Guns and the 2nd amendment just saved a whole crowd in Chicago.

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records.  Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said.  No other injuries were reported.

If The Supreme Court hadn’t corrected decades of Progressive attacks on the 2nd amendment, the only person who would’ve been armed in this story is the bad guy. The Uber driver wouldn’t have even been able to stop to help. He’d have been defenseless.

Thanks to conservatives and libertarians, that Uber driver was an armed hero waiting to happen, and everyone lived.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/drive-hard-bad-guy-with-a-gun-stopped-by-good-uber-driver-with-a-gun/#ixzz3Xwvl2ryg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

In the Far East we have pure pantheism and in the West pure materialism. People do not feel God in their daily lives at all. In the Far East all people feel is Brahman . Israel certainly seems to have this ground of Monotheism in which people feel God, but not to the degree of going overboard towards Pantheism nor in the other direction towards materialism.
Now during that time I thought pantheism was normal Yiddishkeit. I had no reason to think otherwise.


Now most of that time I knew that pantheism was at least defensible because of Spinoza. But some questions started popping up about Spinoza. I read a book about Aristotle at Hebrew University and the author made a point to mention that Spinoza puts more constraints on substance than does Aristotle. I realized just take away those constraints and the whole edifice falls. Later in Netivot I saw the critique of Leibniz. Now all this time I knew that pantheism is not mentioned in any traditional authentic book. But the way Rav Shick was presenting it was that it was some deep secret that they were hiding.
The thing that convinced me that Spinoza was not correct was that I discovered the website of Kelly Ross. I discovered that website when doing some research on Spinoza. It was not any particular question Kelly Ross asked, but  the problems between the empiricists and the rationalists and the approach of Kant  that convinced me that Spinoza was just one step towards some proper approach.
Now we know the approach of the Rambam and Saadia Gaon is Monotheism but without the Kant school it is very hard to brings Maimonides down to earth in a concrete easy way to understand.
The Guide of the Rambam is known to be dense and difficult.
Another thing which woke me up was an essay by a person that had been in some Hindu cult in Southern California. The author had some critique along the lines that thinking everything is God doesn't make people better.  (The same author also wrote a book  Saved from the Darkness. His name is  Brad Scott, I think)

In Sanhedrin 63  we have an argument between two Sages of the Mishna about what the problem with the Golden Calf was. They both agree it was  שיתוף [joining] something to God, but to the first sage that is not pure idolatry. To Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai it is pure idolatry. Why not define idolatry as according to the number of gods one worships or the identity of the god? This is the unspoken problem I have been thinking about for a few days that got me to realize what the Talmud is getting at.  In the Talmud God is the Creator and everything else is created. To add anything to God and saying it has "godliness" is what the Talmud calls שיתוף joining.






To understand idolatry it seems you can classify it by  Advaita or pantheism will be on one end of the spectrum in the Far East. Then as you are on the longitude of Jerusalem you have Monotheism (God made the world and he is not the world). Then you go West and You have Monotheism, but with one person besides God also being God. And who you pick seems to be a matter of taste. The further you go West, the more you get materialism. In  the furthest west in Japan you get Buddhism which is zero-theism. And right between Japan and India the two lines meet so we find in fact Buddhism and Advaita being very similar. [Buddhism is atheism according to the Dalai Lama. I figure he must know.]

 Rav Shick [nicknamed "Mohorosh"] printed the books of Reb Nachman  Then started the period of the small pamphlets.


In his books, he would have regular statements of the Sages, but also throw in a statement of the Zohar איהו ממלא כל עלמין וסובב כל עלמין "He fill all worlds, and surrounds all worlds." And then he would add his signature statement אין שום מציאות בלעדיו כלל  "Nothing exists besides him." And sometimes also throw in his second signature statement  הכל אלקות גמור. ["Everything is pure godliness."]


In  letters he wrote "everything is the infinite light" הכל אור אין סוף ב''ה and "everything is the infinite one." הכל אין סוף ב''ה
All this comes from the Remak {Moshe Cordovero.} as quoted by the Shelah Hakadosh. That is probably where the Baal Shem Tov picked up the idea.

From what it is possible to tell this all might be an innocent mistake. We would say that nothing exists without God. Simple.  And this is all the Remak (Moshe Cordovero) meant. But it snowballed all out of proportion. By the time it got to the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov, Pantheism became the official doctrine. And Rav Shick being raised in a Satmar home thought it was traditional Torah thought. [And he never read the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam so there is no reason to think he would ever have become aware of authentic Jewish theology.]
He father was a friend and disciple of the Satmar Rav, Reb Joel.
Later on, this got mixed up with the Tzimtzum [contraction of the infinite light ] as a kind of way of defending pantheism.
With the Ari (Isaac Luria) we have none of this. Everything above Emanation is godliness, and everything below is not.  And that is straight from the Zohar itself. And this is in fact what we see in Nachmanides concerning the Golden Calf and the interface between God and his creation and his creatures. Obviously with the Rambam {Maimonides} only God will have godliness and everything else will not.

 In conclusion a taxonomy of idolatry will be how much outside of  God , the God of the Torah, the Five Books of Moses] is considered God. In the East everything.  That is Shankara. Then you move  a bit West and you get Ramanuja where there are gradations. Then on the longitude of Jerusalem you get Monotheism. Then in Europe you add one person. Until you get to Buddhism or zero-theism.

Now we understand the Talmud in Sanhedrin 63 about joining things to God being the problem with the golden calf. And we understand now why the Talmud takes this approach to idolatry and not the more natural thing to discuss the number of gods.
And now we can understand the Geon from Vilna (Vilnius). H could have put any number of groups into excommunication.  There were plenty of Shatz [Shabatai Tzvi] groups around. (Every city had its secret Shatz group especially in the Ukraine) But the Shatz was not claiming pantheism. Nor were his followers.
The Gra saw something more sinister in panentheism. He saw it as a sneaky way to direct worship towards people while pretending to be kosher.

Appendix and notes:

1) Reb Nachman said not to learn the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam nor any books that deal with Jewish Theology written by the Rishonim. And this is good advice from one aspect because those books are about orientation not learning Torah proper. Learning Torah proper means the Oral and written law, not books of theology. On the other hand for Rav Shick, the lack of knowledge about the מורה נבוכים the Guide had the result that he did not know that Judaism is Monotheism, not Pantheism. This was certainly in his case an honest mistake. He thought that when Reb nachman emphasized the importance of Faith that he was talking about pantheism when in fact Reb Nachman was referring to Monotheism. And this error has come to permeate all of Breslov including Na Nach.
[In Breslov looking at The Guide for the Perplexed or any book of authentic Jewish theology by any of the Rishonim (who were by all accounts the only people qualified to write such books) is considered a very great crime. I mean if you don't think the Rambam know what Torah is about then who does? But this creates the perfect storm. You have people intensely interested in what the Torah is about and yet can't open any authentic book of Jewish thought like Saadia Gaon or the Rambam to find out.  And after a few years these same people after spending all their time reading just Breslov books go out and write more Breslov books all in complete utter innocence of what the Torah says or means.
Now of course Reb Nachman himself is perfectly authentic and legitimate. He is simply coming from the school of thought of  Nachmanides and the Arizal. I have no complaints about that. On the contrary I find his books to be very helpful. It is just people that later write what they claim to be books based on Reb Nachman that I find to be problematic since they are always being written in ignorance of Torah






2) Brahman in Advaita is the only thing that exists. See the Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Sankara for a detailed exposition of this point of view that is coming from a more religious perfective than Spinoza. Brahma the Creator of the Universe is created and exist for only one day of Brahman so this is not the same thing as  the Torah's point of view. (Spinoza is a bit close to Torah with his distinction between "Nature" and Nature naturing.")

Here is a link to a new paper by Michael Huemer

http://studiahumana.com/pliki/wydania/In%20Praise%20of%20Passivity.pdf

or look at http://www.owl232.net/





 Philosophers today (and thus have tended to be except for the notable exceptions of Kant, Descartes, and Leibnitz. ) tend to be innocent when it comes to science.



So when philosophers today make false statements about a field I know something about it tends to turn me off. And if the errors get too dense then I simply stop reading that philosopher. And postmodern philosophy is built on errors so I tend to not look at it at all. See Jerold Katz's book who mentions this problem.

The בן סורר ומורה rebellious son has to fulfill a lot of conditions before he can be liable. Too many for it to be practical.
But this mitzvah does tell us something about honoring ones parents--that it is so serious as for the Torah to give a death penalty to one who does not obey his or her parents.
That means Torah considers this mitzvah to be more than just serious. Now we can understand that this does not apply when a parent is telling one to do something against the Torah. But that is not the usual case  when children or teenagers rebel.

But what I find interesting is the Torah in general does not command openly about respect to anyone. Respect towards kings, or prophets, or even priests is no where commanded in the Torah.
The only human beings the Torah tells to to respect and obey are our two flesh and blood parents. Not spiritual parents. Our actual physical -in this world- parents.
Why is this mitzvah so universally ignored is beyond me.
There is an interesting idea on this subject from the Naphtali Troup [The green book you see in yeshivas]. But I don't have than book with me now but if you can find it I remember he had some good ideas about this subject.

Rav Shach  thought that the kind of Lithuanian yeshivas that were built on the European model were the  sole source of Torah in this generation.And in particular he mentioned the idea that learning Talmud together with Musar was the sole means for Torah to continue. There is a lot to be said for this. But mainly we can see that his intention was that people should learn Torah whatever way that would be possible. And for people beyond the age of yeshiva [18-24] there is not much choice but to learn Torah at home.
 But it is probable that Rav Shach was thinking of the idea of kollels. In Israel I was a part of this system and it is basically geared so that people can learn Torah their whole lives--and it is supported by the State of Israel. In NY this kollel system I think is supported by the State of NY but I am not sure. It might be from the Federal government.--I never asked. The wife of Shmuel Berenbaum was in the office all day long taking care of the business matters of the yeshiva while her husband did the learning and teaching. All the people in the kollel, including myself, just simply were handed a check every month by Rav Handlesman [or his son] who was her assistant.

In any case, the major idea of Rav Shach was that learning Torah is a requirement for every person from young to old, sick or healthy, etc. and no one is exempt.
This idea I have found is almost impossible to relay to people. And whenever I have tried to express this idea to people I have encountered a lot of resistance.

But the fact is it is this idea of Torah being an obligation on everyone which forms the basis of the idea of Rav Shach that since most people are not learning Torah as much as they ought, therefore the only place where the Torah is found is in Lithuanian yeshivas where at least the ideal is nurtured.

Now the idea that Torah is important you can find in a statement of the Gra

But for right now I want to quote the Gra: "Everything that was, is, and will be is all contained in the Torah from "In the beginning God created.. until in the eyes of all Israel," [the Five Books of Moses]- not just the generalities, but the specifics of every species, and every single person and everything that happened to him from the day he was born until his last breath and everything in between, and also every living creature,--everything that will happen to each one individually. Everything that is said about the Patriarchs and Moses is in every generation. For they and their sparks are in every generation. And all of that is  contained in the first section of the Torah from Genesis until the story of Noah. And also in the first chapter of Genesis. And in the first seven words of the Torah--from the beginning until the end of time."


The letters of the Torah are the life force of everything that exists. On the face of it this idea looks different but you can see that since the Torah is the source of all life and being then it all must be contained in the Torah.
 it is possible to find Torah everywhere and in everything. but the letters of Torah are not always shining. The lights might be turned off. To find the light of God and Torah in things requires a kind of merit. It is not by knowing by means of kabalah what letters are in things. It requires a kind of sexual purity in order for the letters to shine.


Appendix:
I tend to agree with Rav Shach and his was the general yeshiva approach in those days.  The basic idea of Rav Shach is that in every waking moment everyone should be learning Torah except for the time needed to be making  a living. And it is agreed in this approach that Torah is not to be used to make money. And that makes the kollel thing awkward.   In any case the idea of kollel is that they  receive money in order to learn, not learning to receive money. That is at least the theory behind the whole thing. In practice things have evolved so that kollel becomes  a way to make money.

In any case, in this approach it is hard to find time for other areas of value. One can in theory claim he is finding letters of the Torah in other activities when that might be just an excuse. So the great yeshivas in Israel I still think are worthy of support. I can even name a few for those who are interested. Ponovitch, Mercaz HaRav of Rav Cook, Tifrach [I have heard tremendous praises but I have not seen the place, and Rav Montag's Kollel in Netivot which seems more like a full fledged yeshiva rather than a kollel, and Rav Zilverman's Aderet Eliyahu in the Old City of Jerusalem. All these places I think are worthy of support.--though again I have never seen Tifrach but from what I have heard it is off the map.]

Does one have to say something to a false god in order to be liable?
Well clearly not when it comes to the four services or for עבודה כדרכה (service according to the way it is usually served e.g. throwing stones at an idol that that is its way of being served.)
That is five things. But there is a sixth way of being liable for idolatry--and that is to accept it as ones god. Does that need a word?





In tractate Kidushin pg 50 it says דברים שבלב אינם דברים words in the heart are not words.
There is a Tosphot in Ketubot  that deals with the difference between words in the heart are not words and the conditions of the children of Gad and Reuven when they came into the Land of Israel. They had to make a condition that had in it "sic et non" (yes and no). "If we go up and make war with the inhabitants then we will inherit our portion. And if we do not go up and make war then will will not inherit." I forgot that Tosphot.
This is also relevant to what you find that women go up to a certain point in sexual activity and then  do not want to go further. That is very common. Even in cuddling. And now in collages women bring rape charges not because they said "no" but because they did not say "yes." "Yes" means "yes."



But what I wanted to mention here is that Shelomo Ben Aderet [the Rashba] said that words in the heart are not words only when the contradict one actions or spoken words.

Now all this is just preliminary. I have not yet studied the actual Gemara that I am tried to deal with here with my learning partner. That is the Gemara in Sanhedrin page 63 a.
But just off hand we know already that for truma [the tithe given to the priest] and sacrifices to the Temple that words in the heart are words. But that is OK. The Talmud already said in Kidushin that these are derived from two verses and so we don't learn from them a general principle. שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדים.
This the Rashba answered in his way that there the actions and words in the heart correspond.
But then why would the Gemara have to learn this from special verses? Rav Shach (Elazar Menachem Shach) said that there is a difference when something is accomplished by the word one speaks. For example getting married. קידושין. We know from verses in the Bible that one has to say something like, "Behold you are married to me by this ring according to the Law of Moses and Israel."

And there are places where we don't need words except to show intention--the words themselves accomplish nothing. In Yeshivish jargon they don't make a "חלות"

According to this in idolatry one would not need words to be liable.

If one does not need a word to be liable then the Mishna in Sanhedrin pg 62 side b is hard to understand. "המקבלו כאלוה והאומר לו אלי אתה" One who accepts it and says to it you are my god. is liable. What does that mean? You need both or either? Et or vel?

In any case the Talmud goes into the question, "Why is saying a word liable?" It seems to take it as a given that that the mishna is all one clause.

Does this apply to people? Can people be idols? Well obviously according to the Rambam in the 13 principles of faith. [Not the redaction the Sidur but in his actual commentary to the Mishna].
But what you see in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 63 is that joining something to God is also a problem. To Rabbi Shimon it is straightforward idolatry. To Rabbi Meir it is not. In any case it seems to be a problem to Rabbi Meir also.

Appendix
In the tithe [truma] to the priest if one puts his mind on one side of the wheat stack to call it the tithe"truma" he is allowed to eat from another side. There is a special verse to show this. So there words in the heart are words. But in a case where one sold something with intention to go to the land of Israel and was stopped from doing so--but he did not say anything about that condition--then words in the heart are not words. The sale goes through.
In marriage if she says, "You are married to me," and gives him a ring, she is not married. Only the man can say, "You are married to me." If she says give money to so and so and I will be married to you by that, she is maybe married. It is a doubt.  Because in marriage we need a word to make an act.

Salaries are a price, just as the price of chocolate is a price. Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK

 Salaries are a price, just as the price of chocolate is a price. They’re just the price at which someone’s work sells.  This is true no matter what your job is or how much you’re being paid--if your wage is the price at which your labor sells, the salary a CEO gets paid is also the price at which his labor sells. So we shouldn't give a different explanation for the wages/salaries of rich people from the explanation we give for the wages/salaries of poor people. All  salaries are determined by supply and demand for the labor in question.


http://www.owl232.net/economics.pdf



See:


Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK


http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/04/16/fast-food-workers-you-dont-deserve-15-an-hour-to-flip-burgers-and-thats-ok/

Pantheism and "שיתוף" (Joining).

Pantheism is something I have thought for a while is a problem. But when ever I brought up the subject no one seemed interested.
But then, I  learned something in the Talmud which seems to relate to this issue.
The basic statement in the Talmud in Sanhedrin (page  63) is based on the  Mishna that there is a death penalty for accepting any being besides the Creator as one's god. [And the Talmud reads that mishna without a comma. That is: "One who accepts another being as ones god and says to it 'You are my god' is liable." That is, just accepting in ones mind is not liable. There has to be some words.] (note 2)
The actual discussion I forget, but at the end the Talmud brings an argument between R. Meir and R. Shimon Ben Yochai. R. Meir said: The Jewish people said to the golden calf, "These are your gods, Oh Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt.' If they had left out the "Vav" nothing would have been left of them. [There is a letter "Vav" in העלוך which (plural) brought you out. If there would be no "Vav" it would say העלך which (singular) brought you out.] That is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Shimon Ben Yochai said, "One who joins together the Name of God with something else is uprooted from this world."
כל המשתף שם שמים ודבר אחר נעקר מן העולם שנאמר בלתי להשם לבדו
The idea in that verse is that one who sacrifices to other gods gets the death penalty since one is allowed to sacrifice to God alone. R. Shimon learns from this that even joining another being with God is considered idolatry and gets the death penalty. This is not like the opinion of R. Meir.
 This subject comes up on the next page where Tosphot brings the opinion of R Meir. But we see that the Rambam holds by R Shimon.[The Ein Mishpat shows the Rambam goes with R. Shimon.]



What we have from all this is that "joining" God with another being is an argument between sages of the Mishna [tenaim].
Rashi in his explanation of Rabbi Meir makes it a point that the Jewish people by doing "שיתוף" joining were not denying God.
This is relevant to Christianity and Hinduism , etc.
Christianity we know has many of versions of the Trinity.

 The curious thing is that we saw in the Gemara Sanhedrin 61b that when a person is not claiming to be a god it is allowed to bow to them. But not if they claim to be a god. What happens in the case of Jesus where he did not claim, but others claimed for him? At least that is what it seems like in Matthew. When he said, "Don't call me good. Only call God 'good,'" it seems like he was not being modest, but had a perfectly good opportunity to claim that he is a at least a good person. But even that he did not claim. [John however is regular Neoplatonism with "the word" taking the place of the "word" (or shechina, the sephera of Royalty) in Kabalah or Neo-Platonic thought. That does not suggest what Christians later  read into it.] (note 1)
In Matthew there is a claim that Jesus was "the son of a man," not the son of God. And even "the son of God" is not unique. Thus in Exodus, God called the children of Israel, "the children of God." "Send out my son, my first born, out of Egypt." That means that each Jew is the son or daughter of God according to the book of Exodus.

In any case, this seems to be an argument between Rabbi Meir And R. Shimon.

 Pantheism got to be accepted in the insane religious world  as a kosher form of שיתןף "joining." I had seen  the idea originally in the Shelah  who brings it from the Remak. I was at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn where there was Don Segal who also seems to hold from this opinion. So it was natural for me to think it is as much a part of Torah as the 13 principles of faith of the Rambam. So when I saw this in the books of Rav Shick I did not think it was any problem. And so when I saw the Bhagavad Gita years later in a NY bookstore I thought it is just the same thing as Torah.

So what we have here is the Gemara which deals with it slightly. But the Gemara was in a different world --or zoroastrianism, so they were not thinking about this issue much.  The only time it states to get dealt with is the son of the Rambam, Reb Avraham and to some degree in the general books of Jewish thought from Saadia Geon to the Rambam.
So while the Ari does not hold from pantheism, it did start to slip into Judaism by way of Kabalah. And Israel Baal Shem did say a few statements that were going the direction of pantheism.  Pantheism became firmly embedded in  mystic circles.



With Isaac Luria we get a rather simple combination of the idea of Emanation up until the bottom of the world of Emanation. Also the idea of the vessels coming from the empty space meaning the light emanates and the vessels are something from nothing. In any case this is not pantheism, nor panethism.
It seems the further east one goes, the more pantheistic things become. The Russian Church  goes with Pantheism [or panetheism--same difference] and it seems likely this is where the Baal Shem Tov got the idea. Hinduism --at least the school of Advaita is Pantheistic.
Torah is Monotheistic. which is different. The Torah approach is mainly forgotten, since the insane religious world which hold strongly from Torah have no idea what Torah says about this matter and the Conservative and Reform are not as committed to Torah  as much as they ought to be.
Pantheism can be associated with laziness, --since  everything is good, nothing matters. Also a lack of good manners seems to be joined to pantheism.
Spinoza was pantheistic in a more secular way. The type of Pantheism you see in the insane religious world  is specifically from Hinduism and of a more religious variety. [What I advocate is not the insane religious world but Torah which is very different. {You could call my approach Torah Judaism perhaps. But it is simpler just to call it Torah.}]

Notes

(note 1) To Mark, Jesus is the son of God which does not mean what Christians think. What some and my learning partner is right that the closest thing you get to the Nicene creed in is John. But the proof from John depends on not knowing Hebrew or not knowing Greek. If you know Greek you know it says "Before Abraham I am." Not "I was." If you don't know Hebrew that is a great reference to the Burning Bush. But if you know Hebrew you know אהיה אשר אהיה means "I Will Be," not "I Am." As in "I will be in the store tomorrow," אהיה במכולת מחר  as opposed to "I am in the store" אני במכולת
In any case the Christology of John is not that of any of the other writers at all. And which one Christians take as representing  Christianity is in contradiction to the others.
(note 2) "Things in the heart are not things."  The Gemara does not say this reason here but you can see that the Gemara is looking for a reason why speaking words of acceptance of any being besides god as ones God is idolatry. But it is just I that is bringing in this other principle you find: "things in the heart are not things."דברים שבלב אינם דברים That is why when you sell or buy something you have to say something.
And the Rashba [Shelomo Ben Aderet] says (Kidushin pg 50) this is only when ones heart contradicts ones words or actions. But otherwise things in the  heart are things. So why would this not work here? We find for trumah [the 2% that one takes from his crop to give to the priest] that "things in the heart are things," but that is because of a special verse.
In marriage we do need words. Things in the heart are not things. The guy has to say to the woman "You are married to me by means of this ring (or sex or document)." If she says it she is not married.
See the book of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach the Avi Ezri which goes into this in more detail 

When they learn Jewish mysticism they get messianic delusions.

A pinch  of Kabalah I think is a good idea. I liked the Eitz Chaim of the Ari. But it can be  a trap. The Ari (Isaac Luria) himself warned against learning Kabalah for people that have not finished Shas[Talmud]. There are  a few books of the Ari that deal with verses of Torah and at the end of the Torah you will find a few  paragraphs from the Ari warning that although Kabalah is a good thing but it is very dangerous  for one that is not properly prepared.
I have  seen what happens to most people when they learn Jewish mysticism without some kind of mental and emotional stolidity. They definitely get messianic delusions.

There is one rule: never learn Jewish mysticism from Ashkenazim.  The teachings of the Shatz got mixed up with there. [And the more kosher  they claim and the more "halacha" they keep,  the more you find the Dark Side hidden there..]
Sometimes you can find that people that are against Kabalah have just as many delusions also. They think being against Kabalah makes them better that others. Or they think that makes them qualified to teach it. My approach is to  learn Torah which is a big subject and Kabbalah is side thing. Anyway anything advertised as "Jewish Mysticism" is pretty much guaranteed to be from the Dark Side. A legitimate kabalist will never advertise or teach it in public.

In any case I was impressed by the Bava Sali family. Sometimes people just want a little advice or a blessing from some person  they feel has a little bit of inspiration from the realm of holiness and as far as that goes I think anyone from the Bava Sali family is good. [They don't all have last name Abuzaira, or Abuchatzaeira.  The Buso family is also from Bava Sali--from his daughter Abigail Buso]

My learning partner thinks conversion to Torah is mainly dependent on the will of the person..
And Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach] says it is mainly dependent on the will of the court. Just that they can't do it if the convert objects. This subject comes up in Reb Chaim of Brisk [Chidushei HaRambam] where my partner  and I spent some time.

[1] I did not realize it before, but now I understand  that Tosphot  [Sanhedrin 63a] is not concerned with explaining what is not right about Rabbi Zakai. That was already explained on page 62a. Rather Tosphot wants to explain what is right about Rabbi Ami. [Because we see R. Yochanan  did not ask on Rabbi Ami.]
[2] R. Yochanan says to R. Ami, "I can understand you because you are basing yourself on the drasha 'Don't serve.' If not for that, you would have used 'bowing' to divide everything. But now you use it only for itself. That is fine. But Rabbi Zakai is not basing himself on that drasha [explanation]. He would say 'bowing' comes for a mere prohibition even if we did not have 'Don't serve' --that is even if the services were in fact divided for some other reason."
[3] The Maharsha understands that the reasoning of R. Ami is that there is one verse to tell us serving idols is prohibited. So why is there another verse? [There are three verses total.] It is to limit something. That is it limits the three services [inner services that were done in the Temple]that if one does them in one span of forgetting he is liable only one sin offering.
[4] The basic reason why the opinion of R Zakai was rejected was explained on pg 62. R Aba thought it was a parallel case to Rabbi Yose. But it turned out that it was not because R. Yose would have used fire to teach about the whole category if he was able. But there was nothing to teach so he used fire for  a prohibition. [work on Shabat was already divided by  אחת מהנה]
But R Ami uses "Don't serve" for something, so "Don't bow" comes to teach on what is left-- which is just itself and perhaps also service according to its way.
[5] The question I have here is why is it in fact so clear that R. Zakai is not using "Dont serve?"  Could he use it to put the three together maybe and "Don't bow" for a mere prohibition?
It seems the answer is that if was doing that it would violate the principle whatever was in a category and came out to be mentioned by itself has to teach something about the whole category.
But does this seem all that different from R Ami to you? To R. Ami also bowing is coming out for itself alone. Just what it is saying about itself is what it would have said about the whole category if it had been able. So maybe the same goes for if it comes for a mere prohibition? Maybe I could say bowing wanted to tell you the whole category was only a prohibition but it could not do that because the verse already tells us idolatry brings a sin offering. so then it teaches about itself alone.!!! In other words I am not so sure that there is all that much difference between R. Ami and Rabbi Zakai.
Of course this last suggestion does seem ridiculous after all the Torah itself tells us there is a sin offering one must bring for idolatry. Maybe after all that is what Rabbi Yochanan thought was not right about the opinion of R. Zakai.


[6] The braita on 61b said that bowing comes to teach about itself  which is different from Abyee who is explaining r  ami and says it comes to divide. There might not be any question here.

My learning partner thinks that the braita on page 61 is no contradiction to our "sugia" [subject] here on page 63a. It is just dealing with a different subject--that is how to derive the different services. Not if they are divided.


[7] Anyway at this point we seem to have gotten the idea of what Tosphot is saying--more or less. There might be now a thousand unanswered questions but so what. We are not trying to answer all the questions. we are trying sipy to understand what tsophot is saying which means how do we understand the verse of the Bible "Don't bow and don't serve idols."

 סנהדרין סג.תוספות בראש הדף. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק "לא תעבדם". הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. רבינו תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של רבי זכי לא במשפטו של רבי אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות "לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם."  הפסוק אסר כל מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להיזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש, ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו למה ר' יוחנן אמר לר' זכאי "פוק תני לברא" שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות הפנימיות נחשבות אחת אבל לא השתטחות.לא מעניין לתוספות להסביר מה שאינו נכון בשיטת ר' זכאי בגלל שזה כבר מוסבר למעלה בדף סב.. מעניין לתוספות להסביר מה נכון בשיטת רבי אמי. צריך להיות חילוק בגלל שרבי יוחנן שאל על ר' זכאי ולא על רבי אמי. הסיבה ששיטת ר' זכאי נדחה לעיל היא מוסברת בדף סב. רבי אבא רצה להשוות בין רבי יוסי ורבי זכאי. והתברר שזה אינו יכול להיות בגלל שרבי יוסי היה משתמש בפסוק לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת לחלק את המלאכות אם היה יכול. אבל לא היה יכול בגלל שהמלאכות כבר מוחלקות על ידי הפסוק אחת מהנה. ולכן הוא משתמש עם אש בשביל "ללאו יצאה". אבל רבי אמי משתמש עם לא תעבוד הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת ולכן לא תשתחווה לא יכולה לחלק את כולן אלא באה לחלק על עצמה.רבי יוחנן  הוא בסדר עם רבי אמי בגלל שר' אמי היה משתמש עם השתחוייה לחלק את כל העבודות אם היה יכול, אבל אינו יכול בגלל לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ולכן נשאר רק להשתמש אתו לחלק על עצמה (ואולי גם עבודה כדרכה). אבל ר' זכאי אינו דורש לא תעבדם לעשות כולן עבודה אחת. והמהר''ם הסביר שאינו צריך לא תעבדם לזה שאין סיבה מראש לחלק אותן.אבל איך יודעים שר' זכאי אינו משתמש עם לא תעבדם? הלא אפשר שיגיד לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת ולא תשתחווה ללאו אצאה?תירוץ: אם זה הוא מה שהוא עושה  זה הולך כנגד הכלל כל מה שהוא בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא על עצמו בא ללמד אלא על בכלל כולו יצא ללמד
אגב המברש''א סובר שלא תעבדם הוא מיעוט בגלל שיש שלשה פסוקים  לא תעבדם, ולכן אחד הוא הכלל ואחד בא למעט.
עוד הערה: הברייתא בדף סא: אומרת שהשתחוויה באה ללמד על עצמה באופון אחר מן אביי שאמר שהיא באה לחלק על עצמה. יכול להיות שאין כאן סתירה משום שהברייתא דנה בשאלה אחרת--איך ללמוד את העבודות האסורות. ואביי דן בשאלה אם לחלק את העבודות

I am skipping here the fact that the Maharsha thinks it is Ok to use "bowing" for itself alone and that is still called teaching on the whole category and my idea that bowing also teaches on service according to its way.-which just makes things better.

The thing that I don't understand in the Maharsha is this: Why does he need don't serve to be a מיעוט  and exclusionary principle? I am not arguing that it is not possible. There is another verse for the general principle dont serve idols. So clearly the next verse has to be telling us something different and it has nothing it can expand into so it must contract. Clear. But why does the Maharsha need this?
I thought everything was hunky dory before that. We had "Don't serve" for a principle that puts all three services [inner services that were done in the Temple]. And then we have bowing to come out to divide for itself [that if done with the others still requires its own sin offering]. I mean to say that it is still teaching about the whole category--whatever was left in it after you excluded the big three. Or is it possible that the Maharsha is just saying what  I am saying? After all it does occur to me I just used the idea that don't serve does exclude the big three. David thought the words "the exclusionary principle of 'Don't serve'"was the key to the Maharsha.

The thing about Israel is it very much group based. It is almost impossible to make it there unless one is part of some group. I am not sure why this is but experience shows it to be the case. My own experience was such that the first time I went there I was part of a group. Rav Ernster was staring the place in Safed called Meor Chaim and he invited me from the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY to be part of his Kollel. So in fact without my being aware of its importance I was in fact part of a group. Later on I tried to go there on my own and it always ended in failure.


It is easy to ignore what you have when you don't realize how important it is. My first trip to Israel the road was paved by the State of Israel itself and the community in Meor Chaim. Later on I made several attempts at just showing up and paying rent in any old place and someone found that it was impossible to survive.
So I do think living in Israel is a Mitzvah, but it must be done in the context of some "misgeret" group.
I should mention that it is a positive command [one of the 613 mitzvot] according to the Ramban (Nachmanides). But not to the Rambam [Maimonides]. But it still is a mitzvah to the opinion of the Rambam.

If you grew up in a time in the USA when individuality was the primary principle, and to shoot straight from the hip (speak your mind straight), then this idea of the need to be part of a group is almost impossible to accept. But in a practical sense it is impossible to avoid if one wants to succeed in making Aliyah.
 Israel however even as a short stop over is an amazing place. Though it is hard there , still ever time I went there I had some kind of breakthrough in different subjects. Torah Music, Math etc.

Before going to Israel I recommend getting an appreciation for the place perhaps from the books of Avraham Kook or the books of the Gra like the Kol HaTor

I have been dealing with the Tosphot on the top of the page in Sanhedrin 63a.

I wrote about this in a blog entry a few days ago but now I want to add.

The way Tosphot is looking at this according to the Maharsha is that "Don't serve" is a exclusionary principle. [It comes to exclude something] We had before that all kinds of services were forbidden and then "Don't serve"  puts the three inner services into one and comes to exclude the three from the normal category.
And then what is left for "Don't bow" to tell us? Only what is left in the larger category--that is- itself.
That is how the Maharsha is explaining Tosphot. [This is the view of R Ami. And this is good because it allows bowing to tell us about the whole category. And this shows why R Yochanan did not accept R Zakai's approach since it has bowing to teach about itself alone. And that is no good. It goes against the principle what ever was in a category and is mentioned separately goes out to teach about the whole category.]
The Maharam adds an important observation  that R. Zakai never needed "Don't serve" to make  any kinds of idolatry into one category. There was no reason in the first place to divide them.[Not like in Shabat where we have אחת מהנה to divide.] [That is: that bowing did not leave the category of "Don't serve" because don't serve was not a general category.]
But to the Maharsha everyone agrees with Abyee that  "bowing" comes to divide. Only  the fact that "Don't serve" took the three inner services out of the larger category means that they don't get divided.
In any case, both the Maharsha and Maharam explain Tosphot well and differently than I was doing. Because I thought that R. Zakai was in fact using "Don't serve" to include all four services. This is clearly not what Tosphot was saying, and it was a mistake on my part.

In the long run, however, it looks like the fact is that R. Zakai is considering R. Ami's idea that "bowing" can be refering to the whole category when it is in fact only referring to itself as wrong.
But the way I was putting this idea was sloppy and I apologize for that.

In summary:

What is happening is Tosphot says that R Zakai is not using the "drasha" on  "Don't serve." The way the Maharsha explains that is to say "Don't serve" came out of the general category of service, not the opposite in which bowing comes out. So bowing is in the category and never left it and so does not need to teach anything about the general category. The Maharam deals with it by saying R. Zakai never needed "Don't serve."

[I am not saying everything here is fine. This obviously still needs a lot of work. But right now all I am doing is to try and get how the Maharsha and Maharam understand Tosphot. If we can get that down pat, then we can then go and try to figure out the many obvious questions here. ]

Torah has two things neat about it. One is its luminous, numinous aspect that you get to when you learn in a Lithuanian yeshiva. [Other places or synagogues are worthless when it comes to this aspect of Torah. It has to be someplace on the path of the Gra. ] The other neat thing about Torah is it opens a window to the realm of Light and Holiness. And this last function is what I think it was made for. The first aspect I think is secondary. [My reasoning is based on a commentary on the Rambam that was mentioned in the Musar book Or Israel. That is a foundational text about the Musar Movement of Israel Salanter.]

What I suggest is to learn Torah at home.  For beginners that means the Old Testament, and the Soncino Talmud in English and just plow through them.  

The Rambam thinks people are not inherently moral. Even the level of natural law before Mount Sinai had to be revealed in some way.

 When reading the Guide  for the Perplexed of the Rambam straight it is easy to miss this. This is why Reform Jews are right for making a study of the Rambam's Guide. If you don't make it into a serious subject of study, it is easy to miss important points.
Or what often happens is people come up with their own ideas of what Torah ought to say, and then think that that is what is actually says even though their ideas contradict the Rambam. As if they think they understand the Torah better than the Rambam. Now sometimes they depend on Nachmanides, and that is OK.

There is no prohibition baking a cake for sinners.
But if there is a possibility they will listen you should tell them that what they are doing is a sin.
According to the Gra you should tell them even if you are sure they will not listen. At least I think that is what the Gra holds. And I think I saw something like that in the Shelah once.
  any case baking cakes for them is the best possible thing. White flour and vegetable oil and all the other stuff they put into cakes is like feeding them poison.  Delete the "like." It is feeding them poison. The question is are you allowed to bake a cake for hetrosexuals? I doubt it.

I mainly hold from learning Torah. But I don't think doing this in a study hall or beit midrash or yeshiva makes much sense anymore.

One is supposed to learn Torah all the time. And there used to be places where you could go to learn. Like the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. But no every place is fit because in some places the light of Torah does not enter into the learning. Even though the books are the same the light stays outside.
You can tell where the real Torah is by  signs. In any case, to be on the safe side I recommend learning Torah at home alone and never going near any religious synagogue.

In fact learning at that breslov place I sometimes feel a kind of "help from heaven"  סיעתא דשמיא in my learning. Like just today I walked in and I was already exhausted from running around, but i sat down with a Gemara and looked at a Maharam on a Tosphot in Sanhedrin 63 and it suddenly and instantaneously became clear to me what Tosphot is saying.


David, the fellow I learn with thinks that the best sign of a bad place is when then throw out people that are sincere.

The Ukraine I think has been unfairly treated by Russian Media. I have heard things that imply that Jews are not treated well. And yet this does not seem to me to be accurate. My impression is that Jews are treated like anyone else. And I have seen a lot of effort made to make Rosh Hashanah comfortable for people coming to visit .
In general what you see in Uman is that anyone that owns property anywhere within walking distance of the synagogue of  builds as large a building as they can in order to put in as many people he can for Rosh Hashanah.
And they make efforts to be nice.
The reality that I have seen on the ground does not resemble way Russia Today portrays it.
I could go on with examples but you get the idea.
The funny thing is that I have been treated much worse in places that have reputations for being nice to Jews. Sometime reality does not resemble what the the media portrays. And this seems to be a prime example.

Germany for example is supposed to be nice nowadays but when I was there the Turkish population was very nasty. I think Germany thought they could make up for WWII by being nice to immigrants. But it seems to me that they made a mistake in policy.

Rav Shach [author of the Avi Ezri].  To his way of thinking only Torah is Torah and nothing else. That means learning the Oral and Written Law and doing what the Law tells us. It is hard to argue with this. And he also seems to think learning books about the hashkafa (or world view) of Torah is a bad thing. He applies the verse in Ecclesiastes against making books to books about hashkafa. That is they are bad.
Now to a large degree it is true that most such books are amazingly stupid, and certainly take people away from Torah when they read that nonsense. [They make  obviously false presumptions or else have wolrd views opposed to Torah that they present as Torah and by that manage to pull naive people into things that are not Torah. ]

But what I am confused about is if it is possible to give Torah a slightly wider interpretation? And if so, how wide?

The first step for me is to look at my parents. What did they consider to be Torah? And also parents are the first place that the Torah itself give regarding orientation. Now starting from my own parents makes everything remarkably clear. They had a very definite idea of what constitutes Torah that is the exact same thing as Rav Shach. The Oral and Written Law. That means the Old Testament, the two Talmuds and the halakhic and aggadic midrashim;-- or collectively what is called "The Mesora."(Torat Kohanim, Sifra, Sifri, Tosephta, Midrash Raba, Tanchuma,  and the Mechilta.)
There still would be a wider idea of what Torah is about coming from the side of my parents than sitting in yeshiva and learning I think.
It is that grey area between Rav Shach and my parents that I find difficult to deal with. I think Rav Shach would have held that one should learn Torah all the time. My parents would have thought that a wide range of activities constitutes keeping the Torah like taking the family to the beach on weekends, learning Music, Math, Physics, Engineering. It is hard to know. Because the Torah itself puts parents first I would have to side with my parents, but I can see the importance of Rav Shach and of learning Torah --that is Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot as much as possible,
[Looking at the Rambam and Saadia Geon it seems they were more towards the direction of my parents. The Rambam is famous [or infamous] for his approval of Aristotle and learning Physics and Metaphysics. The Rambam meant by "Metaphysics" not just the book of Aristotle by that name but also the works of Plato--as he calls it "what the Greeks called Metaphysics." That means a wider set of books than just Aristotle.]

I am being short on purpose. Today the world of Torah is not like it was in Rav Shach's time.  Nor is university like it was in my parent's time. The world has changed and so have the rules. In any case, we all need to learn Torah and also Math and Physics,-- and survival skills and an honest profession.
There is no difference of opinion about that. How we go about it will have to differ according to the person and situation.

Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem  Shach, author of the Avi Ezri] asked what is really an obvious question but one that you don't hear much. That is the fact that there is a verse in Ecclesiastes that put down the making of books.  You know the verse so I dont need to quote it. Mainly it says there is no end to the making of books and they are worthless effort and a joke.
The obvious thing is that in the Torah world, we do have books and a lot of them are valuable.
I would think that there is a difference between the oral law and the written law. But that is not the answer he gives. He says the difference is between books that deal with understanding how to keep the commandments of God as explained in the Gemara according to the foundational principles of the Talmud which is OK and books on hashkafa [the world view and philosophy of Torah--e.g. understanding the reasons for the mitzvot.
And he has a point. I can see important value for books on orientation like the Guide for the Perplexed by the Rambam and the Horev from Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, and the books of Rav Avraham Kook. But mainly books on Hashkafa seem to me to be talking nonsense.
What is wrong with books of Torah hashkafa [world view]? One problem is the question who is qualified to write about what the Torah holds?  Who is qualified to even have an opinion about such a thing? Only someone who has read through the material and knows it well. Someone like for instance Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides). If anyone is qualified to have an opinion about what the Torah hold surely he must be at the top of the list. And to our great happiness he actually wrote a book explaining what the world view of the Torah is. You would think that people would be overjoyed. But no. People don't want to hear what he has to say because they have their own opinions about what they think the Torah ought to be saying. And they write they own books of nonsense and tell you not to learn the Rambam's book because it might confuse you and take you away from their own views which are contrary to those of the Rambam.

There is an area in the Ukraine which the separatists are seeking. The whole area they call "New Russia" [Novoi-Russia] is larger than just the two provinces that they have taken control of. Part of the reason I think they are seeking this new area is that the actual areas they already control have little strategic value to Russia. But the new area the rebels are seeking has immense value to Russia because it contains the backbone of the Russian space program and manufacturing of military hardware.
That whole strip of land starting at Kharkiv and all the way down to the sea is one vast military industrial complex of immense strategic value to Russia.
[I am not saying Russia does not produce its own stuff. Rather that industry was purposely divided by Stalin so that one part of a plane would be produced in one region and another part in another region--so that all of the USSR would be dependent on every other region. This means that a significant part of Russia replacement parts and rocket parts is still being produced in the Ukraine. So the fact that business is down in the Ukraine is a good thing. It means they are no longer supplying the Russian military. I can imagine the reason is they don't like being shot at. You won't see this information about Russian weapons because anything made in the USSR proper they won't tell you where it is made. Only if it is made in satellites of the USSR do they name the country of origin.]



Just to give one example to build the kind of aircraft carrier that Russia wants to build is not possible in any existing Russian facilities. The building of Russian rockets and aircraft is largely done on Ukrainian soil. This was never a problem  because the work was simply done in the Ukraine an sent to Russia. Nowadays this arrangement has become strained. It is hard for me to imagine that separatists will see this gold mine of a preexisting military industrial area right across its border and not want to take it.
That is to say that they are probably hoping to expand and take that area. But it also seems clear to me that the Ukrainian people in those areas will not hand over that territory peacefully. So if the separatists want that area they will have to take it by force.
And the separatist are definitely getting Russian military hardware like the anti tank PTRS-41. 

The Torah forbids things that people desire. Lots of things. And it assumes people have free will.
The idea that people have free will is a basic axiom of Torah. And we know the Torah forbids lots of stuff that people desire intensely. For example, "Thou shalt not murder." "Thou shalt not steal." Etc. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Lot of people lie. All Democrats use their power to steal (to vote for themselves other people's money). The fact that they can steal does not give them the right to. So we see people desire things the Torah tells them not to do.

So what to do if you desire things the Torah says not to do? My main idea is to learn Torah. That is especially Musar and the laws about the area you think you might be acting wrong.
[Musar here means books on Fear of God and ethics written during the Middle Ages or early Renaissance. ]
And I realize that not everyone can do what is right. But one thing you can do--you can refrain from recommending evil. Even if you can't refrain from sin, you can at least hold yourself back from trying to convince others to sin.
This is relevant to lots of issues. For example homosexuals desire something the Torah forbids. That does not give them the right to act on their desires. But even if they can't help themselves they should at lets refrain from trying to convince everyone else to be homosexuals. Even if they can't be decent people, they can at least want that others should be.
Now the actual law of homosexuality is this Females are allowed to play with each other. Males get the death penalty if there is penetration into the anus. If the males think the act is permitted then they bring a sin offering to the Temple in Jerusalem, [a goat or sheep]. If there are no witnesses they don't get the death penalty but they also can't bring a sin offering for an act done on purpose.

Sanhedrin 63. See in the top Tosphot the part where Rabbainu Tam explains this Gemara.

The question I am dealing with here is that R. Ami says one does the three inner services in one span of forgetting is liable one sin offering. This seems to be fine even with people that disagree with it. But Rabbi Zakai said one who does all four services is liable one sin offering and this seems to get everyone especially R Yochanan upset. What is the difference?
We have one verse to put the three services together "Don't serve idols." Another verse which van be used to separate the services "Don't bow to idols."
To Rabbi Ami it seems "bowing" is coming to teach on itself [doing it with the other three means one would have to bring two sin offerings.] And R Yochanan seems to be OK with this. But why?


 If it is teaching about itself alone, then it is not teaching about the whole category of "service." You can say two things here. You can say what would it have taught us if it could? To divide. But it can't do that because of "Dont serve" so all that is left for it to do is to  divide itself from the others.

Another thing you could say is that it tells us to divide service according to its way from the others.

Now let's look at R. Zakai. "Don't serve" includes all kinds of service--inner and outer. But then why does "bowing" get mentioned separately? To tell us it is a mere prohibition. That is he thinks that since there is nothing it can tell us about the whole category of service it can only tell us about itself. This made R.Yochanan upset. If used to divide itself --that would be OK. But to be used to tell us it is a mere prohibition that is not OK. What is the difference?
One we say is teaching about the whole category and the other we say is not. The later is true. But the first claim? Perhaps that is the difference. R Zakei thinks bowing to divide only teaches about itself so it is equal to what he says. R Ami says it teaches about service according to its way and so can be considered to be teaching about the whole category.


 סנהדרין סג. תוספות בראש הדף. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזיבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירש שטעמו בא מן הפסוק "לא תעבדם". הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. רבינו תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של רבי זכי לא במשפטו של רבי אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות "לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם."  הפסוק אסר כל מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להיזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש, ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו למה ר' יוחנן אמר לר' זכאי "פוק תני לברא" שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות הפנימיות נחשבות אחת אבל לא השתטחות. למה? אם השתחוויה בא ללמד על עצמה, אם כן אינו בא ללמד על הכלל כולו. אפשר לומר פה שני דברים. אפשר לומר אם היתה באה ללמד על הכלל כולו מה היתה מלמדת? לחלק. אבל אינה יכולה לעשות את זה בגלל לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ולכן כל מה שנשאר הוא לחלק על עצמה. דבר שני שאפשר לומר הוא שהיא באה גם לחלק עבודה כדרכה.עכשיו נסתכל ברבי זכאי. לפי ר' תם שיטתו היא שהשתחווייה ללאו יצאה. זאת אומרת שהיתה בכלל לא תעבדם ויצאה מן הכלל. אי אפשר שהיא תלמד מה שהוא על הכלל כולו בגלל שלא נשאר מה ללמוד. כבר לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ר' יוחנן אינו מסכים עם זה. זאת אומרת שאם השתחווייה היתה באה ללמד על עצמה זה בסדר, אבל אם היא באה לאו גרידה לא. מה החילוק?אם היא באה ללאו ברור שהיא לא מלמדת על הכלל כולו. אבל אם היא באה לחלק למה כן? אפשר לומר החילוק הוא זה. רבי זכאי סובר שאם השתטחות באה לחלק זב גם נחשב להיות שהיא מלמדת רק על עצמה. ולכן יש לו ברירה לומר באיזה אופן היא באה ללמד על עצמה. אבל ר' אמי סובר שהשתטחות באה גם ללמד על עבודה כדרכה, ולכן אפשר שהיא נחשבת להיות מלמדת על הכלל כולו.









. Rabbi Yochanan told  Rabbi Zackai "go teach it on the street". It seems the reason is Zakai said something stupid. But what he said wrong seems to be a mystery. The one version has it he said "one who does all four services (sacrifice, burning, pouring , bowing) to an idol brings one sin offering."
Then Rabbi Ami says one who does the major three services (sacrifice, burning, pouring) to an idol brings a sin offering.
Rashi says the original statement of R Zakai is the same as Rabbi Ami.
Rabbainu Tam says the original statement did have "bowing" in it. And this idea makes some sense because "Don't serve idols" would have put all three services into one, and "Don't bow" would have come to teach on itself [bowing] that it also is liable.

NEXT DAY:

Let me first reiterate what Rabbainu Tam is saying. Rabbi Ami is fine. We have "Don't serve idols" to tell us the three inner services are all one.  And we have "Don't bow" to tell us bowing is also liable. That is fine. Then we have Rabbi Zakai saying if one does all four services he is liable once. And Rabbi Yochanan told him, "Teach it on the street". We know R. Zakai can't be saying like R. Ami because then of he would do all four he would be liable twice. [That is after all what comes out from R Ami.] So to R. Zakai, bowing has to be coming for a mere prohibition. And in essence that is fine. We have Rabbi Yose doing the same in Shabat with the verse "don't lite a fire on Shabat"
But this is where my learning partner noticed the crucial difference between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Zakai.

Why was Rabbi Yose allowed to use fire for a mere prohibition? Don't we always have a principle, "Whatever was in a category and has come out of the category comes to teach about the whole category, not about itself alone." How did we deal with this problem in the case of Rabbi Yose? We said just one page back that since the acts of work on Shabbat are all separate anyway we have nothing we can do with fire so it has to be teaching about itself alone. This was fine with R Yose. But it can't work for Rabbi Zakai because he does not have the four services separated. To him they are all together, so he has no possible reason to use "bowing" for itself alone, and that is why Rabbi Yochanan  told him "Teach it on the street."

Now you could ask why did this question not bother Rabbi Yochanan when it comes to the law of R Ami? Simple. Rabbi Ami uses "Don't serve idols" to put all three services into one. And so bowing can't be used for the whole category. And so it can come out to teach about itself alone.

Tosphot definitely says that if Rabbi Zakai is using "bowing" for a mere prohibition, then he can't be using "service" to put all three services into one.
But that using "bowing" for itself would not have presented any problem in terms of using "service" to put all three together.

However this still needs hammering out. I am confused at this point about Rabbi Ami. Let me say what is bothering me. Is bowing in the category of service? If yes then why could it not be included in "Dont serve idols" and have that verse tell us all four are one category? And we could say it is mentioned separately because you might not have known it is a service. If it is not in the category of service then the whole question does not even start. Stay tuned.

Next Day:
I suggested today to my learning partner a problem with his idea of how to explain Tosphot. My idea is this: Is bowing in the category of service? Probably according to how we have been treating it up until now. That means it is in "don't serve idols." So since don't serve means to make all the services in the sense of the verse into one service that includes bowing. So now we have just what Rabbi Zakai wants--for all four serves to be counted as one. And then why is bowing mentioned separately? to tell us it is a mere prohibition.  So Rabbi Zakai makes perfect sense even according to the logic that we used to explain Rabbi Ami.
It is funny also the way Rabbainu Tam wants to explain Rabbi Ami --that "bowing" comes to teach that it is a separate prohibition. If it was in the category of "service" anyway it seems kind of arbitrary to pull out "bowing" just to add a prohibition.

I think it all depends on the direction of your logic. I think Rabbi Zakai started out thinking as the first step that we have bowing comes for a mere prohibition. then he asked what is serving for? And the answer is like Abyee said to put the other three into one category. And this makes perfect sense.
But we see Rabbi Yochanan did not like this and on page 62 also we see the Gemara wants to start out in Shabat that anything extra will come to divide. You have to look there to see this. It is only because we don't need fire to divide that we can use it for a mere prohibition. And this is how R Yochanan is thinking on pg 62 and 63. since even if we use "Don't serve" to put all three together we can still use "bowing" to come for its own prohibition. And that is what makes him think that Rabbi Zakai was not making sense.

April 12 it became clear to me what Tosphot is saying. There are only two "drashot." One is on "Don't serve" and the other is bowing comes to divide. Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Zakai you don't hold from the later so you must hold from the former but if so then bowing comes to make its own prohibition  and so doing them all together would mean bring two sin offerings.

April 13 Today a landslide of questions on Tosphot fell on me. Mainly there are two major branches. One thing is this: R Ami is thinking what? That don't serve puts all three together so dont bow must come out to teach on the whole category. Since it can't teach on those three it teaches on what is left and that is itself. But there is one thing left and that is service according to its way.  So maybe that is what R Ami means. But R Zachai might disagree with that and say teaching on itself is not called teaching on the whole category. And just arbitrarily adding service according it it way is just ad hoc. That leaves him free to use bowing for a mere prohibition. But what is difficult here is the question where they place service according to its way. I am not sure if this is a question but it is a point my learning partner brought up.

The other area of question here is "Why can't R Zachai simply look at the explanation of Abyee 'service comes to comes to put all services together' and say that 'bowing' is included?"

Male homo-sexuals are obligated to bring a sin offering.

There really is little comparison between lesbians and male homo-sexuals. Mainly the difference is this: female playing with each other is permissible though not recommended. Male homo-sexuals are obligated to bring a sin offering (note 2) if they do the act of penetration into the anus by accident. If on purpose they can't bring a sin offering even if they want to because you can never bring a sin offering for what is done on purpose.

  If they do the act of penetration in front of two witnesses they get the death penalty if fair warning is given by two witnesses. That means this: the witnesses have to tell them the act they are doing is forbidden, and that if they do it they will get the death penalty. [If they admit it then you don't need  witnesses.]

Besides that there is a kind of spiritual penalty called Karet  כרת being cut off from ones people involved. And that applies to all the types of forbidden sexual relationships that are called עריות incest. Incest is actually only an approximate translation because it also refers to sex with a woman who has seen blood within seven days of her seeing blood. Also one can't have sex with her unless she has gone to a natural body of water (note 1) like a river or sea and dipped in completely from head to toe.
Actually, stoning is not the penalty for homosexuals. I think is is burning. But I am not sure. I would have to look it up. That means you take lead [It does not have  a high boiling point] and heat it up until it flows and then you pour it down their throats.

Appendix: If the two male homo-sexuals think the act is allowed, that counts as being accidental and they can bring a sin offering. [I mean to say that an accident can be either thinking something is permissible or in making a mistake about material facts.] That means they have to bring either a sheep or goat to the Temple in Jerusalem and have the priests sacrifice it as a sin offering. They can't eat any of it as a barbecue. The part of the animals that are not burned are eaten by the priests. This is always the rule for sin offerings. If you want a barbecue in Jerusalem together with the mitzvah of bringing a sacrifice, you have to bring a peace offering or a thanksgiving offering.

Bibliography.
Mishna  Zevachim chapter 5.
Rambam Laws of Sin Offerings. [That is located in the book on General Sacrifices.]
Tractate Macot concerning fair warning that must be given.

I should mention that there is no prohibition to bake cakes for homosexuals. On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to be nice to them and to tell them that what they are doing is terrible, horrific sin.
Now this seems to be a subject of a debate. Sometimes it seems like you are supposed to tell people that they are sinning even if you know they won't listen. And sometimes it seems not. I really can't tell. My own approach to this varies according to the situation.

(note 1) If no natural body of water is available, she can make her own mikvah. The mikvah has to be attached to the ground, and cannot be a vessel. And it can't be such that if lifted that it stays intact.
There has to be about 1^3 meters of water. [This amount I forget. I would have to look it up. I think it is about 1^1^1.33 meters.]
(note 2) If there is no Temple, they are still legally required to bring a sacrifice. They would have to build the Temple according to the proper specification in the Mishna Tractate Midot  and hire a few priests and find  red hefer. They can do it but it would be expensive. Besides all of that there is some doubt about the proper location of the Temple. Some archeologist have apparently discovered the remains of the First Temple in the area when you leave the Western Wall to go back to the New City you pass on the left. This whole project is so hard that it makes more sense not to sin in the first place.

But in essence this idea is not that different from the Gra that the only source of halacha is the gemara itself. דינא דגמרא the law of the gemara is what determines halacha not any posek even rishonim.



In fact most authorities thought little of books of halacha. The Maharsha said people that decide from the Shulchan Aruch are making a terrible mistake and it is proper to rebuke them.  Shlomo Luria [the author of the yam shel shelomo printed in every shas ]even went to far as to critique the Rambam for even writing a halacha book.

The method of Torah--reading fast and going on.

The method of Torah--reading fast and going on. And the basic idea I had seen in a Musar book called Orchot Tzadikim {also Biynan Olam} about the importance of learning Torah and in the book.
What I am thinking is that I would like to have a separate session for fast learning and slow and in depth learning. And this is in fat what is done in every Lithuanian yeshiva. The morning is for the slow and in depth type and the afternoon for the fast type.

Now I wanted to describe what fast learning in a Torah sense means. The ideal way is to have a set of the basic books next to you in a pile. Tenach, Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, Arizal. And have a place marker in every book. And do a page of Tenach [read the words out loud or in a whisper and go on. No repeats. Put in your place marker after one page and close the book until tomorrow. Then do the same with the Mishna. Go through a few chapters of Mishna every day. The Talmud. Try to do about seven pages per day. And then with the Ari-- [Isaac Luria]. On the second reading you add a commentary.

I have some familiarity with Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshivas which stem from the path of the Gra and the Aderet Eliyahu yeshiva which goes with the actual path of the Gra in Jerusalem.
And then there are study halls on the name of the Gra. All seem very good to me, but I see one advantage to having an actual yeshiva named after the Gra--it tends to exclude cults.
This is the type of institution I would like to see world wide-- Yeshivat HaGra.
But I would also add the study of ethics [Musar].


And I was never in a actual yeshiva of the Gra though I associated with Rav Zilverman for years who is the rosh yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu.

What we really need to some kind of certification on a yeshiva "cult free" just like they have "preservatives free" labels on food.


The pollution of the Torah world by  cults  has already corroded the credibility real Torah scholars. Yet  those who learn and keep  Torah are not sounding the alarm loudly or moving to fix the problem with appropriate energy. 

 It difficult for those involved in the assessment and promotion of true Torah scholars to discern value from junk.

When something at the core of Torah begins to rot, the smell of corruption quickly spreads to all areas.  

If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

I have wondered for a while what strategic interest Russia has in the Ukraine?

I think I discovered the answer. The most successful part of the Russian space industry and military production was in the Ukraine.  Even though the place where the Russians send stuff into space in in the east of Russia [Kazakhstan] but major part of production for the rockets has been done in the Ukraine. There are hundreds or more parts of helicopters and weapons and rockets that are manufactured in the regions bordering on the two breakaway republics. It is not just one area but a whole strip of land. 

That is Dnipropetrovsk, Karkiv, Zaprozia--that whole semi circle left (west) of the perimeter of the two breakaway republics.
That means that Russia has an interest in getting back these areas. Or at least having this area of the Ukraine in its sphere of influence.
[Also it just so happens that Russia can't build the super aircraft carrier they were planing on without the Ukraine. There is no dry dock. This all goes to show that Russia has to do serious rebooting of their industry unless they can get back the Ukraine.]  The reason the weapons and space industry was divided up in this way was Stalin. As was explained to me (by a grandson of his) that by dividing up these major industries in this way he was assured that the USSR could not break up--because if it did, then each part would have factories that produced only one part of a car or an airplane which was useless without the other parts.
In any case, this was no problem until recently. The Ukraine simply made the parts, and sent them off to Russia. This has stopped recently, and this is the reason Russia is now looking to redo its military and space production industries. 

In any case, it would seem the Russians feel they are just taking back what belongs to them. I think it is understandable that the Ukrainains don't feel the same way.
Certainly most of the infrastructure of the Ukraine was built by Russians. This really is one people. 
Or maybe just let those two republics go over to Russia? Why fight about borders that have been fluid anyway over the centuries? If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.

The Zohar brings the verse ''towards evening" to discuss when the beginning of the rule of the erev rav [the mixed multitude] over the Jewish people would begin. And according to the way the Gra understands it it is referring to 1990 A.D. or about 15 years ago. [This Gra is on Tikunai Chadashim on the Hazohar page 34  by the standard numbering on the verse about Isaac going to mediate in the field which the Tikunim interprets as meaning to get rid of the mixed multitude.]
"Evening" in Hebrew is the same word as  "the mixed (multitude)."

For he understands 1240 to be the sixth thousand year period. 1740 to be dawn. And the middle of the day is 1990.  That is when the mixed multitude would gain control over the Jewish people. This explains at least to me the problem with cults that have infiltrated and taken control.

Cults have the ironic aspect of fish bait. It tastes good to the fish until it feels the hook. But by that time it is too late. Cults are like classic O' Henry story. The unexpected ending. Or maybe more like Edgar Allen Poe.

What ever you do, don't go near one for Passover, if you value your family, and wife and children. They are not openly hostile  because they need donations. They are as friendly as fish bait.

There is no more Noah's Ark.

I have tried to make my own home or apartment wherever I have been into a kind of Noah's Ark. It just does not seem to work. The kelipot somehow get in.
I urge everyone to leave the cults--Jewish or otherwise. Go home. Find a job. Live like a mench, not  a slave to some charismatic leader. Cults are organized in layers. Everyone can join but only the initiated know the real agenda. Everyone else are just pawns.

And if you are wondering if what you are in is a cult then take my word for it; it is. The facade will eventually evaporate leaving you with the emperor's clothes.

[For authentic Jewish experience learn Torah. That is have in your home an Old Testament and the basic set of the Oral Law, the two Talmuds (Bavli and Yerushalmi), Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta and Midrash Raba. Don't go near the cults--even to learn Torah. Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.] The Divestment from Israel movement is just a direct result of our problem of not divesting in cults in our midst.

Appendix
1) The comment of the Gra is not on the Tikunai HaZohar. That is after the printing and publication of the Zohar and Tikunai Hazohar there was a fellow that found some more writings from the same source material. He printed them and called them Zohar Hadash and Tikunim Hadashim. That was right before Spanish Jewry were kicked out. Nowadays all four books are fairly standard.
That is Zohar, Tikunai HaZohar, Tikunim Hadashim, Zohar Chadash.
 I used to go straight to Isaac Luria and Moshe Kordovaro. [I also spent a lot of time on the Nahar Shalom by the Reshash, Shalom Sharabi  and prayed with the Sidur of the Reshash. First the small one. Then after a few years someone told me that in Mea Shearim someone had printed the large sidur of the Reshash, so I got that --it was very inexpensive. I should mention that the large one is considered more accurate. Mordechai Sharabi said the smaller one has mistakes. In any case I highly recommend the large sidur of the Reshash both for learning and praying. I don't learn this at this point but it is an important part of education. If you do have time for the whole body of literature then I think that at least the Eitz Chaim of the Ari should be learned.

I suggested to my learning partner this same idea I wrote on my blog that cults are the modern idolatry.
And he mentioned a surprising support to this idea from Nachmanides. For we know strictly speaking there are very few ways of being liable for idolatry. Sacrifice, burning, pouring, bowing, service according to it way, and accepting it as ones god. So, in any case, there has to be some kind of physical object. But with the Ramban [Nachmanides] it looks like the definition of idolatry gets expanded to any being besides God, even non corporeal beings. He mentioned that when Nachmanides writes about this it seems amazingly relevant to today's issues.

At any rate, the idea that he is referring to is the idea of "Face." לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני "You shall have no other gods before me" [lit.,"before my face"].
That is the interface that God chooses to reveal himself to the world. Anything else is idolatry.
So I urge people to avoid cults, not just because of the damage that they do, but also because it might be a sin...[Enough said.]


Appendix:
1) My learning partner has been looking at the Nachmanides for several years and the more he looks at him the more impressed he is. There is a translation by a fellow named Chavel. Though I don't look at the Ramban at all whenever I hear something from him I am very impressed.
2) The 'Rambam and Ramban' are both actually saying the same thing: worship or praise to any being besides God is a problem. But the thing that impresses my learning partner is the coherent system of the Ramban. It  is how he shows the whole Five Books of Moses are one logical, coherent, rigorously exact system.

But this brings me to a wider question about paths that people choose in life. And I confess I think any path that makes one a better person in an common sense objective way is a good path. And I realize that you have paths that are objectively bad, and make most people involved with them into really bad people, and yet some people on the same path turn out to be good.

This subject does deserve lots of attention. And in my personal life I give it all my attention. But this is delicate. You can't just choose a good path, and think that will make you good.

My recommendation is for people to think to judge themselves on all their deeds all the time and don't just accept a path and after that forget about evaluating it.
Judge yourself on all you do so that in the higher court of law [up there] they won't judge you.

The world situation is hard to understand, but at least in your own personal life there are decisions you can make to live better. And Passover is the best time to break free of the cults that have tricked you and others. Cults are the modern iteration of what the Torah forbids as idolatry.  

In many Jewish homes you could find, besides the Old Testament, some book that would describe Judaism in a plain way. One such book I recall was the Duties of the Heart [by Ibn Pekuda] which is considered part of the set of Musar [Ethics] books. The Reform Shul we went to [Temple Israel of Hollywood] had the Star of Redemption by Rosenzweig. [I tried to read it with no luck.]

My mother gave me a book called The Ten Commandments which was a good introduction.

I wanted to suggest here the Horev of Shimshon Raphael Hirsch which I think gives a little more detail. [He tends to emphasize Torah with work.]

Also the books of Avraham Kook [like the Lights of Repentance] I think are good as an introduction and an orientation.[He does think settling in Israel is a good thing;-- which is clearly the approach of the Torah.]


I should mention that in my first yeshiva [Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway. Reb Shelomo Friefeld's place.] they did not believe in orientation at all. They threw me into the raging sea of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, [Talmud] the second I walked in the door. Sink or swim. And I tend to agree with this later approach. But I have come to see that some people are working or in university, and so need some kind of orientation.
And at some point myself felt some need for Musar. My first yeshiva did not learn Musar [Ethics] at all. That was a good degree of my motivation for going to the Mirrer Yeshiva which is a Musar yeshiva.

The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides was written for this express purpose of orientation for people and so was the book by Saadia Geon, the Emunot VeDeot, but I found them both to be difficult. But  both are written by the greatest sages since the time of the Talmud, so both are worthwhile looking at. 


I would recommend avoiding books written by cults that tend to be mental traps. And you don't need me to explain to you what a cult is. You can tell at one glance. Mainly they will present themselves as teaching some mysticism.There are groups who have insane doctrines that are not Torah but try to convince others that they are legitimate. I can't even begin to describe how damaging these groups are. And I recommend doing everything possible to stay as far away from them as from a ticking time bomb. Even more so, I would like to see them disappear because of the damage they cause to the unsuspecting.

I am just dirt under the feet of the Rambam. But I have to call it like I see it.

The new moon would seem to be the time to make rosh chodesh. This is at least the opinion of Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10 along with how Rashi explains the opinion of Rava and Rav Ashi. That is I am saying Rosh Chodesh does not depend on when the new moon is seen but when it actually is. This is how I have celebrated the festivals for a few years. And it makes a difference in how you set the dates. From what I can tell this puts Passover this year on April 3. This is counting from when the actual second of the new moon occurs.
Th Rambam would obviously disagree with this. But this is how the Gemara in Sanhedrin looks to me. The Rambam is probably based on the Gemara in Rosh HaShanah which clearly goes with the idea that when the new moon can be seen is what determines Rosh Chodesh. And even in Sanhedrin the Tosphot does not go with the opinion that the second of the molad determines it. So the only thing that makes my opinion interesting here is the fact that there is no Sanhedrin to sanctify the new moon and Hillel II never did so either. The fact is the Talmud never claims that he did and this is a big omission.  And there are dates during the period of the geonim which are not like the present day calender showing this calender was not known even by the geonim themselves.
The idea of basing ones view of halacha on the Talmud mainly comes from the halacha authorities themselves. For example when the Shach and Taz disagree with the Shulchan Aruch as they do most of the time, they always base themselves on the Talmud. This is the universal approach of every single halacha authority from the Rif until the achronim like the Chazon Ish.  The place this is stated openly is by  Chaim from Voloshin.