Bava Metzia on BM page 98a; Shavuot 45b/

Introduction. According to Rabbainu Tam, Rav Chiya bar Joseph says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. That means a שומר שכר   paid guard you do not need כפירה. So if you have נאנסו והודאה  alone that is enough to take an oath. Rav Chiya bar Aba says שומר שכר   (paid guard) need כפירה in order to take an oath.



That in my book I said Rashi can say he  explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. I don't think in my book I made this point very clear. At any rate, what I was saying makes a lot of sense. But Tosphot when he asks on Rashi tries to fend off this point.  רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this.



רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a Migo then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. Rashi in a different place in Shas says that a שומר  takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. Tosphot asks rightly that that Rashi is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written in my book that Rashi can say Rava is going like רבי חייא בר אבא [you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath] and that the place where Rashi says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.

What Tosphot writes in Shavuot I think is meant to fend off this answer of Rashi. There he writes in his question about Rabbainu Tam "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is no oath with הודאה ונאנסו  he admits there is an oath with הודאה וכפירה" What Tosphot is doing is saying a point not just about his question on Rabbainu Tam but also implying with his "even" to say that רבי חייא בר יוסף also agrees  מודה מקצת that is  כפירה והודאה would have an oath.

___________________________________________________________________________

 רש''י can say he  explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף.   But תוספות when he asks on רש''י tries to fend off this point. That much I did not mention in my notes. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן that is when it says by a שומר the words כי הוא זה we need to put those words somewhere else because they don't fit with the case of a שומר. If the object is there let him give it back.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this. Rather the words fit in their place because we say with a guard he need to be מודה מקצת admission in part in order to take an oath.




  רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a מיגו then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. רש''י in a different place  says that a שומר  takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. What תוספות asks rightly that that רש''י is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written  that רש''י can say רבא is going like רבי חייא בר אבא you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath, and that the place where רש''י says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.

What תוספות writes in שבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך I think is meant to push off this answer of רש''י. There he writes in his question about רבינו תם "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is No oath with הודאה ונאנסו  he admits there is an שבועה with הודאה וכפירה. What תוספות is doing is saying a point not just about his question on רבינו תם but also implying with his אפילו to say that רבי חייא בר also agrees you need מודה מקצת That is you need כפירה והודאה. It is only for נאנסו alone that would get an oath. Thus he is already striving to get to the ריב''א.

It sometimes happens you want to tell someone something that they need to hear but are not ready to hear. This happened with me and my father. He was not happy with my decision to go to yeshiva in at Shar Yashuv. It was not that he was unhappy with the Torah path. He just thought and wanted for me an honest vocation along with learning Torah..  That as a rule is true. But what I tried to tell him was that there is such a thing as learning Torah for its own sake. -And that also is true. but he knew that  if in fact you are learning Torah for its own sake,  then you need a kosher vocation on the side.

 What goes around comes around. My father wanted to tell me things that I was not ready to hear. And as a result of this I decided to turn off my connection with him. I had a kind of spiritual connection with me mother and a deep love for my father.  And that was the only time he had ever used his authority. Never before, nor ever after. And I was not willing to understand that what he was saying was Torah with a vocation. What he was saying was 100% true. But still I could not listen and as a result I lost my connection with him. 

For all the years after that I did not feel I had a connection with my father--because of that incident. But when he died some terrible thing happened to me. I felt like I had lost some kind of outer shielding. I had not realized that just by my father being alive and well there was a deeper connection with him than I had consciously been aware of. 

q48 c major q29   q26 a major  q20  j9 [j9 might need some editing] j10 j12 a minor 

Songs for the glory of God

q35 [q35 in midi] q35 nwc q67  [q67 in midi]  q67 nwc  [This q67 needs editing. But I can not do it right now.] q63  [q63 in midi] q63 midi [This q67 also needs editing] l98  l98 midi  l98 nwc    Exodus4  [exodus 4 midi]  [exodus 4 nwc]   q96 in Eflat major in mp3 [q96 nwc e flat major][q96 e flat major midi][q96 in F major in midi] [q96 nwc--f major][i do not know how two different pieces got the same name of q96]  [Exodus4 was from about 18 years ago on a trip back from Uman to California. We stopped in Philadelphia and I got out of the bus and this song just hit me like that. I spent the whole 1/2 break just writing it down and got back to the bus just as it was pulling out. q66 in midi   q66 in mp3  [q66nwc]

q79 E flat major [q79 needs editing] [q79 in midi] [q79 nwc]

I am surprised that libertarians think people can protect their own rights, but not a whole country. Some libertarian philosophers I have  a great deal of respect for. But in this subject they seem to be off. If a hostile population is intent on invading Europe and the USA, why should the borders be open? After all a country is made up of people. If people can protect their own right and space, so also a whole group of people ought to have the same right. I don't invite jihadists into my home. Why should a country invite them into its boundaries?

And this does not just mean physical boundaries. Every group has laws and norms. In the Talmud we find that to become Jewish there are standards. That is to keep the laws of the Torah. There is a whole formal process that this involves. No anyone can get in the front door. And even after you are in the front door there are standards. This is so in any group. Whether it is the Jewish people, or the Army or Marines. You certainly don't let people in that openly claim to want to break down the country or group. 

There is an argument between Rav Joseph HaLevi [a rishon] and the Ran [on the Rif]. Rav  Joseph says a מיגו does not apply to an oath. It does not patur one from an oath, but it can patur one from an obligation of money.The Ran says it does patur also from an oath. [A מיגו is when we say since he could have said a stronger plea and be believed we believe him when he says a weaker plea]


In Shavuot 46a and Bava Metzia 112 a Braita says we have a case of קציצה. That is the artisan says he was told he would receive two  for his work and the owner of the object says the artisan was told only one. The Braita says we believe the owner with an oath. Another braita says we believe the owner without an oath. Another braita says when the artisan was give a garment to fix then we believe the artisan with an oath. Rav Nachman says the last braita is Rabbi Yehuda of the Mishna. Why did he not say simply that in the last case there is no מיגו? Because in the first case also there is no migo. The gemara at the top of the page says the braita of Raba bar Shmuel is when there are עדים that there was an agreement but they did not hear for how much it was.


Why can't we answer the last braita the owner is not believed because he has no מיגו? He wants his garment. The first two cases were when the work the artisan was doing was not portable. So the object is in the רשות domain of the owner. But the gemara says in any case there is no migo because it has to be like the case of the שכיר where there were witnesses that there was an agreement.

But that was the way that Rav Nachman bar Isaac explained the braita of Raba bar Shmuel. Rava apparently does not agree. Rav Nachman bar Isaac was trying to make the braita go in accord with Rav and Shmuel. Rava disagreed with Rav and Shmuel and so he would leave the braita the way it sounds that there were no witnesses. And still the שכיר נשבע ונוטל and the בעל החפץ pays just one sela. But if so then to rava he has a migo. and so the difference between the two braitot might be in the first ones when the baal bait is believed it is because he has a migo  and in the last case where the talit is in the hands if the artisan he is not believed because he has no migo. This is a proof for Rav Joseph Halevi at least if we are going like Rava.




_______________________________________________________________________________

Here is the same idea but with a bit more Hebrew.


There is an argument between רב יוסף הלוי and the ר''ן. We have רב יוסף הלוי says a מיגו does not apply to an שבועה. It does not פוטר one from an שבועה, but it can פוטר one from an חיוב ממון. The ר''ן says it does פוטר also from an שבועה. A מיגו is when we say since he could have said a stronger plea and be believed we believe him when he says a weaker plea


In שבועות מ''ו ע''א and בבא מציעא קי''ב a ברייתא  של רבה בר שמואל says we have a case of קציצה. That is the אומן says he was told he would receive שתיים  for his work and the בעל החפץ says he told the  אומן  only one. The ברייתא says we believe the בעל החפץ with an שבועה. Another ברייתא says we believe the בעל החפץ without an שבועה. Another ברייתא says when the אומן was given a garment to fix then we believe the אומן with an שבועה. We have that רב נחמן בר יצחק says the last ברייתא is רבי יהודה of the משנה שמודה במקצת הטענה נשבע. Why did he not say simply that in the last case there is no מיגו? Because in the first case also there is no מיגו. The גמרא at the top of the page says the ברייתא of רבה בר שמואל is when there are עדים that there was an agreement but they did not hear for how much it was.


Why can't we answer the last ברייתא the owner is not believed because he has no מיגו? He wants his garment. The first two cases were when the חפץ the אומן was doing was not ניידת. So the object is in the רשות domain of the בעל החפץ. But the גמרא says in any case there is no מיגו because it has to be like the case of the שכיר where there were witnesses that there was an הסכמה.

But that was the way that רב נחמן בר יצחק explained the ברייתא of רבה בר שמואל. We have that רבא apparently does not agree. רב נחמן בר יצחק was trying to make the ברייתא go in accord with רב and שמואל. However רבא disagreed with רב and שמואל and so he would leave the ברייתא the way it sounds that there were no עדים. And still the שכיר נשבע ונוטל and the בעל החפץ pays just one סלה. But if so then to רבא he has a מיגו. And so the difference between the two ברייתות might be in the first ones when the בעל החפץ is believed it is because he has a מיגו  and in the last case where the טלית is in the hands if the אומן he is not believed because he has no מיגו. This is a proof for רב יוסף הלוי at least if we are going like רבא.



In any case, perhaps רבא and רב נחמן בר יצחק are  arguing about when we say a מיגו.  Could that be the יסוד of their מחלוקת?




יש ויכוח בין רב יוסף הלוי והר''ן.  רב יוסף לוי אמר מיגו אינו פוטר מן שבועה. זה אומר לא פוטר אחד משבועה, אבל זה יכול לפטור אחד מחיוב ממון. הר''ן אמר שהיא עושי לפטור גם משבועה. מיגו הוא כאשר אנו אומרים שכן הוא היה יכול  לומר טיעון חזק ולהאמין ולכן אנחנו מאמינים לו כשהוא אומר טיעון חלש. בשבועות  מ''ו ע''א ובבא מציעא קי''ב בברייתא של רבה בר שמואל יש לנו מקרה של קציצה. זה שהאומן אומר שנאמר לו שהוא יקבל שניים על עבודתו ובעל החפץ אומר שהוא אמר לאומן אחד בלבד. הברייתא אומרת שאנחנו מאמינים בעל החפץ  עם שבועה. עוד ברייתא אומרת שאנחנו מאמינים בעל החפץ ללא שבועה. עוד ברייתא אומרת כאשר האומן קיבל בגד לתקן אז אנחנו מאמינים אומן עם שבועה.  רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר ברייתא האחרונה היא רבי יהודה של המשנה שמודה במקצת הטענה נשבעה. למה הוא לא אמר בפשטות כי במקרה האחרון אין מיגו? כי במקרה הראשון גם אין מיגו. הגמרא בראש הדף, אמרה שהברייתא של רבה בר שמואל היא כאשר יש עדים שהיה הסכם אבל הם לא שמעו על כמה זה היה. למה אנחנו לא יכולים לענות שבברייתא האחרונה לא מאמינים לבעל החפץ כי אין לו מיגו? הוא רוצה את בגדו. שני המקרים הראשונים היו כאשר החפפ שהאומן עבד עליו לא היה נייד. אז החפץ ברשותו של בעל החפץ. אבל הגמרא אומרת בכל מקרה אין מיגו כי זה צריך להיות כמו במקרה של השכיר שבו היו עדים שהיה הסכמה. אבל זה היה האופן שבו רב נחמן בר יצחק הסביר את הברייתא של רבה בר שמואל. לי נראה שרבא לא מסכים. רב נחמן בר יצחק היה מנסה לעשות שהברייתא תהיה בקנה אחד עם רב ושמואל. עם זאת רבא לא הסכים עם רב ושמואל, ואז הוא יעזוב את  הברייתא להיות כפשוטו, שלא היו עדים. ועדיין השכיר נשבע ונוטל ובמצב של קציצה עם אומן בעל החפץ משלם רק אחד. אבל אם כן אז לרבא יש לבעל החפץ מיגו. וכך ההבדל בין שתי הברייתות עשוי להיות שבראשונה כאשר בעל חפץ הוא נאמן שזה בגלל שיש לו מיגו ובמקרה האחרון שבו הטלית היא בידיים של האומן בעל החפץ לא נאמן כי אין לו מיגו. זוהי הוכחה לרב יוסף לוי לפחות אם אנחנו הולכים כמו רבא.  בכל מקרה, על פני השטח נראה שרבא ורב נחמן בר יצחק  מתווכחים על שאלת מתי אומרים מיגו. זה יכול להיות היסוד המחלוקת.

Ideas in Bava Metzia     Title page for Ideas in Bava Metzia

the religious teachers

Getting married was an important aspect of yeshiva. It was not really spoken about but it was a powerful undercurrent.
The idea was to be a good yeshiva bachur (student) and you will get a good shiduch. This did not exactly work in my case. After all shiduchim and marriage are not accessible to human intervention. Once you are dealing with the realm of holiness and bringing good children into the world, human reason does not really apply. Still the basic structure was in place to have stable and good families.

Some yeshivas were known to be 90% about shiduchim  and 10% about learning Torah like Lakewood. NY yeshivas were the opposite. They were almost totally about Torah and very little about shiduchim. Shar Yashuv was about half and half. [Shar Yashuv had a sister institution run by the wife of Reb Freifeld which provided the fuel for this arrangement.]

But this really did not apply to divorced people. After a divorce one's social status dropped like lead.

Marriage no longer has the meaning that it used to have. Even in the yeshiva world. You might have expected the world of yeshivas to be like a Noah;s Ark against the tidal waves of feminism and other perversions.

The best I can suggest is: Trust in God-learn Torah. Though yeshivas are no longer bastions of faith and Torah, still one one own one can try to do his best.

1) The way I learned about trust in God with out any efforts on my part was by a book מדרגת האדם that was in the Musar section of the Mir Yeshiva in NY. Before that I had not heard of such a concept and I certainly did not have that kind of trust myself. When I joined the "Yeshiva World" I was simply saying whatever they do that is what I will do. They can't all be starving.

2)  I did not know then that the religious teachers are bad. Now I know.   And even then if I had known that the religious teachers are evil it still would not have stopped me. I still would say just like I do now that they are frauds and do not keep the holy Torah. The way I was then was that nothing was going to stop me from the Torah. Nothing.

3) Now I realize trust in God is an essential part of this whole learning Torah project. What I therefore suggest is to create what you could call Navardok yeshivas. That is places that have all the basic characteristics of a regular Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshiva but add an emphasis on trust [Bitachon].

4) Some places are devoted to money. They talk about trust but really mean to to get the money of secular rich Jews. Others claim that the Torah is a legitimate business. They think learning Torah for pay is kosher. These places are evil. They prey off the naivety of simple Jews.

5) The מדרגת האדם the book that I mentioned above is about trust has some section that are against learning natural sciences. He puts all secular subjects into one big category. I can't agree with this.

q96 e flat major

q96 e flat major  e40 e42 e43 e39 e36  e34  n100 E flat major   q7 B flat major

The trouble with yeshivas is that most of them are rotten to the core. It goes without saying that the make believe yeshivas that are learning anything but Gemara are a joke. But even among the ones learning Gemara it has becomes a business. The idea of a real authentic yeshiva is a great idea but today almost all yeshivas are rotten with demonic religious teachers at their head.

A real revolution is in order. But where could it begin. It is hard to know there are a few real places out there like Ponovitch and Brisk and three NY Giants- Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat. But a real revolution needs to be carried all over the world. Torah for its own sake--not for money. How to do this I do not know. But Obviously some one knew how to do this. Avraham Kalmonovitch, Rav Isaac Hutner, Rav Elazar Menachem Shach. How they did it, I do not know. But it must still be possible

)There is such a thing as trust in God with no effort. But I think the emphasis should go on the first part of the sentence. That is the effort aspect is not as essential as the trust in God part.

) In the Mishna of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi in Pirkei Avot we find two opinions. One is Torah with work. That is stated in the name of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel. The other is Rabbi Nechunya Ben HaKaneh that ''The yoke of work  is removed from anyone who accepts on themselves the yoke of Torah.'' Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi is not deciding the halacha but rather bringing both opinions without a statement which one is right as is his custom in the Mishna.


) And we find that the Altar of Navardok actually had this happen with him. That was the story about the candle in the middle of the night. [He was doing is usual Hitbodadut which in his case meant Hitbodadut in the traditional sense of shaving a hut in the middle of  a forest and spending all day and night alone learning Torah and praying. When his candle ran out, someone knocked on the door and handed to him a candle!

) My own situation was I was in Israel--not doing great but managing. I decided at some point to go with the approach of ''Torah with work.'' That was obviously not happening in Israel, so I thought to get back to California  and do this ''Torah with work'' approach there. That was a disaster. As I was looking for work all the demonic, the religious teachers there told my wife to divorce me because I was not working and learning Torah!! At any rate, I learned a hard lesson about trust in God. If you have a situation in which you are trusting in God and learning Torah and somehow managing, it is mistake to let go off it. And I learned later that this is the universal experience of people that are trusting in God, and then let it go. They fall just as I did.

So what you can see is I think an amazing lesson. You might not be obligated in this level of trust in the first place. But if you have it and let it go, it is accounted as slap in the face of God. Thus if one is a yeshiva or kollel and doing what he knows in his heart for the sake of heaven, then he must not let it go.

) We find in Sanhedrin that Daniel ran away from Nebuchadnezzar because he was afraid of the verse ואת פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש [burn their idols in flames] and Daniel thought this could apply to himself after that fact that Nebuchadnezzar had bowed down to him. That is he thought he himself could be considered an object of worship and thus be liable to be burnt. So worship of God must not be confused with tying oneself to a tzadik.

“wives are being turned against their husbands, and a lot of money is being made.”

dalrock

“wives are being turned against their husbands, and a lot of money is being made.” Far more profit in indulging in vices than healthy solutions.

My thinking about this was that I was not going to be able to fight the system. I have mentioned before that the religious teachers were the direct cause of my wife's turning against me and that the troubling aspect of this is they claim they are pro family.  For example, "Why do people turn against those who fear God? Because they are listening to Torah scholars that are demons."  (תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. This phrase in Hebrew from the Zohar packs a real punch that the English translation just can't duplicate.)

I have good reason though for minimizing the time I spend on this subject. I am afraid people might attribute this problem to the Torah itself. That I am sure is a natural reaction. But I try to defend the Oral and Written Law and try to show that, "Abuse of the Talmud does not cancel use."

My approach was this. Regardless of who convinced her to try to turn me into a slave I decided freedom was better than slavery. She wanted to go on strike, I simply found a peachy strike breaker.

[This opinion can be supported from the example of Calev ben Yefuna. People know this person mainly as the friend of Joshua (that the Bible testifies about that he was a total tzadik). Few learn the Books of Chronicles where the list of his girl friends is given. I figure what is good enough for Calev ben Yefuna is good enough for me. See the Gra on Shulchan Aruch Even Ezer who brings this example.)

How does Japan deal with Islam? From Ann Barnhardt. Why can not we all be as smart as Japan?

Ann Barnhardt

Have you ever read in the newspaper that a political leader or a prime minister from an Islamic nation has visited Japan ?

Have you ever come across news that the Ayatollah of Iran or the King of Saudi Arabia or even a Saudi Prince has visited Japan ?

Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay. Japan has put strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.

The reasons are :

1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.

2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.

3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan .

4) In the University of Japan , Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.

5) One cannot import a ‘Koran’ published in the Arabic language.

6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.

7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.

8) Japanese people are not attracted to Islam at all.

9) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.

10) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.

11) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.

12) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.

13) Muslims cannot even think about renting a house in Japan .

14) If anyone comes to know that his neighbour is a Muslim then the whole neighbourhood stays alert.

15) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic ‘Madrasa’ in Japan .

There is no Sharia law in Japan .

16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim then she is considered an outcast forever.

17) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies , “There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it.”

2. More fanmail, this time via email from a Mister Mohamed Megahed whose email address, if anyone is interested, is mohamedmegahed1@hotmail.com :

To: Ann Barnhardt
Re: Lets do it

I hope your kids get cancer u slut I hope your family dies in the one day and u live to live a sad life. If your parents are alive I hope death upon them too. And if they are dead I will piss on they graves the worthless peasants. I wanna meet up with you so I can make u a c*m bucket.

religious teachers

I had a good wife until psychopathic, religious teachers sunk their claws into her. So it may seem that I am being over cautious about staying away from religious teachers.  But I think I am not.  I think I am not being cautious enough.
When I am critical I do try to point out that they are as a rule as far from keeping the Torah as one could expect from hypocrites that put on religious clothing and make money from doing so.
 I can imagine there are out there religious teachers that sincerely think they are keeping the Torah, but I can reassure them that they are not. They are obstacles keeping people from Torah. It all begins with their using the Torah to make money. After that it is all downhill.
I do not think that they will ever change. So the only point of this is to warn others about the danger  in these people, especially for innocent people that really do want to keep Torah. If you want to keep Torah, the last person you want to be talk with is a religious teacher.
A positive suggestion would be to learn Torah yourself. And if you can find a place that learns and teaches authentic Torah--that is the Oral and Written Law  with no additions masquerading as Torah, then it is a good idea to learn there.  But such places are rare. And most have lost the authenticity. Now they are career orientated. That is they generally are out to make more the religious teachers. May God save us from them.  I wish I did not have to mention this negative aspect. I would rather focus on the positive side of Torah. But I still have an obligation from time to time to mention this important point to warn people.

[I should mention the distinction is simple. There are people in legitimate yeshivas who are sincerely interested in learning and and keeping Torah. And sometimes it happens by mistake they get the name "religious teacher" attached to them. This is confusing. But as a rule yeshiva people are not the kind of monsters that I am referring to here. So this distinction is important to keep in mind. People in straight, Lithuanian yeshivas are  not the kind I am referring to here.

מפסמים את החנפים בשבל חילול השם. The Talmud tells us we are required to shout out the name of the hypocrites to make sure people know about this problem. And the Chafetz Chaim goes into detail about this in chapter 7 of volume I. He makes clear there there are times when one is obligated to say Lashon HaRa, and concerning religious teachers this certainly applies. [In that chapter he deals with the issue of when we are required to warn people.  That is not to only place, but  it is the one I remember off hand.]

I thought about deleting this essay, but for now I will leave it. It brings out an important point. That is that anyone who really cares about Torah, should to get rid of all religious teachers. The only institution that really deserves support are authentic Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshivas where real Torah is learned.

The question is how to get rid of religious teachers? This is highly individual. People have to realize on their own how bad they really are.  There is nothing I can say until people discover this on their own. And by then it is too late.
______________________________________________________________________________

The dividing line is not exact. You have supposedly Lithuanian yeshivas that are cults. On the other hand Breslov which tends to be problematic, still has plenty of people that are sincere  and from the Side of Holiness. In fact, outside of the leaders which everyone knows are crazy, the majority of Breslov are in fact simple, sincere Jews.

_____________________________________________________________________________


So what is the dividing line? How does one tell? It is hard to know. Rav Shach certainly was able to see the difference, but besides him I have not heard of anyone. On the outside appearance there is no difference. The Dark Side  is even more strict in rituals in order to make itself seem kosher.
______________________________________________________________________

The word "religious teacher" is not in itself a proof of evil. After the new kind of ordination started by Rav Joseph  HaLevi from Vienna people started using this term.  But still you have great people that were refereed to as "Rabbi." No one says "Rav Akiva Eiger." It is "Rabbi Akiva Eiger".
So the main indication is probably simply affiliation with the group the Gra put into excommunication.  That seems to be the basic dividing line. The fact that that Gra was ignored in this point is how everything went downhill.

1)The way I learn Gemara is based on the idea that I have limited time each day. It is not the same thing as for a yeshiva student who can spend the whole day on Gemara.

The way I do it is I look at one whole "sugia."(subject) And every sugia in Shas has as a rule a sister sugia and maybe a few sisters.
So if you are like me and you have only about one hour per day this is what you do. You take the one half a page that is your starting sugia and you read through it with Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, Maharam of Lublin and the Rif and Nemukai Joseph. If you have time you add a few achronim like Rav Shach or Reb Chaim. If you read about the same speed as I do that altogether should take about one full hour. So for today you have done about as much as you can do. The next day you go back over the exact same material again.  You do that for about a week and then you go over to the sister sugia. Based on probability that sister sugia will probably be also about a half a page [one amud --one full column ]
2) This way is totally different from what a yeshiva student should do but since not everyone in the world is a yeshiva student it is important to know and do this method.
3) To some degree this idea is well known in the secular world. It is the reason why in high school you have 40 minute classes. And this 40 minute method has advantages and disadvantages. When I was in high school I found it terribly frustrating. It seems to pull me in all directions. So when I finally got to a NY yeshiva and was able to concentrate on one subject all day I was very very happy.
But nowadays when I am not in yeshiva I find this one hour approach to be amazingly effective.
4) Yeshiva is a different world and what one should do there is stick with the order that is set there. But much effort is needed to find a good Litvak yeshiva. When it comes to yeshiva one should not be fooled by the frauds. When it comes to Torah one must insist on authenticity. If it is not authentic is it worst than a waste of time. It is Sitra Achra. [The Dark Side.]

q94 [q94 in midi format] [q94 nwc]  A song of thanks to the God of Israel. q98 [q98 in midi] [q98 nwc] e45 in mp3 [e45 in midi]  [e45 nwc]e46 [e46 in midi] [e46 nwc]e47 [e47 in midi] [e47 nwc] e48 in mp3 [e48 in midi] [e48 nwc]  e51  [e51 in midi] [e51 nwc]  e55 in mp3. [e55 in midi][edited. e55 is my attempt at 6/8 time] [e55 nwc] q96  [q96 in midi]  q96 nwc e files are from about ten years ago. q files are more recent. There were lots of other files but a good deal was lost. q66 in mp3 [q66 in midi] [q66 nwc][q66 i just found buried in some old files so i added it to this blog entry]

People must be familiar with Shalom Sharabi's Nahar Shalom  in which he reduces the Sepherot to three.

[You can't miss it because it is right smack on the first page.]

It is hard not to see the connection between this and Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. I don't make it a point to point out connections like this unless something comes up to remind me. Hegel's Triads are obviously isomorphic the the Reshash who has the actual sepherot being three as per the begining of Nahar Shalom. But Schelling and the Nahar Shalom have an obvious connection.  One has intellectual intuition. But considering that Schelling's intellectual intuition is half subject and half object and not really inside of oneself except as it is perceived it comes out that they are saying what seems to be the same thing.
Faith is needed to get to attachment with God --that is why Jews are called the "Hebrews" which means "to pass over." The original idea was because Jews came from beyond the Jordan from Iraq [Mesopotamia]. To get to the Infinite One one has to pass over --that is to go by faith, not by reason.

Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi  showed that a system of rational knowledge never arrives at the knowledge of God since, for such a system, the unconditioned can only arise as a result of a process where the one conditioned leads to other conditioned in an infinite chain of negativity. To get to Devekut [absolute attachment with] with the Unconditioned, one must begin with the Unconditioned itself  which no rational knowledge ever attains. For Jacobi it is only the leap of faith beyond the system of rational knowledge that enables us to open to the unconditionality of the absolute being.

In this context I should mention that I personally do not know how attachment with God happens and I would assume that one needs the ability to discern object facts from spiritual delusions before he can make progress in this area. I felt myself a great deal of attachment with God when I was in Israel the first time, but I could not say how that occurred, and it was always hard to deal with that kind of level of reality.  But later I learned to appreciate this kind of thing and to realize it has great value.
The way I see value in  a Schelling kind of way. That is I have a normal semi circle of values but with me it is dynamic not static. That is it is a harmonic oscillator.



[And the idea of Schelling about intellectual intuition is the exact same thing that the Intuitionists are defending. 

The Second Temple

The actual Temple was mainly in the hands of the Sadducees who were not running it according to the Law. The Sanhedrin also was mainly packed with the Sadducees.  According to law one does not pay to get into the Temple. Nor does one change a bad animal to a better one. If a animal has a blemish that makes it unfit for a sacrifice then OK, but that is not the same thing. If it is fit for the altar then it must be sacrificed, and one is not allowed to exchange it. The Sadducess were very corrupt and when they were in control, things were miserable.

One way you can see that the Sadducees were in control of the Sanhedrin is that in the reported trial of Jesus, there was almost no law that was not broken.  The was not one single legal procedure that was not flaunted and broken during that trial.

Just one example: saying that one is the son of God is not blasphemy. Blasphemy has a legal definition which is:  May "Jose strike Jose." Jose here is used to stand for the Name of God because during the trial you don't want to keep repeating the phrase. For someone to claim they are the son of God is not unusual because we say this three times a day in every Shmoneh Esra and this comes up very often in the prayer book. We all call God "Our Father" more times than I can count. Doing so is not blasphemy though it might have been to the Sadducee.

Some problems with the trial: At night. Even if a person does a sin that gets the death penalty which did not exist in that case still you need two witness to warn the person right before he does the sin. That is to tell him both the sin and from what verse it comes from and the penalty. None of this existed then There is a whole tractate in the Talmud about this one aspect of laws. It is not a trivial detail.  I could go on but you can just open up a tractate Sanhedrin and Makot and see it all for yourself.