If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

I have wondered for a while what strategic interest Russia has in the Ukraine?

I think I discovered the answer. The most successful part of the Russian space industry and military production was in the Ukraine.  Even though the place where the Russians send stuff into space in in the east of Russia [Kazakhstan] but major part of production for the rockets has been done in the Ukraine. There are hundreds or more parts of helicopters and weapons and rockets that are manufactured in the regions bordering on the two breakaway republics. It is not just one area but a whole strip of land. 

That is Dnipropetrovsk, Karkiv, Zaprozia--that whole semi circle left (west) of the perimeter of the two breakaway republics.
That means that Russia has an interest in getting back these areas. Or at least having this area of the Ukraine in its sphere of influence.
[Also it just so happens that Russia can't build the super aircraft carrier they were planing on without the Ukraine. There is no dry dock. This all goes to show that Russia has to do serious rebooting of their industry unless they can get back the Ukraine.]  The reason the weapons and space industry was divided up in this way was Stalin. As was explained to me (by a grandson of his) that by dividing up these major industries in this way he was assured that the USSR could not break up--because if it did, then each part would have factories that produced only one part of a car or an airplane which was useless without the other parts.
In any case, this was no problem until recently. The Ukraine simply made the parts, and sent them off to Russia. This has stopped recently, and this is the reason Russia is now looking to redo its military and space production industries. 

In any case, it would seem the Russians feel they are just taking back what belongs to them. I think it is understandable that the Ukrainains don't feel the same way.
Certainly most of the infrastructure of the Ukraine was built by Russians. This really is one people. 
Or maybe just let those two republics go over to Russia? Why fight about borders that have been fluid anyway over the centuries? If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.

The Zohar brings the verse ''towards evening" to discuss when the beginning of the rule of the erev rav [the mixed multitude] over the Jewish people would begin. And according to the way the Gra understands it it is referring to 1990 A.D. or about 15 years ago. [This Gra is on Tikunai Chadashim on the Hazohar page 34  by the standard numbering on the verse about Isaac going to mediate in the field which the Tikunim interprets as meaning to get rid of the mixed multitude.]
"Evening" in Hebrew is the same word as  "the mixed (multitude)."

For he understands 1240 to be the sixth thousand year period. 1740 to be dawn. And the middle of the day is 1990.  That is when the mixed multitude would gain control over the Jewish people. This explains at least to me the problem with cults that have infiltrated and taken control.

Cults have the ironic aspect of fish bait. It tastes good to the fish until it feels the hook. But by that time it is too late. Cults are like classic O' Henry story. The unexpected ending. Or maybe more like Edgar Allen Poe.

What ever you do, don't go near one for Passover, if you value your family, and wife and children. They are not openly hostile  because they need donations. They are as friendly as fish bait.

There is no more Noah's Ark.

I have tried to make my own home or apartment wherever I have been into a kind of Noah's Ark. It just does not seem to work. The kelipot somehow get in.
I urge everyone to leave the cults--Jewish or otherwise. Go home. Find a job. Live like a mench, not  a slave to some charismatic leader. Cults are organized in layers. Everyone can join but only the initiated know the real agenda. Everyone else are just pawns.

And if you are wondering if what you are in is a cult then take my word for it; it is. The facade will eventually evaporate leaving you with the emperor's clothes.

[For authentic Jewish experience learn Torah. That is have in your home an Old Testament and the basic set of the Oral Law, the two Talmuds (Bavli and Yerushalmi), Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta and Midrash Raba. Don't go near the cults--even to learn Torah. Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.] The Divestment from Israel movement is just a direct result of our problem of not divesting in cults in our midst.

Appendix
1) The comment of the Gra is not on the Tikunai HaZohar. That is after the printing and publication of the Zohar and Tikunai Hazohar there was a fellow that found some more writings from the same source material. He printed them and called them Zohar Hadash and Tikunim Hadashim. That was right before Spanish Jewry were kicked out. Nowadays all four books are fairly standard.
That is Zohar, Tikunai HaZohar, Tikunim Hadashim, Zohar Chadash.
 I used to go straight to Isaac Luria and Moshe Kordovaro. [I also spent a lot of time on the Nahar Shalom by the Reshash, Shalom Sharabi  and prayed with the Sidur of the Reshash. First the small one. Then after a few years someone told me that in Mea Shearim someone had printed the large sidur of the Reshash, so I got that --it was very inexpensive. I should mention that the large one is considered more accurate. Mordechai Sharabi said the smaller one has mistakes. In any case I highly recommend the large sidur of the Reshash both for learning and praying. I don't learn this at this point but it is an important part of education. If you do have time for the whole body of literature then I think that at least the Eitz Chaim of the Ari should be learned.

I suggested to my learning partner this same idea I wrote on my blog that cults are the modern idolatry.
And he mentioned a surprising support to this idea from Nachmanides. For we know strictly speaking there are very few ways of being liable for idolatry. Sacrifice, burning, pouring, bowing, service according to it way, and accepting it as ones god. So, in any case, there has to be some kind of physical object. But with the Ramban [Nachmanides] it looks like the definition of idolatry gets expanded to any being besides God, even non corporeal beings. He mentioned that when Nachmanides writes about this it seems amazingly relevant to today's issues.

At any rate, the idea that he is referring to is the idea of "Face." לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני "You shall have no other gods before me" [lit.,"before my face"].
That is the interface that God chooses to reveal himself to the world. Anything else is idolatry.
So I urge people to avoid cults, not just because of the damage that they do, but also because it might be a sin...[Enough said.]


Appendix:
1) My learning partner has been looking at the Nachmanides for several years and the more he looks at him the more impressed he is. There is a translation by a fellow named Chavel. Though I don't look at the Ramban at all whenever I hear something from him I am very impressed.
2) The 'Rambam and Ramban' are both actually saying the same thing: worship or praise to any being besides God is a problem. But the thing that impresses my learning partner is the coherent system of the Ramban. It  is how he shows the whole Five Books of Moses are one logical, coherent, rigorously exact system.

But this brings me to a wider question about paths that people choose in life. And I confess I think any path that makes one a better person in an common sense objective way is a good path. And I realize that you have paths that are objectively bad, and make most people involved with them into really bad people, and yet some people on the same path turn out to be good.

This subject does deserve lots of attention. And in my personal life I give it all my attention. But this is delicate. You can't just choose a good path, and think that will make you good.

My recommendation is for people to think to judge themselves on all their deeds all the time and don't just accept a path and after that forget about evaluating it.
Judge yourself on all you do so that in the higher court of law [up there] they won't judge you.

The world situation is hard to understand, but at least in your own personal life there are decisions you can make to live better. And Passover is the best time to break free of the cults that have tricked you and others. Cults are the modern iteration of what the Torah forbids as idolatry.  

In many Jewish homes you could find, besides the Old Testament, some book that would describe Judaism in a plain way. One such book I recall was the Duties of the Heart [by Ibn Pekuda] which is considered part of the set of Musar [Ethics] books. The Reform Shul we went to [Temple Israel of Hollywood] had the Star of Redemption by Rosenzweig. [I tried to read it with no luck.]

My mother gave me a book called The Ten Commandments which was a good introduction.

I wanted to suggest here the Horev of Shimshon Raphael Hirsch which I think gives a little more detail. [He tends to emphasize Torah with work.]

Also the books of Avraham Kook [like the Lights of Repentance] I think are good as an introduction and an orientation.[He does think settling in Israel is a good thing;-- which is clearly the approach of the Torah.]


I should mention that in my first yeshiva [Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway. Reb Shelomo Friefeld's place.] they did not believe in orientation at all. They threw me into the raging sea of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, [Talmud] the second I walked in the door. Sink or swim. And I tend to agree with this later approach. But I have come to see that some people are working or in university, and so need some kind of orientation.
And at some point myself felt some need for Musar. My first yeshiva did not learn Musar [Ethics] at all. That was a good degree of my motivation for going to the Mirrer Yeshiva which is a Musar yeshiva.

The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides was written for this express purpose of orientation for people and so was the book by Saadia Geon, the Emunot VeDeot, but I found them both to be difficult. But  both are written by the greatest sages since the time of the Talmud, so both are worthwhile looking at. 


I would recommend avoiding books written by cults that tend to be mental traps. And you don't need me to explain to you what a cult is. You can tell at one glance. Mainly they will present themselves as teaching some mysticism.There are groups who have insane doctrines that are not Torah but try to convince others that they are legitimate. I can't even begin to describe how damaging these groups are. And I recommend doing everything possible to stay as far away from them as from a ticking time bomb. Even more so, I would like to see them disappear because of the damage they cause to the unsuspecting.

I am just dirt under the feet of the Rambam. But I have to call it like I see it.

The new moon would seem to be the time to make rosh chodesh. This is at least the opinion of Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10 along with how Rashi explains the opinion of Rava and Rav Ashi. That is I am saying Rosh Chodesh does not depend on when the new moon is seen but when it actually is. This is how I have celebrated the festivals for a few years. And it makes a difference in how you set the dates. From what I can tell this puts Passover this year on April 3. This is counting from when the actual second of the new moon occurs.
Th Rambam would obviously disagree with this. But this is how the Gemara in Sanhedrin looks to me. The Rambam is probably based on the Gemara in Rosh HaShanah which clearly goes with the idea that when the new moon can be seen is what determines Rosh Chodesh. And even in Sanhedrin the Tosphot does not go with the opinion that the second of the molad determines it. So the only thing that makes my opinion interesting here is the fact that there is no Sanhedrin to sanctify the new moon and Hillel II never did so either. The fact is the Talmud never claims that he did and this is a big omission.  And there are dates during the period of the geonim which are not like the present day calender showing this calender was not known even by the geonim themselves.
The idea of basing ones view of halacha on the Talmud mainly comes from the halacha authorities themselves. For example when the Shach and Taz disagree with the Shulchan Aruch as they do most of the time, they always base themselves on the Talmud. This is the universal approach of every single halacha authority from the Rif until the achronim like the Chazon Ish.  The place this is stated openly is by  Chaim from Voloshin.

Sanhedrin 63a The Tosphot at  the top of the page.

My learning partner noticed that the Rashi in front of Tosphot is significantly different than our Rashi. And he was suggesting that if Tosphot had had our Rashi his questions on Rashi might disappear. I tried to convince him that there is one possible way to look at Rashi to make him make sense but he did not like it. But what I suggested that if this is the case then perhaps Rashi would in fact agree with Rabbainu Tam and everything will be good.

So it seems to me right now to try to explain RT  (Rabbainu Tam) and maybe Rashi at some further date.
Rabbi Ami says if one sacrifices, burns, or pours in front of an idol (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) he is liable only one sin offering (a she goat).
Abyee explains Rabbi Ami that his idea comes from the verse not to serve other gods--it put all services into one group.


Rabbi Zakei one page back [62a] said the same thing but added bowing according to our Gemara.

RT thinks that the word bowing appears in the statement of Rabbi Zakei but not in the statement of Rabbi Ami. And this makes sense because we have a verse in the Ten Commandments that says not to do service and not to bow to other gods. So what we have is  a verse that puts all service into one category and then takes bowing and pulls it out. So it makes sense to say that all three inner services [the three that were done in the Temple in Jerusalem] are considered as one and bowing would be separate. After all the verse itself separates them. In what way would bowing be separate? In that it has its own sin offering. So if one does all four kinds of service (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) to an idol, then he would be required to bring two female goats to the Temple in Jerusalem.
And Rabbi Zakei would have said that in that case he would bring only one goat. And that would be why Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Zakei "Get out of here!" Because Rabbi Yochanan  certainly considers all four services to be separate. But he would be happy to concede that, "Do not serve other gods" could conceivably put all three services together;-  but not bowing. It is the fact that Rabbi Zakei put in "bowing" that made Rabbi Yochanan upset.
[We already know that Rabbi Yochanan separate all four services from one page back and he learns it from bowing. For bowing was in the category of serve and yet was mentioned separately and we have a general principle that whatever was in a category and yet came out of the category to be mentioned separately comes to teach something about the whole category.
There are no new ideas here. I am just saying over the end of Tosphot where he explains Rabbainu Tam. To deal with the beginning of Tosphot I am not sure how to do right now. I had a way of explaining it a little bit but my learning partner did not like it much.

Here is this basic idea in Hebrew.

סנהדרין סג. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק לא תעבדם. הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. ר. תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של ר. זכי לא במשפטו של ר. אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם.  הפסוק אסר כול מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו מסתבר למה ר. יוחנן אמר לר. זכאי פוק תני לברא שיש סברה לומר שלשת  עבודות פנימיות אחת אבל לא השתטחות


If you are curious to what is the argument between my learning partner and me is that Tosphot is understanding Rashi to mean that of bowing has come out of service then it can come only for two things--to divide or as a mere prohibition like fire on the Sabbath day.
So with Rabbi Ami we see it is not coming to divide so it must be for a mere prohibition. To me this makes sense. We have at least one example of something that gets the death penalty [murder] but that does not bring a sin offering. To my partner, this makes no sense or as he puts it "It is untenable." He actually have some harsher language for this idea, but I would rather not mention it in public.


Appendix:
Just to let you know the problem here that I mentioned at the beginning about Rashi:
The version of Rashi that the author of Tosphot had in front of him  says that the word bowing does not appear by R Ami and therefore does not appear in the statement of Rabbi Zakei. (Tosphot is going to be bothered with this because if so then what was Rabbi Yochanan bothered with?) But that particular Rashi tries to defend this idea with saying that since bowing is not a service and it can't be coming to divide, therefore it must be coming for a mere prohibition.  Those are the words in Rashi that my learning partner, David, and I are arguing about. I say it can mean there is no sin offering even though there is the death penalty. And David says that is untenable.


David thinks that there might be some way to get the Two Rashis to correspond, the one in front of us does in fact say that to R Ami bowing is not coming to divide. And he says bowing does come out of the three services. This might very well be as Tosphot understands him to be saying that then bowing comes to tell us a prohibition alone. Or not. It could be like Rabbainu Tam also.

In any case we got into a discussion about what is in the category of serve before you take out bowing? He suggested serve according to its way and the three inner services. I suggested maybe on serve according to its way and sacrifice and the other two come from the fact that sacrifice was mentioned separately. This gets into a whole discussion of how to apply the 13 principles of the Braita we say in shacharit.