Perception and experience. I wanted to add a few postscripts to what we discussed last Thursday as far as Shabbos and kedushas Shabbos. When you have a Shabbos Chol HaMoed as we did this year, so the Krias HaTorah from Parshas Ki Sisa begins from ראה אתה אומר אלי. And when you have that Krias HaTorah on Chol HaMoed without a Shabbos Chol HaMoed, when you have all the days of Chol HaMoed falling out during the week, so then the Krias HaTorah begins later from pesal lecha. Begins later from pesal lecha. So if you look, take out your fingers and you count, be-emes is you could have squeezed all seven aliyos, you could have squeezed all the aliyos into the regular Krias HaTorah of Chol HaMoed, you could have squeezed out enough aliyos for Shabbos. I don't know if the gabbai would have been able to give so many hosafos, but seven aliyos we could have managed. So clearly the reason, even without this hechrech, it's very difficult to imagine that Chazal just artificially extended the Krias HaTorah because they ran short of pesukim. I mean you see by Rosh Chodesh, by Rosh Chodesh we don't do that, right? By Rosh Chodesh we have trouble figuring out how to get four aliyos and whatever you do, there's repetition involved. So Chazal didn't just arbitrarily begin earlier or continue later. The Krias HaTorah has to be relevant. It has to be relevant. So clearly, clearly, it is inconceivable that the Krias HaTorah is just extended because we need more aliyos, just to artificially generate more aliyos. So ella mai, what's the pshat? The main parsha which is added when we go back to ראה אתה אומר אלי is when Moshe Rabbeinu asked HaKadosh Baruch Hu for הודעיני נא את דרכך and הראיני נא את כבודך. That's the main parsha which is appended on Shabbos Chol HaMoed as opposed to were it to be read during a weekday of Chol HaMoed. So according to what we were discussing last week about the essence of kedushas Shabbos, that kedushas Shabbos means that there is, and this is to be sensed by a neshama yeseira which we're given, if we're searching for it, if we're attuned to it, that there is a measure of giluy Shechina in the world on Shabbos and that's what constitutes the kedushas Shabbos which isn't there, which is hidden all week. And that's the essence of Shabbos. That's the essence of Shabbos and the essence of shmiras Shabbos ke-hilchasa, shmiras Shabbos ke-hilchasa is to experience that kedusha of Shabbos. To experience that kedusha of Shabbos. So every Shabbos has in it a giluy Shechina. So then the pshat in the Krias HaTorah Chol HaMoed is kaftor va-ferach. It's very pashut. So it's not a question of simply again artificially extending the Krias HaTorah backwards to make it longer. The pshat is if we're reading this Krias HaTorah on Shabbos, so it's also inyana shel yom, the parsha of giluy Shechina. What's הראיני נא את כבודך and הודעיני נא את דרכך? Moshe Rabbeinu was asking for a special, special level of nevuah. He was asking for the ultimate hasagos which a human being can have. He was asking for the ultimate in giluy Shechina. So that's the pshat that on Shabbos Chol HaMoed, if it's not just Chol HaMoed but it's also Shabbos, so mi-din Shabbos that part of the kria is also relevant. That part of the Krias HaTorah is also relevant. I just wanted to conclude with one he'ara. It's not usually, we usually don't spend much shiur time commenting on. I mamash have to tell you, I mamash have to tell you, yesterday when someone came over to me, someone I'd heard on the way to shul, mincha yesterday, some Gentile neighbor had stopped him and he had told others in shul, someone came over and told me, it says in the pasuk ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה עד מאד. So I literally shuddered, my body shook when I heard. Chazal say that Yitzchak Avinu saw pitcho shel Gehennom in front of him. And I have to tell you that that was, I think that's why I shuddered also when I heard that a Jew, this was before knowing the details, that it was kavyachol a frum Jew with a yarmulke in the name of Torah. But even without knowing those details, which only made the chomer hamayseh aveira worse and worse and worse and the Chilul Hashem greater and greater, but when you hear that a Jew can walk up in cold blood at point-blank range and shoot another Jew, is ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה עד מאד. חרדה גדולה עד מאד.
What, what state has Klal Yisrael reached when such a thing can happen? Ayom venora, mamash ayom venora. And mamash you feel pitcho shel Gehennom if we've sunk so low that such a thing can happen is ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה עד מאד. So ela mai, you'll say that it was one meshugene. Okay. So unfortunately, it's not so pashut. I don't know, I didn't hear the news this morning, so I don't know whether, I don't know whether there are conspiracy theories or there aren't, whether they know he had help or whether they know he didn't have help. I'm not, I'm not up to date. Let's assume that they know that he didn't have any help and that he was acting alone. It's still not so pashut. A few years ago, I don't remember the details of the incident, I was in Eretz Yisrael and there was a similar incident, not similar incident, nothing like this has ever happened, not similar incident, but there was an incident where a Jew fired indiscriminately at Arabs. And there too, again, he was branded as a meshugene, a lone solitary meshugene. So at the time I was visiting in Yeshivas Sha'alvim and one of the ramim asked Rav Schasenger, the now retired Rosh Yeshiva of Sha'alvim, what his feelings were about what happened. Asked him האם הרב מודאג מן המצב? He said, Bettach she'ani mud'ag. He says why, but he was one meshugene, so what do we have to worry about a lone meshugene? So he answered with wisdom and insight: there've always been meshugayim, always have been meshugayim, always will be meshugayim. In Europe, you know, there used to be a shtot meshugene. Every shtot, Baruch Hashem every shtot was blessed with a meshugene. And here in America we're richer, we have more of everything, we have more shtot meshugayim also. We're richer, we're richer than our bubbies and zaidies were in Europe. We're not limited to one shtot meshugene. The minhag used to be when someone would, when there would be a petira in town, so the minhag was, ish tov u'vasov, no one wanted to spread the word that someone was niftar, so they used to tell the shtot meshugene. They used to tell the shtot meshugene that he should go give the besora that someone was, someone was niftar. So when they used to see the shtot meshugene approaching with news, so people got scared. So there've always been meshugayim, always will be meshugayim. But what they channel that meshugas to is often a commentary on society. So yeah, of course it's true that whenever you see someone who's done something that's insane, yeah, so of course right away he should be distanced from everyone else and placed in chutz lamachane because he's a meshugene, he's insane and he was acting out of that shiga'on and he was acting out of that insanity. But in every generation, so insanity gets channeled in different directions. Like anyone will tell you, let's say you ask someone who knows a little bit about the history of the 1960s in America. So everyone will tell you that whoever killed JFK was a meshugene, and whoever killed RFK was a meshugene, and whoever killed Martin Luther King was a meshugene. But to say that those three as a whole weren't a commentary on society, avada they were. Avada they were, they can be taken for granted that they were. Everyone knows that there's such a thing as copycat criminals. Copycat criminals, that you hear a crime described in the news, so then another meshugene goes and he imitates it. So what's the pshat? The pshat is, yeah, he was a meshugene. He was a meshugene before he heard the news. It wasn't the news... It wasn't the news that made him a meshugeneh. It wasn't the news that made him insane, but the channel to which he directs his insanity, you can't be so quick to turn totally divorce that from society. So no one should point fingers at anyone else, but everyone should point fingers at themselves. No one should point fingers at anyone else, and those who are pro-peace should not be pointing fingers at those who have been protesting and vice versa. No one should be pointing at anyone else, but everyone should be pointing at themselves. Everyone should be pointing at themselves. Those who are pro-peace should not be pointing at those who are anti-peace, but those who are pro-peace should be asking what role police brutality at demonstrations played in this. And those who are anti-peace should not be talking about police brutality at demonstrations, but they should be asking when you hold up placards calling Rabin a Nazi, so you have to ask what kind of environment that creates for meshugoyim and what kind of outlet that suggests for deranged individuals, obviously deranged. But the question is where do they channel their insanity to? So no one should point fingers at anyone else, but everyone has to point fingers at themselves. Everyone has to point fingers at themselves. I would think that the Manhigei Yisrael would declare a Yom Tanis, declare a Yom Tanis when one Jew in the name of Torah goes and assassinates the Prime Minister of Israel. I would think that they would declare a Yom Tanis for it. It's certainly certainly certainly a national tragedy that such a thing can happen, that a Jew can do such a thing and it's certainly occasion for national aveilus that a Jew can kill another Jew. It is the worst possible thing religiously, spiritually, politically, the absolute worst possible thing. If one is concerned about Eretz Yisrael, the aveira which is most dangerous for people who live in Eretz Yisrael is shfichas damim, ולארץ לא יכופר לאדמה אשר שופך בה. Finish the pasuk. Ayom Venorah. Shfichos damim, one Jew is shofech dam of another Jew in Eretz Yisrael. I was debating, you know, Rav Moshe writes in one of his teshuvos, I think for one about heart transplants, I don't remember, that he's not even going to write the reasons that it's assur, so people shouldn't have any hava amina that it's up for discussion. That it's up for discussion. Just write it's absolutely assur. You can't even legitimize the issue by discussing it. So mitzad echad, this is certainly such a case, one doesn't have to explain and to explain maybe even creates a hava amina that has to be dispelled. But be'idach gisa, I don't know, apparently the hava amina is out there. It may not be a legitimate hava amina, but the hava amina is out there. There are certainly other meshugoyim who have the same plans for Peres out there, no question about that, no question about that. And if you don't think that meshugoyim on the other side, it's not going to occur to them that maybe the way to settle the score is by knocking off Netanyahu or someone else like that, so you're also underestimating the kochos of tumah and sitra achra which were released into the world by that horrible act. So one thing, there are many many things, many many terrible mistakes that we make, let's just mention one of them. You know let's say a person will argue, we know for a fact that the peace process is terrible. It's endangering Jewish lives. And it's been said, it's been said, it's endangering Jewish lives and therefore all those who are pushing the peace process, and therefore Rabin and Peres primarily, they're rodvim, so it's a mitzvah to kill them. I heard it, someone told me that a couple of weeks ago. Someone told me that a couple of weeks ago. So let's detour for a minute to a less explosive topic. Right, there's a concept of אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים. אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים.
What does that mean? That when Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were having a machlokes, so they each one is correct and therefore each one has to respect the other's opinion. What does that mean? Did Beis Hillel have any sofek about their opinion? Did Beis Shammai have the slightest sofek that they were absolutely right? No, they didn't have the slightest safek. But if they would have had the slightest safek, they would have said, we're saying this misafek. They would have said ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא so a tzarat erva shouldn't be misyabbemes. Beit Shammai couldn't have allowed a tzarat erva to get married and create mamzeirim if they had the slightest safek. Beit Shammai didn't have the slightest safek that they were 100% 1,000% right. They heard Beit Hillel's drasha, they heard it, they heard it, and they were convinced 100% that Beit Hillel was wrong because if they had a safek, they couldn't have advocated the position they did and Beit Hillel felt equally strongly about what Beit Shammai said. Beit Shammai doesn't make any sense, they're being matir erva and they're going to create mamzeirim. Beit Hillel didn't have the slightest safek. They didn't have the slightest safek, otherwise they would have said that a vlad from such a marriage is a safek mamzer, not a vadai mamzer. So it's clear they were both vadai and nevertheless נהגו אהבה ואחוה ושלום וריעות כבוד זה בזה. How is that possible? But I know they're wrong. אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים means when I can see his argument, when I understand it, but my netiah is different, but I know they're wrong. I'm ready to declare that child a mamzer, I know I know they're wrong. I know they're wrong. So ella mai, so the pshat is אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים doesn't mean when you see the other person's argument, but כח כחי אני בוזק להחמיר או להקל לטמא או לטהר לאסור או להתיר.
No, אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים means when you are positive 100% beyond any shadow of doubt that you are right, so you have to know that if someone else who is entitled to a legitimate opinion thinks differently, so you have to know that you're not omniscient and that you can't be mevatel what the other person thinks. So a person can feel 100% 1,000% a person can feel that strongly that the whole peace process is wrong and it makes no sense. He's heard all the arguments. He's heard that you have to strengthen the moderate Palestinians because otherwise Hamas will get stronger and he doesn't buy it because there's no difference, they're all a bunch of rotzchim. That's the way he sees it. And you hear all the Arafat tapes which confirm it, right? But the bottom line is there are people who are entitled to an opinion who say differently and if they're entitled to an opinion who say differently, you can't be so sure of what you're saying to go and you can't even call names, אף על פי כן to lift a hand. So there are people, do I understand? No, I don't understand it, but there are people, let's say I think I've heard quoted that Rav Amital supports it. So Rav Amital, I don't under- No, I don't understand his opinions, but I'll tell you one thing is that the man is more entitled to an opinion than most other people who have opinions on the subject. He's a Holocaust survivor, he fought in 1948, his yeshiva is on the West Bank, he stands to lose his yeshiva through this whole peace process. Rav Ovadia Yosef was in the government when they- I don't know if they're still in the government, I don't know, but they were in the government when they signed Oslo 1. Do I understand it? No, I don't begin to understand why he was in the government. But that's what elu v'elu means. It means when you don't understand, it doesn't mean when you do understand. You don't need elu v'elu to tell you that. When you understand why the other person's opinion is legitimate, so that's not elu v'elu, that's you have a safek, you don't know. Elu v'elu is when you know clear that the other guy is wrong. I live my life the way I do with my hashkafos because I know that these are right. I don't have sfeikos. I know that I'm living the right way and אף על פי כן elu v'elu says but if the other person who disagrees is entitled to an opinion, then your certitude notwithstanding, he can't be mevatel what he's saying. And you have to respect him על אחת כמה וכמה that you can't so- so those who are in favor of peace think that those who are against peace are rotzchim. They think that those who are against peace- they think that those who are against the peace process are endangering the future of the Jewish state. That's what they think. They think that the intransigence against the peace process is endangering- so- of course. So if you're anti-peace, so you don't understand it. It doesn't make an iota of sense to you. Okay, so what Beit Shammai said didn't make an iota of sense to Beit Hillel because Beit Hillel didn't advocate their opinion misafek. They said it betorat vadai and vice versa. What Beit Hillel said didn't make an iota of sense to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai held they were absolutely wrong and that's gufeh what elu v'elu says. If he's entitled to an opinion, so even though you don't understand it, so you're not omniscient, so you're not omniscient, so you don't understand it. People, we see things the way our sechel is attuned. Someone else's sechel is attuned differently. So as sure as you are, so act on your convictions, so protest, vote the government down. But short of ruach hakodesh, short of ruach hakodesh, no one has the right to such absolute certitude that delegitimizes people who are legitimately entitled to an opinion. And no matter how strongly you feel about it, there are people on both sides of the fence who are entitled to an opinion. And there are people on both sides of the fence who are legitimately entitled to an opinion and legitimately disagree. So no matter what, no, I don't understand it at all. I don't understand it at all. Arafat is a big murderer, Abbas he's a murderer, so how can you trust them? I don't understand it at all. Ella mai, there are people who are entitled to an opinion, more entitled than I am to an opinion, much more entitled than I am to an opinion, who אף על פי כן think that it's not wrong. They do think that it's right. So that's what elu v'elu means. So I have to respect. It doesn't mean I have to vote for their party in the elections. No, you vote by what you think is right. But it certainly doesn't mean that you have a monopoly on truth, that you can, that you can brand people Nazis or that chas v'shalom you can lift a finger. And as said several years ago, I was in the beis medrash one night, it was parshas Vayeira. Someone came over and asked, they don't understand the whole story with Lot and the malachim and his two daughters, heichach timtza, heichach timtza. If Lot would have been a totally corrupt person, so we would have understood. He can do anything, anything goes. But here we see Lot is practicing chesed. He's risking his neck. He's going out on a limb for these malachim. So we see we're dealing with a person who's not totally corrupt, not dealing with a totally immoral person. And then, how is it possible that הנה נא לי שתי בנות אשר לא ידעו איש אוציאה נא אתהן אליכם ועשו להן כטוב בעיניכם?
What kind of perverted, distorted, and twisted morality is that? It's unreal. It's unreal. So how do you, how do you read the psukim? It's unreal. So at the time I told him you're right. It's, it's unbelievable, it's incredible. But we live with it every day. We live with it every day. What about people who are animal rights advocates who bomb the laboratories where they do research using animal subjects and they kill people? So that's not Lot? That's not a bechina of Lot? Avada that's a bechina of Lot. And what about the doctors who practice abortion in the name of compassion for the mother? That's not Lot? Avada that's Lot. Avada that's Lot. Avada that's Lot. It's terrifying when you take a little bit of Torah without understanding it, without knowing what it means, what it represents, how it's to be implemented. It's absolutely terrifying what you can do in the name of Torah. Absolutely terrifying. So Lot, a little bit he learned from Avraham Avinu. He saw that Avraham Avinu practiced hachnasas orchim. But he didn't learn, he didn't internalize anything. He didn't learn how to see the world the way Avraham Avinu saw the world. He caught a phrase, גדולה הכנסת אורחים יותר מקבלת פני השכינה. So it must be the most important thing in the world. So he heard a phrase. He heard a phrase and right away so he went to implement it. So הנה נא לי שתי בנות עשו להן כטוב בעיניכם. So too you hear a phrase, rodeif, mumar, moser, lehachis, you hear phrases. And then you think you know everything. You think you know everything. You hear phrases and you think you know everything, so you end up doing a maiseh Lot. You end up doing a maiseh Lot. Ayom v'nora, ayom v'nora. In your worst nightmare if you were asked could you imagine anything worse than a Jew killing a Jewish prime minister of the State of Israel, so you would say no. And then you wake up and you hear that it was done in the name of Torah and that he learned in Yeshiva. And then after he finished Yeshiva that he was learning in kollel in Bar-Ilan. Ayom v'nora, ayom v'nora. Maiseh Lot but a thousand times worse. Worse than Lot. It's certainly something, certainly something, certainly something which calls for individual collective cheshbon hanefesh, teshuva, and tefillah that we should be saved from this. Ayom v'nora, ayom v'nora. And it's certainly something that we all have to be mischazeik in Torah, in tefillah, maasim tovim, and teshuva, that the Ribbono Shel Olam should have rachmanus on all of us, primarily acheinu bnei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael but on all of us to be saved from such an eis tzara. Sunday, I expressed some ambivalence as to whether it's appropriate to have any discussion, any explanation because it seems to legitimize a hava amina that such a horrendous action would be acceptable, could be acceptable, and there is no such hava amina. But m'idach gisa, we said there seems to be some confusion on it. Unfortunately, with the passage of time this week, it was hard to imagine that the chillul Hashem which happened last Motzei Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael could become any greater. It was difficult to imagine that having one person in the name of Torah commit retzicha that the chillul Hashem could become any greater. And yet the fact is, the fact is that it has become greater. How has it become greater? Number one, it appears that this person was part of some kind of chabura, that seems to be the latest news, that it was a conspiracy. And number two, it hasn't met with universal condemnation. Shamu shamayim, it has not met with universal condemnation. In some circles it's been celebrated outwardly and in other circles more quietly, it's been condoned. Difficult to find the words, difficult to find the words. How does it happen? It happens, we spoke yesterday of one, we spoke Sunday of one important mistake. I want to elaborate on that and then add to that another very fundamental error that's involved here. We spoke Sunday that a person is never allowed to have an arrogant sense of absolute truth when there are people on the other side of the issue who are legitimately entitled to an opinion who disagree. In Igros Moshe, if you'll take a look, if you make your way through the maftechos of the אגרות משה אורח חיים, so you see something very interesting. Reb Moshe wrote a couple of teshuvos about the question of eiruv in Manhattan. And Reb Moshe in each case said that he didn't think it could be done for his reasons, okay, which are not relevant to us now, that the eiruv in Manhattan was no good and he doesn't approve of it, he disapproves of it. He said it once and then the question was resubmitted because people wanted his haskama. He said no again, and as many times as he was asked, he said no. And finally he was asked, I think this is in the last chelek of Orach Chayim. He was asked, well, what about those who disagree with you? What about talmidei chachamim who have a different opinion, who think they can have a proper eiruv in Manhattan? Do they have a right to pasken according to their view? So Reb Moshe answers, well of course they have a right. If they're re'uyim l'horaa, if they know the halachos well enough to be entitled to an opinion, then of course they can pasken differently. And of course, when people ask them, they themselves can carry relying on the eiruv. And when people ask them, they can tell people that they can carry based on the eiruv. They're not muchaiv to listen to me. This is what I think. So I have to follow what I think and if you ask me, I'll tell you what I think. But if someone else is ra'ui l'horaa, if someone else is legitimately entitled to an opinion and thinks differently, avadai he's entitled to his opinion. Saw a similar thing in a teshuva from Rav Shlomo Zalman once. He was asked, I forget what the inyan was, he was asked for a daas Torah on something. So he wrote v'zeh halashon. He wrote v'zeh halashon. And if you want to know what's wrong with the world we live in today, so it's that more people don't write like that. Shlomo Zalman wrote that rachok ani mil'chanos. I can't tell you what da'as Torah is. I can only tell you what da'ati ha'aniyah is. I can tell you what I think. But rachok ani, I'm far, very far from labeling my opinion as the absolute authoritative da'as Torah. So I'll tell you what I think, I'll tell you what I think. There may be others who are legitimately entitled to an opinion who will think differently. That doesn't mean that everything that's said is legitimate. No, some things are said which are crazy, which are off the wall, which are illegitimate. And those things should be, should be recognized as such. But when you have chakhamim, when you have people who are entitled to an opinion, so how do you know what's legitimate, what's not legitimate? So clearly one thing to look at is who's authoring the opinion. If the person is entitled to an opinion, so then rubo d'rubo d'rubo, then the opinion which he gives is a legitimate opinion, is a legitimate opinion. Rav Zichrono Livracha was once asked a shaileh, mamish in dinei nefashos, peshuto kemashma'o. Someone was looking for a kula, they came to him with a shaileh, and he said I have no heter for you. I have no heter for you. However, you're not, you're not mechuyav, you can withdraw the question. If you want to go to someone else, he even told them who to go to. He even told them who to go to. No, no, seriously. A person entitled to an opinion whose opinion the Rav thought was wrong, whose opinion he disagreed with. But he said you're not mechuyav, I'm not the only rabbi in the world, he said. You're not mechuyav to listen to me. You're not mechuyav to listen to me. Another anecdote to illustrate the same point. On that same visit Sha'alvim, Rav Schlesinger told me at the time that when he would have a shaileh relevant to the yeshiva, he always brought it to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Sometimes Rav Shlomo Zalman agreed with what he thought. Tov, yeah, you're right, I agree. Sometimes he disagreed and said no, I disagree, I don't think you should do that. But the most common answer he got was: I don't necessarily see it that way, but if you see it that way, that's what you should do. That's what you should do. No, if that's the way you see it, that's what you should do. You're entitled to have an opinion, if that's what you think the best thing is, then you should act on that, even though I don't see it that way. So the fact that I don't see it that way doesn't mean that it's wrong, doesn't mean the other person's an am ha'aretz, doesn't mean the other person's an apikores, doesn't mean the other person's a rasha, doesn't mean the other person's a rodef. And I don't think the, it's no coincidence that the people we look up to as the gedolim, as the moreh derech, it's no coincidence that they had this tichuna. It's no coincidence that they had this tichuna. Because it's so integral to Torah. That's what we said, it's implicit in elu v'elu. It's so integral to Torah. The fact that you don't see something a certain way, the fact that you think that something is absolutely wrong, the Torah says that the other person's entitled to an opinion also. And what happened the truth is, the truth is it's very difficult to say because it's true, but the truth is that what happened motzei Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael, that the flaw which led to it is a flaw which is very pervasive. It's not just in Eretz Yisrael, it's in America as well. It's all over. Only thing is that in Eretz Yisrael it's finally an issue which people cared about so much and where emotions were running so high that finally, finally it reached a crescendo of retzicha, rachmana litzlan. But the notion of the other guy being absolutely wrong and hence what he is doing is a redifah and hence what he is doing is endangering ganz Klal Yisrael, even though there are people who say the exact opposite, but I'm absolutely right and he's absolutely wrong, so that mindset is I don't know, maybe the biggest problem in the Torah world today. Certainly one of the biggest problems. I don't know if to stop and help clock what the other problems are, it's hard to say what the biggest problem is, but it's certainly one of the biggest problems. And dai l'chakima b'remiza, other instances of this, other applications, but don't make a mistake of thinking that this case was one of a kind. It was one. one of a kind because of the emotions, because of the stakes, because politically one side was in power and was therefore in a position to act on its opinions, which affected the other side. So all of those external circumstances are why this mindset resulted in the horrible, horrible tragic Chillul Hashem that it did. But the mindset is all over. The mindset is all over and it's antithetical to Torah. It is antithetical to Torah. Another flaw which is also not of the same caliber, not of the same caliber, but also also important to understand. You know Rashi quotes in Parshas Shlach that the Ribbono Shel Olam talks to Moshe and Aharon: ויצום אל פרעה מלך מצרים להוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים.
So what Rashi quotes from Chazal is ציוום לחלוק לו כבוד. That the Ribbono Shel Olam told Moshe and Aharon, you're going to be coming to Pharaoh, you're going to be coming to Pharaoh. He's a king. He's a head of state. ציוום לחלוק לו כבוד. That's what Rashi quotes from Chazal. That's what Rashi quotes from Chazal: ציוום לחלוק לו כבוד. So Rav Henkin many many years ago published a maamar. It's reprinted in the Ezras Torah edition of Rav Henkin's ksavim, in which he said, he very courageously addressed himself to the Neturei Karta. He says explicitly who he is talking to. And he says, you know, whatever you think about Ben-Gurion and sar veyoetz, worse than Paroh Melech Mitzrayim he's not. Worse than Paroh Melech Mitzrayim they're not. כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכוהו. So that bad they're not. To say that the Torah's din of lachlok lo kavod, that common, that that courtesy and respect and civility, if they were supposed to extend that to Paroh Melech Mitzrayim, Paroh, hagu atzmechem rabosai. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuva when he talks about bechira chofshis, so the Rambam writes that occasionally in the history of mankind there have been a few avaryanim whose cheit was so great that the onesh was that they should be deprived of bechira chofshis and therefore lose the ability to do teshuva. That that is the ultimate onesh a person can receive. The ultimate onesh a person can receive is that he's his rishus is so great, he's so guilty that he must be punished and the Ribbono Shel Olam deprives him of the chance of doing teshuva by taking away his bechira chofshis. And the classic example of it is Paroh. The first example of it is Paroh. So who Paroh? Who Paroh and ציוום לחלוק לו כבוד? ציוום לחלוק לו כבוד. So that's what Rav Henkin said then and it's a halacha, so halachos don't change. Halachos don't change. So why doesn't that that halacha doesn't apply bazman hazeh? Avada that halacha applies bazman hazeh. Avada it applies bazman hazeh. You disagree, you disagree. You think they're wrong, they're wrong. They are wrong, they are wrong. More wrong and more guilty and more wicked than Paroh they're certainly not, they're certainly not. אל תהי דן יחידי but that much of a din we can make. That much of a din we can make. That much of a din we can make. So what about ציוום לחלוק לו כבוד? And what happens is, what also happens in the mind, first what happens is you know with absolute certainty that what this man is doing is endangering the Jews in Eretz Yisrael with absolute certainty because you're right and anyone who thinks differently is absolutely wrong. And then good to have that in your head for years and then watch what's been happening in Eretz Yisrael for years, so you're ready to explode. In addition, in addition, if your attitude towards the secular head of state is one of total bitul, as contemptuous as can be, and no one is whitewashing and it shouldn't be whitewashed, no one is whitewashing the anti-religious propaganda or actions of the present government, no, it shouldn't be whitewashed and it shouldn't be forgotten. The fact that, the fact that this tragedy occurred doesn't, doesn't whitewash anything. And it's certainly not my intention to whitewash anything either. But worse than Par'oh melech Mitzrayim it wasn't. Worse than Par'oh melech Mitzrayim it wasn't. And I think it's pretty safe to say that if a person had maintained that kavod which the Torah prescribes, so you can't think of, you kill a bug, a bug is annoying you, a mosquito, so you swat it. You can't kill a person. People can't kill a person. First you have to dehumanize, then you can kill. Unless you're a monster, and the guy who did this is not a monster. Unless, unless you're a monster, so the mob, they can kill people, they kill people, so they're monsters. But if you're not a monster, you can't go directly and kill a person. It's impossible, it's impossible, you couldn't do it, for anything you couldn't do it. First you have to dehumanize the person. Once you dehumanize the person, then you can do it, then you can do it. And that dehumanization was number one a result of this arrogant omniscience of being absolutely right, something which is totally antithetical to Torah, and also a smaller factor involved, not as important, this is the main one and that's the main lesson, but secondarily, a smaller factor involved is the dehumanizing of secular Jews who stand on the other side of the issue. That's not to say that there aren't religious shomrei Torah u'mitzvot on the other side of the issue. But the dehumanizing of secular Jews on the other side of the issue, and if this halacha which Rav Henkin underscored had been observed, so that couldn't have happened either. If there would have been kavod, if you would have spoken respectfully about the Rosh Hamemshala, which is the way the halacha says you have to talk, so he would have remained a person. Acharei kechol hakol, he would have remained a person, and it would have been impossible for anyone, anyone to pull a trigger and kill him. It would have been impossible, no matter how vehemently one objects and no matter how legitimately one thinks one should vehemently object to his policies.