Spiritual Abuse. Quilt of Cults

 A movement that appears  sound with regard to the central doctrines of the Torah, but whose actions and practices are cultic (or cult-like) in nature, can still be considered a cult.  

Thus  the religious world is just a  Quilt of Cults. The issue is not the lip service they pay to Torah in order to look good. The issue is their inner unclean and unholy essence from the dark side, Sitra Achra.  

Reb Nachman rightfully went into this in detail, but that did not help the groups called by his name. Their leaders are just as much cult leaders as any other of the cultic groups. But at least Reb Nachman did focus attention on this important issue [as the Na Nach group never tires of pointing out]. Religious teachers are generally  demonic. Telling women they need to go to these satanic leaders is  a recipe for disaster. [There was one group that the leader said all women need an adviser that is not their husband, and out of 3000 people after two years only a handful were still married. ]

Religious addiction is one problems with cults. And they feel they need to be supported by society in order to support their addiction.Unconditional aid is a social disaster. [Reb Nachman also never tired of this issue. It starts in LM volume 1 chapter 8 and goes up until volume 2 chapter 8--the last lesson he ever said.]

Divine realm

I should say right out that the way I defend Torah is by separating to levels of reality. I hold anything in Torah hard to understand in this world must be referring to some Divine realm. I mentioned this once to my learning partner. Clearly knowing a drop of Isaac Luria is helpful in this respect. [The Rambam held in a similar vein.]
Plato himself has two levels of reality though he links them by some mysterious process called participation. Kant and Hegel also. But to Kant there was no bridge. To Hegel there is a bridge- dialectics which it seems he thought was a kind of group endeavor. 

[Plato was forced into his opinion because of Parmenides. Kant was forced into his because of the problem that all character traits of things depend on the subject. That is Decartes, and also the problem between the rationalist and empiricists and the problem in his on home town between the Pietists and the school of the rationalists of Germany (Johann Salomo Semler,)]
The way Kant navigated between these two extremes was to find a ground of validity of each one, and thus one could know the limits of each one.

The problem is Leftism. I mean to say while the right is splintered, it still seems to be a much better approach, even in its original formulation of being on the side of Monarchy. But my feeling is the original constitution of the Virginia Colony  made the most sense with the obligation of belonging to some church [I do not think they were thinking about Jewish people at that point or what they would have said] while the government would stay out of religious affairs. My impression was that original constitution was inspired in some way by John Locke but I might be mistaken. [This balanced approach was not taken by later colonies that left out all religious obligation. That does not seem right to me. Perhaps they thought the trouble was in the churches themselves with lots of problematic doctrines. And that problem has not seem to have been abated. I guess they could have chosen the best ones, and forbade the less desirable ones;--but instead they choose to say that Federal government ought to stay out of religion altogether. Anyway, I think some of the Founding Fathers were Deists anyhow, so it would not have made any sense to have clause that one has to belong to some church. Instead they focused on the mechanisms of government and tried to get that part right. That seems to work well. In that way they left the power to the states to support whatever religious orders they saw fit- and that seems to have worked well until recently. Even the Mir yeshiva in NY I think was getting state funds for being a  institution of higher learning. So this approach of the founding fathers seems to be a pretty decent model of government.

Hegel and Dr Kelley Ross.

''The second sphere of those manifestations of spirit which are more closely related to philosophy is the area of religious representations in general. Here belongs primarily religion as such, then mythology and the mysteries, and even to a certain extent poetry. Just as the first area of which we spoke had in common with philosophy its formal element, the I and the form of universality, so what is common here is the other side, i.e., the substantial element, the content.''

"...how man is conscious of God, i.e., how in consciousness he represents God, this being the objective form or determination of thought whereby man sets the essence of divinity over against himself, represents it as something other than himself, as an alien being in the beyond. The second characteristic is to be found in devotion and cult, which constitute the overcoming of this opposition, whereby. man raises himself to God and becomes conscious of his unity with God’s being.''

Introduction to the History of Philosophy.

Source: Hegel’s Idea of Philosophy, by Quentin Lauer, S.J. with a new translation of Hegel’s Introduction to the History of Philosophy;

Translated: from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Philosophie, Hamburg, 1940.

It is hard to see here much difference between Hegel and Dr. Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School of Thought. Hegel is not coining a new term for holiness an attachment with God like Otto does with "Numinous" value, but still the message is obviously the same.

tying oneself to a "tzadik"

One of the problems of tying oneself to a "tzadik" is not just the problem that Reb Chaim from Voloshin noticed that it is the exact same prohibition in the Torah of not to type or bind one's soul to any idol. But furthermore when one allows someone to shadow his life as his 'spiritual leader' and dominate his thinking, he takes on the quirks, oddities and idiosyncrasies of his 'spiritual leader'. He becomes a disciple alright, but not of God. I have seen leaders who had produced hundreds of disciples--but every one of them had his obvious mishegasim [bad character and nutty habits] Their God-given distinctiveness has been absorbed by their hovering 'spiritual leader.'
Mainly the way I see it the problem all began with the movement of the Shatz and Natan from Gaza, his false prophet. An examination of the microfilm copies of Natan's book will show I think from where most doctrines of the religious world come from. [Not from the Ari Isaac Luria or Musar.] 
But I am not claiming any special insight into this outside of just plain horrific experiences. I was duped just like everyone else and fell for the polished image of respectability. I in fact fell harder than most and because of that I realize the sinister nature of the religious world. If I could go back today I would imply have stayed in the Mir Yeshiva in NY and not budged an inch. Or if I had to go to Israel--as I felt I needed to based on the Ramban-then I should have made it my business to be in an authentic Litvak yeshiva or Religious Zionist one. The trouble is this: outside of the authentic Litvak and Zionist places, the religious world is a large quilt of cults.


[No disrespect intended towards Reb Nachman who was a true tzadik, but even a true tzadik can make an occasional  mistake --even in doctrine. I think a close examination of the Cherem of the Gra will show it did not apply to Reb Nachman,

What is the connection between Avraham's going down to Egypt and Sara's being taken to the house of Pharaoh and the later escape from Egypt?  It seems to me that that was to prepare the way for Israel later to make the same trip. This is an  about  paving a path that later people can walk on with more ease than he had.

I mentioned before the idea of the Ten Commandments being hidden in the Ten Statements of Creation. [Nine times "And God said" and the first verse "In the beginning God create heaven and earth" which was the first statement but since it doesn't say "God said" it is the hidden statement ] These Ten Statements are hidden inside all things that have been created. But the light of the Torah in them need to be revealed. Avraham paved the way so that later the ten plagues would bring forth the light of the Ten Commandments.  This is the hidden reason for the Rambam seeing in Physics the highest\ light--the light of the hidden statement of Creation.

Clearly this has a relation to ten types song that are mentioned in the Tikunai HaZohar and also in the Tikunim of the Ramchal. That is the fact that the light of God does not extend to unclean places as it "My glory I will not give to another." So from where does an unclean place get it's life force? From the Hidden Statement of Creation. But for that to be revealed, one needs the ten kinds of song.

My original point was however more along the lines of why God wrote the Torah in this way? What  lesson is the story of Avraham's going down and Sara being held prisoner and then being redeemed?
[The connections here are based to some extent on Reb Nachman]

ראב''ד and הרמב''ם
 There is a question when the reason for a law דרבנן no longer applies can the law itself  be nullified.

 But if I recall correctly the ראב''ד puts his comment about רבי יוחנן בן זכאי and the first fruits on הלכה ג and his comment about when the law is accepted throughout all Israel in הלכה ב. That is in laws of ממרים

From what I recall  הלכה ב says when the reason no longer applies for a  גזירה or תקנה or a מנהג that was instituted by the בית דין in Jerusalem and has been accepted by all Israel, then another בית דין can nullify it if it is greater in wisdom and numbers. But how is it possible to be greater in number when the number is already set to be שבעים ואחד. The הרמב''ם answers this refers to teh number of the sage of Israel that agree with the בית דין. The הרמב''ם in all three הלכות deals only with the great בית דין did does not enter into the question of what about a lesser בית דין or a בית דין today with no סמיכה.
On this הלכה I think the ראב''ד say: No, but once it has been accepted by all Israel, even a בית דין with great numbers and wisdom can not nullify it.

Then in  הלכה ג the הרמב''ם writes a law that was made as a סייג לתורה then even  בית דין with greater wisdom and numbers can not nullify it. On that the ראב''ד brings that רבי יוחנן בן זכאי nullified the law to adorn the streets of Jerusalem with the first fruits even though he was not as great as the בית דין that made the law.

What seems to come out from this to the  ראב''ד is that if the law has been accepted by all Israel then even though the reason no longer applies, no בית דין can nullify it, and if it was not accepted by all Israel then even a smaller בית דין can nullify it. To the ראב''ד everything depends on if it has been accepted by all Israel.


) בענין גזירה דרבנן שהתבטל טעמה של הגזירה. הוא מחלוקת בגמרא (ביצה ה.) אם הגזירה בעצמה מתבטלת אם טעמה התבטלה.
רבה אמר שלא נמשכת הגזירה, ורבא אמר שכן היא נמשכת. הרמב''ם פסק כמו רבא שהיא נמשכת (ממרים פרק ב' הלכה א-ג). הראב''ד פוסק כמו רבה אם החוק לא התקבל בכל ישראל. הגם שהראב''ד בא מסוגיית ביכורים. אני חושב שיש סמך לראב''ד מן הגמרא בגיטין (פרק ראשון). הגמרא אומרת לדעת רבא שאם טעם התקנה לומר "בפני נכתב ובפני ונחתם" אינו שייך (כגון במקום ששיירות מצוייות), אז אין לומר "בפני נכתב ובפני ונחתם". (ואפילו אין להחמיר כמו שרואים אחר כך בסוגיית רבי יהושע בן לוי.)  הרמב''ם אינו יכול לתרץ שיש חילוק בין תקנה שהיא עשה דרבנן  ובין גזירה שהיא לא תעשה דרבנן, בגלל שכתב שגם תקנה דרבנן אינה מתבטלת אם טעמה התבטל.
גזירות או תקנות שאומצו על ידי בית דין מאוחר יותר כאשר סיבת החוק היא בטלה, הוא נושא לדיון בין רמב''ם ותוספות והראב''ד. זה נובע מגמרא בביצה דף ה' ע''א. הדבר המעניין הוא שהרמב''ם במבוא למשנה התורה, שם הוא עוסק בנושא אחר על בית הדין מקומי. שם הוא אומר כי לאף אחד אין  הסמכות לבטל חוק של הגמרא. ועל שבגמרא יש מערכת הכללים כיצד להחליט הלכה. בכל מקרה לרמב''ם לא היה ספק בכך. אבל בין הראשונים יש דעות שונות על כללים אלה. הדבר המוזר בהלכות ממרים ב' הלכה ב' לא נראה שהוא מתייחס לבית דין ללא  סמיכה אותנטי מסיני אשר אינו קיים עוד. בהקדמה למשנה תורה הוא מתייחס לסוג של  בית  דין של שלושה בלי סמיכה שיכולים לשפוט קבוצה מאוד מוגבלת של דברים.  ברור כי כפי שאנו רואים שהיתה להם סמכות לעשות גזירות רק  בזמן הגמרא.
רמב''ם בתחילת משנה תורה והן בממרים פ''ב הלכות א-ג אומר בערך אותו הדבר. זה במונחים של הלכה. פסק בית הדין המאוחר אינו מחויב ללכת לפי בית דין הגדול לשעבר בדבר שדנו על פי הי''ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. כלומר זו הלכה א'. אבל כשמדובר בתקנות גזירות ומנהגים בית הדין המאוחר מחוייב להסכים עם בית דין הקודם אלא אם כן הוא גדול בחכמה וכמות. עם זאת חוק שנעשה בתור סייג לתורה, בית הדין המאוחר לא יכול לבטל. זהו החוק הבסיסי של הרמב''ם, וזה גם איך רב שך מבין אותו. הדרך שאתה רואה שכך רב שך מבין את הרמב''ם היא העובדה כי בעדויות הוא אומר שהרמב''ם מדבר על גזירות ותקנות. באותה משנה עדוית א:ה' המשנה מבקשת "למה לכתוב דעת המיעוט?" וזו נותנת תשובה. הרמב''ם אומר  שהמשמעות היא שבית הדין המאוחר יכול להכריע את החוק ככה אם יש לו רוב חכמה ורוב מניין. למה לא מבינים את הרמב''ם פשוט כי הוא מתכוון לפסק הלכה? בגלל שהרמב''ם קישר אותה משנה עם הרעיון כי בית דין אחר עשוי לתלות בדעת המיעוט אם יש לו רוב חכמה ורוב המניין. אנחנו כבר יודעים מתוך משנה תורה שהרמב''ם אינו מחייב בית דין המאוחר להיות יותר במספר ויותר בחוכמה כשמדובר בפסק הלכה.
) ראב''ד  והרמב''ם הלכות ממרים פ''ב הלכות א-ג'. יש שאלה כאשר סיבת חוק דרבנן כבר לא חלה אם החוק עצמו יבוטל? אבל אם אני זוכר נכון, ראב''ד מעמיד את ההערה שלו על רבי יוחנן בן זכאי ואת הביכורים על הלכה ג וההערה שלו על מצב כשהחוק מקובל בכל ישראל בהלכה ב.  הלכה ב' אומרת כאשר הסיבה כבר לא חלה על גזירה או תקנה או מנהג זה שהונהג בידי בית הדין בירושלים שהתקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אז עוד בית דין יכול לבטל את החוק אם הוא גדול בחכמה ומספר. אבל איך אפשר להיות יותר במספר כשמספר כבר מוגדר להיות שבעים ואחד. הרמב"ם עונה זו מתייחסת למספר החכמים של ישראל שמסכימים עם בית הדין. הרמב''ם בכל שלושת ההלכות עוסק רק עם  בית הדין הגדול,  ולא נכנס לשאלה מה לגבי בית הדין רגיל או בית הדין של היום ללא סמיכה.  בהלכה זו  הראב''ד אומר: לא, אבל ברגע שזה התקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אפילו בית דין עם יותר מספר וחוכמה לא יכול לבטל אותו. ואז הלכה ג' הרמב''ם כותב שחוק אשר נעשה בתור סייג לתורה אז אפילו בית הדין עם חוכמה גדולה ויותר ומספרים לא יכול לבטל אותו.  והראב''ד מביא כי רבי יוחנן בן זכאי ביטל את החוק לעטר את רחובות ירושלים עם הביכורים למרות שהוא לא היה גדול כמו בית דין שתקנו את החוק. מה שיוצא מזה אל ראב"ד היא שאם החוק התקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אז למרות שהסיבה כבר לא חלה, אין בית דין יכול לבטל את החוק, ואם זה לא התקבל על ידי כל ישראל אז אפילו  בית הדין קטן יכול לבטל אותו. לראב''ד הכל תלוי אם זה התקבל על ידי כל ישראל.

Jose Faur brings that a lot of Tosphot hold if the reason for the law is gone the law is gone but I do not have any Gemara to be able to look this up. Maybe someday God will grant me to start learning Gemara.


It is upsetting tome that I have no more any sefer of Rav Shach or the Rambam to look this up. Still I want to point out what I recall that the Rambam puts in the idea that teh reason for the law has gone away and on that halacha, halacha 2, that is where the Raavad puts his comment about the law being spread through all Israel and later in halacha 3 where I think the Rambam does  not mention the reason for the law disappearing that is where the Raavad puts his comment about R. Yochanan Ben Zachai.  So does the Raavad make a distinction between a law made for  fence  and other laws that are d'rabanan?And what is the Rambam thinking? Other laws are not made for a fence?! Then why are they made? This is one of those times I wish I had a learning partner to thrash this issue out with. 



Yose Faur brings a lot of places where Tosphot goes with the opinion of Raba that once the reason for the law is gone, the law itself is gone--which is even more radical than the Raavad. Still not having any Gemaras with me to be able to look it up, I do not bring it down.

I had a kind of history with the Bava Sali family.

I had a kind of history with the Bava Sali family. His daughter saw in me a great responsibility for Klal Israel, but I could not figure out what that is supposed to mean. When I look back on it and try to decipher  what kind of responsibility that implies I find I can not figure it out.  What my best guess is that she thought I could help to influence the world towards these simple things, Tur, Beit Joseph Shulchan Aruch and Musar. That is the basic Lithuanian yeshiva path but with an extra emphasis on Halacha and Musar [classical Musar means medieval books of ethics like the חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם,  אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים וספר מוסר של הרמ''ק].

I should mention that Bava Sali did not want to see any mystics when he came to Jerusalem and was accepting visitors that wanted blessings and advice from him. He gave explicit instructions not to let anyone with a name as a mystic in. 
This to me seems to indicate exactly what is brought in the Ari, that the secrets of the Torah--that is the Eitz Chaim is not for anyone, but only those that live a life of great sanctity. 

[Whatever responsibility she saw in me I do not think I fulfilled. Nowhere  near. I seem to have dropped the ball. The hard thing to understand about this is thus: I feel that I had dropped the ball a long time ago, long before I met her. But apparently she thought there was still something I could and should do.]

Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,

It occurs to me to ask on Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,  from the Rambam laws of loans 14:11.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a migo? 

I mean to say this.After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין [engagement]. She is believed and she gets the full Ketubah {מאתיים}.[הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''א] So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. [הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''ד] He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. [אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה] 

Does she not have a migo? {She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.}

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע-he is believed. [That is as long as he changed his mind before the witnesses came.]
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a gift.

[It is not clear to  me why I am asking from these particular laws. Maybe because in the back of my mind I am thinking of the Ri MiGash that one can go fromפטור לפטור because of Migo but that it has to be before witnesses come. I might have been able to ask from other cases of Migo but I imagine there must be some subconscious reason I am asking from these particular cases.]

The only question here that I have is according to one opinion in תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א where he holds a מיגו can take away from a חזקה. But if we do not hold by this opinion then there is no question. She has a מיגו but he has a חזקה plus חקזת ממון. On the other hand she has חזקת הגוף שבתולה הייתה. That is, he has two חזקות against her מיגו וחזקה
So in one opinion that a migo can take out from a חזקה then I have a question.


_________________________________________________





It occurs to me to ask on כתובות דף ט and also page י''ב,  and the רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד:י''א.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a מיגו? 

I mean to say this. After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין . She is believed and she gets the full כתובה מאתיים . So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. Does she not have a מיגו? She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע, the lender is believed.
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a מתנה.
 עולה בדעתי לשאול על כתובות דף ט' וגם דף י''ב, מאת רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד: הי''א. השאלה הבסיסית היא הלא אחד יכול ללכת  מן הפטור לפטור? ובגלל זה יש לה מיגו? אני מתכוון לומר זה. לאחר הנישואין הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה. היא אומרת שהיא נאנסה לאחר אירוסין. היא נאמנת והיא מקבלת את מלוא כתובה מאתיים. אז יש לה טיעון שהיא יכולה לומר ושתאמין. אז השאלה היא על החוק הבא. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם לא קיימת מיגו בשבילה? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה. אדם מגיע לבית משפט ואומר מנה לי בידך. הנטען אומר להד''ם. ואז הוא משנה את דעתו ואומר לווה ופרע. ואז העדים באים ואומרים לווה ופרע, הוא נאמן. זה מפטור לפטור ויש מיגו. ועוד עדים רואים שלווה נותן כסף למלווה אבל לא יודעים מזה אם הוא למען החזר או מתנה והמלווה נאמן  אם הוא אומר שזה החזר עבור הלוואה שונה מאז שהוא יכול היה לומר שזה היה מתנה. אז השאלה היא על החוק הזה. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיאכן הייתה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם אין לה מיגו? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה.

Job suffered

You are trying as hard as you can to be good and still thing are not going your way. Why is that? The Book of Job is pretty clear that the trouble does not lay within you. That seems to be the entire point. At first God is bragging about Job what a great guy he is. Then Satan says, "Sure he is a great guy. Why would he not be? You gave him everything a man could want. Take it away and you will see he will curse You to Your Face." 
God said, "Fine, so take everything away, but leave his soul alone." Thus Job suffered. 
Then Job cursed the day he "will be born." But he did not curse God. Then the friends said God does not bring suffering except for sin. Job answered and said, "I know I am innocent of all sin." God then agreed with Job, and told the friends to ask his forgiveness -for they had spoken falsely.  So at the end, even God agreed that Job suffered not for sin, but to win a bet he had made with the Satan. Apparently, He won the bet. [What I am getting at here is that the area of numinous reality is beyond reason as Kant noticed, and that if one tries to apply reason to such an area, that leads to self-contradictions. I was somewhat aware of this in high school, which led me to believe that not everything in Torah can be proven, though it can be defended by reason.] [Dr. Kelley Ross also goes into this issue. But we know from the Guide of Maimonides that reason  can approach the area of numinous reality. Hegel obviously held the same way. The difference is to the Rambam reason also needs to be revealed from Heaven, and only then can a higher level of numinous reality be revealed. To Hegel the process is dialectical and depends on man--and men working together. To some degree you can see this in someone like Bava Sali who as a tzadik in his own right also  depended on the merit of his ancestors, and also his community to  some degree in order for there to be the kind of environment necessary for him to reach his level.]

So my question is why did not someone offer the explanation of the Mesilat Yesharim (Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato)? [One who is mostly sinful but has some good- gets reward for his good in this world, and suffers for the sins in the next. One who is mostly good but does some evil- suffers for the evil in this world, and get the reward for the good in the next. ] No one, not even God offered this explanation. Furthermore even though I do not own a copy of the Guide for the Perplexed   I recall the Rambam said the Torah agrees with the last of Job's friends.  A further question, is it not open in the Torah, " Do these commandments so that it will be good for you and you will have length of days"? "Behold I have set before you this day life and the good  and death and evil. Therefore choose life to keep these laws."

(1) Just a few thoughts I had in reading the Old Testament. כגן השם. Lot the nephew of Avraham saw that the city of Sodom was like the "Garden of God." When did he ever see the garden of God to be able to compare them?

(2) One does not make a עיר הנידחת [city that worships idols and thus must be destroyed.] of a city that is on the border of Israel. The Rambam brings the reason so as to not let the enemies of Israel have an entry point into Israel. That is the reason of R. Shimon ben Yochai that we are דורשים טעמה דקרא. [The sages say the reason is the verse that says בקרביך in your midst.]
The answer is given that there is not difference in law so the Rambam does always prefer to bring a verse than a drasha.
The Minchas Chinuch asks --but in this case there are many difference in law.
Rav Shach says  once the law does not apply in the opinion of R. Shimon then the city no longer has the category of עיר הנידחת. First I want to bring a proof for Rav Shach since in the opposite kinds of cases where there is  a prohibition we do not say that in the opinion of R. Shimon the prohibition remains in effect but there is a special exception in case the reason does not apply.

Another question is that the Rambam usually brings a verse as a proof of  a law rather than some reasoning process. Here he does just the opposite. It seems to me he is specially going like R Shimon here like he does in Yevamot where he prohibits to marry any woman that serves idols, even if she is not from the seven Canaanite nations -which is the law of R Shimon, not the sages.

(3) In Genesis God says the reason gentiles are forbidden to murder is because בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם. Therefore we have an open verse telling us that gentiles are made in the image of God [as per the Rambam]

(4) King Oshiyahu that in his days the Torah scroll was found in the Temple sent to Chulda the prophetess who said the punish that was decreed was because the Jewish people were not obeying the commands of God. Therefore the laws of the Torah must have been known even before the scroll was found.

(5) The King of Sodom said to Avraham תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך the Satan says to a man "give me your soul and take the money" [That was my first "vort" after I got to yeshivat Shar Yashuv in NY]

(6) One of the arguments that Job had with his friends involved time. One friend said the wicked are punished very soon after they sin. Job said they live all their days in peace and happiness and abundance. The question seems to me to be not if there is punishment for sin but rather is there in this world a connection between crime and punishment?
(7) King Yoshiyahu also found  some graves an spread the bones over the altars of the idol worshipers to make them "tame" unclean. He obviously did not have any religious people around trying to stop him like they do in Israel. I even brought this up with a person in Israel who really did know how to learn. I showed him the law in the Rambam that it is allowed to move graves for building roads. This was right at the time the insane religious people were trying to stop some building project as is their general custom to stop every good thing. One thing I noticed about the religious. They love bones. And they ruin the whole project of Torah. By pretending to keep it, they ruin it for everyone, and make it odious in people' eyes by their disgusting actions and character. How this happened I do not know but but their pretense of righteous is a horrific scam. I avoid them. The only place I would learn and pray at would be a Litvak yeshiva that excludes all the garbage.

I never agreed with the general approach towards South Africa. It seemed obvious to me that it would revert to the norm in Africa (a new genocide every year) once the white people were out of power. But this time the target would be white people. Once at the Western Wall I met some people from SA and I said openly to them they ought to escape from SA as fast as possible.

SA is genocide against white people in slow motion.

Bava Metzia 103

I just want to jot down the basic idea of Rav Shach on the fact that the Rambam must agree that after a גמר דין  (a final judgement), then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with Bava Metzia around page 103 to help understand the story with Rav and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור (a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש (the rav of the Rambam) because of migo. (A migo is a case of he could have said a different plea and be believed so let us believe him now) The Ketzot HaChoshen disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

Rav Shach brings the Gemara in Bava Batra to show the Rambam must agree with the Ketzot. The Gemara there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a migo. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the Ketzot gives that it is after גמר דין.

[The original problem was that Rav changed his decision in the case a person went into another's field and planted trees. Rav told the owner at first to pay for the trees the least possible amount but the owner did not accept that and did not even want the trees, and then Rav said nothing. What I think is that since Rav said nothing that meant it was before גמר דין final judgement. Then Rav saw the owner making a fence around the trees and said since it is clear you do want them now pay the full amount. But the way we understand Rav, if he had paid the lower amount the day before and then Rav saw him building a fence rav would have simply said he changed his mind [as David Bronson pointed out to me]




_______________________________________________________________________________
I just want to jot down the basic idea of רב שך on  the fact that the רמב''ם must agree that after a גמר דין  a final judgement, then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with בבא מציעא page ק''ג to help understand the פסק דין של רב and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור means a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש  because of מיגו. The קצות החושן disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

רב שך brings the גמרא in בבא בתרא to show the רמב''ם must agree with the קצות החושן. The גמרא there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a מיגו. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the קצות החושן gives that it is after גמר דין.

אני רק רוצה לרשום את הרעיון הבסיסי של רב שך על העובדה כי רמב''ם חייב להסכים כי לאחר גמר דין (פסק דין סופי), אז אפילו מיגו לא יכול לשנות את ההחלטה. רעיון זה שהזכרתי בקשר עם בבא מציעא דף ק''ג כדי לעזור להבין את פסק דין של רב והאדם אשר ניטע עצים בשדה של אחר. רעיון הבסיסי הוא זה אשר שאפשר בכלל ללכת מן פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור פירושו טיעון המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס לטיעון נוסף המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס). הסיבה ניתנת על ידי ר''י מיגאש בגלל מיגו. קצות החושן אינו מסכים עם קביעה זו ואומר שהסיבה היא שהוא לפני גמר הדין. רב שך מביא את הגמרא בבא בתרא  להראות שרמב''ם חייב להסכים עם הקצוות החושן. גמרא שם אומרת זה: שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט ואומרים הייתי על הארץ הזאת במשך שלוש שנים והיא הייתה של אבותיי. קבוצה של עדים מגיעה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "זה היה על הקרקע שלוש שנים." קבוצה נוספת באה ואומרת, "הקרקע הייתה שייכת לאבות של השני." אם הראשון (שהעדים אומרים שהוא היה על הקרקע במשך שלוש שנים) אומר "שקלתי את הקרקע כאילו היא הייתה של אבותיי" הוא לא נאמן. אבל אם הוא אמר, "האבות שלי קנו אותה משלך" אז הוא אמין. מאז שהחוק הוא שאחד יכול ללכת מפטור לפטור אז אם הוא היה אומר, "שקלתי את זה כמו של אבותיי" לפני שהעדים באו, הוא היה כבר נאמן. לכן יש לו מיגו. אם כך מדוע אנו לא מאמינים בו גם אחרי שבאו עדים? זה חייב להיות בגלל הסיבה שהקצות החושן נותן שזה לאחר גמר דין.

Music T40

t40 A Major  t40 midi

t40 nwc

I think in the Eddas, Heimdall is noted for his especially white complexion. I forget. And I do not have a copy to look it up. In any case, in my experience, blacks do not make the noble kind of leaders that are shown in movies. Usually [but not always] they use their positions of power to hurt white people (once they get into a position of power over white people. Even in simple office jobs they try to sabotage white people) . And this kind of thing has happened to most people I have talked with about this.

"Does God Still give Revelation?"



 The most disturbing aspect of the religious world and their thirst for supernatural experience and supernatural encounter is their claim that God is still revealing Himself verbally to them. They claim that God is speaking to them; that is a constant claim.

It has been a curiosity to me and should be to us, I think, that if God is still giving revelation, the only ones that He gives it to are founders of various cults.


The Rambam said just like one can not and must not add to the written law so he must not add to thee oral law.




In the more spiritual sense the oral and written law [Old Testament and the two Talmuds]  are the standard by which you measure truth.


Just to give you a little deeper insight into that, the Old Testament Canon was closed about 425 B.C.. The last prophecy was written by Malachi, placed into the canon.

Now there were many attempts made by Satan to infiltrate the Old Testament with uninspired books. At least 14 of them have been accumulated and together they are called the Apocrypha.  They are not a part of our Torah. They are not inspired books. They are books 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon,  Baruch,  the History of Susanna,  the Prayer of Manassas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. All spurious. They were clearly fakes. How do we know they were fakes? They were written long after the canon was completed and they lacked the prophetic quality and authorship to stamp them as inspired Scripture. None of their writers claimed divine inspiration and some openly disclaimed it. And Apocrypha books contained errors of facts, errors of ethics, errors of doctrine.

For example, some of the Apocrypha books advocate suicide. Some of them advocate assassination and some of them teach praying for dead people.  The Old Testament was unquestioned; it is still unquestioned because it is so evident what was inspired.



There is now also a formidable group of fakes


These are were attempts to pollute the authentic Law of Moses text with spurious revelation. Now, listen to me. That attempt didn't end in those days; it is still going on. People and groups have continued to claim their works and their writings are inspired by God, and are true, and authoritative and binding. And whenever they do that, it leads to aberrant doctrine.

To add anything to Torah or to downplay the singular, unique, inspiration of Torah, then is to not only go against the Word of God ("Thou shalt not add nor subtract from this law I give unto you this day."), but it is to bring yourself into the very dangerous place where you are susceptible to the curse of God. And, of course, what happens when you introduce something as true is you open up a spiritual free-for-all, unintentionally perhaps.

The religious world today has initiated that free-for-all as serious as any error in that movement is the error of claiming revelation from God. It is reckless; it is indiscriminate. 

Musar means the books of Ethics of the Middle Ages which focus on character development and fear of God.
The aspect of Musar that is the most important is the lack of "Shtick."
I mean to say, there is the basic message of what the Torah says to do--which is contained in the written and oral law--the Tenach and two Talmuds.
But the Middle Ages were unique in decoding that message.
And after the middle ages an onerous amount of garbage got mixed in to what is supposedly authentic Torah.
[Thus I avoid all religious groups because they teach pseudo Torah. The only kind of religious place I would be willing to walk into would be a Litvak Yeshiva. (These places are roughly based on the path of Gra and Reb Israel Salanter.)]

[The basic approach is that what ever the Torah says that is what we believe. There is no emphasis on doctrine but rather learning and keeping Torah, and it is God centered, not man centered. This is what makes Litvak Judaism unique-there is not idolatry of human beings, but rather worship of God.]

[The truth be told the basic set of Mediaeval Musar books does the best job of giving over the essence of Torah, that is the Obligations of the Heart, Gates of Repentance, אורחות צדיקים ,ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם]


[I am not uniformly against Musar based on mystics. Mystics like the Ari and Avraham Abulafia I have a lot of respect for. It is just after the events of 1648 A.D. that the Sitra Achra {Dark Side} got mixed up with almost all religious Judaism. So books written after that period tend to lead people down the road to hell.] 


The idea of getting which books form a legitimate part of Torah is important, and excluding the books that pretend to be part of this tradition but in fact are promoting an agenda is important. The word אפיקורוסות heresy is a harsh word but useful. Every group has defining beliefs.  If it would not then it would not be a group. As distasteful as the word can be, it is  normal and inevitable in the process of marking boundaries, drawing lines of exclusion, and defining group identity. The term marks the most important boundaries of a group, beyond which a group understands its own identity to be profoundly harmed or compromised. It is a key flag in trying to determine how a group perceives its fundamental essence. All groups, religious or not, have boundaries. Without boundaries of some kind it would be impossible to have a sense of group identity. Granted, religious boundaries often make claims to truth, but these are hardly more exceptional than claims made by ethnic groups or political parties. Religions, when speaking of heresy, are simply doing what groups do generally. 

Black and white sex relations

The ultimate and irreversible repudiation of one’s identity is to have children with someone of another race. This is a particularly stinging repudiation when done by a woman, and it is especially true in the context of the state-engineered genocidal assault on white peole, from aggressive desegregation in the United States to the massive importing of immigrants into European homelands. Fifty years ago in homogeneous places, a White woman who crossed racial lines may have been benevolently dismissed as a rare curiosity. Today, she is an unwitting tool in a global war on our people.

South Africa is a great example of what happens when blacks are in charge. No one is safe.