Samuel [Shmuel] the Prophet made it very clear to Israel that their asking  for king was against God's will. This is curious since in the Torah one of the commandment is to make a king.  Though I have heard one answer that they said "a king like the other nations" but so what? The Torah also makes the same sort of reference,  John Locke suggested a king meant the head of the military and he shows proofs of this. One answer that makes sense is the command to make a king in the Torah would be after the whole land of Israel would be conquered. In any case, it does not say how the king would be chosen. Thoughit was through the prophet or sanhedrin I wonder about voting.

 

אספר כל נפאותיך psalm 105. [''I will say over all of Your works.''] Is not the Universe the work of God? Since it is, saying over the Physics and Mathematics that describe it, is  saying over the workss of God. You see this idea in the Rambam and other Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda. In the Rambam you see this in the story of the King where the scholars of Talmud axe outside his palace nd the Physicists are inside. [That is at the end of one of the volumes of the Guide for the Perplexed--but I forget which volume. I think after vol. III or IV.]

to understand Christianity

I spent a good deal of time trying to understand Christianity and my basic impression is that there are different opinions in the four gospels about who Jesus was.  But at no  point did he claim to be God. Being a son of God is not the same thing as God. Saying  to Pontius Pilate "I am" is not saying that he was God. He was not being asked if he was God. The question was if he was king of the Jews. And as for the phrase "I am" that is not the same thing as what God said at the burning bush where he said אהיה אשר אהיה "I will be that who I will be"  

But in any case, there are four different opinions about who Jesus was in the four Gospels. 

And as for nullification of the commandments, that was the idea of Paul who certainly did not get it from Jesus who never said [nor dreamed]such a thing.

 Elections are coming up in Israel and I think to vote Likud is the best idea. The religious tickets I can not agree with because they do not really represent Torah. The religious groups even on their small playing fields create hell on earth in their own communities. 

clashes of empires

 There have been clashes of empires since the dawn of man. See e.g. the histories of the Bronze Age empires and the clash of Sparta and Athens and Rome and Hannibal. It seems to me that it is of upmost importance that the USA and Russia should get along for both are looking out for the welfare of their own citizens. A lot of this conflict stems from misunderstandings.

 I have tried to make clear some of the issues that have caused Russia to see the importance of protecting the Russians in the east areas in Ukraine, But whether i have succeeded or not, you should take my word for it that there are reasons and that it is not worth while to start WWIII because of this issue. 

warning about doctors in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 50

 I would like to mention the warning about doctors in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 50 that make a lot of sense. Not that the field of medicine has not gone forward since then. But that it is possible to see how accurate Rav Nahman was in when you look at the poison vaccines.  But more than that. Psychology i a blatant pseudo science because it come under the definition of pseudo science, A Karl Popper would put it:It is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable experiment that could every be performed that would cancell out any one of their many many elf contradicting theories. A true science ha to be able to give an experiment that would say for example if this thermometer reads above 5, then my theory is wrong. 

Rambam chapter 3 halacha 2 laws of renting Tur hoshen mishpat 390 Bava Metzia 82.

 Bava Metzia 82. a person is hired to carry a barrel and he drops it on a path that is flat. [If the path iss at an angle then everyone agrees he does not paybut takes an oath that it was by accident.]The Tur says he is obligated to pay because stumbling is negligence, like R. Elazar. But the Tur also decided in the case with two people carrying  their own barrels and one falls and the other bumped into him and breaks hiss own barrel, the first does not have to pay because it was not his fault that he fell. 

to Rav Shach the difference is there is a level of obligation when one is hired to carry the barrel of someone else. He is required to guard it. That is a different level of obligation when one is carrying in a public domain. There he doe not have a special obligation to guard other's things.

Rav Chaim of Brisk says that the  the one who was hired to carry a barrel is obligated because a person is always liable to cause damage unless they are especially careful. 

i was thinking that the one who was hired did an act and thus obligated. the second case is where the one who fell did no act. The other person stumbled over him. And so the first does not have to pay, The second should have been more careful.and 

I am not saying that I have a different answer. rather that Rav Chaim of Brisk is right that in some cases making a pit or other kind of obstacle in a public domain is not obligated  and that Rav Shach is right that one hired does have an extra degree of responsibility that any other person. But that here there is a further reason to be obligated since he did an act.  

I also would like to mention here the opinion of the Ramban Nahmanides who holds all that cause damage must pay even if it is by accident as Rav Shach brings his opinion.[This is quoted in the sshita Meubetzet in Bava Metzia] The case of one who is hired to carry a barrel and breaks it in which case the mishna brings that he is not obligated, the Ramban says that is not the same case. A worker  who causes damage in the course of his work is not considered as one who causes damage. So how would the Ramban explain the case of two people carrying barrels and one slips and falls and the other stumbles over him where the first is not obligated even in the case of smooth ground, not at an incline. The Ramban would have to explain that is also referring to two people that are hired to carry barrels. But why would the opinion of R Elazar be left out there? The Ramban would have to say that is simply the same opinion as the Mishna where on who is hired and breaks the barrel by accident is not obligated  even in the case of a straight path not at an inline. _________________________________________________________________________________

 בבא מציעא פ''ב. a person is hired to carry a barrel and he drops it on a path that is flat. The טור חושן משפט ש''צ says he is obligated to pay because stumbling is negligence \[נתקל פושע], like ר' אלאזר. But the טור also decided in the case with two people carrying  their own barrels and one falls and the other bumped into him and breaks his own barrel, the first does not have to pay because it was not his fault that he fell. To רב שך the difference is there is a level of obligation when one is hired to carry the barrel of someone else. He is required to guard it. That is a different level of obligation when one is carrying in a public domain. There he doe not have a special obligation to guard other's things. רב חיים מבריסק says that the  the one who was hired to carry a barrel is obligated because  אדם מועד לעולםa person is always liable to cause damage unless they are especially careful.  i was thinking that the one who was hired did an act and thus obligated. the second case is where the one who fell did no act. The other person stumbled over him. And so the first does not have to pay, The second should have been more careful.

I am not saying that I have a different answer. rather that רב חיים of בריסק is right that in some cases making a בור or other kind of obstacle in a public domain is not obligated  and that רב שך is right that one hired does have an extra degree of responsibility יותר that any other person. But that here there i a further reason to be obligated since he did an act. 

I also would like to mention here the opinion of the רמב''ן who holds all that cause damage must pay even if it is by accident as Rav Shach brings his opinion.[This is quoted in the שיטה מקובצת in בבא מציעא] The case of one who is hired to carry a barrel and breaks it in which case the מששנה brings that he is not obligated, The רמב''ן says that is not the same case. A worker  who causes damage in the course of his work is not considered as one who causes damage. So how would the רמב''ן explain the case of two people carrying barrels and one slips and falls and the other stumbles over him where the first is not obligated even in the case of smooth ground, not at an incline. The רמב''ן would have to explain that is also referring to two people that are hired to carry barrels. But why would the opinion of ר' אלאזר be left out there? The רמב''ן would have to say that is simply the same opinion as the משנה where on who is hired and breaks the barrel by accident is not obligated  even in the case of a straight path not at an inline. 

בבא מציעא פ''ב. אדם נשכר לשאת חבית והוא מפיל אותה על שביל שטוח. הטור חושן משפט ש''צ אומר שהוא חייב לשלם כי מעידה היא רשלנות \[נתקל פושע], כמו ר' אלאזר. אבל הטור הכריע גם במקרה שני אנשים נושאים חביות משלהם ואחד נופל והשני נתקל בו ושובר את החבית של עצמו, הראשון אינו חייב לשלם כי זה לא באשמתו שנפל. לרב שך ההבדל הוא שיש רמת התחייבות כאשר אדם נשכר לשאת חבית של מישהו אחר. הוא נדרש לשמור עליו. זו רמה אחרת של חובה כאשר אדם נושא ברשות הרבים. שם אין לו חובה מיוחדת לשמור על דברים של הזולת. רב חיים מבריסק אומר שמי שנשכר לשאת חבית חייב משום אדם מועד לעולם, [אדם תמיד עלול לגרום נזק אלא אם כן הוא זהיר במיוחד]. חשבתי שמי שנשכר עשה מעשה ובכך התחייב. המקרה השני הוא שבו הנפל לא עשה מעשה. האדם השני מעד עליו. ולכן הראשון לא צריך לשלם, השני היה צריך להיזהר יותר.

אני לא אומר שיש לי תשובה אחרת. אלא שרב חיים מבריסק צודק שבמקרים מסוימים עשיית בור או סוג אחר של מכשול ברשות הרבים אינה חייבת וכי רב שך צודק שלאדם שנשכר יש מידה נוספת של אחריות יותר מכל אדם אחר. אלא שכאן יש עוד סיבה להתחייב כיון שעשה מעשה.

כמו כן, ברצוני להזכיר כאן את דעתו של הרמב''ן המחזיק בכל הנזק חייב לשלם גם אם זה במקרה כפי שהרב שך מביא את דעתו. [הדבר מובא בשיטה מקובצת בבא מציעא] המקרה של מי שנשכר לשאת חבית ושובר אותה שאז מביא המשנה שאינו חייב, אומר הרמב''ן שאין זה אותו מקרה. עובד הגורם נזק במסגרת עבודתו אינו נחשב כמי שגורם נזק. אז איך היה מסביר הרמב''ן דין שני אנשים נושאי חביות ואחד מחליק ונופל והשני מעד עליו במקום שאין חייב הראשון אפילו בקרקע חלקה, שלא בשיפוע. הרמב''ן יצטרך להסביר שהכוונה גם לשני אנשים שנשכרים לשאת חביות. אך מדוע תישאר דעתו של ר' אלאזר בחוץ? הרמב''ן יצטרך לומר שזה פשוט כדעת המשנה שבו על מי שנשכר ושובר את החבית בשוגג אינו חייב אפילו במסלול ישר שלא שיפוע.

 

interest in Kant

 I wanted to mention at some point that I realize interest in Kant is increasing in the academic world since the vacuous nature of twentieth century philosophy has become clear. So as expected the three names of the great Kant interpreters in the English world Sellars, Allison, and Strawson have even come up in German Academia. But also the two versions of Cohen. the Marburg School and the earlier Cohen.

In all of this still Leonard Nelson and his New Friesian School seems neglected. That would not bother me so much since at least their material has been printed. But the rather novel synthesis of Kant Nelson and Schopenhauer of Kelley Ross  seems ignored. Why? I assume it must be that the same accusations of flimsy thinking or psychologism must be at the root of this. But just as this accusation was not true in the case of Nelson, I think it also is unfounded in the case of Kelley Ross. His approach to Kant I find quite refreshing and can help not just in understanding Kant and issues like the transcendental thinking subject but also in understanding the wider world.

 Ukraine was Russian territory since Tzar Alexei in 1654 until 1991. No wonder the Russians want it back.

Besides that everyone I talked with in the Ukraine whether in Uman or Kiev or Odessa thought things were better under Russian rule. But that was a surprise to me. I had thought everyone would have been happy at the fall of the USSR/ But as it turned out, people thought otherwise.

 I wanted to mention at some point that I wish to make clear my dad's role in the U-2 project and the invention of the Infrared telescope.  In both cases, I wrote here on my blog that I thought he did not get enough credit. But recently it was made clear.  First of all, he had made the second camera for the U-2 that could see a toothpick from 20,000 feet. But that was rarely used because of its weight. The people that made the smaller camera that  was the workhorse and did the photos over the USSR and Cuba got the credit they deserved.

And as for his invention of the infrared telescope, he did in fact get the credit that he deserved --not just in Life Magazine but in Time Magazine and on TV shows.

 to accept on oneself the yoke of Torah is a help for oneself and the whole world as you can see in the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin vol IV. So when you see the world falling into chaos, the best thing is to set times to get through the two Talmuds and the midrashim. Commentaries on these also count as "learning Torah". The problem nowadays is there is too much pseudo Torah and false Torah. As we see in Sanhedrin that one who reads outside books has no portion in the next world. And the Rif and Rosh explain outside books are books that explain the Torah but have explanations that are not from the Two Talmuds or the Midrashim. That of course means almost 99.9% of all so calle Torah books today are pseudo Torah.

Why I have not merited to learn Torah

 It occurred to me one reason why I have not merited to learn Torah [see the reason why Ilfa [who was learning Torah with R Yochanan] went to work, while R. Yochanan stayed to learn Torah.] the reason I believe was that I made my learning Torah contingent on circumstances. Before I got married, I made it clear that I was going to learn Torah, and that was that. My future bride asked, "But what if there is no money." I said, ''If it comes a day when there is no food and no money, I will go and work.'' [Just like Ilfa who made the same mistake.] and since I made my Torah learning dependent on circumstances, thus later even though there was plenty of food and money, my wife left me because I was learning Torah.  and  I was praying with the sidur of the Reshash [Sar Shalom Sharabi.]  And then at that point , being a  divorced older guy, I was no longer the type of person that yeshivot beg to come to them and lay out the red carpet. I was thrown out of every place I tried to sit and learn Torah. So eventually, I realized I had no place in the religious world, and went to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU, and went into Physics. [But that, in any case, was after I found support for this in the Chovot Levavot and the Guide for the Perplexed.]

I mention this because I see when one gets married he needs to be committed to learning Torah with no conditions attached and to marry a girl that is similarly committed. 

 People do not realize that pushing  Russia they are playing with fire. Putin does not need 6000 nukes. Just one would destroy NY State and make the entire East Coast uninhabitable  down to South Carolina. Ukraine would be the first to go, Then as the USA continues to "punish Russia" the West and East Coast will be then next to go. [That is why Russia has submarines. They are now sitting off the East and West coast of the USA--right now.]

Ukraine was ready to make a deal until the USA encouraged the government of Ukraine to continue fighting. Believe me, 99.9% of people in Uman  prefer Russian rule rather than the leaders in Kiev. [i was in uman for years and talked with everyone I met about this exact issue.]  No one benefits from the continued fighting.

new music file

 z93  z93 nwcmy music background is not professional. i just write for myself. only a few years ago i found away to share with others a you can scattered on this blog different pieces with labels starting with when i began to share, plus some old music i wrote in high school and later in uman like the piece called mathematics.

 Jesus is misunderstood. He did not say not to keep the commandments of the Torah. What he said about this specific subject is turned into its opposite in a feat of sophistry that even the most brilliant lawyer could never duplicate. [see sermon on the mount]

He never claimed worship or to be God.

But to be fair, Christians that take his words seriously tend to kindness towards others to a degree rarely seen anywhere else.

I should mention that Aquinas and Hegel did try to show the rational foundations of Christianity, but it seems to me that these two issues remain unanswered. I am not the first to notice them,- as you can see in the book of Saadia Gaon who also brings them up.

BUT I tend to see Aquinas as important for defending Divine Simplicity but not that he succeeded. Hegel also i see defending faith, but absorbing it into reason. Rather I think Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross do the best job in defending an approach which sees faith and reason as two separate areas of value. however these philosophers are unknown because Nelson was not translated and Kelley Ross wrote just his PhD thesis which goes into the Kant Friesian Approach in comprehensive depth. It is all just a side route in Kantian Philosophy which the West disregarded a long time ago. 

Besides it deals with Kantian philosophy which asks how reason can recognize universals at all,-- while Michael Huemer [see his pre-graduate papers about objective morality ] deals with what reason can recognize among universals after you accept that it can do so in the first place. See Huemer proof of objective morality:(1) There are moral propositions.

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

(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism) 

in his paper: Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness.

Bava Metzia page 35.Rambam Laws of Guards chapter 1 Halacha 6.

 At first glance, it looks like Rav Shach has a good argument for the Rambam.   The Rambam holds a guard that gives to another guard like R. Jose. And he holds that the reason is not like Rav Idi bar Abin but rather from the reasoning alone of "How can the first guard do business with the cow of another?" And that really Abyee would be right if not for that. But to me this looks weak. If Abyee is right that the first guard owns the cow right away at the time of the accident, then it makes no sense to as how can he do business with the cow of another when it already is his cow. If you are going to decide like R Yose against the sages as the Rambam does, then the only reason has to be because of  Idi bar Abin.

And as for the argument that he brings from Rav Aahron Kotler [later in laws of guards chap 2 law 3] that neglect is a good plea as opposed to "It is not  not in my possession"-that is a good argument for the Raavad and that does not mean that the case in chapter 1 law 6 is from the same reasoning. The case in chap 1 is that of the cow died in a normal way,  not from neglect, and that is a good plea.

Just to give some background as to what I mean here:

The Mishna states a case when  guard gives the  cow that he was hired to guard to another guard. The first is a paid guard. The second is borrowing from the first. The cow then dies naturally. The sages said the first guard takes an oath that it died naturally as is his normal requirement and the second guard who was borrowing from the first pays the first guard. R. Yose asks how can the first guard do business with the cow of another? 

Idi bar Abin says the owner of the cow should just tell the first guard "I do not need you nor your oath" and the go to the second guard, (the borrower) and get paid for the cow--as is the normal case of a borrower who pays in all cases.

The Rambam decides like R. Jose.

Later in chapter 2 law 3 the Rambam writes neglect is he same as causing damage and the Raavad disagrees. Rav Shach says that the reason for the Raavad is that he hold the plea of neglect is a good plea i and of itself even without an oath to back it up.

_______________________________________________________________________

 At first glance it looks like רב שך has a good argument for the רמב''ם,   The  רמב''ם holds a שומר that gives to another שומר like ר' יוסי. And he holds that the reason is not like רב אידי בר אבין but rather from the reasoning alone of "how can the first guard do business with the cow of another". And that really אביי would be right if not for that. But to me this looks weak. If אביי is right that the first guard owns the cow right away at the time of the accident then it makes no sense to ask how can he do business with the cow of another when it already is his cow. If you are going to decide like ר' יוסי against the חכמים as the רמב''ם does, then the only reason has to be because of   רב אידי בר אבין. And as for the argument that he brings later in laws of guards chap 2 law 3 that neglect is a good plea as opposed to "it is not  not in my possession"-that is a good argument for the ראב''ד and that does not mean that the case in chapter 1 law 6 is from the same reasoning. The case in chap 1 is that of the cow died in a normal way,  not from neglect and that is a good plea. Just to give some background as to what I mean here: The משנה states a case when  guard gives the  cow that he was hired to guard to another guard. The first is a paid guard. The second is borrowing from the first. The cow then dies naturally. The חכמים said the first guard takes an oath that it died naturally as is his normal requirement and the second guard who was borrowing from the first pays the first guard. ר' יוסי asks ''how can the first guard do business with the cow of another?'' רב אידי בר אבין says the owner of the cow should just tell the first guard ''I do not need you nor your oath'' and then goes to the second guard, [the borrower] and get paid for the cow, as is the normal case of a borrower who pays in all cases. The רמב''ם decides like ר' יוסי. Later in chapter 2 law 3 the רמב''ם writes neglect is he same as causing damage and the ראב''ד disagrees. רב שך says that the reason for the ראב''ד is that he hold the טענה of פשיעה is a good plea is and of itself even without an oath to back it up.

במבט ראשון נראה שלרב שך יש טיעון טוב לרמב''ם. הרמב''ם מחזיק שומר שנותן לשומר אחר כמו ר' יוסי. והוא גורס שהסיבה אינה כמו רב אידי בר אבין אלא מהנימוק בלבד של "איך יכול השומר הראשון לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר". ובאמת אביי היה צודק אלמלא זה. אבל לי זה נראה חלש. אם אביי צודק שהשומר הראשון מחזיק בפרה מיד בזמן התאונה, אז אין טעם לשאול איך הוא יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר כשהיא כבר הפרה שלו. אם אתה מתכוון להחליט כמו ר' יוסי נגד החכמים כמו הרמב''ם, אז הסיבה היחידה צריכה להיות בגלל רב אידי בר אבין.

[רב שך מביא את תשובת אביי שהשומר זוכה בפרה בזמן התאונה, לא בזמן השבועה, וזו הוכחה לחכמים. אבל רב שך אומר שר' יוסי מסכים עם זה באופן עקרוני, אבל עדיין מחזיק אחרת בגלל השאלה "איך השומר יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר?"]

ולגבי הטענה שהוא מביא בהמשך הלכות שומרים פרק ב' דין ג' שהזנחה היא טענה טובה בניגוד ל"אין זה ברשותי" - זה טענה טובה לראב''ד, וזה לא אומר שהמקרה בפרק א' חוק ו' הוא מאותו נימוק. המקרה בפרק א' הוא שהפרה מתה בדרך רגילה, לא מהזנחה וזו טענה טובה. רק כדי לתת קצת רקע למה אני מתכוון כאן: המשנה מציינת מקרה שבו השומר נותן פרה שהוא נשכר לשמור לשומר אחר. הראשון הוא שומר בתשלום. השני הוא לווה מהראשון. לאחר מכן הפרה מתה באופן טבעי. החכמים אמרו שהשומר הראשון נשבע שהוא מת באופן טבעי כדרישה הרגילה והשומר השני שלווה מהראשון משלם לשומר הראשון. ר' יוסי שואל ''איך השומר הראשון יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר?'' רב אידי בר אבין אומר שהבעלים של הפרה צריך פשוט לומר לשומר הראשון ''אני לא צריך אותך ולא את השבועה שלך'' ואז הולך לשומר השני, [הלווה] ומקבל תשלום עבור הפרה, כמו במקרה הרגיל של הלווה שמשלם בכל המקרים. הרמב''ם מחליט כמו ר' יוסי. בהמשך פרק ב' חוק ג' כותב הרמב''ם שהזנחה היא זהה לגרימת נזק, והרב''ד חולק. רב שך אומר שהסיבה לראב''ד היא שהוא מחזיק בטענה של פשיעה היא טענה טובה אפילו בלי שבועה לגבות אותה.

 I have been thinking about the problems in the world and i recall the advice that i heard while in Litvak yeshivot-- learning Torah brings peace to the world.  Instead of complaining about it or offering solutions that will not work, I  recommend to people to learn Torah. But "Torah" is specific. It is not a word that can be applied to anything. As the Rambam wrote in a letter: "Just like one can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so one can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." That is: the only things which get to be called the Oral Law are the actual books handed down by the sages of the Mishna and Talmud. Later on books are not "Torah" except in a secondhand sort of way in that some of them might be explanations of the Talmud.    

The sad thing is I wanted to learn Torah , but circumstances and my own personal failings led to me not being able to do so, so I had to depend on the opinion of some Rishonim like the Rambam that include Physics and Metaphysics in the category of Learning Torah. [Not that he is saying they are Torah, but rather in the category of ''learning Torah'' that is to clarify the deeper meaning of Torah.]  

 i think one should divide the time half for iyun [deep learning] and half for bekiut./fast learning. even though in the conversation of rav nachman 76 we find the emphasis on jut saying the words as fast a possible and going on, in the LeM vol I ch 78 we see that the main thig is iyun. so clearly there need to be both. but how much of each. i can see the need for both -especially in early ages because when people do not get ''how to learn'' [how to really get into the depths of the subject] they never get it.

when i was young i also did not understand this as i think most people do not. i thought what is the point of spending a few weeks on one page of gemara when i have not even finished the whole tractate at least a few times to get the big picture? but now i see that we people do not get iyun when they are young they never get it. o clearly the great litvak yeshivot that immerse people in iyun right away have the right idea. 

Rav Nahman made a very big deal about sexual purity, and I can see that he was right on one hand. But there is also the danger of adding and or subtracting from what the Torah commands, -as its says in Devarim Deuteronomy,  not to add or subtract from the law. after all in Torah there are things that are emphasizing and things which are less emphasized-- and it is not up to every individual to decide on his or her own what is really important and what is not.

For a simple and well know example: lashon hara [slander]. וויתר הקדוש ברוך הוא על עבודה זרה  גילוי עריות שפיכות דמים ולא וויתר על לשון הרע  God let go and forgave sexual sin, murder and idolatry in the time of the first temple but did not forgive them for lashon hara.

Even though there are specific conditions in which one can speak negatively about others as a rule anything one says about others that is negative comes under the category of lason hara.

So we see that there is a hierarchy of values in Torah and it is not just up to everyone to decide for themselves what is more important and what is less. 

For this reason it is worthwhile to learn the Gates of Repentance which gives a basic overview of the commandments and their degrees of being more or less important 

 I was interested in the issue of idolatry and thus learned Sanhedrin 64 and onwards until the next chapter, and also that Tosphot on shituf שיתוף. Shituf שיתוף is combing the name of God with another. This comes up in the Gemara and right there on the page Tosphot deals with Christianity. To Tosphot it is not idolatry since they worship God, but they join God with a representative. So it is shituf שיתוף.

at least that is one opinion in tosphot. but when i learned that tosphot with david bronson, he noticed that there seemed to be a few other approaches in that very same tosphot.

At any rate, the problems with Christianity are (bitul hamitzvot) nullification of the commandments -which comes from Paul, not Jesus. The other is worship of a person who is not the first cause. that is wrong even given that he was the Messiah son of Josef as held by Rav Avraham Abulafia. a person being considered ''divine'' is not against the torah as stated by the Ari Rav Izhak Luria about Avraham, Izhak yaakov and others who were souls of Emanation which is totally Godliness.  

 My impression in Ukraine was most people were more happy with living in the USSR rather than after the fall of the Soviet state. I base this on the fact that after Rosh Hashanah in Uman , i stayed there for long periods and whenever i went to the local markets i asked people if they were happy that the USSR was gone. And the answer was always the same except for two people. Everyone said ''Things were better under the USSR.'' The two people that disagreed with this were  a good friend of mine. The other was the home owner of the place I was staying at for seven years. He was of Tartar decent so I can see why his feelings would have been different.

 There is a good reason to support someone learning Torah. But there also a  problem about the mentality involved. Far too often people in kollel get the idea that they are the Patrician class while the rest of us plebeians only exist to give them money. But in authentic Torah thought, there is no class distinction. Anyone who wants to sit and learn Torah even on a beginners level  is equal to someone learning at the Mir or Brisk..

 After the Ukraine destroyed the bridge linking the Crimea with mainland, there is no question that russia will retaliate in a massive way including nuclear strikes to defend the four annexed territories. U really don't understand why someone does not try to  the lessen tensions instead of pouring on rhetoric that will ignite global catastrophe.

 I mentioned to someone in the local Breslov [Na Nach ] place that if I had known better, I would have spent half time in Shar Yashuv [a great Litvak yeshiva in NY] and half time in university. But in this conversation, it came up about what I would have majored in.  -- Philosophy. And he pointed out that therefore it was great that I did not go to university.--as we know nowadays how far philosophy has become ''obviously false'' [in the famous words of the great philosopher John Searle]

[Physics would not have been possible for me at that time since I was not aware of the way of learning of Rav Nahman of just saying the words and going on.  With that method I did in fact go to NYU university and majored in Physics]

 I realize that doing lots of review is an essential part of the Litvak world. I recall that when I mentioned the idea of fast learning [saying the words and going on] to Motti Friefeld, he made it clear that review is the proper way of learning. But in Shar Yashuv there was such an emphasis on deep learning and review that i sort of had to rebel in order to  make any progress at all. And this idea of review is mentioned in the Gemara about that disciple who had to learn one thing 400 times in order to get the idea at all.  

In the long run, i think  the general path of the litvak world is deep learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon --and that combination makes the most sense for me.

[fast learning means with tosphot,, just with less staying on the same page.]

 

new music file

 z89

What is idolatry-the worship of any being besides the First Cause

 The very word ''idolatry'' is being used in a sloppy fashion. While people may have things they over emphasize, that is not idolatry. And things that are idolatry are thought to be kosher since they are Jewish.

What is idolatry-the worship of any being besides the First Cause by any one of the four services or are according to its way.[חגשה הקטרה שחיטה השתחוויה] Bringing close to an altar, burning [incense or similar], slaughter bowing, or according to its way.

So when I say worship  of tzadikim  is idolatry I mean the last sort of service, I.e.,  doing what they say as a way of serving them is idolatry.

So when i say the religious world is doing idolatry I mean this in a literal sense.

[however to become an object of idolatry is easy. all one needs is to say ''serve me''.] see Sanhedrin 64 and onwards for a few pages and the Tosephta over there from where I got this last law.

[However I consider Rav Nahman of Breslov to be a great tzadik so even if some people might apply his teachings in odd ways, that does not diminish his importance for understanding and fulfilling of Torah]

 There is such a thing as trust in God without effort. and in fact I had hoped todo this in terms of learning Torah--and in fact things did work out well as long a i stuck with this path. however at some point I thought to find work. But instead of finding work, things fell apart. but i never thought the generally accepted view in which people sit in kollel and get a paycheck for learning Torah could be kosher at all.  

 There can be reasons why you might join a group that seems spiritually enlightened and yet seems to be low in morality. To them lying, defrauding , is okay. I think this is a common source of  test for many people. When thy fall into the group that seems spiritually enlightened-- this is the beginning of their fall. That is when their lives go wrong because they fell from what is truly good to that which gives the appearance of good, but in fact they are low lives for whom lying and cheating of others are ok.

marriage

  Reb Yaakov Emden in his sidur has a section on marriage and goes into great length to say that sex than can bring children should be only Friday night after the middle of the night because that is when holy souls come into the world. 

But at any rate, I would like to suggest this practice to people that wish for good children. This might not be a guarantee, but I believe that this certainly helps. And knowing how hard it can be to have good children, it makes sense to do what ever can help.

yom kippur.

 Yom Kippur. For those people who find fasting impossible, I should mention that half amounts are better than full amounts.  What is a half?  For food it is anything less than a volume of an olive [within a dividing interval of about 4 minutes]. For drink it is less than the amount one can hold in one cheek. [the interval between sips is much less to the Raavad. It is about 10 seconds.]

Since the main idea of Yom Kippur is repentance I think that one ought to make a commitment to learn Musar [i.e., works on ethics from the Middle Ages] 

[There are four major works, but about thirty of the less well studied. Then also there are the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter .] [''Musar'' became synonymous with religious fanaticism after the first generation--but religious fanaticism is a mistake..]

  Most Rishonim and Rav Hai Geon hold the night begins after 72 minutes.  [18 is 3/4 of a mil if you hold a mil is 24 minutes. It also might make sense from the ''three stars''.] [The Gra says the night starts at 3/4 of a mil which is either 13 minutes or 18 minutes. But that is the opinion of a minority of rishonim]

There is no question that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory and that he has already declared the three eastern provinces as Russian territory. So what makes the most sense is to knock down the tension a few notches.  

what is a woman?

 what is a woman? I never bothered to as or answer this since it is an open mishna. Anyone who wants to now can simply look it up. Androginus has two sex organs so he or she is  a doubt. Other than that there is no doubt.. . But if this is unclear then, the fact that male or female is in every cell. XX female. XY Male.

And if that is still unclear then I suppose there is no point arguing. If one denies the difference between men and women, then there is nothing more obvious to appeal to. And you are dealing with the most disingenuous and insincere of all.  

If Russia sees this is where the west is going, no wonder they want no part of it. Nor do they want a border state  with these insanities anywhere near it. 

Bava Metzia page 35.

Introduction. A person that rents a cow, and the cow dies naturally, takes an oath that it died naturally and does not have to pay for it because it was not his fault. But a person that borrows a cow and it dies naturally has to pay. In the language of the Gemara this is שומר חינם נשבע על הכל. שואל משלם על הכל. שומר שכר נשבע על אונסים גדולים כמו לסטיים  מזויימים ומשלם על אונסים קטנים כמו גניבה ואבידה and we are saying a renter is like a paid guard. 

 I am sorry not to have written anything about the Gemara for a long time but my head has been in mathematics for a while. but today I just wanted to share one thought about Adi bar Abin's statement and Abyee's answer in Bava Metzia page 35. There the Sages say if you have a renter who rents a cow and loans it to a borrower. Then the cow died naturally. The Sages said the renter takes an oath and the borrower pays him [not the owner]. Adi bar Abin objected to this '' let the owner tell him 'I do not need you nor your oath'. Abyee answered '' the sages are saying that the renter gets possession not at the time of the oath but the time of the death of the cow.

It occurred to me to wonder about what abyee means. I thought perhaps he means like  the opinion in the Gemara that a guard of an object has a sort of possession in the object, but then i thought that can't be what Abyee means since then he would have said the possession starts right when it is given over to guard. So I think you have to say like Reb Aaron Kotler that he means the prior assumption is with the renter even before he takes the oath. it is after all natural for a cow to die. the only reason for the oath is to appease the owner. but even without that the assumption is that he should not have to pay. 

 Though i am not looking for agreement, it is encouraging when i find it. i was at the local breslov [na nach ] place yesterday and a person was saying a drasha [speech] and mentioned in it how the entire religious world is pure idolatry, [since they all worship some tzaddik (someone who is supposedly righteous)]. And the unusual thing about this is that that person is totally traditional Sephardi. From what i gathered he is an av beit din in some city and in his drasha he was quoting traditional Sephardi sources like Rav Yaakov Abuchatzaira.

 Ukraine was apart of Russia since the time of Alexsei Romanov.. The long and short of it is the whole area up until western Europe was under the domain of the Mongols. Then in one decisive battle the yoke of the    Mongols was thrown off by a Russian. So Russia became independent while the Ukraine was still part of Poland. Then the Cossacks of Ukraine rebelled from Poland and sought alliance with the Turks and then Russia i.e. Alexsei Romanov thus became ruler of Ukraine in the 1600's. It remained a part of Russia until the start of the USSR. Then it was still part of what in the west was still called russia even though the ussr was not strictly Russia but it still was more or less the exact same thing as the empire ruled by the czars.

 The transcendental deduction of Kant is on shaky ground. He himself rewrote it in the second edition. The idea is to show that after he has first given proof that reason and empirical knowledge have two different sources, then he wants to show that in spite of that, they work together to give true knowledge. I am thinking that the Friesian idea of a deeper source of knowledge [immediate non-intuitive knowledge] gives a answer that is almost implicit in Kant himself. For even in the second edition of the Critique,  he only shows that pure reason and knowledge based on the senses must work together, but not how.