ציטוט מקורות לא־יהודיים

00:02 This is Iggers, and today we are going to discuss quoting non-Jewish sources when we're giving sermons or when we're, um, teaching Jewish classes, when we're writing holy books, writing sfarim, whether they should be quoting non-Jewish sources. And, uh, this is a topic that's one of my favorites. I, I've been meaning to give this one for a very long time, and a bunch of things had to come together before I was able to do it. Uh, the biggest one was I was only aware of, like, one letter from the Rebbe where he really talks about how opposed he is to people incorporating non-Jewish sources into their sermons. And, uh, one letter is not enough to make an Iggers shiur, so I sat on this for, like, a year. Uh, Baruch Hashem, one of the people who listens to our shiur regularly is Rabbi Eli Estrin. Some of you probably know him. He's fantastic. Uh, he sent me a message and out of the blue mentioned that he was aware of a letter that had to do with exactly this topic and sent it to me along with an enormous tsura. And once I had that letter, I started looking other places, and because other people have been sending me things, I was able to put it together. So also, somebody reached out, another listener of the shiur, a Rabbi Moss, reached out. He's involved in, uh, the Rebbe Responsa app, which does all these English letters. He said, "You really should check out the English letters."

01:01 I found a bunch in there, too. And then Shul Matzasi Derher did a little article on it once also. So finally, we have the sources to do this properly. I've been, uh-- I now have, like, fifteen letters. I'm not gonna show you all of them. I'm gonna show you a lot of them. And, uh, it comes from a place of somewhat personal frustration. I, I went to a, a conference recently, uh, where there were a lot of speakers, a lot of Jewish speakers, a lot of rabbis talking. I was one of the rabbis who was talking, and I listened to a lot of the other rabbis give their sermons. And I've gotta tell you, uh, but I don't think a single person gave a sermon that didn't quote Viktor Frankl. And I just-- I, I, I couldn't really wrap my head around the fact that instead of choosing Gemara, Mishnah, Siddhis, the Rebbe, people kept on quoting this, this interesting, fascinating book by a Jew that is not necessarily a safer. So, uh, I think we'll see a lot of that frustration kind of play out today in how I describe the class that we're teaching. Without any further ado, 'cause that's a super long introduction, uh, here's some of what the Rebbe says about quoting non-Jewish sources. So I have, uh, I have the Rebbe Responsa app actually up on the screen. I wanna show you that letter first. This is a letter written Rabbi Dev Mandelbaum. This is the one that Rabbi Estrin

02:01 sent me. And the Rebbe opens, "Greeting and blessing. I was happy to get your letter on October twenty-eighth." I'm paraphrasing. "My remark about the saying of our sages, 'Accept the truth from whoever said it,' a well-known saying that has been mentioned also in regard to Aristotle, who has been quoted many times, though though his personal life is well known, and the same in regard to Plato. There certainly is no need to emphasize to you the viewpoint of our Torah, Torah Shayim, as to the importance of knowing the kind of personal life an author has conducted before reading and studying his books." So the Rebbe says, point number one, before you quote somebody, we need to know what kind of life they lived. It's true that in secular culture, there's an idea from Aristotle, from Plato. Kind of funny that we're quoting them given that this is all about not quoting them. But, uh, the, the-- it's known from their, from their ideas that you have to look at the information, not at the source of the information, but that's not the way Torah views things. In the Torah world, we care about the morality of the person that we're quoting. Point number two, notwithstanding the above saying, I don't think it proper to have a saying of Chazal quoted on one page with a quotation from a non-Jewish source, which creates the impression that both are equally authoritative, et cetera, says the Rebbe. You gave a-- He was talking about somebody who had, uh, I

02:58 believe, gave a sermon or had some kind of a, uh... I believe it was a sermon. I'm not sure what it was exactly. But, uh, the Rebbe said, "I don't like the idea of you having a Chazal source, a Torah source, on the same page as a non-Jewish source, because when you put them together, it implies that you consider them equally valuable." So by putting them in the same sentence, putting them in the same sermon, putting them in the same piece of writing, you're saying that they're equally authoritative, and that's just not the way we view things. Uh, number three, I trust you will also accept the following remark. In as much as non-Jews often suspect Jewish colleagues and Jews in general of various things, one of them is that Jews have a tendency to curry favor by quoting non-Jewish sources. So the Rebbe's saying here that, that the world at large knows that Jewish people are always trying to get other people to like us, and one of the ways we get other people to like us is by quoting their sources. So consequently, they're prepared to compromise, et cetera. As a result, when they hear or read a Jewish scholar quoting a non-Jewish source, it diminishes their respect for whatever follows that quotation. That's a very interesting insight from the Rebbe. He says they're onto you. The world at large knows you're only quoting their sources to flatter them, and therefore they disregard everything you say after you quote their sources. The Rebbe

03:57 says this is all the more regrettable since many a non-Jew would readily understand why such quotations should be on separate pages. Rebbe says, if you were to ask a non-Jew, do you, do you feel that in Torah sermons and in Torah books, they need to quote Shakespeare? I, I think most non-Jews would say no. So it's only the Jews who want this, only the people, only, only our own self-perception. The non-Jewish world does not believe we need to quote their sources in order to play, uh, in order to play on their turf. Indeed, many of them would also not quote the Bible alongside a secular source. Ask a religious Christian, would you quote a secular source alongside the Bible? A lot of them wouldn't. So the Rebbe's saying you don't really need to do this. I don't know why you're so excited about it. I wanna show you another English letter that I'm more excited about, though. And, uh, this one is non-dated. It's also in the app. And, uh, my notes here say to only read the first three paragraphs. So let's do that 'cause it's a long one. "Greeting and blessing. To start off with a general yet essential observation," the Rebbe's about to make an observation. "Jews have always been a minority, and as in the case of all minorities which find themselves under pressures of the environment, it's necessary to make special efforts to preserve the identity of the minority. This is true especially in a country where there's freedom in

04:53 every respect." That's like America, right? "In as much as the natural forces of assimilation are very strong, not only in regard to the young generation, but even the older ones. Therefore, even from the point of view of self-preservation, it's necessary to do everything possible to counteract these forces if the minority is not to be submerged by the majority. One of the ways to do this is to emphasize the good and intrinsic qualities which the minority possesses while not exaggerating those good, those good qualities which are common to both, especially where there is no need to do so." Uh, I don't know if you realize just how important that paragraph is. That paragraph is the answer to, like, ninety percent of questions you'll get in a Q&A. The answer to, unfortunately, it was a horrible interview a little while back where the, uh, some of the things the Rebbe had said came under fire, Rachmana Litlan, in the news media. Th-this is the exact answer to all of those questions. The Rebbe says here that whenever people ask, "Why are we showing favoritism toward our sources? Why are we talking about Jewish pride?" The answer is a minority has to do that to survive. And the idea is not to make fun of anybody else, God forbid, or to play down that other people have qualities. But it's very important for any minority that plans on surviving without being submerged by the majority to, to, uh- Point out to emphasize the good and intrinsic qualities that

05:54 any minority possesses. If the Jews aren't talking about what makes us special, we cease to exist. That doesn't mean that we're knocking anybody else. This, this top paragraph is, uh, is, is, is ammunition in your pocket for exactly how to respond to why we talk about things like Jewish pride when right now speaking about cultural pride and anything that smacks of nationalism is a little scary to the world at large. Minorities need to do this. Now, the Rebbe continues, "Unfortunately, my observation of the attitudes and policy of many rabbis and spiritual lay leaders and," uh, Rebbe, I'm with you, "leads me to the conclusion that part of them generally make the mistake of believing that they could best impress their audiences or their readers by displaying a proficiency in non-Jewish literature and culture." The Rebbe's saying rabbis seem to think that people are more impressed by them when they can quote non-Jewish literature and culture. This is evident from the tendency of supporting their views by quotations from non-Jewish sources in preference to Jewish sources, even at public affairs in support of Jewish institutions. When the emphasis should be on the purity of the Jewish tradition, efforts are made to have some prominent Gentile as an honored guest or speaker. If taken to task, the explanation given is that such a policy is good for the mutual relationship and is in accord with the injunction of Jeremiah, "Pray for the welfare of the country wherein you live." So the Rebbe says, talk to rabbis, they'll

06:57 tell you. First of all, they feel they need to include non-Jewor-- non-Jewish sources in their speeches and in their writing in order to gain favor with other people. Second of all, even at big organizations where they-- big, big, um, affairs where they organize things just for Jewish causes to celebrate the beauty of Judaism, they feel the need to include non-Jewish sources, non-Jewish ideas, and usually a non-Jewish speaker as an honored guest in order to make a good relationship among the nations. So the Rebbe says, "In light of the above, I trust you will not take it amiss when I mention that I was disappointed to see in your reprinted sermon so many quotations from other than our own sacred sources." The Rebbe saw a copy of this person's sermon that was in writing. The person had quoted non-Jewish sources, and the Rebbe is disappointed. To be sure, the principle accept the truth from wherever, from, from whatever source it comes is a valid one. Nevertheless, in light of what I said earlier, I firmly believe that spiritual leaders should emphasize the greater values from our own great and sacred sources. So there's-- here you have very directly from the Rebbe. The Rebbe saw a sermon, it had some non-Jewish sources in there. The Rebbe says, "I don't understand why you feel the need to support your views from quote, from quotations with non-Jewish sources, and I was disappointed to see that you did it." And I feel a lot of people are giving into a

07:57 pressure that isn't even necessarily there. I am gonna show you another letter now that's also in the English side before we switch over to Hebrew. I have two more English letters I wanna show you. This is a follow-up. So this is a letter that was presumably written to the same person. It's, uh, it-- I believe it's a follow-up to that letter. Um, and this person sent the Rebbe a sermon from Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur the following year, which I, I never would have done, right? The Rebbe thrashed this guy's sermon the first year, but he was kind enough to send the Rebbe his second sermon, and he was, he was-- I didn't-- he made the same mistake twice, so I just don't know what people are thinking sometimes. But anyway, the, uh, he sent the Rebbe a copy of his next year's sermon. And the Rebbe says, "As you can well expect, I cannot refrain from mentioning again my objection to quoting and citing non-Jewish sources in synagogue sermons, especially on such solemn occasions as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. As you know, Chassidus interprets the Rosh of Rosh Hashanah also in that literal sense that it's not merely the beginning of the new year, but also the head of the year, being in relation to the rest of the year as the head is the, as the head is to the rest of the physical body. For just as the head is the one that rules and moves the entire body, so is

08:54 Rosh Hashanah. It seems to me, therefore, in the nature of a jarring note to find right on the first page of your published sermon a quotation from a non-Jewish source for which there is no compelling need." So the Rebbe says, "I'm particularly upset that you did this on Rosh Hashanah of all days." Now, the Rebbe then says this. I just, I don't really need to show you this. I just find this funny. Uh, the second, the second paragraph here. "Having mentioned this point to you before, you may logically question this repetition in the view of our sages' statement that it's a mitzvah to say something which is acceptable, so it is a mitzvah to refrain from saying something which will not be accepted." The Rebbe goes, "You probably know that I'm not supposed to rebuke you if you're not gonna listen to me, and you very befa'erish did not listen to me." The Rebbe continues, "However, what can I do? Since both you and I belong to the same stiff-necked people." The Rebbe says, "I'm stubborn. I'm not gonna stop saying it. Moreover, I find further justification in the statement of the Gemara up to one hundred times." The Gemara says, it's actually brought in Shulchan Aruch as well, that if you have a fairly good relationship with somebody and they're not gonna hit you or anything, you're allowed to rebuke them up to a hundred times and more. So the Rebbe says, "If me-- if my memory serves me right, I have not yet

09:46 exhausted the first ten. I still have another ninety rebukes in me for you before I even get to one hundred." So the Rebbe says, "I'm gonna keep on telling you I don't like it. Um, at the same time, I must confess that I'm somewhat optimistic that it may not be necessary to exhaust fully the first ten. I hope you will bear with me." So this is from the Rebbe sort of apologizing for continuing to hit him on this point, but the Rebbe feels strongly about it. One more that I wanna show you from the English side, and then we'll switch over to Hebrew. This one was written to, to whom they believe is Irving Bunim. If you look in the footnote down here, they're like, "We're pretty sure it's him." The letter was omitted in the book, but it seems to have been him. In any event, uh, we're gonna look at paragraphs three and four. The Rebbe, uh, I believe received a book from him, right? Yes, he received a book. So the Rebbe says, "My point of criticism is a general one, which regrettably is quite prevalent among many authors and preachers in the United States. It is that when an idea is expressed, it seems sufficient that it originates from the Torah, but for some reason it is found necessary to look for support among non-Jewish sources where the same or a similar thought is expressed." So the Rebbe says, "I'm seeing this a lot, that people like to start from Torah,

10:44 but then they feel the need to, like, back up Torah. Like, Torah will say something, and it's totally Emes, and then they'll go, 'Let me show you how twenty-five other non-Jewish sources all agree with the Torah.'" And the Rebbe says, "I don't understand why they need to back us up. Presumably, the intention is a good one," the Rebbe continues, "for unfortunately, there are Jews who will more easily accept an idea in the Torah if it has also been said by some, by some goy," is what the Rebbe uses here. "Obviously, the detrimental aspect by far outweighs the benefit. In the first place, it does not lend dignity to the Torah or Ma'amar Chazal if it has to be confirmed by extraneous sources. Secondly, it creates the impression in the reader that any idea of the Torah which is not supported by a goy, Lehavdil, is a moot question. Uh, furthermore, it generally lends support to the unfortunate attitude of 마여름러거염 seeing that even a prominent Orthodox author resorts to it." So the Rebbe says here, "I understand your intentions are pretty good, but, uh, first of all, you lose a lot more than you gain because you're not giving any special honor to Torah by saying that it needs to be confirmed by some outside source. It makes an impression among the readers that a-any idea in Torah that I can't find a non-Jewish source for might, Chas v'Shalom, be invalid. And finally, it, uh, pushes the idea that if even a prominent Orthodox author

11:46 needs to quote non-Jewish sources, that perhaps this is something that everybody needs to do." This is a further consideration that the Rebbe says. A footnote in general has a double purpose. One, to verify a citation. Two, and this is even more important, to encourage the reader not to rest content with the quotation, which for obvious reasons has to be brief, but to go to the original source cited in order to delve more deeply into that source and what was said before and after that particular quotation. So the Rebbe says that when you quote something, you are telling people, "Go open those books." Just as a footnote is all profit if the quotation cited is derived from Torah Shebe'al Peh, the opposite is true if the quotation is from extraneous sources, lehavdil. For as you know, the Shulchan Aruch has very, very reluctantly permitted the study of extraneous sources and under special conditions, as in the case of the, uh, Rachokim Shebekochim, but certainly not for general consumption, where the Shulchan Aruch takes a very stringent view, Halchos Talmud Torah. So what the Rebbe is saying over here is that when you put a footnote, um, when you put a footnote in your writing and that footnote says, "Check a non-Jewish source," you're telling people to go open that non-Jewish source. And Shulchan Aruch doesn't really allow them to read a lot of the sources that you're telling them to read. So I have a further issue with you doing this. A citing tells people to

12:44 go look for things. Okay, that finishes our English letter section. And once again, real shout out to the Rebbe Response app. I had no idea how good it was. Uh, I'm gonna open up now our things in Igris proper. In Igris proper, we have a letter. It's labeled Dalet Tes Vav. It's from Vav Tav of Tav Shin Tes Zayin, and it's written to a Rabbi Rabiner, which is a great name for a rabbi, Rabbi Rabiner. And Rabbi Rabiner over here, at this opportunity, at zarf gam ha'rakhalus, I'd like to give a general, uh, insight into the thing that you wrote. Asher afshi odea me'ineret kavolas haemes mimishom, although it is well known that there's a statement from the Rama in Shulchan Aruch that you should ex-- you should accept the truth from whoever says it. Bechol zem, nonetheless. Chaval sheches be'sefer ha'emei le'tzatei mei'eizes farim she'einumu kabbalah das kam kam benei Yisrael. I do think it's a shame that you quoted in your book a whole bunch of sources that are not accepted among all of the Jewish people. Now, here he's talking about Jewish sources. Begam ubehem gam mei'inyudim, also some non-Jewish sources. So the Rebbe says, "I find it a shame that you did two things. First of all, that you quoted non-Jewish sources," excuse me, "in your book. And second of all, that you quoted Jewish sources that are not necessarily Torah sources." Asher al deiah sheyikchu gam yaadim mesefei zeh. This will cause a lot of people not to read your

13:50 book. This, this author was writing for frum audiences, and now the Rebbe's just concerned about his reputation. He says, "If you're writing a sefer for frum audiences, and they see that you're including books that people generally don't accept or non-Jewish books, they're not gonna read your book, and they're gonna miss out." Omeilu yiknu veleheinu ve'amar ba. They're not going to read, they're not gonna be able to benefit from the things you put in your book. Uvefrat asher eina na'al meiseh la'avanasei einim ki im ki yehuda ve'etl kra. Furthermore, you don't really need these sources. They're not adding anything to what you're saying. They're do-- they're being sort of a yehuda ve'etl kra. They're s-- they're, uh, supporting something that you already proved quite well. Lemesh lamah, uh, plainim plainim be'ez. All you're saying is that somebody else also agrees with you. You don't need their-- You don't need them to back you up. Ayey he'etz. Aval ayey ilu bazesht citut mesei mispar be'zesha shel rebsefei kechulim yuuseh asei frekedesh. Umesh ein zem asfik yesh lei. Gam et citu re'aches leyehi leharbeh. So the Rebbe goes on to say that it also-- you have to ask who your audience is. If your audience is frum people, they don't need these, these don't, they don't need these citations to back them up. And if your audience is people who need secular citations in order to read something, your four or five secular citations where you throw a bone to the secular world in order to show that

14:46 you're worldly isn't buying anybody. So who exactly are you benefiting by throwing a random name into your general sermon? I, I think that's a very strong point. Obviously, everything the Rebbe says is a strong point, but this one's hard not to, hard not to think about and take very seriously. The Rebbe's saying here, who exactly are you talking to when, as a rabbi, you throw a one-off about any author, doesn't have to be the one I was complaining about earlier, into your lecture? Who exactly are you helping? The community that didn't need to hear about those outside of Torah authors, they didn't need it, and the community that wants more of that, they're not gonna be satisfied if you just gave a twelve-hour pilpul that mentioned Viktor Frankl along the way. That's not gonna help anybody. So who exactly are you catering to is a reasonable question. This letter over here was written to Emmanuel Schachat, zecher livracha, and this letter is labeled Zayin Shin Mem He. It's from Tav Shin Chaf. And the Rebbe writes to, uh, Rabbi, uh, Rabbi Emmanuel Schachat that, uh, he's writing a book about the Baal Shem Tov, and the Rebbe generally likes it, but he has a whole bunch of notes. And then the Rebbe says, "I have one very specific note I wanna talk to you about." This is over here in paragraph two. Behar hazechazias fel beharakhalus. The Rebbe says, "I'd like to open with a general observation, a general, uh, insight about the, um, about

15:48 the book that you wrote about the Baal Shem Tov." Shemitzatet be'amar mekenes be'kam hamcha be'nevei be'evi ese gam ef nimar meimar. Ubenehem gam ke'ele shesofeka ein kedai la'avi hem behar hashuli hagiyliyn. Afshaleich le'echad sam libe lemara mekenes. The Rebbe says, "You quoted some sources, some of them in line and some of them below the line in your citations area, that I'm not sure it was kedai for you to quote, people who weren't necessarily appropriate sources for stories and details about the Baal Shem Tov." This would probably not be non-Jewish scholars. This would probably be Jewish scholars who wrote about the Baal Shem Tov that just weren't accepted as well as his other scholars. Velaches kam kam uf nim. There were some that I wasn't sure they belong in the footnote and certainly don't belong in line in your text. Uvefrat sheve shen yamim keshe kesem mitzatet behem. Specifically, these things that you are citing, yesh lahavi makom eleh shen kol pikbul ba'az keshemam be'chibishalem. You could have chosen sources, there are plenty of sources on these ideas, that nobody would have any issues with, so why did you quote the problematic ones? Uvetekh yeshiekh re'eida fama maradi avin l'mei eskamanti. Certainly, if you were to reread all of this, you'll very quickly figure out who I'm referring to, which sources I'd like you to stek. Vesafek be'kagedal le'chumra. And if you're ever not sure about whether to cite a source, don't cite it. The Rebbe says, "Safek be'kagedal le'chumra." If you're not sure whether somebody

16:52 is a, a, a certain book, a certain author is matim to the discussion of Torah, leave that individual out. Safek be'chumra. Kem shekerem ayseh mechug meshen meshen, especially when you're dealing with readers who are coming from all sorts of different backgrounds who might be confused by you citing sources that are not traditional Torah sources. I have two more letters on the screen, then maybe we'll have a little bit of time to talk. This one is to Rabbi Uziel, uh, the Chief Rabbi of Israel a long, long time ago. Uh, not that long ago, but a long time ago as far as I'm concerned. From Tav Shin Yod Gimel, this letter was written, and, uh, the letter is labeled Beis Kuf Nun. And, uh, the Rebbe comments on one of his sefarim, and he has a lot of very positive things to say about the sefer, but in the last paragraph, he does not. So the Rebbe says, "Har kala, I just have one, like, small note, aval chumra. I have a light note, but it's a real serious one. Uvnei pritzey amenu, and I need to tell it to you because there's pritzus in our generation, because our generation's having trouble. Our nation has a-- not generation, our nation. Our nation's having trouble, and because of that, I think you made a small mistake in your book that could cause bigger issues for the Jewish people at large." And the Rebbe says, "Vehi, specifically, asher isi kavod toras ha'nevi'im mechtavei hasofer maran nevuchei ha'zman ve'sefer

17:53 ha'tkupa. I noticed that in your book you quoted two books. You quoted the Maran Nevuchei HaZman and the Sefer HaTkupa." Now, I went looking for these. I'm pretty sure I found the Maran Nevuchei HaZman. I'm not one hundred percent sure I found, found the Sefer HaTkupa. I believe the Sefer HaTkupa that he's referring to is a literary journal that existed in Israel at the time that was not frum. And the Sefer Meir in Nevuchayazman is a pseudo-religious Sefer, I guess. It's a theological book that's meant to be sort of similar to the Ramam's Meir in Nevuchim, where a certain individual, uh, and a, a Jew, took a bunch of faith questions and smashed them up along with science and along with philosophy to help people get over their faith problems. But certainly not, uh, certainly not holy books, certainly not Sifrei Kodesh. Although there is good in all things, not everybody is good at figuring out what those good things are. Not everybody is good at throwing out the shell and grabbing the good fruit that's inside. Knowing exactly what to eat. So the Rebbe says it's true that there's a little bit of good in everything. Sure, there's good somewhere in the Sefer Hakufan, somewhere in the Meir in Nevuchayazman. But in these books, not everybody knows how to eat the fruit and throw away the peel. I think that's, that's a title for his name. I just don't-- something. Since you do quote these books in your Sefer, and in your book, you

19:08 quote them just to argue on him. So here he's not quoting them for support. Here, Rabbi Uziel quotes the non-Jewish sources, and here they're Jewish sources, but non-Torah sources, in order to show that they're wrong, to argue on them. Many people are going to read that still as though you agree with them. Just simply put, if you have these books, they're going to assume they need these books. And certainly, it is known what damage these particular books have done in Russia and in Poland among the Jews who are there. May God save us. So the Rebbe says here something that is far further than we've gone before. The Rebbe says here that even if you wanna quote a non-Jewish or non-Torah source in order to disagree with it, you should understand that when you do that, you're implicitly telling people you read the book. And if you're implicitly telling people you read the book, they're going to think they should read the book too. And that means the book's going on their shelf too. So unless you want that book on their shelf, you don't quote it by name. And if you cite it, you should expect them to go look it up. The last one I'm going to show you is deeply entertaining because it calls out a non-Jewish source by name, Shakespeare. There he is. And, uh, this letter has a PS on it, and the PS has a funny intro. The intro to the PS is, The Rebbe says here, "I hope

20:22 you won't mind that I gave you-- that I'm giving this-- that I'm doing this PS on a separate piece of paper from the prior letter that I wrote to you. But given what I'm about to say, you might wanna separate it from the rest of the letters." The Rebbe wrote this separately 'cause the Rebbe's gonna say something that is, uh, that is not friendly. Obviously, it's gonna be friendly, but you know what I mean. Something that might be embarrassing to the individual. If this individual wants to show people his Rebbe letter, he might be stuck with a awkward PS. So the Rebbe, out of incredible consideration for this individual, said, "Please don't, don't be makpid about putting this on a separate page in case you want to separate it from the rest of the letter." And here the Rebbe says, some-- with an intro like that, you know it's gonna be a good one, right? The Rebbe says, "I noticed." He'd sent over a letter in English that had been part of, I think, a dinner of some kind. But anyway, um, it was supposed to be a Torah dinner, a Torah event, and he'd written a letter, and the letter was a Torah concept, but it opens by quoting Shakespeare. So the idea was he did a good-- You know, you know how, how a good hook works in a drashah, right? So he hooked him in with a Shakespeare quote, and then he did-- he proceeded to develop a Torah idea. The Rebbe

21:17 says that you open with Shakespeare, exclamation point. I assume that most, if not all, of those ga-- those who gathered at this event do know that long before Shakespeare was born, and even before the creation of the culture that Shakespeare comes out of, that the, that the Jewish nation had two thousand years of Torah and mitzvahs, not just before Shakespeare, but before the culture that gave birth to Shakespeare. And that was a rich culture, our culture. Our culture ha-- tells us all about how to interact with, uh, between people and God, and also between your fellow man. We have two thousand years more experience than the culture that birthed Shakespeare. And in order to keep our particular values, we, uh, we, we were murdered, we had decrees put against us. And you know who gave us a lot of those decrees and a lot of those murders who really hit us hard for our ideas? The culture that Shakespeare comes from. That would be the Western-- basically, the early Western culture. Therefore, the question must be asked. Did you really need to do this? You wouldn't get together in order to have a Jewish discussion as you wrote. Wouldn't it have been better when all these Jews get together to have a Jewish discussion to point out that we were the ones who were chosen among all the nations? And in order to emphasize that point, you chose to quote a source from a non-Jewish source specifically? This would even have been outrageous if he

22:47 had been a particularly righteous Gentile. But if you read any of Shakespeare's work, you know he did not like the Jews very much. So this isn't even one of our friends. It's one thing to quote a righteous Gentile. This is a, this is a hostile Gentile. Uh, the Rebbe says, "I don't wanna really go into this too much." "Because the letter that you sent out for this event was already sent." "And I don't want to, uh, I don't wanna mourn the past. We don't cry about the past." "Nonetheless, I did write these lines," "in order to make sure that it's able to help us moving forward." Uh, we've seen a lot of letters today, and I don't know. I, I, I don't think there's any excuse for, for, for this constant mistake that we are all making, which is the Rebbe's making very clear in all of these letters that if we are talking about Torah, if we're writing a Torah book, if we're writing a Torah essay, if we're writing a Torah letter, if we're giving a sermon, no matter who the audience is, including frum audiences, including non-frum audiences, that at the end of the day, more is lost than what is gained by quoting non-Jewish sources and also by quoting Jewish sources that are not specifically and strictly Torah sources. Even Jewish theological sources that might be considered on the fringe, the Rebbe really isn't comfortable with them being on the same line as Divrei Chazal. So what we're getting from this

23:56 in collective is that when a Jew speaks, they should be-- when a Jew speaks about Torah, they should be talking about Torah. And if they feel the need to, to back up ideas or to hook people in or to, uh, bring further support from non-Jewish sources, that really comes from an inferiority complex that we have no place having. I think the final letter probably sums it up the very best. Long before these cultures existed, uh, there for two thousand years before any of these cultures that we quote from existed, there was the Torah, Torah Chayim, and it has absolutely everything we need in it in order to make our points known. The Torah does not need any help from anybody else, and that's expressed across, uh, many, many, many letters from the Rebbe as a shiva. Okay. Thank you all very much.