I want to write about the Talmud in Sanhedrin two questions and one answer. I want to write a little background about Bava Metiza page 14.

1] But I want to start with Bava Metzia. My whole essay on the other blog [Wine Women and Transcendence is mainly understandable only if you have this first fact that if you have a borrower who has property at the time of the loan his property is משועבד is a lean for the loan. That is the context of the argument between the Maharsha and the Maharshal. The property bought later can also be a lean because of what he writes in the deed of sale. But that is not relevant to the argument. Let's say, for example, over there on page 14 the borrower goes after the second buyer. It will be let's say for argument's sake that we are only going with the idea of what was owned at the time becomes  a lean. So how can the loaner go after the first guy when there was still property owned by the borrower? It would not make any difference if we added an extra variable about the deed of sale.

2] Sanhedrin 63. Tosphot has two questions on the Gemara. And when I sat down to learn it today by the ziun of Reb Nachman it suddenly occurred to me that Rabbi Yochanans hold that לא תאכלו על הדם "Don't eat on the blood" is a prohibition for the rebellious son alone. That is how Tosphot understands the Gemara and in fact also the Rambam. That is Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with the Braita.  So everything I wrote about this subject before is ridiculous. We still have the same question on the Gemara. Why is the redactor of the Gemara inserting Rabbi Yochanan into this discussion.
But Rabbi Yochana in any case makes perfect sense. And the Rambam probably saw that also, and said, "If redactor did not have to insert R Yochanan here, that does not change anything about the halacha. All we have is a question on the Gemara. So what? It does not change anything."
I will have to find what I wrote about all this and erase it.

3]The Gemara thinks the prohibition of hugging and kissing an idol and sweeping up in front of it are all  לאו שבכללות a prohibition which prohibits different things and therefore gets no lashes. David asked. "Why?" This is not the usual case of לאו שבכללות a prohibition which prohibits different things
The usual case is one verse that forbids wildly different things. Hugging and kissing an idol are just subcategories of the same thing.

4] Why are hugging and kissing an idol and sweeping up in front of it forbidden? Rashi says in the Mishna page 61b from the extra don't serve them in parshat Mishpatim if these things have a special verse forbidding them and the verse if calling them serve then they are service not according to it way and they should be liable a sin offering. We have already that the first "Don't serve them" in the Ten Commandments means serve according to their way. And we say the four services also are included because of a גילו מילתא. But here we have the same expression used for these minor services. Why should they not be included in the general category?




סנהדרין סג.יש לתוספות שתי שאלות על הגמרא.  הגמרא מביאה ברייתא שפורטת כמה דברים שעוברים עליהם משום לא תאכלו על הדם. ואז היא מביאה רבי יוחנן שאומר שהלאו של בן סורר ומורה בוא הפסוק לא תאכלו על הדם. ואב היא מביאה רב אבין שאומר על כולם אינו לוקה משום לאו שבכללות. שאלה אחת היא שבן סורר ומורה הוא לאו הניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין ולכן ממילא אין מלקות. שאלה שנייה שבן סורר ומורה כן לוקה. ישבתי ללמוד ליד ציון ר' נחמן ופתאום הבנתי שרבי יוחנן סובר שלא תאכלו על הדם הוא לאו לבן סורר ומורה לבד. הוא אינו מסכים עם הברייתא. אצל ר' יוחנן כן לוקים על הלאו הזה ואנו לאו שבכללות. ככה התוספות מבינים רבי יוחנן שהם אומרים שבאמת זה הלאו שבגללו הבן סורר ומורה לוקה, וכן סובר הרמב''ם שמביא את הפסוק הזה ללאו הזה.) סנהדרין סג. הגמרא אומרת שלא תעבדם הוא אוסר גיפוף ונישוק ומכבד לפני עבודה זרה וגם היא אומרת שזה לאו שבכללות. החברותא שלי שאל איך זה יכול להיות? לאו שבכללות אומרים על לאו אחד שאוסר דברים שונים לגמרי. אבל כאן הדברים האלו הם ציורים שונים של כבוד לעבודה זרה שלא כדרכה. עוד קושיא רש''י במשנה כתב שגיפוף ונישוק אסורים משום "לא תעבדם" יתירה שנכתבה בפרשת משפטים לא תשתחווה לאלהיהם ולא תעבדם כי מוקש הוא לך, אם  הפסוק בעצמו אומרת שאלו הדברים הם עבודה למה לא חייבים עליהם קרבן חטאת

My story is I started a little above average. I mean my family was wonderful. But I had some kind of internal need to discover the meaning of Life the Universe, and Everything Else. And that is bound to not end well. Almost by definition. With the amount gurus and scam artists that grow like mushrooms it is hard to imagine how such a search could end well. But my some quirk of fate  I did end up in two remarkable yeshivas in NY [Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway and Mirrer in Brooklyn.] But the hammer hit the anvil and after all what is a good story without conflict? And mine is no different. Instead of getting the girl as every good story has, in mine I lost the girl and fell to the bottom of the well.
 So this is more about life in the bottom of the well. and when one is in the bottom of the well that is  interesting. The hobos and vagabonds like me love . Down here in foggy bottom. No one loves a loser. And so it is lonely down here. And yet in our misery we find encouragement

here are links to some music which I wrote for the glory of God.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B71pces179i2cGRZZVhRZERJOW8/view?usp=sharing

This needs editing towards the end



b99



b100

This needs some editing.
But I can't convert anything to Midi. So I hope this version is OK.

Midi Files


e33



Mathematics




n83

l76I just found a way to put this here in Midi. [I pressed "export."]

Here is a link to some ideas called חידושי הש''ס

some ideas called חידושי הש''ס

I have to mention that this little booklet was not edited as much as  booklet on Bava Metzia.Which I think is obvious but still I think I should mention it because I hope that God will grant to me to go over it and do whatever corrections it probably needs 

But one thing hit home for me--the idea of finding the good in the bad days. He says that it is possible to find God everywhere. But what covers up the presence of God? Kelipot and evil. So how can one find God. By the Torah and by tzadikim.
But he mentions that that the Torah itself can be covered in kelipot.
He mentions a lot of themes in that chapter only briefly.

But this idea that the Torah itself can be covered in kelipot seems to me to make a lot of sense. Just because people are learning Torah one should not take that as proof that they are learning Torah. They might be learning the kelipot that the Torah has fallen into. Also there is the Torah of the Dark Side that I think might be confused with the real Torah.

The reason I say this is I have noticed a good number of people that


 have I think problems with דתיים--religious Jews. I think you could say I have had my own share of difficulties with them but I try to keep that to myself but when I hear or see others that seem to have had similar problems it strikes a chord in me. I think at one point to me everything was simple. Torah is Torah. The Oral and the Written Law and everyone should keep Torah and that is that. Now I think things are as simple. And it does not seem to me to be a matter of tweaking the variables. I know some people would like to do that, and say well you need to emphasis this thing or that etc. They come up with pat answers to what I think does not have pat answers.

The Muslim Dilemma.

The Muslim Dilemma. When good people are born into an evil religion what can they do?

I see this problem manifested in other ways. Sometimes it is not a religion as a whole that is bad but some aspects of it. Or political beliefs. The Democrats and Communists are  not bad hearted, but simply in their collage years got infatuated with Rousseau and Marx and after that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

http://www.owl232.net/irrationality.htm

 God's Divinity is in everything. That is it is possible to find God everywhere.
This is subtle and some people get confused and think that this is pantheism. It is not that everything is Divine. Rather it is that God's Divinity is in everything. It  like if I say, "This cup contains water." That is not the same as, "This cup is water."

So  to find the divinity in things is by subduing ones evil inclination.
And when one does that, the Divinity in things and in ones own life start to shine.
The reason for this is that usually the Divinity in things is hidden. There are good days and bad days. And the evil in bad days covers up the good. But by subduing ones evil inclination that good that is hidden in the bad days becomes revealed.

And what is the evil inclination? Delusions. The evil inclination used to be in physical desires. and then there was a time it was not physical but manifested itself in anti Torah thoughts. Nowadays the evil inclination has abandoned those fields and is wholly in delusions.