You can warn someone about a whole group and it is not lashon hara [slander]

You can warn someone about  a whole group and it is not lashon hara [slander]. As the Hafetz Haim himself brings from the Gemara that R. Yehuda HaNasi warned his son: "Stay away from people from the town of Shekenziv because they are לצנים [jokers] and draw in others into their joking."

The reason for this is that there is such a thing as group characteristics.That is not stereotyping. It s simple Game Theory.
The odd thing about this however is that the Hafetz Haim in another place brings that to speak about a whole group, you have to know that every single individual in that group shares those character traits.

We also see in the Hafetz Haim that he brings from Nida pg 61 that even though one can not accept Lashon Hara still he must be wary that it might be true.

So it makes little sense to me that the warning of the Gra is ignored. Especially nowadays when it has become clear [at least in Israel] that he was 100% correct for signing the letter of excommunication.

[That is to say there is such a thing as group dynamics. You can say a group of birds is flying north even if there might be individual birds that are flying sometimes north west and sometimes north east.]

Music for the glory of God

V36 G Major


V-38 F Major

V-31 3/4 time

V-39 A Minor

V-11 D Major

V-40 B minor

V-41

V-43 A


V-45 A Major

V-53

V-54

one Muslim climbed over the small fence that goes around the Yeshuv Adam [a town right outside Jerusalem] [a two minute drive from Jerusalem] and started stabbing people.

A few days ago one Muslim climbed over the small fence that goes around the Yeshuv Adam [a town right outside Jerusalem] [a two minute drive from Jerusalem]  and started stabbing people. One person he was about to stab but the fellow pulled out a gun and shot him.

Ed Feser in his blog has a few proofs for the existence of God. My comment on that is this

1. 
   

   I think Anselm did a good thing with his proof. Things were unclear until Godel put the whole thing into simple logical form. I tried to reinforce it with another theorem of Godel. This is the theorem:  Compactness Theorem). A set of formulas Γ is satisfiable if and only if every finite subset of Γ is satisfiable.] [From the finite to the infinite. Perhaps the simplest use of the Compactness Theorem is to show that if there exist arbitrarily large finite objects of some type, then there must also be an infinite object of this type.] [Mathematical Logic ch 4 and ch 9][http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/pcml/pcml-16.pdf

However I also the alternative Medieval approach based on Aristotle that Ed Feser is recommending makes sense.

1. 
   

King David was being run out of town by his son.

King David was being run out of town by his son. He left Jerusalem with his closest men including Yoav ben Zeruia. Shimi ben Gera came to curse David and to throw dirt at him. So one of David's men said to David "Why should this dog curse the king? let me go and put a sword into him."

It is famous that King David said to him ''No. Let him curse because God told him 'Go and curse David.'" [Samuel II 16:10]

The sages say at that moment King David became the forth foundation of the Divine Chariot.

The thing I noticed was that that was not the first thing that king David had said. The first thing was "Let him curse because after all it makes no difference. It is not as if God told him go and curse David." But then in the middle of that thought it occurred to David that in fact that is exactly what had happened. "God told him to curse David."
That is: at that moment he changed his mind from, "It is not as if God told him to curse me" to "Yes in fact God told him to curse me."

From this event the Hafez Haim learns that one ought to be patient and accepting when people complain about you.

For all English speaking people out there--I have to apologize because I think you really can not see this in the English translation. It is rather in the Hebrew that you see David changing his mind in mid sentence.

המשנה בתרומה

What happens if one takes less that 1/50 of Truma? [Truma is the part of crops of wheat that goes to the priest]. Or less than 1/10 of Maasar? [Maasar is the 1/10 that goes to the levi from wheat or other kinds of  grain and olives and grapes.]
The Mishna says המפריש מקצת תו''ם מוציא ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר ר' מאיר מוסיף אפילו למקום אחר.
One who separates a little bit of truma and maasar takes truma from it but not for another place.



The Rambam says two things about this that look contradictory. He says in law 6 that it is truma. Then in law 7 he says one needs to separate truma from it [from the little bit he separated].
Rav Shach brings this down in his Avi Ezri and he explains it somewhat along the lines of the R. Shimshon.
I think that the way the Rambam must have been looking at this is that from the Torah one grain exempts the entire wheat stack.  So the entire wheat stack is considered to no longer have truma in it. But the little he took needs itself to be fixed because there is an obligation from the words of the scribes to take at least 1/50.

This is just one small thought I had about this. But there are still a lot of issues.
The main idea I am thinking is that the sages hold אין ברירה and if they would apply that to the whole wheat stack then it would be not fixable. So they did not what the press the point about the whole whet stack.


In any case R. Shimshon brings the Yerushalmi that that whole mishna is referring to a case when the owner is intending to separate the entire amount afterwards.
הר''ש (רבינו שמשון) מביא את הירושלמי שקובע שהמשנה בתרומה בפרק הרביעי היא מקרה שבכוונתו להפריד יותר. הר''ש כותב כשהוא אינו מתכוון להפריד יותר, החלק שהוא הפריד הוא טבל ואינו משתייך לקטגוריה של תרומה בכלל.



) מסכת תרומה פרק ד'. המשנה בתרומה כותבת, המפריש מקצת תרומות ומעשרות מוציא ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר. לפי ר' מאיר אף מוציא ממנו תרומה על מקום אחר. הרמב''ם ה' תרומות פרק ג' ה''ו  כתב אם הוא מפריד 1/61 מה שהוא הפריד הוא תרומה, ואז הוא הולך לקחת את הסכום הנותר כי הוא צריך להשלים את האחוז הנכון [שני אחוזים, היינו אחת חלקי חמישים].  ובהלכה ז' כאשר אחד מפריד כמות חלקית של התרומה הוא צריך לקחת תרומה ממנה, מן התבואה שהיא מופרדת. אם משנה הזאת רק היתה מדברת על מעשר הכל יהיה פשוט. ואם היא רק היתה מדברת על תרומה, הכל יהיה גם פשוט. מה שמקשה עלי להבין את זו הוא העובדה שהיא מכניסה את שניהם יחד. נניח שדיברנו רק על מעשר. ובמקום שהוא היה צריך להפריד עשירית אחת, הוא הפריד אחד חלקי עשרים. ויש לנו העיקרון אין ברירה [לדעת החכמים]. העיקרון הזה קובע למשל אם שני בנים של עובד אלילים יורשים את עושרו. אבל בן אחד הפך לגר. אם הדין הוא שיש ברירה, אז הוא יכול להגיד לבן השני, "אתה יכול לקחת את האלילים, ואני אקח את הנכס הנשאר." ועל ידי זה היה מתגלה כי גם בהתחלה, האלילים נפלו לחלק של הבן  העובד אלילים והגר יכול לקחת חלק שלו. אבל אם אין ברירה לאחור [שזאת דעת ר' מאיר], אז הוא לא יכול לעשות זאת. הוא יצטרך לקחת חלק שווה עם הבן השני, ואז האלילים הנופלים לחלק שלו הוא יצטרך להרוס. כך גם במקרה שלנו. אם סוברים שיש ברירה, אז זה יהיה פשוט לומר שהוא לוקח עוד אחד חלקי  עשרים, ואת ערימת הדגן הוא מתוקנת. אם אין ברירה אז ברור כי ערימת התבואה מעורבבת עם טבל וחולין. ולא תהיה שום דרך פיזית לתקן אותה אם רק דיברנו על תרומה, אז גם יהיה ברור לגמרי. החוק של התורה הוא חיטה אחת פוטרת כל הכרי. (אפילו גרגר אחד מתקן את הערימה כולה .נראה לי שכוונת הרמב''ם היא זאת. שני ההלכות הן ומן השיעור שמחוייב מדברי סופרים (אחת חלקי חמישים) אבל מן התורה חיטה אחת פוטרת את כל הערימה. ולכן מה שלקח הוא תרומה אבל מדרבנן הוא מחוייב להפריש תרומה על מה שלקח (האחת חלקי ששים אחת). היינו מדרבנן הפרשה של תרומה פחות מן השיעור המחוייב היא דומה להפרשה של מעשר פחות מן השיעור המחוייב. וזה בגלל אין תורמים תרומות ומעשרות לחצאין. היינו שההפרשה אינו חלה בכלל. [במעשר זה דאורייתא ובתרומה זה דרבנן.] וזה אינו תלוי בדין אין ברירה שאם היה תלוי בזה אז אין שום עיצה שהייתה מועילה לתרומה בגלל ש חולין וטבל היו מעורבים בערימה.



I am not anywhere near to any idea how to deal with the approach of R. Shimshon right now. jut off hand I would say it can fit with what i wrote up above--but I have to think about that.

שיעורין כסדרן sessions in order

Once we come to the idea of learning Torah and the seven wisdoms as important then the question is raised how to go about this?
I have mentioned the idea of learning fast as the sages said לעולם ליגרס אף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר-one should learn fast even though he does not understand what he is saying. That is brought down in the Muar book אורחות צדיקים
But I wanted to add another idea about שיעורין כסדרן sessions in order. That is to have small sessions in each subject in which one goes through a few pages in order every day. And then the next day to start where one finished. [You keep the place marker in the book, so you know where to start the next day.] [Actually you keep two place markers in the book. One for when you flip the page and the next for when you get to the bottom of the first page before you start the second.]
In this way, you can finish at least once the entire Shas with Tosphot, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach,  the Talmud Yerushalmi with all the commentaries on the page, all the Midrashim,  all the writings of the Ari, plus Physics and Metaphysics.

[The way to do the Avi Ezri is in order. Same with Shas and the Ari. This kind of learning in order in not the same as the kind of in depth learning that you do in the Mir Yeshiva. In the morning session. What I mean by fast learning I am mainly referring to the afternoon and evening sessions. ]

To avoid Torah of the Dark Side and Pseudo wisdoms like psychology

"The Seven Wisdoms" (שבע חכמות) were considered essential prerequisites by the Gra in order to understand Torah. He said  that lack of knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms creates lack of knowledge and understanding of Torah by a hundred fold.
This kind of approach is pretty consistent among the Rishonim whether by the מעלות המידות [Importance of Good Traits by Benjamin the doctor], Rav Saadia Gaon, the Obligations of the Heart.

But what exactly is included in the seven wisdoms?


Pseudo wisdoms like psychology [certainly do nor count as wisdom]. Among secular subjects there are subjects that are straight forwards false and contrived like psychology. But still it has a great number of followers because it gives people the chance and opportunity how to manipulate others.


Even in Torah there are plenty of books that are pseudo Torah or Torah of the Dark Side (Sitra Achra), for example, that come from the groups that the Gra warned against.  How they got accepted in the religious world is a mystery to me. [I would have to say that R. Nahman of Breslov is OK and good to learn since after reading the books that brings most of the relevant documents concerning the letter of excommunication signed by the Gra I realized that R. Nahman was not included.]

But there are categories of subjects or authors that I am not sure about if they are included in the list of things one must learn. For example we know from Maimonides the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. So he included these two in the list of things one ought to learn. So my question is what does Metaphysics include? Just judging by the Rambam himself it certainly looks to be Plato, Aristotle, and the medieval Ibn Rushd and Farrabi.  . Leonard Nelson  would also have excluded the entire Post Kant Neo Kantians. Cassirer and Nelson had a long and bitter debate about that. My own feeling is that Nelson was right.]

The letter of excommunication the Gra signed.

Is the letter of excommunication  the Gra signed valid? I think so. This is based on the Rambam in laws of oaths where there is some discussion of from where the laws of חרם נידוי (excommunication) come from. In the commentaries there it is explained they come from the Biblical category of איסר נדר [prohibited because of a vow]-that is anyone can forbid his object to another by saying "This object of mine is to you a  sacrifice קרבן."
So at least we see the status of an excommunication has validity. So you can not ignore it even if you think it is based on false premises.

All the more so after it has become obvious that it was not based on false premises.
Clearly the case is much more severe than that letter originally stated.
But the Gra was ignored because the Sitra Achra sometimes is given permission from above to create false structures and formations.
So at least one can be careful about his own self and what he keeps in his home even if he can not tell others about it.

[It is curious why the legal issues involved in this are ignored. I mean even people that seem to strive to uphold the Law still routinely  ignore the חרם (excommunication) and thus come under the חרם (excommunication) themselves.

[That is the general law about excommunication. If one ignores it then he himself comes under it. So I make it my practice not to enter into a place where the letter of the Gra is ignored. ]

Just for further information I ought to mention that I do not think that Rav Nahman from Breslov comes under that excommunication after I saw the actual words of the letter which I found in a book that brought a lot of the original documents.] In fact I think Rav Nahman has some amazing insights. Still the fact that the excommunication in ignored is upsetting.

The fact of ignoring the letter of excommunication means in effect all that ignore it are under the same list of prohibitions which means basically the entire religious world.

The most important point I learned in Shar Yashuv is the importance of learning Torah. But it was not just something that I read about but saw in practice. Later in the Mir was where I learned about trust in God without doing any work.

This came to me more or less in the sense that I became clear to me that learning Torah as a primary goal is, in fact, the world view of authentic Torah--not just made up out of thin air after the Litvak yeshivas made it a central point.
But I do not recall that trust was emphasized in Shar Yashuv. I would have to say that it was specifically at the Mir in NY that the idea of trust in God was emphasized or at least was an undercurrent.

[The idea that learning Torah is the prime goal definitively was not accepted by the secular world. But the idea that work was this great ennobling endeavor made little sense to me.]
[You can see how work became considered the highest goal in life during the revolutionary movements of the 1800's. The peak of that thought was Marxism. The rigorously worked out system. But even after reading Marx's Communist Manifesto and other leftist writings, I still could not see their point. It seemed oddly naive. However I can understand that the revolutionary movements were dealing with a whole different set of problems in which they saw the overthrow of the ruling class and establishing the rule of the proletariat as the highest goal. But growing up in the USA, I simply did not see the same kind of problems that the communists were facing. Maybe if I had grown up in Europe or Eastern Europe in the 1800's I would seen the point of Marx differently.]

It is possible for people to abuse this doctrine of the importance of learning Torah to try to get money from others because of their "supposed learning." But here I am just dealing with the actual doctrine of Torah, not whether it can be abused. Anything in Torah can easily be abused.

In any case the place that you see this idea of learning Torah most directly is in the Nefesh HaHaim. But the Mishna itself is the most obvious source. תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם Learning Torah is equal in itself to all the other commandments. And the Yerushalmi says "even one word"

The essentials of Torah

The essentials of Torah are
(1) Monotheism. God made the world from nothing. And He is one simple being, not a composite. Nor does He have any substance or form. The world is not God, nor is the world godliness.
God did not make the world out of Himself. He made it from nothing. Since this is an essential aspect and belief of Torah it is no wonder the Gra signed the letter of excommunication against people that denied these basic beliefs and yet made a whole show an dance about how Jewish they were.
(2) Midot Tovot =good traits.
(3) Belief that the Torah in divinely inspired.

[The middle point is this: that nothing matters until one has good traits. The good traits are what makes one a mensch [decent human being]. So without good traits, doing any commandments is not all that different from a dog keeping Shabat. This is explained in detail in the Guide of the Rambam and I have mentioned this before.
In short, the Rambam explains  the commandments of reason חוקים שכליים were revealed to Abraham the Patriarch was the for there to be the giving of the Torah to Moses, there first needed to be the level of commandments of reason. Otherwise the commandments of Torah would be indistinguishable from superstitions. The Reshash {Rav Shalom Sharabi} makes a similar point in his Nahar Shalom that the soul of a person is his character traits and the commandments are to food and clothing of the soul. So without good traits, one lacks the very soul which makes the commandments of Torah significant.




[This issue came up on Shabat when I was asked what my opinion about what are the essential aspects of Torah.]

בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א

The question that came up in תוספות between my learning partner and me in בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א is whether the גיזבר knows the vessel is הקדש? He said it is שוגג. It seemed to me  that it makes no difference. I thought if the גיזבר knows the כלי is הקדש and uses it, he still is not intending to take it out of  רשות of הקדש. So he would be obligated in מעילה במזיד, and in that case he gets מכות and pays the קרן of what he was נהנה. If he does not know that the קרדום is of הקדש, and he thinks it is one of his own vessels, then  he also is not intending to take it out of  רשות הקדש, and so pays קרן and חומש and brings a קרבן מעילה.  Why can not both say that it can be either one, שוגג or מזיד?
Answer:
The reason is the mishna in Kidushin 52b that only מזיד has מעילה אחר מעילה. The is the opinion of R. Yehuda that later on the Gemara 54 says is the law.
So in our case in Bava Metzia 99 in Tosphot the גיזבר does not know the ax is הקדש  as my learning partner said to me from the beginning. [That is why the second person can use it. In שוגג the object becomes חולין] The question I had on this was from Tosphot Kidushin page 55 where it does look the opposite. Then it occurred to me that what Tophot says in Kidushin does not disagree with what they say in Bava Metzia.[I mean they give there  a different answer, but still do not disagree with the basic idea that only מזיד has מעילה אחר מעילה for בדק הבית]



In short, Tosphot holds like R. Yehuda that only מזיד has מעילה אחר מעילה, but it has to be he intends to take the object from domain to domain. So the Tosephta where all the people that used the ax are מועל because they know it is הקדש.and שואל שלא מדעת הוא גזל so even if they do not intend to steal it but borrow it is still מעילה

המשנה בקידושין נ''ב: כותבת שרק במזיד יש מעילה אחר מעילה. זוהי דעתו של ר' יהודה. מאוחר יותר בגמרא דף נ''ד נפסק שכן הוא החוק. אז במקרה שלנו בבא מציעא צ''ט בתוספות בדעת הר''י הגיזבר אינו יודע שהגרזן הוא של הקדש. לכן האדם השני יכול להשתמש בו. שוגג במעילה האובייקט הופך לחולין. השאלה הייתה לי על זה הייתה מן תוספות קידושין דף נ''ה איפה שנראה ההפך. ואז עלה בדעתי כי מה תוספות אומר בקידושין אינו כנגד מה שאומרים בבא מציעא. תוספות מחזיקה כמו ר' יהודה שרק במזיד יש מעילה אחר מעילה [בבדק הבית], אבל זה חייב להיות כי בכוונתו לקחת את אובייקט מתחום לתחום. אז התוספתא שם שכל האנשים שהשתמשו בגרזן הם מועלים כי הם יודעים שזה הוא קדש .ושואל שלא מדעת הוא גזלן. כך שגם אם הם לא מתכוונים לגנוב אותו אבל ללוות אותו הוא עדיין מעילה.





The basic background here is the תוספתא and משנה and גמרא in בבא מציעא and תוספות in בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א. The basic סוגיא is this. The תוספתא writes when one uses an קרדום of הקדש one after the other they are all מועל. But when one gives it to his friend, only the first is מועל. The משנה writes there is no מועל after מועל except animals and כלי שרת. Another משנה writes a person that puts a קרש of הקדש into his house is not מועל until he lives in it. But if he gives it to his friend, then he is מועל right away. רב אמי in בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א says a המשאיל קרדום של הקדש לחבירו הוא מעל לפי טובת הנאה שבו וחבירו מותר להשתמש איתו מיד. One who משאיל a קרדום of הקדש to his friend, is מועל according to the amount of gratitude he receives from his friend, and his friend can use it right away. תוספות asks on this law of רב אמי from the תוספתא and the משנה. In תוספות are a few suggestions to answer this before תוספות gets to the answers that he thinks are correct. One  possible answer is this. There is a difference between כלי שרת and other vessels. I.e. the case of the תוספתא where there are multiple violations of מעילה on one קרדום is when the קרדום  is כלי שרת. And another rejected answer is the difference between intending to steal the קרדום, and just intending to use the קרדום. That is, the case of the תוספתא of multiple violations מועל אחר מועל is when there was no intention to steal the קרדום, but just to use it. But where there is intention to steal then only the first is מועל. But תוספות disagress with this because of the גמרא in בבא מציעא where רב אמי says one who משאיל the קרדום to another is מועל but not the one who receives it. Then תוספות come to the two answers of the ר''י that he likes. שינוי רשות and that רב אמי is talking about a גיזבר. That is  שינוי רשות of the קרדום means the קרדום goes out to חולין completely, and even so the גיזבר only pays according to טובת הנאה שיש בו . The other answer is also  that it is a גיזבר but the קרדום goes out to חולין only according to the time set for the loan. After that the קרדום returns automatically to the רשות of הקדש.


) בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א. השאלה שעלתה בתוספות ביני ובין שותף הלמידה שלי בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א היא
האם הגיזבר (בתירוצו של הר''י) יודע הכלי היא קדש? דוד אמר שלא. הגיזבר חושב שהכלי שלו. היה נראה לי
שזה זה לא משנה. ככל שהייתי יכול לראות אם גיזבר מכיר שהכלי (הקרדום) הוא קדש ומשתמש בו, הוא עדיין
לא מתכווין לקחת אתו מתוך רשות של קדש. אז הוא יהיה מחויב במעילה במזיד, ואם כך, הוא מקבל מכות
ומשלם את הקרן של מה שהוא נהנה. אם הוא לא יודע כי הקרדום הוא של קדש, והוא חושב שזה אחד מהכלים
משלו, אז הוא גם לא מתכוון לקחת את זה מתוך רשות קדש, ועל כך הוא משלם קרן וחומש ומביא קרבן מעילה.
חשבתי שאולי זה תלוי בויכוח בין תוספות ואת הרמב''ם אם המקרה של הגמרא של גיזבר במסכת מעילה (שנוטל
קרש של הקדש) הוא מזיד או שוגג. נראה לי שבוודאי דוד צדק שהגיזבר שגג. ובין לתוספות ובין לרמב''ם צריכים
לומר שזה שהשיאל את הקרדום הוא בשוגג ולא יודע שהוא של הקדש בגלל המשנה בהאיש מקדש [קידושין נ''ב
ע''ב] שבשוגג הכלי מתחלל ויוצא לחולין והאיש שמשתמש איתו אחר כך אינו מועל. במזיד הכלי של בדק הבית
אינו מתחלל בגלל שאינו חייב בקרבן ומי שהשתמש איתו אחר כך מעל.

[הרקע הבסיסי כאן הוא התוספתא ומשנה וגמרא בבא מציעא ותוספות שם. סוגיא הבסיסית היא זו. התוספתא
כותבת כשכמה אנשים משתמשים בקרדום של קדש אחד אחרי השני הם כולם מועלים. אבל כאשר אחד נותן אותו
לחברו, רק הראשון הוא מועל. המשנה כותבת שאין מועל לאחר מועל למעט בעלי חיים כלי שרת. עוד משנה
כותבת אדם זה מעמיד קרש של קדש לתוך הבית שלו הוא לא מועל עד שהוא מתגורר בבית. אבל אם הוא נותן
אותו לחברו, הרי שהוא מועל מיד. רב אמי בבבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א אומר המשאיל קרדום של הקדש לחבירו
הוא מעל לפי טובת הנאה שבו וחבירו מותר להשתמש איתו מיד. (מי שמשאיל קרדום של הקדש לחברו, הוא מועל
לפי כמות הכרת הטוב שהוא מקבל מידידו, וחברו יכול להשתמש בו מיד.) תוספות שואלים על החוק הזה של רב
אמי מן התוספתא ומן המשנה. תוספות מציע כמה הצעות כדי לענות על השאלה הזאת לפני שהתוספות מקבלים
לתשובות נכונות של הר''י. תשובה אפשרית אחת היא זו. יש הבדל בין כלי שרת וכלים אחרים. כלומר במקרה של
תוספתא שבהם יש הפרות מרובות של מעילה הוא כאשר הקרדום הוא כלי שרת. ועוד תשובה שדחו היא ההבדל
בין הכוונה לגנוב את הקרדום, ומצב שהוא מתכווין רק להשתמש בקרדום. כלומר, במקרה של תוספתא של
הפרות מרובות "מועל אחר המועל" הוא כאשר לא הייתה כל כוונה לגנוב את הקרדום, אלא רק כדי להשתמש בו.
אבל איפה שיש כוונה לגנוב, אז רק הראשון הוא מועל. אבל תוספות חולק על זה בגלל בגמרא בבא מציעא שרב
אמי אומר מי שמשאיל קרדום לחבירו הוא מועל, אבל לא חבירו. ואז תוספות מביא שתי תשובות של ר''י. שינוי
הרשות וגם שרב אמי מדבר על גיזבר. כלומר שינוי רשות של קרדום פירושו הקרדום יוצא חולין לגמרי, ולמרות
שהגיזבר משלם רק על פי טובת הנאה שיש בו. התשובה השנייה היא גם שמדובר בגיזבר, אך הקרדום יוצא חולין
רק במשך הזמן שנקבע להלוואה. אחרי זה הקרדום חוזר אוטומטית לרשות של קדש, והגיזבר משלם רק על פי
טובת הנאה שיש בו.]
) ב

Bava Metzia page 99a

The question that came up in Tosphot between David and me in Bava Metzia page 99a is whether the Gizbar knows the vessel is Hekdesh? It seems to me at this point that it makes no difference. As far as I can see if the Gizbar knows the Kli is Hekdesh and uses it he still is not intending to take it out of  reshut of hekdesh. So he would be obligated in Meila bemezid in which case he gets makot and pays the keren of what he was "nehene." If he does not know and he thinks it is one of his own vessels then there he also in not intending to take it out of his domain and so pays Keren and 1/5 and brings a sacrifice.

This would I think depend on the argument between Tosphot and the Rambam whether the regular case that the Gemara says is of  a Gizbar in tractate Meila is Mezid or Shogeg.

But then why in that law of the Gizbar why would there be an argment between the Rambam and Tosphot? Why can not both says that it can be either one, shogeg of Mezid?

Perhaps to the Rambam it has to be Mezid because he does not hold of Shinuy Reshut in Meila? I mean is it possible that his opinion about Meila in general that it refers only to either getting benefit out of the Hekdesh object or damaging it might be the only reason he says the Gizbar has to be knowing it is Hekdesh? I can not see why this minute but maybe?

In any case the basic background here is the Tosephta and Mishna and Gemara in Bava Metzia and Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 99a
The basic Sugia is this. The Tosephta writes when one uses an ax of hekdesh one after the other they are all Moel. But when one gives it to his friend, only the first in Moel.
The Mishna writes there is no Moel after Moel except animals and kli sharet.
Another mishna writes a person that puts a wooden beam of hekdesh into his house is not Moel until he lives in it, but if he gives it to his friend he is moel right away.
Rav Ami in Bava Metzia page 99a says a המשאיל קרדום של הקדש לחבירו הוא מעל לפי טובת הנאה שבו וחבירו מותר להשתמש איתו מיד. One who loans an ax of hekdesh to his friend, is moel according to the amount of gratitude he recieves from his friend and his freind can use it right away.
Tosphot asks on this law of Rav Ami from the Tosephta and the Mishna.
In Tosphot are a few suggestions to answer this before Tosphot gets to the answers that he thinks are correct. One is this. There is a difference between כלי שרת and other vessels. I.e. the case of the תוספתא where there are multiple violations of meila on one קרדום is when the קרדום  is כלי שרת. And another rejected answer is the difference between intending to steal the קרדום and just intending to use the קרדום. That is, the case of the Tosephta of multiple violations is when there was no intention to steal the קרדום but just to use it. But where there is intention to steal then only the first is Moel. Tosphot disagress with this because of the Gemara in Bava Metzia where Rav Ami says one who loans the ax to another is moel but not the one who recieves it.
Then Tosphot come to the two answers of the Ri that he likes. שינוי רשות.and that Rav Ami is talking about a Gizbar. That is  שינוי רשות of th ax means the ax goes out to Hulin completely and even so the Gizbar only pays accoring to טובת הנאה שיש בו . The other answer is it is a Gizbar but the ax goes out to Hulin only according to the time set for the loan. After that the ax returns automatically to the reshut of Hekdesh.
___________________________________________
The question that came up in תוספות between David and me in בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א is whether the גיזבר knows the vessel is הקדש? It seems to me at this point that it makes no difference. As far as I can see if the גיזבר knows the כלי is הקדש and uses it he still is not intending to take it out of  רשות of הקדש. So he would be obligated in מעילה במזיד and in that case he gets מכות and pays the קרן of what he was .נהנה If he does not know  that the קרדום is of הקדש and he thinks it is one of his own vessels, then there he also is not intending to take it out of his רשות and so pays קרן and חומש and brings a קרבן מעילה. This would I think depends on the argument between תוספות and the רמב''ם whether the regular case that the גמרא says is of  a גיזבר in מסכת מעילהis מזיד or שוגג. But then why in that law of the גיזבר why would there be an argument between the רמב''ם and תוספות? Why can not both says that it can be either one, שוגג or מזיד? Perhaps to the רמב''ם, it has to be מזיד because he does not hold of שינוי רשות in מעילה? I mean to ask, is it possible that his opinion about מעילה in general that it refers only to either getting benefit out of the הקדש object or damaging it might be the only reason he says the גיזבר has to be knowing it is הקדש? I can not see why this minute, but maybe? In any case, the basic background here is the תוספתא and משנה and גמרא in בבא מציעא and תוספות in בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א. The basic סוגיא is this. The תוספתא writes when one uses an קרדום of הקדש one after the other they are all מועל. But when one gives it to his friend, only the first is מועל. The משנה writes there is no מועל after מועל except animals and כלי שרת. Another משנה writes a person that puts a קרש of הקדש into his house is not מועל until he lives in it. But if he gives it to his friend, then he is מועל right away. רב אמי in בבא מציעא דף צ''ט ע''א says a המשאיל קרדום של הקדש לחבירו הוא מעל לפי טובת הנאה שבו וחבירו מותר להשתמש איתו מיד. One who משאיל a קרדום of הקדש to his friend, is מועל according to the amount of gratitude he receives from his friend, and his friend can use it right away. תוספות asks on this law of רב אמי from the תוספתא and the משנה. In תוספות are a few suggestions to answer this before תוספות gets to the answers that he thinks are correct. One  possible answer is this. There is a difference between כלי שרת and other vessels. I.e. the case of the תוספתא where there are multiple violations of מעילה on one קרדום is when the קרדום  is כלי שרת. And another rejected answer is the difference between intending to steal the קרדום, and just intending to use the קרדום. That is, the case of the תוספתא of multiple violations מועל אחר מועל is when there was no intention to steal the קרדום, but just to use it. But where there is intention to steal then only the first is מועל. But תוספות disagrees with this because of the גמרא in בבא מציעא where רב אמי says one who משאיל the קרדום to another is מועל but not the one who receives it. Then תוספות come to the two answers of the ר''י that he likes. שינוי רשות and that רב אמי is talking about a גיזבר. That is  שינוי רשות of the קרדום means the קרדום goes out to חולין completely, and even so the גיזבר only pays according to טובת הנאה שיש בו . The other answer is also  that it is a גיזבר but the קרדום goes out to חולין only according to the time set for the loan. After that the קרדום returns automatically to the רשות of הקדש.


I do recall that there were some people that commented on this argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. It seems to me if perhaps I can find out what they were suggesting, maybe I can see how that might apply to the ax also?

objective morality

I must have mentioned this before but now it occurs to me to mention again that the basic approach of Saadia Gaon and and the rishonim is that the basic idea of Torah is to come to objective morality which is recognizable by reason. But there is a level above that also which the Torah tries to bring one to. But the first level--the minimum is natural law--or what Rav Saadia Gaon calls חוקי השכל

Reason has a limit.

I have been bothered by the phenomenon of the 1800's that people accepted what now looks like a sort of silly world view--that just by getting rid of kings and priests and putting workers in control, everything would become like a utopia.  The thing to try to figure out is how this applies to us nowadays? What kinds of silly world views are we accepting that on closes examination will prove to be silly and ridiculous.
How can you tell where the current in leading you when you yourself are immersed in the stream itself?

[I am more or less thinking of Marx and an over confidence in reason that Kant warned about. Now even though I believe that reason recognizes moral principles as Michael Humer pointed out why he is not an objectivist,  still I think there are limits to reason as Kant said and this was certainly the opinion of the Talmud and the geonim and rishonim.
See the beginning of Nahar Shalom of Rav Shalom Sharabi where he explains that the Condensation was in all the midot. That means including wisdom. That is to say Reason has a limit. [A similar explanation is offered by Rav Nahman of Breslov.]

בבא בתרא ל''ד ע''א.Bava Batra page 34

I would like to suggest that what רב and שמואל said about the נסכא דרבי אבא block of metal of ר' אבא exactly like the גמרא in בבא מציעא page 100.  They said he keeps it and the גמרא in בבא מציעא first asks, ליחזי ברשות דמאן קיימא "Let's see in whose domain it is." From that we see we look first at where the object is now and only if that does not work then we look at  the first owner.  And that does not disagree with the גמרא in נידה about the חזקה מעיקרא being stronger because the חזקה of money is different than a חזקה about איסור והיתר . So then why does the רשב''ם say the reason of רב and שמואל is because of a מיגו? Answer: The רשב''ם is פוסק like סומכוס. Now this depends on the version in בבא מציעא. If the right version is  הא מני סומכוס then סומכוס agrees that we look at the domain where the object is now. Only if that does not help anything then we look at מרא קמא. But if the version is אלא הא מני סומכוס then סומכוס says even when there is a present domain still ממון המוטל בספק חולקים then he would need a מיגו. The trouble with this is the רשב''ם holds the first version that I mentioned is right. Therefore we need to go to נידה דף ב and the תוספות there where there is an opinionחזקה מעיקרא וחזקת השתא  are equal. So here we have  מרא קמא and חזקת רשות which should be equal except the מיגו turns the weight of evidence towards the person that grabbed the נסכא



) בבא בתרא ל''ד ע''א. המשנה בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א מביאה מקרה שבו אדם קונה פרה ונתגלה כי זו הולידה עגל. אנחנו לא יודעים מתי זה קרה. לפני או אחרי העסקה? אז מי הבעלים של עגל? הגמרא שואלת למה יש שאלה? הלא זה אמור להיות שייך לאדם אשר בתחומו  הוא נמצא? תשובה: זה בסמטה. שאלה: בואו לתת אותו לבעל הראשון? תשובה: הא מני סומכוס. זהו סומכוס [או "אלא זה סומכוס"]. סומכוס מחזיק כסף בספק מחולק. [קשה לדעת כאן למה הגמרא מעדיפה חזקת השתא (נחזי ברשות דמאן קיימא) מחזקה מעיקרא (מי היו הבעלים הראשונים).בנידה הסברא להפך.] החכמים סוברים מצד שני שהחוק הוא: "לקחת כסף מתוך התחום של חבירו דורשת הוכחה]. אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא, 'אלא זה הוא סומכוס,' הכוונה שהיא חוזרת בה מן התשובה של הסמטה. אבל אם הגרסה היא "זהו סומכוס", הכוונה כי היינו נותנים לו לבעלים הראשונים משום שהמשנה היא כמו סומכוס. זה משאיר את התשובה של הסמטה במקומה. זה מתכוון שסומכוס יסכים עם חזקת רשות. אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא (בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א) "הא מני סונכוס" או "אלא הא מני סומכוס" הוא עושה את ההבדל אם סומכוס מסכים עם  חזקת ממון (חזקת רשות) או לא. אם הגרסה "הא מני סומכוס" זה מתכוון סומכוס מסכים עם חזקת ממון (חזקת רשות). הרשב''ם הוא פוסק החוק הוא כמו סומכוס. זה קשור לבבא בתרא ל''ד בדרך זו. הרשב''ם מחזיק יש מיגו עבור האדם שתפס את נסכא דר' אבא, (הוא יכול לטעון שמעולם לא תפס כלום). במקום זאת הוא מודה כי הוא תפס אותו אבל הוא טוען החפץ שייך לו. רב ושמואל החליטו שהחוק הוא האדם אשר תפס אותו ניתן לקחת אותו. הרשב''ם מחזיק בשיטה הסיבה היא שיש מיגו. אבל נראה לי שיש סיבה נוספת עבור הרשב''ם.  אחרת למה  המיגו הזה חזק מספיק כדי להשאיר את החפץ ברשותו של האחד שתפס את הנסכא. הלא היה אפשר לטעון כי חזקת ממון כאן באמת תיתן את האובייקט לאדם שבמקור היה לו הנסכא. אז זה יכול להיות כי סומכוס לא הולך עם חזקת ממון וכאן הם היו חולקים את כמות הכסף ששווה הנסכא אם לא היה מיגו. כל זה תלוי תוספות בנידה דף ב' ע''ב אם חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה של עכשיו שווות או אם חזקה מעיקרא הוא חזקה. אם חזקה מעיקרא חזקה נראה כי זו תחול במקרה זה על של נסכא דר' אבא כי היינו אומרים חזקת ממון תלך לאדם הראשון שממנו האובייקט נתפס.

כוונתי היא

 ברצוני להציע כי מה רב ואת שמואל אמרו על נסכא דרבי אבא (גוש המתכת של ר' אבא) בדיוק כמו הגמרא בבבא מציעא דף ק'. הם אמרו שהוא זוכה בו והגמרא בבא מציעא בראשונה שואלת, ליחזי ברשות דמאן קיימא ("בואו לראות של איזה תחום הוא נמצא.") מכך אנו רואים שאנו מסתכלים קודם כל איפה הוא עכשיו רק אם זה לא עובד אז נלך לפי הבעלים הראשונים. [וזה אינו כנגד הגמרא בנידה ב: על חזקה מעיקרא להיות חזקה בגלל שחזקה של כסף הוא שונה מאשר חזקה על איסור והיתר]. אז מדוע רשב''ם אומר שהסיבה של רב ושמואל היא בגלל מיגו? תשובה: רשב''ם הוא פוסק כמו סומכוס. עכשיו זה תלוי בגרסה בבבא מציעא ק. אם הגרסה הנכונה היא "הא מני סומכוס" אז סומכוס מסכים כי אנו מסתכלים על התחום שבו החפץ הוא עכשיו. רק אם זה לא עוזר, אז אנחנו מסתכלים מי המרא קמא. אבל אם הגירסה היא "אלא הא מני סומכוס", אז סומכוס אומר גם כאשר קיימת הוחכה של תחום הנוכחי עדיין ממון המוטל בספק חולקים אז הוא היה צריך מיגו. הבעיה עם זה היא שהרשב''ם מחזיק השיטה שהגרסה הראשונה שציינתי נכונה. לכן אנחנו צריכים ללכת לנידה דף ב: ואת תוספות שיש שם. יש דעה שחזקה מעיקרא וחזקה דהשתא שוות. אז הנה יש לנו בנסכא דרבי אבא מרא קמא ואת חזקת הרשות שאמורה להיות שווות חוץ מזה שהמיגו הופך את המשקל של ראיות כלפי אותו האדם שתפס את נסכא

block of metal of R. Aba נסכא דרבי אבא

I would like to suggest that what Rav and Shmuel said about the block of metal of R. Aba exactly like the gemara in bava metzia page 100.  They said he keeps it and the gemara in bava metzia first asks, "let's see in whose domain it is." From that we see we look first at where the object is now and only if that doe not work then we look at  the first owner.And that does not disagree with the gemara in Nida about the חזקה מעיקרא being stronger because the חזקה of money is different than a חזקה about איסור והיתר .So then why does the Rashbam say the reason of Rav and Shmuel is because of a migo? Answer: The Rashbam is posek like Sumchos. Now this depends on the version in Bava Metzia. If the right version is  הא מני סומכוס then sumchos agrees that we look at the domain where the object is now. But if the version is אלא הא מני סומכוס then sumhos says even when there is a present domain still ממון המוטל בספק חולקים then he would need a migo. The trouble with this is  the Rashbam holds the first version that I mentioned is right. Therefore we need to go to Nida page 2 and the Tosphot there where there is an opinion  חזקה מעיקרא וחזקת השתא  are equal. So here we have  מרא קמא and חזקת רשות which should be equal except the migo turns the weight of evidence towards the person that grabbed the נסכא

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast learning, learning in depth

Fast learning was a "thing" when I  was growing up. So to some degree it made sense to apply it to learning Torah. In particular there is the classical musar book אורחות צדיקים that places a heavy emphasis on it.
On the other hand when I got to Far Rockaway [Shar Yashuv] and the Mir the emphasis was just the opposite. Learning in depth--biyun. And my learning partner also was into that kind of learning. He would not move until everything was clear.

For me it seems there are kinds of learning that going fast seem to make the most sense. And other times the in depth thing seems best. I do not think there is any kind of resolution to this problem except what they do in Litvak yeshivas--the morning for in depth and the afternoon for fast learning.

[Fast learning however in the Mir was what most people call learning in depth with Tosphot. But when I say fast learning I mean to say the words as fast as possible and to go on. Not to worry if one understand or not. The learning gets absorbed anyway.]

to not learn Torah when one is able is a sin.

Bitul Torah--to not learn Torah when one is able is a sin. Not just that, but just like learning Torah is equal to all the mitzvot, so bitul Torah is equal to all the sins. [This is brought own in the Gemara Yerushalmi.] This leaves the idea of Physics and Math ambiguous. [When I was in  yeshiva I was unaware of the opinions of the Obligations of the Heart and Saadia Gaon.]
There is a separate issue about secular pseudo wisdoms [the so called soft sciences] which are surely pure bitul Torah because they are false. Even if one can make money by practicing them they are still bitul Torah.

the whole religious world running into this world of the Dark Side.

The two most powerful yeshiva experiences I had were in Shar Yashuv and later in the Mir in NY. But the same search for truth that led me to those two great places was the exact same thing that later led me  to leave and go after false doctrines. The issue really  was addressed by the Gra- in a powerful statement --the top signature on the letter of excommunication [חרם].
The trouble is the people get caught in a zone of illusion where they believe they have merited to great spiritual levels and Divine Light while in fact being led by the Dark Side which imitates holiness.

I wrote about this years ago but deleted everything since I wanted to keep my blog on a positive note.

Some of the problems that I wrote a lot about but deleted were these:
(1) Ego inflation. Once they imagine they are seeing great light they begin to think of themselves are super beings.
(2) He thinks his imaginations are  true revelations from above.
(3) becomes possessed by an archetype--which he thinks is some higher level but in  fact is  a lower level than and sometimes from the Dark Side itself. And that is were his visions and miracles come from.

I wrote a lot about this but at some point it was getting me down and upsetting seeing the whole religious world running  into this world of the Dark Side.

be part of a Litvak [Lithuanian type] yeshiva

If one has merited to be part of a Litvak [Lithuanian type] yeshiva it seems to me to be a terrible sin to leave that  situation.  That does not imply not to make aliyah-but rather if one has come from exile back to Israel that within Israel one ought to continue with the Litvak approach[based on the Gra and Rav Shach.]]

The temptations are that other groups put out effort to show themselves on a higher level. And sometime in the Litvak world not enough emphasis is devoted to keeping out the black plague hidden inside those groups. The easiest targets are the newly religious who do not have enough expertise in Torah to be able to tell the difference between authentic Torah as opposed to Torah of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side].

I ought to add that I also think Mizrachi yeshivas are excellent. and in some ways even better since they also have a connection with IDF. [They have a kind of program where they serve in IDF for some time and then back to learning --.. etc back and forth and also get job training in IDF.]

The basic reason why I approve of IDF and also the State of Israel is mainly because of Rav Moshe Feinstein and also Rav Aaron Kotler. Both said more or less the same message "דינא דמלכותא דינא"the law of the country is the law. from Shmuel in Bava Batra.
This disagrees  with the Satmar Rav, Rav Joel and the general litvak approach. And even though Rav Joe was a very very great tzadik, still it seems to me that in terms of strict halacha that he had no case against Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron. His entire book on the subject is made from quotes from Midrashim.   And if I wanted to prove any law from the Midrashim I could prove almost anything.

The laws of Lashon Hara [slander] do not apply to an apikorus [heretic], what is an apikorus?

The Hafetz Haim makes it clear in a few places in the book Hafetz Haim that the laws of lashon hara [slander] do not apply to an apikorus [heretic]. But he does not go into the arguments about what that means exactly. The only place where he more or less makes it clear is in Klal 8 where he defines it as one who denies the תורת משה [the Law of Moses], including the Oral and or Written Law.

It seems this is too fluid. Too undefined.  The undefined nature of this category means anyone can label anyone they do not like with this label "apikorus" and be free to hurt them at leisure. And others that he does like but in fact have created a religion of idolatry with all the dressings and ornaments of Torah and say that it is it lashon hara [slander] to disparage them.

Further I wonder why he did not mention Joseph Albo, or the Abravenal or other opinions in the rishonim about what actually are the principles of faith.

The whole problem seems to be that the whole gist of the "lashon hara thing"--seems geared to disenfranchise Reform Judaism and secular Jews even though they very much believe in Torah--just they do not make a public display out of it  in order to get other people' money and allegiance.And it seems to whitewash the religious world that simply explain away what ever does not agree with them in Torah. And that is just another way of denying the Torah

 I noticed when I was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY that success in Torah always seemed to depend on Fear of God. I can not really explain this now years later. It was not a matter of who was learning the most Musar. It was something else. In fact I recall that there seemed to be people who were overdoing it with the Musar thing --and that certainly did not help. But the people that had the most success in learning seemed to have a certain degree of fear of God that was a bit more than usual.

In any case, to me today it seems that the Musar yeshivas developed the right balance. Two short sessions in Musar every day and the rest of the day learning Gemara in depth.

The Musar Movement of Rav Israel Salanter and its relation to philosophy.

Musar [Medieval Ethics] does not deal much with Philosophy but it does depend on Saadia Gaon and the later geonim and Rishonim that had the same kind of world view of combining Torah with Reason.
In terms of the Middle Ages that meant Torah with Neo Platonic thought as we see in the Obligations of the Heart.
To me that is one of the endearing qualities of Musar for the Neo Platonic approach has withstood the test of time.  The difference is that Kant [with the interpretation of Leonard Nelson] was more along the lines of Plato directly.

חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart is openly Neo Platonic and bases himself on the fact that that was the direction that Saadia Gaon took in his Beliefs and World Views אמונות ודעות.
Most Musar after that takes the same Neo Platonic approach with saying so openly. Once you get to מסילת ישרים Paths of the Just by Rav Moshe Haim Luzato, you are dealing with a modified form of Neo Platonic thought based on Rav Isaac Luria. 

When the Gra put his signature on the letter of excommunication I am pretty sure he had the problem described here in mind

Sri Aurobindo says about the intermediate zone: "This is in fact an intermediary state, a zone of transition between the ordinary consciousness in mind and the true yoga knowledge. One may cross without hurt through it, perceiving at once or at an early stage its real nature and refusing to be detained by its half-lights and tempting but imperfect and often mixed and misleading experiences; one may go astray in it, follow false voices and mendacious guidance, and that ends in a spiritual disaster; or one may take up one's abode in this intermediate zone, care to go no farther and build there some half-truth which one takes for the whole truth or become the instrument of the powers of these transitional planes, -- that is what happens to many sadhaks and yogis. Overwhelmed by the first rush and sense of power of a supernormal condition, they get dazzled with a little light which seems to them a tremendous illumination or a touch of force which they mistake for the full Divine Force or at least a very great yoga Shakti; or they accept some intermediate Power (not always a Power of the Divine) as the Supreme and an intermediate consciousness as the supreme realization. Very readily they come to think that they are in the full cosmic consciousness when it is only some front or small part of it or some larger Mind, Life-Power or subtle physical ranges with which they have entered into dynamic connection. Or they feel themselves to be in an entirely illumined consciousness, while in reality they are receiving imperfectly things from above through a partial illumination of some mental or vital plane; for what comes is diminished and often deformed in the course of transmission through these planes; the receiving mind and vital of the sadhak also often understands or transcribes ill what has been received or throws up to mix with it its own ideas feelings, desires, which it yet takes to be not its own but part of the Truth it is receiving because they are mixed with it, imitate its form, are lit up by its illumination and get from this association and borrowed light an exaggerated value.

There are worse dangers in this intermediate zone of experience. For the planes to which the sadhak has now opened his consciousness, -- not as before getting glimpses of them and some influences, but directly, receiving their full impact, -- send a host of ideas, impulses, suggestions, formations of all kinds, often the most opposite to each other, inconsistent or incompatible, but presented in such a way as to slur over their insufficiencies and differences, with great force, plausibility and wealth of argument or a convincing sense of certitude. Overpowered by this sense of certitude, vividness, appearance of profusion and richness, the mind of the sadhak enters into a great confusion which it takes for some larger organisation and order; or else it whirls about in incessant shiftings and changes which it takes for a rapid progress but which lead nowhere. Or there is the opposite danger that he may become the instrument of some apparently brilliant but ignorant formation; for these intermediate planes are full of little Gods or strong Daityas or smaller beings who want to create, to materialise something or to enforce a mental and vital formation in the earth life and are eager to use or influence or even possess the thought and will of the sadhak and make him their instrument for the purpose. This is quite apart from the well-known danger of actually hostile beings whose sole purpose is to create confusion, falsehood, corruption of the sadhana and disastrous unspiritual error. Anyone allowing himself to be taken hold of by one of these beings, who often take a divine Name, will lose his way in the yoga. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the sadhak may be met at his entrance into this zone by a Power of the Divine which helps and leads him till he is ready for greater things; but still that itself is no surety against the errors and stumblings of this zone; for nothing is easier than for the powers of these zones or hostile powers to imitate the guiding Voice or Image and deceive and mislead the sadhak or for himself to attribute the creations and formations of his own mind, vital or ego to the Divine.
For this intermediate zone is a region of half-truths -- and that by itself would not matter, for there is no complete truth below the supermind; but the half-truth here is often so partial or else ambiguous in its application that it leaves a wide field for confusion, delusion and error. The sadhak thinks that he is no longer in the old small consciousness at all, because he feels in contact with something larger or more powerful, and yet the old consciousness is still there, not really abolished. He feels the control or influence of some Power, Being or Force greater than himself, aspires to be its instrument and thinks he has got rid of ego; but this delusion of egolessness often covers an exaggerated ego. Ideas seize upon him and drive his mind which are only partially true and by over-confident misapplication are turned into falsehoods; this vitiates the movements of the consciousness and opens the door to delusion. Suggestions are made, sometimes of a romantic character, which flatter the importance of the sadhak or are agreeable to his wishes and he accepts them without examination or discriminating control. Even what is true, is so exalted or extended beyond its true pitch and limit that it becomes the parent of error. This is a zone which many sadhaks have to cross, in which many wander for a long time and out of which a great many never emerge. Especially if their sadhana is mainly in the mental and vital, they have to meet here many difficulties and much danger; only those who follow scrupulously a strict guidance or have the psychic being prominent in their nature pass easily as if on a sure and clearly marked road across this intermediate region. A central sincerity, a fundamental humility also save from much danger and trouble. One can then pass quickly beyond into a clearer Light where if there is still much mixture, incertitude and struggle, yet the orientation is towards the cosmic Truth and not to a half illumined prolongation of Maya and ignorance."


I probably should have brought attention to these very important truths that Aurobido brings years ago. But I figured that it was better for me to concentrate on positive things in my blog. I am afraid that while concentrating on positive things may be good for me, but perhaps I was neglecting to warn others about imminent and terrible dangers that they were stumbling into. I mean to say that there is a command in the Torah לא תעמוד על דם רעך do not stand by while the blood of your neighbor is being spilled. So I think perhaps I was guilty for not warning others.


Clearly the Gra recognized this problem and then gave his warning to anyone that was wiling to listen. The trouble being that no one listened.

realm of illusion.

I bring here a few quotes from Brunton and Sri Aurobindo. But the basic idea was mentioned by others as these ideas apply all too well in the religious world where spiritual leaders  have obvioulsy fallen into this realm of illusion.



 

The pathway of the mystical goal is strewn with human wreckage. Why? Several reasons would be needed to give a complete answer but one of the most important is this: Between the state of ordinary man and the state of the matured mystic there lies a perilous and deceptive psychological region which has been given various names in mystical literature. It has been called the astral plane, the intermediate zone, the hall of illusion, and so on. The early efforts of all aspirants in concentration, meditation, self-conquest, and study, bring them into this region. But once here their egoism becomes stimulated by the subtle forces they have evoked, their emotional nature becomes more sensitive and more fluid, their imaginative power becomes more active and is less restrained. The consequence of failure to negotiate these changes properly is swollen vanity, superstitious credulity, emotions run riot, and imagination gone wild...

– Paul Brunton, Notebooks

These things, when they pour down or come in, present themselves with a great force, a vivid sense of inspiration or illumination, much sensation of light and joy, an impression of widening and power. The sadhak feels himself freed from the normal limits, projected into a wonderful new world of experience, filled and enlarged and exalted; what comes associates itself, besides, with his aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment and yogic siddhi; it is represented even as itself that realisation and fulfilment. Very easily he is carried away by the splendour and the rush, and thinks that he has realised more than he has truly done, something final or at least something sovereignly true.

– Sri Aurobindo, The Riddle of the World, 35

This is in fact an intermediary state, a zone of transition between the ordinary consciousness in mind and the true yoga knowledge. One may cross without hurt through it, perceiving at once or at an early stage its real nature and refusing to be detained by its half-lights and tempting but imperfect and often mixed and misleading experiences; one may go astray in it, follow false voices and mendacious guidance, and that ends in a spiritual disaster; or one may take up one’s abode in this intermediate zone, care to go no farther and build there some half-truth which one takes for the whole truth or become the instrument of the powers of these transitional planes, - that is what happens to many sadhaks and yogis.

– Sri Aurobindo, The Riddle of the World, 36-7

"Famous spiritual leaders that are a lie"

The most well known warning that Rav Nahman of Breslov said about Torah scholars that are demons comes from the ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק ב פרק א
אך  צריך לידע ולהכיר את המפורסמים  כי יש כמה מפורסמים שהם בשקר והם רק על ידי עזות כמו שאמרו חז''ל עזותא מלכותא בלא תגא
"...but one must recognize the famous spiritual leaders that are a lie, for there are many famous spiritual leaders that are fakes and they come to this by arrogance as the Sages said, 'Arrogance is power without a crown'"

This warning is almost universally ignored except by the Na Nach group. The reason they are especially careful in this is that Rav Israel Odessar gave it a particular emphasis and said about מפורסמים של שקר This basic idea: "פרוסם = שקר" [famous = lie]

But you can see elsewhere in the writings of Rav Nahman is that he does not mean they have no powers. Just the opposite. They have vast powers of the Sitra Achra but it all comes from the Dark Side.

[Even though Rav Nahman does not give many details I think it is usually fairly clear to what kind of Torah Scholar demon he is referring to.]
I think all Litvak yeshivas in Europe were immune to this problem since they were learning Torah for its own sake--not for money. But nowadays the problem seems to have gotten even inside the straight Torah world. So what is one to do? I try to play it safe and stay away from the religious entirely. They reason is once one has walked into any of their places, the dust clings to him even when he leaves.

lose weight

There is a way to lose weight for those who need this. Beets and Garlic. I have mentioned this before but now just for a reminder: raw beets right away in the morning with eggs or טחינה or anything with some oil. Also the way to eat a piece of raw garlic is this --slice it into tiny pieces and then swallow the whole thing with a glass of water as you you were swallowing a pill.

[The beets in the morning cause one to not be hungry unless in actual need of food.]]

In any case, if we take the idea of receiving advice from a tzadik as important as brought in the book of Rav Nahman from Breslov and his advice is to learn fast, that would seem to settle the issue.

My first yeshiva was Shar Yashuv of Rav Shelomo Freifeld. He emphasized he idea of review ten times of what ever Tosphot or page of Gemara one is doing. I heard that from him directly and also from his son Motti Freifeld.

And in fact I tried doing that but the fact that I felt I needed to make progress created a great deal of conflict. I had already seen the idea of learning fast by just saying the words and going on which is brought in אורחות צדיקים an anonymous Musar sefer from the Middle Ages.

So during my three year period in Shar Yashuv I had a kind of compromise. Not review ten times nor just saying the words but review of everything twice and then going on.

I am not saying that is the best idea. Rather what I suggest is the kind of learning that was done at the Mir yeshiva in NY where the morning learning is in depth and the afternoon is for fast learning.

So I feel there is a place for both. That is after you have gone over a subject fast a few times then to sit and do the in depth approach.

I feel also that the idea of praying to understand also is important.

In any case, if we take the idea of receiving advice from a tzadik as important as brought in the book of Rav Nahman from Breslov  and his advice is to learn fast, that would seem to settle the issue.

Furthermore he also emphasizes the idea of belief in the wise and certainly the Rambam comes under that category. And the Rambam emphasized learning Physics and Metaphysics. So putting it all together we have now a method of learning Torah and Physics that is applicable and practical-- learn as fast as possible--just say the words and go on.

My Dad's work on Infrared and lasers at TRW

 Mainly I know it was laser communication that he was working on but the actual spy satellite itself with my Dad's technology was not launched until about May, 2001. They used Dad's technology that he developed at TRW. The thing that delayed it was that TRW lost all government contracts after the KGB got to the files.[The Falcon incident.] But TRW hung onto the files until recent around 1994 TRW came into the  satellite thing again--with lots of protests. Still TRW stuck with it and was eventually  awarded a contract.

That was incidentally how my Dad got involved with TRW in the first place. The call to try and recruit my Dad for TRW came almost immediately after TRW was awarded a government contract in 1966.


I think originally TRW must have hired him because he was the inventor of the infra red camera at Fort Monmouth in NJ.
The original 23 reconnaissance satellites developed at TRW
are the basis for the American Early Warning System which uses infrared to detect launches. But by the time my Dad took me to see his work at TRW he was already doing laser communications. Here is a picture from Life Magazine from July 26, 1954

Some information about what my Dad was working on at TRW

USA spy satellites during the Cold War


TRW

Here (Los Angeles), close to the major contractors for the spy satellites, such as TRW at Redondo Beach, California, and also the major launch site, Vandenberg Air Force Base, the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) is principally headquartered. (p.249)

In mid-December 1966 the contract for the [new SIGINT satellite program] was awarded to TRW, and the sensor kit went to Aerojet Electrosystems. Twenty months later, on August 6, 1968, the first of the series, designated DSP code 949 [DSP=Defense Support Program], was secretly shot aloft from the Eastern Test Range at Cape Carnaval, Florida. (...) The satellite was placed in an extremely high, 22'300-mile geosynchroneous orbit. At this height, the speed of the satellite would be almost exactly that of the earth, thus allowing it, in effect, to hover over a single spot on the earth's surface near the equator. Perched over Singapore, the long-nosed bird could "see" almost half the earth, including most of China and western Russia, but missing northernmost Sibiria. (p.250)

Under the National Reconnaissance Office framework, the CIA awarded the contract to TRW, which put together the satellite in its windowless M-4 building at Redondo Beach. It was the same facility that built the early-warning DSP Code 949-647 satellites, but, unlike it's predecessors, Rhyolite was pure SIGINT. (p.254)

---

Apparently believing that satellites at extreme geosynchronous orbits were incapable of intercepting signals as directional as their very-high-frequency (VHF) and microwave band used for the transmission of telemetry data, the Soviet Union never bothered to encode telemetry. This reportedly changed in mid-1977, about six months after the USSR learned about Rhyolite from a jerk janitor (sealing secrets to the KGB) working at TRW. (p.255)

-- James Bamford: THE PUZZLE PALACE, 1982. 


Also see

https://fas.org/spp/military/program/sigint/overview.htm




I actually saw the lab where my Dad was doing his work for this. I guess he could bring his kid. It was all top secret. It was laser communication. And this is the first time I have seen such a thing mentioned in print:http://edition.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/18/spy.satellite/index.html 


[The first years if work at TRW were for the Infrared satellites. They had obviously contacted and hired my dad because he was the inventor of such a kind of system at the Army base in Monmouth Fort in N.J. as you can see in the Life Magazine article concerning that,- July 26, 1954]

laws about lashon hara [slander]

In the laws about lashon hara [slander] what is an apikorus [heretic] comes up.  Yet what is an apikorus [heretic] seems to me to be unclear. There is the three way debate between the Rambam, Joseph Albo and the Abravenal about how many principles of faith are really required.

[That is not necessarily the same thing as Torah  from Sinai. A person might believe the Torah was given by Divine inspiration but not necessarily the whole thing at Mount Sinai.

[The Rambam also is exacting in his words--one must believe in Torah from Heaven, and says nothing about Torah from Sinai.]

I think that the Rambam was right for considering Islam to be Monotheism-not idolatry.

I think that the Rambam was right for considering Islam to be  Monotheism-not idolatry. Even if there are troubles with Islam today, that does not seem any different that the troubles with violent Islam in the days of the Rambam. And even so the Rambam said what ever the problems with Islam are, that does not mean to deny that it is Monotheism. [That is, it is not idolatry].

But how can we tell nowadays what other lunatic ideas have taken over our minds?

Toxo Plasmosis is a parasite that causes the mouse to think the cat is attractive.
Dr Sapolsky  from Stanford asks in the video where he talks about this "Who knows what else is out there?"

You see a similar things with wasps and caterpillars. It is not just that the wasp uses the caterpillar's body as a hot house for its eggs but that the mind of the caterpillar is taken over as you can see in this article.

This brings to the larger problem of the fact that the Dark Side can take over people's minds. People can become possessed by forces not of their own making.

[The force of the Dark Side I got an impression about by reading about the many revolutionary movements of the 1800's. The main idea there was that just by throwing out the "System", and all authority, everything would somehow become peachy. People would just work for altruistic reasons. There would never be a worker who slacked off. Now it is easy to see the lunacy of the political movements of the 1800's. But how can we tell nowadays what other lunatic ideas have taken over our minds? [Actually come to think of it, this might not be that hard to figure out. ]

A debate about trust in God-whether it should be along with effort or if it is best to do no effort at all

Even though it is generally recognized that there is a debate about trust in God-whether it should be along with effort;-- or if it is best to do no effort at all. Still you can see this last type in the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart) as a מעלה (good trait) --a great thing even if it might not be an obligation. Therefore, it makes the most sense to divide the issue into (1) what is obligated and (2) what is simply better and more preferred, but not an actual obligation.

The general opinion is trust with effort is from the Obligations of the Heart by Behayee Ibn Pakuda, and trust with no effort is from the Gra and Ramban. But looking at the very end of the Gate of Trust in the Obligations of the Heart you can see this distinction is not at all clear.


[This debate is the traditional source of the Litvak yeshiva approach of just sitting and learning Torah and waiting and trusting in God to take care of one's needs. That however is what I understood when I was in yeshiva. Nowadays some Litvak people seem to think learning Torah is a good way to make money--& a legitimate way also. [I heard that from such people myself. They seem to think that if one is learning Torah without making money from it, then he is wasting his time!! ]
There have even been situations when people urged one fellow's wife to divorce him because he was learning Torah for its own sake. And those were people that were themselves in kollel!!

In terms of this basic issue I would have to say that most secular Jews that I have known are a lot closer to the viewpoint of Torah than the pseudo religious world. [That is in terms of believing that trust in God is what everything depends on--whether with or without effort.]

Tosphot.I would have to say how you deal with Tosphot probably depends on your situation. If you have a learning partner with a high IQ, that is probably the best thing.

It is hard to know how to deal with Tosphot.
I have avoided this subject because it seems to me that people in a Litvak yeshiva would have to go about Tosphot in a different way than me.
Since I anyway try my best to divide my time between Torah and Physics, that gives me a kind of space to deal with Tosphot in my own way which would not work for people in a Lithuanian Yeshiva. Since my time is limited anyway what I usually do is just to take one page of Gemara and go over it with Tosphot for about a month. That means I am trying to review each Tosphot every day.  That is from where the ideas come from that I wrote in my two small books on Bava Metzia and Ideas in Shas. The fact that I was doing a lot of review on those Tosphot or on Rav Shach or Rav Haim Halevi helped me to come to the ideas that I wrote down there.
But when I was a  Litvak in a Litvak yeshiva doing Gemara all day, I clearly was not doing that. I was just reviewing each  Tosphot about twice, and then go straight to the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua. I would try to get the basic idea and then simply go on. [Understanding the Pnei Yehoshua and Maharasha as you can imagine took me a lot more  review than just twice. Sometimes I had to get up to about 15 times of review before I would get the idea.]
And then there was the time I was learning with my learning partner who has an IQ many magnitudes above me, and he would prepare, so when I got to the learning session he had already thought  of some of the difficulties with Tosphot.

So in conclusion  I would have to say how you deal with Tosphot probably depends on your situation.
If you have a learning partner with a high IQ, that is probably the best thing. If you are in a Litvak yeshiva, then in fact it probably makes the most sense to try to make progress. Learn the Tosphot, Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua a few times and then go on. Also have a separate session in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. [That is I think the best idea with the Avi Ezri is just to plow through it straight since Rac Shach usually explains the issues clearly before he gets to his basic new idea. It is probably the clearest sefer on learning Gemara in depth that I have ever seen or ever heard of]