People in the Middle Ages were interesting in seeing in the Torah a self consistent system.
The basic premise was if it is not self consistent it is garbage. This was the reason for Maimonides to write the Guide and the Yad HaChazaka--to show that the Torah is one self consistent system.

But we know from Godel that for this to be true we need axioms from the outside.

But these axioms (although not provable ) in order to be meaningful need to be falsifiable.
How is something not based on physical evidence falsifiable? When from the same axiom you can prove two opposite conclusions --that shows the axiom itself is false.

This is the basic idea I was telling my learning partner yesterday about why Tosphot assumes that the Talmud is self consistent.

Appendix: This need  to show that your system is not full of contradictions was also the reason for Aquinas to write his magnum opus.

In the case of Aquinas- there was a need to resolve the Old Testament, the NT and Aristotle, and the Church Fathers.
In the case of the Rambam there was a need to resolve the Old Testament, the Talmud and Aristotle..
But the work of the Rambam had been started by Saadia Geon.

In no case did anyone think the Torah is up for grabs for any individual to interpret it as he likes.

Now once you have gotten a system without contradictions then you need anyway faith in the axioms. That is where the Rambam and Aquinas are on different grounds.

Putin is not interested in money.
That means that sanctions will not stop him. [The warrior could not care less about money.] And It also means that for the Ukraine to go for help to the USA would result in a defeat for both  the USA and the Ukraine. It would destroy the world as we know it.
If this much is clear in that story then perhaps we can see what could possibly help the situation?
Mainly I think making Lithuanian kind of yeshivas in the Ukraine. Even if in that story, prayer seems to be the central theme, but my opinion is that that would work only together with Torah.
This could avert a major war. Instead of spending billions of dollars and millions of lives on a stupid war about nothing, why not spend a little time and trouble to make places like the Mir Yeshiva?
That means basically to find people who have spent a few years in a Lithuanian yeshiva like Brisk, Ponovitch in Israel or the three great NY yeshivas, Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat and to bring them to the Ukraine and Russia and to start teaching people Torah. Surely that would be less expensive than a major war.


On the other hand it is important to get rid of pseudo - Torah institutions. Fake Torah is as damaging to the world as True Torah is good for it.
That means to have either  straight Torah or nothing.

Mainly this means if you have something that looks like a cult in town it probably is.
Make a list of what ever was on the cherem of the Gra and cross it off.

I mean to talk to God all day long. . Prayer  is not opening up a book of prayers and saying the words. To him it is going up to the mountains on weekends and spending the whole day in a forest alone doing nothing but talking to God directly.


In any case I wanted to mention that the central idea  is that people are surrounded by darkness and by even one single word of prayer towards God with truth one dispels the darkness.
He says that one should pray his whole life to merit to say even one single word of of prayer with real truth before God.

This might be hard to do on a daily basis so I suggest people get together a set of hiking boots and outdoor survival material and go up to the mountains on weekends and spend at least tow days a week doing this.

Rav Shick started out as a regular teenager in Satmar. But he was working in in a printing shop. Leibel Berger had a car. So during non office hours Eliezer Shelomo would print up the books of Breslov and he and Leibel  would go around offering them to people saying that they could have a book for any amount of charity money the person would be willing to pay. That made it impossible to make money for selling Breslov books. Rav Shick thought the teachings of Breslov were universal--that is for everyone. Leibel told me they sold in this way probably close to 1/2 a million books.

Later he started writing the small books and pamphlets.] And in general people from his group did a good amount of learning Torah.
[If you want to compare the actual amount of knowledge and understanding of Torah with people at  the Mirrer yeshiva, Chaim Berlin, and Torah Vedaat in Brooklyn you would have to give first place the Mirrer and Chaim Berlin because Litvak yeshivas combined both approaches of deep learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon. Still the amount of learning going on in Rav Shick's crowd was impressive. And it was not just Talmud. In his crowd there were people, that had gone through all the Oral Law--Bavli Yerushalmi, Sifi Midrash Raba, the Zohar, all the writings of Isaac Luria and Moshe Cordovaro (the Remak) and rishonim that you have never even heard of. like the "Egoz".]





People that make fun of this method you can ask yourself how much they really learn? I remember even Reb Shmuel Berenbaum  (The Rosh Yeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva) in the afternoon session used to fly through many pages  [with of course Rashi and Tosphot.] That was until he started learning with a learning partner in the afternoon and that clearly caused him to slow down.



My suggestion with halacha is to do  the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch . That is to start out with the Rambam. Take one side of a page and read it word for word with the commentaries on the page. And the next day to start where you left off and go to the  next page until you have finished the entire Rambam with the Kesef Mishna and Raadvaz, the Magid Mishna and all the other commentaries on the page. Then do the same with the Tur, Beit Yosef and Bach. Then the same with the Shulchan Aruch with the Magen Avraham and Taz.

The public can't know what I mean by "yeshiva" [a Lithuanian Yeshiva] and my questions about it because they have no frame of reference.
So at least for background information let me try to explain what it is so you  can at least understand when I bring up the subject what I am talking about.

You have a university in town.  You know what that is. But imagine your university was not just for people between ages 18 to 24 or so. Imagine that there were signs all over your town come to university. And you would walk in and there would be a gigantic study hall of people of all ages learning Torah with a learning partner.

You know what a meme is. It is a unit of social information. It is what unites a group. A common set of closely held beliefs. You know what that is because the USA used to be united by this common set of beliefs--the Constitution.
But what if you had a different community that held from neither. But rather its social meme was the Torah--the written and Oral Law.
And this community has no recognized authority except the Torah itself. Full stop. And anyone can challenge the leaders any day of the week by simply opening up a Talmud and showing that the leader made a mistake, and then there is no question that the Talmud would be followed, and the leader himself would admit his mistake.

And this study hall is the center of gravity  of the community, but the community does not just learn Torah. It keeps Torah;-- and everyone gets married. This fellow marries the daughter of some other fellow etc.
No one is left out.
Now you know what a yeshiva is.
It sounds neat. And it is neat
So you might wonder how in the world could have I have questions about such a wondrous thing?
It sounds like the best thing to come to planet Earth. My questions are mainly about what are called out of town yeshivas. [Out of town is a phrase to refer to anything outside NY State lines.]
So now if I have complaints you will know what I am referring to. I would not dare complain about the Great NY yeshivas or  Bnei Brak's Ponovitch.

Glory to God-I have found a way of answering a difficult Rashi.

Sanhedrin 62.
The Mishna in the beginning of Klal Gadol in Shabat. Case 1) He forgot about Shabat he brings one offering. Case 2) He forgot today is Shabat he brings an offering for each shabat. Case 3) He knows today is shabat, but forgot one or more or all types of work.
The question of Rava is: "What happens if you put case 2) and 3) together?"

The Talmud in Sanhedrin asked: Why don't we answer this from the fact that if one thinks idolatry is allowed, he brings just one sacrifice. [i.e. אומר מותר. He thinks "It is allowed" is liable only one sin offering.]

(The Gemara Sanhedrin started off with explaining אחת מהנה (the verse "one of them")  is שגגת עבודה זרה וזדון עבודות .(i.e. Accidental idolatry and yet knowing the different types of idolatry are unlawful.) Full stop. At this point the Talmud interrupts the flow of the discussion instantly when the words accidental idolatry are mentioned and then asks, "What is it?")

 Now Rashi says אומר מותר (He says to himself "It is allowed") means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava  is not referring to the original question of the Gemara.

 The Ri (Rav Isaac, the grandson of Rashi) asks this question: "The actual question was not the same as if he forgot about Shabat totally שכח עיקר שבת. It was -he forgot today is shabat  and work is forbidden. העלם זה וזה בידו  So it is not parallel to the Mishna in Shabat in chapter 7. And that is why we don't answer the question of Rava from that Mishna. But then how does the statement of Rava about idolatry contain the answer to the question?


The Ri answers,  the Talmud is  thinking idolatry can't be forgotten totally because  is the essence of being a Jew is  to despise idolatry. And that is why idolatry is similar to the subject of the question of Rava about Shabat than the Mishna in Shabat. For the question is dealing with a situation where a simple reminder would perk the guy's memory. And the Mishna is Shabat is dealing with a case where a simple reminder would not work.

 So what we have so far is the Talmud starts with  a limited case accidental idolatry and knowing services. and it finishes with an even more limited case  of forgetting both the major category and subdivisions.
Remember  now this was the case of our original question and this is what caused the Ri to say אומר מותר is also limited to a case when he knows some idolatry somewhere is forbidden but thinks this particular one is allowed.

 Now Rashi here says אומר מותר [He says to himself, "It is allowed."] means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava  is not referring to the original question of the Gemara. These two statements of Rashi are the keys.
Rashi is aware of the question of the Ri. But let us think. We have a case of שגגת ע''ז [accidental idolatry] and we explained what that is. Then we jump and say maybe with this we can answer the question he forgot both. Why? For all we know he says it is allowed could refer to services also? And if he forgot both that is he says both this particular idolatry and also the four types of service are allowed, then maybe there too he would be liable more than one sacrifice?
That is even if you limit the case of אומר מותר like the Ri, you still have no answer to explain the Talmud.

So Rashi says Rava means like it sounds like he means everywhere when this statement of his is brought up --"He says to himself 'It is is allowed,'" means the guy says there is no prohibition to serve idols. And let me ask you now if one has totally forgotten the prohibition to serve idols or never knew it, does he bring a sacrifice for every kind of service and also for the sin of idolatry? Surely not! He brings one sin offering for the whole shebang. And this is what the Gemara is jumping on and this is why he could not answer Rava's question from the Mishna in Shabat. This is so beautiful it is astounding.
For what was our question? He forgot today is shabat and he forgot a  few kinds of work; and we thought maybe he brings a sacrifice for each kind of forgetting. You can't answer this from the Mishna in Shabat. Forgetting  about shabat completely does not tell us anything about our question
But you can answer our question from idolatry where is is obvious he brings one sacrifice  and nothing more. And what was our question? It was based on the idea the more he forgets the more he has to bring. So now we know from idolatry that that surely cant be right because there too he forgot idolatry and all kinds of service and we know he brings only one sacrifice.

א) סנהדרין סב. המשנה בשבת פרק כלל גדול אומרת שלשה דינים לשלשה מצבים. 1) אם בן אדם שכח עיקר שבת הוא מביא קרבן אחד. 2) אם הוא יודע עיקר שבת ושכח שהיום שבת, אז הוא מביא קרבן על כל שבת. 3) אם הוא יודע שהיום שבת ושכח מלאכות, הוא מביא קרבן על כל סוג מלאכה. רבא  שאל מה קורה אם אתה מצרף מצב 2) ומצב 3)? היינו העלם זה וזה בידו?  התלמוד בסנהדרין רוצה לתרץ את השאלה הזאת. הגמרא בסנהדרין התחילה לפרש "אחת מהנה" שהיא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות. והיא שואלת מה היא שגגת ע''ז? והיא מתרצת: אומר מותר. ואז היא המשיכה ואמרה אם כן העלם זה וזה בידו חייב קרבן אחד לבד.
רש''י אומר אומר מותר הוא שהוא אומר אין ע''ז בתורה. וגם שהמשפט של רבא הוא כללי. היינו שבא לומר יותר דברים חוץ מן לתרץ מה היא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות
 הר''י שואל אם כן התירוץ אינו שווה בשווה עם השאלה.(יכול להיות אומר מותר יהיה חייב קרבו אחד אהעלם זה וזה בידו יהיה חייב יותר). והוא מתרץ ש"אומר מותר" הוא יותר מצומצם ממה שרש''י פירש כדי שיהיה מתאים לשאלה של רבא.(אומר מותר על ע''ז מיוחדת). אבל רש''י יכול לשאול אם אומר מותר רק במצב פרטי של איזה ע''ז פרטית, אם כן איך זה מתרץ את שאלת רבא? "אומר מותר" יכול להיות על איזה ע''ז פרטית וגם על עבודות. ולכן רש''י אומר שאומר מותר הוא כללי. ואם אדם שכח ע''ז לגמרי אין סברה לחייבו קרבן אחד על ע''ז וארבעה קרבנות על כל סוג עבודה. ולכן הגמרא מביאה מזה תירוץ לרבא, מה שלא הייתה יכולה לעשות מן המשנה בשבת. ויותר מזה. מה הייתה הסברה לחייבו יותר מקרבן אחד בשבת? בגלל שהיו שיכחות הרבה. וברור שזה לא עובד כאן בע''ז. ולכן יש תירוץ לשאלת רבא


I am not saying this is all wrapped up. Only that it is a beginning of a way to understand Rashi here.
We still have to figure out why the case of idolatry is knowable more than the case of Shabat.
You have to say that Rashi here in Sanhedrin is understanding the question of Rava differently than it is stated in Shabat. The only way idolatry can be an answer to Rava is if Rava's question is like the case he forgot that Shabat even exists at all.

For some reason, I can't understand my learning partner is perfectly happy with Rashi as is. And when I posed this problem with Rashi, he was the one who suggested that Rashi understands the question here differently than in Shabat

_______________________________________________ I came to my learning partner is located. And he asked me "Did you see Tosphot?"
I said "No, What Tosphot?"
He said on the opposite side of the page. It was printed in the wrong place so you did not see it. He asks exactly our question."

I was in shock! And so now I have to present what Tosphot says and how it affects us. The first answer of Tosphot is that the Gemara could have asked this question on תפשוט but instead found a better question. That means it in fact thinks there is no proof from אומר מותר to Shabat.. And the he says what I was saying in the name of the Ri. But one thing he does not say is the answer I wrote above to Rashi.

So what I think now is that Rashi could say what Tosphot says: that the Gemara could have asked one of two questions to throw out the idea and choose a better way.
Or Rashi could say like I wrote: that at this point we are learning division of work and division of services from the same verse so if we can see that adding "forgetting"s  does not add sin offerings for idolatry then it would not do so for Shabat either.
But I am not sure.

Since everything I wrote above is already included in Tosphot I was thinking to erase the whole thing.

But on Shabat it occurred to me that you have to say that both answers of Tosphot depend on each other. Because even if you say אומר מותר he says it is allowed is limited, still it does not mean teh same as case (b) and (c) in that mishna in shabat. One could say for example he says a particular service is allowed. Or a particular idol is allowed. and thus you still would not have any answer. So you end up saying in any case that the Gemera just found a better way of pushing it off.

The kelipa of Noga was an important subject to the Gra. This is the energy of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When people cheat in business that gives power to kelipat Noga which then steals souls and money from the realm of holiness. And the Gra said Hasidim is kelipat Noga. This explains why Chasidim lie and cheat in business, and why they also lie and cheat about spiritual things. That is they lie about what the Torah says, and they get away with it because they get power from the Dark Side. And that is how they steal souls from the realm of holiness.


1) Kelipat Noga mainly refers to something mention in the vision of Ezekiel. It is the kelipa or Dark Force that is closest to holiness and makes a parade of how Jewish it is. The main source of information about it is in the Eitz Chaim of Isaac Luria--the Ari.