Rav Nahman mentions the importance of being attached to a true tzadik a few times in the LeM [ליקוטי מוהר''ן]. The trouble is well known that it is hard to know who is a true tzadik and who is a fake tzadik.
Rav Nahman himself mentions this problem in the part of the Lem about saying over stories from true tzadik. He says there that only one who can tell the difference between day and night can say over stories of true tzadikim.

This came up today because I was in the synagogue of Breslov of the Na Nach group and they were learning that particular Torah lesson in the Lem. Vol I, chapter 8 I think]..

[I ought to mention here that Rav Nahman does not contradict Rav haim fgrom Voloshin in this idea of attachment to a true tzadik. The reason is that Rav Nahman does not say the intention of one's serve is to be attached to a true tzadik (as that would constitute idolatry according to Rav Haim from Voloshin] Rather--the idea of Rav Nahman is to serve God in connection with a true tzadik.

So what is a true tzadik. To answer this I think it helps to see the idea of מחלוקת בין הצדיקים argument between tzadikim [in the Lem vol 1. chapter 5 I think].


That is there can be vast differences between what kind of service the true saints did in order to serve God. It all comes down to the question of Socrates, "What is virtue (arete)?" That is to say--even though there are difference between great people--but what is the one thread that unites them? One is the one thing in each that makes them great?

[I found the idea of Aurobindo about the danger of the intermediate zone to be helpful in this regard. Too many people think they can tell who is a tzadik by their dress or other external signs.They are not aware of the danger of the intermediate zone that can give evil people the ability to preform miracles that seem to be from the realm of holiness.]

Bava Mezia 43a. The Mishna says that the fact that one gives over some money to guard to a money changer that is not wrapped up, that means the money changer is already responsible. To Rav Huna he is a borrower. To Rav Nahman he is a paid guard.

Later Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a braita that says if gizbar [one appointed over Temple funds] gives over money to a money changer, the money changer trespasses the prohibition of {Meila} using unauthorized temple funds] if he uses the money.

The question I have at this point even before getting into the Tosphot on the page is how this relates to what Tosphot says later on on page 99a. There Rav Ami said if one gives over some object [bedek habait] to another person--as soon as he gives it over, he trespasses the prohibition. even before the other person uses it.

This relates to an essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri conserning Meila.

The Sitra Achra [Dark Side] seems to be part and parcel of the religious world.  The reason I think is some idea that Rav Nahman brings סביב רשעים יתהלכון [psalms 77]"The wicked go round about". That is,--where ever there is holines the Dark Side tries to get in. This makes it hard for me to find anywhere I can sit and learn. To some degree I feel that if people had listened to the Gra and Rav Shach this problem would not be here. But also I realize that people will often choose evil even when great tzadikim like the Gra warn correctly.

Wyat Earp and the OK Coral. I think the Clantons were trying to draw the Earps into a trap.

There are probably experts out there that know better than I. But I want to suggest that there is some aspect of the shootout at the OK Coral that I find hard to understand.
Was it so hard to find the Earps? What in the world were the Clantons and McLaurys doing around Fremont Street? They certainly were not looking for the Earps. Rather, what seems to me is that they were trying to draw the Earps into a trap. That is why one fellow came up to them while there were at Allen Street and 4th and told them the Clantons were at the OK Coral. They were hoping the Earps and Doc Holiday would walk straight to the OK Coral from where they stood,  and when their back were turned to start shooting. But in an unexpected way, the Earps instead turned up to Fremont and 4th Street and started walking down Fremont beyond the back entrance of the OK Coral, and then  they saw the Clantons standing around that empty lot besides the photography studio. [They were obviously waiting for the Earps. They certainly were not going around looking for anyone!]

This is also I think the cause of Behan to try and stop them thinking that the Clantons plans had gone haywire.

One point I would like to bring out is that the Earps were not hard to find. Vigil was the Sheriff, and his two brothers were his deputies.

[It seems clear to me that Wyat Earp suspected a trap, and thus walked up the opposite way.]

way of learning of Rav Nahman

The way of learning of Rav Nahman was to say the words and to go on. And not to do any review until one has finished the book one is learning until he or she has finished it. Then to review again and again. This comes up in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76. But it is also brought in his Magnum Opus {the LeM}.
I suggest applying this to things that are beyond the general accepted Torah sessions. --To include Physics and Mathematics. The reason I say this is more or less based on the Musar book The Obligations of the Heart and the Rambam. These Rishonim saw in natural science and Metaphysics an imperative. To the Rambam, Physics and Metaphysics are included in the commandments to love and fear God.
However, it is true that most people that are good in these subjects have IQs that are way beyond us regular people. So my point here is not that everyone can be a genius at these subjects-- which I realize are difficult. It is rather that everyone has access to these subjects --even though they might think that they do not. And these access is through this path of learning fast--saying the words in order as fast as possible and going on to the end of the book--and then tart again.     

[In Far Rockaway, Rav Freifeld emphasized review of every chapter 10 times,- but I found that did not work very well for me. I whittled it down to review twice of every paragraph. But when it came to math and Physics, I found the only thing that seems to work for me is this path of learning of Rav Nahman.]
[However, even with Rav Nahman, there is a place for deeper learning [as he also mentions in Conversation #76] [And the Le.M VOLUME I chapter 74]. So when I try to learn Gemara, I do try to spend a little more effort into the deeper aspects. But when it comes to Physics, I find that efforts on depth tend to take away the time I need to get the big picture. So there I tend to concentrate more of Rav Nahman's path of just saying the words and going on.]

Just for a reminder "outside wisdoms" are not books on natural science, but as the Rif [Rav Isaac Ilfasi ] and Rosh [Rabbainu Asher] explain they are books that explain the Torah in other ways besides the Sages of the Gemara.[You can find this idea of the Rif in the first mishna in chapter Helek in Sanhedrin]

It is well known that the way of counting the days of nida (woman that sees blood) for the Rambam is different than all other rishonim. The basic place that I recall shows the way of the Rishonim to be correct is Arakim 20.
The Mishna says אין פתח בטועה פחות משבעה ולא יותר מי''ז. [A woman that forgets the days of her period is not less than 7 and not more than 17]. And the Gemara goes on to explain it. The basic idea is lets says she see blood for a day. So you say that is the beginning of nida and you wait 17 more days. but even if she sees three days in a row that could be all zava or the last one could be the beginning of nida. In any case you never have more than 17. But the number goes down after 3. So each day after that she needs to count one day less. But To the Rambam this can not work. To his way the last day can always be the beginning of nida and she would need a whole 17 days.
[1-17;2-17;3-17;4-16;5-15;6-14;7-13;8-12;9-11;10-10;11-9;12-8;13-7]
The only thing I can imagine here is perhaps the Rambam simply found a different Gemara someone that to him implies that his way is correct.

The basic way of the Rishonim is that a woman that is once a zava never goes back to count nid until she has counted seven clean days This seems crytal clear in that Gemara in Arakim.
To see that the Rambam can not fit with the Gemara in Arakim take for example a woman that sees 13 days. With the Rambam the last day might be the beginning of nida. But that Gemara says she only needs then 7 clean days and then starts to count nida again. So the Rambam must have found someother place which he thought shows his way is correct.]




[The way of the Rishonim is seven days is nida [even if she sees only one day] and then mikve at the night of the start of the eight day. But if after that she sees for three straight days she is a zava and needs seven clean days. And she does not go back to nida until she has counted 7 clean days.
To the Rambam the cycle is always 7-11-7-11-7... unless she gives birth. 

I recall vaguely that the popes at the time of Joan of Arc were in a kind of precarious position. The one right before she was burned at the stake had a high ranking bishop accuse him of calumny or something like that. I forget the whole story. But in any case, the popes back then were not considered sacrosanct like a Roman tribune.

[What I mean is that, (from what I recall), a tribune could not be hurt in any kind of way. If a person even just laid a hand on a tribune, he could be killed on sight by any plebian at any time without trial. But popes apparently were not like that.]

The point is that the position of any pope was precarious unless he agreed with what the bureaucracy wanted to hear. That has been suggested as a reason that even if the popes at the time had wanted to interceded for Joan, they would not have been listened to. Popes have gained undreamed of power that they originally never had.

There is a notion of Hegel that form [essence] shines forth, not matter. The idea I realized is based on Kant that the thing in itself is not known. It is only the attributes that are known. So Hegel expands on this to mean that the reason we know forms is that they allow themselves to be known. They shine forth. But then Hegel goes on to say the form also in reflected into the thing in itself. He means to say there is a connection between the form that goes beyond their just being attached to an object.

the work my Dad did on the infrared satellite systems

I wanted to mention the work my Dad did on the infrared satellite systems that were made at TRW and the launched in 1970. The basic story was that he created the infrared camera in the 1950's. Then
he went into private business with another invention [the Copy Mate x-ray machine]. So when the USA government wanted to create a early warning satellite system using infra red the logical place to go was to the actual inventor of the system that is Phil Rosenblum [Rosten]. Then after that system was created he went on to create laser communication also at TRW for SDI. But that system was not launched until many years later since in the meantime there was a spy for the KGB at TRW, so the whole space program was closed down for some years until it reopened in the 1990's. [That whole sad incident was made into a movie with Steven McQueen called The Falcon and the Snowman named after the two traitors that gave American secrets  including my dad's work to the KGB.]]

[My dad was considered very highly even before that. During WWII he was responsible for the smooth running of six B-29's.]






t\

תוספות בבא מציעא צט ע''א וקידושין נ''ה ע''א

The משנה says מועל with בדק הבית goes out to חולין. That is אין מועל אחר מועל אלא בבהמה וכלי שרת. The תוספתא פרק ב says יש cases when בדק הבית also stays הקדש. This is the question of תוספות in קידושין נ''ה ע''א. The answer  looks to me to be straightforward. The first answer is to ר' מאיר  that מזיד it goes out to חולין. This seems to be open and plain in the words of תוספות even though he does not mention ר' מאיר. The second answer looks to be straight like ר' יהודה that only if he שוגג that it goes out to חולין. The actual division that תוספות says there is whether he thinks it is his or not. And besides that I think this is possible to be what תוספות means in Bava Mezia page 99a also. However the משנה למלך on רמב''ם laws of 'מעילה פרק ו' הלכות ד' וה says the difference is whether he gives the ax to another person or not. It looks like the מהרש''א understands Tosphot like the Mishna Lamelek. However the Maharshal divides the answers of Tosphot into two parts. So to me it looks like the marshal understands Tosphot as I said.


במשנה כתוב אין מעול אחר מועל אלא בבהמה וכלי שרת. היינו שמעילה בבדק הבית יוצאת לחולין. אבל בתוספתא כתוב מצבים שיש מועל אחר מועל בבדק הבית. זו שאלת התוספות בקידושין נ''ה ע''א. נראה לי שתירוץ התוספות הוא שזה תלוי רק באם הוא חושב שכלי שלו. אם הוא חושב שהוא שלו אז לר' מאיר הוא יוצא לחולון  ולר' יהודה רק אם הוא יושב שהכלי של אחר.
אבל לפי המשנה למלך התירוץ של תוספות הוא שהכל תלוי באם הוא נתן את הכלי למי שהוא אחר או אם הוא משתמש בו בעצמו. הדבר שקשה להבין במשנה למלך הוא שאם הוא נותן את החפצא שמי שהוא אחר הוא יוצא לחולין בהכרח אז מה אפשר לעשות עם המחלוקת בין ר' מאיר לר' יהודה

the question of Tosphot in Kidushin 55

If you have some object that you want to give to the Temple in Jerusalem and you say something that indicates this, then the object becomes sanctified. If it is one of those things that can be offered on the altar that is one kind of holiness. If not then it is just given to the Temple for its money value. In the meantime if someone uses it before it gets to the Temple and is redeemed then that person has to pay the amount he causes the vessel to lose value. If he just gives the object to someone then this is an argument between R Meir and R Yehuda. To R Meir if he knew it is holy then it became unconsecrated when it changed hands.But if he did not know then not.  To R Yehuda it is just the opposite.



The Mishna says moel [one who uses] with bedek habait [something consecrated for the Temple] goes out to hulin [to be not any more consecrated]. The Tosefta says There are cases when bedek habait [consecrated ]also stays holy [kodesh]. This is the question of Tosphot in Kidushin 55. The answer there looks to me to be straightforward. The first answer is to R. Meier that on purpose it goes out to hulin [secular]. [That is: R M says if one uses a sanctified object to marry a woman if he knew it is consecrated then she is married. If he did not know then she is not. The idea here is that one usually marries a woman by means of giving her some object that is worth some amount of money. But here the object does not belong to him. But still when he gives it to her it becomes not consecrated and she can use it].This seems to be open and plain in the words of Tosphot even though he does not mention R Meier. The second answer looks to be straight like R Yehuda that only if he thinks it is his that it goes out to hulin [secular].  The actual division that Tosfot says there is whether he thinks it is his or not.
And besides that I think this is possible to be what Tosphot means in Bava Mezia page 99a also.
However the Mishna Lamelek on Rambam laws of Meila perek 6 halachas 4 to 5 says the difference is whether he gives the ax [which was consecrated towards use in the Temple] to another person or not.
I learned this subject in Uman with David Bronson and for some reason I do not recall that we discussed this problem.
I have been troubled by the Mishna LaMelek for over a week and am also upset that I do not have my old learning partner to straighten out this issue for me. I mean the basic issues look clear--even if I do not understand the Mishna Lamelek. But where David Bronson excels is in deciphering the actual words of Tosphot when Tosphot is unclear and to me the words of Tospfot in Kidushin do look unclear.

And in partcular I have to admit that it looks like the Maharsha understands Tosphot like the Mishna Lamelek


The problem that has bothered me with the Mishna laMelek is if you say that when he gives the object to his friend it goes out to hulin then what do you do with the argument between R Mei and R yehuda [in kidushin page 52b]?

Gender wage gap

Thousands of cases were brought and the number keeps rising. But less than one percent of the cases are won. [Actually less than one percent but I forget the exact number.] Just because you can accuse someone of something does not mean they did anything wrong. The wag gap is like that. I am sitting in a library where girls are writing a paper that assumes the wag gap is true and suggest solutions. But why bring solutions to a problem before you know there is a problem.

I was in Netivot with the same problem. They assumed in the public schools that global warming is a fact without verifying the facts.





Thomas Sowell makes this point :

If the 77 percent statistic was for real, employers would be paying 30 percent more than they had to, every time they hired a man to do a job that a woman could do just as well. Would employers be such fools with their own money? If you think employers don't care about paying 30 percent more than they have to, just go ask your boss for a 30 percent raise!

Rambam nedarim has one law that comes from the Mishna: "'Not Hulin I will eat of yours,' is forbidden."The reason is that it means, "a karban I will eat of yours."  That is like R. Yehuda that from a "no" we can understand a "yes." Then in two laws later he says, "'hulin I will not eat of yours' is permitted."  That is like R Meir that we do not know a "yes" from a "no." Because if we would learn from the implication of "no" to "yes" it would mean, "Hulin I will not eat of yours, but a karban |I will eat of yours."

The Raavad asks this question. The Raavad asks this question on the Rambam. The Radvaz says the Rambam in  fact holds like R Yehuda and so the only question is the later law. The Radvaz points out that Rav Ashi makes a difference between To hulin and to not Hulin. How does that answer the question? For in the later law we also have a no. Hulin I will not eat of yours. Clearly what the Radvaz means in that in the later law the no comes in front of the verb, not the noun. But why would that makes the difference? The answer is that from a no you can learn a yes can only be the case if there is a one to one correspondence between the cause and effect. But if that is not the case then we do not know a yes from a no. For example. We know if it is raining then it is wet outside. But if it wet outside we do not know that it is raining. Someone might have turned on the sprinkler.
So in the first law of the Ramabm we know that there is only one thing that is not hulin. It is  a karban. But in the second law the fact that I will not eat any hulin of yours does not mean I will eat a pkarban of yours. I might not eat not hulin nor a karban.

________________________________________________________________________________


רמב''ם נדרים has one law that comes from the משנה. This is it. "Not חולין I will eat of yours is forbidden." The reason is that it means a קרבן I will eat of yours.  That is like ר' יהודה that from a no we can understand a yes. Then in two laws later he says חולין i will not eat of yours is מותר.  That is like ר' מאיר that we do not know a yes from a no. Because if we would learn from the implication of no to yes it would mean חולין I will not eat of yours but a קרבן |I will eat of yours.

The ראב''ד asks this question.  The רדב''ז says the רמב''ם in  fact holds like ר' יהודה and so the only question is the later law. The רדב''ז points out that רב אשי makes a difference between  לחולין and to  לא חולין. How does that answer the question? For in the later law we also have a no. היינו שלא אוכל לך חולין I will not eat of yours. Clearly what the רדב''ז means in that in the later law. The no comes in front of the verb, not the noun. But why would that makes the difference? The answer is that from a no you can learn a yes can only be the case if there is a one to one correspondence between the cause and effect. But if that is not the case then we do not know a yes from a no. For example. We know if it is raining then it is wet outside. But if it wet outside we do not know that it is raining. Someone might have turned on the sprinkler. So in the first law of the רמב''ם we know that there is only one thing that is not חולין. It is  a קרבן. But in the second law the fact that I will not eat any חולין of yours does not mean I will eat a קרבן of yours. I might not eat not חולין nor a קרבן.

ברמב''ם הלכות נדרים יש הלכה. האומר לא חולין שאני אוכל לך אסור. כלומר שזה דומה שמי שאומר קרבן שאני אוכל לך. זו דעת ר' יהודה שמכלל לאו אתה יכול להבין כן. אבל אחר כך הרמב''ם פסק  חולין שלא אוכל לך מותר. זו שאלת הראב''ד. הרדב''ז עונה ממה שהגמרא מביא רב אשי שיש חילוק בין לחולין ללא חולין. אבל בחוק השני יש גם לא. היינו חולין שלא אוכל לך. תירוץ. אם יש התכתבות אחת לאחת בין סיבה למסובב אז מכלל לאו אתה יודע כן. אבל אם אין התכתבות כזה אז לא. למשל אם יש גשם אנחנו יודעים שבחוץ הוא רטוב. אבל אם הוא רטוב בחוץ אין אנו יודעים שהוא יבש בחוץ בגלל שיכול להיות שמי שהוא פתח את הממטרה שלו. לכל בעניין שלנו לא חולין יש לו רק פירוד אחד היינו קרבן. לכן לא חולין שאוכל לך פירודו קרבן שאוכל לך. אבל זה שלא אוכל לך חולין אין מזה מובן שכן אוכל לך קרבן אלא שיכול שלהיות שלא אוכל לך לא חולין ולא קרבן.

The religious in general give me the creeps.

I think the best approach to passover is to stay home and do as much as one can do without going to any religious people. I think people make too much of a problem out of Passover in such a way that people get the idea the can not stay home and do it themselves. I think in general is the best to not go to any religious place except if you have a Reform or Conservative place nearby. The religious in general give me the creeps. [However I do like the Breslov Na Nach Groups and also I like the Litvaks [i.e., Lithuanian yeshiva type people.]  
I should add that not just Breslov but some other groups I think are OK like Vishnitz and Ger.] 

It occurs to me that you only find strong old trees where the wind and rain blow hard. In the sunny valleys where a tree encounters little resistance, it does not grow strong.
So it is in life that the problems are often opportunities for growth and to learn from one's mistakes.

When sailing also it is a rule that you do not want the wind right behind you. That causes one to lose control of the boat. You want to go to the side of the wind where it is coming at an angle--for the same reason as ditto. You need a bit of resistance.

Musar movement of R. Salanter

It is possible that the Musar movement of R. Salanter and his ideas do not work as well as one would hope. But when I was in the Yeshiva world I found that combination of intense learning of Gemara and Musar [Ethics] [the ethical works of the rishonim [medieval authors]] to be a potent combination that works for self improvement. And from what I can see -it does work to a high degree.. [The only thing is that I felt I needed the imput of idea from Rav Nahman also.]

I mean to say that the way of the Litvak yeshivot is good in which the morning is devoted to in depth Gemara learning and fast in the afternoon, while Musar is only given a short amount of time. Still the Musar periods I think should be expanded. 

Shaari Teshuva by R. Yona

Why it is important to remember the past is to learn lessons for the present.The idea here is what it says the the Gemara in Shabat אין יסורים בלי עוון  "There are no problems without sin." That is all problems that one has are either directly from some sin or indirectly. [The Gemara over there had a question about death also, but it concludes that death can come without sin- but not other kinds of problems.]

The idea is furthermore that Repentance involves remembering what one has done wrong in the past and trying to change for the better.

In any case the book Shaari Teshuva by R. Yona is one of the canonical books of Musar which are a core part of the Musar Movement. And I definitely was into that book when I was at the Mir.

I also can not see how it is possible to improve oneself without learning from the past. Maybe in theory it is possible to simply find the right path--the truth- and stick with it. But in fact unless one is a god-and has infallible knowledge--then it always makes sense to recheck your homework.

In fact from what I recall String Theory started out by the fact that one of its founders went back to recheck his work and by that discovered one of the first equations of String Theory.

I can not think of a worse nightmare than imagining the religious to be in charge.

I was in the Breslov Beit Midrash today [the Na Nach group] and listened a few minutes to a book written by Rav Natan [a disciple of Rav Nahman]. [I mean to say that the general approach is to read of books of Rav Nahman and Rav Natan aloud--and I listened a few minutes.
The statement of Rav Natan was basically about "חכמות חיצוניות" [secular wisdom].
 This seems to be an argument between rishonim. There are those that go along the lines of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam that see certain secular subjects as important. There are others that say no.

I am not really sure how to deal with this issue. To me the whole emphasis on not learning secular wisdom seems to be with intention to create a kind of alternative society. --The idea is to create a kind of insulation from the outside world.
 The same thing seems to be the emphasis on dress and the skull cap and women's dress. It all seems to be geared towards creating a separate society where the religious are in charge.

I can not think of a worse nightmare than imagining the religious to be in charge. Enough said for the wise.

On the other hand I can how a great deal of secular subjects are rotten--like anything that has the word "studies".

My own approach is more or less based on the Rambam in Mishne Torah in the part that deal with learning Torah and the part in particular that says to divide one's time into three parts. There the Ramabm says one part goes for the written law. Another third for the Oral Law. And the third for Gemara. Then the Rambam adds, "The subjects discussed in the first four chapter of Mishna Torah which are called Pardes are in the category of the Gemara."
Those subjects are what the ancient Greeks called Physics and Meta-physics. [The Ramabm repeats this in the Guide.] You can see this in the Hovot Levavot also[Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pakuda].

I can see how the world changed from when I was growing up. The world I grew up in was optimistic and open. Southern California. Things were a little different in the two yeshivas I went to  in NY Shar Yashuv and the Mir but the same atmosphere or classic American optimism was there. Then I kind of wne into a period of hibernation. I was in the Vishniz community in Meor Haim in Safed for a few years and totally lost contact with the outside world. I spent most of my time in the basic path path of Rav Nahman from Breslov of Hitbodadut.[[Talking with God in the forest]. And there was a kind of Divine light that filled the atmosphere in those days. Then it all fell through. So when I awoke the world had changed drastically. I think a lot had to do with crimes that had changed people's perspective. The world was filled with suspicion one for the other. Maybe it is justified suspicion. But it seems to me it is usually misplaced. There are lots of deviants and sadistic monstors. But they are never the people that are usually suspected.

As Rav Nahman himself made a point of this in his critique of Torah Scholars that are demons.

Today I would probably have taken Rav Nahman's teachings in a more balanced way. My center of gravity would be along the lines of the Gra and Rav Shach, while at the same time I would try to follow what is valuable and important in Rav Nahman's teachings.

Rambam in laws of Nedarim chapter 1 law 19.

I have a question in the Rambam in laws of Nedarim chapter 1 law 19.
The question that I have is one that it looks like Rav Joseph Karo and the Radvaz answer but their answers look to me to be hard to understand.


The basic issue is this. There is a teaching in the Gemara that says hulin the hulin like hulin whether \I will eat of yours or will not is permitted. "'Hulin I will not eat of yours' is forbidden. 'Not hulin I will not eat of yours' is permitted."

The Rambam says, "'Not hulin I will not eat of yours' is forbidden." [Nedarim 1:19]

Now with the Radvaz, the Rambam holds like R Yehuda that from a negative we can understand what would result in a positive. So it makes sense why the Rambam would disagree with the end of that teaching. However the question I have is that, "How does it make sense?" Should not two negatives result in a positive?

Rav Joseph Karo holds the Rambam holds like R Meir that from a negative one can not derive a positive. So I am not sure how to deal with this issue. I saw a few days ago that Rav Shach has some ideas on this subject but I still have not gotten a chance to get over to the Litvak Beit Midrash where the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach is located to study carefully what he says.

I just wanted to give a short idea of who I am for those that are wondering. I was born into an amazing family. My parents loved each other and us [their children very much]. I went to public school until it became time to choose a university and instead i decided to go to Shar Yashuv [a Litvak Yeshiva in NY] and then the Mir in NY. And then to Israel.
The experience I had in the Mir was formative of my attitudes about the importance of learning Torah and trust in God.
I have not been able to continue on that path very well and so I also went to Polytechnic Institute of NYU for Physics.

the existence of time

McTaggart argues against the existence of time. I forget the argument. I was not like Kant's. But locality is well established. as in Special Relativity. Which means cause and effect have to be close to each other and in sequence. The only way I can see Kant's point is if time is circular like Godel wanted to show.


The way you can see that causality [or locality is correct is by GPS [Global Positioning System]. Both Special Relativity and General Relativity have to be right for the system to work at all.
However there is a  set up that Einstein Podolsky Rosen thought up that Bell showed that Quantum Mechanics is  right. So you can  show from the inequality of Bell that either locality is not right or that particles do not have classical values until measured. So since we know locality is right therefore we have to take the second choice. Particles do not have classical values until measured.

I one time wrote to Dr Kelley Ross asking about this result which looks a  lot like Kant. I asked him that de-coherence is well known phenomenon. That means the wave function of particles collapses even just because a particle interacts with another particle. That is what makes Quantum computing hard to set up. He answered that some people argue that if your look at the big picture in which the lab itself is a part of the system we still have the result that things do not have classical values until measured.

Just to be a little more clear about the issues I raised in my blog from yesterday I want to explain a little as best I can.

The idea of R.   Meier is this. You can not derive a plus from a minus, a yes from a no. That means let us says you have a sentence, "If it is raining it must be wet outside." To R. Meier you can not derive "If it is not raining it is dry outside." And this came up in one of my little books on Shas. But I had forgotten this whole issue about R Meir.

This comes up in the Talumd tractate "Nedarim" page 11 side A. and in the book of Rav Shach on the Rambam laws of nedarim vows chapter 1 law 18 [actually 18 through 20].

The problem in the Rambam is in law 18 he says, '"That which I will eat of yours is not secular" and then he is forbidden to eat of anything that belongs to the other person.' That is like the Sages against R Meir.. Then in law 20 he says, "That which I will eat of yours is secular or that which I will not eat of yours is secular and that is allowed to eat from the other fellow,' and that is like R Meir. So everyone wants to answer how can the Rambam decide the law in two contradictory ways? The Radvaz [Rav David ben Zimrah], the Migdal Oz [Rav Shem Tov from Spain], and Rav Elazar Shach  and Rav Yoseph Karo each try to answer this question.


I have nothing new to add here except that I can see that I really must have been a real ignoramus (am haaretz) when I was at the Mir, because this exact chapter in Nedarim is what the whole yeshiva was learning in my first six months there and I can see now that I was completely unaware of the issues that ought to be obvious to anyone learning Nedarim--but I missed all these issues.

daughter of an"am Haaretz" -ignoramus

I was surprised to see in the commentary of the Rambam on the Mishna  that one is not allowed to marry the daughter of an"am haaretz"[that is a ignoramus]. That is it is not just good advice but actual a law. Then I noticed the same thing in Mishne Torah of the Rambam. This goes to show what they used to say in the Mir Yeshiva [during the short period I was there] concerning the choice of whom to marry: "If your wife wants you to learn Torah,- you will. If she does not want it,- then you won't."

This is an important point to consider when thinking about marriage.
 When at the Mir, I was hoping for this kind of shiduch. In the meantime, the girl [whom I knew from high school] who had been writing and calling me for years to get me, just seemed to not want to give up. I tried to explain to her nicely, and not nicely, that I was not interested in her. Yet, she just did not  give up. So one day, on the phone trying to find a place for her for the Sabbath meals, I was on the phone with Arye Kaplan. He asked why I did not marry her? I said, I wished for a daughter of a person that was into learning Torah{as in the path of the Mir}. His reaction to that was that it was not possible that I would be offered anyone else in the religious world except for a baalat mum [a person with a hidden defect]. [That is to say, I should marry her since she is a good girl that I know very well. That is preferable to someone I do not know, and would find later problems with.] So I talked afterwards to Rav Getz, a good Torah scholar who learned at the Mir. He also suggested that I marry her.[I did. Soon after we went on the normal 6 dates--every motzai Shabat. And for a while I stayed at the Mir [I forget how long. Maybe two years I think. Then Israel. So for a good long time se stuck with me as I was learning Torah and she deserves credit for that,]  


I ought to add that these issues are not all that clear, since it is possible to have a girl that wants you to learn Torah even though her background might be not religious at all. And on the opposite side of things you might have  a girl from a religious background that wants one to work. But in any case, I suggest that if one is into learning Torah in the way of the Gra and the Litvak Yeshiva World. I suggest  that this issue ought to be  a first priority. For it is hard for most people to realize what the issue is all about. It is not that it is "good idea" to learn Torah. It is more or less that learning Torah is the purpose of life and of the creation of the universe. It is the first priority beyond anything else imaginable. It is hard to see this. For I myself having fallen from this ideal find it hard to describe. But in fact there is a profound truth in this that is more or less impossible to communicate to anyone who does not already feel it deep inside of him or her.
[In later times I got involved in Physics and Mathematics, yet I feel that even though these are also important, still I wish I had been able to contunue in Torah.] The thing is --it is hard to find the right balance.

Talmud Nedarim page 11

From "no" you hear "yes". That is the sages. However R. Meier hold not. This comes up in the Talmud Nedarim page 11 and in Rav Shach's Avi Ezriin laws of Nedarim chapter 1 law 18.

I had forgotten this whole issue and because of this I would like to add a comment on my little books on Bava Mezia and Shas. But I can not because the police have my computer.
There are probably tons of things going on in this chapter in the Avi Ezri -- but the first thing that occurs to me is how this relates to a comment made my my learning partner David Bronson a few years ago.

The basic idea is this.Rashi in Bava Mezia had some comment If A then B therefore if not A then not B. I objected to this because of Aristotelian logic Even if it is true that it is raining it is wet outside but there might be other reasons for it to be wet. Therefore if it is wet that does not mean it is raining. Someone might have turned on their sprinklers.
Then David noticed in laws of sacrifices this same argument came up between Rava and the gemara.

This I wrote down in my notes. But at the time I was not aware of this disagreement between the sages and R Meier. So now it looks like Rava was going like the sages and the Gemara was going like R. Meier.
And from what I can tell that is how Rav Joseph Karo answers the problem in the Rambam himself who on the surface looks like he contradicts himself between law 18 and law 20 in laws of Nedarim chapter 1.
But I was in a Lithuanian Beit Midrash today where they have a copy of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and from my brief glance I could see that he has a different way of answering for the Rambam.
He makes a distinction beween "hatfasa" התפסה and prohibition. But I still have not had a chance to learn what Rav Shach says thoroughly.

In any case the basic idea is this לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור כחכמים. הלכה י''ח. חולין שאוכל לך מותר כר' מאיר. הלכה כ

There is something in laws of Truma of the Rambam [chapter  1] that I have a hard time with. It comes from a well known statement of Reish Lakish that if one takes the first tithe before he takes truma from sheaves of wheat that have not yet been separated and grounded then the Levi does not have to take truma but only maasar. In that the Rambam is going like the Babylonian Talmud [Abyee], not like the Jerusalem Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud holds that the Levi gives truma only if the tithe was taken after the crops became obligated. The thing that I find confusing is that in the first case the crops are tevel [obligated after the grinding] and the maasar is not even maasar. So why would the maasar be anything but a present/gift? The tithe was given before the crops even became obligated, so the maasar is not even maasar. In the case of the Jerusalem Talmud, the crops are actual tevel and still there is no obligation to give truma.

These are not really hard questions once you have verses which state that that is just the way it is. But what is odd is the Rambam says the reason in the first case is that the crops have not yet been obligated in truma. How is that a reason? In both cases you have real tevel that is not going to have truma taken from it. So on either Gemara I really have no question. It is rather the reason the Rambam gives that I find hard to understand.

The new idolatry is worship of religious leaders. Israel is so full of this that it is almost impossible to go anywhere without encountering it. This was one of the major reasons I did not want to return to Israel. As you can see in tractate Avoda Zara to go anywhere where there is avoda zara [idolatry] is a problem.
I knew there might be  probvlem but I was not aware of how extensive it is. If only Rav Shach and the Gra had been listened to, this would nopt be an issue. But for some reason even in the Litvak wolrd they are ignored for the most part.

The lowest I.Q. among all university majors

The lowest I.Q. among all university majors is the people that go into social work. And they are the people that decide whether you can keep your children? And interview children to see if they have been hurt by an adult? As in "did so and so hurt you".[That is they ask leading questions to get the children to say what they want to hear.] You must be kidding. social workers ought to be put away in some insane asylum so they can stop hurting people themselves. Asking a social worker to interview kids is like asking a monkey to do the same.
Psychologists are almost as stupid as social workers--but not quite. But they certainly think they are superior beings.

The Hegelian State is not so absurd in my eyes. I think Communism is in its very core based on serious mistake like the Labor Theory of Value--even thought that was accepted as fact in the time of Marx--still it is not true that they value of any thing depends on how much labor went into making it. Rather it depends on how much people want to buy it.

And Hegel's model was in any case meant to help avoid the insane chaos that was the French Revolution.
And what then is up with China?
Dr Michael Huemer and Kelley Ross are against Communism in any and all forms for very good reasons and yet how else can one take control of chaos before it gets out of hand? Anyone who has been to Ukraine knows there is some kind of elements in the population that are simply crimnal and there is  alarge percent. They are not WASPS [White Anglo Saxon Protestants]. And then good elemenst are either in fact Russian DNA or Russia leaning.

In the Talmud in Nazir you have a case around page 32 or so where two people see someone coming. One thinks it is George and the other says it is Simon. The one that said it is George says "if it is Simon I will be a nazirite." The one that says it is Simon says "if it is George I will be  a Nazirite" If it is Simon the first one who thought it is George is a nazirite.

Why is this any different from nidrei zeruzim of other kinds of vow where one really does not intend the vow to actually become obligated?

I always had a kind of conflict between learning fast as I wanted to do{as I saw in a few books] in Shar Yashuv and the fact that Rav Friefeld and his son Moti were always recommending review.

So what I did was this kind of compromise that I would do the actual paragraph of the gemara twice with Rashi and also one time the English translation in the Soncino.

The idea of a sort of minimal review seemed to help me then and later on also when I was in university learning Physics I also had this kind of minimal review approach. That is one time to review the page or paragraph and go on.

This is not exactly the way of Rav Nahman that was to read the words i.e. say them in a whisper or out loud, and go on without review until you reach the end of the book and then review. But neither was it was Rav Freifeld was.


In Shar Yashuv [a Litvak yeshiva that went more or less along the path of the Gra.] They were doing Gemara in a deep way that was different from the Mir where I went later on. In Shar Yashuv the way was kind of what is called in Israel" To calculate the sugia" that is intense analysis ofg the actual words of the Gemara and Tosphot. Later in the Mir and especially with Rav Shmuel Berenbaum I saw a different approach that was based on Rav Haim Soloveichik which was global--and not concentrated on that one page in front of you. I benefited from both approaches but again as I mentioned up above when it came to personal; learning I found this kind of method of review of the paragraph twice and going on to be the thing that worked for me best. 

The basic background in Bava Mezia 101a as far as I can recall is this:
The Mishna brings the law that a renter of a field in Israel from an non Jew, takes maasar (tithe) and then pays the non Jew (probably Arab). The reason is that you can not pay your debts with tevel (produce that has not had tithes taken from it). R. Yehuda adds "also a sharecropper must take tithes and then pay." The Gemara says at first it looks like a gentile has no possesion in such a way that the crops are not obligated in tithe and a sharecropper is like a renter.

Then the Gemara brings a braita that says that R Yehuda said his law only in the case of a gentile that took the ground without paying for it. That is he stole it.  So the Gemara concludes that there is possesion and a sharecropper is not like a renter.


Sharecropping is when the worker shares some percent of the crops like Frank Hamer used to do before he became a Texas Ranger and brought down Bonnie and Clyde. 

Some questions in Bava Mezia 101a

The main question in בבא מציעא קא ע''א was noted by my learning partner. Why does the גמרא change to מקבל לאו כחוכר דמי that means the אריס is not like the חוכר. Another question is what is the relevance of the ברייתא to the משנה?  Obviously the ברייתא disagrees with the משנה concerning the opinion of  ר' יהודה. So what possible conclusion can you draw from the ברייתא to the משנה? The next question ought to be this. Let us say that we can learn something from the ברייתא to the משנה. Clearly the גמרא holds that we can do so. So we have to learn one of two things. אפשרות א' יש קניין ללא יהודי בארץ ישראל and leave the law of ר' יהודה concerning אריסות in ישראל in its place. Or אפשרות שנייה say ר' יהודה  is only talking about a specific field and leave אין קניין in place. For some reason the גמרא changes to יש קניין and also to a specific field and then changes something that there is no need to change. מקבל לאו כחוכר.
But furthermore רש''י and the רמב''ם have a different way of explaining the גמרא than תוספות. For some reason רש''י and the רמב''ם think the conclusion of the גמרא holds even if אין קניין which is exactly what the גמרא says is impossible to say. And besides that, what does יש קניין means? This seems to vary according to which גמרא you are learning בכורות , גיטין, או בבא מציעא.  The way that at least the גמרא looks to be in בבא מציעא is יש קניין, but if a ישראלי buys the field back, then it is obligated in תרומה and מעשר. So what is the difference between יש קניין לאין קניין. They both hold תבואה that grew in the possession of a אינו יהודי and were finished in the hands of a אינו יהודי אז אינה חייבת בתרומה. And they both hold if the Israeli buys it back then the crops are obligated.


השאלה המרכזית בבבא מציעא קא ע''א צוין על ידי שותף הלמידה שלי. מדוע משנה הגמרא מקבל לאו כחוכר דמי (פירושו האריס לא כמו החוכר). שאלה נוספת היא מה היא הרלוונטיות של ברייתא אל המשנה? ברור שהברייתא חולקת על המשנה לגבי דעתו של ר' יהודה. אז איזו מסקנה אפשרית אתה יכול להסיק מן הברייתא אל המשנה? השאלה הבאה צריכה להיות זו. תן לנו לומר שאנחנו יכולים ללמוד משהו מן הברייתא אל המשנה. ברור הגמרא גורסת כי אנו יכולים לעשות זאת. אז אנחנו צריכים ללמוד אחד משני דברים. אפשרות א 'יש קניין ללא יהודי בארץ ישראל ולהשאיר את החוק של ר' יהודה בנוגע לאריסות בישראל במקומו. או אפשרות שנייה, אומרים ר" יהודה רק מדבר על שדה מסוים ולהשאיר אין קניין במקום. מסיבה כלשהי גמרא עושה השינויים הבאים: יש קניין גם שדה מסוים ולאחר מכן היא משנה משהו שאין צורך לשנות,היינו מקבל לאו כחוכר
אבל יתרה מכך לרש''י ולרמב''ם יש דרך אחרת להסביר את הגמרא מתוספות. מסיבהלא ידועה לי רש''י ורמב''ם חושבים שהמסקנה קיימת גם אם אין קניין וזה בדיוק מה הגמרא אומרת שאי אפשר לומר. וחוץ מזה, מה כוונת יש קניין? זה נראה להשתנות לפי הגמרא שאתה לומד בכורות, גיטין, או בבא מציעא. הדרך שהגמרא בבבא מציעא מבינה יש קניין היא שאם ישראלי קונה את השדה בחזרה, אז הוא מחויבת בתרומה ומעשר. אז מה ההבדל בין יש קניין לאין הקניין? שניהם מחזיקים תבואה שגדלה ברשותו של אינו יהודי וסיומו של העבודה היה בידי אינו יהודי אז התבוה אינה חייבת בתרומה. ושניהם מחזיקים אם הישראלי קונה את הקרקע בחזרה ואז תבואה מחויבת.

I am no philosopher but from the little that I know it seems to be that the school of thought of Kelly Ross [The Kant Friesian School]  is very important. The thing that I think is important about it is that the specific approach of Kelly Ross is an expansion  of Leonard Nelson. [However to give credit where credit is due I have the impression that in Poland they do learn the approach of Leonard Nelson]

The thing is that I am not saying that that is the only thing in philosophy which looks important to me. I also think Micheael Huemer and Danny Frederik and Hegel are very important in terms of the logos that is needed to come to truth and justice. That is I think that philosophy is not just important for it's conclusions but also as a way of life--the need to search for the truth.

LT Hobhouse and Bradly repudiated the meta-physical theory of the state which was more or less started by Hegel. They might be right about that. It seems to me that in terms of the state and its function Thomas Jefferson has things right.

Bava Mezia 101a

The main issue in Bava Mezia 101a was noted by my learning partner (D Bronson) why does the Gemara change to the sharecropper is not like the renter.But there are a lot more questions that are there but they are no easy for me to explain simply. One issue is what is the relevance of the Braita to the Mishna? Obviously the Braita disagrees with the mishna concerning the opinion of R> Yehuda. So what possible conclusion can you draw from the Braita to the Misha. The next question ought to be this: let us say that we can learn something from the braita to the Mishna as clearly the Gemara holds that we can do. So we have to learn one of two things: 1 there is possession and leave the law of ר' יהודה concerning אריסות in Israel in its place. Or 2 say R Yehuda is only talking about a specific field and leave there is no possession in place. For some reason the Gemara changes to there is possession and also to a specific field and then changes something that there is no need to change.
These seems to be questions with no answers I can imagine. But furthermore Rashi and the Rambam have a different way of explaining the Gemara than Tosphot and Tosphot. Tosphot is clear but for some reason rashi and the Rambam think the conclusion of the gemara holds even if there is possession which is exactly what the Gemara says is impossible to say. And besides that what does there is possession means? This seems to vary according to which gemra you are learning behorot, Gitin, bava mezia .... The way that at least the Gemara looks to be in Bava Mezia is there is possession but if a Israel buys they field back then it is obligated in truman and maasar --and so what is the difference between there is possession of there is no possession. They both hold crops that grew in the possession of a gentile and were finished in the hands of a gentile are no obligated in truma. And they both hold if the Israeli buys it back then the crops are obligated.

__________________________________________________________________________________




The main question in בבא מציעא קא ע''א was noted by my learning partner. Why does the גמרא change to מקבל לאו כחוכר דמי that means the אריס is not like the חוכר. Another question is what is the relevance of the ברייתא to the משנה?  Obviously the ברייתא disagrees with the משנה concerning the opinion of  ר' יהודה. So what possible conclusion can you draw from the ברייתא to the משנה? The next question ought to be this. Let us say that we can learn something from the ברייתא to the משנה. Clearly the גמרא holds that we can do so. So we have to learn one of two things. אפשרות א' יש קניין ללא יהודי בארץ ישראל and leave the law of ר' יהודה concerning אריסות in ישראל in its place. Or אפשרות שנייה say ר' יהודה  is only talking about a specific field and leave אין קניין in place. For some reason the גמרא changes to יש קניין and also to a specific field and then changes something that there is no need to change. מקבל לאו כחוכר.
But furthermore רש''י and the רמב''ם have a different way of explaining the גמרא than תוספות. For some reason רש''י and the רמב''ם think the conclusion of the גמרא holds even if אין קניין which is exactly what the גמרא says is impossible to say. And besides that, what does יש קניין means? This seems to vary according to which גמרא you are learning בכורות , גיטין, או בבא מציעא.  The way that at least the גמרא looks to be in בבא מציעא is יש קניין, but if a ישראלי buys the field back, then it is obligated in תרומה and מעשר. So what is the difference between יש קניין לאין קניין. They both hold תבואה that grew in the possession of a אינו יהודי and were finished in the hands of a אינו יהודי אז אינה חייבת בתרומה. And they both hold if the Israeli buys it back then the crops are obligated.

I think that Rav Nahman was not in the category of the excommunication of the Gra however I do think the excommunication was valid.
The reason is something I saw in a commentary of the Rambam Mishna LaMeleh in the beginning of laws of vows [Nedarim] where he brings the Beit Yoseph who brings the Tashbaz that a herem has a category of both a vow and an oath. There the ML himself disagrees and says it only has the category of a vow. Still the point is it is valid.
That is just like one can forbid the use of a loaf of bread on another by saying this loaf of bread is a korban [sanctified for the altar] to you"--so a herem excommunication also has that same kind of validity.

The reason this is relevant to me even though others ignore this issue is that I am horrified by how the Dark Side has taken over the religious world in Israel. I wish that the Gra and Rav Shach would have been listened to. 

Rav Nahman from Uman did not think very highly of being more strict than the letter of the law.

Rav Nahman from Uman did not think very highly of "Chumrot" which is to say being more strict than the letter of the law. I was in the same Na Nach Breslov place and they were learning the beginning of Rav Nahman's book the LM vol 1:8. He does not mention this idea there but he does go into the idea that is related. The actual place is in LM vol 2 around chapter 44 I think and also around 82.
There Rav Nahman does bring up the problem of religious authorities that are demonic for the first time -and that is a recurring theme in the LM.
I was reminded of this by reading the Commentary of Rav Joseph Karo on the Rambam where he brings the case of Shmuel the amora telling one person that he must use the oil of gentiles or he would declare him a zaken mamre rebellious elder.

I was at the Na Nach Nachma Nachman from Uman [in Israel]  place today and did some learning. Then I went to take a nap and when I woke up I had an idea that might help R. Shimshon [a grandson of Rashi].
The question that the Radvaz raised on R Shimshon was that if in the grain stack there is half tithes and half secular grain then how can one take a tithe for it. The answer is that he takes double and calls a name only on a half.
That is like this. In the Mishna in Trume 4 we have a mishna that goes like  this: המפריש מקצת ת''ום מוציא ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר One who separates only a part of truma or tithe [maisar] takes out truma from it but not to another place. RS [R. Shimshon] says the idea is that the separation is valid but he needs to complete the amount.
The is the basic background. Now the question is let's say that now the stack is half tevel and half secular. So how can he take tithe? [This question is of the Radvaz.]
The answer is this. Let's say that you have 100lbs of grain and one takes 5 lbs for tithe instead of ten. So now the stack is half tevel and half hulin. So what to do is to separate another 10 lbs and to say: "the five lbs of tevel in this ten lbs is now tithe for the rest of the 50 lbs of tevel that are in the stack." Then the stack is now completely  taken care of. but your ten lbs is now half tithe and half secular. Then you could give the whole thing to a Levi. You would lose a little bit of your own grain but tehstack would be okay.

This answer clearly helps R. Shimshon. However there is still the Rambam left to try to answer for. The problem in the Rambam is the exact same one that comes up in R Shimshon but the answer I gave for RS does not work for the Rambam. The issue is this. In Truma 3 law 7 the Rambam brings that same mishna but holds the separation is not valid at all.  But in law 6 he says one who intends to separate 1/60 but instead took 1/61 --the separation is valid but he finishes the required amount. As Rav Shach points out in the Avi Ezri we see that the difference between law 6 and law 7 is that is law 6 he intends to finish the amount. In law 7 he does not. So in law 7 the separation is not valid.
The answer for the Rambam I think is that here he talks about truma alone and in that there is no problem of amounts. If he continues the process it is valid even if he takes just 1/60-1/61. And in fact in laws of tithe the Rambam does not bring up the issue of when he intends to take more. So in that case as far as I can see he would say the same thing as I wrote up above for R Shimshon.

[The police still have my computer so I am still borrowing. I am not upset with the police because they easily could have put me away for ten years if they had wanted to. Instead they had compassion on me and that same night I was arrested, the officer Moshe Cohen asked me two questions. One was to make a search and the other he mentioned perhaps my son would be willing to sign for me. So we all went (about ten police officers) and the police actually did not search because Moshe my son answered the door and said there was nothing to search for and then they asked if he would be willing to come and sign for me and he said yes. That was one of the greatest moments in my life when I heard my son willing to stand up for. me. Still I am sad that I have not written any music or ideas in Torah.]

I had a thought also about something that Rav Shach [on laws of Truma ] I know does talk about in the Avi Ezri. [I do not recall what he said].
The mishna says one who takes only a fraction of the truma or tithe takes out truma from it but not to a different place. R. Meir said also to a different place. R. Shimshon says the idea is it is truma or tithe but he needs to finish. Example: 100 lbs tevel. He takes 5 lbs tithe. It is tithe but he takes another 5 lbs. The idea is to R Shimshon that the original stack is mixed with tevel and hulin but when he takes more tithe we says he is taking from the tevel.
 Rashi says something similar on a different topic in Gitin 47b.   Jew and gentile own crops together. Tevel and hulin are mixed to R. Yehuda Hanasi. Rashi says you take a tithe and assume you are taking tevel.

The answer for R Shimshon at this point is unclear. I tried last night to think about it but came up with nothing. I ought to mention the person that asks on R Shimshon is the Radvaz. Sometimes it takes a long time for me to come up with an acceptable answer for the baali Hatosfot.

Bava Mezia 101a

I have had a few ideas that I have not written down in Talmud. Most I forget but at least for now I would like to write down a few things.[Most of the ideas were written in Uman.]
I think i had some idea in bava Kama but I forget it.]
Bava Mezia 101a.  My idea here last night as I was drifting off to sleep was that the Ri [R. Isaac the grandson of Rashi] can answer a very obvious and essential question in the Gemara that I think both Rashi and the Rambam would have a lot of trouble answering. The question is this: why change R. Yehuda? He said the serf would have to give a tithe for any field in Israel and then for seemingly no reason the Gemara changes it to only a field that he once owned and then sold (to the Rambam) or was simply stolen (to Rashi).  While the Gemara was right to change to "there is possession" but that gives no reason to the Rambam or Rashi to change the opinion of R Yehudah.

I assume either Rav Shach or Rav Chaim Soloveitchik answer this somewhere but as far as I can see right now, the Ri is more sensible. {Anyway as D. Bronson always told me "Tosphot is always right."]

Just for background information: The Mishna says that a renter from a gentile in Israel has to take the tithe and then pay the rent. He can not pay the rent with un-tithed fruit. R. Yehuda adds a serf also. The Gemara starts out thinking like Rabah that a gentile has possession and a serf is like a renter. Then it changes both. The Ri says it changes both because one depends on the other. But the Rambam and Rashi hold those are independent variables.

I already wrote something about this in my little booklet on Bava Mezia but this idea I think is new.

I have more time but my back is hurting. So to be short let me just mention that that rambam hold "there is no possession" and yet hold like the Gemara's conclusion in Bava Mezia 101 about R Yehuda and so clearly he holds like Rashi that the conclusion of the Gemara does not depend on whether there is or there is not possession.

about Ukraine

My basic feeling about Ukraine is that things were better under the rule of the USSR. There seems to be a kind of inherent anti semitism  which was held in check during the time of the Soviets but has recently come to the surface. In the last place I was staying there there was a tunnel dug for the sake of immediate escape that the Jewish family that owned the house had dug. If you have ever been to the Ukraine you can imagine how hard that must have been since the levels under the ground are mainly made of hard solid granite. That tunnel was a mile long (from the river Ostashivka until some escape route towards  the town center.) and was still standing a hundred years later. So the pogroms before the soviets took power were serious enough for that Jewish family to be really terrified.
[To this day I still have no idea how that family could have dug that tunnel without electricity. and only with shovels.]
So when I read Hobhouse and his critique of the Hegelian State, I take it with a grain of salt. I realize that there are times and places where a strong central government is needed.

Frankly I have to admit I was also terrified when I was there. The attacks on me were getting more and more frequent and violent.

[Besides that there was the odd fact that almost every person that I asked in Uman how things were during the time of the USSR, every single one told me things were better. You can ask anyone in Uman that lived during the time of the USSR and all of them will tell you the same exact words "Things were better then."]

[Because I still have no computer I have to be short. And to be fair L.T. Hobhouse realizes himself that the balance between government and the individual is a hard problem to solve. And he also realizes that all social questions come about because some kind of problem has arisen.

The trouble to me seems to be that Wasps in the USA assume everyone is like them. They think importing an American kind of democracy into the Ukraine would make everything hunky dory.
They ought to try renting a room for a while there and then find out what things are really like.

My feeling about Tora

My feeling about Tora is that the basic approach of the Gra and Rav Shach is correct.--and to a large degree I feel it would have made a lot of sense to stick with their basic ideas of learning Torah in depth and trust in God. However I did get involved in Breslov. That helped in many ways, but it also seems to have gotten me off track. It would be nice to find a kind of middle path in which one could partake of the great insights of Rav Nahman, and yet stay within the context of the straight Lithuanian Yeshiva world.

So nowadays I try to find the path of balance- Gemara Tosphot, Rav Shach's Avi Ezri, Math, Physics and exercise. That seems to work for me.

The path of balance certainly was the approach of some Rishonim-- as you can see in some of the Musar books of that period.

As for the actual fact that sometimes the right path is unclear -I go with Kant-- that reason has a limit. When it gets into areas of values (dinge an sich) it gets into contradictions. In any case, as far as I can I would like to get back to the straight Torah path of the Gra and Rav Shach. Besides that I have no idea why they both have been ignored to a large extent except to pay lip service to them.
And for some reason my efforts to get back into striaght Tora have always been foiled. Maaybe I simply do not have the merit to be able to sit and learn Torah? Or is there some deeper reason?

Side note --if you go by the actual new moon, then passover falls on April 18 at night. That is the first day is April 19)

My feeling about Philosophy is that Dr Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer are simply not that far apart. If it is a matter of reason knowing things (as per the Kant Fries school) of Reason recognizing things like universals (as per Michael Huemer) I just do not see the difference as it applies to me. I can see however in philosophy itself there is a big difference. but not so much in practical application.

That is reason recognizes universals. Among universals are objective moral values that do not depend on the observer.[Even though as one of the critics of Michale Huemer pointed out [Danny Frederick] there is a difference between universals as predicates and universals as laws of either math or morals. Still it seems to be both schools of though as very close.[ That is the Kant Fries and the Intuitionists.]

Daughter of an Am Haaretz.

I noticed in the Rambam on the mishna [Sanhedrin chapter 9]that he says it is a sin to marry the daughter of an Am Haaretz [person ignorant of Mishna and Talmud.] I had thought that it is simply not advisable.

I wonder if I had taken this advice how things might have turned out differently.
For when I was discussing marriage with my future wife she asked what would happen if there would be no parnasa [money]? And I said I would go and find a job. [The background here is that I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY at the time and we were planning on my continuing to learn Torah.]
This might very well be the reason that in fact later things fell apart. I might have answered like the sages said in the Chapters of the Fathers one who accepts on himself the yoke of Torah there is removed from him the yoke of the government and of making a living. I might have said if there is no money then I am not learning Torah hard enough and thus I should work harder on learning.

I am not saying eveything about the Litvak world that revolves on the Gra is right. I realize there is an array of values. But what I am saying is that I had found the one thing that worked for me. Learning Torah at the Mir. It seems to me that it was a failure on my part not to be committed to this approach at all cost.

[Nowdays I have a wider constalation of values but for me to list them here would make no sense since many of them apparanetly conflict one with the other. My question is how to resolve this conflict? ]

The dialect of Hegel unfolds in time.

 I want to consider the possibility that the dialect of Hegel unfolds in time. This clearly is not like McTaggart, but I think that it makes sense. That is the basic process is really what you see in the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus. But with Plotinus is is logos which is bringing things about. But in any case the idea is this whole vast process of Hegel is unfolding in time. And this helps a lot. It helps to understand the main problem of this generation of disappointment. For example me. I went very deeply into the Litvak Torah world, but as is usual with the process of thesis anti thesis I found things not perfect. So what needs to be done is to get to the synthesis that finds what is right is both the thesis and antithesis.

The Mishna in Bava kama 36

The law of the Torah is an ox that has not yet considered  to be expected to gore only pays half damages. An ox gores 4 other oxen one after the other but still remains "tam". Each one was worth 200. [It perhaps did it not one after the other exactly] R Meir says the last one gets the whole amount and if anything is left over it goes the one before that etc. R. Shimon says the order is 100/100. The next time the division is 100/50/50. The next time 100/50/25/25.

In another case R. Ishmael considered the damaged ox to be a debtor.But R Akiva thinks the owners of each ox become partners with the owner.

The problem our Gemara brings up on page 36 is who is R. Meir going like? It concludes like R Ishmael. [I would expand on this but I have no computer and and just borrowing a friends for a few minutes.] The next opinion of RS is like R Akiva.

But if it is like RI then the first owner of the first damaged ox should get the whole sum, not the last. The Gemara says each owner of the subsequent ox grabbed the ox to hold it until he gets paid.

The Rif says R Shimon agrees if he grabs it he is a paid guard and he agrees with RM.
Both R. Ephraim and Rav Zarahia the Baal Hamaor degree with the Rif. As you can easily see why. If he would be right then there was no reason to say the opinion of RM is like RI. It could be R Akiva also.

The answer that I think makes sense here is the debate in Pesahim 30. A lender is not paid back on time so he gets some property of the borrower. So when is he considered to own that property? This is a debate over there but the Rif must be thinking that our gemara over here in Bava Kama is like the opinion the lender owns the property only after he collects it. But the Rif is thinking that the ox is different. It becomes a pledge and is owned from the time of the goring and if so then there would be no difference between R Akiva and R Ishmael and so in truth R Shimon who is like R akiva in our case is talking about a different case than R Meir.
Sorry I can not explain this in more detail. If you look it up it will be more clear. Anyway you can see this idea of mine in Tosphot Bava kama pg 33. where Tosphot brings it for a different reason.

The Rambam uses every opportunity to say that one should not use Torah to make money. So why has it become such a bussiness? I am not sure but today i met a girl from Brazil who recently arrived in Israel who mentioned that a lot of people in Israel are having trouble with making ends meet. [making enough to get by.] So the fact that a lot of people do not work but rather use Torah to make money makes little sense.

One thing I saw in my first yeshiva in Far Rockaway was the opinion of the Gra that every word of Torah is worth more that all the other commandments of Torah.He brings this from the Yerushalmi Talmud. And that fact sunk deeply into me. The only thing that has changed much is that because of the opinion of Maimonides and other rishonim is that I include Physics and math in the category of Torah.

When it come to Torah I try to spend time in the local Na Nach (Breslov) group's place. That seems to be the only place I can learn Torah.

But if I could I would try to have a balance between these separate areas of study.
But when it comes to Physics i try to use the approach of Rav Nahman of just saying the words as fast as possible and going on. I would try to show this from Rav Nahman's main books but I have to go since i have no computer and I am just borrowing a friend's.



[Maimonides also includes the Metaphysics of Aristotle in the category of learning Torah but I have not been able to spend much time in that area. And modern philosophy seems to have gotten off track in that area.]

Where you see clearly the approach of Maimonides about the importance of Physics is in the story brought in the very last chapter of a volume in the Guide [I forget which]. Where the people around the palace of the King are the people that learn Talmud and the people in the palace are the physicists.and philosophers.

I myself had never even noticed this until I saw it quouted in a book by David Hartman

Rav Nachman emphasized not to masturbate but this can be taken too far in that people think this is worse than actual things that are forbidden in the Torah.Even though Rav Nahman was certainly right that it needs a correction to say the ten Psalms [16,32, 41, 42, 59, 77,90, 105 137, 150.] but still it is not an actual prohibition in the Torah.