A Dubious Disclaimer?

the greater part of the second paragraph of Avodah Zarah, the parts that we've learned up until this point, dealt with different halachas related to being assur. The perek began "Im amida beheima b'pundak If you have a pundak and you want to lease it out to an Avodah Zarah, you're not allowed to put a beheima there." And the reason is because the Avodah Zarah is assur on erva. And it's one of the seven mitzvos b'nei Noach, and you're going to be over the mitzvah of "You shall not place a stumbling block." A woman is not allowed to be alone with an Avodah Zarah even if she's married, because he's assur on gilui arayos. No person for that matter is allowed to be alone with an Avodah Zarah because he's assur on shichvas zachar. We saw a Mishna about not allowing a Jewish woman to use a midwife, a midwife, that's an Avodah Zarah, because the midwife is assur on shichvas zachar. Even if there are people there, the Avodah Zarah is going to find a way to to maybe cause problems. That's assur. A woman can't be a midwife for the child of a Jew. A mohel, if you have a mohel, right? You're not allowed to use a non-Jewish mohel because he's assur on gilui arayos. And even if there are people there, but yeah, maybe he'll turn the child into a non-Jewish child. Major, major assur that are flying all over these sugyas here as it relates to Avodah Zarah being assur. So here's the question. Does this relate to the Avodah Zarah of our times or not? Or does this not relate to the Avodah Zarah of our times or not? Is this something that's assur? All these different halachas not using a barber, that's an Avodah Zarah, right? That was a good one. I These things apply to our times or not? Or they not apply to our times or not? I just want to say over the question with a sharp mind. And that is, if you think about the first 30 or so pages of Avodah Zarah, I think it's a tale of two stories. I mean, really it all dealt with Avodah Zarah and Avodah Zarah and Avodah Zarah. But really the first part, I mean the first paragraph of the Avodah Zarah, dealt with halachas that are negaya interacting with any Yehudim because of the issur of avodah zarah. Avodah zarah, which is the second of the 10 Commandments, which is arguably the most chomer issur in the entire Torah. It's the reason the first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, etc. etc. etc. It was so chomer that the Torah had to be mevatel avodah zarah because they realized we're going to build the second Beis Hamikdash with fighting to be over avodah zarah. But the point is the first part really dealt with halachas related to avodah zarah. Don't do gesheft with an akum shlishi yom lifnei eid because he's going to be over and you're going to be over or you'll be over All those sugias were related to the ikkur issur of avodah zarah. The sugias that we went in the second part, the latter part, are not related to the issur of avodah zarah or shiyachus. It's halachas that are negaya if they avodah zarah but really any Yehudim, people that are not or maybe shomer Torah u'mitzvos. So, the chashash of avodah zarah the chashash of akum the chashash of akum on gilui arayos. It's not the same thing. May inyan l'inyan very much the same inyan but it's not the same thing. Now, as it relates to the sugias of avodah zarah b'zman hazeh, that we tackled already in the first part. That's something that we went through. The akum sh'b'zman hazeh, are they or are they not avodah zarah? What's the matter with them? Toises in the beginning of the Masakta, Toises avodah zarah Toises that Beis Hamikdash, Toises Shabbos the same exact Toises. What Toises seems to say that they're not shita because of the akum sh'beineinu v'sh'b'zmanenu were all noitzrim and they believe in Hakadosh Baruchu, they're also So, if they're not SHITA IT COMES OUT THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY SHITA. THE TOISES IN TOISES AND THE BIG PROBLEM, are we meant to take the Toises literally? Did he mean that they're not shita? They're not OR DOES IT MEAN THE ISSUR OF THE TRUTH IS THE TOISES WHICH WASN'T WRITTEN by the Toises it was written by his son Landau and the Toises from the Toises and the Toises Landau from the Sha'arei Teshuvah and that goes from the Hilchos Shabbos and so forth. That Gamara I think this is something that we tackled. Oh, and by the way, the tremendous distinction that Rabbeinu Tam wrote about all these Sugyas that all of the Chumras in this Sugya is only the Nitzkim but the Ishmaelim there's no sheet about Ishmaelim. And it's often a Rambam and so forth and also with the Shmuel and so forth and so forth. That Sugya that whole Sugya at first glance has nothing to do with what we're discussing today. Because that was only Isur Avoda Zara. That's the first Perek in Avoda Zara. Yesh what about the second Perek in Avoda Zara? When you're dealing with Avoda Zara who are Chashud maybe not maybe not do with the Isur Avoda Zara. So if that's the case, is this something you have to worry about as long as that is something you have to worry about as long as that. So I started being my eye in a little bit. This was something that was making me curious. I just started going through Sugya by Sugya. Just take a look at the Rishonim. Just give you a two samples. What was the first Halacha of the Perek? In Mamidei Beheima the Pundakois Shel Avoda Zara. That's the Halacha. Toisfos asks the Kashya. What's going on OVER HERE? WE'RE VIOLATING an Offen Avoda Zara. Says Toisfos. Rabbeinu Tam said We're being Someich on Rabbeinu Tam or Braisa. Remember there was a Braisa that said a lot about Beheimos for Korbanos. And we had a whole Shaila why yeah why not. One Daf from this Machshava and one Daf from this Machshava. This Sugya went seven and a half years and a day. But the bottom line is what came out we came out that according to Rabbeinu Tam the way we Ashiv this theory is that the Mishnah is going a little bit like Rabbeinu Tam. He's Chashud and the Braisa going to Rabbeinu Tam is not Chashud. Said Rabbeinu Tam and now we want to know why we make we make it because we all like Rabbeinu Tam. We hold it's machlokes shniya. It was a whole shaila. And by the way, Tosefta in the end of this Tosefta is a real klalius Tosefta. So we put asterisks. We try sometimes next to these rishonim that come up here in these gemaras. Tosefta has a whole thing, why would we pasken like that pshat in the gemara? There was so many different ways to be meyashev the stira. This is the best eitza? This is Rabbi Eliezer the rabbonim. So this is a classic klalius Tosefta there. But the bottom line is Tosefta was muching, what's going on? Why today are we not makpid? Said Rabbeinu Tam, you know why? Cuz we pasken. We pasken that The reason it's muttar today is because it was muttar yesterday. It was muttar by rishonim. It was always muttar. Because this whole chashash was shitas Rabbi Eliezer. Didn't the gemara have other eitzos? Yeah, but we pasken like this eitza. That Rabbi Eliezer or rabbonim. The Rashba in a teshuvah was asked this question as well. What's going on over here? Why are we not makpid? Said the Rashba, The chashash revealed cuz today revealed. Rabbeinu Tam held and this is in Ashkenaz by the way. Rabbeinu Tam held that really they were chashash today just like they were chashash yesterday. No, it wasn't even yesterday they weren't really chashash. For that reason today it's going to be muttar. The Rashba said, no, I think nishtana ha'de'os. There was a time that they were considered chashash, but today they're ready they're not considered chashash. One more example. In the sugia of menekes, right? Are you allowed to use a meneket Tosefta in this often not. Much is very much no, what's going on over here? Why is it muttar? And Tosefta struggles with this question. The Ritva on that gemara says, quote, Val zeh nogu b'mitzvos mukoymos l'hanik b'nei Yisrael b'she'ein motzin menekes Yisrael. V'yesh noyam there are people that are even more meikel Even if it's b'reshus akum. V'omer when they say let the Israel today there was a time sounds again like it's seems to think that they're still however they were that's how they still are whereas the says that no today they're really not considered to be so again a very cursory in the would seem to yield that there was some sort of here whether or not they would still considered or not still considered kosher. But there's a fascinating postscript not a postscript because we have work to do still but there's a fascinating postscript to this discussion and that is something that we talked about very very much when we learned Sanhedrin and that is the infamous debate between the Paris one of the verses and the mission mid who's known as Donin that was in the year 1240 in the city of Paris in front of the king of France. So again when we talked a lot about this and the background is that there were a lot of nights from that felt that the should be allowed to practice Judaism. We're not debating that but at the same time they shouldn't be allowed to study the time. And the reason is because the time a toxic work and it's for that reason they should not be allowed to study the time. This idea picked up so much steam that the king of France King Louis decided that we're going to have to duke it out. There's no way to resolve this issue other than have some representatives of the rabbis people that are considered masters experts gurus in the Talmud, they're going to come. The prosecution's going to come. There's going to be a trial. It's going to be done in a very public setting. And based on the outcome of this trial, we will determine whether or not the Jews should be allowed to study the Talmud or should not be allowed to study the Talmud. Now, to be clear, it wasn't Judaism that was on trial. This was not the debate of the Ramban in front of the Sultan of Spain. This is not Nazarenes versus Yahad. This was the trial of the Talmud. This is literally what it was. Where there's a prosecution, there's a defendant. The defendant is the Talmud alone. And the Talmud is standing trial right now, and the determination is going to be can a Yid study Talmud or do we have to ban the Talmud from being studied? Now, if you go through the trial of the Talmud, there were many different categories of points that the prosecution was coming from in terms of why the Yidden shouldn't be able to study the Talmud. Obviously, Rashi was saying was different references to the Yeshua Hanotzri. They felt if the Talmud speaks in a derogatory way about Yeshua Hanotzri, that's grounds for abolishing and banning the study of the Talmud. Additionally, they felt and argued that a lot of the halachas that are mentioned in the Talmud to them seem silly. This is something we've spoken about in the past. Right, what's what's the classic example of this? Molech. That if someone's nice and misayir la Molech, so then the halacha is he's considered the someone who violated the law of Molech, he's bechayiv misah. But if somebody gives kol zareh misayir, like kol zareh is not going to be a problem. And to them this was absolutely ridiculous. Kasha d'alma v'lo kasha so we did fighter grade bites on both of these. But the bottom line is this was like a whole category of things that bothered them. Different different aggadah was something that they felt the Jews needed to defend. But as in your name alone. One of the big point, if not the biggest point, that they were coming after the Yidden was is they said that if you go through the Talmud, there are a lot of derogatory things that the Talmud says about any Yidden. And because you have all these different derogatory things that are being said, so I don't understand how you can allow them to study the Talmud. I mean, look at what it says. Look at what IT SAYS ABOUT US. SO, WHY would you allow them every single day to study things that are saying things that are very, very against us. And this was something they felt very, very strongly about. And as a result, this was a main point in their prosecution, in their argument of why the Yidden should not be allowed to to study the Talmud. If you go through that chelek of the Vikuach, kima'at every gemara that we learned in the last week in Maseches Avodah Zarah is quoted. Kima'at every single one. In fact, they even quoted gemaras that we didn't learn because of censorship. I'll just mention one, which is very, very interesting. And that is Tosfos on the top of Daf Chullin Mem Beis in Maseches Avodah Zarah. So, the Sugya over there is talking about Avodah Zarah of Rebbe Akiva. Lo may reading, but also lo may reading. Tosfos asks a kasha. I'm reading Tosfos. The top Tosfos on Chullin Mem Beis. D'ibra Maseches lo may reading. Im time I fake Tosfos. Oh, minimum Maseches Sofrim. It says in Maseches Sofrim, kasha she biknanem. Am I right? Kasha she biknanem. Am I right? You're allowed to kill the kasha she biknanem. So, if you're allowed to kill the kasha she biknanem, so what's going on over here? Lo may reading? KASHA SHE BIKNANEM. THIS IS NOT THE BEST ANSWER. HAROY KILLED THEM. SO, OF COURSE THE LAW SHOULD BE MAY READING. Says Tosfos Yeshanim. The Yerushalmi in Maseches Kedushin in Bava Kama, the Rebbe Shach will come. The only time that's true is in a Shas M'chum. Or maybe raya. And the Yerushalmi brings a raya from the possuk that says Vayikach es Yechov Bocher. Talking about Paroh, right? Mayechan hoyu? Where did he get them from? He took What's the kasha? How did Paroh have Bocher to go after the Yidden? How did he have all these susim, right? Sus, uh, the the sus, the ferd that went to the Yam. Where did it come from? L'chayira, l'chayira, weren't they killed already by Makas Borod? The teretz is because all those ferd came from the Hayeori Paroh Shem. So, that's the kasha she biknanem. Haroy killed DON'T GIVE A LIKE THAT WHICH WAS A THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT I CAN READ IT I MEAN that the culture the terrorist isn't me that is like this. If you look up this you look up this you're not going to find this you shall be good that I doesn't exist. We don't have such a Does it mean that the tackle wasn't such a cuz he's made up of me? Here I like what went on over here. But what's interesting is if you look at the army. So the is the end of why would this be the end of condition? Cuz what's the mission in the end of condition? The name of Ruben that everybody knows and the brings a and the price has an expanded list. Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben We heard that one question Ruben Ruben Ruben question Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben Ruben I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I SHOULD I SHOULD I SHOULD I SHOULD I SHOULD I SHOULD I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I should I I should I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I should I I I I should I I should I I should I I should where this Tosefos came from. But the bottom line is he says over this Tosefos. HE SAYS, "TAKE A LOOK AT THE YERUSHALMI or don't, and you'll see there that this is what's going on." But the bottom line is what But this is the biggest feel a little bit what's going on. Now, I'll just read a few excerpts. Now, I only have it in English, this part of it. And as a result, I'll read it in English, but just to get a little bit of a sense. There is also, this is Don I'm talking, "Gentiles who eat insects and reptiles and pollute their bodies, and we are as despised among them as grasshoppers and flies. You also say, 'When a Gentile touches wine, it the wine is prohibited, even if the Gentile is an infant of 1 day old.' And you say, 'All scoffing is prohibited, except for ridiculing idolatry.' I'm skipping a little bit. You also teach, 'Do not place cattle in the inn of Gentiles, as they are suspected of immoral behavior with them. And an Israelite woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of immoral behavior. And a man should not be alone with them, for they are suspected of bloodshed. An Israelite woman should not act as midwife for a non-Israelite woman, and not nurse her son, as she would be raising a child of idolatry. And you say it is forbidden to give a free gift to a Gentile because of the statement in Deuteronomy, 'You shall not show them grace.' Thus, it is forbidden to say to a Gentile, 'How handsome is this Gentile?' As it says, 'You shall not show them grace,' meaning that you shall not ascribe to them attractiveness. Regarding the matter of a lost article, you say that it is prohibited to return it to its Gentile owner because it says that encouraging of Gentiles will lead to the utter ruin of moist and dry alike. This is heena and evil." Anyway, he goes on and on and on, quoting chapter and verse all these gemaras that we learn. So, what do Rebbe Peretz do? Like, how do you get out of this? So, Rebbe Peretz's mahalach was, and really this is leshitasai with his mahalach throughout the entire debate, which we talked about a little bit in Maseches Sanhedrin. And that is, Rebbe Peretz said, "You have the wrong guys. You have the wrong over the carbon. It's true. It's true the Gamora said it. We're not debating that. We're not negotiating that. But the Gamora was talking about over the other desert. The Gamora was talking about the midstream who the Yidden had come from when they left midstream and the K'naani who inhabited the land that the Yidden were going to when they left midstream and they were immersed in all this terrible behavior. And he says, "I want to ask you a question." He turned to them. He said, "May I ask you, do you think you should be sus suspect of uh bestiality?" No, right? We don't really think so. Do you think you should be uh suspect of maybe uh you know, all these different types of Zaken? The answer is no. We don't think it either. But we can both agree that there was a time in history that people were very much immersed in this. We know it. And really that circle the time of the lottery is a lot of this. So of course now that there's been an enlightenment in the world and now that the over the carbon are very much on the same page and they they practice some form of monotheism. So yeah, of course today this is not something that's relevant. WHEN YOU GOT YOU HAVE THE WRONG GUY. There's a mistaken identity over here. I don't know what you want from our lives. You're making us meshuga because we said things about a group of people. It's not you. Where is this Rabbi Yechiel Michel Paris This is Rabbi Yechiel Michel Paris because that's how he got out of the Yeshiva Noitzri. He said you have the wrong Yeshiva. Right? That was his famous line. He told them not every Louis is King of France. Not every Yeshiva is your Gatchka. It's your Yeshiva Noitzri. He said the Yeshiva Noitzri of the Gamora and all those derogatory lines that you're going to find is not referring to your Yeshiva. It's different Yeshiva. And said Rabbi Yechiel Michel Paris Yeshiva Noitzri in terms of the strategy. The strategy of how he went about it. He said you have the wrong guy. He didn't fight him. He didn't debate him. He didn't deny it. He just kept on saying the same thing. You have the wrong guy. Your Yeshiva, that's not our Yeshiva. And he said in terms of all these Gamoras, the Gamoras are talking about the K'naanim. These Gamoras, right? Tosafot K'naanim are right. Look at that nuance of what Tosafot was Magia. This is I think this pushes here. I think it's coming from this debate a little bit. But the bottom line is is that it's kind of it's it's it's you have the wrong person. So you have the wrong person. I don't know what you want from my life. And this is the way he went about the entire debate. Now, the postscript to this of course we know was, you know, "Kilos are good but safe I was terrible terrible." In the beginning the sense was that Jews had won the debate and they were allowed to continue studying the Talmud until a few years later the terrible gazera of the safe of the Talmud came about which of course, you know, resulted in Ram Rotenberg's kinna. This is something that you know, these days now, you know, we're already close to Tisha B'Av getting mourned and we think about and we're mispalelin about goes down as one of the great tragedies in Jewish history. But the bottom line is it all came from this debate. But in terms of the lomdus of going about it Rabbi Chaim Paris's position was defensive. No question. It was a defensive position. But the way he went about this whole sugia was, you have the wrong guys. There's nothing to talk about. Those They have the notes of the choshan. This is why we Who would we ever say a choshan on this? And as a result we mean pagans. They they used to eat human flesh. You know, again, we don't appreciate that. The Rambam talks about this in the Moreh. He says we're so removed from the pagans it's so hard for us to understand this whole inyan. But these were subhuman people. They were They were very very different. And as a result Hazal viewed them in that way. And they had a whole different inyan, a whole different nusach of the how they went about it. But they didn't mean someone that's not shomer Torah u'mitzvot. That's not what they meant. They didn't mean someone that's an orel. They were not referring to that. It's a terrible terrible mistake. Just to bring out the point a drop better and we're going to end with this. And that is one of the things we've mentioned many times over the years is censorship in seforim in more recent times. Specifically in the city of the great city of Prague. You know, we talked when we learned Maseches Shavuos about the teshuva that the Noda B'Yehuda wrote to the censor of Prague, Father Leopold Tersch, right? Noda B'Yehuda addresses him as Futter Tersch. And then we spoke about the chuva that maybe you just have a move it with a lot of flat list wrote to the next sensor of Prague, Carl Fischer, who he was very very close to. And he too wrote a chuva back about swearing and keep the faith. What about the desire that fascinating fascinating noise say. But the bottom line is is that censorship was a very big deal. And it's for that reason you can open up you open up open up any safer that you know is Prague affiliated. You're going to see in the front of few things. Number one, there's a stamp from Leopold Tish or Carl Fischer. And not just that, there's always a little bit of a disclaimer. The disclaimer goes something like this, that anytime you see the words I can mention anywhere in one of these farm, we don't mean the nights and money. This is always the disclaimer. This was a very important disclaimer. Again, if you know, you know. But a lot of flat list of laying the great going in his act on them. The issue of my heart he didn't just make a disclaimer. He wrote a little it's called Susannah. So he mommies double down on this engine. He said I'm going to write all countries and the objective of this country is to debunk this theory. Now we mentioned this book Susannah once. We mentioned the end of the where we learn the of what we refer to as the censored Sugiyama. And then we gave a shout out to this Susannah. But I think it's good I to go through it a drop errors. Not long. A drop error. This is how we start. I think this paragraph tells you everything you need to know from this Sugiyama. That is I'm going to meet you on the day that I from the day that I became intelligent. So Matthew is truly nice to almost. I heard the arguments of the Shema and they they complain against us Shema the Talmud that you can find in the Talmud will be and other have been not negative things on the nations of the world. And about it's because of this God has sinned. That this tremendous anti-Semitism Nikima on the Tria Sarah Gamorino on us Gamara Talmudim or on the Talmud Bably the Yerushalmi. And he said this call your my God out to be in Hamia Torah. My whole life I grew up between the Hamia Torah. Harabi the Madadi Mea Voisa Umisifria Kodesha Rishona Akoyna Meosina Zintus Lishina Zof. He said I learned so much from my fathers of my Rabbis more from their Sforim. Umita Midoim Yoisim Kolom but from their Talmuds Umita Midoim Yoisim Kolom. Umita Midoim from their Talmuds Bably and Yerushalmi even more than them. Yagati he said I was Mea Geya Lo Imato see but I couldn't find Shemets Dovar Hamis Nagid Umis Maraza. He says I don't know what you guys are talking about. I couldn't find one thing that had something derogatory about Umis Maraza. Va Amarti so I said that I'm going to prepare Kuntres as Exus and I and the whole Igili Inayim Lif Koya Inayim Ivrois. The purpose of it is just to open eye to eyes that can't see. Leda Umili Voda Ki Sheker Nochlu Mea Voisa that Umis Olam will say what they say they inherited Sheker from their Zaydis. The Sinus Hinom Sinunom Vinehefchu Hadvorim and it became something which is so terrible. Rabi Sayno Bali Talmuds Akoyno Racho Simu Lonu Viziru Lo Isu Lo Achsiv Toyvu Lo Kol Umavo Umavo Shanaknu Yoisim Tachtaim Vishloi Losis Ovel Vo Oven Lo Kol Umavo Umavo Afli Umis Achli Mativu Tivi Ashiva Even Toyif Bizora Kos Gain Umis Mikam Deoris Umis Maraza Kosha Var Ashte Osak Kolom and he said I'm going to explain now 11 Kolom on this In Yimay Protim and Mispa and Protim this I can't even count. He says I believe that this whole notion that open up the Gamara you're going to see things that are connected the Umis Olam it's anti-Semitism 101. It didn't create the anti-Semitism it came as a result of the anti-Semitism. It's Mamish Shaker Sheker Nochlu Mea Voisa and that's what causes all thing. And he goes through his 11 numbers very short. You can go through it very easily. 11 column different ideas related to this engine. Just to get an idea. The first one, this is the one that we mentioned in the above a camera. He says something that's momish unbelievable. He says that David Hamelich said in the hill and it's in capital it's in capital kuf lamed hey. He said that as it relates to the Oivdei Kochavim Atzveim Kesef v'Zahav, Ma'aseh Yedeihem, right? Peh Lahem v'Lo Yedaveru, Einayim Lahem v'Lo Yiru, Oznaim Lahem v'Lo Yishmeu. He starts talking about the Oivdei Avodah Zarah and how they Avodah Zarah is a momish nothing and as a result the Oivdei Avodah Zarah are nothing. Then he says Beis Yisrael Barku Hashem. Beis Aharon Barku Hashem. Beis Halevi Barku Hashem. Yirei Hashem Barku Hashem. Beis Yisrael is all Yisrael. Beis Aharon are the Kohanim. Beis Halevi are the Levi'im. Take the blood of the flock, this is the Yirei Hashem then. Beis Yisrael Beis Aharon, Beis Halevi, Yirei Hashem. Beis Yisrael, Beis Aharon, Beis Halevi, you covered everybody. Who else is there to cover? There's nobody left. So, if there's nobody left, who are the Yirei Hashem that are Barku Hashem? Says Rav Lozer Fleckles, I believe the Yirei Hashem are referring to the Oivdei Kochavim that believe in Hakadosh Baruchu. They keep They keep Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach. They try. These people, they're the Yirei Hashem Barku Hashem. Hakadosh Baruchu created the world. He created the world with different Umos, right? Just like within our Umos we have different Shvatim. There's Beis Aharon, there's Beis Halevi. Within the world, there's different Umos. And different Umos have a different tafkid. And as long as every person from their respective Umos is doing what they're supposed to do, then it's Yirei Hashem Barku Hashem. There's nothing to talk about. It's something that is admired. It's something that David Hamelich looked up to. And said Rav Lozer Fleckles, it's partial to me that that's what's going on over there. Says and this and really if you go through his 11 column right mentions 11 column is this is equal to is I don't know what you're talking about. He says what about that? He says of course not. a whole paragraph of this and that. Do you know what I'm talking about? He says I don't know what you're talking about. But what about are you allowed to hate what about you have to love any hoodie or you allowed to hate him? He says it's all positive. You see my you see something that's considered to be a a very very bad thing. The next thing he says what about all of the above? Right? You like to you like to look to do good? He says it's it's a positive in the Torah. He says what's the matter? He says it says by you see what I'm talking about? It's all positive and there's a special reason for that. You even then if that is first you have a responsibility to to answer back. You like to save you got TO USE THE SAYS THIS IDEA that all of the above are half good it's not it's just not true. It's it's fake news. Are you allowed to be with all of the above? He says you want to know about that? He said >> He says, "Look at the three of us and you see you're not going to have the shaila. Avraham Avinu did it. He said Yitzchak did it and Yaakov did it." In Zion, he says, "If you have a little you have a fake shaila." With the shaila you have a little bit of a shaila. Are you allowed to lend money to an Akum? Says the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, "I don't know but he brings rayas from the Torah and Halacha of Avraham Avinu and Yaakov Avinu." In Khesh, he starts talking about what about giving tzedaka? He says, "Of course, in the Machon Yaakov you have to know you find David HaMelech he sent gifts to Chanam and different things. And then he says, maybe you're still not going to be happy. You're going to still What about evading taxes? That's something that you're not allowed to do. Basically, he goes through everything. He played defense and he played offense. He says, "I don't know what you're talking about." He says, "Yeah, there is an Indian there's different Gemaras cuz once upon a time there were people that were poshet in the min ha'yoshor. And those people that were in the min ha'yoshor they were choshed on a lot of things. They were choshed on a lot of things. These were not regular people. I it says you're allowed to kill? Yeah, that's if he's a rodef. If he wants to kill you, of course you're allowed to kill him back. But in terms of just going ahead and heating up the Akum or not treating them like people, what are you talking about? He says the Rambam says the Chassidei Umos HaOlam have a little Halacha. What about the ones that are not Chassidei Umos HaOlam? What about the Yidden that don't do what they're supposed to do? I don't know about that. Yeah, there's something you have to earn your ticket. YOU WANT TO PUNCH your ticket, you got TO EARN IT. NO ONE'S denying that. But at the same time this idea that the Akum Akum were treated etc. Rabbi Fleckles called Yoma Yogati Umatzasi. He says, "I don't know what you're talking about." He says, "This idea that every single time there's a Gemara that is a little sideways, we go ahead and we interpret it somehow for the bad." He said it's cuz sheker nachal avoisam. This is anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism came first and then the rayas came second. It's not the other way around. He said it with such a confidence. And this is so classic Reb Alazar Fleckles, and it's so classic Prague. It's so classic Prague. Cuz every Prague safer has a little bit of a disclaimer. Reb Alazar Fleckles did what he did better than anybody else. With his poetry, with his sensitivity to knowing how to interact with over the kehavan, with an appreciation for what it means to have a mispalel bishlom shel malchus. With all of that, he went, took a defensive tact, but also a very much offensive tact. And actually, if you go through it, it makes a lot of sense what he's saying. It's very much nikodim divrei emes. It actually feels very, very reasonable. Either way, this is always a fascinating topic, or part of the censored sugiyot. By now, it's already the censored sugiyot. Just a little bit of a haschlama to what we spoke about. You know, in the first perek, this is the second perek. And I think now, with a clear conscience, we can go right there, and we can get into stam yeinom. We get into chalav stam. We can get into pas palter. We can have a lot of fun, b'ezras Hashem, in the dafin and the sugiyot coming up in the next week.