17.7.15
And I have seen over the years many people that get interested in Breslov, and the result is sometimes to leave learning Talmud.
And I have seen over the years many people that get interested in Breslov, and the result is sometimes to leave learning Talmud.
In the letter Rav Nachman wrote to his followers in the city of Breslov which starts, "I have become disgusted with the yeshiva of Breslov"["קצתי בישיבת ברסלב"], it is clear that he was giving up on his disciples, and thought that all his efforts with them went to waste.
The claim in Breslov is that they do have people that learn Talmud on some kind of high level. That is unfounded. It is not true. But rather a kind of pretense that seems to be motivated by less than honorable motives. People that can learn Talmud have always learned how to do so in a Lithuanian yeshiva, or else they can't do it at all.
Not all Litvak yeshivas are the same. When I say "Litvak yeshiva" I refer to: (1) Ponovitch, (2) the Mir in NY (3) Chaim Berlin (4) Torah Vedaat (5) Shar Yashuv which starts at beginning level, but goes as high as the other great Litvak yeshivas (6) Merkaz HaRav of Rav Kook.[You can include upstart places of people that learned in any of these six great yeshivas.]
15.7.15
I wanted to take a minute to explain Quantum Mechanics and how it is local
First you have to start with what happens when you heat a piece of iron to extremely high temperatures. If you have seen this done you notice that at lower temperatures it gets red and at higher temperatures it gets blue. It does not depend on energy but on temperature. This can only work if there is a certain value that the iron can absorb or emit. The Plank Constant, "h". Einstein reinforced this idea with his explanation of the photo electric effect. Photons are quanta. Then came the Bohr atom. At that point they had an idea of electrons going around in orbits.(Rutherford) But these orbits had to be equal or proportional to nh. (Bohr) Otherwise the atom would collapse. The integral of Pdx (Momentum times velocity) over one period of orbit is is equal to nh . What Heisenberg was interested in was the fact that the spectrum of the hydrogen atom [Rydberg].
You have a "X sub n" for the position of the electron. You want to get a "X sub nm" to get what happens when it moves from one orbit to a higher or lower one.
And it is local. The fact that an observer in the Andromeda galaxy with have corresponding measurement to your experiment here implies correlation, not causation.
And what you have here is that you only know something exists, you don't know universals like if it is a particle or a wave until you measure it. Until you measure it it is only a dinge an sich "a thing in itself."
In other words to get to matrix mechanics you need the piece of iron that turns red and then blue, then the Bohr atom and then the time of lines you get when you add energy to a hydrogen atom in a cathode tube. Three easy steps.
To learn this more in detail I think people should learn Matrix Mechanics. Most presentations of Quantum mechanics focus of Schrodinger and that makes going on to Quantum Field theory harder. And it gives people the wrong ideas. There is no traveling probability wave. There is simply two complementary variables. We don't understand this in our human understanding because the electron is a dinge an sich "a thing in itself." What we see and feel and observe tells us only about what we can measure, not what it actually is.
First you have to start with what happens when you heat a piece of iron to extremely high temperatures. If you have seen this done you notice that at lower temperatures it gets red and at higher temperatures it gets blue. It does not depend on energy but on temperature. This can only work if there is a certain value that the iron can absorb or emit. The Plank Constant, "h". Einstein reinforced this idea with his explanation of the photo electric effect. Photons are quanta. Then came the Bohr atom. At that point they had an idea of electrons going around in orbits.(Rutherford) But these orbits had to be equal or proportional to nh. (Bohr) Otherwise the atom would collapse. The integral of Pdx (Momentum times velocity) over one period of orbit is is equal to nh . What Heisenberg was interested in was the fact that the spectrum of the hydrogen atom [Rydberg].
You have a "X sub n" for the position of the electron. You want to get a "X sub nm" to get what happens when it moves from one orbit to a higher or lower one.
And it is local. The fact that an observer in the Andromeda galaxy with have corresponding measurement to your experiment here implies correlation, not causation.
And what you have here is that you only know something exists, you don't know universals like if it is a particle or a wave until you measure it. Until you measure it it is only a dinge an sich "a thing in itself."
In other words to get to matrix mechanics you need the piece of iron that turns red and then blue, then the Bohr atom and then the time of lines you get when you add energy to a hydrogen atom in a cathode tube. Three easy steps.
To learn this more in detail I think people should learn Matrix Mechanics. Most presentations of Quantum mechanics focus of Schrodinger and that makes going on to Quantum Field theory harder. And it gives people the wrong ideas. There is no traveling probability wave. There is simply two complementary variables. We don't understand this in our human understanding because the electron is a dinge an sich "a thing in itself." What we see and feel and observe tells us only about what we can measure, not what it actually is.
14.7.15
Torah has gotten a undeserved bad name. The reason is simply because a tremendous amount of bad stuff and bad people have gotten mixed up with it and it is all called by that generic name "Torah."
So people that recoil when they see or hear any thing that claims to be Torah are highly justified. As you can see, I don't have a single link that anything that is slightly related that that subject at all. And if I see anything at all on the Internet, I run to the Mikvah. If I want Real Torah, Authentic Torah, I know where to go. I open up a Gemara and learn. Period. Full Stop. I don't take any substitutes. And From pseudo Torah I run in fear for my life. [The term "Gemara" here I use to refer to the basic writings of the Oral Law that were all written down by the Tenaim and Amoraim.] It far better to go surfing than to listen to pseudo Torah or to pseudo Torah scholars.
Pseudo Torah scholars are easy to spot because they are not teaching Gemara. They can't teach it, because they don't understand it. They have to teach other things which are nonsense, but which they call "Torah" and which they claim are harder or more difficult than Gemara which is utter nonsense, They are frauds, and they know it themselves, and fear the person like me that can tell the difference between the real thing and them.
So people that recoil when they see or hear any thing that claims to be Torah are highly justified. As you can see, I don't have a single link that anything that is slightly related that that subject at all. And if I see anything at all on the Internet, I run to the Mikvah. If I want Real Torah, Authentic Torah, I know where to go. I open up a Gemara and learn. Period. Full Stop. I don't take any substitutes. And From pseudo Torah I run in fear for my life. [The term "Gemara" here I use to refer to the basic writings of the Oral Law that were all written down by the Tenaim and Amoraim.] It far better to go surfing than to listen to pseudo Torah or to pseudo Torah scholars.
Pseudo Torah scholars are easy to spot because they are not teaching Gemara. They can't teach it, because they don't understand it. They have to teach other things which are nonsense, but which they call "Torah" and which they claim are harder or more difficult than Gemara which is utter nonsense, They are frauds, and they know it themselves, and fear the person like me that can tell the difference between the real thing and them.
The wholesome, moral, decent USA did exist all over the USA. Except for perhaps a very few dysfunctional families, America was definitely Norman Rockwell country.
However with my family moving into Beverly Hills, the atmosphere changed slightly from when we had been in Orange County. Still from my travels over the USA and the testimony of many people I have talked with, it seems clear that the USA of the past was highly responsible and moral and decent. And everyone that experienced both has said the same thing--the USA of Today is not the same country. And that is a fact. [Even as compared to that Old America, my parents home was an amazing contrast in terms of the level of love and that was there. Still the general USA was an amazing place ]
But in those days everyone had a slight evil inclination to look into something a little bit unsavory. Everyone including me. Because unsavory things hold a strange fascination for human beings. The only question was how unsavory were you willing to go? And while holding on to the evil inclination people also tried to follow their good inclination to some degree. It was not considered a good thing to do evil. But it was fun. So people tried to limit the extent of their unsavory thing by injecting a little good into it.
My suggestion is to ship out the socialists and homosexuals. Maximize immigration from Europe and Ukraine and Russia and Asia [Pakistan should be considered part of Asia in this context and immigration from there is OK as far as I can tell.] and stop it completely from 3rd world countries. Anyone from the Middle East send back. [I think immigration from Mexico is also good. From what I have seen of Mexicans, I am very impressed at their work ethic.]
However with my family moving into Beverly Hills, the atmosphere changed slightly from when we had been in Orange County. Still from my travels over the USA and the testimony of many people I have talked with, it seems clear that the USA of the past was highly responsible and moral and decent. And everyone that experienced both has said the same thing--the USA of Today is not the same country. And that is a fact. [Even as compared to that Old America, my parents home was an amazing contrast in terms of the level of love and that was there. Still the general USA was an amazing place ]
But in those days everyone had a slight evil inclination to look into something a little bit unsavory. Everyone including me. Because unsavory things hold a strange fascination for human beings. The only question was how unsavory were you willing to go? And while holding on to the evil inclination people also tried to follow their good inclination to some degree. It was not considered a good thing to do evil. But it was fun. So people tried to limit the extent of their unsavory thing by injecting a little good into it.
My suggestion is to ship out the socialists and homosexuals. Maximize immigration from Europe and Ukraine and Russia and Asia [Pakistan should be considered part of Asia in this context and immigration from there is OK as far as I can tell.] and stop it completely from 3rd world countries. Anyone from the Middle East send back. [I think immigration from Mexico is also good. From what I have seen of Mexicans, I am very impressed at their work ethic.]
13.7.15
My advice for Americans that are upset about the attack on Biblical values: to learn Torah.
Normally that means the Oral and Written law but in this case an introduction would be in order.
That is Musar (Jewish Ethics). There are classical books of Jewish ethics based on the Old Testament which give a good idea of the basic world view of Torah. There was an actual movement among the Jewish people to learn Musar that was based in Vilnius, and its founder was Israel Salanter. It went into hibernation, but it might be a good idea to awaken this again.
Musar has the advantage that it is not trying to fit Torah into some alternative reality worldview, but is a rigorous evaluation of the texts of Torah. It will not be trying to sell you on believing in anyone except for the First Cause. It will be encouraging to follow all the laws of the Torah. So even if there are people that may learn it and yet not be perfect, it has the effect of encouraging people towards objective morality.
My recommendation is the Or Israel by a disciple of Israel Salanter and the Duties of the Heart [the first Musar book ever]. That was written in the Middle Ages and is the father of all Musar books.
It is a comprehensive view of Torah that draws together the various strands of thought in the Oral and Written Torah.
Normally that means the Oral and Written law but in this case an introduction would be in order.
That is Musar (Jewish Ethics). There are classical books of Jewish ethics based on the Old Testament which give a good idea of the basic world view of Torah. There was an actual movement among the Jewish people to learn Musar that was based in Vilnius, and its founder was Israel Salanter. It went into hibernation, but it might be a good idea to awaken this again.
Musar has the advantage that it is not trying to fit Torah into some alternative reality worldview, but is a rigorous evaluation of the texts of Torah. It will not be trying to sell you on believing in anyone except for the First Cause. It will be encouraging to follow all the laws of the Torah. So even if there are people that may learn it and yet not be perfect, it has the effect of encouraging people towards objective morality.
My recommendation is the Or Israel by a disciple of Israel Salanter and the Duties of the Heart [the first Musar book ever]. That was written in the Middle Ages and is the father of all Musar books.
It is a comprehensive view of Torah that draws together the various strands of thought in the Oral and Written Torah.
There was a fellow in the coffee section that mentioned about some friend of his that is halfway between Judaism and Christianity. I really did not get the gist. But at some point in the discussion I mentioned that I had studied Christianity at least to some small degree. He asked about contradictions.
I said the major source of contradictions is in the four gospels. That is about two issue that are of major importance in Christianity:1) Christology [what does one think about Jesus], 2) the other is mitzvot.
On the other hand I also said it is not good to downgrade someone else's religion. Everyone thinks their is the best.
He asked if I had been born to two parents one Jewish and one Christian, what faith would I choose? I said, "If I could choose any parents in the world, I would only choose my own. I am very happy with the way the raised me--Jewish [Reform-- but with a traditional slant].".
I forgot the whole discussion but also he asked which is better Judaism or Christianity. I said, "I go by what Reason requires. Ah but my reason is faulty? So what. There is no better path."
That was my first answer. He was not satisfied and then went to question two, and after that to question 1. So I am not writing this in order.
[My thoughts were that this is really a matter of group identity. Torah is my path and I think that this is good. I think when I see people fishing for arguments against other religions that that is not a positive thing.]
Later on the way home I thought to myself that there is an essential connection between path and human good or evil. We find paths that encourage people towards evil. And we also find paths that encourage people towards what simple common sense would be called good and just. So even there are bad people on all paths and good people on all paths still that does not mean the paths themselves are equal. So there are religions that it is worthwhile fighting against. Some are so bad that they deserve to be shunned. Some cause so much damage that you have an obligation to warn people against them.. But not all. Some are in a grey area with some good things and some not so good. Fighting them seems to be dumb. You are likely to end up causing people to throw out the good with the bad.
I said the major source of contradictions is in the four gospels. That is about two issue that are of major importance in Christianity:1) Christology [what does one think about Jesus], 2) the other is mitzvot.
On the other hand I also said it is not good to downgrade someone else's religion. Everyone thinks their is the best.
He asked if I had been born to two parents one Jewish and one Christian, what faith would I choose? I said, "If I could choose any parents in the world, I would only choose my own. I am very happy with the way the raised me--Jewish [Reform-- but with a traditional slant].".
I forgot the whole discussion but also he asked which is better Judaism or Christianity. I said, "I go by what Reason requires. Ah but my reason is faulty? So what. There is no better path."
That was my first answer. He was not satisfied and then went to question two, and after that to question 1. So I am not writing this in order.
[My thoughts were that this is really a matter of group identity. Torah is my path and I think that this is good. I think when I see people fishing for arguments against other religions that that is not a positive thing.]
Later on the way home I thought to myself that there is an essential connection between path and human good or evil. We find paths that encourage people towards evil. And we also find paths that encourage people towards what simple common sense would be called good and just. So even there are bad people on all paths and good people on all paths still that does not mean the paths themselves are equal. So there are religions that it is worthwhile fighting against. Some are so bad that they deserve to be shunned. Some cause so much damage that you have an obligation to warn people against them.. But not all. Some are in a grey area with some good things and some not so good. Fighting them seems to be dumb. You are likely to end up causing people to throw out the good with the bad.
12.7.15
There is certain amount of critique that one hears from people who joined the insane religious world and then were treated baldly and then left. It is hard to evaluate what this means. After all there are things that they are doing that seem related to Torah, at least on the surface. Also what makes this hard to judge is the unusual aspect that smaller groups of similar nature don't see to exist. What I think cause the problem is the general treatment of people that join.
They are actively recruited under the idea that, "We are all one family." Then they are treated as garbage when they cease to be useful. It means that joining them is certainly a bad idea as many Jews have found out. But it also means making any kind of alliance with them seems like a bad idea.--If that is how they treat their friends, it does not seem to be worth much to be their friend. It even calls into question if they are in fact really keeping the Torah or not. And the answer seems to be negative.
And that leaves people like myself wondering then how best in fact to keep the Torah --if the the insane religious world can't be used as a metric.
For that reason I try to keep Torah in the way my parents did which seems to me to be the meaning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, "Honor your Father and your Mother." Naphtali Troup brings from the Rambam that there is an actual obligation to obey your parents-- not just to honor them in some vague superficial manner. But you get the idea. I try to keep things as simple as possible. If any question comes up, I look at the Torah. Most of the time the Torah is perfectly clear. But sometimes there is some issue that is ambiguous. If the Torah is clear, then full stop. If not, then I go to the Mishna. If that is not clear, then I go to the Talmud. If that is not clear then I go to the Rambam and the traditional books of Musar.
The evil custom of the the insane religious world is to make a blank statement about Torah and Talmud "Do you think you understand them better than___?" Fill in the blank. They attempt to make every clear statement in Torah to be ambiguous, so that they can go to some charismatic lunatic to guide them.
This causes the effect that we have people that actually think they are keeping the Torah while doing the opposite and then criticizing others for not following them.
It is not that they keep Torah in some polarized extreme fashion. It is rather that they don't keep Torah at all, but think they do.
And that leaves people like myself wondering then how best in fact to keep the Torah --if the the insane religious world can't be used as a metric.
For that reason I try to keep Torah in the way my parents did which seems to me to be the meaning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, "Honor your Father and your Mother." Naphtali Troup brings from the Rambam that there is an actual obligation to obey your parents-- not just to honor them in some vague superficial manner. But you get the idea. I try to keep things as simple as possible. If any question comes up, I look at the Torah. Most of the time the Torah is perfectly clear. But sometimes there is some issue that is ambiguous. If the Torah is clear, then full stop. If not, then I go to the Mishna. If that is not clear, then I go to the Talmud. If that is not clear then I go to the Rambam and the traditional books of Musar.
The evil custom of the the insane religious world is to make a blank statement about Torah and Talmud "Do you think you understand them better than___?" Fill in the blank. They attempt to make every clear statement in Torah to be ambiguous, so that they can go to some charismatic lunatic to guide them.
This causes the effect that we have people that actually think they are keeping the Torah while doing the opposite and then criticizing others for not following them.
It is not that they keep Torah in some polarized extreme fashion. It is rather that they don't keep Torah at all, but think they do.
I asked Dr. Kelly Ross:
I wonder if in the thought of Kant and Fries it is possible to draw a direct connection between the dinge an sich and non intuitive immediate knowledge.
His answer: Kant and Fries thought that Reason related directly to things-in-themselves, and non-intuitive immediate knowledge was knowledge from Reason for Fries. So, yes.
I: The thing in itself is beyond empirical experience but knowledge of its existence seems to a kind of knowledge; while the immediate non intuitive kind of knowledge is more related to the synthetic a priori, first principles, and universals.
Dr. Kelly Ross : There are aspects of things-in-themselves that Kant already thought were only known through Reason. Morality, in the first place. Because of morality, he thought that God, freedom, and immortality were implied. I only think that works well with freedom. But the general principle is that unconditioned realities are possible among things-in-themselves but not among phenomena. God, freedom, and immorality all involve unconditioned realities.
I: Is it possible that it is this non intuitive immediate knowledge that knows the dinge an sich?
Dr. Kelly Ross: The problem with our dealing with things-in-themselves, according to Kant, is that there cannot be a consistent theory of transcendent objects without generating antinomies. I think that is still a good principle, and you can see the page on antinomies at http://www.friesian.com/antino
But there is more to the transcendent than metaphysical paradoxes. Neither Kant nor Fries knew how to deal with the principles of actual religions, e.g. ritual requirements such as baptism or observing the Sabbath. See "Nelson and Religion" at http://www.friesian.com/nelson
Appendix:
(1) What I was getting at was that I think non intuitive immediate knowledge knows the existence of the dinge an sich, but reason knows universals. [I probably did not state this clearly enough in my question.]
(2) Also what I was trying to say was that even though the way Kant gets to the dinge an sich is different than how he treats the question of a priori synthetic knowledge, still they both seem connected.
(3) Are not unconditioned realities in the category of the thing in itself? And at least as far as Kant the dinge on sich is rather common place things. It is just we can get to what those things really are. But is it not so that we understand universals about those things? For example the laws of physics? What perhaps Kelly Ross is saying is that at a certain common place things start to generate contradictions. For example Quantum Mechanics. The actual equations are exact and simple and local. [Correlation is not the same as causation.]
Here is Lubos's statement about this
Entanglement is nothing else than the quantum variation of the concept of correlation. It either represents any correlation between two subsystems that is properly described and understood in the language of quantum mechanics; or it refers to those correlations that make the subsystems behave differently than anything in classical physics.\
A man is stopped by the police around 1 am and he is asked where he is going at this time of the night.
The man replies, "I am on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."
The police officer then asks, "Really? And who is giving that lecture at this time of night, and where will it be held?"
The man replies, "That lecture would be given by my wife, and it would be held at home."
I heard this lecture from my learning partner. He was in New Mexico and part of the driver education course there involved seeing the difference between a person's brain who drank alcohol and one who did not. [These were from people who had donated their bodies to science.] The regular brain was obviously healthy. It looked healthy and firm and clean. The brain of the person that drank alcohol when it was merely touched the slightest bit instantly fell apart into a bloody mess.
This relates to me because a Tartar originally from the Crimea but now in Ukraine proper comes into my room about twice a week without asking and steals any money or wine that I have for Kidush [that is for one cup on Friday night]. This is not unusual. In the Ukraine, there are many people that can't be happy unless they steal something. There are wonderful people in the Ukraine, but by and large there is this strange little thing that about 90% of the adult males have have that seem incurable.
Of course every group of people has at least one characteristic flaw. So just noticing this problem in Ukraine does not mean that anyone else is any better. Some people have much worse addictions than to alcohol and theft. For example Muslims seems to have usually bad days when they can't murder some Jew or Christian. Homosexuals in the USA seem to be very unhappy if they can't make others into sexual perverts. Everyone and every groups has their own special "evil inclination."
There is difference between deficit and debt.
Jon Gabriel Ricochet's chart
According to this information it is probably a good idea to elect a Republican president who at least does not have to goal to bankrupt the USA.
From Jon Ricochet
"The D.C. press corps was giddy last night, declaring that the fiscal crisis had ended. Senators praised "honorable friends" from "great states," congressmembers gave standing O's to their stalwart leaders, and the president saluted bipartisanship while ridiculing Republicans, bloggers, activists and pretty much anyone else who dared oppose him.
If the whole thing seemed a bit surreal, it's because the whole thing was a bit surreal. America's fiscal crisis is not that our debt ceiling isn't quite high enough — it's that we have too much debt.
It's as if I had $250K in credit card debt and I told my wife, "Great news, honey — our fiscal crisis is over! I just got a new Visa!" If she didn't hit me over the head with a rolling pin, she would most assuredly tell me where I should place it.
To help visualize how up the creek we find ourselves, I created the infographic above.
It's an imperfect analogy, but imagine the green is your salary, the yellow is the amount you're spending over your salary, and the red is your MasterCard statement. Before sharing this info with your spouse, I recommend you hide the rolling pin."
Sometimes the best remedy for a Torah controversy is simply a good old-fashioned,
down to earth, nothing buttery, look-it-up-to-see-if-it’s-so, Torah study. No fancy
footwork necessary. Just cut right to the chase, let the Torah speak for itself, then be loyal to it.
That’s all.
Of course, because of ambiguities in the text, not every challenging, contentious dispute
can be settled this easily.
That is why the Talmud exists--to clarify ambiguous issues.
Frequently, though, a careful, close, honest look at the Torah [Five Books of Moses] is all that’s required to resolve what might seem at first to be a difficult dispute.
I take it to respond to one of the most severe challenges to Torah today. The question: What does God really think about homosexuality? Could it be that the Torah has simply gotten it all wrong? A dedicated group of homosexuals and “gay-friendly” Jews think so, and they are campaigning relentlessly to change your mind. They have certified scholars on their team, they’re tactically clever, and they’re aggressively training their own ambassadors to send out to reform the Torah. When—not “if,” but “when”—you encounter this teaching, you’ll need tried and true Torah answers.
If in doubt go to the Torah. If that is ambiguous, then go to the Oral Law. What is the Oral Law? According to many Christians, it is a conspiracy to undermine the Torah. So it can't help Christians. But for people that are not hostile to it, it can be helpful. It contains the way the Torah was understood traditionally. In other words, we, the Jews, had the Old Testament during the Second Temple period. The entire corpus of the Old Testament had been completed from the time of Moses until the end of the First Temple. But we also had a traditional understanding of how to keep the laws of the Torah. No one thought it is up to every individual to decide how to keep the Sabbath. For if there had been, then a person brought in front of the court to be tried for breaking the Sabbath could say that in his sincere opinion what he was doing was not breaking the Sabbath. That goes for all the laws of the Old Testament.
So simply put: there is a hierarchy in understanding the Old Testament of the Bible. The first step is the literal meaning. If that is clear, then full stop. If that is not clear then we go to the Mishna and Gemara (Talmud). If that is clear, then stop. If it is not clear then we go to the Rambam and other medieval people to gain understanding about the specific issue.
What is common for Christian to complain about is that often this order is reversed. For some reason people will use minor writers in order to confuse major issues. And that is a true critique.
That is why the Talmud exists--to clarify ambiguous issues.
Frequently, though, a careful, close, honest look at the Torah [Five Books of Moses] is all that’s required to resolve what might seem at first to be a difficult dispute.
I take it to respond to one of the most severe challenges to Torah today. The question: What does God really think about homosexuality? Could it be that the Torah has simply gotten it all wrong? A dedicated group of homosexuals and “gay-friendly” Jews think so, and they are campaigning relentlessly to change your mind. They have certified scholars on their team, they’re tactically clever, and they’re aggressively training their own ambassadors to send out to reform the Torah. When—not “if,” but “when”—you encounter this teaching, you’ll need tried and true Torah answers.
If in doubt go to the Torah. If that is ambiguous, then go to the Oral Law. What is the Oral Law? According to many Christians, it is a conspiracy to undermine the Torah. So it can't help Christians. But for people that are not hostile to it, it can be helpful. It contains the way the Torah was understood traditionally. In other words, we, the Jews, had the Old Testament during the Second Temple period. The entire corpus of the Old Testament had been completed from the time of Moses until the end of the First Temple. But we also had a traditional understanding of how to keep the laws of the Torah. No one thought it is up to every individual to decide how to keep the Sabbath. For if there had been, then a person brought in front of the court to be tried for breaking the Sabbath could say that in his sincere opinion what he was doing was not breaking the Sabbath. That goes for all the laws of the Old Testament.
So simply put: there is a hierarchy in understanding the Old Testament of the Bible. The first step is the literal meaning. If that is clear, then full stop. If that is not clear then we go to the Mishna and Gemara (Talmud). If that is clear, then stop. If it is not clear then we go to the Rambam and other medieval people to gain understanding about the specific issue.
What is common for Christian to complain about is that often this order is reversed. For some reason people will use minor writers in order to confuse major issues. And that is a true critique.
11.7.15
q5 q5 in midi format This piece was not developed as thoroughly as I would have liked as you can tell. But there is little I can do about it. It has to be formed naturally, and I can go back and change things even if I would like to. There have been times when I did the best I could and then a few years later I looked back at the same piece and it occurred to me what was missing. This happened for example in b98.
I knew something was missing at the end, but for several years I did not know what it was until I got to Uman and looked it over again. I hope God grants to me the same with this piece.
I knew something was missing at the end, but for several years I did not know what it was until I got to Uman and looked it over again. I hope God grants to me the same with this piece.
In praise of Talmud.
I have limited objective here. It is to point out the advantage of learning Talmud for its own sake and not to be paid for doing so. And I also want to point out a kind of time limit for it. That is I don't want learning Talmud to become away of making a living, because then it loses the effect.
The main effect of Talmud is that it carries with it the different promises that you find the sages said about learning Torah. [And it is the actual oral tradition first hand. As the Rambam says "Just like one must can not add or subtract from the Written Torah, so he can't add or subtract from the Oral Torah." But, of course, people add and subtract from the Written and Oral Law all the time. The point however of the Rambam is that none of that stuff counts as Torah.]
This I am sure all sounds very vague. So let me try to make myself clear.
First to defend my position in front of Christians I should say that I am not saying Talmud is Divine in the same sense that the Torah and prophets are Divine. Rather, I am saying that learning Talmud connects one to the same divine source as when one learns the Torah and prophets. And it has the advantage that it goes into detail how to keep the laws of the Torah and prophets with rigorous analysis, and it does not leave it to individual opinions which vary as the winds.
Second, I wanted to point out there are kinds of services that people promise, "If you do such and such, this will be the result." A good example is Yoga. In spite of extensive studies, no one has found any evidence that yoga does anything for anyone,- and yet it is a multi million dollar industry. People pay good money to do what there is no the slightest evidence that it does anything but waste your time.
But I have good reason to believe from what I have seen in others and in myself, that learning Talmud has enormous benefit --but only on condition it is not done for pay. If one is paid for learning the learning turns to poison and corrupts the character. So this is a delicate matter.
This I am sure all sounds very vague. So let me try to make myself clear.
First to defend my position in front of Christians I should say that I am not saying Talmud is Divine in the same sense that the Torah and prophets are Divine. Rather, I am saying that learning Talmud connects one to the same divine source as when one learns the Torah and prophets. And it has the advantage that it goes into detail how to keep the laws of the Torah and prophets with rigorous analysis, and it does not leave it to individual opinions which vary as the winds.
Second, I wanted to point out there are kinds of services that people promise, "If you do such and such, this will be the result." A good example is Yoga. In spite of extensive studies, no one has found any evidence that yoga does anything for anyone,- and yet it is a multi million dollar industry. People pay good money to do what there is no the slightest evidence that it does anything but waste your time.
But I have good reason to believe from what I have seen in others and in myself, that learning Talmud has enormous benefit --but only on condition it is not done for pay. If one is paid for learning the learning turns to poison and corrupts the character. So this is a delicate matter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)