The Ukraine I think has been unfairly treated by Russian Media. I have heard things that imply that Jews are not treated well. And yet this does not seem to me to be accurate. My impression is that Jews are treated like anyone else. And I have seen a lot of effort made to make Rosh Hashanah comfortable for people coming to visit .
In general what you see in Uman is that anyone that owns property anywhere within walking distance of the synagogue of  builds as large a building as they can in order to put in as many people he can for Rosh Hashanah.
And they make efforts to be nice.
The reality that I have seen on the ground does not resemble way Russia Today portrays it.
I could go on with examples but you get the idea.
The funny thing is that I have been treated much worse in places that have reputations for being nice to Jews. Sometime reality does not resemble what the the media portrays. And this seems to be a prime example.

Germany for example is supposed to be nice nowadays but when I was there the Turkish population was very nasty. I think Germany thought they could make up for WWII by being nice to immigrants. But it seems to me that they made a mistake in policy.

Rav Shach [author of the Avi Ezri].  To his way of thinking only Torah is Torah and nothing else. That means learning the Oral and Written Law and doing what the Law tells us. It is hard to argue with this. And he also seems to think learning books about the hashkafa (or world view) of Torah is a bad thing. He applies the verse in Ecclesiastes against making books to books about hashkafa. That is they are bad.
Now to a large degree it is true that most such books are amazingly stupid, and certainly take people away from Torah when they read that nonsense. [They make  obviously false presumptions or else have wolrd views opposed to Torah that they present as Torah and by that manage to pull naive people into things that are not Torah. ]

But what I am confused about is if it is possible to give Torah a slightly wider interpretation? And if so, how wide?

The first step for me is to look at my parents. What did they consider to be Torah? And also parents are the first place that the Torah itself give regarding orientation. Now starting from my own parents makes everything remarkably clear. They had a very definite idea of what constitutes Torah that is the exact same thing as Rav Shach. The Oral and Written Law. That means the Old Testament, the two Talmuds and the halakhic and aggadic midrashim;-- or collectively what is called "The Mesora."(Torat Kohanim, Sifra, Sifri, Tosephta, Midrash Raba, Tanchuma,  and the Mechilta.)
There still would be a wider idea of what Torah is about coming from the side of my parents than sitting in yeshiva and learning I think.
It is that grey area between Rav Shach and my parents that I find difficult to deal with. I think Rav Shach would have held that one should learn Torah all the time. My parents would have thought that a wide range of activities constitutes keeping the Torah like taking the family to the beach on weekends, learning Music, Math, Physics, Engineering. It is hard to know. Because the Torah itself puts parents first I would have to side with my parents, but I can see the importance of Rav Shach and of learning Torah --that is Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot as much as possible,
[Looking at the Rambam and Saadia Geon it seems they were more towards the direction of my parents. The Rambam is famous [or infamous] for his approval of Aristotle and learning Physics and Metaphysics. The Rambam meant by "Metaphysics" not just the book of Aristotle by that name but also the works of Plato--as he calls it "what the Greeks called Metaphysics." That means a wider set of books than just Aristotle.]

I am being short on purpose. Today the world of Torah is not like it was in Rav Shach's time.  Nor is university like it was in my parent's time. The world has changed and so have the rules. In any case, we all need to learn Torah and also Math and Physics,-- and survival skills and an honest profession.
There is no difference of opinion about that. How we go about it will have to differ according to the person and situation.

Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem  Shach, author of the Avi Ezri] asked what is really an obvious question but one that you don't hear much. That is the fact that there is a verse in Ecclesiastes that put down the making of books.  You know the verse so I dont need to quote it. Mainly it says there is no end to the making of books and they are worthless effort and a joke.
The obvious thing is that in the Torah world, we do have books and a lot of them are valuable.
I would think that there is a difference between the oral law and the written law. But that is not the answer he gives. He says the difference is between books that deal with understanding how to keep the commandments of God as explained in the Gemara according to the foundational principles of the Talmud which is OK and books on hashkafa [the world view and philosophy of Torah--e.g. understanding the reasons for the mitzvot.
And he has a point. I can see important value for books on orientation like the Guide for the Perplexed by the Rambam and the Horev from Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, and the books of Rav Avraham Kook. But mainly books on Hashkafa seem to me to be talking nonsense.
What is wrong with books of Torah hashkafa [world view]? One problem is the question who is qualified to write about what the Torah holds?  Who is qualified to even have an opinion about such a thing? Only someone who has read through the material and knows it well. Someone like for instance Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides). If anyone is qualified to have an opinion about what the Torah hold surely he must be at the top of the list. And to our great happiness he actually wrote a book explaining what the world view of the Torah is. You would think that people would be overjoyed. But no. People don't want to hear what he has to say because they have their own opinions about what they think the Torah ought to be saying. And they write they own books of nonsense and tell you not to learn the Rambam's book because it might confuse you and take you away from their own views which are contrary to those of the Rambam.

There is an area in the Ukraine which the separatists are seeking. The whole area they call "New Russia" [Novoi-Russia] is larger than just the two provinces that they have taken control of. Part of the reason I think they are seeking this new area is that the actual areas they already control have little strategic value to Russia. But the new area the rebels are seeking has immense value to Russia because it contains the backbone of the Russian space program and manufacturing of military hardware.
That whole strip of land starting at Kharkiv and all the way down to the sea is one vast military industrial complex of immense strategic value to Russia.
[I am not saying Russia does not produce its own stuff. Rather that industry was purposely divided by Stalin so that one part of a plane would be produced in one region and another part in another region--so that all of the USSR would be dependent on every other region. This means that a significant part of Russia replacement parts and rocket parts is still being produced in the Ukraine. So the fact that business is down in the Ukraine is a good thing. It means they are no longer supplying the Russian military. I can imagine the reason is they don't like being shot at. You won't see this information about Russian weapons because anything made in the USSR proper they won't tell you where it is made. Only if it is made in satellites of the USSR do they name the country of origin.]



Just to give one example to build the kind of aircraft carrier that Russia wants to build is not possible in any existing Russian facilities. The building of Russian rockets and aircraft is largely done on Ukrainian soil. This was never a problem  because the work was simply done in the Ukraine an sent to Russia. Nowadays this arrangement has become strained. It is hard for me to imagine that separatists will see this gold mine of a preexisting military industrial area right across its border and not want to take it.
That is to say that they are probably hoping to expand and take that area. But it also seems clear to me that the Ukrainian people in those areas will not hand over that territory peacefully. So if the separatists want that area they will have to take it by force.
And the separatist are definitely getting Russian military hardware like the anti tank PTRS-41. 

The Torah forbids things that people desire. Lots of things. And it assumes people have free will.
The idea that people have free will is a basic axiom of Torah. And we know the Torah forbids lots of stuff that people desire intensely. For example, "Thou shalt not murder." "Thou shalt not steal." Etc. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Lot of people lie. All Democrats use their power to steal (to vote for themselves other people's money). The fact that they can steal does not give them the right to. So we see people desire things the Torah tells them not to do.

So what to do if you desire things the Torah says not to do? My main idea is to learn Torah. That is especially Musar and the laws about the area you think you might be acting wrong.
[Musar here means books on Fear of God and ethics written during the Middle Ages or early Renaissance. ]
And I realize that not everyone can do what is right. But one thing you can do--you can refrain from recommending evil. Even if you can't refrain from sin, you can at least hold yourself back from trying to convince others to sin.
This is relevant to lots of issues. For example homosexuals desire something the Torah forbids. That does not give them the right to act on their desires. But even if they can't help themselves they should at lets refrain from trying to convince everyone else to be homosexuals. Even if they can't be decent people, they can at least want that others should be.
Now the actual law of homosexuality is this Females are allowed to play with each other. Males get the death penalty if there is penetration into the anus. If the males think the act is permitted then they bring a sin offering to the Temple in Jerusalem, [a goat or sheep]. If there are no witnesses they don't get the death penalty but they also can't bring a sin offering for an act done on purpose.

Sanhedrin 63. See in the top Tosphot the part where Rabbainu Tam explains this Gemara.

The question I am dealing with here is that R. Ami says one does the three inner services in one span of forgetting is liable one sin offering. This seems to be fine even with people that disagree with it. But Rabbi Zakai said one who does all four services is liable one sin offering and this seems to get everyone especially R Yochanan upset. What is the difference?
We have one verse to put the three services together "Don't serve idols." Another verse which van be used to separate the services "Don't bow to idols."
To Rabbi Ami it seems "bowing" is coming to teach on itself [doing it with the other three means one would have to bring two sin offerings.] And R Yochanan seems to be OK with this. But why?


 If it is teaching about itself alone, then it is not teaching about the whole category of "service." You can say two things here. You can say what would it have taught us if it could? To divide. But it can't do that because of "Dont serve" so all that is left for it to do is to  divide itself from the others.

Another thing you could say is that it tells us to divide service according to its way from the others.

Now let's look at R. Zakai. "Don't serve" includes all kinds of service--inner and outer. But then why does "bowing" get mentioned separately? To tell us it is a mere prohibition. That is he thinks that since there is nothing it can tell us about the whole category of service it can only tell us about itself. This made R.Yochanan upset. If used to divide itself --that would be OK. But to be used to tell us it is a mere prohibition that is not OK. What is the difference?
One we say is teaching about the whole category and the other we say is not. The later is true. But the first claim? Perhaps that is the difference. R Zakei thinks bowing to divide only teaches about itself so it is equal to what he says. R Ami says it teaches about service according to its way and so can be considered to be teaching about the whole category.


 סנהדרין סג. תוספות בראש הדף. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזיבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירש שטעמו בא מן הפסוק "לא תעבדם". הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. רבינו תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של רבי זכי לא במשפטו של רבי אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות "לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם."  הפסוק אסר כל מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להיזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש, ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו למה ר' יוחנן אמר לר' זכאי "פוק תני לברא" שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות הפנימיות נחשבות אחת אבל לא השתטחות. למה? אם השתחוויה בא ללמד על עצמה, אם כן אינו בא ללמד על הכלל כולו. אפשר לומר פה שני דברים. אפשר לומר אם היתה באה ללמד על הכלל כולו מה היתה מלמדת? לחלק. אבל אינה יכולה לעשות את זה בגלל לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ולכן כל מה שנשאר הוא לחלק על עצמה. דבר שני שאפשר לומר הוא שהיא באה גם לחלק עבודה כדרכה.עכשיו נסתכל ברבי זכאי. לפי ר' תם שיטתו היא שהשתחווייה ללאו יצאה. זאת אומרת שהיתה בכלל לא תעבדם ויצאה מן הכלל. אי אפשר שהיא תלמד מה שהוא על הכלל כולו בגלל שלא נשאר מה ללמוד. כבר לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ר' יוחנן אינו מסכים עם זה. זאת אומרת שאם השתחווייה היתה באה ללמד על עצמה זה בסדר, אבל אם היא באה לאו גרידה לא. מה החילוק?אם היא באה ללאו ברור שהיא לא מלמדת על הכלל כולו. אבל אם היא באה לחלק למה כן? אפשר לומר החילוק הוא זה. רבי זכאי סובר שאם השתטחות באה לחלק זב גם נחשב להיות שהיא מלמדת רק על עצמה. ולכן יש לו ברירה לומר באיזה אופן היא באה ללמד על עצמה. אבל ר' אמי סובר שהשתטחות באה גם ללמד על עבודה כדרכה, ולכן אפשר שהיא נחשבת להיות מלמדת על הכלל כולו.









. Rabbi Yochanan told  Rabbi Zackai "go teach it on the street". It seems the reason is Zakai said something stupid. But what he said wrong seems to be a mystery. The one version has it he said "one who does all four services (sacrifice, burning, pouring , bowing) to an idol brings one sin offering."
Then Rabbi Ami says one who does the major three services (sacrifice, burning, pouring) to an idol brings a sin offering.
Rashi says the original statement of R Zakai is the same as Rabbi Ami.
Rabbainu Tam says the original statement did have "bowing" in it. And this idea makes some sense because "Don't serve idols" would have put all three services into one, and "Don't bow" would have come to teach on itself [bowing] that it also is liable.

NEXT DAY:

Let me first reiterate what Rabbainu Tam is saying. Rabbi Ami is fine. We have "Don't serve idols" to tell us the three inner services are all one.  And we have "Don't bow" to tell us bowing is also liable. That is fine. Then we have Rabbi Zakai saying if one does all four services he is liable once. And Rabbi Yochanan told him, "Teach it on the street". We know R. Zakai can't be saying like R. Ami because then of he would do all four he would be liable twice. [That is after all what comes out from R Ami.] So to R. Zakai, bowing has to be coming for a mere prohibition. And in essence that is fine. We have Rabbi Yose doing the same in Shabat with the verse "don't lite a fire on Shabat"
But this is where my learning partner noticed the crucial difference between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Zakai.

Why was Rabbi Yose allowed to use fire for a mere prohibition? Don't we always have a principle, "Whatever was in a category and has come out of the category comes to teach about the whole category, not about itself alone." How did we deal with this problem in the case of Rabbi Yose? We said just one page back that since the acts of work on Shabbat are all separate anyway we have nothing we can do with fire so it has to be teaching about itself alone. This was fine with R Yose. But it can't work for Rabbi Zakai because he does not have the four services separated. To him they are all together, so he has no possible reason to use "bowing" for itself alone, and that is why Rabbi Yochanan  told him "Teach it on the street."

Now you could ask why did this question not bother Rabbi Yochanan when it comes to the law of R Ami? Simple. Rabbi Ami uses "Don't serve idols" to put all three services into one. And so bowing can't be used for the whole category. And so it can come out to teach about itself alone.

Tosphot definitely says that if Rabbi Zakai is using "bowing" for a mere prohibition, then he can't be using "service" to put all three services into one.
But that using "bowing" for itself would not have presented any problem in terms of using "service" to put all three together.

However this still needs hammering out. I am confused at this point about Rabbi Ami. Let me say what is bothering me. Is bowing in the category of service? If yes then why could it not be included in "Dont serve idols" and have that verse tell us all four are one category? And we could say it is mentioned separately because you might not have known it is a service. If it is not in the category of service then the whole question does not even start. Stay tuned.

Next Day:
I suggested today to my learning partner a problem with his idea of how to explain Tosphot. My idea is this: Is bowing in the category of service? Probably according to how we have been treating it up until now. That means it is in "don't serve idols." So since don't serve means to make all the services in the sense of the verse into one service that includes bowing. So now we have just what Rabbi Zakai wants--for all four serves to be counted as one. And then why is bowing mentioned separately? to tell us it is a mere prohibition.  So Rabbi Zakai makes perfect sense even according to the logic that we used to explain Rabbi Ami.
It is funny also the way Rabbainu Tam wants to explain Rabbi Ami --that "bowing" comes to teach that it is a separate prohibition. If it was in the category of "service" anyway it seems kind of arbitrary to pull out "bowing" just to add a prohibition.

I think it all depends on the direction of your logic. I think Rabbi Zakai started out thinking as the first step that we have bowing comes for a mere prohibition. then he asked what is serving for? And the answer is like Abyee said to put the other three into one category. And this makes perfect sense.
But we see Rabbi Yochanan did not like this and on page 62 also we see the Gemara wants to start out in Shabat that anything extra will come to divide. You have to look there to see this. It is only because we don't need fire to divide that we can use it for a mere prohibition. And this is how R Yochanan is thinking on pg 62 and 63. since even if we use "Don't serve" to put all three together we can still use "bowing" to come for its own prohibition. And that is what makes him think that Rabbi Zakai was not making sense.

April 12 it became clear to me what Tosphot is saying. There are only two "drashot." One is on "Don't serve" and the other is bowing comes to divide. Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Zakai you don't hold from the later so you must hold from the former but if so then bowing comes to make its own prohibition  and so doing them all together would mean bring two sin offerings.

April 13 Today a landslide of questions on Tosphot fell on me. Mainly there are two major branches. One thing is this: R Ami is thinking what? That don't serve puts all three together so dont bow must come out to teach on the whole category. Since it can't teach on those three it teaches on what is left and that is itself. But there is one thing left and that is service according to its way.  So maybe that is what R Ami means. But R Zachai might disagree with that and say teaching on itself is not called teaching on the whole category. And just arbitrarily adding service according it it way is just ad hoc. That leaves him free to use bowing for a mere prohibition. But what is difficult here is the question where they place service according to its way. I am not sure if this is a question but it is a point my learning partner brought up.

The other area of question here is "Why can't R Zachai simply look at the explanation of Abyee 'service comes to comes to put all services together' and say that 'bowing' is included?"

Male homo-sexuals are obligated to bring a sin offering.

There really is little comparison between lesbians and male homo-sexuals. Mainly the difference is this: female playing with each other is permissible though not recommended. Male homo-sexuals are obligated to bring a sin offering (note 2) if they do the act of penetration into the anus by accident. If on purpose they can't bring a sin offering even if they want to because you can never bring a sin offering for what is done on purpose.

  If they do the act of penetration in front of two witnesses they get the death penalty if fair warning is given by two witnesses. That means this: the witnesses have to tell them the act they are doing is forbidden, and that if they do it they will get the death penalty. [If they admit it then you don't need  witnesses.]

Besides that there is a kind of spiritual penalty called Karet  כרת being cut off from ones people involved. And that applies to all the types of forbidden sexual relationships that are called עריות incest. Incest is actually only an approximate translation because it also refers to sex with a woman who has seen blood within seven days of her seeing blood. Also one can't have sex with her unless she has gone to a natural body of water (note 1) like a river or sea and dipped in completely from head to toe.
Actually, stoning is not the penalty for homosexuals. I think is is burning. But I am not sure. I would have to look it up. That means you take lead [It does not have  a high boiling point] and heat it up until it flows and then you pour it down their throats.

Appendix: If the two male homo-sexuals think the act is allowed, that counts as being accidental and they can bring a sin offering. [I mean to say that an accident can be either thinking something is permissible or in making a mistake about material facts.] That means they have to bring either a sheep or goat to the Temple in Jerusalem and have the priests sacrifice it as a sin offering. They can't eat any of it as a barbecue. The part of the animals that are not burned are eaten by the priests. This is always the rule for sin offerings. If you want a barbecue in Jerusalem together with the mitzvah of bringing a sacrifice, you have to bring a peace offering or a thanksgiving offering.

Bibliography.
Mishna  Zevachim chapter 5.
Rambam Laws of Sin Offerings. [That is located in the book on General Sacrifices.]
Tractate Macot concerning fair warning that must be given.

I should mention that there is no prohibition to bake cakes for homosexuals. On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to be nice to them and to tell them that what they are doing is terrible, horrific sin.
Now this seems to be a subject of a debate. Sometimes it seems like you are supposed to tell people that they are sinning even if you know they won't listen. And sometimes it seems not. I really can't tell. My own approach to this varies according to the situation.

(note 1) If no natural body of water is available, she can make her own mikvah. The mikvah has to be attached to the ground, and cannot be a vessel. And it can't be such that if lifted that it stays intact.
There has to be about 1^3 meters of water. [This amount I forget. I would have to look it up. I think it is about 1^1^1.33 meters.]
(note 2) If there is no Temple, they are still legally required to bring a sacrifice. They would have to build the Temple according to the proper specification in the Mishna Tractate Midot  and hire a few priests and find  red hefer. They can do it but it would be expensive. Besides all of that there is some doubt about the proper location of the Temple. Some archeologist have apparently discovered the remains of the First Temple in the area when you leave the Western Wall to go back to the New City you pass on the left. This whole project is so hard that it makes more sense not to sin in the first place.

But in essence this idea is not that different from the Gra that the only source of halacha is the gemara itself. דינא דגמרא the law of the gemara is what determines halacha not any posek even rishonim.



In fact most authorities thought little of books of halacha. The Maharsha said people that decide from the Shulchan Aruch are making a terrible mistake and it is proper to rebuke them.  Shlomo Luria [the author of the yam shel shelomo printed in every shas ]even went to far as to critique the Rambam for even writing a halacha book.

The method of Torah--reading fast and going on.

The method of Torah--reading fast and going on. And the basic idea I had seen in a Musar book called Orchot Tzadikim {also Biynan Olam} about the importance of learning Torah and in the book.
What I am thinking is that I would like to have a separate session for fast learning and slow and in depth learning. And this is in fat what is done in every Lithuanian yeshiva. The morning is for the slow and in depth type and the afternoon for the fast type.

Now I wanted to describe what fast learning in a Torah sense means. The ideal way is to have a set of the basic books next to you in a pile. Tenach, Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, Arizal. And have a place marker in every book. And do a page of Tenach [read the words out loud or in a whisper and go on. No repeats. Put in your place marker after one page and close the book until tomorrow. Then do the same with the Mishna. Go through a few chapters of Mishna every day. The Talmud. Try to do about seven pages per day. And then with the Ari-- [Isaac Luria]. On the second reading you add a commentary.

I have some familiarity with Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshivas which stem from the path of the Gra and the Aderet Eliyahu yeshiva which goes with the actual path of the Gra in Jerusalem.
And then there are study halls on the name of the Gra. All seem very good to me, but I see one advantage to having an actual yeshiva named after the Gra--it tends to exclude cults.
This is the type of institution I would like to see world wide-- Yeshivat HaGra.
But I would also add the study of ethics [Musar].


And I was never in a actual yeshiva of the Gra though I associated with Rav Zilverman for years who is the rosh yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu.

What we really need to some kind of certification on a yeshiva "cult free" just like they have "preservatives free" labels on food.


The pollution of the Torah world by  cults  has already corroded the credibility real Torah scholars. Yet  those who learn and keep  Torah are not sounding the alarm loudly or moving to fix the problem with appropriate energy. 

 It difficult for those involved in the assessment and promotion of true Torah scholars to discern value from junk.

When something at the core of Torah begins to rot, the smell of corruption quickly spreads to all areas.  

If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

I have wondered for a while what strategic interest Russia has in the Ukraine?

I think I discovered the answer. The most successful part of the Russian space industry and military production was in the Ukraine.  Even though the place where the Russians send stuff into space in in the east of Russia [Kazakhstan] but major part of production for the rockets has been done in the Ukraine. There are hundreds or more parts of helicopters and weapons and rockets that are manufactured in the regions bordering on the two breakaway republics. It is not just one area but a whole strip of land. 

That is Dnipropetrovsk, Karkiv, Zaprozia--that whole semi circle left (west) of the perimeter of the two breakaway republics.
That means that Russia has an interest in getting back these areas. Or at least having this area of the Ukraine in its sphere of influence.
[Also it just so happens that Russia can't build the super aircraft carrier they were planing on without the Ukraine. There is no dry dock. This all goes to show that Russia has to do serious rebooting of their industry unless they can get back the Ukraine.]  The reason the weapons and space industry was divided up in this way was Stalin. As was explained to me (by a grandson of his) that by dividing up these major industries in this way he was assured that the USSR could not break up--because if it did, then each part would have factories that produced only one part of a car or an airplane which was useless without the other parts.
In any case, this was no problem until recently. The Ukraine simply made the parts, and sent them off to Russia. This has stopped recently, and this is the reason Russia is now looking to redo its military and space production industries. 

In any case, it would seem the Russians feel they are just taking back what belongs to them. I think it is understandable that the Ukrainains don't feel the same way.
Certainly most of the infrastructure of the Ukraine was built by Russians. This really is one people. 
Or maybe just let those two republics go over to Russia? Why fight about borders that have been fluid anyway over the centuries? If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.

The Zohar brings the verse ''towards evening" to discuss when the beginning of the rule of the erev rav [the mixed multitude] over the Jewish people would begin. And according to the way the Gra understands it it is referring to 1990 A.D. or about 15 years ago. [This Gra is on Tikunai Chadashim on the Hazohar page 34  by the standard numbering on the verse about Isaac going to mediate in the field which the Tikunim interprets as meaning to get rid of the mixed multitude.]
"Evening" in Hebrew is the same word as  "the mixed (multitude)."

For he understands 1240 to be the sixth thousand year period. 1740 to be dawn. And the middle of the day is 1990.  That is when the mixed multitude would gain control over the Jewish people. This explains at least to me the problem with cults that have infiltrated and taken control.

Cults have the ironic aspect of fish bait. It tastes good to the fish until it feels the hook. But by that time it is too late. Cults are like classic O' Henry story. The unexpected ending. Or maybe more like Edgar Allen Poe.

What ever you do, don't go near one for Passover, if you value your family, and wife and children. They are not openly hostile  because they need donations. They are as friendly as fish bait.

There is no more Noah's Ark.

I have tried to make my own home or apartment wherever I have been into a kind of Noah's Ark. It just does not seem to work. The kelipot somehow get in.
I urge everyone to leave the cults--Jewish or otherwise. Go home. Find a job. Live like a mench, not  a slave to some charismatic leader. Cults are organized in layers. Everyone can join but only the initiated know the real agenda. Everyone else are just pawns.

And if you are wondering if what you are in is a cult then take my word for it; it is. The facade will eventually evaporate leaving you with the emperor's clothes.

[For authentic Jewish experience learn Torah. That is have in your home an Old Testament and the basic set of the Oral Law, the two Talmuds (Bavli and Yerushalmi), Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta and Midrash Raba. Don't go near the cults--even to learn Torah. Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.] The Divestment from Israel movement is just a direct result of our problem of not divesting in cults in our midst.

Appendix
1) The comment of the Gra is not on the Tikunai HaZohar. That is after the printing and publication of the Zohar and Tikunai Hazohar there was a fellow that found some more writings from the same source material. He printed them and called them Zohar Hadash and Tikunim Hadashim. That was right before Spanish Jewry were kicked out. Nowadays all four books are fairly standard.
That is Zohar, Tikunai HaZohar, Tikunim Hadashim, Zohar Chadash.
 I used to go straight to Isaac Luria and Moshe Kordovaro. [I also spent a lot of time on the Nahar Shalom by the Reshash, Shalom Sharabi  and prayed with the Sidur of the Reshash. First the small one. Then after a few years someone told me that in Mea Shearim someone had printed the large sidur of the Reshash, so I got that --it was very inexpensive. I should mention that the large one is considered more accurate. Mordechai Sharabi said the smaller one has mistakes. In any case I highly recommend the large sidur of the Reshash both for learning and praying. I don't learn this at this point but it is an important part of education. If you do have time for the whole body of literature then I think that at least the Eitz Chaim of the Ari should be learned.

I suggested to my learning partner this same idea I wrote on my blog that cults are the modern idolatry.
And he mentioned a surprising support to this idea from Nachmanides. For we know strictly speaking there are very few ways of being liable for idolatry. Sacrifice, burning, pouring, bowing, service according to it way, and accepting it as ones god. So, in any case, there has to be some kind of physical object. But with the Ramban [Nachmanides] it looks like the definition of idolatry gets expanded to any being besides God, even non corporeal beings. He mentioned that when Nachmanides writes about this it seems amazingly relevant to today's issues.

At any rate, the idea that he is referring to is the idea of "Face." לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני "You shall have no other gods before me" [lit.,"before my face"].
That is the interface that God chooses to reveal himself to the world. Anything else is idolatry.
So I urge people to avoid cults, not just because of the damage that they do, but also because it might be a sin...[Enough said.]


Appendix:
1) My learning partner has been looking at the Nachmanides for several years and the more he looks at him the more impressed he is. There is a translation by a fellow named Chavel. Though I don't look at the Ramban at all whenever I hear something from him I am very impressed.
2) The 'Rambam and Ramban' are both actually saying the same thing: worship or praise to any being besides God is a problem. But the thing that impresses my learning partner is the coherent system of the Ramban. It  is how he shows the whole Five Books of Moses are one logical, coherent, rigorously exact system.

But this brings me to a wider question about paths that people choose in life. And I confess I think any path that makes one a better person in an common sense objective way is a good path. And I realize that you have paths that are objectively bad, and make most people involved with them into really bad people, and yet some people on the same path turn out to be good.

This subject does deserve lots of attention. And in my personal life I give it all my attention. But this is delicate. You can't just choose a good path, and think that will make you good.

My recommendation is for people to think to judge themselves on all their deeds all the time and don't just accept a path and after that forget about evaluating it.
Judge yourself on all you do so that in the higher court of law [up there] they won't judge you.

The world situation is hard to understand, but at least in your own personal life there are decisions you can make to live better. And Passover is the best time to break free of the cults that have tricked you and others. Cults are the modern iteration of what the Torah forbids as idolatry.  

In many Jewish homes you could find, besides the Old Testament, some book that would describe Judaism in a plain way. One such book I recall was the Duties of the Heart [by Ibn Pekuda] which is considered part of the set of Musar [Ethics] books. The Reform Shul we went to [Temple Israel of Hollywood] had the Star of Redemption by Rosenzweig. [I tried to read it with no luck.]My mother gave me a book called The Ten Commandments which was a good introduction.I wanted to suggest here the books of of Shimshon Raphael Hirsch which I think gives a little more detail. [He tends to emphasize Torah with work.]Also the books of Avraham Kook [like the Lights of Repentance] I think are good as an introduction and an orientation.[He does think settling in Israel is a good thing;-- which is clearly the approach of the Torah.] I should mention that in my first yeshiva [Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway. Reb Shelomo Friefeld's place] they did not believe in orientation at all. They threw me into the raging sea of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, [Talmud] the second I walked in the door. Sink or swim. And I tend to agree with this later approach. But I have come to see that some people are working or in university, and so need some kind of orientation.And at some point myself felt some need for Musar. My first yeshiva did not learn Musar [Ethics] at all. That was a good degree of my motivation for going to the Mirrer Yeshiva which is a Musar yeshiva. The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides was written for this express purpose of orientation for people, and so was the book by Saadia Geon, the Emunot VeDeot, but I found them both to be difficult. But both are written by the greatest sages since the time of the Talmud, so both are worthwhile looking at. I would recommend avoiding books written by cults that tend to be mental traps. And you don't need me to explain to you what a cult is. You can tell at one glance. Mainly they will present themselves as teaching some mysticism. There are groups who have insane doctrines that are not Torah, but try to convince others that they are legitimate. I can't even begin to describe how damaging these groups are. And I recommend doing everything possible to stay as far away from them as from a ticking time bomb. Even more so, I would like to see them disappear because of the damage they cause to the unsuspecting. The problem is that infiltrators come in and pollute, dilute, and destroy the message of the Torah. A pox on all religious and political fanatics. Also it would be better to find useful methods for discovering the truth, rather than finding the ability to argue. The kind of teaching that how people how to find arguments can led to a serious malfunction of a person moral and mental facilities. Religious and or political fanatics are not much better. One ought to concentrate on finding truth rather that finding arguments for points of view.

I am just dirt under the feet of the Rambam. But I have to call it like I see it.

The new moon would seem to be the time to make rosh chodesh. This is at least the opinion of Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10 along with how Rashi explains the opinion of Rava and Rav Ashi. That is I am saying Rosh Chodesh does not depend on when the new moon is seen but when it actually is. This is how I have celebrated the festivals for a few years. And it makes a difference in how you set the dates. From what I can tell this puts Passover this year on April 3. This is counting from when the actual second of the new moon occurs.
Th Rambam would obviously disagree with this. But this is how the Gemara in Sanhedrin looks to me. The Rambam is probably based on the Gemara in Rosh HaShanah which clearly goes with the idea that when the new moon can be seen is what determines Rosh Chodesh. And even in Sanhedrin the Tosphot does not go with the opinion that the second of the molad determines it. So the only thing that makes my opinion interesting here is the fact that there is no Sanhedrin to sanctify the new moon and Hillel II never did so either. The fact is the Talmud never claims that he did and this is a big omission.  And there are dates during the period of the geonim which are not like the present day calender showing this calender was not known even by the geonim themselves.
The idea of basing ones view of halacha on the Talmud mainly comes from the halacha authorities themselves. For example when the Shach and Taz disagree with the Shulchan Aruch as they do most of the time, they always base themselves on the Talmud. This is the universal approach of every single halacha authority from the Rif until the achronim like the Chazon Ish.  The place this is stated openly is by  Chaim from Voloshin.

Sanhedrin 63a The Tosphot at  the top of the page.

My learning partner noticed that the Rashi in front of Tosphot is significantly different than our Rashi. And he was suggesting that if Tosphot had had our Rashi his questions on Rashi might disappear. I tried to convince him that there is one possible way to look at Rashi to make him make sense but he did not like it. But what I suggested that if this is the case then perhaps Rashi would in fact agree with Rabbainu Tam and everything will be good.

So it seems to me right now to try to explain RT  (Rabbainu Tam) and maybe Rashi at some further date.
Rabbi Ami says if one sacrifices, burns, or pours in front of an idol (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) he is liable only one sin offering (a she goat).
Abyee explains Rabbi Ami that his idea comes from the verse not to serve other gods--it put all services into one group.


Rabbi Zakei one page back [62a] said the same thing but added bowing according to our Gemara.

RT thinks that the word bowing appears in the statement of Rabbi Zakei but not in the statement of Rabbi Ami. And this makes sense because we have a verse in the Ten Commandments that says not to do service and not to bow to other gods. So what we have is  a verse that puts all service into one category and then takes bowing and pulls it out. So it makes sense to say that all three inner services [the three that were done in the Temple in Jerusalem] are considered as one and bowing would be separate. After all the verse itself separates them. In what way would bowing be separate? In that it has its own sin offering. So if one does all four kinds of service (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) to an idol, then he would be required to bring two female goats to the Temple in Jerusalem.
And Rabbi Zakei would have said that in that case he would bring only one goat. And that would be why Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Zakei "Get out of here!" Because Rabbi Yochanan  certainly considers all four services to be separate. But he would be happy to concede that, "Do not serve other gods" could conceivably put all three services together;-  but not bowing. It is the fact that Rabbi Zakei put in "bowing" that made Rabbi Yochanan upset.
[We already know that Rabbi Yochanan separate all four services from one page back and he learns it from bowing. For bowing was in the category of serve and yet was mentioned separately and we have a general principle that whatever was in a category and yet came out of the category to be mentioned separately comes to teach something about the whole category.
There are no new ideas here. I am just saying over the end of Tosphot where he explains Rabbainu Tam. To deal with the beginning of Tosphot I am not sure how to do right now. I had a way of explaining it a little bit but my learning partner did not like it much.

Here is this basic idea in Hebrew.

סנהדרין סג. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק לא תעבדם. הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. ר. תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של ר. זכי לא במשפטו של ר. אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם.  הפסוק אסר כול מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו מסתבר למה ר. יוחנן אמר לר. זכאי פוק תני לברא שיש סברה לומר שלשת  עבודות פנימיות אחת אבל לא השתטחות


If you are curious to what is the argument between my learning partner and me is that Tosphot is understanding Rashi to mean that of bowing has come out of service then it can come only for two things--to divide or as a mere prohibition like fire on the Sabbath day.
So with Rabbi Ami we see it is not coming to divide so it must be for a mere prohibition. To me this makes sense. We have at least one example of something that gets the death penalty [murder] but that does not bring a sin offering. To my partner, this makes no sense or as he puts it "It is untenable." He actually have some harsher language for this idea, but I would rather not mention it in public.


Appendix:
Just to let you know the problem here that I mentioned at the beginning about Rashi:
The version of Rashi that the author of Tosphot had in front of him  says that the word bowing does not appear by R Ami and therefore does not appear in the statement of Rabbi Zakei. (Tosphot is going to be bothered with this because if so then what was Rabbi Yochanan bothered with?) But that particular Rashi tries to defend this idea with saying that since bowing is not a service and it can't be coming to divide, therefore it must be coming for a mere prohibition.  Those are the words in Rashi that my learning partner, David, and I are arguing about. I say it can mean there is no sin offering even though there is the death penalty. And David says that is untenable.


David thinks that there might be some way to get the Two Rashis to correspond, the one in front of us does in fact say that to R Ami bowing is not coming to divide. And he says bowing does come out of the three services. This might very well be as Tosphot understands him to be saying that then bowing comes to tell us a prohibition alone. Or not. It could be like Rabbainu Tam also.

In any case we got into a discussion about what is in the category of serve before you take out bowing? He suggested serve according to its way and the three inner services. I suggested maybe on serve according to its way and sacrifice and the other two come from the fact that sacrifice was mentioned separately. This gets into a whole discussion of how to apply the 13 principles of the Braita we say in shacharit.

In straight Litvak (Lithuanian) yeshivas there is a period devoted to halacha. Jewish law.

And I have an idea of how to go about halacha. I was confused about this issue for some time for the same reasons that most people have problems about halacha.

  But I think I have come to a kind of solution or resolution of the matter that I would like to share.
I suggest starting with the Tur and Beit Joseph. And then the regular Shulchan Aruch written by the Beit Yoseph with the commentaries on the page. Then, if you have time, the Aruch HaShulchan- which I think is very great Halacha book.

  I wanted to mention why my idea is important. The idea here is that the Shulchan Aruch was never written to a represent a decision. It was written as a short reminder of what Joseph Karo wrote in the Tur. And the Beit Joseph on the Tur was also does not represent the actual opinion of the Beit Yoseph. He wrote in his introduction that he would not be writing his actual opinion but instead would say over the ideas of the rishonim and conclude with telling people what the majority opinion between the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh was. This was his idea of a feasible compromise but not his actual opinion of the halacha. The Mishna Torah itself needs the background of Talmud as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the Mishna Torah that it  is what one should learn after finishing the Old Testament. "One needs no book between reading the Old Testament and this book." But the actual authority resides in the Talmud Bavli and he writes that that is the final court of law--not his book but the actual decisions of the Talmud. When questioned about his decisions by the wise men of Luniel, he never claimed divine spirit but rather showed how his decision flowed naturally from the treatment of the Talmud. And he admitted a mistake when confronted with it as brought in his letters.