Mathematics and Physics are the natural laws by which God made the world and embedded into the world and told the world these are my laws --obey them. He told light to obey the laws of relativity. He told electrons to obey quantum mechanics. He told the planets to obey General Relativity. So these laws are the laws of God.So they definitely have Torah inside of them. But we do not know the Torah inside of them. So they are the secrets of Torah.
[Also, I believe Rav Nachman of Breslov had great insights in Torah, but there is a dofference between Rav Nachman of Bresolv and Breslov who imagine that they are folloing his path. However, they are polar oppsosites.]
But furthermore I hold the Zohar is not the secrets of Torah.  I have respect for the great tzadikim like the Ari and the Remak and the Gra ,


In any case I think the Zohar got everything off track. And I think it would make a good deal of common sense to get back to the kind of rational Judaism that the Rambam and Saadia Gaon had in mind. Not that we have to take everything they said at face value. Nor do we have to ignore the great tzadikim like the Ari who did have great insights into Torah. Rather we simply have to switch tracks back to the Rambam and away from the Zohar.

 The Islamic 'way of war' was based on pin prick, ultra violent raids (Razzias) meant not Just to kill people, but to intimidate and demoralize the infidel by, among, other things making population terrorized, fearful More often than not, the tactics succeeded in 'softening up' the local population and paralyzing their will so that they became 'like deer in the headlights' during the next, and then the next, and then the next raid by the 'Ghazis.' 'Terrorism' was not a tactic, it was a long-term strategy. (See invasions and conquests of N.Africa and Byzantium and India.) Physical damage was less the immediate point than psychological warfare. Our contemporary jihadis have already succeeded in nullifying our First Amendment to the degree that his newspaper dares not reprint 'blasphemous' cartoons or other criticisms of 'The Prophet.' You 'get away from the fear' by Submitting (which is what Islam actually means). 

Comment by Lawrence Frank in http://www.econlib.org/


The effects of submission are severe.  The tendency is to partake less than noble characteristics of Muslims. There is a point where you have to stand up for your own identity.

That is in plain English is you don't invite someone into your home that means you harm. And Muslims mean harm. 

Now to some degree I realize that all this has happened because of a weakening and rupture of Christendom. I mean to say that before the Reformation, there was a kind of difficult union between Faith and Reason. Afterwards each went it merry way. But in that there was a weakening of each.
And this same event occurred in the Jewish world also.


Therefore the best solution is to rekindle the essence of Judaic-Christian civilization. That is by learning Torah, i.e. the Oral and Written Law. In particular I have in mind Israel Salanter's ideas of learning the basic books of ethics from the Middle ages before the rupture between faith and reason began.

The reason the Muslim invasion of Europe was stopped 500 years ago was because the Christians fought back and stopped them at Vienna. Now they are being invited back.

And that was not the first time Muslim needed to be stopped by force. The Crusades were a direct result of Muslim attacks on the Eastern Roman Empire centered in Constantinople and also their attacks on Europe. Spain had been a Christian nation until Muslims conquered it piece by piece until driven out by force. But until today Spain shows the effects of Muslim rule. It is like a 3rd world country that just happens to be in Europe.

The modern world has lost the meaning of life. And also there is no guide to life. No example to follow. No wise teacher. Just frauds and charlatans. Faceless labor and domination of the elite is what characterizes the modern age. What I suggest is to find the moments of rupture. To find the original meaning of the Torah. But moments of rupture are many in the Torah tradition, so it is not easy to define exactly what we are looking for. Prophecy as in the age of the prophets? The wisdom of the sages?

Without beating around the bush, let me say the best of Lithuanian  yeshivas
have in fact been able to redeem from the past those treasures worth preserving, that is the Rishonim. Medieval authorities. And wisely avoided most of what came later as being misguided delusions.
The main criterion should be authenticity.




The Christan world also encountered moments of rupture. Mainly the Reformation.
[I don't intend to address Christians. This is however not just a side comment. It does show a kind of parallel to our own situation. Also the problem with rupture is you can't return to the pre-rupture state. In the Reformation, both sides lost many good aspects by reason of the break.]

There are traditions that it is good to break away from. Sadly terrorists have managed to link up with their true origins. But that kind of authenticity is not what I am after here. I am more interested in authenticity from the Side of Good and Light. Not from darkness and evil and death as in Islam.


So what we need is not traditionalism, or religious fanaticism but authenticity.
To find the breaks in the past and mend them.

This might sound like I have a solution for this problem. But I don't. I have been in a couple of authentic yeshivas like the Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, and the Mir  in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway. But these authentic kinds of places are few and far between, and most attempts to recreate such things are futile.

It is hard to find someone who can teach Torah for its own sake and students that want to learn Torah for its own sake.

My suggestion is then since most people like myself are not close to authentic yeshivas is to have a hour a day of learning fast to get through the Old Testament,  and the entire Talmud with every single word of the Gemara, Tosphot, Mahrasha, and Maharam from Lublin. And then another hour of learning in depth that is to stay on one Tosphot for a couple of months until the shell starts cracking and you can see the depths and light inside. {But don't get paid for this. Getting money for learning ruins the effect. It is the same as if you would get paid for praying.}

Two hours is not a lot. You then  have the rest of the day to go to university (for a vocation or natural sciences--no pseudo sciences please.) and then go surfing.

Continued from yesterday about the Talmud in Shabat 68b and 69a

My learning partner  said that  on the other hand it could be that these are the actual opinions of Rabbi Yochanan  and Reish Lakish.  After all there is no reason for them to tie together תינוק שנשבה along with this different issue about if lack of knowledge of punishment makes it accidental. These might well be independent variables. And what happened on page 68B was Rabbi Akiva was using
 the slippery slope argument. That is, "If you hold that way well let's take it to the utmost limit. And that is usually considered informal fallacy." But it does not have to be  a fallacy. If I say to  a communist "You type of system would logically lead to such and such bad consequences (like the murder of between 20 and 50 millions )", he would have to show why these would would not logically  follow. So in the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Munbaz all Munbaz had to do was to say to Rabbi Akiva I don't hold that your taking my opinion to the outer most limit is valid--because it does not logically follow. Munbaz did not do that but it could be Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish would do that.

The trouble here is that Munbaz learns his law from a verse and and Rashi says he means it as a gezera shava גזרה שווה which means you take all the laws from one place and place them in the other place and visa verse. So in fact Rabbi Akiva would have a good reason to say his objection to Munbaz. But Rashi also says Munbaz means it as a בניין אב. That would not make any difference in our case but we are in general looking at this like a היקש In which case Munbaz would be right. The question is what is Rashi doing? Is it a gezra shava or a binyan av and why not saying it is a simple hekesh?
_______________________________________________________________________





My learning partner  said that  on the other hand it could be that these are the actual opinions of רבי יוחנן  and ריש לקיש.  After all there is no reason for them to tie together תינוק שנשבה along with this different issue about if lack of knowledge of עונש makes it שוגג. These might well be independent variables. And what happened on page ס''ח ע''ב was רבי עקיבא was using
 the טיעון מדרון חלקלק. That is, "If you hold that way well let's take it to the utmost limit. And that is usually considered כשל לוגי בלתי פורמלי." But it does not have to be  a כשל לוגי. If I say to  a communist "You type of system would logically lead to such and such bad consequences like the murder of between 20 and 50 millions", he would have to show why these would would not logically  follow. So in the debate between רבי עקיבא and מונבז all מונבז had to do was to say to רבי עקיבא "I don't hold that your taking my opinion to the outer most limit is valid because it does not logically follow. מונבז did not do that but it could be רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש would do that.

The trouble here is that מונבז learns his law from a פסוק and and רש''י says he means it as a גזרה שווה which means you take all the laws from one place and place them in the other place and visa verse. So in fact רבי עקיבא would have a good reason to say his objection to מונבז. But רש''י also says מונבז means it as a בניין אב. That would not make any difference in our case but we are in general looking at this like a היקש in which case מונבז would be right. The question is what is רש''י doing? Is it a גזרה שווה or a בניין אב. And why not say it is a simple היקש?



 השותף למידה שלי אמר שמצד שני זה יכול להיות שמדובר בחוות הדעת האמיתית של רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש. אחרי הכל אין שום סיבה להם לקשור התינוק שנשבה יחד עם נושא האם חוסר הידע של עונש עושה את זה שוגג. אלה עשויים  להיות משתנים בלתי תלויים. ומה קרה בדף ס''ח ע''ב היה שרבי עקיבא היה באמצעות טיעון מדרון החלקלק. כלומר, "אם אתה מחזיק ככה גם בוא לקחת אותו לגבול עליון." וזה בדרך כלל נחשב כשל לוגי בלתי פורמאלית. אבל זה לא צריך להיות כשל לוגי. אם אני אומר לקומוניסט "הסוג של מערכת החשיבה שלך היה מוביל לתוצאות רעות כמו הרצח של בין עשרים ל חמישים מיליון", הוא יצטרך להראות מדוע אלה לא היו עקב המערכת הפוליטית. אז בוויכוח בין רבי עקיבא ומונבז, כל מה שמונבז היה צריך לעשות הוא להגיד לרבי עקיבא "אני לא מחזיק כי  צריכים לקחת את דעתי על עד סוף הגבול החיצוני. מונבז לא עשה את זה אבל  יכול להיות שרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש היו עונים את זה. הבעיה כאן היא שמונבז לומד המשפט מפסוקים, ורש''י אומר שהוא אומר את זה כגזרה שווה שאומר שאתה לוקח את כל החוקים ממקום אחד למקם השני ואותם  במקום השני למקום הראשון. כך שלמעשה לרבי עקיבא הייתה סיבה טובה לומר הטיעון כנגד מונבז. אבל גם רש''י אומר מונבז אומר שזה כמו בניין האב. זה לא היה עושה  הבדל גדול  אבל אנחנו בכלל מסתכלים על זה כמו היקש ובמקרה כזה מונבז יהיה תקין. השאלה היא מה רש''י עושה? האם זה גזרה שווה או בניין האב. ולמה לא אומר שזה פשוט היקש?

I had two things to discuss. One in in Shabat page 69. There we have the regular argument between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what one brings a sin offering for. To Reish Lakish he has to not know it is a sin and he needs to not know about the punishment. If he knows it is a sin but does not know the punishment that is considered he did it on purpose and he can't bring a sin offering. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and says he brings a sin offering in either case. What my learning partner brought up is it seems that both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan don't hold from this (either opinion) and they are only giving a justification for Rabbi Akiva. For on page 68b they openly hold from Munbaz. This seems like an area that needs to be investigated. On page 69 all that happened was the Talmud asked what is considered "accidental" to the Sages [and Rabbi Akiva] and they both answered as above. That is,- they were saying what Rabbi Akiva would hold. They were not saying  they hold . [This is not to say we don't hold by this. It is still curious. The Rambam does say that ignorance of the punishment is also considered accidental but that is because that is how Rabbi Yochanan understood Rabbi Akiva. That is not necessarily the actual opinion of Rabbi Yochanan.]


My learning partner also said that  on the other hand it could be that these are the actual opinions of Rabbi Yochanan  and Reish Lakish.  After all there is no reason for them to tie together תינוק שנשבה along with this different issue about if lack of knowledge of punishment makes it accidental. These might well be independent variables. And what happened on page 68B was Rabbi Akiva was using
 the slippery slope argument. That is, "If you hold that way well let's take it to the utmost limit. And that is usually considered informal fallacy." But it does not have to be  a fallacy. If I say to  a communist "You type of system would logically lead to such and such bad consequences (like the murder of between 20 and 50 millions )", he would have to show why these would would not logically  follow. So in the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Munbaz all Munbaz had to do was to say to Rabbi Akiva I don't hold that your taking my opinion to the outer most limit is valid--because it does not logically follow. Munbaz did not do that but it could be Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish would do that.

The trouble here is that Munbaz learns his law from a verse and and Rashi says he means it as a gezera shava גזרה שווה which means you take all the laws from one place and place them in the other place and visa verse. So in fact Rabbi Akiva would have a good reason to say his objection to Munbaz. But Rashi also says Munbaz means it as a בניין אב. That would not make any difference in our case but we are in general looking at this like a היקש In which case Munbaz would be right. The question is what is Rashi doing? Is it a gezra shava or a binyan av and why not saying it is a simple hekesh?







The other thing is in Bava Metzia, On page 104 we have the Mishna saying if it is not מכת מדינה (a strike on the country) the owner of the field does not reduce the amount owed by the serf (who pays a %) or the renter (who pays a fixed amount). On page 106 the Mishna says if it is a מכת מדינה (a strike on the country) then the amount owed is reduced.  Rav Papa says the first two mishnas in that chapter are talking about both a serf and  renter. The later mishnas are talking about one or the other -not both. First I don't understand Rav Papa. The later mishna is  a mirror image of the second one. He must mean then that you don't lower the sum if it is not a strike on the country for both. And if it is, then only one is exempt.
The Rambam chap 8 of laws of rent.says both are exempt in a strike on the county and all the other rishonim disagree and say it is only the renter who is exempt.
I should mention the language of the Mishna in both places is not clear, The mishna talks about מקבל a serf in both places and then talks about him not owing his rent money? A serf pays a %, not rent.

What I wish to ask here is page 106 when there is a case that it is not  רובא דבאגה [most of the fields in the valley have been struck] which Rav Yehuda says is considered a strike on the country. Rather all the fields of the owner have been struck. The person working the land wants a reduction. We don't give it to him.
Who is asking? The renter or the serf? To the Rambam it could be both. To the other rishonim at first glance it seems it has to be the renter because only he is the one where if there is  a strike on the country that gets  a reduction. But I think even then the Gemara might be asking about the serf. Maybe he wants a reduction because of the bad luck of the owner even if he would not get one because of a strike on the country.

That is all I have to say today. Also I wonder why my essay about my parents did not evoke more attention. I thought heroic deeds require remembrance. I thought people would like to know about my parents who were amazing role models. Here we are in a generation where they are no role models. I though telling the truth about my parents would evoke lots of attention.


______________________________________________________________________________

I had two things to discuss. One in in שבת ס''ט. There we have the מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about what one brings a sin offering for. To ריש לקיש he has to not know it is a sin and he needs to not know about the עונש. If he knows it is a sin but does not know the punishment that is considered he did it במזיד and he can't bring a sin offering. רבי יוחנן disagrees and says he brings a sin offering in either case. What my learning partner brought up is it seems that both ריש לקיש and רבי יוחנן don't hold from this  שיטה and they are only giving a justification for רבי עקיבא. For on page :סח they openly hold from מונבז. This seems like an area that needs to be investigated. On page ס''ט all that happened was the תלמוד asked what is considered שוגג to the רבנן ורבי עקיבא and they both answered as above. That is they were saying what רבי עקיבא would hold. They were not saying that they hold of this.

The other thing is in בבא מציעא, On page ק''ד ע''ב we have the משנה saying if it is not מכת מדינה the owner of the field does not reduce the amount owed by the serf who pays a אחוז or the שוכר who pays a סכום קבוע. On page ק''ו the משנה says if it is a מכת מדינה then the amount owed is reduced.  רב פפא says the first two משניות in that chapter are talking about both a מקבל and  שוכר. The later משניות are talking about one or the other,  not both. First I don't understand רב פפא. The later משנה is  a mirror image of the second one. He must mean then that you don't lower the sum if it is not a מכת מדינה for both. And if it is, then only one is exempt.
The רמב''ם הלכות שכירות פרק ח says מנכים לשניהם in a מכת מדינה and all the other ראשונים disagree and say it is only the שוכר  who is מקבל ניכוי.
I should mention the language of the משנה in both places is not clear, The משנה talks about מקבל a serf in both places and then talks about him not owing his שכירות? A מקבל pays a אחוז, not שכירות.

What I wish to ask here is ק''ו ע''א when there is a case that it is not  רובא דבאגה which רב יבודה says is considered a מכת מדינה. Rather all the fields of the owner have been struck. The person working the land wants a reduction. We don't give it to him.
Who is asking? The שוכר or the מקבל? To the רמב''ם it could be both. To the other ראשונים at first glance it seems it has to be the שוכר because only he is the one where if there is  a מכת מדינה that gets  a ניכוי. But I think even then the גמרא might be asking about the מקבל. Maybe he wants a ניכוי because of the bad luck of the בעל השדה even if he would not get one because of a מכת מדינה.

 בשבת ס''ט. יש לנו מחלוקת בין רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש על מה שמביאים חטאת. לריש לקיש צריך להיות שהוא לא יודע שמה שעושה  הוא חטא והוא צריך לא לדעת על עונש. אם הוא יודע שזה הוא חטא, אבל לא יודע את העונש שזה נחשב שהוא עשה את זה במזיד ושהוא לא יכול להביא חטאת. רבי יוחנן אינו מסכים, ואומר שהוא מביא חטאת בכל מקרה. מה השותף הלמידה שלי אמר שנראה כי שניהם (ריש לקיש ורבי יוחנן) לא מחזיקים מהשיטה הזאת, והם נותנים רק הצטדקות לרבי עקיבא. בעמוד סח: הם מחזיקים בגלוי כמונבז. זה נראה כמו אזור שצריך להיחקר. בעמוד ס''ט כל מה שקרה היה שהתלמוד שאל מה נחשב "שוגג" לרבנן ולרבי עקיבא, ושניהם ענו כאמור לעיל. זה מה שהם אומרים שרבי עקיבא היה מחויב להחזיק, הם לא אומרים שהם מחזיקים בזה

 בבא מציעא, בדף ק''ד ע''ב יש משנה שאומרת אם זה לא מכת מדינת בעל השדה אינו מפחית את הסכום המגיע לו מן הצמית (מה שבלשון התלמוד נקרא מקבל שנותן אחוז מן העבודה שלו לבעל השדה בתור שכירות). בעמוד ק''ו המשנה אומרת אם הוא מכת מדינה בעל השדה מנכה את הסכום המגיע. רב פפא אומר שני  משניות הראשונות בפרק שמדברות על שוכר ומקבל (צמית). משניות מאוחרות  מדברות על זה או זה, לא את שניהם. ראשית אני לא מבין רב פפא. המשנה המאוחרת יותר היא תמונת ראי של הראשונה. הוא בטח אומר אז שלא להפחית את הסכום אם הוא לא מכת מדינה לשניהם. ואם כן היא מכת מדינה, אז רק אחד הוא פטור. הרמב''ם הלכות השכירה פרק ח' אומר מנכים לשניהם במכת מדינה, וכל שאר הראשונים לא מסכימים ואומרים שרק שוכר מקבל ניכוי. אני צריך להזכיר את השפה של משנה בשני המקומות לא ברור, משנה מדבר על מקבל (צמית) בשני מקומות ולאחר מכן מדברת על ניכוי שכירות? מקבל (צמית) משלם אחוז, לא שכיר. מה שאני רוצה לשאול כאן הוא ק''ו ע''א כאשר יש מקרה שזה לא "רובא דבאגה". (רב יבודה אומר "רובא דבאגה" נחשב מכת מדינה). אלא  כל השדות של בעל השדה נפגעו. האדם עובד את האדמה רוצה הפחתה. אנחנו לא מעבירים אותו אליו. מי שואל את הניכוי? שוכר או מקבל? לרמב''ם זה יכול להיות שניהם. לראשונים האחרים במבט ראשון זה נראה שזה צריך להיות השוכר כי רק הוא זה שאם יש מכת מדינה שמקבל ניכוי. אבל אני חושב שגם אז הגמרא בטח שואלת על מקבל. אולי הוא רוצה ניכוי בשל המזל הרע של בעל השדה, גם אם הוא לא יקבל ניכוי בגלל מכת מדינה.

 השותף למידה שלי אמר שמצד שני זה יכול להיות שמדובר בחוות הדעת האמיתית של רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש. אחרי הכל אין שום סיבה להם לקשור התינוק שנשבה יחד עם נושא האם חוסר הידע של עונש עושה את זה שוגג. אלה עשויים  להיות משתנים בלתי תלויים. ומה קרה בדף ס''ח ע''ב היה שרבי עקיבא היה באמצעות טיעון מדרון החלקלק. כלומר, "אם אתה מחזיק ככה גם בוא לקחת אותו לגבול עליון." וזה בדרך כלל נחשב כשל לוגי בלתי פורמאלית. אבל זה לא צריך להיות כשל לוגי. אם אני אומר לקומוניסט "הסוג של מערכת החשיבה שלך היה מוביל לתוצאות רעות כמו הרצח של בין עשרים ל חמישים מיליון", הוא יצטרך להראות מדוע אלה לא היו עקב המערכת הפוליטית. אז בוויכוח בין רבי עקיבא ומונבז, כל מה שמונבז היה צריך לעשות הוא להגיד לרבי עקיבא "אני לא מחזיק כי  צריכים לקחת את דעתי על עד סוף הגבול החיצוני. מונבז לא עשה את זה אבל  יכול להיות שרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש היו עונים את זה. הבעיה כאן היא שמונבז לומד המשפט מפסוקים, ורש''י אומר שהוא אומר את זה כגזרה שווה שאומר שאתה לוקח את כל החוקים ממקום אחד למקם השני ואותם  במקום השני למקום הראשון. כך שלמעשה לרבי עקיבא הייתה סיבה טובה לומר הטיעון כנגד מונבז. אבל גם רש''י אומר מונבז אומר שזה כמו בניין האב. זה לא היה עושה  הבדל גדול  אבל אנחנו בכלל מסתכלים על זה כמו היקש ובמקרה כזה מונבז יהיה תקין. השאלה היא מה רש''י עושה? האם זה גזרה שווה או בניין האב. ולמה לא אומר שזה פשוט היקש?

A Book on Bava Metzia  Book on Shas  both were updated. i added a bit. Also I saw one idea was not written very well in the older versions, So I had to go back and explain things.

If I would have to reduce my parent's idea of a proper education into one phrase I would say it would be: "Torah and vocation and survival skills."

My Dad was born to Jewish immigrants from Poland right after World War I.  There is a story behind this. In Poltusk, Poland, there was a Jewish family, the Rosenblums. The father was Altar Rosenblum. One of his boys left the old country and immigrated to  to NY and started a bakery on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He was  married to a Jewish girl from another Polish village. His younger brother, Yaakov, came to join him. When Yaakov arrived it was suggested that he marry the sister of the wife of the first brother. So they sent for Rivka. When she came, Yaakov and she got married. Their second son was Philip. He was sent to public school along with his older brother Alex and younger sister Ruth. He had a choice to go into doing the violin professionally, or to go the Michigan State University for Mechanical Engineering. He chose the latter. He also applied to Cal Tech and was accepted. (California Institute of Technology). That was the top university in the USA for technology at the time. MIT was second. But Philip's parents were poor immigrants so he decided to go to Michigan instead since it was $100 less expensive. By the time he graduated from Michigan his parents could also pay for Cal Tech so he went there for his master's degree.

Then World War II started. So he volunteered for the USA Air Force. He was sent to France to set up an Air Force base for the Allied airplanes. Because of his experience in engineering, he was able to sent up a system where people that knew nothing about planes would be trained in fixing just one small part of  a plane. So when damaged and planes would arrive he had a system in which he had a whole team that each member knew just one portion of the plane and they could get almost any plane up and back into action with a few hours. His main obligations were for a group of B-29 Bombers. He was the captain of the group. (In Air Force terminology that means  flight commander- the leader of a pack of B-29 bombers going into battle.)
After the war, he met my mother, Leila Freeman. She was also from a family of immigrants from Poland. (Dorthy Solomon and Isaac Freeman were her parents.) They lived in NJ. Philip met her on a beach. He was with a group of  friends, and someone suggested that they go over  say hello to the group of girls that was at the beach at the same time.

He worked at the time for the USA Army at Fort Monmouth NJ. That is where he invented a kind of camera that could focus Infra Red rays into a coherent image. And that is when he had a article written about him in Life Magazine.

They had three boys. I am the middle. My first memories are from public school in Newport Beach California where they had moved. Philip had been recruited by  again to build a camera for the highly secret U-2 project. So he flew off to Area 51 every week. Later he was asked to join the SDI project at the height of the Cold War  (Star Wars). So we moved to Beverly Hills which was in commuting distance from TRW where his laboratory was located.

The main thing that I was hoping to get to was the main thing in this narrative was family vacations, skiing, sailing, and going to the beach every weekend. This was their way of parenting. We just would spend time together as a family. And they never argued. There was an amazing love and aura of peace and wholeness about them.  Their main principle was to be  a "mensch"--a decent human being.
We  believed in Torah--the Oral and Written Law of Moses. [That means to say that we went to a very good Reform Temple in Hollywood, but we placed much more emphasis on Torah that the official Reform doctrine.] But I should mention that we were not religious fanatics. And my parents also thought that it is not good to be a crazed, religious fanatic.  Learning Torah and keeping Torah is important. But their idea of what it means to learn and keep Torah was  based on how their were taught by their parents who were simple working Jews from Eastern European Shtettles. And that was very far away from religious fanaticism.

Their approach was balance. And that is an approach that I try to keep to.

I was philosophically inclined and as a teenager I would talk to my mother about my ideas when I got home from school. I also showed interest in Physics and my parents encouraged me in this direction. All my years in High school I had a college textbook of Collage Physics that I read from time to time. But I have no talent in that direction.  I tried to explain this to my Mom  I said that I thought I would try to go into the violin thing. She said, "If so then you have to spend at least 6 hours a day practicing." But even a lot of practice had a "law of limited returns" for me. So I was not good at anything I tried my hand at.  At some point I got interested in learning Torah more than what had been in our home and wanted to go to yeshiva. My parents were against this. And time showed that they were right. There are two kinds of Torah learning. One is what is called לשמה for its own sake. That means one does not make money from it or get other kinds social benefits. The other kind is for social benefit and money. They thought that yeshivas were mainly about the later--that is to use Torah for some alternative benefit. And this they thought was wrong.
To some degree they are right. But as for the two yeshivas were I learned I think that both places were very much into learning Torah for its own sake.

They also had a concern about making an honest living and not depending on charity. Plus the whole idea of being in yeshiva and learning only Torah implied a kind of lack of balance or fanaticism that they disapproved of.  Later on I began to appreciate their point of view.  But this was all my own fault. Neither yeshiva in NY was saying anything about being fanatic. My first Rosh yeshiva (Rav Friefeld) told me to spend half a day going to university. (And Reb Shmuel Berenbaum also had nothing against university if it for making a living. That is what he told me openly word for word.) And the second place {The Mir in  NY} also was simply concentrating on learning Torah but no one said it could be used as means to make  a living.

My Dad had a major principle, i.e.,  to be self sufficient.


I think if I had known about the way of learning of the Talmud in Tractate Shabat page 63A of saying the words and going on-- I probably could have gone into Physics. The trouble I think was I did not have method of learning by which I could understand. I discovered that that even if I don't get it at first it gets absorbed by osmosis.

I think I had a spiritual connection with my parents. This is something you see in the Ari and I definitely felt it.

This is all the bare outline. There is more to tell about our trips to go skiing and sailing but perhaps I will leave that to another time since it seems like almost a new topic.

More details:
1) My Dad left TRW before the scandal about the Russian spy emerged. {That was the event in which the KGB found found a janitor inside of TRW who was able to steal the plans for the SDI project.} My Dad's reason for leaving was that there were many very talented engineers being trained by USA universities in more modern technologies and that they were going to be hired and that he was going to be fired. So he left before that could happen. The scandal about the Russia spy emerged afterwards and then TRW went under.
2) Then my Dad tried his hand at different projects. He made improvements in our home in Beverly Hills and sold it at a profit. And began to do the same with other real estate properties. And he invested heavily in the Stock Market and never took the advice of any stock broker. He said, "The fastest way to lose money on the stock market is to take the advice of stock brokers." He investigated every company he invested in. His business abilities were inherited by my brothers.

3) My mother got sick and died right after I went to yeshiva. This was a terrible blow to my father and us brothers. It is very hard to describe my mother. Mainly she took her responsibilities towards her husband and her children with the highest degree of serious that any human being can summon. And this included her loyalty and love towards her own parents and sisters.
That means she spent all of her time raising her children properly, cleaning house, getting us to school and then after school violin and piano lessons and working herself on part time jobs  like typing as secretary. It was on the way to a violin lesson when she told me how she wanted to be buried--in  plain pine box. She never had the chance to get old but she did ask me and my brothers never to put her in an old age home. This she said every  time when that I or my brothers asked her what we could do for her in gratitude of all she was doing for us.
She and my Dad had a horror about being dependent on other people's favors. Self sufficiency was their prime directive.
The idea of self sufficiency came up in many situations. For just one example I was not allowed to use teh ski lift until I could walk up the mountain on my own two feet and ski down. And that is exactly what I did. Only then was I allowed to go up on the ski lift. Another example was the slide rule. You can do calculation instantly with the slide rule. But my Dad did not let me use it until I could do the same kind of calculations by hand. That is to say my brothers and I were taught to be self sufficient. That was the reason also that we were sent to join the boy scouts in order to learn outdoor skills. But again I should mention my parents had a very abundant quantity and quality of common sense. They would never send us to the boy scouts today and would be horrified even if we would want to go on our own.

If I would have to reduce their idea of a proper education into one phrase I would say it would be: "Torah and vocation and survival skills."