Leftists used to hold up Venezuela as the best example of Socialism. They actually wrote that the USA needs to learn how to run a country from Venezuela. 

Now if you really want to know about the results of Socialism take  look at this:

The Neo Kantian

The Neo Kantian schools of thought  were either about justifying science or culture which clearly were the last things on Kant's mind. Rather the question of Kant and of Metaphysics in general is "What is it all about?"

I might offer here a suggestion--that had he known about Leonard Nelson,[friesian.com] he might have seen the exact kind of development of Kant that he was seeking. [With Leonard Nelson the answer to How is synthetic a priori possible? The answer is by means of immediate non intuitive knowledge--i.e.  faith.]

I certainly did. For faith needs a certain amount of justification. Those that think they are supporting faith by divorcing it from reason, are undermining real faith and fall and bring others into lying faiths. 

[As Brand Blanshard wrote in a similar vein: "Now the result of this line of defense [of faith and morality by means of divorcing faith from reason] is not really to save morality, but to throw all morality into confusion." 

So as all Rishonim [sought for a synthesis of faith and reason] I see in Leonard Nelson a way forward. 

x39  E Flat Major  x39 midi   x39 nwc 

x40 E Flat Major  same piece in midi same piece in nwc

On my way back from Uman by Grayhound bus I traveled through South Dakota. I am happy to see they have a great governor

 

 I had a lot of benefit from the advice of Rav Nahman of Breslov. Even though I had wanted very much to go into Physics when I was young, still I had no method of learning whereby I could do well until I discovered the way of learning of Rav Nahman. [Conversation of Rav Nahman 76.]

That helped me at first to do a considerable amount of Gemara. Then later I applied it to Physics.

[It is mainly just saying the words in order and going on. But it only works if you believe. For after all, the learning does not go in right away. Rather by saying the words, the learning gets absorbed into one subconscious and there is processed until much later it bears fruit. ]

[Rav Nahman only said this method in reference with Torah learning, but since I saw some rishonim the importance of Physics and Math I decided to try that method in an expanded way. I am not saying to be "Breslov". In fact, some kind of combination seems to be needed for me. A sort of balance. Torah with Derech Eretz.  [Torah with the way of the Earth. That is balance. It seems to me that the major way to gain learning Torah is only with the path of the Gra. In spite of the amazing advice of Rav Nahman about learning Torah, still the major benefit seems to be only within the context of the path of the Gra. and Rav Shach.  On the other hand I can see that the path of the Lithuanian yeshivot can be lacking some of the major benefits of the path of Rav Nahman. So  And even both of them have some areas where they are lacking. You can see this spelled out clearly in the 13 stories of Rav Nahman where each the king's ministers were all dispersed at the time of the great hurricane. So where you find one kind perfection you do not find another. So the thing to do is to bring teh different aspects of God's light together. See that story in detail and you will see what I mean.]

"Bitul Torah" [Wasting time which could be used for learning Torah.]

 Rav Natan the student of Rav Nahman of Breslov told over an event that happened a little before his time about "Bitul Torah". [Wasting time which could be used for learning Torah.]]

This came about because Rav Natan was on his way to Israel and dealing with dishonest agents in the Ukraine trying to pay for a ticket on a ship to Israel. He was aware of cheating agents and within telling this over he told a story about a person he had heard about who was a tremendous matmid [diligent] in Torah. That person [Leib Ashkenazi] also wanted to go to Israel and pay for a ticket from some agent and went into the boat and waited there until it was to start the trip. He waited there a day. Then another day. Then a week. Then a month. Then 6 months. Then decided to leave the ship and ask what was going on? He found out the ship had been out of service already for a few years. So he went and told the agent, "For the money I lost I forgive you. But I do not forgive you for the bitul Torah [casuing me to lose time from learning Torah]." That agent had two daughters. One died. Then the other. And then the agent himself. 

I can definitely relate to this. But it is hard to explain to someone who has not felt the awesome power and beauty of Torah. 

I know it sounds like bitul Torah when I suggest learning Physics and Mathematics. However I am depending on Saadia Gaon and a couple of Rishonim that hold they are part of learning Torah. [Not all rishonim.]

[I can also relate to the story of Rav Natan because I felt also that there were forces pulling me away from learning Torah that I regret.]

I would say the words or every page of my Physics texts forwards and backwards. This helped a lot in the short term for me to pass tests. But it was too slow for an over all understanding.

The basic approach of Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov was the learn fast and this was not just for himself, but told all his students to do so. You can see this in the end of the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 where he goes into all the things one must finish every year. (I.e. the two Talmuds and all the midrashei agada and midrashei halacha). Still review is a part of his system also. The doubt is where does review fit in? A little, or  a lot? And when? It is hard to know.

But I wanted to mention that I found a kind of balance to be the best approach, and this helped me also when I was majoring in Physics. 

I think you can understand this in this way. The fast kind of learning("just say the words in order and go on with no review until you finish the book, and then go back to the beginning and start again") seems to work over a long period of time. It helps to get the overall outline of the subject. The detailed kind of learning with lots of review and in depth analysis seems to work best for having to past tests and get a degree. It does not take the place of the other.''

AT Polytechnic of NYU, I used to do my old forward and backwards method of learning in depth. That is, I would say the words or every page of my Physics texts forwards and backwards. But that is the in-depth class. The fast learning sessions was done also but not when I actually had to take tests. During that time, I had little time for the fast learning.  

Kant-Fries school

https://www.friesian.com/ross/#curse

The curse of the Friesian school: "Nevertheless, I have not met a single contemporary academic colleague whop was the least interested in the Friesian School, or my work, or who, upon acquaintance, barely took the trouble to give me the time of day. If that."

I am on board with Leonard Nelson of the Kant-Fries school. Faith there is contained in an area of knowledge which is known, but not by sensory perception nor by reason.

So this seems to strike the right balance between Enlightenment Reason and Faith. Kant had tried the same balance but his solution seems a bit lacking.

So reason applies to experience.. Beyond that there is a kind of non intuitive immediate knowledge. [Hegel also tried to find this same kind of balance, but the Leonard Nelson Kelley Ross seems a bit better to me.] 

Someone asked me then how do we know natural law? 

I answered: "I guess you must mean Natural law known by reason. But reason might have limits. That was the point of Hume. The point was weak in one way in that he never showed the limits of reason. [And so you get G.E Moore and Dr Huemer because of that.] But still it does seem clear  that knowing things true by definition is different [analytic a priori ] than knowing things you have to put together [synthetic a priori] . And even in that area of things you need to put together it seems there is a kind of limit about things that you can sense, [conditions of possible experience]. Once you get into moral law it does look that a different kind of knowledge is used to understand things.[un-condioned realities]" 

[The well known proponent of Kant-Fries is Kelley Ross, but Robert Hanna goes into more detail in showing the attacks against Kant in the "Analytic school" are wrong. Dr. Ross does bring Jerold Katz, but Robert Hanna goes into much more detail.]

Georg Hamann was I think the best of those pointing out flaws in the Enlightenment, Still I think a balance is the best. Kind of like the mediaeval synthesis of faith and reason.

 x33 G major mp3 file

x33 midi

x33 nwc [noteworthy composer file]

 God knows that not all Litvish yeshivot [based on the Gra] are all of the same caliber. Especially the places that are shiduch yeshivot.  [That is people are there for the name of the place in order to get a good shiduch,] This becomes apparent in the approach of people that come from there to use Torah to make money. Often this is not limited to Shiduch yeshivot but places that people and out there just for the name.

But you have to ask yourself what the alternative is? No other kinds of places have authentic Torah.

And there issue is not just authentic Torah which one could learn on one's own. I mean one could learn Tosphot, R Akiva Eiger , the Ketzot etc in order to see and understand a drop of the depths of authentic Torah on one's own. But the way I see it that this is very difficult to do without an environment of Torah learning.

 And almost no one stands against the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] that has penetrated into the Torah world except for Litvak yeshivas. Most of the religious world is highly highly compromised by the Dark Side. At least the Litvak yeshiva based on the Gra provide a kind of shield.

The two places I was at were both great: Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. But from what I can tell most Litvak yeshivas are great. Probably the best is Ponovitch in Bnei Brak. [Or off-shoots of Ponovitch.]

If only there would be a straight Gra type of Litvak yeshiva in my area I would rejoice.

But there is not. So all I can do is to try to learn the one single volume of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri that I do have. [It is the only Torah book that I have.]

 The unpatriotic academia has been putting down anything that even slightly has a hint of American patriotism. Robert E Lee was a patriot to the USA but also of his state of Virginia. When there was a conflict he choose Virginia--so as not to be fighting against his own flesh and blood. Nowadays the ties that once bound Americans together are gone as a result of this constant attack against the USA within Academia.

See the paper by Robert Hanna that shows an example of sheer pure hatred of the USA has been a part of academia for about 70 years. [https://againstprofphil.org/2020/10/05/how-not-to-live-a-double-life-the-ballad-of-donald-kalish-and-angela-davis/]

 x37 F minor mp3  x37 midi format  [x37 nwc]

 

I ought to mention that I see he has great points which are worthy of bringing up but my approach is simply that in the Torah there is private property as we see in Bava Kama, Bava Mezia and Bava Batra and so for me that is the end of the conversation.

 Rav Shach noticed an argument between Old Tosphot ([תוספות ישנים] )and the regular Tosphot plus Rambam that most people have not noticed. [Old Tosphot is the version of Tosphot before the final editing.]

In a  case of מוציא שם רע (slander) a נערה מאורסה [engaged girl from 12-12.5 ] that has had sex with someone other than her husband gets stoned at the entrance of her father's home. [That is engagement makes her married. "Kidushin" what makes her engaged, and the Hupa is when she comes into her husband's domain;--but she is still married at the engagement. Nowadays, engagement is just an official agreement to get married. That is different from "kidushin".]

But there is also a case of a engaged girl that gets stoned regularly, not at the door of her father's home.

That is when she did not fool him. That is she might let's say have committed adultery when engaged, but after that told her husband and still witnesses come. So there is regular stoning, not at her father's home.

The difference we know from Tosphot [תוספות ישנים] is if she fooled him. [Based on Rav Shila in Ketuboth pages 45 to 46.] That is,--lets says she had sex before the Chupa and then goes through with the Chupa without telling him. Or there was Chupa and she had sex and then sleeps with her husband after that. In these cases to Tosphot she fooled him so she gets stoned at her father's home.

But in Mishna Torah [Laws of forbidden relations chapter 3. Halacha 8 and halacha 10] there are the exact same situations except the difference between regular stoning and stoning at her father's house is if the later case is מוציא שם רע [slander]. That is her husband calls to witnesses and askes them to testify for him.

x35  D minor mp3

Rav Yaakov Emden and the Zohar.

 Rav Yaakov Emden was the beginning of looking at the Zohar in a way that would precede academia.

He decided that some parts were probably authentic documents from ancient sources like ספרא דצניעותא.

Besides that, it is mostly midrashim translated into Aramaic, and has a basic idea that is taking one word to mean the shechina and another word to mean tiferet. It also takes plenty of previous mystics of the Middle Ages [like the Ramban himself]  and translates them into Aramaic,

I did not find all that terribly inspiring. I have to add that the mystic tradition never started with the Zohar, but rather with Sefer Yezira, and there were plenty of mystics around in the Middle Ages way before the Zohar. [e.g the Ramban.]

But I would not think to spend time on it because of the phrase עם כל דא a medieval innovation of how to say "although" instead of the regular אף על פי. [How can an invention of the Middle Ages be in a book by R. Shimon ben Yochai? Answer: It is not. The book was written during the Middle Ages. The "Im kol da" is the smoking gun that shows when it was written.

So it is not from R. Shimon Ben Yochai.

[In short, the original events were thus.-- Isaac from Acco was in Spain, and met up with Moshe De'Leon and asked him about the Zohar. Moshe had been selling it page by page claiming it was from an ancient manuscript. So Isaac asked him about this, and said that people were claiming that there is no original. Moshe swore, "May G-d strike me down if I do not have an original manuscript, and I will show you when you come to my home." They had met up in a different city. On the way to his city Moshe de'Leon, in fact, was struck down, but Isaac continued and got to his home where his widow was. He offered to her a large sum of money just to see the original manuscript. She said, "There is no such thing. Rather he (Moshe DeLeon) was writing it from his head."]

The problem with Torah scholars that are demons as brought in the LeM of Rav Nahman is that once you know about the existence of these demons, it becomes hard to know where to find and learn true authentic Torah.

For that reason it occurs to me that it would be  a good idea to an authentic Litvak yeshiva in every city so that at least people could have an idea of what the Torah actual teaches- even if it is hard to keep everything.

The problem simply is that the Sitra achra has gotten mixed up with authentic Torah.  

However these so called "kollels" do not count. The problem with kollel is using Torah to make money simply is not legitimate. And the proof is in the pudding. But that is not teh only trouble. So some reason the entire religious world got to be so infiltrated by the Dark Side that there is almost no mitzvah one can do that counts. I mean to say for example an Etrog of the Sitra Achra or idolatry one does not fulfil the obligation of Etrog since  any object of idolatry has to be crushed up and destroyed. And since an Etrog requires a size, an etrog of the Sitra achra does not fulfill the mitzvah.

So even before you could have any yeshiva that is legitimate you would have to start listening to the Gra in the first place and his signature on teh letter of excommunication. 

[In the LeM vol I sec. 12 it seems the main thing about Torah scholars that are demons is the "shelo Lishma" aspect. [I.e., they learn Torah for money or honor. But I have avoided mentioning that because sometimes you can have a person in kollel who is learning Torah for its own sake but still just to survive has to accept money. He is not using Torah to make money but rather accepting charity as being the only way he can manage to continue learning Torah.  So the distinction between and authentic Torah scholar and a Torah scholar who is a demon is not at all that clear or easy to see. The best rule of thumb is to go by the Gra. Even though there might be exceptions even when people are following the path of the Gra, still that is the best indication of one learning Torah for its own sake.]

 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.

The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court,

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?"

the main repentance is that when one hears his insult to be quite and not answer.

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.

 x32 D major  x32 midi  x32 nwc

 x36 D major mp3 file  

x36 midi

x36 nwc

 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?

A question of R. Akiva Eigger

קינוי וסתירה [Kinuy U'Stira] Warning a wife not to be alone with someone, and then her being alone. If in fact after the warning and she is alone with that person, then she needs to go to the Temple and drink the "bitter waters". That is water that is mixed with the ink on which the paragraph on this subject is written in the book of Numbers, and a bit of the dust on the Temple. That is to prove her innocence. She can refuse to drink. The only reason for this is to give her a chance to show she is innocent and can continue to live with her husband. 

R. Akiva Eigger  asks: קינוי וסתירה (warning a wife not to be alone with someone and then her being alone) is an argument between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua. To R Yehoshua to warn is before one witness and to be alone with the one she was warned about is in front of two witnesses. So if the husband sees her being alone with the one she was warned about she ought to be permitted.

Yet the Rambam says that if he sees her then he must divorce her and give her her Ketubah.

 Rav Shach answers this question in this way. He says the Rambam means the husband is forbidden to stay with her because שוויה עליו חתיכה דאיסורא

I am having trouble understanding Rav Shach here because his seeing her being alone is not the same thing as seeing her actually committing the crime. So while קינוי וסתירה would make her forbidden to him until she would drink the "bitter waters" in the Temple,  but here there was never fulfilled the conditions that would forbid keeping her.

 x29 b flat major  x29 in midi   x29 in nwc format

 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. 

Lashon hara against Judge Barrett is slander

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 Midot

"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.]

 x31 F minor mp3

x31 midi file

x31 nwc file

 x33 G Major mp3 x33 midi  x33 nwc

 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.

I have to admit I owe great gratitude to many people in the Ukraine who showed me kindness when no one else would. But I also noticed some of the types that can be problematic. So I have not written much about it since there seems to impossible to generalize. 

The doctor the operated on my foot Sergey Alexivitch and his whole staff, showed not just competence but even something I would call "Mesirut nefesh" absolute determination to do a good job. But that is just one example. They wanted to be so careful that they only used local anesthesia. The nurse Irina held my hand the entire time and called me Avraham Philipovitch -a meaning of respect to call me by the name of my father. 

 So it is hard to make sense of things there.

 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.

Even at the founding of the American government, people found it hard to concentrate on anything else. I noticed this in the events surrounding the creation of the Constitution. From that you can see there is  a kind of collective consciousness. [That was an idea around I guess for a long time,-- but in particular I recall it was a subject of an argument between Ibn Rushd and Aquinas].

Nowadays it does seem hard to concentrate on anything else besides the coming election -even for people who have at all other times no interest in politics.

I am however not sure if perhaps it is possible to rise above that. I recall that during the time I was at the Mir in NY, I was  unaware of politics at all. And that was not just me, but rather because I was immersed in an atmosphere of people that were highly involved and dedicated to learning Torah.

 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 

 x28 mp3 file  

x28 midi  

x28 nwc [noteworthy composer file]

 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.

 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,