God and the world are not one. The world is not made out of any Divine substance. It is made something from nothing. Ex Nihilo.

The Faith of the Torah is Monotheism. That is that God is One and has no substance or form. And He made the world from nothing. This is not the same as pantheism. God and the world are not one. The world is not made out of any Divine substance. It is made something from nothing. Ex Nihilo. The actual verse of the Torah reads in full אתה הראתה לדעת כי השם הוא האלהים אין עוד מלבדו which says "There are no other gods besides God." If you read the last three words out of context you come out with a false interpretation of the verse. There is no implication here about pantheism. Pantheism mainly comes from the Upanishads. Spinoza also. And as I wrote else where if this point had been proved, I would not make a big deal about it. But the Upanishads just state it, and Spinoza does not prove it. Spinoza can only get to it by making a premise that is highly doubtful in itself. [That axiom is that no substance can affect any other substance. starting with that it is easy to prove there can be only one substance. But that axiom is not at all obvious. Why assume it?] For example, Mathematics. In Math, you start with premises which are almost so trivial that there does not seem any reason to state them. For example: the shortest distance between two points is straight line. You don't start out with premises that are highly doubtful, and then go on to prove even more doubtful conclusions. Besides this, no one held from pantheism. Not Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Ibn Gavirol, Crescas, Joseph Albo, the Ari, the Ramban (emphasis on last syllable). Abravenal [Not Abarbenal]. Certainly not the Torah Oral or Written.

The idea of Israel Salanter --to learn Musar [ethics] seems to me to be a good idea from the point of view of keeping Torah properly. If fact, I would have to agree that in order to understand how to keep Torah, Musar plus the basic works of Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages is enough. I mean in theory to understand what the Torah requires of us does not really require much more than to know what the Torah consider to be good character, and good world view, and to be able to identify and stay away from people with bad character and bad world views.

[Just for background for the public when I say Jewish Philosophy I mean you start with Saadia Gaon and go up until Crescas, Albo  and Abravenal, (not Abarbenal) אברבנל comes from the Spanish and is pronounced Abravenal.]

The thing about Musar which is a bit hard to figure out is the Kabalah connection. I do not mean specifically the Ramchal [Moshe Chaim Lutzatto.] I mean rather that all Musar after the Ari borrows heavily and depends on Kabalah, and especially the Zohar. And that tends to lead people off into all kinds of crazy directions. Yet, it is standard fare in almost all Musar.--for Example, Sefer HaCharaidim, Reishit Chachma, the Shelah. If fact, name me one book of Musar after that that does not depend on Kabalah? Only the books of the disciples of Israel Salanter himself.


Not that there is anything wrong with this Kabalah connection in itself. The Ari after all is good to learn when one is ready for it [i.e. after learning the Talmud in depth with Tosphot]. But as a rule, who learns Kabalah and is improved? No one that I have heard of except  Bava Sali and people that were anyway into "Avodat Hashem" in a way that the Kabalah just added a bit to the intensity.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Kabalah of the Ari I see as simply a continuation of the Neo Platonic approach of all Jewish Philosophy from Saadia Geon until Crescas and Abravenal. Not only that but I see him as building a bridge between the Neo Platic approach of  Jewish Philosophy and the Aristotelian Philosophy of the Rambam. This seems very good. What I object to are the cults that came afterwards. The Gra did well to excommunicate them.     Not because of false opinions or character. Though both are evident. Lying and fraud are like bread and water to them. Rather the Sitra Achra is their essence. But not just any Sitra Achra but a very specific kelipa.

_______________________________________________________________________

When I say the Ari was building a bridge I really mean the Reshash [that is Shalom Sharabi] the author of Nahar Shalom. Without his approach to the Ari, it is very hard to see any connection with Aristotle. The Ari at first glance seems totally Neo Platonic. It is only when you learn the Ari in connection with Shalom Sharabi that you can start to see how this approach incorporate Aristotle and the Rambam's Aristotelian philosophy along with it. If fact you see this clearly in the order of the worlds that the Reshash sets up after the revival of the dead. Right there he is switching from Plato's ideas to Aristotle's forms

a7 A Minor

You can't use science to prove the existence of God. The only two ways that I am aware of is the one I put on the top on my blog:  

 Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. 

The other way is by a proof called the Ontological proof. That is God has all possible perfections by definition. If he would lack existence he would lack one perfection. Therefore He exists. This was put into rigorous logical form by Godel.  I saw this once in Hebrew University and later someone put it on the internet.  This seems to be good but I prefer the basic idea of the First Cause. 

The basic question on the ontological proof was stated by Kant that existence is not a predicate. But we know that "is" is in fact a predicate. But what Kant means to ask is really that logic can not penetrate into unconditioned realities. He is asking a question based on his entire way of thinking--not just a minor observation. And we know that people after Kant have tried to bridge this gap. 

However I think this goes too far into theology. I do not want to assume characteristics of God. Nor did the Rambam. It was enough for him to borrow from Aristotle's First mover to get to the First Cause and that is enough for me. In fact, I would prefer not to assume any characteristics about God at all. I go in this way like the Book of Job. In that book the friends of Job said God is just and we can not understand his ways. The normal Shabat Table Judaism standard fare. But at the end  of that book God comes along and says the friends of Job were wrong. This same point was driven home by Schopenhauer who basing himself on Kant thought that God is the ding an sich--wild, delighting in being unpredictable, with no interest in being considered good. The Will. And the world is just an expression of the Will. 

The concept of חרם (or excommunication) is not well understood. People tend to this of it as an option whether to pay attention to it or not. But in fact it is a legitimate halachic category. It has a regular classification of an איסר נדר. That is if you say about a sheep or goat "הרי זה קרבן"["This is dedicated as a sacrifice in the Temple"] it gets a classification of being sanctified for the Temple in Jerusalem and one is not allowed to use it for any mundane purpose. It becomes a חפצא של אסיר an object that is forbidden to use. The idea of a חרם gets its validity from this same idea. You can see this in the laws of oaths in the Rambam. In the commentaries on the Rambam there is a debate whether a נידוי or חרם come from the category of איסר נדר or איסר שבועה. But there is no doubt that one that transgresses it is considered as if he transgressed a נדר או שבועה and that is a לאו דאורייתא (prohibition from the Torah itself).


When the Gra made a חרם he was not inventing a halachic category but using one that already existed. The reason he wrote elsewhere. The Gra held the teachings of hasidim are from the Sitra Achra and that its energies are fallen energies--miracles given to them like the miracles done by the Golden Calf. Miracles and powers of the Dark Side.


So why is it ignored. The institutions that would normally be following the Gra were infiltrated and taken over. That is Lithuanian yeshivas. [And this also explains what many people wonder about --why are Lithuanian yeshivas  corrupt? Well now you know.]

The answer to all of this is simple. To start paying attention to what the Gra said. It could not be more simple.

The only way now is to be for or against. There is no middle road. I though before I could find one but I see now that was a failing strategy.

r5  r4  q13 b101  j1  j2 

Sitra Achra A.K.A. The Dark Side

Some people and some groups are possibly wrapped up with the Dark Side.
There is not good reason to eliminate this possibility, while some problems might be in fact from world views gone astray or mental illness. It has been the tendency of the West to minimize or eliminate entirely the effects of the Dark Side in peoples'  lives and to deny its existence. 

The Gra would not have put that group into excommunication if he if not think that the Sitra Achra had not become mixed up with it in some kind of hidden way.


This is an important topic and I would like to at least explain my own approach. 
Mainly it goes like this: morality and holiness are tightly bonded. It is as simple as that.
Morality here means common sense morality. When you see a person that does not have that or a group, then they are part of the Sitra Achra.  

Common sense morality is what you would think based on the Ten Commandments. Do not steal or lie etc. Once a group is involved in some kind of fraud I assume there is more wrong with it than moral wrong.I also assume there is metaphysical evil inside of it.

There is no escape from a cult as a full person. After some time of being involved with it the brain becomes hardwired into that mode of thinking. Trying to escape simply means pulling out all the wires.

Especially if the leader was charismatic. Then one's whole personality becomes absorbed into that framework.
[What happens if you pull all the hardware out of your computer? It does not work anymore. Same here. This is why people hang on to false beliefs even after they know the beliefs are wrong.]

I do not mean to sound negative. After all one can change. But along with change in mental framework comes change in one's life situation.

People leave sometimes from  a cult and go into worse things.

My approach is to look at what I think was a proper framework while I was there [Yeshivat Mir in  NY.] and even though I can't be there right now, to at least try to be learning Torah and keeping Torah as much as possible in the most straight no nonsense fashion possible.

What is the way of Torah? To be honorable, truthful, trustworthy, capable, strong. It is to be the type of man you would want to be with you in a survival situation.  Not what cults are made from.Cults are about making people think they have all these virtues by means of serving their leader and the cult. Service to the leader is what makes a man a man in a cult. It is the opposite of Torah.

To escape from cults the best thing is to learn Jewish Philosophy of the Middle Ages. Philosophy has a drawback of not being able to postulate positive values but it does save from negative values.

To learn Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages however requires a bit of background. That is the Pre Socratics Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But there is also a need to supplement them with Post Middle Ages. And this part is hard. The idea of learning philosophy after the Middle Ages is on one hand dangerous because philosophy went off into post modern and other crazy directions. I had to do a lot of work to sift through it all and find the strands of  sense.
Briefly, after the Middle Ages philosophy got divided between England (the Empiricists) and Europe the Rationalists.  Kant came along and made a compromise. But his solution was unsatisfactory so the German idealist came along to continue the work of Kant. It is this strand of thought that is important as a supplement to Jewsih philosophy of the Middle Ages,

[Jewish though after the Middle Ages got off track into cults.]

Book on Bava Metzia   Book on Talmud




One idea I think to add is in Bava Kama on page 3a. The gemara at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrants 3 and 4 [אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים] and the 3rd part of the Gemara which brings both tooth and foot from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the Mahrasha says the reason for the last part of the Gemara is שקולים הם. Why question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the Gemara? Why is the first approach of the Gemara we don't say the same? In the first part of the Gemara we do not learn both foot and tooth from one verse --But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them.

________________________________________________________________________________


The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you roll the dice, you end up with the fact that the last part of the Gemara does not need four verses and the first part does need four. And between tooth and foot in the end of the Gemara we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש So no matter what you say for the end of the gemara you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three verses.



(1) The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you look at it, you end up with the fact that the last part of the גמרא does not need four פסוקים and the first part does need four. And between שן and רגל in the end of the גמרא we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש. So no matter what you say for the end of the גמרא you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three פסוקים.








__________________________________________________________________________________


בבא קמא ג' ע''א The גמרא at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrant שלישי  and רביעי אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים and the third part of the גמרא which brings both שן and רגל from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the מהרש''א says the reason for the last part of the גמרא is שקולים הם. My question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the גמרא? Why in the first approach of the גמרא we don't say the same? In the first part of the גמרא we do not learn both רגל and שן from one verse. But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them

בבא קמא ג' ע''א הגמרא בתחילה דורשת שני פסוקים נוספים להוסיף רביע שלישי ורביעי (אזלא ממילא ולא נאכל השרשים) ואת החלק השלישי של הגמרא מביאה  שן ורגל מפסוק אחד ואינה מחייבת פסוק נוסף כדי להוסיף את רביע האחרון. המהדורא בתרא של מהרש''א אומר כי הסיבה של חלק האחרון של הגמרא היא ששקולים הם. השאלה שלי היא למה לא אומרים את אותו הדבר עבור החלק הראשון של הגמרא? למה בגישה הראשונה של גמרא אנחנו לא אומרים את אותו הדבר?הגם שבחלקו הראשון של גמרא אינם לומדים שניהם רגל ושן מפסוק אחד. אבל אנחנו עושים השוואה ביניהם ואומרים שקיים היקש ביניהם.

The din Torah (court case) that Reb Nachman had with the Satan was that Reb Nachman would be able to present his advice to the world so people would have the benefit of his ideas-but that his inyan [his "thing"] would be surrounded by a kelipa [evil force] such that who so ever would come into it would be affected by a kelipa of insanity and ugly behavior.

My conclusion is that there really is no reason to be in Uman. It is not just the kelipa of insanity around the ziun itself. It is that it does not seem like the biggest deal in the first place. It does have the effect of getting people away from Gemara  and it does not seem worth it. It does not seem like one gets that much benefit from the whole thing or as much as one loses by dropping out of the yeshiva world. It might save from worse kelipot but besides that I don't know.


 It is not that Reb Nachman did not have some good ideas. Rather there is just too much cult  activity involved. And it seems to me that it entices people away from the straight Lithuanian yeshiva path . And from what I have seen over the years this is universal. No one ever becomes a better person from involvement with it. If anything I think it takes people from otherwise decent things they are doing and tends to degrade them. The ideas themselves of Reb Nachman I tend to think highly of but then people hear about them and get involved with Breslov and that changes them. I have tried to mention some of these issues to people but my impression is it is beyond redemption. 

Ideas in Bava Metzia updated  I wanted to add an answer there on a question on Shmuel that I had asked in my original booklet.

Ideas in Shas


My basic idea about learning Torah is that it is best done at home alone. Get yourself a Gemara and don't depend on there being a Beit Midrash. The problem with depending on some close by synagogue or such for learning is dealing with the kelipot [evil forces]. Unless you are in the area of an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva, the other options are mainly bad-cults or worse. Why bother? 

Torah is Monotheism

I do not seem to be able to get people on board with my idea of Torah being Monotheism. Most people have never heard of it. And the religious world is hopelessly pantheistic. I have no idea from where the problem stems from. Clearly the Gra tried his hand at getting Torah Judaism back in track but failed miserably. His excommunication was and is ignored even by his closest disciples.

No one wants to believe that the Gra knew what he was doing.

The only Institution that I know of that takes the Gra seriously is the yeshiva Aderet Eliyahu in the Old City of Jerusalem. But that place is more concerned with the general path of the Gra more that the issue of the basic world view of Torah.

Worship of tzadikim seems to have gone unnoticed as being a kind of idolatry. And Idolatry is supposed to be forbidden --or thus I thought.

There were people in the past that thought I had the ability to awaken others towards the authentic Torah. But it seems to me today that I missed the boat somehow.
The cults just grow and grow and the truth is just stomped on more and more.

The idea that Torah is Monotheism is basically expressed by Saadia Gaon and the Rambam and all the rishonim that wrote about the basic world view of Torah. Surprisingly enough the Ari agrees with this. The Ari does not attempt to change the world view of Torah in the slightest. But today these facts are ignored and distorted.

Without Torah one can not say that wrong is wrong. And without philosophy one can't say that a cult is  a cult. But the opposite is not true. With philosophy alone one can justify any wrong. With Torah one can justify any cult. Any set of delusions can be justified.

Thus I see the philosophers of the Middle Ages as providing an important function. The combining of Torah with philosophy allows one to say wrong is wrong and also to identify  cults that are disguised as legitimate Torah institutions.

So what I am suggesting is to learn Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol, the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam, Abravenal (Isaac and Yehuda), Crescas and Joseph Albo with the same rigor and depth as one would do on Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. 

Virtue and knowledge are identical and thus in theory possible to teach. I would like to suggest a  three pronged approach. Musar, Hashkafa world view, outdoor survival skills.

The first idea in that of Israel Salanter. It deals mainly with study of the type of character traits the Torah requires of us. There is a promise of Isaac Blasser that by this study one is cured of physical and spiritual sickness.
The second deals with the study of what kind of world view the Torah has. That started mainly from Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol and included the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam, and goes up until Joseph Albo, and Cresas. these were the major rigorous thinkers along these lines. The idea here is that the Torah is not an empty vessel that one can put any ideas into it that he wants. It has a specific world view. Agree with it or not, one has to know it. The problems that began with people putting their delusions into the Torah and dressing them up in verses has continued until this day and shows no sign of abating.
The third is outdoor skills. I am thinking of what the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts used to be doing. That is the idea of instilling good values by means of action, not just words. honor, loyalty, team work, hard work, cleanliness trustworthiness. etc

Lithuanian path

Can you teach virtue? This seems to be the basic idea of what we call "learning Torah." This is something that is dealt with in a Platonic dialogue. On one hand it seems it can't be taught. On the other hand Socrates thought virtue and knowledge are one. And so it can be taught. An at least we can see religions that teach evil and we can see that people in them in fact learn evil.

But this is a delicate question. On one hand you know what you will be learning if you go into electrical engineering or if you go to become a blacksmith or car repair man. This was the whole point of Socrates. Learning and teaching virtue is not the same thing. He concluded that he knew of no one that knew what virtue is or who could teach it. I am in a similar situation. The closest thing that I saw was the basic path of my parents. "Menschlichkeit" .
That is to the idea of striving to be  a whole and moral decent human. That is the Ten Commandments.

 A close approximation to this is the Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshiva path.

But the Lithuanian path has a kind of problem that I can't exactly put my finger on. But the problems seem to be the copycats that try to pretend they are real yeshivas but are certainly not learning the Holy Torah but bags of delusions.

The problem is simple. Cults. "Learning Torah" is just a code word for cults that are trying to get your children..

Virtue seems to be what you learn when you learn a vocation. But institutions that are supposed to be dealing with mental and spiritual health seem to be traps for the innocent. Psychiatrists's expertise seems to be in making people mentally ill, and religious organizations seem to excel in making sick, religious fanatics.

The Mishna in Bava Metzia 100a Tosphot "demain eved"

The Mishna in Bava Metzia 100a says when you have a seller and a buyer of a slave and they are both sure of their pleas then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. When both are unsure then they divide. The Gemara asks but we don't take an oath on slaves? Rav answered the money of  a slave. Shmuel said a slave in his garment. Tosphot asks on the opinion of Rav how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא! In my notes on this {Ideas in Bava Metzia chs 8 and 9} I mentioned that this question of Tosphot does not like the Gemara in the beginning of Bava Metzia. Rather Tosphot is going like the Gemara in Bava Batra. I mean to say that Tosphot here is saying that Sumchus would not say to divide unless it is a case of דררא דממונא. This is like the Gemara in Bava Batra. But in the beginning of Bava Metzia the Gemara concludes that if Sumchus said his din in a case of דררא דממונא then all the more so would he say so in a case that is not דררא דממונא

This question had been bothering me for years. So I was very happy when I realized what Tosphot was doing.  

So fine Tosphot then finds a way to show the case of Rav is one of דררא דממונא. There were witnesses that heard the agreement and saw money exchanged but did not see how much money was exchanged.

But then we get to Shmuel. I asked where is the דררא דממונא in the case of Shmuel. No money was exchanged. For that is the whole point of Shmuel.

What I wanted to say today was simply that Shmuel is going like the Gemara in the beginning of Bava Metzia in which holds the opinion that Sumchus said his din in both cases--whether there is דררא דממונא or not.  That is to say that Rav and Shmuel are disagreeing about the opinion of Sumchus. And this disagreement is reflected in these two opposing Gemaras, one in Bava Metzia and the other in Bava Batra.

_______________________________________________________________________



The משנה in בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''אsays when you have a seller and a buyer of a slave and they are both sure of their pleas then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. When both are unsure then they divide. The גמרא asks but we don't take an oath on slaves? רב answered the money of  a slave. שמואל said a slave in his garment. תוספות asks on the opinion of רב how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא! In my notes on this I mentioned that this question of תוספות is not like the גמרא in the beginning of בבא מציעא. Rather תוספות is going like the גמרא in בבא בתרא. I mean to say that תוספות here is saying that סומכוס would not say to divide unless it is a case of דררא דממונא. This is like the גמרא in בבא בתרא. But in the beginning of בבא מציעא the גמרא concludes that if סומכוס said his דין in a case of דררא דממונא then all the more so would he say so in a case that is not דררא דממונא

This question had been bothering me for years. So I was very happy when I realized what תוספות was doing.  

So fine תוספות then finds a way to show the case of רב is one of דררא דממונא. There were witnesses that heard the agreement and saw money exchanged but did not see how much money was exchanged.

But then we get to שמואל. I asked where is the דררא דממונא in the case of שמואל. No money was exchanged. For that is the whole point of שמואל.

What I wanted to say today was simply that שמואל is going like the גמרא in the beginning of בבא מציעא in which holds the opinion that סומכוס said his din in both cases--whether there is דררא דממונא or not.  That is to say that רב and שמואל are disagreeing about the opinion of סומכוס. And this disagreement is reflected in these two opposing גמרות, one in בבא מציעא and the other in בבא בתרא.


) ב''מ ק: יש לשאול: שמואל צריך לעבור דרך כל ארבע בבות האלה של המשנה, היינו (1) ברי וברי, (2) שמא וברי, (3) ברי ושמא, (4) שמא ושמא. אז מה הוא עושה עם שמא ושמא? כסף לא נתחלף. רק שני גברים נכנסים לבית דין עם ספק על בגד עם חלק נוסף,- אם החלק הנוסף גם היה מוכל במחירה. איפה הדררא דממונא (כמו שתוספות ניסו למצוא תירוץ לרב)? תשאיר את החלק איפה שהוא. למה חולקים?

המשנה בבבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א אומרת כשיש  מוכר וקונה של עבד והם שניהם בטוחים על הטיעונים שלהם אז המוכר לוקח שבועה כי הוא מכר את העבד הקטן. כאשר הם לא בטוחים אז הם מחלקים את כסף שיש ספק בו. הגמרא שואלת אבל אנחנו לא נשבעים על עבדים? רב ענה דנים על שיווי הכספי של עבד. שמואל אמר עבד בבגדו. תוספות שואלים על חוות דעת של רב איך הם יכולים לחלק? זה לא דררא דממונא! שאלה זו של תוספות לא כמו הגמרא בתחילת בבא מציעא. במקום זה תוספות הולכים כמו הגמרא בבא בתרא בחזקת הבתים. אני מתכוון לומר כי תוספות כאן אומרים כי סומכוס לא הייה אומר לחלק אלא אם כן הוא מקרה של דררא דממונא. זה כמו הגמרא בבא בתרא. אבל בתחילה של בבא מציעא ב: הגמרא מסכמת שאם סומכוס אמר הדין שלו במקרה של דררא דממונא, אז על אחת כמה וכמה היה אומר את דינו כאשר המצב אינו דררא דממונא.   ואז תוספות מוצאים דרך להראות שהמקרה של  רב  הוא כן דררא דממונא. היינו שהיו עדים ששמעו את ההסכם וראו כסף הוחלף, אבל לא ראו כמה כסף הוחלף. אבל אז מגיעים לשמואל. שאלתי איפה הוא דררא דממונא במקרה של שמואל. אין כסף שהוחלף.  זה כל העניין של שמואל. מה שאני רוצה לומר  פשוט כי שמואל הוא הולך כמו הגמרא בתחילה בבא מציעא  המחזיקה בדעה שסומכוס אמר את הדין שלו בשני מקרים - אם יש דררא דממונא או שלא. כלומר רב  שמואל הם חולקים על דעתו של סומכוס. חילוקי דעות אלה משתקפים בשתי גמרות אלה המנוגדות, אחת בבבא מציעא והשניה בבבא בתרא

_________________________________________________________________________________

There are still problems. Problem 1: In my notes I mention that the gemara here is depending on the gemara on page 97. This brings to mind the fact that even the gemara there is problematic. The Gemara there suggests perhaps the reason for the mishna is because certainty and doubt certainty is better.  But the amazing question is that certainty and doubt certainty wins the case with no oath and the mishna says on 97 and also page 100 certainty wins with an oath! That is not the same thing!
Another stark problem is Tosphot Demai Eved. Tosphot asks "but it is not Drara DeManona?" The fact is that Tosphot is asking on Rav. That seems to mean that on the Mishna itself Tosphot would not have asked their question. That means Tosphot in OK if the question had been a large slave or a small slave.That apparently Tosphot would have accepted that it is Drara DeMamona. Only because Rav said the price of the slave is the question did Tosphot then ask "But it is not Drara Demmona."

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that Tosohot and this page of Gemara and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by dividing there is no difference between Sumchos and the Sages?" Was I referring to the idea of the Rashbam that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees?
I also wrote on the question what about Shmuel? Tosphot answers the question where is the Drara DeMamona by Rav but never even raises the question by Shmuel. I answered this cryptic phrase maybe Tosphot would answer like they answered for Rav. But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever Tosphot answered for Rav was because Rav was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that Samuel is also talking about an exchange on currency because that is not the answer of Shmuel. [It might be that Tosphot is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is Drara Demamona. Only the fact that Rav says the mishna refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the Drara Demamina?] Or was I referring to the debate if Sumchus said his law in the case of both  certainly and doubt or just one on page 100a?
In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this Tosphot and this page of Gemara.

I would like to recommend the general path of the Gra of straight Torah. But I see that for some reason the Gra was ignored then and now. If not for the idolatry aspects of the group that he excommunicated it would be enough the sexual child abuse that almost every child undergoes in their institutions. Why this is still ignored today is a mystery to me.

This is always swept up and covered but it is  areal phenomenon. The arrests and police records are public for anyone who wants to investigate.

Male bees mate once with the queen and die within seconds of mating. The semen goes into the queen bee with explosive force. [You can hear it if you are standing nearby.] The penis and associated abdominal tissue is left inside the queen. What a way to go!



That is their whole function. They do not do a drop of work but sit around all say watching TV or supposedly learning Torah when in fact they are simply talking and chatting.
My feeling is that humans are not very far from this paradigm.
I am some sympathy for men as I am one myself. There is some kind of paradigm shift going on.

There are still talented men. But as a rule it is the females nowadays that are reliable to get a job done not the men.

Thus even though girls are not allowed to learn Talmud, still Jewish Philosophy I think should be top priority for them. Because they need awareness of what the Torah actually holds and not listen to the idiotic men who simply don't know but think they know. [A short list: That means Saadia Gaon's [אמונות ודעות, מורה נבוכים, אברבנל, יוסף אלבו, קרסקס, אבן גבירול]