7.6.15
6.6.15
See this link Ideas in Bava Metzia
In כתובות you have to say that the טענת וודאי aspect of her טענה helps because if it was just her מיגו we say we don't say מיגו to take out money. So it is her מיגו with her weak טענת וודאי that takes out of חזקת ממון. There is not a קל וחומר from that where there is a strong טענת וודאי but it is against a מיגו as in the case of רב יהודה with the two people in בית דין and one says you owe and the other says I don't know.
בכתובות צריכים לומר שטענת וודאי שלה עוזרת שאם זה היה רק שיש לה מיגו אנחנו אומרים לא אומרים מיגו להוציא כסף.ואפילו לפי השיטה שאומרים מיגו להוציא זו לא אמורה כאן להיות הסיבה היחידה. אז זה מיגו עם טענת וודאי חלשה שמוציא מחזקת ממון. אין קל וחומר מזה כשיש טענת וודאי חזק אבל נגד מיגו כמו בדיון של רב יהודה עם שני אנשים בבית דין ואחד אומר שאתה חייב ואחר אומר שאני לא יודע
This is just a quick review of something that was in my English note. Tosphot had said that there is a difference between a strong definite plea and a weak one. Rav Judah said when 2 people come to the beit din and one says you owe me 200 and the other says I don't know the definite plea wins. But in Bava Kama we say money stays where it is until there is proof. The different is between a weak and string plea. But then in Ketubot there is a weak plea and Abyee says the law of Rav Judah is of Shmuel. Then Abyee is pushed off. Then Tosphot says even with Abyee we have to say the aw of Rav Judah is the same as that of Shmuel. I am just showing how there is no way to show this to be the case. Rather I answered and explained Tosphot that they mean it is the same law. Not that one came from the other.
(1) I did not realize that excommunication was very serious until recently I saw the Mishna Lamelech say it has a halachic category of an oath.
This opens up a few interesting questions. For example what about the excommunication of the Gra? What about people that I know had done something wrong and were really under need to be excommunicated? Even if no one pays attention to these legal issue they remain valid halacha questions. This is just like any other halacha question. If no one pays attention to it does it become invalid? Certainly not.
(2 )So just as an introduction let me say that the idea of an oath is thus. One says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice." The loaf becomes forbidden to him as if it was a sacrifice. If he says to someone this loaf of mine is forbidden to you like sacrifice then also the other person is not allowed to eat it. A person can forbid his object to others.
The Mishna LaMelech says an excommunication gets its strength from this law. It is a type of Isur Neder. That means that one that transgresses it is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.
(3) It applies to coming generations.
(4) It is not just for the 24 specific list but for anyone who transgress a prohibition for the Torah or a rabbinical prohibition on purpose.
(5) You don't need actual testimony When the facts of the case are public knowledge.
What this seems to mean is that the excommunication of the Gra was in fact according to halacha and was valid and still is. This helps us understand why when people join the groups he banned, they become crazy.
This opens up a few interesting questions. For example what about the excommunication of the Gra? What about people that I know had done something wrong and were really under need to be excommunicated? Even if no one pays attention to these legal issue they remain valid halacha questions. This is just like any other halacha question. If no one pays attention to it does it become invalid? Certainly not.
(2 )So just as an introduction let me say that the idea of an oath is thus. One says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice." The loaf becomes forbidden to him as if it was a sacrifice. If he says to someone this loaf of mine is forbidden to you like sacrifice then also the other person is not allowed to eat it. A person can forbid his object to others.
The Mishna LaMelech says an excommunication gets its strength from this law. It is a type of Isur Neder. That means that one that transgresses it is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.
(3) It applies to coming generations.
(4) It is not just for the 24 specific list but for anyone who transgress a prohibition for the Torah or a rabbinical prohibition on purpose.
(5) You don't need actual testimony When the facts of the case are public knowledge.
What this seems to mean is that the excommunication of the Gra was in fact according to halacha and was valid and still is. This helps us understand why when people join the groups he banned, they become crazy.
Trust in God without effort was the major idea of Navardok. I mentioned the Ramban from Leviticus 26:11 which holds this way. And there is the Gra also that says the same. It is known that the Duties of the Heart had the opinion that one should do some effort.
Navardok however went with the opinion of the Ramban. The person that started Navardok was Joseph Horvitz and he had been a businessman until one day he got into a conversation with Isaac Blazer a disciple of Israel Salanter. The conversation centered on doing business instead of learning Torah. Joseph asked "If I don't work, the what will happen?" And Isaac Blazer repeated that phrase "What will happen?" meaning what will happen in the next world. And that lite a fuse. From then on Joseph devoted himself to Torah and to this idea that one can just learn Torah and does not have to worry about money.
This does not mean using Torah to ask people for money. That is not what trust in God means. There was a time in fact that accepting charity was considered despicable and asking for it even worse.
The idea of Navardok was different. It was that of trust.
Navardok however went with the opinion of the Ramban. The person that started Navardok was Joseph Horvitz and he had been a businessman until one day he got into a conversation with Isaac Blazer a disciple of Israel Salanter. The conversation centered on doing business instead of learning Torah. Joseph asked "If I don't work, the what will happen?" And Isaac Blazer repeated that phrase "What will happen?" meaning what will happen in the next world. And that lite a fuse. From then on Joseph devoted himself to Torah and to this idea that one can just learn Torah and does not have to worry about money.
This does not mean using Torah to ask people for money. That is not what trust in God means. There was a time in fact that accepting charity was considered despicable and asking for it even worse.
The idea of Navardok was different. It was that of trust.
5.6.15
Learning fast
Learning fast was suggested by the Musar book the אורחות צדיקים. And that was the first place I saw it. Later when I got to yeshiva in NY I saw this idea in a different book called בנין עולם. It was a general method of learning recommended by Jewish sages from the time of the Talmud and onward. לעולם לגרוס אינש אף על גב ידע מאי קאמר. I am the first person (I think) to apply it to math and physics.
The first time I ever did that was when I was in Beverly Hills High School, and applied this idea to my chemistry book. I just read through the chapter saying the words in order and not doing any review. I recall doing well on the test on that chapter. I got the idea from that Musar book, Paths of the Righteous
However for a long time after that I did not learn any math. I began looking at math again only very recently when it was too late to make much progress. Still based on "faith in the sages" that the Rambam knew what he was talking about when he considered physics and metaphysics as part of the Oral Law I began again. [With encouragement of the students and librarians at Hebrew University.] [The people there were very helpful in many ways.]
[So my basic advice to use this approach to get through the entire Oral Law, the Talmud at least once, even without any Rashi or Tosphot, the whole written Law (Tenach), Physics up until String Theory and Math up to Abstract Algebra, Algebraic Topology, and Calculus with the Lebesgue Integral which are important for Physics.]
The first time I ever did that was when I was in Beverly Hills High School, and applied this idea to my chemistry book. I just read through the chapter saying the words in order and not doing any review. I recall doing well on the test on that chapter. I got the idea from that Musar book, Paths of the Righteous
However for a long time after that I did not learn any math. I began looking at math again only very recently when it was too late to make much progress. Still based on "faith in the sages" that the Rambam knew what he was talking about when he considered physics and metaphysics as part of the Oral Law I began again. [With encouragement of the students and librarians at Hebrew University.] [The people there were very helpful in many ways.]
[So my basic advice to use this approach to get through the entire Oral Law, the Talmud at least once, even without any Rashi or Tosphot, the whole written Law (Tenach), Physics up until String Theory and Math up to Abstract Algebra, Algebraic Topology, and Calculus with the Lebesgue Integral which are important for Physics.]
(3) The excommunication of the Gra still applies.
I suggest learning fast.
Also from the Ari [Isaac Luria, the Ari].
From the Ari: to learn every day "מקרא, משנה, גמרא, קבלה". One session in the Old Testament, Mishna, Talmud and Midrash in order.
What this means for me is have a certain amount of books on the table to my left. Pick up one, and go through a few pages in order. Just say the words and go on. The major thing is not to repeat. No repetition allowed.
Then put it down on your right, and then pick up the next book, and go through a few pages of that one.
But besides this you need and in depth session also. That is called עיון. For that type of learning I don't have anything to say. I did find a learning partner. But in subjects where could not find a learning partner I just went through things in the old fashioned way. In Physics and Math I did lots of problems. And when I finished the problem exercises, then I went back and did them again. That is how I did Trig., Algebra and Calculus. Since then I have mainly concentrated on fast learning in the Natural Sciences.
_________________________________________________________________________
Appendix
(1)In Torah learning I am not suggesting that the only things to do are מקרא משנה גמרא מדרש. That is more like an introduction. I think Musar is important also. That is to go through the basic set of Musar. That is only about five books from the Middle Ages and the books from the direct disciples of Israel Salanter.
(2) If you do Kabbalah, it is best just to plow through the writings of Isaac Luria and the Remak. The rest of it is pseudo Kabbalah and not worth the paper it is written on.
(3) The excommunication of the Gra still applies. Also see the Mishna LaMelech about the general status of ban as akin to what we call איסור נדר. So you can't just ignore it. That is the Mishna LaMelech in laws of oaths. When the Rambam begins laws of נדרים that is where you find this discussion. What he says is that we know a person can forbid his object to himself and to others. All he needs to do is to say חפץ זה קרבן עלי or to others to say חפצי זה קרבן לך or any other language like that. And even if he does not mention anything else but just this object is forbidden to me or to you that object becomes forbidden. He does however have to own the object if he is forbidding it to others. The Rashbatz and the Mishna LaMelch says the same applies to a שמתא and excommunication even of the most minor type. All the more so the an actual חרם. So the חרם of the Gra is nothing to fool around with. This means that one that transgress this חרם is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.
אני מציע שיטה של למידה במהירות, ועוד דבר של האריז''ל
: ללמוד כל יום "מקרא, משנה, גמרא, קבלה".. מה זה אומר עבורי היא יש כמות מסוימת של ספרים על השולחן לשמאלי. להרים את אחד, ולעבור כמה עמודים. רק לומר את המילים וללכת הלאה. הדבר העיקרי הוא לא לחזור. חזרה אינה מותרת.. ואז לשים אותו בצד ימין, ואז להרים את הספר הבא, ולעבור כמה עמודים.
4.6.15
עיוני בבא מציעא
I am putting this link here because of some spelling corrections I made to this little booklet on the Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia.
I am putting this link here because of some spelling corrections I made to this little booklet on the Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia.
Trust in God according to Nachmanides. No effort needed. The sourse of the Ramban
I think the place that Israel סלנטר saw in the Ramban [Nachmanides] that showed to him that the opinion of the Ramban that one does not need השתדלות [effort] is the ויקרא Leviticus ch 26 verse 11.
It is a known fact that Rav Israel did see this in the Ramban. He is quoted in the מדרגת האדם as saying such. But in the actual Musar magazine that he published in Vilnius the תבונה in the musar Drasha he wrote there this same statement appears. The question has been floating around for a long time where is the Rambanרמב''ן is this statement?
People noticed that Ramban but did not think deep enough into what he is saying.
So let me say over the exact statement so you will see.
"Permission is given to the doctor to heal but not to the patient to be healed. " That is after the patient comes to the doctor, the doctor can assume that he has done this before so he is not among those who trust in God and then he can heal him. But the patient has no such permission. He is supposed to trust in God." There is no way to explain this Ramban except the way Israel Salanter did, that one does not need השתדלות effort.
It is known that the Obligations of the Heart disagrees with the Ramban. But it is hard to know exactly what he means.
King Asa he wrote trusted in God and the doctors. So it seems if he had trusted in God alone but still gone to doctors that would have been OK.
It is a known fact that Rav Israel did see this in the Ramban. He is quoted in the מדרגת האדם as saying such. But in the actual Musar magazine that he published in Vilnius the תבונה in the musar Drasha he wrote there this same statement appears. The question has been floating around for a long time where is the Rambanרמב''ן is this statement?
People noticed that Ramban but did not think deep enough into what he is saying.
So let me say over the exact statement so you will see.
"Permission is given to the doctor to heal but not to the patient to be healed. " That is after the patient comes to the doctor, the doctor can assume that he has done this before so he is not among those who trust in God and then he can heal him. But the patient has no such permission. He is supposed to trust in God." There is no way to explain this Ramban except the way Israel Salanter did, that one does not need השתדלות effort.
It is known that the Obligations of the Heart disagrees with the Ramban. But it is hard to know exactly what he means.
King Asa he wrote trusted in God and the doctors. So it seems if he had trusted in God alone but still gone to doctors that would have been OK.
I think the Musar approach of Israel Salanter is very important. That is to learn the traditional books of Medieval Ethics. Yet I find it difficult to find any argument to make for it. But if I could I would. It is more like an intuitive thing.
This refers to Christians also. There is nothing quite like the books of personal ethics from the Middle Ages. Christians could take for example the books of the mystics from Spain and make their own version of the Musar movement. That is not the same as learning theology. It means having something like a בית מוסר "a House of Musar." Or a "House of Ethics." The idea would be to have room in which there are only books of ethics and fear of God. I am not familiar with what books are available to Christians in this fashion. The only ones I know about are of Saint John of the Cross. And the idea is not to have a reading room. It is to learn these books out loud and with emotion so that the message gets absorbed into the subconscious.
There is no way for Judeo -Christian civilization to survive and flourish without this. Because it is the ethics and the fear of God which makes Judeo-Christian civilization what it is.
Now I admit that just learning books of ethics does not automatically make one ethical. But you know when you encounter a person whose learning consists of the Duties of the Heart or some book of the disciples of Israel Salanter that you are going to be treated on a whole different level of decency than when you met someone who learning consists of other kinds of religious learning. There is in fact nothing like Musar to imprint morality into people. And unless you think of yourself or others as being automatically moral then clearly this is a desirable goal.
This refers to Christians also. There is nothing quite like the books of personal ethics from the Middle Ages. Christians could take for example the books of the mystics from Spain and make their own version of the Musar movement. That is not the same as learning theology. It means having something like a בית מוסר "a House of Musar." Or a "House of Ethics." The idea would be to have room in which there are only books of ethics and fear of God. I am not familiar with what books are available to Christians in this fashion. The only ones I know about are of Saint John of the Cross. And the idea is not to have a reading room. It is to learn these books out loud and with emotion so that the message gets absorbed into the subconscious.
There is no way for Judeo -Christian civilization to survive and flourish without this. Because it is the ethics and the fear of God which makes Judeo-Christian civilization what it is.
Now I admit that just learning books of ethics does not automatically make one ethical. But you know when you encounter a person whose learning consists of the Duties of the Heart or some book of the disciples of Israel Salanter that you are going to be treated on a whole different level of decency than when you met someone who learning consists of other kinds of religious learning. There is in fact nothing like Musar to imprint morality into people. And unless you think of yourself or others as being automatically moral then clearly this is a desirable goal.
3.6.15
תוספות in בבא בתרא
In בבא בתרא קנז you have the normal case of a מלווה לווה ולוקח.
תוספות asks how can it be that the לוקח can collect for his שבחfrom נני חורין? How is it that the לווה has בני חורין? He answers he does not have בני חורין. He only has משועבדים.
The מהרש''ל sees from this that even though the לווה has משועבדים the מלווה goes after the field of the לוקח ראשון. The מהרש''א found an older version of תוספות that says the לווה did not have either בני חורין nor משועבדים. That means if he had had משועבדים the מלווה would have had to go after the לוקח השני
What you see from this is that my idea if basing the argument between the מהרש''א and the maharshal on the argument about לווה וללוה וקנה is completely ridiculous. While the מהרש''א certainly has some kind of support from there, but he does not need it. He makes sense anyway. It is the מהרש''ל that I was trying to say had support from the idea there that there first מלווה gets the field. And that is plain wrong. In the case of לווה ולווה וקנה there is plenty good reason to say the first שיעבוד falls on the field. But in our case in בבא בתרא קנז all you have is two sold fields. And one was sold before the other. There is no reason to say he should go after the first field that was sold. And even if there could be some reason, it would not have anything to do with לווה ולווה וקנה.
What I have to mention is that in תוספות inדף יד בבא מציעא there is no question that the מלווה has to get from the לוקח השני. Even the מהרש''ל agrees with that. It is just in בבא בתרא the מהרש''ל has to say that the תוספות there has a different שיטה than the תוספות in בבא מציעא.
You see this from the question of תוספות in בבא מציעא. There תוספות you see there are משועבדים that the לוקח is גובה from and not the מלווה. So from that we could learn מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד the only way this makes sense is if the second field was bought after the loan. The מהר''ם שיף and the מהרש''ל both say there that this shows the thing we always say the לוקח can say to the מלווה מקום הנחתי לך לגבות ממנו means even after the second field was נמכר. The fact that the מלווה goes after the לוקח ראשון shows the second field was bought after the loan.
תוספות בבא בתרא
בבא בתרא קנז יש לך במקרה הרגיל של מלווה לווה ולוקח.
תוספות שואלים איך זה יכול להיות שהלוקח יכול לגבות את שבחו מבני חורין? איך זה שלווה יש בני חורין? הוא עונה שאין לו בני חורין. רק שיש לו משועבדים.
מהרש''ל רואה מזה שלמרות שללווה יש משועבדים המלווה הולך אחרי שדה של לוקח ראשון. מהרש''א מצא גרסה ישנה יותר של תוספות שאומרת שללווה גם לא בני החורין ולא משועבדים. זה אומר שאם הוא היה משועבד מלווה היה צריך ללכת אחרי לוקח שני.
מה שאתה רואה מזה שהרעיון שלי אם לבסס את הטענות בין המהרש''א והמהרש"ל בוויכוח על לווה וללוה וקנה הוא מגוחך לחלוטין בעוד מהרש''א בהחלט יש תמיכה משם, אבל הוא לא צריך את זה. הוא הגיוני בכל מקרה. אבל להמהרש''ל אני נסיתי להביא תמיכה מהרעיון לווה וללוה וקנה שמלווה הראשון מקבל את השדה. וזה טעות. במקרה של לווה ולווות וקנה יש סיבה טובה מספיק כדי לומר שיעבודו הראשון נופל על השדה. אבל במקרה שלנו בבא בתרא קנז כל מה שיש לך הוא שני שדות שנמכרו. ואחד נמכר לפני האחר. אין שום סיבה לומר שהוא צריך ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון שנמכר. וגם אם יכול להיות שיש סיבה כלשהי, זה לא היה שייך ללווה ולווה וקנה.
מה שאני צריך להזכיר את זה בתוספות בדף י''ד בבא מציעא אין ספק שמלווה גובה מלוקח השני. אפילו מהרש''ל מסכים עם זה. זה רק בבא בתרא המהרש''ל אומר שתוספות שם יש שיטה שונה מהתוספות בבבא מציעא. אתה רואה את זה מהשאלה של תוספות בבא מציעא. תוספות אומרים שזה שאתה רואה שיש משועבדים שהלוקח הוא גובה ולא המלווה. אז אנחנו יכולים ללמוד מזה "מה שאקנה" קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד. הדרך היחידה שזה הגיוני היא אם השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה. המהר''ם שיף והמהרש''ל שניהם אומרים שזה מראה את מה שאנחנו אומרים תמיד לוקח יכול לומר למלווה "מקום הנחיתי לך לגבות ממנו פירושו גם לאחר השדה השני היה נמכר. העובדה שמלווה הולך אחרי לוקח ראשון מראה את השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה
here is a link to this subject in my little booklet on Shas.
חידושי הש''ס
I should mention that the Gemara in Bava Batra does its derivation from the fact that the מלווה collects שבח that shows דאקני קנה ומכר משתעבד. The ברייתא itself does not tell us when the second field was bought.
In בבא בתרא קנז you have the normal case of a מלווה לווה ולוקח.
תוספות asks how can it be that the לוקח can collect for his שבחfrom נני חורין? How is it that the לווה has בני חורין? He answers he does not have בני חורין. He only has משועבדים.
The מהרש''ל sees from this that even though the לווה has משועבדים the מלווה goes after the field of the לוקח ראשון. The מהרש''א found an older version of תוספות that says the לווה did not have either בני חורין nor משועבדים. That means if he had had משועבדים the מלווה would have had to go after the לוקח השני
What you see from this is that my idea if basing the argument between the מהרש''א and the maharshal on the argument about לווה וללוה וקנה is completely ridiculous. While the מהרש''א certainly has some kind of support from there, but he does not need it. He makes sense anyway. It is the מהרש''ל that I was trying to say had support from the idea there that there first מלווה gets the field. And that is plain wrong. In the case of לווה ולווה וקנה there is plenty good reason to say the first שיעבוד falls on the field. But in our case in בבא בתרא קנז all you have is two sold fields. And one was sold before the other. There is no reason to say he should go after the first field that was sold. And even if there could be some reason, it would not have anything to do with לווה ולווה וקנה.
What I have to mention is that in תוספות inדף יד בבא מציעא there is no question that the מלווה has to get from the לוקח השני. Even the מהרש''ל agrees with that. It is just in בבא בתרא the מהרש''ל has to say that the תוספות there has a different שיטה than the תוספות in בבא מציעא.
You see this from the question of תוספות in בבא מציעא. There תוספות you see there are משועבדים that the לוקח is גובה from and not the מלווה. So from that we could learn מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד the only way this makes sense is if the second field was bought after the loan. The מהר''ם שיף and the מהרש''ל both say there that this shows the thing we always say the לוקח can say to the מלווה מקום הנחתי לך לגבות ממנו means even after the second field was נמכר. The fact that the מלווה goes after the לוקח ראשון shows the second field was bought after the loan.
תוספות בבא בתרא
בבא בתרא קנז יש לך במקרה הרגיל של מלווה לווה ולוקח.
תוספות שואלים איך זה יכול להיות שהלוקח יכול לגבות את שבחו מבני חורין? איך זה שלווה יש בני חורין? הוא עונה שאין לו בני חורין. רק שיש לו משועבדים.
מהרש''ל רואה מזה שלמרות שללווה יש משועבדים המלווה הולך אחרי שדה של לוקח ראשון. מהרש''א מצא גרסה ישנה יותר של תוספות שאומרת שללווה גם לא בני החורין ולא משועבדים. זה אומר שאם הוא היה משועבד מלווה היה צריך ללכת אחרי לוקח שני.
מה שאתה רואה מזה שהרעיון שלי אם לבסס את הטענות בין המהרש''א והמהרש"ל בוויכוח על לווה וללוה וקנה הוא מגוחך לחלוטין בעוד מהרש''א בהחלט יש תמיכה משם, אבל הוא לא צריך את זה. הוא הגיוני בכל מקרה. אבל להמהרש''ל אני נסיתי להביא תמיכה מהרעיון לווה וללוה וקנה שמלווה הראשון מקבל את השדה. וזה טעות. במקרה של לווה ולווות וקנה יש סיבה טובה מספיק כדי לומר שיעבודו הראשון נופל על השדה. אבל במקרה שלנו בבא בתרא קנז כל מה שיש לך הוא שני שדות שנמכרו. ואחד נמכר לפני האחר. אין שום סיבה לומר שהוא צריך ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון שנמכר. וגם אם יכול להיות שיש סיבה כלשהי, זה לא היה שייך ללווה ולווה וקנה.
מה שאני צריך להזכיר את זה בתוספות בדף י''ד בבא מציעא אין ספק שמלווה גובה מלוקח השני. אפילו מהרש''ל מסכים עם זה. זה רק בבא בתרא המהרש''ל אומר שתוספות שם יש שיטה שונה מהתוספות בבבא מציעא. אתה רואה את זה מהשאלה של תוספות בבא מציעא. תוספות אומרים שזה שאתה רואה שיש משועבדים שהלוקח הוא גובה ולא המלווה. אז אנחנו יכולים ללמוד מזה "מה שאקנה" קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד. הדרך היחידה שזה הגיוני היא אם השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה. המהר''ם שיף והמהרש''ל שניהם אומרים שזה מראה את מה שאנחנו אומרים תמיד לוקח יכול לומר למלווה "מקום הנחיתי לך לגבות ממנו פירושו גם לאחר השדה השני היה נמכר. העובדה שמלווה הולך אחרי לוקח ראשון מראה את השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה
here is a link to this subject in my little booklet on Shas.
חידושי הש''ס
I should mention that the Gemara in Bava Batra does its derivation from the fact that the מלווה collects שבח that shows דאקני קנה ומכר משתעבד. The ברייתא itself does not tell us when the second field was bought.
One needs time alone with God in order to get one's head straightened out. It is not simple to rise above one's evil inclination.
One needs time alone with God in order to get one's head straightened out. It is not simple to rise above one's evil inclination.
Ecclesiastes 3. ויתרון האדם מן הבהמה אין כי הכל הבל "the superiority of man over the animal is nothing."
Even if you think all your motivations come from the side of holiness there is little surety that such is the case. Even if you are sitting and learning Torah all day, your actual motivations might be hidden from you.
For this reason I suggest going into a forest or someplace alone where no one else can see you or even know you are there, and talk with God like one talks with friend--in order to re establish your connection with God.
This does not have to be all day long--but the more the better. One needs time alone with God in order to get ones head straightened out.
[The type of moral actions I am interested in are ones that have a moral motivation. Motivation does not in general effect if an action is right. But it does effect if the action is good. And good actions are what seem interesting to me. I.e. to me both action and motivation determine if an action is good. So to get into one's own head to straighten out one's own motivations is important.]
Appendix:
(1) When it comes to getting straight with God I don't think Yoga works. I think Yoga is mainly a device of the Sitra Achra and has nothing to do with getting right with God.
(2) Also, I think one should be careful with whom one talks about his or her problems. The very fact of opening up one heart to another person that does not have your best interest in mind is a trick of the Dark Side to pull you into its orbit.
Ecclesiastes 3. ויתרון האדם מן הבהמה אין כי הכל הבל "the superiority of man over the animal is nothing."
Even if you think all your motivations come from the side of holiness there is little surety that such is the case. Even if you are sitting and learning Torah all day, your actual motivations might be hidden from you.
For this reason I suggest going into a forest or someplace alone where no one else can see you or even know you are there, and talk with God like one talks with friend--in order to re establish your connection with God.
This does not have to be all day long--but the more the better. One needs time alone with God in order to get ones head straightened out.
[The type of moral actions I am interested in are ones that have a moral motivation. Motivation does not in general effect if an action is right. But it does effect if the action is good. And good actions are what seem interesting to me. I.e. to me both action and motivation determine if an action is good. So to get into one's own head to straighten out one's own motivations is important.]
Appendix:
(1) When it comes to getting straight with God I don't think Yoga works. I think Yoga is mainly a device of the Sitra Achra and has nothing to do with getting right with God.
(2) Also, I think one should be careful with whom one talks about his or her problems. The very fact of opening up one heart to another person that does not have your best interest in mind is a trick of the Dark Side to pull you into its orbit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)