11.1.18
10.1.18
American Constitution
The unstated question on German Idealism is two world wars. This tens to lessen the credibility of anything that has the word German tacked onto it. That includes Kant and Hegel.
And the unstated support for John Locke is the success of the USA.
If the political systems supported by each would be irrelevant to their philosophy, then one could ignore the politics and simply look at the world views.
[My own feeling is that the success of the American Constitution can be best explained by the Kant Fries School which more or less is represented by Dr Kelley Ross. That gives the weight of authority on individual, not the State.
And the unstated support for John Locke is the success of the USA.
If the political systems supported by each would be irrelevant to their philosophy, then one could ignore the politics and simply look at the world views.
[My own feeling is that the success of the American Constitution can be best explained by the Kant Fries School which more or less is represented by Dr Kelley Ross. That gives the weight of authority on individual, not the State.
9.1.18
the path of the Gra definitely includes Astronomy, Mathematics and Music
I wanted to mention that the path of the Gra definitely includes what in the Middle Ages was called the Seven Wisdoms. That includes Astronomy, Mathematics and Music.
And once I asked Rav Eliyahu Silverman (who was the head of the Yeshiva on the Path of the Gra) if that included Engineering. [I was referring to a book that] given to me from Hebrew University on Electrical Engineering. And he said yes.
But since not everyone is very good at that my suggestion is based on the Musar Book אורחות צדיקים which brings the idea of learning fast. He has a long essay there in the Gate of Torah about learning fast--saying the words and going on that is called דרך גירסה
And once I asked Rav Eliyahu Silverman (who was the head of the Yeshiva on the Path of the Gra) if that included Engineering. [I was referring to a book that] given to me from Hebrew University on Electrical Engineering. And he said yes.
But since not everyone is very good at that my suggestion is based on the Musar Book אורחות צדיקים which brings the idea of learning fast. He has a long essay there in the Gate of Torah about learning fast--saying the words and going on that is called דרך גירסה
the letter of excommunication that the Gra signed is legally valid
Even though the letter of excommunication that the Gra signed is legally valid, and in fact people that ignore it come under the curses that are listed for anyone is transgresses a oath (or in this case a חרם); still I do not feel that Breslov comes under that category. The reason is while I was wandering around the Old City of Jerusalem I stumbled upon a book that brought the original documents word for word. [That included the other letters of excommunication, and also the statements of the witnesses that were collected in Villna and written down.]
But as the actual issues of Breslov, I think that there should be made a distinction between ideas that the Ran held strongly with and ideas that were less sure [or more doubtful what he actually meant]. I.e. there were things he held very strongly were correct like the saying the ten psalms.
The idea that transgressing a חרם [excommunication] is the same kind of thing as transgressing an oath I got from the regular commentaries of the Rambam right on the page in Laws of Oaths. And the general warnings about transgressing an oath are pretty explicit.
But as the actual issues of Breslov, I think that there should be made a distinction between ideas that the Ran held strongly with and ideas that were less sure [or more doubtful what he actually meant]. I.e. there were things he held very strongly were correct like the saying the ten psalms.
The idea that transgressing a חרם [excommunication] is the same kind of thing as transgressing an oath I got from the regular commentaries of the Rambam right on the page in Laws of Oaths. And the general warnings about transgressing an oath are pretty explicit.
8.1.18
A cure for one's spirit and body.
Faith in the wise gives good advice for all human problems. Some wise men were expert in certain areas but not all areas. Other wise men were good in different areas. Therefore faith in all the wise gives good advice for all problems.
Why I bring this up is that it occurred to me concerning a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter, that is Isaac Blazer. In the beginning of his book אור ישראל (Light of Israel). Over there he brings the idea that learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] is a cure for one's spirit and body. [It is easy to miss this but if you look there you will see that is what he says.] (He brings the idea from Maimonides.)
Musar itself as a movement seems to have lost its momentum. Still the basic idea is sound --that the medieval sages had the best idea of what the actual requirements of Torah are.
The best idea today I think to get a good idea of what Torah requires from one is to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the books of the Gra and the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter like Navardok etc.
Why I bring this up is that it occurred to me concerning a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter, that is Isaac Blazer. In the beginning of his book אור ישראל (Light of Israel). Over there he brings the idea that learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] is a cure for one's spirit and body. [It is easy to miss this but if you look there you will see that is what he says.] (He brings the idea from Maimonides.)
Musar itself as a movement seems to have lost its momentum. Still the basic idea is sound --that the medieval sages had the best idea of what the actual requirements of Torah are.
The best idea today I think to get a good idea of what Torah requires from one is to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the books of the Gra and the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter like Navardok etc.
Closing of the American Mind
Philosophy has relevance for politics as noted by this article [Abbeville Institute]
There they are criticizing a South [Southern States] bashing book based on sloppy research and sloppy ideas about natural law.
Getting world view issues straight has seemed to me to be important for a long time, but academic philosophy I began to notice even while in high school was a dead end.--and as John Searle put it so well about 20th century philosophy "it is obviously false."[Both British and Continental.] Allan Bloom also noticed the same thing in his Closing of the American Mind.
[I think John Searle might have been referring to a good suggestion made by Frege to expand the category of a priori. That was a good idea, but sadly led to idiotic post modern philosophy. Dr. Kelley Ross noticed this, and it might be what John Searle also is thinking. ]
In any case to be short I think the best thing in Philosophy is the Kant-Friesian school which I think in Germany is called "the Critical School" because of being based on Kant. [Leonard Nelson's books were apparently printed in Germany which is the beginning of the Kant Fries school]
But I have a lot of respect for Hegel also, and the Intuitionists like Dr Michael Huemer. To me each one seems to be making some great points.
My own feeling about Philosophy is the best idea is the suggestion of the Rambam to learn the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus. After that, I think Kant and Hegel are important.
In terms of how philosophy relates to politics, the best thing out there are the Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton and others. [They were written to convince NY to accept the USA Constitution.]
[The reason I think philosophy got to be so awful is that mainly idiots go into it and teach it. The best idea is of Allan Bloom. Simply throw out the social studies and humanities departments of all universities.]
[I think John Searle might have been referring to a good suggestion made by Frege to expand the category of a priori. That was a good idea, but sadly led to idiotic post modern philosophy. Dr. Kelley Ross noticed this, and it might be what John Searle also is thinking. ]
In any case to be short I think the best thing in Philosophy is the Kant-Friesian school which I think in Germany is called "the Critical School" because of being based on Kant. [Leonard Nelson's books were apparently printed in Germany which is the beginning of the Kant Fries school]
But I have a lot of respect for Hegel also, and the Intuitionists like Dr Michael Huemer. To me each one seems to be making some great points.
My own feeling about Philosophy is the best idea is the suggestion of the Rambam to learn the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus. After that, I think Kant and Hegel are important.
In terms of how philosophy relates to politics, the best thing out there are the Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton and others. [They were written to convince NY to accept the USA Constitution.]
[The reason I think philosophy got to be so awful is that mainly idiots go into it and teach it. The best idea is of Allan Bloom. Simply throw out the social studies and humanities departments of all universities.]
7.1.18
Torah with balance.
To me it occurred the thought that the path of my parents {Philip Rosten and Leila} is not that hard to define. One thing that I thought made it hard to define is that it was never expressed openly. But then I realized that there were certain well defined components of it.
It might be hard for me to defend each point, but still the essence was six major points.
(1) Math (2) Physics, (3) Music (4) straight Torah (Litvak) (5) an honest upright vocation (6) outdoor and survival skills.
The reason this was hard for me to realize is that generally they expressed approval of good wholesome things, and disapproval of unwholesome stuff. There was almost never a "you must do" or "must not do such and such."
So to be brief how can I defend each point? Well to start out with Math and Physics. This was something they expressed great approval of in countless ways. But this approval was mainly directed towards me because of my inherent interest. So that aspect of my parents I think was not so much noticed by my brothers;---even though it definitely was very much present.
Music was important to a lesser degree. Even though our home was mainly Reform, still Torah was very important to my parents--the Oral and Written Law. The vocation aspect was something my brothers noticed more than I. The outdoor skills aspect was there, but again not discussed. It would take a longer essay to each with each point.
You could argue on each point because little was said openly. Rather it was just approval or disapproval. To give an example. My father sent my younger brother and me to the Boy Scouts and also always emphasized self reliance, and as a family we went up to the mountains often. Music and the violin was something my father did, but again only showed approval towards me because I showed interest. His main career was as an inventor. That is the first night vision device, and much more stuff plus laser communication for NASA satellites for SDI (more well known as "Star Wars"). So his interest in Math and Physics was quite present but not necessarily expressed openly.
[It goes without saying that family values and being a decent human being were the highest priorities but taught more by example than by words.]
[He had volunteered for the US Air Force and became a captain but did not pursue that as a career. ]
It might be hard for me to defend each point, but still the essence was six major points.
(1) Math (2) Physics, (3) Music (4) straight Torah (Litvak) (5) an honest upright vocation (6) outdoor and survival skills.
The reason this was hard for me to realize is that generally they expressed approval of good wholesome things, and disapproval of unwholesome stuff. There was almost never a "you must do" or "must not do such and such."
So to be brief how can I defend each point? Well to start out with Math and Physics. This was something they expressed great approval of in countless ways. But this approval was mainly directed towards me because of my inherent interest. So that aspect of my parents I think was not so much noticed by my brothers;---even though it definitely was very much present.
Music was important to a lesser degree. Even though our home was mainly Reform, still Torah was very important to my parents--the Oral and Written Law. The vocation aspect was something my brothers noticed more than I. The outdoor skills aspect was there, but again not discussed. It would take a longer essay to each with each point.
You could argue on each point because little was said openly. Rather it was just approval or disapproval. To give an example. My father sent my younger brother and me to the Boy Scouts and also always emphasized self reliance, and as a family we went up to the mountains often. Music and the violin was something my father did, but again only showed approval towards me because I showed interest. His main career was as an inventor. That is the first night vision device, and much more stuff plus laser communication for NASA satellites for SDI (more well known as "Star Wars"). So his interest in Math and Physics was quite present but not necessarily expressed openly.
[It goes without saying that family values and being a decent human being were the highest priorities but taught more by example than by words.]
[He had volunteered for the US Air Force and became a captain but did not pursue that as a career. ]
Rav Avraham Abulafia
Though I would not say anything about it without the authority of Rav Avraham Abulafia about Jesus after the fact it is possible to discuss the issue. For one thing the Gemara in Sanhedrin about the fact that God had come down from Heaven and became a physical body in order to give the king of Assyria a haircut.
We also find that saints and Jerusalem and angels are called by the Name of God. [As is brought n Bava Batra פרק הספינהs page 75 side B]
In any case, the Gra said that all the deep secrets of Torah are contained in the midrash [That is the non legal parts of Gemara and the actual midrah. That is Midrash Raba and few other neglected books. The trouble seems to be that there is no place to put Midrash. It is not exactly Musar. Nor is it exactly Gemara. One learning partner I had at the Mir found an elegant solution to this problem - he used to learn Midrash at night after the two regular day time sessions.
So it is possible to ask what is the meaning of the Midrash in Sanhedrin about G-d giving the king or Assyria a haircut. The actual events are well known. The previous king of Assyria had already taken Israel, and then the capital city of Samaria. Then his successor took the cities of Judah, and then the King of Judah sent a bribe to him to "lay off". After that instead of laying off, he sent his armies to take Jerusalem. The attempt to take Jerusalem was unsuccessful to say the least. To me it is not clear where the King of Assyria was at the time. He might have joined his forces outside of Jerusalem or maybe not. In any case, he was occupied with a different war near a neighboring state. Then he went back to his capital city and there the incident the Gemara relates took place. Apparently after two failed wars he was unpopular. He got a haircut to disguise himself. He then was killed by two of his children.
The whole issue of Jesus as understood by Rav Avraham Abulafia really is treated best in the books of Professor Idel at Hebrew University. In those books he concentrates of Rav Avraham Abulafia and gives him a thorough academic treatment--much better than what one could figure out on his own by reading Rav Abulafia. Though in my case it was reading the actual microfilms at HU in around 1992 to got me to see clearly what the approach of Rav Abulafia is. I should mention that even though people nowadays have not heard of him, he is quoted at length in שערי קדושה by רב חיים וויטל the major disciple of the Ari.
[I ought to mention I did not make a major study of Rav Abulafia myself, since at the time his books were published I already had started on other subjects. ]
The place I found his books was in Jerusalem but they might be already in NY.]
We also find that saints and Jerusalem and angels are called by the Name of God. [As is brought n Bava Batra פרק הספינהs page 75 side B]
In any case, the Gra said that all the deep secrets of Torah are contained in the midrash [That is the non legal parts of Gemara and the actual midrah. That is Midrash Raba and few other neglected books. The trouble seems to be that there is no place to put Midrash. It is not exactly Musar. Nor is it exactly Gemara. One learning partner I had at the Mir found an elegant solution to this problem - he used to learn Midrash at night after the two regular day time sessions.
So it is possible to ask what is the meaning of the Midrash in Sanhedrin about G-d giving the king or Assyria a haircut. The actual events are well known. The previous king of Assyria had already taken Israel, and then the capital city of Samaria. Then his successor took the cities of Judah, and then the King of Judah sent a bribe to him to "lay off". After that instead of laying off, he sent his armies to take Jerusalem. The attempt to take Jerusalem was unsuccessful to say the least. To me it is not clear where the King of Assyria was at the time. He might have joined his forces outside of Jerusalem or maybe not. In any case, he was occupied with a different war near a neighboring state. Then he went back to his capital city and there the incident the Gemara relates took place. Apparently after two failed wars he was unpopular. He got a haircut to disguise himself. He then was killed by two of his children.
The whole issue of Jesus as understood by Rav Avraham Abulafia really is treated best in the books of Professor Idel at Hebrew University. In those books he concentrates of Rav Avraham Abulafia and gives him a thorough academic treatment--much better than what one could figure out on his own by reading Rav Abulafia. Though in my case it was reading the actual microfilms at HU in around 1992 to got me to see clearly what the approach of Rav Abulafia is. I should mention that even though people nowadays have not heard of him, he is quoted at length in שערי קדושה by רב חיים וויטל the major disciple of the Ari.
[I ought to mention I did not make a major study of Rav Abulafia myself, since at the time his books were published I already had started on other subjects. ]
The place I found his books was in Jerusalem but they might be already in NY.]
6.1.18
הכרת הטוב gratitude
You do see the idea of הכרת הטוב gratitude coming up in a few places. And this was for me a kind of painful message since after I got to my first real authentic Litvak yeshiva in NY Shar Yashuv, Rav Freifeld made it clear to me that he thought I did not have gratitude about how hard it was to make an authentic yeshiva. And that certainly was true. It did not occur to me until later how much effort it takes to create "the real thing."
In any case, one place this comes up is with Moses who did not want to hit the Nile River with his staff because it had once before [80 years before that] had saved his life. So when God told him to strike the river with his staff, he gave it instead to Aaron.
Later I saw this idea come up in Musar in the book "Obligations of the Heart" and in a few other places. In the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart), Gratitude takes a central place as being the reason for many of the commandments.
[I saw the concept come up after that in places I forget. But clearly it is essential. It occurs to me now one place might have been the Shelah who I think mentions the reason Joseph did not tax the priests in Egypt because they had acquitted him of the crime he was accused of.]
[To actually learn good character traits {Musar} was not actually a part of the program in Shar Yashuv. It is not a Musar Yeshiva, but it is a Litvak Yeshiva. I only began to learn Musar at the Mir in NY. Still my impression is that to actually learn good traits depends more on things like the Boy Scouts and learning the value of team work and dependability in actions rather than in books.]
In any case, one place this comes up is with Moses who did not want to hit the Nile River with his staff because it had once before [80 years before that] had saved his life. So when God told him to strike the river with his staff, he gave it instead to Aaron.
Later I saw this idea come up in Musar in the book "Obligations of the Heart" and in a few other places. In the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart), Gratitude takes a central place as being the reason for many of the commandments.
[I saw the concept come up after that in places I forget. But clearly it is essential. It occurs to me now one place might have been the Shelah who I think mentions the reason Joseph did not tax the priests in Egypt because they had acquitted him of the crime he was accused of.]
[To actually learn good character traits {Musar} was not actually a part of the program in Shar Yashuv. It is not a Musar Yeshiva, but it is a Litvak Yeshiva. I only began to learn Musar at the Mir in NY. Still my impression is that to actually learn good traits depends more on things like the Boy Scouts and learning the value of team work and dependability in actions rather than in books.]
5.1.18
letter of excommunication that the Gra signed.
There is an argument to support the idea of being careful about the letter of excommunication that the Gra signed. That is the idea that is brought about a certain disciple of an Amora who heard some amazing claim by R. Yohanan [Bava Batra]. That disciple did not take them seriously until he actually saw the evidence. Then he came back and said over what he had seen. But it was clear that before he had seen he did not really believe. Thus he was considered "to be making fun of the words of the sages." [That disciple had seen angels carving pearls that were 30*30 yards. How great a level he must have been on to be able to see angels. Still his great level did not change the facts. ]
Thus even though one has seen evidence to show the Gra was right, that does not take him out of the category of making fun of the words of the Gra.
Nowadays however the Gra is universally ignored even when there is copious evidence to support him. That seems even worse than the event in the Gemara where that disciple believed R. Yohanan after he had seen the evidence..
[There s another argument that I have mentioned once before based on some of the commentaries that bring the idea that a excommunication gets its legal category from the concept of "oath." That is different than what is called a "Shavua". An oath "neder" is the concept that one can forbid his own property to himself or to others. See the beginning of Nedarim where this is explained in detail. So if an excommunication has legal validity then that makes it forbidden to ignore, even if one does not agree with it.]
Thus even though one has seen evidence to show the Gra was right, that does not take him out of the category of making fun of the words of the Gra.
Nowadays however the Gra is universally ignored even when there is copious evidence to support him. That seems even worse than the event in the Gemara where that disciple believed R. Yohanan after he had seen the evidence..
[There s another argument that I have mentioned once before based on some of the commentaries that bring the idea that a excommunication gets its legal category from the concept of "oath." That is different than what is called a "Shavua". An oath "neder" is the concept that one can forbid his own property to himself or to others. See the beginning of Nedarim where this is explained in detail. So if an excommunication has legal validity then that makes it forbidden to ignore, even if one does not agree with it.]
4.1.18
בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות
בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות. The way תוספות explains עולא is this. If you have a circle with radius 16 and wrap a string around it for .66 אמות, you get the length of the inner חוט to be רדיוס הפנימי times שש. The length of the outer circle רדיוס החיצוני times שש
So then if you flatten out the area between the inner and outer circle, you get a מלבן with a triangle at the top. The area of a triangle is חצי base times height. That brings up from the 768 square אמות of עולא up until the 833.3 of the משנה. The difference is 65. Does all that work? What would be the regular way of figuring it out? You would take the area of the large circle minus the area of the small circle. Does that come out the same as תוספות? There is a slight discrepancy. But תוספות is making an approximation.
בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות. דרך שהתוספות מסביר עולא היא זו. אם יש לך מעגל עם רדיוס 16 ועוטף את חוט סביבו עבור 0.66 אמות, אתה מקבל את האורך חוט הפנימי להיות רדיוס מעגל הפנימי פעמים שש. אורך החוט על מעגל החיצוני הוא רדיוס החיצוני פעמים שש. אז אם אתה לוקח את השטח בין המעגל הפנימי והחיצוני, אתה מקבל מלבן עם משולש בראש. השטח של המשולש הוא חצי של הבסיס פעמים הגובה. זה מעלה מ 768 האמות המרובעות של עולא עד 833.3 של המשנה. ההבדל הוא 65 בערך. האם כל זה עובד? מה תהיה הדרך הרגילה? היית לוקח את השטח של המעגל הגדול מינוס שטח המעגל הקטן. האם זה יוצא כמו תוספות? יש פער קל. אבל תוספות הוא עושה קירוב.
So then if you flatten out the area between the inner and outer circle, you get a מלבן with a triangle at the top. The area of a triangle is חצי base times height. That brings up from the 768 square אמות of עולא up until the 833.3 of the משנה. The difference is 65. Does all that work? What would be the regular way of figuring it out? You would take the area of the large circle minus the area of the small circle. Does that come out the same as תוספות? There is a slight discrepancy. But תוספות is making an approximation.
בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות. דרך שהתוספות מסביר עולא היא זו. אם יש לך מעגל עם רדיוס 16 ועוטף את חוט סביבו עבור 0.66 אמות, אתה מקבל את האורך חוט הפנימי להיות רדיוס מעגל הפנימי פעמים שש. אורך החוט על מעגל החיצוני הוא רדיוס החיצוני פעמים שש. אז אם אתה לוקח את השטח בין המעגל הפנימי והחיצוני, אתה מקבל מלבן עם משולש בראש. השטח של המשולש הוא חצי של הבסיס פעמים הגובה. זה מעלה מ 768 האמות המרובעות של עולא עד 833.3 של המשנה. ההבדל הוא 65 בערך. האם כל זה עובד? מה תהיה הדרך הרגילה? היית לוקח את השטח של המעגל הגדול מינוס שטח המעגל הקטן. האם זה יוצא כמו תוספות? יש פער קל. אבל תוספות הוא עושה קירוב.
What is remarkable is that one can be a perfect saint and still have past sins that have not been taken care of. And also that we see from the sages that repentance does not finish the job.
A man marries a woman on condition he is a perfect saint, even if he is a perfect רשע evil person, she is married because of a doubt that he might have been thinking to repent. So we see if in fact he had been thinking of repenting then she is certainly married. From this we learn repentance is accepting on one's self not to repeat one's evil deeds.
But that does not make up for past deeds as the Gemara says repentance on a איסור עשה (positive command) works. Repentance on a לא תעשה [negative command] helps and the Day of Atonement finishes. Repentance on לא תעשה שיש בו כרת [negative command with cutting off] Repentance and the day of Atonement hep and pains and problems finish.But for חילול השם you need and three and then the day of death finishes the atonement.
What is remarkable is that one can be a perfect saint and still have past sins that have not been taken care of. And also that we see from the sages that repentance does not finish the job.
[This I think is not well known and even when I learned the Gates of Repentance of R. Yona I think I did not get the idea.]
But that does not make up for past deeds as the Gemara says repentance on a איסור עשה (positive command) works. Repentance on a לא תעשה [negative command] helps and the Day of Atonement finishes. Repentance on לא תעשה שיש בו כרת [negative command with cutting off] Repentance and the day of Atonement hep and pains and problems finish.But for חילול השם you need and three and then the day of death finishes the atonement.
What is remarkable is that one can be a perfect saint and still have past sins that have not been taken care of. And also that we see from the sages that repentance does not finish the job.
[This I think is not well known and even when I learned the Gates of Repentance of R. Yona I think I did not get the idea.]
One can sit and learn Torah in Israel and one can accept that stipend
Besides that the Madragat Adam [מדרגת האדם] and the Navradok approach emphasizes trust in God, it is clearly an essential part of the aspect of the Gra. For example see the אבן שלמה which brings from the Gra that the purpose of Torah is to bring to Trust in God.
The obvious question is the practical implementation of this. See many verses in Proverbs where preparation for the future is emphasized.
The verse about the ants comes to mind, [מכינה בקיץ לחמה] but there are a lot more over there that indicate the same basic idea.
[My own feeling is that given the situation that one can sit and learn Torah in Israel and one can accept that stipend. That is what I probably should have done myself. That does however not mean not to go and serve in IDF. But rather when one is not working or in the IDF then one can depend on the situation to accept the monthly stipend in order to sit and learn Torah.]
[Mainly the reason I say this is that apparently during the time of the Gaonim we see the Geonim did receive a stipend from the community. Also Rav Joseph Karo does bring from the Tashbatz to allow this.] [Apparently Rav Shach himself did depend on this idea and other great sages.]
The obvious question is the practical implementation of this. See many verses in Proverbs where preparation for the future is emphasized.
The verse about the ants comes to mind, [מכינה בקיץ לחמה] but there are a lot more over there that indicate the same basic idea.
[My own feeling is that given the situation that one can sit and learn Torah in Israel and one can accept that stipend. That is what I probably should have done myself. That does however not mean not to go and serve in IDF. But rather when one is not working or in the IDF then one can depend on the situation to accept the monthly stipend in order to sit and learn Torah.]
[Mainly the reason I say this is that apparently during the time of the Gaonim we see the Geonim did receive a stipend from the community. Also Rav Joseph Karo does bring from the Tashbatz to allow this.] [Apparently Rav Shach himself did depend on this idea and other great sages.]
Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27A.
I just wanted to share two thoughts I had about Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27A.
One thought is about the "Other path" that Tosphot brings in the middle. The way that "other path" is understanding Ula is this: When Ula say a tree needs 16 yards around it and the Gemra then add that means as a square is a fourth larger than a circle and that Ula meant 16 2/3, the way Tosphot understands that is that Ula was describing a square with one side being 33 1/3. Thus the whole square is 33.3^2 and a fourth is the size of the ground around the tree that the Mishna gives which is 33.3* 25.
That is the opposite of the way Tosphot was thinking up until that point that Ula was describing a circle with radius 16.6
The other thought I had was about the very first way that Tosphot understands Ula which is his winding a string method. The idea I had was that even without looking up the geometric formulas what Tosphot says makes a lot of sense. That is if you have a circle around the tree with radius 16 and wrap a string around it for 2/3 a yard you get the length of the inner string to be 2*r*pi=32*pi and the length of the outer circle 2*r*pi=33.3*pi.
So then if you flatten the whole thing out you get a rectangle pi*2r1*2/3=64 with a triangle at the top. And that from what I recall the area of a triangle is 1/2 base*height,- which is exactly what Tosphot says there 1/2*4*2/3. And all that brings up from the 768 square yards of Ula up until the 833.3 of the Mishna.[difference of 65].
Does all that work?--you might ask. I mean what would be the regular way of figuring it out? Normally you would take the area of the large circle (pi*r^2=pi* 16.67^2)=[833]-the area of the small circle (pi*r^2=pi*16^2). [827-768] Does that come out the same as Tosphot?There is a slight discrepancy. But in any case Tosphot is making an approximation as I mentioned before.
[The Gemara in this section is using an approximation of 3 for pi and the difference between a aquare and a circle to be 4/3]
In any case what looks important here is that in fact the Tosphot string method is not exact.
One thought is about the "Other path" that Tosphot brings in the middle. The way that "other path" is understanding Ula is this: When Ula say a tree needs 16 yards around it and the Gemra then add that means as a square is a fourth larger than a circle and that Ula meant 16 2/3, the way Tosphot understands that is that Ula was describing a square with one side being 33 1/3. Thus the whole square is 33.3^2 and a fourth is the size of the ground around the tree that the Mishna gives which is 33.3* 25.
That is the opposite of the way Tosphot was thinking up until that point that Ula was describing a circle with radius 16.6
The other thought I had was about the very first way that Tosphot understands Ula which is his winding a string method. The idea I had was that even without looking up the geometric formulas what Tosphot says makes a lot of sense. That is if you have a circle around the tree with radius 16 and wrap a string around it for 2/3 a yard you get the length of the inner string to be 2*r*pi=32*pi and the length of the outer circle 2*r*pi=33.3*pi.
So then if you flatten the whole thing out you get a rectangle pi*2r1*2/3=64 with a triangle at the top. And that from what I recall the area of a triangle is 1/2 base*height,- which is exactly what Tosphot says there 1/2*4*2/3. And all that brings up from the 768 square yards of Ula up until the 833.3 of the Mishna.[difference of 65].
Does all that work?--you might ask. I mean what would be the regular way of figuring it out? Normally you would take the area of the large circle (pi*r^2=pi* 16.67^2)=[833]-the area of the small circle (pi*r^2=pi*16^2). [827-768] Does that come out the same as Tosphot?There is a slight discrepancy. But in any case Tosphot is making an approximation as I mentioned before.
[The Gemara in this section is using an approximation of 3 for pi and the difference between a aquare and a circle to be 4/3]
In any case what looks important here is that in fact the Tosphot string method is not exact.
3.1.18
the path of the Gra as the right path
Repentance I think can encompass a "path" as much as individual deeds. I myself used to concentrate on the issue of daily schedule. And in fact I think that is important. That is to get one's daily schedule to include the right kinds of learning sessions and physical exercise etc. So I do not minimize the importance of finding the proper daily schedule. But I think one's "path" is just as much an issue of repentance. In my own case while at the Mir yeshiva in NY I more or less accepted the path of the Gra as the right path -but it did not take long until I gave that up for what I thought were greener pastures. Though at first, my daily schedule did not change,- but eventually it did,-- and with disastrous consequences for my family. So I think the issue of "path" is just as much an issue of repentance as much [and more so] as any individual actions.
[Just for background information: the path of the Gra is more or less described simply as learning Torah and trust in God. But in more detail it is basically the path of Litvak [Lithuanian kinds of Yeshivas.]
I admit however not everything is so grand in actual Litvak yeshivas. There is a large discrepancy between the ideal and what is actually the situation on the ground. However, I refer above more towards the idea of striving for a certain kind of goal-- though one might fall from the ideal. Getting to the ideal of the Gra might very well mean in practical terms to learn Torah at home and work for a living,-- rather than having to do with any institutions. You might say simply: "Litvak yeshivas ain't what they used to be."
[Just for background information: the path of the Gra is more or less described simply as learning Torah and trust in God. But in more detail it is basically the path of Litvak [Lithuanian kinds of Yeshivas.]
I admit however not everything is so grand in actual Litvak yeshivas. There is a large discrepancy between the ideal and what is actually the situation on the ground. However, I refer above more towards the idea of striving for a certain kind of goal-- though one might fall from the ideal. Getting to the ideal of the Gra might very well mean in practical terms to learn Torah at home and work for a living,-- rather than having to do with any institutions. You might say simply: "Litvak yeshivas ain't what they used to be."
comment on Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27a
I do not really have a question but rather a kind of comment on Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27a concerning the value of pi. This was noticed by my learning partner David Bronson in a different context where Tosphot was giving his winding a string or rope method where the Maharshal has a diagram showing what Tosphot meant.
My comment is this. That Tosphot is going with an approximation that Pi is 3. And so he defends the idea that a tree really would need 16 2/3 to get up to the value of the Mishna. [That how he explains one Girsa in the Gemara which says "there is lacking 2/3"] On the other hand the Rashbam defends the idea of a tree needing 16.5. But with a more accurate value of pi to be about 3.141 the actual radius around the tree would have to be 16.288. [I.e., (833.3/pi)^1/2. ]
Still it makes no difference in terms of the Gemara which says that Ula was simply being a drop strict in saying a tree with less than 16 amot from a neighbors's field is not allowed to bring Bikurim.
The background information here is this: Ula says a tree needs 16 amot [yards] radius of area areound it. The Gemara asks from where does he get this law? It suggests from the Mishna that gives three trees a space of 2500 square amot/yards. Thus each tree is getting 833.33 square amot.
[Tosphot has around five different ways of explaining the Gemara, but as far as I have gotten so far, it seems Tosphot is using a rough approximation for pi.]
[The winding method of Tosphot is to wind a string around a circle of 32 diameter and to keep winding until the diameter is 33.33. So the low circumference is 32*pi. The big one is 33.3*pi. Then you take the area which is 65 and that brings from the area of Ula up to the area of the Mishna. That works fine. See Tosphot for the exact calculations. But still Tosphot is using a very rough approximation for pi.
[I recall that there are places like in tracate סוכה where the Gemara gives a much more accurate approximation for pi, but I guess here it was thinking that that degree of accuracy was not necessary.]
I should mention that the winding method of Tosphot is quite ingenious. It does not require measuring the all the string but merely the inner string and the outermost string.
My comment is this. That Tosphot is going with an approximation that Pi is 3. And so he defends the idea that a tree really would need 16 2/3 to get up to the value of the Mishna. [That how he explains one Girsa in the Gemara which says "there is lacking 2/3"] On the other hand the Rashbam defends the idea of a tree needing 16.5. But with a more accurate value of pi to be about 3.141 the actual radius around the tree would have to be 16.288. [I.e., (833.3/pi)^1/2. ]
Still it makes no difference in terms of the Gemara which says that Ula was simply being a drop strict in saying a tree with less than 16 amot from a neighbors's field is not allowed to bring Bikurim.
The background information here is this: Ula says a tree needs 16 amot [yards] radius of area areound it. The Gemara asks from where does he get this law? It suggests from the Mishna that gives three trees a space of 2500 square amot/yards. Thus each tree is getting 833.33 square amot.
[Tosphot has around five different ways of explaining the Gemara, but as far as I have gotten so far, it seems Tosphot is using a rough approximation for pi.]
[The winding method of Tosphot is to wind a string around a circle of 32 diameter and to keep winding until the diameter is 33.33. So the low circumference is 32*pi. The big one is 33.3*pi. Then you take the area which is 65 and that brings from the area of Ula up to the area of the Mishna. That works fine. See Tosphot for the exact calculations. But still Tosphot is using a very rough approximation for pi.
[I recall that there are places like in tracate סוכה where the Gemara gives a much more accurate approximation for pi, but I guess here it was thinking that that degree of accuracy was not necessary.]
I should mention that the winding method of Tosphot is quite ingenious. It does not require measuring the all the string but merely the inner string and the outermost string.
1.1.18
political authority.
Danny Fredrick has a critique on Michael Huemer's idea of political authority. He does go with the Consequential approach. And he as others are critical of contract theories. But I wonder based on historical events. In Herodotus we do find the subject of people getting together and having to decide what type of rules do they want to live under. This is describe in detail concerning Persia in Herodotus. And it clearly applied to the city states in Greece. And besides that it obviously was a great interest to Herodotus himself. So the fact that the founding fathers had to deal with this kind of situation is not all that easy to dismiss. [I am not disagreeing with Danny Fredrick about the source of political obligation. Just pointing out that the idea of political contract is in order to get to good consequences. ]
[My own impression of this is thus: I have great respect for Dr. Huemer and I think he is a great thinker. But that does not mean he gets everything right. My own feeling about politics and philosophy is that Dr. Kelley Ross is closer to the mark.]
If you are in a place that needs a Constitution my advice is to learn the Federalist Papers which gives an in depth idea of what the USA Constitution is all about. Though I realize the USA Constitution depends a lot on the kind of people it was written for [WASPs, i.e. White Anglo Saxon Protestants.] The reason is that in the background of WASPs there is a kind of recognition of what constitutes right and wrong, and based on that kind of foundation the USA Constitution works well. But with a more criminally minded kind of population it can not work. [This is in fact the reason why in the USA itself constitutional government has not been working due to a large influx of criminal populations into the USA.]
That leaves us with the question of what can other peoples do? That is not an easy question to answer and I myself have not thought about it much. But the principles seems clear enough. Strong central government, division of Church and State, etc. See the Federalist papers for more details.
A lot depends on religion. A major flaw is most political thinking is the assumption that everyone is a WASP at heart. The Golden Rule and basic standards of compassion and decency. No political system made for WASPs can possibly work for anyone else. The USSR having to deal with a large percent of the populations under the Czar that were mainly criminally minded had to institute a different kind of system.
[My own impression of this is thus: I have great respect for Dr. Huemer and I think he is a great thinker. But that does not mean he gets everything right. My own feeling about politics and philosophy is that Dr. Kelley Ross is closer to the mark.]
If you are in a place that needs a Constitution my advice is to learn the Federalist Papers which gives an in depth idea of what the USA Constitution is all about. Though I realize the USA Constitution depends a lot on the kind of people it was written for [WASPs, i.e. White Anglo Saxon Protestants.] The reason is that in the background of WASPs there is a kind of recognition of what constitutes right and wrong, and based on that kind of foundation the USA Constitution works well. But with a more criminally minded kind of population it can not work. [This is in fact the reason why in the USA itself constitutional government has not been working due to a large influx of criminal populations into the USA.]
That leaves us with the question of what can other peoples do? That is not an easy question to answer and I myself have not thought about it much. But the principles seems clear enough. Strong central government, division of Church and State, etc. See the Federalist papers for more details.
A lot depends on religion. A major flaw is most political thinking is the assumption that everyone is a WASP at heart. The Golden Rule and basic standards of compassion and decency. No political system made for WASPs can possibly work for anyone else. The USSR having to deal with a large percent of the populations under the Czar that were mainly criminally minded had to institute a different kind of system.
31.12.17
The evil inclination does not come to a person saying to do a sin. Rather it comes saying "Let's go and do some good deed."
Reb Nahman had a whole set of lessons that he said over on the statements of Raba in Bava Batra. The very first lesson of his book deals with the events that Raba said over about how he was once on a sea voyage and the sailors told him about the nature of the kind of wave that sinks ships. "They seem," they said "like a streak of white lightening at the top. But if one hits them with a stick on which the names of God are written, that causes them to calm down."
From this Reb Nahman derived the idea that the evil inclination usually does not come to a person saying to do a sin. Rather it comes saying "Let's go and do some good deed." That is the evil inclination wants to seem white and pure.
The first time I saw this idea was in the commentary of the Gra on Mishlei on the verse זבחי שלמים עלי היום שילמתי נדרי "Today I sacrificed peace offerings. I fulfilled my vows." That is: the evil inclination starts out asking one to do a good deed.
The exact details however are not clear to me--that is how to go about evaluating the situation. As a general rule, I think the best idea is that of Rav Israel Salanter--to learn the basic set of Musar books to get a clear idea of what the Torah actually requires of one--in a practical day to day sense.
The first time I saw this idea was in the commentary of the Gra on Mishlei on the verse זבחי שלמים עלי היום שילמתי נדרי "Today I sacrificed peace offerings. I fulfilled my vows." That is: the evil inclination starts out asking one to do a good deed.
The exact details however are not clear to me--that is how to go about evaluating the situation. As a general rule, I think the best idea is that of Rav Israel Salanter--to learn the basic set of Musar books to get a clear idea of what the Torah actually requires of one--in a practical day to day sense.
My father [Philip Rosten (Rosenbloom)]
My father [Philip Rosten (Rosenbloom)] was a hard act to follow. As his sister put it, "He was the 'Golden Boy.'" No matter what he did, he was great at it. It did not matter what it was. Being a father, a husband, a scientist working to put satellites with laser communications into orbit, violinist, etc.--Even business and the stock market.
My own interests were more in music and philosophy. But I still had an unconscious desire to do as well as him and/or better.
Now I realize that he had specific talents--not just over-all talents. I mean to say he had two kinds of talent. One kind was a general ability to excel at anything. The other kind was talent in specific areas.
[I realize also that people have made intelligence tests more sophisticated in that they do seem to be able to measure general intelligence better than they used to.]
[So it is likely that they can measure intelligence, but not specific areas of intelligence very well.]
What I mean to bring here is the idea of walking in the path of one's parents is a good idea unless the parents were on a prima facie (obviously) evil path.
I my own case,following his footsteps going to Cal Tech did not seem much of a possibility. But there were other areas where he had excelled in that I think I might have tried.
[You however do not see this idea mentioned much in the Gemara I think because the Gemara is thinking that many times one's parents are not very worthy of emulation..]
My own interests were more in music and philosophy. But I still had an unconscious desire to do as well as him and/or better.
Now I realize that he had specific talents--not just over-all talents. I mean to say he had two kinds of talent. One kind was a general ability to excel at anything. The other kind was talent in specific areas.
[I realize also that people have made intelligence tests more sophisticated in that they do seem to be able to measure general intelligence better than they used to.]
[So it is likely that they can measure intelligence, but not specific areas of intelligence very well.]
What I mean to bring here is the idea of walking in the path of one's parents is a good idea unless the parents were on a prima facie (obviously) evil path.
I my own case,following his footsteps going to Cal Tech did not seem much of a possibility. But there were other areas where he had excelled in that I think I might have tried.
[You however do not see this idea mentioned much in the Gemara I think because the Gemara is thinking that many times one's parents are not very worthy of emulation..]
overwhelming religious interest is the sign of schizoid personality.
Robert Sapolsky {Stanford} brings the idea that overwhelming religious interest is the sign of schizoid personality.
This seems to account for a common-place observation about the unreliability and general lack of sanity among such groups.
The issue is not the importance of religious value. Let's take it for granted that closeness with God is important. Rather the issue is that for every area of value there is an equal and opposite area of value. And since this world is mostly evil as the Ari (Isaac Luria) says, therefore the tendency is for religious people to fall into the Sitra Achra even if their intentions are pure.
[The idea here I think I did not state clearly. Let me rephrase this: There is a spectrum of values. When or if they decay, they decay into their opposite. When some area of value is not so great, then it decays into something not so bad. But when a holy area of value decays, it becomes something really horrific. ]
Thus learning Torah and trust in God are important, however self reliance also is--that is not to be relying on other people's handouts.
People that make their living off of Torah are often of this schizoid type. To add to the problem they also desire power and demand others pay their way.
This seems to account for a common-place observation about the unreliability and general lack of sanity among such groups.
The issue is not the importance of religious value. Let's take it for granted that closeness with God is important. Rather the issue is that for every area of value there is an equal and opposite area of value. And since this world is mostly evil as the Ari (Isaac Luria) says, therefore the tendency is for religious people to fall into the Sitra Achra even if their intentions are pure.
[The idea here I think I did not state clearly. Let me rephrase this: There is a spectrum of values. When or if they decay, they decay into their opposite. When some area of value is not so great, then it decays into something not so bad. But when a holy area of value decays, it becomes something really horrific. ]
Thus learning Torah and trust in God are important, however self reliance also is--that is not to be relying on other people's handouts.
People that make their living off of Torah are often of this schizoid type. To add to the problem they also desire power and demand others pay their way.
30.12.17
29.12.17
So cults that worship people I think should be avoided. This obviously was the point of the Gra when he put his signature on the letter of excommunication.
I think the secular world does not make much distinction between religious values. From the secular view it is all the same. Not much more than a waste of time. [Except for the Kant Fries school and Hegel to whom religious value is highly significant.]
But in the Old Testament a distinction is made between different kinds of religious value.
For example in Deuteronomy we find [Perek 13] the paragraph concerning the מסית ומדיח one who suggests the worship of another being that is not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
The verse says that if one person, even a close family member says to you "Let's go and serve some other god," then that person must be put to death.
I did about a year's amount of work on the Gemara in Sanhedrin which deals with the issue of idolatry in order to get the subject straightened out in my mind and I pretty much came to the conclusion that worship of human beings counts as idolatry just as much as worship of sticks and stones.
So cults that worship people I think should be avoided. This obviously was the point of the Gra when he put his signature on the letter of excommunication.
But in the Old Testament a distinction is made between different kinds of religious value.
For example in Deuteronomy we find [Perek 13] the paragraph concerning the מסית ומדיח one who suggests the worship of another being that is not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
The verse says that if one person, even a close family member says to you "Let's go and serve some other god," then that person must be put to death.
I did about a year's amount of work on the Gemara in Sanhedrin which deals with the issue of idolatry in order to get the subject straightened out in my mind and I pretty much came to the conclusion that worship of human beings counts as idolatry just as much as worship of sticks and stones.
So cults that worship people I think should be avoided. This obviously was the point of the Gra when he put his signature on the letter of excommunication.
28.12.17
Philosophy is relevant because of politics and economics and morals. Getting philosophy wrong means that one will get each of these other three things wrong. And if enough people get all those three things wrong things can get really off.
The major problem in Philosophy today I think is really concentrated in deciding between three areas. One is Dr Kelley Ross (CA) of the Kant-Fries School. Another is Hegel and the third is the intuitionsts people like Dr Huemer in Colorado and Brian Caplan [which stems from Thomas Reid, and G.E Moore].
The rest of twentieth century so called philosophy [Linguistic and or so called analytic] is definitely defunct and as Dr John Searle {Berkley} puts it so eloquently: "It is obviously false."
The Medieval development of Plato and Aristotle as we see in the Rambam, Anselem, and Aquinas seems also important and highly relevant [as Dr Edward Feser (CA) makes note of].
There is a lot I need to learn here. But just off hand it seems to me that Hegel, Dr Ross are not so far apart. But Hegel was in fact hijacked so some like Karl Popper blamed him for totalitarian systems that used his name.--Marx for example. But I think a close look at Hegel will show he was much closer to the American political system than is known.
Philosophy is relevant because of politics and economics and morals. Getting philosophy wrong means that one will get each of these other three things wrong. And if enough people get all those three things wrong things can get really off.
So getting it right is important even if one does not have a natural interest in it.
The rest of twentieth century so called philosophy [Linguistic and or so called analytic] is definitely defunct and as Dr John Searle {Berkley} puts it so eloquently: "It is obviously false."
The Medieval development of Plato and Aristotle as we see in the Rambam, Anselem, and Aquinas seems also important and highly relevant [as Dr Edward Feser (CA) makes note of].
There is a lot I need to learn here. But just off hand it seems to me that Hegel, Dr Ross are not so far apart. But Hegel was in fact hijacked so some like Karl Popper blamed him for totalitarian systems that used his name.--Marx for example. But I think a close look at Hegel will show he was much closer to the American political system than is known.
Philosophy is relevant because of politics and economics and morals. Getting philosophy wrong means that one will get each of these other three things wrong. And if enough people get all those three things wrong things can get really off.
So getting it right is important even if one does not have a natural interest in it.
The exact quote from the Gra is that proportional to the lack of knowledge of the seven wisdoms one will lack in knowledge of Torah a hundred fold. That is he sees a kind of causality in that relation.
The Middles Ages --the age of faith pretty much ended with the Black Plague and religion seemed useless against it. The Enlightenment had many aspects but one was to find non religious justification for values and non religious solutions to human problems.
In part this had the great result in advancement in the hard sciences. But it also gave credibility to obvious pseudo sciences--anything that could tack the word "science" onto its ending syllable.
So I ask is that all there is? Just religious solutions to human problems or pseudo sciences?
In the Kant-Friesian School of thought of Dr Kelley Ross we find a spectrum of values. Thus numinous values are found in all areas of the spectrum. Thus in plain English that means "balance."
That is when one tries to have a balance of values each area of value reinforces other areas.
This you find in the sages in many places, One place is the more well known idea "דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה" "The way of the Earth comes before Torah." The idea is also expressed by the Gra: Proportional to the lack of knowledge in the Seven Wisdoms [Quadrivium, Trivium] one will lack knowledge of Torah.
The exact quote from the Gra is that proportional to the lack of knowledge of the seven wisdoms one will lack in knowledge of Torah a hundred fold. That is he sees a kind of causality in that relation.
In part this had the great result in advancement in the hard sciences. But it also gave credibility to obvious pseudo sciences--anything that could tack the word "science" onto its ending syllable.
So I ask is that all there is? Just religious solutions to human problems or pseudo sciences?
In the Kant-Friesian School of thought of Dr Kelley Ross we find a spectrum of values. Thus numinous values are found in all areas of the spectrum. Thus in plain English that means "balance."
That is when one tries to have a balance of values each area of value reinforces other areas.
This you find in the sages in many places, One place is the more well known idea "דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה" "The way of the Earth comes before Torah." The idea is also expressed by the Gra: Proportional to the lack of knowledge in the Seven Wisdoms [Quadrivium, Trivium] one will lack knowledge of Torah.
The exact quote from the Gra is that proportional to the lack of knowledge of the seven wisdoms one will lack in knowledge of Torah a hundred fold. That is he sees a kind of causality in that relation.
27.12.17
The big problem with Torah scholars that are demons is they pretend to be friends, but because they are demons they actually try to cause harm when they are able; and at least never help.
The big problem with Torah scholars that are demons is they pretend to be friends, but because they are demons they actually try to cause harm when they are able; and at least never help.
I mean to say that though the subject of Torah scholars that are demons is not well defined in the Zohar and the Ari, still in the writings of the Ran from Breslov it is easy to see what the terminology means.
For example in the stories of the Ran [from Breslov and Uman] you can see he uses the term as in מזיקי עלמא or what is called "mazikim." that go around trying to cause harm.
One important point that Rav Nahman brings is in his major book vol 1. 61 where he says the major blame is on people that give to these demonic Torah scholars a kind of pseudo ordination.
True ordination stopped in the middle of the Talmudic period. This is the reason Amoraim from Iraq were called "Rav" [as in Rav Yehuda etc.]
The trouble is it is just too easy to ignore this problem. But that just aggravates the situation. To me it seems best to deal with the issue decisively.
To me it seems that this comes under the category of rebuke that one knows will not be accepted. Still in some kinds of cases one is required to give rebuke anyway. I saw this in the אבן שלמה of the Gra where it is brought down that there are situations where one must give rebuke even where there is no chance of it being listened to.
It seems that this is one of those cases, because without at least someone making the problem known, too many innocent people fall into the trap.
[I do not mean that one should always give rebuke as the Ran from Uman makes clear in Vol II:8. Still, there are times when a situation has gotten so out of hand that one must make it known. ]
The problem of Torah scholars that are demons
The problem of Torah scholars that are demons which comes up in the writings of the Ran from Uman and Breslov is not just concerning the issue to avoid certain people. The problem is that from the teachers the decay sets into the whole thing. That is it makes it hard to keep the rules of the Torah at all when the people that you would expect are there to help turn out to be demons.
That makes the entire project of learning and keeping the Torah to be difficult.
Before the time of the Gra I think things were more simple. But after his time and his letter of excommunication was ignored, I think the rot became pervasive throughout the entire structure. And this is the cause of the formation of the Reform Movement that was intended to be able to be true to the principle of Torah without the rot that had set into the religious world.
[Reform however went too far left, and so the Conservative movement started. But it is interesting to note that the formation of the State of Israel come solely from secular Jews.]
[It is obvious that Reb Israel Salanter held that the best approach would be an emphasis on learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] and to some degree I have to agree. But just from simple observation or the state of people that do in fact learn Musar, I have to conclude that that solution is highly limited in effect. Even my learning partner said, "I am allergic to Musar." In other words, he also noticed the same thing that I saw. The gap between learning Musar and doing Musar seems too great to be easily crossed.] What I mean is that often people that represent and are involved in Musar do not seem to have much in the way of human decency. That raises a question on the whole Musar project. So the only solution I can see is to serve God individually at home. [Or your might say that being a "mashgiach" as a paid profession is what ruined it. Maybe it is better to say that the Musar project is right, but only as the way Rav Israel Salanter saw it. Not as Msa becoming a paid business.]
The big problem with Torah scholars that are demons is they pretend to be friends, but because they are demons they actually try to cause harm when they are able, and at least never help.
That makes the entire project of learning and keeping the Torah to be difficult.
Before the time of the Gra I think things were more simple. But after his time and his letter of excommunication was ignored, I think the rot became pervasive throughout the entire structure. And this is the cause of the formation of the Reform Movement that was intended to be able to be true to the principle of Torah without the rot that had set into the religious world.
[Reform however went too far left, and so the Conservative movement started. But it is interesting to note that the formation of the State of Israel come solely from secular Jews.]
[It is obvious that Reb Israel Salanter held that the best approach would be an emphasis on learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] and to some degree I have to agree. But just from simple observation or the state of people that do in fact learn Musar, I have to conclude that that solution is highly limited in effect. Even my learning partner said, "I am allergic to Musar." In other words, he also noticed the same thing that I saw. The gap between learning Musar and doing Musar seems too great to be easily crossed.] What I mean is that often people that represent and are involved in Musar do not seem to have much in the way of human decency. That raises a question on the whole Musar project. So the only solution I can see is to serve God individually at home. [Or your might say that being a "mashgiach" as a paid profession is what ruined it. Maybe it is better to say that the Musar project is right, but only as the way Rav Israel Salanter saw it. Not as Msa becoming a paid business.]
The big problem with Torah scholars that are demons is they pretend to be friends, but because they are demons they actually try to cause harm when they are able, and at least never help.
26.12.17
Even though numinous value is important, it does not replace other areas of value.
There is a tendency in religious circles to imagine themselves superior to others in all possible ways. That is in mental ability, in moral actions etc. And in areas that it is clear they are not any better than others the tendency is to minimize the significance of those areas.
The only way I have been able to make sense of this is by Dr Kelley Ross's Polynomic Theory of Value where he builds on the insights of Kant and Schopenhauer. That is to say: even though numinous value is important, it does not replace other areas of value.
[It is basically a Neo Platonic system which works well for me as that is the basic world view of the Rishonim and Geonim like Saadia Gaon and the Rambam. I mean that even though the Rambam leans towards Aristotle he still is pretty firmly in the Neo Platonic School.]
[For some reason Dr. Ross has not published a book on his system, but I have found his Ph.D thesis on his site to fill in the details.]
In any case, I tend to be skeptical about claims to moral superiority when actions seems to indicate the reverse. That is to say even though numinous value is important, still in every area of value there seems to be a kind of Dark Side that surrounds it.
The only way I have been able to make sense of this is by Dr Kelley Ross's Polynomic Theory of Value where he builds on the insights of Kant and Schopenhauer. That is to say: even though numinous value is important, it does not replace other areas of value.
[It is basically a Neo Platonic system which works well for me as that is the basic world view of the Rishonim and Geonim like Saadia Gaon and the Rambam. I mean that even though the Rambam leans towards Aristotle he still is pretty firmly in the Neo Platonic School.]
[For some reason Dr. Ross has not published a book on his system, but I have found his Ph.D thesis on his site to fill in the details.]
In any case, I tend to be skeptical about claims to moral superiority when actions seems to indicate the reverse. That is to say even though numinous value is important, still in every area of value there seems to be a kind of Dark Side that surrounds it.
25.12.17
Religious obsession most often turns into obsession with the Dark Side
Religious interest is often just a kelipa--force of evil. That is to say most often it is just a way to get a person off track.
Though to learn and keep Torah is important, however the area of religious value tends to decay and become its exact opposite.
That is: religious obsession most often turns into obsession with the Dark Side; - even though it started out with obsession with doing good and holy works.
This is the reason that secular Jews tend to put all religious obsessions into one basket. They tend to be justified in doing so as the Ari says that עולם הזה (this world) is mostly kelipa--sitra achra.
This also accounts for the basic nature of Litvak yeshivas to discourage religious fanaticism. Sure they learn Torah all day, but the emphasis is to do so in a balanced fashion.
The best way to understand this I think is with Dr. Kelley Ross and the Kant-Friesian School. That is at least what helped me put things into context and perspective. Even thought the Kant-Fries School does not openly deal with the problems with the Sitra Achra it does have the Polynomic theory of Value which for me helped to understand "the Big Picture." [The big picture is after all what is needed in order to understand one's place in the Big Picture. ]
[Dr. Ross is mainly ignored since the focus is far from mainstream academia. This is I think in part because mainstream academia has been off the path of reason for long time as John Searle himself noted about Analytic Linguistic, [Continental versus British] philosophy of the last century. As John Searle himself puts its so eloquently, "It is obviously false."]
Though to learn and keep Torah is important, however the area of religious value tends to decay and become its exact opposite.
That is: religious obsession most often turns into obsession with the Dark Side; - even though it started out with obsession with doing good and holy works.
This is the reason that secular Jews tend to put all religious obsessions into one basket. They tend to be justified in doing so as the Ari says that עולם הזה (this world) is mostly kelipa--sitra achra.
This also accounts for the basic nature of Litvak yeshivas to discourage religious fanaticism. Sure they learn Torah all day, but the emphasis is to do so in a balanced fashion.
The best way to understand this I think is with Dr. Kelley Ross and the Kant-Friesian School. That is at least what helped me put things into context and perspective. Even thought the Kant-Fries School does not openly deal with the problems with the Sitra Achra it does have the Polynomic theory of Value which for me helped to understand "the Big Picture." [The big picture is after all what is needed in order to understand one's place in the Big Picture. ]
[Dr. Ross is mainly ignored since the focus is far from mainstream academia. This is I think in part because mainstream academia has been off the path of reason for long time as John Searle himself noted about Analytic Linguistic, [Continental versus British] philosophy of the last century. As John Searle himself puts its so eloquently, "It is obviously false."]
24.12.17
ראשיה בשוחד ישפוטו וכהניה במחיר יורו
"It's [of Zion] heads judge for pay, and it's priests teach for a price."
In one of the less known later prophets, מיכה, פרק ג' פסוק י''א is brought this verse in which the doom of Jerusalem is predicted because Torah becoming a paid profession and judges also were getting a salary.
If you look there you can see that that is the major reason the prophet there is predicting the fall of Jerusalem.
This goes along with what we find in the Gemara כל דיין שנוטל שכר לדון כל דיניו בטילים
"Every judge that receives a salary for judging, all his judgments are null."
The law is that this is the case even if he takes an equal amount of money from both parties.
The only allowed way is if the judge has an honest job and two people come to him for judgment and give שכר בטלה for his time שכר הניכר. Not if he [in theory] might have a job, but rather he has at present a real job that he is willing to take time off of.
The issues are divided into three: (1) judging for pay, (2)teaching Torah for pay, (3) learning Torah for pay.
The Gemara already says teaching Torah for pay is forbidden as God says מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם Just as I taught Torah for free so you must teach Torah for free.
Learning for pay also the Rambam deals with in Avot chapter 4 where he says one who learns Torah for money loses his portion in the next world. He repeats the same idea in Mishne Torah
"It's [of Zion] heads judge for pay, and it's priests teach for a price."
In one of the less known later prophets, מיכה, פרק ג' פסוק י''א is brought this verse in which the doom of Jerusalem is predicted because Torah becoming a paid profession and judges also were getting a salary.
If you look there you can see that that is the major reason the prophet there is predicting the fall of Jerusalem.
This goes along with what we find in the Gemara כל דיין שנוטל שכר לדון כל דיניו בטילים
"Every judge that receives a salary for judging, all his judgments are null."
The law is that this is the case even if he takes an equal amount of money from both parties.
The only allowed way is if the judge has an honest job and two people come to him for judgment and give שכר בטלה for his time שכר הניכר. Not if he [in theory] might have a job, but rather he has at present a real job that he is willing to take time off of.
The issues are divided into three: (1) judging for pay, (2)teaching Torah for pay, (3) learning Torah for pay.
The Gemara already says teaching Torah for pay is forbidden as God says מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם Just as I taught Torah for free so you must teach Torah for free.
Learning for pay also the Rambam deals with in Avot chapter 4 where he says one who learns Torah for money loses his portion in the next world. He repeats the same idea in Mishne Torah
23.12.17
A question on R. Tam in Bava Batra 45 and an answer
בבא בתרא מ''ה ע''א וע''ב. The משנה says an artisan can not say about a certain object that he bought it. רבה says that is only when witnesses were present when the object was given to him to fix. But if there are no witnesses he is believed because he could have said it never came to him as an object to fix, but rather he bought it outright in the first place. אביי asks then even with witnesses [but we do not see the object with him now] he should be believed that he bought it, because he could have said "I gave it back to you." רבה answered this. If he received it in front of witness he has to have had to give it back in front of witnesses. So there is no מיגו That he could have said החזרתי לך. And then ר' תם asked this. אביי should have asked after that answer of רבה even with witnesses [but not seeing it right now] he still should be believed because he could say the object was stolen or lost in some other was that was not his fault. [like lost or stolen for a non paid guard or stolen at gun point for a paid guard.]
My question is this seems difficult to say. Why should we should believe him that he bought the object because the מיגו he could have said it was stolen and then have to take an oath. The oath part of it makes the thing that מיגו "he could have said" to be not desirable to say.
After I wrote this it occurred to me that the second answer in תוספות is exactly that. The second answer of the יש מפרשים says that the intention of רבה is to say this. The משנה says an artisan can not say he bought the object. רבה says that is only if he wants to be believed without an oath, but with an oath he is believed. This is when there are witnesses, but the object is not seen with him right now. Thus in fact there is this idea he could have said the object was stolen and be believed with an oath. So now also we believe him with an oath. I think that you have to say for ר' תם that the oath in the case where the object was stolen is only from the words of the scribes, not from the Torah. And therefore the fact that a plea of stolen will require an oath from the words of the scribes will not affect the law of the Holy Torah which considers both, (1) the case of the artisan that says he bought the object and (2) the case of his saying it was stolen both to be without an oath. So the oath requirement will not affect the fact that the Torah believes him because of "he could have said."
The idea here is that to ר' תם for there to be an oath in the case of a שומר there has to be two objects. One that he says was stolen and another that he admits to. Since that is not the case here, the oath he has to take in the case of אונס is מדברי סופרים
בבא בתרא מ''ה ע''א וע''ב. המשנה אומרת אומן לא יכול לומר על חפץ מסוים שהוא קנה אתו. רבה אומר כי זה רק כאשר עדים היו נוכחים כאשר האובייקט ניתן לו לתקן. אבל אם אין עדים הוא נאמן בגלל מיגו כי הוא יכול היה להגיד את זה אף פעם לא הגיע אליו כאובייקט לתקן, אלא שהוא קנה אותו על הסף מלכתחילה. אביי שואל אז אפילו עם עדים [אבל אנחנו לא רואים את האובייקט איתו עכשיו] הוא צריך להאמין שהוא קנה אתו, כי הוא יכול היה לומר "נתתי אותו בחזרה אליך." רבה ענה זה. אם הוא קיבל את זה מול עדים הוא צריך להחזיר אותו מול עדים. אז אין מיגו שהוא יכול היה לומר החזרתי לך. ואז ר' תם שאל את זו. אביי צריך לשאול אחרי התשובה של רבה אפילו עם עדים [אבל לא רואים את זה עכשיו] הוא עדיין צריך להאמין כי הוא יכול לומר את האובייקט נגנב או אבד לא באשמתו. [כמו אובדן או גניבה של שומר לא בתשלום (שומר חינם) או נגנבו באיומי נשק עבור שומר שכר.] השאלה שלי היא זו נראית קשה לומר. למה אנחנו צריכים להאמין לו כי הוא קנה את האובייקט משום מיגו, שהיה יכול לומר שזה נגנב ואז צריך להישבע. הצורך של השבועה עושה את המיגו "הוא יכול היה לומר" להיות לא רצוי לומר בשבילו. עלה בדעתי כי התשובה השנייה של תוספות אומרת בדיוק את זה. התשובה השנייה של יש מפרשים אומרת כי כוונת רבה היא זאת. המשנה אומרת אומן לא יכול להגיד שהוא קנה את האובייקט. רבה אומר כי זה רק אם הוא רוצה להיאמין בלי שבועה, אך עם שבועה הוא אמין. זהו כשיש עדים אך האובייקט לא ראה איתו עכשיו. כך שלמעשה יש רעיון זה של מיגו שהוא יכול היה לומר את האובייקט היה נגנב שיאמין בשבועה. אז עכשיו גם אנחנו מאמינים לו בשבועה. אני חושב שיש לך להגיד על ר' תם כי השבועה במקרה שבו האובייקט נגנב היא רק מדברי הסופרים, לא מן התורה. ולכן העובדה שטיעון של גנוב ידרש שבועה מדברי הסופרים לא תשפיע על החוק של התורה הקדושה שרואה במקרה של אומן שאומר שהוא קנה את האובייקט לבין המקרה שהוא אומר שזה היה נגנב שניהם להיות בלי שבועה. אז דרישת השבועה לא תשפיע על העובדה שהתורה מאמינה לו. הרעיון כאן הוא שלר' תם כדי שתהיה שבועה במקרה של שומר חייב להיות שני אובייקטים. אחד שהוא אומר נגנב ועוד אחד שהוא מודה. כיוון שזה אינו המקרה כאן, השבועה שהוא צריך לקחת (במקרה של אונס) היא מדברי סופרים
So I am thinking that the answer of R. Tam only works if you hold טענת אונס צריכה הודאה במק. This R. Tam comes up also Bava Metzia also. And in my notes over there on page 98 I discuss him in the context of Tosphot.
I should mention that I myself was totally unaware of this opinion of R. Tam until it came up in Bava Metzia pg 98.
The idea here is that to ר' תם for there to be an oath in the case of a שומר there has to be two objects. One that he says was stolen and another that he admits to. Since that is not the case here, the oath he has to take in the case of אונס is מדברי סופרים
בבא בתרא מ''ה ע''א וע''ב. המשנה אומרת אומן לא יכול לומר על חפץ מסוים שהוא קנה אתו. רבה אומר כי זה רק כאשר עדים היו נוכחים כאשר האובייקט ניתן לו לתקן. אבל אם אין עדים הוא נאמן בגלל מיגו כי הוא יכול היה להגיד את זה אף פעם לא הגיע אליו כאובייקט לתקן, אלא שהוא קנה אותו על הסף מלכתחילה. אביי שואל אז אפילו עם עדים [אבל אנחנו לא רואים את האובייקט איתו עכשיו] הוא צריך להאמין שהוא קנה אתו, כי הוא יכול היה לומר "נתתי אותו בחזרה אליך." רבה ענה זה. אם הוא קיבל את זה מול עדים הוא צריך להחזיר אותו מול עדים. אז אין מיגו שהוא יכול היה לומר החזרתי לך. ואז ר' תם שאל את זו. אביי צריך לשאול אחרי התשובה של רבה אפילו עם עדים [אבל לא רואים את זה עכשיו] הוא עדיין צריך להאמין כי הוא יכול לומר את האובייקט נגנב או אבד לא באשמתו. [כמו אובדן או גניבה של שומר לא בתשלום (שומר חינם) או נגנבו באיומי נשק עבור שומר שכר.] השאלה שלי היא זו נראית קשה לומר. למה אנחנו צריכים להאמין לו כי הוא קנה את האובייקט משום מיגו, שהיה יכול לומר שזה נגנב ואז צריך להישבע. הצורך של השבועה עושה את המיגו "הוא יכול היה לומר" להיות לא רצוי לומר בשבילו. עלה בדעתי כי התשובה השנייה של תוספות אומרת בדיוק את זה. התשובה השנייה של יש מפרשים אומרת כי כוונת רבה היא זאת. המשנה אומרת אומן לא יכול להגיד שהוא קנה את האובייקט. רבה אומר כי זה רק אם הוא רוצה להיאמין בלי שבועה, אך עם שבועה הוא אמין. זהו כשיש עדים אך האובייקט לא ראה איתו עכשיו. כך שלמעשה יש רעיון זה של מיגו שהוא יכול היה לומר את האובייקט היה נגנב שיאמין בשבועה. אז עכשיו גם אנחנו מאמינים לו בשבועה. אני חושב שיש לך להגיד על ר' תם כי השבועה במקרה שבו האובייקט נגנב היא רק מדברי הסופרים, לא מן התורה. ולכן העובדה שטיעון של גנוב ידרש שבועה מדברי הסופרים לא תשפיע על החוק של התורה הקדושה שרואה במקרה של אומן שאומר שהוא קנה את האובייקט לבין המקרה שהוא אומר שזה היה נגנב שניהם להיות בלי שבועה. אז דרישת השבועה לא תשפיע על העובדה שהתורה מאמינה לו. הרעיון כאן הוא שלר' תם כדי שתהיה שבועה במקרה של שומר חייב להיות שני אובייקטים. אחד שהוא אומר נגנב ועוד אחד שהוא מודה. כיוון שזה אינו המקרה כאן, השבועה שהוא צריך לקחת (במקרה של אונס) היא מדברי סופרים
So I am thinking that the answer of R. Tam only works if you hold טענת אונס צריכה הודאה במק. This R. Tam comes up also Bava Metzia also. And in my notes over there on page 98 I discuss him in the context of Tosphot.
I should mention that I myself was totally unaware of this opinion of R. Tam until it came up in Bava Metzia pg 98.
Tractate Bava Batra pg 45b.
. The mishna says an artisan can not say about a certain object that he bought it. Rabah says that is only when witnesses were present when the object was given to him to fix. But if there are no witnesses, he is believed - because he could have said it never came to him as an object to fix, but rather he bought it outright in the first place. Abyee asks then even with witnesses [but we do not see the object with him now] he should be believed that he bought it, because he could have said "I gave it back to you." Rabah answered he would then have had to give it back in front of witnesses. [If he received it in front of witnesses, he has to give it back in front of witnesses]
R. Tam asked Abyee should have answered even with witnesses [but not seeing it right now] he still should be believed because he could say the object was stolen or lost in some other way that was not his fault [like lost or stolen for a non paid guard or stolen at gun point for a paid guard].
My question is this seems difficult to say. Why should we should believe him that he bought the object because he could have said "It was stolen" and then have to take an oath. The oath part of it makes the thing that "He could have said" to be not desirable to say.
After I wrote this it occurred to me that the second answer in Tosphot is exactly that. He says that the intention of Rabah is to say this. The Mishna says an artisan can not say he bought the object. Rabah says that is only if he wants to be believed without an oath, but with an oath he is believed. This is when there are witnesses but the object is not seen with him right now. Thus in fact there is this idea he could have said the object was stolen an be believed with an oath. So now also we believe him with an oath. [Still it is hard to understand why this is a question in the first place to the other Rishonim.]
"He could have said thus and thus and be believed so we should believe him when he says a weaker plea." actually came up with me in a case before the Israel Supreme Court when that was the exact reason they acquitted me of wrongdoing in a certain case.
I think that you have to say for R. Tam that the oath in the case where the object was stolen is only from the words of the scribes, not from the Torah. And therefore the fact that a plea of stolen will require an oath from the words of the scribes will not affect the law of the Holy Torah which considers both the case of the artisan that says he bought the object and the case of his saying it was stolen both to be without an oath. So the oath requirement will not affect the fact that the Torah believes him because of "he could have said"
The reason the oath of a stolen object is from the words of the scribes is that to R. Tam, in order for an oath (that something was stolen) to be from the Torah it is needed that there be two objects. One that he admits to and the other the object that he claims was stolen. This you can see in Bava Batra page 70b in Tosphot and also in Bava Metzia page 98a
R. Tam asked Abyee should have answered even with witnesses [but not seeing it right now] he still should be believed because he could say the object was stolen or lost in some other way that was not his fault [like lost or stolen for a non paid guard or stolen at gun point for a paid guard].
My question is this seems difficult to say. Why should we should believe him that he bought the object because he could have said "It was stolen" and then have to take an oath. The oath part of it makes the thing that "He could have said" to be not desirable to say.
After I wrote this it occurred to me that the second answer in Tosphot is exactly that. He says that the intention of Rabah is to say this. The Mishna says an artisan can not say he bought the object. Rabah says that is only if he wants to be believed without an oath, but with an oath he is believed. This is when there are witnesses but the object is not seen with him right now. Thus in fact there is this idea he could have said the object was stolen an be believed with an oath. So now also we believe him with an oath. [Still it is hard to understand why this is a question in the first place to the other Rishonim.]
"He could have said thus and thus and be believed so we should believe him when he says a weaker plea." actually came up with me in a case before the Israel Supreme Court when that was the exact reason they acquitted me of wrongdoing in a certain case.
I think that you have to say for R. Tam that the oath in the case where the object was stolen is only from the words of the scribes, not from the Torah. And therefore the fact that a plea of stolen will require an oath from the words of the scribes will not affect the law of the Holy Torah which considers both the case of the artisan that says he bought the object and the case of his saying it was stolen both to be without an oath. So the oath requirement will not affect the fact that the Torah believes him because of "he could have said"
The reason the oath of a stolen object is from the words of the scribes is that to R. Tam, in order for an oath (that something was stolen) to be from the Torah it is needed that there be two objects. One that he admits to and the other the object that he claims was stolen. This you can see in Bava Batra page 70b in Tosphot and also in Bava Metzia page 98a
22.12.17
The subject of demons that pretend to teach Torah
The subject of demons that pretend to teach Torah is in fact a rather big subject which comes up in the writings of Rav Isaac Luria. Without really saying so, this is the reason that the Reform and Conservative movements got started in the first place. Not that I agree with the Reform and Conservative on every detail, but the basic idea is that they were reacting to a certain kind of situation.
In any case, both the Reform and Conservative are right about a good deal of major points --for example the primary importance of laws between man and his fellow man. Clearly the Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter also tried to emphasize that area of obligation --but with limited success.
I have to admit that I think Reb Israel and the Gra were right about the basic approach of the Holy Torah, but I think that in practice the Reform and Conservative people come closer to the ideals of Torah.
[There are however areas where the Reform and Conservative movements tend to be weak and t is in those areas that I go with the Gra.]
In any case, both the Reform and Conservative are right about a good deal of major points --for example the primary importance of laws between man and his fellow man. Clearly the Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter also tried to emphasize that area of obligation --but with limited success.
I have to admit that I think Reb Israel and the Gra were right about the basic approach of the Holy Torah, but I think that in practice the Reform and Conservative people come closer to the ideals of Torah.
[There are however areas where the Reform and Conservative movements tend to be weak and t is in those areas that I go with the Gra.]
divorce laws
The trouble in divorce laws is there is something about them that goes against natural law. In natural law, a woman depends on a man. In the Law of Moses also a woman can leave her husband, but she gets no support from him for doing so. The Torah says to the woman, "If you feel you not longer need him, then you can leave [that divorce is allowed, but it has to be that the husband desires it], but then do not suppose you can bankrupt him in desire for revenge that you did not get Superman." That is in plain language, there is no such thing as alimony.
[In Ketuboth there is for a widow alimony until she remarries. Not a divorcee. In any case, it seems to me proper to write this down as I have noticed a large degree of misunderstandings about this issue. It all comes from the simple fact that people do not learn tractate Ketuboth as thoroughly as they ought.
Not that I learned it so well either. But in Shar Yashuv [Rav Friefeld's Yeshiva] that was the tractate they were learning during my second year there, so I did try to do it as well as I could with the Tosphot, Tosphot HaRosh, Pnei Yehoshua and the Tur and other achronim. Still that was just my second year, so I did not learn it very thoroughly since I was more or less a beginner.
In any case, there is no reason to reward women for doing evil.
[Furthermore there is no reason to think that the government can just make up laws at random that goes against natural law. This is spelled out in the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution that people retain whatever rights they naturally have. That includes rights to their private property. The government can not just make up laws at random which benefit one part of the population at the expense of another. The "General Welfare" clause means the general welfare of all the states--not one state at the expense of another.]
[In Ketuboth there is for a widow alimony until she remarries. Not a divorcee. In any case, it seems to me proper to write this down as I have noticed a large degree of misunderstandings about this issue. It all comes from the simple fact that people do not learn tractate Ketuboth as thoroughly as they ought.
Not that I learned it so well either. But in Shar Yashuv [Rav Friefeld's Yeshiva] that was the tractate they were learning during my second year there, so I did try to do it as well as I could with the Tosphot, Tosphot HaRosh, Pnei Yehoshua and the Tur and other achronim. Still that was just my second year, so I did not learn it very thoroughly since I was more or less a beginner.
In any case, there is no reason to reward women for doing evil.
[Furthermore there is no reason to think that the government can just make up laws at random that goes against natural law. This is spelled out in the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution that people retain whatever rights they naturally have. That includes rights to their private property. The government can not just make up laws at random which benefit one part of the population at the expense of another. The "General Welfare" clause means the general welfare of all the states--not one state at the expense of another.]
21.12.17
Aquinas was bringing down Avicenna's note on complex substance.
I was able to look at Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle and then I realized substance does not have to be simple.
Aquinas was bringing down Avicenna's note on complex substance.
[In any case it seems to me that to reward women for doing evil, is not the best kind of law to have on the books.]
There are laws on the books that allow women to get rid of their husband and get his money and support for the rest of her life. There is also a law in the Gemara דינא דמלכותא דינא [the law of the State is the law.]. So I ask can a woman depend on this? Or does she have to go by the Law of Moses which does not give her that right?
[The basic law in tracate Ketubot is there are three divisions of a woman's property. נכסי מלוג, נכסי צאן ברזל, מה שקנה אישה קנה בעלה] Property that she brings into the marriage that she owned before the marriage she still owns but the husband can use the profits. Then there is property she acquires after she is married and that is owned fully by the husband.
Thus she has no right to her husband's property after she is divorced.
Also in terms of "the law of the state is the law" I would say that is not the case where the law of the state contradicts a Torah law. The main issues in terms of the law of the state are not clear to me but the major sources are the Rashbam and Maimonides in terms of how it is applied.
I have been thinking of mentioning that there is a school of thought among Christians that they themselves believe they are required to keep the Law of Moses. That is called the Theonomic Position See that essay by Gregory Bahnsen.
The Theonomic postion does take into account that some laws of the Holy Torah apply to the Land of Israel, But other laws are general. And I should mention that Gregory Bahnsen says that this Theonomic Position corresponds with Paul, and that was kind of a surprise to me.
[In any case it seems to me that to reward women for doing evil, is not the best kind of law to have on the books.]
[The basic law in tracate Ketubot is there are three divisions of a woman's property. נכסי מלוג, נכסי צאן ברזל, מה שקנה אישה קנה בעלה] Property that she brings into the marriage that she owned before the marriage she still owns but the husband can use the profits. Then there is property she acquires after she is married and that is owned fully by the husband.
Thus she has no right to her husband's property after she is divorced.
Also in terms of "the law of the state is the law" I would say that is not the case where the law of the state contradicts a Torah law. The main issues in terms of the law of the state are not clear to me but the major sources are the Rashbam and Maimonides in terms of how it is applied.
I have been thinking of mentioning that there is a school of thought among Christians that they themselves believe they are required to keep the Law of Moses. That is called the Theonomic Position See that essay by Gregory Bahnsen.
The Theonomic postion does take into account that some laws of the Holy Torah apply to the Land of Israel, But other laws are general. And I should mention that Gregory Bahnsen says that this Theonomic Position corresponds with Paul, and that was kind of a surprise to me.
[In any case it seems to me that to reward women for doing evil, is not the best kind of law to have on the books.]
Gehazi a major disciple of Elisha the prophet
Gehazi is one of the lesser known people in the Old Testament. He is brought down in tractate Sanhedrin as one of the people that have no portion in the next world.
The sin there is denial of the revival of the dead.
In the Old Testament itself we find a different kind of sin. He wanted to make money from a healing miracle that was brought about through Elisha the prophet.
This I think is the source of the idea brought in the Mishna that to make money from learning or teaching Torah gets one to lose their portion in the next world. [I recall that in the commentary of the Gra on those two mishnas, I saw him bring that idea from the events surrounding the king or Persia that used the vessels of the Temple in his feasting. But the fact that גחי Gehazi wanted to make money from the area of value of holiness and also that fact that that is the major sin attributed to him in the Old Testament, seems also a proof of that idea of the mishna.
[It is kind of a surprise that the connection that Gehazi had with Elisha the prophet does not seem to have helped him much. That is not what is usually expected from a disciple of a great person.]
Elisha the prophet I admit has always fascinated me. There is a lot more to learn from his life but this will have to do for now.
The lesson from Gehazi seems to be that it is important to repent and fear God and learn Torah but not to make Torah into a business. Not to advertise how religious one is.
This I think is the source of the idea brought in the Mishna that to make money from learning or teaching Torah gets one to lose their portion in the next world. [I recall that in the commentary of the Gra on those two mishnas, I saw him bring that idea from the events surrounding the king or Persia that used the vessels of the Temple in his feasting. But the fact that גחי Gehazi wanted to make money from the area of value of holiness and also that fact that that is the major sin attributed to him in the Old Testament, seems also a proof of that idea of the mishna.
[It is kind of a surprise that the connection that Gehazi had with Elisha the prophet does not seem to have helped him much. That is not what is usually expected from a disciple of a great person.]
Elisha the prophet I admit has always fascinated me. There is a lot more to learn from his life but this will have to do for now.
The lesson from Gehazi seems to be that it is important to repent and fear God and learn Torah but not to make Torah into a business. Not to advertise how religious one is.
20.12.17
Elijah did not excel in tolerance.
Even though Eliyahu the prophet {Elijah} is well known for the events at Mount Carmel, still the subsequent events are less well known. The events were thus: Israel were worshiping the Lord along with the idolatry called the Baal. The Baal was considered in control of the Earth,- and the Lord in charge of events in heaven.
Elijah asked Israel to make up their minds, and set up a test. The priests of the Baal would make an altar and bring sacrifices. Elijah also would make an altar; and the god that would answer will show that he is the true God. The Lord answered Elijah in fire. Then Elijah said, "Grab the priests of the Baal and kill them." And that is what happened. Elijah did not excel in tolerance. He does not seem to have held from religious freedom either.
The unique thing is that Israel listened to him. They killed the priests of the Baal.
Later Elijah from Vilna [Gra] tried to do the same thing. But he was not listened to. That was the whole point of the letter of excommunication that he put his signature on.
But in fact, even Elijah the prophet did not have much great success either. From Ahab until the actual exile of Israel [for the sin of idolatry] was not that long.
I should mention that Yehu, the king, also killed the priests of the Baal at a later date. In other words, in terms of legal issues, he felt that priests of the Baal did not need עדים והתראה (two witnesses and a warning). He probably depended on אנן סהדי "we testify." That is,-- once something is well established publicly, then the courts consider it to be known by witnesses.
[I mean to say that normally you need עדים והתראה witnesses and a court of 23 judges. So it is interesting why both Elijah and Yehu did not feel the need to stand on legal minutiae. ]
What I mean to say that even though Litvak yeshivas generally go by the Gra in most points, still in this crucial issue, the Gra is totally ignored--as if we know better!
The repercussions of ignoring the Gra are as vast and and harmful as ignoring the warning of Elijah the prophet. Yet just as then Israel said, "Yes" to Elijah and then just went straight back to doing what they were doing beforehand. So it is with the Gra. And there is no question that unless people wake up, the results will be the same.
Elijah asked Israel to make up their minds, and set up a test. The priests of the Baal would make an altar and bring sacrifices. Elijah also would make an altar; and the god that would answer will show that he is the true God. The Lord answered Elijah in fire. Then Elijah said, "Grab the priests of the Baal and kill them." And that is what happened. Elijah did not excel in tolerance. He does not seem to have held from religious freedom either.
The unique thing is that Israel listened to him. They killed the priests of the Baal.
Later Elijah from Vilna [Gra] tried to do the same thing. But he was not listened to. That was the whole point of the letter of excommunication that he put his signature on.
But in fact, even Elijah the prophet did not have much great success either. From Ahab until the actual exile of Israel [for the sin of idolatry] was not that long.
I should mention that Yehu, the king, also killed the priests of the Baal at a later date. In other words, in terms of legal issues, he felt that priests of the Baal did not need עדים והתראה (two witnesses and a warning). He probably depended on אנן סהדי "we testify." That is,-- once something is well established publicly, then the courts consider it to be known by witnesses.
[I mean to say that normally you need עדים והתראה witnesses and a court of 23 judges. So it is interesting why both Elijah and Yehu did not feel the need to stand on legal minutiae. ]
What I mean to say that even though Litvak yeshivas generally go by the Gra in most points, still in this crucial issue, the Gra is totally ignored--as if we know better!
The repercussions of ignoring the Gra are as vast and and harmful as ignoring the warning of Elijah the prophet. Yet just as then Israel said, "Yes" to Elijah and then just went straight back to doing what they were doing beforehand. So it is with the Gra. And there is no question that unless people wake up, the results will be the same.
If you go by the idea of the Rambam that learning Physics and Metaphysics fulfills the commandment to love and fear God it makes sense to start the day with those two things right when one gets up.
If you go by the idea of the Rambam that learning Physics and Metaphysics fulfills the commandment to love and fear God it makes sense to start the day with those two things right when one gets up. [The main thing to understand is that you do not need to understand,.. Say the words and go on in order. as the sages said in the Gemara Shabat.]
The thing is that both have to be directed and intended towards the worship of God.
I am referring here to the parable the Rambam writes in the Guide about the state of the king. There was a state with people outside the state, others in the state, others in the capital city and still other close to king in his palace. These to the Rambam are barbarians, people with natural law morals, people that learn the Oral and Written Law, and still others closer to God --physicists and philosopher and prophets. But all need to be facing the King.
["Metaphysics" refers in the Rambam to that of Ancient Athens. But the hint is clear that he means specifically the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Though not called by that name by Aristotle himself, still by the time of the Rambam, that was well known as the name of that set of books.]
The thing is that both have to be directed and intended towards the worship of God.
I am referring here to the parable the Rambam writes in the Guide about the state of the king. There was a state with people outside the state, others in the state, others in the capital city and still other close to king in his palace. These to the Rambam are barbarians, people with natural law morals, people that learn the Oral and Written Law, and still others closer to God --physicists and philosopher and prophets. But all need to be facing the King.
["Metaphysics" refers in the Rambam to that of Ancient Athens. But the hint is clear that he means specifically the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Though not called by that name by Aristotle himself, still by the time of the Rambam, that was well known as the name of that set of books.]
19.12.17
18.12.17
Sometimes criminal behavior is simply encoded in some people's DNA
Even though according to the Rambam the peace of the State is one of the major goals of the Torah it seems to me that the system depends highly on the kind of people involved. That is I think that the Constitution of the USA is the crowning peak of political thought--the summit of thousands of years of political thought starting from Plato. Still it only works for a certain kind of person, that is a WASP. Surely no one can imagine that in the turmoil that Russia was in during its civil war crisis, that simply adopting something like the Constitution would have solved anything at all. Russia became the USSR because that was the only viable option on the table that would put an end to the nightmare of chaos that they were in. This in not my own insight. I was once talking with a Mormon that was a professional economist about capitalism as opposed to socialism in the context of the USA in the 1920's and 1930's. He mentioned this idea to me -- that when things area mess sometimes one needs to central government to assume greater powers which can happen only in a socialistic system.
It was the exact argument that the Founding Fathers of the USA made in the Federalist Papers about the need for a central unified federal government. But what worked in the USA would not have worked in Russia and the Ukraine where there already was a central government-- the last Tzar who was a disaster.
Some people who are in Russia and the Ukraine are so criminally minded in their very DNA that nothing like the Constitution would have helped. The Russians themselves were very much aware of this. It was not spoken, but it was clear that in the vast empire of Russia there were populations that had and still have criminal elements above the percentage in which a Constitution like the USA would have worked. As Sapolsky says--a lot depends on DNA. Sometimes criminal behavior is simply encoded in some people's DNA and there is nothing one can do to change it.
It was the exact argument that the Founding Fathers of the USA made in the Federalist Papers about the need for a central unified federal government. But what worked in the USA would not have worked in Russia and the Ukraine where there already was a central government-- the last Tzar who was a disaster.
Some people who are in Russia and the Ukraine are so criminally minded in their very DNA that nothing like the Constitution would have helped. The Russians themselves were very much aware of this. It was not spoken, but it was clear that in the vast empire of Russia there were populations that had and still have criminal elements above the percentage in which a Constitution like the USA would have worked. As Sapolsky says--a lot depends on DNA. Sometimes criminal behavior is simply encoded in some people's DNA and there is nothing one can do to change it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)