Sodomy is the death penalty in Leviticus. [That is not the case with all forbidden relations. For example intercourse with a woman that has seen blood but not gone yet to a natural body of water is Karet but not the death penalty.]

So there is really nothing to be proud about doing sodomy. And calling it marriage does not change it.

So the fact that there are some things that one can question in the Torah, yet you can see that without Bible, people have no idea of the difference between right and wrong.

So you do need this medieval idea of combining Reason with Faith.


[What I ought to add is that essay on the web site of Dr Kelley Ross that brings the idea of the Rambam that natural law was a needed stage in order to get to Mount Sinai. Yet without Torah, people lose sight of what really is natural law.



[The synthesis of reason and faith was really a medieval idea. But nowadays you can see it also in Nelson [the Kant Fries School] and in Hegel. With Nelson [and Dr Kelley Ross] the two realms of faith and reason are separate. With Hegel they are also separate but join together in their origin. That is to see that Hegel is basically a kind of modern Plotinus who takes his cue from Plato but uses Aristotle to fill in the gaps. Hegel in a similar way as Plotinus see everything coming down from Logos. [I think so anyway. That is at any rate the impression I get from his Logic. ]

I can see the problems that people have on Talmud when you see the religious world to be kind of off its rocker. My claim is that the religious world represents the opposite of the Talmud. I am sorry if I never made that clear. My feeling is that whatever the religious world claims is obligatory or is the law, you would be more accurate doing the opposite.

Rav Nahman in fact said something similar. There was a rav in some city in which there were a few followers of Rav Nahman. His disciples wanted to know the accurate law about different points. he said to ask that Rav and then do the excat opposite of whatever he says.

This just goes to show how far the religious world is from Torah.


However I should add that there are some aspects of the religious world that I think are great--for example the straight Litvak yeshivas [Lithuanian]. I also think that Rav Nahman is a great souce of amzing advice.


However I admit I did not manage very well in the frum world at all. But I attribute that to the fact that the Sitra Achra has penetrated the religious world. So that there is really no where to go that is clean or pure.

 Questions on Talmud. 
Sex with a female is considered to be sex.  But  Sodomy with a male is always liable the death penalty, no matter what the age is. [That is stoning.]

That is to say: there are three ways to acquire a wife,- Sex, money, or a document. Sex is in fact one way. A when one marries by means of sex in front of two witnesses for the sake of marriage, the marriage is considered valid. Also in terms of prohibitions, sex with a forbidden female among the forbidden relations is thought to be liable the death penalty.





Gentiles
In terms of the attitude towards gentiles you are right there is a problem. The way some have answered that is that gentiles that are Christians are thought to be gerei Hashar according to the Beit Yoseph.. In any case, besides the Beit Yoseph, there is the Meiri [a Rishon and Abravanal and Rav Yaakov Emden.




Secular morality is always shifting. So to ask on this from secular morality does not seem valid. But if there is a question based on objective morality then I agree the Talmud can be wrong. The Talmud does not claim Divine Revelation. It is trying to work on the laws of the Torah based on human reason.

If the laws of Torah would be goals in themselves and thought to stand alone then there can be problems when they seem to disagree with morality based on Reason. But All the medieval rishonim do not hold from Divine Command Theory. All rishonim hold the laws of Torah are right and true because they have as their basis objective morality. That is they are meant to bring to certain goals that are recognizable by Reason.

If the question is "Is everything in the Talmud right?" The answer is no. In every single question there are different opinions and one is right and the others are wrong. The point of learning Talmud is to try to become awakened to objective morality. And I admit that does not always seem to be the result. But that is the point of it. Or as David Bronson said the point is to discover justice.

to appreciate the great gift I had to be part of the Mir Yeshiva in NY

I am not sure why I have not merited to learn Torah. It seems it always backfires when I try. One simple answer is that verse that the sages brings about Torah--"If you abandon me one day I will abandon you two days." That is to say if I had just managed to appreciate the great gift I had to be part of the Mir Yeshiva in NY or at least when I got to Israel to try to find a straight Litvak Yeshiva --like there already was in Safed. Then maybe things would be different. But once I more or less walked out on that who path, then it seems I just can not get back in.

In spite of the problems in current day USA, I look upon the basic foundations as being sound. I see the development of natural law from Saadia Gaon through Aquinas and John Locke as being a development and not a change of venue.

Most people that are critical of the USA have not lived under a real religious or secular tyranny. They just do not know what a blessing it is to have your human rights safeguarded.

learning Torah

One of the important pieces of advice that come from the Gra is that learning Torah tends to solve a lot of life's problems.

The questions that people have on Torah I think would apply to any system. The reason is that no mater what system is being implemented human nature will always demand that 95% of all the people in that system will be using it for personal motives of power and money and revenge and pleasure. That is simple human nature. It has nothing to do with the actual value of the system. The whole issue is  on that 5% that are doing it sincerely if it actually brings them to a higher moral level. 

And from what I could see at the Mir  and Shar Yashuv in NY, learning Torah lishma [for its own sake-not for money] definitely brings people to a higher moral level. 

The problem is those that learn Torah for money. This causes the יערוף כמטר לקחי ("My teaching will murder like rain") effect. See the Gemara Taanit. 

However those few great Litvak yeshivot, where Torah is learned for its own sake, makes it all worthwhile. [And I wish I was able myself to be learning, but I figure it takes a certain kind of merit to be worthy of learning Torah that I just do not seem to have. Even the little bit I can understand is only because I learned from true Torah greats, like Rav Shmuel Berenbaum,(the rosh yeshiva of Mir in NY) David Bronson (my learning partner), and Rav Naphtali Yeager (the rosh yeshiva in Shar Yashuv).

One is the sunset time in which it looks to me that Rabbainu Tam was correct.

There are areas in which even the straightest of the straight--the best of the best in the Torah world--that is the Litvaks-seem to fall short. Though it is hard to imagine a most devoted system to keeping the Torah than the Litvak  (Lithuanian) Yeshiva World still there are areas in which questions can be raised.
One is the sunset time in which it looks to me that Rabbainu Tam was correct. Another area is the refusal to serve in the IDF {Israel Defense Force}. To me it is hard to see this refusal in positive light.

Other areas are more iffy. For example the accepting of money in order to be able to sit and learn Torah. This is perhaps the easiest thing to justify based on Rav Joseph Karo in the Kesef Mishna.

On the other hand it is hard to find a group that is more devoted to keeping the Torah just as it says with no frills--no additions nor subtractions than the Litvaks. [Though the Litvak world is far from perfect, they seem to have avoided a lot of the keipot and Dark Side that seems to have infiltrated the rest of the Jewish Religious world]

The opinion of Rabbainu Tam is held by almost all rishonim. i.e that the night starts 72 minutes after sunset. I wrote a little about this in the booklet on Bava Metzia.

) בענין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. קשה להבין את הגר''א.  אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות  כוכב ממוצע אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות. 

  זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב ממוצע אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה ממוצע. ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים ממוצעים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא מתחילים לצאת כוכבים ממוצעים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.

תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון  (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם סוברים שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה.  רב נטרונאי גאון מחזיק בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון מחזיק בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד'). אני חושב ההלכה כמו רבינו תם. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את שיטת הגר''א בקושי.

הגם שאני חושב הלכה כר''ת עדיין אני רוצה לתת תירוץ אפשרי לגר''א: החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר  לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים ממוצעים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שמחזיק בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שכל הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיוע לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים ממוצעם רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את  הלילה. נוסף.הייתי בישראל כמה שנים וראיתי משהו שאישר את הגישה של ר''ת בדבר הזמן שמתחיל הלילה. כלומר, עבור 59 הדקות הראשונות לאחר השקיעה, אין שינויים דרמטיים בשמים. השמים הופכים כהים. ואז ב59 דקות קורה משהו דרמטי. סוג של צורות כיפה נעשה מעל האזור שבו שקעה החמה. ואז כי הכיפה עצמה מתחילה לשקוע עד בדיוק 72 דקות הוא שוקע מתחת לאופק, והשמים כהים לגמרי. אתה יכול לראות איך זה מתאים לגמרא בשבת. יש גם משהו על מה שאתה קורא ממוצע. למילה "ממוצע" אין שום משמעות מלבד לעומת משהו אחר. לכן מספר 5 הוא ממוצע בין 0 ו10, אבל לא ממוצע לעומת 100 ו1,000,000. אז כדי להיות מסוגל לקבוע או למדוד מהו כוכב ממוצע אתה צריך לראות כל הכוכבים באמצע הלילה. ברגע שאתה רואה את כל הכוכבים שניתן לראות בעין בלתי מזוינת, אז אתה בוחר שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. אז אתה לומד לזהות אותם על ידי לימוד יסודי של מפת השמים. אחד צריך ללמוד לזהות את הכוכבים ואת המקום של כל כוכב בקונסטלציה. ואז אחרי שאתה יודע מה הוא כוכב ממוצע, אתה יוצא לראות באיזה לילה כאשר הוא הופך להיות גלוי. שלושה גלויים ב72 דקות. עם זאת, הכוכבים שנראים חצי שעה אחרי השקיעה, כאשר אתה משווה אותם עם כוכבים אחרים באמצע הלילה הם לא כוכבים ממוצעים. הם ענקים לעומת כל האחרים. הם מה שהגמרא קוראה כוכבים גדולים. כוכבים גדולים לא אומרים לך כאשר הלילה מתחיל. רק שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. במונחים של כוכבים, ראיתי גם משהו שם גם באזורים מדבריים בישראל. אין כוכבים נראים בשקיעה. אף אחד. אז אם בין השמשות מתחיל בשקיעה, איפה הם שני כוכבים ממוצעים? על פי הגמרא, בין השמשות מתחיל כאשר כוכב ממוצע אחד נראה, לא כוכבים גדולים אשר ניתן לראות לפני כן. אז זה מעניין כי בשקיעה, אין כוכבים גדולים, ולא כוכבים ממוצעים גלויים. זה סותר את הרעיון שבין השמשות מתחיל באותה עת.

The best answer that I have to this question is that Torah and Talmud are to bring to objective morality. That is, it is a consequence based system.

However, I do admit there are legitimate questions on the Talmud. One is the most clear to most people. The same question that you have on any system--that it does not seem to bring people to a higher moral level and sometimes seems even to work in reverse gear.

Now even though you can ask this on any system, it seems worse when the system claims to be perfect.


The best answer that I have to this question is that Torah and Talmud are to bring to objective morality. That is, it is a consequence based system. This you can see in the Rishonim medieval authorities that hold that the commandments of the Torah have reasons and even go about listing the reasons. So they are not goals in themselves but rather meant to bring about some purpose--moral laws that are recognizable by reason. [See Michael Huemer in his essay on why he does not hold in all things by Ayn Rand where he explains this point]
So when there arises a situation in which they seem to work in reverse they do not apply.
That is the opinion of R. Shimon Ben Yochai in page 119 in Bava Metzia. R Yehuda that disagrees with him does hold by the same underlying premise that the commandments have for their purpose to bring about objective morality. But R Yehuda says that when there is a conflict you still go by what the actual verse says--not its reason. [He does not say however what his reason is.] Rav Shach says that the Rambam does not hold by either by rather by a thrid opinion that combines the two.]

an idea of how far people will go to besmirch the name of the Talmud

One of the questions that I heard on the Talmud is that someone heard that there is some kind of permission to do Sodomy on a child less than 3 years old. There is no such statement but it does give you an idea of how far people will go to besmirch the name of the Talmud.
Sodomy at any age is the death penalty.

And not just the death penalty but the most sevre type of stoning. Even murder do not get that. 

Tosphot. To review the same Tosphot every day for forty days in a row.

My whole blog post about  review yesterday I am sure must have seemed incomplete or just an introduction. The reason is that I was trying to get to what I think is  a major point about Tosphot.
It is not necessarily for everyone because this method might be only because of my own particular circumstances in which I am not learning Torah all day. In fact, in the short amount of time I have for any learning at all, I try to divide between math and physics, and then if I can manage to find a Gemara to learn that also.[Or any of the group Rav Chaim of Brisk, Rav Shimon Skopf , Rav Shach,  among the great Litvish sages/gedolim]  But the way I have discovered about learning gemara and Tosphot seems very important to me. It is to review that same Tosphot every day for forty days in a row.

In fact review I see as very important. That is at some point to stop in your learning in order and then to go back page by page. 

Learning fast and without much in depth thought is called bekiut [learning fast.] Going slow with lots of review is call Yiun and both are emphasized in Litvak yeshivot. The morning is for the in depth type and afternoon for fast learning.

Questions on the Talmud. Sometimes what is being said against the Talmud is simply based on misunderstanding. Sometimes there is a point.

Most of those subjects are in " "Nashim" that is the tractates of Ketuboth and Yevamot. And those tractates I learned a long time ago and forgot most of. 

The best I can say is that  what ever it is in the Talmud that is disturbing--it is usually the best thing to open up the Gemara itself and see inside exactly what is being said in the context of the subject. In fact, when I myself had questions of that sort with David Bronson, his usual reaction was to suggest opening up that sugia [subject] and to learn it in depth to find out what is actually being said.

Sometimes what is being said against the Talmud is simply based on misunderstanding. Sometimes there is a point.


To give one example: the value of "pi". This seemed to me to be  a big question until David Bronson and I opened up the actual Gemara and saw that the Talmud states openly that they are just making an approximation.

For another example, I noticed that the time scale of the Torah in Genesis is kind of short. That is to say that you can trace from Adam until the destruction of the first Temple, and you only get a few thousand years. While we can see that the universe is expanding and starting from a point that stated around 13.5 billion years ago. But even before I saw that question I noticed that the Ari understands the Torah in a completely different way. It is not that he says he is explaining the secrets of Torah, rather he says he is giving the simple explanation while the secrets he himself hides in hints that need to be deciphered.

Sometimes norms of society to me do not seem so moral anyway. But other times they do.

One place on the internet I found helpful to answer lots of questions is the Kant Fries School of Kelley Ross. Other places are Michael Huemer's ideas about how reason perceives universals including moral values. And that does seem to be similar to the general approach of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. and in fact all the other rishonim that I can think of.

-there is a need for intense review but also to have a session of learning fast.

Review every chapter of Gemara (Talmud) ten times was a theme in Far Rockaway -Shar Yashuv yeshiva. But somehow this idea got over to Brooklyn to the Mir in NY. There was I recall a store owner around the corner of the Mir that was known to have reviewed the third chapter of tractate Shabat ten times. I think I never did that except for the fifth chapter of Ketuboth I vaguely recall that I did a few times but if it ever got to ten I do not know.
In any case I do remember that Moti Freifeld used to make a big deal about the importance of review.

But I had also the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous about the importance of covering a lot of ground. And that certainly was mentioned a lot in the Litvak yeshiva world-. The question always was "Did that guy finish Shas?" If not then who is he to have an opinion?

My own approach at that point was to do review on anything I was learning mainly twice and then to go on. I see now that that surely was not enough but at the time it seemed like  a good compromise. The only times I recall that I deviated from that was when I was learning the Pnei Yehoshua. There I needed to review each paragraph at least ten times before I would get what he was saying.

In the Gemara itself you do have this idea of review forty times. And in fact Rav Shick [of Breslov] did talk about learning things forty days in a row. He was talking about the book of Rav Nahman but I found this idea to be helpful for other things. For example--when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson, I always came to the learning session unprepared. But he always was well prepared. But when I needed to do learning on my own of Tosphot and I was not learning with him anymore--but I still wanted to get to some comparable depth I used to review each Tosphot or chapter in Rav Haim from Brisk or Rav Shach about forty days in a row.

So after that whole introduction I want just to say that as is well known in the Litvak world --there is  a need for intense review but also to have a session of learning fast.

Some saints are thought to be more than average saints. For example in Rav Isaac Luria, we find different people that are thought to be souls that stem from Emanation. Examples would be the patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David.
[The entire Shar Hagilgulim is devoted to this theme.]


 However I only use the Emanation idea because it makes sense to me. But I do not want to put too much emphasis on it because of Kant and Leonard Nelson that there is a limit to reason. [So even if you go with Hegel that a kind of dialectical process helps to go beyond those limits--I still feel that in areas of faith, reason has limits.


Emanation has its roots in Plato and Plotinus and so in and of itself--it makes a lot of sense to me- That is it is not just because that Rabbainu the Ari said so. Rather Reason itself indicates that this is  a right track. And you certainly see this in Hegel also.--Though with Hegel it is more hidden how he gets the dialectical process. But to me it seems clear he is going with the Ari and Plotinus.

The Ari held the soul of Rav Haim Vital his disciple was from Emanation.

The thing about Emanation is that it is considered "Divine" [That is there is no dividing curtain between Emanation and the Source.--even though Emanation itself is a lot lower than Adam Kadmon]--while the lower worlds of Creation and Formation and the Physical Universe are not.

Character correction I think is best done like Rav Israel Salanter said--by learning Musar. [That is Books on morality written during the Middle Ages]

Character correction I think is best done like Rav Israel Salanter said--by learning Musar. [That is Books on morality written during the Middle Ages]. But I wanted to add that an idea of taking some paragraph or two about what I need to correct in myself and say it right away in the morning when I get up.
I think this has a long term effect. For example one can take that beginning paragraph about trust in God from the Madragat HaAdam. Also the one about accepting the yoke of Torah from the Nefesh haHaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin.

[The thing is you have to know what it is you ought to correct. So there is a need to go through the basic set of Musar books. That is the basic set of Medieval books starting from the Chovot Levavot. But also the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter like Rav Isaac Blazer.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.  I encountered I kind of analogy in a comment I saw on some site about a problem in the Mormon world. That is to say there was a girl that was coverted; but then encountered the cold shoulder. So this comment said the problem was this: People  try to covert others in order to get "points" but then the treatment they give to those they convert is like  "Old Money". [Either you are born into it or no.] I thought this helps to explain this phenomenon in the religious world that I encountered.

[There are plenty of other explanations, but I was looking for something a little more down to earth. For example we find in Rav Nahman the idea that where holiness is, there the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) specifically spends most of its energy to entrap and catch its prey. סביב רשעים יתהלכון is a verse from pslams that express this idea round about go the wicked. That is the wicked surround the holiness trying to get in.]

The explanation that I find more satisfying is that people try to convert secular people to their way of belief in order to get brownie points,- but then treat them like trash, the way "old money" treats others. That is as second rate citizens or sub humans. [That is if you are not born into the club, then you will be treated politely but as soon as you are no longer thought of as an asset or source of money, then you will find the very same people you thought were your best friends will turn against you. This is especially in the religious world which has no source of income except by means of secular Jews. So this is more pronounced there.



Just to be fair I ought to add that Moshe Israel mentioned an opposite problem in the Reform world--that of "the new rich"  nouveau riche. So in fact it is hard to find a proper kind of balance and a decent place to sit and learn Torah.

The actual Constitution of the USA I think is mainly based on the political structure of England in the 1700's. However I agree that natural Law played a large part in the basis of the USA.. But natural Law I think had a basis in Saadia Gaon and Maimonides and then later developed by Aquinas.

The Rambam has an approach that is like this. At first mankind needed natural law as was revealed to Abraham the Patriarch. Only then could the revelation at Mount Sinai take place.

Aquinas develops this idea further to combine it with Aristotle's teleology.[That the are natural goals].

[This is just my basic impression. i really have not had time to study these sources. However I am pretty sure that if you look at England and specifically Daniel Defoe's essays you will see that the USA Constitution is almost an exact blueprint of the political structure of England except in the significant areas where it departs from the English model because of issues that cause the revolution in the first place.

intense review

You find sometimes in the Gemara the idea of review. Rav Pedat reviewing one lesson with a student 400 times. Or another amora learning a law 40 times [that the meal of Purim is only in the daytime].

Intense review was certainly emphasised in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים that emphasizes learning fast and also review.

So I generally bounce back and forth between these two approaches.

When it comes to some subjects--i realize that no matter how much review I do I will not really gain much understanding until I have gone over all or most of the material. There are other areas that I feel review is a good idea.

 There was a period I forgot the importance and depth of Tosphot until I began learning with David Bronson. Then I was more or less reminded of the importance and depth of Tosphot. [Even those I had been introduced to this important aspect of learning in Shar Yashuv, I had forgotten about it completely.]
At any rate, it became known in the Litvak Yeshiva World that both approaches are necessary. both intense depth of learning and also fast learning which is done in the afternoon.

Since Lithuanian yeshivas are at the top and peak of their game I have nothing to add to their standards of excellence. But I DO THINK THIS WAY OF LEARNING FAST by just saying the words and going on is a precious gift that can and ought to be used also for mathematics and physics.
For not everyone can become a genius in Physics but that does not mean that one should ignore it. It is important even if one can not make it to the top of the field. In an unexpected way you can see this in the books of Rav Nahman about the hidden wisdom that is inside of all creation. But to claim Rav Nahman would agree with me goes too far. Rather the best support for this idea comes from the Rishonim [medieval authorities] like the Rambam and Rav Ibn Pakuda [and the general approach of schools of Torah in Spain]

Aurobindo noticed something about the intermediate zone that is more or less ignored by the religious world. That is Ego Inflation. Sometimes people that do a certain degree of work in some kind of Divine service get to some spiritual level. But then they think of themselves as much more significant than they really are. Or sometimes they are simply being used by the Dark Side  without their being aware of it.

Rav Israel Salanter certainly must have realized that the main point of Torah is to come to good character traits.

My own feeling is that Rav Israel Salanter certainly must have realized that the main point of Torah is to come to good character traits. [That is Torah is a goal centered system. At least that is clear from the Talmud itself and also from the Rambam.] That includes the commandment of learning Torah. And that was probably the major motivation for his starting of the Musar Movement. -Though this is usually not stated openly. But that does bring often to the question that many people have that the results do not seem to conform to the intention. At least in my own case I think at least subconsciously I had thought that joining up with the religious world would help bring to family values.--Little did I know! But the fact of human messing up a system does not necessarily invalidate the system. [Unless it is clear that the actual implementation actual was a direct result of the system itself--not just a warping of the system for personal greed].
My feeling about this is that it comes under the category of the Dialectic of Hegel.  [That is to say, I do not think that the dialectic of Hegel is only a process that takes place by means of Logic. --Though that is in fact one area. But I think it takes places also in the categories of Being. So the more you get into something, often that process in itself ends up the exact opposite of what you thought it was supposed to bring about.] {Schopenhauer however would have a different idea of this process. ]

Reason with Faith

The approach of the rishonim to combine faith with reason. It was pointed out to me that that is not necessarily the approach of the prophets. It does seem clear that the prophets wanted to be understood on their own terms.

My own approach is that I have seen a bit too much of religious fanaticism to think that faith without reason leads to much good. Reason without a priori assumptions also is empty.
So to me it seems the approach of Reason with Faith is the best. But then what is the right kind of synthesis? Immediate non intuitive knowledge. as brought in Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross makes the most sense to me.

Talmud Babylonian Bava Mezia page 43a Tospfot.

Tosphot asks a question on Rav Huna. The Maharam Shif makes note that the same question could apply to Rav Nahman. Besides that I also have a question on the answer of Tospfot to that question.

The Mishna says when one gives to a money changer money to guard that was not wrapped up, the money changer can use the money and so if it is lost then he has to pay it back. Rav Huna said not just if it was lost in a small accident but also in a big accident. That is he is a borrower since he can use it. Rav Nahman says only in a small accident but in a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Tosphot asks on Rav Huna whether a seller can use the money he receives before the buyer has picked up the fruit that he is buying. [That is before the actual deal is done]. If he can  use it then there is a question from the barber. [If one pays a barber with money (bedek habait) that one dedicated for use in the Temple. then he is not transgressing the prohibition of meila until the haircut begins.] If he can not use it then why can he not say "your money was burned up in the attic before you picked up the fruit and since I did not own the money at that time then the deal is off."
So the Maharam Shif asks why not ask the same thing on Rav Nahman. Normally you would respond well the question does not apply to Rav Nahman because to him the money changer is only a paid guard who can not use what he guards. But here we have a case where the paid guard can use what is is guarding.

במשנה יש דין הנותן כסף לשולחני לשמור אם הכסף אינו חתום אז השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף ולכן אם הכסף נאבד השולחני חייב. לדעת רב הונא הוא חייב גם אם הכסף נאנס באונס גדול כמו גזלן עם נשק. היינו יש לו דין כמו שואל. רב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבד אבל אונס גדול פטור כמו הדין של שומר שכר. תוספות שואלים מן המשנה נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פירות יכול לחזור בו היינו בקניין רגיל אין חלות של קניין עד שהלוקח מושך את הפירות. זה שמשך המוכר את הכסף אינו מעלה ואינו מוריד. אז תוספות שואלים ממה נפשך לדעת רב הונא. אם המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה זה שנתן לספר אינו חייב במעילה מיד? היינו שיש לנו את הדין גזבר או מי שיש לו כסף של בדק הבית שנתן את הכסף לבלן ה גזבר חייב במעילה אבל אם נתן את הכסף לספר לא. החילוק הוא שמיד שנתן כסף לבלן הוא יכול לרחוץ מיד אבל בספר אין קניין עד שמתחיל את התספורת. אז אם מוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף עד שלא נגמר את הקניין למה מי שנתן לספר אינו חייב מיד. מצד שני אם המור אינו יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה המוכר אינו יכול להגיד ללוקח נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה? היינו עד שלא נגמר את הקניין נשרפו הכסף. אז אם אין אחריות למוכר הוא יכול לומר נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה.
המהר''ם שיף שואל למה לא לשאול אותו דבר על רב נחמן? לרב נחמן השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף הגם שהוא שומר שכר ולכן יש לשאול המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אבל אינו חייב באונסים. תוספות עונים בתירוץ הראשון אין שמירה לכסף אלא בקרקע. אבל אני שואל שזה היה צריך להיות גם בשולחני עם מעות צרורות! והוא אינו חייב!

[So just to be clear--I think what the Litvak Torah world does in trying to keep out evil people is a great thing. The problem is that they usually do not pick the right ones to throw out.]

I noticed that in the two great Litvak yeshivas that I was in there was a kind of exclusivity. --that is a kind of attitude that only we have the truth. And to some degree they are correct. When you look at the general religious world it is hard not to notice that the ones that have really\ quality are the Litvak yeshivas.  But I try to hold more from a kind path that you see in some Rishonim [medieval authorities] where there is also an emphasis on Metaphysics and Physics.

And I did anyway have troubles in the Litvak world. So even though I recognize their point about the importance of Gemara Rashi and Tosphot in depth and still wish that I would be able to sit and learn Torah all day like they do, I have found that it does not work so well for me. And after that I anyway started paying attention to the Rambam and the חובות הלבבות about the importance of learning Aristotle and Physics.

The thing about the Litvak world was that as long as I was a part of it, things were great. That is in Shar Yashuv and in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. But once I came to Safed I kind of dropped out of it and then found that I was no longer welcome when I wanted to get back in.
 There is some effort to keep out evil influences and I guess that is what they thought of me. But they are for some reason not really all that successful in keeping out evil influences. For example they ignore the two important warnings of Rav Shach and the Gaon of Villna--the Gra. So as David Bronson noticed--they do try to keep out people that are connected with the Dark Side--but they usually mix up who in fact really is a problem.

[The problem with the Sitra Achra in the Torah world I admit is hard to discern. You really need "faith in the wise" to believe that the Gra was right and Rav Shach also. It is not visible on the surface. And also in terms of the writings of the Ari it is not obvious at first glance why the Gra was right. It takes a certain degree of discernment to see the problems.[I should add that however this problem is not limited to the Dark Side in the world of Torah. Because in fact in every area of value there is an equal and opposite area of value that pretends and poses as if it is the real thing.]

c

Spinoza. A few critiques.

 A few critiques.

When in high school I used to try to learn Spinoza. I was never on the intellectual level to even begin to criticize him. But eventually I began to notice a few things. One is that all the rishonim [medieval authorities] hold that God created the world something from nothing. Not from himself. [I mean to say that in Torah thought, God is simple. He has no substance, nor form. So the world is not made of his substance. He has no substance. I also noticed at some point that Leibniz has an extended critique on the proofs of Spinoza. I also saw at some point in a footnote on a book on Aristotle by an Israeli professor that Aristotle puts on substance lesser restrictions than Spinoza does. That is to say the function of substance in Aristotle is the sub layer that modes are applied to. Hot cold etc.But Spinoza has substance occupying a much more difficult position. That is to Spinoza substance can not be effected by anything else.

Last but not least I noticed that Hegel has a few points that I had not thought of:the fact that Spinoza does not get from substance what he wants. He does have "nature naturing" [as Dr. Kelley Ross points out.] But that does not come out of substance. It is added in. [To Spinoza substance does have infinite modes but that still does not get to nature naturing.] So at some point I decided to go with the basic idea of Torah that God created the world something from nothing. Not from Himself.

I also at that time took note that the Ari himself states this very thing a few times in the beginning of the Eitz Haim.

The idea of Emanation of the Ari does not contradict creation from nothing as you can see right in the start of the Eitz Haim.

I might add that the Rambam makes a point in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the verse Know that the Lord is God, There are none else besides Him" means simply that there are no gods besides God but in a deeper way also that nothing has independent existence besides God

learn at a fast rate

I was on the street and saw a woman selling the pamphlets of Rav Shick about learning fast--which comes from Rav Nahman of Breslov. I mentioned to her that I saw the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir in NY Rav Shmuel Berenbaum in the afternoon learn at a fast rate. I walked by his place in the start of the afternoon session and towards the end the the afternoon I saw he had progressed more than ten pages.
[And in terms of Gemara learning -that is a lot].


I think it is  a good idea to apply this method of learning to Mathematics and Physics. That is to have a few fast sessions in which one just says the words and goes on until he finishes the book--and then starts over again. But also to have a few sessions of learning in depth with immediate review. That is how Litvak yeshivas anyway learn. The morning for deep learning and the afternoon for fast learning.

[The reason to apply this to math is more or less along the lines of the rishonim that held that physics and metaphysics are important to learn besides the regular session in Gemara.

[I might add that in Shar Yashuv and with my learning partner David Bronson, I noticed that to get inside of Tosphot it is needed to spend a great deal of time on even just one page of Gemara. But that woulkd have to come under the category of in depth learning. That does not take away the need to do all of Shas as the Gra and Rav Nahman pointed out.]

bullying

Some girls asked me about bullying--that is what were my experiences [in school]? My answer was that I never experienced anything like that at all. The reason is that when I was in school this was simply a different day and age. That is I was in Newport Beach CA in Mariners elementary school and then later in Hawthorn elemntry school [BH] and then Beverly Hills High School. Clearly something terrible was happening in the world in the 1960's in such a way that a new world appeared in the 1970's in which the world became a crazy place. The 1960's was a transition from the world of the 1950's and the 1970's. The world became a madhouse. But I was mainly guarded from the problems since I was in the Mir in NY [after high school] and then later in Safed in Israel . So I was more or less unaware of how drastically the world had changed. What does it all mean? I am not sure.
[I might add that the reason I was accepted in the Mir in NY was that I already knew some Hebrew since I learned Torah in Temple Israel in Hollywood and after that in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv. I have to add that in some ways I think Shar Yasuv was superior to the Mir in terms of their analysis of Tospfot. But the Mir was more into the path of Rav Haim from Brisk.]
Since most of the time in the 1970's and 1980's I was involved in the Torah I did not see what was going on around me. Only when I emerged from my shell I saw the religious world in itself had become a hell hole. The explanation of this I found in Rav Nahman's idea of Torah scholars that are demons.יש תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים כמובא בזוהר פרשת פנחס/
That is to say that the Dark Side has penetrated the religious world and taken it over.

The solution to this problem seems to me to be more or less to go to a Litvak Yeshiva that follows the path of the Gra and Rav Shach as far as possible. [I assume there must be places like that even though I do not have the merit to be anywhere near one/ My impression is that I myself would not have had such terrible problems if I had simply stuck with the straight Torah path of the Gra and the Litvak world. It was the fact that I more or less left that path and then my attempts to get back in ended in failure.]

Bava Mezia page 43a. First Tosphot on the page. The question of Tosphot

  Bava Mezia it seems to me the question of Tosphot is thus. [And I should add that clearly Tosphot thinks he is asking on Rav Huna even though it can be expanded to Rav Nahman also. This you can see in the language of Tosphot where he clearly points his question towards Rav Huna. but the fact that Tosphot is on the question of RavNahman we can see he is also asking on Rav Nahman.]
  The question is this:There is no משיכה for money. I mean to say this. If the money given to the money changer would be a loan then fine. We can see that the money changer would be obligated as a person that took a loan. But he is not a borrower. he simply has permission to use the money. That does not make him a borrower. It would make him someone that borrowed an object like an ax. But money is not an ax. There is no קניין on the money as if it would be an ax.
  [The unstated problem I am trying to adress here is that the question of Tosphot seems to be more appilicable to Rav Nahman than to Rav Huna-because to R yohanan the whole reason that money does not acquire is so the seller can not say to the buyer your wheat was burned up in the barn before you took it home. This does not seem to apply to Rav Hiuna who holds the seller in that case would be liable.]
  I was not able to learn this Gemara for a few days sadly enough. But today I went to the mikveh in the sea and on the way to the library the intenion of Tospfot became clear to me.
I am still looking for a place I can sit and learn Torah but without any success.
  Anyway after writing the above paragraphs I want to just add a little bit of background as far as I can remember the gemara itself.  In the Mishna we have the law that if you give to a money changer money to guard --but the money is not sealed, the money changer can use it. But if he loses it he must pay it back. The mishna says "if he looses it:" but Rav Huna said also if he looses it by means of a accident that was not his fault he still has to pay it back. Rav nachman said only if he loses it but if it a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a teaching that says if a person that has in his possession an object of "bedek habait" gives it to a to a money changer to guard and the moeny changer uses the moeny, then the first person is liable for meila.
Tosphot asks from the mishna נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פרות יכול לחזור בו.
בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. שאלת תוספות היא כך .אין משיכה לגבי מעות. דהיינו אם המצב היה שהשולחני קיבל מעות בתור הלוואה הכל היה בסדר. אבל הוא אינו לווה. הוא פשוט קיבל כסף לשמור הגם שיש לו רשות להשתמש עם הכסף. וזה אינו גורם לו להיות לווה. אבל הוא גם אינו שואל בגלל שכסף אינו חפץ. אובייקט.
השאלה שאני משתדל לענות עליה היא ששאלת תוספות נראית יותר להיות שייכת לרב נחמן. היינו שהסיבה שאין משיכה במעות היא בגלל החשש שהמוכר יגיד ללוקח חיטיך נשרפו בעליה. וזה שייך רק לרב נחמן אבל לרב הונא הנפקד הוא שואל ולכן חייב באונסים. אבל עכשיו רוצה לומר שהשאלה שייכת  במיוחד לרב הונא בגלל שאין משיכה במעות אלא אם כן הוא לווה. ובמצב שלנו הוא אינו לווה וגם אינו שואל. הרקע כאן הוא זה. החוק במשנה הוא המפקיד מעות פתוחות לשלחני ונאבדו השולחני חייב בגלל שהייתה לו רשות להשתמש בהן .רב הונא אמר אפילו אם נאנסו. ורב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבדו. ורב נחמן שאל מחוק שגזבר שהפקיד ליד שולחני מעות פתוחות והוא השתמש אתם הגזבר חייב במעילה. השאלה היא שרק אם הוא השתמש, לא אם רק נמסרו לו. תוספות שואלים מן הדין נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פרות יכול לחזור בו.

I was asked a few weeks ago about Leibniz and other pre-Kantian philosophers.

I was asked a few weeks ago about Leibniz and other pre-Kantian philosophers. I do not recall how it came up. I simply walked into the Na Nach Breslov beit midrash and someone asked me about this. My short answer to them was "They are not relevant". My main point was that pre_Kantian thinkers got to a certain point in the conflict between Mind and Body and it needed Kant and Hegel to come up with a kind of synthesis.

On a larger scale, my idea is this. Philosophy before Plato  was leading up to Plato and then everything after that was picking up  the pieces. (The question the pre Plato people had was "How is change possible?")
This question went up until Plotinus. Then a new problem arose: Faith and Reason. [And that in itself had a subset of a different problem free will as opposed to Divine knowledge. That went up until Aquinas.

 Then a whole new question came up with Descartes; the mind body problem. Then that went on back and forth between the people like John Locke and Spinoza and Leibniz until Kant. Since then everything has been getting trying to get a handle on Kant and Hegel.

And the relevance of all this is great as politics is downstream from Philosophy. What kind of idea people have about what is truth and justice will determine what kind of society they will live in.


[And you do not really get to skip this process by assuming you know the whole truth because of some religious text you read. The problem with that is that truth is not determined by "identity philosophy." That is to choose who has the truth based on what religious group or ethnic group they belong to. If that would be valid, then why did the Rambam make such a big deal out of the importance of Aristotle? You have to say that he did not think in terms of identity politics.]

I ought to add that in terms of the post Kantian debate I think that Leonard Nelson is unjustly ignored. To me his system [the Kant Fries School] seems important. And just to add weight that that it is a fact that Karl Gauss saw the book of Fries and praised it and David Hilbert clearly held that Leonard Nelson was on the right track. But I also do not think that this takes away from the importance of Hegel. But after Nelson I think 20th century philosophy really took a nose dive into the mud.

Kelley Ross does use the Nelson Kant approach for knowledge and Shopenhaur for Metaphysics but I am thinking that Hegel's Metaphysics might be better.

Kant and Hegel

I find the argument between Kant and Hegel to be along the lines of מחלוקת בין הצדיקים argument between the righteous/ That is I see both as being as important to figuring out what "It is all about" as Plato and Aristotle. [The idea of argument between the righteous comes from Rav Nahman and it refers to the fact that even great people seem to not be on the same page about what is important to emphasize. However there is still the problem of figuring out who is  a zakik in the first place. The problem in that is that there is a lot of sitra achra [the dark side] around that copies true tzadikim. Especially in Israel there is a lot of this problem- Rav Shach and the Gra warned about it but they seem to be universally ignored. Or perhaps it is just in the supposedly religious world that they are ignored.]

And in fact I owe a debt of gratitude to a certain school of thought of Kant based on Leonard Nelson. [That is the Kant-Fries School].

That is to say I found some of the problems in Torah thought to be almost insolvable because of two reasons. One was in understanding the basic meaning and the other problem is in practical experience.
So when I found on the Internet the school of thought of Kant Fries--that basically answered almost my questions.[That is the web site of Dr Kelley Ross from California.] However it helped also to see the essays of Dr Michael Huemer.]


There is an argument between Hegel and Kant about the dinge an sich [the thing in itself with no properties] if reason has access to it. In one way it seems that Kant has the advantage here since in his view there are two levels of reality --one in which reason can penetrate and the other in which it can not. This certainly helps when it comes to question in faith.

However the advantage of Hegel is that universals are at least accessible to reason by a process of dialectics. But when it comes to a political system I think the founding fathers of the USA were more on track.

a way to dispose of corrupt religious leaders.

Sometimes it is useful to have a way to dispose of corrupt religious leaders.

Rav Nahman of Breslov has quite a few chapters of his book [LeM] on the difficulties that stem from Torah Scholars that are demons.

The trouble with the idea of having a way of disposing of them is that thy have no authority in the first place. Once ordination was continued from Moses at Mount Sinai until about the middle of the time of the amoraim (Talmudic period). But once that authentic ordination was lost then authority reverts back to the Gemara [Talmud].
" Just like you can not add or subtract from the written Torah so you can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." Rambam in his letter to Yemen.

So anyone that claims ordination is a fraud in the first place. Much less to make money out of Torah makes it worse. So to dispose of these frauds really requires nothing more than simple awareness of the facts.

The phony kinds of ordination that is claimed nowadays started during the Middle Ages, but it has no legal validity. It is just a way to use Torah to make money--thus piling one lie on top of the other.

Question: Remember the thing about the earth being created from snow?  Fasten your seatbelt: Iyyov 37:6. (The Book of Job)

I just found it brought as a proof in the Midrash Rut from the Zohar Chadash 93:a. If the Rambam accepted the tradition that Iyyov was written by Moshe then it’s a pretty, uh, shtarke qasha. Moshe is as authoritative as it’s possible to get on the question.


My Answer: That midrash refers to the Big Bang. Not the actual earth. The idea is that snow contains structure a hexagon that you do not see in water or other things. That is why snow is used as the analogy. In Greek thought before R Eliezer there was an argument of what the world is made of. Water or fire etc or all four. So R Eliezer did not want to say all four but not one or the other either. Rather he found snow as being some combination of Solid Liquid Gas and Energy in a way that combined all four but in some way that was not any of the four.

But I imagine you are referring to the fact that the Rambam thought that Midrash is ridiculous. The Rambam can be wrong as I might have mentioned before. For some reason the great sages like Rav Shach and others made it an important part of learning to answer questions in the Rambam--and that is a worthy cause. Still with all that we see Rav Nahman ignored him in his list of things that one ought to learn every day.

 I was impressed with Tosphot when i first got to Far Rockaway and later learning sessions  simply reinforced that impression. Still the Rambam is a worthy Rishon but not one to put above any of the other great rishonim.

On the other hand the idea of the Rambam of a synthesis between Reason and Faith is a worthy idea and found in other Rishonim and Geonim. 
Pirkei Avot --I forget where is one place where the Rambam misunderstood the meaning of an Aramaic word. The commentaries over there mention this and they are right. Another place I mentioned is the Spheres and the Rings. The whole reason the Rings were introduced was because the Spheres did not explain the fact that Venus gets darker and lighter. So just in the course of one generation after Plato then spheres were abandoned and the Rings put in there place. yet the Rambam says the reason the Rings were introduced was because of the darkening and lightening of Venus.


I might add that the way of the Litvak yeshivas since Rav Haim of Brisk is great on the side that they dig in to find some way of reconciling the Rambam with the Talmud which is usually hard if not impossible. Yet they all do an amazing job. Rav Shach, Rav Haim, my own teachers at the Mir Rav Shmuel Berenbaum etc. Yet too much in Tosphot is forgotten about. people get to the point of almost just skimming over Tosphot without getting the ideas except for how the conclusion may of may not disagree with the Rambam. They ignore the whole reasoning.

Dr Kelley Ross and Dr Michael Huemer are coming from very different kinds of approaches. Dr Ross from German Idealism especially of Leonard Nelson and Fries. Dr Huemer from the intuitionist school {Prichard]. Still both very much against communism. And while I agree totally that communism is not very good-I also got to see  the Ukraine and started realizing things are not so simple. To me it looks like politics depends on DNA to a large degree. Capitalism just does not work automatically. But DNA is the one area that philosophy just can not deal with. that is the fact that people are different. not just individual people but also whole groups.

Sorry I can not go on but the library is closing and I do not have my own computer.

Talmud Bava Mezia 43

In the Talmud Bava Mezia there is a mishna that says that one who gives over money that is not sealed to a money changer--if the money changer loses it he is liable [The money changer is liable]. the reason is it was open so he was allowed to use it. To Rav Huna that means even if it was unavoidable accident. Rav Nahman askes on him from a braita [A kind of teaching that is from the time of the mishna but not included in the mishna]. It says if a gizbar [one appointed over Temple funds] gives over to a money changer money to guard--if he uses the money he [the gizbar] is liable the sin of trespassing meila.[The idea is the if the permission to use the moeny is what counts then here also the permission to use the funds ought to make the gizbar right away liable]
Tosphot asks on this question from the Mishna that one who sells some product and has received the money but the buyer has not yet picked up the product the seller can change his mind and renege on the deal.

Rav Shach and the Maharam [under the Maharsha] and the Maharam Shif all go into this subject.
But what I wanted to say here is that the question of Tosfot is thus: It does not seem to be any question on Rav Huna since in a case of meila or just regular buying and selling the permission to use the money does not exist. Only actual using the money counts. So also in our case of just giving over money to guard what ought to count is to make one a borrower is actual using. And permission to  use should only count as far as being considered a paid guard.

בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. משנה המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני אם היו פתוחים ונאבדו הוא חייב לשלם. לפי רב הונא השולחני הוא נחשב שואל ומחויב גם באונסים אבל לרב נחמן הוא רק שומר שכר. רב נחמן שואל שגזבר שמפקיד מעות אצל שולחנית אם השולחני השתמש אתם הגזבר חייב במעילה. היתר תשמיש אינו מועיל לעשותו שואל אלא שומר שכר. תוספות שאול  שבמכירה המוכר שמקבל מעות אינו יכול להשתמש אתם עד שהלוקח מושך את החפץ. היינו שבמכירה זה שנמצא הכסף ביד המוכר אינו נותן לו רשות להשתמש אתו. ולכן במעילה הדין דומה שאין היתר השתמשות--ולכן מה הקושיה על רב הונא?

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.