The Ukraine I think has been unfairly treated by Russian Media. I have heard things that imply that Jews are not treated well. And yet this does not seem to me to be accurate. My impression is that Jews are treated like anyone else. And I have seen a lot of effort made to make Rosh Hashanah comfortable for people coming to visit .
In general what you see in Uman is that anyone that owns property anywhere within walking distance of the synagogue of  builds as large a building as they can in order to put in as many people he can for Rosh Hashanah.
And they make efforts to be nice.
The reality that I have seen on the ground does not resemble way Russia Today portrays it.
I could go on with examples but you get the idea.
The funny thing is that I have been treated much worse in places that have reputations for being nice to Jews. Sometime reality does not resemble what the the media portrays. And this seems to be a prime example.

Germany for example is supposed to be nice nowadays but when I was there the Turkish population was very nasty. I think Germany thought they could make up for WWII by being nice to immigrants. But it seems to me that they made a mistake in policy.

Rav Shach [author of the Avi Ezri].  To his way of thinking only Torah is Torah and nothing else. That means learning the Oral and Written Law and doing what the Law tells us. It is hard to argue with this. And he also seems to think learning books about the hashkafa (or world view) of Torah is a bad thing. He applies the verse in Ecclesiastes against making books to books about hashkafa. That is they are bad.
Now to a large degree it is true that most such books are amazingly stupid, and certainly take people away from Torah when they read that nonsense. [They make  obviously false presumptions or else have wolrd views opposed to Torah that they present as Torah and by that manage to pull naive people into things that are not Torah. ]

But what I am confused about is if it is possible to give Torah a slightly wider interpretation? And if so, how wide?

The first step for me is to look at my parents. What did they consider to be Torah? And also parents are the first place that the Torah itself give regarding orientation. Now starting from my own parents makes everything remarkably clear. They had a very definite idea of what constitutes Torah that is the exact same thing as Rav Shach. The Oral and Written Law. That means the Old Testament, the two Talmuds and the halakhic and aggadic midrashim;-- or collectively what is called "The Mesora."(Torat Kohanim, Sifra, Sifri, Tosephta, Midrash Raba, Tanchuma,  and the Mechilta.)
There still would be a wider idea of what Torah is about coming from the side of my parents than sitting in yeshiva and learning I think.
It is that grey area between Rav Shach and my parents that I find difficult to deal with. I think Rav Shach would have held that one should learn Torah all the time. My parents would have thought that a wide range of activities constitutes keeping the Torah like taking the family to the beach on weekends, learning Music, Math, Physics, Engineering. It is hard to know. Because the Torah itself puts parents first I would have to side with my parents, but I can see the importance of Rav Shach and of learning Torah --that is Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot as much as possible,
[Looking at the Rambam and Saadia Geon it seems they were more towards the direction of my parents. The Rambam is famous [or infamous] for his approval of Aristotle and learning Physics and Metaphysics. The Rambam meant by "Metaphysics" not just the book of Aristotle by that name but also the works of Plato--as he calls it "what the Greeks called Metaphysics." That means a wider set of books than just Aristotle.]

I am being short on purpose. Today the world of Torah is not like it was in Rav Shach's time.  Nor is university like it was in my parent's time. The world has changed and so have the rules. In any case, we all need to learn Torah and also Math and Physics,-- and survival skills and an honest profession.
There is no difference of opinion about that. How we go about it will have to differ according to the person and situation.

Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem  Shach, author of the Avi Ezri] asked what is really an obvious question but one that you don't hear much. That is the fact that there is a verse in Ecclesiastes that put down the making of books.  You know the verse so I dont need to quote it. Mainly it says there is no end to the making of books and they are worthless effort and a joke.
The obvious thing is that in the Torah world, we do have books and a lot of them are valuable.
I would think that there is a difference between the oral law and the written law. But that is not the answer he gives. He says the difference is between books that deal with understanding how to keep the commandments of God as explained in the Gemara according to the foundational principles of the Talmud which is OK and books on hashkafa [the world view and philosophy of Torah--e.g. understanding the reasons for the mitzvot.
And he has a point. I can see important value for books on orientation like the Guide for the Perplexed by the Rambam and the Horev from Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, and the books of Rav Avraham Kook. But mainly books on Hashkafa seem to me to be talking nonsense.
What is wrong with books of Torah hashkafa [world view]? One problem is the question who is qualified to write about what the Torah holds?  Who is qualified to even have an opinion about such a thing? Only someone who has read through the material and knows it well. Someone like for instance Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides). If anyone is qualified to have an opinion about what the Torah hold surely he must be at the top of the list. And to our great happiness he actually wrote a book explaining what the world view of the Torah is. You would think that people would be overjoyed. But no. People don't want to hear what he has to say because they have their own opinions about what they think the Torah ought to be saying. And they write they own books of nonsense and tell you not to learn the Rambam's book because it might confuse you and take you away from their own views which are contrary to those of the Rambam.

There is an area in the Ukraine which the separatists are seeking. The whole area they call "New Russia" [Novoi-Russia] is larger than just the two provinces that they have taken control of. Part of the reason I think they are seeking this new area is that the actual areas they already control have little strategic value to Russia. But the new area the rebels are seeking has immense value to Russia because it contains the backbone of the Russian space program and manufacturing of military hardware.
That whole strip of land starting at Kharkiv and all the way down to the sea is one vast military industrial complex of immense strategic value to Russia.
[I am not saying Russia does not produce its own stuff. Rather that industry was purposely divided by Stalin so that one part of a plane would be produced in one region and another part in another region--so that all of the USSR would be dependent on every other region. This means that a significant part of Russia replacement parts and rocket parts is still being produced in the Ukraine. So the fact that business is down in the Ukraine is a good thing. It means they are no longer supplying the Russian military. I can imagine the reason is they don't like being shot at. You won't see this information about Russian weapons because anything made in the USSR proper they won't tell you where it is made. Only if it is made in satellites of the USSR do they name the country of origin.]



Just to give one example to build the kind of aircraft carrier that Russia wants to build is not possible in any existing Russian facilities. The building of Russian rockets and aircraft is largely done on Ukrainian soil. This was never a problem  because the work was simply done in the Ukraine an sent to Russia. Nowadays this arrangement has become strained. It is hard for me to imagine that separatists will see this gold mine of a preexisting military industrial area right across its border and not want to take it.
That is to say that they are probably hoping to expand and take that area. But it also seems clear to me that the Ukrainian people in those areas will not hand over that territory peacefully. So if the separatists want that area they will have to take it by force.
And the separatist are definitely getting Russian military hardware like the anti tank PTRS-41. 

The Torah forbids things that people desire. Lots of things. And it assumes people have free will.
The idea that people have free will is a basic axiom of Torah. And we know the Torah forbids lots of stuff that people desire intensely. For example, "Thou shalt not murder." "Thou shalt not steal." Etc. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Lot of people lie. All Democrats use their power to steal (to vote for themselves other people's money). The fact that they can steal does not give them the right to. So we see people desire things the Torah tells them not to do.

So what to do if you desire things the Torah says not to do? My main idea is to learn Torah. That is especially Musar and the laws about the area you think you might be acting wrong.
[Musar here means books on Fear of God and ethics written during the Middle Ages or early Renaissance. ]
And I realize that not everyone can do what is right. But one thing you can do--you can refrain from recommending evil. Even if you can't refrain from sin, you can at least hold yourself back from trying to convince others to sin.
This is relevant to lots of issues. For example homosexuals desire something the Torah forbids. That does not give them the right to act on their desires. But even if they can't help themselves they should at lets refrain from trying to convince everyone else to be homosexuals. Even if they can't be decent people, they can at least want that others should be.
Now the actual law of homosexuality is this Females are allowed to play with each other. Males get the death penalty if there is penetration into the anus. If the males think the act is permitted then they bring a sin offering to the Temple in Jerusalem, [a goat or sheep]. If there are no witnesses they don't get the death penalty but they also can't bring a sin offering for an act done on purpose.

Sanhedrin 63. See in the top Tosphot the part where Rabbainu Tam explains this Gemara.

The question I am dealing with here is that R. Ami says one does the three inner services in one span of forgetting is liable one sin offering. This seems to be fine even with people that disagree with it. But Rabbi Zakai said one who does all four services is liable one sin offering and this seems to get everyone especially R Yochanan upset. What is the difference?
We have one verse to put the three services together "Don't serve idols." Another verse which van be used to separate the services "Don't bow to idols."
To Rabbi Ami it seems "bowing" is coming to teach on itself [doing it with the other three means one would have to bring two sin offerings.] And R Yochanan seems to be OK with this. But why?


 If it is teaching about itself alone, then it is not teaching about the whole category of "service." You can say two things here. You can say what would it have taught us if it could? To divide. But it can't do that because of "Dont serve" so all that is left for it to do is to  divide itself from the others.

Another thing you could say is that it tells us to divide service according to its way from the others.

Now let's look at R. Zakai. "Don't serve" includes all kinds of service--inner and outer. But then why does "bowing" get mentioned separately? To tell us it is a mere prohibition. That is he thinks that since there is nothing it can tell us about the whole category of service it can only tell us about itself. This made R.Yochanan upset. If used to divide itself --that would be OK. But to be used to tell us it is a mere prohibition that is not OK. What is the difference?
One we say is teaching about the whole category and the other we say is not. The later is true. But the first claim? Perhaps that is the difference. R Zakei thinks bowing to divide only teaches about itself so it is equal to what he says. R Ami says it teaches about service according to its way and so can be considered to be teaching about the whole category.


 סנהדרין סג. תוספות בראש הדף. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזיבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירש שטעמו בא מן הפסוק "לא תעבדם". הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. רבינו תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של רבי זכי לא במשפטו של רבי אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות "לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם."  הפסוק אסר כל מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להיזכר 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 למה ר' יוחנן אמר לר' זכאי "פוק תני לברא" שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות הפנימיות נחשבות אחת אבל לא השתטחות. למה? אם השתחוויה בא ללמד על עצמה, אם כן אינו בא ללמד על הכלל כולו. אפשר לומר פה שני דברים. אפשר לומר אם היתה באה ללמד על הכלל כולו מה היתה מלמדת? לחלק. אבל אינה יכולה לעשות את זה בגלל לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ולכן כל מה שנשאר הוא לחלק על עצמה. דבר שני שאפשר לומר הוא שהיא באה גם לחלק עבודה כדרכה.עכשיו נסתכל ברבי זכאי. לפי ר' תם שיטתו היא שהשתחווייה ללאו יצאה. זאת אומרת שהיתה בכלל לא תעבדם ויצאה מן הכלל. אי אפשר שהיא תלמד מה שהוא על הכלל כולו בגלל שלא נשאר מה ללמוד. כבר לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ר' יוחנן אינו מסכים עם זה. זאת אומרת שאם השתחווייה היתה באה ללמד על עצמה זה בסדר, אבל אם היא באה לאו גרידה לא. מה החילוק?אם היא באה ללאו ברור שהיא לא מלמדת על הכלל כולו. אבל אם היא באה לחלק למה כן? אפשר לומר החילוק הוא זה. רבי זכאי סובר שאם השתטחות באה לחלק זב גם נחשב להיות שהיא מלמדת רק על עצמה. ולכן יש לו ברירה לומר באיזה אופן היא באה ללמד על עצמה. אבל ר' אמי סובר שהשתטחות באה גם ללמד על עבודה כדרכה, ולכן אפשר שהיא נחשבת להיות מלמדת על הכלל כולו.









. Rabbi Yochanan told  Rabbi Zackai "go teach it on the street". It seems the reason is Zakai said something stupid. But what he said wrong seems to be a mystery. The one version has it he said "one who does all four services (sacrifice, burning, pouring , bowing) to an idol brings one sin offering."
Then Rabbi Ami says one who does the major three services (sacrifice, burning, pouring) to an idol brings a sin offering.
Rashi says the original statement of R Zakai is the same as Rabbi Ami.
Rabbainu Tam says the original statement did have "bowing" in it. And this idea makes some sense because "Don't serve idols" would have put all three services into one, and "Don't bow" would have come to teach on itself [bowing] that it also is liable.

NEXT DAY:

Let me first reiterate what Rabbainu Tam is saying. Rabbi Ami is fine. We have "Don't serve idols" to tell us the three inner services are all one.  And we have "Don't bow" to tell us bowing is also liable. That is fine. Then we have Rabbi Zakai saying if one does all four services he is liable once. And Rabbi Yochanan told him, "Teach it on the street". We know R. Zakai can't be saying like R. Ami because then of he would do all four he would be liable twice. [That is after all what comes out from R Ami.] So to R. Zakai, bowing has to be coming for a mere prohibition. And in essence that is fine. We have Rabbi Yose doing the same in Shabat with the verse "don't lite a fire on Shabat"
But this is where my learning partner noticed the crucial difference between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Zakai.

Why was Rabbi Yose allowed to use fire for a mere prohibition? Don't we always have a principle, "Whatever was in a category and has come out of the category comes to teach about the whole category, not about itself alone." How did we deal with this problem in the case of Rabbi Yose? We said just one page back that since the acts of work on Shabbat are all separate anyway we have nothing we can do with fire so it has to be teaching about itself alone. This was fine with R Yose. But it can't work for Rabbi Zakai because he does not have the four services separated. To him they are all together, so he has no possible reason to use "bowing" for itself alone, and that is why Rabbi Yochanan  told him "Teach it on the street."

Now you could ask why did this question not bother Rabbi Yochanan when it comes to the law of R Ami? Simple. Rabbi Ami uses "Don't serve idols" to put all three services into one. And so bowing can't be used for the whole category. And so it can come out to teach about itself alone.

Tosphot definitely says that if Rabbi Zakai is using "bowing" for a mere prohibition, then he can't be using "service" to put all three services into one.
But that using "bowing" for itself would not have presented any problem in terms of using "service" to put all three together.

However this still needs hammering out. I am confused at this point about Rabbi Ami. Let me say what is bothering me. Is bowing in the category of service? If yes then why could it not be included in "Dont serve idols" and have that verse tell us all four are one category? And we could say it is mentioned separately because you might not have known it is a service. If it is not in the category of service then the whole question does not even start. Stay tuned.

Next Day:
I suggested today to my learning partner a problem with his idea of how to explain Tosphot. My idea is this: Is bowing in the category of service? Probably according to how we have been treating it up until now. That means it is in "don't serve idols." So since don't serve means to make all the services in the sense of the verse into one service that includes bowing. So now we have just what Rabbi Zakai wants--for all four serves to be counted as one. And then why is bowing mentioned separately? to tell us it is a mere prohibition.  So Rabbi Zakai makes perfect sense even according to the logic that we used to explain Rabbi Ami.
It is funny also the way Rabbainu Tam wants to explain Rabbi Ami --that "bowing" comes to teach that it is a separate prohibition. If it was in the category of "service" anyway it seems kind of arbitrary to pull out "bowing" just to add a prohibition.

I think it all depends on the direction of your logic. I think Rabbi Zakai started out thinking as the first step that we have bowing comes for a mere prohibition. then he asked what is serving for? And the answer is like Abyee said to put the other three into one category. And this makes perfect sense.
But we see Rabbi Yochanan did not like this and on page 62 also we see the Gemara wants to start out in Shabat that anything extra will come to divide. You have to look there to see this. It is only because we don't need fire to divide that we can use it for a mere prohibition. And this is how R Yochanan is thinking on pg 62 and 63. since even if we use "Don't serve" to put all three together we can still use "bowing" to come for its own prohibition. And that is what makes him think that Rabbi Zakai was not making sense.

April 12 it became clear to me what Tosphot is saying. There are only two "drashot." One is on "Don't serve" and the other is bowing comes to divide. Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Zakai you don't hold from the later so you must hold from the former but if so then bowing comes to make its own prohibition  and so doing them all together would mean bring two sin offerings.

April 13 Today a landslide of questions on Tosphot fell on me. Mainly there are two major branches. One thing is this: R Ami is thinking what? That don't serve puts all three together so dont bow must come out to teach on the whole category. Since it can't teach on those three it teaches on what is left and that is itself. But there is one thing left and that is service according to its way.  So maybe that is what R Ami means. But R Zachai might disagree with that and say teaching on itself is not called teaching on the whole category. And just arbitrarily adding service according it it way is just ad hoc. That leaves him free to use bowing for a mere prohibition. But what is difficult here is the question where they place service according to its way. I am not sure if this is a question but it is a point my learning partner brought up.

The other area of question here is "Why can't R Zachai simply look at the explanation of Abyee 'service comes to comes to put all services together' and say that 'bowing' is included?"

Male homo-sexuals are obligated to bring a sin offering.

There really is little comparison between lesbians and male homo-sexuals. Mainly the difference is this: female playing with each other is permissible though not recommended. Male homo-sexuals are obligated to bring a sin offering (note 2) if they do the act of penetration into the anus by accident. If on purpose they can't bring a sin offering even if they want to because you can never bring a sin offering for what is done on purpose.

  If they do the act of penetration in front of two witnesses they get the death penalty if fair warning is given by two witnesses. That means this: the witnesses have to tell them the act they are doing is forbidden, and that if they do it they will get the death penalty. [If they admit it then you don't need  witnesses.]

Besides that there is a kind of spiritual penalty called Karet  כרת being cut off from ones people involved. And that applies to all the types of forbidden sexual relationships that are called עריות incest. Incest is actually only an approximate translation because it also refers to sex with a woman who has seen blood within seven days of her seeing blood. Also one can't have sex with her unless she has gone to a natural body of water (note 1) like a river or sea and dipped in completely from head to toe.
Actually, stoning is not the penalty for homosexuals. I think is is burning. But I am not sure. I would have to look it up. That means you take lead [It does not have  a high boiling point] and heat it up until it flows and then you pour it down their throats.

Appendix: If the two male homo-sexuals think the act is allowed, that counts as being accidental and they can bring a sin offering. [I mean to say that an accident can be either thinking something is permissible or in making a mistake about material facts.] That means they have to bring either a sheep or goat to the Temple in Jerusalem and have the priests sacrifice it as a sin offering. They can't eat any of it as a barbecue. The part of the animals that are not burned are eaten by the priests. This is always the rule for sin offerings. If you want a barbecue in Jerusalem together with the mitzvah of bringing a sacrifice, you have to bring a peace offering or a thanksgiving offering.

Bibliography.
Mishna  Zevachim chapter 5.
Rambam Laws of Sin Offerings. [That is located in the book on General Sacrifices.]
Tractate Macot concerning fair warning that must be given.

I should mention that there is no prohibition to bake cakes for homosexuals. On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to be nice to them and to tell them that what they are doing is terrible, horrific sin.
Now this seems to be a subject of a debate. Sometimes it seems like you are supposed to tell people that they are sinning even if you know they won't listen. And sometimes it seems not. I really can't tell. My own approach to this varies according to the situation.

(note 1) If no natural body of water is available, she can make her own mikvah. The mikvah has to be attached to the ground, and cannot be a vessel. And it can't be such that if lifted that it stays intact.
There has to be about 1^3 meters of water. [This amount I forget. I would have to look it up. I think it is about 1^1^1.33 meters.]
(note 2) If there is no Temple, they are still legally required to bring a sacrifice. They would have to build the Temple according to the proper specification in the Mishna Tractate Midot  and hire a few priests and find  red hefer. They can do it but it would be expensive. Besides all of that there is some doubt about the proper location of the Temple. Some archeologist have apparently discovered the remains of the First Temple in the area when you leave the Western Wall to go back to the New City you pass on the left. This whole project is so hard that it makes more sense not to sin in the first place.