And Musar whether from the Middle Ages or more recent tends to present a straightforward idea of what it means to keep Torah.

This to some degree puts me into confusion since what some people think is keeping Torah is in fact a lot of rituals that have no source in the Talmud. But that is not the only issue.

There is also my observation that character and human decency do not always correspond with exactitude in mitzvot.


This is not any kind of logical objection but still it is enough for me to wonder then what is the right path? For I assume menschlikeit (human decency) ought to be a good indication of a person's place in the next world. I don't expect bad people to be in Gan Eden no matter how much they are strict in rituals.
This is to justify why I feel it is necessary to understand how to keep the Torah and I don't think that it is very simple.
This gives my justification for my at least raising a question about how to go about keeping Torah.

As ad hoc as this sounds try to take a balanced approach based on how I received the Torah from my parents. But I also look at people that according to my judgement reached some kind of human perfection and try to find one or two traits in them that I think are worthy of emulation.


What would be the main things? The Written and Oral Torah, and human decency.  Human decency here means a composite of several things: speak the truth at all cost, never steal lie,  cheat,  and to be self sufficient. Don't accept handouts.

But the Torah is  really a balanced approach to life. It was not anywhere near what you would call frumkeit. The best approximation would be conservative Judaism.

Appendix:
In my opinion people ought to go to public school, and learn Torah when they come home. There should be at home the whole set of the Oral and Written Torah. That is the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, Tosephta, Sifri and Sifra. And if people don't understand Hebrew, then also the Soncino Talmud in English. And they should go through the entire Oral Law from start to finish.

I am not advocating here bitul Torah. As much as a person can learn Torah he should, but he also needs to learn an honest profession. This is a requirement of the Torah itself. And making use of the Torah as a profession is something the Torah specifically forbids.

My learning partner is into the Paleolithic diet. And I thought to give people an idea of what his thoughts are on the diet issue.

To some degree he started out along the lines of Maimonides in the Mishna Torah, and he developed his ideas along those lines.

By his interest in health issues he found that ''bullet proof coffee'' site that I have the link to on my blog. and the Mercola health site.
It was on his suggestion about raw vegetables that I started eating beets. And that got my weight way down. In fact I could have kept on losing more and more lbs that way, but one day the mother of my girl friend said I was too skinny, and that simple comment took the wind out of my sails. But I still  jogged and ate black bread with beets.
I even got a mixer at his suggestion, but that turned out to be too impractical. But it does bring me to what I wanted to mention today. He uses his mixer for greens.  [lettuce, parsley,etc.] 

He is very unhappy with vegetable oil, and sugar. And believe it or not fruit also. He quoted to me the Maimonides statement that one should stay very far away from fruit. And only recently defend his idea by the fact that apples have twice as much fructose as glucose. And that we know is turned 30% into pure fat.

And fat itself he thinks is good. In fact he was recommending to me this idea of the bullet proof coffee site to have butter and coffee in the morning to get a burst of energy. I did not get all the details but look here if you want more information https://www.bulletproofexec.com/

He also mentioned recently about eggs--raw.  I mentioned to him that that was like the movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger where he is a cop putting all kinds of stuff into his mixer in the morning--but who ends up saving the world! He commented to me that that is why  he looks like he does.

You might ask why is this essay on this site. I got the idea from the statement in the Talmud about one person asking another about health issues and the the question of "bitul Torah" [time that can be used for learning Torah but was spent on something else which is a  very grave sin called "bitul Torah."] came up. The answer of the Talmud was חיותא דברייתא it is the life of the creatures so it is definitely an important part of Torah

Introduction: If a person bows down to a statue that was once worshiped but he does not know this, and he knows that bowing to an idol is prohibited, is this nothing? Or is it idolatry by accident?

My learning partner asked a question in the Rambam. In chapter seven of laws of accidental sacrifices he says one who does not know a statue is an idol but he knows bowing down to an idol is forbidden and he bows down and sacrifices and offers incense and pours out wine in front of it is obligated only one sin offering.
In Sanhedrin 62b we find Abyee searching for some example of idolatry by accident.
The context is that he is having an argument with Rava if one serves an idol from love or fear but does not accept it as his god. Is he liable or not?
Abyee says "yes," and he starts to fish around for some example of idolatry by accident to say that that is a case of serving from love or fear. So he finds some statement in some place that says there is such a thing. Then he asks what is the case? Did he see a house of idols and bow down thinking it is a synagogue? Then his heart is towards heaven. Did he see a statute of a king and bow down? If  he accepted it as his god, then he is liable; and if not, it is nothing. So it must be from love or fear.
The question that comes from that Gemara on the Rambam is that it seems like exactly the case of the Rambam. He bows down not knowing it is an idol, and knowing that bowing to an idol is forbidden, and the Gemara says לא כלום הוא it is nothing.
My learning partner suggested that the Gemara is talking about a mistake in the facts of the case, And Abyee and Rava are arguing about the law. This sounds really funny at first, but if you think about it you  can see his point. Abyee is saying he bows down from fear of the idol but thinks it is permitted--that is the case of idolatry by accident that Abyee is searching for. So at that point I suggested looking at the Mishna LaMelech on the Rambam (Laws of Accidental Sacrifices, chapter two) where the Mishna LeMelech makes this distinction and goes into some detail about how it works.
I also asked someone to bring me the book of Eliezer Menachem Shach, the Aviezri on the Rambam which I hope will shed some light on this problem.

In the meantime I hope to do some thinking here to decide if my learning partner is right. At this point in time it looks to me that he is correct.

Appendix:
1) I left out a few details in the above essay.
One is that the Gemara does not actually say that the statute in the case of Abyee was worshiped. Rashi does say so. But it is forced by the logic of Abyee anyway. Even if Abyee would have talked about an אנדרטא statue that had not been worshiped he would have had to add an extra clause in the Gemara to get to the case where it had been worshiped.

2) The other very important detail that needs to be brought up is this idea of my learning partner. Let's think for a minute what could he mean?  My learning partner is suggesting that Abyee means two things. If one serves an idol from love thinking that that is allowed then he brings a sin offering. If on purpose then that is the death penalty. If he makes a mistake in material facts like if the statue is in fact an idol then we see right in the Talmud itself that Abyee says that is nothing. So it certainly looks to me that my learning partner is correct.
Now we find in tractate Shabat that there is an argument between Abyee and Rava about cutting a radish and it turns out that it was attached. Abyee says he is liable a sin offering. Rava says no.[Shabat 72b]. But in the case where he picked up a radish and it tuned out that it was attached then both agree he is not liable. So what do we have from this? This: if one picks up a radish on shabat thinking that it is allowed to do so then he brings a sin offering. If he did not know it was attached it is nothing. Exactly like idolatry.--except it is not exact. What is the difference between this and cutting the radish?

Some random ideas in Torah
1] Joseph and his bothers. Joseph was considered by his brothers to be in the category of a רודף one who is running after someone to kill them. [The law is that if you see someone running after another to kill them you are obligated to kill the chaser.] This is clear as the sages of the Talmud said in a Midrash that he was saying about them that they were calling the children of the girl friends  of Jacob "slaves" and they were eating a limb torn from a live animal. The second one is part of the seven laws of the children of Noah which if transgressed incur the death penalty.
Of course Joseph had seen them do just that, but as we find in the Talmud an animal created by means of Sefer Yetzirah does not require shechita and there is no law of אבר מן החי  for it.
The case of calling the children of the girl friends of Jacob ''slaves'' we find that one who calls someone a slave is suspected of being a slave himself. The idea is they thought Joseph wanted to enslave them. גונב נפשות.








2] Rabbi Akiva was being tortured to death. that does not mean water-boarding. it means they were tearing his skin off his flesh and tearing his heart out of his chest.  his crime was that he taught Torah publicly after the Bar Chochba incident. after that incident the Romans forbade teaching torah in public, doing the brit mila (circumcision), sanctifying the new moon, and living in Jerusalem for all Jews.
The Talmud discusses this incident and relates that Rabbi Akiva said to his disciples I have waited all my life for this moment. should I not embrace it when it comes?  And as the Romans reached his heart he said the Shema, "Hear o Israel the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." and his soul left him on the word one.
This means that in general when one says the Shema and feels that his soul is about to leave him from great attachment with God he is supposed to stop his "devekut" in order to remain alive. But in the case of Rabbi Akiva he was under no obligation to limit his devekut because he was going to die in any case. So when he said the Shema he said it with such great attachment to God that his soul left his body on the word One--not because the Romans were torturing him.

3] What is the "peshat" (explanation) in the incident when Joseph made himself known to his brothers?
Joseph wanted to bring his brothers to do repentance on their evil deed and also wanted to make sure that their repentance was sincere.
Bringing them to repentance we see when they said all the evil that was coming on them was because of what they did to Joseph.
But it was only when Joseph saw Judah was willing to give himself up to a life of slavery in order to rescue his younger brother--then Joseph saw their repentance was real.מדה כנגד מדה. they did not mind the pain they caused their father and they were afraid of being slaves. here Joseph saw they were willing to go into slavery to save their father from pain and their younger brother from being a slave. the exact opposite of when they were willing to sell Joseph as a slave,

fear of God is sometimes coupled with stupidity.

In the book of Job 4 with find the idea that fear of God is sometimes coupled with stupidity. This is famous in the USA where anyone with fear of God is automatically suspected to have  a low IQ.
הלא יראתך כסלתיך Is not your fear your stupidity? (Job chapter 4)







Appendix:
You can see some problems associated with the fact that fear of God can be connected with stupid ideas from the fact that the pilot of Asiaair was a devout Muslim. It is reasonable to assume he mistakenly thought that by killing Christians he would end up in the garden of Eden. I think we can all agree that it is unlikely that his wish was granted.
Call me an Islamophobe, but when I research the pilot from the missing flight QZ8501, Captain Iriyanto, I access the local news in Indonesian, not in English. There I find out that the pilot of the missing flight QZ8501 and like the pilot on the other missing flight MH370 are both devout Muslims, 
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/pilot-missing-airasia-flight-qz8501-devout-muslim-slaughtered-christians/#5QPCzeAFVWuzpLT0.99

In one place the Talmud says to finish the book even if you forget and even if you don't understand. Avoda zara page19

  [.ליגמר איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר ׁׂ[עבודה זרה י''ט

In one place the Talmud says to finish the book even if you forget and even if you don't understand. In another place it says לעולם לגרוס איניש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר
("Always one should learn fast even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying.")
And it brings it from a verse גרסה נפשי



I had a lot of trouble with this idea.
Where I was learning Torah, they were definitely emphasizing learning in depth. And would spend a week or two of learning on one page of Talmud.

Eventually I began to see the wisdom of their teachings me in depth
I believe that if I had not gotten the idea of how to do it then, I never would have gotten it.
Where ever I have gone in the world, I have noticed that even among people that learn Torah, few have any idea of how to learn. The most simple basic concepts of Talmud are foreign to them because they never learned with any rigor.
But I do think this fast learning part of Talmud is also important.

And I have applied the idea of fast learning to other areas of learning that I have had to do when I went to Polytechnic [a branch of NY University].

So my idea is for people to get themselves a whole set of Talmud and go through it, with all of the Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, and Maharsha.
I don't remember exactly but I think this used to take me one simple half hour per day.

[People would positively make fun of me when they saw I was trying to learn fast. In those days, I was not even going very fast. I was  doing tractate Ketubot and I would say over the "shtikle" paragraph twice or more and then the Tosphot twice, and go on.  And there were a few chapters I also did with the Tosphot HaRosh when I did not understand Tosphot.] But that was still way too fast for most people's taste. {Today  what I was doing would be called learning in depth! You see how far this generation has fallen!! Nobody even knows anymore what real learning in depth is.}

For people in Israel that speak Hebrew I want to write an idea concerning Maimonides and Shabat First in Hebrew and then in English

For people in Israel that speak Hebrew I want to write an idea concerning Maimonides and Shabat

First in Hebrew and then in English for English speaking people whether in Israel or elsewhere.

הרמב''ם כתב שאם בן אדם עשה מלאכה בשבת בשוגג הוא מביא קרבן חטאת. היינו ששכח המלאכה או ששכח את העונש, וזכר את השבת. אם שכח כל השלשים ותשע הוא מביא שלשים ותשעה חטאות. זאת אומרת שהוא פסק כרבי יוחנן ששגגת עונש שמה שגגה. אבל לריש לקיש רק שגגת מלאכה שמה שגגה. בגמרא מדייקים ששגגת כל הל''ט מביא ל''ט חטאות. אבל אם שכח כולן במה הוא זוכר את השבת? לא שואלים את זו על רבי יוחנן בגלל שהוא יכול לומר ששכח את העונש. אבל מה ר''ל יכול לומר? מתרצת הגמרא: בתחומין ואליבא דרבי עקיבה.
אבל זה כנראה אינו עוזר להרמב''ם. הרמב''ם משמע ששכח כולן ועדיין מביא ל''ט. במה זכר את השבת? בנו של הרמב''ם תירץ: יכול להיות שהרמב''ם דיבר רק במצב ששכח את העונש. או שזכר איזו תולדה. החברותא שלי תירץ שאין שום סיבה לומר שהרמב''ם לא יכול לומר גם כן תחומים. רק בגמרא רבי יוחנן לא היה צריך את התרוץ הזה. אבל זה כל שכן: אם זדון שבת ומלאכות ושכחת עונש הוא שגגה, כל שכן שכחת מלאכות זכירת תחום שבת

What I am trying to say here is that if you think about it you can see that the only difference between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is if doing a work on purpose is considered an accident of he forgets the punishment. The is the sole and only point of difference. There is no stated argument between them if remembering boundaries is considered remembering Shabat. The only reason the Gemara had to scrounge around for that was because Reish Lakish needed it. But there is no rational or logical reason to think Rabbi Yochanan thinks that that is not called remembering Shabat.
In my opinion this is an amazing insight from my learning partner. Pure genius.

It is not the first time I have seen things like this from him.




1) Maimonides says if one does an act of work by accident on the Sabbath he brings a sin offering. This means if he forgot that it was forbidden or he forgot the punishment, but remembered it is Shabat. And if he forgot all 39 types, then he brings 39 sin offerings.
2) This comes from the Talmud. In the Mishna you have the same idea (Talmud Shabat 69a).
Forgetting Shabat means one sin offering. Forgetting  work means a sin offering for each type of work.
3) R. Yochanan says forgetting the punishment is also called forgetting. To Reish Lakish only forgetting the work itself is called forgetting.
4) So there is no problem to Rabbi Yochanan. He could say forgetting all 39 types of work is liable 39 sin offerings  because he forgot the punishment.
But to Reish Lakish how can we explain the Mishna? If he forgot all 39, then in what way is he remembering Shabat? In boundaries according to Rabbi Akiva. (R. Akiva holds the 12 mile boundary is from the Torah. )
5) But this answer for Rabbi Yochanan on the Mishna does not help us for the Rambam.
The Rambam seems to imply even forgetting all 39 completely brings 39 offerings.
6) The son of the Rambam was asked this. He said It could be the Rambam is only referring to the clause where he remembered the work but forgot the punishment.
Or he remembered derivatives of the 39.
7) My learning partner suggested that perhaps the Rambam could answer the same thing as Resih Lakish. The reason is this if Rabbi Yochanan [who the law goes like in all cases against Reish lakish] holds remembering work but forgetting punishment is an accident then all the more so forgetting work and remembering boundaries. There is no reason to believe that Rabbi Yochanan would disagree with Resih Lakish that remembering boundaries is also called remembering.
Clearly no one wanted to go this way because they thought: "If we don't hold by Reish Lakish then how could this answer work?" But if you think into it you will see that my learning partner is right.





8) The Lechem Mishna also deals with this question. He disagrees with the answer of the son of the Rambam, but he gives an answer that to me to be hard to understand. The way it looks to me is he wants to answer that the Rambam is thinking of this as forgetting both Shabat and work. But how could that answer the Rambam is beyond my ability to understand since the Rambam himself says in such a situation he brings only one offering. If anyone in the great wide world has a way of understanding this Lechem Mishna, I would appreciate if you shared your thoughts with me.

9) I have mentioned before that for this reason it is important to have in your home a the set of the Chaim Soloveitchik's book on the Rambam, along with his two students' books [Baruch Ber, Shimon Shkopf, and Eliezer Menachem Shach's Aviezri. These four people brought a revolution to the world and a rigorous painstaking logic to understanding the Rambam. So even if they might not deal with my specific question, they would at least have some ideas that might help us.]
( Shmuel Berenbaum, was also learning along these lines but he never printed anything. They recorded his classes towards the end of his life though. That was at the Mir in NY. He was during his life giving the deepest classes in Talmud, more than anyone in the world except for Rav Shach at Ponovicth in Bnei Brak