i29  [i29 in midi]

A piece of music written for the glory of God in circa 2012 in Uman.


I use a kind of idea that was developed during the Renaissance of 1, 1/2,1.5, 1 in a 4/4 time.
I was reluctant to use this idea until I saw that it was begun in the Renaissance.
e74  [e74 in midi] [e33 in mp3] [e33 in midi] [e34 in mp3] [e34 in midi]     e35 in mp3  [e35 in midi]


e36 in mp3
e36 in midi

e39 in mp3

[e39 in midi]
[e40 in mp3] [e40 in midi]

[e41 in midi] [there is no mp3 version]

[e42 in midi] 

e46 in mp3

[e46 in midi]

Written also in Uman I think around 2006

 To have  fast session in learning Gemara every day. That is to learn Gemara Rashi and Topshot in this way: say the words and go on. 2) Also to have a similar session in the Rambam with the all the commentaries on the page. 3) Similarly to have a session in Mathematics in the same way. Take the Algebraic Toplogy of Allen Hatcher for example and just start from the beginning and say it word by word until you finish,--and then start again. Four times in a row. If you don't understand at first eventually you will. Things get absorbed into your subconscious even if you are not aware of it. 4) Dito the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach {Elazar Menachem Shach}. This is the most interesting and juicy book of Torah I have ever come across. Sell what you have and go out and buy it. It is on the Rambam and  is is amazingly "Geshmak"  in a way I had never suspected until I picked it up and looked inside.

a in depth learning session should be with review ten times every page and then go to the next page

1) The main thing is to start learning Torah. The Torah will help you out of all your problems.
2) The main thing is Torah.  I believe that if one would start to learn Torah, that everything in his life would change for the better.

3) You have problems I admit that is true. But I have confidence that the power of Torah is so great that it can help one out of all his problems. But not all at once. One needs to keep at it year after year, and eventually he will see how in time everything changed for the better.

I know there are questions about this idea. 
The questions are internal and external. There are people that learned Torah in order to make money. And these people are often nasty.   But that is not a question because Torah has to be learned for its own sake in order to be effect.

After the recent events in Baltimore I think we can all agree that if Abraham Lincoln had learned this particular page of Gemara (Talmud) Baltimore would a lot better place. What he might have done was to stop the slave trade like England had done a long time before that. And there are strict laws about how a slave must be treated. But the result of freeing the slaves was disastrous.

Tractate Bava Metzia page 100a and 100b. And Tosphot first words "money of a slave"





 Tosphot at first deals with the fact that when both are in doubt they divide. He asks, "How can they do that when it is not DM "derara demomona)?" This is what confused me  because it is directly against the Gemara in Bava Metzia page 2. But then at some point I realized that Tosphot is depending on a Gemera in Bava Batra.  But then the next problem is that Tosphot is dealing with the part of the Mishna that says when the both are sure then the seller takes an oath. But when he asks his question אי תימא  "If you will ask how can they divide" it makes no sense. And for years I was confused by the question, "What could Tosphot be asking here?" Until I realized that Tosphot  changed tracks and asks on the end of the mishna where it says "when both are in doubt they divide." This was the key insight.

So Tosphot says it is DM because there were two witnesses that heard the agreement but did not see how much money changed hands. Therefore there is doubt to the Beit Din even without their pleas.
So Sumchos says they divide with no oath.
But then I ask in the above essay what about the part of the mishna than says when the seller is certain that he takes an oath. The only variable that has changed is what is plea is. So if the end of the mishna is Dm [דררא דממומא] so must be the part above it. But there there is an oath and Sumchos holds where there is Dm there is no oath and they divide. I answer that there is an oath because it is admitting in part. מודה במקצת





In this essay I used google translator because the Hebrew of Google is better than my own. But still there are mistakes that got in and so I still need to do some corrections in the Hebrew.

)בבא מציעא ק. וק: תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד. המוכר מכר עבד. אבל יש לו שני עבדים, גדול וקטן. הגדול בעשרים וחמש, והקטן בעשרים. המוכר והקונה מסכימים לבטל את העסקה. יש ספק איזה עבד נמכר. המוכר אומר עבד קטן מכרתי. הלוקח אומר עבד גדול לקחתי. על המוכר להחזיר עשרים וחמש או עשרים? המשנה אומרת המוכר לוקח שבועה ונשבע כי הוא מכר את אחד הקטן ונותן בחזרה רק עשרים. המשנה שאנחנו יודעים הוא סומכוס מסיבות אחרות שמחזיק בשיטה כסף המוטל בספק מחלקים. החכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. זאת אומרת להשאיר את הכסף ברשותו של מי שיש לו הכסף עד שלא הוכחה אחרת

  תוספות כשהוא מתחיל "אי תימא" הוא מדבר על חלק אחר של  המשנה מן החלק של תחילת התוספות. המשנה אומרת ראשונה, כאשר המוכר והקונה בטוחים אז המוכר לוקח שבועה כי הוא מכר את העבד הקטן. תוספות אומר שזה מקרה שבו אין מסמך נכתב על המכירה. אבל אז תוספות שואלים שאלתם שהטרידה אותי לסירוגין במשך כשבע שנים. "אבל איך הם יכולים לחלק? זה לא דררא דממונא?" עכשיו אני מבין. תוספות שואל על סוף משנה. הדיון הוא שהמוכר והקונה הם גם בספק. ויש החוק הוא שהם מחלקים. (ממון המוטל בספק חולקים.) ותוספות שואל על זה איך הם יכולים לחלק כאשר הוא לא מקרה של דררא דממונא. והם עונים שזה מקרה של דררא דממונא כי המכירה התרחשה לפני עדים ששמעו אותם מדברים ומחליטים על מחיר של עבד הגדול בעשרים וחמישה שקלים והקטן בעשרים והעדים לא ראו כמה כסף חליף ידיים. מה שתוספות מחכווין הוא שזה מצב שיש ספק לבית המשפט גם ללא הטיעונים וזה עושה את זה דררא דממונא. עכשיו תוספות היא ברורה. עם זאת, אנחנו צריכים לשאול איך זה משתלב עם החלק הקודם של המשנה שבו יש שבועה. אם סומכוס מסכים שיש שבועה כאשר הצדדים בטוחים, אז אין שום בעיה. אבל יש דעה שסומסוס סובר ממון המוטל בספק חולקים גם כאשר צדדים בטוחים. ואת תשובת התלמוד על זה היא שהוא מקרה שבו השבועה היא מהתורה. יש לי הסבר פה שהשבועה כאן הוא מהתורה, כי זה הוא מקרה של הודאה בחלק (מודה המקצת). המוכר מודה שהוא חייב עשרים שקלים. הוא פשוט לא מודה בחמשת השקלים הנותרים. אבל אם זה המקרה, אז מדוע אין שבועה בסוף משנה? תשובה: כי כאשר המוכר אומר שהוא לא יודע שזה לא נחשב להודאה בחלק. כשהוא אומר "איני יודע" זה לא מודה במקצת. להבין את התוספות הייתי צריך ללכת למסכת בבא בתרא לגלות שיש דעה שתוספות הוא בהתאם לכאן. זה שסומכוס רק אומר החוק שלו כאשר יש דררא דממונא. בגלל התוספות מודפסת עם התייחסות בבא מציעא דף ב' שבו אומר משהו שונה לחלוטין עשה את  תוספות הזה מאוד מבלבל.
בסיכום
 תוספות בראשונה עוסק בעובדה שכאשר שניהם נמצאים בספק שהם מחלקים. הוא שואל, "איך הם יכולים לעשות את זה כשזה לא דררא דממונא?" זה מה שבלבל אותי כי זה ישירות נגד הגמרא בבא מציעא דף ב'. אבל בשלב מסוים הבינתי שתוספות הוא בהתאם לגמרא בבא בתרא. אבל אז הבעיה היא  שתוספות הוא מתמודד עם החלק המשנה שאומר כאשר שניהם בטוחים אז המוכר לוקח שבועה. אבל כשהוא שואל שאלתו. "אי תימא (אם תומר) איך הם יכולים לחלק" . במשך שנים הייתי מבולבל על ידי השאלה מה יכול להיות תוספות שואלים כאן. עד שהבנתי שתוספות שינו מסלולים ושואלים על סוף המשנה שבו כתוב "כאשר שניהם נמצאים בספק שהם מחלקים." זאת היתה תובנה מרכזית. אז תוספות אומר שזה דררא דממומא כי היו שני עדים ששמעו את הסכם אך לא ראו כמה כסף חליף ידיים. לכן יש ספק לבית דין אפילו בלי טיעוניהם. אז סומכוס אומר שהם מחלקים ללא שבועה . אבל אז אני שואל במאמר מעל מה על החלק משנה שאומר כאשר המוכר הוא בטוח שהוא לוקח שבועה. משתנה היחיד שהשתנה הוא מה הוא הטיעון. אז אם סוף המשנה דררא דממומא, כך חייב להיות החלק הזה. אבל יש שם שבועה וסומכוס מחזיק בשיטה כשיש דררא דממומא אין שבועה והם מחלקים. אני עונה שיש שבועה כי הוא מודה בחלק. מודה במקצת.




After the recent events in Baltimore I think we can all agree that if Abraham Lincoln had learned this particular page of Gemara (Talmud) Baltimore would a lot better place. What he might have done was to stop the slave trade like England had done a long time before that. And there are strict laws about how a slave must be treated. But the result of freeing the slaves was disastrous.

a music file

n90 mp3  n90 midi  n90 nwc file

Music for the glory of God

l98  [l98 midi]   

   [l98 nwc]

bar yochai  mp3   [bar yochai midi]  

[bar yochai in nwc]

Mathematics   [mathematics in midi]  [mathematics nwc]

l89   [l89 midi]  [l89 in nwc]

l96  [l96 in midi]  [l96 in nwc]

b105 in mp3    [b105 midi]  b105 in nwc format

  

n67  [n67 in midi]  [n67 nwc]

i6  [i6 in midi format]  [i6 nwc]

l, n, and i files were written in Uman. Bar Yochai in NY. b files in Israel.

Mathematics was written in Uman in notebooks but put into orchestra form in NY.
\

Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 100.

The seller has sold a slave. But he has two slaves. The seller and buyer agree to cancel the deal. but does the seller give back 20 or 25? Which slave was sold? The big one or the small one? The משנה says the seller takes an oath that he sold the small one and gives back just 20. {The משנה we know is סומכוס for other reasons who holds we divide money in doubt. The חכמים say we leave money in the possession of he who has it until there is proof otherwise.} So it looks like we are leaving the money that is in doubt with the seller like the sages said--not like סומכוס.
But this is not my problem in this above note. I am puzzling over six words in תוספות: "But it is not דררא דממונא." What does תוספות want here? In another paragraph I explained this to mean תוספות want to leave the money with the seller without an oath. And that would seem to be like the רשב''ם that possession and certainty determine that the seller gets the whole five dollars with no oath. So תוספות seems to be saying that since this is not דררא דממונא there should be no oath. But that would be going against the idea that דררא דממונא has nothing to do with the oath but rather where the money goes to.
[מהרש''א דף ב  בבא מציעא.]

I  have been puzzling on and off about this תוספות for years. תוספות when he starts the  אי תימא is talking about a different part of the משנה than the beginning of תוספות. This one simple fact clears up the entire תוספות.
The Mishna first says when both the seller and the buyer are sure then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. תוספות is bothered by this and says it is a case where no document has been written about the sale. But then תוספות asks his question that has been bothering me on and off for about 7 years. "But how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא?"
Now I understand. תוספות is asking about the end of the משנה. There the case is the seller and buyer are both in doubt. And there the law is they divide. And תוספות asks on this how can they divide when it is not a case of דררא דממונא. and they answer it is a case of דררא דממונא because the sale occurred before witnesses that heard them decide the large slave for twenty five dollars and the small one for twenty and they did not see how much money changed hands. What תוספות is saying is that that means there is a doubt to the court of law even without their pleas and that make it דררא דממונא. Now תוספות is crystal clear. Yet we do need to ask how this fits in with the previous part of the משנה where there is an oath.
If סומכוס agrees there is an oath when the parties are sure then there is no problem. But there is an opinion he holds money is doubt is divided even when the pleas are certain. And the תלמוד answers on this it is a case where the oath is from the תורה. I have answered before that the oath here is from the תורה because it is a case of admission in part. The seller admits he owes twenty dollars. He just does not admit the remaining five dollars. But if this is the case then why is there no oath at the end of the משנה? Answer: because when the sellers says he does not know that is not considered admitting in part.

Now to make this תוספות make sense I had to go to מסכת בבא בארא to discover there an opinion that תוספות is depending on here. That is that סומכוס only says his law when there is דררא דממונא.
Because the תוספות is printed with a reference to בבא מציעא דף ב where it says something completely different at made this תוספות very confusing.


Appendix: In the Torah there are laws about slaves. The Bible is  not politically correct.
If America had known about this a long time ago the USA would have been saved from  lot of trouble. And if the USA would accept that slaves still remain slaves even after a government official declares them to be freed the USA could still be saved from   from trouble.
It is a general rule in life not to try to outsmart the Torah.

n38 [n38 in midi]
\j89  [j89 in midi]



h69 edited  [h69 in midi]



b101 [b101 in midi]

\

The Torah path

I love Torah.  When I got to yeshiva I felt like I was in Gan Eden.

I believe that the light of the Torah can change everything in one's life to good.

 I think the best way to approach Torah is to take the straightforward Lithuanian yeshiva approach 
[] Stay away from doctors. [They make people sick.]
[] Stay away from psychologists  and other charlatans and frauds. [They make people sick mentally.] 

[] Talk with God in nature. Thank him for the good in your life, and ask for the things you need. (If a forest is not available, then talk to God an hour per day in any situation. But not from a prayer book. It has to be your own words.)
[] Finish the Written Law in Hebrew.
[] Learn and finish the Oral Law. [i.e. the two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifi and the Midrash Raba.] 
[] Learn Musar. (That is, classical books of morality from the Middle Ages, plus the books of the disciples of Israel Salanter and the Gra.) If nothing else learn these two  books: (1) מדרגת האדם of the Altar of Narvardok about trust in God. (2) אור ישראל by Isaac Blasser a disciple of Israel Salanter about Musar. 
[] Serve in the IDF (Israel Defense Force). If you are not in Israel, then go there and serve in the IDF.
[]  There is an important piece of advice in the Guide ( Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam )--to learn Physics [String Theory] and Metaphysics [i.e. a book by Aristotle].

This is in my opinion the Torah path. I think that if one does this that the yoke of having to make money will be lifted from ones shoulders. Like it says in Pirkei Avot "One who accepts on himself the yoke of Torah from heaven they remove the yoke of making money from him."

Appendix

1) I do think the Litvaks go a little drop too much in the religious direction. But my goal in this essay is to indicate what I think is the best approach. Not to deal with how far any particular groups falls from this straightforward approach. You can find fault in any of the groups that hold most strongly with anything I wrote above. I can't deal with that issue right now. Rather I am just saying what approach people should aim for.
2) To be able to learn string theory, you need a little bit of math. Mainly Algebra and Geometry.
And it takes time. In fact, I admit I have not spent as much time on this as I should have. But let us not make this about me. Mainly you need to get a book on Relativity and one on Field Theory. Also Allen Hachter's book Algebraic Topology. Say the words out-loud and fast and go on.
Also it is good to have an slow session in Math to take one particular subject and keep at it until you get it. 

e2 mp3  e2 midi  e2 nwc



Exodus 4aa mp3  exodus 4 midi  exodus4 nwc




n36 mp3 n36 midi  n36 nwc
 

l44  l44 midi  l44 nwc

A person involved in a mitzvah does not have to stop to do another one. Suka 25

"A groom and his friends do not have to sit in the Suka."
Braita:  "A groom and his friends do not have to pray or put on Tefilin, but have to say the Shema."
Rashi says that Braita is going like the opinion: When is doing one mitzvah, he is obligated to do another one."
 From what I can tell by looking at the back of the Gemara in the Rif at the Raavad, Ramban and Meor there is that this is an argument of tenaim [sages of the Mishna] and that we poskin [decide ] that one does not have to stop. So a groom would not even have to say Shema.
This looks to me how the Gra was thing about learning Torah. He says one can stop to do a mizvah. Not must.
The reason for the confusion is the Rif brings both braitas; and after him the Shulchan Aruch also.
So what is happening is the is an essential contradiction that is being presented as a consistent opinion.

So why the Rif does this no one knows. But they all come out saying that even if we don't know what the Rif was thinking, still we do know the actual pesak halacha.[decided law] העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה

This has far reaching ramifications, as you can imagine.

 I have not learned this "sugia" with a learning partner, so I must say my conclusions are only tentative.
Also I should mention that not everything can be called a mitzvah in this context.  People like to expand the definition of mitzvah beyond what the Torah says is a mitzvah. And  that kind of thinking would not work here.

Bava Metzia page 14. You have  a case where a field was stolen and now goes back to the original owner. Rashi asks why the owner does not pay for the improvement? After all he is getting an improved field. Rashi says it is a case where  the thief let it go fallow and it was improved in the hands of the buyer.
What you see here is even though this Rashi disagrees with Tosphot and the Rambam, still the foundation principle is the buyer who improved it gets back the improvement. Just like how Rav Shach explains things on page 15 where the case is the buyer ate fruit, and has to pay back. Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach of the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.]says that is fruit he did not work on. See the Avi Ezri.



 מציעא בבא 14. יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם לשיפור? אחרי כל מה שהוא מקבל שדה שהשתפר. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור  והיה שיפור בידיו של הקונה
מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח  שיפר  הוא מקבל. וזה כמו שרב שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה
שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצה שלא עבד על השבח כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן

What is bothering me and has bothered me for a long time is that we seem to be letting the thief off the hook because of what the owner of the field pays. This is a question in my mind to the Tosphot Rambam Alliance, and all the more so to Rashi.
What I mean here is this. From the Rambam we have that the owner pays the lesser amount of one of two things, the improvement or the expense. And in the case the expense is less then that is all he pays and the thief pays the rest of the difference. But my question is what would happen if the owner would pay nothing? Then the thief would have to pay the entire improvement--not just the difference between the expense and the improvement.


All the more so to Rashi who puts the major burden of paying to the buyer on the back of the owner. Rashi says if the owner got back his field in a better state than when it was stolen he would have to pay for all the improvement. Then I ask what does the thief pay? Nothing except to give back the money to the buyer?

Music written for the glory of God

e69
corrected again.

This was written in Uman.



l55 mp3 edited

The Talmud says makes says that kissing and hugging an idol would be לאו שבכללות an prohibition that includes lots of things and so can't get lashes.
[That was not the original statement of Rav Avin bar Kahana. At first he had said one does lashes for it. Frankly this makes a lot more sense to me. But I can't go into that right now.]
At any rate Tosphot this is not like on Passover one can't eat Passover sacrifice raw or boiled in which the Prohibition for each  is stated openly. This is fine except that tosphot says the lashes are for "only roasted" "כי אם צלי אש". The problem is raw is one of the 613 commandments. And so is boiled. So why would they not get lashes because of themselves? Why only because of "only roasted" "כי אם צלי אש". I am not asking this as a question as much as just something that means we have to study Pesachim 41 where this comes up. [Lashes are the punishment for a prohibition in the Torah when the punishment is not stated explicitly. It can only be given if there were two witnesses that gave warning beforehand. It is a version of Miranda rights. There is never any punishment unless a warning is issued beforehand that is accepted by the perpetrator.]]

The end of this Tosphot however says something that is at face value really difficult. that don't serve idols is not specific enough while don't do work on the festival is specific.
to me it seems that it is impossible to know what Tosphot could mean by this without first spending time on pesachim pg 41. What could be the difference? I thought perhaps the festival has 39 kinds of work while honoring an idol could have an infinite range of things. But still why is it different? Don't do any work and don't do anything that honors an idol seem to be specific in the same way.

האמונה באלוהים היא רציונלית. לכל דבר יש סיבה. אם לא הייתה סיבה ראשונה  אז הייתה צריכה להיות רגרסיה אינסופית. ואז שום דבר לא יכול להתקיים. לכן חייבת להיות סיבה ראשונה. לכן יש אלוהים. הסיבה הראשונה, קיימת. אתה יכול להוכיח את הצעד הראשון אַפְּרִיוֹרִי שכל דבר יש סיבה בציינו ששום דבר לא יכול לבוא מצד עצמו. זה עושה את ההוכחה אַפְּרִיוֹרִי, לא רק תצפית אמפירית

גישה מקראית כללית לנשיות A general Biblical approach to womanhood

A general Biblical approach to womanhood would be first of all not like the feminist movement. It would also include the idea of dipping in a natural body of water once a month. It would also include a day of rest, not on Sunday. It would go against socialism, as being opposed to "Thou shalt not covet."

It would  not be liberal with commandments. That is, it would not expand them beyond their actual definitions. But it would not contract them either. And it would assume that what God means to say in the Bible, is what it actually says.

We know that, as a matter of fact, most of the commandments of the Bible were addressed to the Jewish people in the desert. But that does not preclude anyone from joining the club who wants to join. But if you join the club you have to obey the rules. You don't get to change them. Even Jews don't get to change them. The rules stay fixed like the Northern Star.
The idea that anyone can join is based on the Maimonides כל מי שרוצה "anyone who wants." It depends on nothing but ones own desire to keep the commandments of God.
[But you want to keep the laws of God, for God's sake don't ask a anyone. It is not up to them. Sometimes the Dark Side gets so strong that it is able to close the door to holiness completely. And if that would happen, it would not be possible to come to holiness--for anyone. So what does God do? He puts a person that fears G-d in the door so the Dark Side can't close it completely. But this also has the side effect that anyone who want to get into holiness has the problem that the someone who fears G-d will fight him at every turn.


גישה מקראית כללית לנשיות תהיה קודם כל לא אוהבת את התנועה הפמיניסטית. כמו כן, תכלול את הרעיון של טבילה בגוף טבעי של מים פעם בחודש. כמו כן, יכלול יום מנוחה, לא ביום ראשון. זו הייתה הולכת נגד סוציאליזם, שכהתנגד ללאו שבתורה" לא תחמוד ".

זו לא תהיה ליברלי עם מצוות. כלומר, זאת אומרת לא להרחיב אותם מעבר להגדרות שלהם בפועל. אבל זה לא הייתה מצמצמת אותן. וזה יהיה להניח כי מה שאלוהים אומר  בתנ"ך, זה מה שזה אומר בעצם.

אנחנו יודעים את זה, כעניין שבעובדה, רוב המצוות של התנ"ך הופנו לעם היהודי במדבר. אבל זה לא מונע מאף אחד להצטרף למועדון שרוצה להצטרף. אבל אם אתה מצטרף למועדון אתה צריך לציית לכללים. אתה לא יכול לשנות אותם. יהודים אפילו לא יכולים לשנות אותם. הכללים נשארים קבועים כמו כוכב הצפון. הרעיון שכל אחד יכול להצטרף מבוסס על הרמב"ם כל מי שרוצה "כל מי שרוצה לכסות תחת כנפי השכינה יכול". זה לא תלוי בשום דבר חוץ מן הרצון  כדי לשמור את מצוות ה '. [אבל אתה רוצה לשמור על החוקים של אלוהים, למען השם אל תשאלו רב. זה לא תלוי בם. והרבי נחמן אמר שהסיבה לרבנים היא להרחיק אנשים מהתורה. הוא מביא את זה מהזוהר שלפעמים הצד האפל מקבל כל כך כוחות שהוא יכול לסגור את הדלת לקדושה לגמרי. ואם זה היה קורה, זה לא יהיה אפשרי להגיע לקדושה - לאף אחד. אז מה אלוהים עושה? הוא מניח רב בדלת כדי הצד האפל לא יכול לסגור אותו לחלוטין. אבל זה יש גם את תופעת הלוואי שכל מי שרוצה להיכנס לקדושה הבעיה היא שהרבנים יילחמו בו בכל צעד ושעל. בסיכום יש סיבה לרבנים להתקיים. אבל הדבר הטוב ביותר עבור אנשים הוא להתרחק מהם בתכלית הריחוק

That is the best I can do to translate. The truth be told I am not sure how to do this. when I say "to join] the club" in English it sounds a little less formal than the Hebrew "מועדון"  In fact in Hebrew I think it might be better to leave out that metaphor completely. I don't mean to join officially. I mean rather an informal arrangement in which ever person that wants can keep the Holy Torah and in that way be in a sense joining the Jewsih people.

לא תאכלו על הדם Don't eat on the blood. [Leviticus circa 18]
The Talmud in Sanhedrin says this verse refers to the Temple in Jerusalem. There are some sacrifices that are eaten for example the sin offering to priests. The verse then tells us not to eat teh sacrifice while the blood of the animal has not been sprinkled yet on the altar. It tells the Sanhedrin not to eat anything the day they sentence someone to death. It tells us not to eat the blood of a living animal.
Why do the sages of the Talmud tells us this? Because the verse makes no sense otherwise. The context is: "Don't eat the fruit of a tree within the first three years it has been planted. In the fourth year bring it fruits to the Temple in Jerusalem, and don't eat on the blood." What blood? The blood of the fruits? The watermelon? And what is it one is not supposed to eat? It does not say! It just says don't eat on the blood. What should one not eat on the blood?

Music written for the glory of God

e40 in mp3  [e40 in midi]  e40nwc

This is  version in which I changed the string section to individual violins or cellos which seems to be better. And it saves me from having to change the actual score.


  great title in mp3  great title in midi  great title nwc

n17 mp3   n17 [in midi]  n17 nwc  

black hole in mp3

 black hole in midi  

black hole nwc

j94 [in midi] j94 nwc

j6 mp3

j6  in midi

j6nwc

Bava Metzia 101 I was confused about a certain passage in the Talmud until I discovered that Rav Elazar Menachem Shach has a nice explanation for it.
One goes into the field of another and plants crops. Rav says the owner gives the lesser of the improvement or the expense. I have to run but the basic idea come from the law of an abandoned field . If one plants it he has to give trumah [tithes]. So what comes from ones efforts is his.
In our case the field is not abandoned so we say the field did contribute something.
 I would not mention this but in my little booklet on Bava Metzia I left this law of page 101 with a question and it was just now that I realized that Rav Shach answers my question.

On who is involved in one mitzva does not have to do another. This has farther ramifications than most people think. The reason is the Shulchan Aruch puts together the opinions that one does have to stop in order to do another mitzvah along with the opinion one does not have to stop.

It is an argument in Suka 25a. Rashi, Tosphot, and the Baal Hameor all hold the argument there is going according to the opinion one has to stop. But the halacha is like R. Jose HaGalili that one does not have to stop. See the Rif, and the Baal HaMeor in the back.

I would like to suggest a halacha [Jewish Law] session like this.


You could do the Tur, Beit Yoseph, with the Shulchan Aruch also. I can imagine that that is a workable program.
But I must mention that the Shulchan Aruch just does not work with out the Tur. It is not just because the Beit Yoseph wrote that he did not write the Shulchan Aruch to be anything but a reminder of what he wrote in the Tur. But if you look at the Taz you will see he is always fighting with his father in law. There is almost no issue in the Taz that openly or not that he is not dealing with the Bach on the Tur, and disagreeing with him.

I should mention for the general public that halacha is not a made up concept or just because of some power trip of some control freaks.The Talmud itself give guidelines of how to poskin decide halacha from the Mishna and from the Talmud. It says the order of tenaim that the halacha is like against another tana in the mishna. So R Yehuda against R Jose, the halacha is like Rabbi Jose, etc. And in the Gemara also we have similar rules.

But it should be noted that the the insane religious world  and Torah are opposites. They might claim to be keeping Torah. But the facts show the reverse. There is no intersection between Torah and the the insane religious world . Those are two mutually exclusive sets.
Lithuanian Yeshivas do however have some connection with Torah. Also Mizrachi and Benei Akiva and  religious Zionist.

Music links for the glory of God [the First Cause, or the Will]

e51 edited again and again

e69
orchestra edited a third time mp3

e36 mp3

e51 edited again


e69

This should be put into mp3 but I can't seem to manage this. I realize that Midi and MP3 are different but I cant seem to compensate for the difference. So here it is in the original Midi form.


n57
i60

e39

ctl

mathematics

n33

If you look at the Rambam [Maimonides] about the issue of idolatry you can see he uses the second verse לא תעבדם "Don't serve them as a verse that specifically forbids kissing  hugging, sweeping in front or doing an kind of honor to an idol." That is the verse in Exodus 30. And he says one does not get lashes for this because it is not explained in the verse what it is referring to exactly.

So he is not using the idea of the Gemara [Sanhedrin 63a] that it is a לאו שבכללות a prohibition that forbids many things.
Tosphot also asks in the last Tosphot on the page how is it different than Shabat or cooking a the sciatic nerve on the festival, or eating the Passover sacrifice boiled or raw? He says basically the same as the Rambam אלו מיפרשי טפי.

What does all this mean? Is this how the Rambam and Tosphot are explaining the idea of לאו שבכללות a prohibition that forbids many things?

Tosphot  and the Rambam are saying that the prohibition for the rebellious son is don't eat on the blood and that is the prohibition that gets him lashes.  So Tosphot is not looking at this a a לאו שבכללות -- but  Tosphot and the Rambam both say about "don't serve other gods" that the problem is it is not explicit about what the lashes come for.
So what we have is that what I said a few days ago in this blog. That Tosphot and the Rambam simply noticed that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with the Braita. Dont eat on the blood is not a לאו שבכללות. But לא תעבדם is a  לאו שבכללות







P.S. There are more serious kinds of idolatry, i.e., the four services and accepting  anything or anyone as ones god. But the prohibition for those things comes from a different verse that is found in the Ten Commandments.

Sanhedrin 61b.

I assume this is the basic reason the Gra found good reason to sign his name on the famous  excommunication that deals with this problem.

In any case every moment you spend with God is a a moment in eternity.

It is my opinion that thus we can see how important it is to talk with God at least an hour a day while walking around either in a wilderness or even in the city. This practice is good for the body and the soul.

This clearly started with King David. There was a book written about it by  Lawrence in France (The Presence of God).

So my suggestion is for people to walk to and from work and on the way there and back to talk with God. And if possible on weekends to get out of the city and get into the wilderness and spend time alone with God. And I should add that I think that God answers prayer sometimes. In any case every moment you spend with God is a a moment in eternity.

The sages of the Mishna made an effort to decide what was part of the Torah
There was some questions about the Song of Songs and the book of Ezekiel.
The only reason these two were included was the first Rabbi Akiva said was OK and the other another sage went into his attic and did not leave until he resolved the contradictions.
This is all contained in Bava Batra and in the Talmud Shabat.
Later on the Oral Law was all written down.  So we have today the set of the oral Law.
That is an actual account of the oral tradition. Later on a kind of consensus developed about what would be considered valid Halacha books. So we have a kind of set of Halacha.

There is a point to this. The point is that even if people are going to read books out of the regular set of Torah they still need to know what is part of the regular set and what is not. The Sages of the Mishna could have just said whatever people want to read they will read anyway. And they were not making a list of forbidden books. It is rather people need to know what is the established system.
I suggest a similar process with Musar.

Here is my idea of the what constitutes the Oral and Written Law Torah. Old Testament. The Two Talmuds and Midrashei Halacah Midrashei Agada,
Rif, Rosh, Rambam, Tur, Beit Yoseph.

Musar I think also needs to be limited in some way.
I am not alone in this. At least we know that Rav Shach made a distinction between books that are meant to be clarify things within the context of the Oral Law and books of "hashkafa" world view issues.  He wrote that the verse "Of making books there is no end and they weariness to the flesh." applies to books of world view.

What is wrong with books about Hashkafa (השקפה world view of Torah)?
1) They are in most often written by authors who do not know the Hashkafa of Torah.
That is to say Saadia Gaon wrote a book for the specific purpose of telling people the world view of Torah. You would think that a book by an authentic Gaon would be popular by people who want to understand about the world view of Torah. I mean who could possible know it more accurately that a real authentic Gaon? But in fact people have scarcely even heard of Saadia Gaon and the name of his books certainly  draws a complete blank. [It is called the Creeds and Doctrines. אמונות ודעות].
The Guide of the Rambam is also written specifically for the sake of explain the world view of Torah. You would think it would the singular most popular book in the Jewish world. Who after all could know the world view of Torah or explain it more clearly that the Rambam himself?

But the truth is people don't read these two books because they say things people don't want to hear.
They would rather read books that feed into their delusions and make them feel good about themselves. They don't want to know or even hear about what the Torah actually holds. And of they do then it will only be about rituals--never about what the Torah holds about major issues.
The problem with the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam is not that it is hard to understand. The reason people don't read it is because it is possible to understand. All too possible and all too easy. And then when he says things that fly in the face of what people want to believe it is disturbing.

A link to music that was written for the glory of God

holy spirit in midi [i cannot find a mp3 version]
orchestra in midi  orchestra in mp3
n86 in midi n5 in midi

p120 [in midi]


n3 in midi


n7 in mp3  n7 in midi

n8 in mp3  n8 in midi

i1  [in midi]

l76 in mp3   l76 in midi

I want to write about the Talmud in Sanhedrin two questions and one answer. I want to write a little background about Bava Metiza page 14.

1] But I want to start with Bava Metzia. My whole essay on the other blog [Wine Women and Transcendence is mainly understandable only if you have this first fact that if you have a borrower who has property at the time of the loan his property is משועבד is a lean for the loan. That is the context of the argument between the Maharsha and the Maharshal. The property bought later can also be a lean because of what he writes in the deed of sale. But that is not relevant to the argument. Let's say, for example, over there on page 14 the borrower goes after the second buyer. It will be let's say for argument's sake that we are only going with the idea of what was owned at the time becomes  a lean. So how can the loaner go after the first guy when there was still property owned by the borrower? It would not make any difference if we added an extra variable about the deed of sale.

2] Sanhedrin 63. Tosphot has two questions on the Gemara. And when I sat down to learn it today by the ziun of Reb Nachman it suddenly occurred to me that Rabbi Yochanans hold that לא תאכלו על הדם "Don't eat on the blood" is a prohibition for the rebellious son alone. That is how Tosphot understands the Gemara and in fact also the Rambam. That is Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with the Braita.  So everything I wrote about this subject before is ridiculous. We still have the same question on the Gemara. Why is the redactor of the Gemara inserting Rabbi Yochanan into this discussion.
But Rabbi Yochana in any case makes perfect sense. And the Rambam probably saw that also, and said, "If redactor did not have to insert R Yochanan here, that does not change anything about the halacha. All we have is a question on the Gemara. So what? It does not change anything."
I will have to find what I wrote about all this and erase it.

3]The Gemara thinks the prohibition of hugging and kissing an idol and sweeping up in front of it are all  לאו שבכללות a prohibition which prohibits different things and therefore gets no lashes. David asked. "Why?" This is not the usual case of לאו שבכללות a prohibition which prohibits different things
The usual case is one verse that forbids wildly different things. Hugging and kissing an idol are just subcategories of the same thing.

4] Why are hugging and kissing an idol and sweeping up in front of it forbidden? Rashi says in the Mishna page 61b from the extra don't serve them in parshat Mishpatim if these things have a special verse forbidding them and the verse if calling them serve then they are service not according to it way and they should be liable a sin offering. We have already that the first "Don't serve them" in the Ten Commandments means serve according to their way. And we say the four services also are included because of a גילו מילתא. But here we have the same expression used for these minor services. Why should they not be included in the general category?




סנהדרין סג.יש לתוספות שתי שאלות על הגמרא.  הגמרא מביאה ברייתא שפורטת כמה דברים שעוברים עליהם משום לא תאכלו על הדם. ואז היא מביאה רבי יוחנן שאומר שהלאו של בן סורר ומורה בוא הפסוק לא תאכלו על הדם. ואב היא מביאה רב אבין שאומר על כולם אינו לוקה משום לאו שבכללות. שאלה אחת היא שבן סורר ומורה הוא לאו הניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין ולכן ממילא אין מלקות. שאלה שנייה שבן סורר ומורה כן לוקה. ישבתי ללמוד ליד ציון ר' נחמן ופתאום הבנתי שרבי יוחנן סובר שלא תאכלו על הדם הוא לאו לבן סורר ומורה לבד. הוא אינו מסכים עם הברייתא. אצל ר' יוחנן כן לוקים על הלאו הזה ואנו לאו שבכללות. ככה התוספות מבינים רבי יוחנן שהם אומרים שבאמת זה הלאו שבגללו הבן סורר ומורה לוקה, וכן סובר הרמב''ם שמביא את הפסוק הזה ללאו הזה.) סנהדרין סג. הגמרא אומרת שלא תעבדם הוא אוסר גיפוף ונישוק ומכבד לפני עבודה זרה וגם היא אומרת שזה לאו שבכללות. החברותא שלי שאל איך זה יכול להיות? לאו שבכללות אומרים על לאו אחד שאוסר דברים שונים לגמרי. אבל כאן הדברים האלו הם ציורים שונים של כבוד לעבודה זרה שלא כדרכה. עוד קושיא רש''י במשנה כתב שגיפוף ונישוק אסורים משום "לא תעבדם" יתירה שנכתבה בפרשת משפטים לא תשתחווה לאלהיהם ולא תעבדם כי מוקש הוא לך, אם  הפסוק בעצמו אומרת שאלו הדברים הם עבודה למה לא חייבים עליהם קרבן חטאת

My story is I started a little above average. I mean my family was wonderful. But I had some kind of internal need to discover the meaning of Life the Universe, and Everything Else. And that is bound to not end well. Almost by definition. With the amount gurus and scam artists that grow like mushrooms it is hard to imagine how such a search could end well. But my some quirk of fate  I did end up in two remarkable yeshivas in NY [Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway and Mirrer in Brooklyn.] But the hammer hit the anvil and after all what is a good story without conflict? And mine is no different. Instead of getting the girl as every good story has, in mine I lost the girl and fell to the bottom of the well.
 So this is more about life in the bottom of the well. and when one is in the bottom of the well that is  interesting. The hobos and vagabonds like me love . Down here in foggy bottom. No one loves a loser. And so it is lonely down here. And yet in our misery we find encouragement

here are links to some music which I wrote for the glory of God.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B71pces179i2cGRZZVhRZERJOW8/view?usp=sharing

This needs editing towards the end



b99



b100

This needs some editing.
But I can't convert anything to Midi. So I hope this version is OK.

Midi Files


e33



Mathematics




n83

l76I just found a way to put this here in Midi. [I pressed "export."]

Here is a link to some ideas called חידושי הש''ס

some ideas called חידושי הש''ס

I have to mention that this little booklet was not edited as much as  booklet on Bava Metzia.Which I think is obvious but still I think I should mention it because I hope that God will grant to me to go over it and do whatever corrections it probably needs 

But one thing hit home for me--the idea of finding the good in the bad days. He says that it is possible to find God everywhere. But what covers up the presence of God? Kelipot and evil. So how can one find God. By the Torah and by tzadikim.
But he mentions that that the Torah itself can be covered in kelipot.
He mentions a lot of themes in that chapter only briefly.

But this idea that the Torah itself can be covered in kelipot seems to me to make a lot of sense. Just because people are learning Torah one should not take that as proof that they are learning Torah. They might be learning the kelipot that the Torah has fallen into. Also there is the Torah of the Dark Side that I think might be confused with the real Torah.

The reason I say this is I have noticed a good number of people that


 have I think problems with דתיים--religious Jews. I think you could say I have had my own share of difficulties with them but I try to keep that to myself but when I hear or see others that seem to have had similar problems it strikes a chord in me. I think at one point to me everything was simple. Torah is Torah. The Oral and the Written Law and everyone should keep Torah and that is that. Now I think things are as simple. And it does not seem to me to be a matter of tweaking the variables. I know some people would like to do that, and say well you need to emphasis this thing or that etc. They come up with pat answers to what I think does not have pat answers.

The Muslim Dilemma.

The Muslim Dilemma. When good people are born into an evil religion what can they do?

I see this problem manifested in other ways. Sometimes it is not a religion as a whole that is bad but some aspects of it. Or political beliefs. The Democrats and Communists are  not bad hearted, but simply in their collage years got infatuated with Rousseau and Marx and after that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

http://www.owl232.net/irrationality.htm

 God's Divinity is in everything. That is it is possible to find God everywhere.
This is subtle and some people get confused and think that this is pantheism. It is not that everything is Divine. Rather it is that God's Divinity is in everything. It  like if I say, "This cup contains water." That is not the same as, "This cup is water."

So  to find the divinity in things is by subduing ones evil inclination.
And when one does that, the Divinity in things and in ones own life start to shine.
The reason for this is that usually the Divinity in things is hidden. There are good days and bad days. And the evil in bad days covers up the good. But by subduing ones evil inclination that good that is hidden in the bad days becomes revealed.

And what is the evil inclination? Delusions. The evil inclination used to be in physical desires. and then there was a time it was not physical but manifested itself in anti Torah thoughts. Nowadays the evil inclination has abandoned those fields and is wholly in delusions.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/update-kentucky-10-mom-fights-back-against-bullies-criticizing-her-off-grid-life/


In home schooling I suggest in each subject to have  a fast session--just read the words and go on. And then an "in depth" session.

This is the official and established routine of every Lithuanian yeshiva from the day they were founded by Reb Chaim from Voloshin (the disciple of the Gra). It is not just my personal opinion.
The morning at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn was devoted to in depth learning from 10 A.M. until the Rosh yeshiva's class which was an hour before the afternoon prayer. And then the afternoon was devoted to fast learning--Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,--  not to spend too much time on any one thing, but just to read and go on.


Now every subject seems to have its own set of rules.When I was starting out in Talmud I read the paragraph of  Talmud and Rashi.--I just said the words without understanding a thing. Then I read the exact same paragraph in English with the Soncino translation. Again I understood nothing. And then I read again the same passage in the Talmud with Rashi and it all became clear.

This three step method when one is beginning seems to be helpful also in Mathematics. I would read the whole page forwards. And again I would understand nothing. Then I would read the page backwards. And again understand nothing. But then the third time I would read it again from the beginning and it would become clear.


So I think home schooling could be modeled on this method. And at least on Shabat I think people should stay home and learn Torah--if not the whole week. [There are two reasons to learn Torah at home on Shabbat. One is driving is forbidden on Shabat. The other is that often synagogues present more problems than they solve.]

Also I think home schooling is important in the USA where the schools have value until university.
I mean when I went to school in the USA things were different. The teachers were great and the system was great. But today home schooling is to be preferred.

[In the Ukraine and Russia I think thing are just the opposite. The schools up until collage seem to me to be  excellent. Then at the university levels things go haywire. Even when you try to fight corruption it seems to make things worse. They send in from the capital some inspector who does not know anything but looks at paper trails. And the most corrupt professor that openly takes bribes is the one professor who has taken the trouble to make sure his paper trail is clean. So the good professors get thrown out and the corrupt one becomes the director.


!

In the Holy Bible you sometimes have a punishment that is stated openly but it is hard to find the prohibition. One place this comes up is the case of the rebellious son.
The law of the rebellious son [age 13 until 13 and three months] is a little vague to me right now but mainly the idea is that he is not listening to his parents and he eats a specified amount of raw meat and wine. He is given a warning. "If you do that, you will get lashes." And he says, "I understand and even so I do it." He gets the lashes.
Then later  he does not listen, and before he eats the same amount of meat and wine he is given the same warning, but this time it is said, "If you do that, you will get the death penalty." And he says, "I understands and  even so I do this". Then he is taken out and stoned.
The question is here, "Where is the prohibition?" We have a general principle, "There is no punishment without a prohibition." The 'Rambam says that principle does not apply when the punishment is stated explicitly. [I don't remember the actual proper usage of this principle. I think it came up in Ketubot and Yevamot ]which I learned long time ago and completely forgot.. The Ramban' disagrees and says even here we need an open verse to forbid.
And this idea of the Ramban seem to be the basis for the Tosphot I am about to discuss here.







The Talmud brings a baraita that gives different things for which the verse that forbids them is ''Don't eat on the blood.'' לא תאכלו על הדם  R. Yochanan says it also forbids the rebellious son. Then some person [Rav Avin bar Kahana] says one does not get lashes for them because there are no lashes for anything in which the same verse forbids several different things.

Tosphot [Sanhedrin 63 the second to the bottom Tosphot.] asks: "But it can't get lashes anyway because it is a prohibition that could lead to the death penalty. And also in fact it does have lashes."

You can ask on the first question: The verse, "Don't eat on the blood"לא תאכלו על הדם does not exempt the rebellious son from lashes,  so it can't exempt anyone from lashes. So to find an exemption is only by what the לאו שבכללות a prohibition that includes many things.
But you could defend the question of Tosphot in this way:
 It does exempt from lashes because the rebellious son does not get lashes from that verse, but from the verse that is said in its own place. ויסרו אותו. The point of Tosphot is the reason not to get ashes from our verse is from two reasons and the Talmud only mentions one.



 But then we moved on to the second question of Tosphot where it looks like he is in fact saying that the lashes do come from that verse.
So Tosphot is asking on our Gemara from two sides. He is saying if you assume thus and thus, this Gemara makes no sense. And if you make this other set of assumptions, the Gemara still is hard to understand.

 I think the entire Tosphot is going like the Ramban'.
The 'Rambam would deny that either question is valid. Let us think. the first question says that yes we agree with the Gemara that forbidding lots of things would be a reason not to get lashes for that prohibition. but there is a further reason not to get lashes for it--because it leads to the death penalty.

The 'Rambam would say, "No it does not. Once you know there is a penalty, you don't bother looking for the prohibition. The reason for the death penalty might have been that verse "Don't eat on the blood," but we don't need it to be, and now we know it can't be."

The second question of Tosphot does not even begin if one holds by  the Rambam. To the Rambam the reason for the lashes of the rebellious son is not from that verse because it is a verse that includes other prohibitions.
In any case the Rambam would have to answer the problem of what does Rabbi Yochanan means then and he would say it is just a general hint but it is in fact that the reason for either the lashes or the death penalty.

I am not done thinking about the first question of Tosphot. I am not sure if what I wrote here is really satisfactory or not.

The off-grid, home-school mother of the 10 children who were seized has spoken out on Facebook in defense of her family’s self-sufficient life – and she’s receiving plenty of support.

A note on that article:

I gave up on the USA when they did this to me and placed my children in the homes of child abusers that sexually assaulted my children.

see http://www.offthegridnews.com/

Reb Obadiah Joseph was an important Torah figure but I never went to see him because I figured an Ashkenazic Jew would probably just get the cold shoulder. But he could learn. And the fact is many Sephardim think he was a Tzadik. And that might be true. One person had a daughter and after that for many years had no other children. So he went to Obadiah Joseph  and got a blessing for more children. Then he had another daughter. And he went to the synagogue of Rav Joseph and at the reading of the Torah he asked what to name her, and he was told "Avigail." Then he went back to his seat. As he got back the Shamash [Gabai] came over to him and told him, "The rav wants to talk with you." He went over to Rav Joseph, and Rav Joseph slapped him, and told him "Next time have a boy." The next year, almost to they day, he had a boy.

There was another fellow who had had an operation and for some reason his penis was damaged. There is a legal question about marrying in such a case. So he went to the posek of the Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem and was told it is forbidden to him to get married. Then he went to a few other Ashkenazic poskim. they also told him it is forbidden to get married and he could never have children.  He went to Rav Joseph and Rav Joseph asked detailed questions about the anatomic problems. He said he could marry and that he would have children. Now he has already two children.

What I suggest for home schooling is a double branched approach.
This is based on the Mirrer yeshiva high school system. They learn Torah in the morning until the time for afternoon prayer. In the afternoon they do secular studies.

Also there is an important dove tailed approach to learning at the Mirrer yeshiva once you get out of high school into the beit midrash [the large study hall for ages 18-22. [The large study hall is actually also for married people kollel. Or come to think of it pretty much for all ages.
At any rate-the morning is for in depth learning and the afternoon is for fast learning.


So what I suggest for people is this. To go though the entire Written and Oral Law, every single last word. (That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds, and the midrashei halacha and midrashei agada)
Say the words and go on. If you don't understand the first time you will the second or third time.
But also to have an hour session in depth learning

Then for secular learning I suggest the basic program of the Rambam-to learn Physics and Metaphysics. Here also to just plow through the material as fast as possible,-say the words and go on.
But also to have in depth sessions. [Physics has gone further than the Aristotelian Physics the Rambam was referring to-but it still is the same subject matter. See the Guide for the Perplexed for more detail.] (Physics should be first to do relativity, then quantum mechanics and then string theory. And the second session in Math should be Algebra,  Geometry, and then Algebraic Topology.)

Abraham Lincoln was self taught. And this goes back to an old American tradition of self reliance and do it yourself type of thinking.

To make this clear: each session should be about one broad topic. Lets say for example the Talmud. That comes under the broad category of Oral Law. So you go through the Babylonia Talmud, then instead of going back to the beginning, you go to the Jerusalem Talmud, and the the Sifra, Sifrei Tosephta, Mechilta Torat Kohanim--and only then do you go back to the beginning of the Talmud.
Also there should be one in depth session with a learning partner, or a rosh yeshiva. If you are in Kentucky where neither in available you could buy a book of depth thinking like the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or the Chidushie HaRambam by Chaim Solovitchik.

That is you take a broad category. The same could be for the written Law. read through the entire Torah and prophets in Hebrew from the beginning to the end. [If you keep up with the Torah portion of the week that counts.]

Another broad category is survival skills which also should be done daily.

Ann Rand

It is hard to defend capitalism because of several things. John Locke is the beginning of the empirical school of thought [that all knowledge comes through the senses] which is in close connection with his political ideas. Since there is knowledge that does not depend on the senses a serious foundation of his system is lacking.

The intuitionists Michael Hummer and Caplan are great thinkers but there is a certain quietism about their system.

I think Capitalism and Libertarian ideas [the Tea Party] can be defended by only by the  Kant who sees the individual as the  key. Autonomy. Authority must come from within. That is Kant's Dinge An Sich.

Ann Rand was amazing writer and defender of freedom and democracy, but one needs to defend this system from a philosophical rigorous point of view. It is not enough to defend it vigorously. The reason for this is people are not stupid. They see thinkers of great caliber defending Marxism. The whole structure of leftist Marxism has an array of powerful thinkers.  Freud, Rousseau. They pack a punch. These are very sophisticated thinkers all used in defense of Modern Marxism. The sad thing is they are defending the most murderous corrupt system ever devised by man.

It is not as if you could not support capitalism, freedom and democracy by a similar array of even more powerful thinkers and even more sophisticated--Maimonides, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant,

I know one person that was interested in converting to the insane religious world . He was talking in glowing terms about the frum world (the insane religious world ) to his father and his father said, "They probably have a few skeletons in their closet."  He did anyway convert. But it is interesting to notice the analogy. Sometimes something looks squeakily clean because they have put all the skeletons away where you can't see them.

Personally, I must admit that when I was planning on going to yeshiva, my father probably said something along the same lines to me.
I also did not listen.
In any case, the places I did go to were probably a lot better than most. But still there is something about my own experience in the frum would which I think indicate that there is something funny about it.
My own approach to this is to say "Well, they are just not keeping the Torah." And I did notice a lot of the teachings of the Shatz have become an integral part of the insane religious world  by way of pseudo Kabalah. In any case, I do think that the insane religious world  is mainly not very kosher. That is as a general rule. But Lithuanian yeshivas and communities founded upon them tend to be very good. So if you want to keep Torah--and that is a good idea--it is important to find a decent Litvak Yeshiva.
But the danger is there are lots of bad influence outside the doors of the yeshiva.

Some of the ways I don't agree with the insane religious world  are in Halacha. Other areas are about the State of Israel. Another area is concerning ethics,- [things that Musar was supposed to correct.]

Israel Salanter

I am pretty sure that Musar is important. One piece of evidence  is that my brothers and myself are on  different paths of Torah. My older brother tends towards the Reform side of Judaism. And yet when I mentioned to him about the book Duties of the Heart (the Chovot Levavaot) (חובות לבבות)  and Fear of God as a principle he was quite positive that that is the right path.
That is even though on the official level there are differences between different branches of Judaism, but for simple Jews there is little doubt of what the basic path is. Fear of God and living like a mensch. [not depending on charity, living according decent moral standards.]
My younger brother is goes to a conservative Shul but I am pretty sure that in essence he agrees with this approach also, though he might not have heard of any particular Musar book.


[I mean on the outside of the spectrum you can find insane Jews that are against the State of Israel.  The extremists don't define Torah. Only Torah defines Torah.



Musar itself  has been hijacked by extremists.
What I think is to stick with the core set of the classical Musar books [חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים] and the writings of the direct disciples of Israel Salanter: Isaac Blasser, Joseph Horvitz, Simcha Zisel, Naphtali Amshterdam.
Isaac Blasser wrote the neoclassical Musar book אור ירשאל

Unless a person has gone through Shas [Talmud] I am not in favor of anyone learning kabalah. But if one has done the proper kind of preparation I think it is a good idea. [The Ari himself says if one learns it without the proper preparation, it kills him.--at least spiritually]
My own hope is to get through all the writings of Isaac Luria.  And if you are starting kabalah that is what I would recommend for most people. Also I hope to get through Yaakov Abuchatzeira's books and the Ramchal's [Moshe  Chaim Lutzatto] and the Shalom Sharabi (note 1).
And if you are interested in Kabalah then only learn it with some descendant of Yaakov Abuchatzeira.

The is to say legitimate kabalah I think needs to be distinguished from kabalah of the Sitra Achra [The Dark Side]
And we know there is Torah from the Sitra Achra and this applies to all four aspects of Torah. It is for this reason I emphasize sticking with the basic Litvak approach based on the Gaon from Villna. My intention is to avoid the Sitra Achra and to help others do so also. [Or at least to warn people.]


(note 1) Shalom Sharabi is the author of the book printed at the end of the Eitz Chaim. He was a Yemenite Kabalist that made his way to Jerusalem.  He wrote a lot more stuff besides that. There is a yeshiva that concentrates on his approach in Jerusalem called Nahar Shalom [and that is in fact the name of his book.] Mordechai Sharabi I think was a descendant of his. There are two prayer books along the lines of kabalah both called Sidur haReshash, a big one and a small one. I used the big one for some years. [I don't know much about that yeshiva. Maybe it is OK. But still my recommendation is to stick with the Bava Sali (Abuchatzeira) approach.]

Sanhedrin 63 the second to the bottom Tosphot. The Talmud brings a baraita that gives different things for which the verse that forbids them is ''don't eat on the blood.''לא תאכלו על הדם R. Yochanan says it also forbids the rebellious son. Then some person [amora] says one does not get lashes for them because there are no lashes for anything in which the same verse forbids different things.

Tosphot asks: "But it can't get lashes anyway because it is a prohibition that could lead to the death penalty. And also in fact it does have lashes."

You can ask on the first question the verse, "Don't eat on the blood"לא תאכלו על הדם does not exempt the rebellious son from lashes  so it can't exempt anyone from lashes. So to find an exemption is only by what the לאו שבכללות a prohibition that includes many things.
But you could defend the question of Tosphot in this way
 it does exempt from lashes because the rebellious son does not get lashes from that verse, but from the verse that is said in its own place. ויסרו אותו. [But for this answer to work you have to assume like the Rambam that when there is stated a punishment you don't need to find a prohibition, you just assume it is there.]



So I gave up. But then we moved on to the second question of Tosphot where it looks like he is in fact saying like I was saying--that the lashes do come from that verse.
So Tosphot is asking on our Gemara from two sides. He is saying if you assume thus and thus, this Gemara makes no sense. And if you make this other set of assumptions, the Gemara still is hard to understand.

In any case, why I bring this to the attention of the public is this. This Tosphot in fact depends on an argument between the 'Rambam and the Ramban' [Maimonides and Nachmanides].

To the 'Rambam if there is a punishment you don't need a verse. This is the first assumption of Tosphot. To the Ramban' even if a punishment is stated explicitly you still need to find a verse that forbids the act. And that is the second assumption of Tosphot.
So to sum up what is going on here is Tosphot is saying something that makes a lot of sense. He is saying no matter how you look at this Gemara it comes out difficult "shver." But he just packed this whole long argument (which if I had the energy I would go into more detail) into two short sentences.

a later retraction
I think I have to retract. I think the entire Tosphot is going like the Ramban'.The 'Rambam would deny that either question is valid. Let us think. the first question says that yes we agree with the Gemara that forbidding lots of things would be a reason not to get lashes for that prohibition. but there is a further reason not to get lashes for it--because it leads to the death penalty. The Rambam would say no it does not. Once you know there is a penalty you don't bother looking for the prohibition.the reason for the death penalty might have been that verse "don't eat on the blood"but we don't need it to be and now we know it cant be. the second question of Tosphot does not even begin to the Rambam. To the Rambam the reason for the lashes of the rebellious son is not from that verse because it is a verse that includes other prohibitions.
In any case the Rambam would have to answer the problem of what does Rabbi Yochanan means then and he would say it is just a general hint but it is in fact that the reason for either the lashes or the death penalty.

Pamela Geller

"Muslims say if you offend us we will kill you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdJgqDhbS4

She said "There is a problem in Islam." I say "The problem is Islam."

Not only that but people that are willing to compromise with Islam are part of the problem.


I don't talk about Islam much on this blog because once I was in coming back home through Central Park [NY in Manhattan] one night about 1 AM  and I met a black man who had some very interesting things to say. In fact some very frightening things.
We were talking a little about religion and he had been at a lot of churches and even a lot of synagogues. And perhaps I might relate what he said if I can remember. But he also told me about his experience in NJ in a mosque. This was so long ago that I forgot most of the details but mainly there there another member of this mosque that had decided that Islam was not for him, and soon after the other members of the Mosque came to his house in the middle of the night and murdered the whole family, and as far as the NY police were concerned it was an unsolved crime for unknown motives with no leads.

While I am on teh subject I think his complain about churches was that he did not find God in them. And his complaint about synagogues I don't remember. But one thing that sticks out in my mind--about the blue string--the Techelet that people do not put on their garments. I tried to tell him about the yeshivas of  the Gra in Israel and Breslov. But I admit he is right that when teh Torah says openly to put on a blue string and we don't listen--that is a problem. In any case I don't think the kind breslov uses is right. There is the Tifrach kind I think is the proper one. And it is the kind that Zilverman in the old city uses.

I suggest something very different. It is talking with God. You can see this custom to some degree in psalms. King David was in fact doing this. But also he was able to write down his prayers. And it is probable that most people that have some feeling towards God do this once in a while.

But what I am suggesting here is to make a goal of this. To in fact take the long way to work and back so that you can spend more time talking with God or at least trying to talk with him.

[This idea was to some degree written about Lawrence, a lay monk. 

Jewish Ethics. Without Musar, people make up their own pseudo Torah

What I have wanted to do is to start something along the lines of Israel Salanter. A kind of Musar [Jewish Ethics] Movement that would stick to the original plan. Musar got to be sidetracked. For people in training in different fields it became about those fields. In some ways it became about being extra frum religious. But in it original conception it was about a kind of service towards God based on the classical books of Jewish Ethics. Of course, it was discovered that this in fact meshed well with yeshiva life. and it was difficult to do this program outside of a yeshiva context.

But I still think it is worthwhile renewing this program of learning the 30 or so books of classical Musar.
[Musar does have an aspect of keeping externals and internals. It is in find  a kind of complete program for serving God based on the Oral and Written Law. But it is  amazing how side tracked it got to be.
The basic Torah path has  mitzvahs, but it also gives a weight to each mitzvah. That is how much every mitzvah ought to be emphasized. When people pervert the Torah, the first step is to change the weight of the mitzvot. It is like you have a row of bottles. Each bottle represents a mitzvah, and the water in the bottles represents the weight or importance of each one. To find out the proper weight of each mitzvah is is necessary to learn Musar. Otherwise, one tends to emphasize minor things at the expense of major things. Without Musar, people make up their own pseudo Torah and present it as the real thing.