Most of my efforts to get back into real authentic learning Torah were foiled. WHAT DOES IT MEAN "REAL LEARNING"? It is the intensity of learning

I noticed that Rav Shach in one of his talks says the main thing one can do for Klal Israel [The people of Israel] is to learn Torah.  The issue is not how much territory does Israel control. This idea of Rav Shach as is well known finds support in the books of the sages and a lot of the source material is found in the Musar book the Nefesh HaHaim.
But what I wanted to add is that in the book of Kings I. 9 verse 11 it says that Solomon gave to Hiram 20 cities in the Galil (Galilee) . So again we see this idea that the safety of Israel is not a matter of territory. [The Galil is divided into three parts, lower, middle, and upper where Safed is. So it was definitely Israel proper that Solomon was giving away.]

Though I do not learn much Torah anymore, I can see the point of Rav Shach.
It was a point that I first encountered in Shar Yashuv and later in the Mir. But I did not see much support for that point of view until I discovered the Nefesh HaHaim.

Part of the reason I do not learn much is that most of my efforts to get back in real authentic learning Torah were foiled and even backfired.
The Nefesh Haim [Rav Haim from Voloshin a disciple of the Gra] brings out this point about the importance of learning Torah and I am pretty sure that I was not so aware of it. After I graduated from high school I did want to learn Torah more seriously so I came to NY to Shar Yashuv. That is a yeshiva mainly known for being for beginners. But while there I was befriended by the later rosh yeshiva Naphtali Yeager and he showed me the depths of learning. That is the way you can see in my little booklets that I wrote on Gemara. Only later when I came to the Mir Yeshiva did I become aware of the path of Rav Haim Solovietchik.


WHAT DOES IT MEAN "REAL LEARNING"? It is hard to define. Mainly it is what you experience in a Litvak yeshiva. It is not just learning the gemara in depth as Litvaks do. It is the intensity of learning

mystic system of Sar Shalom Sharabi and R. Isaac Luria

The main system of Rav Sharabi you can learn in his book the Nahar Shalom. However I found for myself that simply praying with the sidur HaReshash for a few years helped me get a clearer idea of his system.[I ought to mention that I was praying with the sidur of the Reshash for the unification--not to gain better knowledge of his system.]
[There are two sidurs of Rav Sharabi I ought to mention. For a long time I prayed with the small one even though I knew that Rav Mordechei Sharabi said there were mistakes in it. And in any case I felt, it was less accurate than I needed. Then one great day I was in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem and discovered that in some private home there, the family was selling the actual large sidur of the Reshash.]

It is known that the Gra said that the Ari is speaking in terms of an analogy, not literal like he sounds.

The only one that got support from any world class mathematician was Leonard Nelson. That was the famous Nelson Affair file that David Hilbert kept in his office.

I do not understand why but the school of Kantian thought of Leonard Nelson was well known in the USSR, but almost completely ignored in the West.

[It is an odd fact that the only one of these that got support from any world class mathematician was Nelson. That was the famous Nelson Affair file that David Hilbert kept in his office.
An besides that we know Gauss was impressed with Fries and praised a book of Fries to a student that asked about it.


[I might mention that the correspondence of Godel indicates a kind of two tier structure of the world like the Neo Platonic school. To me it seems very close to Nelson.


[There are people who simply ignore the whole thing and want to go back to Aquinas like Ed Feser. The idea of finding in Medieval scholastic philosophers all the answers is perhaps a true point. There is something amazing about medieval thought. I have no idea what to say about that though.]

Also all of this just refers to philosophy. They all had something to say about politics but that does not seem to be where their insights were very great. On the Contrary--it was English thought [John Locke, De Foe] that seemed to reach the greatest heights when it comes to political thought. 

Michal the daughter of Saul

Michal the daughter of Saul was a kind of tragic figure. Clearly David was in love with her, and visa versa. When Avner ben Ner came to David, David had just one request to make of him, "Bring me back my wife Michal bat Saul." And she saved his life at least one time that we know about against her own father's wishes.

So the fact that she did not have children is sad. But furthermore --who were the descendants of Saul and the Givonim hung? It says in Kings II that five of them were the kids of Michal and then it names the father --the person that was the husband of Merav--her older sister! The Ralbag says that they were raised by Michal, but were not actually her kids. And that makes sense to me. And I can not think of any other possible explanation.

King David told Solomon to execute Yaov.

I am pretty sure that King David was upset with Yoav for killing Absalom. He could not tell his son Solomon to kill Yoav for that however,--- since it was justified. So he said it was for Avner ben Ner and Amasa.[Why did King David not send Yoav out to get the guy that rebelled after Absalom? I think David never really forgave him.]

The events with Yoav are sad. I think  King David would have not been able to do anything without Yoav. That makes Yoav's end particularly tragic.[King David told Solomon to execute Yaov-and he did.

there were no kings in Edom until Yoram

I asked a certain person in the Litvak study hall about the Gra's comment that the kings of Edom were around the time of Moses. He answered this question very well in pointing out that the verse about the kings of Edom says they reigned before there were kings in Israel. [I was asking about the fact that the book of Kings says there were no kings in Edom until Yoram the son of Jehoshaphat.]
But then he noted the odd fact that I had not seen. --The verse in the Torah says there were kings in Edom before there was a king in Israel. The verse in kings says there were no kings in Edom until Yoram --and that was long after there had already been kings in Israel for a more than a hundred years.

What occurs to me is this. King David as is well known conquered Edom. So the kings of the book of genesis refer to the kings of Edom before Moses and the last one at the time of Moses. After that we have no information. But then when David conquered Edom, they by definition stopped having kings. So the verse in the book of kings is referring to the time that Edom came out from under the yoke of Israel and began having their own kings again.I think this makes sense because at that point the book of Kings does not name the kings of Edom. So it is safe to assume they were not the ones mentioned in Genesis.

[A woman that rebels against her husband for no valid reason.

I was learning in the local study hall and for some reason the issue of מורדת came up. [A woman that rebels against her husband for no valid reason.] This was a surprise to me since the usual public lectures over there have do do with everyday minutia in law. That these bigger issues.  To me is is a difficult issue because once I has occasion to be talking with a granddaughter of  Bava Sali who was in fact thinking of asking her husband for a divorce. I advised against it but today I believe I was wrong.  It is never a simple issue. Sometimes there does seems to be a good reason for woman to leave.


In the Rema's [R. Moshe Iserless] correspondence there is a letter about this issue.

The basic issue issue is that marriage is more than a contract--but not less than a contract. So just like when you sign an agreement in business, that is binding even if one day you wake up and do not feel like fulfilling it. Still there are valid reasons that a woman can leave.

The daughter of Bava Sali asked me to agree with her daughter's feels that she ought to leave her husband. I did not agree and probably I should have listened.

So I ask how can you tell if some thought or urge come from the side of holiness or not? Or even if you adopt certain principles how can you tell if they are accurate or at least always accurate?

It seems to be the in thing nowadays for woman to accuse men of sexual crimes.

It seems to be the "in thing" nowadays for woman to accuse men of sexual crimes. It has gotten to be almost like a modern fashion. It is the "In Thing" to do. It gets the woman attention  and sympathy she could never get in any other way--especially for ugly, fat women. Even one of the founders of Category Theory had to go through this. Also John Searle. There just does not seem to be any down side of making false accusations.

[When was the last time you heard about an attractive female making accusations? Can't remember? Neither can I. Making false accusations is what ugly women do nowadays instead of raising cats.]

For women, there seems to be nothing to lose. They either are believed and gain money, power sympathy. Or else they don't. But there is (in their view) no loss involved. Their reputation never gets tainted. And the person they accuse, never really gets free of it because in the back of people's mind there is always that sneaking suspicion ""Just maybe.." [I should add that there is a down side to making false accusations that they are not aware of. יש דין ויש דיין. There will be a day of judgement.]

In  England there is a down side to be making false accusations-- for then the lawyer fees are reversed. It seems to me that this would be a good policy to implement in the USA and Israel also.
[This is not my original idea. I saw this a few years ago on the internet that someone suggested this remedy.]

I think a lot of this has to do with the general mentality. Women thought they could do this because in the USA, there used to be an implicit assumption that women are righteous and men are jerks. So women felt all they needed to do was to say a false statement about some guy they did not like, and that would be accepted as evidence. And in fact in the USA, that is exactly what happened. Nowadays this phenomenon is less common since police are looking for actual evidence--not simply accusations by  fat, stupid, hysterical women.

small sessions.A lot of people that think they can not do math would discover that in fact they can do math. It just gets absorbed in a different kind of fashion.

The idea of small sessions seems to be important to mention. I mean that besides learning fast, there is also an important idea to divide the sessions small digestible bits. That is like doing a few pages in one book and putting in a place marker and then closing it and going on to a different book. This idea seems to work best for me in terms of most areas of learning.

Sometimes for me doing a lot of pages in one book does not seem to add much. I find for me small sessions works better.


[My own small sessions are mainly in Physics and Math. As for Torah, on the few occasions I manage to get to the local Litvak study hall I try to find just one or two pieces in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri to go over every day until I feel I have got the basic idea.]

I think this idea of learning fast by saying the words and going on ought to be more widely known. The person that made the most effort to emphasize this approach was Rav Nahman of Breslov but he would not have been using it for math and Physics, but for the several divisions of Torah learning. In any case, I think it is an amazing piece of advice. A lot of people that think they can not do math would discover that in fact they can do math. It just gets absorbed in a different kind of fashion.

learning Math and Physics is a tikun

I thought it relevant to mention that from an early age I had a great interest in Physics and Chemistry. In part it was just my own curiosity about how the world works and in part from love and admiration for my Dad. But neither of my parents actually indicated that they wanted me to go into those fields. They definitely let my own interests guide me.

But I also think that they saw a numinous kind of value [holy value] in those fields along the same lines that you see in early Rishonim like  Ibn Pakuda (Obligations of the Heart) and Maimonides/ Rambam.

In the Rambam, Physics and Metaphysics takes on a dimension that you do not see much. To him, learning these two subjects are a fulfillment of the commands to love and fear God.

But as he points out in the Guide, the intention of learning these subjects has to be directed towards the goal of coming close to God.[That is in the parable of the king at the end of volume 3.]

If I may, I would like to suggest that I also see something in these subjects that one could call "tikunim"(corrections). Tikunim is an idea mainly associated with Rav Nahman of Breslov. With Rav Nahman saying certain parts of Torah have a corrective power for various problems.[The list is too long to go into here. In short,  for almost any problem you can think of, he has some verses or sections of Torah that are a correction for it. But I think he means to say them daily for 40 days in a row of more until the problem is solved. Not just to say them once.]

The most famous example is the ten psalms (16,32,41,42,59,77,90,105,137,150). But there are lots of other examples in his writings.
So what I am thinking is that the very act of learning Math and Physics is a tikun. [Though there is support for this idea in the very beginning of Rav Nahman's major book and in other places inside it, I am not depending on those places since people can argue that that is not what those place imply. But in the Rishonim the issue is much more clear.]

approach of my parents to make the most sense: balance.

I find the basic approach of my parents to make the most sense: balance. What I mean by that is that found a lot of good and important ideas in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov but I think I took things too far. I could have stayed with the basic Litvak approach of the Gra and not gone overboard.
After all there are some major points the Gra pointed out that one does not really get in the framework of Breslov, that is the learning Torah thing and trust in God.

It seems to me the point is like that Thomas Reid made about Isaac Newton. If Newton had tried to come up with a theory about everything, he would have failed miserably and would not have benefited anyone. But he confined himself to one question. How to understand gravity, And from that people have benefited. So when you learn from a tzadik like Rav Nahman, it best to limit yourself to what he actually says and take it as answering the basic issues that he brings up.
I mean it is human nature to want a general world view that makes sense of the whole picture. But that world view ought to include balance and certain amount of awareness of one's limitations on how much do we really know?


The approach of balance was also emphasized by Rav Freifeld my first rosh yeshiva, and also Rav Shmuel Berenbaum of the Mir--but that is not really part of my nature. I tend to take things to their outer limits. But anyway I found the path of balance to be hard since I realized to excel in anything I needed to concentrate on that one thing.


The point of balance however is not to have just a collection of good values. If lay out all the parts of a car --that is still not a car. It is car when all the parts are put together and working together in harmony.

So just to be clear, I see an ideal schedule daily as including Rav Shach's Avi Ezri (the essence of the Oral Law, Math, Physics, Music, outdoor activity exercise.

some links to some of the older music

Link to music files mp3

I might try to make some links to some of the older music since I do not see any of it in this folder.
That would be mainly things that were written in NY.
But after I moved from NY most of what I wrote was a waste of time. But then in Israel started the b files some of which I think are good.  Then later files were written in Uman. Some of the older pieces were also inspired when I was in Uman but only put together in NY. The V files are the most recent files.  [e files were all written in Uman and everything after that except for the V files. The V files were written in Israel. [I do not know why Uman got to be a problem. People would just simply attack on on the street in broad daylight. It got to be insane to stay there. Maybe God just wanted me back in Israel for some reasons I understand not.] V files were only Midi so they are not included in this folder. God willing I will try to make a link for people that are interested in listening.

That has been since Sept 27. I hope God grants to me to start writing music again--but in the meantime I think that to share what there already is is a good idea.

If I would have energy right now I would probably rather be learning Physics or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, but I am too tired now to do either.

Here is a link to that pieces i named mathematics  black hole p120 exodus4 great title Orchestra organ
piano[put for organ in mp3 but written on piano]

Orchestra is one of the oldest pieces. It was written when I was in high school.



Here is a  link to the folder that has the nwc files and some midi

That still does not include the older classics 

Yonadav ben Recav was a friend of Yehu

יונדב בן רכב Yonadav ben Recav was a friend of Yehu. [See Chronicles where the events surrounding Yehu at brought] Yehu was the one who wiped out the house of Ahav. So when Jeremiah asked his descendants to drink wine that was a few hundred years later and still they were keeping his word.

So honor your father and your mother still applies hundreds of years later.

The incident was that Jeremiah told them to drink wine and they refused because of the command of their great grandfather and for that they were granted a reward from God that their house would stand forever.

I can not say I have fulfilled this because my Mom and Dad clearly were interested in my keeping up my studies in Physics and Math, and yet I absolutely disobeyed them. Now some time later I find it is hard to make up for lost ground.

בבא מציעא ל''ה

Ideas in Shas

Ideas in Bava Metzia
In terms of   רב שך idea in laws of ה' שכירות א' הלכה ו. The idea is in short that in בבא מציעא לה: רב אידי בר אבין and אביי disagree about the sages of the משנה.  Then רב שך brings an idea not look that it fits well with אביי and רב אידי בר אבין. The basic idea is this. Two people come to the court of law and one claims payment for a loan.  The other says "You forgave the loan." If it is during the period before the loan is due to be paid the לווה is not believed, but if after that period, he is believed because he could say "I already paid you back".  Then why not during the time of the loan also? He answers it is a "טענה גרועה" since no loan is standing to be forgiven, It is standing to be paid,
Now רב שך applies this idea to when a work animal dies during the time it is being hired out. The Torah does believe the one that hired the animal with an oath but the actual plea itself seems weak. The animal is not standing in order to die. And רב שך in fact says that was the argument between אביי and רב אידי בר אבין. What bothers me here is that neither אביי nor רב אידי בר אבין say that that is what they are arguing about. They say they are arguing about when does possession pass to the one that hired the animal, the time of the oath or the time the animal died? That to me sounds like the whole argument between them is this: They agree that קניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף of the object, And that שכירות אינה קניין הגוף. But in a case when the animal dies then that changes. Then the קניין פירות כקניין הגוף in the object itself. And there is a simple proof of this idea. A thief that damages the object he stole, he has to give back double the price or whole objects, and he keeps the vessel he broke. See what I wrote about אין שמין לגנב. So damage can confer possession in the case of hiring also.

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב. רב שך בה' שכירות א' הלכה ו. הרעיון הוא בקיצור כי בבא מציעא לה: רב אידי בר אבין ואביי חולקים בדעת החכמים של המשנה.  רב שך מביא רעיון שקשה להבין בעניין אביי ואת רב אידי בר אבין. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה. שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט  ואחד טוען תשלום עבור הלוואה. השני אומר "אתה סלחת את ההלוואה." אם זה בתקופה שלפני ההלוואה צריכה להיות משולמת הלווה לא נאמן, אבל אם אחרי תקופה זו, הוא נאמן כי הוא יכול לומר "כבר שילמתי לך בחזרה". אז למה לא בזמן של ההלוואה גם? הוא עונה זו  "טענה גרועה" מאז הלוואה אינה עומדת להיות נסלחת, זו עומדת להיות משולמת. עכשיו רב שך מביא את הרעיון הזה כאשר חי עבודה מת במהלך הזמן שהעבודה מתבצעת, התורה  מאמינה  השוכר עם שבועה, אך הטיעון בפועל עצמו נראה חלש. החיה אינה עומדת למות. וזה רב שך למעשה אומר כי היה ויכוח בין אביי ואת רב אידי בר אבין. מה קשה לי כאן הוא שלא אביי ולא רב אידי בר אבין מזכירים כי זה הם מתווכחים. הם מתווכחים בעניין הזמן שקניין עובר לשוכר את החיה, הזמן של השבועה או הזמן שהחיה מתה? זה נשמע לי כמו כל הטיעון ביניהם הוא זה: הם מסכימים כי קניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף [של האובייקט], ושכירות אינה קניין הגוף. אבל במקרה כאשר החי מת אז יש שינוי. ואז קניין פירות כקניין הגוף בתוך האובייקט עצמו. ויש הוכחה פשוטה של ​​הרעיון הזה. גנב שהזיק את האובייקט שהוא גנב, הוא צריך להחזיר כפל המחיר או אובייקטים שלמים, והוא קונה  כלי שהוא שיבר. ראה מה שכתבתי על אין שמין לגנב. אז נזק יכול להעניק קניין במקרה של שכירות גם.

Bava Metzia page 35 - Rav Shach's idea.

In terms of  Rav Shach's idea in laws of hiring I:6 I do not have a lot to add to what God granted to me to write yesterday. The only thing is that I am not so sure if the actual approach really works.

The idea is in short that in Bava Metzia page 35b Rav Aidi bar Abin and Abyee disagree about the sages of the Mishna. Rav Shach brings a good idea from Rav Aaron Kotler that fits well in the place his brings it. But to me it does not look that it fits well with Abyee and Rav Aidi.
\
The basic idea of Rav Aaron Kotler makes a lot of sense. It is this. Two people come to the court of law and one claims payment for a loan and the other says you forgave the loan.If it is during the period before the loan is due to be paid the borrower is not believed but if after that period he is believed because he could say I already paid you back. Rav Aaron asks then why not during the time of the loan also? He answers it is a "weak plea." since no loan is standing to be forgiven, It is standing to be paid,
Now Rav Shach applies this idea to when a work animal dies during the time it is being hired out. The Torah does believe the one that hired the animal with an oath but the actual plea itself seems weak. The animal is not standing in order to die. And Rav Shach in fact says that was the argument between Abyee and Rav Aidi.

What bothers me here is that neither Abyee nor Rav Aidi say that that is what they are arguing about. They say they are arguing about when does possession pass to the one that hired the animal--the time of the oath of the time the animal died? That to me sounds like the whole argument between them is this: They agree that possession of the fruits in not like possession of the object, And that hiring does not give possession of the object. But in a case when the animal dies then that changes. Then the possession or hiring does mean there is a possession in the object itself. And there is a simple proof of this idea. A thief that damages the object he stole, he has to give back double the price or whole objects, and he keeps the vessel he broke. [See what I wrote about אין שמין לגנב] So damage can confer possession in the case of hiring also. Maybe this counts as a new idea?


I ought to mention that when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson-we found ways of answering difficult issues in Rav Shach and if I would be learning with him now perhaps I also could find an answer. However right now I think that my approach here makes more sense.

Why do the righteous suffer? Is a question asked in the prophets Havakook, not just in the book of Job. But in the book of Job you get what to me looks like the answer. The three friends of Job were all rebuked by God himself there.

Why do the righteous suffer? Is a question asked in the prophets Havakook, not just in the book of Job. But in the book of Job you get what to me looks like the answer. The three friends of Job were all rebuked by God himself there. Job himself is not exactly rebuked, but God "tells him off". He asks "Who are you to judge?" But one person in the whole book gets off the hook,-- Elyihu. So what did Elyihu say different from the other three?
That one good deed outweighs a thousand sins.  Add to that sincere repentance and that seems to be enough to get a person into the Divine Light.[ Job 33]



Schopenhauer seems to have an approach in terms of the Will. Though he generally delights in the fact that we do not understand the workings of the Will, still in a late letter he indicates that there is a dimension of the Will's workings in the world that it all goes towards the good. That seems to be the approach of King David in psalms around #73


[Schopenhauer provides the metaphysics for Kelley Ross's  Kant Fries School of thought. That is largely based on Leonard Nelson for the part that is meant to answer how do we know stuff? It is known as the Friesian School or Critical school but Dr Ross really has made it into a larger structure. He uses the bricks to build his own structure.]

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב. The רמב''ם הלכות שכירות א' ה''ו in that case of the שוכר animal and then משאיל it goes like ר' יוסי that the שואל pays the owner. So that goes well with the general rule of ריש לקיש possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object itself. קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף And that goes well with what רב שך writes in laws of hire ו' ה''ה. So then why does  רב שך not say that that in itself is the debate with the sages and ר' יוסי? Because of a few good reasons. The most obvious one is this. When רב אידי בר אבין asks on the sages and אביי answers him they do not say the reason for the sages is because the possession of the fruit is like possession of the object. Neither do they say that the fact that שוכר the animal gets possession by the fact of hiring. Instead רב אידי  asks when does possession start? From the oath. He then asks why does the owner not say he does not need the oath of the שוכר and instead wants to talk with the שואל. And אביי answers him possession does not start from the oath. Rather it starts from the time the animal dies. But both are talking only according to the sages, and they are both agreeing that possession did not start from the time of hiring. Also we do not want a debate among sages of the משנה to depend on a debate among sages of the Talmud. So now  רב שך is crystal clear. He knows the reason for the רמב''ם is that the possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object. But then he is wondering then what is the reason for the sages that hold the שואל pays the שוכר? And then he comes with this idea the argument between אביי and רב אידי depends on whether a plea of accident is a strong plea. [I still think that Rav Shach should have mentioned this aspect of things openly, even though it is clear that he was thinking along these lines.]


link to Ideas in Shas

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב. רמב''ם הלכות שכירות א' ה''ו במקרה של שוכר חיה, ואז משאיל אותה (ואז קרה אונס שהחיה מתה) הולך כמו ר' יוסי כי שואל משלם לבעלים. אז זה הולך טוב עם הכלל של ריש לקיש קנין של הפרי הוא לא כמו קנין של האובייקט עצמו. קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף וזה הולך טוב עם מה רב שך כותב ה' שכירות ו" ה''ה. אז מדוע רב שך לא לומר כי זה בעצמו הוויכוח של החכמים עם ר' יוסי? בגלל כמה סיבות טובות. התוצאה הברורה ביותר היא זו. כאשר רב אידי בר אבין שואל על החכמים אביי עונה לו שהם לא אומרים שסיבת החכמים משום קנין של הפרי כמו קנין של האובייקט. גם הם לא אומרים כי העובדה של השכירות של החיה גורמת קנין.  רב אידי שואל מתי הקניין מתחיל? מן השבועה. ואז הוא שואל מדוע הבעלים לא אומרים שהם לא צריכים את השבועה של השוכר ובמקום זה רוצים לדבר עם השואל. וזה אביי עונה לו קנין אינו מתחיל מן השבועה. במקום זאת הוא מתחיל מרגע החיה מתה. אבל שניהם מדברים לפי דעת החכמים, ושניהם מסכימים כי קניין לא התחיל מהרגע של השכירות. כמו כן אנחנו לא רוצים ויכוח בין חכמי המשנה תסמוך על ויכוח בין חכמי התלמוד. אז עכשיו דעת  רב שך היא ברורה כשמש. הוא יודע את הסיבת הרמב''ם היא כי קנייןו של הפרי הוא לא קניין של האובייקט. אבל אז הוא תוהה אז מהי הסיבה שחכמים שמחזיקים שהשואל משלם לשוכר? ואז הוא מגיע עם רעיון זה הטיעון בין אביי ואת רב אידי תלוי אם לא  טענת התאונה היא טיעון חזק.

Rav Shach in Laws of Hire I: 6, Bava Metzia 35:b

Bava Metzia 35:b
I am grateful to God that I found a way to explain Rav Shach and also that I can write it on the internet with the computer of a friend.[I still can not write music but still I am happy that God has grated to me to writes a new idea in Torah.]
This is in reference to what I asked yesterday about Rav Shach in laws of hire I: 6
Because I never know how much time I have I will write the idea that I had today in short.

The Rambam in that case of the one that hires the animal and then lends it goes like R. Yose that the borrower pays the owner. So that goes well with the general rule of Reish Lakish possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object itself. And that goes well with what Rav Shach writes in laws of hire VI:5

So then as I asked yesterday does Rav Shach not say that that in itself is the debate with the sages and R Yose? Because of a few good reasons. The most obvious one is this. When Rav Aidi bar Abin asks on the sages and Abyee answers him they do not say the reason for the sages is because the possession of the fruit is like possession of the object. Neither do they say that the fact that one that hired the animal gets possession by the fact of hiring. Instead Rav Aidi asks when does possession start? From the oath. He then asks why does the owner not say he does not need the oath of the one that hires and instead wants to talk with the one that borrowed. And Abyee answers him Do not think possession starts from the oath. Rather it starts from the time the animal dies. But both are talking only according to the sages and they are both agreeing that possession did not start from the time of hiring.

Also we do not want a debate among sages of the mishna to depend on a debate among sages of the Talmud.
So now Rav Shach is crystal clear. He knows the reason for the Rambam is that the possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object. But then he is wondering then what is the reason for the sages that hold the borrower pays the one that hired? And then he comes with this idea the argument between Abyee and Rav Idi depends on whether a plea of accident is a strong plea.

talks by Rav Shach.

I saw in the Litvak study hall a book that has excerpts of talks by Rav Shach. Sometimes they seem very insightful but it seems a little much on the religious side. And the religious side can be for me confusing. After all Kant said that when one tries to apply reason to the realm of the thing in itself, contradictions are inevitable,

So my approach is to try to learn Gemara and to live according to the laws of Moses, but to avoid the religious world which is contrary to that ideal--though they certainly imagine that they are in accord with it.

 Involvement with the religious world is usually disastrous. The reason is though they believe they are keeping Torah, they are in fact doing the opposite.

But to try to understand the reason for this just gets one involved in a realm where reason can not go. (But I venture to say  to the religious, their emphasis on ritual makes them superior in their own minds) The best thing to do is to be  a mensch -a decent human being.

Rav Shach in the Rambam in laws of hire

Rav Shach in the Rambam in laws of hire says an idea to answer the Rambam over there. But I think that Rav Shach himself came up with a better idea a few pages later.


To be as direct and short as I can.[Since I am tired and also worried about my problems.]
Rambam Laws of Hire I: 6 goes like R. Yose. The case is a person hired an animal to do work with and then loaned it to another person. On that person's time the animal dies.
To whom does the borrower pay?[Background: A borrower pays for everything and one that hires pays for small things but not for big accidents that he has no control over. The animal dying is considered a big accident but then he takes an oath that that is in fact what happened.

The Gemara itself brings this:
However the sages of the mishna say the borrower pays the one that hired the animal-if the one that hired the animal takes the required oath.

Rav Adi bar Abin says the owner ought to tell the one that  hired: can talk to the borrower directly. Abyee answered to Rav Adi: the obligation starts when the animal dies, not at the time of the oath.

To me the issue seems clearly based on the argument between R Yochanan and Reish Lakish about אם קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי-- if possession of the fruits is like possession of the object itself.
See Rav Shach himself later on in laws of hire where him goes into this in detail and I am thinking that later section must have been written long after this one because I think Rav Shach would have seen that he himself had a better answer than the one he gives, The explanation he gives  to the debate between Abyee and Rav Abin is if a plea of "accident" is a strong plea,

But from my point of view it seems simple that the question is does renting or hiring something give one possession in the physical object or not? If yes, the it is clear why the borrower would have to pay the one that hired. The reason is that for that period of time of the renting, he is in the place of the owner and so when an accident occurred in the possession of the borrower, the money would have to be paid to him, not the owner. And that is how Rav Shach himself explains the debate between R Yochanan and Riesh Lakish.

Sorry if this is not so clear but it is the best I can do right now.

I just added this to my little book on Shas

______________________________________________________________________________


רב שך in the רמב''ם הלכות שכירות  says an idea to answer the רמב''ם  over there. But I think that רב שך himself came up with a better idea a few pages later. 'רמב''ם  הלכות שכירות א הלכה ו goes like ר' יוסי. The case is a person hired an animal to do work with and then loaned it to another person. On that person's time the animal dies. To whom does the borrower pay? Background. A שואל pays for everything and שוכר pays for  גניבה ואבידה  ואונסים קטנים but not for אונסים גדולים כגון שוד מזוין או מיתת הבהמה that he has no control over. The animal dying is considered a big accident, but then השוכר takes an oath that that is in fact what happened. The גמרא itself brings this. However the חכמים of the משנה say the borrower pays to the שוכר, if the שוכר takes the required oath. רב אידי בר אבין  says the בעל הבית ought to tell the שוכר I can talk to the borrower directly. אביי answered to רב אידי בר אבין, the obligation starts when the animal dies, not at the time of the oath. I think the debate is based on the argument between ר' יוחנן and ריש לקיש about אם קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי. The explanation רב שך gives  to the debate between אביי and רב אידי בר אבין  is if a plea of "accident" is a strong plea. But from my point of view it seems simple that the question is this. Does hiring something give one possession in the physical object or not? If yes, then it is clear why the borrower would have to pay the שוכר. The reason is that for that period of time of the renting, he is in the place of the owner and so when an accident occurred in the possession of the borrower, the money would have to be paid to השוכר, not the owner.



רב שך ברמב''ם הלכות שכירות אומר רעיון לענות על רמב''ם שם. אבל אני חושב כי רב שך עצמו בא עם רעיון טוב יותר לאחר כמה דפים. רמב''ם הלכות שכירות א הלכה ו' הולך כמו ר' יוסי. המקרה הוא אדם שוכר חיה לעשות עבודה ולאחר מכן משאיל אותה לאדם אחר. על הזמן של השואל הבעל חי מת. למי השואל משלם? (רקע כללי. שואל משלם על הכל ועל שוכר לשלם עבור גניבה ואבידה ואונסים קטנים אך לא עבור אונסים גדולים כגון שוד מזוין או מיתת הבהמה שאין לו שליטה עליו). מיתת החיה נחשבת תאונה גדולה, אבל אז השוכר לוקח שבועה כי זה למעשה מה שקרה. הגמרא עצמה מביאה את זה.  לפי דעת החכמים של משנה השואל משלם לשוכר, אם השוכר לוקח את השבועה הנדרשת. רב אידי בר אבין אומר בעל הבית יכוללהגיד לשוכר אני יכול לדבר עם השואל ישירות. אביי ענה לרב אידי בר אבין, החובה מתחיל כאשר החיה מתה, לא בעת השבועה. אני חושב הדיון מתבסס על הטיעון בין ר' יוחנן לבין ריש לקיש על אם קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי. ההסבר רב שך נותן לדיון בין אביי ואת רב אידי בר אבין היא אם טענת "תאונה" הוא טיעון חזק. אבל מנקודת המבט שלי זה נראה פשוט כי השאלה היא זו. האם שכירת משהו נותנת בידי אחד האובייקט הפיזי או לא? אם כן, אז ברור מדוע השואל יצטרך לשלם את השוכר. הסיבה היא שבמשך פרק זמן של השכרה, הוא נמצא במקום של הבעלים ולכן כאשר תאונה התרחשה ברשותו של השוכר.

Rav Shach and the Gaon of Vilna were aware of the problem but were ignored.

There is a lot of effort to get the false messiah of the hasidim to be accepted as the true messiah. Even though he died still people are very active in Israel to try and get him to be accepted. His picture is put up where ever one goes. But if you ask them if he is the true messiah they deny that they believe that. It is the same kind of hypocrisy  that occurred after the events of the Shatz--Shabatai Tzvi where people continued in the faith that he was the messiah but denied it if you asked them.

The reason is that that group got to be accepted as legitimate authentic Judaism.

That is even secular Jews have his picture in their stores and homes and it is plastered across every single highway all throughout Israel.


I took down one sign and one of those hasidim came to attack me and was yelling that that picture is holy--but I escaped.

What I think about this is that there were plenty of times that idolatry was accepted in  Israel and the worship of the true God was forgotten. That is during the reign of the kings of Israel like Yeravam ben Navat [Jeroboam] and Achav [Ahab].

But even then there were a small group of people  that held onto the true faith like Eliyahu [Elijah]  the prophet. All the kings of Israel and some of the kings of Judah and Benjamin were idol worshipers. Go and check and you will see. Many of the kings of the two tribes worshiped the Baal and did so for long periods of their reign and authentic Torah itself was almost completely forgotten


Rav Shach and the Gaon of Vilna were aware of the problem but were ignored. Rav Nahman from Breslov also knew about the problem but all references to this were deleted from his books except in the excerpts of Rav Shmuel Horvitz which was published by the Na Nach group. \



The main reason for this problem I believe is that this was a blind spot for many gedolai Israel [great sages] For example Bava Sali became aware of the problem only at the end of his life.  And thought the whole thing was legitimate.  Many others also. Only Rav Shach realized the problem from the very beginning. [Even the Hafetz Haim brings from that source in the Mishna Brura. Did he not know of the signature of the Gra?] [The way the problem began in Litva  was Rav Haim from Voloshin accepted a young hasid  student into his yeshiva. But the reason was because he was not from the group that the Gra has put into Cherem. If you look at the actual letter it refers only to the disciples of the Magid of Mezritch.]

But as Bava Meir knew that Bava Sali became aware of the problem towards the end of his life. I -----wonder if  perhaps I am the only one that knows about this problem today.
In Uman, I began to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach in part because I was aware that he was the only one with the proper degree of insight to see what is true and what is fake in Judaism. That is why you can see that I started quoting him in the book on Shas. My learning partner and I at that time began simply to learn Rav Shach straight.--But then the hasidim there got rid of me and I had to go and live alone by myself for a few years.

Rav Shach [In the Rambam of Laws of Hiring]

There is an issue in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. the problem comes from the one that hires an animal to do work and then he lends it to a third party and then the animal dies. There is an argument in the Mishna to whom the borrower pays. Rav Shach [Beginning of Laws of Hiring] brings the Gemara: The Sages said the borrower pays the one that hired the animal. Rav Idi bar Abin said the owner ought to be able to say to the one that hired the animal "I do not need you or your oath. I will talk directly to the borrower." Abyee answered:"Who says the ownership begins at the oath? Maybe it begins when the animal dies?

Rav Shach brings the idea that the argument is whether a plea of "It was an accident" is a good plea.

Because of all my problems I have not been able to think about this very much, but from the first time I saw this until now I still can not see the point of Rav Shach. It seems to me the issue is in a case of hiring an animal, where is the assumption of ownership in case it really is an accident?

To get out of "they".--Heidegger

Heidegger for some reason gets classified with the existentialists --and Kierkegaard also. But I think that is unfair. Neither deny that Reason perceives universals and moral values and laws of nature. Rather they both focused on the need of the individual to find his own way. To find the Dasein authentic Being inside of his and the bring that into reality. That is how Heidegger understands the call of conscious. To get out of "they" and to get Being itself to come into the light--from potential into actuality.

But how or why both got to be put together with post modern philosophy is beyond me.

I can not really recall what I was thinking at the time I went to Shar Yashuv and the Mir Yeshiva in NY, but I think that what motivated me was this exact issue. the way of "being" in the world.

I mean I had a rational point of view so eastern religions did not grab me as much as others. Most people that were searching for the meaning of life went into eastern groups. But that did not appeal to me. My side reading in high school was Plato, Dante, etc. More of less things that held reason can penetrate into the truth of things, So to me a Lithuanian type of Yeshiva seemed to best idea how to get in touch with reality.
To answer the call of Being.
Though I admit that if I had known about the way of learning of Girsa [Rav Nahman's idea of just saying the words and going on]--I might anyway have gone into Physics as my original intention was.
For I recognized something great in my dad and his career in the aerospace industry. But without any kind of method of learning that would work for me, I had no way i knew of how to get into it..]

In laws of buying and selling 22: 15 and 22:16 the Rambam brings that a person that  a person who says a calf that will be born from his cow is sanctified for the Temple is required to fulfill his words even though holiness does not come on the calf since it is considered a thing that has not yet come into the world. Then he says about one dying that if he says the fruit that his tree will bring forth is to go to the poor that the people that inherit his money must fulfill his words. Rav Yoseph Karo asks on this that they are not required to fulfill his vow.
Rav Shach answers [based on a certain Tosphot] that obligations on one's body imply obligation on one's property. This was an issue that came up in my book on Bava Metzia but I was not aware at the time that Rav Shach had written anything on this.

I would try to add a note now but as I mentioned I can not do any writing of music nor ideas in Torah unless I get my old computer back or get a new one. Anyway I am very happy I am not in prison--because there also I think I would not be writing much music or ideas in Torah


The actual answer that David Bronson said in Bava Metzia was a little different than Rav Shach but it was related. The idea there was that there is a certain amount of obligation that is implied when one agrees to lend or to rent one's property to another. But David also there in Bava Metzia did not like the idea of the Netivot HaMishpat that the difference between lending and object and renting it is the difference between obligation on one's body and obligation on one's property. And that certain goes along with Rav Shach.

In any case Rav Shach was not coming to answer the problems in Bava Metzia so anyway I think we need to depend on the answer of David Bronson as I wrote over there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For some reason in the Litvak study hall my book on Bava Metzia is still around and being looked at but not the one on Shas. I gave both to the Rav there and he left one out on the table. So why not the one on Shas? I think because I might have gone into law issues too much for his taste. So I am thinking if I want to write about law, it ought to be in a separate book, not the one on Shas.

a nice answer that Rav Shach gives for the Rambam in laws of selling

I have not had time to go into this in detail but I wanted to mention a nice answer that Rav Shach gives for the Rambam in laws of selling. This question has some answer from R Akiva Eiger and a different one from R Haim Soloveitchik.
The question is one can not sell something that is not in one's domain even though he owns it. --That is if he can not get to it then he can not sell it. But in terms of the shemita [seventh] year the Rambam brings that people that had נטע רבעי a tree that had grown for only 4 years, left money in a private area and said "If the fruit of this tree is picked  then its holiness is put onto this money." In that way, the people that picked it by accident would not be doing anything wrong by eating it -- since its holiness was transferred elsewhere.

Rav Shach answers for the Rambam that there is a difference between transferring ownership and causing holiness to settle on something.

The Rashba wanted to say something similar in the Gemara but somehow that idea Rav Shach noted does not fit well with the Gemara in Bava Metzia where the Rashba wanted to use this idea. But it very well might help for the Rambam. I however have not been able to investigate this issue very thoroughly yet.

Does the very act of sex makes a woman a wife?

A Catholic blogger held that in the Torah the very act of sex makes a woman, the wife of the man.[That might have been the Zippy Catholic].

If you look at the verses in Deuteronomy it is hard to argue with him. But In Exodus we find that if one seduces a virgin and the father refuses to give her in marriage, then he simply has to pay the regular 200 zuz. This seems to go directly against what the Zippy Catholic was saying. So that is a good proof that marriage can only happen in front of two witnesses and with intention to marry as the Gemara says.

However there is a point about what he is saying in Deuteronomy that goes along with Rav Isaac Luria that אין אישה כורתת ברית אלא עם מי שעשהה כליץ A woman makes a covenant only with him that made her into a vessel. Or as the Ari explains the first act of sex leaves a spirit inside of her forever.
So not in a legal sense but in a spiritual sense what the Zippy Catholic said makes sense.

Heidegger and Kierkegaard

Heidegger and Kierkegaard make a point that philosophy became too interested in  what faculties people  have in common. How the Mind works? How do we know a priori knowledge? But what is really interesting is not what a great saint and an evil criminal have in common, but rather what makes them different?


The answer is to Heidegger--Dasein. Being. That is there is something inside the great saint that strives to be revealed--to come out from darkness into the light. That is not the same as Kierkegaard who focused on how one is. To Heidegger what is essential is "who one is", not what one is or how one is.

The insight that this gives to me is that it helps me understand a bit of my decisions in life. I think I was not at all interested in the secular life style. Something in the Shar Yashuv yeshiva resonated with me.--the idea of sitting and learning Torah a way--as the way--of serving God.

This still resonates inside-but the actual religious world for some reason seems to have gotten out of sync with authentic Torah.

I am still trying to get back into authentic Torah by learning Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. But this goes only with great difficulty. Once I left the authentic Torah world of the Litvak's  it seems impossible to get back in.

USA system

One person who has a link to my blog said a few years ago that the USA system was indebted to John Calvin --in terms of representative government. In Geneva Calvin had set up representative government. There was a large group (200) that was voted in directly and they voted for two smaller consuls(60 and 20). But I am wondering was there not already a House of Commons in England?

In fact I have been looking at the government of England during the period from 1688 --the glorious revolution -and it seems to me the entire English system was more or less simply transplanted into the USA Constitution.--with some significant differences--for example separation of church and state.


[The fellow that links to my blog might have been thinking that the House of Commons was not actually elected when it first started in the 1200's. And I am not sure when it got to be elected. But with John Calvin we know the consul of 600 was elected by every church member in Geneva..

Rav Nahman of Breslov

There are a few things Rav Nahman of Breslov said that I think are related to how one goes about learning. He said them as general principles in life but to me they seem to apply very much to the way he said to learn-. That is to say the words fast and go on.

For example he said one does not need "hard services." That is to make things hard. 

Also he said as אין להתעקש על שום דבר--not to be stubborn about anything in the world.

The way this applies to learning seem to me to be that one should learn learn simply by saying the words and go on and not be overly concerned if you understand everything.



The way i do this is even with the Avi Ezri I just go over the whole piece one day and the next time I can get to the study hall to so the same thing again.
But I ought to add that my learning partner learns in that slow and tedious way, and it seems by that he comes to great insights that I do not get to.

Uman for Rosh Hashana?

My learning partner David noted that things tend to fall apart when one is not in Uman for Rosh Hashana. This year I did not take his advice and in fact right after Rosh Hashana things fell apart. But I am still not thinking of being in Uman since it has become dangerous. Very dangerous. So the best overall idea I think would be to bring the grave to Israel. The problem with that though it it is not known exactly where the actual grave is. One fellow who paints portraits there told me that a WWII survivor told him that she knew the actual site is not where people think but rather North West about ten yards. from the grave site that is marked. [Actually West but slightly north]

Lithuanian Study hall.

I am very thankful that I am in an area where there is a Lithuanian Study hall. So even though I still do not have the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, I have been able to do a little bit of study in his book.
Once I was going to the ocean and I asked a young fellow who looked a bit like a Litvak if there is a study hall on the name of the Gra in this area. He said No, but he did suggest this other place that is close enough.

Rav Abulafia [the mediaeval mystic] about unifications

As you can imagine after my arrest my mind has not been settled that much. But because of this I have been thinking along the lines of Rav Abulafia [the mediaeval mystic] about unifications. While he was more into the idea in order to come to to attachment with God, I have been thinking along the lines of  finding the particular verses in Torah and the prophets that relate to my problems and finding the unifications that come out of each verse.

One of the most important aspects of Rav Abulafia is his claim that Jesus was a true tzadik saint even though that certainly was not very politically correct in the Middle Ages.

But he also is quoted by Rav Haim Vital as presenting the unifications that brings one to attachment with God. This was not known since Rav Vital only brings this in the last volume of his Musar book, Gates of Holiness. And that volume was not even printed until recently.

I still have no computer but a friend is letting me write on his. Finally I have access to Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and I have been looking at it along with a drop of string theory and math. {I still learn these mainly by the method of גירסה  just saying the words and going on  as the Gemara brings.}
One thing I noticed in Rav Shach is that he says the argument between R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish about קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי [''Possession of the fruit is like possession of the thing''] is not like it sounds. He says [in laws of renting] that the issue is if renting in itself is like possession of the thing.

That is how he answers the question that I brought up in my booklet on Bava Metzia that the Gemara seems to say that the person that is renting owns the fertilizer in the courtyard, while the Rambam [Maimonides] says not.
I would like to delve more deeply into this but in short Rav Shach says the cases that you find in Shas where the renter owes the stuff that is left in the courtyard is where the intention of the renting was for that specific purpose.--in the view of the Rambam. Clearly the Raavad disagrees. Also I might mention that Rav Shach at the end of that chapter leaves off with a question on Tosphot. To me that is a clear invitation to try and answer for Tosphot.







I am still hoping to get a hold of the books of Rav Avraham Abulafia [the mediaeval mystic that I have mentioned a few times] to get a better idea of his approach. But so far things are going with difficulty in Israel. In any case, it is clear to me that Rav Abulafia is much more interested in unifications than the Ari. I lost interest in unifications for a while but recent events have rekindled my interest. That is to find the right unifications that are applicable to my recent problems.







Also since Professor Moshe Idel has done a lot of research into Rav Abulafia I would like to get his books also.[It was in fact looking at Moshe Ideal's Ph.D thesis that gave me a degree of clarity about Rav Abulafia's opinions about Christianity.






[I have also been looking at Heidegger who I find to have a some important points. While philosophers tend to look at what is common to all people, Heidegger brings the idea that that is not as interesting as what makes people different.

V-57 G and c major  v-57 nwc

music file v65

V-65 F Major

"devekut" (attachment with God)

There is an aspect of "devekut" (attachment with God) that comes by learning Torah. And that mainly happens in the context of straight Torah. A slight deviation leaves that effect and even brings one to harm. Now by straight Torah I mean mainly Gemara Tosphot and Rishonim [Mediaeval authorities].
But it can include akhronim also like the Maharsha and the Avi Ezri.

Now why I bring this up is that we see in the Torah itself there is a commandment to be attached to God [Deuteronomy 30:20] and that leaves one wondering how to go about that.
The disciple of the Gra in the Nefesh HaHaim goes into great length showing in fact how learning Torah does bring God's light down into all the worlds. [He brings it from several places in the Chazal].
And I think most people in straight Litvak yeshivas in fact feel this devekut thought it is not talked about at all.
Perhaps the reason it is not talked about is spirituality can get easily sidetracked.
So as a side effect, devekut is certainly there in Litvak yeshivas. But because of the danger that accompanies any overt effort or open effort in spiritual directions, that aspect of learning Torah is downplayed.

I would like also to expand this idea of learning Torah to include the wisdom of God in Creation as most Rishonim say. That means the obligations of the heart and the rambam and others

devekut attachment with God connected with learning the Ari-  learning the Ari is in itself learning Torah.

I like Kant a lot and I think his questions were  good most people did not accept his answers. That left room for immediate non intuitive knowledge of Fries and Leonard Nelson.  But even Reid accepted the old world view that our mind is form without matter was not really the best approach. The questions brought up by Descartes,and Berkeley he did not really answer except to say that common sense shows our we our we do have knowledge of the objective world. I

Why electricity is allowed on Shabat

I just wanted to mention why electricity is allowed on Shabat. It is not fire which is an oxidation process. [Electricity is  a flow of electrons.] And it is not building, nor fixing a vessel. It is simply turning on a light. That is not the same thing as fixing a light.
[What the fixation of the religious is about this I have no idea. It seems that they have to defend the idea turning on a light is forbidden at all cost with no support from the Gemara or Rishonim. If only they would have the same fixation about things that the Gemara actually does say!

[ I wrote  long blog on this a long time ago in more detail. I had heard about the Chazon Ish but did not have the chance to look at his book on this issue until I got back to the Mir in NY and there looked at it. I was impressed, but then talked with Rav Nelkenbaum about it and he said  that the Chazon Ish was simply not right. I had no idea what he meant at first but then I realized what that  must have meant. That is : you have to squeeze the Chazon Ish into the Gemara. It does not come out of the Gemara itself. You have to make up your own idea why electricity must be forbidden and then try to fit it into the Gemara.]

Later someone showed to me the book of the disciple of the Chazon Ish [Rav Aurbach] that also says electricity is not building nor fixing a vessel.


The main reason why the religious are fixated about this is it makes them feel superior to others while also helping to divert attention from things that the Torah actually does require.

Sukka.

Sukka. The covering needs to be more shade than sun. But to what hour of the day does that refer? If when the sun gets up in the morning, the shade will  be vast. If at midday it will be minuscule.

Rav Ovadiah Joseph did a great thing a few years back when he noted that the sheets they use for the walls flap in the wind. So you need the three small ropes on the side lower areas  to count as walls.

obsession with religion is the primary trait of a schizoid personality.

To clarify a previous post: There is nothing wrong with being religious. Fear of God is a great thing. But there is some kind of aspect of balance of values that one needs. And that balance is what the Torah itself says.

Sapolsky [Stanford University] also mentions that obsession with religion is the primary trait of a schizoid personality.

I thought to mention that getting the right kind of orientation right away in the morning seems like a good idea to me. So to start the day with one of the classical books of Ethics like Obligations of the Heart [חובות לבבות] or any other of the books of Musar seems important to me. [That is the Mesilat Yesharim, Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous etc.]
This is what I try to do myself in order to get my mind set straight right at the beginning of the day.

F Major  [V53 in nwc]

A Major  [V54 nwc]

V-55 G Minor  [V55]

Making people religious amounts to making them wicked

In the religious world there is nothing so highly valued as making other people religious. The trouble with that is that making others religious usually amounts to making them wicked. They abandon the good lessons they learned from their parents  and lose all respect for their parents and teachers and accept some idiot as their idol. [You do not need me to notice this. It is a famous and well known fact. No one becomes religious and gains in good character. These are two polar opposites.]

They will have to spend a life time doing "תשובה על תשובה" repenting on their repentance.

[On the other hand there are parents who do not deserve respect. ]

That is to say there is a hierarchy of values in Torah. Making people religious means ignoring what is essential in Torah and making up new values which are contrary to Torah and pretending as if that is authentic Torah.
The basic problem is the result of the religious world being essentially black, dark and in the total control of the Sitra Achra.

[It is a  good thing to be מזכה את הרבים--bring merit to the many--but to make people religious brings sin to the many, not merit.]
Just to be clear: One is suppose to keep Torah, but that has nothing to do with the religious world except in so far as if you do everything the exact opposite of them, you are on the right track.

Litvak Yeshiva World

One of the great things about the Litvak Yeshiva world is the emphasis on  a  few basic points. Not to speak lashon hara, to be very careful about monetary issues--to never touch that which does not belong to you, and above all --to learn Torah which is in itself the highest commandment and brings one to fulfill all the rest of the commandments.
Add to this the musar ideal of Rav Israel Slanter of trying to gain Fear of God and good traits, and you have  a very potent combination.

The system does not however work for just anyone. And I myself have encountered people, not just on the Litvak path, but even founders of famous kollels that leave a lot to be desired when it comes to being decent people.

My reaction to this is to try an concentrate on areas where I know I need to repent. I figure that in spite of everything, what ever I or anyone has suffered must be connected in some way to my own faults.
And finding my own faults was easy. It was easy to identify areas that I messed up.  This is brought in the words of the sages when a person sees problems coming on him, he should check out his own deeds. If he finds nothing he should know it is from Bitul Torah.[Bitul Torah is a sin. It means not learning Torah when you can.]

But nowadays it is hard to go through the entire Oral and Written Law as one is required. We live in the fast food age. To go through even one Tosphot thoroughly is like eating raw steak. You have to chew and chew until you get something. But learning Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is like going to Mconald's. You get the same calories and even more with the least amount of effort.

Can God create something that is not God?

I rarely have a chance to write so just a quick question --Can God create something that is not God?
I would say of course. That is the whole point of the Torah as Saadia Gaon and the Rambam make clear. So to me it seems the signature of the Gra on letter of excommunication was justified even if it had been about this one point. All the more so that time has shown the Gra to be 100% correct anyway.

For that reason it makes sense to avoid the religious world which ignores the Gra. Because they ignore the  Gra they have been basically taken over by the Sitra Achra.

[Rav Nahman I consider to be a separate issue and in fact he noted the exact same problems that the Gra was referring to. You can see hints of his in all his books but even more openly in the "השמטות"[left out parts] of Rav Shmuel Horwitz that was published by the Na Nach group. [I mean that he found original early editions of the חיי מוהר''ן  that contained Rav Nahman's views that later people decided were not politically correct.]

Since the religious world nowadays is insane the best thing to do is to learn Torah at home.[The main point of the religious world is to make a show of their religiosity in order to get money from secular Jews as the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות points out


[In any case the fact of Creation Ex Nihilo is stated openly in all books of the Rishonim.  But why argue with the Sitra Achra [dark side]anyway? Those that know the truth, already know.]

Repeating every paragraph twice helps to learn.

I have found that repeating every paragraph twice helps me to learn. I discovered this in my first year in Shar Yashuv yeshiva in NY. I had heard of the idea of just saying the words and going on but also in Shar Yashuv the idea of review was emphasized by Rav Freifled an his son Motti. So I arrived on this compromise. This idea also helped me later in the Mir where in depth learning was emphasized but i felt i needed to make progress. [That was in learning Gemara Hulin, Ketuboth and Yevamot.]]

This also helped me when I began to learn Physics and Mathematics.


[I have gone back and forth on this over time but this idea of doing a small amount of review and then going on seems to work best for me.]


[For some time in University I did this kind of review because I needed to pass the tests. But later I began just to say the words and go on. Nowadays I am thinking this method of minimal review makes the most sense for me. ]

[The way I originally learned Gemara was with the Soncino English-- paragraph by paragraph-with the Aramaic then English and then Aramaic. [But even then I was doing Tosphot and Maharsha] That is how I as doing Gemara in NY.  That is to say in the Mir people were way above my level. But still for some reason Rav Shmuel Berenbaum felt I could learn well enough to accept me. In any case I found that repeating each section of Gemara twice was good for me to be able to make progress but also to get the basic idea.

Later when learning with David Bronson, I saw his way of sticking on every single word of Tosphot until he would understand. And then I started seeing the same kind of learning that Rav Naftai Yeagger was doing in Far Rockaway--totally different than the path of the Mir and Rav Haim of Brisk. At that point I started this thing of reviewing each page of Gemara a whole lot of times and that is how I started writing those two books of chidushim [news ideas] on Gemara

The Musar Movement of Rav Israel Salanter

The only way that I know of to correct my own faults is to find a place in the books of Ethics (Musar) which discuss that particular fault and to say it to myself every day when I get up in the morning. This has some relation to the Musar Movement of Rav Israel Salanter in which he said that the only way to correct one's faults is by learning Musar. But I found that for me the only thing that seems effective is to do it right away in the morning.

There are faults that I have no idea how to correct, but this method seems to be the most effective for the few that I know about.

For example: In the Madragat HaAdam of the school of Navardok it is brought the statement of the Gra about trust in God. In the Nefesh HaHaim of rav Haim from Voloshin is brought a few statements about accepting the yoke of Torah an another one about judging people on the scales of merit.

I try to say them every day. But still I am aware they might be be that relevant to other faults I have of things I really need to correct. But I figure at it is a start.

The best idea is to avoid anyone who makes a show of their religiosity.That way you are more or less safe from the Dark Side.

Almost all Torah teachers nowadays teach Torah of the Sitra Achra [Torah of the Dark Side.] I would learn only authentic Torah, but that is hard to come by. I would not spent any time on the Torah lessons of the Dark Side. I would learn only Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and the two Talmuds with Tosphot and Pnei Moshe and Rav Haim from Brisk's חידושי הרמב''ם. But in fact to learn Rav Shach it is needed to find a place of study or a yeshiva that goes specifically by the path of the Gra with with compromises with the Dark Side. I would not go anywhere else because the Dark Side, once it gets inside a person's head, never comes out. It is like a circuit board that is solidified. After it gets solidified, there is no way to undo it since it is already hardwired [unless one simply tears up the whole circuit board and throws it out and starts a new one.]

[If  there is not a yeshiva on the name of the Gra in your area then I would simply go to a Reform Judaism or Conservative place. That way one is more or less safe from the Dark Side.]oid t.

It is ironic that people that are aware of the warning of Rav Nahman of Breslov to avoid teachers of the Dark Side often fall into that very trap by trying to avoid it. Not just that but also they hear he emphasized being close to a true tzadik and by that they usually fall into the trap of some teacher of the Sitra Achra. People would do a lot better if they would simply take straight Torah as their guide as it is taught in the Mir Yeshiva and Ponovitch.

The best idea is to avoid anyone who makes a show of their religiosity.That way you are more or less safe from the Dark Side.

The Gra said that to the degree that one lacks any of the seven wisdoms, he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more.

The Gra said that to the degree that one lacks any of the seven wisdoms, he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more. That statement was printed in the (Introduction to) Translation of Euclid by one of the Gra's disciples.

This refers to what was in the Middle Ages a well known set of subjects, including Math, Music and Astronomy etc.[Trivium, Quadrium]

In the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart [Ibn Pakuda] this same idea comes up except there in the Introduction he has Metaphysics  and only later in שער הבחינה [Gate of Reflection] he goes into the need to know Physics, Biology and human anatomy.
Plus he adds there even practical wisdom--the same kinds of things he said in the Introduction were not necessary for Torah, but then he adds them later in the Gate of Reflection as being necessary for reflection on the greatness of God.

[Rav Eliyahu Zilverman [Rosh Yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu on the name of the Gra] said to me that Electrical Engineering is in the category of what the Gra meant and now I see the Obligations of the Heart also has that opinion.



The opinion of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam [Maimonides] I have already mentioned. The Rambam specifically wrote about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks. He was not referring to mysticism.

[This is not meant to replace learning the regular curriculum of Torah--the two Talmuds with Tosphot, the Avi Ezri, Rav Haim from Brisk's חידושי הרמב''ם known as the Hidushei Rav Haim]

[Learning Torah I did myself for reasons.  It leads to good character traits and fear of God and even eventually to "Devekut." Devekut is attachment with God as is brought in Deuteronomy 30:20. That is the highest goal is to be attached and one with God.]
That is in Shar Yashuv and the Mir I only learned Torah. But eventually I decided that the path of balance was better.--that is Torah with Physics an Math.

So now I want tell people how it is possible to learn Physics even if you do not think you understand.
That is from the Gemara in  tractate Avoda Zara ""Always a person ought to be גורס (just say the words and go on.) even though he forgets and even thought he does not know what he is saying.
After one has finished the whole book, then to go back and review. i believe people ought to have two sessions of learning, one in the morning for in depth learning with lots of review. the other in the afternoon for fast learning--saying the words in order and going on. plus listening to classe in each subject from someone that knows it well.   

The subject of Rav Avraham Abulafia was known to people even before his books were published in Jerusalem and are being sold in Mea Shearim book stores. Mainly the reason is that Professor Moshe  Idel made his PhD thesis about Rav Abulfia and later published  a whole series of books on him and on ecstatic kabala. The attitude of Rav Abulafia towards Yeshua was contained in his PhD thesis.

But some people knew anyway. Rav Avigdor Miller knew. I asked him if he was aware of Rav Abulfia and he said, "Yes". One reason he is not known is that kabalah took a different track after the Middle Ages. Now it is almost synonymous with Zohar. But to me that seems to be a mistake. Even though the Ari himself merited to great levels of Divine Spirit, it seems to me that whatever was based on the Zohar itself does not have much merit.
 Mystics in general were not lacking. There were plenty of Jewish Mystics that had revelations. But when they base themselves on the Zohar, it seems to me they get off track.

[The main problem I see with the Zohar is עם כל דא a translate of עם כל זה. And עם כל זה was made as a phrase to substitute for אף על גב or אף אל פי--"even though". But this phrase על כל זה was invented by the Ibn Tibon family. So what is it doing in the Zohr which was supposedly written a thousand years before the phrase was invented?