In the beginning of Roman history there is an event that is brought about ''the gods that avenge parents''.[This was the event that caused the downfall of the last Roman king at which it became a republic.] While on one hand, we do not believe in  other gods, but we are also aware that God has angels and archangels  that are appointed over certain tasks (as is brought in the Gemara). To be aware that there are Furies that will never forgive nor ever forget can be helpful to remind one that there is a Judge and there is judgment, people may think they have no responsibility to honor and obey their parents and to blame all their troubles on their parents as Saint Freud taught. And even their parents may forgive and forget. But the gods that avenge parents will never forget  nor forgive and will always collect payment- sooner or later , because they are the ''Furies''--the gods that even the gods of Mount Olympus fear. No sacrifice can appease them. No  prayer can turn away their wrath.

A dimension where time goes backwards and entropy also goes backwards

 In String Theory there are 26 dimensions that have to be curled up to make our  dimensional world. This is promising because only in String Theory is there a viable theory  of quantum gravity. Also there i the advantage of no need for artificial steps to get re-normalization. In these extra dimensions I think there  must be some in which time goes forward and entropy also goes forward. But there must be one in which time goes backwards and entropy goes forward. Also another in which time goes forward and entropy backwards. And another in which time goes backwards and entropy also goes backwards. The reason for  i partly based on Feynman who put forward a paper in 1948 about time reversal and later some people suggested entropy reversal. Even later Georg Ryzanov suggested showed in unpublished papers that the values of electron and proton mass result automatically from these assumptions.

His mechanism for the physical process which would resutt in this was flawed, but it would work well in the context of String Theory'

I spent a lot of time with the papers of Ryzanov but have no more of them and I think they might be lost. It i ad because he showed amazing results in hi equations  

      

scroll of Ruth

In the scroll of Ruth it looks that Ruth was subject to Yibum. That is curious. When he was the wife of Mahlon, she was not Jewish.  How then would yibum apply? Plus Yibum is only for brothers from the father. Not uncles.

The whole discussion between Boaz and Ploni Almoni would have made sense if they were brothers of Mahlon, not Elimelech.

Plus what was that about if Ploni would buy the field then he would have to marry Ruth?

Just to be clear Yibum is when when one brother marries but then dies before he has children. Then one of hi brothers takes the wife [so that his memory will not be lost. Children that that net brother will have ill be considered a children of the first brother.]  

 

 Robert Hanna does a great service to philosophy in showing the flaws of all USA and British ''analytic'' philosophy of the 20th century. And he is quite right about the ''Forward to Kant'' approach, but he does also acknowledge the great contributions of G. E. Moore [who forms the approach of Michael Huemer]

Still, I am waiting for someone to acknowledge Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross.   It must be that too much of the lashon hara [slander] of Husserl stuck. [i.e., psychologism].   

 It does take a certain kind of sense or intuition to feel the importance of learning Torah and I think that it is something that  needs to be nourished, for it can be lost. This is the reason I think that the sages said one should marry only the daughter of a Torah scholar. For (as it was said in the great Litvak yeshivot): "If one's wife wants him to learn, he will learn; and if she does not, he won't." The wife of Rav Kinyevsky one time when he was learning  told a visitor to come back at a later time when the Rav was accepting visitors saying "Do you want my husband to be an am haaretz?"[i.e. "ignoramus" ]

I actually wanted to marry the daughter of a talmid chacham [Torah scholar] for that very same reason, but did not succeed. The interesting thing is that my wife [Leah/aka Paula Finn]  did have a great sense and intuition about the importance of learning Torah, even though she was not really a daughter of a Torah scholar. But that is not so clear in itself for her father [Bill Finn] certainly had a sense of the importance of trust in God and in learning Torah though he was a working guy.

So, to conclude, I think it is more important to marry someone with a sense of Torah rather than someone who is publicly learning, but might be doing so just because it is a way to make money nowadays.

 

the reasons for the signature on the letter of excommunication(herem): Monotheism and not to do idolatry,

The major theme of  Old Testament is Monotheism and not to do idolatry, You can see this especially in the chapters f Deuteronomy from about chapters 4  to 10 and in the events surrounding the kings of Judah and Israel.  I was reminded of this today listening to the events surrounding  the anointing of Yehu. [He was anointed king in order to wipe out the house of Ahab --because they did idolatry, Not because of Jewish identity. For King Ahab was as Jewish as can be. But in the eyes of God, Jewish identity makes not the slightest bit of difference. What matters to God is only one question: did Ahab serve idols or not,   Of course in those days this was an easier question to answer. Nowadays they dress idols in Jewish garments and that is supposed to make it ok. 

For anything besides God can be an object of idolatry, It does not have to be a statue. It can be a person even true tzadikim. All the more so fake tzadikim. This is in fact one of the reasons for the signature on the letter of excommunication(herem). That is  the reasons of idolatry.

Spiritual vision

  Spiritual vision is not unknown. If it was totally illegitimate then the Gra would have said so. And Rav Yaakov Abuchazteira used to call the Ari [Isaac Luria] ''our teacher''. But there is something parasitic about mysticism that seduces people away from straight faith and reason. [Sri Aurobindo refers to the danger of mysticism as the "Intermediate Zone"] 

Aurobindo asserted that spiritual aspirants may pass through an intermediate zone where experiences of force, inspiration, illumination, light, joy, expansion, power, and freedom from normal limits are possible. These can become associated with personal aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment, and even be falsely interpreted as full spiritual realization....  Those who go astray in it may end in a spiritual disaster, or may remain stuck there and adopt some half-truth as the whole truth, or become an instrument of lesser powers of these transitional planes. According to Aurobindo, this happens to many sadhaks and yogis

Humans are stupid, and the stupidest think they know how best to run everyone’s lives in minute detail and are bound and determined to force the rest of us to go along with their stupidity.

real authentic Oral Law

 In the Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] there is an emphasis on Reason and Faith. But they do not mean  faith in anything  nor any reasonable sounding doctrines. As the Rambam puts it: "Just like one can not add nor subtract from the written Law so one can not add nor subtract from the Oral Law." So he means to eliminate pseudo Torah and books that pretend to be Torah. To him there is a cut-off point when the Oral Law was redacted.  That means the Two Talmuds, and the Midrashim are the only real authentic Oral Law and everything else which claims to be Torah is Torah from the Dark Side. [Midrash means two things Midrash Agada and Midrash Halacha]. [Zohar does not count as midrash because of the phrase עם כל ד "although". That way of saying although was an invention of the Ibn Tibon family during the Middle Ages. In the time of the Mishna this was said as "אף על פי" or "אף על גב"

 something is odd about mysticism. But I would rather not dismiss it in toto. 

     

When the Rambam refers to Reason he also makes it clear he is referring to Aristotle [and to a lesser degree Plotinus] 

How the Gemara approaches this issue of learning in depth. There is brought the event of the teacher that used to review 400 times the lesson with his student and there is also the suggestion of 40 time review,  Four times review is mentioned in the Gemara also in terms of how much the Children of Israel reviewed each lesson from Moshe Rabbainu [Moses] in the Sinai desert.

I would like to suggest John Locke's Two Treaties as a better idea of government.

 In some great Jewish Philosophers you find the importance of learning Philosophy and Physics . But in those days not much had gone beyond Plato and Aristotle. And the ideas of Plato as regards government I think require a bit of modification. I would like to suggest John Locke's Two Treaties as a better idea of government. Government is an area which is not gone into in the Gemara and in Plato there is a sort of spartan government. I think John Locke provides a better model of government which protects individual liberties.

Other kinds of government do not respect the values of Torah. For example, socialist  government does not respect private property. But religious leaders do not either as they tend to be demons as Rav Nahman [in the LeM I:112 and I:28] pointed out about Torah scholars that are demons Part of the reason for that is they want power and money and use Torah to get them. But Torah is transcendental. It has nothing to  do with social structures. Torah does not give any significance to group dynamics or forms of government. It i personal between a man and God  

My favorite theme about John Locke is that people need to be aware of the development of his ideas in the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford. 

new Friesian school

The Abhandlungen [published journal] of the new Friesian school was quite critical of the Special Theory of Relativity. However it was pointed out by Kelley Ross that that rejection of Relativity did not flow or come automatically from Friesian principle as you can see in  Dr. Ross's web site.

[The reason of Dr. Ross is that non intuitive immediate knowledge is not infallible. Rather that it can be modified because of empirical findings. And that synthetic a priori knowledge has to flow from starting axioms  and not be self contradictory.

[I can see why the Friesians were alarmed by Relativity because to Kant all reason has to start  with space and time--the categories.]

This is close to Michael Huemer's idea that what is known by reason is not necessarily infallible, but can and must be modified by new information. [This is his approach by means of probability (of Bayes)]. And it is not too far from Hegel either in which the door to the real reality can be opened by means of the dialectical approach of Socrates. But that dialectic in Socrates was not meant to be the only way in,  [though it is possible that for Hegel, only the dialectical method is an open the door to real reality, but I am not sure . Concrete abstract synthesis might be almost by definition contain an element of empirical ''concrete''evidence. ]   

 in high school most people thought I was a philosopher.  Even people who were much smarter than me thought I had a certain insight in that direction. And yet I never went into philosophy in college because I could already tell that 20th century philosophy was on its way toward a train wreck, But even so I consider the subject to be important. Of course Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Kant are important but I would like to suggest Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross at his web site to be the best [i think the approach of Nelson is great, but had a serious flaw in the categories of space and time that only Kelley Ross was able to correct.]

My reasoning is that the British American "Analytic Philosophy" is a train wreck and so well pointed out in  books by Robert Hanna. The other 20th century ones are beyond contempt since they are incoherent. Heidegger just substituted Being in place of God and being authentic to oneself instead of moral obligations  to others. Freud I have always thought was a fraud since I could not stand his steam engine model of the human mind. Marx was wrong since the Labor theory of value is false--things have value outside of what amount of work went into making them--for example: AIR.    

 one important idea of Rav Nahman {of Uman and  Breslov}is that not everyone is fit to rebuke, o even though it is one of the 613 commandments to rebuke anyone who is not acting properly, still not everyone i able to give rebuke. For by rebuke that is not proper one can make things worse.  However  "מחאה" is different than rebuke. That is the need to object  in public to actions that are not right. Like in the incident of Kamza and Bar Kamza. One person was invited to a wedding feast by accident. There was a mixup of the wedding invitations. so an enemy of the family was invited to the wedding. When he was thrown out many of the religious scholars were there but did not object. Because of that incident the sages aid the second Temple was destroyed

When a woman or a slave cause damage, Gemara in Bava Kama [perek hachovel] page 87:a.[בבבא קמא פז ע''א] Rambam laws of damage 4 law 21

Ideas in Shas

 When a woman or a slave cause damage,  they do not pay [because they do not own property].רמב''ם הלכות חובל ומזיק 4' כ''א My question here is why should not she sell her ketubah for the benefit of the person she damaged? (After all, someone could buy it for a reduced price because the husband might die before the wife, and then the buyer would collect the whole amount. Or the husband might die first, and then the buyer would collect nothing.)

The Gemara in Bava Kama [perek hachovel] asks this question about property she owns but which is not written in the ketubah. [נכסי מלוג] But that suggestion is only going according to Rav Huna ben Yehoshua who holds even if she would sell that property, the fruit would still go to her husband. [That is how Rav Shach answers this question:  why the Rif, Rambam and Rashi leave out this suggestion of the Gemara?] But I ask about selling the actual ketubah. . And the money from that buyer would then belong to the wife as the Rambam writes in laws of marriage 22 law 27. And then she would then pay for the damage that she caused 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 When a woman or a slave cause damage,  do not pay [because they do not own property]. My question here is why should not she sell her ketubah for the טובת הנאה ? The גמרא in  בבא קמא פז ע''א ] asks this question about property she owns but which is not written in the ketubah [נכסי מלוג]. But that suggestion is only going according to רב הונא בן יהושע who holds even if she would sell that property, the fruit would still go to her husband. [That is how רב שך answers this question:  why the רי''ף רמב''ם ורש''יleave out this suggestion of the גמרא?] But I ask about selling the actual כתובה. After all, someone could buy it for a reduced price because the husband might die before the wife, and then the buyer would collect the whole amount. But thee husband might die first, and then the buyer would collect nothing. And the money from that buyer would then belong to the wife as the רמב''ם writes in הלכו אישות  כ''ב הלכה כ''ז. And then she would then pay for the damage that she caused 

בבבא קמא פז ע''א

כשאישה או עבד גורמים נזק, לא משלמים [כי אין להם רכוש].(רמב''ם הלכות חובל ומזיק ד' הלכה כ''א) השאלה שלי כאן היא למה שהיא לא תמכור את הכתובה שלה עבור טובת הנאה? (כי יכול להיות שהבעל ימות לפני האישה, ואז הקונה יגבה את כל הסכום. אבל אם האישה תמות קודם, אחר כך הקונה לא יגבה דבר.) הגמרא בבבא קמא פז ע''א  שואלת שאלה על הרכוש שבבעלותה אך אינו כתוב בכתובה [נכסי מלוג]. אבל ההצעה הזאת הולכת רק לפי רב הונא בן יהושע שמחזיק אפילו אם הייתה מוכרת את הנכס הזה, הפירות עדיין היו הולכים לבעלה. [כך עונה רב שך לשאלה זו: מדוע הרי"ף רמב"ם ורש''י משאירים את הצעת הגמרא הזו בחוץ?] אבל אני שואל לגבי מכירת הכתובה בפועל. הרי מישהו יכול לקנות אותו במחיר מופחת. הכסף מאותו קונה היה אז שייך לאישה כמו שכותב הרמב''ם בהלכות אישות כ''ב הלכה כ''ז. ואז היא תשלם על הנזק שהיא גרמה

ten times review

 When I was in Shar Yashuv I heard this idea about review ten times and I am seeing that this helps. It was how I used too do the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua and the other achronim like Rav Chaim of Brisk and Rav Shach I have started to see that this idea help also for  Mathematics. [I do not mean to diminish the importance of fast learning also- but I think the main emphasis ought to be on lots of review and in depth learning as my son Izhak told me 

children need a wholesome environment

 One reason to obey the excommunication of the Gra is that children need a wholesome environment that you just can not find anywhere outside of the straight Litvak world.  You might be inspired by Rav Nachman and that is fine. But there is a difference between what you can learn and the  environment in which children ought to be raised

[Anyway my opinion is that Rav Nahman himself was not an object of that "herem" because that  was more specific than most people realize. To see this you ought to look up the actual language of the herem which I found in one book that contained  the actual language plus the testimonies that were collected in Villna before the publication of the herem.

It should not matter what the herd thinks. What should matter is what is objectively true

 I was going to Uman Ukraine every year for Rosh Hashanah and staying for some months and sometimes longer. They used to have a very nice celebration on may 9. Every class in the local schools would put on its own presentation for the victory over the Nazis. This went on the whole day. But at one point, that was silenced. Then one after the other, all the statues of WWII heroes were taken down. Then even the central Russian orthodox church that was packed every  Sunday was locked and shuttered.  

It is almost as if they regret their victory over the Nazis 

 I think the  approach of the Litvak world is the right thing: to learn in depth in the morning and to learn fast in the afternoon. The learning in depth I think should be with ten times review of every section. Even though learning with depth and understanding should be the main emphasis still there is a place for fast learning--jut saying the words and going on. 

Counterfeit Torah

 Most of what is sold as Torah nowadays is not Torah at all. It is a fake and not authentic. This is the very reason for the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication--to warn people to stay away from Torah of the Dark Side.  The is idolatry which dresses up in Jewish rituals in order to seem kosher

Politics is not a part of Torah thought

 Politics is not a part of Torah thought. I do not know from where the Reform get the idea that "social justice" is somehow a part of Torah While on one hand, I can see some slight indications of some kind of   government in Torah, but these are only slight. Even for a king that is made by a prophet, there is an argument in Tractate Sanhedrin what powers he has. To one opinion all the threats of Samuel were legal. To another opinion they were just threats, but not actual legal powers.

Note: Samuel got angry at Israel for asking for  king,  and even made  a miracle to show the people of Israel that God was angry at them for asking for  king . Then he told them all the terrible things that a king would do to them, To one opinion, these threats were just Samuel telling them what in fact a king would do, not that they be legal. To another opinion these things that a king will do would be legal.

In TORAH the mitzvah of making a king is only when people ask for a king. But the prophet Samuel showed that asking for a king is a terrible sin. It is like brining a sin offering. There is a mitzvah to bring a in offering if one has sinned, but it is better not to sin in the first place.

 i was reading Robert Hanna' works and his blog and noted that he thinks all American so called "Analytic Philosophy" is destined for the trash bin and instead advocates a Forward to Kant Approach. This makes a lot of sense except for one particular problem--that Kant's solution to  the synthetic a-priori never really worked that well. There were lots of different approaches after him trying to answer the same problem and later there was the Neo Kant approach- all of which fell into oblivion.

[One problem in Kant was noticed right away by a close friend of his Scholz and his critique was printed  and Kant claimed after that that he would answer. The question was about the Transcendental Deduction--not at all a trivial side issue, but rather the fulcrum upon which the entire Critique of Pure Reason revolves.

And my mind there is another flaw. It is that philosophy is supposed to help us understand the world and ourselves-not create a system that is not credible without a lot of evidence. I mean, in natural sciences or mathematics, you do not start with assumptions that sound good but are not very obvious, You start with simple things. The shortest line between two points is  straight line, Not a set of questions based on Berkley and Hume.

By this I do not mean to trivialize Kant, but rather suggest the modification of Fries and Leonard Nelson to Kant in which the realm that reason can penetrate is limited but that by immediate non intuitive knowledge there is knowledge of the 12 categories  and possibly even faith a per Otto

[hume made a mistake for some reason Kant did not pick up and which was a stumbling block for him i.e that reason can tell us only when a definition entails a contradiction--a per Euclid. ]