My grandparents--themselves immigrants to the USA did not even bother to sell their property in Newark, NJ. They saw where the wind blows and donated all their property to the city and hightailed it out of there.
In fact, these were the same grandparents that left Poland when it was still part of the Russian Empire and the tzars. [They had left even before WWI]

Sometimes it just is not worth the effort to fight.
So what I am thinking is that people ought to come to Israel.
The USA is just heating up too fast and things are getting close to the boiling point.
I mean if there are no police then things can get ugly fast.

The only thing I can imagine that might help at this point would be to outlaw protests in the interest of public peace and order. And if people do not want to go home peaceably, then to deal with that with extreme prejudice. And as for the police, to give them double their present salary. To back them to the hilt. Give them medals and public acclaim.

x2 mp3 x2 midi x2 nwc

To me it seems sad that there are some differences between Hegel and the Kant-Friesian school of Leonard Nelson. I can see how each complements the other. But the differences that started between Hegel and Fries have just kept on going. It is not that I see peace in itself as a goal. Rav Nahman said there are two kinds of debate one is between tzadikim and other is when a tzadik is making effort to be rid of the Sitra Achra and the wicked.
He brings this in LeM  I:5 and that and also at the end of LeM vol I about King David. [There the issue was the Saul was persecuting David, even though Saul was in fact a greater tzadik than David. See the Gemara that Saul was asking God "You said You would give my kingdom to my friend who is better than me. Now you say you are giving it to David. God answer when you were in the Physical world, (a world of lies), I told you a lie. Now I am telling you I am giving the kingdom to David." So we see in the Gemara itself that Saul was greater. And this is clear in the later prophets where there is counted 7 shepherds and 8 princes that would protect Israel if they were around. And there Saul is counted not King David. 

[The idea of "arguments between tzadikim (the righteous)" is one very useful bit of information in Rav Nahman. It sort of hints to the idea of Kant of the "dinge an sich" areas where Reason can not enter.]]

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט''ו -י''ח

רב שך  במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט''ו -י''ח and in chapter 24 law 9  of selling brings an argument between the רשב''ם, תוספות, and רמב''ם. The issue is that the רמב''ם seems to decide  the law in ways that at least the גמרא in ערכין would hold to be contradictory. רב הונא בערכין דף י''ד ע''א says one who מקדיש a field full of trees redeemed the trees according to their value and the field according the חמישים שקלים for a field of standard size. Background: One who sanctifies a field for the הקדש can redeem it himself if he gives to the הקדש 50 shekels. If other kinds of objects, then he redeems them according to their value but adds a 1/4. [what is called 1/5 but means 1/5 from the outside.

The גמרא asks does that not disagree with the ברייתא that one who sanctifies trees redeems them and the field goes along with it. And the גמרא מתרצת that רב הונא was saying like ר' עקיבא that one who sanctifies, sanctifies with a good eye. The הקדש would get more. That ברייתא is like ר' שמעון that one sanctifies with an unkind eye. So that the הקדש would get less if redeemed.

The גמרא here clearly holds these two teachings disagree with each other.

So how is it the רמב''ם decides the law like both?

And in fact the ראב''ד says the law is not like רב הונא but rather like רב פפא on ערכין י''ד ע''ב.

There רב פפא says one who sanctifies trees redeems the trees according to their value.

The גמרא asks Let the קרקע go with them to be sanctified and to go out with them to be  redeemed? Answer: this is where he said openly the קרקע does not go with them. So we see that if it would they would be sanctified together. רב שך answers that  גמראה on ערכין י''ד ע''ב clearly holds רב הונא and רב פפא disagree. But not that they in fact disagree. It could be that the sanctifying a field with trees makes everything go together. But sanctifying the trees alone, even if the field goes along with them, still it is not two separate acts of sanctifying. So redeeming would also be in just one act.

The question is, then where did the רמב''ם see this? There does not seem to be any גמרא anywhere that indicates that רב פפא and רב הונא agree with each other.

The answer is that רב שך has a different גמרא. It is the one where there is a difference between R Akiva and the sages about the case one sells three trees. The גמרא there agrees that to both the קרקע under between and around  them the width of 4 אמות is sold along with the trees.But if he says he is keeping the קרקע to the חכמים that is valid and to ר' עקיבא still the קרקע under them belongs to the new owner of the trees. The reason is all who sell sell with a good eye. So in our case, the גמרא can hold like ר' עקיבא and that even when he says he is sanctifying the trees without  קרקע still the קרקע under them comes along with them. But there is only one act of sanctification, so they are redeemed together. That is the גמרא that sees a difference between רב פפא and רב הונא hold like the חכמים and ר' שמעון that one who sanctifies does so with a grudge, evil eye. But if a גמרא would hold like ר' עקיבא then the גמרא would say sanctifying three with no mention of ground the ground comes along both in and out of הקדש. But the law of רב הונא is where he mentioned both field and trees so both are redeemed separately

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט'ו -י''ח

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט'ו-י''ח ובפרק 24 הלכה 9 הלכות מכירה מביא ויכוח בין הרשב’'ם, התוספות והרמב'’ם. העניין הוא כי הרמב'’ם מחליט את החוק בדרכים שלפחות הגמרא בערכין היה סותר. רב הונא בערכין דף י''ד ע''א אומר מי שקידש שדה מלא עצים פודה את העצים לפי ערכם והשדה לפי חמישים שקלים לשדה בגודל סטנדרטי. רקע: מי שמקדש שדה עבור הקדש יכול לפדות אותו בעצמו אם ייתן לקדש 50 שקל. אם סוגים אחרים של חפצים, אז הוא פודה אותם לפי ערכם אך מוסיף 1/4. [מה שנקרא 1/5 אבל פירושו 1/5 מבחוץ

הגמרא שואלת האם זה לא מסכים עם הברייתא שמי שמקדש עצים גואל אותם והשדה הולך איתם. והגמרא מתרצת שרב הונא אמר כמו ר' עקיבא שמי שמקדש, מקדש בעין טובה. הקדש היה מקבל יותר. שברייתא זה כמו ר' שמעון שאחד מקדש בעין לא נאה. כך שהקדש היה מקבל פחות אם ייפדה.

הגרמרה כאן מחזיקה בבירור את שתי הדעות הללו חולקות זו את זו.

אז איך זה שהרמב'’ם מחליט את החוק כמו שניהם?ולמעשה הראב''ד אומר שהחוק אינו כמו רב הונא אלא כמו רב פפא על ערכין י''ד ע''ב.

שם אומר רב פפא מי שמקדש עצים גואל את העצים לפי ערכם. הגמרא שואלת שהקרקע תלך איתם להתקדש ולצאת איתם להיגאל? תשובה: זה שהמקדש אמר בגלוי שהקרקע לא הולכת איתם. אז אנו רואים שאם זה היו מקדשים יחד. רב שך עונה שגמרא על ערכין י''ד ע''ב מחזיק בבירור את רב הונא ורב פפא חולקים על כך. אך לא שהם למעשה לא מסכימים. יכול להיות שקידוש שדה עם עצים גורם להכל להתקדם. אך קידוש העצים בלבד, אפילו אם השדה עובר איתם, עדיין אין מדובר בשתי פעולות קידוש נפרדות. אז הגאולה תהיה גם במעשה אחד בלבד.

השאלה היא אם כן איפה הרמב'ם ראה את זה? לא נראה שיש שום גמרא בשום מקום שמצביע על כך שרב פפא ורב הונא מסכימים זה עם זה.

התשובה היא שלרב שך יש גמרא אחרת. זה שיש בו הבדל בין ר עקיבא לחכמים לגבי המקרה שמוכרים שלושה עצים. הגמרא שם מסכים כי לקונה הקרקע מתחתם ולסביבתם ורווח של 4 אמות נמכר יחד עם העצים. אבל אם המוכר אומר שהוא שומר את הקרקע לעצמו לחכמים זה תקף. אבל לר 'עקיבא עדיין הקרקע מתחת וביניהם שייכים לבעלים החדשים של העצים. הסיבה היא שכל מי שמוכר מוכר בעין טובה. כך שבמקרה שלנו, הגמרא יכולה להחזיק כמו ר' עקיבא, וכי אפילו כשהוא אומר שהוא מקדש את העצים בלי קרקה, עדיין הקרקע שתחתם באה איתם. אבל יש רק מעשה אחד של קידוש, ולכן הם נגאלים יחד. זה הגמרא הרואה הבדל בין רב פפא לרב הונא מחזיקה כמו חכמים ור' שמעון שמי שמקדש עושה זאת בעין רעה. אבל אם גמרא היה מחזיק כמו ר' עקיבא, הגמרא הייתה אומרת שקידוש שלושההעצים  ללא אזכור של האדמה האדמה באה ביחד הקדש. אבל החוק של רב הונא הוא שם הוא הזכיר גם שדה וגם עצים ולכן שניהם מתקדשים בנפרד

Three trees. Rav Shach in Mishna Torah in Arachin 4: 15-18 (and in chapter 24 law 9 of selling)

Rav Shach in  Mishna Torah in Arachin 4: 15-18 (and in chapter 24 law 9  of selling) brings an argument between the Rashbam, Tosphot, and Rambam. Rav Shach as is the custom starting from Rav Haim of Brisk is spending most of his efforts to understand the Rambam.

The issue is that the Rambam seems to decide  the law in ways that at least the Gemara in Arachin would hold to be contradictory. 

Rav Huna Arachin page 14a says one who sanctifies a field full of trees redeemed the trees according to their value and the field according the 50 shekels for a field of standard size. [Background: One who sanctifies a field for the Temple can redeem it himself if he gives to the Temple 50 shekels. If other kinds of objects then he redeems them according to their value but adds a 1/4 [what is called 1/5 but means 1/5 from the outside.]  ]

The Gemara asks does that not disagree with the teaching that one who sanctifies trees redeems them and the field goes along with it. and the Gemara answer that Rav Huna was saying like R Akiva that one who sanctifies sanctifies with a good eye. [The Temple would get more]. That teaching is like R Shimon that one sanctifies with an unkind eye. So that the Temple would get less if redeemed.

The Gemara here clearly holds these two teachings disagree with each other.

So how is it the Rambam decides the law like both?

And in fact the Raavad says the law is not like Rav Huna but rather like Rav Papa on Arachin 14b.

There Rav Papa says one who sanctifies trees redeems the trees according to their value.

The Gemara asks Let the ground go with them to be sanctified and to go out with them to be  redeemed? Answer this is where he said openly the ground does not go with them. So we see that if it would they would be sanctified together.

Rav Shach answers that The gemara on Arachin 14b clearly holds Rav Huna and Rav Papa disagree. But not that the in fact disagree. It could be that the sanctifying a field with trees makes everything go together. But sanctifying the trees alone-even if the field goes along with them, still it is not two separate acts of sanctifying. So redeeming would also be in just one act.

The Question is then where did the Rambam see this? There does not seem to be any Gemara anywhere that indicates that Rav Papa and Rav Huna agree with each other.

The answer is that Rav Shach has a different Gemara. It is the one where there is a difference between R Akiva and the sages about the case one sells three trees. The Gemara there agrees that to both the ground under between and around  them the width of 4 yards is sold along with the trees.But if he says he is keeping the ground to the sages that is valid and to R akiva still the ground under them belongs to the new owner of the trees. The reason is all who sell sell with a good eye.


So in our case the Gemara can hold like R Akiva and that even when he says he is sanctifying the trees without teh land still the land under them comes along with them. But there is only one act of sanctification so the y are redeemed together. That is the Gemara that sees a difference between Rav papa and Rav huna hold like the sages and R Shimon that one who sanctifies does so with a grudge. evil eye. But if a Gemara would hold like R Akiva as is in fact teh law then the Gemara would say sanctifying three with no mention of ground the ground comes along both in and out of hekdesh. But the law of Rav Huna is where he mentioned both field and trees so both are redeemed separately 

Mark McCloskey protects his life and the lives of his family. So self defense is not longer a legal defense in the USA? Answer: No it is not. But even so, it does not matter. You defend your life anyway--at all cost.

 So a home owner protects his life and the lives of his family from a violent mob and the District attorney wants to indite him? So self defense is not longer a legal defense in the USA?

The homeowner who defended his St. Louis property from violent Black Lives Matter activists earlier this week slammed CNN’s Chris Cuomo for making assumptions about his case.

“A guy stands in front of me, pulls out two loaded pistol magazines, snaps them in front of my face and says, ‘You’re next.’ If you were there, Chris, I think you’d feel like you had a right to defend yourself, as well,” Mark McCloskey, joined by his legal counsel, explained on Tuesday.

The lesson to be learned is never go on the fake media. 

חכם עדיף מנביא a wise man is better than a prophet. And Rav Nahman brings in the Sefer HaMidot that a prophet only knows what is revealed to him. So there is no question why certain people with great spiritual insight might have been completely  unaware of what should have been obvious.
There is no reason to think that Isaiah the prophet would have known Quantum Physics. The reason is spiritual values are not the same as universals which are recognizable by reason. And if he would have known QM it would only have been through reason, not prophecy--for prophecy deals with a different area of value 

The area of value that the Middle Ages were good at was content with less form. Later in what was called the Ages of Reason, there was a forte of Reason that recognizes form. [Universals].

So it makes sense that the natural sciences would be what would have started from Galileo and Newton. But the deep thinkers of the Middle Ages had their specialty in the area of content.

[I mean to be bringing an idea of Dr Kelley Ross  that Logic is all form not content. If A implies B and B implies C then if A is true the C is true. But the sentences can stand for anything.
Math has more content than logic since it can not be reduced to logic as per Godel. Physics has more content since it already physical, not just universals. Music even more content since than reducible to math. People have been trying to figure of the formulas of Bach for ages with no success. Then Justice and Right even less form. There are no algorithms to figure out what is moral. Then the realm of spirit is more content and less form. Then God is all content and no form. כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה ביום עמדכם בהר סיני

Hitbodadut [private conversation with God]

 Rav Nahman says there are "Torah scholars that are demons" {LeM I:12}. That does not mean all. The problem is to know the difference.
The idea of Rav Nahman about private prayer I think works here. That is something that a disciple of Rav Nahman , Rav Natan, in fact says: Hitbodadut [private conversation with God] is a help for all things that one needs to come to in spiritual affairs.
Hitbodadut, Rav Nahman in fact said that one who wants to accept on himself the yoke of the service of God ought to spend the whole day in Hitbodadut. [Not just an hour as people think.]

  Rav Nahman did this all of his life. He would take a boat and row out into the middle of a river and spend the whole day praying and talking with God.

[The best approach to Hitbodadut I think is like Rav Nahman in fact emphasized that is to take a day off and go into a forest and spend the whole day talking and pleading with God for guidance and salvation.]]

The values of the Left are predictable. They are thus: "What ever the USA stands for, whatever it has done, is always wrong."

Self Esteem (Pride) in the Torah is a major sin. [In books of Musar it is explained that it is the root of all sin.]] Even though by  Hezekiah the king it does say, "his heart was raised up in the ways of God" in the verses there the implication is that since he had done well beforehand, then his heart was raised and he fell.
However to stand up against enemies does not require pride. It requires belief and trust in God.


The legacy of the USA has been trashed for years. The values of the Left are predictable. They are thus: "What ever the USA stands for, whatever it has done, is always wrong."
So to stand up for the USA does not require pride. It requires trust in God and to stand up for truth and justice and the American way in spite of obstacles and enemies.

From what I can tell this is the third WWIII. But being waged in a different way than previous wars.
Gog and Magog are predicted in the Old Testament to come three times. But here i seems to be more internal than the previous world wars. This is more along the line of war after the Sitra Achra has already entered the gates. This applies in the Jewish world where the dark Side has made its nest. and also in the larger world where the enemies of civilization are already inside the gates. So what seems to be the thing to do is to learn more Torah. That is to try to at least get through the two talmuds even without any commentary at all. [the first time.]

I am very fond of the Middle Ages.

I am very fond of the Middle Ages. In fact, in high school I used to carry around with me Dante. And I recall even trying to go through Bewolf in Ancient English.

So in Shar Yashuv and seeing the greatness of the Rishonim was right up my alley. [That is the general rule in Litvak yeshivas is after you have gotten the Tosphot down, you go to the three major rishonim, Rashba, Ramban [Nahmanides], and the Ritva. 

This idea that the middle ages had grains of truth and intensity that are entirely lacking nowadays.

And so my first gut reaction when I see Christians I think to myself, "These people need Thomas Aquinas." Same with Muslims. I think to myself, "If only they would be studying Ibn Rushd, Al Kindi and Al Farabi how much better the world would be."

But not to deny the importance of Physics and Math and advances in natural sciences. Nor to deny the greatness of Kant, and Leonard Nelson. But I just wonder why people nowadays seem to always look on the Middle Ages as some kind of quaint period that has nothing to teach us.

Though I admit the Rishonim  for me were hard to get into. I spent most of my time with the Maharsha and even commentaries on the Maharsha. I saw some of the amazing depth of Rishonim with Naphtali Yegeer in Shar Yashuv, and Rav Shemuel Berenbaum at the Mir. But it was hard for me to get to see that depth on my own until I started looking at the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.

A lot of effort is going into the destruction of Christianity.

A lot of effort is going into the destruction of Christianity. And that I see in a tragic sense since even if I do not agree with all principles of Christianity, still I see that is an essential component of Western Civilization.

So while I can see the tremendous importance of the great Litvak yeshivas, like Ponovitch or Brisk, I also can see that there is a need for a new direction.

The issue with Litvak yeshivas is that they can become kind of cult like. Or at least borderline. They can (and in some cases do) get the idea that they are the centre of the universe, and everyone was created merely to give them money.
So while I can see the tremendous importance of the great Litvak yeshivas, like Ponovitch or Brisk, I also can see that there is a need for a new direction. That is a study hall [beit midrash] on the name of the Gra. In that way there would not be any ambiguity about the fact that learning Torah is not a means to be making money. and that the rest of us plebeians were not created to serve the needs of the elite. Torah was given to all Israel  and all are required to learn it. There is no special elite class that everyone else is supposed to serve. 

As for the issue with taking down the USA and Western civilization, my impression is that a lot starts with school. The Frankfurt school of philosophy seems to have penetrated in the USA Schools. I mean teaching dumb half baked philosophy is not illegal. But like Ayn Rand says it world views trickle down in the modern world from the philosophers. So when philosophy gets everything wrong no wonder the USA is going haywire.
Of all the schools of thought of the twentieth century it is hard to find anything of worth. Or as John Seale says: "Most of twentieth century philosophy is obviously false."
But to get a detailed critique refuting at least the side of the Analytic philosophy the best is Robert Hanna. [Thankfully thrown out of the University of Colorado just to show the state of universities nowadays!]
   

about the virus

My idea of what to do about the virus is that one ought to go to the ocean or nearby sea or river every day. Dip in and then do some exercise and the dip in again. [And by going to the sea I mean to walk.]]
The reason is that in the blood there are little things that seek out viruses. But for them to be active one needs to boost one's system by fresh air, exercise, and a dip in fresh water.

Beit Midrash HaGra

The beginning of yeshivas was unpaid. But they were not simply the local prayer hall. So the two words "yeshiva" and "beit midrash" are somewhat close to each other. But even before a yeshiva was a money making institution as they are today, still it was not simply unorganized. You could go through the history of these kinds of places. Still the modern history starts with Rav Chaim of Voloshin. Before him, they were under the control of the local rav who himself was hired by the home owners.
But after that, they became independent institutions. Students were still not paid. They paid the teachers. Now in Israel, the students get paid by the State of Israel.

The idea of Rav Haim was a kind of needs of the hour עת לעשות להשם time (to do something improper because of the needs of the hour.)
And the great Litvak yeshivas in fact came to represent Torah in its purist authentic form and essence.  And they were all based more or less on the path of the Gra. [The ideas and approach of the Gra became the official world view.]

Nowadays, what I suggest is to also have a place that would be a Beit Midrash HaGra. A place which would be more along the lines of how yeshiva used to be. That is: open to anyone who wants to study Torah.  But the idea would be that it would be directed openly along the path of the Gra.
The advantage of this is that it would take into account the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. Ignoring that has let the Dark Side [Sitra Achra] into the religious world. So with the name of the Gra on the building makes that less of possibility.

the evils of pride.

The religious world has a kind of problem of pride. [See all the books of Musar about the evils of pride.][The opposite of secular ideology.] That is a sort of collective pride. That is a sort of belief of moral and intellectual superiority. Neither of these accurate. But the only possible justification would be if  fact they would be more honest or smarter than anyone else. Clearly these claims are false.  If anything just the opposite.

Money and Torah just do not mix. When Torah gets to be a business, it turns sour.

I would like to suggest a new beginning. Something like a yeshiva based on the Gra. But not a yeshiva in the modern sense where people get paid. The is just too much a temptation to use yeshivas as ways of getting money from state of Israel .Money and Torah just do not mix. So what one ought to start is a Beit Midrash HaGra. The reason is that the term implies a place where people can come to study Torah but do not get paid for doing so.
In fact the whole yeshiva thing has really worn out its welcome. It started out without the sanction of the Gra because he knew that it would deteriorate into a money making enterprise.

And if Slavery (forced work without compensation) is so wrong, then why do black people not mind forcing white people to work for their free welfare checks?

Once you agree that slavery was some terrible evil then you have already lost the argument. Better to go along with what is open in the Bible--that Slavery is OK as long as the slave is not abused. Just forced to work. All England were more or less slaves under William the Conqueror. So were all Europeans under their lords in the feudal system.


The South was right. After all in the Bible there are Hebrew slaves and Gentile slaves. This is OK. The laws however are different for each one. [Hebrew slaves are let go after seven years automatically. A Gentile slave is never free until his master accepts money to free him, or gives the slave a document that says he is freed or there is injury of limb.] But it really goes against the Bible to say that a law of God was wrong.

[However slavery is an important issue because the simple claim that it is unjust mean automatically that one does not believe in the Bible.] 

And if Slavery (forced work without compensation) is so wrong, then why do black people not mind forcing white people to work for their free welfare checks?

If you look at the effect of England on the world you can not help but be astonished. Whatever it touched became prosperous and flourished. The USA, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, India, South Africa etc.

If you look at the effect of England on the world you can not help but be astonished. Whatever it touched became prosperous and flourished. The USA, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, India, South Africa etc. Count the USA as an extension of England and the effect goes further. [Japan after accepting an English kind of government.] [But take away the effect of England, then things fall apart quickly.] One thing that is so astonishing about this is that there was nothing in the development of England that had anything to do with being plannedl--- not philosophy, nor any political theory. [John Locke simply came to explain what had happened before him.]

x1 music file

x1     [x1 in midi]

Some of the concepts of the Ari come from verses of the Torah  and the Sefer Yetzira, not necessarily from the book of the Zohar. The first three seferot from Mishlei 3 and the seven lower sepherot from Chronicles. ["God by his wisdom founded the earth by his understanding etc."].To you Lord is the greatness and the power and the beauty etc.
However the basic scheme comes from Plotinus. Nothing is wrong with that, but that does not mean that the basic concepts were found in Torah. 

You can wonder about mixing belief systems. When the Rambam combined Aristotle with Torah, that must have seemed at the time like mixing apples and oranges. However you would not ask that if one would apply that principle to Torah and Medicine. It seems like they deal with two different areas. But Aristotle's Metaphysics must have seemed to some people as not really a different area than Torah but rather a conflicting area.
It is hard to come up with a good rule of thumb about this.

"מחאה" (to object to wrong doing)

It was pointed out to me once by Leibel [the son of the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir Rav Shmuel Berenbaum] that there is an obligation of "מחאה" (to object to wrong doing--even when it seems you will not be listened to.]
In fact you see that in the Gemara in the events about Kamza and Bar Kamza. There was some wrong act that was done. But that act was not the cause of the fate of the Temple to be destroyed. Rather the fact that the sages of the time did not object to that act.
You see this also in the Old Testament with the tribe of Benjamin that did not object to the treatment of the concubine at Giva. And in that case God himself revealed to Israel to continue wiping out that tribe because of the fact that they did not object to wrong doing.

Similarly you can see why the Gra would have signed the letter of excommunication. Same reason. To object to evil--even if you know you will not be listened to.

two great Litvak yeshivas

There was a certain degree of grace that I merited to go to two great Litvak yeshivas. Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. Only later did I come to Israel to learn in kollel. But the kollel thing in Israel seemed to be structured in a way that I though was not really proper and so I dropped out of it and learned Torah on my own and said to my wife that we would trust in God to help with making a living.

[That is the short and sweet of my yeshiva career. The beginning of it was a meeting with Shmuel Glazer who was going to a different Litvak yeshiva in Baltimore (I think of Rav Rudderman).

I was in Asbury Park at the time, and met him through an old man at a hotel that my family was running. [The Hamilton Hotel]. 

What is great about Litvak yeshivas is basically the fact that they learn Torah in the straight and narrow path. They do not add nor subtract. What is Torah is Torah,- and what is not is not.
So in the few years I spent there I got a basic idea of what Torah is all about. That is on one hand the most obvious advantage of the Litvak yeshiva world. Another hidden advantage is that if you get into it, you can really get touched with "the spirit of Torah", but that is a little harder to put my finger on.

But it is not as if they are going with the path of the Gra exactly. Rather that they get about as close to the real thing as possible. But it would be nice if they would stick with the Gra more than they do.  The way I see it is that if they would take the Gra and Rav Shach a bit more seriously, that would help to bring clarity to what really is Torah and help people avoid the Dark Side and pseudo Torah.
 [Just for clarity let me just mention that basic set of the great Litvak yeshivas is Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat in NY and Ponovitch, and Brisk in Israel. [But Ponovitch has branches and also non-official branches of people that learned at Ponovitch and started yeshivas along the lines of Ponovitch. Shar Yashuv is known as a beginner's kind of place --which is true for the first year. But my impression was that after the first year they get rapidly into deep Torah waters in a way that falls nowhere behind the other great Litvak yeshivas.

[I did not learn Musar in Shar Yashuv because that is a Litvak yeshiva, but not a Musar Yeshiva. The idea really comes from Rav Haim of Brisk that Musar can be and often is a distraction. So Shar Yashuv was based on that model. They want the time in yeshiva to be for getting to the "real thing" as deep and fast as possible. Yet later at the Mir I did learn Musar. And I still am not sure which model of  Litvak yeshiva is better. With or without Musar.] 

Is China behind it? To me it seems unclear. I was convinced for years that the KGB at least had a hand in the riots of the 1960's. And later that became clear with the defection of Bezmenov [See Bezmenov utube]

I can imagine China is doing the same thing about trying to bring down the USA. But I highly doubt if they are doing it in the same ways.
[If Russia has to get a sample of sand from an American beach they would send in a commando Spetsnaz unit by submarine and commandeer the beach while gathering some sand. The China would send in a thousand tourists and each one would pick up one grain of sand and bring it back to China. That is probably how China is now dealing with the USA. But just like a friend of mine who was a KGB agent told me, (according to him at any rate) the KGB simply did not have the resources that would have been needed to subvert the entire USA in the 1960's/ It had to be Americans doing it to Americans. It seems the same nowadays. People have been so indoctrinated in Communists values in American public schools and colleges that they are simply taking the next logical step.

What Americans do right now I think has a lot to do with how the future will look. For one thing American might stand up to the mob. They might get armed and packing. They might refuse the Tyranny of Antifa. Or they might go down as sheep. Wear the masks. Obey the tyranny. I think a lot will depend if Americans are willing to accept tyranny.

You can't say, "I can't breath" without breathing. Just try it. It is a physical impossibility. Air must be going through the vocal chords for them to work.

Floyd  did not suffocate, he was talking (you can't say "I can't breath" without breathing) up until the moment his damaged heart, further impacted by massive doses of meth and fentanyl, gave out from stress, likely the stress of his resisting arrest.

The Middle Ages had one main problem to solve. The relation between faith and reason. And a sub area was free will. [There also was the issue of the relation between religion and government.]
The free will issue comes up in the Rambam and Raavad in Laws of Repentance.

Though Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson do not deal with this directly, their insights can shed light on the issue of free will.

One thing that I noted is that knowledge does not cause events. Rather knowledge is a result of something. [At least in my naive way of looking at things.] I see a blue desk so then I know there is a blue desk. [Someone must have painted it blue.] So the fact that God knows if one will be righteous or not does not cause the person to be righteous. Knowledge is different than being. It is a result of being. But with God, with "logos" the order is different. His knowledge comes first and then being. But still that knowledge --in order to be knowledge, in any sense of the word, can not force a thing to be so. It has to be a result of the thing being so.

w100  [w100 in midi] [w100 nwc]  x100 in mp3  [x100 in midi]  x100 nwc

Blue Lives Matter. [I.e the police.]

These attacks on the police are not peaceful. They are attempts at provoking violence. And they ought to be persecuted under obstruction of a policeman in the fulfillment of his job.

General Lee

As for General Lee, I think he ought to be honored because the South and North were fighting for truth and justice, but disagreeing about how that would be applied at that time. . The South had a right to leave the union since nothing in the Constitution says that once signed no state could leave. There could have been a clause like that but there was not.
[If it had gone to the Supreme Court, there would have been no war. And in fact the president of the Confederacy asked to be tried as a traitor. He knew that the courts could decide one way, or the other; and then everyone would simply have to abide by their ruling.


Dr. Kelley Ross also wrote that clearly the South had a right to leave the Union, but that they choose the worst possible issue to do it over.

[And I even wonder if the Union had a right to outlaw slavery. That is, even if it had been legitimate as a constitutional amendment approved with the willing vote of the states. The reason is that the federal government had enumerated powers.  Taxes, yes. But not simply to declare law and certainly not to declare war  without Congress. [To preserve the Union might be a worthy ideal, but where in the Constitution is that given to the Federal government  in any sense? The idea itself is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Can a husband murder his wife if she demands to leave their union?

So clearly Jesus was what you would call Caucasian.

I do not recall which book off hand, but I recall reading in some book of ancient history that the peoples around the Mediterranean sea were white and blue eyes. Specially the Greeks.
[I do not recall if it was Herodotus or Thucydides's Peloponnese War. Or maybe some general history written by some Romans. It was so long ago I do not recall where I saw this.] In the Mishna it says openly that Israel are not dark nor albino, but medium. I.e probably along the lines of what your see in Iranians today. [I also don't recall where in the Mishna. Maybe it was in Nedarim.] And that makes sense, since after all Israel did originally come from Iraq [Mesopotamia]. So clearly Jesus was what you would call Caucasian.
[In the movie Alexander the Great you see the ancient Greeks shown as white Caucasian. Thought that is no proof, still it in fact is exactly what was recorded in ancient history. But my reading of ancient history was a long time ago. So where I saw this could have been almost any ancient source.]
[Besides this there are plenty of murals that show Romans as white. And in the Egyptian pyramids all the pictures there showing the ancient Egyptians show them as being white. Later invasions changed things, but that is how people are the Mediterranean Sea looked then.

So I see this loose alliance of the Litvak yeshivas

Ever since learning about the war between Sparta and Athens I have been aware of the importance of alliances. [Sparta only conquered Athens between it had the rest of the Greek city states on its side.]
In any case, because of this I tend to look at Lithuanian yeshivas in a positive light, even though I would prefer if they would be going more by the Gra.
I mean, clearly the top is Ponovitch, with Brisk a close second. But all the Litvak yeshivas are very good as much as they are going with the straight Torah approach if the Gra.
So I see this loose alliance of the Litvak yeshivas as great thing as being the one and only source of accurate information as to what the Torah actually holds and says.
[My own approach, is simply is to try to learn Physics Math and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach as much as possible. I never managed to last very long in the amazing world of straight, unadulterated Torah of the Litvak yeshivas. But for the short time I was there, I got a taste of the "Real Thing" which was nice. More than nice. Awesome you could say.]

The white race is hell bent on suicide,

The white race is hell bent on suicide, and woe to anyone that stands in their way. The worst sin, of course, is to have white children. The least a white person can do is to have mulatto children. Even better is not to have children at all,-- in order not to perpetuate the sin of beauty and grace. [Ah, who can fail to see the glories of mud? Oh muses, give to me the gift of song of the glories of mud. Oh wondrous mud. Beautiful mud. Mud,O mud, beautiful beyond compare! Who can extol the wonders of mud. Mush with mud, and mud with mush, the breakfast cereal of champions.

With John Locke and the American Constitution there is a basic principle that all men are created equal. . People are born with different DNA. And the humans have never been equal and never will be.

 With John Locke and the American Constitution there is a basic principle that all men are created equal. . People are born with different DNA. And the humans have never been equal and never will be.
The way to resolve this conflict is the original idea of equality in the French Revolution is that people should be equal under the law. That is there should not be one set of law that applies to one class and a different-set that applies to a different class. But not that all people are born with equal talents or traits.

But if the French Revolution contributed any original idea of good idea that already was not contained in the American Constitution is hard to know. To me it seems all based on Rousseau which is really half baked place to start from. [The General Will as opposed to objective morality and objective rights of individuals.]

Leonard Nelson wanted to have a new beginning of the Socratic approach. But that would be hard to duplicate. Especially because of so many levels and sub levels in the Socratic dialogues.

The main question about Socrates is how did he know what line of questioning would lead the person he was addressing to the exact opposite conclusion what he started out with?

How can you learn a method that seems to depend on intuition?

However on the other hand Hegel thought that any concept, if one thinks deeply enough about it has to lead to some opposite place from where it starts out from until by force it is lead to a higher level. And then that same process starts again until one reaches Absolute Spirit.
So perhaps it was more than intuition of Socrates but an ability to probe into the facts.

Police Lives Matter.

What seems to be the problem with the religious world? (*Besides the fact that they are all crazy.)

What seems to be the problem with the religious world? (*Besides the fact that they are all crazy.) The answer seems to be staring me in the face, though I could not see it for a long time. It is a Midrash that brings the statement of R. Meir about learning Torah for its own sake brings one to great things? They ask "But how can that be? For R Yohanan said, 'One ought to learn Torah even not for its own sake because by that one will come to learn Torah for its own sake.' And the Midrash answers (that question of the contradiction between R. Yochanan and R Meir) that R Meir was saying like R Akiva that one who learns Torah not for its own sake, it is better of he had never been born. (I.e. the Gemara concludes that this is an argument between Tenaim, not between R Yochana and Amora and R Meir. That is an argument between an amora of the Gemara and a tana of the mishna is not possible.])
Now if there had been any distinctions between kinds of  "not for its own sake," then that would have been the obvious answer. So clearly the sages did not see any distinctions. Whether it so for money or whatever the reasons maybe, it is all the same to them. To R Yohanan it is OK and to R Meir and R Akiva it is not.
So of the law is like R Meir and R Akiva, that would seem to explain the issue.
The custom is to make differences between types of "not for its own sake" in order to excuse the custom of extortion of the state to make the state pay for yeshivas. That seems to be a problem 

It got to be that even among people that went along with the approach of the Gra that secular studies were not accepted unless in order to make money. But this does not distinguish among different kinds of secular studies. Most of what is taught in universities is in fact quite worthless. However the many Rishonim including the Gra did hold that the natural sciences are important. But since not everyone is really up to the level of being a physicist so they go into the pseudo sciences. And then try to convince others that what they are doing in in fact some deep wisdom. [Go check up among all students in universities who has the lowest IQ. That ought to tell you something.]

[The Gra said that lack of knowledge in any of the seven wisdoms would result in a lack of understanding of Torah a hundred fold.]

Man made pseudo wisdoms are not the same thing as the wisdom of God as revealed in the work of Creation.

I wanted to express the greatness and importance of following the path of the Gra. That is mainly the idea of straight Torah with no additions nor subtractions. But even though the Gra is known, the whole "spirit of Torah" that you find in Litvak yeshivas is not known. Even after it is known , it  is hidden.

I am not saying I had the merit to follow the straight path of the Gra for more than a few sweet years in Shar Yashuv and later at the Mir. [Both great Litvak yeshivas.] But I go with this idea that even if I can not be what I ought to be, at least I can help others by showing them the path of authentic Torah.

People that protest against the police in the USA, truly love and believe in the police.

People that protest against the police in the USA believe in the kindness and upright moral character of the police. They truly love and believe in the police. How do you know this? Because they know if they would have walked to a militzia officer in a Communist Russia and insulted him, they would have left without any of their teeth. Only in America do the police show constraint and understanding and moral responsibility.

One way to deal with the attempt to take down the USA by China and Antifa would be to learn the basic values that the USA was founded on. That is not just the Federalist Papers. But also the history of England and the Magna Carta. [Why these are no longer taught in schools is baffling]

Another suggestion is to arrest one person working for Antifa. I mean, even if you can not arrest an entire mob, you can arrest one [or more people] and charge them with incitement of rioting, and treason, and felony assault on a police officer.

If the white race is committing mass suicide by siding with their enemies, that does not mean that every single one has to go down without a fight.
If white people have no pride about creating the most magnificent civilization in all history, I can not give it to them.

[When Somalia can do something like this then let me know.