“social justice.”

An Italian priest, Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio,  wrote a book about the need for recovering the ancient virtue of what had been called “general justice” in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but in a new contemporary form. [ See Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio, S.J., Theoretical Treatise on Natural Right Based on Fact (1840-1843).] He gave it the term “social justice.” The term was given prominence by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati in La Costitutione Secondo la Giustizia Sociale in 1848. (Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 2The Mirage of Social Justice, p. 176.

First: many promoters have brought in the Torah to validate this practice. They claim Torah is teaching socialism. Second: The United states governmental system, is not perfect, it was based on some Torah principles and the overarching theme was to give freedom, self - governance to individuals, not government control over the minute aspects of our lives, especially on our finances. This was different than every other government existing at the time.

One of the main framers of our constitution stated: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816).

Social Justice = Theft via the government. 

Though my family went to Temple Israel in Hollywood [which is a great place], still when the message about social justice was announced there my mother and father were cold in their reaction. They did not think that the Torah was about social justice but rather about real justice. "Thou shalt not steal,"  is an important principle even if the theft is done by means of government.

I should mention that in the Torah there is מעשר עני the tenth of the crops that go to poor people on the 3rd and 6th year of the Shemita cycle plus the fact that on the Shemita anyone can come into one's field and gather what grows by itself. 

This however is not a blank check for the government to take what it wants and redistribute it to those that vote for it.


the Law of Moses [that is the written Law and its Oral commentary in the Talmud] is necessary and sufficient.

My basic feeling about the Law of Moses [that is the written Law and its Oral commentary in the Talmud] is necessary and sufficient.
That is it is needed and nothing more is needed. 

That is all the cults that come along and say the Law of Moses is needed but there is this new thing that is also needed are all wrong. Belief in the Law of Moses [that is the Written and Oral Law] means you believe nothing else is needed. 

But that does not means it can't be misused by unscrupulous people. And that does not mean that it is a cure all for all human problems.

That does not mean the Torah is for creating a political state.
I think a lot of people went along with the Enlightenment from motives of good. There is some support for the types of governments that sprouted up as a result of Enlightenment principles. While it is becoming more obvious that those principles do not work well, that is no reason to assume everyone that went along with them were bad hearted.

The progress made in the USA and Europe when Enlightenment kinds of laws and constitutions were adopted does not seem trivial.

Socialism mainly uses Hegel for support. Other approaches use John Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Goethe, Hume, Berkeley etc and etc.. That is all the thinkers. Not some. That is to say Throne and Altar approach might be  best but it had the weight of the thinkers and the weight of the evidence against it.
 But I am not sure of what would be better than the Constitution of the USA. It seems to me if not for blacks it would work perfectly well.

Torah and Ruach HaKodesh. Unbelief in cults is a sign of faith in Torah ! [Ruach HoKodesh usually refers to some kind of Divine Spirit people assign to what they think are tzadikim. Usually this is by mistake and is simply a consciousness trap.]

Torah and Ruach HaKodesh

The question is HOW we test things. 

Supporters of the any cult frequently make two pleas to people who wish to assess
or criticize it. FIRST, we are urged to approach it with an open mind. We are told to attend
meetings for ourselves - and not critically. SECOND, we are urged to judge the phenomenon by its fruits - to look at the long-term results, not the immediate manifestations. 

See for Yourself ...
However, it is far from an invariable Torah principle EITHER that we should assess claims
to God's activity personally and uncritically, OR that we must look at the fruits to make an
Unbelief in cults
is a sign of faith in Torah!

Look at the Fruits ...
Similarly the challenge to assess a cult by its fruits can be met. We need to
take seriously Torah warning about the plausibility of false prophets.

But again, as one writer has already observed, it is difficult to assess a movement by its fruits
when the fruit is still not ripe. 

 We must recognize from history that a movement may have a powerful - even beneficial
- impact in the short term and yet be disastrous in the long term because of its fundamental
Torah weaknesses.

A Question of System 
How then can we `test' any cult? If we cannot trust personal experience or short
term gains, what can we trust? The answer is basically a matter of system.

Unfortunately, system has not been a particularly strong feature of the
Jewish Anglo-American scene for some time. There is hesitancy about religious
systems which seem to claim too much. But there is an important
distinction between a systematic belief  that aims at a SYSTEM, and one that more modestly
aims at being SYSTEMATIC.

We need to recognize that systematic belief is a Torah concept. 

But we also need to recognize WHAT IS the system contained in the Torah. The
best key to this is, I would argue, the Torah approach. The particular feature of
this approach is that it recognizes and identifies in the Torah  CONTINUITY. There is the continuity of ONE great theme, from start to finish and there is
the DEVELOPMENT of that theme through Torah.

Only a systematic Torah approach allows us to give coherence to our experience and expectation of
God. And more specifically, only a system allows us to recognize that whilst God
CAN do anything he DOESN'T do everything. 

A Necessary Limitation
Those who reject the cults are often accused of limiting the actions of God.

GOD'S activity IS limited - by God himself - but it is limited in a way which is not simply
arbitrary but consistent with the overall framework of the Torah. Understanding that framework
will enable us to understand the limits of God's activity - not so that WE may limit it, but so that
we may limit what is CLAIMED for it. Thus when we test the cults, which makes
particularly claims about the activity of God , we need
to ask whether it is consistent with the TOTAL picture the Torah presents, particularly in relation to the life of the believer. 



The context here is the SUFFICIENCY of the Oral and Written Law of Moses. 

And this is a NECESSARY fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, 

Torah is the NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT precondition for us to receive the
 the blessing promised to Abraham. Positively, this
means the Spirit is certainly received by hearing the Torah with faith. Negatively, it means the
Holy Spirit is only received through hearing the Torah with faith.

Questions come to most people in relation to suffering. At the start of our  lives we are
generally ignorant of the fact that suffering can be  a blessing. See the חובות לבבות  It has to be explained from Torah. It is usually only when this is done that we begin to realize
suffering is indeed a  blessing which we can incorporate into our experience. 


war against boys

Things were difficult in the USA as far as I could tell in the 1990's. That is when the war against boys started in earnest. . A kind of collective insanity seemed to be taking over women's minds. Perhaps it is biological in original as Sapolsky would probably claim.

That is he would claim that just like Toxoplasmosis controls the mind of rats so there might be many other parasitic organism that also get into people and control their behavior. 


Bava Metzia ch.6

Bava Metzia ch.6 and also in Shavuot pages 43 and 44.
We have a lender that got a pledge. Shmuel says if he loses the pledge, he loses the whole loan. R. Eliezer said he takes an oath that the pledge was lost by accident, and collects his loan. R. Akiva says he loses the amount the pledge is worth. The Gemara in two places asked, "This looks like they disagree?" The Gemara answered, No. One case is when he explained, and one case is when he did not. Rashi said the Gemara means Shmuel is when no one said anything, and the argument between RE and RA is when someone did explain. In Bava Metzia the Gemara tries to get the mishna there to be like both RE and RA and can not do it. The Mishna there says the lender is a paid guard concerning the pledge.

Rabbanu Chananel says the argument between RE and RA is when no one made any conditions..

I want to say this:
כל תנאי שבממון קיים. Every condition in money is valid. So when a guard makes a condition not to be obligated, that is valid. .
So it looks like one can bring a proof to Rabbainu Chananel.

Therefore when no one said anything that is a regular loan and the lender is like a paid guard and loses the amount of the loan. But when the lender made a condition then his level of obligation goes down. Thus there is a simple way to get the Mishna in Bava  Metzia to be like Re and RA. Just say it is talking about when no one said anything and the lender would be like a regular paid guard. But if he said something, then the level of obligation goes down. So if Rashi would be right, then why did not Gemara not use this simple way of getting that Mishna to be like RE and RA --that is a case when no one said anything, and all would then be in agreement like Shmuel that he is a paid guard?

[With no Gemara in front of me I am just making a guess. I think this is what Tosphot meant to ask though the way it was written down came out that he was asking on Rabbanu Chananel as far as I recall. And the Maharsha asked on this question of Tosphot. So based on the little bit that I can recall, I am trying to explain what I think Tophot must have been asking.]