24.9.15
Authentic Torah values are mainly found in Musar
Authentic Torah values are mainly found in Musar Ethical books from the Middle Ages.
The reasons for this are two. One is the Middle Ages was the time when the greatest of Torah sages hammered out the exact philosophical and moral principles of Torah with painstaking rigorous logic.
The second reason is that after that period, so called Torah books pervert the Torah into what they want it to say.
The exceptions were the direct disciples of Israel Salanter who did try to work out the principles of Torah as they apply today. But even the Musar movement itself after that became "Frumkeit." That is: the more superficially strict ones looks, the better. Norms of behavior of the community became determinant--not Torah. That is even Musar became a "movement."
The truth be told, Torah morality is largely personal morality that the Torah hopes will be extended into a larger community. But the Torah itself is directed towards only one individual -you. And it does not accept an intermediate.
So as far as the Torah is concerned, there is no community- except as an epi-phenomenon of individuals.
The reasons for this are two. One is the Middle Ages was the time when the greatest of Torah sages hammered out the exact philosophical and moral principles of Torah with painstaking rigorous logic.
The second reason is that after that period, so called Torah books pervert the Torah into what they want it to say.
The exceptions were the direct disciples of Israel Salanter who did try to work out the principles of Torah as they apply today. But even the Musar movement itself after that became "Frumkeit." That is: the more superficially strict ones looks, the better. Norms of behavior of the community became determinant--not Torah. That is even Musar became a "movement."
The truth be told, Torah morality is largely personal morality that the Torah hopes will be extended into a larger community. But the Torah itself is directed towards only one individual -you. And it does not accept an intermediate.
So as far as the Torah is concerned, there is no community- except as an epi-phenomenon of individuals.
It is common to find people that think when the Talmud says we know the קביעא דירחא the accurate time for the new moon that that means the present day calendar. (note 1) It is not however the same thing. The time of the new moon could be calculated but it has nothing to do with the calendar. The calendar does not tell the time for the new moon. There is nothing in the Talmud that indicates that they were using the present day calendar. However it was known to the Greeks. And they were using it. But there is no indication that Hillel II set it up. Rather at the time of the later Geonim the calendar that was being used by the Greeks was adopted. In fact we know the calendar was not used in the time of the early geonim because dates given in their letters do not correspond to the calendar.
(note 1) קביעא דירחא is the same in Hebrew as קביעות הירח the time of the new moon. It does not mean they had a calendar. It means they had a way of calculating the time of the actual conjunction.
I should mention that if there was a Sanhedrin or a Beit Din or anyone with legitimate Semicha (ordination) then they would have the ability to sanctify any day they wanted to as the new moon. But there is no such thing. And no record that any Beit Din did in fact sanctify all future new moons. So all we have to depend on is Tosphot in Sanhedrin pg 10 that the day of the conjunction is the day of the new moon.
_______________________________________________________________________________
It is common to find people that think when the תלמוד says we know the קביעא דירחא the accurate time for the new moon that that means the present day לוח. It is not however the same thing. The time of the מולד could be calculated but it has nothing to do with the לוח. The לוח does not tell the time for the new moon. There is nothing in the תלמוד that indicates that they were using the present day לוח. However it was known to the יוונים. And they were using it. But there is no indication that הלל השני set it up. Rather at the time of the later גאונים the לוח that was being used by the יוונים was adopted. In fact we know the לוח was not used in the time of the early גאונים because תאריכים given in their letters do not correspond to the לוח.
קביעא דירחא is the same in Hebrew as קביעות הירח the time of the new moon. It does not mean they had a לוח. It means they had a way of calculating the time of the actual conjunction.
I should mention that if there was a סנהדרין or a בית דין or anyone with legitimate סמיכה then they would have the ability to sanctify any day they wanted to as the ראש חודש. But there is no such thing. And no record that any בית דין did in fact sanctify all future ראשי חדשים. So all we have to depend on is תוספות in סנהדרין דף י' ע''ב that the day of the מולד is the day of the ראש חודש.
___________________________________________________________________
זה נפוץ למצוא אנשים שחושבים כאשר התלמוד אומר שאנחנו יודעים קביעא דירחא הזמן מדויק לירח החדש שזה אומר הלוח של היום. זה לא אולם אותו הדבר. הזמן של במולד היו יכולים לחשבן אבל אין לזה קשר עם הלוח. הלוח אינו מספר את הזמן לירח החדש. אין שום דבר בתלמוד שמצביע על כך שהם היו משתמשים בהלוח. עם זאת, היה ידוע ליוונים. והם היו משתמשים בו. אבל אין שום אינדיקציה שהלל השנייה התקין את זה. אבל בזמן הגאונים האחרונים הלוח היה בשימוש. למעשה אנו יודעים הלוח לא היה בשימוש בזמן של תחילת גאונים כי התאריכים שניתנו במכתבים שלהם לא מתאימים ללוח. קביעא דירחא הוא אותו דבר בעברית כקביעות ירח הזמן של הירח החדש. זה לא אומר שהיה להם לוח. זה אומר שהיה להם דרך של חישוב הזמן של המולד. אני צריך להזכיר שאם היה סנהדרין או בית דין עם סמיכה לגיטימי אז להם היכולת לקדש בכל יום שהם רוצים כראש החודש . אבל אין דבר כזה. ואין תיעוד שכל בית הדין אכן קידשו את כל הראשי חדשים העתידים. אז כל מה שאנחנו צריכים לסמוך עליו הוא תוספות בסנהדרין דף י 'ע''ב שיום המולד הוא היום של ראש החודש.
if one goes by the conjunction, then rosh hashana 22025 is sept 22 since the molad is on sept 21 at about 11:00 at night.
(note 1) קביעא דירחא is the same in Hebrew as קביעות הירח the time of the new moon. It does not mean they had a calendar. It means they had a way of calculating the time of the actual conjunction.
I should mention that if there was a Sanhedrin or a Beit Din or anyone with legitimate Semicha (ordination) then they would have the ability to sanctify any day they wanted to as the new moon. But there is no such thing. And no record that any Beit Din did in fact sanctify all future new moons. So all we have to depend on is Tosphot in Sanhedrin pg 10 that the day of the conjunction is the day of the new moon.
_______________________________________________________________________________
It is common to find people that think when the תלמוד says we know the קביעא דירחא the accurate time for the new moon that that means the present day לוח. It is not however the same thing. The time of the מולד could be calculated but it has nothing to do with the לוח. The לוח does not tell the time for the new moon. There is nothing in the תלמוד that indicates that they were using the present day לוח. However it was known to the יוונים. And they were using it. But there is no indication that הלל השני set it up. Rather at the time of the later גאונים the לוח that was being used by the יוונים was adopted. In fact we know the לוח was not used in the time of the early גאונים because תאריכים given in their letters do not correspond to the לוח.
קביעא דירחא is the same in Hebrew as קביעות הירח the time of the new moon. It does not mean they had a לוח. It means they had a way of calculating the time of the actual conjunction.
I should mention that if there was a סנהדרין or a בית דין or anyone with legitimate סמיכה then they would have the ability to sanctify any day they wanted to as the ראש חודש. But there is no such thing. And no record that any בית דין did in fact sanctify all future ראשי חדשים. So all we have to depend on is תוספות in סנהדרין דף י' ע''ב that the day of the מולד is the day of the ראש חודש.
___________________________________________________________________
זה נפוץ למצוא אנשים שחושבים כאשר התלמוד אומר שאנחנו יודעים קביעא דירחא הזמן מדויק לירח החדש שזה אומר הלוח של היום. זה לא אולם אותו הדבר. הזמן של במולד היו יכולים לחשבן אבל אין לזה קשר עם הלוח. הלוח אינו מספר את הזמן לירח החדש. אין שום דבר בתלמוד שמצביע על כך שהם היו משתמשים בהלוח. עם זאת, היה ידוע ליוונים. והם היו משתמשים בו. אבל אין שום אינדיקציה שהלל השנייה התקין את זה. אבל בזמן הגאונים האחרונים הלוח היה בשימוש. למעשה אנו יודעים הלוח לא היה בשימוש בזמן של תחילת גאונים כי התאריכים שניתנו במכתבים שלהם לא מתאימים ללוח. קביעא דירחא הוא אותו דבר בעברית כקביעות ירח הזמן של הירח החדש. זה לא אומר שהיה להם לוח. זה אומר שהיה להם דרך של חישוב הזמן של המולד. אני צריך להזכיר שאם היה סנהדרין או בית דין עם סמיכה לגיטימי אז להם היכולת לקדש בכל יום שהם רוצים כראש החודש . אבל אין דבר כזה. ואין תיעוד שכל בית הדין אכן קידשו את כל הראשי חדשים העתידים. אז כל מה שאנחנו צריכים לסמוך עליו הוא תוספות בסנהדרין דף י 'ע''ב שיום המולד הוא היום של ראש החודש.
Bava Metzia 14b 110 b Bava Batra 157
You have a case of a lender borrower and a buyer from the borrower. The borrower defaults and the lender gets the field from the buyer. Then the buyer recoups the price of the field and his expenses from the next buyer.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To Tosphot in Bava Batra there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. Tospphot does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the lender got the first field there was no second field. The borrower at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what Tosphot says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two reason why there could be a second field one is that the lender was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of Tosphot. The other reason is that the first field was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות that says a possible reason the lender did not go after the second field. כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that Tosphot held that after the lender collected once he can't collect anymore. But that is clearly not like the Tosphot in Bava Batra where Tosphot gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first collection Tosphot does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
_____________________________________________________
Bava Metzia 14b 110 b Bava Batra 157
You have a case of a מלווה לווה ולוקח from the לווה. The לווה does not have money to repay the loan and the lender gets the field from the לוקח. Then the לוקח גובה the price of the field and his שבח from the לוקח שני.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To תוספות in בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. תוספות does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the מלווה got the שדה ראשון there was no second field. The לווה at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what תוספות says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two סיבות why there could be a שדה שני. One is that the מלווה was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of תוספות. The other reason is that the שדה ראשון was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות somewhere that says a possible reason the מלווה did not go after the שדה השני that is כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that תוספות held that after the מלווה once was גובה he can not be גובה anymore. But that is clearly not like the תוספות in בבא בתרא where תוספות gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first גבייה תוספות does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
בבא מציעא 14 ב 110 בבבא בתרא 157 יש לך מקרה של מלווה לווה ולוקח מן הלווה. ללווה אין כסף כדי להחזיר את ההלוואה והמלווה מקבל את השדה מן הלוקח. אז הלוקח גובה המחיר של השדה והשבח מלוקח השני. אני רוצה לדבר על מה שאני חושב שזוהי נקודה חשובה. לתוספות בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב יש רק שתי סיבות אפשריות לכך שיש שדה שני. תוספות שואל איך יש שדה שני? ולמעשה הוא אומר בזמן מלווה גבה שדה הראשון לא היה שדה שני. הלווה בזמן בגבייה לא היה וגם לא היה שדה שקנה ומכר בכל אופן. זה מה שאומר תוספות. אבל זה לא הסיבה למלווה לא יכול לאסוף מהשדה השני. אני לא יכול להדגיש את זה מספיק. יש רק שתי סיבות למה יכול להיות שיש שדה שני. אחת מהן הוא שנדרש למלווה ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון. זו התשובה הראשונה של תוספות. סיבה אחרת היא ששדה ראשון היה אפותיקי. העובדה שהשדה השני נקנה אחרי חלק מההלוואה נאסף היא לא סיבה למלווה לא יכול ללכת אחריו לאחר שכבר הלווה קנה או קנה ומכר עוד שדה.
You have a case of a lender borrower and a buyer from the borrower. The borrower defaults and the lender gets the field from the buyer. Then the buyer recoups the price of the field and his expenses from the next buyer.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To Tosphot in Bava Batra there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. Tospphot does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the lender got the first field there was no second field. The borrower at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what Tosphot says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two reason why there could be a second field one is that the lender was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of Tosphot. The other reason is that the first field was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות that says a possible reason the lender did not go after the second field. כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that Tosphot held that after the lender collected once he can't collect anymore. But that is clearly not like the Tosphot in Bava Batra where Tosphot gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first collection Tosphot does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
_____________________________________________________
Bava Metzia 14b 110 b Bava Batra 157
You have a case of a מלווה לווה ולוקח from the לווה. The לווה does not have money to repay the loan and the lender gets the field from the לוקח. Then the לוקח גובה the price of the field and his שבח from the לוקח שני.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To תוספות in בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. תוספות does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the מלווה got the שדה ראשון there was no second field. The לווה at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what תוספות says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two סיבות why there could be a שדה שני. One is that the מלווה was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of תוספות. The other reason is that the שדה ראשון was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות somewhere that says a possible reason the מלווה did not go after the שדה השני that is כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that תוספות held that after the מלווה once was גובה he can not be גובה anymore. But that is clearly not like the תוספות in בבא בתרא where תוספות gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first גבייה תוספות does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
בבא מציעא 14 ב 110 בבבא בתרא 157 יש לך מקרה של מלווה לווה ולוקח מן הלווה. ללווה אין כסף כדי להחזיר את ההלוואה והמלווה מקבל את השדה מן הלוקח. אז הלוקח גובה המחיר של השדה והשבח מלוקח השני. אני רוצה לדבר על מה שאני חושב שזוהי נקודה חשובה. לתוספות בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב יש רק שתי סיבות אפשריות לכך שיש שדה שני. תוספות שואל איך יש שדה שני? ולמעשה הוא אומר בזמן מלווה גבה שדה הראשון לא היה שדה שני. הלווה בזמן בגבייה לא היה וגם לא היה שדה שקנה ומכר בכל אופן. זה מה שאומר תוספות. אבל זה לא הסיבה למלווה לא יכול לאסוף מהשדה השני. אני לא יכול להדגיש את זה מספיק. יש רק שתי סיבות למה יכול להיות שיש שדה שני. אחת מהן הוא שנדרש למלווה ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון. זו התשובה הראשונה של תוספות. סיבה אחרת היא ששדה ראשון היה אפותיקי. העובדה שהשדה השני נקנה אחרי חלק מההלוואה נאסף היא לא סיבה למלווה לא יכול ללכת אחריו לאחר שכבר הלווה קנה או קנה ומכר עוד שדה.
23.9.15
Trust in God
The subject of trust really should be studied from the Duties of the Heart and the מדרגת האדם by the Alter of Navardok --Joseph Horwitz.
It is highly relevant.
In Quantum Mechanic sight makes a bounda
I should mention that there is an idea about trust in God without effort in Duties of the Heart and מדרגת האדם and the Gra even though it seems not to be a requirement. That is one can work all day and come home with exactly the same thing as if he had sat and learned Torah all day. But one can work all day if he really wants to. But it will not get him anything more than if he had sat and learned Torah.
I am not sure what to say about this except that I did this for few years and it does work.
I am pretty sure that many people have never even heard of this idea of trust with no effort. But it is right in Proverbs 3:5 in the commentary of the Gra
In any case I have an expanded idea of what it means to learn Torah based on the Rambam who considers מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה to be one part of learning Talmud. Some think that means mystic things but I don't think that is how the Rambam intended it. He defines what these terms mean in the beginning of the Mishna Torah and in the Guide.
The subject of trust really should be studied from the Duties of the Heart and the מדרגת האדם by the Alter of Navardok --Joseph Horwitz.
It is highly relevant.
In Quantum Mechanic sight makes a bounda
I should mention that there is an idea about trust in God without effort in Duties of the Heart and מדרגת האדם and the Gra even though it seems not to be a requirement. That is one can work all day and come home with exactly the same thing as if he had sat and learned Torah all day. But one can work all day if he really wants to. But it will not get him anything more than if he had sat and learned Torah.
I am not sure what to say about this except that I did this for few years and it does work.
I am pretty sure that many people have never even heard of this idea of trust with no effort. But it is right in Proverbs 3:5 in the commentary of the Gra
In any case I have an expanded idea of what it means to learn Torah based on the Rambam who considers מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה to be one part of learning Talmud. Some think that means mystic things but I don't think that is how the Rambam intended it. He defines what these terms mean in the beginning of the Mishna Torah and in the Guide.
In any case I had a great and important subject to discuss today. But it is so vast and my small mind has a great deal of trouble understanding it. But at least I wanted to share what little I may merit to understand of the Talmud.
I think Chaim Soloveitchik has an idea about obligations that are on land of a borrower that provide the basis for the argument on "borrowed and borrowed and then bought."
Also I think his idea provides the basis for the argument between the two answers of Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 157 and the Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 14b. And if I am right then we can also say thus there is a relation between the sugia in Bava Metzia and borrowed and borrowed and then bought.
If I would have energy I would present the idea of Reb Chaim. Then the idea of לווה ולווה וקנה and show their relation, and then the Tosphot in Bava Batra.
But before I can do that I wanted to discuss one answer of Tosphot in Bava Batra. The Talmud gives a case where you have a lender and borrower and a first buyer and a second buyer from the lender. The borrower defaulted on the loan. The lender goes to the first buyer and gets as much of the field needed to cover the loan. Then the first buyer goes to the second buyer to collect his loss. But he also put work into the field. for that he can only collect from the seller, not the second buyer.
"Why is there a second field?", Tosphot asks. In Bava Metzia Tosphot has only one answer. The first field was designated to pay for the loan. In Bava Batra the first answer of Tosphot is that the lender was required to go after the first field. That shows once obligation is on something it get first attention even if later obligations come on it subsequently.
) ב''מ קי: ב''מ י''ד: בבא בתרא קנז: הסוגיה פה הוא בב''מ יד: ובבבא בתרא קנז: יש מחלוקת בין תוספות בב''מ ותוספות בבא בתרא. המחלוקת תלויה בסברת רב חיים הלוי מבריסק. הסברא היא זאת: לפי דעת הרמב''ם, המלווה והלוקח חולקים את השבח בגלל ששיעבוד שניהם עובר דרך הלווה. אבל המלווה גובה את כול השבח שגדל ממילא בגלל ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמו ישיר, ולא דרך הלווה [שהוא המוכר]. (זאת אומרת שאחר שהשיעבוד חל על השדה, הוא נשאר שם, ואינו שם בגלל המשכה של כח המוכר.) זאת היא סברת תירוץ הראשון בתוספות בבא בתרא קמז: במצב שלנו איפה שהמלווה גובה את הקרקע מן הלוקח, אף על פי שיש קרקע אחרת ללוקח השני. הסיבה היא ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. מצד השני, תירוץ השני ותוספות ב''מ יד: אוחזים שאם יש לוקח שני, המלווה צריך לגבות ממנו בגלל ששיעבודו הולך דרך המוכר, ואינו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. ועכשיו מחלוקת שני שתירוצים היא מחלוקת ראשונים. שהסברא של תירוץ הראשון היא שיטת הרמב''ם לפי פירושו של רב חיים ברמב''ם. והרמב''ן והראב''ד חולקים על הרמב''ם. ותירוץ השני ותוספות בב''מ יד: הולכים לפי שיטת הראב''ד והרמב''ן.
ואין להקשות על זה מדברי הרמב''ן שכתב שהמלווה אומר: "ארעאי [הקרקע שלי] השביח", בגלל שכוונת הרמב''ן היא שבגלל שיעבודו על הלווה הקרקע נחשב שלו [של המלווה]. [והשיעבוד בא דרך הלווה.]
תוספות ב''מ יד: תוספות בבא בתרא קנ''ז יש דיון של מלווה לווה ולוקח. הלווה אינו משלם והמלווה גובה מלוקח הראשון ולוקח הראשון גובה מלוקח השני. תוספות שואלים איך זה יכול להיות שלוקח הראשון יכול לגבות את הקרן משועבדים? למה יש משועבדים ללוקח שני.זאת אומרת אחר ההלוואה הלווה קנה עוד שדה ומכרו ומשם לוקח הראשון גובה קרנו. תירוץ הראשון של תוספות שלמרות שיש לוקח שני, המלווה גובה מלוקח הראשון. תירוץ השני הוא ששדה הראשון הוא אפותיקי. זאת אומרת שאם הוא היה משועבד, המלווה היה צריך לגבות מלוקח השני. נראה לבסס את הטענות בין בוויכוח על "לווה וללוה וקנה". בדין של "לווה ולווה וקנה" יש סיבה טובה לומר שיעבוד הראשון נופל על השדה ושיעבוד השני אינו יכול לבטלו. זה בגלל ששיעבוד הראשון חל על הלווה ראשון ומן הלווה הוא חל על השדה ושיעבוד השני צריך להמתין בתור. בדין שלנו בבבא בתרא קנ''ז, שיש שני שדות שנמכרו. ואחד נמכר לפני האחר. יש סיבה דומה לומר שהוא צריך ללכת אחרי שדה הראשון שנמכר בגלל שנשתעבוד ראשון. תוספות ב''מ יד: ותירוץ השני של תוספות בבא בתרא מחזיקים שיותר מסתבר שכל השיעבוד חל על שדה השני כל זמן שלא נמכר. וגם אם נמכר אין סיבה ידועה שהשיעבוד היה צריך לחזור לשדה הראשון. והדין דומה לגביית כתובה שגובים ממה שנמכר אחרון.
What I am trying to do is to make a triangle. I was to show Reb Chaim gives a יסוד foundation principle that underlies the two different subjects and by that to show bot subjects are related.
22.9.15
I believe the USA surrendered its freedoms to a socialist dictatorship of a Muslim, 8 years ago. But it did not start then. It occurred to me that the problem was not the administration. Rather it is that there is a sizable number of Americans that simply despise everything that the USA stands for.
I have another reason to think that the USA administration at this time is not very good. Let me ask you. Are you prepared for war? Are you prepared for nuclear destruction? We are actively arming improving Iran's nuclear capabilities under the present agreement. Would Ronald Reagan have agreed to arm our enemies in exchange for a piece of paper? Would a Republican president agree to arm people that are shouting for our destruction every day? Do you really think that Iran is just bluffing when they call for the destruction of the USA ever day? And best of all the USA has encouraged at every turn the rise of a hostile Islamic Empire that is just as much set of the destruction of the USA as Iran. To top that off the Muslim USA president has engaged in actively bringing radical Muslims to the USA to undermine the very fabric of America.
Are you willing to bet your life that people whose very religion demands your destruction are merely bluffing?
And how many American would die in an Iranian first strike? About 80 million. Think about that while you remember these are not people that the fear of retaliation can bother. They look forward to it. All the better to get their 70 virgins.
The major thing that makes me upset with the government in the USA really did not start with the present administration. And it not the fact that it was so different from when I was growing up.
Sure it was a wholesome and decent world back then. What makes me upset about the USA is a erosion of Freedom. Socialism got inside of everything. Now to some degree I understand why this happened. It takes a kind of special kind of people to be able to function as a democracy. When the influx of barbarians and savages made democracy and freedom impossible the USA government and police responded in kind to start to control things.
To some degree it has been a the successful attempt by the Democrats to turn the USA to socialism and away from freedom. But if the people themselves had stood up against it it never would have happened. [And it was not all the fault of the Democrats either. There is enough guilt to go around]
But it is not too late to turn the clock back.
So to expand on this a little more. The issue is not that I am so against Socialism. It is rather the corroding of the Jewish-Christian Values values upon which the USA was founded I think made socialism inevitable.
And the cure is simple. People need to learn Torah values. Simple as pie. That would be a two pronged approach. First Jews need to learn Torah the Oral and Written Torah. Next is Christians to get back to traditional Christian Values. Now I am not Christian. But just off hand the first step I would think would be for Christian people to start learning Augustine and Aquinas. But that is just a guess. There might be better things out there for Christians but I am not sure what they might be. I for one have never heard of anything better. The end result of this double approach would be hopeful that people would get back to good wholesome values. Things that politics can't change then would change internally.
For Jewish people learning the whole Talmud might seem hard at first. But in fact all you need to do is to do a half page a day with Tosphot and the Maharsha. That in itself should not take more than about 40 minutes per day. It gives you plenty of time to go surfing and skiing.
I have another reason to think that the USA administration at this time is not very good. Let me ask you. Are you prepared for war? Are you prepared for nuclear destruction? We are actively arming improving Iran's nuclear capabilities under the present agreement. Would Ronald Reagan have agreed to arm our enemies in exchange for a piece of paper? Would a Republican president agree to arm people that are shouting for our destruction every day? Do you really think that Iran is just bluffing when they call for the destruction of the USA ever day? And best of all the USA has encouraged at every turn the rise of a hostile Islamic Empire that is just as much set of the destruction of the USA as Iran. To top that off the Muslim USA president has engaged in actively bringing radical Muslims to the USA to undermine the very fabric of America.
Are you willing to bet your life that people whose very religion demands your destruction are merely bluffing?
And how many American would die in an Iranian first strike? About 80 million. Think about that while you remember these are not people that the fear of retaliation can bother. They look forward to it. All the better to get their 70 virgins.
The major thing that makes me upset with the government in the USA really did not start with the present administration. And it not the fact that it was so different from when I was growing up.
Sure it was a wholesome and decent world back then. What makes me upset about the USA is a erosion of Freedom. Socialism got inside of everything. Now to some degree I understand why this happened. It takes a kind of special kind of people to be able to function as a democracy. When the influx of barbarians and savages made democracy and freedom impossible the USA government and police responded in kind to start to control things.
To some degree it has been a the successful attempt by the Democrats to turn the USA to socialism and away from freedom. But if the people themselves had stood up against it it never would have happened. [And it was not all the fault of the Democrats either. There is enough guilt to go around]
But it is not too late to turn the clock back.
So to expand on this a little more. The issue is not that I am so against Socialism. It is rather the corroding of the Jewish-Christian Values values upon which the USA was founded I think made socialism inevitable.
And the cure is simple. People need to learn Torah values. Simple as pie. That would be a two pronged approach. First Jews need to learn Torah the Oral and Written Torah. Next is Christians to get back to traditional Christian Values. Now I am not Christian. But just off hand the first step I would think would be for Christian people to start learning Augustine and Aquinas. But that is just a guess. There might be better things out there for Christians but I am not sure what they might be. I for one have never heard of anything better. The end result of this double approach would be hopeful that people would get back to good wholesome values. Things that politics can't change then would change internally.
For Jewish people learning the whole Talmud might seem hard at first. But in fact all you need to do is to do a half page a day with Tosphot and the Maharsha. That in itself should not take more than about 40 minutes per day. It gives you plenty of time to go surfing and skiing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)