14.9.16
learning fast
1) Along with the idea you find in Chazal [the sages] of learning fast you could add the idea of finishing Shas and the entire Oral Law the work of Creation and מעשה בראשית מעשה מרכבה.
2) The way the Rambam understands these last to they refer to the Physics (eight books) and Metaphysics (14 books) of Aristotle.
3) The way the Rambam understood the Oral Law was such that he considered the entire Oral law to be contained in his major work the Mishne Torah. Thus the basic program of the Rambam would be easily done by going through this small set: Physics, Metaphysics, and Mishne Torah.
4) Though this is commendable, I would like to make a slight modification of this program of the Rambam. That is I think the actual Oral Law really ought to be learned in its entirety -that is the actual books that contained the Oral Law as known to the Chazal [Sages] -- (The Two Talmuds, with the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada.) Plus I think Physics has gone a bit further since the days of Aristotle. There is no exact set, but I think one should at least get through Relativity, QM, Field Theory, String Theory. Abstract Algebra, and Algebraic Topology.
5) This might sound like a lot but it is not at all hard if one follows the program set by the Chazal, לעלם לגרס איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע נאי קאמר= "Say the words in order and go on."
6] Review I do like this. I finish ch 1., then I go back to review from the end to the beginning. Then I do ch 2. Then I go back and review ch 2 and ch 1. etc . The review I usually do thus. Let's say ch 2 is divided into 10 subsections. Then I do 2.10, and then 2,9 then 2.8 etc. That means by the time I get to chapter 10 I have don ch. 1 a lot of times. But not ever subject requires this. You need to see which subject can just go straight with and which ones require more review. It is highly individual.
2) The way the Rambam understands these last to they refer to the Physics (eight books) and Metaphysics (14 books) of Aristotle.
3) The way the Rambam understood the Oral Law was such that he considered the entire Oral law to be contained in his major work the Mishne Torah. Thus the basic program of the Rambam would be easily done by going through this small set: Physics, Metaphysics, and Mishne Torah.
4) Though this is commendable, I would like to make a slight modification of this program of the Rambam. That is I think the actual Oral Law really ought to be learned in its entirety -that is the actual books that contained the Oral Law as known to the Chazal [Sages] -- (The Two Talmuds, with the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada.) Plus I think Physics has gone a bit further since the days of Aristotle. There is no exact set, but I think one should at least get through Relativity, QM, Field Theory, String Theory. Abstract Algebra, and Algebraic Topology.
5) This might sound like a lot but it is not at all hard if one follows the program set by the Chazal, לעלם לגרס איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע נאי קאמר= "Say the words in order and go on."
6] Review I do like this. I finish ch 1., then I go back to review from the end to the beginning. Then I do ch 2. Then I go back and review ch 2 and ch 1. etc . The review I usually do thus. Let's say ch 2 is divided into 10 subsections. Then I do 2.10, and then 2,9 then 2.8 etc. That means by the time I get to chapter 10 I have don ch. 1 a lot of times. But not ever subject requires this. You need to see which subject can just go straight with and which ones require more review. It is highly individual.
Several wives.If something is not forbidden then why say it is? You want to be more strict than Moses?
Not everyone with several wives in the Bible had trouble. With Jacob there was some trouble, but overall I think he did pretty well. King David’s son Solomon came from Bat Sheva who was not David’s first or only wife. Caleb Ben Yefuna had a few wives and few girls friend simultaneously and the Bible says about him the most unique phrase it uses anywhere וימלא אחרי השם He walked totally with God. “Totally” here means “completely,” or 100%.
[Nature abhors a vacuum. I see this a lot. People don't like the Law of Moses so they make up their own prohibitions, and ignore things that are clearly forbidden in the Law of God.]
The general way to understand the Law of Moses is thus: There are things that are forbidden. These always come with the words, "Thou shalt not do such and such." There are things one must do. They always come with the words, "Thou shalt do such and such." Then there are things that are neither forbidden nor obligated. They might be good to do but they are not obligated. There might be things that are not prudent, but they are not forbidden.
Christians try to argue that two wives is not prudent and therefore must be forbidden. However that does not follow. Also the entire existence of the Jewish people is the result of Jacob having four wives. Plus Caleb Ben Yefuna is not a minor figure in the Bible. He is well known as the friend of Joshua and the fact that he had a few wives and girl friends is not ignoble.
I am simply trying to make a difference between what the Law of Moses forbids and that which it does not forbid. The cases of multiple wives that I know about are usually quite happy. The women are attached to some Alpha Male and are willing to put up with anything in order to be with him. And I never saw anything to indicate that the children were worse off. But people that are more familiar with Mormons might have different observations--I admit.
13.9.16
I do not think the world of the religious has anything to do with Torah. There seems to be no judgment that they pass on others that corresponds to common sense or human decency.
There was a time when Torah scholars were esteemed to be the very pattern of nobility. Nowadays religious teachers always decide and judge cases brought before them unjustly, and their judgment can nor be hidden for they are well known and public. Mankind has become indignant at their strange and disgraceful sentences which they pass on good and decent men.
Malice for the Reform and Conservative Jews and contempt for baali teshuva [newly religious] is the major factor in their considerations. Not Torah. It is the rule of the lowest IQ and highest malice towards all.
[There are blogs that are devoted towards critique on the religious world. Their critiques seem true to me, but I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of Torah, But I stay away from the religious because it seems to me they ruin everything they get their hands on, e.g. marriages, families, etc. Who has not heard the horror stories? I bet you most of them are true. I have seen this myself and the stories people tell about what religious teachers did to them always seem to be understated. The facts if you now them up close always seem much worse than what is reported because balali teshiva are always afraid of saying Lashon Hara [slander] so they understate what was one to them.
[I do not think the world of the religious has anything to do with Torah. As far as I can see it is all one big scam. And to the extent of what we see as a long trail of broken families and broken lives and broken marriages the guilt of the religious is a real, dark, and formidable guilt.]
There seems to be no judgment that they pass on others that corresponds to common sense or human decency. They depend on the idea that their judgement will be forgotten or ignored by the rest of mankind. Every marriage they ruin, every family they destroy they figure will be forgotten in time so they can retain their noble reputation.
One consideration is perhaps they are not qualified? This could be true, but to my thinking the problem is deeper. [I mean to say most of the problems comes from religious teachers that have not been in authentic Litvak yeshivas like Ponovicth, Brisk , or the Mir in NY. After all you never hear stories of bad teachers from Europe where to be a religious teacher one really need to have the actual qualifications of having been in an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva and to have excelled.
Still I have to admit I rarely [if ever] saw anything good come from religious teachers. And nothing they said or did seemed to have any connection with the Holy Torah.
In any case, what some people do in such cases is to get cool about the Holy Torah. But it is my impression that the better course of action would be to be stronger and better in Torah and never to have any rabbi who does not come from a legitimate Litvak Yeshiva.
Individualism
Individualism seems to be a debate between Kant and Hegel. In Communist Russia, Individualism was considered as bad as capitalism. This seems like an important issue because my basic approach is to side with Kant but I admit some validity to Hegel.
Individualism is seen by religious and totalitarian people as being the height of evil.
I think that Kant was basically an individualist. That would be the natural conclusion of his idea of the "self" which to him is quite individual. I mean to say that to Kant the "self" is in the category of the dinge an sich. That is the basic idea of his idea of aperception. That was the basis of his Transcendental deduction. I mean that we perceive our own self in a way that is not any different than how we perceive external reality. This is perhaps the most important part of Kant. And it certainly goes in the direction of self autonomy. The only person that I know of who offers argument otherwise is Hegel.
Individualism is seen by religious and totalitarian people as being the height of evil.
I think that Kant was basically an individualist. That would be the natural conclusion of his idea of the "self" which to him is quite individual. I mean to say that to Kant the "self" is in the category of the dinge an sich. That is the basic idea of his idea of aperception. That was the basis of his Transcendental deduction. I mean that we perceive our own self in a way that is not any different than how we perceive external reality. This is perhaps the most important part of Kant. And it certainly goes in the direction of self autonomy. The only person that I know of who offers argument otherwise is Hegel.
12.9.16
After Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden there were placed angels with swords to guard the path back.
I like to concentrate on my major sins. That is things that I am aware of that seem to have caused bad things in my life.
I figure that there are a lot of requirements in the Torah, but there seems to be a level of responsibility about certain areas.
For example honor of one's parents. If one person has great parents does that imply more responsibility than if than if they were bad parents? At least, based on the book the Obligations of the Heart [חובות לבבות] it would seem so. And for me this seems to be a pattern. It is almost as if God gives me some kind of taste of real excellence, and then waits to see if I walk away from it.
That certainly happened with my parents. It also happened with Israel, and also with a kind of numinous energy that I felt in Israel. And last but not least it happened with learning Torah.
But going back to any of these things seems impossible. There seems to be a kind of energy that prevents one from going back to some state of excellence once he has walked away from it. [Like we see in the Bible that after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden there were placed angels with swords to guard the path back].
But I did see in three books of Musar a possible correction. The Obligations of the Heart, Reb Israel Salanter and Joseph Yosel Horvitz of Navardok all claim that even if one has sinned to the degree of leading others astray there is a correction. That is to lead people back to the right path.
But that seems to me to be easier said than done. For example I have a hard time advocating any yeshiva--even the great one's like Ponovitch--just because I know they are human institutions with all the drawbacks that go along with that. And honor of parents? This is just as hard to recommend since no everyone has as great a set of parents as I had. Same with learning Torah. Same with Israel.
The best I can think of is to simply try and keep Torah as best I can according to my own situation. But to imagine I can point to some ideal path seems impossible. "כל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה all paths are dangerous." It is just that certain paths are more dangerous than others,
There were a few bits of wisdom that I picked up from my yeshiva years, and from my parents.
One thing I got in Shar Yashuv was this idea: Finish Shas. [That is get through the Oral and Written Law.]
Another there were to things I picked up from Reb Shmuel Berenabum [The Mir Rosh Yeshiva in NY], 1) Learn Torah. 2) Don't speak slander (Lashon Hara.)
From my parents I gained a great respect for Torah and for the learning of Physics and Math and for classical Music and for the value of self sufficiency.
I should give credit to David Bronson my learning partner for the two books on Shas and Bava Metzia. I was so disgusted with with the religious world [and still am] that I could not even bear the thought of opening up a Gemara until David suggested that we learn Gemara together. Also I would not have been able to learn without his help. He was able to find the questions and interesting points in Tosphot that I would normally just skip over. Still, if I mention an answer to a question then that means I myself answered it unless I say specifically that David answered it.
I have respect for great roshei yeshiva like Rav Shach and try to make a distinction between heads of legitimate yeshivas and fakers and frauds. But the difference can be hard to tell since the frauds also like to claim authenticity.]
I figure that there are a lot of requirements in the Torah, but there seems to be a level of responsibility about certain areas.
For example honor of one's parents. If one person has great parents does that imply more responsibility than if than if they were bad parents? At least, based on the book the Obligations of the Heart [חובות לבבות] it would seem so. And for me this seems to be a pattern. It is almost as if God gives me some kind of taste of real excellence, and then waits to see if I walk away from it.
That certainly happened with my parents. It also happened with Israel, and also with a kind of numinous energy that I felt in Israel. And last but not least it happened with learning Torah.
But going back to any of these things seems impossible. There seems to be a kind of energy that prevents one from going back to some state of excellence once he has walked away from it. [Like we see in the Bible that after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden there were placed angels with swords to guard the path back].
But I did see in three books of Musar a possible correction. The Obligations of the Heart, Reb Israel Salanter and Joseph Yosel Horvitz of Navardok all claim that even if one has sinned to the degree of leading others astray there is a correction. That is to lead people back to the right path.
But that seems to me to be easier said than done. For example I have a hard time advocating any yeshiva--even the great one's like Ponovitch--just because I know they are human institutions with all the drawbacks that go along with that. And honor of parents? This is just as hard to recommend since no everyone has as great a set of parents as I had. Same with learning Torah. Same with Israel.
The best I can think of is to simply try and keep Torah as best I can according to my own situation. But to imagine I can point to some ideal path seems impossible. "כל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה all paths are dangerous." It is just that certain paths are more dangerous than others,
There were a few bits of wisdom that I picked up from my yeshiva years, and from my parents.
One thing I got in Shar Yashuv was this idea: Finish Shas. [That is get through the Oral and Written Law.]
Another there were to things I picked up from Reb Shmuel Berenabum [The Mir Rosh Yeshiva in NY], 1) Learn Torah. 2) Don't speak slander (Lashon Hara.)
From my parents I gained a great respect for Torah and for the learning of Physics and Math and for classical Music and for the value of self sufficiency.
I should give credit to David Bronson my learning partner for the two books on Shas and Bava Metzia. I was so disgusted with with the religious world [and still am] that I could not even bear the thought of opening up a Gemara until David suggested that we learn Gemara together. Also I would not have been able to learn without his help. He was able to find the questions and interesting points in Tosphot that I would normally just skip over. Still, if I mention an answer to a question then that means I myself answered it unless I say specifically that David answered it.
I have respect for great roshei yeshiva like Rav Shach and try to make a distinction between heads of legitimate yeshivas and fakers and frauds. But the difference can be hard to tell since the frauds also like to claim authenticity.]
Is a girl friend permitted?
The whole issue of having a girl friend or in the language of the Bible פילגש I have noticed that a lot of people are not aware of. This comes up mainly in Chronicles 2:46 with the friend of Joshua כלב בן יפונה. I have mentioned before that Calev Ben Yefuna was the only person in the Bible that it says the amazing phrase: "וימלא אחרי השם" ["He went totally after God"].
The basic outline of the subject you can easily see in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
The Rambam it is known is against this, and allows a girl friend only to a king. The Gra pointed out that that can't work in the case of Calev Ben Yefuna. [who had many girl friends but was not a king.] But the Gra has a different explanation of the whole thing. He says a פלגש is with kidushin but without a ketubah according to one opinion in the gemara. The other opinion is she iwithout either. The חלקת מחוקק and בית שמואל point out that even to the Rambam, a girl friend is only an אסור עשה that is a prohibition that is derived from the lack of doing something--that is making kidushin. [I can not answer for how the Rambam might have explained כלב בן יפונה.]
That is to say it is not that same thing as זנות which is a לאו a straight forward prohibition.
In any case, on the side of permission, we have at least the Raavad and the Ramban, and some say the Rosh also. The reason is the Rosh only mentions the problem of she might be embarrassed to go to the mikveh. People like the Radvaz and later achronim went through the trouble to find how many rishonim allow it, and as far as I know there is no doubt that the majority of Rishonim allow it.
This really would not even need to be necessary to mention except for the fact that I have heard people confuse this with adultery,-- which it is clearly not. This opinion I imagine can only have originated with people that can't read Hebrew. Adultery is a totally different story. It is an act of sex with a married woman. It has nothing to do with a girl friend. Thus a man can have many wives, but a wife can not have two husbands since each act of sex would be an act of adultery which gets the death penalty as we see in Leviticus 20
11.9.16
Trump stands for traditional values.
In terms of the American elections. Trump stands for traditional moral values and Hillary stands for socialism and as far as I am concerned that is unjust and that settles the issue.
There is not a way to learn one page of Gemara and come away with any kind of socialism. Theft is theft.
This however does not answer the the problem of abuse of power which seems to be the motivating factor for socialists that are sincere.
Another point is that during the 1800's and early 1900's that most promising and convincing doctrine was that of Socialism, so it was natural for people to be convinced by the arguments. What is different today is that Socialism is not longer believable.
You could see this towards the end of the USSR when the books of Marx would sit in bookstores with thick layers of dust over them. No one that actually lived in a socialist society had any confidence that that system was just in any sense.
This does however open new horizons. If we consider that the major motivating factor for socialism was "Leshem Shamayim"--for the sake of Heaven and that what was wrong was simply that it does not reflect reality then is there a better system? If we look at all the alternatives that people came up with it seems to me that while no system is perfect, I still think the basic approach of the Constitution of the USA is about the best thing out there as far as the structuring of a moral decent society--as long as there is a Torah ethics that underlies it.
I think it makes some sense to go into some detail about what I mean here. I see Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. as mainly trying to come up with alternatives to Torah Ethics. The reason was abuses that were part of European society. So it was natural to try to come up with alternatives. This same motivation is what lies at the core of people that go along with these systems. That is judge on the scales of merit. You do not need to assume the underlying motivation of the socialism is hatred of the rich and the desire to find a rational in order to take away from them their money.
So I try to defend the Law of Moses as being the best system [that is the Oral and Written Law] and instead of ignoring the abuses I try to find ways of correcting the abuses --instead of throwing out the whole system as some people want to do.
I just do not think any kind of Marxism is very good. I think it is inherently violent. Oleg Penkovsky revealed that Krushev was actually planning on raining down a barrage of nuclear missiles on the USA until a strong reaction from Kennedy stopped him.
[It was by the U-2 and Penkovsky that the SS-4 was identified and then the S-5]
The Ultra Religious approach also seems very problematic. My feeling is the best thing is the Litvak Yeshiva approach which is basically an emphasis on moral values and learning Torah together. They might not put it in that way but that is in fact how it comes out.
There is not a way to learn one page of Gemara and come away with any kind of socialism. Theft is theft.
This however does not answer the the problem of abuse of power which seems to be the motivating factor for socialists that are sincere.
Another point is that during the 1800's and early 1900's that most promising and convincing doctrine was that of Socialism, so it was natural for people to be convinced by the arguments. What is different today is that Socialism is not longer believable.
You could see this towards the end of the USSR when the books of Marx would sit in bookstores with thick layers of dust over them. No one that actually lived in a socialist society had any confidence that that system was just in any sense.
This does however open new horizons. If we consider that the major motivating factor for socialism was "Leshem Shamayim"--for the sake of Heaven and that what was wrong was simply that it does not reflect reality then is there a better system? If we look at all the alternatives that people came up with it seems to me that while no system is perfect, I still think the basic approach of the Constitution of the USA is about the best thing out there as far as the structuring of a moral decent society--as long as there is a Torah ethics that underlies it.
I think it makes some sense to go into some detail about what I mean here. I see Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. as mainly trying to come up with alternatives to Torah Ethics. The reason was abuses that were part of European society. So it was natural to try to come up with alternatives. This same motivation is what lies at the core of people that go along with these systems. That is judge on the scales of merit. You do not need to assume the underlying motivation of the socialism is hatred of the rich and the desire to find a rational in order to take away from them their money.
So I try to defend the Law of Moses as being the best system [that is the Oral and Written Law] and instead of ignoring the abuses I try to find ways of correcting the abuses --instead of throwing out the whole system as some people want to do.
I just do not think any kind of Marxism is very good. I think it is inherently violent. Oleg Penkovsky revealed that Krushev was actually planning on raining down a barrage of nuclear missiles on the USA until a strong reaction from Kennedy stopped him.
[It was by the U-2 and Penkovsky that the SS-4 was identified and then the S-5]
The Ultra Religious approach also seems very problematic. My feeling is the best thing is the Litvak Yeshiva approach which is basically an emphasis on moral values and learning Torah together. They might not put it in that way but that is in fact how it comes out.
a proof that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam
There seems to be a proof that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam in terms of the beginning of the night.It occurs to me that the Radvaz also says the same thing and brings a proof of this idea in his Teshuvot volume 4 chapter 282 I think also from what the Rambam wrote in laws of קידוש החודש
But this is my proof of this idea also from הלכות קידוש החודש
This I think is not an exact proof but simply something which points in this direction because of the obvious reason that Rosh Hodesh to the Rambam is dependent on the later calculations that are done today which come from the calendar of Meton.
I would be surprised if the Radvaz uses the same proof that I brought here. Rather it is probable that he found some other proof. That would be this is most likely to be stadard in בלכות קידוש החודש
) 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'.
The actual idea on Rabbainu Tam is this other thing I wrote elsewhere:
) בענין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. קשה להבין את הגר''א. אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות כוכב בינוני אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות.
זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב בינוני אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה "בינוני". ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים בינוניים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא יוצאים כוכבים בינוניים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.
תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם אמרו שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה. רב נטרונאי גאון אוחז בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון אוחז בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד'). אני חושב ההלכה כמו רבינו תם. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את שיטת הגר''א בקושי.
הגם שאני חושב הלכה כר''ת עדיין אני רוצה לתת תירוץ אפשרי לגר''א: החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים בינוניים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שאוחז בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שכל הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיועה לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים בינונים רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את הלילה.
But this is my proof of this idea also from הלכות קידוש החודש
This I think is not an exact proof but simply something which points in this direction because of the obvious reason that Rosh Hodesh to the Rambam is dependent on the later calculations that are done today which come from the calendar of Meton.
I would be surprised if the Radvaz uses the same proof that I brought here. Rather it is probable that he found some other proof. That would be this is most likely to be stadard in בלכות קידוש החודש
) 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'.
The actual idea on Rabbainu Tam is this other thing I wrote elsewhere:
) בענין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. קשה להבין את הגר''א. אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות כוכב בינוני אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות.
זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב בינוני אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה "בינוני". ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים בינוניים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא יוצאים כוכבים בינוניים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.
תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם אמרו שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה. רב נטרונאי גאון אוחז בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון אוחז בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד'). אני חושב ההלכה כמו רבינו תם. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את שיטת הגר''א בקושי.
הגם שאני חושב הלכה כר''ת עדיין אני רוצה לתת תירוץ אפשרי לגר''א: החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים בינוניים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שאוחז בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שכל הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיועה לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים בינונים רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את הלילה.
10.9.16
9.9.16
Gra made his decision to sign the excommunication
The Gra made his decision to sign the excommunication. No compromises. I have already shown many times the problems that the Gra must have seen and I can not believe that people do not still see these same things. You do not need to look into history to see what that Gra felt was wrong. You can see it today.
It is strange they everyone thinks they are smarter than the Gra. Compromise with evil can not result in anything good.
The main trouble seems to be idol worship of their leaders. But the basic belief structure comes from the Shatz which also is a problem. But what ever the reason once you accept that the Gra had the halachic authority to make an excommunication then it in itself has halachic validity no matter if you agree with the reasons or not.
The trouble is there is no spark. No one seems outraged at the constant incessant trail of abuses. They figure as long at it does not hurt them directly, "Why get involved?" And when the abuse finally gets around to them then no one else wants to listen to their tale of woes.
And the further trouble is few people really can uphold the path of the Gra and Rav Shach and Reb Israel Salanter including me. For I have my own set of obligations including honor of my parents which mean I can not stand for the Torah alone approach. [My parents were clear about Torah with a Vocation.]
[Or perhaps it could be said that Rav Zilverman in the old city of Jerusalem in what could be called a yeshiva based on the path of the Gra is following that path faithfully. Also the Lithuanian Musar yeshivas to some degree seem to be adhering somewhat closely to the authentic path of Torah though they do ignore the signature of the Gra on that excommunication. This means the exact problems the Gra meant to avoid entered into the Litvak yeshiva world. The effects of ignoring the Gra are apparent.
For some reason in Israel in fact by a lot of Litvaks it seems to me that this subject of the cherem is taken more seriously than in the USA. I noted this a few time by Rav Shlanger the Mashgiach of Porat Yoseph in talking with his older married sons. [That is the father in law of Eliyahu Zilverman.]
And I have heard that a good number of places have spouted up based on the Gra's approach. [So when you see someone walking around with tefilin on that does not mean they are a part of Rav Zilverman's yeshiva. There are from what I have heard many other places that started up in the meantime that also take the Gra seriously.]
The major reason I think the Gra signed the Cherem was that he considered the whole business to be a scam of the Sitra Achra. --a way to penetrate the world of Torah.
It is strange they everyone thinks they are smarter than the Gra. Compromise with evil can not result in anything good.
The main trouble seems to be idol worship of their leaders. But the basic belief structure comes from the Shatz which also is a problem. But what ever the reason once you accept that the Gra had the halachic authority to make an excommunication then it in itself has halachic validity no matter if you agree with the reasons or not.
The trouble is there is no spark. No one seems outraged at the constant incessant trail of abuses. They figure as long at it does not hurt them directly, "Why get involved?" And when the abuse finally gets around to them then no one else wants to listen to their tale of woes.
And the further trouble is few people really can uphold the path of the Gra and Rav Shach and Reb Israel Salanter including me. For I have my own set of obligations including honor of my parents which mean I can not stand for the Torah alone approach. [My parents were clear about Torah with a Vocation.]
[Or perhaps it could be said that Rav Zilverman in the old city of Jerusalem in what could be called a yeshiva based on the path of the Gra is following that path faithfully. Also the Lithuanian Musar yeshivas to some degree seem to be adhering somewhat closely to the authentic path of Torah though they do ignore the signature of the Gra on that excommunication. This means the exact problems the Gra meant to avoid entered into the Litvak yeshiva world. The effects of ignoring the Gra are apparent.
For some reason in Israel in fact by a lot of Litvaks it seems to me that this subject of the cherem is taken more seriously than in the USA. I noted this a few time by Rav Shlanger the Mashgiach of Porat Yoseph in talking with his older married sons. [That is the father in law of Eliyahu Zilverman.]
And I have heard that a good number of places have spouted up based on the Gra's approach. [So when you see someone walking around with tefilin on that does not mean they are a part of Rav Zilverman's yeshiva. There are from what I have heard many other places that started up in the meantime that also take the Gra seriously.]
The major reason I think the Gra signed the Cherem was that he considered the whole business to be a scam of the Sitra Achra. --a way to penetrate the world of Torah.
The after blessing
בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא להחיות בהן נפש כל חי ברוך אתה השם חי העולמים
חי is with a Tzerei
נפש is feminine. Therefore the endings have to fit. Not "בהם" and not "וחסרונם."
And there is no such thing as a bracha that simply ends baruch etc without a name of Hashem as the Gra noted. Then the end has to be like the Yerushalmi.
חי is with a Tzerei
נפש is feminine. Therefore the endings have to fit. Not "בהם" and not "וחסרונם."
And there is no such thing as a bracha that simply ends baruch etc without a name of Hashem as the Gra noted. Then the end has to be like the Yerushalmi.
Computer models
Avraham: Computer models are only as good as the assumptions they are built on which are often wrong, and often leave out external factors which are more important, and they depend on expansions which miss infinities.
For example see this lecture by Arthur Mattuck concerning y'=y^2. What ever the computer does it will not find the singularity.
{I should mention that all I really know about computer modeling is based on a few books, one was Numerical analysis that dealt in detail with the Runge Kutta method that I read through about four times I think.But the books that deal with how to program computers do not usually deal with the above mentioned problem by Arthur Mattuck that the computer can be mislead when trying to graph a ODE.]
In fact come to think of it, I do not think I ever saw any book on computer modeling that mentions this problem.
Reference Frame:
But they are also often - and maybe predominantly - demonstrably right, accurate, if not downright ingenious, and - especially - more accurate than predictions made without any models. This is an essential point that you, like O'Neill, try to obscure.
I didn't understand what this topic has to do with "infinities".
Avraham:
I meant the Taylor expansions or Numerical method. The computer will miss infinities as you go from point to close point unless by accident the computer happens to land on the infinity itself. So all I am saying is that when the computer shows a nice smooth line the reality might be that between those two points the graph goes to infinity. That is is all I meant.
In relation to this I think Catastrophe theory might be able to dig up those infinities, but I am not sure about that.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Computer models are used everywhere and are used to defend crazy stuff. Sometimes 9/11 conspiracies sometimes global warming the list is unlimited. Here is another comment I wrote:The Reference Frame mentioned this and also Steven Dutch. My own feeling about this I wrote in a comment on the Reference Frame. My comment was to the effect that after the first few floors of a building people depend on Finite Element Theory which is great approximation but not exact. To really understand what is going on after the first few floors you need Catastrophe Theory.
How can I put this? A lot of what goes on is dependent on computer modeling which is complete depends on the assumptions you start with which often is complete absurdity. So many papers start out with “We have found…” when in fact they found out nothing at all. They mean their computer model found ….
And even if their model somehow represents reality in some way which it usually does not anyway they always depends on expansions–which can miss infinities unless you expand at the exact point where the infinity is found.
Let me try to find the links I mentioned:
Last thought. BYU is the same place that thought they came up with cold fusion with an amazingly sloppy chemistry set. I see no reason to pay attention to them.
8.9.16
knowing "how to learn"
It occurred to me that knowing "how to learn" is not complicated concept. It simply means "Don't skim." That is:- there is a time to skim, and that is the second seder, the afternoon session. But skimming is not knowing how to learn. Mainly knowing how to learn means to learn Tosphot and to understand what he is saying.
It definitely does not mean to look up the Mahrasha or any rishonim or achronim or the Tur, Beit Joseph. Looking up these things is perhaps worthy and good,-- but it is not "knowing how to learn" which is to learn and understand the Gemara and Tosphot on the page. For that reason it is the custom in any decent yeshiva to spend about a week or two on every page of Gemara because that is about how long it takes to get even the simple idea of what is going on on the page.
(Looking up achronim or rishonim is the equivalent of freshman learning.)
Knowing how to learn is what all rishonim [authorities of the Middle Ages] and achronim [authorities after and including Rav Yoseph Karo] thought people were already doing when they wrote their books. But now this essential thing is skipped and no one notices because people that teach Torah are mainly from the Sitra Achra and are not teaching Torah from the realm of holiness.
It definitely does not mean to look up the Mahrasha or any rishonim or achronim or the Tur, Beit Joseph. Looking up these things is perhaps worthy and good,-- but it is not "knowing how to learn" which is to learn and understand the Gemara and Tosphot on the page. For that reason it is the custom in any decent yeshiva to spend about a week or two on every page of Gemara because that is about how long it takes to get even the simple idea of what is going on on the page.
(Looking up achronim or rishonim is the equivalent of freshman learning.)
Knowing how to learn is what all rishonim [authorities of the Middle Ages] and achronim [authorities after and including Rav Yoseph Karo] thought people were already doing when they wrote their books. But now this essential thing is skipped and no one notices because people that teach Torah are mainly from the Sitra Achra and are not teaching Torah from the realm of holiness.
A few thoughts about STEM and the Chafetz Chaim
A few thoughts about STEM and the Chafetz Chaim
1) As far as STEM goes a computer major is probably well on the way of taking care of the obligation to learn the "work of Creation"
Rav
Zilverman the Rosh Yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu in the old city of Jerusalem told
me once that learning engineering (electrical or other types) can be considered
as a part of what the Rambam calls "the work of creation."
2) The Sefer the Chafetz
Chaim is important to learn and to keep. I think I finished it
at least once with the notes at the bottom of the page. -but probably not more
than once.
At one point I believe I tried to get through every single book the Chafetz Chaim had written and probably got through a lot.
3) I am in fact very impressed with Kant though I did not have a chance to learn
him in high school when I was doing my philosophical research. I have to mention that Kant was saying something stronger than the
fact that human beings have a limit to their knowledge. He was saying pure
reason –reason totally abstracted away from people also has a limit where it
can not venture and if it does it comes up with self contradictions.
4) Simcha Zissel of Kelm. one of the disciples of Reb
Israel Salanter. held very strongly about this idea to have sessions in Torah that one does not deviate from at all.
diet and exercise.
My learning partner tends to focus on diet and he suggested a mixer and vegetables. He was not thrilled with fruit because of the Rambam ([Maimonides). [Maimonides thought only a small list of fruit is good like grapes and dates and a few others that I forgot. This makes sense because they are mainly sugar.]
It was not that he disagreed with exercise. Rather he was in a situation where it was not possible and so he focused on diet. He thinks every vegetable has some curative property. He might have mentioned beets to me, but if he did it was only in the general context of vegetables.
For me a mixer became impracticable. So I stick with a knife and plain simple raw vegetables.
[A woman, (Natasha, in the Ukraine) mentioned beets with sour cream to me and I also found that beets with olive oil is good.]
He also mentioned many other things like a raw egg. This was in fact how Jews used to have coffee or tea in Eastern Europe instead of cream. The raw egg tends to cancel out appetite for unhealthy food.
I might mention that I think people are too addicted to cooking. Not everything has to be cooked.
A girl, Barbara from Germany mentioned to me a staple of her diet growing up was yogurt with raw oatmeal.
I should add that his basic approach comes down to what is known as the paleo diet,-but with an emphasis on green vegetables
It was not that he disagreed with exercise. Rather he was in a situation where it was not possible and so he focused on diet. He thinks every vegetable has some curative property. He might have mentioned beets to me, but if he did it was only in the general context of vegetables.
For me a mixer became impracticable. So I stick with a knife and plain simple raw vegetables.
[A woman, (Natasha, in the Ukraine) mentioned beets with sour cream to me and I also found that beets with olive oil is good.]
He also mentioned many other things like a raw egg. This was in fact how Jews used to have coffee or tea in Eastern Europe instead of cream. The raw egg tends to cancel out appetite for unhealthy food.
I might mention that I think people are too addicted to cooking. Not everything has to be cooked.
A girl, Barbara from Germany mentioned to me a staple of her diet growing up was yogurt with raw oatmeal.
I should add that his basic approach comes down to what is known as the paleo diet,-but with an emphasis on green vegetables
Holocaust denial
There is a lot of Holocaust denial going around. I find this odd. My grandparents came over to the USA before World War II and so survived. But no one else in my family that was in Europe at the time did. My grandfather Yaakov had a brother Avraham with a wife and seven young children who were all murdered by the Nazis. That was not because of working too hard in labor camp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)