משמעות מערכת המשפט הישראלית | הרב חננאל אתרוג | סנהדרין | תשפ״ו [3]

Kind: captions Language: en Peace and blessings to all the holy audience. Today, a Torah scroll will be brought together for the remembrance of the soul of A. Ed from the group of fellow A. Levi, the name of the place where Adam fell in Gaza a year and a half ago. So it is possible that the lesson will be shorter also because of these things. The things will be for his holy soul, who is already above. Today, we will follow in the footsteps of Rabbi Harlap ztzel. Things he wrote in the introduction to his books. He has books on the Shas Beit Zebul. In the introduction to his novellas on Tractate Sanhedrin, I will try to be the mediator for the things he says, in which he tries to explain to us what the meaning of Israeli law is. Maybe we will start with this: When we study the laws of testimony and the laws of dayanim, then we believe, sons of believers, we do and we listen when we understand when we do not understand. But the human side of us, the simple intellectual side of us, sometimes faces situations that it does not understand, facing laws that it has difficulty understanding. If we talk mainly about the laws of testimony, then we know that the Torah does not accept every witness, unlike in secular courts, we call it human. So someone who was there comes and tells more. As for whether he is a liar or not a liar there are not too many restrictions on uh maybe age because a small child or mental disability but a woman is disqualified to testify in all why a woman is disqualified to testify in halakha in eyewitness testimony in protest testimony she is qualified but why why is there she was there and a very righteous woman and a very righteous woman and a very realistic woman and she is not maybe more than that a uh close disqualified to testify what is close disqualified to testify a close disqualified to testify could be because he is an interested party there is such an investigation of the extremes right from the sign 3d is touching disqualified from law? touching touching disqualified from law close touching meaning you have an interest it distorts your mind and therefore you will lie there are such righteous people who will even earn 5 shekels they will not testify false testimony b who have some touch so it slightly suggests to him that it is you close so what if you are close you know that close witnesses are not close witnesses to the matter itself so they are not interested parties witnesses who are close Moses and Aaron if two witnesses come to you to testify Moses and Aaron then they are disqualified to testify what is there who does not believe Moses Moses and Aaron there To us, Anan Saada, son of Anan Saada, father of Anasada's father, Moshe and Aaron are right. Moshe alone. What is Moshe and Aaron? Okay. Moshe our Lord will come to the hearing. So the hearing is not accepted. What is clear? I believe him. What is the question? It's not just who testifies. If he testified at night, then testimony is not accepted. And if he testified outside the court, the testimony is not accepted. Why is there evidence? There are forgetting. We see that part A. Still, this too has limitations. It's not limitations. You can see it as limitations. And you believe. Fear God. You say, okay. This is what the halakha said. I get along. We want to connect to it. To explain things and a few more things. So, Rabbi Haralf shares with us that every legal system that also has a niche system is, by its very creation, a very deep disadvantage because a stage was imposed that a human being can never know. The implications of the legal system for a legal system are two stages. There is a what is called the verdict and the sentence. Or there is the stage of clarification. What happened here? There is the discussion. What happened here. Testimonies. Examinations. Investigations. Study. Studying the issue and then what is the punishment what is the punishment two stages what happened here here judges with humans judges are even if you take honest and pious and righteous people as judges beyond the fact that they of course know the law but I am talking about human law let's say they know the laws so a then the ability there to know what happened here is a limited ability okay but there is something that the ability is limited to infinity and that is the sentence the punishment the punishment because we, oh human beings can never know what the effects are i.e. what the results and implications of the verdict of a mowing when the system a niche issues a death sentence so let's say she is right you have to kill him okay let's say but what what will it do to his parents what will it do to his wife what will it do to his children what will it do to his lice when you or you put a person in a cage and you have to decide on this offense, you put him in for six months or a year and a quarter or 26 months. This is you all know the butterfly effect, right in ecology a butterfly moves its wings in Japan and it comes out after that Tsunami in Turkey, let's say. Okay? There are several possibilities. So then this is such a complex and so branched systems that the most sophisticated computers in the world cannot contain. Who can enter so much data that affects what wind will be created from what? Will be created from what? So if a small butterfly moves its wings and suddenly it creates something that rolls, rolls, rolls after that into terrible storms. So when I rule a financial gives a person a punishment and the implications of this are they are immense for them to explore. What will it do not his? That's why it throws him so many directions. And if he is at home for six months or 12 months or it could be that he has social problems and he loses his training himself and after that he becomes a criminal himself and defends a not to mention the punishments of let's say that this punishment was right okay no one will create a thing like there is some laboratory some computer that knows that if he stole like this then he deserves a year and a half and if he stole like this then he deserves eight months but we'll leave that The very concept of law, which does not only determine whether a legal system determines what? Who is right and who is wrong, is not serious about judges, there are police officers, it has teeth, the law, and it has punishments. We also talk in the Torah, there are many, many deaths, courts, and kingdoms, and there are many, many types of people. So the legal system, the power of the legal system, it can be to force, it can be to impose punishments, and the world of punishments is a world that is essentially an incorrect world, it is an incorrect world, that is to say, it cannot be correct, it cannot be correct, because never once is a person capable of doing all the calculations that will be carried out on all his circles, all the harms, but he has no choice, he has no choice. Hamat says, praying, the fear of a kingdom with a Solomon, a kingdom that is full of teachers of a kingdom, a man saw life in God, so that means that the legal system has many problems, but it will always have fewer problems than without a legal system, than without a system. There are forms of government. A wise Gentile who loved the people of Israel very much and also helped the people of Israel a lot said, that democracy is the worst form of government except for the minister. That is true, it is a very form of government. Bad. When he saw the other options, he was in World War II, like the British government. When he saw the other options, he said how bad it was. All the speculations. So that's what there is. So the justice system is bad. This justice system is made up of flesh and blood judges who sometimes have such a mood. Sometimes such a mood. And sometimes the hands work on them, sometimes they don't work on them. And sometimes their judgment is like this. And there their judgment is like this. They are human. What is human? As we remember, what are they doing? You wo n't believe it. So, what is a human being? But this is what we have. This is what there is. The justice system is problematic. And if you want to criticize the justice system, you add to the flaws of the justice system. You don't conduct any real inspection. You don't conduct any criticism. Because it is clear that there are endless flaws. It is clear that we are human. It is clear that we don't always know the truth. And there are consequences that we didn't think about. By the way, the justice system is allowed to have a little humility. Because of that, if it remembers, there are judges who remember that they are not the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore not everything is a right judge. Not everything is a right judge. Not everything is a right judge. A person has a lot of things that he doesn't understand and there are a lot of things that shouldn't be interfered with and there are a few other people who understand him. He didn't receive all the property of absolute justice even though he is very, let's say a righteous man, a good and wise man, but it is permissible to say that there are things that are greater than me and in this I don't interfere but this is an issue that has so many implications for now so I won't address it in more than these words I really am he is he is he rules something he knows knows he doesn't know. He knows he doesn't know but he knows that if he doesn't do it then it's much worse. So basically we have a choice here between two between two choices that are problematic and the choice between not establishing a legal system so a legal system if it is infinitely long is because of this one thing fasting is quite convenient not establishing a legal system with all the problems laws is one there fasting on this according to the Ramban the people of Nablus would have been responsible for killing because if not what what what what what I know how to punish Nablus and you will see it is this angle and this angle and it is complex all these stories are not interesting they are very very interesting irrelevant because if I don't enforce a law if I don't punish Life in a nation is life without it, then it's an inserptive catastrophe, a daily catastrophe, then it's impossible to live, and everything is here again, in the mitzvah of Noah, it's something basic and primary. There's no baby who swears by the seven commandments of Noah. There's no such thing. I didn't know. I murdered because I didn't know that the mitzvah of Noah, by the very fact of being a human being, by the very fact of being a G-d, is the most basic morality, and this is problematic. This is a very primary morality. Oh, and alas, life, only God will find a way to save us. There's a thread, thank God, at least with all that the Sages taught us. So there's a legal system here, right, problematic, right, the judge is a human being, and Noah is wrong, and that's okay. So there are limits, and there's an appeal, and there's a possibility, and more or less zero. The cumulative advantage that the legal system is infinitely longer is greater than the cumulative disadvantage. The cumulative advantage that the legal system is infinitely longer is greater than the cumulative disadvantage. The legal system as a whole is not a trial, a trial of mercy. This is what Rabbi Harlap says: a sentence that allows us to live together. We pay heavy prices and it's worth it. I repeat, it's clear that it's worth it. There's a warm name and when I was in captivity, Rabbi Hanin ben Tardion said: Rabbi P. Morea of ​​kingdoms. He doesn't mean kingdoms in David. It doesn't need to be said. It's written in 18. We wholeheartedly believe that your uncle's plant is a energizer. For you, the Yeshiva judges. Already there. He means that you don't live in anarchy. Because anarchy will lead us to hell. With all the best intentions, yes. Who wants us? Who will lead us to Zivad Irahu? Life in the wilderness. Yes. That's a very sharp expression. He doesn't say jungle. You know right? A. All. Maybe he didn't know that there are jungles. But the idea is that he doesn't say jungle. Because in the jungle it's not that bad. In the jungle, no one eats. I'll show you. Not everyone eats everyone all day long. In the jungle, when someone is hungry, they eat. In the jungle, there is life in abundance. There are thousands and thousands of forms of animals. And they all reproduce and live and sometimes they are also eaten. But oh no, but humans are not animals, and therefore humans are. Always hungry and they have envy and lust and honor if non-humans are in the jungle then there will be then there will be a global catastrophe, says Rabbi Hamtuni in the Naflmorah of the kingdoms, how much the police in that country are not exactly good, there are such criminal and evil regimes, we are dealing with some of those where the police are the biggest predator, the police are already you really prefer there is a life-saving, no one could devour so much as the regime, the Iranian police forces for example, but outside of the Bible, such bad police, and there are police, and there are police, so we pay prices, Rabbi Hal ben Radyon knows that the light that we pay prices for, on whom, on Roman police, Babylonian police, on whom is conditional, is in the Land of Israel, it is not exactly who we wanted, yes, but this Roman peace is a very, very painful thing, but it is possible to live within what they called it, Roman peace, we need to say it in Latin, not to taint the word peace for what Rome did throughout its empire, but this is not kindness, this is not a world that kindness will build, this is a completely different world, this is a world in which you pay prices, prices Very heavy Rabbi Halav brings the midrash. You prepare it at the beginning of Parashat A Mishpatim, which is the one that stands behind the entire Sanhedrin tractate. And these are the sentences that fly before them. This is at the end of the Mount Sinai ceremony at the end of Parashat Tov. And these are the sentences that add to the first ones. Then they bring from Abba Amina of Moshe Rabbeinu that in Parashat Mishpatim, it is concerned with the sense of who is the judge. Mainly in the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin is concerned mainly with the property of the judge. There are laws of prohibition and more. There are laws of property law that may also be given. But the Sanhedrin of the Sukkah, as that judge, has a Sanhrin that determines laws. This decides things. We have some things in the chapters, but as a Sanhedrin law, this is a court of law. People also come to it. It is not a lawsuit. There is no drowning or a trickle. So these are the sentences. And it was believed by Moshe Rabbeinu that he would only arrange the laws for them. And the Holy One, blessed be He, says, not as it occurred to you. It occurred to me. It is as long as the Shulchan Aruch. The expression Shulchan Aruch is Rabbi Yosef, called, comes from this midrash. So Rabbi Harlev asks. What is the meaning of the A of Moses our Lord that the Hoshen Mishpat is not studied in detail that the Hoshen Mishpat is only A what we call today the Hoshen Mishpat Yes, that Parashat Mishpatim This part of the Shas Nezikin A did not study in Greek says Rabbi Chalab 20 because in Israeli law and in fact this is how he excuses the A the boundaries of the testimonies that we talked about the entire Sanhedrin Israeli law is a law of grace Israeli law A we learned in the issue of the head tractate of the dayanim are called God. God I say with God because dayanim are accepted. Maimonides explains in the Tree of Knowledge what the snake says and you were as God knows with him and many establish dayanims with power and control He is not the Holy One Blessed be He we call Him but no one can be confused and no one can remember and forget that the word God with God Sometimes we end it with a sesh We are called using the same word using the same word not just using the same word And in the Israeli court the real court is the one that is strict on the laws and that the dayanims be close and close and close to each other A man until Moses our Lord, so then truly the law of God is the law of God, the law of Israel, it is a law that sometimes seems similar and sometimes it seems different, but it is a law of God, the law of God, of course it is a law of mercy, a law of mercy, meaning that I am not the judge, I am not the judge, a judge is not a judge, that is, a judge is a judge, but he is in office, he is in office, I will try to explain. I said before, you take Moses and Aaron, I'm a judge, I'll say okay, the judge sits down and Moses comes, Moses alone, why do you need a coffin? Moshe comes and says something, of course I believe him, but no one cares whether you believe him. why? Because you believe him, but the judge doesn't believe him. What does that mean? But I'm the devil, no no. You play the role of judge and there is a huge difference. If you are the judge, then your mind, your morality, your conscience, and your judgment are the ones that determine. But really, the judge is not just called God because there is God behind it. With the rise of the judge, he enters into a role and this role is given to him. He enters here into the reality of God. He is conducting this discussion. I want to say God with the Holy One, blessed be He. What is I? This is first of all what the Rabbi's standings are different, but for me it is also before him. The Holy One, blessed be He. The Holy One, blessed be He. It is he who judges here. The Holy One, blessed be He. It is he who rules the law and also rules the law. Therefore, the fact that you as a human being believe in him or not is not so important because there are conditions. Not everyone can be a true judge. You have to know the lights. And you have to know the entire Torah. And you have to be a man. Why is there no man? It is not because if I really, as a human being, find out the truth. So, why should it be a man and not a woman? What is a woman? You can say a woman. The feeling is less. But you know, it is very different from everyone and everyone. It is possible to examine things for themselves. The legal system. The Israeli one is going somewhere else from the start, even in our legal system there are the laws of the monarchy. The laws of the monarchy have permission. There is also a permission for the court. A. A temporary order in an exceptional manner to correct something. This is their discretion. There are laws of the king. The king breaks through the king's fence. You learn. Chapter Two on the king. There are fences that are allowed for the king and the king is really a little different. But the Sanhedrin that sits in its ideal. It sits in a tsagzit lashkar and in its ideal it is close to everyone from everyone. And there are some traces and repercussions even in the sea of ​​Rabbi's sorrows. The blanket has disappeared from us for a few years. There is really a divine instruction here and God is telling you that you are now representing something that is the dayan. He actually represents something. It is written. The dayan really needs to exercise his discretion. If a dayan sees that two witnesses are coming and he is sure that they are liars, it is certain that they are lying. But he does not go beyond that. And according to the halacha, two witnesses are not relatives. They testify on the day. They do it while standing. They do not touch anything. So it is the first dayan who judges a case truthfully. That is, like this, a head judge. Truthfully. That means that it is clear that a dayan He has a mind and he needs to use more and more walls and tests and mix it up to get what he feels in his inner intuition to be false but it works. He can't say, "I don't think so, so what if you don't think so, I think something doesn't smell good here." Again, he can ask a private detective to film him at night and he can put him in dilemmas and do a confusing cross-examination. If he really doesn't know something, then we'll get him. He can't tell him. I don't think he can't say it. And the same thing in reverse. I started in reverse. I believe in Moses our Lord. So then you believe in Moses our Lord. No, you decide. God decides. God has given you laws on how to discover His judgment. You don't say what the punishment is, the Torah says what the punishment is. The Torah says what the law is. This is a system that is all in it. A sentence that he lives. A sentence that he lives. This refers to a sentence that is precisely directed towards divine truth. A sentence that says how God determines reality here. So it works completely differently. I'm trying, I hope I can explain. There are requirements for this, as if it were too weak an identity for what I'm trying to bring. So I'm content with bringing them. Let's start with them as if you were doing exercises and your commander now tells you to run and your commander says who is he to tell you to run? Like what, why, why would you listen to his orders? So it's clear it's not he's not your commander giving Trumpkuz he's the role your hyphen gives you when you listen to your hyphen you don't listen they call him what they call him what they call him son it's health it's not him personally if you meet him two days later then you can say a very easy what do you think of a his performance but now he the State of Israel appointed him it's the State of Israel tells you to when you link to your mcb you make it difficult the State of Israel the State of Israel series to be good so hyphen he needs to have links and abilities and ranks and roles and under these conditions in these times he's a good poker I can't tell you that hyphen doesn't involve a consideration of the dish it doesn't belong at all but it's something bigger than him now I'll talk it's just an example I tried to say the judge a needs to use his brain of course but in the end he studies the issue he doesn't say what I think what's worth what the issue says suits him that his partner says like that, doesn't suit him. It's not related at all. It's not me. And in any case, who is accepted as a witness and how is it accepted, when is the testimony accepted? The issue of the division of labor, I understand that most of the audience here has not yet learned. The issue of Palgan Divorah, I'll try to talk about it in a sentence and a half without going into details, is an issue at the level of violence. It's an issue that takes it to the extreme. That this speech segmentation when a witness tells a story and some of the data in the story is not within his authority to say okay, let's say some of the things from the story he touches on are okay, is it possible to segment his speech, meaning to accept only part of his story and not accept part of his story? Simply put, it is very logical if a witness says, " I saw A, Johnny A steal money from this house and this house." The second house is my house. Well, what are you talking about, you're not loyal. The house of the tongue, you are so faithful. This applies to this, there are two testimonies. But if the testimony itself, parts of that testimony itself, cannot be accepted. We'll leave it to you to study the issue for a day and then we'll open it up . That means if you omit a detail, the whole story changes. For example, someone who says, "I'll give an example that's not yet related to the issue, and maybe you can explain it well." Whoever says we walked in the stream and it overflowed cannot say about its banks. Okay, imagine this is just an example. Let's say we say about its banks. He didn't. So we walked. Take off the over the banks. And he did. If you take off the over the banks, that's not something else. It's what was there in the stream. If you walk in the stream and there's a trickle there, you had a nice time. It's such a pleasant trip. But if he walked over the banks and you walked there, then it's a completely different walk. It's a completely different walk. It's not the same story at all. I hope that this time you take out a detail and you change the whole story with the words. We walked in the stream. It's the same story in a branch of speech. There are examples like this. You'll come across them in a little while. They teach in the Gemara that you omit some of the details and then it becomes a completely different story. And then he didn't even mention this story at all. And it's impossible to accept a completely different story. Well, I see that you've really entered an issue that I'll try not to explain at this stage. But some of the passages in the text depend on the opinions of the Gemara and the Rishonim. The branches of this speech are words that, as a Dan, you hear and you don't have the authority to hear. You have no authority to hear them, as if the Torah determines what you are, but to my ears I heard. Your ears, not your ears, are relevant only where the Torah has given power to the ears. The judge has the power to hear, and the judge only hears those who are defined according to the Halacha as of now and those who are not defined according to the Halacha as of now. So this man sitting there hears what he wants, but the divine power that is in him, he has divine power. Of course he has divine power. He has divine power. He fulfills the separation of the congregation. He fulfills it, and there are other parameters, and there are other boundaries. How do I, how do I accept it, and how do I not accept it? What are you hiding behind? The law is not me, just the conduit. The court is God sitting in judgment. God sits in judgment. There is some discussion here that we are guiding the divine order here . And the divine order says that Rabbi Chalab is a sentence that is a kindness. yes. When the Torah decrees the kingdom and when the Torah decrees death for someone, then the Holy One, blessed be He, does all this long calculation. yes. So the Holy One, blessed be He, is like a stone of Tomin, here or not, as His ways are perfect, this sentence is the same sentence. To faith and hope, and to the righteous and upright. So all the consequences, all these butterfly effects, what can I do about it? What am I at my discretion? No, we are not at their discretion. We are at a completely different God's discretion. A consideration of a higher mind. We are at discretion. This is not a consideration. This is me. If I accept, sometimes it is possible to make a different exchange system. Such situations are possible instead. I told you that a temporary injunction is a royal decree. And if there is none, then a human trial is better than a man's. Life is a waste. But the court is what they dream of. Their wives are extinguished. A year is a mess. What the halakha builds for him. What thinker does? A halakha builds for him from a trial like this? You are supposedly letting the divine truth speak. And this is in the sister. This is not to throw responsibility away from us. This is how God leads us. Yes, and the Holy One, blessed be He, says to do something like this to someone. So everything, everything, everything is part of this plan. How will it affect his parents? And what will it affect his wife? And what will it affect his children? And what educational crises will there be? And what will happen to the father? His mother is at home and the family is destroyed? All this is part of a plan that we do not even manage to come to mind. Rabbi Halfat Din explains this. There is a law that is written in such a way that it is really very difficult to understand it logically: those who did not kill are killed, those who killed are not killed, and you did it to him when he plotted to do to his brother like that, the sea is similar in knowledge, and the Gemara is precise when he plotted, not when he did it. This means that if flowing blood testifies about someone who is guilty of the death penalty and they have not yet killed him, then they are killed . If they killed him, then they are not killed. But the heart was killed, they killed him for nothing. Megillah to the Jews killed him and killed him for nothing so how do they say Rabbi Chacham did not kill him for nothing because if according to the law the witnesses were required the court should have accepted the testimony of the witnesses who were drugged he carried out all the tests and investigations and he treated them exactly like this and that's how it came out so he then he had to this is part of the divine reckoning the divine reckoning God God brings everything this is God well bless God for this is God God knows even if the echoes this is then you are a regular court what mistake did we make what did they kill and what how can you be yes they killed because that's how it should have been that's how it should have been or the Gemara instead tells the covenant about two who happened to meet one Pek was a murderer on purpose that no one caught him and he was a murderer and they invited him to one inn the Holy One blessed be He says that the one who falls from him will fall on the top of the hill that should have fallen but I am now saying the covenant with blows that the murderer accidentally goes up the stairs and then you put the step under him he falls and hits the murderer with his body On purpose, this is all part of such calculations. I am the one who rules for him, but he is not. This is all part. There is a law of God here. The law of the Holy One, blessed be He. Law is kindness and kindness is law. We do not recognize it. We do not understand it. There is a system here that when we approach it, we study it. We assign it. So it was. Then we recognize that we are A and seven again. Already from the beginning, then we mention it. And we make a mistake. This removes from us a mistake. What removes is that we allow or pray that we may merit the bitter in our people. That kindness that divine leadership flows through the laws. Blessing. We stand before the divine will and not just get along together. And when we get along together, zero. This is all. This is all on the surface. To begin with, it is all a default. This is bad. Only otherwise. It is much worse. So let's accept the Rebbe from him. So a life in which there is law. A Rebbe from him is a life in which there is much, The settlement to renew the blanket to renew the legal system There is a rabbi here that this is not it is not whether according to the law or not according to the law that this is very serious whether it is or not according to the law it is much more than that because it is according to the law it is not just more moral it is divine you are standing here something flows in us something greater than us it sees here some completely different calculation Rabbi Chalab wants to explain according to this the Mekhilta that we mentioned earlier at the beginning of Parashat A Mishpatim Moses our rabbi has Abamin not to explain not to explain take the sense that a law and say in it only the rulings of the laws not to enter not to build such a Torah that by virtue of it there is in it Bekam suggests Bavit Masand beatings and oaths that enter the types of why because there is such a danger like this he says in Bamina that if we study it in depth then then we will try to understand correctly you have no profession in the Torah that who wants to legislate will engage in the sons of the monotheists like this Mastensen the right wants to legislate will engage in the sons of the monotheists and wants to make of it Shemesh Shimon ben Sa Bebot that in whatever he is he brings it closer to the mind we do not guess Sanhedrin this is more The legal system, but we will learn by finding it, with the help of God, there are a lot of things there that look like human beliefs. Two contracts are void. This means that there is something in it. Less than half. Less than half. What is Torah? This is the rabbinic logic. The logic of the sages. I try. Rabbi Chalav, if I understood him, says there in the introduction to the book that when you explain, if Moses explains, then there is a fear that people will act according to their own geo. They will actually be convinced and say, "Oh, that makes sense." And then the legal system, the Israeli legal system, the Sandarana system, there is something from the beginning. Moses says, "We don't understand like that. We don't let God speak. We do n't understand. We let the Holy One, blessed be He, speak about us." And the Holy One, blessed be He, says to Moses, "Not as you asked, "In your opinion, but in my opinion." What is meant? The meaning is that we understand. We certainly understand and strive, and we always understand that we don't understand. That is to say, we always understand that in our understanding, in our entire approach, every encounter with the Queen of Law, there is something much more hidden there, something divine. We are not our identification. Our understanding is an understanding that is all humility. This is very reminiscent of what we ask several times in Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in ​​the book of the Kozari, which I really hope to explain the reasons for the commandments. The work of the sacrifices and the arrangement of the tabernacle. He goes into great detail. You see that he worked on it for a long time and how he compares the entire tabernacle to one living and active organism. And at the end he says, after all this, I don't say that things are explained in such a way that they are elevated to infinity. So why did you explain it? If you don't say that, if you say that the commandments are secrets that cannot be understood, you explained that the reasons for the commandments are for the hip. We will meet with the human tools that we have in the worlds that are for these and not for any deception and deceit in the worlds of secrecy in the worlds of holiness. And you really meet and live them in the Tana that has the humility in you to understand that you walk here as something and you live it, but it is much deeper. It is not a lie, it is true, but it is much deeper. When we approach the law, we remember that it is a law of grace, which is a law that arranges much, much beyond this specific and specific event. There is such a court, when he deserves to sit in a gas chamber at all, I will only have that the Torah court system strives to be there. You know that the poskim have come out very, very harshly against those who go to court, they have the option, those who don't have the option and want to save themselves from the hands of the robbers, and the only thing that is left is emptying. So okay, but those who have the option to go to court and they go to court, don't add them to the Mishnah. A teacher says, "This is not a very righteous case. He is very strict. He is very strict. There is a case. He is acting against the divine guidance here in the world. On the truth, on the law, and on peace. The world exists as the Ten Commandments say at the end of the chapter in the chapter. This is about the law. On Israeli law. This is not a man of life. It is not to get along. To get along. Of course, the divine order of the Maharal is for us to deserve to live in worlds that are a world of grace, of purity, of a divine eye that takes everything into account. The divine eye can see how everything walks through these fences to the divine truth. We will deserve, with the help of God, a place where Zion will be redeemed in justice and salvation in righteousness. Yes.