WHAT should I say?
—Since Faith is dead,
And Truth away
From you is fled?
Should I be led
With doubleness?
Nay! nay! mistress.

I promised you,
And you promised me,
To be as true
As I would be.
But since I see
Your double heart,
Farewell my part!

Thought for to take
‘Tis not my mind;
But to forsake
One so unkind;
And as I find
So will I trust.
Farewell, unjust!

Can ye say nay
But that you said
That I alway
Should be obeyed?
And—thus betrayed
Or that I wist!
Farewell, unkist!

Sir Thomas Wyatt, d. 1524

r6 i1 i3 i6 i8 i15  i20  l26   CHS Some of these might need editing but I think there are probably Ok for right now. e8  e72 e71

There are Americans that want a return to the 1950's. This is admirable.

The reason is that the USA then was in fact a highly moral, wholesome, and decent society. These are the people that are interested in voting for Trump. That is because they think that will go either in the direction of correcting the fall of the USA into moral depravity, or will stop the fall, or perhaps even reverse it.

My own feelings about this are based on the Talmud. That is a few things stand out when you learn Talmud. One is private property. It is impossible to read any page in the three "bavas" that does not hammer in this point. [Bava Kama Bava Metzia Bava Batra]. The other thing is family values. And simply learning Ketubot of any part of Seder Nashim drives this point in.

I know there are lot so people that are against family values and against private property. That is they whole Democratic party. But I believe that is only because they never learned Torah.

The danger is the Democrats  are geared towards getting legal and illegal votes. Thy are galvanized on election day. The reason is nothing matters to them but raw power. Republicans are just not all they much concerned.

In Maimonides (note 1), I found the idea of learning Physics and Metaphysics as being a kind of service towards God that  is even higher than learning Torah. But by the time I discovered this, I was not able to spend as much time on either subject that would be required to gain any high level of competence. So I started learning, simple by the idea brought in Tractate Shabat page 63: "In learning one should say the words in order and go, on even though he forgets, and even though he does not understand what he is learning." See the Musar book אורחות צדיקים that goes into this idea at great length.

(Note 1) The place to see this in the Rambam/Maimonides is the the "parable about the country of the King" in the Guide, the introduction to the Guide, last two laws in chapter four of the Mishne Torah, and chapter three of Laws of learning Torah.

In the above mentioned parable the Rambam puts scientists and philosophers closer to God than people that know and keep the whole Torah perfectly. In the beginning of Mishna Torah, he says the first four chapters [which are Physics and Metaphysics] deal with ideas that are called "Pardes." Then in Laws of Talmud Torah he says One should divide one's day into three parts. The Written Law, the Oral Law and the Gemara, "and the subject called Pardes is in the category of Gemara."

[Just for clarity-I am not saying to do this all the time. Rather to divide one's time between the Oral and Written law and also Physics and Metaphysics, and survival skills. Metaphysics in the language of the Rambam means 13 books of Aristotle named The Metaphysics. It is statements of the Rambam that refer to Aristotle in a highly complementary way in his commentary of the Mishna which caused it to not be learned. Have you ever seen a Mishna with just the commentary of the Rambam? Of course not. And now you know why.]



ברמב''ם, מצאתי את הרעיון ללמוד פיסיקה מטפיסיקה כסוג של שירות כלפי אלוהים כי הוא אפילו גבוה יותר מאשר לימוד תורה וקיום המצוות. אבל עד גיליתי את זה, לא הייתי מסוגל לבלות כמה שיותר זמן על הנושא שיידרש כדי להשיג  יכולת גבוהה. אז התחלתי ללמוד, פשוט מעצם הרעיון שהובא במסכת שבת ס''ג ע''א בלימוד, אחד צריך רק לומר את המילים  וללכת להלן  אף שהוא שוכח ואף על פי שהוא אינו מבין מה הוא לומד. ראה בספר המוסר אורחות צדיקים.
.לעולם לגרס אדם אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר
המקום כדי לראות את זה רמב''ם הוא המשל על המדינה של המלך של המורה הנבוכים, שני הלכות האחרונות בפרק ארבעה של המשנה התורה חלק א' , ובפרק ג' הלכות לימוד תורה. במשל הנזכר לעיל רמב''ם מעמיד מדענים ופילוסופים קרוב יותר לאלוהים מאשר אנשים שיודעים לשמור על התורה כולה באופן מושלם. בתחילת משנה תורה, הוא אומר ארבעת הפרקים הראשונים שהם ענינים של פיזיקה ומטפיסיקה נקראים פרדס . ואז בהלכות תלמוד תורה הוא אומר אחד צריך לחלק את היום לשלושה חלקים. חלק אחד ללמודהתורה שבכתב, ואז התורה שבעל פה וחלק אחד ואת הגמרא,  "והנושא שנקרא הפרדס היא בקטגוריה של גמרא"


Ultimately most people are not interested in the hard parts of Physics nor Aristotle's Metaphysics. The Rambam here is giving a motivation--that it brings to two major goals of Torah Love and Fear of God when one sees and understands the wisdom of God in his Creation. But there is another motivation also. Most people do want to understand the world they live in. This maybe is not high on their list of things to do every day but it is is  a fundamental need. And this is also I think a good motivation to learn Physics and Metaphysics.

To some degree our own souls and the souls of others are hidden. But there is a surprisingly easy way of seeing the state of any person's soul. See what they talk about when they are relaxing among friends.  If they are not on guard but just relaxing and chatting their essence, their inner desires because expressed in words.  And you can see the same for groups. When you walk into the place where they gather either to learn or talk, what do they talk about? This shows their inner state. Then you can see if their noble flowery words about what they do and think match the true reality.

 If their conversation is all about how to get secular Jews to give them money and what is wrong with secular Jews then you know you are not dealing with an elevated spiritual community. Even if they insist on how spiritual they are, you already have a guarantee measuring stick. You can see if the claims are the same as the facts. You can see if they are just some cult around a leader, or if they are into Torah. You can see if they are building a cult based on the lie that they are all about Torah while in fact building their power base.

For this reason I have suggested that people learn only in Litvak yeshivas because only in such places have I seen the words match the facts.  

A good deal of the problems involved with worship of tzadikim involves the problem of delusion.
Idolatry also is a problem from the standpoint of the Torah. And especially since they are in the category of מסית ומדיח, people that entice others to worship their false gods]

That is we don't know whether that particular tzadik has real revelations of if his revelations are delusions. And on the same hand he might very well have delusions and yet be very charismatic.

And the emotional appeal might be great while at the same time have zero validity objectively.
 It is hard to separate these variables.
And when they are trying to make converts they don't say they worship the tzadik.
On the contrary they will emphatically deny it.


The secrets are  only for the initiated.


A good deal of the difficulties is because of numinous reality. And numinous reality is has potent emotional appeal and it sometimes is from the realm of holiness and sometimes from the realm of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sometimes it is simply delusions. The trouble with pseudo tzadikim is that delusions are allergic. People pick them up from their delusional leader.


Where does this problem come from? To me it seems clear that the people that were able to see the problem decided instead to be silent or acquiesce. Rav Shach was the only one who saw clearly and he was ignored and still is. [Along with the Gra.] Now some people have taken the Gra seriously. That is the Zilverman's in the Old City. But they are a small  minority. Some people take Rav Shach seriously, but that is only in Ponovitch. Outside of these places I have never heard of anyone that considers worship of tzadikim to be  a problem.


And why is this that they were silent? It was because their expertise was not in Jewish philosophy. People like Reb Shmuel Berenbaum thought of themselves as too small to deal with השקפה issues. Most had never even read the major works of Jewish Philosophy like Ibn Gavirol,  the Guide, or Joseph Albo. [For this reason I made it a point to get some background in the Guide and Saadia Gaon and basic world view ideas of the Geonim and Rishonim. Their world view is very unlike  you could imagine.]

And there is no indication that anyone after the Ari was anything within light years of the Ari. They have emotional appeal, but nothing as far as objective reality goes.


In any case we have a whole set of problems that have not been addressed very well. The nature of delusions, the nature of pseudo tzadikim, and the urge to worship pseudo tzadikim. The best I could do to get anywhere in this was to study different groups like Hindu cults and hope that that would give me some insight. As far as I got, still did not seem to matter much. No one in any case was really willing to listen. In any case, because these issues are not resolved,the best thing is to get the basic set of medieval thought, the Guide of the Rambam, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Abravenal, Joseph Albo, Crescas and get a decent idea of what Torah teaches in terms of world view. [It is not worship of tzadikim for one thing. But there is  a lot more to it.]

See Steven Hassan Escape from Cults

Bait and Switch is what he identifies as the major cult characteristic and this in fact seems to be the case. The hiding of the actual beliefs. First draw people in by seeming Kosher and then switching.
As for my own study of cults I found Steven Hassan helpful.

There is a simple test for cults. There is an objective change in character that can be seen.
When one joins a group like a Lithuanian yeshiva the change in "Midot" [Character traits for the better is obvious to all.] When on the other hand one joins a cult the change in character is also obvious. Who can's see how people's traits change for the better when they join a place like the Mir or Chaim Berlin? And places and groups that worship some tzadik. The deterioration in character is clear even to people in the group and takes effect almost immediately. And this has nothing to do with what you think of the tzadik. For all you know the tzadik might very well be a true tzadik. Still the effect on people's character is unmistakable. It is not necessarily that they become bad people. But their character changes towards something ugly. Some undefinable ugliness takes over their personality. Or in other groups some strange kind of cruelty and sadism  enters into their souls.

I should mention I did a lot of reading on this but I do not feel comfortable in going into detail about the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I would hope that my warnings here should be enough.

In any case this is no more  a matter of discussion. Once the idolatry became clear it should have been time for action--decisive action.

r8

b100     b101 b105   b98  e67  e72 h69 o  mmog  [This last piece was written when I was playing a lot of Vivaldi on the streets in NY. You can tell the influence of Vivaldi right away in the development.] The idea here is to take a whole Vivaldi score [not just the Violin part] and play it on the violin by simply picking out the song from the accompaniment. You can easily do this on sight and it takes no expertise at all.The only time this might be hard is when the actual song goes into the bass and then you need to be able to read bass clef. But as a rule you can have a unlimited amount of music to play on the street by just xeroxing Vivaldi.]
[Mainly I was playing outside of Shalom's Pizza, and Dunkin Donuts and a 99 cent store owned by people from Pakistan who were always very nice to me.]




Incidentally I highly recommend this practice. You can learn an amazing amount of things by just playing through scores of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart because in every measure they are trying to tell you something important that you can't really hear from the music alone. Especially Mozart made his music I think with the intention to tell us important things.
[If you do this with Bach start with organ and piano pieces which are easily played on the violin. Canata's can be a bit more difficult.]





[Once you get used to reading scores you can do the same with Bach and Mozart, but it is best to start with Vivaldi. Don't do this in Manhattan because people don't give anything there. The best places are Brooklyn.] Just don't do this when you can be learning Torah. Learning Torah comes first. After you are tired, then this is a good practice.

Anything that supports any cause that is Anti-Christian or Anti-White is supported. We all ought to examine our beliefs, and try to base them on reason, rather than on our social group

There is a good deal of  antisemitism which I think is from a kind of Anti-American White sentiment. That is, there is a good deal of hatred of America and American white people that  is expressed in politics.  That is, anything that supports any cause that is Anti-Christian or Anti-White is supported. And this causes a reaction. This I heard first from my study partner, David Bronson, who suggested that this comes from a verse, "As a face is to a face reflected in water, so is the heart of man towards man."

And even among Jewish people ourselves there is a considerable amount of animosity from Sephardim towards Ashkenazim, and especially Ashkenazim that are from the USA  (unless that particular Sephardi is in an Ashkenazi institution or yeshiva).

There is not much I can do about this, but suggest that we all ought to examine our beliefs, and try to base them on reason, rather than on our social group.


The problem I see with the Anti-White Christian sentiment is that it is not a Torah attitude.

Just for a personal example. My family was welcomed in the USA  during times of trouble in Eastern Europe. Czar Nicholas II had approved quietly of government sponsored pogroms that were widespread in Russia and the Ukraine. World War I was devastating all of Europe. My family found sanctuary in the USA. Eventually we made our way to Southern California to Orange County [John Birch Society-openly Christian]. We were treated well and welcomed with open arms. And the USA at the time was largely Protestant-White. So at this point in time, to try to undermine this kind of wholesome, moral society seems to me to be a kind of lack of gratitude.  [Do you think the religious insane would receive you more so than white Christians? Who are you kidding?]

However, I did notice the last time I was in N.Y.., that there are a lot of people that have decided that the Democrats are decidedly anti-American.  I was in Manhattan at the time, and I saw leaflets from some organization called, "Jewish Republicans" or something like that. That seems to me to be  a move in a positive direction.

I have encountered  Anti-American sentiments way to much, and it turns my stomach. I am very happy to see people coming around to see the importance of Traditional American Values.

r3 a major q96  q92  q100  q96 e flat major not the same as q96 f major i do not know how these two pieces got the same name  Now I think q96 F major needs a little editing.  p120  Exodus 4  Mathematics black hole

e67

Bava Metzia the Mishna on page 97 and the Mishna on page 100

I do not have a question but more like a comment. In Bava Metzia page 97 we have the mishna about the cow and we say the mishna is either telling us ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or עסק שבועה ביניהם. In the next Mishna about the cow giving birth the Gemara right away makes it like סומכוס.

So what I wanted to ask was is the Mishna on page 100 also ברי ושמא ברי עדיף? It seems it is to Tosphot. Because the first Tosphot on the page has חזקת רשות+ טענת שמא= לא זכה. Thus this is clearly to this opinion of Tosphot a case of ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. But then we have to ask just like the Gemara did on page 97 what about the opinion that לאו ברי עדיף? We would here also have to say עסק שבועה ביניהם. And it is hard to say that this is a case where there is a עסק שבועה. Perhaps it is because of מודה במקצת?

Also it is not clear why the first Mishna would be the חכמים and the second on סומכוס. How is it that Rabbi Yehuda Nasi would change his opinion in the middle of  a chapter? It seems clear that the first Mishna also would have to be like סומכוס.

Plus we have the opinion of the ר''י Rabbainu Isaac חזקת רשות+ שמא= זכה and we would have to see how that fits with the Mishna on page 97.
Here is a link to the little booklet that God granted to me to write on Bava Metzia

And a link to a small book that God granted to me to write on the Gemara 
Book on Shas
________________________________________________________________________________

 In בבא מציעא דף צ''ז we have the משנה וסוגיא about the cow and we say the משנה is either telling us ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or עסק שבועה ביניהם. In the next משנה about the cow giving birth the גמרא right away makes it like סומכוס.

So what I wanted to ask was is the משנה דף ק' ע''א also ברי ושמא ברי עדיף? It seems it is to תוספות. Because the first תוספות on the page has חזקת רשות+ טענת שמא= לא זכה. Thus this is clearly to this opinion of תוספות a case of ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. But then we have to ask just like the גמרא did on page צ''ז what about the opinion that לאו ברי עדיף? We would here also have to say עסק שבועה ביניהם. And it is hard to say that this is a case where there is a עסק שבועה. Perhaps it is because of מודה במקצת?

Also it is not clear why the first משנה would be the חכמים and the second on סומכוס. How is it that רבי יהודה הנשיא would change his opinion in the middle of  a chapter? It seems clear that the first משנה also would have to be like סומכוס.

Plus we have the opinion of the ר''י  שחזקת רשות+ שמא= זכה and we would have to see how that fits with the משנה דף צ''ז .


 בבא מציעא דף צ''ז. יש לנו את המשנה וסוגיא על הפרה ואנחנו אומרים שהמשנה היא אומרת לנו ברי ושמא ברי עדיף או עסק שבועה ביניהם. במשנה הבא ק. על לידת הפרה הגמרא מיד עושה את זה  כסומכוס. אז מה רציתי לשאול היא אם המשנה דף ק' ע''א גם ברי ושמא ברי עדיף? נראה שזה כן תוספות. מכיוון שהתוספות הראשונה בדף אומרים חזקת רשות + טענתי שמא = לא זכה. לכן זה ברור לדעה זו של תוספות מקרה של ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. אבל אז עלינו לשאול בדיוק כמו הגמרא עשתה בעמוד צ''ז מה לגבי הסברה כי "לאו ברי עדיף"? היינו כאן גם חייב לומר עסק שבועה ביניהם. וזה קשה לומר כי מדובר במקרה שבו קיים עסק שבועה. אולי זה בגלל מודה במקצת? כמו כן לא ברור מדוע המשנה הראשונה תהיה כחכמים והשני כסומכוס. איך זה שרבי יהודה הנשיא היה שינה את דעתו באמצע הפרק? נראה ברור כי המשנה הראשונה גם היא צריך להיות כמו סומכוס. בנוסף יש לנו את דעתו של ר''י שחזקת רשות + שמא = זכה והיינו צריך לראות איך זה משתלב עם משנת דף צ''ז.

Worship of Tzadikim. Bait and Switch. The hiding of the actual beliefs. First draw people in by seeming Kosher and then switching.

A good deal of the problems involved with worship of tzadikim involves the problem of delusion.


That is we don't know whether that particular tzadik has real revelations of if his revelations are delusions. And on the same hand he might very well have delusions and yet be very charismatic.

And the emotional appeal might be great while at the same time have zero validity objectively.
 It is hard to separate these variables.
And when they are trying to make converts they don't say they worship the tzadik.
On the contrary they will emphatically deny it.


The secrets are  only for the initiated.


A good deal of the difficulties is because of numinous reality. And numinous reality is has potent emotional appeal and it sometimes is from the realm of holiness and sometimes from the realm of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sometimes it is simply delusions. The trouble with pseudo tzadikim is that delusions are allergic. People pick them up from their delusional leader.


Where does this problem come from? To me it seems clear that the people that were able to see the problem decided instead to be silent or acquiesce. Rav Shach was the only one who saw clearly and he was ignored and still is. [Along with the Gra.] Now some people have taken the Gra seriously. That is the Zilverman's in the Old City. But they are a small  minority. Some people take Rav Shach seriously, but that is only in Ponovitch. Outside of these places I have never heard of anyone that considers worship of tzadikim to be  a problem.


And why is this that they were silent. I can answer this with confidence. It was because their expertise was not in Jewish philosophy. People like Reb Shmuel Berenbaum thought of themselves as too small to deal with השקפה issues. Most had never even read the major works of Jewish Philosophy like Ibn Gavirol,  the Guide, or Joseph Albo. [For this reason I made it a point to get some background in the Guide and Saadia Gaon and basic world view ideas of the Geonim and Rishonim. Their world view is very unlike  you could imagine.]

And there is no indication that anyone after the Ari was anything within light years of the Ari. They have emotional appeal, but nothing as far as objective reality goes.


In any case we have a whole set of problems that have not been dressed very well. The nature of delusions, the nature of pseudo tzadikim, and the urge to worship pseudo tzadikim. The best I could do to get anywhere in this was to study different groups like Hindu cults and hope that that would give me some insight. As far as I got, still did not seem to matter much. No one in any case was really willing to listen. In any case, because these issues are not resolved,the best thing is to get the basic set of medieval thought, the Guide of the Rambam, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Abravenal, Joseph Albo, Crescas and get a decent idea of what Torah teaches in terms of world view. [It is not worship of tzadikim for one thing. But there is  a lot more to it.]

See Steven Hassan Escape from Cults

Bait and Switch is what he identifies as the major cult characteristic and this in fact seems to be the case. The hiding of the actual beliefs. First draw people in by seeming Kosher and then switching.
As for my own study of cults I found Steven Hassan helpful.

There is a simple test for cults. There is an objective change in character that can be seen.
When one joins a group like a Lithuanian yeshiva the change in "Midot" [Character traits for the better is obvious to all.] When on the other hand one joins a cult the change in character is also obvious. Who can's see how people's traits change for the better when they join a place like the Mir or Chaim Berlin? And places and groups that worship some tzadik. The deterioration in character is clear even to people in the group and takes effect almost immediately. And this has nothing to do with what you think of the tzadik. For all you know the tzadik might very well be a true tzadik. Still the effect on people's character is unmistakable. It is not necessarily that they become bad people. But their character changes towards something ugly. Some undefinable ugliness takes over their personality. Or in other groups some strange kind of cruelty and sadism  enters into their souls.

I should mention I did a lot of reading on this but I do not feel comfortable in going into detail about the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I would hope that my warnings here should be enough.

Bava Metzia page 100A and 100B

I am not sure how to put this. But it seems to me to be important to point out what must have been bothering the Gemara in Bava Metzia page 100. And this also must have bothered Tosphot. Even though neither brought it up but still it must have been in the back of their minds. The question is in the Mishna [BM 100a] we have what amounts to המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה  and right after that חולקים

That is for the case when the seller is sure and the buyer is doubtful the seller takes and oath and when both are doubtful they divide. Surely the Gemara and Tosphot must have been bothered with this. Especially Tosphot. Because to Tosphot the entire idea of דררא דממונא is specifically when there is a doubt to Beit Din even without their pleas. And here in the Mishna the only difference between the two cases is only in the pleas. And Tosphot brings from Bava Batra that the only time Sumchus says his law is only when it is  דררא דממונא. So we have what has to have seemed a direct contradiction in the Mishna.

So Tosphot explains the Mishna is a case of דררא דממונא. But that only takes care of the end of the Mishna. What about the case where the seller is sure and takes and oath? That has to also be דררא דממונא Because it is the same case in everything except the pleas. And yet if it is דררא דממונא we know Sumchus has to say חולקים to divide. What I think here is that the Gemara and Tosphot are both depending on the Gemara back on page 97B without saying openly that they are doing so. That is we have to say that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or it is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם  as I already explained in my notes that is is a case of מודה במקצת

_________________________________________________________________________________

I am not sure how to put this. But it seems to me to be important to point out what must have been bothering the גמרא in בבא מציעא דף ק. And this also must have bothered תוספות. Even though neither brought it up but still it must have been in the back of their minds. The question is in the משנה בבא מציעא ק' ע''א we have what amounts to המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה  and right after that חולקים

That is for the case when the seller is sure and the buyer is doubtful the seller takes and oath and when both are doubtful they divide. Surely the גמרא and תוספות must have been bothered with this. Especially תוספות. Because to תוספות the entire idea of דררא דממונא is specifically when there is a doubt to בית דין even without their pleas. And here in the משנה the only difference between the two cases is only in the pleas. And תוספות brings from בבא בתרא that the only time סומכוס says his law is only when it is  דררא דממונא. So we have what has to have seemed a direct contradiction in the משנה.

So תוספות explains the משנה is a case of דררא דממונא. But that only takes care of the end of the משנה. What about the case where the seller is sure and takes and oath? That has to also be דררא דממונא Because it is the same case in everything except the pleas. And yet if it is דררא דממונא we know סומכוס has to say חולקים to divide. What I think here is that the גמרא and תוספות are both depending on the גמרא back on page צ''ז ע''ב without saying openly that they are doing so. That is we have to say that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or it is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם  as I already explained in my notes that is is a case of מודה במקצת

_________________________________________________________________________________

נראה לי חשוב להצביע על מה שהיה בוודאי מטריד את הגמרא בבבא מציעא דף ק. וזה גם כנראה הטריד את תוספות. למרות שהם לא העלו את זה, אבל עדיין זה בטוח שהיה  בדעתם. השאלה היא המשנה בבא מציעא ק' ע''א יש לנו מצב של  המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה, ומיד אחר כך הדין של חולקים.  במקרה כאשר המוכר הוא בטוח והקונה ספק המוכר לוקח שבועה, וכאשר שניהם  בספק הם מחלקים. אין ספק שהגמרא ותוספות הוטרדו מזה. במיוחד תוספות. כי בשביל תוספות כל הרעיון של דררא דממונא הוא במיוחד כאשר יש ספק אל בית דין אפילו בלי הטיעונים שלהם. והנה במשנה ההבדל היחיד בין שני המקרים הוא רק הטיעונים. וגם תוספות מביא מן הגמרא בבבא בתרא כי המצב היחיד שסומכוס אומר החוק שלו היא רק כאשר הוא דררא דממונא. אז יש לנו מה צריך נראה סתירה ישירה במשנה. אז תוספות מסבירה את המשנה הוא מקרה של דררא דממונא. אבל זה פותר רק של סוף המשנה. מה לגבי המקרה שבו המוכר הוא בטוח  ונשבע? זו צריכה להיות גם דררא דממונא משום שזהו אותו המקרה בכל המשנה פרט הטיעונים. ובכל זאת אם זה דררא דממונא אנחנו יודעים שסומכוס אומר לחלק. מה שאני חושב כאן הוא כי הגמרא ותוספות שניהם סמכו על הגמרא  בעמוד צ''ז ע''ב. כלומר אנחנו צריכים לומר כי ברי ושמא ברי עדיף או שזה מקרה של עסק שבועה ביניהם כפי שכבר הסבירתי בהערות שלי כי זה מקרה של מודה במקצת.

Learning Books on Ethics

The school of thought of Israel Salanter was holding that by learning Musar [Ethics] something of what is learned gets absorbed. This was their idea of how to gain character improvement. And I would have to say that I think this idea at least helped me. I was first at a Litvak yeshiva that did not have Musar and I felt the lack. I can to some degree also see the drawbacks --that it can go off into crazy directions. Still I am happy for what ever Musar I was able to learn and practice.

[Reb Chaim Soloveitchik did not want Musar introduced into yeshivas and to a degree you can see today how Musar can get off track. Still I think the best approach is that of Musar.

Why is it that all religious commentaries on the Torah are so superficial and trite?

The sin of Adam and Eve. The Ari goes into this in detail but his explanations are characteristic of the Ari. That is:- he explains the types of damage that was caused to Nukva {the Female} and to Zeir Anpin etc. It is not a very satisfying explanation.

Reb Chaim Vital in the beginning of Eitz Chaim say the sin was being occupied with the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of the tree of life. The Rishonim have also a few explanations.

But what I have wished for was something more thematic. Something that would do more than make superficial sense. And that is not just on that part of the Torah, but on the whole Torah. In spite of this wish, I have never found such  thing.

I mean  something like you would hear from your English literature teachers about  Shakespeare or the Book of Job.

I am not sure how to explain this. But I am not looking for moral lessons, nor "gematriot," nor spiritual revelations. Rather something that you would hear in a Literature Class about Dostoevsky or from a Philosophy professor about the plays of Plato.

Like: "What was the snake thinking? "What was Eve thinking? How can you prove what you are saying, and not just make random speculations? Why did they not die that day? What did Adam hope to gain?" I have wished for something related to the text and not just people using the text to launch into some crusade. And sadly throughout my studies I have never found anything like that.

In other words, when you were in English Literature, what did the teacher talk about in the Book of Job? He or she would ask "What was Job saying? What were the arguments of his friends? How did they differ? How can you show and prove that that is what they were saying? How did Job answer his friends?"

So the same here with Adam and Eve.

Why is it that all religious commentaries on the Torah are so superficial and trite?

I would love to re-read my notes that I took in High School about the Book Of Job just to see how the teacher was analyzing it and see if I can gain any insight about how to see the patterns and motivations in other books of the Torah. The problem is all the commentaries cover up the hidden layers by means of their "explanations"\

I should mention that I brought up this problem with my learning partner and he suggested that Nachmanides fills this role. And from what I have heard from him this seems right. He in fact seems to deal with the basic themes and hows how they are developed within the context of the Torah itself.
The good thing for English speaking people is  Nachmanides on the Torah is in English

worship of people

The major thing which is troubling about groups that present themselves keeping Torah but are idolaters-they is they worship their tzadik-is the hypocrisy aspect of it. The way I see it is that people can either try to keep the laws of the Torah which includes the second of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" or not claim that are trying to keeping Torah and trying to get money constantly from secular Jews to support their supposedly superior life style.

But you can't say this openly nowadays because it is obvious. People only want to hear something complex because of "Physics Envy." The fact that the truth is sometimes obvious does not matter. People want it t be complicated.


I am not sure however how far to go with this. There still remains the question that some of the people like Reb Nachman were tzadikim. The fact that they are also objects of idol worship does not invalidate that. But it does invalidate the groups that do the idolatry.

The Gra put the whole group  into excommunication which has legal implications.For example one is not allowed to pray in a minyan with them. Nor learn Torah from them. Not teach them Torah. Nor sit within four yards of them. The laws differ between חרם and נידוי. [Cherem and Nidui] "Cherem" can be translated as excommunication. "Niduy "is rebuke. The category the Gra put them into was חרם excommunication.

An example of חרם is what you find in the Gemara with Rabbi Eliezer. Though he was clearly a tzadik still the excommunication had halachic validity as he he himself knew and acted accordingly He did not deny the validity of the excommunication.


There is a question how far to go with this. To what extent is it even possible?

Furthermore I want to point out that I would not be mentioning this if not for the damage these groups cause. That is what I suggest is that the excommunication only reflects an objective reality that is there regardless of the excommunication. Not that the Cherem made them bad but they were bad before the cherem. The cherem only addresses the issue of how to act.

The best way to deal with this issue is to learn the basic subject of idolatry from the Gemara itself. That is mainly the Gemara in Sanhedrin on page 63. Learning that sugia in depth helped me come to clarity about this issue.

Outside of that Gemara it is possible to see the problem by the ugliness of their deeds. That is hard to explain. Mainly I mean that it is one ugly deed then that is just a "קושיא" a question. But by that prevalence  of ugly deeds it is possible to draw a conclusion that there is something about the energy that produces ugly deeds as predictable as the setting of the sun and just as often. And it is not bad deeds. Bad deeds are just wickedness. But there is something ugly about their deeds that is not exactly wicked. It is just that their actions are ugly. There is something wrong with them that you hand put your finger on exactly. And it is not just as it applies to one person of the other. Since it is often and constant and perennial you can conclude that there is some ugly energy producing these ugly people and ugly deeds.

n75 a major n76  r3 a major

[n75 midi format]

 Utube The Secret History of Godel

My learning partner sent this video. 

My answer: 
"I looked at it briefly. I don't have the time right now to go through it all. I have seen both incompleteness theorems before. It is the completeness theorem that I thought would be good for you to look at because it would complete the Godel proof of the existence of God. I might have done the work myself but I never got the chance. In any case Godel is very important and very interesting."

I should mention that I am optimistic that my leaning partner has discovered Godel because he might be able to do something with Godel's proof--much more than I can.
It is true that in the book on Talmud, God did grant to me to make progress. But that was only after my learning partner had opened the way by asking some kind of fundamental question or bringing out some important point. That is ideally how a learning partnership should work.





My letter up above also was not written well. I meant to write the "compactness" theorem.



(1) See Schelling. The force that drives from the finite to infinity. The force that drives from infinity to the finite. The synthesis between them.

(2) See Kant's critique on the Ontological proof. See Dr Kelley Ross's Critique on Kant's Critique 

(3) My point is you need to (must) extend the set of positive traits to infinity and that will fill in the missing gap in Godel's proof. This must happen because of the completeness and compactness theorem.
See Mathematical Logic by Stephan Bilaniuk



(4) Godel mainly puts Anselm's and Leibniz's proof in logic symbols. 

 I noticed the self esteem thing got deeply into the Western psyche. But that was a little bit after I had been cloistered in a Musar yeshiva in NY. Musar means ethical works written during the Middle Ages. In Musar pride in oneself and abilities are universally considered the primary sin and the cause of all other sins. Mainly I think they derive this from Proverbs. So when people around me started talking about the importance of self esteem internally I always translated that to mean the importance of being wicked. It did not seem to make sense. I am not sure from where it comes from but I don't think they are getting it from Proverbs.


[Actually I do have an idea of where the self esteem thing came from [Eric Fromm], but I am not sure if that was the original source. I seem to recall some previous source. Nietzsche? I just can't put my finger on it this second.]
Nietzsche: Das Kriterium der Wahrheit liegt in der Steigerung des Machtgefühls. "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power." The psychologists picked it up from him. That is not rare. Most of their ideas come from Nietzsche.




Later I started noticing even Musar books that were distorting the message of Musar and insisting just like the psychologists that self esteem was a good thing.

Recently more serious psychologists have noticed that they were mistaken and rather that self esteem being a good thing it is the cause of violence and evil.

So Musar really had this right from the beginning. This shows that the idea of Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Musar is really correct.

Appendix: Each one of the major Musar books talks about the evil of Pride with no exception. חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה מעלות המידות ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם.
And furthermore all the disciples of Israel Salanter said the same thing. Isaac Blazzer, Yoseph Yozel Horvitz, etc.

The self esteem thing as the of cause of evil