You do not really know what is going on in the souls of other men. What do people gain by learning Torah in the kollel system? Sex--(i.e. a shiduch), money as their salary for learning Torah, power over others when what they want they claim is the authority of the Torah. Who is to say that they do not want these these things? Maybe they do. And if they do then that is Torah shelo lishma, Torah not for its own sake. And on Torah  not for  own sake we learn יערוף כמטר לקחי לשון הריגה "My teaching flows like rain" Flows is the same verb root as "kills". I.e., my teaching kills those who are not worthy. That means not only those that learn Torah not for its own sake but also those that listen to them.

 

 The essential flaw in China is the lack of people's confidence in Communism and totalitarian structures of government. That is to say, it is not external measures or lack of power and genius on the part of China that is the Achilles heel. Rather the very fact that Communism is not believable to the average man. Tell to the average guy that whatever he owns is theft and exploitation. Most will not believe that.

This was the reason for the fall of the USSR. Not from external pressure, but from simple lack of confidence in a 19th century variation of some obscure economic theory. '

[Das Capital by Marx would sit in book stores in the USSR for years collecting thick layers of dust.]

Robert E Lee

 I think the best way to understand the Civil War is by the principle of separation of powers of Montesquieu. I mean to say that even though this principle is used in understanding of the separate branches of government (Executive Judicial, Legislative), I think the exact same principle applies to why the founding fathers gave only limited powers to the Federal government and all other powers were reserved for the States.

So they saw the States as essentially in the same sort of category as a separate branch of government that had all other powers that were not specifically given to the Congress or the other branches of Federal government.

So the question was  if the Federal government was given in the Constitution the power to prevent a state from leaving the Union. Since it would be hard to make such a case, Robert E Lee concluded that the South was right.

[I have heard other arguments but they do not seem to carry much weight. especially once the South a]saw that the North was violating the Supreme Court's ruling about runaway slaves, it was clear the north was actively violating the Constitution.]

Heisenberg when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value.

Heisenberg.  There was a very influential thesis by Paul Rose that Heisenberg tried to help the Nazis get the A Bomb. I mentioned before that I think that clearly he did the opposite. This paper by Carl Meyer shows in detail what I have thought for a long time--that Heisenberg easily could work out how much U235 was needed, and yet always over estimated it in conversations to show that it was impossible for the Germans to get that much. [Han complained to him that his estimates varied from 50 kilos to 2 tons.] Albert Speer specifically asked Heisenberg about it and came away saying the Heisenberg convinced him that it was impossible.[Besides all this, it ought to be noted that the paper by Paul Rose has a flawed analysis of how to get to the critical mass. It was not written by an expert in atomic fission.] 

Besides that, in his 1939 paper, he ignored the actual question that was asked to him "If it is possible to make a bomb out of Uranium?" Instead, he spent the entire paper discussing making a nuclear reactor to create energy. [He did mention twice the idea of explosives in his 41 page paper- with no approximations, nor math. He just said pure U-235 would be needed for that.]

But at Farm Hall, when asked how much was needed? He gave a lecture on Aug 14 1945 and came up with the 6.2 square centimeters value. I.e. when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value. When he did not want to know, and wanted to discourage others, he came up with fanatic amounts that were impossible to get.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/02/08/heisenberg-in-copenhagen-an-exchange/

 

 Happily the Covid hoax is is getting exposed in Australia and I hope the rest of the Western world will soon follow. Of course the purpose was never to save people from a case of a mild flu, but rather to get them to take the vaccine in order to lower the white  population.\

However if people had taken the advice of Rav Nahman who warned about the medical profession they might have been saved from the hoax. Also  my mother told me many times, never to take any drug that has not been on the market for at least fifty years.

 Even though I feel the herem of the Gra is still valid, I think that if you see the actual language of the doc shows that Rav Nahman was not included.  But I can still see some of the flaws in Breslov. Rav Nachman is one thing and Breslov is something else. In fact you can see in almost any Breslov group, group traits which are shared traits among all Brelov, whether new comers or Breslov of several generations.

And it just not work well with being in the context of the straight Torah approach of the Gra. 

Imean that within the context of a litvak yeshiva and Musar, the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman ae vary valuable. But when people take him by himself and the rest of Torah as a footnote, then it seems to have some problems.

The point that is important to see is that there is a basic set of values of Torah --good midot as defined by Torah itself, learning Torah, fear of God which come into reality in the Litvak yeshiva. You might find some great advice in Rav Nahman about other issues, but this basic set of values tends to be lackinh anywhere except in the context of the those that follow the Gra 

Musar movement to gain Fear of God. [Musar I should make clear is not the Gemara, but it contains the teachings of the Gemara as related to Fear of God and being a mensch--i.e. having good midot character.]

In the Musar movement it is thought that the way to gain Fear of God is by learning Musar. And this has always seemed to me to be a weak plea. Where do you see such a thing in the books of Musar of the Rishonim? No where. Just the opposite, they all repeat the claim to contemplate the amazing works of God," is what brings to fear of God. And what is this contemplation according to the Rambam in the Guide and Mishna Torah? Learning Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks.   

But you have to piece this together from various places in the Guide. In one place he equates learning the Work of Creation (Physics) with attaining Fear of God. And learning the work of the Divine Chariot [Metaphysics] with Attaining Love of God. But it is in the introduction that he explains that what the sages called "the Work of Creation" is Physics as learned by the ancient Greeks. [Just that that knowledge was lost from Israel he explains.] And "The Divine Chariot" is Metaphysics as learnt by the Greeks. [This at least refers to the set of books of Aristotle called the Metaphysics.]

I admit my own studies in these directions have taken a hit. By the time I got around to step into the waters of Physics and Metaphysics my time and energy were depleted. [Not even to mention the fact that to really get into Physics, it helps to have a high I.Q., which I do not have. But that is not to say that a high I.Q. is the only way. The better way is through Fear of God which helps as the verse says, "The Beginning of Wisdom is the Fear of the Lord." But then we have gone in a circle --since as mentioned above, learning Physics is the path to Fear of God. So in the long run, we have to conclude that Rav Israel Salanter was right-that even to get the foot into the door of Fear of God is by Musar.--the books about being a mensch, having good midot and fear of God authored by the Rishonim.I should add that the main Musar book is the Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda but that translation by Ibn Tibon is hard. Still it is worth the effort.

Intellectuals of social studies departments and and the religious world denigrate STEM because they want the power and prestige that comes to physicists and mathematicians

Critical Race Theory is supposed to sound scientific. Something like "The Theory of Relativity." So the people that are teaching "critical race theory" are supposed to be on the same intellectual plane as Nuclear Scientists.https://www.blogger.com/blog/stats/week/7094454024638111815

 

But this is just one example of a much wider phenomenon: "Physics Jealousy" People that want the same prestige and power that comes to physicists and mathematicians, but they can not get it. (This includes the religious world.) So they make up some system by which they can denigrate the natural sciences and prop up their own garbage. 

It is unreasonable to imagine that intellectuals of the social social studies departments who debates mean nothing to anyone [including themselves' do not desire power.  Just the opposite. It is all about power.

students of the 60's

 The students of the 60's themselves were influenced by the Frankfurt School. Their books were the popular books of the 60’s like The One Dimensional Man. They thought if one is not a Marxist, then he is a Nazi. They said everyone and all society of the USA, unless they are radical Marxists, then they are Nazis. [They came from Weimer Germany where such a world view was true.] But not in the USA. For in the USA there was and still is a Middle.

It is incongruous to think of Sunny Southern California as Nazism in disguise.

So the lesson is: most of what passes today as "Torah" is not authentic

 I was thinking about Shar Yashuv today and it occurred to me that Rav Freifeld had a tremendous insight for how to make a yeshiva that would help new comers understand authentic Torah. That is to leave out the fluff. To get people into authentic learning of Gemara and Tosphot as soon as possible. 

And further it occurred to me that great insight of the Rambam that just like one can not add to the prophets so can one not add to the actual Oral Law--the two Talmuds, the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada,

So while the commentaries are valuable in so far as they are the process of learning and understanding Torah, they still are not the actual Torah which is only what is the actual books handed down by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara.

So the lesson is: most of what passes today as "Torah" is not authentic

Critical race theory is pseudo science and just a tool for blacks to destroy the white race.

 Karl popper's idea here makes sense. He approached Adler and asked how does he know his psychological theory to be true? The answer: I have many clinical cases which show it to be true. Popper answered: Then if you would have one more case that would be another proof. Then it occurred to him that real science can only be that which can be disproven. Thus in the case brought here CRT, the same idea is applicable. People start out with an axiom [that all whites are racists] that no amount of evidence will ever be able to refute. So CRT is pseudo science, since it can not be disproven by any conceivable experiment.

If people would learn authentic science  by the way of Rav Nahman (--i.e., saying the words and going on,-)they would never be fooled by pseudo science. The only reason people do not do this already is that they have no faith in themselves. They think because they do not understand complex Mathematics at first glance, that means that they can not understand it. But that is simply short sighted small mindedness. All they need to know is that by saying the words, eventually the understanding enters into one in the subterranean lays of the mind and soul.

So how did American curriculum get lost in mud?  American curriculum was a lot better in the old days–the three R’s Reading Writing, and Arithmetic. And the Sputnik came along and there was an extra emphasis on STEM in society. But somewhere along the lines some agenda seeped in from somewhere. I heard the suggestion that it all came from the Frankfurt School and the Fabian Society. These were those that came from Weimer Germany. They thought if people were not extreme Left Communist, then they were in secret really Nazis. 

Critical Race Theory is just away for blacks to destroy the white race.

repeating every chapter of Gemara ten times.

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman  76. is brought the system of learning of saying the words of what you are studying as fast as possible and to go on. Review in this method only applies after one has finished the book completely.

It seems that this method can be applied to the hard sciences also--or at least that is what I have tried to do or myself.

But I wanted to mention that hearing and learning from an expert is also important.  

I have mentioned this before in regard to Shar Yashuv and the Mir Yeshiva in NY--where, thank God, I found grace in God's eyes to grant to me to learn from gedolei Torah [great sages in Torah] R. Naphtali Yeager, R. Shmuel Berenbaum, and later in Uman with David Bronson.

Still I should add that one also needs an depth session. I heard from Rav Freifeld the idea of repeating every chapter of Gemara ten times. And in fact later at the Mir I used to repeat every Pnei Yehoshua at least ten times. This system of learning of lots of review I feel is very important --but only when it is possible. Sometimes you realize that no matter how much you review, it will not help and just bog you down, But there are times when lots of review can be extremely important. [The idea of review I found very helpful when I was at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU doing Physics.]]

In movies, it is often the father who is the evil jerk. In Western Society to look down on one's parents is thought to be a good thing. 

That does not fit with  "Honor your father and your mother."

So sometimes to do the right thing, one has to go against society 

[In this regard I want to mention that while I was at the Mir Yeshiva in NY I got the idea about the centrality of  good character ("midot tovot") in Torah. And that certainly was exactly what my parents were telling to be "a mensch".]

 And I must add that by not walking in the path of ones parents, one is certainly not honoring them. 

 Even though "meila" מעילה  does not seem to have wide application because meila is associated with sacrifices. still it is applicable when it comes to nedarim (vows) and herem. (excommunication). [Meila is using a something that has been dedicated to the Temple for personal use.]  

This is the subject of an argument between the sages and R. Meir in the Mishna, but the law is like the sages that meila does apply to nedarim and Herem.

 The herem that the Gra signed is still applicable. And one that transgress it would have the law of meila applied. So what is that law? E.g if one has an animal dedicated to be a sacrifice, and then uses it to plow. He has to bring a guilt offering and pay to the Temple the amount that that animal is worth plus a fourth. [It is called a "fifth" but it means a fourth. That is a fourth of the whole value added to the whole makes five parts.] 

That is to say: there is no benefit that can be derived by ignoring the Gra. Like the Gra noted that he is hinted to in the Torah in the verse אבן שלמה יהיה לך --ראשי תיבות אליהו בן שלמה You must have a perfect measure. The first letters are the same letters as Eliyahy ben Shelomo. [This goes in accord with the idea of the Gra that everything and everyone is hinted to in the Torah.] 

The hint that I noted here is אבן שלמה יהיה לך = אליהו בן שלמה יהיה לך   To follow the path of the Gra.

Religious fanaticism

 Religious fanaticism is probably not the best approach. But neither is secular fanaticism. After all Cambodia under  the communist regime of the Khmer Rouge  was not exactly a shinning example of enlightened leadership.

 This is why one needs the mediaeval approach of synthesizing reason with faith.

Religious fanaticism however is worse than secular since it is decayed holiness and so has more power to cause damage. 

 The Rambam holds the Atlantic ocean and all rivers can not be used for the Red Heifer. [Beginning of Laws of the Red Heifer.] [note 1] The Raavad asks why does the Rambam abandon the Mishna and go to the Tosephta? After all the Mishna only invalidates  four rivers in Israel.(The Tosephta invalidates all rivers.)

Rav Shach explains the Rambam is going with the idea of the Gemara that all rivers receive from the Atlantic. 

This all for me was a bit of a surprise because I thought all rivers are fed from springs. Well that is apparently the argument here.

That means the Tosephta is holding that all rivers have a category of a "collection of rain water" and not a spring.

Bu this still leaves me wondering why the Mishna only invalidates four rivers in Israel. Obviously the Mishna holds that all rivers [besides those four] in fact have a category of a spring. The point of the Raavvad still looks valid.

[note 1] The ashes of the Red Heifer are put onto "living waters" in order to be sprinkled on someone who has touched a dead person. That is a requirement before that person can come into the Temple or eat of the sacrifices.

I was really in great need to learn authentic Torah. So I really had to get to the Mir and Shar Yashuv in New York.

 I was really in great need to learn authentic Torah. So I really had to get to the Mir and Shar Yashuv in New York. But because of that I ignored the other requirement of "Torah with Derech Eretz." [That is to say,- even against the advice of Rav Shelomo Freifeld (of Shar Yashuv), I did nor want to go to university at that stage. I felt, the only way I was going to get to any level of understanding of Torah what so ever, would be by spending every waking minute on it. Only later did I go to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU.]  And even after all that,-even sitting in the classes of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, [of the Mir] I still never really got the idea until I learned with David Bronson. [To him, getting into the depths of the Gemara comes naturally like a fish in water.] Finally at that point I started getting the idea.

 Rav Nahman was suspicious of the medical profession. See the Conversations of Rav Nahman perek 50. So just based on that, I think it is best to not to take cures or "vaccines" if you are not sick. And even when something is wrong, one needs to be careful. At least I noticed in Uman that doctors were very careful to never try new experimental stuff. But elsewhere, I would refrain from doctors. They just have too many new toys that they are just dying to try out on us.

 The way you count days of nida [seeing blood in normal time] and ziva [seeing blood in not normal time] is a point of disagreement between the Rishonim against the Rambam. The Rishonim hold seven of nida and then if more than seven then ziva. But the Rambam has this sort of approach which seems impossible to stick to. In his approach days of nida start when the girl first sees blood and then continues according to the order 7-11,7-11, 7-11, etc. [So if she see one day and then sees on day 30. Well to the Rambam that is ziva.] So let's say you have a girl 18 years old who clearly has not been keeping track. So any blood she sees could easily be ziva. [And even if she has tried to keep track,- well so what? With five colors of blood that are unclean and five that are clean  who can tell when she actually saw something unclean?

What I think is this: the best thing is to go with the simple approach of the Rishonim (e.g. Ramban/Nahmanides) that when she sees that is the beginning of nida. Then go to a river or sea on the seventh day and then at night she is clean. [Only in the rare case of seeing for more than seven days does the issue of Ziva come into play. Then if she sees for three consecutive days that is a zava. Then she would need to count seven clean days, and find a spring. 

The Third Friesian School

 I think the ideas of Dr. Kelley Ross ought to be thought of as a third Friesian School. Not like the first of Apelt. Not like the second [called the New Friesian School] of Leonard Nelson. For his ideas are based a lot on a synthesis of thinkers from Kant, Fries, Nelson, but also Otto, Popper, and Schopenhauer.  

I mean to say that it only takes a brief look into Fries himself to see his antiquated anti-atomism or Nelson to see his fight against Special Relativity. [And that itself led to Reichenbach and the whole Berlin School going off into other directions which were even more flawed.]

{Not that I can see everything like Dr. Ross. I just can not see the critique on Hegel. Even recently the idea of Hegel's seeing the importance of individualism was brought to my attention in Cunningham's PhD thesis a century ago. {There he brings Hegel' idea that Substance and the State are the Thesis and anti Thesis while the Individualism is the Synthesis.]

And I think that Dr. Ross mainly does not like the fact that Marxists used Hegel to prop up their system. I mean to say that Dr. Ross does not like the fact that the Left are always out to get America. You can see this by the fact that they always find fault in everything that the USA stands for and has ever done. So the fact that they used Hegel implies blame on Hegel. But I think they just misused Hegel. Abusus non tollit usum. Abuse does not cancel use.

[And when it comes to internal strife, there is a sort of calming influence of Communism to get people to give up fighting and settle down to an authoritarian regime. But the trouble begins when they try to take down democratic systems.

To see hints in things is an important principle. In the LeM of Rav Nahman it is brought that God minimizes Himself to send hints to a person in things that happen to him. This might be applied wrongly, but it is a an important that can show one what he is doing wrong. You might notice, for example, that things are not going as well for you as you had thought. This is because in the very things that are going wrong, there is hidden a message. Perhaps to cease and  desist doing something you thought was a great mitzvah? 

Rav Israel Salanter about learning Musar.

 On Shabat I noticed  the chapter in Job [circa 25 or around there] that discusses the question "Where is  wisdom to be found.?" Then it goes through a long list of all the places and approaches that do not work. The depths say it is not in them. Not the sea or land or heavens. It seems clear that even all the efforts that one might expend on finding wisdom, nothing works--until finally at the very end of that chapter one (and only one) way is found. That is Fear of God.  "Fear of God is Wisdom."

So you see the idea of Rav Israel Salanter about learning Musar. I.e., the books that show how to come to authentic fear of God.   

The benefit of this is according to Job is that it brings one to true wisdom.

[If only I would merit to this!! I spent a good deal of time while at the Mir in New York (outside of the regular sedarim (sessions of learning which were five hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon.). But still I found time to go through a lot of the basic group of Musar books. [The classical mediaeval  five or six plus some  of the achronim[authorities after Rav Joseph Karo]]. I can say that this definitely helped me in many ways. 

[So what makes sense to me is to have yeshivot that walk in the path of Musar and the Gra.]

[I might mention that Musar sessions in yeshivot are short. In my opinion it would be better to have the original time period of forty minutes after the morning session of gemara until mincha. [i.e. Gemara until 130 P.M., then musar for 40 minutes. ] Then 30 minutes before maariv [i.e. Gemara fast learning from 4 P.M. until 8P.M. the 30 minutes of Musar.]

[Job clearly hold taking Diversity Studies does not help to come to wisdom. But further than that, he is saying all the other ideas that one might think help are delusions.]

 z60 midi file

 Sandra Lehmann (a Ph.D student at Hebrew U ) once told me that, "There is something odd about the study of philosophy in that it seems to take common sense away from people." That must be the reason even brilliant people after doing philosophy come up with really odd stuff. 

However I realize that philosophy is important in terms of using reason to examine ones' beliefs. It is important to have an over view of everything.. One must have some sort of answer to the question: What is it all about? You do not get tht from the natural sciences. But in this exact area that is where philosophy and the social sciences have failed measurably. So what I think is that Kant and Hegel are important. But I would also like to mention some modern people that have some clear vision in an age when vision is gone.

Kelley Ross I think is the best , but also there is Michael Huemer.

Lieutenant Simon

Lieutenant Simon was the person that organized the rescue of the people working in Iran [for Ross Perot] at the time of the revolution. And he was successful. [While the attempt of the US government to rescue its people there failed.] What was the secret of Lieutenant Simon? Reconnaissance. Always check it out before you jump in. 

One of the advantages that I gained in Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY was listening from people that knew Torah very well. [Naftali Yeager, Shmuel Berenbaum]. I have suspected that it is impossible to come to understand "how to learn " without receiving it from someone that knows.

And even after all that I still never really got the idea until years later I began to learn with David Bronson and then seeing this same sort of deep learning and then it finally started to sink unto me what it is all about.

I mean to say that there have been self taught people like Abraham Lincoln, but I wonder how far that can go? 

Maybe if Abraham Lincoln had gone to university, and did not have to rely only on self taught learning, maybe he would have realized that it was the North that was the rebel. In the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers there can not be anything more clear than the fact that the Federal Government has only enumerated powers things stated openly that the Constitution grants to the Federal Government. In any case, I sometimes think that anyone could get the iea just by learning a lot of Tosphot, Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. Other times it seems that one needs to listen to a teacher that knows all this.

Torah is not a cult of personality.

 Torah is not a cult of personality. It is all about devotion to God. Not to any person. This aspect is very clear in secular Jews where there is no emphasis on any person at all. Even if you might complain that they are less strict in some rituals, still in this major, essential aspect of Torah they excel. 

The other point is that Torah is about good midot [good character]. In this area  you also see secular Jews excel. However this aspect was in fact rightfully emphasized by Rav Israel Salanter.

Rav Shach's explanation of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13a.

 I was at the sea again and pondering Rav Shach's explanation of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13a. In short: the land of Israel belongs to Abraham the Patriarch but trees that the Canaanites plant belong to them. So the Gemara asks why burn the asherot (trees that were worshipped)?[If they would have been idols of a gentile, the gentile could simply verbally nullify them and knock some piece off.] Tosphot says because of the trees from previous generations. [Rav Shach explains that means that were planted before Abraham.] 

What I was thinking was this. Rav Shach explains the trees that had to be burned were not worshipped at first. So when the land was given to Abraham the trees came along. Then Israel [the nation of Israel] worshipped the Golden Calf and so we see idolatry was okay to the and the trees became idols of Israel that needed to be burned.

What I asked was the obvious question that a tree that was planted regularly, not in order to be worshipped does not become an ashera [idol worshipped tree] since it is attached to the ground.

Today I was wondering if there could be  away this question might be answered. Perhaps I thought the trees were  in fact planted to be worshipped, and then the land was given to Abraham along with those trees and then the Golden Calf was worshipped and then they become idols of a Israeli. But I can not see how this could make sense. If the land was given to Abraham along with those trees then they already belonged to him before the Golden Calf. Then they needed burning. If Abraham would have refused to acquire idolatrous trees then what changed when the Golden Calf was worshipped? Suddenly an act of acquisition occurred? Obviously not.

So I am still stuck in trying to figure this subject out.

[Just for a reminder to people, I bring here the subject in short. Gemara Avoda Zara23b: why was Israel commanded to burn the Asherot idol trees? Did not the land belong to them? And אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one an cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so idolatry was okay to them. 

Gemara Rosh Hashana 13a. How could Israel bring the Omer first stalk of grain when they came into the Land Of Canaan? That grain belonged to the Canaanites! Tosphot says by way of explanation: the land was of Israel and the grain was of the Canaanites. Then Tosphot asks then what were they asking in Avoda Zara 23b? Answer: Because of the trees from the previous generations.]

_______________________________________________________________________

 I was pondering של רב שך explanation of the גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה י''ג ע''א.  In short: the land of Israel belongs to Abraham the Patriarch but trees that the Canaanites plant belong to them. So the גמרא עבודה זרה  asks why burn the אשירות  (trees that were worshipped)? [If they would have been idols of a עכו''ם, the עכו''ם could simply verbally nullify them and knock some piece off.] תוספות says because of the trees from previous generations. רב שך explains that means that were planted before Abraham. What I was thinking was this. רב שך explains the trees that had to be burned were not worshipped at first. So when the land was given to Abraham the trees came along. Then Israel [the nation of Israel] worshipped the Golden Calf and so we see idolatry was okay to the and the trees became idols of Israel that needed to be burned. What I asked was the obvious question that a tree that was planted regularly, not in order to be worshipped does not become an אשירה [idol worshipped tree] since it is attached to the ground. Today I was wondering if there could be a way this question might be answered. Perhaps I thought the trees were  in fact planted to be worshipped, and then the land was given to Abraham along with those trees and then the Golden Calf was worshipped and then they become idols of a Israeli. But I can not see how this could make sense. If the land was given to Abraham along with those trees then they already belonged to him before the Golden Calf. Then they needed burning. If Abraham would have refused to acquire idolatrous trees then what changed when the Golden Calf was worshipped? Suddenly an act of acquisition occurred? Obviously not.

הייתי מהרהר בהסבר של רב שך בגמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה י''ג ע''א. בקיצור: ארץ ישראל שייכת לאברהם  אבל עצים שהכנענים שתלו שייכים להם. אז הגמרא עבודה זרה שואלת למה לשרוף את האשירות (עצים שסגדו להם)? [אם הם היו אלילים של עכו''ם, יכלו העכו''ם פשוט לבטל אותם.] תוספות אומר בגלל העצים מהדורות הקודמים. רב שך מסביר שפירושו שנטעו לפני אברהם. מה שחשבתי זה זה. רב שך מסביר את העצים שהיה צריך לשרוף לא עבדו בהתחלה. אז כשהארץ ניתנה לאברהם, נרכשו גם העצים. ואז ישראל סגדו לעגל הזהב ולכן אנו רואים שעבודת האלילים הייתה בסדר אצלם והעצים הפכו לאלילים של ישראל שהיו צריכים להישרף. מה ששאלתי היא השאלה המתבקשת שעץ שנשתל סתם, שלא על מנת לעבוד לא הופך לאשרה מאחר שהוא מחובר לאדמה. היום תהיתי אם יש דרך לענות על השאלה הזו. אולי חשבתי שהעצים בעצם נטועים כדי לעבוד, ואז הארץ ניתנה לאברהם יחד עם העצים האלה ואז סגדו לעגל הזהב ואז הם הופכים לאלילים של ישראלי. אבל אני לא יכול לראות איך זה יכול להיות הגיוני. אם הארץ ניתנה לאברהם יחד עם העצים האלה אז הם כבר היו שייכים לו לפני עגל הזהב. ואז הם היו צריכים שריפה. אם אברהם היה מסרב לרכוש עצי אלילים, אז מה השתנה כאשר סגדו לעגל הזהב? פתאום התרחש מעשה רכישה? ברור שלא

 Since too much stuff is falsely called Torah it occurs to me to make a short list of what counts as authentic Torah. [As the Rambam wrote Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the Written Law so there is no adding or subtracting from the Oral Law. The Rambam goes into this in his letters. 

So the list is the two Talmuds and the Halachic midrashim and agadic midrashim. 

Mechilta, Sifra, Sifrei, Midrash Raba, Midrash Tanhuma, Eliyahu Raba, Eliyahu Zutra, Tosephta, the shor mesechtot printed in the end of the Villna Shas.

But I would have to include in the commandment to learn Torah the commentaries, though not actually "Torah" still they are a part of "learning Torah."

But even in later commentaries, there is some point where things cease to be Torah and start to be Fraud.[Of course that was the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.]

messiah son of joseph

 

The whole subject messiah son of joseph does not seem important to me. That is to say: Torah is about good character. 

But for information: the idea of messiah son of joseph can best be seen in the book of the Gra called "Kol HaTor" קול התור

At any rate, Torah is not a cult of personality. It is devotion to God. No one else. See tehilim 18 verse 2.You see there that King David  was putting his hopes in God, not people.

 The Gra explained that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments put together. He brings this from the Yerushalmi.The Yerushalmi says the mishna תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם refers to every word of Torah.

[You can ask if the same idea applies to Mathematics and Physics according to the opinions that Math and Physics are included in the commandment to learn Torah. See Rambam laws of Learning Torah where he divides the learning time into the Oral Written Law and Gemara and adds the things called Pardes are included in Gemara. We see  in the beginning of the Mishna Torah that Pardes refers to the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics. And in the Guide he says so openly in the introduction

But this group of Rishonim [Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the Doctors, Rambam etc] include Metaphysics and I do not know what that would mean for today. In their time this meant Plato Aristotle Plotinus. Al Kindi, and Ibn Rushd. But today? I guess this would include Kant, Fries, Hegel, Leonard Nelson. 

[The main thing in Torah and Metaphysics is to know what to exclude. In philosophy I would exclude everything after Kant, Fries and Hegel. In Torah I would exclude everything after the end of the Talmudic period --as the Gemara says itself "Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the time when one can decide a halacha" רבינא ורב אשי סןף הוראה

So it is not a surprise to me when one midrash contradicts another.

Someone asked me about difficult issues in faith issues. You might have noticed these yourself. My answer to this has been the "dinge an sich [Things in themselves]. That means this: There are areas where reason can venture into, even without empirical evidence.  These are areas of possible experience. [For example Math.]But there are also areas where reason tries to venture into that it has no access to. and when it tries to get in, it comes up with self contradictions. [e.g. Is the universe infinite? If yes how can any length not have an end? And if it is finite then what limits it?] So that is my general approach to spiritual issues. They are all dinge an sich, and thus outside the realm of human or even pure reason. So it is not a surprise to me when one midrash contradicts another. I say that is to be expected. And if there would not be contradictions, that in itself would be a problem, Trying to insert Reason into spirit is a mistake, and thinking about these things makes people insane.

 Reason integrated with Faith --Athens and Jerusalem was a great achievement of the Middle Ages.

So you can see how faith without philosophy leads to absurd results. But philosophy without faith also tends to lunacy.

So the question is how to get the right balance. I think that Kant, Kelley Ross [based on the Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson] and Hegel are the best when it comes to philosophy.

That is to say: people that came before Kant all seem to have some sort of difficulties with either pure reason or empirical evidence.  Spinoza and Leibniz were great, so were John Locke and Hume. But each system has problems. To me it seems the best solutions are in Kant, Leonard Nelson and Hegel.

But philosophy after these three took a nose dive. To show this I recommend Robert Hanna's books showing how Analytic Philosophy misunderstood Kant and went off into directions not very well thought out. As for Continental philosophy the same goes. As John Searle puts it : "Twentieth century philosophy is clearly false". 

The point of philosophy is to see the big picture. What is it all about? But the idea that Natural Science needs philosophy is not so absurd as it sounds. After all there are tons of pseudo sciences nowadays tha masquerade as legitimate science. E.g. Psychology.  It is by definition pseudo science since there is no conceivable observation that could falsify it. Climate science is another doozy.  

 In the religious world, it is thought that if you can change the words, then you can change the reality. How do you see this? Well, one example is idolatry. If you can call worshipping dead people "going to kivrei tzadikim (graves of  tzadikim) that somehow changes the reality.

Magic to force God to do your will, you no longer call it "magic" rather "yichudim" unifications. And that is somehow supposed to change the reality.

But this is not confined to the religious. In California you call prisons "houses of corrections." They are not houses of corrections. Nobody gets corrected. They get imprisoned. And usually come out much worse. So perhaps we should call them houses that take mild criminals and turn them into hardened criminals.

mobile phone and wireless radiation"

 The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation"

Zohar was written in the Middle Ages.

In the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin you can see the importance of learning Torah. [That is in the last part, part 4, of that book. ]

And this message was received by me loud and clear in Shar Yashuv in NY. And even until today I hold by with this message. But I consider that "learning Torah" is limited to what we actually know to be the Written and Oral Law. You can't just add what you want, just your own personal thoughts, write them in Hebrew and then call it "Torah". Which means the 99.9% of what is called "Torah" nowadays is deception. 

What is the Written Torah? That is clear-the Old Testament. The Oral Torah is also clear. The books written after the destruction of the Second Temple --at which time the entire Oral Law was collected and edited by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. So what comes later can not be called the Oral Law. However, some of what comes later can be included in a secondary way when it is just commenting on the two Talmuds or Midrashim. But not when some jerk makes up his own "stuff" and calls it "Torah."

Zohar was unknown until the time of Moshe DeLeon. He claimed it was from R. Shimon ben Yochai.. But so what? What would you say if the Talmud was unknown until the Middle Ages, and then someone claimed they had discovered it? Would it now be thought to be the Oral Law? Of course not.

Besides that עם כל דא [translation of עם כל זה although] was invented by Ibn Tibon.[Although in the time of R. Shimon ben Yochai was אף על פי או אף על גב] So the fact that עם כל דא  is all throughout the Zohar shows it was written in the Middle Ages.

    

[This is not meant to dismiss the great mystics, Avraham Abulafia, the Remak Moshe of Cordoba and Rav Isaac Luria. And even if the Ari and Remak got inspiration and ideas from the Zohar that does not contradict their own authentic mystic visions.] 

doctors. While I was in Uman and had a need for doctors, God brought me to very good doctors. Both in the local city hospital and also in the County Hospital. [bolniza rayona].

 Rav Nahman of Uman has a whole section against doctors in Conversations of the Ran perek 50.  And this is good advice. However there are exceptions. For some reason, while I was in Uman and had a need for doctors for all sorts of problems, God brought me to very good doctors. Both in the local city hospital and also in the County Hospital. [bolniza rayona].

pfizer-inoculations

 https://rumble.com/vqx3kb-the-pfizer-inoculations-do-more-harm-than-good.html

Robert E Lee always changed his strategy

 I think I have figured out the approach of Robert  E Lee. He never said as much but looking at the battles of the Civil War I begin to see a pattern. It is this: Robert E Lee always changed his strategy --on purpose. He knew the Union generals had studied at West Point and knew very well all the different chess moves. For that very reason General Lee made sure to change his strategy at every  turn. If one time it was a straight phalanx then the next time her reversed it.[Eg the second battle of Manassas.]  Take a look and you will see that the one thing that was predictable was that he was unpredictable. He meant to keep the Union generals off balance.  

This is one of the major reasons that General Grant saw right away when he became the head of the Army of the Potomac that the only possible way to defeat Lee was by shear numbers. Without that, the Confederates would predictably win at every turn. [At the beginning of the war, the South predictably won at every battle. Only around when Grant took charge, things turned around.] 

I should say here that the whole thing seems sad to me. I can not see that freeing the slaves was legal or legitimate. It just unleashed a fifth column against the USA that has been trying to destroy Constitutional Government ever since then.  

תמורה י''ט ע''א. אבי עזרי הלכות תמורה פרק ד' הלכה ז'' ואבי עזרי פסולי מקודשים פרק ד' הלכה ט''ז, זבחים פ''ה ע''ב

\
מבוא. כבשה בהריון. האם הוולד הוא חלק מהאם? הנושא הזה עולה בגמרא. יש לנו מקרה שמישהו הקדיש כבשה קרבן אשם, וזה לא יכול להיות. בעוד קרבן חטאת הוא נקבה, קרבן אשם הוא זכר .ויקרא ה'. אבל נניח שהכבשה לא הייתה הרה בזמן הקדשה ואז נכנסה להריון. ואז היא וצאצאיה נשלחים למרעה עד לקבלת פגם כלשהו ואז נמכרים ובכסף הבעלים קונים כבשה זכר להיות קרבן אשם. אבל נניח שהכבשה הייתה בהריון באותה תקופה. ואז אם היא תלד כבש זכר שיכול לשמש קרבן אשם לדעת ר' אלעזר. החכמים לעומת זאת חולקים ואומרים שהחוק הוא שהם נשלחים למרעה ונמכרים. רבינא אומר שהסיבה לר' אלעזר היא שהולד אינו נחשב חלק מהאם. אז ההקדשה חלה על הוולד. אבל הרמב''ם מחזיק בדין כמו החכמים שהכבשה וולד זכרה נשלחים למרעה וכן שהוולד אינו חלק מהאם

תמורה י''ט ע''א. העניין הוא כך: למה וולד של נקבה שהקדשה לפסח בטעות יש לפדות במקום להביאו כשלמים? אתה יכול לשאול למה זו צריכה להיות בעיה? תשובה: אנו גורסים כי הוולד לאו ירך אמו. אז כשהוא מכריז על האם כקרבן פסח [למרות שנקבה לא יכולה להיות קרבן פסח], הקדושה צריכה להתיישב על ולד שהיא מעוברת עמו עכשיו. אני רוצה להזכיר שלמרות שאנו מחזיקים את הוולד לאו ירך אמו, זה לא לגמרי כך. כי אם זה יהיה כך, ההכרזה על האם לא היה קשור לוולד וזה היה "חולין" [לא קדוש כלל]. תשובה לבעיה הנ"ל. משהו יכול להיות לו קדושת הגוף ועדיין לא להתאים למזבח. אז לוולד יש קדושת הגוף, אך עדיין אינו יכול להביאו כקורבן ולכן יש לפדות אותו. (ירעה עד שיקבל מום ואז נפדה אגב מומו.) איך אתה רואה את העיקרון הזה? מר' עקיבא ור' יוחנן שבהמה בעלת מום, אם העלתה על המזבח בשוגג, אינה יורדת. אבל אם בא המום קודם שנתקדשה, יורדת. זה חל על נקבה שהקדשה להיות קרבן עולה גם, למרות שיש לה קדושת הגוף, עדיין היא יורדת.. לפיכך: משהו יכול להיות קדוש קדושת הגוף ועדיין לא מתאים למזבח. החלק הקשה של זה הוא הולד של פסח נקבה. למרות שהאם לא יכולה להיות נקרבת, היינו חושבים שהוולד צריך להיות נקרב. זה המקום שבו הרעיון שהזכרתי למעלה. ההקדשה של האם אינה יכולה להיחשב כבלתי רלוונטיים לוולד, שכן אם כן, הוולד יהיה חולין. אז במובן הזה הוולד הוא כמו בהמה שיש בה מום ואז התקדשה. (כלומר שיש פגם בעצם ההקדשה.) אז למרות שיש בו קדושת גוף. אין מביאים אותו כקרבן

מידע רקע: קרבן פסח יכול להיות רק זכר. אז נניח שמקדשים נקבה לקרבן פסח והיא יולדת זכר. זה אחד מהסוגיות שבהן הרמב''ם קשה להבין. הנושא הוא זה. הרמב''ם פסק דין שאם הכבשה האם הרה או לא, הכבש שנולד נפדה.  זה לא כמו ר' אלעזר שאמר במקרה שהיא הייתה בהריון בזמן שנתקדשה, ניתן להביא את הכבש שנולד כקרבן שלמים. ורבינא אומר סיבת ר' אלעזר היא ולד לאו ירך אמו. אז בהחלט נראה שהסיבה שחכמים אמרו שאין להביא את הוולד היא שהם מחזיקים את הכבש בבטן האם נחשב כחלק מהאם. אולם הרמב''ם החליט כמו חכמים בתמורה י''ט ע''א, אבל גם שהכבש שטרם נולד נפרד מהאם. זה נראה כסתירה. רב יצחק זאב מבריסק אומר לענות לרמב''ם אפשר לומר שחכמים מסכימים שהוולד אינו חלק מהאם. אבל שבדיוק כמו כשהאם עדיין לא הייתה בהריון ואז הפכה לכזו, אז הולד נגרר יחד עם הקטגוריה שלה, כדי להיפדות. אז הם אומרים אותו דבר גם כשהיא כבר הייתה בהריון. רב שך שואל את השאלה שזה ברור שלא כמו הדעה שהוולד הוא לא חלק מהאם. הוא מנסה למצוא תשובה אחרת לרמב''ם, שהעובדה שאפשר לקדש את האם הכבשה רק מבחינת ערכים כספיים, זה מה שגורם לכך שגם הכבש שטרם נולד נגרר עם זו, שצריך פדיון

תמורה י''ט ע''א. The issue is the וולד of a נקבה שהוקדשה לפסח בטעות

Introduction. A Sheep is pregnant. Is the וולד part of the mother? This issue comes up in the גמרא. There we have a case someone dedicated a כבשה (female sheep) to be a guilt offering , which it can not be. While a sin offering is female, a guilt offering is male.ויקרא ה.  But let's say the כבשה (female sheep) was not pregnant at the time it was dedicated, and then became pregnant. Then she and her offspring are sent to pasture until the get some defect and then sold, and with the money the owner buys a male sheep to be used for his guilt offering. But let's say the sheep was pregnant at the time. Then if she gives birth to a male sheep, that male sheep can be used for a guilt offering in the view of ר' אלעזר /R. Elazar. The חכמים/sages however disagree and say the law is  they are sent to pasture and sold. רבינא/Ravina says the reason for ר' אלעזר/R Elazar  is the וולד offspring is not considered part of the mother. So the dedication applies to the infant. But the רמב''ם/Rav Moshe ben Maimon holds the law is like the חכמים/sages that the sheep and her male offspring וולד are sent to pasture and also that the וולד offspring is not part of the mother.

 תמורה י''ט ע''א.  The issue is the וולד of a נקבה שהוקדשה לפסח בטעות  must to be redeemed instead of being brought as a שלמים? You can ask why should this be a problem? Answer: we hold that the וולד לאו ירך אמו. So when he declares the mother to be a פסח קרבן [even though a female can not be a פסח], that holiness ought to settle on the וולד שהיא מעוברת עמו עכשיו. I want to mention that even though we hold the וולד לאו ירך אמו, that is not totally so. For if it would be the the declaration on the mother would have nothing to do with the וולד and it would be "חולין"[not sacred at all.] Answer to the  above problem. Something can have קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] and still not be fit for the altar. So the infant has קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] but still can not brought as a sacrifice and so must be redeemed. How do you see this principle? From ר' עקיבא and ר' יוחנן that a animal with a מום, if brought up on the altar by accident, does not come down. But if the מום came before it was sanctified, it comes down. This applies to a נקבה שהוקדשה להיות קרבן עולה also, even though she has holiness of body, still she comes down.. Thus: Something can have קדושת הגוף and still not be fit for the altar. The difficult part of this is the וולד הפסח.  Even though the mother can not be נקרב, the וולד should be. That is where the idea that I mentioned up above. The faulty consecration of the mother can not be thought to be irrelevant to the וולד, since if so, the וולד would be חולין. So in that sense the וולד is like an animal that שיש בו מום and then was consecrated. (I mean that there is a defect in the very act of consecration.) So even though it has holiness of body it is not brought as a sacrifice. 

Background information:  קרבן פסח can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a קרבן פסח and she gives birth to a male. This is one of those issues  where the רמב''ם קשה להבין. The issue is this. The רמב''ם decided the law that if the mother sheep was pregnant or not, the sheep that was born is sold. [The money is then used to bring a peace offering].  This is not like ר' אלעזר who said in the case she was pregnant (at the time of consecration), the born sheep can be brought as a peace offering. And רבינא says the reason for ר' אלעזר is the וולד לאו ירך אמו. So it certainly looks that the reason the sages said the וולד can not be brought is that they hold the sheep in the womb of the mother is considered as part of the mother. Yet the רמב''ם decided like the sages in תמורה 19, but also that the unborn sheep is separate from the mother. This looks to be a contradiction. רב יצחק זאב מבריסק says to answer the רמב''ם we can say the חכמים agree that the וולד is not part of the אם. But that just like when the mother was not pregnant yet and then became as such, then the וולד is dragged along with her category, to be sold and the money used to buy a peace offering. So they say the same thing even when she was already pregnant.רב שך asks the question that this clearly not like the opinion that the וולד is not part of the mother. He attempts to find a different answer for the רמב''ם that  the fact that the mother sheep could only be sanctified as far as monetary values goes, that is what causes the unborn sheep also to be dragged along with that.

Here the Rambam seems to be at odds with the Gemara. It would be simpler to say that the sages hold the unborn sheep is part of the mother.  But the Rambam is interested in the law, and so  here he is wondering what R. Yohanan would answer for the sages.  And he has a reason to say the law is like R. Yochanan, that the unborn sheep is not a part of his mother. 

We know how Ravina explains the argument between the sages and R. Elazar. But how would R Yochanan explain it? Clearly he would not say that the sages disagree with him. So we come to this idea of Rav Shach that the act declaring the mother sheep to be Passover offering which can only mean monetary value must transfer to the unborn sheep also.

\
מבוא. כבשה בהריון. האם הוולד הוא חלק מהאם? הנושא הזה עולה בגמרא. יש לנו מקרה שמישהו הקדיש כבשה קרבן אשם, וזה לא יכול להיות. בעוד קרבן חטאת הוא נקבה, קרבן אשם הוא זכר.ויקרא ה' אבל נניח שהכבשה לא הייתה הרה בזמן הקדשה ואז נכנסה להריון. ואז היא וצאצאיה נשלחים למרעה עד לקבלת פגם כלשהו ואז נמכרים ובכסף הבעלים קונה כבשה זכר כדי קרבן אשם. אבל נניח שהכבשה הייתה בהריון באותה תקופה. ואז אם היא תלד כבש זכר שיכול לשמש קרבן אשם לדעת ר' אלעזר. החכמים לעומת זאת חולקים ואומרים שהחוק הוא שהם נשלחים למרעה ונמכרים. רבינא אומר שהסיבה לר' אלעזר היא שהולד אינו נחשב חלק מהאם. אז ההקדשה חלה על הוולד.

תמורה י''ט ע''א. העניין הוא וולד של נקבה שהקדשה לפסח בטעות יש לפדות במקום להביאו כשלמים? אתה יכול לשאול למה זו צריכה להיות בעיה? תשובה: אנו גורסים כי הוולד לאו ירך אמו. אז כשהוא מכריז על האם כקרבן פסח [למרות שנקבה לא יכולה להיות קרבן פסח], הקדושה צריכה להתיישב על ולד שהיא מעוברת עמו עכשיו. אני רוצה להזכיר שלמרות שאנו מחזיקים את הוולד לאו ירך אמו, זה לא לגמרי כך. כי אם זה יהיה ההכרזה על האם לא היה קשור לוולד וזה היה "חולין" [לא קדוש כלל] תשובה לבעיה הנ"ל. למשהו יכול להיות קדושת הגוף ועדיין לא להתאים למזבח. אז לוולד יש קדושת הגוף, אך עדיין אינו יכול להביא כקורבן ולכן יש לפדות אותו. איך אתה רואה את העיקרון הזה? מר' עקיבא ור' יוחנן שבהמה בעלת מום, אם העלתה על המזבח בשוגג, אינה יורדת. אבל אם בא המום קודם שנתקדשה, יורדת. זה חל על נקבה שהקדשה להיות קרבן עולה גם, למרות שיש לה קדושת הגוף, עדיין היא יורדת.. לפיכך: משהו יכול להיות קדוש קדושת הגוף ועדיין לא מתאים למזבח. החלק הקשה של זה הוא הולד של פסח נקבה. למרות שהאם לא יכולה להיות נקרבת, הוולד צריך להיות. זה המקום שבו הרעיון שהזכרתי למעלה. ההקדשה של האם אינה יכולה להיחשב כבלתי רלוונטיים לוולד, שכן אם כן, הוולד יהיה חולין. אז במובן הזה הוולד הוא כמו בהמה שיש בה מום ואז התקדשה. (כלומר שיש פגם בעצם ההקדשה.) אז למרות שיש בו קדושת גוף אין מביאים אותו כקרבן.

Translation results

כאן נראה שהרמב''ם עומד בסתירה לגמרא. יהיה יותר פשוט לומר שחכמים גורסים שהוולד שטרם נולד הוא חלק מהאם. אבל הרמב''ם מתעניין בדין, ולכן כאן הוא תוהה מה יענה ר' יוחנן לחכמים. ויש לו טעם לומר הדין הוא כר' יוחנן, שהוולד אינו חלק מאמו. אנו יודעים כיצד רבינא מסביר את הוויכוח בין החכמים לר' אלעזר. אבל איך ר' יוחנן יסביר את זה? ברור שלא יאמר שחכמים חולקים עליו. אז הגענו לרעיון הזה של רב שך שהמעשה שהכריז על האם הכבשה כקרבן פסח שמשמעותו רק ערך כספי, חייב לעבור לוולד שטרם נולד.

Temura 19. My answer to the difficulty in the Rambam. I can not tell if this is what Rav Shach intended in order to answer the question or Rav Isaac Zev of Brisk. But at any rate, this is the answer that occurred to me as I was going to and back from the sea.

Introduction. A Sheep is pregnant. Is the baby sheep part of the mother? 

This issue comes up in the Gemara Temura 19. There we have a case someone dedicated a female sheep to be a guilt offering -which it can not be. While a sin offering is female, a guilt offering is male.(Leviticus 5). But let's say the sheep was not pregnant at the time it was dedicated and then became pregnant. Then she and her offspring are sent to pasture until the get some defect and then sold and with the money the owner buys a male sheep to be used for his guilt offering. But let's say the sheep was pregnant at the time. Then if she gives birth to a male sheep that can be used for a guilt offering in the view of R Elazar. The sages however disagree and say the law is the same as above. They are sent to pasture and sold. Ravina says the reason for R Elazar is the infant sheep is not considered part of the mother. So the dedication applies to the infant. But the Rambam holds the law is like the sages that the sheep and her male offspring are sent to pasture and also that the offspring is not part of the mother.

 I am freezing cold from the sea. But I was thinking about the subject in Temura 19 on the way back.  So I thought I should write down this thought while it is fresh in my mind..The issue is how can the unborn sheep of a female pesach/passover sacrifice have to be redeemed instead of being brought as a peace offering.

You can ask why should this be a problem? Answer: we hold that the unborn is not part of the mother. So when he declares the mother to be a pesach [passover sacrifice] [even though a female can not be a pesach], that holiness ought to settle on the unborn infant sheep.

Answer to the  above problem. Something can have קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] and still not be fit for the altar. So the infant has קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] but still can not be brought as a sacrifice and so must be redeemed.

How do you see this principle? From R. Akiva and R.Yochanan that an animal with a defect --if brought up on the altar by accident, does not come down. But if the defect came before the consecration, it comes down. This applies to a female burnt offering also --even though she has holiness of body, still she comes down.. Thus: something can have קדושת הגוף [holiness of the body] and still not be fit for the altar.

The difficult part of this is the infant sheep has no defect. So even though the mother can not be brought as a sacrifice, the infant should be. 

I want to mention that even though we hold the unborn is not part of the mother, that is not totally so. For if it would be the case that the declaration on the mother would have nothing to do with the baby sheep, then it would be "hulin"[not sacred at all.] [So instead we say it has enough connection to the mother in so far as if he says this animal is a passover sacrifice, that holiness settles on the unborn baby sheep as well.]]

The faulty consecration of the mother can not be thought to be irrelevant to the infant sheep since if so the infant would be secular. So in that sense the infant is like an animal that and a defect and then was consecrated. (I mean that there is a defect in the very act of consecration.) So even though it has holiness of body it is not brought as a sacrifice.

Background information: A Passover offering can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a Passover offering and she gives birth to a male. 

This is one of those issues  where the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara directly. Yet there are ways of answering for him.

The issue is this. The Rambam decided the law that if the mother sheep was pregnant or not, the sheep that was born is sold.[The money is then used to bring a peace offering].  This is not like R. Elazar who said in the case she was pregnant (at the time of consecration), the born sheep can be brought as a Passover offering. Ravina [in Temura page 19 side a] says the reason for R Elazar is the sheep that has not been born yet is thought to be separate from the mother. So it certainly looks that the reason the sages said the born sheep can not be brought is that they hold the sheep in the womb of the mother is considered as part of the mother.

Yet the Rambam decided like the sages in Temura pg 19, but also that the unborn sheep is separate from the mother.

This looks to be a contradiction. Rav Isaac Zev [son of Rav Chaim of Brisk] says to answer the Rambam we can say the sages agree that the unborn sheep is not part of the mother, [in spite of the clear implication of the Gemara]. But that just like when the mother was not pregnant yet and then became as such then the unborn is dragged along with her category--to be sold and the money used to buy a peace offering. So they say the same thing even when she was already pregnant.

Rav Shach asks the question that this clearly not like the opinion that the unborn is not part of the mother. He attempts to find a different answer for the Rambam. --that  the fact that the mother sheep could only be sanctified as far as monetary values goes, that is what causes the unborn sheep also to be dragged along with that.

music file z58

 z58 C Minor  z58 nwc

Not a good idea to conquer Taiwan

I do think people have a right to what they have earned and worked for. So the whole premise of communism I see as false. --that anyone who has more stuff than me has to have exploited someone to get it.

On the other hand I can see that there is exploitation. So it makes sense to me that Russia and China would have become communist --in order to get to the right balance. When the overlords were just too abuse, there had to be someway to push back. But the trouble is what works in one place might not work elsewhere. Just because communism was seen as solution to China's troubles in the 1900's, that does not mean that it is a good idea to conquer Taiwan and force it to be part of China's totalitarian system. 

A Passover offering can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a Passover offering and she gives birth to a male. This is one of those issues where the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara directly.

A Passover offering can only be a male. So let's say one consecrates a female for a Passover offering and she gives birth to a male. 

This is one of those issues  where the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara directly. Yet there are ways of answering for him.

The issue is this. The Rambam decided the law that if the mother sheep was pregnant or not, the sheep that was born is sold.[The money is then used to bring a peace offering].  This is not like R. Elazar who said in the case she was pregnant (at the time of consecration), the born sheep can be brought as a Passover offering. Ravina [in Temura page 19 side a] says the reason for R Elazar is the sheep that has not been born yet is thought to be separate from the mother. So it certainly looks that the reason the sages said the born sheep can not be brought is that they hold the sheep in the womb of the mother is considered as part of the mother.

Yet the Rambam decided like the sages in Temura pg 19, but also that the unborn sheep is separate from the mother.

This looks to be a contradiction. Rav Isaac Zev [son of Rav Chaim of Brisk] says to answer the Rambam we can say the sages agree that the unborn sheep is not part of the mother, [in spite of the clear implication of the Gemara]. But that just like when the mother was not pregnant yet and then became as such then the unborn is dragged along with her category--to be sold and the money used to buy a peace offering. So they say the same thing even when she was already pregnant.

Rav Shach asks the question that this clearly not like the opinion that the unborn is not part of the mother. He attempts to find a different answer for the Rambam. --that  the fact that the mother sheep could only be sanctified as far as monetary values goes, that is what causes the unborn sheep also to be dragged along with that.

Here the Rambam seems to be at odds with the Gemara. It would be simpler to say that the sages hold the unborn sheep is part of the mother.  But the Rambam is interested in the law, and so  here he is wondering what R. Yohanan would answer for the sages.  And he has a reason to say the law is like R. Yochanan, that the unborn sheep is not a part of his mother. 

We know how Ravina explains the argument between the sages and R. Elazar. But how would R Yochanan explain it? Clearly he would not say that the sages disagree with him. So we come to this idea of Rav Shach that the act declaring the mother sheep to be Passover offering which can only mean monetary value must transfer to the unborn sheep also.  

the idea of learning Torah as being the highest ideal.

 I think is a sad fact that people do not have the idea of learning Torah as being the highest ideal. This is an essential approach of the Litvak world [based on the Gra]. But I have wondered about how this fits with other aspects of Torah. For example, attachment with God? Or other things in Torah which seem to be prime values. 

One is the land of Israel. That is after all an open verse [in Deuteronomy in the section called the Section on Fear.] "Do all these commandments in order that you should come to the Land and dwell in the Land."

Also the sages of Musar pointed out that great importance of good character. This comes even before the commandments as it says to walk in His ways and to keep his  commandments. The first thing in the verse comes first in preference as we see in the seven types of fruit that the Land Of Israel was praised for. 

Plus, I have also noted that the command to learn Torah is wider than is thought [because to some Rishonim it includes Physics and Metaphysics]. And it more narrow than what it thought because as the Rambam says Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the written Law so there is no adding or subtracting from the Oral Law. "That means the only things that are authentic Torah are the Old Testament the two Talmuds, and the various midrashei Halacha an Midrashei Agada. So anything written after about 500 AD does not count as Torah.  

defending Taiwan.

 There is a kind of difference between democracies. While I can see the importance of supporting democracy, that does not mean the same thing everywhere. So to give one example I can see the importance of defending Taiwan. Some might object because of the USA involvment in Vietnam. But that is not the same thing as defending South Vietnam. (It was about as a corrupt democracy as one could imagine. Thar is exactly why many people in South Vietnam supported the North.) Others might object to the USA involvment in Afghanistan. But defending Taiwan is not same thing as trying to create a Democracy in Afghanistan.

 

[ I am referring to the problem that China seems intend on conquering Taiwan like it did Hong Kong. What is it that I have against  Communism? It is that not everyone that claims to be exploited has been exploited. Some have and some have not. If you attribute validity to anyone who claims to have been exploited, you end up with the way the USA is becoming nowadays.]

Even though there is a lot of great insights and advice in the books of Rav Nahman, still there area few areas where there is a problem. The idea of "graves of the righteous" seems to be problematic.

 Even though there is a lot of great insights and advice in the books of Rav Nahman, still there area few areas where there is a problem. The idea of "graves of the righteous" seems to be problematic. See the Nefesh Hachaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin [a major disciple of the Gra] that one that intends to tie his soul with even the greatest of saints is doing idolatry. 

There is some aspect of "being connected with the soul of a tzadik" that is a problem. And even more so the soul of a saint who has died.

The reason is there is a sort of "kelipa" [force of uncleanliness] that is attached to people that have died. {Normally this is called the "angel of death".} So we hope the souls of our loved ones who have passed on have found a better world to exist in. But in this world, there is a sort of uncleanliness that is attached to the dead. You might take a look at the Book of Numbers to see this and also in the Mishna Seder Taharot, tractates Kelim and Tents. 

On the other hand there is plenty of advice in the books of Rav Nahman that I find to be indispensable. sine qua non. [Private talking with God, method of learning, etc.]