I was at the beach and thinking about Comte, the founding father of the science of Sociology. That is where all the major principles  and idea of Sociology come from. {However this debt is never acknowledged because he was insane.]

The lesson to learn from this is that Rav Israel Salanter was right. Midot Tovot [good character traits] is first and foremost. Not how smart someone is,

I am being short here because by the time I get back from the beach I am tired. But if you have time and energy you can see how the six volumes of Comte established the science of Sociology. [It is easy to look up this stuff if you are interested.] However to be fair, I do not think that most people in the social departments of universities are aware of this because he name has been systematically erased, because he was insane. Who would want to admit the founder of the entire subject he or she is teaching was a madman? How right Allan Bloom was to shut the door on the social studies and humanities departments.

z57 music file   [all z files are in midi because i could not access a midi to mp3 converter.]

 I will make your faith known with my mouth.אודיע אמונתך בפי האמונה תולה בפיו של אדם ועל-ידי  דבורי פיו יכול לבוא לאמונה Rav Nahman in the LeM II: 44 brings this verse and then says that "Faith depends on one's words and by means of one's words he can come to faith." He put a lot of emphasis on what one says. And also על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבוא לתבונות התורה לעומקה By means of the word one can come to understandings of theTorah-to its very depth.

So not just faith, but understanding also come from one's words. I think this can be applied to the natural sciences, as well. 

I am being short. But my basic point is the talented people in the natural sciences do not need to be told  how to do their learning. But what about the rest of us? Should we be ignorant of  Physics, Math, Chemistry Biology? But the "Division of labor" costs us this. We think we do not need it because others can do it. And even if we want, the idea of just saying the words and going on sounds ridiculous. So people end up not knowing anything about the natural sciences at all. 

So I suggest that all the above is a mistake. We see in some  Rishonim that knowledge of the natural sciences is a part of the commandment "to learn Torah," [but not all Rishonim]. Plus I hold that this way of learning by saying the words and going on does work. 

You see in the Gra there is an obligation to know all the Seven Wisdoms, and the lack of knowledge in any one of them results in alack of understanding on Torah--a hundred times more.

[However, I combine it with review by going up to a certain point and then going back page by page to the beginning. And then at that point go back to the place I stopped and going a few more pages forward. And then review again back to the beginning.

[Also I should add that I heard in Shar Yashuv the importance of taking some chapter and doing review on it ten times. This might have originated with Rav Hutner. Why do I say this? Because in the Mir I had heard the same thing about the local store owner that had finished chapter 3 in Shabat ten  times.

I might add that while at Polytechnic Institute of NYU, I used to say the words of my lessons forwards and backwards and used that method for a few years. That is in the Physics or Mathematics text, I would say the whole forward and backwards and that included the exercises. 

Tosphot is always right.

  You can see the point of תוספות in his argument against ר' חננאל [בבא בתרא דף כ''ו] תוספות holds that when one buys three trees, he owns ט''ז אמות around them. And as forבבא בתרא פ''א where R.Yochanan said he owns the ground under and around them up until the length of  a  plowing,תוספות holds that is if the trees extend beyond ט''ז אמות. [That is an average arms length. It is not anyone's arm length, but the average value. You can see the point of תוספות, not just to show what he is trying to prove about the statement of עולא , but also as for the actual law of ownership around the trees. To see my point here is the גמרא brings this: עולא said if one has a tree within ט''ז אמות of the border, he can not bring the first fruit because of theft. The גמרא asks this: If one has one tree and its ground, he brings first fruits. Is that not even for a כל שהוא of ground? No. For ט''ז אמות. But if one has two trees, he מביא ואינו קורא פרשת ביכורים   . Is that not for כל שהוא? No. For ט''ז אמות. You can see from the first question of the גמרא that the גמרא itself is holding that when one buys a tree and its ground, he owns ט''ז אמות around it.

I am being a bit short here. The idea is this. R Chananel holds the reason for Ula is because of actual theft of the fruit. But he also holds the law is not like Ula. Tosphot holds the reason for Ula is that while he does own the fruit but getting sustenance from the ground of his neighbor. Furthermore Tosphot does hold the law is that when one buys three trees, he gets 16 amot around them.

So while Rav Shach argues for R. Chananel and shows why the Rambam and the Beit Yoseph do not hold that one gets 16 cubits with the trees, I was just showing why Tosphot hold he does get 16 cubits.

  אתה יכול לראות את הטעם בתוספות בטענתו נגד ר' חננאל. תוספות גורס שכאשר אדם קונה שלושה עצים, יש לו ט''ז אמות סביבם. בבא בתרא פ''א ששם אמר ר' יוחנן יש לו הקרקע מתחתם ומסביבם עד אורך חריש [כמלוא אורה וסלו], תוספות אוחז דהיינו אם האילנות מתרחבים מעבר לט''ז אמות. אתה יכול לראות את הטעם בתוספות, לא רק כדי להראות מה הוא מנסה להוכיח על האמירה של עולא, אלא גם לגבי חוק הבעלות בפועל סביב העצים. כדי לראות את דברי כאן מביאה הגמרא את זה: עולא אמר אם יש עץ בתוך ט''ז אמות מהגבול, אינו יכול להביא את הביכורים מחמת גניבה. שואלת הגמרא כך: אם יש לו עץ אחד וקרקעו מביא ביכורים וקורא. זה אפילו בשביל מעט אדמה? לא. בשביל ט''ז אמות. אבל אם לאחד יש שני עצים, הוא מביא ואינו קורא פרשת ביכורים. זה לא בשביל כל שהוא? לא. בשביל ט''ז אמות. אפשר לראות מהשאלה הראשונה של הגמרא שהגמרא עצמו אוחז שכאשר אדם קונה עץ וקרקע שלו, יש לו ט''ז אמות סביבו

Besides this I wanted to mention that Rav Shach himself retracts the original way he was explaining Rabbainu Channanel--[that Ula means the fruit is stolen even though the tree is owned.]. Rav Shach later explained Rabbainu Chananel to mean the theft part of Ula's statement means the getting the nourishment from the property of his neighbor. Well that answer can go just as well for Tosphot. So What I want to say is what my learning partner (David Bronson) was always telling me: "Tosphot is always right." Tosphot with the Maharsha is the hardest but the most important learning that there is.

 Constitutional Democracy is in a crisis. That is in the USA and thus by definition everywhere else. This was seen a long time ago by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind. I think if people in school would learn English history --the roots of the American system, they would have a much better understanding of the Constitution of the USA. Don't start "American History" courses with 1776, or Plymouth Colony. Start with Henry II and the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford.

Eve when I was in high school I felt there was something superficial about the course American History. Even though I certainly had no idea of  English history. And even later learning John Locke did little or nothing to bridge the gap. Only with Daniel Defoe 's political pamphlets did I start to get an idea of what was going on. Then when learning English history did the force of the impact come home. The USA is an extension of England, not just externally but inwardly.

 You can see the point of Tosphot in his argument against Rabbainu Chananel [Bava Batra page 26] Tosphot holds that when one buys three trees he owns16 cubit [amot] around them. And as for Bava Batra 81 where R.Yochanan said he owns the ground under and around them up until the length of  a plower plowing,--Tosphot holds that is if the trees extend beyond 16 cubits. [That is an average arms length. It is anyone's arm length but the average value.

You can see the point of Tosphot, not just to show what he is trying to prove about the statement of Ula, but also as for the actual law of ownership around the trees.

To see my point here is the Gemara. Ula said if one has a tree within 16 yards of the border, he can not bring the first fruit because of theft. The Gemara asks this: If one has one tree and its ground, he brings first fruits. Is that not even for a bit of ground? No. For 16 amot.

But if one has two trees he brings, but does not say the required formula [the start of Parshat KI Tavo]. Is that not for just a bit? No. For 16 amot.   

You can see from the first question of the Gemara that the Gemara itself is holding that when one buys a tree and its ground, he owns 16 cubits round it.

I am being a bit short here. The idea is this. R Chananel holds the reason for Ula is because of actual theft of the fruit. But he also holds the law is not like Ula. Tosphot holds the reason for Ula is that he does own the fruit but gettiing sustenance from the ground of his neighbor. Furthermore Tosphot does hold the law is that when one buys three trees, he gets 16 amot around them.

So while Rav Shach argues for R Chananel and shows why the Rambam and the Beit Yoseph do not hold that one gets 16 cubits are the trees, I was just showing why Tosphot hold he does get 16 cubits.

In my own life, the issue of finding my true mate was a confusing issue. At while in Shar Yashuv on possibility came up. A Bat Talmid Chacham. But for some problem of a misunderstanding that was set to zero. But a girl I had known in high school was running after me. I had spoken to her about my very special experience in the Litvak Yeshiva world and she decided to join with me. But I was still set on te daughter of a true Torah scholar. For after all I wanted to learn Torah always and forever. After all we see in the Yerushalmi that every word of Torah is equal to all the other commandments, Thanks to God and her amazing persistence to get me I gave in. The best decision I ever made in my whole life.  What this shows is that as the sages said after the Creation was does God occupy his time with?  Answer Making matches

Consciousness traps

 Consciousness traps abound. They are like little hooks to that have bait. They are meant to capture one's mind. They work by helping to solve some problem. Then you think, "Well since they helped with that, then they must be able to help with more things."  Then one is caught. Zohar is like that. One might get impressed with some statement or other and then get pulled in by the hook. The hook that is hidden inside the bait. 

So then how does one discern good from evil. By Reason. Not faith in statements that are charismatic but have little or no substance. 

Reason is not a strong guide -because it is most often instrumental Reason.  Still it is the sole way of discerning objective morality. For objective morality is a set of universals. And universals are properties that individual things have in common. And the only way to discern them is by reason.  For that is the major characteristic of reason to see the common traits among thing -the synthetic a priori of Kant. Things that are known, but not known by observation. And morality are rules that are known [like: do not murder for the fun of it] but they are not known by observation. That is you can not know an "ought""from an is". You can see an "IS". It might look horrible. But that does not imply an "ought". To know something is wrong is not by observation but by reason that can see universal principles

A consciousness trap is something you need to be wary of for you must now yourself-you area human being. and flawed. It is too easy to get pulled into something evil by the appearance of its being great and holy.

What is the difference between an Afghan seeking refuge and Ukrainian seeking refuge? The second will not rape your children, and try to convert you to Islam Sharia Law, or if you do not accept, then kill you. The difference is clear. אין אדם גר עם נחש בכפיפה אחת  A Gemara brings the idea that a person can not dwell with someone else that is trying to hurt them. 

There is a reason not to bring into your home someone that will try to destroy it.

 I think it is proper to mention something that I have said before-but merits repeating. I had outstanding medical care in Uman, in the Ukraine. I mean outstanding. This was over years. The only incident I wrote about was the event where I broke my foot. Local people called an ambulance and brought me to the hospital and there they gave me a whole series of tests blood, etc, etc. And a bed and meals. And never once asked about payment.  And when I offered to pay, no one wanted to hear about it. [Later I paid something for extra materials. But normally they never charge for anything.] ]The doctor came in in the morning and they took x rays. The amount of dedication to doing a good job was palpable. I can walk today thanks to God and his special angelic messengers at the local hospital. Segei Alexivitch the doctor, and Irina the nurse that held my hand during the operation to comfort me [I asked her to because I was frightened] and the woman doctor in charge of anesthetics that was super careful to give just the right amount, not too much as in general, not too little.

But this is one event from others. Eg the Country Hospital район Больница [as different from the city one] also the two times I was there was amazing.  The doctor himself I recall was trained in Denipr where there is (as I understand) a very great medical training school.  Why was I there? Because after breaking my foot I was bed ridden for some time I was not moving about at all. So my Stomach began to hurt with pain that I had never felt before. We went to the Rayon Bolniza region hospital and they checked on me. They saw the problem, gave me some medicine and within a minute, the pain was gone.

But one thing I have to mention. No doctor in Uman ever wanted anything to do with experimental medicine. Nothing new. Nothing not needed. drugs that had not been around for many decades were not ever considered.

 The problem with Intelligent Design is that it attributes God's direct intervention in the process. The problem with Evolution is that by definition, it can not be directed. It has to be random mutations. Only the ones that fit better with their environment survive.  Neither consider that God's direct intervention is not in all places and always at the same time. You can see this in the Hagadah of Passover that in the last plague it was God, no angel. That means much of the time, God' intervention is through angels. As the Rambam puts it in the Guide God's direct השגחה פרטית Direct Providence is only on the intellectuals. [As horrifying as that sounds].

Thus what we see in evolution is that Divine Reason permeates everything. That this Divine Reason is the reason that the world is not a chaotic mess. This is obviously from Plotinus with Logos being the middle Emanation, but with Hegel developing the idea further.

I think to share this link to videos on mathematics from Harpreet.

 The reason I share this is I realize that learning math just from textbooks is like learning to play the violin from a textbook. It just does not work. You need to hear it from a teacher.  אבדתם את הנעשה. אחוז בנשמע "You lost the 'We will do'. So now hold onto 'we will hear'" [Midrash]

 I have not written about Gemara for a long time because I have been confused about a certain issue. This is Ula in Bava Batra 26 b -a person that has a tree within 16 amot  [arm's breath] of the boundary if his property with that of his neighbor can not bring first fruits.  The Gemara brings then R. Yochanan who concludes  he can because על מנת כן הנחיל יהושוע את הארץ. The issue that has been bothering me is that this is subject to an argument between Rabbainu Chananel and Tosphot. Tosphot obviously holds that between Ula and R Yochanan there is no doubt that if he bought three trees, he gets 16 amot around them and even more if they extend further. The only issue here is that there is just one tree. But to Rabbainu Chananel the law is not like Ula at all. Not just because of R Yochanan, but also because of R Yosi that one can plant a tree right at the boundary itself.

The actual Gemara brings Ula אמר עולא אילן הסמוך למיצר חבירו ט''ז אמה אינו מביא ביכורים גזלן הוא because of roots the extend that far. 

 There was a surfing competition that just finished here yesterday. Morocco won first prize. [There was four in all. two for men and two for women.] [The winners I think were also from France, Germany and Portugal.] The water here is crystal clear. But on occasion with stormy weather or rain the overflow in the sea makes the sea muddy. I thought about this problem and thought to myself I have never heard of such a problem in the USA. So there must be some solution. Then it occurred to me the the runoff water from the city should be directed into a large pipe that would be laid out for about a half a kilometer into the depths of the sea.  I mean to say that I think this would solve other problems also. It is not just the mud in the water but sometimes other kinds of parasites can get too close to the shore--being attracted by the run off. \

Why you ask do I put this on my blog. ונשמרתם מאוד לנפשותיכם The Gemara brings this verse to show that one is required to take care of his physical health. 

 Z58 MUSIC FILE

 As you can see I am not coming up with a lot of new ideas. But I wanted to share one thought. That as you can see 20th century philosophy got into a whole bunch of messes. Half baked neurosis. Not just in pure philosophy but also in psychology and political thought.

So it is obvious why I elected not to go into any of it --being aware that I did not want to get brain washed. 

But for some reason a whole bunch of brilliant philosophers has cropped up  that see clearly the lunacy of 20th century philosophy, and show the way forwards. Kelley Ross, Robert Hanna, and Michael Huemer ae just the best examples but there are many more. Eg Michael Sugrue .

It is hard to know what to make out of this. It is as if philosophy has risen out of some sort of Dark Ages.

Myself I have no great ideas but I do see some sort of vertical thread that binds lower areas of value to higher levels. That is you have horizontal levels of value.[This is from Dr Kelley Ross]. All form, no content. [Formal logic]. And then jump to the next step Mathematics which is very close but there is a quantum leap since we know by Gödel that math can not be reduced to logic. Then the higher levels have more content like Physics but less formal structure. Galaxies are Homology complexes with the black hole being the kernel. Then the other natural sciences. Then human affairs. More numinous content like Justice, Ten art Music, etc. Then up to God,- total numinous content, no form.

But there is a vertical thread that unites it all.  [note 1] I see this in Homology with the internal CW complex as opposed to the boundaries. Form and Content. Exactly parallels to the above 

The parallels on every level of value are astonishing. All the levels are connected as per Plotinus and Hegel. They all flow from the Logos. But in quantum leaps. From pure space- a line or surface you get automatically numbers since one line has two boundary points, and we know from the Nullstelensatz that Geometry and Algebra are connected

note 1.

my mother. It seems to me that this might have been on her honeymoon with my father on a ship towards Europe (after WWII)

 

Her parents were Isaac Freeman and Devora. Devora was the first in the USA -born of her parents the Solomon's. Leila Freeman was from Newark NJ, but in the summer she was in Asbury Park helping  to run the Hamilton Hotel. She and her friends were at the beach there one day, when a bunch of guys came over to say "hello." She laid eyes on my dad for one split second, and that was that. My dad must have been quite a sight. He was a captain in the USA Air Force in WWII.  

Isaac Freeman, her father, was born in Poland. My own dad's parents also were born in Poland.  

The lessons I learned from my mother were somewhat different from what I learned from my father. From my mother I learned "to be a mensch" decent human bein with good character traits [which were the forte of my parents.] plus --"to marry a nice Jewish girl". To be a mensch I did not succeed, but to marry a nice Jewish girl I did--Paula Finn [changed name from Finkelstein]. My father had a slightly different set of values=self sufficiently. The odd thing is neither emphasized the natural sciences, but they clearly had a high regard for what is now called STEM. [and almost zero for the stupid social studies] [My dad was an inventor.  First the infrared telescope and later laser communication at TRW. ]

I might mention is not that my parents liked the idea of serving in the Army. Everything depended on what kind of war the USA was involved in. Fighting Nazi Germany was not the same thing as fighting North Vietnam. That later was essentially nothing to do with us.

 In my reading of the New Testament, Jesus was just a regular Jewish Tzadik along the lines of Chanina ben Dosa. [Hanina ben Dosa was very similar,  but R. Shimon ben Yochai also might be thought to be along the same lines.] The legal aspects I have gone into before. Jesus held from the statement in Hulin perek 8 מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה the first waters-washing before the meals is a mitzvah a good deed. the middle waters are allowed, the later waters waters are the meal are an obligation." Thus the washing before the meals is not an obligation according to this--only a good deed.

To worship God alone was the exact point of Jesus when the Satan tempted him. And this point comes up in Revelations. Jesus held one should worship God, not him. 

This is in sharp contrast to the modern way of thought in which self worships the main obligation. This is really from Heidegger where instead of God we have "Being", a secular version of God. And the sole obligation is to be yourself, authenticity. That is another word for self worship. 

So it is ironic for people that worship themselves to be accusing Jesus of their own faults.

Jesus claims to be a son of man and never refers to himself as son of God. and even if he would have said that he is a son of God, so what? בנים אתם להשם אלוהיכם ''you are the sons if the Lord your God, therefore do not put a  bald spot on your flesh for a dead person'' Deuteronomy 

 z59 music filemidi   z59 nwc

 You can see something incongruous about a  stogy German professor Herbert Marcuse in Disney Land  and seeing that as late Capitalism that would lead directly into Nazism. California is the land "that hung the jerk that invented work.  I am a native Californian, and a lot of that tolerance and laid back attitude certainly affected me, but I have that sort of seriousness  and urgency of the feeling of finding the TRUTH to have made me seek and search in the great NY Litvak yeshivot. I think in high school this must have been apparent to my friends, Roland Hutchinson, Wendy Wilson. Paula (Lea) Finn and others. That was even before I was walking around with books that indicated as much. [Though I am not dismissing the insights of the Frankfurt School either. My point is there is much to e learned from these later thinkers, but one thing is lacking-faith with reason.]

But I never really came to a place where I could made sense of it all--the big picture. The best I could come up with was a lesson I learned almost at my first few days in Shar Yashuv--the importance of the Rishonim/Mediaeval thinkers. And that includes their synthesis of Faith with Reason.  

So while I have great appreciation for  later thinkers, I do not think they get anywhere near the depth of the Rishonim. 

If this is any indication of the issue let me say as an example that even in Shar Yashuv I would spend most of my in depth learning time with achronim/ later thinkers --because they are the key to unlocking the Rishonim.

Thus in Philosophy also, while the later people, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson certainly are important, still there is something that we need to dig out of the Middle Ages.

[Just as  an example--Did Limited Constitutional Government, Parliament came from later people? Not at all. These all came from the English Middle Ages, Henry II, the English lords against King John, Edward I etc.

In the modern period it is the European philosophers tat get entangled with the internal world. Te Anglo American ones get the outer world, but lose the inner. The synthesis seems to be the Kant Friesian approach of Leonard Nelson that realizes there is a source of knowledge that is not reason nor sense perception. [Non intuitive immediate.]

 

 n12 music file [midi format] from 2014. I just found this in old files. I can not tell if it needs editing or not. It might but I am not sure.  

 LeM of Rav Nahman vol I perek 56 הסתרה שבתוך הסתרה God hides the deepest secrets of Torah in the hiddenness inside the hiddenness. This is one of the places where I note that the deepest secrets of Torah are contained in places where the holiness of God is hidden--Physics and Mathematics

The Closing of the American Mind

 I found high school to be extremely frustrating -as I am sure that most people do. One of the many issues was the need to be learning many subjects instead of being able to concentrate on just one. Maybe this was just a matter of growing pains. But my impression is that people ought to be able to have a certain direction without having to take extraneous subjects. 

But nowadays furthermore I think people ought to take the hint from Allan Bloom The Closing of the American Mind and simply close the social studies which have become simple propaganda. (Specifically anti America propaganda.) [This stems from the German philosophers at Columbia University that were refugees from Nazi Germany. They became the intellectual force that founded the direction of the "Education departments" in the USA. To their way of thinking unless the USA became Marxist, it was already close to Nazi Germany.] [Example: Adorno.] [This was the infamous Frankfurt school that became the birth place of postmodernism nd the Woeful Woke insanity]

Allan Bloom rightly sees the divide between the Enlightenment which formed the foundation of the USA and the anti enlightenment which was the foundation of the French Revolution. Kant iv somewhere in between but with Leonard Nelson of the New Friesian school --that puts Kant back into the  Enlightenment with its justification for faith that you see in John Locke

z12 music file from around May 2021  z12 nwc

g2 music file from 2010 g2 nwc  

    g8 music file g8 nwc

e37 music file  e37 nwc

i6 midi file i6 nwc

j6 nwc

j6

 Half slave and half free to the Rambam eats neither from his own Passover nor from his master. To the Raavad he eats from his own..The issue is which way is like the later mishna. The Raavad holds  his own is like the later mishna. The Rambam is holding it was the first mishna that held he eats of his own. The later Mishna said he must be let to go free since he can not be married to a Israelit [female Israeli], nor can he be married to a slave woman because he is half free.

Tosphot in Bava Batra asks on this that letting him go free is transgressing a lav/negative prohibition. And he answers that being married to a Israelit is a positive command which pushes off a negative command.  

[Half slave half free means owned by two masters, but one freed him. So he is now half free. The point of freeing him completely is that as a slave he can have a slave wife. As free he can have a regular Israelit. But half and half he can have neither, so he must be freed.]

Rav Shach pointed out a reason the Rambam took the approach that he did. I.e that the first mishna held women do not need to be appointed on any specific passover. [This opinion is brought in the Rosh in Nedarim page 36 side A] [And thus neither do slaves.]  So it makes sense that a 1/2 slave 1/2 free person would be able to eat from his or her own passover and not be required to join the with the group of his master. [But then why he eats only his own? Why could he not also eat from his masters passover?] But the later mishna holds that women do need to be appointed on a specific passover, so a half slave and half free person would thus not be able to eat of neither his own nor that of his master unless he is totally set free.  

 z28 midi file Music file

The type of government is the cause of people's character, not the result.

 In the Laws, Plato shows that the type of government is the cause of people's character, not the result.  so while DNA and environment have been considered, the counter intuitive fact is the government affects the very character of the people growing up in it. -for better or worse.

I mean to say the USA Constitution was product of James Madison with the impute of other great thinkers. But after it is in place, it affects the nature of Americans.

People will believe only in the absurd. Belief is the opposite of knowledge.

 The problem with the news is:  People do not believe in something unless they have read it in the newspapers or seen it on TV. [President Nixon said something like that.] Thus result is that newspapers having that much power began to say what they wanted people to believe. They could create their own news and people would believe it.  

But the issue is really deeper. People will believe only in the absurd. It is not as if they will believe in what is reasonable, and as a second best believe in the absurd also. Not at all. Rather to be absurd is the prerequisite of belief. So you see why the Rambam has the first of the Ten Commandments as being to know the existence of the First Cause, not to believe. Belief is the opposite of knowledge.

Socrates actually dealt with this issue in one of the shorter dialogs--I forget which. But not everything that is absurd is really absurd. Sometimes it is simply beyond reason. 

[Women nowadays -tend to think of themselves as goddesses.-which they are not.]

 Marriage nowadays seems to have devolved. There was a time it was it was a strong institution in people's souls. Nowadays it is all about business. A way for the woman to make money, for a long as it is convenient. So what I think is the approach of the concubine פילגש makes the most sense. Since we find that Caleb ben Yefuna  had a few, as we see on Chronicles chapter 2 verses from around 46.

And he was the only person in Torah of whom it is stated וימלא אחרי השם He went totally after God. So this is not a sin.   

At any rate, this is the Raavad, Ramban, and other Rishonim besides the Rambam. 

[Women nowadays -tend to think of themselves as goddesses.-which they are not.]

 z67 This is a Midi music file. Just finished now. [But that means it probably needs lots of editing. So I present it as it seems best to me this minute.]z67 nwc

 Group identification is a kind of idolatry- when a persons allegiance is towards groups values instead of towards objective morality  And even though objective morality is hard to know, that still is no excuse to abdicate. So while loyalty towards ones family and friends and nation are important that is far different from group identification.

 I wish I would have something to say about Rav Kinyevsky. The books of his father --the set of Kehilat Yaakov were around when I was in Shar Yashuv, but I did not get a chance to learn them while I was there,-though I am sure that all the books of the great Litvak sages are important. Mainly that would be the Kehilat Yaakov, the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, and the books of his disciples. The thing was that while I was in yeshiva, I was struggling just to get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot and as much Maharsha as I could manage. The later achronim were just too much for meat that point. And later I did not have the merit to be able to sit and learn as I should have. חבל על דאבדין 

--So if I could I would try to make up for my lack of education by getting through the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Kehilat Yaakov of  the father of Rav Kinyevsky.  Part of the problem for me is that I tend to need a sort of Litvak Yeshiva to be able to spend the time on learning. There is a sort of energy I would get when I was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. Without that kind of environment, it is hard to learn. Maybe that is no excuse, but that is just the way things are for me. And maybe there is a lesson to be learned here about how important it is to have a Litvak Study Hall [Beit Midrash] where one can learn. I have not had anything like that for many years. 

Bava Batra 26b and page 81 in the Shita Mekubetzet. Rav Shach in the Rambam הלכות ביכורים פרק ב הלכות י' עד יג'

 I have been thinking about  the argument between Ula and R. Yochanan. To Ula, if one has a fruit bearing tree within 16 amot [cira 16 yards] of the border of his field with his neighbor he can not bring first fruits because he is a thief. To R.Yochanan he can. At first  Rav Shach said the argument is who owns the fruit. To Ula the source of the sustenance is what matters, while the tree itself is just to process the sustenance, So the fruit belong to who owns the ground. [And so in our case the roots of the tree get sustenance partly from the nearby ground partly from that of his neighbor.]     To R. Yochanan the owner of the tree owns the fruit. Later Rav Shach brought a different explanation of Ula.The reason is that he shows the roots of the tree up until 16 amot are  owned by the owner of the tree. This he sees as a contradiction to what he wrote before. This point has eluded me for weeks already.

If the roots are owned by the owner of the tree., what has that to do with the fruit?

I am being a bit short here, for this is really based on Rabainu Chananel 

 z13 this is a recent music file.

 In many verses in the Old Testament it says that God helps those that trust in Him. הבוטחים בהשם כהר ציון לא ימוט לעולם.(Those that trust in God are like Mount Zion which will never be moved ) והבוטח בהשם חסד יסובבנו(He who trusts in God, kindness will surround him.).ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם (Blessed is he who trusts in God) and that last verse in Jeramiah goes into the benefits that are gained by one who trust in God. There does not seem to be any argument about if one is required also to do השתדלות (effort) also or not. For both to Ibn Pakuda [Obligations of the Hearts] and the Gra, effort is not necessary. [There is however a difference. To Ibn Pakuda, effort is not needed for one who accepts on himself the yoke of the service of God. To the Gra effort is not needed at all. One is decreed to come to you, will come whether you like it or not.]

 I was at the sea and pondering the Kesef Mishna and the Gra about that argument in Gitin 47. And it occurred to me that that is the whole issue nowadays about shemitaשמיטה the seventh year. In short the question is: Is property that is owned by an idolater in Israel is obligated in truma and tithes or not? The Kesef Mishna [Rav Josef Karo] has two approaches.  One is that as long as that land has not been bought back, obligations like truma and tithe (and thus also shemita) are not applicable. The Gra and the Maharit consider this answer to be a mistake. To them either יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר או אין לו כוח

Either if the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land apply or they don't. You can not have it two ways.

This is the source of the  argument between the Gra and Beit Yoseph about the meaning of  יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר או אין לו כוח Either if the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land apply or they don't. 

If you hold the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land do not apply means the land becomes not Israel and needs to be reconquered anew is the Gra and Maharit or it does not is the approach of the the Beit Yosef. Rav Shach I saw has a way of justifying the approach of the Beit Yosef even though it seems to be against the simple approach of the Gemara- But I have not yet had a chance to be able to see what Rav Shach says there.

 According to one of the great Litvak sages, Naftali Troup,(חידושי הגרנ''ט) the commandment of honor your father and mother is positive command that has attached to it the punishment of death when not obeyed as in the case of the rebellious son. He brings this directly from the Rambam. You can see why in the religious world this commandment is ignored because religious leaders want the authority to dictate what the Torah commands us.

[Honor of one's parents--to listen and obey them-has a death penalty attached to it as we see in the case of the rebellious son בן סורר ומורה in Deuteronomy. The laws about it are brought in Sanhedrin in the chapter "The rebellious son". Sadly enough I never got to learn this subject in depth with my learning partner. We got close to it by learning to the end of the previous chapter, but then we switched to some other subject--I forget which.]

The religious world however has all values the opposite from Torah. They want to be in charge of you. They want that you should listen to their leaders, not your parents. They are also against family values. They want your wife to listen to them, not to her husband. The religious world is sadly enough, one terrible fraud.

[Later note] It s not that every time your father tells you something, that there is the death penalty for disobeying. Rather the condition of the rebellious son are much harder to get to. Still in essence the idea is the same, though one can not be held liable legally.

But what people do not take into consideration is that even the most simple act of not listening to one's father --or mother--even one time is a component of the death penalty. It is like --for example if one picks up  an object in a private domain and puts his hand into a public domain and someone else picks the object out of his hand. He has done half of what it takes to be liable. I realize this is a hard lesson to swallow, but it is true. Next time your mother or father tell you something, and you do not listen, you ought to think twice.

 black hole music file

רוח הקודש

I had been in Uman for Rosh Hashanah so the last one was written while waiting [in the airport near Kiev] for a plane back to the USA.

The first one I do not recall how or when the basic music line was written. Clearly it was around the same time. 

w15 music file

w83 music file 

 Danny Frederick was one of the most insightful thinkers of the last generation in political and philosophical thought. Libertarian. While Michael Huemer is great at coming up with great ideas or synthesizing  great ideas from the  past, Frederick was great as seeing the flaws in arguments.

Someone ought to collect his writings and publish them. It is just too rare in philosophy to have people with genius combined with common sense.

 n58 music file in mp3 [n58 in midi format]  n58 nwc

 r65 midi file This was written in Uman in May of 2016.I was at the time learning with my learning partner, David Bronson, somewhere in Shas. [All that learning eventually became a second little book]

You might ask why did he not write anything? The reason is he never thought he had any great insights. His questions  and insights on Tosphot or Gemara were to him completely obvious. But I was familiar with the learning done in the great Litvak yeshivot and realized tat his insights were anything but common. I figured if I did not write them down along with my own input, they would be lost forever.

[I should mention that my actual learning time was small. He did all the work on the subject before I got to the tziun of Rav Nahman where we were learning. And the actual learning session was just one hour.]

e64 in mp3 format

 e64 Music File [in midi format]This I think was written around 2011 for that was the end of writing the e series.

That was the time I was learning Bava Metzia with my learning partner David Bronson. I still regret leaving that period for we were nearing the end of perek HaMkabel and I was writing down the ideas we were developing together and writing them down in the little booklet Ideas in Bava Metzia עיוני בבא מציעא

After a year we started again [on general ideas in Shas], but that Bava Mezia thing was never finished. I still wonder what amazing idea I would have heard from him if we had continued on in Bava Metzia. 

 I hate to be critical of Rav Nahman of Breslov who was great tzadik, but I think that to merit to Torah one needs to be in a Litvak Yeshiva based on the Gra. And you can see this in the writings of Rav Nahman himself who said that before Abraham anyone could come close to God. But after Avraham, one needed to come to God through the path of Avraham. Same with Isaac and Jacob. And then Moses. So after the tzadik has come into the world, the path towards God is through that tzadik. So the path of Torah is through the Gra. But one may obtain great and important advice from Rav Nahman, but to get to Torah is through the Gra.

The reason this is important is that there is something about the Litvish environment that is wholesome and clean. So even if not for oneself, it is good for one's children. 

 In the Scroll of Ester you can see the decree of the king could not be changed. He told Ester that she could send another letter, but not change the original decree. So she wrote that  Israel could defend themselves. But the enemies still had the original decree, plus almost a full year of warning. So did they defend themselves? From the Scroll itself all you see is that the enemies of Israel were wiped out. Did no one defend themselves? Apparently the ones that were the most afraid decided to convert. But that is about it.

I wanted to mention that this אחשוורוש is Xerxes [that is how Xerxes is said in Persian] of the 300 Spartans. So if you look in Herodotus you will see an event with an advisor of Xerxes.  The name looks suspiciously like Mordechai. [ The king was having second thoughts about invading Greece. He was warned from heaven that he must go ahead. Then he put Mordechai on his throne at night to see if he would have the same dream. He did.]

not to hurt feelings אונאת דברים

One is required to hear every word of the Scroll of Ester. The interesting fact about this is that in the Mir in NY the person that read the scroll was from the old Mir in  Europe. But he read in such away that you could barely hear him. Even if someone coughed or scratched their shoe, you lost the whole thing.   So instead of going through that, I went to Rav Avigdor Miller's place next door. In the meantime people complained to Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, that few people could fulfill their obligation. But year after year, Rav Shmuel refused to replace that fellow. Why? So as not to hurt his feelings. [Or in Litvish jargon שלא לפגוע בכבודו של בן אדם 

Of course this was an important maxim at the Mir, but this is just one example.

Yu might ask, in a completely justified way, "How was that permitted?"I would imagine that it comes from גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה."Great is the honor of creatures for it pushes away even a prohibition of the Torah." Plus: אונאת דברים היא לאו דאורייתא "Hurting with words is a prohibition of the Torah."

Not to be stubborn about anything in the world.

 שלא להתעקש על שום דבר שבעולם Not to be stubborn about anything in the world. This I noticed last night in the book "The Life of Rav Nahman". He brings there that this is like when a teacher telling the child "Remember! Remember!" Eventually the child begins to think the  proper translation is "Remember."

Still one must have a hierarchy of values. What is the thing to emphasize and which ones are the things not to to be stubborn about. 

For the Gra, the thing to emphasize is learning Torah and this makes a of of sense to me.

 

 i28  in midi

 e74 music file written around 2011