A song of praise to God q89 Edited  e33 mathematics mmog j1  js1 b104

kabalah center

People think the kabalah center is a problem because it does not emphasize the aspect of doing mitzvot but in fact that is a good thing. It is when you combine kabalah with mitzvot that delusions about being the messiah begin. So the Kabalah center is the best place for learning authentic Jewish Mysticism. All other places teach the mysticism of Shabatai Tzvi  along with the energies of the Sitra Achra.
 People may not talk about it but this is definitely what they are thinking.
The smart people are able to hide their delusions from the general public and present a spiffy public image.
 If you would take the teachings of Natan, the false prophet, out of the religious world, it would collapse. That is-- all but the Litvak yeshivas. But the rest of it depends highly for its spiritual energy and teachings of Natan. It is not that this was done on purpose. It was basically innocent. You had people going to the wide spread groups the Shatz that were in every town in the Ukraine. Later these same people were the same one that got involved with the Ball Shem Tov. They just brought their understandings of the Ari along with them.

So for people that are interested in the more mystic side of Torah what I recommend is not learning anything later than the Ari and Reb Chaim Vital themselves. You can be guaranteed that everything that came later is, without knowing, using the ideas and energies of the Dark Side that Natan Haazati was sucked into.

I think personally that a better way to get attached with God is by learning Gemara and Musar [basic books of Jewish ethics written during the Middle Ages]. This more "yeshivish" kind of approach I think is a lot more effective in terms of getting to "Devkut."--attachment with God. I can see that some people do this later approach, and still do not seem to get to where you would hope, but still this is an approach which I found worked for me some time ago. Sadly I was not able to keep it up. But if true spirituality is what you are looking for then my impression is nothing beats learning Gemara along with Musar. [I don't do a fast session because of various excuses. But if possible I think one fast session and one slow (in depth) one in Gemara is a good approach.]
[But I admit I can't answer for people that this does not work for. I can only tell over my own experience.]
I terms of Musar I also recommend the books of Israel Salanter's disciples. I find them to be  a great help for me to set me straight.

The Ari, Isaac Luria

There are few that really know the writings of Isaac Luria well. But even among the few that know Kabalah well there is a tendency to go into pretty bad stuff. I have no idea why this is.

It is almost for sure that if you see someone learning Kabalah that they think they are the messiah, or if they have some famous person they follow they are thinking of this famous person as the messiah.

But it rarely stops there. It is amazing to see the worlds of delusion they get into.

This in itself would be a good reason to critical of the Ari's writings except that it seems to me most of the problems come from the teachings of people that came after the Ari and were unknowingly influenced by the Shatz. It is astounding to me to discover most of the most basic teachings that got into the religious world have their origin in Nathan the false prophet of the Shatz. The truth be told, this is not well known because most people have not learned the writings of Natan. If they would and then look at the religious world today, they would see what I mean. It is not subtle but in your face in a way that you can't ignore.

I do not like to dwell on this, but just to conclude I want to say that there is good reason  Lithuanian yeshivas discourage any and all mystic practices and rather concentrate of the Talmud, Musar and learning a kosher vocation.

A nice list of good points I saw on someone's blog.

Liberty

1. I am a Caucasian of Irish and Italian descent, whose parents were immigrants from those lands.
2. My loyalties are to my family and the United States of America. I would defend either or both to the death. Apart from a mortgage and a car loan, I owe nothing else to anyone.
3. What matters most to me about others is their character: their willingness to respect the rights of others and to discharge their proper responsibilities, without whining about any of it.
4. I believe that there is an American culture, and that it is infinitely superior to all the other cultures of the world, past or present. More, I believe that Americans are the finest people in the world -- that no other land produces anything remotely comparable to our general standard of decency, justice, generosity, or good humor.
5. I believe that the races, as conventionally defined, differ in various ways. The importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
6. I believe that the sexes differ in various ways. As with racial differences, the importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
7. I believe that homosexual sodomy is self-destructive, but that, at least in certain cases, sexual orientation can be changed.
8. I believe that there is such a thing as general intelligence, that it is at least partly inherited, and that it varies widely.
9. I believe that the handicapped should receive our sympathy and compassion as individuals to other individuals, but that they are not entitled to more as a matter of right.
10. I believe that laws that mandate preferred treatment for the members of any group, however defined, are both unConstitutional and destructive.
11. I hold these convictions not because anyone else holds them, but because the evidence of my senses and my own powers of reasoning have led me to them.

_______________________________________________________________________

I have to add that I am in agreement with all the above except for the first sentence. My ancestors were all Polish Jews. But outside of that everything else I am in agreement with. My parents were born in the USA and my father served the USA honorably as captain in the U.S. Air Force and afterwards also. 


I looked at that person's blog a few times and he has some very good points and I recommend looking at it. It seems to me to be one of the very best on the Internet.

I am a little unhappy with "tzadik worship."

I am a little unhappy with "tzadik worship." While I can see that following  a true tzadik  has benefits,-- still this tends to change from worship of God to worship of the tzadik.  There is a separate problem also of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is something the Gra said was the problem with the whole  movement that he put into excommunication. That is it is a mixture of good and negative energies.  You can actually see when people get absorbed into the negative energies. Still, it seems clear that I myself and others need an example of human perfection to follow. If we don't follow a true tzadik, we often tend to follow some phony tzadik.

I sometimes open up the Chayai Moharan and find things that indicate that Reb Natan really meant to turn the whole thing into a kind of tzadik centered thing. This does not seem to be to be along the lines of the world view of the Torah [Old Testament and the Talmud] which to me seem to be more centered on worship of God. It may seem to some people to be a subtle shift in focus,- but to me it seems to be  a major change in world view.

But I admit, worship of  almost any true tzadik does not bother me as much as when people worship a false tzadik. A false tzadik is someone with great powers and what seems like Ruach HaKodesh [רוח הקודש] but it come from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil [the kelipa that is an  admixture of good and evil]. Or from the Dark Side itself. We can find examples of that easily. Just check the history of the Shatz movement. Professor Gershom Sholem wrote a few very important books about that movement that contain valuable information. For example people think when someone does something that is  miracle  that automatically qualifies them as a true tzadik. However we find that people did miracles in the name of Shabati Tzvi that surpassed anything reported about  Israel Baal Shem.
People that had never even seen Shabatai Tzvi revived the dead just by saying, "In the name of Shabatai Zvi, I command you to get up". So miracles mean a lot. They mean someone is getting powers from the side of Good -or from the Dark Side,- or from the kelipa that is a mixture--the Intermediate Zone.

[Because of the above mentioned considerations, I think the best thing is to learn and keep straight Torah--as you can find being done in Lithuanian kinds of yeshivas.]

There is really a lot to discuss here.  Israel Baal Shem was a great tzadik. However in every town in Ukraine was a group of Shatzniks and there were the people that he tried to bring back in teshuva. So there is no great thing in being a "disciple of the Baal Shem Tov". These were the people that went on Friday night to where the action was--to the Shatz group, --not to the local rosh yeshiva. The result is easy to see. Go to HU and xerox the three books of Natan, the false prophet of the Shatz, and you will see what you are being taught as something kosher is really from the Dark Side.

All the above shows you why Litvaks stick with Gemara.

sin

I am pretty sure about some sins. I did things based on what I thought at the time were good reasons, but turned out to have disastrous consequences for myself and family. Those were about 4 major sins. All of them involved leaving some area of value. But besides that I figured that I had not just left some area of value but as a result I ended up joining some area of negative value.
But besides all this I also figure that when I suffer from some evil person, that there must be something of that same kind of evil in me,-- I mean as a kind of mirror effect.

All this is based on אין יסוריים בלי עוון there are no suffering that does not have a sin. But also on a statement of Rabbi Ishmael: One who has transgresses a positive command and repents does not move unless he has been forgiven.
If a negative  command then repentance covers and Yom Kippur cleanses.
If a negative command that has Karet or the death penalty then repentance covers but suffering cleanses. If it is חילול השם then only death brings forgiveness.

The things however that I think I need to repent on are not exactly in these categories. Leaving Israel is one thing. That was based on my thinking of Israel as a bad thing as is common among strictly religious people. The other sins are like that. They would not normally be considered things that there is a specific command against. They were just more subtle kinds of mistakes but with large repercussions.

Of course there are lots of things I have been accused of by very wicked people which are all lies. But though people do lie about me often, still they are only accusing me of things they can understand. My real sins are not things anyone can understand. They are more subtle. But also infinitely more serious.

In any case that leaves me with the rest of humanity in a dilemma.  How to pick ourselves up from the pit we have fallen into? It is in answer to this kind of question that I write on my blog about the importance of learning Torah in a Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva. It may not be a perfect solution but from what I can tell it is the best thing out there. At least in this way I can find out what I have done wrong and maybe even begin to correct things. But without learning straight, unadulterated Torah how can I or anyone find out what we have done wrong? Without that we are as likely as not to find some evil path that appeals to us and to claim it is good. With straight Torah, that possibility is less likely.

Bava Metzia 104

Ideas in Talmud
Ideas in Bava Metzia



I should admit that my previous ideas on Bava Metzia 104 I think were mistaken based on the fact I was going with the approach of the Maharshal and I think now that approach is impossible to defend.

But at any rate, we now have to figure out Tosphot and the Rif.

I already dealt with the Rif in a previous note. But the Rif could also say the Gemara in Bava Metzia is simply like R Yehoshua Ben Karcha and that is not the law. Or like I said before he could say the cases are different.

But what about Tosphot? To Tosphot the law is like Shmuel and the Gemara in Shavuot says that is only when he explained the pledge is against the whole loan. This does not look like the Gemara in BM. There here gets the whole pledge whether he said it is for the whole loan or not. The only difference is the amount the pledge went down in value.  Changing to Rashi's version in BM would help except for the continuation of the Gemara that says "טעמא דכתב ליה."


Tosphot might say that Rabbi Yochanan meant to lender can get the pledge from the orphans but only according to the amount of the loan if it was not said openly that the pledge is for the whole loan. Or that he meant he gets it from the orphans until the loan is paid. But no matter what Tosphot would do with R Yochanan it would not be how the gemara understands R Yochanan. So it could be I will have to revert to the same answers I gave for the Rif. [The two places  don't agree. Or maybe we could say the Gemara in Bava Metzia is just going according to R Yehoshu Ben Karcha. The reason I did not want to answer this is they ask from Rabbi Yochanan. But maybe that is not a problem. The Gemara might want to get R Yehoshua as close to the halacha as possible but that does not mean they think that he is the Halacha.]

The two places  don't agree. Or maybe we could say the גמרא in בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א is just going according to רבי יהושע בן קרחה. The reason I did not want to answer this is גמרא ask from רבי יוחנן. But maybe that is not a problem. The גמרא might want to get רבי יהושע בן קרחה as close to the הלכה as possible but that does not mean they think that he is the הלכה.



שני מקומות לא מסכימים. או שאולי נוכל לומר הגמרא בבבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א היא רק הולכת לפי רבי יהושע בן קרחה. הסיבה שאני לא רציתי לענות את זה מקודם היא שהגמרא שואלת מרבי יוחנן. אבל אולי זה לא בעיה. הגמרא ייתכן שהיא תרצה לקרב רבי יהושע בן קרחה  להלכה ככל האפשר אבל זה לא אומר שהם חושבים שהוא כן לפי הלכה





_______________________________


________________________________________________



I already dealt with the רי''ף in a previous note. But the רי''ף could also say the גמרא in ב''מ is simply like רבי יהושע בן קרחה and that is not the law. Or like I said before he could say the cases are different.

But what about תוספות? To תוספות the law is like שמואל and the גמרא in שבועות says that is only when he explained the משכון is against the whole הלוואה. This does not look like the גמרא in ב''מ. There here gets the whole משכון whether he said it is for the whole הלוואה or not. The only difference is the amount the משכון went down in value.  Changing to רש''י version in ב''מ would help except for the continuation of the גמרא that says "טעמא דכתב ליה."


תוספות might say that רבי יוחנן meant to lender can get the משכון from the orphans but only according to the monetary amount of the משכון if it was not said openly that the משכון is for the whole הלוואה. Or that he meant he gets it from the orphans until the הלוואה is paid. But no matter what תוספות would do with רבי יוחנן it would not be how the גמרא understands רבי יוחנן. So it could be I will have to revert to the same answers i gave for the רי''ף.

אני כבר עסקתי ברי''ף בהערה קודמת. אבל רי''ף יכול גם לומר הגמרא בב''מ היא פשוט כמו רבי יהושע בן קרחה וזה לא החוק. או כמו שאמרתי לפני כן שהן מדברות על מקרים שונים. אבל מה עם תוספות? לתוספות החוק היא כמו שמואל והגמרא בשבועות אומרת שרק כאשר הוא הסביר המשכון הוא נגד כל ההלוואה. זה לא נראה כמו הגמרא בב''מ.  כאן בב''מ המלווה מקבל את כל המשכון בין אם הוא אמר  שהוא עבור כל ההלוואה או לא. ההבדל היחיד הוא אם המשכון ירד בערך. ולענות לפי גרסת רש''י בשבועות לא יעזור בגלל המשך הגמרא בב''מ שאומרת "טעמא דכתב ליה." לתוספות אפשר לומר שרבי יוחנן התכוון שהמלווה יכול לקבל המשכון מהיתומים  רק בהתאם לסכום כספי של החוב אם זה לא נאמר בגלוי שהמשכון הוא לכל ההלוואה. או שהוא התכוון שהוא מקבל אותו מהיתומים עד ההלוואה משולמת. אבל לא משנה איך  שתוספות יפרשו רבי יוחנן, שזה לא יהיה איך שהגמרא מבינה רבי יוחנן. אז יכול להיות שאני אצטרך לחזור לאותן תשובות שנתתי לרי''ף ולומר שגם הן לתוספות