Latest / The Mishlei Podcast / Mishlei 26:4-5 - To Answer or Not to Answer a Fool According to His Foolishness (Part 2)

Transcript

Mishlei 26:4-5 - To Answer or Not to Answer a Fool According to His Foolishness (Part 2) · The Mishlei Podcast

• 0:21
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, we are back to Mishle 26, 4 through 5.
• 0:25
  SPEAKER_06: Uh sukim are Al Ta'an Ksielki Vato Pentishfe Logam Ata.
• 0:31
  SPEAKER_06: Uh don't answer a fool according to or like his foolishness, lest you two be acquainted with him.
• 0:37
  SPEAKER_06: And then aneksiokato penihakame.
• 0:40
  SPEAKER_06: Answer a fool according to his foolishness or like his foolishness, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
• 0:44
  SPEAKER_06: Um and then the only other like radically different translation we had radically was the Targum, right?
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_06: Uh do not raise a word to the fool according to his folly so that you will not resemble him.
• 0:53
  SPEAKER_06: Uh you two.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_06: Rather speak with the foolish one with your wisdom so that he will not think to himself that he's wise.
• 0:59
  SPEAKER_06: So those are two modifications uh inserting Ella and inserted or replacing uh Ivalto with um with your wisdom.
• 1:07
  SPEAKER_06: Right.
• 1:07
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_06: All right.
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_06: Our questions, which I think we missed a question, by the way.
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_06: Um so first question, main question is a stira, how do we resolve it?
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_06: Um, or ostensible, an ostensible stira.
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, how does each puzzle apply?
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_06: Sorry, does each post apply to a different scenario or are both meant to address the same scenario?
• 1:24
  SPEAKER_06: Uh two, are the consequences meant to be read in the same vein?
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_06: Meaning, do we care about them for the same reason?
• 1:31
  SPEAKER_06: Three, what do we make of the fact that the Psukum are written uh or editorially uh paired to present as a stira, like educationally or pedagogically, whatever what is that?
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_06: Um four, what is added by the gamata?
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_06: Seems like you're it would just be sufficient to say petishvelo.
• 1:46
  SPEAKER_06: Five, regarding the tishvelo, in what sense would you be equated to him?
• 1:49
  SPEAKER_06: Six, uh, is this equation objective or a perception only?
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_06: And if it's the latter, who is doing this equating?
• 1:55
  SPEAKER_06: Seven, what does the Xiel, what did the Xil say to you or to someone else, or say in general that you're responding to?
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_06: Eight, what's the evelis of the KXIL?
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_06: Nine, practically speaking, what does it mean to answer the kivalto?
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_06: Um is what is the is it like?
• 2:11
  SPEAKER_06: Is it in accordance with?
• 2:13
  SPEAKER_06: Is it something else?
• 2:14
  SPEAKER_06: Um, what are you saying that is ki evalto?
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_06: 10.
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_06: What's the alternative to uh Ania kivalto?
• 2:20
  SPEAKER_06: Is it not answering him at all or is it answering him in a different way?
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_06: 11, why should we care about how the Xil thinks of himself?
• 2:25
  SPEAKER_06: Let him think he's a Khaham.
• 2:26
  SPEAKER_06: Moreover, isn't this his default state?
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_06: It's not like he didn't think of himself as a chahum, and now because you didn't answer him, he thinks of himself that way.
• 2:32
  SPEAKER_06: Uh moreover, if you do respond to him, what will that change the way he sees himself?
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_06: 12, who cares?
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_06: Is there a consequence to you?
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_06: I guess we said that already.
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_06: Uh is there, I'll just say, is there a consequence to you?
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_06: Oh, just emergent.
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, or do we care about the consequences to him or others?
• 2:50
  SPEAKER_06: 12, is there a positive result in this Mishleague decision, or is it all about damage control in some way?
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_06: 13, what's the subject of the Pusuk?
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_06: Um, is this about education or about dealing with fools or about training a fool or about dealing with perceptions or something else?
• 3:02
  SPEAKER_06: And then 14, how does the does the local cluster affect our reading and how?
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_06: Um question we missed is on the Gemara uh, or uh I saw it from the the Rashi on the Gemara.
• 3:13
  SPEAKER_06: So we'll just reread the Gemara because we'll focus on it today.
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_06: So it says for Mishlay Bikshu Lignos, Shayud Devar Sosun says that um the they wanted to put Mishlay and Geniza because its words contradict one another.
• 3:23
  SPEAKER_06: We've made Lokanazuhu.
• 3:25
  SPEAKER_06: Why do they not put in Kniza?
• 3:27
  SPEAKER_06: Imri Amri Seper Kohellas love aininan vashkahin taima.
• 3:31
  SPEAKER_06: Uh didn't we look into kohalas and find a uh rationale?
• 3:34
  SPEAKER_06: Hakanami uh here too you should look into it.
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_06: My dev source is altanksil kivato, aneksio ki vato.
• 3:44
  SPEAKER_06: So that's the stira loka hab divertora habila de alma.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_06: So look at rashi there.
• 3:49
  SPEAKER_06: Uh rashi says b diritora mutter la anos kiivato, right?
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_06: So the question that we missed was um uh let's say uh does um an eh mean you should or you may uh and either way, why?
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah.
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so let's review our approaches.
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_06: So we had basically one overarching approach, but um with nuances.
• 4:29
  SPEAKER_06: Um half remembered from Rebbe, right?
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_06: So Ke Ivalto, we were assuming is um in his foolish framework.
• 4:38
  SPEAKER_06: And we were saying that the the scenario is the seal it has or is posing a difficulty with Torah, but it's stemming from the distorted framework.
• 4:49
  SPEAKER_06: Um so now the question is what do you do?
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_06: Because if you um engage him, uh sorry, if you tell him the truth, he's not gonna be able to get it because he has a distorted framework, like straight up true, right?
• 5:05
  SPEAKER_06: So so then you should answer within his framework.
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_06: But if you answer within his framework, that might lead him or others to think that you're endorsing the framework.
• 5:13
  SPEAKER_06: Um, so that's not gonna work out, um, especially if it's gonna lead to a distortion.
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_06: Uh so then maybe you should um am I missing something?
• 5:24
  SPEAKER_06: Shouldn't within the framework?
• 5:26
  SPEAKER_06: I was trying to do it without reading.
• 5:28
  SPEAKER_06: Uh oh, no, those are the two, right?
• 5:31
  SPEAKER_06: That's the dilemma.
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_06: Right.
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_06: So then now the question is what should you do?
• 5:34
  SPEAKER_06: So we're saying that it's not a clear-cut case what you should and shouldn't do.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_06: There are two different priorities.
• 5:40
  SPEAKER_06: There's like correcting, um I guess there's like uh um disabusing him of his foolish notion or his view that he's wise.
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_06: Um, yeah, we said public perception.
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_06: Right.
• 5:59
  unknown: Right.
• 5:59
  SPEAKER_06: So in other words, Shlomo's telling you the the two factors to consider.
• 6:03
  SPEAKER_06: The the on the one hand, this guy's gonna think that he's right.
• 6:07
  SPEAKER_06: Um, and uh on the other hand, you might be perceived as being in his category.
• 6:14
  SPEAKER_06: So you have to weigh these things.
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_06: Uh and he's expressing as a steer to show that you can't just make a one-size-fits-all posse.
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_06: So similarly, not exactly, but uh Charlie Foyer sent me this on WhatsApp.
• 6:23
  SPEAKER_06: So here's his uh uh explanation.
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_06: So he says uh the puzzle is highlighting the inherent contradiction of talking with a fool.
• 6:29
  SPEAKER_06: So PUSC for if you talk to a fool inside of his framework, your debate will make no sense because you will essentially be operating in two different realities.
• 6:37
  SPEAKER_06: While this isn't inherently consequential to either of your actual beliefs, you will both end up looking like idiots to anyone watching from the outside.
• 6:43
  SPEAKER_06: The added phrase Gamata emphasizes that by by playing by his rules, you're not only compared to him, but you become an active participant in his delusion, dragging yourself down to his level.
• 6:52
  SPEAKER_06: We'll see that uh some of the Mufars who say this.
• 6:54
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, consequence on you and audience driven by the perception of others.
• 6:57
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so that I think is most similar to what we said.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_06: Um, I think he might be taking a slightly different um or broader view of like uh in his framework.
• 7:05
  SPEAKER_06: We were speaking in his emotional framework, but we'll see how this goes.
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, five, you might think that talking to a fool in a way that he connects with um is the proper thing to do so that he might listen to you, but doing so actually feeds the fundamental problem with the Xil.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_06: So this is the part I like the most.
• 7:19
  SPEAKER_06: The Xil's core flaw uh is that he expects reality to bend his will, uh, that his choices will always lead to the best result, and that reality doesn't apply to him.
• 7:28
  SPEAKER_06: That's my working definition of Xil from Sadiqon, which I think we referenced earlier this year.
• 7:32
  SPEAKER_06: So by trying to convince a XEL within his own framework, even if you manage to get him to make one good decision, you haven't fixed his flaw.
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_06: Worse, because you accommodated his framework, validating it, he takes it as confirmation that his worldview works, making him even more wise in his own eyes.
• 7:48
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, consequence on the fool driven by his internal perception.
• 7:50
  SPEAKER_06: So, what should you do?
• 7:51
  SPEAKER_06: The psucum are guiding you through a catchbone.
• 7:52
  SPEAKER_06: So similar to what we said first, what's the goal with this conversation?
• 7:55
  SPEAKER_06: Is it to protect the truth/slash audience, or is it to dismantle the Xil's framework?
• 7:59
  SPEAKER_06: If you're trying to protect the audience, then you should reject his framework very obviously.
• 8:03
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, but if you are maybe in a more private setting, if you are maybe in a more private setting, it may be appropriate to show the Xil the error of his ways.
• 8:11
  SPEAKER_06: Uh these are all very rough cases, but the idea of the cut room makes sense.
• 8:13
  SPEAKER_06: So the thing I like the most about this is I don't think we, I think we were just taking Xil in a much more generic sense.
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_06: But Charlie's pointing out that the Casil's fundamental flaw is he bent everything to his desire and his mind.
• 8:28
  SPEAKER_06: And so you're not actually changing him.
• 8:30
  SPEAKER_06: And I think the reason why that's important to say is because I think that when we respond to a Xil, there is often this feeling that we're gonna like not just correct a particular idea, but like now he's gonna be someone who's reasonable, you know.
• 8:41
  SPEAKER_06: But like you have to realize that that's not even in the cards, you know.
• 8:44
  SPEAKER_06: Um, and also I think we did not account for why he put things into his framework.
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_06: I think we were treating it as though um like he's just operating under a different value system, and maybe it's a foolish value system, but not that he has a mishlayc flaw that mangles everything that goes into it.
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_06: So I thought that that was just a good like angle to approach it with.
• 9:05
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, any other uh approaches before we go into the um forgive?
• 9:09
  SPEAKER_06: Uh that was Charlie Floyer uh who sent me.
• 9:11
  SPEAKER_06: Uh I think his system is that he listens to the shear and then gives his own uh thing in uh in Mixal.
• 9:17
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, Isaiah.
• 9:19
  SPEAKER_03: I didn't have like a full approach, but I had a thought about a different maybe it was a different way to resolve the contradiction.
• 9:25
  SPEAKER_03: Sure.
• 9:26
  SPEAKER_03: Which would which would be like um maybe it's talking about like you have these two basically two equal negative consequences, so you're kind of stuck with whatever you uh like could do.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_03: Uh so there's two different scenarios that they apply in.
• 9:46
  SPEAKER_03: Like if you're in a public setting, so then you should maybe not talk to him because it's gonna have a public like outcome.
• 9:55
  SPEAKER_03: But if you're in private, then you can't then you like uh can talk to him because then there's no then that doesn't apply.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_03: I thought that was like like a simple like you have both of these negative consequences, but you can take the situation to dictate what you should do.
• 13:12
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, it's picking up.
• 13:14
  SPEAKER_04: Oh, and now now I'm hearing you.
• 13:15
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, okay.
• 13:17
  SPEAKER_06: All right.
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_06: Um okay.
• 13:19
  SPEAKER_06: I'm gonna reread this just because in case the audio didn't record.
• 13:22
  SPEAKER_04: So Al Tashi was I think it was uh since Isaiah's question.
• 13:26
  SPEAKER_06: Since Isaiah's question.
• 13:30
  SPEAKER_04: I haven't been able to hear anything since then.
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_06: Oh.
• 13:34
  SPEAKER_06: All right.
• 13:34
  SPEAKER_06: Um okay, so I'm not gonna go back and say that.
• 13:37
  SPEAKER_06: All right.
• 13:38
  SPEAKER_06: Altan uh, I'll have to check the audio and see if it recorded.
• 13:42
  SPEAKER_06: Um what any predictions?
• 13:46
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 13:46
  SPEAKER_06: No, you think it didn't record?
• 13:48
  SPEAKER_04: I think not.
• 13:48
  SPEAKER_04: I was texting with Isaiah, he wasn't hearing you either.
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_06: So no, no, I know that.
• 13:51
  SPEAKER_06: I'm saying though that the audio settings uh seem to be picking up here, but whatever.
• 13:55
  SPEAKER_06: Anyway, all right.
• 13:56
  SPEAKER_06: Um Al Tashiv Laksiel Kashi Debrivelis Pedri Riv Umatza, ki Keshitashiv Toma lobe ine hashomim ki inhapers being mama rechalama rav, vihashbu gam oska lixil kamohu, kibavata, lhashbu sha nam lakamim, king der kha khomim lees kota debizah.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_06: So don't respond to the kxil when he speaks foolishness in matters of strife and contention, because when you respond, you'll be like him in the eyes of the listeners, because there's no difference between your statements and his statements, and they'll also think of you as a kceal like him, because it's certainly not the way of Kahamim to fight with each other.
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_06: Um, sorry, certainly they will not think of uh both of you as kahomim because it's not the way for coming to fight with each other.
• 14:31
  SPEAKER_06: The kiter kasov lo pirish lomar bdiv rivu mata, this is a key point.
• 14:35
  SPEAKER_06: Kimisov ha mikra yuvan sho bdivri uh uh badavar should divish name domin.
• 14:41
  SPEAKER_06: So he says the puzzle was concise and did not explicitly state that this is in matters of riv and mata, because from the end of the mikra, it is understood, uh, or you can like infer that it's talking about a matter in which the words of both of them are the same.
• 14:56
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so this is not a consequence.
• 14:58
  SPEAKER_06: I mean, it is a consequence, but the purpose he's saying, in other words, like I think he's taking the gumara literally, um uh uh l'in, right?
• 15:08
  SPEAKER_06: Uh look into like analyze them, and you'll see from the pasuk the con uh you know what what the uh what the the resolution is.
• 15:17
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, let's look at the next one.
• 15:18
  SPEAKER_06: Oops sorry, let's look at the next one just so we can get the full picture here.
• 15:21
  SPEAKER_06: Ane, so hashav to suva lxil kasheri dabr i valto bidavar hatora.
• 15:28
  SPEAKER_06: Um so you should respond to the seal um when he speaks his foolishness in a matter of the Torah.
• 15:37
  SPEAKER_06: And you should show him his error, ki pen yahuzik atomolcham, lest he um uh consider himself to be, or lest he like uh, you know, uh pose as a marshal matasa maana, because he'll say, if you don't respond, he'll say that you didn't find an answer.
• 15:56
  SPEAKER_06: Um yeah.
• 15:58
  SPEAKER_06: Um therefore you should answer him, and you will not be considered like him.
• 16:07
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, because everyone will see that your word, sorry, that his words are foolishness and your words are uh stated with intelligence.
• 16:17
  SPEAKER_06: And um and it was concise here because uh it's understandable on its own uh from the end of the micra.
• 16:23
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 16:26
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, that's what he's trying to say.
• 16:27
  SPEAKER_06: He's trying to say that you can derive from Hentishville Gamata that if this is in an area where you will be equated with him, then that's when you shouldn't answer him.
• 16:39
  SPEAKER_06: And what area you're gonna be equated with him is if you're engaged in some sort of uh again, we have to define that, but like either he calls it debris rev, the Gummar calls it uh uh uh um devarim bah alma, right?
• 16:50
  SPEAKER_06: What was the lashan?
• 16:52
  SPEAKER_06: Mila Dalma, right?
• 16:53
  SPEAKER_06: In in just uh Stam uh areas.
• 16:56
  SPEAKER_06: But if it's in a matter that you will not be equated to him, which is with a matter of Torah, where people will see that his words are foolish and your words are wise, so then you should respond to him.
• 17:09
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so I think that's like a different move.
• 17:11
  SPEAKER_06: I just want to read a couple more and then we'll we'll see how we want to take it here.
• 17:14
  SPEAKER_06: Um who else?
• 17:15
  SPEAKER_06: So Rashi here.
• 17:17
  SPEAKER_06: There's I think there's one thing I like in Rashi.
• 17:19
  SPEAKER_06: Al Tang Xio Bidibri Rivumata, Pantishra Lok.
• 17:22
  SPEAKER_06: Uh so it's likely to lose his dub who was getting it here.
• 17:25
  SPEAKER_06: Anixio, Habala Hasiskal Avodozara.
• 17:27
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so score for Rabbi Zimmer, right?
• 17:29
  SPEAKER_06: Um, that uh uh or he would say minus, but uh um coming uh so uh Xio who's coming to seduce you to a vodazara, but oh yeah, yeah.
• 17:41
  SPEAKER_06: Uh and make known to him his foolishness lest he uh be a chakhim in his eyes.
• 17:47
  SPEAKER_06: The um reason or the explanation of both the psukim is uh explicit from within them.
• 17:53
  SPEAKER_06: Alta'an bidavar shatishvi logan uh imtanehu.
• 17:58
  SPEAKER_06: So don't answer him in a matter in which you will be acquainted with him if you answer him.
• 18:06
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so it's an elegant way to read the psukim here.
• 18:08
  SPEAKER_06: Um I think I want to do the immanu haromi.
• 18:11
  SPEAKER_06: Um the first part of the immanu haromi, who's not in your thing.
• 18:14
  SPEAKER_06: Um we might have to, I might be mistaken.
• 18:18
  SPEAKER_06: This Amar Ainroi Likalanos El Haishaksiel Kfi Divre Ha Ivelashiomar, who bafiha, uh, rock tanihoso shiomar lifi ivalso via tatish arbakakhmasaka, lo ta'anehu, kfi mashi iskaiv evelashiane vanasan uh uh uh uh shiane.
• 18:37
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, I think this is the one.
• 18:38
  SPEAKER_06: So he says, uh, it's not proper for you to respond to a foolish person uh in accordance with the words of his foolishness that he says um with his mouth.
• 18:46
  SPEAKER_06: Just leave him uh to speak according to his foolishness, and you remain with your khakma.
• 18:51
  SPEAKER_06: Funny way to say it.
• 18:52
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, and don't answer him according to what uh his evelis requires that you answer.
• 19:07
  SPEAKER_06: Maybe this is different.
• 19:08
  SPEAKER_06: Maybe I'm misremembering.
• 19:10
  SPEAKER_06: Meaning to say, well, we'll read it anyway.
• 19:11
  SPEAKER_06: He's he began to speak uh words of foolishness to you.
• 19:17
  SPEAKER_06: Sorry, it is.
• 19:20
  SPEAKER_06: I think he means his foolishness is what prompted him to speak words of foolishness against you.
• 19:30
  SPEAKER_06: And his foolishness is what caused you to speak these words, or caused him to speak these words.
• 19:37
  SPEAKER_06: And it's not a derekh of chahma to respond to the words of aksil.
• 19:46
  SPEAKER_06: Therefore, if you respond to him um on words that were said in a manner of foolishness, you will be equated to him in foolishness.
• 19:56
  SPEAKER_06: Oh no, sorry, sorry.
• 19:57
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, I mixed up.
• 19:58
  SPEAKER_06: This is this is going according to the Targum.
• 20:00
  SPEAKER_06: So was it the raw bog?
• 20:01
  SPEAKER_06: Uh let me just look at the raw bog.
• 20:03
  SPEAKER_06: I'm gonna use the Taurus Klein raw bug.
• 20:04
  SPEAKER_06: By the way, I found out there's two, there are two, uh, there are good and bad raw bogs on Nishlei.
• 20:08
  SPEAKER_06: Um apparently the MG Keter one is good.
• 20:11
  SPEAKER_06: Um, and I'm assuming that the Taurus Klein one is good.
• 20:14
  SPEAKER_06: Let's see.
• 20:15
  SPEAKER_06: Um Gears of Wise, yeah.
• 20:18
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, like there's mistakes that I found.
• 20:20
  SPEAKER_06: Um okay, I'll try this out and see if this is.
• 20:35
  SPEAKER_06: Um okay, let me do Sadugon.
• 20:40
  SPEAKER_06: Uh the Pirush, not the one in your thing.
• 20:43
  SPEAKER_06: Uh Sadugon Pirush.
• 20:45
  SPEAKER_06: Uh, we can hide the Arabic now.
• 20:48
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 20:49
  SPEAKER_06: Um, and if we don't get this, we'll just uh read it.
• 20:52
  SPEAKER_06: Um, we'll just work on our own.
• 20:54
  SPEAKER_06: Umak es hash elos fathuashne khalakum.
• 20:58
  SPEAKER_06: So uh Shlomo divided the questions and responses into two uh categories.
• 21:02
  SPEAKER_06: Harishon biane ha hamon.
• 21:05
  SPEAKER_06: I think this is it.
• 21:06
  SPEAKER_06: First one is in matters of the masses, um second is in the eyes of the of uh the uh elite, I guess, right?
• 21:16
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so he's not exactly saying to Vitora and Vilaid Alma, but I think it's a similar categorization.
• 21:26
  SPEAKER_06: If a fool goes out against you in worldly matters with insults or or uh um, you know, whatever, insult and mockery.
• 21:37
  SPEAKER_06: Altanehu Aqak, don't respond to him uh on this.
• 21:40
  SPEAKER_06: Pentish velo v tichnas kyotze lama shaata misnaged lao.
• 21:46
  SPEAKER_06: I don't know exactly what it means there, but don't respond to him about this lest you be acquitted to him and you enter into things like what he's opposing you with.
• 21:59
  SPEAKER_06: But if he goes out against you in matters of your religion, and he is like being doubtful or skeptical about your emuna, oh uh uh the mitzvos hashmayos, or if he's like arguing with you about the received mitzvos, meaning uh hukim, and answer him.
• 22:20
  SPEAKER_06: Kadeshalo.
• 22:23
  SPEAKER_06: I can never count.
• 22:24
  SPEAKER_06: Shieshlohochha Vishbar of MS.
• 22:27
  SPEAKER_06: So that he doesn't imagine that he has a proof and that his words are true.
• 22:30
  SPEAKER_06: Minusah Shneha Psukim Yisbaras Inam Sosum Z.
• 22:33
  SPEAKER_06: So that's a similar move.
• 22:34
  SPEAKER_06: From the formulation of the two Psukim, it's clear that they don't contradict one another.
• 22:38
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 22:38
  SPEAKER_06: So let's let's just uh house our uh minds in the Matsuda stuff because I think that's the most explicit one here.
• 22:44
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, so what is um so what is he uh what what's the idea?
• 22:50
  SPEAKER_06: Let me put them both on the screen.
• 22:52
  SPEAKER_06: Can I do it like that?
• 22:53
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah.
• 22:58
  SPEAKER_06: And what are the parameters of the Divre Revumata?
• 23:01
  SPEAKER_06: Because it's not like the only two categories in the world are divre torah and then rev um umata.
• 23:06
  SPEAKER_06: Like what about stuff that's just like nonsense or whatever?
• 23:11
  SPEAKER_06: Also, it's weird that that um divrivumata seems to be more tied to the motive, like the what he's trying to do, like he's trying to fight with you.
• 23:22
  SPEAKER_06: Like he says in Derek Al Kachim, he's coted Zebizer, whereas uh Dvar Torah would seem to be about the content.
• 23:32
  SPEAKER_06: So now let's say he tries to insult you in a matter that is a Dvar Torah.
• 23:37
  SPEAKER_06: So do you respond because you have to correct Torah, or do you not respond because now you're being dragged into an ego battle that's gonna look make people think that you're uh you're foolish?
• 23:50
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, Isaac.
• 23:53
  SPEAKER_04: I'd say there's uh there's two axes here.
• 23:58
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 23:59
  SPEAKER_06: There's I was by the way, I was gonna try to design a matrix uh to like so.
• 24:04
  SPEAKER_06: If anyone wants to do that, then go ahead.
• 24:05
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah.
• 24:06
  SPEAKER_04: Yeah.
• 24:06
  SPEAKER_04: So I'd say there's MS and Shechair and Toverah.
• 24:10
  SPEAKER_04: Ooh.
• 24:10
  SPEAKER_04: Yeah.
• 24:11
  SPEAKER_04: Classic.
• 24:13
  SPEAKER_04: So um insofar as he's insofar as the argument is about um Tovera in in the in the sense of like um a person's feelings of good and bad.
• 24:31
  SPEAKER_04: Um I and uh that's like yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 24:37
  SPEAKER_04: Um then it's saying don't don't engage with him.
• 24:43
  SPEAKER_04: Um and like, you know, even though um you know theoretically the the content of what you're arguing about is about you know you're you're not uh you know you're not explicitly arguing about emotions, you know, you're arguing about whatever you know, whatever it is that the conversation is about.
• 25:02
  SPEAKER_04: I I um um still if um if the axis in which the conversation is going to really be about is about um you know um really subjective as opposed then um then you should not engage.
• 25:23
  SPEAKER_04: But when um when the results of the conversation will have like a clearly proven um true and false, then that's uh you know that's what that's when you should engage.
• 25:39
  SPEAKER_04: And I think the primary example of that is Torah.
• 25:43
  SPEAKER_04: Um because there there is um like more like clear true and false in in Torah, as opposed to some other things.
• 25:53
  SPEAKER_04: There's more it's it can be a little bit more muddy.
• 25:57
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, I I like the move that you're making, but I'm not sure I uh see the full implications or see the clearly.
• 26:04
  SPEAKER_06: So let me say what you're saying, uh according to what I understand, and we'll we'll develop it.
• 26:09
  SPEAKER_06: So um so Isaac's referring to the Romans categories in the Morning Book of 1, 2, about the eighth of Ra and the um the general distinction there is that there's the world of objective um truth, um, true and false, and then there's your subjective values where you define something as good or bad based on your your emotions, basically.
• 26:34
  SPEAKER_06: Um, and so so Isaac's saying that the the die the the diagnosis of the Gemara is uh suggesting here is are we engaged in a discussion about matters of Emerson Shakira, or are we engaged in a subjective debate or debate that's being governed by these sub these subjective values?
• 26:56
  SPEAKER_06: So let's say let's take an example that we said yesterday about the feminism thing, right?
• 27:01
  SPEAKER_06: So you could engage in the same topic about, let's say, for example, the Brahma Shalosan Isha, right?
• 27:07
  SPEAKER_06: Um, and you could have someone who is trying to understand what is the idea of that Shabach, and um what does it imply about the status of women versus men in Judaism?
• 27:26
  SPEAKER_06: So that would be an Emerson checker type framework.
• 27:28
  SPEAKER_06: But then you could have someone who is ostensibly asking those same questions, but what's motivating them is I don't like this and therefore it is wrong, you know?
• 27:40
  SPEAKER_06: Uh or um or I want it to be XYZ and I'm arguing because I refuse to accept the reality.
• 27:48
  SPEAKER_06: So that's like a very KSEA type uh framework there, right?
• 27:51
  SPEAKER_06: Um, so that's as far okay.
• 27:53
  SPEAKER_06: So so those are the two ways to say it.
• 27:55
  SPEAKER_06: Now, Isaac, how would uh this is maybe this is where I'm getting uh uh um tripped up here.
• 28:01
  SPEAKER_06: What so you so you are you saying that if the seal engages you in the subjective way, so then even though it's about a Devar Torah, you should not respond because then you are going to be because of why is it first of all, is that what you're saying?
• 28:19
  SPEAKER_06: Like in a case, in other words, like if the mode of the argument is in the realm of the subjective, so that's possible, and if it's in the realm of the objective, then you should answer.
• 28:29
  SPEAKER_06: Uh what's how would you say you should do that?
• 28:32
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah.
• 28:33
  SPEAKER_04: So I think um the the conclusion of what I'm saying is that um if it's in this like what you just said, that if it's in the subjective, you should not answer it.
• 28:44
  SPEAKER_04: If it's objective, you should.
• 28:46
  SPEAKER_04: Um I don't feel I feel like it doesn't fit exactly with um with what the Matusa Dovit is saying because it's yeah.
• 28:54
  SPEAKER_06: And I I to be clear, I don't know if the Matudis Dovit is answering that case.
• 28:58
  SPEAKER_06: It seems to be saying like uh yeah, yeah.
• 29:02
  SPEAKER_04: I mean I I think it also it might also depend on whether the argument that he's making is primarily emotional or primary like if it's revocation.
• 29:14
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, the this is the question here, just um um in terms of reading, uh the way he reads, it's like there's two completely separate categories of um of uh of of argument.
• 29:29
  SPEAKER_06: And the way we were reading, there could be an overlap case.
• 29:33
  SPEAKER_06: So the question is, is he also allowing for an overlap case or is it as binary as he suggests?
• 29:40
  SPEAKER_06: You know, and it it it's not a fault in him if he if it's being presented in a binary way, because that's how the system presented, and that's how Michelet works.
• 29:46
  SPEAKER_06: But like I feel like those are that's a crossroads about how we were gonna take what he's uh what he's saying here.
• 29:52
  SPEAKER_04: Yeah, so I'm inclined to say that there is an overlap case and he's presenting the extremes, and then when there's an overlap, you have to navigate the weight of these two factors.
• 30:04
  SPEAKER_06: Right, right.
• 30:05
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, all right.
• 30:06
  SPEAKER_06: So let's Sideburner.
• 30:08
  SPEAKER_06: Uh I'm gonna call on Ellie.
• 30:12
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, uh kind of just building off what Isaac said, um, it's like when you're talking with someone who has like a really, I guess, foolish take.
• 30:20
  SPEAKER_00: Uh like it's like speaking with someone who's uh like let's say a political advocate versus a political agitator, like someone who's regardless of whether like it could be equally as foolish, but there's someone who's more willing to listen to what you have to say, even if it's not gonna change their perspectives, yeah, as opposed to someone who's really trying to get an emotional reaction out of you or a group of people.
• 30:42
  SPEAKER_00: Um I I question though if Casil, like our definition could fit both of those categories.
• 30:49
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, you know what, I'll tell you what I'm realizing.
• 30:51
  SPEAKER_06: Um just uh I don't know what you said that triggered this, but did he wait a minute, did he say the Keruf?
• 30:59
  SPEAKER_06: No, that was someone else.
• 31:06
  SPEAKER_05: No.
• 31:08
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, because see the other approach here is that the actual content of his words is different, right?
• 31:20
  SPEAKER_06: That like it depends on what you mean by like der Hakam and Lehis Kotet Zebaza.
• 31:25
  SPEAKER_06: And who who used uh the Heruf and Giduf that we read?
• 31:28
  SPEAKER_06: I I'm I'm now I'm confusing myself.
• 31:30
  SPEAKER_06: Is that Emmanuel Rome?
• 31:31
  SPEAKER_06: If it is, then no, it wasn't Raji.
• 31:41
  SPEAKER_06: Yes, right.
• 31:43
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, see that that's another approach you could take that the uh key valto is the actual like content of his uh the actual like um with the way that he's talking, right?
• 31:58
  SPEAKER_06: Like he's he's just insulting you and mocking you, and then this is telling you, should you insult and mock in return or not?
• 32:09
  SPEAKER_01: Like you you respond to someone like a fool, you're you're viewing in your framework pretty stuff or the background, like you're responding to a fool or like you're you're you're quite right.
• 32:18
  SPEAKER_01: He's yeah, you should be maybe mocked.
• 32:20
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, but uh in terms of the saying the other people's perception is just respect perception is just of the superficial disorder.
• 32:28
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, right.
• 32:29
  SPEAKER_01: In the word itself, there's not really differentiation, they're both marking each other, right?
• 32:33
  SPEAKER_06: And that fits with the segment to us also about the in the words of Hochma, like it's very clear that he's insulting you and you're responding with substance, like that no one's gonna make that mistake.
• 32:42
  SPEAKER_01: Um that isn't really about fools, it's more about like people's perception of the interaction.
• 32:48
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, what is the inter exactly?
• 32:49
  SPEAKER_06: What's the interaction?
• 32:50
  SPEAKER_06: Let's just go back and and see if we can work that out based on that way, right?
• 32:52
  SPEAKER_06: So, in other words, like this is if so, so the the let's start with the the prompt.
• 32:57
  SPEAKER_06: The prompt is is he insults you in he insults you personally.
• 33:04
  SPEAKER_06: Let's just take the the extreme example.
• 33:06
  SPEAKER_06: He insults you personally.
• 33:07
  SPEAKER_06: So if you respond, so then people are gonna equate you with him.
• 33:12
  SPEAKER_06: Um if either of you, I think I would say if you respond with an insult or if you respond by trying to defend yourself against insult, if you respond in any way that is like in the the uh Reeve and Mata framework, so then people are just gonna classify, oh, these are two idiots that are fighting with each other.
• 33:28
  SPEAKER_06: But if he so that here's another, if he see so what's the second case?
• 33:38
  SPEAKER_06: Is it if he says a false Torah idea that's not an insult, then you should respond, right?
• 33:44
  SPEAKER_06: That'd be the cleanest division, right?
• 33:46
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, so so now our middle case would be what if he personally insults you in a way that also conveys a Torah premise, right?
• 33:58
  SPEAKER_06: Like, let's say, for example, um he says, you know, you're just wasting your time all day, you know, pouring over ancient legal text from uh patriarchal old world that has no bearing on it.
• 34:13
  SPEAKER_06: You know, so that's like he's insulting you, but he also has a distorted idea, he's he's advocating a distorted idea of Torah.
• 34:19
  SPEAKER_06: So then the case, the question is what what would uh Matush Dove would say that you do?
• 34:22
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, Isaac.
• 34:24
  SPEAKER_04: So I want to throw something else into the mix, okay, which is our um an idea that we said about what a a riv is.
• 34:32
  SPEAKER_07: Yeah.
• 34:33
  SPEAKER_04: So it was a in the past you mean in the past, yeah.
• 34:38
  SPEAKER_04: That I think might be helpful here.
• 34:40
  SPEAKER_04: Okay that um conflict isn't something that like exists out in the world, it's it's like within the the the parties that are having the conflict.
• 34:53
  SPEAKER_07: Right.
• 34:54
  SPEAKER_04: And um if he you know um um when you're talking to the so then uh um what I'd say here is that when you're talking to the Xiel, if you're engaging in the riv the you know that that which is the this like emotional ego battle, you know, and and and whatnot, then that is um that's something that you shouldn't do because that's the you know uh you know ain't der Khachamim, um you know, but insofar as you know there's an actual like factual content that you can be discussing with it that you can be like you know proving him wrong, and that's something that you that you can you can answer him.
• 35:42
  SPEAKER_06: Right.
• 35:42
  SPEAKER_06: So let's say in the case that I gave, so then the approach would be to address the flawed premise without getting into a defensive exactly like you you're not engaging with the insult at all, but just the the the truth and falsehood of the statement.
• 36:01
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, that's I think a cleaner approach uh to my initial impression of what you were saying that is also I think consonant with Mitsubishi Dabi.
• 36:09
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, okay, that's good.
• 36:10
  SPEAKER_06: So let me let's just try to get this down, okay?
• 36:12
  SPEAKER_06: Um so we have here Mitsudas, sorry, uh Mitsudas Davi, right?
• 36:19
  SPEAKER_06: Uh you know what almost it reminds me of?
• 36:21
  SPEAKER_06: It's almost like a machlokus lashem shimaim and mahlochlokushemshemaim.
• 36:25
  SPEAKER_04: I don't know, I don't want to just equate the two categories, but okay, so if so so the it's almost like you're you're bifurcating that within within the his actual argument.
• 36:37
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, right.
• 36:38
  SPEAKER_06: So the resolution of the stira uh can be inferred from the um the second halves of of the the so game, right?
• 36:48
  SPEAKER_06: So um since it is the derek of Xilim um to engage in Reev Umatza, which is like um you know personal spats, um then uh you shouldn't respond uh if he tries to start up that way with you, because people will see you stooping to that level and assume you are are are like him.
• 37:24
  SPEAKER_06: Um right, since it's not the derek Khachamim uh to engage in such uh uh disputes.
• 37:32
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, fine.
• 37:33
  SPEAKER_06: Uh but if if he expresses something false in Torah, uh you can respond.
• 37:42
  SPEAKER_06: I'm gonna say you can respond like Rashi on the Gamar, because I don't think you necessarily have to.
• 37:47
  SPEAKER_06: Well, we didn't really weigh in on that yet.
• 37:49
  SPEAKER_06: You can respond because it'll be clear that the nature of your response differs in kind uh from his um his uh uh uh words.
• 38:04
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, fine.
• 38:05
  SPEAKER_06: So then the the the test case is um he insults you personally um with words that contain a distortion of Torah, right?
• 38:21
  SPEAKER_06: So do you respond or not?
• 38:23
  SPEAKER_06: So the answer is um if you address the substance of his error without um stooping to the uh level of the personal, um you'll avoid the consequence in Puzuk Dalid um uh and achieve the result in Puzzuk Hei because people will not assume you're like him since you're not engaging in personal insults, uh, and they will see uh the answer uh in contrast to his uh like uh you know personal uh insults and lack of substance.
• 39:14
  SPEAKER_06: I think that's a summary of what we said.
• 39:16
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, that's good.
• 39:18
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, you know, I I want to go back to the many Rome because I my mind keeps telling me that there was something there that I wanted to bring up in this vein.
• 39:25
  SPEAKER_06: So let's just try it and see what happens.
• 39:27
  SPEAKER_06: So uh just to restate here, so he says, um, you should not respond to the foolish man in accordance with his words of Evelis, uh, that he says you should just leave him to speak according to his evelus and you remain with your Chachma because and and not respond to him in a way that his Evelis dictates.
• 39:44
  SPEAKER_06: Uh and it gives a reason saying, Let you be equated with him.
• 39:48
  SPEAKER_06: He began engaging with you with his foolishness, and that's what caused him to say these words.
• 39:51
  SPEAKER_06: And it's not the derek of Chachma to respond to the words of Axil.
• 39:54
  SPEAKER_06: Therefore, if you respond with his words that were said in manner of Sichuans, then you'll be equated to him in his foolishness.
• 40:03
  SPEAKER_06: It's not saying that you should be quiet and not respond at all.
• 40:05
  SPEAKER_06: Rak omar shl'yane divre evelas, ki ivalto.
• 40:08
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, yeah, yeah.
• 40:09
  SPEAKER_06: Uh this is what I wanted to read.
• 40:10
  SPEAKER_06: It's so it's not saying don't respond, it's saying don't respond ki ivalto, which means with foolish words.
• 40:17
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, rach yeshivenu beder chokma, this is like the targum.
• 40:20
  SPEAKER_06: You should respond to him in derchachma.
• 40:25
  SPEAKER_06: Right?
• 40:25
  SPEAKER_06: I think it's a good deal, right?
• 40:27
  SPEAKER_06: Um, ru pentish villa gomata, lomar, im tashivlo diverivelas tia evil kamohu.
• 40:33
  SPEAKER_06: If you respond to him with words of foolishness, you will be a fool like him.
• 40:41
  SPEAKER_06: If you he you respond to him in words of chachma, then you will not be equated with him.
• 40:44
  SPEAKER_06: Adraba, yadivalav uh uh uh mala, you'll you'll you'll be um to the contrary, if you respond with chachma, you'll you'll I guess be superior to him.
• 40:54
  SPEAKER_06: Bamar offers it an exil kivato.
• 40:56
  SPEAKER_06: All right, so now so based on that reading, it's saying you should insult him when Klumar Apopisha Mbuhuvan Minha Adam Hachakam Hush Loyane Likil Derah Ivelis.
• 41:05
  SPEAKER_06: So even though the based on the intent of man or the design of man who uh the of the man who's a khakam, you should not respond to him in a uh manner of foolishness.
• 41:17
  SPEAKER_06: Sometimes you need to treat other people with a different mita.
• 41:20
  SPEAKER_06: Uh he la no saxil devar ivelis ki valta openihakamenov, uh lest he be a chakam des eyes.
• 41:25
  SPEAKER_06: Okay.
• 41:26
  SPEAKER_06: Oh, so this is yeah, this is overtly not chasal.
• 41:28
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah.
• 41:28
  SPEAKER_06: So this would be like, I think, um, like, you know, you see the Derek of Khakamim, like the Ramah and Ibn Ezra, about like um, I mean, you could ask why they do that in the particular cases, but like mocking their opponents, right?
• 41:39
  SPEAKER_06: So the question is that he's not answering is why and when, right?
• 41:44
  SPEAKER_06: Right, Lefamim, right?
• 41:46
  SPEAKER_04: It reminds me of the note there, can I?
• 41:49
  SPEAKER_06: Yes, right, right.
• 41:50
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, I was thinking about that also because that that that is where he brings down the Rambam.
• 41:55
  SPEAKER_06: Uh oh, you know what?
• 41:57
  SPEAKER_06: This might be a relevant halacha.
• 41:58
  SPEAKER_06: Hold on.
• 41:59
  SPEAKER_06: I wonder if hold on, Mishnah Torah is in the last halacha in Havos Tamatora.
• 42:05
  SPEAKER_06: So the last parak in Tamatora deals with uh Kherim and Nidui, um, of putting people in excommunication or ostracism, uh um, which is uh something that Chachamim can do.
• 42:15
  SPEAKER_06: So he says at the very end, um uh Apha P this is in Zion Yogemo, Afa Tamatura, Afa Pi Shesh Rushus Lakhaum Landados Luchovodo, even though it is uh within the rights of a Chachim to uh ostracize someone for his covot, inoshab the Tamil Khachamim Hanhi Atma Bitabraz.
• 42:37
  SPEAKER_06: It's not praiseworthy for a Tamil Khachamim to accustom himself in this.
• 42:43
  SPEAKER_06: He should uh cover his ears uh from hearing the words of the Amehartz, Liblahim, and not pay attention to them.
• 42:54
  SPEAKER_06: Um also to all the things that they speak, don't uh pay attention.
• 43:01
  SPEAKER_06: That's how the early pious people said it, uh did uh conducted themselves.
• 43:05
  SPEAKER_06: Shomi Khaprasum in a mashiving, they would hear their insult and not respond.
• 43:11
  SPEAKER_06: They would uh pardon the insulter and forgive him, or whatever you want to translate that as.
• 43:41
  SPEAKER_06: When they degraded him or insulted him in private.
• 43:43
  SPEAKER_06: Well, Tamil Khachamim should be zuhu okherfu adamfarhesia, but if a Tamil Khachamim was degraded or insulted uh by another person in public, usur lolim ko alkovod.
• 43:53
  SPEAKER_06: It's usur for him to pardon to forgive his cavod, to forego his cavod.
• 43:56
  SPEAKER_06: Vimakal, and if he does forgo his cavod, nah, he's punished.
• 44:04
  SPEAKER_06: He should uh be vengeful and uh grudge bearing like uh about the matter, like a snake.
• 44:10
  SPEAKER_06: A she vakhminumhila viashla, until he asks for forgiveness and uh and par and he pardons him.
• 44:16
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, that's interesting.
• 44:18
  SPEAKER_06: So this might be a case.
• 44:20
  SPEAKER_06: So I guess depending on what you Certainly does not seem to mean that you should factually correct his mistakes in the in the errors.
• 44:27
  SPEAKER_06: It sounds like you should respond with uh you know in in kind.
• 44:31
  SPEAKER_06: I mean, again, I don't know how far you go, yeah, David.
• 44:35
  SPEAKER_02: I thought on the Pasuk from what you were reading before, from Minor Halomi.
• 44:39
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 44:41
  SPEAKER_02: Um, so I'm wondering, can you go back to the Paso Kim for a second?
• 44:43
  SPEAKER_02: Uh Pasukim, yeah.
• 44:47
  SPEAKER_02: Um okay.
• 44:48
  SPEAKER_02: It is like a read based on what he was saying.
• 44:50
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 44:51
  SPEAKER_02: That I'm wondering if he's saying that in so far as like your actual argument, like the composition of the argument, you shouldn't be saying things, like you shouldn't be giving a sealed argument.
• 45:00
  SPEAKER_02: Um, but in so far as this being a person who's like kind of like what you'd call like uh I don't know, like boneheaded or whatever, just like not that bright, not that smart, not willing to see things, so you need to present things, you need to present his his own argument in a very, very, very real way.
• 45:17
  SPEAKER_02: You have to answer him and show like display for him the eva the e-velet of his argument.
• 45:24
  SPEAKER_02: Not to say this is like what you actually believe, but in your presentation, you have to show him and display for him what is wrong with what he's saying.
• 45:34
  SPEAKER_06: You say that's what Immanuel Rome is saying?
• 45:37
  SPEAKER_02: That's what I was getting from him.
• 45:42
  SPEAKER_06: I'm not convinced.
• 45:44
  SPEAKER_06: Uh yeah.
• 45:46
  SPEAKER_06: It really does sound like he's saying responding to him with words of like with with foolish content like insults or or like you know pro personal stuff.
• 45:57
  SPEAKER_06: Which is by by the way, interesting.
• 45:59
  SPEAKER_06: That is that a mock locus between him and the and the Matzuis David, or is is he just saying that this is a uh like a uh a corner case, and even Ms.
• 46:07
  SPEAKER_06: David would agree.
• 46:07
  SPEAKER_06: Let's get down what what what to respond or not to respond?
• 46:11
  SPEAKER_06: Like he doesn't say right, but but is saying it's not the derich of Chachamim to respond with Riven Matzah and it sounds like Imam Roman is saying sometimes you should do that, right?
• 46:22
  SPEAKER_07: Um the problems were yeah, right, right, right, yeah, yeah.
• 46:25
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, we'll leave that as a question for but uh let's just get this down and then we'll we'll uh we'll leave it as a question and stop.
• 46:30
  SPEAKER_06: So um, just like he did to you.
• 46:31
  SPEAKER_06: So he says that um that's why it says uh ki evalto uh and uh rather rather than uh rather than um al ta'an uh stam, right?
• 46:51
  SPEAKER_06: Uh in an unqualified way.
• 46:53
  SPEAKER_06: Um in an unqualified qualified way.
• 46:56
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, right.
• 46:57
  SPEAKER_06: Um however, um sorry, how sometimes it is necessary for a chachom to respond in kind so that the Xiel uh doesn't think he's a Chacham.
• 47:14
  SPEAKER_06: Also kind of reminds me of the um uh Hake uh Ashinov with the Russia, that you can't let him think that he is you can't you can't get him get him the truth, but you can't let him think that he's like getting away with anything, you know.
• 47:29
  SPEAKER_06: Um so the question is is this a mach locus with uh Mitsudavid?
• 47:37
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah, okay.
• 47:38
  SPEAKER_06: So there's a lot more to say let's bleed net or continue this next week uh because we have uh we have more of Mufartum.
• 47:44
  SPEAKER_06: Um and I think yeah, okay, we'll we'll see where we want to go next week.
• 47:46
  SPEAKER_06: Okay, see, and I also do want to look into that issue, if possible, about why this was they wanted to put Michelin Geniza.
• 47:53
  SPEAKER_06: It still does not seem compelling to me.
• 47:55
  SPEAKER_06: Yeah.