Christian writings

One theme that comes up in Christian writings is the Oral Law. I would like to mention that most things that are considered to be from the Torah in the Gemara have support from a verse. One early example I encountered was in Shar Yashuv [Rav Freifeld yeshiva in NY]. That year we were learning Yevamot and I saw how the issue of Yibum is treated very rigorously and derived from the verses. I also saw this in my first period in the Mir when we were learning Nedarim. In particular I recall the 11th chapter of Nedarim where the verses are analyzed in a very rigorous and logical fashion.
So legal issues --about what the Torah really requires is really a forte of the Gemara. And I see no good reason for Christians to disparage the Talmud.
 However there are other times in the Gemara that instead of open verses, the meaning of a text is derived by the 13 principles of derivation.  These rules-- most rishonim believe make things that comes from them to be considered from the Torah. However the Rambam thinks rules that come from the 13 principles of derivation can be overturned by a later court of law that is wiser and more numerous.

However it seem to me the main unconscious objection of Christians to the Oral Law is that there are a lot of rules. I can only wonder what they would say if they saw a NY code of Civil Law. Or if they ever would walk into the Harvard Law Library. --And they are accusing the Oral Law of having too many rules? That is rich!

The other theme that comes up is the idea of Jesus being God which certainly he did not hold from. However it is common in Moshe of Cordoba and Rav Isaac Luria to find people whose soul is from the world of Emanation [Azilut A-tzi-lut] which is considered to be Divine in the sense that there is no dividing curtain between Azilut and the Infinite One.

On the other hand there is a noticeable tendency to criticize belief in Jesus in any shape or form that goes beyond criticisms like these.It seems as if people are just searching for ways to criticize Jesus and anyone that believes he was good as a forgone conclusion.[I mean to say that they have come to their conclusion before weighing the evidence.]

Jesus I think would have been more accepted if not for the introduction of external doctrines which seem to interfere with his message

Jesus I think would have been more accepted if not for the introduction of external doctrines which seem to interfere with his message and do not seem to contribute anything on the positive side. For example bitul hamitzvot [nullification of the commandments] and the worship of him as is done seems to be doctrines that are just added baggage and tend to rake away the value of his message.
The actual message I assume is more or less contained in things that he said instead of things said about him. There are lots of examples of this. One case would be the Sermon on the Mount. That seems to be meant literally even though there do not seem to be many people that think that Jesus was actually serious about the rules he was prescribing there.
However, I believe that the Amish and Mennonites actually do take the rules of Jesus seriously. I think that is what distinguished the Anabaptist.

It is tragic that the only places in Israel that follow the path of the Gra and Rav Shach are the yeshivas of Rav Zilverman in Jerusalem and Ponovitch and Brisk.

The importance of the Litvak Yeshiva path is mainly in a closed community that is based on Torah. It is not really meant as a way of government. So as far as government goes I am on board with John Locke and the  Constitution. of the USA And the Constitution itself recognized the difference between state government and federal government. But on the level of small communities I see Torah in the way of the Gra and Rav Shach as being the ideal to strive for.

I ought to mention for the sake of clarity that somehow or other through my experience in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY that when I got to Israel I underwent a spiritual transformation. So I am convinced by reason but also by personal experience in the validity of the straight Torah path advocated by the Gra. 

It is tragic that the only places in Israel that follow the path of the Gra and Rav Shach are the yeshivas of Rav Zilverman in Jerusalem and Ponovitch and Brisk.

I found the contribution of Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School to be quite amazing.

I found the contribution of Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School to be quite amazing. The major points are immediate non intuitive knowledge and a polynomic theory of value. The reason this helps is that there seems to be areas of value that are not reducible to true of false. Sometimes the question is J.S. Bach as opposed to noise. And even in areas of true of false you have to start with axioms that are immediately clear-but can not be reduced to prior axioms.

Still the argument of this side of Kant with Hegel seems a bit a bit overdone. There seems to be a lot more in common between Hegel and Leonard Nelson than there are differences.

In any case, what is important about Kelley Ross is that in his system there is this kind of knowledge that would be called faith. But then comes the question how to distinguish between true faith and false?

My feeling about this is that any bit of true knowledge has to come from a component of immediate non intuitive knowledge and also a component of pure reason. But that does not make it infallible. If Empirical evidence goes against it, it has to be modified of maybe even thrown out.

Communism based on the idea that man in state of nature is good.

while Michael Huemer is right that Communism is based largely on the labor theory of value it also has an implicit foundation in the state of nature of Rousseau  that man in the state of nature is good. All theft and murder and all other human evils come from society. But if you would put back man in the state of nature everyone would be loving and kind and cooperative. (It is just the exploiters that extra value from the workers that would have to be gone.) No need for government or rules. But Marx admitted the tremendous abundance that capitalism creates. So he postulates next stage of evolution where the means of production will stay put, but the exploiting class will disappear, and people will revert to their natural loving kind state --but along with that there will be no government nor society and no inequality so  no reason for theft or violence.
[Marx did not usually say from where his ideas came from, but in one comment he acknowledged he was influenced by Rousseau. But it is more than that. He claimed his ideas were scientific. The idea was to create a science of man that would be on the same level as Newtons science of gravity and motion.]

So Allan Bloom [The Closing of the American Mind] is right for tracing the  crisis of Western World as being rooted in the question about what is man in the state of nature.]

To learn from the middle and outwards

One thing i heard in high school by an assistant to the physics teacher. To learn from the middle and outwards. [He also said from beginning to end and from end to beginning.] This idea is a great help in learning Physics since it is often the case that i need review to understand what I am learning. But review in itself can be hard to know from where to start. So what I do is just to start where I am already holding in the book--for example Polchinski's String Theory Notes. [The idea is to  just start from where i am already holding [e.g. page 60] and then to go back to the previous section and from there just to say the words in order until i get to where i was at page 60. and then to go back to two sections before and from there also to work forward to page 60. etc until i get to the beginning.

the idea behind this--that makes it worthwhile- is the books of Musar which go by Rav Saadia Gaon that Physics and Metaphysics are in the category of learning Torah. [However this is an argument among the rishonim.]

The Gra says when people do open evil, it is easier to guard oneself from them. But when people hide their hatred in the hearts and pretend to be your best friend, you can not guard yourself from them.

There is a Gemara that says that the first Temple was destroyed because of idolatry, forbidden relations, and murder. The Second Temple because of baseless hate, and that baseless hate is worse.

So I was wondering how this is possible until I saw the Gra explain this. He says when people do open evil, it is easier to guard oneself from them. But when people hide their hatred in the hearts but pretend to be your best friend, you can  not guard yourself from them.

[To me this seems clearly to be a hint to what Rav Nahman was talking about in his lessons about people that are evil even though they are scholars. See Le.M. Vol I:12 and I:28] (If the Gra's letter of excommunication would apply to Rav Nahman I would not be quoting Rav Nahman. But my opinion is that it did not apply to Rav Nahman.]

[Incidentally I saw in the Five Books of Moses that is printed with collected commentaries by the Gra that  at least one issue why he signed the letter of excommunication was that of Kishuf--black magic that pretends to be from the realm of holiness.]

Bava Kama page 13

The most obvious problem on Bava Kama page 13 is that the Gemara only deals with one of the two possibilities in R. Nathan. Why does it not deal with the possibility that in the case of the ox and the pit that both are thought to have causes all the damage? Well Tosphot seems to deal with this. He at least implies that that would already make it clear that R Nathan would agree with R Aba. I can not see why?
Just for clarity's sake let me present the basic subject. R. Aba says a peace offering gores another animal. One collects from the meat, not the parts that go on the altar. [That means they both share equally. The owner of the damaged animal can not say he wants only the meat.]
ר' אבא אמר שלמים שהזיקו גובה מבשרם ואינו גובה מאימוריהם
The Gemara says R Nathan could agree with this because he holds in his case on page 53 that owner of the pit has to pay 3/4's damage because the damaged animal was found in his pit. But clearly that is only to one opinion on page 53. What about the other opinion that both the owner of the pit and ox caused full damage.

To me it seems clear that if I would be learning with David Bronson that he would not move from this issue until it would become clear. But I pretty much gave up already on understanding this.]

The reason there is some lack of clarity for me here is the issue of "Breira" choosing after the fact.
That is let's says two people inherit something. Can one say retrospectively that one part went to him?
So here whether each one did all the damage or one each did half why does it make a difference? So let's say in the case of a ox and pit that cause damage and each does half. So how would that apply to the case of an animal that gores another? The owner of the gored animal would be able to say some particular part did half the goring if you say "Breira"( choosing after the fact). But then if both do the whole damage also you can say the same. If he can choose which part then he still can choose that part of you say Breira ( choosing after the fact). 

straight Torah

The main advantage to the path of the Gra and Rav Shach is that it is straight Torah. That is--no admixtures. So even if one like me who does not have that merit that is needed to walk on the path of straight Torah still it gives you an idea of what straight Torah is supposed to be about.

To some degree this is also the advantage of the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter except that Musar itself seems to be liable to led one to distractions.

Also I should add that even though in theory the Litvak Yeshiva world identifies with this straight path of Torah, a lot depends on which particular institution you are dealing with. In my opinion Ponovitch and Brisk are the best in Israel. I myself was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in the USA and both places impressed me very much. -In different ways. Shar Yashuv was definitely very much into the spirit of Torah as much as the Mir but their ways of learning were different. Shar Yashuv was more along the lines of calculating the subject in its place. The Mir was into learning in a more global way like Rav Haim of Brisk.


[Neither were into learning anything mystic even though I did venture into that area myself later.]

I forgot the path of Shar Yashuv until I encountered it again in my learning partner in Uman, David Brosnon who also learns in  exactly that same way. And that is more or less the path along which i wrote my two books on Gemara.חידושי הש''ס עיוני בבא מציעא

The Torah does forbid taking or giving interest on a loan. So how is it that banks do this even in Israel? The way this works is based on a gemara in Bava Metzia [page 104] which says that an iska [money given to deal with] is half a loan and half a guarded object. That itself is based on a mishna in Bava Mezia page 68 that says to give money to someone to buy some project or product and to sell and they will divide the profits is forbidden unless the one who is to do the selling gets paid. [How much is a debate.]

The way this works is that half is a loan that has to be paid back. So the lender can not get profit from that. But half is a משכון object that one is paid to guard. So the first party can get profit from that. The trouble is that there has to be risk so that it is not interest. The risk part is on the guarded object which if stolen does not have to be paid back. The basic idea is that any time there is a possibility for the lender to loose or to make money that is not considered to be interest.


So how much does the one that receives the money have to be paid? This is an argument among the sages of the Mishna. Then Rashi and Tosphot disagree about our particular Mishna holds. Then there is a debate between Shelomo Luria and the Maharsha and Maharam about what Tosphot and the Rosh mean. This is a long and hard issue that I have just begun to work on. The Rif, the Baal HaMeor and the Ramban also have a lot to say about this but I have not had a chance yet to get into this in detail.

development of philosophy?

So what do you learn from my post yesterday about the development of philosophy?

One lesson is that the issues that Kant and Hegel were dealing with were not the same as the issues in the Middle Ages.  So a person might take Aquinas or Saadia Gaon or Maimonides and still have to deal with more modern issues like the Mind Body problem.
You can also learn to ignore twentieth century philosophy as being vain and empty and as John Searle put it "obviously false".
The most recent developments that are of interest are of Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school which does take a certain direction in Kant. With him there is a kind of knowledge which is known and yet not from reason and not from the senses. So you might well understand that to be a defense of faith.
[That is a continuation of Leonard Nelson.]

Another development is Michael Huemer. That is a development of Prichard and the Intuitionists. That is to say that reason recognizes universals.

Hegel is the most rigorous and systematic of almost any philosopher who has ever lived. It is not just that his system puts things together. It is rather that everything is connected. To me he seems to be a direct develpment of Plato and Plotinus.--But he is informed by Kant and Schelling.

Pre Socratics, Decartes, Hegel.

. The Pre Socratics with the question how is change possible? After all what is already is. And what is not is nothing and can not be made into an "is". For it to become an is it already has to be something. This led up to Plato who said the realm of the Is is one realm--the true realm. The world we are in --the changing world is the world of change. Then came Aristotle and Plotinus and after that it took some time to sort things out.
Then the Middle Ages with the question of faith with reason. in the world of Torah it was Saadia Gaon who combined them. After him everyone accepted that a synthesis of faith with reason is the proper way of Torah.

The proper approach here also was unclear  and all Torah thinkers were going with Plato until the Rambam who turned to Aristotle. The remainder of the Middle Ages was simply to clear up the loose ends.

Then began the Mind Body problem with Descartes. This question has two approaches to it. One from John Locke. He was the beginning of the empirical approach to this. i.e. the mind --reason--abstracts from the senses. That is how it gets to pure reason. By this process of abstraction. [Hume went on this path after Locke.] Then the Rationalists- Spinoza, Leibniz. Berkeley was a radical version of this holding that all we know is what is in our own heads.
Kant published two versions of the Critique of Pure Reason. He treads a middle path where there is a ground of validity of pure reason--but only within the confines of conditions of possible experience. -not actual experience. Then came the neo-Kant people that understood Kant in different ways and modified him. That would be Fichte and Hegel on the side that reason can go into the thing in itself  (dinge an sich). Then Fries on the side of immediate (not through anything) non intuitive (not by the senses) knowledge  --a kind of third source of knowledge.
 In any case after Kant people were either trying to figure him out and also Hegel. Picking up the loose ends so to speak.  The World War One came and everyone abandoned Kant and Hegel and anything German. So the 20th century was a lot of mediocre people making up profound sounding stuff. As John Searle said about 20th century philosophy "It is obviously false."
Like there was one girl listening to Sartre talking how words mean on thing for the person talking but something else for the one listening. So a twelve year old girl asked him "So why are you talking?"
Dr Kelley Ross considers the Kant Fries School as a kind of continuation of Plato.
. Hegel to me seems to be also a kind of continuation of ancient Philosophy Plotinus in particular. At least consciously Hegel was giving a defence of Christianity though many took his ideas in the opposite direction. I think in some way that Hegel went even beyond Aquinas in this sense. That with Aquinas he got everything to fit together (as a large puzzle). But with Hegel, the pieces all are interconnected as an organic whole.

In the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria]

In the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria] you have a basic scenario like this. Before the creation of the world there was simply the Divine Light everywhere-and thus no place for creation. So there had to be made an empty space חלל הפנוי from where God emptied out his light.But he did leave a source of light in the exact middle. Then he sent down a beam of light that as onion rings [ten rings] --crown until royalty. Then after that he sent down again light in the form of a man אדם קדמון. Then this form of a man sent light down from his ears nose mouth and eyes. These formed world outside of the body of Adam Kadmon. One world created from this was "Akudim" stripped. The nekudim "dotted". [both are mentioned in Genesis in report about Jacob with the striped and spotted sheep.] Then there was the famous Shivrat Hakelim [breaking of the vessels]. So at that point we have the vessels along with some sparks of light left in them falling down into three lower worlds Creation Formation and then the Physical Universe. Then begins the process of bringing up the fallen vessels and repairing them (this repair happens in the place where there were the dots nekudim but at this point this is called Emanation Atzilut). [In more detail it makes sense to learn the Eitz Haim of the Ari. That books gives the full picture in more detail. Other books of the Ari deal with other issues like the Shaar HaGilgulim which talks about the root of different souls. A major theme there is how a lot of souls have their root in Cain and others in Hevel his brother. But it is useful to know that the Ari himself revealed that information to his student Rav Haim Vital to give him details about the roots of his soul [Rav Haim Vital's] which was from Emanation. The idea is that there are rare souls whose come from the world of Emanation. It is well known that the patriarchs are souls of Emanation. This is one reason why you find some souls to be from Emanation, That is to say some souls are united with some sephera of Emanation like Abraham being united with the sephera of Hesed Kindness. Isaac united with Power etc. But also you can have a soul that is from Emanation but just a spark of some sephera there--not the whole sephera.
[I knew someone who wanted to convert and the question was asked if they thought Jesus was divine? I do not see how that is a valid issue since lots of tzadikim are thought to be divine in the sense that the world of Emanation is considered pure divinity. כולו אלקות
[The way I see the Ari is as a modification of Plotinus]

Questions on the Gemara -Talmud.

In the Talmud there are some passages that give some people pause. I would like to say that I asked David Bronson in Uman about some passages that were bothering me and his answer was to open the particular passage and see what it is actually saying. Most times that cleared up the issue. But that does not mean there are no good questions or that everything in the Talmud is 100%. Rather the Talmud is an approximation of the Oral Law. It is how the Oral Law had been handed down and written down. But there are differences between things that are directly from Mount Sinai and things that were judged to be so by one court of law in one generation that can be overturned by a later court if the later court is greater in wisdom and number.
But in any case, there were some passages that were brought to my attention that I would like to address.

One is a case brought that a person tied up another and put him in his basement--he is not judged guilty of the death penalty. That is in Bava Kama dealing with laws of causing indirect damage. So the Gemara there does not go into the issue in more detail as it does in Sanhedrin where the actual subject of murder comes up. There in Sanhedrin it is brought that when you have a murderer who has murdered but without the condition that would make him judged guilty accoutring to the laws of the Torah but you still know he did murder, you take him in a cell and give him dry barley  until he dies
The idea is that in the Torah it is hard to actually incur the death penalty since the conditions are hard to come by. That is there has to be two witness that see the act and the act has to be direct--not by indirect causation and there has to be a warning by the witness right before the act saying to him, "If you do this you will incur the death penalty because of such and such a verse."

I should be impeached.

I should be impeached. I confess. I did an infamous tit for that transaction today. A despicable quid pro quo. I bought two packages of potato chips I offered money to the owner of the store to give me those two packages. {Maybe Trump and I can share a cell at Sing Sing prison?]

Mir Yeshiva in NY

I was discussing some of my path that led me to the Mir Yeshiva in NY and later to Safed. In the conversation Spinoza came up. The basic story is this. I knew that Einstein liked Spinoza so from the age of 11 until I actually went tom Shar Yashuv and the Mir I learned Spinoza. But not that I had any concept of his being supposedly under some excommunication.

In fact I think that for a excommunication to be valid the people making it need to have a certain degree of knowledge in Gemara. But if the people that put him into excommunication are anything like the religious leaders today then their ban is not valid.--This is for the reason that there is no Tosphot anywhere in Shas that you can ask any  religious rav about and he will know the answer. They are simply ignorant. The reason is to get into their position they have connections and learn a few laws but knowledge of gemara and Tosphot --forget about it.

So the idea of excommunication is  valid idea and when it is done properly certainly has legal validity. But that I think could not have been the case with |Spinoza.

In any case the only book of Spinoza I was familiar with was the Ethics and from that I got the idea that morality is objective and that reason recognizes moral principles.. His idea of God I also did not find a problem with since to him the center of gravity is on God-not nature. Nature is simply God doing his thing. Natura Naturans--Nature naturing. Still in all that was not my concept of God which was more along the lines I heard at home--of God that is the first cause and that hears and answers prayer--and is not the world but rather the creator of the world.
At any rate, to me going to the Mir just seemed like a natural continuation of the education I got at home and in Temple Israel.--that moral laws are recognizable by reason--and that God hears prayer.
My fall from the Mir I think was because I was not really finding myself in that environment very well. I had gotten married and somehow sort of got pulled away from learning. In the long run I think I ought to have been stubborn to stick with the straight Torah path of the Gra and the Litvak Yeshiva world.

The way to go about learning Physics in my opinion does not involve books that are meant for laymen. See this blog :https://motls.blogspot.com/ where you can see that books written for laymen give wrong ideas--especially nowadays.

Instead the best way to go about is I think is to say the words and to go on. לומר את הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין ואם לא יבין תכף יבין אחר כך ואם ישארו איזה הוא דברים שאף על פי כן לא יוכל לעמוד על כוונתו מה בכך כי מעלת ריבוי הלימוד עולה על הכל שיחות הר''ן שיחה ע''ו


From where do you learn that learning Physics is a part of learning? From Musar. חובות לבבות הקדמה ושער הבחינה פרק ג
Also in the Mishna Torah Laws of Learning Tora-- about dividing one's learning into Written Law Oral Law and Gemara and "Pardes" is in the category of Gemara--and the Rambam says there that he explained what Pardes is in the beginning of Mishna Torah in the first four chapters. There he explains Pardes as the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics as you find in Aristotle and his later commentaries.

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-.