problem with the study of history

 The problem with the study of history is that it is most often a subtle means of trying to get people outraged about something or other. It pretends to be "academic", but most often is hiding the evils of the side they like, and exaggerating the virtues of the side they like. [There is almost always some agenda.]

I encounter this often in conversations with people that have heard only one side of some events.  Often I have no opinion one way or the other, but what surprises me is the fact that when people have heard abundant "facts" on one side of things.  So history is the art of getting people to elevate a regrettable and sad occurrence into an outrage.

[I could give examples but, I am sure you can provide plenty on your own from your own experience. It is not that being outraged is "off." Rather that one ought to be extra careful about what to be outraged about=-and to make doubly sure to look into all the facts.] 

[I like to learn history. But I tend to try to do so as thoroughly as I can, and go to original sources as much as possible. Either do it right,  or do not do it at all.] 

 z23 D minormp3   z23 midi   z23 nwc

Michael Huemer on moral objectivism.

Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness" .... Moral objectivism (like objectivism in general) seems to be entailed by the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth, along with a couple of what seem equally obvious observations about morality:

(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)"

This seems to me to be important because in fact we find all rishonim [medieval authorities] holding that the goal of Torah is to bring up to objective morality. The simplest place to see this is the Sefer HaChinuch, where he lists all the commandments of the Torah along with some of its laws and details and then also explains the reason for teach particular command.  The reasons  are what Saadia Gaon calls "חוקי בשכל" "laws of reason"

music file z22

 z22 C minor  z22 midi  z22 nwc

za16 midi  za16 nwc

 Even though Fries himself as development of Kant seems to be lacking, still the later development of Leonard Nelson seems a lot better as Kelley Ross makes note of. Still the issues between Fries, Hegel and Prichard seem to be based on the results of their systems in the political sphere. But if we would be looking at political structures , it does  not seem that any of them were right but rather the approach f John Locke. So these must be two different areas of value Plato , Fries and Hegel were very great thinkers in philosophy, but not politics..

The actual career of my dad at TRW. TRW made the Vela satellites that had X ray detectors

 The actual career of my dad at TRW. TRW made the Vela satellites that had X ray detectors. That was one of my dad's specialties.  He had invented a supper sharp copy machine [called the copy-mate machine which he had a patent on and had a factory making it in Newport Beach CA.] based on x rays. Before that he invented the infrared telescope. 

So from 1965 and on he worked at TRW making the satellites that used x-rays. Then they used his expertise in infrared detection to make the the Infrared satellites of the  Defense Support Program (DSP).

Later after the launch of those satellites he worked on laser communication between satellites. That was the only time that I actually came with him to TRW to see the actual lab where he was making the laser apparatus to be used for satellite communications and links.

Then at that point the event of the KGB infiltration into TRW happened [that the movie  The Falcon and the Snowman  was based on.] So that was the end of government contracts for TRW (until the 1990's),-- and my dad quit his job there.

 Tosphot in Gitin page 4. First opinion: R. Elazar holds witnesses that see the giving of the  divorce doc. or the actual event of kidushin  alone count. עדי מסירה כרתי Then the second opinion is this is only for gitin and kidushin, not documents about money. Why? Because one can say he is obligated even though he is not, and by that become obligated. So two witnesses on a document ought to be enough to cause the document to be valid. 

What does this mean?  That a document of gitin and kidushin is valid, but  for the event to happen we need witnesses of the act. That is what it seems like at first glance. But Rav Shach askes that that ought not to be so because Rav Jeramiah says the Mishna where two gitin were mixed up and so each is given to both women one after the other-that mishna can not be like R Elazar. Rav Shach says if the gitin are valid, then why not? [ R Jeramiah means  both have signatures on them and those are definitely Lishma. What makes that mishna not like R Elazar is that those those signatures could not make the act of gitin valid because they are not witnesses of the act of divorce. The point of Rav Shach is the documents themselves are valid and all that is needed is two witnesses to see the giving of them over to the two women then why should that not be like R. Elazar? After all there is not reason the witnesses of the act need to be Lishma. So it must be the documents themselves are not valid even with valid signatures on them unless there are witnesses that see the act.] So it must be that in gitin and kidushin without witnesses seeing the actual event, the doc. itself is not valid.

[Avi Ezri Gitin perek 1. halacha 13] 

I am wondering about this because witnesses on the doc. itself in general ought to know for whom it is being written. So why not also witnesses of the actual event? [And in fact Rav Shach himself writes this idea later in Perek I halacha 23, that is that the witnesses need to know what is going on. They need to read the get and to know whom it is for.---not in exactly those words, but that is the idea.] That is I am thinking perhaps the first way of Rav Shach is the right way. That the doc is valid with signed witnesses but for gitin we need also them to see the act. That is I am saying that the עדי מסירה witnesses of the act also need to be lishma. and if so then the first way of Rav Shach is right. See Avi Ezri chapter I halacha 16 about what the witnesses need to know.

[I know I am not explaining this in detail. Maybe I will get a chance some other time. I was just writing this to jot down the basic idea of my question. In the meantime you might look at the Avi Ezri itself where Rav Shach explains his reasoning that the witnesses of the act do not need "lishma". That very assumption is what got me thinking that maybe they do! After all they need to be able to read the document.]

_________________________________________________________________

תוספות in גיטין page 4. First opinion: ר' אלעזר holds witnesses that see the giving of the  divorce doc. or the actual event of קידושין  alone count. עדי מסירה כרתי Then the second opinion של תוספות is this is only for גיטין and קידושין, not documents about money. Why? Because one can say he is obligated even though he is not, and by that become obligated. So two witnesses on a document ought to be enough to cause the document to be valid. What does this mean?  That a document of גיטין and קידושין is valid, but  for the event to happen we need witnesses of the act. That is what it seems like at first glance. But רב שך askes that that ought not to be so because רב Jeramiah says the Mishna where two גיטין were mixed up and so each is given to both women one after the other,  that משנה can not be like ר' אלעזר.  Then רב שך says if the גיטין are valid, then why not? [ [רב Jeramiah means  both have signatures on them and those are definitely לשמה. What makes that משנה not like ר'  Elazar is that those those signatures could not make the act of גיטין valid because they are not witnesses of the act of divorce. The point of רב שך is the documents themselves are valid and all that is needed is two witnesses to see the giving of them over to the two women, then why should that not be like ר' Elazar? After all there is no reason the witnesses of the act need to be לשמה. So it must be the documents themselves are not valid even with valid signatures on them unless there are witnesses that see the act.] ] So it must be that in גיטין and קידושין without witnesses seeing the actual event עדי מסירה, the doc. itself is not valid. אבי עזרי גיטין פרק א. הלכה י''ג. I am wondering about this because witnesses on the doc. itself in general ought to know for whom it is being written. So why not also witnesses of the actual event? That is I am thinking perhaps the first way of רב שך is the right way. That the doc is valid with signed witnesses but for גיטין we need also them to see the act.

תוספות בגיטין דף ד'. דעה ראשונה: ר' אלעזר מחזיק בעדים הרואים במתן השטר והאירוע של קידושין בלבד עושים חלות הקידושין או הגט. עדי מסירה כרתי. הדעה השנייה של תוספות היא שזה רק עבור גיטין וקידושין, ולא מסמכים על כסף. למה? הודאת בעל דבר כמאה עדים דמי, ועל ידי זה להיות חייב. אז שני עדים במסמך צריכים להספיק בכדי לגרום תוקף למסמך. מה זה אומר? שמסמך של גיטין וקידושין תקף, אך בכדי שהאירוע יקרה [חלות העניין] אנו זקוקים לעדים של המעשה. כך נראה במבט ראשון. אך רב שך שואל כי זה לא צריך להיות כך משום שרב ירמיה אומר את המשנה שבה התערבבו שני גיטין ולכן כל אחד מהם ניתן לשתי הנשים אחת אחרי השנייה, כי משנה זה לא יכול להיות כמו ר' אלעזר. ואז רב שך אומר שאם הגיטין תקפים, אז למה לא? [רב ירמיה אומר ששניהם חתימות עליהם ואלה בהחלט לשמה. מה שגורם לאותה משנה להיות לא כמו ר' אלעזר הוא שאותן חתימות לא יכלו להפוך את מעשה גיטין לתקף מכיוון שהם אינם עדים למעשה הגירושין. העניין של רב שך הוא שאם המסמכים עצמם תקפים, וכל מה שצריך הוא שני עדים כדי לראות את מסירתם לשתי הנשים, אז למה זה לא יהיה כמו ר' אלעזר? אחרי הכל, אין שום סיבה שעדי המעשה עדי מסירה צריכים להיות לשמה. אז זה חייב להיות שהמסמכים עצמם אינם תקפים אפילו עם חתימות תקפות, אלא אם כן יש עדים שרואים את המעשה] אז זה חייב להיות שבגיטין ובקידושין בלי עדים שראו את האירוע בפועל עדי מסירה, השטר עצמו אינו תקף. אבי עזרי גיטין פרק א. הלכה י''ג. אני תוהה לגבי זה מכיוון שעדים על המסמך עצמו באופן כללי צריכים לדעת למי הוא נכתב. אז מדוע לא גם עדים לאירוע בפועל? כלומר אני חושב שאולי הדרך הראשונה של רב שך היא הדרך הנכונה. שהשטר תקף עם עדים חתומים, אבל בשביל גיטין אנו זקוקים גם שהם יראו את המעשה

I doubt if my dad will ever get credit for anything. But on occasion I feel like complaining about it. Once Space X introduced Starlink satellites, its value jumped from 52 billion to an astonishing 120 billion according to the Morgan Stanley report in Sept 2018. But you will never see the name of Philip Rosten who developed laser communication between satellites from the late 1960's and early 1970's [at TRW]. That is the very system that connects the Starlink satellites one to the other.

And forget about seeing his name as the leader of one of the two teams that developed the U-2 camera.

Or the inventor of the InfraRed vision system used in night vision googles and in the USA satellites that use Infra-Red [Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)].  

[The family name was Rosenblum, but he decided to change it because he was a captain in the USAF and after the war he had to interrogate Germans and sign their release papers. The trouble of signing Rosenblum hundreds of thousands of times, made him decide to shorten his name once he would get a chance.]

Transgender.

Transgender.   If a male wants to became a female the process should be simple. Just take every single cell in his body and turn the Y chromosome into an X chromosome. On the other hand, if doctors can not do that, then they can not make him into a female by simply castrating him. [Females have two X's and males have a X and Y.]

I am on the side of Leonard Nelson in terms of non intuitive immediate knowledge

Though I am on the side of Leonard Nelson in terms of non intuitive immediate knowledge as explained in the web site of Kelley Ross.  I  think the criticism on Hegel is a bit over done. If one notices the atrocities of communism, then the best thing would be to attack Marx. Why make Hegel take the blame? 

On the other hand you might ask why do I not mention this to Kantians? Kelley Ross. Robert Hanna. Or other extremely smart philosophers nowadays? Well to be frank the fact is they are in fact very smart and very good at arguing their points. I do not stand the slightest chance of showing my point. Still I can not see that Hegel is as ridiculous as all that. Even Kelley Ross in his PhD thesis brings up two good points of Hegel twice. [About Being, and about the dialectic.]  If Hegel can be be abused, well so can the Bible. Or any system of thought about values. I can not imagine any system of thought that humans can not corrupt--no matter how perfect it is.

[There is another odd thing about all this. If you are in a classroom and the teacher gives a problem in algebra. You come up with one answer. But the the smartest kid in the class who never gets a math problem wrong comes up with a different answer. Would you not have second thoughts about raising your hand to offer your answer? I would. Well in our case, the smartest guys in the room were Carl Gauss [for Fries] and David Hilbert [for Leonard Nelson.] 

Kant Fries--seems to be on the side of Plato in terms of two levels of reality.  Hegel seems to be more along the lines of Plotinus Being leads up to Logos..[Or rather that any place one starts from leads up to Logos. 

psalms  77 and also 105 is the idea of speaking  and saying over the wonders of God. To me this seems like a clear statement about the importance of learning Physics. And I think you can see this in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam. In the first four chapters of Mishna Torah the Rambam goes into the Physics and Metaphysics as was understood by Aristotle and the later neo Platonic philosophers. And all that is contained in what the Rambam says there is to think and learn about the wonders of God to come to fear and love of God.

[Physics I think is clear what it entails. But Metaphysics? My impression is that means Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Leonard Nelson.]

The way to do this I suggest is to take a book of Mathematics and to just say the words in order from the beginning until the end with no repeats and no review until you reach the end. Then you go back to the beginning and start again  until you have finished the book  four times. In this way even a block of wood would understand Differential Calculus.

 

z22 music file

 z22 c minor

z22 in midi

 I was in Breslov today and they were learning LeM vol. I chapter 15. There the gemara is brought up where it was asked which is better Sinai or one who uproots mountains? The gemara answers Sinai is better because everyone needs wheat. That is to say which is better? One who knows all the Mishna and Gemara or one who can go deeply into any given part? Or to put it more simply: bekiut or iyun? Fast learning or in depth?

In that context I made a suggestion of a sort of combination or both in which one learns every day a page of Gemara, Tosphot and Maharsha and the next day just goes onto the next page. That way is a sort of synthesis of in depth learning --as well as one can get in one fast reading-but also makes progress. 

[I am not claiming to be doing this. I have in fact found a lot of obstacles before me when it comes to learning Torah.]

The king Solomon says in Proverbs to check out the ants and learn from its ways. How far can you take this advice? A society comprised totally of women. They are the workers and the warriors. Forget about the men. The few that there are are for a one night with the Queen Mother and then left to die. And what women. They never think of themselves. Their whole line of thought is all about the good of the collective and to do their appointed jobs. The question, "What is in it for me?" never crosses their mind.

I think on one hand the Solomon was thinking that ants in fact go about their daily tasks without being ordered or told to do so. Still the men would have little place in such a world. It is a feminist's dream-except for the problem that when another colony of feminists invades and exterminates everyone.  Feminists' murdering other feminists. Perfect. 

It is however I should note that women nowadays do not resemble female ants very much in terms of altruism.  Perhaps Solomon was suggesting that we all could learn from the altruistic ways of ants.

[But I a should mention that their altruism is limited to their own city state. They make no alliance with other colonies. Rather they wage wars of total extermination one against the other; wars that that make WWI and WWII look like child's play. And also enslave weaker members of the conquered colony. And the older one is, the more expendable she is. The ones sent into war are the old ants.]

And these little critters give the words "baby food" a whole new meaning. --as in listing the ingredients..

 We find that common knowledge is sometimes used as a kind of testimony. This is even brought in the Shut of Rav Moshe Feinstein. There is a law about milk of a gentile. However because of  אנן סהדי common knowledge, Rav Moshe allows it. []Anything other than cow's milk would receive a fine from the government so it is a  case of "we testify"--common knowledge. But that can not make a marriage or a divorce as Rav Shach notes.  Even if we would have a case of a woman brining forth her divorce document in which case we would say that she received it in a proper way, still if witnesses came and said she found it in the trash, this would not be a case of two against two. 

So I suggest אנן סהדי common knowledge, is used a legal only in the case of a derabanan., not laws from the Torah.

[You can see how this is relevant when two people are married and then divorced without all the details of divorce. Then the woman remarries. Are the children of the later marriage mamzerim? I say "No", because of the above idea that the first marriage also did not have two valid witnesses.

 I heard an interview of Peter Scholze [one of the mathematicians of this generation] about learning math, and it seems to me his advice is more related to people that are particularly talented in that area. But what if one is not talented in that area? Should one give up? I think not. You can see this in a few rishonim where Physics and Metaphysics are considered to be part of the learning sessions that one ought to do every day. [Ibn Pakuda, Rambam, and others based on those of the geonim that held this way like Saadia Geon.] This is the whole point of Rav Nahman. What does one do if he or she is not as talented as others? What about us losers? Should we give up? No. There is always hope. אין ייאוש בעולם כלל. "There is no such thing as giving up." That is how I see his method of learning of saying the words and going on. There is always hope.

[I ought to add that there are plenty of rishonim that hold one ought to learn just Torah, but I have not been able to walk in that path. I am not sure why. It is not that I think that is wrong. Rather that it just did not seem to work for me. If maybe I had stuck with it, things might have been different. But after leaving it, I could not get back in. And Rav Nahman said, "If there is one posek [note 1] to depend on, you can depend on him". [That was in response to a question of Rav Natan to him about his fear of deciding a law because of the possibility of making a mistake. ] So I decided to go along with the other rishonim that hold from the importance of Physics and Metaphysics. 

[note 1] posek: a rishon that decided the law. The word "posek" can also loosely be applied to the very early achronim. Not like today where the word is applied to anyone.]

Rav Israel Salanter on learning a lot of Musar

 The idea of Rav Israel Salanter of learning a lot of Musar seems to make sense from the standpoint that in fact good character traits--"to be  a mensch" -is the essence of Torah. However, to know what are good character traits does not seem possible without Shas. Learning Gemara in depth. So when I have  a choice, I would rather learn the Avi Ezri or Tosphot which go into the depths of the Gemara. Musar seems for me to be along the lines of orientation, rather than an actual source of knowledge. [The Chazon Ish makes this exact point in his short Musar book.]

In fact, you can see, the main positive aspect of Musar is in yeshivot where it is learned as a side dish to the main thing--Gemara, Tosphot, and Rav Chaim from Brisk or the Avi Ezri. 

[Though I admit that learning a lot of the Hafetz Haim about the laws of Lashon Hara would make a lot of sense.]

"Kollel Erev", [evening kollel].

 I was in the nearby Na Nach place today, and someone mentioned that they would like to make a "Kollel Erev". Even though their suggestion was that it should be limited to Gemara, I still wanted to express my doubts. Somehow mixing Torah with money does not seem to work very well. Either people will learn --no matter what. Then when there is that degree of commitment, then  money just seems to appear. Or when there is not that degree of commitment, then no matter how much money your pour on it, the whole enterprise remains flat. 

[I mean to say that Rav Israel Salanter started the kollel idea as a temporary solution to the problem that people right after marriage --when they are supposed to be going up in spirit, have  to leave off learning Torah to go and work. But he did not mean kollel should be became the standard way of using Torah to make money as it has become. Often the result of pouring money into the "Torah world" is the creation  "Torah scholars that are demons" [in the memorable words of Rav Nahman. And that phrase just says it all.]

 x21 D minor mp3 x21 midi  x21 nwc

 I have been thinking about Columbus and Isabella. To me it looks like the war against Moorish rule in Spain was connected with the expulsion. The thing which looks odd is that Isabella looks  heroic in her support of Columbus, even pledging her crown jewels to pay for the expedition, [that was said to be a suicide mission by all the experts.] The message got to her just as she and her husband were about to wage the last battle to end Moorish rule in Spain. But she does not seem so nice when the issue was the Alhambra decree. 

  However I think it is possible to understand Isabella by means of  the way the Columbus himself thought of his mission was as a  way of expanding Christianity. [There is lots of evidence for this.] So I think to understand Isabella is clear. She wanted Spain to be Christian and she wanted to expand Christianity.

I think this is clear also from the events starting from the pogrom of 1391 which started the downward spiral. There were plenty of converts [about 200,000] and it seems many of which were not sincere. So you have the Inquisition which was directly responsible for investigation of insincere conversions. The numbers of auto-de-fa's are not as great as people imagine. The estimates are between 1000 and 2000. Still the pressure was on.

 The closest I can see for a consistent world view in philosophy is that of the Kant Fries School developed by Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross. [Though I do not share the distain against Hegel.] While Michael Huemer also has some important points, I still think the approach of Kelley Ross comes out on top.

I have a few reasons for saying this. One is that I mainly can not stand when philosophers  start to talk about physics. Especially QM or Relativity. The only one who has understood the subject and been able to place it within the context of a wider world view is Kelley Ross. 

And Analytic Philosophy I think is already fit for the trash bin.  Robert Hanna goes into rigorous detail showing this.

[However, the actual Fries and Leonard Nelson approach seem to be in great need of modification as Kelley Ross shows. Besides what he shows it is an odd sort of fact that Nelson was not very happy with Relativity and Fries was against the existence of atoms. However the insight of non intuitive immediate knowledge seems so  significant that I am thinking that these short comings should be ignored.]

For me the approach of learning by saying the words and going on גירסא seems to work along with trust in God. That is to say that often when I am learning in this way I find that I have not understood much, and yet I try to have faith that what I am supposed to understand-I will understand. That is to say: that trust in God seems to be an important principle in this, and many other aspects of my life. But there does not seem to be any way of knowing when one is supposed to have simple trust with no effort-- as opposed to when one is expected to have trust along with effort.

I would venture to say the reason that there is no clear criterion to know is because of the fact that there are areas that reason can not enter into. And if reason tries, it collapses into contradictions. [The is the famous idea of  Kant. (Or maybe not so famous. At any rate, it was by Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant-Fries school of thought that I became aware of this approach.]

תוספות [ראש השנה יג א]

  וזה עלה בדעתי מה הכוונה של תוספות [ראש השנה י''ג ע''א]. למעשה, נכון שתוספות אומרת שהגמרא בעבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע"ב מתייחסת לאשרות (אשרות שמדורות הראשונים) בשאלת הגמרא, ולא לתשובה. שכן כפי שאומר הרב שך, התשובה מתייחסת לעצים שהיו על האדמה בזמן שניתן לאברהם. הדבר שהפך את זה למעט מבלבל הוא שהגמרא עצמה מעמידה את השאלה לאחר שכבר נתנה את התשובה. זה נשאל, "מדוע נאלצה ישראל לשרוף את האשרות? הרי אף אחד לא יכול לגרום לאסור את מה שלא שייך לו. ואתה לא יכול לענות" זה מתייחס לאשרה שנשתלה אחרי הארץ ניתנה לאברהם והעצים האלה היו שייכים לכנענים, כי  ביטול היה מספיק. אז הגמרא עונה שהיא מתייחסת לעצים שהיו בארץ בזמן אברהם, ואז עבדו את העצים האלה  לאחר שסגדו לישראל את עגל הזהב, ולפיכך היו נדרשים לשרוף את אותם עצים. זו הסיבה שתוספות מתייחס ל"אשרות מהדורות הקודמים "שכן הוא מדבר על שאלת הגמרא, ולא על תשובתה

  I was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me what תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א means. In fact, it is true that תוספות is saying that the גמרא in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב is referring to the   אשרות שמדורות הראשונים in the question of the גמרא, not the answer. For like רב שך is saying, the answer refers to the trees that were on the land at the time it was given to Avraham. The thing that made this a little confusing is that the גמרא itself qualifies the question after it has already given the answer. That is it asks, "Why did Israel have to burn the אשורת? After all, no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. And you can not answer "It refers to the אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham and those trees in fact belonged to the Canaanites," because ביטול nullification would have been enough. So then the גמרא answers that it refers to trees that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then those trees were worshiped after Israel worshiped the golden calf, and thus those trees would have been required to be burnt.] This is why תוספות refers to the "אשרות שמדורות הראשונים" since he is talking about the question of the גמרא, not its answer.

________________________________________________________________________________

 I was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me what Tosphot [Rosh Hashana 13a] means. In fact, it is true that Tosphot is saying that the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b is referring to the "asherot"  אשרות שמדורות הראשונים in the question of the Gemara, not the answer. For like Rav Shach is saying, the answer refers to the trees that were on the land at the time it was given to Avraham. The thing that made this a little confusing is that the gemara itself qualifies the question after it has already given the answer. That is it asks, "Why did Israel have to burn the asherot? After all, no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. And you can not answer "It refers to the ashrot that were planted after the land was given to Avraham and those trees in fact belonged to the Canaanites," because bitul [nullification would have been enough]. So then the Gemara answers that it refers to trees that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then those trees were worshiped after Israel worshiped the golden calf, and thus those trees would have been required to be burnt.] This is why Tosphot refers to the "asherot from the previous generations" since he is talking about the question of the Gemara, not its answer.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b asks why was  Israel commanded  to burn the asherot idolatrous trees when they entered Canaan? After all it is the land that was given to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not cause what does not belong to him to be forbidden. So even if the Canaanites worshipped the trees, those trees ought not to have been forbidden. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so we see idolatry was OK to them. For if it was just the trees that were there from the first, for   those it would have been enough to have the idolaters nullify them.

Tosphot asks: The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 13a seems to be a question on this because it asks, "How could Israel bring the omer when they entered the land of Canaan? Was not the produce of gentiles?" Tosphot means that we see they did own the produce. Tosphot answers that even if the land was of Israel, the produce was still of the Canaanites.

Then Tosphot asks: if so what is the Gemara asking in Avoda Zara 23b? Answer that question is  good because of the "אשרות שמדורות הקודמים" the asherot from the first generations. To me this seems like a proof to my way of understanding the Gemara. That is the asherot were worshiped by the Canaanites, and then the land was given to Avraham, and so they became idols of a Israeli and so needed to be burned. The way Rav Shach understands that sugia, Tosphot should have said "The Gemara's question in Avoda Zara is good because of the trees from the first generations". That is the trees were regular trees, and then the land was given to Avraham, and then the Canaanites worshiped those trees. Then they would not have been forbidden until Israel worshiped the golden calf. Still it is clear that Rav Shach is right about the Gemara itself, but still it bothers me what could Tosphot mean by the word, "the asherot" instead of "the trees"? I was at the sea and pondering this question, and it occurred to me a possible approach, that is that Tosphot is trying to explain the question of the Gemara, not its answer. So  it could be that Tosphot means that trees that were there before the golden calf and that were worshiped after the golden calf would be those that needed burning while those that were planted after the land was given to Avraham those tree would need just "bitul."[nullification] That is, for the Canaanite to simply leave that tree in time of peace, or cease worshipping it in some way of other.--or break it. But it would not need to be burnt. [I mean this is the case anyway. But it just might be that this is what Tosphot is saying.]

______________________________________________________________________________

The גמרא in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב asks why was  Israel commanded  to burn the אשרות idolatrous trees when they entered Canaan? After all it is the land that was given to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not cause what does not belong to him to be forbidden. So even if the Canaanites worshipped the trees, those trees ought not to have been forbidden. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so we see idolatry was OK to them. For if it was just the trees that were there from the first, for   those it would have been enough to have the idolaters nullify them.

תוספות asks: The גמרא in Rosh Hashana 13a seems to be a question on this because it asks, "How could Israel bring the עומר when they entered the land of Canaan? Was not the produce of gentiles?" תוספות means that we see they did own the תבואה. Then תוספות answers that even if the land was of Israel, the produce was still of the Canaanites.

Then תוספות asks: if so what is the גמרא asking in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב? Answer that question is  good because of the "אשרות שמדורות הראשונים". This seems like a proof to my way of understanding the גמרא. That is the אשרות were worshiped by the Canaanites, and then the land was given to Avraham, and so they became idols of a Israeli and so needed to be burned. The way רב שך understands that סוגיא תוספות should have said "The גמרא's question in עבודה זרה is good because of the trees from the first generations". That is the trees were regular trees, and then the land was given to Avraham, and then the Canaanites worshiped those trees. Then they would not have been forbidden until Israel worshiped the golden calf. Still it is clear that רב שך is right about the גמרא itself, but still it bothers me what could תוספות mean by the word, "the אשרות" instead of "the trees"? I was at the sea and pondering this question, and it occurred to me a possible approach, that is that תוספות is trying to explain the question of the גמרא, not its answer. So  it could be that תוספות means that trees that were there before the golden calf and that were worshiped after the golden calf would be those that needed burning while those that were planted after the land was given to Avraham those tree would need just nullification. That is, for the Canaanite to simply leave that tree in time of peace, or cease worshipping it in some way of other.--or break it. But it would not need to be burnt. 

הגמרא בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב שואלת מדוע נצטוו ישראל לשרוף את אשרות העצים האלילים כשנכנסו לכנען? אחרי הכל, זו האדמה שניתנה לאברהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו אדם אינו יכול לגרום לאיסור על מה שאינו שייך לו. כך שגם אם הכנענים סגדו לעצים, עצים אלה לא היו צריכים להיות אסורים. תשובה: ישראל הגישה את עגל הזהב ולכן אנו רואים שהעבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. כי אם רק העצים היו שם מהראשון, עבור אלה זה היה מספיק שהאלילים יבטלו אותם.

תוספות שואלת: נראה שהגמרא בראש השנה יג  א שאלה בנושא מכיוון שהיא שואלת: "איך ישראל יכולה הייתה להביא את העומר כשנכנסו לארץ כנען? האם לא היה תוצרת גויים?" תוספות פירושו שאנחנו רואים שהם היו הבעלים של התבואה. ואז תוספות עונה שגם אם הארץ הייתה של ישראל, התוצרת הייתה עדיין של הכנענים.

ואז שואל תוספות: אם כן מה הגמרא שואלת בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב? תשובה לשאלה זו טובה בגלל "אשרות שמדורות הראשונים". זה נראה כהוכחה לדרך הבנתי את הגמרא. כלומר את אשרות סגדו הכנענים, ואז ניתנה הארץ לאברהם, וכך הם הפכו לאלילים של ישראלי ולכן היה צורך לשרוף אותם. האופן שבו רב שך מבין שסוגיא תוספות היה צריך לומר "שאלת הגמרא בעבודה זרה טובה בגלל העצים מהדורות הראשונים". כלומר העצים היו עצים רגילים, ואז האדמה ניתנה לאברהם, ואז הכנענים סגדו לעצים האלה. ואז הם לא היו נאסרים עד שישראל סגדו לעגל הזהב. ובכל זאת ברור שרב שך צודק לגבי הגמרא עצמה, אך בכל זאת מפריע לי מה יכולה תוספות להתכוון במילה "אשרות" במקום "עצים"? הייתי בים והרהרתי בשאלה זו, ועלה על דעתי בגישה אפשרית, כלומר תוספות מנסה להסביר את שאלת הגמרא, ולא את תשובתה. אז יכול להיות שתוספות פירושו שעצים שהיו שם לפני עגל הזהב ושסגדו להם אחרי עגל הזהב יהיו אלה שצריכו שריפה ואילו אלה שנטעו לאחר שהאדמה ניתנה לאברהם אותו עץ יצטרכו לבטל. כלומר, עבור הכנעני פשוט לעזוב את העץ הזה בזמן השלום, או להפסיק לעבוד אותו בדרך אחרת או אחרת .-- או לשבור אותו. אבל זה לא צריך להישרף.

x20 music file

 x20 A Minor mp3 [x20 in midi]   [x20 nwc]

 There are great things I received by following the advice of Rav Nahman. But I think that it would have been better if I had stuck with the straight Litvak path of Torah based on the Gra, and instead of jettisoning that, I would have simply added the great ideas and advice of Rav Nahman. The reason I say this is there are important aspects of the path of the Gra that one can not get anywhere else. Diligence in learning Torah, carefulness in all aspects of Torah and especially laws about monetary issues, care in not speaking lashon hara/slander.  

 I was at the Na Nach [Breslov] place today and they were learning the LeM vol. I:106 where Rav Nahman goes into the idea that "all poorness is from the mind," [small mindedness].  And there he also brings the idea of teaching and rebuke.  So even though there is a definite aspect of not to rebuke others as you see in LeM vol. II:8 still there is a time a place where it is proper.   [LeM II:8 starts out with: "Even though rebuke is important, still not everyone is fit to rebuke, since by rebuke one can make things worse."]

 Z19 B minor      z19 midi  z19 nwc

תלמיד חכם שד יהודי Torah scholar that is a demon [LeM vol. I:12. Also vol I:28 and Zohar page 253 on the Book of Numbers]

From where does Rav Nahman [of Uman and Breslov] get the idea that there is such a thing as a Torah scholar that is a demon? It is from the Zohar page 253 in the book of Numbers. I had a chance to look it up and  I see it is a good source to some degree, but Rav Nahman does interpret it in a unique way. For all you really see there is that there are two kinds of demons. Gentile demons and Jewish demons. And the Zohar does bring from the Gemara that Jewish demons can be sent on errands for the sake of Torah scholars that learn Mishna. And it adds that these Jewish demons are experts in Torah. But so far you do not see that they enter into the bodies of Torah scholars. That is a new idea that Rav Nahman adds. 

[I should add here that I have a high degree of confidence in what Rav Nahman writes. And this lesson in particular seems to me to very important because it tells us something that otherwise people would only come to know by bitter experience after there is no more chance of correcting the damage that these demonic Torah scholars do.]

 

 חשבתי על תשובת רב שך בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב ועכשיו אני חושב שזה נכון. הסיבה שאני אומר זאת היא שגם כשארץ כנען ניתנה לאברהם, שאומר שהוא רצה לקבל בעלות על האשרות [העצים שנשתלו כדי לסגוד להם.] ורק למען הוויכוחים נניח שהוא קיבל זכות בעלים בכל מקרה. אז מה יהיה הרעיון החדש? אנחנו כבר יודעים שצריך לשרוף אליל ששייך לישראלי. אז הגמרא הזו רוצה להגיד לנו משהו חדש, כלומר שכדי שאובייקט ייאסר כאליל, הוא לא צריך להיות בבעלות האדם הסוגד לו. אלא די בכך שהבעלים לא יתנגד. ולמעשה זה מקור החוק הזה

Rav Shach's answer in Avoda Zara 23 side b

I was thinking about Rav Shach's answer in Avoda Zara 23 side b and now I think it is right. The reason I say this is that even when the land of Canaan was given to Avraham, who says he wanted to get ownership of the asherot [trees that had been planted to be worshipped.] And just for argument's sake let's say he got ownership of them anyway. Then what would be the new idea? We already know that an idol that belongs to a Israeli needs to be burned. So this Gemara wants to tell us something new, I.e. that for an object to become forbidden as an idol, it does not need to be owned by the person worshipping it. Rather it is enough that the owner does not object. And in fact this is the source of that law. 

_______________________________________________________________________

I was thinking about רב שך answer in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב and now I think it is right. The reason I say this is that even when the land of Canaan was given to Avraham, who says he wanted to get ownership of the אשות [trees that had been planted to be worshipped.] And just for argument's sake let's say he got ownership of them anyway. Then what would be the new idea? We already know that an idol that belongs to a Israeli needs to be burned. So this גמרא wants to tell us something new, I.e. that for an object to become forbidden as an idol, it does not need to be owned by the person worshipping it. Rather it is enough that the owner does not object. And in fact this is the source of that law.

__________________________________________________________

 

 I saw a book on the life of Israel Oddeser, [the person that found the hidden letter of Rav Nachman concerning  Na Nach Nachma Nachman Me'Uman] and I noticed he told one person about the importance of olive oil -both for putting on a wound or sore and also to drink a little bit. There he also mentions to put on a wound a sort of concoction made of tea. [That is to boil tea leaves in a small amount of water so the water is like a concentrated mix, sort of like concentrated orange juice.]

I would like to explain why Rav Shach explains the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 as referring to the trees that were planted before Avraham and then worshipped after Israel served the golden calf. Normally trees that have been planted for fruit can not become idols since they are like mountains and the sun and moon that  have no human hold on them. This in fact is the reason I am thinking the Gemara is referring to trees that were planted to be idols at the very start and then the land was given to Avraham. That would make them idols of Israel that need to be burnt. But Rav Shach explains this Gemara differently since the Gemara says the only reason the trees are forbidden is that Israel served the golden calf. In My way of looking at the Gemara that reason would be irrelevant. So to him it has to refer to trees that were planted before Avraham and thus became the property of Israel after the land was given to him. And then the Canaanites worshiped those trees and there was no objection from Israel since they too at that time had served idols. It can not refer to trees that were planted after Avraham since those would be owned by the Canaanites and thus be idols of a idolater and only need nullification, not burning.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I would like to explain why רב שך explains the גמרא in עבודש זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב as referring to the trees that were planted before Avraham and then worshipped after Israel served the golden calf. Normally trees that have been planted for fruit can not become idols since they are like mountains and the sun and moon that  have no human hold on them. This in fact is the reason I am thinking the גמרא is referring to trees that were planted to be idols at the very start and then the land was given to Avraham. That would make them idols of Israel that need to be burnt. But רב שך explains this גמרא differently since the גמרא says the only reason the trees are forbidden is that Israel served the golden calf. In My way of looking at the גמרא that reason would be irrelevant. So to him it has to refer to trees that were planted before Avraham and thus became the property of Israel after the land was given to him. And then the Canaanites worshiped those trees and there was no objection from Israel since they too at that time had served idols. It can not refer to trees that were planted after Avraham since those would be owned by the Canaanites and thus be idols of a idolater and only need nullification, not burning.

ברצוני להסביר מדוע רב שך מסביר את הגמרא עבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב כמתייחס לעצים שנשתלו לפני אברהם ואז סגדו להם לאחר שישראל עבד את עגל הזהב. בדרך כלל עצים אשר ניטעו לפרי אינם יכולים להפוך לאלילים מכיוון שהם דומים להרים ולשמש ולירח שאין בהם אחיזה אנושית. זו למעשה הסיבה שאני חושב שהגמרא מתייחסת לעצים שנשתלו לאלילים כבר בהתחלה, ואז האדמה ניתנה לאברהם. זה יהפוך אותם לאלילי ישראל שצריכים להישרף. אך רב שך מסביר את גמרא זו אחרת מכיוון שהגמרא אומרת שהסיבה היחידה שהעצים אסורים היא שישראל עבד את עגל הזהב. בדרך שלי להסתכל בגמרא, סיבה זו לא תהיה רלוונטית. אז מבחינתו יש להתייחס לעצים שנשתלו לפני אברהם וכך הפכו לנחלת ישראל לאחר שניתנה לו האדמה. ואז הכנענים סגדו לאותם עצים ולא הייתה שום התנגדות מצד ישראל מכיוון שגם הם באותה תקופה שירתו אלילים. זה לא יכול להתייחס לעצים שנטעו אחרי אברהם מכיוון שאלו היו בבעלות הכנענים ובכך להיות אלילים של עכו''ם וזקוק לביטול, ולא לשרוף.

Rav Shach Laws of Idolatry chapter 8 law 3

See Rav Shach Laws of Idolatry chapter 8 law 3. Think what Rav Shach means is this. Trees that are planted as regular trees do not become asherot. Idolatrous trees. Only trees that are planted in order to be worshipped. So the asherot that were in Israel at the time the land was given to Avraham, become the possession of  Israel and so need to be burnt. The Asherot that were planted after teh land was given to Avraham were the possession of idolaters and so could simply be nullified and did not need to be burnt. This explains Tosphot Rosh Hashana page 23a. There Tosphot asks on the Gemara in Avoda Zara that asks why did the asherot need to be burnt? After all a person does not forbid what does not belong to him.  The Gemara answers because Israel served the Golden calf, so idolatry was considered OK to them. Because if we would be talking about the asherot that were there before, those could simply be nullified.

Tosphot says that the idolaters in fact owned the produce of the land.  So when the Gemara says the asherot needed to be burnt that refers to the asherot that were there at from the beginning. What that means is the asherot that were in the land at the time it was given to Abraham needed to be burnt. These that were planted after that needed only nullification. 

Still the Gemara itself is hard to understand. Those that were planted after Abraham should have been forbidden simply because they were the property of the Canaanites. Why do you need the reason that Israel served the golden calf to make them forbidden?

This is in answer to a question I asked on Rav Shach a few days ago.

_____________________________________

See רב שך הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח הלכה ג.  Trees that are planted as regular trees do not become אשרות. Idolatrous trees. Only trees that are planted in order to be worshipped. So the אשרות that were in Israel at the time the land was given to Avraham, become the possession of  Israel and so need to be burnt. The אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham were the possession of idolaters and so could simply be nullified and did not need to be burnt. This explains תוספות ראש השנה דף כ''ג ע''ב. There תוספות asks on the גמרא in עבודה זרה that asks why did the אשרות need to be burnt? After all a person does not forbid what does not belong to him.  The גמרא answers because Israel served the Golden calf, so idolatry was considered OK to them. Because if we would be talking about the אשרות that were there before, those could simply be nullified. תוספות says that the idolaters in fact owned the produce of the land.  So when the גמרא says the אשרות needed to be burnt, that refers to the אשרות that were there at from the beginning. What that means is the אשרות that were in the land at the time it was given to Abraham needed to be burnt. These that were planted after that needed only nullification. Still the גמרא itself is hard to understand. Those that were planted after Abraham should have been forbidden simply because they were the property of the Canaanites. Why do you need the reason that Israel served the golden calf to make them forbidden?

ראה רב שך הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח הלכה ג.  עצים הנטועים כעצים רגילים אינם הופכים לאשרות (עצים אלילים). רק עצים הנטועים על מנת לסגוד להם. כך שהאשרות שהיו בישראל בזמן שניתנה הארץ לאברהם, הופכים להיות נחלת ישראל ולכן צריך לשרוף אותם. אשרות אשר נשתלו לאחר שניתנה האדמה לאברהם היו רכוש עובדי אלילים וכך ניתן היה לבטלם בפשטות ואין צורך לשרוף אותם. זה מסביר תוספות ראש השנה דף כ''ג ע''ב. שם שואל תוספות על הגמרא בעבודה זרה ששואל מדוע היה צורך לשרוף את אשרות? הרי אדם לא אוסר את מה שלא שייך לו. הגמרא עונה מכיוון שישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב, ולכן עבודת אלילים נחשבה להם בסדר. כי אם היינו מדברים על אשרות שהיו שם בעבר, ניתן היה לבטל אותן. תוספות אומר כי האשרות למעשה היו תוצרת הארץ ורכוש הכנענים. לכן כאשר הגמרא אומרת שיש צורך לשרוף את אשרות, הכוונה היא לאשרות שהיו שם מההתחלה. פירוש הדבר הוא שהאשרות שהיו בארץ בזמן שניתנה לאברהם הייתה צריכה להישרף. אלה שנשתלו לאחר מכן נזקקו לביטול בלבד. אבל עדיין קשה להבין את הגמרא עצמה. אלה שנטעו אחרי אברהם היו צריכים להיות אסורים פשוט משום שהם נחלת הכנענים. מדוע אתה צריך את הסיבה שישראל עבדו את עגל הזהב כדי לאסור אותם. זה קרוב למה שרב שך כתב. הוא כתב ש  העצים הזקוקים שריפה הם אלו שניטעו קודם שניתנה הארץ לאברהם ונעבדו אחרי כן. אבל קשה על זה שאשרה חייבת להיות נטוע מראש למטרת עבודה זרה

the events surrounding the concubine in Giva.

Rebuke is one of the 613 commandments. And where you can see the serious of it is in the events surrounding the concubine in Giva. In short for those who are not familiar with those events let me recount the major points. One fellow had a concubine. [That in itself is subject to a debate. Some hold that is simply what you would call a  girl friend, i.e. sex with no marriage. Others hold there is kidushin, but not nisuin/hupa.] He visited her parents home with her, and then wanted to get back up north where his home was. His concubine wanted to stay and bit longer, but he insisted they get back home. On the way they passed through the area of the tribe of Benjamin in a town called Giva. There were some ruffians there that attacked them at night and killed her. But worse than that--no one else in that town objected. So all Israel made war against the tribe of Benjamin. And they even asked God directly by means of the Urim and Tumim and God approved of that war. No because of the murder, but because no one besides the actual criminal objected.

Another place to see this is in the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza by which the Second Temple was destroyed. The reason was not so much the actual crime, but rather that the sages at the time did not object. 

So when we see the Gra signed the well known letter of excommunication (and Rav Shach also agreed with the Gra)  and yet their objections have been ignored, I feel that I ought to say something myself and encourage others. I mean to say that when asked I have stated my view that the Gra was right. But now I am seeing that it is not enough to for me to do so. Others also ought to go along with the Gra.] 

I also think that besides the fact that a herem/excommunication is a valid halachic category; there is also the issue of why that herem was issued in the first place (i.e. idolatry). And time has shown that the Gra was right.  

[The herem did not apply to Rav Nahman of Breslov as it was specific. So learning Rav Nahman's books is perfectly fine and commendable.]

z17 D minor mp3 [z17 in midi] [z17 in nwc format]

pieces I wrote when I was in my parents home.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B71pces179i2dFZ6eEgxSWNtS0U/view?usp=sharing

This is called a piano piece because it was written on the piano in my parents home. But it was meant for organ -so that is why the instrument it is played on is now the organ.

Piano piece called This is a great title.

 string1

orchestraoo

[My dad gave me a record that had Mozart on one side and Beethoven on other . This was an influence Plus Braham I listened to in the library [as I waited for my dad to pick me up] and as you can see this influenced me in the piece called "orchestra". Plus it seems certain  the teacher of the high school orchestra Mr. Smart, must have had an influence on me.

My dad was a captain in USAF and one thing he mentioned to me about one medal that he got was by setting up an air force base in France that was specially geared to repair disabled planes and get them off the ground quickly.

After the war that he invented the Infrared telescope.  [That is the young man in that article in Life Magazine, Philip Rosenbloom]. After that when the USA government wanted to create infrared satellites to spy on the USSR so they called him and he went to work for TRW in creating those satellites. Called the DSP [Defense Support Program] satellites in the early 1970s. 

Later he worked on laser communication between satellites for SDI [Star Wars].

So I can safely say my parents were very loyal Americans.

Similarly the argument that people like the fact that their property is taken from them to give to the welfare takers does not mean that they agree with their property being stolen from them to support parasites.

The fact that the government does some crime does not mean that the people under it agree or want that.  When the lands of England were enclosed by the ruling class, the peasants did not rebel. But that does not mean they liked the fact that their lands were taken from them. Similarly the argument that people like the fact that their property is taken from them to give to the welfare takers does not mean that they agree with their property being stolen from them to support parasites. 

On the way to the sea this morning it occurred the question how does Tosphot in Rosh Hashana 13a deal with Rabah? אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "A gentile does not have the ability to take away the obligation of truma and tithes." I mean to say this. The Gemara asks "How could Israel bring the Omer when they came into the Land of Canaan? was not the grain the produce of the gentiles?" And right there Tosphot asks from Avoda Zara 23b that the land of Israel was already in the possession of Abraham from the time it was promised to him. And Tosphot answers that the gentiles had a portion in what they sowed. So my question is both on the Gemara and also on Tosphot. Why not simply answer that Rabah was right!  אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "A gentile does not have the ability to take away the obligation of truma and tithes."

______________________________________________________________________________

 How does תוספות in ראש השנה י''ג ע''ב deal with רבה who holds אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "A gentile does not have the ability to take away the obligation of תרומה and מעשרות." I mean to say this. The גמרא asks "How could Israel bring the עומר when they came into the Land of Canaan? was not the grain the produce of the gentiles?" And right there תוספות asks from עבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב that the land of Israel was already in the possession of Abraham from the time it was promised to him. And תוספות answers that the gentiles had a portion in what they sowed. So my question is both on the גמרא and also on תוספות. Why not simply answer that רבה was right!  אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "_______________________________________________________________________

כיצד מתמודד תוספות בראש השנה י''ג ע''ב עם רבה שמחזיק שאין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות. אני מתכוון לומר את זה. הגמרא שואלת "איך ישראל יכולה הייתה להביא את העומר בבואם לארץ כנען? האם התבואה לא הייתה תוצרת הגויים?" ושם תוספות שואלים מעבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב שארץ ישראל כבר הייתה ברשותו של אברהם מרגע שהובטחה לו. ותוספות עונה שלגויים היה חלק במה שזרעו. אז השאלה שלי היא גם על הגמרא וגם על תוספות. למה לא פשוט לענות שדווקא רבה צדק! אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות?

 Rav Nahman brings in the LeM that when one wants to come into holiness there stands at the entrance a religious person to block the way. [I forget off hand which chapter that is in]. So religious people often are enemies of holiness and serving God. I have seen this much. Religious people most often do not care about God at all and rather care about their social group. Some stupid cult or other.

 In accounts of the expulsion of Jews from Spain is left out the war that  was going in between Muslims and Christians. I noticed this in an account of the events from a Jewish perspective. So my question is --as would be natural to ask- "How much were Jews helping the Muslims?" I do not know. But if the answer is a lot,-- then it would be understandable why Isabella and Ferdinand did not want a enemy in their borders.

Today Jews consider Christianity as idolatry, and Islam as basically OK. So I wonder if this attitude had not been around at that time also?

[The very great anger of Jews towards Christianity is apparent even today in the accounts of the expulsion from Spain. And I can see why. The major port of entry for many Jews was Morocco. But the experience of Jews there was often  horrific.] 

 Even when one wants to keep Torah, the obstacle is always the religious authorities who are wicked. This problem is mentioned in the Gemara, but mostly appears in the LeM of Rav Nahman.[vol I8,12,28, 61, vol II 1, 5, 8] The issue is that there is a sort of entry of the Dark Side into the world of Torah.; such that anyone who wants to keep Torah must  encounter these Torah scholars that are demons. Far be it from me to ask why this is the case, but it does imply a sort of care and caution when one tries to keep Torah not be be seduced by the Dark Side.

Since is is hard to tell the difference between authentic Tora and Torah of the evil realm, thus avoiding the religious is the best approach.

Written Law and Oral Law, Physics, Metaphysics

To learn the entire Written Law and Oral Law, Physics, Metaphysics is the basic approach of Pakuda and Maimonides. That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds, the books of Aristotle named the Metaphysics. But the Physics I would have to say must refer to Physics today. Even the Metaphysics of Aristotle I would have to say refers to the subject matter. [i.e., includes Plato and Plotinus. I would have to add Kant and Leonard Nelson.] 

[The way I suggest to finish the two Talmuds is with Rashi, Tosphot and Maharsha. That should be the fast session. For the the in-depth session I suggest to concentrate on individual sugias with the the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.]

[Certainly the Ramban/Nahmanides and many of the other rishonim would disagree with the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. Still I have adopted this approach of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. It makes the most sense to me.] 

“I CAN NO LONGER RECOMMEND THE VACCINE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL”

 https://www.brighteon.com/d6fab6d3-24b8-4f1e-9bc7-9ab1c1134593

 General Grant was reviewing his troops and came near the closest lines to the Confederate Army. As he did the Union guards saw him and announced to all the soldiers in the vicinity to come  out of their tents and present themselves to the general. General Grant said, :"Forget it. Just let the men go back to their tents."  The Confederate guards had heard from across the battle lines what had been going on. So the Confederate officers called to their men to stand at attention for General Grant. They all assembled and saluted the General and he returned their salute.

The lesson. We are all Americans. We all believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Just we are disagreeing about what is just. 

[This is not to imply that General Grant was right. Rather as is the case with many issues of justice, there is ambiguity. The odd thing is that General Grant stated in his writing down his account of the war, mentioned one justification. That the slaves would eventually reproduce and then since they would hate the whites, they would exterminate the whites. So with that in mind it was important to free the slaves so the nation would be whole. But was that the result? Are now things any different? Is now hatred of whites any less? Is there longer any less desire to exterminate the whites? He forsaw that with enough numbers the result would be that the slaves would attempt to destroy all white people. So is that any different from things now?]  

How much does one do review before going on?

   For myself I found  review twice and go on made the most sense.

I was aware of the approach of Rav Nahman of just saying the words in order and going on. [But that left me with almost zero understanding.] On the other hand Rav Freifeld of Shar Yashuv was emphasizing doing review 10 times before going on. That left me with making no progress. So the review twice approach was what I adopted for many years.