There is a somewhat extended market for health products in the USA. Not only that but if you consider the amount of time and effort people spend on getting cured from different problems the amount probably grow to staggering amounts. Couple that with doctors and drug companies and medical schools, the amounts get up to levels beyond petty cash.

Then if you think about what people spend on mental health and the hope to be cured from mental problems pretty soon you are talking about real money,-- more than pocket change.

But if you have faith in the wise אמונת חכמים there is already available a simple and easy cure Musar.[Medieaval Books of Ethics.]

Musar in this context has a very limited and specific definition. It does not mean any book that talks about fear of God or good character traits. [The first thing when you mention the word Musar to anyone is they claim some other practice is enough Musar for them. Or some other book has Musar in it. Or some other book can replace Musar. These are all false claims. They come from the fact that Musar is hard to learn. And it is as fun as a dentist's chair. It is hard but its rewards are great.


Musar means  the  very limited number of Medieaval Ethics. The main requirement for something to be counted as Musar is that it be written by a rishon. There are traditional Musar books written after the Middle Ages, but they get more and more doubtful as you get further from the Middle Ages.

Whom is the sage that said Musar is a cure for mental and physical disease? Isaac Blazer. He was disciple of Israel Salanter.  And he based his idea on the Rambam in the beginning of his book אור ישראל.

What I think are the best ones: Duties of the Heart חובות לבבות, Paths of the Righteous אורכות צדיקים, המספיק לעובדי השם by the son of the Rambam, ספר הישר which is attributed to Rabbainu Tam.


What is the reason for this? It is because the books of Ethics from the middle ages have  a spirit o Fear of God that permeates them in a way that nothing that came later can do.

But you should not make Musar yeshivas. While there are good Musar yeshivas, but yeshivas for the most part have become businesses. [Some are however sincere. But in the main yeshivas are business and run like businesses. And that as we know against the Torah.]]

\

Music for the glory of God

q36

Homosexuality is considered rather negatively in the Bible. The fact that it gets the death penalty in Leviticus should provide us with a hint about whether it is a matter of taste. Most things that get the death penalty in the Old Testament it is safe to assume that they are looked on with a kind of disapproval. The reason that פרשת עריות [the Torah portion that deals with forbidden relationships] is read on Yom Kippur is because it takes the power and fear  of Yom Kippur to drive in the point that homosexuality is  among the most serious sins of the Torah. It is hard to go much further than the death penalty. However I admit there are a few sins that in fact go beyond the death penalty like idolatry. But they are rare.

So in the USA it comes down to this question Man has to ask himself, "God or government? Which will it be?"

But the major pathway that pantheism took to become the official doctrine of insane religious world. was through Kabalah. While it is clear that kabbalah is monotheistic, through the effects of amei haaretz ignorant people, it became assumed that it is pantheistic.

It was well known when I was growing up that the basic approach of Torah is monotheism.

Clearly the pantheism that became  apart of insane religious  world. was a kind of conspiracy. It has some ancient roots.  But the major pathway that pantheism took to become the official doctrine of the insane religious world was through  Kabalah.  While it is clear that kabbalah is monotheistic, through the effects of amei haaretz ignorant people, it became assumed that it is pantheistic. 

Even though the Rambam and his son went to great lengths to show that the world view of the Torah is Monotheism still  there is a lot of ("fenegaling") word games people do to twist the meaning of Torah.

What I suggest in order to have this issue clear is to make  a distinction between the ideas of emanation of the Ari as opposed to the concept of pantheism. The truth is it is easy to see the difference if you try. What makes it hard is that some people have made it their business to twist the Torah into pantheism and then claim that that is traditional Torah.

If you try to tell someone that not everything is Divine, and the universe is not God, you get the strangest kinds of looks  as if you just said some kind of terrible heresy.  

phony tzadik.

 Following a true tzadik [saint]. The obvious pitfall which happens at least 99.99999... of the time is that when one is looking for a true tzadik he falls into the hands of a phony tzadik.



This is a hard subject. I have my own approach in which I go by the basic approach of my parents towards life and Torah. This is based on the idea that my parents were the best human beings I ever knew. But it is not as if I am considering them as tzadikim. It is more along the lines of when I look at what I consider  as human perfection, I tend to see my parents as the best examples of that.

What I mean is they contained the idea of balance. When we look at the idea of  a tzadik we tend to see a religious person who may not have balance. And that is not in general a very good example. The path of the Torah is not fanaticism. It is balance.
But some people are connected with a certain area of value more than others. What you need is  away of combining different areas of value. And that my parents were good at.

The major problem of looking for a tzadik is that even when you want to play it safe , still there is the trap door of the many fakers that use some name of  a real tzadik to build their own following.

\ For one thing we do in fact find the idea that the tabernacle in the desert  was filled with the glory of God. So we do find this concept of God's glory being in a limited time and space zone. So we find only Moses was allowed to put the Tabernacle together. 

Rosh HaShanah 15a

I understand Tosphot to have two ways of understanding Abyee. One is the way I wrote before. The other way is the way he writes openly. The reason I say Tosphot has this hidden way is because where he introduces his way started out saying even if  there is a doubt. That means Tosphot is understanding the Gemara in the simple way I wrote that there is no doubt. Rather Raba is being strict with reference to the Braita. But even if there is a doubt you can understand Raba. But my question is that I think the hidden explanation of Tosphot is better than the one they actually wrote.

Tosphot says Abyee was asking Raba as I wrote before that we understand the end because he is being strict with reference to the Braita. That is he is being strict to go by ripening as opposed to being not obligated in anything. But even if you say that Raba was being strict because of a doubt whether we go by ripening or by picking then also the end is good because in fact he is liable in the laws of the seventh year because of ripening and he is not liable in tithes because even though he would be because of the doubt about picking still when there is doubt there is decree to let the fruits be הפקר.

But the beginning is a problem because of tithes.
And Raba answers his question about why he should be not obligated in tithes. יד בכל ממשמשין בו ויתחייב במעשר?

But the beginning there is  problem in terms of the laws of the seventh year because of the same decree. We are saying we are in doubt whether to go by ripening or picking. So we are strict. So in the beginning why are we not strict to say he is liable in ביעור?
After all if we are going by picking time it is the seventh year and he should be liable in ביעורץ
Abyee only asked about tithes and Raba only answered about tithes. If Tosphot is right then why was there not also a question about ביעור?
So everything I wrote is contained in one word of Tosphot "even"

Another question here is that in the סיפא תוספות says it is OK that he is not חייב in מעשר because even if we go by לקיטה still because of the ספק he has to be מפקיר his fruit. If so then how can you say he is liable in ביעור? We know ביעור is not the same as הפקר. So the end would have to mean that he has to be מפקיר and also to do ביעור. Fine. But then in the רישא it would have to say he is liable in ביעור.
______________________________________________________________________


I understand תוספות to have two ways of understanding אביי. One is the way I wrote before. The other way is the way he writes openly. The reason I say תוספות has this hidden way is because where he introduces his way, he starts out saying אפילו מחמת ספק. That means תוספות is understanding the גמרא in the simple way  that there is no ספק. Rather רבה is being strict with reference to the ברייתא. But even if there is a ספק you can understand רבה. But my question is that I think the hidden explanation of תוספות is better than the one they actually wrote.






תוספות says אביי was asking רבה  that we understand the סיפא because רבה is מחמיר with reference to the ברייתא. That is he is being strict to go by חנטה as opposed to being פטור לגמרי. But even if you say that רבה was being מחמיר because of a ספק whether we go by חנטה or by לקיטה קטיפה, then also the סיפא is good because in fact he is liable in ביעור because of חנטה, and he is not liable in מעשר because even though he would be because of the ספק about לקיטהת still when there is ספק there is תקנה to let the fruits be הפקר.

But the רישא is a problem because of מעשר.
And רבה answers his question about why he should be not obligated in tithes. יד בכל ממשמשין בו ויתחייב במעשר?

But the רישא there is  problem in terms of the ביעור because of the same תקנה. We are saying we are in ספק whether to go by חנטה or לקיטה. So we are מחמיר. So in the רישא why are we not מחמיר to say he is liable in ביעור?

After all if we are going by לקיטה time it is the שביעית and he should be liable in ביעור
אביי only asked about מעשר and רבה only answered about מעשר. If תוספות is right then why was there not also a question about ביעור?

__________________________________________________________________________

אני מבין תוספות שיש שתי דרכים של הבנת אביי. אחת הוא הדרך שכתבתי לפני זה. דרך האחרת היא הדרך שהוא כותב בגלוי. הסיבה שאני אומר יש לתוספות דרך נסתרת היא בגלל שבאופן שהוא מציג את דרכו, הוא מתחיל לומר "אפילו מחמת ספק". זאת אומרת שלתוספות יש הבנה בגמרא בדרך הפשוטה שאין ספק. רק שרבה הוא מחמיר עם התייחסות לברייתא שאחר כך. אבל גם אם יש  ספק יכולים להבין רבה ואביי. אבל השאלה שלי היא שאני חושב שההסבר הנסתר של תוספות הוא טוב יותר מזה שהם בעצם כתבו.
תוספות אומרים אביי שאל  גם אם אתה אומר שרבה מחמיר בגלל ספק אם הולכים לפי חנטה או  לקיטה (קטיפה), אז גם הסיפא היא טובה, כי  הוא חייב בביעור בגלל חנטה, והוא אינו חייב מעשר מפני שלמרות שהוא יהיה בגלל ספק על לקיטה עדיין כאשר יש ספק יש תקנה לתת הפירות לכל, היינו להפקיר אותם. אבל הרישה היא בעיה בגלל מעשר. ורבה עונה על שאלתו מדוע הוא צריך להיות לא מחויב במעשר, "יד בכל ממשמשין בו ויתחייב במעשר?" אבל ברישא יש בעיה במונחים של הביעור בגלל אותה תקנה. אנחנו אומרים שאנחנו נמצאים בספק אם ללכת לפי חנטה או לקיטה. אז אנחנו מחמירים. אז ברישה למה אנחנו לא מחמירים לומר שהוא עלול בביעור? אחרי הכל, אם אנחנו הולכים לפי לקיטה, זמן הזה הוא שביעית והוא וצריך להיות חייב בביעור. אביי שאל רק על מעשר ורבה  ענה על מעשר. אם תוספות נכונים אז למה גם לא הייתה שם שאלה על ביעור