Is there any authority to make extra decrees not in the Torah?

The big issue I have not addressed in general is if there is in fact any authority to make extra decrees not in the Torah and from the Commentary on Pirkei Avot from the amoraim it seems there is no such authority. This book is called אבות דר' נתן and it is included in every edition of the Vilna Shas. The basic idea there is on the Mishna "Make a fence around the Torah" and the general approach there is to say that Adam HaRishon added to the command of God [don't eat and do not touch] and that  caused him to fall. R.Yose said there "Better ten hand-breaths high that stand rather than 100 yards high that fall." There the Gra makes a few corrections to the text. I showed this to Rav Eliyahu Silverman the Rosh Yeshiva of the Aderet  Eliyahu the Yeshiva that goes by the path of the Gra in the Old City of Jerusalem and he agreed with me that that is the meaning of that commentary on the Mishna.

I brought this issue up with my learning partner and he opened up the Rambam on this issue. In any case it does look like most of the sages held there is authority to make laws that are outside of Torah Law.

And the reason I usually am lenient in those laws is because in most cases the reason for the law no longer exists--so I basically depend on the Raavad and pretty much all the Tosphot in Shas that when the reason for the law is gone, so is the law.

[For the public let me make this clear: Pirkei Avot is part of the Mishna. And in general commentary on the Mishna from the sages of the Talmud  is part of the Talmud. But for some reason this book is not included in the actual Talmud and rather comes under the category of Midrash. Another thing is that general Litvak yeshivas  are the gold standard by which everything else is measured. An example would be the Mir in NY. But the Aderet Eliyahu is unique in that it goes by the Gra in all details. That makes it the Gold Standard by which other Litvak yeshivas are measured.]

To say to yourself some lesson in Ethics every morning right when you wake up.

You can see this idea of starting the day right also in the Nefesh HaChaim of Reb Chaim fromVoloshin who says that when one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah when he wakes up in the morning-- then all distractions are removed from him.

The problem is obviously it is hard in the first place to accept the "yoke of Torah," to sit and learn Talmud many hours each day.




[The truth is the whole concept of the yoke of Torah is hard to get to in the first place or even understand what it means and even then the biggest enemies of it are the pseudo Torah scholars that just want other people's money by their pretending to learn Talmud.
The astounding amount of fraud in the religious world is  a challenge to anyone's faith.
When people advertise how religious they are by their dress, you know something is rotten there. They are up to something fraudulent. They are trying to get people's trust so that afterwards they can impose their own agenda. It is important to stay away from false friends. And also people that are rude and abrasive. Because when it comes down to time of need it will turn out that they are in fact your enemies. The religious world is generally into the entitlement mentality which makes them especially dangerous. The pretense of keeping Torah is a cloak and disguise. The little bit of Torah learning they do have makes them able to fool. The main principle is if they are not working at a real job then they are using the holy Torah to make money and therefore they are just con artists in disguise.]
In any case, what I try to do is to find the basic little paragraphs on Musar [Ethics] of the Gra or any Musar books and try to say it over to myself every morning right when I wake up. That is, I try to find the lessons in Ethics that I think I am most in need of. A good example is, in fact, that whole paragraph of Reb Chaim from Voloshin about accepting the yoke of Torah. Also there is a statement about trust in God from the Gra I tried to say to myself when I woke up. After that I would try to learn some Gemara, Tosphot and some Physics. in order to start the day right.  If  would have a Avi Ezri of Rav Shach I would probably try to just plow through one whole chapter in the morning also.


I admit  this guess work. I am just trying to figure out as best I can what character traits I need to work on.

In one book of Musar that was at the Mir in NY it was recommended to have a child right when he reaches the age of 13 also to start out learning Torah  more than usual -for the same reason of staring out right.


[The statement of the Gra about trust in God is brought in the "Levels of Man" by Yoseph Horvitz the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter. It is argued by Ibn Pakuda in the Obligations of the Heart whether one needs effort with trust or not. The Gra argues no and Ibn Pakuda argues yes.]

The Gra also brings this idea. He says that "One who is lacking knowledge in any one of the seven Wisdoms will be lacking in knowledge of Torah a hundred time more."

The idea of the Rambam (Maimonides) of including Physics and Metaphysics in the Oral Law (note 1) can be supported by the Tikunei HaZohar which brings  the idea of the hidden statement of Creation that is hidden in the works of Creation. There is a mystical element anyway of the Guide for the Perplexed as noted before by some people. In particular Rav Avraham Abulafia, the Mediaeval Mystic, wrote that in the first 40 chapters of the Guide for the Perplexed is contained the secret of the redemption.

(note 1) Where the Rambam says this in the Law of Learning Torah. There he refers to the first four ch.s of Mishne Torah as being called "Pardes" and he says what is called Pardes is  part of learning Gemara.

The thing about this is that even in Torah there is an aspect of סם חיים סם מוות medicine of life or poison of death as the Gemara says "סם חיים למימינים  בה וסם מוות למשמאילים בה"  The Torah is the medicine of life for those that learn it for its own sake and poison of death for those that learn it for money.[ישרים דרכי ה' צדיקים ילכו בם ורשעים יכשלו בם. הושע י'ד פסוק ט] One can learn Torah and become worse. Thus sometimes it is better to receive Torah in  the way that is hidden in the work of Creation.

The Gra also brings this idea. He says that "One who is lacking knowledge in any one of the seven Wisdoms will be lacking in knowledge of Torah a hundred time more."

[The path of  Gra is however not well known or accepted. Even the top Litvak yeshivas take him only in an approximate way. The only place that I know of that tries to follow the Gra in every detail is the Silverman Yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem.]

[The way to do Physics is by faith--to believe in what the Gemara says לעולם לגרס איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר] "One should always learn in the way of 'Girsa' which is to just say the words in order and to go on, even though he forgets what he is learning, and even if he does not  even know what he is saying." Saying the words is important. The Gemara says one that learns wthout saying the words will forget. But even more so--the saying of the words  helps to come to understand.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב A question on and an answer for R. Tam.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב  The גמרא first brings the משנה that that the חכמים say to keep the mustard away from the bees and that is  a question on רבא that says something that causes damage must be kept away from the boundary even if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged.  Then it answers the question telling us that the משנה is just saying mustard can cause damage, but the law of רבא still stands that even when there are no bees still one can not put mustard next to the border.
Then the גמרא asks from ר' יוסי. The גמרא says that ר' יוסי says it is permitted because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You should keep your bees away because they cause damage to my mustard. To ר' תם and ר' חננאל, the גמרא answers this thus "רבינא said the חכמים hold the one that causes damage must keep the object that cases damage away from the boundary." I mean to say that this answer is a different answer than that of רב פפא. The way ר' תם  explains it is thus. At first we thought the חכמים held the one that causes damage must keep his object away. and now after the answer we think he must keep his object away only when there s something on the other side of the boundary that could be damaged. That is, that רבא retracted his statement.  My question is then what does this have to do with the question they were asking from ר' יוסי? In the גמרא we apparently took care of the first part of the משנה. It was from ר' יוסי that we were asking.




בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הגמרא מביאה את המשנה כי  החכמים אומרים להרחיק את החרדל מן הדבורים וזו שאלה על רבא שאומר משהו שגורם נזק חייב להיתרחק מן הגבול אפילו אם אין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק. אז היא עונה על השאלה שהמשנה אומרת לנו  שחרדל יכול לגרום נזק, אבל החוק של רבא עדיין עומד שגם כאשר אין דבורים עדיין אי אפשר לשים חרדל ליד הגבול. ואז הגמרא שואלת מר' יוסי. הגמרא אומרת כי ר' יוסי אומר שזה מותר, כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים להגיד לבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להרחיק את החרדל שלי משם? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך משום שהם גורמים נזק לחרדל שלי.  לדעת ר' תם ור' חננאל,  התשובת גמרא היא בכך "רבינא אומר חכמים מחזיקים שאחד שגורם נזק חייב להרחיק את האובייקט שגורם נזק מן הגבול." תשובה זו היא תשובה שונה מזו של רב פפא. הדרך שר' תם מסביר את זה היא בכך. בהתחלה חשבנו שחכמים מחזיקים  מה שגורם נזק חייב להתרחק משם. ועכשיו אחרי התשובה שאנחנו חושבים שהוא חייב לשמור האובייקט שלו משם רק כשיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק. כלומר, כי רבא חזר בו מדעתו. השאלה שלי היא אז מה זה שייך לשאלה שהם שאלו מן ר' יוסי? בגמרא  טיפלו כבר בחלק הראשון של משנה. עכשיו  מן ר' יוסי אנחנו שואלים.

____________________________________________________________________________

I think the answer is this. רב פפא is not coming to answer the question היכי משכחת ליה. Instead he is coming to answer the original question on רבא from the משנה on משרה וירק

Talmud Bava Batra 18b  The Gemara first brings the Mishna that that the sages say to keep the mustard away from the bees and that is  a question on Rava that says something that causes damage must be kept away from the boundary even if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged.  Then it answers the question telling us that the Mishna is just saying mustard can cause damage but the law of Rava still stands that even when there are no bees still one can not put mustard next to the border.
Then the Gemara asks from R. Yose. R. Yose says it is permitted because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You should keep your bees away because they cause damage to my mustard.

To R. Tam (and R. Kananel), the gemara answers this thus "Ravina said the sages hold the one that causes damage must keep the object that cases damage away from the boundary." (I mean to say that this answer is a different answer than that of Rav Papa.)

The way R Tam explains it is thus. At first we thought the sages held the one that causes damage must keep his object away. and now after the answer we think he must keep his object away only when there s something on the other side of the boundary that could be damaged. That is, that Rava retracted his statement.  My question is then what does this have to do with the question they were asking from R Yose? In the Gemara we apparently took care of the first part of the Mishna. It was from R Yose that we were asking

trust in God along with effort or without effort

The argument about whether  בטחון עם השתדלות or בטחון בלי השתדלו one should trust in God along with  effort or without effort is between the Gra and Rav Ibn Pakuda (The Obligations of the Heart) and centers on King Asa. [King Asa was the King of Judah]. That is the verse that says he was punished because he went to the doctors instead of to God for a cure. Ibn Pakuka says it was OK to go to doctors, but that he also should have trusted in God. The Gra's statement is not focused on King Asa, but rather the verse in Proverbs בטח אל ה' בכול לבך ואל בינתך אל תשען.["Trust in God with all your heart and do not depend on your intellect."]  But still it looks like the Gra is frowning doing effort to get one's needs met. Rather one should trust in God. To the Gra it looks like an either this or that, but not both. Rav Ibn Pakuda suggests that trust in God can go along with effort.
My question is why does no one mention the fact that King Asa sent for help from the king of Syria to fight against Basha, the king of Israel,-- and that the prophet specifically criticizes him for the same exact reason that later he was criticized about the doctors?

The general approach towards "rishonim" medieval authorities is that it is impossible to decide between them because both are אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים "These and these are the words of the Living God." Thus in this case also [which is a מחלוקת ראשונים and argument between First Authorities] it is not possible to say which one is right. [Authorities after the rishonim can be wrong,-- and are wrong quite often.]

I was in the hospital in Uman with my foot and leg broken  with multiple fractures. Two guys saw I was in trouble and called an ambulance, and brought me to the hospital.  I am extremely grateful to God that he granted to me help and  a great doctor  and I can walk again. [I still can not jog.] But to me this seems like one case where going to the doctor was of great importance. Still other times it seems to me that all my efforts in almost any direction backfire to make things even worse than if I had just left things alone. Thus clearly the approach of Ibn Pakuda is the best idea and other times that of the Gra.

[The reason this was a big issue in the Mir is that it relates to the fact that almost everyone in the Mir in NY was learning Torah for its own sake [לשמה] and had no plans on using it for money.]

U-33 A Minor 6-8 time  [U-33 in midi ]  u-33 nwc

You can see the problem with false prophets even in the period of the First Temple in the Old Testament. Also with false leaders. This problem has not gone away.


To be it seems related to idolatry because I think it is possible that idolatry and the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] are really the same thing in essence.
 The main issue is the problems with Torah scholars that are demons as brought down in the Zohar and the Ari.

The trouble is that you need to be around with people you can trust. The religious world makes this show of  "We are all one big family" when they want your money. But if, God forbid, you are ever in need --forget it. More so- demonic Torah scholars  try actively to cause damage to you because that is their inner essence.
This problem is however not in Reform or Conservative groups from what I can tell.  But it did get into the religious world.

Some people have found this kind of trouble even in the top Mount Everest-the Litvak Yeshivas-which one would normally expect to be immune. The reason seems to be that where holiness is to be found, that is where the Sita Achra tries the hardest to run interference.

My opinion about this is that the best approach is that of the Litvak yeshivas that go strictly with the Gra, like the Silverman Yeshivas in the Old City of Jerusalem.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב The actual way the גמרא however understands ר' יוסי is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then the other שכן can also put his object there. So the גמרא asks,  How could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place according to רבא? But perhaps that is exactly what ר' יוסי means? Each can put his thing by the border. The question I want to ask is this. Why does the גמרא insist on asking on ר' יוסי "How could this situation be found?" All ר' יוסי says in the משנה is "It is permitted." And even though the גמרא brings the full statement that says, It is permitted because the owner of the mustard can ask the owner of the bees: "Why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away.
Why not understand ר' יוסי simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.  How is it found? It is found because to ר' יוסי it is permitted.

What I mean to say is that the three תוספות on the page deal with the answer of the גמרא to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the ר''ת and ר''ח that say רבינא is  a different answer.  And in רבינא the understanding is that ר' יוסי means  the bees can be put Next to the boundary because the bees  are damaged but do not cause damage. That is at this point in the גמרא. The גמרא however does change this.

 I mean that my above question is only to the other תוספות because ר''ת can simply say that that is the very answer of רבינא, that the bees can be put there.
However R. Tam does not say that this idea that Ravina is a new answer makes the question on Rava dissolve. just the opposite. He says it makes the question on Rava all the more powerful to the degree that Rava has to retract his entire thesis --at least when it comes to the sages.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הדרך בפועל שהגמרא מבינה ר' יוסי היא כי אם שכן אחד שם דבורים או החרדל שלו ליד הגבול, ואז שכן השני יכול גם לשים האובייקט שלו שם. אז הגמרא שואלת, איך יכול להיות המצב הזה?  מי יכול לשים דבר על ידי הגבול מלכתחילה על פי רבא? אבל אולי זה בדיוק מה ר' יוסי מכוון? היינו שכל אחד יכול לשים הדבר שלו ליד הגבול. השאלה שאני רוצה לשאול היא זו. למה הגמרא מתעקשת לשאול על ר' יוסי "איך יכול המצב הזה ניתן להימצא?" כל מה ר' יוסי אומר במשנה הוא "מותר". ואף על פי הגמרא מביאה את ההצהרה המלאה שאומרת, זה מותר כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים לשאול את הבעלים של הדבורים: "מדוע אתם אומרים לי לשמור החרדל שלי רחוק משם? תשים את הדבורים שלך הרחק משם?למה לא מבינים ר' יוסי פשוט? הן החרדל הן הדבורים ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. איך זה נמצא? זה נמצא כי לר' יוסי זה מותר.

 שלושת התוספות על הדף אינם משנים את השאלה עצמה. מלבד ר''ת ו ר''ח  שאומרים רבינא הוא תשובה אחרת מתשובת הלוקח. וגם להם לרבינא ההבנה היא כי ר' יוסי אומר הדבורים ניתנות לשים ליד הגבול כי הדבורים יכולות להינזק אך אינן גורמות נזק בשלב הזה של הגמרא. גמרא אולם משנה זו אחר כך

 אני מתכוון כי השאלה הנ"ל שלי היא רק לתוספות אחרות בגלל שר''ת פשוט יכול לומר כי זו היא התשובה של רבינא, כי הדבורים ניתנות לשים שם..

It occurs to  me to ask really a simple question on Bava Batra page 18-b.

The question I want to ask is this. Why does the Gemara insist on asking on R.Yose "How could this situation be found?" All R. Yose says in the Mishna is "It is permitted." And even though the Gemata brings the full statement that says It is permitted "because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away."
Why not understand R. Yose simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.

The actual way the Gemara however understands R. Jose is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then he says the other can also put his object there. Soon that the Gemara asks according to Rava how could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place? But perhaps that is exactly what R Jose means? Each can put his thing by the border.


[I do not think Tosphot answers this even though I could be wrong. What I mean to say is that the three Tosphots on the page deal with the answer of the Gemara to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the R.Tam and R. Kananel that say Ravina is  a different answer.  And in Ravina the understanding is that R. Jose means  the bees can be put there because they are damaged - but not damagers.]


 I mean that my above question is only to the other Tosphots because R. Tam can simply say that that is the very answer of Ravina--that the bees can be put there.

 As for problems I think there is not anything I can say about specific problems;--  and in fact when the reason for a problem is unknown and not well understood, it is always best to do nothing. The reason is the as long as the source of any problem is unknown, almost anything one does to improve the situation is almost guaranteed to make things worse. George Washington was sick and the doctors advised blood letting.They did it so much that they certainly caused his death. So when actual mechanisms are not understood then doing nothing is always better than "something must be done." [Something must be done almost always amounts to walking into a pharmacy and just picking out any medicine on the shelf on the assumption that everything there is healthy.  ]

On the other hand there are things one should  do as general aspects of healthy living. Learning the Old Testament and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. Also Learning Physics and Math and talking with God when one is  outside walking and trying to get exercise and eating healthy. 

medieval ethics

The idea of Reb Israel Salanter of learning medieval ethics in order to learn and develop good character  is a great idea in terms of learning the basic worldview of Torah. But it should not be assumed that people that represent this Musar movement today are anything like the original idea. The whole idea of the Musar movement basically got to be a kind of ''frumkeit'' [i.e. religious fanaticism].
But I have yet to hear of any system that can not be abused.  . Thus Musar also can be abused. But the basic idea is good and sound. In fact, I myself tried at one point to actually follow that path. I mean not just the basic set of Mediaeval Musar, but also to get through the Musar books that came later like the Shelah and Yesod Veshoresh HaAvodah, and in fact to keep to what ever those books were saying.
I got off track I admit. However I do think if I had managed to stick with it, I would be doing a lot better today.
 The disciple of Reb Israel Salanter Isaac Blasser, gives a list of about thirty books that count as classical Musar in his own book of Musar "The Light of Israel."

[I am thinking that the fact that I got sidetracked, might be more common than is expected. That could be the reason that some Litvak yeshivas refused to become Musar yeshivas. It is hard to find the right balance. Musar can lead to getting out of balance. But I have to say that I think the advantages outweigh the risks. In any case I think that while I was at the Mir in NY the combination of Musar along with Gemara really was great for me.

The Sages of the Talmud say: מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור "What is above? What is below? What is inside? And what is outside? For one who looks into these things --it is better if he had never been created."
It does seem that most people that go into mysticism go a little bit insane. But they remain sane enough to hide their nutty ideas of grandeur. But eventually it comes out to the surface. They can not hide it forever.

The general approach of authentic Litvak yeshivas towards this is to disavow any knowledge. The response of roshei yeshiva towards this kind of thing is "It is high things." 

I myself spent a lot of time learning the Ari and the Reshash and Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira, but at this point it seems to me I would be doing a lot better today if I had stuck with Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.  

learning Torah is very great and holy so there seems to be nothing to do but to find a Litvak yeshiva and learn there or learn at home but to avoid all other religious organizations.

Reb Nachman fromUman mentions in quite a few places the problems involved in following Torah scholars that are demons. From this point of view, a person might seem like a true Torah scholar but in fact be a demon. This idea in fact is mentioned in the Talmud--but in such a way that the message gets lost. For in the Talmud it says the Evil Inclination [Satan] leaves the whole world and comes to rest on the Jewish people. Then it leaves them, and comes to rest on Torah scholars.

There are other hints to this in the Talmud itself, but the basic idea comes from the Zohar and the Ari.
Therefore  it became the custom in the Na Nach group to simply disavow any involvement with any Torah scholars at all;-- which seems to be the safe approach.

Since I do not have the books of Reb Nachman available I can not look them up to give references.  Mainly I am thinking of LM Vol. I ch. 8, ch. 12, ch. 28; vol 2 ch. 8. [Just now I also recall vol I ch. 61. In any case, there are other places Reb Nachman hints to this idea that I can not recall  off hand.]

The truth be told it is hard to know how to deal with this problem;-- which seems to be getting worse. The main problem certainly is in the groups that came under the excommunication of the Gra where the Satanic influence is obvious. The trouble is that this influence seems to have spread.

Reb Nachman also said that even if one would just take one statement of his and walk with that his entire life, that would be enough to make him a good person. The implication is that if all one would do would be to avoid Torah scholars that are satanic, that would be enough to guarantee that one will make it to the Garden of Eden.

But I should mention that learning Torah is very great and holy so there seems to be nothing to do but to find a Litvak yeshiva and learn there, or learn at home.

[Reb Nachman also mentions that in every area of value there is a side of holiness and an opposite side of the Sitra Achra. This applies  in this case also. That is why I am very grateful to God that he sent me on the straight path of Torah right from the start--to Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway [Reb Freifeld] and to the Mir in NY {Rav Berenbaum}]

בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה

בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה מכלל על סוגיא של חרדל ודבורים. שאלת הגמרא היא שהחכמים מחזיקים שהמזיק מחוייב להרחיק את עצמו, ולכן  חייב להיות שר' יוסי מחזיק על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. אבל אם כך אז למה הוא לא אומר את אותו הדבר על משרה וירקות? כלומר, החכמים מחזיקים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים כי למרות שהדבורים גורמות נזק, עדיין הן נחשבות ניזוקות כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ר' יוסי מחזיק בשיטה שאחד יכול לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, משום ששניהם שווים, וכיוון שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך גם את החרדל אפשר לשים ליד הגבול. אז תשובת הגמרא היא כי ר' יוסי גם אומר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. פירוש הדבר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק ושהחרדל אינו גורם נזק כלל לדבורים ולכן יש להעביר את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ישנן שתי שאלות. מדוע תוספות משנה את החכמים. בהתחלה הם מחזיקים שהדבורים נחשבות דברים ניזוקים כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ובתשובת הגמרא הם מחזיקים שדבורים לא גורמות שום נזק בכלל. השאלה השנייה היא זו. למה הם משנים את דעתו של ר' יוסי גם? ראשית הם אומרים שר' יוסי מחזיק שיכולים לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, כי שניהם שווים. מאז שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך חרדל גם ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. אז תוספות אומר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק לחרדל, אבל החרדל לא גורם נזק בכלל לדבורים. לכן מחוייבים להרחיק את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. אני מתכוון באמת כי לא נראה שיש סיבה לשנות את דעתו של ר" יוסי כך דרסטי. גם בחלק שאלת גמרא מובן כי דבורים גורמות נזק, אז אפשר להשאיר העובדה הזו במקום ולומר שר' יוסי אומר שאתה יכול לעזוב את הדבורים במקום לשים את חרדל לצד זה. ההבדל היחיד יהיה בחלק שאלת גמרא העובדה שהוא היה מותר לשים הדבורים ליד הגבול וזה הופך את הדבורים להיות נחשבות ניזקות. בתשובה שהתקבל אתה יכול פשוט לעזוב את הרעיון הזה כי ממילא בתשובה לא אף אחד מחזיק בזה

In בבא בתרא page י''ח ענוד ב the  תוספות ד''ה מכלל on the סוגיא of mustard and bees. The question of the  גמרא is since the חכמים hold על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו, so it must be that ר' יוסי holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. But if so then why does he not say the same this about a  משרה and vegetables? That means to תוספות that the חכמים hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because even though bees  cause damage, still they are  considered to be damaged because they were put next to the border by permission. ר' יוסי holds  you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then the גמרא answers that ר' יוסי also says על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. That means to תוספות that ר' יוסי holds  that the bees cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved ששה טפחים away from the border.There are two questions.  Why does תוספות change the חכמים. At first they hold from the bees are considered things ניזוקות because they were put next to the border by permission. Then they hold bees do no damage at all.

 The second question I have is this. Why do they change the opinion of ר' יוסי also? First they say that ר' יוסי holds you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal. Since the bees are next to the border, so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then תוספות says  that ר' יוסי holds that the bees  damage mustard, but  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees. Therefore צריכים להרחיק את הבורים ששה טפחים  away from the border. The answer these questions must come from the way the גמרא answers the question on ר' יוסי.

I  mean  there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion  of ר' יוסי so drastically.  Even in the question part of the גמרא it is understood that bees cause damage, so one could  leave that fact in place and say ר' יוסי means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it. The only difference would be in the question part of the גמרא the fact that he was allowed to put the bees there make it that the bees are considered the ניזק. In the answer you could simply leave out that idea which in any case n the answer no one hold from, not even the חכמים






IN Plain English:

In the Talmud Bava Batra the third Tosphot on the sugia of mustard and bees [page 18 side B] there are two questions that I have. One is why does Tosphot change the sages from the bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission, to they are considered subject to damage but not causing  damages because they in fact cause no damage.

The second question I have is why do they change the opinion of R. Yose also from you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. To then saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.

The answer to both questions must come from the way the Gemara answers the question on R Yose saying he and also the sages hold it is upon the one that cause damage to remove the object.


Just to make my questions more clear let me present what Tosphot actually says. I just make it clear that this Tosphot is not anything like the Tosphot that comes right before it and they both are holding radically different ideas about this sugia  and they disagree on major points. [However both Tosphot hold that this part of the Gemara is still holing that half the field was bought.]

The question of the Gemara is since the sages hold the one that causes damage must remove his object so it must be that R. Jose hold the one that is damaged must be the one to remove his object.
[But if so then why does he not say the same this about a washbasin and vegetables?] That means to Tosphot that the sages hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because bees are  considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission. R Jose holds  you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border.

Then the Gemara answers that R Jose also says that it is upon the one that causes damage to remove his object. That means to Tosphot that R Yose hold saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.

I  mean even in R. Jose there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion so drastically.  Even in the question it is understood that bees cause damage, so leave that in place and say R. Jose means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it.

Navardok yeshivas

Trust in God does have some support from Jeremiah chapter 17 verses 5-8 as Joseph Yozel Horvitz points out in his book "The Levels of Man."[He was the founder of the Navardok yeshivas that emphasized trust in God.]
Rav Joseph Yozel also brought the events surrounding Elisha the prophet that are brought in the second book of Kings. There was a famine in the land and Elisha said that on the next day one measure of  wheat would be sold for one shekel and two measures of barely for the same price. There was a person that was entrusted with the king's finances or held some high government post.  He heard the words of Elisha and said "Even if God would make windows in the heavens to rain down bread could such a thing be true?" Elisha said you will see it but not eat therefrom. The next day in fact wheat was sold for that  but the prince that doubted was tramped and died.
Therefore if you put these two things together that God does promise good to those that trust Him and that there is a punishment for not trusting in him, you get the basic idea of Navardok yeshivas.

Navardok I should mention was a big presence in Lithuania. It was not the regular run of the mill Litvak yeshiva but their presence was felt.The Stipler Rav was the son-in-law of Rav Joseph Yozel who along with Rav Shach was one of the greatest sages of the previous generation. [The Stipler wrote some very good books called the Kehilat Yaakov but personally I find Rav Shach's Avi Ezri to be just about the best book written by any achron. Maybe it is just a matter of taste -I do not know.

In any case the whole Navardok thing was a little outside the actual requirements of the Torah. For as is very well known the Torah requires one to be working and also learning--not just learning and  thus to be dependent on charity. But Navardok stepped over that line--far beyond it in fact. The idea was trust in God and learn Torah and He will send a shiduch [spouse] and also Parnasa [a vocation or cash]. 
However yeshivas have changed character and thus for myself I find it better to learn Torah on my own and not to be involved in any community. Spiritual health requires me to come to hope and trust in God and I find most religious groups are very bad for my spiritual health. They bring me down so far that it may take years to get back up.

[The religious groups that I find good and healthy are mainly the Lithuanian yeshivas in NY and Bnei Brak, and also the Silverman yeshivas in Jerusalem which go strictly by the Gra. However I should mention that I have a lot of respect for Reb Nachman, but not any of the groups that are under the excommunication of the Gra.]

the 13 principles of faith of the Rambam

In terms of the 13 principles of faith of the Rambam.
This I say even though I am aware that not all rishonim held by the 13 principles are articles of faith. There is Rav Joseph Albo [the author of the commentary on the Guide printed in most versions of the Guide.] And also Abravanel.






Rav Joseph Albo did not disagree about the truth of the principles, but rather whether they are axioms of faith that one is required to believe.

 I should make clear that since I learned the writings of the Rav Isaac Luria, I do not think the simple explanation  of every verse in the Old Testament is what people think is literal. You can see this yourself if you learn the writings of the Ari {Isaac Luria}. For example, when he explains the seven days of Creation as the seven lower sepherot of the world of Creation [under Emanation] he says clearly that that is the actual meaning of the verses, not a mystical explanation.
That is the simple Peshat "explanation" is the seven days are the seven lower sephotot of the world of Creation. The deeper explanation is what the verses refer to in Emanation.

First Hundred Items to Disappear in a crisis.

1. Generators (Good ones cost dearly. Gas storage, risky. Noisy...target of thieves; maintenance etc.)
2. Water Filters/Purifiers
3. Portable Toilets
4. Seasoned Firewood. Wood takes about 6 - 12 months to become dried, for home uses.
5. Lamp Oil, Wicks, Lamps (First Choice: Buy CLEAR oil. If scarce, stockpile ANY!)
6. Coleman Fuel. Impossible to stockpile too much.
7. Guns, Ammunition, Pepper Spray, Knives, Clubs, Bats & Slingshots.
8. Hand-can openers, & hand egg beaters, whisks.
9. Honey/Syrups/white, brown sugar
10. Rice - Beans - Wheat
11. Vegetable Oil (for cooking) Without it food burns/must be boiled etc.,)
12. Charcoal, Lighter Fluid (Will become scarce suddenly)
13. Water Containers (Urgent Item to obtain.) Any size. Small: HARD CLEAR PLASTIC ONLY - note - food grade if for drinking.
14. Mini Heater head (Propane) (Without this item, propane won't heat a room.)
15. Grain Grinder (Non-electric)
16. Propane Cylinders (Urgent: Definite shortages will occur.
17. Survival Guide Book.
18. Mantles: Aladdin, Coleman, etc. (Without this item, longer-term lighting is difficult.)
19. Baby Supplies: Diapers/formula. ointments/aspirin, etc.
20. Washboards, Mop Bucket w/wringer (for Laundry)
21. Cookstoves (Propane, Coleman & Kerosene)
22. Vitamins
23. Propane Cylinder Handle-Holder (Urgent: Small canister use is dangerous without this item)
24. Feminine Hygiene/Haircare/Skin products.
25. Thermal underwear (Tops & Bottoms)
26. Bow saws, axes and hatchets, Wedges (also, honing oil)
27. Aluminum Foil Reg. & Heavy Duty (Great Cooking and Barter Item)
28. Gasoline Containers (Plastic & Metal)
29. Garbage Bags (Impossible To Have Too Many).
30. Toilet Paper, Kleenex, Paper Towels
31. Milk - Powdered & Condensed (Shake Liquid every 3 to 4 months)
32. Garden Seeds (Non-Hybrid) (A MUST)
33. Clothes pins/line/hangers (A MUST)
34. Coleman's Pump Repair Kit
35. Tuna Fish (in oil)
36. Fire Extinguishers (or..large box of Baking Soda in every room)
37. First aid kits
38. Batteries (all sizes...buy furthest-out for Expiration Dates)
39. Garlic, spices & vinegar, baking supplies
40. Big Dogs (and plenty of dog food)
41. Flour, yeast & salt
42. Matches. {"Strike Anywhere" preferred.) Boxed, wooden matches will go first
43. Writing paper/pads/pencils, solar calculators
44. Insulated ice chests (good for keeping items from freezing in Wintertime.)
45. Workboots, belts, Levis & durable shirts
46. Flashlights/LIGHTSTICKS & torches, "No. 76 Dietz" Lanterns
47. Journals, Diaries & Scrapbooks (jot down ideas, feelings, experience; Historic Times)
48. Garbage cans Plastic (great for storage, water, transporting - if with wheels)
49. Men's Hygiene: Shampoo, Toothbrush/paste, Mouthwash/floss, nail clippers, etc
50. Cast iron cookware (sturdy, efficient)
51. Fishing supplies/tools
52. Mosquito coils/repellent, sprays/creams
53. Duct Tape
54. Tarps/stakes/twine/nails/rope/spikes
55. Candles
56. Laundry Detergent (liquid)
57. Backpacks, Duffel Bags
58. Garden tools & supplies
59. Scissors, fabrics & sewing supplies
60. Canned Fruits, Veggies, Soups, stews, etc.
61. Bleach (plain, NOT scented: 4 to 6% sodium hypochlorite)
62. Canning supplies, (Jars/lids/wax)
63. Knives & Sharpening tools: files, stones, steel
64. Bicycles...Tires/tubes/pumps/chains, etc
65. Sleeping Bags & blankets/pillows/mats
66. Carbon Monoxide Alarm (battery powered)
67. Board Games, Cards, Dice
68. d-con Rat poison, MOUSE PRUFE II, Roach Killer
69. Mousetraps, Ant traps & cockroach magnets
70. Paper plates/cups/utensils (stock up, folks)
71. Baby wipes, oils, waterless & Antibacterial soap (saves a lot of water)
72. Rain gear, rubberized boots, etc.
73. Shaving supplies (razors & creams, talc, after shave)
74. Hand pumps & siphons (for water and for fuels)
75. Soysauce, vinegar, bullions/gravy/soupbase
76. Reading glasses
77. Chocolate/Cocoa/Tang/Punch (water enhancers)
78. "Survival-in-a-Can"
79. Woolen clothing, scarves/ear-muffs/mittens
80. Boy Scout Handbook, / also Leaders Catalog
81. Roll-on Window Insulation Kit (MANCO)
82. Graham crackers, saltines, pretzels, Trail mix/Jerky
83. Popcorn, Peanut Butter, Nuts
84. Socks, Underwear, T-shirts, etc. (extras)
85. Lumber (all types)
86. Wagons & carts (for transport to and from)
87. Cots & Inflatable mattress's
88. Gloves: Work/warming/gardening, etc.
89. Lantern Hangers
90. Screen Patches, glue, nails, screws,, nuts & bolts
91. Teas
92. Coffee
93. Cigarettes
94. Wine/Liquors (for bribes, medicinal, etc,)
95. Paraffin wax
96. Glue, nails, nuts, bolts, screws, etc.
97. Chewing gum/candies
98. Atomizers (for cooling/bathing)
99. Hats & cotton neckerchiefs
100. Goats/chickens

From a Sarajevo War Survivor:
Experiencing horrible things that can happen in a war - death of parents and
friends, hunger and malnutrition, endless freezing cold, fear, sniper attacks.

1. Stockpiling helps. but you never no how long trouble will last, so locate
    near renewable food sources.
2. Living near a well with a manual pump is like being in Eden.
3. After awhile, even gold can lose its luster. But there is no luxury in war
   quite like toilet paper. Its surplus value is greater than gold's.
4. If you had to go without one utility, lose electricity - it's the easiest to
   do without (unless you're in a very nice climate with no need for heat.)
5. Canned foods are awesome, especially if their contents are tasty without
    heating. One of the best things to stockpile is canned gravy - it makes a lot of
    the dry unappetizing things you find to eat in war somewhat edible. Only needs
    enough heat to "warm", not to cook. It's cheap too, especially if you buy it in
    bulk.
6. Bring some books - escapist ones like romance or mysteries become more
    valuable as the war continues. Sure, it's great to have a lot of survival
    guides, but you'll figure most of that out on your own anyway - trust me, you'll
    have a lot of time on your hands.
7. The feeling that you're human can fade pretty fast. I can't tell you how many
    people I knew who would have traded a much needed meal for just a little bit of
    toothpaste, rouge, soap or cologne. Not much point in fighting if you have to
    lose your humanity. These things are morale-builders like nothing else.
8. Slow burning candles and matches, matches, matches

pseudo sciences

Classical education used to stress Western Civilization. To some degree the fault that this disappeared is in the Frankfurt school that intended to undermine USA ideals. But also I should mention that the pressure of Sputnik I think caused the focus of education to change towards STEM. [And I am all for STEM but I also realize you need a basis in Western Ideals to support it.]


Mainly what education needs is to drop all the pseudo sciences  and anything that has the word "studies" in it. (What is pseudo science, everything that has the word "science" in it. The word "science" is always added to make something stupid sound profound].

I think there is plenty of room in high school for both STEM and Classical Quadrivium and Trivium which are known in books of Musar as "the seven wisdoms".


I should mention that the concepts of the Quadrivium and Trivium are not exactly as they sound today. The concepts are related Trivium means where the three roads meet. Quadrivium means where the four roads meet. That is there is a connection. number (Arithmetic), number in space (Geometry), number in time ( Music), number in space and time (Astronomy) etc. Thus today this would mean Vector Analysis, Physics, etc.

[If guess of mine is true then it is possible to equate the Gra and the Rambam. We know from  Baruk of Shkolov in his introduction to his translation of Euclid that the Gra emphasized learning the seven wisdoms. We also know the Rambam emphasizes Physics and Metaphysics. These seem like different areas. But we we understand the Quadrivium and Trivium not in their simple meaning but more as the ancients understood them then we can equate the Rambam with the Gra. [Thus Grammar:defining the objects and information perceived by the five senses. Hence, the Law of Identity: a tree is a tree, and not a cat. That is knowledge of phenomenal reality. etc.]

Jesus and Rav Avraham Abulafia

The major thing that I find  intriguing about Jesus is not the New Testament at all but rather Rav Avraham Abulafia, the mystic from the Middle Ages.  It is not just that he identifies Jesus with the Messiah son of Joseph mentioned in the Talmud Suka, the Zohar,  and the New Tikunim  by Rav Moshe Chaim Luzato, but more of interest is the  subject of Messiah Son of Joseph that you find in the Gra and the Ramchal. Furthermore in the Ari you find this idea of ירידת בדורות the lowering of the generations, but also many ideas that indicate something going on with Jesus of great interest. One thing is there are a few hints towards the idea of Jesus being the messiah son of Joseph in the commentary of the Ari on the end of Genesis where he associates Jesus with the soul of Joseph son of Yaakov. [The writings of the Ari are just called that. They are actually from Reb Chaim Vital. In any case, the major ones are the Eitz Chaim and the 8 Gates [eight books]. Three of those books are commentary on the Five Books of Moshe, and this idea is brought there.]

Some people take great offense at the slightest mention of anything positive about Jesus, but this has been my position since around 1993 when I was in the basement of Hebrew University studying the manuscripts of Rav Abulafia. 
 Dr. Moshe Idel has written a few books on Avraham Abulafia and Medieval Mysticism, but his major treatment of this issue is in his first book which was his Ph.D Thesis at Hebrew U.

In the meantime, you can actually get the books of Avraham Abulafia yourself without having to go through the torment of reading Medieval manuscripts. They were all printed up in the later years after I discovered this, and I think are available in books stores. At least I saw the entire set being sold in a book store near Kikar Shabat in Jerusalem.

I should mention that Rav Abulafia is brought down in the Chida and also Reb Chaim Vital in the last volume of Shaari Kedusha [not by name] where Reb Chaim Vital brings down unifications that come directly from Avraham Abulafia  (not the Ari).



[I would have spent more time learning Rav Abulafia, but in the meantime I started doing Physics and that took up a lot of time. But if  could, I would try to plow through all the books of Rav Abulafia along with the Ari and Remak. There are also some very nice books by Rav Yaakov Abukazeira and Shalom Sharabi, but where  am today they are not available. Besides that I think I was doing a lot better in life when I simply was learning Gemara at the Mir and in Israel. While the mystics are important and have a lot a great information, I find myself a lot more happy with simply learning Gemara. You can disagree with me, but my feeling is that the great mystics are good commentary on the Law of Moses, the Oral and Written Law-but that they are only a side issue. A Branch, but not the Law itself.]

[It occurs to me to bring up the idea of attachment  and "oneness" with God. This is actually a command in the Torah in Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 20 and it is brought as far as I can recall by all of the people that enumerated the 613 commandments [mitzvot]. Thus the fact that Jesus said "the Father and I are one" does not mean the Trinity, but rather that he was attached to God or as most mystics put it "נכלל באור אין סוף" (included in the Infinite Light. I can understand that people that have not experienced this kind of Devekut (attachment with God) can find this hard to understand. Still this is a well known phenomena of a person feeling completely attached to God.]

The issue of trust in God comes up with King Asa who was one of the better kings of Judah and Benjamin. He got sick in his feet and the verse blames him for going to doctors instead of to God.
The Primary Musar book Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות  says he should have trusted in God  but that השתדלות effort was allowed. One is not blamed for taking reasonable steps to get his needs met.
Reb Israel Salanter in the magazine he published in Vilna, the'' Tevuna'', says the Ramban [Nachmanides] disagrees with this. The disciple of R. Israel Salanter, the מדרגת האדם, brings this idea in the name of the Ramban.
I asked David Bronson (who studied the Ramban for years) where this Ramban is located? So far no one seems to know.

In any case the issue seems to me to be unclear when effort is required and when it is even forbidden and reflects lack of trust in God.

I think when the דרך הטבע [way of the world] mechanism is well understood, then one should go with that. It is rather in things that are not well understood that one should be passive.[That would be why King Asa was blamed for going to doctors.]

Trust was a major issue in the Mir Yeshiva in NY because of two issues: Parnasa [making a living] and Shiduchim [finding a wife].
I can not say I have a clear idea about when one should trust and when one should do effort, but the story about the death of George Washington is instructive. He was sick and the doctors were called in. The recommended blood letting. And after all, if a little blood letting is good for you, then a lot must be better. So they drained off about half his blood. Sometimes if you do not know what to do or you do n0t know the mechanisms involved, it is best to do nothing.

U-30 E Flat Majormp3  u30 midi  u30 nwc

why do righteous people suffer?

The book of Job presents the issue of  why do righteous people suffer? This is a debate there.The sages of the Talmud take the position that Job was wrong. All suffering comes from sin.
But what does one do when he or she does not know what sin he is doing that he needs to repent on?
I should mention that often one's children do suffer from their own sins, but that if a parent repents on his sin that causes thoughts of repentance to enter into the minds of their children. But that leaves us with the original problem.
The books of Musar bring down the statement of the sages, "What should one do when he has sinned a grievous sin and is liable  the death penalty towards heaven? If he used to learn one page (of Gemara), he should learn two pages. If he used to learn one chapter (Mishna) he should learn two chapters." That is,-- to increase one's learning Torah. That is as Reb Nachman said because, "Torah is higher than repentance." If one learns Torah, that causes corrections in the world of repentance also.

Learning Torah ought to be along these lines:

Mikra, Mishna, Musar, Math. The four "M"s. "Mikra" in Hebrew means the Old Testament. Mishna refers to the six books of R. Yehuda HaNasi which contains the essence of the Oral Law. [The two Talmuds were both written as commentaries on the Mishna]. Musar (Moral principles) refers to mainly Mediaeval Books of Ethics but it also refers to more recent books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. Math is basically my own short hand way of describing what the Rambam said about learning Physics and Metaphysics. Physics is mainly Functional  Analysis and Lie Groups.[But it has to be checked by objective reality. That is what makes it Physics.]

My parents also emphasized learning a vocation and survival skills.
[Survival skills means first of all to get as far away as possible from evil people. That s one tip they do not share with you in survival manuals.]



I should mention that the very best book I ever saw on the Mishna is the commentary of Rav Ovadiah from Bartenura which is printed with the Mishna in almost every edition. I just ate up that like apple pie. Every second I was not in the regular yeshiva sessions I ran to the Mishna with that commentary.

The disciple of the Gra, Reb Chaim from Voloshin concerning the issue of idolatry.

Worship of a human being [or even of a dead human being] does not have anything to do with the idea that he or she was immortal, or all knowing, or even the Creator. This you can see in the book of the disciple of the Gra, Reb Chaim from Voloshin the Nefesh HaChaim. There, Reb Chaim goes into detail showing that idolatry has to do with intention to connect one's soul with the spirit of that person.
This you can see most clearly in Buddhism. Even though today Buddha is considered "all knowing" [omniscient] by his followers, in the original texts there are statements that contradict this. In any case, even though Buddha is certainly worshiped, that  has nothing to do with the idea of his being immortal or a creator or omniscient. This is clearly as the Nefesh HaChaim points out.

[Nowadays, few people worship statues, but many people do worship dead people. I would not have believed how easy it is to fall for this if I myself had not seen this in the religious world. Even for this reason alone it is worthwhile to listen to the Gra.]

When you read the Old Testament and see how the kings of Israel (and even the kings of Judah) fell into idolatry, you cannot help but feel great frustration. You keep on asking yourself, "How could they have been so stupid?" And yet nowadays that the external form has changed, it is all too easy to fall into the same mistake and yet to think of ourselves as being clean and innocent of transgression.

[You could rightfully ask on this from the stories of Reb Chaim Vital going around to Kivrei tzadikim and making unification to tie his soul to the soul of that tzadik. Also Reb Nachman does say to tie one's soul to the soul of  a tzadik is a great thing. I have no good answers for these questions. Certainly I can see tying one's soul to a tzadik is better than doing so to a bad person. But still that does not take it out of the category of idolatry.]
As far as I can see going to Uman for Rosh Hashana is perfectly fine and even a great thing, but one must still be careful to direct all his/her prayers towards God alone.

Keeping the Law the Law of God is mainly a personal matter. The whole public show and dance really has nothing to help in that direction and mainly hurts.When it is public is usually just a show they put on to make pretend they are keeping Torah in order to get the money of secular Jews.
That does not mean that in theory there might be communities around authentic Litvak yeshivas that  in fact hep one to come to and keep Torah.
But mainly the whole show and dance is a scam to get people's money.
Best to stay away from the whole scam.
They love-bomb you to make the whole show seem credible. But if one really interested in keeping God's Law the only way is as a private matter. 

Sometimes people look at this blog that might not know the distinction between true Torah learners and counterfeit Torah scholars that are demons. Usually I assume people know the difference.

But just in case the basic idea is this: true Torah is based on the Gra and regular striaht Litvak yeshivas and false Torah of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] is from the cults the Gra put into excommunication.

Also  have to add for the sake of clarity that Reb Nachman was not included in the excommunication.

[Normally I would not even bother to mention this, but when I see people looking at this blog from Indonesia I feel adding some clarity would be helpful.] [Most of the time the only readers I see I from the USA or the former republics of the USSR and also from Italy.]

One thing you might have noticed--and I did notice when I was still at the Mir in NY was that Rabain Gershom one of the commentaries on the page in Bava Batra holds that the law of saying lashon hara [saying something bad about someone] in front of three people is talking about straight lashon hara--not the dust of lashon hara. It's not just the Rashbam but Rabainu Gershom also.
This law says two things. Not just that if lashon hara has already been said n front of three then one can go an advertise it further. Also it says that it is allowed to say it in front of three.
This seems to be a proof to Rabainu Yona that lashon hara on true facts is not forbidden unless there is a possibility of collateral damage.
Furthermore I wanted to point out that the gemara uses this law of lashon hara in front of three to bring a proof that מחאה is in front of three witnesses. Thus a clear proof that the law of in front of three means that the one saying it is not one of the three!!

The prohibition of lashon hara is as it stands hard to keep and is a serious crime. But that does not mean one should make it more strict that the actual law requires.

In Bava Batra page 18 in Tosphot first words מכלל, Tosphot changes what the meaning of R Yose is. Before Rav Papa it is that the bees stay at the border and the mustard can be put right next to them. After Rav Papa who says the case of the Mishna is when half the field was bought, Tosphot says the case is the mustard is at the border and the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees to keep the bees 6 handbreaths away from the border.

[I think I have mentioned this problem before.] Part of the reason is in the language R. Yose uses and another part of the reason is as Tosphot says that before Rav Papa R. Yose is holding the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting the bees next to the border. While after Rav Papa nether did anything wrong because the field had not been sold yet. The language of the Gemara is this: The owner of the mustard says to the owner of the bees "why tell me to keep my mustard away? Keep your bees away!" If the mustard was there first that means he is saying in fact to keep the bees away. If the bees were there first it means that the owner of the mustard is saying he too can put his mustard next to the border.

Therefore after we come to Rav Papa Tosphot means that either one that was at the border first can tell the other one to keep his things 6 handbreaths from the border.
+________________________________________________________________________________

In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב  in תוספות first words מכלל, the תוספות changes what the meaning of ר' יוסי is. Before רב פפא it is that the bees stay at the border and the mustard can be put right next to them. After רב פפא who says the case of the משנה is when half the field was bought, תוספות says the case is the mustard is at the border and the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees to keep the bees ששה טפחים away from the border. Part of the reason is in the language ר' יוסי uses and another part of the reason is as תוספות says that before רב פפא it must be ר' יוסי is holding the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting the bees next to the border. While after רב פפא nether did anything wrong because the field had not been sold yet. The language of the גמרא is this: The owner of the mustard says to the owner of the bees "why tell me to keep my mustard away? Keep your bees away!" If the mustard was there first that means he is saying in fact to keep the bees away. If the bees were there first it means that the owner of the mustard is saying he too can put his mustard next to the border. Therefore after we come to רב פפא, it must be that תוספות means that either one that was at the border first can tell the other one to keep his things that cause damage ששה טפחים from the border.


בבא דף דף י''ח ע''ב בתוספות ד''ה מכלל , תוספות משנה מה המשמעות של ר 'יוסי. לפני רב פפא זה שהדבורים ליד הגבול ואת החרדל ניתן לשים לידם. אחרי רב פפא הוא אומר שהמקרה של משנה הוא כאשר חצי השדה נרכש, תוספות אומר המקרה הוא חרדל הוא בגבול בעל בעל חרדל יכול להגיד בעל הדבורים להרחיק את הדבורים ששה טפחים מן הגבול. חלק מהסיבה היא בשפה שר 'יוסי משתמש וחלק אחר של הסיבה היא כמו שתוספות אומר כי לפני רב פפא זה חייב להיות ר' יוסי הוא מחזיק שהבעלים של הדבורים עשו משהו לא בסדר לשים את הדבורים ליד גבול. אחרי רב פפא אף אחד לא עשה משהו לא בסדר, כי השדה עדיין לא נמכר. שפת גמרא היא זו: בעל החרדל אומר לבעלים של הדבורים "למה תגידו לי להרחיק את החרדל שלי, הרחק את הדבורים!" אם החרדל היה שם קודם, זה אומר שהוא אומר למעשה להרחיק את הדבורים. אם הדבורים היו שם קודם, פירוש הדבר שבעליו של החרדל אומר שגם הוא יכול לשים את חרדל ליד הגבול. לכן, אחרי שהגענו לרב פפא, זה חייב להיות כי תוספות אומר כל אחד שהיה בגבול בראשונה יכול לומר לשני לשמור על מרחק ששה טפחים מהגבול.

U-31 E Minor

Torah scholars that are demons create a bad name for the holy Torah

James Madison opposed a bill that required the State to support teachers of  Religion.
The arguments he used apply just as much to teachers of Torah.
See the actual essay

If there would be an obligation to give money to Torah scholars, don't you think the Gemara would have said something about it? Instead it talks about not sending them out to build a wall around the city but they are obligated to dig a well because they also need water. But in all the Gemaras about charity, there is nothing about an obligation to give money to Torah scholars. Only to poor people.



This is related to what the Gemara says about teaching Torah. The Talmud says: "God said to the Jewish people, 'Just as I taught Torah for free without pay, so must you teach Torah for free.'"

The Mordechai [a rishon who, along with the Rosh, was a disciple of R. Meir from Rotenburg] brings this in Bava Batra and asks, "Then how it is permissible to pay teachers of Torah even for children?"
To some degree this is related to the Rambam who makes this same point about learning Torah.
[The Rambam holds a somewhat radical position in this regard. He wrote about this at length in his commentary on Pirkei Avot and that caused the first wave of opposition to him even before he had written the Guide for the Perplexed.]



The reason I bring this up is that there is a known problem with Torah scholars that are demons and that creates a bad name for the holy Torah itself. If learning and teaching Torah was not a lucrative profession then it would attract less bad apples.
[The phrase Torah scholars that are demons comes from Reb Nachman who brings it from the Zohar and the Ari and from my own experience it's  a fitting epitaph.]

[You can see this theme in the major book of Reb Nachman quite a lot. Sometimes openly but more often in passing. In any case he was obviously aware of this problem and eventually this resulted in the Na Nach group being rightfully suspicious of all religious authorities. I am however not sure what most Na Nach people would say to do except to ignore them. That seems to be the best idea. and certainly if possible to simply make learning and teaching Torah as a voluntary act, not a job that gets paid.]

 I am not saying the problem is the money. Rather that the money is what attracts the flies in the first place. Reb Nachman I think in any case is choosing his terminology precisely, and I do not think he i is just using a term of exaggeration. Besides this you can not say Reb Nachman was exaggerating because then it would be lashon hara/slander. So he has to have meant it literally.

Troubles in the Musar movement

One of the flaws of the Musar movement was that it emphasized the Ethics and Morals of Torah without the underlying philosophy of Torah. I mean to say they did not learn along with the Jewish Ethics of the Middle Ages also the Guide of the Rambam (the Guide for the Perplexed), the  אמונות ודעות of Saadia Gaon {Doctrines and Faiths} and a lot of other of the Jewish sages from the Middle Ages that dealt with השקפה world view issues. [Joseph Albo, Abravanel, Ibn Gavirol etc.] But you can not have ethics without world view.  The principles of Ethics have nothing to stand on.

One result of this is the Musar movement itself more or less fell into oblivion. The representatives of the movement were ipso facto the "spiritual advisers" in the Litvak yeshivas which simply did not and do not earn much respect.[Not just that most of them are not anything near the level needed to be a decent rosh yehiva, but even in terms of Musar itself they have nothing of interest to say. They have no idea of the background and world view of the mediaeval writers of Musar.

The trouble to a large degree is that the rishonim themselves that were writing on the world view of Torah were well versed in Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus. Without that background, a lot of what they say is incomprehensible.

Even with that background what they say can be hard to understand.
[See the discussion of the Rambam why no predicates apply to God and see Hegel's treatment of the same issue.]

[In fact to come out with a intellectually rigorous moral system s exactly what the Rishonm were doing and in my opinion they did a great job. Much better than any moral theories developed after the so called Enlightenment--a misnomer if I ever heard one. [A better term would be the Endarkenment.]

The best way to ruin a good relationship is to get married.

The best way to ruin a good relationship is to get married. I had a friend who was a Russian physicist who was friends for many years with one girl, and then eventually they got married, and that was the end of it. I have seen this plenty of times. If, after all, the Torah does allow a Girl friend פילגש, why be more strict than the Torah itself? Is it is not enough what the Torah forbids that we have to add on extra restrictions?
[The  Rishonim in general allow a girl friend. The two well know examples are the Ramban and Raavad, (also the Gra) but there are many more if one takes the trouble to look them up. The Rambam in this case is the opinion of one against many.]


Caleb ben Yefune is the only person in the entire Old Testament upon who it says the unique phrase "וימלא אחרי השם" he went totally after God. It never says anything like that even about the greatest of tzadikim righteous. On others its says "He walked after God" and all other kinds of phrases, but never does it use the word "totally." And Caleb had at least a few girl friends and a few wives. See the Chronicles chapter 2; verses around 46. דברי הימים פרק ב' פסוק מ''ו   

However it is good to be married and if one can find the right person for that I am all for it. In fact I would still be married today if i had  stayed away and kept my wife away from Torah scholars that are demons (which nowadays pretty much means all of them). It is hard to find a Torah scholar nowadays that  is not mixed up somehow or other with the Dark Side.

If  people had taken the advice of the Gra and listened to what he wrote on the letter of excommunication, then things would be different.[And there s no reason to think the excommunication is not valid legally. One would have to not only assume the Gra was mistaken but also that that mistake would invalidate the whole thing. But in fact the Gra was not mistaken and even if he had been the cherem would still be perfectly valid.]

Bava  Batra page 18-b. The third Tosphot on the page מכלל דר. יוסי סבר וכו'  Tosphot suggest that the first questioner on the page did not know that R. Jose holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו because if he had known this he never would have had a question. The question was that R Yose says one can put mustard next to bees because each hurts the other. The question was if Rava is right  that הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול אינו  סומך then how could the situation with R Yose arise at all? The answer would be that R Yose holds that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו and that bees cause no damage to mustard and therefore the owner of the bees was allowed to put his bees next to the border. Rava never said a ניזק can not put something next to the border, only the מזיק.
But in this case, I have a question on the last Tosphot on the page where he brings Rabainu Chananel that says the way the Gemara reads is אלא אמר רבינא and from that he concludes that Rava has to have gone back on his entire assumption.


I think the reason for Rabainu Chananel is he wants to question to apply  even if the mustard was first.

[It might be a good idea to mention the fact that each of these three Tosphot have a completely different idea about what this Gemara means. The First Tosphot is the Ri. The second is obviously different but maybe it is from one of the later authors of Tosphot. The last is Rabbainu Tam.
The fact that the first and second are different threw me off course for a while until I was ready to give up on what the second one was saying.]



בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב. תוספות השלישית בדף "מכלל דר' יוסי סבר וכו',. תוספות אומר כי השואל הראשון בעמוד לא ידע שר' יוסי מחזיק שהניזק מרחיק את עצמו, כי אילו ידע זאת לא היתה לו שאלה. השאלה היתה שר 'יוסי אומר שאפשר לשים חרדל ליד דבורים, כי כל אחד מזיק השני. השאלה היתה אם רבא צודק כי הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול לא יכול איך המצב עם ר' יוסי בכלל להתעורר? התשובה היא שר' יוסי מחזיק כי על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ודבורים לא גורמות נזק לחרדל ולכן בעל הדבורים הורשה להניח את דבוריו ליד הגבול. רבא מעולם לא אמר ניזק לא יכול לשים משהו ליד הגבול, רק את מזיק. אבל במקרה זה יש לי שאלה על תוספות האחרון בדף שבו הוא מביא רבינו חננאל שאומר את הנוסח של הגמרא הוא אלא אמר רבינא ומכאן הוא מסכם כי רבא חייב לחזור על כל ההנחה שלו. אבל גרסה זו באמת אומר כי התשובות של רבינא ורב פפא הן עצמאיות וזה בדיוק מה תוספות שלנו אומר. אבל תוספות שלנו אומר את זה בלי לגרום לרבא לחזור על מה שהוא אמר..

To restart the Musar Movement

One thing you see in the Old Testament quite a lot is that people were going through lots of problems and the general approach of the prophets was that the problems they were having were because they were not keeping the Law of God [תורת משה] That suggests that the question is not how religious a person is but rather being religious in the right way.
Therefore what I suggest is to reopen the idea of Reb Israel Salanter about Musar [Jewish Ethics from the Middle Ages] and specifically setting aside a room for that purpose. The reason is that Musar is like concentrated orange juice. It gives you the basic idea of what God requires of you without going into too many details which can get one lost. But I do not mean this in just a personal way. Rather what I suggest is to completely restart the whole Musar Movement concept all over again.

[That is to say that the general approach of the prophets was not to tell people to pray more or to go to some grave to say Psalms. (דורש אל המתים "Seeking the dead" is a bad idea as you can see in Deuteronomy 18:11) It was almost always a two part idea. First was to stop doing idolatry. The second was to get back to the Law of Moses.] [There are too many examples to go into detail but this is clearly what the prophets were saying.]
That is to say that most of the advice you hear from people about how to get out of your problems is not accurate. It is not what prophets who really were in touch with Divine Reality said. What people in touch with the real thing said was to keep the Law of Moses.


What does that mean in a  simple vein? First of all to restart the Musar Movement would be  a first priority- and this does not  have anything to do with Litvak yeshivas.  Rather it is a whole separate focus. It also does mean just (like it sounds) to start to be careful about the obligations between man and his fellow man-not to lie or steal etc. It also has a lot to do with government which is  unauthorized to a be redistribution mechanism. Keeping Torah is not to vote for other people's money to be given to you.    

Reb Nachman against Torah scholars that are demons

The Jewish religious world is a hotbed of cults. The major problem was foreseen by Reb Nachman from Breslov in many of his Torah lessons where he describes the problem with Torah scholars that are demons. Even though this language sounds harsh it actually comes from the Zohar and the Arizal.
The stereotype of Torah teachers is used by scam artists: they dress up like trustworthy people as part of their effort to fool the unsuspecting victim.


The issue many seems to be that people that want to come to learn and keep the Torah have little idea of what authentic Torah is and so they get easily fooled by charlatans.

The Gra already warned about this problem and even put the cults into excommunication but his warning and even his signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored.
Some people even think Reb Nachman was included in the ban, but that is not possible if you look at the actual language  of the letter.


[Reb Nachman includes this idea of Torah scholars that are demons in even the very last lesson in his major book. But Reb Israel Odessar emphasized it more than is usually expected. Thus the Na Nach people tend to have automatic suspicion towards anyone that supposedly is  a teaching Torah and they assume it is Torah from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Realm. I have to admit that the Na Nach group has a good point in this regard-- as many others have noticed, but have been intimidated from speaking out. I really have no idea why or when the present day situation arose but you have to say it started at least as far back as the time of Reb Nachman. Nowadays the last place one should go for advice is to torah scholars that are demons.] 

Lashon Hara [slander] versus the Chafez Chaim.

I want to suggest an answer to a question that was raised in the Mir Yeshiva in NY on the Chafez Chaim. concerning the laws of Lashon Hara. I think the law of אפי  תלתא [Lashon Hara said in front of three people can be spread further because it is already public] really has to mean that the Lashon Hara is said in front of three people. That does not include the speaker. I think this is really the intent of the law. Yet as far as I recall Rav Israel Meir HaKoken [the Chafez Chaim] allows this even when the speaker is one of the three. I believe he is basing this קולא on the fact that מחאה [objecting to a person that has occupied his property illegally] needs to be said only in front on two  people.[and the Gemara compares the two laws]  He is I think allowing this because in any case he is being strict about this law in saying that it applies only to אבק לשון הרע. So to make up for one חומרא [being strict in one thing] he is adding one קולא [being lenient in another].



The basic question on the Chafez Chaim is this. He allows the קולא of אפי תלתא (in front of three) that is: if one has said slander in front of three people, then any one of the three can go on and spread it further. The one who said it is included. The question is this: Tell the one who is asking the question not to spread it, and then there will no longer be three people spreading the slander.


My reasoning here is simple. If you look at the Gemara you will see באפי תלתא [in front of three] has to mean in front of three other people. So on the law itself there is no question. The only question is on the Chafez Chaim. And my answer  is as I mentioned up above.


Furthermore on a different note I want to suggest that the rishonim that allow straightforward "in front of three" if it is true [not just the "dust of Lashon Hara"] are all deciding the law like Rabbainu Yona in the Shaari Teshuva that there is no Lashon  Hara on truth unless it is because of collateral damage. Otherwise, I can not see why they would all allow it to be spread further just because of באפי תלתא [in front of three].[That would seem to make it worse.]
However if lashon hara for truth is allowed anyway, then why would you need באפי תלתא? So maybe the  whole thing really just applies to the dust of lashon hara and that lashon hara on truth is forbidden without all the seven conditions for בין אדם לחבירו and the other conditions for בין אדם למקום
 I imagine to answer this question you have to say that the whole thing about אפי תלתא  is to say that you can repeat what you heard and it has nothing to do with information you know first hand.

I think the basic approach of Christians towards Jesus is mistaken because they tend to look at Jesus from the lens and viewpoint of Paul rather than taking his words to mean what he said. Keeping the Law which means for Jesus the Law of Moses was a big part of his platform  and focus. Plus the idea that he is not God was also a major point by him, even though he was attached with God in a NeoPlatonic sense.{One person called him "good". Jesus said, "Do not call me good. Only call God good."}

You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.

On the other hand I learned in the book of the Rosh Yeshiva of  Slobodka  אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.



[The basic issues can be divided into three: (1) The Law of Moses. There you do not see the distinction of Thomas Aquinas between Natural Law and Divine Law. Rather-the law is the law. (2) The idea of attachment  with God which is a commandment in the Torah so for anyone to say they are "attached with God" does not mean they are God. Nor does the Son of God mean anything more because of capital letters than it does anywhere else where the same phrase is used: "The Sons of God came to stand before him," "My Son, my first born is Israel" etc. and lots of other places--"Don't make a bald spot on your head because you are the Sons of God." (3) The whole debate between Paul and James and Peter is smoothed over in a very dishonest way. James openly says a statement which is  as clear as can be: "Anyone who lacks doing even one commandment of the Torah is as if he transgressed the whole thing."'  While Luther had a great point about getting back to original sources, still Christians have never taken the words of Jesus nor James and Peter to mean what they say.

Women today in the West  have lost their sense of place and this makes them particularly obnoxious.
But to be without a woman is not really an option. Yet to be married to one gives them way too much leverage over a man. Therefore the פילגש option seems best. [That is the girl friend. ] This you can see was a viable option in the Law of Moses. It is not the same thing as a זונה [prostitute] who is not specifically for one man.

Many people mix up these issues. They think sex outside of marriage is automatically prostitution which is certainly not the case. .


Calev ben Yefune had a few wives and a few girl friends as we can see n Chronicles I ch 2 verse 46.
[That is the friend of Joshua.]

Torah scholars

Cults and cult leaders usually take off from some established religion. They do not make up their own scriptures but use existing scriptures and then claim that to get to the truth of that system one needs to go through their lunatic leader.  This happens in the Jewish world as much as anywhere else.
Thus one needs a certain degree of common sense and a sense of authenticity to be able to avoid the problem. Another alternative that some people take is simply to avoid that particular religion entirely once they become aware of the cults that have infiltrated it.

I have mentioned before that Reb Nachman [of Breslov and Uman] noted this problem though he was not the first. This come up in his book in Volume I chapter 12 where he explains the problem with "Torah scholars that are demons" which he brings down from the Zohar. [I recall this problem arising a lot in all of his five books but mainly in his major one.] As usual in Torah lesson 12 he build up a a whole system based on this idea.

To solve this problem in fact those that decide to avoid the problem entirely and go off into Eastern religions makes a certain degree of sense. But my approach is to simply stick with Torah--the Oral and Written Law and avoid the cults as much as possible. That is mainly by sticking with the basic approach of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter which is collectively called the Litvak Approach based on the fact that this approach was widely accepted in Lithuania.

Today this good approach is mainly found in Ponovitch and NY Litvak Yeshivas and paces that are modeled after them.

בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב Talmud Bava Batra page 18 side B

In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. I was wondering why the גמרא asks on page י''ח ע''ב a question on רבא from ר' יוסי. Since for all we know the argument between אביי and רבא is only according to the sages of the משנה.  After all they can not be arguing about ר' יוסי who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the הלכה would be like ר' יוסי, still they can not be arguing about a statement of ר' יוסי that says "It is allowed". The argument between רבא and אביי is if one can put something by the boundary if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.] It occurred to me that in fact the question of the גמרא must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and ר' יוסי says they do not need to be kept away. But this question on רבא can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all רבא says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border. And that is in fact one answer of the גמרא, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.


בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. תהיתי מדוע הגמרא שואלת בעמוד יח: שאלה על רבא מר' יוסי. שהרי כל הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא הוא רק  לפי חכמי המשנה. הרי הם לא יכולים להתווכח על ר' יוסי שאומר שמותר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים. [גם אם ההלכה תהיה כמו ר' יוסי, עדיין לא ניתן להתווכח על אמירה של ר' יוסי שאומרת "מותר". הוויכוח בין רבא לאביי הוא אם אפשר לשים משהו בגבול ואין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק בזמן הזה. אז אם השכן שם שם מאוחר יותר משהו שיכול  להינזק אז הראשון היה צריך לקחת את הדבר שגורם נזק משם.] עלה בדעתי כי למעשה שאלת גמרא חייבת להיות רק על הקמת הגן בפועל שבו הדבורים הוצבו ליד הגבול, ועל כך החכמים  אומרים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים ור' יוסי אומר  לא צריך. אבל שאלה זו על רבא לא יכול להתקיים אלא אם כן החכמים מחזיקים כי דבורים עושים נזק לחרדל. אחרי הכל רבא אומר רק דבר שגורם נזק חייב להיות מרוחק מהגבול. וזו תשובה אחת של גמרא, כלומר שהחכמים מחזיקים  שהדבורים לא עושים שום נזק ולכן הם יכולים להיות ליד הגבול


A couple of years later: I have to mention I wrote this note when I did not have a Bava Batra with the Maharsha or Maharam. Yesterday I was able to get over to a Litvak place and take a brief look at this subject and noticed that both of these people go into it in detail. I only had an hour so I did not get the gist of what they were saying.

false Torah scholars

The trouble with false Torah scholars is that they cause more damage than if they would be open criminals. It is by the fact they present themselves as knowing  Torah and by that gaining people's trust that they cause the terrible evils they bring into the world. This is stated openly in the Talmud tractate Shabat. It's a wonder to me that Reb Nachman who brought up this problem did not quote that Gemara.[He has plenty to say about this problem but for some odd reason he never quoted that Gemara.]

The basic idea is that these false Torah scholars then cause the entire Jewish religious world to fall into the Dark Side and from there problems spread throughout the whole world.

It would be great and simple to  follow the Oral and Written Law if not for this particular problem which makes it difficult.

One method I have recommended in some of my blog entries is simply to learn Torah at home. Another good idea is to find an authentic Litvak yeshiva.  However neither of these ideas is very simple. [unless one is in NY or Bnei Brak]  Especially for working guys. Thus at least what I recommend is to save the first hour every day when one wakes up for a  half hour of Torah and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics as per the Rambam and by that to be connected with Torah in an authentic way the whole day.

[The problem with finding an authentic Yeshiva just gets back to the original problem. Thus the best idea is to learn Torah at home--especially to guard that first hour for Torah and Physics.]

The problem I think goes into the area of money. That is that Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money and hen it becomes a means of making money that then it attracts lowlifes.

Bava Batra 18b

In Bava Batra 18b I was wondering why the Gemara asks on page 18b a question on Rava from R. Yose. Since for all we know the argument between Abyee and Rava is only according to the sages of the Mishna.  After all they can not be arguing about R Yose who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the Halacha would be like R Yose, still they can not be arguing about a statement of R Yose that says "It is allowed".] [The argument between Rava an Abyee is if one can put something by the boundary f there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.]


It occurred to me that in fact the question of the Gemara must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and R. Yose says they do not need to be kept away.


But this question on Rava can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all Rava says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border.
And that is in fact one answer of the Gemara, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.

Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] (The verse itself I think is in Leviticus 19.)

One thing they were emphasizing in the Mir Yehiva in NY was Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] and that I never really got into much. Later I found out that Rav Israel Abuchatzeira also was really into that kind of thing but it still never really became one of my major principles to hold onto. Part of the reason is because it is never really all that clear when you are required to warn others about something and when not.

[Rav Israel Abuchazeira had just one picture in his house --that of the Chafez Chaim. And his granddaughters had organized a חוג group in their school of girls that would learn two laws in the Chafez Chaim [the book of Laws of Lashon Hara] every day and they would put their names on a list of people that every person would pray for every day to find their true spouse. So this thing about Lashon Hara was fairly well emphasized by that whole family also.--Not just Bava Sali himself. I think most of the people on that list got married after a very short time.]





The opposite point that one is required to warn people of danger of associating with a bad person is what makes this whole thing difficult to deal with.

In the book of the Gra [collected sayings of the Gra] אבן שלמה it says to give rebuke even when one knows the rebuke will not be accepted. Thus in our case here, it would seem that to warn others of danger is an obligation even when one knows his words will not be accepted.

[The Mir in NY was different from other Litvak yeshivas in this respect -the emphasis on not speaking Lashon Hara. All Litvak yeshivas are unified in the conviction about the prime importance of learning Torah as defined by Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot. But the Lashon Hara was unique to the Mir.

The trouble nowadays with women is they have lost their place. They no longer know who they are and what are their responsibilities. Thus to come to any degree of self respect they need to accuse some man or men of sexual assault. This makes them feel worthy and gives them a feeling of self respect. If they would learn the laws of Lashon Hara all that would be changed.

[One thing I have to add here. That you can learn the whole Chafez Chaim and not notice the argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona about Lashon Hara about what is true. The Rambam holds it is forbidden unless in a court of law. To Rabainu Yona it is only forbidden because of collateral damage that might come out of it but in itself it is not forbidden as you can see clearly in the Shaari Teshuva. And also I must add that extra strictness in this easily deteriorates into not opposing evil where it is warranted and required. So I generally depend on Rabbanu Yona.]

There is something in Tosphot in Bava Batra page 18B that is a little hard to understand. Basically the subject is a Mishna where the sages say one must keep a vat that one uses to soak laundry away from a neighbor's vegetables.  Also mustard from bees. R. Jose allows the later because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep away from your bees? You should keep your bees away from my mustard because they also do damage.
Abyee says if the neighbor has not put anything by the boundary yet then one can place mustard of anything else by the boundary until he does. Rava says one must keep things that can cause damage away from the border even if the neighbor has not put anything nearby yet. So how can Rava fit with R.Yose? At that point Tosphot says the Gemara means that Abyee is OK because the owner of the bees has put his bees by the border and then the intention of R.Yose is to say the owner of the mustard can also put his mustard seeds by the border.
The Gemara then answers the question on Rava saying the case of the mishna is when one neighbor sold half his property to the other neighbor. That would then mean  that the mustard was there first and then he sold it to the owner of the bees. Then when R Yose says it is permitted that means the mustard can stay where it is and the owner of the bees must keep his bees six hand-breaths away from the border. And Tosphot makes a point in saying the owner of the bees can not put the bees near the mustard. This seems to me difficult to understand why Tosphot is changing things in the middle of his argument.

I only thought of this problem today on Shabat when I was outside walking and  am not sure what to make of this situation. I do not know if there is  a serious kashe here or just a comment.


The thing is if this is how Tosphot learns in the end then why not when he was explaining R Jose according to Abyee that he did not say that R Jose allows it means he allows the bees to stay where they are and he must keep the mustard 6 hand-breaths away?

בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב. יש משהו בתוספות בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב שהוא קצת קשה להבין. ביסודו של דבר הנושא הוא המשנה שבה החכמים אומרים אחד צריך לשמור על מרחק ממשרה המשמשת כדי להשרות כביסה רחוק  מירקות של שכינו. גם חרדל מדבורים. ר יוסי מאפשר את זה האחרון כי הבעלים של חרדל יכולים לומר הבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להתרחק מן הדבורים שלך? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך מהחרדל שלי, כי הם גם עושים נזק. אביי אומר אם השכן לא שם שום דבר על ידי הגבול עדיין אז אפשר למקם חרדל או כל דבר אחר על יד הגבול עד שהשכן שם מה שהוא שם. רבא אומר שצריך לשמור על מרחק מהגבול בכל דברים שיכולים לגרום נזק  גם אם השכן לא שם שום דבר בקרבת מקום. אז איך רבא מתאים עם ר. יוסי? בשלב זה תוספות אומר שגמרא מחזיקה שאביי הוא בסדר כי בעל הדבורים  שם את הדבורים שלו על הגבול ולאחר מכן  כוונתו של ר. יוסי היא כי שבעל החרדל יכול גם לשים את זרעי החרדל שלו על הגבול. גמרא אז עונה על השאלה על רבא ואומרת המקרה של המשנה הוא כאשר אחד מן השכנים מכר חצי רכושו לשכן השני.  זה אומר כי חרדל היה שם ראשונה ואז הוא מכר חלק מן השדה לבעלים של הדבורים. ואז כאשר ר. יוסי אומר  מותר הכוונה שהחרדל יכול להישאר במקומו  ובעל הדבורים חייב לשמור על דבורים שלו שישה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ותוספות עושה נקודה לומר הבעלים של הדבורים לא יכולים לשים את הדבורים ליד החרדל. הדבר הוא אם זה איך תוספות לומד בסופו של דבר, אז למה לא כאשר הוא הסביר ר. יוסי לפי אביי, שהוא לא אומר ש"ר' יוסי מרשה לו"  הכוונה שהוא מאפשר לדבורים להישאר במקומן  שהן נמצאות, והוא חייב לשמור את החרדל ששה טפחים משם