Translate

Powered By Blogger

24.6.15

Reform Judaism

My parents raised my brothers and myself as Reform Jews. But not exactly like Reform. I am not sure what the Reform doctrines are today but in my home it was considered that keeping all the Torah and mitzvah with down to the last drop was  a great and wondrous thing.-- but it was voluntarily.
Of course there are many aspects of Torah that are not voluntary but in fact law. But still this was how things were in our home.You can do all the mitzvot you want but you can't force anyone else to do them and you can't ignore your obligations because you want to be frum.

Fear of God I began to consider to be a goal after I saw this idea in the book אור ישראל the light of Israel by a disciple of Israel Salanter.
In some way this was a natural result of my environment. I had been in Far Rockaway in the yeshiva of Shelomo Freifeld and they were not learning Jewish Ethics there. It was solely for the purpose of Talmud study. But I felt I needed some time with Musar  and also for other perhaps subconscious motivations I decided to go to the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. And that is  Musar yeshiva.

So one day I picked up one of the classical Musar books the Light of Israel and I saw this idea that coming to fear of God is a goal in itself. And that in fact is a little different than the idea that they were telling you in yeshiva that learning Torah is the goal in life.

Based on the Rambam of what leads to Fear of God [learning Physics and Metaphysics] I changed my schedule a little bit. Though learning Talmud I still feel is an important thing to do every day I do think that learning Physics and Metaphysics leads to some kind of internal transformation that the Rambam was talking about.
I know most people don't associate fer of God with learning the natural sciences but I have a "faith in the wise" אמונת חכמים  in the Rambam when it comes to this matter.

What I suggest is a daily schedule that roughly divides one's learning period into (1) Musar [Jewish Ethics] (2) Natural Science (3) Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. That is on a personal level and this I think is a good idea for universities also. [In Chaim Berlin yeshiva in NY there is no secular program but it was understood that people would go to the nearby Brooklyn collage so that they don't have to spend their whole lives collecting charity. For this is a serious flaw in the the insane religious world  system. That it makes collecting money from rich reform Jews as a goal in life. And that method of keeping Torah is clearly flawed. And I don't think it has much to do with learning Torah or fear of God either.]

Isaac Luria is also important but I am not sure how to fit him into a learning schedule. One thing about Lurianic Kabalah is that it is hard to justify Torah without it. This even came up yesterday when I was learning Torah and the issue of how people were keeping Torah in the first Temple period. I would rather not go into the subject right now but this is for a a general principle. When I find contradictions between science and Talmud or some problem of interpretation of Torah I run to Isaac Luria's writings. For example we find they did not keep the Passover until Hezekiah or Sukkot.
What you have to do is to say to have the light of Torah תפארת "Glory", and that is a column of light.
Prophets during the first temple period were receiving light from a different source נצח  or  הוד. In order to but in a case where the light of Torah was lost a prophet  could move over to the column of light of Glory and receive what had been lost or forgotten. You don't have to agree with this. But you can see how the Ari can help solve problems in Torah thought amazingly easily.



23.6.15

Music for the glory of God

Reality is subjective and objective.

Reality is subjective and objective. But it is also local. It is surprising that people have not noticed the fact that Kant provided a good framework to understand Quantum Mechanics long before QM was discovered. Utube videos of Murry Gellman. In one of those he explains breifly why the double slit experiment does not prove non-locality


It is in fact easy to understand Islam. You need to study the Eitz Chaim of Isaac Luria and you will see that the Dark Side has many aspects to it. It has an open aspect  That is what is called the Satan or male aspect of the Dark Side. That is Islam. That is the male aspect of the Sitra Achra. And there is a softer aspect the Female Dark Side, i.e. the side that disguises itself as a mitzvah.

We find in the books of Jewish Ethics [Musar] that there is a problem in joining evil people So it is important to be able to discern if some person or group is perhaps the Dark Side [Sitra Achra] in disguise. Books of Musar commonly bring this from the verse where the prophet Isiah told king Hezekiah "" when you joined together with Achaz, God made a breach in your works."
בהתחברך עם אחזיהוא פרץ ה' את מעשיך 

Music for the honor of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

Some people are attracted to the Dark Side. And others try to avoid it but get caught in it by trying to do mitzvot and good deeds. This is not news. We find in several spiritual disciplines the fact that evil disguises itself as good in order to trick people. And sometimes people want to do good and simply have  a strong urge to do evil even while knowing that it is evil. But they don't try to justify it. They excuse it saying it is not that bad.

I don't have a good answer for the problem of the Sitra Achra. But some of the practices i talk about on my blogs are meant to help myself avoid the Dark Side.

My main model of goodness is what I saw in my parents home. And my parents were Reform Jews. And our home was one of wholesomeness and decency. So to a large degree I try to emulate them.
But I think we were not careful enough in the commandments, so I do try to keep the commandments of the Torah more than what was done in our home. But I try to do this with balance. For I see people that accept some ritual commands of the Torah (which in itself is good), but that leads them to ignore more important aspects of the Law--like loving one's fellow man  or honoring ones parents.

In any case, my basic ideas about avoiding the Dark Side are to talk with God like one talks with a friend, and be especially careful about never saying a lie or anything not even slightly not true. When I found myself sinking, I decided to hold onto this trait with all my might--never to say anything not true under any circumstances, and I believed that the strength of the truth would help me get through everything and hold me up.

A good link to this subject by Kelly Ross attack on morality

22.6.15

Some ideas in Talmud learning חידושי הש''ס


These are ideas in Sanhedrin, Shabat, Bava Kama, and Bava Metzia
Baali Teshuva [newly religious Jews] are at a disadvantage in the frum [Ultra Religous Jewish] world. Everything is the opposite. The frum community acts like hydro-chloric acid to dissolve whatever relationships they have. Their marriages are commonly eroded and dismantled by the frum community. There is certainly no respect for them.
It is a toxic relationship by all accounts I have ever heard of.






Whether you realize it or not, you are in a relationship with the yeshiva you learn in and community you live in.
Here are  things to keep in mind 

Having mutual respect

Trust. 
Respect is hard to describe. We can tell when we get it and when we don't. Mutual respect means delivering on the things you commit to, showing up,  not talking down to others, and helping people.  Nobody wants to be a part of an environment where mutual respect doesn’t exist.
Imagine being in a relationship where you’re constantly in fear that your significant other is looking to find someone “better” than you. That’s not really much of a relationship is it? You need to be in a relationship based on trust where both you and the yeshiva are going to do your best to make things work. 
 You don’t want to feel like your yeshiva views you as and expendable cog and your yeshiva  wants you to just stick around for a few months and then leave. 


Leave when things are bad

Not every relationship is meant to be but it’s important for us to realize when it’s time to move on. Many of us are in abusive yeshiva relationships and we still stick around. We are talked down to,  we don’t credit for the work we do, we get transferred  without notice,  or we are constantly threatened with disciplinary action. None of these things are healthy. A bad relationship is something that either party can create. An student can take advantage of the yeshiva  or the yeshiva can treat the student as a “cog.” Regardless of who is at fault or why, it’s crucial to end a relationship when things get bad. It’s the best thing for both the yeshiva and the student.


The advice I have here is simple. Keep Torah on your own and don't be dependent on a community. The frum communities that I have seen are in a predatory relationship with baali teshuva. At first everything is made to look hunky dory--all sunshine and love. But that is an illusion they need to instill into the baali teshuva in order to gain their trust.
 But of you in fact have found a community that is in fact supportive then fine. But my feeling is that you need to  have a secular education and learn a honest profession and not be dependent on people's kindness's that can evaporate in a day. The yeshivas are totally dependent on charity. So they have to give the impression they are doing a public service. And maybe some are. At least the NY yeshivas I was in were in fact good places. But those are the exceptions.
What I suggest is the idea of a Beit Midrash, a place where Torah is learned but not paid for. Kind of like what you have in Hillel Centers.


Rav Shach as is known held differently than this. But I think he was thinking more along the lines of yeshivas like Ponovitch or the kind of great Litvak yeshivas where Torah is learned for its own sake. If he would see the situation today, he would agree with me.


What I am trying to say is like my learning partner told me when I brought up the subject of yeshivas. He said it is like what you find in the Talmud "מחזי". That is sometimes the Talmud forbids things because they look like something that is forbidden. So what we have here is great yeshivas in Europe like the Mir or Navardok where Torah was learned for its own sake. And people transferred those places in Israel and NY. But on the side you have people that noticed that they could make good money by starting a yeshiva. and so now you have  vast number of toxic yeshivas compared to the infinitesimally small places that are authentic








.


21.6.15

Music for the glory of God

Philip Rosten

My father' WWII record I can't seem to find. Mainly he served in the European Theater as a captain in the USAF. After that he invented the Infra Red camera telescope that I have a link to on this blog. Life Magazine . Then he worked at Hycon and the headed an operation to make a camera for the U-2 and then he made his own super accurate X ray copy mate machine. Then hired by TRW to make laser communication between satellites of SDI and NASA. Then he went private and invested in the stock market.
He valued being self sufficient in  a way that I think was common in the USA. His parents were Jews from Poland  and they were religious but we went to  a Reform Temple in Hollywood.

There was an amazing amount of love between my parents. And they loved being parents. They had three very different and three wild sons and had an amazing combination of firmness gentleness in raising us. Family vacations I think was the high point of our family.
Skiing sailing and the beach on Sundays. We never did anything on Shabat because we boys had to be in Hebrew school. Jewish family values were very important to my parents.
The Ten Commandments and being a mensch [decent moral human being] were the highest values for our family.

I should mention that he was not thrilled about my going to yeshiva. But the idea was that he thought yeshivas  were using Torah to make money. He did not think that is very good. But learning Torah and keeping Torah were certainly considered as great things to him--but with balance and equilibrium





A presentation of Tosphot Sanhedrin 61. Second to the top. This is only Tosphot. Here I ignore all questions on Tosphot and simply say over what tosphot is saying.

סנהדרין סא . תוספות ד''ה איכה יעבדו.
To make my presentation of תוספות in that little booklet on Shas clearer I want here just to say over simply what the question and answer of תוספות is without any relation to the Baal HaMeor and without any relation to any question I may have on תוספות.

שלב ראשון . We learn the three עבודות פנימיות from זביחה.
שלב שני. We ask why not learn from השתחוויה
That would forbid all רביע שני instead of just the three inner services.
 שלב שלישי. The גמרא asks if we would learn from השתחוויה then what would איכה יעבדו come to permit?
שלב רביעי
   תוספות asks why did the גמרא ask this only on השתחוויה? Why not ask also on זביחה?
שלב חמישי
  תוספות answers because השתחוויה would forbid all ארבעה רביעים and there would be nothing left for איכה יעבדו to do.

What I want to say today is this.  תוספות is mainly interested in רביע רביעי. This is the entire focus of  תוספות. It is absolutely essential to understand this fact in order to understand  תוספות at all.
Because רביע רביעי is the key to understanding  תוספות.
 תוספות is first bothered by the fact that the גמרא asks what would איכה יעבדו come to permit? Why not ask what does it come to forbid? But  תוספות is thinking, OK let take this simply  that the גמרא needs every verse to forbid something and permit something. Fine. No problem. We can accept that. And that makes sense here. We see that איכה יעבדו would forbid רביע רביעי which neither השתחוויה nor זביחה could do. But then we have our problem. Both השתחוויה and זביחה permit רביע שלישי, and זביחה permits even parts of רביע שני, so what is left for איכה יעבדו to permit?

Then  תוספות  says that this question is נבנית on the idea that איכה יעבדו has to permit something. But that assumption is wrong.  תוספות says that the גמרא really meant to ask if we learn from השתחוויה then what is left for  איכה יעבדו to come to permit or forbid? We did not ask this on זביחה because זביחה did not forbid רביע רביעי at all. So we had some use for איכה יעבדו. But we did ask on השתחוויה because if we were learning from השתחוויה then רביע רביעי  would have been forbidden and also רביע שלישי. Nothing would have been left to permit for איכה יעבדו


That is the end of my presentation today of  תוספות. And it is on this approach of  תוספות that I asked some question in  חידושי הש''ס that God granted to me to write.

The difference between תוספות and the בעל המאור is this. תוספות is thinking that both השתחוויה  and  זביחה permit רביע שלישי.
The בעל המאור says זביחה might have forbidden some parts of רביע שני if not for איכה יעבדו.
But for Tosphot there is no such thing.



סנהדרין סא. תוספות ד''ה איכה יעבוד

שלב ראשון. אנו לומדים שלוש עבודות פנימיות מזביחה.

שלב השנייה. אנו שואלים מדוע לא ללמוד מהשתחוויה
שיאסור כל רביע השני במקום רק שלוש עבודות פנימיות
 השלב שלישי. הגמרא שואלת אם היינו למודים מהשתחוויה אז מה היה איכה יעבוד באות להתיר?
שלב רביעי
   תוספות שואל מדוע גמרא שואל את זה רק על השתחוויה? למה לא לשאול גם על זביחה
שלב חמישי
  תשובת התוספות כי ההשתחוויה תאסור כל ארבעת רביעים ולא יהיה שום דבר נשאר לאיכה יעבדו לעשות. מה שאני רוצה לומר היום הוא זה. תוספות הוא בעיקר מתעניין ברביע רביעי. זה כל המוקד של תוספות. זה חיוני להבין את העובדה הזו כדי להבין תוספות בכלל.  רביע הרביעי הוא המפתח להבנת תוספות.  תוספות מוטרד ראשונה על ידי העובדה שהגמרא שואלת מה היה איכה יעבדו באה להתיר? למה לא לשאול מה הוא בא לאסור? אבל תוספות חושב, בסדר בואו נקבל את זה שהגמרא צריכה כל פסוק לאסור משהו ולהתיר דבר. בסדר. אין בעיה. אנחנו יכולים לקבל את זה. וזה הגיוני כאן. אנו רואים כי איכה יעבדו אוסרת רביע רביעי, מה שהשתחוויה ולא זביחה יכולים לעשות. אבל אז יש לנו הבעיה שלנו. שתיהם, השתחוויה וזביחה מתירים את רביע השלישי, וזביחה מתירה אפילו חלקים של רביע השני, אז מה נשארו  לאיכה יעבדו להתיר? אז תוספות אומרים ששאלה זו היא נבנתה על הרעיון שאיכה יעבדו חייב להתיר משהו. אבל הנחה הזו מוטעת. תוספות אומרים שגמרא באמת התכוונה לשאול אם אנחנו לומדים מההשתחוויה, אז מה שנשאר לאיכה יעבדו לבוא להתיר או לאסור? אנחנו לא שואלים את זה על זביחה, כי זביחה לא אסרה רביע רביעי בכלל. אז היה לנו איזה שימוש לאיכה יעבדו. אבל אנחנו  שואלים על ההשתחוויה כי אם היינו לומדים מהשתחוויה אז רביע רביעי היה אסור וגם הרביע שלישי. שום דבר לא היה נשאר לאיכה יעבדו לאסור ולא להתיר

















The first is  a link to a small booklet on Shas. Mainly Sanhedrin and Bava Kama. Most of the work was done without  a learning partner so it  and I did not review it  very thoroughly. But it still seems to me to be pretty good.


חידושי הש''ס


This is a work in progress. But as it stands right now it is OK. The only thing is that between lines the formatting goes back to English and that needs to be corrected. But the basic work is still pretty OK as far as I can tell. [That is the ideas are sound but the writing of them is a little stilted.]

עיוני בבא מציעא chapter 8 and chapter 9 
 The formatting here I was able to change in Hebrew. So you don't get the same kinds of ripples that the booklet on Shas has.


This Bava Metzia booklet was done a lot with my learning partner. But there was a period when I was in Israel in which I did some work on my own. For example the ideas on Bava Metzia page 112 were done without my learning partner. In fact I think with him I did only up until page 104. Also the beginning of the booklet where I talk about Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's idea was done on my own.

None of this is anything to be proud of. Without a learning partner, I don't do very well in learning Torah. And that is a fact. But sometimes there is no choice but to do the best I can given my circumstances.









20.6.15

Songs of gratitude to God

The Torah is Never The Principle

When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some Torah or halacha, only to get tangled up very quickly in contradictions.
Mostly it's laziness (or shallowness) and an attempt to seize the moral high ground. It's hard to defend specific issues when you're confronted by someone who simply rejects your basic premises. How do you find out what lines of argument they would find persuasive? (Hint: ask them. Say "what exactly would you accept as proof that I'm right?" Most of the time they don't have a clue, because most people only think about why they're right, not how they might be wrong.) It's far easier to enunciate some broad, high principle like Torah or Halacha, except that it's very easy to get tangled up in contradictions.


So What Is the Principle?
Who Reaps the Rewards?

Both Reform Jews and the insane religious world  argue that the reward system of society should favor those who do the most for the society. For Reform and Conservative, that's workers and intellectuals, without whom there would be no labor force to accomplish anything. Conservative Jews argue that any Third World country illustrates what labor alone can do without vision, capital and direction. Conservative Jews believe the rewards should favor those who provide the vision, direction, resources and structure to make labor productive. The insane religious world  argue that they do the most by invisible means.
Who bears the Costs?

Reform Jews tend to assume that social problems stem from inequality and lack of empowerment. Their suggested approach is to redress the inequality by redistributing wealth and limiting the powerful. In the face of some social problem, their approach is to restructure society to minimize the problem or restrict actions that contribute to the problem. Conservative Jews, on the other hand, tend to assume that social problems stem from sociopaths or stupid individuals. Their approach is to protect the law abiding population while restricting the sociopaths and allowing the stupid to endure the consequences of their actions. Both groups want to place the burden on the people they consider the root of the problem.
the insane religious world want the wealth to be redistributed to themselves and by that they think all problems will disappear. And to eliminate Reform Jews and make Baali Teshuva into the worker class.


Reform Jews want to place tax and regulatory burdens on the wealthy and privileged, conservatives want to place them on criminals and the nonproductive.


Nobody Really Wants Equality or a Classless Society

Since both liberals Jews and conservative Jews favor some groups over others, it's clear that neither group really believes everyone should be equal. Both have their own hierarchy they would like to see in power. The liberal theory is that groups that have been systematically deprived of a place in American society should be empowered, while the forces that have denied them a place should be held in check. Superficially, this attitude looks a lot like favoring equality. Looking below the surface, we find a widespread sentiment that the middle class morality is inferior.



The disdain for the "middle class" on the part of liberals suggests pretty strongly that they consider the middle class drones, whose only value is to generate tax revenue for social programs to benefit the "real people" of society, who don't allow their authenticity to be sullied by deferred gratification. After all, a self-styled "civilized person" says the middle class has no values because they are "99% driven by imitation" and their expressed values are "merely oft-repeated platitudes."


  Conservative Jews hold that "socially constructive" people should govern while the "nonproductive" should change their lifestyles and work their way up. In practice this means conservatives favor
The wealthy over the poor,The managerial class over the working class, Property owners over non-owners,  The law-abiding versus criminals, The self-supporting over those on assistance.
Nobody Really Wants a Meritocracy

More specifically, nobody wants a meritocracy based on actual accomplishment.  What both camps really want is a meritocracy of values, that is, an aristocracy in which position is dictated by attitude and conduct. Class is neither race, nor wealth, but behavior, though different socioeconomic classes have distinctive behaviors that identify their members.
 The problem with meritocracy is there has to be a definition of merit. And liberals and conservatives hold radically differing views on the subject.
my comment on Maggie's Farm  Maggie's Farm


...  The word "liberal" in the way of common usage in the USA ... is Socialism. That is the reason the word "extreme" is being attached to it.  It is not referring to the type of liberal philosophy of John Locke that the USA was founded upon.
And Socialism can in fact be accurately defined as extremist because its methods and goals are extremist. The reason for this is that the socialist recognized the smallest social unit as society, not the family nor the individual. With no individual rights and no freedom, Socialism can rightfully be called extreme in the most prejudiced type of way.

For Believers in "Rights" You believe that gay marriage, Internet access, food, and health care are rights. Okay, prove it.

My own idea about this issue is the need to learn about Natural Law starting with Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Aquinas and John Locke. And then to develop an actual legal system based on natural law and natural rights. Not manufactured rights.






From Steven Dutch


For Believers in "Rights"

You believe that gay marriage, Internet access, food, and health care are rights.

Okay, prove it.

"Proof" does not mean using the Caps Lock key and lots of exclamation points, or calling names or using invective. Anyway, "Fascist" proves nothing except your emotional response to an issue.

No, proof means starting from basic axioms and reasoning, step by step, using logic that can be demonstrated to be valid. See an old-time geometry text for how it's done.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Well, that's the Declaration of Independence and those rights exist because they are "endowed by their Creator." That, by the way, is the only theory of rights in any of our founding documents. So those sentiments have been nullified by separation of Church and State. Talk about your law of unintended consequence


Here is the link: Steven Dutch Essay



My own idea about this issue is the need to learn about Natural Law starting with Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Aquinas and John Locke. And then to develop an actual legal system based on natural law and natural rights. Not manufactured rights.
Now Rav Shach I think would not agree with this. I have heard that he held from Torah as the only valid form of government and law. But that was just yesterday that I heard this from my learning partner. But in Torah we do have the law "the law of the country is law" when it does not contradict the Torah. In any case, in a practical sense it is best not to give power to people that think they know Torah. Democracy might be the only safeguard to prevent people that think they know Torah from taking power.

Clearly the theory of the Rambam is that natural law is necessary in order to be able to keep and understand Torah law. [That is from the Guide.]
See this essay Essay by Kelly Ross




19.6.15

A link to music written for the glory of God

Rav Elazar Menachem Shach

Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach] was connected with Navardok. He was in fact the Rosh yeshiva of Navardok for a number of years.

It seems to me that most people that did were great in learning Torah passed through the doors of Navardok at one time or other.
And the thing about Navardok was  that it was a Musar [Jewish Ethics] yeshiva. And Musar (Ethics) in Europe meant something very different than what it means nowadays. It was a whole program devoted to character improvement. It was not the twenty minute period before Mincha that you see nowadays.

Also I should mention that every school of Musar had one particular facet of Musar that they emphasized.

For Simcha Zizel was into order. Slobodka was in the greatness of man. Navardok was into trust in God with no השתדלות (with no effort).

So what I wanted to mention now that I have been able to get on the Internet, are two things. One is the importance of the book of Rav Shach. That is called the Avi Ezri. If he would not have gotten on  everyone's wrong side by insulting and offending  everyone, his book would be the most popular book in the Jewish world today. In my opinion it rivals the Chidushei HaRambam of  Chaim Soloveitchik. It is that amazing. Deep and yet completely clear and understandable all at the same time.

[I should mention he was not into secular knowledge. And as a rule he was right. It is just in teh two filed that that Rambam recommended I have to defer to the opinion of the Rambam, that is Physics and Metaphysics.]

The other thing I wanted to bring up is in fact Navardok and that whole idea of trust without effort.
It is known that this is an argument between the Duties of the Heart and the Ramban and Gra.

If you put it all together you get a path that looks similar to what I saw at the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. That is that one can learn Torah and does not have to worry about making  a living. Though I am no where near this grand vision and ideal still it seems to me to be an admirable path and one worth emulating as much as one can.









18.6.15

To have an idea of what the world is about I think it is important to know Physics. You often hear people discussing the nature of reality who are not familiar with Physics. And that lack seems to disqualify them. I am not saying this is a positive reason to learn physics but at least it is a side motivation that I think is worthy. Who is guilty of opinions about reality without knowledge of physics. A lot of people I know.
But what if you are not good at math.
This is the point of my comment here. To learn Physics I think one needs two things (1) To say the words and go on. (2) 10,000 hours. The last requirement is the hard one. It is the time factor that gets harder as one gets older. For this reason it is important to do this during  the twenties.

17.6.15

The Quantum Enigma.

My suggestion here is a statement by by Leibniz. Representation causes consciousness. Not consciousness causes the representation. It is from this statement that Nietzsche discovered the Id. [That is to say that Nietzsche said that that is the source of his idea.]

So what we have is a case of ontological undecidablity.



As Dr Kelly Ross has noted that Kant's system accommodates quantum mechanics very well.


Appendix. What Nietzsche meant was the representation bring forth the subconscious and makes it conscious. But one can also understand Leibniz to mean the representation creates all levels of subconsciousness and also sub levels.

16.6.15

When it comes to religion I am pretty firmly in the camp of Israel Salanter. That is to say, I like the idea of Musar which is classical books of Jewish ethics. They are based on the value system of the Talmud, but make it easier to grasp than if one would be learning the Talmud directly. Musar avoids the problem that most books of Jewish ethics have today is that instead of presenting the value system of the Torah and Talmud, they falsify it it. Musar has the advantage that it presents authentic Judaism as it relates to values.

The two modifications I would make to the idea of  learning Musar is that I would learning it  with some amount of philosophy. The reason is that many of the concepts come from Plato and Aristotle and it is best to get their ideas directly --not second hand. Also, I would try to concentrate of the school of Musar based on the Rambam and Saadia Gaon. The more kabalistic Musar I think leads to fanaticism.
It is not that I am against learning the Ari. Not at all. But not in the context of Musar.
. The connection between length of days with fear of God. To me that means two things. If I want long days--that is not to waste my days, then learning Musar stretches out the day. The other thing is if I in fact see that my body changes over time--so I do have a need for literal length of days-then also Musar is good for that.
My favorites are חובות לבבות  Duties of the Heart and אור ישראל The Light of Israel by a student of Israel Salanter named Isaac Blazer.

Musar can be divided into (1) Rationalistic Musar [that is medieval Musar], (2) Kabalistic Musar, (3) Musar of the disciples of Israel Salanter which could be called Talmudic Musar in that it mainly goes to the Talmud directly to support its ideas. But that is probably not  a good name for it in that it implies the other two are not Talmudic. It is just the emphasis is different.



n81 in mp3 [n81 in midi format]


n79 in mp3 [n79 in midi]
I used to think that secular Jews simply had a bias against all religion. Whenever there would be some Muslim blowing himself up to kill Jews the secular Jews I knew would always blame it on religion and/or the State of Israel.
Of course to any average Joe like myself this seems ridiculous.  No all religions are alike. Islam is extremely evil. Others and in fact most are mixtures of good and bad elements. Blaming all religion seemed simplistic to an unreasonable degree.

But on further consideration perhaps there is something about religion that grabs a hold of people and make them see things that aren't there. I remember this distinctly during the time I was in Jerusalem.
I don't need to go into my own experience because I am sure that anyone who has been to Jerusalem has seen this.

My learning has been slow recently. We were doing the laws of the seventh year in the Rambam.  So I thought to breach this subject to my learning partner since things were going slow anyway.

His example of this was a follows: he used to go to the Western  Wall every day. He had been thrown out of the diaspora yeshiva and went to live with Peretz. Peretz once on the way home took another intransigent person. So David and this other fellow got into a conversation. After some time taking that fellow told David that he is Moses the prophet. No surprise there. Then he revealed the name of the Messiah and identity and address.  I asked him "Why did you not get his phone number and email?" And he said in two weeks the messiah will be revealed and there will be no more need for army bases in Israel and he will then give to David 200 acres  in Mitzpe Rimon. And in case he needs a sign he  gave to him 4 digits of the lotto number for the next day.

This goes on but you get the idea.


I think the Reform are right about a lot of things but they simply go off in the social justice direction way too far until they end up doing and saying things not like the Torah. The the insane religious world  do the exact same thing in the direction of rituals.  In order to keep Torah you simply can't accept either package deal but you have to do the work yourself to see how the Torah applies to your own life.


As far as religion goes there does seem to be a problem with getting too fanatical. The reform are right about that. But fanatical nuns don't blow up Jews. The reason people blame religion is because they don't want to blame Islam
Most of the debate over the Islam has less to do with advancing an explanation of terrorism than finding reasons not to accept some proposed explanation. People who otherwise aren't concerned with terrorism  become very concerned when terrorism is credited to Islam. The motives for rejecting this hypotheses: people either don't want to believe the hypothesis. 









The Ten Commandments are the basic principles of Torah but they are also Law.
That is we have in Torah some laws that are personal morality laws. And other are laws that are given to be actual law. This is one area in which  people are  confused. They think the Torah has only personal morality laws. That is not true. Most of the laws of the Torah are the Constitution of the people of Israel that was given by God and can't ever be abridged or amended.
But the Ten Commandments have both aspects. They are principles of personal morality, and also  are enforceable legal laws.

In any case the aspect of the Ten Commandments that is legal jurisprudence is more limited than the principles that they represent.

(1) For example "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Every lie a person says does not make him liable to the death penalty. So even though every lie is included in this prohibition, not every lie is liable the death penalty, but some are; for example עדים זוממים. That is when you have two witnesses that come to court and say, "We saw John Smith  having sex with another male and we gave him warning beforehand and told him 'If you do this you will get the death penalty.' And he said, 'I understand and even so I do this.'"

And then two witnesses come to court and say to the first two witnesses, "How could you have seen this? You will with us  the whole day in this other city?"

The first two get the death penalty for their false testimony.

(2) Another example is not to do idolatry. Not every act of idolatry gets the death penalty;- only the four services or service according the the usual way that idol is worshiped. Idolatry to be liable needs a physical object. There has to be something tangible that the two witness can say to john smith "If you bow to this [or do it regular service] you will get the death penalty." And he has to acknowledge the warning and say, "I understands and even so I do it." But still there is a large variety of things one can do to transgress the prohibition without being liable


(3) לא תגנוב "Thou shalt not steal". Not everything that a person steals gets him the death penalty. As far as jurisprudence goes the "Thou shalt not steal" goes on taking children from their parents. People that do this get the death penalty. Even if they think they are doing a mitzvah.
But as a principle it means that in any way money or anything gets into one's possession that does not belong there according to the law of the Torah is stealing.

(4) לא תנאף Thou shalt not commit adultery. ניאוף [adultery] has only one definition. It has a legal meaning. And that is only one specific act. Sex with a married woman. But when is a woman married? It is not the Chupa. It is ארוסין "espousal." That is the man says to the woman, "You are married to me by this ring or document," in front of two witnesses, and she accepts by her free will, then she is married. But she does not live with him until נישואין which could be much later.
 But there are other acts of sexual intercourse which have the death penalty which are not ניאוף adultery. For example homosexuals do get the death penalty.But as above it has to be in front of two witnesses, or else they might admit it themselves. That is they might come to court and ask to get married. And the judges look at each other wondering what that could mean. And then they explain. In that case they would by their own admission get the death penalty. הודאת פיו כמאה עדים דמי




I could go on, but you get the idea. Now this idea that Ten Commandments are principles of Torah beyond actual legal measures is well established


Appendix:

 It is a mistake to think people will not take their beliefs the the absolute extreme given a chance.
In Washington State also, Aaron and Melissa Klein also refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding, and have been been threaten, by an administrative law judge no less, with a fine of $135,000, even though gay weddings weren't even legal in Washington when their supposed "offense" took place. The fine can be imposed with assent of the Stare "labor commissioner," who, of course, has no more real judicial authority than an administrative law judge.Donald and Evelyn Knapp have been ordered to perform gay weddings in their wedding chapel, with the threat of 180 days in jail and a $1000 fine for each "civil rights" offense, which means every day that they don't do it. 









15.6.15

n99   n52  n97  i88

n65  i87   i86



Where do principles come from?

By Ray Dalio
See this link

Principles

"Where do principles come from? Sometimes we forge our own principles and sometimes we accept others’ principles, or holistic packages of principles, such as religion and legal systems. While it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to use others’ principles—it’s difficult to come up with your own, and often much wisdom has gone into those already created—adopting pre-packaged principles without much thought exposes you to the risk of inconsistency with your true values. Holding incompatible principles can lead to conflict between values and actions—like the hypocrite who has claims to be of a religion yet behaves counter to its teachings. Your principles need to reflect values you really believe in."

"When people say "it's the principle," it's never the principle. It's the specific situation. And by looking at examples of "hypocrisy," we can often work backward to figure out what principles people really hold."

Very often the real principle at work is they want to say they are doing some noble deeds in order to get your money.



I am not in a position to give over a coherent set of values. Mainly I come from a situation which I saw authentic Jewish, menschlich family values in action--that is my parents home. Ever since then I have tried to figure out what made it tick.  What was the theory behind the practice? What were the unstated values of my parents that made them so wholesome, and profoundly simple, and decent?
I cant say I ever came to anything that remotely seems to fit the bill. The best I can come up with is to take note of things that they practiced but did not preach. And on very rare occasions would actual pronounce the value the were practicing.--But that was very rare. In the 18 years I lived with them i maybe heard them once of twice say openly some value. But even then the most important values were things they never said--they just did.



(1) Truth. To speak the truth at all cost. Never to mince words. To speak your mind and shoot straight from the hip.
(2) Loyalty to family.
(3) Jewish values. Ethical Monotheism.  But my parents came from religious homes. So even though we went to a Reform Shul, Temple Israel in Hollywood our values were probably a little more traditional that what you would find in an average Reform Shul. I even remember my mother saying something about the "social justice" message that you would hear in such a place and he didn't think that that was a good representation of authentic Judaism.
(4) I am not saying them all. I should say my parents saw Math and Physics as an area of value worth pursuing in itself --not for the sake of making  a living. And besides that they saw the idea of working for living as being very important. They would have looked askew on anything group that emulated the idea of depending on charity as a goal.

Even if my opinion is against the consensus, the consensus is often wrong. You have to be an independent thinker. I learned this from my father who made a fortune on the stock market. He said, "If you want to lose money, the best way is to listen to what the people tell you to invest in." That is if you don't want to lose money then think independently.

The idea of the excommunication of the Gra would not be so interesting if it was not for that the fact that he did sign it. If it was only a question of whether one should put an excommunication on someone then there would be little of interest about the subject.
For we know that there is a law that as soon as you see something doing an איסור a prohibition the you put them into חרם. That is the straightforward law in the Shulchan Aruch straight from the gemara itself.  But we don't do this nowadays for obvious reasons.
But the question about the חרם of the Gra is different because it in fact was done. And it still has validity.
  It means that one that is interested in let's say for example praying with a minyan [10 people for prayer]can't do that mitzvah with a group under the ban because the people under that ban can't be counted as part of a minyan.
  It means that one that wants to learn Torah can't do so with members of that group because they are not allowed to learn Torah nor teach it. So it has a great deal of relevance today, even for people that do almost no mitzvot. Because the idea of the ban is that any mitzvot done in connection with that group have no validity. Any connection at all with that group will lead to punishment in this world and the next in spite of their own delusions of grandeur.
The most interesting thing about  the חרם excommunication is that it has a דין of a neder [oath]. That is at least how the Mishnah LaMelech understands it. That is juts like when a person says This bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice the bread becomes forbidden of him to eat so is the case with a חרם. Ignoring the prohibition does not make it go away. Even if one thinks that it should not have been made it still remains in force.


Even if my opinion is against the consensus, the consensus is often wrong. You  have to be an independent thinker.
I learned this from my father who made a fortune on the stock market. He said, "If you want to lose money, the best way is to listen to what the people tell you to invest in." That is if you don't want to lose money then think independently.

You don't need to take my word for this. Just think to yourself some of the cost of ignoring the Gra and what that has led to in your own life and in others. Is there anything at all that you can honestly point to to say that you have gained by ignoring the Gra? Or is it more likely you have convinced yourself that there are some imaginary benefits. While the cost to you and others around you have not been imaginary. They have been real. When the damage is real and extensive and the value is all in your imagination then is it not time to start thinking about what you are doing?







15.6.15
 החרם של הגר"א לא היה כל כך מעניין אם לא היה   העובדה שהוא  חתם עליו. אם זה היה רק שאלה של אם אחד צריך לשים נידוי על מישהו אז לא יהיה  עניין בנושא
כי אנחנו יודעים שיש חוק שברגע שאתה רואה משהו עושה איסור  לשים אותם בחרם. זהו החוק הפשוט בשולחן ערוך מהגמרא עצמה. אבל אנחנו לא עושים את זה בימינו מסיבות ברורות
אבל השאלה על החרם של הגר"א היא שונה כי זה בעובדה נעשה ועדיין יש לו תוקף
  זה אומר שאחד שהוא מעוניין (נניח לדוגמא) להתפלל במניין לא יכול לעשות את זה עם קבוצה תחת האיסור כי האנשים תחת חרם שלא ניתן לספור כחלק ממניין
  זה אומר שאדם שרוצה ללנוד תורה לא יכול לעשות זאת עם חברים בקבוצה כי הם לא מורשים ללמוד תורה ולא מלמדים את זה. אז יש לו הרבה מאוד רלוונטיות היום, אפילו לאנשים שעושים כמעט לא שום מצוות. משום  שהאיסור הזה גורם שכל מצוות שעושים בהקשר לקבוצה אין תוקף.

הדבר הכי המעניין על החרם הוא שיש לו דין של נדר. זה איך שהמשנה למלך מבין את זה. זה בולט כמו כאשר אדם אומר "לחם זה אסור לי כמו קרבן" הלחם הופך להיות  אסור לאכול. כך במקרה של חרם. התעלמות מן האיסור לא עושה כלום. גם אם אחד לא חושב שלא היה צריך לעשות את זה עדיין נשאר בתוקף



14.6.15

This might seem ridiculous to some people but I think the Rambam had a different version of the גמרא in בבא קמא יט עמוד ב'.
The גר''א also wrote that this רמב''ם is אינו מובן . So we have to assume that there is no way to get the רמב''ם to correspond with the נוסח that we have. I thought for a while that I was able to find some way to answer this question but I realize now that effort was futile.
 So what I think is that the נוסח of the רמב''ם went like this.
The גמרא itself started out with a question איש בור ולא שור בור. So how can the משנה say the owner of the תרנגול is liable? On that question רב הונא came to say  הכא במאי עסקינן היכא שקשרו אדם. Here we are dealing with the case that a person tied it. [That is when some person tied it is is no longer considered as if the chicken is doing the damage on its own. כשקשרו אדם יש כח אדם מעורב בו]. So when one tied it the owner is liable חצי נזק. When no one tied it he is פטור
And then the גמרא asks but why should the owner of the חוט not pay? After all it is his string that did the damage. And the גמרא then answers here we are dealing with a string that has no owner.

So when the string has an owner the Rambam concluded that he alone pays the 1/2 damages




זה אולי נראה מגוחך לאנשים מסוימים, אבל אני חושב שהייתה לרמב"ם גרסה שונה של הגמרא בבבא קמא יט עמוד ב
גר''א גם כתב כי רמב''ם זה אינו מובן. אז יש לנו להניח כי אין דרך להשיג רמב''ם להתכתב עם נוסח שיש לנו.

 אז מה שאני חושב הוא שהנוסח של רמב''ם הלך ככה
הגמרא עצמה התחילה עם שאלת "איש בור ולא שור בור." אז איך המשנה יכולה  לומר שהבעלים של התרנגול אחראים? על שאלה הזאת רב הונא בא לומר הכא במאי עסקינן היכא שקשרו אדם. במקרה שאדם קשר אותו אנו עוסקים. כלומר, כאשר אדם כלשהו קשר אותו זה כבר לא נחשב כאילו העוף עושה הנזק בכוחות עצמו. כשקשר אדם יש כוח אדם מעורב בו. לכן, כאשר אחד קשר אותו בעל התרנגול חייב חצי ניזק. כאשר אף אחד לא קשר אותו הוא פטור.
ואז הגמרא שואלת אבל למה  הבעלים של החוט לא משלםים? אחרי כל זה הוא החוט שעשה את הנזק שלו. והגמרא אז עונה כאן עם חוט שאין בעל אנו עוסקים


Here is my whole little essay on this topic
) ב''ק יט: הקדמה. המשנה דנה  במצב זה: יש תרנגול עם חוט קשור לרגלו, ונסתבך דלי בחוט ונשבר, חייבים חצי נזק. רב הונא אמר במה דברים אמורים, כשנקשר החוט מאליו. אבל אם קשרו אדם חייבים נזק שלם. הגמרא שואלת מי משלם את החצי נזק? בעל החוט? אבל אם הוא כיסה אותו הוא אינו אשם  ופטור.(למה לא יהיה חייב בגלל ניזקי בור-דומה לזה שכרה בור וכיסהו שחייב אם נתגלה על ידי אחר? ואין לומר בגלל איש בור ולא שור בור משום שכאן הוא חייב אם לא כיסהו) אם לא כיסהו, חייב נזק שלם. אלא בעל התרנגל. אבל איך הוא יכול להיות חייב? והלא הפסוק אומר "איש בור", ולא "שור בור". ופה התרנגל הוא שסחב את החוט. אלא המשנה מדברת במצב שהעוף היה פורח באוויר, שזה מצב של חצי נזק צרורות, ורב הונא דיבר בדיון אחר שלא קשור למשנה, מצב שאין לחוט בעלים. ואז אם נתקשר החוט מאליו פטור ואם קשרו אדם חייב.
הרמב''ם אומר במצב שיש תרנגול שיש חוט קשור ברגלו ונסתבך דלי, ונשבר שאם יש בעלים לחוט הם משלמים חצי נזק. וזה אם קשרו אדם. אבל אם נתקשר מאליו, גם הם פטורים וגם בעל התרנגל. אם אין לחוט בעלים, בעל התרנגל משלם חצי נזק אם קשרו אדם, ופטור אם נתקשר מאליו.
 אני חושב שהייתה לרמב"ם גרסה שונה של הגמרא בבבא קמא יט עמוד ב
גר''א גם כתב כי רמב''ם זה אינו מובן. אז יש לנו להניח כי אין דרך להשיג רמב''ם להתכתב עם נוסח שיש לנו.

 אז מה שאני חושב הוא שהנוסח של רמב''ם הלך ככה
הגמרא עצמה התחילה עם שאלת "איש בור ולא שור בור." אז איך המשנה יכולה  לומר שהבעלים של התרנגול אחראים? על שאלה הזאת רב הונא בא לומר הכא במאי עסקינן היכא שקשרו אדם. במקרה שאדם קשר אותו אנו עוסקים. כלומר, כאשר אדם כלשהו קשר אותו זה כבר לא נחשב כאילו העוף עושה הנזק בכוחות עצמו. כשקשר אדם יש כוח אדם מעורב בו. לכן, כאשר אחד קשר אותו בעל התרנגול חייב חצי ניזק. כאשר אף אחד לא קשר אותו הוא פטור.
ואז הגמרא שואלת אבל למה  הבעלים של החוט לא משלםים? אחרי כל זה הוא החוט שעשה את הנזק שלו. והגמרא אז עונה כאן עם חוט שאין בעל אנו עוסקים.לכן הרמב''ם פסק כשיש לחוט בעלים הם משלמים חצי נזק.




. אבל עדיין צריכים להבין: למה בעל התרנגול ובעל הדלי לא משלמים נזק שלם ביחד כמו בדיון של רבי נתן בבבא קמא נג.? ויש לומר  שמצב של חוט ותרנגל שונה משור שדחף לבור. שור שדחף לבור שניהם אחראים, כן צריך לומר בדעת הרמב''ם. אבל במצב של תרנגול וחוט צריך לומר לדעת הרמב''ם שרק בעל החוט אחראי. [וכן באמת הגמרא מסיקה בדעת רבי נתן. או ששניהם אחראים כל אחד חצי נזק או כל אחד אחראי לכל הנזק. אם לא אומרים את זה לדעת הרמב''ם, אין חילוק בין זה  והדין של רבי נתן שהרמב''ם פסק כמותו.



  )בבא קמא יט ע''ב  המשנה אומרת יש  תרנגולת שיש חוט מצורף למרגלותיו ועל החוט יש דלי שנפץ למשהו ונשבר או שהיא מתנפנפת וקופצת ושברה כלים. החובה הוא חצי נזק. רב הונא אמר כי הדין הזה הוא אם החוט הסתבך בעצמו, אבל אם מישהו קשרו, זו החובה היא נזקים מלאים. הגמרא שואלת מי משלם? זה לא יכול להיות הבעלים של החוט כי אם הוא כיסה אותה הוא אינו אחראי בכלל. אם הוא לא כיסה אותו הוא עבריין וחייב מלוא נזקים שעלולים לבוא. זה לא יכול להיות הבעלים של העוף כי הפסוק אומר "כי יכרה איש בור" הוא שאחראי. "איש בור" ולא שור בור. כאשר אדם חופר בור או כשהוא עושה  תקלה בתחום ציבורי שיכול לגרום לנזק אז הפסוק אומר אדם העושה תקלה חייב, לא כאשר בעלי חיים עושים תקלה. דוגמא תהיה אם אדם שם שרשרת עם מסמרים בולטים על כביש שמפצצת הצמיגים של כל רכב שעובר עליו. הוא יהיה אחראי. אבל אם פרה הייתה ליד הכביש ויש לה רגל שהסתבכה בשרשרת כגון אותו דבר הבעלים של פרה לא יהיו אחראים. אבל הבעלים של השרשרת יהיו אחראים מלוא נזקים שעלולים לבוא.  אז הגמרא מסכמת משנה בטח מדברת על מקרה שבו ציפור עפה, ורב הונא היה מדבר על מקרה של חוט של הפקר שזה שונה. ובמקרה שהוא אמר שאם זה הסתבך בעצמו, אין אחריות. ואם מישהו קשרו,  אז הוא חייב נזקים מלאים
השאלה א, שאלת הגמרא על רב הונא חלה על המשנה גם בלי רב הונא.
השאלה ב, התשובה של הגמרא על רב הונא יכולה לשמש כדי להראות רב הונא היה מדבר על המשנה. להיפך של מה הגמרא אומרת
שאלת ג,  השאלה על רב הונא היא שאלה תקיפה.  אז התשובה של הגמרא לא עושה כלום כדי לענות עליה. נראית את אותן השאלות להישאר. אם היא עפה, והבעלים כיסו את החוט, עדיין לא עשו שום דבר שעלול לגרום נזק, ואם בעל של החוט השאיר אותו חשוף שאז הוא פושע ועבריין וצריך להיות חייב מלוא נזקים שעלולים לבוא. מצד השני, אני מבין שלמעשה הטיסה שלה יכולה להפוך את הבעלים של החוט עלולים רק חצי נזק. אז זה מסביר משנה כי מחצית הנזקים הם כאשר הוא עף והוא הבעלים של החוט שעלולה. ולפחות זה גר''א ורא''ש ההסבר
שאלת ד איפה הבחור שקשר את חוט על העוף?

אלו הן כמה מהשאלות רבות שכאן רמב''ם וגר''א ורא''ש והתוספות באים לענות.





And I think we can all agree that even if the Rambam had had the version that we have he might has seen the problems I mentioned and decided that the authentic version of the Gemara had gotten lost and so based on the basic elements in front of him he might have put it together in this way.

I think we can all agree that without the version that I wrote there is no way on earth that the fact of the bird flying is going to make the owner pay when if it was walking normally he would be not liable. The Rambam must have seen this along with many other questions and decided on the version that I wrote in which all the points are resolved.





Music written for the glory of God



n35

n36  n33
The idea of the excommunication of the Gra would not be so interesting if it was not for that the fact that he did sign it. If it was only a question of whether one should put an excommunication on someone then there would be little of interest about the subject.
For we know that there is a law that as soon as you see something doing an איסור a prohibition the you put them into חרם. That is the straightforward law in the Shulchan Aruch straight from the gemara itself.  But we don't do this nowadays for obvious reasons.
But the question about the חרם of the Gra is different because it in fact was done. And it still has validity.
  It means that one that is interested in let's say for example praying with a minyan can't do that mitzvah with a group under the ban because the people under that ban can't be counted as part of a minyan.
  It means that one that wants to lean Torah can't do so with members of that group because they are not allowed to learn Torah nor teach it. So it has a great deal of relevance today, even for people that do almost no mitzvot. Because the idea of the ban is that any mitzvot done in connection with that group have no validity. Any connection at all with that group will lead to punishment in this world and the next in spite of their own delusions of grandeur.
The most interesting thing about  the חרם is that it has a דין of a neder. That is at least how the Mishnah LaMelech understands it. That is juts like when a person says This bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice the bread becomes forbidden of him to eat so is the case with a חרם. Ignoring the prohibition does not make it go away. Even if one thinks that it should not have been made it still remains in force.







13.6.15

Music link for the glory of God

Authentic Torah

There are people that are willing to sell to you a knockoff of an Armani or Calvin Klein. They are hoping you don't know the difference. And they are people that will buy a knockoff hoping that other won't be able to tell the difference between the real thing and the knockoff.

People that are willing to buy and sell knockoffs are not people of quality character.

The same applies to Torah.

Almost everything being advertised as Torah is not authentic. The actual books of Torah are very limited. The written Torah we know is the Old Testament. The Oral Torah we also have a good historical idea where it came from. We have no questions about the historical circumstances of the writing of the Babylonian Talmud, The Jerusalem Talmud, the halachic Midrash and the Aggadic Midrash.  Some people may not care for the later. Ok. Some people don't want Armani or Calvin Klein either.  But if you don't want to wear the real thing, then at least don't wear a fake. Don't learn and don't support fake Torah