The elderly lady turned Dirty Harry as she defended her home in Orange County, California, and her wheel-chair-bound husband – scaring off the 31-year-old assailant by firing a single shot from her .357magnum revolver as he tried to break through the front door.

This is a story about how owning a gun saved lives. The good guys are still alive and the bad guy is behind bars. Gun ownership is the great equalizer…. and these stories need to be embraced and celebrated often to combat and battle the liberal media gun-grabbing meme.

A burglar came in for the shock of his life when he burglarized the house of a 72-year-old grandmother.

The elderly lady turned Dirty Harry as she defended her home in Orange County, California, and her wheel-chair-bound husband – scaring off the 31-year-old assailant by firing a single shot from her .357magnum revolver as he tried to break through the front door.

A 911 call reveals Jan Cooper screaming ‘Back up you son of a b****! Back up! Get the hell out of here!’ before firing a round from the mighty handgun. It missed the burglar by just inches. [...]

Read more here. A FoxNews report offers more:

 Jan Cooper, of Anaheim, fired one shot from her .357-magnum Smith & Wesson revolver around 12:30 a.m. Sunday as a man attempted to break into her home. During a 911 call of the incident, Cooper can be heard begging with the dispatcher to send deputies and warns that she has a gun at the ready as her Rottweiler barks furiously in the background.

Minutes later, a breathless Cooper says the man has come to the back porch and is trying to get in the house through a sliding door. Through the vertical blinds, Cooper saw his silhouette just inches away through the glass as he began to slide open the door.

“I’m firing!” Cooper shouts to the dispatcher as a loud band goes off.

Cooper then curses at the suspect, shouting at him to “back up.”

Perez had a rap sheet that included other burglary and narcotics charges and was on parole and staying at a halfway house not far from the Coopers’ address, Amormino said. 

Learning Torah

The Gemara has a discussion if one fulfills the mitzvah of learning Torah by saying the Shema. It comes out that one does. It also says one should not tell this to  "ami haarez" [ignorent] least they learn to be lenient with this mitzvah.

On the other hand we know the Talmud Yerushalim in Peah says that one word of Torah is worth more that all the mitzvot.

This can be understood in two ways. This idea of one word of Torah being worth more than all the mitzvaot might refer to just the bare obligation. Or it might refer also to all the words of Torah one learns after that during the whole day.

Now we know that learning Torah during the day after one has fulfilled the bare obligation in the morning is not the exact same thing as doing a mitzvah that one is not obligated in. We do find in the Talmud that when one has a mitzvah in front of himself or learning Torah one should learn Torah. This seems as far as I can tell to the non obligatory of learning Torah during the day that one is morally obligated to do even though he has in fact already fulfilled the obligation by saying the Shema in the morning.
[This discussion shows why one must stop learning if a mitzvah comes up that can't be done by someone else. This is simple. Since one has fulfilled his obligation in the morning therefore any obligatory mitzvah that comes up later obviously one should do instead of learning]





Now on one hand they are right that everyone should learn Torah. But frankly I feel kind of like the German Jews that came to America that were based on the teachings of Shimshon Refael Hirsch--that they took an unbelievable degree of offense at anyone that even suggested that their children should not go to collage.

There was movement started by Reb Israel Salanter to learn books of Musar [Five books of Jewish Morality written by Medieval sages].
This had a core cannon of six books from the Middle Ages and one post  Renaissance book-the Mesilat Yesharim.The complaints about this movement were varied. The Chazon Ish asked "What good is Musar if you do not know Halacha?"

Clearly this is a good point but I have  a further complaint. What good is Musar if you do not know the philosophy behind the books? What I think is important about Musar  only comes because of the general paradigm of Musar i.e. it imbibes into tone the general world view of Torah.

Also I want to mention a few more flaws in the movement that should be taken constructive criticism not destructive criticism. Things that should be corrected to make the movement better than it already is. First get rid of all the moral busybodies



Second the are issues that come up in Musar that are not dealt with. The Ramchal emphasized learning Kabalah. The Rambam emphasizes learning Physics and Metaphysics [i.e. each on a set of books written by Aristotle]. The Ramchal puts down all secular disciplines  and is opposed to the Rambam in this issue. why are these issues not dealt with? and what about borrowing from Aristotle and Plato that Musar does but today this is ignored?

In spite of these complaints I agree that Musar is very important for religious and non religious Jews. We all need Ethics and to understand the basic point of view of the Torah concerning world view issues. Halacha gives us "Particulara." Musar gives us "Generala."

While people think many laws of the Torah seem counter to objective reason I think it can be shown that most of the time critiques of the Torah are based on ideas of morality that are based on false views like empiricism or moral relativism.

From a philosophical point of view  what is of value in the Torah and Talmud and what is not?First we have to establish a philosophical point of view to start with. and we have to establish a set of ground rules for what constitutes evidence.
I do not start out thinking that everything in the Torah or Talmud is true and then work backwards to eliminate things I don't like.  I start out like Descartes with zero assumptions and then build up.
This is a significant difference between me and Orthodox Jews.
But to get to my point I start with Moral objectivity. I holds that moral claims assert propositions that are at least sometimes objectively true. What is meant here by the qualifier "objectively" is that their truth does not depend on beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes of observers towards the things evaluated.
 I will not here try to counter moral relativism or relativism in general. Nor the lunatic American British Analytic Linguistic schools of thought. [Most serious modern philosophers have awoken to the fact that all twentieth century philosophy is "obviously false" (in the famous words the Professor of philosophy at Berkley John Searle) and so there is no need here to bother with them.]

So we start with Moral objectivity.. From that standpoint I think there are two things of great value in the Torah and Talmud: the Laws of Morality that can be defended by objective reason and Fear of God.

While people think many laws of the Torah seem counter to objective reason I think it can be shown that most of the time critiques of the Torah are based on ideas of morality that are based on false views like empiricism or moral relativism.


But I do not think that the fanatic  Orthodox approach is right either. We can't assume the whole tradition is right against evidence.  [For example where would the Tyrannosaurs Rex have fit into the ark? Afetr all Noah was commanded to take all living things into the  ark.]

I think the best approach is to combine the two approaches (1) start from the philosophical way from zero assumptions and work up. (2) Work with the basic content of Torah and Mitzvot and only reject what is clearly contrary to evidence. (3) Assume that even you evaluations of evidence and of the Torah itself are flawed and that we all have to listen to people smarter than ourselves.  None of anyone reading this blog are going to examine the Talmud with more rigor than the Tosphot or Rambam or Chaim Soloveitch. \


We are not going to understand evolution better that Stephen Gould or Steve Dutch. We all have to realize our limitations. Aish HaTorah is not going to disprove evolution.


Then you end up with Straightforward Conservative Judaism.

As Habermas has noted there needs to be some new thought concerning politics.
Frankly I was a bit shocked to see his basically positive approach towards Hegel and Marxism.
But to be frank I was shocked to see the famous critic of Marx, Karl Popper also seeing a lot of the good points in Marxism.


But being in a city of the former USSR where people are still afraid to break the law from the terror of the police or as they call it the "malitzia." Only after twenty year is this fear of breaking the law wearing away.



 And I have written before about main main complaint about John Locke and the American democracy--empiricism..Empiricism is false. we have knowledge of things besides what we know by our senses. Examples are out there by the millions
Some type of new political philosophy is clearly needed.

And what philosophers think does effect people. 100 years ago all philosophers in England were Anti Christian- some more openly than others. This was in spite of the fact that 99% of English people were starkly Christian.  Do you think that the Philosophers had an effect? clearly they did. Islam is the fastest growing most vibrant religion in england is is due to be the religion of the  majority in a few years.
Philosophers have an effect.

My opinion about philosophy is like that Kant, Leonard Nelson of the new Friesian School and Hegel are important. But I do not see philosophy as being able to see the truth in politics. The kind of evolution into liberal democracy--the Magna Carta, the establishment of Parliament, the Provisions of Oxford all became the blue print of the American Democracy which in turn became the model for all states that aspire to a realm of human flourishing. And not a single reform in the Magna Carta or the Provisions of Oxford or any later establishing of human rights in England came from any kind of reasoning or logic or philosophy, but from the broken friendships and bloody rivalry in medieval England. The person responsible for the provision of oxford was not a philosopher, but a crusader who spent years killing heretics in France.

What i mean by this is that there is a very wide variety of concepts of what the soul is starting with Plato  and on . An also there is a wide variety of opinions of what is the goal of human existence in this world.

I want to suggest that these two questions as linked together with super-glue.
I dare not here go into the complicated borrowings that went on in the Middle Ages among Christian, Jewish and Muslim philosophers.[i would love to but i have no time right now]


[1]  Only the sechel hanikne (acquired intellect) will be left of a person after his passing way. (acquired intellect) is when one know many things in one knowing
This from the Rambam. I suggest this is pure Neo Platonic thought. where the actual souls is included in the higher Intellect  Wisdom which is the first emanation of the G-d.
[2] An Aristotelian concept that the soul is the form of the body. This is not against the Neo Platonic concept of Torah lesson 25 but complements it. The in fact reinforces it.] the real soul is included after passing away in the highest form-pure form the form of the good.while the actual aspect of the soul that is tied to the body will not exist after death.
[3] The soul is the "I".

[4] And the purpose of all this is to be included in the Infinite One--pure Neo Platonic thought again.] where after the soul is included in wisdom it rises to the Infinite One

Being included in God? Is this the goal?  This is  a neo platonic idea.

To the Rambam  by sechel hanikne ones merits to the world to come.