Dr Kelly Ross [Kant Fries School] brings an idea about immediate non intuitive knowledge which to me seems close to the idea of Michael Huemer about intellectual perception. In short the idea of immediate knowledge is knowledge that is not through anything. It is known immediately. But to me this does not seem all that different than Michael Huemer's idea that reason recognizes universals.`

The library here is closing in few minutes. So let me just add that Huemer's idea is that universals that things like laws of nature or moral laws. These are recognized by the faculty of reason. But this is prime facie. That is why more clear principles can defeat less clear principles.

I really have to go so I recommend looking up their web sites.

Saadia Gaon raised the question about Christianity of nullification of the commandments

Some complaints about Christianity involve the bitul hamizvot. Other problems that are raised are from the hagadah in the Gemara. Also the crusades come up. Besides that there is the Trinity which I wrote about a few days ago. There probably are more issues that I have not thought of but for now I would like to deal with the very first issue. Saadia Gaon raised the question of nullification of the commandments. I actually do not know how he dealt with this issue. I forgot and in fact "hashkafa" world view issues were never a big thing to learn when I was in Shar Yashuv or in the Mir.

Bitul hamizvot [nullification of the commandments] really comes from Paul, not from Jesus.
Not just this but also decrees from the words of the scribes are also said to obligatory by Jesus. "The Pharisees sit upon the seat of Moses. Therefore what ever they say to do that you must do."[Mathew 23]
 I could try to dig up the actual quotations by Jesus about keeping every jot and tittle of the law and whoever teaches not to keep any commandment shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. And I could try to dig up the places where Paul says otherwise. But it seems like a waste of time. These things are easy for anyone to look up who wants to take the time.
Paul might be considered an authority in this matter if he had ever heard a word from Jesus himself. But he did not. He was not a disciple, nor had any first hand evidence about the opinions of Jesus.

I imagine I could go into this further but just for the short time I have here in the library let me go on to other topics. The hagada in the Gemara. This was answered already by the Rosh [R. Asher] one of the major authorities in the Middle Ages. He said the Gemara is referring to a disciple of Yehoshua Ben Perakia--who was one of the pairs brought in Pirkei Avot that lived about 200 years before Jesus.

The crusades I have no answer for.

As for the Trinity I mentioned before the idea of Emanation that is well known. Professor Idel deals with Sonship from the aspect of mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia. But simply from the standpoint of the Ari Rav Isaac Luria it is simple that a soul of Emanation has the essence of son. For example other souls from Emanation are the Avot, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David. Rav Haim Vital. [Rav Avraham Abulafia was one person who identified the Gemara at the end of Suka about an anointed one from Joseph with Jesus. But there were more people than just Rav Abulafia during the middle ages that held this. But just off hand I have no names.]

Hegel has what looks to be a somewhat different approach to the Trinity.

Bava Kama 13 and 53

I wanted to introduce a subject that I do not have a lot to say about this minute. Just as an introduction. Bava Kama 13 and 53. [This subject I actually brought up in my ideas on Shas a couple of years ago.][https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive]
In Bava Kama 53 the issue of two causes for one damage comes up. An ox pushes another ox into a pit. The sages say the owner of the ox pays half and the owner of the pit nothing because it was not his fault that the ox was pushed. If it had fallen that would be different.]  R. Natan held if the ox is "tam" [never had gored before then it pays 1/4 and the owner of the pit 3/4. If the ox was muad [had gored before] then both pay 1/2.
The gemara asks what are they holding? That both are thought to have caused all the damage or that each one is thought to cause a half?

The issues are many. What about causes of  זה וזה גורם? [This and that caused it]. Or a case a person throws an object down onto a pillow and someone removes the pillow before it it and so the object was broken.

The Gemara on page 13 bring R Aba that said a animal that is sanctified to be a peace offering that gores another animal. One does not take payment from the fats that are offered on the altar. The Gemara asks on this well obviously not. Answer he means one does not get the meat in place of the fat. Rather the owner of the karban (sacrifice) and the owner of the animal that was gored have to divide the total amount.

So teh question is to R. Natan that was mentioned up above. The Gemara answers the case of R Natan was when the gored animal was in the pit so the owner says the pit was what cause d the damage. in the case of the karban [sacrifice] the fats caused damage along with the muscle. It was all just one animal.

This is to me hard to understand since the cases do not seem parallel.

issues about Christianity that come up in the Rambam is that of idolatry.

One of the issues about Christianity that come up in the Rambam is that of idolatry. The problem is that most any type of religious worship involves going to God through some kind of middle step.
It is rare that people think that just by learning Torah and keeping it that they will be doing OK. The entire religious world in fact usually is worshiping some kind of human.


The question rather seems to be who really is connected with God. Who is from the realm of holiness.


In any case this come up in tractate Avoda Zara in Tosphot. [I forget the page-but it is where the issue of "joining" comes up. 

Saadia Gaon on Christianity

I had in mind to try and deal with some issues that come up in Christianity. Saadia
Gaon:bitul hamitzvot [nullification of the commandments] and the Trinity.> But also I was hoping to deal with more issues like Aimee Semple Mc Pherson and the general evangelicals. And other issues that come up. There are a lot.
It is hard to know from where to begin. [Probably too much to deal with in one blog entry].

In terms of the Trinity, it seems obvious that Jesus was not God nor did he think he was. But the aspect of being a son of God is the subject of a book by Professor Moshe Idel. But Moshe Idel is mainly dealing with mystics from the Middle Ages. [Sonship]. But from the standpoint of  Rav Nahman of Breslov the issue of sonship seems well defined. He deal with it is the LeM volume II. the actual chapter I forget I think it is either chapter 4 or 7.

The basic idea to me seems clear. Any soul from Emanation (Azilut) is considered to be on the level of "ben" (son). Any soul from the lower world of Bria (Creation) is on the level of Eved [ servant of God]. The concepts to me seem very clear.

[However I should add that Hegel apparently has a different kind of approach to the Trinity that does not seem to be along these same lines.]

Bitul Torah-What is in this category?

The Gra considers |"Bitul Torah" to be one of the most serious sins in the Tora. [That is the sin of having time to be able to learn Torah and not doing so. [כי דבר השם בזה הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא] (This is the gemara in tractate Sanhedrin. It brings the verse "For he despised the word of God. He will be cut off from his people. This is who is able to learn Torah and does not do so.]]What is in this category?

The subject interests me from several angles. One is that I have in fact found it hard to find a place to sit and learn Torah. The best places are clearly the Lithuanian type of yeshivas based on the Gra but even in these places there is plenty of Sitra Achra and gets in the door.
That makes it perhaps better to stay home and learn. Be that as it may then the question comes up anyway what is considered bitul Torah?

Clearly man made wisdoms come under this category. But not Natural Science.[STEM].

In the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv[both NY yeshivas] almost anything was considered bitul Torah. Anything except simply sitting and learning Torah. They did not hold from the idea of looking for mitzvot to do. Rav Haim of Voloshin wrote It is better to sit in a room alone and twiddle one's thumbs rather than go around looking for mitzvot.

[Rav Nahman of Breslov said in the LeM I.1 that the evil inclination is dressed in mitzvot. [היצר הרע מתלבש במצוות]. That is explained by R. Natan his disciple that the evil inclination never comes and says to a person come and do a sin. Rather its opening strategy is to try to tell a person to do some good deed which is really not a good deed. It just seems like one.]

Natural Sciences would probably be an argument between the Rishonim. [Whether learning natural science is either bitul Torah or  perhaps just permitted for the sake of making a living or perhaps even part of the mitzvah of learning Torah.]

The Gra [i.e. the Gaon from Vilna]

The Gra explains  the verse in the Torah where Sara asks Abraham the Patriarch to marry Hagar so that she herself [Sara] would be built up. It refers he says to the statement of the sages that the main life of a woman depends on her having children. That is the statement אין אישה אלא לבנים. Thus Sara who could not have children but did own Hagar would be built up from Hagar having children with Abraham. The idea is the nefesh [lower aspect of the soul] is the inner essence of the woman. The spirit is the inner essence of the man. and the spirit is from where life comes. And the nefesh spreads through one's possessions. [את הנפש שאר עשה בחרן see the verse the souls that Abraham made in Haran].

There is also a statement in the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria] which I think is related to this. That the inner light of a person comes from his mother and the outer light from the father.

Put this together you can see the idea that Rachel said to Jacob give me children or else I am dead. תן לי בנים ואם אין מיתה אנכי.

You also see the idea that Judah said to Joseph in Egypt about the importance of returning Benjamin to his father Jacob. His soul [of Jacob] is tied with his soul [or Benjamin].


You learn the connection a person has with his parents. Even being far away can sever a connection. The problem is that sometimes one's parents are themselves connected with the Dark Side. That makes it less sesirable to be around them.

בבא מציעא ע''ו ע''א

בבא מציעא ע''ו ע''א תוספות


יש לי שתי שאלות בתוספות אבל כדי להגיע אליהן אני רוצה קודם כל להציע את הגמרא ותוכן של תוספות
הגמרא מביאה דיון שבעל הבית רוצה לשכור פועלים ואמר לפועל אחד לכור עוד פועלים בג' והפועל אמר להם בד'. אז הגמרא דנה בזה באופן אחד. ואחר כך היא מביא דיון שבעל הבית אמר בד' והפועל השני אמר בג. לתרץ את זאת וגמרא מביאה רב נחמן שאמר אם האישה אמרה להביא את גיטה והשליח אמר לבעל שהוא שליח קבלה הגט פסול
זה מראה שהאיש השלישי מאמין לאיש השני. רב אשי שואל על זה שם האישה אמרה לקבל את גיטה והשליח אמר להביא הגט כשר. זה מראה שאיש השלישי אפשר שסומך על השני או הראשון ואי אפשר להביא ראיה לדיון של בעל הבית.

תוספות אומר לקבל הוא יותר טוב לאיש בגלל שהיא מתגרשת יותר מהרת הגם שזה לא בדיוק מכוון לדיון של בעל הבית. אף על פי כן הבעל רוצה שהגט יהיה כשר שאם לא כן למה הוא שלח אותו? תוספות מוסיף שאי אפשר לומר שקבלה טוב יותר לאישה שאם כן אין להביא ראיה מרב אשי לנידון שבעל הבית אמר ד' שהוא טוב יותר לפועלים.

שאלה אחת היא שגם היא רוצה שיהיה גט שאם לא כן למה היא שלחה מי שהוא לקבל אותו? ולכל זה גם טוב שהבעל ילך עם קבלה או הובאה. ולכן זה דומה למצב שבעל הבית אמר ד'.
עם כל זה איני בטוח שזאת קושיא טובה שבאמת זה בדיוק השאלה של רב אשי שבאמת הגט כשר בגלל שהיא רוצה שהשליח יהיה שליח קבלה או הובאה--איזה שעובד. ולכן הבעל מאמין לשליח או לה ולכן אין להביא ראיה שהוא תמיד מאמין לאיש השני.

עוד יש לשאול אם הדיון הוא בגלל איזה טוב יותר למי אז למה הדיון הזה אינו שייך למצב שבעל הבית אמר ג והפעל השני אמר לפועלים האחרים ד.

Immigration.

Immigration. Dr Michael Huemer argues in favor of it. But to me it seems like an invasion.

See the book by Dr Peter Heather The Fall of the Roman Empire. The argument that runs through his book is the fall of Rome was because of the Gothic being invited in and then taking over.. It was meant to show that the idea of slow peaceful transition to the different empires of the Goths was not what really happened. He brings  lots of older documents to show that.

The general approach of Dr Huemer is that government is not really legitimate. See his book and also his deabte with Dr Epstein of NY University.

Since Dr Humer is a million times smarter than me, I can not answer his arguments by I think that Danny Frederick [and Michael Huemer] does a good job is showing that the argument of Dr Huemer do not apply to the consequence theory of government that was proposed by Berkeley. [See Hobhouse.] 

To judge people favorably.

To judge people favorably. I noticed this in the book of Rav Nahman the LeM chapter 55.
He brings there that this brings a kind of protection on one who judges all people favorably.


I saw this same idea in Rav Haim of Voloshin [a major disciple of the Gra].
But Rav Nahman brings this idea in an way that shows a tremendous benefit that accrues to one that judges even wicked people favorably.

It is well known that Rav Nahman held this to be a very important principle in life in chapter 282.

But the things that I noticed in chapter 55 is how this idea is connected with other kinds of problems and situation that people can find themselves in.


David Bronson once commented to me that this is the opposite of how engineers work. They look for what is wrong--not what is right.  And in fact you do not want to judge people so favorably that you lose sight of the need to protect yourself.

But the idea here is that this is practice that goes beyond Reason. See Kant concerning the dinge an Sich. That there is a whole aspect of Creation that is not possible to discern by reason nor by the 5 senses.

[The idea that I am trying to say is that in the lessons of Rav Nahman in each lesson there are themes that are interrelated. So when you find in one Torah lesson of Rav Nahman a piece of advice to follow a certain practice and in that same Torah lesson you him dealing with different kinds of problems the implication is that that advice helps to solve those problems. You see this also in Rav Shick [Moharosh] who help that the best advice for any kind of problem is to find the lesson in the LeM that deals with that problem and say it forty days in a role with the prayer of Rav Nathan his disciple.

So when I saw in that Torah lesson certain kinds of problems that seem to apply to me and I also saw this idea of judging even wicked people favorably--it lit up a bulb in my mind that this advice is what I need.

To finish Shas

To finish Shas the best idea I have discovered is to learn a half a page per day with Tosphot and the Maharsha and Maharam. This takes about 40 minutes per day. Then the same method can be used for the Yerushalmi [The Talmud written in Tiberius.]

This depends on the Gemara in Shabat 63 and also brought in the Musar book Ways of the Righteous and also Rav Nahman of Uman in Siha 76.

I bring this up because I wanted to add that Rav Nahman himself also bring the idea of review  in that Sicha and also in his Sefer HaMidot. And I have found that there are times when my mind is more suited towards learning fast--just saying the words as fast as possible and going on. Other times I find I that I am more attuned towards review.

And both of these methods I believe apply to Mathematics and Physics. Both saying the words and going on and also review.

And I want to add that both methods are well known. In the Mir in NY and also in Shar Yashuv it was considered simple that the morning hours should be devoted towards "Iyun" in depth learning and the afternoon for bekiut [fast learning.]  Rav Freifeld [of Shar Yashuv] I recall used to tell people to review each chapter 10 times. And somhow that idea  got to the Mir in some fashion. There was a store keeper on the same block of the Mir who it was said that he learned chapter 3 of Shabat ten times.

Bava Mezia page 76.

Bava Mezia 76 Tosphot I have two questions that are the kind of things that David Bronson would bring up if I would be learning with him. [Questions that adhere to the idea of calculating the subject as opposed to the larger types of global questions that you see in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri or the Hidushei Harambam of Rav Haim of Brisk.]

The first question is that you could turn the reasoning of Tosphot around to reach the opposite conclusion. The second question is why does the same reasoning not apply the previous case of the Gemara when the employer said 3 and the agent that hired the workers said 4.

To make this clearer let me state the basic structure of the subject.

The Gemara first has a question when an employer said to an agent to hire workers for 3 and the agent told them 4. In that case the Gemara completely ignores the reasoning that it uses later for the case when the employer said 4 and the agent said 3.

Then the Gemara brings the case that the employer said 4 and the agent said 3. The Gemara tries to answer this from Rav Nahman [in the name of Raba bar Abuha in the name of Rav]. Rav Nahman said if a wife says to an agent bring me my divorce document and the agent told the husband that he the agent was told receive my divorce document, the the divorce is invalid. This shows that when you have three people-- 1,2 and 3; then #3 depends on #2--that is he believes the person talking with him and does not depend on the possibility that #1 said something different.
Then the Gemara brings that Rav Ashi asked on this. Rav Ashi said that in the case the wife said "receive" and the agent said "bring" that the divorce is valid.

[Background: A wife can make an agent to receive her divorce and if she does so then when the husband gives the document to the agent she is automatically divorced from that moment on. But if she says bring, then only when she gets the document is she divorced.]

Tosphot says "to receive" is better for the husband. And even though that does not seem to correspond to the case that the Gemara is trying to bring a proof for still it is better for the husband that there should be a divorce at all--otherwise why bother sending he a divorce?

Then Tosphot says that you can not say to receive is better for her because then what would be the proof of Rav Ashi to the case the employer says 4 which is better for party #3 not for party #1.

I am having trouble understanding Tosphot. The logic I think can be reversed. You could say the why does she say receive? Because it is better for her. But by the same logic Tosphot used before she also wants a divorce. Otherwise why send anyone to get it for her? So It is also good for her that the agent should be an agent to bring [not receive]. So that applies to the employer who said 4.

A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog.

In the Musar book the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות you can see that both Metaphysics and physics come under the category of learning Torah [This is common to see in the sages of Spain staring from the period of the Geonim]. But if so then the Gemara Yerushalmi applies that every word of learning Torah is worth all the other commandments of Torah [Beginning of Peah.]

So it does not depend on how smart you are. Everyone is obligated to learn the Law --Oral written Metaphyscs and Physics. So then how can you do it if you are not Einsten? Answer you say the words and go on. As the Gemara in Shabat page 63 says and as is well know from Rav Nahman of Breslov in Sicha 76.
 A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog. 

Ketuboth 78 side a and b.

The library here is usually closed during Sukot so I will not be writing. I just wanted to introduce a subject that i hope to be thinking about during the coming festivals.

The Ran in the start of the next chapter [ perek 9] [HaKotev = "he who writes"] brings this idea. In Hakotev [perek 9] it says the property of the wife belongs to the husband. In perek 8 we see the opposite. property that comes to her when sh is engaged and then she is married belongs to he. [She can sell it].
The Ran [on the Rif] say this is not a question. Perek 8 is the property falls to he when she is engaged. Perek 9 is it falls to her after she is married. Then he asks from the Gemara Yerushalmi that we see just writing "I do not own something" does not make it so that one does not own it. There needs to be some act. [The question here is based on the idea in perek 9 that the husband can write to his wife I do not have any portion in your property and  so she can sell it. But if he does not write that, she can not sell it.

The Ran [R. Nisim,] says the case in perek 9 is he writes it when she is engaged and has not been fully married yet.

Some important background: When an wife works or finds something the property belongs to the husband. מציאת האישה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה פרק ששי של כתובות. But property that comes to her before she is married belongs to her. So the husband can not sell it. But he can eat from its fruits. If it is written in the ketuba it is property of iron sheep  That is if there is heaven forbid a divorce the amount of the property has to go back to the woman. If it was not written in the ketuba [marriage contract] then she still owns it but if it goes down in value he does not have to make up the difference.

The things I want to think about are this and also one side one on page 78. But the library is closing here so I do not have time to write about this subject.

a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter

One of the third generation of Musar was Nathan Zvi Finkel. He learned in Kelm by Rav Simha Zisel who was a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter. In his first lesson in the אור צפון he says that one can be keeping Torah that by all outer appearances seems to be perfect. Yet internally to be the opposite.

This he brings from the gemara in Nedarim 81. That it was asked to all the prophets and sages why was the land destroyed. and no one could answer until God himself said the answer: because they abandoned my teaching [Torah]. Thus we see that in external appearance it seemed everyone was doing things so well than no prophet could see what had gone wrong. It looked on the outside that everyone was keeping Torah. But in the interior of their souls they were not. As God sees the heart and from his perspective they had abandoned him and his teachings.

You can see a hint to this idea from the NT that brings what looks to me to be the same idea. "Do not murder." But I say that even one who gets angry with hi brother has already transgressed this.  It is not saying that now it is OK to murder. rather that it is not enough to keep the Torah in the external physical aspect. But rather one also must keep it in the internal part of one's soul.

Gemara Bava Kama page 2 side a

The mishna says the ox is not like the tooth. The same aspect of them is what makes them obligated in damages [I am going with Shmuel.] Tosphot says the explanation is not like the usual case in the gemara where there is a question if to learn a third thing from two other cases. Here the mishna means the leniency of this is not like the leniency of that. The Maharam [on the bottom of the page of the Maharsha] and the Tiferet Shmuel [in the back of the Gemara] understand this seems to be that the ox has something that makes it lenient in comparison to tooth and tooth has something lenient about it as compared to ox.

This seems to me to be hard to understand because it is essentially the same thing as saying what makes this strict is not the same thing as what would make the other strict and also visa verse. And yet Tosphot insists that that is not what he is saying.

I think what Tosphot means is that the ox has some leniency about it that makes it necessary to be written . That is opposed to everything else that causes damages that would not need to be written. And the tooth has something else that would make it seem lenient and so it is needed to write it. Then the Mishna says since these are two different things the things that makes them obliged in damages are thus and thus.

President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a crime. Is that wrong?

Presidents usually use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things that are legal. For example president Roosevelt asked Churchill to help him with the invasion of Normandy. Churchill wanted to go up from the Mediterranean sea.
In fact all presidents do is to use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things for them. That is most of what they are involved with.

Asking a foreign government to investigate a crime does not seem illegal.

the religious world is polytheistic Torah.

The religious world seems to me to be not exactly like the holy Torah. That is to say My basic idea of what Tora is about is monotheism.  What the religious world is polytheistic Torah. That is they believe in other kinds of deities, i.e. "tzadikim"(saints). And the main concentration of effort is on these other deities.So if in outer appearance they go through regular rituals that seem to be in accord with Torah. But in their focus and energy on the major goal  to bring people to their false deities.

This is not however to imply one should ignore true tzadiks. Often true saints have important advice and ideas that help to focus ones attention and faith on God. Or other good advice.  But there is a bright line (not a thin line) between faith in sages on one hand and worship of tzadikm on the other.


I named this blog by the Gra and the Rav Israel Salanter disciple of Navardok and Rav Shach because I feel they are the closest to advocating Torah with no "Shtick". It seems everyone else tries to fudge the variables to get the Torah to say what they want it to say.

How do you show that the approach of the Gra Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach is the closest thing to straight Torah. The way to do this is based on the idea of prima facie evidence. That is the way things seem before investigating them further. Then after an investigation you find a reason to modify your original positions you do so. Bayesian Probability. So they way Torah seems at first glance is that it does not require worship of tzadikim. There would have to be strong evidence against this conclusion to show that it does require one to worship tzadikm. So the prima facie position holds true and strong.

Talmud Yerushalmi maasrot II mishna 3

In the Talmud Yerushalmi maasrot II mishna 3 it brings an argument between R. Eliezer and the sages if taking truma from a stack of wheat that has not been finished yet makes it into tevel.

[The idea here is that a stack of wheat is usually smoothed down to make it even. So before that final touch is dome one can eat from the stack without taking the gifts of truma and maasar. truma is what goes to the priest and the tithe goes to the Levi. Then there is the second tithe.  [All together there is truma, maasar rishon (first tithe), maasar sheni (second tithe),  and maasar of the poor.]

So what is being said here is that after one has finished the work on the stack one can not eat of it without first taking all the gifts. [Before that one can eat of it in a casual manner. Not to make a meal of it.]

R Eliezer says taking truma makes the whole stack into tevel and the sages say that it does not. [Tevel means that it is necessary to take all the gifts at that point.]

The Gemara [The Jerusalem Gemara] asks what is the law if the same situation would occur with the tithe? I.e. does taking the first tithe make it into tevel or not?

The Gemara asks what does this question refer to? If before the work was done then obviously not. If after the work was done then obviously yes.

The Gemara answers the case is that the work was not finished, but still he took truma. [That means teh truma was not valid and he has to take truma again after he finishes the work on the stack.] Then he decided that he was not going to do any more work on the stack. So the work is considered to be finished. Then he takes the first tithe. So the Gemara concludes if we go backwards in time then the truma that he took makes it tevel. If we go by "from now on" then the first tithe makes it tevel.

What I claim here is that the Gemar means this: if we go backwards then the truma he already took is valid and so when he takes the first tithe that also is valid. [And perhaps he does not even need to take truma again] But if we go by from now on then clearly the truma he already too dis not valid and the tithe is in a kind of state of limbo. That is it is as if he took tithe on a stack of wheat that has been finalized but the truma was not taken yet. So it is valid but he transgressed a sin because he did not take the tithe in the right order. First truma then maasar.

What kind of question am I trying to answer here? First: how does it make sense to say if after the work was done the maasar makes it tevel? It already is tevel. Also a few more questions I forgot this minute. But at any rate my explanation answers the basic questions on this page.

Jerusalem Talmud [Maasrot II:3]

In terms of my brief question on the Jerusalem Talmud [Maasrot II:3] yesterday --I want to just give a drop of background. figs dates wheat and such need to be fixed before they can be eaten. That means you need to take all the gifts from them before you eat them. The gifts are truma first tithe second tithe [or tithe for the poor in every 3rd and 6th year of the seven year cycle.]

But they need to be ripe and the work on them needs to be finished. If the work has not been finished you can eat of them casually but not in a regular manner. [Like just to pick up one or two fruits but not to make a meal.]

The further bit of information you need is that taking truma from an unfinished stack is not considered to make the stack be finished in such a way that eating casually would be forbidden.

So the question is you have a stack that was not finished. The one takes truma from it. Since it was not finished he has to take truma again after he finishes it. But then he decides that the work he has done is enough. Then at that point the work is considered finished. So what happens then if he takes the first tithe before he takes the second truma. That is the question of the Gemara Yerushalmi.
You can see why I am confused here. Why would there not be simply a question he takes truma on an unfinished stack of wheat and then changes his mind to considered it finished. It seems to be a more straightforward question.

gemara Yerushalmi in Maasrot II.

I had a few minutes to look at the gemara Yerushalmi in Maasrot II. Mishna 3. The subject seems short but I still had a lot of trouble understanding it.

The Mishna there has a argument if truma makes a group of fruit required in taking all the other gifts. The Sages say it does not. The Gemara there asks what about the first maasar? Does it make the stack into tevel? The Gemara answers, if the work has been done then not. If it has been done then yes. So the case is the the owner thought to finish the work and then took truma and then changed his mind  to leave the work tas it is. So if you go by the beginning, then the truma makes it tevel. If you go by from now on then the Maasar makes it tevel. [That is teh Gemara]

Before I get into what is bothering me here let me give a bit of background.. Truma is the first gift that goes to the priests. [from wheat of grains or the seven kinds of fruit that Israel was praised for--figs olives dates grapes pomegranates etc.] the Fist Maasar(tenth) goes to the Levi. The next set is in years 1,2,45 the second maasar goes to the owners that have to take it to Jerusalem and enjoy it with their families there. in year 3 and 6 it goes to poor people.

When a stack of wheat has been finished or any of the above things have had their finishing aspects done, then they are tevel [ obligated in taking the tithes. and can not be eaten until then.


So in short the basic idea of the Gemara is this. We know truma does not make an unfinished stack into tevel. But what about the first maasar? The Gemara says the case is truma was taken from an unfinsihed buch of figs or dates on another section of the warehouse that was finished. (So truma does have to be taken again) then he changes his mind about the section that he had decided to finish and decided to leave it the way it is. So he has not done any act to make it finished. But his changing his mind makes it finished. So If we go backwards in time it turns out that the truma was valid and makes the whole thing completely tevel. But if we start from when he changes his mind then it is the taking of the first maasar that makes it tevel.


What I do not understand here is the asymmetry between maasar and truma.The Gemara Yerushalmi considers that if the work was done on the stack that that for sure makes it completely tevel. Why would it then not be so with truma? 

Rav Nahman of Breslov held that one ought to do "Hitbodadut" (private conversation with God) the whole day every day. Not just an hour per day. You can see this in his major book the LeM vol II. chapter 96.ורצונו הוא שתהיה לאדם התבודדות כל היום כולו ולבלות כל היום על זה. אבל בגלל לא כל אדם יכול לקיים את זאת לכן הוא מצווה שתהיה "His desire was that a person should have hitbodadut the whole day and to spend the whole day on this. But because not everyone can fulfill this the minimum he requires is that one should have at least one hour hitbodadut.

This makes a lot of sense to me from several aspects. One is that it is hard to say that any kind of learning makes one righteous. Some people find this out the hard way. They are love bombed and enticed into the religious world and then imagine that this is a righteous and good world because of people learning Torah. Yet at some point reality hits them. So they see that learning Torah even sincerely does not really get one over the finish line clean and proper. The is too much room for self deception and deception of others. Tora tells one how to act but that does not mean that people that use it to make money actually follow it.

They see at some point that to find some way to come to righteousness it is not enough to learn Torah. Clearly something else is needed. So I think Rav Nahman was right about this. Not that it is possible to do all day but at least to spend time talking with God as a friend talks with another and to ask for guidance and help.

 Spiritual techniques do not seem real to me.I think that when a person acts right-- that there can come a blessing from above.But I do not think there is some way to draw down anything like that. Nor do I think it is a good idea to try. Rather I think one should try to be a good person and act right. Then if and when God wants, then blessing may come. 

Liability in the USA seems

Liability in the USA seems to have gotten out of hand. It seems easy to sue anyone for almost anything. This permeates and poisons all human relationships.

I noted that you do not really see this in the Gemara. What you have in the Gemara is that if one person actually hits and injures another person directly then he is liable to damages. But spilling hot coffee one oneself is not liable to anything. The person that spills coffee one himself ought to be more careful the next time.

I noticed this a few weeks ago when I looked at the Gemara in Bava Kama [I think in perek 7]

The case is one gave to a sea captain a cargo to carry someone and the ship sank.  The question is about the fact that the ship did half of its job to carry the cargo half way. So does that have to be paid? But that the captain should be liable is never even brought up --obviously because he is a shomer Sahkar. [paid guard] who is liable only for accidents that were easy to be on guard for. Not for big accidents that he could not help-.

In the short time I had at the Lithuanian study hall I had a chance to take  look at the book the Light of Israel which is a collection of letters of Rav Israel Salanter.

I saw that he emphasizes fear of God along with good character. [In letter 9].

[I knew that both of these two themes are brought up by Rav Isaac Blazer his disciple but I had forgotten that the centrality of fear of God comes up in Rav Israel Salanter himself.

The way it looks to me is that he sees this as being the central beam that the whole house rests upon. and that he decided the way to come to it is by learning Musar.

What I mean to say is that often it is hard to figure out right from wrong and that there does not seem to be any central algorithm by which one can decide.

I mean you have the idea of Michael Huemer that reason recognizes moral principles. [Which I think comes from Fichte and Hegel. In Fichte it is called intellectual intuition.  That is that reason itself recognizes general principles--universals.] But what this means in a practical sense is that hard to know. There can be lots of important moral principles --the ten commandments, learning Torah, trust in God, the Golden Rule. Not to speak lashon Hara (slander) etc. Is there any unifying principle?  It seems there is Fear of God. [Especially when principles seem to they conflict, this is needed to resolve issues.]


[For some reason my time in Litvak yeshivas was limited because of my own evil inclinations. It takes a lot more awareness of the importance of  straight Torah than I have to be able to stick with it. Maybe if I could go back in time, I would stay with the straight path of the Gra. But I can not. So at least, I want to take the opportunity here to explain what straight Torah is.]

Yerushalmi on the Shofar

I had a chance to take a look at the Gemara in the Yerushalmi on the Shofar for a few minutes before Rosh Hashana.

That was a few day ago so I forgot most of it. But the basic idea I saw was this the mishna says סדר תקיעות שלש של שלש שלש and the Gemara [the Jerusalem Talmud] says R. Hanania and R Mana. One says a "trumita" and the other says 3 thin ones.
The commentator there says it means an order like this.  one long one equal to nine short bursts. Then three short ones each one equal to three short bursts. and then one long one equal to 9.

That is the Tekia shevarim tekia. Then a Tekia truah tekia is  one long one equal to 9 short bursts. Then 9 short bursts. Then one long one equal to 9.

Clearly then the first set of tekia shevarim truah tekia is 9-3,3,3,111111111,-9❤
[So the first set of 3 tekia truah tekia is 9, 111111111, 9. Then repeat that another 2 times. The next set is 3 tekia shevarim tekia. So  that comes out 9, 3-3-3,9. Then repeat that another two times. Then the last set is I I mentioned above tekia shevarim trua tekia. That comes out 9-3-3-3-111111111-9. And repeat that another two times.]



This is how I kind of recall the same ideas brought in the regular Gemara on the last page of Rosh Hashana. [the Babylonian Talmud]

My question here is that it is hard to see this in the Gemara itself. I can not tell if the gemara is talking about the length of one set Tashrat [Tekia shevarim truah tekia] or Teshat or Trat. Or of all three sets.


I might mention here that I had a few extra minutes to take a look at the Pnei Moshe's longer commentary at the end of the Gemara and he brings the Rambam that the length of a truah is two tekiot. I can imagine that this refers to first set of tekia shevarim truah tekia in which the middle shevaraim truah is equal to 18 short burts all together since each one by itself is 9.

Yeshivas in Israel are private. The situation is different than NY yeshivas

 Yeshivas in Israel are private. The situation is different than NY yeshivas where the yeshivas are semi private, but basically open to anyone that wants to sit and learn Torah day or night. Still you need to be part of the program. This can be confusing for a person coming from the USA to Israel. For example, you can have  person who is used to the situation in NY where he can just walk in to any Lithuanian yeshiva and sit and learn any time. --But to have lunch -he needs to be accepted as part of the program. He might then come to Israel, and then find himself thrown out of places that tell him he is not wanted there. (And he will be surprized since he was asked many times to contribute charity to those places that said they accepted anyone who wanted to learn Torah.) This happens a lot more than you can imagine.  It seems to be based on this kind of misunderstanding about the basic set up. Yeshiva in Israel are mainly for the ages 18 to 22. The whole structure is totally different than in the USA.