Podcasts about zakkai

No one really knows what happens after we die, and even if we live within a tradition (as Judaism is) that is quite clear that there is a heaven and a hell, who is to say which way you and I are going? Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was one of the greatest of all time, and he didn't know either. That should give us pause.

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is a singular phenomenon throughout the generations.There is no other gravesite or yahrzeit of an individual that draws the masses as Rashbi, Meron, and Lag BaOmer do. Compare this to Rashbi's teachers and colleagues: few visit the grave of the great sage of the generation during the time of the Beis Hamikash's destruction, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. Not everyone visits the grave of the great Tanna Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon's own teacher. Yet the holy site in Meron is the second most visited religious destination in Israel—after the Kosel.What is the uniqueness of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai?

The gemara in Brachos 28b recounts that when Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's students came to visit him when he was deathly ill, he began to cry? His surprised students asked him why...

Today's Talmud pages, Sanhedrin 40 and 41, dive down into the life of the great Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin joins us to explain why we need to know so much about this sage's life, and what his example can teach us about living in an imperfect world. How can we find the language of divinity in the narrative of our lives? Listen and find out.

On the brink of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Yohanan ben Zakkai made an astonishing decision.  When faced with an opportunity to ask for anything from the new Roman emperor, Vespasian, rather than choosing to ask him to spare the Temple, Yochanan asked only for permission to start a school and preserve Jewish teachings in Yavneh, south of modern day Tel Aviv.  Rabbi Marc Katz argues that this decision underscores how the Rabbis were the ultimate pragmatists in his new book Yochanan's Gam­ble: Judais­m's Prag­mat­ic Approach to Life. Is Katz right, and how should we consider pragmatism through a modern perspective?

The volume of outrage in our world has hit a crescendo. All the time I hear questions like, “how can you bear to be around someone who voted like that?!” or “how can you stand working with people who are so anti-Zionist or who are so pro-Israel?” As if people who do not rage against those they disagree with are somehow condoning or supporting evil perspectives. Young people, already stressed by the pressures of their own lives, feel pressured to respond to hateful social media posts and/or to present content that will fight against what they see as evil lies. Everything is pitched as though the conversation is an existential battle between good and evil and each one of us is either fighting for good or conceding to forces of evil. We saw this so sharply this week. When Luigi Mangione murdered Brian Thompson in broad daylight, the story on the street and on social media wasn't about a horrific crime against humanity. People lionized Luigi, they asked him on dates, they offered to be his alibi, they fundraised for his legal costs, they even competed in dress-alike competitions. Why? Because they see him as someone willing to take decisive action against the evils of our world, never mind that he committed an atrocious crime and never mind that killing Brian Thompson does nothing to fix our broken health care system nor address the real pain of the American people. There's a word for this energy in our tradition: zealotry. Zealots are people who are inspired by passion, who take action without due process, and who force the world to align with their vision. The most famous zealots in our tradition arose in a tumultuous time in our history. Way back in the first century, during the Second Temple Period, our ancestors were fighting to build a life in the shadow of the Roman Empire. At the time, the future of Judaism and Jewish community was precarious and there were different groups that had different ideas about what should happen. Some groups fought for justice and against elitism and classism that they felt were destroying society. Some believed that the Roman Empire was the way of the future. They promoted assimilation and Hellenization and worked to try to suppress Jewish revolt against the occupying power. While others raged against Roman rule, encouraging resistance to Roman culture and strict adherence to Jewish cultic rites. According to the Talmud, the elders of the Jewish community wanted to mobilize their community thoughtfully. But the zealots didn't have the patience for this. They felt an existential threat and believed it was their duty to force the Jewish community into action. They provoked and attacked the Romans, trying to incite violence. And when their guerilla tactics worked and the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, the zealots burned the granaries and food stores in the city so our ancestors would be forced to fight for their lives. When we tell this story, we focus on our survival. We focus on Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's improbable escape in a coffin. We focus on his heroic journey to Yavne and the way he preserved the Judaism that he and the other rabbis believed in. But that leaves out a critical piece of our history. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had to escape because of the zealots, because their radical ideology created a toxic culture of violence which threatened our very existence. Today, more than ever, we need to remember the zealots.

A practical example, of one who found his children to be lacking and gave all of his property to Yonatan ben Uziel instead of to his official heirs. The sage gave a portion of that gift back to the children, which opened a tussle with Shammai, over the standing of the benefactor's wishes. Also, the 80 students of Hillel the Elder, and their greatness, including the least of them being R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and how accomplished and steadfast he was in learning Torah. Also, a new mishnah! When man who specifies his heirs, he's largely believed - and then his wife would be proven exempt from yibum. Which is more of a "yibum" issue than an "inheritance" issue, but it applies to both.

When Hashem makes a decree upon a person, there are many ways in which it can be carried out, and our deeds can change things for the good. The Gemara says, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had a dream on Rosh Hashana that his relative was destined to lose a certain amount of money. Over the course of the year, he advised his relative to give large sums of money to tzedaka. By year's end, the man had given to tzedaka everything he was destined to lose except six dinarim. The king levied a large tax upon everyone, but this man was only charged six dinarim. He was able to fulfill the decree by giving tzedaka instead of losing it a different way. He got the merit of helping people and gained eternal reward. A man said, This past Elul, his bet midrash was asking people to contribute money to buy air conditioners. The air conditioners would help them be able to concentrate more on their learning and have more kavana in tefila. The man wanted to contribute, but he wasn't sure how much he wanted to give, and eventually he forgot about it. A couple of weeks later, his very own home air conditioner stopped working. He called some people who knew about these things, and they all said it sounded like the problem was not fixable. He then called two different repairmen to come down, and they both said he needed to switch the circuit board inside the unit, which would cost at least eight hundred shekels. The man then realized, this was min hashamayim. They were collecting for air conditioners in the bet midrash, and he hadn't given anything yet. He immediately called the gabbai and said he wanted to donate one entire air conditioner. He was not surprised by the end of this story. He called another air conditioning technician, and he told him to try putting his finger on a certain button for a long time. He tried it, and the air conditioner started working again, as though nothing was ever wrong. It seems like this man was decreed to pay a certain amount of money for an air conditioner, and he fulfilled it by donating the money to tzedaka, and then no longer needed the trouble of fixing his own air conditioner. Another man told me he rented an apartment starting in September, and he received a phone call from someone saying he had been providing the sukka for the tenants of that apartment in the past, and offered it to him now. It was a very large and beautiful sukka, which would cost him fifteen hundred dollars to use, plus six hundred and fifty dollars to build. The man usually rented a sukka for twelve hundred, but it was not that nice. So he told this person he was willing to spend the extra money to do the mitzva in a more beautiful way. The next day the sukka came, and the following day the builder came. The builder asked him where the brackets were. The man didn't know what he was talking about. The builder said he needed at least twenty brackets to put the sukka together. The man immediately called the person who delivered the sukka to inquire about the brackets. He said the brackets should be stored in the apartment somewhere. The man searched the apartment, and there were no brackets. To buy new ones would cost another six hundred and fifty dollars. The man was livid. He wasn't told about the brackets, and now he wanted to back out of the whole thing. He was going to yell at this man for not telling him about the brackets in advance. But then he caught himself. Although he admits he does have a problem with his temper, he wanted to start the new year the right way. He told Hashem he was going to swallow it and go and buy the brackets. This also meant a lot of time with traffic and lines at the sukka store. But he overcame his nature and got in the car to go. When he was just two blocks away from his house, he saw his brother-in-law turning the corner and said hello, and then told him he was going to buy brackets for his sukka. His brother-in-law replied, "Oh, I forgot to tell you. Last week I was driving by your house, and I saw your housekeeper put out a whole bunch of good brackets by the garbage. I took them for you but forgot to tell you about it. Come to my house now, and I'll give you them." The man immediately thanked Hashem.He said to himself, Hashem was testing my anger. Once I passed the test, He gave me the brackets. What were the odds that on the way to buy the brackets, he would see his brother-in-law, the only person in the entire world, who had his brackets at that time? There are many ways things can play out. Our decisions will determine the outcome.

Study Guide Bava Batra 115 Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son. However, Rabbi Yochanan rejects this statement as it is contradicted by our Mishna which clearly states that a mother does not inherit her son. Rabbi Yehuda responded that he doesn't know who the author of the Mishna is and therefore is not concerned with the contradiction. The Gemara first explains why the Mishna cannot be explained according to Rabbi Zacharia ben haKatzav and then proceeds to explain that the Mishna has an inner contradiction regarding the drasha of the word 'matot'. However, they resolve the contradiction. The Mishna discusses the order of inheritance - at each stage, if the person who should inherit is not alive, it does to their descendants before moving on to the next in line. There was a big debate between the Saducees and the rabbis. In a case where there are two siblings, a son and daughter, and the son is no longer alive but has a daughter, the rabbis ruled that the son's daughter precedes his sister for their father's inheritance. The Saducees held that the sister and the granddaughter split it 50/50. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai debates them and wins and sets the law according to the rabbis' understanding.

Study Guide Bava Batra 115 Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son. However, Rabbi Yochanan rejects this statement as it is contradicted by our Mishna which clearly states that a mother does not inherit her son. Rabbi Yehuda responded that he doesn't know who the author of the Mishna is and therefore is not concerned with the contradiction. The Gemara first explains why the Mishna cannot be explained according to Rabbi Zacharia ben haKatzav and then proceeds to explain that the Mishna has an inner contradiction regarding the drasha of the word 'matot'. However, they resolve the contradiction. The Mishna discusses the order of inheritance - at each stage, if the person who should inherit is not alive, it does to their descendants before moving on to the next in line. There was a big debate between the Saducees and the rabbis. In a case where there are two siblings, a son and daughter, and the son is no longer alive but has a daughter, the rabbis ruled that the son's daughter precedes his sister for their father's inheritance. The Saducees held that the sister and the granddaughter split it 50/50. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai debates them and wins and sets the law according to the rabbis' understanding.

Further discussion of the laws that pertain weights and measures, with a mnemonic to help them remember 11 beraitot, all pertaining to weights and measures, including those pertaining to the norms of the given place. For example, whether a serving might be flat or level, as compared to rounded or heaping. Plus, a caution against using "large" or "small" weights, with the goal, of course, against preventing cheating. Plus, punishments for those who messed with weighs and measures. Also, the injunction against metal weights and measures, and uneven levels, and less precise pacing for leveling the goods. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai wasn't sure whether he should teach all of these halakhot in public - lest they teach the dishonest people how to be dishonest. But if he didn't teach them, what would that imply about the Torah and the knowledge of the Torah scholars?

J.J. and Dr. Yair Furstenberg contextualize the ethical teachings of the Tannaim. Follow us on Twitter (X) @JewishIdeas_Pod to get into arguments with other listeners about Seneca and Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. Please rate and review the the show in the podcast app of your choice!We welcome all complaints and compliments at podcasts@torahinmotion.orgFor more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsYair Furstenberg is associate professor and currently serving as head of the Talmud Department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research focuses on the history of early rabbinic literature and law within its Greco-Roman context. In his publications he examines the emergence of Jewish legal discourse during the Second Temple period and its later transformation by the Rabbis. His current project "Local Law under Rome" funded by the European Research Council aims to integrate rabbinic legal activity into its Roman provincial context. Among his publications: Purity and Identity in Ancient Judaism: From the Temple to the Mishnah, University of Indiana Press 2023; Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity: From the Books of Maccabees to the Babylonian Talmud, CRINT, Brill 2023 (with J.W. van Henten and F. Avemarie); “The Rabbinic Movement From Pharisees to Provincial Jurists”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 55 (2024): 1-43; and particularly relevant to this talk:  ‘Rabbinic Responses to Greco-Roman Ethics of Self-Formation in Tractate Avot', M. Niehoff and J. Levinson (eds.), Self, Self-Fashioning and Individuality in Late Antiquity, Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2020, 125-148.

Reb Yochanans connection to Malchus Bais Dovid and his meeting with Vespasian   The Monumental takanos of Reb Yochanan Ben Zakkai   Reb Yochanan's fascinating letter to the Jews of Rome regarding the rising movement of one Yeshu Hanotzri 

Deux questions vont nous intéresser pour cet épisode qui couvre les années 74 à 132. La première concerne l'immédiate après-guerre avec son tragique bilan. Que va devenir la Judée mais également le Judaïsme, privé de son Temple ? Et la seconde : comment, après le drame de 70 et la destruction du Temple, une autre rébellion a-t-elle pu advenir ?   NOTES·        BIBLIOGRAPHIE | CARTES | CHRONOLOGIE (télécharger)·        Plateformes d'écoute | Réseaux Sociaux | @mail | Infolettre | RSS·        Génériques : Erwan Marchand (D.R.) | Épisode enregistré en Vendée (85, France), mai 2024 | Image de couverture : Yohanân ben Zakkaï, image générée par IA. «Au Large Biblique » est un podcast conçu et animé par François Bessonnet, bibliste. Sous Licence Creative Commons (cc BY-NC-ND 4.0 FR)  Soutenez le podcast avec Tipeee  ou Ko-fiVous avez lu ces notes jusqu'à la fini. Bravo ! Rendez-vous ici.  CHAPITRES 00:00 Générique et introduction 01:50 (1) Le constat après la révolte 06:20 (2) Yohanân ben Zakkaï (70-80 ?)13:35 (3) Flavius Josèphe (37-100) 19:40 (4) Trajan et les révoltes juives (98-117)25:15 (5) Hadrien et le retour au calme (117-132)26:25 Générique de fin

In today's Talmud pages, Kiddushin 21 and 22, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai expresses the special place that the ear plays above all other parts of the body. A dedicated lover of music and all things audio, Tablet producer Josh Kross joins us to discuss the importance that sound plays in how we experience the world. In addition to discussing the centrality of the sense of hearing, we share a segment from a recent episode of Unorthodox about the National Library of Israel's music and sound archive. If forced to choose between losing sight or hearing, which would our guest choose? Listen and find out. Like the show? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Send us a note at takeone@tabletmag.com. Follow us on Twitter at @takeonedafyomi and join the conversation in the Take One Facebook group. Take One is a Tablet Studios production. The show is hostedby Liel Leibovitz, and is produced and edited by Darone Ruskay, Quinn Waller and Elie Bleier. Our team also includes Stephanie Butnick, Josh Kross, Robert Scaramuccia, and Tanya Singer.  Check out all of Tablet's podcasts at tabletmag.com/podcasts.

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai (1/2)- perspective for one who learns much Torah, 5 great students of RYbZ and uniquenesses

This morning we analyze the controversial compromise of Rabbi Yochanan be Zakkai to the Roman General (later Caesar), Vespasian: "Ten Li Yavneh V'Chachomeha," allow Jews to move to the north, and continue studying Torah and observing Mitzvot, and we will relinquish the Temple, Jerusalem, and national sovereignty. Rabbi Avraham Kook explains this shifted the emphasis of Judaism from the passionate spiritual to the detailed and often dry ritual. This shift is a major component of what we mourn on Tisha B'Av, and we are heartened to see it returning, slowly and gradually, in our day. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/adathyoutube Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts - https://tinyurl.com/miningtheriches1 Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/miningtheriches3 Stitcher: https://tinyurl.com/miningtheriches4 Please contact Rabbi Whitman (rabbi@adath.ca) with any questions for feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

In today's Talmud page, Gittin 56, we hear a story of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai who while visiting with Vespasian at the moment when a messenger arrived to let Vespasian know that he was the new Emperor of Rome. Tevi Troy, former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and the author of Fight House: Rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump, joins us to reflect on the moments in American history when vice presidents have the mantle of leadership thrust upon them. What can we learn about being prepared to take on leadership responsibilities? Listen and find out. Like the show? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Send us a note at takeone@tabletmag.com. Follow us on Twitter at @takeonedafyomi and join the conversation in the Take One Facebook group. Take One is a Tablet Studios production. The show is hosted by Liel Leibovitz, and is produced and edited by Darone Ruskay, Quinn Waller and Elie Bleier. Our team also includes Stephanie Butnick, Josh Kross, Robert Scaramuccia, and Tanya Singer.  Check out all of Tablet's podcasts at tabletmag.com/podcasts.

Another very long daf with the stories about the destruction of the Second Temple. Encountering some of the personalities of that era... During the time described, there was a serious famine, which is important backdrop. Also, Rabbi Tzadok fasted for a very long time in his prayer for the salvation of Jerusalem. Which brings us to the story of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, and how he fundamentally saved Judaism being destroyed along with the Temple. Note the conflict among the Jews - Zealots and the main faction - including, in opposition to Rome. And what happens to the Roman leadership at this time, especially after Titus' disgusting behavior in the Holy of Holies.

El pragmatismo de Rabban Yojanan ven Zakkai

Gittin 56 : Marc Chipkin : 2023-07-11 The story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's three requests of Vespasian. Titus's wickedness, and his punishment through the gnat. Link to article mentioned in the shiur https://aish.com/51207337/

In the “Year of Four Emperors,” a great sage receives an audience with Vespasian and serves as the link between destruction and redemption.

Welcome to our live show series @RhythmnFlowShow on IG and wherever these are being held.Thank you so much for watching/listening to our podcast and live shows. Plz share w a friend or family member who can benefit from what we do and will enjoy. We are here to learn and offer valuable information about the cannabis and wellness space! Please like this video and subscribe for weekly podcasts, meditations, and affirmations. If you'd like to support us directly, check out our patreon here: www.patreon.com/disciplinedstoners Get Ellevan's book: STFU: Thoughts and Feelings shorturl.at/pIS08 Follow us on Instagram: Disciplined Stoners: https://www.instagram.com/disciplinedstoners/Winny Clarke: https://www.instagram.com/winnyclarke/Ellevan: https://www.instagram.com/ellevanmusic/ Follow us on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1XDoMv08pT9EfyBaCXNnaj?si=7a557f0e0bf14d4d Follow and Listen to Ellevan on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0G1sZ8clT2oSvzQ3IL2ZRd?si=vJVw9FLyS6GtF453Ny21kQ Sign up for Winny's Mailing List here: http://eepurl.com/gCIZg1#podcast #mindfulness #mindfulpodcast #podcasting #comedy #fun #podcasting #wellness #meditation #disciplines #entrepreneurEvery episode we travel deeper into unfolding who we believe we are. Through these conversations of self reflection, often comedic, often topical, always grounded, we try to uncover a deeper meaning to this life. Thank you for joining us on this special discovery and we hope to continue to inspire you and the choices you make to better your life. You are loved. You are well. We are growing. Love n Light --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/disciplinedstoners/message

Study Guide Sotah 29 The Gemara continues and explains the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the drasha on the verses about  with whom can she not have relations and what else is the sotah prohibited to do? There is another source for the rule that a  doubt regarding impurity is treated strictly only if there is a person involved who theoretically could have known if it was impure.  Why do we need two sources for this? Where did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai learn that a second vessel defiles a third if not from the verse of Rabbi Akiva? He learned it from a kal vachomer from a tvul yom. If so, why did he fear that others would reject this? On what basis would they reject it? From where do we derive that there is a fourth degree of impurity in sacrificial items? Rabbi Yosi learns it from a kal vachomer from a mechusar kipurim. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty with the kal vachomer.

On the interpretation of the verses that address the women we cannot marry kohanim - or is it those who can't eat terumah? Delving into the fine points of the text for the sake of the interpretations. Plus, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai's handling of halakhah when he didn't have the proof he thought he needed and would one day (theoretically) get. Including a comparison (attempted) to a tivul yom.

Study Guide Sotah 29 The Gemara continues and explains the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the drasha on the verses about  with whom can she not have relations and what else is the sotah prohibited to do? There is another source for the rule that a  doubt regarding impurity is treated strictly only if there is a person involved who theoretically could have known if it was impure.  Why do we need two sources for this? Where did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai learn that a second vessel defiles a third if not from the verse of Rabbi Akiva? He learned it from a kal vachomer from a tvul yom. If so, why did he fear that others would reject this? On what basis would they reject it? From where do we derive that there is a fourth degree of impurity in sacrificial items? Rabbi Yosi learns it from a kal vachomer from a mechusar kipurim. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty with the kal vachomer.

Finishing one chapter and starting the next. Wrapping up some possible cases - for the relationships where the husband isn't present or available to continue with sotah proceedings, but his warning to her negates her claim on her ketubah even though she doesn't drink the bitter waters. Also, a mishnah that lists many of the halakhot that were taught in the Beit Midrash when R. Elazar ben Azariah took over the leadership, when Rabban Gamliel was deposed. The laws are far-ranging, though beginning with Sotah, and reporting the prowess of R. Akiva, in solving some issues that R. Yochanan ben Zakkai (who was no longer alive) predicted would be resolved by subsequent generations.

Thank you so much for watching/listening to our podcast. We are here to learn and offer valuable information about the cannabis and wellness space! Please like this video and subscribe for weekly podcasts, meditations, and affirmations. Todays Guest: Brandon Zakkai! Comedian! Actor! Producer! Lovely Man! Follow him here: https://www.instagram.com/brandonzakkai/ Come see us live! Details to Rhythm & Flow here: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/rhythm-flow-freestyle-and-comedy-tickets-379334288067 If you'd like to support us directly, check out our patreon here: www.patreon.com/disciplinedstoners Get Ellevan's book: STFU: Thoughts and Feelings shorturl.at/pIS08 Follow us on Instagram: Disciplined Stoners: https://www.instagram.com/disciplinedstoners/ Winny Clarke: https://www.instagram.com/winnyclarke/ Ellevan: https://www.instagram.com/ellevanmusic/ Follow us on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1XDoMv08pT9EfyBaCXNnaj?si=7a557f0e0bf14d4d Follow and Listen to Ellevan on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0G1sZ8clT2oSvzQ3IL2ZRd?si=vJVw9FLyS6GtF453Ny21kQ Sign up for Winny's Mailing List here: http://eepurl.com/gCIZg1 #podcast #mindfulness #mindfulpodcast #podcasting #comedy #fun #podcasting #wellness #meditation #disciplines #entrepreneur #Podcastcouple Every episode we travel deeper into unfolding who we believe we are. Through these conversations of self reflection, often comedic, often topical, always grounded, we try to uncover a deeper meaning to this life. Thank you for joining us on this special discovery and we hope to continue to inspire you and the choices you make to better your life. You are loved. You are well. We are growing. Love n Light --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/disciplinedstoners/message

Malcolm Clemens Young                                                                        Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, CA 2C51                                            2 Advent (Year A) 8:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Eucharist                    Sunday 4 December 2022                                                                       Isaiah 11:1-10 Psalm 72:1-7, 18-19 Romans 15:4-13 Matthew 3:1-12 Are There Reasons to Have Hope? An Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that… by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15). Let me speak frankly. I see you might be the, “sort of person who, on principle, no longer expects anything of anything. There are plenty, younger than you or less young, who live in the expectation of extraordinary experiences: from sermons, from people, from journeys, from events, from what tomorrow has in store.” “But not you. You know that the best you can expect is to avoid the worst. This is the conclusion you have reached, in your personal life and also in general matters, even international affairs. What about [sermons]? Well, precisely because you have denied it in every other field, you believe you may still grant yourself legitimately this youthful pleasure of expectation in a carefully circumscribed area like the field of [sermons], where you can be lucky or unlucky, but the risk of disappointment isn't serious.”[1] The twentieth century novelist Italo Calvino (1923-1985) wrote these words about books and I begin here because it is human nature to be wary about hoping too much. We have been disappointed enough in the past to wonder, are there reasons to have hope? I have been reading several recently published books by authors who do not believe in God. I'm grateful to have this chance to walk with them and to try to see the world from their perspectives. Last week I finished reading Kieran Setiya's book Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way. His last chapter describes hope as, “wishful thinking.” He goes on to say, “In the end, it seems, there is no hope: the lights go out.” And later in a slightly more positive vein he says, “We can hope that life has meaning: a slow, unsteady march towards a more just future.”[2] The other book is William MacAskill's What We Owe the Future about how we might try to prevent the collapse of human culture from threats like nuclear war, engineered pathogens, and runaway Artificial General Intelligence. He points out the massive amount of suffering among human beings and animals. He uses a scale from -100 to +100 to measure the lifetime suffering or happiness of an abstract person and wonders if, because of the total amount of suffering, life is even worth living. By the way the question “does life have meaning,” is not something that we see in ancient writings or even in the medieval or early modern period. The phrase, “the meaning of life” originates only 1834.[3] Before that time it did not occur to ask this question perhaps because most people assumed that we live in a world guided by its creator. Although these books might seem so different they share a common spirit. First, you may not know what to expect but it will be a human thing. There is no help for us beyond ourselves. Second, they exaggerate the extent to which human beings can comprehend and control the world. Third, they fail to recognize that there are different stories for understanding our place in the universe and that these have a huge influence on our fulfillment. Well-being is in part subjective: we have to decide whether to accept our life as an accident, or to accept it as a gift. Finally, these authors lack a sense that human beings have special dignity or that we might experience God as present with us. In my Forum conversation with Cornel West the other week he mentioned how much he loved Hans-Georg Gadamer's book Truth and Method. It's about the importance of interpretation in human consciousness and begins with a poem from the twentieth century Austrian writer Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926). “Catch only what you've thrown yourself, all is mere skill and little gain; / but when you're suddenly the catcher of a ball / thrown by an eternal partner / with accurate and measured swing / towards you, to your center, in an arch / from the great bridgebuilding of God: / why catching then becomes a power - / not yours, a world's.”[4] How do we catch the world God is offering to us? This morning I am going to discuss an interpretation of the Book of Matthew by my friend the biblical scholar Herman Waetjen. I am not trying to communicate facts to you or to explain something. I long to open a door so that you might experience the truth of hope, the recognition that at the heart of all reality lies the love of God. Today is the second Sunday in the church calendar. Over the next twelve months during worship we will be reading through the Gospel of Matthew. Scholars say that 600 of the 1071 verses in it, along with half of its vocabulary come from the Gospel of Mark. An additional 225 verses come from a saying source and other oral traditions.[5] And yet this Gospel is utterly original. Although the first hearers are highly urban people living in the regional capital of Antioch, really Matthew speaks directly to us. In the year 70 CE a catastrophic event threatened to obliterate the entire religion of the Jews. Roman forces crushed an uprising in Jerusalem destroying God's earthly residence, the temple, and many of the rituals and traditions that defined the Jewish religion. Without the temple a new way of being religious had to be constructed. Let me tell you about three alternative visions for the faith from that time. First there was the way of the Pharisees led by Yohanan ben Zakkai (50-80 CE). Legend held that he had been secreted out of Jerusalem during the destruction in a coffin. HE then made an arrangement with Roman authorities to remain subject to them but with limited powers of self-government. Zakkai asserted that the study of Torah was as sacred as the Temple sacrifices. “He substituted chesed (kindness or love) in place of the demolished temple.”[6] God can be at the center of people's lives through “a reconciliation that is realizable through deeds of mercy that are fulfilled by observing the law.”[7] Waetjen asserts that the Gospel of Matthew criticizes this vision because it leads to a distinction between righteous (moral) people who are clean and sinful outsiders. A second solution to this religious crisis comes from apocalyptic literature about the end of the world, especially the Second Book of Baruch. This author writes about the Babylonian destruction of the Jewish Temple in 487 BCE. In his vision an angel descends to the Temple, removes all the holy things and says, “He who guarded the house has left it” (2 Baruch 8:2). The keys are thrown away almost as if it was de-sanctified. According to this view,“in the present the temple has no significance.” But in the future it will be renewed in glory through the power of God. So the people wait for God's return. Although Matthew is aware of both these answers to the religious crisis he chooses a third way beyond a division between clean and unclean people, or simply waiting for a new Temple. Matthew writes that Jesus as Son of David comes out of a particular people, with its history, etc., but Jesus is also a new creation which Waetjen translates as the Son of the Human Being.[8] We see this dual anthropology in the Hebrew bible with its division of soul/self (or nephesh) and flesh (basar). In Greek this is soul/self (psyche) and body (soma). Jesus says, “Do not continue to fear those who kill the body (soma) but cannot kill the soul; but rather continue to fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Mt. 10:28). In a physical body Jesus is born in Bethlehem as part of the Jewish community where he teaches and heals those who come to him. Jesus also exists also as soul, as the divine breath that gives all creatures life, as the first human being of the new creation, as one who shows God's love for every person. He teaches that at the heart of all things lies forgiveness and grace. There are no people defined by their righteousness or sinfulness. At the deepest level of our existence we are connected to each other and to God. The novelist Marilynne Robinson writes about how in modern times some people claim that science shows that there are no non-material things, that we do not have a soul. In contrast she writes about our shared intuition that the soul's “non-physicality is no proof of its non-existence… [It is] the sacred and sanctifying aspect of human being. It is the self that stands apart from the self. It suffers injuries of a moral kind, when the self it is and is not lies or steals or murders but it is untouched by the accidents that maim the self or kill it.” She concludes writing, “I find the soul a valuable concept, a statement of the dignity of a human life and of the unutterable gravity of human action and experience.”[9] Can we have hope? Does life have meaning? Let me speak frankly. I see you might be the “sort of person who, on principle, no longer expects anything of anything.” But you have a soul. God is closer to us than we are to ourselves. At the heart of all reality exists the love of God. The more thankful we are, the more we receive the gift of hope. My last words come from a poem by Mary Oliver called “The Gift.” “Be still, my soul, and steadfast. / Earth and heaven both are still watching / though time is draining from the clock / and your walk, that was confident and quick, / has become slow.// So, be slow if you must, but let / the heart still play its true part. / Love still as you once loved, deeply / and without patience. Let God and the world / know you are grateful. That the gift has been given.”[10] [1] Italo Calvino, If on a Winter's Night a Traveller tr. William Weaver (London: Vintage Classics, 1981) 4. [2] Kieran Setiya, Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way (NY: Riverhead Books, 2022) 173, 179, 180. [3] “The meaning of life” first appears in Thomas Carlyle's novel Sartor Resartus. Ibid., 153. [4] Rainer Maria Rilke, “Catch only what you've thrown yourself” in Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd Revised Edition tr. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (NY: Crossroad, 1992). [5] Herman Waetjen, Matthew's Theology of Fulfillment, Its Universality and Its Ethnicity: God's New Israel as the Pioneer of God's New Humanity (NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017) 1-17. See also, https://www.biblememorygoal.com/how-many-chapters-verses-in-the-bible/ [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesed [7] Ibid., 2. [8] Ibid., 7. [9] Marilynne Robinson, The Givenness of Things: Essays (NY: Picador, 2015) 8-9. [10] https://wildandpreciouslife0.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/the-gift-by-mary-oliver/

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.After breakfast, it's time to talk (v.15ff). Notice the setting: the charcoal fire. Here Jesus will serve Peter breakfast; previously, standing by the fire, Peter had denied his Lord.The rest of the chapter is about Peter, and also his relationship to the disciple whom Jesus loved.15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep."Peter knew he'd forfeited his right to be Jesus' partner in ministry.Jesus gently reminds him of his lapse, and "reinstates" him, confirming him in his position of leadership and trust (vv.15-19).See also Luke 22:31.Who are "these" in v.15? They are probably the other disciples.Peter had boasted of having a greater love, or loyalty, to Jesus than all the others. (See Matthew 26:33.)Three times Jesus asks the same basic question, parallelling Peter's triple denial of Christ. This must have been painful for Peter.There is no real difference between the two verbs for love (agapan and philein).John's gospel uses lots of synonyms, and the words for love are no exception.  The Greek nouns for love are agape, philia, storge, and eros. The fine distinctions are hammered out in C.S. Lewis' masterful The Four Loves. This is also available in audiobook read by -- yes! -- C.S. Lewis himself. But here we are only now concerned with agape and philia.Philia has overtones of friendship, agape of disinterested giving. The corresponding noun forms are philia and agape. The noun form agapedoes not appear in Classical Greek, although the verbal form agapao does.These words are used interchangeably throughout John, as you will see below.Man's love for man (13:34 - agape; 15:19 - philia)Man's love for Jesus (8:42 - agape; 16:27 - philia)Jesus' love for man (11:5 - agape; 11:3 - philia)God's love for man (3:16 - agape; 16:27 - philia)The Father's love for the Son (3:35 - agape; 5:20 - philia)If we've been guilty of throwing around third-hand linguistic "insights," not having done our homework, repentance is in order.Likewise, in verses 15-17 there are three different words for sheep (arnia, probata, and probatia). Once again, it is doubtful that any distinction between the words is intended.Peter is hurt (v.17) not so much by change of verb, but by the three-fold challenge to his faith.Loving Jesus means loving his sheep -- the responsibility of any shepherd or leader in the church. See 1 Peter 5:1ff.18 Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” 19 (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.”Jesus then predicts Peter's death by crucifixion, which is recorded in extrabiblical sources.Peter will die as an old man.In Acts of Peter 37 [8] the apostle says, "So I ask you, executioners, to crucify me head-downwards." Yet this source comes from late in the 2nd century; the upside-down-ness of the crucifixion is questionable.20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”Peter inquires about Jesus' special disciple (v.20ff).He is moving the spotlight away from his own heart and life to another believer.Jesus insists that Peter is the one Peter needs to be most concerned about (v.22).We are frequently tempted to ask the same question: People in whom we detect hypocrisy -- "What about them?"Less committed disciples -- "What about them?"Members of other groups -- "What about them?"Rumors are rumors. Jesus never said that his beloved disciple would live until the second coming.There is early and strong tradition that this is John, who in later life settled and ministered in the area of Ephesus.A minority of scholars suggest that this unknown disciple is Lazarus. He had already died once, and so it would be natural to wonder whether he would have to die again.Regardless, the important thing for us is the challenge Jesus gave Peter. No matter what is happening in the lives of our brothers and sisters, we must follow the Lord.24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.The theme of witness / testimony is very strong in John (v.24). The Greek noun martys and verb martyrein appear in Matthew 12x, Mark 10x, Luke 9x, but in John 35x. The evidence has been presented, and we must weigh it. We're all being called to a decision, a verdict.The writer adds that he has selected only a fraction of Jesus' words and deeds.Though he has faithfully told the story, much, much more could be said!The hyperbole of verse 25 has ancient parallels.The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo wrote: "Were [God] to choose to display his own riches, even the entire earth with the sea turned into dry land would not contain them" (De posteritate Caini, 144).And Johanan ben-Zakkai, "If all the heavens were parchment, and all the trees were pens, and all the seas were ink, that would not be enough to write down my wisdom which I have learned from my teachers; and yet I have tasted of the wisdom of the wise only so much as a fly who dips into the ocean and takes away a little of it" (Tr. Sopherim 16, §8).As scholars have noticed, there are several parallels between the Counselor and the Beloved Disciple. Each activity of the Spirit below is just what the author of the fourth gospel has done:The Spirit is to remain with the disciples (14:7).He is to teach them everything (14:26).He is to remind them of what Jesus had said (14:26).He is to declare what he has heard (16:13).He is to glorify Jesus by declaring Jesus to us (16:14).The gospel of John begins with the Logos, the Word of God, and ends with a comment about the impossibility of relating Jesus' entire life.Our libraries could never accommodate a complete written record of Jesus' words and deeds, or do them justice.Thought questions:Have I ever denied the Lord, later experiencing his grace, acceptance, and rehabilitation?If loving the Lord means caring for his sheep (not abandoning them), then how much do I love the Lord?It seems easier for some people to be Christians than for others. Do I compare myself to others, when I should be working on my own walk with the Lord?  

Brandon Zakkai (@brandonzakkai) is a comedian and actor located in Toronto, Canada. He has a unique perspective as an Iraqi and Iranian Jew, combining traditional Jewish humor with old school Arabic tradition. He is best known for his electric performances, bringing energy and excitement to crowds across Canada. His comedy combines absurdity, nonsense, wordplay and an eye for self deprecation. He is also an actor whose work can be seen on Netflix, YouTube, CBC, HBO and Amazon prime. He has been featured on Private Eyes, 12 Monkeys, Wayne, Fear Thy Neighbor, V-Wars, and Titans- just to name a few. CONNECT WITH THE GUEST: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brandonzakkai/ Upcoming Shows: https://linktr.ee/zakkaib IMDB: https://imdb.to/3FYLKkC ---- ✔️ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Thejohnnyrogers ✔️ Subscribe

This morning we discuss Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' application of focused praise, modeled by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai in Pirkei Avot, and by God in Bereishit, plus an incredible story of how a teacher's creative praise turned around a boy's life. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/adathyoutube Instagram: #adathmichael Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts - https://tinyurl.com/miningtheriches1 Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/miningtheriches3S... https://tinyurl.com/miningtheriches4 Please contact Rabbi Whitman (rabbi@adath.ca) with any questions, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

Synopsis: In today's episode we unpack a popular saying - "tafasta merubeh lo tafasta" - as explained by Epictetus and Mark Nepo, and as exemplified by the wisdom of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. Sources: - Epictetus, Discourses 3:9:22- Wikipedia, Tafasta merube lo tafasta- Mark Nepo, The Book of Awakening, March 7th- Talmud Bavli, Gittin 56b- Avos d'Rebbi Nosson 4:5- Rabbi Dr. Binyamin Lau, The Sages: Character, Context, & Creativity, Volume 1: The Second Temple Period----------The Torah content from now through Shushan Purim has been sponsored anonymously. This is the last sponsorship we have lined up. If you would like to sponsor a week's worth of content, you know how to find me!----------If you have questions, comments, or feedback, I would love to hear from you! Please feel free to contact me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.----------If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.----------Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweissBlog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.comGuide to the Torah Content of Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/2021/04/links-to-torah-content-of-rabbi-matt.htmlAmazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharelSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss)

How angels were created, daily, for the purpose of singing the praises of God... Or via the utterances of God. Plus, R. Akiva's foray into aggadic interpretation and the double rebuke he receives for his efforts. Also, how R. Yochanan ben Zakkai taught, or didn't, the Ma'aseh Merkavah to R. Elazar ben Arakh. And what happens to R. Elazar ben Arakh when he delves in on his own, including the creation of angel(s), and the connection of his enterprise to Avraham Avinu. Plus, the rainbow in the cloud when R. Yehoshua and others were learning Ma'aseh Merkavah.

Series: Be'erot, Love & Relationship with God.   Episode Transcript: This is the day before a yarzeit and a day that has importance to me personally because it involves the whole continuation of the teachings of the Admor Hazakeyn in the world throught the movement which became Chabad, the last Rebbe of the path the was established by him, Menachem mendel Schneerson became a Rebbe on yud shvat and so we're in that moment now. Tomorrow is yud shvat. One of the teachings we've been with is a path that we saw began in Moshe Rabbeinu's command to us V'ahavta et Hashem elokecha b'chal lvavcha b'chol nefshecha, u'bchol m'odecha. And we've been following that as it's become expressed through Avraham, through Yitzchak and Yaakov. And especially seeing Yaakov coming to his realization through Leah, and from there we saw how birth of Leah, and especially of her realization of Hodaya, came David. The amazing thing is, that the Chachamim teach us that V'ahavta et Hashem elokecha b'chal lvavcha, b'chol nefshecha, u'bchol m'odecha is parallel to these three, actually four great teachers, and the sifri, which is a midrash in the Chachamim. B'chol l'vavcha is Avraham Avinu, whose attachment to G-d was with all of his heart, all of his begin was given over to Him in his being drawn to Him with all of his heart; B'chol nafsecha, who is the o ne whose very life was given up to G-d, who is Yitzchak, ready to be sacrified and was to a certain extent, completely sacrificed to G-d, burned on the altar, his ashes remaining there, and b'chol m'eodecha, was Yaakov. So the Chachamim teach. And the Maharal explains that he was b'chol me'odecha, because his great teaching to us was in being modeh, and b'chol me'odecha is what happens, in giving G-d thanks, as the Torah teaches us about him, b'chol medoecha, have mode lo k'Yaakov, sheamar katonti m' kol hachasadim. He said, I have become so small by virtue of all the good things that you've done for me. Meaning, I've realized how much all that I am is this one point in Your great universe, which is a unique point, and there is no other one like it, but is completely and utterly given over to you, in gratitude to You and in acknowledgement of all You have done for me.                 But we saw that b'chol me'odecha has another very profound significance when it comes to Yaakov, and that is b'chol mamoncha. With all of your money, all of your creativity, all of your uniqueness, becomes a focal point of love. And what I want to share with you today is something of a continuation of where we had been last week with Daivd Hamelech. If you take a look at Rashi on that pasuk, parshat V'etchanan, it's a very brief passage but it's an unbelievable passage, to convince you that it's right there.  (9:46) Rashi says on b'chol me'odecha, he says, this is two different people: one is bchol mamoncha, the one who loves G-d even more than his money and the other one is he is willing to give over all of his money over to G-d, the one who loves his money more than his body, but then he gives another perush, davar acher, he says, b'chol me'odecha, what is that? B'chol midah umidha she moded lecha. Whatever G-d sends your way. Whatever He measures out to do, ben b'midat hatov, ben b'midat haporanut. Whether He sends you something you like, or that He sends you something which you experience as a punishment or some kind of trial; whether it's this or that, love Him, love Him. And who do we learn that from? None other than David Hamelech. Rashi goes on and says, b'chen David, hu omer, kos yeshuot esah, uv'shem adonai ekrah, tzarah v'yagon emtzah, uv'shem adonai ekrah, I raise up the cup of salvation, and I call out to the name of G-d, I have been in trials and sufferings, and I call out to G-d, and in the name of G-d I call. So then David Hamelech becomes the ultimate expression in Rashi's teaching here, of love of G-d, and he is the one, no matter what G-d sends, he experiences it as G-d's love and calls his name. Calls his name that he attaches himself to shem Havaya, in His most perfect name, the explicit name, the shem ham'furash of yud key vav key.                 So that David Hamelech is b'chol me'odecha, who comes out of Yaakov and indeed they share this ultimate expression of love of G-d which is in that.                 So what I want to give over today is something of what I believe that looks like in terms of the experience of life and what life is and from there, B"H to take this into our practice, because it is so crucial and basic in terms of what it means to live our lives in full and realized relationship with G-d. because everything else, anything else will not be love, I mean it may be love in terms of what the Rabbis call ahavah t'luyah badavar. A love which relies on something. It needs the constant feeding of my experience of you overtly being good to me and kind to me, but there is another kind of love which is aynat t'luyah badavar, a love which doesn't depend on any overt expression of caring or doing good for me for whch I'm grateful, and that is accessible, if one is able to live the b'chol me'odecha of b'chol midah u'midah she moded lecha, that no matter what it is that He sends, I remain in love with Him. And I believe that the reason for this has to do with the nature of what it means to live in a loving relationship. And that is always to remain connected. But in the deepest, deepest sense.                 Listen to some of the teachings of the Maharal of Prague, who was a great ancestor of the Ba'al Hatanya, and one of the greatest teachers that we've had of what a spritiual life for Jews is meant to be. He tells us that the teaching of Moshe Rabbeinu, of Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, must come along with V'ahvata et Hashem Elokecha, meaning that you can't have "Love G-d" unless your experience of G-d is some way a reality of unity. And that's to say the following: Da ki avaha hazot she ha'adam nimshat el hashem yitbarach, you should know that the love that a person has that he is drawn to G-d through, hu mitsad atzmo. It's just the way it is, meaning, bli shum tachlit. It doesn't have some ulterior purpose. It's something that's just the way it is. Rak mitsad atzmo shel ha'adam. It's just what we are as human beings. (15:25? Bfreshesh ben ahavah u'yirah, you should know there is a big difference between love and fear. Hareh hayirah hu hamelech, a fear that a person might have of a king, she rau yirah bapanav, who it's appropraite to be in fear of, ze eyno mistad atzmo shel adam, that's not coming from the person, that's coming formt he circumstances that he's standing in. Meaning, he's so to speak, reacting to something outside of him, and feeling in fear of it. Aval ha'ahavah, hi mitsad atzmo shel ha'adam. But love, that comes from the person himself. Now this is something that, when you first read it, doesn't totally make sense, I mean, love is something that is felt towards someone. What does it mean that the love here is something which comes from the person himself as opposed to the fear, that's a fear of someone. But a love, is that not also a love of? No, it says a fear is something which is created by something external, which you're standing in fear of, but love is something which is derived from the inner being of the person. And the proof being, it says, after all, it says about our love of G-d, V'ahavta et hashem elokecha b'chol l'vavcha, you are to love G-d with all of your being. It never says to fear G-d, that you are to fear G-d with all of your being. And then he goes on, lifnei ki ha'ahavah m'kubelet yoter, ha'adam efshar she tihyeh b'chol l'vavo. It's something which is totally in the person and can't be separated from him. Even if all of the sufferings that can come in the world, come upon this person, af im baim kol hayisurim baolam, ha'ahava she hi b'etzem, eyn kan bitul. A love which is essential can never be broken, ki eyn inyan ha'ahavah, because the love of G-d is nothing but the deveikut bo b'tsad atzmo (17:58) but the complete communion with Him from his own selfhood. [hebrew text]…. This is something which is essential to who we are as human beings, so it doesn't matter how much suffering and travail come upon a person, it cannot destroy something which is the essence of who we are. I'll give you a mashal, because he knows that this is something which is kind of hard to align yourself with. It's like fire. You know, fire always rises. That's the way fire is. Fire rises, and fire is hot. Now you could bring as much as you want against the fire to make it stop rising and stop being hot. Go ahead, do whatever you want to make it stop rising and stop being hot. You can put it in a very cold place. You can run something on it, so that it's not going up but that it's going down somehow, but it's not going to work. The reason why it's not going to work is because the minute it stops doing what it does as fire, it stops being fire. You can't make fire that's not hot. Fire in its essence is hot. That's just what it is. So, too, says, the Maharal, we are in our essence, lovers. Whatever you want to do to us, whatever you might do, and indeed it's done, you can't take that away from us. Because it is an existential definition of what it menas to be a human being. You can't get rid of that. And the reason you can't take it away, he explains, is because G-d is one. And that is to say the following. As one is relating to that which is coming upon him as something which is outside of him, separate and different to him, antithetical to him, and standing against him, so one is not experiencing the life which is the essential life of who we are . Because the truth of who we are is that we are at one with G-d. That's shema yisrael, hashem elokeynu hashem echad. There is only He, there is no other. And once you know that there is only He, there is no other, then whatever comes your way, there's only He, there is no other. And whatever you're experiencing, there's only He, there is no other. And not only that, but that's true of you, too! There's only He, there is no other. Living in a consciousness like that is a consciousness which denies the dichotomy of us and some kind of world that might be functioning antithetical to us. But rather, life becomes something that is rather than lived in dichotomy, life is lived in unity. And when life is lived in unity, then it's all experienced, and this is a true experienced of how it is—as a wellspring that is always flowing. And you yourself is part of that wellspring. It's not like there's you and there's stuff that's working on you, we're all part of the wellspring.                 Now there are interactions between the elements so to speak of that wellspring. The unity that we experience is not as one which is experienced as one which doesn't have differentiation and distinction. But nevertheless, we're all the wellspring that is flowing. The reason that I'm using this image, which is the image that the Rabbis teach is to bring us back to what we were touching upon last week and that was exactly as we were taught it. Because if you remember, the mishnah teaches in the pirkey avot, that there were these five wise men. There was the man whose ability was to hold any water put into him. His teaching was to always have a good eye. See things as good, see things as postivity, as a recipient--as he is. Because he is. And then there was the man who ashrei yulad'to. Who was the son of the joyous mother, who taught always seek to connect to others so that the two of you can birth something new in the synthesis which comes of having a chaver tov. And then there was the great teacher who was called a chassid, who taught not only those who you can birth something together with, but be a shachen tov. Those who live in physical proximity, even though you don't experience your life as being shared with them. That's okay, you're next to each other? Be good to that person, be a shachen tov. And then there was the man who was a yareh chet, who always lived in powerful fear and awareness of the boundaries. And he taught, always pay attnetion to the consequences, roeh et hanolad, always pay attnetion in this world. Make sure that where you invest is where you're going to receive. But the final statement, which Rebbe Yochanan ben Zakkai accepted as being the most powerful, was spoken in the most inclusive and the deepest of all of them as the path that man is to walk was the one taught by Reb Eliezer Ben Arach, which was taught by the man who was an overflowing wellspring, a ma'ayan mitgaber, an overcoming wellspring, and his teaching was, have a lev tov, have a good heart. And we realized in understanding him and his teaching, Reb Eliezer Ben Arach is actually teaching that if you experience life as I do, as an overflowing well, so then your heart becomes one that pounds with all of existence in a way in which everythign you come in contact with, you're actually giving life to. You're always beating a heart which is a heart which is giving life to whatever it is that you come in contact with because you are living the wellspring of life. That's what it menas to have a lev tov.                 But here's the deeper teaching. And this is the one which is teaching, which Rashi says, is the meaning of b'chol me'odecha. And that is to say that to have the lev tov, which is Malchut, which is David, to have the lev tov, which includes them all, is the heart which really can include it all, because everything it experiences, everything it's connected to is part of this flowing wellsrping of life. That means, that when something comes against you, when something comes not for you, antithetical to what it is that you were hoping for. So if you're attached to the lev tov, and if you're attached to the ma'ayan bitgaber, so then it will be transformed. It doesn't have to be transformed—it is! Something which is moving things forward in a way in which the evolving relation of G-d's life, of which you're a part and which is not coming to you is a part, all become participant in bringing life to all.                 David Hamelech actually says, kos yeshuot esah, v'shem hashem ekrah, I raise up this cup and in raising up the cup, he's describing I raise up the cup, whatever it is that has been given me in it, and I call out in G-d's name.                 So actually I want to share something with you which I feel is a demonstration of this, that I experienced the other evening with a group that I'm workign with, in which we're basically working in a personal process in maintaining deveikut. And someone was sharing a particular event that happened to him in which he lost it. Basically, what happens in the group at this point, people are sharing moments that hit them, when they experience emotional drop, in which they become disconnected, Pushing it off. "Pushing it off" means emotionally angry, frustrated, disappointed, sad, disconnected, numb, any one of these emotions which are basically, I can't do it, don't want to deal with it.Since you can't own, can't deal with it, don't want to deal with it, so you get angry, or you get frustrated or have all kinds of emotive reactions that are basically a way of saying, this is not for me.                 So, we've been more and more attentive to that kind of shift, when it becomes, this is not for me. So one of the people in the group told a tale of how he's been spending studying a particular section of the Shulchan Aruch, that has to do with Shabbos, and last Shabbos, he was coming home from shul, and he was with these guests also that he was holing to show a beautiful Shabbos to, and the truth is, before he went to shul, that the gate to the apartment building area where he lives was a little but stuck, so he called up to his wife, you know, to see if someone could take care of this before Shabbos comes. So, gate closed, went to shul, nice davening, the whole thing, and on his way back, he's walking up the street with these people who he's showing this great Shabbos to, and he sees ahead of him at the gate, the Ba'al Habayit, who's not shomer Shabbos observer, standing there with a flashlight, and there's someone there from the building who is a Shabbos observer with a screwdriver, tinkering with the gate trying to get the thing open. Now the particualr section of the Shulchan Aruch that he is learning is all about fixing things on Shabbos and not fixing things on Shabbos. So he's walkign up the street, and he's watching this scene, and starts getting angry, frustrated, disappointed, et cetera. So, there's a whole process around this, but we wanted to look at this, what went on there. Initially his feeling was, initially I was angry, but I caught it, and let go, and it was okay. But as we explored more deeply, and went back to the scene, so the moment that everything dropped out for him, was the moment that he saw (laughing) the screwdriver. That was it. There's this picture of a screwdriver. And he sees this person holding the screwdriver. Like that's it. Right? So we just kind of hold on that, what's going on with the screwdriver, and goes into the emotions there. It's like he's really disappointed, angrier, and angrier. What's the anger saying—which is the next step. He says, "How could you not know what to tell them? How could you not know what the rule is? How could you not speak up? What's the matter with you? Why don't you ever speak up? You never speak up!" And as we turned the questions into statements, which is what they really are—in asking the question, Why don't you know? You're not really disappointed. It's really a statement of You ought to know. You should know the answer to this question. You should know what needs to be done here. You should be speaking up. What's the matter with you? You never speak up! And all the accusations and then going deeper into that, and if you don't speak up, that means you're weak—just asking him: And if you don't speak up, what does that mean? –Weak. And what happens to people who are weak? –People who are weak, nobody ever listens to! And if nobody ever listens to you, then? –Then I'm worthless? All of us have this. It's not any different for him than it is for any of us. I should know. I should speak up. Which is of course, a bunch of malarky. You should know? Well, if you should know, why don't you? I guess, it's not that you should know, it's that you want to know.  Ah, you want to know, well, that's something else entirely. But should know is generating exactly the kind of push-off which turns him into the kind of angry, disconnecting, experiencer reacting to this situation which is one which "I'm not going to take this. I can't take this." And ultimately, I can't take myself. I can't take myself.                 So this passage, which as became clearer to him, these kinds of lies that he's telling himself, and it became clearer and clearer to him that it's a lie to say I should have known what to say. That's not true, that he should know what to say. It's that he would want to know what to say. And as, one by one, he went down and realized he became released of that activity, which is completely been built out of his unwillingness to accept life  as a flowing well which is bubbling up with a new life form, which is him responding to this circumstance in a way in which he, and all, will grow from. You see, to be there with a lev tov, which is to be as one who is in the spring and life flowing now into its next realization through him, It's all one, this is where it's taking me, this is where it's going, it's to be modeh and take you to the meod. Because this is how deep Chazal are. That to be modeh, no matter what G-d sends your way, is to achieve and connect with the meod. Because, what is the meod? The meod is the more than what already is. And this it the new level. The meod is the more than what already is. And in order for us to move to the more than what already is, you have to be willing to shake loose of what already is.  And the way that happens is when you get hit by those events which are initially experienced as being antithetical to us, because of course they are—they are antithetical to the way we already are. But if you experience them as being part of the ma'ayan mitbgabeir, so then you'll experience them as taking you to the meod. That's why the rabbis say that meodecha is someone who's modeh ben b'midah tovah, ben b'midat puranut. Makes no difference, because he's living the meod, he's living the more than what already is. What stands in the way is the self-depreciating belittling voice which accusees you of not having the stuff to live up to the realization. That's what that accusation is. You should have known, you should have spoken up, you should have done this, you should have done that. You're wrong for that, it's no good because they're doing it the way I've told them a thousand times that they shouldn't, blablablablablabla, you can say it as many ways as you want, you don't' have what it takes to live what is now here. You don't have what it takes, And it will take whatever voice which will be the one which is your smallness speaking, it'll be whatever voice you can train, or you've trained yourself to bespeak your miniscule nothingness in the face of what life is sending you. His voice was I'm weak, and the way he kept weak in place was Weak people, no one hears, and they're basically worthless. That's the lock.                 That's why, by the way, the ma'ayan has to be a ma'ayan mitgaber. It has to be an overcoming spring because what it needs to overcome are the fears of our worthlessness and our smallness that we're not up to the task. That's why it had to be Rabbi Eliezer ben Arach, whose name literally means G-d is my help, I'm the son of worht. Arach, Ayin reish chaf. I'm the son of worth, because he experiences full worthiness and worthfulness by always experiencing life as being a ma'ayan mitgaber. And he is always able to be experiencing life as being a ma'ayan mitgaber because he's always attached to worth. Well, when this person came to this realization and was able to clear away the garbage that was holding him in his disconnected, disassociating exiled consciousness—exiled in the deepest sense of he can't be in the world The world is just against him, hitting against him, against him, against him (sounds of a fist and hand together) all the time. Well, when that cleared, the one word which he had to describe it was cheirut—I'm released. And I want to tell you something. It was very beautiful because it was in the context of the group.                 Now one of the members of the group was sitting like, quietly, while other people were responding to what was going on for them, until at the end when he said, well, I was there. He was physically there that Friday night, when this happened. And I want to tell you that even though you didn't say a word, you pushed everyone off. I could not relate to you at all. You were just completely push-off energy. And I want to tell you now, now I feel so close to you. Because what had shifted, and this is really what happens, what had shifted is that the reality that he was now living was of connectivity, because he had cleared away all the voice of denigration and was now able to live life as the ma'ayan mitgaber. And attachment to it. So now everyone aronud him felt close to him, because that's what happens. Because when you live your life as a ma'ayan mitgaber, you become a lev tov. You become a beating good heart, And now everyone is drawing life sustenance with you, and even from you. When you have moved into that enlightened place, which is the truth of who you are. This is really the root of it all. And living a life of deveikut, as the Maharal says, and the reason it's so important to tell us here that it's all one, and that it's the essence of who you are because any slivering of a hair-space miss that it's all one and this is my essence of being a loving, communing being with G-d and the life he is living thorugh me and everything around me, so as much as you'll be missing that, so you'll be missing love. And as much as you'll be missing that, you'll be missing the ability to be in meodecha. To be in the moment when G-d becomes, ki v'yachol, more than He was before. So to speak. But it's ouronly place on the planet is in making life more than it was before And the only way we can make life more than it was before is when we leave behind all of the deprecations that we have speaking to us saying, Not for you, baby, not for you. That's the creativty, which is a joined co-creating with the Creator of the Universe. And it's why we saw—the Torah is built on this—as we saw the first thirty-two words, Bereshit barah elokim, et cetera, the first thirty-two words, which is the gematria of lev, have the word following them, the thirty-third word, tov. So that the whole Creation is lev tov. That's what it is, it's a pounding heart beating with sourcing of life and of the waters of goodness which are always bubbling up with new and ever-changing forms, which as much as you are relating in unity to the source of that wellspring, all of those changing forms will be possibilities for you of growing  into your meod. And this requires the direction that meod has, of clarity of purpose, and it requires an attachment always to the essence of who we are as beings of G-d.      This is why it derives from Yaakov, it's the same word. But it comes to its expression in David. In the "practics" of it—whatever you send my way, kod yeshuot esah, whatever you send my way, I'm raising up the cup of salvation. It's all salvation, I'm raising it up. Kos, by the way, is the same gematria as the word elokim, Elokim being the aspect of divine justice. So that David Hamelech is saying, I'm raising up the kos, which is elokim, which is your judgements, as yeshuot, as salvations. And I'll tell you why, because Yesha, is yesh ayin, seventy. That's what David says, those are my seventy years. And you know what my seventy years are? My seventy years are, indeed, the years I was never menat to have. If you remember, he was meant to not be born, until Adam Harishon donated seventy years. Which is to say, because David experience his life, not as some separate phenomenon, so he is always living life as a wellsrping flowing through him. It's not my particular life. I am a mouthpiece for all of life. Yesh Ayin, Yesh ayin, which is the ma'ayan. That's yechuot, kos yeshuot esah.                  (Someone passing out tissues/ "It's the flowing ma'ayan," the tearful participant says) And I want to tell you something. It's a most beautiful thing. Which is also about Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, and David. And that is that the Gemara in kuf tet vav in Masechet Pesachim, says in the end of time, G-d's goin to make a great feast. And when everyone's done eating this great feast at the end of time, there's going to be the question of who is going to be mechubik with the benching. Who is going to lead the birkat hamazon, the blessing after the meal. So G-d's going to turn to Avraham, and say, "Avraham, maybe you? Would you like to take the cup for bentching?" So Avraham's says, "No, no, out of me came Yitzchak, it's true, but also Yishmael."  "Oh, okay, Yitzchak, how about you, will you be mechubik with the benching? Yitzchak ben Avraham." Now, Yitzchak says, "No it can't be me, because from me came Yaakov, but also came Esav." So now He turns to Yaakov, and he says, "Yaakov, please, would you please bentch for all of Life?" So Yaakov says, "You know, I can't. You know, I married two sisters, and the Torah prohibits marrying two sisters." So He turns to David, and David says, "Kos yeshuot esah, ub'sem adon-ai ekrah. Tsarah v'yagon emtsah. Ub'shem ado-nai ekrah." So he takes the cup and leads the final, closing blessing to G-d for all of the sustenance that life has provided. It was the final bentching. But you see, only David could because only he lived out of the dichotomy. It's for me, you know, G-d, it's not either, or. For me, it's not either Yishmael or Yitzchak. For me, it's not Esav or Yaakov, For me it's not two wives. For me, whatever has been has been, whatever is, is, and it's all You and Your name, which I now bless. That's how it ends. That's how existence ends. With that final bentching. Taking all of how life has sustained us with. And putting it into that one cup, that specifically David will be the one who can bless. And that's because it's exactly what the Rambam taught us about David, it's the truth—he's never cholek kavod l'atsmo. He is never separating himself out to give himself honor. Because as soon as you do that, you cease to be a participant and mouthpiece for the wellspring which is life. And it's exacltly the way it works.                 I have another story. I was walking through the Old City yesterday morning. I go sometimes early in the morning. And there was a group of people, let's put it this way: clearly bigger, clearly stronger than me walking by in one of the alleyways which weren't necessarily one of the better places to be hanging out early in the morning. So I'm looking at this and all of a sudden it it became clear to me, that maybe they'd be bigger than me in this form, but they're not bigger than what I really am. Nothing could possibly be. And that's the truth. Because there is nothing bigger than what we really are. And soon as you're attached to it, there's nothing that could overcome that, because it's a ma'ayan mitgaber.  The primary overcoming that the ma'ayan must overcome is your own fears. And your own fears rooted in your experience of yourself as a separate, small, inconsequential speck that can't stand up to it. Could you repeat the translation of what David says?   I'd love to. What King David speaks are the verses in the chapter of 166 in Tehillim. G-d, I love You, that begins, You always hear my voice. You turn Your ear towards me, as I call out to you with all of my life in all of my days. Even when the pangs of death surrounded me and the narrow straights of hell found me, and I found trials and tribulations, I called out in Your name. Please, G-d, redeem, save my soul. Oh, G-d, you're always merciful. You always have compassion. You guard the fools, you raise them up, You save me. Bring me to my resting because you have brought upon me. You have saved me from death. You have taken my eyes away from tear and my legs from falling. I always walk before You, G-d, these are the lands of life. Asd I speak, I believe. Even though I've suffered. I once said people are false, but now I know and can return to You, G-d, the great cup of salvation, which I raise up as I call Your name.                 So what the Rabbis teach of David's song here is that he raises up the cup whether it's tsarah b'yagon, whether it's gifts that are overtly and apparently for his beneft. He raises up the cup. Kos yehuot esah. Because he's always calling G-d's name. That's his communing with G-d which is a communing of meodecha. A communing of the more than was. The more than was. This is why the Rabbis also teach, the way in which G-d saw it all—if you  remember at the very beginning, we saw that the first thing that G-d does after He creates is that He looks at it all with an ayin tovah. He created the light, it was good, He created the this, and it was good. Then he looks at it all and He says it's tov meod. On tov meod. On tov meod, the Rabbis say, What's tov meod? That's suffering. Oh my G-d. What's wrong with them? What? Tov meod is suffering? Yeah. Tov meod is suffering. And I'll tell you what I think is happening there. It's very simple. When you look at it all, vayar et kol asher asah. When He saw everything He had made, only when He saw everything that He had made could He say that suffering is tov meod. That, what it does is it pushes everythign to the next level. If you're not seeing everything, if all you're seeing is the pieces, so then just have an ayin tovah. Try to look at it with a good attitude and find what's good in it. But if you can see it all, then you'll see that the yisurim are the meod of creation, they're when it's moving beyond what it already is. That's loving G-d b'chol meodecha, that's the tov meod of creation and it's David Hamelech who brings that. Why does it have to be Daivd? I believe it's rooted in what the Rambam tells us about his joy. David is the one who "lets loose." And stops worrying about himself. (59:13 inaudible question) Oh, we could never know that. We can explain it within our context. We can talk about it in our experience of having been that way. But we can never explain why it is that G-d made a world in which that would be the mechanism through which the meod would come into realization. We could never explain or know that. That's something which we just have to surrender to. Because to know and understand that would be to step out of the very consciousness which we've been created with. And to look from the outside at the other possibilities for what could have been, such that there would be a world in which there would be growth without suffering, in which there would be a growth without first there having been a lack which then the grower grows into. Could there be a world in which there would be no lack, but that everything would be growing? Could there be such a world? It's unimaginable to us. You can't have growing without there having been lack that proceded the growing that you grew into. There must have been an empty space that you grew into and filled by virtue of your growth. See, you can't imagine a world in which there would be a growing light without there having previously been darkness.              So to ask the question would require of us that we'd somehow have access to the infinite possibilties of what could have been and then wonder, well, why'd you chose this one? But we can't see that, because we're trapped by the consciousness which we have been created with/trapped with/gifted with—the consciousness that G-d has given us. So what we can do is live that to its fullest. In full acceptance. And this is the full resignation—not in the negative sense of giving up, but resignation in the sense of  the softness of the touch that we need to live life with.                 There is a beautiful teaching that the Rabbis teach us, that Achiya Hashiloni, Achiya was a great prophet of Israel, living in the time of Yiravam. So he gives a prophesy to Yiravam and he says, the kingdom of Israel is going to be destroyed, like a kaneh, a reed on the waters, like a reed is blown on the waters. So the Rabbis say, Boy, look at what Bilaam said, who was such a big rashah. Bilaam who blessed the people, he said that we would be like strong-standing cedars, k'arazim nitayu. The prophet of Israel talks about us being like a reed? And Bilaam, our greatest hater talks about us as being a cedar? What's going on? So they say, well, better the curses of the lovers than the blessings of the haters, because when the winds come, the cedar is toppled. But the reed knows to bend.                 So as long as we are standing up strong against—why does it have to be this way? Should have been different! If we stand outside reality, say how it should be, we'll forever be living the accusations which disconnect us from life and block us from the growth that's offered. But if we can surrender in the most beautiful and creative way. I don't know why he made the world this way, I mamash don't know. But I know one thing: You saw it and declared that it was good. And if You saw it and declared that it was good, and therefore kept it, so You're good. And I know that though I can't outside of it and judge it, I can live within it and know that it's all Your lev tov. Once I know that, I can live the fountain. And I can be with what life sends me in its meod. And then we join David in giving a bracha to all that life has sent us, given us, us sustained us with. And can say kos yeshuot esah, in full love of Him. But anything else, the Maharal says, will not be love. Because love is communion and at-oneness with. The full heart.                 Questions: Am I hearing it correctly that there is lev tov and ayin tov? And ayin tov is when you try to experience everything as good as opposed to lev tov is seeing the bad also and you approach it with equanimity? Not only equanimity, but also creativity. Creativity as in ma'ayan mitgaber. It's nt really equanimity. The equanimity, so to speak, is the root of the creativity. Equanimity means that I am able to equally be present to it as it is, whether it is negative or positive. I am not buffeted around by it all the time. In kabbalistic terminology—its also in the mishne brurah—equanimity has to do with shem havayah, yud jey vav key, shivit hashem l'negdi tamid, whatever's coming against me, so to speak, l'negdi, I always put the name of G-d there. Yud key vav key, which the Gra, the Gaon of Vilna says, has as its main meaning, heyo numtsa ? (1:07:45) it simply is. When you are attached to G-d as "simply is" then you are "simply is." And when you are "simply is", whatever life hits you with, I simply am. That's equanimity. Did I get it right? And elokim, the name of G-d which is the kos, the cup, which holds Him, is the judgemnts and the differences, and the distinctions and the differentiations, which are what we must also relate to in a way in which we creatively respond to them                 But what I want to tell you Jackie, and this is crucial, the ability to creatively respond to them is rooted in how much you have the equanimity of shem havayah. And I'll say it in simple language. That when you're hit and buffeted around by all of what life sends you, if you remain rooted in It's all G-d Who is simply being, then whatever hits you becomes a creative opportunity for bringing out the meod. The enxt evlving step. That's the parable of the kane suf, of the reed that remains rooted, and therfore is able to be with what is in a way that is not disconnecting and antagonizing in reactivity, but is rooted in the deep waters and is not prone to topple over as is the angry erez. I just wanted to hear what the difference practically was, like and how we experinece. Creativity versus--. Yes, creativity versus equanimity. Creativity is rooted in equanimity. Creativity which is shem elokim, which is the creative force—bereshit barah elokim—has to be rooted in shem havaya in order to relate creatively to the tribulations. So meaning that when we face a tribulation we don't just say, wow , this is a tribulation; we say, how can I creatively face this? Absolutely. Now the only way for that to happen is exactly in the kind of process that I describe before. Like in the story. He saw the screwdriver, felt a little angry, he was sure hed taken care of it. But the person who was there witnessing what was happening, threw out the entire event, completely repulsed by this person. Because if you try to skip steps and don't try to travel through the intensity of the feelings it's arousing. And the intensity of the lies you're telling yourself, so then you will not be guided by the event to what the next growth-filled expression is going to be. You won't grow from it. You'll be like, yeah, I dealt with it. What do you mean, I dealt with it? This is an offering from G-d, from where His life is now opening up to. What do you mean, you dealt with it? Be in it. And hear all the reactivity which is the way of seeing where you are now so that now from there you can move into the meod of where you're next to go to. That's the way you get your guidance. But it has to be rooted in the yud of yud key vav key. You know the process begins with the bottom hey, life as it is. Moves to the vav, my emotive experience of it. Then it leads to the hey, the upper hey, which is your ability to think and cognate around it, these are the reactive thoughts still. Then still in the hey, moves to evaluating true or false. Then moves up to the yud, I receive your wisdom, G-d. And I'm a receptacle for it. And now I'm going to follow Your name down. Into the hey, a new perspective. Down to the vav, an emotively responding to and relating to and the down to the bottom hey which is David choosing to be modeh to whatever You sent me and to creatively produce to that by being attached to, in Chassidic teachings, that upper wellspring which is the upper yud, which travells down, the source of the spring, which is the yud, and then the spreading of the spring which is the hey, and then the river that follows down through the vav and then down into the bottom hey which is your creative choice to where you will direct that river to. Where is life going? It travels through you in your choosing, if you are modeh to whatever it sends you, and then you become co-creator of the meod, which is both the specific individuality which is yours, as we saw in Yaakov, and the divine connection of that, which was Leah, and the realization of it, through David, by accepting whatever life sends in real and true equanimity and surrender to it as it is, which then breathes and births the choice of where you will go and where it is to go now. It's a paradoxical spiritual condition that requires of that first the surrender, which sounds so passive, and therefore it seems like like I'm just going to accept it and be with it and quiet down and and basically die in peace. No, its not that way at all. You don't die there at all. You know why you don't die there? Because life is an effervescent wellspring bubbling up through you. All you have to do is there is you shake off the shackles, of the Michal, who is looking out the window of your self-consciousness, saying, Get back to the way you're supposed to be.  Get back to the way you are, have been, David, what are you making such a scene for? There the Rambam says if you would have been cholek kavod l'atsmo, you would have immediately gone into Galut. Because it would have been moneh for himself, the simchah and the love, the joy and the love which that moment was bubbling up for him. Mamash would have been the end of malchut, the end of everything. But instead, he's dancing it up like crazy. Almost as if the scene needed all of the elements of it. It needed Michal looking out the window, and it needed David being misgaber on that . It needed all of it for that life force to flow, but anything else would have been galut, like the Rambam says. The galut would have been the galut of life, detachment from G-d. These aren't easy spaces. They require meditative conditions. They require anchoring yourself all the time in this. This isn't something that once you've got it, you've got it. Not all all, We've got to say Shema Yisrael at least. Some people say it five times a day. They get up, they say, Shema Yisrael, and then during korbanos, they say it again during Shacharis. Then they say it again at Maariv, then you say it again before you go to sleep, then you say it again before you die. Just like, Shema Yisrael, all the time you have to be saying it. It's not so to speak our natural condition in the sense of the externalities of the forms that we live. It's got to be reawakened. Because to function we're always functioning in a consciousness of separateness. You always have to be reconnecting yourself, consciously choosing it. That's the way G-d made his world, Jackie, whether we like it or not. Why didn't He just make a world where we'd all be enlightened, where we'd just know this all of the time? Why did it have to be like the Rambam says, and avodah gedolah, a very great work, which is stop stopping yourself, as the Rambam says. Stop stopping yourself from connecting to this. Why? We can never know. But it's the great work of meod. So the medo and the lev to, it's not like the placidness of equanimity, it's the flowing joy of really being alive. Creative joy, that's why I was emphasizing last week: eym habanim smecha, that's flowing through it. In fact, the kabbalah says that the wine that is in the cup that David is holding is the wine of the happy mother who is birthing, because yayin is gematria shivim, it's also seventy. And it relates both ot the malchut and also to binah. It's joyous wine. He has to be holding up a cup of joyous wine.  There's also a drunken wine, which in the kabbalah is evil wine. This the Ba'al Hatanya talks about. The drunken wine is when you just disconnect and cop out. The joyous wine is an opening to creativity. I'm wondering with the ayin tov. 1) If you see things with an ayin tov, so how can you deal with things that are not tov, in the sense that, what if something needs to be addressed. This is not pacific, in the sense of just accept it as it is. There is a difference between reactively fighting and responding appropraitely . Reactive fighting comes from anger: this is not the way it should be.  Responding rightly is rooted in the equanimity of shem havayah. This is exactly what should be right now. But part of what should be is me in the picture, called upon to fight this evil, if that's what it is. But how do you fight if not in a reactive way, and by calling it evil are you not having an ayin lo tov. No, in calling it evil, you're describing that this is something which is a lack in creation that I am hear now to fill. It might involve chasing down the person doing evil. It might involve taking him to court. It might involve responding right on the spot physically. You don't call that reacting? In English, it's hard to make that havchanah, but in a language which we'll kind of agree to semantically, if it's angry, pushing away, then that's a reactivity, which is not rooted in the equanimity of shem havayah. And therefore, I'm not creatively focusing on what this growing in creation is meant to happen now—I'm just pushing it off. But you might have to shoot. You might have to deveop a tank to fight these people. We're not talking about something which, not necessarily mean action. Can you give an example, like the story you told. How could the passerby have dealt with the situation in a different way. I'm not talking about the internal dialogue. I'm talking about— Exactly. I asked him. How would you have liked to respond now? Imagine that you have returned to the scene, and choose how you want to be there. So what did you choose? He chose to see the screwdriver, breathe and feel calm. Consider whether he knew whether this was permitted or not, and to go over to the person with a smile and say, Remember, it's Shabbos, and I think there's a question about what you're doing. What I learned is this. Shabbat Shalom. I did something similar and the other person's reaction was very. I understand that if someone makes Kiddush and they don't keep Shabbat, whether it's kosher. Whether you can be exempted by it. Whether you can fulfill your obligation through it. So I went up to someone who made Kiddush at a meal where I was. So I mentioned it. I said, you know, I didn't make it as an attack, I said I'm just saying this because I'm concerned for myself… but it didn't feel like the next step was connection, and I don't know if I was looking at it from a negative eye. Maybe I could have said, well, he's trying. How would you interpret that situation, applying the logic of the class. It's possible that you did the right thing. But you said that the next step was like ayin tov, which is good eye, and then you connect with others. I don't know if it did, but on a certain level it did, because we ended up having a two hour conversation about halachah, but— And I want to tell you something else. It's not the end of the story. The story didn't end at that moment. Who knows where the person went with that and what you set in motion. How do you know? You don't. Unless you trust. So you don't think that me seeing the situation with an ayin tov— There's no guarantee that in the moment the person is going to say, thank you, you enlightened being, for that truth. I don't know if in that moment I had an ayin tov. I don't know either. But I'm saying you can't judge yourself in that particular moment of time. Again, for many reasons, one of them being, the story's not over. It will only be over when David raises the cup at the end of creation and says, I see it, kos yeshuot ekrah ub'shem ado-nai ekrah. David Hamelech hu achi meluchlach. Because his hands are full of blood, and Elishevah. That's what the Rabbis said, David did it so that the pathway would be open for us as individuals to do teshuvah. It's impossible to imagine that the one who would raise that cup would never made a mistake even once. You wouldn't say, ah, the one who's raising the cup, he never made a mistake even once. What does that have to do with what we've been through?

Series: Be'erot, Love & Relationship with God.   Episode Transcript: I walked into a friend's birthday party, who's the Rosh Yeshiva up the hill at Makor Chaim, David Zinger. It's like a whole yeshiva up there, like three hundred guys, they're all dancing, you know, this and that, we'd hang out together to ferbreng with the kids. Well he says, What are you thinking about? I said, I'm thinking about simcha b'tuv layvav. He said, That's great, because that''s shvat. That's just what I was thinking about, simchah b'tuv layvav. Shvat. (What does that mean?)                 It means joy with a good heart. And I wanted to continue the exploration from last time, if you remember that the Rambam teaches about some crucial things for us in terms of our work in coming to understand the nature of love, and it feels like something of a summary of where we've travelled to see this Rambam. I'll just remind you, he brings it at the end of the year; basically, he brings it at the end of his halachas that have to do with Sukkot, being the tekufot hashanah, being the time that that year turns around—which is why we turn around so much on Sukkot and on Simchat Torah. Because it's called in the Torah the tekufat hashanah, it's the surrounding of the year and it has to do both with the fact that the year has come to an end and also with surrounding light, which is called in Kabbalah the mafikim, the surrounding light, hakafah. And so we do all kinds of hakafos on Simchas Torah. And we sit inside something which is maykif upon us, we sit inside a Sukkah, which surrounds us, and those makifim and considered to have their origin in a world called as we've come to know as binah, the mother world of joyous birthing—aym habanim smeachah, which is why, of course, Sukkot is such as holiday of joy. Vayhitah ach sameach is spoken about Sukkot specifically, because Sukkot is the holiday of the time of the deep expression of the joy of birthing, the joy of giving.                 And in fact, the teachings of Chassidut have it that, in looking at the paradigm of Torah, avodah and gemilut chassidim—that is, the three pillars that the world stands on—so the standing pillar of Sukkot is gemilut chassidim, when you stand outside of your boundaries and become a giver. You stand outside of the confines of your house, and you become a giver. And there is the transition in the teachings of Chassidut, that is the transition into the world of binah, which is the transition of the ability and the actualization of birthing. That's why it has eight days—if you remember when we talked about Chanukah, which is the eigth sefirah down from the top—this eight-day phenomenon of Sukkah is also a reference to its aspect of being the eighth sefirah up from the bottom. And that's why Sukkot has these eight days.                 But the point is, and what is most precious for us, is that it is the time when we enter into the birthing mother who holds within her the potentialities, and most importantly, the fountain of life—the fountain of giving—and the powerful ability to overcome those things which come in the way of sharing. And I speak of this with such significance because binah, as we've seen in the Zohar, is the origin of love. And even though we're used to chesed being the place from which love originates, the truth is that it's binah, and we came to understand that chesed is really the origin of the love of G-d, and chochmah and chesed are the origin of the love of G-d, which have to do with a more static state of being, which is wisdom of what is, and chesed, which is the connection to what is. Remember that we explained that gemilut chassidim, the giving of chesed, always requires the injection of the aspect of gevurah, of power, of something that recognizes distinction and delineation and therefore has an other to give to (whereas chesed belongs really in the world of bitul, on the level of abnegation on the level of being a static principal.) This is the opposite of what most people think, but we spent time explaining this at one point. That it is a being in existence and in chochmah, it's a being in being, meaning that there is no other than His being.                 Binah, so she is the one who turns outwards, and she becomes the ma'ayan . She becomes the lev haolam and the ma'ayan, she becomes the heart of the world, and the spring from which giving springs forth. And so we find, interestingly, that the other theme of Sukkot is the Simcha Beit Hashoevah, the great, joyous event of the water drawing, which was the special event once a year in the Beit Hamikdash when the Cohen Gadol would go down to the spring that is at he bottom of Har Habayit. You can still visit there today—it's a very striking place, you can go there through the tunnel. Chiskiyahu, that's the mea ha gichon. He would go down and draw up waters, and then trek back up the hill with these waters and go up on the mizbeach, and pour these waters down so that they would return to the depths of where they would come from. Basically, doing nothing. (Laughing) He'd draw them up, he'd bring them up to the top, and everyone would be in tremendous joyous extasy, then he would spill them out, and they would do back down into the tehom, so that I suppose that next year, he would draw them up again. And this happened during the seven days of Hag HaSukkot, during the primary cyclical phenomenon, which is the water cycle, which is the first thing you learn about when you learn about environmental phenomena, that there is an ecological phenomenon as a system which replenishes itself. This cycle is generally most available to us in terms of visualizing it and realizing it as this water cycle, the basic cycle that is celebrated at Sukkot—tekufot hashanah—which is the time of the cyclical aspect of the year, when the birthing is the birthing and then it returns to its place of reorigination, down into the tehom, to be drawn again. And man has the one and simple function of being he who transfers it where it has come to, up through some raising, which will then return into its bed of primary beginning existence. And this is what it looks like, and it brings people such tremendous joy. Dancing like crazy, and we talked last week about Hillel HaZakeyn, dancing, saying, Im ani kan hakol kan, if ani is here, then everything is here, and it really is an image of that, like all of the world is being passed through me as I draw the waters and pour them down.                 And this is the consciousness of binah, meaning that she is the life-giving force, but she comes with a consciousness of that life being flowed through me, and it needs that—otherwise it becomes a most disoriented and disconnected phenomenon, like it did for Chava, when she said, Kaniti ish et hashem, that I had made a man like G-d, really the way most of the mefarshim read it, although really you could read it "with G-d," but the sense of it is that she had done like G-d, which is true, but she had done it from a disconnected place, having already eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so that her name, which was Chaya, became Chava, which in Arameic actually means "the snake," a problematic name. And in giving birth to Cain from there, Cain and Hevel, brought the first fraternal strife into the world, because their life's playing out really was an expression of a consciousness of binah that had been separated from the originator of life, so their reality is one of contest and of jealousy, which we looked at.                 But the point is, when the consciousness is right, so it's very joyous. So today I want to get a more of a look at this, as we began to explore last week in the Rambam, because this simcha is not only the place of birthing that we're describing, but it's also the place of love, which the Rambam taught us that the simcha, she yismach adam basiyata mitzvah ahava ahavta hakel shetziva bahem avodah gedolah hi. Put them together, joy and love. So I want to contemplate some of that with you today. That introduction is a way of getting you oriented in terms of what kind of a spiritual reality we're orienting ourselves toward and referring to, and to also remind you that it has to do with this aspect of surrounding, holding us, containing us, makif.                 I don't expect you to understand everything; this orientation is just to give us an alignment with something so that we can explore it together in terms of how it comes down into actual halacha that the Rambam poskins at the end of Hilchos Sukkah, and tells us there's this great avodah of asiat hamitzvah v'avodat hakel. So last time, we saw that the Rambam told us that the great avodah and of love is to not get in the way. And he said that kol hamoneah atzmo mesimchah, reui lhiparah mimeno. That this person becomes like a Pharoah, basically, becomnes a separater. And he told us later, How does it happen that you are going to get in the way of this. The phenomenon of getting in the way is called neges da'ato, and kavod l'atzmo. His consciousness, his da'at, awareness, becomes bloated and coarse, and he separates himself out for his honor. So if someone were to ask you, how do you get in the way of love and joy? So I'll tell you. Become stuck-up with yourself, egoically involved, bloated in your da'at. And the reason for this is because the function of da'at is connection. As in vayedah Adam et ishto, that he connected to her in terms of carnal knowledge, which is an unfair translation of what the Torah means when it says knowledge, It's not really talking about the physical aspect of the knowledge, although that's clearly participant, but it's talking about the mentalities merged, it's talking about the personhood merged, and that's what da'at does. As soon as you're neges da'at, so then your da'at becomes coarse and bounded and blocks the ability to merge with another, because you've become basically stuck up with yourself, rather than being in a connective mode.                 The other reflection of that, as it comes down in terms of personality, is this person will be cholek kavod l'atzmo. You'll see him standing on the side. Not necessarily standing on the side like the wallflower at a party. He might be standing in the middle of the party. But he's basically being cholek kavod l'atzmo.  Meaning that his orientation is that he should be able to establish his honor and recognition in the world, in a way in which people will provide him with the worth that he so is desperately speaking. Or by simply wanting to experience life intensely, and so his orientation is attempting to get a hold of life, get a touch of life. That's cholek kavod l'atzmo. These are the reflections of how a person will block the simchah and tuv levav, and the simchah and the ahavah that are meant to flow through him. Imagine the Cohen going down to draw the waters and then coming up onto the mizbeach, saying, This is stupid, man, I just drew them up, and now I'm going to throw them down again? What are we doing here? We're not doing anything. We're just drawing the waters and pouring them back down, and then they get buried back down into the ground, go intot the tehom and then literally flow back down through the underground channel back into the gichon. As soon as he becomes self-conscious about that, and demands for himself that he should have significant place, then he's going to step down off that altar and not be interested in that process at all. It's only as much as he's in joy involved. It would be really like a mother whose in the birthpangs saying, this is stupid, this child is coming down into the world, and he's just going to be buried again in a couple of years, I mean, what the heck am I doing? It's really like that, that's what you're doing, I mean, how long is the kid going to live? Seventy, eighty, ninety years? A hundert und tsvantsik. In the end he's going to be back in the ground.                 But it's only when a mother selflessly becomes a mother of life, that she allows that to pass through her and the more selfless she is about it, in the sense of I see this as a flow and a fountain which is coming through me, so the more she'll be able really to be joyous in giving that birth. Chazal actually say this. They say that the passage in the Torah which describes G-d getting sad that He's made man, v'yitazev el libo, He got sad in his heart. It's at the end of Parshat Bereshit. This marvelous Parshat Bereshit, it all starts to fall apart fairly early on, and by the end of Parshat Bereshit, G-d is sad about the whole thing. So there is a midrash that asks, He's sad at the end, but wasn't He happy at the beginning—yismach Hashem b'ma'asav? He happy at the beginning? Didn't he see what was going to be? Didn't he forsee it? So the midrash answers, of course He forsaw it, just like a mother and a father forsee the death of their child. And nevertheless, they are joyous in celebrating his coming into the world. Now that's a deep thing, it's not just a trip people are playing. I am joyous in what is, and I celebrate it as it is, by being a place through which it will pass. And that's fine, and that's mamash the only way to live a kind of a life which remains connected to the eim habanim smecha.                 So binah is actually called l'hotsi davar mitoch davar, the power of drawing out one thing from another. And it's the origin of creativity, and interestingly, the origin of joy and of love. They all begin there and they all, so to speak, get divvied out along the way. So one thing that I can certainly say practically is being attentive to that is really the place.                 And I want to tell you a story, and it's a little bit embarrassing, but that's okay, because we're all friends already, and that is that mamash the Torah that I'm teaching you right now is derived from what I'm going to tell you about. And that is that there is a group of boys from this yeshiva up the hill, that had for some time been coming to learn with me Sunday mornings. I was sending sort of confusing messages whether it was happening or not happening. And they have to come special from home in order to get into Bat Ayin on time for us to learn together. So it came down to that I had said it wasn't going to happen and one of the guys shows up. So at that point, I'm like open the door, and I watch myself going into this space of mamash cholek kavod l'atzmo. Like, here's this one high school kid, he's a tenth grader, and I finally had a morning opened up for me to do the things that I want to do. To learn the things I want to learn. And so he comes in the door, and I feel myself, it's like an old pattern of I don't have time for you, so I basically say to him, I don't have time for this right now, I'm busy. You know, when you get it together, and it will be a group, so then we'll talk again. So, what am I doing? So if you want, we'll talk for ten minutes. Just won't have another chance to meet him. So he comes in and mamash, I just went into this space of lev tov and this Torah opened up. This Torah opened up in a way that I want to share with you this morning, thanks to him, I mean the kid is not only brilliant, but spiritually very sensitive, and was just the right person for me to be learning with. It's great, we had a great time, and he got to school late but it's their problem.                 So I'll tell you what opened up and it's very dear to me. I can't say that it's entirely worked out and it's a most marvelous teaching of the Rambam. To be honest, I don't remember if I said it to you last week or not, but I hope it will be okay. The Rambam, in teaching the way he did here, hinted to us that he's got a secret that he wants to share. And that is, when the Rambam brings a verse, he intends for you to know that the verse is the origin of what he's teaching. And I'll remind you that the verse he brings is the one that teaches us that we are going to go into exile because we have not served G-d b'simcha ub'tuv levav. In joy, and with a good heart. So you look at that and you say, Joy, I know what that is, but what is tuv levav? What does it mean to have a good heart? Am I a nice guy? Okay, but there is something deeper here. The Rambam is telling it to us in his delineation which is a tremendous chiddush; it didn't have to be this way. That at the end of Sukkot, the place you arrive at is simchah and ahavah, joy and love. How do I know this the Rambam says? Because that's the ultimate achievement in the work of G-d, proof being, it comes at the end of the year, the whole process is ending at tkufat hashanah, and I know it because the ability to return from galut, and here's a deep irony—involves going into the galut which is called Sukkot. The ability to return from or not go into Galut, to be more precise, involves going into the galut, which is Sukkot. You leave your house and you go out into these ephemeral, practically non-existant boundaries of the Sukkah. And we say, let this be a kapara, if I needed to go into galut. And here the Rambam says, that's about the simchah and tuv levav, about which the Torah said, if you are going to lose it, you are going to go into galut. So what you're telling me is that I need to leave and go into galut, so that I will not go into galut. (What is galut?)                 Galut is exile, separation, losing your embeddedness in the place that is meant to be yours. In other words, the simchah v'tuv levav which comes out of Sukkot, or is the reality of Sukkot, is that which goes into these ephemeral boundaries which are called the Sukkah, and only when one is able to be there, only then will one not become disconnected from his earthly root of the land of Israel and the place from which he is drawing the wellsprings of his existence. That's what the Torah is teaching us. So now, the Torah is telling us, I have two things to teach you. Namely, needs to be b'simchah, if you're going to stay here, and it needs to be b'tuv levav, with a good heart. So the Rambam tells you, What's the tuv lev? Tuv lev is love. Otherwise, where does he get his proof from? Tuv lev is love. And then he goes on and says, Merov kol.                 If you did not worship G-d with joy and in love, with the awareness that you have bountiful sources, a bountiful source, merov kol. From what would the word be? Exuberant everything? You can't really have rov kol, because kol is everything. You can't really have rov of everything, a lot of everything. It's like the best we can do for abundance in Hebrew is beyond everything. Merov kol, and I do want to check the kabbalah on this but I'm sure that rov kol is a reference back up to binah. Because kol is generally malchut, where it comes down to, so rov kol, is like the sourcing of that.                 So this tuv lev what is that? What does it look like in life, and what is the consciousness that it holds such that it should be? I want to show you a teaching in the mishnah which you can actually see yourselves. I want to tell you that one of our greatest teachers, Yochanan Ben Zakkai, whose name means "the man of chen," "the chen man, who is the son of the Zakkai, of the pure one, the zach one." So Yochanan Ben Zakkai had five students. And in a very unusual mishnah, in Pirkey Avot, chapter two, number nine, rather than starting with what he teaches and what his students taught, he tells us about his students, who there were, before he asks them the question which is the life question of what is the good way for a person to be davek. Or ayzeh derech hi tovah, what is the good path she yidbak b'haadam, that a person cling to in his life. So we're going to get a very important teaching from these five studetns. But before he gives us the five studnets, and their teachings, he first tells us who they are. Now that is interesting and unusual. He tells us that I have these five students and they have these five different qualities to them. The first one, anything I say, sticks. He stays with it. He doesn't lose a drop of water. The second one, happy is the mother who gave birth to him. The third one, he is a chassid. The fourth one, he fears sin. The fifth one, he is a flowing wellspring. Or more literally, a maayan mitgabeir, an everflowing, ever able to overcome wellspring. His name is Elazar ben Arach. So have the picture? (Could you repeat?) We have Eliezer ben Hurchenus, he's a plastered pit who doesn't lose a drop. The second, Rebbe Yehoshua, happy is the mother who gave birth to him; the third one, Rebbe Yossi HaCohen, he's a chassid; the fourth one, Shimon ben Netanel, he's a yireh chet. He fears sin. And the fifth one, he's a ma'ayan mitgabeir. He is a spring, which is overcoming anything that would standing the way of it. Beautiful, huh? And it's so interesting when you look at these, because he began with a pit that holds the water. Doesn't lose anything. And you end with the one who is the spring who's losing everything, and of course gaining everything by it. And then you have these other three in between who are amazingly enough just who you would expect them to be. Meaning, if it were so, that the first one is actually a holding of what is, well, then that would be wisdom, chochmah. The holding of what is. We're even treated to a color of it being a plastered pit with the translucent waters in it. Exactly the way it's described in the pardes of the Ramak that it was like a sapphire. And then the second: how happy is the mother who gave birth to him. Well, that's binah. Then the third, he didn't have anything to tell you about him, except that he's a chassid. The fourth is a yireh chet. He lives in fear of sin, in fear of the lack, chet. And the fifth, Ah. He's a ma'ayan mitgabeir, he's the wellsprings flowing out. He goes all the way down through the bottom. Getting to understand a little of Reb Yochanan wanted us to know who they are. (36:21) (That's malchut?)                 I'm not sure where that is, I think, yeah. I mean, Let's see, let's be open to what he teaches us. Now we're ready to ask each of them from his place, from consciousness, tzu ur'uh eyzeh hu derech she yidbak b'hadam. So the first one says, what is the good way, the way of goodness that a person should cleave to and cling to in his life? What is the best way to be? Now, in having introduced these five men, and their reality, so an attuned reader will of course understand that we are going to get five different perspectives. Well, so the first one's perspective is ayin tovah. Look from a place of goodness. Seeing the good. Not telling you to do anything. Just contemplate the good. Be in the good. That's what yous hould see. See the light. Ki tov. See the light. See it as it is, with an uncritical mind, not judging. That's what really is an ayin tovah. Judgmental capacity is already getting you into ayin harah. Just see it as it is, it's always good.                 Rebbe Yehoshua, who is ashrei yoludat'do, how happy is the mother who gave birth to him; the chassid, chaver tov. Be a good friend. What's a good friend? A good friend, I suppose, is one who is good to the one who is close to him. He may have many chaverim, but he is good to the one who is close to him. Okay. Rebbe Yossi says, be a shachen tov. Who is Rebbe Yossi? He is the chassid. Be a good neighbor. Meaning, you are in close proximity. There is a sense of fraternity in that. Close proximity. Be good to your neighbor. Rebbe Shimon says, Be careful, he's the yireh chet. Be careful and be aware of consequences. Haroeh et hanolad. The one who sees what will come of what he does. He's aware of consequences. Careful person, which is specifically referring to don't lend money unless you know you're going to get it back. And don't borrow money unless you know you're going to pay it back. It's all very bounded.                 And then comes Rebbe Eliezer. And each one of these needs its own exploration, clearly, and understanding of how they are associated. But Rebbe Eliezer says the most amazing thing. He says, Lev tov. Now remember who Rebbe Eliezer is. He is the man who is spring which is ever-flowing, overcoming all obstacles. His heart is open. He is creatively producing. It's coming out of him. It does have an association with binah, but the place where I think we are in terms of the hishtalshelut, coming down to things, is this is actually where it begins to become real in the world. The Maharal says, If you look at it, he's the only one who is doing it selflessly. The ayin tovah, he's not really doing anything at all, he's just observing but observing with goodness. But the rest of them, they all have something going on for them. If you are a chaver tov, if you are a shachen tov, if you are a roeh et hanolad. Lev tov, just the flow of life coming through him. Hmm. So from Rebbe Eliezer ben Arach, we're finding out what the lover looks like. And the lover has to be the one who is drawing life from a spring that is flowing. So if you're seeking a loving consciousness, so then a loving consciousness will be in which you experience life in its source as being a spring that is giving out its waters. The more you experience life as being a spring that is giving out its waters, the more tuv lev you will have, and the more tuv lev you will have then the more in love you will be.                 I don't know how to explain this, and I'm not sure if this can be explained. But I think that's when  people are happy. I think the experience of joy is always like that. It's like creative life is flowing through you and you just want to give it out. People who are really b'simchah, they are not cholek l'atzmam. They are not cutting themselves off from others. They are not in risk at giving life to others. (sic) They are not at loss for sharing what's coming through them, because it is a ma'ayan mitgabeir. That's literally what that is, an ongoing flow that is overcoming everything else. That kind of a consciousness is a consciousness of tuv lev and a consciousness of simchah. But it's almost as if there's a heart is a good heart (sic) if it's good enough to pump life into everything it comes into contact with. That's what a good heart is. (44:27)                 By the way, if you count the letters in the words in the Torah, so there are thirty-two letters, the numerical value of the word tov. Tov is the thiry-third word of the Torah, mamash. Bereshit barah elokim, etc. (sic) Because the whole reality of G-d's giving us life and existence is a reality which is one of His giving us ki v'yachol his lev tov. And yes, His lev tov, where binah comes down to, is the malchut. Because there is a lev which is the lev of binah, and she is the feminine of the upper supernal consciousness, and there is a lower lev, the lev of malchut, the actualization of bringing into reality and shraring of the fountain, which is David. So it would seem. I would really find support. I have seen in the Maharal who teaches the teaching but he gives it very subtley, because he doesn't like to teach kabbalah, but it says that any wise person who knows how to be mayvin, will understand how exact the order of these chachamim is. That's as much of an indication of what we are saying is right on. It feels right on. And indeed, when malchut is in tikkun, in leit lah migar mash, she's not seeking it for herself. It's like David says to Michal, You're trying to keep it all in kelim, you're worrying about my honor, Michal otiot keli. Looking out the window, being upset about me letting go in front of everyone. I'm telling you, that's the only way to be a king. And David says in fact, about himself, all the kings like to sit around and have high-falutent conversations that make them look good and important. You know how I spend my day? he says to G-d. Looking at women's bedikah cloths  (which you may know this or not, but it's a way of establishing whether a woman is pure for her husband or not pure for her husband—whether they can live together.) What are you spending your time with? any other king would say. V'yadayim m'luchlachut b'dam, he says, My hands are dirty with blood. But it's not the blood of the wars which he had to fight. It's the blood of establishing if people can live together. Because the entire orientation of and purpose of the malchut is to be a blood that flows through the bodies of the people who are in the malchut, in a way that they are held together so that they be given life, unity and connection. He has such a wild way of saying things: Lo chasid ani? Aren't I a chasid, if that's what I spend my day doing?                 Someone asked me, so is it simchah that leads to love or love that leads to simchah? I'm not sure it's a fair question. I mean loving people seem to be very full of joy. I'm not sure that all joyous people are full of love. (I think truly joyous people. There can be fake joyous people that aren't full of love. If it's real joy then they have real love. And when you have real love, you have real joy.)                 See, inour teachings, so the eim habaim smecha, the joyous mother of creative giving, is indeed the origin of love. And it all depends on how you see it. Because on the one hand, so love is born of heri chesed as the origin of the love of G-d and on the other hand love is born of her, just by virtue of her, with again the Zohar teaching that the love has its origin in bunah, eim habanim smecha. (Inaudible) I'd like to, I'm just kind of listening right now. But what seems, if we're correct in our model, that to love another human being, which comes out of binah, and down the left side so to speak to Aharon HaCohen,who is the hod, so the love of another human being comes out of joyousness. We seek to share it. It's really a weird thing. Seek to share it. You see, wisdom, which is on the right side, and shared that with chesed, is the pleasure and blissful consciousness with what is. And so the blissful consciousness and just what is is a very deep connection to G-d and produces, as the Rambam taught us love of G-d. So when you have a blissful connection of G-d and just being just as it is, then you have love of G-d. He says, You're just going to have to be in love with G-d. That's just what happens when you are in bliss with Him. But you will not necessarily come to be in love with people. They can actually be quite annoying to that state. That's why wisdom is supernal aspect, is a most marvelous reality of communion with him, but in a ceratin sense, you have to get your distance in order that it become love of people. I don't think that they're one and the same. And it's a mysterious transition, one to the other. And in fact, the Zohar teaches that if chochmah and binah are not forever attached in loving embrace, then the world just collapses. Which is sort of what happens is a meditation that just leaves you in the being of what is, so you're out of the world. And in bliss with G-d. But if that is the consciousness of reality, then the world ends. That's literally what the Zohar says, they have to be tre reh d'lo mispar they have to be two lovers that hold themselves together. But in loving embrace, so the blissful connection with G-d and the joyous mother of children, they create a world in which the emotive qualities of the planet, which you experience in your emotions, the emotive qualities of the cosmos, again, which reverberate through you in your emotions, they become the devotion to G-d in all of His goodness, in all of His life-sourcing reality. In Kabbalah this is called the z'er anpin. The yichud of the miniature face, which means that there is an experience in all of life in miniature, which you get in your emotional experience. The large face, the arich anpin, is the consciousness of mentalities, the condition of the attachment with him, everything is there, but it's not in an emotive reality. But when it comes down in to the world of midot, by which I mean your love, fear, beauty, ability to overcome challenge, and desire to acquiesce and give thanks, and your connectedness to life, those are the six primary traits. So when all of those are in rapture with G-d, and unified towards Him this is what's called yichud hailahah, this is one of the aspects of higher unification. Which comes by virtue of the relationship between wisdom and understnading, chochmah and binah. This is what's born of that when that consciousness is right. And it will produce a love both of G-d and of all of the disparate aspects of reality. But that finally comes to expression in the malchut when I'm holding it all here, down here. I'm holding it all.  It's not about my emotive integration into my devotion to G-d, I'm outwardly turned towards that which is and in love with it and participating together in this great unity. That's the lev tov. That's a good heart. You can have a heart, but it's not a good heart unless it's a connective heart .                 Remember, we learned about lev tov as being the aspect of connecting out. I don't know exactly I can answer the question in a succinct fashion. We can say stuff. What you say is true. A loving person is a joyous person, a joyous person is a loving person, but they are not one and the same. They might be different things. One seems to birth the other. And what it sounds like is that the joy is what births the love. The joy having to do with the consciousness of ma'ayan, of life in its goodness of flow, I am attached to and have flowing through me. (In couples work literature, I know studies have been done that couples that have four pleasurable experiences together to every one bad experience together are couples that thrive, as opposed to couples that have three or two pleasurable experiences as opposed to every bad experience together. There is some math that comes out. If you have this particular ratio of experiences together, then you will have a loving relationship, as opposed to if you have too many non-pleasurable experiences together, then love kind of fades out of the relationship.)                 They have actually made it into a statistic. But it's pleasure. It's interesting to look at the numerology. Love is generated by pleasure. It doesn't have to be. We have to be careful because we are so used to translating pleasure into some selfish activity. But that's not what we're talking about. It's a communing experience by a joint and shared pleasure. That is what I would think is what generates the love. I mean, you might be a chaver tov by pleasure that your partner has given you. You might even be a shachen tov. Or you might have a relationship that is roeh et hanolad, you might be aware of the consequences, you might lose it. But none of those will in any way compare to what is the real love, which is the ma'ayan mitgabeir. It's not because of good neighborly relations we provide each other with what we need, like chaver tov, which might be more of an abstraction of that we feel a certain affinity to each other, or just on pragmatics of roeh et hanolad like, listen, if you don't behave nice, she's going to walk out on you. That level, which also is generated by the pleasure of her company. What do you care whether he or she walks out on you? But the true consciousness in which it comes purely through you, which is the ma'ayan mitgabeir, which is, Life is coming through me and I'm together with you in it, and we're actually have one heart which is a good heart, beating life through all of us together. That's the deep knowing of the malchut, of someone who's not cholek kavod latzmo, it's not about my game, my honor, my ego—it's one heart that's beating for all. And then that's simchah, which is rooted in a communing oneg. (It's that the difference between simchah and joy?)                 That's the difference between pleasure and joy. Pleasure, like on Shabbat, is a blissful statis. Joy, which is on the moadim, on the hagim, is a joyous outburst and receiving of life and giving of life. That's why the Zohar says that anyone who has a meal on Yom Tov, where there aren't any poor or needy people at his table, is like he's eating the most distusting and decrepit thing. It doesn't say that about Shabbat, although we all like having guests on Shabbat. Everyone understands that if it's just Shabbat in the family, okay. Or even if it is Shabbat alone. There is something that's okay in that. But not about Yom Tov. Because simchah is the time, when it's like everyone dancing together. Simchah is the time when David HaMelech says, I don't care if I'm exposed. Adah rabah. V'nakolti ra mi zo.  I'm looking to be completely exposed, in the sense that I don't want to have blocks that stand in the way of this ma'ayan mitgabeir being able to be mitgabeir and flow out. I don't want to have anything that will be moeah this from me. Chas v'chalom. What are you talking about, Michal, what do you think you're going to gain from that? Live a life in which you're closed in and completely oriented on providing for yourself? And making sure that your standing is an accomplished one? No one really talks that way when they're in joy. And therefore, no one except through that pathway will really come to love. So without the joy, the effulgence of life is not providing you with the sourcing for being one who is giving it over. Otherwise, you go into galus. The only way to not go into galus is by being in galut in that sense. Being outside. (I have an exerise idea, if you want to do at some point. ) … (Can  you clarify the point you made about going into galus by being in galus?)                 I want to express appreciation of your asking questions, first of all. Second of all, can I clarify that more? It's an image. There's a certain kind of a being at home in yourself, where the established boundaries of what you know and are familiar with are what you become very invested in protecting and preserving. Like I see this with people who have a lot of trouble getting married. I'm comfortable with who I am, they say. I don't know if that's such a good thing. What do you mean, You're comfortable with who you are? What does that mean in terms of where change is going to come from? And growth. Life is always hitting you with the demand to grow. And being mistapek, having satisfaction with what you have, of yesh li kol, has nothing to do with being in the way of growth. Nor does it have to do with being comfortable with who you are; that's shalvah. Shalvah is a very bad state. Because that kind of complacence, it leads to keeping the home comfortable. Because I'm comfortable with who I am. That's a nefesh habehamit talk. So what is, then, the right consciousness? You could be happy with what you have. That's already a far more dynamic kind of langauge. But I'm happy already with what I have. But that joyousness already indicates a dynamic energy, like I could have more, I could grow into—but that already means that you have to go into galus from the confines of the personhood of who you have established as and become comfortable with. That's what I mean going into galus. (Going out.)                 Yeah, going out. But if you don't, then what happens is you become separated from the rest of life, because in becoming comfortable with what you are, you are unwilling and unable to accept what life keeps hitting you with, which is evolve, grow, this one's tough, there I am, here's someone else in your life, how are you going to deal with this? I'm comfortable with who I am, so I'm not going to deal with any of it. So that's the pnimi galus. That's an inner galus, in which you've separated and exiled yourself from the world. That's why the Rabbis say, ki nata v'an kavod, exile a person from the world, take you out of the world. What do you mean, Take you out of the world? There are very energetic and jealous people that I know and who seek their honor and are full of tyvah. They are really in the world. Those are the people really doing it, right? Those are the people that are in the world. The Rabbis say that's going to take you out of the world. What do you mean it takes you out of the world? What it means is that it's all about you, and your only interaction with the planet, is as one who is basically exiled from it. Because you don't really want to be living the life in connected with all, you only want to be providing yourself with the excitement and exhiliaration with the being that you're comfortable with. That stinks. You're totally out of the world. You may feel like you're totally alive, but you're totally out of the world. So you have to step out, go into the sukkah, loosen the boundaries and like welcome. So I said it in sort of like a paradox, because it's talking about two different kinds of galut, so it comes out as a paradoxical statements. (You say go out of the boundaries, but the name that I was taught that was associated with Sukkah is Shakai. And isn't that davka a name of—) I don't know. I was taught that it's the orot of ekyeh, so that would be different. Should get that one clearer. It's the ?? 1:11:54 (In terms of the going out in order to be able to come back in, I see in Sukkot the space of, after the yamim hanoraim, when we're really going inside, to see the habits or things that we really need to eke out and only a couple of years ago I started to understand and appreciate Sukkot I think because I could never walk back into my house and actually change. If after Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur I would have to go back into my dwelling place, I would be exactly the same. It's the ability to step out of that space and be told to sit. And when I sit, I sit with it, And after having those days to sit with it, I can walk back into my house and I'm totally changed. And it feels like, if I were not able to go into the Sukkah, we're going to get thrown out right away because we think we can hold it in our davening, but when we walk back into our house, we are too entrenched in it, so we need to break out of our space. So we have to embody it.)  (In Sukkot, we can be safe in our vulnerability so when we can go back in it feels good that we let go.) (Chaya: I was wondering, what is this lev tov? When do I experience that? Looking at, when does my heart feel good, and thinking that we could try and deepen into that experience of lev tov, to try to identify it in our lives, and when do we really feel that, and then even to do a mediation to identify lev tov experience or feeling, and see if it's connected to acts or moments in my life when I can generate that lev tov, or when that happens, and to write out a list of those moments of lev tov, and then to have the kavanah that we're going to go into life, trying to do those things a little bit more. Or in particular, if you look at certain relationships, such as with my husband, what are the things that create a lev tov, and write them out and be committed to try and do more things that generate pleasure, not just getting by every day. Because so much of relationship is like, marriage is like you're just trying to get by, and I feel that one of the point that you're saying is, raise up our life experience to pleasure, joy and happiness as opposed to that shalvah or getting by.) I'd like to do that. How's the rest of the room doing? (A comment. I'm seeing how joy and love and this important concept of to avoid going into galus you have to experience it yourself. I see love as joy that's giving, sharing with some other entity, and to continue to get out of ourselves. It appears to me that the ultimate galus is become exiled from the rest of the world. You are separated, so You have forgotten how to share and love, how to give, you've cut yourself off. So in order to continue to remain in the path of giving and attaining joy from giving and giving from a place of joy, you must contniue to exercise to do what a little difficult or scary, which is the galus, in order to improve and to continue to love and connect.)                 The transition point is letting go in trying, again, to hold on to what is comfortable and familiar and to risk by going out and giving. To take that risk. Your emphasis on giving is something that others share and it's important to recall it. And maybe in doing the work that Chaya is suggesting, so people will discover their points of maybe what am I thinking, what am feeling, what am I doing? In the realization of lev tov.                 What's missing a little for me here, and maybe it's missing for other people, is that we haven't really given a hard and fast definition of what lev tov is. I'm just sharing the Maharal, so the assumption is clearly that it has to do with giving. The Maharal says that all these other people are giving, but with some kind of self-interest. This one is just giving life, he's the ma'ayan mitgaber, he's giving life, he's a heart pulsing for all. So, but somehow, it seems different than gemilut chesed, in which I'm doing a good turn for someone. Here we're really sharing a life source, and that's a different experience. We're "life-ing" together. So if that helps in clarifying, for me it like—yeah, so let's take five minutes to honor that, and when have I experienced that? I guess you're asking? When has it been like that for me? What does it look like when it's happening? (Well, first off, what is my definition of a lev tov, let me consult my heart for a minute: okay, heart—) When are you good? (When are you good? When do you feel good? What is my personal experience of lev tov. And trying to identify experiences where I've touched that. So let's ask our hearts.)

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai lived every moment of his life fully invested in his mission on earth.

When I was raised in Puerto Rico in the 60's, we celebrated Christmas, but "Reyes" or "Kings" was THE celebration of when the three Kings or Magi came to worship Jesus. The night before Three Kings Day celebrations on January 6 were special nights. Children all over the island would leave grass out (generally by a manger built or prepared for the occasion) to feed the camels of the Three Kings, and they in turn would leave presents. Many times, Reyes was a much bigger celebration than Christmas. We loved Reyes! As you grow up, and begin to follow Jesus, you learn a few things if you will study. For example, the names and the numbers of the wise men that came from the East are never mentioned in the New Testament. Not only that, but the word that is translated as wise men (magoi) is not the Greek word for kings (basileon)! Oops! So much for the tradition of the Three Gentile Kings that came to worship baby Jesus, all based on human invention. None of it is Scriptural! The above may be disconcerting for the unlearned, but the truth will not oppress you. The truth of God's Word will make you free from the traditions of men, if you will allow it. (John 8:32) Here comes much food for thought. The Wise Men that Came to See Jesus were Magi - Astrologers? Does anybody but me have a problem with the tradition that the wise men were astrologers of the Magi caste from Babylon? I hope not. For many years, as a Christian, that “scratched” at me on the inside. We know from Scripture how much God despises all the pagan practices of idolatry that include sorcery (deals with potions and spells), witchcraft (those that cast spells -incantations and curses and invoke (evil) spirits to get their will done), necromancers (those that attempt to speak to the dead, mediums), soothsayers (fortune tellers, and that includes the Ouija boards of today, tarot cards, divination, psychics), spiritists (those that channel evil spirits to tell your fortune), and astrologers (those that tell of events past, present, and future by “reading” the stars and planets). Here are a few verses of Scripture that put in view God's perspective: Do not defile yourselves by turning to mediums or to those who consult the spirits of the dead. I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19:31 NLT) I will also turn against those who commit spiritual prostitution by putting their trust in mediums or in those who consult the spirits of the dead. I will cut them off from the community. (Lev. 20:6 NLT) Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Lev. 20:27 NLT)  And do not let your people practice fortune-telling, or use sorcery, or interpret omens, or engage in witchcraft, or cast spells, or function as mediums or psychics, or call forth the spirits of the dead… The nations you are about to displace consult sorcerers and fortune-tellers, but the Lord your God forbids you to do such things. (Deuteronomy 18:10-11, 14 NLT) Manasseh also sacrificed his own son in the fire. He practiced sorcery and divination, and he consulted with mediums and psychics. He did much that was evil in the LORD's sight, arousing his anger. (2 Kings 21:6 NLT) God calls these practices evil and wicked in the sight of the Lord, arousing His anger, spiritual prostitution, and a capital offense. He is the same today. He has never changed His mind on the subject. (Malachi 3:6) Here is one portion in the Scripture that specifically referred to the astrologers of Babylon (Isaiah 47:1- 5), the very caste that the wise men that came to worship Jesus were supposed to belong to! So, disaster will overtake you, and you won't be able to charm it away. Calamity will fall upon you, and you won't be able to buy your way out. A catastrophe will strike you suddenly, one for which you are not prepared. “Now use your magical charms! Use the spells you have worked at all these years! Maybe they will do you some good. Maybe they can make someone afraid of you. All the advice you receive has made you tired. Where are all your astrologers, those stargazers who make predictions each month? Let them stand up and save you from what the future holds. But they are like straw burning in a fire; they cannot save themselves from the flame. (Isaiah 47:11-14 NLT) God mocks them! They cannot save themselves from the flame! Destruction was coming to them for their evil and wicked practices. Yes, these calamities will come upon you, despite all your witchcraft and magic. “You felt secure in your wickedness. ‘No one sees me,' you said. But your ‘wisdom' and ‘knowledge' have led you astray, and you said, ‘I am the only one, and there is no other.' So, disaster will overtake you, and you won't be able to charm it away. Calamity will fall upon you, and you won't be able to buy your way out. A catastrophe will strike you suddenly, one for which you are not prepared. (Isaiah 47:9-11 NLT) There are a few references in the New Testament to witchcraft, fortune-tellers, and those practicing the magic arts. The story of the woman with the evil spirit (spirit of divination) and practiced fortunetelling (which was cast out by Paul- Acts 16:16-18) is one of them. Then, there is the story of Bar-Jesus the magician-astrologer (Acts 13:6-11). Paul called him “full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness!” That, my brethren, is the Holy Spirit's take on all that practice such things! It was the Holy Spirit that anointed Paul to speak a command to blind the sorcerer. Also, the Apostle Paul mentions sorcery (NLT, NKJV, etc.) or witchcraft (KJV, NASB, etc.) as a desire of the sinful nature, and the fact that those practicing it will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21) In Revelation, it is written that after devastating plagues hit many parts of the earth: But the people who did not die in these plagues still refused to repent of their evil deeds and turn to God. They continued to worship demons and idols made of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood— idols that can neither see nor hear nor walk! And they did not repent of their murders or their witchcraft or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Revelation 9:20-21 NLT) One more to clench the nail on the back of the board: But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and all liars—their fate is in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. (Rev. 21:8 NLT) Those Scriptural references just threw off for me all the connection of the wise men to the caste of Magi from Babylon, but let's read the New Testament text, and move on from there. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men (Gr. magoi) from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” (Matthew 2:1, 2 NKJV parenthesis- my addition) The star that they saw related to the King of the Jews was prophesied by none other than Balaam in his fourth prophecy. (Numbers 24:15-19) Balaam is a whole other problem, but I will summarize it the best I can. Balaam was a backslid prophet and became a “prophet for hire.” Balaam would bless or curse people for a price. Do we have similar “prophets” today? A few of those covetous and likeminded prophets are roaming around today among Christians. Who are they? They are those that for a fee will send you a personal “prophetic word.” The more money you send, the more personal the “word” will be. They are in the same category as Balaam was, a conniving and money hungry swindler!  Because Balaam was backslid, he was a false prophet whose teaching was despised by the Lord Jesus. The Lord denounced those who followed the doctrine of Balaam because it led to eating things sacrificed to idols and to committing sexual immorality. (See Revelation 2:14, Numbers 31:16.) Yet, in all the prophet's madness, the Spirit of the Lord spoke through Balaam's mouth, and a grand prophetic word from the Lord came forth about the future King-Messiah. You may be wondering how could God possibly use a “false prophet” to bring a real word from the Lord? He anointed a heathen king to help Israel. His name was Cyrus! (See Isaiah 43:1-10, Ezra 1). There are numerous examples in the Scripture of the Lord using pagans for his purposes. So, in the case of Balaam, the Lord anointed him to speak prophetically on a certain occasion. That does not mean he was right or accepted before the Lord, but that God used him on a selected occasion to express a prophetic utterance from the Lord. Here is the prophetic Word that the wise men followed into Israel in search of the King-Messiah. …The utterance of Balaam the son of Beor, and the utterance of the man whose eyes are opened; The utterance of him who hears the words of God and has the knowledge of the Most High, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Who falls down, with eyes wide open: I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel… (Numbers 24:15-17 NKJV) The wise men saw the star rising out of Jacob or Israel and followed it from the East. Their point of origin was in the East, presumably from Babylon. Why Babylon? The word used for “wise men” is the Greek word magos (magoi- in the plural form indicating more than one “wise man”). In Spanish, no bones are made about it, and the three kings are called the three magician kings, "los tres Reyes magos." That is really a mess in my estimation. The tradition runs deep and scholars have not helped much in this area because they have more readily assumed the position of tradition instead of finding a solution to the dilemma.  The Complete Word Study dictionary of the Bible (coded to Strong's Concordance numbers) indicates (G3097) that the word magoi is of foreign origin from the Hebrew (H7248); a Magian, that is, Oriental scientist; by implication a magician: - sorcerer, wise man. Notice what Thayer's Greek- English Lexicon says about the same word magoi. The name given by the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreter of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers, etc. It goes on to say that the oriental wise men (astrologers) who, having discovered by the rising of the remarkable star that the Messiah had just been born, and that therefore thy came to Jerusalem to worship him.[1] The acclaimed and scholarly Bauer's “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature” (BDAG) basically says the same thing as the other two dictionaries mentioned. So, there is a case for the magoi (plural)- wise men to have been of this caste of astrologer-soothsayers. There is also the fact that magos was used referring to the false prophet Elymas (Bar-Jesus) in Acts 13:8. Also, God has at times used the ungodly for His purposes. Yet, that the magoi were sorcerer magicians doesn't sit right with my spirit and the witness of the Holy Spirit concerning the story of the wise men that visited Jesus. Too many Scriptures condemn the practices of the astrologers and sorcerers. There is too much evidence in Scripture of God's eternal displeasure with those that practice such things. God hates all of it! Could there be something else going on that has been ignored for centuries? In my heart, to believe that the magoi that visited Jesus were soothsayers- astrologers sounds like this: “Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that astrologers and soothsayers (practitioners of witchcraft or sorcery) came to worship the Messiah because they saw the star of the Messiah-King manifested in the sky? How did they know anything about that prophetic word in Number 24:17? Does that sound right to you? Do you mean to tell me that Joseph and Mary (strict Jewish followers of Torah) would have received heathens from hell that were astrologers, soothsayers, and served false gods? Would they have received myrrh, frankincense, and gold from these pagans?” Knowing something about Judaism in the first century, I would have to say emphatically, “No way Joseph and Mary would have received them!” The first foreign dignitaries to visit the child Jesus were magicians (wizards) and astrologers from Babylon? Yuk! The idea makes me throw up a little in my mouth because I know all those other Scriptures that I gave you above, where God rejects (and detests, hates) all forms of witchcraft and sorcery, including astrology! Scripture should be primarily interpreted with other Scripture. I think the story of the wise men has been interpreted without reference to other Scripture that should have made us reassess our conclusions. That time is here and now! If these magoi were pagan devils, they would never have been received by Joseph or Mary or anybody of the Jewish faith that was present that day. Jews had strict laws concerning receiving pagans into their home or going to visit pagans and coming under their roof. It was considered a violation of the law of Moses. To have received foreign devil worshippers into their home would have defiled them and left them in ritual impurity. Jews did not associate with pagans! Did you know that Jesus' first followers and converts after the day of Pentecost were ONLY Jews and their half-brothers, the Samaritans (Acts 8)? There were no Gentiles among the believers for at least ten years after Pentecost. Read Acts chapters 2-10 as a reference. It took a supernatural vision coming to the apostle Peter in Acts 10 to open the way for salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be preached to the Gentiles. Until then, it was taken for granted that association with the Gentiles was verboten, and the gospel message was only for Jews. Again, there was a separation of the Jews from pagans until salvation and the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and all his house as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10). Ok, if the magoi couldn't have been pagan, astrologer, devil worshippers that came to worship the King Messiah, and I have presented Scriptural evidence that would contradict the notion that they were, what and who were they, and can it be proven? Do you remember that I stated above that The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Bible says (G3097) that the word is of foreign origin from the Hebrew (H7248)”? H7248 in Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew- English Lexicon gives us these foreign words: rab-saris (H7249) and rab-mag. [2] It says these words are of Assyrian or Babylonian influence and “titles of As.-Bab. officers (that) are prob. loan words in Hebrew.” [3] Rab-mag could be a chief soothsayer (and I think that is the point that confused scholars), but BDB states this is equal to rab-mugi (chief of princes). BDB further states that rab-sarisis usually in Babylon chief of eunuchs, but it is equal to rabu-saresi, chief of the heads (the principal men). So, both titles could refer to government dignitaries that had little to nothing to do with astrology-sorcery. Chief of eunuchs (rab-saris) was also a minister or officer of the state, such as a general, governor, or prince. See the reference to the master or prince of eunuchs (sar-saris) [4] responsible for teaching a few selected children of Israel in all the learning and the tongue of Babylon. They (and Daniel was among them) were to be skillful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge, and understanding science. (See Daniel 1:1-21.) Wow!! Does that not start to make you think differently? Are you beginning to get some light about this? The definitions above from the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) leads us to believe that the magoi from the East that came to visit Jesus could have been governmental leaders like the Hebrews that were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar and later exalted to governmental positions overseeing his realm. Also, note the use of the word rab in the titles of these officials. You will see below why that word is so important.  Do you remember that Nebuchadnezzar had a dream he refused to tell the magicians and sorcerers? He wanted someone to tell him the dream AND the interpretation. God gave Daniel the dream and its interpretation, something only God could do. With that supernatural event, proving that Jehovah God was the one and only true God, Nebuchadnezzar exalted Daniel and made him chief (rab) of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48) It would make perfect sense that these magoi from the East were Hebrew dignitaries from the eastern lands where Babylon and many other cities existed during the time of Jesus. That could satisfy our search. Did you know that there was a robust Hebrew or Jewish presence in those towns and cities of the East? Though the info is relatively sparse compared to other timeframes, some kings, queens, and whole areas seemed to have converted to Judaism. See references to the conversion to Judaism from paganism of the Adiabene kingdom in the first century. In the account of the ancient historian Josephus in his writings the Antiquities of the Jews (Book XX: Chapter 2), it shows that there was a substantial Jewish population in the kingdom. It led to the establishment of a prominent rabbinic academy in Arbela. There were Jews in many cities of the Parthian (Arcesid) empire. One prominent city with many Jews was Babylon. Historically, not all Jews left Babylon after the return to the land of Israel under Ezra and Nehemiah. Synagogues and academies were established in many cities under the Parthian and Armenian Empires. This trend of an increasing Jewish population in the Eastern lands continued for centuries. The largest rabbinical academies were in the East. I am emphasizing that because students of the Scripture in rabbinic schools would have read and understood the prophetic Word about the star of the Messiah-King rising out of the land of Israel. It would have signaled the coming of this Anointed one. The Jews would have sent their most able and learned leaders to investigate the matter. Now, that makes complete spiritual sense to me, especially when you begin to see that the title rab was given to especially gifted rabbinic leaders or chiefs. Rab was the title of the Babylonian sages who taught in the Babylonian Jewish academies. The titles "Rabban" and "Rabbi" (the root word being rab) are first mentioned in first through fifth century Jewish literature in the Mishnah and the Talmud. The term was first used in the Mishnah for Rabban Gamaliel the elder, Rabban Simeon his son, and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, all of whom were patriarchs or presidents of the Sanhedrin in the first century. The word rabbi occurs fifteen times in the New Testament (in the NKJV) speaking about Jesus or others. Jesus was called rabbi in the first century, and He was THE Greatest of the Great Rabbis! The root word of rabbi is rab! All that leads me to believe that the magoi were not devil worshipping astrologers, but they were the most honored Jewish religious leaders from the East that knew the prophetic Scripture and came to worship the King-Messiah Jesus! Now that agrees with my heart in the Holy Spirit! That I can believe! I can now understand how the strict Jewish family of Jesus and all the Jews of Bethlehem saw nothing wrong with visiting Jewish religious leaders from the East worshipping the King-Messiah. Joseph and Mary probably felt honored and received with great joy these Jewish leaders among the sages in Babylon!  It was all good! Much more info could be included here, but I will let it be for now. Be blessed! Jesus was born to die in our place and to redeem us. That was the purpose of His birth, to get God's Son into a human body! Only a perfect human without sin, the Second and Last Adam, could pay the eternal price for a guilty humanity. It was a great plan, one that changed things forever! Have you ever read my 244 page book, The Story of our Great Redemption? This is the link for the free download of the book!  Today's podcast gives you the story of redemption in a nutshell. Be blessed with the Word! Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! NOTES: [1] Downloaded from Thayer's in the Mantis Bible Study app. [2] BDB p. 916, 7248-49. [3] Coded to Strong's numbers, p. 913, and see 7227 for both rab-mag and rab saris. I transliterated the words from the Hebrew found there.  [4] Daniel 1:3, 7 and look up the two titles rab-saris and sar-saris in CWS. Rab-mag and rab-sarisis also found in Jeremiah 39:3, 13. These titles referred to Babylonian princes.

In this episode we discuss how everyone can change, and we are not defined by our natural gifts, but by the effort we put forth.I'm Menachem Iehrfield, and this is Zero Percent, where we explore world changing ideas. The past couple of weeks, we've been exploring the acronym, be free. Looking at Carol Dweck's growth mindset research from a Jewish perspective, seeing how we learn so many of these ideas and concepts through classic Jewish sources and topics of Jewish thought. We talked about the idea of be curious, asking questions, focusing on questions, constantly being open to learning and to acknowledging what we don't know as a way of learning more. Not just looking smart, but trying to be smart. We talked about the idea of enjoying the journey, embracing life's challenges and understanding that life is a process and life is a journey. And if we fail to recognize and focus on that journey and we're so overly consumed with the end result, we miss out on life. Ultimately, the end result is outside of our hands, so the journey is all we have.We learned and focused on the idea that failure is not a permanent condition. I may make a mistake, but that doesn't mean that I am a mistake. Failure is where we learn the most. We learn from our mistakes. We grow from our mistakes. Mistakes are human, and they're not meant to be covered over and avoided, but rather acknowledged and learned from. We talked about the idea of recognizing the uniqueness of each person, how every single person is unique. How every single person, every [inaudible], every internal reality is different just as every pun of every face is different. And how no two people have ever looked completely identical, just as no two people are the same inside. Every person is different. Every person is unique and we need to approach people and especially our children as the unique beings that they are and not just make the assumption that everyone is the same and everyone needs the same thing.We explore the importance of effort and understanding that effort is a key to mastery and not a sign of weakness. What truly matters is not how far I've come, what matters is how far I've come from where I started. And because effort is so important, and because effort is what defines who I am as a person, when I focus on effort, it helps me grow and become better and improve in every area of my life. We explained that the Jewish heroes are not the overnight successes. They're not the people who are born with tremendous intellect or charisma or power or wealth, but rather the person who worked as hard as they possibly could, the person who worked to achieve their success. And that leads us to our topic for today. This week, we're exploring the idea that everyone can change.Because effort is a key to mastery, the more effort I put in, the more I reach a level of mastery. And as a result of that, I am not defined by my natural gifts or the way I am right now. I am defined by the effort I put forth. I am the sum total of the choices I make based on the difficulty of those choices. There's a Calvin and Hobbes clip that Carol Dweck includes in her book Mindset, where Susie's studying and Calvin comes up to her and says, "What are you doing, homework?" And she said, "I wasn't sure I understood this chapter so I reviewed my notes from last chapter and now I'm reading this." So Calvin looks at her surprised and says, "You do all that work?" And she says, "Now I understand it." And as Calvin walks away, he mutters to himself, "Huh? I used to think you were smart."Calvin's response is indicative of a culture where we are so convinced that people's value and worth is based on their natural abilities. And in his mind, if you were smart, you wouldn't need to try. You wouldn't need to study. And the very fact that you're doing so shows that you don't have the natural gifts to do it on your own. That is a classic fixed mindset way of looking at the world and it's antithetical to everything Judaism stands for. Judaism teaches that effort is always the key to mastery, that we can never accomplish anything without putting in the effort. In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet says, so said God, a wise man should not praise himself with his wisdom. A strong man should not praise himself with his strength. A rich man should not praise himself with his wealth. Those are not the things that we are proud of.Those are not things that define who we are. We are proud of what we do with our wealth, what we do with our wisdom, what we do with our influence, what we do with our strength. Like we talked about in the praise episode, if I rent tools from Home Depot and all I do is show them off and I don't do anything with the tools, when the rental period is up, I give the tools back and I have nothing to show for myself. But if instead I use those tools to build a house, when the rental period is up and I give the tools away, I have a house to show for myself. The almighty gave us so many skills and talents, but they're not meant for us to use as crutches. They're not meant for us to coast through life, getting by on them. They're meant for us to use those, to make ourselves and the world a better place, to apply effort and to change ourselves and the world through those skills and talents.If we define ourselves by our natural gifts, if we define ourselves and others by the natural abilities that we have, instead of what we do with those abilities, then we are setting ourselves and our children up for a life of mediocrity. Why settle for mediocre when you can be great? A person's value is not based on the God-given gifts for which he or she has been endowed. Those are tools on loan like the tools I borrow from Home Depot. Only that which is built with those tools matters. That's why it's so detrimental to praise a person's abilities instead of their effort, because it reinforces to them erroneously that what matters is the abilities that they're given. So why put in the effort, why try? The Talmudic Ethics tells [foreign language] had five students and he would enumerate each one of their praises.And the [foreign language], one of the commentators on the Talmud explains the reason why he enumerated their praise was because he knew that they naturally were not inclined to these things, but they worked on themselves and through their diligence and through their effort, they developed these character traits. He says, this needs to be the case because otherwise why would he have even considered those their accomplishments? If they didn't work for them, then those aren't their accomplishments. And besides why on earth would the Talmud tell us of these praises if there's nothing we can learn from it? If I wasn't born with the same level of intellect as these great rabbis, then this is completely irrelevant to me. If the Talmud is sharing it, it means that something that I can learn from. But I've always been a little bit conflicted about teaching this episode from the Mishnah in the context of the growth mindset research. On one hand, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was considered a great teacher because his students became so great.And the Talmud is telling us how they became so great. They became great because their teacher had focused praise. He didn't just praise them generally. He praised them specifically for areas that they worked on, areas that they put in effort. He praised them specifically for the areas that they personally excelled at. He showed each of them where their particular strength lay, and that is so crucial and so important in building up students. But the following Mishnah seems very different. It explains that the same Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai used to say, if all the sages of Israel were in one scale of a balance and [foreign language] was in the other, he would outweigh them all. However, [Abba Scholl] said in his name, if all the sages of Israel, including [foreign language] were in one scale and [foreign language] in the other, he would outweigh them all.So here he singles out two students and essentially is praising them, not for their effort, but for their natural ability. Saying they were so much smarter, naturally more gifted. So is he an example of proper praise? Of praise that builds a growth mindset? Or the opposite? I came across an essay from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of lesson memory, where he explains that perhaps [foreign language] was responsible for the tragic aftermath of these two great sages. He had these five students, three of them remained great. And two of his two most promising students ended up going off the deep end. The Talmud relates that [foreign language] ended up getting excommunicated by his colleagues, because he failed to accept the majority view on a Jewish matter of law. So essentially he wasn't willing to accept the majority opinion because he had a fixed mindset. He believed that he was right and there nothing to learn from them.For full transcript, visit: www.joidenver.com/zeropercent/13---tools-on-loan

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 31 Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Gitta Neufeld and family in honor of their dear Bubby Fran Stokar on her 90th birthday. “Your resilience, simchat hachaim and love for everyone make us proud to be your honorary children. May you continue to “shep nachas” from all!” Today's daf is also sponsored anonymously for the refuah sheleima of Yosef ben Rina and the continued good health and blessings of Yaffa bat Miriam. What is the song that was said on each day of the week in the temple? Why was each one chosen for that day? What song was sung on musaf and mincha of Shabbat? Just as the divine presence of God was exiled to ten places during the destruction of the first temple, so the Sanhedrin was exiled ten times in the destruction of the second temple. What were the ten places of each exile? Rabbi Elazar thinks there were only six exiles of the Sanhedrin and derives it from a verse in Isaiah 26:5. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai also instituted that if witnesses came to testify about the new moon and the head of the court was not there, the witnesses could testify in front of other judges and did not need to look for the head of the court. Ameimar had a situation with a woman who was brought to judgment regarding a loan. He excommunicated her for contempt of court since she did not follow him to find him in a different city to rule on the case. When Rav Ashi questioned him, based on the Mishna, he distinguished between the cases - with the new moon we don’t want to deter witnesses from coming next time; with a loan, the woman who took a loan subjugated herself to the one who loaned her the money and therefore they can force her to go to any court of the creditor's choice. What were the nine takkanot that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted? The last one is a subject of debate.

Welcome to the Daily Daf Differently. In this episode, Joe Rosenstein looks at Masechet Rosh Hashana Daf 31. Daf 31 continues the discussion of the changes made by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai after the Temple was destroyed. First however there is a brief detour to the question of why the psalms that we recite on […]

Rosh Hashana 31 : Marc Chipkin : 2021-11-09 The reasons for the song of the day the levi'im sang in the Temple. The 10 exiles of the shechinah and the Sanhedrin. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's nine enactments.

This podcast is powered by JewishPodcasts.org. Start your own podcast today and share your content with the world. Click jewishpodcasts.fm/signup to get started.

Today's learning is sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU= Another takanah established by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai after the churban: that the day of the Omer offering should be forbidden to eat chadash all day. Summary According to the shittah of the gemara now, chadash is permitted at the break of day on the 16th of Nissan, since there is no Omer offering*. The reason for this takanah is: When the beis hamikdash will be rebuilt people will remember that in the previous year (eshtakad is a portmanteau of shatta kodmo) they ate at daybreak and they will not know that now it is necessary to wait for the Omer. Challenge: When will the beis hamikdash be rebuilt that would pose a problem? If it is rebuilt on the 16th of Nissan, then it already became permissible at daybreak! If it is rebuilt on the 15th, then it should be permissible by chatzos already, as we learned in a mishna: “Those who live far away are permitted from chatzos and on, because beis din does not tarry with the Omer”. Resolution: In case it is rebuilt late in the day on the fifteenth or on the night of the sixteenth and they won't have time for the Omer process. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok: Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai follows the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda that chadash on the sixteenth is forbidden min haTorah [not like we learned previously that it would be permitted at daybreak] because it's written “up until the day itself”, it means up to and including that day. Challenge: But Rabban Yochanan doesn't follow the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned: “After the churban Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of the Omer offering should be forbidden to eat chadash all day. Rabbi Yehuda (the word “lo” is omitted because he came later): But it is a Torah prohibition as it states: “up until the day itself”, it means up to and including that day.” Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda was in error, he thought Rabban Yochanan was referring to a rabbinic enactment, actually it was the Torah law. Challenge: But it states that Rabban Yochanan “instituted” it? Resolution: He instituted it in practice on the first year after the churban, but the practice was based on the law of the Torah. _________ * Tosfos: A Beis Hamikdash is not necessary for korbanos but there must be a mizbeach, since we don't have the mizbeach we cannot bring korbanos.

Today's learning sponsored by Issak Rodriguez Baruch Hashem! In gratitude to Hakodosh Boruch Hu for the making the lectures of HaRav Yisroel Brog, Shlit"a available online. May this gemarah learning be for the merit of the Rav, I've learned so much from him. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Beraisa: Hillel Hazakein had 80 talmidim. (There's a remarkable lesson here, there were 80 talmidim but only 2 are named. Throughout the ages there were very many great men who are not known to us at all. There were 1.2 million nevi'im in our history and yet we only know the names of about 10. The gemara is not a history of the tzadikim, that's written in the records of Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. Jews don't labor in order to be remembered for posterity, all our labor is for Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. Thirty were worthy of nevuah like Moshe Rabeinu. Thirty were worthy of having the sun stop for them like Yehoshua. Twenty were in between. The greatest of them was Yonason ben Uziel, the smallest was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai (some say it means the smallest in age). They said about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: He did not neglect (he studied it by heart) Mikra, Mishna or Gemara (this means the explanation of mishnayos, it was an integral part of Torah Shebaal Peh only it was not memorized word for word like the mishnah. The wording was set in the days of Abayye and Rava and sealed by Rav Ashi). Halacha l'Moshe Misinai, Aggadic moral teachings, Dikdukim - logical inferences that can be derived from the Torah, Dikdukei Sofrim (this refers either to lessons gleaned from the shapes of the letters, or to the study of takanos chachomim), Kal Vachomer, Gezeiros Shavos, the calculations of the seasons, Gimatriyaos, stories that were told about Malochim, Sheidim, or Trees. Meshalim (these were said by the chachomim to teach various ethical lessons but they were set in story form to capture interest) of poor laborers [laundrymen], of foxen (such as the story of the fox and the lion, or the fox and the fish). Great things and Small things: Great things refer to Maaseh Merkavah. Small things refer to the discussions of Abayye and Rava (although they didn't live yet, all their discussions had already been discussed and debated). This is what the possuk means: “I have plenty to give to those who love me, and I will fill their treasure houses”. (When a man learns more Torah, it's Hakadosh Baruch Hu giving him the most important wealth. For more on this subject, see Toras Avigdor on Bar Mitzvah). If this was the youngest disciple, then those of a previous generations were surely even greater: They said about Yonason ben Uziel (they began calling people with the title “Rabbi” only at the time of the churban, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai lived until after the churban. The Nasi was already called Rabban some time before): When he would sit and study Torah it was with such a fire that any bird flying overhead was burned.

Today's learning sponsored   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: It happened that they brought a pottage for Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai to taste, and two dates and some water for Rabban Gamliel. They said: Take it up to the sukkah [on the roof]. When they would give Rabbi Tzadok less than a k'beitzah of food [even bread], he would take it with a cloth (he ate with tahara and would wash his hands before touching food, but for such a small amount he wouldn't wash, so he would avoid touching the food directly), he would eat it outside of the sukkah, and he wouldn't recite the blessing after it. Gemara: Challenge: Is the mishna quoting a story that contradicts the law it is teaching [Rabbi Tzadok didn't follow the stringency of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel]? Resolution: The mishna is telling us that with regard to this law one can be stringent and is not considered arrogant (in general it's not good to be demonstrative with one's stringencies, but here it's permitted). When they would give Rabbi Tzadok less than a k'beitzah of food [even bread], he would take it with a cloth, he would eat it outside of the sukkah, and he wouldn't recite the blessing after it. Challenge: It seems that Rabbi Tzadok would not permit eating a full k'beitzah outside of the sukkah. This would be a challenge to the opinions of Rav Yosef and Abayye (21.6). Resolution: Perhaps the mishna is only teaching Rabbi Tzadok's law of a beitzah with regard to the laws of netilas yodayim* and birchas hamazon, but one is still allowed to eat a beitzah or more outside of the sukkah.   _________ * Tosfos: More than a k'beitzah cannot be eaten by covering one's hands with a cloth because we're concerned that he might touch the bread with his hands. But there is a difficulty here, because Rabbi Tzadok was a kohen who is permitted to eat more than a k'beitzah with a cloth.

In this episode, R' Mike describes the destruction of Jerusalem from without and from within. In order to do so he compares the perspectives of the great Jewish historian Josephus and the leading Sage R' Yochanan ben Zakkai. In the end it is clear that the real question is not how was Jerusalem destroyed, but rather - why?