actually, theoretically, we should have shear next week because I already prepared this. So let's plan unless there's something that goes wrong. I do want to do roofcook next week. It's gonna be much shorter than this, I think, but then again, who knows? Okay. Um uh and if I don't, then Riff Cook can get roof cook in my place. Um, because she has a theory also. All right. Uh have a good night, everyone. Thanks for coming. And I hope this is an interesting topic. And I know we can go back and answer our questions. I also want to go back and make sure we have answers to our questions. We'll do we'll we'll try to review by answering our questions. Okay, that'll be the plan. All right, have a good night.

SPEAKER_05 1:47:18

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 1:47:20

Thank you.