religious truth

My opinion about religious truth follows a idea that is brought in the Phenomenology of the Spirit by Hegel. You can look on a process of growing of fruit a fruit tree thus--the bud is destroyed by the blossom, Then the blossom is destroyed by the fruit. Or you can say the bud is sublimated into the blossom and then the blossom is sublimated into the fruit.
So Plato Aristotle Aquinas Leibniz and Spinoza were like the bud and blossom that eventually develop into the full fruit.


I see religious truth to be along the same lines.

For example in Christianity the issue about the Trinity is in a process of development as one can see in this blog https://trinities.org/blog/.
That is to say it is becoming more clear as time goes on that Jesus was attached to God in the sense that the commandment says to love and fear God and to be attached to him. That does not mean he was God. See also the book on Sonship by Professor Moshe Idel.

However this is not to say that the Trinity is all that much off. In fact we find lots of saints that are considered divine. The name of the Ari on his grave is האלקי ר' יצחק לוריא אשכנזי.. The Divine R, Isaac Luria. Lots of saints are thought to be souls of Atzilut Emanation. See the whole discussion in teh main book of Rav Nahman of Breslov the LeM vol 2 about tzadik who is בחינת בן ר'' אליעזר וצדיק שהוא בחינת עבד כמו ר' יהושע

page 13 of Bava Kama

There is something going on in Tosphot on page 13 of Bava Kama that I am finding hard to understand. Why does he bring up the issue of whether the ox does full damage or half in his question on Rashi. I was puzzling about this until I saw the second edition of the Maharsha. Still the issue is unclear to me.

The basic issue is this. On page 13 the case is a peace offering gores another animal. The law is the owner of the animal can not say I want the parts of the animal that are not brought as a sacrifice. They both have to share equally. The Gemara asks who is this going like. If to the sages then it is simple.
ר' אבא אמר שלמים שנגחו גובים מן הבשר ולא מן האימורים היינו החלקים שעולים על המזבח. הגמרא שואלת לפי מי זה? אם לפי החכמים אז הוא פשוט.. מה הדין של החכמים? הוא אם שור דחף בהמה לבור-בעל השור משלם ולא בעל הבור. ולפי רש''י הכוונה היא שבעל השור משלם את הכל אם הוא מועד וחצי אם הוא תם. תוספות שואלים אם כן מה הדמיון למצב של שלמים שנגח ששם גם האימורים הם חלק מן השור? תוספות מוסיפים בתוך שאלתם על רש''י שבשלב הזה של הגמרא אוחזים שכל חלק מן השלמים עשו כל הנזק. שאם לא כן וכל חלק הזיק רק לפי חלקו אז  הניזק יכול לומר שמגיע לו רק הבשר ולא האימורים. אבל לי נראה שזה תלוי בדין של ברירה. ואם זה תלוי בברירה אז מה משנה אם כל חלק עשה כל הנזק או רק הזיק לפי חלקו?


What is the case of the sages? It is when a ox pushes another animal into a pit. and the sages say the owner of the ox pays, not the owner of the pit.  Rashi explains the sages that they mean if the ox is tam [never gored before] then the owner of the ox pays a full half and if it is muad [it gored before] he pays full.
Tosphot asks if so then the owner of the pit has no portion in the damage and so what is the parallel to the case of the peace offering?
But then Tosphot adds that Rashi must be holding at this point in the case of the ox and the pit that the sages are holding the ox does full damage. Why because otherwise why would the owner of the ox pay full damages. But also the Maharsha add a further reason. That is the if the sages hold the ox did half damages then when we get back to the case of the peace offering there would be a good reason for the owner of the animal that was damaged to claim only the half of the ox that does not go on the altar is the part that did the damages.

The thing about this that I find difficult is the question is this not then a case of brera?[choosing a portion after the fact. ]

learning Torah

I noticed today in the book of Rav Nahman from Breslov a few interesting ideas.

The idea that he introduces is that by learning Torah with energy one merits to grace in such a way that ones requests are answered whether from heaven of from people.

The way learning Torah with energy is explained in the commentary on Rav Nahman [Parparot LeKhahma] to be the idea of learning Torah with "Hatmada" constantly and with effort.

When in my life things were going better and I was successful this particular lesson did not make much sense to me. Things were going my way and my prayers were being answered.

However nowadays when things stopped going my way and I have no grace in the eyes of God [in such a sense that my prayers are answered] nor of people it makes a lot more sense.

However I do not see it all that possible to reinsert myself into the Lithuanian yeshiva world where in fact Torah is learned with energy and hatmada (constantly)

This is an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. The idea is there is a cause of damage that is sufficient in itself to cause the damage. But another person adds to it. Is he also obligated. This is like a case of fire that is burning hot enough to destroy a stack of hay but someone throws an extra stick in. Is he also obligated for his addition?

If you have a pit in a public domain that is ten hand breaths deep and someone adds to it another hand-breath is that obligated for damages? This is an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam.

[See the Rosh in Bava Kama, chapter 2. And the Shiltai HaGiborim on the Rif].

It seems to me that this might depend on the argument between the Sages and R. Natan in Bava Kama 53. Over there we have acase an ox pushed another ox into a pit. the sages say the owner of the ox is obligated not the owner of the pit. R. Natan said in the case of an ox that never gored before the owner of the ox is required a 1/4 and the owner of the pit is obligated in1/2. In the case of an ox that has already gored two times before each pays 1/2. It seems to me that the Rambam here is going like the sages.

The idea is there is a cause of damage that is sufficient in itself to cause the damage. But another person adds to it. Is he also obligated. This is like a case of fire that is burning hot enough to destroy a stack of hay but someone throws an extra stick in. Is he also obligated for his addition?



[There is an argument between Tosphot and Rashi about what the sages actually hold --but I simply have not had a chance to take a good look at their argument yet. As I mentioned my life has been total chaos for a over a year.]

Danny Frederick [https://philpapers.org/rec/FRETCE-3] says that there is a theory of Berkeley about justification for government that comes from the fact that without government there would be really terrible consequences.

path of my father

I would like to present the path of my father.[Philip Rosenblum (Rosten)] For me it is kind of hard to define but if I give a little background on how I was raised that might make it a bit clearer.

The main thing about it was balance. So learning Torah in the way of the Litvaks --the Gra and Rav Shach is certainly a part of that. Authentic Torah. But it was more along the lines of a balance of values.
His parents came over from Poland right around WWI. His father Yaakov Rosenblum was invited to the USA by his older brother who was married to a girl from Poland. [Not the same city.] When yaakov got to the USA his brother suggested that they send for the sister of the brother's wife so she could marry Yaakov. "She would like you" the brother and his wife said. So Rivka, my grandmother came over also to the USA and married Yaakov.
So My Dad and his brother and sister all went to public school while ,my grandfather worked in a bakery in lower Manhattan.

My Dad went to Cal Tech [the California Institute of Technology] and he liked it. It was not his way to emphasize any particular advice of path to me or my brothers but clearly he like the idea of technology and classical music. So my brothers and I all went to public school but in order to learn Torah we went to Temple Israel in Hollywood.  But I want to add that my parents also wanted me and my brothers to go to the boy scouts. But somehow that simply did not stick with any of us. But that was one area that my father definitely emphasized to the nth degree--to be self reliant.

I continued my education in Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY and after that i majored in Physics at NYU.
So you see there is a kind of aspect of balance in the path of my dad that is hard to define. He also I must add volunteered for the USAF during WWII and was sent to the European Theater of action. He became a captain in the USAF.

So what you mainly see from this is that his path was more or less to be  "a mensch". [Which is how my mom put it.]

But there was something much more that that. He had that undefinable quality that you see in navy seals--never give up. Commitment, Integrity, Loyalty. Things that you can not learn from a textbook.

Henry the fifth simply kidnapped the Pope

Henry the fifth simply kidnapped the Pope until he agreed with the position of Henry that the king has the right to appoint bishops over his areas.

In any case the situation today with the Catholic church does seem problematic. I would say that in fact there has been a kind of evolution. In fact I have been looking at Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Etter, Semour [Azusa Street], Ameiee Semple McPherson and Kathryn Kuhlman. And it does look that there has been a kind of evolutionary process.

Litvak Yeshiva world.

I admit I did not do very well in the Litvak Yeshiva world. I did not have the kind of staying power that some people have to stick with learning the Oral and Written Law --at all cost. At some point, I got distracted --you might say. I got involved with Breslov. In so far as that means to listen to the amazing advice of Rav Nahman from Breslov, that is a great thing. But the tendency is for it to distract from plain simple learning Gemara. Or at least that seems to have been the effect it had on me. Later when I actually got to Uman and was able to learn with David Bronson, the interest in Gemara started up again. But I can not claim to be any kind of Litvak type of person. The reason my blog is labeled after Rav Shach and the Gra is I see them as ideals I would like to strive for,-- but do not claim to be anywhere near their amazing levels.

I ought to add that no matter how much one is devoted to learning straight Tora in the Litvak way, it is needed to marry a girl that also holds from this as a life goal. It does not help much if you are devoted to learning and your wife is constantly criticizing this and asking for more money.

This kind of situation is inherently unstable.


[Still I do not want to sound critical of Rav Nahman who was a great tzadik. Just because I understood his advice and approach in the wrong way does not mean that it is mistaken. As Steven Dutch wrote that he can not conceive of any system that can not be corrupted.'

"There is no perfect system

I am completely unable to conceive of any legal or social system that can’t be subverted or abused. People who crave power or status will gravitate toward whatever confers those rewards. And they will always discover ways to get the rewards without paying their dues."

https://stevedutch.net/Pseudosc/Dutchrules.htm



 [Anyway, ideas are true or false because of how they correspond to reality, not how their believers do.](https://stevedutch.net/Pseudosc/10DumRel.htm)

objections to Christianity

I have concluded that Christians do not know the objections to Christianity. Nor possible answers.

The objections are many but at least a major one is that of idolatry. Is it in fact idolatry? Clearly this was the objection that the Trinity came to answer. This is why the alternative view of Arianism was rejected. [Even though it is clear from the NT itself that Jesus did not consider himself to be God.]

So the questions have to be divided into different groups. Is the Trinity or any of the various approaches to the trinity correct? And then let's say that none of them are correct. Then what is the right view?

Mt view about this is that the Trinity is not correct. I do not see anything that indicates that it is true or that Jesus held that way at all. [A person can be דבוק attached to God without being God. You see this in the verses which say that one must be attached to God. The actual quotation I forget but basically it says "Thou shalt fear God and love Him and be attached to Him." ולדבקה בו]

But does this in itself make the whole thing no good? I doubt that. There are examples of people that are considered to be from the world of Emanation that is brought in the Remak and Rav Isaac Luria. And it is well know that souls from the world of Emanation are considered to be on the level of "son" as opposed to souls from Creation which are on the level of servants.

As for the idea that God can wrap and cloth himself in a physical body is dealt with in the Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin about the Barber that gave Sennacherib a haircut. The Gemara there says openly that that was God himself and that if it would not be openly stated in the verse it would be impossible to say. [So if it would only mean it as a allegory then it would be possible to say. so the Gemara means that the verse is literal. That God himself came down as a Barber and gave Sennacherib a haircut.

It is also curious the visceral reaction people have towards Christianity. But this seems to be a different subject. Since the intense hatred most people have towards Christianity does not seem related to the actual objections but rather comes from a deep sited irrational l hatred. But this is not a subject that I understand very well. Mainly I think it is relate to what Michael Huemer writes about why people have irrational political beliefs. [Group identity is a major factor.]

Dr Kelly Ross [Kant Fries School] brings an idea about immediate non intuitive knowledge which to me seems close to the idea of Michael Huemer about intellectual perception. In short the idea of immediate knowledge is knowledge that is not through anything. It is known immediately. But to me this does not seem all that different than Michael Huemer's idea that reason recognizes universals.`

The library here is closing in few minutes. So let me just add that Huemer's idea is that universals that things like laws of nature or moral laws. These are recognized by the faculty of reason. But this is prime facie. That is why more clear principles can defeat less clear principles.

I really have to go so I recommend looking up their web sites.

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.