Thank you Rabbi Wax, Roshei Yeshiva, Rav Schachter, Rabbi Wax, Mara D'Asra. I apologize to those who came for the 8:45 slot and are justifiably and understandably disappointed. I apologize. In the Haggadah we quote the Meimar Chazal that Chazal tell us that Yaakov Avinu, melamed that Yaakov Avinu לא ירד למצרים להשתקע שם אלא לגור. He didn't come to settle in Mitzrayim, he just came to visit in Mitzrayim. Lagur is from the shoresh of ger to be a stranger, so it means you're just passing through, you're just visiting. And lehishtakeia, the same shoresh as shekiya, to when the sun sets, it means to sink roots. So Yaakov Avinu didn't come to Mitzrayim to settle, he just came as a stranger, he came to visit. So what's puzzling about this is that the Chazal tell us that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they amplify the pasuk when Yaakov Avinu had hesitations despite the great attraction and pull of going to see Yosef and having a reunion after so many years of separation, so Yaakov Avinu hesitated. And Hakadosh Baruch Hu reassures him that אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ואנכי אעלך גם עלה ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך.
So Chazal explain that that means Rashi quotes it, that that means that Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him you're going to die in Mitzrayim and יוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, Yosef will take care of you, and I'll see to it, I'm guaranteeing you, Yaakov, that you'll be buried, that you'll be zocheh to be buried in Eretz Yisrael. So Yaakov Avinu knows that he's moving to Mitzrayim and that he's going to be carried back and that he's not coming back to Eretz Yisrael. So what does it mean that he only went lagur, that he didn't go lehishtakeia? Of course he went lehishtakeia. If a person decides, if an older person decides that he's going to move into a retirement residence, so you don't have the attitude that it's lagur, you have the attitude that it's lehishtakeia where a person retires to. So the answer is that even though Yaakov Avinu knew full well what Hakadosh Baruch Hu had told him, but nevertheless axiologically, in terms of Yaakov Avinu's attitude, so Yaakov Avinu's attitude was that Eretz Canaan, Eretz Yisrael remained his home. And even if, even if Ribono shel Olam dictated for reasons having to do with the unfolding of Jewish history that Yaakov Avinu had to go down and spend his last seventeen years in Mitzrayim, but nevertheless in terms of on an axiological level, so Yaakov Avinu said that I'm only visiting here, I'm a stranger here. Maybe it's going to be the case, not maybe, it is going to be the case that I'll be here for the rest of my for the rest of my life, but I'll be here as a stranger. So the first principle in terms of living as a Jew in Gentile society is that it has to be done with the attitude of lagur and not lehishtakeia. Even if circumstances dictate, and every one of us makes a constant cheshbon hanefesh, is constantly reassessing whether in fact circumstances dictate or whether it's just inertia dictating, but even if circumstances dictate that we live outside of Eretz Yisrael, it has to be done on the model of Yaakov Avinu that it's lagur not lehishtakeia. Someone once told me a story that he met the Rav in the airport and the Rav was making conversation with him, asked him, so where do you live now? So he told him what community he lived in. And he said that the Rav commented, yeah, it's a very beautiful community, the only problem is that they forget that they're in Chutz La'aretz. The name of the community is not really relevant to the story because unfortunately I think we can all fill in the blank with the names of too many communities, that was the same idea of lagur and not lehishtakeia. Even if one has the attitude of lagur, so we still have to be very aware that one of the principles of human behavior and human psychology the Rambam tells us in Hilchos Deos is that we're influenced by our surroundings and that we're very susceptible to being influenced by the culture, by the mindset in which we in which we find ourselves. One of the problems, and recently it has received a lot of attention and justifiably so, is that there's a phenomenon rachmana litzlan of children who in their youth their parents send them to yeshivos, to day schools, and then after high school, post high school, so rachmana litzlan there is such a phenomenon of that they go off the derech and that they assimilate. Now clearly, clearly the response to that has to be an intensification of chinuch. Chinuch has to be a, as long as possible, and b, as much and as deep and as profound as possible. Interestingly, the Gemara in Kiddushin quotes the pasuk. Right, if there's one pasuk which if we would ask what's the pasuk which everyone associates with chinuch, so I think we'd all respond חנוך לנער על פי דרכו. That's the pasuk, the mandate for chinuch. Interestingly, the Gemara in Kiddushin says so what's the prime age at which you can fulfill this mandate of חנוך לנער על פי דרכו that you can really, really make a lasting impact and imprint upon the child? So we would say 12, 13, around those preteen years, early teen years. So the Gemara in Kiddushin talks about the Gemara has two leshonos, either from age 16 to 22 or age 18 to 24. So we sometimes have the notion that when the, and again, this itself is an example of influence which the surrounding society has on us, that by the time the children graduate high school, so then okay, so then we've finished the chinuch. We've done our chinuch, we've done our best, so now baruch Hashem it's widely accepted in our circles that upon graduating, the young men and ladies, they go to Eretz Yisrael for a year or two and that's wonderful, but then we too often have the attitude, oh, we finished the chinuch. And the Gemara in Kiddushin says no, the Gemara in Kiddushin says beyond that, beyond age 22, beyond age 24, then it's going to be too late, then it's going to be too late to exert that same kind of influence as we have the opportunity to do at these earlier stages. But chinuch continues. The child graduates high school at 16, 17, he's not a finished product. On the contrary, the most dangerous time in terms of in terms of internalizing whether or not the child as the child becomes an adult, whether or not he or she is going to internalize the commitment and remain steadfast in one's dedication to Torah and mitzvos are these few years between the time he or she graduates high school and the time of marriage. It's during that time when they leave the parental home, before they settle into their own home, so that's the most vulnerable time. The most vulnerable time. And we need to have an awareness of that, that chinuch isn't complete, chinuch isn't complete at the age of high school graduation. Obviously you have to talk to a child differently at every age. We have to talk to our children differently. You don't talk to an 18-year-old the same way we talk to an 8-year-old. That's understood, but we have to continue the talking. The talking and the chinuch has to continue. There's also been a lot of discussion and debate lately trying to heighten awareness in terms of the challenges and at times spiritual dangers of secular campuses. And this is also something again which too often is part of that same mindset that the chinuch has already been completed by the time high school graduation is done. So then we don't necessarily take this into account. And these again are very impressionistic years. Again, this is the danger zone, between the time the children graduate high school and between the time they settle down and get married. It's these few years which are the when they're most susceptible rachmana litzlan to slipping. So we have to be aware of the culture, the culture on secular campuses. Many of you are... Now I'll ask the question that many of you are wondering about, didn't didn't he go to a secular college? So the answer is yes, and the answer is that that that I did. I would tell you a couple of things, not by way of apologetics, but just by way of depending upon one's perspective, that can either disqualify or qualify and I'm not I won't pass judgment on that, I'll we'll put a box here later for everyone to put their vote in. First of all, it's very different, very different whether you live there or you don't live there. Living there, so then one is sort of enveloped by the culture. You sort of come in and out, it's a very different very different experience, very different experience. But even then, even then, I have to tell you honestly, I wouldn't do it again. Even then, even just a little bit, the little bit of just going in and out, the few hours a day, even that is not the it's it's it's not a healthy it's not a healthy place, not a healthy place, even if one is blessed with wonderful resources at home to counter it, it's still a it's still not a conducive surroundings. And again, and we we have to be aware of the spiritual dangers that it poses and again that these are the years of חנוך לנער על פי דרכו between 16 and 22, whether according to Rashi whether it means actually to marry off the children during this period, or whether it means that that's when we give the most intensive intensive instruction, Divrei Musar V'tochacha, whichever pshat in Rashi one takes, but we have to realize that these are prime years of chinuch, not that this is beyond, not that this is beyond. That's chinuch as long as possible. What about chinuch as as much as possible, as deeply as possible? So the pasuk when it describes Avodat Hashem, so the pasuk invites us, ta'amu u'reu. Ta'amu u'reu, right, literally means taste and see ki tov Hashem. Ta'amu u'reu. So the pasuk uses very sensual imagery and metaphor, right, to taste, to see, the the the five senses. So why why that why that kind of imagery? So what the pasuk here is alluding to is that in order to foster an abiding commitment to Torah, so it's not enough that a person knows Torah, a person has to experience Torah. And that's what the metaphor of ta'amu u'reu is. Not just not just something purely intellectual, but rather ta'amu u'reu. It has to be that that one experiences experiences Torah. I think what we're all familiar that the Rav often spoke and and this is in some of his ktavim as well, it can it can be read, that he said that he in in his typical self-effacing style, he said, you know, that that he feels that he's failed in a certain respect as a mechanech, as a melamed. That as much Torah as he's been able to transmit to his talmidim, he says but the experience of yahadut he doesn't feel that he's been successful in in in conveying that. And ultimately, ultimately, what what helps a person withstand the nisyonot of of being of being drawn in and sucked in to a materialistic mindless culture, ultimately, what what protects a person against that is not not just knowing Torah, but having experienced Torah. Ta'amu u'reu. In our chinuch, in our chinuch, so we have to try, again, whether it's in the yeshivot or or at home as well, not only, not only to impart knowledge, not only to impart knowledge, but it should be a ta'amu u'reu. If a person has ever experienced the sweetness, the sweetness of learning a pasuk Chumash, how much there is in in a single a single pasuk Chumash, how much there is, a daf Gemara, a person tastes that, a person experiences that, so does it mean that a person knows the answer to to every question that he may confront? Does he know the answer to why why our tradition is that the world is 5,764 years old and science tells us differently? No, he doesn't know, but there's a difference between a kushya and a teretz. To some things we don't know, okay, if it bothers us enough or or if it's intrinsically worthwhile, so then we'll investigate it and we'll try to educate ourselves, but there's a difference, a person doesn't feel threatened by a question because if a person... Experiences the truth and greatness of Torah, so then questions are just that, they're not potential refutations, they're not, they're not threatening. But if a person only has knowledge, it's not with a tam ur'u. Learning was too academic. It was a subject in school. The geshmak of Torah wasn't conveyed. A person didn't experience the unparalleled, unique sweetness of Torah, of Shabbos. So then if a person only has knowledge of Torah and then he has questions, so then the questions can erode the commitment rachmana litzlan. And specifically it's very important that we try to impart, that we try to cultivate for ourselves and that we try to impart to our children, that the way the entire world is experienced has to be through a lens, through a prism of faith. That the way we experience, the way we hear the news, the way we experience what happens in our daily lives, we do that again, we see it through a lens, through a prism of light, through a prism of emunah, of hashgacha pratis. If a person sees the world that way, sees the world that way, so then one constantly sees yad Hashem, one is constantly reminded of the Ribbono Shel Olam's presence, of His involvement, and again, one just experiences the truth, so one's not going to be distracted. The questions are not going to erode one's commitment. That too, experiencing the world, seeing it through a lens, through a prism of faith, is part of what a pasuk of tam ur'u instructs us to do. One of the dangers in living as a minority in society is that often we become defensive, apologetic, even ashamed about our core beliefs. And clearly such defensiveness is the first step on the road to complete assimilation rachmana litzlan, and it's a large first step at that. Now the Torah insists that we should be proud of what we believe and very straightforward and assertive, as circumstances warrant, about what we believe. Right? The very first Rashi in Chumash with which we're all familiar, that Amar Rabi Yitzchak, why does the Torah begin with Bereishis, why doesn't the Torah begin with Hachodesh hazeh lachem, that if the umos ha'olam will tell us what right do you have to Eretz Yisrael, listim atem, so what we're supposed to say is that the Ribbono Shel Olam created the world, He originally settled the seven nations there and then He expelled the seven nations and He gave it forever and ever to us. So hasbarah invoking all other kinds of factors which people can understand is important and it has its place, but not to displace the Torah says that we have to be willing to say maybe it doesn't seem politically correct and maybe it's not the most popular, but we're not supposed to be embarrassed, we're not supposed to be defensive. But what is our claim to Eretz Yisrael? So the ultimate claim, the claim is because Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave it to us, Hakadosh Baruch Hu promised it to us. And Rashi says not just that we need to know this for ourselves, but we should say to the umos ha'olam, that there shouldn't be anything defensive about it. To the umos ha'olam we say. Again, if there are going to be some who are not going to be swayed by that and we can make other compelling and cogent arguments which can try to enhance the security of Medinas Yisrael, so we make those arguments as well, but not at the expense of being willing to say this. You know some of the, I forget which one, maybe multiple ones did, but some of the organizations involved in lobbying for Medinas Yisrael here in America circulated a copy of a speech which a senator, Republican from Oklahoma, I'm not sure if I have the pronunciation of the name correct, I think the name is Inhofe, which he delivered on the Senate floor in March of 2002. And in this speech he gave seven reasons for what he thinks is the basis of Israel's legitimate claim and right to Eretz Yisrael. And the seventh reason, and we'll see in a minute he says this is the most important reason: I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, that it has a right to the land, this is the most important reason because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It's right up there on the desk. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says the Lord said to Abram, lift up now your eyes and look from the place where you are northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land which you see to you will I give it and to your seed forever. Arise, walk through the land, קום התהלך בארץ לארכה ולרחבה כי לך אתננה, arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it for I will give it to thee. And then he concludes this is not a political battle at all, it is a contest over whether or not the word of God is truth. So if he if he can say that on the Senate floor, then we should be, we should have the courage of our belief and beliefs and convictions to say that as well, regardless of one's political, this is not a political statement, regardless of what political party one identifies oneself with, and Eretz Yisrael has nothing to do with this. This is a totally non-partisan, apolitical statement and again, if we find ourselves hesitant about saying it, so that bespeaks a sense of defensiveness, a sense of being apologetic, even ashamed about our core beliefs, and that's one of the main, main challenges that we have to confront living in as a minority in a gentile society. Along the same lines, we have to realize that the more prominent Jews become in the national scene, so the more scrutiny there will be regarding our our beliefs. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that that a person is not supposed to invite nisyonos, that Dovid HaMelech did so and the result was that he was nichshal. So if Dovid Melech Yisrael couldn't withstand a self-imposed nisayon, so then certainly we are not supposed to look for nisyonos. So a person has to realize again, in terms of prominence in national politics, that one's Orthodox beliefs are going to be scrutinized. Now, undeniably there are many universal elements to Yahadus, which it's easy to speak about in the public square, but there are also many particularistic elements to Yahadus, which are equally integral and indispensable and core beliefs of Yahadus. So, before one becomes all all euphoric about Jews achieving national prominence in the American political scene, so one has to first gauge and calculate whether or not we're ready for that nisayon of having of having our beliefs scrutinized and whether or whether or not this nisayon of not being defensive, not being apologetic, not even being ashamed, whether or not this is too much of a nisayon that we're inviting. There certainly shouldn't just be a a gut reaction of oh, this is this is wonderful. It's euphoria. It's it's a wonderful accomplishment, provided provided that that individually or collectively we're ready for that scrutiny and we're ready to respond to the questions again, unapologetically, straightforwardly. It doesn't mean that we have to volunteer every se'if in Shulchan Aruch, but when asked, a person can't fudge. When asked, a person has to respond honestly, directly, and with the pride of of our convictions. Now, related to the issue of of defensiveness is is that of being impressed with secular achievements and secular credentials. Now, there is an issur in the Torah in Sefer Devarim, there is an issur of lo tichanem. The issur lo tichanem is that one is not supposed to compliment an idolater, one is not supposed to compliment an oved avodah zarah. So the Rambam in the Sefer HaChinuch tells us what's the reason for this, because the reason is that when you compliment someone, so that sort of invites emulation, right? If you compliment, so then you you you're encouraging that to emulate, right? Imitation is the highest form of flattery, right? Because if you really esteem someone, if you really think there's what to compliment, so then you emulate that person. So therefore we're not supposed to we're not supposed to compliment, we're not supposed to compliment. complement and and hold up as an example an idolater and an oved avoda zara. So along the same lines, along the same lines, whether every example technically qualifies to be included under the rubric of this law is a different story, but certainly along the same lines, when when we find ourselves more impressed by by someone who say becomes a high-ranking baseball executive, rather than someone who chose to make aliyah to Eretz Yisrael, so then the question is whether or not we've absorbed too much of the values of the society in which we live, rather than our own native Jewish values. And and this is part of the part of the the question which we discussed before in terms of prolonging our children's chinuch, that when they go to when they go to college, maybe to send them to send them to Yeshiva College, send them to Stern, rather than than living on a secular campus. So truth be told, one of the reasons, one of the reasons that that sometimes people don't want to do that is that it's more prestigious to go to the other places. But why, but that's also, it's not the, it's not the Yiddishe yichus that that they're being attracted to. And what's more, in terms of making that decision, so one doesn't have to the the Yeshivas certainly certainly strive for excellence and should strive for excellence, but in order to to send our children there we don't have to make a decision that they're the equal of of other colleges. No, they don't have the resources of of many private schools and therefore will never be the equal of them. But they have something which which no other school can can offer, and which is genuinely prestigious, Torah, rather than again some some non-Jewish prestige. Certainly one of the aspects of of the topic we're discussing about is how we relate more on an institutional and communal level than on a personal level to the religion or religions of the society in which we live. Rav Schachter spoke about one one aspect, a couple of aspects of this, and and I also don't intend any kind of comprehensive treatment, but perhaps just one or two ha'aros, one or two thoughts which I'd like to share with you. First of all, the the issue of how we interact with other religions, specifically interfaith dialogue and and the like. So we have to realize that even before one has decided whether or not it's mutar, assur, mitzvah, whatever, whatever one thinks it is, so we have to recognize that we're dealing with something which potentially has ramifications for all of Klal Yisrael. It's not just the ramifications for one person or one institution, it it has ramifications for all of Klal Yisrael, A, and B, potentially, even if one thinks that in this set of circumstances it is warranted, and that the nature of the the contact and the interaction is such that it's not only permissible but warranted, even if one thinks that that is true in an individual set of circumstances, one has to recognize but the that determination is we're dealing with issurim which are potentially yehareig ve'al ya'avor. We're dealing with issurim which are part of the part of the abizraihu of avoda zara and therefore potentially, again, whether that's the case actually is the determination and the deliberation which has to be made, but we're dealing with issurim which are potentially yehareig ve'al ya'avor. So that combination of A, dealing with a topic which has ramifications for Klal Yisrael and B, it's not a question of whether Klal Yisrael should say Tachnun on Pesach Sheini, that also has ramifications for Klal Yisrael, whether whether you say Tachnun on Pesach Sheini. But we're talking about a shayla which has ramifications for Klal Yisrael in terms of דברים העומדים ברומו של עולם, again, potentially, potentially, not necessarily actually, that depends upon the psak, but potentially yehareig ve'al ya'avor, so clearly the decisions and the has to be made by Gedolei Yisrael. It's not something that the that we with certain exceptions, but it's not something that we can can decide and Even when the Gedolim decide that such contact is advisable because it's seen as an attempt to contain and try to prevent the resurgence of anti-semitism, but even then it has to be done very very carefully under very strict guidelines. Some of those guidelines, again I'm just going to mention three, but the list is not exhaustive, it's not comprehensive, is that the people who are representing Torah, representing the Jewish people, again as we spoke about, they can't be defensive. Can't be defensive, they can't be afraid of bringing up the bloody, bloody history or even the attempt to deny it, which is ongoing, which is ongoing. Number two, as the Rav wrote and reiterated many times, the interaction can't involve religious cooperation. I'll just read you one line, one or two lines from the Rav's essay, his position paper on this. "The relationship between two communities must be outer-directed and related to the secular orders with which men of faith come face to face. In the secular sphere we may discuss positions to be taken, ideas to be evolved, and plans to be formulated. In these matters, religious communities may together recommend action to be developed and may seize the initiative to be implemented later by general society." Right, so the Rav says very clearly that the only type of cooperation which is possible is not helping each other in our internal struggles, but rather if there's anything klapei chutz, klapei chutz vis-a-vis the general society, vis-a-vis the general society, some legislation pending in Congress or something like that, something which is in the public square where there's going to be a policy accepted and legislated, so then in terms of addressing the secular sphere, that there can be cooperation. But it's never religious cooperation. It's always something which is purely social and political. And finally, and this the Rav was very, very adamant about, that there's no publicity given to it. Because the very minute you have publicity given to it, even if it otherwise would comply with these guidelines, so the very fact that it's front-page news distorts what it is and it makes it into something which it otherwise would not have been, which it otherwise would not have been. And the truth is that for that matter, and I'd like to just tell you one story to illustrate it, the Rav did have occasion to have contact, it's not widely known because there was no publicity. And once one of the leading figures came to see him, and again no one knew about it, only a handful of individuals knew about it because there was no publicity given, but the Rav felt that it was important to meet with him. And there was no question of religious cooperation. And you know what the Rav told him? So the Rav reminisced about his childhood memories of Easter Sunday, what it meant, Easter Sunday in Europe. And how once he ventured out of the house innocently as a little boy, not realizing what it is, and what mortal fear his mother had. His mother was a very, the Rav's mother was very relaxed, wasn't high strung, very very relaxed. And he described to this leading figure in the church, he described and said, "This is what I remember vividly from my youth was the mortal fear that we had that you couldn't go outdoors on Easter Sunday." So if a person is willing to look the person with whom the contact is being made in the eye and share that memory, so then one doesn't have to worry about defensiveness and one can then hope that given the circumstances that warrant it, that the meeting will serve the purpose that it does. But if one doesn't have that courage These hard issues. Finally, and with this I'll conclude, it's late. We also have to be aware, again in line with what the Rambam tells us in Hilchos De'os, of the influence which society has upon us, of the effect which society has on us in matters of Hashkafa. That there are many many things that we struggle with, not because there's anything inherently difficult in the Torah, but just because we have absorbed so much of what Western society, what American society says about these topics, whether it's belief and I'll just list a few topics, each of which is worth elaborating on, but I'll just mention the topics, whether it's the view of egalitarianism that equality between the genders has to mean sameness and that there can't be any difference, there can't be any differences, so egalitarianism of American society rejects that, whether it's the American rejection of absolute truth, that all truth is relative, whether it's the again discomfort with ideas such as Am Hanivchar and in general particularism of Yahadus, all these things we have to be aware of the influence which the society around us exerts upon us and we have to strengthen our emuna in these areas. It's interesting, again referring back to the Haggada, so the Haggada tells us that we don't respond to the Ben Rasha, right אף אתה הקהה את שיניו, but we don't respond to him. So the meforshim ask, but in the Chumash, right והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם מה העבודה הזאת לכם, so ostensibly we do respond. ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה' אשר פסח על בתי בני ישראל במצרים ואת בתינו הציל,
so ostensibly we do. So meforshim explain, no, but if you look carefully in the other cases it's ve'amarta lo, ve'amarta eilav, you speak to him. Here ve'amartem, we're not addressing him. No, so it's like the Baal Haggada tells us, we don't address the Ben Rasha because he's not interested. It's not vehaya ki yish'alcha, it's vehaya ki yomru. He's not asking, he's making a cynical comment. It's a rhetorical cynical question. So we don't answer him. So what are we talking then for? So why isn't it just silence? Why don't we just ignore it? So the answer is that even if he doesn't deserve an answer and even if we're not answering him, but we still need, if we're confronted with that, we need to reinforce for ourselves our own emuna and we need to make sure that we have clarity on this. Even if the Ben Rasha asked in such a way that shows that he's not interested in hearing a response, so we don't waste time responding to him, but if we've heard the question, so then we need to reinforce our own belief and make sure that we have clarity on these issues. And all of these issues again which the society in which we live challenges us on, so whether or not there's someone to discuss it with in terms of outer-directedness is a different story, but even if there isn't, even when there isn't, so we certainly need to make sure that we have clarity on what the Torah's position on all of these issues is.