18.5.18
false versions of the Truth. Slight deviations that are only barely perceivable,
There always have to be false versions of the Truth. Slight deviations that are only barely perceivable, but nonetheless cause the result to be the exact opposite of the results of following the Truth.
This is the real reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.
The point you can see in a fighter-craft. It takes only a slight readjustment to make the whole thing simply crash after takeoff. Seemingly slight mistakes in Torah also have led the entire religious world down the path of idolatry and only the Gra saw this before it happened.
This is the real reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.
The point you can see in a fighter-craft. It takes only a slight readjustment to make the whole thing simply crash after takeoff. Seemingly slight mistakes in Torah also have led the entire religious world down the path of idolatry and only the Gra saw this before it happened.
17.5.18
Obligations of the Heart. [Rav Behaye ben Yoseph Ibn Pakuda]
I am kind of trying to figure out something in the Obligations of the Heart. [Rav Behaye ben Yoseph Ibn Pakuda] He has ten categories of people that learn. The first ones are about learning the Old Testament. He divides them into a few subcategories (of levels of understanding). Then he gets up to the Mishna. So far everything goes smoothly.
Then he gets to the category of those that learn Talmud, and his first category is those that do it for honor, and not for its own sake.
There is no question that I stumbled on this my first time reading this book in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. And I stumbled on it again today.
But then he gets to the next category of those that learn Gemara for its own sake.
I am pretty sure almost anyone reading that passage is wondering exactly what I am wondering. Why specifically the Talmud? All the other kind of learning one can do also for the sake of honor or cash.
It is confusing.
If you take what he says in his introduction of Metaphysics this might become a bit more understandable.He takes Metaphysics [in the Intro] as important for the sake of Torah-but not being Torah itself. So he must be thinking along the lines of Saadia Gaon about the need for Metaphysics along with Gemara.
[You have to be exacting in his words in the Introduction to see this.]
When I was at the Mir and read the Musar Book of the disciple of the Gra Reb Haim from Voloshin [נפש החיים] I saw he was saying also this same kind of idea.--the need for fear of God along wit learning Gemara.
[Anyone who knows the major book of Reb Nahman from Breslov will already be familiar with this idea that there is a kind of tendency to learn Gemara for the wrong reasons--money, pay, privilege as he brings in Volume I section 12. The idea seems the same--to work on one's fear of God along with learning Gemara so that the learning should be for the right reasons.]
Then he gets to the category of those that learn Talmud, and his first category is those that do it for honor, and not for its own sake.
There is no question that I stumbled on this my first time reading this book in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. And I stumbled on it again today.
But then he gets to the next category of those that learn Gemara for its own sake.
I am pretty sure almost anyone reading that passage is wondering exactly what I am wondering. Why specifically the Talmud? All the other kind of learning one can do also for the sake of honor or cash.
It is confusing.
If you take what he says in his introduction of Metaphysics this might become a bit more understandable.He takes Metaphysics [in the Intro] as important for the sake of Torah-but not being Torah itself. So he must be thinking along the lines of Saadia Gaon about the need for Metaphysics along with Gemara.
[You have to be exacting in his words in the Introduction to see this.]
When I was at the Mir and read the Musar Book of the disciple of the Gra Reb Haim from Voloshin [נפש החיים] I saw he was saying also this same kind of idea.--the need for fear of God along wit learning Gemara.
[Anyone who knows the major book of Reb Nahman from Breslov will already be familiar with this idea that there is a kind of tendency to learn Gemara for the wrong reasons--money, pay, privilege as he brings in Volume I section 12. The idea seems the same--to work on one's fear of God along with learning Gemara so that the learning should be for the right reasons.]
16.5.18
Godel proof of God
I tried once to strengthen the Godel proof of God by the Compactness Theorem, the finite to the infinite. The simplest use of the Compactness Theorem is to show that if there exist arbitrarily large finite objects of some type, then there must also be an infinite object of this type.] The idea if applied to God means that he has infinite perfections.
This would defend Anselm and Godel from critics. Also I recall I used an idea from Anscombe about compatibility of positive traits --that is some possible world all positive traits are compatible. [I do not recall the source where I had seen that.]
This would defend Anselm and Godel from critics. Also I recall I used an idea from Anscombe about compatibility of positive traits --that is some possible world all positive traits are compatible. [I do not recall the source where I had seen that.]
the simple basic path of the Gra and the Mir Yeshiva
For me leaving the simple basic path of the Gra and the Mir Yeshiva was a disaster, but for some reason I was never able to get back to it. The path of Straight Torah.
But as the מעפילים לעלות [those that dared to go up when God said not to] discovered,- you can not just correct a mistake by doing the opposite.
[The event in the Five Books of Moses was after the decree to be in the desert 40 years, some people decided to attempt to enter Israel anyway. They figured the sin of the spies and the congregation was to refuse to go up into the land, so they would correct that mistake by in fact going up. That ended in disaster.]
Same with Torah. It might be a terrible mistake to leave the world of Straight Torah. [The Gra and the Mir in NY or whatever Litvak yeshiva one is in.] But it can be doubly a mistake to try to get back in once one has left.
The idea then is not to try to get back in, but to learn Torah and Musar at home. In fact, nowadays, it makes sense to avoid the religious world entirely.
But as the מעפילים לעלות [those that dared to go up when God said not to] discovered,- you can not just correct a mistake by doing the opposite.
[The event in the Five Books of Moses was after the decree to be in the desert 40 years, some people decided to attempt to enter Israel anyway. They figured the sin of the spies and the congregation was to refuse to go up into the land, so they would correct that mistake by in fact going up. That ended in disaster.]
Same with Torah. It might be a terrible mistake to leave the world of Straight Torah. [The Gra and the Mir in NY or whatever Litvak yeshiva one is in.] But it can be doubly a mistake to try to get back in once one has left.
The idea then is not to try to get back in, but to learn Torah and Musar at home. In fact, nowadays, it makes sense to avoid the religious world entirely.
discussing Socialism with a Mormon
I was once discussing Socialism with a Mormon whose profession was in economics. This was in regard to the USA during the 1920's and the 1930's.
I was being critical of Roosevelt's policies. [And I had recently been reading Ayn Rand.]
He said that sometimes -like in the case of Roosevelt--the only way to control a crisis is by socialism.
Even though on principle I hold free market is the best thing, still I can see in some cases where strong government control over industry is the only way out of a crisis.
I could see this in the case of Ukraine. All the functioning infrastructure is simply what was left over from the USSR. And though it took time for things to thaw out from the fear people had of the government,-- now all the old criminal tendencies of the Ukraine are rapidly coming to the surface.
It has signs of a country in collapse. Criminals attack people with impunity on the street in broad daylight. The police are nowhere to be found. [With all the problems with the USSR you can see what happens to the Ukraine without it--the criminal come out of the woodwork.]
I was being critical of Roosevelt's policies. [And I had recently been reading Ayn Rand.]
He said that sometimes -like in the case of Roosevelt--the only way to control a crisis is by socialism.
Even though on principle I hold free market is the best thing, still I can see in some cases where strong government control over industry is the only way out of a crisis.
I could see this in the case of Ukraine. All the functioning infrastructure is simply what was left over from the USSR. And though it took time for things to thaw out from the fear people had of the government,-- now all the old criminal tendencies of the Ukraine are rapidly coming to the surface.
It has signs of a country in collapse. Criminals attack people with impunity on the street in broad daylight. The police are nowhere to be found. [With all the problems with the USSR you can see what happens to the Ukraine without it--the criminal come out of the woodwork.]
15.5.18
Pretended Virtue. [Pseudo Virtue]
Nothing is quite as evil as pretended virtue.
I was looking at the Obligations of the Heart section 5. He says there the pretender worse than an idolater of stars. For the idolater worships that which does not disobey God, but the pretender worships human beings who do disobey God.
For that reason I avoid the religious world s much as possible. Ever since the religious world ignored the Gra and Rav Shahk (i.e. the signature of the Gra on the excommunication], they have all fallen deeply into idolatry of worship of human beings.
I would not be very motivated to bring this up except that I saw also in the Obligations of the Heart in the very end and also in the section before the last section this idea of telling people the truth whether they accept it or not.
I was looking at the Obligations of the Heart section 5. He says there the pretender worse than an idolater of stars. For the idolater worships that which does not disobey God, but the pretender worships human beings who do disobey God.
For that reason I avoid the religious world s much as possible. Ever since the religious world ignored the Gra and Rav Shahk (i.e. the signature of the Gra on the excommunication], they have all fallen deeply into idolatry of worship of human beings.
I would not be very motivated to bring this up except that I saw also in the Obligations of the Heart in the very end and also in the section before the last section this idea of telling people the truth whether they accept it or not.
14.5.18
In Shar Yashuv [my first yeshiva in NY, Far Rockaway]
In Shar Yashuv [my first yeshiva in NY, Far Rockaway] and also in the Mir Yeshiva in NY there was a general approach that said if you devote your life to learning Torah and trust in God, He will take care of everything.
Just last night I was reading the חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart] that more or less was saying a similar kind of thing. [The idea of the Obligations of the Heart is when one accepts the yoke of service towards God, then God takes care of things. Certainly not in the way you would expect--but still in his own way.]
This idea stuck with me. I still think it is true. I see very little reason to devote time toward making money. I still think that the claim is true--trust in God and you will be helped.
But my idea of what constitutes learning Torah has expanded to include Physics and Metaphysics.
That is the Physics thing is stated openly by Maimonides but this approach definitely think this is something that my parents were trying to convene to me without saying so openly.
You can see variations of this in the Gra, and מעלות המדות- Saadia Gaon, and חובות הלבבות
[Not saying the Ramban (Nahmanides- Moshe ben Nahman) would have agreed or many of the other Rishonim.]
The Obligations of the Heart divides wisdom into three parts natural, applied, and חכמת האלהות.{The author uses the Arabic term for "metaphysics"} Ibn Tibon calls the second division חכמת השימוש. So this is not what we would usually call the seven wisdoms. That is I think the Obligations of the Heart is creating a new category of wisdoms that use natural science in order to make practical stuff. [He must have been aware of Sancta Sofia.He might also have been thinking about medicine.]
At any rate, I am pretty sure that The Obligations of the Heart and Maimonides are both thinking of Aristotle's Metaphysics.
Christians obviously when they think about serving God are thinking more along lines of charity. But I think the same principle applies. You do you best to figure out what the service of God is for you in your situation and do it and then leave everything else in your life up to God.
People in the Mir yeshiva and Far Rockaway were certainly not thinking about Physics and Metaphysics as being a part of learning Torah because the entire approach to Torah really went into two directions. One the more rational Maimonides approach and the mystical approach of Nahmanides. The world of Litvak yeshivas definitely goes in the direction of Nahmanides.
I asked Rav Eliyahu Silverman the rosh yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu in Old City of Jerusalem (a yeshiva that goes by the Gra) if learning Electrical Engineering is included in the Rambam's idea of learning Physics and he said yes.
Just last night I was reading the חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart] that more or less was saying a similar kind of thing. [The idea of the Obligations of the Heart is when one accepts the yoke of service towards God, then God takes care of things. Certainly not in the way you would expect--but still in his own way.]
This idea stuck with me. I still think it is true. I see very little reason to devote time toward making money. I still think that the claim is true--trust in God and you will be helped.
But my idea of what constitutes learning Torah has expanded to include Physics and Metaphysics.
That is the Physics thing is stated openly by Maimonides but this approach definitely think this is something that my parents were trying to convene to me without saying so openly.
You can see variations of this in the Gra, and מעלות המדות- Saadia Gaon, and חובות הלבבות
[Not saying the Ramban (Nahmanides- Moshe ben Nahman) would have agreed or many of the other Rishonim.]
The Obligations of the Heart divides wisdom into three parts natural, applied, and חכמת האלהות.{The author uses the Arabic term for "metaphysics"} Ibn Tibon calls the second division חכמת השימוש. So this is not what we would usually call the seven wisdoms. That is I think the Obligations of the Heart is creating a new category of wisdoms that use natural science in order to make practical stuff. [He must have been aware of Sancta Sofia.He might also have been thinking about medicine.]
At any rate, I am pretty sure that The Obligations of the Heart and Maimonides are both thinking of Aristotle's Metaphysics.
Christians obviously when they think about serving God are thinking more along lines of charity. But I think the same principle applies. You do you best to figure out what the service of God is for you in your situation and do it and then leave everything else in your life up to God.
People in the Mir yeshiva and Far Rockaway were certainly not thinking about Physics and Metaphysics as being a part of learning Torah because the entire approach to Torah really went into two directions. One the more rational Maimonides approach and the mystical approach of Nahmanides. The world of Litvak yeshivas definitely goes in the direction of Nahmanides.
I asked Rav Eliyahu Silverman the rosh yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu in Old City of Jerusalem (a yeshiva that goes by the Gra) if learning Electrical Engineering is included in the Rambam's idea of learning Physics and he said yes.
10.5.18
סור מרע [turn way from evil] comes before עשה טוב [do good].
סור מרע [turn way from evil] comes before עשה טוב [do good]. The implication is that it is more important to identify actions to avoid, and only then to concentrate on figuring out what actions to hold onto.
I think this is probably not hard if one can think about his or her mistakes in life. If one can figure out what one's mistakes were, and then try to find the common denominator, that already gives a good idea of what kinds of actions one needs to avoid.
In my own life, I have found more or less a set of basic principles some of which came from my parents, some from the Mir in NY and Reb Shmuel Berenbaum. Some from Shar Yashuv. And others from experience. But they are like a ship and rudder and compass and other navigational aids in a stormy sea in which I really have no idea of what is coming.
I think this is probably not hard if one can think about his or her mistakes in life. If one can figure out what one's mistakes were, and then try to find the common denominator, that already gives a good idea of what kinds of actions one needs to avoid.
In my own life, I have found more or less a set of basic principles some of which came from my parents, some from the Mir in NY and Reb Shmuel Berenbaum. Some from Shar Yashuv. And others from experience. But they are like a ship and rudder and compass and other navigational aids in a stormy sea in which I really have no idea of what is coming.
Time exists.
I thought it was Kant who thought that time only exists on the level of phenomenon, not dinge an sich? In any case, I recall vaguely that thefact that Nature violates Bell's inequality shows that either locality is not true, or that things have no classical values until they interact with other things or are measured. Since locality is true as shown by GPS satellites, therefore things have no absolute values in space or time until they interact. But they have probabilistic values. That is the way I tend to look at this. But then if this is true, then time exists. Locality implies causes must come before effects.
I think also Dr Kelley Ross has an essay on time in which he mentions McTaggart.
[This was my thought after I saw an essay by Edward Fesser]
[I ought to mention that not just observation but also simple interaction with other stuff can cause a collapse of the wave function.]
I think also Dr Kelley Ross has an essay on time in which he mentions McTaggart.
[This was my thought after I saw an essay by Edward Fesser]
[I ought to mention that not just observation but also simple interaction with other stuff can cause a collapse of the wave function.]
9.5.18
the universe might be a stretched membrane
Just off hand it seems to me that the universe might be a stretched membrane. It could be that that is what String Theory is saying anyway. But to me it occurred that if the universe is a stretched membrane, that is space time continuum, that would account for the form of some partial differential equations that describe physical phenomenon that have variable coefficients.
This you can see in the stretched membrane over a drum. The PDE's that occur also have variable coefficients.
8.5.18
Learning what to avoid seems to be just as important as learning what to emphasize.
I think people have a general condition that precedes each sin. And another kind of precondition that is necessary before they do some good. It is not the same for each person.
This may sound speculative but to a large degree this can be seen in large groups where some particular kind of evil exits.
Thinking in analogies always has a kind of danger. We see this in Freud who took the analogy of a steam engine and applied it to people with sublimation of energy and letting off steam etc.
Still this idea of a person having a particular kind of stumbling block seems accurate to me.
We see also in good and great people that at some point they became aware of what areas they needed to concentrate on and what areas to avoid.
My thoughts on this are based somewhat on Thomas Reid, Hobhouse and also noticing in 2-d waves that every wave has a kind of equation in which there is a single coefficient for each terms.
So how can you tell what particular areas you need to concentrate on on?
You might have noticed that certain saints concentrated on not speaking slander, or lies, and the Gra concentrated on learning Torah. Navardok on trust. It is hard to know the areas one is weak in and what are one's strong points.
I have tried to develop an approach based somewhat on my parents and on principles I gained from being in the Mir in NY and also experience.
Learning what to avoid seems to be just as important as learning what to emphasize.
This may sound speculative but to a large degree this can be seen in large groups where some particular kind of evil exits.
Thinking in analogies always has a kind of danger. We see this in Freud who took the analogy of a steam engine and applied it to people with sublimation of energy and letting off steam etc.
Still this idea of a person having a particular kind of stumbling block seems accurate to me.
We see also in good and great people that at some point they became aware of what areas they needed to concentrate on and what areas to avoid.
My thoughts on this are based somewhat on Thomas Reid, Hobhouse and also noticing in 2-d waves that every wave has a kind of equation in which there is a single coefficient for each terms.
So how can you tell what particular areas you need to concentrate on on?
You might have noticed that certain saints concentrated on not speaking slander, or lies, and the Gra concentrated on learning Torah. Navardok on trust. It is hard to know the areas one is weak in and what are one's strong points.
I have tried to develop an approach based somewhat on my parents and on principles I gained from being in the Mir in NY and also experience.
Learning what to avoid seems to be just as important as learning what to emphasize.
7.5.18
I think the best approach to Israel is a combination of learning the Avi Ezri of Rav Shakh along with Physics and Math and a vocation. I mean to say that we can see that Israel is highly connected to the idea of Torah with Derek Ererz.[the way of the earth is the way matter acts by forces acting on it. This is the "hidden Torah" the Torah that is hidden in the world of Creation.]
Israel [as is well known from Rav Moshe ben Nahman [Nahmanides]] is very important. But there is a certain kind of combination of Torah along with the "way of the Earth" that staying in Israel seems to depend on..
[First blog entry in Israel]
I really do not mean just the Avi Ezri. Rather I am thinking of the whole approach starting with Reb Haim Solovietchik. That is basically the Litvak Yeshiva approach. However, I think along with that one ought to go serve in the IDF and learn a vocation so as not to be using Torah as a mode of making cash which to be forbidden according to the Torah itself.
Still, in terms of learning and understanding Torah ,I think Rav Shakh's Avi Ezri is the best thing out there. [However it does require a certain amount of background in Gemara.]
Israel [as is well known from Rav Moshe ben Nahman [Nahmanides]] is very important. But there is a certain kind of combination of Torah along with the "way of the Earth" that staying in Israel seems to depend on..
[First blog entry in Israel]
I really do not mean just the Avi Ezri. Rather I am thinking of the whole approach starting with Reb Haim Solovietchik. That is basically the Litvak Yeshiva approach. However, I think along with that one ought to go serve in the IDF and learn a vocation so as not to be using Torah as a mode of making cash which to be forbidden according to the Torah itself.
Still, in terms of learning and understanding Torah ,I think Rav Shakh's Avi Ezri is the best thing out there. [However it does require a certain amount of background in Gemara.]
5.5.18
In Torah, people are not gods nor become gods.
In the religious world there's a confusion of the boundary between the divine and the human that's common. [For this reason it is important not to go anywhere near religious areas.] It is also common in pagan religion. The confusion of the divine and human realm is at the basis of the pagan belief in apotheosis -- humans becoming gods; perhaps after death for example becoming immortal, or very often to become gods.
In Torah, people are not gods nor become gods.
This is in itself a good reason to pay heed to the warnings of the Gra.
In Torah, people are not gods nor become gods.
This is in itself a good reason to pay heed to the warnings of the Gra.
4.5.18
A second version of what Reb Israel Salanter started.
I suggest starting Musar Movement 2.01. [Musar means books of Ethics of certain sages of the Middle Ages.] That is a second version of what Reb Israel Salanter had started. Even though in many Litvak Yeshivas, Musar is learned in two short sessions, I feel they are too short and also do not take into account the world view issues that those same sages had written on.
For example one well known Musar book is the שמנה פרקים of the Rambam on Pirkei Avot. But for some reason his Guide for the Perplexed and the Musar books of his son and grandchildren are not learned--and not considered a part of Musar.
But I am not thinking about what books people want to learn as the big issue. The big issue is this: the original Musar yeshivas were really into it. They really spent a great deal of time and effort on correcting their traits and coming to Fear of God. It was (24/7) 24 hour seven days a week project.
[I do not have an opinion about the different schools of thought however. They all seem worthy of respect. However I had a particular like for the Musar approach of Navardok which emphasizes trust in God. Maybe the reason is that that is one area I am deficient in. ]
But even the very short time I was involved in learning Musar I must say it gave me encouragement in great directions. Correcting my own traits, getting to Israel, personal prayer, speaking the truth. I must say the amount that I gained from it in that short time was immeasurable.
[I mean to say it gave me motivation to not make excuses. Thus when I saw the commandment to get to Israel I took it seriously. "Israel or Bust" was the idea. ]
Musar also has a close connection with Rav Joseph Karo. The best way to learn Rav Karo's books on law I have generally found to be to learn the actual Gemara that the law is based on. Without that it is hard to get any clear idea of what he is saying.
A good example comes up in חושן משפט [circa 155] where Rav Karo goes with the opinion of the Ri MiGash and the Rambam and Ramban that placing something that can cause damage to a neighbor's wall can put put on the borer before there is a wall. But still this does not apply to היזק ריאה In terms of opening a window into a "חורבה" empty broken down building because of "maybe you will fight with me in court" . To see why both decisions are right you need to see the Gemara and Rav Shakh's Avi Ezri. Rav Shakh says that maybe you will fight with me in court is a good plea and a good reason to stop the fellow from opening a window because היזק ראיה already has a category of being a מזיק. But things that you can put next to a boundary when there is no wall do not have a category of being causes of damage until there is a wall built. Rav Shakh is saying that is the opinion of Rav Joseph Karo-. He suggest that Rav Karo derived this from the Ramban [M. Ben Nahman].
From that it looks like that to Rav Karo there would be חזקה for היזק ראיה. This actually came up once in my experience when one neighbor asked another to put up a wall even though the area had been open for years. . But I guess that the expenses would be shared in that case.
But in any case without learning the Gemara, I think it is impossible to understand what is going on there.[Rav Shakh answers that היזק ראיה is already a היזק before the place is rebuilt.]
For example one well known Musar book is the שמנה פרקים of the Rambam on Pirkei Avot. But for some reason his Guide for the Perplexed and the Musar books of his son and grandchildren are not learned--and not considered a part of Musar.
But I am not thinking about what books people want to learn as the big issue. The big issue is this: the original Musar yeshivas were really into it. They really spent a great deal of time and effort on correcting their traits and coming to Fear of God. It was (24/7) 24 hour seven days a week project.
[I do not have an opinion about the different schools of thought however. They all seem worthy of respect. However I had a particular like for the Musar approach of Navardok which emphasizes trust in God. Maybe the reason is that that is one area I am deficient in. ]
But even the very short time I was involved in learning Musar I must say it gave me encouragement in great directions. Correcting my own traits, getting to Israel, personal prayer, speaking the truth. I must say the amount that I gained from it in that short time was immeasurable.
[I mean to say it gave me motivation to not make excuses. Thus when I saw the commandment to get to Israel I took it seriously. "Israel or Bust" was the idea. ]
Musar also has a close connection with Rav Joseph Karo. The best way to learn Rav Karo's books on law I have generally found to be to learn the actual Gemara that the law is based on. Without that it is hard to get any clear idea of what he is saying.
A good example comes up in חושן משפט [circa 155] where Rav Karo goes with the opinion of the Ri MiGash and the Rambam and Ramban that placing something that can cause damage to a neighbor's wall can put put on the borer before there is a wall. But still this does not apply to היזק ריאה In terms of opening a window into a "חורבה" empty broken down building because of "maybe you will fight with me in court" . To see why both decisions are right you need to see the Gemara and Rav Shakh's Avi Ezri. Rav Shakh says that maybe you will fight with me in court is a good plea and a good reason to stop the fellow from opening a window because היזק ראיה already has a category of being a מזיק. But things that you can put next to a boundary when there is no wall do not have a category of being causes of damage until there is a wall built. Rav Shakh is saying that is the opinion of Rav Joseph Karo-. He suggest that Rav Karo derived this from the Ramban [M. Ben Nahman].
From that it looks like that to Rav Karo there would be חזקה for היזק ראיה. This actually came up once in my experience when one neighbor asked another to put up a wall even though the area had been open for years. . But I guess that the expenses would be shared in that case.
But in any case without learning the Gemara, I think it is impossible to understand what is going on there.[Rav Shakh answers that היזק ראיה is already a היזק before the place is rebuilt.]
Best idea is to avoid spiritual stuff, philosophy, politics.
When people are extra sensitive to spiritual values that implies an extra ability to absorb wrong energies also. This idea is more or less based on Kelley Ross of the Kant/Fries philosophy.
At any rate, the idea is once one is sensitive to one area of value, that can deteriorate into it opposite area of value.
This shows why Litvak yeshivas like Shar Yashuv or the Mir in NY tend to discourage and over amount of interest in spiritual values.
So people that are aware of the delusions in the spiritual side of things then often go off into Philosophy or Politics to find meaning. Both of which are dead ends.
Best idea is to avoid spiritual stuff, philosophy, politics.
[In politics I favor free market and freedom as practiced in the USA and Israel. But I also realize the need for the USSR --the kind of Hegelian stat that is needed in extreme cases. After the fall of the USSR all those same problems are beginning to rise again very fast.]
At any rate, the idea is once one is sensitive to one area of value, that can deteriorate into it opposite area of value.
This shows why Litvak yeshivas like Shar Yashuv or the Mir in NY tend to discourage and over amount of interest in spiritual values.
So people that are aware of the delusions in the spiritual side of things then often go off into Philosophy or Politics to find meaning. Both of which are dead ends.
Best idea is to avoid spiritual stuff, philosophy, politics.
[In politics I favor free market and freedom as practiced in the USA and Israel. But I also realize the need for the USSR --the kind of Hegelian stat that is needed in extreme cases. After the fall of the USSR all those same problems are beginning to rise again very fast.]
I see in Vietnam they brew the coffee for a few minutes in a sock. See this website: https://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/
However I just put the coffee grains and tea grains directly into the pot. [both coffee and tea together. later in the day to put in green tea also.]
In any case I heard in fact from my mother in law Rita Finn to have to coffee simmer for at least 30 seconds in order to get the strength out it.
I saw the drip idea but that did not make any sense to me.
The main thing about coffee is to get it into the pot itself. None of the drip nonsense.
In any case I heard in fact from my mother in law Rita Finn to have to coffee simmer for at least 30 seconds in order to get the strength out it.
I saw the drip idea but that did not make any sense to me.
The main thing about coffee is to get it into the pot itself. None of the drip nonsense.
There are different kinds of diversity.
To me it seems that President Trump is getting things back on track. Not just that but also there is a significant fact that a lots of Americans voted for him. That seems to suggest that Western Civilization is not lost.
"The squabbling is mainly over diversity. Diversity was the catalyst for the creation of leftist thinking - motivation is hatred of the white race." Missey
I think: There are different kinds of diversity. One kind brings everything up. The other kind brings everything down.
Therefore it is impossible to say diversity is good. Everything depends on who is diverse.
"The squabbling is mainly over diversity. Diversity was the catalyst for the creation of leftist thinking - motivation is hatred of the white race." Missey
I think: There are different kinds of diversity. One kind brings everything up. The other kind brings everything down.
Therefore it is impossible to say diversity is good. Everything depends on who is diverse.
3.5.18
Musar would perhaps have been a good idea.]
The way to learn Torah that I was taught in Shar Yashuv [Far Rockaway, NY] was to not spend time on introductions. Rather the approach was to get into Gemara and Tosphot.
That approach apparently helped me a few year later when I was accepted at the Mir in NY.
This went against the grain and desire of most of the new students that were more interested in introductory material.
My impression is that that approach [of Shar Yashuv] was correct. And that is what I think applies to anyone.
The degree this was taken in Shar Yashuv was in fact even more Litvak than most other Litvak places in that they did not learn Musar. And there was a general disapproval of signs of overt devoutness.
[Looking back however I think a drop of Musar would perhaps have been a good idea.]
That approach apparently helped me a few year later when I was accepted at the Mir in NY.
This went against the grain and desire of most of the new students that were more interested in introductory material.
My impression is that that approach [of Shar Yashuv] was correct. And that is what I think applies to anyone.
The degree this was taken in Shar Yashuv was in fact even more Litvak than most other Litvak places in that they did not learn Musar. And there was a general disapproval of signs of overt devoutness.
[Looking back however I think a drop of Musar would perhaps have been a good idea.]
2.5.18
State of Israel
My original idea of coming to Israel was based on the Ramban--[Rav Moshe ben Nahman]. He counts settling in the Land of Israel as a positive commandment. That means an obligation.
The importance of settling in Israel is also brought by the Rambam.
The question that was not clear at the time was: how does one look at the State of Israel? I had not really looked at the question at all. There is also the point that many people have made about the establishment of the State is what is called "The beginning of the Redemption." And that seems perfectly valid to me.
[The idea of the "Beginning of the Redemption" has to do with the coming of a new level of consciousness into the world.]
But the political aspect seems to have been needed in order to have a state at all. One can over-do the importance of a state as Hegel does. But you can also under-do its importance.
One can list the abuses of a Hegelian state as was the USSR, but also not notice that without the USSR there were also terrible abuses that the USSR came to correct.
Same with the State of Israel. All human good and flourishing requires a state. Without a strong state, everyone would be easy prey to criminals.
The kind of state that Israel is now is now closer to the USA form of government.
[In any case, I am not in Israel now, but I feel that if God would have mercy on me and help me to get there again, I would like to never leave there again.]
[In one house where Jews were staying in the time of the last czar, they had made a tunnel under their house--a mile long and reinforced with bricks. That is how terrified they were.]
It seems to me that the whole question is can I gain enough appreciation to decide to get to Israel and stay there once and for all and never leave again.
The importance of settling in Israel is also brought by the Rambam.
The question that was not clear at the time was: how does one look at the State of Israel? I had not really looked at the question at all. There is also the point that many people have made about the establishment of the State is what is called "The beginning of the Redemption." And that seems perfectly valid to me.
[The idea of the "Beginning of the Redemption" has to do with the coming of a new level of consciousness into the world.]
But the political aspect seems to have been needed in order to have a state at all. One can over-do the importance of a state as Hegel does. But you can also under-do its importance.
One can list the abuses of a Hegelian state as was the USSR, but also not notice that without the USSR there were also terrible abuses that the USSR came to correct.
Same with the State of Israel. All human good and flourishing requires a state. Without a strong state, everyone would be easy prey to criminals.
The kind of state that Israel is now is now closer to the USA form of government.
[In any case, I am not in Israel now, but I feel that if God would have mercy on me and help me to get there again, I would like to never leave there again.]
[In one house where Jews were staying in the time of the last czar, they had made a tunnel under their house--a mile long and reinforced with bricks. That is how terrified they were.]
It seems to me that the whole question is can I gain enough appreciation to decide to get to Israel and stay there once and for all and never leave again.
1.5.18
music for the glory of God
U-100 E Flat Major This is a midi file You might notice the quarter and then an eight. I would not use this idea unless I had seen it in the Renaissance. [I saw this idea in two pieces from the Renaissance.]
[Again I have to apologize that I can not turn this to mp3 ]
V-1 a Midi File
V-2
V-3
[Again I have to apologize that I can not turn this to mp3 ]
V-1 a Midi File
V-2
V-3
learning Torah and good deeds
Between Everyman and Musar there are many of the same points. No one is disagreeing that one's portion in the next world depends on good deeds. However Everyman does not think knowledge goes with one to the next world.
[What defines good deeds however is all too clear. When people want to know the right thing to do, the answer is usually clear. If not, there is an idea of asking God directly for guidance.]
In Musar however learning Torah [i.e. Gemara in depth and Musar] have a value beyond the grave.
Furthermore you can see in medieval Musar that gaining wisdom all and in itself is part of good deeds. In fact, in the Yerushalmi Gemara it is considered that every single word of Torah is equal to all the commandments.
And wisdom in itself is considered a separate category than learning Torah. You can easily miss this point in most Musar books unless you are looking for it. But in מעלות המידות it is explicit.
Also as is well known in Litvak Yeshivas in NY there is the whole subject of לשון הרע כנגד כולם -that slander nullifies all of one's good deeds.
[However this emphasis on not speaking slander seems to be mainly in Musar Litvak Yeshivas. I mean there are Litvak yeshivas which do not emphasize Musar;- and not speaking slander is not thought to be a major subject. In fact, that is a good argument all by itself to have Musar in yeshivas.]
[What defines good deeds however is all too clear. When people want to know the right thing to do, the answer is usually clear. If not, there is an idea of asking God directly for guidance.]
In Musar however learning Torah [i.e. Gemara in depth and Musar] have a value beyond the grave.
Furthermore you can see in medieval Musar that gaining wisdom all and in itself is part of good deeds. In fact, in the Yerushalmi Gemara it is considered that every single word of Torah is equal to all the commandments.
And wisdom in itself is considered a separate category than learning Torah. You can easily miss this point in most Musar books unless you are looking for it. But in מעלות המידות it is explicit.
Also as is well known in Litvak Yeshivas in NY there is the whole subject of לשון הרע כנגד כולם -that slander nullifies all of one's good deeds.
[However this emphasis on not speaking slander seems to be mainly in Musar Litvak Yeshivas. I mean there are Litvak yeshivas which do not emphasize Musar;- and not speaking slander is not thought to be a major subject. In fact, that is a good argument all by itself to have Musar in yeshivas.]
30.4.18
Everyman will one day have to give an account of his life.
The world to come does not get enough press. You can go through your whole day and not think about it once. You and I can completely forget about it as if it was completely irrelevant.
The trouble is that it is not clear upon what it depends.
A play from the Middle Ages brings out the urgency of the issue.
God calls to Death and Death comes and declares:
''Lord, I will in the world go run over all, And cruelly out-search both great and small; Every man will I beset that liveth beastly, Against God's laws, and dreadeth not folly: He that loveth riches I will strike with my dart, His sight to blind, and from heaven to depart, Except that alms be his good friend, In hell for to dwell, world without end.''
Everyman says: "Though I be a sinner most abominable, Yet let my name be written in Moses' table"
And he adds: "For fair promises men to me make; But, when I have most need, they me forsake"
But nowadays it seems largely forgotten.
To some degree I imagine I was always aware that I will one day have to give an accounting. But when I first began to think more seriously about it was when I read the Musar book (אור ישראל) of a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter [Isaac Blazer].
So upon what does the next world depend? Good Deeds. Acts of kindness.
The trouble is that it is not clear upon what it depends.
A play from the Middle Ages brings out the urgency of the issue.
God calls to Death and Death comes and declares:
''Lord, I will in the world go run over all, And cruelly out-search both great and small; Every man will I beset that liveth beastly, Against God's laws, and dreadeth not folly: He that loveth riches I will strike with my dart, His sight to blind, and from heaven to depart, Except that alms be his good friend, In hell for to dwell, world without end.''
Everyman says: "Though I be a sinner most abominable, Yet let my name be written in Moses' table"
And he adds: "For fair promises men to me make; But, when I have most need, they me forsake"
But nowadays it seems largely forgotten.
To some degree I imagine I was always aware that I will one day have to give an accounting. But when I first began to think more seriously about it was when I read the Musar book (אור ישראל) of a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter [Isaac Blazer].
So upon what does the next world depend? Good Deeds. Acts of kindness.
Temple Mount. In terms of law I generally think it is OK to depend on any opinion in the rishonim
I am not sure why the Ramban [M. ben Nahman] [not the Rambam] is ignored when it comes to the question of entering into the area of the Temple [in Yerushalaim]. His opinion is stated in tracate Avoda Zara 52b.
It comes up concerning the subject of holiness of body קדושת הגוף. That is there are things like a sacrifice that can not become חולין secular. There are other things that become secular if one puts money in their place. An example is if one puts aside his lot or some object for the use of the Temple. That can go out to be secular if one put money in its place. The question over there is the altar. It is there that the Ramban states his opinion that the Temple itself went out to be secular.
[Thus the people that go up to the Temple Mount at least have the Ramban to depend on. I vaguely recall the Raavad has a similar opinion.]
[Years ago I was definitely aware of the Raavad but not the Ramban.]
In terms of law I generally think it is OK to depend on any opinion in the rishonim.
It comes up concerning the subject of holiness of body קדושת הגוף. That is there are things like a sacrifice that can not become חולין secular. There are other things that become secular if one puts money in their place. An example is if one puts aside his lot or some object for the use of the Temple. That can go out to be secular if one put money in its place. The question over there is the altar. It is there that the Ramban states his opinion that the Temple itself went out to be secular.
[Thus the people that go up to the Temple Mount at least have the Ramban to depend on. I vaguely recall the Raavad has a similar opinion.]
[Years ago I was definitely aware of the Raavad but not the Ramban.]
In terms of law I generally think it is OK to depend on any opinion in the rishonim.
interpretations of the New Testament
There are many interpretations of the New Testament. So I might be excused if I suggest my own.
My idea is to some degree based on the Rav Isaac Luria. And some have suggested it beforehand. A "tzadik" [saint]. But not an average tzadik [saint]. What do I mean "not average." In the Rav Isaac Luria you find certain tzadikim [saints] have a high source for their soul. For example Abraham the Patriarch in Kindness of Emanation.
[It would be going too far to suggest this on my own without any support. So I bring as support the Ari himself and also Rav Avraham Abulafia.]
The Rav Isaac Luria himself did not write much. What we have from him is from Reb Haim Vital. Rav Vital has about three books in which he writes the ideas of the Rav Isaac Luria on the Five Books of Moses. In the end of Genesis in all three books he hints to this idea.
Also Rav Abulafia deals with this in scattered places. [If you piece it all together the picture that comes out is clear.] ]
My basic idea is based on an idea of the Rav Isaac Luria that after the "breaking of the vessels" and the period of correction began, the light of foundation was contained in the vessel of kindness of Emanation.
[For some background, I might mention that the Rashba was very much not in favor of Rav Abulafia. But I think Rav Abulafia can be depended on as Rav Vital does bring his unifications in the end of his Musar book Gates of Holiness. [I.e. in volume four].] [Also you can find his books quoted in the Pardes.]
I might add that "son of man" ought to refer to the son of zeir anpin זעיר אנפין.
My idea is to some degree based on the Rav Isaac Luria. And some have suggested it beforehand. A "tzadik" [saint]. But not an average tzadik [saint]. What do I mean "not average." In the Rav Isaac Luria you find certain tzadikim [saints] have a high source for their soul. For example Abraham the Patriarch in Kindness of Emanation.
[It would be going too far to suggest this on my own without any support. So I bring as support the Ari himself and also Rav Avraham Abulafia.]
The Rav Isaac Luria himself did not write much. What we have from him is from Reb Haim Vital. Rav Vital has about three books in which he writes the ideas of the Rav Isaac Luria on the Five Books of Moses. In the end of Genesis in all three books he hints to this idea.
Also Rav Abulafia deals with this in scattered places. [If you piece it all together the picture that comes out is clear.] ]
My basic idea is based on an idea of the Rav Isaac Luria that after the "breaking of the vessels" and the period of correction began, the light of foundation was contained in the vessel of kindness of Emanation.
[For some background, I might mention that the Rashba was very much not in favor of Rav Abulafia. But I think Rav Abulafia can be depended on as Rav Vital does bring his unifications in the end of his Musar book Gates of Holiness. [I.e. in volume four].] [Also you can find his books quoted in the Pardes.]
I might add that "son of man" ought to refer to the son of zeir anpin זעיר אנפין.
29.4.18
u99 music file
U-99 F major Midi file [I can not convert to MP3 anymore. Sorry. If you can do it yourself this would be for strings, horns, flute, timpani.] In general the last part in most pieces are for strings on top with timpani. the timpani is usually saved for this last part. the beginning sections can be for flute, oboe or french horns. but since i am not writing any more music i do not know how i might have put this in orchestra form --but i just want togive some hints to how it might be done.
Rav Shach [of Ponoviz]
Rav Shach [of Ponoviz] points [in the Avi Ezri] out that there are a lot of crazy world views flying around that are just waiting and hoping to grab young people. And he suggests that the only advice to be protected from them is by learning a lot of Torah.
So what would he say about the four fold program of the Rambam to learn the (1) Written Law, (2) Oral Law (3) Physics (4) Metaphysics?
I heard that Rav Shach held that people ought to simply sit and learn Torah until marriage, and only after marriage to worry about making a living. But that was not exactly what the Rambam was thinking about. The interest of the Rambam in Physics and Metaphysics had nothing to do with making a living. [In any case, I would have to say that Metaphysics nowadays is not exactly what the Rambam was thinking about. To me it seems clear he meant Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus. The Rambam's interest in these two subjects were because he held by learning them one fulfills the commandments to love and fear God.]
I should mention that because of personal failings in my own traits, I did not "make it" [be successful] in the yeshiva world. These are the same traits that indicated to Reb Freifeld of Shar Yashuv that I was really not a good prospect for his daughter. Even so, from afar off, I can see the greatness of siting and learning Torah -- even though I am far from it myself. So if God grants to me even a minute or a second or just one word of learning Torah, I value it about rubies.
So what would he say about the four fold program of the Rambam to learn the (1) Written Law, (2) Oral Law (3) Physics (4) Metaphysics?
I heard that Rav Shach held that people ought to simply sit and learn Torah until marriage, and only after marriage to worry about making a living. But that was not exactly what the Rambam was thinking about. The interest of the Rambam in Physics and Metaphysics had nothing to do with making a living. [In any case, I would have to say that Metaphysics nowadays is not exactly what the Rambam was thinking about. To me it seems clear he meant Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus. The Rambam's interest in these two subjects were because he held by learning them one fulfills the commandments to love and fear God.]
I should mention that because of personal failings in my own traits, I did not "make it" [be successful] in the yeshiva world. These are the same traits that indicated to Reb Freifeld of Shar Yashuv that I was really not a good prospect for his daughter. Even so, from afar off, I can see the greatness of siting and learning Torah -- even though I am far from it myself. So if God grants to me even a minute or a second or just one word of learning Torah, I value it about rubies.
28.4.18
27.4.18
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.
We do not just know about our (1) sensations or know things by (2) deductive logical reasoning. It does not take a genius to figure out that pain is not the same thing or the same kind of thing as the point of a sword.
Thus Idealism Berkley is a non starter.
What seems to me is that after Descartes, the system of Aristotle about the mind and sensations fell because of lack of credibility. It was hard to know what to replace it with.
At the same time Aristotle was falling in terms of some areas, the Reformation took place.
The Reformation did create a vacuum that was just begging to be filled.
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.
[Thomas Reid did a good job in showing the fallacies of idealism. Hobhouse did a nice job in demolishing the socialist state. But I would not have paid much attention to either writer if I thought there was much good anyway in Idealism or Socialism.]
Allen Bloom dealt with this issue [what is human nature and its connection to politics] to some degree in his book the Closing of the American Mind. I think he was saying the the Enlightenment with its faulty understanding of human nature brought the world to what it is now,
Thus Idealism Berkley is a non starter.
What seems to me is that after Descartes, the system of Aristotle about the mind and sensations fell because of lack of credibility. It was hard to know what to replace it with.
At the same time Aristotle was falling in terms of some areas, the Reformation took place.
The Reformation did create a vacuum that was just begging to be filled.
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.
[Thomas Reid did a good job in showing the fallacies of idealism. Hobhouse did a nice job in demolishing the socialist state. But I would not have paid much attention to either writer if I thought there was much good anyway in Idealism or Socialism.]
Allen Bloom dealt with this issue [what is human nature and its connection to politics] to some degree in his book the Closing of the American Mind. I think he was saying the the Enlightenment with its faulty understanding of human nature brought the world to what it is now,
You don't always belong where you think you belong.
A priest in the Temple in Jerusalem has certain jobs that only a priest can do. A Levi has other kinds of jobs that only a Levi is allowed to do, E.g. singing, playing instruments, opening the gates, etc.
But a Levi who does the job of a priest there is no doubt. The punishment is death by heaven.
[הלכות כלי המקדש ג:י] To Abyee even a levi who helps another levi is also punished with death from heaven.
From this it is possible to learn that often a person has a certain place in the world and a certain kind of work that only he should do. It can happen for example that a person loves learning Torah --as all people ought. Still he might not really find his place in the Mir in NY or Ponoviz in Israel. Everyone has their own place that they need to find.
Sometimes a person's place is in the IDF. sometimes it is in Ponoviz or the Mir. You don't always belong where you think you belong.
The American Indians had something called a "vision quest" where one goes out to find their real place in the world.
Sometimes a person's place is in the IDF. sometimes it is in Ponoviz or the Mir. You don't always belong where you think you belong.
The American Indians had something called a "vision quest" where one goes out to find their real place in the world.
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשך איכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
The גמרא writes if there is interest on a loan there is also profit to the lender. The reason is this. If the lender gave a loan of hundred for a hundred and twenty and in the end they are worth the same amount, then if you go by the beginning, there are both נשך and profit. If you go by the end, then there is neither one. If the loan was a hundred for a hundred, and the value of the last hundred increased, then if we go by the beginning, there is no נשך nor profit. If we go by the end, there are both.
רב שך זצ''ל writes אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירות' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן
I think the answer to this is that we do not go by the end. If we would go by the end then in fact משכנתא בלא נכייתא would be דאורייתא. But we go by the beginning. This is similar to the last case of the גמרא. The last hundred went up in value, and yet there is no נשך דאורייתא if we go by the beginning. The law of משכנתא בלא נכייתא is different because the lender gave the field על מנת שיאכל פירות, but since the fruit will not come automatically, there remains a doubt if there will be any fruit. So it is only אבק רבית
[I admit that I still have to think about this to be certain that this would answer Rav Shakh's question.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשךאיכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
הגמרא כותבת אם יש ריבית על הלוואה קיימת גם רווח למלווה. הסיבה היא זו. אם המלווה נתן הלוואה של מאה על מאה ועשרים ובסופו של דבר הם שווים את אותה כמות, אז אם אתה הולך כפי ההתחלה, ישנם שניהם, נשך ורווח. אם אתה הולך כפי הסוף, אז אין אף אחד. אם ההלוואה הייתה מאה על מאה, ואת הערך של המאה גדל, אז אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, אין נשך ולא רווח. אם נלך לפי הסוף, ישנם שניהם. רב שך זצ''ל כותב אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירותי' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור. וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן. אני חושב שהתשובה לכך היא שאנחנו לא הולכים כפי הסוף. אם היינו הולכים כפי הסוף אז למעשה משכנתא בלא נכייתא תהיה דאורייתא. אבל הולכים לפי ההתחלה. זה דומה למקרה האחרון של הגמרא שהמאה עלו בערך, ובכל זאת אין נשך דאורייתא בגלל שהולכים לפי ההתחלה. החוק של משכנתא בלא נכייתא שונה כי המלווה נתן את השדה על מנת שיאכל פירות, אבל מאז שהפרי לא יגיע באופן אוטומטי, נותר ספק אם יהיה כל פרי. אז זה רק אבק רבית
The גמרא writes if there is interest on a loan there is also profit to the lender. The reason is this. If the lender gave a loan of hundred for a hundred and twenty and in the end they are worth the same amount, then if you go by the beginning, there are both נשך and profit. If you go by the end, then there is neither one. If the loan was a hundred for a hundred, and the value of the last hundred increased, then if we go by the beginning, there is no נשך nor profit. If we go by the end, there are both.
רב שך זצ''ל writes אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירות' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן
I think the answer to this is that we do not go by the end. If we would go by the end then in fact משכנתא בלא נכייתא would be דאורייתא. But we go by the beginning. This is similar to the last case of the גמרא. The last hundred went up in value, and yet there is no נשך דאורייתא if we go by the beginning. The law of משכנתא בלא נכייתא is different because the lender gave the field על מנת שיאכל פירות, but since the fruit will not come automatically, there remains a doubt if there will be any fruit. So it is only אבק רבית
[I admit that I still have to think about this to be certain that this would answer Rav Shakh's question.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשךאיכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
הגמרא כותבת אם יש ריבית על הלוואה קיימת גם רווח למלווה. הסיבה היא זו. אם המלווה נתן הלוואה של מאה על מאה ועשרים ובסופו של דבר הם שווים את אותה כמות, אז אם אתה הולך כפי ההתחלה, ישנם שניהם, נשך ורווח. אם אתה הולך כפי הסוף, אז אין אף אחד. אם ההלוואה הייתה מאה על מאה, ואת הערך של המאה גדל, אז אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, אין נשך ולא רווח. אם נלך לפי הסוף, ישנם שניהם. רב שך זצ''ל כותב אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירותי' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור. וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן. אני חושב שהתשובה לכך היא שאנחנו לא הולכים כפי הסוף. אם היינו הולכים כפי הסוף אז למעשה משכנתא בלא נכייתא תהיה דאורייתא. אבל הולכים לפי ההתחלה. זה דומה למקרה האחרון של הגמרא שהמאה עלו בערך, ובכל זאת אין נשך דאורייתא בגלל שהולכים לפי ההתחלה. החוק של משכנתא בלא נכייתא שונה כי המלווה נתן את השדה על מנת שיאכל פירות, אבל מאז שהפרי לא יגיע באופן אוטומטי, נותר ספק אם יהיה כל פרי. אז זה רק אבק רבית
26.4.18
German Idealism
German Idealism really depended on Descartes and that whole train of thinkers from John Locke and Hume. However it was mainly Berkeley who brought out the major conflict between notions and sensations. [Thoughts and states of mind are not like sensations.]
But largely ignored was Thomas Reid who blew the whole boat out of the water.
Still people wonder about the epistemology of Thomas Reid.
To me it seems clear that it must be like Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Also there is the point of Kelley Ross that he made in his PhD Thesis "Ontological undecidability." That neither axis is primary--not the subject nor object.
So how do thoughts and sensations interact? Kelly Ross suggests by the pole of intentionality.
Maybe you could say this is looking backwards. After you read Kelley Ross [the Kant Fries system] and then you look at Thomas Reid you can see how Reid was already implying those ideas. But still to me these ideas look to be really from Reid.
As Reid says: we do not need to consult with Aristotle or Locke in order to know that pain is nothing like the edge of a sword. And it is not by logical deduction that we understand what the edge of a sword is. And if so the whole theory of idealism falls.
Plato has the idea of recognizing universals by remembering our state before birth. This is in fact like Reid that there are plenty of things we know not based on reason and not based on the senses.
Some people complain about Thomas Reid that he did not explain how we know them.
Also they do not see how he refutes Hume. But Reid refutes Hume simply by this. Hume assumes that reason only tells us a very limited set of things. Things that are contained in definitions. He never proves this, or even brings any kind of evidence. To refute Hume all you have to do is not accept his absurd premise. Reason recognizes lots of things that are not known by definitions nor by the senses.
[This fact is very important in terms of politics. Communism is built of a modification of German Idealism. If German idealism is based on a mistake, it might be well to drop communism.]
[I really do not mean to deride good points made by Idealists. Rather, my point is more along the lines of emphasis. As Reid himself noted, Berkeley made some important points. But as far as I am concerned, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus are enough for me.
I might mention that today I think the best philosophers are Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer. Not that everything is 100%. Danny Frederick and others have made of good points and critiques. Still over all I think they are about the best thing out there.
Kelley Ross takes the Leonard Nelson approach based on Kant and Fries to it utmost limits. And Huemer does the same with the intuitionist foundational ideas. To me they seem tantalizingly close.
But largely ignored was Thomas Reid who blew the whole boat out of the water.
Still people wonder about the epistemology of Thomas Reid.
To me it seems clear that it must be like Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Also there is the point of Kelley Ross that he made in his PhD Thesis "Ontological undecidability." That neither axis is primary--not the subject nor object.
So how do thoughts and sensations interact? Kelly Ross suggests by the pole of intentionality.
Maybe you could say this is looking backwards. After you read Kelley Ross [the Kant Fries system] and then you look at Thomas Reid you can see how Reid was already implying those ideas. But still to me these ideas look to be really from Reid.
As Reid says: we do not need to consult with Aristotle or Locke in order to know that pain is nothing like the edge of a sword. And it is not by logical deduction that we understand what the edge of a sword is. And if so the whole theory of idealism falls.
Plato has the idea of recognizing universals by remembering our state before birth. This is in fact like Reid that there are plenty of things we know not based on reason and not based on the senses.
Some people complain about Thomas Reid that he did not explain how we know them.
Also they do not see how he refutes Hume. But Reid refutes Hume simply by this. Hume assumes that reason only tells us a very limited set of things. Things that are contained in definitions. He never proves this, or even brings any kind of evidence. To refute Hume all you have to do is not accept his absurd premise. Reason recognizes lots of things that are not known by definitions nor by the senses.
[This fact is very important in terms of politics. Communism is built of a modification of German Idealism. If German idealism is based on a mistake, it might be well to drop communism.]
[I really do not mean to deride good points made by Idealists. Rather, my point is more along the lines of emphasis. As Reid himself noted, Berkeley made some important points. But as far as I am concerned, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus are enough for me.
I might mention that today I think the best philosophers are Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer. Not that everything is 100%. Danny Frederick and others have made of good points and critiques. Still over all I think they are about the best thing out there.
Kelley Ross takes the Leonard Nelson approach based on Kant and Fries to it utmost limits. And Huemer does the same with the intuitionist foundational ideas. To me they seem tantalizingly close.
one kind of false prophet
In terms of one kind of false prophet it is odd that the major point seems to be that he claims a new law of Torah was revealed to him from Heaven. The funny thing is that it seems easy to get out of this problem. He can just claim he is not stating a new law, but a new custom that is important to do.
Or claim what is called רוח הקודש Divine spirit as is very common for people to do nowadays. Or דעת תורה [a "Torah mind"]
There are multiple subterfuges that people use to get out of the fact that they are in fact fulfilling the conditions needed for them to be considered a false prophet.
Or claim what is called רוח הקודש Divine spirit as is very common for people to do nowadays. Or דעת תורה [a "Torah mind"]
There are multiple subterfuges that people use to get out of the fact that they are in fact fulfilling the conditions needed for them to be considered a false prophet.
25.4.18
Things exist but their existence is dependent on God
It is good idea to look at the beginning of Mishne Torah of the Rambam in order to get an idea of what the verse אין עוד מלבדו ["You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him"] means. The way the Rambam explains it is this שכל הנמצאים צריכים לו והוא ברוך הוא אינו צריך להם ולא לאחד מהם...והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו.
"For all things that exist need him, and He (blessed is He) does not need them, nor even one of them."
That is the idea is that things exist, but they need God in order to exist. There is no denial of the fact that things exist. But rather that their existence is dependent on God, while his existence is independent.
[This really ought not to be a surprise since the same idea can be found in any number of Musar books and books of the Geonim and Rishonim, e.g. אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Doctrines) of Saadia Gaon and the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart)]
"For all things that exist need him, and He (blessed is He) does not need them, nor even one of them."
That is the idea is that things exist, but they need God in order to exist. There is no denial of the fact that things exist. But rather that their existence is dependent on God, while his existence is independent.
[This really ought not to be a surprise since the same idea can be found in any number of Musar books and books of the Geonim and Rishonim, e.g. אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Doctrines) of Saadia Gaon and the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart)]
attachment with God
The problem with attachment with God is that it is the highest Torah value, so when it decays, it falls into the lowest level of darkness.
So you can see why in Litvak yeshivas there is a certain amount of hesitance to emphasize attachment with God as a primary value. It is not that they are thinking it is not possible for people to come to. After all, since it is a primary commandment of the Torah, it must be by definition possible for every person to come to. Otherwise, it would not be commanded of every person. But the fact is this high level can decay. ["Better a wall of ten inches that stands than a wall of 100 feet tall that falls."]
[I am thinking here along the lines of a system of values somewhat like Dr. Kelley Ross and the Rambam. With the Rambam you actually have two areas of value--moral virtue and intellectual virtue. And in his system these two areas are connected because the moral area leads into the intellectual area. As he says one's portion in the next world depends on שכל הנקנה acquired intellect.
The related system of Dr. Ross originates with Leonard Nelson but goes back to Kant and Schelling. I think it was Schelling who proposed not all value is moral value.]
But I do not think one needs to be committed to German idealism for this to be a workable idea. See Thomas Reid. German Idealism is built on shaky foundations. In spite of the fact that Thomas Reid tears the whole thing (German Idealism) apart, still people have wondered what his (Reid's) system actually is. To me it seems that Leonard Nelson got the right idea--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Knowledge that you know not by the senses and not by reason. To me this seems to fit exactly with what Thomas Reid was getting at.]
[The larger world does have this idea of attachment with God directly in certain medieval mystics. Meister Eckhart was one I had heard about, but there were more. The Protestant world more or less however forgot about this entirely. I do not mean there was no value in the Reformation, but still this seems to be a weak spot for Protestants.]
[One thing I did do in this regard was when I was in Israel [Safed] I spent some time daily in talking with God directly from my heart in the forests and fields in that area. That is the idea of prayer towards God that is not scripted, but spontaneous. That is not the same as attachment with God, but when I was in Safed, it seemed to be closely related. The best I can imagine is that attachment with God seems to be gift that comes from on high--but one can work on being prepared by means of learning straight Litvak Torah e.g. the Avi Ezri. And also private prayer with God. And to act like a mensch in all situations.]
So you can see why in Litvak yeshivas there is a certain amount of hesitance to emphasize attachment with God as a primary value. It is not that they are thinking it is not possible for people to come to. After all, since it is a primary commandment of the Torah, it must be by definition possible for every person to come to. Otherwise, it would not be commanded of every person. But the fact is this high level can decay. ["Better a wall of ten inches that stands than a wall of 100 feet tall that falls."]
[I am thinking here along the lines of a system of values somewhat like Dr. Kelley Ross and the Rambam. With the Rambam you actually have two areas of value--moral virtue and intellectual virtue. And in his system these two areas are connected because the moral area leads into the intellectual area. As he says one's portion in the next world depends on שכל הנקנה acquired intellect.
The related system of Dr. Ross originates with Leonard Nelson but goes back to Kant and Schelling. I think it was Schelling who proposed not all value is moral value.]
But I do not think one needs to be committed to German idealism for this to be a workable idea. See Thomas Reid. German Idealism is built on shaky foundations. In spite of the fact that Thomas Reid tears the whole thing (German Idealism) apart, still people have wondered what his (Reid's) system actually is. To me it seems that Leonard Nelson got the right idea--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Knowledge that you know not by the senses and not by reason. To me this seems to fit exactly with what Thomas Reid was getting at.]
[The larger world does have this idea of attachment with God directly in certain medieval mystics. Meister Eckhart was one I had heard about, but there were more. The Protestant world more or less however forgot about this entirely. I do not mean there was no value in the Reformation, but still this seems to be a weak spot for Protestants.]
[One thing I did do in this regard was when I was in Israel [Safed] I spent some time daily in talking with God directly from my heart in the forests and fields in that area. That is the idea of prayer towards God that is not scripted, but spontaneous. That is not the same as attachment with God, but when I was in Safed, it seemed to be closely related. The best I can imagine is that attachment with God seems to be gift that comes from on high--but one can work on being prepared by means of learning straight Litvak Torah e.g. the Avi Ezri. And also private prayer with God. And to act like a mensch in all situations.]
24.4.18
Attachment with God does not get much attention.
Attachment with God does not get much attention as a primary goal in life. Most people do not even know that it is a positive commandment.
I certainly was unaware of its importance when I got to Israel.
Thus when I felt attachment with God in Israel, I did not value it, and after seven years I thought to escape.
I had in fact once before that time learned the Musar book the Light of Israel by Isaac Blazer. And he brings from the commentary with no name on the beginning of the Rambam that all the commandments are to bring one to attachment with God.
I had forgotten that.
[The verse in Deuteronomy says to do the commandments in order to fear God. Another verse says fear God in order to do his commandments. The explanation is there is a lower fear --fear of punishment. And there is a higher fear--awe of God. Thus the idea is to fear God with the lower fear in order to do the commandments; and do the commandments in order to come to the awe of God,-- and that will lead to love and then attachment.]
Later I saw that just showing up in Israel by itself does not bring to attachment with God. Rather there is the whole learning Torah thing that you have in Litvak yeshivas that apparently is a prerequisite. [Anyway I was there during the last year of the life of Bava Sali when there was a kind of time of awakening. That seems to have passed. Thus the best thing to do is just to go about learning Torah in the straight Litvak path. With that-- attachment to God will come again.]
In any case, what you see is that if you are attached with God ((devekut)), then there is no reason to go out of it since that is the primary goal in the first place. The other commandments are meant to bring to that goal.
I certainly was unaware of its importance when I got to Israel.
Thus when I felt attachment with God in Israel, I did not value it, and after seven years I thought to escape.
I had in fact once before that time learned the Musar book the Light of Israel by Isaac Blazer. And he brings from the commentary with no name on the beginning of the Rambam that all the commandments are to bring one to attachment with God.
I had forgotten that.
[The verse in Deuteronomy says to do the commandments in order to fear God. Another verse says fear God in order to do his commandments. The explanation is there is a lower fear --fear of punishment. And there is a higher fear--awe of God. Thus the idea is to fear God with the lower fear in order to do the commandments; and do the commandments in order to come to the awe of God,-- and that will lead to love and then attachment.]
Later I saw that just showing up in Israel by itself does not bring to attachment with God. Rather there is the whole learning Torah thing that you have in Litvak yeshivas that apparently is a prerequisite. [Anyway I was there during the last year of the life of Bava Sali when there was a kind of time of awakening. That seems to have passed. Thus the best thing to do is just to go about learning Torah in the straight Litvak path. With that-- attachment to God will come again.]
In any case, what you see is that if you are attached with God ((devekut)), then there is no reason to go out of it since that is the primary goal in the first place. The other commandments are meant to bring to that goal.
"Give a philosopher enough paper, and he can prove anything."
Rav Shach did not think very highly of books about the world view of Torah [השקפה]. He brings the verses that criticize making books "of making books there is no end" עשות ספרים אין קץ, and the end of that verse shows it is all vanity and a waste of time. On the other hand he brings statements that are indicative that books on Torah are important.
The resolution is books that continue the process of the Oral Law are good. Books that try to get world view issues are a waste. "Give a philosopher enough paper, and he can prove anything."
[However what would Rav Shach say about the Guide for the Perplexed or the Faiths and Doctrines of Rav Saadia Gaon? Apparently he would have to agree that a certain limited amount of this kind of study is important.]
[However what would Rav Shach say about the Guide for the Perplexed or the Faiths and Doctrines of Rav Saadia Gaon? Apparently he would have to agree that a certain limited amount of this kind of study is important.]
Meaning of your life as a whole or per section.
You can ask about the meaning of your life as a whole or also ask about the meaning of particular events and the meaning of certain time periods.
Sometimes certain events are begging for commentary. Sometimes the meaning is all too clear.
For me it seems better to look at certain time periods as defined by geographical location.
However if I try to define the meaning of certain time periods, I find they contradict. [Or they seem to contradict.]
If I look at the period I was in the Mir in NY-the lesson seems awesomely clear--learn Torah. But if I look at later periods the lessons seem to get lost or at least diluted. The answer to this contradiction I find in the period I was growing up in my parent's home --that is the lessons of balance and to be a "mensch" Or as the Sages put it טוב תורה עם דרך ארץ and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה
Good traits and manners comes before Torah. Torah is good with good traits.
Even though listening to hints from what happens to you in your life is one good lesson, still there is a larger issue of figuring out the meaning of your life in terms of whole sections. The time you were in high school, and later on periods.
Sometimes certain events are begging for commentary. Sometimes the meaning is all too clear.
For me it seems better to look at certain time periods as defined by geographical location.
However if I try to define the meaning of certain time periods, I find they contradict. [Or they seem to contradict.]
If I look at the period I was in the Mir in NY-the lesson seems awesomely clear--learn Torah. But if I look at later periods the lessons seem to get lost or at least diluted. The answer to this contradiction I find in the period I was growing up in my parent's home --that is the lessons of balance and to be a "mensch" Or as the Sages put it טוב תורה עם דרך ארץ and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה
Good traits and manners comes before Torah. Torah is good with good traits.
Even though listening to hints from what happens to you in your life is one good lesson, still there is a larger issue of figuring out the meaning of your life in terms of whole sections. The time you were in high school, and later on periods.
23.4.18
A suka on the roof with only poles for walls.
A suka on the roof with only poles for walls. The lower walls are considered to extend upwards.
But only if the poles are on the edges. From where does this law come from?
Reb Haim (HaLevi) holds from Shabat since the version of the Geonim in Suka only writes the argument is in the middle of the roof. So there is no proof from there.
The Raavad holds differently because of the Gemara in Suka page 4.
Reb Haim Soloveitchik holds גוד אסיק מחיצתא only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings from Shabat 89 that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that it is from there that the Rambam learned the law to Sukka
Rav Shach disagrees. He brings the law from Eruvin that one who stays on a mound that is 100^50 yards wide and 10 hand-breaths in height or less can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in Sukka that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא is applicable only when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to Sukka.
What I wish to think about is the Gemara that if you have a pit ten hand-breaths deep and 4^4 wide and long that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The Rashba brings Rav Hai Gaon for one answer why this is and another answer is you need מחיצות הניכרות.This last opinion seems to confirm Reb Haim HaLevi. Perhaps Rav Shach is holding like Rav Hai Gaon, and Reb Haim like the other opinion in the Rashba?
_________________________________________________________________________________
In חידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה י''א
רב חיים הלווי holds "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings from שבת פ''ט that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that is is from there that the רמב''ם derived the law to סוכה.
However רב שך disagrees. He brings the law from עירובין that one who stays on a תל that is מאה על חמישים אמות wide and עשרה טפחים in height can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in סוכה that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא only is applicable when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to סוכה.
What I wish to ask is from the גמרא that if you have a pit עשרה טפחים עומק deep and ארבעה על ארבעה length by width that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The רשב''א brings רב האי גאון for one answer why this is. Then he brings another answer that one needs מחיצות הניכרות. This last opinion seems to confirm רב חיים הלווי. Perhaps רב שך is holding like רב האי גאון, and רב חיים like the other opinion in the רשב''א?
בחידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה. רב חיים הלווי מחזיק "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" חל רק על מחיצות ניכרות. הוא מביא מן שבת פ''ט שהחוק גוד אסיק חל על קצה גג. הוא כותב כי משם הרמב''ם גזר החוק בשביל סוכה. אולם רב שך חולק. הוא מביא את החוק מעירובין כי מי נשאר על תל שהוא מאה על חמישים אמות רחב ועשרה טפחים גובה יכול לשאת באותו אזור. זה מוכיח את הנקודה שלו. אין שם מחיצות ניכרות. לכן, כאשר אנו מוצאים בסוכה שהחוק גוד אסיק מחיצתא הוא רק כאשר ישנן מחיצות הניכרות זה מתייחס רק לסוכה. מה שאני רוצה לשאול הוא מן הגמרא שאם יש לך בור עשרה טפחים עמוק וארבעה על ארבעה אורך ברוחב שהוא מלא פירות ואחד זרק חפץ לתוכו, הוא אינו מחויב להביא קרבן חטאת. הרשב''א מביא רב האי גאון בשביל תשובה אחת למה זה כן. אחר כך הוא מביא תשובה נוספת כי צריך מחיצות ניכרות. הדעה האחרונה זו נראית לאשר רב חיים הלווי. אולי רב שך מחזיק כמו רב האי גאון, ואת רב חיים כדעת האחרת ברשב''א
But only if the poles are on the edges. From where does this law come from?
Reb Haim (HaLevi) holds from Shabat since the version of the Geonim in Suka only writes the argument is in the middle of the roof. So there is no proof from there.
The Raavad holds differently because of the Gemara in Suka page 4.
Reb Haim Soloveitchik holds גוד אסיק מחיצתא only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings from Shabat 89 that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that it is from there that the Rambam learned the law to Sukka
Rav Shach disagrees. He brings the law from Eruvin that one who stays on a mound that is 100^50 yards wide and 10 hand-breaths in height or less can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in Sukka that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא is applicable only when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to Sukka.
What I wish to think about is the Gemara that if you have a pit ten hand-breaths deep and 4^4 wide and long that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The Rashba brings Rav Hai Gaon for one answer why this is and another answer is you need מחיצות הניכרות.This last opinion seems to confirm Reb Haim HaLevi. Perhaps Rav Shach is holding like Rav Hai Gaon, and Reb Haim like the other opinion in the Rashba?
_________________________________________________________________________________
In חידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה י''א
רב חיים הלווי holds "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings from שבת פ''ט that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that is is from there that the רמב''ם derived the law to סוכה.
However רב שך disagrees. He brings the law from עירובין that one who stays on a תל that is מאה על חמישים אמות wide and עשרה טפחים in height can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in סוכה that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא only is applicable when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to סוכה.
What I wish to ask is from the גמרא that if you have a pit עשרה טפחים עומק deep and ארבעה על ארבעה length by width that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The רשב''א brings רב האי גאון for one answer why this is. Then he brings another answer that one needs מחיצות הניכרות. This last opinion seems to confirm רב חיים הלווי. Perhaps רב שך is holding like רב האי גאון, and רב חיים like the other opinion in the רשב''א?
בחידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה. רב חיים הלווי מחזיק "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" חל רק על מחיצות ניכרות. הוא מביא מן שבת פ''ט שהחוק גוד אסיק חל על קצה גג. הוא כותב כי משם הרמב''ם גזר החוק בשביל סוכה. אולם רב שך חולק. הוא מביא את החוק מעירובין כי מי נשאר על תל שהוא מאה על חמישים אמות רחב ועשרה טפחים גובה יכול לשאת באותו אזור. זה מוכיח את הנקודה שלו. אין שם מחיצות ניכרות. לכן, כאשר אנו מוצאים בסוכה שהחוק גוד אסיק מחיצתא הוא רק כאשר ישנן מחיצות הניכרות זה מתייחס רק לסוכה. מה שאני רוצה לשאול הוא מן הגמרא שאם יש לך בור עשרה טפחים עמוק וארבעה על ארבעה אורך ברוחב שהוא מלא פירות ואחד זרק חפץ לתוכו, הוא אינו מחויב להביא קרבן חטאת. הרשב''א מביא רב האי גאון בשביל תשובה אחת למה זה כן. אחר כך הוא מביא תשובה נוספת כי צריך מחיצות ניכרות. הדעה האחרונה זו נראית לאשר רב חיים הלווי. אולי רב שך מחזיק כמו רב האי גאון, ואת רב חיים כדעת האחרת ברשב''א
Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success in Torah depend on
Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success in Torah depend on: (1) Time and (2) the amount of energy put into it. But to combine that with the idea of the Rambam of learning Physics seems hard. If the Rambam would be a lone opinion in this it would be easy to dismiss him. But you find his opinion also in two important Musar books חובות הלבבות Obligations of the Heart and מעלות המדות [The greatness of Good Traits]
I think that one should divide the time of learning into Gemara, Mathematics and Physics. [The Metaphysics part I am not sure how to deal with.]
But I also want to mention that Torah must not be used to make money. So while learning Torah is important, using it to make money is a very terrible sin as you can see in Pirkei Avot.
22.4.18
U-94 G Major U96 U97 D Major There used to be on google a nice converter to MP3. No more. So I either can post as MIDI files or another MP3 converter that does not work so well. I am sorry
Finishing Shas and Poskim.
Finishing Shas and Poskim [note 1] is important. Litvak yeshivas however concentrate on "Iyun" in depth learning. But there is also great importance in finishing at least four times.
This applies also to Math, Physics, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.
The best thing is to have two sessions --one in depth and another to just say the words in order as fast as possible and to go on.
[In fact, in both Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY the afternoon was devoted to fast learning.]
For me fast learning meant doing review on the Gemara and Tosphot only once, and then going on. But now I am thinking fast learning ought to be fast--no review until one gets to the end, and then goes back to the beginning.
[note 1] "Shas" means the Talmud. "Poskim" means Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Tur. It is a word used only for Rishonim [mediaeval authorities]. But it has come to include Rav Joseph Karo's and his commentaries. [Magen Avraham, Shach, Taz, etc,...]
This applies also to Math, Physics, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.
The best thing is to have two sessions --one in depth and another to just say the words in order as fast as possible and to go on.
[In fact, in both Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY the afternoon was devoted to fast learning.]
For me fast learning meant doing review on the Gemara and Tosphot only once, and then going on. But now I am thinking fast learning ought to be fast--no review until one gets to the end, and then goes back to the beginning.
[note 1] "Shas" means the Talmud. "Poskim" means Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Tur. It is a word used only for Rishonim [mediaeval authorities]. But it has come to include Rav Joseph Karo's and his commentaries. [Magen Avraham, Shach, Taz, etc,...]
My opinion about the Left is that it stems from ideologies that came into the world from the netherworld around 1800. Ideas that took over the minds of men. The USA was far from the scene of turmoil until the insanity came over in the form of socialism. Since then socialism has been taking hold of people's minds. So the Left still attacks anyone that seems to stand for faith and reason..
But I do not like to read or learn about this because it is upsetting and also when I learn about the Dark Side, that in itself seems to invite it in.
But I do not like to read or learn about this because it is upsetting and also when I learn about the Dark Side, that in itself seems to invite it in.
21.4.18
Emanation of the Ari
Emanation of the Ari is not the same thing as the belief that nothing exists besides God.
There is a verse: "You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him." אתה הראתה לדעת כי ה' הוא האלהים אי עוד מלבדו.
The Rambam explains this verse in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the existence of all beings is dependent on God, but his existence is independent. He writes in halaka 4 that that is the meaning of the verse אין עוד מלבדו.
הוא שהנביא אומר וה' אלקים אמת הוא לבדו אמת ואין לאחר אמת כאמתו והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו
But to get the full picture of what the Rambam is saying it helps to look also at halaka 3 where he explains all beings need Him, but he needs none of them.
I once had long essay on this where I brought the Ari concerning the צמצום (Contraction). The Ari brings in the beginning of the Tree of Life that God contracted Himself to make a place for Creation.
There is no logical connection between this and the issue of whether anything else besides God exists.
Even though in ארבע מאות שקל כסף there is one place that the Ari says God contracted his light to make a place for creation, that still does have any logical relation to the question.
The issue is more serious however.
Things exist or they don't. This is a simple result of the law of the excluded middle.
Madmen might deny the existence of reality, but I see no reason to take their views seriously.
Common sense says I exist and you exist. And I am not God, and you are not God. If someone does not see that, there is nothing more plain and simple to appeal to.
If people are very clever in books, but are reduced to justifying themselves by confusion and lunacy like this, then that is their sufficient refutation.
[Frankly the whole business seems to me to be part of the general nature of the Sitra Akra (evil inclination) to go around in the world convincing people of all kinds of terrible nonsense. Each person is approached with some different kinds of nonsense. But there is always some grain of truth to it that makes it sound reasonable. A hundred year ago anyone with brains thought socialist revolutions were the greatest thing since the wheel was invented. It take a long time for nutty ideas to be revealed for what they really are--long after they have done their irreparable damage.
There is a verse: "You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him." אתה הראתה לדעת כי ה' הוא האלהים אי עוד מלבדו.
The Rambam explains this verse in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the existence of all beings is dependent on God, but his existence is independent. He writes in halaka 4 that that is the meaning of the verse אין עוד מלבדו.
הוא שהנביא אומר וה' אלקים אמת הוא לבדו אמת ואין לאחר אמת כאמתו והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו
But to get the full picture of what the Rambam is saying it helps to look also at halaka 3 where he explains all beings need Him, but he needs none of them.
I once had long essay on this where I brought the Ari concerning the צמצום (Contraction). The Ari brings in the beginning of the Tree of Life that God contracted Himself to make a place for Creation.
There is no logical connection between this and the issue of whether anything else besides God exists.
Even though in ארבע מאות שקל כסף there is one place that the Ari says God contracted his light to make a place for creation, that still does have any logical relation to the question.
The issue is more serious however.
Things exist or they don't. This is a simple result of the law of the excluded middle.
Madmen might deny the existence of reality, but I see no reason to take their views seriously.
Common sense says I exist and you exist. And I am not God, and you are not God. If someone does not see that, there is nothing more plain and simple to appeal to.
If people are very clever in books, but are reduced to justifying themselves by confusion and lunacy like this, then that is their sufficient refutation.
[Frankly the whole business seems to me to be part of the general nature of the Sitra Akra (evil inclination) to go around in the world convincing people of all kinds of terrible nonsense. Each person is approached with some different kinds of nonsense. But there is always some grain of truth to it that makes it sound reasonable. A hundred year ago anyone with brains thought socialist revolutions were the greatest thing since the wheel was invented. It take a long time for nutty ideas to be revealed for what they really are--long after they have done their irreparable damage.
20.4.18
ב''מ צח Bava Metzia
This might seem trivial but it occurs to me to bring it up anyway. Rav Shakh brings a doubt about a guard who makes a plea, "the object was taken by force." Is that really a good plea? The Torah does believe him with an oath, but still perhaps the actual plea in itself has little merit. Or perhaps it is just like a regular plea of "לא היו דברים מעולם" ["I was never asked or paid to guard the object".]
The reason I bring this up is in the old notes on Bava Metzia [which I might bring here] there is a question that my learning partner [who asked me not to name him or mention him in my notes--that is why his name does not appear there] brought up about Tosphot. In the same Tosphot page 98 Tosphot treats, "I do not know if the object was taken by force or not" as כפירה [denial] that he was ever under an obligation to guard it. And he also treats it as a plea of "נאנסו" ("It was taken by force").
So if, "It was taken by force" is really not a good plea in the first place, then "I do not know if it was taken by force" is not any better. But if "It was taken by force" is a good plea, then "I do not know" might be thought to be like straight denial of any obligation.
[The reason I bring this up is mainly because I simply would like to introduce the subject, and I am thinking that with the aid of this idea from Rav Shakh it might be possible to answer the question I bring up on Tosphot. But so far I do not know how it could help. I am only pointing out that the two views in Tosphot are parallel with the two views Rav Shakh brings. Does that help anything? I am not sure--but it might be. If so it would be great because that question on Tosphot has been sitting in my notes for a few years already. I am optimistic because it has happened to me that I saw an idea from Rav Shakh that helped me to answer questions that had been sitting in my notes for years.[I do not have a Bava Metzia and I also can not read my notes very easily unless I can get a printed version. But still I have hope that maybe some solution can be found.(The problem is not if you can find a way to say איני יודע is כפירה or אונס. The problem is that Tosphot treats it both ways and seems obligated to treat it both ways according to the reasoning n Tosphot.])
These are some of my notes on that Tosphot:
ב''מ צח. תוספות משכחת. בתחלה תוספות [בענין שיטת הריב''א] צריכים להגיד ש"איני יודע" של המשנה היא כפירה- דאם "איני יודע" הוא טענת אונס (שבויה או נשברה) אזי לריב''א אין צורך לעוד בהמה.- והגמרא בפירוש מצריכה עוד בהמה. ואחר זה תוספות אומרים "איני יודע" הוא טיעון של טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה). איך רואים את זה? בשביל שהגמרא אומרת שכדי שתהיה שבועה, חייב להיות שלש בהמות: (1) הודאה, (2) כפירה, (3) ואיני יודע. אם "איני יודע" הוא כפירה, אז יש לך רק כפירה והודאה. סתירה ישרה.
למה תוספות נלכדו בזו? בשביל שהם מתעמלים לתרץ את הריב''א בדיוק כמו שעשו בבבא קמא. לר''ת אין צורך בכל זה ואצלו "איני יודע" הוא פשוט טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה).
אני חשבתי לתרץ את הקושיא הזאת על תוספות כך. בתחלה תוספות מחזיקים שהשיטה של ש"איני יודע" הוא כפירה בשביל שיש בו קצת אונס,- תגיד למשל ארבעים אחוז. וזה אינו מספיק העזה להגיד שהוא מעיז להצריך שבועה אלא אם כן יש גם הודאה ביחד אתו. אחר זה תוספות מחזיקים את השיטה של ש"איני יודע" הוא מספיק טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) כדי להיחשב שונה מכפירה סתם- וכדעת רמי בר חמא שצריך טענות כפירה והודאה באונס.
נחזור לזאת אחר כך, משום שזה אינו מתרץ את השאלה בגלל שהעזה שייכת רק למַלְוֶה. ופשוט הוא.] יש תירוץ יותר טוב. היינו טענת "איני יודע אם נאנס" נחשבת טענת אונס, וטענת "איני יודע אם היתה שם עוד בהמה בכלל" נחשבת טענת כפירה. [להסביר את השאלה כאן במילים פשוטות-- בשיטת הריב''א, טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) צריך שבועה. ולכן בתחלה כשהגמרא מחייבת הודאה ביחד עם "איני יודע" אנחנו חייבים להבין "איני יודע" הוא כפירה. אחר כך, הגמרא מחייבת הודאה וכפירה ביחד עם "איני יודע" ולכן נראה שם ש"איני יודע" משמשת במקום טענת אונסים. (אם "איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה לרמי בר חמא אז לא צריכים עוד בהמה של כפירה), ואין לתרץ שטענת "איני יודע" יכולה לשמש במקום שתיהן, שאם כן בתחלה היתה מספקת טענת "איני יודע" להיות נחשבת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) וחייב בשבועה ואינו יכול להישבע, ולכן משלם.
לתרץ את זה, נראה לומר ש"איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה להריב''א, אבל לקמן בסוגיא של רמי בר חמא צריכים בהמה של "איני יודע" כדי שלא יהיה אפשר להישבע. רק הקושיא עם זה היא שתוספות בעצמם אומרים בענין אותה סוגיא ש"איני יודע" היא טענת אונס ,שבורה או מתה או שבויה.] נראה לי כעת שאפשר לתרץ את הקושיה הזאת על ידי החילוק של רב שך באבי עזרי בתחלת ספר המשפטים שטענת איני יודע בעצמה תלויה באיך שאתה מסתכל על טענת אונס.
היינו רב שך מביא ספק אם טענת אונס היא טענה חזקה או לא.
אם היא טענה חלשה אז איני יודע אם נאנסו אינה טענה כלל אינו פטור בגלל מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם אלא בגלל שאין לו טענה. אם היא טענה חזקה אז איני יודע חייב בגלל מתוך. וזה מקיים התנאי להתחייב שבועה.
גם אפשר לחלק בין איני יודע אם נאנסו ובין איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך. וגם אפשר לומר שאיני יודע אם נאנסו היא טענת הודאה כמו איני יודע אם שילמתי את החוב שמודה שחייב. איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך היא טענת כפירה.
The reason I bring this up is in the old notes on Bava Metzia [which I might bring here] there is a question that my learning partner [who asked me not to name him or mention him in my notes--that is why his name does not appear there] brought up about Tosphot. In the same Tosphot page 98 Tosphot treats, "I do not know if the object was taken by force or not" as כפירה [denial] that he was ever under an obligation to guard it. And he also treats it as a plea of "נאנסו" ("It was taken by force").
So if, "It was taken by force" is really not a good plea in the first place, then "I do not know if it was taken by force" is not any better. But if "It was taken by force" is a good plea, then "I do not know" might be thought to be like straight denial of any obligation.
[The reason I bring this up is mainly because I simply would like to introduce the subject, and I am thinking that with the aid of this idea from Rav Shakh it might be possible to answer the question I bring up on Tosphot. But so far I do not know how it could help. I am only pointing out that the two views in Tosphot are parallel with the two views Rav Shakh brings. Does that help anything? I am not sure--but it might be. If so it would be great because that question on Tosphot has been sitting in my notes for a few years already. I am optimistic because it has happened to me that I saw an idea from Rav Shakh that helped me to answer questions that had been sitting in my notes for years.[I do not have a Bava Metzia and I also can not read my notes very easily unless I can get a printed version. But still I have hope that maybe some solution can be found.(The problem is not if you can find a way to say איני יודע is כפירה or אונס. The problem is that Tosphot treats it both ways and seems obligated to treat it both ways according to the reasoning n Tosphot.])
These are some of my notes on that Tosphot:
ב''מ צח. תוספות משכחת. בתחלה תוספות [בענין שיטת הריב''א] צריכים להגיד ש"איני יודע" של המשנה היא כפירה- דאם "איני יודע" הוא טענת אונס (שבויה או נשברה) אזי לריב''א אין צורך לעוד בהמה.- והגמרא בפירוש מצריכה עוד בהמה. ואחר זה תוספות אומרים "איני יודע" הוא טיעון של טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה). איך רואים את זה? בשביל שהגמרא אומרת שכדי שתהיה שבועה, חייב להיות שלש בהמות: (1) הודאה, (2) כפירה, (3) ואיני יודע. אם "איני יודע" הוא כפירה, אז יש לך רק כפירה והודאה. סתירה ישרה.
למה תוספות נלכדו בזו? בשביל שהם מתעמלים לתרץ את הריב''א בדיוק כמו שעשו בבבא קמא. לר''ת אין צורך בכל זה ואצלו "איני יודע" הוא פשוט טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה).
אני חשבתי לתרץ את הקושיא הזאת על תוספות כך. בתחלה תוספות מחזיקים שהשיטה של ש"איני יודע" הוא כפירה בשביל שיש בו קצת אונס,- תגיד למשל ארבעים אחוז. וזה אינו מספיק העזה להגיד שהוא מעיז להצריך שבועה אלא אם כן יש גם הודאה ביחד אתו. אחר זה תוספות מחזיקים את השיטה של ש"איני יודע" הוא מספיק טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) כדי להיחשב שונה מכפירה סתם- וכדעת רמי בר חמא שצריך טענות כפירה והודאה באונס.
נחזור לזאת אחר כך, משום שזה אינו מתרץ את השאלה בגלל שהעזה שייכת רק למַלְוֶה. ופשוט הוא.] יש תירוץ יותר טוב. היינו טענת "איני יודע אם נאנס" נחשבת טענת אונס, וטענת "איני יודע אם היתה שם עוד בהמה בכלל" נחשבת טענת כפירה. [להסביר את השאלה כאן במילים פשוטות-- בשיטת הריב''א, טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) צריך שבועה. ולכן בתחלה כשהגמרא מחייבת הודאה ביחד עם "איני יודע" אנחנו חייבים להבין "איני יודע" הוא כפירה. אחר כך, הגמרא מחייבת הודאה וכפירה ביחד עם "איני יודע" ולכן נראה שם ש"איני יודע" משמשת במקום טענת אונסים. (אם "איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה לרמי בר חמא אז לא צריכים עוד בהמה של כפירה), ואין לתרץ שטענת "איני יודע" יכולה לשמש במקום שתיהן, שאם כן בתחלה היתה מספקת טענת "איני יודע" להיות נחשבת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) וחייב בשבועה ואינו יכול להישבע, ולכן משלם.
לתרץ את זה, נראה לומר ש"איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה להריב''א, אבל לקמן בסוגיא של רמי בר חמא צריכים בהמה של "איני יודע" כדי שלא יהיה אפשר להישבע. רק הקושיא עם זה היא שתוספות בעצמם אומרים בענין אותה סוגיא ש"איני יודע" היא טענת אונס ,שבורה או מתה או שבויה.] נראה לי כעת שאפשר לתרץ את הקושיה הזאת על ידי החילוק של רב שך באבי עזרי בתחלת ספר המשפטים שטענת איני יודע בעצמה תלויה באיך שאתה מסתכל על טענת אונס.
היינו רב שך מביא ספק אם טענת אונס היא טענה חזקה או לא.
אם היא טענה חלשה אז איני יודע אם נאנסו אינה טענה כלל אינו פטור בגלל מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם אלא בגלל שאין לו טענה. אם היא טענה חזקה אז איני יודע חייב בגלל מתוך. וזה מקיים התנאי להתחייב שבועה.
גם אפשר לחלק בין איני יודע אם נאנסו ובין איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך. וגם אפשר לומר שאיני יודע אם נאנסו היא טענת הודאה כמו איני יודע אם שילמתי את החוב שמודה שחייב. איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך היא טענת כפירה.
19.4.18
To Mueller: Have you no decency?
There are tons of laws in the USA. This is not a metaphor. The laws on the books in the USA could be used for ballast on a nuclear submarine. There is no question if you get the best prosecutors around and have them examine any one individual for as long as it takes, you could convict anyone of countless crimes.
So to just keep investigating and then send for the best prosecutors in Manhattan to get at President Trump seems unfair. Usually what prosecutor does is investigate a crime after it is obvious that it has been committed. They do not look for crimes to investigate just because they do not like someone.
To Mueller: Have you no decency?
So to just keep investigating and then send for the best prosecutors in Manhattan to get at President Trump seems unfair. Usually what prosecutor does is investigate a crime after it is obvious that it has been committed. They do not look for crimes to investigate just because they do not like someone.
To Mueller: Have you no decency?
Hillel was thrown out of the yeshiva of Shemaia and Avtalion
From what is possible to tell, I think that Hillel was thrown out of the yeshiva of Shemaia and Avtalion until he could pay the entrance fee. [You see this from the fact that on days he couldn't pay the fee he went up to the roof to listen through a crack in the ceiling.]
And Rav Shach brings the idea אף חכמתי עמדה לי "The knowledge I learned with pain stood with me."
What this seems to indicate is that the trouble people go through in Litvak yeshivas is the only way to merit to Torah.
When people ask about some hard experience they went through in a Litvak yeshiva, they often consider the question to be unanswerable and use it as a reason to leave off learning. And the questions are often very good questions. Yet the answer seems to be that going through what they go through is the only way to come to Torah.
I am not saying to ignore the questions. But rather I suggest that the attitude ought to be to hang on even though there are questions.
ויגרש את האדם מן הגן וישם שם את הכרוב עם חרב המתהפכת לשמור את הדרך
When God threw out Adam from the Garden of Eden he placed at the entrance an angel with a fiery sword to guard the path to the tree of life. We see one can not get to Torah without going through these kinds of questions and difficulties.
[Sometimes there is just cause for the fact that people get thrown out, sometimes not. But what I am suggesting here is that when you have gone through problems, you ought to assume that there is something internal that is the cause.]
And Rav Shach brings the idea אף חכמתי עמדה לי "The knowledge I learned with pain stood with me."
What this seems to indicate is that the trouble people go through in Litvak yeshivas is the only way to merit to Torah.
When people ask about some hard experience they went through in a Litvak yeshiva, they often consider the question to be unanswerable and use it as a reason to leave off learning. And the questions are often very good questions. Yet the answer seems to be that going through what they go through is the only way to come to Torah.
I am not saying to ignore the questions. But rather I suggest that the attitude ought to be to hang on even though there are questions.
ויגרש את האדם מן הגן וישם שם את הכרוב עם חרב המתהפכת לשמור את הדרך
When God threw out Adam from the Garden of Eden he placed at the entrance an angel with a fiery sword to guard the path to the tree of life. We see one can not get to Torah without going through these kinds of questions and difficulties.
[Sometimes there is just cause for the fact that people get thrown out, sometimes not. But what I am suggesting here is that when you have gone through problems, you ought to assume that there is something internal that is the cause.]
18.4.18
philosophy of Torah
The Ran of Breslov [Reb Nahman] had a low opinion of the Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed.
Also when he listed subjects one must finish every year in such a way that the day does not seem long enough he listed the whole Talmud, and the poskim Rif, Rosh and the major book of Rav Joseph Karo The Laid Out Table. But he skipped the Rambam. It seems to me that he skipped it on purpose.
The Gra wrote his comments on the Laid Out Table, not the Rambam.
The book I was most impressed with in terms of law is the Tur with the commentary of Rav Yoseph Karo.
But I also think the Rambam's Mishne Torah is good to learn with the basic commentary of Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri.
As for the Guide itself, I can see the that the Ran of Breslov had a point, -- it seems a little out of date. In terms of the philosophy of Torah, I think Saadia Gaon's Faiths and Doctrines is better. In any case, Reb Nahman did not think learning any philosophy makes sense, and from that fact I thought not to do so. Though I wanted to listen to the Rambam about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, but because of the warning of Reb Nahman, I decided not to spend any effort on philosophy except as a pastime to relax. I think anyone looking at philosophy today would have to agree that it is a waste land.
[However Leonard Nelson had a good point about non-intuitive immediate knowledge. That is knowledge that one knows,- but not through sense perception and not through any intellectual deductions (and not through anything. It is immediate, not mediate). It is akin to Michael Huemer's idea of what reason perceives. Direct awareness of facts and of external objects. Not through anything. Huemer builds on Thomas Reid, but the idea seems close to Leonard Nelson's immediate non intuitive knowledge.--another word for faith.]
Also when he listed subjects one must finish every year in such a way that the day does not seem long enough he listed the whole Talmud, and the poskim Rif, Rosh and the major book of Rav Joseph Karo The Laid Out Table. But he skipped the Rambam. It seems to me that he skipped it on purpose.
The Gra wrote his comments on the Laid Out Table, not the Rambam.
The book I was most impressed with in terms of law is the Tur with the commentary of Rav Yoseph Karo.
But I also think the Rambam's Mishne Torah is good to learn with the basic commentary of Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri.
As for the Guide itself, I can see the that the Ran of Breslov had a point, -- it seems a little out of date. In terms of the philosophy of Torah, I think Saadia Gaon's Faiths and Doctrines is better. In any case, Reb Nahman did not think learning any philosophy makes sense, and from that fact I thought not to do so. Though I wanted to listen to the Rambam about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, but because of the warning of Reb Nahman, I decided not to spend any effort on philosophy except as a pastime to relax. I think anyone looking at philosophy today would have to agree that it is a waste land.
[However Leonard Nelson had a good point about non-intuitive immediate knowledge. That is knowledge that one knows,- but not through sense perception and not through any intellectual deductions (and not through anything. It is immediate, not mediate). It is akin to Michael Huemer's idea of what reason perceives. Direct awareness of facts and of external objects. Not through anything. Huemer builds on Thomas Reid, but the idea seems close to Leonard Nelson's immediate non intuitive knowledge.--another word for faith.]
The smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.
Can great people make a mistake?
The first time I heard this issue was in my first Litvak (Lithuanian) Yeshiva Shar Yashuv. This was brought up in reference to Moses (Moshe) accepting the mixed multitude and the other mistakes mentioned in the Torah [hitting the rock]. And the fact that when a great person makes a small mistake it can lead to terrible consequences.
John von Neumann brought a proof against the hidden variable theory. It turned out that the proof was wrong. [That is what led John Bell to reconsider hidden variable theories and to reexamine the EPR experiment, and that is when he discovered his famous inequality. --the one that Nature violates.]
Apparently, even the smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.
Even more than that.- Ahia Hashiloni anointed Yeravam ben Navat as king of Israel. And Ahia is considered the greatest prophet after Moshe. That is indicative that some things must happen-- even though they seem less than desirable.
Oddly enough even with Moses there seem to things than are not considered mistakes, but still seem to have been less than desirable, e.g sending of the spies to see if Israel was a great as all that.
The first time I heard this issue was in my first Litvak (Lithuanian) Yeshiva Shar Yashuv. This was brought up in reference to Moses (Moshe) accepting the mixed multitude and the other mistakes mentioned in the Torah [hitting the rock]. And the fact that when a great person makes a small mistake it can lead to terrible consequences.
John von Neumann brought a proof against the hidden variable theory. It turned out that the proof was wrong. [That is what led John Bell to reconsider hidden variable theories and to reexamine the EPR experiment, and that is when he discovered his famous inequality. --the one that Nature violates.]
Apparently, even the smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.
Even more than that.- Ahia Hashiloni anointed Yeravam ben Navat as king of Israel. And Ahia is considered the greatest prophet after Moshe. That is indicative that some things must happen-- even though they seem less than desirable.
Oddly enough even with Moses there seem to things than are not considered mistakes, but still seem to have been less than desirable, e.g sending of the spies to see if Israel was a great as all that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)