The problem I see in the religious world is that of fraud. Getting people to believe that what is not authentic Torah really is. This I see is the ultimate reason for the fact that the Gra signed on the letter o excommunication. But it also explains why so many people ignore it. Because we are all more liable to being fooled that we believe. For this reason it is a good idea to have an idea of what authentic Torah is. And also to read a few books about the widespread practice of con and scam--to show how easy it is to be fooled.

The great thing about Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY [two very great Litvak yeshivas] is authenticity.

This is very much different from the majority of what goes on in the religious world where deception and scamming secular Jews is the rule--not the exception.

And this I think one of the major reasons for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.

The problem he saw was not just falsifying what the Torah says but scamming and conning people about it.

"Authentic" means that certain places are into learning Torah--nothing more or less. They are not claiming anything else. This is the major characteristic of Litvak yeshivas in Israel also. There is no aspect of scam that is so common place in the rest of the religious world. 

R Yohanan had a disciple R. Zeiri. R Yohanan wanted R Zeiri to marry his daughter. [The daughter of R Yohanan.] R Zeiri did not want her. One day they were crossing a river. R Zeiri carried R Yohanan over teh river on his shoulders. [All this is in the last chapter of Kidushin.] R Yohana asked him, "My Torah is good enough for you but my daughter is not?" [R yohanan was born in Israel. R. Zeiri came to Israel from Babylon]

[The point was that the people in Babylon were considered to be more myuhas [pure lineage] than people born in Israel.

I have trouble understanding this story because if I would have had a chance to marry the daughter of a true Torah scholar [not the modern phonies] I would have jumped at the opportunity.[If I would have I probably would still be learning Torah until this very day]

In Shar Yashuv and the Mir there was a clear distinction between learning "bekiut" and learning "beiyun" (in depth)

While in high school --I was there during a vacation time. The assistant of the physics teacher told me an interesting idea about learning Physics [that is any Physics text]. He said you need to start at the beginning and go to the end. And go from the end to the beginning and to go from the middle outwards.

This I think is helpful when it comes to review. For example  lets say you learn in the way of Girsa גירסא [just saying the words and going on.] And lets say you have done that a few times with the same text book. But at some point you feel you need more review directly after learning some part of it. You do not want to wait until the second time around --by which time you have probably forgotten what you learnt. So you do review from the place you leave off and start towards the beginning.

[After all the sages did emphasize review  also besides the way of "Girsa"]


[In Shar Yashuv and the Mir there was a clear distinction between learning "bekiut" and learning "beiyun"  (in depth). The morning was for "beiyun" (in depth) and the afternoon for bekiut (fast).
In the Mir itself [in NY] the meaning of this was clear. The morning was to prepare for the class of the teachers. And the classes themselves were basically along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk.

Bekiut just meant what it sounds like. Going through as much Gemara and Tosphot in order as possible. [So it was not exactly "Girsa"].

But for me I found myself somewhat lost in terms of the classes. So my morning hours were spent instead of preparing for the classes I learnt the Maharasha, Maharam and Pnei Yehoshua. [And what other commentaries I could find]]

But when I came to Physics I found the straight way of Girsa to be more effective. So what I think for people like me, it is best to do straight Girsa for a long time until you basically absorb the concepts by osmosis. And then to straight to concentrate on review.

Communism

You can see in Michael Huemer [Intuition-ists] and Dr Kelley Ross [the Kant-Fries School] that  they are not at all thrilled with Communism. Huemer even has a link to a whole web site of Communist crimes. Kelley Ross has a good intellectual defence of capitalism based on Kant's idea of individual autonomy. [That is a good defence and tightly woven into the structure of Kant's philosophy.]

Michael Humer has a particularly devastating critique on Communism.

[One of several essays of his that are masterpieces.]

On a separate note you can see the efforts of the USSR to change America into a communist socialist system in books that were based on the opened archives of the KGB and the GRU in the USSR. [See also the video of Bezmenov.]

And even though the communists made use of Hegel, they turned him upside down in order to do so. Hegel was the exact opposite of a Marxist.

To get a bigger picture of the penetration of communism into Western Civilization see Fire in the Minds of Men by Billington.

To see however the reasons for the rise of Lenin and Stalin it is useful to get a picture of Europe from 1876 until 1905. And then WWI.  They were confronting situations like the massacre of the goldmine workers in Russia. And also plenty of stuff that would not have been easy to answer with simple capitalism.
See Hobhouse who in spite of his critique of Socialism and in particular the Metaphysical State--agreed that straight laissez-faire capitalism had been tried in England and did not work.
Simply put if you look at the French Revolution and the history of Europe up until 1876 all you see is a big mess --all which started from the ideas of socialism of the French Revolution. But look after 1876 until 1918 you get an opposite picture.

Also Howard Bloom's the Lucifer Principle which is more or less a simple form of Hegel's super organism. Or as Blanshard puts it: No human good is possible without the state.

The religious world thinks of secular Jews as a problem

The religious world thinks of secular Jews as a problem.  A problem that needs to be solved delicately. [The religious need the money of secular Jews so they have to pretend to be "we are all one group". Along with the love bombing.]
The religious need that secular Jews  accept the leadership of the religious lunatics. But not to be equal to the frum [religious] but rather subservient.

To me it seems this is an unjustified attitude. I do not see the religious as being the super geniuses or moral giants they think they are.


The religious world seems to be sunk in a world of delusion of superiority. And that they attribute to the fact that they keep a few made up rituals that are not from the Torah at all.

[This is not meant as a critique on the authentic Litvak yeshivas [Brisk, Mir, Ponovitch, Shar Yashuv] where Torah is learned for its own sake.]

Bava Kama page 70 B

In Bava Kama page 70 B there is brought down that one who steals and then sells on Shabat does not have to pay the 4 and 5. [4 sheep in place of one sheep. 5 oxen in place of 1 ox.] Rav Papa said the sell and shabat came at once in case the buyer said throw your theft into my yard. The question the Gemara asks then is that that seems to be like R. Akiva who said קלוטה כמונחה דמיא an object that is thrown is like it is sitting. The Gemara answers it could be like the Sages [who disagree with R Akiva] also in the case the buyer said my yard will only acquire when the object lands.

In Gitin 78 a husband throws a divorce document at his wife from a roof top into her courtyard and it burns up before it hits the ground. She is divorced. The Gemara asks but the document was not in a guarded place? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that is  a case where it got inside the walls of the yard. R. Aba asked Ula this seems to be like R. Yehuda Hanasi who said an object that is thrown is like it is sitting. Ula answered the sages who disagree with R Yehuda can agree with this since they can hold Shabat and acquiring are different to the sages.

Tosphot in Bava Kama asks on the statement there "It seems to be like R Akiva". He asks that even to R Akiva there is a problem since he also would said the object is not acquired until it gets inside the walls, but in terms of Shabat he would be liable right away as the object is above the walls. He answers the thief threw the object in through a window or side door. He then asks on the Gemara in Gitin why does it not ask "It seems to be like R Akiva?" [So what would the sages say?] Tosphot answers the case there is with walls while R Akiva hold the object is acquired even without walls.

The Maharsha, Maharam and Maharshal ask on this Tosphot that the start of Tosphot holds R Akiva would require walls and then says he would not.


I have not had a chance to take  a close look at these three comentaries,. But off hand it seems the end of Tosphot is dealing with the question why ask from R Yehuda. That is they are asking about the הווא אמינא. [What the Gemar is thinking at that point]. So to ask from R Yehuda the Gemara has tobe thinking R Akiva is different. While the beginning of Tosphot is going according to the idea there that the sages would make a difference between shabat and acquiring and that would presumably go for R Akiva also.

There is also a side question I thought of as I was looking at this subject. Lets say in fact that R Akiva does not require walls for acquiring as the Gemara thinks there at first. Then would not it make sense to drop the need for walls?

Next day: I did get a chance to glance at the Maharsha today and saw that he and the Maharam both answer the question on Tosphot in basically the same way as I did up above. And as for the second question. I was going to answer it that R. Akiva would not think that walls are sufficient since the divorce document needs to be in a guarded place before it can be valid. So even if walls would help for acquisition they would not help for the divorce. And today i saw that that is in fact what the Maharasha says right there.

Rav Nahman said not to be strict about anything.

Rav Nahman said not to be strict about anything. That is in terms of Jewish Law but also in terms of every day matters.

So for years I was not at all careful about carrying things in a public domain on Shabat. Sadly I can not learn Torah but I did get a chance to glance at a few pages in tractate Shabat and noticed that carrying is a big issue over there.

Even though you see the idea that a public domain in only where 600,000 people walk through  in Rashi and Tosphot and the Shulhan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo itself brings it. Still it does not seem to be in the Gemara itself. I even noticed in the Yerushalmi some incident where a sage accidental carried on Shabat said he would bring a sin offering when the Temple would be rebuilt.

How would that have been possible in Babylon? the Jewish cites there were minuscule. Just think about Rome at the peak of its power. It had about a million people.  How could small Jewish towns have had comparable numbers?

Creation ex nihilo [from nothing] comes up in the book of Rav Nahman of Breslov in in LeM vol 1 chapter 4.

The idea of Creation ex nihilo [from nothing] comes up in the book of Rav Nahman of Breslov in in LeM vol 1 chapter 4. So it is hard for me to figure out why some people think that the Torah and or Rav Nahman held by pantheism.

Torah that comes from the halls of delusion

In the LeM of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav nahman] you find the idea of Torah that comes from the halls of delusion. That is in volume I. Chapter 245.

In the השמטות [left out parts] you also find this idea of Torah of the Sitra Achra [the Realm of Evil]

The basic idea there is that  there are Torah lessons which come from the kelipot [forces of evil].

That is to say --in order to merit to true and authentic Torah takes a great deal of self sacrifice in the service of God.

Not just people that cl;aim to be giving over Torah lessons, Rav Nahman finds highly suspect;-but also doing things which you think are good deeds ma very well not be good deeds. As the LeM starts out Vol I chapter 1 "the evil inclination is dressed in mitzvot" היצר הרע מתלבש במצוות

The magnum opus of Rav Nahman from Breslov [Collections of Rav Nahman, the LeM] has a great deal of great ideas

The magnum opus of Rav Nahman from Breslov [Collections of Rav Nahman, the LeM] has a great deal of great ideas but does not seem to have a systematic world view except "be frum."
It is not like Hegel, Spinoza, or Leibniz [or the Nefesh HaHaim by Rav Haim from Voloshin]]

When you find a particular Torah lesson that deals with your particular issue, you learn it forty days in a row and that helps to solve the problem.

His idea of avoiding philosophy on one hand makes a lot of sense. Like Descartes said . that no opinion, however absurd and incredible, can be imagined, which has not been defended by a philosopher.


However the blanket attack on the Guide for the Perplexed of Maimonides and all medieval Jewish thinkers seems a bit over the top. Plus the attack on scientists also seems kind of overboard. [Okay then stop using your I phones and Jet airplanes to get to Uman.]


My view is more along the lines of Rav Israel Salanter while at the same time accepting the important ideas from other places.

faith with reason

In the Middle Ages there was an approach that combined faith with reason.
In Ibn Pakuda חובות הלבבות Obligations of the Heart you see this right on the first page of the introduction in terms of the important of what Muslims called "theology"["Wisdom of God" literally] . So he is not referring juts to Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus but also to how Muslim scholars developed those ideas. [I imagine he must have been thinking about Al  Farabi and Al Kindi.]

Later in Obligations of the Heart in chapter 3 of Shar NaBehina you see the emphasis on Physics [not just the spiritual aspects of Creation like angels.]

This seems to go with the general nature of the approach of Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam.

With the Rambam, the subject becomes a little more clear when he says specifically Physics and Metaphysics as they were understood by the ancient Greeks. [So he is not talking about mysticism.]

Even though learning Torah mainly refers to the Gemara with the Rishonim [Tosphot, Ritva, Rashba, Tosphot HaRosh.] still you see in the medieval sages [mainly from Spain] that also included Physics and Metaphysics in the category of the mitzvah itself.

Physics I think is clear if you look at the subject matter  extends to modern Physics. But what about metaphysics?
I think that after the Middle Ages some important advances have been made. On one hand you have Berkeley and general critiques of Aristotle. But what do you do with that? Thomas Reid [the philosopher of common sense] pointed out how absurd Berkley's idealism is and yet admitted that his arguments are close to irrefutable. To deal with this it seems to me it is unavoidable to have to learn Kant and Hegel.

faith in the wise. You need some kind of common sense to tell when it is best to listen to the experts and when to develop your own approach.

Rav Nahman makes a good point about אמונת חכמים--faith in the wise. But I think one needs to develop a certain kind of common sense to know in what exact points the sage was correct and to be able to filter out the areas where he might have been wrong.

In universities it is common to give advice to students to think for themselves. Read the material and come to their own conclusions. However how would this work if you are in a hospital? What would be the best approach? Listen to the doctor? Or think for yourself and come to your own conclusions?

Sometimes however even experts can be wrong.
You need some kind of common sense to tell when it is best to listen to the experts and when to develop your own approach.

the main benefit of Musar is the formation of ones consciousness plus world view issues.

To merit to fear of God and to good character traits was a major point of Rav Israel Salanter. [I mean that was the major point of the Musar Movement.]

I think the main benefit of Musar is the formation of ones consciousness plus world view issues.
That is to say that without Musar it is easy to adopt false sets of values all the while thinking sanctimonious thought about how one is keeping Torah.

Musar has the advantage of having its background world view being Platonic as outlined by Ibn Pakuda in the beginning of his Obligations of the Heart. [And that world view permeates most of Musar of the Middle Ages.]

Evolution

Evolution seems to be indicated in the Talmud in Bava Kama and in the Jerusalem Talmud in Shabat chapter 1 the third mishna [page 8].

The rate of change of species there is indicated to be every seven years. [The bava kama Gemara I did not see recently but the Yerushalmi goes through a whole list of examples of species that change into other species.]

Recently my learning partner brought my attention to a discussion of the mathematical improbability of evolution. However my feeling about this is that let us say you take a pencil and you hit a point on a line. Now you can prove that you never could have hit that point since the probability of hitting that point is 1/infinity. [Since there are an infinite number of points on a line.]

[From another point of view I ought to mention the Or HaHayim of the Tiferet Israel on the Mishna that brings that there were different periods before this period of time.] [That essay of the Tiferet Israel is fairly well known. It was mentioned to me several times when I was in the Mir Yeshiva and I think it was also brought up when I was in Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway.] [I might add Rav Isaac of Aco who is the source of that opinion.]

In the story of Rav Nahman about the wise son and the simple one there is a warning about being smart.

In the story of Rav Nahman about the wise son and the simple one there is a warning about being smart. However you also see him in the L''eM vol I bring that acquired intellect is a determining factor for one's portion in the next world. [Sekel hanikne. It is Socrates who brings the connection between virtue and wisdom. Also Aristotle brings the idea in his Metaphysics.]

[Napoleon]

 Love is the obsession of the idle, a distraction for the warrior, a stumbling block for kings. [Napoleon]

Western Civilization depends on a kind of synthesis between Faith and Reason.

Part of the reason I do not comment on a lot of stuff  is that I feel that I have a right to an opinion only about subjects that I am somewhat familiar with.

Furthermore current events, politics economics though important issues do not seem to me to be at the core of what is going on in the world. Rather I see faith and reason to be the major things that are important. But since both faith and or reason can go astray it is important to get the synthesis between them right.

A lot of what people do right and what they do wrong depends on their world view.
And Western Civilization depends on a kind of synthesis between Faith and Reason.
And I have a lot of thoughts about that. For one thing I want to mention that this seems to me to be the reason for the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Mainly as Allan Bloom pointed out --that England had a kind of synthesis between these two poles for a long time. I want to point out that not just the revolutions were different but the background was different. France before its revolution had no Parliament, no freedom of speech, no rights to the England. Nothing in terms of freedoms that were in England. So the American Revolution was not at all a  rebellion against the good and great values of England. It just wanted Parliament to mind their own business. The French Revolution on the other hand had a stated purpose. To overthrow everything. All religion all authority all traditions.
So what is reason with faith? My own approach is more or less like that of my parents. Balance. To be a Mensch. To be self sufficient. [More or less values that were American values in the old days when "America" meant something.]

Even though Jews have contributed a tremendous amount to Western Civilization, no religious Jew has contributed anything.

Even though Jews have contributed a tremendous amount to Western Civilization, no religious Jew has contributed anything. (Lenin)

This is true for the time of Lenin but all the more so nowadays that the state of Israel was built entirely by the efforts of secular Jews. The contribution of the religious is just to constantly try to bring it down.

Not because the religious are keeping Torah, but  rather because they keep the Torah of the Sitra Achra. [the realm of Evil]. Not the authentic Torah.

However there are a few moments of light as in the authentic Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir. But that is just a  drop.  How did this situation arise? Because the warnings and signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication were ignored.

Bringing in from a public domain on Shabat is one kind of work. Bringing out to a public domain is another. Are these two separate things or or they both just one kind of work?

Mishna in Shabat. יציאות השבת שתיים שהן ארבע בפנים ושתיים שהן ארבע בחוץ



Bringing in from a public domain on Shabat is one kind of work. Bringing out to a public domain is another. Are these two separate things or or they both just one kind of work?

To Tosphot they are both just one kind of "av melacha" [principle kind of work. lit. father of work.]
To the Baal Hameor (Rav Zarahia Halevi) taking out is an "av" (father, principle). Taking in is a tolada [offspring].

The Ball HaMeor goes into this in the beginning of Shabat and Rav Moshe Margolit (the author of the Pnei Moshe and Mareh Panim on the Jerusalem Talmud) goes into more detail.

The way he see it is that this is an argument between Rav Ashi and Rava. The Gemara asks on the Mishna. It says taking out and then talks about bringing in? Rav Ashi says the author of the Mishna is calling bringing in also taking out. Rava said it means domains of Shabat.
To Moshe Margolit, Rava holds bringing in is a tolada and there are two verses. To Rav Ashi they are both the same av and there is only one verse.
To me the question here seems to be the beginning of the Gemara in Bava Kama which says that something that is in the Mishkan and also important is a av. [It says nothing about whether there is a verse or not. ] That seems to be the main question here. But there are others that I forgot about. [I recall that when I was learning Shabat that that particular Tosphot in the beginning of Shabat had other questions.

Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

A disciple of Rav Nahman, that is Rav Natan brings in Hoshen Mishpat, laws of guards [that is the part of Shulchan Aruch that deals with monetary laws and deposited object] the idea of trust in God that you see also in Rav Israel Salanter, and his disciple Rav Joseph Horvitz of Navardok. 

To Rav Natan, trust with effort brings up the sparks of holiness that fell because of the breaking of the vessels. Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

Clearly he is holding that trust with effort is a good thing, but not as great as trust without effort.

In fact the idea is that only by trust with no effort can one bring up the sparks that come from the deepest kelipot [forces of evil.]

Top some degree you see this in Napoleon. He was in prison in Elba. Then broke out to retake France. A army of the new king came out to fight him. As these two armies stood face to face with their arms and weapons raised ready to fire the general of the kings troops called out to Napoleon to surrender. Napoleon told his men to lower their weapons and walked out in front of all his troops and called to the other army. "Here I am, your emperor. If any of you want to kill me here is your chance!" There came a voice from one of the captains of the kings army "Fire!" But no one fired. Instead they all lowered their weapons and shouted long live the Emperor!

So you have to say that the Mishna that says all Torah without work is useless and brings to sin and in the end he merits only to hell has to be talking about Torah without trust. That is: these are independent variables. Torah and work are different variables than trust with or without effort.

To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

Why not to marry American women.

To read that article is a good idea, but to put it simply. To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

truth is divided up

The Litvak Yeshiva world has noticed the importance of the Middle Ages. [That is the people that follow the Torah path like the Gra and Rav Shach.]

That is: the Lithuanian Yeshiva World [i.e. straight Torah]  holds highly of Rishonim (mediaeval authorities like the Tosphot, Rif,  Rosh etc.) [more than achronim (later authorities after the 1500's) ] and of the Musar (Ethics) of the Middle Ages. [Learning teh Ethics of the Middle Ages was the whole point of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar movement. Later on, the books of his disciples got added in. But the original idea was the Middle Ages.]

So what do do with Metaphysics? [Emphasized by Maimonides and Ibn Pakuda [the author of  the Obligations of the Hearts] right in the beginning of  חובות לבבות, [Obligations of the Heart by Behayee Ibn Pakuda].

Medieval metaphysics can not be taken simply simply because some of the axioms do not seem all that correct, even though the logic is correct.

You need to some degree Kant and Hegel. But in the same way that the Litvak world takes achronim--as modifications of Rishonim, not as standing on their own.


[My own opinion is that true Torah is only found in yeshivas that go by the Gra like Brisk or Ponovitch. However, as the sages said-- in the future the truth will be divided. האמת יהיה נעדרת --עדרים עדרים. Since the truth is divided up and you can not find it in just one place. so you need to do a process of "birur" taking the good and discarding what is wrong. But you can not do that until the lies and delusions have fallen. Truth can only come together after lies have been destroyed.]

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Professor Moshe Ideal brings a doubt  as to the development of Rav Avraham Abulafia. That is what was the trigger for the new revelations of 1270? Was it his method of Divine Names or was it grace?

This rings a bell with me because I think that it is a combination of factors. That is to say in my view there are certain stages to come to "Devekut" [literally "attachment"] (or prophecy in the language of the Middle Ages) and there are also certain stages to leaving that and coming back down to Earth as we find in Plato's cave where those who left it were forced to come back and instruct those that remained inside.

In my view coming to Devekut is simply a matter of following the straight, simple path of Torah as defined by the Gra and Rav Shach.  That is Devekut comes by grace. But then to contain the light and focus it one needs the Divine names. And then one is forced to leave in order to help thoese that are left inside the cave.

[But what to do with the problem of ego inflation and religious delusions? To me it seems that one needs to be rid of evil before one can come to truth. To be rid of evil I think depends a lot on the art of discernment. To take literally the advice of the Gra in his letter of excommunication.  But not to use that to dismiss Rav Nahman who I think would not be included as can easily be seen from the language used there.]

See Moshe Idel on this subject

Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat on Bitachon [trust in God]

In the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat [end of perek 6] there is a story about a person that became "ger" [convert].
Before that he had been an astrologer. He was about to go on a trip but he then saw in the star charts that it was dangerous. Then he rethought the matter. "Why did I join this nation in the first place if not to desist from such things. He went and was in danger of being eaten by a lion. He gave it his ass and he was saved. The Talmud asks why did he fall into danger? Because he checked the star charts. why was he saved because in the end he trusted.

Rav Joseph Yozel Horvitz [the disciple of Rav Israel] brings this event in his book the Level of Man.

So what is the thing about trust in God? When I was in the Mir in NY I assumed it to mean to sit and learn Torah and assume that one's needs will be taken care of. Now I am thinking that that is basically correct except that I would not limit the learning Torah thing to be confined to the basic cannon but to include Physics and Metaphysics as Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold. [You can see this mainly in rishonim based in Spain like Benjamin the doctor or Maimonides who was born in Spain.]

[I am not sure what to say about the Metaphysics aspect however. What would that include? Chesterson noted that almost all philosophy after the 1600's is nuts. [Exact quotation: :Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; it what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."] Now normally that would not be a complaint except that to go against common sense prima facie evidence you need to have some reason. You can not just make some nice statement that seems reasonable at first and then draw conclusion that are clearly off.  That is not how science works. The way science goes is you try to explain what it "out there". You do not postulate at the start what is allowed to be "out there."

When evidence comes in that goes against the original common sense, then you change your assumptions. Modern philosophy works in the exact opposite way. It starts with some profound sounding platitude and then derives some nutty result from it. Then it assumes the nutty result has been proven.

So when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics it might make the most sense to stick with the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the scholastics from the Middle Ages.

Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10

Rosh Hashanah = the actual new moon. This of course is going according the Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 that you go according to the time of the "molad"--the conjunction. 

Prince Philip [husband of the Queen of England]: pearls of wisdom.

"British women can't cook""Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed" (during the 1981 recession)."You are a woman, aren't you?" (in Kenya after accepting a small gift from a local woman).

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy.

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy. It is a conspiracy to keep the corrupt and evil leaders in control. Thus it seems to me that the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyayu ought not to have religious people in his cabinet.  Though I can not figure out why or how the religious world got to be such a nightmare still the facts on the ground indicate that the more power they gain the worse it is for everyone.

[My own approach to Torah is more along the lines of balance. and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה and not to seek out new restrictions. To some degree This approach is based on the book of Rav Nahman the LeM vol II. 42. Where he defines the service of God as not to be seeking out new restrictions. but rather learning and keeping Torah simply.


[The trouble with parliamentary systems as noted by the founding fathers of the USA. At the time even King George assumed the English Parliament had absolute power over the colonies. [Besides that the Parliament in fact needed to pay the war debt that they had incurred because of the war with France which in fact was a benefit for Americans. But Americans though willing to contribute money and arms and people to the war effort did not think Parliament had power over them.. The king yes, but Parliament no. This same kind of system still plagues Europe. The founding fathers on the other hand did not think to give to even their own parliament [Congress and Senate] such power. This is the reason for three branches of government in the USA. In Israel this problem is such that the religious have power to bring down the government any time they feel they are not getting enough money.