Because the Torah says so

Thee are eleven ingredients of the incense in the holy Temple. The teaching that lists them mentions at the end that if they would had added a drop of honey, no one could resist [it would be so inspiring]. So why did they not add any honey?  כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו No leaven nor any honey shalt you offer to the Lord your God.

This explains the simple path of the Gra. The Litvak yeshivot do not add nor subtract from the Torah because the Torah says so.  [And in fact that is actually a verse in Deuteronomy: Thou shalt not add nor subtract from the Law.]

Two Treaties of Government

To understand the situation in the USA I think the best idea is to learn the Two Treaties of Government of John Locke plus the Declaration of Independence. There you see even though the USA is a republic  (not direct democracy), still it is based on fair elections. Since there was doubt about the validity of the count of the Dominion machines, the election should not have been certified.

[The Two Treaties is all about: when is it moral to rebel against the government?]

Just to be clear: I hold from the Two Treaties and the Constitution of the USA because they are the best in coming to peace of the state which is one f the major goals of Torah. On a small scale a Litvak yeshiva tends to be the best in creating a decent group based on objective morality. But on a larger scale the model based on the American Constitution brings the best results of creating a just society. --I mean to say that how to create such a thig has been a subject of debate ever since Plato wrote the Republic. But his answers seem lacking. Nor do any intellectual answers since then get any better results. The odd fact is the model based on Medieval England (Parliament, the Magna Carta, etc which got translated into the American system  get the best results in terms of a just society.) Kings on occasion were okay but often they were not.

universities ought to simply become technical schools.

 In the time of Kant many thought that the universities ought to simply become technical schools. (What is called today: "STEM fields".) But the "liberal arts" won and so we have the social studies and humanities parts of the university.

{I mean to say that the theological aspect of the universities was already on its way out. So the question arose what should be the nature of the university?}

However I think the original idea was best --of just having universities being technical schools. The liberal arts departments are of negative value.

But not everything in university ought to be for the sake of making a living. So while the socialist departments ought to be disbanded, not everything else should be for making a living. Rather I see certain things in STEM as having ontological value in themselves [like Mathematics and Physics.]

{You see this in Rishonim mediaeval authorities. But how far does this go? [To consider some "secular subjects" has having value to learn just for their own sake?] 

two important lessons to learn from Robert E Lee. Lee was always strongest when he was considered weak.

I noticed that there are two important lessons to learn from Robert E Lee. One of the most astounding facts about him is that he was more dangerous in retreat than in offensive attack. You learn this from the Antietam battle with General McClellan.  G. McClellan was dismissed by Lincoln because of his perceived mistake of not following Lee in his retreat back to Virginia across the Potomac.  I do not know from where Lincoln was getting his information from because in fact McClellan did pursue Lee! At the river crossing where Lee was retreating, there was an eye witness from a Northern newspaper that wrote that when McClellan tried to attack Lee (in this retreat), the air was filled with bullets as thick as rain attacking McClellan.

The other very important fact about Lee is defense. He created a system of breastworks [makeshift fences] after the battle of Mine Run.  The Northern general looked and looked for the slightest opening and found nothing and so retreated. Later Lee was do the same with Grant. [The northern general at that time made his own instant retreat at night knowing that Lee would immediately in the morning pursue him.]

So you see Lee was always strongest when he was considered weak.

z73 music file

 

 The issue of my core belief system came up today and I wanted to mention that the way I see Torah is that what matters is "to be a mensch" midot tovot. Everything else is secondary. So I really do not care much how one comes to good midot.  This idea is based to some degree on the books of Musar [mediaeval books about morality] but also on the Gemara itself that says the commandments do have known reasons. But the Gemara does not give them. The later rishonim give the reasons for the commandments and they are in short--to be a mensch. But to be a mensch of course means a lot more than being a decent human being. So one does have to learn the basic core books of Musar to understand what being a mensch means.

Being a mensch should be common sense, but I guess that is no longer common.  

כתובות דף י''ט. רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ב' הלכה ו' Ketuboth 19 Rambam 2:6

כתובות דף י''ט  

לוי borrows from ראובן and ראובן borrows from שמעון. Comes time of payment and ראובן has no money. You take from לוי and give to שמעון. If both לוי and ראובן say the loan was paid you pay no attention to them since they might be conspiring against שמעון. The ר''ן asks: Why not collect the document  שטר of the loan from ראובן and give it to שמעון? He answers because the document itself is not money.  I was wandering around at the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a very good reason not to collect the document of the loan from ראובן and give it to שמעון as the ר''ן asks. If שמעון would have the שטר then he could collect the משועבדים the property that לוי sold after  he borrowed money  from ראובן. So why does the ר''ן not answer this answer which seems like a better answer?

[Just to make this clear: Just think about it. Giving the document to שמעון would make it seem that the original loan was from לוי to שמעון. And thus all of לוי's property would be obligated in that loan. But that is way too much. The only thing that ר' נתן says in כתובות י''ט  is that if ראובן has no property we take from לוי and give to שמעון, not even property that לוי sold. And even more so. If שמעון could גובה from  property that לוי sold, you would have an infinite regress. No one would buy anything. So on one hand giving the document to שמעון does not give to שמעון any more power than ראובן had. But still שמעון might at some future date borrow from someone else and also have no money to pay back the loan, and so on and so forth forever. The property of לוי would never be safe.

Ketuboth page 19. Rambam Laws of  Loans. 2:6 

Levi borrow from Reuven and Reuven borrows from Shimon. Comes time of payment and Reuven has no money. You take from Levi and give to Shimon. If both Levi and Reuven say the loan was paid you pay no attention to them since they might be conspiring against Shimon.

The Ran asks why not collect the document of the loan from Reuven and give it to Shimon. He answers because the document itself is not money.   

 I was wandering around at the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a very good reason not to collect the document of a loan from Reuven and give it to Shimon as the Ran asks. If Shimon would have the document then he could collect the Meshuabadim --the property that Levi sold after he borrowed money  from Reuven. So why does the Ran not answer this answer which seems like a better answer?

[Just to make this clear: Just think about it. Giving the document to Shimon would make it seem that the original loan was from Levi to Shimon. And thus all of Levi's property would be obligated in that loan. But that is way too much. The only thing that R. Natan says in Ketuboth 19 is that if Reuven has no property we take from Levi and give to Shimon, not even property that Levi sold. And even more so. If Shimon could collect from even property that Levi sold you would have an infinite regress. No one would buy anything. So on one hand giving the document to Shimon does not give to Shimon any more power than Reuven had. But still Shimon might at some future date borrow from someone else and also have no money to pay back the loan, and so on and so forth forever. The property of Levi would never be safe.

כתובות דף י''ט

לוי לווה מראובן וראובן לווה משמעון. מגיע זמן התשלום ולראובן אין כסף. אתה לוקח מלוי ונותן לשמעון. אם גם לוי וגם ראובן אומרים שההלוואה שולמה, אתה לא שם לב אליהם מכיוון שהם עלולים ליצור קשר נגד שמעון. שואל הר''ן: למה לא לגבות את מסמך שטר ההלוואה מראובן ולתת אותו לשמעון? הוא עונה כי המסמך עצמו אינו כסף. (שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא). הסתובבתי על שפת הים ועלה בדעתי שיש סיבה טובה מאוד לא לאסוף (לגבות) את מסמך ההלוואה מראובן ולתת אותו לשמעון כפי שהר''ן מבקש. אם לשמעון היה את השטר, אז הוא היה יכול לאסוף את המשועבדים (את הרכוש שמכר לוי לאחר שהוא לווה כסף מראובן). אז למה הר''ן לא עונה על התשובה הזו שנראית כמו תשובה טובה יותר

רק כדי להבהיר את זה: רק תחשוב על זה. מתן המסמך לשמעון יראה שההלוואה המקורית תהיה מלוי לשמעון. ולפיכך יתחייבו כל רכושו של לוי באותה הלוואה. אבל זה יותר מדי. הדבר היחיד שאומר ר' נתן בכתובות י''ט הוא שאם לראובן אין רכוש, אנחנו לוקחים מלוי ונותנים לשמעון, לא רכוש שמכר לוי. ועוד יותר מכך. אם שמעון היה יכול לגבות מנכס שלוי מכר, הייתה לך נסיגה אינסופית. אף אחד לא היה קונה כלום. אז מצד אחד מתן המסמך לשמעון לא נותן לשמעון יותר כוח ממה שהיה לראובן. אבל בכל זאת שמעון עלול באיזשהו תאריך עתידי ללוות ממישהו אחר וגם לא יהיה לו כסף להחזיר את ההלוואה, וכן הלאה וכן הלאה לנצח. רכושו של לוי לעולם לא יהיה בטוח.

 

Rittenhouse trial: Key state witness admits he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

 KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- The sixth day of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial shifted focus from the first shooting to the second and third. Witnesses recalled the moments when Anthony Huber was shot in the chest and killed, and Gaige Grosskreutz testified about being shot in the arm and surviving. Grosskreutz was the most anticipated witness called to the stand so far.

The state tried to show Grosskreutz was not a threat and even had his hands up when he approached Rittenhouse in the street. But the defense got Grosskreutz to admit he had a loaded gun in his hand, and that Rittenhouse did not shoot him until Grosskreutz lowered his hands and pointed that gun at him.

Eyewitness video from the scene shows as more people approached Rittenhouse, he was knocked to the ground. Grosskreutz was roughly five feet away, with his Glock pistol in his right hand and his cellphone in his left hand. At first, his hands were raised.

Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked him on the stand, "What was going through your mind at this particular moment?" Grosskreutz replied, "That I was going to die."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

knowing what is an "extra" as opposed to what is essential [really obligated].

There is nothing wrong with trying to be as strict as possible in keeping the holy Torah. The issue is that without having gone through Shas at least once, one does not have any means of knowing what is an "extra" as opposed to what is essential [really obligated]. While at the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY this distinction did not make much difference to me because I was trying in fact to keep everything, including when there are differences of opinion I would go after the stricter opinion. This is a great thing to do.

However after I got to Israel and was learning the Le.M of Rav Nahman, I noted that he mentioned II:44 and II:86 that to serve God, one does not need any extra restrictions. And later when my world started crumbling around me (note 1), I found this distinction to be of great importance--i.e., to know what is really obligated and what is just an extra.

[I would think this to be obvious, but a few days ago I was talking with a friend on the street and this issue came up. After all I had suggested to him the importance of learning Torah, and so he now goes often to a place where there people are in fact very focused on learning Torah. But he also noticed this same aspect of things: to strive to be extra strict. So he was wondering why and in what ways is my path different, even though I am in total agreement with the importance of learning Torah and striving to keep every detail to the last atom and molecule. 

[But to know what the Torah really requires, it is also mostly enough to learn the Mishna with the Rav of Bartenura who explains things well and also gives the actual way the law is decided. After doing that a few times, then to get through Shas.]  

(note 1) It is hard to keep everything when you have no place to sleep. No place to learn. All your "friends turn out to be fair weather friends.

Ketuboth page19.כתובות דף י''ט Rav Shach brings this subject in Laws of Loans perek 2 halacha 6.

 I have been thinking about a גמרא brought in כתובות דף י''ט. There ר' נתן said if you have a case where לוי owes ראובן 100 and ראובן owes שמעון 100, you take from לוי and give to שמעון. If ראובן has a document showing that לוי owes him and לוי says it is paid already and ראובן agrees, we pay no attention to them since they might have conspired. What has been bothering me about this is that the property of לוי is anyway going to ראובן and from there to שמעון. So mainly what IS going on is the middle step. But then even more so you have the ר''ן there that asks  this: Why not just collect the document from ראובן. And he answers שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון.  Documents can not be taken as payment for a loan because they are not money in themselves. The general case when someone does not pay back a loan, the court can go and get land or movable property. What was bothering me was this question and answer of the ר''ן [רבינו ניסים]. Not that I have an actual question, just a sort of question in which I am wondering what is going on? Apparently in the first case we already know that לוי owes money to ראובן. So how do we know that? By the document! So what is collecting the document going to add anything to the situation? How would it help שמעון any more than we already are helping him recover the debt?

The ר''ן here asks why not collect the document showing that לוי owes money to ראובן. I wondered why this would make any difference if we already know that he owes money. Answer: because a loan with a document is more powerful than a loan without. It gets from property that was sold after the loan was made. 

The thing that makes the question of the Ran powerful is that if you have a case of a loan which is verbal, not with a document, the lender is believed if he says I paid it.  However I should add that this is not the normal case of a verbal loan since here the lender would not be believed because of the possibility that he is conspiring with the middle borrower to cheat Shimon.   

I have thought of a way of explaining the power of the question of the ר''ן.  It seems like this: The middle person, ראובן, has a document that לוי owes him money. And שמעון has a document showing that ראובן owes him money. But  ראובן has no money, nor any property that he sold after he borrowed.  But he has a document showing that Levi owes him money. So none of the property of לוי would come to  ראובן directly if not for the law of ר' נתן in כתובות י''ט. The point of the ר''ן is that perhaps the document of  ראובן ought to be given to שמעון in which case he would have a stronger claim on לוי. As it is is now, if לוי says the document has been paid and  ראובן agrees, we do not believe them because of a doubt. Maybe they are conspiring against שמעון. But if שמעון would have the document itself  that shows לוי owes him  money then from the basic law of loans לוי would not be believed because in the case of a loan with a document, the plea "I paid already" is not believed. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 I have been thinking about a gemara brought in Ketuboth page19. There R. Natan said if you have a case where Levi owes Reuben 100 and Reuben owes Simon 100, you take from Levi and give to Simon. If Reuben has a document showing that Levi owes him and Levi says it is paid already and Reuben agrees, we pay no attention to them since they might have conspired. What has been bothering me about this is that the property of Levi is anyway going to Reuben and from there to Simon. So mainly what i going on is the middle step. But then even more so you have the Ran there that asks  this: Why not just collect the document from Reuben. And he answers שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון.  Documents can not be taken as payment for a loan because they are not money in themselves. [The general case when someone does not pay back a loan, the court can go and get land or movable property]

What was bothering me at the beach the whole day was this question and answer of the Ran [Rabbainu Nisim]. Not that I have an actual question, just a sort of question in which I am wondering what is going on? Apparently in the first case we already know that Levi owes money to Reuben. So how do we know that? By the document! So what is collecting the document going to add anything to the situation? [How would it help Simon any more than we already are helping him recover the debt?]

The ר''ן here asks why not collect the document showing that לוי owes money to ראובן. I wondered why this would make any difference if we already know that he owes money. Answer: because a loan with a document is more powerful than a loan without. It gets from property that was sold after the loan was made.

The thing that makes the question of the ר''ן powerful is that if you have a case of a loan which is verbal, not with a document, the lender is believed if he says, "I paid it."  However I should add that this is not the normal case of a verbal loan, since here the lender would not be believed because of the possibility that he is conspiring with the middle borrower to cheat שמעון.   

I have thought of a way of explaining the power of the question of the Ran.  It seems like this: The middle person Reuven has a document that Levi owes him money. And Shimon has a document showing that Reuven owes him money. But Reuven ha no money nor any property that he sold after he borrowed.  But he has a document showing that Levi owes him money. So none of the property of Levi would come to Reuven directly if not for the law of R. Natan in Ketuboth 19. The point of the Ran is that perhaps the document of Reuven ought to be given to Shimon in which case he would have a stronger claim on Levi. As it is is now, if Levi says the document has been paid and Reuven agrees , we do not believe them because of a doubt. Maybe they are conspiring against Shimon. But if Shimon would have the document itself  that shows Levi owes him  money then from the basic law of loans Levi would not be believed because in the case of a loan with a document, the plea "I paid already" is not believed. 

______________________________________________________

חשבתי על גמרא שהובאה בכתובות דף י''ט. שם ר' נתן אמר אם יש לך מקרה שבו לוי חייב לראובן 100 וראובן חייב לשמעון 100, אתה לוקח מלוי ונותן לשמעון. אם לראובן יש מסמך שמראה שלוי חייב לו ולוי אומר שזה כבר שולם וראובן מסכים, אנחנו לא שמים לב אליהם כי ייתכן שהם קשרו קשר. מה שהפריע לי בזה הוא שהרכוש של לוי ממילא הולך לראובן ומשם לשמעון. אז בעיקר מה שקורה הוא הצעד האמצעי. אבל אז עוד יותר יש לך את הר''ן שם ששואל את זה: למה לא פשוט לאסוף את המסמך מראובן. והוא עונה שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון. לא ניתן לקחת מסמכים כתשלום עבור הלוואה כי הם אינם כסף בפני עצמם. במקרה הכללי כאשר מישהו לא מחזיר הלוואה, בית המשפט יכול ללכת לקבל קרקע או מטלטלין. מה שהפריע לי זו השאלה והתשובה של הר''ן [רבינו ניסים]. לא שיש לי שאלה ממשית, רק מעין שאלה שבה אני תוהה מה קורה? כנראה שבמקרה הראשון אנחנו כבר יודעים שלוי חייב כסף לראובן. אז איך אנחנו יודעים את זה? לפי המסמך! אז מה איסוף המסמך יוסיף משהו למצב? איך זה יעזור לשמעון יותר ממה שאנחנו כבר עוזרים לו לגבות את החוב?

הר''ן כאן שואל למה לא לאסוף את המסמך שמראה שלוי חייב כסף לראובן. תהיתי למה זה ישנה משהו אם אנחנו כבר יודעים שהוא חייב כסף. תשובה: כי הלוואה עם  מסמך חזקה יותר מהלוואה בלי. זה מגיע מנכס שנמכר לאחר מתן ההלוואה (משועבדים). הדבר שעושה את שאלת הר''ן חזקה הוא שאם יש לך מקרה של הלוואה שהיא מילולית (מלווה על פה), לא עם מסמך, מאמינים למלווה אם הוא אומר "שילמתי". עם זאת אוסיף שאין זה המקרה הרגיל של הלוואה מילולית, שכן כאן לא יאמינו למלווה בגלל האפשרות שהוא קושר קשר עם הלווה האמצעי לרמות את שמעון. חשבתי על דרך להסביר את כוחה של שאלת הר''ן. זה נראה כך: לאדם האמצעי ראובן יש מסמך שלוי חייב לו כסף. ולשמעון יש מסמך שמראה שראובן חייב לו כסף. אבל לראובן אין כסף או רכוש שהוא מכר אחרי שהוא לווה. אבל יש לו מסמך שמראה שלוי חייב לו כסף. אז ששום דבר מרכושו של לוי לא היה מגיע ישירות לראובן אלמלא דין ר' נתן בכתובות י''ט. הנקודה של הר''ן היא שאולי צריך למסור את המסמך של ראובן לשמעון שבמקרה כזה תהיה לו תביעה יותר חזקה על לוי. כפי שזה עכשיו, אם לוי אומר שהמסמך שולם וראובן מסכים, אנחנו לא מאמינים להם בגלל ספק. אולי הם קושרים קשר נגד שמעון. אבל אם לשמעון היה המסמך עצמו שמראה שלוי חייב לו כסף אז מחוק ההלוואות היסוד לוי לא היה נאמן כי במקרה של הלוואה עם מסמך, לא מאמינים לטענת "כבר שילמתי".

 Someone mentioned to me today about the problems he noticed in the USA on his recent trip there. That gave me a chance to explain a little behind the philosophy of  "learning Torah." In the Litvak Yeshiva world [at least as I experienced it at Shar Yashuv and the Mir] learning Torah is the best way to help oneself and the whole world. It is not considered as hiding from the world but rather as the only true and effective means to help the world. And you can see this to some degree in the way politics is practiced in the USA which involves a lot of Lashon Hara and Bitul Torah. Are things so much better now than they were in Elizabethan England? People then also had some say in things because of he House of Commons, but not to the degree that we see now. 

gentile slaves.

 You are not actually allowed to free a gentile slave. However as we know, a Jewish slave is freed after 6 years of work. [That is right after the Ten Commandments in Exodus.] The prohibition to free a gentile slave is from the verse בהם לעולם תעבודו (When the Torah discusses the case when one buys gentile slave it adds "you should work with them forever" i.e. not free them.  So you can see the point of the South. They realized that the slaves were not seeking freedom. They were seeking mastery--i.e. to become the masters. and that has happened.

So on one hand I can see the point of Abraham Lincoln in wanting to keep the Union together, still I do not know where he found that idea in the Constitution , not even if he had, why it would supersede states rights [the tenth Ammendment.] And besides all that, the real point comes to the fore in the verse that states on three things the land is destroyed and one of them is "עבד כי ימלוך (When a slave rules)." 

And the logical conclusion is that the USA should not let slaves rule.

[Rabban Gamliel had a gentile slave Tabi who was a great Torah scholar. But even so, Rabban Gamliel did not free him. Tabi himself was strict not to eat in a Suka, because slaves and women are not obligated to eat in a suka (during Sukot]).

 You do not really see in the Gra the idea of making yeshivot. And if he agreed with Rav Chaim of Voloshin about this is not clear. [Rav Chaim had come to ask him about this and there are a few versions of what the answer was. Some say he never answered.]  

So while this issue is unclear, there are at least some points which are clear. Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money. While on one hand learning Torah is the greatest of all mitzvot, still the general approach of yeshivot going around asking for money does not really mean that this is a good thing.

The religious seem intent on using Torah in one way or the other to get profit. In fact. I encountered a sort of odd attitude in which people in kollel would present themselves as "astronauts" [super achievers] which therefore deserved to be supported by all us plebeians. So it seems impossible to say that people in kollel are not doing it for money. Just the opposite--that seems to be their entire intension.

So what is the best thing is to learn Torah, but not to make a business out of it.

If you are learning Torah [which you should] then you should trust in God to support you. And if that trust is not fulfilled and you find yourself in need then you should find a job, but not go around asking people for money to support you. That is not trust in God. That is trust in flesh and blood. That is trust of the Dark Side

 I can understand to some degree why the Friesian School of thought is ignored in Philosophy. It is not exactly Kantian because of significant disagreements with Kant e.g the discursivity thesis. So if one is interested in Kant, he would not think of looking into almost any of the Neo Kantian philosophers. Plus Fries is not exactly constructing a tightly intricately constructed  Gothic Structure like Kant did or Hegel.

It takes generations for the implications of the Fries doctrine of immediate non intuitive knowledge to get put together in any sort of structure that could rival Kant of Hegel.

Still I find that the final synthesis of Dr Kelley Ross to where he pulls together all the threads of the Frisian approach to be quite impressive. See: https://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm

Mainly because this corresponded with my own experience in which I felt I had faith that was not derived by logic nor by experience.  And this makes sense in terms of the Middle Ages in which Faith and reason were considered two different kinds of sources of knowledge.

And as Hume noted: reason does not tell us any where as much. as it was thought to show.

 In the Gemara there are places that seem to reflect negatively on Jesus. I noted in the Tosphot HaRosh that that particular Yeshu could not have been Jesus since the Yeshu referred to in the Talmud was a disciple of R. Yehoshua ben P'rachia. That is he was right in the middle of the period of the second Temple. And Jesus was at the end of that period. That is a difference of about 150 years or more.

[Mixing this up is like mixing yourself up with someone born in 1872. ]

The disadvantage of this is that Christians do not gin from the perspective of the gemara [Talmud] in which the laws of the Torah are taken literally, not allegorically. And it is this allegorical interpretation of the laws which is the Achilles heel of  Christianity. So the prohibition against homosexuality is thought to be an allegory. There have to be laws they understand in order to have a functioning society, but then instead of God's laws they have to have man made laws.

 The Lagrange formulation of Physics sort of gets around causality by things going to their lowest energy levels. That is to say things things seem to know where to go. And all Physics today is formulated in the Lagrange or Hamiltonian formulation. In classical physics this was not really any different from Newton. Only in Quantum Mechanics the results are different.

So what I am saying is that  causality does not seem fundamental.

So even if I use the idea of causality in showing the existence of God, a more rigorous proof is really from Godel [known as the Ontological proof.]

[Space, time and causality are all challenges to Kant.  These challenge can be met in different ways, [e.g. Hegel, or Fries] But they must be met.

To Kant, space and time are synthetic a priori. We must conceive of things in terms of where and when  but they have no relation to things in themselves. They might exist or they might not. This was a particular challenge to  the second Frisian school of Leonard Nelson. It is answered in the PhD dissertation of Kelley Ross where he divides the question of the nexus of things (where they are) and the question of the objective existence of Space-Time. 

And to me space has always seemed quite real from the fact that though ether does not exist, still photons are produced by oscillation in some kind of medium. Also the Bohm effect shows space has mathematical structure.  That is all besides General Relativity. There the main formula is that curvature of space time is the source of the energy momentum tensor.

Russia can wipe out every man woman and child in the USA in ten minutes.

 Why not get into a war with Russia?. Let's us be practical before we go on a moral crusade.  Russia can wipe out every man woman and child in the USA in ten minutes. And even  if you take the nuclear approach off the table, they are not weak. The are taking an approach to Ukraine where they want to preserve lives because they want it to be part of the Russian Empire. Not destroy it. The USA they can cripple without firing a shot. Just one EMP. Or just take out all the satellites. [i.e. the Internet.]]

Another reason is I think you could say there is a generational divide in the Ukraine. The vast majority of older people that lived under the USSR remember those times as significantly better than the disastrous corrupt rule from Kiev. The younger generation is the opposite. getting involved in a moral crusade, while it might be right, but in this case it looks to be disastrously wrong. People could not care less if they are ruled from Moscow or Kiev as long as they have peace and stability. They did not have that under Kievian rule. And no prolonging the war does not add anything except  more casualties.

So in conclusion: End the war. Do not imagine you are going to "win".What could that mean "Win"" What are you going to do wipe out Russia? That is your idea of win? Les see how that works out. So far trying to win has come a wee close to destroying the American economy. So you want to see have far that can go?

In the Republic of  Plato and i noticed that the just society of Plato is where everyone is minding their own business. In fact,  Plato, is searching  for the answer to what is Justice finds it in this astounding formulation:  to mind one's own business.

He means this in its common sense way but also in the larger scheme of a just society where everyone knows their own job and is doing it. The carpenter, the shoemaker, etc. are all doing their job, and no one else's. And not sticking their nose into other people's business.

And you can see this in the modern world where the emphasis in high school if to and what you are good at and enjoy doing and to do that. 

So you do not have the idea of  the mediaeval period where everyone is supposed to learn the Written Law, the Oral Law, Physics and Metaphysics whether you are good at it or not. 

So the idea brought in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous, and in the writings of Rav Nahman  of Breslov of "Girsa"--saying the words and going on does not resonate with people. They figure if they do not understand what they are learning, then there is no point to it.

Especially in the Gra, we find that learning Torah is the highest ideal. It is not meant to be just for a select few. [In the Gra, himself you do not see this elaborated on, but in the Nefesh HaChaim of his disciple Rav Chaim of Voloshin this idea is brought down in volume 4. ]

Plus you see in the book of Rav Nachman that על  ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבוא לתבונות התורה לעומקה [Le.M vol I:13]  "By means of the word, one can come to the understandings of the Torah to its very depth."-- That is, just by saying the words, something gets absorbed and processed in one's deeper unconscious. 

בבא מציעא ע''ה ע''ב רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק י' הלכה ד' Bava Metzia pg 75 side B. Rambam Laws of a Lender and Borrower chapter 10 law 4

 

I wanted here to give a small introduction to the coming subject. In the Torah we have a prohibition of taking interest for a loan. The language of the Torah is "a bite"[Neshech] and "increase" [tarbit].

In tractate Bava Metzia right at the start of the chapter about interest  it asks why does the Torah use these two different words for interest? After all if he lends 100 in order to get back  hundred but the value of the hundred goes up to 120, then if we go by the beginning of the loan there is no increase and there is no bite. But if we go by the end of the loan there is both increase and bite. Or let's look at a different case. He lends 100 in order to get back 120. But at the time of repayment the value of 120 has gone down to 100. If we go by the beginning, there is both increase and a bite. If we go by the end there is neither increase nor bite. The Gemara after this does come up with a reason the Torah uses these two different words. However at this point there is a disagreement among Medieval authorities. Does the Gemara really have a doubt if we go by the beginning of a loan or the end? And most of them say, "No." For after all we have a vase of lending a bushel of wheat for a bushel of wheat. That is forbidden by a decree because the value might go up. [If the value does go up then he pays back money that is equal to the value of the original bushel.]] But all this is a decree and not from the Torah. So we see the Torah definitely goes by the beginning of a loan. This is the opinion of most medieval authorities. However the commentary on the Rosh called the notes of the Ashri and the Mordechai say that if fact the Gemara is in doubt if the Torah actually goes by the beginning of  a loan or the end. This is more or less what they write and that is how the Gra understands them. However Rav Shach writes that they also must agree with the other mediaeval authorities because of that law of a bushel fir a bushel and he bring a proof that they only say the case when he lends 100 for a 120 and the value of the hundred and twenty goes down to 100. He must give back the extra 20 anyway because we go by the beginning of the loan. But the opposite case they do not mention. It seems that they has no doubt that we do not go by the end of the loan. 

 רציתי לתת כאן הקדמה קטנה לנושא הקרוב. בתורה יש איסור לקחת ריבית עבור הלוואה. לשון התורה היא נשך ותרבית. בבא מציעא ממש בתחילת איזהו נשך הוא שואל מדוע התורה משתמשת בשתי המילים השונות הללו לעניין? הרי אם הלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה אבל ערך המאה עולה למאה ועשרים, אז אם נלך לפי תחילת ההלוואה אין תרבית ואין נשך. אבל אם נלך כפי סוף ההלוואה יש גם תרבית וגם נשך. או בוא נסתכל על מקרה אחר. הוא מלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה ועשרים. אבל בזמן הפרעון ירד ערך מאה ועשרים למאה. אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, יש גם תרבית וגם נשך. אם נלך לפי הסוף אין לא תרבית ולא נשך. הגמרא שאחרי זה אכן מעלה סיבה לכך שהתורה משתמשת בשתי המילים השונות הללו. אולם בשלב זה קיימת מחלוקת בין ראשונים. האם לגמרא באמת יש ספק אם אנחנו הולכים לפי תחילת הלוואה או בסוף? ורובם אומרים "לא". כי אחרי הכל יש לנו הדין של השאלת סאה בסאה. זה אסור בגזרה כי הערך עלול לעלות. [אם הערך אכן עולה אז הוא מחזיר כסף ששווה לערך הסאה המקורית]] אבל כל זה גזירה ולא מהתורה. אז אנחנו רואים את התורה בהחלט הולכת לפי תחילת ההלוואה. זו דעתם של רוב ראשונים. אולם פירוש הרא''ש הנקרא הגהות אשרי והמרדכי אומרים שלמעשה הגמרא מוטל בספק אם התורה אכן הולכת לפי תחילת הלוואה או בסוף. זה פחות או יותר מה שהם כותבים וכך מבין אותם הגר''א. אולם רב שך כותב שגם הם חייבים להסכים עם שאר הראשונים בגלל אותו דין של סאה בסאה והוא מביא הוכחה שאומרים את המקרה רק כשהוא מלווה מאה עבור מאה ועשרים וערך המאה ועשרים ירד עד  מאה. הוא חייב להחזיר את העשרים הנוספים בכל מקרה כי אנחנו הולכים לפי תחילת ההלוואה. אבל את המקרה ההפוך הם לא מזכירים. נראה שאין להם ספק שאנחנו לא הולכים לפי תום ההלוואה.

_________________________________________________________________________________

 I was at sea. There it occurred to me that I ought to explain in what is my disagreement with Rav Shach concerning the Ashri and Mordechai. The point of Rav Shach is that they must agree with the other Rishonim that always go by the beginning of a loan [to determine if there is interest]. Why because they only mention the case where one lends 100 to get back 120. There they say because of the doubt he must give back the extra 20. But they not say anything about the opposite case where he lends 100 to get back 100 but in the end that hundred is worth 120. Why do they not say there that he must give back 17 from the hundred that he gets back? So Rav Shach concludes that really we always go by the beginning. And the proof is "seah beseah" the prohibition to lend a bushel to get back a bushel which is forbidden by a decree but not from the Torah. So we see we always go by the beginning according to the law of the Torah.

My question on this is that if fruit and grain are like money, then even to lend 100 to get back a 100 would be on condition that the hundred does not go up in value. But if it does then one would give back the  value of the original 100.   On my side of this is the Gra who writes that the Ashri and Mordechai do have a doubt if we go by the beginning or the end.

____________________________

 I was at sea. There it occurred to me that I ought to explain in what is my disagreement with רב שך concerning the אשרי and מרדכי. The point of רב שך is that they must agree with the other ראשונים that always go by the beginning of a loan [to determine if there is interest]. Why because they only mention the case where one lends מאה to get back מאה ועשרים. There they say because of the doubt he must give back the extra עשרים. But they not say anything about the opposite case where he lends מאה to get back מאה, but in the end that מאה is worth מאה ועשרים. Why do they not say there that he must give back שבע עשרה from the מאה that he gets back? So רב שך concludes that really we always go by the beginning. And the proof is סאה בסאה the prohibition to lend a bushel to get back a bushel which is forbidden by a decree but not from the תורה. So we see we always go by the beginning according to the law of the תורה. My question on this is that if fruit and grain are like money, then even to lend מאה to get back a מאה would be on condition that the מאה does not go up in value. But if it does, then one would give back the  value of the original מאה.   On my side of this is the גר''א who writes that the אשרי and מרדכי do have a doubt if we go by the beginning or the end.

הייתי בים. שם עלה בדעתי שאני צריך להסביר במה מחלוקתי עם רב שך לגבי האשרי ומרדכי. הטעם של רב שך הוא שעליהם להסכים עם שאר הראשונים שתמיד הולכים לפי תחילת הלוואה [כדי לקבוע אם יש ריבית]. למה כי הם מזכירים רק את המקרה שמלווים מאה כדי לקבל מאה ועשרים. שם אומרים מחמת הספק חייב להחזיר את העשרים הנוסף. אבל לא אומרים כלום על המקרה ההפוך שהוא מלווה מאה כדי לקבל מאה, אלא בסופו של דבר שמאה שווה מאה ועשרים. למה לא אומרים שם שהוא חייב להחזיר שבע עשרה מהמאה שהוא מקבל בחזרה? אז רב שך מסיק שבאמת אנחנו תמיד הולכים לפי ההתחלה. וההוכחה היא סאה בסאה  שאסור בגזירה אבל לא מהתורה. אז אנחנו רואים שאנחנו תמיד הולכים לפי ההתחלה לפי חוק התורה. השאלה שלי על זה היא שאם פירות ותבואה הם כמו כסף, אז אפילו להלוות מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה יהיה בתנאי שהמאה לא תעלה בערכו. אבל אם כן, אז אפשר להחזיר את הערך של המאה המקורית. מצדי בזה הגר''א שכותב לאשרי ולמרדכי כן יש ספק אם הולכים בהתחלה או בסוף.

 I think it is those Dominion machines that tilted the election. All that was needed was to identify the few critical counties where a slight difference would tilt the election and in those counties to add a slight weight to the vote for the Left--instead of 1.0 each vote would be 1.01. That would be enough to turn the election.

And in terms of the later protests on the sixth of January : The first ammendment is the right for peaceful protest. They did not break any law.

That was based on an event in England where someone was imprisoned for the "crime" of petitioning Parliament. See the Pamphlets of Daniel Defoe. So the right is meant for this particular kind of case. 

 I was on my way to the sea and I saw a Breslov [Na Nach] fellow that goes around the main square in town with a shofar wakening people to repentance. I mentioned that I hold from and Gra and Rav Shach and he added that also the Chazon Ish, and Rav Kinyevsky [the Stipler and his son] and really all of the great Litvak sages learned the books of Rav Nahman.

And I definitely saw this myself when I was learning under the great Litvak sages of the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY.

But they did not become "Breslov". They stayed Litvaks that go by the Gra by added to that the insights of Rav Nahman. There is a good reason for this but I have felt for a long time that it is not worth going into in public. In public, I only want to recommend Rav Nahman,- even though I realize that the ideas can be taken in wrong directions. You really need the Gra to stay steady on the straight path of Torah. Rav Nahman within that context can add a great deal  

 The comments of the Ashri [That is the comments in small print on the Rosh] and the Mordechai on Bava Metzia page 75. Most Rishonim say that the Gemara there is not really in doubt if we go by the beginning or the end. But the Ashri and Mordechai say it is a doubt. So if one lends 100 to get back 120 and when the time of payment comes the 120 is worth the same as the original 100, then it is because of the doubt that we might go by the beginning one can not accept the additional 20.

But to most Rishonim we definitely go by the beginning, so not because of doubt,- but because it is openly fixed interest. [That is how the Gra understands the Ashri and Mordechei. But Rav Shach laws of Lender and Borrower 10 law 4 holds that the Ashri [that is a commentary on the Rosh] and the Mordechei do not actually disagree with the other rishonim.

]

But why is it so obvious to most Rishonim that we go by the beginning? Because of  "Seah be'Seah." [A bushel of wheat for a bushel of wheat.] That is forbidden from a decree of the sages because the price of a bushel might go up. 

But to me it seems the Ashri and Mordechai must be thinking that fruit or grain is different than money. While fruit of grain might be clear that it is only forbidden by decree, but money for money (and the value goes up) might very well be forbidden from the Torah itself. We see that the Gemara in Bava Metzia itself is aware that money can change in value. For that is the whole point when it says "He lends 100 for a 120 and at first the hundred is worth a danka and in the end 120 is worth a danka." [Inflation.] [They could have used "a bushel for a bushel" to show the point. So at least the Ashri and Mordechai are saying that money for money is different.]

What mean to say here is that the Ashri and Mordechai are holding only seah for a seah is a decree permitted from the Torah because we go by the beginning for fruit and graain, not money. For in money there is no decree that if one borrows 100 that he can not repay 100 because the value of the hundred might have gone up.

But it occurred to me to ask here that if so money for money ought to be even lighter than fruit for fruit because otherwise why would there not be a similar decree to repay 100 for a 100 in a case when the value has gone up. But that would seem to be the opposite of what makes sense. For if he would have said so in the beginning that would be interest from the Torah.

__________________________________________________________________________

The comments of the אשרי and the מרדכי on גמרא  בבא מציעא דף ע''ה. Most  ראשונים say that the גמרא there is not really in doubt if we go by the beginning or the end. But the אשרי and מרדכי say it is a doubt. So if one lends מאה to get back מאה ועשרים and when the time of payment comes the מאה ועשרים is worth the same as the original מאה, then it is because of the doubt that we might go by the beginning one can not accept the additional עשרים.

[That is how the Gra understands the Ashri and Mordechei. But Rav Shach laws of Lender and Borrower 10 law 4 holds that the Ashri [that is a commentary on the Rosh] and the Mordechei do not actually disagree with the other rishonim.

 But to most ראשונים we definitely go by the beginning, so not because of doubt but because it is openly ריבית קצוצה. 

But why is it so obvious to most  ראשונים that we go by the beginning? Because of  "סאה בסאה." [A סאה of wheat for a סאה of wheat. That is forbidden from a גזירה   because the price of a סאה might go up.]  But to me it seems the אשרי and מרדכי must be thinking that fruit or grain is different than money. While fruit of grain might be clear that it is only forbidden by decree, but money for money (and the value goes up) might very well be forbidden דאורייתא itself. We see that the גמרא  בבא מציעא דף ע''ה itself is aware that money can change in value. For that is the whole point when it says "He lends מאה for a מאה ועשרים and at first the מאה is worth a דנקא and in the end מאה ועשרים is worth a דנקא." [Inflation.]

What I mean to say here is that the הגהות אשרי  and מרדכי are holding only סאה בסאה is a decree אבל permitted from the תורה because we go by the beginning for fruit and grain, not money. For in money there is no decree that if one borrows מאה that he can not repay מאה because the value of the hundred might have gone up.

But it occurred to me to ask here that if so money for money ought to be even lighter than fruit for fruit because otherwise why would there not be a similar decree to repay מאה for a מאה in a case when the value has gone up. But that would seem to be the opposite of what makes sense. For if he would have said so in the beginning that would be ריבית קצוצה דאורייתא.

__________________________________________________

הערות האשרי והמרדכי בגמרא בבא מציעא דף ע''ה. רוב ראשונים אומרים שהגמרא שם לא באמת מוטלת בספק אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף. אבל האשרי ומרדכי אומרים זה ספק. אז אם מלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה ועשרים וכאשר מגיע זמן התשלום, המאה ועשרים שווה כמו המאה המקורית, אז בגלל הספק שנלך בהתחלה אי אפשר לקבל את עשרים הנוספת. אבל לרוב ראשונים אנחנו בהחלט הולכים לפי ההתחלה, אז לא בגלל ספק, אלא בגלל שזה בגלוי ריבית קצוצה. אבל למה זה כל כך ברור לרוב ראשונים שאנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה? בגלל "סאה בסאה". [סאה של חיטה לסאה של חיטה. זה אסור בגזירה כי המחיר של סאה עלול לעלות. אבל לי נראה שהאשרי והמרדכי חושבים שפרי או דגן שונים מכסף. אמנם פרי דגן אולי ברור שהוא אסור רק בגזירה, אבל כסף תמורת כסף (והערך עולה) יכול מאוד להיות אסור דאורייתא עצמו. אנו רואים שהגמרא בבא מציעא דף ע''ה עצמו מודע לכך שכסף יכול להשתנות בערכו. שהרי זה כל העניין כשאומרים "משאיל מאה למאה ועשרים ובתחילה המאה שווה דנקא ובסוף מאה ועשרים שווה דנקא". [אִינפלַצִיָה.]

מה שאני מתכוון לומר כאן הוא שההגות אשרי ומרדכי מחזיקים רק בסאה בסאה זו גזירה אבל מותרת מהתורה כי אנחנו הולכים בהתחלה לפירות ותבואה, לא כסף. (וכסף הוא ספק אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף) כי בכסף אין גזירה שאם לווה מאה אינו יכול לפרוע מאה כי ערך המאה עלול היה לעלות.

אבל עלה בדעתי לשאול כאן שאם כן כסף לכסף צריך להיות אפילו קל יותר מפירות לפירות כי אחרת למה לא תהיה גזירה דומה להחזיר מאה עבור מאה במקרה שהערך עלה. אבל נראה שזה ההפך ממה שהגיוני. כִּי אִם הָיָה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ בִּתְחִלָּה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רַבֵּית קְצוּצָה דְּאוֹרִיתָא.

If you have a free wave that is not limited anywhere,  it can not be quantized. While you might still have quantization for wave packets but these dissipate rapidly. So at least from this consideration, the Universe has to be limited and finite.

This is only to Schrodinger. But in the Heisenberg formulation, quantization doesn't depend on a closed universe.

 A few things I learned in Ukraine. One important one  is what is called "zalonka". This is iodine mixed with some other substance that helps it be absorbed deeper into a wound than regular iodine. Another is boric acid which is an amazing cure all. The other is when I had a ear ache. Instead of putting chemicals into my ear they cleaned it out with some sort of syringe that shots out just plain water. For they knew that ear aches most often are simply from stuff that has accumulated in the ear. It just needs to be cleaned.

I also learned something else--they do not try to fix what is not broken. While in the West, you walk into a dentists office and he will always find things to do that will cost a thousand dollars, in the Ukraine they will not look for problems. If it does not hurt, they they will not touch it. Don't fix what i not broken.

 z50 music file

 I am surprised whenever I talk with someone and in the conversation we are discussing the importance of the Gra as defining authentic Torah --the backbone. And Rav Nahman I see as filling out the flesh. But aswe talk it turns out they have never heard of the herem of the Gra. So I have to explain the background of that and its details and make note that it did not include Rav Nahman.  

 There is a sort of suicidal tendency in the USA that is hard to understand. A lot of white people are simply intent on the destruction of the white race. I can not see why this should be the case. I could see this a long time ago with the slogan that "Black is beautiful." I guess that convinced lot of people to the degree of creating people that want to destroy whites, and the feminists that hate men, and a general lack of common sense.

 The main source of ambiguity the straight and holy Path of the Gra, come from the fact that after  Yeshiva years,  things tend to go haywire  This led me to consider the vey important fact that according to the Rishonim, Torah is not Divine Decree Theory but rather that Divine decree is based on Reason.{And of course Reason was created by God. In fact in the Middle Ages there was no Divine Decree Theories even among Muslims and Christians. Things were not thought to be right or wrong because they were decreed by God but rather they were decreed by God because they were good.

Thus I noted that Torah is meant to bring to objective morality.

 In the west Boric Acid  is totally unknown as a cure for all sorts of skin problems but well known in Uman. This was prescribed for all kinds of problems included ear aches in liquid form

 s-1 midi file slightly edited   s1 nwc

Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In Interest do you go by the beginning or the end? Most Rishonim hold you go by the beginning. So even if the 100 that one borrows goes up to be worth 120, one still gives back 100. [In Torah law --deUraita] [If you would go by the end that would be interest.] Rav Shach says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law, "a guarantee without reduction." That is one borrows money, and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not interest. But Rav Shach sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow 100 and say he is going to pay back 100 [and then the 100 at time of payment goes up to be worth 120] this would be considered interest if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is interest from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the lender lends 100 and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth 120. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ribit]? The reason it is not ribit when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a guarantee without reduction also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  The two Gemaras where this all comes up are Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In נשך do you go by the beginning or the end? Most ראשונים hold you go by the beginning. So even if the מאה that one borrows goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים, one still gives back מאה. [If you would go by the end that would be נשך.] רב שך says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law a משכנתא בלי נכייתא. That is one borrows money and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This is not forbidden from the תורה. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not נשך. But רב שך sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow מאה and ואומר  he is going to pay back מאה [and then the מאה at time of payment goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים] this would be considered נשך if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is נשך from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the מלווה מלווה מאה  and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth מאה ועשרים. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ריבית]? The reason it is not ריבית when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a משכנתא בלא ניכייתא also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  

בבא מציעא ס''ז  וע''ה ע''א  

בנשך הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף? רוב ראשונים מחזיקים  בהתחלה. אז גם אם המאה שאדם לווה עולה להיות שווה מאה ועשרים, עדיין מחזירים מאה. [אם היית הולך על סוף זה יהיה נשך.] רב שך אומר כאן משהו שאני לא מבין. הוא שואל מדין אחר: משכנתא בלא נכייתא. כלומר לווים כסף וכערבות נותן שדה ללא הפחתת התשלום המגיע. זה לא אסור מהתורה. זה נשמע לי בדיוק אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה כך שגם זה לא נשך. אבל רב שך רואה בזה קושי באופן זה: אם היה לווה מאה ואומר הוא הולך להחזיר מאה [ואז המאה בשעת התשלום עולה לשווה מאה ועשרים] זה ייחשב נשך אם לאו על העובדה שאנחנו הולכים בהתחלה. [בטח חסר לי כאן משהו כי לי שני החוקים נשמעים אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה אז אינם נשך מהתורה.]

לראות את הנקודה שלי דמיינו מתי המלווה מלווה מאה והוא יודע שבזמן התשלום זה יהיה שווה מאה ועשרים. האם יש ספק שזה ריבית ? הסיבה שזה לא ריבית כשהוא לא יודע את העתיד  כי העתיד בספק. ואנחנו יודעים שהסיבה שמכנתא בלא ניכייתא היא גם משום שאינו יודע שירוויח בחרישה ובזריעה.

 There are problems in the religious world that are hard to understand. The major solution is that the higher one goes on the scale of numinous value, the easier it is to fall from positive value to negative value. That is -if you take the scale of values to be increasing from pure form [the vessel] with no content to infinite God with no form, then you can see that for every true positive value, there are many negative values. The Sitra Achra. 

But in areas of all form no content -Logic-the fall from the true is not evil, but simply mistakes. But as ne goes into areas of greater content, the mistakes become the Dark Side.  

So you can see how the religious world (outside of the straight and narrow of authentic Torah--the Gra), becomes fanaticism for he Dark Side.

See the Friesian School approach.

Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change

 Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change. From balmy 70 degrees Fahrenheit or about 21 Celsius to around 1,000,000 Celsius. They changed their doctrine of when to go to climate change about two years ago to include the sort of scenario that is going on now.

And as for they have been saying about that Ukraine is run now by Fascists --that is not so absurd as it sounds. I myself barely escaped with my life. 

 I think I had a kind of attachment with God when I got to Israel after some years of study in the great Litvak Yeshivot of NY. But I have never been able to figure out "what it meant". Was there some sort of special mission for for or what?  In mystic writings this kind of "Devekut" attachment is referred to as attachment to the Infinite Light. אור אין סוף. It does not say a lot but it is is indicative of what happens when the ight of the Next World Seeps into this world.

The best clarity I came to about this issue was when I began to consider that "Reason" alone can not justify Torah. There is a gap. So for about ten days I realized that questions on Torah were not all motivated by hearts that were not seeking the truth. So I wondered what justification for Torah could there be? Then I discovered the web site of Dr Kelley Ross who answers this in this way. There is a third source of knowledge [ besides empirical and besides reason.]

I was reminded of this because Ronen a friend of mine here has said to me a few times that he can not see the Litvak approach ["Learning Torah is the best thing"] as anything but an intellectual approach.

I have tried to explain to him  that there is a sort of Divine light that comes along with learning simple and plain Gemara Tosphot and the Maharsha.

I think that the subject of Meta-Physics is important but I have not come to any sort of clarity about what approach is best. From what I can tell there are three major schools, Hegel, Leonard Nelson and the Intuitionists. [GE Moore, Prichard.]

It has already been noted by very great philosophers the problems with 20th Century philosophy. E,g, Robert Hanna.. Michael Sugrue.

[See the criticism of Analytic Philosophy by Robert Hanna and the criticism of the existentialists by Michael Sugrue ] but what is left standing after all the bullets have settled? Mainly these three that I have mentioned.

Now I see Dr Kelley Ross is not updating his blog anymore. This makes me very sad for I have gained greatly from his insights in the Kant/Fries/Leonard Nelson approach. Even though Many think Kant can stand on his own, I can not  see it. I think Kant needs the modifications of Fries and Nelson.

I should mention that the Kant-Fries approach made a lot of sense for me in terms of its idea that there are truths that can not be known by reason or empirical knowledge. This idea was to provide a foundation for the Kantian categories. But with Dr Kelley Ross got expanded towards the experience of the Divine. But it looks as though his writings are now lost.

 

This would definitely be "climate change."

 I imagine that people are not afraid of nuclear war with Russia. I am not sure why this is>I used to think that that the end of the human race would have been a issue of concern. So to try and establish some kind of  accord is far from people's mind. 

But on the other hand, an accord was established--those were the Minsk accords which were ignored by the Ukraine. So I guess if the words of the Ukraine mean nothing, they would understand force.

But instead of the Minsk Accords people think that a nuclear war with Russia would be okay. I truly do not see this. I have a  certain degree of hope for mankind. I would rather not see the Human Race melt away in an hydrogen bomb fireball. 

This would definitely be "climate change."

I mean there are already US forces in active duty in Ukraine. So would perhaps Moscow think that the USA is a legitimate target?  And who says that Russia would not respond? And if you think this is some kind of moral crusade to defend the innocent, you have not had any experience with the Ukraine.

Peel half of the potatoes or half of (each) potato?

 

In Ukraine even the churches have armed guards.

 A concentrated nuclear war would not be the end of all mankind. But it still ought to be considered a sufficient risk that would prevent France and NATO to stop sending troops to  attack Russian soldiers. And besides the unstated principle here is that Russia considers this war to be justified. And though no one in the West cares to take that into consideration, still it is what Russia thinks. Not just because  of Ukraine always being a part of the Russian Empire, but also because the criminal elements have taken over. You can not really see this from the West, but if you have ever been there, you know exactly what I mean.

In fact there is no such thing as one united Ukraine. Anyone can tell you that there are two distinct Ukraines. One is the well known bandits --the people that have theft and murder deep inside their DNA. The other are the vast majority who are close to angels in their good character. The trouble is that it is always the bandits that get the power and control. Thus without Russian rule the place becomes a nightmare even for the average Ukrainian. This is the reason even the churches there need armed guards. There is just a bit too much of the wrong kind of element.

 While at the Mir in NY I heard once from the head of the kollel there a musar "shmooze" on Tuesday night. He is the grandson of the Mashgiach of Ponovitch. And that was the very start of his giving a Musar talk on Tuesday night. It was devoted to the subject of "to bear a yoke with your friend".That is one of the 48 means by which Torah is acquired. He had heard from his grandfather that that is the most important of them all. 

 

 

 

לא תעשה לך כל תמונה "Do not make an picture"

 Even though I do not want to be overly legalistic, still it occurred to me yesterday how a lot of the laws of the Torah are ignored or even worse--explained away. לא תעשה לך כל תמונה "Do not make a picture." ''Temuna'' means image or form. It does not say that it has to be 3-d. [In fact, this was noticed by Protestants who then spent their creative efforts in the direction of music instead of the visual arts--as had been the case with the Catholics.]

There are other examples. Interest is well known example, for the banks in Israel have the "היתר עיסקא" (heter iska) which is sort of ok, but also somewhat awkward. This is towards the end on Bava Metzia [I forget the page number.] But the main idea is still that the possibility of loss has to be included in the deal which doesn't seem to happen in practice. 

The Gemara says: אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו "The verse does not come out of its simple explanation." The Gra said this principle applies to all verses. 

[There are lots more: Honor thy father and thy mother. Thou Shalt Not Steal. etc. ]