How to Relate to Arbitrary Halachic Details (Part 2 - Rambam and Rav Kook)

Length: 1 hour 50 minutes
Synopsis: This week (3/19/26), in our Thursday night Machshavah Lab series for women, we continued the topic we embarked on the week before. First, we revised our understanding of the Rambam's approach and my "Pillow Theory." Then we answered all the questions we raised last time. We then learned through a perek of Rav Kook's Le-Nevukhei ha-Dor, in which he spells out two foundations of the need to be meticulous in halacha. We concluded with a halacha in the Rambam which suggests that he would agree with the first of Rav Kook's foundations, if not the second as well. 
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:כו, מג, מו, מח
רב קוק - לנבוכי הדור פרק ט
"Rav Kook's Guide for Today's Perplexed," translated by R. Aryeh Sklar
רמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר קדושה, הלכות שחיטה יד:טז
-----

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
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.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
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:11

Okay, so this is part two of our, I forgot what I actually called the shear. Um something about arbitrary details of Mintos. Hold on. Let me find this. What did I call it? I called the shear. Uh How to Relate to Arbitrary Halakhic Details According to Rama and Ruf Cook, part two. Um, so I actually I had meant to upload part one as a unlisted shear because I did not feel good about the shear. Um, I think I was very um I think what was it? Something was going on that day, and I did not feel I was as clear as I usually am, but then I just forgot to upload it. So I think what I'd like to do is I'd like to go over it again. We're not gonna read through everything and like learn it through for the first time, but I do want to do a more thorough review to get it clearer and then go on to the new stuff. Uh I don't think there's that much new material to cover tonight because it's basically the roof cook thing, which is very short. Um, but uh we'll see where we go. Okay, so I will summarize and then I will trust you to um uh uh ask me if anything is not clear or uh or if you need uh more examples or whatever. So this is in the Raman Morning Book from 326, and we and he starts off as a continuation of the previous chapter. The previous chapter was about four categories of of actions. Um actions that are futile, um, meaning that that you try to do something that doesn't work, actions that are like silly or trivial that achieve like a very unimportant end, actions that are capricious or random, uh that are done for no reason, arbitrary, and then actions that are done for uh with wisdom and for benefit. And he says in the previous chapter, God only does that last category. He doesn't do any um any actions that are uh futile, frivolous, or arbitrary. So then this chapter starts off with a question about that, you know, that takes care of God's actions. What about mitzvos? Okay. So he says, are mitzvos a uh do they stem from God's wisdom or his will? And the way that we said we could summarize that is, you know, are the mitzvos good because God commanded them, which would be arbitrary, or did God command them because they are good, which means that they are actually good, and that's why he commanded them. So Ramam says, unanimous opinion among the Mysora community is that everything God does is with wisdom and is beneficial, and he brings a bunch of proofs. You know, the Torah describes them as righteous and as uh as good. And um, he says, don't think that the hukim are exceptions to this because even the hukim have reasons. You know, we again we have many statements about how the Torah concealed the reasons for Hukim because uh if people knew them, then they would try to get around them, like Shlomo did. So that implies that they have reasons. They said that Shlomo knew the reasons for all of them except for Para Aduma. So again, that shows that they have reasons. Um, so um the only difference between Hukim and Mishpatim is that Hukim have reasons that are not obvious, and Mishpatim have reasons that are obvious to the multitude. Um, and so I didn't say this last time, I don't think, but um, practically speaking, what that's gonna mean as well is that for Mishpatim, the reasons that are obvious are the reasons. Now you could have other reasons as well, but they are the main reasons. But chukim, they're not obvious, and so you're theorizing. So you don't know for sure what the reason for the choke is. Um, and so the best you could do is theorize. So we can't say for sure. Um, and then the Ramam also twice emphasized this principle of kilo dovar reku mikem of im ata matasa reik mikemhu. Um that if you if uh the Torah is not an empty thing from you, and if you find it empty, it's it's from you, meaning you're not toiling hard enough. Um, okay. So then he raised the question. He says there's one statement in Khazal that is unlike all the others that seems to imply that the mitzvot's do not have reasons uh and that they're arbitrary. And the statement is in Breshi's Raba 44.1, which says, Oh, I forgot to ask my butcher friend these questions, but okay. What difference does it make to a Kajbaraku whether an animal is slaughtered by Shita by cutting it from the neck or from Nkhira, which is cut chopping it in the back of the uh the back of the neck, which is like through the spine? And then he said it says, Have you mere, lo nas no mitos ella, that the mitzvos, uh you must therefore say the mitzvos were only given to refine people. Shnemar, as it says, Imur Sedoshem Surufa. Now, this is one of the points that I did not make clear last time. Um, Tsurufa or Litzrov can mean to refine, like to purify, um, but it can also mean to test. Okay. And I think the way he's reading it here is that the way he's reading it in the question is that's all say what difference does it make to God, whether it's shita or nakira? And in the question, it is saying no, the only purpose of it is to test you, meaning basically to separate out the people who are loyal to Hashem from the people who are not loyal uh to Hashem. And there's no actual difference in terms of the impact of this mitzvah on you, um, whether you do shita or nakira. Okay, that's like in the question, what the problem is. Okay. And he says this is a big problem because all the other mitzvahs, you know, all the other statements of Khazal implied that the mitzvahs have reasons. So he's gonna try to explain this in a way that is um in line with the unanimous opinion, instead of saying, oh, this is a minority opinion and it's an exception. Okay, so then we get to the Rahmam's theory, all right. And his theory, and this I do want to read inside again, is he says, 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 were commanded on account of a specific benefit. It is the particulars about which we say they are purely the result of commandment alone. And I think there was some confusion in the uh those who attended the shear last time about that statement. Um, that purely the result of the commandment alone means do it because I say so, not because it's good. So meaning it's arbitrary or it is um just God is commanding it for the sake of the commandment. Okay. So then he gives his two examples. For example, killing animals for the purpose of obtaining good food is benefit, is clear. Uh, but the requirement for the slaughter done by Shita and not by Nikhira, and that the esophagus and windpite must be severed at a specific place, these and similar requirements are for the purpose of refining people. Okay, meaning just because I said so, no reason. And um, okay, and then he says, um, yeah, this is made clear to you by their example, by Khazal's example, slaughtering from the front of the neck versus slaughtering from the back. Meaning that's where Hazal says that it's arbitrary and it's for the sake of the commandment alone. Okay. Um, I'm gonna skip this, okay, because this is uh um getting into the answer. Uh Dvora, by the way, I'm just reviewing and I'm reviewing in depth because I felt like I did not do, I did not give a clear share last time. So I'm going a little bit more in depth. Um, so I'm counting on people to ask if stuff is not clear. Um so then he says the example that truly illustrates this matter uh of particulars is the Korban. The commandment to offer sacrifices has a clear and great benefit, as I will explain. Oh man, see, I'm I was missing something last time. Remember last time, I don't know, last time I was flipping through the mitts the uh Morden of trying to find something and I couldn't find it. It was right here. He he had the citation. Um so I found it afterwards, but I didn't realize it was in the document. All right. 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, but he only multiplies difficulties. Whoever imagines that a reason could 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. So again, extreme statements here, and uh we'll list our questions in a little while. And then he says, know that wisdom required, or if you prefer, say necessity brought about the existence of particulars for which no reason can be given. It is, as it, 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. You gotta have something. 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 be necessarily 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 whether uh whichever possibility was actualized. Understand this and grasp it well. And then he concludes when the sages consistently say that there are reasons for all the commandments, and when they say Shlomo knew those reasons, they are referring to the benefit of the commandment in its general sense, not to an inquiry into the particulars. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 8:41

Do you please repeat uh why this is a tet why this is considered testing a person?

SPEAKER_00 8:46

So my my theory or my understanding of the Rahmam in this formulation of the question is like God is testing people to see whether they will keep his commandment or not. Um, so in other words, it's not you don't need a particular commandment with reasons in order to do that. You just need to say, do this action. And if people do it, then they are those are the people who are following God, and if they don't do it, then they're not.

SPEAKER_03 9:10

But wouldn't that work with the main mitzvah as well? Why is that specifically the particulars that are testing a person?

SPEAKER_00 9:15

Right. So that's why in the question, so again, remember in the question, based on the source, the Ramam is raising the question as though they're stating this universally, that they're not distinguishing between the generos, general the generalities and the particulars. Okay, so that's the question. And then his answer is right at this point is no, the generalities have reasons and the particulars are testing people, meaning that it is there's no reasons given and it's just to refine people. Okay, but we haven't given our explanation of this yet. I'm just summarizing what the Ramam says so far.

SPEAKER_03 9:48

Yeah, I know. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand what he's saying. He's saying that the testing is in the details because if you um because it makes it it makes it more confusing or difficult to do.

SPEAKER_00 9:58

No, because uh because these details had to have been given. He's saying, like, if it were it wasn't a lamb, you you need some animal. You can't have a sacrifice, an animal sacrifice with no animal. So there needs to be some reason, or you can't have a number of animals without specifying a number. So there needs to be some sort of number set, and the only purpose of that is to refine people. Uh, but he's not, you know, our question then is gonna be what does he mean by that? And how is that?

SPEAKER_03 10:25

So you're not you haven't explained yet what he means by refine.

SPEAKER_00 10:28

No, I'm just reading this. This is just us reading the rest of the Ramam. Now, then we went and we asked questions on the Ramam. Okay, so our questions were as follows. First of all, hold on. I'm just trying to see if if I was supposed to number this. Yeah, first of all, so this was really question number one. Okay, so question number one, I gotta change all these numbers now. Question number one was on his Shita example, where the Ramam says that Shita and versus Nihira has no reasons. Okay, but then we read that shita, he says, is more humane. And he says this, I skipped this is probably skipped over. He says, Um, I've cited this example of, but in truth, since necessity brought us uh to eating meat, the aim was to bring about the easiest death, possible death, achieved through the simplest means. For severing the neck maybe only be done with the sword or something like it. Sorry, meaning uh sorry, um breaking the severing the neck from the back can only be done with a sword or something like it, whereas can be done with any instrument. As to ensure an easier death, the condition was imposed that the knife be sharp. And then later on, he says also in the um the other chapter we read that it is prohibit in 348, it is prohibited to cut off living a limb of a living animal and eat it, because such act would produce cruelty and develop it. The Gentile kings used to do this, and it was also done for a Bodhazara, namely, they would cut a specific limb of the animal and eat it. The commandment concerning the shita of animals is necessary. The natural food of man consists only of plants that grow from the earth and the flesh of animals, and the finest meat is that which is permitted to us, something no physician would dispute. Since the necessity of good nourishment requires the killing of animals, the aim was to bring about the easiest possible death for it. It was therefore forbidden to cause it suffering through a defect of shriita through Nkira or through severing a limb while it is still alive, as we've explained. So our first question was how can the Ramam say that the generalities have a reason and the particulars don't, like Shriita and Nakhira? And then sentences later, he says that the purpose for Shriita versus Nakhira is to make it easy and to provide uh a uh uh an easy death and to not make us cruel. Like it's a contradiction, like in the same paragraph, you know. So does Shriita versus Nakhira have a reason or not? That was problem number one. Okay, problem number two in Korbanos, we said it just feels weird and bad. I think that was Vanessa's phrasing, that to say that all the halakhos of korbanos have no reason whatsoever. And we saw that Khazal give a ton of reasons for korbanos. And this is what I was trying to find in the Rambam. I did not read this last time. So the Rambam says for Korbanos in 346, uh, he says, the commandments in the 11th group are the ones I listed in the rest of the book of worship and in the book of sacrifices. I have already mentioned their general benefit. So the general benefit is that people were attached to the forms of worship from the Ovodozara. And if Hashem basically just, you know, said no more korbanos, people would not feel like they have any way to serve God. And then they would end up turning back to a vodasara. So the solution that Hashem came up with was to limit everything about Corbanos and to direct it towards like a proper purpose. So that's the general reason. I shall take up, he says, I should take up the grounds for particular mythos now, as so far as I've understood them. The Torah, I say, as Unclos reads it, tells us clearly that the ancient Egyptians worshipped the sign of Ares, which is the ram. So they banned slaughtering sheep and abhorred shepherds, as it says in um Shemos 8.22. If we sacrifice what is odious to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us? And in Brachis 46, 34, the Egyptians abominate all shepherds. Some Sabian sects, meaning the um the Ovdevodazar that Avram Avinu grew up with, uh worshipped jinn, meaning these spirits, and believed that they took the form of goats. So they called the jinn fawns, uh, siirin. That doctrine was quite prominent in the days of our teacher Moshe, as it says, no more shall they offer sacrifices to demon spirits, uh, goat spirits, goat demons. These sects banned eating goat meat, and bovine slaughter was abhorrent to nearly all pagans. Uh, they all venerated these beasts. Even today you find that Hindus never slaughter cows, even in lands where other beasts are slaughtered. To expunge the trace of such unsound beliefs, our law specifies three kinds of, it shouldn't be cattle, it should be three kinds of livestock. I think that's the word we use for sacrifice. Bring your offering of the herd and the flock, meaning herd is the cattle and flock is sheep and goats. Acts deemed extremely impious by pagans, for us became a way of nearing God and seeking forgiveness for our sins. Unsound beliefs are psychic illnesses treated by their opposites. So what he's saying here, so what is he saying? The reason is why the chosen, why the Torah chose cattle, goats, and sheep as the animals for Vodah for uh for uh Vodashem. Yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_05 15:02

The counter the Vodazar, that was prominent where they left.

SPEAKER_00 15:05

The counter the Vodasar. So it's not arbitrary. They worship these things, and so therefore we counter it. Okay. And lest you think that this is specific to like countering like the counter-cultural aspect of uh Vodazara, uh later on in the parak, he said, oh, sorry, he goes on and he says, We said this last time, for this reason, for just this reason, we were commanded to slaughter the paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on the outside of our doors in Egypt to advertise our disbelief in such a notion and proclaim its opposite, showing our confidence that an act thought fatal by the Egyptians would in fact protect us. The Lord will pass by that doorway and not let the destroyer enter your homes to smite you, rewarding our loyalty and spurning those pagan phobias. That is why these three species were chosen for sacrifice. And he says, besides the fact that they are common domestic animals, unlike the offerings of pagans who used to sacrifice lions, bears, and other wild beasts. So that's the second reason is that these animals are available. Whereas if Hashem said, you know, you need to bring a daily, two daily Tamid sacrifices of bears, you know, you're gonna go out and hunt two bears every day. Like that's a little extreme. Okay. So lest you think that the reasons are only cultural, he then says later on in the same chapter, a calf, a young bullock, was offered on the eighth day of the consecration of the tabernacle as a sin offering, uh, the sage of state, to atone for the sin of the golden calf. On Yom Kippur likewise, the sin offering was a bullock, again in atonement for the sin of a golden calf. On the same principle, in my opinion, the reasons that all our sin offerings, public and private, are goats on the festivals, the new moons, and Yom Kippur, or in atonement for pagan acts, is that the ancient Israel's gravest sins lay in sacrificing to goat demons, as scripture makes clear. No more shall shall they offer the sacrifices to goat demons, after which they go a whoring. Okay, so our question number two is um is how can the Ramam say that um all these halakhos have no reasons, and it doesn't matter whether it's a ram or a lamb, right? What about all the reasons given by Hazal and others and the Rambam himself? Sorry, and what just happened there? That was not as dramatic as I hoped. And sorry, and the Rambam himself, what's going on with my thing? Rambam himself in 346 for these details. Okay, so that's a question number two is that how can the Ramam again similar to the Shita question? How can he say that there's no reasons for these uh halachos? And then he gives reasons, but furthermore, halakhos of korbanos are very, very manifold and very specific. Um so that's question two. Okay, again, stop me if it's unclear. Question three is if the details have no reasons, why do we need them? Question four is how does the Rama make this determination about whether a particular whether something is a particular or generality? And what would he do with other Khachamim like Rahirsh, who says that the thing that the Ram says is arbitrary really has a reason. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_07 17:55

Question number three, doesn't the Ramam answer that?

SPEAKER_00 17:59

Um okay, he he's okay. Well he says that they're for necessity, but we need to understand that. I mean, at least I I didn't explain it really last time, I don't think. I I didn't do an adequate job of explaining it. Um I'll add it as to the question though. Uh Ramam says um wisdom dictates uh or if you prefer necessity, uh necessity dictates uh that these particulars exist. Okay, but what does he mean? Right again, if someone who is uh, I mean, I feel like I don't know if I'm uh attributing more understanding to you than you were asking the question from, but I feel like you've been exposed to this idea before. But to someone who has not been exposed to this idea before, it sounds like a tautology. It sounds like he's saying, why do particulars need to exist? Because they need to exist, you know? Uh like you know, why? Because it's necessary. Why is it necessary? Because it's necessary. So I wanted to just like uh uh understand that. Uh yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 18:57

I think this might be another way of asking the same question, but like, what is the alternative that he's saying would not work?

SPEAKER_00 19:02

Okay, good. Or is it not possible? What is the alternative he is saying would not work? Okay, good. Okay, um, so then our again our question four was what does he do with people, other people who have reasons? And then we also added to this, Rahmam just got through rebuking us for saying or not rebuking, quoting Kazal's rebuke, saying, if you find something without a reason, you're not toiling hard enough, which is a pretty harsh rebuke. So where would Ramam say, like, oh, you're not toiling hard enough? And we're what you say, oh, you have a prolonged disease and you're as far removed from the truth as someone who thinks that the missiles don't have reasons. Like it's a very like, it's a uh a sheer drop on the cliff there, you know? You're you're damned if you go uh if you don't go far enough this way, but you're damned if you go too far on the other way. Okay, then um question three is really the same as question four. What is the scope or what are the criteria for dividing between the generalities and the particulars? Ramam initially seemed to imply that it's the broadest generality that uh that has a reason and everything else is particulars. Is this really true? Yeah, I think when we asked it, it seemed like it was a powerful question that was on its own from the Shita example, but I think it's really part of the fourth question. And then the fifth question is does Ramam, or Ramam began our chapter driving home the point that everything God does and commands has a reason and nothing is arbitrary. So why isn't he bothered by saying that these particulars are arbitrary? That's really part of the third question. Okay, good. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_07 20:23

This may be part of the fourth question, but the Ramam doesn't give any explanation for why he thinks so strongly that there are no particulars, right?

SPEAKER_04 20:31

Right.

SPEAKER_07 20:32

He gives this thing about like details, the necessity of details. So it doesn't really explain why he's opposed to saying that there are also reasons.

SPEAKER_00 20:40

Oh, sorry, sorry. Sorry, same one time, I think I misheard you the first time.

SPEAKER_07 20:46

Um, why the wrong bomb is saying that there are no reasons for the details.

SPEAKER_00 20:52

Right.

SPEAKER_07 20:53

And he doesn't give an explanation for that, right?

SPEAKER_00 20:56

Other than saying that that wisdom uh dictates more if you prefer necess if you prefer, then necessity dictates. But yeah, he doesn't explain.

SPEAKER_07 21:03

Right, but I guess theoretically you could have that, like necessity could dictate that there are details, and also in choosing the details, touch family's particular or whatever there was a reasonable, right?

SPEAKER_00 21:12

Right, right, yeah. Okay, okay. All right. So this is then where I last time, um, and again, uh this is why I I I wanted to redo this because I think I presented I mean, we were reading through it, but I think the order was not good last time. So now that we have all the questions, now I present the pillow theory. Okay, and so we'll go through these examples again. I deleted all of our notes uh just because it was all messy. So pillow theory is my interpretation of the Rambah, my understanding, which is that when analyzing a mitzvah, you need to break its structure. And I'm gonna give you the the the the brisker term here. It's um you need to break break down sorry, hold on. What is going on? This has been happening increasingly lately. Break down the uh Suraha mitzvah, okay. The uh which I would translate as the mitzvah structure. Okay, in the second. The mitzvah structure into three tiers. Okay. Tier one, aspects of the structure that are designed for a primary purpose. Tier two, aspects of the structure that have reasons which may or may not be related to the primary purpose, meaning they might be related to the primary purpose or they may have secondary purposes. I'll actually let me state that clear, which may be related to the primary purpose or may have a secondary purpose. And then tier three are aspects of the structure that have no reason or purpose whatsoever other than necessity. So our example with a pillow is a one structural feature of the pillow is it needs to be soft, which serves the primary purpose of providing comfortable support for the head while sleeping. Okay. Tier two is the material, okay, and we divide that into two cases, okay, is that um is uh two um two subcategories is is uh the material might be dictated by the sorry dictate dictated by the primary purpose okay um so for example uh down feathers, cotton, and memory foam are soft and supportive, okay, or the material might be dictated by secondary factors, okay. So we said cost, aesthetics, um, safety, uh, availability. Okay. Um, I just watched a I'm watching this extremely long YouTube video on how World War II changed cuisine all over the world because um, you know, all of the countries that were involved in World War II had uh food rations because they sent all of the you know the food that they needed to to the um to the front lines, and then that dictated um certain creative choices in um you know in in cuisines. And so that's like an example here where like like if you were a chef designing a dish, you would never have picked this. But because of these like exigencies of war, then you had to like pick these things. And then tier three, we said, is is the actually let's do another thing. Uh another uh example of um uh of tier two would be the size, okay, which is that size might be dictated by what fits the head, but then the size might also be dictated um dictated by practicality. So for example, we've all used like um airplane pillows, right? So airplane pillows are not designed for that size because that's the optimal size for providing comfort for the head. It's so that they could cram a bunch of them into the storage and uh you know, and and also produce them uh cheaply. Okay. Tier three is the exact um legal requirements for the material or size, the exact flock of ducks or bale of cotton used to make the um the pillow, you know, the exact shade of color. Okay, so these things are tier three in the sense that there is no primary or secondary reason. It needed to be something, and that's where you would say that if the pillow were, you know, um one pound and you said why not 1.1 pounds, there'd be no answer to that question. Like it had to be something, you know. Uh there's no actual like like reason, it's just uh, you know, there needs to be something. Okay, let's do stop sign. Okay, again, I just want to go over these examples again for um uh for clarity here. So the purpose of the stop sign is the so tier one is the word stop, which is directly related to the primary function of the stop sign. Okay, tier two considerations is the color red, okay, uh, and the height um uh are designed to be visible, which is a key component of a of a sign, okay. Um but you might say that the um the part the you know uh I guess like alternatively sorry, altern uh alternatively, um the they could have been um actually then let's not get into that then. Okay, uh hold on just one second here. Yeah, uh actually let me do one more thing. Uh the tier three is is the exact height um or the particular shape of the stop sign um would be tier three because it could you you could have a fully functional stop sign as a pentagon instead of an octagon. Or if the regulation was five feet and one inch versus four feet and nine inches, it would not have made a difference. There had to be some height and some shape. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 27:21

I think you mentioned last time that um actually tier two should be a bright color, and then tier three could be the exact color.

SPEAKER_00 27:27

Uh, okay, right. So, so yeah, that's what that's why I was hesitating when I almost typed more. So um a bright color, and then uh and then tier three is the exact bright color. Yeah, okay, thanks. Okay. Then we went to Arbuminum, um, which is so really quickly, tier one is to give thanks, uh, sorry, is is species of plants to give thanks for the produce uh and the land. Tier two was uh which species and how many. So the Ram gave reasons there that um he didn't say how many, but he said uh which species is that they are available, beautiful, and lasting. And then the tier three is exact legal requirements of each. Okay, shita, the main reason is um uh you need to kill the animal because uh God doesn't want us eating live animals. Uh tier two is is um is uh kill it um in a an efficient way, okay. Um which is um oh yeah, so this is the part I think I got a little bit clearer here, okay. So I think what the Rama is saying is like this is Shita versus Nakhira, okay, vis-a-vis tier one, vis-a-vis the main purpose of the mitzvah, has no reason. Okay, but there is a secondary reason here, okay. So they've have have you know uh Shita versus Nakira has no primary reason, but it does have secondary reasons, namely um ease and uh mercy. And um, yeah, those are two. And then tier three is exact shita requirements. Okay, and I want to give, yeah, Iola.

SPEAKER_07 29:37

I don't know if you're about to say this, but are you able to give examples of just what the exactly the requirements would be either of Arbaminim or Shita? Just like one of them.

SPEAKER_00 29:45

Yeah, sure. So for the Arbaminim, then it has to be um uh it has to uh the the Luluf has to be four tfachim. Um, and the reason given is so that you have enough to wave it. Okay. Now you could wave it if it were five tfuchim. It could have said five tfachim instead of four, um, or it could have probably said three. It couldn't have said one, but you know, or let's say that the um with the hadas, then uh the hadasim, the um the orientation of the leaves on each stem have to be uh parallel. Okay, like they can't be uh crooked. Um now would it still achieve its first and second purposes here? Yes, but because we say that it has to be beautiful, then and and then we have to halohically define beauty, and that would not really be in line with that. Okay, or with the shita, we see that with the um with uh with a behema, you have to cut the majority of the esophagus and the trachea, but for an a bird, you only have to cut one of those two. Okay, but Hashem could have said, no, for a bird, you have to cut both of them, or he could have said, you know, for the um uh for the cow, you have to cut just the the trachea, you know, like but you know, or he could have said you have to um uh sedate the the animal, you know, like like there could have been like like other things, uh actually maybe that's a bad example. Um, but yeah. Uh does that answer your question?

SPEAKER_07 31:13

Yeah, so even within those, though, like the reason that it has to be long, that would be tier two. Then the exact number of lengths would be tiered. Correct.

SPEAKER_00 31:22

Yeah, that's how I understand it. Yeah. Okay, now the example we did not do is Corbanos, okay. So um, because I couldn't find that passage here. So tier one is um is basically to wean people off of a vodazara, okay, and eradicate uh eradicate it from earth, okay. Um tier two is so so again, lamb versus ram versus cow. So okay, this is starting to become clear to me now, okay. You'll notice the Ramam only said generalities versus particulars, but what I think he's saying, this is a new new point of clarity here. Okay, what I think he's saying is when you're in a tier one framework, tier two is arbitrary. Okay. But there are things that have tier two reasons, and from tier two reasons, then tier three is arbitrary. But at a certain point, you're gonna get to a thing where there is a reason for the generality, but no reason for the particulars. Just you need to fill out the legal details, okay? So when you are in tier one, if Ram is saying the whole purpose of this is to give people a way to sacrifice animals to serve God, which is not a vodazara. So it does not matter how many, you know, which animals or how many uh uh animals you sacrifice. Okay, but in tier two, there are once the Torah was doing that, there are reasons why it said lamb versus ram versus cow, which is uh these are a vodasara, these are associated uh with ideas we want to eradicate, okay, or um the number, okay, which uh Rama doesn't say this, but let's say, like I gave the example last time is on on Sucus, there's an idea that you start off with 14 bulls and you descend 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and then on the eighth day, you bring one bull. And Kazal give the reason that if you add up all those other bulls that are descending, you get to 70, and that represents the 70 nations, um, which were are gonna dwindle, and uh, and then the one bull represents Klaisrael, which is gonna be the one that remains on top in the time of Mashiach. So that's a tier two reason. But then when you're in that framework, then there could be other details of the Kurbanos that are um that are arbitrary, you know. So uh, so for example, like, you know, why is uh is this one um uh let's say like you know one year old and this one not, or this qualifies uh as a as a blemish and this doesn't, or um why flick the blood this way and not that way? You know, so at a certain point you're gonna get to things that are arbitrary details, okay. Um so now let's go back again. This is weaving in review and new stuff. Now let's go back and answer all of our questions, okay, and see if we did this. So question number one when the Rama says that Sheed is more humane, and that's why the Torah commanded it, doesn't that contradict his earlier point that Sheed has no reason? So the answer is um it has no reason, sorry, it has no reason in a uh tier one framework, but it does have tier two reasons. Okay, that's answered to question number one. Question two is it feels weird and bad and disrespectful to say to all these halakhos have no reasons. What about all the other reasons given by Hazal, others on the Ram himself? These are all tier two reasons. Okay, this third one though is gonna be the big one. Okay. If the details don't have no reasons, why do we need them? So we started to answer this last time. So we gave some answers. We said, according to where are we? So you guys gave answers that first of all, you need uniformity for a system in order to have it be unified in in uh space and in time. Two, you don't want to allow for guesswork. Uh that could lead to bad stuff, uh, either to like going overboard or underboard, or like letting your own religious emotions dictate stuff. Three is quality control, four, halafic man, you know, engaging the world through Chachmah. Five, Rabbi Chate said that God has to give stuff through Chachmah. And then six is the Ramam's reason, and this is the closest thing that we did say, which is which is what I'm going to answer here, which is that at a certain point of detail, you will not be able to have a reason because because, and this is what the Ram says in the nature of the possible. Let's just go back and read that again. He says, um, by the land, some particular number must be specified. Um, oh sorry, know that wisdom required, or if you say uh necessity brought about the existence of particulars for which no reason can be given. 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. Okay. So again, that's the nature of when we have this category of the possible things that could turn out different ways. You roll a dice, okay? If you asked why did it land on one instead of on four, okay, you would have asked the same question if it landed on four instead of one. In other words, some number needed to have been uh uh it would have needed to have been some number. You can't roll a dice and have it land on no numbers, you know. Um, and if you say, well, you know, if you look closely enough, then you'll see why, according to the laws of nature, then like it hit at this angle and had to be uh, you know, turn out in this way. Yeah, but if you go, if you go to the minutiae and you say, well, what this atom collided with that atom. Why did the atom collide with this atom instead of the other atom? That part is there's no reason for it, you know. So same thing here, you know, you could debate about what level to get at where you say that there's no reason and it's just necessity. But the main answer here is you will not be able to have uh a reason because at some sorry, at a certain point of detail, you will not be able to have a reason because it needs to be something. Okay, that is the nature of being in a physical world, um uh in a physical world. All right, yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 37:54

So my question is um it's lack, it's gonna be lack of spectacle, but I it seems to me that there are some things that the Ramam said that we are um um ascribing to like him distinguishing between tier one and tier two.

SPEAKER_04 38:08

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 38:08

Um I guess my question is like, do you see that in the text of the Ramam? And if so, like, or like what is that saying? You know what I mean? Like not every aspect of the mitzvah is about its central purpose. Like, is that is that really the point that he's making here?

SPEAKER_00 38:22

Right. So what I'm seeing in the Rambam, what I'm seeing in the Ramam here is that he explicitly he differentiates between generalities and particulars, and then he pulls the fast one by saying that Shit and Khira have no reason, but here's the reason. So that's what I'm grappling with, and that's why I'm saying that that there is a macro lens where you will say that this primary structural feature has a reason. And in that lens, all the details don't matter. But then you zoom in and you're like, well, once you have this detail, meaning once you have Corbanos and their animals, now we need to examine, well, what animals can we and can't, or what animals do we and don't we bring? And I'm saying that that same level would apply, which is that has a reason, but it's not a primary reason. You know, it in terms of the prime reason, it could have been anything. And you could have said that this is a lamb and this is a ram, or let's use another example that I didn't say yet is koshrus. Let's say you have a theory that that the purpose of kosher, of kosher and non-kosher animals, is kadusha, and that kadusha is uh is in imbuing Kly Sol with a certain value of mind over matter, self-control, rising above your animal tendencies. So from that perspective, then you could say it does not matter whether God made cow kosher and pig non-kosher, or vice versa. But once you have species that are kosher and species that are not kosher, you can say, well, can we find a reason for cow and not pig? You know, so Raman would say, yeah, maybe you can find a reason, but you're gonna get to a certain point where you cannot find a reason anymore. Um uh and and I think that's the point that the Ramam is is getting at is he's establishing that there are these two frameworks of of things that have reasons and things that don't. And uh and he is, you know, and and uh if if the Ramam didn't contradict himself in that way, I would just say that like these are absolute categories, and there's only two tiers, and that's it. But the fact that he then contradicts himself by saying there's no reason for Shita versus Nakira, and then he gives reasons, and then he says there's no reason for lambs versus rams, then he gives reasons, to me indicates that like this framework, this two, this this generality in particular has to be applied at multiple strata of the structure. And then his absolute statements about no reasons for the particulars will apply at a certain point, you know, um, because they they have to. I don't know if that's a clear answer or if I misunderstand you.

SPEAKER_05 40:54

Okay, well, can I try to summarize what you're saying and explain why it's confusing? Sure. So it sounds to me like we are forced to say that sometimes when the Ramam says has no reasons, he means not a certain type of reason.

SPEAKER_00 41:07

Correct. Okay Yeah. Okay. Um yeah, cor okay, correct. But would I say it that way?

SPEAKER_04 41:16

Give me one second.

SPEAKER_00 41:24

See, I might go one step further, okay, and say that that um that all tier two reasons are unnecessary vis-a-vis the purpose of the mitzvah, okay? But the tier one reasons are not unnecessary. In other words, like this Ram let's say shita, okay? So the primary purpose of shita is God does not want us eating live animals. So there's no there has to be a feature in that mitzvah that says kill the animal. You could not have a mitzvah of shita without killing the animal. So that's a necessary reason. So from that perspective, all other reasons have a quality of of of arbitrariness. Okay. But but then once you have once the other parts of the mitzvah are starting to be filled out, like now Halacha is gonna have a method, so now Halaqah has to select a method. So now there's room for for requirements with reasons and then requirements without reasons. In fact, you know what? You know what the better way to do pillow theory is see this is okay. Let me show you. I'm gonna give you a pillow theory. I I like thinking of it in three tiers, but maybe this is a a pillow theory um uh that is truer to the rhombon, okay? Is that there's two tiers, okay, is generalities and particulars, okay? And then within particulars, you have three you have three categories. Okay. You have um you have like this. Okay, so so the particulars are like um sorry, so generalized are aspects of the structure that is are designed for primary purpose, and it is impossible to conceive of this mitzvah without those those uh structures. Okay um of those features. All right, particulars are aspects of the structure that vis a vis vis the primary purpose are not necessary and could theoretically have gone in many different directions. Okay, and then you have three kinds of those. Okay, you have um particulars whose reasons are related to the primary purpose, then you have particulars. Particulars whose reasons have a secondary purpose. And then you have particulars that have no purpose and are dictated by dictated by necessity slash the nature of the the possible. I think that model is truer to the Ronbaum's way of explaining the idea. Tamar, is that is that clearer or more confusing, or does that satisfy what was bothering you originally?

SPEAKER_05 44:49

I'm just thinking about it for one second. Sure, sure.

SPEAKER_00 44:51

And then there's not just a question for tomorrow, but anyone uh if anyone finds this to be different or confusing or better or worse.

SPEAKER_05 44:59

Well, I'm still thinking about my question, but I definitely like this. I think I like this more.

SPEAKER_00 45:02

Yeah, okay, good. Yeah, I think I like this more also. And I still get to say three tiers. Just the three tiers of particulars. Yeah. Um, I'll give you another example of this, okay? Tfillin', right? So tfillin is take these words and bind them on your uh on your heart and on your uh in between your eyes. Okay. So what's one thing that that tefillin absolutely needs? Words that are bound on you, okay? But um which words? So, so theoretically, you could have had different partios for tefillin, okay? But the partios are obviously selected based on the primary purpose of these are things that are very important to keep close to your heart and uh and between your eyes or on your head, whatever, whatever the idea is, okay. But then you've got other things that are are arbitrary, uh, or or arguably are arbitrary, of like how many partios? You know, if it were three, we would say, why not four? Why not five? Why not the entire Torah? You know, or maybe the fact that the Tulin have to be black, you know, that that's uh that's arbitrary, you know, or here's another example is um is Kriashma. So there is a machlokus. Raman holds that all three uh sections of Kriishma are uh are deal right, but I've heard tell that there are other Rishonim who hold that only the first possible is de risa or only the first paragraph. So the essence of Kriishma, uh Kriishma is Kabbal's O Mahushmah is Kabala's O Machushmaim is accepting God's kingship. So so that needs a declaration of Hashem's oneness, okay? Because there's there's it's impossible to conceive of accepting God's kingship without his oneness, because that's the definition of God's kingship. But what else you include in Kriishma? I think there's even a Havamina. I could be mistaken about this. I think there's even a Havamina that that Harsha's Balak should be included in Kriishima, or there's a limut that says that, you know, but like that, those parts of the mitzvah are in are particulars, you know, those could have been different things. Yeah. Uh Hudi.

SPEAKER_03 47:10

Do we understand the primary purpose of a mitzvah by breaking it down, or are we able to break it down because we already know the primary purpose of the mitzvah?

SPEAKER_00 47:18

Okay, so that gets to question number. Uh let me just make sure that we answer this. Yeah. Question. Oh, just want to add one detail here. Um, we said that if the details have no reasons, why do we need them? Um so we answered at a certain point of detail, you will not be able to answer have a reason because it needs to be something. That's the nature of being in a physical world. So the reason why this is not degrading to Torah uh or to God is because um because it stems from the nature of physicality, okay, is that physicality is particular. Um, so it's not it's not degrading. In other words, what would be degrading to be to say that God like commanded an entire practice for no reason, like just to do a random action, you know, that would not be something that would stump stem from a being who is the source of all Chachman and is doing this Latovlach. But to say that, like, you know, um that, you know, is it degrading to God that when babies are born they have a specific size? No, that's the nature of physicality. Like some babies will turn out some size and some will turn out another size. Is it degrading to God to say that that redwoods, some will grow this height and some will grow that height? No, like that's the nature of physical matter, is that that it's gonna play itself out in a certain way. You know, it's not degrading to say that that's arbitrary, that's the nature of the physical world, and we'll get into that with Eo.

SPEAKER_03 48:51

Um sorry, yeah. I don't think you address my question. It doesn't feel like that.

SPEAKER_00 48:54

No, no, I'm not addressing your question. Oh, okay. No, not at all. No, all right. Uh I said I want to continue answering this question first. Okay, now your question is is is in question four, which is how do you determine what is the generality and what's the particular? Do you need to know about that going in? Is there a method? Um, how do you uh and what does the Ram say when other people disagree with him? So my my answer to this question is I don't think there's a method. Okay. I think you need to study halacha and see what um you know and get get a sense for what the structure uh structure is, okay. That's my answer. But I have heard I mentioned this last time. Um I I mentioned that this is Shmuli Phillips' answer. I don't know how to spell his name. Uh I think, okay, which is that uh that the Rambam in the More only gives reasons for the the aspects of the mitzvah that are beyond dispute. Okay, meaning that there are certain uh the Ram has this rule, which we're not gonna get into now, that he says that anything that is a that that is subject to mochlocus is not from Harsinae, and it really originated with the Chachamim. Okay, so uh so the way you know what is from Sinai, what came from Mosher Beno, is if there's no mochlocus on it. So let's take in our examples here. Um everyone agrees that Corbanos can only be brought from from cows and lambs and and uh and goats, okay, uh, or or both or whatever those species are, right? So that the Raman will give a reason on and assume that that's a generality. Um, you know, everyone is gonna agree that the um that uh I'm just trying to think of the most non-controversial examples. Um, you know, everyone is gonna agree that that matzah um has to be eaten on the night of Pesah. Or let's here's another example. Let's say sukkah. Everyone is gonna agree that you have to dwell on the sukkah. Okay, how many meals you have to eat? Is it only the first night or is it all seven nights? That's a maklokus kochamim. So Ram would say that that's not from Sinai, but he will give a theory for you have to dwell on a sukkah, because that's that's clearly from from uh from Hashem at Sinai. So that might be another answer to your question, Hudi. Yeah, Hudi.

SPEAKER_03 51:29

No, no, I don't think I was, I don't think I got the answer. I'm looking for I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand how do we unless maybe you didn't answer it, understand, but it's the only thing I could have maybe understood here is are you saying that the ask you a question again?

SPEAKER_00 51:43

Ask your question again.

SPEAKER_03 51:44

Thanks. Do we I just want to know if we do we basically do we already know the primary reason for all the mitzvahs, or is the idea that we're meant to figure them out by breaking the mitzvahs down and figuring out the thing.

SPEAKER_00 51:54

Oh no, yeah, yeah. The whole premise is we have to figure them out. That's the whole premise of the entire chapter. We don't know them.

SPEAKER_03 51:59

We don't, we don't, we're not the mitzvils are not clearly okay, fine. That's what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_00 52:02

Yeah, and then what I'm saying, what I am answering is I'm saying, uh, I'm answering these other questions, which is how do we know which aspects of the mitzvahs are generalities that we should theorize about and uh and and you know and which ones are particulars that could fall into these categories? So I don't know if there's a method, but I have heard Shmuli Phillips, according to my memory, say that in the moral, the reasons the Rambam gives are only for the aspects of the mitzvah that are beyond dispute. Yeah, Dvora.

SPEAKER_06 52:28

So when the Rambam is disparaging people who are trying to give reasons, yeah, is he disparaging them for trying to connect the secondary or third tier reasons to the primary purpose?

SPEAKER_00 52:41

Yeah, okay, so so this is good. Okay, so I I I I did mean to come back to this. So um, so what is the Rambom getting at when he disparages people uh for trying to find um uh reasons in all the particulars? Okay, and let's just reread that one more time uh to uh to see his exact words. Hold on, this is gonna bug me.

SPEAKER_04 53:12

Uh why is it making a space? Hold on.

SPEAKER_00 53:19

Okay, I don't know why it's making a space, and I can't oh, because it's here. Okay, there we go. All right, so let's reread what he said. He said 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. Whoever imagines that such reason can be found particulars is as far from the truth as one who imagines that the commandment as a whole serves no real purpose. So what what do you think he's saying here? And do you think he's saying one critique or multiple critiques? And if so, how many? What do you guys think?

SPEAKER_04 54:00

Yes, Mark.

SPEAKER_05 54:02

I mean, it sounds like he must be talking about um only the things like you know, not y1 and not one point zero one and that type that are like that are like um you can tell from their nature that they don't have a reason on this level.

SPEAKER_00 54:19

Okay, I would agree with that. I would agree. He's not talking about tier two, uh tier two reasons. Uh or sorry, what I call tier two reasons, uh or particulars that have primary or secondary reasons. Yeah, Racheli.

SPEAKER_01 54:30

Wait, I wanna ask my question after.

SPEAKER_00 54:33

Okay, I saw that on the chat. Uh Dvora.

SPEAKER_06 54:37

Um, yeah, so picking up on how he's saying that they're as far from the truth as one who imagines that the commitment as a whole serves no real purpose. Yeah. Um, I I wonder if he's if he's disparaging them because they think that it's like an all or nothing kind of a thing. Like they're unable to look at a commandment and look at the details of it and kind of tease the different aspects of the commandment apart. So like these people are going to either think every single aspect is like super critical and purposeful, or like none of it matters at all.

SPEAKER_00 55:09

Oh, interesting. Okay, so that that's a plausible, that's a plausible answer. Yeah, Tamar. Where'd I go?

SPEAKER_05 55:17

Okay, I think I have a separate question also. Okay, sure.

SPEAKER_00 55:21

So Devor's answer is that it's possible that the Rambaum is criticizing these people's, you know, uh all or nothing approach. Um, i.e. uh either every detail is infused with meaning, or uh there's no purpose whatsoever. So a good example of this, by the way, is the uh the the I don't know which Kabbalists hold by this, but the Kabbalists who hold that every single detail of Halacha is like having these magical spiritual effects on like like Tikun on the on the entire world and stuff like that. And they really do hold that like every single little detail does something, you know, it has some sort of like like supernal uh effect, you know, cosmic effect. Um, so that that's like uh the vibe I'm getting. Anyone else have answers for this question? Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_07 56:20

Yeah, based off of what you just said about the Kabbalah example, like it seems to me that somebody who thinks that every single detail is like super significant, kind of like it indicates an incorrect understanding of mitzvotes in general and like how mitzvot's benefit people in general.

SPEAKER_00 56:35

Okay, good. So this is this is my answer as well, uh, which is so actually hold on a second. Give me one second. So okay, so I'll put the way you said it, and then I I might um your answer might be better because it might fit into the Raman better. But I'll okay, I'll write what you're saying. Uh a person someone who looks at uh for for significance in every single detail has a distorted, or let's say at least a completely different idea of what a mitzvah is. Okay. Um, like, you know, I'll give you an example of this. Is okay, let's say in um in uh like a pharmacist who's who is, you know, um uh what do you call it? Like um uh not putting together is you know uh producing medicine, okay, right? It's like like mixing together chemicals or whatever, making medicine. So there, yeah, every single ingredient matters. Okay. So that's how medicine works. Let's say I don't know if okay. But now let's say you had someone who sees the pharmacist doing this, and then they also say, well, the exact shade of white on their coat is you know, will affect the medicine. And whether they use their right hand or their left hand, and how many steps they take in bringing the medicine to you, and the exact price, every detail matters for healing. So you would be like, I sir, I think you have like a very distorted idea about how pharmacists work, you know? Like, so I think that's like the uh the the the the problem with the uh with with that's what the Rama's point out with the miserabrear. Ayala, is that like the type of thing that you're saying here? Is like a misunderstanding of of the of Al Mitsu's work?

SPEAKER_07 58:21

Yeah, I think so.

SPEAKER_00 58:22

Okay, so I think that's probably the truth to the Ramam. I have my answer, which is uh I think it's worse. Okay. Um Rambom, Rambam calls this a disease. I mean, I think maybe what what he says at the end is what Ayala is saying is that he's as far removed from the truth as someone who thinks that the mitzah has no reason. Uh, but it he calls it a disease because this person has a distorted idea of how Chokma works, okay, thinking that there is no category of of uh necessity uh in something. Um and then moreover, so then moreover, he will be forced to um fabricate reasons based on imagination, okay, and the difficulties will only multiply uh because he's he's creating new problems with every theory, you know, like the more the more, you know, it's kind of like um in the same way as like Occam's razor. I don't know if this is the exact application of Occam's razor, but in the same way as Occam's razor, that you look for the uh the explanation that posits uh the fewest um, you know, uh uh premises. Um, why do we care about Occam's razor? Because we want, we are the mind naturally seeks unity and simplicity. But what's gonna end up inevitably happening is either you're gonna take a mitzvah and you're going to break it down to where each detail needs to serve the primary purpose. So that's like the imagination direction, or you're gonna end up adding secondary reasons that just multiply. So let's say, for example, tfilin, right? So you're gonna say that, well, you know, like the four boxes in the twillin represent the four imahos, you know, but now you're gonna have to come up with ideas about why the imahos are related to tfilin, you know, and then that's gonna create a convoluted thing. And then when you say why are there leather straps, why is it not something else? And you're gonna say, well, cows, and you know, you're gonna have to come up with all these reasons, and it's just gonna become this messy hodgepodge of like like uh imagination-based conjecture, you know. So um, so I think Ayala's answer is the safest answer here that that this person definitely has a false idea about how uh uh what how what a mitzvah is, but I do think that the Ramam uses such harsh language and says they're suffering from a delusion and they're gonna multiply difficulties because I think that's what's gonna happen. Like there's just gonna be, you know, it's gonna be like the um, like the hold on, um Charlie conspiracy meme, right? So the um I think this is a well-known meme. Oh, that's very small. But the conspiracy meme, right? You're gonna end up like like coming up with all these reasons why every single detail is like connected, you know, and it's just retreating into imagination. Okay, I think Rukheli was first with her other question and then tomorrow after that.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:19

Okay, basically, I missed a lot, so I'm not sure if this was like addressed or asked earlier, but when you wrote the Rambam in the moral only gives reasons for the aspects of the mitzvah that are beyond dispute.

SPEAKER_04 1:01:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:31

So he's saying that the the aspects of the mitzvah are beyond dispute, but does Rambam think that his reasoning is still like speculative?

SPEAKER_00 1:01:42

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:43

Uh-huh.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:44

Yeah. And sometimes he says that all right. Um, but but he uh he he says that from the um, I mean, I maybe in certain cases he'll say that this is definitely the reason, but he he's it's very clear when you read it that it's um uh that it is uh that he's he's he's doing his best uh to to guess. And it's funny, like the the funniest one is anyone know which which uh mitzvah in the mikdah or which thing in the mikdash he says, I have no reason, like I I I have no idea what it is. It's a very funny one. Uh the shulchan. Okay, he says he explains the menorah and he explains the aron. He's like the shulchan, I have no idea, you know, and it's just funny because you're like, whoa, I mean, if someone like like if I was doing like an essay test in school and someone said, like, come up with a Tom Hanks for the table, I'm sure I could think of a lot of stuff, you know. But the Roman's like, I have no idea what this is. You're like, oh, like maybe I maybe I'm so out of it in terms of my idea of of mitzvous that like like the ROM is sitting there like puzzling about this, and I'm like, oh, it's obviously about eating or about like food or about sustenance, you know. So I just think that's that's uh that's a funny thing. Uh tomorrow.

SPEAKER_05 1:02:55

Do you think you could restate now that we have this, um, how the ROM is explaining that puzzle that God doesn't care? Is it still my standing question, a little bit recycled, but I want to hear it apply to that.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:04

Sure. Okay, so let me actually just put this in the notes right beneath that part. Um, okay, so so let's say here, hold on. Okay, so in light in light of our analysis, um how would Rambam explain that chazal? Okay, so he'd so first thing he he'd start is uh is by saying what it's not saying. Okay, chazal are not saying that there is no reason for the the the mitzvah of shita uh as a whole. Okay, that clearly has a reason to make sure that we only eat dead animals and not live ones. Uh so the chazal Rukheli is this chazal that the Ramam is uh the whole thing that started this mess is what difference does it make to Hakarish Barak if an animal is slaughtered by Shita by cutting from the front of the neck or Nikhira cutting from the back of the neck? Okay, uh, one must therefore say that the commands were only given to refined people. Um, so he says that that's the only chazal that indicates that mitzvahs have seemed to have no reasons. Um, so he's saying that uh this clearly has a reason. Okay, so then he says, from that standpoint, it really doesn't matter um uh whether God legislated uh Shita uh versus Nakira. Okay, because either way, the animal would be dead. Okay, however, there are still reasons we can find uh for Shita versus Nakira, and that's those are the ones that he gives versus Nihira, all right, um, as the Rambam goes on to give. Okay, but then and then the uh the out the add-on is however there are details that are that have no um you know I'll call them philosophical reasons, okay, reasons. So and those reasons uh you know, I really should have said this earlier. Rama says that there are three kinds of reasons for mitos, uh, which are intellectual, uh meaning to instill or reinforce a true idea or remove a false idea, um uh midos to instill or reinforce a perfection of midos or remove a uh imperfection, and societal uh justice and righteousness, uh or interpersonal. Uh so there are there are details that have none of those reasons, they're just there, uh, but are just there because the because the legal uh particulars uh need to be to be filled out in some way. And those are the reasons, you know, that that could be for you could when you ask why do those need to be there, like why do we need to fill out the details? Why can't we just have general mittsos? Those are the six reasons that we were giving, or the five reasons that we were giving before is that it ensures a certain uniformity, you know, it it removes subjectivity, quality control. There's a layer of Kochma that you can. Involve yourself in and then everything that comes from God has Kachma. So tomorrow does that clarify the Ramam?

SPEAKER_05 1:06:20

Yeah, I mean it's to me it is somewhat interesting that this statement that they said this if that's what they meant. But I don't think it's like crazy. I mean I just have to think about it a little bit.

SPEAKER_00 1:06:31

Yeah, yeah. And you know, I I think the I mean, if I if I had to posit a motive for Khazal staining in this way, you need to have shock value in order to get this idea across. And it's not just shock value rhetorically, you need to be able to say that God could have done this another way. Okay. And and by shita, God could not have made the generality in another way. There's only one way to ensure that people only eat dead animals, and that's by saying kill them. Okay. Um, but there are many ways to kill animals, many ways to skin a cat, there's many ways to kill animals, you know. Um, that's a uh an idiom if you don't know. Um, so I I think that that's what they're trying to get across. And and it is a you know, it is a style of causal hyperbole of like, does God care? You know? Um, so um I again that's me speculating about why Kozala's stated.

SPEAKER_05 1:07:21

Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 1:07:22

Yeah. Okay. Uh, was there another question before we go on? Because I think we're done with the Raman portion of this for tonight. Like I said, a quick review. Yeah, okay. Um, all right. So now let's do the short, yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_07 1:07:37

So maybe these are all the answers that we gave that you just put up before. But did we explain how the Raman says the details like refine a person?

SPEAKER_00 1:07:45

We did not. And and here's the thing is that he does not explain that. Uh in fact, if I could look back here, does he even quote that part of the statement? I quoted the whole statement because I was um, oh, you know what? Uh I quoted the whole statement because I wanted to show it to you in context. Maybe I was misleading by doing that because, hold on. This site that I'm going to, by the way, is just because this is the only place online that I know how to find the Kafich translation of the Murnabuchim. And it's a weird site because the layout is very weird. Uh, that's why I'm going here. Uh, let me just see if the Rambom. Oh, he does say, he does say um Litzer uh Litzeropanisabrios. Yeah, I don't know how he explains that. If I find an answer, I'll have to I'll have to let you know. Actually, there's one more place I can look. Hold on. Um, if I look at, I wonder if the Makhbili edition, Tex Murnavukim, More Translation Comparison, 326, Makhbili. See, you guys, I've said this to my study skills uh students before is that the key, gotta come up with a good system of organization at the outset so you know where to find all the your all your stuff that you accumulate, uh, which I am for the most part do a good job of, but uh that time I did a good job of it. Um okay, let's see if he explains the literal femus of brios.

SPEAKER_04 1:09:14

Um let me see if I could search for it.

SPEAKER_00 1:09:21

Okay, uh literal feminism brios. Yeah, see, he interprets the question the way I did is that in the question, it's there's no reason for Shita versus Nahira. Um, but tafkiran shell mitvos um la hasir es hasigim. The purpose of the mitzvos is to remove impurities, nagdus happenis hatvobatom, the natural resistance of man. But to in and implant within him obedience, right? So that's like no reasons, just God says do it because I want you to obey me. Okay. Um, so that that's in the framework of the question. But then does he come back and explain how what the actual meaning is? Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, it does sound like it just does uh instill obedience. I don't know if that's what the Rama holds, but that's what it sounds like what he what he's saying. Yeah, he doesn't go back and explain it, which indicates that he's preserving that in the framework of the question, but just moving it from all the mitzvah to just the particulars that are dictated by necessity. Yeah, Alex.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:54

Is there an assumption that obedience in itself is something that is good?

SPEAKER_00 1:10:58

Ah, so that's where we get to Rufkuk. Okay, perfect segue. All right, so Rufkuk. Um, I explained what this was last time, the Mur Nukem of Rufkuk uh or Lunavuch Hador. Um okay, so I'm gonna read from Rabbi Arya Sklar's translation. This is a very short chapter, as you can see. Um, and um I am going to read and only use the Hebrew if we need it. Okay, so he says like this the meticulous observance of the commandments in general is based on two foundations. Okay, and just to uh draw the line here, the second foundation starts here. Okay, so both these paragraphs are all three of these paragraphs are the first foundation. So the meticulous observance of the commandments in general is based on two foundations. The first is that one of the fundamental effects on a person fulfilling the Torah and commandments. Oh, by the way, what I want to answer here, actually, let me let me just do the two things. Okay, so so okay, actually, Alex, you set it up perfectly. Hold on. Let me uh let me do it in this way. You actually both Ayala, you and Alex both set it up perfectly. Okay, so so um so Ayala's question was, um, what does sorry, whoops, what you know how how does the Rambam explain the the last part of the Hazal, um, that the purpose of particulars is uh Litzrof Bahen es habrios, um to refine people, uh, which we and Rav Makhbili understood to mean um uh you know to instill obedience um for no philosoph for no particular philosophical reason. Okay, so our answer was seems like the Rambam preserves that idea, but instead of saying that that applies to the entire mitzvah, uh like the premise of the question, he relegates it to um the particulars that are only there uh for necessity. Yeah, Rukeli.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:14

Um couldn't there also be something about like eliminating subjectivity?

SPEAKER_00 1:13:19

Like that's yeah, there could be reasons like that, but but uh but I think from the thrust of the Ramam, it doesn't seem like he's saying that. I think it's a good reason, and then we said that, but I don't think he's saying that. Um uh I mean you could just come up with a theory where the the impurities that we're trying to refine are is subjectivity. Yeah, that's uh I just don't see a basis for seeing that in the ramam. Okay, then Alex's question was what is the value of instilling uh obedience to particulars? Okay, and then my question is how are we supposed to relate to the practice of such detailed areas of halacha? Okay, yeah, Ruqueli?

SPEAKER_01 1:14:03

Also, just to add to what is the value of instilling obedience to particulars, couldn't that um have detrimental effects in some ways?

SPEAKER_00 1:14:13

Like if we're saying these are the particulars that don't seem to have like a wise reason, then it could just be like instilling obedience toward like like basically training a person to relate to things that they don't really see wisdom or value in as just like good to obey without seeing all right, so um and and can't it be harmful to instill um the value of obeying arbitrary, obeying myriad arbitrary particulars. Yeah, okay. Um, okay, so here's so Rafcook is gonna answer these questions. All right. The meticulous observance of the commandments in general is based on two foundations. The first is that one of the fundamental effects on a person in fulfilling the Torah and the commandments is an elevation to a lofty spiritual level brought about by the fact that these actions performed as service to God imprint upon the individual a sense of the recognition of God's honor. So I want I do want to read that in the Hebrew, okay? Um, he says, It elevates person to uh ruchanis and Ramah to a high spiritual level. So it impresses upon him the quality of the recognition of the honor of uh of God. Okay. Um, and uh he says, this moral quality can only be fully and completely established through an extreme meticulousness in fulfilling the word of God, which demonstrates a higher degree of care than that expected by a human law or ordinance enacted by any ruler, commander, or legislator. Therefore, it is highly appropriate to be meticulous about every word and letter of the Torah to perform the commandments according to their most precise understanding. Conversely, we're and this is still part of the first reason. Were we to abandon the service of the meticulous, the impact of this abandonment would have the opposite effect. The light of God's honor would dim in the heart, and the great ethical man would instead be mired in much physicality and crass thinking. So again, in Hebrew, this is a great translation, but in Hebrew, I just want to show you how it's the same thing. Um uh haroshim shall aziva zo, the impression of this abandonment, poel hapulah ha hitkis, will in it will have the opposite effect. The youam or shall covod, and the light of covodho'alokim of the glory of God will dim bilvabos in in in hearts. Batishka malas adam hamusaris and the level of the ethical man will sink in bhumrios into physicality, bagasus haraion, and thickness of thinking, adma'od, extremely. Um, omnam, however, sorry, however, it must also be understood that alongside the service of the meticulous, insofar as it raises high the sense of supernal glory, every law derived from a particular inference should also accord with the overall spirit of the Torah. It should guide a person toward a good path by refining his character traits and ideas and have a good impact on social life, on bodily health, on strengthening intellectual powers, on the nation as well as on the individual. Okay, so let's just take notes on this, uh, and then we'll go back and answer our questions later, but we'll do this on its own terms. Okay, so notes. So Rafcook is saying that the meticulous the meticulous observance of Halacha has has two purposes. Sorry, has two foundations. Okay, so one is to impress upon a person the glory uh the the the recognition of the glory of God. Now the question is is how does that work? Okay, and he gives two explanations about how that works. So let's just go back. You tell me uh what you think he's saying here. Uh I think one one explanation is here and one explanation is here. Yeah, uh hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:18:17

Sounds like he's saying there's some that the greater the complexity, the more important it seems, and the more thought I guess you have to give to it, and the more concentration you have to give to it because of all the details, the more honor it gives to like the person who you're fulfilling the commandment for.

SPEAKER_00 1:18:35

Okay, so I think that is uh that is true, but it's missing a step. Okay, and the step that it's missing is you notice this line here, which demonstrates a higher degree of care than expected by a human law or ordinance enacted by any rule of commander or legislator. All right, so what what does that add? And then I'll put together what you said, Udian.

SPEAKER_03 1:18:54

Oh, it's like godly, then like it's it's a higher level that's beyond human understanding, or like um it turns it godly because it's so complex.

SPEAKER_00 1:19:02

You know, so it's interesting. It it it it sounds like it maybe this is what you mean by godly, but but I don't think it has to do with it being beyond understanding. I think what it is is here's how I would put it is that um a that in order to have this impact, then halacha must demand at the very least, if not more, meticulousness than you than than a law of a human ruler would dictate. In other words, um picture someone who is um uh who you respect a lot. Okay, so when I was going over this with my haruses, I was saying, like, you know, uh is uh is you know, Rabbi Chate, right? Like Rapesach. Um so I said, like, imagine Rapesach, like, you know, uh sends one of the guys in the dorm to go do an errand for the yeshiva, you know, and like you know, deliver this letter to such and such a rabbi, or like do something. The guy would the the the the the person obeying his order would be very careful because this is the Rosh Yeshiva entrusting me with this important mission, and I have to do this exactly, you know, or let's say uh use a different example from a different realm, not really from a ruler. Let's say like you um you are a nuclear scientist and you're working in a nuclear uh uh you know, nuclear uh plant, and like every single thing that you do is very careful because this carries severe weight and the consequences are severe. So everything you do is is meticulous and exacting. Now, if God did not demand that level of rigor, you would treat it as less serious than the human tasks that you're performing. Okay, so it needs to be at least that level and higher than that, because God is a higher ruler than man.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:00

Yeah, Hudi Um, I um so I also have another thought, which I'm not sure I fleshed out about why what what it means. Yeah could it also be connected to the level, the the part of the humans that is the closest to to Hashem, like the the like I don't remember which term it was. I think it was also discussed in a previous year about how we're made up of different, like three different parts.

SPEAKER_00 1:21:23

The Nishama, like the Telamilkim, the covod, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:26

Yeah, so the cover, whatever it is that's that's in that we have beyond animals or other things in the world, yeah. This requires us to actually utilize that and bring us, like you know what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_00 1:21:36

Yeah, so that is like the Rov's idea in Halakhaq Man that that halach engages the full mind, uh, and uh is not just like a road obedience. Um, so that is a great idea, but I don't I don't see Ruf Cook saying that. And same thing with what Rakhili says in the chat, it engages the entire self. I that's a beautiful idea. I don't see anything in Ruf Cook indicating that. And if you think that you do see that, let me know. But I just don't see any evidence of that in Ruf Cook. All I see is him saying that we want to imprint uh the covet of God, and in order to do that, it has to be extremely meticulous, higher than any human law. Okay, that's what I'm seeing him say. Anyone have a different read? Okay, so that's one reason. The second reason here by by why the or the second way that this works is is so the first reason is a positive, is you need to be you need to elevate this above human law. The second reason is a negative, is he's saying if you abandon this meticulousness, the impact of the abandonment would have the opposite effect. The light of God's honor would dim in his heart, and the great ethical man would instead be mired in much physicality and crass thinking. Okay, so there maybe Rukeli, you can give um, you can give your reason. Uh, but let's just state what he says first. So the first one is the positive and then the negative, which is failure to be this meticulous would diminish God's covod uh in our hearts and result in miring the ethical man in what do you say, crass uh physicality and crass thinking. Okay, in physicality and crass thinking. And and then the question is what does that last part mean? Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:23:24

Well, this feels less like two separate foundations and more like just two separations.

SPEAKER_00 1:23:28

This is not two foundations. This is all part of the first foundation. Okay, yeah. That's why uh there's the one here, and then the the second foundation begins uh in this next uh paragraph here. So this might be what you uh are saying, Hoodie, okay, which is that um which is that and maybe again, so this is I think now I'm open to what you and Rokeli are saying. I just did not see in the first part, which is that that any attention, sorry, like any, I don't know if I want to say attention or or energy that is not occupied in the mitzvah activity is naturally going to flow elsewhere and it will go to the lowest common denominator, okay, uh, which is uh which is the animalistic part of man. Okay, so I think the area where this is um really evident is what area in Halacha? Uh let's see if anyone gets this. What area in Halacha do you need to be the most OCD about what's going on in your thoughts? And the clue is that this is not a mitzvah that any of us have done. Yeah, Rokeli.

SPEAKER_01 1:24:46

Um does it have to do with the Voda?

SPEAKER_00 1:24:49

Yeah, right? Anyone know what? Or anyone know what what in the Avoda requires thoughts?

SPEAKER_05 1:24:58

I was thinking the Kohen Goddle and Yom Kipper.

SPEAKER_00 1:25:00

Yeah, Kohen Godd and the Yom Kipper is a good model, right? So he has to, so first of all, every single action is dictated, but he also has to have the proper thoughts at each and every stage. Okay, and I'm being very loose when I say that. Uh, like there's gonna be detail where he he he he doesn't, but he has to have the right kavana. So, like, think about what what would the cohen goddle do if if the halo didn't demand this? He would do what we all do when we Daven, okay, when we say bracos, he would do it mindlessly, and he would like end up, you know, like when you're when you're eating, how many times do you actually think of the braka that you're saying, like in detail, you know? Or like I will catch myself, you know, when I'm divining not in a minion and I'm divining at home, I'll catch myself like saying tfila and thinking about the words, but I'll also be organizing, like putting books away and stuff like that, you know. And I catch myself saying, like, okay, I shouldn't do that, but you know, the the nature of a person is that their energy flows to the mundane and to the physical. And so, so the more meticulous and detailed halacha is, the more you can involve your entire self there and uh and direct your attention there. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:26:07

I'm not really sure if this is distinct enough, but I'm just thinking, like, I keep thinking, like, oh, it's like exercising a muscle, like, and because it feels like instead of it just going elsewhere, it's also maybe that the the law, the halachos were structured around this idea of keeping that part of us sharp, of like you know, ensuring that we have to use that part of ourself regularly to strengthen it.

SPEAKER_00 1:26:26

Yeah, yeah. And that, like, I uh I don't know if again, I don't know if you've ever read Halakh Igman, but like this is exactly halakhic man. No, I haven't. Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's a very difficult read. And if you do ask me for advice on how to read it before you read it, because there's like advice to give. Uh, but like uh basically it's talking about how like someone who is is fully uh practicing halach the way it was intended is just looking everywhere and just seeing halakhic chakba everywhere, and his mind is engaged in every single aspect of it, and it's just elevating like that that highest part of you at all times. Um uh yeah, uh that's funny. Sorry, Rocheli. Oh, that's funny. Yeah, okay. Um, okay, so I think that's the first foundation. Okay, and if you were to ask, let's let's just go ahead and ask this question, okay? Why is it important to instill sorry, to instill recognition of the glory of God? He doesn't answer this, but but we can answer, yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:27:24

I mean, just like going back to like how attention naturally flows elsewhere, like if you don't, then you're just not gonna be naturally necessarily focused on it.

SPEAKER_00 1:27:33

Okay, so so if you don't, your attention and actions will will will go elsewhere. Okay, yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_07 1:27:44

I'm gonna say this is the entire purpose of life and mankind.

SPEAKER_00 1:27:49

Yeah, this is the entire this is the essence of a voda and the purpose of man, which is is the recognition of God as the ultimate reality, and that everything you do is in line with God's will. In fact, we learned a Pasuk in this shear for a couple weeks behold duracha da'ehu, in all of your ways, you should know. Him, you know, and that's what we were struggling with in the Bitaclean issue of like, how should you think about God in every way? Well, the whole thing is that if if the idea of God were real to you, you would not be able to not think of God in every action you do because everything connects back to God. So this primes you um this primes you for the purpose of your existence.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:35

Yeah, Alex. I think also without um kind of awareness, like true awareness of a higher power, humanity can really fall to like very dark and bleak things, like people aren't inherently nice to each other.

SPEAKER_00 1:28:50

Yeah, uh that's true also. Humanity can descend to animality. Yeah, Roselli.

SPEAKER_01 1:28:57

Um, I want to ask a question that again, I don't know if this was asked before or brought up, but in relation to this, like obviously there are gonna be people who don't necessarily properly fit a system that's designed for like a large different um multiplicity of people, but there are obviously people who like meticulous observance quickly turns into like um OCD or just like kind of goes in the opposite direction of purpose.

SPEAKER_00 1:29:30

So it's funny. See this footnote too here. So Rabbi Sklar says, in other words, Rivkuk advocates for a meticulous service that that also follows the spirit of the law. If it does not, it can take away from a person's feeling that that of the worthiness of the endeavor. In Orota Kodish 3, 259, Rivkuk writes that the service of the meticulous by itself can actually take a person away from loftier ideas unless he is enlightened to find delight and joy through the contemplation of universal themes to eliminate panic over particulars which are endless. So when I read that, even though he doesn't use the words OCD, I was like, I bet he's talking about that kind of like relationship to halacha and and saying how like that's that would be uh contrary to his purpose.

SPEAKER_01 1:30:08

So I wonder in that case, would he advocate for someone to like take a more lenient approach to like yeah?

SPEAKER_00 1:30:16

So here I don't I can't speak for of cook, okay, but um I think one of the things that people lose sight of is that um that like first of all, Halacha is um a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Um, and if you look uh the the example that I always quote, uh and oh Vanessa's not here anymore. Um the example I always quote is you look at any Pesach guide, okay, and it's like hundreds of pages and people get all crazy. You look at Rabbi Marouf's Pesach guide, okay, um uh which he has not published in a long time, but this is I think the most recent one. So it's a PDF. There are six pages. Okay, you have here the prohibition of chemates, one page, search for chemits, a second page, error of Pesach preparations, half a page, error of tafshilin, a couple of paragraphs, cashering vessels is the longest one, two pages, and then the state or night uh about what you need for that is very little. So six pages, but the parts in terms of like like getting, you know, um about what you're allowed to eat and what you're not, and all this other stuff, two pages. Okay, halakha does not have to be complicated, all right. And and this is already according to the postcode that we have, but if you go back to the time of you know in of the Rishonim, like the Mishnah Torah, you know, where the Rama is only bringing down one opinion and not trying to fulfill many opinions, which is what we do now, then it's even simpler, you know. So the Torah itself is not very oppressive, but what happens is there is a lot of multiplicity um uh of halachic opinions, everyone trying to fulfill all these things. And I'm gonna pause this while I say something that might be regarded as disrespectful to a very famous POSIC. Leave that on the recording for people who are not the thing to remember also is that you should ask your POSIC if you have some sort of either trauma or OCD or or baggage about Lenient stuff. And this is why I love reading. If anyone doesn't know who Rebbe Yoni Rosenzweig is, um, who is a POSIC who has spearheaded halacha and mental health issues, you know, on Facebook during the weeks leading up to PASAC, he does he and he does Q ⁇ As on Facebook for Pesoff questions, and you just see how efficiently and you know he poskins, and it's not like he's leaning on everything, but like people ask a question that they're clearly all like worked up about, and he'll just give a very simple answer that like, don't worry about this, don't worry about that. And uh, you know, it's just a refreshing reminder about how halochah does not need to be oppressive and shouldn't be. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:32:58

This might be articulated awkwardly, but I'm gonna try. Um, was he believed we believe that halaqah is from Hashem, and Hashem is like the I don't know how to describe it, but he has he has all the knowledge, right? There is nothing beyond him. So is it inaccurate? Do we believe that halacha meaning my initial thought was, oh, but halacha is for the masses, it's not really for every single person, and there are maybe some outliers who need to like approach it differently, but then how do we how do we shouldn't shouldn't halacha be beyond that? Shouldn't it be actually able to cover everyone because it's from God? Or is that like not okay?

SPEAKER_00 1:33:34

So the end the answer is no, and I've given one shear on this. Um have I given a shear on this? No, I wrote an article about it a long time ago, but I don't think it's published on my Substack. We will get into this a little bit in um in my Eof Sherim. Um but the short answer is that no system, no system by definition, can work out for every particular, uh, not even a divine one.

SPEAKER_03 1:34:04

Is that because it has to apply to people who are limited to humans?

SPEAKER_00 1:34:07

No, it has to do because um it is about the uh did I give a shear on related on this related to doing QA's for high schoolers? Maybe I did. I I don't remember. Um okay, yeah. All right. So then maybe um, but it has to do with the nature of the physical world, that no system can account for all particulars by definition. Uh I I can't, I'm not gonna give a shorthand version of it now. It's gonna be in my EO share. Um, so you'll have to uh listen to that later. I'll try to remember to remind to send it to you. Okay, third reason why it's important to instill recognition of the glory of God is perhaps the most basic one, which is that that, and this is maybe what what um what we were talking about, the humanity descending to animality, what Alex was saying, is that um that um we want God to be obeyed uh because the mitzvos are good for us, and to the extent that we don't have covod for him, uh for him, uh we'll be lax in the observance of Halacha, and so will everyone else. In other words, it it is a again, like look just at American law, right? That there are, you know, how many people respect like American law, you know, unless the pennies are really high, like like people, you know, jaywalk all the time, you know, like it people just don't take the whole thing seriously, you know, and uh and it's just like uh or or like school rules. If you've been if you've ever been in a school where like there are rules that are on the books that people aren't enforcing, like the people don't keep them. So like, but if they had coved for the institution, then they would keep them. Um so I mean that's a very, very weak example, but yeah. Okay, so that is the first foundation, and then let's do the second foundation and then call it a night. The second foundation, and it was always on the minds of the sages, especially when the nation was established properly and the great court was standing in the place that God chose from which the entire Torah was disseminated to all Israel, but also later when the central Jewish courts were in exile. Wait, what? Was that a full sentence? Oh no, sorry, sorry. Maybe that was the second foundation. Sorry. Yeah, maybe the second foundation started here. Let me let me just go back and read that. Maybe I read it wrong. Uh yeah. Every law derived from a particular inference should also accord with the overall spirit of the Torah. Let me just read try just try reading this paragraph in light of that. This is the second foundation, and it has always been on the minds of the sages, especially when the nation was established properly and the great court was standing in the place that God chose, from which the entire Torah was disseminated to all of Israel, but also later when the central Jewish courts were in exile. That is, so long as the process of law was determined from the source of the written Torah, whose interpretive avenues are vast, and the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah can be interpreted would require great discernment to avoid deviating from the proper path. The second foundation meant that they would always consider the value of the good effect that would result from the meticulous fulfillment of the commandment because of their interpretation. And then it becomes all the more legitimized when it manages to preserve meticulous adherence to the words and letters of the Torah and all the while brings about additional positive guidance or some beneficial principle for the nation as a whole in its material and moral ways and also in the strength of its political life. Okay, so my understanding of this, I'm gonna say my understanding, and then if you there's a question brewing in your mind based on what we did earlier, then you can ask it because I think there should be a question here. So the second reason is the way Halacha was meant to be legislated, is that that uh the meticulous details should contribute to our development and refinement uh and the improvement of society and be in line with the spirit and uh uh and and objectives of the Torah. Okay. So therefore sorry, therefore the more meticulously you observe these details, the more you will actualize uh the purpose, uh the you know, the the objectives of the Torah. Okay, so the analogy I would give here is like if you are an Olympic athlete and you're training, okay, so theoretically, everything that you're doing is uh you're doing a lot of stuff that's very, very detailed oriented and very strict, like whether it's your diet or your sleeping or your techniques or your exercises or your stretching. Um, but the thing is, is that since all of it is um is is geared towards athletic excellence and winning the gold, so you the more you lean into those details, the more the entire regimen will have this beneficial effect on you. So it's not to say that every single detail will do that at all times. And Ruf Cook in his explanations of the reasons for mittos, even goes so far as to say that like there are mittos where the reasons serve a purpose in a certain era and then stop serving a purpose for another era and then start serving another purpose for a different era. So he's not saying that every single detail will serve a purpose at every single time, but I think what he's saying is like in general, when Halacha is being legislated from the Sanhedrin and they're going for the written Torah, they will try to make sure that all the details are in the spirit of the of the law, and there will not be these like empty details that are floating around that don't actually do that. And therefore, the more you keep these, then the more they're gonna contribute to the purposes of the Torah in you. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:39:56

I don't know if I'm right, but doesn't this contradict the whole tier three thing?

SPEAKER_00 1:40:00

Okay, good. So that's that's what I was uh that's what I was gonna ask here. Uh or that's what I was gonna uh hope that you asked. Um, okay, so let me go back and answer our questions, and then I'll ask that as a question on here. Okay, so we said, what is the value of instilling obedience to particulars, and can't it be harmful to instill the value of obeying arbitrary particulars? And how are we supposed to relate to these uh areas? So, in my own words, I would say um that according to Ruf Cook, um uh the observance of all particulars, even the arbitrary ones, um instills uh covod for Hashem, which is beneficial for our individual development and for society. Okay, and um to the extent that Halacha is being legislated uh correctly by the Sanhedrin, um those particulars will be imbued with the maximum degree of Torah philosophy uh and help guide you toward its objectives. Okay, so then Hoody's question is doesn't this contradict the Rambam's statement about how the particulars um uh how how there are there are particulars that have no reasons and that seeking such reasons uh is insane. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:41:43

I just wonder if it actually also contradicts tier two, because in a way it's saying that these details are the essence, are in a way the essence of them is also no?

SPEAKER_00 1:41:53

So the way I see how you can say that. I think though that what he would say is that tier two, so the tier two reasons that are um in line with the primary purpose, he definitely find you know that he definitely be on board with. But let's say like shita, okay, that shita, you know, the way that we do shritha promotes uh mercy, okay. Or when the Torah, I gave the example last time about how when the Torah was selecting the uh the four species, it ruled out um oleander because it's noxious, and the Torah wants to promote the idea that all of its ways are are pleasant, uh its ways are ways of pleasantness and all of its paths are peace. Or um there is another um uh what do you call it? Um I had another example in mind. Um but in other words, the tier two reasons that don't serve the primary purpose still promote Torah values. In other words, it's not like there there are certain things that don't promote Torah values, or sorry, that don't promote the values of the thing. So let's say uh I don't know why this example came to mind, but like think of anything in American modern life where you have to deal with bureaucracy, like the DMV, you know, like what's the purpose of the DMV? The purpose of the DMV is to facilitate safe and efficient travel. But think of all the dumb stuff you have to do with the DMV that does not contribute to that goal in any way, like just like total bureaucratic nonsense. It does not fill you with this spirit of, oh, I'm going to be, I'm going to become a better driver. Like it's just pure bureaucracy. So I think Ruff Cook would say that these areas of the Torah that are we're calling a tier two, you know, still promote you, or you know, ideally prompt you towards in in have having Torah values.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:40

No, but sorry, wasn't it just like he's saying maybe I'm misunderstanding? I thought he was saying that the reasons, right? Um, all the reasons actually um make the mitzvah what it is, right? And you need them for the mitzvah to be.

SPEAKER_00 1:43:57

I don't think he's saying that far. I don't think he's saying that far. I think he's saying that when the chazal would legislate the Torah property, properly, I mean, they would always consider the value of the good effect that would result from the meticulous fulfillment of the commandment because of their interpretation. In other words, when they were implementing, when they were ext expanding on the Torah laws, they would try to craft the laws in ways that are facilitating the Torah's ideals. Not that they're all necessary.

SPEAKER_08 1:44:25

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 1:44:26

Yeah. Um uh and that that it would be beneficial for the nation as a whole, you know. Like I'll give you an example of this, okay? Mitso Sipu Yutis Mitzraim is so that we um is so that we um uh you know pass on all the ideas of uh and and and keep the memory alive of of those events, okay. But instituted four cups of wine, okay. Why derichiru, so that we feel free, okay? So that is beneficial and enhancing our involvement because now we feel free. And then they legislated that even a poor person who ordinarily can't afford wine must go out of his way to buy wine so that he can drink and feel free. So that's promoting that we want to extend this feeling of freedom to everyone in the nation, not just to like the people who can afford it, you know. Um, so like that that's an example of like it was a durabanan. And and are we saying that it's necessary? No, but it is beneficial in the way that they legislated it. And I think that's true of all durabanans. Or I think that's what he's saying. Yeah, Rakheli.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:26

Um, could you scroll up back to where you were a minute ago?

SPEAKER_00 1:45:31

Uh, how far? Um here?

SPEAKER_01 1:45:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:45:35

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:35

I don't really see how it contradicts it because I don't see how he's necessarily saying everything has reasons, but that no, right. The observance is still instilling covered. And like the thing that I keep thinking of in relation to this is like not something specific, but I feel like in the realm of like martial arts, there's a lot of like rituals where like you have like a master who's like super like gentle and meticulous with everything he does, and he's like doing all these ritual actions, and there's just like an like an aura of like intense like devotion, and like that has like a meaningful aspect, even though you might not say like he's pouring water now to like symbolize this like crazy.

SPEAKER_00 1:46:20

I don't know, like it still just like has so it's funny you said that because when I was going over this with my harusa, then I I used that exact example of in in Japan, then they have a lot of ritualistic things, not because they're all symbolically significant, but because they want the entire thing to have uh like a certain gravitas uh for for the um you know to for for for the sake of the entire uh for for the sake of the of the generalities, not for the sake of the particulars. Okay, we're already way past time. I just want to do one last step, okay, which is I want to show you that the Ramam acknowledges this idea as well. Okay, I'm not saying that the Ram and Rafkok are the same, but uh at the end of every section of the Ram, sorry, not every section, at the end of most sections of the Ramam uh in the Mishnah Torah, he gives some philosophy and especially at the end of his books. So at the end of say for Kidusha, at the end of Shita, ironically, he has the mitzvokisuihedam. Okay, so the mitzvok of Kisu Hadam is mitsubs to say lachasos dam shita shaya tohora v Oftahor. So mitzvos to say to cover the blood of the shafting of a wild animal that is kosher or a kosher bird. Okay, so you need to just cover the blood. All right, so there's all these hologs you couldn't need to cover it with dirt. All right. So at the very end, he says, U misher shakat, someone who shakes, who yi chase, he is the one who should cover it. Oh, sorry, that's not it. Ukshimchase, when he covers it, Lo ychase baraglo elabiado, obasakin obakli. You should not cover it with your foot, but rather with your hand or with the knife or with a tool, okay, like a shovel. Okay, why? Kideshalo yinhag minhag bizion vimitsvos, vihu mit bezuyos alaf. So that you should not act in a degrading manner towards the mittos, so that the mitzvous will be degrading to you. Okay, now why who cares? Who cares if you're degrading the mitzvous? And hologically, you do fulfill the mitzvah if you use your foot. So, like, why does it matter? Why does God care if you use your foot or your or your hand? Okay, answer covod la atzman shall mitzvah. The covod is not for the mitzvous themselves, but it's for the one who commanded them. Blessed is he. God saved us from groping around in darkness. And he set up for them, for Israel, a lamp to straighten their actions, and a light to instruct them on the paths of uprightness. A lamp, it says until him, uh, a lamp to my feet is your word and a light for my paths. So, in other words, why does God, so to speak, care about how you do Kisu Hadam? Not because there's a primary reason, but because if you relate to it in a disrespectful way, like you just kick it with your foot, you're gonna end up relating to the mitzvos as a disrespectful thing, and that will diminish your covod of Hashem. So you should do it in a way that brings covod to Hashem in your mind in order to recognize that God bestowed all these mitzvs which are beneficial to you. So I think that's very much in line with what Ruf Cook is saying. The way you should view all meticulous observance of all the mitzvos is to insult this covod, because if not, then you're gonna relate to it in a disrespectful way, and then that's gonna diminish your respect for Hashem. Okay, so again, not to not equing refer uh sorry, uh, Ruf Kuch with the Ramam, but I think that those two are in line. Okay, that's what I wanted to accomplish in this shear. Next level will be uh, God willing, if I give this as a Sunday shear, which will probably be in September. Uh, because the next Sunday shear, I don't want to give this. Um, but uh hopefully I'll take it to a new level then. But thank you for going on this exploration with me. And uh, we will not be having another Thursday night shear until sometime after Pesach. Okay, so uh uh if you have uh you know Pesoch related questions, feel free to ask it in the chat. Uh, because I always could use those for Pesock Prep. Okay, have a good night, everyone. Thanks for coming.

SPEAKER_04 1:50:16

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07 1:50:18

Thank you.