Saadia Gaon raised the question about Christianity of nullification of the commandments

Some complaints about Christianity involve the bitul hamizvot. Other problems that are raised are from the hagadah in the Gemara. Also the crusades come up. Besides that there is the Trinity which I wrote about a few days ago. There probably are more issues that I have not thought of but for now I would like to deal with the very first issue. Saadia Gaon raised the question of nullification of the commandments. I actually do not know how he dealt with this issue. I forgot and in fact "hashkafa" world view issues were never a big thing to learn when I was in Shar Yashuv or in the Mir.

Bitul hamizvot [nullification of the commandments] really comes from Paul, not from Jesus.
Not just this but also decrees from the words of the scribes are also said to obligatory by Jesus. "The Pharisees sit upon the seat of Moses. Therefore what ever they say to do that you must do."[Mathew 23]
 I could try to dig up the actual quotations by Jesus about keeping every jot and tittle of the law and whoever teaches not to keep any commandment shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. And I could try to dig up the places where Paul says otherwise. But it seems like a waste of time. These things are easy for anyone to look up who wants to take the time.
Paul might be considered an authority in this matter if he had ever heard a word from Jesus himself. But he did not. He was not a disciple, nor had any first hand evidence about the opinions of Jesus.

I imagine I could go into this further but just for the short time I have here in the library let me go on to other topics. The hagada in the Gemara. This was answered already by the Rosh [R. Asher] one of the major authorities in the Middle Ages. He said the Gemara is referring to a disciple of Yehoshua Ben Perakia--who was one of the pairs brought in Pirkei Avot that lived about 200 years before Jesus.

The crusades I have no answer for.

As for the Trinity I mentioned before the idea of Emanation that is well known. Professor Idel deals with Sonship from the aspect of mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia. But simply from the standpoint of the Ari Rav Isaac Luria it is simple that a soul of Emanation has the essence of son. For example other souls from Emanation are the Avot, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David. Rav Haim Vital. [Rav Avraham Abulafia was one person who identified the Gemara at the end of Suka about an anointed one from Joseph with Jesus. But there were more people than just Rav Abulafia during the middle ages that held this. But just off hand I have no names.]

Hegel has what looks to be a somewhat different approach to the Trinity.

Bava Kama 13 and 53

I wanted to introduce a subject that I do not have a lot to say about this minute. Just as an introduction. Bava Kama 13 and 53. [This subject I actually brought up in my ideas on Shas a couple of years ago.][https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive]
In Bava Kama 53 the issue of two causes for one damage comes up. An ox pushes another ox into a pit. The sages say the owner of the ox pays half and the owner of the pit nothing because it was not his fault that the ox was pushed. If it had fallen that would be different.]  R. Natan held if the ox is "tam" [never had gored before then it pays 1/4 and the owner of the pit 3/4. If the ox was muad [had gored before] then both pay 1/2.
The gemara asks what are they holding? That both are thought to have caused all the damage or that each one is thought to cause a half?

The issues are many. What about causes of  זה וזה גורם? [This and that caused it]. Or a case a person throws an object down onto a pillow and someone removes the pillow before it it and so the object was broken.

The Gemara on page 13 bring R Aba that said a animal that is sanctified to be a peace offering that gores another animal. One does not take payment from the fats that are offered on the altar. The Gemara asks on this well obviously not. Answer he means one does not get the meat in place of the fat. Rather the owner of the karban (sacrifice) and the owner of the animal that was gored have to divide the total amount.

So teh question is to R. Natan that was mentioned up above. The Gemara answers the case of R Natan was when the gored animal was in the pit so the owner says the pit was what cause d the damage. in the case of the karban [sacrifice] the fats caused damage along with the muscle. It was all just one animal.

This is to me hard to understand since the cases do not seem parallel.

issues about Christianity that come up in the Rambam is that of idolatry.

One of the issues about Christianity that come up in the Rambam is that of idolatry. The problem is that most any type of religious worship involves going to God through some kind of middle step.
It is rare that people think that just by learning Torah and keeping it that they will be doing OK. The entire religious world in fact usually is worshiping some kind of human.


The question rather seems to be who really is connected with God. Who is from the realm of holiness.


In any case this come up in tractate Avoda Zara in Tosphot. [I forget the page-but it is where the issue of "joining" comes up. 

Saadia Gaon on Christianity

I had in mind to try and deal with some issues that come up in Christianity. Saadia
Gaon:bitul hamitzvot [nullification of the commandments] and the Trinity.> But also I was hoping to deal with more issues like Aimee Semple Mc Pherson and the general evangelicals. And other issues that come up. There are a lot.
It is hard to know from where to begin. [Probably too much to deal with in one blog entry].

In terms of the Trinity, it seems obvious that Jesus was not God nor did he think he was. But the aspect of being a son of God is the subject of a book by Professor Moshe Idel. But Moshe Idel is mainly dealing with mystics from the Middle Ages. [Sonship]. But from the standpoint of  Rav Nahman of Breslov the issue of sonship seems well defined. He deal with it is the LeM volume II. the actual chapter I forget I think it is either chapter 4 or 7.

The basic idea to me seems clear. Any soul from Emanation (Azilut) is considered to be on the level of "ben" (son). Any soul from the lower world of Bria (Creation) is on the level of Eved [ servant of God]. The concepts to me seem very clear.

[However I should add that Hegel apparently has a different kind of approach to the Trinity that does not seem to be along these same lines.]

Bitul Torah-What is in this category?

The Gra considers |"Bitul Torah" to be one of the most serious sins in the Tora. [That is the sin of having time to be able to learn Torah and not doing so. [כי דבר השם בזה הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא] (This is the gemara in tractate Sanhedrin. It brings the verse "For he despised the word of God. He will be cut off from his people. This is who is able to learn Torah and does not do so.]]What is in this category?

The subject interests me from several angles. One is that I have in fact found it hard to find a place to sit and learn Torah. The best places are clearly the Lithuanian type of yeshivas based on the Gra but even in these places there is plenty of Sitra Achra and gets in the door.
That makes it perhaps better to stay home and learn. Be that as it may then the question comes up anyway what is considered bitul Torah?

Clearly man made wisdoms come under this category. But not Natural Science.[STEM].

In the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv[both NY yeshivas] almost anything was considered bitul Torah. Anything except simply sitting and learning Torah. They did not hold from the idea of looking for mitzvot to do. Rav Haim of Voloshin wrote It is better to sit in a room alone and twiddle one's thumbs rather than go around looking for mitzvot.

[Rav Nahman of Breslov said in the LeM I.1 that the evil inclination is dressed in mitzvot. [היצר הרע מתלבש במצוות]. That is explained by R. Natan his disciple that the evil inclination never comes and says to a person come and do a sin. Rather its opening strategy is to try to tell a person to do some good deed which is really not a good deed. It just seems like one.]

Natural Sciences would probably be an argument between the Rishonim. [Whether learning natural science is either bitul Torah or  perhaps just permitted for the sake of making a living or perhaps even part of the mitzvah of learning Torah.]

The Gra [i.e. the Gaon from Vilna]

The Gra explains  the verse in the Torah where Sara asks Abraham the Patriarch to marry Hagar so that she herself [Sara] would be built up. It refers he says to the statement of the sages that the main life of a woman depends on her having children. That is the statement אין אישה אלא לבנים. Thus Sara who could not have children but did own Hagar would be built up from Hagar having children with Abraham. The idea is the nefesh [lower aspect of the soul] is the inner essence of the woman. The spirit is the inner essence of the man. and the spirit is from where life comes. And the nefesh spreads through one's possessions. [את הנפש שאר עשה בחרן see the verse the souls that Abraham made in Haran].

There is also a statement in the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria] which I think is related to this. That the inner light of a person comes from his mother and the outer light from the father.

Put this together you can see the idea that Rachel said to Jacob give me children or else I am dead. תן לי בנים ואם אין מיתה אנכי.

You also see the idea that Judah said to Joseph in Egypt about the importance of returning Benjamin to his father Jacob. His soul [of Jacob] is tied with his soul [or Benjamin].


You learn the connection a person has with his parents. Even being far away can sever a connection. The problem is that sometimes one's parents are themselves connected with the Dark Side. That makes it less sesirable to be around them.

בבא מציעא ע''ו ע''א

בבא מציעא ע''ו ע''א תוספות


יש לי שתי שאלות בתוספות אבל כדי להגיע אליהן אני רוצה קודם כל להציע את הגמרא ותוכן של תוספות
הגמרא מביאה דיון שבעל הבית רוצה לשכור פועלים ואמר לפועל אחד לכור עוד פועלים בג' והפועל אמר להם בד'. אז הגמרא דנה בזה באופן אחד. ואחר כך היא מביא דיון שבעל הבית אמר בד' והפועל השני אמר בג. לתרץ את זאת וגמרא מביאה רב נחמן שאמר אם האישה אמרה להביא את גיטה והשליח אמר לבעל שהוא שליח קבלה הגט פסול
זה מראה שהאיש השלישי מאמין לאיש השני. רב אשי שואל על זה שם האישה אמרה לקבל את גיטה והשליח אמר להביא הגט כשר. זה מראה שאיש השלישי אפשר שסומך על השני או הראשון ואי אפשר להביא ראיה לדיון של בעל הבית.

תוספות אומר לקבל הוא יותר טוב לאיש בגלל שהיא מתגרשת יותר מהרת הגם שזה לא בדיוק מכוון לדיון של בעל הבית. אף על פי כן הבעל רוצה שהגט יהיה כשר שאם לא כן למה הוא שלח אותו? תוספות מוסיף שאי אפשר לומר שקבלה טוב יותר לאישה שאם כן אין להביא ראיה מרב אשי לנידון שבעל הבית אמר ד' שהוא טוב יותר לפועלים.

שאלה אחת היא שגם היא רוצה שיהיה גט שאם לא כן למה היא שלחה מי שהוא לקבל אותו? ולכל זה גם טוב שהבעל ילך עם קבלה או הובאה. ולכן זה דומה למצב שבעל הבית אמר ד'.
עם כל זה איני בטוח שזאת קושיא טובה שבאמת זה בדיוק השאלה של רב אשי שבאמת הגט כשר בגלל שהיא רוצה שהשליח יהיה שליח קבלה או הובאה--איזה שעובד. ולכן הבעל מאמין לשליח או לה ולכן אין להביא ראיה שהוא תמיד מאמין לאיש השני.

עוד יש לשאול אם הדיון הוא בגלל איזה טוב יותר למי אז למה הדיון הזה אינו שייך למצב שבעל הבית אמר ג והפעל השני אמר לפועלים האחרים ד.

Immigration.

Immigration. Dr Michael Huemer argues in favor of it. But to me it seems like an invasion.

See the book by Dr Peter Heather The Fall of the Roman Empire. The argument that runs through his book is the fall of Rome was because of the Gothic being invited in and then taking over.. It was meant to show that the idea of slow peaceful transition to the different empires of the Goths was not what really happened. He brings  lots of older documents to show that.

The general approach of Dr Huemer is that government is not really legitimate. See his book and also his deabte with Dr Epstein of NY University.

Since Dr Humer is a million times smarter than me, I can not answer his arguments by I think that Danny Frederick [and Michael Huemer] does a good job is showing that the argument of Dr Huemer do not apply to the consequence theory of government that was proposed by Berkeley. [See Hobhouse.] 

To judge people favorably.

To judge people favorably. I noticed this in the book of Rav Nahman the LeM chapter 55.
He brings there that this brings a kind of protection on one who judges all people favorably.


I saw this same idea in Rav Haim of Voloshin [a major disciple of the Gra].
But Rav Nahman brings this idea in an way that shows a tremendous benefit that accrues to one that judges even wicked people favorably.

It is well known that Rav Nahman held this to be a very important principle in life in chapter 282.

But the things that I noticed in chapter 55 is how this idea is connected with other kinds of problems and situation that people can find themselves in.


David Bronson once commented to me that this is the opposite of how engineers work. They look for what is wrong--not what is right.  And in fact you do not want to judge people so favorably that you lose sight of the need to protect yourself.

But the idea here is that this is practice that goes beyond Reason. See Kant concerning the dinge an Sich. That there is a whole aspect of Creation that is not possible to discern by reason nor by the 5 senses.

[The idea that I am trying to say is that in the lessons of Rav Nahman in each lesson there are themes that are interrelated. So when you find in one Torah lesson of Rav Nahman a piece of advice to follow a certain practice and in that same Torah lesson you him dealing with different kinds of problems the implication is that that advice helps to solve those problems. You see this also in Rav Shick [Moharosh] who help that the best advice for any kind of problem is to find the lesson in the LeM that deals with that problem and say it forty days in a role with the prayer of Rav Nathan his disciple.

So when I saw in that Torah lesson certain kinds of problems that seem to apply to me and I also saw this idea of judging even wicked people favorably--it lit up a bulb in my mind that this advice is what I need.

To finish Shas

To finish Shas the best idea I have discovered is to learn a half a page per day with Tosphot and the Maharsha and Maharam. This takes about 40 minutes per day. Then the same method can be used for the Yerushalmi [The Talmud written in Tiberius.]

This depends on the Gemara in Shabat 63 and also brought in the Musar book Ways of the Righteous and also Rav Nahman of Uman in Siha 76.

I bring this up because I wanted to add that Rav Nahman himself also bring the idea of review  in that Sicha and also in his Sefer HaMidot. And I have found that there are times when my mind is more suited towards learning fast--just saying the words as fast as possible and going on. Other times I find I that I am more attuned towards review.

And both of these methods I believe apply to Mathematics and Physics. Both saying the words and going on and also review.

And I want to add that both methods are well known. In the Mir in NY and also in Shar Yashuv it was considered simple that the morning hours should be devoted towards "Iyun" in depth learning and the afternoon for bekiut [fast learning.]  Rav Freifeld [of Shar Yashuv] I recall used to tell people to review each chapter 10 times. And somhow that idea  got to the Mir in some fashion. There was a store keeper on the same block of the Mir who it was said that he learned chapter 3 of Shabat ten times.

Bava Mezia page 76.

Bava Mezia 76 Tosphot I have two questions that are the kind of things that David Bronson would bring up if I would be learning with him. [Questions that adhere to the idea of calculating the subject as opposed to the larger types of global questions that you see in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri or the Hidushei Harambam of Rav Haim of Brisk.]

The first question is that you could turn the reasoning of Tosphot around to reach the opposite conclusion. The second question is why does the same reasoning not apply the previous case of the Gemara when the employer said 3 and the agent that hired the workers said 4.

To make this clearer let me state the basic structure of the subject.

The Gemara first has a question when an employer said to an agent to hire workers for 3 and the agent told them 4. In that case the Gemara completely ignores the reasoning that it uses later for the case when the employer said 4 and the agent said 3.

Then the Gemara brings the case that the employer said 4 and the agent said 3. The Gemara tries to answer this from Rav Nahman [in the name of Raba bar Abuha in the name of Rav]. Rav Nahman said if a wife says to an agent bring me my divorce document and the agent told the husband that he the agent was told receive my divorce document, the the divorce is invalid. This shows that when you have three people-- 1,2 and 3; then #3 depends on #2--that is he believes the person talking with him and does not depend on the possibility that #1 said something different.
Then the Gemara brings that Rav Ashi asked on this. Rav Ashi said that in the case the wife said "receive" and the agent said "bring" that the divorce is valid.

[Background: A wife can make an agent to receive her divorce and if she does so then when the husband gives the document to the agent she is automatically divorced from that moment on. But if she says bring, then only when she gets the document is she divorced.]

Tosphot says "to receive" is better for the husband. And even though that does not seem to correspond to the case that the Gemara is trying to bring a proof for still it is better for the husband that there should be a divorce at all--otherwise why bother sending he a divorce?

Then Tosphot says that you can not say to receive is better for her because then what would be the proof of Rav Ashi to the case the employer says 4 which is better for party #3 not for party #1.

I am having trouble understanding Tosphot. The logic I think can be reversed. You could say the why does she say receive? Because it is better for her. But by the same logic Tosphot used before she also wants a divorce. Otherwise why send anyone to get it for her? So It is also good for her that the agent should be an agent to bring [not receive]. So that applies to the employer who said 4.

A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog.

In the Musar book the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות you can see that both Metaphysics and physics come under the category of learning Torah [This is common to see in the sages of Spain staring from the period of the Geonim]. But if so then the Gemara Yerushalmi applies that every word of learning Torah is worth all the other commandments of Torah [Beginning of Peah.]

So it does not depend on how smart you are. Everyone is obligated to learn the Law --Oral written Metaphyscs and Physics. So then how can you do it if you are not Einsten? Answer you say the words and go on. As the Gemara in Shabat page 63 says and as is well know from Rav Nahman of Breslov in Sicha 76.
 A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog. 

Ketuboth 78 side a and b.

The library here is usually closed during Sukot so I will not be writing. I just wanted to introduce a subject that i hope to be thinking about during the coming festivals.

The Ran in the start of the next chapter [ perek 9] [HaKotev = "he who writes"] brings this idea. In Hakotev [perek 9] it says the property of the wife belongs to the husband. In perek 8 we see the opposite. property that comes to her when sh is engaged and then she is married belongs to he. [She can sell it].
The Ran [on the Rif] say this is not a question. Perek 8 is the property falls to he when she is engaged. Perek 9 is it falls to her after she is married. Then he asks from the Gemara Yerushalmi that we see just writing "I do not own something" does not make it so that one does not own it. There needs to be some act. [The question here is based on the idea in perek 9 that the husband can write to his wife I do not have any portion in your property and  so she can sell it. But if he does not write that, she can not sell it.

The Ran [R. Nisim,] says the case in perek 9 is he writes it when she is engaged and has not been fully married yet.

Some important background: When an wife works or finds something the property belongs to the husband. מציאת האישה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה פרק ששי של כתובות. But property that comes to her before she is married belongs to her. So the husband can not sell it. But he can eat from its fruits. If it is written in the ketuba it is property of iron sheep  That is if there is heaven forbid a divorce the amount of the property has to go back to the woman. If it was not written in the ketuba [marriage contract] then she still owns it but if it goes down in value he does not have to make up the difference.

The things I want to think about are this and also one side one on page 78. But the library is closing here so I do not have time to write about this subject.

a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter

One of the third generation of Musar was Nathan Zvi Finkel. He learned in Kelm by Rav Simha Zisel who was a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter. In his first lesson in the אור צפון he says that one can be keeping Torah that by all outer appearances seems to be perfect. Yet internally to be the opposite.

This he brings from the gemara in Nedarim 81. That it was asked to all the prophets and sages why was the land destroyed. and no one could answer until God himself said the answer: because they abandoned my teaching [Torah]. Thus we see that in external appearance it seemed everyone was doing things so well than no prophet could see what had gone wrong. It looked on the outside that everyone was keeping Torah. But in the interior of their souls they were not. As God sees the heart and from his perspective they had abandoned him and his teachings.

You can see a hint to this idea from the NT that brings what looks to me to be the same idea. "Do not murder." But I say that even one who gets angry with hi brother has already transgressed this.  It is not saying that now it is OK to murder. rather that it is not enough to keep the Torah in the external physical aspect. But rather one also must keep it in the internal part of one's soul.

Gemara Bava Kama page 2 side a

The mishna says the ox is not like the tooth. The same aspect of them is what makes them obligated in damages [I am going with Shmuel.] Tosphot says the explanation is not like the usual case in the gemara where there is a question if to learn a third thing from two other cases. Here the mishna means the leniency of this is not like the leniency of that. The Maharam [on the bottom of the page of the Maharsha] and the Tiferet Shmuel [in the back of the Gemara] understand this seems to be that the ox has something that makes it lenient in comparison to tooth and tooth has something lenient about it as compared to ox.

This seems to me to be hard to understand because it is essentially the same thing as saying what makes this strict is not the same thing as what would make the other strict and also visa verse. And yet Tosphot insists that that is not what he is saying.

I think what Tosphot means is that the ox has some leniency about it that makes it necessary to be written . That is opposed to everything else that causes damages that would not need to be written. And the tooth has something else that would make it seem lenient and so it is needed to write it. Then the Mishna says since these are two different things the things that makes them obliged in damages are thus and thus.

President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a crime. Is that wrong?

Presidents usually use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things that are legal. For example president Roosevelt asked Churchill to help him with the invasion of Normandy. Churchill wanted to go up from the Mediterranean sea.
In fact all presidents do is to use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things for them. That is most of what they are involved with.

Asking a foreign government to investigate a crime does not seem illegal.

the religious world is polytheistic Torah.

The religious world seems to me to be not exactly like the holy Torah. That is to say My basic idea of what Tora is about is monotheism.  What the religious world is polytheistic Torah. That is they believe in other kinds of deities, i.e. "tzadikim"(saints). And the main concentration of effort is on these other deities.So if in outer appearance they go through regular rituals that seem to be in accord with Torah. But in their focus and energy on the major goal  to bring people to their false deities.

This is not however to imply one should ignore true tzadiks. Often true saints have important advice and ideas that help to focus ones attention and faith on God. Or other good advice.  But there is a bright line (not a thin line) between faith in sages on one hand and worship of tzadikm on the other.


I named this blog by the Gra and the Rav Israel Salanter disciple of Navardok and Rav Shach because I feel they are the closest to advocating Torah with no "Shtick". It seems everyone else tries to fudge the variables to get the Torah to say what they want it to say.

How do you show that the approach of the Gra Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach is the closest thing to straight Torah. The way to do this is based on the idea of prima facie evidence. That is the way things seem before investigating them further. Then after an investigation you find a reason to modify your original positions you do so. Bayesian Probability. So they way Torah seems at first glance is that it does not require worship of tzadikim. There would have to be strong evidence against this conclusion to show that it does require one to worship tzadikm. So the prima facie position holds true and strong.

Talmud Yerushalmi maasrot II mishna 3

In the Talmud Yerushalmi maasrot II mishna 3 it brings an argument between R. Eliezer and the sages if taking truma from a stack of wheat that has not been finished yet makes it into tevel.

[The idea here is that a stack of wheat is usually smoothed down to make it even. So before that final touch is dome one can eat from the stack without taking the gifts of truma and maasar. truma is what goes to the priest and the tithe goes to the Levi. Then there is the second tithe.  [All together there is truma, maasar rishon (first tithe), maasar sheni (second tithe),  and maasar of the poor.]

So what is being said here is that after one has finished the work on the stack one can not eat of it without first taking all the gifts. [Before that one can eat of it in a casual manner. Not to make a meal of it.]

R Eliezer says taking truma makes the whole stack into tevel and the sages say that it does not. [Tevel means that it is necessary to take all the gifts at that point.]

The Gemara [The Jerusalem Gemara] asks what is the law if the same situation would occur with the tithe? I.e. does taking the first tithe make it into tevel or not?

The Gemara asks what does this question refer to? If before the work was done then obviously not. If after the work was done then obviously yes.

The Gemara answers the case is that the work was not finished, but still he took truma. [That means teh truma was not valid and he has to take truma again after he finishes the work on the stack.] Then he decided that he was not going to do any more work on the stack. So the work is considered to be finished. Then he takes the first tithe. So the Gemara concludes if we go backwards in time then the truma that he took makes it tevel. If we go by "from now on" then the first tithe makes it tevel.

What I claim here is that the Gemar means this: if we go backwards then the truma he already took is valid and so when he takes the first tithe that also is valid. [And perhaps he does not even need to take truma again] But if we go by from now on then clearly the truma he already too dis not valid and the tithe is in a kind of state of limbo. That is it is as if he took tithe on a stack of wheat that has been finalized but the truma was not taken yet. So it is valid but he transgressed a sin because he did not take the tithe in the right order. First truma then maasar.

What kind of question am I trying to answer here? First: how does it make sense to say if after the work was done the maasar makes it tevel? It already is tevel. Also a few more questions I forgot this minute. But at any rate my explanation answers the basic questions on this page.

Jerusalem Talmud [Maasrot II:3]

In terms of my brief question on the Jerusalem Talmud [Maasrot II:3] yesterday --I want to just give a drop of background. figs dates wheat and such need to be fixed before they can be eaten. That means you need to take all the gifts from them before you eat them. The gifts are truma first tithe second tithe [or tithe for the poor in every 3rd and 6th year of the seven year cycle.]

But they need to be ripe and the work on them needs to be finished. If the work has not been finished you can eat of them casually but not in a regular manner. [Like just to pick up one or two fruits but not to make a meal.]

The further bit of information you need is that taking truma from an unfinished stack is not considered to make the stack be finished in such a way that eating casually would be forbidden.

So the question is you have a stack that was not finished. The one takes truma from it. Since it was not finished he has to take truma again after he finishes it. But then he decides that the work he has done is enough. Then at that point the work is considered finished. So what happens then if he takes the first tithe before he takes the second truma. That is the question of the Gemara Yerushalmi.
You can see why I am confused here. Why would there not be simply a question he takes truma on an unfinished stack of wheat and then changes his mind to considered it finished. It seems to be a more straightforward question.

gemara Yerushalmi in Maasrot II.

I had a few minutes to look at the gemara Yerushalmi in Maasrot II. Mishna 3. The subject seems short but I still had a lot of trouble understanding it.

The Mishna there has a argument if truma makes a group of fruit required in taking all the other gifts. The Sages say it does not. The Gemara there asks what about the first maasar? Does it make the stack into tevel? The Gemara answers, if the work has been done then not. If it has been done then yes. So the case is the the owner thought to finish the work and then took truma and then changed his mind  to leave the work tas it is. So if you go by the beginning, then the truma makes it tevel. If you go by from now on then the Maasar makes it tevel. [That is teh Gemara]

Before I get into what is bothering me here let me give a bit of background.. Truma is the first gift that goes to the priests. [from wheat of grains or the seven kinds of fruit that Israel was praised for--figs olives dates grapes pomegranates etc.] the Fist Maasar(tenth) goes to the Levi. The next set is in years 1,2,45 the second maasar goes to the owners that have to take it to Jerusalem and enjoy it with their families there. in year 3 and 6 it goes to poor people.

When a stack of wheat has been finished or any of the above things have had their finishing aspects done, then they are tevel [ obligated in taking the tithes. and can not be eaten until then.


So in short the basic idea of the Gemara is this. We know truma does not make an unfinished stack into tevel. But what about the first maasar? The Gemara says the case is truma was taken from an unfinsihed buch of figs or dates on another section of the warehouse that was finished. (So truma does have to be taken again) then he changes his mind about the section that he had decided to finish and decided to leave it the way it is. So he has not done any act to make it finished. But his changing his mind makes it finished. So If we go backwards in time it turns out that the truma was valid and makes the whole thing completely tevel. But if we start from when he changes his mind then it is the taking of the first maasar that makes it tevel.


What I do not understand here is the asymmetry between maasar and truma.The Gemara Yerushalmi considers that if the work was done on the stack that that for sure makes it completely tevel. Why would it then not be so with truma? 

Rav Nahman of Breslov held that one ought to do "Hitbodadut" (private conversation with God) the whole day every day. Not just an hour per day. You can see this in his major book the LeM vol II. chapter 96.ורצונו הוא שתהיה לאדם התבודדות כל היום כולו ולבלות כל היום על זה. אבל בגלל לא כל אדם יכול לקיים את זאת לכן הוא מצווה שתהיה "His desire was that a person should have hitbodadut the whole day and to spend the whole day on this. But because not everyone can fulfill this the minimum he requires is that one should have at least one hour hitbodadut.

This makes a lot of sense to me from several aspects. One is that it is hard to say that any kind of learning makes one righteous. Some people find this out the hard way. They are love bombed and enticed into the religious world and then imagine that this is a righteous and good world because of people learning Torah. Yet at some point reality hits them. So they see that learning Torah even sincerely does not really get one over the finish line clean and proper. The is too much room for self deception and deception of others. Tora tells one how to act but that does not mean that people that use it to make money actually follow it.

They see at some point that to find some way to come to righteousness it is not enough to learn Torah. Clearly something else is needed. So I think Rav Nahman was right about this. Not that it is possible to do all day but at least to spend time talking with God as a friend talks with another and to ask for guidance and help.

 Spiritual techniques do not seem real to me.I think that when a person acts right-- that there can come a blessing from above.But I do not think there is some way to draw down anything like that. Nor do I think it is a good idea to try. Rather I think one should try to be a good person and act right. Then if and when God wants, then blessing may come. 

Liability in the USA seems

Liability in the USA seems to have gotten out of hand. It seems easy to sue anyone for almost anything. This permeates and poisons all human relationships.

I noted that you do not really see this in the Gemara. What you have in the Gemara is that if one person actually hits and injures another person directly then he is liable to damages. But spilling hot coffee one oneself is not liable to anything. The person that spills coffee one himself ought to be more careful the next time.

I noticed this a few weeks ago when I looked at the Gemara in Bava Kama [I think in perek 7]

The case is one gave to a sea captain a cargo to carry someone and the ship sank.  The question is about the fact that the ship did half of its job to carry the cargo half way. So does that have to be paid? But that the captain should be liable is never even brought up --obviously because he is a shomer Sahkar. [paid guard] who is liable only for accidents that were easy to be on guard for. Not for big accidents that he could not help-.

In the short time I had at the Lithuanian study hall I had a chance to take  look at the book the Light of Israel which is a collection of letters of Rav Israel Salanter.

I saw that he emphasizes fear of God along with good character. [In letter 9].

[I knew that both of these two themes are brought up by Rav Isaac Blazer his disciple but I had forgotten that the centrality of fear of God comes up in Rav Israel Salanter himself.

The way it looks to me is that he sees this as being the central beam that the whole house rests upon. and that he decided the way to come to it is by learning Musar.

What I mean to say is that often it is hard to figure out right from wrong and that there does not seem to be any central algorithm by which one can decide.

I mean you have the idea of Michael Huemer that reason recognizes moral principles. [Which I think comes from Fichte and Hegel. In Fichte it is called intellectual intuition.  That is that reason itself recognizes general principles--universals.] But what this means in a practical sense is that hard to know. There can be lots of important moral principles --the ten commandments, learning Torah, trust in God, the Golden Rule. Not to speak lashon Hara (slander) etc. Is there any unifying principle?  It seems there is Fear of God. [Especially when principles seem to they conflict, this is needed to resolve issues.]


[For some reason my time in Litvak yeshivas was limited because of my own evil inclinations. It takes a lot more awareness of the importance of  straight Torah than I have to be able to stick with it. Maybe if I could go back in time, I would stay with the straight path of the Gra. But I can not. So at least, I want to take the opportunity here to explain what straight Torah is.]

Yerushalmi on the Shofar

I had a chance to take a look at the Gemara in the Yerushalmi on the Shofar for a few minutes before Rosh Hashana.

That was a few day ago so I forgot most of it. But the basic idea I saw was this the mishna says סדר תקיעות שלש של שלש שלש and the Gemara [the Jerusalem Talmud] says R. Hanania and R Mana. One says a "trumita" and the other says 3 thin ones.
The commentator there says it means an order like this.  one long one equal to nine short bursts. Then three short ones each one equal to three short bursts. and then one long one equal to 9.

That is the Tekia shevarim tekia. Then a Tekia truah tekia is  one long one equal to 9 short bursts. Then 9 short bursts. Then one long one equal to 9.

Clearly then the first set of tekia shevarim truah tekia is 9-3,3,3,111111111,-9❤
[So the first set of 3 tekia truah tekia is 9, 111111111, 9. Then repeat that another 2 times. The next set is 3 tekia shevarim tekia. So  that comes out 9, 3-3-3,9. Then repeat that another two times. Then the last set is I I mentioned above tekia shevarim trua tekia. That comes out 9-3-3-3-111111111-9. And repeat that another two times.]



This is how I kind of recall the same ideas brought in the regular Gemara on the last page of Rosh Hashana. [the Babylonian Talmud]

My question here is that it is hard to see this in the Gemara itself. I can not tell if the gemara is talking about the length of one set Tashrat [Tekia shevarim truah tekia] or Teshat or Trat. Or of all three sets.


I might mention here that I had a few extra minutes to take a look at the Pnei Moshe's longer commentary at the end of the Gemara and he brings the Rambam that the length of a truah is two tekiot. I can imagine that this refers to first set of tekia shevarim truah tekia in which the middle shevaraim truah is equal to 18 short burts all together since each one by itself is 9.

Yeshivas in Israel are private. The situation is different than NY yeshivas

 Yeshivas in Israel are private. The situation is different than NY yeshivas where the yeshivas are semi private, but basically open to anyone that wants to sit and learn Torah day or night. Still you need to be part of the program. This can be confusing for a person coming from the USA to Israel. For example, you can have  person who is used to the situation in NY where he can just walk in to any Lithuanian yeshiva and sit and learn any time. --But to have lunch -he needs to be accepted as part of the program. He might then come to Israel, and then find himself thrown out of places that tell him he is not wanted there. (And he will be surprized since he was asked many times to contribute charity to those places that said they accepted anyone who wanted to learn Torah.) This happens a lot more than you can imagine.  It seems to be based on this kind of misunderstanding about the basic set up. Yeshiva in Israel are mainly for the ages 18 to 22. The whole structure is totally different than in the USA.

faith in Rav Shach and the Gra

With Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov there is a kind of רצוא ושוב -going up and then falling back process towards the truth. But Hegel has a different kind of process in which one goes back and forth between two extremes and by a process of synthesis rises up to the next level. I can see both kind of processes at work in my own life. For a certain period when I was at the Mir in NY--I felt I was in a kind of רצוא  state. [Going up] I was involved in learning Gemara [the Oral and written Law] and also Musar. Then coming to Israel certainly helped accelerate that process. But then came the period of falling away. And in that period I learned a thing or two about reality and the truth and the importance of Rav Shach and the Gra.

So I have learned a lot. But the lessons have been hard to put into writing. I would like to find a way of expressing the importance of the straight Litvak path [the Gra and Rav Shach, and Rav Israel Salanter--Musar] but along with that to show a synthesis with Rav Nahman and also the path of my parents (to emphasize good character and also to learn Physics and Mathematics as also brought in most rishonim based on Saadia Gaon]

So far I have not been able to find for myself any kind of simple way to explain the difficulties and the kind of synthesis that I am looking for. It is a kind of path of balance. To learn from the great sages of the past but also the greater need for common sense to discern who is worth listening to as opposed to who is actually from the Dark Side. In terms of this kind of common sense it seems to me that even for one who lacks that kind of sense still faith in Rav Shach and the Gra to believe that they knew what they were talking about can make up for the difference of what one lacks.

Natural law itself is actually brought openly in the gemara.

Natural law itself is actually brought openly in the gemara. It forms the basic of the debate between the sages and R Shimon ben Yochai if we go by the reason for the commandment or by the literal meaning. [See e.g. Bava Metzia page 119.] So everyone agrees there is a known and rational reason for every commandment except for the red heifer.  

Bava Kama page 85

I have not had a chance to take a good look at it yet but in Bava Kama there is brought on circa page 85 the subject of compensations for physical injury.

One thing that has to be paid for is (נזק (היזק בלשון הגמרא that is the actual damage. This is evaluated in this way. We look at the fellow as if he was a slave being sold in the marketplace. And the actual damage is let's say that it is some kind of injury in which he can not work as well as he could without the injury. The difference is what the amount of damages that have to be paid. But there is also the pain and the cost of the doctors and the שבת time that he can not work. That is we look at him as if he is guarding a potato patch and he gets paid for that

So what comes up in Nahmanides [The Ramban] in his questions on the Baal HaMeor--what if the guy is a nuclear physicist? So clearly if he is a slave with a PhD no one cares about the PhD. If they will buy him, they will buy him to work on their cotton crops. Not their nuclear physics projects.


This issue comes up in Nachmanides and it seems to be the source of his question on the Baal HaMeor. So he says that in fact if he was working before the accident as a nuclear physicist then that is part of the assessment of the damages. That is how the Ramban explains Rava in the gemara over on page 85. [The actual mishna I think is on page 83].

But again I have to apologize because I have not had a chance yet to take  a good look at this subject. I just am saying over what I could gather from the little time I had to glance at it. [There seems to be some reason I do not have the merit to learn Torah.]

הלא יראתך כסלתיך

הלא יראתך כסלתיך from the book of Job. "Is not your fear your stupidity?" Rav Nahman of Breslov brings this verse in his book the LeM 154 to show that fear of God needs to be coupled with intelligence. In another place in the LeM he also brings this verse to show that faith in  a tzadik needs to be coupled with Intelligence. [Daat].

From this it is possible to see how fear of God can get a person off track when it is done without common sense.

It is hard to know how to accomplish this. It does not seem to be a matter of what you learn alone. But I think it helps. For if a person has a faulty idea of what the big picture is--it puts him at a disadvantage to even know between right and wrong.

The closest I can see to aa balanced approach to Torah and fear of God is tat of the Gra and Rav Shach. That is to combine lerning Gemara with the Musar approach of Rav Israel Salanter

Gemara Brachot page 2 side a

The Mishna starts out מאמתי קוראים את השמע בערבית? בשעה שהכוהנים נכנסים לאכול בתרומתם. When does one say the Shema at night? Answer: when the priest come to eat their truma

The Gemara Brachot says we need the mishna to tell us that כפרה אינה מעכבת מלאכול בתרומה. Bringing the sacrifices that one is required as an atonement do not stop a priest from eating Trumah. [They were learning this in the Na Nach Breslov group today when I walked in in the morning]. I asked that most priest do not have to bring a sacrifice for an atonment. So the Mishna can easily be talking about regular priests that have touched something like a lizard. [i.e. a dead lizard]. So they have to go to a natural body of water and then wait until nightfall. And the Mishna might simply be saying that הערב שמש [waiting for nightfall] is needed.

My question is based on the fact that lots of people need to bring a sin offering for lots of different things. [There are about 43 of these things.] Also a Zav or zava or a leper. The point of the rule that the need to bring a sin offering does not stop a person from eating truma. But it would stop a person from eating any kind of sacrifice. --and it would be Karet if he would eat a sacrifice under such circumstances.


Tosphot does not deal with this question but asks a different question that this rule we know from somewhere else.

So I am thinking perhaps this rule that a kohen needs nightfall and to dip into a natural body of water from ealsewhere also? So that the only possible new idea of the mishna would be to tell us that bringing a sacrifce does not stop one from eating truma.


[The basic idea of the Gemara itselfbefore I got to my question is this. Did the fellow already go to a natural body of water the previous day and then today bring his sacrifices? Then he would have been able to eat the truma today. So it must be he did not bring his sacrifices yet and still afetr he has gone to a natural body of water and then waited until nightfall he is allowed to eat truma.. So we see אין הכפרה מעכבת מלאכול בתרומה.]

So the fact that someone is religious --in the sense that the religious world takes it to mean--has nothing to do with the question if they are a decent human being-.

Morality and one's belief system are two separate areas of value. Even if they are related they are still dealing with different subject matter.  So the fact that someone is religious --in the sense that the religious world takes it to mean--has nothing to do with the question if they are a decent human being-. In fact it was this revelation that caused me to be less enchanted with the religious world.

Furthermore it seems to me that the amount of mental energy that people put into religious observance seems to take away how much energy they can put into being decent people.

You can see in the writings of Rav Israel Salanter and also the events of his life that he wanted to solve this problem. It could be that he had succeeded to some degree in the Litvak yeshiva world--where his teachings were more or less accepted. 

too many pictures in the religious world

There are too many pictures in the religious world. This seems to have seeped in slowly. But it is common now. It probably has something to do with the natural human need for some idol. Everyone in the religious world worships some idol-but it is however called a "tzadik" (saint). [The problem would be even if the saint was actually saintly. But in fact the reverse seems to be the case most often.]

Isaac Blazer in the end of his book of Rav Israel Salanter brings the idea of learning Gemara and trust in God. His basic idea there is that one ought to care only for the needs of that day and sit and learn Torah and not worry about the needs of tomorrow.

This is on the Mishna about the "path of Torah" to eat bread and water and to labor in Torah and to live a life of pain. So he asks what is the life of pain is the mishna talking about since it already stipulated that you eat bread and water and sleep on the ground. He answers that that is not a life of pain in the sense that one feels the pain. rather it is a life of pain for one who has no trust in God. But one who trusts in God it is  a life of joy.

In a practical sense however we see the basic approach of Rav Isaac Blazer was the same as that of Navardok about sitting and learning Torah and not worrying about tomorrow.

This is clearly the ideal of Torah. The only thing that I would modify now would be what is included in the category of learning Torah. In my view this would include Physics and Mathematics as you see in the obligations of the Heart and most other rishonim from Spain.  [Those from Germany did not hold this way.]

path of balance in Torah and wisdom of God as revealed in Physics and Mathematics and the natural sciences.

It seems to me to be hard to know why the rishonim [medieval authorities] from Spain were going with the learning of Aristotle to the degree that they did.

It does not at first glance seem to be based on the Gemara.
 Still because of my peculiar situation when I could not and still can not learn Torah, at least the opinion of the rishonim gives me an opening in which I feel I can learn the wisdom of God [Physics and Mathematics and the natural sciences. Not pseudo science like psychology.]
So I have at least a few opinions in the rishonim to depend on. Still it seems hard to know why the rishonim themselves took such a radical approach.

The basic approach I think comes from Saadia Gaon but is most clearly enunciated in the Musar Book the Hovot Levavot/Obligations of the Heart. [By Ibn Pakuda].

In Bava Kama at around page 82 there is a discussion of the "wisdom of the Greeks". Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel was part of  large household and he said that 500 students learned Torah and another 500 learned Greek wisdom and only two were left, him and another student. So the Gemara brings this as a question on the idea that Greek wisdom is forbidden. The Gemara answers since the household of R Gamliel was close to the government they needed to know Greek wisdom. In one rishon in the back of the printed edition I saw yesterday I noticed that he says thus it is permitted in case of need.



In any case it seem to me that a path of balance is the best idea.

Sanhedrin page 14. No ordination nowadays. Rambam about the Tribe of Levi.

The idea that there is no ordination nowadays is well known in the Gemara. But I admit that I forget the exact source. The fact that there is no ordination outside of Israel is however in Sanhedrin page 14.

This is brought in Bava Kama around page 84 where the issue of things that can be judged outside of Israel comes up. חבלות והודעות.

Why it seems necessary to mention this is that this is one area that is rarely touched upon by religious authorities that want to pull the wool over people's eyes to make them think that they have actual ordination. In that way they monetize Torah. [I.e., they use Torah as a means to make money and gain prestige and power.]

 A different issue is that in any case, it is  forbidden to use Torah to make money. And that Rambam about the Tribe of Levi has nothing to do with this issue because there the Rambam says for one that accepts on himself the yoke of serving God, God will provide. He say nothing there in relation to the question of one can use Torah to make money. [And the question of using Torah to make money  is dealt with by the Rambam in a different place, i.e., laws of learning Torah.]

laws about marriage.

I wanted to bring up a few issues in laws about marriage. The library here is closing soon so I only have a few minutes.
Property of the wife is explained in Yevamot but the major subjects are gone into in Ketuboth. [It is brought also  in the Code of Laws by Rav Joseph Karo, the Shulhan Aruch, Vol. Even HaEzer ch 85. paragraph 3]

In short there are three major areas. One is נכסי צאן ברזל "iron sheep." That is property that the bride brings into the marriage that the husband takes responsibility for in case they are lost. This kind of property he has to pay for if there is a divorce.  He can use the property. [Property that is mentioned in the Ketuba is a sub set of this. That is to say the iron sheep does not have to be at the time of getting married. It simply is any property that he takes responsibility for.
There is another type called נכסי מלוג "sheared property" [as when you shear the wool of a sheep and the sheep is left but you take the wool]. In this he also can use it and also if it is rented property he gets the rent. But if it is lost, he does not pay for it.

But there is no concept that the wife owns the property of the husband just by getting married.

The idea of serving God with balance--not to be a fanatic is brought in the book of Rav Nahman, The Le'M in vol I chapter 49.

The idea of serving God with balance--not to be a fanatic is brought in the book of Rav Nahman, The Le'M in vol I chapter 49.
There he brings the basic idea of Rav Isaac Luria in the start of the Eitz Haim about the condensation.[Zimzum]. The idea there is is that in the beginning everything was filled with the light of God so there was no place to create any world. So God condensed his light to the sides to create an empty space that was a sphere, and also left a point of light in the middle. Then He sent down a beam of light that went down a drop and then turned to the sides to become a sphere. Then the light went down a drop more and became a smaller sphere.  And thus the light went down more until ten times and these are the ten spherot in the shape of spheres.

Rav Nahman brings that this happens in every person. That when one wants to serve God the light fills him with such excitement that he or she can not contain themselves. --and can do things wrong because of over excitement. So one must contain ones own excitement to serve God with good character that neither goes off to one direction or the other.

This is well known among newly religious people --that they get overly excited and do things wrong because of it. or sometimes imagine that they already understand everything. They become know it alls.

But there is usually a great amount of trouble in figuring out exactly how to apply this lesson.

There is some lack of knowledge about marriage relations in the Bible.
[I was clearer myself about these issue when I was learning Gemara Yevamot. But I have forgotten most of what I knew. Still I would like to mention a few things that I still recall.]
Homosexual relations between males in mentioned twice in Leviticus among the type of relations that are called עריות "Arayot". That is all the things there mentioned "do not reveal the nakedness of your sister." "your mother," etc. Most of them have a death penalty --including homosexual relations.

But relations with  menstruating woman do not. That is just simple Karet. [A spiritual penalty] Adultery is with a married woman has a death penalty. But a man can have many wives. That is not adultery. But in the case of adultery, both the adulterer and adulteress both get the death penalty. [It is clear, but traditional Catholic teaching has made this issue foggy.]


Rav Nahman from Breslov rightfully noted the essential aspect of the human soul of sexuality. In fact he saw this issue at the core of the Torah. So Moharosh [Rav Shick] emphasized getting married  early.  The Tikun HaKlali also I believe is very important. That is to say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman designated on the day one has done  asexual sin. That is 16,32,41,42,59,77,90,105,137,150.

The Torah has a specific set of values which are clear. However politics and government is a different area. The Torah does have some rules about that, but mainly leaves government open. So my approach to this issue is basically to take a look at the Constitution of the USA, and see that it has greatest the most free and amazing society that has ever existed within human memory. I see no contradictions between personal keeping and learning Torah on one hand- and support of the Constitution of the USA or its closest ally Israel.

There is some kind of hidden evil in the religious authorities that only the Gra and Rav Shach saw. Besides those two great sages, everyone else seems to have been taken in.

Hobhouse made a good point about religion and politics. That religion, even though at its core is the Torah, still the religious parties are also people. So even though one ought to learn and keep Torah that does not mean to try to put religious parties into power. In particular Rav Nahman pointed out the problem with Torah Scholars that are demons --(the LeM of Rav Nahman in vol I ch 12 and ch 28.) which he brings from the Zohar. But even without that, there are plenty of statements in the Gemara that indicate that religious leaders ought not to be in power. Learning and keeping Torah is a personal matter.

I would not say so myself years back when I was part of Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. But after that  I began to see the problems of the religious world more clearly. And saw that Rav Nahman was not exaggerating. I guess young people who have not experienced the demonic reign of religious leaders up front and personally might easily be taken in by the facade--like I was. So I think that though the damage has been done to many people who have fallen for their sanctimonious act, still there is hope for future generations.

So in short I do not see the participation of religious parties in Israel in Government to be a positive thing --even from the aspect of Torah and especially not from the aspect of Torah.


[One place for example you see this in the Talmud is in Shabat (--I forget the page number-)"If you see a generation that has problems coming upon it go out and check the judges of Israel. For all problem that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel." Then the gemara brings a verse to prove its point. "Its judges judge with bribes etc." But in any case the issue is  that there is some kind of hidden evil in the religious authorities that only the Gra and Rav Shach saw. Besides those two great sages, everyone else seems to have been taken in. 

I know that L.T. Hobhouse [the English philosopher] blamed WWI on the ideas of Hegel (in his book the Metaphysical Theory of the State) about the State. This did not bother me because I thought it was too far fetched.

But then I noticed that Shirer blamed both Fichte and Hegel for WWII (in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). At that point I am thinking maybe Hobhouse was onto something. After all Shirer you can not exactly accuse of  not understanding the German language!

So perhaps it makes more sense to  do what thinkers were doing in the Middle Ages in terms of getting to a comprehensive world view--to combine faith with reason that is the Old Testament with Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus.

This is at least what Saadia Gaon was doing and all the rishonim that wrote of the issues of the overall world view of Torah.


This has a great deal of support from the best of modern thinkers also for example Ed Feser and Kelley Ross (The Kant-Fries School ). Kelley Ross has stated openly that his point of view is from essentially Plato. Feser is basing himself on Aristotle and Aquinas to some degree but is not trying to explain either one but ratter to use their insights to build his own true and comprehensive world view.] [Huemer is related to what is known as the intuitionist school. But in a nutshell he is basically with Aristotle in terms of universals and that universals depend on particulars.] 

Rav Nahman of Breslov comes about as close as I can see into making the Old Testament and the Gemara into a comprehensive system--that is a interconnected system based on a small number of basic principles.

Rav Nahman of Breslov comes about as close as I can see into making the Old Testament and the Gemara into a comprehensive system--that is a interconnected system based on  a small number of basic principles. This kind of task was taken up to a a large degree by the baali HaMusar [sages and authors of works on Athics.] from the Middle Ages  the  Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pakuda חובות הלבבות and Saadia Gaon. But Rav Nahman brought the task to its completion.

Maimonides was doing something similar--showing that Torah does not contradict Aristotle. But Rav Nahman was trying rather to show that the Torah makes sense. he was not concerned if it agreed with Aristotle.

Still his synthesis seems to leave out a few major principles that were noted by the baali HaMusar and especially the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter. [Midot/good character, learning Torah, trust in God]]

I was reminded about this because on my way to the sea I spoke briefly another secular Jew like myself and he said something along the lines that the main thing is Rav Nahman and that everyone needs the ideas of Rav Nahman. I forget his exact language. But it reminded me of this fact that Rav Nahman has a good advice and ideas about almost any and every human problem.

I think the father in law of Rav Shach [Issar Meltzar] said the Derara dememona is a doubt about where the money ought to go. I forget because I no longer have an Avi Ezri [of Rav Shach] to look up. But if that is what he said it makes sense anyway.
The reason I say this is that the Gemara in Bava Mezia 79 seems to take this as a simple matter.
The basic gemara over there says [in the third case] that if a ship with a cargo of wine sinks the if the ship owner said, "I am renting to you this ship," and the wine owner said "I am hiring you to carry this wine," then wherever the money is that is where it stays. If both said (in forth case) ("stam") "I am renting to you a ship," [not this ship] and "I am hiring you to bring wine," not this wine then they divide.

It looks like a exact copy of the mishna on page 100 and also the mishna on page 97. On page 100 the same issue came up in the Gemara and the Gemara concludes the mishna there is like Sumhos.

No one on page 79 says anything about Sumhos. Not the Tur, the Rosh, the Shulhan Aruch or the Maharsha. But interestingly enough right there the Tosphot says the reason for the case when they are both definite this ship and this wine  is hezkas mamon [prior status of where the money is]. And the reason for the end when they divide is the doubt.

I recall I brought up these issues also on page 100 in my small booklet on Bava Mezia chapters 8 and 9.
[The regular way to understand Derara Demmona is a doubt to the court even without their words. Also the issue seems divided between Bava Metzia page 2b and the Gemara is Bava Batra as to what are the conditions under whcih Sumhos says they divide. Whether you need Derara Demmona or if he hold they divide with D.M. then all the more so without D.M.]

So to make it short, the major issues I see here are these. Why does Rav Papa on page 79 in the forth case not say he is going like Sumhos? And even if he would why is he not saying like Sumhos in the third case? So it looks here that you have to say this Gemara holds Drara Demmona is when there is a doubt. Furthermore why does the Gemara not go straight with the sages that say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה? One who take money out of a prior status needs proof.

The 15th of the Federalist Papers says that the essence of government is to make laws and by implication to enforce them. This in itself seems to be an argument why not to give power or vote for religious parties in Israel. [Even though the argument in the Federalist papers was arguing for a union of the states  as opposed to staying as they were an confederacy with no unifying centre.]

Even religious people in Israel would not like the religious powers to be to have power over their individual lives.

Learning Torah really ought not be mixed with politics.

Mind can not be a epiphenomenon of Body.

 By analytic means it was shown that the epiphenomenon approach to the Mind Body Problem entails and self contradiction in one of the intermediate steps.
That is to say that Mind can not be a epiphenomenon of Body.
[The epiphenomenon approach is a suggestion of John Searle. But Searle himself says that it is not an adequate solution.

Rav Nahman [from Uman and Breslov].

Rav Nahman had a goodly number of amazing pieces of advice. But I realize also that sometimes his ideas can be taken in ways that do not seem to be so great. For an example I think I was learning Torah a lot better when I was part of the Mir Yeshiva in NY. Getting involved with Breslov seems to have given me some great things, but also seems to have gotten me off track in other ways.

So what you have to say I think is that in terms of learning authentic Torah it is the Litvaks [Lithuanian] Yeshivas that have it down pat--i.e. that have authentic Torah (keeping and learning).

On the other hand, for specific issues, no one is greater that Rav Nahman to get into the core of problems, and find solutions (at least as far as humanly possible).

One bit of advice comes from the last Torah lesson he said in his lifetime in Uman [Le''M vol II chapter 8]--the problem of מפורסמים של שקר famous leaders who are false. [i.e. scam artists]. And it was well known in Breslov that that warning applies even inside of Breslov itself.
The problem nowadays seems to be that a great number of people claim to be presenting authentic Torah who are what Rav Nahman said are "demons." ["תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודיים"] (Le''M volume I chapter 12 and 28) So how do you tell who is who?
Experience is one way. As Rav Nahman himself brought in the end of sipurei Maasiot that some kinds of knowledge come only with time and experience. They are not known simply by logic.
But if one does not want that kind of experience then there is also the possibility of simply listening to the warnings of the Gra and Rav Shach. That is by אמונת חכמים [faith in the wise]. But that also has a pitfall since often people will assume that Rav Nahman himself was in the category of what the Gra was warning about. I assumed as much myself until I had an opportunity to take a look at a book that printed up the original documents from the court testimony in Vilna and in the actual letter of excommunication that was signed by the Gra.

Kant, Hegel

A certain degree of animosity towards Kant, Hegel seems to have been generated by WWI. So people of the 20th century would go to great lengths to find almost any kind of world view that would by pass Kant and Hegel. Almost to the degree of making them unmentionable.

Though I am no expert in Philosophy at all, but I understood that the English people that were more or less continuing the legacy of Kant and Hegel pretty much denounced the whole thing after WWI. That is what I understood about Bradley anyway. Certainly Hobhouse's critique on the Metaphysical State was in reaction to WWI.

This to me seems unfair--as if Kant and Hegel were responsible for WWI. [See Patrick Buchanan's The Unnecessary War] [That book is not philosophy, but simply showing that WWI was pointless (which is clear) and led inevitably to WWII which already at that point was necessary]

Ayn Rand on the other hand seems to have objected to Kant on the basis of Neo Kantianism which took a psychological turn. as opposed to the objective approach of Schelling, Hegel, and Fichte.
Kant himself seems to have anticipated the problems in his second edition of the Critique of Pure reason when he put in a whole section just to reply to Berkley's lunatic idealism. That seems to settle the issue.

[In terms of the actual critique of Hobhouse I recall that Brand Blanshard had a pretty good answer. It was based as I recall on the consequential theory of political power. [See Danny Frederick on Huemer on that same issue.]

In terms of that issue I might mention that Hegel is right that people are defined a lot by their relationships as much and perhaps more so than their inner essence. It is from my standpoint interesting to note a whole branch of math based on that idea arose in the 1940's Category Theory --that the main thing to look at are the maps from elements in a set or group as much as the elements themselves.

[Though I admit that that idea can be misused as Steven Dutch makes a note of.

The idea of saying the name of God as it is written.

The idea of saying the name of God as it is written. Sanhedrin 90 side one and Avoda Zara 17b 18a and the Maharsha in Kidushin at the end of chapter three in the agada section.

Sorry I do not remember the exact page but the Maharsha there is talking about this exact subject and mentions the people in his days who were dabbling in mysticism and speaking publically about it.In particular abiout this very aspect that they were saying different ways of saying the name. He was clearly not very happy about this.

In Segulat Israel there are brought different combinations of the names. And also we find in the Ari this subject. Rav Nahman himself brings such an idea in his Sefer HaMidot.

The basic source of the whole issue is in Sanhedrin 90a that says one who says the name of God as it is written has no portion in teh world to come. In Avoda Zara there is brought the case of one sage who was put into prison and killed and the Gemara there on page 18 attributes his fate to teh fact that he was saying the name as written.

Issues of the best type of government are not the same kinds of issues that come up in the Gemara.

Issues of government were not even relevant during the events of ancient Israel. For  along time there were no kings at all and when Israel asked for a king the prophet Samuel made a point to show that God's anger was kindled against Israel.

During the rule of kings government also was not relevant since the kings rule was directly towards protection from outside enemies, not internal issues. 

During the second Temple period Israel was under Persian rule for the first part. Then later, there was the Syrians [part of the empire of Alexander] and then the  descendents of the Maccabees and later the rule of Rome.
[The kings of the Maccabees were not so great. See Kidushin in chapter 3. Yanai [One king of the Maccabees] came back from a battle and wanted to celebrate. There were there wise men of Israel. One person there [the joker] told him the heart of the wise is not with you. How can I tell he asked? Put on the Urim and Tumim and test them. He did so and decided in fact they were against him. The joker said, "Murder them." The king asked תורה מה תהא עליה? What will happen with Torah? The joker said it is available for anyone who want to learn it. [He forgot about the Oral Law] So the king killed all the wise men of Israel



Gemara does not deal with issue of how to make a just government anywhere.

In the world of the religious it is assumed with no evidence that they ought to be in charge of everyone.--Yet there is no indication that that would be  a just or fair kind of rule.

It simply foes with unfounded assumption that the religious are examples of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue. --All the available evidence seems to indicate the exact opposite.

The reason this is relevant is that there are great paces that learn and try to keep Torah on the highest possible level like the Mir in NY or Ponovitch or Brisk in Israel. (Litvak yeshivas--i.e. Lithuanian types that are based on the Gra and Rav Israel Salanter to some degree) But these kinds of places are in general not interested in political power.

Just to be clear..I feel questions about how to create the most just kind of society are mainly answered in the Federalist papers by Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.


Another aspect of this issue is that it is natural for people to look for a just group to be a part of. This is why people join the religious world in the first place. That sadly is not that much different than people joining Scientology of some eastern ashram for the same reasons. The trouble is that usually the expectations are not fulfilled and there is a great deal of exploitation --plus the groups are dishonest in terms of representing a false picture of what the essential core beliefs are.

Best type of government is not at all dealt with in the Gemara and this leaves me in doubt why the religious in Israel believe they ought to be in charge of government. From what I can see the Federalist papers are right that certain principles of government have been found over the ages to be effective and workable and bring about as much as possible a fair and decent society.  Republican government [not Democracy], separation of powers, protection of private property etc. None of which the religious care about.
 

I might mention that in UMAN most people regretted the  fall of the USSR because as they told me, things were better then.  i can not explain this but at least as far as uman goes that was the consensus of about 99 %  of the population. 

New Idea. Gemara in Kidushin 64 Bava Batra 134b This is what I believe to be a very good new idea. I have not had a lot of these recently but this one looks good.

I had a chance [thank God] to take a look at the Gemara in Kidushin 64 yesterday and gained a bit of clarity about the issue. In short I would like to suggest an answer to the question of R Akiva Eiger on Bava Batra 134b--but I also want to add that this answer only goes according to one answer of Tosphot on Kidushin 64b.
The Mishna in Bava Batra says one says I have a son is believed. I have a brother is not. [So his wife is permitted to the whole world when he dies and is not obligated to marry his brother--if he dies without children.]

במשנה בבא בתרא קלד: מובא את הדין האומר יש לי בן נאמן יש לי אח אינו נאמן. הגמרא שואלת שיש לנו כבר משנה כזו. היא עונה המשנה כאן היא כשיש חזקה שיש אח. רע''א שואל לא רק חזקה אלא גם אם יש עדות שיש אח היא צריכה להיות מותרת לשוק בגלל הדין כשהוא אומר גירשתי את אשתי נאמן. נראה לי לתרץ שאם הייתה עדות שיש אח היא לא הייתה מותרת לשוק לפי דעת ר' נתן  והגמרא רוצה שהמשנה כאן תהיה גם לפי דעת ר' נתן. אבל התירוץ הזה עובד רק לפי דעת אחת בתוספות קידושין סד:. הגמרא שם מביאה את הדין כמו כאן ושואלת שכנראה  המשנה אינו כמו ר' נתן שמובא עוד לימוד הואמר בשעת קידושין יש לי בן  ובשעת מיתה הוא אומר  אין לו בן או בשעת קידושין אין לי אח ובשעת מיתה הוא אומר יש לו אח ר' יהודה הנשיא אומר הוא נאמן להתיר  ולא לאסור  ור' נתן אומר גם לאסור הוא נאמן. אביי עונה המשנה היא כשאין חזקה של אח או בן  והלימוד האחר הוא כשיש חזקה של אח אבל לא ידוע שום מידע על בן. הסיבה של ר' יהודה הנשיא היא שדבריו בשעת קידושין יש להן דין של עדות שמבטל את החזקה. לכן היא מותרת. לדעת ר' נתן דבריו בשעת קידושין יש להן את הדין של חזקה. לכן החזקה הזאת אינה יותר מועילה  מן חזקת אח.
ונראה שהגמרא בבא בתרא גם מחזיקה שהדין של המשנה שם גם היא לפי דעת ר' נתן ולכן המצב הוא שיש חזקת אח אבל הוא אומר שיש לו בן ולכן היא מותרת. אבל התירוץ הזה הולך רק לפי דעת אחת בתוספות קידושין סד" שבמצב שיש חזקת אח אבל הוא אומר שיש לו בן הוא נאמן. ולפי הדעת האחרת שם בתוספות אין לי תירוץ על הקושיא של רע''א.







The Gemara [Talmud] there asks why do we need this mishna when we learn the same thing in Kidushin? Answer. This mishna is when there is a Hazaka [prior status] that there is a brother.

R Akiva Eiger asks even if there would be witnesses that there is a brother he ought to be believed that he has a son as the very next section of the Gemara makes clear that if he says I divorced my wife he also is believed to make her permitted.[Not require Yibum--to marry his brother.]

The answer I think is that the Gemara in Bava Batra is thinking like the Gemara in Kidushin that the mishna can also go according to R Nathan--who would hold with Hazaka but not if there were witnesses.

The Gemara in Kidushin  brings the same idea of the mishna and then asks that it does not seem to be like R Nathan. For we learn in another teaching: One says I have a son when he gets married and then says he does not before he dies. Or he says I have no brother when he gets married and then says he does not before he dies. R Yehuda HaNasi says he is believed to permit not to forbid. R Nathan says also to forbid he is believed.

Abyee says our mishna can also be like R Nathan because the mishna here in kidushin is when there is no hazaka of a brother or a son. In the other teaching there is a hazaka that there is a brother but we know nothing about a son. So in case of the other teaching the reason R Yehuda permits is that the words he says at the time he gets married have a category of  witnesses which is stronger that hazaka that he has a brother.] R Nathan hold what he says at the time he gets married has only the category of another hazaka.

So what one can answer to R Akiva Eiger is the case in Bava Batra is there is a hazaka of a brother but he also says he has a son and those words also have the category of a hazaka. But if there were witnesses that he has a brother it would be a hazaka against witnesses and that would not be enough.

But in Kidushin in the end of Tosphot there is a debate about this exact issue. To one opinion there in such a case he would be believed that he has a son and in the other opinion he would not be believed. So to that second opinion my answer here would not work.