לא תאכלו על הדם Don't eat on the blood. [Leviticus circa 18]
The Talmud in Sanhedrin says this verse refers to the Temple in Jerusalem. There are some sacrifices that are eaten for example the sin offering to priests. The verse then tells us not to eat teh sacrifice while the blood of the animal has not been sprinkled yet on the altar. It tells the Sanhedrin not to eat anything the day they sentence someone to death. It tells us not to eat the blood of a living animal.
Why do the sages of the Talmud tells us this? Because the verse makes no sense otherwise. The context is: "Don't eat the fruit of a tree within the first three years it has been planted. In the fourth year bring it fruits to the Temple in Jerusalem, and don't eat on the blood." What blood? The blood of the fruits? The watermelon? And what is it one is not supposed to eat? It does not say! It just says don't eat on the blood. What should one not eat on the blood?

Music written for the glory of God

e40 in mp3  [e40 in midi]  e40nwc

This is  version in which I changed the string section to individual violins or cellos which seems to be better. And it saves me from having to change the actual score.


  great title in mp3  great title in midi  great title nwc

n17 mp3   n17 [in midi]  n17 nwc  

black hole in mp3

 black hole in midi  

black hole nwc

j94 [in midi] j94 nwc

j6 mp3

j6  in midi

j6nwc

Bava Metzia 101 I was confused about a certain passage in the Talmud until I discovered that Rav Elazar Menachem Shach has a nice explanation for it.
One goes into the field of another and plants crops. Rav says the owner gives the lesser of the improvement or the expense. I have to run but the basic idea come from the law of an abandoned field . If one plants it he has to give trumah [tithes]. So what comes from ones efforts is his.
In our case the field is not abandoned so we say the field did contribute something.
 I would not mention this but in my little booklet on Bava Metzia I left this law of page 101 with a question and it was just now that I realized that Rav Shach answers my question.

On who is involved in one mitzva does not have to do another. This has farther ramifications than most people think. The reason is the Shulchan Aruch puts together the opinions that one does have to stop in order to do another mitzvah along with the opinion one does not have to stop.

It is an argument in Suka 25a. Rashi, Tosphot, and the Baal Hameor all hold the argument there is going according to the opinion one has to stop. But the halacha is like R. Jose HaGalili that one does not have to stop. See the Rif, and the Baal HaMeor in the back.

I would like to suggest a halacha [Jewish Law] session like this.


You could do the Tur, Beit Yoseph, with the Shulchan Aruch also. I can imagine that that is a workable program.
But I must mention that the Shulchan Aruch just does not work with out the Tur. It is not just because the Beit Yoseph wrote that he did not write the Shulchan Aruch to be anything but a reminder of what he wrote in the Tur. But if you look at the Taz you will see he is always fighting with his father in law. There is almost no issue in the Taz that openly or not that he is not dealing with the Bach on the Tur, and disagreeing with him.

I should mention for the general public that halacha is not a made up concept or just because of some power trip of some control freaks.The Talmud itself give guidelines of how to poskin decide halacha from the Mishna and from the Talmud. It says the order of tenaim that the halacha is like against another tana in the mishna. So R Yehuda against R Jose, the halacha is like Rabbi Jose, etc. And in the Gemara also we have similar rules.

But it should be noted that the the insane religious world  and Torah are opposites. They might claim to be keeping Torah. But the facts show the reverse. There is no intersection between Torah and the the insane religious world . Those are two mutually exclusive sets.
Lithuanian Yeshivas do however have some connection with Torah. Also Mizrachi and Benei Akiva and  religious Zionist.

Music links for the glory of God [the First Cause, or the Will]

e51 edited again and again

e69
orchestra edited a third time mp3

e36 mp3

e51 edited again


e69

This should be put into mp3 but I can't seem to manage this. I realize that Midi and MP3 are different but I cant seem to compensate for the difference. So here it is in the original Midi form.


n57
i60

e39

ctl

mathematics

n33

If you look at the Rambam [Maimonides] about the issue of idolatry you can see he uses the second verse לא תעבדם "Don't serve them as a verse that specifically forbids kissing  hugging, sweeping in front or doing an kind of honor to an idol." That is the verse in Exodus 30. And he says one does not get lashes for this because it is not explained in the verse what it is referring to exactly.

So he is not using the idea of the Gemara [Sanhedrin 63a] that it is a לאו שבכללות a prohibition that forbids many things.
Tosphot also asks in the last Tosphot on the page how is it different than Shabat or cooking a the sciatic nerve on the festival, or eating the Passover sacrifice boiled or raw? He says basically the same as the Rambam אלו מיפרשי טפי.

What does all this mean? Is this how the Rambam and Tosphot are explaining the idea of לאו שבכללות a prohibition that forbids many things?

Tosphot  and the Rambam are saying that the prohibition for the rebellious son is don't eat on the blood and that is the prohibition that gets him lashes.  So Tosphot is not looking at this a a לאו שבכללות -- but  Tosphot and the Rambam both say about "don't serve other gods" that the problem is it is not explicit about what the lashes come for.
So what we have is that what I said a few days ago in this blog. That Tosphot and the Rambam simply noticed that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with the Braita. Dont eat on the blood is not a לאו שבכללות. But לא תעבדם is a  לאו שבכללות







P.S. There are more serious kinds of idolatry, i.e., the four services and accepting  anything or anyone as ones god. But the prohibition for those things comes from a different verse that is found in the Ten Commandments.

Sanhedrin 61b.

I assume this is the basic reason the Gra found good reason to sign his name on the famous  excommunication that deals with this problem.