I had to add a little to the essays on Sanhedrin 61 and the part about my chavruta's question was not written rightly. I had to correct it.

At that point in the Talmud's logic השתחוויה is coming to forbid quadrant 2 and 3 which leaves quadrant 4 open for איכה יעבדו to forbid.

"Don't sacrifice to idols."

Introduction: The Gemara forbids area I and III [see diagram below] by means of How do they serve? [That is service in its way and in the way of honor] And it forbids part of area II (three kinds of service) because of, "Don't sacrifice to idols." [that is service not in its way but in the way of honor] (See the diagram at the bottom of the page.) And it uses "Don't bow" for itself. The Gemara asks, "Why not use, 'Don't bow' to forbid all of area II?" And it gives and answer. But in the meantime someone asks, "If we would use 'Don't bow' to forbid area II (all kinds of honor), then what would how do they serve come to permit?"

The Baal HaMeor and Tosphot both ask, "Why did he not ask the same question when we were learning from 'Don't sacrifice?'" Certainly sacrifice permits even more than bowing so it should be even more of a strong question.




I was looking at my old notes on Sanhedrin 61 and I noticed something odd. It is this: why is it that there is a question on the Gemara by both Tosphot and the Baal HaMeor? I forgot the whole sugia but just glancing at my notes I began to wonder why is it that there is any problem with the Gemara that needs to be answered?
Why cant we say זביחה forbids one thing and permits something else. And איכה יעבדו also forbids one thing and permits something else? I mean to say  זביחה forbids a small section of quadrant II and permits the rest of quadrant II. and איכה יעבדו forbids all of quadrant I and IV and permits all of quadrant III.

I am not saying this is unanswerable, Rather it is clear that everything permitted by sacrifice is also permitted by איכה יעבדו. And the same goes for if you would permit all quadrant III by means of השתחווייה.  So in one sense the question of the Baal HaMeor and Tosphot makes sense. All I am wondering is why this would not be the simplest answer?

My question is really more to the Baal HaMeor because he in fact uses זביחה in a limited sense.But  he answers in a way that divides up quadrant II in three sections.

_________________________________________________________________________________

הקדמה: The גמרא forbids  רביע השני והשלישי  by means of איכה יעבדו. And it forbids part of רביע השני that is שלש עבודות פנימיות because of זביחה.  And it uses לא תשתחווה for itself. The גמרא asks Why not use לא תשתחווה to forbid all of רביע השני? And it gives an answer. But in the meantime someone asks if we would use לא תשתחווה to forbid רביע שני, then what would איכה יעבדו come to permit?

The בעל המאור and תוספות both ask, why did he not ask the same question when we were learning from זביחה. Certainly זביחה permits even more than השתטחות so it should be even more of a strong question.




I was looking at my old notes on סנהדרין סא and I noticed something odd. It is this: why is it that there is a question on the גמרא by both  בעל המאור and תוספות? Why is it that there is any problem with the גמרא that needs to be answered?
Why can't we say זביחה forbids one thing and פוטר something else? And איכה יעבדו also מחייב one thing and פוטר something else? I mean to say  זביחה forbids a small section of רביע השני and פוטר the rest of רביע השני, and איכה יעבדו forbids all of רביע ראשון ורביעי and פוטר all of רביע השלישי?

I am not saying this is unanswerable. Rather it is clear that everything פטור by sacrifice is also פטור by איכה יעבדו. And the same goes for if you would פוטר all רביע השלישי by means of השתחווייה.  So in one sense the question of the  בעל המאור and תוספות makes sense. All I am wondering is why this would not be the simplest answer?

________________________________________________________________________

הקדמה: גמרא אוסרת רביע שני ושלישי באמצעות איכה יעבדו.  ואוסרת חלק מרביע השני שהוא שלש עבודות פנימיות בגלל זביחה. והיא משתמשת עם לא תשתחווה לעצמו. הגמרא שואלת למה לא להשתמש עם לא תשתחווה לאסור כל הרביע השני? והיא נותנת תשובה. אבל בינתיים מישהו שואל אם היינו משתמשים עם לא תשתחווה לאסור רביע השני, אז מה היה איכה יעבדו באה להתיר? בעל המאור ותוספות שואלים, למה הוא לא שואל את אותה השאלה כאשר אנו לומדים מזביחה? בהחלט זביחה פוטרת אפילו יותר מהשתטחות, כך זה צריך להיות עוד יותר שאלה חזקה. אני מסתכל על ההערות הישנות שלי בסנהדרין סא והבחנתי במשהו מוזר. זהו זה: למה יש שאלה על הגמרא על ידי בעל המאור ותוספות? למה יש בעיה כלשהי עם הגמרא שצריכה להיות עונה? למה אנחנו לא יכולים לומר זביחה אוסרת דבר אחד ופוטרת משהו אחר? ואיכה יעבדו גם מחייבת דבר אחד ופוטרת משהו אחר? אני מתכוון לומר זביחה אוסרת סעיף קטן של הרביע שני ופוטרת שאר רביע השני, ואיכה יעבדו אוסרת כל הרביע הראשון ורביעי ופוטרת כל רביע השלישי?

אני לא אומר שזה חסר מענה. ברור שכל מה שפטור על ידי זביחה גם  פטור  ידי איכה יעבדו. וכנ"ל לגבי אם אתה  פוטר  כל רביע השלישי באמצעות השתחווייה. אז במובן אחד השאלה של בעל המאור  ותוספות  הגיונית. כל מה שאני תוהה למה זו לא תהיה התשובה הפשוטה?

My Hebrew teachers in Temple Israel in Hollywood never got very far with Torah  since the program there was very limited. Besides Hebrew, you had to learn Old Testament stories and general Jewish history and that was all on Shabat morning. It was a lot to fit into Shabat morning.


And once I got to my first Lithuanian yeshiva in NY, grammar was not a priority. Rather Gemara in depth is what they concentrated on there. And that seems to me to be a good idea, but it also means I had to pick up grammar much later.]

 [I have noticed that people that don't do Talmud in depth in their first two yeshiva years, never get the idea afterwards. So I definitely advocate learning Gemara in depth before anything else.]

A drop of the infinite depths of Tosphot and the Gemara itself is the most important thing to learn before anything.

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?"