Transcript

In the slichos we mentioned one of the tragedies which is commemorated in the taanis of asara b'teves is that the melech yavan אנסני לכתוב דת יונית that the chachamim were coerced into translating the Torah into Greek. And the maseches soferim says it was קשה להם לישראל כיום שעשו את העגל when they had to translate the Torah into Greek. Why is that? Because in the act of translation and making things universal, once you put it in the vernacular and you make it universally accessible, so that act is obviously fraught with danger and is a minefield because then anyone can try to appropriate Torah, anyone can try to lay claim to knowing Torah and the distortions that can result and flourish are frightening. And Chazal says קשה הם לישראל כיום שעשו בו את העגל. Mistama I wouldn't be surprised if Chazal had in mind, it's well known that a lot of the so-called Christological arguments which the Christians used to bring for their belief from psukim in Tanach resulted in distortions from, so then the Septuagint was then translated into Latin, the Vulgate, and a lot of their so-called proofs simply reflect these distortions which came about in the act of translation. I mean some are just nonsense and the other result from distortions in translation. כיום שעשו בו את העגל. I think nimnu ve'gamru that bizmaneinu the es la'asos and the need for translation is greater and the danger of not having translation and the danger of ignorance that would result and the lack rachmana litzlan of commitment which would result is greater than the danger of translating. And hence all the English Judaica which we have. But nevertheless this din and this concern of Chazal has not been totally lost. Rav Moshe wrote for instance in his tshuvos that his tshuvos should not be translated into English, he wrote that you're not supposed to translate. So with all the need for translation bizman hazeh, it's not that we're supposed to totally forget and lose sight of what concerned Chazal in maseches soferim and what we talk about in the slichos. And the danger of Torah being distorted because Torah is available to people who don't fully understand it remains a very great one and remains one of great concern to us and is something we have to be mindful of and something we have to look to correct. Those of you who were able to come Chanukah zeit, so we spoke about these inyanim then as well. Someone showed me an article this week, this is a different article than the one we spoke about then, it was some more bitul Torah. At any rate that then I was talking about that this is some more bitul Torah I had some stuff, a different article. Another person pulling his hair out over the radicalization of Modern Orthodoxy and bifrat in the years since 1993 when the Rav was niftar and especially the rightward tilt amongst the Roshei Yeshiva here at Yeshiva and saying what has the world come to when one of them was asked, I don’t know who was asked, I don’t know who had the zchus of saying this, but one of them was asked about having a women’s reading of Megillah and discouraged it. And what is the world coming to and look what’s happened in the three and a half years. Since the Rav was niftar. So I think that kind of article is something you have to cry about on Asara B'Tevet when you say the Slichos of מלך יון אנסני לכתוב דת יון. And it's a perfect example of the type of distortions that are possible when people who don't know speak about Torah and in the name of Torah. And it's a terrible, terrible thing. It's a terrible, terrible thing. For the record, for the record, he was asked many times and every time the Rav opposed all these kinds of women's tefillah groups which they have in shul and told them that they should not do it, that it should not be done. So the distortions which flourish today are scary and bifrat in this particular area of what the Rav stood for and what he advocated. So we discussed, we discussed Chanukah night and the example we gave today is another perfect example. Question of translation bizman hazeh. Translation bizman hazeh. A person could come and cite chapter and verse from Masechet Sofrim, from the Gemara, and from the Slichos and assur all translations. And assur all translations and confine all of Artscroll to the fireplace. To the fireplace. K'gon shena'aseh ba'egel. So they obviously knew this. That's why there's so many haskamos at the beginning of the English Shas. When everything is glatt you don't need 25 haskamos. So obviously, obviously they were aware of this vulnerability. Ella mai? Ella mai? They're absolutely correct and all those who gave the haskamos are absolutely correct in that, again, we spoke then that some issurim are absolute issurim. It's assur to eat ma'achalos assuros not because it's going to be molid teva ra. No, even if somehow or other you have some kind of a chemical which you can inject into the ma'achalos assuros that it won't be molid teva ra and it won't metamtam es halev and it won't have any negative effect on you, the Torah said don't do it. This is as an end unto itself, as an act is prohibited. Other things the Torah says or Chazal say strategically are wrong. Strategically are dangerous. Strategically are wrong. The question of translations, the question of translations is Chazal said that strategically it was a tragedy that it happened. And again, and they were right. They were right because a lot of the rise of Christianity has to do with the fact that the Torah was translated into Greek. A few more reactions in the chain reaction but the two are linked. The two are definitely linked historically. But it's not an absolute issur. Strategically it's an issur. So when you have such an issur, so then what being modern means is being aware of the times you live in and being sensitive to the times you live in and having your finger on the pulse of society and knowing whether or not the dangers of not translating in a particular tkufa have become greater than the dangers of translating. So that's a modern psak. Not it doesn't mean that it's a concession to modernity. It doesn't mean that we're waiving the issur against translating, against translating because it's a concession to modernity because you have to make a peshara, you have to make a peshara. We'll give a little, you give a little. We'll insist on keeping Shabbos but we'll translate into English or we'll... no, it's not a question of making a concession. The question is that some halachos are absolute and therefore they don't depend on makom u'zman. And some halachos again, such as this question of translating which isn't an issur bifnei atzmo but Chazal assur'd it as a means. So such issurim which Chazal assur'd as a means, so then you have to look and see, well, given bizmaneinu if the danger is even greater of not translating, then k'hai gavna Chazal never objected to it. Chazal never objected to it. Modernity, that's what it means to be modern. To be modern means to understand fully what the modern metzius is, to confront the modern metzius. And in terms of chochmah, it means to be open to whatever in, in modern chochmah is compatible with Torah and consistent with Torah, that too. But it doesn't, doesn't mean any kind of concession. It doesn't mean changing women's role. It doesn't mean, it doesn't mean changing, it doesn't mean making compromises. All the places, all the places where people think that the Rav was so-called modern, so depending upon how you define the term, that's either a correct description or incorrect. But what it means is on those areas with Chazal, it means in areas such as translation where the issurim were not absolute. The issurim were not absolute. And this kind of distortion which is terribly, terribly dangerous. And and there are so many white knights out there and so many knights in shining armor on white horses coming to, to save Modern Orthodoxy and to, and to be faithful to what the Rav was. And and you have to have women's Megilla groups, and it's all sheker ve-chozov. And it's all, believe me, it's worth crying about on Asara B'Teves. It's worth crying about when you say the Selichos of אנסני לכתוב דת יונית because it's the same problem. It's the same danger of when Torah becomes accessible, universally accessible, then distortions flourish. And we see it, we understand exactly. So no, it doesn't mean for us that we should object to translations, that we should object to translations, but it does mean that we should be very sensitive to, very bothered by, and should do our best to correct those distortions that result from the modern-day equivalent of אנסני לכתוב דת יונית. We're all familiar with the Midrash that says that Rivka in the events of Parshas Chayei Sarah was only three years old at the time. Similarly, the Midrash has one view, again Rashi quotes עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי that Avrom Avinu hikir es boro when he was three years old. So it's obviously something hard to understand, difficult to relate to. And surely it reflects something about the tremendous gap between us and the Avos and Imahos HaKidoshim. And what we're saying is not, is not instead of that. Obviously when all is said and done, what the Avos, what Avrom Avinu was capable of at age three, what Rivka Imeinu was capable of at age three is a reflection of the very great and special neshamos which they obviously possessed. But kimdumani that that perspective notwithstanding, that there's another yesod here in Chazal as well. There's another message which Chazal are communicating. And that is that we have that to recognize the Ribbono Shel Olam and to live a life of Torah basically is something instinctive for us. It's not something which has to be and which is a purely intellectual decision based upon reflection, but rather the Ribbono Shel Olam implanted within us that instinctively we respond to Torah, instinctively we respond to mitzvos. Now of course that doesn't mean and it doesn't in the least bit clash with the Rambam's לפי הדעה תהיה האהבה. The instinct should be our impetus for involvement in Torah and mitzvos, but of course we're supposed to make our commitment even more profound, and that requires לפי הדעה תהיה האהבה. But it's very important to recognize that this natural instinct for Torah and mitzvos is something which each and every one of us has. Clearly, clearly you can't begin to understand or fathom the whole phenomenon. Of chazara b'teshuva which we witness without recognizing this instinct. You take, you take a person with a totally secular upbringing and you sit him down and in some of the, some of the the places where they engage in kiruv, so they don't begin talking about hashkafa. Some of them they sit him down and they learn a blatt Gemara with them. They learn a blatt Gemara, they learn Kiddushin or something with them. And intellectually, it doesn't really make sense. The truth is, intellectually it doesn't make sense that that experience somehow or other, okay, so if you learn the Gemara well, so it's very geshmak and it's very profound. But that that experience that a person should abandon his previous way of life and embrace Torah and mitzvos can only be understood when you recognize that this instinct for Torah and mitzvos is something what the sefarim call this ahava tiv'is which the Ribbono Shel Olam endowed us with is something which is within each and every yid. And it's that which accounts for most if not all of the chazara b'teshuva. But it's relevant to us as well, even if a person was blessed with an upbringing al pi Torah, it's relevant for us as well. And that is many people, whether they articulate it and confide in someone else or not, go through a tkufa where they have questions and doubts. And they begin to wonder whether my whole life I've been doing things just because I was taught and do I really understand, do I really believe, and all of a sudden before they know it they're, they're drowning in sfeikos. And a lot of people undergo that experience. And it's a very frightening one and it's a, it can be very overwhelming. One thing which we have to bear in mind at such a moment is that no matter what questions all of a sudden arise, no matter what we we can't seem to make sense of, a person has to continue not just davening the way he used to daven, a person has to daven even with more kavana, even with more hislahavus, even with more enthusiasm. Because even if a person for some reason intellectually loses his bearings and all of a sudden feels totally inarticulate and inadequate in explaining, but that instinct is still there. That primal instinct which the Ribbono Shel Olam gave us to point us in the right direction, how to spend our life, that instinct is always there. And very often if a person will just in such a moment of crisis, a person will not chas v'shalom say, well, since I'm not sure, so am I really being honest with myself in doing things? No, continue davening. You'll never, it doesn't, it's not that you're trying to ignore your questions, it's not that you're trying to silence your questions or censor your questions, but the point is that if a person will only nourish this instinct, so the questions may or may not be answered, but there's a world of difference between knowing for a fact that what the Torah says is true, but I don't understand it, and between wondering chas v'shalom. And the presence of this instinct, again, most dramatically evidenced in the cases of the avos and the imahos, of this instinct which a person has to recognize the Ribbono Shel Olam and to follow His Torah, so at all times and especially at a time when a person may be confronted with a personal crisis, that instinct has to be nourished. At the beginning of, of his essay, Lonely Man of Faith, so the Rav writes that he's not, he's not bothered with questions of age of the world and evolution and biblical criticism and that's not what he's gonna discuss in, in this essay. So what does he mean there? I don't think that he was hinting that he knows all the answers. I don't think so. I don't think so. What he was saying is that if a person knows because he experiences Torah and he nourishes that instinct, a person just knows just so directly and experiences so immediately the truth of Torah, so wonderful, s'zol zain that a person will go and read all the books of biblical criticism that he wants and he'll find, he'll find a question that he has no answer to. The question isn't, the question doesn't bother him, as a matter of fact it might even totally bore him. It might even totally bore him because okay, so I don't understand why, why such and such. I don't understand how to account for all the, all the evidence which scientists say they have for evolution. Okay, good. So maybe I do know, maybe I don't know. So let it be that I don't know. But if a person has experienced the truth of Torah and again, by nourishing that instinct, that primal instinct which we have, we all can experience, so then it will always be in the class of okay, it's something intellectually I don't know, but it's not something which in the least bit mitigates my experience of the truth of Torah and the truth of the way of life of Torah. So none of us are pure enough that we're totally dominated by that instinct the way Avraham Avinu was, the way Rivka Imeinu was, but we all have that instinct. We're all blessed with that, we're all endowed with that. The Ribbono Shel Olam didn't just throw us into the world, into a maze and tell us try to figure out the way. He gave us a tracking system and part of that tracking system is this instinct. And it's therefore very important at every stage of our life and befrat if a person ever feels troubled that we constantly nourish that instinct and bizchus that the Ribbono Shel Olam should be mekayeim for us always הבא לטהר מסייעין אותו. Torah says in the last posuk immediately preceding shiras hayam that

וירא ישראל את היד הגדלה אשר עשה ה' במצרים וייראו העם את ה' ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו.

So last week I heard someone ask a very interesting kasha, very, very interesting kasha. After all, when we speak of emunah, let's say when we contrast emunah with yediya, so yediya is what a person knows. He knows from logical deduction or he knows from firsthand immediate, even sensory experience. That's yediya. And emunah means when a person doesn't know, but אף על פי כן he believes, he has faith. So here it's a strange posuk: וירא ישראל את היד הגדלה אשר עשה ה' במצרים. So here

ראתה שפחה על הים מה שלא ראה יחזקאל בן בוזי.

So here there was zoiche to a gilluy Shechinah which the greatest nevi'im they weren't privileged to such a gilluy Shechinah. So I don't know, is it really vaya'aminu or at this point it's vayeide'u? They knew. They were the beneficiaries, they were the eyewitnesses of such an overwhelming gilluy Shechinah that vaya'aminu... וידעו את ה' ואת משה עבדו. What does the Torah mean ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו? So when I heard the question, the thought that came to mind, perhaps the pshat is as follows. Throughout the two hundred and ten years in Mitzrayim, the Jews questioned whether or not the Ribono Shel Olam was with them. Hayesh Hashem bekirbeinu, to use the pasuk anachronistically, im ayin. They didn't know whether Ribono Shel Olam was with them. They didn't see any rhyme or reason for all the yissurim to which they were subjected, and they really didn't know what to believe or what to think. What to believe or what to think. With the culmination of Yetzias Mitzrayim, so two things happened. Number one, they now knew and understood, they didn't have to believe, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu had been with them the entire time in Mitzrayim. They didn't have to believe that. They knew that now. They knew it now. And they realized that it was just that they were in the dark as to what Hakadosh Baruch Hu's master plan was, but all along there certainly was a blueprint which the Ribono Shel Olam was following. So that they knew, they didn't believe. But based upon that experience, so Klal Yisrael was given a capacity for even in the future, in the future when similar circumstances arise, when there will be other predicaments in which we can't discern the Yad Hashem, in which we can't decipher the hashgachas Hashem, so then vaya'aminu baHashem, vayeidu lasha'avar and vaya'aminu baHashem lehaba. That they, that this koach of emuna when the ways of Hakadosh Baruch Hu are inscrutable, not when, not when His will is clear to us and not when everything is simple and easy as it was on Yam Suf. But vaya'aminu baHashem was based on that experience, having been mystified by the darchei Hashem. And then the culmination in Krias Yam Suf, so then vaya'aminu, they developed this capacity for emuna lehaba for the future as well. I think one year before Pesach we had discussed the same yesod. The Mishna says which we say in the Haggadah of

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים

and it's clear from the Mishna, as the Rav zt"l says, that this is the basis of the chiyuv Hallel, that the chiyuv Hallel on Pesach is because

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים

is lephichach anachnu chayavim. Good. And that's a, see Hallel is part of the mitzvah of sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim as the Rav quotes from Rav Chaim, that's one of the differences between sippur and zechira. And mimeila this בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו is a mitzvah d'Oraisa, is a mitzvah d'Oraisa. And that's why according to the Rambam that haseiba is a kiyum in bechol dor vador, so haseiba also has a kiyum d'Oraisa. It's not a chiyuv d'Oraisa. The Torah didn't say you have to be liros es atzmo through the vehicle of haseiba, but Chazal said use haseiba to be mekayem this d'Oraisa. Good. But we discussed then why is it that the Mishna introduces this din as bechol dor vador? I don't know, it doesn't say

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לשמור שבת. בכל דור ודור מוזהר אדם שלא לאכול מאכלות אסורות.

It's a mitzvah. If it's a mitzvah, so every mitzvah goes without saying is bechol dor vador. Why is this, why is there a hava amina over here that this wouldn't be bechol dor vador? So lichora the answer is as follows. So חייב אדם לראות את עצמו the Rav So if a person finds himself transplanted from shibud Mitzrayim into into New York City so there's been a net gain, there's been a net gain. ולפיכך אנחנו חייבים להודות ולהלל ולשבח etc. But there've been so many tekufot in recent recent Jewish history where it's not clear that the circumstances under which Jews found themselves observing Pesach were better than those of shibud Mitzrayim. The concentration camps rachmana litzlan were certainly no better than shibud Mitzrayim. Nor was Stalinist Siberia wasn't any improvement over over shibud Mitzrayim either. So what does it take mean that

חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא עתה ממצרים?

So what? So if someone would be plucked from shibud Mitzrayim and placed in a concentration camp, so how is that a basis for Hallel? How is that a basis for Hallel? Al korchecha what the Mishnah is saying is that the ikar ge'ulah then of Mitzrayim wasn't a political or physical one. Because had that been the case the חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו יצא עתה ממצרים would not translate in every generation into a chiyuv Hallel. Because there indisputably have been generations where the political persecution was worse than that of Mitzrayim and that's that's undebatable. You can't you can't contest that point. However if the ikar ge'ulah from Mitzrayim was a spiritual one that henceforth and that's what we're saying is the pshat here ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו. This is where it says it in the pasuk. That henceforth even when they would be in the same trying circumstances as shibud Mitzrayim or rachmana litzlan even worse than ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו they were now endowed with this koach which could sustain them despite the fact that they may have to encounter the same or even greater persecution. So mi-meila that's be-chol dor va-dor. That be-chol dor va-dor if that's the emphasis on the the ge'ulah, that was the emphasis so that can take be observed and fulfilled in every generation. It's mechayav u-le-fichach anachnu chayavim. So it's very it's very important. It's very important for each of us individually in our personal lives, for all of us collectively in thinking about the course of Klal Yisrael. No one understands all darkei Hashem either in his or her individual life nor collectively as affecting all of Klal Yisrael. I don't know, I don't think there's I'm sure there isn't anyone who understands everything. Maybe I'm sure some understand more and we understand less but no one understands everything. No one understands everything. And it's very important what the Torah here is teaching us is that the fact that a person is unable because כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם because Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu is not held hostage to our limited understanding but nevertheless a person has to extrapolate. There are moments in our personal lives when we see so vividly yad Hashem and there are moments in our national lives when we see so vividly yad Hashem. And a person has to extrapolate from that and know that the yad Hashem is always there consistently and based on the va-yar Yisrael, based on the yedi'ah which we have, so then that always has to provide a foundation for va-ya'aminu ba-Shem even at moments and everyone, I don't think anyone no one goes through through life without having difficult periods, without confronting problems and at times the problems are are very great and overwhelming and frustrating and. And at those times we always have to come back to this pasuk. We always remind ourselves in our own, in our personal lives, collectively in the life of Klal Yisrael of the moments of וירא ישראל את היד הגדלה, and that will then enable us to proceed with vaya'aminu b'Hashem as well. So we'll take out a few minutes for this week's parsha, Parshat Yitro.

וישמע יתרו כהן מדין חתן משה את כל אשר עשה אלהים למשה ולישראל עמו כי הוציא ה' את ישראל ממצרים.

So Rashi quotes from the Gemara and from the Mechilta that מה שמועה שמע ובא Kriyat Yam Suf and Milchemet Amalek. So amongst everything he heard, but in particular, in particular, it was Milchemet Amalek and Kriyat Yam Suf which impressed Yitro the most. Question is, why was it that Yitro was more moved by those two nissim and nifla'os of Milchemet Amalek and Kriyat Yam Suf above and beyond all the makkos? Bistama if Yitro had heard kol asher asa, he must have heard about the makkos as well. He must have heard about the makkos as well. So why is it that Yitro was apparently more inspired by Milchemet Amalek and Kriyat Yam Suf? What did Yitro come for? He came to be misgayer. Yitro came to be misgayer. So efshar l'omar the pshat is as follows. The makkos, the makkos certainly in terms of convincing Yitro of the

עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלהים כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם,

so clearly the makkos were as compelling and as convincing as Milchemet Amalek and Kriyat Yam Suf. If anything, Milchemet Amalek was ambiguous. It was it's more easily attributed to darkei hateva. Maybe the Jews were more inspired, they had a better military commander. But ela mai the pshat is as follows. In these two cases, by Milchemet Amalek and Kriyat Yam Suf were a reflection not only about the Ribbono Shel Olam, but also about Am Yisrael. And that מה שמועה שמע ובא is קריעת עמלק מלחמת ים סוף. Kriyat Amalek, Milchemet Amalek is the famous Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah at the end of perek gimmel.

וכי ידיו של משה עושות מלחמה אלא בזמן שישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים.

So Yitro heard about Milchemet Amalek, so he heard that how the deciding factor was their capacity of Klal Yisrael to be משעבד את לבם לאביהם שבשמים. And he saw what a tremendous koach they had and what that could evoke from the Ribbono Shel Olam. That he didn't see in the makkos. The makkos were all were all from the Ribbono Shel Olam's initiative. All from the Ribbono Shel Olam's initiative. From above they descended. Mah she'ein ken Milchemet Amalek was בזמן שישראל משעבדין לבם. Similarly, the Midrash Rabbah has has the following lashon that Hakadosh Baruch Hu says, the Midrash attributes the following words to the Ribbono Shel Olam. Ribbono Shel Olam says כדי היא האמונה שהאמינו בי שאקרע להם את הים. That this is what the pasuk in Navi,

זכרתי לך חסד נעוריך לכתך אחרי במדבר בארץ לא זרועה.

So number one, Bnei Yisrael demonstrated emuna in terms of going out into the wilderness in eretz lo zeru'ah without any provisions. And then number two, the Ribbono Shel Olam told them, וישובו ויחנו לפני פי החירת, the Ribbono Shel Olam says. They should head right towards the onrushing Egyptian army. After that, Pharaoh obviously concluded נבוכים הם בארץ סגר עליהם המדבר, they're all confused, they don't know what they're doing. They're headed right back, right into the lion's den. So Bnei Yisrael demonstrated emunah. Chazal say that the Ribbono Shel Olam's response was כדאי היא האמונה שהאמינו בי שאקרע להם את הים. Similarly, that this yesod is also what underlies the famous midrash which we all know, that the sea didn't split until the water was up to Nachshon's chin, his nose, wherever exactly the water reached. That until Nachshon jumped in, the water didn't split. Why didn't the water split? To emphasize the same yesod, that unlike the prior nissim in geulat mitzrayim, which weren't evoked by any demonstration of emunah on behalf of Kelal Yisrael, the nes of Keri'at Yam Suf was evoked by the emunah which Kelal Yisrael demonstrated. That's the pshat that mashmua shama uva. mashmua shama uva is מלחמת עמלק וקריעת ים סוף, because Yisro didn't only want to hear about who the Ribbono Shel Olam is and what the Ribbono Shel Olam's infinite kochos are. He also wanted to know prior to being misgayer, Yisro also wanted to know who Kelal Yisrael are, and what people he would be belonging to, were he to be misgayer. So that's what Chazal say that mashmua shama uva, he wasn't... the eser makkos alone wouldn't have been enough to impel him to come to be misgayer. It was only when שמע מלחמת עמלק וקריעת ים סוף. The Rambam in Perek Yud-Daled of Hilchos Issurei Biah, quoting the baraita in Yevamos,

כיצד מקבלים גרי הצדק: שיבוא אחד להתגייר מן האק"ום ויבדקו אחריו ולא ימצאו עילה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר? אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים ודחופים וסחופים ומטורפין וייסורין באין עליהם? אם אמר אני יודע ואיני כדאי,

mekabelim oso miyad. Then the Rambam says that מודיעין אותו עיקרי הדת umarichin bazeh, and then modiin oso miktzas mitzvos kalos and miktzas mitzvos chamuros. And then

וכשם שמודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו שכרן של מצות.

So the impression you have here in the Rambam, and you have a similar impression from the baraita itself in Yevamos, when the beis din says to the potential ger, "Don't you take into account the matzav of Kelal Yisrael?" It's not simply that the same way you tell him miktzas mitzvos chamuros so that he should know what the challenge is and possible burdens are in being misgayer. Because we don't say it in that context. It's not in the context of telling him, you know, you should know that if you're mechallel Shabbos you'll incur a terrible onesh. We're not telling him. We're telling him as, it's separate from all of that, distinct from all of that, we're telling him that you should know that if you're being misgayer, you're joining the Jewish people. Don't think that when you're misgayer, you're just being mekabel Taryag mitzvos and that it's to just enhance your relationship with Ribbono Shel Olam, but you'll remain the same individual that you were before and therefore the plight of the Jewish people is irrelevant to you. So the first thing they tell him is: You should know. The first thing you have to know about geirus is that when you're being misgayer, so it means that you're integrating yourself into Kelal Yisrael. And that being the case, so we want to tell you what exactly the situation of Kelal Yisrael is. So this yesod is also underscored, that the ger, it's not enough that he's mekabel mitzvos, it's not enough that he wants to be oved the Ribbono Shel Olam with Taryag as opposed to sheva mitzvos, but he also has to be willing to integrate himself into Kelal Yisrael. So that's why Yisro knew that also. Yisro knew that the fact that he saw the yad Hashem in Mitzrayim, that wasn't enough, he wasn't ready to convert. It was only when he saw Keri'at Yam Suf. So then he was ready to come מה שמועה שמע ובא, he was ready to come and be misgayer. Maybe Chazal saw the remez to that. The question is though on this Chazal that the posuk says את כל אשר עשה אלקים למשה ולישראל עמו. It says את כל אשר עשה. So how can Chazal come and and so drastically limit what it is that Yisro was actually thinking about? את כל אשר עשה, there was there was much more in the process of Yetzias Mitzrayim than just the Milchamas Amalek and Krias Yam Suf which came at the very, very end. Those those were the very last stages and the finishing touches. So how can you take the posuk says what are Chazal looking for? The posuk says את כל אשר עשה. The posuk says את כל אשר עשה. So what are Chazal looking for to somehow rather limit it to Milchamas Amalek and Krias Yam Suf? So perhaps the pshat is later when it says Vayisaper Moshe lachosoino, it's אשר עשה השם לפרעה ולמצרים. L'Pharaoh ul'Mitzrayim. And here it says Vayishma Yisro es kol asher, את כל אשר עשה אלקים למשה ולישראל עמו. So