The faith of the Torah is Monotheism-not Pantheism. הבעיה עם פנתאיזם היא זה: הטבע הוא לא אלוהים. ואלוהים הוא לא טבע.אין לו חומר. הוא לא עשוי משום חומר, ולכן שום דבר לא יכול להיות עשוי מהחומר שלו.

The problem with Pantheism is this: Nature isn't God. And God is not Nature. He is the creator of nature. He has no family relationship with humans. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans or a tzadik and the Divine.


 The faith of the Torah is Monotheism-not Pantheism.
 God transcends nature. As the sovereign of all realms, God isn't by nature bound to any particular realm. Nature certainly becomes the stage of God's expression of his will. He expresses his will and purpose through forces of nature in the Torah. But nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's completely different. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine

That is that God created the world something from nothing-not from his own substance. He has no substance. He is not made out of anything and therefore nothing can be made of his substance. And he is separate from the world and not a part of it. Holiness belongs only to God not to any other being like a tzadik. But God can make something holy. He does this when that thing becomes separated from the world and is so to speak owned by God. This is the concept of holiness  of the Torah. Purity is something else. It is the permission to touch something holy or to come into the holy place. Purity is not the same thing as holiness. But a lack of purity forbids one from touching or eating something holy. I think it is important to keep the most basic and essential beliefs about God of the Torah in mind.

הבעיה עם פנתאיזם היא זה: הטבע הוא לא אלוהים. ואלוהים הוא לא טבע. הוא היוצר של הטבע. אין לו שום קשר  משפחה עם בני אדם.  אין גבול רך בין בני אדם או צדיק והאלוהי. אני רוצה להזכיר כהערת שוליים שהאמונה של התורה היא האמונה באל אחד-לא פנתאיזם.  אלוהים מתעלה מעל הטבע.  הטבע מבטא את רצון הבורא. אבל הטבע הוא לא אלוהים עצמו. הוא לא מזוהה עימו. הוא שונה לחלוטין. הוא לא קרוב משפחה לבני אדם בכל דרך שהוא. אז אין טשטוש, ואיו גבול  רך בין בני האדם ואלוהים. זאת אומרת שאלוהים ברא את העולם יש מאין, ולא מהחומר שלו. אין לו חומר. הוא לא עשוי משום חומר, ולכן שום דבר לא יכול להיות עשוי מהחומר שלו. והוא נפרד מהעולם ולא חלק ממנה.
 אבל אלוהים יכול לעשות משהו קדוש. הוא עושה זאת כאשר דבר שהופך להיות נפרד מהעולם והוא נכנס בבעלות של  אלוהים. זהו המושג של קדושתה של התורה. טוהר הוא משהו אחר. זה הרשות לגעת במשהו קדוש או להיכנס למקום הקדוש. טוהר הוא לא אותו הדבר כמו קדושה. אבל חוסר טוהר אוסר אחד מלגעת או לאכול משהו קדוש. אין זה מתקשר לקברי צדיקים.
אני חושב שזה חשוב לשמור על האמונה הבסיסית והחיונית ביותר  באלוהים  של התורה בראש הכל.

For the Glory of the God of Israel, the God of my father and mother, Philip and Leila Rosten.

i34   [i34 in midi]

n96  n96 in midi

I discussed the problem of making a center of Torah [with my learning partner] and he was not impressed with the need for such a thing. He thought a person's responsibility is to learn and to keep Torah himself. That is to go out a buy the Babylonian Talmud  with Rashi, Tosphot, the Avi Ezri, and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's Chidushei HaRambam and just plow through them at home.

There is some point to supporting Torah, but it is like shooting in the dark. Most of the places you give your money to are going to be scams. Unless you are in a place nearby and you walk in and pray there and see what is going on up close and personal, then there is no more chance of your money going to support real Torah than if you would just throw it into the wind and hope some worthy person will pick it up and find it.

Music written for the glory of God

i32    i33  [i32 midi] [i32 nwc] i33 midi  i33 nwc

Since it is hard to depend on the idea that the area you live in will somehow magically turn into a place of Torah the best thing is to at least make your own space into a מקום תורה a place of Torah as best you can.
I don't know how things are in California but in NY most of the necessary books for this were very cheap. When I first got to yeshiva it was suggested to me to get the Rashba, the Ritva the Ramban and my own tractate. And I also got myself an entire Shulchan Aruch and Tur. Even though i was on a stipend of an average yeshiva student and had very little extra cash these books were simply to get.

There are some cities that it just does not work to make them into a place of Torah. LA is a perfect example. All the the insane religious world  there are the Sitra Achra [Demonic]. Somehow the Dark Side possessed LA in a hidden way the same as they did in Baltimore. I have no idea how N.Y. managed to get world class yeshivas all within walking distance of each other and other cities are wastelands.

Baltimore was once a candidate for being a Torah center.  It had in it a Torah sage.

For some reason it seems to me that it is harder to make a place of Torah than meets the eye.

Apparently it is not just a matter of throwing money at someone who is claiming to be learning Torah.
I never realized this. I was in a Baal Teshuva Yeshiva in NY that by all rights should not have been a Torah center. It might have been some place intent on brainwashing collage kids. But for some odd reason it turned out in fact to be  place of Torah. This was Rav Freifeld's place Shar Yashuv.One possible reason might have been the teachers. Naphtali Yeger, Rav Forest, Rav Rabinovitz, each a Torah giant in their own right.

And of course Brooklyn was blessed with authentic sages. Rav Hutner, Rav Kalmanovitch, Shmuel Berenbaum etc. So it does seem that to make a place of Torah you really need a Torah sage. You can't just throw money at a bunch of nobodies and expect results. Israel would seem to be a good example of this phenomenon. Bnei Brak is well known as a Torah center. It would  seem to be no accident that the greatest sage of that generation, Rav Shach was there. [Take a look at his Avi Ezri and you will see what I mean.]

Glory and honor to the God of Israel

These music files [and all past and future Music that God has granted to me to write]are dedicated to the God of Israel, the God of my father Philip Rosten and the God of my Mother Leila.

mathematics   [mathematics in midi format]  i31   [i31 in midi forat]

The Torah is decidedly Right Wing. As a political laws are concerned the Torah is definitely for private property, highly limited government, traditional morality, and family values.

Torah is about personal morality but it is also a political blueprint for a functional society.
Every time there is a law that says do such and such because I am the Lord your God it is referring to personal morality.
"Love your neighbor like yourself because I am the Lord your God." We can't imagine Congress passing a law like that. And what kind of punishment would there be for not obeying it? Perhaps a jail sentence of thirty days?

But there are plenty of laws which are political and civil law and this part of the Torah is decidedly Right Wing. As a political laws are concerned the Torah is definitely for private property, highly limited government, traditional morality, and family values.

Music link for the glory of the All Mighty

i30

The rhythm  comes from the Renaissance.

My approach is based on learning.
There are five basic things I think people ought to learn and finish. This idea is based to a large degree on what I was taught when I was in yeshiva. In fact in the first yeshiva I went to it was definitely clear that learning Torah is the highest Divine service.
And I accept this but I add to it Math and Physics for the reason that the Rambam includes Physics and Metaphysics in the category of Torah.

So these are the five
(1) The written Law, that is the Old Testament.
(2) The oral Law, that is the two Talmuds, Tosefta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta, Torat Kohanim
(3) Musar, that is the Musar books based on the approach of the Rambam and Saadia Gaon.
(4) Math [You can't really finish this -but you can get up to Algebraic Topology. There does not seem to be a short cut. Mainly you need to do Algebra and Topology, and then connect them.]
(5) Physics [This also you can't finish, but you can at least get up to String Theory.]

If I would be consistent I would include the Metaphysics of Aristotle, but I would rather not include that on my list right now. If I would have perfect faith in the Rambam, then of course I would include it, but I am in general I am a little unhappy with philosophy.
But in fact if you can and you have faith in the wise [that is the Rambam], then by all means learn the Metaphysics of Aristotle. It is about 13 books. But learn it with Plato, Plotinus, and Kant.


This is my approach however it is based on what I saw in my parents. There was something so amazing and magical about the relationship between my parents that my brothers and myself have spent our whole lives wondering what it was and wishing we could duplicate it in our own lives.
So what you see in the above paragraph is my own take on what they were about. If you would ask my brothers they would say that yes I am right that Torah and and natural sciences were import to them but also family values and loyalty to family and also working at an honest job for a living and of course Classical Music. My Dad supported the Opera in  Los Angeles and obviously sent a check to Cal Tech every year

   רמב''ם הלכות שגגות  פרק ז' שייך למסכת שבת פרק הכלל גדולה יש שאלה על רמב''ם. נראה שהוא אומר שאם אחד שוכח את כל  הל''ט אבות מלאכתם ועונשן אז הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות
ואז באיזה אופן שהוא זוכר שבת ? בנו של רמב''ם, אברהם, אמר שיש לך לומר רמב''ם אומר גם שוכח ל''ט אבות מלאכה או ועונשן, אבל לא את שניהם וכולם ביחד. או שהוא שכח את התולדות. בגמרא מובא שר 'יוחנן אמר שגגת עונש שמה שגגה. ריש לקיש אמר שגגת עונש שמה מזיד. הגמרא שאלה על המשנה. למה זה לציין ל''ט? כולנו יכולים לספור. הוא עונה לומר לנו  הוא מביא ל''ט אם הוא שכח את כל. ואז זה אומר שזה טוב לר 'יוחנן, אבל מה לגבי לריש לקיש? באיזה אופן שהוא זוכר שבת בכלל? הגמרא עונה ריש לקיש אמר תחום שבת ואליבא דר' עקיבא. הזכרתי את יד על הבעיה ברמב''ם לשותף הלמידה שלי. הוא אמר שאין בעיה ברמב''ם כי זה קל וחומר. אני לא יכול להבין למה הוא מתכוון. אני חושב מה שהוא אומר זה שהקבוצה של כל הדברים שמחויבים בחטאות לר 'יוחנן היא הרבה יותר גדולה מן הקבוצה של ריש לקיש. למעשה זה כולל כל דבר בקבוצה של ריש לקיש ואז כפליים. אז אם משהו הוא בקבוצה לריש לקיש, אז קל וחומר לר 'יוחנן, ועל ידי הגדרה  גם לרמב''ם. אבל אם זה מה שהוא התכוון יש לי שאלה. לי זה נראה שהחץ הולך בכיוון ההפוך. לריש לקיש קצת ידע נחשב הרבה. הידיעה של עונש מספיק כדי לגרום לו מזיד. אותו ידע לר 'יוחנן נחשב קטן. אז כמה כמות קטנה של ידע לריש לקיש, לר 'יוחנן יכול להיות שלא מספיק כדי לגרום לו להיחשב כלזכור שבת בכלל

From what I remember in Shabat there is  question on the Rambam. He seems to be saying if one forgets all 39 kinds of work and their punishment then he bring 39 sin offerings [a female goat or a female sheep].
Then in what way did he remember Shabbat?

I think the son of the Rambam, Avraham said that you have to say the Rambam means either forgetting the 39 kinds of work or their punishment but not both and all together. Or he forgot the branches.

From what I remember in the Talmud the discussion is this. R. Yochanan says forgetting the punishment is also considered שוגג. Reish Lakish said that is called on purpose.

I think the Gemara asked on the Mishna. Why does it specify the number 39?  We can all count. It answers to tell us one is liable 39 offerings if he forgot all. And then it says that is good to Rabbi Yochanan but what about to Reish Lakish? In what way did he remember Shabbat at all? And I think the Gemara answers Reish Lakish would say he remembered the Shabbat boundary like  R. Akiva.
I mentioned off hand the problem about the Rambam to my learning partner.

He said, "There is no problem on the Rambam because it is a an a fortiori."

I can't figure out what he meant. I think what he means is that the set of all things that are obligated in a sin offering to R Yochanan is much larger that the set of Reish Lakish. In fact, it includes everything in the set of Reish Lakish, and then twice as much. So if something is in the set to Reish Lakish, then a fortiori to R. Yochanan, and by definition then also to the Rambam.
But if this is what he meant I have  a question. To me it seems that the arrow goes the opposite way. To RL a little knowledge is considered a lot. Knowing the punishment is enough to make him מזיד (on purpose). That same knowledge to R Yochanan is considered small. So some small amount of knowledge to RL, R Yochanan might very well consider to be not enough to make him be considered as remembering Shabbat at all.

Appendix:
 I should have mentioned that to bring a sin offering, one needs a little knowledge.
If he did not know anything about Shabbat at all then he brings only one sacrifice for all the work and all the shabatot. [To Munbaz even one he does not bring]

  מסכת שבת פרק כלל גדול there is  question on the רמב''ם.He seems to be saying if one forgets all ל''ט אבות מלאכה and their ועונשן then he brings ל''ט חטאות.
Then in what way did he remember שבת?

The son of the רמב''ם, Avraham, said that you have to say the רמב''ם means either forgetting ל''ט אבות מלאכה or ועונשן but not both and all together. Or he forgot the תולדות.
ר' יוחנן אמר שגגת עונש שמה שגגה. ריש לקיש אמר שגגת עונש שמה מזיד.

I think the Gemara asked on the Mishna. Why does it specify the  ל''ט?  We can all count. It answers to tell us one is liable ל''ט offerings if he forgot all. And then it says that is good to ר' יוחנן but what about to ריש לקיש? In what way did he remember שבת at all? And I think it answers ריש לקיש אמר  תחום שבת ואליבא דר' עקיבא.
I mentioned off hand the problem about the רמב''ם to my learning partner.

He said there is no problem on the רמב''ם because it is a an קל וחומר. I can't figure out what he meant. I think what he means is that the קבוצה of all things that are obligated in a sin offering to ר' יוחנן is much larger that the קבוצה of ריש לקיש. In fact it includes everything in the קבוצה of ריש לקיש and then twice as much. So if something is in the קבוצה to ריש לקיש then  קל וחומר to ר' יוחנן and by definition then also to the רמב''ם.
But if this is what he meant I have  a question. To me it seems that the arrow goes the opposite way. To ריש לקיש a little knowledge is considered a lot. Knowing the עונש is enough to make him מזיד. That same knowledge to ר' יוחנן is considered small. So some small amount of knowledge to ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן might very well considered to be not enough to make him be considered as remembering שבת at all.

My approach is based on learning.
There are five basic things I think people ought to learn and finish. This idea is based to a large degree on what I was taught when I was in yeshiva. In fact in the first yeshiva I went to it was definitely clear that learning Torah is the highest Divine service.
And I accept this but I add to it Math and Physics for the reason that the Rambam includes Physics and Metaphysics in the category of Torah.

So these are the five
(1) The written Law, that is the Old Testament.
(2) The oral Law, that is the two Talmuds, Tosefta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta, Torat Kohanim
(3) Musar, that is the Musar books based on the approach of the Rambam and Saadia Gaon.
(4) Math
(5) Physics

If I would be consistent I would include the Metaphysics of Aristotle, but I would rather not include that on my list right now. If I would have perfect faith in the Rambam then of course I would include it but I am in general I little unhappy with philosophy.

This is my approach however it is based on what I saw in my parents. There was something so amazing and magical about the relationship between my parents that my brothers and myself have spent our whole lives wondering what it was and wishing we could duplicate it in our own lives.
So what you see in the above paragraph is my own take on what they were about. If you would ask my brothers they would say that yes I am right that Torah and and natural sciences were import to them but also family values and loyalty to family and also working at an honest job for a living and of course Classical Music. My Dad supported the Opera in  Los Angeles and obviously sent a check to Cal Tech every year

The basic rule about homosexuality is that of what is called an ערווה. Those are the forbidden relations of Leviticus. Most of them have the death penalty when done in front of two witnesses. If done accidentally then they have to bring a sin offering to the Temple in Jerusalem. If there is no Temple then they have to build it and then bring the sin offering.

People's opinions are not relevant as far as the Torah is concerned.
This rule does not change even if people desire to change the rule or transgress it. The reason for this is that the rules of the Torah are forever. They don't become nullified if someone keeps them o keeps them perfectly or disobeys them. They remain fixed. And these rules are in fact rules. They are not good advice. The reason Christians get mixed up with this  that many rules of the Torah are personal codes of conduct. Many are exactly what Christians think: moral rules. But not all of them are moral rules. Many are laws that are meant to be enforced by a court of law. and the Torah requires us to make courts of law to enforce these rules.  But that is the sole function of the courts.They can't make new rules. they can't add or subtract. They are allowed however to make temporary provisions in order that the rules of the Torah should not be infringed on.


Of course there are other rules in the Torah and it does take a good deal of effort to learn them.
For this reason I suggest having an hour session every day to get through the Oral and Written Law.
That is the Old Testament and the Talmud Bavli and the Jerusalem Talmud--page after page in order, from the beginning to the end.

Music written for the glory of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

i26  [i26 in midi format]

k18   [k18 in midi]

 n95  [n95 in midi]

It is hard to know how to go about learning Torah.

There is a general principle that to know any subject even half way decently you need at least 10,000 hours.
And if you are able that is the best thing to do with Torah. Find a yeshiva that does Torah ten hours a day and do that program for four years. Then you get 12000 hours. That is not enough however to become expert. It is just to get your feet wet.But if you have that basic four years under your belt then when later you go to college and work the foundation is laid for good work.

But even with that you start your own program at home. In theory it should not be hard. You get a regular Talmud Bavli with Tosphot and the Maharsha. You have one hour of in depth learning and then the rest of the time you just plow through it. Most tractates also have some major achron (authority after the Middle Ages) on them, Like the Yadot Nedarim on Nedarim.When I was doing Ketubot there were few achronim that I used. The major one was the Pnei Yehoshua. But I was alone in this. In both yeshivas that I was at [Shar Yashuv and the Mirrer in NY]  most people did not even look at achronim. They just prepared for the Rosh yeshiva's class and that was that. and in the afternoon they reviewed the class. And the classes were always along the lines of Chaim Soloveitchik.--which was kind of Rambam oriented.

But this Rambam approach seems to me to be more relevant to Halacha. I don't mean to downgrade it, but it seems  to me to be different that straight Gemara learning. As for Halacha I think it is a good thing to learn. What I think is the best to get the book of Chaim Soloveitchik on the Rambam along with the Avi Ezri of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and just go through the Rambam  along with both of these two books. Then to do the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and the Aruch Hashulchan.
This is all great stuff but it is not the same as learning Gemara.

[With Rav Shach's book it is best just to plow through it straight. Not along side the Rambam.]

Music for the glory of God

j9

See this link Ideas in Bava Metzia

In כתובות you have to say that the טענת וודאי aspect of her טענה helps because if it was just her מיגו we say we don't say מיגו to take out money. So it is her מיגו with her weak טענת וודאי that takes out of חזקת ממון. There is not  a קל וחומר from that where there is a strong טענת וודאי but it is against a מיגו as in the case of רב יהודה with the two people in בית דין and one says you owe and the other says I don't know.





בכתובות צריכים  לומר שטענת וודאי שלה  עוזרת שאם זה היה רק ​​שיש לה מיגו אנחנו אומרים לא אומרים מיגו להוציא כסף.ואפילו לפי השיטה שאומרים מיגו להוציא זו לא אמורה כאן להיות הסיבה היחידה.  אז זה מיגו עם טענת וודאי חלשה שמוציא מחזקת ממון. אין קל וחומר מזה כשיש טענת וודאי חזק אבל נגד מיגו כמו בדיון של רב יהודה עם שני אנשים בבית דין ואחד אומר שאתה חייב ואחר אומר שאני לא יודע



This is just a quick review of something that was in my English note. Tosphot had said that there is a difference between a strong definite plea and a weak one. Rav Judah said when 2 people come to the beit din and one says you owe me 200 and the other says I don't know the definite plea wins.  But in Bava Kama we say money stays where it is until there is proof. The different is between a weak and string plea. But then in Ketubot there is a weak plea and Abyee says the law of Rav Judah is of  Shmuel. Then Abyee is pushed off. Then Tosphot says even with Abyee we have to say the aw of Rav Judah is the same as that of Shmuel. I am just showing how there is no way to show this to be the case. Rather I answered and explained Tosphot that they mean it is the same law. Not that one came from the other.

(1) I did not realize that excommunication was   very serious until recently I saw the Mishna Lamelech say it has a halachic category of an oath.
This opens up a few interesting questions. For example what about the excommunication of the Gra? What about people that I know had done something wrong and were really under need to be excommunicated? Even if no one pays attention to these legal issue they remain valid halacha questions. This is just like any other halacha question. If no one pays attention to it does it become invalid? Certainly not.

(2 )So just as an introduction let me say that the idea of an oath is thus. One says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice." The loaf becomes forbidden to him as if it was a sacrifice.  If he says to someone this loaf of mine is forbidden to you like  sacrifice  then also the other person is not allowed to eat it. A person can forbid his object to others.
The Mishna LaMelech says an excommunication gets its strength from this law. It is a type of Isur Neder. That means that one that transgresses it is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.
(3) It applies to coming generations.
(4) It is not just for the 24 specific list but for anyone who transgress a prohibition for the Torah or a rabbinical prohibition on purpose.
(5) You don't need actual testimony When the facts of the case are public knowledge.

What this seems to mean is that the excommunication of the Gra was in fact according to halacha and was valid and still is. This helps us understand why when people join the groups he banned, they become crazy.

Music for the glory of God

k36


k114


j38 



j7

Trust in God without effort was the major idea of Navardok. I mentioned the Ramban from Leviticus 26:11 which holds this way. And there is the Gra also that says the same. It is known that the Duties of the Heart had the opinion that one should do some effort.
Navardok however went with the opinion of the Ramban. The person that started Navardok was Joseph Horvitz and he had been a businessman until one day he got into a conversation with Isaac Blazer a disciple of Israel Salanter. The conversation centered on doing business instead of learning Torah. Joseph asked "If I don't  work, the what will happen?" And Isaac Blazer repeated that phrase "What will happen?" meaning what will happen in the next world. And that lite a fuse. From then on Joseph devoted himself to Torah and to this idea that one can just learn Torah and does not have to worry about money.

This does not mean using Torah to ask people for money. That is not what trust in God means. There was a time in fact that accepting charity was considered despicable and asking for it even worse.
The idea of Navardok was different. It was that of trust.

Learning fast

Learning fast was suggested by the Musar book the אורחות צדיקים. And that was the first place I saw it. Later when I got to yeshiva in NY I saw this idea in a different book called בנין עולם.  It was a general method of learning recommended by Jewish sages from the time of the Talmud and onward. לעולם לגרוס אינש אף על גב ידע מאי קאמר. I am the first person (I think) to apply it to math and physics.
The first time I ever did that was when I was in Beverly Hills High School, and applied this idea to my chemistry book. I just read through the chapter saying the words in order and not doing any review. I recall doing well on the test on that chapter. I  got the idea from that Musar book, Paths of the Righteous
However for a long time after that I did not learn any math. I began looking at math again only very recently when it was too late to make much progress. Still based on "faith in the sages" that the Rambam knew what he was talking about when he considered physics and metaphysics as part of the Oral Law I began again. [With encouragement of the students and librarians at Hebrew University.] [The people there were very helpful in many ways.]
[So my basic advice to use this approach to get through the entire Oral Law, the Talmud at least once, even without any Rashi or Tosphot, the whole written Law (Tenach),  Physics up until String Theory and Math up to Abstract Algebra,  Algebraic Topology, and Calculus with the Lebesgue Integral which are important for Physics.]

Music for the glory of God

n96 n96 midi  n96 in nwc


b28 (14) b28 nwc


b33 b33 midi



b44 b44 midi b44 nwc


l94 l94 midi  l94 nwc
  
l86 l86 midi  l86 nwc


l82 l82 midi  l82 nwc

(3) The excommunication of the Gra still applies.

I suggest learning fast.
Also from the Ari [Isaac Luria, the Ari].

From the Ari: to learn every day "מקרא, משנה, גמרא, קבלה". One session in the Old Testament, Mishna, Talmud and Midrash in order.



What this means for me is  have a certain amount of books on the table to my left. Pick up one, and go through a few pages in order. Just say the words and go on. The major thing is not to repeat. No repetition allowed.
Then put it down on your right, and then pick up the next book, and go through a few pages of that one.

But besides this you need and in depth session also. That is called עיון.  For that type of learning I don't have anything to say. I did find a learning partner. But in subjects where could not find a learning partner I just went through things in the old fashioned way. In Physics and Math I did lots of problems. And when I finished the problem exercises, then I went back and did them again. That is how I did Trig., Algebra and Calculus. Since then I have mainly concentrated on fast learning in the Natural Sciences.

_________________________________________________________________________

Appendix

(1)In Torah learning I am not suggesting that the only things to do are מקרא משנה גמרא מדרש. That is more like an introduction. I think Musar is important also. That is to go through the basic set of Musar. That is only about five books from the Middle Ages and the books from the direct disciples of Israel Salanter.

(2) If you do  Kabbalah, it is best just to plow through the writings of Isaac Luria and the Remak. The rest of it is pseudo Kabbalah and not worth the paper it is written on.


(3) The excommunication of the Gra still applies.  Also see the Mishna LaMelech about the general status of ban as akin to what we call איסור נדר. So you can't just ignore it. That is the Mishna LaMelech  in laws of oaths. When the Rambam begins laws of נדרים  that is where you find this discussion. What he says is that we know a person can forbid his object to himself and to others. All he needs to do is to say חפץ זה קרבן עלי or to others to say חפצי זה קרבן לך or any other language like that. And even if he does not mention anything else but just this object is forbidden to me or to you that object becomes forbidden. He does however have to own the object if he is forbidding it to others. The Rashbatz and the Mishna LaMelch says the same applies to a שמתא and excommunication even of the most minor type. All the more so the an actual חרם. So the חרם  of the Gra is nothing to fool around with. This means that one that transgress this חרם is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.


אני מציע   שיטה של למידה במהירות, ועוד דבר של האריז''ל
: ללמוד כל יום "מקרא, משנה, גמרא, קבלה".. מה זה אומר עבורי היא יש כמות מסוימת של ספרים על השולחן לשמאלי. להרים את אחד, ולעבור כמה עמודים. רק לומר את המילים וללכת הלאה. הדבר העיקרי הוא לא לחזור.  חזרה אינה מותרת.. ואז לשים אותו בצד ימין, ואז להרים את הספר הבא, ולעבור כמה עמודים.

Music link for the glory of God

l77


l83

עיוני בבא מציעא 

I am putting this link here because of some spelling corrections I made to this little booklet on the Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia.

Also here is a link to the little book on Shas

Trust in God according to Nachmanides. No effort needed. The sourse of the Ramban

I think the place that Israel סלנטר saw in the Ramban [Nachmanides] that showed to him that the opinion of the Ramban that one does not need השתדלות [effort] is the ויקרא Leviticus ch 26 verse 11.

It is a known fact that Rav Israel did see this in the Ramban. He is quoted in the מדרגת האדם  as saying such. But in the actual Musar magazine that he published in Vilnius the תבונה in the musar Drasha he wrote there this same statement appears. The question has been floating around for a long time where is the Rambanרמב''ן is this statement?
People noticed that Ramban but did not think deep enough into what he is saying.
So let me say over the exact statement so you will see.
"Permission is given to the doctor to heal but not to the patient to be healed. " That is  after the patient comes to the doctor, the doctor can assume that he has done this before so he is not among those who trust in God and then he can heal him. But the patient has no such permission. He is supposed to trust in God." There is no way to explain this Ramban except the way Israel Salanter did, that one does not need השתדלות effort.

It is known that the Obligations of the Heart disagrees with the Ramban. But it is hard to know exactly what he means.

King Asa he wrote trusted in God and the doctors. So it seems if he had trusted in God alone but still gone to doctors  that would have been OK.

I think the  Musar approach of Israel Salanter is very important. That is to learn the traditional books of Medieval Ethics. Yet I find it difficult to find any argument to make for it. But if I could I would. It is more like an intuitive thing.



This refers  to Christians also. There is nothing quite like the books of personal ethics from the Middle Ages.  Christians could take for example the books of the mystics from Spain and make their own version of the Musar movement. That is not the same as learning theology. It means having something like a בית מוסר "a House of Musar." Or a "House of Ethics." The idea would be to have  room in which there are only books of ethics and fear of God. I am not familiar with what books are available to Christians in this fashion. The only ones I know about are of Saint John of the Cross. And the idea is not to have a reading room. It is to learn these books out loud and with emotion so that the message gets absorbed into the subconscious.

There is no way for Judeo -Christian civilization to survive and flourish without this. Because it is the ethics and the fear of God which makes Judeo-Christian civilization what it is.

Now I admit that just learning books of ethics does not automatically make one ethical. But you know when you encounter a person whose learning consists of the Duties of the Heart  or some book of the disciples of Israel Salanter that you are going to be treated on a whole different level of decency than when you met someone who learning consists of other kinds of religious learning. There is in fact nothing like Musar to imprint morality into people. And unless you think of yourself or others as being automatically moral then clearly this is a desirable goal.

Music links for the glory of God

n39 


n41


h28

n94

 תוספות in בבא בתרא
In בבא בתרא קנז you have the normal case of a מלווה  לווה  ולוקח.
תוספות asks how can it be that the לוקח can collect for his שבחfrom נני חורין? How is it that the לווה has בני חורין? He answers he does not have בני חורין. He only has משועבדים.
The מהרש''ל sees from this that even though the לווה has משועבדים the מלווה goes after the field of the לוקח ראשון. The מהרש''א found an older version of תוספות that says the לווה did not have either בני חורין nor משועבדים. That means if he had had משועבדים the מלווה would have had to go after the לוקח השני
What you see from this is that my idea if basing the argument between the מהרש''א and the maharshal on the argument about לווה וללוה וקנה is completely ridiculous. While the מהרש''א certainly has some kind of support from there, but he does not need it. He makes sense anyway. It is the מהרש''ל that I was trying to say had support from the idea there that there first מלווה gets the field. And that is plain wrong.  In the case of לווה ולווה וקנה there is plenty good reason to say the first שיעבוד falls on the field. But in our case in בבא בתרא קנז all you have is two sold fields. And one was sold before the other. There is no reason to say he should go after the first field that was sold. And even if there could be some reason, it would not have anything to do with לווה ולווה וקנה.

What I have to mention is that in תוספות inדף יד בבא מציעא there is no question that the מלווה has to get from the לוקח השני. Even the מהרש''ל agrees with that. It is just in בבא בתרא the מהרש''ל has to say that the תוספות there has a different שיטה than the תוספות in בבא מציעא.

You see this from the question of תוספות in בבא מציעא. There תוספות you see there are משועבדים  that the לוקח is גובה from and not the מלווה. So from that we could learn מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד the only way this makes sense is if the second field was bought after the loan.  The מהר''ם שיף and the מהרש''ל both say there that this shows the thing we always say the לוקח can say to the מלווה מקום הנחתי לך לגבות ממנו means even after the second field was נמכר. The fact that the מלווה goes after the לוקח ראשון shows the second field was bought after the loan.


 תוספות בבא בתרא
בבא בתרא קנז יש לך במקרה הרגיל של מלווה לווה ולוקח.
תוספות שואלים איך זה יכול להיות שהלוקח יכול לגבות את שבחו מבני חורין? איך זה שלווה יש בני חורין? הוא עונה שאין לו בני חורין. רק שיש לו משועבדים.
מהרש''ל רואה מזה שלמרות שללווה יש משועבדים המלווה הולך אחרי שדה של לוקח ראשון. מהרש''א מצא גרסה ישנה יותר של תוספות שאומרת שללווה גם לא  בני החורין ולא משועבדים. זה אומר שאם הוא היה משועבד מלווה היה צריך ללכת אחרי לוקח שני.
מה שאתה רואה מזה שהרעיון שלי אם לבסס את הטענות בין המהרש''א והמהרש"ל בוויכוח על לווה וללוה וקנה הוא מגוחך לחלוטין  בעוד מהרש''א בהחלט יש תמיכה משם, אבל הוא לא צריך את זה. הוא הגיוני בכל מקרה. אבל להמהרש''ל אני נסיתי להביא תמיכה מהרעיון לווה וללוה וקנה  שמלווה הראשון מקבל את השדה. וזה טעות. במקרה של לווה ולווות וקנה יש סיבה טובה מספיק כדי לומר שיעבודו הראשון נופל על השדה. אבל במקרה שלנו בבא בתרא קנז כל מה שיש לך  הוא שני שדות שנמכרו. ואחד נמכר לפני האחר. אין שום סיבה לומר שהוא צריך ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון שנמכר. וגם אם יכול להיות שיש סיבה כלשהי, זה לא היה שייך ללווה ולווה וקנה.
מה שאני צריך להזכיר את זה בתוספות בדף י''ד בבא מציעא אין ספק שמלווה  גובה מלוקח השני. אפילו מהרש''ל מסכים עם זה. זה רק בבא בתרא  המהרש''ל אומר שתוספות שם יש שיטה שונה מהתוספות בבבא מציעא. אתה רואה את זה מהשאלה של תוספות בבא מציעא.  תוספות אומרים שזה שאתה רואה שיש משועבדים שהלוקח הוא גובה ולא המלווה. אז אנחנו יכולים ללמוד מזה "מה שאקנה" קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד. הדרך היחידה שזה הגיוני היא אם השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה. המהר''ם שיף והמהרש''ל שניהם אומרים  שזה מראה את מה שאנחנו אומרים תמיד לוקח יכול לומר למלווה "מקום הנחיתי לך לגבות ממנו פירושו גם לאחר השדה השני היה נמכר. העובדה שמלווה הולך אחרי לוקח ראשון מראה את השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה
here is a link to this subject in my little booklet on Shas.
חידושי הש''ס

 I should mention that the Gemara in Bava Batra does its derivation from the fact that the מלווה collects שבח that shows דאקני קנה ומכר משתעבד. The ברייתא itself does not tell us when the second field was bought.

One needs time alone with God in order to get one's head straightened out. It is not simple to rise above one's evil inclination.

  One needs time alone with God in order to get one's head straightened out. It is not simple to rise above one's evil inclination.


Ecclesiastes 3.  ויתרון האדם מן הבהמה אין כי הכל הבל "the superiority of man over the animal is nothing."
 Even if you think all your motivations come from the side of holiness there is little surety  that such is the case. Even if you are sitting and learning Torah all day, your actual motivations might be hidden from you.
For this reason I suggest going into a forest or someplace alone where no one else can see you or even know you are there, and talk with God like one talks with friend--in order to re establish your connection with God.

This does not have to be all day long--but the more the better. One needs time alone with God in order to get ones head straightened out.


[The type of moral actions I am interested in are ones that have a moral motivation. Motivation does not in general effect if an action is right. But it does effect if the action is good. And good actions are what seem interesting to me. I.e. to me both action and motivation determine if an action is good. So to get into one's own head to straighten out one's own motivations is important.]

Appendix:


(1) When it comes to getting straight with God I don't think Yoga works. I think Yoga is mainly a device of the Sitra Achra and has nothing to do with getting right with God.
(2) Also, I think one should be careful with whom one talks about his or her problems. The very fact of opening up one heart to another person that does not have your best interest in mind is a trick of the Dark Side to pull you into its orbit.

Music link for the glory of God

n64 n64 in midi format


h57  h57 in midi



n94 mp3 [n94 in midi]


n39 [n39 in midi]

בבא מציעא יד:

 You have a ברייתא thus:
You have a מלווה and a לווה with שדה and the לוקח who bought from the לווה. The לווה defaults and the מלווה gets the field. Then the לוקח goes and gets paid back for his loose from the property of the לווה--even from property the לווה has sold.
תוספות asks why not prove from this that מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד what I will buy is not a lean for a loan from this that the לווה could not collect from the field that the לוקח could collect from.
The מהר''ם שיף says you learn from תוספות question that everywhere where it says הלוקח יכול לומר למלווה מקום הנחתי  לי לגבות ממנו means even after the second field was sold.

This is also the opinion of מהרש''ל. The idea here is that the second field was bought after the loan and that is the only way that the question of תוספות makes sense. Then when he writes "מה שאקנה קנה ומכר buy" and still the מלווה can't collect then תוספות has a proof. So we see from תוספות that the second field was not owned at the time of the loan. Why not? Because according to the Maharam Shif if it had been then the מלווה would have had to collect from the second field.



בבא מציעא יד:
 יש לך ברייתא כך:
יש לך מלווה ולווה  ולוקח שקנה שדה מן הלווה. יש מחדל בתשלום ההלוואה. והמלווה מקבל את השדה. אז הלוקח הולך ומקבל תשלום  להפסדו מרכושו של לווה-- אפילו מרכוש שהלווה מכר
תוספות שואלים מדוע לא להוכיח מזה שמה שאקנה  קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד?  מזה שהמלווה לא יכול לגבות מהשטח שהלוקח גובה ממנו?
המהר''ם שיף כתב שיש ללמוד משאלת תוספות כי בכל מקום שבו הוא אומר "הלוקח אומר למלווה מקום הנחתי לך לגבות ממנו פירושו יכול גם לאחר שדה השני נמכר. זו גם דעתו של מהרש''ל. הרעיון כאן הוא שהשדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה, כי הוא הדרך היחידה שהשאלה של תוספות הגיונית.  היינו כאשר הוא כותב "מה שאקנה"  וקנה ומכר ועדיין לא יכול  המלווה לגבות אז יש תוספות הוכחה. כך אנו רואים מתוספות שהשדה השני לא היה בבעלות בזמן של ההלוואה. למה לא? כי לפי שיף מהר"ם אם זה היה אז מלווה היה צריך לגבות מהשדה השני


I wrote this to show how in the Tosphot in Bava Metzia there is no doubts. It is when you get to Bava Batar 157 that there is an argument between the Maharsha and Maharsha what Tosphot holds.

This is music written for the glory of God. Also a link to the little booklet I wrote on ch 8 and 9 in the Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia.

i6 mp3 [i6  in midi format]  i6 nwc

n62 mp3 [n62 in midi] n62 nwc

n63 mp3 [n63 in midi format]  n63nwc

עיוני בבא מציעא

I had to made an important correction. On page 97 there is a question on Tosafot that I deal with at length. But in the middle of the discussion I put the answer to the question. I just realized now that that is not the the right place for the answer, but rather after all other possibilities have been eliminated then should come the proper answer.

[The piece I am referring to here starts with: בבא מציעא דף צז: קודם כל בתור הקדמה, אני רוצה להציע  משפט מהמשנה ]


And here is another link to an even smaller booklet on isolated subjects in the Talmud and I must mention that this later booklet has not been edited as thoroughly as the first one.חידושי הש''ס

Not everyone is meant to be sitting and learning Torah all day. After all who can sit and learn Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot all day long? And because not everyone can, you get the general case in yeshivas where students that can't  learn waste their time and learn pseudo Torah. and that is what makes them into fanatics.

And this I think was the reason for the movement against Musar.
After the age of eighteen only about 5% of people should even open a book. Those that should not but have to because of their social environment get the weirdest ideas. This is what cause  the insane religious world  insanities that sprout up like mushrooms after a rain.

In the secular world this  kids at eighteen have to go to college. They have to get a college degree for many reasons. But this is a travesty.   They should not even open a book. They should be out there flipping hamburgers or getting apprenticed into some profession (a kosher one).
They simply can't be sitting all day and learning some real subject like STEM ( science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). This is where all the worship of  homsexualism and other mental illnesses comes from.


And kollels have the  most terrible effects on people. You pay people to be learning that ought not to be learning and can't learn and should be out working you get what you see. --They certainly are not doing Gemara Rashi and Tosafot. No amount of money in the world will make them look at Tosafot. So you are creating a race of mental retards that can't learn and won't work. And they think they are superior to everyone else.

 A normal conversation with one of the the insane religious world  goes like this.
Me: "Most people are not interested in sitting and learning. You get armies of teenagers that can't sit and learn, but they don't work either."

The charedi: "The State of Israel is to  blame for this. It is because of the  State of Israel that people can't work. This is because if they work then they have to  serve in  the army."

Me:  "So let them serve in the army."
The charedi: "They won't do that. That is heresy to them."

[The the insane religious world  are against the State, and they are committing treason. And in Torah that is a capital offence.
Besides that I must point out that if the the insane religious world   would be in charge, the result would be as disastrous on a global  scale as much as it is on the small communities they control. It does not take much imagination to extrapolate from the small scale to large scale.]


So what to conclude is you have 100,000 people in kollels in Israel being supported for learning Torah, that don't want to learn Torah. It is not that they don't want to keep Torah, but they are incapable of learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot.
If you try to engage in a conversation about Torah, their eyes glaze over because they could not care less about what it says in the Torah. They are in kollel for one purpose alone--not to have to go to  IDF.

They would rather work. But they can't work because then they would have to enlist in the army. And that is heresy because it means being in the service of the State that they want to destroy.

Then comes the suggestion to take the case to the Hague. The fact that the State would force people to serve in the Army that are conscientious objector. This it is claimed is a war crime.

And though I don't say so, but I think about Frederick the Great, the Emperor the Mozart wrote under.  Under his regime there was a large amount of freedom. But not freedom to overthrow the regime. Treason was considered by Frederick as a serious crime. Any group that would have openly advocated treason and the overthrow of the State would have been summarily executed.
Now you can say well that is just Frederick. What about the Torah? But in the Torah also we find treason to be a serious crime. In Hilchot Melachim of the Rambam we also find any person conspiring to take down the king is liable the death penalty.

שיחה רגילה עם אחד מהחרדים הולכת ככה. אתה מציין כי רוב האנשים אינם מעוניינים להיות יושבים ולומדים. אתה מקבל צבאות של בני נוער שלא יכולים לשבת ללמוד אבל הם גם לא עובדים.החרדי אז מציין שמדינת ישראל  אשמה בזה. זה, הוא אומר, בגלל המדינה המרושעת של ישראל שאנשים לא יכולים לעבוד. זאת, משום שאם הם עובדים אז הם צריכים לשרת בצבא. ואז אתה מעיר על כך לתת להם לשרת בצבא. ואז הוא אומר שהם לא יעשו את זה. זה כפירה אצלם. אז מה שאתה מקבל הוא  שיש לך מאה אלף אנשים בכוללים בישראל נתמכים ללימוד תורה שלא רוצים ללמוד תורה. זה לא שהם לא רוצים לשמור על תורה, אבל הם לא מסוגלים ללמוד גמרא רש"י ותוספות. הם מעדיפים לעבוד. אבל הם לא יכולים לעבוד כי אז הם יצטרכו להתגייס לצבא. וזה כפירה, כי זה אומר להיות בשירות המדינה שהם רוצים להרוס. ואז החרדי  מגיש את ההצעה לקחת את התיק להאג. העובדה שהמדינה תכריח את אנשים לשרת בצבא, כי הם  סרבנים. זה הוא טען הוא פשע מלחמה. ולמרות שאני לא אומר את זה, אבל אני חושב שעל  פרדריק  הגדול,  הקיסר שמוצרט כתב תחתיו. תחת  משטרו  הייתה כמות גדולה של חופש. אבל לא חופש להפיל את המשטר.  בגידה הייתה  נחשבת  על ידי פרידריך כפשע חמור. כל קבוצה שהייתה בגלוי  מדגלת  בגידה והדחתה של המדינה  הייתה  כבר  על הסף להורג. עכשיו אתה יכול להגיד שזה רק  פרדריק. מה לגבי התורה? אבל בתורה גם אנו מוצאים בגידה להיות פשע חמור. בהלכות מלכים של הרמב"ם אנו מוצאים גם כל אדם  בקשירת קשר  להפיל את המלך עלול עונש המוות

What we have from this in a practical sense is that if you are thinking of going to Israel you should avoid the insane religious world  neighborhoods because according to the Torah one is obligated to stay away from the wicked. Furthermore one can ask if it is even worthwhile to move there as long as there are groups whose open purpose is to destroy the State. If the State can't remove this pernicious influence from its midst then how can it protect ordinary citizens? 

Music links

l73   [l73 in midi]

l78 [l78 in midi]

בבא מציעא יד: תוספות ד''ה תריץ

Introduction. You have the case of a מלווה lender and a לווה borrower with two fields. Then there is a loan. After the הלוואה loan, a person הלוקח buys one field. Then a second buyer buys the other. Then the לווה defaults on the loan. Then the מלווה lender goes after the second field. Shelomo Luria מהרש''ל says he has to go after the שדה השני second field because it was free משוחרר at a time when the first one had been sold. The מהרש''א disagrees. I claim this is like the case לווה ולווה וקנה a person borrows and then borrows again and then buys a field and defaults. Who gets the field? I say it is the same argument.
Well not exactly. If we say the first lender gets the field, it must be because once the שיעבוד obligation devolves on it it stays there.


According to the מהרש''ל
We see  in תוספות that the general idea you see in the תלמוד that the לוקח can tell the מלווה "מקום "הנחתי לך לגבות means even if the second field was sold! The מהרש''א disagrees with this and I don't remember how. Maybe he thinks the מלווה can collect from which שדה he wants. I don't know. Look in Bava Batra 157.

But all I was doing in some little note was to say the argument between the מהרש''א and מהרש''ל
depends on the argument also in בבא בתרא קנז about לווה ולווה וקנה.

All I was saying was that  the cases are not exactly similar, but in in our case on page 14 we are dealing with the order סדר של גביה . Not is there is שיעבוד at all but what the order that the מלווה has to take to collect. And that is exactly the argument about לווה ולווה וקנה.

This was the entire idea, and it is so simple I would be very surprised if I was the only one to think of it. And why I would have erased it I certainly don't know.


I think what caused my confusion was the fact that I had forgotten that תוספות says openly in בבא בתרא that the שדה השני was owned קמוי at the time of the הלוואה. It was not bought later. You also my reader must keep this in mind because it is essential in order to understand this תוספות בבא מציעא
________________________________________________________________________


I found the original essay. Here it is:
I wanted to mention something  in Talmud Bava Metzia 14 and Bava Batra 157. The case is the well known case of  המלווה (A) לווה  (B)  לוקח ראשון(C) . In Bava Batra we find that if לווה defaults on the loan that a collects the field from לוקח ראשון.

 לוקח then goes to  a later buyer לוקח השני to collect the price of the field [if לווה has no free field left.] Tosphot asks from where does לווה have free property and how could there be a person לוקח השני? The מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל have an argument from how could there be a לוקח השני here. The מהרש''א says he comes after the lender has collected from לוקח ראשון. --But he has not collected all the money owed to him yet. The לווה buys a new property and then sell it to לוקח השני. then לוקח ראשון collects from לוקח השני but not מלווה because he has already collected once. No double jeopardy. The מהרש''ל disagrees with this and say even if לוקח השני has property the the time the loan is being collected A still must go to the לוקח ראשון.

My suggestion here is that this argument come from a separate argument in the Talmud itself about one person that borrowed and borrowed from someone else and then bought and then sold a field.לווה ולווה וקנה The Gemara has one suggestion that the first one collects and another suggestion that the last one collects.

 I think I can show how the מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל must have looked at this.
The first way is that the שיעבוד goes on לווה and does not get removed because of a later loan. This is the מהרש''ל just applying the same reasoning to a field that has a שיעבוד on it. The מהרש''א also is saying from the second way in the גמרא that just like the  שיעבוד השני on the לווה nullifies the first שיעבוד  so with a field.

That is my idea and now I would like to defend it by means of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik.

In short Reb Chaim has  an idea like this. In the first case I mentioned here about  המלווה לווה and לוקח ראשון the Rambam says לוקח  loses only half his improvements but all improvements that grow by themselves.Why is that? Because he says the שיעבוד of  המלווה and לווה are equal in so far as they go both through לווה. But the שיעבוד of מלווה is on the property directly while לוקח ראשון only bought the property which is less strong than the שיעבוד of  המלווה. So we see that we can make a distinction between the שיעבוד on property  and on a person but we do not do so unless there is a something stronger around .

Final note:

What makes this confusing is the fact that the מהרש''ל in Bava Metzia says the same thing as the מהרש''א in Bava Batra. This is because he is explaining a different answer in Tosafot. The argument between them is only in Bava Batra because it is there you have the statement of the maharshal that the מהרש''א is disagreeing with.

[1] The centrality of the tzadik [saint].
Now there are pitfalls to this approach. One can for example take someone who is not a tzadik as a teacher thinking that they are a tzadik. This happens frequently. And people justify their following some very evil person thinking that they are  a tzadik. This happens, in fact, most of the time. I know no person today that is called a "tzadik" that is in fact such. Most of the time they are clever actors that are highly wicked.

 And it is this phenomenon of people following some wicked person thinking that they are a tzadik that causes what we see that many people give up on the whole idea and come to the grave of



Clarification: the tzadik is not divine. He is not someone to pray to. [Though you do see baalei teshuva doing this.] But  a connection with the tzadik is an indirect way of being connected with the Torah. Because the tzadik is connected with the Torah and by means of that he is connected with God.

Note: I put this here again though it is an essay from a few days ago because it is important.

Without a tzadik people tend to create all kinds of modern idols,  Psychology, Yoga, Meditation,worship of homosexuals, worship of  Negroes, and worship of a tzadik also. It takes a lot of conviction to remain loyal to Torah and to in fact believe that Torah has all the answers for human life. To obstacles to Torah are infinite. But the Sitra Achra creates Trojan Horses--people that it plants into the world of Torah that are in fact agents of the Sitra Achra.

j40   Music link 

(1)I spent a lot of time on the subject of idolatry and in fact it looks to me that  for a person to "tie himself to a tzadik" is not idolatry. At least based on the Talmud in Sanhedrin  from pages 60 to 63.
(note 1)
(2) We have four types of idolatry not like the way of an idol. And we have serving it according to its way. But being attached to a tzadik does not seem like a way of serving the tzadik any more than doing any mitzvah to bring oneself closer to God. Conceptually it seems different. But that is not news to anyone.

(3) What is news is that after going through the subject matter as thoroughly as I could it seem to me that the whole approach to idolatry in those pages of Sanhedrin does not seem to have anything to do with being attached to a tzadik.

(4) But certainly some people do worship a tzadik. That  is bad. But attachment is not worship. And the general attitude is that the tzadik should pray for one and by that one is helped. It seems very far away from praying to the tzadik. So I would have to say that the Nefesh HaChaim was exaggerating when he said attachment to a tzadik is idolatry. (note 2)

(5) Of course what chasidim do is idolatry, but not because of attaching themselves to a tzadik. Rather because of worship of a person they think is  a tzadik. And not to confuse the issue the case is usually the object of worship is most often a "rasha" highly wicked and highly clever at using his position for nefarious purposes.

Notes
(note 1) In Avoda Zara 41 it says, when an idol falls and breaks it is nullified. Rav Shach derives from that that the major thing that causes something to be an idol is the thought, "This can help" in an invisible sense. But there too just because one thinks, "This can help" that alone doe not make it an idol.


(note 2) This is not the only place in which the Nefesh HaChaim exaggerated. Also in where he says if the world would be empty of words of Torah for a second, it would be destroyed. Reb Chaim Kanievsky [Bnei Brak] pointed out that the Talmud says in one place that the world was in fact empty of words of Torah for a second.

In any case, if we understand Torah in the sense that Torah is hidden inside of everything. Torah is the interface between God and his creation.

music file i 48

i48   i48 in midi format

i48 nwc format

music file i20

i20 mp3  
i20 in midi   [i20 nwc]
i69   [i69 nwc

Every person has some particular tikun [correction] they need to do. Some kind of action done on a daily basis that would turn everything wrong in their life into good.

) But how can you know what your tikun is? The one thing you need to do that would turn everything that is wrong in your life into good?



)  My own parents had an idea like this. A few basic principles that us kids should stick with,e.g. to be a "mench" a decent moral human being. But they were not think so much about the concept of a tikun. More like they were defining how one should live.

) It is along these lines that the Gaon from Vilna discovered the one tikun that if a person would do would in fact take him out  from the depth of hell--to learn Torah. The idea is that if one could just stick with learning Torah every day--even a tiny bit-the Torah has enough light in it to pull one out from all his problems.

) The caveat for this to work  is that it has to be real Torah, not pseudo Torah.
Real Torah is the Oral and Written Law. The Old Testament, the Two Talmuds, and the Halachic Midrashim and the Aggadic Midrashim. That means 99% of what is presented as Torah today is pseudo Torah.


) דרכ ציון אבלות מבלי באי מועד "The paths of Zion are in grief from lack of visitors." [From the book of Lamentations.]
That means the ציונים = the path markers on the way into holiness are gone. No one knows anymore what particular הנהגה [action preformed every day] which will lead either yourself or anyone else into holiness. Even though people do know they need to stick with a  short set of principles in order to make it and have success in this world and the next, still they don't know and can't find this set of principles.

And when they find something that seems to work [חבלים מפלו לי בנעימים] wreckers fall on it.
You get to Israel and out of no where comes some bad neighbor who is intent on making your life a living hell. For some reason he or she does not like Americans or Ashkenazim or thinks you are not religious enough or who know what? Any excuse will do fine.


) My own conclusion about this is that the Gra was right. Torah is the general tikun. It is because it is so important that the Sitra Achra makes it almost impossible to come to. Even when I try to learn Torah something always goes haywire. Always. It is like the Sitra Achra will stop at nothing to get me to stop learning Torah. And of course the מניעות המח obstacles places by the mind are there also. Questions like if Torah would be so great they why does it not make people better?
 Why are there jerks learning Torah? But the obstacles are much more than that. My approach to just to try to struggle through it.


When I first went to yeshiva my mother who was perfectly well got sick suddenly and died. My wife got married to me when I was a plain yeshiva student at the Mirrer yeshiva and then one day she decided that she did not want me learning Torah anymore. It was her or the Torah. Not both. And of course everyone agreed with her. I could go on but you get the idea that learning Torah I think only comes through great trials. You walk into a yeshiva you think is there for the specific purpose of learning Torah, and they throw you out from the top of the stairs. I think that to the degree that Torah is important, that the Dark Side will do everything it can to stop one  from learning Torah. Because I think that if one learns Torah then everything changes. Everything.
But if one learns Torah for money the same rule does not apply because the Sitra Achra likes that.
When Torah is used for personal needs, it becomes poison. סם חיים למימינים בה ובם מוות למשמאילים בה The sages said it is the elixir of life for those that learn it for its own sake and the elixir of death for those that learn it for money.

) Torah in this context means 10 books. Old Testament, the Two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechlita, Torat Cohanim, Midrash Raba, Midrash Tanchuma.
direct commentaries on the above can also be included. But 99% of what is called Torah today is pseudo Torah

A music file for the glory of God. I am grateful to God for granting to me to write this and all the music he has ever or will ever grant to me. Also I am grateful to have not lost it like I thought I had.

B98  B98 in midi

Music for the glory the Lord God of Israel.

n89 n89 in midi format


k88 [k88 in midi]


k36 [k36 in midi]


k39 [k39 in midi]
Mathematics [mathematics in midi]

bar yochai [bar yochai in midi]

Black Hole [black hole in midi]

The best advice I can see at this point is to learn Torah and Mussar .
"Learning Torah" means to have set times for learning every day. At least two hours. One hour for fast learning to get through the Oral Law. The two Talmuds and the Halachic Midrashim and the Aggadic Midrashim. Another hour for in depth learning of Talmud.
Musar [Ethics] means mainly to me to be of the rational school of the Rambam. But Musar from the more Kabbalistic directions is also OK.


This does not mean to be a religious fanatic or a baal teshuva--God forbid.
It means to keep the Torah but not along with the many insane groups that compromise the insane religious world . Most of them have little to nothing to do with Torah except in appearance.

Torah is a balance between obligations between God and Man and obligations between Man and his fellow man

[Kiruv means turns Jews into religious fanatics. This is not a good thing.

We get some insight into idolatry by means of what looks at first glance as strange statement in th Talmud in Sanhedrin 63b and 64a.
The Talmud is arguing about the proper interpretation of some verse in the Bible about the general practices of idolaters. One interpretation is this:
The priests of idolatry would see some rich person and draw a picture of him with his colorful clothing and general appearance and then work their calves and animals of idolatry to the point of exhaustion and when they would give them something to eat they would put the picture of that rich person in front of them.
Then when the animals would see the rich person they would run towards him and the priest would say "You see the gods like you. come and sacrifice yourself to them."

Another interpretation of that same  verse is that it referred to the father. Some father would sacrifice his son and the priests would say come and kiss the idol.

This gives deep insight about Kiruv. The attempt to get  college students involved in the insane religious world .
The approach is the same. The main target is always some student with rich parents. the hidden message here is what the sages said that a poor person is considered dead. So these cults try to get the young students to give up their education and to join them and thereby to become forever dependent on the cult. The way they do this is by love bombing either them or their parents. They make this whole show of how much they love the students because supposedly he is Jewish. What they really love is his money.

I should mention that there is nothing wrong with learning and keeping Torah. But what is wrong with Kiruv  is that Torah is used as bait to catch fish and cut them open and cook them and eat them.

It was my good fortune that I went to a baal teshuva yeshiva that was in fact only about learning and keeping Torah and had no other agendas. But that is rare.

I have come to see Kiruv as extremely evil.

The yeshiva I went to was in NY, Shaar Yashuv, which was an amazing place. It probably still is.

Later I was at the Mir and then in Safed. Safed was great until baali teshuva [newly religious] started showing up in Meor Chaim.  You think making baali teshuva is a mitzvah. Ever try living next to one?

Baali teshuva [newly religious] tend to be the worst of religious fanatics.  Part of the problem I think is ignorance about what the Torah says. The tendency is because they have an internal desire to be part of the insane religious world -which is nowadays the only way they can see to get married and have  wholesome family--and they read a book about halacha they think they know enough to judge others. Or even recruit others. But newly religious people with this problem are not the only ones. Often families of what you think are people that have always been religious are actually of baali teshuva.
This accounts for almost all of the religious fanaticism you see today in Ultra Religious neighborhoods. It is not like they pretend that they have always been that way. rather the Ultra Religious are always the baali teshuva --just pushed back a few years.

A person steals an object and breaks it. He gives back double. Whole vessels, whole vessels or cash. or anything worth the amount he owes [Rashbam].

 It seems unclear what the Rambam hold here. He brings the law that when one steals and breaks a vessel we do not look at how much it was worth but rather he has to give back the whole mount. That is אין שמין. We don't evaluate the amount it was worth when he stole it. If we would he could give back teh broken vessel and pay the difference. We don't do that. But if we hold by the Rashbam he can give back the vessel anyway because of it monetary value. So the only consequence of "we don't evaluate"  is we look at how much such a vessel is worth at the time of judgment.

See Rambam laws of damages I: 14 and 15. Bava Kama 11a, 65a. Bava Metzia 96.

I wrote about this a few years ago on one of my blogs. But I wanted to go back and review.

Reb Chaim Soloveitchik has  a doubt how the Rambam holds. Rav Elazar Menachem Shach holds the Rambam is going like the middle opinion --i.e. whole objects or cash.
For some reason I seem to have concluded this same opinion in my notes. Happy am I that decided like Rav Shach even without having seen his opinion.



These are my notes that I wrote about this a few years ago.
בס"ד
) בבא מציעא צו. תוספות ד''ה זיל מביא את שיטת הרשב''ם שגנב יכול לשלם  מטלטלים. שווה כסף ככסף. יש ספק לרב חיים הלוי  אם הרמב''ם והראב''ד אוחזים מן השיטה הזאת. בתור הקדמה:  הרמב''ם כתב ( הלכות גנבה א:טו) "מי שגנב כלי ושברו וא פחתו או נשבר או נפחת מאליו אין שמין לו הפחת אלא רואין כמה היה שוה אותו הכלי ומשלם לבעלים שנים בדמיו והכלי השבור יהיה לגנב." וראב''ד כתב אף על פי שאמרו אין שמין לגנב, הני מילי בקרנא אבל בכפילא שמין לגנב דומיא דגזלן והשכל מורה כן." רב חיים מביא  את הדין של רב "קרן כעין שגנב וכפל כשעת העמדה בדין"  בתור מקור לראב''ד. [המגיד משנה הביא את הירושלמי כמקור לרמב''ם. הירושלמי אומר מניין שאין שמין לגנב? שנאמר "חיים שניים ישלם".] יש צד לומר שהרמב''ם אוחז כשיטת הרשב''ם שהגנב יכול לשלם במטלטלים. שווה כסף ככסף.
כדאי להזכיר כאן שאם הדין כמו הרשב''ם, משמעות של "אין שמין" היא שאין מעריכים את ערך החפץ בזמן הגנבה, אלא בזמן העמדה בדין. [ו"שמין" משמע שמעריכים את ערך החפץ בזמן הגנבה.]

השאלה כאן היא המקור שרב חיים מביא לראב''ד, "אמר רב קרן כעין שגנב וכפל כשעת העמדה בדין". (בבא קמא סה.) שאלה הראשונה היא שהגמרא שם מדברת בענין יוקרא וזולא, ולא במצב שהחפץ נשבר. שאלה השניה היא שאפילו אם הגמרא מדברת במצב כזה, הדין של הראב''ד הוא להפך מן הדין של רב. דהיינו אם בשלב הזה אנחנו הולכים לפי שיטת הרשב''ם, אם כן הדין "אין שמין" אומר שמעריכים את ערך החפץ בשעת העמדה בדין בשביל הקרן, ושעת הגנבה בשביל הכפל (לראב''ד). וזה להפך מן הדין של רב.
תירוץ לשאלה הראשונה: הגמרא ב''ק סה. אוחזת שמצב של שבירת החפץ שווה למצב של זולא. האופן לראות את זה הוא לראות שבלי זה, המשפט של רבה שם לא היה מציב קושיא לרב. [בגלל הקושיא הזאת, הגמרא מסכימה שהדין של רב הוא רק המצב שהחפץ היה שווה ארבעה והוזל לאחד.] אפשר לראות את זה על ידי דברי הטור, והבית יוסף והב''ח שאומרים שהדין של רב שייך גם במצב של שבירת החפץ. (אגב הרא''ש הוא בר פלוגתא של ברשב''ם פה, ואפשר שאין להביא ראיה ממנו לדברי הרשב''ם.)

אבל אם זה נכון, יש קושיא על הרשב''ם כאן בב''מ צו.
התירוץ לזה הוא גם כן תירוץ לשאלה השניה. רב לא אמר שאין שמין לגנב. אם אוחזים כשיטת הרשב''ם, צריכים לומר שרב אוחז ששמין לגנב כמו רבי אלעזר בב''ק יא.  אפשר לומר שאין הדין כמו רב.
 והראיה לדעת הראב''ד היא שמאחר שרב אוחז ששמין, מזה לומדין שהדין של "אין שמין" הוא להפך, ולכן מעריכים את ערך החפץ לפי זמן העמדה בדין.

 ) ב''מ צו: תוספות ד''ה זיל שלים ליה. על הצד שרב חיים הלוי מציע שהרמב''ם והרשב''ם שווים בדין, אפשר לומר שהרמב''ם חשב כך: בההלכה שכתבתי שמשלמים קרן וכפל עם כסף (ושווה כסף מובן כהרשב''ם) לא כתבתי שמשלמים לפי זמן העמדה בדין, בשביל שכתבתי בסעיף הקודם שבמצב שהגנב שיבר את החפץ שהוא משלם לפי שעת העמדה בדין-- שזה הדין של "אין שמין" לגבי זמן הערך. שם כתוב, "היה שווה בשעת הגנבה שניים ובשעת העמדה בדין ארבעה אם שחט או מכר או שבר הכלי או אבדו משלם תשלומי כפל או דו''ה כשעת העמדה בדין." היינו שהרמב''ם אוחז שהדין של "אין שמין" הוא הדין של רבה שמעריכים הקרן והכפל לפי שעת העמדה בדין. [כוונתי שהרמב''ם דייק לכתוב שאם שיבר את הכלי משלם כפל לפי שעת העמדה בדין שמע מינה שמשלם  את הקרן לפי שעת גניבה.]

עכשיו נראה שיש אפשרות שהרמב''ם אוחז הדין של הרשב''ם שהדין של "אין שמין" אומר לנו שכשהגנב שבר את החפץ, אז מעריכים את ערכו לפי שעת העמדה בדין. הטעם שאפשר לומר את זה הוא שהמצב שהרמב''ם פסק שהולכים לפי שעת הגנבה הוא מצב אחר. הוא כשהגנבה ירדה בערך לא על ידי שבירה, אלא על ידי ירידת השער שבשוק. [זה הגמרא אומרת בירוש. רב הוא במצב של יוקרא וזולא.] ובמצב שהחפץ עלה בערך ואז הגנב שבר אותו, הרמב''ם כן פסק כהרשב''ם שהולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין. והמצב שהכלי נשבר מאליו בלא שום מעשה של הגנב (שהולכים לפי שעת הגנבה) אינו שייך לדין "אין שמין". אין שמין שייך רק במצב שהגנב שבר את החפץ.

) אם אנחנו הולכים לפי הצד הזה שרב חיים מביא --שהרמב''ם אוחז כהרשב''ם, אז הההלכה כשהוזל ערך החפץ (שירד בערכו) היא אחרת משאם נשברה. בלי זה  הדין  כשהוזל היה קשה לרמב''ם. הדין הזה של רב היה מכריח את הרמב''ם לאחוז "אין שמין" לכפל (הולכים לפי זמן העמדה בדין), אבל כן שמין לקרן (היינו שבולכים לפי זמו הגניבה) שזה דינו של רב.  וזה בעיתי ביותר. הרמב''ם לא כתב כנגד זה אבל עם כל זה איך זה מסתדר עם הרשב''ם? אבל אם הדין של שבירה הוא שונה מן הדין של "הוזל", אז הכל בסדר. ברמב''ם כותב בסעיף שאחר זה שלא שמין במצב של שבירה, היינו שמעריכים את החפץ לפי זמן העמדה בדין. זאת אומרת אם יוקרא= שבירה אז אי אפשר שהרמב''ם= רשב''ם. אבל אם יוקר לא שווה לא שבירה אפשר שהרמב''ם=רשב''ם.

) נראה שיש מחלוקת בין הרמב''ם והטור לגבי הדין של רב- היינו הדין שהוזל  ערך החפץ. רב פסק "קרן כעין שגנב וכפל ודו''ה כשעת העמדה בדין."  והטור פסק שזה שייך גם במצב של שבירת חפץ. אבל בההלכה של הוזל (הלכה י''ד), הרמב''ם אינו מזכיר שבירת החפץ, וגם ענין הקרן הוא מדלג לגמרי. זה משמע שהחפץ לפנינו, רק שהוזל. [אפשר לומר שאם הרמב''ם אוחז כשיטת הרשב''ם זה גרם לו לפרש את הדין של רב רק לגבי זולא, ולא שבירה. זה בגלל שהדין של רב להפך הדין של "אין שמין" לפי פירוש הרשב''ם.] [שיטת הרא''ש היא שמשמעות אין שמין היא שצריך לשלם כלים שלמים, ואין בזה שום סתירה לדין של רב, אפילו אם מפרשים אותו לגבי שבירה.]

 למעשה יותר טוב לומר שהרמב''ם פוסק כרש''י והרא''ש שאין שמין משמע שצריך לשלם בכלים שלמים או בכסף, לא שווה כסף. הסיבה לזה היא שבהלכה י''ד איפה שהרמב''ם מביא את הדין של רב [קרן כעין שגנב וכפל כשעת העמדה בדין במצב של יוקרא וזולא], משמע שהמצב של כפל דומה למצב של דו''ה, דהיינו שמדברים במצב שהכלי נשבר. ואם זה נכון, אז אין הדין הזה מתאים להלכה ט''ו שהיא ההלכה של אין שמין. [זאת אומרת שההלכה של אין שמין בהלכה ט''ו מתאימה רק לשליש הלכה י''ד.] ולכן ההלכה של אין שמין אומרת לשלם בכלים שלמים ואינה מדברת בעיין זמן הערך.[בהלכה י''ד הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין רק בשביל הכפל, ובהלכה ט''ו בשביל הכפל והקרן.]

This last paragraph is the place I saw that the רמב''ם goes like רש''י. But it was not written very well. What I saw in the רמב''ם that makes me compelled to say he is like רש''י is that he puts כפל along with ד''וה and writes that then you go by the שעת גניבה. That means the object was broken and openly he says we do not go by the time of judgment. So אין שמין  can't mean to go by the time of judgment. I don't know from where Rav Shach made his deduction to come to the same conclusion but to me this looks compelling.








 אם אומרים שמקור הראב''ד הוא משפט של רב בב''ק סה. היה אפשרות לומר שהראב''ד אוחז כמו רש''י והרא''ש שאין שמין משמע שצריך לשלם כלים שלמים. ורב חיים סאלאווייציק מביא את משפטו של רב למקור לראב''ד. מזה יש אפשרות לתת שני שלבים להראות שהראב''ד אוחז כרש''י. שלב ראשון: הראב''ד אומר אין שמין שייך רק לקרן. לגבי כפל הדין הוא שמין. שלב שני: בדינו של רב [שהרמב''ם והראב''ד אוחזים בו] אנחנו מעריכים את הקרן לפי שעת הגנבה, ואת הכפל לפי שעת העמדה בדין. ולכן אם במצב של שמין אנחנו מעריכים את החפץ בזמן העמדה בדין, אם כן שמין או אין שמין לא יכול להיות שייך לזמן הערך. ולכן הוא שייך רק לכלים שלמים. ואי אפשר להשיב "שמין" משמעו זמן העמדה בדין, בגלל שמשמעות הדין "שמין" היא גם בנזיקים ששם שמין את ערך החפץ בזמן השבירה דווקא, ואז מחזירים את החפץ ומשלימים החסרון בדמים. ושמה מה שקובע את ערך החפץ היא שעת השבירה.
אבל למעשה, יש אפשרות לראב''ד לאחוז כשיטת הרשב''ם. וכדי להסביר את זאת, אני צריך להציג את ההקדמה הזאת להסביר איך רב חיים הלוי מבין את דעת הראב''ד. דבר ראשון: מצב של שבירה נחשב לגנבה אריכתא (גנבה ארוכה) עד זמן השבירה. ובמצב כזה רב אמר לשלם כשעת הגנבה היינו שעת השבירה. וכשרב אמר לשלם כפל לפי שעת העמדה בדין הכוונה היא לשעת העמדה בדין כפשוטו והחפץ צריך להיות מצוי כדי להעריך אותו. וזה האופן שהראב''ד מפרש את הדין של רב-- החפץ נשברה במקצת. ולפי הראב''ד הדין של רב הוא הדין של אין שמין לגנבה. וככה מפרש הראב''ד הדין של רב: אין שמין את הקרן וכן שמין לכפל. וכשהחפץ נשבר במקצת הוא עדיין נחשב להיות בעין ומצוי בכדי להעריך אותו בשעת העמדה בדין. רק שאי אפשר להחזיר אותו בתורת הרי שלך לפניך. [וראב''ד מפרש "שמין" "ואין שמין" להיות שייך לזמן הערך, אבל במובן להפך מן הרשב''ם. להראב''ד שמין משמע בזמן העמדה בדין, ואין שמין משמע שעת הגנבה.]

I see these notes are very cryptic. I think it would be a good idea to expand them to show exactly what I was saying.


It is astounding to me how mistaken I can be.This sometimes came up when I was learning with David Bronson. But it also came up when I was looking over my notes on Bava Metzia page 97a.

I was clearly trying to support an opinion of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik that says that the Rambam holds by Rashi and the Rosh in terms of what it means "One does not evaluate for a thief."  Of course that fact that I had neither the Ramba nor the Gemara nor the book of Reb Chaim might also have contributed to my mistake.I had no way of looking anything up {being in exile so so speak}.

But what occurred to me today is a fantastic new idea that came out of my mistake. The idea is this. I became aware at one point that Rav Elazar Shach says the Rambam holds with the Rashbam. So I saw that my forced reading on the Rambam laws of theft 1:14 was simply wrong and stupid and calculated to support Reb Chaim in spite of the obvious fact that I was reading it wrong.
But how to explain this properly I am not really sure of. Basically what I want to say is you have to read halacha 14 together with 15 almost as if they were one halacha.

So with that it all becomes clear. If the stolen object went down in value from 4 shekalim to 2 then the theif pays 4. That is the beginning of halacha 14. That is to say that the beginning of halacha 14 says nothing about the object being broken. It is clear the Rambam means he gives back the object and pays the extra 2 shekalim that it went down in value from the time of the theft until the day the case comes to court. But it might be broken also and then the same law would apply,that the thief give back the whole four shekalim. Then halacha 15 is just a continuation of halacha 14 which is "one does not evaluate for a thief." It is the case when the object was broken and all it says is the thief can not say "Your object is before you." It has nothing to do with the time at which you evaluate the object. Therefore the astounding result is that even the Rambam holds one can pay back with objects that are worth the same amount of money that he owes. But also that that law has nothing to do with the time one evaluates the object.