j1 j2 j6 r1 h69 p120 q96 e e33 e36 e69 r27 r26 e71 [In r27 there is some effort to work with dissonances. It is known that Bach did this a lot. Less known is Mozart also did.] [j1 in midi format j1 in nwc format]
28.3.16
There is a kind of effort in the Lithuanian yeshiva world to minimize the effects of cults.
There is a certain amount of policing to keep out the hasidic nuts. That aspect to the people that have been kept out is hurtful, yet they seem to lack the self awareness that they might have been carrying a hidden virus with them--a Trojan horse. But on the other hand the whole thing became a gigantic self serving bureaucracy. So to learn authentic Torah can be a challenge. The best idea I can come up with is private learning at home. Every day to have a session in Talmud, Musar, and what is called Hashkafa "world view" by which I mean the any of the books of the Rishonim concerning Jewish Philosophy, and to avoid rigorously pseudo Torah.
In fact that last step of avoiding pseudo Torah and cults is probably more important than the first.
Next on can try to identify places where there is an authentic spirit of Torah and support them and even perhaps try to lend a hand in building up such places.
Just because most people are unaware of it let me say over the basic list of what counts as legitimate Haskafa: Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Rambam's Guide, Crescas, Joseph Albo, Ibn Gavirol,Abarbenal {actually Abravenal in Spanish}, the father and son. Isaac Abravenal and Yehuda
If all this seems a bit hard to relate to, then as an introduction: the best things are the Chafetz Chaim and Shimshon Rafael Hirsh.
Appendix: Litvaks do not know it but what is a cult? It is an archetype. The leader get absorbed into a certain archetype. That gives him amazing powers from the sitra achra. People are drawn to him like a magnet. But the archetype is a level lower than human, not higher. It is a lower order of being.
This explains the reason the Gra put that group into excommunication. The trouble is that it is infectious. It is like the Toxo parasite. It takes over the mind.
There is a certain amount of policing to keep out the hasidic nuts. That aspect to the people that have been kept out is hurtful, yet they seem to lack the self awareness that they might have been carrying a hidden virus with them--a Trojan horse. But on the other hand the whole thing became a gigantic self serving bureaucracy. So to learn authentic Torah can be a challenge. The best idea I can come up with is private learning at home. Every day to have a session in Talmud, Musar, and what is called Hashkafa "world view" by which I mean the any of the books of the Rishonim concerning Jewish Philosophy, and to avoid rigorously pseudo Torah.
In fact that last step of avoiding pseudo Torah and cults is probably more important than the first.
Next on can try to identify places where there is an authentic spirit of Torah and support them and even perhaps try to lend a hand in building up such places.
Just because most people are unaware of it let me say over the basic list of what counts as legitimate Haskafa: Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Rambam's Guide, Crescas, Joseph Albo, Ibn Gavirol,Abarbenal {actually Abravenal in Spanish}, the father and son. Isaac Abravenal and Yehuda
If all this seems a bit hard to relate to, then as an introduction: the best things are the Chafetz Chaim and Shimshon Rafael Hirsh.
Appendix: Litvaks do not know it but what is a cult? It is an archetype. The leader get absorbed into a certain archetype. That gives him amazing powers from the sitra achra. People are drawn to him like a magnet. But the archetype is a level lower than human, not higher. It is a lower order of being.
This explains the reason the Gra put that group into excommunication. The trouble is that it is infectious. It is like the Toxo parasite. It takes over the mind.
27.3.16
The question is in Avot. One who learns to teach is given to learn and teach. One who learns to do is given to learn teach and do.
I think that mishna is hard to understand. I can see the advantage of teaching Torah and also of doing. From what I remember the Gra brings a source for that mishna that might explain it. My thought is Torah has to be learned in order to do it. But what if one has sinned and caused others to sin? Then one needs to do and to learn and teach also. I am not saying this explains that mishna.. I will have to think about that mishna.
What is the kernel of what I am saying is that I think that sins stops one from seeing the light. They cause one to lose the way, and think evil is good, and good is evil. Thus, after one has sinned, and especially caused others to sin, it is virtually impossible to repent. Because if he tries to repent while thinking what is evil is really good,- then all the more he repents, all the more sin he will be doing.
The best advice is thus to learn Torah, with the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim from Brisk in order to get an idea of how to understand any given law in the Torah.
The best advice is thus to learn Torah, with the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim from Brisk in order to get an idea of how to understand any given law in the Torah.
toxo and marx (Stanford)
Can a virus take over your mind? How much of what we think is because we want to and how much because some parasite in us wants us to think it? It can make a mouse be attracted to a cat. What else it out there --or inside of us-making us think and act in ways that cause our demise?
How can you know what is abnormal if you do not know know what is normal?
Howard Bloom thinks of the same kind of idea in terms of a meme a unit of social information that seeks to perpetuate itself via a host like a human being. But could it be biological? Just some hidden pathogen or parasite that gets contracted by contact with other infected people.
Hasidim could be understood in this light. A kind of parasite on the body on Torah redirecting it towards its own destruction.
So the question is this:
Toxoplasmosis and the social meme? Is there a connection?
Can a virus take over your mind? How much of what we think is because we want to and how much because some parasite in us wants us to think it? It can make a mouse be attracted to a cat. What else it out there --or inside of us-making us think and act in ways that cause our demise?
How can you know what is abnormal if you do not know know what is normal?
Howard Bloom thinks of the same kind of idea in terms of a meme a unit of social information that seeks to perpetuate itself via a host like a human being. But could it be biological? Just some hidden pathogen or parasite that gets contracted by contact with other infected people.
Hasidim could be understood in this light. A kind of parasite on the body on Torah redirecting it towards its own destruction.
So the question is this:
Toxoplasmosis and the social meme? Is there a connection?
There is a barnacle that rides on the back of a crab that injects a hormone into a male crab that causes teh male crab to act like a female. It then digs a hole for its eggs. But it has no eggs. But the barnacle sure does!! How much of our behavior and thoughts are directed some hidden parasite like hasidim that need a host?
This goes back to what the Torah means. The Torah has a basic meme. That is Monotheism. That God made the world something from nothing and He is not the world and the world is not Him. This is the background worldview of the Torah. This was so obvious that it did not need to be expressed until Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam. But this meme can be lied about. Hasidim deceive concerning the meaning of Torah. They can do so because sentences express abstract features, but these are always in a context of other abstract features (a network)
Torah has a basic meaning and every verse in Torah also. The meaning depends on the background and network. Thus worship of tzadikim is not defined by what anyone wants. Idolatry in the Torah has a specific meaning that depends on the entire network and context.
Sharia
I think from what I understood from talking with the son of a sheikh for hours over several years that Islam does recommend to people to make war on the infidel and that that is considered justified--not just in the book and in Sharia but in actual practice. In fact, it was a common occurrence in Israel to have some Muslim just walk up to someone with a kitchen knife and kill them. This happened daily at least once per day in one city or the other during the 80's and 90's.This was so common that it was not reported even in Israeli newspapers, much less international news. When bus bombings happened (usually once per week) the media always downplayed it as an "obstacle to peace."
The way to understand this is by Carl Jung. The collective unconscious. It is not known to most people--that this comes from Kant's dinge an sich.
I mean to say we have with Kant the "self." This idea of Kant is sadly under-treated in Allen Bloom's book, The Closing of the American Mind. -Because Bloom himself tilted towards Hegel. Otherwise his treatment of the self is a masterpiece. [It is somewhere in the middle of the book. I forget where..]
But Kant's self is a ding an sich a thing in itself whose essence is hidden from us. This became in the hands of Nietzsche the "Id" that s more well known. But what I am suggesting is that is this the source of Jung's collective unconscious which is similarly hidden from view but motivates all the important actions of any people or nation.
The way to understand this is by Carl Jung. The collective unconscious. It is not known to most people--that this comes from Kant's dinge an sich.
I mean to say we have with Kant the "self." This idea of Kant is sadly under-treated in Allen Bloom's book, The Closing of the American Mind. -Because Bloom himself tilted towards Hegel. Otherwise his treatment of the self is a masterpiece. [It is somewhere in the middle of the book. I forget where..]
But Kant's self is a ding an sich a thing in itself whose essence is hidden from us. This became in the hands of Nietzsche the "Id" that s more well known. But what I am suggesting is that is this the source of Jung's collective unconscious which is similarly hidden from view but motivates all the important actions of any people or nation.
An article about Black anger towards white people
This is explained clearly in Howard Bloom books about the power of the meme. People get a certain meme inside them and it stays there. If people get it hardwired in them that the White person is teh cause of all their troubles this idea will not be defeated by contrary evidence. I think further that this has something to do with Kant's dinge an sich. I think it is a kind of collective consciousness type of thing.
This is explained clearly in Howard Bloom books about the power of the meme. People get a certain meme inside them and it stays there. If people get it hardwired in them that the White person is teh cause of all their troubles this idea will not be defeated by contrary evidence. I think further that this has something to do with Kant's dinge an sich. I think it is a kind of collective consciousness type of thing.
What does it mean to "know how to learn?" This is hard to say. When I was in Shar Yashuv in NY the rosh yeshiva told me that I would know how to learn within a year or two years. I forget which. To some degree that happened because of a combination of factors. First I was doing the work. Next is after I would do the work I went up to Naphtali Yeager with what I thought was a good question. And before I could ask the question he would have me recite the entire Tosphot [in my own words] to see if I understood what Tosphot was saying. While doing so often something would feel a bit out of place. There would be some extra word in Tosphot that one would normally look over and go on. But then Reb Naphtali would show me the deeper questions that Tosphot was meaning to ask there.
So the question of how to introduce one to the concept of knowing how to learn has come up. I wrote a small essay on this. But in short the best thing is to get an Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and by that to see how to learn. In the meantime you do not have that you might just take a page of Gemara with Rashi and Tosphot with the Maharsha and try to do some work.
This is just the short and simple of it. But if possible I suggest getting the entire set of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, Baruch Ber, Shimon Shkop, Rav Shach and Naphtali Troup and plow through them word by word.
[I mean you do have to learn the Gemara that their essay is written on, and look up the Rambam and what ever else they are bringing up in their essay.
OK I have gone over the mechanics of it. But what does it mean? It means you cant know the law unless you know the source of the law and its context and the entire framework from where it comes.
The law is an abstraction and as such can mean almost anything anyone wants it to mean anytime unless it is understood as part of a network. Thus memorizing the whole Shas , being able to recite a law by heart is less than meaningless. It is negative. It gives the false impression of knowing a law of the Torah when in fact shows no understanding at all.
But memorizing laws is what most people are impressed with. They have not the foggiest idea of what it really means to know how to learn. Even if the person knows what the law means it still is nothing because without knowing the Background and context he has no idea of how it applies.
This is just the short and simple of it. But if possible I suggest getting the entire set of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, Baruch Ber, Shimon Shkop, Rav Shach and Naphtali Troup and plow through them word by word.
[I mean you do have to learn the Gemara that their essay is written on, and look up the Rambam and what ever else they are bringing up in their essay.
OK I have gone over the mechanics of it. But what does it mean? It means you cant know the law unless you know the source of the law and its context and the entire framework from where it comes.
The law is an abstraction and as such can mean almost anything anyone wants it to mean anytime unless it is understood as part of a network. Thus memorizing the whole Shas , being able to recite a law by heart is less than meaningless. It is negative. It gives the false impression of knowing a law of the Torah when in fact shows no understanding at all.
But memorizing laws is what most people are impressed with. They have not the foggiest idea of what it really means to know how to learn. Even if the person knows what the law means it still is nothing because without knowing the Background and context he has no idea of how it applies.
Change can come by small sparks. The fall of the USSR was unexpected by most people. Maybe no one at all saw it coming. But sudden change usually come by some pressure buildup. When people get frustrated enough with hypocritical religious teachers especially that destroy families while building up their own,-- they will react.
But change can go in different ways. My suggestion is to get back to authentic Torah. Gemara Rashi Tosphot. But this can only come by recognizing that the rot of the religious teachers came not from Torah, but by impersonation and deceit.
The reason for this state of affairs is difficult to know. But there is still the Noah;s ark of genuine Lithuanian yeshivas. Few and far between though they may be. So when I suggest coming to authentic Torah I mean to say to also get rid of the charlatans. And make it clear the charlatans do not represent Torah.
But change can go in different ways. My suggestion is to get back to authentic Torah. Gemara Rashi Tosphot. But this can only come by recognizing that the rot of the religious teachers came not from Torah, but by impersonation and deceit.
The reason for this state of affairs is difficult to know. But there is still the Noah;s ark of genuine Lithuanian yeshivas. Few and far between though they may be. So when I suggest coming to authentic Torah I mean to say to also get rid of the charlatans. And make it clear the charlatans do not represent Torah.
Pirkei Avot is most unusual in that it is part of the Mishna. Why would a Musar book be made part of the Mishna by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi?
What I think is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was codifying objective moral values, not just writing morals, but claiming that this book codifies morality in the same way the rest of the Mishna codifies halacha.
It seems that there is a moral aspect to Torah outside of the legal aspect of it. Some things are moral but not legal and somethings are legal but not moral.
The trouble with the commentaries on Pirkei Avot is the same trouble that you have in all of Tenach. The commentaries obscure things instead of making them clear. Just like if you are looking for the meaning of verses in the Torah, the last place you look is in Rashi so in Pirkei Avot. The more you read the commentaries the less clear it becomes.
Rashi's main job is to bring Midrash, never the simple explanation -except in the one place he says he is explain the verse according to the simple explanation. A whole world of myth has grown around that Rashi as if Rashi is to tell us the simple explanation of every verse; and that is palpably false. [He says on one verse alone that there he is explaining the simple explanation--that is on just that verse.] Rashi always brings the Midrash; and in places where there is no midrash, he brings the Halachic Midrash Sifra and Sifri.
The same goes for Pirkei Avot. Every one explains it according to what they want it to mean. Like when everyone says Islam is a religion of peace. They are expressing what they want to be true. Not what is true.
What ought to be done with Pirki Avot is to expand the commentary of the Gra which simply brings the sources for each statement from the Old Testament and also to learn it with the commentary of the sages themselves that is Avot DeRabbi Nathan and the perush HaRambam.
What I think is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was codifying objective moral values, not just writing morals, but claiming that this book codifies morality in the same way the rest of the Mishna codifies halacha.
It seems that there is a moral aspect to Torah outside of the legal aspect of it. Some things are moral but not legal and somethings are legal but not moral.
The trouble with the commentaries on Pirkei Avot is the same trouble that you have in all of Tenach. The commentaries obscure things instead of making them clear. Just like if you are looking for the meaning of verses in the Torah, the last place you look is in Rashi so in Pirkei Avot. The more you read the commentaries the less clear it becomes.
Rashi's main job is to bring Midrash, never the simple explanation -except in the one place he says he is explain the verse according to the simple explanation. A whole world of myth has grown around that Rashi as if Rashi is to tell us the simple explanation of every verse; and that is palpably false. [He says on one verse alone that there he is explaining the simple explanation--that is on just that verse.] Rashi always brings the Midrash; and in places where there is no midrash, he brings the Halachic Midrash Sifra and Sifri.
The same goes for Pirkei Avot. Every one explains it according to what they want it to mean. Like when everyone says Islam is a religion of peace. They are expressing what they want to be true. Not what is true.
What ought to be done with Pirki Avot is to expand the commentary of the Gra which simply brings the sources for each statement from the Old Testament and also to learn it with the commentary of the sages themselves that is Avot DeRabbi Nathan and the perush HaRambam.
25.3.16
I am wondering if an authentic, Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva would maybe be the best thing for California [Ukraine, etc] . Something like the Mir Yeshiva in NY? Would it not make sense to have such place near your home where you could learn Torah? What I mean by authentic Torah is the kind of that was in the Mir in NY and in Far Rockaway with Reb Freifeld.
The trouble is there are too many cults, and not enough of the real thing.
I know there are cults that claim to represent Torah. But that is not what I think is positive. Rather what interest me is the real authentic thing.
The authentic thing is hard to come by. I think it is the responsibility of secular Jews to be educated enough to tell the difference between authentic Torah and charlatans. The reason there are cults is the fault of Reform Jews that do not know enough Torah to stop supporting evil things. They get fooled by what looks in appearance to be religious so they throw money at it. That is what comes from not learning enough Torah. people end up supporting bad stuff.
I claim that this kind of system [Lithuanian Yeshiva] is good because I have a basis for comparison. That is,-- if one would be familiar with only one system of thought and one way of life, he could never claim to know that it is best. It might be the worst - for all he knows. Even if one is following it faithfully because that is the system he was born into. But I do have a basis of comparison. I have been sociably mobile, and have fit in with many systems and societies. So I know ways of life not just by book reading, but by being there and a part of those systems, and seeing how they work from the inside.
I am genuinely curious about other systems. But when I go there with no pretense at all, somehow I manage to fit in well enough to see what is going on. And then I confront the elders and leaders with the facts of their corruption and immorality, and see their reaction.
What is the intellectual basis for the Oral and Written Law? Mainly the synthesis of Torah and Aristotle/Plato of Maimonides and Saadia Gaon. [All the more reason to look into both more thoroughly than I have done until now.]
In any case, there is a problem of infiltration of yeshivas by cults. You need to police the institution. But in fact this is too late. Already most even so called Litvak yeshiva have already been taken over by cults.
So when I suggest Torah is the best thing out there, I do not mean religious world which is clearly a satanic cult. Not that it has the wrong ideas, but because it has been taken over by religious teachers that have taken over the narrative. That is it is all completely sitra achra [dark side] nowadays. religious teachers are the enemies of Torah. They want to turn the Torah into a forum for their idolatry-worship of their "tzadik." They suck the essence of Torah and replace it with a spirit from the Dark Side. But they dress and play the game so as to make people think they are the authentic thing.
religious teachers are the head of the snake. They are the ones that could have known better, but instead chose to follow the path of the Devil. The damage they do is in exactly the areas they claim to defend-family values. Talking to a religious teacher about family problems is exactly the same thing as igniting an atom bomb in your living room in terms of the damage it will cause to your family.
So while we need true Torah-we need to be rid of the cults.
You get see the change in their faces when people join a religious teacher's cult. The face changes to: a) dog face, or b) zombie face. There is also a "c)" which I have not yet been able to identify. Stick around long enough with them and the change is inevitable. On the other hand stick around with authentic Torah, eventually one gains, "And He created man in his image"
The authentic thing is hard to come by. I think it is the responsibility of secular Jews to be educated enough to tell the difference between authentic Torah and charlatans. The reason there are cults is the fault of Reform Jews that do not know enough Torah to stop supporting evil things. They get fooled by what looks in appearance to be religious so they throw money at it. That is what comes from not learning enough Torah. people end up supporting bad stuff.
I claim that this kind of system [Lithuanian Yeshiva] is good because I have a basis for comparison. That is,-- if one would be familiar with only one system of thought and one way of life, he could never claim to know that it is best. It might be the worst - for all he knows. Even if one is following it faithfully because that is the system he was born into. But I do have a basis of comparison. I have been sociably mobile, and have fit in with many systems and societies. So I know ways of life not just by book reading, but by being there and a part of those systems, and seeing how they work from the inside.
I am genuinely curious about other systems. But when I go there with no pretense at all, somehow I manage to fit in well enough to see what is going on. And then I confront the elders and leaders with the facts of their corruption and immorality, and see their reaction.
What is the intellectual basis for the Oral and Written Law? Mainly the synthesis of Torah and Aristotle/Plato of Maimonides and Saadia Gaon. [All the more reason to look into both more thoroughly than I have done until now.]
In any case, there is a problem of infiltration of yeshivas by cults. You need to police the institution. But in fact this is too late. Already most even so called Litvak yeshiva have already been taken over by cults.
So when I suggest Torah is the best thing out there, I do not mean religious world which is clearly a satanic cult. Not that it has the wrong ideas, but because it has been taken over by religious teachers that have taken over the narrative. That is it is all completely sitra achra [dark side] nowadays. religious teachers are the enemies of Torah. They want to turn the Torah into a forum for their idolatry-worship of their "tzadik." They suck the essence of Torah and replace it with a spirit from the Dark Side. But they dress and play the game so as to make people think they are the authentic thing.
religious teachers are the head of the snake. They are the ones that could have known better, but instead chose to follow the path of the Devil. The damage they do is in exactly the areas they claim to defend-family values. Talking to a religious teacher about family problems is exactly the same thing as igniting an atom bomb in your living room in terms of the damage it will cause to your family.
So while we need true Torah-we need to be rid of the cults.
You get see the change in their faces when people join a religious teacher's cult. The face changes to: a) dog face, or b) zombie face. There is also a "c)" which I have not yet been able to identify. Stick around long enough with them and the change is inevitable. On the other hand stick around with authentic Torah, eventually one gains, "And He created man in his image"
(1) The emphasis in the West on words. People tend to take the meaning of the words as the essence of their belief. [text based faith.] The words of the Torah and the Talmud are what defines our faith. Even if we do not understand the words.
For this reason it does not seem to me to be a good idea to engage in criticism or attacks on someone's faith. That is usually not a good idea unless it is a case where there are no redeeming characteristics of their faith.
(2) The problem of universals in the West morphed into the problem of meaning starting with Frege.
(3) One of the problems with Kabalah as a rule is the emptying of words of their meaning and putting in something else. I do not mean this as a critique on the Ari, but later supposed "mystics" that thought they were explaining him while in fact just explaining their delusions. I always found them annoying in their claims of grandeur with nothing to show for it but their own delusions.
[ So let me try to give a brief explanation. Knowledge that we have by our senses cant be checked and verified. Knowledge that is not by the senses might be right but how can we double check it? That is called A priori. If it is by definition then OK. Kant said we have a priori knowledge that is not by definition. How? But we know it. This refers to the dinge an sich. Things that are but take away all their adjectives what is left? The thing in itself. [As Kant put it: things in themselves. In this realm of things in themselves--reality that we know but we do not know by reason nor by senses there are different areas of value. All form and no content as in mathematical logic. Then all content and no form--God. I hope this leaves my readers satisfied.
(5) Now for how this relates to me personally. My own approach is what I learned in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. That is in a nutshell: I go by the Written and Oral Law. That means I go by the Old Testament. But I do not say that I can understand it on my own. I use the Oral Law as my guide for interpretation. But since the Oral Law is a lot to read and understand, I listen to the Rishonim and Geonim as to what is the big message. That is I listen to what Saadia Gaon and Maimonides said it means. That is I defer to argument from authority when it comes to these larger issues. So in nutshell you now know why the Duties of the Heart (and other books of Musar of the Rishonim) and the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam are important to me. The reason is that they settle the issues of interpretation.
So for example I think Monotheism is the approach of the Torah. That is that God is the First Cause and simple. Not a composite. And he made the world something from nothing, not from Himself like a spider weaves a web. From Nothing. Ex Nihilo. And the world is not God. Nor is it any part of God. The reason I think this is not just the literal sense of the Torah. It is I confess because that is how all the rishonim (and the Ari himself) said it means.
But even more so. Now you know why Musar is important to me. Because more clearly than anything else it clarifies these issues.
I can not understand anything unless I see how it fits into the larger picture. This is not a matter of how hard I concentrate. It is just the way I see things. This was certainly my experience in yeshiva. I had to see the whole Shas in order to understand the slightest little thing in Tosphot. My learning partner on the other had is the kind of person that the big picture distracts him. The only way he understand things is in depth in their place.
You have met both kinds. Probably in high school you may have asked or heard some fellow student ask, "Why is this relevant?" People with philosophical minds are like me. We need to see the big picture and until we do we cant understand a thing. This is like Plato. Universals are out there.. Aristotle puts universals smack in the middle of things.
For this reason it is a good idea in yeshiva to learn in pairs because of this double take aspect.
Now to develop this idea further. Let's say you are like me and you want to--No-you need to see the big picture. But your time is limited. What do you do? You find something small that contains a lot. For example it might take you some time to go through Shas with Rashi, Tosphot Maharsha and Maraham from Lublin. I know this took me a long time and there were lots of dumb interruptions also. So what you do is you get the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. And you learn just one essay there well. You go over it day after day. Once of twice every day. Once you know it well, you are already on your way to know about half of Shas. The reason is it contains both aspects of learning. The in depth and the wide broad horizons.
When someone shows interest in learning Torah I think of giving to him the book of Rav Shach, the Avi Ezri, and perhaps the book of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik the Chidushei HaRambam, and perhaps the Chafetz Chaim, [the book about the laws not to slander.]
The thing is the book of Rav Shach is a bit expensive. in Israel it is about $60 for the five volumes, but in NY who knows how much it could be. \
You have met both kinds. Probably in high school you may have asked or heard some fellow student ask, "Why is this relevant?" People with philosophical minds are like me. We need to see the big picture and until we do we cant understand a thing. This is like Plato. Universals are out there.. Aristotle puts universals smack in the middle of things.
For this reason it is a good idea in yeshiva to learn in pairs because of this double take aspect.
Now to develop this idea further. Let's say you are like me and you want to--No-you need to see the big picture. But your time is limited. What do you do? You find something small that contains a lot. For example it might take you some time to go through Shas with Rashi, Tosphot Maharsha and Maraham from Lublin. I know this took me a long time and there were lots of dumb interruptions also. So what you do is you get the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. And you learn just one essay there well. You go over it day after day. Once of twice every day. Once you know it well, you are already on your way to know about half of Shas. The reason is it contains both aspects of learning. The in depth and the wide broad horizons.
When someone shows interest in learning Torah I think of giving to him the book of Rav Shach, the Avi Ezri, and perhaps the book of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik the Chidushei HaRambam, and perhaps the Chafetz Chaim, [the book about the laws not to slander.]
The thing is the book of Rav Shach is a bit expensive. in Israel it is about $60 for the five volumes, but in NY who knows how much it could be. \
Yevamot 3b
The ברייתא says how do we know the the sister of one's wife is forbidden in יבום? It answers that it says "עליה" in ויקרא and עליה in דברים concerning יבום. This looks like a גזירה שווה. A גזירה שווה means the same word is used in two different places. So we apply the laws of one place to the other place unless there is some specific reason that undoes the גזירה שווה.
One alternative way to look at this ברייתא is to say that it has nothing to do with a גזירה שווה. It is rather thinking like this. We find that the wife of one's brother is forbidden even after one brother is gone. And yet we find that in the specific case of יבום she is permitted. So we should allow all forbidden relations in the case of יבום. So now we need the extra word "עליה" to tell us that she is forbidden. That is to say that the ברייתא is thinking of a מה מצינו what we find in one place we automatically expand to other places unless we can find specific reason to limit its application , not a גזירה שווה. The problem with this is that this would work even with just the word "עליה" all by itself.. The ברייתא definitely refers to the fact that the same word is used in both places to derive its law. So it definitely means a גזירה שווה.
And if this is גזירה שווה then the result is a קשה. The normal גזירה שווה puts the laws of one place into the other place and visa versa. That would put the "עליה" from יבום into forbidden relations and make them all forbidden only in a case of יבום!
That is we have a question because a גזירה שווה in general goes both directions.
Answer. Actually if a גזירה שווה goes in both directions is a debate. Here the נרייתא holds with the opinion the גזירה שווה goes only in one direction.
הברייתא אומרת איך אנחנו יודעים שאחותו של אשתו אסורה היבום? והיא עונה שהפסוק אומר "עליה" בויקרא ועליה בדברים בנוגע ליבום. זה נראה כמו גזירה שווה. גזירה שווה פירושו המילה זהה משמשת בשני מקומות שונים. אז אנחנו מיישמים את החוקים של מקום אחד למקום השני, אלא אם כן קיים טעם ספציפי כי לפחות את כח הגזירה השווה. דרך חלופית אחת להסתכל על ברייתא זו היא לומר שזה לא קשור עם גזירה שווה. די לחשוב ככה. אנו מוצאים כי אשתו של אחיו (של אחד) אסורה אפילו אחרי שהוא נפטר. ובכל זאת אנו מוצאים כי במקרה הספציפי של יבום היא מותרת. אז אנחנו צריכים לאפשר לכל היחסים האסורים במקרה של יבום להיות מותרים. אז עכשיו אנחנו צריכים את מילה אחת מיותרת "עליה" לספר לנו שהיא אסורה. כלומר כי ברייתא הוא חושב על מה מצינו מה אנו מוצאים במקום אחד אנו מרחיבים באופן אוטומטי למקומות אחרים, אם לא נצליח למצוא סיבה ספציפית להגביל את תחולתו, לא גזירה שווה. הבעיה עם זה היא כי זה יעבוד גם אם רק הייתה המילה "עליה" לבדה. את ברייתא בהחלט מתייחס לעובדה כי אותה המילה משמשת בשני המקומות לגזור את החוק שלה. אז זה בהחלט אומר שזה גזירה שווה. ואם זה גזירה שווה, אז התוצאה היא קשה. הגזירה שווה הרגילה מעמידה את החוקים של מקום אחד למקום השני, ולהיפך. זה היה גורם לשים את "עליה" של יבום לתוך היחסים ולעשות את כולם אסורים רק במקרה של יבום! כלומר יש לנו שאלה משום גזירה שווה הולך לשני הכיוונים. תשובה. למעשה אם גזירה שווה הולכת בשני הכיוונים הוא ויכוח. כאן נראה שהברייתא בדעת שהגזירה השווה סובבת רק לכיוון אחד.
One alternative way to look at this ברייתא is to say that it has nothing to do with a גזירה שווה. It is rather thinking like this. We find that the wife of one's brother is forbidden even after one brother is gone. And yet we find that in the specific case of יבום she is permitted. So we should allow all forbidden relations in the case of יבום. So now we need the extra word "עליה" to tell us that she is forbidden. That is to say that the ברייתא is thinking of a מה מצינו what we find in one place we automatically expand to other places unless we can find specific reason to limit its application , not a גזירה שווה. The problem with this is that this would work even with just the word "עליה" all by itself.. The ברייתא definitely refers to the fact that the same word is used in both places to derive its law. So it definitely means a גזירה שווה.
And if this is גזירה שווה then the result is a קשה. The normal גזירה שווה puts the laws of one place into the other place and visa versa. That would put the "עליה" from יבום into forbidden relations and make them all forbidden only in a case of יבום!
That is we have a question because a גזירה שווה in general goes both directions.
Answer. Actually if a גזירה שווה goes in both directions is a debate. Here the נרייתא holds with the opinion the גזירה שווה goes only in one direction.
הברייתא אומרת איך אנחנו יודעים שאחותו של אשתו אסורה היבום? והיא עונה שהפסוק אומר "עליה" בויקרא ועליה בדברים בנוגע ליבום. זה נראה כמו גזירה שווה. גזירה שווה פירושו המילה זהה משמשת בשני מקומות שונים. אז אנחנו מיישמים את החוקים של מקום אחד למקום השני, אלא אם כן קיים טעם ספציפי כי לפחות את כח הגזירה השווה. דרך חלופית אחת להסתכל על ברייתא זו היא לומר שזה לא קשור עם גזירה שווה. די לחשוב ככה. אנו מוצאים כי אשתו של אחיו (של אחד) אסורה אפילו אחרי שהוא נפטר. ובכל זאת אנו מוצאים כי במקרה הספציפי של יבום היא מותרת. אז אנחנו צריכים לאפשר לכל היחסים האסורים במקרה של יבום להיות מותרים. אז עכשיו אנחנו צריכים את מילה אחת מיותרת "עליה" לספר לנו שהיא אסורה. כלומר כי ברייתא הוא חושב על מה מצינו מה אנו מוצאים במקום אחד אנו מרחיבים באופן אוטומטי למקומות אחרים, אם לא נצליח למצוא סיבה ספציפית להגביל את תחולתו, לא גזירה שווה. הבעיה עם זה היא כי זה יעבוד גם אם רק הייתה המילה "עליה" לבדה. את ברייתא בהחלט מתייחס לעובדה כי אותה המילה משמשת בשני המקומות לגזור את החוק שלה. אז זה בהחלט אומר שזה גזירה שווה. ואם זה גזירה שווה, אז התוצאה היא קשה. הגזירה שווה הרגילה מעמידה את החוקים של מקום אחד למקום השני, ולהיפך. זה היה גורם לשים את "עליה" של יבום לתוך היחסים ולעשות את כולם אסורים רק במקרה של יבום! כלומר יש לנו שאלה משום גזירה שווה הולך לשני הכיוונים. תשובה. למעשה אם גזירה שווה הולכת בשני הכיוונים הוא ויכוח. כאן נראה שהברייתא בדעת שהגזירה השווה סובבת רק לכיוון אחד.
24.3.16
There are a good deal of Aristotle's concepts bantered about in mystic books that at the same time claim metaphysical knowledge of the world. And which tend to knock Aristotle as a know nothing ignoramus. The Ether, the four elements, substance and form. The Ari himself I can excuse for just placing his revelations in the mental structure of his time. He does not claim anything beyond his own formulation of the metaphysical structure of the world. But books that knock Aristotle while at the same time using his concepts seem to be ill informed.
[We can make a good guess from where the concepts come from since there are many possible ways of understanding the metaphysical and physical nature of the world. It does not have to be four elements and ether and substance and form. For example you can have the 1000 systems of totally different metaphysics from China, none of which have any of the above concepts. Or you can have Buddhist philosophies of no substance, or the 6 schools of Hindu thought. Once people are obviously borrowing from Aristotle, you might think they would have the manners not to insult him, and claim that they themselves came up with the ideas on their own. It is like cheating on a test and then claiming the other guy stole it. There is little that is more despicable.
If they would have some deep knowledge of the world you would think they might have noticed things like atoms!
[We can make a good guess from where the concepts come from since there are many possible ways of understanding the metaphysical and physical nature of the world. It does not have to be four elements and ether and substance and form. For example you can have the 1000 systems of totally different metaphysics from China, none of which have any of the above concepts. Or you can have Buddhist philosophies of no substance, or the 6 schools of Hindu thought. Once people are obviously borrowing from Aristotle, you might think they would have the manners not to insult him, and claim that they themselves came up with the ideas on their own. It is like cheating on a test and then claiming the other guy stole it. There is little that is more despicable.
If they would have some deep knowledge of the world you would think they might have noticed things like atoms!
I had some ideas about yeshivas which I thought to share . The idea is that I see the Litvak yeshiva as a great and important ideal but it saddens me that the ideal have been perverted into bureaucracy and cults. My suggestion is to revive the original idea. So here are my thoughts:
The basic idea of a yeshiva is the Oral Law. That is the purpose is to get a decent idea of how to keep the Torah.The way I see it the best approach to this problem was formulated well by the Lithuanian kind of yeshiva. That is I expect there to be flaws and bureaucracy and all the normal human problems that go along with any human institution. But overall I think the idea is sound. And you do not need a large investment for such a thing. You can put tons of money into Jewish institutions and come out with nothing but rot. The reason is the most important thing is missing--the Idea.
Without the idea or with the wrong idea all you get is a cult or tzadik worship,
It is the idea of a yeshiva that makes it what it is.
So what is the idea? It is Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. Period.
In a practical vein this means a morning session from 10:00 to 2:00 and and afternoon session from 3:30 to 8:00. About a hundred years ago the question of adding a little bit of learning Ethics came up. And also at some point someone decided to add a small Halacah session. But these were additions onto the main idea.
Kollel is a perversion of this idea and something that all gedolai Israel would have opposed if it had been brought up during a time when there were still people around that knew better. [That is you never pay people to learn. The whole concept is as absurd as paying someone to pray.]
What people did in NY was to go to Brooklyn Collage in the afternoon. This was sanctioned by Rav Hutner. This was in order to learn a vocation. Torah with Derech Eretz.
So in any case what you need is a straight forward Litvak yeshiva in every town and hamlet. Where there is Torah then there is everything of value.
On the other hand the lack of authentic Torah opens the door to cults which mimic true Torah but whose inner essence is satanic. These cults are sadly the main body of religious world today.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I should mention that the ideas here took me a long time to come to. I admit I was part of the kollel at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. But on the other hand there really was nothing wrong with that. They were simply accepting government grants. No one was claiming that learning Torah could be used making money. It was clearly charity. If the yeshivas in Israel would be run the same way I would have no objection.
Without the idea or with the wrong idea all you get is a cult or tzadik worship,
It is the idea of a yeshiva that makes it what it is.
So what is the idea? It is Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. Period.
In a practical vein this means a morning session from 10:00 to 2:00 and and afternoon session from 3:30 to 8:00. About a hundred years ago the question of adding a little bit of learning Ethics came up. And also at some point someone decided to add a small Halacah session. But these were additions onto the main idea.
Kollel is a perversion of this idea and something that all gedolai Israel would have opposed if it had been brought up during a time when there were still people around that knew better. [That is you never pay people to learn. The whole concept is as absurd as paying someone to pray.]
What people did in NY was to go to Brooklyn Collage in the afternoon. This was sanctioned by Rav Hutner. This was in order to learn a vocation. Torah with Derech Eretz.
So in any case what you need is a straight forward Litvak yeshiva in every town and hamlet. Where there is Torah then there is everything of value.
On the other hand the lack of authentic Torah opens the door to cults which mimic true Torah but whose inner essence is satanic. These cults are sadly the main body of religious world today.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I should mention that the ideas here took me a long time to come to. I admit I was part of the kollel at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. But on the other hand there really was nothing wrong with that. They were simply accepting government grants. No one was claiming that learning Torah could be used making money. It was clearly charity. If the yeshivas in Israel would be run the same way I would have no objection.
Unconditioned realities. The trouble with understanding morality is that of knowing any unconditioned realities. This is the source of moral contradictions. Just as Kant said that when pure reason ventures into the real of unconditioned realities contradictions automatically pop up.
The objects of experience are individual, particular, and concrete, while, on the other hand, the objects of thought, or most of the kinds of things that we know even about individuals, are general and abstract, i.e. universals.
So he shifted from the regular Neo Platonic approach which had been begun by Saadia Gaon and went to Aristotle. That gives knowledge of individual things since universals are in the individual. From there there will be higher levels of pure reason that can conceive of higher things.
Appendix. Aristotle by putting the forms inside of things helped bridge between objects of experience and universals. And other levels of knowledge that are concepts alone. It goes from the Oral Law, to Maase Breshit מעשה בראשית and from that to Maase Merchava מעשה מרכבה
The objects of experience are individual, particular, and concrete, while, on the other hand, the objects of thought, or most of the kinds of things that we know even about individuals, are general and abstract, i.e. universals.
So he shifted from the regular Neo Platonic approach which had been begun by Saadia Gaon and went to Aristotle. That gives knowledge of individual things since universals are in the individual. From there there will be higher levels of pure reason that can conceive of higher things.
Appendix. Aristotle by putting the forms inside of things helped bridge between objects of experience and universals. And other levels of knowledge that are concepts alone. It goes from the Oral Law, to Maase Breshit מעשה בראשית and from that to Maase Merchava מעשה מרכבה
Letter to a friend
Dear ...: That is a long letter with lots of points. As for the first point. Dale Martin is getting all of his material from other sources. He just puts it together very well. Better than I could ever do. But the actual sources are difficult. At Polytechnic I saw a few books in the library about the hypothetical documents. But this is a long and involved study.
The Rambam [Maimonides] concerning Maase Breishit is also a difficult subject. I think looking into the Ramban [Nachmanides] is a good area of investigation. All the Rishonim are worthy of study. I do not think there will be any great kashe about the Rambam however because he seems to be uniform in his opinion from the beginning of his life until the end and hinted at it in many places. You are right that without the Ramban (Nachmanides) the Rambam (Maimonides) would have been forgotten and marginalized to the point of vanishing.
Besides that I think that it is helpful to get a general idea of all the rishonim in order to understand any particular one. Context makes a difference.
[I should add that Yaakov Abuchatzeira and the Gra clearly held from the Ari.]
the belief system of Torah is Monotheism
The Sages asked why was Mordechai called a "Yehudi". Today we understand the word to mean a Jew (or Jewish). But it means from the tribe of Yehuda [Judah].
He was from the tribe of Benjamin. So what could it mean?
They answer because he denied idolatry -- because anyone who denies idolatry is as if he confess to the whole Torah. Anyone who admits idolatry is as if he denied the whole Torah. [Yehuda comes from the word admit.]
Thus I decided to stay away from idolatrous cults that seem to infest Orthodx Judaism like lice. Even if they are the only show in town. To me it is more important to stay away from idolatry.
This clarity only came to me after learning Sanhedrin 63 fairly well. Before I learned that page in Sanhedrin the whole concept of idolatry was fairly ambiguous to me. I wrote some of my ideas about that Gemara in my little booklet on the Talmud. Mainly I was concentrating on the Tosphot there. But learning it in depth helped me understand the subject better.
An example of idolatry a person says any created thing besides God, "You are my god, save me" that makes the thing itself into an idol. The person himself gets the normal penalty for idolatry.
I should mention in this context that the belief system of Torah is Monotheism. That is that God made the world something from nothing. That is Torah belief excludes pantheism. And it excludes worship of tzadikim.
God also is a simple One. He is not a composite of substance and form. He has no form nor substance nor anything that we can conceive of. There is a limit to human reason and even to pure reason in this regard. We can know he exists and that is all.
Also in the Torah there is no sense that God is imminent in nature or tied to natural substances or phenomena. Nature also is not divine. It's de-divinized; the created world is not divine, it is not the physical manifestation of God. The line of demarcation therefore between the divine and the natural and human worlds is clear.
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.
So, to summarize, the view of God is that there is one supreme God, who is creator and sovereign of the world, who simply exists, who is incorporeal, and for whom the realm of nature is separate and subservient.
He was from the tribe of Benjamin. So what could it mean?
They answer because he denied idolatry -- because anyone who denies idolatry is as if he confess to the whole Torah. Anyone who admits idolatry is as if he denied the whole Torah. [Yehuda comes from the word admit.]
Thus I decided to stay away from idolatrous cults that seem to infest Orthodx Judaism like lice. Even if they are the only show in town. To me it is more important to stay away from idolatry.
This clarity only came to me after learning Sanhedrin 63 fairly well. Before I learned that page in Sanhedrin the whole concept of idolatry was fairly ambiguous to me. I wrote some of my ideas about that Gemara in my little booklet on the Talmud. Mainly I was concentrating on the Tosphot there. But learning it in depth helped me understand the subject better.
An example of idolatry a person says any created thing besides God, "You are my god, save me" that makes the thing itself into an idol. The person himself gets the normal penalty for idolatry.
I should mention in this context that the belief system of Torah is Monotheism. That is that God made the world something from nothing. That is Torah belief excludes pantheism. And it excludes worship of tzadikim.
God also is a simple One. He is not a composite of substance and form. He has no form nor substance nor anything that we can conceive of. There is a limit to human reason and even to pure reason in this regard. We can know he exists and that is all.
Also in the Torah there is no sense that God is imminent in nature or tied to natural substances or phenomena. Nature also is not divine. It's de-divinized; the created world is not divine, it is not the physical manifestation of God. The line of demarcation therefore between the divine and the natural and human worlds is clear.
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.
So, to summarize, the view of God is that there is one supreme God, who is creator and sovereign of the world, who simply exists, who is incorporeal, and for whom the realm of nature is separate and subservient.
Indeed, creation takes place through the simple expression of his will. "When God began to create heaven and earth," and there's a parenthetical clause: "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." He expressed his will that there be light, and there was light and that's very different from many Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies in which there's always a sexual principal at work in creation.
23.3.16
Why do you need to speak out against cults?
Is it slander to speak about cults?
The illusion of being careful about Slander.
Selective enforcement.
Force includes relying on the legal system, which ultimately rests on the use of force as a last resort. Goading your opposition beyond endurance to the point where they respond violently is non-violence only in the most hypocritical, specious sense.
Putting people in the position where they either have to yield to your demands or resort to violence to stop you is emphatically not non-violence.
The three items on the list are calculated, manipulative, and deceptive practices.
Can you really claim to be non-violent if you threaten someone else's position to the point where they feel they must resort to violence to protect their interests?
Forms of peace
The only truly non-violent tactic, in the sense that it neither commits nor provokes violence, is complete non-resistance and submission to the demands of the power elite.
Women would have to submit meekly to rape rather than struggle to resist. And no "pacifist" I have ever heard of advocates that.
Generally, what passes for "non-violence" or "pacifism" is one of the following: Relying on the law. This is not non-violence because if all other measures fail, the legal system will use force to achieve its ends. That's why we speak of enforcing the law.
Maintaining a facade of pacifism while provoking the opposition to violence, or creating an intolerable obstruction that can only be removed by force, or threatening their position to the point where they feel they have to resort to violence to protect their interests. This position, as already noted, is hypocritical, manipulative, and deceptive.
The Cycle of Violence
Before we go any further, take your mouse and put the cursor on the bold lettering above.Now, notice what you did. In order to move the mouse, you had to exert force, and very precise and gentle force at that. You didn't rip the mouse cord out of the computer, or crush the mouse in your grip, or push so hard on it that you mashed the trackball flat. The notion that force inexorably spirals out of control is precisely that trivially easy to refute. Now it's probably true that resorting to unnecessary violence may very well lead to retaliation. So restraint in dealing with confrontations is usually a good idea.
Most pacifists react to this issue by simply pretending that it doesn't exist, that people either never deliberately choose violence, that violence always stems from earlier violence, poverty, or injustice, or that if people do deliberately choose violence, it's in rare cases that are not really of great importance. But history abounds with examples of people who have deliberately chosen violence. The ease with which people from non-violent backgrounds have been induced to commit atrocities in wartime shows how easy it can be for the violent to recruit assistants, and for the gratification factor to take hold. Thus, a single individual who opts for violence because he enjoys domination may succeed in recruiting many others less bold than he is.
How do we respond to people who have opted for violence? Appeasement merely reinforces the conviction that violence gets results. Moreover, it provides gratification by reinforcing the feeling of dominance. When confronting people who have already opted for violence, non-violence has a very good chance of perpetuating the cycle of violence. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, makes the results of violence a lot less simple, a lot less effective in getting results, and a lot less gratifying.
Furthermore, violence is only the far end of the spectrum of force. Every screaming brat who throws a temper tantrum in public is testimony to the fact that children do not need to be taught the use of force. And regardless how loving, benevolent and diligent a parent is in meeting and supplying the child's needs, every child sooner or later runs into the fact that other people, much less the physical universe, will not. Sooner or later every human being has to face the fact that some desires will not be gratified.
Throwing the First Punch
Pacifists are vociferous in denouncing "aggression." I can think of a number of cases where "aggression" either shortened a war or ended genocide. None involve the United States, by the way.In 1971, civil war broke out in Pakistan, which was then made up of two ethnically and geographically separate areas. A million people died and ten million fled into India. Faced with an overwhelming refugee crisis, India invaded East Pakistan, which became independent as Bangladesh.
Not only is it morally permissible to commit aggression, sometimes it's morally obligatory.
So What's Your Plan?
There are intellectual pacifists whose real though un-admitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism.
Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.
Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty....
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
Is it slander to speak about cults?
The illusion of being careful about Slander.
Selective enforcement.
Force includes relying on the legal system, which ultimately rests on the use of force as a last resort. Goading your opposition beyond endurance to the point where they respond violently is non-violence only in the most hypocritical, specious sense.
Putting people in the position where they either have to yield to your demands or resort to violence to stop you is emphatically not non-violence.
The three items on the list are calculated, manipulative, and deceptive practices.
Can you really claim to be non-violent if you threaten someone else's position to the point where they feel they must resort to violence to protect their interests?
Forms of peace
The only truly non-violent tactic, in the sense that it neither commits nor provokes violence, is complete non-resistance and submission to the demands of the power elite.
Women would have to submit meekly to rape rather than struggle to resist. And no "pacifist" I have ever heard of advocates that.
Generally, what passes for "non-violence" or "pacifism" is one of the following: Relying on the law. This is not non-violence because if all other measures fail, the legal system will use force to achieve its ends. That's why we speak of enforcing the law.
Maintaining a facade of pacifism while provoking the opposition to violence, or creating an intolerable obstruction that can only be removed by force, or threatening their position to the point where they feel they have to resort to violence to protect their interests. This position, as already noted, is hypocritical, manipulative, and deceptive.
The Cycle of Violence
Before we go any further, take your mouse and put the cursor on the bold lettering above.Now, notice what you did. In order to move the mouse, you had to exert force, and very precise and gentle force at that. You didn't rip the mouse cord out of the computer, or crush the mouse in your grip, or push so hard on it that you mashed the trackball flat. The notion that force inexorably spirals out of control is precisely that trivially easy to refute. Now it's probably true that resorting to unnecessary violence may very well lead to retaliation. So restraint in dealing with confrontations is usually a good idea.
Most pacifists react to this issue by simply pretending that it doesn't exist, that people either never deliberately choose violence, that violence always stems from earlier violence, poverty, or injustice, or that if people do deliberately choose violence, it's in rare cases that are not really of great importance. But history abounds with examples of people who have deliberately chosen violence. The ease with which people from non-violent backgrounds have been induced to commit atrocities in wartime shows how easy it can be for the violent to recruit assistants, and for the gratification factor to take hold. Thus, a single individual who opts for violence because he enjoys domination may succeed in recruiting many others less bold than he is.
How do we respond to people who have opted for violence? Appeasement merely reinforces the conviction that violence gets results. Moreover, it provides gratification by reinforcing the feeling of dominance. When confronting people who have already opted for violence, non-violence has a very good chance of perpetuating the cycle of violence. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, makes the results of violence a lot less simple, a lot less effective in getting results, and a lot less gratifying.
Furthermore, violence is only the far end of the spectrum of force. Every screaming brat who throws a temper tantrum in public is testimony to the fact that children do not need to be taught the use of force. And regardless how loving, benevolent and diligent a parent is in meeting and supplying the child's needs, every child sooner or later runs into the fact that other people, much less the physical universe, will not. Sooner or later every human being has to face the fact that some desires will not be gratified.
Throwing the First Punch
Pacifists are vociferous in denouncing "aggression." I can think of a number of cases where "aggression" either shortened a war or ended genocide. None involve the United States, by the way.In 1971, civil war broke out in Pakistan, which was then made up of two ethnically and geographically separate areas. A million people died and ten million fled into India. Faced with an overwhelming refugee crisis, India invaded East Pakistan, which became independent as Bangladesh.
Not only is it morally permissible to commit aggression, sometimes it's morally obligatory.
So What's Your Plan?
There are intellectual pacifists whose real though un-admitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism.
Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.
Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty....
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
The basic reason people support Trump
The basic reason people support Trump is mainly frustration of the vast majority of Americans of seeing the Left destroy the USA and its values. This might not be felt by people that are part of bureaucracy of government. But this frustration is felt deeply by most ordinary Americans.
But what are the forces at work to destroy the USA? Mainly Socialists, Muslims and blacks on welfare. These three are the three headed hydra that is hard at work to destroy everything good and godly and wholesome about the USA.
The basic reasons I do not agree with socialism are outlined in an essay by Michael Huemer. I will try to find the link. Mainly the reason is that socialism in its very core is based on the labor theory of value which is simply not a true doctrine. I just found the link. Here is the essay: The Theory of Economic Value.
I can not be accused of being ignorant of the arguments for Socialism. I spend a good deal of time learning the whole game plan from Russeou, Hegel, Marx, etc. Probably I spent a lot more time on this than it deserved. [Not all of the above authors. Just a lot of their writings and also more modern treatments of their thought, like the Cambridge Companion Edition of Hegel, plus the vast site on the internet devoted to Hegel and Marx.]
What makes more sense to me is: The Talmud, Maimonides, Israel Salanter, the Chafetz Chaim, John Locke, Kant, Schopenhauer, Popper, Jung. These are all on the side of the individual and private property and the main job of government is to protect the private sphere of activity [civil society].
To help to put all the above together it is helpful to learn The Closing of the American Mind by Allen Bloom and the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom.
But I have carefully considered all sides of the arguments. I have also discussed these issues with many people that lived under socialist systems and also in the USA before the age of political correctness. With ordinary people and with people thoroughly entrenched in both systems.
But what are the forces at work to destroy the USA? Mainly Socialists, Muslims and blacks on welfare. These three are the three headed hydra that is hard at work to destroy everything good and godly and wholesome about the USA.
The basic reasons I do not agree with socialism are outlined in an essay by Michael Huemer. I will try to find the link. Mainly the reason is that socialism in its very core is based on the labor theory of value which is simply not a true doctrine. I just found the link. Here is the essay: The Theory of Economic Value.
I can not be accused of being ignorant of the arguments for Socialism. I spend a good deal of time learning the whole game plan from Russeou, Hegel, Marx, etc. Probably I spent a lot more time on this than it deserved. [Not all of the above authors. Just a lot of their writings and also more modern treatments of their thought, like the Cambridge Companion Edition of Hegel, plus the vast site on the internet devoted to Hegel and Marx.]
What makes more sense to me is: The Talmud, Maimonides, Israel Salanter, the Chafetz Chaim, John Locke, Kant, Schopenhauer, Popper, Jung. These are all on the side of the individual and private property and the main job of government is to protect the private sphere of activity [civil society].
To help to put all the above together it is helpful to learn The Closing of the American Mind by Allen Bloom and the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom.
But I have carefully considered all sides of the arguments. I have also discussed these issues with many people that lived under socialist systems and also in the USA before the age of political correctness. With ordinary people and with people thoroughly entrenched in both systems.
Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.
To my understanding it would make sense to get the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. The reason is this. Knowing Hebrew is in fact some help to understanding Torah, but not as much as you might think.
What you need because of limited time is something small and simple that gives you the basic idea. That is definitely Rav Shach's book the Avi Ezri. What he does is to give a good idea on how to analyze any given halacha in the Torah in a very deep way, but also in a very simple way.
I could recommend Rav Chaim HaLevi Soloveitchik's book the Chidushei HaRambam, but there is something about Rav Shach's book that goes way beyond the Chidushei HaRambam. But since the Chidushei Harambam is smaller you might try to get that and to work on just one long essay.
I cant really explain very well what the thing is bout Rav Shach's book. It is simultaneously simple to understand and yet very deep. However I admit that it was Rav Chaim Soloveitchik who opened the door to the Rambam. There were some preliminary steps before him but they were just cracks in the door. Reb Chaim opened it swung it open. Rav Shach then walked in. That being said if possible the best thing would be to get the books of his two disciples Barch Ber and Shimon Shkop and just plow through them.
22.3.16
blaming Israel
I had thought that people would notice a problem with Islam after 9/11. But instead everyone went about claiming it is a religion of peace and blaming Israel. I do not see why this should be any different. Everyone will keep on saying it is the fault of the Jews and that it is because they don't give enough territory and that Islam is wonderful.
In fact, American were so convinced Islam is great they voted twice for a Muslim President. On the other hand I have to admit I am not really sure what seems to be the problem with it. I can see why people might make a mistake. It took me a long time to realize there might be a problem with Islam. I was certainly willing to give Muslims a chance. It is a long story. But at some point it began to dawn on me that something is really really wrong with it.
אין אדם עומד על דבר אלא אם כן נכשל בו
I had to learn the hard way about a lot of things. But I am not recommending this procedure. It is just the only way I found out about things that had good reputations that were really insidious cults.
And sometimes personal experience is not enough to evaluate things. You know your own experience is just a microcosm of the large picture. So you need a kind of balance and common sense.
In fact, American were so convinced Islam is great they voted twice for a Muslim President. On the other hand I have to admit I am not really sure what seems to be the problem with it. I can see why people might make a mistake. It took me a long time to realize there might be a problem with Islam. I was certainly willing to give Muslims a chance. It is a long story. But at some point it began to dawn on me that something is really really wrong with it.
אין אדם עומד על דבר אלא אם כן נכשל בו
I had to learn the hard way about a lot of things. But I am not recommending this procedure. It is just the only way I found out about things that had good reputations that were really insidious cults.
And sometimes personal experience is not enough to evaluate things. You know your own experience is just a microcosm of the large picture. So you need a kind of balance and common sense.
Slander, Chafetz Chaim, Halacha
I think the Chafetz Chaim is very important. [The book of laws on not to speak slander]
But warning people about insane baali tesuva and hypocritical back stabbing FFB is not Lashon HaRa.
But in any case, I along with most other people could use a good dose of Chafetz Chaim.
But warning people about insane baali tesuva and hypocritical back stabbing FFB is not Lashon HaRa.
But in any case, I along with most other people could use a good dose of Chafetz Chaim.
There is a whole set of the works of the Chafetz Chaim in Hebrew that is very inexpensive. You could get it plus and English Hebrew dictionary and go through it at home. I went through almost the entire set while I was at the Mir yeshiva in NY. I skipped on the small book that he wrote to Jews in the USA telling them about basic mitzvot. At the time this seemed redundant to me.
I mentioned to Shimon Buso a grandson of Bava Sali, that there are plenty of ways of misusing the Chafetz Chaim. He answered to me that without learning it, slander is הפקר [a free for all].
I have mentioned that I tried to stick with saying the truth all the time, because the slander thing seemed to me to be impossible to keep. I needed something to stick with that was both powerful and yet practical.
In any case though the Chafetz Chaim is important, I think it is clear that without a good background in the basic works of Philosophy during the Middle Ages that people almost automatically fill in the gaps in their education with pure nonsense. Thus I suggest to go through this very basic minimum: אמונות ודעות by Saadia Gaon, The Guide of the Rambam. Ibn Gavirol, Joseph Albo, Crescas, Isaac Abravenal, Jehuda Abravenal. Why this should be so hard is beyond me. People do at least this much reading every two weeks. Tally up the time they spend on novels and newspapers. The exact same time they could go through the above list.
As far as Halacha goes I think it is best to learn the Rambam with the commentaries. That is to go through one half a page of Rambam per day with the Kesef Mishna and Magid Mishna. After that to do the same with the Tur Beit Yosef.
I mentioned to Shimon Buso a grandson of Bava Sali, that there are plenty of ways of misusing the Chafetz Chaim. He answered to me that without learning it, slander is הפקר [a free for all].
I have mentioned that I tried to stick with saying the truth all the time, because the slander thing seemed to me to be impossible to keep. I needed something to stick with that was both powerful and yet practical.
In any case though the Chafetz Chaim is important, I think it is clear that without a good background in the basic works of Philosophy during the Middle Ages that people almost automatically fill in the gaps in their education with pure nonsense. Thus I suggest to go through this very basic minimum: אמונות ודעות by Saadia Gaon, The Guide of the Rambam. Ibn Gavirol, Joseph Albo, Crescas, Isaac Abravenal, Jehuda Abravenal. Why this should be so hard is beyond me. People do at least this much reading every two weeks. Tally up the time they spend on novels and newspapers. The exact same time they could go through the above list.
As far as Halacha goes I think it is best to learn the Rambam with the commentaries. That is to go through one half a page of Rambam per day with the Kesef Mishna and Magid Mishna. After that to do the same with the Tur Beit Yosef.
religious world
What is the basic problem with baali teshuva (newly religious people) is simple. Either they are loyal to their parents and friends. Then they are not baali teshuva. Or they are not loyal to their family and friends. Then all the more so they are worthless when it comes to commitment. If they can drop their own family and friends then what is their commitment to anything worth?
That being said the religious world itself is a nightmare of backstabbing hypocrites. Neither the FFB (frum religious from birth) nor the Baali Teshuva have anything going for them. The FFB think by birth they are the intellectual superiors of the whole world. The truth is the FFB and the Baali Teshuva deserve the hell they make for each other.
Of course both groups are highly deluded.
Which brings me to the point I often make that the only place you can find authentic Torah is in a Lithuanian yeshiva. There the baali teshuva are taught a balanced set of values that includes loyalty to parents and family. And there the FFB tend to be more aware of their own limitations.
c from this lethal combination of FFB and Baali Teshuva. It is mainly one large idolatrous cult with lots of little variations. But they don't think they are doing idolatry because of the excuse of doing lots of rituals. So when they worship their leaders they think that is not idolatry.
That being said the religious world itself is a nightmare of backstabbing hypocrites. Neither the FFB (frum religious from birth) nor the Baali Teshuva have anything going for them. The FFB think by birth they are the intellectual superiors of the whole world. The truth is the FFB and the Baali Teshuva deserve the hell they make for each other.
Of course both groups are highly deluded.
Which brings me to the point I often make that the only place you can find authentic Torah is in a Lithuanian yeshiva. There the baali teshuva are taught a balanced set of values that includes loyalty to parents and family. And there the FFB tend to be more aware of their own limitations.
c from this lethal combination of FFB and Baali Teshuva. It is mainly one large idolatrous cult with lots of little variations. But they don't think they are doing idolatry because of the excuse of doing lots of rituals. So when they worship their leaders they think that is not idolatry.
Ideas in Talmud edited Ideas in Bava Metzia
As you can tell, I am mainly learning in the way I learned in Shar Yashuv by the rosh yeshiva Naphtali Yeager. I concentrate on "לחשבן את הסוגיא" to calculate the subject. However I do look at Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Shach {Elazar Menachem Shach.} but only in so far as they help me understand the subject matter on the page of the Gemara. This is also how my learning partner, David learns.
I admit I can not say how people were learning in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. By the time I got there I was already trying to get through Shas. Plus the in depth study I did was mainly concentrated on the Pnei Yeshoshua and the Maharsha which is certainly not what anyone else was doing. People in general were just preparing in the morning for the classes of the Roshei Yeshiva. And each class was different. You can see the first years classes in the book the Sukat David.
Reb Shmuel Berenbaum however was different. Mainly this is what he would do--take a look at the Mishna laMelech on the Rambam so to the issues that come up in any particular sugia. Those were the areas he would concentrate on. But his answers were based on a a kind of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik kind of approach.
As you can tell, I am mainly learning in the way I learned in Shar Yashuv by the rosh yeshiva Naphtali Yeager. I concentrate on "לחשבן את הסוגיא" to calculate the subject. However I do look at Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Shach {Elazar Menachem Shach.} but only in so far as they help me understand the subject matter on the page of the Gemara. This is also how my learning partner, David learns.
I admit I can not say how people were learning in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. By the time I got there I was already trying to get through Shas. Plus the in depth study I did was mainly concentrated on the Pnei Yeshoshua and the Maharsha which is certainly not what anyone else was doing. People in general were just preparing in the morning for the classes of the Roshei Yeshiva. And each class was different. You can see the first years classes in the book the Sukat David.
Reb Shmuel Berenbaum however was different. Mainly this is what he would do--take a look at the Mishna laMelech on the Rambam so to the issues that come up in any particular sugia. Those were the areas he would concentrate on. But his answers were based on a a kind of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik kind of approach.
Here is part of a letter I got:
"Would you be able to help me look at some questions regarding the Talmud and the New Testament? I know that you really respect the Talmud and grow inspiration from it. Would you say that all Halacha is inspired by the Holy Spirit?
If so, does the Halacha and the inspiration of it include the statements in the Gemara and in the rest of the sages that seem to refer to Yeshua/Yeshu? Yeshua affirms the people sitting on the seat of Moshe and says about the Prushim to do as they say, but not to do as they do. If so, Yeshua would confirm the command of heeding to the sages also in regard to their statements about himself? Do I have to accept them? Are they really talking about him? What do you think? Do you accept them like the rest of the oral Torah, or would you consider these statements as human additions produced in a different spirit than the rest of the Gmara? Do you regard it as binding? Yes or no? Why or why not?"
My answer--
The major thing I find important about halacah is the idea of looking at the Torah in a rigorous painstaking way, plus the idea that morality can be known by reason. The main point of the Talmud is to understand how to keep the written law. Not every word has to be understood to be divine. But inside of the Talmud is the "Oral Law." In any case reason does have a place in understanding how to keep the Torah. The Rambam has that even Avraham the patriarch only understood natural law after it was revealed. Reason also is a kind of revelation.
The human attempt to greet God's word I think evokes a response from Him. So when I was at the Mir and also in my first yeshiva I felt there was some kind of amazing spirit. But I admit this can depend on the individual.
I am thinking mainly that reason can know morality.
The critiques in the Talmud would have to be about a different individual according to the time line given there. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perachia was around 200 BC. He would have had to been a drop too old to have been the teacher of Yeshua.
The pairs start at the beginning of the second Temple and go up until the end. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia was in the middle.
As you can see in the above letter I was trying to hint at the Kantian school of which the Rambam was clearly an early predecessor. But it was late and I did not want to make the letter too long.
The pairs start at the beginning of the second Temple and go up until the end. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia was in the middle.
As you can see in the above letter I was trying to hint at the Kantian school of which the Rambam was clearly an early predecessor. But it was late and I did not want to make the letter too long.
I am also thinking about the fact that we give different weight values to different midrashim in the Gemara itself. For example pairs. זוגות, at the end of Pesachim. No one pays the slightest attention to that Gemara even though the Gemara itself is explicit. Also cures.
The idea of how much weight to give to different values seems important to me. Thus in the Torah we have the Ten Commandments which clearly have most of the weight. yet often one or more are ignored because of something that clearly has less weight. And moreover- even among the other 613 the Torah gives weighted values to different functions. To love and fear God and to be attached to Him are the stated purpose of all the other mitzvot, The verse says in Deuteronomy do the mitzvot in order to love and fear God and to be attached with him. This is one reason why Musar and the books of the rishonim on the philosophy of the Torah are important to learn. They indicate the weight of each value in Torah. Without them one can mix this up.
Mainly when people want to pervert the Torah they start with this. They change the order of what is considered more important in Torah. To make cults they take some doctrine that is either not in Torah at all or something trivial and make it is be of super importance as if it was some secret teaching.
People have a right to protect their lives and property. This should go without saying.
Heather McDonald on criminal illegal aliens.
People have a right to protect their lives and property. This should go without saying.
People have a right to protect their lives and property. This should go without saying.
21.3.16
Getting married and having children seems to be a regular part of the yeshiva experience.
You might not get the best shiduch that you think you deserve, but the tendency is to find a good marriage partner.
But the yeshiva world is highly sensitive to factors of social desirability. Especially on the East Coast.
Age and what kind of family one comes from are very important factors.
My own experience with this was that I saw when I got to yeshiva (in NY) people were getting married right and left. Every few days there was another "Vort." This went on a few times per week.
[A Vort is the announcement of a marriage engagement. But the actual event of the Vort is a meal after Shabat. on Saturday night.
Of course coming from California I had no idea what to expect when I got to yeshiva. But I also got the shiduch"bug." The only reason I was there was because I wanted to learn the Oral Law. But this Shiduch thing was infectious. So after some time people were interested in offering shiduchim to me. The only thing was the Rosh Yeshiva had dibs on me (for one of his daughters). So I had to wait until he felt the time was right to make what was unofficial to be official. However, I screwed things up because I was unfamiliar with social norms on the East Coast. Not only that but I no longer found any favor in the eyes of the Rosh Yeshiva. So I went to the Mir. But in the Mir I had no social standing.
[I should mention I have no grudge about the Shiduch thing. First of all God gave me a great Shiduch later in any case. And as far as I can see I am not much of Rosh Yeshiva material. As Rav Freifeld saw in me eventually that I am just too wild and searching. --free thinking I guess you could call it. I go by reason and evidence. Not tradition--unless tradition happens to agree with reason and evidence.]
So it is not necessarily easy. Certainly in my case the whole business was a disaster. Still a nice girl I knew in CA came out back East and started chasing me, thank God! Not that I was so happy about it at the time. I still was in the impression I had good possibilities at the Mir. Still this girl from CA turned out to be a great shiduch for me.
Why is all this important? Because today the social structures of the world are collapsing. So in the larger world even if one is what should be considered a good partner that will not necessarily result in n anything. Also there the problem of cults that use the instability of the larger society as a means of attracting converts as they present themselves as a better option.
At any rate, after my wife left, I decided I was not going to depend on anyone's favors and I found myself a nice girlfriend. Still I do not think this is best idea idea as a rule. [The girl friend option is an option because of Chronicles I 2:46. That is the Caleb the friend of Joshua had a few girl friends and wives. That is the פלגש is not reserved for kings alone contrary to the Rambam as the Gra pointed out in his commentary on Shulchan Aruch.
You might not get the best shiduch that you think you deserve, but the tendency is to find a good marriage partner.
But the yeshiva world is highly sensitive to factors of social desirability. Especially on the East Coast.
Age and what kind of family one comes from are very important factors.
My own experience with this was that I saw when I got to yeshiva (in NY) people were getting married right and left. Every few days there was another "Vort." This went on a few times per week.
[A Vort is the announcement of a marriage engagement. But the actual event of the Vort is a meal after Shabat. on Saturday night.
Of course coming from California I had no idea what to expect when I got to yeshiva. But I also got the shiduch"bug." The only reason I was there was because I wanted to learn the Oral Law. But this Shiduch thing was infectious. So after some time people were interested in offering shiduchim to me. The only thing was the Rosh Yeshiva had dibs on me (for one of his daughters). So I had to wait until he felt the time was right to make what was unofficial to be official. However, I screwed things up because I was unfamiliar with social norms on the East Coast. Not only that but I no longer found any favor in the eyes of the Rosh Yeshiva. So I went to the Mir. But in the Mir I had no social standing.
[I should mention I have no grudge about the Shiduch thing. First of all God gave me a great Shiduch later in any case. And as far as I can see I am not much of Rosh Yeshiva material. As Rav Freifeld saw in me eventually that I am just too wild and searching. --free thinking I guess you could call it. I go by reason and evidence. Not tradition--unless tradition happens to agree with reason and evidence.]
So it is not necessarily easy. Certainly in my case the whole business was a disaster. Still a nice girl I knew in CA came out back East and started chasing me, thank God! Not that I was so happy about it at the time. I still was in the impression I had good possibilities at the Mir. Still this girl from CA turned out to be a great shiduch for me.
Why is all this important? Because today the social structures of the world are collapsing. So in the larger world even if one is what should be considered a good partner that will not necessarily result in n anything. Also there the problem of cults that use the instability of the larger society as a means of attracting converts as they present themselves as a better option.
At any rate, after my wife left, I decided I was not going to depend on anyone's favors and I found myself a nice girlfriend. Still I do not think this is best idea idea as a rule. [The girl friend option is an option because of Chronicles I 2:46. That is the Caleb the friend of Joshua had a few girl friends and wives. That is the פלגש is not reserved for kings alone contrary to the Rambam as the Gra pointed out in his commentary on Shulchan Aruch.
The religious world outside yeshiva is of course just cults. So if one is not in an actual Lithuanian yeshiva it is best to seek one's spouse among classmates in university.
An integral domain has sub domains. All together you get ten. We know there is an close connection between groups and manifolds. Can you have a kind of Mayer-Vietoris sequence between domains?
What I mean is let's say you have a map from an integral domain to a commutative ring, and another map to another commutative ring. And then you have a map from either commutative ring into a larger group. So now can you put an "H" (homology groups) in front of each map? and if so would this work for all the sub-rings underneath the integral domain?
For example could you do the same with a Noetherian Ring and another Noetherian Ring. And you have an intersection between them. And you map into some larger ring. Can you apply the Mayer Vietoris theorem? Or would there be an obstruction?
Apparently someone has already dealt with this question at this link
I put this on the internet because I do not want to ask a math or physics professor this question unless I think about it some more.
What I mean is let's say you have a map from an integral domain to a commutative ring, and another map to another commutative ring. And then you have a map from either commutative ring into a larger group. So now can you put an "H" (homology groups) in front of each map? and if so would this work for all the sub-rings underneath the integral domain?
For example could you do the same with a Noetherian Ring and another Noetherian Ring. And you have an intersection between them. And you map into some larger ring. Can you apply the Mayer Vietoris theorem? Or would there be an obstruction?
Apparently someone has already dealt with this question at this link
I put this on the internet because I do not want to ask a math or physics professor this question unless I think about it some more.
How to learn Musar [ethics]
How to learn Musar [ethics]? You would think this would be simple after all the effort put into the idea by Reb Israel Salanter.
Some people emphasized one particular area of value. A good example is the Hafez Haim.
[Not to slander.]
What to me makes sense is in fact to take the Musar books of the rishonim [medieval writers] and plow through them. But to get a wider perspective what I think is the best thing is to have one session of going through all the works of classical Musar [about 30 books] and another session of going through the writings of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. Plus one more session in classical Jewish world view issues like the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam and the Faiths and Doctrines by Saadia Gaon . What happens is that this last step is omitted by most people and the result is people end up with view totally contrary to Torah,-- but think their views are from the Torah.
To learn Musar in yeshivas at all was subject to debate. But what I am suggesting is a further step to add השקפה. World view issues. I see this as very important because I see that without this later step people really get ideas very much opposed to the Torah but think their ideas are OK because they heard them from some delusional maniac in the name of the Torah.
I have not given this much thought but I can say based on what I have seen that Musar [learning ethics is important, but without world view it can be highly distorted.]
The Hafetz Haim's books about not to slander and general Musar are in fact a great starting place to begin with.
[I should add that not to slander does not mean you can not warn your children about bad cults. That is even if there is one or two decent people in that cult you can still say the cult is bad. The reason is there is such a thing as group behavior, a social meme. Not only that but if the social meme itself is evil, then the group itself is evil.
_______________________________________________________________________
Appendix: For the general public: Musar means mainly medieval books of ethics. But also refers to books by the disciples of Israel Salanter.
Most Musar books do not go into world view issues except the Obligations of the Heart who makes in he first part of his Musar book. However Rav Moshe Haim Luzato did go into world view issues in detail but not in his Mesilat Yesharim.
Some people emphasized one particular area of value. A good example is the Hafez Haim.
[Not to slander.]
What to me makes sense is in fact to take the Musar books of the rishonim [medieval writers] and plow through them. But to get a wider perspective what I think is the best thing is to have one session of going through all the works of classical Musar [about 30 books] and another session of going through the writings of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. Plus one more session in classical Jewish world view issues like the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam and the Faiths and Doctrines by Saadia Gaon . What happens is that this last step is omitted by most people and the result is people end up with view totally contrary to Torah,-- but think their views are from the Torah.
To learn Musar in yeshivas at all was subject to debate. But what I am suggesting is a further step to add השקפה. World view issues. I see this as very important because I see that without this later step people really get ideas very much opposed to the Torah but think their ideas are OK because they heard them from some delusional maniac in the name of the Torah.
I have not given this much thought but I can say based on what I have seen that Musar [learning ethics is important, but without world view it can be highly distorted.]
The Hafetz Haim's books about not to slander and general Musar are in fact a great starting place to begin with.
[I should add that not to slander does not mean you can not warn your children about bad cults. That is even if there is one or two decent people in that cult you can still say the cult is bad. The reason is there is such a thing as group behavior, a social meme. Not only that but if the social meme itself is evil, then the group itself is evil.
_______________________________________________________________________
Appendix: For the general public: Musar means mainly medieval books of ethics. But also refers to books by the disciples of Israel Salanter.
Most Musar books do not go into world view issues except the Obligations of the Heart who makes in he first part of his Musar book. However Rav Moshe Haim Luzato did go into world view issues in detail but not in his Mesilat Yesharim.
20.3.16
I have had a fascination with Halacha [Jewish Law] for a long time. I know that in one previous essay I must have sounded like I was knocking it. But I really meant to knock the misuse of the concept of Halacha and the pretense of people that pretend to know and keep it.
But now I wanted to deal with this subject in the correct way. And this is not hard to present. In fact my very first year in yeshiva I was shown right away the correct approach towards halacah.
[Yeshiva has in general four years. The first year is for beginners.] The yeshiva [Shar Yashuv] was doing Chulin which deals with ritual slaughter and things like that. It was perfect to show how to learn Halacha. For every law was more or less a self contained unit. So we would learn the law in the Talmud itself--the source of the law. Then we would trace it down through the Tur, Beit Joseph (by Joseph Karo) and Shulchan Aruch. (The Shulchan Aruch was also written by Joseph Karo and meant to be a short version of the Beit Joseph so people could do fast review.)
But that is really just to provide an introduction to the subject. To get a general idea that takes in the big picture what I recommend is this: To get Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's book, Chidushai HaRambam, and the books of his two disciples, Baruch Ber and Shimon Shkop. But even more important I would run out immediately and buy the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.
If you have just one Tractate at home and just one of the above mentioned books, now you are prepared to learn Halachah.
What to do is to take one essay from and of the above mentioned books and learn it with the subject matter in the Gemara. Do not worry of you do not understand it at first. Just keep going over the same essay every day until it sinks in.
This small blog entry is not supposed to be exhaustive. It is rather just an introduction. I should go into the fact of the Maharaha, and Maharshal, and the Gra and the Beit Joseph that all shouted and yelled about people that decide halachah from short versions of Halacha without knowing the actual Gemara.
But now I wanted to deal with this subject in the correct way. And this is not hard to present. In fact my very first year in yeshiva I was shown right away the correct approach towards halacah.
[Yeshiva has in general four years. The first year is for beginners.] The yeshiva [Shar Yashuv] was doing Chulin which deals with ritual slaughter and things like that. It was perfect to show how to learn Halacha. For every law was more or less a self contained unit. So we would learn the law in the Talmud itself--the source of the law. Then we would trace it down through the Tur, Beit Joseph (by Joseph Karo) and Shulchan Aruch. (The Shulchan Aruch was also written by Joseph Karo and meant to be a short version of the Beit Joseph so people could do fast review.)
But that is really just to provide an introduction to the subject. To get a general idea that takes in the big picture what I recommend is this: To get Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's book, Chidushai HaRambam, and the books of his two disciples, Baruch Ber and Shimon Shkop. But even more important I would run out immediately and buy the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.
If you have just one Tractate at home and just one of the above mentioned books, now you are prepared to learn Halachah.
What to do is to take one essay from and of the above mentioned books and learn it with the subject matter in the Gemara. Do not worry of you do not understand it at first. Just keep going over the same essay every day until it sinks in.
This small blog entry is not supposed to be exhaustive. It is rather just an introduction. I should go into the fact of the Maharaha, and Maharshal, and the Gra and the Beit Joseph that all shouted and yelled about people that decide halachah from short versions of Halacha without knowing the actual Gemara.
Then to actually decide any particular Halacha what I do is to get to know the relevant sources. The first step is to know the subject in the Gemara itself with Tosphot. Then you need to see the Geonim. Often their opinions were not known, so this takes some digging. Then the Rishonim, Rambam, Rif Tur, Shulchan Aruch. After that there is usually no issue that does not become clear.
But if you need an immediate idea, then the best bet is to go directly to the Tur Beit Joseph.
If only more people would learn Halacah properly, a lot of issues would be resolved. Knowing what idolatry is or how to act in many situations would be clear.
If only more people would learn Halacah properly, a lot of issues would be resolved. Knowing what idolatry is or how to act in many situations would be clear.
19.3.16
Learning fast. Say the words in order and go on is the way to learn Torah, Physics and Math.
Learning fast was an idea that for me had a lot of support. There were the popular speed reading books around in those days. Then there was a collage I applied to that was all about reading fast and going through a few book every week. Then Reb Simcha Wassermann gave me the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous that had a whole chapter about going through Shas lots of times fast. Even in violin I saw that when I prepared by just going through the piece straight lots of times I did a lot better at my violin lesson, than if I spend time on the single parts that were giving me trouble.
So in terms of Torah learning this is what I tried to do. At some point however it seemed to me that by just concentrating on a single Tosphot that I would make more progress than if I just read on. So my feeling is that for every subject one does he or she should combine both methods fast and in depth.
In fact,- because not everyone has a authentic Lithuanian yeshiva nearby, and it is wise to avoid hasidic cults so one does not lose his sanity, I think the best idea for Torah study is to buy one tractate and a book of Musar and just learn them at home.
[Simcha Wassermann was incidentally the son of Reb Elchanan Wassermann the major disciple of the Chafetz Chaim. He was the one to recommend to me to go to the Shar Yeshuv yeshiva in NY which eventually got me to the Mir. I used to hang out with him and in his yeshiva in those ancient days. I ate with him and his wife on Shabat and went to his yeshiva at the end of classes in high school. But I can see today that to have gotten anywhere in Gemara I really needed to go to NY.]
In yeshiva it was possible for me to have long sessions. The normal yeshiva session was from about 915 until 205 and then Mincha. [5 hours]. The from 330 until 815 and then Maariv. [Also circa 5 hours]. But since I left yeshiva I have found short sessions to be more workable for me.] That is if find I can not do that long stretch, then I try to break up the day into small segments. --Almost teh same way they do in high school.
In any case what I suggest is one session to go through the entire oral and written law words for word from beginning to end. That is Gemara Rashi Tosphot Mahrasha and Maharam about a half a page per day. [That is about 40 minutes per day.] Then when you have gone through the Bavli that way then the Jerusalem Talmud in the same way-with the Pnei Moshe. Then the Tosephta, Mechilta Sifra Sifri and Midrashim.
[This would work well for Physics also I assume. The trouble is that Physics needs a lot of time just like Torah does. It is hard enough to get to any degree of expertise in one area.]
So in terms of Torah learning this is what I tried to do. At some point however it seemed to me that by just concentrating on a single Tosphot that I would make more progress than if I just read on. So my feeling is that for every subject one does he or she should combine both methods fast and in depth.
In fact,- because not everyone has a authentic Lithuanian yeshiva nearby, and it is wise to avoid hasidic cults so one does not lose his sanity, I think the best idea for Torah study is to buy one tractate and a book of Musar and just learn them at home.
[Simcha Wassermann was incidentally the son of Reb Elchanan Wassermann the major disciple of the Chafetz Chaim. He was the one to recommend to me to go to the Shar Yeshuv yeshiva in NY which eventually got me to the Mir. I used to hang out with him and in his yeshiva in those ancient days. I ate with him and his wife on Shabat and went to his yeshiva at the end of classes in high school. But I can see today that to have gotten anywhere in Gemara I really needed to go to NY.]
In yeshiva it was possible for me to have long sessions. The normal yeshiva session was from about 915 until 205 and then Mincha. [5 hours]. The from 330 until 815 and then Maariv. [Also circa 5 hours]. But since I left yeshiva I have found short sessions to be more workable for me.] That is if find I can not do that long stretch, then I try to break up the day into small segments. --Almost teh same way they do in high school.
In any case what I suggest is one session to go through the entire oral and written law words for word from beginning to end. That is Gemara Rashi Tosphot Mahrasha and Maharam about a half a page per day. [That is about 40 minutes per day.] Then when you have gone through the Bavli that way then the Jerusalem Talmud in the same way-with the Pnei Moshe. Then the Tosephta, Mechilta Sifra Sifri and Midrashim.
[This would work well for Physics also I assume. The trouble is that Physics needs a lot of time just like Torah does. It is hard enough to get to any degree of expertise in one area.]
(White Anglo Saxon Protestant).
I grew up in a totally Wasp area. (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). There was only one other Jewish family within the city. For there was something wholesome and precious about the environment.
The story was that most of the property was owned by a Wasp corporation and we needed special, permission in order to buy a home there.
But ever since then I have never been sympathetic towards people that saw Wasps in a bad light. And I did notice a good deal of left wing politics was directly towards destroying communities like the one I grew up in and I have not thought that there was much merit in such an approach.
[In order for me to go to Hebrew school my mother had to drive me to a city that was far away every week.]
After some years we had to move so my Dad could be closer to his place of work at TRW when they had been contracted by NASA to built satellite communication by lasers and that was right up my Dad's area of expertise. So he was put in charge of the team that was doing that project and we moved.
Besides that my studies emphasized the idea of private property. So my feelings were reinforced by the Gemara's approach that property is not owner-less nor does it belong to government nor to the "people." Property is in the possession of the person that owns it.
The story was that most of the property was owned by a Wasp corporation and we needed special, permission in order to buy a home there.
But ever since then I have never been sympathetic towards people that saw Wasps in a bad light. And I did notice a good deal of left wing politics was directly towards destroying communities like the one I grew up in and I have not thought that there was much merit in such an approach.
[In order for me to go to Hebrew school my mother had to drive me to a city that was far away every week.]
After some years we had to move so my Dad could be closer to his place of work at TRW when they had been contracted by NASA to built satellite communication by lasers and that was right up my Dad's area of expertise. So he was put in charge of the team that was doing that project and we moved.
Besides that my studies emphasized the idea of private property. So my feelings were reinforced by the Gemara's approach that property is not owner-less nor does it belong to government nor to the "people." Property is in the possession of the person that owns it.
18.3.16
For every area of value there is an equal and opposite area of value that surrounds it and one must go though it to get to the real thing. This explains cults and the reason you encounter some hasid the minute you walk into authentic yeshiva just waiting to snatch you into his cult.
The reason there is no solution for this kind of problem for any area of value is because it is simply the nature of the world.
The reason there is no solution for this kind of problem for any area of value is because it is simply the nature of the world.
17.3.16
Lithuanian kind of yeshiva
 |
| Please learn Torah! |
The reason I thought a Lithuanian kind of yeshiva was a great place was based on experience and also on reading. [Lithuanian means learning Talmud with along Reb Israel Salanter's Musar approach. That is some time during the day is devoted towards learning ethics.]
The background leading up was something I wrote about in some previous blog entry. I was curious about world view issues from a very early age. So in high school I spent time reading a lot of stuff that was not on the curriculum. Dante, Marx, Spinoza, Plato, Herman Hess, Buddha. Besides that I created a kind of philosophy seminar for my fellow students where we discussed all this, plus philosophers you have never heard of. E.g. many schools of Chinese philosophy.
My point being that I saw the Lithuanian yeshiva as a kind of global answer. That is not just my own searching for answers, but also I saw it as a kind of answer for the Earth. That is I saw it was learning objective morality, and also creating a kind of community that the central meme (unit of social information) was that of an objective moral system. Not person based, but Torah based.
That is I saw a Lithuanian yeshiva as harmonic motion bouncing between two ends--the individual and the community.
[That is I was not just looking at what was being learned, but the whole picture--the community surrounding the yeshiva.]
Whether any particular place lives up to this ideal picture is not the issue right now. The point is this is how I saw it.
I was not aware of Kant's approach at the time. So I was judging things based on a small sample of society that I saw, and a small sample of world view thinkers. (I had to pass my courses and my time was limited by other factors.) Still I think my conclusions were largely correct.
It is hard to go back in time recall exactly what I was thinking. You have to understand the context to some degree. The world was on fire. People were searching for the "Truth." Many found Eastern religions to have some kernel of what they were looking for. There was tremendous turmoil in the air, but also unbelievable optimism. There was no limit to how high Man could go-- if only we found the right System. That is to throw of the present "System," and replace it with some higher vision. The world was nothing like it is now. The world is also on fire, but not from optimism, but pessimism. We have seen how our supposedly better systems turned out. Still I hold with my original conclusion that there is something in legitimate Torah which contains the root and source of the higher reality.
What I think a lot of disappointment comes from is non-authentic Torah. Pseudo-Torah. So my general emphasis is to stress the real thing. The cults should be thrown out. It is not just that they are bad, but they give Torah a bad name.
I have also tried to bring up the Bell Curve for why some yeshivas fail to live up to this high ideal,
Maybe I could go into some of this in more detail. But the main point would be bureaucracy. At some point "yeshiva" got to be big business, and the "for the sake of heaven" got thrown out. And that brings us up to date. What could be done today to rekindle that old flame?
In any case what I found remarkable in yeshiva was a kind of answer to Socrates. What is the right life?
Yeshiva combines several areas of concern to me: numinous reality, community, meaning of life, right living, objective morality. That is it appealed to me because it seemed to combine a proper approach to different areas of metaphysical and human concern. It was not too much up in the clouds, nor was it separate from higher reality.
Learning Torah gave me inspiration to go to the Promised Land. [That was mainly Nachmanides (the Ramban) who counts settling in the Land of Israel as one of the 613 mitzvot.] So I took my family and settled there. It was much more than I could have dreamed of for seven years. But at some point I left it, and since then I have not been able to get back. The door closed. I went back to visit but the window of settling had closed. My learning partner suggested that the reason being was that I had not been learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot while there the first time. To me what he said makes sense. I think I needed a kind of merit to be able to stay there and lacking this aspect of learning Torah might very well have been the reason for my exile.
I once thought that every institution does the exact opposite of what it says it is intending to do. But at a certain point I saw [in the area of corporations] that this is not true for the long lasting quality institutions.
So what I suggest is that every institution has an area [penumbra] around it of opposing values. For example you go to what you think is a good Lithuanian yeshiva. You are probably right that if the reputation of the place is good then in fact it is. Stereotypes are always true. But right on the first day you walk in there is going to be some hasid who will have an unstated purpose to get you into his cult by hook or crook.
Other examples. Let's say you go to university for music. There will be the inner core. But just waiting on the outside will be the kelipa of anti-Music just waiting to catch the weak people,--and sometimes the strong.
The Kelipa in universities is in their social studies and humanities so it it is easy to avoid for STEM students.
[I have mentioned before that you might have had bad experiences in a Litvak Yeshiva. This might not have been from the above mentioned kelipa. The kelipa has no power unless you go after it yourself. Rather bad experiences are simply because of the Bell Curve. Of all institutions only the top ten will have any quality at all. The rest will be mediocre at best. This applies to yeshivas all too well.]
So what I suggest is that every institution has an area [penumbra] around it of opposing values. For example you go to what you think is a good Lithuanian yeshiva. You are probably right that if the reputation of the place is good then in fact it is. Stereotypes are always true. But right on the first day you walk in there is going to be some hasid who will have an unstated purpose to get you into his cult by hook or crook.
Other examples. Let's say you go to university for music. There will be the inner core. But just waiting on the outside will be the kelipa of anti-Music just waiting to catch the weak people,--and sometimes the strong.
The Kelipa in universities is in their social studies and humanities so it it is easy to avoid for STEM students.
[I have mentioned before that you might have had bad experiences in a Litvak Yeshiva. This might not have been from the above mentioned kelipa. The kelipa has no power unless you go after it yourself. Rather bad experiences are simply because of the Bell Curve. Of all institutions only the top ten will have any quality at all. The rest will be mediocre at best. This applies to yeshivas all too well.]
r16 [r16 in midi] [r16 nwc] piano c minor [piano in c minor in midi] [piano nwc] orchestra [orchestra in midi] [ [orchestra nwc] CHS [chs in midi] chs nwc black hole black hole in midi black hole nwc
[the midi files are here for people that want to get the notes]
16.3.16
What is a good argument for the Lithuanian Yeshiva is this:
Unsupervised packs of idle youth in the world of hasidim screams adult incompetence. Parental authority has been neutralized by the general secular culture. Most of the time for good reason.
The only teachers they have are insane religious manics. Little Satans with rabbinical credentials.
They are generally at the forefront of the movement to dismantle the family in order to get hold of the youth as little pawns in their organizations.
Parents nowadays are useless when it comes to education because just too many are crazy. Universities teach values that are highly negative. With the facade of reason the social and humanities departments teach Marx.
Is it a wonder that the youth having no credible teachers have no credible values?
The Boy Scout homosexual leaders I am sure are instilling great values in the poor youth that fall into their hands.
So what you and up with is cults or other kinds of terrible religious organizations that are just waiting to prey on unguided unsupervised youth.
You would think that this universal disaster of the West would have merited a few comments here and there. But this one universal catastrophe which has hit every home multiple times has gone unnoticed and unmentioned.
Thus I claim the Litvak yeshiva is important not only from the aspect of learning Torah but also from the aspect of learning general menschlichkeit. [human decency]
Unsupervised packs of idle youth in the world of hasidim screams adult incompetence. Parental authority has been neutralized by the general secular culture. Most of the time for good reason.
The only teachers they have are insane religious manics. Little Satans with rabbinical credentials.
They are generally at the forefront of the movement to dismantle the family in order to get hold of the youth as little pawns in their organizations.
Parents nowadays are useless when it comes to education because just too many are crazy. Universities teach values that are highly negative. With the facade of reason the social and humanities departments teach Marx.
Is it a wonder that the youth having no credible teachers have no credible values?
The Boy Scout homosexual leaders I am sure are instilling great values in the poor youth that fall into their hands.
So what you and up with is cults or other kinds of terrible religious organizations that are just waiting to prey on unguided unsupervised youth.
You would think that this universal disaster of the West would have merited a few comments here and there. But this one universal catastrophe which has hit every home multiple times has gone unnoticed and unmentioned.
Thus I claim the Litvak yeshiva is important not only from the aspect of learning Torah but also from the aspect of learning general menschlichkeit. [human decency]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)