Four Entered the Pardes: An Exploration With An Agenda

Length: 1 hour 35 minutes
Synopsis: Tonight (6/4/26), in our Thursday night Machshavah Lab series for women, was not a shiur but an exploration with an agenda (which I explain toward the beginning and won't divulge here). We read the famous aggadah about the four Tannaim who entered Pardes - R. Akiva, Acher, Ben Zoma, and Ben Azzai - along with several other sources that comment directly or indirectly on it. Our goal was not to conduct a comprehensive analysis, but to read through the facts and think aloud about what we were reading. We certainly accomplished that goal. What remains to be done is to fully develop an understanding of the fate met by each of the four in a manner that enlightens us about the correct and incorrect paths to truth.
-----
מקורות:
תלמוד בבלי חגיגה דף יד עמוד ב
רמב"ם - פירוש המשניות חגיגה ב:א
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים א:לא-לב
רשב"ץ - פירוש להגדה של פסח: ארבעה בנים
-----

The Torah content for this month has been sponsored by Meir Areman, l'zeicher nishmas Zelda bas Ziesel, his grandmother, whose yahrzeit is on the 21st of Sivan.

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]

Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | Instagram

Podcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah Podcast

WhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Okay, so this is a not a shear. This is an exploration. All right. Um, and I have an agenda. All right. So um the agenda is that uh I have been asked to deliver the graduation charge at the uh 2026 NIJA graduation. And um it was very um sort of like I don't know why. I I knew very early on what I wanted to speak about, and it was this. But and I know I know why I want to speak about this, but I don't know what this is. Okay. So um so what we're gonna do is um is what I have envisioned for tonight is again, I don't have a shear. I have been through these sources um with several people, and I have like some thoughts. Uh, but uh the the goal is to go through the sources and then just discuss them. And I'm telling you the context because because you'll see, I'll I'll summarize after we do the very first source um why this is gonna be the topic of my graduation charge. Um, but if you I'm telling you the context so you know where I'm going that I do have an agenda and also so that if you have any thoughts that are graduation chargey, you know, then you can uh you can you can share those thoughts. Okay. Um also PSA, um, the translations here, I did my normal process minus one step. Okay, meaning this is not translated by Claude. This is translated by me and then checked by Claude, but I did not vet it after that. I didn't have time. Okay. Um, and then when we get to the more, then that's the the Claude synthesis. Okay, so I did I did these are from my original translations, but I may dispute them. Um okay, so uh this is the midrash that or the uh agattah in Hagiga Daf Yudal Ahmad Bez. We'll see the context uh that uh we'll see the Mishnah that this is commenting on, but since this is the focus, then I wanted to start on this. Okay, so um uh okay, so here we go. All right, Tanurbanan. It was taught in a Braissa, are baa nichnasu ba pardes, or a lot of them have la parades, for inter parties, and pardes is uh I think the translation is the orchard. Um, I think some people speculate that it's related to the Greek uh to the word paradise and comes from the Greek, um, and uh Eluhane, and these were they now I'll pause here and say that there are you know two very different approaches to this Gemara. There are those Rishonim who say that pardeis is a metaphor for a certain area of knowledge. Okay, so we'll see how the Raman defines it later on, but just to you know, uh just to spoil it in advance, Ram says it's Ma'ase Merkava and Maase Breshis, okay, which is the work of the chariot and the work of creation. Ramam will define that, we'll let him do that. But the point is, is that at this point, then you know, uh, there's the approach that this is an area of uh of knowledge. Then there's the whole mystical experience approach, okay? That this was some sort of mystical experience, some sort of mystical journey, some sort of meditation, some sort of like ascent to the heavens, all right. Um, and there are approaches uh like that. And that is said by the Rishonim. This is this is not just some uh you know uh Kabbalistic New Age stuff, all right. So we are not taking that approach because we are gonna focus. Uh my whole graduating charge is not about the dangers of meditation, uh, it's about um it's about knowledge. So we're gonna take that approach um and we'll see what the knowledge is. But this is uh code word for knowledge, okay. Veluhane, here, here these were they, okay. Ben Azai, Ubenzoma, Akher, Viribiya Kiva. Okay, so these are four great Tanaim, Ben Azai and Benzoma. Uh their name is not Ben, obviously. Uh, their names are Shimon Ben Aze and Shimon Benzoma. There's all the speculation as to why we don't call them by their first names. Um, the simplest explanation is that they both died young. Um, and so they're they're like, you know, they didn't form a chain of like uh, you know, progeny and generations or whatever. Okay. And then Akher is means the other one, okay, and that is a nickname for Elisha bin Avuya, who was the Rebbe of Rebbe Mir. Rabbi Mir is one, arguably one of the top Tanaim uh who ever existed in terms of like his genius. And Akher is called Akher, the other one, because he became, as we'll see, he became a heretic, okay? Um, and Rubi Akiva continued to learn with Akher, and uh, and that was a controversial thing. Um, and uh he tried to get Akher to do Chuva, and then there's Rubi Akiva. Okay, so um so the first statement we are not gonna touch, we're just gonna read most mystifying statement. Rubi Akiva, oh sorry, uh yeah, Umrlaim Rubi Kiva. Rubikiva said to them, Keshe atemagin itsel avne shaish tahor, all tomru maim maim, mishum shnemar dovershakarim lo yikon lenegade nai. When you reach the stones of pure marble, do not say water, water, because it is stated in Tahilim 101017, one who speaks falsehood will not be established before my eyes. Now you can see why people think that this is a mystical vision, right? Like, you know, I don't know how they account for the fact that the mystical vision is like an actual thing that they're all experiencing together. But when you get to the these uh these stones, don't say water, water. Okay, but we don't I don't know what that is. Presumably, according to the Raman, it has something to do with knowledge. Okay, now what happened to each one of them? Okay. Um, and I uh those of you who have heard about this before may have a memory of it and it may clash with what it actually says. Okay, and I'm gonna express to you how I remember this and then what it actually says. Um, and uh, and the clash is shocking to me, okay, in some cases. Okay. Ben Azai uh Heitzitz Vam Mais. Ben Azai glanced and died. Okay, that part I remember. Ben Azai is the one who died, okay. Um Allah Hakasu Vomir about him, the Pasuk says, Yakar be'ine Hashem Hamavza Lakasi Dav. That part I did not remember. Okay, precious in the eyes of Hashem is the death of his pious ones. So the reason why that's a little strange to me is because I you you'll see from the story, it does not seem like this death was a good thing, yet he's being described as pious, and his death is being described as precious in Hashem's eyes. So, like, what does that mean? Okay, so that's that's an open question. Okay, then um Benzoma hatits vinifka. Benzoma glanced. Now, if you look at the Gemara, um uh hold on just a second.

SPEAKER_03 6:21

I do not have an Alhatora thingy open. Hold on, just a second. My my windows are all weird.

SPEAKER_02 6:29

Okay. Um if you look at the Gemara, and I the only reason I'm not doing Rashi is because Rashi uh is uh is confusing here. Uh unclear. I'll show you what Rashi says, but we're we're not gonna take you'll see why I'm not taking Rashi uh as our approach. Hold on.

SPEAKER_03 6:45

A little slow. Khagiga is in Moeid at the end 14b.

SPEAKER_02 6:53

Okay, so uh so Rashi says Nikmus Lepartis, Allu La Rakia al Y de Shane. They ascended to the firmament through a name, through a divine name. Okay, so whether you say that that is Rashi saying some sort of like mystical experience, or whether you say that that's Rashi having code word for knowledge, unknown. And you know, we you gotta remember we also don't know a ton. Rashi did not, Rashi was in northern France during the Crusades. He did not write a lot of explicit metaphysics. Okay, so uh I don't know what Rashi holds. Um, okay, but then he says, uh uh Hitzit Litzad Hashinah, he gazed towards the Shina. The Nifka, so I think this is how people remember this nitrafa dato, his mind became scrambled. Okay, so or as people say, he went crazy, okay. But strictly speaking, nifgah, a pega is a is an affliction or a uh not affliction, a I mean yeah, it's translated as affliction sometimes, or a a to be struck, okay. Uh like uh but even by Yaqov, Yif Gaba Makom, he uh encountered the place, okay? An encounter, all right. So he was he was encountered, okay. Um okay, so that's what it says there. Um the all of Hakasovomer, and regarding him, the Pasuk says, Devash Matsasa echol dayaka pentisba ennu bahaak so uh it says in Mishlay 2516, if you have found honey, eat what is sufficient for you, lest you become satiated and vomited out. Okay, and if you're interested in that pasuk, we just did four consecutive Mishleish called Muser for Winnie the Pooh, uh, about um Mishle is talking about uh warnings about eating honey, okay, and encouraging you to eat honey. Um, and there's some overlap between that and this year. Okay, fine. That was this morning that we finished it. Okay, fine. So that's that. And then Akher Kitsitz binitios. Akher mutilated the shoots. Okay, oh sorry, I forgot to read Rashi. Hold on. Uh we need to read Rashi. Okay. Uh Akher mutilated the shoots, the Nitios, the saplings, okay. Uh, and it doesn't quote a Pasuk. Um, Rabi Akiva Yatsubashalam. Rabbi Akiva left in peace. Okay, now I'm gonna say here also there is a um actually I'm I'll just say this here. Uh okay, when I first sat down to like work on this for this graduation charge, I realized that there's a whole Nidrashic literature about each of these figures, okay? And there is a book. I'll do I haven't done a book commercial in a while. Hold on.

SPEAKER_03 9:15

Um wait, I just gotta find out where I put the book. Um I'll just pull it up on this. Uh The Crowns on the Letters by Ari Khan. I wish we had to spell Khan. Oh, Khan like that. Um shopping.

SPEAKER_02 9:37

This book, The Crowns on the Letters, uh live uh essays on Agata and the Lives of the Sages. So he does this really cool thing where he takes um uh individual Tanaim and he tries to bring down all of the Agatos, all of the non-Halachic teachings about them, all the anecdotes, all the you know, just the profiles in all of the sources, and then he he weaves a portrait of them based on how they're depicted in in uh chazal. He doesn't incorporate every one of them, but he does have an appendix where he puts the ones that he doesn't incorporate. So, for example, he has a chapter about uh Ben Azai, and he calls Ben Azai, uh he calls the chapter the many lives, the lives and deaths of ben Azai, because there is this midrash that says he died in the parades. There's another midrash that says that he died, uh, he was a martyr, that he was killed by by people who are uh persecuting the Jews. Um, and then you know, there's all this literature about Ben Azai is the I don't I don't know if he's the only Tana, but he's famous for uh, according to most uh uh views, never getting married. Okay. And when they said, Why didn't you get married? He said basically that my soul desires Torah. And then there's another midrash that says that he married Ruby Kiva's daughter, and then basically like was oblivious to Puru Uravu and then divorced her. So there's all this like lore, midrashic lore about each of them. There's another chapter about Akher and about his apostasy, what made him become an aphorist? What's the whole thing about Ruby Kiva trying to uh Ruby Mir trying to get him to do Chuva? And then obviously there's a lot of midrash about Ruby Mir. Then Zoma, I'm not exactly sure if there's a bunch. So if so initially I was gonna like try to learn all the agattas on each of these people, and then like put together the picture, and like, nah, we're just gonna focus on this source. So we're gonna try to not bring in sources from outside of this. But the reason I'm bringing this up now is because uh Akir mutilated the shoots. There is a um a uh an opinion that says that this means that he killed young Tamidikamin. Okay. Uh, and the imagery I'm getting here is Anakin Skywalker uh slaughtering the uh the young Jedi. Okay. Um, but even that might not be literal. That might be that he corrupted them with his heresy, you know? So so but we're gonna assume that that that all these things have to do with their knowledge, okay? Um, and uh yeah, and Ribakiva left in peace, and there's uh it doesn't quote a positive for him either. Okay, so let's again the goal is to explore this. I I think asking questions will be good, but I don't know if we're gonna answer all the questions. So the main question is obviously um what is going on here? Hold on just a second here. Um space. Okay, so the main question is what is going on here? Okay, um, uh, and then like uh what happened to each of these Tanayan? Uh and what are we supposed to learn from that? Okay, what are the other questions?

SPEAKER_06 12:33

Just a textual question. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 12:35

Are the second like when it says that they looked at something and then this happened to them, does that have to do with what Ruby Akiva warned them about?

SPEAKER_02 12:44

Oh good question. Yeah. So um, to what extent is the second clause related to the fates suffered by each of them? Okay. Uh were they they gazing at what Ruby Akiva warned them about? Um now I have not seen people say that. I think it's a reasonable reading of the of the sequencing here, um, but I have not seen people say that. So we're gonna assume that they didn't, but that is a good question to ask. Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_05 13:14

Um just to clarify, are we um just going with in terms of like I guess I guess I have the question of like what is parties? Or are we just gonna box it as like Yeah, no, we'll we'll ask that.

SPEAKER_02 13:27

Yeah, what is uh okay, what is pardays, okay? Um, and uh um such that that these things happened to these great haumim. Yeah. Uh so that that's the angle that we're gonna take it, is not to try to get to the roots of like the parameters of what parties is. I that was not a uh um arboreal pun. Um, but uh um we're not gonna try to figure out like the parameters, but we need to understand it enough to be able to understand what happened to them. Yeah, Yala.

SPEAKER_04 14:00

What why did each of these people enter into parties and what was their plan and what was their mistake?

SPEAKER_02 14:06

Okay, good. Right. So what wrong?

SPEAKER_04 14:07

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 14:08

What um why why did these four enter into parties um uh in the first place? Oops sorry, parties in the first place, okay. What was their plan? What was their their mistake, okay, uh if they even made a mistake? Uh yeah, Tamara.

SPEAKER_05 14:30

Um what's the applicability to the people who are not applicable parties?

SPEAKER_02 14:35

That's a great question. And that is the uh that is the question that will uh unlock the graduation charge, right? So um to what extent are the lessons here relevant to people who are not going into the parties, right? Um and um and like uh and and how do we apply those lessons? Yeah, Rivka?

SPEAKER_00 15:00

All right, please tell me if this is ruining um the class because it's kind of like an answer question thing. So if you don't want me to say it, just let me know. But can we like parallel the parties to like each rabbi? Let's say like shah to you know the rabbi that was unaffected, or like and then yeah, like remis to another rabbi. Can we do that?

SPEAKER_02 15:21

Or so you know the the funny thing is that uh I'll tell you where we're going with this uh later is that the uh the Rajbats, uh, who is one of the very late Rishonim on the Haggadah, applies this to the four sons, okay, in the Haggadah. And I do plan on taking that approach, okay. So I don't think it's a crazy approach. Um, the only thing I would say is that if you're gonna take that approach, then uh we would have to see evidence that that that like you know, we have to see evidence of that. So, for example, you know, there are four approaches to the Sukim. We don't say that if you take Drush, then you go crazy, or if you take Remez, then you become a heretic. You know, like so like like we it can't just be like an arbitrary uh putting of this onto them, which is why with this the four sons thing, I'm a little skeptical of his application to the four sons, but he has a good internal logic. Um, so there needs to be something compelling about it. So I would not rule that out, but like it would there would need to be uh some some reason for doing it, you know, or some you need to be substantiated somehow, um, either with evidence or reasoning or preferably both. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_04 16:26

I don't think this is included in question one, but why it maybe why did each one get their respective consequence?

SPEAKER_02 16:33

Yeah, okay, right.

SPEAKER_03 16:34

Um, so um uh yeah, I guess that yeah, right.

SPEAKER_02 16:39

So um what was it about each one that that resulted in this consequence? Okay. Um another question is um, and we're gonna list this question, then ignore it. You'll see why. Okay. What um what uh do these uh psukim add? Okay, and why are there only psukim for um for two of them? Okay. Um I'll explain later on why we're gonna ignore that question. Uh not totally ignore it, but we're gonna we're not gonna take it as seriously as we we ordinarily would. Okay, I think those are pretty good questions for now. Okay. Um so rather than try to figure this out on our own, uh, let us move on. Okay, so this is a Gemara, and the Gemara is on this Mishnah, all right. Uh so this is the Mishnah in Khagiga 2.1, all right. Uh so the Mishnah says uh in Dorshin Ba Arayus Bishlosha. One may not expound on Arayos, which you know, I I always loosely translate as sexual prohibitions, but really the technical definition is the sexual prohibitions from the Torah that are liable for karas in partial, okay? But and I don't know halochically where this applies. I don't know if it's specifically those or if it's just the generic sense. Okay, fine. Uh, but we're not talking about that anyway. Veloba Masa Breshis Bishnaim, you're not allowed to expound on Masa Breshis, which literally means the work of creation with two students, okay, meaning you can only expound on it with one. And then veloba merkava, but yaqi, you're not allowed to expound on Masemerkava, the work of the chariot, even with one. Ella inken haya chakam umavin midato, unless he is wise and understands from his own mind. So we'll see from the Raman, practically what that means is that um is that uh, you know, again, so with Masebre's, no, with not with two, but you can do it with one. And with Mas Merkava, not even with one, meaning you can't even teach him directly. You have to just you're gonna we're gonna see that you have to allude to him and he has to be able to figure it out on his own without you telling him. Okay. All right, that's clause number one. Clause number two, call him is takel ba arba devarim. Anyone who uh gazes at four things, and there's another word for gazes, okay, which is um uh the word meistakel means to gaze, but also to contemplate. Um, so here it's it clearly means to contemplate. Anyone who contemplates four things, ro ilok, ilulobala olam, it's a strange phrase, and the Ramam's version is even stranger. It says Ratuilo. Uh, but the the Luce's way, not Luce's way, the the most all-encompassing way to translate it is it would be better for him had he not come into the world. Okay, so as we would say, better if you were never born. All right. So if you gave us four things, what are they? Mala mala, malamata, malfanim, umala chur. What is above, what is below, what is before, and what is after. Okay. And if you want a good interpretation of that, I gave I I accidentally came up with one uh last night in my talem shear. All right. Last clause, al-kavodkono, anyone who does not have regard for the honor of his creator, roilo shlow balaolam. It would have been better for him if he had not come into the world. Okay. Um, now, uh, because this is an exploration and not a shear, and because we have a lot of sources to get through, I actually don't want to analyze this the way that we usually do. But if you have, I just want to go straight to the Roman's commentary and we're gonna treat that as the text here. But if you um and again, this is again, this is just exploration, we're just learning this together. We're not gonna dissect everything the way we do in Piero K albos, but if you have questions, ask them because I'm the goal here is to to think this through out loud with other people. Okay, that's what that's what I want to do with with you guys. Okay. Um, so we're again not not aiming to like ask all the questions and answer all the questions. Okay. Um, but obviously the qu the basic questions are we need to understand what is Master Gracius, what is Master Markava, why are these restrictions on how you teach them, what are these four things? What does it mean better if you never uh were uh came into the world? Um, and uh and what does it mean they don't have regard for your creator? Okay, okay, so Ramam explains. Uh, and again, this is Kafakh's Hebrew translation of the Judeo-Arabic. My translation of Kafich checked by Claude. Okay, so I'm gonna read it in the English and uh and we'll we'll see if we need to correct anything. So Ram says he stated that it is prohibited to expound on the sistra arrios. Okay, so it's not even a raios, it's the esoteric knowledge of the sexual prohibitions, which my understanding of that is certain intricacies um within the sexual prohibitions, and and most likely it's gonna be things that are leniencies, right? Uh, because being stricter is not gonna be dangerous, but being lenient is we're talking about something that's high caris, right? So he says, so why can you not talk about them with less um uh sorry, with uh uh with sorry, uh in I always have to think this through. We don't dark them with three, meaning you can only do it with two students, okay? Why you can only talk about it with two? Why? He says the reason for this is to prevent a situation in which one of them is involved in discussion with a Rav and the other two are involved in a discussion with one another, and their minds become distracted and they do not know the correct law in the cis arrayos. Due to the desire that most people have in this area, they will not be careful if they are in doubt about something that they heard from the Rav and they will decide leniently. Okay, so again, this happens in in groups uh of of uh of four when you're learning, is you you end up in splitting into two groups. So you've got the Rav talking with the Talmud, and you've got two of the Talmud talking with each other, and they're gonna miss something, and then they're gonna end up ruling leniently, right? But the interesting thing is. What is the uh this is not a trick question, just a uh nuance question. What is the cause of their mistake? According to the wrong idea.

SPEAKER_06 22:15

Yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_05 22:18

I feel like it's an intellectual mistake, but then their judgment is clouded with realizing that they're not sure.

SPEAKER_02 22:24

Okay, good. So it starts off as an intellectual, not even an intellectual mistake, just an intellectual doubt, okay. But then the desire comes rushing in because people want this to be mutter, they want it to be permissible, and then that's that's the danger here. Okay, so just hold that in the back of your mind because it's not an accident that that is the first um halacha in this Mishnah. Okay, again, stop me if you have questions here. We're just gonna learn through this together, okay? Okay, he said, nor masabreshis with two, and certainly not with more than two. Now he he's not actually not gonna define this right now, he's gonna define it in a little a little bit later. The sages said on the Pasuk, when you inquire of the early days, Ki ishaalha, uh uh sorry, um oh, Kishaal Naliamim Rishonim. When you inquire about the earlier days, okay, and that's a code word earlier days is for for the creation. Um, one may inquire, but to me now inquire. So they they give a um uh an inference, they make an inference from sha'al is singular. So when when one inquires, okay, literally, all right, but to me now inquire. We've already explained the reason for this in our introduction to this composition, namely that it is impossible for the masses to understand these concepts. They were only transmitted from individual to individual, right? So this is, you know, again, uh not gonna go into the whole thing of Kabbalah here, but you know, if you're going to say what Kabbalah is according to everyone, this is in the Mishnah, okay? So whatever you hold like the Zohar is or Luriana Kabbalah or Chasidus, like those are all like later developments. This is what like Khazala didn't call it Kabbalah, because Kabbalah in Khazala means tors walpah, but this is like the air, the esoteric areas of tors walpeh that are not meant to be learned by everyone, okay. So Masabreshis is one of those subjects. Um, uh, so they're not for everyone. Okay, the sages were cautious about them because very few of the masses would understand them. If a fool hears them, his beliefs will become confused and he will think that they contradict the truth, though they are in reality the truth. Okay, now that's an interesting thing, also, is that uh you're gonna think that they are false, okay? And one of the reasons I'm picking this as a graduation charge is because I just got done teaching today, just got done teaching my EOF curriculum to the students. And look, it is there are ideas like this in this curriculum. And you might ask, well, why are you teaching it to uh high school students? Well, because my boss told me to, but also because there is a certain ace lasos lashem, heyfer to saca, according to my understanding. I've checked this with several of my Rubbane, that like that, first of all, if this were uh an era before the printing press and and when information was hard and like the only way to get exposed to these ideas was through your ROV, so then it's the Rav's decision whether to talk to talk about these things or not. But nowadays, everything is out there, okay, and all of the heresy is out there. So it still does not mean that everyone is ready for every idea, but I think the situation has changed where if a kid is in high school and this is the last time he's gonna have an opportunity to learn these ideas, which statistically is the case. Like, I don't think he's gonna get people, most people are gonna be teaching the Rambaum on EOV, you know, and a lot of these students are not gonna learn again after high school, right? So better to expose them to these ideas in a responsible way in a controlled format over the course of a year than to like let them just go out and have their brains uh scrambled by people, you know. But even when I'm teaching these things, this has happened. This happened today, okay. That like a student thought that the Ramam was basically advocating deism, okay? Uh, and I had to explain why not, okay, because you know, and then they think that's contradicting the truth, right? So again, it's very, very, very uh risky business here. Okay. Okay. But then he says, but we do not expound on Master Kava at all, even to an individual, because he is wise and uh sorry, unless he is wise and understands from his own mind. This refers to one, I'm gonna switch into the uh Hebrew here, who shemis orer um ha inyanim meatmo. He awakens himself and understands these concepts on his own, the inu tsarh levarilo, and you don't need to explain it to him. You allude to him, you hint at him through allusions, who lomed Vedan alpha, uh, and he learns and draws conclusions on his own. Okay, Zehu Inyan Umram Shonimlo Rashia Prakim. This is what the Gummar means when it says you teach him the chapter heads, okay, just little like um uh notes. Okay, now this is this, okay, people okay, there's two schools of thought about the Ramam. Okay, either the Ramam was not a mystic or he was a mystic. Okay, now what does that mean? Certainly he was not a mystic in the sense that he believed in in uh in you know all the supernatural occult stuff that some mystics are associated with. And certainly he was not a mystic in the sense that he believed that you should accept things that are irrational, okay? That is evident from everything that the ramam writes, okay. But in what sense is he a mystic? Well, part of mysticism is encountering ineffable truths, truths that you cannot put into language or cannot grasp in normal human concepts. And this to me is the strongest line that indicates that in the Ramam. And I would not call it Ramam a mystic, but I I would I do hold this. He says, Because there are certain concepts, hanech kakim bin nafjos ha shlamim mibineadam, which are engraved in the souls of perfected human beings, ukishamas birim osam biloshon, and when they are explained verbally, um osam bimashalim, and they are rendered into allegories, their meaning becomes diluted, or that's actually a play on words because tam means meaning, but it also means taste. Okay, so their taste or their meaning becomes diluted, vyotza in mi inyanan, and they depart from their subjects. Okay, so let me just before you might have heard me explain this before, but what do you think he means by this? There are certain concepts which are engraved in the souls of perfected human beings, and when they are explained verbally and rendered into allegories, their meaning becomes diluted and they depart from their subject. Yes, Mar.

SPEAKER_05 28:17

I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but I I think it means that language is a certain medium of communication and it's it's a format, and so there might be things that are true that are not really subject to that format.

SPEAKER_02 28:31

Okay, good. That is definitely he's saying that this exceeds not all truths can be conveyed in language, and this exceeds the tool of language. Yeah. Okay, that's good. Anyone else have any uh uh possible insights into what he might mean here? So I'll give a spec uh speculation, okay. Um so there is a concept uh which we've talked about in our Eoshir, I think, um, or maybe not actually, concept called a uh muskal reshon or a first principle. Uh this is not first principle in the tech pro sense of like first principles thinking. This is philosophical first principle, which is ideas that are that we can't account for how they get into the mind, and they also cannot be defined. It's just the way our mind thinks. Okay. So one first principle, some first principles are are rules of logic, like the law of non-contradiction. It's just a thing in our mind that like the mind does not accept contradictions as like there's something wrong about that. Or or uh other thing is certain definitions, like my favorite uh definition or my favorite example of this is the concept of a part and a whole, okay, that there is no way for you to define in words what you mean by part without somehow referencing a whole. And there's no way to talk about a whole without somehow referencing a part, okay? Or numbers. There's no way for you to define numbers or essence and accident. Okay, these are all things that just are in the human mind, different theories about where they come from. You know, Plato held that they came from the soul before it entered into the body. Aristotle held that you abstract them from sense experience at a very early age. Um, but they're just in the mind, and you cannot not think of them and you cannot deny them. They're they're truly self-evident, not like Thomas Jefferson himself. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. No, that's not self-evident. Look at all the people who deny that, right? Uh, and still deny that, right? But self-evident means it's literally impossible to think the opposite. So you literally cannot think that a part is bigger than a whole. It just does not compute. You know, you literally cannot think, um, even Christians cannot think that three equals one, okay? Um, uh, as the Rambahn pointed out to Pablo Christiani. Okay. So that's a first principle. So my theory is that first principles are concepts that we all have that are ineffable, that but we know to be true. There are certain ideas that if you get to a certain stage of knowledge within a subject, certain ideas form in your mind that have that same quality that you cannot put them into words because that would dilute them or or or limit them in ways that that like um that compare them to other things. You know, that's what using words is, is you're trying to use language about stuff that like doesn't apply to this strictly speaking, which is why, by the way, a lot of these areas uh uh ideas are are best expressed in poetry, okay? Because poetry is not prose. You're not actually trying to describe the thing, you're trying to convey a sense of the thing, uh, but it's not pure poetry artistically. You know, you are trying to like get to concepts. Yeah, uh Ayala.

SPEAKER_04 31:30

And our very off report here this morning, we were reading the Rav's um has to phrase uncle, and he talks about his uncle in this way, kind of like words can't talk to his essence. He gives a four-hour speech about how words can't actually be just.

SPEAKER_01 31:41

Yeah, that's good. That's good.

SPEAKER_02 31:42

Yeah, I got I gotta check that here out, uh or uh that at least the text out, but yeah, yeah, that's good. Um so that's my theory, and I cannot prove it, and I can't even prove that the Ramam holds this, but um, but that that uh uh and I look, I imagine, and again it's totally based on my imagination. I imagine that there are certain concepts in physics, okay, that like let's say okay, string theory, right? Or light being a particle or a wave, right? That none of these things are actually string or particles or waves. The mind is getting at something, and like the most you can do is you say, well, it's like this in one way and like this in another way, but you can't actually like convey it. Okay, I don't know if that's the best analogy or not. Okay. So that's what so in other words, like this. So what we get from the here is it's not that it when when the wrong says you you you're not allowed to teach it explicitly, it's not that you could teach it explicitly, but you are prevented from doing so. It's that it's impossible to teach it explicitly, and therefore it's user to try. Okay. And the most you can do is to give them the hints, and apparently, even the hints are subject to some sort of uh danger here, you know, um, because you could draw the wrong conclusion. Okay. But why is this such a disastrous, uh, you know, like a dangerous thing? So that's now he defines each of these uh concepts, okay? Uh these subjects. Listen to what has become clear to me, according to my own understanding from my the my study of the words of the sages. They coined the phrase masa brees to refer to the natural sciences and the study of the origin of creation. Now let's pause here for a second. Okay, this is a classic question that I think is asked as early as the run in the Drusha Saran. I think it's the first Drasha. That what does this mean? Does it mean if you open up a biology textbook, then you're studying this Usar area? No. Does it mean that if you study the sun, moon, and the stars, then you're you're in the forbidden area of Masabreshis? No. And how do we know that? Because the Ram includes in the Mishnah Torah two chapters on that, and he calls it Masubreshis. So Masubreshis is not equal to what we call science, but it is a certain area of science or a certain approach to science. Okay, unclear what the Raman holds. And I think the closest thing here is the study of the origin of creation would, we would say, be in that. Like even we recognize that at a certain point in physics uh and cosmology, uh, you get, let's say, when you're talking about like the first moments of creation, you're of the universe, you're getting to a point where where science verges on philosophy, or the line between science and epistemology or science and metaphysics is not so clear. Okay. That's like the area I sense that Master Brecci's is. So it's not like um you can't go to science class. It's that there's a certain area within the study of the natural sciences that is treacherous and only understandable by high level person, and that the masses will get mixed up and think that this is the opposite of the truth. Okay. So I don't know what that is, but that's what Master Bresci says. Okay. Uh and they coin the phrase Masmer Kaba to refer to divine science. That's Chachmas uh where is it? Hadibraha uh no, no, oh yeah, Hamadaha eloki, divine science. Okay, now he lists subjects, okay, and same thing here. Uh okay, well, let's list the subject first. He says, which include the discourses on the totality of existence, the existence of the creator, his knowledge, his attributes, quote unquote, because God doesn't have attributes, but it means his actions, the necessary existence of things existing from him, the angels, the soul, the intellect which cleaves to man, and what comes after death. Okay, so so what do all those things have in common? Well, I don't know the totality of existence. What do these these things have in common?

SPEAKER_06 35:19

Related to God and the true existence.

SPEAKER_02 35:22

Okay, so you could say it's all related to God. That is true, but they could also make the argument that everything is related to God, right? So I think what joins all these things is they all are principally about non-physical existences. Okay. Um God, his knowledge, his attributes, okay, uh, which obviously his attributes pertain to physical existence, but like the relationship between the attributes and God is a non-physical area. Uh the necessary existence of things existing from him, meaning the bond between God and existing things, the angels, the soul, the intellect, the cleaves to the animal comes after death. Okay, so Masm Bracius is the deepest areas of physical study of the physical universe, and then Masimer Kava is the non-physical. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_04 36:07

Just out of curiosity, what do you think he means by the totality of existence?

SPEAKER_02 36:11

Yeah, I don't know. I think what he means is like the nature of the universe. Like, what do we mean by the universe, you know? Um, uh, which is different than the parts of the universe. Like studying the parts of the universe is not in here, but he was trying to say what is the universe, it also forces you to bump up against like, you know, like you talk about this with anyone, or you went through this as a as a as a teenager, like, like what's outside of the universe, and like where's the universe exist in? And by the way, again, you see the Kabbalists make the big mistake of a literalist Simsum saying God had to retract himself to make room for the universe. And they'll say, Well, it's not like literal, it's not literal, but they're trying to grapple in this area of like trying to account for where the universe is in relation to God. And like that's that's danger territory, you know. Um okay, due to the importance of these two sciences, the natural and the divine. Oh, sorry, I meant to say also, again, in the Mishnah Torah, the Ramam says that the first two chapters of the Mishnah Torah are Masa uh Mirkava, and the second two are Masa Breshis. So again, he's he does not mean that if you read the first two uh chapters of the Mishnah Torah, you're violating these halakhas about teaching them, or if he writes it, he says that they're in the subject of Masa Mirkava. So there are things that we can learn about the soul, there are things we can learn about God and the angels and the soul, you know, and and and the intellect, but like there is a the deepest areas of these things are are where we run into these uh uh these prohibitions. Okay. Due to the importance of these two sciences, the natural and the divine, and rightly so did they deem them important, they warned against teaching them as one would teach the other learned sciences. It is known that every person by his nature yearns for all knowledge, whether he's foolish or wise, and it is impossible for a person not to think about these two sciences upon first reflection, applying his thoughts to them without having the prerequisites and without having entered the rungs of knowledge. Therefore, the Mishnah prohibited this and warned about it. The Mishnah spoke in an intimidating manner concerning anyone who applies his thoughts to Master Brachis without prerequisites. As we said, anyone who gazes at four things, okay, which um I think the Ram explains it. If he doesn't, I'll give my explanation. And the Mishnah spoke to deter one who applies his thoughts and reflects on matters of divinity through his simple imagination without having ascended the realms of the sciences, anyone who does not have regard for the honor of his creator. Now, the Ram's gonna go on in a second and elaborate on those, so just let's read on. Um, it would have been better for him to not come into this world. So, what does that mean? So, this is a harsh statement here. The explanation of this is that his absence from humanity and his being a species other than the human uh than the other among the other species of animals would be better for the totality of existence than his being a human being. Okay, in other words, be better if this guy were a cow. A nice cow. Cow's not gonna corrupt anything, okay? Okay, why? For he desires to know something contrary to his developmental course and contrary to his nature. And that's how my translation is of shololafi darko for shalolofi tivo, uh, against his derek and against his nature. Okay. So, what does that mean? For no one imagines that he can know what is above and what is below, meaning what is uh you know beyond the universe in the metaphysics and then what is below, okay, which I have an interpretation of. Uh, so no one thinks they can know that, uh, except for one who is utterly ignorant regarding matters of existence. When a person who is devoid of all knowledge desires to reflect in order to know what is above the heavens and what is beneath the earth, oh, I guess he doesn't he does divine that through his faulty imagination, for he imagines them to be like the upper story of the house. Okay, and likewise, what came before the creation of the heavens and what will come after their cessation, such a person will certainly be brought to madness and desolation. Okay, and again, this is the danger, regardless of what you hold about about the legitimacy of what is called Kabbalah. Certainly, this is dangerous for people who are not qualified to learn it. Okay, and they do imagine about all this stuff, and they come up with all this perverted stuff about God having sex with the Shina and and uh and and the different parts of God being different body parts, and they come up with a whole imagination-based, you know, cosmological myth that even if you said that the words were written by Shim and Bar Yochai and have deep ideas, that's not what people are taking from them. People are taking, people are corrupting their minds and their views of God by by using their imagination and not having training in thinking by going into this, you know. So that that's like what he means is using your imagination. Again, Sim Tum is a great example of that. Is there a real idea of SimTum? Well, ask the R because he's the one who came up with the idea. Okay. But even if there were, imagining that God needs to make space, but not physical space. He needs to change, but not really change. He needs to, in order to make room for the universe, like the whole thing is starting off on the wrong foot, and you're you're bringing in categories of the imagination, like his example, you're imagining them to be like an upper story of a house, you know, um, and you're you're you're not uh you're not actually um uh knowing, you're imagining. Okay, so that becomes clearer now. Consider this wondrous expression which was said with divine assistance. Anyone who does not have regard for the covot kono, for the honor of his creator, this refers to someone who has no regard to his intellect for his intellect. For the intellect is the glory of Hashem. Okay, so what it means in the Mishnah, again, going back here, Ramam is saying, one who does not have Mishnah, anyone who does not have regard for his intellect, that's how he's saying the glory of his creator, the covot Hashem. Okay, the the now I don't know if he calls it the Kavot Hashem because on earth it is the most uh marvelous creation. The fact that there's this like non-physical soul that can grasp Kokmas Hashem, or if he calls it the honor of his creator because it's the part of you that can apprehend the honor of the creator, but it means someone who has no regard for his intellect, for the intellect is the glory of Hashem. Since he does not know the value of this thing which was given to him, behold, he surrenders it into the hands of his desires and becomes like an animal. Okay. Um, okay, so um, so in other words, that that's the example of what we said before is that if you try to apply your intellect to things that are beyond the intellect, by definition, you're just giving your mind into the hands of your emotions and your imagination. And you think you're thinking, but you're actually fantasizing uh or imagining, and it's not the same thing. You're getting the wires crossed. Okay. Uh we're almost done with this. Uh, this is what the sages meant meant when they said, What does it mean that one who does not have regard for the honor of his creator, this refers to one who transgresses in secret? And as they said in another place, adulterers do not commit adultery until a spirit of foolishness enters into them, and the matter is true. For at the moment of desire, whatever desire it may be, the intellect is not whole. Okay, this is a very, very brief uh, you know, cognitive um uh this is Ram taking a heart stance on the machlocus between Aristotle and Plato. Can you act against your knowledge? Like, can you know something is bad and still uh and still do it? You know, or if you're knowing something bad and and acting uh and still doing it, then it's a corruption of the knowledge. Ram saying, and he quotes Khazal, he says, adulterers don't commit adultery until a spirit of stus enters them, foolishness. So he's he's saying that that there is a uh when you give into your desires, you're compromising your intellect. He mentioned this matter here because he said above, these are the very essentials of Torah, and therefore he mentioned matters which are the foundations of the essentials of Torah. The Talmud is already warned against teaching them publicly and strongly prohibited this and instructed that a person should teach them to himself alone and that they should not pass from him to another based on the statement of Shlomo in this regard by way of allegory. Honey milk, honey, and milk are under your tongue. Okay, so the upshot is that all of these areas are areas where um where if a person is not ready for them, then they'll fall into imagination, or the nature of the area itself is unknowable, like what is above and what is below. And therefore, if you try to enter into that area with your mind, then by definition, you're not really using your mind. You're using your your your emotions and your your uh your imagination, and it's hijacking your intellect. Okay. That is the Ramam on this Mishnah. Any questions on this? And again, this is what the Gemara of the Four Who Indeparties is commenting on.

SPEAKER_06 44:10

Yes, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_05 44:13

Um, there's something here that I would like to define that I don't have exactly a clear question. Um and I guess it is the difference between this and other areas of knowledge where um a person I guess the person has a desire to know it and also they are not able to grasp it. Like why why don't people corrupt their minds with anything that they don't understand? And like why do people not just realize that they don't understand?

SPEAKER_02 44:37

Also, you know what's funny? Um, what's funny about this is that we're gonna start on the More Hanavukim 132, but in 131, check out what he says. We'll just read it really quickly in in the bad translation because I don't have the good translation on here. Um he says exactly what you said. Okay, uh it's like word for word. Uh he says, I always tell my students, this happens so much in Eov, is that like if a student asks a question and the Ramam is going to address it in the next chapter, then it means your mind is on the right track. And in your case, we're going to the next chapter, and your mind needs to know what this is, and Ram addressed it in the previous chapter. So he says, like this. I haven't read this translation. Know that for the human mind, there are certain objects of perception which are within the scope of its nature and capacity. Okay? I don't think we disagree with that. On the other hand, there are amongst things which actually exist certain objects which the mind can in no way and by no means grasp. The gates of perception are closed against it. Okay, same thing. Can't know God's essence. Okay, even Moshe Bea can't know it. Further, and here's the funny thing, there are things of which the mind understands one part, oh no, yeah, yeah, uh understands one part, but remains ignorant of the other. And when man is able to comprehend certain things, it does not follow that he must be able to comprehend uh any everything. This also applies to the senses. They are able to perceive things, but not at every distance. And all other uh and and all other power, I think it should be powers of the body, are limited in a similar way. A man can, for example, carry two kikar, two uh, you know, whatever, ton, I don't know, whatever the weight is, but he cannot carry ten kikar. How individuals of the same species surpass each other in these sensations and in other bodily faculties is universally known, uh, but there's a limit to them and their power cannot extend to every distance or every degree. Okay. Um, you know, this is not the part. Uh we'll read it anyway. Uh, all this is applicable to the intellectual faculties of man. There's a considerable difference between one person and another with regard to these faculties, as is well known to the philosophers. While one man can discover a certain thing by himself, another is never able to understand it, even if taught by means of all possible expressions and metaphors and during a long period. His mind can in no way grasp it, his capacity is sufficient for it. This distinction is not unlimited. A boundary is undoubtedly set to the human mind which cannot pass. So, in other words, there's an intrinsic limit to the human mind, but then there's also personal limits. Some people, no matter what, will never be able to understand calculus. You know, some people will never be able to understand uh metaphysics, all right? That's just the nature of uh of the physical world. All right. Now here's what he says, what you were saying. There are things beyond that boundary of the intellect, which are acknowledged to be inaccessible to human understanding, and man does not show any desire to comprehend them, being aware that such knowledge is impossible and that there are no means of overcoming the difficulty. Okay, for example, we do not know the number of stars in heaven, whether the number is even or odd. We do not know the number of animals, minerals, or plants and the like. Okay, so I think those are funny. Like everyone would agree we don't know the number of stars, and we don't know if it's odd or even, but you don't see people frustrated because if only I knew whether the number is odd or even, you know, like you can't know it and you don't want to know it, right? Okay. There are other things, however, which man very much desires to know, and strenuous efforts to examine and to investigate them have been made by thinkers of all classes and at all times. They differ and disagree and constantly raise new doubts with regard to them because their minds are bent on comprehending such things. That is to say, they are moved by desire, and every one of them believes that he has discovered the way leading to a true knowledge of the thing, although human reason is entirely unable to demonstrate the fact by convincing evidence. For a proposition which can be proven, proved by evidence, is not subject to dispute, denial, or rejection. None but the ignorant would contradict it, and such contradiction is called denial of a demonstrated proof. Thus, you find men who deny the spherical form of the earth. See, he had flat earthers even in the time of the Rama, um, or the circular form of the line in which the stars move and the like. Such men are not considered in this treatise. So, in other words, there are areas that people dispute and that are not proven. And he says, We're not talking about things that are proven and people still dispute, because that's just a bad meta. That's just like resistance to proof. We're talking about things that are are not known or not knowable, and people have different arguments, but they can't really know them for sure. Um, this condition, this confusion prevails mostly in metaphysical subjects, uh, less in problems relating to physics and is entirely absent from the exact sciences. Now, sorry, I forgot your question. Well, what was your question again?

SPEAKER_05 48:49

My question was about this distinction. Like, why is it that people are getting messed up when they are trying to address this area? Like not and not other areas that are inaccessible. And I think that part of my question was like the good, like the the best case scenario is you you when you take something up that you can't understand, is that you realize that you don't or can't understand it. And the worst case is that you think you understand it, but you go into fantasy. And my question was like, why is that happening here and not somewhere else? But I think that the answer is because of this, uh, people have a desire to know it.

SPEAKER_02 49:21

Yes, people have a desire to know it, and I think it does have to do also with with very loosely speaking, what they feel about they will gain if they had that knowledge. So I don't think anyone really feels like they know if the number of stars is odd or even, that that's gonna make any difference to them. But knowing, you know, how God runs the universe, either you want to get close to God, or you feel that that's somehow gonna get you some sort of power, or you're gonna get Hajjgaha, or you're gonna be great, you're gonna be a great. You know, I I think like those uh emotions are also um wrapped up. And I also think that in certain areas it is how fundamental the idea is. You know, no one says that no biologists loses sleep over the fact that they don't know how many individual specimens there are, because they realize that that knowledge would not is not fundamental to understanding the animal. They want to know like what life is, though, because that's a real fundamental thing. So I think that's what I'd say for now. Okay, now I want to move on to the the um the last Ramam source and then the Rosh bats, and then we'll theorize about the parties. Okay, that's the plan. So the Ramam in 132. I know I didn't finish reading 131, but Ramam in 132 says like this. Know, you who study my treatise, that some again, again, this is the clawed synthesis translation made from um from Goodman, Pean's, Friedlander are the English ones, and then Kathakh, Mahbili, and Goldstein, which are the Hebrew ones, and uh it's synthesized, and I have not vetted this yet, but I have read the other translations a lot. No, you who study my treatise, that something similar happens to what in sensory happens in sensory apprehension happens. Sorry, let me try it again. No, you who studied my treatise that something similar to what happens in sensory apprehension happens likewise in intellectual apprehension on account of its being attached to matter. So in other words, you're our minds are not purely uh operating like through not purely non-physical means, right? Our minds operate through our our our physical body and through our brain, okay. There's we talked about this a lot in EOV, uh, right? Like Adler's thing, you don't think with your brain, but you can't think without it. Um, you think with your soul, but it's through a brain. Okay, so so he gives an example. When you look at with your when you look with your eyes, you apprehend what is within the power of your sight to apprehend. But if you strain your eyes and force them, pressing yourself to see at a distance greater than your vision can bear, or to examine very fine writing or a minute engraving that is beyond your power to make out, and you compel your sight to discern its true reality, your vision will be weakened not only with respect to that which is exceeded uh to that which exceeded your capacity, but also with respect to what had been within your capacity. Your sight will become dulled and you will no longer see what you were able to see before you strained and overtaxed it. Okay. Now, I don't know, according to modern optics or whatever you call the study of science sight, I don't know to what extent like what we hold is the same as the Rama, but every mother will tell you, don't read in the dark because you're going to strain your eyes, you know, or like don't look at the TV up close, you know. So I, you know, I assume that that it could damage your eyes if you're doing that. And the point he's making, though, we'll just go with what he's saying, is if you exert your eyes beyond their capacity, not only will you not be able to see the thing that you're trying to see, it'll ruin your normal sight. Okay. The same is found by anyone who engages in the speculative study of a science with respect to his power of reflection. If he presses too hard in his thinking and exerts his his entire attention, he becomes confused and fails to understand even what is ordinarily within his grasp. For the condition of all body faculties in this matter is one and the same. Okay, so subtle thing here, not to go to angelic intelligences, but angels don't have this problem. Okay, angels are pure intellects, whatever that means. Um, and it's impossible for their intellect to wear out, okay? They either apprehend or they don't. But humans who have an intellect that operates through physical apparatus apparatus apparatuses are subject to the same limitations as as any of their physical apparatuses, is that you can wear it out and you could damage your ability to apprehend stuff. Okay. Something similar can befall you. Oh, sorry, did he say that right? Okay, hold on. Okay, oh no, now he goes into particulars here. Okay. Um, now this is an area where I'm keenly aware that the translation might be different. Okay. Something similar can befall you in intellectual apprehension. Okay. If you hold yourself back in the face of a difficulty, and do not deceive yourself into believing that something has been demonstrated when it has not, and do not rush to reject and definitively deny whatever has not been contradicted by a demonstration. Okay, that's a lot of negatives, and do not aspire to apprehend what you were incapable of apprehending, then you will have attained human perfection and will stand at the level of Ruby Kiva, peace be upon him, who entered in peace and departed in peace when he engaged in the study of these divine matters. So let's just like list these things, okay? So how to sorry, um, how to be like Ribi Akiva, okay? Um, one, okay, is um is uh hold yourself back in the face of a difficulty. Okay, the implication here being don't push ahead beyond your uh uh actually don't push ahead uh when you shouldn't shouldn't do so. Okay, it's hard to tell whether this is an item or this is just the intro to the entire thing. Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_05 54:48

Don't like just the discomfort of not understanding something.

SPEAKER_02 54:53

That's definitely part of it. That's definitely part of it. Um I I uh It might be though, like in other words, it that's not the only manifestation of it. Like it could be, like, let's take another example that we know that the Rama holds by. Rama holds by preparatory sci uh sciences, right? Like you know this in math, right? Like there's certain things in math you can't engage in the higher subject without mastering the prerequisites. So I would not call that sitting in the discomfort. It's just that like the reason why you're having a difficulty is you don't have the tools yet, you know, you need to train in the tools, that kind of thing.

SPEAKER_05 55:28

Okay, so that's what it's talking about here.

SPEAKER_02 55:29

I mean that that's what I'm saying that there are different examples. What you said is an example, and this is another example. Another example would be, let's say, like, if a scientist is gathering data and they get impatient about finding the answer and then they push ahead and like hastily generalize, that's also like a violation of this principle, you know. Um, so I think there's like many ways to violate this. Okay, second one is do not uh deceive, sorry, do not deceive yourself into believing that something has been proven when it has not. And I'm using the word proven uh because I think that's a more normal word than demonstrated. And do not uh rush to reject and deny whatever uh deny, sorry, deny um something that has not been disproven. Okay, so I'm gonna give you two examples of this. All right, one of the um major goals in the Mor Navuchim was that in the Ramam's time there were two competing theories about the universe. Aristotle, who held that the universe was eternal, and the Torah that held the universe had a beginning, okay. And the Ramam held that neither of those could be proven, okay. Uh uh, that we rely on the Torah because it comes from God, and Aristotle was relying on his mind. And what the Ramam tries to do is he tries to argue that uh that our view is more reasonable, and Aristotle's is more difficult, but Ram held that it can't be proven. Okay, so if you're a really religious Jew, okay, and you you say, well, you know, Aristotle is definitely false. That's a violation of this because it Aristotle's not been disproven. Okay. Um and likewise, if you rush to say, well, you know, the you know, again, in the realm of time, well, you know, the Torah says the the universe is uh is created, uh it's been proven. It's been proven 100%. You know, you you you attach more certainty to the uh affirmation or to the denial than than the the knowledge warrants, okay? Those are those two two mistakes. And then the last one is do not uh aspire uh to apprehend what you are incapable of apprehending, okay. Um, so those are the four ways to be like Rivekiva, then you're gonna go in in peace and leave in peace. Okay, this is the clearest statement that the Drama has on this. Okay, but if you desire I'm gonna make a new paragraph here, but if you desire to apprehend beyond the limits of your apprehension, okay, that's number four, or hasten to declare false those things whose contradictories have not been demonstrated, okay, or that is that's number three, or which remain possible, uh, or remotely so, you will have gone the way of Alicia Acher. Now, I don't know why he only lists two of them, okay. Um I'm not sure. Like he didn't, I uh you would expect him to just do an inverse, right? Okay, I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_04 58:32

Okay, so so is he differentiating within the different rebellion? I guess we'll see what we're reading on.

SPEAKER_02 58:37

Yeah, maybe. So that's the frustrating thing. He does not talk about the other two. Okay, so that's that that's for us to figure out. All right. Uh, but but you might be right onto the approach. Okay, we have one more source after this, which is the Rush box. Okay. Um, okay, but it's it's worse than that, okay? And not only will you fail to be perfect, meaning again, when he says perfect, he doesn't mean like absolutely perfect, he means like perfected, okay, like excellent. You will become more deficient than any deficient person. Now he's going back to the the analogy of the sight, right? Is that if you try to see something that you can't see, not only will you not see it, but you'll ruin your sight. Okay. So there will overtake you a domination of the imagination and an inclination toward deficiency, base character, and evil resulting from the preoccupation of the intellect and the extinguishing of its light. I shouldn't say preoccupation, the burdening is the better uh Hebrew word, um, or English word for the Hebrew. Uh, just as all manner of delusive images are produced in a vision when the visual spirit is weakened, uh, as in the case of the sick and those who strain their gaze at brilliant or minute objects. So, what is he saying is going to happen here? What is this? Um uh so again, we get you fail to be perfect, right? You're not gonna get the knowledge, and you become more uh but he says you become more deficient than any other person. What is he saying here? There will overtake you a domination of the imagination and an inclination towards deficiency. Those sound like two things deficiency based character and evil, resulting from the burdening of the intellect and the extinguishing of its light. So, what's gonna happen? Yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_05 1:00:05

Well, if like based on what we were saying before, that the person is um they think they're doing they're like thinking philosophically, but they're actually imagining. Yeah, then I think that's gonna like miscalibrate them in general, and they're gonna be able not like be able to think things through clearly. Yeah. Um also he doesn't say this, but I feel like that would also make a person very egotistical. And maybe that also is like a base character.

SPEAKER_02 1:00:29

Probably, that's also true. Yeah. Okay, so I understand that he's miscalibrating, right? And that will explain why um uh why his intellect won't get what it should get. And we explain that his imagination is coming in. What I'm most curious about is like it sounds like he's saying that morally he's gonna be corrupt. So where what what triggers that? Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_04 1:00:51

This isn't an answer to that last question, but this reminds me of what Solomon spoke about in Copella, about like too much chakma. Do you think they're related? He actually leads to depression. Oh.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:02

Yeah, he quotes that uh very soon. Uh yeah, okay, good, good intuition. Yeah, Rufka.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:08

Um, well, I think you just mentioned like overthinking. Overthinking, you know, then we're not using our minds the way we're supposed to. It can lead to like anything, whether it's you know, creating schemes or creating things that aren't great and not healthy, and you know, just like basically like overusing something, even the intellect can be stopped. Okay, but it's supposed to be doing.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:29

I think all three of you are correct, but I think there is one more point that we're missing here. Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_05 1:01:34

I think this is maybe similar to what Rifka was saying, but like this is kind of what you you were um talking about by the teaching Arayos that maybe like the the person, yeah. Let's see if I can spell it out. But like they they want to do whatever it is they just kind of instinctively want to do, and somehow like this getting um messed up in their thinking is gonna cause them to like it's gonna allow them to go with their emotions.

SPEAKER_02 1:02:05

Yeah, okay, good. So I I agree with you, and here's how I think it works, okay. This is just the what I think it is. So ordinarily you've got your intellect and you've got all your desires, okay? And then the imagination, I'm not gonna go into the whole relationship between the imagination, the intellect, and the desires, but according to uh Rambaum and Rabag and like the Aristotelian uh Rishonim, the imagination can either be a tool of the intellect or it could be a tool of the emotions. So when it's the tool of the intellect, uh, you know, most of us who are not uh don't have aphantasia, we can picture stuff, right? Um and you can manipulate it in your mind. Or let's say you do have aphantasia, you can imagine stuff and use that as a way to to as a tool for knowledge. So let's say, like scientists who cannot see particles, they have a model of it in their imagination that they that their mind can work with. And you're again, imagination, according to the Ristatilian definition, is you take sense perceptions, store them, and you can retrieve them and manipulate them at will. Okay, so that's how the imagination works. So when it's doing its right job, then the imagination is a tool of the intellect. And I think that's what I don't know for sure, but I think there's that quote that everyone quotes from Einstein. Uh, that's not the the full thing, right?

SPEAKER_03 1:03:14

Um Einstein imagination, more important. Uh, I think when you read it in context, then oh yeah, see Einstein's most famous quote is totally misunderstood. Uh uh.

SPEAKER_06 1:03:30

Imagination. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:38

Uh this is too long, I'm not gonna read it. Okay. So Einstein says, I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity. I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, uh, 1919 confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I was wrong. Then this interviewer says, Then you trust more to your imagination than to my your knowledge. Einstein says, I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, imagination encircles the world. I don't know what he means by that, but you see that he held that there was a role of imagination in in knowledge, okay? Um so that's that is what imagination should do. But imagination is also what fuels our fantasies, okay, and can serve the Itsarara, all right? So I think what happens is like this is as long as you're using your mind, then there is a chance that there's gonna be something that is gonna put a uh uh a roadblock in front of your imagination and your your emotions. But if you corrupt your mind and you think that you're thinking, but you're really fantasizing, then nothing is gonna stop the lowest common denominator from coming out. There's nothing that's gonna stop the yitsuhara, and yitsahara will have the sanction of your intellect, which will justify you using it because you think that you're pursuing truth, but you're really just pursuing your desires and coming up with an elaborate rationalization that looks like ideas and it's really not. So I think that's like that's my understanding of the that's my understanding of the explanation for the phenomenon that tomorrow was talking about, but I agree with the phenomenon that tomorrow was talking about. Does that make sense? Or any questions on that? Yahweh?

SPEAKER_04 1:05:21

Um, I that makes sense to me, but I feel like the burdening of the intellect and the extinguishing of its like kind of feels like a little bit of a different yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:29

So let's just quickly look at the different translations of that. Um uh in Goodman, uh he says, um uh so he says your your mind distracted, okay, not burdened. All right. Um Makbili says um uh he he tarduoso. Yeah, so the burdening, that's why I got burdening from from that.

SPEAKER_03 1:06:21

Here doesn't say like a burdensomeness, and then let's just do one more. Let's do the penis.

SPEAKER_02 1:06:30

The intellect's being preoccupied. Yeah. So you are right. It does not sound like it does not sound exactly like what I'm saying. Yeah. Good.

SPEAKER_04 1:06:45

I was gonna say what comes to mind is like the light sounds to me like the energy or like the something like that. I wonder if like I'm imagining like a compass that like usually the intellect like can just sort of like point the compass in a direction and you can like follow that light, but this like kind of scatters it and mixes in the imagination and like covers over extinguishing the light.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:05

Yeah, that is entirely possible. I I think let me tell you the reason why I went in my direction is is because of this uh thing, this analogy, just as all manner of delusive images are produced in a vision when the visual spirit is weakened, such as in the case of the sick and those who strain their gaze at brilliant or minute objects. So, in other words, if you stare at the sun and you go blind, so you you've ruined the apparatus, but you ruin it through overburdening it by pushing it beyond its capacity. So that's what I'm viewing this intellect thing as as, and then if you're if you were blind and you see images, they're not coming from outside, they're coming from inside of you, which is your imagination, you know. So that's what I think it is. I still hold by my uh reading, even though the word burdening is not uh is not 100% clear. Okay, so now he goes to the post that we did in Michel this morning, okay. If you're interested in that, concerning this, it is said, Hast thou found honey? Eat only what is sufficient for thee, that lest thou be sated with it and vomit it. Now, just factual information here. They thought that honey was not only sweet, but also um uh like very healthy in small doses like medicine. Okay. Um, so it was like like nutrition, uh, you know, nutritive. All right. Uh uh, I always I said this uh in the in the sheer, but my grandfather was a beekeeper. And uh if anyone's ever seen the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding, uh, then the grandfather there like believed that like Windex like is the cure for everything. And like if you got injured, he'd spray it on you. You know, if you had a skin rash, he'd spray it on you. You know, my grandfather was like that with honey, like honey just cures everything. Uh that is that was his uh his his his uh his thing. Okay, so the sages made their memory be blessed, likewise brought this verse as a parable applied to Alicia Aher. Now, pause there. What what what what how does that square with what with what we read?

SPEAKER_06 1:08:43

Anyone remember, even though we only read it once?

SPEAKER_02 1:08:50

So here's our version in Argemara it applies the honey puzzle to benzoma. Okay, and no puzzle is applied to Akher. Alright. So I thought that was weird, and then I looked at Goodman, and this is now gonna explain why I said that we can ignore the Psukim. He says like this. Goodman says, um, so on this thing that they applied this to Elisha Akher, footnote 152. The verse is in fact applied to Benzoma in Tosefta Hagiga 2.3. Yushami Hagiga 2.177b applies it to Ben Azai, as do the Midrash Rabbah on Shirashim and Proverbs. We do not find the biblical warning applied exclusively to Elisha Benavui by the sages, but Maimanis takes it to apply to all three of Ribikiva's colleagues who entered the parties. Okay, so I don't know if this is a thing where the Ramam had a different Gemara or if this was the Ramam's understanding of the Gemara, but Ramam is giving us the license, at least in terms of understanding the Rambah, to say that this possible applies to all three of them, and therefore we don't have to allocate it to a single one of them. Okay, so that's the approach that we're going to take here. Okay, so how wondrous is this parable? For it likens knowledge to eating, as we have said, and it mentions the in the in in 130 in the morning of bookham, he says that eating is often used as a metaphor for knowledge. Um, and it mentions the most pleasant of foods, namely honey. And honey, by its nature, when consumed to excess, agitates the stomach and causes vomiting. It is as though scripture says the nature of this apprehension, for all its sublimity, greatness, and perfection it contains, will be turned into a deficiency if one does not halt at the proper limit and proceed with it with care. Just as the eating of honey, which nourishes and gives it pleasure when taken in measure, uh, but is entirely lost when taken in excess. It does not say, lest thou be sat with it and loathe it, but rather and vomit it. So the idea here is that honey is objectively good and pleasant, according to the Rama. But if you eat too much of it, you'll get sick. And not only will you loathe it, you'll vomit it, and it'll reverse the pleasant experience and you won't get any of the benefits. So, too, with knowledge, is that knowledge is good and sweet, but if you take too much of it, given what you can handle, then not only will you ruin uh the experience, I mean, in an objective sense, but you will mess up the knowledge that you had and you won't get any benefit from it. Okay. Um, the to the same matter, scripture also alludes in the words, it is not good to eat too much honey. So this is the puzzle we actually did initially in the morning, uh, last two weeks. And in the words, this is what Ayala quoted do not make yourself overly wise. Why should you be destroyed? Okay, uh, that there is such a thing as too much wisdom because you're gonna end up harming yourself. And in guard your foot when you walk into the house of God. If we were being thorough, we would learn all these inside, but we're not. David to alluded to this and saying, Neither did I walk in things too great or too wondrous from me. The sages likewise intended this in their dictum, do not inquire into that was too wondrous for you, and do not probe what is hidden from you. Inquire into what is permitted to you, and you have no business with marvels. Um uh okay, meaning that you should direct your intellect only toward what is within human capacity to apprehend, for engaging with what is not within human nature to apprehend is, as we've explained, very harmful. To this, the sages also directed the dictum, whoever contemplates four things, and they completed the statement with the words, whoever has no regard for the honor of his creator. By this they alluded to what we have already explained, that a person should not press forward to engage in speculation about corrupt imaginings. And when a difficulty arises for him, or the matter he seeks is not demonstrated to him, he should not abandon it, cast it aside, and hasten to declare it false, but should rather settle himself, have honor for the regard of his creator, refrain and hold back. That's like what Tamar was saying is like you have to sit in the not knowing, okay? Um, not deny or rush ahead. This matter has already been made clear. Uh, the intent of these formulations, uh spoken by the prophets and the sages, may their memory be blessed, is not to seal the gate of inquiry entirely and to deprive the intellect of apprehending what it is possible for it to apprehend, as the foolish and the negligent suppose, who delight in making their own deficiency and ignorance into perfection and wisdom, and the perfection and knowledge of others into deficiency and departure from the Torah, setting darkness for light and light for darkness. Okay, rather, the entire purpose is to make known that the human intellect has a limit to which it must stop. Who's he talking about here, by the way? That he's saying Khazal are not saying that you should seal the gate of inquiry entirely and to deprive the intellect of apprehending what is possible. What what what group of people that existed in his time and also exist nowadays is he speaking against? It's not one specific group, which is like who comes to mind here? Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_05 1:13:16

Well, I don't know if the Rama was talking about this, but it kind of sounds like the church.

SPEAKER_02 1:13:19

Like Yes, yeah. It's people who are anti-philosophy or anti-thinking, and they say that because there is a danger in thinking, then we do not want to apply thinking to religious matters. Okay. And in our circles, there's some of that in certain Kharidim, there is some of that Rab Nachman Braslov was huge into this, right? He says that you can tell if someone has learned the more Navukin because their face is evil, their face has no has no holiness in it, you know. Um, and uh and like and and uh you know it's it it corrupts their entire being, you know. Um, and you have certain people who, you know, people who ban Rebbe Slivkin's books, you know, like anti-knowledge, uh sorry, not anti-knowledge, anti-philosophical knowledge people. All right. Um so that I think that's what he's talking again. Yeah, Ruka?

SPEAKER_00 1:14:06

Where does Rebbe Nachman say that? I've never heard that before.

SPEAKER_02 1:14:09

Uh I have uh I think I have quotes on my computer. So if you uh um either email me or put in the chat, then I'll try to find them. If they're not here, they're in a book that I have in Seattle. Um, but yeah, I was uh it's probably in this other book that I have also. So uh I can track them down for you. Um okay, and then last sentence is do not take issue with the terms used in reference to the intellect in this chapter and others, for the intention is to guide toward the matter at hand, not to determine the true nature of the intellect to that precise investigation. Uh other chapters have been devoted. So again, again, we're just exploring, we're not trying to decode the entire thing. But the the the reason why I went here is because the Rama gave us a very clear portrait of Ruby Akiva and a very clear portrait of Alicia Benavuya. But the other two, is he so now the question is like this is uh I forgot it was Ayala or or or Tamar. Like you also had hopes that oh, he's gonna explain all four of them, you know. So the question is, is he explaining all four of them and then just not telling us? Or or is he not trying to explain the other other uh the other ones? Okay, so what we're gonna do for our last move, and this is where we're gonna do a little bit of work, is a very short rush bots where he ties us to the arbabanim. Okay, and I'm not gonna go to the arbabanim themselves. For all I care, that's just drush, okay. So again, let me just put the the um the four up here. Actually, I'm gonna put this in the chat just so you can uh remember which one's which because it's easier to forget. So Rabbi Akiva um uh went uh you know, came in peace and left in peace. Um uh Akher or Alicia Benavuya um uh uh mutilated the shoots. Okay. Um Ben Azai no sorry benzoma was stricken. Okay, oh sorry, no, no, hold on. No, Ben Azai is what he does next. Ben Azai Um Azai uh died, and then Benzoma uh was stricken. Okay, okay, so here's what the Roth Spot says. He says, the matter of the four sons is as follows. It is known that those who enter the parades, that is, those who were delve deeply into the inner wisdoms, so again, he's not taking the mystical experience route, he's taking the the Kochma route, differ in their inquiry. There is one who began his investigation properly and completed it, and it turned out well for him. And this is called entering in peace and departing in peace. This is what the Haggadah calls the wise son. Okay, so that is Rabia Kiva. I'll put this in the chat anyway. Okay. There is one who delved deeply into it from the start and completed it, but was drawn through it toward heresy. Uh, that is in in Hebrew, Nata Ba el Haqfira. He turned to khfirah to heresy and held fast to it. This is called mutilating the shoot. Now it gives an interesting interpretation here. Like one who enters a party and cuts down the tender saplings so that they will no longer grow, thereby ruining the orchard. So too did he ruin wisdom and deny the fundamental principle of divinity. This is what the Hagada calls the wicked son. Okay, so that's Alicia Binavuya. Oops, sorry. Okay. So those two are pretty easy. Okay. I mean, I think even without the Rama, we would have gotten this, is that if you apply your mind correctly and you complete your investigation, you will arrive at the truth, and that's good. If you take a wrong term, now he didn't say what the wrong term is, but applying the Rama here is if you you press your intellect forward beyond what it can handle, um, or you deny things that shouldn't be denied, or I would say the other two, if you affirm things that aren't to be affirmed, you know, uh, then you will end up ruining your intellect and reach bad conclusions, and it will ruin your Kochma there. Okay. But now here's where it gets a little difficult. Okay. Actually, this this next one's not difficult either. All right. There is one who began his investigation, but due to its depth, he was unable to complete it and remained in his wholeness, that's in his temus from the word tom until he died. Concerning him, it said he glanced and died, and this is what the Haggadah calls the symbol sun. Now, the footnote makes this clear. Okay, I don't know who wrote the footnote. Uh it says, Locomotion mashma bipashus, she ha hatsatza garmalulamus. Not that the glancing killed him, it's that he glanced, didn't get anything, and then just like lived out the rest of his life and died. Okay, so that's a slightly different than what you get from the beginning. Okay, now this this one's the confusing one. And there's one whose mind became confused in his inve. I'm gonna read this in Hebrew. The Ishmish is Balbala Dato. There's someone whose mind became confused, Baha Kira, in its investigation, Mipne Omka, due to its depth. Ubaulos fekos and doubts came, bilbuludato, that confounded his mind. Vezehua Nikra, Hitzitz Vinifka. This is what it means that he glanced and was stricken. Now, if you stop here, you would translate the way Rashi translated it, is that he he became demented or his mind got scrambled. But then he he says this Kemishirotse le cones lepartis, like someone who wishes to enter a parties, the hitzitzbo merachuk, he gazes upon it from afar, umatzah pigatim, same word as pega nifka, he finds um uh dangers or or you know, um impediments, umiksholos and obstacles, but draw him along the way, below yaho lihi kanesbo, and he cannot enter it, and nothing came to him from the Chachmah, the Zehua Nikra Bahagada, Shainoid. Okay, um the akar hakamazoafarish ko akabh. Okay, then he goes into the Ariban. So let's let's just do a summary here, okay? Um so he says, Rubiy Akiva, okay, started the journey and completed it and arrived at truth. Uh Akir started the journey and completed it and inclined toward heresy. Then uh Azai started it, but due to its death didn't complete it and lived out the rest of the the the rest of his life without gaining and died. And then Benzoma um seems like he didn't start it, right? Seems like he he he encountered doubts that messed up his mind. And but see, here's the here's the here's the thing, okay? He did go into the garden. It says Arbor nichnus of the parties. Four of them went into the parties, right? So I think you have to say that he starts, but see, okay, uh the the footnote guy also can't understand. He says like this Lakora inha mushal doma lonimshal. At first glance, the analogy does not match the subject of the analogy. In the analogy, the guy who's looking at the garden doesn't gain, but he also doesn't get harmed. The Iluba Nimshal, who he teats benivka, but then in the in the mushal, he's in the garden and he gazes and he gets stricken, you know. So the question is like, what is Benzoma doing here, right? Like how how you understand that? And the clue, by the way, is this is the the Ben Cham. And this is the this is the Ben this is the Ben Russia. Ben Russia, and then this is the Ben Tom, and then this is the uh Ano Yodea Lishal. Now again, Ano Yodea Lishal sounds like he does not start the investigation, right? But then what does it mean that he entered into parties? And what does it mean that he gazed and was Nifka? I mean, I guess he says he was gazed and Nifka, but yeah, what what what's the what what do you say here?

SPEAKER_03 1:21:43

This is what I really need help on. Let's go back up to then uh uh Zoma. Yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_01 1:21:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:21:58

I guess I'm just not really understanding like what he did and how he was affected in this explanation.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:08

Like Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:22:09

Yeah. Like it's also if he wasn't able to enter it, then how was he harmed? I don't know, like I know, right, right.

SPEAKER_02 1:22:16

So he if I had to guess, here's what I think, okay? I think you have to say he started it, okay, because he entered into the parties, okay? But but in but but but due to its depth um got confused and and uh and left, okay. That's I think what it sounds like. So in other words, Ben Azai due to its depth he he he was in he was stopped, but he didn't become confused, and then he just like did not advance. Benzoma Rosh Brash puts the emphasis on he became confused, right? And then again, I don't know how in in the mushle, it sounds like he's you know, like it does sound like he has not entered into the garden yet. And that's where I don't know if we can reconcile, right? But just as a as as a uh if you were if it if I said complete the pattern, right? Like and you you knew that benzoma is described as being stricken, and the implication is stricken in the mind. I do think this is a fourth category. Um and let me just show you roughly what I'm thinking here. Okay. Um, anyone want to guess how I'm gonna say that there are four sorry, that did not work here. Four paths a student can take after their Jewish day school education. Okay, right? So there is the path of Ruby Akiva, okay, which is to continue learning, and now you obviously can't complete the journey, okay, uh, but like you know, endeavor to complete the journey, uh, endeavor responsibly to keep to complete the journey, following uh the Rambam's uh Ramam's guidelines, okay. Um guidelines, okay. Now, ahir, I am not going to put the emphasis on heresy, okay, because this is not a a fire and brimstone, like you can't become heretics, you know. But this is what the Ramam said, which is that that um someone who continues learning but does not heed the limitations of their intellect, okay, and by pushing forward damages it, okay, and that causes him to uh go off the derich. Uh I'm not, I might not use the word off the derrick here, go off the derich um intellectually and morally. Okay. So you mess up your mind because you do not uh heed these things. And again, this is probably the most common, sadly, the most common fate that that happens to uh I shouldn't say the most common. This is the worst fate that happens. I mean, this happens a lot is people go off to a secular college campus and then they get seduced by all these like ideologies that aren't actually teaching them how to think properly, and then they they end up with with the with bad ideas and bad morals. Okay, then Azi, okay, is starting off learning, okay, but but stopping because it's too deep, sorry, it's too deep or difficult. Okay. And then you just die, okay, and don't develop. Okay. And that I think is a real danger as well, is that for certain again, for certain people, high school uh Judaic education is the last time they learn Torah, sadly, okay. Like that they seriously learn Torah, all right? And then Benzoma, what I want to say is starting off learning, encountering these difficult questions, okay, but instead of pushing forward for good or for bad, they stop learning and and these doubts fester and and remain with them for the rest of their life. So that that's the sketch I'm thinking about for for a graduation speech. Do you have any, and again, I realize we didn't finish, we we're not sure about the Rashbats means about what the Rashbots means for Benzoma, but I'm pretty confident that if the Rashbots can do three-fourths of an approach, it's really more than three-fourths of an approach. It's really just that last little part. I feel like I'm entitled to interpret the the the the midrash uh the agata based on bits and pieces from Rush Bots and from the Rombom. Uh, yeah, Tamar, and some of my own. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 1:26:45

Um, yeah, yeah. Sorry. Um I was wondering if you could put a finer point on what is the actionable difference between um Ruby Akiva and let's say and Benzoma. I guess like let's say you are a college student and you're in class, and your teacher brings up this question and you're like, whoa, that's like seems like a really important question, and I really like can't figure it out. And like trying to like then what?

SPEAKER_02 1:27:13

Yeah, right. So, number one, uh, this is why it is important to have Torah that you accept on the basis of authority if you're not on the level to to figure this out on the basis of your um of your own mind, you know. And the Miri is very, very big on this in his uh commentary in Mislay, that like we hold that the ideal is to be able to prove anything that everything that can be proven. But we also hold that everyone has to start off believing in these beliefs based on tradition, you know. So I think it is very, very um, if a person is going to a secular college campus and studying these topics that like are potentially dangerous, you should familiarize yourself with the Torah's views. Now, what'll happen then is you'll be confronted with okay, well, I know. That the great Khachamim of our nation held this, and this is what the Torah teaches, and I accept Torah. Again, I'm not assuming that every student accepts Torah, but I'm saying if you accept Torah. And like the feeling that I need to solve this now is the mistake that the Raman attributes to Akher. Of like, I, you know, that I need to be able to prove Torah or I need to be able to disprove this thing. You know, that could lead you into the Akher path. Um, and so being able, again, you said it very well, being able to sit with the question, but you're not sitting blind. That's the thing, is you're sitting with the MSora. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:40

Yeah, if you weren't finished, I want to hear the rest of the thing. No, no, I was finished.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:42

I was finished. Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:43

I was just like, Yeah, so then I want to know like, can you spell out so you're sitting in the discomfort, you're sitting with the Mesora, but are you what's the difference between that person and somebody who stopped learning or who Right.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:55

Yeah. I guess I don't if you stop learning.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:58

I also have a different question, I think.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:59

But maybe I'll be on if you stop learning, so again, there's two types of stop learning the way I'm learning it, okay? Is that there's stopping learning and it's a sort of like apathy. There I think there has to be an apathy in this approach. Uh uh, if not an apathy of like, I don't care about it at all. It's apathetic to the point where you're not bothered by it, you're not doing anything with it. You know, I almost want to say that that's the Amy Day Lichel, you know, but it's also like a it's a Ben Tom type thing of like you're you're not even bothered by it. And that's bad, but it's not harmful because you're just like, look, there are again, I I know this in NIJA, all right. There, I know that not every student is getting the ideas that I'm teaching in EO. Okay. And I know that of those students, there are people who are lit up by a bother, and then it's just gonna fade away, and then they're just not gonna really think about it again, you know? And whatever. It's unfortunate that I have to teach a high school class where I can't be selective and teach each one according to their level, you know, and in these ideas. But like, I think that's the Ben Azi approach. But the Ben Zobra approach is I and I'll give you this is not the only manifestation of it, but have you ever met people who are hulkically observant Jews or halluckally not observant, but they have a bone to pick based on early educational experiences, where they like there's some problem that bothered them or some difficulty that they have, and they are hung up on it and it really bothers them. And they even have anger or resentment, or like, like, like, you know, and and and it bothers them, but they just never actually continue developing. Like, oh, so the thing that bothered you when you're in when you're 19 years old, and now you're 40, like you you really think that like you're not capable of learning more than before, or like maybe you're not, but like you should then find a teacher who can like help you with it. So like, like I I think to me in my mind, those are those are two ways to stop doing this that are different from stopping in a responsible way for uh a period of time and continuing to work on other areas like Ruby Kiva would. I don't know if that answers your question. Does it?

SPEAKER_05 1:31:03

Yeah, I think so. I guess it's like I I feel like it would be interesting to define like how there's there's something that I feel like I I want to put a finer point on. Like I think it's it's it's hard to be like, I really care about this question, and I really want to know the answer, and I'm going to keep trying to thinking about it. I'm gonna keep having like energy invested in the area, but I also can't figure it out. I feel like that's for yeah, that's like what Ruby Kiva is doing, and then everybody else is like taking some kind of off-ramp out of it. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:31:34

Look, I mean, I I I you know, thank God, have now been learning for 26 years, and like I wish I could convey to students how like, yeah, sometimes you have a question and you come back, let's say it's in the parsha and you notice it every year. And some years you work on it, some years you don't, and then one year it suddenly lights up, or I'm teaching I just completed teaching EO for the eighth time, you know. I've been through these dramas before. So many problems, and I have no idea what he's saying. And then like this year, like it becomes clear, you know. And like, yeah, sometimes you need to set something aside for a long time and actively work on it, or work on the prerequisites, or work on the other areas, or just develop your mind in general. Uh, I I it's funny that you say because for me, Rubikiva is is one of the clearer ones. For me, the one that I I have the hardest time with is Ben Azan Benzoma. Like, what differentiates exactly between those? Is it just apathy, or is there like or benzoma and ahir? Like both of them are becoming confused, but one of them is keeps on going and one of them stops. Like to me, that those are the more difficult ones. Yeah. Uh Ayala.

SPEAKER_04 1:32:40

Um, throughout this year, I was kind of jotting down some like advice-related things that came up. And I feel like one is specifically applicable. I I'll send in the chat after, but I feel like one is specifically applicable to this question tomorrow. Because I feel like all the examples that you're giving areas in the chat. Um in yourself, where like you're able to sit with the uncertainty or like come back to the same question year after year after year, is because there is a structure and routine in place where you revisit the ideas year after year after year. That's good for you. And so I feel like this is kind of just emphasizing the importance of build building a foundation of like routine and a structure and a support system that will keep you in these ideas in a safe, comfortable way, which like listens to yourself and your needs and whatever, and that's what's gonna allow you to slowly develop.

SPEAKER_02 1:33:26

Right. That's excellent advice, practical advice. And Kabrusa's Rabin, Shiurim, community, reading, you know, like all these things. Yeah, that's that's excellent practical advice.

SPEAKER_04 1:33:37

Yeah, that I and I think in addition to those, I think also no, like not pushing it too much. Like I think some people go out and immediately set up schedule 15 and that's not gonna work.

SPEAKER_02 1:33:48

Right. Agreed. It's like sustainability. Yeah, that's very, very good. Okay, so we did not answer everything. We're gonna have to be like Rivia Kiva and and and and realize that there's more to know here. But I hope that this was a fun exploration and also gave you a lot to think about. Um, and I I to me the biggest question, other than like figuring out what these four are doing, is the Ram Bomb in that chapter giving us like just Ruby Kiva versus Akir? It's it'd be so weird if he did that, right? If he did not allude to the other two. Um, but like, I don't know, but like uh he's not overtly saying the other ones, so I don't really know. Yeah. Sorry, Feenon. Okay, if you have any thoughts uh between now and uh June 14th at 10 a.m., you know, then let me know because that's why I'm giving the graduation. I don't know if it's 10 a.m., but whatever. Uh then let me know. Okay. Um and uh I uh I want to formally apologize, even though there uh there are a lot of things going on. I apologize that we have not had this Thursday night year very uh as often after Paysak as we did before. I really wish we could have, but it just did not work out, and that's how sometimes some things go. So um yeah, but it it was a good year of Thursday night year that we did have, and uh I I hope to be able to continue next year. Okay, thanks everyone. Have a good night.

SPEAKER_04 1:35:09

Thank you so much, everything.