closeness to a true tzadik. Leaders of Breslov are and have always been con men. Another example is talking alone with God--hitbodadut. In Breslov this is always a pubic affair with organized trips with fan fare and a wide public appeal to give charity to make such trips possible. Learning Torah is another example. If Torah is learned at all, it is never Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. In terms of this aspect of Torah it would be more sensible to join an authentic yeshiva like the Mirrer Yeshiva or the other great yeshivas of New York.
18.7.15
closeness to a true tzadik. Leaders of Breslov are and have always been con men. Another example is talking alone with God--hitbodadut. In Breslov this is always a pubic affair with organized trips with fan fare and a wide public appeal to give charity to make such trips possible. Learning Torah is another example. If Torah is learned at all, it is never Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. In terms of this aspect of Torah it would be more sensible to join an authentic yeshiva like the Mirrer Yeshiva or the other great yeshivas of New York.
17.7.15
Kelley Ross, -- Kant with the approach of Leonard Nelson.
My value system is based on a Kelly Ross idea. .
e
That is to say my value system which works for me is balance between an array of good and great ideals.
That is it is not enough for me to be walking in what I think is the right path. I have to have some way of justifying it or at least defending it.
You could probably guess without my saying the basic values. To speak the truth at all cost, family values, loyalty to family and friends and towards anyone who has done for me a good turn. To learn every day a little math, a little physics, a little Gemara. To avoid cults.
That is it is not enough for me to be walking in what I think is the right path. I have to have some way of justifying it or at least defending it.
You could probably guess without my saying the basic values. To speak the truth at all cost, family values, loyalty to family and friends and towards anyone who has done for me a good turn. To learn every day a little math, a little physics, a little Gemara. To avoid cults.
Getting interested in Breslov means to leave learning Talmud.
And I have seen over the years many people that get interested in Breslov, and the result is always to leave learning Talmud. Always.
In the letter Rav Nachman wrote to his followers in the city of Breslov which starts, "I have become disgusted with the yeshiva of Breslov"["קצתי בישיבת ברסלב"], it is clear that he was giving up on his disciples, and thought that all his efforts with them went to waste.
The claim in Breslov is that they do have people that learn Talmud on some kind of high level. That is unfounded. It is not true. But rather a kind of pretense that seems to be motivated by less than honorable motives. People that can learn Talmud have always learned how to do so in a Lithuanian yeshiva, or else they can't do it at all.
Side note:
Not all Litvak yeshivas are the same. When I say "Litvak yeshiva" I refer to: (1) Ponovitch, (2) the Mir in NY (3) Chaim Berlin (4) Torah Vedaat (5) Shar Yashuv which starts at beginning level, but goes as high as the other great Litvak yeshivas (6) Merkaz HaRav of Rav Kook.[You can include upstart places of people that learned in any of these six great yeshivas.]
In the letter Rav Nachman wrote to his followers in the city of Breslov which starts, "I have become disgusted with the yeshiva of Breslov"["קצתי בישיבת ברסלב"], it is clear that he was giving up on his disciples, and thought that all his efforts with them went to waste.
The claim in Breslov is that they do have people that learn Talmud on some kind of high level. That is unfounded. It is not true. But rather a kind of pretense that seems to be motivated by less than honorable motives. People that can learn Talmud have always learned how to do so in a Lithuanian yeshiva, or else they can't do it at all.
Side note:
Not all Litvak yeshivas are the same. When I say "Litvak yeshiva" I refer to: (1) Ponovitch, (2) the Mir in NY (3) Chaim Berlin (4) Torah Vedaat (5) Shar Yashuv which starts at beginning level, but goes as high as the other great Litvak yeshivas (6) Merkaz HaRav of Rav Kook.[You can include upstart places of people that learned in any of these six great yeshivas.]
15.7.15
I wanted to take a minute to explain Quantum Mechanics and how it is local
First you have to start with what happens when you heat a piece of iron to extremely high temperatures. If you have seen this done you notice that at lower temperatures it gets red and at higher temperatures it gets blue. It does not depend on energy but on temperature. This can only work if there is a certain value that the iron can absorb or emit. The Plank Constant, "h". Einstein reinforced this idea with his explanation of the photo electric effect. Photons are quanta. Then came the Bohr atom. At that point they had an idea of electrons going around in orbits.(Rutherford) But these orbits had to be equal or proportional to nh. (Bohr) Otherwise the atom would collapse. The integral of Pdx (Momentum times velocity) over one period of orbit is is equal to nh . What Heisenberg was interested in was the fact that the spectrum of the hydrogen atom [Rydberg].
You have a "X sub n" for the position of the electron. You want to get a "X sub nm" to get what happens when it moves from one orbit to a higher or lower one.
And it is local. The fact that an observer in the Andromeda galaxy with have corresponding measurement to your experiment here implies correlation, not causation.
And what you have here is that you only know something exists, you don't know universals like if it is a particle or a wave until you measure it. Until you measure it it is only a dinge an sich "a thing in itself."
In other words to get to matrix mechanics you need the piece of iron that turns red and then blue, then the Bohr atom and then the time of lines you get when you add energy to a hydrogen atom in a cathode tube. Three easy steps.
To learn this more in detail I think people should learn Matrix Mechanics. Most presentations of Quantum mechanics focus of Schrodinger and that makes going on to Quantum Field theory harder. And it gives people the wrong ideas. There is no traveling probability wave. There is simply two complementary variables. We don't understand this in our human understanding because the electron is a dinge an sich "a thing in itself." What we see and feel and observe tells us only about what we can measure, not what it actually is.
First you have to start with what happens when you heat a piece of iron to extremely high temperatures. If you have seen this done you notice that at lower temperatures it gets red and at higher temperatures it gets blue. It does not depend on energy but on temperature. This can only work if there is a certain value that the iron can absorb or emit. The Plank Constant, "h". Einstein reinforced this idea with his explanation of the photo electric effect. Photons are quanta. Then came the Bohr atom. At that point they had an idea of electrons going around in orbits.(Rutherford) But these orbits had to be equal or proportional to nh. (Bohr) Otherwise the atom would collapse. The integral of Pdx (Momentum times velocity) over one period of orbit is is equal to nh . What Heisenberg was interested in was the fact that the spectrum of the hydrogen atom [Rydberg].
You have a "X sub n" for the position of the electron. You want to get a "X sub nm" to get what happens when it moves from one orbit to a higher or lower one.
And it is local. The fact that an observer in the Andromeda galaxy with have corresponding measurement to your experiment here implies correlation, not causation.
And what you have here is that you only know something exists, you don't know universals like if it is a particle or a wave until you measure it. Until you measure it it is only a dinge an sich "a thing in itself."
In other words to get to matrix mechanics you need the piece of iron that turns red and then blue, then the Bohr atom and then the time of lines you get when you add energy to a hydrogen atom in a cathode tube. Three easy steps.
To learn this more in detail I think people should learn Matrix Mechanics. Most presentations of Quantum mechanics focus of Schrodinger and that makes going on to Quantum Field theory harder. And it gives people the wrong ideas. There is no traveling probability wave. There is simply two complementary variables. We don't understand this in our human understanding because the electron is a dinge an sich "a thing in itself." What we see and feel and observe tells us only about what we can measure, not what it actually is.
14.7.15
Torah has gotten a undeserved bad name. The reason is simply because a tremendous amount of bad stuff and bad people have gotten mixed up with it and it is all called by that generic name "Torah."
So people that recoil when they see or hear any thing that claims to be Torah are highly justified. As you can see, I don't have a single link that anything that is slightly related that that subject at all. And if I see anything at all on the Internet, I run to the Mikvah. If I want Real Torah, Authentic Torah, I know where to go. I open up a Gemara and learn. Period. Full Stop. I don't take any substitutes. And From pseudo Torah I run in fear for my life. [The term "Gemara" here I use to refer to the basic writings of the Oral Law that were all written down by the Tenaim and Amoraim.] It far better to go surfing than to listen to pseudo Torah or to pseudo Torah scholars.
Pseudo Torah scholars are easy to spot because they are not teaching Gemara. They can't teach it, because they don't understand it. They have to teach other things which are nonsense, but which they call "Torah" and which they claim are harder or more difficult than Gemara which is utter nonsense, They are frauds, and they know it themselves, and fear the person like me that can tell the difference between the real thing and them.
So people that recoil when they see or hear any thing that claims to be Torah are highly justified. As you can see, I don't have a single link that anything that is slightly related that that subject at all. And if I see anything at all on the Internet, I run to the Mikvah. If I want Real Torah, Authentic Torah, I know where to go. I open up a Gemara and learn. Period. Full Stop. I don't take any substitutes. And From pseudo Torah I run in fear for my life. [The term "Gemara" here I use to refer to the basic writings of the Oral Law that were all written down by the Tenaim and Amoraim.] It far better to go surfing than to listen to pseudo Torah or to pseudo Torah scholars.
Pseudo Torah scholars are easy to spot because they are not teaching Gemara. They can't teach it, because they don't understand it. They have to teach other things which are nonsense, but which they call "Torah" and which they claim are harder or more difficult than Gemara which is utter nonsense, They are frauds, and they know it themselves, and fear the person like me that can tell the difference between the real thing and them.
The wholesome, moral, decent USA did exist all over the USA. Except for perhaps a very few dysfunctional families, America was definitely Norman Rockwell country.
However with my family moving into Beverly Hills, the atmosphere changed slightly from when we had been in Orange County. Still from my travels over the USA and the testimony of many people I have talked with, it seems clear that the USA of the past was highly responsible and moral and decent. And everyone that experienced both has said the same thing--the USA of Today is not the same country. And that is a fact. [Even as compared to that Old America, my parents home was an amazing contrast in terms of the level of love and that was there. Still the general USA was an amazing place ]
But in those days everyone had a slight evil inclination to look into something a little bit unsavory. Everyone including me. Because unsavory things hold a strange fascination for human beings. The only question was how unsavory were you willing to go? And while holding on to the evil inclination people also tried to follow their good inclination to some degree. It was not considered a good thing to do evil. But it was fun. So people tried to limit the extent of their unsavory thing by injecting a little good into it.
My suggestion is to ship out the socialists and homosexuals. Maximize immigration from Europe and Ukraine and Russia and Asia [Pakistan should be considered part of Asia in this context and immigration from there is OK as far as I can tell.] and stop it completely from 3rd world countries. Anyone from the Middle East send back. [I think immigration from Mexico is also good. From what I have seen of Mexicans, I am very impressed at their work ethic.]
However with my family moving into Beverly Hills, the atmosphere changed slightly from when we had been in Orange County. Still from my travels over the USA and the testimony of many people I have talked with, it seems clear that the USA of the past was highly responsible and moral and decent. And everyone that experienced both has said the same thing--the USA of Today is not the same country. And that is a fact. [Even as compared to that Old America, my parents home was an amazing contrast in terms of the level of love and that was there. Still the general USA was an amazing place ]
But in those days everyone had a slight evil inclination to look into something a little bit unsavory. Everyone including me. Because unsavory things hold a strange fascination for human beings. The only question was how unsavory were you willing to go? And while holding on to the evil inclination people also tried to follow their good inclination to some degree. It was not considered a good thing to do evil. But it was fun. So people tried to limit the extent of their unsavory thing by injecting a little good into it.
My suggestion is to ship out the socialists and homosexuals. Maximize immigration from Europe and Ukraine and Russia and Asia [Pakistan should be considered part of Asia in this context and immigration from there is OK as far as I can tell.] and stop it completely from 3rd world countries. Anyone from the Middle East send back. [I think immigration from Mexico is also good. From what I have seen of Mexicans, I am very impressed at their work ethic.]
13.7.15
My advice for Americans that are upset about the attack on Biblical values: to learn Torah.
Normally that means the Oral and Written law but in this case an introduction would be in order.
That is Musar (Jewish Ethics). There are classical books of Jewish ethics based on the Old Testament which give a good idea of the basic world view of Torah. There was an actual movement among the Jewish people to learn Musar that was based in Vilnius, and its founder was Israel Salanter. It went into hibernation, but it might be a good idea to awaken this again.
Musar has the advantage that it is not trying to fit Torah into some alternative reality worldview, but is a rigorous evaluation of the texts of Torah. It will not be trying to sell you on believing in anyone except for the First Cause. It will be encouraging to follow all the laws of the Torah. So even if there are people that may learn it and yet not be perfect, it has the effect of encouraging people towards objective morality.
My recommendation is the Or Israel by a disciple of Israel Salanter and the Duties of the Heart [the first Musar book ever]. That was written in the Middle Ages and is the father of all Musar books.
It is a comprehensive view of Torah that draws together the various strands of thought in the Oral and Written Torah.
Normally that means the Oral and Written law but in this case an introduction would be in order.
That is Musar (Jewish Ethics). There are classical books of Jewish ethics based on the Old Testament which give a good idea of the basic world view of Torah. There was an actual movement among the Jewish people to learn Musar that was based in Vilnius, and its founder was Israel Salanter. It went into hibernation, but it might be a good idea to awaken this again.
Musar has the advantage that it is not trying to fit Torah into some alternative reality worldview, but is a rigorous evaluation of the texts of Torah. It will not be trying to sell you on believing in anyone except for the First Cause. It will be encouraging to follow all the laws of the Torah. So even if there are people that may learn it and yet not be perfect, it has the effect of encouraging people towards objective morality.
My recommendation is the Or Israel by a disciple of Israel Salanter and the Duties of the Heart [the first Musar book ever]. That was written in the Middle Ages and is the father of all Musar books.
It is a comprehensive view of Torah that draws together the various strands of thought in the Oral and Written Torah.
There was a fellow in the coffee section that mentioned about some friend of his that is halfway between Judaism and Christianity. I really did not get the gist. But at some point in the discussion I mentioned that I had studied Christianity at least to some small degree. He asked about contradictions.
I said the major source of contradictions is in the four gospels. That is about two issue that are of major importance in Christianity:1) Christology [what does one think about Jesus], 2) the other is mitzvot.
On the other hand I also said it is not good to downgrade someone else's religion. Everyone thinks their is the best.
He asked if I had been born to two parents one Jewish and one Christian, what faith would I choose? I said, "If I could choose any parents in the world, I would only choose my own. I am very happy with the way the raised me--Jewish [Reform-- but with a traditional slant].".
I forgot the whole discussion but also he asked which is better Judaism or Christianity. I said, "I go by what Reason requires. Ah but my reason is faulty? So what. There is no better path."
That was my first answer. He was not satisfied and then went to question two, and after that to question 1. So I am not writing this in order.
[My thoughts were that this is really a matter of group identity. Torah is my path and I think that this is good. I think when I see people fishing for arguments against other religions that that is not a positive thing.]
Later on the way home I thought to myself that there is an essential connection between path and human good or evil. We find paths that encourage people towards evil. And we also find paths that encourage people towards what simple common sense would be called good and just. So even there are bad people on all paths and good people on all paths still that does not mean the paths themselves are equal. So there are religions that it is worthwhile fighting against. Some are so bad that they deserve to be shunned. Some cause so much damage that you have an obligation to warn people against them.. But not all. Some are in a grey area with some good things and some not so good. Fighting them seems to be dumb. You are likely to end up causing people to throw out the good with the bad.
I said the major source of contradictions is in the four gospels. That is about two issue that are of major importance in Christianity:1) Christology [what does one think about Jesus], 2) the other is mitzvot.
On the other hand I also said it is not good to downgrade someone else's religion. Everyone thinks their is the best.
He asked if I had been born to two parents one Jewish and one Christian, what faith would I choose? I said, "If I could choose any parents in the world, I would only choose my own. I am very happy with the way the raised me--Jewish [Reform-- but with a traditional slant].".
I forgot the whole discussion but also he asked which is better Judaism or Christianity. I said, "I go by what Reason requires. Ah but my reason is faulty? So what. There is no better path."
That was my first answer. He was not satisfied and then went to question two, and after that to question 1. So I am not writing this in order.
[My thoughts were that this is really a matter of group identity. Torah is my path and I think that this is good. I think when I see people fishing for arguments against other religions that that is not a positive thing.]
Later on the way home I thought to myself that there is an essential connection between path and human good or evil. We find paths that encourage people towards evil. And we also find paths that encourage people towards what simple common sense would be called good and just. So even there are bad people on all paths and good people on all paths still that does not mean the paths themselves are equal. So there are religions that it is worthwhile fighting against. Some are so bad that they deserve to be shunned. Some cause so much damage that you have an obligation to warn people against them.. But not all. Some are in a grey area with some good things and some not so good. Fighting them seems to be dumb. You are likely to end up causing people to throw out the good with the bad.
12.7.15
There is certain amount of critique that one hears from people who joined the insane religious world and then were treated baldly and then left. It is hard to evaluate what this means. After all there are things that they are doing that seem related to Torah, at least on the surface. Also what makes this hard to judge is the unusual aspect that smaller groups of similar nature don't see to exist. What I think cause the problem is the general treatment of people that join.
They are actively recruited under the idea that, "We are all one family." Then they are treated as garbage when they cease to be useful. It means that joining them is certainly a bad idea as many Jews have found out. But it also means making any kind of alliance with them seems like a bad idea.--If that is how they treat their friends, it does not seem to be worth much to be their friend. It even calls into question if they are in fact really keeping the Torah or not. And the answer seems to be negative.
And that leaves people like myself wondering then how best in fact to keep the Torah --if the the insane religious world can't be used as a metric.
For that reason I try to keep Torah in the way my parents did which seems to me to be the meaning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, "Honor your Father and your Mother." Naphtali Troup brings from the Rambam that there is an actual obligation to obey your parents-- not just to honor them in some vague superficial manner. But you get the idea. I try to keep things as simple as possible. If any question comes up, I look at the Torah. Most of the time the Torah is perfectly clear. But sometimes there is some issue that is ambiguous. If the Torah is clear, then full stop. If not, then I go to the Mishna. If that is not clear, then I go to the Talmud. If that is not clear then I go to the Rambam and the traditional books of Musar.
The evil custom of the the insane religious world is to make a blank statement about Torah and Talmud "Do you think you understand them better than___?" Fill in the blank. They attempt to make every clear statement in Torah to be ambiguous, so that they can go to some charismatic lunatic to guide them.
This causes the effect that we have people that actually think they are keeping the Torah while doing the opposite and then criticizing others for not following them.
It is not that they keep Torah in some polarized extreme fashion. It is rather that they don't keep Torah at all, but think they do.
And that leaves people like myself wondering then how best in fact to keep the Torah --if the the insane religious world can't be used as a metric.
For that reason I try to keep Torah in the way my parents did which seems to me to be the meaning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, "Honor your Father and your Mother." Naphtali Troup brings from the Rambam that there is an actual obligation to obey your parents-- not just to honor them in some vague superficial manner. But you get the idea. I try to keep things as simple as possible. If any question comes up, I look at the Torah. Most of the time the Torah is perfectly clear. But sometimes there is some issue that is ambiguous. If the Torah is clear, then full stop. If not, then I go to the Mishna. If that is not clear, then I go to the Talmud. If that is not clear then I go to the Rambam and the traditional books of Musar.
The evil custom of the the insane religious world is to make a blank statement about Torah and Talmud "Do you think you understand them better than___?" Fill in the blank. They attempt to make every clear statement in Torah to be ambiguous, so that they can go to some charismatic lunatic to guide them.
This causes the effect that we have people that actually think they are keeping the Torah while doing the opposite and then criticizing others for not following them.
It is not that they keep Torah in some polarized extreme fashion. It is rather that they don't keep Torah at all, but think they do.
I asked Dr. Kelly Ross:
I wonder if in the thought of Kant and Fries it is possible to draw a direct connection between the dinge an sich and non intuitive immediate knowledge.
His answer: Kant and Fries thought that Reason related directly to things-in-themselves, and non-intuitive immediate knowledge was knowledge from Reason for Fries. So, yes.
I: The thing in itself is beyond empirical experience but knowledge of its existence seems to a kind of knowledge; while the immediate non intuitive kind of knowledge is more related to the synthetic a priori, first principles, and universals.
Dr. Kelly Ross : There are aspects of things-in-themselves that Kant already thought were only known through Reason. Morality, in the first place. Because of morality, he thought that God, freedom, and immortality were implied. I only think that works well with freedom. But the general principle is that unconditioned realities are possible among things-in-themselves but not among phenomena. God, freedom, and immorality all involve unconditioned realities.
I: Is it possible that it is this non intuitive immediate knowledge that knows the dinge an sich?
Dr. Kelly Ross: The problem with our dealing with things-in-themselves, according to Kant, is that there cannot be a consistent theory of transcendent objects without generating antinomies. I think that is still a good principle, and you can see the page on antinomies at http://www.friesian.com/antino
But there is more to the transcendent than metaphysical paradoxes. Neither Kant nor Fries knew how to deal with the principles of actual religions, e.g. ritual requirements such as baptism or observing the Sabbath. See "Nelson and Religion" at http://www.friesian.com/nelson
Appendix:
(1) What I was getting at was that I think non intuitive immediate knowledge knows the existence of the dinge an sich, but reason knows universals. [I probably did not state this clearly enough in my question.]
(2) Also what I was trying to say was that even though the way Kant gets to the dinge an sich is different than how he treats the question of a priori synthetic knowledge, still they both seem connected.
(3) Are not unconditioned realities in the category of the thing in itself? And at least as far as Kant the dinge on sich is rather common place things. It is just we can get to what those things really are. But is it not so that we understand universals about those things? For example the laws of physics? What perhaps Kelly Ross is saying is that at a certain common place things start to generate contradictions. For example Quantum Mechanics. The actual equations are exact and simple and local. [Correlation is not the same as causation.]
Here is Lubos's statement about this
Entanglement is nothing else than the quantum variation of the concept of correlation. It either represents any correlation between two subsystems that is properly described and understood in the language of quantum mechanics; or it refers to those correlations that make the subsystems behave differently than anything in classical physics.\
A man is stopped by the police around 1 am and he is asked where he is going at this time of the night.
The man replies, "I am on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."
The police officer then asks, "Really? And who is giving that lecture at this time of night, and where will it be held?"
The man replies, "That lecture would be given by my wife, and it would be held at home."
I heard this lecture from my learning partner. He was in New Mexico and part of the driver education course there involved seeing the difference between a person's brain who drank alcohol and one who did not. [These were from people who had donated their bodies to science.] The regular brain was obviously healthy. It looked healthy and firm and clean. The brain of the person that drank alcohol when it was merely touched the slightest bit instantly fell apart into a bloody mess.
This relates to me because a Tartar originally from the Crimea but now in Ukraine proper comes into my room about twice a week without asking and steals any money or wine that I have for Kidush [that is for one cup on Friday night]. This is not unusual. In the Ukraine, there are many people that can't be happy unless they steal something. There are wonderful people in the Ukraine, but by and large there is this strange little thing that about 90% of the adult males have have that seem incurable.
Of course every group of people has at least one characteristic flaw. So just noticing this problem in Ukraine does not mean that anyone else is any better. Some people have much worse addictions than to alcohol and theft. For example Muslims seems to have usually bad days when they can't murder some Jew or Christian. Homosexuals in the USA seem to be very unhappy if they can't make others into sexual perverts. Everyone and every groups has their own special "evil inclination."
There is difference between deficit and debt.
Jon Gabriel Ricochet's chart
According to this information it is probably a good idea to elect a Republican president who at least does not have to goal to bankrupt the USA.
From Jon Ricochet
"The D.C. press corps was giddy last night, declaring that the fiscal crisis had ended. Senators praised "honorable friends" from "great states," congressmembers gave standing O's to their stalwart leaders, and the president saluted bipartisanship while ridiculing Republicans, bloggers, activists and pretty much anyone else who dared oppose him.
If the whole thing seemed a bit surreal, it's because the whole thing was a bit surreal. America's fiscal crisis is not that our debt ceiling isn't quite high enough — it's that we have too much debt.
It's as if I had $250K in credit card debt and I told my wife, "Great news, honey — our fiscal crisis is over! I just got a new Visa!" If she didn't hit me over the head with a rolling pin, she would most assuredly tell me where I should place it.
To help visualize how up the creek we find ourselves, I created the infographic above.
It's an imperfect analogy, but imagine the green is your salary, the yellow is the amount you're spending over your salary, and the red is your MasterCard statement. Before sharing this info with your spouse, I recommend you hide the rolling pin."
Sometimes the best remedy for a Torah controversy is simply a good old-fashioned,
down to earth, nothing buttery, look-it-up-to-see-if-it’s-so, Torah study. No fancy
footwork necessary. Just cut right to the chase, let the Torah speak for itself, then be loyal to it.
That’s all.
Of course, because of ambiguities in the text, not every challenging, contentious dispute
can be settled this easily.
That is why the Talmud exists--to clarify ambiguous issues.
Frequently, though, a careful, close, honest look at the Torah [Five Books of Moses] is all that’s required to resolve what might seem at first to be a difficult dispute.
I take it to respond to one of the most severe challenges to Torah today. The question: What does God really think about homosexuality? Could it be that the Torah has simply gotten it all wrong? A dedicated group of homosexuals and “gay-friendly” Jews think so, and they are campaigning relentlessly to change your mind. They have certified scholars on their team, they’re tactically clever, and they’re aggressively training their own ambassadors to send out to reform the Torah. When—not “if,” but “when”—you encounter this teaching, you’ll need tried and true Torah answers.
If in doubt go to the Torah. If that is ambiguous, then go to the Oral Law. What is the Oral Law? According to many Christians, it is a conspiracy to undermine the Torah. So it can't help Christians. But for people that are not hostile to it, it can be helpful. It contains the way the Torah was understood traditionally. In other words, we, the Jews, had the Old Testament during the Second Temple period. The entire corpus of the Old Testament had been completed from the time of Moses until the end of the First Temple. But we also had a traditional understanding of how to keep the laws of the Torah. No one thought it is up to every individual to decide how to keep the Sabbath. For if there had been, then a person brought in front of the court to be tried for breaking the Sabbath could say that in his sincere opinion what he was doing was not breaking the Sabbath. That goes for all the laws of the Old Testament.
So simply put: there is a hierarchy in understanding the Old Testament of the Bible. The first step is the literal meaning. If that is clear, then full stop. If that is not clear then we go to the Mishna and Gemara (Talmud). If that is clear, then stop. If it is not clear then we go to the Rambam and other medieval people to gain understanding about the specific issue.
What is common for Christian to complain about is that often this order is reversed. For some reason people will use minor writers in order to confuse major issues. And that is a true critique.
That is why the Talmud exists--to clarify ambiguous issues.
Frequently, though, a careful, close, honest look at the Torah [Five Books of Moses] is all that’s required to resolve what might seem at first to be a difficult dispute.
I take it to respond to one of the most severe challenges to Torah today. The question: What does God really think about homosexuality? Could it be that the Torah has simply gotten it all wrong? A dedicated group of homosexuals and “gay-friendly” Jews think so, and they are campaigning relentlessly to change your mind. They have certified scholars on their team, they’re tactically clever, and they’re aggressively training their own ambassadors to send out to reform the Torah. When—not “if,” but “when”—you encounter this teaching, you’ll need tried and true Torah answers.
If in doubt go to the Torah. If that is ambiguous, then go to the Oral Law. What is the Oral Law? According to many Christians, it is a conspiracy to undermine the Torah. So it can't help Christians. But for people that are not hostile to it, it can be helpful. It contains the way the Torah was understood traditionally. In other words, we, the Jews, had the Old Testament during the Second Temple period. The entire corpus of the Old Testament had been completed from the time of Moses until the end of the First Temple. But we also had a traditional understanding of how to keep the laws of the Torah. No one thought it is up to every individual to decide how to keep the Sabbath. For if there had been, then a person brought in front of the court to be tried for breaking the Sabbath could say that in his sincere opinion what he was doing was not breaking the Sabbath. That goes for all the laws of the Old Testament.
So simply put: there is a hierarchy in understanding the Old Testament of the Bible. The first step is the literal meaning. If that is clear, then full stop. If that is not clear then we go to the Mishna and Gemara (Talmud). If that is clear, then stop. If it is not clear then we go to the Rambam and other medieval people to gain understanding about the specific issue.
What is common for Christian to complain about is that often this order is reversed. For some reason people will use minor writers in order to confuse major issues. And that is a true critique.
11.7.15
q5 q5 in midi format This piece was not developed as thoroughly as I would have liked as you can tell. But there is little I can do about it. It has to be formed naturally, and I can go back and change things even if I would like to. There have been times when I did the best I could and then a few years later I looked back at the same piece and it occurred to me what was missing. This happened for example in b98.
I knew something was missing at the end, but for several years I did not know what it was until I got to Uman and looked it over again. I hope God grants to me the same with this piece.
I knew something was missing at the end, but for several years I did not know what it was until I got to Uman and looked it over again. I hope God grants to me the same with this piece.
In praise of Talmud.
I have limited objective here. It is to point out the advantage of learning Talmud for its own sake and not to be paid for doing so. And I also want to point out a kind of time limit for it. That is I don't want learning Talmud to become away of making a living, because then it loses the effect.
The main effect of Talmud is that it carries with it the different promises that you find the sages said about learning Torah. [And it is the actual oral tradition first hand. As the Rambam says "Just like one must can not add or subtract from the Written Torah, so he can't add or subtract from the Oral Torah." But, of course, people add and subtract from the Written and Oral Law all the time. The point however of the Rambam is that none of that stuff counts as Torah.]
This I am sure all sounds very vague. So let me try to make myself clear.
First to defend my position in front of Christians I should say that I am not saying Talmud is Divine in the same sense that the Torah and prophets are Divine. Rather, I am saying that learning Talmud connects one to the same divine source as when one learns the Torah and prophets. And it has the advantage that it goes into detail how to keep the laws of the Torah and prophets with rigorous analysis, and it does not leave it to individual opinions which vary as the winds.
Second, I wanted to point out there are kinds of services that people promise, "If you do such and such, this will be the result." A good example is Yoga. In spite of extensive studies, no one has found any evidence that yoga does anything for anyone,- and yet it is a multi million dollar industry. People pay good money to do what there is no the slightest evidence that it does anything but waste your time.
But I have good reason to believe from what I have seen in others and in myself, that learning Talmud has enormous benefit --but only on condition it is not done for pay. If one is paid for learning the learning turns to poison and corrupts the character. So this is a delicate matter.
This I am sure all sounds very vague. So let me try to make myself clear.
First to defend my position in front of Christians I should say that I am not saying Talmud is Divine in the same sense that the Torah and prophets are Divine. Rather, I am saying that learning Talmud connects one to the same divine source as when one learns the Torah and prophets. And it has the advantage that it goes into detail how to keep the laws of the Torah and prophets with rigorous analysis, and it does not leave it to individual opinions which vary as the winds.
Second, I wanted to point out there are kinds of services that people promise, "If you do such and such, this will be the result." A good example is Yoga. In spite of extensive studies, no one has found any evidence that yoga does anything for anyone,- and yet it is a multi million dollar industry. People pay good money to do what there is no the slightest evidence that it does anything but waste your time.
But I have good reason to believe from what I have seen in others and in myself, that learning Talmud has enormous benefit --but only on condition it is not done for pay. If one is paid for learning the learning turns to poison and corrupts the character. So this is a delicate matter.
10.7.15
Ideas in Bava Metzia Here is a link to a small booklet of ideas.
Ideas in Shas This is another link a small booklet on Shas.
Music link q4
Ideas in Shas This is another link a small booklet on Shas.
Music link q4
Now as far as Halacah [learning Law] is concerned I think that just learning Shulchan Aruch without knowing the sources in the Talmud is a bad thing thing. The power of delusion is always going about searching for a person to inhabit and when it finds a person that is "שונה הלכות" it enters him or her. [The word here is שונה which does not means to learn in depth. It means to learn the basic meaning and to go on. And I have seen enough examples of this.
So my suggestion about learning Torah is to have a fast session for about an hour or more per day in which one goes through מקרא משנה גמרא קבלה. That is to start at the beginning of the Old Testament and put in a place marker and just say the words and read a whole page. Then when you turn the page put in the place marker [and then the next day come back to that same place where you left off and continue.] Then put aside the Old Testament and pick up the Mishna. And do the same. Read through one page and put in a place marker and then the next day pick up where you left off. Same with Talmud and the same with the writings of Isaac Luria and the Remak (Moshe Kordovaro).
Then have a in depth session in Talmud with a learning partner. If you can't find a partner then take one page and work on it daily with Tosphot and the Maharsha until it becomes clear
All together that is two hours of learning. If you can add to that I recommend Math and Physics based on an idea from Maimonides. The way to do Math and Physics is the same as above. Take one basic text and plow through saying word after word until you get to the end and then review.The reason for this you have to take on faith in the Rambam.
.
9.7.15
Introduction.
1) This is just a first glance at a subject about the borders of Israel and presenting a question on the Rambam.
2) It is generally understood that קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא. The first sanctification sanctified the land only for its time and not for when Jews went into Exile. And קדושה שנייה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא. The second sanctification sanctified the Land for its time and for all the future.
But there is an option that the first sanctification sanctified it permanently. We will see Rashi has to use that option to explain and mishna in Sheviit.
3) Sichon and Og were kings that attacked the Jews and lost the war and their lands. This area is beyond the Jordan River. It was settled by Jews coming out of Egypt. According to the grandson of Rashi [Rabbanu Isaac known as ''the RI''] all or part of it was settled by Jews coming back from the first exile in Babylon.
But to Rashi none of it was settled by Jews returning from Babylon.
Tractate Yevamot 16a
To Rabbainu Tam the land conquered by the Jews coming out of Egypt does not determine the borders of Israel today.
.
To RT if an area was settled by עולי בבל then it has the holiness of the Land of Israel and is חייב in ביעור in the seventh sabbatical year. In his first answer that land is the part of Sichon and Og that was the original land of Sichon. But land that Sichon conquered from Moav [in the Torah] was not settled by Jews coming back from Babylon. And so the parts of Sichon that were conquered by Sichon were not settled by those Jews and so in the sabbatical year have to bring the tithe given to the poor.
The second answer of RT leaves all the land of Sichon as one and considered it to have been settled by עולי בבל. So it is חייב in ביעור בשביעית. And Amon and Moav that are obligated in tithes to the poor are areas never owned by Sichon. At this point I don't have any idea what he would say about an area conquered by עולי מצרים. Off hand it makes sense to say he would go like the Rash Rabbainu Shimshon.
This second answer of Rabbainu Tam widens the borders of Israel considerably.
Rashi holds Sichon and Og is synonymous with Amon and Moav and are obligated in Truma and maasar by rabbinical decree. As for the Mishna in Sheviit one can say that is like the person that said קדושה ראשונה קידשה לעתיד לבא. [Rav Shach].
That leaves us with the Rambam. He holds עבר הירדן which is עולי מצרים is not holy, because it was conquered by Jews coming out of Egypt alone. Not Jews coming out of Bavel. And yet it is not worked in the sabatical year and it is חייב in ביעור.
1) This is just a first glance at a subject about the borders of Israel and presenting a question on the Rambam.
2) It is generally understood that קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא. The first sanctification sanctified the land only for its time and not for when Jews went into Exile. And קדושה שנייה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא. The second sanctification sanctified the Land for its time and for all the future.
But there is an option that the first sanctification sanctified it permanently. We will see Rashi has to use that option to explain and mishna in Sheviit.
3) Sichon and Og were kings that attacked the Jews and lost the war and their lands. This area is beyond the Jordan River. It was settled by Jews coming out of Egypt. According to the grandson of Rashi [Rabbanu Isaac known as ''the RI''] all or part of it was settled by Jews coming back from the first exile in Babylon.
But to Rashi none of it was settled by Jews returning from Babylon.
Tractate Yevamot 16a
To Rabbainu Tam the land conquered by the Jews coming out of Egypt does not determine the borders of Israel today.
.
To RT if an area was settled by עולי בבל then it has the holiness of the Land of Israel and is חייב in ביעור in the seventh sabbatical year. In his first answer that land is the part of Sichon and Og that was the original land of Sichon. But land that Sichon conquered from Moav [in the Torah] was not settled by Jews coming back from Babylon. And so the parts of Sichon that were conquered by Sichon were not settled by those Jews and so in the sabbatical year have to bring the tithe given to the poor.
The second answer of RT leaves all the land of Sichon as one and considered it to have been settled by עולי בבל. So it is חייב in ביעור בשביעית. And Amon and Moav that are obligated in tithes to the poor are areas never owned by Sichon. At this point I don't have any idea what he would say about an area conquered by עולי מצרים. Off hand it makes sense to say he would go like the Rash Rabbainu Shimshon.
This second answer of Rabbainu Tam widens the borders of Israel considerably.
Rashi holds Sichon and Og is synonymous with Amon and Moav and are obligated in Truma and maasar by rabbinical decree. As for the Mishna in Sheviit one can say that is like the person that said קדושה ראשונה קידשה לעתיד לבא. [Rav Shach].
That leaves us with the Rambam. He holds עבר הירדן which is עולי מצרים is not holy, because it was conquered by Jews coming out of Egypt alone. Not Jews coming out of Bavel. And yet it is not worked in the sabatical year and it is חייב in ביעור.
American should not be worried about losing the battle to sick homosexuals that are trying to destroy America.
God allows the wicked in win in court in order to protect the righteous.
People don't understand this because they cant see how losing an important battle could possibility be a good thing. First you cant see this except after many years have passed. Only then is it possible to see how winning an important battle would probably have had effects that only after a long time can you see would have been bad.
God allows the wicked in win in court in order to protect the righteous.
People don't understand this because they cant see how losing an important battle could possibility be a good thing. First you cant see this except after many years have passed. Only then is it possible to see how winning an important battle would probably have had effects that only after a long time can you see would have been bad.
The law of limited returns
To a large degree I am still in high school mode. For myself I try to set up a daily schedule of the basic things I think are important. And I even recommend this idea often in my blogs. But I admit this idea is only for a very limited group. For a person to excel at something I admit they have to spend all their time at that one thing.
But for me this does not work very well. For myself I have found that the optimum is attained by dividing the day into small sections. An hour of learning Talmud, an hour of Physics or Math, an hour exercise, etc.
To some degree this is based on Rav Shick with whom I was involved for a number of years. His idea of learning he based on an idea of the Talmud in Tracate Shabat 63a (say the words and go on) and also on this idea of what he called שיעורין כסדרן [sessions in order]. In modern Hebrew that would have to be called קביעויות sessions in order. [Because today the word "שיעור" means "class" as in giving a class].
At any rate, this idea originated with the Ari who said to learn every day a session in the Bible, a session in Mishna, a session in Gemara, and a session in Kabalah.
Spreading my learning I have found is better for me. But I can see that there are people that it would benefit to concentrate on one thing alone and by that to excel in it. But for me that never works. I tried it with the violin and I discovered "the law of limited returns." That is for me there is a low threshold of effort that crossing that threshold does nothing. The "law of limited returns," can be stated simply like this: There is certain number of times that kissing you wife will not add to marital bliss.
As for the violin practicing more that a certain amount hurt my playing--and my ears. As for Gemara learning I spent about 10 hours a day learning Gemara in NY two great Lithuanian yeshivas in NY.
But in that also there seems to have been a point that I reaching where more learning resulted in less.
The law of limited returns strikes back.
But for me this does not work very well. For myself I have found that the optimum is attained by dividing the day into small sections. An hour of learning Talmud, an hour of Physics or Math, an hour exercise, etc.
To some degree this is based on Rav Shick with whom I was involved for a number of years. His idea of learning he based on an idea of the Talmud in Tracate Shabat 63a (say the words and go on) and also on this idea of what he called שיעורין כסדרן [sessions in order]. In modern Hebrew that would have to be called קביעויות sessions in order. [Because today the word "שיעור" means "class" as in giving a class].
At any rate, this idea originated with the Ari who said to learn every day a session in the Bible, a session in Mishna, a session in Gemara, and a session in Kabalah.
Spreading my learning I have found is better for me. But I can see that there are people that it would benefit to concentrate on one thing alone and by that to excel in it. But for me that never works. I tried it with the violin and I discovered "the law of limited returns." That is for me there is a low threshold of effort that crossing that threshold does nothing. The "law of limited returns," can be stated simply like this: There is certain number of times that kissing you wife will not add to marital bliss.
As for the violin practicing more that a certain amount hurt my playing--and my ears. As for Gemara learning I spent about 10 hours a day learning Gemara in NY two great Lithuanian yeshivas in NY.
But in that also there seems to have been a point that I reaching where more learning resulted in less.
The law of limited returns strikes back.
8.7.15
7.7.15
If you want to be in Israel it seems to me that it is best to be in Israel that was settled by the Jews that returned from Babylonian captivity. That is a smaller area than the area that was conquered by the Jews that came out of Egypt.
And I also think that someone ought to make these borders clear.
There are still a lot of issues to figure out here. For example the Talmud in Megilah brings the statement of Rav Isaac that one can sacrifice in Beit Chonio nowadays. And it relates that to the fact that קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא. The first sanctification sanctified it for it time and not for the future. The second sanctification sanctified it for its time and the future.
And then the Gemara relates this to the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua about the curtains. How that is parallel I don't know.
In any case, we have that that areas like Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Safed, Ber Sheva are all Israel proper.
Areas like Netivot were definitely not settled by the Jews coming back from Babylon. But from what I can see in the Rambam they are still Israel, but just are lacking some ingredient. That is because in the seventh year they are not worked but one can eat what grows wild--. The Rash (Rabainu Shimshon) holds those areas are holy only from rabbinical decree.
You can see why people coming back to Israel from Europe would have made a point in settling in areas like Bnei Brak, or Jerusalem in order to avoid this problem.
In any case for people that want to learn Torah --I think only Israelis can really excel in Torah in Israel. They can go to great Litvak Yeshivas like Ponovitch or Beer Yaakov or Tifrach. American places in Israel seem to me to be exceptionally weak in Torah. Americans I think would be best advised to go to NY and learn in the great Litvak yeshivas there until they know how to learn, and then go to Israel.
Americans yeshivas in Israel typically can't learn and that includes the teachers. I don't know why this but it is the case. That means even the Mir where people can't learn and think that they can because of their address. Brisk I am not sure about because they only take in the best of all students in the world but how much they actually learn in Brisk I am not sure. So what you have in Israel is basically Ponovitch and its many branches and offshoots that do learn on a very high level. But those places are not for Americans unless there are people there that I have not heard of.
Why are American teachers in Israel no good? Because their knowledge of Talmud is on the level of Barnes and Nobles. Let's say a person is on the operating table for open heart surgery. Just because they sedate him he asks the surgeon how good are his chances to make it. The surgeon tell him he has nothing to worry about because he was just at Barnes and Nobles yesterday and read a book called Open Heart Surgery for Dummies. That is the level of knowledge of American teachers in Israel.
Attempts to make American yeshivas of the caliber of the NY ones has been an abysmal failure.
And I also think that someone ought to make these borders clear.
There are still a lot of issues to figure out here. For example the Talmud in Megilah brings the statement of Rav Isaac that one can sacrifice in Beit Chonio nowadays. And it relates that to the fact that קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא. The first sanctification sanctified it for it time and not for the future. The second sanctification sanctified it for its time and the future.
And then the Gemara relates this to the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua about the curtains. How that is parallel I don't know.
In any case, we have that that areas like Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Safed, Ber Sheva are all Israel proper.
Areas like Netivot were definitely not settled by the Jews coming back from Babylon. But from what I can see in the Rambam they are still Israel, but just are lacking some ingredient. That is because in the seventh year they are not worked but one can eat what grows wild--. The Rash (Rabainu Shimshon) holds those areas are holy only from rabbinical decree.
You can see why people coming back to Israel from Europe would have made a point in settling in areas like Bnei Brak, or Jerusalem in order to avoid this problem.
In any case for people that want to learn Torah --I think only Israelis can really excel in Torah in Israel. They can go to great Litvak Yeshivas like Ponovitch or Beer Yaakov or Tifrach. American places in Israel seem to me to be exceptionally weak in Torah. Americans I think would be best advised to go to NY and learn in the great Litvak yeshivas there until they know how to learn, and then go to Israel.
Americans yeshivas in Israel typically can't learn and that includes the teachers. I don't know why this but it is the case. That means even the Mir where people can't learn and think that they can because of their address. Brisk I am not sure about because they only take in the best of all students in the world but how much they actually learn in Brisk I am not sure. So what you have in Israel is basically Ponovitch and its many branches and offshoots that do learn on a very high level. But those places are not for Americans unless there are people there that I have not heard of.
Why are American teachers in Israel no good? Because their knowledge of Talmud is on the level of Barnes and Nobles. Let's say a person is on the operating table for open heart surgery. Just because they sedate him he asks the surgeon how good are his chances to make it. The surgeon tell him he has nothing to worry about because he was just at Barnes and Nobles yesterday and read a book called Open Heart Surgery for Dummies. That is the level of knowledge of American teachers in Israel.
Attempts to make American yeshivas of the caliber of the NY ones has been an abysmal failure.
Half truths are known to be lies. Leaving out some significant detail that changes the whole picture is in fact liable to prosecution in courts of law. [That is liable under the law of not to lie under oath.]
When people teach half of the Torah--the parts that appeal to the desires of people, that is in effect lying about Torah. It is not authentic Torah.
This is the reason people don't learn Musar. It is like scratching your itch with sandpaper. It hurts. And it does not appeal to sensual desires. No wonder it is not popular.
I admit I am as guilty of this as anyone. At the Mirrer yeshiva which took me a tremendous amount of effort to get to when I found that the Musar book s were saying without exception that one must work and learn and not use the Torah as means to making a living nor to be accepting charity for learning Torah it was a message you can bet I did not want to hear. If I had thought that originally I would have stayed in Los Angeles and gone to UCLA. And it hardly made sense to me at that time either. Cognitive dissonance. So I found the books that told me what I wanted to hear. I was wrong for thinking I found some some excuse not to listen to the very basic and simple message of Torah to learn a profession and not to use Torah as "a shovel to dig with." I tried to remedy this later by going to NYU. But to learn physics I found out is better to start young.
My parents were telling me things I did not want to hear so I turned away from them. I thought I knew more.
Musar nowadays has been tailored to tell people what they want to hear.
In Musar from the Middle Ages secular knowledge is considered important. So that message has been edited out since it is not what people want to hear. [Duties of the Heart, Guide for the Perplexed, Maalot Hamidot which has two separate chapters one for the importance of learning Torah and the other the importance of learning "wisdom"].
The anti-Zionism of the insane religious world today you can bet goes against traditional Musar. They are grasping at straws to try to make sense of their evil and lunatic beliefs. the insane religious world cover up their lies with lots of rituals thinking that that excuses them. While they have a point that we all should learn and keep Torah but the Conservative and Reform are much closer to the Torah ideal than the the insane religious world .
When people teach half of the Torah--the parts that appeal to the desires of people, that is in effect lying about Torah. It is not authentic Torah.
This is the reason people don't learn Musar. It is like scratching your itch with sandpaper. It hurts. And it does not appeal to sensual desires. No wonder it is not popular.
I admit I am as guilty of this as anyone. At the Mirrer yeshiva which took me a tremendous amount of effort to get to when I found that the Musar book s were saying without exception that one must work and learn and not use the Torah as means to making a living nor to be accepting charity for learning Torah it was a message you can bet I did not want to hear. If I had thought that originally I would have stayed in Los Angeles and gone to UCLA. And it hardly made sense to me at that time either. Cognitive dissonance. So I found the books that told me what I wanted to hear. I was wrong for thinking I found some some excuse not to listen to the very basic and simple message of Torah to learn a profession and not to use Torah as "a shovel to dig with." I tried to remedy this later by going to NYU. But to learn physics I found out is better to start young.
My parents were telling me things I did not want to hear so I turned away from them. I thought I knew more.
Musar nowadays has been tailored to tell people what they want to hear.
In Musar from the Middle Ages secular knowledge is considered important. So that message has been edited out since it is not what people want to hear. [Duties of the Heart, Guide for the Perplexed, Maalot Hamidot which has two separate chapters one for the importance of learning Torah and the other the importance of learning "wisdom"].
The anti-Zionism of the insane religious world today you can bet goes against traditional Musar. They are grasping at straws to try to make sense of their evil and lunatic beliefs. the insane religious world cover up their lies with lots of rituals thinking that that excuses them. While they have a point that we all should learn and keep Torah but the Conservative and Reform are much closer to the Torah ideal than the the insane religious world .
Put psychology into the religious studies department of the university.
Psychology is pure pseudo science with all the classic characteristic of pseudo science.
It is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable experiment to you could point to that would falsify it.
It is just pure religion. And if that is one's religion, then fine. But the claim to being a science is pure fraud. and there is no religion that is as pure a fraud as psychology.
People can still study it. I find pseudo science to be fascinating. Put psychology into the religious studies department of the university.
Mainly psychology arose because religious insights into what a human being is proved to be false.
But that is a good thing about religion. It can be falsified. You can follow a doctrine an then see that the leaders or the group itself is highly immoral and if morality and human decency is taken as a mark of holiness then you have falsified the religion. You might not be able to leave it but at least you know the facts. And you might also try to make some adjustments to the system.
Or you might look at the original doctrine and notice how the group itself strayed from it.
Appendix: This is really no surprise to a person that has learned a bit of Kant. To Kant the subject and the object are both in the category of the dinge an sich. That is the essence of what a person is is transcendent. We can know how we act. But we can't know what we are.
.
It is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable experiment to you could point to that would falsify it.
It is just pure religion. And if that is one's religion, then fine. But the claim to being a science is pure fraud. and there is no religion that is as pure a fraud as psychology.
People can still study it. I find pseudo science to be fascinating. Put psychology into the religious studies department of the university.
Mainly psychology arose because religious insights into what a human being is proved to be false.
But that is a good thing about religion. It can be falsified. You can follow a doctrine an then see that the leaders or the group itself is highly immoral and if morality and human decency is taken as a mark of holiness then you have falsified the religion. You might not be able to leave it but at least you know the facts. And you might also try to make some adjustments to the system.
Or you might look at the original doctrine and notice how the group itself strayed from it.
Appendix: This is really no surprise to a person that has learned a bit of Kant. To Kant the subject and the object are both in the category of the dinge an sich. That is the essence of what a person is is transcendent. We can know how we act. But we can't know what we are.
.
6.7.15
5.7.15
Here is a link to my little book on ShasIdeas in Shas
Bava Kama 3.
I wanted to add a clarity to the last section of the Maharsha. and also to Tosphot אצטריך
Let's start with the Maharsha. The Talmud asks let's use "he sent"(Exodus 23) for both damages of foot and tooth. That means it is asking that we don't need וביער. Then we conclude that if we had only "he sent" we would know only quadrant I and II.
So now we need וביער for quadrant III.
What I wanted to say today is that I asked a day ago about the מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א. I wanted to answer my question. For let us think did not the gemara say that we know וביער comes for tooth!! How can we say now that it comes for foot? I think this is the exact point of the מהדורא בתרא. That is it in fact comes for tooth exactly like the Gemara said before. But we now expand it into quadrant III also because שקולים הם.
This I think is an amazing way of understanding the son in law of the Mahrasha. And it answers what I was asking before on a few blogs back.
The thing you have to do to get this is to see the contradiction between what this gemara is using וביער for what the previous Gemara was saying that it has to mean tooth. Not that it can mean tooth but it has to.
This is amazing and I am frankly surprised why the son in law of the Maharsha did not spend more time explaining this.
The next thing is Tosphot. This Tosphot is hard to understand. Tosphot does want to ask why not use ושילח for foot alone. How is this going to work? We said ושילח goes for quadrant I and II because we have two verses telling us that he sent means foot and tooth. I ask how can Tosphot suggest we use ושילח for foot alone?We would have to use the verse telling us foot for itself and then use the verse telling us it means tooth and then transfer that to foot so we would have quadrant II and III. This seems to be something we could not do after that the verse tells us it means tooth.
But then Tosphot to complete his questions says that this question we could not answer the way the previous Gemear answered the question when it was using וביער for tooth.that is because there we had a verse telling us כאשר יבער shows that וביער means tooth. Well as far as that goes Tosphot is right. We cant use כאשר יבער To tell us about ושילח. Those are two completely different words. But what I am asking with due humility is that I don't understand why there should be a question in the first place. I have full confidence that there must be some way to understand Tosphot. But this minute it escapes me.
________________________________________________________________________________
בבא קמא ג' 'ע''א מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א. הגמרא שואלת בואו להשתמש ושילח לשני הנזקים של רגל ושן. זה אומר שהגמרא רוצה שאנחנו לא צריכים וביער. אז אנו מגיעים למסקנה שאם היה לנו רק ושילח היינו יודעים רק רביע שלישי ורביעי.
אז עכשיו אנחנו צריכים וביער לרביע שלישי
מה שאני רוצה לומר הוא ששאלתי לפני יום על מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א. אני רוצה לענות על השאלה שלי. הגמרא אומרה שאנחנו יודעים וביער הוא שן. איך אנו יכולים לומר עכשיו שזה רגל? אני חושב שזו הנקודה של מהדורא בתרא בדויק. שזה למעשה הוא שן בדיוק כמו הגמרא אמרה לפני כן. אבל עכשיו אנחנו מרחיבים אותו לרביע שלישי גם בגלל ששקולים הם. הדבר שאתה צריך לעשות כדי לקבל את זה הוא לראות את הסתירה בין מה שגמרא זו היא באמצעות וביער למה הגמרא הקודמת אמרה שיש לה משמעות שן.
הדבר הבא הוא תוספות ד''ה אצטריך. תוספות זה קשה להבין. תוספות רוצה לשאול למה לא להשתמש ושילח לרגל לבד. איך זה הולך? יש לנו שני פסוקים שאומרים לנו שלשילח יש משמעות רגל ושן. אני שואל איך יכול להציע תוספות אנו משתמשים ושלחנו לרגל לבד? היינו צריכים להשתמשעם הפסוק שאומר לנו שזה רגל ולאחר מכן להשתמש עם הפסוק שאומר לנו זה שן ולאחר מכן להעביר את זה לרגל כדי למלאות רביע שלישי ורביעי. זה נראה משהו שאנחנו לא יכולים לעשות אחרי שהפסוק אומר לנו זה שן. אבל אז תוספות כדי להשלים את השאלה, אומרים ששאלה זו לא היינו יכולה לענות על דרך הגמרא הקודמת ענה על השאלה כאשר הוא משתמש וביער לשן. זה בגלל שיש לנו פסוק שאומר לנו כאשר תבערו מראה כי וביער פירוש שן.
אנחנו לא יכולים להשתמש כאשר יבער כדי לספר לנו על ושילח. אלה הם שתי מילות שונות לחלוטין.
Bava Kama 3.
I wanted to add a clarity to the last section of the Maharsha. and also to Tosphot אצטריך
Let's start with the Maharsha. The Talmud asks let's use "he sent"(Exodus 23) for both damages of foot and tooth. That means it is asking that we don't need וביער. Then we conclude that if we had only "he sent" we would know only quadrant I and II.
So now we need וביער for quadrant III.
What I wanted to say today is that I asked a day ago about the מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א. I wanted to answer my question. For let us think did not the gemara say that we know וביער comes for tooth!! How can we say now that it comes for foot? I think this is the exact point of the מהדורא בתרא. That is it in fact comes for tooth exactly like the Gemara said before. But we now expand it into quadrant III also because שקולים הם.
This I think is an amazing way of understanding the son in law of the Mahrasha. And it answers what I was asking before on a few blogs back.
The thing you have to do to get this is to see the contradiction between what this gemara is using וביער for what the previous Gemara was saying that it has to mean tooth. Not that it can mean tooth but it has to.
This is amazing and I am frankly surprised why the son in law of the Maharsha did not spend more time explaining this.
The next thing is Tosphot. This Tosphot is hard to understand. Tosphot does want to ask why not use ושילח for foot alone. How is this going to work? We said ושילח goes for quadrant I and II because we have two verses telling us that he sent means foot and tooth. I ask how can Tosphot suggest we use ושילח for foot alone?We would have to use the verse telling us foot for itself and then use the verse telling us it means tooth and then transfer that to foot so we would have quadrant II and III. This seems to be something we could not do after that the verse tells us it means tooth.
But then Tosphot to complete his questions says that this question we could not answer the way the previous Gemear answered the question when it was using וביער for tooth.that is because there we had a verse telling us כאשר יבער shows that וביער means tooth. Well as far as that goes Tosphot is right. We cant use כאשר יבער To tell us about ושילח. Those are two completely different words. But what I am asking with due humility is that I don't understand why there should be a question in the first place. I have full confidence that there must be some way to understand Tosphot. But this minute it escapes me.
________________________________________________________________________________
בבא קמא ג' 'ע''א מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א. הגמרא שואלת בואו להשתמש ושילח לשני הנזקים של רגל ושן. זה אומר שהגמרא רוצה שאנחנו לא צריכים וביער. אז אנו מגיעים למסקנה שאם היה לנו רק ושילח היינו יודעים רק רביע שלישי ורביעי.
אז עכשיו אנחנו צריכים וביער לרביע שלישי
מה שאני רוצה לומר הוא ששאלתי לפני יום על מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א. אני רוצה לענות על השאלה שלי. הגמרא אומרה שאנחנו יודעים וביער הוא שן. איך אנו יכולים לומר עכשיו שזה רגל? אני חושב שזו הנקודה של מהדורא בתרא בדויק. שזה למעשה הוא שן בדיוק כמו הגמרא אמרה לפני כן. אבל עכשיו אנחנו מרחיבים אותו לרביע שלישי גם בגלל ששקולים הם. הדבר שאתה צריך לעשות כדי לקבל את זה הוא לראות את הסתירה בין מה שגמרא זו היא באמצעות וביער למה הגמרא הקודמת אמרה שיש לה משמעות שן.
הדבר הבא הוא תוספות ד''ה אצטריך. תוספות זה קשה להבין. תוספות רוצה לשאול למה לא להשתמש ושילח לרגל לבד. איך זה הולך? יש לנו שני פסוקים שאומרים לנו שלשילח יש משמעות רגל ושן. אני שואל איך יכול להציע תוספות אנו משתמשים ושלחנו לרגל לבד? היינו צריכים להשתמשעם הפסוק שאומר לנו שזה רגל ולאחר מכן להשתמש עם הפסוק שאומר לנו זה שן ולאחר מכן להעביר את זה לרגל כדי למלאות רביע שלישי ורביעי. זה נראה משהו שאנחנו לא יכולים לעשות אחרי שהפסוק אומר לנו זה שן. אבל אז תוספות כדי להשלים את השאלה, אומרים ששאלה זו לא היינו יכולה לענות על דרך הגמרא הקודמת ענה על השאלה כאשר הוא משתמש וביער לשן. זה בגלל שיש לנו פסוק שאומר לנו כאשר תבערו מראה כי וביער פירוש שן.
אנחנו לא יכולים להשתמש כאשר יבער כדי לספר לנו על ושילח. אלה הם שתי מילות שונות לחלוטין.
בבא קמא ע''א
תוספות ד''ה אצטריך
It occurred to me today that תוספות and the last part of the מהגורא בתרא של המהרש''א are dealing with two different questions.
The question of תוספות is what I want to present right now. It is simply this take the חלק שלישי of the גמרא and insert it into חלק שני and you get a question. The חלק השלישי said you get שן and רגל from one פסוק. The second part said you get foot from one and tooth from another פסוק. Now take that one פסוק that we are using for both and ask the same question that the Gemara asked before.
That is now in חלק השלישי we use ושילח for both. Now that is good as far as רגל goes. But what about שן? We used וביער for שן. And we showed it had to be used for שן because of כאשר יבער. And without that פסוק we would have been justified in using it for רגל. That is an open גמרא. But now insert ושילח instead of וביער. What can you answer now? We don't have anything to prove that ושילח goes on שן.
Appendix:
(1) חלק שלישי של הגמרא is like this.
שאלה: Write ושילח alone and use it for both, for we have two verses showing it can be used for both.
תירוץ: We would think it applies to one alone. The גמרא shows some reason why we would use it for tooth because it has pleasure and so it finds some reason for foot also.
שאלה: We if we would have one we would have to include the other because they are equal in severity.
תירוץ: If we would use it for both we still would not know that the owner is liable when it walked by itself.
(2) חלק שני של הגמרא of the גמרא is like this. אמר מר. We have וביער for שן, and we have proof: כאשר יבער.
שאלה: Why do you need proof? What else could you use it for?
תירוץ: We could use it for רגל.
שאלה: But we already have foot.
תירוץ: We would divide foot into two parts. (We would say the verse for foot ושילח is only for when he sent his animal to graze in someone else's field. We would not know if it walked by itself there and ate. And we would use וביער to tell us that last case.)
שאלה: Now that you have shown you use it for tooth now how do you know that when the animal walked by itself that the owner is liable?
Answer: היקש we make a comparison between foot and tooth. Just like tooth is liable whether he sent it or not so foot is liable in both cases.
תוספות ד''ה אצטריך
It occurred to me today that תוספות and the last part of the מהגורא בתרא של המהרש''א are dealing with two different questions.
The question of תוספות is what I want to present right now. It is simply this take the חלק שלישי of the גמרא and insert it into חלק שני and you get a question. The חלק השלישי said you get שן and רגל from one פסוק. The second part said you get foot from one and tooth from another פסוק. Now take that one פסוק that we are using for both and ask the same question that the Gemara asked before.
That is now in חלק השלישי we use ושילח for both. Now that is good as far as רגל goes. But what about שן? We used וביער for שן. And we showed it had to be used for שן because of כאשר יבער. And without that פסוק we would have been justified in using it for רגל. That is an open גמרא. But now insert ושילח instead of וביער. What can you answer now? We don't have anything to prove that ושילח goes on שן.
Appendix:
(1) חלק שלישי של הגמרא is like this.
שאלה: Write ושילח alone and use it for both, for we have two verses showing it can be used for both.
תירוץ: We would think it applies to one alone. The גמרא shows some reason why we would use it for tooth because it has pleasure and so it finds some reason for foot also.
שאלה: We if we would have one we would have to include the other because they are equal in severity.
תירוץ: If we would use it for both we still would not know that the owner is liable when it walked by itself.
(2) חלק שני של הגמרא of the גמרא is like this. אמר מר. We have וביער for שן, and we have proof: כאשר יבער.
שאלה: Why do you need proof? What else could you use it for?
תירוץ: We could use it for רגל.
שאלה: But we already have foot.
תירוץ: We would divide foot into two parts. (We would say the verse for foot ושילח is only for when he sent his animal to graze in someone else's field. We would not know if it walked by itself there and ate. And we would use וביער to tell us that last case.)
שאלה: Now that you have shown you use it for tooth now how do you know that when the animal walked by itself that the owner is liable?
Answer: היקש we make a comparison between foot and tooth. Just like tooth is liable whether he sent it or not so foot is liable in both cases.
בבא קמא ג ע''א One פסוק deals with damages caused by שן. Another פסוק deals with damages caused by רגל.
We have other to tell us each verse means as we say it does. We need those extra verses because without them we would say there are two kinds of רגל or two kinds of שן. If he sent the animal there is more reason to make him pay. So we need some reason to say he is liable even if the animal walked by itself. Similarly if the animal ate in a field, there is more reason to make one liable if the roots were eaten. How do we know רביע שלישי ורביעי? Because of a היקש. We compare רגל with שן. In שן we make no distinction between when the owner sent it and when it walked by itself, so also with רגל. And visa versa for שן.
Then a ברייתא uses one פסוק for both רגל and שן, and as for רביע שלישי we have another פסוק. So what about רביע רביעי? And here we can't use the way the תלמוד accounted for רביע רביעי על ידי היקש because here there is no separate verse for שן. There is one word for both. And to expand רגל into רביע שלישי we needed an extra verse. There is no היקש to tell us to expand into רביע רביעי. The last section of the מהרש''א answers this for the statement that רגל and שן are שקולים in the sense that if you exclude one you have to exclude the other, and if you include one you must include the other. I am not sure how this helps us. We still know nothing about רביע רביעי.
Let's go back. We have no היקש between שן ורגל because we are deriving both from the same verse. The only way we got to רביע שלישי was by a special verse. That leaves רביע רביעי empty. There is no היקש between שן ורגל.
On the other hand maybe this works. after all the same logic applies. We don't make any distinction between when the roots were eaten or not by foot. So also with tooth.
5.7.15
בבא קמא ג ע''א אחת פסוק אחד עוסק בנזקים שנגרמו על ידי שן. אחר פסוק אחר עוסק בנזקים שנגרמו על ידי רגל
.
יש לנו אחרים כדי לומר לנו כל פסוק עושה כפי שאנו אומרים שהוא עושה. אנחנו צריכים אותם פסוקים נוספים משום שבלעדיהם היינו אומרים שיש שני סוגים של רגל או שני סוגים של שן. אם הוא שלח את בעלי החיים יש יותר מסיבה לחייב לו לשלם. אז אנחנו צריכים סיבה לומר שהוא עלול אפילו אם בעל החיים הלך בכוחות עצמו. באופן דומה, אם החיה אכלה בשדה, יש עוד סיבה לעשות אחד חייב אם השורשים נאכלו. איך אנחנו יודעים רביע שלישי ורביעי? בגלל היקש. אנו משווים רגל עם שן. בשן אנחנו לא עושים שום הבחנה בין כאשר הבעלים שלחו אותו וכאשר הוא הלך בעצמו, כך גם עם רגל. ולהיפך לשן.
אז ברייתא משתמשת עם פסוק אחד לשניהם, רגל ושן, וכמו לרביע השלישי יש לנו פסוק אחר. אז מה לגבי רביע רביעי? וכאן אנחנו לא יכולים להשתמש בדרך התלמוד על ידי היקש, כי כאן אין פסוק נפרד לשן. יש מילה אחת לשניהם. ולהרחיב את הרגל לרביע שלישי שהיינו צריכים פסוק נוסף. אין היקש לספר לנו להתרחב לרביע רביעי. החלק האחרון של מהרש''א מתרץ שרגל ושן הם שקולים במובן זה שאם אתה מוציא אחד אתה צריך להוציא את השני, ואם אתה כולל אחד אתה חייב לכלול את אחר. אני לא בטוח איך זה עוזר לנו. אנחנו עדיין לא יודעים כלום על רביע רביעי
בואו נחזור. אין לנו היקש בין שן והרגל, כי שן ורגל נובעים מאותו הפסוק. הדרך היחידה שהגענו לרביע שלישי הייתה בפסוק מיוחד. זה משאיר רביע רביעי ריק. אין היקש בין שן ורגל
מצד השני, אולי זה עובד.כל אותו ההיגיון חל. אנחנו לא עושים שום הבחנה בין כאשר השורשים נאכלו או לא ברגל. אז גם עם שן.
Here is a link to my little booklet on subjects like thisIdeas in Shas
We have other to tell us each verse means as we say it does. We need those extra verses because without them we would say there are two kinds of רגל or two kinds of שן. If he sent the animal there is more reason to make him pay. So we need some reason to say he is liable even if the animal walked by itself. Similarly if the animal ate in a field, there is more reason to make one liable if the roots were eaten. How do we know רביע שלישי ורביעי? Because of a היקש. We compare רגל with שן. In שן we make no distinction between when the owner sent it and when it walked by itself, so also with רגל. And visa versa for שן.
Then a ברייתא uses one פסוק for both רגל and שן, and as for רביע שלישי we have another פסוק. So what about רביע רביעי? And here we can't use the way the תלמוד accounted for רביע רביעי על ידי היקש because here there is no separate verse for שן. There is one word for both. And to expand רגל into רביע שלישי we needed an extra verse. There is no היקש to tell us to expand into רביע רביעי. The last section of the מהרש''א answers this for the statement that רגל and שן are שקולים in the sense that if you exclude one you have to exclude the other, and if you include one you must include the other. I am not sure how this helps us. We still know nothing about רביע רביעי.
Let's go back. We have no היקש between שן ורגל because we are deriving both from the same verse. The only way we got to רביע שלישי was by a special verse. That leaves רביע רביעי empty. There is no היקש between שן ורגל.
On the other hand maybe this works. after all the same logic applies. We don't make any distinction between when the roots were eaten or not by foot. So also with tooth.
5.7.15
בבא קמא ג ע''א אחת פסוק אחד עוסק בנזקים שנגרמו על ידי שן. אחר פסוק אחר עוסק בנזקים שנגרמו על ידי רגל
.
יש לנו אחרים כדי לומר לנו כל פסוק עושה כפי שאנו אומרים שהוא עושה. אנחנו צריכים אותם פסוקים נוספים משום שבלעדיהם היינו אומרים שיש שני סוגים של רגל או שני סוגים של שן. אם הוא שלח את בעלי החיים יש יותר מסיבה לחייב לו לשלם. אז אנחנו צריכים סיבה לומר שהוא עלול אפילו אם בעל החיים הלך בכוחות עצמו. באופן דומה, אם החיה אכלה בשדה, יש עוד סיבה לעשות אחד חייב אם השורשים נאכלו. איך אנחנו יודעים רביע שלישי ורביעי? בגלל היקש. אנו משווים רגל עם שן. בשן אנחנו לא עושים שום הבחנה בין כאשר הבעלים שלחו אותו וכאשר הוא הלך בעצמו, כך גם עם רגל. ולהיפך לשן.
אז ברייתא משתמשת עם פסוק אחד לשניהם, רגל ושן, וכמו לרביע השלישי יש לנו פסוק אחר. אז מה לגבי רביע רביעי? וכאן אנחנו לא יכולים להשתמש בדרך התלמוד על ידי היקש, כי כאן אין פסוק נפרד לשן. יש מילה אחת לשניהם. ולהרחיב את הרגל לרביע שלישי שהיינו צריכים פסוק נוסף. אין היקש לספר לנו להתרחב לרביע רביעי. החלק האחרון של מהרש''א מתרץ שרגל ושן הם שקולים במובן זה שאם אתה מוציא אחד אתה צריך להוציא את השני, ואם אתה כולל אחד אתה חייב לכלול את אחר. אני לא בטוח איך זה עוזר לנו. אנחנו עדיין לא יודעים כלום על רביע רביעי
בואו נחזור. אין לנו היקש בין שן והרגל, כי שן ורגל נובעים מאותו הפסוק. הדרך היחידה שהגענו לרביע שלישי הייתה בפסוק מיוחד. זה משאיר רביע רביעי ריק. אין היקש בין שן ורגל
מצד השני, אולי זה עובד.כל אותו ההיגיון חל. אנחנו לא עושים שום הבחנה בין כאשר השורשים נאכלו או לא ברגל. אז גם עם שן.
Here is a link to my little booklet on subjects like thisIdeas in Shas
Rambam: the five difference between the Reason of God and the Reason of Man. [Here "Reason of Man" means the reason a man would have if he had perfect human reason.] This is not the exact same thing as Kant. With Kant you have limit to perfect reason. And it seems to be a bit different than the Rambam's limits. .
The problem that Kant is addressing is that of Hume. Empirical things we can reason about because we have some way of checking our homework against a background. Physical reality. When we reason about a triangle what background is there to check our work?
And this seem to me to be a close as one can expect to Kant. For Kant while accepting we have knowledge of a priori things --not based on observation and also not dependent on definitions. But with Kant you have a large area of antimonies where even this kind of reason fails.
So what I am suggesting is a close comparison between the Rambam's five things and Kant's antimonies.
Appendix:
(1) Aspects of God's knowledge beyond pure reason:
There is no division in his knowledge even when he knows different things. His knowledge does not take something out of the realm of the possible. His knowledge encompasses things that have no end There is no difference in his knowledge before the thing exists and after it comes into being.
Brisk has done very good work in the Rambam and that work is continuing.
The major players in that school are Chaim Soloveitchik, and his direct disciples Baruch Ber Shimon Shkop. The great book of them all is the master piece of Rav Shach the Avi Ezri. This I consider to be greater than even the חידושי הרמב''ם. Why? Because even though it was Reb Chaim that opened the door to the Rambam but Rav Shach went in in away that even Reb Chaim could not. Rav Shach is deeper and clearer. But none of these deal with the Guide for the Perplexed. And I think there is no excuse for that. None whatsoever. If anything the Guide is as deep as the Mishna Torah. Once You have someone of the stature of Rav Abraham Abulfia witting a mystic commentary of the Guide you know something deep is going on there.
The problem that Kant is addressing is that of Hume. Empirical things we can reason about because we have some way of checking our homework against a background. Physical reality. When we reason about a triangle what background is there to check our work?
And this seem to me to be a close as one can expect to Kant. For Kant while accepting we have knowledge of a priori things --not based on observation and also not dependent on definitions. But with Kant you have a large area of antimonies where even this kind of reason fails.
So what I am suggesting is a close comparison between the Rambam's five things and Kant's antimonies.
Appendix:
(1) Aspects of God's knowledge beyond pure reason:
There is no division in his knowledge even when he knows different things. His knowledge does not take something out of the realm of the possible. His knowledge encompasses things that have no end There is no difference in his knowledge before the thing exists and after it comes into being.
Brisk has done very good work in the Rambam and that work is continuing.
The major players in that school are Chaim Soloveitchik, and his direct disciples Baruch Ber Shimon Shkop. The great book of them all is the master piece of Rav Shach the Avi Ezri. This I consider to be greater than even the חידושי הרמב''ם. Why? Because even though it was Reb Chaim that opened the door to the Rambam but Rav Shach went in in away that even Reb Chaim could not. Rav Shach is deeper and clearer. But none of these deal with the Guide for the Perplexed. And I think there is no excuse for that. None whatsoever. If anything the Guide is as deep as the Mishna Torah. Once You have someone of the stature of Rav Abraham Abulfia witting a mystic commentary of the Guide you know something deep is going on there.
3.7.15
If you have suffered from a certain person the tendency is to find blame in that person's world view. One tends to think that if the system was different evil would be eradicated.
People that have suffered from people that are theists tend to say theism is the problem. If one has suffered from people that believe in a different system, the tendency will be to blame that system. Another example is if people have suffered under the Nazis, then the tendency is to say the belief system of Nazism is the trouble. And this kind of thinking is sometimes justified. After all blaming Nazism for the Holocaust does not seem like much of a stretch. But there are other times that it seems to me that building ones world view on what he sees as negative influences is a dumb way of going about thinking about these things.
Human evil is the type of thing that even people believing in a good system will get the virus of evil. No system is immune. But that does not mean all systems are alike. Nor are all social memes alike. You find one social meme you think is bad and try to eradicate it you will probably find two that have grown in its stead.
But like Nazism there are certain social memes which are pernicious.
Sometimes one has just found a bad group inside a decent system.
Personally I go with my parents system, Judaism, but I modify that with a good dose of traditional learning Talmud and keeping Jewish Law. But the basic structure of belief--the world view of my parents of what makes a man into a "mensch" I think they knew more about that than anyone I have ever met.
But their beliefs were not really in accord with Reform even though we went to a Reform Shul in Hollywood.--a great place--Temple Israel of Hollywood. But teh belif system of my parents was a lot more traditional that official Reform.
To get an idea of what my parents thought and what I think is the proper approach to life I recommend learning Musar. That is the basic set of medieval books חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים etc. there are about thirty in all. This is hard reading. The ideas are not hard. It is rather that by reading these books and saying them out loud as you read you get fear of God. And that is hard work. It is not supposed to be light reading.
People that have suffered from people that are theists tend to say theism is the problem. If one has suffered from people that believe in a different system, the tendency will be to blame that system. Another example is if people have suffered under the Nazis, then the tendency is to say the belief system of Nazism is the trouble. And this kind of thinking is sometimes justified. After all blaming Nazism for the Holocaust does not seem like much of a stretch. But there are other times that it seems to me that building ones world view on what he sees as negative influences is a dumb way of going about thinking about these things.
Human evil is the type of thing that even people believing in a good system will get the virus of evil. No system is immune. But that does not mean all systems are alike. Nor are all social memes alike. You find one social meme you think is bad and try to eradicate it you will probably find two that have grown in its stead.
But like Nazism there are certain social memes which are pernicious.
Sometimes one has just found a bad group inside a decent system.
Personally I go with my parents system, Judaism, but I modify that with a good dose of traditional learning Talmud and keeping Jewish Law. But the basic structure of belief--the world view of my parents of what makes a man into a "mensch" I think they knew more about that than anyone I have ever met.
But their beliefs were not really in accord with Reform even though we went to a Reform Shul in Hollywood.--a great place--Temple Israel of Hollywood. But teh belif system of my parents was a lot more traditional that official Reform.
To get an idea of what my parents thought and what I think is the proper approach to life I recommend learning Musar. That is the basic set of medieval books חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים etc. there are about thirty in all. This is hard reading. The ideas are not hard. It is rather that by reading these books and saying them out loud as you read you get fear of God. And that is hard work. It is not supposed to be light reading.
2.7.15
I am upset by the attacks against the USA. Mainly because the USA, the country that I grew up in, was wholesome and wonderful, and so unrecognizable from what there is today I simply can't comment on it. It is like the first Temple that Solomon built. I am sad it is gone, but there is not much I can do about restoring it.
Mainly I think it was a communist plot. The idea was to undermine American values in universities, and then Americans themselves would destroy it from within. Most people I know don't think the KGB had that kind of influence. But first of all the KGB was highly compartmentalized. And the part of it devoted to disinformation in the USA would not have been known to other department people. Also, I should mention the budget of the KGB for these kind of operations was enormous. And once you have gotten to people in collage and convinced them of the "truths" of socialism, then even when they becomes senators or judges or even the president, they continue with those same policies.
Today the KGB is gone, and I doubt if Russia has the same goals as the USSR. They might want an expanded Russian empire, but I highly doubt if they are interested in the downfall of the USA.
Today the main threat against the USA are Muslims, but they are not the only ones. The Democrats are hard at work undermining the basis of the USA in other ways.
Mainly I think it was a communist plot. The idea was to undermine American values in universities, and then Americans themselves would destroy it from within. Most people I know don't think the KGB had that kind of influence. But first of all the KGB was highly compartmentalized. And the part of it devoted to disinformation in the USA would not have been known to other department people. Also, I should mention the budget of the KGB for these kind of operations was enormous. And once you have gotten to people in collage and convinced them of the "truths" of socialism, then even when they becomes senators or judges or even the president, they continue with those same policies.
Today the KGB is gone, and I doubt if Russia has the same goals as the USSR. They might want an expanded Russian empire, but I highly doubt if they are interested in the downfall of the USA.
Today the main threat against the USA are Muslims, but they are not the only ones. The Democrats are hard at work undermining the basis of the USA in other ways.
1.7.15
I might at the end of this blog put down the basic idea but for now I wanted to say over what I think describes עבודת השם the service of God. The only place I ever saw what could be described as the service of God was at the two Litvak yeshivas I went to in NY. It was not just that people were learning Torah for its own sake without thought of compensation. It was a kind luminous numinosity.
לנחמן מאומן יש פרק בליקוטי מוהר''ן שנראה שמתייחס אליי בדרכים רבות. זה לווה מהמורה נבוכים של רמב''ם. והוא מדבר על היתרונות בהבאת אנשים לעבודת השם.
אני יכול בסופו של הבלוג הזה לסכם את הרעיון הבסיסי אבל עכשיו אני רוצה להגיד על מה שאני חושב שמתאר עבודת השם. המקום היחיד שאי פעם ראיתי מה יכול להיות תואר אמיתי של עבודת אלוהים היה בשתי ישיבות ליטאיות שהלכתי בניו יורק. זה לא היה רק שאנשים לומדים תורה לשמה ללא מחשבה על הפיצוי. זה היה סוג זוהר
It is my observation that learning Torah for its own sake only happens in Lithuanian type of yeshivas. And so I consider that path alone to be in the category of service of God.
Kelly Ross who I think is the deepest of all philosopher and the widest.
And he also is not much of an authoritarian.
I call him deepest because he seems to be always able to zero in on the flaws of philosophies that are considered rigorous and logically exact . For some reason he always finds the major flaw. And he is politically a libertarian or more exactly he goes with the American Constitution.
The other thinkers that are important are Karl Popper (The Open Society and its Enemies), Michael Huemer (The essay which destroyed Marxism.). I mind include Allen Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind) (Closing of the American Mind) and Harold Bloom (The Lucifer Principle) (howard_bloom___the_lucifer_principle).
The thing about all these people are they are not authoritarians. But they are different in many ways.
The most encompassing and systematic is Kelly Ross.
The question that comes up then is how to reconcile this with Torah. If Torah was solely a issue of personal morality then there would not be any question. But it is public law also in the sense that the only authority anyone has in Torah is to enforce the laws of the Torah. The Torah gives some legitimacy to a Sanhedrin and to a king and even to prophets but not one of these can change or modify or reinterpret a single law. They can only deal with the questions what is the law and how does it apply and also to solve contradictions based on the 13 principles.
The best interface between Torah and libertarian ideas I think is Kelly Ross. At least he was reading his material that helped me organize my own ideas into a cohesive system.
The other thinkers that are important are Karl Popper (The Open Society and its Enemies), Michael Huemer (The essay which destroyed Marxism.). I mind include Allen Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind) (Closing of the American Mind) and Harold Bloom (The Lucifer Principle) (howard_bloom___the_lucifer_principle).
The thing about all these people are they are not authoritarians. But they are different in many ways.
The most encompassing and systematic is Kelly Ross.
The question that comes up then is how to reconcile this with Torah. If Torah was solely a issue of personal morality then there would not be any question. But it is public law also in the sense that the only authority anyone has in Torah is to enforce the laws of the Torah. The Torah gives some legitimacy to a Sanhedrin and to a king and even to prophets but not one of these can change or modify or reinterpret a single law. They can only deal with the questions what is the law and how does it apply and also to solve contradictions based on the 13 principles.
The best interface between Torah and libertarian ideas I think is Kelly Ross. At least he was reading his material that helped me organize my own ideas into a cohesive system.
30.6.15
Even though we find a lot of good points by the Religious Zionists, still if you want to come to the service of God you have to have something along the lines of a Lithuanian Yeshiva. That is for a least four years you need to concentrate of Torah in order to get anywhere in it. And that needs to be done with Musar. That is you need a straight Litvak Yeshiva or you need to do this on your own. And if you can't do it on your own you can at least help others to try to do this. The idea here is that a Litvak yeshiva is a kind of incubator for good Jews.
And you cant get the same kind of effect when you dilute the Torah. That is why traditional Litvak yeshivas learned only Torah.--though at Chaim Berlin people did go to Brooklyn collage in the afternoon. [Rav Hutner was going to introduce secular studies even beyond high school but Reb Aaron Kotler begged him not to do so.]
So you can either learn Torah at home or try to start your own Litvak yeshiva.
But how to start such a thing? If you are learning at home I have already written about how to go about learning Torah. Mainly you need to stay on one page for as long as it takes until you can start to see the depths of the Talmud. You keep at that same page day after day with the Maharsha and Maharam until it starts to open up. And you need a fast session also.
That is for you alone. at most it is two hours per day. But as for making your own yeshiva you need someone that has fit to teach. That is need to impossible to find. One who knows "how to learn" is very rare. The main places you can find someone like this are in the basic set of Litvak yeshivas in Bnei Brak Jerusalem or NY. That is Ponovitch, Brisk, and in NY the Mirrer, Chaim Berlin, and Torah VeDaat. Anyone who has not learned in one of those place you can be guaranteed can't learn.
Don't be fooled by the frauds.
And you cant get the same kind of effect when you dilute the Torah. That is why traditional Litvak yeshivas learned only Torah.--though at Chaim Berlin people did go to Brooklyn collage in the afternoon. [Rav Hutner was going to introduce secular studies even beyond high school but Reb Aaron Kotler begged him not to do so.]
So you can either learn Torah at home or try to start your own Litvak yeshiva.
But how to start such a thing? If you are learning at home I have already written about how to go about learning Torah. Mainly you need to stay on one page for as long as it takes until you can start to see the depths of the Talmud. You keep at that same page day after day with the Maharsha and Maharam until it starts to open up. And you need a fast session also.
That is for you alone. at most it is two hours per day. But as for making your own yeshiva you need someone that has fit to teach. That is need to impossible to find. One who knows "how to learn" is very rare. The main places you can find someone like this are in the basic set of Litvak yeshivas in Bnei Brak Jerusalem or NY. That is Ponovitch, Brisk, and in NY the Mirrer, Chaim Berlin, and Torah VeDaat. Anyone who has not learned in one of those place you can be guaranteed can't learn.
Don't be fooled by the frauds.
The issue is that the Rambam says that the land of Israel was divided among the tribes by Joshua so that when they would go and conquer it would not have the status of the conquest of an individual. [I think that is in Hilchot Trumah.]
You can see why this is important. Jerusalem was never conquered by any of the tribes until the time of King David. So we have now that the land of Reuben and Gad had the status of Israel along with all the rest of Israel. So far everything seems good. But what about Syria? Syria was conquered by the general of Kind David. But it did not gain the status of Israel because Jerusalem had not been conquered at that point. [or at least not all of the seven Canaanite nations had not be conquered.]
But if Joshua had already divided up the land so that no conquest of any area would be conquest of an individual then it should not matter if Jerusalem was in the hands of Israel at that point!!!
The idea that there are times that the holiness of the land of Israel is not revealed. That is--even though the holiness is always there still it can't be revealed until Israel comes and conquers. That would apparently have to refer to כיבוש בבל when the exiles returned from Babylon. That is because the Talmud says openly that the first conquest did not sanctify the land except at that time alone.
This might help on on the point of joy also. There are lots of kinds of happiness that are evil. E.g happiness at the sorrow of another person. Good traits can becomes bad if misused. Certainly we don't consider compassion on the same level as cruelty. Yet compassion in the wrong time and place is cruel. That does not mean that compassion is bad. Not at all. Rather it can be misused. We find holy things can become profane. E.g. sacrifices that have not been eaten in the proper time period etc.
But if Joshua had already divided up the land so that no conquest of any area would be conquest of an individual then it should not matter if Jerusalem was in the hands of Israel at that point!!!
The idea that there are times that the holiness of the land of Israel is not revealed. That is--even though the holiness is always there still it can't be revealed until Israel comes and conquers. That would apparently have to refer to כיבוש בבל when the exiles returned from Babylon. That is because the Talmud says openly that the first conquest did not sanctify the land except at that time alone.
This might help on on the point of joy also. There are lots of kinds of happiness that are evil. E.g happiness at the sorrow of another person. Good traits can becomes bad if misused. Certainly we don't consider compassion on the same level as cruelty. Yet compassion in the wrong time and place is cruel. That does not mean that compassion is bad. Not at all. Rather it can be misused. We find holy things can become profane. E.g. sacrifices that have not been eaten in the proper time period etc.
It is mainly in Religious Zionist places that you find a combination of learning Torah and natural sciences. In the insane religious world places you don't see this much. And when the the insane religious world engage in secular activity it is never in the natural sciences. If they go into science at all, it is always pseudo science. And pseudo sciences are attractive, compelling, and false.
It is hard to balance natural sciences with learning Torah. The tendency is to lose the balance between the two. Or to denigrate one at the expense of the other.
But to ignore one or the other requires a enormous hubris.
Does the collective wisdom of the ages in the Old Testament and Talmud and books of Musar have nothing to tell us today? It requires a large degree of stupidity to think so. But on the other hand can you dismiss the natural sciences as false inventions of man? That seems to require even a greater degree of lunacy and stupidity than the first type.
These are not my considerations alone and they are not idea spun out of thin air.
The most compelling argument for what I am saying is a resort to authority, Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam. He placed the natural sciences on a plane higher than Talmud, but required the Oral Law as proper preparation and foundation.
The easiest way to see this is in the son of the Rambam, Avraham. For the Rambam himself is a bit of a mystery. No one can seem to figure out the right kind of interface between the Mishne Torah {the legal book of the Rambam} and his Guide for the Perplexed [his philosophical work.]
The son of the Rambam provided that interface in his Musar book מספיק לעובדי השם Enough for the servants of God. There you see in the same characteristic clarity of the Rambam the actual practical implication of what it means to live according to the ideas of the Rambam.
It is hard to balance natural sciences with learning Torah. The tendency is to lose the balance between the two. Or to denigrate one at the expense of the other.
But to ignore one or the other requires a enormous hubris.
Does the collective wisdom of the ages in the Old Testament and Talmud and books of Musar have nothing to tell us today? It requires a large degree of stupidity to think so. But on the other hand can you dismiss the natural sciences as false inventions of man? That seems to require even a greater degree of lunacy and stupidity than the first type.
These are not my considerations alone and they are not idea spun out of thin air.
The most compelling argument for what I am saying is a resort to authority, Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam. He placed the natural sciences on a plane higher than Talmud, but required the Oral Law as proper preparation and foundation.
The easiest way to see this is in the son of the Rambam, Avraham. For the Rambam himself is a bit of a mystery. No one can seem to figure out the right kind of interface between the Mishne Torah {the legal book of the Rambam} and his Guide for the Perplexed [his philosophical work.]
The son of the Rambam provided that interface in his Musar book מספיק לעובדי השם Enough for the servants of God. There you see in the same characteristic clarity of the Rambam the actual practical implication of what it means to live according to the ideas of the Rambam.
29.6.15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)