In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.”

On the blog Dalrock Feminism is criticized. Especially Christian Feminism.

For example the author takes to task this deplorable practice:
In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.” 



My comment on this is:  Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband. [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]


A comment on my comment comes from Lyn87:

1. The words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 are as follows: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

   I think it does make her forbidden to her “husband” – because he is not her husband. If we really believe what Jesus said, a woman divorced for anything other than fornication (a general term for illicit sex) is guilty of adultery (aspecific term for having sex with another man’s wife), if she remarries. It makes no sense to say that a woman is committing adultery with her own husband since that defies the very definition of the word – you can no more commit “adultery” with your own wife than you can steal your own wallet – yet Jesus classifies the sex within those “marriages” as “adultery” (again, a very specific term that means “sex with another man’s wife”). The ONLY possible explanation is that not only is the man she is acting as a wife toward not her husband… but another man is.

   Other than the exceptions provided for in Matthew 19, any “marriage” subsequent to the first one is not a marriage in the eyes of God, but is simply an adulterous union given sanction by the state and, now, the church. There is really no other way to ready Matthew 19 – most of the “couples” in churches today that are the second marriages of the wives are actually just two people shacking-up with a piece of paper that falsely claims otherwise. The county clerk that issues the license doesn’t care, and Kim Davis doesn’t care, and most pew-sitters and pastors don’t care, but God certainly seems to care. There are exceptions: when my dad was a pastor he flatly refused to perform several wedding ceremonies, including ones that would result in an adulterous union as defined by Matthew 19. He would tell them, “I can’t marry you – you’re already married to someone else.”

   My current pastor is a generally very straight guy, but he has a few blind spots and this is one of them. I told him that he’s allowing open adultery to exist in the pews and even in the leadership by considering adulterous unions to be valid marriages. I see no way to read the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 without concluding that those women are married to other men in the eyes of God.

   I asked him a rhetorical question: “What if the former husband of one of the divorced-and-remarried women in the congregation came to you, pointed out the words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and demanded that you take action to have his wife return to him (like Hosea did with Gomer). His response was that the church’s stance was to “help the marriage that (currently) exists.” My response, of course, is that Jesus was very clear that the “current marriage” is not a marriage at all, or else Jesus would not have called it “adultery” – again, a very specific term for when a married woman has sex with someone who is not her husband.

   He wouldn’t agree to it – like I said, he’s a pretty straight guy with a blind spot. It’s a dangerous trend to tell people that they are legitimately married when God has unambiguously defined such relationships as being adulterous. It’s dangerous for the church leaders who accept “the current marriage” and will answer to God for calling adultery “marriage,” and for the couples themselves, who are committing adultery and being told they are not.

I answered to Lyn87 this comment


Lyn87. Sorry I did not make it clear.The reason she is  forbidden to her husband comes from some verse about the Sota. I admt I forget the verse. But what comes out of that verse is כשם שהיא אסורה לבועל כך היא אסורה לבעל. Just like she is forbidden to the adulterer so is she forbidden to her husband. It is from a verse in numbers right I think right before the sacrifices of the princes of the tribes. It has nothing to do with her being forbidden to her first husband after being remarried to someone else. It is a totally different issue.

To Lyn 87: As for your quotes from the NT my feeling is that as Rav Yaakov Emden said that Jesus was being more strict than the Mosaic Law. That means in plain English that he was not defining Mosaic Law but rather being more strict. So People following Jesus would certainly not be allowed to remarry because of that statement of Jesus--but not because it is adultery, We find this often in the Old Testament of things not being desirable even though they might not be forbidden from the strict letter of the Law. That is around every mitzvah and every prohibition there is grey area. For example idolatry. Some things are straight forward idolatry and get the death penalty. No problem there. But other things like service not in its way but in a way of honor is forbidden but does not get the death penalty. [I think.]

Me to Dr Ross> 

Your system puts much weight on the individual. The Alt Right has been arguing for some time the problems in the USA are a natural development of the Constitution itself.

Dr Ross" That depends.  What the individual cannot do for themselves, the statist thinks the State can do.  But libertarians have more trust in private organizations, which de Tocqueville already noticed were robust and active in America – but that now have declined, driven out by the Welfare State.  It is clear from Europe and the U.S. that the State actually always creates a moral hazard and political corruption.

Me: I wrote on the blog Amerika :I do think a lot of the problems came with Rousseau and his particular approach to equality more than John Locke.

The answer of the author [Brett Stevens] was "No doubt. But do we need the concept of equality in the first place? Is anything in nature equal?"

My answer to that was : "My learning partner said that the way things are today in the USA are a natural development of the system, and I have almost never been able to out argue him. So I will have to take some time to figure out if perhaps you are right. That will take time. I will have to go through in my own mind what I remember of John Locke, and the pluses and minuses of the American system of government. Plus, I will have to consider the Kant school which does put the center of gravity in the individual."

So is there a way to defend the more John Locke kind of system that is in the USA? Or should we return to Throne and Altar? Or how would you react to all this. These questions about government and culture have become more and more common on the internet.

Sincerely, Avraham Rosenblum

Dr Kelley Ross wrote back : In the decades since the New Deal and the Great Society, where the consequences of both are obvious, with parallel evils in Europe, it is astonishing that people still talk like that they never existed and that the unemployment, slow growth, and dependency evident in Europe and here are the result of Capitalism!   This is delusional.  Like Greek voters continuing to vote for Leftists, or Americans voting for Obama and Hillary.  American government now has more in common with Otto von Bismarck that it does with Locke, Madison, or Jefferson.  Complaining about the Constitution as the “System” is like complaining about Las Vegas as the Protestant Work Ethic.  The Socialists and Democrats already shredded the Constitution, and when their plans and predictions failed, they have never wanted to admit that the failures were due to their own foolish brainstorms and programs.

Best,

KR

the commentary of the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch

I saw a book in Israel that took the commentary of the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch and expanded it to show what the Gra was getting at in his cryptic notes. This was done on only short sections of the Shulchan Aruch but it seems a good idea to do this with all four volumes.

In any case, it is good to see people waking up to the importance of the Gra.

[The only place that took the Gra seriously in the 1990's was the yeshiva of Rav Zilverman in the Old City of Jerusalem. I have heard that a few more similar kinds of places began.]


[No Critique intended on Reb Nachman. Rather on the entire movement the Gra put into excommunication. Reb Nachman however stands apart from that movement. I do not think that Rav Zilverman would agree, but in any case you can see from the actual documents that Reb Nachman was not in the category of the excommunication.]

בבא מציעא צ''ז ע'ב

בבא מציעא צ''ז ע'ב This might seem like a minor point but it is possible to bring a proof to the idea we do not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה when it comes toחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע . The proof is this. Why did the גמרא not ask on the משנה on צ''ז the question ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא? It asked this question on page ק and used that question to prove that that משנה is like סומכוס. But the משנה on page צ''ז is just the mirror image of that משנה except that the cases are different. On page צ''ז there is no חזקת רשות except for the חזקת ממון. So we see the גמרא could not have asked from חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע to prove that משנה is like סומכוס



בבא מציעא צ''ז ע''ב  אפשר להביא ראיה לרעיון שאנחנו לא אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה כשמדובר בחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. ההוכחה היא זו. מדוע גמרא לא שואלת על המשנה על צ''ז השאלה "ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא"? הוא שאל את השאלה הזאת על דף ק' והגמרא משתמשת בשאלה הזאת להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס. אבל המשנה בעמוד צ''ז הוא פשוט תמונת הראי של  המשנה הזאת למעט  שהמקרים שונים. בדף צ''ז אין חזקת רשות אלא חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. כך אנו רואים  שהגמרא לא יכולה לשאול מן חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס.

There were plenty of jokes even among KGB agents that showed lack of confidence in the Soviet system. One day Khrushchev and Kennedy were discussing the problems in the USSR.

Khrushchev: “We are having trouble feeding our people . Maybe you can send over some shipments of wheat to help us.

Kennedy: “Sure.”
Khrushchev: We don’t seem to be able to produce workable tractors to plow the fields. Maybe you can send over a few shipments of tractors?”

Kennedy: Sure.

Khrushchev: “We can’t seem to get the Communist model to work . Maybe you can send over some advisers to help us implement the perfect Communist society?”

s51  s50  [ s51 midi format  s51 nwc format

[s50 midi]  s50 nwc]

I was thinking about the laws of the Torah and I mentioned before that I thought the, Tur Beit Yoseph was the best book written on Halacha --ever.
But it as noted by David Bronson that the Gra wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch itself. In fact a lot of people saw something important in the Shulchan Aruch. Just take a look at the large Shulchan Aruch and see the amount of commentaries on the page.

I have to mention that when I as doing Tractate Ketuboth I had the Tur Beit Yoseph and Shulchan Aruch Even Ezra that I used as commentary on the Gemara and in that way I found the Tur, Beit Yoseph Shulchan Aruch to be very helpful. [Doing laws of Nida and Mikvah I did the Tur Beit  Yoseph alone and found this really clear].

But I just do not see this learning as being anything but secondary to learning Gemara. And neither did David Bronson.

My dream is a Navardok yeshiva. That is a yeshiva in every city in the world that learns Gemara and Musar and a half hour of halacha. To me that is the essential aspect of Torah. But I have difficulty expressing this dream because sadly places of Torah have mainly been infiltrated by the dark side.

Most teacher of Torah are frauds. it is hard to find truth. For some reason God guided my steps to two very good authentic Litvak yeshiva in NY, but as a rule yeshivas are not good at all. It is preferable to learn at home unless you really know local beit midrash is for Torah for its own sake--which is rare.

The places I can vouch for are most of the regular straight Litvak yeshivas in NY. In Israel there is Ponovitch and its official and un-official branches. I mean there are places that the rosh yeshiva learned at Ponovitch but it is not an official branch. Anything coming out of Ponovitch is authentic and good.
Girls obviously are not supposed to learn Torah but what I think is best is for girls to learn stuff that can help them hen they are married to be a help for their husbands to sit and learn Torah.

As a rule, Torah must not be used for making a living, but when someone is determined to learn Torah God helps with parnasha--making a living.[I am not thrilled with the kollel system, but if people in kollel are learning Torah for its own sake, and not considering kollel as  a way of making a living I suppose it might be OK.]

[Not that I am near learning Torah myself. It is just that once I tasted the sweetness of Torah, but have not been able to stay in it. I found the world of yeshivas to be more of obstacles than help. It is  whole long sad story. However without placing the blame on myself or on anyone else I just wanted to say tat i am very far from learning and or keeping Torah in any shape of form. Here I am only truing to describe the ideal way of going about it and also warning people about the problem of the penetration of the Sitra achra. I am not saying I have any excuse. Rather if I had not walked out of the authentic places I knew I would probably still be learning Torah

בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א There is an argument between רש''י and תוספות on בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א

בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א

There is an argument between רש''י and תוספות on בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א,  first תוספות on the page. רש''י can explain רבינא better but תוספות can answer the question, "Why do you need a verse for the מלווה?" The פסוק for the מלווה in in ויקרא. In the opinion of תוספות you know נשך for כסף and אוכל by the words "Don't take ריבית for money and food" לא תשיך.  Then there is an extra word "ריבית" that you don't need. So you use it for ריבית. Then there is another extra word "נשך" that you don't need. So you use it for a גזרה שווה from the לווה to the מלווה.
 But then you could ask on תוספות, "You have only one word for learning to ריבית. So how do we know that it applies to both כסף  and אוכל?"  Because this is why תוספות made sure to emphasize that the גזרה שווה is open at both ends. So that you learn ריבית in money from the borrower to the lender and ריבית in food from the lender to the borrower.
So תוספות comes out perfect as usual. No surprise here.
The question is with   רש''י . We have that רש''י that uses both words  נשך for ריבית. . So to רש''י I ask, why do you need any פסוק for the מלווה besides just saying to the מלווה "Don't take ריבית." Why do you need to go on to mention ריבית in אוכל and נשך in כסף for if you learn everything from the מלווה?

  רש''י can explain רבינא. We have that רבינא says you don't need the גזרה שווה and learns out everything for the מלווה from the verse about the מלווה. This is fine if there is no extra word. But if one extra word exists "ריבית" by the לווה as it does for תוספות, then how can רבינא disagree with it?

בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א

יש ויכוח בין רש''י ואת תוספות על בבא מציעא ס''א ע''א, תוספות הראשון בדף. רש''י יכול להסביר רבינא טוב אבל תוספות יכול לענות על השאלה, "למה אתה צריך פסוק עבור המלווה?" הפסוק עבור המלווה הוא  בויקרא. להערכת תוספות אתה יודע נשך עבור כסף ואוכל על ידי המילים "אל תיקח ריבית עבור כסף ומזון" לא תשיך. אז יש מילה נוספת "ריבית"  שאתה לא צריך. אז אתה משתמש בו עבור ריבית. ואז יש עוד מילה אחת מיותרת "נשך" שאתה לא צריך. אז אתה משתמש בו עבור גזרה שווה מן הלווה אל המלווה.
 אבל אז אתה יכול לשאול על תוספות, "יש לך רק מילה אחת ללימוד ריבית. אז איך אנחנו יודעים שזה חל על הכסף ואוכל?" בגלל זה הוא מדוע תוספות טרחה להדגיש כי הגזרה השווה פתוחה בשני קצותיו. אז יש לך ללמוד ריבית בכסף מהלווה למלווה וריבית במזון מן המלווה ללווה.
השאלה היא עם רש''י. יש לנו את שרש''י משתמש  במילת נשך עבור ריבית. אז  לרש''י למה אתה צריך כל פסוק עבור מלווה לבד. רק תאמר אל מלווה "אל תיקח ריבית." למה אתה צריך ללכת על להזכיר הריבית באוכל ונשך בכסף  אם אתה לומד כל דבר מן המלווה?

  רש''י יכול להסביר רבינא. יש לנו את זה שרבינא אומר שאתה לא צריך את הגזרה השווה ולומד את הכל עבור המלווה מהפסוק של המלווה. זה בסדר אם אין מילה אחת מיותרת. אבל אם מילה נוספת קיימת כזו "ריבית" על  ללווה אז איך זה יכול להיות שרבינא לא מסכים עם זה.

IDEAS IN BAVA METZIA


Ideas in Shas

What is a man? Someone you can depend on.

The trouble with Nietzsche is that people often do not want to be moral. Nietzsche gives them an excuse for throwing off the bonds of morality. 
 The idea the human nature rebels against morality is mentioned by Thucydides in the account of Corcyra.
There is a point that often people disguise personal ambition with morality. But the fact that any moral system can be misused does not mean it is not valid. Chemistry can be used for destructive purposes and for good oneד also.


Nietzsche does not like people that make money by seeming to be moral. Mainly his fire is directed towards Christianity and Judaism. But what it seems his mostly against is using religion for its cash benefits.

What is a man? Someone you can depend on. Someone you know will keep his word. Someone who will not let you down. And Nietzsche thought most religious teachers were not in that category. He thought they might seem moral, but when it comes to action they are unreliable.


I think it is possible to be sympathetic towards Nietzsche. He was after all facing a serious problem that almost anyone in any kind of religious environment encounters--people that use the religion for cash value.

But he did take this too far.

Personally what I recommend is to learn the Oral and Written Law of Moses {"Torat Moshe"} and to try to keep it. The best way I can  see to do this fast is to get Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and do any  one chapter thoroughly, and also learn Musar-Ethics.

[If you can get through just one chapter of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri you basically already have the tools that will enable you to do Shas. That is you "know how to learn"]. And the Musar puts you in contact with the piety and devotion of the Middle Ages which is so lacking today.
[As far as Halacha goes I recommend the Tur, Beit Yoseph. To me this seems like the best Halacha book. After that I would suggest the Aruch Hashulchan.[The later I did very little of but it is a very good book.]

I have come to see the wisdom of short sessions.

  I grew up in Newport Beach CA which was WASP and very wholesome. It was a great place. For some reason though it has changed. The whole Orange County let in lots of Muslims. I have no idea why. At the time we moved to Newport Beach the property was owned by the John Birch Society and who ever wanted to by property had to be approved by them. Why they let in Muslims is beyond me.

  Later we move to Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School made a big impression on me. I had great teachers. But Beverly Hills was close in proximity to Los Angeles and a lot of the negative energies seeped in. [We attended Temple Israel in Hollywood and that is where  I had my Bar Mitzvah. I think R. Nussbaum was there at the time.

  High School was extremely frustrating for me. I did not like to have short 40 minute sessions and then have homework in lots of different subjects. I thought to myself that to do well in anything at all I need to concentrate all my energy on that one thing,

  So when I got to authentic Litvak (Lithuanian)Yeshivas in NY [Shar Yashuv and the Mir] you can imagine I was elated. I could spend the whole day and even a few weeks on just one page of Gemara. I did not have to have my attention divided.

Still, after all is said and done, I have come to see the wisdom of short sessions. Nowadays what ever I learn is always in short sessions.

  I should mention that on my own when I do not have  a learning partner the way I do Tosphot is just to read through the whole page of Gemara word for word in order. And then to move on to something else. Maybe Physics. Or maybe jogging.  Then the next day I take up that exact same page of Gemara and do it again. That takes in fact about forty minutes. And so on and so forth for as long as it takes to start scratching the surface of the holy Gemara.

The same goes for Rav Chaim Soloveitchik or Rav Shach. What I would try to do would be to read the whole piece straight through of Reb Chaim. Sometimes I could not get through the whole piece, but I would try. This might have taken a month or two just to barely start to understand what Reb Chaim was saying. But the idea is that if you keep at it, it eventually goes in.

The same goes for Tosphot. Just keeping at it for a long time [a month or two] seems to result in eventually understanding it.

I look at the Middle Ages for new ideas.

"Like the Renaissance looked at the Ancient Greece and Rome for inspiration, I look at the Middle Ages for new ideas. What modernity needs is a drop of the piety and devotion of the Middle Ages."

Brett Stevens says:

10/01/2016 at 3:20 pm

I concur. Even more, we should investigate what inspired them, which was the notion of pre-classical golden ages in which religion, science, culture and leadership were in unity.

It is worth mentioning here however that the middle ages adopted quite a bit from the classical societies, and were inspired by them. The Renaissance™ used the classical ideal as a means of twisting an otherwise cohesive society toward the individual exclusively.

The idea here that I as referring to is what is commonly known as Rishonim. In yeshivas it is well known that the rishonim [authors on the Gemara that lived in the Medial period] have a level of intellectual logical reasoning that the later achronim do not have. Nowadays in the modern world the medieval period is looked down on. This is sad because in philosophy the middle ages were much much better. They were careful about logic. Later philosophers almost always use circular logic to prove their points. John Locke, Hume.  etc. Medieval philosophers would never fall into such traps --though they do use axioms which today we would consider no valid.

Bava Metzia page 100a and b

Ideas in Bava Metzia


There are still problems.  A stark problem is Tosphot Demai Eved. Tosphot asks "but it is not Drara DeManona?" The fact is that Tosphot is asking on Rav. That seems to mean that on the Mishna itself Tosphot would not have asked their question. That means Tosphot in OK if the question had been a large slave or a small slave.That apparently Tosphot would have accepted that it is Drara DeMamona. Only because Rav said the price of the slave is the question did Tosphot then ask "But it is not Drara Demmona."

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that Tosohot and this page of Gemara and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by dividing there is no difference between Sumchos and the Sages?" Was I referring to the idea of the Rashbam that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees? Maybe I meant like Reb Chaim Soloveitchik that is a רשות של שניהם even the sages agree with sumchus?



I also wrote on the question what about Shmuel? Tosphot answers the question where is the Drara DeMamona by Rav but never even raises the question by Shmuel. I answered this cryptic phrase maybe Tosphot would answer like they answered for Rav. But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever Tosphot answered for Rav was because Rav was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that Samuel is also talking about an exchange on currency because that is not the answer of Shmuel. [It might be that Tosphot is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is Drara Demamona. Only the fact that Rav says the mishna refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the Drara Demamina?] In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this Tosphot and this page of Gemara.
________________________________________________________________________________

בבא מציעא
 גמרא on page צ''ח. The גמרא there suggests perhaps the reason for the משנה is because ברי ושמא ברי עדיף.  But the  question is that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף with no oath and the משנה says on צ''ח and also page ק' ברי עדיף עם שבוע! That is not the same thing! Perhaps the גמרא is thinking the משנה means שבועת היסת.


בבא מציעא א' ע''ב  problem is תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד .תוספות asks, "But it is not דררא דממונא?" The fact is that תוספות is asking on רב. That seems to mean that on the משנה itself תוספות would not have asked their question. That means תוספות accepts if the question had been a עבד גדול or עבד קטן.That apparently תוספות would have accepted that it is דררא דממונא. Only because רב said the דמי עבד is the question did תוספות then ask, "But it is not דררא דממונא?"

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that תוספות and this page of גמרא and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by חולקים there is no difference between סומכוס and the חכמים?" Was I referring to the idea of the רשב''ם that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees?
I also wrote on the question what about שמואל? תוספות answers the question where is the דררא דממונא by רב, but never even raises the question by שמואל. I answered this cryptic phrase "Maybe תוספות would answer like they answered for רב." But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever תוספות answered for רב, was because רב was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that שמואל is also talking about an exchange of currency because that is not the answer of שמואל. It might be that תוספות is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is דררא דממונא. Only the fact that רב says the משנה refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the דררא דממונא? In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this תוספות and this page of גמרא.
______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא
 גמרא בעמוד צ''ח. גמרא שם מרמזת אולי הסיבה של  המשנה היא משום ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. אבל השאלה היא כי ברי ושמא ברי עדיף ללא שבועה והמשנה אומרת על צ''ח וגם דף ק' ברי עדיף עם שבוע! זה לא אותו דבר! אולי הגמרא היא חושבת שהמשנה מכוונת שבועת היסת..


בבא מציעא ק' ע''ב תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד .תוספות שואל, "אבל זה לא דררא דממונא?" העובדה היא כי תוספות שואל על רב.  נראה  כי על המשנה עצמה תוספות לא היו שואלים. כלומר תוספות היו מקבלים אם השאלה היתה עבד גדול או עבד קטן. כנראה תוספות היו מקבלים שזה דררא דממונא. רק בגלל רב שאמר דמי עבד יש השאלה של תוספות  "אבל שה לא דררא דממונא?"
מלבד כל זה הסתכלתי על רשימותי על כי תוספות ודף זה של גמרא וכתבתי דברים שהיום אני לא מבין . למה אני מתכוון "על ידי חולקים אין הבדל בין סומכוס ואת החכמים?" אולי התייחסתי לרעיון של רשב''ם שכאשר הוא ברשית של אדם אחד

גם כתבתי על השאלה מה עם שמואל? תוספות עונה על השאלה איפה דררא דממונא במצב של רב, אבל אף פעם הם לא מעלים את השאלה על  שמואל. עניתי ביטוי נסתר זה "אולי תוספות יענו כמו שענו על רב." אבל זה נראה בלתי אפשרי. מה בכלל תוספות ענו על רב? שרב מדבר בחילופי מזומן. אתה לא יכול לענות  זה לשמואל שגם הוא מדבר על חילופי מזומן, כי זאת לא התשובה של שמואל.

עוד יש להעיר  שיכול להיות כי תוספות חושבים שכל עוד השאלה היא לגבי אובייקטים פיזיים כמו בגד של העבד או עבד גדול או קטן כי זה דררא דממונא. רק העובדה שרב אומר המשנה מתייחסת בחילופים של כסף אז עולה השאלה היכן הוא דררא דממונא?

On Yom Kippur we say the long confession.

On Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur we say the long confession. There we confess not listening to our parents and teachers. I can imagine this does not apply to all parents and teachers since some do not deserve respect. In my case however both sets deserve respect. My parents mainly concentrated on Derech Eretz comes before Torah. And my roshei yeshiva, Reb Freifeld  and Reb Shmuel Berenbaum mainly concentrated on Torah.
Thus I am in this kind of grey area where I am required to walk on this thin fine line between Torah and Derech Eretz.[Derech Eretz means human decency, and also a vocation.]

Music for the glory of God

s47 B Flat Major    s49 I had a lot of trouble with this one trying to figure out the proper instruments. I am still not sure. And the progressions I am still unsure about. But for today it seems about right so I present it here for the public with my apology that it probably still needs editing.
The instruments are mainly the wind section and a piano and violin and french horn


This next one is in 6-8 times48
 s50 A Minor

Divine Right of Kings

Divine Right of Kings

The story of Joan of Arc seems to support this idea. To me at least it seems that Joan of Arc was a legitimate saint and her mission was to crown Charles VII over all France. That seems clear to indicate that there is such a thing as Divine appointment to rule.

France at the time had a king--the King of England but from what we can tell is that he had no right from heaven to rule France.

This seems to have support from the תנ''ך (Old Testament) also. But in the Old Testament the right to rule needs to be confirmed by either a prophet or (when there is no prophet) the Sanhedrin. In any case in the Old Testament there is no concept of the right of the people to choose their leader. [As was pointed out to be by Yehoshua (an acquaintance and one time room-mate at the Mir yeshiva).]

This does not mean Democracy is invalid. We know from דינא דמלכותא דינא (the law of the country is valid) that once any kind of government is established whose coin is accepted- that  is a legitimate government; and its rules are binding according to Jewish Law [except in cases which contradict the Torah directly].

This fact was made clear in the Gemara itself. See חזקת הבתים in Bava Batra.

An modern example is the State of Israel for that Reb Moshe Feinstein and Reb Aaron Kotler both said דינא דמלכותא דינא (The law of the State is the law). [How far this extends is a debate between Rishonim as far as I remember. Certainly the Rambam takes this very far beyond דיני ממונות law about money. 

What Western Civilization lacks is Fear of God.

What Western Civilization lacks is Fear of God. It was on Rosh Hashanah at the Mir Yeshiva in NY that I read the אור ישראל [Light of Israel] by the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter [during Musaf] that made this point in such a powerful way that it has stuck with me even years later.  What that means for Jewish-Christian society is simple. To get the books on Fear of God and to read them every day. There is a known set of primary works of Musar and then a secondary level. And after that  a few more levels. The primary level is חובות לבבות, אורחות צדיקים, מסילת ישרים, שערי תשובה, מעלות המידות ספר הישר המיוחס לרבינו תם and a few other mediaeval books.

[I have no idea what Christians could read. I do not even know if they have an equivalent but I assume they must have.The closest thing I can think of is Aquinas.]

[Physics I should mention is also part of the mitzvah of Fear of God according to the Rambam.]

So at least on Rosh Hashanah I recommend learning as much Musar as possible.

I should mention that one reason I really liked the Mir was the small Musar session they had and after I was married and discovered Isaac Blazer's אור ישראל (Light of Israel)I spent my pare time learning Musar which I think was vey god for me.

Revolution is not a good thing

To try and answer  the Alt Right especially,  Brett Stevens.


Once there is a Constitution in place  which works  and establishes peace and order to some degree, it seems to me to be a mistake to try to overthrow it.

Thucydides made this point in the events surrounding Corcyra in the war between Sparta an Athens.

Revolution is not a good thing. Only in the most extreme circumstance is it justified.

Thucydides outlined the basic problems with revolution and also of alliance with either side in the war between Sparta of and Athens. He did not know it at the time, but his words ring even more profoundly as the ages has gone by-- because now we know that that war is what devastated both Sparta and Athens   --forever. Neither ever again would regain what had been lost. It made no difference that Sparta won or that Sparta treated Athens well and kindly after the war. The effect was the same. both lost everything.

This is relevant to today's issues not just the Alt Right but also to the many movements that are committed to overturning the established order as they claim to insure equality or some kind of justice, but it is always just a power grab.  [Especially the Ultra Religious definitely try to undermine the established order so as to gain power. Religious teachers have found and that their lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.][


"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961]

Religious groups are like the Fabian Society or the Freemasons. Though anyone can join, but there are many levels of initiation. That means,- the majority of people involved have no idea of the true agenda and carry out their roles in creating respectable front for the fraud that is at the heart of the organization.


From a Torah standpoint also we know דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the state is the law. The Rambam says this goes even so far as to say that if the king declares one ho transgress any particular law must be sold as a slave that declaration is valid.

I would like to address this issue also from the standpoint of Hegel. Though the left has hijacked Hegel, in fact he provides a good justification for traditional family values. To him, reason can perceive moral principles that are common sense principles. This is somewhat like the intuitionists like Prichard and G.E. Moore, but unlike them Hegel is not a quietist.["We know it because we know it". Instead, Hegel does not ignore Kant but attempts to answer him by means of the triads.]
[Revolution sometimes can be justified. Sometimes an established order is just a cabal a small group that has seized power. When there is an absence of justice, then revolution is in order. ] To some degree then the Russian revolution was justified simply because there was no point to sending Russian soldiers (in WWI) to the front just to get pulverized. If it took a revolution to stop that-well so be it.

My Dad worked at TRW designing a kind of laser communication system for satellites

My Dad worked at TRW designing a kind of laser communication system for satellites that the Soviets could not detect [because it used lasers which go straight unlike radio waves which spread out.] That was right around the time that the KGB had a mole there. This was made into a motion picture, The Falcon and The Snowman. 

TRW was the firm that made the satellites for NASA.


After my Dad finished the project he went on to start his own business. He did not like being under other people's thumbs. In any case it seems to me most of his life was like that. He would work for the USA government for some time [his first invention was night vision.] and then make some invention in his own time and then market it [the copy mate x-ray machine]. Then the USA government would again need him for some other project (e.g. the camera for the U-2 spy plane) so he would join that until that project was over and then he would again make his own inventions and market them again. It went on back and forth like that.

I might have gone on to do the same but at some point a tremendous urge came over me to learn Gemara,[Talmud]. I can not really explain it. A minute away for the holy Talmud  caused me to feel like I was drowning. As time went on I began to see that a more balanced approach is proper based on the Rambam's idea of learning Physics, Metaphysics, the Oral Law, the Written Law.

What I have been saying on my blog is that people ought to make an effort to get through (even if it is just saying the words in order and going on)this basic set: The Old Testament in Hebrew, the Two Talmuds, Rav Shach' Avi Ezri, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, String Theory, Calculus, Topological Algebra, Abstract  Algebra. That seems to me to be the bare minimum for a well rounded education.

Law of Moses and the Alt-Right

A lot of the Alt-Right people concentrate on politics. But politics is downstream from numinous value.
Therefore we have to get that area of value straight. to me this means we need to keep the Law of Moses. But some  people would object to this based on the fact that all of the good we see in western civilization comes directly from listening to Jesus. I would counter this and say Jesus yes; but all Jesus was saying was to keep the Law of Moses with more sincere devotion than what people were doing.


[I can see that Western civilization is synonymous with Christendom. And I appreciate the great things about growing up in the USA when it was a highly moral, wholesome WASP society. However I claim that everything good about Christianity comes straight from the Law of Moses.]


[There is  some degree of ambiguity of how to go about keeping the Law of Moses. However difficult it is to understand, still there is no reason to think that it has been nullified. Paul did think it was null and void, but that was not based on Jesus, but on his own understanding. And this clearly was not what Jesus was saying, that nothing in the law will ever be changed. "Heaven and Earth may pass away but not one jot or tittle of the Law."]

In any case, I would like to make a suggestion on how to keep the Law of Moses. From what I can see, the books of Musar [Medieval Ethics] basically encapsulate the basic approach. [I mean to say that even though some people have been privileged to spend time going through the Oral Law in painstaking detail, this is not available for everyone. Therefore Musar provides and basically simple approach. [The reason Musar is important is it gives a simple balanced approach to keeping the Law of Moses. That is it is more rigorous than if one would try on his on to figure out how to keep it. This is a result of the fact that during the Middle Ages people assumed the law as logically rigorous and had one message, not a different message for every individual  and they spent the time and effort to hammer out the details.]

[Everyone needs a boggy man--someone to attack. For the Ultra Religious  world this is Christians and secular Jews. The Ultra Religious imagine to themselves as if they are keeping the Law of Moses. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Reform and Conservative are much closer to authentic Torah because of their emphasis on obligations between man and his fellow man and not so much on rituals like the ultra religious. ]

Ideas in Bava Metzia ch8-9  I deleted something that seemed a little am haaretz'dik


I would rather not go into what I deleted but in that deleted note I did make an interesting point. That There is an opinion in our Gemara that Sumchos said his din only in a case of "maybe and maybe." {איני יודע ואיני יודע}. Raba Bar Rav Huna. And we have in Bava Batra that Sumchus said his din only in a case of Drara Demomona. [That is not like our gemara in Bava Metzia page 2b].
In the Chidushim on Bava Metzia I already suggested this argument between Bava Metzia and Bava Batra is dependent on the argument between Rav and Shmuel in another place. But is it possible that Raba Bar Rav Huna understand שמא ושמא to be the very definition of דררא דממונא?  In the note I deleted I ascribed this option to the Rashbam for some reason that eludes me today. To me this minute this idea seems utterly silly. But it came inside a small paragraph where I gave n answer to R. Akiva Eigger about the opinion of the Rashbam so maybe I was thinking of something that I did not write down right?
_____________________________________________________________________________


There is an opinion in our גמרא that סומכוס said his דין only in a case of שמא ושמא, איני יודע ואיני יודע. That is the opinion of רבה בר רב הונא.  And we have in בבא בתרא that סומכוס  said his דין only in a case of דררא דממונא. That is not like our גמרא in בבא מציעא  page ב ע''ב.
In the  I already suggested this argument between בבא מציעא and בבא בתרא is dependent on the argument between רב  and שמואל in another place. But is it possible that רבה בר רב הונא understand שמא ושמא to be the very definition of דררא דממונא?

ישנה דעה בגמרא שלנו כי סומכוס אמר את הדין שלו רק במקרה של שמא ושמא, איני יודע ואיני יודע. כך דעת של רבה בר רב הונא.  ובבבא בתרא סומכוס אמר את דינו רק במקרה של דררא דממונא. זה לא כמו  גמרא בבבא מציעא דף ב ע''ב..
כבר הצעתי  שהטיעון הזה בין בבא מציעא ובבא בתרא תלויה בויכוח בין רב ואת שמואל במקום אחר. אבל האם זה אפשרי כי רבה בר רב הונא מבין שמא ושמא להיות ההגדרה של דררא דממונא?

the temptation of the Guru is insurmountable.

When I consider Rosh Hashanah coming up and the need to repent --or even during the year when I notice that I have fallen away from God, my thoughts always wander towards Musar [Books of mediaval Ethics]and the basic path of Reb Israel Salanter. My thoughts usually go along the lines that Musar encapsulates the essence of Torah, but  I find it difficult to recommend the straight yeshiva Musar path because it is a path that has been used by people for personal aggrandizement. Still I wish could learn more Musar.
Of course for people with spiritual thirst the temptation of the Guru is insurmountable. But they can't go to Eastern religions from guilt feelings about their Jewishness. So they find some Jewish equivalent of a Guru. That the trouble with this is they somewhat clear since they have nothing to sell. No enlightenment. Still the temptations enormous,
Therefore the Gra put the whole cult into excommunication that wanted to capitalize on peoples' need for a guru. My general impression of Jewish Gurus is that they are from the Sitra Achra/the Dark Side.  The Gra certainly saw this and if I had been smart I would have simply accepted this as fact base on the idea that the Gra probably knew a thing or two about Torah more than me.

Sadly  I fell into this temptation, instead of just sticking with straight Torah. The way this happens is simple. It is not just my on or other's nativity. It is rather because there are organizations that the majority of people involved are not aware of the ultimate purpose of the organization.

to repeat one whole chapter 40 days in a row

In my fervor for learning fast I have not mentioned on my blog another way of learning that I have found effective-the forty days in a row idea. This is not a way to make a lot of progress, but it is a way that when you find some essential kernel in your learning-- to internalize it.  I did this  a few times in Joos's book Theoretical Physics  and also  in math. [Differential equations]This idea I also applied to Tosphot. [That is I would review the same Tosphot or same page of Gemara for a few weeks --every day the same material]

But with Tosphot and or the Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik I would usually not get up to exactly forty days.

In any case, for a person  like myself, the forty days in a row I have found helps in understanding what I learn, and also in retaining it. [That is to repeat one whole chapter 40 days in a row.]

Torah with Derech Eretz [the way of the Earth, a vocation and manners] especially Math and Physics. Exactly like the Rambam said [concerning Physics and Metaphysics.]

In the Lekutai Moharan Volume 3 chapter 8 it says on Rosh HaShanah to be in an authentic Litvak yeshiva. That is, at any rate, what the language there implies. That "The same thing that is accomplished on Rosh Hashanah is accomplished by being in a true authentic yeshiva with an authentic rosh yeshiva."

In the absence of such a thing I can understand why people come to Uman. But Reb Nachman did not say to come to his grave on Rosh Hashanah. He said to come to his grave for the ten psalms. He never mentioned Rosh Hashanah in connection with his grave.
And after all what counts as an authentic yeshiva? My own experience with yeshivas was in the red. The minus column was generally longer than the profits.[They are after all human institutions, they are not divine.] And besides that my on parents were heavily into Torah with Derech Eretz [the way of the Earth, a vocation and manners] especially Math and Physics. Exactly like the Rambam said [concerning Physics and Metaphysics.]
The weight of the evidence suggests my parents and the Rambam were right. This results in my four point approach: Gemara, Musar, Math, and Physics. In this case the Math and Physics are part of the service of God--not secular.

I have great respect for the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter and the yeshivas founded on their principles but I also have great and greater respect for my parents as the Torah itself demands and they were certainly worthy of that respect. [I do realize there are parents that do not merit much respect, but that is not relevant in my case.] Plus my own experience  suggests something is a bit off in the yeshiva world, and I am sure I am not alone in this awareness. In fact, the entire religious world seems to be a bit insane. So by theory and by experience, I come to this basic path of Torah, Math, and Physics.

(There is something troubling about the entire religious world but it is hard to put my finger on it--or to see exactly what it is. My parents got out of the problem by simply avoiding it altogether and attending a Reform Temple and sending us brothers to public school. This approach makes sense to me except that I think one needs to learn the Oral and Written Law either at home or in some Litvak yeshiva setting and to keep the Torah. But the world of the religious  is certainly farther from Torah than the Reform. It has some kind of kelipa in it.   )

The State of Israel

Dr Kelley Ross  in his essay on Israel is critical of nationalist principle.
But the Alt Right has resurrected the nationalist principle which seems to make sense to me simply based on human nature [super-organism, social meme, natural hierarchy the pecking order.] This seems to go in a Hegelian direction. And Hegel is difficult. Sometimes he is amazingly enlightening and sometimes amazingly infuriating. Still in any case it looks like  nationalism is important.

The Alt Right [Brett Stevens] has noticed that Theodore Herzl was building the idea of a State of Israel on the concept of nationalism. So nowadays when globalism is an obvious failure it seems logical to go back to nationalism as a founding principle.

[Dr Ross is very supportive of the State of Israel but more from an Enlightenment perspective rather than a nationalist principle.]

The thing that to me this all comes down to is Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle.


The right  however is looking at this more from an ethnic principle while I a thinking more along Howard Bloom's idea of a super-organism based on a social meme--the meme in this case being Law of Moses.[i.e. the Written and Oral Law].

Music for the glory of God

s45 C Major  [this needs editing] s44 E minor Edited I think this new version of s44 is slightly better


s51 D minor 6-8 time

The hiding of God' face

What was pointed out by Nietzsche was really mentioned in the Torah itself--the problem with הסתרת פנים. {The hiding of God' face}. That is at the end of Deuteronomy. This is the reason people go to someone like Bava Sali for guidance or a blessing. It is not because they are unaware that it is better to go to God directly. Rather it is because they have gone to God directly to the best of their ability, and still have not gotten an answer.

It was pointed out to me by David Bronson that Nachmanides gives a support for this idea-that in the verses where it says, "Do not go to magicians or astrologers" -and right after that it says, "but for you God will bring a prophet."

Still what seems to me is that is  a concession to human nature. That is how Maimonides understands many of the commandments in any case.

What makes more sense to be is the idea of going to go in private prayer in a place where no one else is and asking God for his guidance just as if you would have a Bava Sali to ask.

If you have a forest nearby what you could do is make it a daily schedule to jog there and when there to spend time talking with God alone, and then jog back

Western Civilization

Western Civilization is again being invaded by barbarian hordes.

300 Spartans and a certain number of allies [I forgot how many -I think it was about 2000] stopped the Persian invasion of Helles which was close to 3 million men. It happened once. I can happen again.


 It was in fact about one Spartan per 10,000 Persian soldiers. We know the number of Persians because Xerxes made a closure that would contain 10,000 men exactly. and thus he counted his invading army. The amazing thing was a king of Sparta that had been kicked out and was advising  Xerxes told he that his army against 300 Spartans was not even a contest.[In fact the only reason the Spartans finally fell was someone betrayed their flank.]

"No problems without sin."

I realize the path of repentance is far from me. How do I know this? Well two things. One is everything in my life fell apart at a certain point, and we know from the Torah that, "There are no problems without sin." [Even though the book of Job infers differently, still this seems to be the basic approach of the Torah.]


The way that Reb Shmuel Berenbaum [the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir yeshiva in NY] dealt with almost any problem was this, "Learn Torah."  That was his cure all for every type of difficulty that anyone brought before him. [That went along with his emphasis on not speaking Lashon Hara(slander). See the book, Chafetz Chaim for details. A very important book I might add.]

What seems right about this idea of "Learning Torah"is that, in fact, I think that repentance involves finding a basic set of rules of conduct and sticking with them. Certainly anything that I am doing wrong or have done wrong is mentioned somewhere in Oral and Written Law. In any case, I certainly have not found out what I am doing wrong.

Note: The subject of "No problems without sin" is an argument in the Talmud. But the conclusion is "There is death without sin, but never problems without sin." This comes up in Tractate Shabat.

[Even though I realize I must be far off the mark there are still a number of basic principles I have tried to stick with. Even though I realize they do not really count as true repentance for whatever I have done wrong, still they are I think good ad hoc measures, [i.e. good for the needs of the hour..]
(1) Speak the truth at all cost (2) Learn Torah , the Written and Oral Law (3) Ten Commandments, (4) the Golden Rule [Do unto other as you would have others do unto you.]..

[Some might think religious fanaticism is the answer. What religious fanatic does not think he has the absolute truth? However I never saw any good come from religious fanaticism-never. It just takes people away from the more important aspects of Torah like obligations between man and his fellow man.]

The fundamental idea of pagan religion is everything is Divine

The reason the Gra signed the excommunication was that he was against the idea of representing the Torah as a  pagan religion —

 The fundamental idea of pagan religion is everything is divine and filled with divinity. That the universe is some kind of MetaDivine realm.


Since the Gra saw people teaching this in the name of Torah he thought it would be best to make a clear distinction between Torah and pagan religion.

This obviously was ignored by the religious and so they continue to this day teaching pagan religion in the name of Torah. They get away with this scam because they disguise this in cute little rituals.

The super-organism based on some higher social meme

The super-organism based on some higher social meme-- that is the Howard Bloom formulation. He was thinking of the best model as that of the USA constitution. But as someone mentioned that politics is downstream from religion. So to me the Law of Moses is the best meme. But to Maimonides Torah is downstream from Physics. Physics is downstream from metaphysics.The question then is why would these contain a higher aspect of value? I think with Hegel it is possible to answer this question.
The absolute idea flows into metaphysics and downstream from that is physics etc. but with Hegel alone this would translate into a top to bottom system as communist systems are in fact base on Hegel

What you need to bottom to top feedback as with a Democracy.

The problem in the religious world

The problem in the religious world is every area of value deteriorates into its opposite.
What that means is when art deteriorates it becomes anti art i.e. Picasso, Music becomes anti music. Torah when it falls becomes anti Torah. And that is worse than anti art because anti Torah i.e. force of unholiness the forces of the dark side demonic forces.


The solution to this was found by the sages דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה. Derech Eretz [work and manners] comes before Torah.
Thus the Rambam says that the occupation of learning Physics and Metaphysics is above learning Torah. [This is open in the parable of the king in the state at the end of vol 3 in the Guide for the Perplexed.]
He found in these a higher kind of numinous value than Torah itself.

The simple thing would be to fire all the pseudo teachers--if only people would listen.

s43 A Major

The devotion to Torah in the Litvak world

The Haredi world ought to be divided conceptually into two parts. The Litvak (Lithuanian) yeshiva world which is basically loyal to Torah and try to keep its values. Marriage there tend to have a kind of synergy   because of devotion towards God and his Law. There are however other groups which are strict about rituals but are cults and in fact the marriages are quite abusive in both directions,

The devotion to Torah in the Litvak world tends to raise the marriages towards a transcendent goal.
There is almost nothing in the religious world that I consider kosher at all. To me they all look like cults of idolatry except for the yeshivas like Ponovitch that are clearly into straight Torah. The rest of the haredi world seem to me to be walking mummies. Dead and worshipers of the dead.

Alliances makes  a difference and the yeshiva world made a big mistake in aligning itself with what is the haredi world, They have a lot more in common with the Reform and Conservative who  who also try to keep Torah but with less emphasis  on rituals. But Reform and Conservative certainly do not worship the dead like the rest of the haredi world.

[I  was never part of Ponovitch but the general yeshiva world tended to be alike in this respect to love and devotion towards God and his Law. That is my impression anyway about pretty much anyone I met in that world. They shine with the inner light of Torah. Maybe that is just my subjective observation, but it seems to me to be real. ]

Of course it take some kind of merit to be a part of the authentic Litvak Torah world which I apparently do not have. Maybe the problem is once one walks away from it the door gets locked behind him. Or perhaps some sin causes some kind קלקול corruption in the עולמות העליונים.

In any case the religious world  is different from the yeshiva world and it is basically demon possessed. It makes a good show of keeping Torah but the inner energy is from the dark side. They are always begging money from secular Jews but when someone needs their help they always hurt when able an never help.

I tried to explain this once in some blog post that it is the result of the fact that every areas of value has an opposite area of value. Some the world of Torah when it falls it falls into anti Torah. This is the same with music or art. It it is not a phenomenon that is exclusively in the Torah world.

subversion within a group and the problems of a hierarchy.

In this essay http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GodGrandchild.HTM Steven Dutch discusses some of the problems with subversion within.


Also he writes (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ComplexAdaptive.HTM):This interaction of top-down and adaptive components results in what I call the Paradox of Authority-in-Democracy. Overall, despite its failings, we live in a democratic society. Nevertheless, most of the day to day decisions in our society are made by authoritarian means. Students don't elect their teachers or vote on grading standards, workers don't elect their bosses, we don't elect our police officers or set speed limits by market means. Yet there are enough adaptive mechanisms to keep authority in check.

What Steven Dutch is seems to be saying is there is a hierarchy in any group but the group works better if there is feedback. Feedback is something you find in electrical engineering and negative feedback in  a circuit helps promote stability.

In any case hierarchy is an issue that Hegel goes into and it seems to correspond to his Metaphysics.

In any case what you see with Steven Dutch is  an unusual amount of flashes of insight,--insight that suggest solutions to great problems.  He he is suggestion that the important thing about the American Constitution is that it has feedback, and is a combination of atop to bottom and bottom to top kind of system.
One trouble with the communist system is in fact it is totally top to bottom once they get power. But they can get power because of the promises that attract people and that they do seem to keep.--to get rid of exploiters.

She was spoiling for a fight

Comment on Red Pill Girl blog:

"I vividly remember my ex. When she was having a bad day, something upset her, was spoiling for a fight that had nothing to do with us … I’d grab a rag and container of comet [soap]." CLEAN …" I would tell her. And after awhile she knew the drill. Rag and scrub and clean and make her house her home. Made her feel better. Feel settled. It worked. She’d work out her energy and feel better."


I think a lot of guys go through the same thing. They get home after a frustrating day and they find their wife just ready and raring for a fight. But if they take the soft approach, she gets more and more angry because he refuses to fight. If he takes the hard line they she gets to go to court and accuse him of abuse.
Today women have dug themselves into a deep pit- with the help of the "religious leaders" of course--the agents of the Dark Side. Religious teachers teach  but they present the  paradigm of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] as a traditional Torah paradigm and not a  creation of their delusions.  This is far more dangerous than the overt teaching of idolatry.

The best idea that I know is that of Reb Israel Salanter--to learn Musar {Mediaeval Ethics.} but along with outdoor skills. That is to learn ethics and loyal and dependability is not just from books but from team work and practice.--That is the origin of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. [Nowadays the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are no good. They gave up their morality for money.]

Evil religious leaders. This is a subject that  has been around. My first thought is the false prophets. Then warnings in the Talmud about the פרושים "Pharisee"-usually identified as Talmud scholars, but in fact people the Talmud criticizes as being hypocritical . But it comes up  so often that I wonder if perhaps it is not from the curse of Jeremiah since God sent us true prophets and we did not listen so he will send false prophets and to them we will listen. The trouble is this---there are true teachers but they generally are willfully ignorant about the presence of bad teachers or are quiet about this problem. In the ocean of false and bad teachers how many people are willing to state the truth fearlessly? Not many. Most teachers would loose  their livelihoods.

Here is a comment from the blog Dalrock:
 "I am the first to admit that I was a total supplicating husband (aka Kitchen Bitch) because I was fully indoctrinated into the ideology through  marriage books and programs. I bathed the kids, put them to bed, changed the diapers, washed the dishes, cooked, cleaned, and this was in addition to operating my own construction company and tending to the yard and maintenance and repairs. It caused my ex to only grow deeper and deeper into depression and misery, lose all attraction and respect for me, withdraw completely from sex and affection, ultimately divorce.\
 I watch so many couples living this out now still and I openly try to warn my friends and other husbands away from it. I subsequently have few friends and the wives are not keen on their husbands hanging out with me. The blatant feminism, divorce encouragement, cowardice of religious  leaders who  continue to promote this garbage and bow before their wives and all other women in the congregation..."



I should mention: 

There is nothing disjunctive about והוא ימשול בך “and he will rule over you and to him will be your desire” which God said to Eve is a regular Hebrew phrase and its meaning is not ambiguous.

מושל there is used many times in the Bible. One example is להשם המלוכה ומושל בגוים To God is the kingship and ruler-ship over the nations. The idea comes up also in the book of Esther the letters that were sent out by Xerxes “that ever man should rule over his own home and speak in his own language.”
Why would a pastor claim this is disjunctive when it is clearly not so is beyond me.
It could not be more clear.

Welfare is really enforced servitude of white to serve black

Nationalism mainly finds justification with Hegel and Howard Bloom. Autonomy of the individual finds justification with Kant. My own point of view is more based on the Law of Moses. That is I put the center of gravity not in the individual nor in the nation but in the Law. But in any case there are some very good points in the idea of stopping the destructive aspects of diversity and welfare etc.

Welfare is really enforced servitude of white to serve black. Diversity is really a way to undermine traditional American values.

The whole Bava Sali thing seems to have puttered out of steam. Still there are unique and special people within that tradition.  I was very impressed with one grandson of Bava Sali, Shimon Buso. But there might be others.The  daughter of Bava Sali, Mrs Buso married  fellow by the name David Buso and that is where the name come from. I am not much into the dynasty thing but in this case it looks valid to me.  My impression is it is worth the time and effort to get a blessing from Shimon Buso. [He is in Jerusalem on Shabat and Netivot during the week.]

The main thing I saw in the whole Bava Sali family was what you could call straight Torah. No "tikunim" or kabalistic stuff.
There are descendants of Reb Yaakov Abuchatzaira also around whom are certainly worthwhile to visit.

Besides that it is entirely possible the Bava Sali thing is still around. I was in Netivot for about  a year and went to Rav Montag's yeshiva for about an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening and it occurs to me today that that was a time that God granted to me a great deal of סייעתא דשמיא help from Heaven concerning the book on Bava Metzia. That is from pages 104 until page 112.

You have to do your own work to find out where the descendants of Bava Sali and Yaakov Abuchatzeira are because I do not know except for Shimon Buso.