support for the Rambam

The shinning forth of Being of Hegel seems to provide support for the Rambam. After all without that it is hard to see the position of the Rambam that learning Physics and Metaphysics brings one to the fulfillment of the two commandments to (1) Love and (2) Fear God
Even the idea of the Wisdom of God being contained in the work of Creation seems to not bring to what the Rambam is getting at..
However Hegel provides a link in the chain that seems invincible. Hegel wonders about Kant's "mere appearance". (That all we can know is mere appearance.) Hegel wonders about "mere". He says on the contrary the appearance is the shining forth of Being itself. 

Mutual Aid groups

Mutual Aid groups seems like a natural development in the Christian world since kindness towards others is considered the major goal in life and the major way of serving God. But when this is applied to the institutions that are supposedly learning Torah,the whole concept seems to fall flat on its face.  As my learning partner expressed it "They are just private country clubs."
But to gain respectability they do have to present an image of helping others. But in fact the whole thing seems like a kind of scam. Naive people of college age are drawn in by the scam but later experience shows that they are not what they present to the outside world. And woe to the individual that gets taken in by the scam.
There are however legitimate places like the great NY Litvak yeshivas [e.g. Mir, Torah VeDaat, Haim Berlin] that pretty much stick with the basic formula of Reb Haim From Voloshin about what a yeshiva is supposed to be.

I am wondering about the issue of yeshivas and I can see the point of Reb Haim in starting the Yeshiva Movement. [That seems all the more important in so far as the contracts that the "Kahal" had held in Poland were about to be nullified starting with the Russian Czar.]
Still outside of the few great Litvak Yeshivas in NY and Bnei Brak, the whole things looks like a scam.  A way to make easy money. Besides the fact that almost every yeshiva in Israel was made by vegetable stand owners that could not make living any other way than getting a few people to sign up and getting an automatic income--and the people that signed up were mainly interested in getting out of serving in the IDF.
[However I have heard great things about off shoots of Ponoviz, like Tifrah [תפרח]  and in Netivot I was very impressed with Rav Montag's yeshiva which is continuation of Yeshivat HaNegev. 

attacks on Hegel

Hegel has received a series of attacks. The first was in Germany in 1843-1845. Also WWI spelled the end of Idealism and the beginning of  dumb movements in philosophy. But even people that accepted some of his ideas in part like Marx and Kierkegaard were certainly no Hegelians

To me it seems the weak part of Hegel is in politics. When he ties ideas to politics that where he seems to have gotten off on a wrong foot.
Even the attacks on Hegel from Karl Popper and  Dr. Kelley Ross seem to focus mostly on the way his metaphysical system was subsequently applied to politics. But that is what seems to be the weakest part of his system.

[On the other hand looking at the founding fathers of the USA I tend to be very impressed. It seems to me that the geniuses of England and the USA spent a lot of time and thought on politics and that is where their expertise was. In Germany the great minds there simply spent their best efforts in other directions].

But I am not saying the system of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be applicable to China or Russia. The founding fathers of the USA were definitely basing themselves on England especially the England of the 1700's. But  that whole foundation depends on the kind of people the English were. You could not transfer that to czarist Russia where the problems were very different.The Czars had an empire that was composed of many groups with high percentages of criminal DNA and bad genes. James Madison had to write a Constitution for people that had good intentions, but their good intentions conflicted with other people's good intentions. That is a whole other ball game. 

U-65 G Minor   [U-65 midi]

[U-65 nwc format]

There is a certain amount of support for respect towards Jesus which can be found in the words of Rav Avraham Abulafia. He is more well known for going to debate a certain pope. Orders were given to arrest him as soon as he  got to Rome but everyone that tried to lay a hand on him died. His attitude can be found easily in his writings. He thought the Catholics were not on the right path. Not just because of ביטול המצוות nullification of the commandments; but also because of the problem of idolatry.  Still his attitude towards Jesus himself is different; and is certainly one of respect.
The way I tend to look at this is that sometimes a saint is born to bring some higher aspect of things into the world. Not only that, but that once they have come into the world -then it is no longer possible to get to that aspect of things without faith in that saint.

We find in the Ari that at the breaking of the vessels שבירת הכלים that the trait of kindness (חסד) fell into foundation (יסוד). And that is what I think happened in this case.


This type of attitude is not usually well received, but it seems to me to be accurate.

I was asked that Rav Abulafia also brings a גמטריה (numerical value of the letters that reflects badly on Jesus.  I have  a few answers for that, but the basic one is that it is fairly well known that גמטריות are often used as זה לעומת זה [This against that]. For example the numerical value of the name of Moses is the same as שמד [heresy] with the value of the word itself being equal to 1.


[In this way I can understand a little of how people with faith in Jesus often act out of kindness that is not found elsewhere.]  [It is fairly well known that the Rishonim say that the Jesus referred to in the Talmud is not the same person because of the fact that the one is the Talmud was in the era of a person that lived around 100 B.C.]

[You can see support for this also in the beginning of Nahar Shalom by Rav Shalom Sharabi and in the Ari himself. Not to mention the well known treatment of this subject by Rav Yaakov Emden.]

Even if this opinion is not very PC [Politically Correct] and is rather unpopular there does not seem to be any reason to reject it.We find that ירבעם בן נבט Jeroboam was afraid of losing the support of the people if they would go up to Jerusalem so he fell into sin. So we see that losing popularity is not  a reason to reject what is true,

What I think Tosphot in Bava Batra 92 [ד''ה וזו]  means is that in the הוה אמינא of the Gemara Ravina had said all virgins have a קול. Therefore the Gemara concludes that witnesses would not help.  Then the Gemara says that what Ravina had really said was that most virgins have a קול. That was therefore a help to Rav that now witnesses would help. Then Tosphot asks from Ketuboth 28 that all we really need is גילוי מילתא בעלמא. So I think what Tosphot means to ask is that it s too big a step to go from witnesses not helping at all to witnesses being believed even as a גילוי מילתא בעלמא להעיד בגדלן מה שראו בקטמן because of the difference between all virgins and most virgins.

What I think תוספות in בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב   means is that in the הוה אמינא of the גמרא רבינא  had said all virgins have a קול. Therefore the גמרא concludes that witnesses would not help.  Then the גמרא says that what רבינא had really said was that most virgins have a קול. That was therefore a help to רב that now witnesses would help. Then תוספות asks from כתובות כ''ח that all we really need is גילוי מילתא בעלמא. So I think what תוספות means to ask is that it is too big a step to go from witnesses not helping at all to witnesses being believed even as a גילוי מילתא בעלמא להעיד בגדלן מה שראו בקטמן because of the difference between all virgins and most virgins.


מה שאני חושב הוא שתוספות בבבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב כיוונו לזה. ההוה אמינא של הגמרא הוא שרבינא אמר לכל בתולות יש קול. לכן הגמרא מסכם כי עדים לא יעזרו. ואז הגמרא אומרת כי מה רבינא באמת אמר היה שלרוב הבתולות יש קול. זה היה אפוא לעזור לרב שעכשיו עדים יעזרו. ואז תוספות שואלים מכתובות כ''ח כי כל מה שאנחנו באמת צריכים זה גילוי מילתא בעלמא. אז אני חושב שמה תוספות רצו לשאול הוא שזה גדול מדי צעד ללכת מן העדים לא עוזרים בכלל לעדים נאמנים  אפילו בתור גילוי מילתא בעלמא להעיד בגדלן מה שראה בקטמן בגלל השוני בין "כל הבתולות" ל"רוב הבתולות"

It is also helpful to learn the books of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter's disciples.

The path of God --the law of Moses is hard to figure out in a practical sense. There is a great deal of conflict in figuring out the general rules and also in my individual life how to apply the law of Moses in any given case.

It is a sure bet that if things are not going right in one's life --that for sure he has been transgressing on the Law of God. But even things might not be going well even if you have started to walk in God's Law.  The reason is that the ability of repentance to fix things is limited. As the Gemara says עובר על מצוות עשה ועושה תשובה לא זז משם עד שמתכפר לו. עבר על לא תעשה תשובה תולה וים הכיפורים גומר. עבר על לא תעשה שיש בו כרת תשובה ויום כיפור תולים ויסורים מכפרים

You might think that to figure out what the actual obligations of the Law of God are it would be best to open up the book itself along with the Oral Law to see what they say but that is kind of  a long route. The simplest way to go about this is to learn what s called "Musar" which refers to books written during the Middle Ages that more or less explain the basic obligations of the Torah in the most simple fashion possible.
It is also helpful to learn the books of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter's disciples.

However in terms of what the practical application of Musar I find it best to try to emulate my own parents and my Dad in particular who came about the closest that I can imagine to the true ideals of Torah. [Even though our home was basically Reform and I do think that keeping all the Laws of the Torah is important but in terms of the basic goals of Torah our home was the best thing I have seen in terms of actual fulfillment of the basic obligation of the Torah to be a decent human being and to work honestly for a living and to keep the Ten Commandments etc.]

I am not thinking that I have any great access to "the Truth". Rather my best estimation of the right path is basically based on my parents and what I learned at the Mir Yeshiva in NY.

There is something in the גמרא בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב that I find hard to understand. רב said in money issues we go by the majority. Not like שמואל said. They bring a question on this from כתובות ט''ו ע''ב where it says  a man says his wife was not a virgin and she says she was. If there are witnesses that she went to the marriage with the ornaments of  virgin she gets for her כתובה מאתיים and if not then only מנה.
Since most women are married as virgins, then why not just go by the majority, like רב said.
רבינא answered her majority is weak because there was no קול as is always the case when a virgin gets married.
The גמרא asks on that then if there was no קול, then why does it make a difference if there are witnesses? Since there was no קול even when there are witnesses they are false witnesses.
The גמרא then amends the statement of רבינא to say "Most women are married as virgins  and since most women that are married as virgins have a commotion and this one did not, then her majority is weak. The גמרא here means that there is one majority on one side (most women are married as virgins) and another majority against it (most virgins have a  קול and this one did not). So we have a majority against a majority and it is a doubt. So we go by the witnesses.
First that we would say witnesses are false because of a lack of a קול is curious to me.
It seems a bit hard to figure out this idea that since most virgins have a קול and this woman did not that is  a negative majority.
The two types of majorities to תוספות are not equal. To תוספות the majority of women that are married are virgins is stronger than the majority of virgins have a קול.  But תוספות needs that idea to answer a question he has from כתובות. But then it would seem that then the original question of the גמרא would return. We ought to go by the majority of women that are married are virgins, and so why do we need witnesses? I am not saying this is a strong question, but more along the lines of a comment because I can still see that one majority against another ought to require witnesses.
Furthermore the majority of virgins is a subset of the majority of women. So it is not clear to me that this would constitute a majority against the majority of women. But perhaps that is the exact point of תוספות that it is a weaker majority than the majority of women. The question of תוספות also is hard to understand. The question of תוספות is going on the הווא אמינא of the גמרא. That is the original statement of רבינא, not the amended version of רבינא. So obviously תוספות thinks his question would apply even on the amended version, but it is hard to see why. What I mean is this: The גמרא brings the law we believe her when there are witnesses. The question on רב is why not go by the majority. רבינא answers all virgins have a קול. The גמרא asks if so then why do witnesses help? If there was no קול then the witnesses are false. The גמרא answers רבינא meant most virgins. תוספות asks from the גמרא in כתובות that these witnesses are believed to testify what they saw before they came of age. The גמרא asks why? And they answer this. Because it is just revealing what the facts anyway already suggest to be the case. גילוי מילתא בעלמא.

תוספות asks this. But according to our גמרא here in בבא בתרא,  if there is a קול then we do not need witnesses. If not, then witnesses do not help. But that question of תוספות is only on the  הווא אמינא of the גמרא. If we go with the conclusion that  witnesses help because there is only a majority of virgins that have a קול. So the question of תוספות seems to fall off. Witnesses help because it is only a majority of virgins that have a קול. So witnesses help.
 Furthermore תוספות says his question is not on שמואל. That means since we do not go by the majority then witnesses help. But still one can ask why? If the majority does not help then how can the witnesses testify בגדלן מה שראו בקטנן?

בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב. יש משהו הגמרא בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב שאני מתקשה להבין. רב אמר בדיני כסף הולכים לפי רוב. זה לא כמו ששמואל אמר. הם מביאים שאלה על זה מן כתובות ט''ו ע''ב איפה שכתוב גבר אומר שאשתו לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיא הייתה. אם יש עדים שהיא הלכה לנישואים עם קישוטים של בתולה היא מקבלת עבור הכתובה מאתיים, ואם לא אז רק מנה. מאחר שרוב הנשים נשואות כשהן בתולות, אז למה לא ללכת לפי הרוב, כמו שרב אמר? רבינא ענה הרוב שלה הוא חלש בגלל שאין קול כמו שתמיד קורה במקרה כאשר שמתחתנת בתולה. הגמרא שואלת על זה, אז אם לא היה קול, אז למה זה משנה אם יש עדים? מאז לא היה שום קול גם כאשר ישנם עדים הם עדי שקר. גמרא אז מתקן המשפט של רבינא לומר "נשים הנשואות לפי רוב הן בתולות, רוב בתולות יש להן קול ולזו לא היה קול, אז הרוב שלה הוא חלש. גמרא כאן פירושו שיש רוב אחד בצד אחד (רוב הנשים הנשואות הן בתולות) ורוב אחר נגדו (לרוב בתולות יש קול ולזו לא היה קול). אז יש לנו רוב נגד רוב וזהו ספק. אז אנחנו הולכים על ידי עדים. ראשית כי לומר העדים הם שקר בגלל חוסר של קול הוא קצת קשה. עוד קצת קשה. זה נראה קשה להבין את הרעיון הזה כי לרוב הבתולות יש קול ולאישה זו לא, כי הוא רוב שלילי. עוד יש לשאול שני סוגים של רוב לפי תוספות אינם שווים. לתוספות רוב הנשים נשואות כשהן בתולות חזק מרוב בתולות יש קול. אבל תוספות צריך הרעיון כדי לענות על שאלה שיש לו מן כתובות. אבל היה נראה כי אז השאלה המקורית של גמרא תחזור. אנחנו צריכים ללכת על ידי רוב הנשים כי שנשואות כשהן בתולות, ולכן למה אנחנו צריכים עדים? אני לא אומר את זה הוא שאלה חזקה, אבל יותר בכיוון של הערה כי אני יכול לראות כי רוב אחד נגד אחר צריך לחייב עדים. יתרה מזאת יש שאלה. רוב הבתולות היא קבוצת משנה של רוב הנשים. אז לא ברור לי שזו תהווה רוב נגד רוב הנשים. אבל אולי כי היא הנקודה המדויקת של תוספות שרוב הזה חלש מרוב הנשים. שאלה של תוספות גם קשה להבין. שאלת התוספות הולכת לפי ההווא אמינא של הגמרא. (זוהי הגרסה המקורית של רבינא, לא הגרסה המתוקנת של רבינא). אז ברור תוספות חושבים ששאלתו תחול גם על הגרסה המתוקנת, אבל קשה לראות מדוע. כוונתי היא זו: הגמרא מביאה את החוק שאנו מאמינים בה כאשר ישנם עדים. השאלה על רב היא מדוע לא ללכת לפי הרוב? רבינא עונה יש לכל בתולות קול. הגמרא שואלת אם כך אז מדוע עדים עוזרים לה? אם לא היה קול, אז העדים הם שקריים. תשובת הגמרא: רבינא התכוון לרוב בתולות. תוספות שואלים מן הגמרא בכתובות כי עדים אלה הם נאמנים להעיד מה שראו לפני שהגיעו לגיל. הגמרא שואלת למה? והם עונים זו. בגלל זה הוא רק חושף את מה שהעובדה ממילא כבר מציעה שהיה המקרה. גילוי מילתא בעלמא. תוספות שואל על זה. אבל על פי הגמרא כאן בבא בתרא, אם יש קול אז אנחנו לא צריכים עדים. אם לא, אז עדים אינם עוזרים. אבל השאלה של תוספות היא רק לפי ההווא אמינא של הגמרא. אם נלך עם המסקנה כי עדים עוזרים כי יש רק רוב של בתולות שיש להן קול. אז השאלה של תוספות נראית שנופלת. עדים עוזרים כי זה רק רוב של בתולות שיש להן קול. אז עדים עוזרים. זאת ועוד תוספות אומרים שאלה שלו היא לא על שמואל. כלומר, מאז אנחנו לא הולכים לפי רוב אז עדים עוזרים. אבל עדיין אפשר לשאול למה?אם הרוב לא עוזר אז איך יכולים העדים להעיד בגדלן מה שראו בקטנן

These are the simple kinds of questions my learning partner David Bronson would be asking. But so far I have no good answers for Tosphot. I figure I need to spend more time and effort in trying to understand what Tosphot is saying.

With all respect due to the Ran of Breslov who was amazingly insightful about many issues, it seems the emphasis on graves of righteous people seems a bit misplaced.

In Deuteronomy 18:11 we find a problem of "דורש אל המתים" {There should not be found among you one who seeks after the dead.}
Also in Isaiah 65:4 שוהים על הקברים "who remain among the graves" is also accounted as a problem.

The way these references are avoided is to note in the Gemara there is  brought the practice  of going out to graves on a fast day and the Gemara asks why this is done? One opinion is to cause us to break our hearts and repent. Another opinion is to awake them to cause them to pray for us.
The Rambam actually brings this down, and only mentions the first opinion.

Many other sources are brought from Midrash and Rav Isaac Luria.

Still, it is hard to get over the impression that the whole thing seems like an obsession. Not a healthy one at that. The first hint I had about this was when I was learning a law about when building a street one comes across a grave, then one moves it. This was at a time in Israel when this issue was stopping some building project, and I asked someone about it. But they refused to agree with me --it seemed because my opinion was not "PC".

[Just for public information I think to add the basic issue of טומאת מת (the uncleanliness incurred by touching or being in the same house as a dead body). The basic thing is to get clean one needs a red cow [Numbers 19] and to be sprinkled on on the third and last day of a seven day waiting period.

The problem with uncleanliness refers to either coming into the Temple or eating from a sacrifice.

[There are a few kinds of uncleanliness. All those mentioned in the Old Testament are אבות הטומאה (Principle degree) except for טומאת מת [a dead body] which is אבי אבות הטומאה [one level higher than the regular principles]. The next level is one that touches an אב הטומאה [principle] who becomes a תולדה [derivative] or what is known as a ראשון לטומאה [first degree--but one lower than top degree]. Food can become a שני [second]. Truma [tithe of wheat] can become a שלישי [third degree].  Sacrifices can become a רביעי [fourth degree]. [A person that comes into contact with a אב principle degree becomes a first degree ראשון לטומאה but he can not go down to a second degree. Only food can do that.


The general way to look at the Ran from Breslov in the Litvak world is with a great deal of respect, but also a kind of awareness that not everything he said should be taken literally.

Reb Nahman himself was certainly a great tzadik with quite amazing insights. Still that does not mean he was immune from error. But he himself did not claim immunity from error. Still when I was   trying to follow his path simply with no questions I did experience a tremendous surge of light for the years I was in Israel. So I think that major things he emphasized ought to be heeded like his Rosh Hashanah in Uman.
There are plenty of good and great ideas I picked up from reading Reb Nahman's ideas. e.g. talking with God in my own language, the way of learning fast, and other ideas.

[I think he did not come under the category of the חרם (letter of excommunication) of the Gra. The חרם is important but in the case of the Ran of Breslov I think it did not apply.]

There is something in the Gemara [Bava Batra 92 ] that I find hard to understand. Rav said in money issues we go by the majority. [Not like Shmuel said]. They bring a question on this from Ketuboth where it says [15b] a man says his wife was not a virgin and she says she was. If there are witnesses that she went to the marriage with the ornaments of  virgin she gets for her Ketubah 200 zuz and if not then only 100.
Since most women are married as virgins, then why not just go by the majority --like Rav said.
Ravina answered her majority is weak because there was no commotion [קול]  as is always the case when a virgin gets married.
The Gemara asks on that then if there was no commotion, then why does it make a difference if there are witnesses? Since there was no commotion even when there are witnesses, they are false witnesses?
The Gemara then amends the statement of Ravina so say "Most women are married as virgins  and since most women that are married as virgins have a commotion and this one did not, then her majority is weak.[The Gemara here means that there is one majority on one side (most women are married as virgins) and another majority against it (most virgins have a commotion and this one did not). So we have a majority against a majority and it is a doubt. So we go by the witnesses.]

First that we would say witnesses are false because of a lack of a commotion is curious to me.
Lots of other issues here but that is all I can state clearly right now. I mean that it seems a bit hard to figure out this idea that since most virgins have a commotion and this woman did not that is  a negative majority.

The two types of majorities  to תוספות are not equal. To תוספות the majority of women that are married are virgins is stronger than the majority of virgins have a commotion. תוספות needs that idea to answer a question he has from כתובות. But then it would seem that then the original question of the Gemara would return. e ought to o by the majority of women that are married are virgins and so why do we need witnesses? I am not saying this a a strong question but more along the lines of a comment because I can still see that one majority against another ought to require witnesses.
further the majority of virgins is a subset of the majority of women so it is not clear tome that this would constitute a majority against the majority of women. but perhaps that is the exact point of tosphot  that it is a weaker majority than the majority of women.

The question of Tosphot also is hard to understand. Tosphot question is going on the 'I would have thought'' of the Gemara. that is the original statement of Ravina, not the amended version of Ravina. so obviously Tosphot thinks his question would apply even on the amended version but it is hard to see why.




What I mean is this: The Gemara brings the law we believe her when there are witnesses. The question on Rav is why not go by the majority. Ravina answers all virgins have a commotion. The Gemara asks if so then why do witnesses help? If there was no commotion then the witnesses are false. The Gemara answers Ravina meant most virgins. Tosphot asks from the Gemara in Ketuboth that these witnesses are believed to testify what they saw before they came of age.The Gemara asks why. An they answer because it is just revealing what the facts anyway already suggest to be the case.
Tosphot asks but according to or Gemara here in Bava Batra if there is a commotion then we do not need witnesses and if not then witnesses do not help. But that question of Tosphot is only on the  i would have thought of the Gemara. If we go with the conclusion that it is witnesses help because it is only a majority of virgins that have a commotion so the question of Tosphot seems to fall off. Witnesses help because it is only a majority of virgins that have a commotion.



בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב. יש משהו הגמרא בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב שאני מתקשה להבין. רב אמר בדיני כסף הולכים לפי רוב. זה לא כמו ששמואל אמר. הם מביאים שאלה על זה מן כתובות ט''ו ע''ב איפה שכתוב גבר אומר שאשתו לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיא הייתה. אם יש עדים שהיא הלכה לנישואים עם קישוטים של בתולה היא מקבלת עבור הכתובה מאתיים, ואם לא אז רק מנה. מאחר שרוב הנשים נשואות כשהן בתולות, אז למה לא ללכת לפי הרוב, כמו שרב אמר? רבינא ענה הרוב שלה הוא חלש בגלל שאין קול כמו שתמיד קורה במקרה כאשר שמתחתנת בתולה. הגמרא שואלת על זה, אז אם לא היה קול, אז למה זה משנה אם יש עדים? מאז לא היה שום קול גם כאשר ישנם עדים הם עדי שקר. גמרא אז מתקן המשפט של רבינא לומר "נשים הנשואות לפי רוב הן בתולות, רוב בתולות יש להן קול ולזו לא היה קול, אז הרוב שלה הוא חלש. גמרא כאן פירושו שיש רוב אחד בצד אחד (רוב הנשים הנשואות הן בתולות) ורוב אחר נגדו (לרוב בתולות יש קול ולזו לא היה קול). אז יש לנו רוב נגד רוב וזהו ספק. אז אנחנו הולכים על ידי עדים. ראשית כי לומר העדים הם שקר בגלל חוסר של קול הוא קצת קשה. עוד קצת קשה. זה נראה קשה להבין את הרעיון הזה כי לרוב הבתולות יש קול ולאישה זו לא, כי הוא רוב שלילי. עוד יש לשאול שני סוגים של רוב לפי תוספות אינם שווים. לתוספות רוב הנשים נשואות כשהן בתולות חזק מרוב בתולות יש קול. אבל תוספות צריך הרעיון כדי לענות על שאלה שיש לו מן כתובות. אבל היה נראה כי אז השאלה המקורית של גמרא תחזור. אנחנו צריכים ללכת על ידי רוב הנשים כי שנשואות כשהן בתולות, ולכן למה אנחנו צריכים עדים? אני לא אומר את זה הוא שאלה חזקה, אבל יותר בכיוון של הערה כי אני יכול לראות כי רוב אחד נגד אחר צריך לחייב עדים. יתרה מזאת יש שאלה. רוב הבתולות היא קבוצת משנה של רוב הנשים. אז לא ברור לי שזו תהווה רוב נגד רוב הנשים. אבל אולי כי היא הנקודה המדויקת של תוספות שרוב הזה חלש מרוב הנשים. שאלה של תוספות גם קשה להבין. שאלת התוספות הולכת לפי ההווא אמינא של הגמרא. (זוהי הגרסה המקורית של רבינא, לא הגרסה המתוקנת של רבינא). אז ברור תוספות חושבים ששאלתו תחול גם על הגרסה המתוקנת, אבל קשה לראות מדוע. כוונתי היא זו: הגמרא מביאה את החוק שאנו מאמינים בה כאשר ישנם עדים. השאלה על רב היא מדוע לא ללכת לפי הרוב? רבינא עונה יש לכל בתולות קול. הגמרא שואלת אם כך אז מדוע עדים עוזרים לה? אם לא היה קול, אז העדים הם שקריים. תשובת הגמרא: רבינא התכוון לרוב בתולות. תוספות שואלים מן הגמרא בכתובות כי עדים אלה הם נאמנים להעיד מה שראו לפני שהגיעו לגיל. הגמרא שואלת למה? והם עונים זו. בגלל זה הוא רק חושף את מה שהעובדה ממילא כבר מציעה שהיה המקרה. גילוי מילתא בעלמא. תוספות שואל על זה. אבל על פי הגמרא כאן בבא בתרא, אם יש קול אז אנחנו לא צריכים עדים. אם לא, אז עדים אינם עוזרים. אבל השאלה של תוספות היא רק לפי ההווא אמינא של הגמרא. אם נלך עם המסקנה כי עדים עוזרים כי יש רק רוב של בתולות שיש להן קול. אז השאלה של תוספות נראית שנופלת. עדים עוזרים כי זה רק רוב של בתולות שיש להן קול. אז עדים עוזרים. זאת ועוד תוספות אומרים שאלה שלו היא לא על שמואל. כלומר, מאז אנחנו לא הולכים לפי רוב אז עדים עוזרים. אבל עדיין אפשר לשאול למה?אם הרוב לא עוזר אז איך יכולים העדים להעיד בגדלן מה שראו בקטנן?

I was disturbed by problems in faith and almost immediately after that I discovered the Kant Friesian site on the Internet of Dr Kelley Ross. [I might have the order of events mixed up. It could be the first time I noticed Dr Ross was in his essay on Spinoza.] In any case his approach to issues of faith and what is called numinous value helped me immensely.
Still however, I do admit that that school of thought [based on Kant and Leonard Nelson] seems a bit too dismissal of Hegel.

In any case, I realized that there are lots of problems in faith that seem to beyond the realm of reason to answer; and also there seem to be values in faith which seem beyond reason to comprehend.
So the whole idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge makes a lot of sense to me.

[I might mention that the approach of Dr Ross is named after Kant and Fries, but is very much based also on Schopenhauer and Popper.]

This is more or less all part of German Idealism. But it intersects with John Locke and natural law in terms of self, the autonomous individual.  English thought all through that time was going in totally different directions. That is,- a lot of the intellectual energy of the English was spent on Protestant issues and the crown. You can more or less trace a straight line in English thought from Henry VIII and the English Dissidents, Daniel Defoe, until the Constitution of the USA.

But there is a point where both streams of thought intersect in natural law and the autonomy of the individual.

The issue of human rights was a major topic in England from the aspect of the King's right as opposed or separate from  Parliament and Parliament as different from the Commons and that as different from the People. All these issues were later reflected in Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson.
[It did not all start just with John Locke.] 

Jeremiah (23) has a tirade against the pastors of Israel and so does Ezekiel (22).  So in the Gemara itself we find a complaint against the judges of Israel. [All troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel. That is at the end of tractate Shabat. And they bring another verse for a proof.] So when the Ran of Breslov says that the supposed authorities in Torah Law are demons, it should come as no surprise. Even though I was a bit shocked when I first saw this, subsequent events proved it all too well.   [It comes up more often that you would imagine. You can see it also in the Ari {Isaac Luria} and yet I managed to miss the warning until too late.

In any case, I do wonder what really the Ran meant. Does it mean they are possessed? Or that they are simply not human. But whatever he means, the warning seems clear. So why is it ignored?

The connection with Rishonim that warn about tying Torah to money seems relevant. After all, it was the cause of the very first complaints against the Rambam that he had published a warning like this in his commentary on the Mishna. [In Pirkei Avot he goes into length about this.] Later on in Mishne Torah he repeats his warning. [However the major anti Rambam thing was later and it seems to have been because of the Guide.]
[The Mishna that the Rambam talks about is this דאשתמש בתגא חלף One who uses the crown passes away and the Rambam explains that means they lose their portion in the next world. That seems to mean they lose their soul and that would probably be along the same lines that the Ran of Brelov was talking about as far as I can tell.] 

fanaticism is not the path of Torah

Hegel  noted that philosophy tends to be one sided because each philosophy is  a reaction to what came before it. A similar tendency I noted with numinous value. One generation reacts against the over amount of abuse on one side of things and goes overboard on being secular. Then the next generation sees the problem with that, and overreacts and goes in the opposite direction.

The ideal is to find the right balance of values.

[I mean to say like Reb Nahman from Breslov suggested that over excitement in the service of God is also an evil inclination. That is to say fanaticism is not the path of Torah. As God told Moses to warn the people not to go up into the mountain or even to touch it. Saloplsky  says the same exact thing about obsession with numinous value is a sign of  a schizoid personality. That is a whole long lecture in his series.]

The problem with exact rules and an order of daily sessions in the service of God is the subject object aspect that Kant brings. That is objective rules will apply to different people according to their root souls and essential traits and tendencies differently.
Still there are general principles that apply across the board. To have good traits (Midot Tovot).
But plenty of things that at first glance might seem to be worthy practices can often be distractions -to divert one's attention from what is really important.

כל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה All paths are dangerous. No path in the service of God is safe. There are no guarantees.

In the book of Job we find that the Satan is constantly going around the world to see whom he can trick an seduce and fool to think good is evil and evil good. The most dangerous thing is to imagine that one is immune.

[Still the best set of guidelines that I know about is the basic path of Musar. That is to learn the essential set of Medieval Musar books that are well known in Litvak yeshivas.]

U-62 E Flat Major  U-64 D Minor   

U-62 in midi format   u62 nwc  u64 in midi format  u64 nwc

If one marries a girl he thinks is a virgin and it turns out she is not then  one opinion is she is not married. Another is she loses the כתובה of מאתים and gets only מנה. Or gets no כתובה at all?

In terms of a regular מקח טעות [purchase by mistake] there seems to be a similar disagreement of opinion in בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב. If one buys an ox for plowing and it turns out to be unsuitable because it is not tamable. So the deal is off, but what about the money given to the seller. Does he owe the money as would a borrower? Or is there not deal at all and if he spends he money it is considered that he is  a מזיק? The רשב''ם considers that money is owed even though he thinks of the seller as a מזיק. That is confusing enough all by itself. If the seller is  a מזיק, then it ought to be the case that if the money is still around, then he gives it back; and if not, he pays like any מזיק. And that is in fact exactly what the ר''י says. Thus it is in fact hard to know what the רשב''ם is thinking here. The רשב''ם brings from a ר' חננאל  and that ר' חננאל does seem to consider the  מקח טעות  as being akin to a regular debt. That  is the seller pays back money if he has and שווה כסף if not. That at least makes sense. In any case, what I am trying to say is if the seller is considered to be a מזיק that means he does not own the money. So before he spends the money, it still belongs to the buyer. So then why would it not make a difference if he gives back that money or other money? If the seller would be thought to be a בעל חוב, then I can understand why giving back any money is the same as giving back the actual coins of the transaction. But if he is thought to be a מזיק then the coins were not his at any time.


אם אחד מתחתן עם נערה שהוא חושב היא בתולה ומתברר שהיא לא אז דעה אחת היא שהיא לא נשואה. דעה אחרת היא שהיא רק מאבדת את הכתובה של מאתים ומקבלת רק מנה. או אולי אינה מקבלת שום כתובה בכלל? במונחים של מקח טעות רגיל [רכישה בטעות] נראה שיש חילוקי דעות דומות לאלו הדעות בבבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב. אם אחד קונה שור לחריש ומתברר כי הוא אינו מתאים משום שהוא אינו בַּר אִלוּף. אז העסקה מבוטלת, אבל מה עם הכסף הנתון למוכר. האם הוא חייב את הכסף כלווה? או האם הוא נחשב כמזיק? הרשב''ם סבור כי  המוכר נחשב מזיק, אבל לא משנה איזה כסף הוא מחזיר. אם המוכר הוא מזיק, אז זה צריך להיות כך שאם הכסף הוא עדיין ברשותו, אז הוא מחזיר אותו; ואם לא, הוא משלם כמו כל מזיק. וזה למעשה בדיוק מה ר''י אומר. לכן קשה לדעת מה הרשב''ם חושב כאן. רשב''ם מביא מן ר' חננאל וכי ר' חננאל כנראה שוקל את המקח טעות כמו חוב רגיל. כלומר המוכר משלם כסף [איזה כסף שיהיה] אם יש לו, ואת שווה כסף אם לא. זה הגיוני. בכל מקרה, מה שאני מנסה לומר הוא שאם המוכר נחשב להיות כמזיק זה אומר שהוא אינו בעלים של הכסף. אז לפני שהוא מוציא את הכסף, זה עדיין שייך לקונה. אז למה זה לא משנה אם הוא נותן בחזרה את כסף או כסף אחר? אם המוכר יהיה נחשב להיות בעל חוב, אז אני יכול להבין למה להחזיר איזה כסף זהה להחזיר את המטבעות בפועל של העסקה. אבל אם הוא נחשב להיות מזיק המטבעות לא היו שלו.  

I do not have a Gemara Ketuboth. However I recall the issue over there if one marries a girl he thinks is a virgin and it turns out she is not that one opinion is she is not married. Another is she loses the Ketubah of 200 and gets only 100. [Or gets no Ketubah at all?]

In terms of a regular מקח טעות [purchase by mistake] there seems to be a similar disagreement of opinion in Bava Batra 92

If one buys an ox for plowing and it turns out to be unsuitable because it is not tamable. So the deal is off, but what about the money given to the seller. Does he owe the money as would a borrower? Or is there no deal at all, and if he spends he money, it is considered that he is  a מזיק [a person that causes damage]?

The Rashbam considers that money is owed even though he thinks of the seller as a מזיק [one that causes damage]. That is confusing enough all by itself. If the seller is  a מזיק [damager], then it ought to be that if the money is still around, then he gives it back;- and if not, he pays like any מזיק [damager]. And that is in fact exactly what the Ri says.

Thus it is in fact hard to know what the Rashbam is thinking here.

The Rashbam brings from a Rav Hananel from Rome [not the other famous one that I think taught the Rif.] and that Rav Hananel does seem to consider the  מקח טעות {a deal done by mistake} as being akin to a regular debt. That  is the seller pays back money if he has and שווה כסף if not.That at least makes sense.

To be short I am not sure how to understand the Rashbam and I also wonder if in fact one can tie this into the case in Ketuboth.

[I also am wondering why when I was learning Ketuboth in Shar Yashuv in NY that the connection with Bava Batra escaped me. To me today it seems highly relevant.]

In any case what I am trying to say is if the seller is considered to be a מזיק that means he does not own the money until he spends it. So before he spends it it still belongs to the buyer. So then why would it not make a difference if he gives back that money or other money? If the seller would be thought to be a בעל חוב then I can understand why giving back any money is the same as giving back the actual coins of the transaction. But if he is thought to be a מזיק the the coins were not his at any time. {I figure there must be an answer for this but it escapes me this minute.}

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Even though Christians take it as a given that Jewish mystics are off limits, still to me it seems that they are by that missing a key element of support for their position.

One example I have mentioned before is Rav Avraham Abulafia. However it was pointed out to me that Rav Abulafia's position is not all that clear.

Another key element of support for their position is the Ari, Rav Isaac Luria. The one place I recall off hand is in one of the books of Reb Haim Vital on the Torah on the very last verses of Genesis concerning Joseph HaTzadik. However in all the writings of the Ari I think there are about three places where those same verses are explained, and I recall the same kind of approach of the Ari in all three places.


The reason I did not take it as a proof against the Christian position the comment of Rav Abulafia concerning the numerical value [Gematria] is mainly that that same kind of proof by means of Gematria is used for Moses himself and other tzadikm to claim זה לעומת זה [this one against that one] in many places. I do not have off hand any examples because I simply am not learning any of this stuff nowadays at all, and have not been learning it for many years. [One example with Moses is משה גימטריה שמ''ד with the value of the word itself being one.]




I could also bring a few proofs for Rav Joseph Karo concerning his opinion on גרי השער {Converts of the Gate} as a different category from גר תושב [a stranger that dwells in the Land] but I do not happen to have that responsa at my fingertips. [The issue over there was that גר תושב is one category but Rav Joseph Karo apparently found some support in the Rishonim that Christians occupy a higher category called גרי השער  Converts of the Gates. ]

At any rate, it is clear that there is some advantage in believing in a true tzadik as mentioned in Pirkei Avot אמונת חכמים (faith in the wise).


Lots of people I should mention have אמונת חכמים faith in the wise  The point is to be able to discern who is a real tzadik. That kind of discernment is hard to come by. So what you might do is take the word of people that are more or less well known to have a kind of perception in that area. That is why I take the word of the Ari and Rav Abulafia and the Gra as evidence.
[My position about the Ari is very positive. However in learning the Ari there is dangerous pitfall. If one can learn the Ari while avoiding the groups under the excommunication of the Gra that is the only way I know that one can come out safe from the whole thing. Otherwise interest in the Ari most often leads people into the Dark Side. Reb Nahman however I think is not under that excommunication for the simple reason that the actual letter of excommunication is more specific than most people realize. And the Ran from Breslov besides that was in fact a great tzadik.]

The trouble is that the Dark Side has managed to wiggle itself into the Torah world to the degree that there is no escape except to the Reform or Conservative.

The effects of any given system. Does it really lead to the great things it promises?

In every generation there is a system  that promises that it is the solution to human problems if only people would accept it. That system is so powerful that its pull is almost impossible to resist. An example is Socialism. About a hundred years ago this was thought to be the solution to all human problems. Even the greatest of intellects actively advocated it. But then that subsided, and then spiritual systems were thought to provide the answers to all questions.   The systems were different, but the idea was the same. Some spiritual system was thought to be the absolute truth-- such that if everyone would accept it, all human problems would disappear.

These are just two examples. But there are others. In any case, in every instance the system that presented itself as the solution ended up being the cause of all human problems. It turned out people would have been better off with no system at all rather that the illusion of one that was thought to be the solution.
[No matter however. Once a person has accepted that system there is no going back. All the evidence in the world will not change his mind. Only later on generations will see the foolishness of the whole thing.]

[One thing I should mention: I am not against Numinous Value. Rather I think it is beyond Pure Reason. So it does not fit squarely into a definable box.  Rather it is like an electron that can be condensed into a particle state only by superposition of many k states [different value of k or momentum..So what I think is rather that one needs a balance of values.]
But while striving for a balance of values often one can fall into the Sitra Akra the Dark Side.. And most often happens by trying to do good. Like the Gra said in Proverbs that the Sitra Akra seduces to sin by means of suggesting to do some good deed. Which leaves one with the question then what can one use for a yardstick?
The thing to do is to identify the major practices to do daily and the major things to avoid. This might be a combination of common sense,  learning from history about the effects of any given system. Does it really lead to the great things it promises?]

My basic approximation of the right path is to look for examples of human excellence like I saw in my parents. Also to follow the path of the Gra as closely as possible--to learn Torah and to have trust in God and to be careful to take his signature on the letter of excommunication as being based on  objective truth. Not some kind of mistake based on faulty information. But rather based on fact.]

There is  a story of the Cock and the Horses. The cock was put to roost in the stable among the horses; and there being no racks or other conveniences for him, it seems, he was forced to roost upon the ground. The horses jostling about for room, and putting the cock in danger of his life, he gives them this grave advice, “Pray, Gentlefolks! let us stand still! for fear we should tread upon one another!”
  There are some people in the world, who, now they are unperched, and reduced to an equality with other people, and under strong and very just apprehensions of being further treated as they deserve, begin, with the cock, to preach up peace and union and the duty of moderation; forgetting that, when they had the power in their hands, those virtues were strangers in their gates!

Even though we tend to look at sins as being separate. On the Day of Atonement we go through a long list. Still I tend to think that they are all connected. A first sin causes the second and so on. But not just that but that in their essence they all boil own to the same thing. Some kind of particular attitude. It might be some small thing that leads to big consequences. Like for the loss of a nail the shoe was lost as that old rhyme goes until it finishes for loss of the battle the kingdom was lost.

It might be some ignoring of the advice of the Gra about the importance of learning Torah and trust in God.  Or other things the Gra emphasized or the books of Musar.

The problem is how to find the right balance. For the sharp blade of fanaticism cuts as deeply and wounds as grievously as any other, and often much worse. 

I learned in Organic Chemistry that a molecule of fat takes twice the energy to break down than a molecule of sugar. After I was in the hospital for a month, my stomach started hurting very badly, and I went to the regional hospital where they gave me four medicines.  They worked immediately. But then recently my stomach stated hurting again, and I went there again. There was only one doctor working, so the line was so long I realized I would be there for  a very long time until the doctor would see me. So I went to the nurses, and they said either tomorrow or Monday there will be three doctors working. [In Uman the "Regional hospital" has a better reputation than the Uman Hospital. However I have had excellent care in the Uman hospital. Both for a kidney stone and my broken foot. However I still decided to go to the regional hospital for my stomach pains. I do not think I could have had better care anywhere in the world.]

So  went back home and on the way back the taxi driver told me he had the same problem and the main thing he said is to stop having fried foods and no fat. Rather vegetables --like a vegetable soup with beets, carrots, potatoes, water and salt and spice [what they call petrushka-- green leaves] but no oil.

David Bronson said something like that in relation to bread that causes the walls of the intestine to expand and makes it harder to digest food. I think David Bronson always has good advice but n this case I think it is too many fat molecules that cause the problem.

My basic impression of the idea of Reb Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Ethics is positive. But like all human systems it can be corrupted. Abuse does not cancel use. Abusus non tollit Usum.

There is something in fact not just about Musar [Ethics] but the emphasis of Musar from the  Middle Ages.


The most relevant questions in one's life are sometimes hard to define. What are the proper questions to ask in the first place. All the more so it is hard to find the proper answers. In older times people would go to some wise man. After the Reformation people would look into the Bible directly.
Also in old times people would try to find the answers in faith. After the Enlightenment people would look for the answers in Reason.

Since the Dark Side is so able to confuse and subvert even good answers to the proper questions, there does not seem to be any accurate guide or yardstick.


There are public questions and personal questions and sometimes they overlap. Still how can one find an answer that works and is accord with reason and faith and not be fooled by the Sitra Akra, the Dark Side?

The thing to do is not to prove or disprove a doctrine, but to ask what are the logical results. What are the results in the past as seen in people that follow that path.

Reason together with faith may not provide all the answers, but it is better than anything else out there. Musar Ethics of the Middle Ages provides the best ground for a synthesis between Reason and Faith and by doing so provides the best answers to human problems.

[What I am getting at is that the first thing is to learn the Books of Ethics from the Middle Ages staring from Obligations of the Heart. Then to go to post Rishonim books like מסילת ישרים.] 

בבא בתרא ע''ו ע''א

ר' יהודה הנשיא holds the opinion that a ship is acquired by מסירה. However ר' נתן holds by pulling.

אביי ורבא said מסירה works in a public domain and משיכה works as a mode of acquisition in an alley. My question is this. If we would go with ר' יהודה הנשיא then how could you ever acquire a ship in an alley?  And if we would be going with ר' נתן, then how could one ever acquire a ship in a public domain?  Now you have to limit the scope of this question. If the ר''י is right that משיכה works everywhere, then to ר' יהודה הנשיא how could you acquire a ship in an alley? If ר' תם is right that מסירה is more powerful then to ר' נתן how could you ever acquire a ship in a public domain? Now to some degree these questions are dealt with. The ראשונים say where one kind of mode is not possible, then you do the other kind. But then what is the point of saying how a ship is acquired at all?


ר' יהודה הנשיא מחזיק בדעה שספינה נקנית במסירה. אולם ר' נתן מחזיק  על ידי משיכה. אביי ורבא סוברים מסירה עובדת בתחום ציבורי ומשיכה עובדת כאופן רכישה בסמטה. השאלה שלי היא כזאת. אם היינו הולכים עם ר' יהודה הנשיא אז איך יכול אי פעם לרכוש ספינה בסמטה? ואם היינו הולכים עם ר' נתן, אז איך יכול אי פעם אחת לרכוש ספינה ברשות הציבור? עכשיו אתה צריך להגביל את היקף השאלה הזאת. אם הר''י נכון כי משיכה עובדת בכל מקום, אז אל ר' יהודה הנשיא איך אפשר לרכוש ספינה בסמטה? אם ר' תם נכון כי מסירה הוא יותר חזקה, אז לר' נתן איך אתה יכול בכלל לרכוש ספינה ברשות הציבור? עכשיו במידה מסוימת השאלות הן מטופלות. הראשונים סוברים היכן שסוג אחד של רכישה בלתי אפשרי, אז אתה עושה את הסוג השני. אבל אז מה הטעם לומר איך ספינה נקנית בכלל

Bava Batra 76a A question in the Gemara.

R.Yehuda Hanasi said a ship is acquired by handing over. R. Natan said by pulling.

Abyee and Rava said handing over works in a public domain and pulling works as a mode of acquisition in an alley.

The kind of obvious question David Bronson, my learning partner, would ask is if we would go with R Yehuda then how could you ever acquire a ship in an alley.  And if we would be going with R. Natan then how could one ever acquire a ship in a public domain? 

Now you have to limit the scope of this question. If the Ri is right that pulling works everywhere then to R Yehuda how could you acquire a ship in an alley?

If R. Tam is right that handing over is more powerful then to R Natan how could you ever acquire a ship in a public domain?

Now to some degree these questions are dealt with. The Rishonim say where one kind of mode is not possible then you do the other kind. But then what is the point of saying how a ship is acquired at all?

In answer to the question I raised yesterday about Tosphot in Bava Batra  page 76a.
What the Ri means to say is this: The Gemara puts the argument between R. Yehuda Hanasi and the sages in a public domain. But that leads to a problem in understanding the sages. We have to say that they mean pulling from a public domain into an alley because there is no kind of acquisition by pulling in a public domain. But if R. Tam would be right that handing over works in an alley then we could say the argument between R Yehuda Hanasi an the sages is simply in alley in the first place and that they are arguing about when the owner said Go and pull as we do say anyway later. This in no way disagrees with what the Gemara is trying to say now that there ought not to be an argument between R Yehuda Hanasi and the two sages R. Natan and the first opinion of R Natan. The Gemara was suggesting ספינה נמי תיקני במסירה, let the ship be acquired by handing over  means that instead of those two sages saying the ship is acquired by pulling let them agree with R Yehuda Hanasi that it is acquired by handing over.


_______________________________________________________________________
In answer to the question I raised yesterday about ר''י in תוספות בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א
What the ר''י means to say is this: The גמרא puts the argument between ר' יהודה הנשיא and the sages in a public domain. But that leads to a problem in understanding the חכמים. We have to say that they mean pulling from a public domain into an alley because there is no kind of acquisition by משיכה in a public domain. But if ר' תם would be right that מסירה works in an alley, then we could say the argument between ר' יהודה הנשיא and the sages is in an alley in the first place, and that they are arguing about when the owner said go and pull, as we do say anyway later (in a public domain) . This in no way disagrees with what the גמרא is trying to say now that there is no argument between ר' יהודה הנשיא and the two sages ר' נתן  and the first opinion of ר' נתן . The גמרא was suggesting ספינה נמי תיקני במסירה, let the ship be acquired by handing over  means that instead of those two sages saying the ship is acquired by pulling, Rather let them agree with ר' יהודה הנשיא that it is acquired by handing over.

_____________________________________________________________________________

בתשובה לשאלה שהרמתי על ר''י בתוספות בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א.  הר''י רוצה להגיד את זה: הגמרא מעמידה את הטיעון בין ר' יהודה הנשיא והחכמים בתוך מרחב ציבורי. אבל זה מוביל לבעיה בהבנת החכמים. אנחנו חייבים לומר כי הם מתכוונים למשוך מן מרחב הציבורי אל תוך סמטה כי אין סוג של רכישה על ידי משיכה בתוך מרחב ציבורי. אבל אם ר' תם יהיה תקין כי מסירה עובדת בסמטה, אז נוכל לומר הטיעון בין ר' יהודה הנשיא והחכמים הוא בסמטה מלכתחילה, וכי הם מתווכחים כאשר הבעלים אמרו ללכת למשוך (אם יש הקפדה), כפי שאנו אומרים בכל מקרה אחר כך (בתוך תחום ציבורי). זה בשום אופן לא חולק עם מה שהגמרא מנסה לשאול כעת למה יהיה ויכוח בין ר' יהודה הנשיא ושני החכמים ר' נתן ואת הדעה הראשונה של ר' נתן (התנא קמא). הם אמרו משיכה ור' יהודה אמר מסירה. למה יש ויכוח

Music for the glory of God

U-60 E Flat Major [u-60 in midi] [u60 nwc] U-61  [u61 in midi format]  u61 nwc

In the Torah the word adultery ניאוף is always used to refer to sex with a married woman as in Leviticus 20. It does not refer to sex outside of marriage. If it would mean sex outside of marriage then even the most righteous kings of Israel  would have been guilty of a crime that carries the death sentence.

Rather the issue of  a concubine--what today would be called a girl friend--is a totally different subject- a debate between rishonim. [Rambam is against it as is well known but not in the way that people think. See the חלקת מחוקק in אבן העזר. To the Rambam it is not זנות but an איסור עשה. To most other Rishonim like the Ramban and Raavad it is totally permitted. Besides the fact that the actual opinion of the Rambam himself is in doubt since the Ramban brings an older version of the Rambam.

The reason this is not well known is that in the New Testament the issue gets mixed up.

The attitude of Paul is  in the letters that are printed is against sex out of marriage, but in the Book of Tecla his attitude is any sex at all even in marriage causes one to lose their portion in the next world.

That is not to imply that sex outside of marriage is a good thing. Rather nowadays, marriage is not marriage. Marriage is no longer  a bond of souls, but a formal financial contract, money for sex. It has lost all semblance of a holy thing.

בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א

The ר''י has a question on ר''ת that to me seems hard to understand. The ר''י holds מסירה is less powerful than משיכה. However ר' תם holds מסירה over is more powerful. [If ר' ת''ם is right, then מסירה  works in an סימטא.. But the ר''י disagrees with that.] The question of the ר''י is based on the following גמרא. A ship is acquired by pulling and אותיות by מסירה. Then ר' נתן agrees with the ship but with a document he needs מסירה and write another document. The גמרא asks this question. Since the first opinion, the תנא קמא, goes like ר' יהודה הנשיא in letters, why does he not also say like ר' יהודה הנשיא by a ship?  For we learn that a ship is acquired by handing over these are the words of ר' יהודה הנשיא. The sages said by pulling. The גמרא answers, no problem. One case is a  רשות הרבים and the other a סימטא. Then the גמרא brings  אביי ורבא that said מסירה works in a  רשות הרבים and משיכה in an alley. Could it be there are going like ר' יהודה הנשיא instead of the חכמים? No. The חכמים agree in a  רשות הרבים one acquires by מסירה. But here they say one needs משיכה because the owner said to the buyer to go acquire the ship by pulling. The ר''י asks if ר' תם would be right, why does the גמרא answer the original question by saying one is in a רשות הרבים and the other in an סימטא? Why not say both are in an alley, but the argument is in a case when the owner said "Go pull". Does the buyer acquire only by pulling, or perhaps also by  handing over?  The question I have is this. The reason the גמרא said "one case is  a public domain and the other an alley" is so that the opinion of the the תנא קמא of ר' נתן would be the same as ר' יהודה הנשיא. That is it would be just one שיטה saying both statements. A ship is acquired by מסירה in a רשות הרבים and in an alley it is acquired by משיכה.  The גמרא was trying to get out of the idea that the first opinion the תנא קמא  would be different than ר' יהודה הנשיא so saying we could say they disagreed would defeat the entire purpose.

בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א
לר''י יש שאלה על ר''ת. השאלה נראית לי קשה להבין. הר''י מחזיק מסירה היא פחות חזקה מאשר משיכה. היינו מסירה היא אופן רכישה חלש ממשיכה. אולם ר' תם מחזיק מסירה היא יותר חזקה. [אם ר' תם נכון, אז מסירה עובדת בסימטא, אבל לר''י לא.] שאלת ר''י מבוססת על הנחות היסוד הבאות בגמרא. הוראה אחת אומרת ספינה נרכשת על ידי משיכה ואותיות על ידי מסירה. אז ר' נתן מסכים עם הספינה אבל עם מסמך הוא מצריך מסירה ולכתוב מסמך אחר. הגמרא שואלת את השאלה הזאת. מאז דעת הראשונה, תנא קמא, הולכת כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא באותיות, מדוע הוא אינו גם סובר כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא בספינה? שהרי אנו למדים כי ספינה נרכשת על ידי מסירה. אלה הם דבריו של ר' יהודה הנשיא. החכמים אמרו על ידי משיכה. גמרא עונה, אין בעיה. מקרה אחד הוא רשות הרבים והשני בסימטא. ואז גמרא מביאה אביי ורבא שסוברים מסירה עובדת בתוך רשות הרבים ומשיכה בסמטה. הייתכן שהם הולכים כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא במקום החכמים? לא, החכםים מסכימים בתוך רשות הרבים שאחד רוכש ידי מסירה. אבל כאן הם אומרים אחד צריך משיכה כי הבעלים אמרו לקונה ללכת לרכוש את הספינה על ידי משיכה. ר''י שואל אם ר' תם יהיה תקין, ומדוע הגמרא  ענתה על השאלה המקורית  ר' יהודה דיבר כשהספינה נמצאת ברשות הרבים והת''ק דר' נתן בסימטא? למה הגמרא לא ענתה שניהם נמצאים בסמטה, אך הטיעון הוא במקרה כאשר בעל הספינה דייק לומר לקונה "לך משוך". האם הקונה רוכש רק על ידי משיכה, או אולי גם על ידי מסירה? השאלה שיש לי היא זו. הסיבה שהגמרא אמרה "במקרה אחד הוא רשות הרבים והשני סמטה" היא כך כי דעתו של של תנא קמא ר' נתן תהיה זהה ר' יהודה הנשיא. כלומר זה יהיה רק ​​ שיטה אחת שאומרת שתי ההצהרות. ספינה נרכשת על ידי מסירה בתחום ציבורי ובסמטה היא נרכשת על ידי משיכה. הגמרא ניסתה לצאת מן הבעיה כי הדעה הראשונה (התנא קמא) תהיה שונה מאשר ר' יהודה נשיא. כך אם אנחנו יכולים לומר שהם לא מסכימים זה יסכל את המטרה כולה.
__________________________________________________________________________

Gemara Bava Batra 76-A

The Ri has a question on Rabainu Tam that to me seems hard to understand.
The Ri holds handing over is less powerful than pulling.  Rabainu Tam hold handing over is more powerful. [If R. Tam is right then handing over works in an alley.. But the Ri disagrees with that.]
The question of the Ri is based on the following Gemara.
A ship is acquired by pulling and letters by handing over. R.Natan agrees with the ship but with letters he needs to handover and write another document.
The Gemara asks that since the first opinion (the תנא קמא) goes like R. Yehuda Hanasi in letters why doe he not also say like R.Yehuda Hanasi by a ship?  For we learn that a Ship is acquired by handing over these are the words of Yehuda Hanasi. The sages said by pulling. The Gemara answers, "No problem. One is a public domain and the other an alley."
Abyee and Rava said: "Handing over works in a public domain, and pulling in a alley." Could it be there are going like R. Yehuda Hanasi instead of the sages? No. The sages agree in a public domain one acquires by handing over. But here they say one needs pulling because the owner said to the buyer to go acquire the ship by pulling.
The Ri askes if R.Tam would be right why does the Gemara answer the original question by saying one is in a public domain and the other in an alley? Why not say both are in an alley but the argument is if when the owner said go pull that the buyer must acquire by pulling, not handing over or not.

The question I have is this. The reason the Gemara said "one is  a public domain and the other an alley" is so that the opinion of the the תנא קמא of R.Natan would be the same as R. Yehuda Hanasi. That is it would be just one person saying both statements  a ship is acquired by pulling and a ship is acquired by handing over.  The Gemara was trying to get out of the idea that the first opinion the תנא קמא  would be different than R. Yehuda so saying we could say they disagreed would defeat the entire purpose.

U-59 D Minor

One has a certain amount of control on what groups to join. The general nature of those groups ought to be  a factor in such a decision.. Even if a group has nice sounding ideas, the thing to watch for is the general stereotype. If it is well known as having an over abundance of criminal types or insane people, then you ought to assume there is something behind that reputation.
[But if that is going to be the criterion of how to decide which group to join, that would leave relatively few groups that pass the test.]

[Litvak Yeshivas would probably be the top of the list in terms of good character. However this is not a fast and steady rule. My own  experience with Litvak yeshivas was mixed. In any case, there is a need to find and be part of a group that in fact has a bell curve above average in terms of traits like honesty dependability etc.]

When does the suggestion of a parent become a command that is included in כיבוד אב ואם {honor of one's father and mother}?

Is every suggestion to be included?

From Reb Naphtali Troup (חידושי הגרנ''ט) it certainly looks that when they give a command, that comes under the category of a מצוות עשה (positive command). But how far does this go?

One way of looking at this is by the בן סורר ומורה (the rebellious son) which is a subcategory of the general command of honor of one's parents.

Another way is to look at the events with Rav Masud Abuzeira and his eldest son Reb David. Rav David as a rule took honor of his parents very seriously but one day said a very slight word to his father lacking respect. He then went into exile for a month. But at any rate, from that event t is possible to learn that honor of one's parents is a very wide category to include not just things they say.

Even when parents are against things that are supposedly good things one ought to listen. They are against joining some group? Often groups present themselves as great things and parents might very well be right for being suspicious.

Exodus 23 has a few verses that look something like a mediator. That is to say some thing that does not look to be the way one usually understands Torah to be that one goes directly to G-d. There G-d says he will send an angel before Israel to guide them.And the verses go on beyond that to say one should not disobey the angel because G-d's name is in him.

Besides that I should mention there are many verses in Torah which are not exactly PC. Like the whole case of G-d wanting to kill Moses before he did circumcision on his son. The verses over there certainly do not look PC.

There are plenty of things in the Talmud also that are definitely not PC. Like the barber that gave the haircut to the king of Assyria that the Gemara says things about that do not seem very PC.

The way I generally deal with these kinds of issues is the idea of Kant-that reason  must not venture into the realm of the dinge an sich (things in themselves) as contradictions  inevitably follow.

[There were others who noticed this aspect of Kant and used it to defend faith. In particular you can see this in the Kant=Friesian school.]

To me it seems helpful that faith should be unconcerned with doctrines and more concerned with simply learning Torah and keeping it whether I understand it or not.
In any case, I should mention that non PC stuff comes up all the time in Torah and most of the time there seems to be no good explanation. 

decrees from the sages

There is a debate about decrees from the sages if once the reason for the decree has gone, if the decree itself is automatically null. This is an argument in the Gemara itself [Beiza page 5]. Tosphot takes it as a simple fact that the decree itself is null and so does the Raavad and most other rishonim.

The reason this is relevant is that for most decrees we know the reason for (as they are stated openly in the Gemara itself). In any case, the Rambam disagrees and hold the decree continues until another court of law can be convened to nullify the decree. However that is not the opinion of most Rishonim.

In fact, there is even a debate if there is any authority in the first place to make a decree which is not stated openly in the Torah, the  Law of Moses. This come up in the beginning of אבות דר' נתן which is a commentary on Tractate Avot by an Amora printed in the Vilna Shas at the end of Nezikim.

Besides that there is also the issue of ר' שמעון דורש טעמה דקרא {Shimon ben Yohai goes by the reason for the verse, not the letter of the law. This is actually how the Rambam decided in one place in Mishne Torah. In another place the Rambam decided like the sages that go by the letter of the law. The commentaries on the Rambam are at a loss how to deal with that, however the Avi Ezri answers the question quite well.] In any case I want to point out that Shimon ben Yohai is quite serious about going for the reason for  a verse as you can see in the case of a wealthy widow. He says a lender can take a pledge from her even though the verse openly says one can not do so. The reason is that he goes by the reason for the verse, not the letter of the law.

The Rambam does have an emphasis learning Physics and the Metaphysics. Learning דרך גירסא just saying the words and going on.

Even though the Rambam does have an emphasis learning Physics and the Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks, to me it seems better to learn these two subjects as they are understood today.
Even though the Rambam when he mentions this idea of learning these two things as understood by the ancient Greeks, and that learning these two things are included in what the sages said about מעשה מרכבה and מעשה בראשית [both brought down in the beginning of the book of the prophet יחזקאל Ezekiel], still the actual works of Aristotle on these two subjects look to be not as impressive as the Rambam must have thought they are.

The actual work on Physics of Aristotle seems to be a little antiquated. And besides that here I present a link to a criticism that resounds with sense.
Furthermore the actual Metaphysics of Aristotle also seems a bit antiquated. Not that the moderns have done much better. As for Metaphysics I have already mentioned my basic idea that Leonard Nelson got that basically right basing himself on Kant. [Outside of Nelson I think most of twentieth century Philosophy is unworthy to take up space in a trash can.] [Hegel has some very good points but does not seem all that logical or rigorous as some thought. Once you get past the jargon, it is hard to see much insight. In terms of political thought, I think the founding fathers of the USA were a lot more insightful--see the Federalist Papers.]

As for Physics, the best thing is to get up to String Theory which to me looks about as good as it gets.[That needs a little background in Quantum Field Theory--which in turn needs a drop of background about the harmonic oscillator.]

I ought to add that there is no reason to think the Gra disagreed with the Rambam in this.  His statement about the seven wisdoms shows this."To the degree that one lacks knowledge in the seven wisdom, he will lack knowledge in Torah a hundred fold."

My basic idea of how to do Physics is to say the words in order and no review until you have finished the entire book and then go back over the same book lots of times. This kind of learning is called "Girsa" and to me it makes a lot more sense than getting stuck on every detail and then getting frustrated and then dropping the whole thing. [See the Musar book אררחות צדיקים that goes into this in detail.]

The three  major points of the Gra were to learn Torah, to have trust in God (without effort), and the fact that he put his signature on the letter of excommunication.[note 1]
The founding of institutions to learn Torah was definitely not his "thing." And the time for that seems to have passed. [I am not the first person to notice this.] [note 2]

But the first three things seem to me to be vastly important.

[note 1] I think the Ran from Breslov is not to be considered in the category of the excommunication from the reading of the actual documents and letter that the Gra signed.
[note 2] There is a question if the Gra ever agreed with Reb Haim of Voloshin about this issue. And even though at that time it was "the need of the hour", nowadays the situation is different. It is hard to put my finger on the exact nature of the problem. My learning partner however put this issue succinctly: "They are private country clubs."   [That is to say the whole thing is usually "purchase by mistake." One is not getting what he paid for. In a מקח טעות buying something that turns out to be not what you expected it is not needed that the seller openly makes claims about his product as you can see in Bava Batra 92. It is enough that the buyer is known what he is buying for, If what he gets is different, then the deal is off, an he gets his money back. Some say also the money that is equal to the time and effort he spent. That is later on in the Gemara on around page 94.]


[In any case, to me the whole thing seems to be a subset of the general kind of thinking that was going on in Western Europe at the time. That more or less started with the Revolution in France and then extended  out to intellectual revolutions. The idea was to make movements and institutions all based on some new fashionable idea.    The overthrow of old systems got to be the "in thing."]

To obey one's parents is not considered a worthy thing to do.However that seems to be a mistake. There is one section in חידושי הגרנ''ט the book of Reb Naphtali Troup which goes into this and shows that to obey one's parents is a מצוות עשה positive commandment.

To obey one's parents is not considered a worthy thing to do. However that seems to be a mistake. There is one section in חידושי הגרנ''ט the book of Reb Naphtali Troup which goes into this and shows that to obey one's parents is a מצוות עשה positive commandment. The reason this is not obvious nowadays is that often one's parents are not very worthy. Still the issue seems to be ignored more than I would think to be proper. You can see this in Jeremiah 35 where the grandchildren of יונדב בו רכב Yonadav obeyed his order not to drink wine and were rewarded for that by an exceptional blessing.

The whole issue is gone into in the Tur {son of the Rosh, Rabbainu Asher}. 

The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view

The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view of the commandments. He even gives a few times the consequences they are supposed to bring to. This goes along well with the consequentialist theory of political authority. See this paper by Danny Frederick.  The reason that a state has authority does not need to be supported by philosophical arguments, (arguments that are often convoluted) . The reason is much more simple than that. The issue is not just human flourishing. The point is that no human good would be possible without a state.  We all would be subject to the most sadistic  kinds of criminals. Nothing we have, nor our very lives would be safe.

[The consequentialist view of the commandments is from the Gemara itself. There is an argument between  R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages if we go by the reasons for the commandments or by the letter of the law. R. Shimon Ben Yohai holds we go by the reason. But no one argues if we know the reasons or not. The Gemara assumes point blank that we know the reasons an the reasons are obvious but the question is if we use that reason in applying the law or if we go by the letter of the law. 

The argument for the state goes even for states that one does not agree with its laws.
All the more so states that are founded on objective principles of justice like the USA and Israel.


The argument against socialist states is stronger than most people imagine. The issue is not how to justify socialism but rather what are the logical results. Once it can be shown the results are not good then all other arguments for justifying  do not matter.
This argument holds for any system that claims superiority over the USA Constitution or the State of Israel. The question that matters is what are the logical results of any system?

carrying in one's pocket on the Sabbath Day

It might be a good idea to explain why I think carrying in one's pocket on the Sabbath Day is OK. To do that in a structured way.
The basic idea comes from the gemaras [Bava Batra 85] about acquisition. The question is if an object in the vessel of a person is thought to be in the domain of the person or the larger domain. There are differences if the vessel belongs to the seller or the buyer or to a third party. But the fact remains that the major question is if the object is considered to be in the larger domain or the bag. That is how the Rashbam explains it. Then the connection with Shabat comes from the Gemara that equates the two issues in Bava Batra 86.


The reason this is important is that a public domain does not seem to need 600,000. Even though Rashi and Tosphot both say that it does still it is hard to see how this could have been fulfilled in ancient Persia and the Gemaras in Shabat seem to treat the streets there as public domains.  

פ''ה in בבא בתרא

There seems to be a proof to carry in a כיס on the שבת is permitted.




This is because the גמרא in בבא בתאר says one who steals  a כיס on שבת and carries it out is obligated to pay back because the prohibition of שבת and theft happen at different times.
But if he drags it out, then he is not obligated. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה.
Now if the object in the כיס was considered different then that כיס itself then the two sins would be happening at different times. The object or money in the כיס would be considered to have been taken at one second in terms of laws of  שבת and the bag as far as acquisition would precede it.
So when the גמרא says the object in terms of acquisition goes with the bag then the same applies to שבת.
So when on שבת one is allowed to walk in a public domain with a pocket sewn into one's coat the object in the pocket is also considered to be in the pocket not in the public domain.
If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and שבת, then in fact carrying in a כיס would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a כיס might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a כיס that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
The  משנה says she is divorced but the גמרא puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the רשב''ם on page פ''ה in בבא בתרא does mention this question in terms of acquisition, whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought to be part of the person, not the domain. That is רב יהודה in the name of שמואל, and ריש לקיש.


The major point is the רשב''ם says the question of an object in a bag in terms of acquisition is if the object s thought to be in the bag or in the larger domain.

[This is important because a public domain does not seem to need 600,000.]


נראה שיש הוכחה שמותר לשאת בתוך כיס בשבת. הסיבה לכך היא הגמרא בבבא בתרא שאומרת שהגונב כיס בשבת מחויב להחזיר את הכסף משום איסור השבת והגניבה קורים בזמנים שונים. אבל אם הוא גורר אותו החוצה, ואז הוא אינו מחויב. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה. עכשיו אם אובייקט בכיס נחשב שונה מן הכיס עצמו אזי שני החטאים קורים בזמנים שונים.  הכסף בכיס יחשב גנוב שנייה אחת קודם מבחינת דיני שבת. אז כאשר הגמרא אומרת האובייקט במונחים של רכישה הולך עם הכיס אז כן הוא לגבי שבת. לכן, כאשר ביום שבת אחד מותר ללכת בתוך מרחב ציבורי עם כיס תפור לתוך המעיל כן האובייקט בכיס נחשב להיות בטל בכיס. אבל אם היית מחזיק חיבור ישיר בין רכישה לשבת, אז למעשה לשאת בתוך כיס לא יורשה בגלל כלי של לוקח אינו יכול לרכוש בתחום ציבורי. אבל כיס תפור בבגד יכול מאוד להיות טוב יותר מאשר שקית. המקרה של האיש שזורק גירושין לתוך השקית של אשתו מראה כי כיס מחובר עם הגוף של אישה הוא שונה משקית שהיא מחזיקה. המשנה אומרת שהיא גרושה, אבל הגמרא מכניסה כמה תנאים כמו שהתיק צריך להיות קשור אליה. 

carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath

There seems to be a proof that carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath is permitted.
This is because the Gemara in Bava Batra says one who steals  a pocket book on Shabat and carries it out is obligated to pay back because the prohibition of Shabat and theft happen at different times.
But if he drags it out, then he is not obligated. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה.
Now if the object in the bag was considered different then that bag itself then the two sins would be happening at different times. The object or money in the bag would be considered to have been taken in terms of Shabat and the bag as far as acquisition would precede it.
So when the Gemara says the object in terms of acquisition goes with the bag then the same applies to Shabat.
So when on Shabat one is allowed to walk in a public domain with a pocket sewn into one's coat the object in the pocket is also considered to be in the pocket not in the public domain.

I think this fact was note in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv when we were learning אלו מערות where the same mishna comes up.



If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and Shabat, then in fact carrying in a pocket would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a pocket might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a pocket that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
[The  Mishna says she is divorced but the Gemara puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the Rashbam on page 85 in Bava Batra does mention this question in terms of acquisition-- whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought part of the person -not the domain. [That is Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, and others.]

Gemara says what it means.

The way I look at the Gemara (i.e. Talmud) is that it says what it means. This is different than interpretations of charity--looking at it in the way that agrees with what one already thinks.

It did not occur to me to mention this until yesterday when I mentioned that the path of my parents is Reform.


So I thought today just to mention a few Gemaras that go along with this idea.
One would be the Gemara in Bava Batra [14b] that Moses wrote his book (that is Deuteronomy) , the Book of Job, and the parsha [section] of the Holy Torah that deals with Bileam. [משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב]  The simple way of understanding this is that that is all that he wrote. Not the rest of the Five Books of Moses. The Five Books were certainly Divinely inspired, but that does not mean that Moses {Moshe} wrote them. [There is a Gemara in the very first tractate of the Talmud that says that Moses wrote all Five Books, but that seems to disagree with the Gemara in Bava Batra. [The 13 principles of Faith then would be deciding like the other  Gemara].
[At any rate, the Gemara in Bava Batra can not mean that Moses wrote all Five Books because that would include the section on Bileam. It has to mean just "his book", ספר דברם Deuteronomy



The other very well known Gemara is in the end of Makot where the obligations of the commandments are lessened.  Rashi explains that if people would be required to keep all the commandments then no one would merit to the next world. Therefore the obligations were lessened down from 613 to one [faith]. It was a long process starting with King David and Isaiah.

Another lesser known example is the opinion of Hillel [the Amora] in the Gemara that the whole idea of a final redemption does not apply since we already had a final redemption in the days of King Hezekiah.

There are many more examples of where you can see that the Gemara is not "PC." It says lots of things which offend many people's sensibilities.

[The author of the regular commentary on the Guide for the Perplexed, Joseph Albo also wrote on the principles of faith in a separate book  where he disagrees with the Rambam about the actual principles. I vaguely recall that Rav Joseph Albo reduced the principle one must believe in down to six and I think Abravenal down to three.]

u37 u57 music files

U-37 D Major U-57 D Major in this last piece I used an idea you can find in the Middle Ages of let's say you have a major scale as the tonic and then you go down to C Major instead of the expected A Major. Its's also found in Irish Music. [here is U-57 in midi format so that the scores can be downloaded by who ever wants] both pieces need slurs that i neglected to put in.

The Rashbam explains there [Bava Batra 76b]

It might seem trivial but to me there seems to be another place where you can see that you do not need 600,000 people walking on a street to make it a public domain. That is the opinion of Yehuda HaNasi that a boat is acquired through מסירה [passing--not pulling] in a public domain. The Rashbam explains there [Bava Batra 76b] because pulling is not possible in a public domain like a רקק מים [a water-way].
Even though it is a perhaps over doing it to apply that to Shabat, still the implication seems clear. It is a water-way that ships can sail through. And on no water-way do 600,000 people walk every day.

[However pockets seem to me to be OK from the case of the divorce that is thrown into a woman's bag.  It is also the Rashbam there that says openly [pgs 85-86 ]that the issue over there is if an object in a bag is thought to be in the bag or in the domain. If the bag is tied or hanging on her it is thought to be in the bag, not the domain.] [I mean to carry things in one's pockets I think is OK on Shabat even in a public domain. There is nothing in tracate Shabat to suggest otherwise and the issue I addressed in Bava Batra in the sense of  acquisition.]

We were Reform Jews.

The way I was raised by my parents seems to have been very purposeful. I mean to say that I think their decisions where to live and where to send my brothers and me to school were with lots of thought and planning. At the time this also seemed to be the case.

So I want to jot down some of the basic details. We were Reform Jews. We had gone to a Reform school when we were in Newport Beach and later when we moved to Beverly Hills we went to Temple Israel of Hollywood.  The decision to move to Beverly Hills I think was largely influenced by the need to find a good high school for their children. Otherwise my parents could have moved closer to my Dad's place of work which was the TRW building where my Dad was working on laser communication between satellites.  [I am pretty sure his research was stolen by the KGB and ended up in the USSR. That was a well known event which ended up as a motion picture.]

In any case the Reform path I think was  very much a conscious decision. Not to be fanatic.

[However there were some aspects of Reform that my parents did not go with. Certainly the "Social Justice" thing was viewed with skepticism. And almost immediately after my bar mitzah we went to a Recontructionist person to do the bar mizvah of my younger brother. The actual views of my parents I think were closer to what today would be called Conservative. Faith in Torah was very important to them and also support of the State of Israel.]


I was encouraged to go into Physics and Math because I was showing a lot of interest in those subjects on my own. But I think that my parents saw a kind of numinous value in those subjects kind of the way I do nowadays. You can see this in the Rishonim [Medieval Authorities] that stem from the school of thought of Maimonides and the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart.
In any case the path of fanaticism was really very far away from the concept of my parents about the proper path in life.

That is a balanced path of values was what they were striving for. [To conceptualize this you could look at the Polynomic Theory of Value of Dr Kelley Ross which in turn is base on Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant.]

I have to admit that at the time I did not see how I could have gone into the hard sciences. The only way I was able to make progress in that direction was by the kind of learning I saw in a Musar book אורחות צדיקים  where he goes into the idea of learning fast--saying the words and going on.

Law of Moses

In the book of Ezra we see that bringing the proper sacrifices as taught in the Law of Moses was the first priority. Even before there was a building, people put up an altar and brought the sacrifices. Only later did they start to build the walls of Jerusalem and the buildings of the Temple.
The reason this is hard to do nowadays is the lack of a red cow. That lack means that one can not be made pure from the kind of uncleanliness that results by touching a dead body.
But this is simply remedied by genetic engineering. At that point one who has touched a dead body would have to be sprinkled on by the ashes of the red cow and go into a natural body of water.
[The issue with having touched a dead body s that one can not go into the Temple nor eat sacrifices. So the red cow is a requirement before anything can be done.]


The calendar also that is in use today would have to be scraped. It was invented by Meton in Athens and is not a Torah idea. Rather the Torah has the new moon being in fact on the day of the new moon--the conjunction.
In terms of the actual laws the best book to learn is the ערוך השלחן which was written by a very great sage. It is in fact one of the best books written by the אחרונים. The other great books of אחרונים are the Avi Ezri of Rav Shac and the Pnei Yehoshua.


[Different groups have claimed that sacrifices are no longer needed but I think it is clear from internal evidence in the Old Testament itself  that the obligation is even today.]

[In terms of who is  a priest who can offer sacrifices, I think Yemenite people have been careful to guard that information accurately.]

[Most Christians believe that sacrifices are not necessary however that seems based on misunderstandings. The basic way I understand the actual statements of Jesus is that he had no intention to nullify the Law of Moses. To me this seems obvious. However it is customary in Christian circles to claim the opposite. I even tried once or twice to argue this point and I not get very far.]

U58 music file

U-58 D Minor   [U-58 in midi]

a good way to argue for Kant and Plato in terms of there being two levels of reality

There is a good way to argue for Kant and Plato in terms of there being two levels of reality. The dinge an sich things in themselves and the level of phenomenon.

This you can see by the collapse of the wave function into just one state from many possible states.
So on that level there are no classical values of space or time until something is measured. This is like Kant that space and time are imposed by the subject. This also goes along with Plato that there is some higher realm of Ideas not dependent on objects or the classical world.

The other level of reality is the classical world where causality exists and is definitely local. This is seen in GPS satellites. [They have to be calibrated to account for Special Relativity and General Relativity both. The speed they go around the Earth makes them lose time. The fact they are far out from the gravitational center of the Earth means they go faster. In fact the effect of General Relativity is far stronger in this case than Special Relativity. The clocks on the satellites do go fast compare to earth. To get them to correspond they have to be slowed down.]
But there also is some connection between these two realms because the wave function also collapses when there is a thermal bath in the area of the quantum particle.   


[But this would not be the general way Kant was understood by what was called the Neo Kantian schools that denied the very existence of dinge an sich. The only way this would work would be the way that Leonard Nelson understood Kant--which was definitely not the main stream.]

[I should mention that not all schools of thought based on Leonard Nelson are equal. There seems to be  a lot of interest in England and Germany, but the major proponent is Dr Kelley Ross in California and he builds on Nelson, but also on others. ]

To be quite frank I have to say that Leonard Nelson seems a lot better than anything else being done in academia. For some reason people seem to be attracted to Heidegger and/or Marx for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with logical rigor or even the slightest possibility of validity.