Russia considers  diplomacy as war by different means. To Russia diplomacy is just another way to get what they would rather get by means of war. That means that they will definitely try to take Eastern Ukraine by war. It is just they can play around with diplomacy to fool people. And they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Because to them power is the goal. Not peace. And NATO will definitely not put the amount of money and time and lives into this endeavor as much as Russia is willing to put into it.

If NATO and the USA and the Ukraine are willing to put up the amount of time, effort, and money,  blood and tears to hold onto Eastern Ukraine as the Russians are willing to put up to get it, then I see some purpose in a confrontation.
But they are not. The Ukraine will never be a part of NATO. Negotiations with the Russians is a joke to the Russians. To them its is just words. And words don't mean an thing.

But the way I see it this does not apply to Western Ukraine. Since all the Russians care about is power therefore the East is a good target. Once  they control it politically, then things are back to normal. But the West would be a whole different all game. The West would not buckle down and would be a liability to the Russians. People would make as much trouble as possible and the Russians would find after taking it that the battle has just begun. And they know this. I simply do not think they could care less about Western Ukraine.
 I say let Russia have the East. All Russia wants is people that want to be part of Russia anyway.

And why was it that all efforts by Ukraine to be part of the EU were ignored for the last twenty years? What ever the reason was is there any reason to think now things have changed? I suspect the reason is business ethics. Every time I have rented a place in the Ukraine the owner has always felt free to come into my apartment every day  when I am gone and steal money and what every else he thinks is useful.  There are no exceptions to this rule. The Russians are very well aware of this character flaw and thus feel that whatever good is in the Ukraine is from the after effects of being under Russian rule.

Few people are thinking ahead. Everyone one thinks if they just escalate a little bit the other side will back down. But take my word for it--Russians will never back down. All that will happen is war at the cost of billions of dollars and human life. Are a few dirt poor provinces in the East worth that?
I know no one wants to hear what I have to say. The Russians want  everyone to think they are innocent. The Ukrainians want the Eastern provinces. But to avoid war the Eastern provinces have to be let go of.
It is not that I think Russia is right for what they are doing. It is just that to avoid worse problems we have to accept that they will not stop in trying to get the Eastern provinces.

Rav Eliezer Shach definitely held excommunication of the Gra is still valid and he instilled this attitude into the vast majority of Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel.

If you consider this world to be dangerous in a spiritual way, it then makes sense to come to saint  for advice.
But you would then have to be cautious about who really is a saint.
I would not mention this except for the fact that it seems to me that I have seen this kind of effect in my own life. But I have not mentioned this idea much because people in general go to people that are not saints. For example there is a whole group that comes under excommunication of the Gra. I would suggest that one should not be involved with them and that their so called tzadikim should be considered as תלמדי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים (Torah scholar demons) not kosher.


There is no doubt that Americans have a different approach to this than Israelis. Rav Eliezer Shach definitely held this way, and he instilled this attitude into the vast majority of Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel, Even Porat Yoseph which is Sefardi but has a Lithuanian Mashgiach, Rav Shlanger.

There is one yeshiva in Jerusalem of Rav Zilverman which goes totally with the Gra and that are many carbons copies of that yeshiva. But that is not what I mean here. I mean there is a very basic mindset in all the Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel that is fundamentally different from American Yeshivas. The first time I discovered this I admit I was shocked. But the way I see things today I would have been well advised to listen to Rav Shach. 

Sanhedrin 61a. I was doing a little review on the Talmud. And it occurred to me that  both Tosphot and the Baal HaMeor consider השתחווייה  (bowing) to be inviolate.

That is: I am suggesting a possible way of understanding Tosphot along the same lines of this little piece that God granted to me to write about this Gemara.


That is to say: The Gemara suggests learning from  השתחווייה (bowing). That would mean all kinds of service of honor would be liable. Rav Acha asks; "If so then what would איכה יעבדו ("How do they serve?") come to exclude?"
Tosphot and the Baal HaMeor ask why did he not ask the same question when we were learning from זביחה sacrifice? The Meor answers in the last case, איכה יעבדו would have excluded kissing an idol one hugs. That means the Meor thinks זביחה is modifiable and השתחווייה  is not.
Tosphot in fact might be thinking this is the flaw in the reasoning of the Baal Hameor,--the fact that when we learn from one verse we think it can't be modified and when we learn from another it can be. While Tosphot  also agrees that bowing השתחווייה can't be modified, they understand the question of the Gemara differently. They think it means there is no area left to be modified. In other words the question on the Baal HaMeor that I wrote in Hebrew might very well be the reason Tosphot rejected that approach in the  first place.
I  think this is important because we find the Maharsha sticking up for the Baal Hameor and he has a very sensible reason--the language of exclude instead of to include. But that leaves us with the very strange things that Tosphot seems to have missed this. And that is impossible.  Or let's say it is possible but I have never seen anything like it anywhere in the entire Talmud. Tosphot simply does not make logical errors,-- ever. It is like think Mozart would write something not top quality.  I imagine it could be possible we we know for a fact that it is not possible. Same with Tosphot. So I think it is very important that we have seen now a reason why Tosphot had to explain it in the way they did,








סנהדרין ס: אני רוצה קודם כל להציע את הגמרא בקצרה ואחר כך מחלוקת תוספות עם בעל המאור, ואחר כל זה להציע שתי קושיות על בעל המאור. הברייתא אומרת שלומדים עבודה שלא כדרכה מזביחה (היינו מן הפסוק "זובח לאלהים יחרם") שמות כב
רבא בר רב חנן שואל, "למה אין יכולים ללמוד את זה מהשתחוויה ("וילך וישתחווה") [דברים יז]. רב אחא מדפתי שאל על רבא בר רב חנן, "אם היינו לומדים מהשתחוייה, אז מה היה  'איכה יעבדו הגויים האלה את אלהיהם' בא למעט? [היינו מה היה בא לפטור]. והגמרא מתרצת שהיא בא לרבות שלא כדרכה למבוזים

תוספות ובעל המאור שואלים על רב אחא, למה הוא שאל רק על השתחוויה (הִשְׁתַּטְּחוּת)? למה הוא לא שאל גם על זביחה? היינו, אם לומדים שלא כדרכה מזביחה, מה בא "איכה יעבדו" למעט
תוספות עונים ששואלים רק על השתחוויה בגלל שאם משתמשים עם השתחוויה, אז שייך לשאול מה בא "איכה יעבדו" לומר לנו. זה בגלל שמהשתחוויה אפשר ללמוד את הכול, אפילו עבודה כדרכה. האופן לראות את זה הוא לדגש שבשלב הזה הגמרא חושבת שהשתחוויה מכילה גם עבודה של בזיון. רואים את זה מן התירוץ לשאלת רב אחא שהשתחוויה לא מכילה עבודה של בזיון. אבל מזביחה לא היינו מכילים עבודה של בזיון, ולכן שייך לא לשאול למה בא "איכה יעבדו"? הוא בא לומר עבודה כדרכה חייבת. אבל בעל המאור הולך בכיוון אחר. הוא ראה ששאלת הגמרא היא מה איכה יעבדו בא למעט (לפטור). היינו שהיא בא לרבות מה שהוא ולמעט מה שהוא. ובהמשך הגמרא משתדלת למצוא דבר ש"איכה יעבדו" יכול לפטור. לפי ההקדמה הזאת הוא אומר שמן זביחה היינו מחייבים נשיקה למגפפים [עבודה זרה שדרכה בחיבוק]. ואז בא "איכה יעבדו" לומר לנו שאינו חייב
שתי שאלות יש לי כאן על שיטת המאור. אם זה נכון ש"איכה יעבדו" בא לפטור נושק למגפפים, אז למה לא לשאול על השתחוויה (הִשְׁתַּטְּחוּת)? תגיד שהשתחוויה בא לחייב נושק למגפפים.  ותגיד ש"איכה יעבדו" בא לפתור אותו. (תוספות והמאור שניהם אוחזים שאם לומדים מהשתחוויה אז השתחווייה היא דבר קבוע שאיכה יעבדו אינה יכולה לשנות. רק זביחה היא דבר שאיכה יעבדו יכולה לשנות. אצל שניהם יש בקושיה הזאת
שאלה שנייה איך התירוץ עובד? איך היינו חושבים שזביחה באה לחייב נושק למגגפים מראש? אין סיבה לחשוב שזביחה הייתה מכילה נשיקה למגפפים. אפשר לראות את זה על ידי זה שנזכרים שמשתמשים עם זביחה בשביל להרבות עבודות פנים. אין שום הווה אמינא שזביחה היתה מכילה שום דבר אחר. רק השתחוויה חשבנו שהיא באה לרבות כל דרך כבוד

That is the end of the quote. My take on this is that Israel is very hard to be in. But it is the essence of what it means to be Jewish. For reasons beyond my control, I have found being in Israel difficult.But I long to be there. And synagogues I am in general not very happy with.  Probably the best are Conservative or Re-constructionist. I would not go anywhere near an the insane religious world  one.
If there was a straight Lithuanian yeshiva in my area, I would spend as much time as possible there.

But when I say yeshiva I mean something along the lines of the Mirrer in NY. I have made a suggestion before to have a "Beit Midrash" on a blog I wrote a long time ago. That is a study hall which is a little less formal than a yeshiva but close enough.

In any case I am not into organized religion much. As far as I am concerned people ought to learn Torah, and I don't care much where they do it. In fact, if you can do it at home- that is the best. If you are not up to Talmud, then maybe get a Mishna. But in any case, I don't accept the idea that people can't learn on an advanced level. I think that is sheer laziness. The way I see it, everyone has to go through the entire Oral Law at least once. Do it fast or slow, - I don't care. That means Talmud Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, and the basic Midrash [Midrash Raba.]

The Ramban [Nachmanides],

The Ram'ban [Moshe ben Nachman, Nachmanides].[When you say Ramban you stress the last syllable.]]
My learning partner thinks he is the best thing there is for understanding Torah. I think part of his reasoning is that the Ram'ban is a kind of interface between the mystical parts of Torah and the more rational aspects.

And the rational parts don't make much sense without the mystical parts and visa versa.
If you go with just the rational explanation of Torah of the 'Rambam (Maimonides) things get very awkward.
His Aristotelian explanations of Torah, just don't seem to fit.  [And to make the 'Rambam (Maimonides) make sense you have to go to the mystic Avraham Abulfia and his commentary on the Guide anyway.]
But when people go into the mystical aspects they tend to go off the deep end very quickly. They start getting involved in the ten sephotot and unifications and Adam Kadmon and not the Torah.
They think that by meditating on the ten sephirot or Adam Kadmon or something that they get somewhere. Which is clearly false. All they get from that is delusions.


Nachmanides, the Ram'ban, shows a middle path. And in his commentary on Torah he shows how things make sense.

I am not sure what to think about this. when it comes to mysticism I just go with the Ari straight. But I admit the Ram'ban might be a good interface.

How would you define white privilege?”

Simple. Everything good comes from Blacks and Muslims; every invention, every new idea. It has only been blacks and Muslims fighting for social justice for whites. If not for blacks, whites would be in some mud hole in Africa.  
Jesus we know was black,  also Moses and Plato, Newton,  Einstein,  Bach, Kant and Gauss.
And they stole their ideas from Muslims and Blacks.
So everything whites have is only because of white privilege. Whites earned nothing. All they do is sit around all day and collect welfare checks. And complain about how blacks have exploited them, and how when they get the chance, they will take down the blacks.
Name one invention of a white person! Or a medicine? Nothing. Nada. 
And you can bet that it is only because of affirmative action that whites are accepted in any university.

To understand the Rambam's idea that learning Physics and Metaphysics brings one to Love and Fear of God. [This is stated most openly in the Guide for the Perplexed but also shows up in Mishna Torah] [The Rambam tells us what he means in different places. He says this in elliptical form as he warned us openly that he would write in that way. He defines the work of creation מעשה בראשית and work of the divine chariot מעשה מרכבה in the beginning of the Guide for the Perplexed . In the Guide itself he tells us what is the purpose he sees in these--the Work of Creation to come to fear, and the Work of the Divine Chariot to come to love. And this approach of the Rambam is quoted virtually verbatim in all later books of Musar.]


To justify this approach of the Rambam I would like to bring together a few ideas:

[1]  we find that God's glory does not extend everywhere. That is even though His glory fills the whole world, there are places where his glory does not reach. וכבודי לאחר לא אתן. Now we find that it says in a verse that God created the whole world for his glory. לכבודי בראתיו יצרתיו אף עשיתיו. So his glory is the root and life force of everything that exists. So what about those places where his glory does not extend? They get life force from the hidden statement (מאמר הסתום). "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."  That is hidden because it does not say "He said." [In nine other acts of creation it says, "He said."]

So the areas  the most hidden from God get their life force from the highest levels of holiness.

And when one turns to God from those areas and calls out "where is the place of his glory?" Then he returns to the highest statement of creation.

In Math and Physics there is no open numinosity. But there is the hidden statement by which the world was created. So when one turns to God there, and learns for the sake of Heaven, he brings up all the creation to God.




[2] Maimonides held that Torah is only the Written and Oral law. But two of the commandments of the Torah are to love and fear God, and these Maimonides held were only possible by learning Physics and Metaphysics. [He was referring to the two sets of books by Aristotle called the Physics and the other called the Metaphysics]. [In Hebrew University I studied both to see if what Aristotle was doing intersected with modern Physics. My conclusion was yes.]

[3] But there are different levels of revelation of Torah.
The world was sustained by the Ten Statements (עשרה מאמרות) before the Torah was given [ten times it says ''And God said'']
But these statements were hidden. Then the ten trials of Abraham were a first step towards the revelation of Torah. The ten plagues on Egypt were the next step to make it possible to reveal the Torah. Then the Ten Commandments were the actual revelation of Torah. [The idea of the plagues was that one has to get rid of evil before the good can be revealed.]

[4] But because the Torah is in everything, it is possible to serve God with everything.


In the above, I am looking at Maimonides's idea and though I realize it has a simple explanation, I am trying to find a deeper justification for it. The way it looks from the Rambam is learning Physics and Metaphysics is to inspire one and awaken him to the deepness and beauty of God's creation. What I am looking for here is the idea that the Physics and Metaphysics themselves are a kind of revelation of one aspect of of God's wisdom contained in his creation.
[Same as what the Rambam says about the idea of natural law that preceded Torah law. But that is a different discussion.]

I am also saying that Torah is a super level of natural law, not that it is identified with natural law.
At least this is the way I conceive of these things. Other people probably have different ideas, but that is my approach. It is basically Neo-Platonic, but I am using it to justify Maimonides' more Aristotelian approach. [The Rambam was not pure Aristotelian either, but as Plotinus himself a kind of mid point between Plato and Aristotle.]

[7] In this world is hidden holiness; and even in the lowest regions in spirituality is hidden the highest holiness that comes from the hidden statement of creation. [In the first statement of Creation there is no "He said"]



[8] Where do you see that "truth is in the ground?" In physical matter? Why is it that the Rambam insists on seeing in facts about physics the highest truths? He probably saw it in a Midrash. God wanted to create Man. The angel of truth came and asked, "How can you create Man when he is full of lies?" God took the angel of truth and threw him on the ground, as the verse says, "He threw truth to the ground.."



[9]  The Rambam holds learning Physics and Metaphysics (of Aristotle) is higher than learning Torah. Rambam beginning of the Guide, beginning of Mishna Torah, end of vol III or (vol II) in the Guide in the parable about the palace of the King,
See also LM II:39; LM II:12; LM I:1;
Sefer Hamidot of Nachman Ot Daat.

 To put this all together you have to start with the idea that the goal of Torah is to come to love and fear of God. Then you need the idea that the the world was created by the Ten Statements of Genesis, and thus those statements are the life force of all that is in the world. And that those Ten Statements are the clothing of the Ten Commandments. And the highest statement is the first one "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" in which it does not say openly God said. It is the hidden statement which is the life force of everything and everywhere where God's glory is hidden.
Thus Torah is God's revealed wisdom, and Physics and Metaphysics is his hidden wisdom.



[10]  There are people that if exposed to straight Torah will not be able to accept it. Often it is better for people to learn the natural sciences rather than open Torah, because זכה נעשית סם חיים, לא זכה נעשית לו סם מוות. By being exposed to open Torah, one can become worse. And in fact this often happens before our very eyes.



Appendix: It is my hope that people will understand that learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot is also important. I would hope that people can find a balance in which they spend part of their time on the Physics and the rest of the day on straight Torah.