When it comes to marrying and children I think the first thing is to ask yourself does the person you are thinking of marrying come from a good family. I mean genes. But more than genes. (That is: genes and character and fear of God.)

I saw the kind of people my parents were and I think that seeing the amazing kind of relationship they had gave me an idealistic picture of marriage. So I was pretty set of getting a girl with the best genes around.  And that happened. (In a very ironic way.) And I recommend this approach to anyone who will listen.

I can't say my wife's family was  exactly a good family. But I think much of their problems came from environment and the Holocaust and not from genes. The Holocaust did leave rather large scars on people that went through it. (People that go through traumatic events tend to be emotionally scarred.) [Her father  was a Jew running from the Nazis in occupied Europe. It was not fun, and he was kind of a difficult person. Not aggressive in deed, but somewhat  aggressive in word. And his wife had also some pretty bad experience and that left her also messed up--but in a way not apparent. I mean they had a happy marriage and good children but there was this under-layer of experiences that darkened everything. ]


At any rate, I also think the basic Torah approach to having children is important. That is not just going to  a natural body of water before sex. But also that the actual sex which could result in children must be Friday night after midnight. And it should be with every drop of holiness and concentration on God that you can manage.
{This mainly comes from the prayer-book of Jacob Emden that Rav Freifeld gave to me when I first arrived at his yeshiva, Shaar Yashuv.}(This is interesting because Rav Emden thought a good amount if the Zohar is from Moshe DeLeon and yet he uses the Zohar as source material. ) I myself have never had much interest in learning the Zohar but I have found the Ari Isaac Luria, absolutely compelling. and Reb Moshe Cordovaro also (the Remak). And I highly recommend their books.


Having children is the most important thing you can ever do. It is worth the effort to do it right.

Appendix:
1) Also don't expect the children are going to be different from the genes they come from. You might have a nice person but you know the gene pool they come from is stupid, dull or otherwise compromised. Then take my advice and run like the wind.

2) I heard from a friend recently how his an acquaintance had married a woman he thought was pure blood. She was white. But he did not know that she was actually a gypsy. Apparently there are white gypsies. And the children he had with her came out with the exact same character traits as gypsies --mainly a lust to steal.

3) This fact that one must find a good family is the reason the Lithuanian yeshiva world invites in Baali Teshuva but is non so quick to let them marry into their circles. This is perfectly justified.

The Villna Geon who considered learning Torah to be higher than all other mitzvot.
The Gra held that learning Torah is the highest service towards God.



But I think I should make it clear here my own opinion. I think that the Torah itself is clear that Devekut (attachment) with God is the ultimate goal. And I made a mistake once a long time ago pushing off Devekut in order to learn, and I think that was a serious mistake.
What the Gra issaying here then  is that learning Torah is the most effective means of coming to Devekut. But learning is not some kind of separate goal apart from Devekut.

Appendix
We know that the Gra was simply basing himself on the Jerusalem Talmud in Peah.

I tend to judge yeshivot  [yeshivas] based on the level of the classes that they give in the Talmud.
(But that standard does not apply to Kabalah yeshivas in Jerusalem. There my test would be how well they know the Ari and the Reshash [Shalom Sharabi]. ) [But I admit there are more criteria than just the level of the classes.]

But for classes in which the teacher is something along the lines of the teachers of the  classes at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn -e.g. the Sukat David- I give the highest rating.

But remedial schools are not yeshivas.
Simple translation of the Gemara is clearly on the  kindergarten level. Simple translation and explanation of of Tosphot is slightly higher. But still on the level of a remedial courses.

\


But the normal level of what a yeshiva should be is to have a teacher that has his own original ideas every day on the page in question like the Sukat David at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. And that is the Gold Standard. The Ivy League.


After that there are many levels. But that is the minimum level for a place to have the real name of a "yeshiva." If they don't have that they are just a place of remedial work like a collage that teaches reading and  writing for students that never learned that in high school.

But if this is the case then there is no such thing as a yeshiva except in Israel and  Brooklyn. E.g. in Ponovitch and the great  Lithuanian Yeshivot in Jerusalem, Maalot HaTorah, Mir, Yeshivat HaGra.

Lakewood would not qualify  except as  a shiduch yeshiva, not as a place of real learning.


But if you take in other aspects of a yeshiva besides the level of the classes then things get more complicated. For example Brisk which has maybe the highest reputation because it takes in only the best students from the whole world. Yet I have not heard that the classes given are all that original.



 In Israel, Ponovitch is still the top.


In short then the Ivy league based on best teachers and students and real learning would still have to mean the great Lithuanian yeshivas--Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir, Maalot HaTorah, and in Brooklyn Chaim Berlin, the Mirrer Yeshiva, Torah VeDaat. [This is because I admit that there are more criteria than just the level of the teachers.]

The Talmud [Sanhedrin 62b] is trying to get Rabbi Zachai to make sense. I am have trouble figuring out in what way there is any problem. The way the Talmud comes out is that R. Zachei said idolatry is liable for an act without intention and Shabat not. The Talmud asks what is idolatry without intention? To Abyee it is serving it from fear or love and to Rava is it "he says it is allowed."
אומר מותר.

What is a case of "he says it is allowed?" The baby that was captured and grew up without knowing Shabat.
So that is Munbaz in Tractate Shabat. This is very reasonable. But the Gemara seems to have a problem with R. Zachei and asks from the question if העלם זה וזה בידו he forgot both Shabat and all the kinds of work. But that question was asked about the two middle parts of the Mishna in Klal Gadol [Shabat chat 7] not about the beginning of the Mishna with the baby that was captured.
So I am having trouble seeing what the Talmud does not understand about Rabbi Zachei.
[Tosphot and the Maharsha do not deal with this problem in Sanhedrin. I am not sure where to look rhis up. Maybe in Shabat in the parallel sugia. Or Kritut. For the moment I am at a lose to know what to do here.]

סנהדרין סב: התלמוד רוצה ליישב את רבי זכאי. ואני מתקשה להבין למה יש קושיה. התלמוד מסיקה שרבי זעאי אמר שגגת ע''ז בלי כוונה חייב משא''כ בשבת. מה זה שגגת ע''ז?לאביי מאהבה ומיראה ולרבא היא אומר מותר. אומר מותר הוא תינוק שנשבה. וזו שיטת מונבז שהוא פטור. זה ישר ופשוט. אבל הגמרא שואלת מן השאלה של העלם זה  וזה בידו.שאז יש חיוב גם בשבת. אבל השאלה הזאת נשאלת רק לגבי הבבות האמצעיות של המשנה בכלל גדול שבת פרק ז'. ולכן קשה לראות מה יש קשה להבין ברבי זכאי.

Appendix:
 I can understand if the Gemara here is going like Abyee. Then everything would be fine. We have a case in idolatry that brings a sin offering, serving from love or fear. Clearly he has some idea that there is such a thing as idolatry. And a similar case on shabat where he knows about shabat but he thinks some act is allowed when it is not should also be liable. So if the Talmud here is thinking like Abyee then there is a legitimate question on Rabbi Zachai.
And come to think of it maybe in fact that is what is going on. Because if the Talmud is thinking like Rava then there seems to be nothing wrong with Rabbi Zachai. One case in idolatry is liable and the parallel case in shabat is not.--the אומר מותר "He says, 'It is permitted'" case.

But I am sure you can see why this is still unsettling. First because "He says 'It is allowed'" is suspiciously close to תינוק שנשבה שמג and it is Munbaz that says that is not liable, not the sages who were against Munbaz.
 So you can see what is disturbing here. I would like Rabbi Zachei to be like Munbaz and like Rava. But in Shabat it was Rabbi Yochanan himself who was going like Munbaz and he is the one here in our Gemara that is  at odds with  Rabbi Zachei. And when the Gemara here is asking on Rabbi Zachei it is doing it from a question of Rava to Rav Nachman. העלם זה וזה בידו a hiding of shabat and work.
In any case no matter what happens in the next few day, I think we can all agree that this Gemara is going only like Abyee.

What comes from the learning Torah is a good question. I think in my case I gained some good character traits. And I think that that is the main thing people get from Torah. I for example do not have inherently good character traits. I have a great deal of ego  and I only learned about the importance of speaking the truth and other good traits from the Torah. But I admit there are people that have inherently good character traits without learning a lot of Torah--but even then it comes from the Torah. My brothers i have always known had inherently good traits but that is because in our home Torah is respected. I feel good traits come from Torah. And further more I think Western civilization comes from Torah and also the wisdom of the Ancient Greeks, but not from just one or the other.

 Furthermore I think holiness comes from Torah. I think by learning and keeping Torah comes a connection with the "Will" (of Schopenhauer) or the First Cause that  one would not have otherwise.


  Lets look at Buddhism or the Tao. See the essay The Dark Side of the Tao of Dr Kelly Ross . He gives a good analysis about Buddhism and the Tao  and what their effect is on peoples traits.

I would have to say today the world of Lithuanian yeshivas is like the Rocky Mountains. Breslov takes what the Litvaks throw out and makes it into the roof of the Suka which can be made only of thrown out things.

 What Lithuanian yeshivas do or say makes a difference because they are the gold standard by which everything else is measured. Why do some groups learn? They have to show "we learn Torah too!"  Even Reform and Conservative have to measure themselves by means of the standard set by the Litvaks (Lithuanian Jews). If the Litvaks think something is kosher, that makes it kosher by definition. If they think it is not it makes it not kosher - by definition. Everything has to get past that hurdle. Nothing and no one is exempt, even if they don't like it. Especially if they don't like it.

You want to claim something is Jewish? You say the Chazon Ish said it was OK! Or Reb Moshe. Or Reb Aaron Kotler. You don't say "They learn it in a Breslov yeshiva." You don't say  Reform  Judaism says it is OK.
For example when the Na Nach Breslov  want to show that the "petek" (letter that Reb Odesser thought he received from Reb Nachman) is kosher they go around plastering up copies of the letter of approval (Haskama) that Reb Moshe Feinstein gave to Reb Odesser. Just walk into the synagogue of Reb Nachman in Uman and you will find copies of Reb Moshe's letter plastered all over the place--and most importantly right in the official notices section. That means if you want to say something is kosher you have to get approval of a Litvak Gadol. Without that nothing can even start.
No one says Reb Moshe is kosher because Breslov learns his books. If you want to say a person in Breslov like Rav Cheishen knows how to learn you say he learns at the Mir yeshiva. You don't say someone knows how to learn because they learn in Breslov.

Nowadays the Lithuanian yeshivas are spread out. It is hard to find any one in particular that stands out from the rest.

The greatest yeshivas in the world. Three great NY yeshivas: the Mir, Chaim Berlin, and Torah VeDaath. In Israel it is Ponovitch

In any case I realize that once the greats like Rav Shach and Reb Shmuel Berenbum are gone, then I guess there just is not that much difference between any of the Lithuanian Yeshivas.

But I still would assume it is best to go where the classes are on the highest level. And that probably still is in the NY yeshivas. [I heard about Tifrach, and my learning partner said they learn on a very high level but besides that I don't know about it.] [I did ask also about the well known yeshivas in Jerusalem, Brisk, Maalot HaTorah, etc. but nothing stood out.]
I would have to say today  the world of Lithuanian yeshivas is like the Rocky Mountains. It is like a mountain range with some higher peaks and some lower, but no Mount Everest.
Reb Aaron Kolter and Rav Shach certainly were gedolim. But today? But come to think of it there are a few greats--Reb Naphtali Yeger in Far Rockaway and Rav Nelkenbaum in the Mir in Brooklyn; also Shelomo Haliua who gives the top shiur (class) at Chaim Berlin. Maybe they don't have world wide reputations, but I know for a fact they learn on a world class level.

The Litvaks do seem to throw out people way too much. But that is because they want to retain their reputation of pure virgin olive oil. They throw out anything that can be considered as flawed in any way so as not to lose their quality. No one complains when they buy pure Olive Oil that it is in fact pure. I fact, they expect the company to make sure there is nothing in it that could be less that pure. So it is with Lithuanian yeshivas.
Breslov takes what the Litvaks throw out and makes it into the roof of the Suka which can be made only of thrown out things.

I mentioned my idea how to make the Gra make sense in terms of his idea that night starts after 13.5 minutes after sunset. [Or 18 if you go by a 24 minute mil.].
The problem with this is three medium stars don't come out until 45 minutes after sunset.
[Another problem is all rishonim and also Rav Saadia Geon say like Rabbainu Tam.]
I wrote my idea on this blog a few days ago that this can be explained by the expansion of the universe.
Shimon Baker in a Breslov Shul nearby told me he has another proof for the Gra. The Mechilta on Exodus 12. The first verse says, "This month shall be to you the beginning of the months."
The Mechilta [brought by Rashi] says God did not give Moses prophecy at night. So how could he show the moon to Moses? Answer God talked with him during the day and then right when it became night he showed him the moon.
The moon sets on the first day of the month right after sunset. Therefore when God showed him the new moon it had to be within about 13 to 18 minutes after sunset. On 72 minutes after sunset on the first day of the month there is no moon.


Please don't take this as a pesak halacha. Even though I have great respect for the Gra, I can't say to go with his opinion against all the Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch itself which goes like Rabbainu Tam.
I know there are some people who follow the Gra in everything like Rav Zilverman in Jerusalem and that is admirable but I can't say to do that as a general rule. [I might like to, but I can't. ]

Sex  comes from the human attic, not the basement.



 an approach which does not hide sex under a veil of secrecy. Don't  make it something wrong or to be embarrassed about. But rather like atomic energy which can be used properly or improperly.
The subject of sex deserves a thorough treatment. The first place to look is at Yaakov Emden's sidur. There he goes into great length about the idea that sex to bring children into the world has to be on the night of Shabat after midnight. And it is clear that the man and wife have to sanctify themselves in thought and action in order to bring holy children into the world. You can see that this treatment of sex is very different than what you find in the secular world.


Just like sex within the right framework brings holy souls into the world so when it is done wrong does the opposite. At any rate this deserves a longer treatment than what i can do for it right now.

significant of good practices I had been doing when I was part of the Lithuanian Yeshiva World.

(1) Shemirat Habrit. The awareness that sexual purity is the first and foremost prerequisite towards any spirituality what so ever--if the spirituality we are talking about is from the realm of the holiness and not the opposite.
(2) Joy. I became aware that service to God must be with joy.
(3) Israel. Torah teachings gave me a lot of encouragement to get up and make aliya to Israel.
And that in itself led to all kinds of good things. [A lot of things opened up for me.]
(4) Talking with God . This was for me an amazing channel while I was in Israel. There was a nearby forest while I could go to and spend whole days doing this.

I think if I had keep up my Talmud learning along with these other good things that I would have been a lot better off. But as I said, I did not go into it with balance.

Breslov was kind of a sore point in Meor Chaim. Rav Ernster had invited Breslov baali teshua into the four buildings given to him by the Israeli government. And they were kind of a pain for him. I am sure he was surprised when I turned out myself to be a baal teshuva . He must have thought I was a regular "Mir Yeshiva Guy." In any case I did not fit into the kollel. And did not want to either. Learning Torah to get a pay check was not my cup of tea. But I think I should have gone there anyway or found some way to do my regular learning.

[The major problem I saw was that people took tests to show they were learning. To me that seemed an open violation of the principle not to use Torah to make money]

In any case, it seems to me that there was a great deal of tension in the kirya [set of buildings] because the baali teshuva/ [newly religious people] were constantly making problems for Rav Ernster and then other baali teshuva turned against me also until I had to leave Israel. Baali Teshuva do tend to be nightmares for everyone around them.
Rav Ernster himself acted in the whole episodes uprightly. Now it is highly uncomfortable for me to go into details, but also a lot of details are unknown to me. Mainly I got the impression of tension and at some point people that had become religious thought it was mitzvah to stone me and my children and that certainly made me uncomfortable enough to leave. Since then I have thought that kiruv [bringing people in to make them into the insane religious world ] is not all apple pie.
To make along story short  baali teshuva  were trouble makers. About a twenty on a scale from one to ten.

Even though I named this blog by the name of the Gra, and the Gra clearly holds learning Torah to be the central mitzvah, I think that a relationship with God has to be a give and take kind of thing. I don't think it can be all just learning what the Torah has to say but there has to be a kind of continuous conversation with God to open ones heart  for the words of the Torah to have  a place to enter.It is for this reason I think at least on weekends people should make a effort to go to some secluded spot preferable in the mountains or some forest in order to talk with God while no one else is around but you and Him. 

The Universe is expanding. So two thousand years ago stars were closer to Earth. So three medium stars would have been able to be seen sooner than they are nowadays. (Nowadays three medium stars come out at 45 minutes in Israel.)
This might explain why the Gra holds the night begins 13.5 minutes after sunset instead of  72 minutes.
We find in the Gemara Pesachim that there is a four mile walk from sunset until the night. But the Gra says that refers to when all the stars come out and does not refer to the halachic beginning of night.
Most Rishonim hold by Rabbainu Tam that the night starts after 72 minutes and that is what I have been accustomed\ to do for years. But at least we can understand the Gra.

The medium three stars thing is given in Shabat along with an argument about 2/3 or 3/4 of a mile from sunset until night. The thing that makes the Gra convincing is that the Gemara in Pesachim is not dealing with when the Halachic night begins.



Here is the basic idea here in Hebrew but with a little more detail.



 בעניין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. אני מתקשה להבין את הגר''א. השתדלתי למצוא אופן שהגר''א יכול להיות בהתאם עם הגמרא בשבת, ועדיין לא מצאתי אופן כזה. אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות  כוכב בינוני אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות.
  זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב בינוני אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה "בינוני". ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים בינוניים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא יוצאים כוכבים בינוניים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.
תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון  (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם אמרו שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה.  רב נטרונאי גאון אוחז בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון אוחז בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד').
החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר  לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים בינוניים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שאוחז בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שרוב הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיועה לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים בינונים רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את  הלילה.

 So what i am saying here is that I think if you look at the issue in Shabat that you will see the Gemara holds the time after sunset is what determines the night and that the stars are given as a sign.
Now I do admit this is not like 99% of the rishonim and it is not like Saadia Geon. But there are people that depend on the Gra and from what I can see in the Talmud itself it looks like the Gra was right.
Anyway people have heard of the idea of majority opinion when it comes to Rishonim but that would be against all the rishonim to decide any halacha like that. The idea comes from the beit Yoseph when he could not find a majority between the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh  and he presented it as a way to decide which way the halacha probably would be, not as his own decision and not as the ipso facto Halacha.

In fact this might be a good place to bring what Reb  Chaim from Voloshin writes about about halacha.
Many have stumbled and thrown off from themselves the labor of learning the Talmud in order to derive halacha. For they say learning to do is only learning the Shulchan Aruch. And even those that learn Gemara do it only to make themselves smart....
and that is not the straight path...The main halachic decision always has to be from the Talmud itself and the learning of the Shulchan Aruch is only as a reminder

The problem here might be the rate of expansion. 2000 years might be simply too short a time for the expansion to make any difference.

Here is a short introduction.
On the Sabbath Day, Jews are not allowed to work. If a Jew works on the Sabbath, he must bring a sin offering. But let us say he knew today is the Sabbath but he forgot about two different kinds of work. Does he bring one sin offering or two? This is no mystery. WE know already that he brings two.
[These sin offerings are stated in the Holy Bible in Leviticus chapter 4.]
Now there are lots of kinds of sins for which a Jew has to bring a sin offering. Another example is eating blood or forbidden fat. So lets say he forgot about the prohibition to eat blood and also forbidden fat. The we also know he brings two sacrifices. [This can get to be expensive. Each sacrifice has to be a sheep or  goat. You can't bring turtledoves or pigeons except for specific sins.]

We know what kind of work a Jews can't do on Sabbath because the Bible tells Jews not to build the Tabernacle on the Sabbath. So we know what ever type of work was needed for building the Tabernacle, we can't do on the Sabbath.



Rabbi Zachai said Shabat is more strict than other commandments in the Torah because if one does two acts of work by one "forgetting" on Shabat he brings two sin offerings (Leviticus 4), while for other commandments he brings only one

The Talmud [Gemara in Sanhedrin 62]   for some reason does not like this. But what Rabbi Zachai says makes plenty of sense. If one knows today is Shabat but forgot about two kinds of work he does bring two sacrifices. This is called חילוק מלאכות division of labor.
What it seems the Gemara is trying to ask is that Shabat has divisions in side of it while other rmitzvot do not. But if that is what it is trying to ask then why does it not ask it? Instead it goes into the problem in an elliptical way. It asks: What two works are we talking about here? If harvesting and grinding then but other mitzvot we are talking about forbidden fat and blood. But there two there are two sacrifices.
If on Shabat we are talking about two acts of the same kind of work like harvesting the also by blood there would be only one sacrifice.

I have heard it often enough for it to seem to be a pattern. I think some people don't feel the holiness in the Talmud.
At first I did not think anything of it.


But then I noticed even sincere people that long for God's holiness sometimes do not feel what is happening inside the Talmud.
Sometimes people close to me  would see me learning Talmud and  did not feel what or why I was doing so.
Sometimes you hear from a Breslov person that he walked into a Litvak (Lithuanian )Yeshiva and all he saw was people talking about some subject in the Talmud and they were not talking about God. And this was always presented as a proof to me that in Lithuanian yeshivas people don't think of God.
[Of course that is silly because we really don't have a lot of information about God. We know he is the First Cause who made everything something from nothing. And that is about it.]
In any case I have realized that there are people who don't feel what is going on in Talmud learning. So I would like to tell people what it is. It is numinosity. It is not that it makes devekut (attachment with God) possible but rather it is a level of devekut in itself.

And it simply is not that case that people don't think about God. From the day I left the world of Lithuanian yeshivas until today I have not seen one single prayer with the fervor and intention I saw at the Mir. At the Mir you could feel the Divine presence [Shechina] descend into the building during the morning prayers.

The Rambam (Maimonides) says prophets and the later scribes [sofrim] were allowed to add mitzvot but they could not say that God revealed the mitzvah to them. And if they would they would be stoned as a false prophet because God has already told us that the Torah he gave us is permanent  and that he will never add any mitzvah nor subtract any mitzvah.

And that was only until the end of the time of the Talmud. After the Talmud, no one has permission to add or subtract even a mitzvah derabanan [rabbinical decree].

OK. That is the introduction.  Now the question is about the blessing we say of lighting the Hanukkah lights. We say "who commanded us to light .." Would it not make more sense to say "Who commanded us to listen to the Sages?" After that is how the Rambam tries to get out if this problem. He says we are commanded to listen to the sages and they told us to light the Hanuka lights.  (There is also the issue about the main idea of לא תסור don't turn aside from what they say refers to the Sanhedrin.)



I remember sitting by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum with my wife one Yom Tov and he talked at the festival meal about this or something related. Later I noticed a similar discussion in a commentary of the Rambam. But it was a long time ago. It might have been related to the idea of the second day of the festivals in which the regular blessing are said. (The second day of the festival is not a law but a custom based on where the witnesses can arrive.)

Now all this is just common sense. We have Jewish communities in the Middle Ages and every community was able to make laws for its own members.  Just the laws would not have the force of a rabbinical law.
The problem is nowadays when all kinds of people claim to have divine revelation about some new mitzvah. This to me seems to be a problem.
You can even see this in Breslov which is generally just people sincerely looking to keep Torah.
But the leaders often claim Divine revelation. Just today I asked some fellow from Israel if he ever tried to be in a yeshiva. And he said he sold everything and came to Jerusalem  and found a job  and then walked into one Breslov yeshiva. It happened the minute he walked in the Rav was giving a lecture and was discussing the fact that he had critics. And he asked, "How can they criticize me when I have these amazing revelations from Heaven?" So Breslov does not seem to be immune from the general kinds of delusions which haunt the world of hasidim.

At any rate I do not mean to leave this hanging. My learning partner brought this up, and I do hope to recheck the Mishna LaMelech and Lechem Mishna  and (Ramban) Nachmanides about the issue of how there can be any such thing as a rabbinical mitzvah in the first place? [Since we are not allowed to add or subtract from the Torah. If anything comes up I hope to post it here.]
[I mean that the Ramban wrote a critique on the Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot where he goes into this. I know he goes into this issue over there.]



I only mean for this blog entry to be an introduction to this problem.

I have mentioned learning fast a few times. . But the first time I saw this concept was from a book Biyan Olam בנין עולם which was from some Litvak in Israel. And in fact the Gra mentions this concept himself. And it is brought in the Talmud itself. [Avoda Zara 19:a] What slows people down is the Magen Avraham who people will always quote to you [not in his name] who held if you don't understand, it is not called learning. But it looks like the Gra did not hold from that particular Magen Avraham. [Orach Chaim 50 paragraph 2]
See the new edition of אבן שלמה from Israel where the editor brings proof of this in the Appendix

The Gemara says:
Rava said one should always say the words and go on even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying.

I found this approach encouraging while I was in yeshiva because  the yeshiva I was in was into learning in real immense depth. That is a good thing. But I also needed this counter weight to get a general idea of what was going on.
And I should mention that at the Mir in NY, it was a given that in the afternoon one was supposed to be learning fast.

The Geon from Villna says two things stop a person's prayer from being accepted. One if he has sins.
The other is not relevant right now.

 But if you want your prayer to be answered and you know you have done some sin , it makes a lot of sense to go to someone who in your best judgment is righteous. The problem is deciphering who is a tzadik.
being a tzadik after the time of the Baal Shem Tov became big business.