Robert E Lee and the Civil War

 In the letters of Robert E Lee you find the idea that if the whole issue had been to obey the Constitution of the USA there never would have been any conflict. But you find the exact same idea in General Grant. To both of these men the entire issue was this alone. The South held secession was a right. And even if that is not a part of the Constitution , still it was stated openly by the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress].

However in terms of slavery, I think the welfare system in the USA is slavery forcing white people to work for blacks without compensation. So I do not think that anyone really objects to slaver. Rather slavery of blacks they object to. But slavery of white people is OK.

 But that is how things are in the West--with the newspapers advocating one kind of outrage after the other. First global cooling, then global warming. Then Climate change, then vaccines. One set of outrages after the other. That is the odd sort of mentality of the West. Every ten years or so, the absolute unchangeable morality changes from one thing to the other, and that other is also unchangeable while the first is forgotten and goes back to the regular state.

Rather I think that morality ought to be based on reason, not fads nor just "faith" which is often delusion.

Gravity and Quantum Entanglement

 Lemaitre I think was the first to notice the connection between Gravity and Quantum Entanglement. This later was called ER=EPR and by Susskind you see there is an approach in which there are worm holes between entangled states. But in a paper sometime after 1930 [after Lemaitre predicted the Big Bang] he wrote that only after there were enough quanta round could space time begin to exist.

 This was basically forgotten until Yaakov Beckstein saw that the area of a black hole is the same as its entropy. --suggesting that black holes have entropy which means that there is a connection between curved space and ensembles of entangled states.

[But in 1972, when he showed this, not one knew what the entangled states were.] Only much later did Susskind come along and show that ER [worm holes]= EPR [quantum entangled states]

bitul Torah

In the path of the Litvak yeshivot, you do not find an emphasis on what you would call secular learning. And that is for good reason. Since thee is a sin of "bitul Torah",[which is greatly emphasized in the chazal [sages]. ["bitul Torah" means not learning Torah when one can.]

They do see that learning a secular subject as a means to make a living is OK, but it is better to trust in God.

There is also an approach where wives of very serious learners decide  to help with making money along with the kollel check. 

This is all very admirable. It is good and proper to learn Torah with self sacrifice.

The only place where I differ is that some  subjects I believe are not secular at all but rather God's wisdom as revealed in the work of Creation.[Physics, Chemistry, etc. The natural sciences.]

Incidentally the best Litvak yeshivot I know about are Ponovitch and the places that were started by former students of Ponovitch.

music file z56

 z56 A minor  z56 nwc

Litvak Yeshivot

 I wanted to discuss my yeshiva experience along with my thought concerning Litvak Yeshivot.

I think that it would have been very difficult or perhaps impossible for me to come to any conception of what Torah is about without being in Shar Yeshuv [of Rav Friefeld] and at the Mir in NY [where I learned a lot from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum.] 

So you might think I should recommend Litvak yeshivot. However later disappoints somewhat damped my enthusiasm. 

But personal disappointments I figure ought not to dampen the reality that for true and authentic Torah the only possible address is a Litvak yeshiva based on the approach of the Gra and Rav Shach.

[And I should add here that in spite of my disappointments I still try to learn Torah when I can manage to grab a minute. And I still hold from the prime importance of learning Gemara and Tosphot.\

When the modern armies left and the cargo stopped arriving, the "Cargo Cult" was a religious attempt to reproduce the invocations and effect the continued blessing of the gods. Not surprisingly, it didn't work.]

 A lot of religious practice is from a phenomenon  noticed by Robert Sapolsky. He noted that pigeons are among the most superstitious of animals. You do not need to train them for this. They do it automatically. They do some kind of action before getting a piece of bread. They later when they are hungry, they will keep on doing tat same action endlessly until they get another piece of bread. Most of religious practice falls into this category. It is not from the realm of holiness nor from the Sitra Achra [Dark Side].It is just a natural phenomenon among people to think that some rituals will bring them their piece of bread.

But not all religious actions. Some is from the Dark Side. or from group think. They follow the heard thinking they will get the shiduch [match].

And on the opposite end of things, there is such a thing as sincere service of God. Not rituals, Actions and deeds that do truly unite one with the Divine.

The question one must always ask oneself is if his or her actions are really sincere, or or they like the pigeons? or perhaps, Heaven forbid, motivated by the Dark Side.

Rav Nachman wrote [LeM I I thinking [perek 25] דע כי האדם צריך להוציא את עצמו מן המדמה (Know that one must take oneself out of delusion) For too much religious rituals are from delusions. Cargo cult rituals. [The original Cargo Cult developed in New Guinea after World War II. During the war, the Melanesian locals, who lived at a mesolithic or neolithic level of culture, saw airplanes arrive and disgorge vast quantities of "cargo." They did not understand that these things had to be manufactured and that the airplanes themselves were artifacts. They believed that the planes and the cargo were gifts from the gods, brought down to earth by ritual invocations. There were incidents where the crew members of aircraft were murdered because the locals thought they were no more than supernumeraries to the divine operation. When the modern armies left and the cargo stopped arriving, the "Cargo Cult" was a religious attempt to reproduce the invocations and effect the continued blessing of the gods. Not surprisingly, it didn't work.]

z53 musicfile

 z53 A minor  z53 nwc

That is to say a woman who is married is the person with whom adultery is possible. Both for her and the adulterer. But it is not possible to have adultery with an unmarried woman. See Chronicles I in the second perek, verse 46

 Adultery means not to have sex with a married woman , but does not mean a man can not have many wives [or even girl friends.] For example in Chronicles I in the second perek, verse 46 we find Caleb ben Yefuna had a few wives and a few girl friends. And most rishonim go with this. [See the Ramban/Nahmanides and the Raavad.] The Rambam however forbids a girl friend but only as an isur asey איסור עשה [a negative command derived from a positive.] But all other Rishonim go with the Ramban that it is allowed.

[

by saying the words one can come to understanding.

There is a way to learn Physics and Mathematics even if one is not talented. See the LeM of Rav Nahman volume I perek 12. על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבא  לתבונות התורה לעומקה. "By means of the word, one can come to the understanding of Torah to its very depths." That means that by saying the words one can  come to understanding. Even if very talented people in these subjects do not need that approach, still this method can help everyone get better. 

[Similar to Conversations of Rav Nahman 76. This idea is also mentioned in the Sefer HaMidot of Rav Nahman in the perek on Learning.]

Izhak bn Avraham empasized review along with just saying the words aand going on. That is that one sould review after finishing a whole chapter or book. To listen and learn from an expert from someone who knows the subject well is important as mentioned in the book of Rav Nachman that since we have lost the doing, at least we should hang on to the hearing.

z55 music file

 z55 A minor midi z55 nwc 

Wisdom of the Greeks

 Wisdom of the Greeks is disparaged in the Gemara. One fellow asked R. Ishmael when to learn it [after he had already gone through the whole Torah.] Answer: when it is neither day nor night as it says "You shall think in the Law day and night."

So for Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam to hold that learning Physics and Metaphysics is important and even a part of Torah, it takes a jump of faith in the Rishonim [mediaeval authors].

Otherwise looking at the face value definition of "wisdom of the Greeks" would seem to refer to these very same subjects.

But I must add here that it has never been a problem for me to go with the rishonim [mediaeval authors] even when they seem to differ from the simple explanation of the Gemara. 

[I was thinking to show why the Rishonim diverge from the simple explanation of the Gemara. But first I would like to say that it is best to have simple faith. After having faith, it is good to have support for faith. Reasons are also good for understanding in what direction you want your faith to follow. After all one has control over what he believes to some degree. After all you can not  believe that you can skip and jump to the moon. But there are many other cases where you can rationally choose your beliefs.[when evidence is not conclusive and you can choose where the weight of the evidence goes.]

Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold Physics and Metaphysics are part of Torah. Why? Because they explain the "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation"  as referring to these two subjects.

(The "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation" are called "great things" and "the discussions of Abyee and Rava" are called small things. [R. Yochanan ben Zakai was praised for knowing these things ]) 

Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.

In terms of Relativity, I have to think this over but right now it seems to me that it is sad that the New Friesian School of Leonard Nelson seems to have diverged from Fries. [On the other hand Nelson wanted to be safe from accusations of ‘psychologism’ [note 1] that were thrown at Fries. So he kept the Friesian structure but held the categories are a priori as being not sense based and not reason based (immediate non intuitive) in a strictly axiomatic way.[And that fact of not being based on the senses is what makes it a priori thus in keeping with Kant] So you can see the motivation of Nelson. But it seems to have led to wrong conclusions. Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.

After all, Fries held that the categories of Kant do not have to be a priori. [Contra Kant]. Rather they can be justified in away that is not by reason nor by  the senses. but by "immediate non intuitive knowledge.". And this point seems to have been missed by Nelson who held that Relativity and especially GR (General Relativity) were just not right. And in a very ironic way it was Reichenbach who held strongly of Relativity and defended it by means of dividing Kant's apriori into two. One is the normal necessary apriori not based on observation. The other is subject to modification by empirical evidence.--Isn't that exactly Fries's approach exactly?!

.

[note 1] the mistake of identifying non-psychological with psychological entities. For instance, philosophers who think that logical laws are not psychological laws would view it as psychologism to identify the two] 

Matisyahu [the father of Judah the Maccabi] broke the statue of Antiochus because of the problem of idolatry. And in the world of Reform Judaism there is a remarkable lack of idolatry.

The major reason that Matisyahu [the father of Judah the Maccabi] broke the statue of Antiochus was the problem of idolatry. Not national identity. Not religious freedom.

For some reason this problem of idolatry does not seem to be much of a problem to most people--even though it is the most fundamental principle in the Torah. You can certainly see plenty of idolatry in the religious world [which is certainly the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication]. At least in the world of Reform Judaism there is a remarkable lack of idolatry [even though  I can see other problems there.]

Robert E Lee

 Robert E Lee was in Washington D.C. to testify at Congress. During that time one of his former slaves, Amanda Parks, came to visit him, but just missed him since he had just left for Virginia. So she wrote to him. She asked him if he is angry with her. He answered, "I do not know  why you should ask if I am angry with you. I am not aware of your having done anything which would give me offence. And I hope you would not say or  do anything what was wrong .While you lived at Arlington\ you behaved very well..."That letter says volumes about the amazing character of Robert E Lee. It is tragic that people step on his memory that do not nor ever could measure up to his boot  straps.

I might mention here that Arlington was owned by Robert E Lee, but during the war it was confiscated by the Northern authorities to make it into a graveyard.

My question and the answer of Dr. Kelley Ross. [His answer is that synthesis is not a function of non intuitive immediate knowledge. But I guess my thought was "Who is the user?" Who is doing the synthesis?" {The person who has this knowledge and who does the synthesis.] }

Dear Dr. Ross, ..... Immediate non-intuitive knowledge does the job of unification. But I would like to ask if you agree with this. ... Kant wants to show that our intuitions [things that we see or hear] can only have unity if the categories (where, how, when) unite them. But the doubt is how does this work? If I go into a field and collect flowers and put them into a basket, the basket puts them together-- but does not make them a unity.

Kant answers this question by showing that intuitions have to have the capability to be able to be united by the categories. And he shows that the categories can only unite concepts and intuitions but not make them out of scratch. So he shows that both require the other. The categories and the intuitions are dependent one on the other.

The question is this still seems to leave the flowers in the basket. So I am thinking that this must be one of reasons for the principle that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge that unites the categories with the intuitions. [That is the idea of the Kant-Friesian School]

 Dear Mr. Rosenblum,

Kant's idea of unity involves the categories, but only because the categories are used in synthesis.  So the unity of consciousness, or the unity of experience, is the result of an activity.  When the activity stops, then consciousness and synthesis stop.  As in sleep.

Sleep is an issue overlooked by all the Rationalists and Empiricists.  Only Locke seems to have noticed, when he answered Descartes by saying that he had not "thought" at all last night.  But even that wasn't enough.  Sleep would stop the flood of sensory input, but neither Locke nor any Empiricist addressed how that would happen.  Indeed, nobody could explain how you could be hearing the refrigerator running all night, but normally not be aware of it.  Even while you're awake.  That the mind choses, preconsciously, what to admit to consciousness is a psychological truth never noticed by philosophers.

Not even by Kant.  But, because of Kant's theory of synthesis, an explanation was ready at hand, if needed.

Non-intuitive immediate knowledge is really a different issue.  To the extent that "categories" like cause or substance are known non-intuitively, then they are in fact available for what Kant wants in synthesis.  But Kant was not very clear how that works.  He was emerging from his earlier thinking that synthesis was a conscious activity, involving concepts.  However, consciousness is produced spontaneously, and the forms that it embodies are used without awareness.  We notice things like time, cause, or the duration of substances on reflection.

"Concepts" and "intuitions" do not on the ground need to be united, because synthesis has united them already.  Further action, consciously, will match further concepts to experience, but that is a fallible process.  

[I should add here that Kant has the imagination is what is causing synthesis. [CPR 78/B103]--I think that is where it is. [Might I suggest that is a round about way to talk about the soul.] (This in Kant is the level that is before or under consciousness]. It is imagination in Kant which produces  consciousness.] 

I also wanted to add that the categories are exactly what Fries thought were not apriori but empirical and subject to revision. And that left him vulnerable to the attack of "psychologism." That attack missed him, Still this accusation continued even up to Leonard Nelson who also was attacked for the same reason.

In the West it is not known that one has a connection with one's parents.

 In the West it is not known that one has a connection with one's parents. But as you can see in Torah that this connection is not determinate of everything.  [that is to say if they command one to disobey  a negative commandment that has karet attached to it they must not be listened to. [You can see this in Naphtali Troup. A great sage in the time of Rav Haim of Brisk that simply did not get to be as well known, but also very deep. חידושי הגרנ''ט.

That is the legal aspect. However in a deeper sense clearly one should get an idea of what kind of parents he or she has. If they are wicked then it makes no sense to obey them. [That is not written into law which makes the only exception as when they are crazy.]

Why do I bring this up? Because I wanted to point out  an important idea of Isaac Luria that one's inner light comes from the mother and outer light from the father. That is to say the connection with one's mother is more felt since it is internal. But it is the light of one's father that provides the outer light which is the protective shield around one. So one simply does not notice it until it is gone.

So my feeling is that people are not as aware as they ought to be about their inner connection and outer shield that they have from their parents.

Reason and Freedom

 In Enlightenment thought Reason and Freedom are always linked. The trajectory of history is always supposed to go towards more freedom. This seems like a mistake. I saw what happens in NY when there is total freedom for everyone and absolutely no government control--during a blackout. This maybe has not happened recently so people forget what total freedom from government means. Even with little government control I saw in the Ukraine. When the police are not motivated and sit in their station relaxing--I got a severe taste of what happens not just when there is no government but little government.

The only reason I can see that people think this is good is they have never had to live through these sort of surrealistic nightmares 

music z52

 z52 A Minor  z52 nwc

Rav Shach [Laws of Peah 2:11]

In the Torah there is an obligation to leave the corner of one's field of grain. That is called Peah. The Yerushalmi [The Gemara written in Israel], asks what if the first stalk that is cut was then burned. Rav Shach [Laws of Peah 2:11] explains this question to be based on a previous doubt of the Gemara if the first stalk that was harvested can be made into peah. The Gemara itself answers thus: Since it makes other talks obligated, it itself can not be obligated.

So the order of the Gemara would have to be thus: Can the first stalk be made into peah? And if you say yes then if it is burned then does one have to reap another stalk for the field to be obligated in peah. Then the Gemara answers the first question in the negative. That stalk can not become peah. So automatically we know the answer to the second question.

I can see the idea of the Gemara's question what if the first stalk is burned? You can find something like this in reading the Megilah."One who is obligated can cause others to fulfill their obligation." That is what it  seems the Gemara must mean. but on the other side of thing you can say lets say Grace After Meals for the sake of someone who has eaten bread though you have not.. But at any rate, you can see the question of the Gemara. If that first stalk causes the obligation  then if it is burned you would need to reap a new stalk..

There are definitions here. Poor means someone with no money a period of time. Poor does not mean anyone asking for money. In fact the Rambam has a long essay about the evil of the heads of the yeshivot that ask for charity in Pirkei Avot perek 4 mishna 3. 

deeper source of knowledge that is neither based on reason nor the senses. See: An Enquiry Concerning Hume's Misunderstanding

 Dr Michael Huemer has brought together arguments and added his own to show knowledge can not be based only on sense perception and not only on reason. Thus you would think that knowledge needs both,-- or perhaps a better approach is that of Dr Kelley Ross [the Kant- Fries School of thought] that there is a deeper source of knowledge that is neither based on reason nor the senses.

It occurred to me that this might very well answer a question in the Critique of Pure Reason where Kant shows that there must be a connection between the categories [of pure reason] and the sense perception data that comes in. [That he calls the Transcendental Deduction.] Yet it has been a source of difficulty to see that just because something Must Be So, why should it be so? [I mean that the data from the senses must be ordered by Reason,-- but how?

I think Dr Kelley Ross based on Kant, Fries, and Leonard Nelson shows this well.

[Hegel thinks that  Being leads up to Logos.  That is the structure of his whole system. [like Plotinus] So he surely believes there is this connection, but he has a different answer --that even sense perception is thought. His idea of what "thought" is a wider than the Hume definition that it is only what can be derived by definitions. You can see this approach in Cunningham in his thesis in 1910. But more than that, you might note that Hume's limitation on reason is assumed, but never proved. [as Bryan Caplan noted] (in: An Enquiry Concerning Hume's Misunderstanding ). He just says over and over that reason alone can only tell us about self contradictions of deductions from axioms. Something he learned from Euclid. As Kant showed that is not true. There are apriori truths not based on definitions. It does seem hard to see why it took such a long time for the implications of Fries and Nelson to be put together in a systematic way by Kelley Ross.--but I guess that is just the way things turned out. 

The implication of all this is simple--it gives justification of faith. And it also shows the approach of the mediaevals -that reason tells us what to believe in. [Not that there is just faith and reason in the Middle Ages, but that reason tells us what to believe in. ]

See Maverick Philosopher who hold the same way but not in so many words.

z50 music file

 z50 D Minor

I have never been very happy about Communism.

Even though there is some debate about China --especially due to their claim on the South China Sea and Taiwan I have to to say that I have never been very happy about Communism. But a lot depends on your starting point. If you are in a Western Democracy--Taiwan, Japan, Europe, England, the USA, Australia, etc. well then obviously a totalitarian communist dictatorship is a step down. But if one is in a situation of chaos and breakdown of civilization then you need some system that can bring order and peace even if it is totalitarian. I discovered this in the Ukraine where everyone said that things were better under the USSR than now.

So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar

I can see that in Torah also there us the legal aspect Gemara, and the spiritual.

The thing about the spiritual aspect is that  it has the highest danger of delusion. And in Torah there were books like the Sefer Hayetzira and mystics. The problem that the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side,  that gets mixed up in this area. And when it comes to "spiritual" things, it is hard to now what is from the realm of holiness and what is from the Dark Side. 

You can have great saints [tzadikim] that serve God through personal  fasting and prayer, like the Ari, the Gra. Rav Nahman, still the fact that they believed in the Zohar means there is a certain element that gets mixed up with them. After all the Zohar can not be from R. Shimon ben Yochai since on every few pages is contained the phrase עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה--"although" in the time of R Shimon ben Yochai was אף על פי או אף על גב. The  עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה is a medieval invention by the family of translators --the Ibn Tibon family.  So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar that gets mixed up with the good. Most people involved in mysticism are not spiritual but delusional

John Locke and Montesquieu, the American system of Justice

I wish I could share with others the feeling of being astounded realizing that the American system of Justice  which finds some middle ground between freedom and equality--which are after all exact opposites. [If you force everyone to be equal then no-one is free. If everyone is free then immediately no one is equal because some fail and some excel.] 

I wonder from where this system comes from? I know the founding fathers studied John Locke and Montesquieu and the Roman republic and the Athenian Democracy. But I also began to see that it was highly based on the English system. But I could see little in philosophy that could result in such a system. It seemed piecemeal. Ad Hoc. Rather than based on John Locke, the English system was explained by John Locke after it was already in place especially after the Glorious Revolution.

[Plato certainly never recommended such a system. Rather his system resembled many aspects of Sparta but with most of the brutality taken out. The Roman Republic  had  two central bodies of authority, the  the Plebeians and the Senate, [as reflected in the sign of Rome SPQR ] . But that was just as Ad Hoc. The people were given  authority and the tribunes in order to stop the disintegration of Rome. There was no theory behind it. There was no theory behind the Magna Carta nor the Provisions of Oxford. Only after the fact, did it become clear that this form of government meant freedom and human flourishing.

one is not supposed to worship an intermediate.

We know one is not supposed to worship an intermediate. And the Rambam considers that to be the main prohibition of idolatry. So it is easy nowadays to see the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I can understand that at the time of the herem/ excommunication it was not clear to most people what the problem was. So most people ignored the herem (excommunication) that the Gra signed. But\ nowadays it is abundantly clear.

[Even Rav Nahman mentions this important principle in the LeM vol I perek 62. One is not supposed  to worship an intermediate. So one could ask on why Rav Nahman seems to contradict himself in terms of the need to a "tzadik." I am not sure how to answer this, but I still feel that Rav Nahman himself was not included in the herem, so I feel more or less at ease in learning what is possible from his writings.

Attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. The higher naivety is in between. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold.

 In the study of history there is something called "the higher naivety". There are two other attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. )Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. (as some say about Homer. They say you can not learn anything from Homer about the age before the Greek States.] Like chariots. Some thought they were an anachronism. But later it turned out from archeology that there were chariots in the time of the war on Troy. ) The higher naivety is in between. It is to believe unless one can not. What can make something not believable? Self contradictions. Or external evidence. [You might see some of Hegel here about synthesis.]

Similar in philosophy there is an attitude to try to take apart. Then there is the sort of reading called "charity"--that is if a great philosopher writes something that does not seem to make sense, to try to make sense of it and say he meant something that is more sensible. (Michael Huemer is with "He meant what he said'' view.))Then there is "He meant what he said" but to try to find some way of making sense of it.

This is  how many other issues can be approached. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold. But just right.  In Rav Nahman' writings there are amazing insights and other things that are less than believable. {Maybe he himself was saying these in a half humorous fashion, or perhaps not well understood. So you throw out everything? I say not. You leave the great insights and ignore what seems less well thought out. {It is characteristic of Western thought to be "either or." It is all right or all wrong.. I tend to be in the middle. Some is right and some needs to be ignored.

Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents."

 One thing you can notice in Rav Nahman of Breslov [i.e. his books] is the idea that there is always an ''ietza" some sort of advice that can help for every situation. Though he never actually says this in so many words, still the idea is implicit in everything he writes.

How to find the right bit of advice that can help you is of course the problem.

For example the Tikun Klali [saying the ten psalms to correct sexual sin] is actually called this by name: "the general correction". [In reference to the LeM vol I perek 19]

But when Rav Nahman uses the idea of correction he does not mean it just in terms of sin but actually correction of problems. 

And I tend to think in these terms myself after learning Rav Nahman's books. I can see his point.

[Sefer HaMidot especially.]

It is well known that he held that "Hitbodadut" is a general practice that can help. That is--to talk to God as one talks with a friend--in one's own language. No rituals or formulas of prayer.

I wanted especially to mention one bit of advice that actually is in a mishna כל המקבל עליו עול תורה מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול רך ארץ For anyone that accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, there is removed from him the yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the earth. 

That is to say: I have noticed something about the Litvak path of learning Gemara Rashi and Tosphot along with Musar that fulfill this idea of Rav Nahman. This path of straight Torah I have noticed tends to have this aspect to it of removing from one many of the other kinds of worries and difficulties that people encounter. {I do not learn Torah all day as I should because I was  kicked our of every beit midrash where I sat down to learn. At first it was the Lakewood kollel in LA where they told my wife to get rid of me because because I was learning Torah without getting paid. Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents." So I have found the major obstacle to learning Torah is the hypocrisy of those that claim to be doing so for its own sake, not for money. There is a temptation to discount the value of Torah because of this> I tend to say instead that Torah is great and holy, but people that use Torah to make money and dress religiously to show how holy they are are obstacles to true Torah.  

 

 z51 D minor

z50

z48

See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar", which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript.

 I know that people have an inherent curiosity about the nature of reality. They might look at philosophy and find word puzzles. Or they might look at the Zohar, and find that it is a highly problematic source of information. [note 1]

Even if they want to look at Physics, they find that layman's books are often worse than useless. They do not know how to get to the real thing.

For this reason I have often mentioned that learning Physics is possible for everyone. No one has to be a genius. What scares people off is the intimating system of tests. And these tests are important on one hand --to know who really knows -- as opposed to those who imagine that they know. But the downside of tests is people with inherent curiosity, but not much talent get discouraged.

I hope to show that Physics and Math are available to everyone by the idea in tractate Shabat page 63 לעלם ליגמר אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר Always one  finish (the whole book at least once) and then go back and explain it -even though he forgets, and even though he does not know what he is saying.)

[note 1] See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar," which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript. [He was never clear how it got into is possession.] So when a great sage from Israel arrived in Spain on a visit, people asked him to go and speak with De Leon and find out from where this book came from. This was Isaac from Aco. At that time deLeon was not in his hometown and Isaac of Aco went to see him. When he asked DeLeon, De Leon said, "I have the original manuscript at home and when I get there I will show you, or may God strike me dead!" Sadly enough, God struck him dead before he got back home. But Isaac of Aco went anyway and asked his wife about it and offered to her a very large sum of money to show him the manuscript. She swore to him that there was no such thing. She observed her husband sitting in his room and writing it "from his head" (that is the phrase she used to describe it.)

Of course it is clear that he had written a copy from himself in order to make extra copies from. That is how when people came to ask for the same page that someone else had bought, deLeon could write out that same page word from word.

And Rav Yaakov Emden made a study of this subject, and decided that some parts were probably based on ancient sources. 

I might mention that the עם כל דא ["although"] phrase in the Zohar bothers me. In the time of the Mishna and Gemara one could say although by אף על פי or  אף על גב. But during the Middle Ages it was noticed that these phrase are extremely awkward. So the Ibn Tibon family came up with a better way עם כל זה while עם כל דא is the translation into Aramaic. So the Zohar was written during the Middles Ages. QED

 

Here is a presentation about the two infrared telescopes Spitzer and James Web. Spitzer no longer is operational. James Web is about to be launched.

 

Rittenhouse

 Rittenhouse was acquitted on all accounts. He had gone to protect store owners and stores from being looted and destroyed as when happening all over the USA. Then he was attacked and he defended himself. I can not see why this even went to trial. One glance at the video should have been enough. He was knocked down an a guy was pulling out a gun to shoot him, and so he shot before he was killed. How much more obvious could this be?

Well the answer seems to be that too much of the judicial system in the USA has gotten politized. Instead of justice,  what is pursued is what is politically correct. 

So while on one hand I am happy that justice was served, still I am thinking that this whole trial shows that the justice system in the USA needs to get back on track.[One suggestion is this people making false accusations should be punished by the law. They should at least be liable. That should even apply to prosecutors.] 

infrared telescopes and Philip Rosenblum-Rosten

Two infrared telescopes. Spitzer and James Web. The Spitzer was the first in space. Now the James Webb is about to be deployed. Why should not Philip Rosenblum get some credit for being the inventor of the first infrared telescope? 

Spitzer was operated by NASA, JPL/Cal Tech. named after the person who suggested the idea of a space telescope and a very good scientist. James Webb has not yet gone into operation yet.[James Webb was the administrator of NASA.] I am just wondering why the name Philip Rosenblum is never mentioned with his own invention. Something he did not just suggest but actually made. Should that not count for something? Would it not be like crediting someone who thought about an electric light bulb instead of the person who actually made it-- Edison? Do you not usually give credit to the person that made the first thing, not those who thought how nice it would be to have it. The two brothers (Wright) that made an airplane get the credit, not people who thought about how nice it would be to fly?

Even though Isabella promoted Columbus, she is not given credit for the discovery of America, rather the person who actually did it, Columbus. Who gets the credit for Mozart symphonies, the musical director of the orchestra in Vienna or Mozart? 

I realize credit does not always go to who deserves it. Some theorems in Mathematics get named for those who used them or introduced them to the public rather than the inventor. Not that the second person was trying to steal credit. Rather it was just the way things worked out. Still I think that some effort ought to be made to give credit to whom credit is due.

[Maybe I could suggest that the next generation of Infrared telescopes be called on the name of Philip Rosenblum? This way one dos not detract from the credit due to others, but still gives credit to the actual inventor.]

The Jerusalem Talmud asks about that first stalk.

 If you have the peah [edge of the field.] which is what one must leave to the poor. It is at least 1/60. The first stalk that is cut makes that obligation come into play. [He can not just say, "The whole field is peah." It has to be after something has been reaped.] The Jerusalem Talmud asks about that first stalk. Is is also obligated in peah? [That means we know that it first has to be cut. And then he could make the rest of the field peah. But if he wanted to, could he then say that first stalk is also peah? Answer: No. The reason is it makes everything else obligated, and so it itself is not. And so it is obligated in truma and maasar (gifts to the kohen/priest and Levite). 

Then let's say he goes ahead, and cuts through the whole field. [He was supposed to leave 1/60 standing for the poor.] The first stalk of the 1/60 makes the obligation of peah go to the reaped sheaves. (According to Peah perek II, mishna 5) The question is: Is that first stalk of the 1/60 obligated in peah? Answer: No. It is like the first stalk of the 59/60. [I would like to add here the "hava amina" of he gemara. That is why would this be a question in the first place? Should it not be clear that the case is the same as the first stalk that was reaped? Answer: the first stalk of the 1/60 is now cut. And therefore ought to be obligated in peah. This is different than the first stalk of the 59/60 which caused an obligation on the standing stalks, but it itself is not standing. So then perhaps this ought to be the final answer? No. Because its being cut is simultaneous with the obligation coming on the reaped sheaves. That might be the difference. However you can still argue before it was cut, it was standing and at that time the obligation was on the standing stalks. After it was cut, the obligation is on the reaped sheaves . What makes it not obligated is that it is like the first stalk of the 59/60. It makes obligated and so is not obligated.] 

The question is could he make the 1/60 still to be peah? Or is now that whole part of the field obligated in truma and maasar? 

I realized while coming back from the sea that this is the point of Rav Shach. He asks on the Rambam that writes "If he reaps the whole field [even though he was supposed to leave 1/60], he still gives peah. And if he gives most of what was harvested as peah, that is not obligated in truma and maasar." That means to say that the second he transgressed and reaped the first stalk of the1/60, by transgressing the command to leave a part of the field to the poor that causes the obligation of peah to go on the reaped part (since he can no longer give from the non-reaped part the proper amount). And then, that 1/60 part is obligated in truma and maasar. And even if he gives it to the poor, it is just a present and not considered abandoned (which would be not obligated in truma and maasar), it still is obligated in truma and maasar and can not not become peah. 

________________________________________________________________________________

  פאה  is what one must leave to the poor. It is at least אחד ממאה. The first stalk that is cut makes that obligation חל. [He can not say, "the whole field is פאה." It has to be after something has been reaped.] The גמרא ירושלמי asks about that first stalk. Is is also obligated in פאה? [That means we know that it first has to be cut. And then he could make the rest of the field פאה. But if he wanted to could he then say that first stalk is also פאה? Answer של הגמרא: No. The reason is it makes everything else obligated, and so it itself is not חייב. And so it is obligated in תרומה and מעשר  . Then let's say he goes ahead and cuts through the whole field. The first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים makes the obligation of פאה go to the reaped sheaves According to פאה פרק ב' משנה ה') Then  the גמרא ירושלמי asks, "Is that first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים obligated in פאה? Answer: No. It is like the first stalk of the  חמישים ותשעה מששים. I would like to add here the הווא אמינא" of הגמרא. That is why would this be a question in the first place? Should it not be clear that the case is the same as the first stalk that was reaped? Answer: the first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים is now cut. And therefore ought to be obligated in פאה. This is different than the first stalk of the חמישים ותשעה מששים which caused an obligation on הקמה standing stalks, but it itself is not standing. So then perhaps this ought to be the final answer? No. Because its being cut is simultaneous with the obligation coming on the reaped sheaves. That might be the difference. However you can still argue before it was cut it was standing and at that time the obligation was on the standing stalks. After it was cut the obligation in fact is on the reaped sheaves at the time the obligation is on the reaped sheaves. What makes it not obligated בפאה is that it is like the first stalk of the  חמישים ותשעה מששים. It makes obligated and so is not obligated. My question is could he make the אחד מששים still to be פאה? Or is now that whole part of the field obligated in תרומה and מעשר? I realized while coming back from the sea that this is the point of רב שך. He asks on the רמב''ם that writes "If he reaps the whole field,  he still gives פאה. And if he gives most of what was harvested as פאה, that is not obligated in תרומה and מעשר ." That means to say that the second he פשע and reaped the first stalk on the אחד מששים ,  that causes the obligation of פאה to go on the reaped part since he can no longer give from the non-reaped part the proper amount. And then that  אחד מששים part is obligated in תרומה and מעשר . And even if he gives it to the poor, it is just a present and not considered abandoned , it still is obligated in תרומה and מעשר and can not not become פאה. 

פאה זה מה שצריך להשאיר לעניים. זה לפחות אחד ממאה. הגבעול הראשון שנחתך הופך את המחויבות הזו לחל. [הוא לא יכול לומר "כל השדה פאה". זה חייב להיות אחרי שמשהו נקצר.] הגמרא ירושלמי שואל על הגבעול הראשון. האם חייב גם בפאה? [זה אומר שאנחנו יודעים שקודם כל צריך לחתוך אותו. ואז הוא יכול לעשות את שאר השדה פאה. אבל אם הוא רוצה היה יכול אז לומר שגבעול ראשון הוא גם פאה? תשובה של הגמרא: לא. הסיבה היא שזה הופך את כל השאר לחייב, ולכן זה עצמו לא חייב. ולכן חייב בתרומה ומעשר . ואז נניח שהוא ממשיך וחותך את כל השדה. הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים גורם לחובת הפאה ללכת לאלומות הנקצרות לפי פאה פרק ב' משנה ה') ואז שואל הגמרא ירושלמי, "האם הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים חייב בפאה? תשובה: לא. זה כמו הגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים. אני רוצה להוסיף כאן את הווא אמינא" של הגמרא. לכן זו תהיה שאלה מלכתחילה? האם לא צריך להיות ברור שהמקרה זהה לגבעול הראשון שנקטף? תשובה: הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים נחתך כעת. ולפיכך צריך לחייב בפאה. זה שונה מהגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים שגרם להתחייבות על גבעולים עומדים, אבל הוא עצמו אינו עומד. אז אולי זו צריכה להיות התשובה הסופית? לא, כי גזירתו בד בבד עם החיוב הבא על האלומות הקצורות. יכול להיות שזה ההבדל. עם זאת אתה עדיין יכול להתווכח לפני שנחתך זה היה עומד ובאותו זמן החיוב היה על הגבעולים העומדים. לאחר שנכרת החיוב הוא למעשה על האלומות הנקצרות בזמן שהחיוב הוא על האלומות הנקצרות. מה שהופך את זה לא חייב בפאה זה שזה כמו הגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים. זה עושה מחויב ולכן אינו מחויב. השאלה שלי היא האם הוא יכול לגרום לאחד מששים להיות פאה? או שמא עכשיו כל החלק הזה של השדה חייב בתרומה ומעשר? הבנתי  שזו הנקודה של רב שך. שואל על הרמב''ם שכותב "אם קוטף את כל השדה עדיין נותן פאה. ואם נותן רוב מה שנקטף כפאה, אין חייב בתרומה ומעשר". כלומר לומר שבשני הוא פשע וקצר גבעול ראשון על אחד מששים, שגורם לחובת פאה ללכת על החלק הנקצר כיון שאינו יכול עוד לתת מהחלק הלא נקצר את הכמות הראויה. ואחר כך חלק אחד מששים חייב בתרומה ומעשר . ואפילו אם נותן לעני, זה רק מתנה ואינו נחשב נטוש, עדיין חייב בתרומה ומעשר ואינו יכול להיות פאה.

Being silent to one's insult

 In the LeM of Rav Nahman in vol I:6 is brought: Being silent to one's insult is the main repentance on one's sins.[This is simple to understand if you know the principle of repentance which is to accept not to repeat the sin. But a sin can be an isur asey איסור עשה (a prohibition that comes from a positive command), a lav לאו (prohibition), a lav that has karet לאו שיש בו כרת (prohibition that has the penalty of being cut off from one's people), a lav that has hilul hashem לאו שיש בו חילול השם (a prohibition that has the desecration of the Divine Name). For the last two simple repentance and Yom Kippur are not enough, one must receive afflictions in order for the repentance to b accepted. So Rav Nahman is saying here that being silent in the face of being insult is in place of other sorts of afflictions.

Later in vol II Rav Nahman says that this Torah lesson contains in it the intensions of Elul and that the intensions of Elul are a segulah סגולה [help] to find one's match.

I actually had a lot of trouble finding my match for a long time. I had tried every possible idea that I or anyone else could suggest.... Until one day I decided I was going to say that Torah lesson LeM vol I perek 6 every day and never stop until I would find my match. And that is what I did.  Every day for about a year until I fact I found my match.

And other thing I gained from that was the idea of silence. In that Torah lesson, silence in itself is praised, not just silence in the face of one's insult. 

music files from years ago (when I was a teenager) and some recent.

 z47 D Minor

orchestra [written a long time ago in my parent's home. In high school orchestra in in Idywild Music Camp we were playing Beethoven and Brahms so that obviously effected my style.]

piano [also written at my parents home. It is called piano because on that it was written but scored for organ.]

CHS 

mathematics  

This is a great title

i 69

b101

b98

b99

r3

s82

e15

Kant

 Kant wants to show that our intuitions [things that we see or hear] can only have unity if the categories (where, how, when) unite them. But the doubt is how does this work? If I go into a field and collect flowers and put them into a basket, the basket puts them together, but does not make them a unity.

Kant answers this question by showing that intuitions have to have the capability to be able to be united by the categories. [The forms of intuitions are in them, but the unity is contributed by the categories.] [Reason is in the things themselves. Otherwise they could not be interpreted as fitting into the categories. [note 1]] And he shows that the categories can only unite concepts and intuitions, but not make them out of scratch. So he shows that both require the other. The categories and the intuitions are dependent one on the other.

The question is this still seems to leave the flowers in the basket. So I am thinking that this must be one of reasons for the principle that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge that unites the categories with the intuitions. [That is the idea of the Kant-Friesian School]

I might mention that there is plenty of debate about the B Deduction  of how the mind and body work together [intuitions and categories.] [It seems the B Deduction shows that space and time have to have structure that is able to be thought by the mind.] The other debate is whether intuitions have themselves some sort of knowledge in them besides the categories. In any case no scholars of Kant seem to take the Kant Fries approach. [Kant obviously did not. Rather this immediate non intuitive knowledge seems to answer the question.. And besides that Kant's own explanation seems to be "It must be true", that still leaves me wondering "How is it true?" I think the Friesian idea helps for that.

[It so happens that, even as Nelson tried to revive this idea,.]

I ought to mention that immediate non intuitive knowledge was conjectured for the sake of the dinge an sich. But it seems to help also for Kant's dilemma how categories of thought and sense perception relate. 

[I have mentioned that this is tremendously significant to my learning partner in Uman David Bronson and others but apparently no one has paid attention. See the site of Kelley Ross

[note 1]This is close to what Hegel says. Both Kant and Hegel are looking for something inside sensory perception that makes it amenable to being processed by the human mind. To Hegel the reason is that Logos Reason is in everything. See Plotinus. Kant's answer is different and still subject to debate.

Robert E Lee.

 I have been thinking about Robert E Lee. And it occurred to me to mention a few ideas. One is a retraction. I think that when Stonewall Jackson died, Lee did not think the South was lost. 

Next as to secession, even though the tenth ammendment looks to some degree as allowing it, still there is some doubt because the idea that all rights not granted by the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the states or to the people of the USA would mean any individual person could also secede from the Union.  So no one could be guilty of any crime because all he would need to say would be  "I secede from the Union." [Or you could argue that individuals are different than states for individuals are liable to punishment by the courts as brought in the Constitution. But there is no such mechanism for punishing states. Besides that, Virginia openly made the possibility of secession as a key condition for joining the Union in the first place.] 

Another point on the side of Lee is that the Constitution mentions citizens of the states and of the union itself. It seems one can be both! So Lee was right that he was a citizen of Virginia and thus bound by its laws--and its secession.

"It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87].

 I was at the nearby Breslov Na Nach place yesterday and some mentioned an idea  that kind of makes sense to me. At first I suggested the idea that is well known, "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם" ("Learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot put together.") And this person is a working guy who as you can imagine finds it hard to be sitting and learning all day because of his responsibilities. He mentioned this idea of Rav Nahman of finding the good point in others and in oneself. And that situations with people often change so that sitting and learning is not always possible.

[He did not mention another idea of Rav Nahman but which I think is relevant here that, "It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87]. And this applies to me since I also have found that my goal of sitting and learning Torah just did not work out as well as I thought. 

The idea is brought at greater length in the LeM [of Rav Nahman] in a few other places that is based on the mishna in Pirkei Avot בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם with ten statements the world was created. Nine of them are open and plain to see "God said..." [and in everything created by these nine statements the glory of God is revealed. ] But the tenth statement is hidden. It does not say "God said.." , rather just "In the beginning God created...". That is called the "Hidden Statement." Now even though it says "the whole world is full of his glory" still there are places where the glory of God does not reach as it says וכבודי לאחר לא אתן "I will not give of my glory to another".[The speaker in that verse is God]. But nothing can exist without the will of God to make it exist. So how do evil things and places have existence? That is by the hidden statement. So even when one has fallen into evil and evil places and from there one seeks God and tries to return to Him, then the glory of the hidden statement is revealed upon him.

[There is more to be discussed here, but I just got back from the sea and I would like to spend my time learning. So it is best for anyone reading this just to see in the LeM of Rav Nahman some of the places that are relevant to this like the LeM II:4.]

Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty.

 It is a proven fact that democracy and prosperity go together. And it has been proven that socialism and repression, and poverty go together hand in hand.

 \Why is this? The question of "Why?"" never bothered me much since I assumed that no matter how brilliant a system may be conceived --if its end result is million of dead and an equality of poverty, then that system can not be right. [I mean what should it matter to a poor person in the USA the lives better than medieval kings? Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty. The poorest of the poor in the USA have I phones and Nikes shoes and electricity and sanitation that medial kings could not have dreamed of.]

Even China never got out of poverty until it embraced a market economy, but with the control of the party that retains political control.--not market control.

[And I admit I can not see the attraction of Communism today. All one has to do is the compare a picture of any ordinary grocery store in the USA, with a picture of street block long lines in the USSR just to get a loaf of bread.]

Bikini Nuclear tests.

 Since I have not been able to spend much time on learning Torah --though I should overcome the difficulties. But in the meantime I wanted to mention my feeling the Bikini Nuclear tests. The people on those islands were evacuated but later brought back and assured that it was safe to return. They were test mice to see the effects of radiation poisoning. So if you think medical scientists would never use people are guinea pigs, think again. And that brings me to the non existent epidemic to cause people to take tests drugs (called by euphemism "vaccines.)  [Do yourself a bit of reading to understand the many years it takes to develop a real vaccine. There is no question that these are fakes.]

See the Conversations of Rav Nahman (Sichot HaRan) [of Breslov]. [paragraph 50.]

And I might mention that Dr Michael Huemer in one paper deals with the problems of political activists and all other sorts of people like doctors that think they they know more than they do. [In the named 

In Praise of Passivity

by Michael Huemer

 Political actors, including voters, activists, and leaders, are often ignorant of basic facts relevant to policy choices. Even experts have little understanding of the working of society and little ability to predict future outcomes. Only the most simple and uncontroversial political claims can be counted on. This is partly because political knowledge is very difficult to attain, and partly because individuals are not sufficiently motivated to attain it. As a result, the best advice for political actors is very often to simply stop trying to solve social problems, since interventions not based on precise understanding are likely to do more harm than good.

]

pure Litvak Yeshiva approach

 My own experience with the Mir Yeshiva in NY was not very long. And it is sad that I did not have an appreciation for it as much as I should have had. I was just three short years. I did not have a great understanding at the time of the Gra and the herem he signed on. But I did have some grasp of the amazing world of true authentic Torah.

And I do not think I am alone in this. Many people do not really get why the Gra signed on the letter of excommunication. I guess the problem of idol worship does not occur to people to be  a problem.

I could make a suggestion concerning the מנהל רוחני [the person more or less appointed to give the Musar talks.] They do not tend to be as admirable as the rosh yeshiva. They tend to not be able to give the deep sorts of classes that a rosh yeshiva is expected to give.[Along the lines of R. Akiva Eigger or Rav Chaim of Brisk]--or at least to be able to give over the idea of Rav Chaim and the other greats --e.g. Shimon Shkopf, Rav Shach, etc. But neither are they very well versed in Musar itself. They may have learned some Musar, but are usually unaware of the philosophical aspects of Musar. [an example would be the Chovot Levavot which is openly neo-Platonic.]  Or take the Ramchal--certainly a great mystic and there is some hint of this in the Mesilat Yesharim. But the teachers of Musar are often not very well versed in that area either. 

While at the Mir it was easy for me to see the greatness of the roshei yeshiva--in character and in deep understanding of the Gemara and Tosphot. But since I left there, I have never seen anyone that comes within light years of that. [ That is one reason I named this blog after Rav Shach--to give people an idea of an example of deep penetrating analysis of Gemara really means.

[That is not to say there is a case for the pure Litvak Yeshiva approach or even for the Gra alone per se. Rather Balance. Balance is the path of my parents. And one ought to not look at the Reform movement or the Zionist movement as aberration that are unexplainable except as the result of apikorsim heretics,- but rather as a natural result of pressure-the pressure of the insanity of fanatic religious leaders.

 Even with people doing good work in understanding Kant (like Paul Wolff), you still end up with the problem that this approach  has kinks that just do not seem to go away.  You could at that point look at Schelling or Fichte which are not Kantian at all, or you could take the Fries approach which is a modification of Kant. [It is not psychologism-using the mind to explain none mind based facts.]

Or you could take the Hegel approach. But that approach is certainly not to the liking of any Kantians. And at lot there depends on which initial texts one takes. For some reason I read the Logic [that part of the Encyclopedia] first and that fit completely into my understanding of Plato and Plotinus. [Ever since then I have never understood the complaints about Hegel.]  

And you could combine both. After all Hegel is mainly interested in building his Metaphysical system. he does not care about the Mind Body Problem. While Kant [and Fries] are involved in that very much so-- in answering Berkeley and Hume.   

[Incidentally, the Fries approach needed a certain amount of development. Leonard Nelson added a bit of clarity to it [as mentioned in Dr Kelley Ross's web site]. But even more so--the Friesian School of Nelson could not deal with the Special Theory of Relativity and even less with the General Theory of Relativity. That includes Nelson himself and all those who followed him until Gretta Hermann.]

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor.

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor. That is not to touch it at all. This is called "peah". The amount one must leave is 1/60. 

That left over part is not obligated in the presents given to the priest or the Levite [called truma and maasar.]

Let's say however one just goes ahead and reaps the whole field. The second that he jumped the line and cut down the first stalk of the 1/60 the obligation of peah goes over to  the sheaves. Some part of the sheaves he has to leave as peah so as to get up to 1/60 of the whole field.

But what happens to the first stalk of that started the process in the first place? and what happens to the second stalk of the 1/60 part that was the beginning of the transgression of the  לא תכלה "Do not finish harvesting your field, but leave the corner of your field to the poor." Well the second he harvested that stalk, he transgressed that prohibition. So the questions are is the very first stalk still obligated in truma. (For at first it was obligated in truma since it is not "left over". But now all the reaped field is liable to be peah. Does that include the first stalk? And the difference is what is obligated in truma  is called "tevel". Grain that has not had the presents to the priest and Levite separated rom it and thus forbidden to be eaten.) And what about the second stalk? Is it obligated in truma? For at first it was supposed to be peah. But the second he cuts it the obligation of peah goes over to the sheaves--but now it also is sheaf!! And it is peah? So which one is it? 

Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel.

Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel. For no troubles come upon the world except for he cause of the judges of Israel."

So we see the problem that Rav Nahman was referring to concerning Torah scholars that are demons [LeM vol. I perek 12 and 28] was noticed before. 

 The problem is how to tell who is from the realm of holiness and who is from the Dark Side?

And it is not possible to simply say, "Go and learn Torah, and you will see who is giving authentic advice and who is the fraud" because people need immediate advice and do not have the time to go through the entire Shas before they can reach a conclusion.

But you do have an indication if not an absolute proof.. Who encourages you to learn every day Gemara and Tosphot is from the Realm of Holiness. 

[The Dark Side can not stand that people learn authentic Torah.]

And I can see that ones parents often warn one about this problem. But the religious fanaticism that is in people does not let them listen their parents. This is odd since you might imagine that the fifth commandment of the Ten Commandments ought to make a difference to supposedly religious people.

[Parents are often aware of hypocrisy, while young [i.e eighteen years old] are not aware. The young think in fact it is all about learning Torah for its own sake, not for money and power. o they warn their children. But the children are taken in by the propaganda. Thus it is best to listen to the Torah which already told us to listen to our parents. We might be smart, but they know a thing or two about the ral world.

It is hard to know what to make of all this. On one hand, the importance of Torah is clear. On the other hand the religious world is mentally sick. What could be the meaning? I should mention that I was troubled by this for years until I understood that the religious world an d Torah are two  opposites. 

I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva

 I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva. Now I am happy that I also was inspired and gained a great deal from the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman of Breslov, but leaving the context of the straight Litvak sort of yeshiva was a mistake. [At least I can see that now.] So while I can not change the past, I can suggest to others that if they have merited to be in a straight Litvak yeshiva, then "count your blessings." Be grateful. You can learn from Rav Nahman's LeM and other books, but one must not be taken off the straight and narrow because of that.

z46 music file

 z46 A minor

Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem.

 There is little in the religious world that actually corresponds to Torah. Examples are plentiful. Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem. And yet the herem the Gra signed addressing this exact problem is ignored. There are many other examples but open idolatry should seem to be clearly in violation of the Ten Commandments. So why are all the groups that are included in the herem [excommunication] of the Gra thought to be the highest examples of loyalty to Torah? Should not every one of their books be considered to be dirty? No. Rather considered the peak of loyalty to Torah! How much clearer could things be?

 Thomas Sowell on Slavery 

I looked at some of this and I can see his points. After all we know slavery in the Torah is nothing like slavery as practiced. For example if one has only one  pillow, he must give it to his slave. The slave can not be made worse off than the master. That is different from galley slaves. 

[However brilliant Thomas Sowell is I must mention that some of his points are less accurate as noted by Brian Caplan here.   

Besides this it occurred to me that Lincoln had the authority to free the slaves דינא דמלכותא דינא."The law of the state is the law." Though he clearly did not have authority to make war on the South.  Even though the law of the state is the law is applied differently by the Rishonim, still t least we have the Rambam who hold that if a king declares "Anyone who does not pay such and such a tax will be sold as a slave" that is valid. Thus with symmetry, he can declare slaves to be free.  

If that was a good idea or not is debatable. But to me it seems that it was valid. Not only that but a sell under duress is valid. So the fact that the Southern States signed the 14th ammendment under duress does not make it invalid.. The only aspect that one can complain about in the Civil War is that the union of the states was voluntary. So making a war to keep it together, seems absurd. 

And Lincoln's statement, "If slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong", seems untrue. Maybe slavery is OK if slaves are treated right, while murder is wrong. Or making an unjust war might be wrong?  People get all excited about lots of different things. sometimes justified and sometimes not.

Nowadays I can see the point of the South that in freeing the slaves, there would be perpetual war against the whites. This seems fulfilled nowadays with the continuous attacks against the Constitution and all Western values. It is like letting the German Barbarians into the Roman empire. While at firt things seemed okay, but eventually it was a time bomb just waiting to explode.

Lets say for a similar example that a women agrees to get married to some man. And then at some point she wants to leave? Can he then bludgeon her to death? [As actually happens.]

And so what about the colonies making the war of Independence of the American Revolution? if you want to go with "No taxation without representation". Well from what could that be true? We know the king of England can not make taxes without the consent of Parliament. But the Parliament can make taxes as well as it pleases. And the American colonies were being taxed y Parliament as is the right of Parliament to do so. [And even the king agreed.] Where in the Magna Charta or the Provisions of Oxford does it say every person that is taxed has to have representation? So the Colonies were in rebellion exactly as the South was. What makes one right and the other wrong? If the South was wrong, then so was the American Revolution.

Rav Shach in Yerushalmi perek 2 halacha 5 in Peah and 2:11 in Laws of Peah

 I am still pondering this hard Rambam 2:11 in Peah. The owner of the field harvests the whole. He was supposed to leave 1/60 of the standing wheat to the poor. He gives from what was reaped to the poor. And if he gives most of what was reaped, that is not obligated in truma and maasar. [Truma is what is given t priests. Maasar is what is given to Levites. Clearly neither applies to peah which is the edge of the field which is given to the poor.] Only if he finished all the work [reaped and threshed], then he has to take truma and maasar and give to the poor.

Again what is this "most of what was reaped"? Normally  one can give his whole field as peah except for the first stalk. [Obviously of he does nothing with the field at all then it can not be "peah" i.e. the corner. There has to be some beginning work in order for the rest to be what was left 

So Rav Shach brings from the Yerushalmi perek 2 halacha 5 in Peah that if he even started to reap the 1/60, then the obligation of peah goes on the sheaves, not the standing wheat any more.

That helps a little. So now he can give the whole 59/60 as peah. But still I am wondering about the Yerushalmi itself. Why can he not just give what is left of the standing ears as peah and what in them does not make up the whole 1/60, to give the needed amount from what was reaped?  

Even though I am a beach bum, I am not saying that this is an ideal path. Just the opposite. If I could spend all day and night learning Torah I would.  And you can see the importance of this in the Nefesh HaChaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin (a disciple of the Gra.) Why I do not is the fact of the religious world is a mess of people that imagine themselves to be superior to all others by means of rituals that have nothing to do with Torah. [And it does help much by the fact that most "Torah scholars " are demons as brought many times in the LeM of Rav Nahman. though what this means is not clear, still one can be pretty sure this this ("demon") is not a complementary term.

The correction {tikun} to

 all this would be to heed the idea of the Gra who signed on the letter of excommunication. But that is ignored, and so the religious world ends up with this sort of characteristic of in outward rituals, all is well , inside there is a tiny invisible drop of cyanide.  

[And I must add that Rav Nahman himself was certainly not in the inclusive language of that letter, though many people think he was. 

[As for the religious world in general I must say that I discussed this with David Bronson for a few hours and after that he said, "Well since there are problems that we can not fix, let's sit and learn Gemara," and thus began our daily sessions for one hour in Gemara. And eventually I began to see that bitul Torah [not learning Torah when one can] is the source of many problems that people have including me. [Still I do not mean that the world of yeshivot is OK. Just that since no one really knows what is going on, we ought to sit and learn Torah as well  as we can--including not using Torah to make money.