There are certain values that are embedded in the holy Torah Private property is one. This is hard to miss in the tractates that are learnt in Litvak yeshivot, Bava Kama, Bava Mezia, Bava Batra.
The idea of taking from rich people is mere theft.
Theft is not a side or periphery issue in Torah but right in the Ten Commandments.
So there is not way a honest Jew can vote for the Marxist agenda.
You can not vote to steal money from people and then think you are a good Jew.
As long as she is a nominee of President Trump, the Left will stop at nothing to try to destroy her. I do not think the Catholic thing is the major issue. The real issue is she is not a Marxist. She believes in the Ten Commandments. And to the Left, that is damning evidence.
The Left ought to just come out with it and ask:
"Judge Barrett, have you at any time obeyed your husband. Yes or No?"
Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick could have learned the LeM volume I section 6 and saved his life.
There is brought that the main repentance is that when one hears his insult to be quite and not answer. עיקר התשובה כשישמע בזיונו יידום וישתוק.
He had been insulted terribly by King Edward IV. He had been sent to France to arrange a marriage that would connect him to the royal family of France. When he returned Edward announced that he was already married. I.e. he made a joke out of Warwick. That kind of thing happened enough that finally Warwick took it to heart. [note 1] He was not in the category of hearing his insult and being quiet and accepting. One day after a few years Edward needed the help of Warwick. The reply was a deafening silence. Why? Because he was already making plans to overthrow Edward. That rebellion eventually failed and Warwick was killed. Can you imagine what would have happened if Warwick had been learning the LeM Torah lesson 6 about accepting one's insult?
But it is not just Warwick. Often people do not want to suffer a small hurt or insult and because of that end up suffering a much larger insult or hurt.
So the lesson to learn is to learn Torah lesson 6 in the LeM to remind oneself how important it is to not answer even though one has been insulted.
[note 1] The problem was it was not just an insult. Warwick felt that that was poor gratitude for helping Edward become king in the first place.
I have a question on the ראב''ד. In Laws of forbidden relations [chapter 1. law 22] the ראב''ד says the reason a כהן gets lashes in a case of קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד is because of והיא נטמאה שכתוב לגבי סוטה. Now רב שך explains it thus. Normally והיא נטמאה means it is like the ערווה של היחסיים האסורים of ויקרא י''ח which we learn from יבמות דף י''א about a סוטה. But a כהן is different. If his wife has had sex with someone even by rape she still is forbidden to her husband and so it is an איסור כהונה not ערווה. and so one witness is enough to get her husband lashes since it is a regular law and one witness is believed in regular prohibition that are not עריות. To the ראב''ד, she is not a זונה because we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman. The question I have here is that the גמרא in יבמות makes no distinction between a כהן and a ישראל when it comes to an איסור סוטה which is the איסור of "והיא נטמאה". I mean to say that it say a סוטה does not get ייבום because טומאה is written by her and by that there is a גזירה שווה to עריות. So we see openly the גמרא makes no distinction between whether she is the wife of a כהן or not. It is all עריות and if it is all עריות you need two witness!
יש לי שאלה על הראב''ד. בהלכות איסורי ביאה פרק א’ הלכה כ’’ב הראב''ד אומר הסיבה שכהן מקבל מכות במקרה של קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד היא בגלל והיא נטמאה שכתוב לגבי סוטה. עכשיו רב שך מסביר זאת כך. בדרך כלל והיא נטמאה פירושו שזה כמו הערווה של היחסים האסורים של ויקרא י''ח אותה אנו למדים מן יבמות דף י''א על סוטה. אבל כהן הוא שונה. אם אשתו קיימה יחסי מין עם מישהו אפילו על ידי אנוס, היא עדיין אסורה לבעלה הכהן ולכן זהו איסור כהונה ולא ערווה. ולכן די בעד אחד כדי לקבל מלקות מכיוון שזה חוק רגיל ועד אחד נאמן באיסורים קבוע שאינם עריות. [בעיני הראב''ד היא איננה זונה משום שאיננו מאמינים לעד אחד במקרה של אישה נשואה.] השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהגמרא ביבמות לא מבחינה בין כהן לישראל כשמדובר באיסור סוטה שהוא האיסור של "והיא נטמאה". אני מתכוון לומר שזה אומר שסוטה לא מקבל ייבום כי טומאה נכתב על ידה ועל ידי כך יש גזירה שווה לעריות. אז אנו רואים בגלוי שבגמרא אין הבחנה בין אם היא אשתו של כהן או ישראל. הכל עריות ואם הכל עריות אתה צריך שני עדים
I just wanted to add here that the whole issue comes from the Gemara Yerushalmi that if you have a case of a husband warns his wife not to be alone with so and so and then she is alone with him and then there is one witness that saw her sleeping with him, then if her husband is a priest, then he gets lashes. The yerushalmi does not say why. The Rambam says because of Zona. The Raavad says because of "and she is unclean". Zona is only a prohibition for a priest. The issue of "and she is unclean" means that a sota is forbidden to her husband until she drinks water mixed with the ink of the parchment of the paragraph of Sota and some dust of the Temple. But if there is already one witness then even that solution is not possible. What makes our situation here worse is her husband is a priest.
A further question here is that I am not sure I understand the answer of רב שך in explaining the ראב''ד at all. The idea that since והיא נטמאה is different for a כהן than for a ישראלי therefore it is an איסור כהונה. In what way is it different? If the יחסי מין rape, then she is forbidden to her husband because of זונה. But that is the very thing the ראב''ד is holding no one would get lashes for since we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman for the איסור of זונה. If the sex was willingly, then it is the same prohibition for a Israeli and a כהן.
שאלה נוספת כאן היא שאני לא בטוח שאני מבין את התשובה של רב שך בהסבר על הראב''ד בכלל. הרעיון שמאז "והיא נטמאה" שונה עבור כהן מאשר עבור ישראלי ולכן הוא איסור כהונה. באיזה אופן זה שונה? אם היחסי מין היו באונס, אז אסור לבעלה בגלל זונה. אבל זה בדיוק הדבר שראב''ד מחזיק, שאף אחד לא יקבל מלקות מכיוון שאנחנו לא מאמינים לעד אחד במקרה של אישה נשואה לאיסור זונה. אם המין היה ברצון, אז זה אותו איסור עבור ישראלי וכהן.
I have a question on the Raavad. In Laws of forbidden relations [chapter 1. law 22] the Raavad says the reason a priest gets lashes in a case of warning and then her being alone with the other person (kinui and stira) and one witness is because of "and she is unclean".
[Unclean is written by a sota -a married woman who has been warned not to be alone with so and so and then in fact goes and is alone with so and so. ]
Rav Shach explain it thus. Normally "and she is unclean" means it is like the forbidden relations of Leviticus 18 [arayot] which we learn from Yevamot page 11 about a Sota. But a priest is different. If his wife has had sex with someone even by rape, she still is forbidden to her husband and so it is an isur [prohibition] priesthood (khuna) not arayot [forbidden relations which requires two witnesses]. And so one witness is enough to get her husband lashes since it is a regular law and one witness is believed in regular prohibition that are not arayot.
[To the Raavad she is not a zona [a woman who is forbidden to a priest because she has sex with someone forbidden to her] because we do not believe one witness in teh case of married woman.]
The question I have here is that the gemara in Yevmot makes no distinction between a kohen and a Israeli when it comes to an isur Sota which is the isur of "and she is unclean". I mean to say that it say a Sota does not get yibum because uncleanliness is written by her and by that there is a gezera Shava to arayot.. So we see openly the Gemara makes not distinction between whether she is the wife of a kohen or mot. It is all Arayot and if it is all aryot you need two witness!
[I can not tell if my question is on the Raavad or Rav Shach or both.]
\
A further question here is that I am not sure I understand the answer of Rav Shach in explaining the Raavad at all. The idea that since והיא נטמאה is different for a kohen than for a Israeli therefore it is an isur kehuna. Well in what way is it different? If the sex was rape then she is forbidden to her husband because of Zona. But that is the very thing the Raavad is holding no one would get lashes for since we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman for the isur of Zenut. If the sex was willingly, then it is the same prohibition for a Israeli and a kohen.
Objective truth. Objective morality.
The Left denies these things.
For that reason I have thought to try to find some philosophical approach that would make sense to me. The best I could come up with was a draw between Leonard Nelson [Kant Fries], Michael Huemer [that is the intuitionists] and Hegel. All believe in objective morality, but after that point, I can not see who is right. I think Kelley Ross of the Kant-Friesian school is the best, but I can see some areas where the other schools of thought are a little better.
[I might try to do more work in this but I am not smart enough to enter into a debate among titans. Still the little I can grasp goes like this.
The problem in the Intuitionist school based on GE Moore was pointed out by Robert Hanna.
The difficulty I have with Kant goes back to his very basis in Hume. All reason can know is contradictions? Really? Who says?
The difficulties with Hegel are a little harder to define. Off hand it seems some English people solved many of the problems like McTaggart and Cunningham.
Still if I would have to choose, I would go with Kelley Ross of the Kant-Friesian School.
Allan Bloom [Closing of the American Mind] pointed out the problem is the universities. After young people hear Marxist stuff for years it sinks in. It becomes hardwired as Howard Bloom pointed out. [Lucifer Principle]
To me it seems that if the founding fathers had known about this future Marxist threat to the USA, they might have come up with a solution.
x34 B flat major x34 midi x34 nwc
This might need editing but I am not sure. So I am presenting this as it is.
Rav Nahman of Breslov has in one section of the LeM vol II ch 8 that one ought to seek after a true tzadik. While I can see the point of this, but the problems are the straight forward frauds which are the vast majority. And the people that imagine to themselves that they a have "Ruach Hakodesh" so they are not willfully defrauding others, but are close to that. Then there is the most insidious category of people the Sitra achra (dark side) gives miracles to and reveals things in to to gain acceptance and to be able to trick people after gaining their trust.
Can you by these facts deny the validity of all faith healers? I do not think so.
Rather what I think is this. That one ought not to go after tzadikim. If one merits to it, the tzadik will come to you. but if you go around searching for one, it is 99.9% guaranteed you will find (and be funding) a phony;-- or even worse, perhaps agent of the Dark Side.
I think there is one true tzadik or one true faith healer among thousands of frauds. The best thing is to seek to serve God by by Torah and prayer and good deeds. Then if one merits to be close to a true tzadik then that will happen.
Reasons for mitzvot is from the Gemara itself. Bava Metzia page 119 and all rishonim like the sefer haChinuch.
And the reasons are not thought to be mysterious. After all that is the whole point of the argument between R. Shimon ben Yochai against and the sages. he says when the reason does not apply the commandment itself does not apply. If the reason for any command was mysterious then there would be n place for the opinion of R Shimon ben Yochai.
[That is the characteristic of all arguments in the Mishna. They disagree only about the specific point they are talking about. R Shimon holds we go by the reason for the verse. The sages say we go by the literal meaning. But there is no argument if we know the reasons.
So the commandments are to bring to these basic things: good character traits, peace of the country, to minimize the physical desires, to get rid of idolatry.
In short this could be called natural law of what Rav Saadia Gaon calls חוקי השכל. [Laws of Reason]
So no where in the rishonim do we find Divine command theory. [That is the theory that says: the mizvot are good because they are commanded. Rather they are commanded because they bring one to good.]
In the Ten Commandments is the command "Honor your father and your mother." That on one hand should not apply when the parents are obviously "off". They can not command one to sin or neglect a positive command. Yet there is a certain degree that this command sinks into irrelevance. People have almost no idea that they ought to listen to their parents unless they receive confirmation from some other source.
To me it seems that the Torah is saying one must listen to his or her parents unless there is some compelling reason otherwise.
Yu can see this in most of the Rishonim also that deal with this command like the Rav of Bartenura right there is the Mishna in Kidushin which deals with this commandment.
But clearly the Torah does set limits. We see in the end of Deuteronomy that Moses praised the tribe of Levi for the incident of teh Golden Cal where the tribe of Levi actually killed their own parents when they discovered that they were among the idol worshipers.
Jews in Yemen had to marry early. This situation arose under Islamic rule because an unmarried girl could be taken by the ruling Muslim prince. However it became the custom of all Sefardic Jews to marry young. [I mean ages 12 to 13.] [Not just in Yemen.]
I see this as a very positive thing. To me it seems best for people to marry young and as much as possible this ought to be encouraged.
To me it seems that fighting against nature is a lost cause. Puberty is when nature says to procreate. To fight that can only lead to disasters and results in the state of marriage nowadays. When do flowers reproduce? Or any species?
Excommunication was once used to great effect in one of the most dramatic moments of Western civilization--Henry IV. Henry had polices the pope did not agree with. He was excommunicated, then crossed the Alps into Italy in the middle of the freezing winter. [On foot and by wagons]. The pope ran away from Rome to not have to face him. The king found where he was and stood outside barefoot for three days until the pope gave in and absolved him.
Henry remained king.
Why the Catholic church does not do the same with the so called catholic politicians that have policies that oppose the teachings of the church like abortion? or socialism which is against the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not steal". [Socialism in its essence means people have no right to their own money or property except what the government allows to them. That is legitimizing theft.]
[If only the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication was adhered to to any degree at all! That would be the first step out of the mud.]
It was pointed out to me by David Bronson my learning partner, that the censor caused great problems because now we never know when the Gemara refers to "Akum", [עכו''ם ר''ת עובד כוכבים ומזלות] "goy", "Kuti" כותי etc., to whom are they referring to? The censor by changing things around: "goy" to "akum" and visa verse along with many changes, now we can never know. [Though I have found that it is possible to figure it out from the context.]
There are differences between these categories. For example "goy" refers to a gentile. "Akum" refers to an idolater who can be Jew or gentile. What makes an "Akum" into an akum is the fact of doing idolatry, not if they are Jewish or not. Kuti is a Samarian. So now when the Gemara says one category we never know if perhaps the original Gemara had a different category.
[So "Akum" will not be referring to a Muslim, and neither to a Christian to many Rishonim opinions like the Meiri and Abravanel, and Tosphot in tractate Avoda Zara. [That Tosphot deals with the famous issue of "joining" שיתוף which should be easy to find, but I admit I forgot the page number.]
One result of this ambiguity is that some people think when the gemara refers to idolaters that it means gentiles. That is a commonplace mistake. Idolater means an idolater. --that is one who does idolatry.
Amy Barrett adopted a poor child. But the Left is trying to to turn her act of kindness into evil. That is the most disgusting thing the Left has come up with so far.
Besides that it is "lashon hara". That is slander. That is to disparage a person for sins between man and fellow man unless some conditions are fulfilled. The source of this is the Gates of Repentance of R. Yona who himself derived them from the Gemara. [That is the source of the famous seven conditions.]
(1) Truth, not to exaggerate, (2) no damage comes more than the law would require, (3) to see it oneself, (4) to give warning beforehand, (5) to judge on the scale of merit if possible, (6) to intend a ("toelet" תועלת) benefit, (7) that benefit תועלת would not come in any other way.
The Left could not possibly know the intensions of Judge Barrett in doing an act of kindness. So it is lashon hara by definition.
I do not understand why the Left thinks that just because they can lie about someone that makes it OK. Do they think it is Ok according to the holy Torah? How is that possible? Have they never learned Leviticus "Though shalt not walk as a tale bearer among your people"? Or the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"?
The only answer I can come up with is that they have not learned in the Mir Yeshiva. For if they had, they would know about lashon hara.
[Most Litvak yeshiva are aware of the problem with lashon hara (slander), but in the Mir there was a special emphasis on the issue.]
I noticed that President Trump was in a press conference in which he was insulted. He had discussed taxes. Then as he was walking out one of the reporters yelled and screamed at him at him, "Why did you not pay any taxes?!!!" Besides the fact that that is an obvious lie, what was the most interesting thing was that President Trump did not answer. He just kept on walking.
The reminded me of the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov עיקר התשובה שישמע בזיונו יידום וישתוק "The main repentance is to hear your insult and to be quiet and not answer."
I doubt if President Trump learns the LeM of Rav Nahman, but still it is interesting that he must understand this fact intuitively.
"Good character" is too amorphous.
That is one reason I found being at the Mir in NY helpful for me in the emphasis on Musar. Not that they learned a lot of Musar. As compared to the five hour "seder" (session) in the morning of Gemara in depth and the four hour seder of gemara with "bekiut" [fast learning], the Musar was short. It was 20 minutes before mincha and 15 minutes before the evening prayer. That is just 3% of the time. Still that short time was enough to give me a good idea of what "good character" is as defined in Torah.
Maybe some examples might be helpful.
But I am not so sure I am one to be giving "musar". The best idea is to take the basic set of Musar of the Rishonim [אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה חובות לבבות ספר היראה לר''ת מעלות המידות]
But I also should add that this does not work very well without being coupled to the Gemara. By itself Musar tends to go off into tangents. For that reason Rav Haim of Brisk did not want it introduced into the yeshivot. But to Rav Israel Salanter, Musar is importnat for everyone. So eventually a kind of sytheneis came about when there is now short sessions of Musra in Litvak yeshivas. Not too much. Not too little. Just right. [Goldilocks.]
Rav Nahman in the end of the LeM brings this statement "This that tzadikim [saints] do tremendous sins is for such and such a reason." [In the השמטות]
.....זה שצדיקים עושים עבירות גדולות הוא בגלל וכולי
That is to say there is some point that a person works on himself. He does avodat hashem [the service of God] even sincerely. He learns and prays and is a "masmid" continually learning. Then reaches some spiritual level. Then the sitra achra [Dark Side] spends a good deal of time and effort to subvert that person.
That is with a region called "היכלי התמורות" palaces of delusion.
That is that it takes a lot of effort even to get to the palaces of delusions. But to come to the Light, it is necessary to go through that intermediate stage. And there people get ego inflation. Plus the Sitra Achra gives insights and miracles that are traps.
The test of men nowadays is divorce. When the woman he loved turns into a determined desperate enemy fixated on doing everything in her power to destroy him. This can wear down a person's mental state.
The test of women is talking neighbors.
In all these cases Reason does little or nothing to protect one from the evil inclination.
For as Benjamin Franklin wrote making fun of the human condition: "How wonderful it is to be a reasonable person because then you can find reasons to do anything you want."
Or as Kelley Ross [The Kant Fries School] puts it. Be careful when people start talking about reason or as when Spock says "Logic dictates...". Reason does not tell us much.
That is the source of the idea of the Kant Fries school of "immediate non-intuitive knowledge." Or what Rav Nahman calls "faith".
On the way to the sea I met someone who had been afflicted with the virus. From what he told me it seems that he was really sick from it, and it is not just a hoax. He had noticed me going into the sea, and doing a bit of exercise afterwards, and was telling me that he thought that would be good for him also.
Though going into the sea, and doing a bit of exercise I do just because of spiritual health, but he was suggesting that it has to do with physical health also.
I can imagine he must be right since I know there are little things in the blood which attack hostile viruses and so doing the ocean and then exercise I guess must boost that immune system.
When Rav Nahman talks about Torah scholars that are demons (note 1) it is not possible to say that he means this as an allegory or just some way of putting them down. The reason is that you can see that he believed quite literally in the existence of demons. [As you can see in his 13 stories.] So he must be talking about possession.
The idea is that as people grow older they change. So are they the whole time exactly the same person,-? Or is it that at some point they have changed so much, that they are no longer the same person? When a caterpillar changes into a butterfly, is it really the same thing? Or has it changed so much, that the very essence of the being has changed?
So is is possible that Rav Nahman is saying about many Torah scholars that they have changed so much so from their human essence that they actually become תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים [Torah scholars that are demons.]
[I am pretty sure that most people can tell this type. It is no secret.]
This I must add does not refer to Litvak sages who are simply trying to learn and keep Torah. The difference is easy to tell since in the Litvak world there is no scamming or falsifying what the Torah says or means.
(note 1) Lem I:12, LeM I:28
It really ought to go without saying, but still I think it is worthwhile to mention that the ideas in Rav Nahman's LeM come within a certain context. Thus without a basic background in Gemara and Musar, things that he says often are taken out of context. Thus it is easy to see how when people get involved in the teachings of Rav Nahman, sometimes things go a bit onto some tangent which does not seem to be anywhere near the original intensions of Rav Nahman.
So what I am thinking is that if one has merited to be in a straight Litvak yeshiva where the context and meaning of Torah is crystal clear then he ought to stay there. And learn the ideas and books of Rav Nahman as an addition to Musar. And if there is no Litvak yeshiva nearby, then to make one.
So what is straight Torah? That is not so easy to explain but more or less it is the kind of attitude that I saw in the Mir in NY which could be summed up as follows: "We have no opinions except what the Gemara says." It more or less is the idea that opinions expressed in the Gemara or Rishonim count as legitimate Torah, Anything that does not fit within that context is out of bounds.
Rav Nahman from Breslov did not hold from learning philosophy. That even includes the Guide and the Ibn Ezra or even other books of great sages of Israel. Rav Nahman held they were are all not very good since it is best to depend on faith, and go with simple faith. Thus when I became aware of the opinion of some geonim and rishonim about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, I choose to go into Physics. Metaphysics might be worthwhile in my opinion, but that fact that Rav Nahman was against leaning it influenced my decision to look into it as an area of interest, but not to study it in an intense way.
[I mean that philosophy is more than just any old area or interest but still I take it that Rav Nahman was probably right that it seems impossible to get it right. Dr Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant/Fries approach was certainly helpful for me to clear up some major issues and questions but I still think that Rav Nahman was right that philosophy is best avoided,
One reason to learn a bit of philosophy is what Steven Weinberg said--the main advantage of government for most of human history was to save one from other governments. Not to provide benefits. Same with philosophy. The main advantage of philosophy is to save one from other philosophies.
And that applies to people that imagine that they are immune because they do not learn philosophy at all. That simply makes them susceptible to half baked ideas that sound good at first with their poison hidden.
Psychology is pseudo science. How do you know? Because there is no conceivable observation that could refute it. [It is not falsifiable.] Therefore the entire thing is poisonous imaginations of sick minds. Verified by other sick minds. The whole thing is a farce.
Another fact about psychology is that the targets keep moving according to the fashion of the times.
That is one observation. But there are many indications that the whole thing is a horrible scam based on the fact that people love to talk about sex and it is a way get them to pay money to do so,
Heisenberg I believe tried to sabotage the Nazi effort to make an atom bomb. The proof is two fold. One is that in 1939 he was specifically asked to write a paper on the question if a chain reaction with Uranium is feasible, and if so how much Uranium would be needed. His entire paper side swiped the question, and dealt only with the question of using uranium as an energy source. But that is just one half of the issue. Later after the war he was interred with other physicists, and when they heard about the success of the USA is creating a atom bomb, they wondered how much uranium was needed. Heisenberg did not know, but set off to making the calculations. Then in a short time he came up with the right answer. That shows that five years before that when he was asked that exact question by Nazis, he did not even bother making the calculations at all, but on purpose sidelined the entire question.
[But the Nazis did have a few other secret bases where they were working on the same idea.]
The problem that the new idea of marriage presents is that one can not be married to one's sister or any of the עריות (the sexual relations brought is Leviticus). Man lying with a man is one of them. In fact, the death penalty is attached to that act if done on purpose,- and if by accident, then a sin offering.
I mean to say that even if one would actual try to marry one's sister or mother, the marriage is not valid. People might call it "marriage" but that does not make it so.
There is a sort of deep learning that got to be associated with the world of Litvak Talmud learning. It is easy to see. Just compare the achronim after the Rav Yoseph Karo until the world of Litvak yeshiva centered on the sort of learning done by Rav Haim of Brisk.
It is hard to know of see from where all that began. Even though the Litvak world is based on the Gra, you do not actually see this kind of learning in the Gra himself. It is implicit in his commentaries but nothing that is open and plain to see. This kind of learning it seems developed in the Litvak world slowly. You can see it in Rav Haim of Voloshin and the son of Rav Haim, the Netziv in his rarely printed writings of his ideas in Gemara. It was like it was just under the surface like a seed developing and germinating until one day it spouts. Then around the time of Rav Haim and Rav Israel Salanter this kind of deep learning came to the surface.
The best example is Rav Haim's Hidushim and also the Steipler and Rav Shach.
The world of Talmud does have a few centres. The top are Ponovitch in Bnei Brak and Brisk. But Brisk has the best students because it only accepts the best. Not that the teachers are all that better than anywhere else. That leaves Ponovitch where the teachers get to that position by means of excellence, not because of family connections. And that is what tends to make the situation in which whom so ever is the top teachers at Ponovitch is considered the top of the world of Talmud.
So what I suggest is to create a kind of Ponovitch yeshiva in every city by taking any student bachur of Ponovitch and bring him to that city.]
There are offshoots of Ponovitch that come from people that learned there.
I have found in learning Tosphot and Mathematics that often there is a kind of way of learning that is a bit difficult to explain. That is to say I would learn Tosphot one day and by repeating it that same day even many times would not help to understand it at all. But if I would just go through it word by word, and then the next day do the same thing again, and then the next day do that again, then after some time it would become clear. It is like at night when sleeping somehow the subject would become clear on some deeper level. But then if the next day I would just go on, then it gets forgotten. So that is why there is this need to repeat the same tosphot day after day
In one of the stories of Rav Nahman of Uman you find the idea that at one time all the higher lights were together and then separated. The process of bring the world to a higher plane consists of bring together these lights again. [Each light or Divine trait is embodied in some "tzadik" saint.
So when we find problems in Breslov or the Litvak world, there should be no question why. It is after the whirlwind that caused the lights or Divine traits to become separated. So even if people are following the Gra, that does not mean there are not problems in the Litvak world. Similarly with Breslov.
The main thing is to identify who exactly is representing one of the Divine traits and if possible to join the paths of these different tsaddikim together. And even more important to separate out the phonies and false teachers that are so common in the religious world.
If someone does by Mitasek [מתעסק] [fooling around] a type of sin that requires a sin offering, do they need to bring a sin offering? That is not the same thing as accident. For all sin offerings come only because of accident, never because of doing something on purpose. Accident here means doing one thing and something else results.
But Mitasek is different. To Tosphot he is not obligated to bring a sin offering except for when there is pleasure involved like sexual sin or eating forbidden fat. [That is all the fact that is on the stomach of the animal.] (The statement of Shmuel is המתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב משום שנהנה)
Rav Shach brings down that the Rambam is a bit different. It could be he holds like Tosphot. And the reason that for Shabat he brings only the "Ptur" ["Ptur" means a reason not to be obligated in something] of מלאכת מחשבת ["thought out work"] is that receiving pleasure is possible also for a work on Shabat and so it is needed to have a special ptur even in such a case. Tosphot brings this idea in Sanhedrin page 62 which I was doing with my learning partner David Bronson. [That is why this subject came up in my little booklet Ideas is Shas. That was because David had some ideas here.]
But still it is curious that in laws of sin offerings nothing about gaining pleasure is mentioned. So it looks like the only ptur for shabat is thought out work.
So then what about laws of forbidden food 14: law 12? There the Rambam does say one who eats forbidden food by mitasek is obligated because he derived pleasure? Rav Shach answers that that place is talking not about a sin offering but rather an case of doing something on purpose and doing on purpose is possible even for mitasek since one can be mitasek "fooling around" on purpose and then the sin comes about because of the fooling around.
What comes out from all this is that is general mitasek to the Rambam is not a ptur for a sin offering except for Shabat when to be obligated one needs thought out work מלאכת מחשבת
A lot of learning Torah depends on where you are starting from. sometimes being in Ponovitch is not possible.
So what you do is to first realize there is an obligation get through the Written and Oral Law. That is brought in the Gra. Plus there is te importance of what the Rambam wrote "Just like there is not adding or subtracting from the written Trah so there is not adding or subtracting from the Oral Torah. So that means the obligation of getting through Torah is the two Talmuds and the midrashie halacha and midrashi hagada."
Then there is the Seder HaLimud of Rav Nahman-which really comes from the Gemara but rav nahman spells it out clearly. Say the words and go on.
This is not to diminish in depth learning. Rather everyone needs an in depth session and a fast session. This idea of Rav Nahman relates to the fast session.
There is also the importance of knowing about Bitul Torah. Bot anything you want to learn should you learn. Rather what you are required that you must do. That which does not come into the category of obligation is bitul Torah.
Then there is the fact that the basic idea of learning fast essentially applies to the first time. That is this: the first time just the Gemara with no commentary. Second time you add rashi, Third time Tosphot fourth time maharsha and maharam
This really depends on the situation. For if you have the merit to be in a litvak yeshiva then the best idea is just follow the regular sessions. But it occurred today that someone asked me the approach to take in their situation in which they are slightly older to be in a yeshiva,
Even though the basic approach of Litvak yeshivas is based on the Gra, it seems to me that that is a bit too undefined. It would be better if there was a straight commitment to follow the Gra.
This way there is also a sort of protection against the Sitra Achra.
סביב רשעים יתהלכון "The wicked walk around the holiness". That is,-- the Dark Side is always going around places of holiness to see if they can find a crack to slip into the place.
[I should admit here that I am no where near following the straight path of Torah of the Gra. But I feel words of advice that might help others to walk on the straight and narrow are good-- even if I am not able to follow that path myself.]
There is a sort of aspect of the religious world that is kind of like ריבוי אור excess light. Aspects that make it like Adi Da or Scientology. Rav Nahman brings this idea in terms of individuals אל יעלו בהר פן יפרוץ בם This is what God told Moses, "Warn the people not to come up onto Mount Sinai, least God attacks them."
But this applies as well and even more so the the superorganism of the religious world. Even when there is an attempt to pay attention to great tzadikim like the Gra or Rav Shach, there still enters this aspect of insanity that comes in. It is hard to know what to make of this.
But even with this danger, still I think there ought to be a beit midrash on the name of the Gra in every city. Plus a branch of Ponovitch.
It is one of those odd kinds of years that got me wondering wondering about the new moon. The molad [conjunction of moon and sun] was yesterday. Today is when a court could have seen it. But tomorrow is when everyone is doing rosh hashanah.
To know the exact time of the molad is not hard. Hipparchus brings it in his book that he got it from the ancient Babylonians. But that is not the same thing as getting the lunar and solar time to correspond at least to some degree.
The first time the calendar that is used was recorded was by Meton in Athens. That was considerably before the first mention of a Hebrew Calendar which was by Saadia Gaon. The Gemara never mentions any calendar at all. and it just says the sages knew when the molad was קביעא דירחא. But that has nothing to do with the calendar.
Nor is there any mention of Hillel II setting up any kind of calendar. And during the time of the geonim we have letters bringing dates that do not correspond to the calendar.
What clearly happened was after the troubles that occurred in Babylon when the yeshivas were closed that there was no central authority and people needed to know when to celebrate the festivals. The calendar that was already widely used to made a reasonable correspondence between the solar and lunar years was Meton's calendar.
So the best idea is to depend on Tosphot in Sanhedrin [10b] that says that the day of the Molad is Rosh Hodesh
Saadia Gaon says the calendar is from the "shamua" but writing in Arabic uses the word that he uses elsewhere to refer to the general body of tradition. Not Halacha to Moses from Sinai. Later people misunderstood Rav Saadia and thought he meant Halacha to Moshe from Sinai. But that not at all what Saadai wrote.
There is an amazing wealth of advice in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman. But also there was for me a certain kind of blessing that came to me when I got to his ziun in Uman.
One of the most significant bits of advice is the path of learning--which is that of "girsa" say the words and going on.
By itself it does not seem to work very well, but together with the deep kind of learning that you have in Litvak yeshivas that seems to work well.
This certainly helped me in learning Gemara. In Shar Yashuv there was a tremendous emphasis on deep learning, but I felt kind of lost spending two weeks on one page of Gemara before I had even finished the tractate even once. But the deep learning combined with the girsa helped me a lot.
[Besides that after I took note of the opinion of some rishonim about the importance of Physics, this path of learning of Rav Nahman has been a great help for me. But I do have my little addition I would like to make. Yes on one hand to get through the book, like Sting Theory or something like that, but then when you get to the end then instead of starting again at the beginning, you go back page by page from the end to the beginning.]\
A lot depends on whom you marry. This was conventional wisdom in the Litvak yeshiva world.
When it comes down to choosing a wife, you need to find one that is a bat talmid chacham (daughter of a authentic Torah scholar from the realm of holiness). The reason is that if you want to continue learning Torah after you marry you need to find a wife that wants you to be sitting and learning.
It was said that, "If she wants you to learn, you will learn. If she does not want you to learn then you will not."
You can see this even in the wider world. It is know that one of the major mistakes that caused the downfall of the Confederacy was John Bell Hood [known as Sam Hood]. He had an amazing steak of victories up until he fell in love with Sally Preston. She was so well know as a flirt that one soldier who was thought to be interested in her was asked about this. He answered, "I would rather face a charge of Yankees. I do not want to end upon the casualty list."
Yet John Bell Hood did fall in love with her, and not just lost battle after battle, but in one of the most crucial aspects of the war, he was put in charge of an entire army, and really messed up so much so that it caused the loss of the entire war.
[He thought to attack Sherman's supply lines. Sherman could not have been more happy. He said he soldiers ate and sleep better living off the land.]