Salaries are a price, just as the price of chocolate is a price. Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK

 Salaries are a price, just as the price of chocolate is a price. They’re just the price at which someone’s work sells.  This is true no matter what your job is or how much you’re being paid--if your wage is the price at which your labor sells, the salary a CEO gets paid is also the price at which his labor sells. So we shouldn't give a different explanation for the wages/salaries of rich people from the explanation we give for the wages/salaries of poor people. All  salaries are determined by supply and demand for the labor in question.


http://www.owl232.net/economics.pdf



See:


Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK


http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/04/16/fast-food-workers-you-dont-deserve-15-an-hour-to-flip-burgers-and-thats-ok/

Pantheism and "שיתוף" (Joining).

Pantheism is something I have thought for a while is a problem. But when ever I brought up the subject no one seemed interested.
But then, I  learned something in the Talmud which seems to relate to this issue.
The basic statement in the Talmud in Sanhedrin (page  63) is based on the  Mishna that there is a death penalty for accepting any being besides the Creator as one's god. [And the Talmud reads that mishna without a comma. That is: "One who accepts another being as ones god and says to it 'You are my god' is liable." That is, just accepting in ones mind is not liable. There has to be some words.] (note 2)
The actual discussion I forget, but at the end the Talmud brings an argument between R. Meir and R. Shimon Ben Yochai. R. Meir said: The Jewish people said to the golden calf, "These are your gods, Oh Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt.' If they had left out the "Vav" nothing would have been left of them. [There is a letter "Vav" in העלוך which (plural) brought you out. If there would be no "Vav" it would say העלך which (singular) brought you out.] That is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Shimon Ben Yochai said, "One who joins together the Name of God with something else is uprooted from this world."
כל המשתף שם שמים ודבר אחר נעקר מן העולם שנאמר בלתי להשם לבדו
The idea in that verse is that one who sacrifices to other gods gets the death penalty since one is allowed to sacrifice to God alone. R. Shimon learns from this that even joining another being with God is considered idolatry and gets the death penalty. This is not like the opinion of R. Meir.
 This subject comes up on the next page where Tosphot brings the opinion of R Meir. But we see that the Rambam holds by R Shimon.[The Ein Mishpat shows the Rambam goes with R. Shimon.]



What we have from all this is that "joining" God with another being is an argument between sages of the Mishna [tenaim].
Rashi in his explanation of Rabbi Meir makes it a point that the Jewish people by doing "שיתוף" joining were not denying God.
This is relevant to Christianity and Hinduism , etc.
Christianity we know has many of versions of the Trinity.

 The curious thing is that we saw in the Gemara Sanhedrin 61b that when a person is not claiming to be a god it is allowed to bow to them. But not if they claim to be a god. What happens in the case of Jesus where he did not claim, but others claimed for him? At least that is what it seems like in Matthew. When he said, "Don't call me good. Only call God 'good,'" it seems like he was not being modest, but had a perfectly good opportunity to claim that he is a at least a good person. But even that he did not claim. [John however is regular Neoplatonism with "the word" taking the place of the "word" (or shechina, the sephera of Royalty) in Kabalah or Neo-Platonic thought. That does not suggest what Christians later  read into it.] (note 1)
In Matthew there is a claim that Jesus was "the son of a man," not the son of God. And even "the son of God" is not unique. Thus in Exodus, God called the children of Israel, "the children of God." "Send out my son, my first born, out of Egypt." That means that each Jew is the son or daughter of God according to the book of Exodus.

In any case, this seems to be an argument between Rabbi Meir And R. Shimon.

 Pantheism got to be accepted in the insane religious world  as a kosher form of שיתןף "joining." I had seen  the idea originally in the Shelah  who brings it from the Remak. I was at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn where there was Don Segal who also seems to hold from this opinion. So it was natural for me to think it is as much a part of Torah as the 13 principles of faith of the Rambam. So when I saw this in the books of Rav Shick I did not think it was any problem. And so when I saw the Bhagavad Gita years later in a NY bookstore I thought it is just the same thing as Torah.

So what we have here is the Gemara which deals with it slightly. But the Gemara was in a different world --or zoroastrianism, so they were not thinking about this issue much.  The only time it states to get dealt with is the son of the Rambam, Reb Avraham and to some degree in the general books of Jewish thought from Saadia Geon to the Rambam.
So while the Ari does not hold from pantheism, it did start to slip into Judaism by way of Kabalah. And Israel Baal Shem did say a few statements that were going the direction of pantheism.  Pantheism became firmly embedded in  mystic circles.



With Isaac Luria we get a rather simple combination of the idea of Emanation up until the bottom of the world of Emanation. Also the idea of the vessels coming from the empty space meaning the light emanates and the vessels are something from nothing. In any case this is not pantheism, nor panethism.
It seems the further east one goes, the more pantheistic things become. The Russian Church  goes with Pantheism [or panetheism--same difference] and it seems likely this is where the Baal Shem Tov got the idea. Hinduism --at least the school of Advaita is Pantheistic.
Torah is Monotheistic. which is different. The Torah approach is mainly forgotten, since the insane religious world which hold strongly from Torah have no idea what Torah says about this matter and the Conservative and Reform are not as committed to Torah  as much as they ought to be.
Pantheism can be associated with laziness, --since  everything is good, nothing matters. Also a lack of good manners seems to be joined to pantheism.
Spinoza was pantheistic in a more secular way. The type of Pantheism you see in the insane religious world  is specifically from Hinduism and of a more religious variety. [What I advocate is not the insane religious world but Torah which is very different. {You could call my approach Torah Judaism perhaps. But it is simpler just to call it Torah.}]

Notes

(note 1) To Mark, Jesus is the son of God which does not mean what Christians think. What some and my learning partner is right that the closest thing you get to the Nicene creed in is John. But the proof from John depends on not knowing Hebrew or not knowing Greek. If you know Greek you know it says "Before Abraham I am." Not "I was." If you don't know Hebrew that is a great reference to the Burning Bush. But if you know Hebrew you know אהיה אשר אהיה means "I Will Be," not "I Am." As in "I will be in the store tomorrow," אהיה במכולת מחר  as opposed to "I am in the store" אני במכולת
In any case the Christology of John is not that of any of the other writers at all. And which one Christians take as representing  Christianity is in contradiction to the others.
(note 2) "Things in the heart are not things."  The Gemara does not say this reason here but you can see that the Gemara is looking for a reason why speaking words of acceptance of any being besides god as ones God is idolatry. But it is just I that is bringing in this other principle you find: "things in the heart are not things."דברים שבלב אינם דברים That is why when you sell or buy something you have to say something.
And the Rashba [Shelomo Ben Aderet] says (Kidushin pg 50) this is only when ones heart contradicts ones words or actions. But otherwise things in the  heart are things. So why would this not work here? We find for trumah [the 2% that one takes from his crop to give to the priest] that "things in the heart are things," but that is because of a special verse.
In marriage we do need words. Things in the heart are not things. The guy has to say to the woman "You are married to me by means of this ring (or sex or document)." If she says it she is not married.
See the book of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach the Avi Ezri which goes into this in more detail 

When they learn Jewish mysticism they get messianic delusions.

A pinch  of Kabalah I think is a good idea. I liked the Eitz Chaim of the Ari. But it can be  a trap. The Ari (Isaac Luria) himself warned against learning Kabalah for people that have not finished Shas[Talmud]. There are  a few books of the Ari that deal with verses of Torah and at the end of the Torah you will find a few  paragraphs from the Ari warning that although Kabalah is a good thing but it is very dangerous  for one that is not properly prepared.
I have  seen what happens to most people when they learn Jewish mysticism without some kind of mental and emotional stolidity. They definitely get messianic delusions.

There is one rule: never learn Jewish mysticism from Ashkenazim.  The teachings of the Shatz got mixed up with there. [And the more kosher  they claim and the more "halacha" they keep,  the more you find the Dark Side hidden there..]
Sometimes you can find that people that are against Kabalah have just as many delusions also. They think being against Kabalah makes them better that others. Or they think that makes them qualified to teach it. My approach is to  learn Torah which is a big subject and Kabbalah is side thing. Anyway anything advertised as "Jewish Mysticism" is pretty much guaranteed to be from the Dark Side. A legitimate kabalist will never advertise or teach it in public.

In any case I was impressed by the Bava Sali family. Sometimes people just want a little advice or a blessing from some person  they feel has a little bit of inspiration from the realm of holiness and as far as that goes I think anyone from the Bava Sali family is good. [They don't all have last name Abuzaira, or Abuchatzaeira.  The Buso family is also from Bava Sali--from his daughter Abigail Buso]

My learning partner thinks conversion to Torah is mainly dependent on the will of the person..
And Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach] says it is mainly dependent on the will of the court. Just that they can't do it if the convert objects. This subject comes up in Reb Chaim of Brisk [Chidushei HaRambam] where my partner  and I spent some time.

[1] I did not realize it before, but now I understand  that Tosphot  [Sanhedrin 63a] is not concerned with explaining what is not right about Rabbi Zakai. That was already explained on page 62a. Rather Tosphot wants to explain what is right about Rabbi Ami. [Because we see R. Yochanan  did not ask on Rabbi Ami.]
[2] R. Yochanan says to R. Ami, "I can understand you because you are basing yourself on the drasha 'Don't serve.' If not for that, you would have used 'bowing' to divide everything. But now you use it only for itself. That is fine. But Rabbi Zakai is not basing himself on that drasha [explanation]. He would say 'bowing' comes for a mere prohibition even if we did not have 'Don't serve' --that is even if the services were in fact divided for some other reason."
[3] The Maharsha understands that the reasoning of R. Ami is that there is one verse to tell us serving idols is prohibited. So why is there another verse? [There are three verses total.] It is to limit something. That is it limits the three services [inner services that were done in the Temple]that if one does them in one span of forgetting he is liable only one sin offering.
[4] The basic reason why the opinion of R Zakai was rejected was explained on pg 62. R Aba thought it was a parallel case to Rabbi Yose. But it turned out that it was not because R. Yose would have used fire to teach about the whole category if he was able. But there was nothing to teach so he used fire for  a prohibition. [work on Shabat was already divided by  אחת מהנה]
But R Ami uses "Don't serve" for something, so "Don't bow" comes to teach on what is left-- which is just itself and perhaps also service according to its way.
[5] The question I have here is why is it in fact so clear that R. Zakai is not using "Dont serve?"  Could he use it to put the three together maybe and "Don't bow" for a mere prohibition?
It seems the answer is that if was doing that it would violate the principle whatever was in a category and came out to be mentioned by itself has to teach something about the whole category.
But does this seem all that different from R Ami to you? To R. Ami also bowing is coming out for itself alone. Just what it is saying about itself is what it would have said about the whole category if it had been able. So maybe the same goes for if it comes for a mere prohibition? Maybe I could say bowing wanted to tell you the whole category was only a prohibition but it could not do that because the verse already tells us idolatry brings a sin offering. so then it teaches about itself alone.!!! In other words I am not so sure that there is all that much difference between R. Ami and Rabbi Zakai.
Of course this last suggestion does seem ridiculous after all the Torah itself tells us there is a sin offering one must bring for idolatry. Maybe after all that is what Rabbi Yochanan thought was not right about the opinion of R. Zakai.


[6] The braita on 61b said that bowing comes to teach about itself  which is different from Abyee who is explaining r  ami and says it comes to divide. There might not be any question here.

My learning partner thinks that the braita on page 61 is no contradiction to our "sugia" [subject] here on page 63a. It is just dealing with a different subject--that is how to derive the different services. Not if they are divided.


[7] Anyway at this point we seem to have gotten the idea of what Tosphot is saying--more or less. There might be now a thousand unanswered questions but so what. We are not trying to answer all the questions. we are trying sipy to understand what tsophot is saying which means how do we understand the verse of the Bible "Don't bow and don't serve idols."

 סנהדרין סג.תוספות בראש הדף. 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. 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.לא מעניין לתוספות להסביר מה שאינו נכון בשיטת ר' זכאי בגלל שזה כבר מוסבר למעלה בדף סב.. מעניין לתוספות להסביר מה נכון בשיטת רבי אמי. צריך להיות חילוק בגלל שרבי יוחנן שאל על ר' זכאי ולא על רבי אמי. הסיבה ששיטת ר' זכאי נדחה לעיל היא מוסברת בדף סב. רבי אבא רצה להשוות בין רבי יוסי ורבי זכאי. והתברר שזה אינו יכול להיות בגלל שרבי יוסי היה משתמש בפסוק לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת לחלק את המלאכות אם היה יכול. אבל לא היה יכול בגלל שהמלאכות כבר מוחלקות על ידי הפסוק אחת מהנה. ולכן הוא משתמש עם אש בשביל "ללאו יצאה". אבל רבי אמי משתמש עם לא תעבוד הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת ולכן לא תשתחווה לא יכולה לחלק את כולן אלא באה לחלק על עצמה.רבי יוחנן  הוא בסדר עם רבי אמי בגלל שר' אמי היה משתמש עם השתחוייה לחלק את כל העבודות אם היה יכול, אבל אינו יכול בגלל לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ולכן נשאר רק להשתמש אתו לחלק על עצמה (ואולי גם עבודה כדרכה). אבל ר' זכאי אינו דורש לא תעבדם לעשות כולן עבודה אחת. והמהר''ם הסביר שאינו צריך לא תעבדם לזה שאין סיבה מראש לחלק אותן.אבל איך יודעים שר' זכאי אינו משתמש עם לא תעבדם? הלא אפשר שיגיד לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת ולא תשתחווה ללאו אצאה?תירוץ: אם זה הוא מה שהוא עושה  זה הולך כנגד הכלל כל מה שהוא בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא על עצמו בא ללמד אלא על בכלל כולו יצא ללמד
אגב המברש''א סובר שלא תעבדם הוא מיעוט בגלל שיש שלשה פסוקים  לא תעבדם, ולכן אחד הוא הכלל ואחד בא למעט.
עוד הערה: הברייתא בדף סא: אומרת שהשתחוויה באה ללמד על עצמה באופון אחר מן אביי שאמר שהיא באה לחלק על עצמה. יכול להיות שאין כאן סתירה משום שהברייתא דנה בשאלה אחרת--איך ללמוד את העבודות האסורות. ואביי דן בשאלה אם לחלק את העבודות

I am skipping here the fact that the Maharsha thinks it is Ok to use "bowing" for itself alone and that is still called teaching on the whole category and my idea that bowing also teaches on service according to its way.-which just makes things better.

The thing that I don't understand in the Maharsha is this: Why does he need don't serve to be a מיעוט  and exclusionary principle? I am not arguing that it is not possible. There is another verse for the general principle dont serve idols. So clearly the next verse has to be telling us something different and it has nothing it can expand into so it must contract. Clear. But why does the Maharsha need this?
I thought everything was hunky dory before that. We had "Don't serve" for a principle that puts all three services [inner services that were done in the Temple]. And then we have bowing to come out to divide for itself [that if done with the others still requires its own sin offering]. I mean to say that it is still teaching about the whole category--whatever was left in it after you excluded the big three. Or is it possible that the Maharsha is just saying what  I am saying? After all it does occur to me I just used the idea that don't serve does exclude the big three. David thought the words "the exclusionary principle of 'Don't serve'"was the key to the Maharsha.

The thing about Israel is it very much group based. It is almost impossible to make it there unless one is part of some group. I am not sure why this is but experience shows it to be the case. My own experience was such that the first time I went there I was part of a group. Rav Ernster was staring the place in Safed called Meor Chaim and he invited me from the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY to be part of his Kollel. So in fact without my being aware of its importance I was in fact part of a group. Later on I tried to go there on my own and it always ended in failure.


It is easy to ignore what you have when you don't realize how important it is. My first trip to Israel the road was paved by the State of Israel itself and the community in Meor Chaim. Later on I made several attempts at just showing up and paying rent in any old place and someone found that it was impossible to survive.
So I do think living in Israel is a Mitzvah, but it must be done in the context of some "misgeret" group.
I should mention that it is a positive command [one of the 613 mitzvot] according to the Ramban (Nachmanides). But not to the Rambam [Maimonides]. But it still is a mitzvah to the opinion of the Rambam.

If you grew up in a time in the USA when individuality was the primary principle, and to shoot straight from the hip (speak your mind straight), then this idea of the need to be part of a group is almost impossible to accept. But in a practical sense it is impossible to avoid if one wants to succeed in making Aliyah.
 Israel however even as a short stop over is an amazing place. Though it is hard there , still ever time I went there I had some kind of breakthrough in different subjects. Torah Music, Math etc.

Before going to Israel I recommend getting an appreciation for the place perhaps from the books of Avraham Kook or the books of the Gra like the Kol HaTor

I have been dealing with the Tosphot on the top of the page in Sanhedrin 63a.

I wrote about this in a blog entry a few days ago but now I want to add.

The way Tosphot is looking at this according to the Maharsha is that "Don't serve" is a exclusionary principle. [It comes to exclude something] We had before that all kinds of services were forbidden and then "Don't serve"  puts the three inner services into one and comes to exclude the three from the normal category.
And then what is left for "Don't bow" to tell us? Only what is left in the larger category--that is- itself.
That is how the Maharsha is explaining Tosphot. [This is the view of R Ami. And this is good because it allows bowing to tell us about the whole category. And this shows why R Yochanan did not accept R Zakai's approach since it has bowing to teach about itself alone. And that is no good. It goes against the principle what ever was in a category and is mentioned separately goes out to teach about the whole category.]
The Maharam adds an important observation  that R. Zakai never needed "Don't serve" to make  any kinds of idolatry into one category. There was no reason in the first place to divide them.[Not like in Shabat where we have אחת מהנה to divide.] [That is: that bowing did not leave the category of "Don't serve" because don't serve was not a general category.]
But to the Maharsha everyone agrees with Abyee that  "bowing" comes to divide. Only  the fact that "Don't serve" took the three inner services out of the larger category means that they don't get divided.
In any case, both the Maharsha and Maharam explain Tosphot well and differently than I was doing. Because I thought that R. Zakai was in fact using "Don't serve" to include all four services. This is clearly not what Tosphot was saying, and it was a mistake on my part.

In the long run, however, it looks like the fact is that R. Zakai is considering R. Ami's idea that "bowing" can be refering to the whole category when it is in fact only referring to itself as wrong.
But the way I was putting this idea was sloppy and I apologize for that.

In summary:

What is happening is Tosphot says that R Zakai is not using the "drasha" on  "Don't serve." The way the Maharsha explains that is to say "Don't serve" came out of the general category of service, not the opposite in which bowing comes out. So bowing is in the category and never left it and so does not need to teach anything about the general category. The Maharam deals with it by saying R. Zakai never needed "Don't serve."

[I am not saying everything here is fine. This obviously still needs a lot of work. But right now all I am doing is to try and get how the Maharsha and Maharam understand Tosphot. If we can get that down pat, then we can then go and try to figure out the many obvious questions here. ]