z43 music file

z43 C Minor

Heidegger certainly has a point that philosophy has been down hill since the Pre-Soctratics. That is it has become all about man and not about Being.

Heidegger certainly has a point that philosophy has been down hill since the Pre-Soctratics.  That is it has become all about man and not about Being. And he proposes to understand Being (Sein) by means of man (Dasein.) But he felt that this later part of his project was not possible so he never wrote the second part of Being and Time.. [Which was all about Dasein].

Why do I mention this? because I feel that the Kant-Fries School [and see https://www.friesian.com/undecd-1.htm] does have a lot to say about Being itself, and succeeds where Heidegger knew he had failed. 

Or maybe it is not that he failed, but did not see how to bring the project to fruition. 

Heidegger is a very Kantian sort of project. Instead of our accepting the dinge an sich things in themselves into computer chips, with Heidegger we impose our form of Being onto things in themselves.  But this is just as unsatisfactory as Kant himself. Imposing our forms onto things tells us nothing at all about anything except our delusions. [And in fact, I gave up after getting about half way through it. It did not seem to me that he succeeded in his original point, and about half way through Being and Time it seemed to go downhill.]

It is Fries who discovered this sort of knowledge that is not by reason nor by the sense that it is possible to understand the dinge an sich.

I was at the beach the whole day so I have nothing here to add about Gemara Rashi and Tosphot. And I am nor really able to concentrate on my learning as I should, so instead I elect to share my thoughts why I think the Kant-Fries School is important [in spite of my feeling that the serious disagreement with Hegel is unfounded.] At any rate, I discovered great ideas in Gemara really only because of my learning with David Bronson in Uman. It is really not all that innate to me. Inherently I am more interested in philosophy.

I might add here that there is a an idea in Heidegger of forsaking beings and follow Being. To seek authenticity. This strikes me as very close to Rav Nahman of Uman in his idea of Hitbodadut.. Go to a place where no one else is and talk with God. For when one is surrounded by people all the time it is very easy for one to lose entirely who one really is.

[The problem with Heidegger is that there is a sort of self worship there. All there is is to be who you are. No obligations to anyone else as Dr Michael Sugrue points out.] 

 For the type of dynamics you have with Lagrange [or the Hamiltonian] you find things tend to their place of minimal energy [or maximal sometimes like in optics], Causality is not at all the determining thing. 

This is something I have already mentioned this in terms of the Kant Friesian School. Where causality is not a part of things in themselves.

I might add to this that time also is secondary as we see in Quantum Mechanics. [As Lemaitre wrote almost a hundred years ago in his papers showing the Big Bang and that time only  began after there were a few quanta around to make time to be able to exist.] 

And this also goes with the Kant Fries approach where time itself is not a part of things in themselves.,

z42 music file

 z42 D minor  z42 nwc

Every group is trying to get to the top. Some by intellect. Some by skin color.

 As Jordan Peterson points out, hierarchies are imbedded into the DNA of not just mammals and chickens, but also in lobsters. So they are not the result of Capitalism. [Presumably lobsters are not adept at being shopkeepers.] So we see Nietzsche was right. Every group is trying to get to the top. Some by intellect. Some by skin color. 

The idea of the will to power but modified from Schopenhauer who was trying to say that there is only one dinge an sich. The Will. But Nietzsche  asked what does that will want? And he saw what is known as the will to power. You can see much in affairs where you might otherwise wonder what is this or that group trying to get to?    Well the answer is blowing in the wind. They all want power. Not equality. Not fair treatment. They want to be on top. But they dress it in fine sounding noble words of equality and justice.

With John Locke things have primary qualities and secondary qualities

 With John Locke things have primary qualities and secondary qualities. Primary means in themselves. Secondary is things that they have only because of our sensing them. [Like it feels hard and cold.] Kant noticed all qualities are secondary. Everything you know about a thing are things you know in relation to yourself. So what is left? The thing in itself.  That is like the old difference between form and content. The thing is the content and the form is your categories that you put it into. [The categories are like computer chips that process the information.] But "It exists" or "It does not exist" are also a priori forms . So we add that also? Then the thing in itself maybe is just not there? 

With Fries immediate non intuitive knowledge is how content is known. So this sort of knowledge does answer that question and many more.

With Hegel, the Logos [in Neo Platonic philosophy] is the source of everything. Not just the logical forms, but even beings. So our minds (which are small parts of the Logos) perceive immediately the categories.

And with Hegel just pure reason can know things. [So that is very close to Fries -- as far as I can see,-we know the thing in itself by reason to Hegel, and by a sort of knowledge that is not reason to Fries.]  

So what I getting at? It is that I think both Fries and Hegel are important. [But I should add that both are in some need for sieving. There are  along the way lots of places that can cause misunderstanding. And when I say Fries I really mean how that approach was developed by Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross. When I say Hegel while I think it is fairly plain and simple, but I can see that McTaggart and Cunningham added clarity where before there had been misunderstanding. 

In any case, I see "Back to Kant" straight just means the old problems cropping up again as was noticed immediately after the Critique was published

The Continental Schools give upon talking exactly in order to say something relevant about one's inner mental states. But can say nothing true about the external world.

I suggest that to see what it is about the Kant Friesian School that is so great  it is helpful to compare it to Husserl. With Husserl we see he was trying to put a person into a sieve. That is to sieve out all the predicates that do not belong to a man per se. By that he hoped to find he essential mental states that make a man into a man and thus to create his method of Phenomenology. And thus comes to true and sure knowledge. [A very ambitious project, which is highly circular.] 

To see and understand just what he was up to helps to see the advantage of Leonard Nelson. who realized that knowledge has to start with axioms. Not mental states. The is the regress of reasons. You have got to start somewhere. And that somewhere can not be just mental because that says nothing.(Nothing by itself.) And that somewhere can not by the senses because they also say nothing at all. But you can not put these two together to make something sure and certain because then all you have got is nothing plus nothing. You have got to start with Immediate non intuitive knowledge.

I hope that is clear enough. And I admit I am on the side of Nelson for a another reason. That is the Nelson Affair file in the drawer of David Hilbert.

But here I also wanted to add another point which I believe is very important. There is something about the Leonard Nelson School [Kant-Fries] that deals with the very areas where the Continental and English Schools [Analytic] fail. The English Schools start with the external world and insist on talking exactly. Well they talk exactly but can say nothing coherent about the Inner World. {My mind is not just a jumble of sensations. I have got this news to report to them.} The Continental Schools give upon talking exactly in order to say something relevant about one's inner mental states. But can say nothing true about the external world.  

So you can see what it is about Leonard Nelson that gets both right and once you get into it, it is impossible not to be impressed. [See the web site of Dr Kelley Ross.]

music z40

 z40 G Minor  same piece in nwc

getting a salary for learning Torah or even judges does not work

 If only all yeshivot would be on the level of Ponovitch or Brisk [the Ivy league].where Torah is learned for its own sake. But outside of the few great Litvak yeshivot, most people use Torah to make money. And I mean this in the widest possible extent. I mean even judges. "A judge that takes a salary for judging all his judgments are null and void." שבר בטלה [payment for taking time out of his regular job,] does not count because it has to be שדר הניכר [Visible salary]. He can not say "I could have been an astronaut, but instead I learn Torah So I should get the salary of an astronaut.] [I have heard a person in kollel actually tell me as much.] 

{The idea of שכר בטלה [payment for taking time out of his regular job,] is this. A judge can judge a case for free. And if he receives money for judging it, the verdict is null--and he pays from his own pocket. But if he has a regular job and two people want him to take out time to judge their case they can pay him שכר הניכר [Visible salary]. That is if he gets 10 dollars an hour on his regular job then he can be paid 10 dollars an hour for judging that case. But it has to be  areal job. Not a job that he thinks he could have had.

So using this idea to answer for people getting a salary for learning Torah or even judges does not work.

To object to wrong actions is important as we see in the Concubine of Give where the whole tribe of Binyamin was punished because they did not object and also the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtz in Gitin

In Torah midot tovot good character is the main thing. This You can see in the books of Musar which brings many proofs for this fact. [Midot Tovot good character means to be a kind decent human being.]  And so it seems that at all clear that the religious world as a whole is really keeping Torah. They surely keep rituals. Bur who says that that is the main thing? When in need you are more likely to get help from secular Jews or gentiles rather than the religious to whom you are barely human .

You might see propaganda trying to show how the religious are all so lovey dovey. But that is just propaganda. The reality is the opposite.

[The shock of this realization can be a heart breaking and traumatic event. When one realizes that  his or her's minds was being played with. 

[Some of the places where you can see the prime directive of good character is in the classical books of Musar of the Middle Ages אורחות צדיקים, שערי תשובה, חובות הלבבות, מעלות המידות, ספר הישר המיוחס לרבינו תם,

Sadly they get away with this fraud because no one objects. And I believe that in such a case one is obligated to object. To object to wrong actions is important as we see in the Concubine of Give where the whole tribe of Binyamin was punished because they did not object and also the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtz in Gitin

 Honor of ones parents means to walk in their ways and to obey them as Confucius saw clearly. How could one possibly think  that he is honoring his (or her) parents while not listening to them? And what I must add is important about this? It is that ones inner light comes from the mother and the outer protective light comes from the father. [As you can see in the Rav Isaac Luria in the Gate of Gilgulim (I think that is where I recall this from)]. So you might be more aware of your connection with your mother since that is inside of you and less aware of your connection with your father. After all the later only surrounds you as a sort of protective cover. [The connection with one's father only becomes apparent after he is not in this world any more. That is when the protective cover disappears.]

Thus, I see this emphasis on finding what is wrong in one's parents in the West as a sort of evil inclination. One of the obstacles one must face in order to find the way to do what is right.

 Religious leaders always emphasize how they know more than your parents. That is one reason why Rav Nahman said most religious leaders are "תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים"(Torah scholars that are demons).

 I was in the Breslov place nearby today and that is why I was listening as they were learning the LeM  vol II perek 7. The interesting thing is that Rav Nahman holds that by saying the words that one is learning the learning enters the mind.

But this saying of the words does not have to be aloud. It can also be in a whisper. But the words need to be said. If I had known this in high school I might have gone into physics or math. After all this method of saying the words and going on would have helped me enormously. But I was not aware of this method at that time.

People in philosophy tend to lose common sense

People in philosophy tend to lose common sense. I am not sure why this is. Maybe it is because they are so smart that they start to build in their minds all these strange utopias in the sky. They think "If only we could make the perfect classless society like Marx, then everyone would have plenty of stuff.] They tend to forget the Marx was tried. It did not result in plenty of stuff. The reason why Marx was never attractive for me  was that I had heard in school about the scientific method. That is: that no matter how wonderful an idea sounds and is worked out in every detail, still if it predicts a certain result and that result does not come to pass, the theory is wrong.

The same goes for psychology. After trillions of dollars of government money, have they ever cured even one single person of anything? If you want to make someone insane, send him to a psychologist.

[ I thought to add here one point. That is this is why the Friesian School of Kelley Ross has always impressed me very greatly--because not just that his approach based on Kant, Fries and Nelson has some major advances in philosophical thought but also he seems to be the only philosopher with common sense. (I am not sure why this is.  I am thinking that mainly the great thing about this approach is more based on Ross than on Fries or Nelson. It is as if Ross went to collect the important points of Fries and then the important points of Nelson and Schopenhauer and made his own structure. He calls it the Friesian School. But it seems like a vast improvement on Fries or even Nelson.]

Why is Fries important? Because of the thing in itself. The question about this is if we can not know anything about it then we can not know it exists. So Hegel simply said we can know about it because our minds are all part of Logos.(There is no dinge an sich because all Being is rational) [Neo Platonism ] Fries said we know the thing in itself by means of a kind of knowledge that is not by reason nor by the senses. So we know about electrons that they exist and also properties based on mathematics and Physics which also have to start with basic axioms that can not be proved. 

LeM of Rav Nahman

 In the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov [and Uman] it is brought [vol II. perek 7] that R. Eliezer was on the level of son, while R.Yehoshua was on the level of servant. That is to say there is a tzadik who serves God on the level of son and another who serves God on the level of servant. And the level of son is איה מקום כבודו [like the question the serafim angels ask: "Where is the place of His Glory?"] The level of serving God like a servant is on the level of מלוא כל הארץ כבודו [that is the statement of the ophanim angels: "The whole world is full of his glory."] 

And there Rav Nahman explains that even the tzadik who serves God on the level of son should still be aware of the level of "The whole world is full of his glory." And the tzadik that serves God on the level of servant should also be aware of the question "Where is the place of His Glory?" which shows when one reaches a higher level in the service of God, the more he knows how much more of a way there is to go. 

I think this balance is a lesson for each person. Even as we gain in understanding in Torah, we ought to retain the knowledge of how far we really are. And yet not be so discouraged as to think progress in impossible.

I have not tried to object strongly to the practice in Israel of using Torah to make money. The reason is that it seems if you would simply come at the end of the month and give to each person a monthly salary then no one would learn. Still the way of having the young men in kollel take exams to show they went over the material seems to be that that is forcing them to use Torah to make money. I find it hard to object to this practice but I myself found it so repulsive that I left the kollel system for this exact reason.  

I said to my wife that, "We will trust in God and he will help us. But if it ever comes to a situation where there is no parnasa [means of a living]I will find an honest job rather than use Torah to make money."

[In fact, I find the whole profession of using Torah to make money highly odd. And I think the Torah they learn has no blessing in it.

[This is besides the fact that young people can be convinced that the the  teachers of Torah that use Torah to make their living are all righteous and all the secular Jews and gentiles are all wicked. However that is only because young people do not have much experience with any of these groups. They assume the religious world is righteous, not from experience but from what they have been told. However, as is well known, the truth is very different.   Even by the most rigorous standards of Torah, we find many gentiles willing and anxious to extend a helping hand to you, and many religious that will use you for their own interests until you are no longer of any use to them. So if we look at the standards of Torah, we find many secular Jews and gentiles much more righteous than any of the religious. 

However I might take down this blog entry since I would not want to disparage the importance of learning and keeping Torah. Rather I would hope t encourage others to come to midot tovot {good character}. It is just that  religious people as a rule seem to be  very far from human decency. It seems they think they can get away with this fraud to pretend tp be righteous  since young people do not know any better and have no real experience with them. 

Even though most women never become zavot [women who have seen blood after the first seven days],

 Even though most women never become zavot [women who have seen blood after the first seven days], still I wonder why there is no mention of "מים חיים" [live waters-- or river or spring]in their case? I mean to say- that the law of the Torah is a nida [the regular monthly cycle] sits seven days and goes into a collection of water [a place where rain water has collected.] Still there is a custom to sit seven clean days.. Seven clean days is for a zava. So if you are worried about a zava (even if you are pretty sure she is not a zava) then why not require a spring or river? At least be consistent. If she is a zava? Fine. Have her wait seven clean days and send her to a spring or sea. If she is just a nida, then why wait seven days? Make up your mind.

I think the most basic problem in Kant is that we know nothing about electrons, photons, other people, etc.

 The basic approach of the Torah is Neo Platonic as you can see in the Chovot Levavot [Obligations of the Hearts] by Ibn Pakuda. [Also Saadia Geon, the Rambam and Ramban and all other rishonim that I am aware of] But this needs modification because it is based somewhat on Aristotle. Now with all due respect to Aristotle, there are some issues that need addressing as Berkeley noticed. There is nothing in the sharpness of the knife that enters into the human brain to give it the idea of sharpness. There is nothing in the heat of the fire that comes into my head to give me an idea of hotness. You go back and forth on these issues until you get to Kant and Hegel. But going back to the straight Neo Platonic view is impossible. So you are left with who was right? Kant or Hegel?

Maybe this will be like the problems between Plato and Aristotle that also had no resolution until Plotinus came up with the Neo Platonic school. May that is how things will eventually work out between Kant and Hegel. It seems each has some things right, and some things not so right. So until a new Plotinus comes along, I think we are stuck.

{I can imagine you can look up the problems in each. Critics abound. But just for one example of a problem in Kant. The mind imposes the categories on the phenomenological world. OK. But whose? My mind? Yes. Your mind? Yes. Lots on minds imposing all their rules on the world. There is something odd about that. Plus, the other issue that a central proof in the Critique is to show from the fact of time ordering events in the mind, Kant gets to time ordering events in the world. Well, no. That is Relativity. Problems with Hegel on the other hand also abound. Mostly because of his political views which in fact seem a bit hard to swallow. The individual is not a microcosm of the state. The only way a well ordered state can function is by division of powers. Not the king, not the parliament, not even the people have all the powers. Examples abound when one of these gets the upper hand what goes wrong. But the individual is just the opposite.  I would rather my heart not be working against my lungs. The individual works only when everything is working together. The state is just the opposite.  

I think the most basic problem in Kant is that we know nothing about electrons, photons, other people, etc. That is the very reason I had to write "phenomena" instead of "appearances". All we know about are the image of electrons in our minds. I this so obvious? Would it not take a lot of evidence to show that we know nothing about electrons, only our concept or electrons? Lacking any definite proof, would it not make sense to say that we know E=mc^2 about actual electrons, not just the ones in our minds.

This was the exact point of Hegel. This was later taken up by Michael Huemer and the Intuitionists. But they diverge from Hegel in other points.]

Would not physics seem to be about actual electrons? Not just the appearances on our heads? I thought Physics is telling us something about electrons and the Schrödinger equation. Not just he ones I have in my head. I after all I a not smart enough to have come up with the Schrodinger equation all on my own. No in my conscious nor in my subconscious. So why should those poor electrons worry about what I think? Besides the fact that I could not have come up with the Schrodinger equation even if I had thought nut i a thousand years. Would t t]have giv3n  chance to those poor miserable electrons some toe to have fun until I cam along with my preconceived ideas anpoiyt ow they ought to behave

Trust without effort.]

 Trust in God is a difficult issue to know when it applies. On one hand when I was about to go to Shar Yashuv [a great Litvak yeshiva in NY and now I have heard that there is one in Israel also], my parents were saying that they thought most people going to a yeshiva were doing so in order to make that into a profession. And I was claiming that "No. They are learning Torah for its own sake."

 And as far as the Litvak world of Yeshivot based on the Gra I think it is clear that I was right.

But since then this issue of trust in God has always been a difficult issue to figure out.

Before I got married I mentioned this issue to my father in law (Bill Finn) and he agreed totally with me. Trust in God is everything and carries the day. 

[By that time I was at the Mir, and I think I must have been aware of Navardok. Trust without effort.]

the religious world actually believes [as strange as it may see,) that they keep Torah.

 Even if I learn a great deal R. Rav Nahman,I do not give approval to everything he says.

In terms of Torah I think that the Gra was right. The problem the Gra was addressing in the letter of herem [excommunication] was that of idolatry (or worship that is not of God alone.) This is totally ignored nowadays to the degree that the religious world actually believes [as strange as it may see,) that they keep Torah!?? No. Not at all. They keep rituals in order to seem as if they keep Torah. But the religious world is the opposite of Torah since their religion is based on idolatry.] [If the Torah is not about not to worship anything but God, then it is not about anything at all. The rituals do not count.]

See Proverbs  3 verse 5 and 6 in the commentary of the Gra. Trust in God. Forget about your own efforts. And not not trust in anyone except the First Cause.]

There is a right and wrong way in Torah.

 There is a right and wrong way in Torah. [So even if there some valid approaches that does not mean that all approaches are valid. Some are simply false. And that is the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication --to show that idolatry is not in accord with Torah. [This is kind of hard to miss in the Ten Commandments.] 

 For example in Philosophy. You might have a few different approaches to Kant. But that does not mean any approach approach is right. Some are false.

There might be better ways of approaching Beethoven. Some better and some not so much so. But that doe not mean scratching on a blackboard is playing Beethoven.

 You can see why Leonard Nelson was so perturbed by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It goes against the major argument of the Critique of Pure Reason.[The Transcendental Analytic] Kant proves there is an objective order of events. (Plus causality. That is not against Relativity but it seems to be somewhat of a problem in Quantum Mechanics). He takes nine closed argued steps to prove this. [And to me it seems not clear if Friesian concepts can help Kant. 

[As for the first point, in some way Kant was right because events [for one observer] to be taken in reverse order [by another observer] would be out of one of the light cone of one of those observers. Kant wants events in the mind to have an objective order in time. And that is true. But then to apply that to the world outside one's mind is what he is trying to prove --in order to disprove sceptic claims about reality. But there is where the proof seems to fail. I mean to say Kant wants to prove that we have a priori knowledge of the phenomenal world--for example we know causality.(He goes with Newton as opposed to Leibniz.)  [Clearly Kelley Ross would have an answer for this that is. After all Gretta Herman found the reconciliation between Relativity and the Friesian School. Still, it seems that this is some area that shows a problem.] 

[One thing I might mention. Kant was trying to refute Berkley. {It is all in the mind} He wanted to prove causality and simply existence of the objective world. But the way he must causality is events which happen according to a rule." Well That is certainly true. when the particles coming out in EPR [Einstein Podolsky Rosen] decide to refrain from being upor down spins until they interact, they are doing so according to a rule. 

Nietzsche is surely right that people's morality changes all the time.

 Nietzsche is surely right that people's morality changes all the time. Both individual and in whole societies. And certainly right that they flow from some unconsciousness places inside of us. [The irrational unconscious of Schopenhauer.] 

But that does not show that there is no objective morality. Rather that it is hard to get to.

[He was attacking Hegel on that score. Hegel thinks that people keep on progressing towards the Absolute Idea. Well, yes and no. There is objective morality, but we do not progress towards it at all and there is no reason to think that we now have it or will ever have it. 

But as Michael Huemer points out that just like in math you can start with very simple assumptions and build a lot on that, so in Ethics it might be possible to start with a simple axiom and build on that.

In math that works by you have the idea of a number  and add to that the idea of a vector and then the idea that things have shapes. These are not hard assumptions. Then you come up with Vector Calculus and Algebraic Topology.  So in ethics you might start with a simple rule: one should not torture millions of people for the fun of it. 

In fact we do find in the Gemara that the laws of the Torah have simple reasons. The Gemara however never tells us what they are. But later you find starting from Saadia Gaon and Ibn Pakuda that the reasons for the laws were made more explicit. --[Not to do idolatry or believe in idols, rather to believe and trust only in the First Cause. Peace of the state.]

[The hidden assumptions are in the modern world, not so hidden. The problem is not that they are hidden but rather that they are unexamined. The advantage of philosophy is that one learns to examine his or her assumptions about right and wrong. Feminists for example start with the assumption that they have been abused. That is perhaps sometimes true, but it is an unproven rule. Perhaps some girls have had good parents? I know for example that my mother had good parents.]

This mentality gives rise to the "Me Too" movement. And comes from a phenomenon seen by Nixon: that Americans believe in the news media more than they believe in their own eyes. Thus people will believe things that they are supposed to believe, - even when their own experience tells them that those beliefs are untrue. 

There is some fine line from where argument from authority stops and then you need to think for yourself. I mean to say that if you would have to think for yourself to come up with Atomic Physics you would have to be exceptionally smart. to combine the intellects of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Feynman etc. And each one made mistakes on their own. Only together could Modern Physics emerge. But after you have done the homework. You have learned the material and understood it, then you ought to think for yourself. This idea applies almost in any field. 

But it is never a good idea to follow the crowd. And even when it comes to experts, it takes a great deal of common sense to tell who is the real thing and who are the fakers.

[The religious believe in following their leaders instead of thinking for themselves. Authority is some kind of fixation.

\

 Intuition in Kant is not just sense perception but also has a component of knowledge that that component of knowledge has to have already  a prior organization [being in space and time] (in order to be able to be processed by the mind.)

(if all it is is sense perception then how can it have anything to do with the mind? It is like apples and oranges.) [Critique of Pure Reason A-99. page 300]

[Another problem is unity of consciousness is what makes the unity of the Universe. But there are many consciousnesses [You must have noticed that there are lots of people around.] So I think you have to come to the answer of Fries that there is a deeper kind of knowledge [non intuitive immediate] that i the knowledge of things in themselves.[This gets rid of the problem that if all we have access to are representations then what are they representations of?]

This is probably the most troublesome aspect in all of Kant and for that reason it makes sense to hold like Fries that there is a sort of knowledge that is non intuitive and not by reason in order for there to be any possibility of the mind processing any kind of sensory input.

Introduction to Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolev a disciple of the Gra: there is a mizvah in learning Mathematics and Physics [all the seven wisdoms.]

 I  believe there is a mizvah in learning Mathematics and Physics. [ AS we can see in the Introduction to Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolev a disciple of the Gra.] Even though I recognize that not all rishonim [mediaeval authorities] agree with this. The most notable is the  Ramban [Nahmanides] who in answer to the debate about the legitimacy of the Rambam wrote a very emotional pleas to the sages in France to defend the Rambam. But in all that powerful deep felt letter there is not a word claiming the Rambam was right. [As David Bronson pointed out to me.] 

Just for some background there were three debates about the Rambam. The first was because of his comments on Pirkei Avot perek 4 on the mishna about not using Torah to make money. The second debate came because of the Guide for the Perplexed. [What was that all about? Well a lot of things. But probably the major issue was the positive approach to Aristotle.] The next one came up during the Renaissance.

I would in fact have preferred to sit and learn Gemara, but for reasons that are unclear to me today I eventually found that impossible and because of circumstances I found myself needing to go to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU to major in Physics. So I depend on the opinions of the Gra, Ibn Pakuda [the author of the Chovot Levavot] and Rambam. 

I should add here that I am really not sure about what the Ramban [Nahmanides] holds exactly. All that is clear is that he was against Aristotle. But as far as the natural sciences go I do not know. 

[And I am wondering if perhaps this makes the most sense--to hold by the natural sciences but to reject philosophy. Maybe that is what the Ramban [Nahmanides] is getting at? For after all he was a doctor who had certainly learned  what the universities were requiring to come a doctor. But openly rejected Aristotle. And In fact Rav Nahman [Breslov] also had said not to learn philosophy. (Sandra Lehman once told me that there is something about philosophy which detracts from common sense.) Yet I have seen that a little bit of philosophy can be highly beneficial--but not too much.]

 z37 B minor

the mother often is intent on getting her children to hate their father.

 Children of this generation have a difficulty in fulfilling the commandment of "Honor thy father and thy mother." The reason is that the mother often is intent on getting her children to hate their father. The The best way to deal with this issue I think is to determine according to objective morality , who is actually good and who is not. [The children are not asking who is without flaws. Rather they ought to ask who is lying. That often is easy to find out. [People that lie about small things will lie about larger things.]] And once they know that bit of information, it is simple to decide which parent to honor and which one to ignore.] 

For women or men with their own sorts of evil inclinations I have a recommendation. Since we all have large evil inclinations that we know are problematic and we really are not sure what to do.  My recommendation is to work on little things that you do know--like not to speak lashon hara [slander] and not to lie. I think if you hold to these two things with exactitude then that will lead many other areas getting straightened out.

Slander is as is well known forbidden to say even for truth. Obviously to lie is much worse. But even to say something true that is negative about someone you need some conditions. To have seen it yourself. To be sure it was wrong according to the Law. To intend some benefit. To rebuke the person privately. To not exaggerate. That no worse thing will be the result that if it was tried in a true court of the Law.

So it always is worthwhile to think about what one's mistakes were.

 In the book Gates of Repentance [by Rabbainu Yona of Grondi] is brought the idea that repentance fixes things in the past. That is to say you might have found yourself in a situation that you realize is a result of past mistakes. So according to Rabainu Yona, if one regrets the past mistakes and accepts on himself now to do better, that reaches back into the past. It makes those mistakes as if they never were. And thus the results of those mistakes disappears. 

So it always is worthwhile to think about what one's mistakes were. This is not a way of getting downtrodden , but rather a way of getting rid of the effects of one's mistakes.

Robert Hanna is right about "Forward to Kant"

 Robert Hanna is right about "Forward to Kant". I mean to say that Analytic School [starting from Frege] while thinking to improve on Kant, really missed the boat. They detracted, not improved. [Of course, it was not just Robert Hanna that noticed this. It started with a fellow by the name of Katz that  I think was the first to see the gigantic holes in the Analytic School.] 

But let's just say we would all go back to Kant. Would that not leave the same problems that existed in the first place that the people after Kant tried to deal with? My feeling about this is one important school is that of Kelley Ross [The Friesian School] who bases his approach on Fries and Leonard Nelson but is  an advance on both. [His advance is think is largely based on Gretta Hermann.]

But on the side of this there is Michael Huemer [based on the Intuitionists--Prichard, Ross]. While based on the Analytic tradition , still it seems impossible to ignore Huemer. 

And further the is still the elephant in the room which is impossible to ignore--Hegel. Though sadlly he does not seem to have any spokesman outside of the turn of the last century McTaggart and Cunningham.

[The Communists certainly love to take stuff and ideas from him to build up their totalitarian societies. But there does not seem to be any real engagement with Hegel per se. [I mean just try to listen to social studies professors that try to defend communisms as the peak of freedom and prosperity. I guess that is easy to do nowadays when the street long lines to buy a loaf of bread in the USSR are all forgotten.And the idea that the USSR stood for freedom beyond absurd.\

Lashon Hara slander

 Robert E Lee said after the war that he could not think of that anyone could have been a  better president of the South than Jefferson Davis. So you see that Robert E Lee was very careful about Lashon Hara. For it could not have gone unnoticed by him that the leadership of the South was disastrous. [Sam Hood made a general? And the fact that Jefferson Davis made a speech in which he laid out the military plans of the South--publicly --and which was published in Northern newspapers. General Sherman could not have been happier.]

So Robert E Lee was aware that Lashon Hara is also on truth. One must not say negative things about anyone unless there are fulfilled seven conditions. One of which is that there must be some benefit in saying so. So General Lee obviously reasoned to himself that if he would have stated his real opinion of Jefferson Davis what possible benefit could anyone gain from that?

A lot of times you hear that people that are religious ask for money because they are learning Torah. This seems odd.

 A lot of times you hear that people that are religious ask for money because  they are learning Torah. This seems odd. One reason is the source the Gra brings to the mishna in Avot "not to make a shovel of Torah to di with"--i.e to gain profit from. The source the Gra brings is from the prohibition of ""meila'. That is using something holy to make money from. For example someone says this ox I am  going to bring as a fire offering. Well the ox then is forbidden in use. So if someone uses it--lets say they plow with it. They transgress this prohibition. This applies in three categories. Presents to the Temple. Animals dedicated as sacrifices. Oaths. [As the law is like R.Meir who says יש מעילה בקונמות.

To use something holy to gain personal benefit or profit is a sin

To use Torah to make money is the same as if one took the ox and plowed with it and say I am not really plowing. I am simply walking with this ox that just happens to have a plow attacked to its back--a dn I am just taking a walk in my field.

[TheRambam brings this same point in Pirkei Avot chapter 4.]

Yet in some circles you hear all the time how their group is good by definition

I think self identity with any group is a sort of idolatry. One is supposed to be a decent human being. That is to follow objective morality. While group identification seems to be very different from this. Every group has good and evil. Yet in some circles you hear all the time how their group is  good by definition. Once I hear such talk, I make my exit as soon as possible. This is because this is highly wrong and immoral.

 I am not saying my previous blog entry is a very complete answer for the Ran. Rav Shach wants to say that there is a way to explain the apparent ] problem in the words of the Ran. [Rabbainu Nisim]. On one hand that "This is forbidden " is forbidden because of an extension of "this is forbidden like a sacrifice" And that does seem impossible because of circular reasoning. "This is forbidden" because of extension [you add the words this is forbidden like a sacrifice. And yet "This is forbidden like a sacrifice" is forbidden because it is part of the law of neder which is simply "This is forbidden"

The answer of רב שך to explain the ר''ן would be to separate the law of extension from the main law. But if this can fit in the ר''ן seems doubtful. {Whether this could fit in the ר''ן or even the רמב''ם does not really seem to work.] However I have reached a state of "fallen mind" and am not really able to spend time learning.--though I should because of the command of the Torah.. Still I mull over this difficulty in the Ran and Rav Shach-hoping for some answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am not saying my previous blog entry is a very complete answer for the ר''ן. The answer of  רה שך is to say that there is a way to explain the apparent ] problem in the words of the ר''ן. On one hand that "This is forbidden " is forbidden because of an extension of "this is forbidden like a קרבן". And that does seem impossible because of circular reasoning. "This is forbidden" because of extension. [You add the words "this is forbidden like a קרבן." And yet,"This is forbidden like a קרבן" is forbidden because it is part of the law of נדרים which is simply "This is forbidden"ץ

התשובה של רב שך להסביר את הר''ן תהיה הפרדת חוק ההרחבה מהחוק העיקרי. אבל אם זה יכול להתאים לר''ן נראה מסופק. האם זה יכול להתאים לר''ן או אפילו לרמב''ם לא באמת נראה שזה עובד.

הלחם הזה אסור לי" לר''ן ורמב''ם הוא נדר העיקרי

  "This loaf is forbidden to me" to the ר''ן and רמב''ם is the main נדר vow. So why אם he says, "This loaf is forbidden to me like נבלה," is permitted? Because when one says, "This is forbidden to me like such and such a thing" the "such and such a thing" has to be something that can be forbidden by a נדר or like someone who says, "This loaf is a מתנה for the בית המקדש". [Things presented to the בית המקדש are forbidden in use.] [This is a special law. For you might ask what is the difference  between "This is forbidden to me" and "This is forbidden to me like נבלה"?] [This is not like the other ראשונים that hold the real נדר is when one says "This is forbidden like a קרבן" and the only reason, "This is forbidden to me" works is as a extension [יד]. However the very well known question on the ר''ן at the very beginning of נדרים מסכת is that at first glance he seems to contradict himself. At first going like the רמב''ם and then going like תוספות on the very same page. רב שך says that for the actual law of נדר is without attaching the prohibition to anything else [as the רמב''ם says] but for the language to make clear what he means [as is necessary for נדרים] he has to say 'like a קרבן. This to me seems like a very good answer to show that the ר''ן does not contradict himself. However the remaining question is that the actual language of the ר''ן does not seem to accept this explanation. What I mean is that the ר''ן  says in מסכת שבועות the reason you need "like a קרבן" is because הקדש עושה חליפין if one says this animal is like that קרבן, that is valid.[זה תמורת זה חל  ] The second animal becomes a קרבן also. This me this seems like a contradiction to the idea of רב שך [in the beginning of הלכות נדרים] [However a further point is that if the main נדר is ''This is אסור לי'' then it is hard to see that the very words ''this is אסור לי'' would be thought not to count as a נדרת, and only valid as a short way of saying ''this is forbidden as a קרבן'' when ''this is forbidden as a קרבן'' is only forbidden because it is thought of as an extension of the main concept of נדר.]  

The way to answer this is thus: There is a difference between the description of something and the thing itself. The נדר itself is valid not because of  התפסה בדבר הנדור. Rather, the oath is valid in itself. But the language has to mean directly that he is forbidding to himself something that is not forbidden. And he can not do that by saying, "This is forbidden to me "because that might as well mean he is saying something not true. It sounds as if he is saying it is already forbidden"

_______________________________________________________________________________

/"הלחם הזה אסור לי" לר''ן ורמב''ם הוא נדר העיקרי. אז למה אם הוא אומר, "הלחם הזה אסור לי כמו נבלה", מותר? כי כשאומרים, "זה אסור לי כמו דבר כזה", "דבר כזה וכזה" חייב להיות משהו שאפשר לאסור אותו על ידי דיבור או כמו מישהו שאומר, "הלחם הזה הוא מתנה בשביל בית המקדש ". [דברים המוצגים לבית המקדש אסורים בשימוש.] [זהו חוק מיוחד. כי אתה עשוי לשאול מה ההבדל בין "זה אסור לי" לבין "זה אסור לי כמו נבלה"?] [זה לא כמו שאר הראשונים האחרים שמחזיקים את הנדר האמיתי הוא כאשר אומרים "זה אסור כמו קרבן ", והסיבה היחידה," זה אסור לי "פועלת כהרחבה [יד]. אולם השאלה הידועה בר''ן בתחילת נדרים היא שבמבט ראשון נראה שהוא סותר את עצמו. בהתחלה הולך כמו הרמב''ם ואחר כך הולך כמו תוספות על אותו דף. רב שך מתרץ את הר''ן כי החוק בפועל של נדר הוא מבלי לצרף את האיסור לשום דבר אחר [כפי שאומר הרמב''ם] אבל כדי שהשפה תבהיר למה הוא מתכוון [כפי שהוא הכרחי עבור נדרים] עליו לומר "כמו קרבן". זה תשובה טובה מאוד להראות שהר''ן אינו סותר את עצמו. אולם השאלה שנותרה היא כי נראה כי השפה בפועל של הר''ן אינה מקבלת הסבר זה כל כך. מה שאני מתכוון הוא שהר''ן אומר במסכת שבועות הסיבה שנדר צריך "כמו קרבן" היא כי הקדש עושה חליפין. [אם אחד אומר שהבהמה הזאת היא תמורת הקרבן הזה, זה תקף. [זה תמורת זה חל].  הבעל חי השני הופך גם לקרבן. זה נראה לי כמו סתירה לרעיון של רב שך [בתחילת הלכות נדרים] [אולם נקודה נוספת היא שאם נדר העיקרי הוא '' זה אסור לי'' אז קשה לראות שעצם מילים '' זה אסור לי '' נחשבות  תקפות רק כדרך קצרה לומר '' זה אסור כקרבן​'', כאשר '' זה אסור כמו קרבן '' הוא אסור רק כי הוא נחשב כהרחבה של הרעיון העיקרי שלנדר.] 

הדרך לענות על כך היא: יש הבדל בין התיאור של משהו לבין הדבר עצמו. הנדר עצמו תקף לא בגלל התפסה בדבר הנדור. אלא הנדר תקף כשלעצמו. אבל השפה צריכה להתכוון ישירות לכך שהוא אוסר לעצמו דבר שאינו אסור. והוא לא יכול לעשות זאת על ידי אמירת "זה אסור לי" כי זה יכול גם להישמע שהוא אומר משהו לא נכון. זה נשמע כאילו הוא אומר שזה כבר אסור

_________________________________________________

/

The person that proved Fermat's last theorem [Wiles] gave a talk [published in Quanta Magazine] in which he claimed everyone can learn Mathematics. The way that I see this as possible is by the path of learning of Rav Nahman by saying the words and going on. [People are accustomed to this in Torah learning where it takes a lot or review until you understand. So people do not usually expect to understand the sugia (subject) at first. They simply say the words, and come back to it. I  understood that the way one gets the idea after lots of review. I see this as applicable in Mathematics also. "Say the words and go on. Even if you do not understand at first , you will eventually understand. And if a few things remain hard to grasp, well so what? for the greatness of lots of learning goes above everything. [Conversations of Rav Nahman paragraph 76.]]

[But why learn Mathematics--you surely will ask. For me the answer is simple. My father encouraged my interests in Mathematics and Physics. So while I did no understand nor understand at present why this is important, I have the obligation of כבוד אב ואם Honor of one's father and mother. And  Confucius said the very fact that you are not walking on the path of your parents means (by the very definition of that term) that you are not honoring you father and mother. [It does not matter if they said to do so.

But for others that have not had parents that encouraged this let me mention some of the Rishonim that held from this. One would be the Gra who said any lack of knowledge in any of the Seven Wisdoms creates a lack of Torah knowledge times 100. [That is the quotation in the Intro to Euclid in Hebrew by a disciple of the Gra.] Other Rishonim would be Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the doctor and the Rambam. 

 z36 E minor  z36 nwc

My parents were definitely for the balanced path of Torah with Derech Eretz [work] They would not have agreed in any sense to anyone using Torah to make money.  And you can see this in the commentary of the Gra on Pirkei Avot where in the mishna in the first chapter which says "not to make Torah into a shovel to dig with" he brings the idea of "Meila"[transgressing] . Meila is when one makes use of a animal that has been dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. For example let's say one has a sheep and he says, "This sheep is for a burnt offering."  At that point the sheep can not be used for anything. But if let's say one does make use of it, that is called "meila" [transgressing--misuse] . This applies also to inanimate objects. Let's says one has a piano and he says, "This piano is for the Temple". There also he can not use it for anything. He has to bring it to the Temple. Then the priests there either use it for the services, or they can sell it. But before that if anyone uses it, that is called "meila." So anything holy, one can not make use of.

So you might ask then what about people that sit and learn Torah? Answer: They can receive charity [to one rishon, the Tashbatz], but they can not makes use of Torah to make money.  So making learning Torah into a 9-5 job is wrong. 

It seems to me that the greatest invention of my father is the one he will never get credit for. [I mean the infrared telescope and super sharp "copymate machine" using x rays at least he got credit for. [The first was owned by the USA  Army. The second he had a patent for. But laser communication seems to me to be the greatest thing of all [that he made at TRW. ]  This is fantastic because it is something like a telephone. There is a current, and superimposed on that current you talk and that makes a signal that can be heard above that current. Or maybe better said- it is like an ocean wave that is large, but has small ripples on top of it. That is the same thing as laser communication. The signal you want to send is superimposed on the laser. This makes a band width that is vastly larger than with radio signals. [And obviously can be sent on much longer distances without worrying about the problem of radio waves that disperse.]

[This laser communication was done the height of the Cold War so that the Russians could not eavesdrop on American communications between satellites. But TRW went under because of the two moles that were discovered there that were selling USA technology to the USSR. So TRW lost all their contracts, and their newest projects were sold to other aerospace companies. So my dad's name [Philip Rosten] was lost in that mix up. But he was in fact the one who made that system.  

You can see the idea of the Gra that lack of knowledge in the Seven Wisdoms causes a decrease in understanding of Torah a hundred fold

 You can see the idea of the Gra that lack of knowledge in the Seven Wisdoms causes a decrease in understanding of Torah a hundred fold. [Seven wisdoms was the Trivium and the Quadrennium.]

But these do include the classification of the Rambam that the categories of the work of Creation and Divine chariot refer to Physics and Metaphysics. [The Rambam says this openly in the introduction to the Guide.]

Most secular subjects are not at all in the categories of positive things but rather mind destroying. So one does need a certain degree of intuition and common sense in deciding into what to devote ones time. Myself I strive for the approach of my parents. Which was in action highly secular but they still had a sense of the need of balance between Torah and derech ertez [the way of the Earth.] So in my approach I went more into the Torah aspect. But still I realize the need for this kind of balance. 

 Columbus on his calendar discovered  America on October 12. But if you go by the fact that the USA is behind Europe time, it was on Oct 11. It is a different time zone. Columbus's clock was on Spain time.

[Or perhaps you could argue that no one in America was adjusting their clocks to local time!] 

 The  problem with with religious fanaticism is that they always think they know more than what they know. The baali teshuva  [newly religious]without having gone through Shas already  think they can tell us what the Torah is all about because of their impression that they as already experts in Torah,. This is in start contrast to the world of university where is one thinks he is already a doctors because of his "vast knowledge "is not helpful in actually becoming a doctor.

The "baali teshuva" are the destroyers of the world of Torah because they  think they already know Torah.  {Though they skipped the verse about listening to one's parents.]  If they had really been expert in Torah they might have noticed that verse.

[And they already try and in fact get certificates of ordination to get to to tell us what Torah  all about Torah.-- the religious leaders are in fact baali teshuva that actually have no knowledge of Torah. They give certificates of ordination one to the other. One idiot to the other.  If someone has not learned in the Mir or Brisk, then what they say about Torah is self delusion.] 

the commandment to listen to one's parents except when they are obviously saying something that goes not in accord with Torah.

 In what Rav Nahman calls hisbodadut [private talking with God in one's own language] it is helpful to go ovr one's own past to get some orientation about where one went wrong.  Over the course of time one can begin to see where things really went wrong. So you are no longer confined to deciding what your sins are based on books but rather actual experience. If you can tell where things started to go wrong, then you can reach some conclusion what was your actual sin. In this way you get beyond guess work about what perhaps you did wrong to actual knowledge. [An obvious choice could be the commandment to listen to one's parents except when they are obviously saying something that goes not in accord with Torah. Still in general one parents provides the best guidance  to what one ought to be doing]

 In the LeM of Rav Nachman [of Breslov] Vol I. chapter 22 is brought the idea that when the sound of holiness sounds further. against it is automatically the sounds of the Dark Side also come forth. From this you see why when you try especially hard in the service of God, you always find the Dark Side comes back at you especially strongly. From this I have found it better to take a lower profile.

[When learning Torah or doing some public service, it is always better to be as discreet as possible. However still when one learns Torah, at least one must says the words--at least as a whisper. Otherwise one does not fulfill the commandment to learn Torah. [And in fact saying the words helps in understanding as the sages say in Avot rather that read the Torah is a tree of life for those that find it read it is a tree of like for those that say the words [at least as a whisper] עץ חיים היא למוצאיהם אל תקרא למוצאיהם אלא למוציאיהם

 "This loaf is forbidden to me" to the Ran and Rambam is the main neder vow. So why is he says, "This loaf is forbidden to me like meat that was not slaughtered properly [nevala]," is permitted? Because when one says, "This is forbidden to me like such and such a thing" the "such and such a thing" has to be something that can be forbidden by a neder [vow] or like someone who says, "This loaf is a present for the temple" [things presented to the temple are forbidden in use.] [This is a special law. For you might ask what is the difference  between "This is forbidden to me" and "This is forbidden to me like nevala"?] [This is not like the other Rishonim that hold the real neder vow is when one says "This is forbidden like a sacrifice to the temple" and the only reason "This is forbidden to me" works is as a extension [yad]]

However the very well known question on the Ran at the very beginning of tractate Nederim is that at first glance he seems to contradict himself. At first going like the Rambam and then going like Tosphot on the very same page.

Rav Shach says that for the actual law of neder is without attaching the prohibition to anything else [as the Rambam says] but for the language to make clear what he means [as is necessary for nederim] he has to say 'like a sacrifice. 

This to me seems like a very good answer to show that the Ran does not contradict himself. However the remaining question is that the actual language of the Ran does not seem to accept this explanation. 

What I means is that the Ran [Rabbainu Nissim] says in tractate shavut the reason you need "like a sacrifice" is because הקדש עושה חליפין if one says this animal is like that sacrifice, that is valid. The second animal becomes a sacrifice also. 

This me this seems like a contradiction to the idea of Rav Shach [in the beginning of Laws of Vows] 

[However a further point is that if the main neder is ''This is forbidden'' then it is hard to see that the very words ''this is forbidden'' would be thought not to count as a neder--and only valid as a short way of saying ''this is forbidden as a sacrifice'' when ''this is forbidden as a sacrifice'' is only forbidden because it is thought of as an extension of the main concept of neder. ]

 However one can answer this thus: in the way that Rav Shach explains the Rambam. I.e., that This is forbidden as a karban sacrifice is not valid as an extension of This is forbidden. Rather it is its own separate law. So This is forbidden is the main prohibition but still the language has to serve as  a meaningful way of saying you are forbidding something to yourself or to another, Not as saying that is is already forbidden before you make that statement. And that would in fact be meaningless.

z37 music file

 z37 B minor

I have not been able to figure out why the religious world thinks we second class citizens ought to support them for their self proclaimed holiness. If they find a young native kid with rich American parents, they pull out all he stops to show how loving they are.

 I have not been able to figure out why the religious world thinks we second class citizens ought to support them for their self proclaimed holiness. If they find a young native kid with rich American parents, they pull out all he stops to show how loving they are. [Love bombing ] . Until the time comes when he needs a favor. Not a large favor. Perhaps a simple word of support to his wife. Then all of a sudden they do not know him. They are these great astronauts.

The religious proclaim the value of kindness when they need it from secular Jews. When it is asked from them they suddenly become holy saints that can not be bothered by such trivialities.

[This of course is not meant to include the great Litvak yeshivot that in fact learn Torah for its own sake.]]

The religious world thinks that their keeping a few public rituals makes them defined as keeping Torah. Whatever the religious do is not not Torah.

 The best approach to service of God as far as I can tell is the straight Litvak approach of learning Torah. Of course if one looks at the statements of the Chazal [sages] about this this is in fact what they say. [As brought in the mishna in Peah and the Yerushalmi there that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments combined. But also one can see the "image of God" in people that learn Torah for its own sake all day. It is clear there is a world of difference between those that learn Torah as opposed to the phony and plastic religious world.

z34 music file

 z34 C Minor

 z33 D minor midi  z33 nwc

Public law is very important, still it is very different from Torah.

Even though Torah involves laws that are for the public domain , it is mainly oriented towards personal morality. [And it is well known in Moral Philosophy that there is a very large difference between personal morality and public. I can not think of an example this minute since my thoughts are going in a different direction. (note 1)] So while public law is very important, still it is very different from Torah. (note 3) A good example in Henry II. His job after becoming king was to bring stability and peace to England after decades of chaos and anarchy. So he unified the laws. No more was each county going to have a different set. There was to be one set for all England.  And circuit judges just as is done today in the USA. And trial by jury, not by physical combat.[כל דאלים גבר]. But on the other side of things, Torah is personal. even though many of the laws are in the public domain , but the center of gravity is the relationship between the individual and God.

So in Torah it matters not what goes on in the public domain. I might be living in a city that is an עיר הנדחית [a city that has gone astray after idolatry]. That does not absolve me of responsivity to Torah. Just think about Eliyahu the prophet and Elisha his disciple that lived in the Shomron area. [The center of Israel, not the Jerusalem area.] Though the state was officially serving idols, they certainly refused. 

[The Northern kingdom of the ten tribes was officially serving the idols that had been set up by Yeravam ben Navat. So you can have Jewish idols. The fact that everyone is serving them does not make it okay. So I suggest that the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication is still valid, even if everyone refuses to pay any attention. (note 2) And this is easy to see as you can find a simple and understandable definition of idolatry in the commentary of the Rambam on Sanhedrin perek Helek. Worship of anything in heaven and earth except for God is idolatry. Not just physical statues.]

      

note 1. Here is a text from the Ethics textbook  of Stephen O Sullivan and Philip A. Pecorino  2002. [published by CUNY]  Here are some examples of actions that are illegal but are thought to be moral (for many)! 

Drinking under age.

Driving over the speed limit on a desert highway with no cars or people anywhere around.

Smoking marijuana.

================================================= 

People do not think of themselves or of others as being immoral for breaking these laws.

=================================================

Here are some examples of actions that are immoral (for many) but are not illegal. 

Breaking a promise to a friend.

 People can not be arrested or punished with imprisonment or fines for doing these things.

(note 2) The validity of a "herem" [excommunication] is from the laws of nedarim [vows]. [This I noticed in a commentary on the Rambam on the bottom of the page.]  What is a vow? It is when one says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to you like a sacrifice." If he owns that loaf, then that loaf becomes forbidden to the person he is talking to. Similarly a herem is valid, as long as the person making it is qualified.] Why does he say like a sacrifice. It is commonly accepted that this is a argument between the Rambam and Tosphot. However Rav Shach points out that just saying "this loaf is forbidden to me" instead of being a way of making avow by its simple meaning would simply be an untruth! 

\

(note 3) Peace of the state is one reason for many commandments, but that is not the central source of authority of Torah

the religious talk a good talk. All lovey dovey--especially when they think or know you are a naïve American with rich parents.

 People that parade their religiosity are not religious. This you know from the verse מה השם אלוהיך שואל ממך כי אם והצנע לכת עם אלוהיך What does the Lord your God ask from you but to do kindness and judgment and to walk modestly with the Lord your God. No matter how you want to interpret this verse, advertising how religious you are to get peoples donations and trust does not come under the heading of "walking modestly with God."

But even more compelling to me is that the religious talk a good talk. All lovey dovey--especially when they think or know you are a naïve American with rich parents. But when it comes to actual actions of sincere kindness, the religious have to take a back seat. They will do almost anything to get out of helping anyone in need except themselves. And to me this seems like a serious flaw in their character. And that is especially noticeable when you learn in Torah that the primary action that is needed is good character. Not religious rituals or identification with the religious. [See any of the Rishonim for verification on this point which should not need emphasis. No where in in the Torah or Gemara or Rishonim do you find any value attributed to identification, rather with objective right and wrong. So the wearing of the kipa as the first obligation is clearly a show of values quite opposed to Torah. The religious excel in bragging how kind they are. My experience shows the opposite to be the case. And woe to the person that thinks he can depend on them in time of need. [While to show off how wonderful they are is their main goal. And who falls for this? people of the same character. So there really is littlee reason to have sympathy. Those that are fooled are the same people that have a similar sort of wish to show off how wonderful they are.

 Hennry I had a daughter Matilda who he named as the next ruler of England. But the crown was seized by Stephen her cousin. She fought to keep the crown. One day her son Henry II came of age and continued the fight. He came to relive the forces of Matilda at a castle. When the forces of Stephen and Henny II met they decided not to fight. [That is to say their commanders decided not to have this civil war any longer.] So Stephen and Henry had to meet and talk it over. The decision: Stephen would remain king and after him Henry would be the rightful king of England.

 I have wondered for months what would have happened if in the American Civil War both sides had simply decided not to kill each other? [Maybe there are wars that must be fought. But doubtful wars -like the Civil War seem to me to have been better not to have been fought.]

[good character]

 People that are religious seem to think that they are morally superior to secular Jews. Though I do not know people inner thoughts or motivations, still this seems apparent in their speech and actions. [And experience generally show the opposite.] If you need a kindness, the last person  that will help is religious. Thus to me, it seems the  message of Torah of the prime importance midot tovot [good character] is lost. For me it reached  the point that  what ever damage the religious could do to me, they would do. [These same people asked me to get money for them from John Factor my neighbor because these people were supposedly learning Torah not for money--while asking me to get money from my neighbor John Factor for millions of dollars. Clearly they [and all the religious world ] want money, and especially for the fact of their learning Torah not for money. The hypocrisy shouts out to the heavens.]

Rav Israel Salanter tried to correct this fault, but I have not seen that people that learn Musar are all that more decent than anyone else.

But this is not possible to see or know by learning.  In the religious world all the words are right. But the actual acts of kindness are lacking. [Except to themselves]. It is only the shock of reality, of how people actually act that shoes the religious illusions of  moral superiority to be lacking in all substance.

What the lesson is this. There is something about the religious world that is off kilter. [Seethe LeM of Rav Nahman vol II chapter 8  That even the kindness of the religious  is really cruelty. It is the same kindness of the fisherman that gives a worm on his hook free of  charge to the fish. It is not really from the motivation of kindness that teh fisherman gibes a worm to the fish  but rather to catch it in his hook.  The kindness if of the religious is really cruelty as Rav Nahman puts it in the LeM vol II chapter 8.

outside wisdoms"

 The translation of Euclid [a small part of the actual massive volumes of Euclid] by a disciple of the Gra brings in the introduction that the Gra said "One will lack in understanding and knowledge  of Torah a hundred times in proportion to one lack of knowledge in the seven widoms."

And this is the common opinion among the rishonim that built on Saadia Gaon.  [like the Chovot Levavot.] However there are other rishonim and even geonim that disagree with this.

I take the first approach to be best, but I also recognize the validity and value of the second approach.

Right after writing the above I went over to the Breslov place  and listened to someone reading the books of Rav Nathan [a disciple of Rav Nahman] on  the subject of "outside wisdoms" he disparages those that learn or teach them. But that while going with Rav Hai Gaon and some rishonim like the Ramban that goes with that approach, I still prefer the Saadia Gaon, Chovot Levavot, Rambam approach, which is exactly opposite. 

To my way of thinking it all depends on what one is learning. If we are talking about the social studies departments of universities, well Rav Nathan was 100% correct.  [As Allan Bloom goes into great depth in his Closing of the American Mind]. But if we we would be talking about STEM fields then clearly Saadia gaon and the Hovot Levavot are correct.

 People in the USSR at the end did not want to USSR to continue. However what they got after that was generally not to their liking either. When I would ask people [often the women selling their products at the local bazar how were things during the time of the USSR, they would always answer the same thing: "Better than now." And sometimes they would elaborate: "Everyone was working." Or sometimes even more extensive elaborations. What I generally take that to mean is that you have to take things in perspective. To try and make the USA into a socialist state is to try and take it down. But to compare the USSR to the kinds of chaos that things sank to after the fall of the USSR --well obviously the USSR was better.

To accept things the way they are is a important trait.

 i was thinking about the advantages of having one's own space. But also thinking that the best idea is to accept things the way they are.as long as these things at least least to tolerable and lovable in some degree. To accept things the way they are is a important trait. There can be a point where one must act but it is best not to hurry that point along.

my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot.

The Litvak yeshiva world. True that it is the prime example of loyalty to Torah. Especially the verse "Do not add nor subtract." 

However my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot. Not that I disparage those that learn Torah all the time. Still I try to walk on this sort of middle path. [All of one's complaints about the straight Litvak world can be balanced by the fact that whatever actions taken against you can be balanced by your own faults that led at it least in half to that very situation.] Besides that see the story of Rav Nahman [the first]about the giants and the mishne lemelech second in authority to the king. the giants that were obstacles in the end turned out to be the very thing needed.

 

It is a subject mentioned in the Mishna, and Gemara itself. Torah with Derech Eretz in one mishna. And there is removed the yoke of derech eretz from all who receive on themselves the yoke of Torah.

I can not really say one or the other is right. It seems to depend on one's root soul

.

[I do however say that that the area of dinge an sich is inherently contradictory as Kant said. So simply going by reason and deciding things based on texts alone is inherently wrong. Rather the basis of Torah is objective morality. So the right path is not the issue. The real issue is how to be a mensch. how to come to the right moral decisions. That is objective morality.

Musar [books on ethics]

 You see in Musar [books on ethics] an emphasis on correction of character traits. The reason I think is this. One might be aware of his own sins and try to correct them. But that leaves the root of the sin not fixed --the kind of fault that led to the sin. And also sins can be hard to identify, and sometimes even if one is aware of them, they might contradict each other. That is the very nature of the spirituality--It does not lend itself well being reasoned about. Thus it is best to work on one's character and by that uproot the source of ones faults. 

I have tried to identify my sins by mean of experience. That is: to see what actions caused problems. This is often easy because one can see immediate results. Other times the results of certain actions can be a long time coming. But in any case, this is better than reasoning from books, for the mind is often highly misleading. One can find anything he wants in any books. This is unreliable.  

 I am not saying what kind of path one ought to take. My father as you can see was more along the lines of what you could call secular, while I went to Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY. So what seems best to me is along the lines of Dr Kelley Ross's modification of the Kant Fries school where he shows an array of values. That is to say: I think every person is or can be connected to a certain area of value. Clearly that area is what ought to spend his or her time perfecting. [I do not think Mozart ought to have tried to become a Physicist. Nor do I think he would have been a great one even if he had. Rather he found or was guided by his dad into the area of value that was right for him.]

However I also think every area of value has an opposite area that  one can get pulled into if he or she is not careful. E.g., one who has talent in music must be careful not to be pulled into anti-music.  

[{Also, I think one ought to be balanced. Even if one concentrates on one area, he should also have some balanced with the other areas of positive value.]

why my dad {Philip Rosten} doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. It is that the company TRW became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. S

 I just wanted to make clear why my dad {Philip Rosten}doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. The reason is not due to anyone's malice. It is simply that the company TRW more or less became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. So what ever  was developed at TRW was simply sold to the other aerospace companies [like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. ]. And that is the cause that the paper records of who developed the technology was lost.

[No one foresaw that TRW would eventually be rehabilitated and get back into the action in the 1990's] 

Nedarim 91

 I was hoping to have an answer for this question before I write it down. But so far nothing has occurred to me. So I might as well write it and hope that someday I might merit to some answer.

Simply put it is this. There is an argument between the Raavad and the Rambam concerning the case where a woman says to her husband "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the Raavad this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the Rambam, she can go and get married  and gets her ketubah. Rav Shach [Laws of marriage 16:26] brings the source of the Raavad. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the Rambam.

The source is Nedarim 91. The mishna says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her ketubah. One is a woman that says "I am forbidden to you." Then the sages changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. Rav Hamenuna said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed.

The parallel to the case of the mishna   to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her ketubah.

However Rav Shach I think is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the Raavad.

I mean to say that Rav Hamenuna's case is different anyway from the mishna--even the first mishna [before the sages changed their mind.] In the mishna we force him to divorce her. In the case of Rav Hamenuna we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the mishna a woman who is the wife of a priest that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband. She is forbidden to him. And since the rape was against her will, she gets her ketubah. The parallel of Rav hamenunah is when she says you divorc]ed me is not exact. To the Rambam She is believed and gets her ketubah. To the Raavad she does not. The aspect where the Rambam makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the Raavad is that she gets the ketubah because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם concerning the case where a woman says to her husband, "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the ראב''ד this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the רמב''ם, she can go and get married  and gets her כתובה. And רב שך in בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה  כ''ו  brings the source of the ראב''ד. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the  רמב''ם. The source is נדרים צ''א. The משנה says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her כתובה. One is a woman that says, "I am forbidden to you." Then the חכמים changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. רב המנונא said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed. The parallel to the case of the משנה  to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her כתובה. However רב שך is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the ראב''ד. I mean to say that רב המנונא case is different anyway from the משנה, even the first משנה [before the חכמים changed their mind.] In the משנה we force him to divorce her. In the case of רב המנונא we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the משנה a woman who is the wife of a כהן that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband.  And since the rape was against her will, she gets her כתובה. The parallel of רב המנונא is when she says you גירשת אותי is not exact. To the רמב''ם She is believed and gets her כתובה. To the ראב''ד she does not. The aspect where the רמב''ם makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the ראב''ד is that she gets the כתובה because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם בנוגע למקרה שבו אישה אומרת לבעלה "גרשתני". מאמינים לה. לראב''ד זה אומר רק שאם היא מתחתנת עם מישהו אחר, היא יכולה להישאר שם. לרמב''ם, היא יכולה ללכת להתחתן ולהשיג את הכתובה שלה. ורב שך בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה כ''ו מביא את מקור הרב''ד. השאלה שלי היא שמקור זה נראה יותר לצד הרמב''ם. המקור הוא נדרים צ''א. המשנה אומרת בהתחלה היו שלושה מקרים בהם אישה יוצאת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. אחת מהן היא אישה שאומרת: "אסור לי עליך". ואז החכמים שינו את דעתם ואמרו שאולי היא שמה עיניים למישהו אחר. רב המנונא אמר כי עם זאת מאמינים באישה שאומרת "התגרשתי ממך". נראה שההקבלה למקרה של המשנה מרמזת כשהיא אומרת ש"התגרשתי ממך", מותר לה להינשא מחדש ולקבל את הכתובה שלה. עם זאת רב שך מציין כאן שבמקרה של "התגרשתי ממך", אנו לא גורמים לו לתת גט נוסף. אנחנו פשוט מאמינים לה. אז זוהי במובן הזה הוכחה לראב''ד. אני מתכוון לומר שמקרה של רב המנונא בכל מקרה שונה מהמשנה, אפילו המשנה הראשונה [לפני שחכמים שינו את דעתם.] במשנה אנו מכריחים אותו לגרש אותה. במקרה של הרב המנונא אנחנו פשוט מאמינים שהיא גרושה

העניין הוא שלמשנה אישה שהיא אשתו של כהן שנאנסה חייבת להתגרש מכיוון שהיא אסורה לבעלה. ומכיוון שהאונס היה בניגוד לרצונה, היא מקבלת את הכתובה שלה. ההקבלה של הרב המנונא היא כשהיא אומרת שאתה גירשת אותי לא מדויק. לרמב''ם היא נאמנת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. לראב''ד היא לא. ההיבט שבו הרמב''ם הגיוני הוא לעניין קבלת הכתובה. הנקודה של הראב''ד היא שהיא מקבלת את הכתובה במשנה כי היא נאנסה ולכן לא עשתה שום דבר רע. אין לזה מקבילה למקרה שלנו כשהיא אומרת שגרשתני

Rav Nahman has this great idea of talking with God as one talks with a good friend. But to him it was not a casual conversation. For example he would go out in the morning to some secluded spot in the forest and spend the whole day asking God to come close to His service. And I took this idea to heart when I first arrived in Safed. [This did not last long--but the basic idea has remained with me about the importance of this sort of conversation with God.] But I also realize it has to flow out of some deep level under the layer of normal consciousness.

[That is there is some surface level of consciousness. That is the stream of thoughts. Then there is the level under that--the one doing the  thinking. Then under that there is some level that is even hidden from that level. This is commonly called the subconscious--discovered by Leibnitz. [Attributing to him by Nietzsche.] 

Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,

 I think China lost world respect by means of its actions in Hong Kong.  Or put more clearly,- it lost its ability to make friends. It has lots economic power, but not friends. I mean just think about how many friends has in South East Asia?  On the other hand, think about friends of the USA. Especially in that region. Australia and Japan and Taiwan. But in terms of just the simple fact of how many the sorts of liberal democracies are  allies of the USA. So the fact that everyone saw what was done to Hong Kong, how many Western democracies would help China in any future conflicts?

This could be corrected by keeping their word as to respecting the rights of Hong Kong as they promised when Britain gave them control.

[Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,,,   as you can see in the history of the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens. It is not a matter of how many pencils China can produce. It is a matter of how may people have confidence in their word of honor. If they do not tell the truth, then the pencils do not matter.