t59 written May 24, 2017 in Uman [That was a year before I had to escape, since it was becoming exceedingly violent. I barely escaped with my life.] 

 I have no hard data about this but I think most Jews that came to the USA before WWII were mostly interested in STEM.  The natural sciences.  This might have just been the natural tendency. For example, my dad went into STEM. [His parents had come to the USA right after WWI. ] Why? I think it was  the influence of his older brother Alex. But did their parents mention this to them, or was it just something that they wanted to do? Violin also. I know my own father was contemplating either a career as a violinist or in STEM. But after those first generations, the interest seems to have waned. Why is this? I think because people are not aware of the statement of the Gra [brought by his disciple Baruch of Shkolev] that "According to the lack of knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms, one will lack hundred fold more in understanding of Torah."  

[The seven wisdoms are not actually STEM, but that would be the modern equivalent.]

When I was in Polytechnic learning Physics, I recall a lot of the the professors were Jewish, but what really got my attention was when I had some complicated problem, the professors were not around, I went to a bunch of Asian students. And they solved my problem in an instant. 

 

 What is the problem with השקפה world view. It is too easy to talk about it for hours without knowing anything. And this is the major problem in the religious world.  They can talk endlessly about "Hashkafa" without the slightest idea of Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot.

It is false religion that pretends to be authentic Torah.

Thank God there were people like Rav Kinyevsky or Rav Shach to set people straight about what Torah is really about. But the general religious world follows "Torah Scholars that are demons," [in that memorable phrase from Rav Nahman.] [If Rav Nahman had come into the world just for that phrase, it would be enough.]]תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים{LeM I:12 and I:28},-- or that other one רברבי עשו [LeM I:8]

In the commentary of the Gra on Proverbs, it brings the idea that a person needs no effort at all -[perhaps even without Trust in God. This seems to be unclear/]. This is based on Rosh Hashana 26b. "The People in the study hall did not know the meaning of the verse 'Throw on the Lord your burden and he will support you.' They thought that one should trust in God and also do effort. However that did not fit the verse which should have said, 'your needs'. What is the 'burden' [in a language that means 'things that you ask for'. ] Then they saw the event with Raba Bar Bar Chana who was walking and carrying a burden. A merchant came by and said, 'Put your burden on my camel.' Then the people in the study hall said, 'We see that even for what a person has to pay for, if it is from Heaven, people will beg to do it for him.'" 

 

I do not know when one should trust, and when one should do effort. But in my own life, doing effort always backfires. So I try to trust in God for everything as much as I can.--That means, I try to minimize the efforts, and instead to trust that what is decreed for me, will come to me, whether I like it or not. 

However I should add that "kollel" is not the same thing as trust in God. Kollel is using Torah to make money. However you might find some permission for that. Okay. But that still does not mean it is trust in God. It is openly using Torah as a means to make money. Let us not mince words about it.

 I would have to root for the Ukraine since I have an endless debt of gratitude for the many people there that helped me when I needed help. The details are not important, but the fact of the matter is that people went far beyond their means to help me in all sorts of difficult situations when I needed help.y life.

 z69 music file.  It seems to me that this piece is basically done-for now. But certainly it will need later editing. So I present it as it is, on condition that people that listen will forgive me for rough spots.

 I know that when I first saw the path of learning of Rav Nahman--saying the words and going on, I mentioned this to Motti Freifeld [the son of Shelomo Freifeld, the founder of the great Litvak yeshiva Shar Yashuv]. Motti was adamant that Review is the only proper path. And to a large degree you see this in Litvak yeshivot--deep intense learning. and tons of review.

So doing "just saying the words and going on", I could not do since by that I understood zilch. But the intense sort of deep learning you have in the great Litvak Yeshivot I also had no idea how to get to that.

So I had a sort of compromise to say every section of the Gemara and Tosphot twice--and then go on. Eventually I added the Maharasha and Pnei Yehoshua. and since these were hard to get at all, I used to review them about ten times or more.

After some time has gone by, I can see the importance of both methods: fast learning and slow painstaking in depth.

[For the kind of in depth learning in the Litvak Yeshivot it is helpful to have a learning partner with a computer like mind [like  I had for awhile, David Bronson]. Without him, it takes a lot more time "to calculate the sugia" [the calculate the subject.] as they call it in Israel. For those like me that are more or less on our own in learning, I recommend getting as many of the books of the great Litvish sages from Rav Chaim of Brisk up to Rav Shach. -]

 I see after last week when an Arab took a machine gun and killed a bunch of people that, Israel is not letting Arabs in to work or to vacation at the sea. --at least for now at the start of Ramadan. I mean to say, that the usual surge of Arabs at the beach is towards the middle and end of Ramadan. But I would usually see plenty at the beginning also. Today I did nor see a single Arab at the beach. Obviously Israel has closed the borders. 

[The actual murders done last week were by Arabs with Israeli Citizenship living in Israel, so closing the border does nothing about that problem. Still I can see why the government is concerned about Arab Violence.]

[After a day of that, Israel let in all the Arabs with work permits. I see most of the regulars are back to work. -But maybe not all. But I see that Arabs without work permits are still not being let in since there were none at the beach.

 Even though the Kesef Mishna and the Gra disagree about what it means יש קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר it is still hard to see if there in ant difference in terms of practice. Though I do admit the approach of the Beit Joseph helps to understand the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah page 13. Thee it asks how could Israel bring the Omer from grain that grew in the property of the Canaanites. [Though I am wondering what the Gemara means there. Did Israel bring the omer after or before they reconquered the land that the grain was grow on.?]

The basic subject is this: The Rambam says there is no acquisition to a idolater IN Israel .So If a Israeli buys the land back, the grain that grows on it will be obligated in truma. The Kesef mishna says :this is even though the Gemara seems to hold there is acquisition, still it must be (according to the Rambam) tat that is not the law. Or that the Gemara is referring to the time when the field is in the possession of the idolater. 

The the Mabit brings that the Kesef Mishna himself was aware of this problem [that even if the land is owned by the idolater, it still is obligated in truma as the Rambam himself says later in that perek.]

So the Beit Yoseph answers the grain is obligated when the smoothing was done by a Israeli. 

Well even though the Beit Yoseph seems like a very new idea--that all agree that when the land is in the possession of the idolater it is not obligated, still if a Israeli buys the grain and does the smoothing of the stack, it is obligated, so where is the argument? The Gra agrees.  The Beit Yoseph himself brings this. So in the long run, where is the argument.

I am sorry for bein short and not explaining what I mean in detail , but it is really really late and I am really tired, To see what I mean look at the the Gemara in Avoda Zara page 47 and the Avi Ezri on First Fruits perek 2, laws 10 and 13

 The West is going crazy trying to turn children into queers and the clear attempts by thousands of “educators”, “counselors”, and other shepherds of the pervertization of children to CONVERT children from normal sexualization to perverted and mutilated sexualization and the Covid Hoaxl.

The over respect for is smart people in the West results in the fact that the social "sciences" and humanities  not worth much. For the professorate are sick-in-mind people who want to have the prestige of a PhD but are too stupid to get one in the real sciences like Physics or Chemistry.

 Jane Goodall showed about about our close relatives in the primates are vicious. "During the first ten years of the study I had believed […] that the Gombe chimpanzees were, for the most part, rather nicer than human beings. […] Then suddenly we found that chimpanzees could be brutal—that they, like us, had a darker side to their nature." Goodall also observed the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop to maintain their dominance, sometimes going as far as cannibalism. And this is in us. [People are evil.] The difference Dr Huemer wrote that we can use reason to see objective morality.

And this certainly goes along with Hegel. However Huemer is coming more from the direction of GE Moore.

But to Leonard Nelson we know good from evil by a third sense--non intuitive immediate knowledge. And I am not at all able to see who among these greats was more correct. But one thing all agree with, we can know the difference between right and wrong--if we try hard enough. But without that effort we are naturally evil.  [See In Praise of Folly by Erasmus, and or Candide.]

When Husserl was arguing against Leonard Nelson, he was on one hand making a false accusation of psychologism..But in general he was arguing against psychologim in his book anyway. And the argument is always based on the idea that the laws of Logic have nothing to do with empirical things. The laws are forever true. So my question is that after that we have logic that is fractional. Does that change the argument? 

I might make clear that to Nelson, the categories, a priori knowledge is not because that is how our minds work, but rather it is knowledge that we know not by the usual ways of pure reason or pure observation.

i think people ought to look at the PhD thesis of. Kelley ross where he goes into great depth about immediate non intuitive knowledge and shows clearly that reality is really two fold. reality includes both physical and mental phenomenon and that neither can be reduced to the other and that knowledge has to start from propositions than can not be proved because they are the start of reasoning and even of any kind of empirical knowledge--without which empirical knowledge can not even begin. 

 It is best not to try to extend reasoning into realms of things in themselves--things that can not be checked by observation

The problem of evil is well known problem since ancient times. To give you an idea of the scope of the issue let me say there are more than 2 billion entries on this issue when you search google. Happy reading. And among these authors have been the deepest and most profound. So what I think is this: We would do well not to try to reason about spiritual things at all. We should mind our own plot of land and be happy with what we have and not be in the category of those that Do not  look at "what is above, what is beneath, what is within, what is outside." מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור/ The Gemara says harsh words about those that look at these. Now the problem of evil is hard to understand, but when it comes to the idea that everything that God does is for the good, we ought to accept the fact and just move on.

[What are "things in themselves"? When you look at a piece of wood it has a shape and a color and a feel to it. These are characteristics that describe how you interact with that  piece of wood. But what is it without your interaction with it? What is it without the adjectives that you add to it?"

So we might know about God, and morality, and souls and angels. But not by reason. Rather by Faith. And faith is important. However one should not confuse faith with knowledge. And when one does confuse these two things, that is where religious insanity begins.

 In Torah the mention to honor and obey one's teachers never appears. Rather it is to honor and fear one's parents. So from where does the modern emphasis on listening to religious authorities come from? not from the Torah. Rather from the Tora of the Dark Side. 

 z56 music file I have not been writing much recently, but I hope that this brings a bit of joy to those that listen.

בבא בתרא דף כ''ו

 I was thinking about the Gemara on the way to the sea and back, Bava Batra 26 and 81. There is an argument between Tosfot and Rabbainu Hananel about the reason for Ula. Ula said if one has a tree within 16 cubits of the field of his neighbor he can not bring first fruits to the Temple. [The law about first fruits is he brings them to the Temple and gives them to the priest.]

Tosphot says that the reason is it is not enough to have a legal right to use the ground but rather because he needs to own the ground. It must be I think that Ula holds like Reish Lakish that קניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף דמי (ownership of the fruits is not like ownership of the ground).On and that is why R. Yohanan says even if he has a tree right next to the very border, he still brings first fruits because על מנת כן הנחיל יהושוע את הארץ. But that alone would not be enough to be thought to own the ground. All that Joshua did was to say that people have a right to plant anywhere on their property even up until the very border with their neighbor. But that would not be enough to be considered as if they own the ground unless you have this other law of R Yohanan: קניין פירות כקניין הגוף דמי

In terms of how Rav Shach explains the sugia/subject according to R. Chananel I would like to say a few points. So what I am going to talk about will be in a different mode that Tosphot.  R. Yohanan holds when one buys a tree with its ground , he will own only four amot around it. That is the reason R. Chananel says the law is not like Ula. For Ula says nothing about ownership and nor does R. Yohanan here in perek 2 of Bava Batra. But the whole point of R Hananel the ground must belong to the owner of the tree in order to bring first fruits  and if this tree is still within 16 amot of the boundary, it still is not all his ground. So we must say that R Yohanan holds he owns only four amot around it. This is like he says on page 81 when he buys three trees he owns everything under and  the length of  plowing around them which is 4 amot. So now it only matters that four amot around the tree belong to him and that is enough to bring first fruits. [Of course within 4 amot of the boundary will still be a problem and that is why I have to add that to R Yohanan קניין פירות כקניין הגוף גמי] This is all to explain that Ula means he is a thief on the fruits. But then Rav Shach changes his mind and notes that the explanation of Ula can in fact hold that the fruit really is owned by the owner of the tree but he is still a thief because he owns  the roots of the tree all around the tree up until 16 amot. and that 16 amot is now sticking into the field of his neighbor. So he is still a thief because of the roots of his tree are bring nourishment to the fruits 

I am still being short here because i am very tired after being at the sea. But not so cold. Still, the best idea is to see inside the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach in Laws of First Fruits 2:10 and 2:13 

I might mention also that Rabbainu Chananel might be thinking in terms of damages. That thus he would say that when Ula said, "He can not bring first fruits because he is a thief," that means the prohibition of damages comes from the prohibition of theft. For after all R. Yose never said anything about ownership but rather that one can plant next to the boundary of his neighbor.

___________________________________________________________

 I was thinking about the גמרא on the way to the sea and back, בבא בתרא דף כ''ו ודף פ''א 26 and 81. There is an argument between תוספות and ר' חננאל about the reason for עולא. There עולא said if one has a tree within שש עשרה אמות of the field of his neighbor he can not bring ביכורים to the מקדש. [The law about ביכורים is he brings them to the מקדש and gives them to the priest.]

תוספות says that the reason is it is not enough to have a legal right שיעבוד to use the ground, but rather because he needs to own the ground. It must be I think that עולא holds like ריש לקיש that קניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף דמי (ownership of the fruits is not like ownership of the ground). and that is why ר' יוחנן says even if he has a tree right next to the very border, he still brings ביכורים because על מנת כן הנחיל יהושוע את הארץ. But that alone would not be enough to be thought to own the ground. All that יהושוע did was to say that people have a right to plant anywhere on their property, even up until the very border with their neighbor. But that would not be enough to be considered as if they own the ground unless you have this other law of ר' יוחנן: קניין פירות כקניין הגוף דמי

There is a long piece by Rav Shach about this subject that explains R Hananel. That Ula means that if the nourishment comes from the ground of his neighbor, then the fruit belongs to his neighbor (even though he himself owns the tree. With this insight he explains the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch that when one buys a tree, he owns only 4 cubits around it, not 16 like Ula.]

In terms of how רב שך explains the סוגיא subject according to רבינו חננאל I would like to say a few points. So what I am going to talk about will be in a different mode than תוספות.  Now ר' יוחנן holds when one buys a tree with its ground , he will own only ארבע אמות around it. That is the reason רבינו חננאל says the law is not like עולא. For עולא says nothing about ownership and nor does ר' יוחנן here in פרק ב'  of בבא בתרא. But the whole point of רבינו חננאל the ground must belong to the owner of the tree in order to bring ביכורים  and if this tree is still within שש עשרה אמות of the boundary, it still is not all his ground. So we must say that ר' יוחנן holds he owns only ארבע אמות around it. This is like ר' יוחנן says on page 81 when he buys three trees he owns תחתיהם וביניהם וחוצה להם כמלוא אורה וסלו everything under and  the length of  plowing around them which is ארבע אמות. So now it only matters that ארבע אמות around the tree belong to him and that is enough to bring first fruits. [Of course within ארבע אמות of the boundary will still be a problem, and that is why I have to add that to ר' יוחנן קניין פירות כקניין הגוף גמי] This is all to explain that עולא means he is a thief on the fruits. But then רב שך changes his mind and notes that the explanation of עולא can in fact hold that the fruit really is owned by the owner of the tree, but he is still a thief because he owns  the roots of the tree all around the tree up until שש עשרה אמות. And that שש עשרה אמות is now sticking into the field of his neighbor. So he is still a thief because of the roots of his tree are bring nourishment to the fruits 

I might mention also that רבינו חננאל might be thinking in terms of damages.  Thus he would say that when עולא said, "He can not bring first fruits because he is a thief," that means the prohibition of damages comes from the prohibition of theft. For after all ר' יוסי  never said anything about ownership, but rather that one can plant next to the boundary of his neighbor.

חשבתי על הגמרא בדרך לים ובחזרה, בבא בתרא דף כ''ו ודף פ''א כ"ו. יש ויכוח בין תוספות לר' חננאל על הסיבה לעולא. שם אמר עולא שאם יש לאחד עץ בתוך שש עשרה אמות מהשדה של שכנו, הוא לא יכול להביא ביכורים למקדש. [החוק לגבי ביכורים הוא שהוא מביא אותם אל המקדש ונותן אותם לכהן.]
תוספות אומר שהסיבה היא שזה לא מספיק שיש לשיעבוד (זכות חוקית) להשתמש בקרקע, אלא בגלל שהוא צריך להחזיק בקרקע. זה חייב להיות אני חושב שעולא מחזיק כמו ריש לקיש שקניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף דמי (הבעלות על הפירות אינה כמו בעלות על הקרקע). ולכן ר' יוחנן אומר גם אם יש לו עץ ממש ליד הגבול, הוא עדיין מביא ביכורים כי על מנת כן הנחיל יהושע את הארץ. אבל זה לבד לא יספיק כדי להיחשב לבעלות על הקרקע. כל מה שיהושע עשה היה לומר שלאנשים יש זכות לשתול בכל מקום ברכושם, אפילו עד הגבול ממש עם שכנם. אבל זה לא יספיק כדי להיחשב כאילו הם בעלי הקרקע אלא אם כן יש לך דין אחר של ר' יוחנן: קניין פירות כקניין הגוף דמי

בבא בתרא דף כ''ו. לגבי איך רב שך מסביר את הנושא לפי רבינו חננאל אני רוצה לומר כמה נקודות. אז מה שאני הולך לדבר עליו יהיה במצב שונה מתוספות. עכשיו ר' יוחנן מחזיק כשאדם קונה עץ עם האדמה שלו, הוא יחזיק רק ארבע אמות סביבו. זו הסיבה שרבינו חננאל אומר שהחוק אינו דומה לעולא. כי עולא לא אומר דבר על בעלות וגם ר' יוחנן לא אומר כאן בפרק ב' של בבא בתרא. אבל כל העניין של רבינו חננאל הוא שהקרקע חייבת להיות שייכת לבעל העץ כדי להביא ביכורים ואם העץ הזה עדיין בתוך שש עשרה אמות מהגבול, עדיין לא כל הקרקע שלו. אז אנחנו חייבים לומר שר' יוחנן מחזיק ברשותו של בעל העץ רק ארבע אמות סביבו. זה כמו שאומר ר' יוחנן בעמוד 81 כשהוא קונה שלשה עצים שבבעלותו תחתיהם וביניהם וחוצה להם כמלוא אורה וסלו [הכל מתחת ואורך החריש סביבם שהוא ארבע אמות]. אז עכשיו רק ארבע אמות מסביב לעץ שייכים לו וזה מספיק כדי להביא ביכורים. [כמובן שבתוך ארבע אמות מהגבול עדיין תהיה בעיה, ולכן אני צריך להוסיף את זה לר' יוחנן קניין פירות כקניין הגוף גמי.] זה הכל כדי להסביר שעולא אומר שהוא גנב על הפירות. אבל אז רב שך משנה את דעתו ומציין שההסבר של עולא יכול למעשה לקבוע שהפירות באמת בבעלותו של בעל העץ, אבל הוא עדיין גנב כי הוא הבעלים של שורשי העץ מסביב לעץ עד שש עשרה אמות. ושש עשרה אמות האלה נכנסות עכשיו לשדה של שכנו. אז הוא עדיין גנב בגלל שורשי העץ שלו מביאים הזנה לפירות

אציין גם שרבינו חננאל אולי חושב במונחים של נזקים. כך היה אומר שכאשר אמר עולא "אינו יכול להביא ביכורים כיון שהוא גנב", משמע איסור הנזק בא מאיסור גניבה. כי אחרי הכל ר' יוסי מעולם לא אמר דבר על בעלות, אלא שאפשר לשתול ליד גבול שכנו.

 It is an important fact that in the book of Job, we find that Job  doesn't say that God is right. Rather says that we do not understand God. It is his friends that stick  up for God . They say God does not send punishment to a righteous man,   They say everything that the religious say. And GOD at the end of the book says they are wrong.  It says in Isaiah God creates evil. Rather, God's ways are not subject to human understanding.  בורא רעה. This is changed in the first  blessing of the Shema to "He creates everything." But in the Prophet it says openly "He creates Evil."

This sounds like blasphemy. However God in the Book of Job says it was the friends of Job that were saying blasphemy by saying God does not punish the righteous. 

But the friends of Job had good intensions to stick up for God, instead of sticking up for their friend, Job. Still, God did not want or need their good intensions. Rather He said that they sinned, and that Job should pray for them to be forgiven. To Job himself he simply said that Job does not understand.

It is hard to know why God, who is totally good should create evil. But that refers back to an older problem -How do sperate events stem from God who is a Divine Simplicity, a Undifferentiated Unity. He is not made of Separate ingredients, 

We do not know. These issues are in the realm of the "dinge an sich"-things in themselves-where even te most pure Reason can not enter

 I was going to Uman for every Rosh Hashanah since 1992. The first time was only for for two days of Rosh Hashanah and the next day was Shabat. But later times, I would go and stay for longer and longer periods--mainly because I was treated so well. And that was the rule for a long time. Only in the last year that I was there things started to change--and I had to escape just to save my life. But I must say I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the many, many people of Uman and Kiev that helped me in my times of great need. [Especially the doctors and nurses and people that opened their homes for me and many other great kindnesses that people did for me there.

Uman was where I started learning with David Bronson. From that learning resulted in the two short book on Shas and on Bava Metzia. I should add that David is genius in Torah and I was just picking up the scraps.

 I was at the beach and thinking about Comte, the founding father of the science of Sociology. That is where all the major principles  and idea of Sociology come from. {However this debt is never acknowledged because he was insane.]

The lesson to learn from this is that Rav Israel Salanter was right. Midot Tovot [good character traits] is first and foremost. Not how smart someone is,

I am being short here because by the time I get back from the beach I am tired. But if you have time and energy you can see how the six volumes of Comte established the science of Sociology. [It is easy to look up this stuff if you are interested.] However to be fair, I do not think that most people in the social departments of universities are aware of this because he name has been systematically erased, because he was insane. Who would want to admit the founder of the entire subject he or she is teaching was a madman? How right Allan Bloom was to shut the door on the social studies and humanities departments.

z57 music file   [all z files are in midi because i could not access a midi to mp3 converter.]

 I will make your faith known with my mouth.אודיע אמונתך בפי האמונה תולה בפיו של אדם ועל-ידי  דבורי פיו יכול לבוא לאמונה Rav Nahman in the LeM II: 44 brings this verse and then says that "Faith depends on one's words and by means of one's words he can come to faith." He put a lot of emphasis on what one says. And also על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבוא לתבונות התורה לעומקה By means of the word one can come to understandings of theTorah-to its very depth.

So not just faith, but understanding also come from one's words. I think this can be applied to the natural sciences, as well. 

I am being short. But my basic point is the talented people in the natural sciences do not need to be told  how to do their learning. But what about the rest of us? Should we be ignorant of  Physics, Math, Chemistry Biology? But the "Division of labor" costs us this. We think we do not need it because others can do it. And even if we want, the idea of just saying the words and going on sounds ridiculous. So people end up not knowing anything about the natural sciences at all. 

So I suggest that all the above is a mistake. We see in some  Rishonim that knowledge of the natural sciences is a part of the commandment "to learn Torah," [but not all Rishonim]. Plus I hold that this way of learning by saying the words and going on does work. 

You see in the Gra there is an obligation to know all the Seven Wisdoms, and the lack of knowledge in any one of them results in alack of understanding on Torah--a hundred times more.

[However, I combine it with review by going up to a certain point and then going back page by page to the beginning. And then at that point go back to the place I stopped and going a few more pages forward. And then review again back to the beginning.

[Also I should add that I heard in Shar Yashuv the importance of taking some chapter and doing review on it ten times. This might have originated with Rav Hutner. Why do I say this? Because in the Mir I had heard the same thing about the local store owner that had finished chapter 3 in Shabat ten  times.

I might add that while at Polytechnic Institute of NYU, I used to say the words of my lessons forwards and backwards and used that method for a few years. That is in the Physics or Mathematics text, I would say the whole forward and backwards and that included the exercises. 

Tosphot is always right.

  You can see the point of תוספות in his argument against ר' חננאל [בבא בתרא דף כ''ו] תוספות holds that when one buys three trees, he owns ט''ז אמות around them. And as forבבא בתרא פ''א where R.Yochanan said he owns the ground under and around them up until the length of  a  plowing,תוספות holds that is if the trees extend beyond ט''ז אמות. [That is an average arms length. It is not anyone's arm length, but the average value. You can see the point of תוספות, not just to show what he is trying to prove about the statement of עולא , but also as for the actual law of ownership around the trees. To see my point here is the גמרא brings this: עולא said if one has a tree within ט''ז אמות of the border, he can not bring the first fruit because of theft. The גמרא asks this: If one has one tree and its ground, he brings first fruits. Is that not even for a כל שהוא of ground? No. For ט''ז אמות. But if one has two trees, he מביא ואינו קורא פרשת ביכורים   . Is that not for כל שהוא? No. For ט''ז אמות. You can see from the first question of the גמרא that the גמרא itself is holding that when one buys a tree and its ground, he owns ט''ז אמות around it.

I am being a bit short here. The idea is this. R Chananel holds the reason for Ula is because of actual theft of the fruit. But he also holds the law is not like Ula. Tosphot holds the reason for Ula is that while he does own the fruit but getting sustenance from the ground of his neighbor. Furthermore Tosphot does hold the law is that when one buys three trees, he gets 16 amot around them.

So while Rav Shach argues for R. Chananel and shows why the Rambam and the Beit Yoseph do not hold that one gets 16 cubits with the trees, I was just showing why Tosphot hold he does get 16 cubits.

  אתה יכול לראות את הטעם בתוספות בטענתו נגד ר' חננאל. תוספות גורס שכאשר אדם קונה שלושה עצים, יש לו ט''ז אמות סביבם. בבא בתרא פ''א ששם אמר ר' יוחנן יש לו הקרקע מתחתם ומסביבם עד אורך חריש [כמלוא אורה וסלו], תוספות אוחז דהיינו אם האילנות מתרחבים מעבר לט''ז אמות. אתה יכול לראות את הטעם בתוספות, לא רק כדי להראות מה הוא מנסה להוכיח על האמירה של עולא, אלא גם לגבי חוק הבעלות בפועל סביב העצים. כדי לראות את דברי כאן מביאה הגמרא את זה: עולא אמר אם יש עץ בתוך ט''ז אמות מהגבול, אינו יכול להביא את הביכורים מחמת גניבה. שואלת הגמרא כך: אם יש לו עץ אחד וקרקעו מביא ביכורים וקורא. זה אפילו בשביל מעט אדמה? לא. בשביל ט''ז אמות. אבל אם לאחד יש שני עצים, הוא מביא ואינו קורא פרשת ביכורים. זה לא בשביל כל שהוא? לא. בשביל ט''ז אמות. אפשר לראות מהשאלה הראשונה של הגמרא שהגמרא עצמו אוחז שכאשר אדם קונה עץ וקרקע שלו, יש לו ט''ז אמות סביבו

Besides this I wanted to mention that Rav Shach himself retracts the original way he was explaining Rabbainu Channanel--[that Ula means the fruit is stolen even though the tree is owned.]. Rav Shach later explained Rabbainu Chananel to mean the theft part of Ula's statement means the getting the nourishment from the property of his neighbor. Well that answer can go just as well for Tosphot. So What I want to say is what my learning partner (David Bronson) was always telling me: "Tosphot is always right." Tosphot with the Maharsha is the hardest but the most important learning that there is.

 Constitutional Democracy is in a crisis. That is in the USA and thus by definition everywhere else. This was seen a long time ago by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind. I think if people in school would learn English history --the roots of the American system, they would have a much better understanding of the Constitution of the USA. Don't start "American History" courses with 1776, or Plymouth Colony. Start with Henry II and the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford.

Eve when I was in high school I felt there was something superficial about the course American History. Even though I certainly had no idea of  English history. And even later learning John Locke did little or nothing to bridge the gap. Only with Daniel Defoe 's political pamphlets did I start to get an idea of what was going on. Then when learning English history did the force of the impact come home. The USA is an extension of England, not just externally but inwardly.

 You can see the point of Tosphot in his argument against Rabbainu Chananel [Bava Batra page 26] Tosphot holds that when one buys three trees he owns16 cubit [amot] around them. And as for Bava Batra 81 where R.Yochanan said he owns the ground under and around them up until the length of  a plower plowing,--Tosphot holds that is if the trees extend beyond 16 cubits. [That is an average arms length. It is anyone's arm length but the average value.

You can see the point of Tosphot, not just to show what he is trying to prove about the statement of Ula, but also as for the actual law of ownership around the trees.

To see my point here is the Gemara. Ula said if one has a tree within 16 yards of the border, he can not bring the first fruit because of theft. The Gemara asks this: If one has one tree and its ground, he brings first fruits. Is that not even for a bit of ground? No. For 16 amot.

But if one has two trees he brings, but does not say the required formula [the start of Parshat KI Tavo]. Is that not for just a bit? No. For 16 amot.   

You can see from the first question of the Gemara that the Gemara itself is holding that when one buys a tree and its ground, he owns 16 cubits round it.

I am being a bit short here. The idea is this. R Chananel holds the reason for Ula is because of actual theft of the fruit. But he also holds the law is not like Ula. Tosphot holds the reason for Ula is that he does own the fruit but gettiing sustenance from the ground of his neighbor. Furthermore Tosphot does hold the law is that when one buys three trees, he gets 16 amot around them.

So while Rav Shach argues for R Chananel and shows why the Rambam and the Beit Yoseph do not hold that one gets 16 cubits are the trees, I was just showing why Tosphot hold he does get 16 cubits.

In my own life, the issue of finding my true mate was a confusing issue. At while in Shar Yashuv on possibility came up. A Bat Talmid Chacham. But for some problem of a misunderstanding that was set to zero. But a girl I had known in high school was running after me. I had spoken to her about my very special experience in the Litvak Yeshiva world and she decided to join with me. But I was still set on te daughter of a true Torah scholar. For after all I wanted to learn Torah always and forever. After all we see in the Yerushalmi that every word of Torah is equal to all the other commandments, Thanks to God and her amazing persistence to get me I gave in. The best decision I ever made in my whole life.  What this shows is that as the sages said after the Creation was does God occupy his time with?  Answer Making matches

Consciousness traps

 Consciousness traps abound. They are like little hooks to that have bait. They are meant to capture one's mind. They work by helping to solve some problem. Then you think, "Well since they helped with that, then they must be able to help with more things."  Then one is caught. Zohar is like that. One might get impressed with some statement or other and then get pulled in by the hook. The hook that is hidden inside the bait. 

So then how does one discern good from evil. By Reason. Not faith in statements that are charismatic but have little or no substance. 

Reason is not a strong guide -because it is most often instrumental Reason.  Still it is the sole way of discerning objective morality. For objective morality is a set of universals. And universals are properties that individual things have in common. And the only way to discern them is by reason.  For that is the major characteristic of reason to see the common traits among thing -the synthetic a priori of Kant. Things that are known, but not known by observation. And morality are rules that are known [like: do not murder for the fun of it] but they are not known by observation. That is you can not know an "ought""from an is". You can see an "IS". It might look horrible. But that does not imply an "ought". To know something is wrong is not by observation but by reason that can see universal principles

A consciousness trap is something you need to be wary of for you must now yourself-you area human being. and flawed. It is too easy to get pulled into something evil by the appearance of its being great and holy.

What is the difference between an Afghan seeking refuge and Ukrainian seeking refuge? The second will not rape your children, and try to convert you to Islam Sharia Law, or if you do not accept, then kill you. The difference is clear. אין אדם גר עם נחש בכפיפה אחת  A Gemara brings the idea that a person can not dwell with someone else that is trying to hurt them. 

There is a reason not to bring into your home someone that will try to destroy it.

 I think it is proper to mention something that I have said before-but merits repeating. I had outstanding medical care in Uman, in the Ukraine. I mean outstanding. This was over years. The only incident I wrote about was the event where I broke my foot. Local people called an ambulance and brought me to the hospital and there they gave me a whole series of tests blood, etc, etc. And a bed and meals. And never once asked about payment.  And when I offered to pay, no one wanted to hear about it. [Later I paid something for extra materials. But normally they never charge for anything.] ]The doctor came in in the morning and they took x rays. The amount of dedication to doing a good job was palpable. I can walk today thanks to God and his special angelic messengers at the local hospital. Segei Alexivitch the doctor, and Irina the nurse that held my hand during the operation to comfort me [I asked her to because I was frightened] and the woman doctor in charge of anesthetics that was super careful to give just the right amount, not too much as in general, not too little.

But this is one event from others. Eg the Country Hospital район Больница [as different from the city one] also the two times I was there was amazing.  The doctor himself I recall was trained in Denipr where there is (as I understand) a very great medical training school.  Why was I there? Because after breaking my foot I was bed ridden for some time I was not moving about at all. So my Stomach began to hurt with pain that I had never felt before. We went to the Rayon Bolniza region hospital and they checked on me. They saw the problem, gave me some medicine and within a minute, the pain was gone.

But one thing I have to mention. No doctor in Uman ever wanted anything to do with experimental medicine. Nothing new. Nothing not needed. drugs that had not been around for many decades were not ever considered.

 The problem with Intelligent Design is that it attributes God's direct intervention in the process. The problem with Evolution is that by definition, it can not be directed. It has to be random mutations. Only the ones that fit better with their environment survive.  Neither consider that God's direct intervention is not in all places and always at the same time. You can see this in the Hagadah of Passover that in the last plague it was God, no angel. That means much of the time, God' intervention is through angels. As the Rambam puts it in the Guide God's direct השגחה פרטית Direct Providence is only on the intellectuals. [As horrifying as that sounds].

Thus what we see in evolution is that Divine Reason permeates everything. That this Divine Reason is the reason that the world is not a chaotic mess. This is obviously from Plotinus with Logos being the middle Emanation, but with Hegel developing the idea further.

I think to share this link to videos on mathematics from Harpreet.

 The reason I share this is I realize that learning math just from textbooks is like learning to play the violin from a textbook. It just does not work. You need to hear it from a teacher.  אבדתם את הנעשה. אחוז בנשמע "You lost the 'We will do'. So now hold onto 'we will hear'" [Midrash]

 I have not written about Gemara for a long time because I have been confused about a certain issue. This is Ula in Bava Batra 26 b -a person that has a tree within 16 amot  [arm's breath] of the boundary if his property with that of his neighbor can not bring first fruits.  The Gemara brings then R. Yochanan who concludes  he can because על מנת כן הנחיל יהושוע את הארץ. The issue that has been bothering me is that this is subject to an argument between Rabbainu Chananel and Tosphot. Tosphot obviously holds that between Ula and R Yochanan there is no doubt that if he bought three trees, he gets 16 amot around them and even more if they extend further. The only issue here is that there is just one tree. But to Rabbainu Chananel the law is not like Ula at all. Not just because of R Yochanan, but also because of R Yosi that one can plant a tree right at the boundary itself.

The actual Gemara brings Ula אמר עולא אילן הסמוך למיצר חבירו ט''ז אמה אינו מביא ביכורים גזלן הוא because of roots the extend that far. 

 There was a surfing competition that just finished here yesterday. Morocco won first prize. [There was four in all. two for men and two for women.] [The winners I think were also from France, Germany and Portugal.] The water here is crystal clear. But on occasion with stormy weather or rain the overflow in the sea makes the sea muddy. I thought about this problem and thought to myself I have never heard of such a problem in the USA. So there must be some solution. Then it occurred to me the the runoff water from the city should be directed into a large pipe that would be laid out for about a half a kilometer into the depths of the sea.  I mean to say that I think this would solve other problems also. It is not just the mud in the water but sometimes other kinds of parasites can get too close to the shore--being attracted by the run off. \

Why you ask do I put this on my blog. ונשמרתם מאוד לנפשותיכם The Gemara brings this verse to show that one is required to take care of his physical health. 

 Z58 MUSIC FILE

 As you can see I am not coming up with a lot of new ideas. But I wanted to share one thought. That as you can see 20th century philosophy got into a whole bunch of messes. Half baked neurosis. Not just in pure philosophy but also in psychology and political thought.

So it is obvious why I elected not to go into any of it --being aware that I did not want to get brain washed. 

But for some reason a whole bunch of brilliant philosophers has cropped up  that see clearly the lunacy of 20th century philosophy, and show the way forwards. Kelley Ross, Robert Hanna, and Michael Huemer ae just the best examples but there are many more. Eg Michael Sugrue .

It is hard to know what to make out of this. It is as if philosophy has risen out of some sort of Dark Ages.

Myself I have no great ideas but I do see some sort of vertical thread that binds lower areas of value to higher levels. That is you have horizontal levels of value.[This is from Dr Kelley Ross]. All form, no content. [Formal logic]. And then jump to the next step Mathematics which is very close but there is a quantum leap since we know by Gödel that math can not be reduced to logic. Then the higher levels have more content like Physics but less formal structure. Galaxies are Homology complexes with the black hole being the kernel. Then the other natural sciences. Then human affairs. More numinous content like Justice, Ten art Music, etc. Then up to God,- total numinous content, no form.

But there is a vertical thread that unites it all.  [note 1] I see this in Homology with the internal CW complex as opposed to the boundaries. Form and Content. Exactly parallels to the above 

The parallels on every level of value are astonishing. All the levels are connected as per Plotinus and Hegel. They all flow from the Logos. But in quantum leaps. From pure space- a line or surface you get automatically numbers since one line has two boundary points, and we know from the Nullstelensatz that Geometry and Algebra are connected

note 1.

my mother. It seems to me that this might have been on her honeymoon with my father on a ship towards Europe (after WWII)

 

Her parents were Isaac Freeman and Devora. Devora was the first in the USA -born of her parents the Solomon's. Leila Freeman was from Newark NJ, but in the summer she was in Asbury Park helping  to run the Hamilton Hotel. She and her friends were at the beach there one day, when a bunch of guys came over to say "hello." She laid eyes on my dad for one split second, and that was that. My dad must have been quite a sight. He was a captain in the USA Air Force in WWII.  

Isaac Freeman, her father, was born in Poland. My own dad's parents also were born in Poland.  

The lessons I learned from my mother were somewhat different from what I learned from my father. From my mother I learned "to be a mensch" decent human bein with good character traits [which were the forte of my parents.] plus --"to marry a nice Jewish girl". To be a mensch I did not succeed, but to marry a nice Jewish girl I did--Paula Finn [changed name from Finkelstein]. My father had a slightly different set of values=self sufficiently. The odd thing is neither emphasized the natural sciences, but they clearly had a high regard for what is now called STEM. [and almost zero for the stupid social studies] [My dad was an inventor.  First the infrared telescope and later laser communication at TRW. ]

I might mention is not that my parents liked the idea of serving in the Army. Everything depended on what kind of war the USA was involved in. Fighting Nazi Germany was not the same thing as fighting North Vietnam. That later was essentially nothing to do with us.

 In my reading of the New Testament, Jesus was just a regular Jewish Tzadik along the lines of Chanina ben Dosa. [Hanina ben Dosa was very similar,  but R. Shimon ben Yochai also might be thought to be along the same lines.] The legal aspects I have gone into before. Jesus held from the statement in Hulin perek 8 מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה the first waters-washing before the meals is a mitzvah a good deed. the middle waters are allowed, the later waters waters are the meal are an obligation." Thus the washing before the meals is not an obligation according to this--only a good deed.

To worship God alone was the exact point of Jesus when the Satan tempted him. And this point comes up in Revelations. Jesus held one should worship God, not him. 

This is in sharp contrast to the modern way of thought in which self worships the main obligation. This is really from Heidegger where instead of God we have "Being", a secular version of God. And the sole obligation is to be yourself, authenticity. That is another word for self worship. 

So it is ironic for people that worship themselves to be accusing Jesus of their own faults.

Jesus claims to be a son of man and never refers to himself as son of God. and even if he would have said that he is a son of God, so what? בנים אתם להשם אלוהיכם ''you are the sons if the Lord your God, therefore do not put a  bald spot on your flesh for a dead person'' Deuteronomy 

 z59 music filemidi   z59 nwc

 You can see something incongruous about a  stogy German professor Herbert Marcuse in Disney Land  and seeing that as late Capitalism that would lead directly into Nazism. California is the land "that hung the jerk that invented work.  I am a native Californian, and a lot of that tolerance and laid back attitude certainly affected me, but I have that sort of seriousness  and urgency of the feeling of finding the TRUTH to have made me seek and search in the great NY Litvak yeshivot. I think in high school this must have been apparent to my friends, Roland Hutchinson, Wendy Wilson. Paula (Lea) Finn and others. That was even before I was walking around with books that indicated as much. [Though I am not dismissing the insights of the Frankfurt School either. My point is there is much to e learned from these later thinkers, but one thing is lacking-faith with reason.]

But I never really came to a place where I could made sense of it all--the big picture. The best I could come up with was a lesson I learned almost at my first few days in Shar Yashuv--the importance of the Rishonim/Mediaeval thinkers. And that includes their synthesis of Faith with Reason.  

So while I have great appreciation for  later thinkers, I do not think they get anywhere near the depth of the Rishonim. 

If this is any indication of the issue let me say as an example that even in Shar Yashuv I would spend most of my in depth learning time with achronim/ later thinkers --because they are the key to unlocking the Rishonim.

Thus in Philosophy also, while the later people, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson certainly are important, still there is something that we need to dig out of the Middle Ages.

[Just as  an example--Did Limited Constitutional Government, Parliament came from later people? Not at all. These all came from the English Middle Ages, Henry II, the English lords against King John, Edward I etc.

In the modern period it is the European philosophers tat get entangled with the internal world. Te Anglo American ones get the outer world, but lose the inner. The synthesis seems to be the Kant Friesian approach of Leonard Nelson that realizes there is a source of knowledge that is not reason nor sense perception. [Non intuitive immediate.]

 

 n12 music file [midi format] from 2014. I just found this in old files. I can not tell if it needs editing or not. It might but I am not sure.  

 LeM of Rav Nahman vol I perek 56 הסתרה שבתוך הסתרה God hides the deepest secrets of Torah in the hiddenness inside the hiddenness. This is one of the places where I note that the deepest secrets of Torah are contained in places where the holiness of God is hidden--Physics and Mathematics

The Closing of the American Mind

 I found high school to be extremely frustrating -as I am sure that most people do. One of the many issues was the need to be learning many subjects instead of being able to concentrate on just one. Maybe this was just a matter of growing pains. But my impression is that people ought to be able to have a certain direction without having to take extraneous subjects. 

But nowadays furthermore I think people ought to take the hint from Allan Bloom The Closing of the American Mind and simply close the social studies which have become simple propaganda. (Specifically anti America propaganda.) [This stems from the German philosophers at Columbia University that were refugees from Nazi Germany. They became the intellectual force that founded the direction of the "Education departments" in the USA. To their way of thinking unless the USA became Marxist, it was already close to Nazi Germany.] [Example: Adorno.] [This was the infamous Frankfurt school that became the birth place of postmodernism nd the Woeful Woke insanity]

Allan Bloom rightly sees the divide between the Enlightenment which formed the foundation of the USA and the anti enlightenment which was the foundation of the French Revolution. Kant iv somewhere in between but with Leonard Nelson of the New Friesian school --that puts Kant back into the  Enlightenment with its justification for faith that you see in John Locke

z12 music file from around May 2021  z12 nwc

g2 music file from 2010 g2 nwc  

    g8 music file g8 nwc

e37 music file  e37 nwc

i6 midi file i6 nwc

j6 nwc

j6

 Half slave and half free to the Rambam eats neither from his own Passover nor from his master. To the Raavad he eats from his own..The issue is which way is like the later mishna. The Raavad holds  his own is like the later mishna. The Rambam is holding it was the first mishna that held he eats of his own. The later Mishna said he must be let to go free since he can not be married to a Israelit [female Israeli], nor can he be married to a slave woman because he is half free.

Tosphot in Bava Batra asks on this that letting him go free is transgressing a lav/negative prohibition. And he answers that being married to a Israelit is a positive command which pushes off a negative command.  

[Half slave half free means owned by two masters, but one freed him. So he is now half free. The point of freeing him completely is that as a slave he can have a slave wife. As free he can have a regular Israelit. But half and half he can have neither, so he must be freed.]

Rav Shach pointed out a reason the Rambam took the approach that he did. I.e that the first mishna held women do not need to be appointed on any specific passover. [This opinion is brought in the Rosh in Nedarim page 36 side A] [And thus neither do slaves.]  So it makes sense that a 1/2 slave 1/2 free person would be able to eat from his or her own passover and not be required to join the with the group of his master. [But then why he eats only his own? Why could he not also eat from his masters passover?] But the later mishna holds that women do need to be appointed on a specific passover, so a half slave and half free person would thus not be able to eat of neither his own nor that of his master unless he is totally set free.  

 z28 midi file Music file