In Shar Yashuv and the Mir there was a clear distinction between learning "bekiut" and learning "beiyun" (in depth)

While in high school --I was there during a vacation time. The assistant of the physics teacher told me an interesting idea about learning Physics [that is any Physics text]. He said you need to start at the beginning and go to the end. And go from the end to the beginning and to go from the middle outwards.

This I think is helpful when it comes to review. For example  lets say you learn in the way of Girsa גירסא [just saying the words and going on.] And lets say you have done that a few times with the same text book. But at some point you feel you need more review directly after learning some part of it. You do not want to wait until the second time around --by which time you have probably forgotten what you learnt. So you do review from the place you leave off and start towards the beginning.

[After all the sages did emphasize review  also besides the way of "Girsa"]


[In Shar Yashuv and the Mir there was a clear distinction between learning "bekiut" and learning "beiyun"  (in depth). The morning was for "beiyun" (in depth) and the afternoon for bekiut (fast).
In the Mir itself [in NY] the meaning of this was clear. The morning was to prepare for the class of the teachers. And the classes themselves were basically along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk.

Bekiut just meant what it sounds like. Going through as much Gemara and Tosphot in order as possible. [So it was not exactly "Girsa"].

But for me I found myself somewhat lost in terms of the classes. So my morning hours were spent instead of preparing for the classes I learnt the Maharasha, Maharam and Pnei Yehoshua. [And what other commentaries I could find]]

But when I came to Physics I found the straight way of Girsa to be more effective. So what I think for people like me, it is best to do straight Girsa for a long time until you basically absorb the concepts by osmosis. And then to straight to concentrate on review.

Communism

You can see in Michael Huemer [Intuition-ists] and Dr Kelley Ross [the Kant-Fries School] that  they are not at all thrilled with Communism. Huemer even has a link to a whole web site of Communist crimes. Kelley Ross has a good intellectual defence of capitalism based on Kant's idea of individual autonomy. [That is a good defence and tightly woven into the structure of Kant's philosophy.]

Michael Humer has a particularly devastating critique on Communism.

[One of several essays of his that are masterpieces.]

On a separate note you can see the efforts of the USSR to change America into a communist socialist system in books that were based on the opened archives of the KGB and the GRU in the USSR. [See also the video of Bezmenov.]

And even though the communists made use of Hegel, they turned him upside down in order to do so. Hegel was the exact opposite of a Marxist.

To get a bigger picture of the penetration of communism into Western Civilization see Fire in the Minds of Men by Billington.

To see however the reasons for the rise of Lenin and Stalin it is useful to get a picture of Europe from 1876 until 1905. And then WWI.  They were confronting situations like the massacre of the goldmine workers in Russia. And also plenty of stuff that would not have been easy to answer with simple capitalism.
See Hobhouse who in spite of his critique of Socialism and in particular the Metaphysical State--agreed that straight laissez-faire capitalism had been tried in England and did not work.
Simply put if you look at the French Revolution and the history of Europe up until 1876 all you see is a big mess --all which started from the ideas of socialism of the French Revolution. But look after 1876 until 1918 you get an opposite picture.

Also Howard Bloom's the Lucifer Principle which is more or less a simple form of Hegel's super organism. Or as Blanshard puts it: No human good is possible without the state.

The religious world thinks of secular Jews as a problem

The religious world thinks of secular Jews as a problem.  A problem that needs to be solved delicately. [The religious need the money of secular Jews so they have to pretend to be "we are all one group". Along with the love bombing.]
The religious need that secular Jews  accept the leadership of the religious lunatics. But not to be equal to the frum [religious] but rather subservient.

To me it seems this is an unjustified attitude. I do not see the religious as being the super geniuses or moral giants they think they are.


The religious world seems to be sunk in a world of delusion of superiority. And that they attribute to the fact that they keep a few made up rituals that are not from the Torah at all.

[This is not meant as a critique on the authentic Litvak yeshivas [Brisk, Mir, Ponovitch, Shar Yashuv] where Torah is learned for its own sake.]

Bava Kama page 70 B

In Bava Kama page 70 B there is brought down that one who steals and then sells on Shabat does not have to pay the 4 and 5. [4 sheep in place of one sheep. 5 oxen in place of 1 ox.] Rav Papa said the sell and shabat came at once in case the buyer said throw your theft into my yard. The question the Gemara asks then is that that seems to be like R. Akiva who said קלוטה כמונחה דמיא an object that is thrown is like it is sitting. The Gemara answers it could be like the Sages [who disagree with R Akiva] also in the case the buyer said my yard will only acquire when the object lands.

In Gitin 78 a husband throws a divorce document at his wife from a roof top into her courtyard and it burns up before it hits the ground. She is divorced. The Gemara asks but the document was not in a guarded place? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that is  a case where it got inside the walls of the yard. R. Aba asked Ula this seems to be like R. Yehuda Hanasi who said an object that is thrown is like it is sitting. Ula answered the sages who disagree with R Yehuda can agree with this since they can hold Shabat and acquiring are different to the sages.

Tosphot in Bava Kama asks on the statement there "It seems to be like R Akiva". He asks that even to R Akiva there is a problem since he also would said the object is not acquired until it gets inside the walls, but in terms of Shabat he would be liable right away as the object is above the walls. He answers the thief threw the object in through a window or side door. He then asks on the Gemara in Gitin why does it not ask "It seems to be like R Akiva?" [So what would the sages say?] Tosphot answers the case there is with walls while R Akiva hold the object is acquired even without walls.

The Maharsha, Maharam and Maharshal ask on this Tosphot that the start of Tosphot holds R Akiva would require walls and then says he would not.


I have not had a chance to take  a close look at these three comentaries,. But off hand it seems the end of Tosphot is dealing with the question why ask from R Yehuda. That is they are asking about the הווא אמינא. [What the Gemar is thinking at that point]. So to ask from R Yehuda the Gemara has tobe thinking R Akiva is different. While the beginning of Tosphot is going according to the idea there that the sages would make a difference between shabat and acquiring and that would presumably go for R Akiva also.

There is also a side question I thought of as I was looking at this subject. Lets say in fact that R Akiva does not require walls for acquiring as the Gemara thinks there at first. Then would not it make sense to drop the need for walls?

Next day: I did get a chance to glance at the Maharsha today and saw that he and the Maharam both answer the question on Tosphot in basically the same way as I did up above. And as for the second question. I was going to answer it that R. Akiva would not think that walls are sufficient since the divorce document needs to be in a guarded place before it can be valid. So even if walls would help for acquisition they would not help for the divorce. And today i saw that that is in fact what the Maharasha says right there.

Rav Nahman said not to be strict about anything.

Rav Nahman said not to be strict about anything. That is in terms of Jewish Law but also in terms of every day matters.

So for years I was not at all careful about carrying things in a public domain on Shabat. Sadly I can not learn Torah but I did get a chance to glance at a few pages in tractate Shabat and noticed that carrying is a big issue over there.

Even though you see the idea that a public domain in only where 600,000 people walk through  in Rashi and Tosphot and the Shulhan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo itself brings it. Still it does not seem to be in the Gemara itself. I even noticed in the Yerushalmi some incident where a sage accidental carried on Shabat said he would bring a sin offering when the Temple would be rebuilt.

How would that have been possible in Babylon? the Jewish cites there were minuscule. Just think about Rome at the peak of its power. It had about a million people.  How could small Jewish towns have had comparable numbers?

Creation ex nihilo [from nothing] comes up in the book of Rav Nahman of Breslov in in LeM vol 1 chapter 4.

The idea of Creation ex nihilo [from nothing] comes up in the book of Rav Nahman of Breslov in in LeM vol 1 chapter 4. So it is hard for me to figure out why some people think that the Torah and or Rav Nahman held by pantheism.

Torah that comes from the halls of delusion

In the LeM of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav nahman] you find the idea of Torah that comes from the halls of delusion. That is in volume I. Chapter 245.

In the השמטות [left out parts] you also find this idea of Torah of the Sitra Achra [the Realm of Evil]

The basic idea there is that  there are Torah lessons which come from the kelipot [forces of evil].

That is to say --in order to merit to true and authentic Torah takes a great deal of self sacrifice in the service of God.

Not just people that cl;aim to be giving over Torah lessons, Rav Nahman finds highly suspect;-but also doing things which you think are good deeds ma very well not be good deeds. As the LeM starts out Vol I chapter 1 "the evil inclination is dressed in mitzvot" היצר הרע מתלבש במצוות

The magnum opus of Rav Nahman from Breslov [Collections of Rav Nahman, the LeM] has a great deal of great ideas

The magnum opus of Rav Nahman from Breslov [Collections of Rav Nahman, the LeM] has a great deal of great ideas but does not seem to have a systematic world view except "be frum."
It is not like Hegel, Spinoza, or Leibniz [or the Nefesh HaHaim by Rav Haim from Voloshin]]

When you find a particular Torah lesson that deals with your particular issue, you learn it forty days in a row and that helps to solve the problem.

His idea of avoiding philosophy on one hand makes a lot of sense. Like Descartes said . that no opinion, however absurd and incredible, can be imagined, which has not been defended by a philosopher.


However the blanket attack on the Guide for the Perplexed of Maimonides and all medieval Jewish thinkers seems a bit over the top. Plus the attack on scientists also seems kind of overboard. [Okay then stop using your I phones and Jet airplanes to get to Uman.]


My view is more along the lines of Rav Israel Salanter while at the same time accepting the important ideas from other places.

faith with reason

In the Middle Ages there was an approach that combined faith with reason.
In Ibn Pakuda חובות הלבבות Obligations of the Heart you see this right on the first page of the introduction in terms of the important of what Muslims called "theology"["Wisdom of God" literally] . So he is not referring juts to Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus but also to how Muslim scholars developed those ideas. [I imagine he must have been thinking about Al  Farabi and Al Kindi.]

Later in Obligations of the Heart in chapter 3 of Shar NaBehina you see the emphasis on Physics [not just the spiritual aspects of Creation like angels.]

This seems to go with the general nature of the approach of Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam.

With the Rambam, the subject becomes a little more clear when he says specifically Physics and Metaphysics as they were understood by the ancient Greeks. [So he is not talking about mysticism.]

Even though learning Torah mainly refers to the Gemara with the Rishonim [Tosphot, Ritva, Rashba, Tosphot HaRosh.] still you see in the medieval sages [mainly from Spain] that also included Physics and Metaphysics in the category of the mitzvah itself.

Physics I think is clear if you look at the subject matter  extends to modern Physics. But what about metaphysics?
I think that after the Middle Ages some important advances have been made. On one hand you have Berkeley and general critiques of Aristotle. But what do you do with that? Thomas Reid [the philosopher of common sense] pointed out how absurd Berkley's idealism is and yet admitted that his arguments are close to irrefutable. To deal with this it seems to me it is unavoidable to have to learn Kant and Hegel.

faith in the wise. You need some kind of common sense to tell when it is best to listen to the experts and when to develop your own approach.

Rav Nahman makes a good point about אמונת חכמים--faith in the wise. But I think one needs to develop a certain kind of common sense to know in what exact points the sage was correct and to be able to filter out the areas where he might have been wrong.

In universities it is common to give advice to students to think for themselves. Read the material and come to their own conclusions. However how would this work if you are in a hospital? What would be the best approach? Listen to the doctor? Or think for yourself and come to your own conclusions?

Sometimes however even experts can be wrong.
You need some kind of common sense to tell when it is best to listen to the experts and when to develop your own approach.

the main benefit of Musar is the formation of ones consciousness plus world view issues.

To merit to fear of God and to good character traits was a major point of Rav Israel Salanter. [I mean that was the major point of the Musar Movement.]

I think the main benefit of Musar is the formation of ones consciousness plus world view issues.
That is to say that without Musar it is easy to adopt false sets of values all the while thinking sanctimonious thought about how one is keeping Torah.

Musar has the advantage of having its background world view being Platonic as outlined by Ibn Pakuda in the beginning of his Obligations of the Heart. [And that world view permeates most of Musar of the Middle Ages.]

Evolution

Evolution seems to be indicated in the Talmud in Bava Kama and in the Jerusalem Talmud in Shabat chapter 1 the third mishna [page 8].

The rate of change of species there is indicated to be every seven years. [The bava kama Gemara I did not see recently but the Yerushalmi goes through a whole list of examples of species that change into other species.]

Recently my learning partner brought my attention to a discussion of the mathematical improbability of evolution. However my feeling about this is that let us say you take a pencil and you hit a point on a line. Now you can prove that you never could have hit that point since the probability of hitting that point is 1/infinity. [Since there are an infinite number of points on a line.]

[From another point of view I ought to mention the Or HaHayim of the Tiferet Israel on the Mishna that brings that there were different periods before this period of time.] [That essay of the Tiferet Israel is fairly well known. It was mentioned to me several times when I was in the Mir Yeshiva and I think it was also brought up when I was in Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway.] [I might add Rav Isaac of Aco who is the source of that opinion.]

In the story of Rav Nahman about the wise son and the simple one there is a warning about being smart.

In the story of Rav Nahman about the wise son and the simple one there is a warning about being smart. However you also see him in the L''eM vol I bring that acquired intellect is a determining factor for one's portion in the next world. [Sekel hanikne. It is Socrates who brings the connection between virtue and wisdom. Also Aristotle brings the idea in his Metaphysics.]

[Napoleon]

 Love is the obsession of the idle, a distraction for the warrior, a stumbling block for kings. [Napoleon]

Western Civilization depends on a kind of synthesis between Faith and Reason.

Part of the reason I do not comment on a lot of stuff  is that I feel that I have a right to an opinion only about subjects that I am somewhat familiar with.

Furthermore current events, politics economics though important issues do not seem to me to be at the core of what is going on in the world. Rather I see faith and reason to be the major things that are important. But since both faith and or reason can go astray it is important to get the synthesis between them right.

A lot of what people do right and what they do wrong depends on their world view.
And Western Civilization depends on a kind of synthesis between Faith and Reason.
And I have a lot of thoughts about that. For one thing I want to mention that this seems to me to be the reason for the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Mainly as Allan Bloom pointed out --that England had a kind of synthesis between these two poles for a long time. I want to point out that not just the revolutions were different but the background was different. France before its revolution had no Parliament, no freedom of speech, no rights to the England. Nothing in terms of freedoms that were in England. So the American Revolution was not at all a  rebellion against the good and great values of England. It just wanted Parliament to mind their own business. The French Revolution on the other hand had a stated purpose. To overthrow everything. All religion all authority all traditions.
So what is reason with faith? My own approach is more or less like that of my parents. Balance. To be a Mensch. To be self sufficient. [More or less values that were American values in the old days when "America" meant something.]

Even though Jews have contributed a tremendous amount to Western Civilization, no religious Jew has contributed anything.

Even though Jews have contributed a tremendous amount to Western Civilization, no religious Jew has contributed anything. (Lenin)

This is true for the time of Lenin but all the more so nowadays that the state of Israel was built entirely by the efforts of secular Jews. The contribution of the religious is just to constantly try to bring it down.

Not because the religious are keeping Torah, but  rather because they keep the Torah of the Sitra Achra. [the realm of Evil]. Not the authentic Torah.

However there are a few moments of light as in the authentic Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir. But that is just a  drop.  How did this situation arise? Because the warnings and signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication were ignored.

Bringing in from a public domain on Shabat is one kind of work. Bringing out to a public domain is another. Are these two separate things or or they both just one kind of work?

Mishna in Shabat. יציאות השבת שתיים שהן ארבע בפנים ושתיים שהן ארבע בחוץ



Bringing in from a public domain on Shabat is one kind of work. Bringing out to a public domain is another. Are these two separate things or or they both just one kind of work?

To Tosphot they are both just one kind of "av melacha" [principle kind of work. lit. father of work.]
To the Baal Hameor (Rav Zarahia Halevi) taking out is an "av" (father, principle). Taking in is a tolada [offspring].

The Ball HaMeor goes into this in the beginning of Shabat and Rav Moshe Margolit (the author of the Pnei Moshe and Mareh Panim on the Jerusalem Talmud) goes into more detail.

The way he see it is that this is an argument between Rav Ashi and Rava. The Gemara asks on the Mishna. It says taking out and then talks about bringing in? Rav Ashi says the author of the Mishna is calling bringing in also taking out. Rava said it means domains of Shabat.
To Moshe Margolit, Rava holds bringing in is a tolada and there are two verses. To Rav Ashi they are both the same av and there is only one verse.
To me the question here seems to be the beginning of the Gemara in Bava Kama which says that something that is in the Mishkan and also important is a av. [It says nothing about whether there is a verse or not. ] That seems to be the main question here. But there are others that I forgot about. [I recall that when I was learning Shabat that that particular Tosphot in the beginning of Shabat had other questions.

Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

A disciple of Rav Nahman, that is Rav Natan brings in Hoshen Mishpat, laws of guards [that is the part of Shulchan Aruch that deals with monetary laws and deposited object] the idea of trust in God that you see also in Rav Israel Salanter, and his disciple Rav Joseph Horvitz of Navardok. 

To Rav Natan, trust with effort brings up the sparks of holiness that fell because of the breaking of the vessels. Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

Clearly he is holding that trust with effort is a good thing, but not as great as trust without effort.

In fact the idea is that only by trust with no effort can one bring up the sparks that come from the deepest kelipot [forces of evil.]

Top some degree you see this in Napoleon. He was in prison in Elba. Then broke out to retake France. A army of the new king came out to fight him. As these two armies stood face to face with their arms and weapons raised ready to fire the general of the kings troops called out to Napoleon to surrender. Napoleon told his men to lower their weapons and walked out in front of all his troops and called to the other army. "Here I am, your emperor. If any of you want to kill me here is your chance!" There came a voice from one of the captains of the kings army "Fire!" But no one fired. Instead they all lowered their weapons and shouted long live the Emperor!

So you have to say that the Mishna that says all Torah without work is useless and brings to sin and in the end he merits only to hell has to be talking about Torah without trust. That is: these are independent variables. Torah and work are different variables than trust with or without effort.

To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

Why not to marry American women.

To read that article is a good idea, but to put it simply. To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

truth is divided up

The Litvak Yeshiva world has noticed the importance of the Middle Ages. [That is the people that follow the Torah path like the Gra and Rav Shach.]

That is: the Lithuanian Yeshiva World [i.e. straight Torah]  holds highly of Rishonim (mediaeval authorities like the Tosphot, Rif,  Rosh etc.) [more than achronim (later authorities after the 1500's) ] and of the Musar (Ethics) of the Middle Ages. [Learning teh Ethics of the Middle Ages was the whole point of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar movement. Later on, the books of his disciples got added in. But the original idea was the Middle Ages.]

So what do do with Metaphysics? [Emphasized by Maimonides and Ibn Pakuda [the author of  the Obligations of the Hearts] right in the beginning of  חובות לבבות, [Obligations of the Heart by Behayee Ibn Pakuda].

Medieval metaphysics can not be taken simply simply because some of the axioms do not seem all that correct, even though the logic is correct.

You need to some degree Kant and Hegel. But in the same way that the Litvak world takes achronim--as modifications of Rishonim, not as standing on their own.


[My own opinion is that true Torah is only found in yeshivas that go by the Gra like Brisk or Ponovitch. However, as the sages said-- in the future the truth will be divided. האמת יהיה נעדרת --עדרים עדרים. Since the truth is divided up and you can not find it in just one place. so you need to do a process of "birur" taking the good and discarding what is wrong. But you can not do that until the lies and delusions have fallen. Truth can only come together after lies have been destroyed.]

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Professor Moshe Ideal brings a doubt  as to the development of Rav Avraham Abulafia. That is what was the trigger for the new revelations of 1270? Was it his method of Divine Names or was it grace?

This rings a bell with me because I think that it is a combination of factors. That is to say in my view there are certain stages to come to "Devekut" [literally "attachment"] (or prophecy in the language of the Middle Ages) and there are also certain stages to leaving that and coming back down to Earth as we find in Plato's cave where those who left it were forced to come back and instruct those that remained inside.

In my view coming to Devekut is simply a matter of following the straight, simple path of Torah as defined by the Gra and Rav Shach.  That is Devekut comes by grace. But then to contain the light and focus it one needs the Divine names. And then one is forced to leave in order to help thoese that are left inside the cave.

[But what to do with the problem of ego inflation and religious delusions? To me it seems that one needs to be rid of evil before one can come to truth. To be rid of evil I think depends a lot on the art of discernment. To take literally the advice of the Gra in his letter of excommunication.  But not to use that to dismiss Rav Nahman who I think would not be included as can easily be seen from the language used there.]

See Moshe Idel on this subject

Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat on Bitachon [trust in God]

In the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat [end of perek 6] there is a story about a person that became "ger" [convert].
Before that he had been an astrologer. He was about to go on a trip but he then saw in the star charts that it was dangerous. Then he rethought the matter. "Why did I join this nation in the first place if not to desist from such things. He went and was in danger of being eaten by a lion. He gave it his ass and he was saved. The Talmud asks why did he fall into danger? Because he checked the star charts. why was he saved because in the end he trusted.

Rav Joseph Yozel Horvitz [the disciple of Rav Israel] brings this event in his book the Level of Man.

So what is the thing about trust in God? When I was in the Mir in NY I assumed it to mean to sit and learn Torah and assume that one's needs will be taken care of. Now I am thinking that that is basically correct except that I would not limit the learning Torah thing to be confined to the basic cannon but to include Physics and Metaphysics as Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold. [You can see this mainly in rishonim based in Spain like Benjamin the doctor or Maimonides who was born in Spain.]

[I am not sure what to say about the Metaphysics aspect however. What would that include? Chesterson noted that almost all philosophy after the 1600's is nuts. [Exact quotation: :Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; it what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."] Now normally that would not be a complaint except that to go against common sense prima facie evidence you need to have some reason. You can not just make some nice statement that seems reasonable at first and then draw conclusion that are clearly off.  That is not how science works. The way science goes is you try to explain what it "out there". You do not postulate at the start what is allowed to be "out there."

When evidence comes in that goes against the original common sense, then you change your assumptions. Modern philosophy works in the exact opposite way. It starts with some profound sounding platitude and then derives some nutty result from it. Then it assumes the nutty result has been proven.

So when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics it might make the most sense to stick with the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the scholastics from the Middle Ages.

Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10

Rosh Hashanah = the actual new moon. This of course is going according the Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 that you go according to the time of the "molad"--the conjunction. 

Prince Philip [husband of the Queen of England]: pearls of wisdom.

"British women can't cook"

"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed" (during the 1981 recession).

"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in Kenya after accepting a small gift from a local woman).

"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed" (to a group of British students during a royal visit to China).

"You can't have been here that long, you haven't got pot belly" (to a Briton he met in Hungary).

"Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (to a wealthy islander in the Cayman Islands).

"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test" (to a Scottish driving instructor).

"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).

"Still throwing spears?" (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).

"There's a lot of your family in tonight" (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).

"The Philippines must be half-empty as you're all here running the NHS" [National Health Service] (on meeting a Filipino nurse at Luton and Dunstable Hospital). 

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy.

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy. It is a conspiracy to keep the corrupt and evil leaders in control. Thus it seems to me that the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyayu ought not to have religious people in his cabinet.  Though I can not figure out why or how the religious world got to be such a nightmare still the facts on the ground indicate that the more power they gain the worse it is for everyone.

[My own approach to Torah is more along the lines of balance. and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה and not to seek out new restrictions. To some degree This approach is based on the book of Rav Nahman the LeM vol II. 42. Where he defines the service of God as not to be seeking out new restrictions. but rather learning and keeping Torah simply.


[The trouble with parliamentary systems as noted by the founding fathers of the USA. At the time even King George assumed the English Parliament had absolute power over the colonies. [Besides that the Parliament in fact needed to pay the war debt that they had incurred because of the war with France which in fact was a benefit for Americans. But Americans though willing to contribute money and arms and people to the war effort did not think Parliament had power over them.. The king yes, but Parliament no. This same kind of system still plagues Europe. The founding fathers on the other hand did not think to give to even their own parliament [Congress and Senate] such power. This is the reason for three branches of government in the USA. In Israel this problem is such that the religious have power to bring down the government any time they feel they are not getting enough money.

Profesor Moshe Idel (Hebrew University)

Profesor Moshe Idel (Hebrew University) has a new book on the issue of the Sonship which looks at the issue from the standpoint of mystics from the Middle Ages.

I have noticed this subject come up in various places in the Gemara. [One place I noticed this was in Bava Batra. God calls a tzadik by his name.]

But the major thing seems to be a kind of take on Emanation that is common enough in the Ari [Isaac Luria] and Moshe Cordovaro.

The idea of Jesus being a tzadik that partakes of this  aspect of things seems to me to be more or less clear after I saw this in Avraham Abulafia and also in Moshe Idel's PhD thesis.

[Son in the Remak always refers to Tiferet. In the Ari himself I saw the idea of the vessel of yesod containing the light of kindness which I figured was in reference to Jesus.]

With Kant I go with the idea that certain areas of value are not accessible to human reason, so to speculate about them makes little sense. And you see this also with Fries and Leonard Nelson who hold from a kind of knowledge that is not by reason nor by sense perception. So besides basic faith I have that Rav Avraham Abulafia knew what he was talking about, I do not like to make any further speculations.



Another thing is this: The Christian "take" on Jesus to me seems wrong. He did not advocate the nullification of the commandments--as explained in the Theonomic Position on the web site of Anthony Flood. He said one must keep all the Torah. The Oral and Written Law. [Everything the prushim say to do you must do...] [He said anyone who teaches you to not keep the Torah shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven for verily I say unto you heaven and earth shall pass away but not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away] So it does not sound like he is saying not to keep the Law.]

American War of Independence as opposed to the Revolution in France.

The reasons for the American War of Independence do not seem to be based on the idea of John Locke. There was a soldier who fought at bunker hill who was interviewed many years later and he was asked about it. He never had heard of John Locke. As for the Stamp act --also he had never seen one. There was a whole list of the usual reasons given  that he was asked about and he never heard of any of them. So when finally he was asked then why did you fight? He said because we had been taking care of our own business  by ourselves and the British wanted to interfere.

What you see is that the colonies were not beholden to England for more than a hundred years--since 1620. They had been taking care of themselves They just wanted to continue their traditions and organizations with no interference from Britain. It was not a revolution to change the order of things.--Completely opposite of the Revolution in France that aimed at overturning the old order.

[I want to add here that the American system even after the War of Independence was based 99% on the English system. The Colonies had no reason to rebel except for the tyranny of Parliament. But that alone would not have caused the break from England until they appealed to the king, King George, and he refused to hear their complaints.]

Species can change

Species can change from one into another. [It is also brought in the Babylonian Talmud in Bava Kama around page 16--I forget exactly].[It is in the Jerusalem Talmud also. I saw it as I was flipping through the pages. I forget where I saw it. It was I think in Shabat or Eruvin.]
You see there that even bones can become living things. And many different examples are given on one species changing into another every seven years.
So I do not see why this seems to be an issue of contention. [That is in terms of evolution. As for the math probability of evolution I think that is not the best way of looking at it. After all if you take any point on a line and ask before you hit it with your pencil what is the probability of hitting it you get zero. 1/infinity. --Since there are an infinite number of points on a line. So after you have hit any random point you can prove mathematical that you could never have hit it. ]

argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot

The argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot concerning an alley with three walls.
To the Rambam it has a category of a carmlit [a middle state that is not a private domain nor a public domain] To Tosphot and the Rashba it is a private domain.


One of the commentators of the Yerushlmi brings this subject and the opinion of the magid mishna on the Rambam.
What is hard to understand about the Rambam here is the gemara in Suka page 7: an alley that is open on two sides--if equipped with a lehi is a private domain and if with overhead board is a carmlit.

If the Rambam would be right why should the Gemara deal with an alley with two walls?

In this area there is an argument between the Magid Mishna on the Rambam and Rav Moshe Margolit [the author of the Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi].

To Rav Moshe the three wall alley that is open to a carmlit and has a lehi is a reshut Hayakid. And to me it looks like he is using this idea to answer for the Rambam. I do not see how this helps the Rambam. If a simple lehi helps an open alley [open on two sides] then why should an alley closed on three sides be worse.

I guess he must be saying the open alley also is just open to a carmlit. Still I admit it is hard for me to see how the Ramabm could fit into the Gemara over here.

[Sorry if I do not have any more ability to concentrate on things in order to make my remarks clearer--after my experience with getting arrested because of false accusations I have little ability to concentrate on anything.]]

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism. Moshe Idel conserning his approach to the idea of "the Son" and the start of his interest in Rav Avraham Abulfia.

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism

https://shi-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/Havruta_2009_Issue3_MosheIdelInterview.pdf

" In my Ph.D. dissertation, I wrote a section dealing with the son of God in Avraham Abulafia."
[Abraham ben Shmuel Abulafia (1240-C.1291), the founder of the ecstatic brand of Kabbalah]


In that thesis, you can see the Rav Abulafia held that Jesus was a tzadik.[משיח בן יוסף, החותם של יום ששי] I had seen that beforehand in Rav Abulafia, but seeing this idea also brought in Moshe Idel made it more clear. [I asked him later about this issue on the phone.]

Sonship

https://www.amazon.com/Ben-Sonship-Mysticism-Library-Studies/product-reviews/0826496660/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews


See also Kabalah and Elites

[Myself I never got into Rav Abulafia but I see him as a very important aspect of Torah. However I did see some of this subject in the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria]. The most obvious place for me is after the breaking of the vessels the vessel of Foundation was brought up into Emanation and filled with the light of Kindness. כלי של יסוד נעלה לאצילות ובו ירד האור של חסד. The Ari also brings this up concerning Joseph in Egypt.
Hegel has his own take on this which is known to be hard to understand. However it seems to me that Hegel is thinking more about Adam Kadmon more than Joseph. [While Hegel brings both subjects he does not tie them specifically together.]]

the Rambam and Tosphot about a private domain on Shabat.

There is an argument between the Rambam [Shabat chapter 14] and Tosphot about what constitutes a private domain.
Tosphot and the Rashba both hold three walls constitutes a private domain on Shabat. But the Rambam makes a difference. If the alley is open to a public domain then it is just a Carmalit. [A place that is not a private domain nor a public domain.] But if open to a carmalit then it is a private domain. That is the three walls reduce it one level down.
There is a lot to go into here because of a few gemaras in Eruvin which seem to be clearly like Tosphot. [And I wanted to add that the Karban Eda in the Yerushalmi holds that the Rambam holds a Lehi is considered a wall from the Torah but an overhead board is just derabanan.]


But the thing I wanted to point out here is something I mentioned a few years ago--that you really do not see the Gemara making the distinction about a public domain having 600,000 people walking through it. So on Shabat my approach is to carry only in a pocket. This you can see in Ketubot chapter 3 and also in Bava Batra that the thief taking out a purse on Shabat is obligated for Shabat when the purse has changed domain, not when the object in the purse has changed domains.[You can see this more clearly in Bava Batra but I have forgotten the sugia over there.]


But unless it is really absolutely necessary I think it is best to stay home on Shabat and avoid all the problems. Besides that usually people need to recover from Shabat ion Sunday. So it really is not much of a day of rest for most people. 

the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [

 the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים].
The way Rav Nahman understands this is based on a few statements of the sages about the problem of using Torah to make money or gain power.

This idea can be expanded to groups that use the appearance of Torah also to gain power or money.


The idea of Rav Nahman has a few sources in the Gemara. One being the gemaras about demons that were in fact knowledgeable in Torah--and could take over people's souls. So it really is no surprise to find Torah scholars that are in internally demons. 

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison.

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison. It might be in part because of the super organism idea of Howard Bloom.

In fact this kind of behavior I have seen a lot. This was in fact one of the causes that the Gra put his signature on the letter of excommunication. In order to stop that type of action on the part of people that were deeply into religious delusions.

You can see that people that are involved in the good side of Torah like in the Mir or Brisk, never try to go out and change others or make mass movements.

Torah scholars that are demons תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים

The basic idea of Torah scholars that are demons [Le"M vol I chapter 12]. [The Gemara itself brings the idea  that demons can be knowledgeable in Torah and  also that they can possess a person. Therefore the logical deduction is that a person possessed by a demon that is knowledgeable in  Torah will be knowledgeable in Torah. [The note on the bottom of the page in the Le.M brings the source of Rav Nahman from the Zohar, but I do not see why since Rav Nachman also had a source in the Gemara itself. 

 [It is brought in expanded form in the Ari also. ] This seems to me to be one of Rav Nahman's most important ideas. It provides a warning to people that could be too easily taken in.

Is there any test, to know the difference between good and evil in this regard? There is, but I can not tell what it is exactly. 

However I did want to add a comment. First that David Bronson did point out to me that even Rav Yaakov Emden did hold that some parts of the Zohar are authentic. (Large portions of it were added to.)
Furthermore there are plenty of warnings about religious leaders in the Talmud and the Prophets also.

Ari [Isaac Luria]- The way the Ari understands the creation of the universe

The way the Ari [Isaac Luria] understands the creation of the universe is by a process of צמצום of the Divine Presence of God from an empty space within his Infinite Light and then sending down first the light of the divine name 52 or Adam Kadmon of the Circles. Then the name 45 which became Adam Kadmon of the form of Man.

This explains to some degree why Buddha would have seen Nirvana as the peak of things and that perfection means to be self-annihilated.  Buddha [and Schopenhauer] would be seeing the level of the empty space as being the bringing. Thus forgetting that there was one level before that.

However Hegel did incorporate the level of Adam kadmon and the previous levels in his system. [Though I do not know how he learned the Ari or even heard about him. But he certainly brings him in his books. And his system is a kind of commentary on the Ari.]

immigrants into the USA

The problem with inviting immigrants into the USA is אין אורח מזמין אורח a guest can not invite a guest. Besides that there is a problem with using immigration to change the demographics of the USA which intends to change the basic nature of the WASP society. If anywhere else had managed to pull together a decent wholesome society like the USA in its first 200 years then there might be some reason to try and change the USA towards some better model. But since no such society has ever existed with the degree of freedom and justice of the USA it makes no sense to try and change it. And if such a great society elsewhere exist now then why do people still try to get into the USA? Why do they not stay in their utopias?

decrees of the sages

In terms of decrees of the sages, I brought the issue up with my learning partner David Bronson and we went through the commentary of the Rambam and Ramban on the Mitzvot--about the issue.

At the time I was satified that there is some kind of justification. However it does seem weak.
[I might add here the importnat fact that the verse in the Torah "לא תתורו" do not go away from what they say refers to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that had legitamate ordination from Sinai that ceased to exist during the period of the Talmud.]
One thing I noticed today was that on the Mishna in Shabat, the Yerushalmi compares the day that the 18 decrees were made into law to the day of the making of the Golden Calf.--Which does not sound like a positive thing. [The 18 decrees were the begging of all decrees that were made during the time of the Mishna.]

My original question on this whole thing stemed froman Avot DeRav Natan. Rav Natahn was a person from the time of the Mishna and Gemara and he wrote a commentary on Pirkei Avot which has the status of a Braita. There in the beginning of Pirkei Avot he brings the statement of R Yose that the sages had no permission to make extra laws to put upon the laws of the Torah.

[My own approach to this has varied over time. At one point I just assumed that all decrees "Derabanan" [of the sages during the time of the Mishna] were obligatory. Then at the point when the religious world stated showing its ugly face, and my life was plugged into chaos I realized that keeping everything was not going to be possible. So I decided to pick one basic principle to stick with and as for everything else to depend on the opinions of the lenient authorities.

[This was an idea I got from reading Rav Nahman's books. In his major book the Le''M in two places he brings the idea of not to be strict about anything. And when Rav Natan his disciple asked him about a position of being the rav in some city that was offered to him Rav Nahman said "Why not?" Rav Natan answered, "I am afraid of having to make a legal decision (that might be wrong)."
Rav Nahman said, "As long as there is one authority ("posek") to depend on, you can depend on him."
[Which might refer to a rishon [mediaeval authority] but also might refer to the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch itself.]
Based on that I usually was able to find some lenient opinion in a lot of cases that came up in my chaotic life. But even further--the Raavad and others hold once the reason for a decree is nullified the the decree itself is nullified.

In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus.

In terms of German Idealism, my feeling is there is a lot there that is important. But I do not feel committed to any one particular thesis.
But I did want to mention just a few thoughts. One is that the way it is presented is usually wrong. The way it is usually understood is that it is some version of Berkeley.
The way I see it is that it is a version of Neo-Platonism.

In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus. But that is just the direction of deriving things. The actual Creation I see as being from Logos until Being. like Plotinus.

As for Shopenhaur I see him as just related to the חלל הפנוי [the Empty Space] of the Ari [Isaac Luria] before the actual sending down of the Infinite Divine Light.--So I do not see him at all in disagreement with Hegel anywhere near the degree he thought he was.

Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy.

There is a great of good ideas in the Gra and Rav Nachman and Musar [the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter.] The thing is you need some kind of measuring stick to decide what is applicable to you and what is not. There are lots of false ideas out there and common sense and reason are needed to sort things out. This was the general approach in the Middle Ages. Reason and Faith. For after all if you would take everything in Torah literally, it would be problematic. So you need some common sense. Even to choice who you think is valid also requires common sense.

As Rav Nahman pointed out, there are plenty Torah scholars that are demons. And they have a Torah of the Sitra Achra. The realm of evil. So it does take a certain amount of caution to discern whom to listen to.

Some of the great ideas of the Gra are well known--learning Torah, trust in God, and his signature on the letter of excommunication. [Which did not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you look at the original documents that were later collected in a few famous books. I saw a book that had the original documents in a small public library in Jerusalem in the old city.]

Some of Rav Nahman's ideas were talking with God in one's own language as one talks with a friend. But lots of other great ideas and insights--too many to go into.


[Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy. It seems to ignore the concerns of the Enlightenment philosophers. Is there some way out of that? Maybe. Kant came along to some degree to answer the rationalistic empiricist problem--mind body. In tend to see Hegel as being a good approach to this issue. But with in mind the kinds of concerns of McTaggart.]

I myself do not have a commitment towards any system of beliefs but rather I am committed to seek the truth in all issues.  This is kind of personal but also it was the atmosphere of S California where I grew up. But I also recognize the opinion of people that know more than me.

free stuff in order to get elected

The strategy of promising free stuff in order to get elected is really not all that different from communism. So in order to evaluate if this is a legitimate approach one could look at the history of communism to see if it is workable policy. Well no. It is not workable. It destroys the economy. But what it does do is to get people's votes to put the one that promises into power.

The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money.

What happens in the Mir in NY is that a person is learning Torah for its own sake a few years and then gets married. Then his father and or father in law support him and her a few years. But there was never any intention of using the holy Torah to make money. So he never bothered to learn Yora Deah and get the phony kind of ordination we have nowadays. In Ketuboth page 109 there is a case related to this that is brought in Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yoseph Karo. In the Gemara the case is a person went away and someone else gave money to his wife to support her. The husband does not have to pay it back. But if she borrowed to support herself then he does. [But not anything that she spent, but only the amount that he was obligated that is two meals per day or about a quart of flour per week.]

The casein Shulchan Aruch is the father in law supported the couple for the two years that was stipulated in the marriage contract but then kept on supporting the couple after that. Then he decides to ask his son in law to pay him back.

The Trumat HaDeshen is brought in the Rema [Moshe Isarles] that the son in law does not have to pay back for the wife but only for himself. The achronim over there disagree.

So what happens if someone gives you a present and then later asks you to pay for it?

[The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for  number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money. This is what I myself was doing for the years after I got married. And then we got to Israel. In Israel I did not join the kollel in Meor Haim because I thought it was along the lines of using Torah for money. But the State of Israel itself made things easy to settle in. Rent was very low and so were the bills. As for the kollel thing itself I am not sure what to think. Mainly it seems to me to be forbidden and yet still I admit there are those who allow it.]

young men angry? https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/readers-sound-off-on-why-young-american-men-are-so-angry/

Why are we angry?

Let me share my story.

I work a corporate job that routinely demands 70-plus hours a week. I barely have time to think, much less take care of myself mentally and physically. I am so burned out I can barely handle life anymore. I am 43.

I am constantly told how I am wrong at work.

I am seeing on the Internet that white men are toxic. It’s in the popular culture.

I’m a Democrat, and frankly the anti-white rhetoric has gotten ME angry.

I’ve been passed up for several promotions for applicants who were less qualified but met race and gender preference criteria — also known as, not a white male.

It’s not a good time to be one. I can only imagine what a young man who hasn’t established himself yet is going through.

The hidden Torah and Physics.

The hidden Torah [that is enclosed in the Work of Creation] is mentioned a lot in the Le"M of Rav Nahman in different ways.

One place I noticed this is in the book of Rav Natan his disciple that is brought on the subject of the Red Heifer. That is the sacrifice that is brought outside the Temple and which purifies from the kind of uncleanliness associated with the dead.

For a long time I have thought that this hidden Torah inside of Creation refers to Physics. My reasoning originally was based on the Obligations of the Heart. [Chovot Levavot] where he says both to learn the spirituality inside of creation and also the wisdom inside of creation--two different things [Shar HaBehina chapter 3 I think.]

You can see this idea also in the Rambam in his Guide and the Mishne Torah.

[In terms of the Ari--Rav Isaac Luria you do see a lot of Divine names that are contained in the physical Universe. --at least in the Eitz Chaim. But also in the Reshash [Rav Shalom Sharabi] there is an expanded version in the forth volume of his Sidur. (I mean that there are two sidurs of the Reshash. One is the smaller red one. The other is the large one which is considered more accurate. The smaller one was put together by the grandson of the Reshash. The smaller red one is thought to be a compilation done in Syria. Though I used the smaller one for years until I found the larger one, still Rav Mordechai Sharabi said the smaller one is not all that reliable.]

At any rate, this refers to the spirituality inside of Creation.--not to the laws of Physics which is what the Chovot Levavot  and the Rambam are referring to.

Rav Nahman: You can serve God with everything. אפשר לעבוד השם בכל דבר.

So how can you learn Physics. Say the words and go on. This is called "Girsa" learning in that way was already mentioned in the Gemara in Shabat 63.

If the Gemara would have wanted to say that music is forbidden period. It is hard to imagine how it could have said it any clearer.

Music is mentioned in the book of Rav Nahman (Le''M 72) as being a great thing -- rids one of illusions and delusions. The way to understand this is not simple since in the gemara in Gitin [I forget the page number but it is towards the beginning] "How do we know that music is forbidden?" And then it brings some verse. And then it goes on to explain that music is forbidden whether by voice or by instrument.
The answer on one hand is like Tosphot that it is referring to music at a wine party. Another answer is that even if you do not hold with the answer of Tosphot but go with the Rambam that all music is forbidden, still he adds that singing praises of God is allowed and praiseworthy.

But again the comes up the more well known question that using verses of the Torah as words for songs is forbidden. It specifically refers to psalms and the Sir Hashirim but the prohibition is for all verses of Torah. "When people use the words of Torah for a song the Torah dresses in garments of mourning and complains before God ';They have made a song out of me'".[That is a quotation from the Gemara.]

[If the Gemara would have wanted to say that music is forbidden period. It is hard to imagine how it could have said it any clearer. So is there any answer for all this? Mainly I have to say that I depend on Tosphot.]