r8

b100     b101 b105   b98  e67  e72 h69 o  mmog  [This last piece was written when I was playing a lot of Vivaldi on the streets in NY. You can tell the influence of Vivaldi right away in the development.] The idea here is to take a whole Vivaldi score [not just the Violin part] and play it on the violin by simply picking out the song from the accompaniment. You can easily do this on sight and it takes no expertise at all.The only time this might be hard is when the actual song goes into the bass and then you need to be able to read bass clef. But as a rule you can have a unlimited amount of music to play on the street by just xeroxing Vivaldi.]
[Mainly I was playing outside of Shalom's Pizza, and Dunkin Donuts and a 99 cent store owned by people from Pakistan who were always very nice to me.]




Incidentally I highly recommend this practice. You can learn an amazing amount of things by just playing through scores of Vivaldi, Bach, and Mozart because in every measure they are trying to tell you something important that you can't really hear from the music alone. Especially Mozart made his music I think with the intention to tell us important things.
[If you do this with Bach start with organ and piano pieces which are easily played on the violin. Canata's can be a bit more difficult.]





[Once you get used to reading scores you can do the same with Bach and Mozart, but it is best to start with Vivaldi. Don't do this in Manhattan because people don't give anything there. The best places are Brooklyn.] Just don't do this when you can be learning Torah. Learning Torah comes first. After you are tired, then this is a good practice.

Anything that supports any cause that is Anti-Christian or Anti-White is supported. We all ought to examine our beliefs, and try to base them on reason, rather than on our social group

There is a good deal of  antisemitism which I think is from a kind of Anti-American White sentiment. That is, there is a good deal of hatred of America and American white people that  is expressed in politics.  That is, anything that supports any cause that is Anti-Christian or Anti-White is supported. And this causes a reaction. This I heard first from my study partner, David Bronson, who suggested that this comes from a verse, "As a face is to a face reflected in water, so is the heart of man towards man."

And even among Jewish people ourselves there is a considerable amount of animosity from Sephardim towards Ashkenazim, and especially Ashkenazim that are from the USA  (unless that particular Sephardi is in an Ashkenazi institution or yeshiva).

There is not much I can do about this, but suggest that we all ought to examine our beliefs, and try to base them on reason, rather than on our social group.


The problem I see with the Anti-White Christian sentiment is that it is not a Torah attitude.

Just for a personal example. My family was welcomed in the USA  during times of trouble in Eastern Europe. Czar Nicholas II had approved quietly of government sponsored pogroms that were widespread in Russia and the Ukraine. World War I was devastating all of Europe. My family found sanctuary in the USA. Eventually we made our way to Southern California to Orange County [John Birch Society-openly Christian]. We were treated well and welcomed with open arms. And the USA at the time was largely Protestant-White. So at this point in time, to try to undermine this kind of wholesome, moral society seems to me to be a kind of lack of gratitude.  [Do you think the religious insane would receive you more so than white Christians? Who are you kidding?]

However, I did notice the last time I was in N.Y.., that there are a lot of people that have decided that the Democrats are decidedly anti-American.  I was in Manhattan at the time, and I saw leaflets from some organization called, "Jewish Republicans" or something like that. That seems to me to be  a move in a positive direction.

I have encountered  Anti-American sentiments way to much, and it turns my stomach. I am very happy to see people coming around to see the importance of Traditional American Values.

r3 a major q96  q92  q100  q96 e flat major not the same as q96 f major i do not know how these two pieces got the same name  Now I think q96 F major needs a little editing.  p120  Exodus 4  Mathematics black hole

e67

Bava Metzia the Mishna on page 97 and the Mishna on page 100

I do not have a question but more like a comment. In Bava Metzia page 97 we have the mishna about the cow and we say the mishna is either telling us ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or עסק שבועה ביניהם. In the next Mishna about the cow giving birth the Gemara right away makes it like סומכוס.

So what I wanted to ask was is the Mishna on page 100 also ברי ושמא ברי עדיף? It seems it is to Tosphot. Because the first Tosphot on the page has חזקת רשות+ טענת שמא= לא זכה. Thus this is clearly to this opinion of Tosphot a case of ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. But then we have to ask just like the Gemara did on page 97 what about the opinion that לאו ברי עדיף? We would here also have to say עסק שבועה ביניהם. And it is hard to say that this is a case where there is a עסק שבועה. Perhaps it is because of מודה במקצת?

Also it is not clear why the first Mishna would be the חכמים and the second on סומכוס. How is it that Rabbi Yehuda Nasi would change his opinion in the middle of  a chapter? It seems clear that the first Mishna also would have to be like סומכוס.

Plus we have the opinion of the ר''י Rabbainu Isaac חזקת רשות+ שמא= זכה and we would have to see how that fits with the Mishna on page 97.
Here is a link to the little booklet that God granted to me to write on Bava Metzia

And a link to a small book that God granted to me to write on the Gemara 
Book on Shas
________________________________________________________________________________

 In בבא מציעא דף צ''ז we have the משנה וסוגיא about the cow and we say the משנה is either telling us ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or עסק שבועה ביניהם. In the next משנה about the cow giving birth the גמרא right away makes it like סומכוס.

So what I wanted to ask was is the משנה דף ק' ע''א also ברי ושמא ברי עדיף? It seems it is to תוספות. Because the first תוספות on the page has חזקת רשות+ טענת שמא= לא זכה. Thus this is clearly to this opinion of תוספות a case of ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. But then we have to ask just like the גמרא did on page צ''ז what about the opinion that לאו ברי עדיף? We would here also have to say עסק שבועה ביניהם. And it is hard to say that this is a case where there is a עסק שבועה. Perhaps it is because of מודה במקצת?

Also it is not clear why the first משנה would be the חכמים and the second on סומכוס. How is it that רבי יהודה הנשיא would change his opinion in the middle of  a chapter? It seems clear that the first משנה also would have to be like סומכוס.

Plus we have the opinion of the ר''י  שחזקת רשות+ שמא= זכה and we would have to see how that fits with the משנה דף צ''ז .


 בבא מציעא דף צ''ז. יש לנו את המשנה וסוגיא על הפרה ואנחנו אומרים שהמשנה היא אומרת לנו ברי ושמא ברי עדיף או עסק שבועה ביניהם. במשנה הבא ק. על לידת הפרה הגמרא מיד עושה את זה  כסומכוס. אז מה רציתי לשאול היא אם המשנה דף ק' ע''א גם ברי ושמא ברי עדיף? נראה שזה כן תוספות. מכיוון שהתוספות הראשונה בדף אומרים חזקת רשות + טענתי שמא = לא זכה. לכן זה ברור לדעה זו של תוספות מקרה של ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. אבל אז עלינו לשאול בדיוק כמו הגמרא עשתה בעמוד צ''ז מה לגבי הסברה כי "לאו ברי עדיף"? היינו כאן גם חייב לומר עסק שבועה ביניהם. וזה קשה לומר כי מדובר במקרה שבו קיים עסק שבועה. אולי זה בגלל מודה במקצת? כמו כן לא ברור מדוע המשנה הראשונה תהיה כחכמים והשני כסומכוס. איך זה שרבי יהודה הנשיא היה שינה את דעתו באמצע הפרק? נראה ברור כי המשנה הראשונה גם היא צריך להיות כמו סומכוס. בנוסף יש לנו את דעתו של ר''י שחזקת רשות + שמא = זכה והיינו צריך לראות איך זה משתלב עם משנת דף צ''ז.

Worship of Tzadikim. Bait and Switch. The hiding of the actual beliefs. First draw people in by seeming Kosher and then switching.

A good deal of the problems involved with worship of tzadikim involves the problem of delusion.


That is we don't know whether that particular tzadik has real revelations of if his revelations are delusions. And on the same hand he might very well have delusions and yet be very charismatic.

And the emotional appeal might be great while at the same time have zero validity objectively.
 It is hard to separate these variables.
And when they are trying to make converts they don't say they worship the tzadik.
On the contrary they will emphatically deny it.


The secrets are  only for the initiated.


A good deal of the difficulties is because of numinous reality. And numinous reality is has potent emotional appeal and it sometimes is from the realm of holiness and sometimes from the realm of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sometimes it is simply delusions. The trouble with pseudo tzadikim is that delusions are allergic. People pick them up from their delusional leader.


Where does this problem come from? To me it seems clear that the people that were able to see the problem decided instead to be silent or acquiesce. Rav Shach was the only one who saw clearly and he was ignored and still is. [Along with the Gra.] Now some people have taken the Gra seriously. That is the Zilverman's in the Old City. But they are a small  minority. Some people take Rav Shach seriously, but that is only in Ponovitch. Outside of these places I have never heard of anyone that considers worship of tzadikim to be  a problem.


And why is this that they were silent. I can answer this with confidence. It was because their expertise was not in Jewish philosophy. People like Reb Shmuel Berenbaum thought of themselves as too small to deal with השקפה issues. Most had never even read the major works of Jewish Philosophy like Ibn Gavirol,  the Guide, or Joseph Albo. [For this reason I made it a point to get some background in the Guide and Saadia Gaon and basic world view ideas of the Geonim and Rishonim. Their world view is very unlike  you could imagine.]

And there is no indication that anyone after the Ari was anything within light years of the Ari. They have emotional appeal, but nothing as far as objective reality goes.


In any case we have a whole set of problems that have not been dressed very well. The nature of delusions, the nature of pseudo tzadikim, and the urge to worship pseudo tzadikim. The best I could do to get anywhere in this was to study different groups like Hindu cults and hope that that would give me some insight. As far as I got, still did not seem to matter much. No one in any case was really willing to listen. In any case, because these issues are not resolved,the best thing is to get the basic set of medieval thought, the Guide of the Rambam, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Abravenal, Joseph Albo, Crescas and get a decent idea of what Torah teaches in terms of world view. [It is not worship of tzadikim for one thing. But there is  a lot more to it.]

See Steven Hassan Escape from Cults

Bait and Switch is what he identifies as the major cult characteristic and this in fact seems to be the case. The hiding of the actual beliefs. First draw people in by seeming Kosher and then switching.
As for my own study of cults I found Steven Hassan helpful.

There is a simple test for cults. There is an objective change in character that can be seen.
When one joins a group like a Lithuanian yeshiva the change in "Midot" [Character traits for the better is obvious to all.] When on the other hand one joins a cult the change in character is also obvious. Who can's see how people's traits change for the better when they join a place like the Mir or Chaim Berlin? And places and groups that worship some tzadik. The deterioration in character is clear even to people in the group and takes effect almost immediately. And this has nothing to do with what you think of the tzadik. For all you know the tzadik might very well be a true tzadik. Still the effect on people's character is unmistakable. It is not necessarily that they become bad people. But their character changes towards something ugly. Some undefinable ugliness takes over their personality. Or in other groups some strange kind of cruelty and sadism  enters into their souls.

I should mention I did a lot of reading on this but I do not feel comfortable in going into detail about the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I would hope that my warnings here should be enough.

Bava Metzia page 100A and 100B

I am not sure how to put this. But it seems to me to be important to point out what must have been bothering the Gemara in Bava Metzia page 100. And this also must have bothered Tosphot. Even though neither brought it up but still it must have been in the back of their minds. The question is in the Mishna [BM 100a] we have what amounts to המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה  and right after that חולקים

That is for the case when the seller is sure and the buyer is doubtful the seller takes and oath and when both are doubtful they divide. Surely the Gemara and Tosphot must have been bothered with this. Especially Tosphot. Because to Tosphot the entire idea of דררא דממונא is specifically when there is a doubt to Beit Din even without their pleas. And here in the Mishna the only difference between the two cases is only in the pleas. And Tosphot brings from Bava Batra that the only time Sumchus says his law is only when it is  דררא דממונא. So we have what has to have seemed a direct contradiction in the Mishna.

So Tosphot explains the Mishna is a case of דררא דממונא. But that only takes care of the end of the Mishna. What about the case where the seller is sure and takes and oath? That has to also be דררא דממונא Because it is the same case in everything except the pleas. And yet if it is דררא דממונא we know Sumchus has to say חולקים to divide. What I think here is that the Gemara and Tosphot are both depending on the Gemara back on page 97B without saying openly that they are doing so. That is we have to say that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or it is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם  as I already explained in my notes that is is a case of מודה במקצת

_________________________________________________________________________________

I am not sure how to put this. But it seems to me to be important to point out what must have been bothering the גמרא in בבא מציעא דף ק. And this also must have bothered תוספות. Even though neither brought it up but still it must have been in the back of their minds. The question is in the משנה בבא מציעא ק' ע''א we have what amounts to המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה  and right after that חולקים

That is for the case when the seller is sure and the buyer is doubtful the seller takes and oath and when both are doubtful they divide. Surely the גמרא and תוספות must have been bothered with this. Especially תוספות. Because to תוספות the entire idea of דררא דממונא is specifically when there is a doubt to בית דין even without their pleas. And here in the משנה the only difference between the two cases is only in the pleas. And תוספות brings from בבא בתרא that the only time סומכוס says his law is only when it is  דררא דממונא. So we have what has to have seemed a direct contradiction in the משנה.

So תוספות explains the משנה is a case of דררא דממונא. But that only takes care of the end of the משנה. What about the case where the seller is sure and takes and oath? That has to also be דררא דממונא Because it is the same case in everything except the pleas. And yet if it is דררא דממונא we know סומכוס has to say חולקים to divide. What I think here is that the גמרא and תוספות are both depending on the גמרא back on page צ''ז ע''ב without saying openly that they are doing so. That is we have to say that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or it is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם  as I already explained in my notes that is is a case of מודה במקצת

_________________________________________________________________________________

נראה לי חשוב להצביע על מה שהיה בוודאי מטריד את הגמרא בבבא מציעא דף ק. וזה גם כנראה הטריד את תוספות. למרות שהם לא העלו את זה, אבל עדיין זה בטוח שהיה  בדעתם. השאלה היא המשנה בבא מציעא ק' ע''א יש לנו מצב של  המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה, ומיד אחר כך הדין של חולקים.  במקרה כאשר המוכר הוא בטוח והקונה ספק המוכר לוקח שבועה, וכאשר שניהם  בספק הם מחלקים. אין ספק שהגמרא ותוספות הוטרדו מזה. במיוחד תוספות. כי בשביל תוספות כל הרעיון של דררא דממונא הוא במיוחד כאשר יש ספק אל בית דין אפילו בלי הטיעונים שלהם. והנה במשנה ההבדל היחיד בין שני המקרים הוא רק הטיעונים. וגם תוספות מביא מן הגמרא בבבא בתרא כי המצב היחיד שסומכוס אומר החוק שלו היא רק כאשר הוא דררא דממונא. אז יש לנו מה צריך נראה סתירה ישירה במשנה. אז תוספות מסבירה את המשנה הוא מקרה של דררא דממונא. אבל זה פותר רק של סוף המשנה. מה לגבי המקרה שבו המוכר הוא בטוח  ונשבע? זו צריכה להיות גם דררא דממונא משום שזהו אותו המקרה בכל המשנה פרט הטיעונים. ובכל זאת אם זה דררא דממונא אנחנו יודעים שסומכוס אומר לחלק. מה שאני חושב כאן הוא כי הגמרא ותוספות שניהם סמכו על הגמרא  בעמוד צ''ז ע''ב. כלומר אנחנו צריכים לומר כי ברי ושמא ברי עדיף או שזה מקרה של עסק שבועה ביניהם כפי שכבר הסבירתי בהערות שלי כי זה מקרה של מודה במקצת.

Learning Books on Ethics

The school of thought of Israel Salanter was holding that by learning Musar [Ethics] something of what is learned gets absorbed. This was their idea of how to gain character improvement. And I would have to say that I think this idea at least helped me. I was first at a Litvak yeshiva that did not have Musar and I felt the lack. I can to some degree also see the drawbacks --that it can go off into crazy directions. Still I am happy for what ever Musar I was able to learn and practice.

[Reb Chaim Soloveitchik did not want Musar introduced into yeshivas and to a degree you can see today how Musar can get off track. Still I think the best approach is that of Musar.

Why is it that all religious commentaries on the Torah are so superficial and trite?

The sin of Adam and Eve. The Ari goes into this in detail but his explanations are characteristic of the Ari. That is:- he explains the types of damage that was caused to Nukva {the Female} and to Zeir Anpin etc. It is not a very satisfying explanation.

Reb Chaim Vital in the beginning of Eitz Chaim say the sin was being occupied with the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of the tree of life. The Rishonim have also a few explanations.

But what I have wished for was something more thematic. Something that would do more than make superficial sense. And that is not just on that part of the Torah, but on the whole Torah. In spite of this wish, I have never found such  thing.

I mean  something like you would hear from your English literature teachers about  Shakespeare or the Book of Job.

I am not sure how to explain this. But I am not looking for moral lessons, nor "gematriot," nor spiritual revelations. Rather something that you would hear in a Literature Class about Dostoevsky or from a Philosophy professor about the plays of Plato.

Like: "What was the snake thinking? "What was Eve thinking? How can you prove what you are saying, and not just make random speculations? Why did they not die that day? What did Adam hope to gain?" I have wished for something related to the text and not just people using the text to launch into some crusade. And sadly throughout my studies I have never found anything like that.

In other words, when you were in English Literature, what did the teacher talk about in the Book of Job? He or she would ask "What was Job saying? What were the arguments of his friends? How did they differ? How can you show and prove that that is what they were saying? How did Job answer his friends?"

So the same here with Adam and Eve.

Why is it that all religious commentaries on the Torah are so superficial and trite?

I would love to re-read my notes that I took in High School about the Book Of Job just to see how the teacher was analyzing it and see if I can gain any insight about how to see the patterns and motivations in other books of the Torah. The problem is all the commentaries cover up the hidden layers by means of their "explanations"\

I should mention that I brought up this problem with my learning partner and he suggested that Nachmanides fills this role. And from what I have heard from him this seems right. He in fact seems to deal with the basic themes and hows how they are developed within the context of the Torah itself.
The good thing for English speaking people is  Nachmanides on the Torah is in English

worship of people

The major thing which is troubling about groups that present themselves keeping Torah but are idolaters-they is they worship their tzadik-is the hypocrisy aspect of it. The way I see it is that people can either try to keep the laws of the Torah which includes the second of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" or not claim that are trying to keeping Torah and trying to get money constantly from secular Jews to support their supposedly superior life style.

But you can't say this openly nowadays because it is obvious. People only want to hear something complex because of "Physics Envy." The fact that the truth is sometimes obvious does not matter. People want it t be complicated.


I am not sure however how far to go with this. There still remains the question that some of the people like Reb Nachman were tzadikim. The fact that they are also objects of idol worship does not invalidate that. But it does invalidate the groups that do the idolatry.

The Gra put the whole group  into excommunication which has legal implications.For example one is not allowed to pray in a minyan with them. Nor learn Torah from them. Not teach them Torah. Nor sit within four yards of them. The laws differ between חרם and נידוי. [Cherem and Nidui] "Cherem" can be translated as excommunication. "Niduy "is rebuke. The category the Gra put them into was חרם excommunication.

An example of חרם is what you find in the Gemara with Rabbi Eliezer. Though he was clearly a tzadik still the excommunication had halachic validity as he he himself knew and acted accordingly He did not deny the validity of the excommunication.


There is a question how far to go with this. To what extent is it even possible?

Furthermore I want to point out that I would not be mentioning this if not for the damage these groups cause. That is what I suggest is that the excommunication only reflects an objective reality that is there regardless of the excommunication. Not that the Cherem made them bad but they were bad before the cherem. The cherem only addresses the issue of how to act.

The best way to deal with this issue is to learn the basic subject of idolatry from the Gemara itself. That is mainly the Gemara in Sanhedrin on page 63. Learning that sugia in depth helped me come to clarity about this issue.

Outside of that Gemara it is possible to see the problem by the ugliness of their deeds. That is hard to explain. Mainly I mean that it is one ugly deed then that is just a "קושיא" a question. But by that prevalence  of ugly deeds it is possible to draw a conclusion that there is something about the energy that produces ugly deeds as predictable as the setting of the sun and just as often. And it is not bad deeds. Bad deeds are just wickedness. But there is something ugly about their deeds that is not exactly wicked. It is just that their actions are ugly. There is something wrong with them that you hand put your finger on exactly. And it is not just as it applies to one person of the other. Since it is often and constant and perennial you can conclude that there is some ugly energy producing these ugly people and ugly deeds.

n75 a major n76  r3 a major

[n75 midi format]

 Utube The Secret History of Godel

My learning partner sent this video. 

My answer: 
"I looked at it briefly. I don't have the time right now to go through it all. I have seen both incompleteness theorems before. It is the completeness theorem that I thought would be good for you to look at because it would complete the Godel proof of the existence of God. I might have done the work myself but I never got the chance. In any case Godel is very important and very interesting."

I should mention that I am optimistic that my leaning partner has discovered Godel because he might be able to do something with Godel's proof--much more than I can.
It is true that in the book on Talmud, God did grant to me to make progress. But that was only after my learning partner had opened the way by asking some kind of fundamental question or bringing out some important point. That is ideally how a learning partnership should work.





My letter up above also was not written well. I meant to write the "compactness" theorem.



(1) See Schelling. The force that drives from the finite to infinity. The force that drives from infinity to the finite. The synthesis between them.

(2) See Kant's critique on the Ontological proof. See Dr Kelley Ross's Critique on Kant's Critique 

(3) My point is you need to (must) extend the set of positive traits to infinity and that will fill in the missing gap in Godel's proof. This must happen because of the completeness and compactness theorem.
See Mathematical Logic by Stephan Bilaniuk



(4) Godel mainly puts Anselm's and Leibniz's proof in logic symbols. 

 I noticed the self esteem thing got deeply into the Western psyche. But that was a little bit after I had been cloistered in a Musar yeshiva in NY. Musar means ethical works written during the Middle Ages. In Musar pride in oneself and abilities are universally considered the primary sin and the cause of all other sins. Mainly I think they derive this from Proverbs. So when people around me started talking about the importance of self esteem internally I always translated that to mean the importance of being wicked. It did not seem to make sense. I am not sure from where it comes from but I don't think they are getting it from Proverbs.


[Actually I do have an idea of where the self esteem thing came from [Eric Fromm], but I am not sure if that was the original source. I seem to recall some previous source. Nietzsche? I just can't put my finger on it this second.]
Nietzsche: Das Kriterium der Wahrheit liegt in der Steigerung des Machtgefühls. "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power." The psychologists picked it up from him. That is not rare. Most of their ideas come from Nietzsche.




Later I started noticing even Musar books that were distorting the message of Musar and insisting just like the psychologists that self esteem was a good thing.

Recently more serious psychologists have noticed that they were mistaken and rather that self esteem being a good thing it is the cause of violence and evil.

So Musar really had this right from the beginning. This shows that the idea of Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Musar is really correct.

Appendix: Each one of the major Musar books talks about the evil of Pride with no exception. חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה מעלות המידות ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם.
And furthermore all the disciples of Israel Salanter said the same thing. Isaac Blazzer, Yoseph Yozel Horvitz, etc.

The self esteem thing as the of cause of evil

The major question which came up when I was in high school was "What is the good life?" This was not phrased in that way. The way people around me put it was in terms of the "search for the truth."

But it was this question that I felt was answered when I got to yeshiva in NY. That is a life of service towards God along with a vocation. Service towards God was largely understood to mean learning Torah along with a life of mitzvot.




This might seem like a trivial question. But that would be wrong. Many places that at least present themselves as promoting the good life in exactly this way--Torah and mitzvot - are highly destructive of the the exact goal they are claiming to advance. What they say and what they do are not in correspondence. The life they advocate is a life of cursing secular Jews (when they are not asking them for charity) and spending their days in  chatting and gossip.

The question of the good life is not an abstract question. It is question that concerns our very souls.
And what is happening before our eyes is a battle for our souls. The movements geared to suck people into them are as pernicious as the Gra foresaw long ago.





________________________________________________________________________________

השאלה המרכזית שעלתה כשהייתי בתיכון היתה "מהם החיים הטובים?" זה לא היה מנוסח ככה. האופן שבו אנשים סביבי שמו אותה היה במונחים של "החיפוש אחר האמת." אבל זה היתה השאלה שהרגשתי שנענתה כשהגעתי לישיבה בניו יורק. כי הם חיים של שירות כלפי אלוהים . שירות כלפי אלוהים במובן של ללמוד תורה יחד עם חיים של מצוות. זה אולי נראה כמו שאלה טריוויאלית. יש מקומות רבים  שמציגים את עצמם  כקידום בחיים הטובים בדרך זו בדיוק, תורה ומצוות  אבל מאוד הרסניים של המטרה הזאת.  מה הם אומרים ומה הם עושים הם לא בהתכתבות. החיים שלהם בם חיים לקלל חילונים בזמן שהם לא שואלים אותם לצדקה ולבלות ימיהם מפטפטים ורכילות

Can virtue be taught? This is the underlying assumption of the Lithuanian yeshiva
That is the idea of learning Torah for its own sake and not in order for it to be  source of money . The idea is that by learning Torah for its own sake one will be taught and influenced to be virtuous and also he will be living the good life.The life of men as men were meant to be.
The Boy Scouts was also founded on this idea that virtue could be taught. [Within the context of outdoor skills.] Nowadays the boy-scouts is not an option but still the basic idea is valid. Perhaps something similar could be done as part of  a yeshiva program. For example to set aside a few hours per week and to bring in some Eagle Scout to teach the students a few skills.]



But we know that it is not possible to teach virtue. There are children of righteous people that are not righteous. If virtue could be taught the righteous person would have tried and succeeded in teaching it to his own children. But it is not innate either. If it was it would be seen when children are young. But many times children turn out very differently than they seem to be when young.

On the other hand we see that  wickedness can be taught. We see people born into a belief system in which evil is condoned. And they follow that path.

From what we know from Howard Bloom [the Lucifer Principle] it is the society the super-organism that is the most determinate.  So if we go with the super-organism idea of Howard Bloom we can see the idea of  a Lithuanian yeshiva is a correct idea. Something that society and one's own family can't do often a good immediate environment can do.

But by the same idea we can see how yeshivas are in general damaging because of the same idea. Most are not authentic and are not good environments where people learn virtue. Most yeshivas are chatter boxs that contrive and scheme all day how to extract money form secular Jews during the short time periods that they're not cursing them.
Yeshivas are  factories of chatter. It is rare to find the real authentic place that learns Torah for its own sake.
 And I showed above one needs a real place of Torah. It is not enough to learn on one's own. But if there is no place around that is authentic what you need to do is to get your own Shas and go through it. [Actually I mean the whole Oral Law. That is the two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra Sifrei and the Midrash Raba. That should not need more than about 40 minutes per day to go through one "Amud" [half a "daf"] with Rashi and Tosphot. [The thing is when you have finished the Babylonian Talmud you go on to the Jerusalem Talmud.]

learning Talmud

My essay on how to learn Talmud deals with learning in depth.
I want to say that there also needs to be a session of fast learning Gemara. The way to do this is word for word with Rashi. That is you keep one finger on the Gemara and the other on the Rashi and read the words of the Gemara and then the words of Rashi that go on those exact same word. It is hard to explain but you probably can get the idea. Then you do Tosphot, Maharsha and Maharam on that 1/2 a page [i.e. an "Amud"] This whole process should take about 40 minutues if you do all teh Maharasha and Maharam.

Music

n99   [n99 in midi]

Letter of law of rituals while doing as much violence as possible to the spirit of the Law.

Hanging around with ugly stupid and insane people must have an effect on one eventually. No one is immune to the group they hang around with.

There are promises of improvement in all kinds of areas. But you never see someone improve in character or in learning. The effect is always negative. The result of coming close and connected with any of the groups is to take  a person that was kind, generous, and smart and make him rude, cruel, and stupid.
The defense that  heard given is that it is like an emergency room. Who comes to an emergency room of a hospital? Only sick people. But I can object to this analogy. People come to an emergency room to get better. Here people come with intention to get better from what is possible to see the get worse.

This can only be known by experience. Their words and writings all seem impressive. The only way to know something is deeply wrong is by observation. So based on the Chafetz Chaim Vol I:4 I have to warn people of the dangers. This is the same reason the Gra put that entire movement into excommunication. The reason is sometimes you need to warn someone of a danger they are walking into unawares.

There are plenty of ugly stories. But I do not need to go into them because everyone has their own experiences. But they choose to ignore the negative aspects because of the entertainment  and emotional value of the movement. It is fun and deep and has luminosity. The only problem is the luminous aspect comes from worship of human beings. It is not Torah. But it is dressed in the garments of Torah in order to entice people.

1. How close one is to God according to the Torah is not dependent on how close they are to a tzadik.
2. "Everything is godliness," is not what the Torah says. That is pantheism. The view of the Torah is Monotheism.
3. The Torah holds everything was created, something from nothing. Not from God's substance. In the Torah, God has no substance.

But these issues are not as obvious as the problem that the books themselves are filled with errors and distortions and promises that they can't keep and promises that they don't keep. That is there is no objective reality behind the promises.

But the thing that bugs me the most is not whether any doctrines are true or not. What bothers me is lying about what the Torah says. If someone wants to disagree with the Torah that is not as bad as disagreeing with it and then claiming that that is what the Torah says. That takes a kind of immunity to truth. And as fascinating as their books are they still filled with errors.


The fault is a kind of lack of concern by people that could have thought about this problem by instead buried their heads in the sand. This shows I think a kind of judgement--as if these issues are irrelevant. It is almost as if the people that did not speak out had some overriding interest to be silent. It can't be there were unaware of the problems. What I think is at least some people are afraid. They don't want to say what they think because of a good reason. They think that some invisible hand might punish them. They are not thinking whether this invisible hand if from the realm of good or the realm of evil. They just don't want to deal with this.


People need to be extremely careful whenever they submit themselves to a religious service. Research has to be done beforehand, for after all, whatever the sect or religion is we are opening our spirits in such places, opening them to all kinds of influences.  The teachers are currently just as damaged and broken as the  people, and so just as we choose our friends carefully, we must also choose our religious guides carefully. (Too many, many false teachers).


In any case this should not be taken as critique on the Baal Shem Tov of Reb Nachman, Heaven forbid. But rather the movement which went into something that the Gra knew was idolatry.

I should mention that the purpose of this blog is to ask hard questions. It is not to win a popularity contest.



___________________________________
_____________________________________________


הדבר העיקרי שהוא  לא בסדר עם חסידות הוא העבודה זרה. אבל יש דברים נסתרים שנראים רצינים יותר. זה חייב להיות משהו יותר פנימי. להסתובב עם אנשי טיפשים ומטורפים מכוערים חייב להיות השפעה על אחד בסופו של דבר. אף אחד לא חסין לקבוצה הוא להסתובב בה. ישנם הבטחות של שיפור בכל מיני התחומים. אבל אתה אף פעם לא רואה מישהו משתפר במידות או בלמידה. התוצאה היא תמיד שלילית. התוצאה של מתקרבים ומחוברים עם כל אחת מן הקבוצות היא לקחת אותו אדם שהיה נדיב  ולגרום לו גסות, וטיפשות. ההגנה  הנתונה היא שזה כמו חדר מיון. מי מגיע לחדר מיון של בית החולים? רק אנשים חולים. אבל  האנלוגיה הזו לא מדוייקת. אנשים באים לחדר מיון כדי להשתפר. כאן אנשים באים עם כוונה להשתפר והמצב מחמיר. זה יכול להיות ידוע רק על ידי ניסיון. המילות שלהם וכתביהם  נראים מרשימים. הדרך היחידה לדעת משהו הוא  לא בסדר היא על ידי נסיון. לדברי חפץ החיים מחוייבים להזהיר אנשים מפני הסכנות. זהו מאותה סיבה שהגר''א שם התנועה כולה לתוך נידוי וכרם. הסיבה היא  אתה צריך להזהיר מישהו של סכנה שהם הולכים לתוכה במפתיע.

 כמה קרוב אחד הוא לאלוהים על פי התורה אינו תלוי  בכמה הוא קרוב לצדיק. "הכל אלוקות," הוא לא מה שהתורה אומרת. כלומר הפנתאיזם. ההשקפה של התורה היא המונותאיזם. התורה מחזיקה הכל נברא, יש מאין. לא מן החומר של אלוהים. בתורה, אלוהים אין בו חומר. אפילו חומר רוחני

The 10,000 hour rule.

The 10,000 hour rule. That is to gain expertise in any subject one needs 10,00 hours.

{This rule I saw on some blog.}

When I think about it I can see this is right. You have the normal four year program in a Lithuanian yeshiva. That means 10 hours per day at minimum of learning Torah. 10* 365*4 minus Friday and Shabat.

But I wanted to add the idea of critical mass. That is the hours can't be spread apart too far. That is it is not the same thing doing 10 hours per day four years in yeshiva as doing a few hours per day over a longer period of time. [Critical mass is the idea that not just you need a certain amount of mass but that the mass needs to be close together.]

Mirrer Yeshiva in NY

I never knew Avraham Kalmanovitch. I was aware the last time I was in Israel that someone had started a yeshiva on his name. The grandchildren of David Abuchatzaira [the older bother of Bava Sali] go there.

I think it takes something very special to create a real authentic yeshiva.

There was some really amazing energy in both the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY that he founded and also the first yeshiva I went to in Far Rockaway.

I don't know what it takes to do that but I guess that it is not visible or obvious. I have seen an incredible amount of yeshivas that just don't have that spirit. The Hasidic yeshivas I have seen are cults based on the worship of their leader. Other places are a little better  because they are not idol worshipers. But the places were built in order to get the piece of paper that would say they don't need to serve in the Army. Other places are more into money. The Rosh Yeshiva was a grocery store owner that went out of businesses and so decided to open a kollel. In Israel that was simple to do with just three names and ID numbers and you would get an automatic government stipend.


I should mention the reason to put the above paragraphs here come from the Chafetz Chaim, Volume I chapter 4. It is the same reason that you warn you children not to play with a bad kid. You need to watch out to protect him from bad influences.

Gravitational waves exist.

Gravitational waves exist. One hundred years after Einstein's General Relativity paper they were discovered.

Music for the glory of God [i added these in midi for anyone who wants to print the notes]

a song for Godr1  [r1in midi format] [r1 nwc]   n98 [n98 in midi format]  n98 nwc n97 [n97 in midi]  n96 [n96 in midi] n96 nwc n95 [n95 in midi] n94 [n94 in midi]  n92 [n97 in midi] [n97 I see was not finished.]

n75  [n75 in midi]

What causes the generation gap.

What causes the generation gap. From what I can see it is the saying of grotesque falsehoods. This is usually done to advance some cause of the adults or protect their self image. Or to advance some cause.
This is sometimes on a large scale. A whole generation teaches lies to the young.  The results will be that the young will rebel once they find out they have been lied to. 

There are two aspects to this:
(1) If you are telling and teaching a certain religious tradition then to do so accurately. Do your homework.

(2) Don't lie to protect that tradition. If there are problems with it then don't hide them or make excuses.

panenthism

  This doctrine, "God is everything" did not originate with the Besht. It is true that the verse of the Torah ["You were shown to know that The Lord is God, there are no gods besides Him."] is explained to support this belief. But the practice and goal of union with the God that created all and permeates all and is All appears in the Upanishads [the final sections of the four Vedas written 1000-500 B.C.E.]
  The first one to make Yoga into a coherent unified system was Patanjali [circa 200 B.C.E. during the time of the Second Temple].
  "Yoga" means "union", i.e. union of the finite transitory self with the infinite "Atman" or "Brahman" [eternal infinite self].
In Yoga-Vedanta philosophy there is one true God that is invisible, imminent, transcendent that created everything. The name the Hindus give to this God is Brahman.
All creation is composed of the substance of Brahman.

  This is not traditional Torah. In the theology of the First authorities (Rishonim - Medieval sages), God is everywhere but separate. The world and God are not one. The world is not made of Divine Substance. It is made from nothing. In Torah thought God has no substance at all. So things are not made from his substance.
Creation ex-nihlo is the view and philosophy and emphasis of the Torah as explained by the Rambam and other Rishonim [authorities of Torah of the Middle Ages]. This is very, very different than the views of Breslov Hasidut or any other Hasidut one that I am aware of.
Modern day Breslov is an attempt to beat Hindu Yoga-Vedanta at their own game. It is not Torah.


Changing the essence and meaning of Torah as defined by the Rambam and the Geonim bothers me.

The "contraction" is described in detail by the Ari. At first, the light of God was everywhere. So there was no place for creation. So he contracted his light and made an empty space like a sphere. [There was also a point of light left in the center of the space.] He then sent His light down through one opening and the light went down a bit and then started curving around and became the first sub sphere (called Keter) in the larger sphere. This happened ten times. This does not imply things are Godliness. 
 The question is not the tzimtzum but the light. And the light is "created light" as stated by the Sefer Yetzira and brought down by the  Ari.



) In panenthism God also transcends the World, and so is not equal to the world. Rather he contains it.
See for example: Lekutim Yekarim from Pinchas of Koretz Parshat Veetchanan: "There is nothing in the world but the Holy One Blessed be He." (This is a later book. It is not from the original books of R. Pinchas.)
Ben Porat [page 126] from R. Yaakov Yoseph brings one story from the Besht that he said "There is no place empty of God." Later the same story in Heichal Bracha (from  of Kamarna) got expanded into him saying, "There is no existence besides him."


) The Ari said [from the Zohar] that the sepherot of Azilut (Emanation) are Godliness. After that i.e. the sepherot of creation, formation, and the physical universe are not Godliness. (Eitz Chayim Heichal 1, Shar 3, chapter 3). [The Zohar says in Emanation alone, the vessels and light are Godliness. After Emanation just the light is Godliness not the vessels.]
This is independent of the "Contraction" question. But concerning the contraction the Arizal wrote, "He contracted Himself." (Eitz Chayim 1:2:2; 1:2:3; 1:2:4) [Not "his light".]

Books of the cult under the excommunication of the Gra  defend the doctrine of panentheism, by going to the zimzum. But in fact it does not help much. Even if it was not complete, things still don't have to be Godliness.]

The appeal of cult under the excommunication of the Gra is entertainment,  emotional value, not truth value. 

The Nefesh Hachaim does say that realizing there are no powers in the world besides God is important. That is not the same as pantheism. That means the world is under the control of God alone.

Nature certainly becomes the stage of God's expression of his will. He expresses his will and purpose through forces of nature in the Torah. But nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's wholly other. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine, Thus worship of  a tzadik is contrary to Torah.

Ideas in Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9 I corrected some grammar and did general editing.

I also took out one paragraph on BM page 98 that today looks to me that it was simply wrong. I am not in a yeshiva and I have no Gemara with me. But from what I recall the Riva and Rashi hold the same about נאנסה and it is specifically on כפירה that they disagree. So whatever I was saying in that note could not have been right. However the original book was just my notes that I was taking as I was learning with David. It probably was not written properly and then I did not have  a chance to correct it until now.



I made the essay on BM pg 98 a little shorter in the questions.

Ideas in Shas

I should say a lot of credit for this booklet goes to my learning partner David, but he did not want to be mentioned by last name. So I just mentioned the places where I learned to some degree how to learn. But none of this would have been written without the influence of my learning partner.

I should mention that they way he learns is closer to what they were doing in Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway more than at the Mir. That is; his method is more looking closely at what he is learning more than trying to see how what he is learning fits in with other areas. That is he is not a system builder. In the Mir in Brooklyn, on the other hand, the emphasis was seeing how the sugia in front  of you fits in to other areas. But you can see in this booklet I chose to go with the first approach.

Charismatic singers, actors, religious teachers. When someone mentions our favorite religious teacher our ears pick up.  There are people if you just mention the name of some actor or singer of religious leader will get all excited immediately. If you mention some other name they will right away fall asleep. What makes people like that? And not just that we follow religious leaders that know no more why they became famous more than actors or singers. We long to be like them. And their fame as a rule fades. What is the meaning of this? This charisma is so intoxicating people that have it never stop to ask why they have it, and those of us that follow these leaders never stop to ask what is it that make us so certain that these people are divinely inspired.

What I think is this is all a kind of collective mild insanity. The problem gets aggravated when the leader himself has some aspect that is mad. Then the effect on others that get close to him is madness.

Is there an antidote for this madness? Not until one is aware of the problem and recognizes that he himself is under some kind of powerful influence.  But even then I don't think one can escape without some kind of dramatic wake up call.

It makes a huge difference who the leader is. But sometimes it does not seem worth the effort to see if the alpha tzadik really is a tzadik or not. enough idol worship of the alpha tzadik should be enough for anyone to head for the hills.

The problem with celebrity culture, worship of the tzadik, charisma, is that when they fade out as they must, we are left with the ruins to pick up. The tzadik worship is really no different than falling in love with a doll. Further the problem is the power to persuade should not be confused with being a tzadik. The power to persuade is a means to get others to think of oneself as tzadik but it often is found in the wicked, people that get joy from wrong actions.

They can write in a way that their words are sweet. They can talk in a way that is magnetic.  They can persuade people and that is power, power mixed with ignorance of right and wrong. Often their books contain with grotesque falsehoods. But it is all excused because of the power of their words.

idolatry, worship of tzadikim

The problem with the focus on the tzadik is that it is idolatry. There are certainly good arguments why one needs some example of human perfection to strive after. Be that as it may Hasidut is idolatry. The basic approach of the Torah is to focus on the Law of Moses, not on any tzadik.

It \is true that most religions do focus on some central person. And they consider that person to be the best example of human and divine perfection. So when hasidim focus  on some unique individual you can understand the power and force that must have on people. The only problem is that it is idolatry. And it is idolatry that covered by by lots of neat rituals that are in fact based on Torah and Halachah. But the center of focus is the tzadik. And the more they hide it the worse it is.

 The societies of Hasidim are legacy societies, weighed down by the  traditions, superstitions and animosities, unleavened by the core concept of individual rights. Until Hasidim renounce their past, there will be no room in which to build a new future.
     But Hasidim will not renounce their past. They haven't  outgrown their belief in magic. So Hasidim look to rich secular Jews and cry, "Help us! Feed us! We are poor and terrified, you are rich and strong! Bring your breadbasket  and deliver us from the darkness!"  Every Hasidic community is totally dependent on charity for it very survival. And they are communities based on connections and dealings--not on Torah. Judging solely from history, no Hasidic community  has achieved the preconditions for a just, peaceful, and prosperous social order.  False messiahs are the least of their problems. More like there is not one single functional group.

What I was hoping to point out here was the problem of the focus on the tzadik. They idea of needing a mentor and an example is a true idea. But what happens is that every tzadik has some negative side. And that side may be hidden from view. But when people intentionally attack themselves to the tzadik they usually get attached to some kind of Sitra Achra energy as you can see on their faces. And anyone sticking around them long enough can not escape that energy. They get absorbed into it and lose their human soul. 

How to educate one's children? Where to send them to school? What is the best school?How to find it? Let's put together a few adults that had famous fathers but never accomplished anything great themselves along with two generals of the army that have trained thousands of young men. What type of conclusions will result? The question that comes up at first is not the question of how to be  a soldier but how to train youth in virtue. But how to train a soldier is also part of the question.
 How to go about finding a good school? Or do you even want to find a good school. After all there are advantages of a youth being home and learning from his parents. Any of these questions seems familiar? [These questions I got from Plato from his book Laches.]

Some schools and groups are factories of delusion. You can definitely ruin people by bad education. But can you improve people by good education? What about yeshivas? I have seen lots of groups and yeshivas which turn out monsters consistently.  And I have seen places which predictably  turn out good and responsible people. But what I want to point out is these questions are important. They should not be left to chance.

Clearly the Boy Scouts is no longer an option. What seems to me is that I have largely ignored these questions. I have myself written about good things like Torah and natural sciences and also learning an honest vocation. But I never really dealt with the problem of education in itself.

My basic approach has been to try  to be an example. If I think  Torah, and Physics and survival skills are important, then that is what I try to do myself. As for what and where are the best schools--There is no secret about them. And from what I can see they live up to their reputation. The Mirrer in NY, Ponovitch, Brisk, Torah VeDaath all turn out fine young men. As for schools as long as we are talking about STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] then American and Israeli schools are great.

Mainly what I have seen is that stereotypes are always true. If some group has the reputation of being a fringe cult, then time shows again and again that it is.  And when a cult tries to polish its image--it still is  a cult. What I recommend is not to be fooled by the nail polish they slap on themselves to show they are respectable.
There is a serious problem when delusions gain religious power. Delusions by themselves are just delusions --but add to that numinosity and religious significance, it's a whole new ball game and much more poisonous and pernicious. And youth can and do get attached to these types.

[The general in the dialog was the one that failed to pursue the Spartan navy because of an omen and thus he lost the critical battle  that caused the fall of Athens in 404 B.C.  and was the effective end of the Greek Golden Age and Greek supremacy. That war devastated all of Greece. That general was executed. You can imagine the Athenians were upset. Five years after the war they executed Socrates.]

What is going on is a war for the soul of young people. It is not about education. It is about cults trying to get their dirty hands on your kids- and using very sophisticated time tried methods in doing so.

I used to pray the Shemona Esre {a fixed prayer in the Jewish Prayer-book} every day three times with a lot of fervor. The fact that it was fixed did not stop me from deep intentions. Private chatting with G-d was something I started later I but I did not think my intentions in these private chats were any more deep or sincere. They can be. But the fact that they were spontaneous did nothing to add to sincerity.

The most deep aspect of prayer was when I was in Shar Yashuv [that is Reb Freifeld's yeshiva] in Far Rockaway and the Mir Yeshiva in NY.

Private chat I think is a good thing but it should not be confused with sincerity or depth.

Later the prayer-book prayers kind of became dry to me and I added the intentions of the יסוד ושורש העבודה and Yaakov Emden in his great Sidur. [Reb Freifeld gave me that Sidur]. Sometime in Israel Elise Meir's brother sent to me the Sidur of the Reshash. [The red one]. And I started using that. {I had already been learning the Ari's books for some years.] But I always longed to get the large Sidur HaReshash by the grandson of the Reshash for a few reasons. Mordechi Sharabi said there were errors in the small sidur. Eventually I found the large sidur in the end of Mea Shearim near Rechov Salant. [Anyway, I have no idea what Mordechai Sharabi was talking about. The two sidurim are different systems. That is about it.That is they are two different interpretation of the Nahar Shalom of Shalom Sharabi. But mistakes? If he said so fine, but I did not see any.

When I pray today I try to stick with the basic, straight, Ashkenazic Prayer-book. The reason I stopped the Sidur with the intentions of the Ari is simple. The intentions are vessels for the light. Light changes so do the intentions. 

Still if you can get either the large or small sidur of the Reshash both are great books--if you read them along with the book of the Reshash the Nahar Shalom

[I am not so much into this anymore, But I do think the Ari and the intentions have great value when done right.]
What I think today is that there is nothing like straight prayer in a regular Litvak Yeshiva. 

in reference to my previous note it occurs to me that this is the very issue of contention between R, Josph Halevi  and the Ran [Rabbainu Nisim Ben Reuven] and Tosphot. Why did not Rava in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו? [look in the ran in Shavuot I think the page number is 45b].

In short Rav Joseph says, we don't say a migo to פוטר  from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this migo is different from other migos. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for Rabbainu Tam. That is, BM and Shavuot  an Bava Kama Tosphot asks on rabbanu tam his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted  understanding why their question is  a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did rava not ask from any migos that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of Rav Joseph Halevi or the Ran.  [This Rav Joseph I should mention was a drop later than the baali hatosphot and he is brought down often in the Tur. Every time I see anything he has to say I am always impressed.

Why the last question of Tosphot is specifically directed towards Rabbinu Tam. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is Rashi does not fit with that Sugia in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.



Ideas in BM
______________________________________________________________________________

In Hebrew.

This is the very issue of contention between רבי יוסף הלוי  and the ר''ן and תוספות. Why did not רבא in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו?

In short רבי יוסף הלוי says, we don't say a מיגו to פוטר  from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this מיגו is different from other מיגו. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for רבינו תם. That is, ב''מ and שבועות  an בבא קמא תוספות asks on רבינו תם his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted from above understanding why their question is  a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did רבא not ask from any מיגו that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of רבי יוסף הלוי or the ר''ן. We don't say a מיגו to פוטר from an oath.

Why the last question of תוספות is specifically directed towards רבינו תם. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is רש''י does not fit with that סוגיא in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.

I had written in the little booklet that God granted to me to write about Bava Metzia a question on a question on Rabbainu Tam on page 98a of Bava Metzia. I don't have any Gemara with me to be able to look anything up. But it did occur to me as I was looking over my notes what Tosphot must be getting at. If memory serves correctly Rabi Chiya bar Aba holds we need כפירה for all four שומרים. I forget the language but I think that is the language he uses. This is very delicate in my mind right now so I am not sure how to put this.  I think from what I remember in Shavuot page 45b Tosphot first word מתוך that rabi chiya bar aba only says we need כפירה  with אונס  and הודאה--and that is all. And that means only that אונס and הודאה alone are not enough. But Rabi Chiya bar Aba would agree that כפירה  and הודאה  are enough. And that is the crucial fact that makes Tosphot comes out OK.

I hope I can put this down in words properly. But what this means in when Tosphot in Bava Kama pg 107a asks on רבינו תם אהייא קאי he means this: We have three animals [That is the case that the Gemara is dealing with with Rami bar Chama in  and Bava Metzia אונס כפירה הודאה] So now the question on Tosphot on Rabbainu Tam comes out perfectly. On which animal is he saying לא היו דברים מעולם. That is which animal does he deny? If the הודאה Then there is no oath as Rava says in Shavuot but if that is the case then even in the case of אונס if he says לא היו דברים מעולם on the הודאה There also there is no oath. If rather he said לא היו דברים מעולם on the אונס then all we have is two כפירה's and one הודאה and there is an oath on that contrary to Rava. And that is the main point I wanted to bring forth to show what Tosphot means with their question on Rabbainu Tam.
Then from what I dimly recall Tosphot I think does ask maybe Rava means he said לא היו דברים מעולם on all three animals. And then answers the Rava could have asked from any case of מודה במקצת
I would like to put here a link to the book to anyone can look up what I am saying.


[Just for the public I want to say that in order for a paid guard to take an oath there is an argument about what the pleas are. To R. Chiya Bar Joseph we only need admission in part and a plea of "it was stolen by armed robbers" of some kind of situation which he could not have been on guard against. If the animal was lost then by his own admission he has to pay. R. Chiya Bar Aba says you need a plea of "it never happened" along with the above two pleas. Only then is there an oath. Look up the verses in the Torah in Exodus and you will see what the source of the difficulty is. ]



_____________________________________________________

Here is the same essay as above with a little bit more Hebrew.

I had written in the little booklet that God granted to me to write about בבא מציעא a question on a question on רבינו תם on page 98  of בבא מציעא. I don't have any גמרא with me to be able to look anything up. But it did occur to me as I was looking over my notes what תוספות must be getting at. If memory serves correctly רבי חייא בר אבא holds we need כפירה for all four שומרים. I forget the language but I think that is the language he uses. This is very delicate in my mind right now so I am not sure how to put this. Mainly I think תוספות is trying to draw a distinction between רמי בר חמא and רבי חייא בר אבא. I think from what I remember in שבועות מה: תוספות ד''ה מתןך  that רבי חייא בר אבא only says we need כפירה  with אונס  and הודאה, and that is all. And that means only that אונס and הודאה alone are not enough. But רבי חייא בר אבא would agree that כפירה  and הודאה  are enough. And that is the crucial fact that makes תוספות comes out OK.

I hope I can put this down in words properly. But what this means in when תוספות in בבא קמא  דף ק''ז ע''א  asks on רבינו תם אהייא קאי he means this: We have three animals. That is the case that the גמרא is dealing with with רמי בר חמא in  בבא מציעא אונס כפירה הודאה. So now the question on תוספות on רבינו תם comes out perfectly. On which animal is he saying לא היו דברים מעולם? That is which animal does he deny? If the הודאה then there is no oath as רבא says in שבועות, but if that is the case, then even in the case of אונס, if he says לא היו דברים מעולם on the הודאה there also there is no oath. If rather he said לא היו דברים מעולם on the אונס, then all we have is two כפירה's and one הודאה and there is an oath on that contrary to רבא. And that is the main point I wanted to bring forth to show what תוספות means with their question on רבינו תם.
Then from what I dimly recall תוספות I think does ask maybe רבא means he said לא היו דברים מעולם on all three animals. And then answers the rava could have asked from any case of מודה במקצת<

  : רבי חייא בר אבא מחזיק שצריכים כפירה לכל ארבעת השומרים. בעיקר אני חושב תוספות מנסה לעשות הבחנה בין רמי בר חמא ואת רבי חייא בר אבא. אני חושב ממה שאני זוכר ב שבועות מה: תוספות ד''ה מתוך כי רבי חייא בר אבא רק אומר שאנחנו צריכים כפירה עם אונס והודאה, וזה הכל. וזה אומר רק כי אונס והודאה בלבד אינו מספיק. אבל רבי חייא בר אבא יסכים שכפירה ואת ההודאה מספיק. (הפסוק אומר כי הוא זה.) וזה עובדה המכריע שעושה תוספות  בסדר. אבל מה שזה אומר שכאשר תוספות בבבא קמא דף ק''ז ע''א שואלים על רבינו תם "אהייא קאי" הוא מתכוון זה: יש לנו שלוש חיות. זה המקרה כי גמרא מתמודדת בו עם רמי בר חמא בבבא מציעא, אונס כפירה הודאה. אז עכשיו שאלה על תוספות על רבינו תם יוצאת מושלמת. על איזו חיה הוא אומר "לא היו דברים מעולם"? כלומר איזו חיה הוא מכחיש? אם ההודאה, אז אין שבועה כמו שרבא אומר בשבועות, אבל אם זה המקרה, אז גם במקרה של אונס, אם הוא אומר לא היו דברים מעולם על הודאה גם אין שבועה. אם דווקא הוא אומר "לא היו דברים מעולם" על אונס, אז כל מה שיש לנו הוא שתי בהמות של כפירה ואחד הודאה ויש שבועה בניגוד רבא. וזה הדבר העיקרי שאני רוצה לומר להראות מה שתוספות אומר עם השאלה שלהם על רבינו תם ישר. אז תוספות שואלים אולי רבא אומר שהוא אמר לא היו דברים מעולם על כל שלושה בעלי חיים. ואז הם עונים שאם כן רבא היה יכול לשאול מכל מקרה של מודה במקצת.

e67  h69 bar yochai piano
orchestra piece .mathematics  r2

Pantheism is not Torah

This doctrine, "God is everything" did not originate with the Besht. It is true that the verse of the Torah ["You were shown to know that The Lord is God, there are no gods besides Him."] is explained to support this belief. But the practice and goal of union with the God that created all and permeates all and is All appears in the Upanishads [the final sections of the four Vedas written 1000-500 B.C.E.]
The first one to make Yoga into a coherent unified system was Patanjali [circa 200 B.C.E. during the time of the Second Temple].
"Yoga" means "union", i.e. union of the finite transitory self with the infinite "Atman" or "Brahman" [eternal infinite self].
In Yoga-Vedanta philosophy there is one true God that is invisible, imminent, transcendent that created everything. The name the Hindus give to this God is Brahman.
All creation is composed of the substance of Brahman.
[] This is not traditional Torah. In the theology of the First authorities (Rishonim - Medieval sages), God is everywhere but separate. The world and God are not one. The world is not made of Divine Substance. It is made from nothing.
Creation ex-nihlo is the view and philosophy and emphasis of the Torah as explained by the Rambam and other Rishonim [authorities of Torah of the Middle Ages].

Modern day Breslov is an attempt to beat Hindu Yoga-Vedanta at their own game. It is not Torah.

Conclusion

Changing the essence and meaning of Torah as defined by the Rambam and the Geonim bothers me.

(note 1) This is described in detail by the Ari. At first, the light of God was everywhere. So there was no place for creation. So he contracted his light and made an empty space like a sphere. [There was also a point of light left in the center of the space.] He then sent His light down through one opening and the light went down a bit and then started curving around and became the first sub sphere (called Keter) in the larger sphere. This happened ten times.

(note 2) In this doctrine (panenthism) God also transcends the World, and so is not equal to the world. Rather, he contains it.
See for example: Lekutim Yekarim from Pinchas of Koretz Parshat Veetchanan: "There is nothing in the world but the Holy One Blessed be He." (This is a later book. It is not from the original books of R. Pinchas.)
Ben Porat [page 126] from R. Yaakov Yoseph brings one story from the Besht that he said "There is no place empty of God." Later the same story in Heichal Bracha (from  Kamarna) got expanded into him saying, "There is no existence besides him."
(note 3) He said that the sepherot of Azilut (Emanation) are Godliness. After that i.e. the sepherot of creation, formation, and the physical universe are not Godliness. (Eitz Chayim Heichal 1, Shar 3, chapter 3).[The Zohar says in Emanation alone, the vessels and light are Godliness. After Emanation just the light is Godliness not the vessels.]
This is independent of the "Contraction" question. But concerning the contraction the Arizal wrote, "He contracted Himself." (Eitz Chayim 1:2:2; 1:2:3; 1:2:4) [Not "his light".]

Books cult under the excommunication of the Gra defend the doctrine of panentheism, by going to the zimzum. But in fact it does not help much. Even if it was not complete, things still don't have to be Godliness.]
The appeal of this doctrine is entertainment  emotional value, not truth value.

Most findings about the environment start with the words "We have found that such and such is true." When you read the paper you find they made a computer model and that this model predicts their conclusion. Computer models very often tell people what they want to hear, and depend on the factors that you put into them.

See this masterpiece by Dr Stern
And this also


Besides his points there, I also found an amazing thing. That computer models can miss infinities. They can graph a simple curve that corresponds to a certain equation that looks superficially like that equation. But these are numerical methods. Thus there can be infinities in that equation that the computer simply misses, and thus the graph is completely wrong.





But even so I think solar power is a good idea. I don't like being too dependent on the grid.

• I do not mean to sit by the side lines as Western civilization is in a life of death or struggle for its very soul. The reason I do not write about this directly is because I write anyway that people ought to learn Torah. What is after all the basis of Western  civilization? Respect for private property, freedom individualism, rule of law, not rule of connections, or ideology. All things in Torah. [That is limited authority to government and leaders. Just like the Constitution.]

But you do need the kind of synthesis of these values found in the Constitution of the USA.
There are lots of tribalistic, superstitious, zero-sum mindset hasidic communities that live only off of charity that supposedly follow Torah. Obviously something is wrong with them

     But hasidim look to America and say: "There it is! Everything we want, everything we need, everything we've yearned for all these years! Why can they have it, but not we?"

     So mired are they in their mindset that they can't comprehend the answer. Therein lies the greatest tragedy.

 They are teenage boys: overflowing with energy, fundamentally undisciplined, prisoners of drives not yet brought under control. The USA is a beautiful older woman: lush, alluring, worldly wise, deeply sensual. We are everything they yearn for and dream they might one day have...if only they could grow up.

     The growing up part is not optional.

     

Despite  appearances, it's really only a tiny minority of our people who dissent from the fundamentals that make American society as dynamic, and giddily exuberant as it is. Nearly all Americans believe in the same core concepts: individual rights, private property, the free market, and the supremacy of law over connections, causes, or opinions. We build prisons to house the rest.

What makes people desire to live off the charity of others? Bad education.  Bad Education damages the soul. And it is the reason the Gra put that group into excommunication. He knew what they were teaching and still are teaching is damaging and  we can still see the results today.  

Torah, Physics, Metaphysics

The secrets of Torah called מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה I would like to suggest are learning Physics and Meta-Physics.  And therefore worth spending time on. And I would also like to suggest how to spend time on them.
(1) As proof of my first contention I can simply refer to the Rambam who says this openly in the Guide for the Perplexed.  To believe it is hard because you need אמונת חכמים belief in the wise. But if you have belief that the Rambam was wise then this is already established. A second proof will be my previews essays that show the Kabalah is a synthesis of Pre Socratics. It more fits the context of Medieval Alchemy than being insightful into the actual nature of things.
(2) The way to learn depends on age. But it is universal that the first moments when you get up in the morning are the most essential. Thus I say to boil ground coffee together with ground tea leaves as one. Drink this with Chalva or something and then learn for as long as this gets you. Then what I think helps learning after that is sit-ups and push-ups. This kind of exercise helps to continue learning. It is much better than jogging which causes one to not be able to learn afterwards.

[In NY they tend to drip hot water onto coffee and I don't think that is as effective as boiling it directly in a pot. Also my mother in law Rita Finn said to let it boil for 30 seconds. Or what I do since I don't have a watch I cover the pan and wait until the steam comes out furiously. I also do squat and stand as I wait. Try about 10 at first. That is something I saw on Russian TV and it makes sense to me even though they did not teach that to me in high school.]]



(3) If you learn the Ari as a great commentary on Torah and  great synthesis of medieval thought then by all means do it. But avoid all later people that supposedly were explaining the Ari. I first of all consider it amazingly stupid for people to claim they were on the level or higher than the Ari. Especially since they are usually highly deluded schizophrenic manics as a rule. Next all mystic writings after the Ari all are from the Sitra Achra as a rule. [I mean Kelipa Noga as the Gra said.} That is their revelations are to put it bluntly are simply not true. But they are poplar because of entertainment value and emotional value. Not truth value.