30.8.16
Cuckolding
Cuckolding is in fact very serious. It comes under the category of ניאוף. [adultry]The definition of adultery in the Torah is sexual intercourse with a married woman or a betrothed woman by anyone other than her husband. It makes the woman forbidden to her husband. The children are ממזרים bastards, [and can not marry an Israelite woman]. If the act is done in front of two witnesses there is the death penalty for both the adulterer and adulteress. [Leviticus 18 and 20]
Gentiles are entirely unaware of this. They try to piece together a coherent idea of what the Torah holds based on random readings and scraps from place to place. Clearly that can not work.They do this based on Luther. That was a reaction to the problem that the Catholic church which had started out sincere and had become a self perpetrating bureaucracy. So on one hand he was doing a good thing- but it left a lot of misunderstandings. Since then it has been up to debate what the simple meaning of any verse is. How the individual wants to understand it? How the author meant? How the people reading it thought it meant when it was written? Etc.
Gentiles are entirely unaware of this. They try to piece together a coherent idea of what the Torah holds based on random readings and scraps from place to place. Clearly that can not work.They do this based on Luther. That was a reaction to the problem that the Catholic church which had started out sincere and had become a self perpetrating bureaucracy. So on one hand he was doing a good thing- but it left a lot of misunderstandings. Since then it has been up to debate what the simple meaning of any verse is. How the individual wants to understand it? How the author meant? How the people reading it thought it meant when it was written? Etc.
The rise and fall of Navardok yeshivas.But besides the great Litvak yeshivas in NY, the system has become a self perpetuating bureaucracy.
I mentioned a few times some critiques on the yeshiva system nowadays. These institutions started out sincere and great based on Reb Chaim from Voloshins's model of separating the yeshiva from the "Kahal" and authority of the local religious authorities. [Before that the local yeshiva was simply the local synagogue where teenagers learned during the day and the local home owners put them up with a place to sleep and meals].
But besides the great Litvak yeshivas in NY, the system has become a self perpetuating bureaucracy.
So Avi Preder suggested a return to the basic Beit Midrash Model, [i.e., study hall model].
Based on what I have seen and heard from many people, this makes sense. Too many people have been burnt by the system as it is in place today.
So what I suggest is a "Musar Beit Midrash." That is a kind of permutation from the "Musar Yeshiva" to a Musar Beit Midrash where the main emphasis is development of good character.
[This all came up because I was thinking about the rise and fall of Navardok yeshivas and thinking about the amazing effect they had on the students that learned in them.]
[I am I admit not sure how this would work in Israel. The Ponovitch yeshiva which is the greatest yeshiva in the world still goes by the old yeshiva model, and that might be the only practical way to go about things in Israel itself.]
[But what would happen if you don't pay people to learn Torah? All the yeshivas would empty out. I say that is a good thing. The only people then that would learn Torah would be the ones that do it for its own sake. Torah Lishma.]
But besides the great Litvak yeshivas in NY, the system has become a self perpetuating bureaucracy.
So Avi Preder suggested a return to the basic Beit Midrash Model, [i.e., study hall model].
Based on what I have seen and heard from many people, this makes sense. Too many people have been burnt by the system as it is in place today.
So what I suggest is a "Musar Beit Midrash." That is a kind of permutation from the "Musar Yeshiva" to a Musar Beit Midrash where the main emphasis is development of good character.
[This all came up because I was thinking about the rise and fall of Navardok yeshivas and thinking about the amazing effect they had on the students that learned in them.]
[I am I admit not sure how this would work in Israel. The Ponovitch yeshiva which is the greatest yeshiva in the world still goes by the old yeshiva model, and that might be the only practical way to go about things in Israel itself.]
[But what would happen if you don't pay people to learn Torah? All the yeshivas would empty out. I say that is a good thing. The only people then that would learn Torah would be the ones that do it for its own sake. Torah Lishma.]
29.8.16
So who do you trust to have a true and clear idea of what the Torah says? The Rambam or them?
On a related not to the previous blog entry I wanted to add that books that claim to be teaching the worldview of Torah are almost always teaching their worldview in the name of Torah.
After all people smart enough have already done the job of telling us the basic השקפה thought structure of the Torah--the Rambam and Saadia Gaon. And there is no book on השקפה today that agrees with anything they wrote. In the religious world, no one dares touch the Guide For the Perplexed of the Rambam or the אמונות ודעות of Saadia Gaon because the world view of the religious world is in fact directly opposed to everything the Rambam wrote in the Guide and Saadia Gaon.
So who do you trust to have a true and clear idea of what the Torah says? The Rambam or them?
And it is not as if the Rambam is hard to understand. The trouble is that he is infinitely easy to understand. The religious just don't like what he has to say.
After all people smart enough have already done the job of telling us the basic השקפה thought structure of the Torah--the Rambam and Saadia Gaon. And there is no book on השקפה today that agrees with anything they wrote. In the religious world, no one dares touch the Guide For the Perplexed of the Rambam or the אמונות ודעות of Saadia Gaon because the world view of the religious world is in fact directly opposed to everything the Rambam wrote in the Guide and Saadia Gaon.
So who do you trust to have a true and clear idea of what the Torah says? The Rambam or them?
And it is not as if the Rambam is hard to understand. The trouble is that he is infinitely easy to understand. The religious just don't like what he has to say.
"Outside books".[ ספרים חיצוניים
"Outside books".[ ספרים חיצוניים] The way the Rif and Rosh understand this is that outside books are books that explain the Torah not according to קבלת חז''ל. There are lots of books in the Ultra-Religious world that would come under the category of ספרים חיצוניים outside books according to that definition.
I did not go into detail because I am not sure where to draw the line. [Almost all religious books nowadays explain the Torah not according to the tradition of Chazal {the sages of the Talmud}] They always add mizvot that are not from Torah nor the Talmud. Always. And they subtract things the Chazal (sages) say are important. And they pervert the meaning of Torah to always mean that their cult is the right one. [And the things they add are always related to OCD things like mikveh or food preparation or graves of tzadikim or sexual hangups or to advance their cult. They say keep Torah but add this such and such. This is opposed to the Torah which says "Thou shalt not add nor subtract to the things that God has commanded you in the book of the Law."
(No offence intended towards Reb Nachman who was a great tzadik. Rather the critique here is directed to those groups that make a cult out him.)
The back topic starts with a mishna in Sanhedrin: "These are those who have no portion in the next world... R. Akiva added, 'One who reads outside books'." The Rambam does not poskin [decide]like R. Akiva. He brings in Laws of Repentance all the things that one loses his portion in the next world for and does not include the statement of R Akiva. But to the Rambam there are books that are forbidden ספרי עבודה זרה books on idol worship. This is brought in Laws of Idolatry.
Does the Rambam have the version printed in our Gemaras outside books are "Books of Minim?"
"Minim" Rashi there says means "books of idol worship." Is this perhaps what the Rambam is thinking? Minim we know has a specific definition and it does not mean idolatry?
[We know the Rambam is not just borrowing from Aristotle but also says that the command to learn the Oral Law includes the two subjects of Physics and Metaphysics as understood by the ancient Greeks. So he is certainly not thinking of Aristotle of Plato as being forbidden.
One person was involved in a cult (the Adi Da group) and left it. He died in a plane crash a few months later. But he left a few writings and interviews which explain the problem. He called it "consciousness trap." Books that seems to have everything right and even great advice--but there is some consciousness trap hidden inside them.
[כל הפורש מעבודה זרה מיד מת who ever separates himself from idol worship immediately dies. That is there is no escape. As for that fellow who fell into that cult I can only say that some people have come into the world to reveal some great secret and once they reveal it they are gone. It is almost as if they gave their life in order to bring some great knowledge into the world.
Like President Kennedy brought the awareness of jogging into the world. So that fellow who fell into that cult- perhaps he existed just to tell us all some of the dangers of cults and how to be afraid of things we ought to be afraid of.
In any case, if there are people out there that want to know what I think are kosher Torah books: the Written and Oral Law [the two Talmuds and midrashei Chazal]. There is little in mysticism that I think is kosher. The only kosher things would be the Arizal himself and Yaakov Abuchatzeira, nothing else. Everything else I would burn [just like the Gra did in Villna] as being books using the Chazal to create cults of idolatry.\
___________________________________________________________________________
ספרים חיצוניים. The way the רי''ף and רא''ש understand this is that ספרים חיצוניים are books that explain the Torah not according to קבלת חז''ל. There are lots of books in the חרדי world that would come under the category of ספרים חיצוניים outside books according to that definition.
Almost all religious books nowadays explain the Torah not according to the tradition of חז''ל the sages of the Talmud. They always add מצוות that are not from Torah nor the Talmud. Always. And they subtract things the חז''ל say are important. And they pervert the meaning of Torah to always mean that their cult is the right one.
The back topic starts with a משנה in סנהדרין: אלו בם שאין להם חלק בעולם הבאה האפיקורסים וכו' רבי עקיבא אמר גם הקורא בספרים חיצונים The רבב''ם does אינו פוסק כרבי עקיבא. He brings in הלכות תשובה all the things that one loses his portion in the next world for and does not include the statement of רבי עקיבא. But to the רמב''ם there are books that are forbidden ספרי עבודה זרה books on idol worship. This is brought in הלכות עבודה זרה.
Does the רמב''ם have the version printed in our גמרא outside books are ספרי מינים?
רש''י מפרש מינים להיות עובדי כוכבים Is this perhaps what the רמב''ם is thinking? מינים we know has a specific definition and it does not mean idolatry.
We know the רמב''ם is not just borrowing from אריסטו but also says that the command to learn the Oral Law includes the two subjects of פיסיקה and Metaphysics as understood by the ancient Greeks. So he is certainly not thinking of Aristotle of Plato as being forbidden.
One person was involved in a cult and left it. He died in a plane crash a few months later. But he left a few writings and interviews which explain the problem. He called it "consciousness trap." Books that seems to have everything right and even great advice--but there is some consciousness trap hidden inside them.
[כל הפורש מעבודה זרה מיד מת who ever separates himself from idol worship immediately dies. That is there is no escape. As for that fellow who fell into that cult I can only say that some people have come into the world to reveal some great secret and once they reveal it they are gone. It is almost as if they gave their life in order to bring some great knowledge into the world.
) סנהדרין. פרק חלק. ספרים חיצוניים. האופן שבו רי''ף ורא''ש הבינו את זאת הוא כי ספרים חיצוניים הם ספרים המסבירים את התורה ולא על פי קבלת חז''ל. יש המון ספרים בעולם החרדיים שיגיעו תחת הקטגוריה של הספרים חיצוניים. כל הספרים הדתיים כמעט כולם בימינו באים לפרש את התורה ולא על פי המסורת של חז''ל. הם תמיד רוצים להוסיף מצוות שאינן מן התורה ולא בתלמוד. תמיד. והם רוצים להחסיר דברים שחז''ל אומרים שהם חשובים. והם סוטים המשמעות של התורה תמיד לומר כי הפולחן שלהם הוא נכון. את הנושא מתחיל עם המשנה בסנהדרין: אלו בם שאין להם חלק בעולם הבא האפיקורסים וכו' רבי עקיבא אמר גם הקורא בספרי חיצונים. רבב''ם אינו פוסק כרבי עקיבא. הוא מביא בהלכות תשובה כל הדברים שאחד מאבד את חלקו בעולם הבא ואינו כולל את הדעה על רבי עקיבא. אבל להרמב''ם ישנם ספרים אסורים, ספרים על עבודת אלילים. זה מובא הלכות עבודה זרה. האם לרמב''ם את הגרסה של הגמרא שלנו "ספרי מינים"? רש''י מפרש מינים להיות עובדי כוכבים. האם זה אולי מה שהיה רמב''ם גרס. אבל מינים אנחנו יודעים את ההגדרה הספציפית וזה לא עבודה זרה. אנחנו יודעים את רמב''ם הוא פשוט לא רק לווה מאריסטו אלא גם אומר כי הפקודה כדי ללמוד את התורה שבעל פה כוללת את שני נושאים של פיסיקה ומטאפיסיקה כפי שהם היו מובנים על ידי היוונים העתיקים. אז הוא בהחלט לא חושב על אריסטו ואפלטון כמי אסור.
ספרים חיצונים יש להם "מלכודת תודעה." ספרים שנראה שיש להם את הכל נכון ואפילו עצות נהדרות - אבל יש מלכודת תודעה, חלק חבוי בהם.
I did not go into detail because I am not sure where to draw the line. [Almost all religious books nowadays explain the Torah not according to the tradition of Chazal {the sages of the Talmud}] They always add mizvot that are not from Torah nor the Talmud. Always. And they subtract things the Chazal (sages) say are important. And they pervert the meaning of Torah to always mean that their cult is the right one. [And the things they add are always related to OCD things like mikveh or food preparation or graves of tzadikim or sexual hangups or to advance their cult. They say keep Torah but add this such and such. This is opposed to the Torah which says "Thou shalt not add nor subtract to the things that God has commanded you in the book of the Law."
(No offence intended towards Reb Nachman who was a great tzadik. Rather the critique here is directed to those groups that make a cult out him.)
The back topic starts with a mishna in Sanhedrin: "These are those who have no portion in the next world... R. Akiva added, 'One who reads outside books'." The Rambam does not poskin [decide]like R. Akiva. He brings in Laws of Repentance all the things that one loses his portion in the next world for and does not include the statement of R Akiva. But to the Rambam there are books that are forbidden ספרי עבודה זרה books on idol worship. This is brought in Laws of Idolatry.
Does the Rambam have the version printed in our Gemaras outside books are "Books of Minim?"
"Minim" Rashi there says means "books of idol worship." Is this perhaps what the Rambam is thinking? Minim we know has a specific definition and it does not mean idolatry?
[We know the Rambam is not just borrowing from Aristotle but also says that the command to learn the Oral Law includes the two subjects of Physics and Metaphysics as understood by the ancient Greeks. So he is certainly not thinking of Aristotle of Plato as being forbidden.
One person was involved in a cult (the Adi Da group) and left it. He died in a plane crash a few months later. But he left a few writings and interviews which explain the problem. He called it "consciousness trap." Books that seems to have everything right and even great advice--but there is some consciousness trap hidden inside them.
[כל הפורש מעבודה זרה מיד מת who ever separates himself from idol worship immediately dies. That is there is no escape. As for that fellow who fell into that cult I can only say that some people have come into the world to reveal some great secret and once they reveal it they are gone. It is almost as if they gave their life in order to bring some great knowledge into the world.
Like President Kennedy brought the awareness of jogging into the world. So that fellow who fell into that cult- perhaps he existed just to tell us all some of the dangers of cults and how to be afraid of things we ought to be afraid of.
In any case, if there are people out there that want to know what I think are kosher Torah books: the Written and Oral Law [the two Talmuds and midrashei Chazal]. There is little in mysticism that I think is kosher. The only kosher things would be the Arizal himself and Yaakov Abuchatzeira, nothing else. Everything else I would burn [just like the Gra did in Villna] as being books using the Chazal to create cults of idolatry.\
___________________________________________________________________________
ספרים חיצוניים. The way the רי''ף and רא''ש understand this is that ספרים חיצוניים are books that explain the Torah not according to קבלת חז''ל. There are lots of books in the חרדי world that would come under the category of ספרים חיצוניים outside books according to that definition.
Almost all religious books nowadays explain the Torah not according to the tradition of חז''ל the sages of the Talmud. They always add מצוות that are not from Torah nor the Talmud. Always. And they subtract things the חז''ל say are important. And they pervert the meaning of Torah to always mean that their cult is the right one.
The back topic starts with a משנה in סנהדרין: אלו בם שאין להם חלק בעולם הבאה האפיקורסים וכו' רבי עקיבא אמר גם הקורא בספרים חיצונים The רבב''ם does אינו פוסק כרבי עקיבא. He brings in הלכות תשובה all the things that one loses his portion in the next world for and does not include the statement of רבי עקיבא. But to the רמב''ם there are books that are forbidden ספרי עבודה זרה books on idol worship. This is brought in הלכות עבודה זרה.
Does the רמב''ם have the version printed in our גמרא outside books are ספרי מינים?
רש''י מפרש מינים להיות עובדי כוכבים Is this perhaps what the רמב''ם is thinking? מינים we know has a specific definition and it does not mean idolatry.
We know the רמב''ם is not just borrowing from אריסטו but also says that the command to learn the Oral Law includes the two subjects of פיסיקה and Metaphysics as understood by the ancient Greeks. So he is certainly not thinking of Aristotle of Plato as being forbidden.
One person was involved in a cult and left it. He died in a plane crash a few months later. But he left a few writings and interviews which explain the problem. He called it "consciousness trap." Books that seems to have everything right and even great advice--but there is some consciousness trap hidden inside them.
[כל הפורש מעבודה זרה מיד מת who ever separates himself from idol worship immediately dies. That is there is no escape. As for that fellow who fell into that cult I can only say that some people have come into the world to reveal some great secret and once they reveal it they are gone. It is almost as if they gave their life in order to bring some great knowledge into the world.
) סנהדרין. פרק חלק. ספרים חיצוניים. האופן שבו רי''ף ורא''ש הבינו את זאת הוא כי ספרים חיצוניים הם ספרים המסבירים את התורה ולא על פי קבלת חז''ל. יש המון ספרים בעולם החרדיים שיגיעו תחת הקטגוריה של הספרים חיצוניים. כל הספרים הדתיים כמעט כולם בימינו באים לפרש את התורה ולא על פי המסורת של חז''ל. הם תמיד רוצים להוסיף מצוות שאינן מן התורה ולא בתלמוד. תמיד. והם רוצים להחסיר דברים שחז''ל אומרים שהם חשובים. והם סוטים המשמעות של התורה תמיד לומר כי הפולחן שלהם הוא נכון. את הנושא מתחיל עם המשנה בסנהדרין: אלו בם שאין להם חלק בעולם הבא האפיקורסים וכו' רבי עקיבא אמר גם הקורא בספרי חיצונים. רבב''ם אינו פוסק כרבי עקיבא. הוא מביא בהלכות תשובה כל הדברים שאחד מאבד את חלקו בעולם הבא ואינו כולל את הדעה על רבי עקיבא. אבל להרמב''ם ישנם ספרים אסורים, ספרים על עבודת אלילים. זה מובא הלכות עבודה זרה. האם לרמב''ם את הגרסה של הגמרא שלנו "ספרי מינים"? רש''י מפרש מינים להיות עובדי כוכבים. האם זה אולי מה שהיה רמב''ם גרס. אבל מינים אנחנו יודעים את ההגדרה הספציפית וזה לא עבודה זרה. אנחנו יודעים את רמב''ם הוא פשוט לא רק לווה מאריסטו אלא גם אומר כי הפקודה כדי ללמוד את התורה שבעל פה כוללת את שני נושאים של פיסיקה ומטאפיסיקה כפי שהם היו מובנים על ידי היוונים העתיקים. אז הוא בהחלט לא חושב על אריסטו ואפלטון כמי אסור.
ספרים חיצונים יש להם "מלכודת תודעה." ספרים שנראה שיש להם את הכל נכון ואפילו עצות נהדרות - אבל יש מלכודת תודעה, חלק חבוי בהם.
28.8.16
Religious people often display the basic set of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) behavior that is characteristic of very sick schizoid personalities.
Without Musar [the Ethics of the Torah], religious people display the basic set of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) behavior that is characteristic of very sick schizoid personalities. That is what is the top of the list with obsessive compulsive disorder? Obsession with bodily cleanliness, food preparation, obsession with holy places and sexual obsessions. When people are religious, but without Musar, they become infected with schizoid personality traits. They get obsessed with mikveh, with extra restrictions on food preparation that have nothing to do with Torah, they get obsessed with graves of tzadikim (and even graves of not tzadikim) and sexual obsessions e.g. with zniut and the like.
And they think their obsessions with these things makes them tzadikim, and they expect to get paid for being tzadikim. What got me fed up with them is after they spend all their time and effort on their obsessions (which have nothing to do with Torah), they have no time or energy left to be decent human beings.
I also found their idol worship highly annoying, [That is worship of their so called tzadikim.]
The word "Musar" refeers to books of moral principles written mainly during the Middle Ages, but also refers to one book written later,- the Mesilaat Yesharim by Luzato. That is the strict meaning. But in a more loose sense,it refers even to later books on ethics, even and including books wriiten by the diciples of Rav Israel Salanter
And they think their obsessions with these things makes them tzadikim, and they expect to get paid for being tzadikim. What got me fed up with them is after they spend all their time and effort on their obsessions (which have nothing to do with Torah), they have no time or energy left to be decent human beings.
I also found their idol worship highly annoying, [That is worship of their so called tzadikim.]
27.8.16
In terms of the beginning of the night I added this thought to what I had already written:
לתרץ את קושיית של נוגנבוער על ברמב''ם קידוש החודש פרק י''א הלכה ט''ז הרמב''ם קובע ניסן ג' בשעה 18:00 כבסיס בשנת 1,178 והוא אומר שהשמש הממוצעת היה ב 7/3/32. אם הולכים בחזרה שני ימים מוצאים המולד האמצעי היה ניסן א' 6:23 בערב. אבל אם מסתכלים בפרק ו' איפה שהוא מסביר איך למצוא את המולד הממוצע, יוצא המולד בניסן א' ב7:40 בערב.
שמעתי שויסנבערג תירץ את זה על ידי שהשקיעה הייתה ב6:14 ועוד הוא מוסיף עשרים דקות לראות את הלבנה, אבל עדיין נשארות חמישים דקות בלי הסבר.
דָּוִד אמר: התירוץ הוא, שאם היה מולד ממוצע אחד, זה היה קשה. אבל יש שנים,- יש המהירות הממוצעת של הלבנה סביב הגלגל הגדול. ויש מהירות של הלבנה סביב הטבעת הקטנה. בשביל שהלבנה קבועה בתוך הטבעת הקטנה, היא הולכת במהירות יתירה כשהיא הולכת בכיוון גלגל הגדול. והיא הולכת לאט כשהיא הולכת בכיוון להיפוך. אגב הרמב''ם כתב שהחישובים שלו הם רק השערות, שלמעשה המולד באותו יום היה ב5:57 בערב." אגבת נראה שהרמב''ם פוסק כמו רבינו תם בעניין שקיעה, שאם לא כן והוא מחזיק המולד בשבע וארבעים, אז זה ניסן ב'.אבל אם הרמב''ם מחזיק שמן השקיעה הראשונה עד הלילה תשעים דקות אז המולד חל בניסן א
I want to add that the Radvaz also has a teshuva [letter] saying that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam. I did not see his reasoning at the time but it might be what I have written here
לתרץ את קושיית של נוגנבוער על ברמב''ם קידוש החודש פרק י''א הלכה ט''ז הרמב''ם קובע ניסן ג' בשעה 18:00 כבסיס בשנת 1,178 והוא אומר שהשמש הממוצעת היה ב 7/3/32. אם הולכים בחזרה שני ימים מוצאים המולד האמצעי היה ניסן א' 6:23 בערב. אבל אם מסתכלים בפרק ו' איפה שהוא מסביר איך למצוא את המולד הממוצע, יוצא המולד בניסן א' ב7:40 בערב.
שמעתי שויסנבערג תירץ את זה על ידי שהשקיעה הייתה ב6:14 ועוד הוא מוסיף עשרים דקות לראות את הלבנה, אבל עדיין נשארות חמישים דקות בלי הסבר.
דָּוִד אמר: התירוץ הוא, שאם היה מולד ממוצע אחד, זה היה קשה. אבל יש שנים,- יש המהירות הממוצעת של הלבנה סביב הגלגל הגדול. ויש מהירות של הלבנה סביב הטבעת הקטנה. בשביל שהלבנה קבועה בתוך הטבעת הקטנה, היא הולכת במהירות יתירה כשהיא הולכת בכיוון גלגל הגדול. והיא הולכת לאט כשהיא הולכת בכיוון להיפוך. אגב הרמב''ם כתב שהחישובים שלו הם רק השערות, שלמעשה המולד באותו יום היה ב5:57 בערב." אגבת נראה שהרמב''ם פוסק כמו רבינו תם בעניין שקיעה, שאם לא כן והוא מחזיק המולד בשבע וארבעים, אז זה ניסן ב'.אבל אם הרמב''ם מחזיק שמן השקיעה הראשונה עד הלילה תשעים דקות אז המולד חל בניסן א
I want to add that the Radvaz also has a teshuva [letter] saying that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam. I did not see his reasoning at the time but it might be what I have written here
An answer for the Rambam
[Link to book on Shas] Link to book on Bava Metzia chs 8 and 9
For an introduction: There are 43 things one needs to brings a sin offering for, One is eating forbidden fat. If he ate a piece of fat and his wife comes in and asks, "Where is the forbidden fat I left on the table?" then he has to bring a sacrifice. If he ate one piece then another in one span and then knows about the first and brings a sacrifice, the second is included. If he ate two pieces and then remembers the first, and then eats a third and then brings a sacrifice on the first, the third is not included. "Knowings divide." In the way I explain the end of the Halacha; if he eats the first and second and remembers the first and then eats the third and remembers the second [so it is not all one span], then bringing on the second takes care of all three.
I wanted to answer a question in the Rambam laws of sacrifices for accidental sins. 6:11. My basic idea is this. He ate the first and second kezait (size of an olive) in one span of forgetfulness. Then he remembered the first one. And then ate a third kezait (size of an olive) in the same span of forgetfulness as the second one. [same as the beginning of that halacha]. But then (and this is the essential difference and the essential point.): At that point he remembered the second kezait. And he brings a sacrifice for the second Kezait (size of an olive).
The major difference in my new way is that he brings a sacrifice for the second Kezait not the first, and in that case the first and the third are included. The Rambam did spell this out clearly. And also is the important point that there are two knowings. The first knowing is after he ate the first two and then he knows about the first Kezait (not the second), So when then he eats the third the second and third are in one span of forgetting. But it is not all one span.
The way to think of this is where is the center of gravity? If one the acts of knowing then it is true the first and third are not in one span. But if the center of gravity is on the sacrifice then it is clear. He brings a sacrifice on the second-so you ask is the the kezait included? Yes, because it was in one span of forgetting with the second. Now you ask is the third included? You also have to answer yes, because it also was in one span of forgetting as the second. Therefore when he brings a sin offering for the second the first and third are both included.
[I forget who brought up the fact that this Rambam is hard to understand maybe it was the Beit Yoseph or maybe Rav Shach. We stumbled upon it when we were learning Rav Shach's Avi Ezri]
[In short the Rambam says he knows about the second. But that does not mean before he ate the third. That is the source of confusion.]
[I do not know why David Bronson did not answer the Rambam the way I just did, or even if he would accept it. ]
_________________________________________________________________________________
מבוא: יש ארבעים ושלשה סוגים של חטא שצריך להביא עליהם חטאת . חלב אחד מהם. אז הנה יש לנו מקרה שבו היה כזית חלב בתנור . בן אדם נכנס ואכל אותו. ואז אשתו נכנס ושאל, "איפה הוא כזית חלב ששם בתנור?" הוא צריך להביא חטאת. אם הוא אכל חתיכה אחת ואחר כך עוד אחת בפרק אחד ואז יודע על הראשונה הוא מביא קרבן, והשניה כלולה. אם הוא אכל שתי חתיכות ולאחר מכן זוכר את הראשונה ואז אוכל שלישית ואז מביא קרבן על הראשונה, השלישית אינה כלולה. ידיעה מחלקת. בדרך שאני מסביר סוף החוק: אם הוא אוכל את כזית הראשון והשני וזוכר את הראשון ואז אוכל את השלישי וזוכר את השני [כך שזה לא כל העלם אחד], אז מביא על השני ומתכפר על כל שלושתם .
רציתי לענות על שאלה בהלכות שגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו 'הלכה ט' והלכה י''א. הרעיון הבסיסי שלי היא כזאת. הוא אכל את כזית הראשונה ושנייה בפרק אחד של שכחה. ואז נזכר הראשון. ואז אכל כזית שלישית באותה התקופה של שיכחה של השנייה. זה אותו דבר כתחילת דין זה. אבל אז (וזה ההבדל המהותי ואת הנקודה החשובה.): בשלב זה נזכר בכזית השני. והוא מביא קרבן עבור השני. הראשון והשלישי כלולים. רמב''ם כתב את זה בבירור. הנקודה החשובה היא שיש שתי ידיעות. הידיעה הראשונה היא לאחר שאכל שני הראשונים ואז הוא יודע על כזית הראשון, ולא על השני. לכן, כאשר לאחר מכן הוא אוכל השלישי, השני והשלישי הם בפרק אחד של שיכחה. הדרך לחשוב על זה. איפה מרכז הכובד? אם מרכז הכובד הוא בידיעה, אז זה נכון שהראשון ושלישי אינם בפרק אחד. אבל אם מרכז הכובד הוא על הקרבה, אז ברור. הוא מביא קרבן על השני. אז אתה שואל "האם כזית הראשון כלול?" כן, כי זה היה בפרק אחד של שיכחה עם השני. עכשיו אתה שואל, "האם השלישי בכלל?" אתה גם צריך לענות "כן", כי זה גם היה בפרק אחד של שכחה כמו השני. לכן כאשר הוא מביא קורבן חטאת עבור השני הראשון והשלישי שניהם כלולים.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Here is what I had written about this subject beforehand and as you can see I tried to answer the questions on the Rambam and then my learning partner David Bronson showed that my answer then did not work. Now I am answering this question in a new way.
) הלכות שגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו' הלכה ט' והלכה י''א. אני מביא כאן שאלה על רמב''ם. אבל לפני כן אני מחויב לעבור את הנושא. מבוא. יש ארבעים ושלשה סוגים של חטא שצריך להביא עליהם חטאת . כלומר עז נקבה או כבשה. חטאת ניתן להביא רק לשוגג. אז הנה יש לנו מקרה שבו הייתה כזית חלב בתנור. בן אדם נכנס ואכל אותו. ואז אשתו נכנסה ושאלה, "איפה הוא כזית החלב ששמתי בתנור?" הוא צריך להביא חטאת. אם אוכל חתיכת החלב, הוא מביא חטאת. אם הוא אכל כזית ולאחר מכן ידע שהיה חלב, ואז אכל כזית נוספת ולאחר מכן ידע על השני שהיה חלב, יש לו להביא חטאת על כל חתיכה. לא רק זה, אלא אם היו שתי ידיעות, היינו שהוא אכל כזית חלב, ואכל עוד כזית חלב, ואז הוא ידע על כזית הראשון ואחרי כן ידע על כזית השני, הוא מביא שתי חטאות. אתה לא צריך שתהיינה הידיעות בין שני מעשים של אכילה. שבת דף ע''א וכן ברמב''ם הלכות שגגות פרק ו': הלכה ט'. כלומר הרמב''ם החליט כמו רבי יוחנן שידיעות מחלקות, לא כמו ריש לקיש שהקרבת הקורבן היא מחלקת. כפרות מחלקות.
אם הוא אכל שני כזיתים כאחד בהעלמה אחת, ולאחר מכן ידע על כזית הראשון. לאחר מכן, באותו פרק הזמן של שיכחת השני אכל כזית שלישי. כשהוא מביא חטאת לחתיכה הראשונה, הוא פוטר את הכזית השנייה. זה משגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו' הלכה י''א. כל זה מהרמב''ם שגגות ו:י''א הוא אוכל שני כזיתים של חלב בהעלמה אחת. ואז הוא יודע על כזית הראשון. לאחר מכן, באותו העלמה של כזית השני, הוא אוכל כזית שלישי. הידיעה מחלקת הראשון מן השלישי. הוא יידרש חטאת לכזית הראשון, והשני ייכלל גם אם הוא לא יודע על זה עדיין. אם במקום זאת הוא הביא לשלישי גם השני ייכלל. סוף ההלכה הוא זה: אם הוא נזכר בכזית השני, ומביא חטאת לזה, אז הראשון ושלישי יהיו כלולים, וכשהוא זוכר אותם הוא לא יידרש להקריב עוד. בטעות חשבתי להסביר את סוף הלכה י''א. חשבתי שהמקרה דומה לתחילת ההלכה אבל בהבדל אחד. הוא אכל כזית ראשון והשני, ואז נזכר בכזית השני, ולאחר מכן באותה העלמה של כזית הראשון אכל כזית השלישי. עכשיו הוא מביא חטאת לכזית השני. הראשון ושלישי מתכפרים לפי שהם היו באותה העלמה כשני, אבל זה לא אותו הדבר כמו העלמה אחת על כולם. בדרך שלי כזית הראשונה וכזית שלישי נמצאים בהעלמה אחת, וכי העובדה שלא היתה ידיעה שנייה עושה את כל זה העלמה אחת. בדרך זו היא לא מקרה טריוויאלי שכל השלושה כזיתים נאכלו בהעלם אחד. החטאת באה אחרי כזית השלישי נאכל, ואז כשהוא נזכר בכזית הראשון והשלישי הם ייכללו. המוטיבציה לגישה שלי היא העובדה שאם במקרה שבו יש רק שני כזיתים, והוא אוכל כזית ראשון וכזית שני בהעלם אחד, ולאחר מכן זכר כזית ראשון ומביא חטאת לכזית הראשון לבד, כזית השני כלול באופן אוטומטי משום שלא היתה ידיעה שנייה לכזית השני. אבל אם הוא ידע על כזית שני לפני החטאת, הוא יצטרך להביא עוד חטאת כי הידיעה השנייה עושה הפרד.
למחרת: אמרתי להחברותא שלי את הרעיון. אמרתי שכזית הראשון וכזית השני מחוברים. ולאחר מכן כזית שלישי וכזית ראשון מחוברים. לכן כזית שלישי מחובר לכזית שני באמצעות גשר דרך כזית הראשון.
הוא ציין כי זה לא יכול להיות נכון, כי אז זה יעבוד לתחילת ההלכה,הלכה י''א, כלומר, כאשר כזית הראשון וכזית השני היו בפרק אחד, ואז הוא נזכר בכזית הראשון ולאחר מכן אכל כזית שלישי באותה העלמה של כזית השני, במקרה שרק הראשון והשני מחוברים, וכשהוא מביא חטאת על הראשון, אז כזית השני מוכלל. אז ברור כזית השני לא יכול לגשר בין השלישי וראשון. אז כזית הראשון לא יכול לגשר בין השלישי והשני. וחוץ מזה הוא ציין כי הגמרא עצמה אומרת גררא אחת אמרינן, שתי גררות לא אמרינן. ויתר על כן זה שכל ישר. אם הוא אכל הראשון ואז נזכר בו ולאחר מכן אכל כזית שנייה, אז כזית השני הוא לא באותה העלמה. אז במקרה שלי גם. כשהוא נזכר כזית השני זה עושה כזית השני וכזית השלישי בהעלמות נפרדות.
________________________________________________________________
For an introduction: There are 43 things one needs to brings a sin offering for, One is eating forbidden fat. If he ate a piece of fat and his wife comes in and asks, "Where is the forbidden fat I left on the table?" then he has to bring a sacrifice. If he ate one piece then another in one span and then knows about the first and brings a sacrifice, the second is included. If he ate two pieces and then remembers the first, and then eats a third and then brings a sacrifice on the first, the third is not included. "Knowings divide." In the way I explain the end of the Halacha; if he eats the first and second and remembers the first and then eats the third and remembers the second [so it is not all one span], then bringing on the second takes care of all three.
I wanted to answer a question in the Rambam laws of sacrifices for accidental sins. 6:11. My basic idea is this. He ate the first and second kezait (size of an olive) in one span of forgetfulness. Then he remembered the first one. And then ate a third kezait (size of an olive) in the same span of forgetfulness as the second one. [same as the beginning of that halacha]. But then (and this is the essential difference and the essential point.): At that point he remembered the second kezait. And he brings a sacrifice for the second Kezait (size of an olive).
The major difference in my new way is that he brings a sacrifice for the second Kezait not the first, and in that case the first and the third are included. The Rambam did spell this out clearly. And also is the important point that there are two knowings. The first knowing is after he ate the first two and then he knows about the first Kezait (not the second), So when then he eats the third the second and third are in one span of forgetting. But it is not all one span.
The way to think of this is where is the center of gravity? If one the acts of knowing then it is true the first and third are not in one span. But if the center of gravity is on the sacrifice then it is clear. He brings a sacrifice on the second-so you ask is the the kezait included? Yes, because it was in one span of forgetting with the second. Now you ask is the third included? You also have to answer yes, because it also was in one span of forgetting as the second. Therefore when he brings a sin offering for the second the first and third are both included.
[I forget who brought up the fact that this Rambam is hard to understand maybe it was the Beit Yoseph or maybe Rav Shach. We stumbled upon it when we were learning Rav Shach's Avi Ezri]
[In short the Rambam says he knows about the second. But that does not mean before he ate the third. That is the source of confusion.]
[I do not know why David Bronson did not answer the Rambam the way I just did, or even if he would accept it. ]
_________________________________________________________________________________
מבוא: יש ארבעים ושלשה סוגים של חטא שצריך להביא עליהם חטאת . חלב אחד מהם. אז הנה יש לנו מקרה שבו היה כזית חלב בתנור . בן אדם נכנס ואכל אותו. ואז אשתו נכנס ושאל, "איפה הוא כזית חלב ששם בתנור?" הוא צריך להביא חטאת. אם הוא אכל חתיכה אחת ואחר כך עוד אחת בפרק אחד ואז יודע על הראשונה הוא מביא קרבן, והשניה כלולה. אם הוא אכל שתי חתיכות ולאחר מכן זוכר את הראשונה ואז אוכל שלישית ואז מביא קרבן על הראשונה, השלישית אינה כלולה. ידיעה מחלקת. בדרך שאני מסביר סוף החוק: אם הוא אוכל את כזית הראשון והשני וזוכר את הראשון ואז אוכל את השלישי וזוכר את השני [כך שזה לא כל העלם אחד], אז מביא על השני ומתכפר על כל שלושתם .
רציתי לענות על שאלה בהלכות שגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו 'הלכה ט' והלכה י''א. הרעיון הבסיסי שלי היא כזאת. הוא אכל את כזית הראשונה ושנייה בפרק אחד של שכחה. ואז נזכר הראשון. ואז אכל כזית שלישית באותה התקופה של שיכחה של השנייה. זה אותו דבר כתחילת דין זה. אבל אז (וזה ההבדל המהותי ואת הנקודה החשובה.): בשלב זה נזכר בכזית השני. והוא מביא קרבן עבור השני. הראשון והשלישי כלולים. רמב''ם כתב את זה בבירור. הנקודה החשובה היא שיש שתי ידיעות. הידיעה הראשונה היא לאחר שאכל שני הראשונים ואז הוא יודע על כזית הראשון, ולא על השני. לכן, כאשר לאחר מכן הוא אוכל השלישי, השני והשלישי הם בפרק אחד של שיכחה. הדרך לחשוב על זה. איפה מרכז הכובד? אם מרכז הכובד הוא בידיעה, אז זה נכון שהראשון ושלישי אינם בפרק אחד. אבל אם מרכז הכובד הוא על הקרבה, אז ברור. הוא מביא קרבן על השני. אז אתה שואל "האם כזית הראשון כלול?" כן, כי זה היה בפרק אחד של שיכחה עם השני. עכשיו אתה שואל, "האם השלישי בכלל?" אתה גם צריך לענות "כן", כי זה גם היה בפרק אחד של שכחה כמו השני. לכן כאשר הוא מביא קורבן חטאת עבור השני הראשון והשלישי שניהם כלולים.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Here is what I had written about this subject beforehand and as you can see I tried to answer the questions on the Rambam and then my learning partner David Bronson showed that my answer then did not work. Now I am answering this question in a new way.
) הלכות שגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו' הלכה ט' והלכה י''א. אני מביא כאן שאלה על רמב''ם. אבל לפני כן אני מחויב לעבור את הנושא. מבוא. יש ארבעים ושלשה סוגים של חטא שצריך להביא עליהם חטאת . כלומר עז נקבה או כבשה. חטאת ניתן להביא רק לשוגג. אז הנה יש לנו מקרה שבו הייתה כזית חלב בתנור. בן אדם נכנס ואכל אותו. ואז אשתו נכנסה ושאלה, "איפה הוא כזית החלב ששמתי בתנור?" הוא צריך להביא חטאת. אם אוכל חתיכת החלב, הוא מביא חטאת. אם הוא אכל כזית ולאחר מכן ידע שהיה חלב, ואז אכל כזית נוספת ולאחר מכן ידע על השני שהיה חלב, יש לו להביא חטאת על כל חתיכה. לא רק זה, אלא אם היו שתי ידיעות, היינו שהוא אכל כזית חלב, ואכל עוד כזית חלב, ואז הוא ידע על כזית הראשון ואחרי כן ידע על כזית השני, הוא מביא שתי חטאות. אתה לא צריך שתהיינה הידיעות בין שני מעשים של אכילה. שבת דף ע''א וכן ברמב''ם הלכות שגגות פרק ו': הלכה ט'. כלומר הרמב''ם החליט כמו רבי יוחנן שידיעות מחלקות, לא כמו ריש לקיש שהקרבת הקורבן היא מחלקת. כפרות מחלקות.
אם הוא אכל שני כזיתים כאחד בהעלמה אחת, ולאחר מכן ידע על כזית הראשון. לאחר מכן, באותו פרק הזמן של שיכחת השני אכל כזית שלישי. כשהוא מביא חטאת לחתיכה הראשונה, הוא פוטר את הכזית השנייה. זה משגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו' הלכה י''א. כל זה מהרמב''ם שגגות ו:י''א הוא אוכל שני כזיתים של חלב בהעלמה אחת. ואז הוא יודע על כזית הראשון. לאחר מכן, באותו העלמה של כזית השני, הוא אוכל כזית שלישי. הידיעה מחלקת הראשון מן השלישי. הוא יידרש חטאת לכזית הראשון, והשני ייכלל גם אם הוא לא יודע על זה עדיין. אם במקום זאת הוא הביא לשלישי גם השני ייכלל. סוף ההלכה הוא זה: אם הוא נזכר בכזית השני, ומביא חטאת לזה, אז הראשון ושלישי יהיו כלולים, וכשהוא זוכר אותם הוא לא יידרש להקריב עוד. בטעות חשבתי להסביר את סוף הלכה י''א. חשבתי שהמקרה דומה לתחילת ההלכה אבל בהבדל אחד. הוא אכל כזית ראשון והשני, ואז נזכר בכזית השני, ולאחר מכן באותה העלמה של כזית הראשון אכל כזית השלישי. עכשיו הוא מביא חטאת לכזית השני. הראשון ושלישי מתכפרים לפי שהם היו באותה העלמה כשני, אבל זה לא אותו הדבר כמו העלמה אחת על כולם. בדרך שלי כזית הראשונה וכזית שלישי נמצאים בהעלמה אחת, וכי העובדה שלא היתה ידיעה שנייה עושה את כל זה העלמה אחת. בדרך זו היא לא מקרה טריוויאלי שכל השלושה כזיתים נאכלו בהעלם אחד. החטאת באה אחרי כזית השלישי נאכל, ואז כשהוא נזכר בכזית הראשון והשלישי הם ייכללו. המוטיבציה לגישה שלי היא העובדה שאם במקרה שבו יש רק שני כזיתים, והוא אוכל כזית ראשון וכזית שני בהעלם אחד, ולאחר מכן זכר כזית ראשון ומביא חטאת לכזית הראשון לבד, כזית השני כלול באופן אוטומטי משום שלא היתה ידיעה שנייה לכזית השני. אבל אם הוא ידע על כזית שני לפני החטאת, הוא יצטרך להביא עוד חטאת כי הידיעה השנייה עושה הפרד.
למחרת: אמרתי להחברותא שלי את הרעיון. אמרתי שכזית הראשון וכזית השני מחוברים. ולאחר מכן כזית שלישי וכזית ראשון מחוברים. לכן כזית שלישי מחובר לכזית שני באמצעות גשר דרך כזית הראשון.
הוא ציין כי זה לא יכול להיות נכון, כי אז זה יעבוד לתחילת ההלכה,הלכה י''א, כלומר, כאשר כזית הראשון וכזית השני היו בפרק אחד, ואז הוא נזכר בכזית הראשון ולאחר מכן אכל כזית שלישי באותה העלמה של כזית השני, במקרה שרק הראשון והשני מחוברים, וכשהוא מביא חטאת על הראשון, אז כזית השני מוכלל. אז ברור כזית השני לא יכול לגשר בין השלישי וראשון. אז כזית הראשון לא יכול לגשר בין השלישי והשני. וחוץ מזה הוא ציין כי הגמרא עצמה אומרת גררא אחת אמרינן, שתי גררות לא אמרינן. ויתר על כן זה שכל ישר. אם הוא אכל הראשון ואז נזכר בו ולאחר מכן אכל כזית שנייה, אז כזית השני הוא לא באותה העלמה. אז במקרה שלי גם. כשהוא נזכר כזית השני זה עושה כזית השני וכזית השלישי בהעלמות נפרדות.
________________________________________________________________
The soft sciences I do not think are science at all but propaganda dressed in the clothing of science. But for the hard sciences, I do not think they contradict the Torah.
This all came about from the Enlightenment project of depriving kings and priests of their power and replacing them with scientists. It was inevitable at that point that once science gained the upper hand, there would be just as much abuse that had existed before in the priesthood, in kings and princes. Whoever wanted power could dress their illusions as science.
The best approach then, based on the (Rambam) Maimonides, is a balance between learning Torah and the true sciences-- Physics, Math, and STEM. The trouble however remains that the Enlightenment tried to address. Abuse of religion and politics. Abuse did not change its basic nature because it switched to science, and going back to religion does not change it ether. The Evil Inclination retains its power. As my brother put it: "people are people... are people."
The need for Guru
A lot of religious groups take advantage of the human need for a shaman, a holy man, a guru. The man that can play this role gets an amazing amount of benefits including the "Lift" of being adored by countless numbers of women much more than their own husbands. And the people that follow get the benefit of having a "Shaman" holy man. It matters little what religion involved because they all are trying to make profit by this human dynamic.
The first order of business of the Guru is the castrate all the other males--that is to make them into Beta Males where their wives listen to the shaman, guru or pastor; not their husbands.
And since being part of a group (a social super-organism) is central to all humans --and since the most effective and powerful super-organism is the one centered on the Alpha Male--one can not very well avoid this dynamic.
The best idea thus is to find the group that most accurately goes by objective morality. To my mind that is the Litvak Yeshiva [yeshiva based on the path of the Gra]. But that is really just based on my own positive experience in two of those kinds of places. Shar Yashuv and the Mir--both in NY. I admit other people may have had a worse experience, and I myself had some reason to think they are not all of equal quality after seeing many others besides those two in NY.
But I try to support any group that I see as doing good work and I see their vector is towards objective morality and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
The first order of business of the Guru is the castrate all the other males--that is to make them into Beta Males where their wives listen to the shaman, guru or pastor; not their husbands.
And since being part of a group (a social super-organism) is central to all humans --and since the most effective and powerful super-organism is the one centered on the Alpha Male--one can not very well avoid this dynamic.
The best idea thus is to find the group that most accurately goes by objective morality. To my mind that is the Litvak Yeshiva [yeshiva based on the path of the Gra]. But that is really just based on my own positive experience in two of those kinds of places. Shar Yashuv and the Mir--both in NY. I admit other people may have had a worse experience, and I myself had some reason to think they are not all of equal quality after seeing many others besides those two in NY.
But I try to support any group that I see as doing good work and I see their vector is towards objective morality and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
26.8.16
Trust that God will provide.
I see my level of trust has gotten so low that I need something to imbed trust in Hashem back into my soul. It did occur to me that some of the major tests that I have gone trough in life and that did not turn out well was because I did not have trust.
How to put this? Some of the best decisions I think I made were because I trusted in God and some of the worst decisions I made were based on lack of trust.
That to me means that this is an important issue for me. I mean it might be that it is a particular area that I need to work on.
In short, going to NY to a very good Lithuanian yeshiva, Shar Yashuv was at least based on some degree of trust that God would provide. That was in fact an important move because I highly doubt if I would ever have been “able to learn” without the few very crucial years I spent there and learned with the great Gaon, Naphtali Yegeer.
Later going to Israel also was based on a certain degree of trust that God would provide for my needs and the needs of my wife and children.
And leaving Israel was clearly based on a lack of trust.
So I am beginning to see this is an important issue.
Jesus said to keep the law of Moses
Jesus said one has to keep all the commandments of the Written and Oral Law.
["Not one word of the Law of Moses will ever be nullified." "The Pharisees sit on Moses seat. so all they say to do one must do."]
I was never able to see in the actions or words that are recorded in the name of Jesus anything but a call to keep the holy Torah, and avoid hypocrites. There is nothing to indicate otherwise to me.
But it occurred to me a few day ago why Christians do not see things in this way?
It depends on your starting point. If you start with Paul and the Book of Hebrews, and then work backwards towards the four gospels, then you can see how Christians take the words of Jesus and get them to fit into the worldview of Paul.
I feel that my approach is more accurate, but I can see why Christians see things differently based on their starting point.
As my brother put it, he (Jesus) is comparable to R. Shimon Ben Yohai. Same message same kind of expressions. (I was thinking more along the lines of R. Hanina Ben Dosa, the miracle worker, who also was highly misunderstood.) Maybe it makes sense to go into this in detail, but I am pretty sure I am not the first person to notice this. [Daniel Defoe also noted that Paul never said Jews need not keep the Law and he goes into great detail about that.]
I can't look anything up but perhaps I should write a drop off hand to make it clear what I mean.
(1) Heaven and Earth are still around therefore one has to keep all the Mitzvot, since "Heaven and earth will pass away but not one jot or title of the Law of Moses."
(2) Being the "son of Man" (as Jesus said he is) is not the same as being God.
(3) Nor is being the son of God the same as being God. The angels are called בני האלהים [children of God] in Job. In Genesis the בני האלהים "children of God came upon the daughters of man and gave birth." All the Jewish people are called the "children of God" in Exodus. They are called "בני בכורי" "my child, my first born" when Moses was telling Pharaoh to let them go. "Let my son, my first born Israel go!"
(4) Revival was a miracle done by the prophet Elisha in Kings and also Eliyahu the prophet and that does not indicate either Elisha or Eliyahu were God.
(5) When someone called Jesus, "good," he said, "Do not call me good. Only call God 'good.'"
(6) Contrary to the book of Hebrews, the Law of Moses is the life and the good. "These are the commandments that one should do and by doing so he will live"--Leviticus. "I place before you this day life and the good, and death and evil. Therefore choose life to walk in the commandments of God"-Deuteronomy.
The prophets end with "Remember the Law of Moses" Malachi.
The commandments do not sound like they temporary as long as one wants "the life and the good."
I should mention that in spite of all this people that make a show of keeping the commandments and expect to get paid for doing so as the ultra religious do are also not keeping the law of God and there is good reason to run from them.
(7) The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Law of God is a burden and bad thing. It could not be more clear even if he had wanted to be. That is in direct contradiction to everything it says in the Law of Moses about the Law being a good thing. And in contradiction to Jesus himself that the law will never pass away. Therefore you have to say that the approach of Jesus and that of the author of the book of Hebrews is not the same.--as long as words mean something.
(8) Mixing dirt and water on Shabat is subject to an argument among the rishonim. See the Rosh [Rabbainu Asher]. So there is no reason to think Jesus was violating the Shabat.
(9) Eating grains from attached sheaves on Shabat is not violating Shabat if the sheaves are ripe already are no longer getting sustenance from the ground.
(10) Swearing by the altar in the Holy Temple is an argument among the sages of the Mishna as brought in Tractate Nedarim and Jesus was going with the opinion of R. Yehuda. Not that he was disagreeing with the sages.
Or for beginners that do not know Hebrew what they could do is to get Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's Horev which gives a great introduction to the Torah.
The setback to all this is that the t groups that claim to be keeping the Law of Moses are all terrible cults, and it is not my intention for people to get involved in any of those horrific, demonic cults. For this reason I have tried to mention on this blog the importance of Litvak {Lithuanian}yeshivas based on the path of the Gra and Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and to avoid all the cults. Or to learn Torah at home.
Appendix:
I should mention:I grew up in John Birch society area. It was basically WASP and very nice. I kind of had a glimpse of Old American Values, and it was a really nice world. So I have a certain degree of respect for those kinds of values. But the values of Jesus and the Talmud are exactly the same, -only Paul comes out making a different religion.
Where do you see this in the Talmud? Mainly in books of Musar. The Talmud itself is not concerned with the larger issues of morals and compassion but with law. It was the later Musar books that condensed the basic world view of the Torah into simple forms that you can see this. The idea of compassion being central in Torah is clear in Musar and the sermon on the mount is mainly word for word what you find in Reshit Chachma at the end where is brought ancient teachings from the second Temple period.
So even though Christians have a great deal for respect for Jesus -and that is a good thing-still their interpretations of him seem to me to be very much contrary to everything that Jesus himself thought and said.
["Not one word of the Law of Moses will ever be nullified." "The Pharisees sit on Moses seat. so all they say to do one must do."]
I was never able to see in the actions or words that are recorded in the name of Jesus anything but a call to keep the holy Torah, and avoid hypocrites. There is nothing to indicate otherwise to me.
But it occurred to me a few day ago why Christians do not see things in this way?
It depends on your starting point. If you start with Paul and the Book of Hebrews, and then work backwards towards the four gospels, then you can see how Christians take the words of Jesus and get them to fit into the worldview of Paul.
I feel that my approach is more accurate, but I can see why Christians see things differently based on their starting point.
As my brother put it, he (Jesus) is comparable to R. Shimon Ben Yohai. Same message same kind of expressions. (I was thinking more along the lines of R. Hanina Ben Dosa, the miracle worker, who also was highly misunderstood.) Maybe it makes sense to go into this in detail, but I am pretty sure I am not the first person to notice this. [Daniel Defoe also noted that Paul never said Jews need not keep the Law and he goes into great detail about that.]
I can't look anything up but perhaps I should write a drop off hand to make it clear what I mean.
(1) Heaven and Earth are still around therefore one has to keep all the Mitzvot, since "Heaven and earth will pass away but not one jot or title of the Law of Moses."
(2) Being the "son of Man" (as Jesus said he is) is not the same as being God.
(3) Nor is being the son of God the same as being God. The angels are called בני האלהים [children of God] in Job. In Genesis the בני האלהים "children of God came upon the daughters of man and gave birth." All the Jewish people are called the "children of God" in Exodus. They are called "בני בכורי" "my child, my first born" when Moses was telling Pharaoh to let them go. "Let my son, my first born Israel go!"
(4) Revival was a miracle done by the prophet Elisha in Kings and also Eliyahu the prophet and that does not indicate either Elisha or Eliyahu were God.
(5) When someone called Jesus, "good," he said, "Do not call me good. Only call God 'good.'"
(6) Contrary to the book of Hebrews, the Law of Moses is the life and the good. "These are the commandments that one should do and by doing so he will live"--Leviticus. "I place before you this day life and the good, and death and evil. Therefore choose life to walk in the commandments of God"-Deuteronomy.
The prophets end with "Remember the Law of Moses" Malachi.
The commandments do not sound like they temporary as long as one wants "the life and the good."
I should mention that in spite of all this people that make a show of keeping the commandments and expect to get paid for doing so as the ultra religious do are also not keeping the law of God and there is good reason to run from them.
(7) The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Law of God is a burden and bad thing. It could not be more clear even if he had wanted to be. That is in direct contradiction to everything it says in the Law of Moses about the Law being a good thing. And in contradiction to Jesus himself that the law will never pass away. Therefore you have to say that the approach of Jesus and that of the author of the book of Hebrews is not the same.--as long as words mean something.
(8) Mixing dirt and water on Shabat is subject to an argument among the rishonim. See the Rosh [Rabbainu Asher]. So there is no reason to think Jesus was violating the Shabat.
(9) Eating grains from attached sheaves on Shabat is not violating Shabat if the sheaves are ripe already are no longer getting sustenance from the ground.
(10) Swearing by the altar in the Holy Temple is an argument among the sages of the Mishna as brought in Tractate Nedarim and Jesus was going with the opinion of R. Yehuda. Not that he was disagreeing with the sages.
These are merely a small sample of what occurs to me off hand about this. But you can already see where I am going with all this. Churchianity has nothing to do with Jesus. If one wants to follow Jesus he need to learn and keep the Law of Moses and the Oral commentary.
And just to lay my cards on the table what I am suggesting is for people to learn the whole written law in Hebrew {That is the Old Testament} word for word. Plus the Oral Law which also is very easy if you simply start at the beginning of Tractate Brachot and just say page after page as fast as possible until you have finished the two Talmuds the Sifra Sifri Mechilta Tora, Kohanim and the Midrash Raba and Midrash Tanchuma.(I personally prefer to do this kind of thing with Rashi and Tosphot but you do not have to. You can do instead just the simple basic oral law itself with no commentary if you want.)Or for beginners that do not know Hebrew what they could do is to get Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's Horev which gives a great introduction to the Torah.
The setback to all this is that the t groups that claim to be keeping the Law of Moses are all terrible cults, and it is not my intention for people to get involved in any of those horrific, demonic cults. For this reason I have tried to mention on this blog the importance of Litvak {Lithuanian}yeshivas based on the path of the Gra and Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and to avoid all the cults. Or to learn Torah at home.
Appendix:
So even though Christians have a great deal for respect for Jesus -and that is a good thing-still their interpretations of him seem to me to be very much contrary to everything that Jesus himself thought and said.
25.8.16
Mark Twain has an essay that is very favorable towards the Jewish people and his ideas are accurate as
per his time. But things nowadays seem different. As the world has changed so
the situation with Jewish people. My own impression about this kind of
thing is what Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, used to say:"Learn Torah."
That
is to say there are issues that sometimes I have some idea about. and other
times I don't. Lots of issues have arisen in my life in which clarity was
lacking. I have found the best advice is to learn Torah. The issues facing the
Jewish people today seem very different from the ones that people were asking
Mark Twain about.
On modern day issues, I have some clarity. He mentioned about
Dr Herzel in his characteristic ironic way. I am basically impressed with
Zionism and the State of Israel.
Today when Ultra-Religious people disparage the State of
Israel, I feel they are simply anti-Semites.
Mark Twain's ideas also relate to Jewish pride.
I have encountered that a lot, and it is hard to say much about it. Some people think
that being Jewish makes them morally superior or mentally superior. Maybe in
Mark Twain’s days, but nowadays that seems false.
But on the subject of
Jewish nationalism—the idea of nationalism is gaining nowadays momentum. That
means even people that are for a kind of renewal of American nationalism see
the kind of Jewish nationalism the State of Israel was built on is a good
thing.
I do not have strong
feelings about this. I feel what is important to a Jew is the Oral and Written
Law of God. Not Jewish identity.
Still the
idea (of nationalism) is not bad. Anti Zionism is a mistake that the entire
Religious community shares, but is mainly embodied in the writings of the Rav of
Satmer. I think he was a great man, but made a very serious error. And that
error has become a part of the Ultra Religious world—to be anti Zionist, or at least cold about the State of Israel.
My parents supported
the State of Israel.
Nationalism itself has support from Howard Bloom and Hegel. The group—the super
organism is certainly important to people.
But in what way I am not sure. In the Torah itself, keeping God’s laws
are what is important,-- not what group one belongs to.
Most yeshivas are part of the problem
Most yeshivas [but not all] are part of the problem, not the solution. They turn out kids barely wet behind the ears, who then expect to automatically be prepared to serve a congregation, or other people. Which they can’t. I’ve tried telling them this before, that serving God is not a career. You don’t go to school for it. They will not suffer to hear. Instead, I’m the problem.
There are however the great Litvak yeshivas that realize that learning Torah is not a supposed to be a business to make money from.
There are however the great Litvak yeshivas that realize that learning Torah is not a supposed to be a business to make money from.
The Guide of the Rambam
The Guide of the Rambam states that stars have knowledge. This is rather easy to understand based on Quantum Mechanics and the two slit experiment. The electron knows when there are two slits and when there is just one. So when there are two it acts as a wave and interferes with itself producing an interference pattern. When there is only one slit, it knows to reduce itself into a particle. Matter has Daat. This is easily explained with Neo Platonic thought.
The approach to marriage that seems best to me is the way that it basically worked for me. I put off going to university for some years and instead decided to go to a Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva. In yeshiva things were on the fast track to lead to marriage. Every week there was at least one "Vort." [announcement] I felt left out but from many indications the Rosh Yeshiva was planning on me for his son in law. So other offers were dried up. In the meantime I kept up a friendship with a girl I knew in Beverly Hills High school. I explained to her on the phone a few times what Torah is about and she got all excited about it, and started herself implying she was interested in a shiduch [marriage] with me. Eventually I took the second girl -the one from California. But marriage then was of a different nature than it is today. Though this is hard to explain. The basic idea is you have two people going into a relationship in which the rules and obligations are clear and accepted by them and by everyone around them.
This is very difficult to explain in a modern context.
I am not saying this is better or worse than Marriage in the modern world. But my point is that it is "Rule Based." where the rules are very well spelled out.
It is not just that you and your wife accept the rules of the Torah. It is that the whole world around you also does.
What are the rules? Mainly you have to spend about a year on each major tractate in Nashim [Mishna] to get an idea. That is one year on Ketubot, one year on Kidushin, another on Gittin, etc.
There is also I have to mention the invaluable Sidur of Yaakov Emden which has a part in it which goes into marriage in detail.
The main reason why I emphasis a Lithuanian yeshiva is that that is the kind of place where as a rule the Sitra Achra is excluded. That is they go mainly with the Gra and Rav Shach and keep out the Dark Side. I mean to say in the large context of the Religious world, the Sitra Achra is in control. (This is why people that become religious in general become bad people and lose whatever good character they may have had beforehand.) So in terms of those who try to keep Torah most are infected by the virus of the Sitra Achra without their being aware of it. So to get any benefit out of Torah in a way that one does not lose more by becoming an agent of the Dark Side, this is only possible in a Litvak environment.
[I should mention that Reb Nachman himself was very aware of this problem and warned about it. But the only group that got his point is the Na Nach people.]
This is very difficult to explain in a modern context.
I am not saying this is better or worse than Marriage in the modern world. But my point is that it is "Rule Based." where the rules are very well spelled out.
It is not just that you and your wife accept the rules of the Torah. It is that the whole world around you also does.
What are the rules? Mainly you have to spend about a year on each major tractate in Nashim [Mishna] to get an idea. That is one year on Ketubot, one year on Kidushin, another on Gittin, etc.
There is also I have to mention the invaluable Sidur of Yaakov Emden which has a part in it which goes into marriage in detail.
The main reason why I emphasis a Lithuanian yeshiva is that that is the kind of place where as a rule the Sitra Achra is excluded. That is they go mainly with the Gra and Rav Shach and keep out the Dark Side. I mean to say in the large context of the Religious world, the Sitra Achra is in control. (This is why people that become religious in general become bad people and lose whatever good character they may have had beforehand.) So in terms of those who try to keep Torah most are infected by the virus of the Sitra Achra without their being aware of it. So to get any benefit out of Torah in a way that one does not lose more by becoming an agent of the Dark Side, this is only possible in a Litvak environment.
[I should mention that Reb Nachman himself was very aware of this problem and warned about it. But the only group that got his point is the Na Nach people.]
The Rambam (Maimonides) has a V shaped approach to history.
The Rambam (Maimonides) has a V shaped approach to history. That is Adam Harishon [אדם הראשון] starts out on top and then falls with his descendants. Then starts the slow climb. The first step in the climb is objective morality. The Rambam says these were revealed to Avraham Avinu (אברהם אבינו Abraham the patriarch).Natural Law. This step he says is necessary for the next step -Matan Torah.Maimonides in part III chapter 34 of the Guide: concerning the Natural Law discovered by Avraham: "Indeed all things proceed from one deity and one agent and "have been given from one shepherd" (Prov. 30:12-13) ...In view of this consideration, it also will not be possible that the laws be dependent on changes in the circumstances of the individuals and of the times, as is the case with regard to medical treatment, which is particularized for every individual in conformity with his present temperament. On the contrary governance of the Law ought to be absolute and universal, including everyone..."The Rambam also gives reasons for the commandments. To him many of the commandments are to bring to natural law.
This seems like a contradiction. I noticed this before but the way I approach this is thus: There are two levels objective morality [that exists separately from the observer], and numinous value (luminous, holy value).Both exist in each command of the Torah. Not one kind of value in one command and another in a different command.
So in doing a command like learning Torah there is one aspect of value ones gains, but the higher level of value only comes with proper attitude. To learn "Torah Lishma," for its own sake and not for money.
So when we have the argument between rabbi shimon ben yochai and the sages about דורשין טעמא דקרא that means to r. shimon we go by the known reason for the command and when that does not apply then the command does not apply, and nor is there any higher reason of numinous value in such a case. But the sages say we are not דורשין טעמא דקרא meaning that though the reason for the command based on natural law does not apply still the numinous value still applies_______________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם has a ט shaped approach to history. That is אדם הראשון starts out on top and then falls with his descendants. Then starts the slow climb. The first step in the climb is objective morality. The רמב''ם says these were revealed to אברהם אבינו . Natural Law. This step he says is necessary for the next step מתן תורה.
The רמב''ם also gives reasons for the commandments. To him many of the commandments are to bring to natural law.
This seems like a contradiction. The way I approach this is thus. There are two levels objective morality , that exists separately from the observer, and luminous, holy value.
Both exist in each command of the Torah. Not one kind of value in one command and another in a different command.So in doing a command like learning Torah there is one aspect of value ones gains, but the higher level of value only comes with proper attitude. To learn "Torah Lishma," for its own sake and not for money.So when we have the argument between ר. שמעון בן יוחאי and the sages about דורשין טעמא דקרא that means to ר. שמעון בן יוחאי we go by the known reason for the command and when that does not apply then thecommand does not apply and nor is there any higher reason of numinous value in such a case. But the sages say we are not דורשין טעמא דקרא meaning that though the reason for the command based on natural law does not apply still the numinous value still applies
________________________________________________________________________________
לרמב''ם יש גישהלהיסטוריה בצורת ט. כלומר אדם הראשון מתחיל על גבי ההר ואז נופל עם צאצאיו לגבעה. ואז מתחיל בטיפוס האיטי. הצעד הראשון בטיפוס הוא נימוסי היוונים היינו העתיקה, ספרטה ואתונה. רמב''ם אומר אלה נגלו לאברהם אבינו. חוק הטבע. הרמב''ם אומר יש צורך לצעד הזה ;לשלב הבא של מתן תורה. הרמב''ם גם נותן טעמי המצוות. לו רבים מן המצוות הם להביא את לחוקי טבע. זה נראה כמו סתירה. הדרך שאני מתקרב לזה כך. ישנן שתי רמות. מטרה מוסרית, שקיים בנפרד מן הצופה, וערך זורח, ערך קדוש. שניהם קיימות בכל פקודה של התורה. לא שיש סוג אחד של ערך בפקודה אחת, ואחת בפקודה שונה. אז לעשות פקודה כמו ללמוד תורה יש עליות מוסרית, אבל הרמה הגבוהה יותר של הערך מגיעה רק עם גישה נכונה היינו ללמוד "תורה לשמה" לשמה ולא עבור כסף. עכשיו יש לנו את הויכוח בין ר. שמעון בן יוחאי והחכמים על דורשין טעמא דקרא. זה אומר ר. שמעון בן יוחאי הולכים לפי הסיבה הידועה עבור הפקודה, וכשזה אינו חל אז הפקודה אינה חלה. ;והסיבה הגבוהה של המצווה אינה שייכת במצב כזה. אך החז"ל אומרים שאנחנו לא דורשין טעמא דקרא, כלומר אם הסיבה הפקודה המבוססת על חוקי טבע אינה חלה, עדיין הערך הגבוה עדיין חל.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)