I wanted to go a little into Kelley Ross's Theory of Value.. [Which seems to be original even though he attributes his theory to Kant and Leonard Nelson.]

The thing that I wanted to add is that areas of value which in his theory are formal have little content.

For example formal logic. The sentenses are more or less empty. A can stand for anything. B also. But if A is true and A implies B then B is true.

But as you approach areas with more value you have less form. For example morals. Moral are what would be called universals as Michael Huemer says. But there is no algorithm to figure them out.

But you do not see this in the Rambam. In the Rambam Physics and metaphysics are both a part of learning Gemara. That means they come under the category of learning Torah.

So what I suggest is not that they have the same numinous value as Gemara. Rather that the Avoda [kind of service]  involved in Math and Physics to to draw numinous value into it.
This is more or less how the Rishonim said to learn this kind of thing--to intend by that learning to merit to love and fear of God.



I mentioned a few years ago that besides the areas of positive value of Kelley Ross I think there is are equal and opposite areas of negative value. In science that is pseudo science.

But further I think these areas of negative value are parasites that can not exist without positive value. That is why you always see the Dark Side trying to get inside of straight Litvak Yeshivas. The Dark Side can not exist without sucking the life energy of True Torah.
See examples of parasites that can not exist without mind controlling their hosts

Two very important principles I learned from the books of Rav Nahman from Breslov

Try never to be in debt and never to ask favors from people. Never to be in debt is a very important principle. 
I recall That i picked these up from the book of Rav Nahman called Sefer HaMidot.

The idea of not being in debt I recall had to do with repentance. That is--he said that if one wants to repent he should be careful not to be in debt.

The other principle I recall came from a statement in the Gemara in Yoma. 

The Oral and Written Law (Gemara and Five Books of Moses) seems to be one area of value among many areas of value. [I.e. It addresses issues of objective morality not beauty, or courage, or mathematics etc.] 


And when any area of value decays its decays into its opposite. [ Torah is a numinous area of value. To see this clearly look at Kelley Ross. Though you can see a many area theory of Value in Hegel also. But since Hegel wants to combine them-it is harder to see there.  The areas of value what Kelley Ross would call numnious would be in Hegel's  areas of Essence. Hegel has Notion being the synthesis of Being and Essence.
You can see this also in the Rambam who has two areas of value Moral and Intellectual. [Not just in Pirkei Avot but also in Mishne Torah Laws of Repentance where he says Olam Haba [ones portion in the next world] depends on both deeds and wisdom]

Nahman from Breslov

The critique on religious leaders permeates the entire book of Rav Nahman from Breslov [The LeM. Lekutai Moharan  Vol I. ch 8, 12, 28 etc] .and by implication the entire religious world that "follows the leader."

But this is not new. In the Talmud itself you have similar statements. In Tracatet Shabat towards the end: "All troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel."And a wife of a Pharisee is among the destroyers of the world. אישה פרושה היא מן המכלה עולם 

Rav Nahman sees in the religious world and religious leaders a particular kind of problem that is not the same as simply faulty leadership.

My impression is that the exception to this rule are the great Litvak yeshivas. I had very positive experiences both in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. And I am pretty sure that they are not all that unique but that most Litvak yeshivas follow the same basic pattern of simply trying to keep the Torah as straight and simple as possible.
But even when I was there I was aware of this penumbra of kelipot that surround them and attempt to infiltrate.


One important source about this problem with religious leaders that Rav Nahman calls Torah scholars that are demons is a book that is out of print. That is the חיי מוהר''ן the Life of Rav Nahman. The השמטות. The deleted parts. Now even though some of the deleted parts were put back in but not all. Rav Shmuel Horwitz's השמטות של החיי מוהר''ן [deleted parts of The Life of Rav Nahman] was only printed once and sold in the Breslov bookstore near Rehov Salant in Jerusalem Mea Shearim.

FFB Society [[religious from birth]

 FFB  Society [religious from birth] is  predatory towards BT's [newly religious]. This creates a kind of environment in which the BT's expect to be treated equal,-- because of the ideals of democratic society from where they emerge. Yet they are the first to be blamed, and the last to be helped. Often it more than just last to receive help. Often it is first to receive harm.
And there is a kind of fraud involved in which the actual principles are not the ones that are public.
Family values would be a good example. But there are other examples.
  So the problem with the religious world that Rav Nahman noticed was really not confined to the leaders. It is just that the leaders tend to be particularly insane and evil.
  In the major book of Rav Nahman from Breslov there are a few statements along the lines that show his disapproval of the religious leaders of the Jewish world. For example in the Le.M vol I ch 12 he says that many Torah scholars are demons. And he explains how that comes about.--i.e. by learning Torah for the sake of money or other benefits.

This would be a critque on the Torah itself if the religious world in fact had anything to do with Torah. But outside of a few rituals they adhere to for the sake of show, there is little in the religious world that has anything to do with Torah at all. It is mainly pseudo Torah. Torah for show.

Learning and keeping Torah is important. Because of this it is important to stay away from the religious world which has Torah from the Dark Side. [This is an Idea I saw in the LeM of Rav Nahman.]

So to come to authentic Torah one would have to get out of the insane nonsense of the religious world that have driven themselves into a frenzy of self righteousness.

It may not be pleasent to hear this and I woudl rather not dwell on it, but once in a while it is necessary to say the truth--even when it is ignored. After all the Gra himself signed his name to the letter of excommuncation that more or less says teh same points that I have brought up here. And Rav Shach also. And they were ignored. Rav Kaduri also mentioned this.

asteroid-earth-september

There were lots of extinction level events like the one that killed the dinosaurs. Some were even more serious like the Triassic Permian event. But I think it is not known the causes of all of them. In any case asteroids are a serious threat that ought to be prepared for.

asteroid-earth-september

Question.

Question.  Concerning are the gemarot that encourage deception and having different standards for Jews and non-Jews. I would be glad if you can provide me any kind of justification for the very clear bigoted and hateful talk. The supremacist view. Etc. Is this ostensibly for the betterment of the world that we should be skilled in the arts of double speak and deception? Is that how you [think people ought] to be brought up and taught or does this register for you differently or not at all. Does our treatment at the hands of the Egyptians justify? Are we a race that is attempting evolve past the human state? The logic of eisav soneh et yaakov makes it so that immediately when a Jew leaves the faith he must be deceived and hated as well. There is no middle ground. Either eisav or yaakov. These doctrines are written in stone in the haredi world. You either justify it and live it or you're against. Am i right or wrong? Maybe it's a sacred evil... [The curiosity for] Evil leads to evil. Anyway. Trying to understand difference between evil and selfishness vs chaos vs natural action based upon healthy desire and communion with nature vs service to money vs child sacrifice what all these concepts actually mean in today's world. Who really deserves to live? Whom does God take pride in etc.

What is it the Jewish God specifically hates about the world and its morality? Are we bound to the will of this God or are we simply inextricably illogically bound? What happens if you test this God and say no?

My answer: Very important questions. My answer is more or less based on the idea that the mizvot are to bring to objective morality which is recognizable by reason. Therefore, in anything that conflicts with objective morality, they are not valid. You can see this in particular in R Shimon Ben Yohai who holds that there are reasons for the mizvot and they are recognizable by reason and so when there is a conflict they are not valid.
In other words the Rishonim do not hold from Divine Command Theory. That is the theory that mizvot are good in themselves. No rishon holds that because the gemara itself does not hold it. The Mitzvot are to bring to natural law.

Of course this is not a complete answer. The religious world is not very menschlich [decent]. But so what is the answer? Rav Nahman said the Evil Inclination has evolved. It has become the power of delusion."Dimyon".
And this infects the religious world as much or more so than the secular world.

The big answers for these questions are not clear to me Except to say as Breslov says " I need to look at myself" Why talk about others?" That is from the story of the Simpleton and the wise son.

And so to answer these kinds of questions I have tried to pinpoint the areas that I need to work on. These areas are two fold. One set are things that I am aware i did wrong-so I need to correct. Another set is areas that simply are obligations.

 In sum I see Learning Torah as important. But I think the frum religious world does not represent Torah. I think objective morality depends on input from Torah and Reason as many rishonim held.

natural law

So then the Aquinas approach to natural law is different than the Rambam. I guess that is what you are saying. To Aquinas natural law is  objective morality but not meant to bring to certain goals but rather because it is embedded in the nature of things. Teleological by nature. In think this is what the difference might be.

Rav Israel Salanter

The Musar ethics movement at its core was meant to learn the books of Ethics of the Middle Ages which had a kind of balance between faith and reason. Later Musar became more fanatic.

But fanatic in the wrong kind of way. That is religious fanaticism. And this can lead to ריבוי אור ושבירת הכלים  [too much light that leads to the breaking of one's mental state].

The best answer to this kind of dilemma I think was the path of my parents which was that of balance and menschlichkeit. Not religious fanaticism.
But a justification for this kind of path I did not see until I saw Dr Kelley Ross's web Site the Friesian school. That is a development of Kant. This is a trend of thought that was developed by Leonard Nelson.

In Dr Ross it is shown mainly in his PhD thesis about what he calls a Polynomic Theory of Value.

Danny Frederick

Danny Frederick and Berkeley, i.e. consequentialist theory of political authority.

[As Blandshard put it: without the state no human good is possible. It is a "sine que non" "not possible without which".

Michael Huemer had a debate with Epstein on political authority and to me it seemed that Epstein was right even though Huemer is the greater philosopher. however the actual point really was not clear to me until I saw Danny Frederick's idea that the critique of Huemer on political authority does not apply to Berkeley's consequentialist theory.
[Dr Kelley Ross also noticed the problems with Huemer's position in that debate.]


And I think this consequentialist theory goes well with all mediaeval authorities that I know about.
The Rambam has peace of the state as one of the purposes of many of the laws of the Torah.
Even though the Gemara does not state the reasons for the commandments still it holds the Torah is a consequentialist approach. See Bava Mezia 119a. and lots of other places where the sagesagree with r shimon ben yohai that there are reasons for the commandments that are known. They however disagree about cases where the reason and the letter of the law differ. But that we know the reasons they do not disagree.

Rav Nelkenbaum [who later became a rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY.]  also pointed out to me that the Ari (Isaac Luria) does not disagree with this point. rather he shows the connections of the commandments with the higher worlds but does not disagree that there are rational and known reasons for them. The Ari certainly does not give reasons himself.

Los Angeles looked better to me when church and state were a part of society. Even as a Jew i felt more comfortable with Merry Christmas and preforming Christian themes in the orchestra in high school than after  radial division of church and state took place. Los Angeles seems to have gone drastically down hill since then. עיר הנידחת. A condemned city.

The actual issue seems to me to have best been dealt with by Rav Avraham Abulafia, Rav Yaakov Emden, the Meiri, the Abravanal, and the Beit Yoseph. These sources I think are well known so there is no reason to go into them. Just Rav Abulafia seems to be ambiguous. You can bring quotes from him that seem to go in two different directions.My own impression is based on his statements that are clearly very positive and also the first PhD thesis of Moshe Idel at Hebrew University.

Gematriot tothe opposite effect do not seem to be proof of anything. After all the numerical value of Moshe is the same as Shemad Heresy. There are lots of examples of that kind of thing. And when they occur no one says they mean that each is identical with teh other. Rather they say זה לאומת זה exact opposites.

תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א Tosphot Bava Mezia page 43 side a

There is one more question i have about Tosphot Bava Mezia page 43 side a.
Tosphot is asking about buying. What is the status of the money before the deal is complete? If the seller who has the money at that point is like a borrower then there is a question from the barber. If he is like a paid guard then there is a question from the case of R. Yohanan. That is they made the decree that only drawing the fruit seals the deal because otherwise the buyer can say your fruit was burnt up in the attic. So if he is only a paid guard for the money then why can he not say your money was burnt up in the attic. On the opposite side of things if he is a borrower then why is the person that gives bedek habait  to a barber not liable to meila until the haircut starts? Money that was donated to the Temple can not be used for private purposes. One that does use it for private purpose is transgressing "Meila" Usage of temple money.
My question that occurred to me as I was leaving a dip in the sea is this. Is not the barber hired? Not bought? That is it occurs to me and probably occurs to everyone else that there is something hard to understand about comparison of the bathhouse attendant and the barber to a buyer and seller.

Even though you can argue that the money given to the barber might have the same staאus as the money given to a seller until the point that the deal is sealed. That could be. But why does Tosphot assume it has to be?

יש לשאול על תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. תוספות שאול מן הדין של ספר. מי שהוא נתן כסף של בדק הבית לספר. הוא לא מעל עד שמתחיל התספורת. מזה יש ראיה שהמוכר שכבר יש לו את הכסף של העיסקא קודם שנגמר העיסקא הוא בכלל שומר שכר. אבל שעניין של הספר הוא עניין של שכירות לא מכירה. ולכן מה הדמיון?

infatuation with Sodomy

Plato already made the point that not all physical desires are good. So pleasure does not equal good.
So the infatuation with Sodomy nowadays seems to be misplaced.

Secular morality is a fluid as water. But the problem is that religious morality is not much better.
One really needs the medieval approach of a synthesis of  Faith with Reason.

Richard Feynman said, "Philosophers are always standing outside and making stupid comments."

I also noticed that philosophy tends to be indefinite and fluid. Malleable as play dough and as ugly as a Picasso portrait.

That is one of the reasons when I became aware of the importance of what the Rambam had emphasized about learning Physics and Metaphysics I thought it would be more worth my while to concentrate on Physics.  [The Rambam was no alone in this but makes it more clear than the round about way other rishonim mention this.]

Still it does not seem possible to ignore the important issues that philosophy brings up and that there ought to be a good way to deal with these issues.


Though the Rambam is refering openly to the ancient Greeks still it seems to me that Kant, Leonard Nelson [That is the Kant Fries School] and Hegel ought to be included.

Still since at some point I thought to myself if I am going to be spending any time learning at all, I want it to be something that is sure and certain.
[Even so I think these people are good enough to be worth some amount of time. I should add however that Hegel was used a lot by the Left. But still I do not think that invalidates him. "Abuse does not cancel use," as the Romans used to say.

Bava Mezia page 43 side a

In terms of Bava Mezia page 43 side a There are two questions I would like to ask.
One is on the end of the sugia there.. Tosphot brings up the Braita about the bathhouse concerning selling and buying. My question is why does the Gemara itself not bring up what looks to me to be a serious question from that same exact Braita. That is to Rav Huna permission to use makes one obligated as a borrower. So in terms of the bathhouse should not the braita be a proof to Rav Huna against Rav Nahman?

ב''מ מ''ג ע''א.תוספות מביא את הברייתא שפוסקת את הדין שאם אחד משלם לבלן כסף של בדק הבית הוא מעל מיד בגלל שהבלן יכול לומר לו המרחץ פתוח לפניך. יש לשאול למה זה בעצמו אינו ראיה לרב הונא שהיתר תשמיש מחייב באונסים? יש עוד שאלה על הרמב''ם כאן. לדעת הרמב''ם אין חיוב מעילה עד שיש הנאה. למה רב הונא אינו עונה את זה מיד שרב נחמן שאל מן הברייתא שמי שנתן כסף של בדק הבית לשולחני חייב במעילה כשהשולחני משתמש עם הכסף?



The other question concerns what Rav Isar Melzar brings about the Rambam. {I think Rav Isar Melzar was the father in law of Rav Shach. I am not sure. But in any case, he is brought up a lot in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.] My question is that Rav Melzar shows clearly that the Rambam holds Meila ("Meila" is using money or things that belong to the Temple.That is "bedek habait".) only applies when there is "Hanaah". ("Hanaah" is usage or some kind of derived please). So in our Gemara BM 43. Why does Rav Huna not answer that right away and why is there even a question in the first place?

Background Information.

The basic subject starts from the Mishna. One gives open money to a money changer. He can use it. So what happens if it is lost? To Rav Huna he has a category of a borrower. To Rav Nahman he only is considered a paid guard. Rav Huna asks from a braita that one gives to a money changer money of the Temple that is open. If the money changer uses it the one who gave it to him is liable Meila.
הרקע כאן הוא זה. המשנה כותבת שאם מי שהוא נתן כסף בלי שאינו חתום לשולחני השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף לכן אם נאבד הוא חייב. רב הונא אמר אפילו אם הכסף נאבד באופן הנקרא אונסים גדולים. היינו יש לו דין של שואל. רב נחמן אמר דווקא אבדה אבל אונסים גדולים לא. היינו שיש לו את הדין של שומר שכר

תוספות שואל מה הדין של מכירה עד שלא נמשכו את הפירות? היינו מה הדין של המוכר לגבי הכסף? הוא שואל או שומר שכר. תוספות מביא את הברייתא של גיזבר נתן כסף בדק הבית לבלן הוא חייב במעילה מיד אבל ספר לא.



Tosphot brings from a Braita that one gives money to a bathhouse attendant. he is liable Meila right away. So my question is why is that braita not already considered a proof to Rav Huna? Permission to use already is thought to be Hanaah! That is a question either on Tosphot or the Gemara itself. Also if the Rambam is right then why does Rav Huna not answer that on the actual question that Rav Nahman asks? I.e., why does he not just say one who gave it to the money changer is not liable until the money changer uses the money because there is no me'ila until one uses it?

For if you go by the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda, then Physics is a part of the Oral Law.

My dad took me to Cal Tech every year for the alumni day. [He got his master's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cal Tech]. But I never met Feynman or Gelman --sadly enough. ]
  At the time I was not aware of the aspect of physics and math that is numinous.
  And this seems like a serious issue to me now. For if you go by the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda, then Physics is a part of the Oral Law. So take that together with the Gra's quote from the Yerushalmi tractate Peah chapter 1 law 1] "Every word of Torah is worth more than all the other mizvot of the Torah". [The Mishna there says ת''ת כנגד כולם. והירושלמי מסבירה שזה שייך גם לכל דיבור של תורה]

You would get that learning math and physics is tremendous  thing regardless if one is talented in it or not.
After all when it comes to learning Torah no one has even suggested that it is only for smart people.

So going with the Rambam, learning Physics is on par with learning Gemara. [See Laws of Learning Torah where he divides Torah into three parts-(1) oral (2) written and (3) Gemara,- and then says what he calls Pardes is in the category of Gemara].

so I suggest that everyone ought to have an in-depth session and a fast learning session in Physics Mathematics and Gemara. [The fast session is to say the words in order and go on until the end of the book and then review. The in depth session means lots of review plus commentaries.  ]

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?