Judaism 101 - Shiur #2 - Who is God and Can We Prove He is Real?

2:13 An infinite being from which all existence comes into reality and stays in reality for a particular reason. An infinite being from which all of existence comes into reality and stays in reality for a particular reason. Okay. So by saying that, we've done two things, really three, but we're going to skip the middle part for now. The first one is we're going to say What is infinite. So here's what infinite is not. Infinite is not really big. Infinite doesn't even mean the most big. What infinite means is beyond the realm of time and space. So can you conceive of the notion of infinite? Not really, because our minds, by definition, are muqbal. They're limited to what To. The finite world Makes sense. Everything we can imagine is within the realm of time and space. God is beyond time and space; therefore, He's infinite. One more move, and then I'll get to Irvin.

3:29 And again, aside from the existence part for a second, let's skip to the end. Existence, to God Is not random. It's not just that he generated existence. But He did it for a particular reason. Why is that important? Because it goes from making God into a Into a who. In other words, the God that we're going to be discussing this year Not only is He infinite, because you could think about infinite as this infinite thing. It's not an infinite thing; it's an infinite who, not a person. Because a person has a defined space But this God that we're talking about is infinite in the sense that it is. He has a particular reason. You understand? So those are going to be the defining features. God is infinite. Existence comes into reality for a particular purpose. Ja, Reuven. Always. That's correct. It's notable though. There are two types of something being infinite.

4:38 In geometry There are two things that are notably infinite: a line and a circle. So generally, when we think of Consider a line as a time and space which goes in either direction forever, versus a circle which keeps repeating itself over and over. A circle is also infinite, but a human can conceive the idea of something bigger. Circle. It's not truly infinite. That's a borrowed terminology. When you think of that as infinite, you think of it as infinite because you can't define where it begins and ends. In the case of a circle. Or in the case of let's say the line that's going in either direction, you can't say where that line will end, because as far as you know, it goes forever. But it goes forever within space. So numbers are by definition not infinite because you can point to them. So when we say infinite, we don't mean how mathematics borrows the terminology.

5:30 We're using the philosophical intent. That translation of what God you would say God is not. That God is a no. I think God is, and we're going to use this term a lot. I'm going to refer to God as a reality. Not as an existence, and we'll see how that plays out. So you're saying infinity can't actually exist without being supernatural. Everything that's natural, by definition, is going to be finite. Every human experience, if it's limited to its humanity, is going to be something that I can Into the first cause type of argument as to everything has a cause. That's an interesting question. I haven't gotten to that argument yet because that's going to be what we're going to call indirect proofs. So right now, I'm just dealing with what are the terms that we're dealing with. So God is infinite; all of existence comes from Him and stays in reality because of Him. And which means that He's involved and for a particular reason.

6:31 So far, so good. Makes sense. So if somebody says, "Prove to me that God exists." Let's start off with a couple things before we get I'll say it out, and then we'll get to you guys. If we could provide proof Would it actually matter? Some of you are nodding your head. You're saying that it would actually matter. I'm gonna argue. It depends. If it's physical proof It would matter. The ramifications would matter. It doesn't matter because you can't prove God exists. They'll prove that whatever you Slow, good. It's a great conversation. Question is like this: Are we willing to acknowledge the concept of bias? We are psychologically complex creatures. Even when something we know to be true. Is true. What do we often do? We make unbelievable excuses to show that it's not true. Bias is part of the complex system of the psychology of a person.

7:56 So not believing in God certainly has its challenges. For example Let's say Chassvasholom, you lost a loved one. As a friend of mine who's an atheist said, he lost his father this past summer. And he said, If I believed in God, life would be so great right now because I would know exactly what to do. I would sit shiva, and then shloshim, and then eleven months, and then yartzeit. But because I don't believe in God, I have no idea what to do right now. So we went out for burgers. Which is a true story. It's one of my closest friends in the world. I love him dearly. Just because we have a different belief system doesn't mean that we can't be friends. And his father lived here in Israel. So he came really to be with his brother for shiva. He sat for a little bit. He didn't really sit on a low chair.

8:47 Then he said, "I got to get out of here. You want to come for burgers?" I said, "Okay." And he's expressing to me while we were sitting there, if I believed in God, life would be awesome right now. There's no doubt that it has its challenges. And yet, on the other hand, believing in God also has its challenges. What are the challenges of believing in God? If you're Jewish, you have to wake up in the morning And that's already annoying for some of us. If I didn't go to sleep until two o'clock in the morning the night before, what are the chances I'm going to wake up and have a meaningful shacharis that I can stay through? What are the chances I'm going to be able to do that if shacharis first starts at seven fifty in the morning? Convert to chamar. Or you could go chasidish and then you don't have a problem. Am I going to stop in the middle of my day and daven mincha?

9:33 What about when I get home from work at night and I'm exhausted? I know I got to mirev and haven't even mentioned learning. What about sedakah? What about sending your kids to Jewish schools and spending twenty five thousand dollars a year on tuition? So there are challenges on both sides. And me and my friend have this debate all the time. What's easier, to leave Judaism or to stay in it? He says leaving was the hardest thing he ever had to do because he had to extract himself from the community. I say, but now you're totally unencumbered. It's a fascinating argument, and I can see both sides of the equation. But at the end of the day, when we talk about this idea of can we prove God? The question is, even if we could Are we willing to admit that it might not matter to us? Are we willing to say, I know God is real, but I'm not down to believe in this because of the obligations that come with it?

10:21 That's number one. Number two is when a person has intellectual doubts, it is possible for that to cloud the experience of the soul. I'm not going to explain what that means yet, but I want to get that on record. So when we come back to it, the two problems of proof are: number one, if I could prove it, would it matter? Maybe we all have bias. Number two If I do have doubt Even if the proof wasn't a hundred percent Maybe the experience itself becomes tainted. Questions, comments, reactions. You say about bias, but bias would affect both sides, not just one. Again, I'm not suggesting that bias works only one way. I'm saying both. I'm saying there would be a bias towards leaving, there would be a bias towards staying. I know people that stay in the orthodox community. That's my point. We have proof. My point is that even if you have proof There's still bias. That's all I'm saying. No one goes for proof.

11:25 That's all we have. We'll find out. So that's something that I argue. Do me a favor. Make your argument without quoting somebody else. I don't believe that you could prove God exists because I think it defeats the point of the moon. But you're—that's already a separate conversation. In other words, I haven't defined yet what the word 'proof' means. All I'm saying is that even if you could prove it, we have to acknowledge human bias. I can't start to talk about the value of proof without acknowledging bias. So far, so good. Now let's get into what proof means. We're going to talk about two different types of proof: direct and indirect. What's the difference? Direct proof means I can measure it. Indirect proof means I can only measure around it. But I can't measure the thing itself. For example, do I have direct proof that Abraham Lincoln exists? Yes.

12:31 No. No. No. I don't have. Again, indirect doesn't mean less. But we have to know what type of proof we're employing. So for this stender I can have direct proof. There's a measurable experience here. If I had Abraham Lincoln in front of me That would be direct proof. I can measure it, right? 100%. Because now I'm not talking about Abraham Lincoln. I'm talking about documentation that points to the fact that there was a person called Abraham Lincoln, and it's important for us to establish when we discuss indirect proof what is valuable and meaningful indirect proof. But whatever it is, it's indirect. So as far as I know, Abraham Lincoln could be mythology. I feel that there's enough meaningful indirect proof. To tell me that Abraham Lincoln isn't just mythology and actually exists But I have no direct proof of that. That doesn't mean that Abraham Lincoln doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that indirect proof is worse.

13:35 But it's a different type of proof. Right now, we're just going to talk about direct proof. It definitely points to the fact that Abraham Lincoln existed, but maybe that's part of the myth. Maybe at some point somebody wanted to make this myth of Abraham Lincoln come alive. So they put it in Lincoln's grave. Sure, that's exactly the point. We would have to establish what is called meaningful indirect proof. And that's a fascinating conversation, just not for right now. But obviously, I do believe in Abraham Lincoln. I also believe in Avram Mavinu. Would it shock me if, in 500 years from now, they actually started asking? Did Abraham Lincoln exist? Didn't he exist? What will constitute real, meaningful proof? There are historical events that happen. Once they happen, now it's just up to the historians to write it. When I was growing up, I knew for certain that slavery was abolished, because it was a terrible tragedy. It was immoral.

14:35 Turns out, when you get older and you start studying history, that wasn't the case at all. It was really—I mean, many would argue that the North was losing to the South in terms of their capacity to produce because they didn't have slavery, so it was a way of weakening the South. I always thought the North were the good guys and the South was the bad guys. You learn things as you get older. History is written by authors. With bias, for sure. Direct has an advantage in its experience. When speaking about science, you have to remember which terminology you're using for what. When you're measuring something in a lab, that's direct proof. Historians also will apply scientific proof. Their gauge for what's called proof is totally different because they have to use different resources. The discipline is different, and because the discipline is different, it has a different set of laws that come along with it.

15:36 I would say direct is a stronger experience. Right? Because I'm because I'm interacting with it. Are you just describing the different empirical or rational proofs of hard sciences and soft sciences? For sure. Same thing. If it's not physical, then it's impossible for it to be there. So now we come to the problem. The problem is this: if you want to employ a direct proof when it comes to God, you're going to have a hard time, perhaps an impossible time. Because remember, how did we start off this year? What was the definition of God? Infinite, beyond the realm of time and space, who created the universe and sustains it for a particular reason. When you start off and you say the word infinite, by definition, what have you lost? You've lost the capacity to measure. To prove something means to measure it. If you're speaking of a direct proof, then by definition, you're measuring it.

16:26 Failure to measure means failure to have a direct proof. So somebody comes to you and they say God exists. Your response should be "Prove it." What's their response going to be? How could I? You understand? Your response is going to be then Well then how do you know it's real? You understand? You follow the back and forth? Everyone got it? So it goes like this: Judaism doesn't claim that God exists. So if somebody asks you, 'Does God exist?' What's the only appropriate answer? I don't know. God does not exist. Nor would I want him to, as we'll see in a moment. If God existed, then the whole game would be over. How could you prove something that doesn't exist? If somebody says, 'Does God exist?' the answer is no. Existence is like the stender; it takes up space. So if somebody says, 'So Judaism doesn't believe in God,' the answer is no. Judaism believes in a God that doesn't exist.

17:28 But that's a problem. That's exactly the problem. Because when you come and you say God exists, and I know that God exists. You've set yourself up for failure already. Because now you're going to start talking about proof. It's the difference between saying that God exists and I know God is real. Right right. We will do our best in this year not to say that God exists. We're going to do our best in this year to say that God is real And we're going to show very soon that which is real is more important and often more true than that which exists. So let's start to get into that right now. But actually, I'll take a couple more questions. Yoni, how is God real if God doesn't exist? The opposite. How is God real if He does? Because you're assuming that existence is real. But here's the thing about existence: existence is always changing, and it's always deteriorating.

18:22 So when you look at existence and you say that's real, I wonder why you think that. To me, if something is true, that means it's unchanging. One plus one will always equal two. It's why I appreciate math and science. The thing about math and science is they repeat themselves always. No matter how many times you do the same formula, you're going to always have the same result. And if something different happens, that's called supernatural, or there was a mistake in the process. But if you do the same scientific thing over and over again, it's going to happen. Why? Because it's true. Every single time, the same outcome. So when I look at this table, I understand that right now this table is decaying. It may not be happening before my very eyes, but over time, for sure. So is this table true? It just exists. It exists in this form. It existed in a different form. Perhaps one day it will exist in a different form. So you're taking the word reality and identifying it by that which you can touch and measure.

19:14 It's the exact opposite. That which you can't touch and measure in your life is going to be more real than that which you can. But you have to step out because remember, and this is going to be the challenge: when you only see the world through the scientific lens, you've limited yourself. The humanities are there to counterbalance the sciences, and when you lack that yin yang as a person You're fundamentally lacking. So let me make the point, and then you guys will see if you agree or not. Give me one second, maybe I'll come right to it. Good. It goes like this: If somebody gets down on one knee and they propose to their wife and they say, "Marry me" I've never secreted hormones in my mind with anyone. Other than you, the hormones I have when I'm with you—oxytocin and serotonin and dopamine—it's unbelievable.

20:03 What's wrong with saying that? She's gonna say no. Aside from the fact that she's gonna say no, unless it's like a Big Bang Theory type of proposal. In other words, what you did is you took something that was abstract and you only defined it by its concrete And that's sad. For example, let's take art. I happen not to be into art. I was never that guy that was into art. There are people that are into art. My dad is into art. My dad, when he went to see the Mona Lisa, told me that he cried. I was like, "You cried when you saw the Mona Lisa?" I mean, I think she's ugly, but she's not bad ugly, right? You shouldn't be crying when you see the Mona Lisa. And my father was like You heathen! Like he was so annoyed by the fact that he had a son that couldn't appreciate the beauty of the Mona Lisa. And he goes when he went to France, and he went into the Louvre, and he saw Monet's water lilies, and he was like, "It was unbelievable." And I'm like I don't get it. So for him, imagine if I came to him and I described the Mona Lisa as an ugly girl. It's a nice flower.

21:09 What would you say to somebody if you were an artist? You don't appreciate the art. You don't appreciate the art. But scientifically, aren't I really just describing what it is? That's what it is. It's color on canvas. At the end of the day, no. But it's more than that. Science doesn't ask the question and is not designed to ask the question. Science doesn't ask the question why. Science is not part of the humanities. Science is what comes after the humanities, or before the humanities, depending on where you're starting from. Science tells you what is and how it works, but it doesn't tell you why it is. It can't speak to the entire human experience. And it's not supposed to. And so what happens is when you have science without the humanities, you lose your sense of humanity. And that's exceptionally dangerous. You understand? Because you lose a fundamental part of yourself. So if somebody gets down on one knee and they only talk about serotonin and oxytocin and dopamine, what have they lost? They've lost the person in front of them.

22:11 So this is what I hate. You ready for this? How many people in their lives have heard of Ribéry making fun of sports? I grew up. It was like the thing my Rebbe did, and this is what it sounds like. I love basketball. I don't know a thing about football. Nothing. I'm done with football. I'm done with hockey. I'm done with baseball. I wouldn't have known about the entire Antonio Brown thing if the rosh didn't tell it to me in the car this morning. I don't know. I'm not holding in this stuff anymore. I didn't know that Antonio Brown was one of the best wide receivers in football. I just heard this morning that maybe he raped a woman. So I was like, okay, say there. This not new. This what I heard growing up. They went after basketball, and that was personal to me. Can't go after basketball, they said. This what my rabbi used to say to me. If I got together ten people in pajamas and put two toilet bowls ten feet up in the air And they were throwing rocks into toilet bowls Would you watch that?

23:09 So I'm like Clearly I would. Not only would I watch it, I would pay to watch it if they were really good. I might even subscribe to a channel that had exclusively my favorite pajama-clad rock-throwing toilet players. They might be on my fantasy team of rock-throwing toilet players. I might really get interested in their lives. Why? So my rabbi was saying to me, 'That's crazy.' I was like, 'What's so crazy about it?' He's like, 'Because what are they doing? They're putting a ball through a cylinder.' So I was like, if you think they're putting a ball through a cylinder You've really lost the entire concept of religion. So what do you mean? I said, well, think about it. If you take a game or anything in life and you remove its meaning What are you left with? Nothing. Everything, when you describe it based on just the physical activity, is absolutely arbitrary.

24:10 So I was like. You have a husband and a wife. They just got married, right? It's under the chuppah. They're now holding hands for the first time as they're walking out of the chuppah together, and they're going to the cheder yichud. And all of their friends are carrying, cheering them on, and it's so special for them. And they're holding each other's hand, right? Could you imagine if you came over to them and said, "I just want you to understand that all that is flesh touching flesh" And from an evolutionary perspective, it happens to be that you're secreting certain hormones right now, but you're actually feeling nothing. Why would you do that to a person? And why would you ever take pictures of that? And why would you put those pictures in an album? And why would you feel good when you came back to it? After all, isn't it just flesh touching flesh? There are no feelings involved.

25:13 Any time you take the meaning out of anything, you lose everything. You understand? Art is not color, music is not sound, love is not hormones. But here's what's important: the reality is always connected to the existence. So I would tell you, if you ask me, what's the reality of the hormones? The hormones are the existence. What's the reality? The reality is the love. Science can't measure reality; it can only measure existence. Poetry can better speak to the reality than science can. If you read a science book on love. So it wouldn't move you in any way. But if you read great poetry, if you're like a person who really cares about these things, that happens to be I love poetry. If you read great poetry on love, it moves you. You ever have that experience before? Same thing when it comes to art. Science can tell you all about the colors, all about the dimensions. Science can tell you how your optic nerves take it in, and even how your mind processes it. And yet, all of those things, none of them speaks to the reality of sitting in front of a beautiful painting.

26:20 Same thing with music. Music, science can measure the cadence of music. They can know when you react to something as music. But I don't know if any of you guys are concert goers. There's nothing like going to a great concert. If you're willing to sit and really listen at a concert and not just be a person who's there, but you actually go to the concert, that's a totally different experience than just listening to it on your AirPods. So when I was in ninth grade, that was the first concert I ever went to. I convinced my father. My father had a hookup because he was in the marketing industry, so he had a hookup to get me free tickets to a band that had just come out. They were the hottest band probably in the world at that time, and they were on this tour called the Dookie Tour. Green Day had just come out, and they were playing Nassau Coliseum, which was a short 25-minute ride from my house. In ninth grade, I convinced my dad to get me tickets to see Green Day live.

27:12 So it was amazing. Problem is, I was in ninth grade. I was this tall, this skinny. I was this tiny little guy, and my friend says to me, "Let's go to the Mosh Pit. Because we go together." So I took one look at the Mosh Pit, and I saw because it was the beginning of the grunge movement in the 90s. I saw all these behemoths, you know what I'm saying, like Nassau Coliseum is for those of you from New York. Nassau Coliseum is like those Long Island Hicks. Like when those guys come out to a Green Day concert, somebody's gonna die. And it was the first time in my life that I went to the bathroom in Nassau Coliseum. I was used to going to the Coliseum because I used to go there for Islander games. When you go to the Nassau Coliseum for Islander games, it smells like sweat, right? But then I went for a Green Day concert, and it smelled so different. And I was like

27:53 What's that smell? Because I was in ninth grade, I wasn't familiar with that smell. I turned to my friend and asked, 'What's that smell?' He said, 'That's Bud.' I asked, 'Who's Bud?' He said, 'Uncle Bud.' So I guess I was gonna be introduced. But that's the whole idea, right? You go to the concert and then you find yourself in that mosh pit as a ninth grader, and you get out of there really fast because you know you're gonna die. And then it stays with you. The experience stays with you. If I wanted right now to transport myself back to the Colosseum, fourteen years old, I could do it. Why? Because it's not a scientific experience exclusively. There's a humanity there. Does it make sense so far? We'll stop here for a second. This whole relation between physical actions versus the meaning behind it could be used to explain our friend who claims free will does not exist because it's conditioned.

28:43 I'm almost never going to cut you off. But that's going to be a month. I'm sure it's going to be a whole thing there. But it could be, but I can't get there in my head right now. Why are you saying that? Letters like I'm saying that the scientific description is only the existence. It's not. It doesn't include the reality. And so you're missing something if you only see it scientifically. So science and humanities are handmaidens to one another, but they need to be because if you're missing either one, you're missing something. If you only have the humanities and you don't understand the what and the how, then you're chossed. If you only understand the what and the how, but you don't understand the why Then you're chasser. You've missed something. Can I use the exact same process to prove that other religions might be true? Sure.

29:40 At this point, I'm just positing that God exists. I haven't said anything about Judaism or Christianity or Islam. I want you to believe in the notion of God because once we speak about God, it'll be natural to believe in the concept of a mission. All I'm saying is as follows, and this is the punchline. The same way that I believe in color. Right? But I also believe in art. I believe that the reality is God. And the existence of God is the world. As color is to art The world is to God. As sound is to music. The world is to God. As love As hormones are to love, the world is to God. For those of you still holding an SATs, Reuven. Just for the purpose of Is that definition finite? Yup. And also, what am I saying? And those two things must work harmoniously. Because when we look at the existence, we want to know the internal essence of the existence. Not forget religion for a second. Anything that we experience, we're not just.

30:52 I don't want to experience its external. I want to experience its internal. That's why when you hold hands with someone, it's not just flesh on flesh, but there's a human experience there. Again, right now, I haven't proven God. That's what's critical here. I can't prove God. It would be impossible for me to prove God with a direct proof, because that would be to measure that which is infinite, and by definition, I can't measure that which is beyond time and space. All I'm pointing out is that every human experience naturally tends towards the reality, not just the existence. So this, when we look at the world, what we can see, we'll see how we do this. What we can see is in essence something that there's a true human experience that lies beyond the what and the how. That's why we ask why If you're a person who asks why to me, that's exceptionally godly.

31:48 Because when you ask why about something, you're acknowledging that there's a why. Why would there be a why? Science wouldn't recognize a why. Science would only recognize what and how. The fact that you ask why, by its very definition, is a soulful experience. Does that make sense? But I don't think he would be able to prove that. He's speaking about an experience. When somebody says, when you're sitting in an office with somebody and they say, 'Rabbi, I feel like I'm being taken over by demons,' I don't say, 'Okay, well, let's strap you down and let's measure your brain waves and see.' Because that's not what they're saying. They're saying something more profound. Psychology is always that middle ground because, on the one hand, psychology wants to know the what and the how, the science, but it's also deeply concerned with the human experience. You understand? So somebody says, "I was taken over by demons." I don't think they mean physical demons have crept inside of their brain and are now pulling the strings. They're speaking to a larger human experience. I'm out of control.

32:56 I'm not the one pulling the strings. That's important to me. Rabbi says that. The world is to Hashem the same way that art, like paint, is to art. Would that not imply that the world is an essential part of God? I would say the opposite. Because it's the poel yotzeh. It's what occurs when a perfect God wants to express Himself. The world is what happens. The same way when an artist wants to express himself, the canvas is what happens. But I mean, Hashem exists before the world. But when you say before, what do you mean? That's the point. That's the point. So that by itself is a problem. But at some point, it says in a book somewhere that God created the world. And that implies there was a point when there was no world and yes to God. I disagree with that. It implies that before the notion of time There was no time.

33:53 And I can't speak from a human perspective about what occurred before time, because from a human perspective, I can't understand that. That would imply that we're shoehorning God into the timeline. Then no, the opposite. You're shoehorning God into a timeline. I'm saying that God is beyond the timeline. You're saying that God exists before. I'm not willing to say before Relative to God. So God always exists. But when you say always, what do you mean? Always, always is within time. Always, no. Always is beyond time. How does the word 'always' exist beyond time when 'always' is all time? Sorry, I try not to do that too often. Why? But you're describing God like a very metaphysical How would you like me to describe God? Like the creation, everything describes very like God is angry. God did this. God did that. Before time, very kind of within time and space.

34:54 That's a fascinating question—one that we're going to deal with. When the Torah uses that type of language, what does that really mean? Might not mean what you think it means. We have to see the Rambam. So far, so good. That's the only way you can describe God. Maybe we can only understand so. Maybe that's the way we've always—that's the way we've always gone. Sort of. With the last ten minutes, I want to do as follows. Guys, still with me? What's the problem? The problem is this. If I'm right And we have to know the discipline that we're speaking about, namely, science can measure directly. Again, we're not speaking about indirect proof now, but a direct proof we're not going to get for God. Why? Because God is beyond measure. And if I'm right That it's like love and hormones. What happens when someone says Rebbe?

35:57 But I don't love that girl. Right? So imagine a guy and a girl are dating. Everything on paper is perfect. They have everything in common that a couple would need to get married. Their communication is amazing. Their value system is exactly 100% on the same page. Attraction, absolutely. They've got it all. Only one problem. Neither of them want to marry each other because they don't love each other. I strap them down to a chair and I say, "Listen to me." I'm measuring your serotonin and your dopamine and your oxytocin levels. This is what love looks like everywhere, and you guys are at that baseline. What's the problem? They don't love each other. They don't. So when a guy says as follows, and it's reasonable if a guy says it, he goes, "Okay, R. Berg, you're telling me that God can't be proven; he has to be experienced."

36:44 But I don't experience God. You understand? It's like saying I don't love that girl. And I really don't. I'm walking down the street. I don't see God. I'm walking down the street. I'm not thinking about God. When I sit down and daven, I feel like I'm just saying words. When I learn arcane texts Doesn't really move me. You understand? So I don't love God. So I'm not in this relationship. You understand the problem with what I've set you guys up for? If God is to be experienced, what if I don't have the experience? So if you're a Sfardi kid who grew up and your mother told you there's a God and you knew that clearly. It was like, yes, I know there's a God because my mother told me. I have that good Sfardi sense I'm really deeply connected. I'm not picking on Sfardim. I think it's amazing. We had a guy in yeshiva many years ago who came to visit Mevaseret. He was in a Sfardi yeshiva. He was a Sfardi kid. He wasn't happy in his Sfardi yeshiva, so his friends loved to hear Mevaseret. He came to check out the yeshiva.

37:47 He comes. In the morning he was in Shear. Afternoon he was in Shear. Night he was in Shear. At the end of the day I asked him how it was. He goes, Berg. It was unbelievable here. It was the best day of learning I've had so far. The guys are great. The Shearmer is great. Unbelievable. I said, have your mother call the office. He goes, no, I'm not switching. Why? He goes, too many Ashkenazi. So I was like, oh come on. I hate that racist stuff. We're all Jews, right? We can learn in the same yeshiva. And he goes, no, I'm not being racist. He goes, you have to understand. He goes. I do a lot of averus. He goes, and I see Ashkenazim do a lot of averus. But here's the difference: when an Ashkenaz kid doesn't avera, he says to himself, I don't know if God exists. And when a Sfardi kid doesn't avera, he goes, I didn't avera. Obviously, I'm going to get punished. But God doesn't not exist because I didn't avera. He's like, I just can't be around those Ashkenazim. I'm afraid I'll go off the derech. So I was like.

38:44 That is the wildest svara I ever heard But honestly, I hear it. I hear it. You go to a regular Ashkenazi school, and they're like, I don't know if God exists. You go to a Syrian school in Brooklyn, and they're like, of course God exists. I'll kill you for saying God doesn't exist. I'm gonna get in my car and drive away on Shabbos now. It's amazing. It's just amazing. I love that. It's so holy. There's something really pure about that. So if you're one of those guys who say you experience God. If you grew up like me, maybe you don't experience God. Maybe you have times. Remember earlier we said that your doubts can get in the way of your experience. Maybe my intellectual doubts, because it can't be proven directly, are getting in the way of experiencing God. Maybe my bias is getting in the way of experiencing God.

39:31 So here's the big crunch for today, and then we'll finish with this. This will be our lead into the next year. If a child doesn't know if his parents love him Isn't that sad? Why would a child intuitively know that his parents love him, assuming that they actually do? They're normal, healthy people. But my mother said no to me. I really, really, really wanted to do something, and my mother said no. She's not treating me nicely. And yet, even a six-year-old knows that when their mother says no to them, they still love them. Again, assuming a healthy, normal relationship. Shmuel. They go to their parents. That's how you can tell that they love their parents. I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying the fact that a kid, if they get hurt or if they're upset, they'll run to their parents like a younger child. That shows that they love them.

40:31 That's very true Right? Because there's something About the child, something innate about the child because they're a child. That naturally relates to the parents as parents. And the mother who just said no, and the child got angry at the mother for saying no, two minutes later will go running to the mother when something went wrong. Why? Because that's my mother. Now imagine if an eighteen-year-old guy comes to the beth din and says to me, "I don't know if my parents love me." How would you want me to prove that to him? Right. How'd you get here? Maybe they sent them away. Maybe they send them away. Ask them why they were sent. And what would they say? Hopefully. Hopefully, they want you to whatever be myself, whatever. That's right. So there's something innate about the relationship that allows for the experience. And if you have to prove it, how many things have gone wrong in a relationship? If you have to prove that somebody loves you, especially your parents.

41:33 So here's what we mean when we say emuna, and we'll finish with this. Here's what we mean when we say emuna. Emuna doesn't mean belief the way we've been translating it the entire time. Emuna is a talent of the soul. You don't have five senses; you have six. Five senses are all existence. The sixth one is reality. You use that sixth sense all the time. But it has to be cultivated. The same sense that tells you your mother loves you, that your father loves you, the same sense that tells you this is the girl that I want to marry, the same sense that recognizes beauty in art and depth of music. It's the same sense that experiences God. It's a talent of the soul and it needs to be cultivated. So when the pasuk says that we are a chelak Elokim mal, that we are the proverbial piece of God, what does that mean?

42:26 It means that the relationship. The relationship between God and us is the same relationship as a parent to a child. And if you don't feel like a child, that's fine. We have to figure out what went wrong along the way. But know this: the same way any child has the capacity to look inside of themselves and find the love that their parent has for them, because it's a natural talent of the soul. It's no different with any Jew, and that's what emuna really means. We are obligated, according to the Rambam, to know that God exists. We'll talk about how that's possible, but emuna and yedia are two totally separate movements. One is existence-oriented; the other is reality-oriented. We'll stop here for today.