Now we have many many halachos in many different kinds of situations which tell us how to prioritize. And you have an aseh and a lo ta'aseh, the Torah tells us how to prioritize. If it's יבוא עשה וידחה לא תעשה, so the aseh is docheh the lo ta'aseh. Torah tells us how how to establish priorities. There are lots of things that are important, lots of things that interest us, but we have to be able to establish priorities. Osek bemitzvah, another mitzvah comes along, so what's the priority? The first mitzvah, the second mitzvah? So it depends whether it's whether you're engaged in Talmud Torah or another mitzvah, but the Torah is very concerned not only to tell us what to do but also within what we're supposed to do, to tell us how to establish priorities, how to establish priorities. Sometimes when a person doesn't have the correct perspective to establish priorities, so things can they be well meaning, I'm sure well meaning, but things which shouldn't be done or shouldn't be written are done or written. It's very nice and it's very informative and I think we all, we all enjoy it when there's some kind of issue on campus, so the Commentator goes around and they interview people to get different people's opinion. So if they're making, if they're instituting a new policy that they're gonna be less CLEPs. Okay. So it's very nice to know. So one talmid in yeshiva thinks that it's no good that they're gonna be less CLEPs because then they're putting more work on us. And one thinks no, this will make the education more sound and more fundamental. Very good. And it's good to know, it's good to know what people are thinking, it's good to know what the student body thinks. And it's a very nice thing, it's a very nice thing and they do a service by doing the legwork for us. And you have to meet your journalistic standards vechulu vechulu. But when you're dealing with with an issue of chillul Hashem, when you're dealing with an issue of chillul Hashem, so then you have to prioritize. So are you a journalist first who wants to accurately reflect the opinions of those whom he interviewed? Or are you a Jew who's חס על כבוד תורה וכבוד שמים? If in the course of your interviews you come across someone who seems to endorse the assassination which perpetrated the chillul Hashem and which sent waves of shock and hatred which are engulfing all shomrei Torah umitzvos, so if you find someone who endorses that, who unknowingly and unwittingly and unintentionally is endorsing a chillul Hashem, thereby compounding it, so then it's time to prioritize. Then it's time to prioritize and wonder if first you're a reporter who wants to write an interesting piece for the Commentator who shows diversity of opinion, or whether a person is חס על כבוד תורה וכבוד שמים. If a person's, if any of us, if our fathers were being vilified and wrongly accused, and really vilified, accused of the worst things imaginable, I don't know, so would we with objective detachment poll people and then present the results of our survey as to what people think about it? So this one agrees with the terrible accusations being made against my father, and this one condemns them. But would we report even one person who agrees with the terrible horrific distortions of what our parents or anyone near and dear to us what they stand for? We wouldn't countenance it, we wouldn't tolerate it for a second. We wouldn't tolerate it for a second. Everyone has to feel a personal involvement. There's no detachment from an issue of Chilul Hashem. There's no detachment from an issue of Chilul Hashem. An issue of Chilul Hashem should be as personal and as immediate to us as anything imaginable, as anything imaginable. And there's a time to prioritize. There's a time to be a journalist and reflect the diversity of opinion, and then there's a time to say that my journalistic interests will interfere with my obligations and my feelings as an Oved Hashem, so forget the journalism. Hai, you want to write an article about student reaction? So don't quote those who are compounding Chilul Hashem. Again, I'm sure that whoever says and whatever they say, I'm sure it's beshogeg and כי לכל העם בשגגה, and they don't know what they're saying and they don't know what they're doing, but what they're saying is terrible and what they're doing is terrible, it's compounding a Chilul Hashem. That's one he'ara. Another he'ara that the two are not conceptually related, just finally. One of the questions which people ask, I don't know, there's so much confusion, it's so depressing, so much confusion, it's incredible, there's so much confusion. So with the help of computers, so they found one remez, two remazim in the Torah to Amir Rotzach Rabim. One's in Parshas Behar I guess, and one's, I don't know where the other one is. Somewhere else, somewhere else. Okay, good. So the Vilna Gaon said that everything that happens in history is alluded to in the Torah. So if the Vilna Gaon said that, so then it's absolutely true and therefore it's by syllogism, it's absolutely true that since this happened, this is also alluded to in the Torah. But all of a sudden, people extrapolate from that, they conclude from that, so vice versa if it's alluded to in the Torah, it means it was Yad Hashem and that's an indication that it was okay, that everything's okay. So all of a sudden, the Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuva that if you don't believe in Bechira Chofshis, so the whole Torah becomes batel u'mevutal. The whole Torah becomes batel u'mevutal. If you don't believe in Bechira Chofshis, so then that means you totally abdicate moral responsibility, you exonerate the worst evil imaginable: Hitler, Stalin, everyone. The worst evil imaginable, archetypes of evil are exonerated if you don't believe in Bechira Chofshis. How can the Ribbono Shel Olam talk about sachar ve'onesh if there's no Bechira Chofshis? Hai, but Ribbono Shel Olam knows the future. So Rabbi Akiva, we don't know exactly how Rabbi Akiva resolved it, but Rabbi Akiva told us that there's no stira between the two. Rabbi Akiva taught us הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה. That the Ribbono Shel Olam has foreknowledge, he knows what will be, but it's not that he knows what will be because he is dictating it, but he knows what will be even though what will be is a result of our Bechira Chofshis. And that's something which we live and breathe every second of our lives. That's something our entire life revolves about. That we make decisions, that our decisions have consequences, in everything, in Torah, in whether you do well on your MCATs or don't do well on your MCATs. I never heard anyone say, well if it's bashert that I should become a doctor, so I don't have to bother studying for organic chemistry and I don't have to bother studying for my MCATs. So apparently we understand in that context, we understand in that context we need the siyata d'shmaya, but if you don't study, ovadaya you're going to flunk your organic chemistry and ovadaya you're going to mess up on your MCATs. So we understand הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה. We understand we need siyata d'shmaya, and we understand that whatever koach we have to make hishtadlus comes from the Ribbono Shel Olam in. Whether that hishtadlus comes so is successful comes from the Ribono Shel Olam, but הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה. We live it and we breathe it every second of the day, and without it there's no Torah. That's what the Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuva. Without it there's no Torah. If you believe in determinism there's no Torah. There's no Torah because there's no moral responsibility, there's nothing. There's nothing. So good. So the computer found the remez that עמיר רצח יצחק רבין. So therefore what? So therefore nothing! So back to הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה. If you conclude from that that it was yad Hashem, the mistake is just so basic and so fundamental it denies all of Torah. Pshuto kemashmao. You'll take a look in the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva when he talks about bechira chofshis, the Rambam says this is a yesod, this is a pillar which all of Torah rests on. So therefore the fact that Hakadosh Baruch Hu foresaw this from the beginning, so therefore nothing. So therefore nothing. He foresaw every evil that ever happened. So we're exonerating evil all of a sudden? So that's got nothing to do with anything. If you like, if you're interested and involved in finding remazim for the historical happenings through computer analysis, so that's fine. That's wonderful. There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with it. But to say that that has moral implications in terms of whether what happened was right or wrong is just a major distortion of Torah. דבר זה בחירה חופשית עיקר גדול הוא והוא עמוד התורה והמצווה שנאמר ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים וכתיב ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם היום כל שהרשות בידכם וכל שיחפוץ אדם לעשות ממעשה בני אדם עושה בין טוב בין רע ואילו הקל היה גוזר על האדם להיות צדיק או רשע או אילו היה שם דבר שמושך את האדם בעיקר תולדתו כמו שבודים מליבם הטיפשים היאך היה מצווה אותנו על ידי הנביאים עשה כך ואל תעשה כך הטיבו דרכיכם ואל תלכו אחרי רשעיכם והוא מתחילת ברייתו כבר נגזר עליו או תולדתו תמשכהו לדבר שאי אפשר לזוז ממנו.
We don't believe in any kind of determinism. We don't believe in biological determinism, we don't believe in societal determinism because of social forces. We don't believe in any kind of determinism and it's got nothing to do הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה. So the fact that through computer analysis you found a remez to what happened has no moral implications whatsoever and is totally irrelevant to any effort to come to terms with what happened and why it was so wrong and what our reaction should be. ne'emar beparshiyos which shouldn't be shelo kasuv kan. When you talk to people you have to be aware of two assumptions which people make. One assumption is that when you're talking you're talking to the issue which has been broached. And that if I want to ask you a direct question, the assumption is that your answer is bringing to bear relevant and pertinent information for the question asked. And that's an entirely legitimate assumption. If you ask or if you're asked about the assassination, what should our approach, our reaction to it be? If you mention the fact, which is true, undeniably and painfully true, that the Rabin government was virulently anti-religious, it's a fact. It's a fact. It should not be whitewashed. It's a fact. If you mention the Altalena from 47 years ago, that's also a fact and a terrible fact, terrible, terrible fact. If you mention those things, but then you say אף על פי כן it's got nothing to do with what happened, and אף על פי כן the assassination was absolutely wrong, you're going to be misunderstood because your disavowal notwithstanding, the assumption is that if you said it when asked about the assassination. So if, if you understand and know that this information is not relevant, so don't invite misunderstanding by making a semichus haparshiyos on some other occasion. On some other occasion, if you want to discuss the anti-religious posture and policies of the government, if you want to discuss the Altalena. That's a different story. But if you inject it here, so then people are gonna get confused. And as much as you scream that I am not in the least bit justifying the assassination, that message won't be heard clearly because people are assuming that you're only, that you're talking, as they say in Yiddish, tzu de zach, that you speak to the issue, and that therefore that you're streamlining and bringing to bear only that which is relevant to the issue. So when you discuss the issue of the assassination, so then the anti-, if, if it's the case, which it is, which it is, that the anti-religious posture and policy of the government are irrelevant to the assassination, so don't mention it. You mention it and then you say but it's not relevant, people, people are not gonna, but, but in the other hand, why are you mentioning it if that's not what the question you were asked? And it invites misunderstanding. It invites misunderstanding and on this issue we can't invite, we can't invite being misunderstood. Let's say you open up a book of fiction, right? So everyone knows so on the, so right away the author will write on the inside cover that any resemblance to actual people living or dead is purely coincidental and that this is a work of fiction from the author's imagination. And then you read the book. And you read the book and you recognize the characters. And you know very well who this guy is describing. So what, so the fact that he went on record as saying that any resemblance is purely coincidental, you don't believe it. You don't believe it. So he said it to cover himself. He said it to cover himself, u'motzos and the like. But, but you don't believe it. Or at most you don't know what to believe. You don't know, it's a, you can't, especially, I mean in any society you can't do it because it invites misunderstanding, but certainly in our society where everything has to be reduced to a, what, what do they call it in politics, a soundbite or something where you have to say, a president has to say everything he's going to do for the country in the next four years, he has to say it in something that you can cram into a 30-second commercial. So people don't, people don't read long documents and make subtle distinctions. People like nice catchy phrases. That's the way it works. More government, less government, concern for the people, concern for the poor, concern for the elderly. It has to be in about five words or less you have to express your whole life's philosophy because people don't want dakusdike distinctions. People don't, they don't draw subtle distinctions. They don't have the patience to listen to that. That's the way it is. That's what any, all these advisors who advise the politicians, you have to put it into a soundbite. Find yourself a photo-op with a soundbite and then you get elected president. Then you get elected president. So bifrat in our, it's true, it's true stam that it invites misunderstanding because if you ask the question, don't digress, for the very minute you digress, people are going to think that it is relevant to the question. על אחת כמה וכמה our mindset, our mentality is that you ask someone a question, so then you can focus on any one phrase in the answer and you make that the soundbite for the answer. So then you certainly have to be careful to remain as focused as possible. And when you discuss any issue, you have to keep as narrow a focus as is possible because otherwise, again, it's not that what you're saying is wrong. You're saying that it's got nothing to do with it. So that's correct. What you're saying is not objectively wrong, but it just opens the door too wide for misunderstanding. And it's not good to be misunderstood on any issue, על אחת כמה וכמה, it's not good to be understood, misunderstood on an issue where the, our most vital interests of kvod torah and kvod shamayim are at stake. So it's very important not to make any kind of eirev parshiyos. If it's wrong, and it is, and if it's 100% wrong, and it is, so don't say anything. anything else. No ands, ifs, ors, or buts because then people get confused and befrat with this sound bite mentality that we live in, so then the potential for confusion becomes even greater, so it’s so careful how we speak. So we have to really be me’od amokei lev, we have to have the right machshavos, and we have to be מבקש ריבונו של עולם should give us the mane lashon to say things correctly also. It is so, so important, so, so important not to make any ayruv parshiyos between this and anything else. The same way people correctly say and people correctly insist that condemning the assassination shouldn’t have to mean an endorsement for the peace process, the same way they say that correctly because this has got nothing to do, it’s a totally separate issue, so you have to focus on that. And the focus has to be there should be nothing else within the focus when you speak about this other than that basic fact. You shouldn’t mention the Altalena and you shouldn’t mention the fact that the government was anti-religious because then people get confused. No, that’s not what you were saying. You were not justifying it, absolutely. What you said wasn’t wrong, but why, why leave open the door for misunderstanding? People, the Rambam already cried out. The Rambam was accused of denying techiyas hameisim. So the Rambam says, if you look in the Mishneh Torah, so he writes explicitly in פרק יג הלכות תשובה that among those who are considered kofer, apikorus, is someone who denies techiyas hameisim. So the Rambam says, no matter how carefully you speak, if people want to, they’ll distort what you say. Veha-raya, he says, the Christians took the pasuk of Shema Yisrael and they distorted it for their beliefs. So no matter how carefully we speak, we can be misunderstood and at times we are misunderstood and you can’t, there’s no such thing as preventing it because it’s ביד אדם בחירה חופשית if he wants to hear you. But certainly we shouldn’t do anything to invite misunderstanding. So Rashi says הוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות ולא בדין בעלי דינים הכתוב מדבר אלא ברואה חבירו עושה דבר שאתה יכול להכריעו לצד עבירה ולצד זכות הכריעהו לזכות ואל תחשדהו בעבירה.
So the Tannaim in Maseches Avos, the mishna says הוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות. It's very, when you think about it, the Gemara here, if you put together the pieces of the puzzle, the Gemara here is telling us something very remarkable. We’ve been discussing in context of the din amida, especially at the time of gmar din, that the mechayev is lifnei Hashem as the pasuk says the mechayev is lifnei Hashem. We mentioned, we know because Chazal say that במקום בית דין יש השראת שכינה. So why should that be? Why is that taka so? They say that the Chofetz Chaim didn’t like to get involved in dinei torah because you get involved in dinei torah, so it’s virtually impossible not to have to listen to loshon hara. It doesn’t mean that the dayanim are over an issur loshon hara, they have no choice to listen, for them it’s tachlis. But the Chofetz Chaim didn’t want even that. So what happens in beis din is usually not so pretty. If everything were very pretty and wonderful, they wouldn’t be in beis din. Chances are that at least the, occasionally it could be an honest misunderstanding, but in most dinei torah, I think if you ask a dayan who sit on dinei torah, in most dinei torah and some dinei torah they're both ehrlich, but it’s not always the case. It’s not such a pretty scene. So it’s a strange occasion for special hashras shechina. Mela, mela, we say אין לו להקדוש ברוך הוא בעולמו אלא ד' אמות של הלכה בלבד.
Talmud Torah is the occasion for special hashras shechina. Okay, that’s an appropriate occasion, it’s an appropriate time, place and context for an more intensive hashras shechina. But beis din is a strange place for it. Beis din is a strange place for it. So the teretz is that the reason you have that hashras shechina is because as the pasuk says כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא. So what does mean כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא? That basically the There are certain things which are the exclusive prerogative of the Ribbono Shel Olam. I'd say the Gemara says in in Taanis about ג' מפתחות שלא נמסרו, the Ribbono Shel Olam holds them himself. Certain things are the exclusive prerogative of the Ribbono Shel Olam. And the truth is, the truth is that to judge another person, so that only the Ribbono Shel Olam can do. People have no right to sit in judgment on other people. That's exclusive, that's the exclusive prerogative of the Ribbono Shel Olam. That's what it means כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא. כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא. And even though there is Beis Din and there are Dayanim, so they're acting as agents, as shluchei DeRachmana to be to carry out the Ribbono Shel Olam's mishpat. But it's not that the Ribbono Shel Olam says that you in your own capacity as people, as Dayanim, as Talmidei Chachamim mufalgim have a right to be dan. No. As Dayanim, as Talmidei Chachamim mufalgim, so you can act as my shluchim to be dan. But basically כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא, a person has no right to judge another person. Heitachan? Heitachan? How can I sit in judgment on another person? That's what it means כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא. Same pshat, we mentioned also in the halacha part the din of melech that kvodo eino machul. So again we come to the זכייה בין אדם למקום. So what's the pshat? The emes is there too, the kinds of prerogatives which a melech have, the kinds of absolute authority which a melech has over people, so no one person is entitled to have over another person. No one person is entitled to have over another person. Basar va-dam, le-an atah holech? So how can one person have the kind of absolute authority that a melech has over people? Mered be-malchus. Even though the melech didn't tell you what a halacha says, the malchus is telling you do this, don't do that, and you don't listen to the melech, chayav misah. Heitachan? That a person should have such absolute authority? So there too the Torah says you should know מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול. It's not that the melech is entitled to yield such absolute authority as a gavra bifnei atzmo. He's only allowed to do that as the Ribbono Shel Olam's representative. So that's what the Torah wanted to know. It's not the melech, it's not the melech, but it's למי שציווה על כבודו שאתה ירא ואתה מכבד. These kinds of prerogatives of being superior, to judge someone else, so it implies superiority. To yield absolute authority the way a melech does implies superiority. And one person, no one person amongst us can elevate himself that he should be allowed to do that. And that's why the Torah always emphasizes in these contexts you should know כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא and you should know מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול. So now when you stop and think about the lashon of the Mishna in Pirkei Avos of our Gemara of הוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות, so it's remarkable. Why do Chazal use the lashon din? Din we always associate with Beis Din, with din Torah. So I don't know, הוי מצדיק את חברך, הוי חושב עליו לטובה? But the lashon din, the association we have is always with Dayanim, with Beis Din. That's the immediate association we have with din. Ella mai? So Chazal are telling us something very important. Chazal are telling us the same hesitation, reservation, the same inability to judge another person which Beis Din basically has, and it's only because the Ribbono Shel Olam appoints them shluchim that they can judge another person, so you should know that we should have those same hesitations and the same kovid rosh when we form impressions of another person. And that's why Chazal... In context of a din Torah so remember that all that carries over to when you think and you form impressions and you label a person. This has at least two, probably more, but at least two which immediately come to mind applications. This equation of הוי דן את כל אדם לכף זכות that Chazal say that be'emes again all the restrictions of din carry over to how you pass judgment in your mind on a fellow Jew. Number one is whenever possible abstain from doing so. Whenever possible abstain from doing so. I don't know, do we, are we really mechuyav to classify every person we know and we meet of, or every person we hear about in the news? Oh, he's a rasha, he's a this, he's a that. I don't know, אל תהי דן יחידי שאין דן יחידי אלא אחד. I don't think we should be so quick to label people and to classify people, even in our own minds, and על אחת כמה וכמה to broadcast those impressions to others. Again, what the Gemara here is telling us is this is an inyan of din, an inyan of din איש פונה את הזכאי ואיש פונה את החייב and כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא. So number one, if it's not something that we have to, that we have to pass judgment on a person, don't pass judgment on a person. People are very complex. People are very complex. And Chazal said אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו, what they really mean is that in 99.99% of cases is אל תדין את חברך. Because how do you ever magia limkomo? You never magia limkomo. Even if you find yourself in the same circumstances as your chaver, but you have a different background and you were, you were exposed to different influences than he was. So maybe even if when you face the same nisayon he faced and you think that he higia limkomo, so maybe if he had been the beneficiary of the same chinuch or the same yeshiva or the same family or whatever as you are, so maybe he would have, maybe he would have risen to the occasion also. So אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו, you never really magia limkomo. You never really magia limkomo. And this applies beineinu levein atzmeinu between frum Jews, so על אחת כמה וכמה it certainly applies when frum Jews think about secular Jews. על אחת כמה וכמה אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו.
So number one we should abstain, when there's no necessity to judge another fellow human being we should abstain. And number two, when there is need, you have to know, you have to know is this perspective shidduch good? You have to form impressions of a person. You should do so only to the extent that it's necessary and even then with a tremendous koved rosh, a tremendous koved rosh because the כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא that be'emes only the Ribbono Shel Olam is entitled to judge carries over to outside of bes din as well. That's what our Gemara tells us. So why is it, why is it that we find it so difficult to observe this? We're always rushing to judgment on everyone and everything. Everything, everything is so pashut. Everything is so pashut. He's a rasha, she's a rasha, everything is so pashut. It's very... Why do we have such a weakness when it comes to this? So the teretz is that the weakness we have is not just limited to this specific din of הוי דן את חברך לכף זכות, but lacking the koved rosh involved in judging people, but in general, in general we're very convinced. We're a little too sure of ourselves in many areas, and this is just one manifestation of it. This is just one manifestation of it. One manifestation if a person in general is so sure of himself, he knows everything, he knows everything with absolute certainty. Not he thinks and he knows to the best of his ability, no, but he knows with absolute certainty, so then mimmela there's nothing to talk about. I'm not being dan, it's self-evident. I'm not being dan that this guy's a rasha. I'm not ruling or paskening he's a rasha, it's barur kashimesh batzaharayim. I'm just pointing my finger at it. I'm not being dan. So if you have a sense of again of such absolute certitude, so then no, I'm not I'm not being I'm not judging anyone. It's obvious. It's self-evident. What am I saying? I'm just calling attention to the obvious, but I'm not judging anyone. And then mimmela so not only are we over, not only are we over on betzedek tishpot amitecha, but then we're over in many other things as well. We're over in many other things as well. Our ahavas yisrael certainly suffers, because if in your mind you first over on betzedek tishpot amitecha, and then without being magia limkomo, you effectively judge a person, so then inevitably it carries over into how you feel about the person, how you relate to the person, how you talk to the person. And it begins with again everything we're so sure about everything. So sure about everything. Everyone's so sure about everything. Rabbi Akiva Eiger in a couple of places gives you the cross-references for every place where Rashi says I don't know. Rashi says eini yodeia. Rabbi Akiva Eiger gives you in Gilyon HaShas tells you every place where he says I don't know. Every place where he says I don't know. So what did Rashi have to say I don't know, and what does, okay, so maybe Rashi said, you know, there is something here, so I'm asking the question. I don't know what the answer is, I'm asking the question. What does Rabbi Akiva Eiger have to, how's it going to help me if Rashi didn't know pshat on daf gimmel over here? How's it going to help that Rashi didn't know pshat on daf chaf ches in the other masechta? So what, Rashi, I understand why he has to eini yodeia. What does Rabbi Akiva Eiger have to pour salt on an open wound? Aha, it's not the only thing he didn't know. He didn't know this and he didn't know that. So the peirush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger is showing you, look, the sign of an adam gadol is not that he's omniscient. Because no one's omniscient. The biggest gedolim are not omniscient. Not omniscient. The sign of an adam gadol is that he knows what he knows and he does his best, but he has the humility to know what he doesn't know. And he can say eini yodeia. He doesn't know everything. No one knows everything. No one knows everything. And even what you know, no one knows when his people who disagree with him are his equal, so no one knows that he's right and they're wrong. But we're we're very sure about everything. Everything is absolute with us. Everyone is absolute. If we don't like someone, so he's a rasha. And if we like someone, so he's a tzaddik. Maybe we like him and he's not a tzaddik? Maybe? But everything's an absolute. Everything is all or nothing. That's the that's the way we think nowadays. That's the climate of ideas which we which we breathe. Everything is everything is clear-cut, everything is absolute. So mimmela it carries over also that we're over in this din of betzedek tishpot amitecha. We have no sense of being dan people. And then the terrible ramifications, just look about. Look around. Look around at all the machlokes. Look around at all the lack of respect which people have for one another for whom they should have respect. And it all comes from from not having a sense that only the Ribbono Shel Olam judges and only the Ribbono Shel Olam can speak in absolutes all the time. And we can't do that. On occasion we speak with absolutes. On occasion there are some things which are black and white. There are some things which are black and white, but there are a lot of things which aren't black and white. There are a lot of for as many se'ifim where the where the Rama doesn't disagree with the Mechaber, there's as many se'ifim where the Rama does disagree with the Mechaber. So some things are absolute, black and white, and some כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא the Ribono Shel Olam can judge people, the Ribono Shel Olam can judge all issues. We can't judge all people, we can't judge all issues. And when we're called on to judge, so it has to be done only to the extent that it's necessary and even then with an awareness of כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא. How do you weigh a person who has tremendous zechuyos and tremendous aveiros? Like what is he, is he a tzadik, is he a rasha, is he? How do you label a secular Jew who is anti-religious but who devotes his life to helping other Jews? So how do you label such a person? What's the answer? The answer is you don't. The Ribono Shel Olam knows how to treat such a person and we don't know how to treat such a person. So there's no need to rush to judgment and we don't rush to judgment. We know which parts of his behavior are right, we know which parts of his behavior are wrong. How do you label the person? You don't label the person. You don't label the person. Maichei teisi that we have to pass judgment on everyone? Ribono Shel Olam hasn't asked for our help. He passes judgment on everyone. We don't have to pass judgment on everyone. We have to know in terms of behavior what's right and wrong. We're not supposed to be totally agnostic. In terms of behavior we're supposed to know what's right and what's wrong. But what do you do with a secular Jew who's anti-religious but spent his whole life in Tzahal working? Is he a tzadik because of all the good things he did? Is he a rasha because of all the bad things he did? I don't know. It's not for us to pass judgment, it's not for us to pass judgment. We object to what's wrong, we appreciate what's right. What's the bottom line? So the Ribono Shel Olam knows how to figure that out, no one else knows how to figure that out. I'll give you whatever, this one from parshas hashavua: ויצו אותם לאמר כה תאמרו לאדני לעשו כה אמר עבדך יעקב עם לבן גרתי ואחר עד עתה.
So Eisav ha'rasha, ki af oti Chazal tell us, shofech damim and was a ba'al ayin hara, so basically was over everything he could find to be over on, Eisav ha'rasha. So what's Yaakov doing? כה תאמרו לאדני לעשו. It's koh tomru le'Eisav, especially when it's כה אמר עבדך יעקב. And the Midrash says that Rabbeinu HaKadosh when he addressed Antoninus followed that model. Avdecha, it's from avdecha I'm addressing adoni. Then im Lavan garti, so Rashi quotes from Chazal: im Lavan garti is taryag mitzvos shamarti. For the first pshat I didn't, I didn't learn from his evil ways. So I understand. So if Yaakov Avinu was meeting Yitzchak, Yitzchak would be worried, right? Yitzchak would want to know after all these years with Lavan ha'Arami. So did you, chas ve'shalom, were you tainted by your stay with Lavan? So if Yaakov Avinu would be meeting his father, meeting his rebbe, meeting his mashgiach, so you understand he'd have to reassure him: עם לבן גרתי תריג מצוות שמרתי. He didn't have any negative hashpa'ah. Eisav was worried? The first thing Eisav wanted to hear was did you, were you faithful to Torah while you were living with Lavan? Eisav couldn't care less. So what's Yaakov Avinu telling him that taryag mitzvos shamarti? And why didn't he say it, why is he just meramez? Why doesn't he just say it straight? The teretz says that these two questions answer each other. When you deal with people with whom we disagree... The people who, let's say, we know, as in the case of Eisav, very few cases are so clear, we even know that they're rishaim. So how does one demonstrate, how does one demonstrate, how do you demonstrate your independence? How do you demonstrate your rejection of everything they stand for? So do you have to demean yourself by speaking divrei nevalah and by being mevazeh the other person? Is that the way you show that you're strong and you're better and you can label him a rasha? So you get up and you say, "You rasha, you," fill in the blank as you like? Maybe that's the way you have to show that, that you reject him. Maybe that's the way you have to show your scorn and contempt for that person and what he represents. Or no, maybe the way you show your rejection of what he represents is not in the negative way of criticizing and what would appear to be justly labeling him a rasha. No, maybe you can be polite and maybe you can act like a mentch and speak like a mentch and just make it clear that no matter who you are, no matter how powerful you are, but I stick to my principles, I stick to my Torah, I don't care how powerful you are. And even that you do in a nice, quiet way, what doesn't have to be said you just hint at, but you make it clear that I have my principles and I live by my principles, I don't sacrifice my principles, but it doesn't have to be said confrontationally. On the contrary, you project that positively. The best way to show that you reject someone whose lifestyle is baal aveirah.