The people that present and teach Kabalah are caught in a delusional world called the Intermediate Zone that gives those who enter it a feeling of great power and insight.

Every wisdom has a אבן ניגף stumbling block in it. That is you can get so deeply into it that you are doing OK and then you trip over the hidden wire. This applies to what is  taught in Humanities and Social Sciences Departments of universities as is clear from that fact that the students of professors in those department lose common sense and  enter in worlds of delusion. But I wanted to bring up the issue of Kabalah which is known to have a similar kind of stumbling bock in it.

The people that present and teach Kabalah are caught in a delusional world called the Intermediate Zone that gives those who enter it a feeling of great power and insight.

But I get the idea people are interested in numinous reality. Maybe I am also. After all I was at two amazing places in NY which were learning Torah the Oral and Written Law- and yet something inside me felt I was missing something. Where does one go to quench his or her spiritual thirst?

I would avoid Sitra Achra {Dark Side} places as much as possible. The Dark Side is seductive and inviting and seems full of light and love and Jewish rituals to make it seem kosher.

One nice thing bout the Kabalah Center is they do concentrate on the Ari alone and avoid all the Sitra Achra Kabalah that came after the Ari.  That is the best option for those interested in that area of study. Besides that I have not seen or heard of any place that deals with the mystic side of Torah that is not simply the Sitra Achra in disguise.


Now I should mention what the Ari was intending was to get a mental picture of the spiritual worlds above and by this to be attached to God. The problem is most people do not get attached to the Side of Holiness by this but rather to worlds of illusion.

And for laymen it is hard to discern who knows what they are talking about and who does not. Even I have this problem when it comes to other things that I have  knowledge of but not enough to tell who really knows it well and who is a quack. But at least in kabalah I do know enough to tell who is from the side of holiness and who is not.

The Gra brings up the point that a case brought before a judge might require a decision based on the pleas but the truth might be elsewhere. In such a case he said the judge must remove himself. This occurred to me when learning the Rambam concerning civil cases. The Halacha might require one decision but the judge might be aware that it is  a דין מרומה. There is something under the surface that is not being presented. See Shir Hashirim on the verse הנה מטתו של שלמה.
If the judge decides like the truth against the law of the Torah then there is the sword on his neck. If he decides like the law of the Torah against the real truth then Hell opens up beneath him.

The basic idea of Paramenides I paraphrase like this "What is must be. What is not can't be"
This was later contradicted by Herculitus who said the very essence of the world is change. Plato resolved this with dividing reality into two realms. The unchanging real world of ideas and the shadow world of changing things. Kant also divided things into the dinge an sich and phenomena. But to him you cant know the dinge an sich."Things in themselves." This was the opposite of Plato.
Schopenhauer accepted there are two separate realms. But to him there is only one Ding An Sich: the Will.
This can help us understand the verse אין עוד מלבדו. That the First Cause, God, is the only thing that must be. Everything can be or might not be. Their existence depends on him. But they do exist. This is how the Rambam explains the creation. He says it is יש מאין  ex nihilo. Not from himself.God willed the world to be. He did not make it from himself, but from nothing.

This idea of something from nothing is so important to the Rambam that he spends a good portion of volume 2 of the Guide to defend it and he says if one does nothing believe in this the the foundation of the whole Torah falls away.  I should mention that to disbelieve this would take more evidence that is available either to reason or to our senses. Also the Nefesh HaChaim cant be used against this because if you look carefully at his language you will see he says that אין עוד מלבדו means there are no other powers in the world besides God

Ideas in Talmud  Ideas in Bava Metzia  [I did a few spelling corrections and also I did not want to get into a halacha issue too much about if you are learning Torah and there is a minyan davening. I do not think you have to answer but I did not want to get into this subject in a book about Bava Metzia


Title page for Ideas in Talmud  Title page for Ideas in Bava Metzia

Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides

I had come to appreciate the Guide. When I returned to Israel the second time I ended up in an shul in Ramot 3 [a suburb of Jerusalem]. There I opened up the Guide and saw one short chapter that had this remarkable sentence in it לא הצם והמתפלל הוא הנרצה, אלא היודעו. ["Not he who fasts and prays is desirable, rather he that knows Him."]

The Rambam sees Faith and Reason as interacting. That is each informs the other. Reason guides Faith and visa-versa. Each is lacking without the other.

This is a key insight. In the original צמצום contraction of the Ari we find the Infinite Light was contracted. We find this contraction was in each of the מידות (ten sepherot).
.
 This is the idea of Kant that not just human reason, but pure reason is limited. 

(I am here depending on the intuitions of Isaac Luria. And I believe there are sufficient reasons for doing so. What makes him important is his own intuitions of the higher worlds, not the Zohar that he was using to express his ideas. As we know from Kant every representation is given half by the subject and half by the object. So his ideas were half of how he saw things and half of objective reality.]
 [The Reshash רב שלום שרבי Shalom Sharabi gives a good account of this in the  Nahar Shalom.

At any rate, we see the importance of balance in life. This is because one can go over the boundary of wisdom and thus lose faith. And when that happens then wisdom itself becomes stupid because it has faith included in it. Similarly faith we it goes beyond the boundary of wisdom stops being faith of side of holiness but becomes faith of the Dark Side.

This idea of the Rambam is expressed throughout the Guide. But it shows up especially in the parable about the King and his country.  There are people outside the country and people inside. There are people closer to the capital city and people inside. There are people close to the palace and people inside. There are people close to the king's chambers in the palace and people that are in the ouster chambers.  The people outside the country are the barbarians. The people inside keep Torah. The people close to the palace know and keep the Talmud perfectly. The people inside the palace are the מדעים [Physicists in the language of the Rambam]. The inner chambers are where the prophets and philosophers are. The Rambam starts that chapter saying he is not saying anything different there than what he already explained. In this parable we see the idea of a balanced life where people learn the Oral and Written Law and Physics and Metaphysics together.

Bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem

Bringing the Ark of the Ten Commandments into Jerusalem  The music was written circa 1996



Moses being drawn from the Nile by the daughter of Pharoh    music written around 2012



Joseph and his father music is j33 written about 3 years ago  


David the Shepard turned Warrior  



Jeremiah the prophet mourning over the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem    The music here was written in NY.


Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah music is q92


i1 b98    

avraham and isaac  The music here was made while waiting in the Borispol Airport to return to NY. [that was probably around 1995]. I think that was the year I had lost my papers. Usually when I go through a lot of suffering, God gives me some kind of great song afterwards.[There is a kind of song towards the end which God gave to me when I first went to yeshiva in NY]


Joseph with his father Music written around 2011 around the time I discovered an answer to a question in Bava Metzia page 97


Moses drawn from the river by the daughter of Pharoh

A large majority of religious teachers are possessed by forces from the Dark Side. A



 The power that the false tzadikm and false messiahs have over us is because of the the support they get from religious teachers. If we would simply learn and keep Torah simply none of these problems would be plaguing us.

It is true that a מומחה לרבים can decide a halachic issue in civil laws. But the qualifications to be a מומחה לרבים are not qualifications that any religious teachers have. They are just innocent idiots that give qualifications one to the other. 

Reb Natan I assume was a gilgul of Natan from Gaza and corrected his sin of supporting a false messiah by supporting a true tzadik. But in doing so he overdid it.

[The main criteria  for a מומחה לרבים is not that he has been accepted by the crowd but he has been tested by people who themselves experts  in the whole Mishna and Talmud and has never been found to make  a mistake or not know a halacha. So who would that be. I would have to say people who in fact were known to know the Talmud well. Not people who had their reputations built of other criteria. So if we look at the true criteria that the Chazal give us it is fairly easy to see that there were people and probably still are a few who do qualify. Rav Shach, Reb Moshe Feinstein, Shmuel Berenbaum. The trouble begins with Baali Teshuva who find some Chrismatic lunatic and decide to call him a "Baki BeShas" expert in Shas. So the idiot gets a reputation for knowing the Talmud because people want this to be so. Not because it is in fact the case.

Moses the Law Giver
Michelangelo's Rachel the music is n1  black hole  i3

Moses looks on the history of the birth of the People of Israel  the music here is the same as Moses the Law Giver. I am just trying to figure out how to put this kind of thing together. There is Michelangelo's Leah and Rachel and various events. There is the expulsion from Gan Eden. The giving of the Torah is a way to bring us back into the Garden of Eden but we have to go through the fiery swords of the angels guarding the way .

רות המואביה Ruth the Moavite woman is thinking about the right path in life and she chooses the God of Israel


This is not complete. It is just my first attempt to put something on utube in this way.
The music is q1. The pictures are of Ruth and her thoughts as she is thinking about her path in life.
 and decides to join her path with Noami. She becomes the grandmother of Kind David.

She was born into Moav a nation that was at odds with Israel. A Jewish couple arrived in Moav because of a famine. She married one of the sons. That son died. She was a widow. Her mother in law Noami was on her way back to Israel, Ruth decided to join her. The lesson is even when you are down and out--there is still hope.

It is hard to know when someone knows what they are talking about. It seems to me the only way to to know the subject yourself. Without that it is hard to know.
It is easy to get fooled by credentials  that in many cases were given by people equally as incompetent. The problem is not just credentials that are not relevant to the subject. Sometimes the very fact of the being credentials can show a problem. 

To learn Musar and Gemara. I think with the input of these two things every day that you will see blessings in all of the other areas you want to have go well. So what I think is to do every day about 1/2 hour of, each one. [You could add time to each session if you want. But a half hour of Musar and a 40 mintutes of Gemara I think are the best way for one to get out of problems. The power of Torah is great. Musar means traditional Musar like the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart) or of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter.]

 I am look at learning Torah as a kind of unexplained thing that has power to help one in life. 

You see this kind of thing in the Old Testament when Elisha the prophet told the Syrian general to be tovel [immerse himself] in the Jordan River seven times and he would be cured of leprosy. Sometimes there is some small thing that can help one in life enormously, but one does not know what it is or does not recognize its value. 

There is a thing as learning the Ari in depth.[That is Isaac Luria.] The surprising thing is that the people that are supposed to be so called "mekubalim" never know the Ari at all. They are all frauds. There is one fellow however, Michael Kohler, who I discovered actually did the work and knows it well. He apparently thinks that the head of a Kabalah yeshiva also knows it well but I think he is wrong about that.  The head of the Kabalah yeshiva just wrote  a book of "look here and look there" so it sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

What is surprising about this is the complexity of the Ari is no where near that of a a single Tosphot. It is not hard at all. But it takes a lot of work. [But still It is nothing compared to Field Theory.]  Even with that degree of simplicity, all the people that are supposed to know it are frauds.

What does this matter? The point that I am driving at is that it is worth doing this work. The reason I think it is be worthwhile is that attachment with God [Devekut] is a result of this learning when it is done right.

There is a well known problem with this kind of learning. And we do find the Ari himself warned about this at the end of the few books on the Torah itself. שער הפסוקים is one place. In any case  avoiding the frauds is the first order of business. The way to do this is actually quite simple. Do the regular Torah learning in a normal Straight Lithuanian Yeshiva. Then after you have gone trough Shas a couple of time [that is in a fast session] then you get the set of the Ari from the Kabalah Institute. They have the best edition. And then you learn the Eitz Chaim many times, or the Mavo Shearim, which are both the major sources needed to know the system of the Ari.

And don't go near anything later than that. The trouble with the later supposedly mystic stuff is it all is drawn from the false prophet of the Shatz and just reading it infects the people that read it with that energy from the Sitra Achra which does not have a cure as far as I have seen. It is fatal to one's spirit and soul. I never saw anyone that fell for it that did not die spiritually from it. [After the  Ari, Yaakov Abuchatzaira,  and Shalom Sharabi are the only ones that I think are OK.]

Still on the subject of the previous essay. The question of conflict between mitzvot is brought up in Yevamot and in Bava Metzia pgs 29  and 82a. עשה דוחה לא תעשה אבל אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה. [A positive mitzvah pushes off a negative mitzvah, but not a negative mitvah that has as its penalty cutting off from one's people] That is a long sugia in the beginning of Yevamot. Also העוסק המצווה פטור מן המצווה. [One who is doing a mitzvah does not interrupt in order to do another mitzvah] That is the פרוטה של רב יוסף in Bava Metzia. There you see even if one is involved in a small mitzvah, he does not have to interrupt in order to do a great mitzvah. For example one has found a lost object like a towel. Since he has a category of a guard he does not have to give charity even if a poor person walks up to him and asks for charity. And Raba does not disagree that if it would be the case that a poor person asks that he is not obligated and in fact should not interrupt. It is just that Raba says we don't say he is making a profit because a poor person might ask for charity.

One of the issues that come up from this are the fact that lots of time you find yourself learning in a shul and just because some jerk decides he wants to daven Mincha, he expects you to interrupt your learning to answer Amen and stand up for Kedusha. Not only is this rude, but it is specifically against the Halacha. One who is doing one mitzvah even a small one does not have to interrupt in order to do another mitzvah.

We do find that one that is learning is allowed to interrupt to do another mitzvah, but he does not have to. That is as the Gra explains that Mishna in Peach "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם"

This sugia also comes up in Suka where it brings that the newly married person does not have to say the Shema. I think I might have brought this up before hand with the Baal HaMeor and the Ramban in some blog entry. In any case what you find at the Kotel or in many other places that people expect one to interrupt his learning to say Kedusha is  just a power play to get control over other people.


But it does not end there. The truth is this is symptomatic of  a larger problem. People just don't care about learning Torah. Not those that learn and not those that don't.  To those that learn it is a job they are getting paid for. So they don't care because, כל דאשתמש בתגא חלף ["Anyone that uses the Torah as a means to make money loses their portion in the next world--that is how the Rambam explains that Mishna.] Those that don't learn as we can see just do not think it does anything. They might think many other things are important--maybe supporting some movement or going to some tzadik, or maybe even learning Kabalah. But straight Oral and written law not.

[There is a kind of permission to accept charity if you are learning Torah. But once there are conditions when and where you have to learn, then is devolves into learning for money. ]


In any case I would like to write more about this subject but I feel it would be better to wait and see if perhaps Rav Shach wrote something about this.[My learning partner is not interested in this subject. And without Rav Shach I doubt if I can find much clarity in it. There are too many loose ends. and principles flying around.]

________________________________________________________________________________

 The question of conflict between מצוות is brought up in יבמות and in בבא מציעא כ''ט  and פ''ב ע''א. עשה דוחה לא תעשה אבל אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה.
That is a long סוגיא in the beginning of יבמות. Also העוסק המצווה פטור מן המצווה. That is the פרוטה של רב יוסף in ב''מ. There you see even if one is involved in a small מצווה, he does not have to interrupt in order to do a great מצווה. For example one has found a lost object. Since he has a category of a שומר he does not have to give charity even if a poor person walks up to him and asks for charity. And רבה does not disagree that if it would be the case that a poor person asks that he is not obligated and in fact should not interrupt. It is just that רבה says we don't say he is making a profit because a poor person might ask for charity. זה לפי תוספות

One of the issues that come up from this are the fact that lots of time you find yourself learning in a  and just because someone  decides he wants to להתפלל מנחה he expects you to interrupt your learning to answer אמן and stand up for קדושה. Not only is this rude, but it is specifically against כלל, העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה

We do find that one that is learning is allowed to interrupt to do another mitzvah, but he does not have to. That is as the גר''א explains that משנה in פאה "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם"

This סוגיא also comes up in סוכה where it brings that the newly married person does not have to say the שמע.

_____________________________________________________________________

יבמות פרק א' ובבא מציעא כ''ט ופ''ב ע''א. עשה דוחה לא יעשה אבל אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה. זה סוגיא ארוכה בתחילת יבמות. גם עוסק מצווה פטורה מן המצווה. זה פרוטה של רב יוסף ב''מ. יש לך לראות אפילו אם בן אדם מעורב במצווה קטנה, הוא לא צריך להפסיק כדי לעשות מצווה גדולה. לדוגמא אחד מצא אבדה. מאז יש לו קטגוריה של שומר הוא לא צריך לתת צדקה אפילו אם אדם עני ניגש אליו ושואל לצדקה. ורבה מסכים שאם זה יהיה המקרה שאדם עני שואל כי הוא אינו מחויב, ולמעשה לא צריך להפסיק.   רבה אמר שאנחנו לא אומרים ששומר אבדה עושה רווח, כי אדם עני עלול לבקש צדקה. זה לפי תוספות. העולה מזה הוא כשאתה מוצא את עצמך לומד  ומישהו מחליט שהוא רוצה להתפלל המנחה והוא מצפה ממך להפסיק את הלמידה שלך לענות אמן ולעמוד לקדושה . זה נגד כלל העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה. אנו מוצאים שאחד שלומד מותר להפסיק לעשות מצווה אחרת, אבל הוא לא צריך. זה כמו הגר''א מסביר את המשנה בפאה "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם"

613 commandments (mitzvot)

In some perfect world each of the 613 commandments of the Torah might not interfere one with the other. [This would be in the world of the dinge an sich or the platonic realms] But in this world they do interfere. Even if you know how much weight to give to each one [as in a weighted function] there would still be conflict. [And these conflicts  have to exist in the real world as I explained else concerning Ontological Un-decidablity.]

The way I explained this was based on the idea of computer modeling.That is the way it was done originally was by tree diagrams. If you are at step A, then you ask some question. If the answer is "Yes" then go to B, and if the answer is "No" then go instead to C. This way turned out to be inefficient. [This is still how Halacha is written. And that is not a bad thing. One does need to know the basic principles of Torah.]

Instead, what programmers discovered was swarming techniques. [This based on birds and bees.] That is you look for the basic pattern of what you want. That is the reason the Rambam {Maimonides} explains the reasons for the Mitzvot. This is to give an idea of where you want to go. That is what kind of pattern you want to get to in the  end. Then you know how far to take each mitzvah. You know what limit each mitzvah has, and you know that it is not meant to be taken to infinity but has a context with the other mitzvot and the result is supposed to be something like the basic ideas the Rambam gives there in the Guide for the Perplexed.


This is related to the sugia in Bava Metzia at the end of chapter 9. There we have the argument between R. Yehuda and R. Shimon. In that sugia we see that the Sages thought the reasons for the mitzvot were known. the question was whether to go by the reason or by the actual words in the Torah. In that sugia the Rambam decides like R Yehuda that we go by what the verse says and not by the reason for the law. In Yevamot the Rambam decided the opposite way. That is in the argument about whom it is forbidden to marry. The seven Canaanite nations or all nations. The Magid Mishna goes into the question of how the Rambam can hold the rope at both ends--i.e. decide by one opinion in one place and the opposite opinion in another. [I had hoped to do this subject with my learning partner so I could understand it better, but I ran off to Israel right before we got there. Perhaps Rav Shach deals with this? There are two places where Rav Shach might deal with this. One is the sugia in Bava Metzia, and the other is that sugia in Yevamot. But in my session with my learning partner we have not gotten to either area yet.]

In a practical sense these areas of moral conflict provide the area where free will operates.  That is there are two kinds of free will. One is to choose good or evil. The other is when there is a conflict between two goods, which one do you follow? And what is your criteria? Your criteria might be the evil inclination and you might not be aware of it. You might think you are just going according to halacha but you might not be aware you desire to go by halacha stems from a desire to fit in with a certain social group. That is not necessarily and bad thing but it is a simple function of our animal nature. There is no mitzvah involved with it.

This is relevant to many questions. For example, we find people that try to undermine Christian society. They tend to side with Muslims and Blacks and anyone else that is against Christian values.
But if we look at the Rambam's reason for the Mitzvot, we can see they boil down to a bare minimum of a few simple principles. One is "peace of the country." In what kind society do you want to live? I would imagine not in the Sudan or Saadia Arabia. Why not? Because in Christian society you have "peace of the country." So trying to undermine this, goes against one of the most important and fundamental teachings of the Torah. Besides all of that, this attempt to undermine Christian society has been noticed. And it might has already led to bad consequences, and still does.
[Living in Israel we find we can no longer blame the problems on living among the nations. The conflicts among ourselves are multiplied many times over more than what was common when we were living in exile.]




Another obvious area of conflict is "Honor your father and mother." Naphtali Troup [one of the Torh giants in the time of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik has a nice essay on this in the Chidushei HaGarnat].
I tend to this is mitzvah is not given as much weight as it deserves. At least in my own case, my parents obviously had a much better idea of what it means to keep Torah than I did.


________________________________________________________________________________

In a perfect world each of the תרי''ג commandments of the תורה might not interfere one with the other.  But in this world they do interfere. Even if you know how much weight to give to each one [as in a weighted function] there would still be conflict.

The way I explained this  was based on the idea of מודלים מחשבים. That is the way it was done originally was by tree diagrams. If you are at  step 'א, then you ask a question. If the answer is yes, then go to step 'ב, and if the answer is no then go instead to ג'. This way turned out to be inefficient. This is still how הלכה is written. And that is not a bad thing. One does need to know the basic principles of Torah.

Instead, what programmers discovered was swarming techniques. This based on birds and bees. That is you look for the basic pattern of what you want. That is the reason the רמב''ם explains the reasons for the מצוות. This is to give an idea of where you want to go. That is what kind of pattern you want to get to in the  end. Then you know how far to take each מצווה. You know what limit each מצווה has. and you know that it is not meant to be taken to infinity but has a context with the other מצוות and the result is supposed to be something like the basic ideas the רמב''ם gives there in the מורה נבוכים.


This is related to the סוגיה in בבא מציעא at the end of chapter ט. There we have the argument between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. In that סוגיא we see that the חכמים thought the reasons for the מצוות were known. the question was whether to go by the reason or by the actual words in the Torah. In that סוגיא the רמב''ם decides like רבי יהודה that we go by what the verse says and not by the reason for the law. In יבמות the רמב''ם decided the opposite way. That is in the argument about whom it is forbidden to marry. The שבעה עממים or all גויים. The מגיד משנה goes into the question of how the רמב''ם can hold the rope at both ends i.e. decide by one opinion in one place and the opposite opinion in another.


In a practical sense these areas of moral conflict provide the area where free will operates.  That is there are two kinds of free will. One is to choose good or evil. The other is when there is a conflict between two goods, which one do you follow? And what is your criteria? Your criteria might be the evil inclination and you might not be aware of it. You might think you are just going according to halacha but you might not be aware you desire to go by halacha stems from a desire to fit in with a certain social group. That is not necessarily and bad thing but it is a simple function of our animal nature. There is no mitzvah involved with it.



But if we look at the רמב''ם reason for the מצוות, we can see they boil down to a bare minimum of a few simple principles. One is "peace of the country." In what kind society do you want to live? I would imagine not in the Sudan or Saadia Arabia. Why not? Because in Christian society you have "peace of the country." So trying to undermine this, goes against one of the most important and fundamental teachings of the Torah. Besides all of that, this attempt to undermine Christian society has been noticed. And it might has already led to bad consequences, and still does.





Another obvious area of conflict is   כבד את אביך ואת אמך

______________________________________________________________________________





בעולם מושלם כל אחת מתרי''ג מצוות התורה לא יכולות להפריע אחת עם השני. אבל בעולם הזה הן מפריעות. גם אם אתה יודע כמה משקל לתת לכל אחת מהן [כמו בפונקציה משוקללת] עדיין יהיה קונפליקט. הדרך שהסברתי זאת הייתה מבוססת על הרעיון של מודלי מחשבים.  הדרך שזה נעשה  היתה בדיאגרמות עץ. אם אתה נמצא בשלב 'א, אז אתה שואל  שאלה. אם התשובה היא כן, לאחר מכן עבור לשלב ב', ואם התשובה היא לא אז ללכת לג'. הדרך הזו התבררה להיות לא יעילה. זה עדיין איך הלכה כתובה. וזה לא דבר רע.  צריכים לדעת את העקרונות הבסיסיים של תורה. במקום זאת, מה שמתכנתים גילו שרצויות טכניקות  מבוססות על ציפורים ודבורים. זה אתה מחפש את התבנית הבסיסית של מה שאתה רוצה. זו הסיבה שהרמב''ם מסביר את הסיבות המצוות. זה הוא לתת מושג שבאיזה כיוון אתה רוצה ללכת. זה איזה סוג של דפוס שאתה רוצה להגיע בסוף. אז אתה יודע כמה רחוק לקחת כל מצווה. אתה יודע מה הגבול לכל מצווה. ואתה יודע שזה לא אמור לקחת עד אינסוף אבל יש הקשר עם מצוות האחרים והתוצאה אמורה להיות משהו כמו הרעיונות הבסיסיים רמב''ם נותן שם במורה הנבוכים. זה קשור להסוגיה בבא מציעא בסוף הפרק ט'. יש לנו הוויכוח בין רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון. בסוגיא אנו רואים שחכמים חשבו סיבות מצוות  ידועות. השאלה הייתה האם ללכת על פי הסיבה או על יפי המילים בפועל כתובות בתורה. בסוגיא הרמב''ם מחליט כמו רבי יהודה שנלך לפי מה שאומר הפסוק ולא על פי הסיבה לחוק. ביבמות הרמב''ם החליט בכיוון ההפוך. זה בגיון עם מי אסור להתחתן. שבעת עמים או כל גויים. המגיד משנה נכנס לשאלה כיצד הרמב''ם יכול להחזיק את החבל בשני קצותיו, כלומר להחליט על  דעה אחת במקום אחד, והדעה ההפוכה באחר. במובן מעשי אזורי עימות המוסרי אלה מספקים האזור שבו חופשי רצון פועל. כלומר יש שני סוגים של רצון חופשי. אחת הוא לבחור בטוב או לרע. האחר הוא כאשר יש סכסוך בין שני ערכים. ומה הוא הקריטריונים? הקריטריונים  עשויים להיות היצר הרע ובן אדם לא יכול להיות מודע לכך. אתה חושב שאולי אתה פשוט הולך על פי הלכה, אבל אתה לא יכול להיות מודע שהרצון ללכת על פי ההלכה נובעת מרצון להשתלב עם קבוצה חברתית מסוימת. זה לא בהכרח דבר רע ואבל זה פונקציה פשוטה של הטבע החייתי שלנו. אין מצווה מעורבת עם זה. זה רלוונטי לשאלות רבות. לדוגמא,  אנו מוצאים אנשים שמנסים לחתור תחת חברה נוצרית. הם נוטים לצדד במוסלמים ושחורים וכל אחד אחר שהוא נגד ערכים נוצריים. אבל אם אנחנו מסתכלים על הסיבות של הרמב''ם למצוות, אנו יכולים לראות שהם מסתכמים במינימום של כמה עקרונות פשוטים. אחת מהן הוא "שלום של המדינה." באיזה סוג החברה אתה רוצה לחיות? אני מתאר לעצמי שלא בסודאן או סעדיה הסעודית. למה לא? כי בחברה נוצרית שיש לך "שלום של המדינה." אז לנסות לערער את זה, הולך נגד  התורה. מלבד כל זה, הניסיון לפגוע בחברה נוצרית כבר הבחינה. וזה אולי כבר הביא לתוצאות רעות, ועדיין עושה. תחום נוסף ברור של סכסוך הוא כבד את האב ואת אימך

Music for the glory of the God of Israel

q1 q3 q30 q31 q36  q37  q38 b100 b101 orchestra piece b105 q40 q41 e39 e36  q89   j93
e71 e72 e69  q43 q45 q44 6/8 time b36
j1 j2 j6 j7 n51 edited n52 n53 p120
I edited q89 a little. It probably needs more. n52 also seems to need edting

This is on Google drive because the way these files sound on Midi is not very great.

here is q36 in mp4 I would put it on utube but that seems to be hard for me to accomplish. I seem to need to put some pictures with it.

The Left's position is that all people are equal and by nature good [noble savage]

The Left's position is that all people are equal and by nature good [noble savage] and any differences in material goods come from exploitation, and ought to be eliminated. Combine this with the idea that it is the right of every person to have the same amount of goods as you have and you get the situation in the USA today. Though this is supposed to be scientific, it is at odds with Darwin. With Darwin we have the idea that one species can divide into different species. The way that begins is by race. The two groups are separated for some time and develop along different lines. At some point what began as a separation of race becomes a separation of species. And fighting this process is fighting nature. And in this case I think Nature will win. And that fighting nature is going to be destructive to those who fight. Nature will win and she will take revenge on those who thought they could out-wit her.

This has implications for Jewish people. We tend to do well in Christian society. And we do not like being kicked out of Christian society. But we don't want to be Christian. But among ourselves we can find the problems that we faced in Christian society become multiplied many times over in Jewish society. An American Jew in Israel is sure to find a Sephardi Jew that will stop at nothing to get him thrown out of the city or area he lives in. By and large Sephardi people in an Ashekenzic environment will be cold and polite, but nothing beyond that. But in a Sephardi environment, there will always be at least one that will make it his life's mission to get rid of an Ashkenazic Jew.
So we ought to admit Christian society is not as bad as we like to paint it. And we certainly ought not to be supporting the Black and Muslim forces that try to undermine it. Unless we would actually prefer to live in the Sudan or Syria, why would we think it a good thing to undermine Christian society?

Donald Trump on this problem:

And see this idea

The idea of keeping Muslims and blacks out of the USA has some justification as expressed in this comment I saw on a blog

"The fact is that some animals are territorial, and they typically do not let other species or subpecies of animal that consume the same resources into their territory. For this reason, different species of squirrel will often fight, wildcats will fight, lions and cheetas will kill hyenas, all kinds of animals fight for survival. Evolution is competitive. Deal with it.

I am xenophobic because I want my great-great-great-great-great grandchildren to look like me and carry my genes."

Gemara Learning

The basic Lithuanian yeshiva approach I think is good even in small measure..
I mean what really is the essence of a Litvak yeshiva? Learning Gemara in depth and Musar {Ethics}. It could not be more simple. (The only other thing there is no tolerance odd balls. This particular  aspect I am not very happy with.)  But in a practical sense could not you do this on your own?   Not just that but looking at the state of the world today it seems to me that you almost have to do this on your own. You can't really depend on others setting up a Beit Midrash where you could walk in and learn.

So how would one do this on his own? A hour of in depth learning I think to do like this: take one page of Gemara Rashi Tosphot Maharsha and the basic achronim like Rav Shach, R Akiva Eiger, etc and do that one page as thoroughly as you can in one hour. Then the next day do the same material again. And keep this up every day for a few weeks. That is the one in depth session.

Then there is a fast session that is to  have a separate session--also about one hour to go though the whole Oral Law--i.e. Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, Maharam from Lublin, then after the Talmud Bavli the Talmud Yerushalmi, then the Tosphta etc. until you have gone through the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada.

If this seems a bit above your level then you could start with something more like an introduction like Shimshon Refael Hirsh's Horev. The books of  Musar  give I think a very good introduction to what Torah is all about. [Musar means the books of ethics from the middle ages plus the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter who were able to bring  don those teachings in a digestible way.   MOST books from the middle ages tend tobe hard to digest in modern times, so there does exist a need to bring them down to a practical level.    ]


One advantage of this is when  the rest of the world is going crazy at least you have some sanity to hold onto. And the problem of the world going crazy is not just in your imagination. It is real.  The evil inclination today is כח הדמיון --delusion.

As  the polices and values of Europe were shaped by revulsion about WWII. While people ought to learn from their mistakes. Still learning from mistakes is a kind of negative learning. For positive values it is still important to go to the Old Testament. But since the basic values of the Old Testament are  not not stated openly it is important to learn Musar--books of Ethics written in the Middle ages whose stated purpose was to find the basic values of the Old Testament and the Talmud and put them in simple form so everyone can understand them.

[Not all of Musar I am very happy with. Almost everyone after the Shatz got a good dose of that poison that went into him and his false prophet. That includes the Ramchal. The way I see it most of everything that came after the Shatz is problemtic exception the people that wrote straight of the Talmud with no connection to  Hashkafa [world view issues]

In yeshiva, world view issues were not emphasized. You really had to piece it together on your own.
The Guide of Maimonides was around in its English edition but most people were not looking at it. Yeshiva was really about Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot.  World view issues were  ignored.
The Guide for the Perplexed and most of Jewish Philosophy from the medieval period  in any case was addressing issue that most people including myself did not have. I never asked "How can the Torah say such and such? Did not Aristotle prove otherwise?"
All Medieval Jewish Philosophy assumes Aristotelian science to be correct.


As for the Rambam himself in the Guide I also have no problem because I simply understand it like Rav Avarham Abulafia [the most important mystic from the Medieval period] explained it.

In any case for world view issues I have to piece together my own approach based on the Ari [Isaac Luria] and  the Guide of the Rambam and the other Medieval books of Jewish Musar [books on ethics].

Mainly I go with the idea that this world is a world of shadows. It is just the shadows that you see on the cave wall. The real world is the world that is the dinge an sich-things in themselves. And beyond that there is the Ding An Sich, the first cause. And I think the dinge an sich are hidden from pure reason. Over the years I have changed my mind about free will. My mother in law once asked my wife about WWII and Germany. And my wife answered free will. And I was surprised at the time a because I had in my own mind confined free will towards every persons' owns decisions. Now I think she was right that one person's free will can affect other people for good or bad.




In any case, Musar addressed world view issues to some degree. But to do more that that might be impossible. The problem is this: If you would want to deal with these kinds of issues in yeshiva you would have to spend a lot more time on it that is available. Let's say for example you would want to learn the Guide of the Rambam. To do that and have any idea of what he was dealing with you would also have to learn Aristotle and t get an accurate picture you would have to learn the commentaries on him  and the later books of Joseph Albo and Abravenal going back towards the traditional Neo Plato view.

The drawback however of not learning this material is people get drawn to phony mystics and pseudo Torah.

One possible way to address this issue would be at night seder [session] to work on Jewish Philosophy. That is at least to plow through the basic material quickly. The Guide, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeVeot, Joseph Albo,  Isaac Abravenel, and Yehuda Abravenel.

Introduction: The Torah  allows slavery, and slavery has laws attached to it. One can't do with a slave girl anything he wants. America made a terrible mistake in freeing its slaves and now they are ruling over  everyone else. Americans thought the Torah is bad because it allows slavery. Instead of thinking they were superior to the Torah, they ought to have learned its lessons.]

First of all in the Torah we have five kinds of Guilt offerings.  That is let us say there is a slave woman who has two owners and one of the owners lets her go. So she is half slave and half free. Now if she would be free, one could marry her. But a  Jew can't have sex with a slave woman. So what happens if a Jew has sex with this half free and half slave woman? That is the case of one of the guilt offerings. [The half free slave girl offering in Leviticus.]

The other guilt offerings are for armed robbery, and for using an object that was sanctified for the Temple and few other things. You can look them up at the beginning of Leviticus.

The law concerning a  half freed slave girl is in order for the law of the Torah to apply she needs to do it on purpose but he can do it by accident or on purpose.  That is he depends on her. If she did it by accident, then not only does she not get lashes, but he brings no guilt offering.
Thus if she is underage, neither she nor he is obligated in  anything. But if she is older than 12, and he is under age, she gets lashes if she did it on purpose, and he brings a sacrifice.


[In other words: In Kritut we learn he depends on her. If she is not obligated in makot [lashes] then he does not bring  a guilt offering. So if he is over 13 and she is younger neither is obligated.]

 But if he is less than 13 and she is older, the Rambam says she gets lashes and he brings the guilt offering. The Raavad disagrees and says since he is less than 13 both are not obligated in anything;



 The Rambam is hard to understand How can he be liable, when he is underage?

Rav Elazar Menachem Shach has an idea that might help us to understand the Rambam..

Rav Elazar Menachem Shach says when we say as a rule that and accident is not liable in punishment the reason is there is something lacking in the act--not just the person. So now we can understand the Rambam. Since she is doing the deed on purpose, and he is underage there is nothing lacking in the deed. [The reason is because slave girl needs to do it on purpose for there to be a punishment, but he does not need to be on purpose.]
This idea of Rav Shach is something that I and my learning partner have been puzzling about. What would be the difference if doing an act by accident would be a lack in the person, not in the deed? What would change in our case? Rav Shach is giving a reason for the Rambam that when he is under 13 and she is above 12 there is  an obligation.That is his being under age does not present a lack in the deed. But that just seems like a different way of saying the same thing. How does this help us?


______________________________________

_________________________________________




One kind of אשם is for having sex with a שפחה חר.
The law concerning a  half freed slave girl is in order for the law of the Torah to apply she needs to do it on purpose but he can do it by שוגג or on purpose.  That is he depends on her. If she did it by accident then not only does she not get lashes but he brings no guilt offering.
Thus if she is underage neither she nor he is obligated in  anything. But if she is older than 12 an he is under age she gets lashes if she did it on purpose and he brings a sacrifice.





רב אלעזר מנחם שך has an idea that might help us to understand the רמב''ם..
But before I can present his idea let me say over briefly the רמב''ם he is talking about.

First of all in the Torah we have five kinds of אשמות. One of them is for a שפחה חרופה. That is let us say you have a slave woman who has two owners and one of the owner lets he go. So she is half slave and half free. Now if she would be free, one could marry her. But a regular Jew can't have sex with a שפחה. So what happens if a Jew has sex with this half free and half slave woman? That is the case of one of the אשמות.

The other guilt offerings are for גזלה,that is  אשם גזלות, and for using an object that was sanctified for the Temple אשם מעילות and few other things. You can look them up at the beginning of ויקרא.

In כריתות we learn he depends on her. If she is not obligated in מכות then he does not bring  a אשם offering. So if he is over שלש עשרה שנים and she is פחות משתים עשרה neither is obligated. But if he is less than שלש עשרה and she is older the רמב''ם says she gets מלקות and he brings the אשם. The ראב''ד disagrees and says since he is less than שלש עשרה both are not obligated in anything;

 The רמב''ם is hard to understand. How can he be liable when he is underage? רב שך says when we say as a rule that an שוגג is not liable in punishment the reason is there is something lacking in the act, not just the person. So now we can understand the רמב''ם. Since she is doing the deed on purpose and he is underage there is nothing lacking in the deed. The reason is because שפחה חרופה needs to do it on purpose for there to be a punishment but he does not need to be on purpose.

____________________________________________________________________________

  קודם כל בתורה יש לנו חמישה סוגים של אשם. אחד מהם הוא לשפחה חרופה, היינו שיש שפחה שיש לה שני קונים, ואחד מהקונים מאפשר לה ללכת. אז היא חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין. עכשיו, אם היא תהיה חופשית, אפשר להתחתן איתה. אבל יהודי רגיל לא יכול לקיים יחסי מין עם שפחה. אז מה קורה אם יהודי מקיים יחסי מין עם אישה הזאת  חצי שפחה  וחצי חפשית? זה המקרה אחד  של אשם

סוג אחד של אשם הוא לקיום יחסי מין עם שפחה חרופה (חצי משוחררת). את החוק הנוגע  לשפחה חרופה הוא  שהיא צריכה לעשות את זה בכוונה, אבל הוא יכול לעשות את זה על ידי שוגג או בכוונה. כלומר הוא תלוי בה. אם היא עשתה את זה בטעות, אז לא רק שהיא לא תקבל עונש אלא גם הוא  לא מביא אשם. לכן, אם היא קטינה לא היא ולא הוא מחויבים בכל דבר. אבל אם היא  יותר מי''ב והוא מתחת לגיל י''ג היא מקבלת מלקות אם היא עשתה את זה בכוונה, והוא מביא קרבן.



 בכריתות אנו לומדים שהוא תלוי בה. אם היא אינה מחויבת במכות, אז הוא לא מביא קרבן אשם. אז אם הוא יותר משלש עשר שנים והיא פחות משתים עשרה,  היא לא מחויבת. אבל אם הוא פחות משלש עשרה והיא מבוגרת לרמב''ם  שהיא מקבלת מלקות והוא מביא אשם. הראב''ד אינו מסכים, ואומר שאם הוא פחות משלש עשרה שניהם אינם מחויבים בשום דבר.  הרמב''ם קשה להבין. איך הוא יכול להיות אחראי כשהוא קטן?
לרב אלעזר מנחם שך יש רעיון שיכול לעזור לנו להבין את הרמב''ם.

 רב שך אומר כשאנחנו אומרים ככלל כי שוגג אינו אחראי בעונש הסיבה לכך היא שיש משהו חסר במעשה, לא רק את האדם. אז עכשיו אנחנו יכולים להבין את הרמב''ם. מאז היא עושה מעשה במזיד והוא קטן אין שום דבר חסר במעשה. הסיבה לכך היא משום שפחה חרופה צריכה לעשות את זה בכוונה כדי להיות עונש, אבל הוא לא צריך להיות בכוונה.

A song of praise to God q89 Edited  e33 mathematics mmog j1  js1 b104

kabalah center

People think the kabalah center is a problem because it does not emphasize the aspect of doing mitzvot but in fact that is a good thing. It is when you combine kabalah with mitzvot that delusions about being the messiah begin. So the Kabalah center is the best place for learning authentic Jewish Mysticism. All other places teach the mysticism of Shabatai Tzvi  along with the energies of the Sitra Achra.
 People may not talk about it but this is definitely what they are thinking.
The smart people are able to hide their delusions from the general public and present a spiffy public image.
 If you would take the teachings of Natan, the false prophet, out of the religious world, it would collapse. That is-- all but the Litvak yeshivas. But the rest of it depends highly for its spiritual energy and teachings of Natan. It is not that this was done on purpose. It was basically innocent. You had people going to the wide spread groups the Shatz that were in every town in the Ukraine. Later these same people were the same one that got involved with the Ball Shem Tov. They just brought their understandings of the Ari along with them.

So for people that are interested in the more mystic side of Torah what I recommend is not learning anything later than the Ari and Reb Chaim Vital themselves. You can be guaranteed that everything that came later is, without knowing, using the ideas and energies of the Dark Side that Natan Haazati was sucked into.

I think personally that a better way to get attached with God is by learning Gemara and Musar [basic books of Jewish ethics written during the Middle Ages]. This more "yeshivish" kind of approach I think is a lot more effective in terms of getting to "Devkut."--attachment with God. I can see that some people do this later approach, and still do not seem to get to where you would hope, but still this is an approach which I found worked for me some time ago. Sadly I was not able to keep it up. But if true spirituality is what you are looking for then my impression is nothing beats learning Gemara along with Musar. [I don't do a fast session because of various excuses. But if possible I think one fast session and one slow (in depth) one in Gemara is a good approach.]
[But I admit I can't answer for people that this does not work for. I can only tell over my own experience.]
I terms of Musar I also recommend the books of Israel Salanter's disciples. I find them to be  a great help for me to set me straight.

The Ari, Isaac Luria

There are few that really know the writings of Isaac Luria well. But even among the few that know Kabalah well there is a tendency to go into pretty bad stuff. I have no idea why this is.

It is almost for sure that if you see someone learning Kabalah that they think they are the messiah, or if they have some famous person they follow they are thinking of this famous person as the messiah.

But it rarely stops there. It is amazing to see the worlds of delusion they get into.

This in itself would be a good reason to critical of the Ari's writings except that it seems to me most of the problems come from the teachings of people that came after the Ari and were unknowingly influenced by the Shatz. It is astounding to me to discover most of the most basic teachings that got into the religious world have their origin in Nathan the false prophet of the Shatz. The truth be told, this is not well known because most people have not learned the writings of Natan. If they would and then look at the religious world today, they would see what I mean. It is not subtle but in your face in a way that you can't ignore.

I do not like to dwell on this, but just to conclude I want to say that there is good reason  Lithuanian yeshivas discourage any and all mystic practices and rather concentrate of the Talmud, Musar and learning a kosher vocation.

A nice list of good points I saw on someone's blog.

Liberty

1. I am a Caucasian of Irish and Italian descent, whose parents were immigrants from those lands.
2. My loyalties are to my family and the United States of America. I would defend either or both to the death. Apart from a mortgage and a car loan, I owe nothing else to anyone.
3. What matters most to me about others is their character: their willingness to respect the rights of others and to discharge their proper responsibilities, without whining about any of it.
4. I believe that there is an American culture, and that it is infinitely superior to all the other cultures of the world, past or present. More, I believe that Americans are the finest people in the world -- that no other land produces anything remotely comparable to our general standard of decency, justice, generosity, or good humor.
5. I believe that the races, as conventionally defined, differ in various ways. The importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
6. I believe that the sexes differ in various ways. As with racial differences, the importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
7. I believe that homosexual sodomy is self-destructive, but that, at least in certain cases, sexual orientation can be changed.
8. I believe that there is such a thing as general intelligence, that it is at least partly inherited, and that it varies widely.
9. I believe that the handicapped should receive our sympathy and compassion as individuals to other individuals, but that they are not entitled to more as a matter of right.
10. I believe that laws that mandate preferred treatment for the members of any group, however defined, are both unConstitutional and destructive.
11. I hold these convictions not because anyone else holds them, but because the evidence of my senses and my own powers of reasoning have led me to them.

_______________________________________________________________________

I have to add that I am in agreement with all the above except for the first sentence. My ancestors were all Polish Jews. But outside of that everything else I am in agreement with. My parents were born in the USA and my father served the USA honorably as captain in the U.S. Air Force and afterwards also. 


I looked at that person's blog a few times and he has some very good points and I recommend looking at it. It seems to me to be one of the very best on the Internet.

I am a little unhappy with "tzadik worship."

I am a little unhappy with "tzadik worship." While I can see that following  a true tzadik  has benefits,-- still this tends to change from worship of God to worship of the tzadik.  There is a separate problem also of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is something the Gra said was the problem with the whole  movement that he put into excommunication. That is it is a mixture of good and negative energies.  You can actually see when people get absorbed into the negative energies. Still, it seems clear that I myself and others need an example of human perfection to follow. If we don't follow a true tzadik, we often tend to follow some phony tzadik.

I sometimes open up the Chayai Moharan and find things that indicate that Reb Natan really meant to turn the whole thing into a kind of tzadik centered thing. This does not seem to be to be along the lines of the world view of the Torah [Old Testament and the Talmud] which to me seem to be more centered on worship of God. It may seem to some people to be a subtle shift in focus,- but to me it seems to be  a major change in world view.

But I admit, worship of  almost any true tzadik does not bother me as much as when people worship a false tzadik. A false tzadik is someone with great powers and what seems like Ruach HaKodesh [רוח הקודש] but it come from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil [the kelipa that is an  admixture of good and evil]. Or from the Dark Side itself. We can find examples of that easily. Just check the history of the Shatz movement. Professor Gershom Sholem wrote a few very important books about that movement that contain valuable information. For example people think when someone does something that is  miracle  that automatically qualifies them as a true tzadik. However we find that people did miracles in the name of Shabati Tzvi that surpassed anything reported about  Israel Baal Shem.
People that had never even seen Shabatai Tzvi revived the dead just by saying, "In the name of Shabatai Zvi, I command you to get up". So miracles mean a lot. They mean someone is getting powers from the side of Good -or from the Dark Side,- or from the kelipa that is a mixture--the Intermediate Zone.

[Because of the above mentioned considerations, I think the best thing is to learn and keep straight Torah--as you can find being done in Lithuanian kinds of yeshivas.]

There is really a lot to discuss here.  Israel Baal Shem was a great tzadik. However in every town in Ukraine was a group of Shatzniks and there were the people that he tried to bring back in teshuva. So there is no great thing in being a "disciple of the Baal Shem Tov". These were the people that went on Friday night to where the action was--to the Shatz group, --not to the local rosh yeshiva. The result is easy to see. Go to HU and xerox the three books of Natan, the false prophet of the Shatz, and you will see what you are being taught as something kosher is really from the Dark Side.

All the above shows you why Litvaks stick with Gemara.

sin

I am pretty sure about some sins. I did things based on what I thought at the time were good reasons, but turned out to have disastrous consequences for myself and family. Those were about 4 major sins. All of them involved leaving some area of value. But besides that I figured that I had not just left some area of value but as a result I ended up joining some area of negative value.
But besides all this I also figure that when I suffer from some evil person, that there must be something of that same kind of evil in me,-- I mean as a kind of mirror effect.

All this is based on אין יסוריים בלי עוון there are no suffering that does not have a sin. But also on a statement of Rabbi Ishmael: One who has transgresses a positive command and repents does not move unless he has been forgiven.
If a negative  command then repentance covers and Yom Kippur cleanses.
If a negative command that has Karet or the death penalty then repentance covers but suffering cleanses. If it is חילול השם then only death brings forgiveness.

The things however that I think I need to repent on are not exactly in these categories. Leaving Israel is one thing. That was based on my thinking of Israel as a bad thing as is common among strictly religious people. The other sins are like that. They would not normally be considered things that there is a specific command against. They were just more subtle kinds of mistakes but with large repercussions.

Of course there are lots of things I have been accused of by very wicked people which are all lies. But though people do lie about me often, still they are only accusing me of things they can understand. My real sins are not things anyone can understand. They are more subtle. But also infinitely more serious.

In any case that leaves me with the rest of humanity in a dilemma.  How to pick ourselves up from the pit we have fallen into? It is in answer to this kind of question that I write on my blog about the importance of learning Torah in a Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva. It may not be a perfect solution but from what I can tell it is the best thing out there. At least in this way I can find out what I have done wrong and maybe even begin to correct things. But without learning straight, unadulterated Torah how can I or anyone find out what we have done wrong? Without that we are as likely as not to find some evil path that appeals to us and to claim it is good. With straight Torah, that possibility is less likely.

Bava Metzia 104

Ideas in Talmud
Ideas in Bava Metzia



I should admit that my previous ideas on Bava Metzia 104 I think were mistaken based on the fact I was going with the approach of the Maharshal and I think now that approach is impossible to defend.

But at any rate, we now have to figure out Tosphot and the Rif.

I already dealt with the Rif in a previous note. But the Rif could also say the Gemara in Bava Metzia is simply like R Yehoshua Ben Karcha and that is not the law. Or like I said before he could say the cases are different.

But what about Tosphot? To Tosphot the law is like Shmuel and the Gemara in Shavuot says that is only when he explained the pledge is against the whole loan. This does not look like the Gemara in BM. There here gets the whole pledge whether he said it is for the whole loan or not. The only difference is the amount the pledge went down in value.  Changing to Rashi's version in BM would help except for the continuation of the Gemara that says "טעמא דכתב ליה."


Tosphot might say that Rabbi Yochanan meant to lender can get the pledge from the orphans but only according to the amount of the loan if it was not said openly that the pledge is for the whole loan. Or that he meant he gets it from the orphans until the loan is paid. But no matter what Tosphot would do with R Yochanan it would not be how the gemara understands R Yochanan. So it could be I will have to revert to the same answers I gave for the Rif. [The two places  don't agree. Or maybe we could say the Gemara in Bava Metzia is just going according to R Yehoshu Ben Karcha. The reason I did not want to answer this is they ask from Rabbi Yochanan. But maybe that is not a problem. The Gemara might want to get R Yehoshua as close to the halacha as possible but that does not mean they think that he is the Halacha.]

The two places  don't agree. Or maybe we could say the גמרא in בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א is just going according to רבי יהושע בן קרחה. The reason I did not want to answer this is גמרא ask from רבי יוחנן. But maybe that is not a problem. The גמרא might want to get רבי יהושע בן קרחה as close to the הלכה as possible but that does not mean they think that he is the הלכה.



שני מקומות לא מסכימים. או שאולי נוכל לומר הגמרא בבבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א היא רק הולכת לפי רבי יהושע בן קרחה. הסיבה שאני לא רציתי לענות את זה מקודם היא שהגמרא שואלת מרבי יוחנן. אבל אולי זה לא בעיה. הגמרא ייתכן שהיא תרצה לקרב רבי יהושע בן קרחה  להלכה ככל האפשר אבל זה לא אומר שהם חושבים שהוא כן לפי הלכה





_______________________________


________________________________________________



I already dealt with the רי''ף in a previous note. But the רי''ף could also say the גמרא in ב''מ is simply like רבי יהושע בן קרחה and that is not the law. Or like I said before he could say the cases are different.

But what about תוספות? To תוספות the law is like שמואל and the גמרא in שבועות says that is only when he explained the משכון is against the whole הלוואה. This does not look like the גמרא in ב''מ. There here gets the whole משכון whether he said it is for the whole הלוואה or not. The only difference is the amount the משכון went down in value.  Changing to רש''י version in ב''מ would help except for the continuation of the גמרא that says "טעמא דכתב ליה."


תוספות might say that רבי יוחנן meant to lender can get the משכון from the orphans but only according to the monetary amount of the משכון if it was not said openly that the משכון is for the whole הלוואה. Or that he meant he gets it from the orphans until the הלוואה is paid. But no matter what תוספות would do with רבי יוחנן it would not be how the גמרא understands רבי יוחנן. So it could be I will have to revert to the same answers i gave for the רי''ף.

אני כבר עסקתי ברי''ף בהערה קודמת. אבל רי''ף יכול גם לומר הגמרא בב''מ היא פשוט כמו רבי יהושע בן קרחה וזה לא החוק. או כמו שאמרתי לפני כן שהן מדברות על מקרים שונים. אבל מה עם תוספות? לתוספות החוק היא כמו שמואל והגמרא בשבועות אומרת שרק כאשר הוא הסביר המשכון הוא נגד כל ההלוואה. זה לא נראה כמו הגמרא בב''מ.  כאן בב''מ המלווה מקבל את כל המשכון בין אם הוא אמר  שהוא עבור כל ההלוואה או לא. ההבדל היחיד הוא אם המשכון ירד בערך. ולענות לפי גרסת רש''י בשבועות לא יעזור בגלל המשך הגמרא בב''מ שאומרת "טעמא דכתב ליה." לתוספות אפשר לומר שרבי יוחנן התכוון שהמלווה יכול לקבל המשכון מהיתומים  רק בהתאם לסכום כספי של החוב אם זה לא נאמר בגלוי שהמשכון הוא לכל ההלוואה. או שהוא התכוון שהוא מקבל אותו מהיתומים עד ההלוואה משולמת. אבל לא משנה איך  שתוספות יפרשו רבי יוחנן, שזה לא יהיה איך שהגמרא מבינה רבי יוחנן. אז יכול להיות שאני אצטרך לחזור לאותן תשובות שנתתי לרי''ף ולומר שגם הן לתוספות

Bava Metzia

These are the two גמרות that my previous note was meant to be applied to.
Here I am taking the approach of תוספות according to the מהרש''א. I am giving up explaining these גמרות according to the מהרש''ל in בבא מציעא because even if I could get him to work in ב''מ I would still have to face the fact that is approach is absolutely contrary to the גמרא in שבועות point blank. That is because the מהרש''ל is saying we continue the approach of saying דורשיין לשון הדיוט even when it is not written.  How much more opposite to the גמרא in שבועות could you get? There the גמרא says שמואל is only when he explains openly the משכון is for the הלוואה. Or change it to רש''י if you want that שמואל is only when he did not explain it openly. One way of the other, there is a difference.




 The גמרא in שבועות מ''ד ע''א. The משנה says the משכון is against the הלוואה only according to its own monetary worth. The גמרא asks this seems not like שמואל who says the pledge is considered equal to the whole הלוואה. The גמרא answers  שמואל is when he said so explicitly and the משנה is when he did not. Let's say the opinion of שמואל is the subject of an argument between two תנאים.  The ברייתא  says רבי אליעזר says if the מלווה lost the משכון he takes an oath that it was by accident and he collects the whole הלוואה. Then רבי עקיבא says: "The borrower can say 'Why did I give  a משכון in the first place but to be for the הלוואה? You lost the משכון, you lost the הלוואה.'"
The גמרא says that neither רבי אליעזר nor רבי עקיבא hold from שמואל and rather they disagree about the law of רבי יצחק. The גמרא says רבי יצחק said the מלווה owns the משכון. Then the גמרא pushes that off and says רבי יצחק was talking about a case when the משכון was taken not at the time of the הלוואה and in that case everyone agrees with רבי יצחק. Rather their argument is when the משכון was taken at the time of the הלוואה and it is parallel to the argument between רבה and רב יוסף. The argument is this. רבה said a the finder of a אבידה has the category of a שומר חינם. Then רב יוסף said a שומר שכר. The גמרא says even then if the מלווה does not need the משכון there is no disagreement. Rather the case is when the מלווה needs to use the משכון.

The גמרא in בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א says רבי יהושע בן קרחה holds  דורשין לשון הדיוט. That means that we look at the exact language of the document. So when he writes כל תשלומתא  דאית לך כל קבל דיכי that means the משכון is considered to be for the whole הלוואה even if the משכון is not worth much. The גמרא asks but what if he did not write that? Then he would not own the whole משכון? But that contradicts רבי יוחנן who said the מלווה can take the whole משכון from the orphans. So he owns it even when he did not write anything. Rather רבי יהושע בן קרחה meant that if the משכון goes down in value and the loan is defaulted on, then we go after other property in order that the whole הלוואה should be paid back.

___________________________________________________________________________




אלה הם שתי גמרות שההערה הקודמת שלי הייתה אמורה להיות מיושמת
כאן אני לוקח את הגישה של תוספות בהתאם למהרש''א. אני לא נותן את הסבר  הגמרות על פי מהרש''ל בבבא מציעא, כי גם אם אני יכול לקבל אותו  בב''מ, אני עדיין אצטרך להתמודד עם העובדה שהגישה שלו מנוגדת לחלוטין לגמרא בשבועות, טווח אפס. זאת משום שהמהרש''ל אומר שאנו ממשיכים את גישתו של  "דורשיין לשון ההדיוט" גם כאשר זה לא כתוב. זה לההפך  לגמרא בשבועות . שם הגמרא אומרת שמואל הוא רק כאשר הוא מסביר בגלוי שהמשכון הוא להלוואה. או לשנות אותו לרש''י אם אתה רוצה ששמואל הוא רק כאשר הוא לא הסביר את זה בגלוי.  דרך אחת או האחרות, יש הבדל.

גמרא בשבועות מ''ד ע''א. המשנה אומרת המשכון הוא נגד ההלוואה רק על פי השווי הכספי שלו. הגמרא שואלת זה לא נראה כמו שמואל שאומר המשכון נחשב שווה לכל ההלוואה. הגמרא עונה שמואל הוא כשאמר זאת במפורש והמשנה היא כאשר הוא לא עשה זאת. הגמרא שאולת אולי דעתו של שמואל היא הנושא לוויכוח בין שני תנאים.  רבי אליעזר אומר, אם מלווה איבד משכון הוא לוקח שבועה שזה היה באונס והוא אוסף את כל ההלוואה. אז רבי עקיבא אומר: "הלווה יכול לומר, 'מדוע אני נתתי משכון, אבל כדי להיות להלוואה? איבדת המשכון, איבדת את ההלוואה." הגמרא אומרת לא רבי אליעזר ולא רבי עקיבא מחזיקים משמואל. אבל אולי הם מתווכחים על החוק הרב יצחק.  רבי יצחק אמר משכון בבעלות המלווה. אז הגמרא דוחפת את זה ואומרת שאם נלקח המשכון לא בזמן ההלוואה  כולם מסכימים עם רבי יצחק. במקום זאת הטענה שלהם היא כאשר המשכון נלקח בעת ההלוואה וזה במקביל לוויכוח בין רבה ורב יוסף. הטיעון זה. רבה אמר למאתר של אבדה יש הקטגוריה של שומר חינם. אז רב יוסף אמר שומר שכר. הגמרא אומרת גם אז אם מלווה לא צריך את המשכון אין מחלוקת, אלא המקרה הוא כאשר המלווה צריך להשתמש במשכון.
הגמרא בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א אומרת רבי יהושע בן קרחה מחזיק דורשין לשון הדיוט. זה אומר שאנחנו מסתכלים על השפה של המסמך המדויקת. אז כשהוא כותב, "כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי" זה אומר המשכון נחשב לכל ההלוואה גם אם המשכון הוא לא שווה הרבה. הגמרא שואלת אבל מה אם הוא לא כתב את זה? ואז הוא לא היה בבעלות השלמה של המלווה? אבל זה סותר את רבי יוחנן שאמר מלווה יכול לקחת את כל המשכון מהיתומים. אז הוא מחזיק אותו גם כשהוא לא כתב שום דבר. אלא רבי יהושע בן קרחה מחזיק בשיטה שאם המשכון ירד בערך ואינו שווה לחוב, אז אנחנו הולכים אחרי רכוש אחר של הלווה כדי שכל ההלוואה תהיה משולמת בחזרה.

Shavuot and Bava Metzia

That whole essay on the difficulties between Shavuot 43b 44a and Bava Metzia 104a I think I need to rethink. The whole thing is only valid if we go by the Maharshal. The Maharshal assumes that Tosphot continues in his normal way of explaining דורשין לשון הדיוט that even if it is not written it is considered as if it is written.
But if we go by the Maharsha that Tosphot changed his explanation then the two sugiot seem to fit.
That is it needs to be spelled out that the pledge is for the whole loan and if not then it is against only the monetary value of the pledge.

So the sugia in BM comes out just like it sounds. The lender gets the whole pledge if he spelled it out in the document. The only problem would be then the next part of the Gemara that seems to be saying he would still get the whole thing even if he did not write it and that is against the Gemara in Shavuot.

And still the main problem remains. The Gemara in Shavuot is clear that the pledge is only for its monetary worth, and that is how the Rif says also. And that means if it is lost the rest of the loan must be paid. The Gemara in BM is clear if the loan is not paid he the lender gets the whole pledge even if it is more than the amount of the loan, even if it is not written as such. And the only reason it is written is if the pledge goes down in value that the lender can collect more property of the borrower. Perhaps one could answer in one case the pledge was lost and in the other the loan is not paid. But why would that make  a difference?
So what we seem to have here is that with the Rif these two gemaras do not argue. Rather in the case of the pledge being lost then it is only against its monetary worth. But if the loan is not paid the lender gets the whole pledge. But to Tosphot the law is like Shmuel that in both cases the pledge is against the whole loan.







__________________________________________________________________________


I need to rethink  the difficulties between שבועות  מ''ד ע''אand בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א. The whole thing is only problematic if we go by the מהרש''ל. The מהרש''ל assumes that תוספות continues in his normal way of explaining דורשין לשון הדיוט that even if it is not written it is considered as if it is written.
But if we go by the מהרש''א that תוספות changed his explanation, then the two סוגיות seem to fit.
That is it needs to be spelled out that the משכון is for the whole הלוואה, and if not then it is against only the monetary value of the משכון.

So the סוגיא in בבא מציעא comes out just like it sounds. The מלווה gets the whole משכון if he spelled it out in the document. The only problem would be then the next part of the גמרא that seems to be saying he would still get the whole thing even if he did not write it and that is against the גמרא in שבועות.


So the סוגיא in ב''מ comes out just like it sounds. The מלווה gets the whole משכון if he spelled it out in the document. The only problem would be then the next part of the גמרא that seems to be saying he would still get the whole thing even if he did not write it and that is against the גמרא in שבועות.

And still the main problem remains. The גמרא in שבועות is clear that the משכון is only for its monetary worth, and that is how the רי''ף says also. And that means if it is lost the rest of the חוב must be paid. The גמרא in ב''מ is clear if the חוב is not paid  the מלווה gets the whole משכון even if it is more than the amount of the חוב, even if it is not written as such. And the only reason it is written is if the pledge goes down in value that the lender can collect more property of the borrower. Perhaps one could answer in one case the pledge was lost and in the other the loan is not paid.

So what we seem to have here is that with the רי''ף these two גמרות do not argue. Rather in the case of the משכון being lost then it is only against its monetary worth. But if the loan is not paid the lender gets the whole pledge. But to תוספות the law is like שמואל that in both cases the משכון is against the whole הלוואה.

__________________________________________________________________


 יש קשיים בין השבועות מ''ד ע''א ובבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א. כל העניין הוא רק בעייתי אם נלך לפי המהרש''ל. המהרש''ל מניח שתוספות ממשיך בדרך הרגילה שלו להסביר "דורשין לשון ההדיוט" שגם אם זה לא כתוב שזה נחשב כאילו הוא נכתב. אבל אם נלך לפי המהרש''א שתוספות שינו את ההסבר שלו, אז שתי הסוגיות שתתאמנה. כלומר זה צריך להיות מפורט שהמשכון הוא לכל ההלוואה, ואם לא אז הוא נגד רק את הערך הכספי של המשכון. אז סוגיא בבא מציעא יוצאת בדיוק כמו זה נשמע. מלווה מקבל כל המשכון אם הוא פירט את זה במסמך. הבעיה היחידה תהיה אז החלק הבא של הגמרא שנראית  שהמלווה עדיין מקבל את כל המשכון, גם אם הוא לא כתב את זה וזה נגד הגמרא בשבועות. אז סוגיא ב''מ יוצאת בדיוק כמו שזה נשמע. מלווה מקבל כל המשכון אם הוא פירט את זה במסמך.
 ועדיין הבעיה העיקרית נותרה. הגמרא בשבועות ברורה שהמשכון הוא רק לשווי הכספי שלו, וכך גם רי''ף אומר. וזה אומר שאם הוא איבד את המשכון, שארית החוב חייבת להיות משולמת. הגמרא ב''מ ברורה אם החוב לא ישולם המלווה מקבל כל המשכון גם אם הוא יותר מהסכום של החוב, גם אם לא כתוב כזה. והסיבה היחידה שכתוב היא אם המשכון יורד בערך אז המלווה יכול לאסוף יותר רכוש של הלווה. אולי אפשר לענות שמקרה אחד הוא שהמשכון אבד, והשני הוא שההלוואה לא שולמה. אז מה נראה הוא  שעם הרי''ף שתי גמרות אלה לא מתווכחות. במקרה שהמשכון הלך לאיבוד אז הוא רק נגד השוויות מוניטרית. אבל אם ההלוואה לא שולמה, המלווה מקבל את כל המשכון. אבל לתוספות החוק הוא כמו שמואל כי בשני המקרים המשכון הוא נגד כל ההלוואה.

here is a link to the book on bava metzia

Ideas in Bava Metzia

Isaac Luria

The legitimate mystics after the  Ari  האריז''ל does expand the Ari. We have the Reshash שלום שערבי having the שבירת הכלים in all the עולמות. That is fine because that is just going along with the regular expansion that the Ari himself does in the second part of the עץ חיים.

 The צמצום [contraction] refers to all ten sepherot.

The reason I bring this up is because this corresponds to something that Kant was doing.  Kant also limited reason. He said that when pure reason {not just human reason} ventures into areas where it does not belong it produces self contradictions.

The movement that the Gra put into Cherem. This would be a problem from the standpoint of Halachah even if we did not understand the motivations of the Gra. All the more so when we do understand. The trouble is certainly because of idolatry. But that would not be as bad as idolatry coupled with real evil. There is after all is said and done very good reasons that Gra signed the Cherem and it is a real failure of judgement for people to ignore it.  And recently we have Rav Shach saying the same thing as the Gra and predictably he too was ignored.

what motivates Muslims

I wanted to say that people that have  a secular orientation have no basis to comprehend what motivates Muslims. If they are economists they try to frame the problem in terms of economic relationships. If they are politicians they try to frame the problem in terms of political elements. The only people that can comprehend what motivates Muslims are religious people. And in a secular society religious people are ignored--even though they are the only ones that actually realize what is going on.
Muslims are motivated by Islam.  And Islam is big problem. Not that I like to knock other people, but I think the Rambam was wrong in this case. He saw the Islam of Ibn Rushd and the people that rationalized it.  I suggest starting with a thesis that Islam is evil and working back from that. That is we might very well find good people that are good in spite of being Muslim. That is they simply do not take their religion seriously.

Two complaints about Christianity

Two complaints about Christianity that Saadia Gaon and the Rambam had. 1. nullification of the commandments.  2. Divine simplicity.



[I have a drop more to say about this whole subject, but all I would be doing would be repeating the opinion of a Medieval mystic Rav Avraham Abulafia.  Professor Moshe Idel at Hebrew University has already written his PhD thesis and many more books on the subject of  A. Abulafia so I have nothing more I could possibly add to the discussion.] [However it is of interest to note that the person that actually printed up all of  Abulfia's books was a fellow from Geulah or Mea Shearim. For some odd reason with all the research they were doing at HU no one thought to actually come out with an academic version of Rav Abulfia's books. I find that odd.] 

I had been out of the States for a few years and when I returned it had deteriorated. I was alarmed and dismayed but did not wait around to see if things could get worst. From what I could tell on later visits, it had become so bad that wholesome normal people are under siege. But I still have confidence in the USA Constitution, and that things can get back on track.

Concerning the steady decline.  I have confidence the trend can be reversed. In fact, you could look on the last 8 years as being a lesson. Many good hearted people did not realize to where the democrats could lead to.  Now I think many people have seen the evidence and realize the problems.