There is a thing as learning the Ari in depth.[That is Isaac Luria.] The surprising thing is that the people that are supposed to be so called "mekubalim" never know the Ari at all. They are all frauds. There is one fellow however, Michael Kohler, who I discovered actually did the work and knows it well. He apparently thinks that the head of a Kabalah yeshiva also knows it well but I think he is wrong about that.  The head of the Kabalah yeshiva just wrote  a book of "look here and look there" so it sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

What is surprising about this is the complexity of the Ari is no where near that of a a single Tosphot. It is not hard at all. But it takes a lot of work. [But still It is nothing compared to Field Theory.]  Even with that degree of simplicity, all the people that are supposed to know it are frauds.

What does this matter? The point that I am driving at is that it is worth doing this work. The reason I think it is be worthwhile is that attachment with God [Devekut] is a result of this learning when it is done right.

There is a well known problem with this kind of learning. And we do find the Ari himself warned about this at the end of the few books on the Torah itself. שער הפסוקים is one place. In any case  avoiding the frauds is the first order of business. The way to do this is actually quite simple. Do the regular Torah learning in a normal Straight Lithuanian Yeshiva. Then after you have gone trough Shas a couple of time [that is in a fast session] then you get the set of the Ari from the Kabalah Institute. They have the best edition. And then you learn the Eitz Chaim many times, or the Mavo Shearim, which are both the major sources needed to know the system of the Ari.

And don't go near anything later than that. The trouble with the later supposedly mystic stuff is it all is drawn from the false prophet of the Shatz and just reading it infects the people that read it with that energy from the Sitra Achra which does not have a cure as far as I have seen. It is fatal to one's spirit and soul. I never saw anyone that fell for it that did not die spiritually from it. [After the  Ari, Yaakov Abuchatzaira,  and Shalom Sharabi are the only ones that I think are OK.]

Still on the subject of the previous essay. The question of conflict between mitzvot is brought up in Yevamot and in Bava Metzia pgs 29  and 82a. עשה דוחה לא תעשה אבל אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה. [A positive mitzvah pushes off a negative mitzvah, but not a negative mitvah that has as its penalty cutting off from one's people] That is a long sugia in the beginning of Yevamot. Also העוסק המצווה פטור מן המצווה. [One who is doing a mitzvah does not interrupt in order to do another mitzvah] That is the פרוטה של רב יוסף in Bava Metzia. There you see even if one is involved in a small mitzvah, he does not have to interrupt in order to do a great mitzvah. For example one has found a lost object like a towel. Since he has a category of a guard he does not have to give charity even if a poor person walks up to him and asks for charity. And Raba does not disagree that if it would be the case that a poor person asks that he is not obligated and in fact should not interrupt. It is just that Raba says we don't say he is making a profit because a poor person might ask for charity.

One of the issues that come up from this are the fact that lots of time you find yourself learning in a shul and just because some jerk decides he wants to daven Mincha, he expects you to interrupt your learning to answer Amen and stand up for Kedusha. Not only is this rude, but it is specifically against the Halacha. One who is doing one mitzvah even a small one does not have to interrupt in order to do another mitzvah.

We do find that one that is learning is allowed to interrupt to do another mitzvah, but he does not have to. That is as the Gra explains that Mishna in Peach "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם"

This sugia also comes up in Suka where it brings that the newly married person does not have to say the Shema. I think I might have brought this up before hand with the Baal HaMeor and the Ramban in some blog entry. In any case what you find at the Kotel or in many other places that people expect one to interrupt his learning to say Kedusha is  just a power play to get control over other people.


But it does not end there. The truth is this is symptomatic of  a larger problem. People just don't care about learning Torah. Not those that learn and not those that don't.  To those that learn it is a job they are getting paid for. So they don't care because, כל דאשתמש בתגא חלף ["Anyone that uses the Torah as a means to make money loses their portion in the next world--that is how the Rambam explains that Mishna.] Those that don't learn as we can see just do not think it does anything. They might think many other things are important--maybe supporting some movement or going to some tzadik, or maybe even learning Kabalah. But straight Oral and written law not.

[There is a kind of permission to accept charity if you are learning Torah. But once there are conditions when and where you have to learn, then is devolves into learning for money. ]


In any case I would like to write more about this subject but I feel it would be better to wait and see if perhaps Rav Shach wrote something about this.[My learning partner is not interested in this subject. And without Rav Shach I doubt if I can find much clarity in it. There are too many loose ends. and principles flying around.]

________________________________________________________________________________

 The question of conflict between מצוות is brought up in יבמות and in בבא מציעא כ''ט  and פ''ב ע''א. עשה דוחה לא תעשה אבל אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה.
That is a long סוגיא in the beginning of יבמות. Also העוסק המצווה פטור מן המצווה. That is the פרוטה של רב יוסף in ב''מ. There you see even if one is involved in a small מצווה, he does not have to interrupt in order to do a great מצווה. For example one has found a lost object. Since he has a category of a שומר he does not have to give charity even if a poor person walks up to him and asks for charity. And רבה does not disagree that if it would be the case that a poor person asks that he is not obligated and in fact should not interrupt. It is just that רבה says we don't say he is making a profit because a poor person might ask for charity. זה לפי תוספות

One of the issues that come up from this are the fact that lots of time you find yourself learning in a  and just because someone  decides he wants to להתפלל מנחה he expects you to interrupt your learning to answer אמן and stand up for קדושה. Not only is this rude, but it is specifically against כלל, העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה

We do find that one that is learning is allowed to interrupt to do another mitzvah, but he does not have to. That is as the גר''א explains that משנה in פאה "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם"

This סוגיא also comes up in סוכה where it brings that the newly married person does not have to say the שמע.

_____________________________________________________________________

יבמות פרק א' ובבא מציעא כ''ט ופ''ב ע''א. עשה דוחה לא יעשה אבל אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה. זה סוגיא ארוכה בתחילת יבמות. גם עוסק מצווה פטורה מן המצווה. זה פרוטה של רב יוסף ב''מ. יש לך לראות אפילו אם בן אדם מעורב במצווה קטנה, הוא לא צריך להפסיק כדי לעשות מצווה גדולה. לדוגמא אחד מצא אבדה. מאז יש לו קטגוריה של שומר הוא לא צריך לתת צדקה אפילו אם אדם עני ניגש אליו ושואל לצדקה. ורבה מסכים שאם זה יהיה המקרה שאדם עני שואל כי הוא אינו מחויב, ולמעשה לא צריך להפסיק.   רבה אמר שאנחנו לא אומרים ששומר אבדה עושה רווח, כי אדם עני עלול לבקש צדקה. זה לפי תוספות. העולה מזה הוא כשאתה מוצא את עצמך לומד  ומישהו מחליט שהוא רוצה להתפלל המנחה והוא מצפה ממך להפסיק את הלמידה שלך לענות אמן ולעמוד לקדושה . זה נגד כלל העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה. אנו מוצאים שאחד שלומד מותר להפסיק לעשות מצווה אחרת, אבל הוא לא צריך. זה כמו הגר''א מסביר את המשנה בפאה "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם"

613 commandments (mitzvot)

In some perfect world each of the 613 commandments of the Torah might not interfere one with the other. [This would be in the world of the dinge an sich or the platonic realms] But in this world they do interfere. Even if you know how much weight to give to each one [as in a weighted function] there would still be conflict. [And these conflicts  have to exist in the real world as I explained else concerning Ontological Un-decidablity.]

The way I explained this was based on the idea of computer modeling.That is the way it was done originally was by tree diagrams. If you are at step A, then you ask some question. If the answer is "Yes" then go to B, and if the answer is "No" then go instead to C. This way turned out to be inefficient. [This is still how Halacha is written. And that is not a bad thing. One does need to know the basic principles of Torah.]

Instead, what programmers discovered was swarming techniques. [This based on birds and bees.] That is you look for the basic pattern of what you want. That is the reason the Rambam {Maimonides} explains the reasons for the Mitzvot. This is to give an idea of where you want to go. That is what kind of pattern you want to get to in the  end. Then you know how far to take each mitzvah. You know what limit each mitzvah has, and you know that it is not meant to be taken to infinity but has a context with the other mitzvot and the result is supposed to be something like the basic ideas the Rambam gives there in the Guide for the Perplexed.


This is related to the sugia in Bava Metzia at the end of chapter 9. There we have the argument between R. Yehuda and R. Shimon. In that sugia we see that the Sages thought the reasons for the mitzvot were known. the question was whether to go by the reason or by the actual words in the Torah. In that sugia the Rambam decides like R Yehuda that we go by what the verse says and not by the reason for the law. In Yevamot the Rambam decided the opposite way. That is in the argument about whom it is forbidden to marry. The seven Canaanite nations or all nations. The Magid Mishna goes into the question of how the Rambam can hold the rope at both ends--i.e. decide by one opinion in one place and the opposite opinion in another. [I had hoped to do this subject with my learning partner so I could understand it better, but I ran off to Israel right before we got there. Perhaps Rav Shach deals with this? There are two places where Rav Shach might deal with this. One is the sugia in Bava Metzia, and the other is that sugia in Yevamot. But in my session with my learning partner we have not gotten to either area yet.]

In a practical sense these areas of moral conflict provide the area where free will operates.  That is there are two kinds of free will. One is to choose good or evil. The other is when there is a conflict between two goods, which one do you follow? And what is your criteria? Your criteria might be the evil inclination and you might not be aware of it. You might think you are just going according to halacha but you might not be aware you desire to go by halacha stems from a desire to fit in with a certain social group. That is not necessarily and bad thing but it is a simple function of our animal nature. There is no mitzvah involved with it.

This is relevant to many questions. For example, we find people that try to undermine Christian society. They tend to side with Muslims and Blacks and anyone else that is against Christian values.
But if we look at the Rambam's reason for the Mitzvot, we can see they boil down to a bare minimum of a few simple principles. One is "peace of the country." In what kind society do you want to live? I would imagine not in the Sudan or Saadia Arabia. Why not? Because in Christian society you have "peace of the country." So trying to undermine this, goes against one of the most important and fundamental teachings of the Torah. Besides all of that, this attempt to undermine Christian society has been noticed. And it might has already led to bad consequences, and still does.
[Living in Israel we find we can no longer blame the problems on living among the nations. The conflicts among ourselves are multiplied many times over more than what was common when we were living in exile.]




Another obvious area of conflict is "Honor your father and mother." Naphtali Troup [one of the Torh giants in the time of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik has a nice essay on this in the Chidushei HaGarnat].
I tend to this is mitzvah is not given as much weight as it deserves. At least in my own case, my parents obviously had a much better idea of what it means to keep Torah than I did.


________________________________________________________________________________

In a perfect world each of the תרי''ג commandments of the תורה might not interfere one with the other.  But in this world they do interfere. Even if you know how much weight to give to each one [as in a weighted function] there would still be conflict.

The way I explained this  was based on the idea of מודלים מחשבים. That is the way it was done originally was by tree diagrams. If you are at  step 'א, then you ask a question. If the answer is yes, then go to step 'ב, and if the answer is no then go instead to ג'. This way turned out to be inefficient. This is still how הלכה is written. And that is not a bad thing. One does need to know the basic principles of Torah.

Instead, what programmers discovered was swarming techniques. This based on birds and bees. That is you look for the basic pattern of what you want. That is the reason the רמב''ם explains the reasons for the מצוות. This is to give an idea of where you want to go. That is what kind of pattern you want to get to in the  end. Then you know how far to take each מצווה. You know what limit each מצווה has. and you know that it is not meant to be taken to infinity but has a context with the other מצוות and the result is supposed to be something like the basic ideas the רמב''ם gives there in the מורה נבוכים.


This is related to the סוגיה in בבא מציעא at the end of chapter ט. There we have the argument between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. In that סוגיא we see that the חכמים thought the reasons for the מצוות were known. the question was whether to go by the reason or by the actual words in the Torah. In that סוגיא the רמב''ם decides like רבי יהודה that we go by what the verse says and not by the reason for the law. In יבמות the רמב''ם decided the opposite way. That is in the argument about whom it is forbidden to marry. The שבעה עממים or all גויים. The מגיד משנה goes into the question of how the רמב''ם can hold the rope at both ends i.e. decide by one opinion in one place and the opposite opinion in another.


In a practical sense these areas of moral conflict provide the area where free will operates.  That is there are two kinds of free will. One is to choose good or evil. The other is when there is a conflict between two goods, which one do you follow? And what is your criteria? Your criteria might be the evil inclination and you might not be aware of it. You might think you are just going according to halacha but you might not be aware you desire to go by halacha stems from a desire to fit in with a certain social group. That is not necessarily and bad thing but it is a simple function of our animal nature. There is no mitzvah involved with it.



But if we look at the רמב''ם reason for the מצוות, we can see they boil down to a bare minimum of a few simple principles. One is "peace of the country." In what kind society do you want to live? I would imagine not in the Sudan or Saadia Arabia. Why not? Because in Christian society you have "peace of the country." So trying to undermine this, goes against one of the most important and fundamental teachings of the Torah. Besides all of that, this attempt to undermine Christian society has been noticed. And it might has already led to bad consequences, and still does.





Another obvious area of conflict is   כבד את אביך ואת אמך

______________________________________________________________________________





בעולם מושלם כל אחת מתרי''ג מצוות התורה לא יכולות להפריע אחת עם השני. אבל בעולם הזה הן מפריעות. גם אם אתה יודע כמה משקל לתת לכל אחת מהן [כמו בפונקציה משוקללת] עדיין יהיה קונפליקט. הדרך שהסברתי זאת הייתה מבוססת על הרעיון של מודלי מחשבים.  הדרך שזה נעשה  היתה בדיאגרמות עץ. אם אתה נמצא בשלב 'א, אז אתה שואל  שאלה. אם התשובה היא כן, לאחר מכן עבור לשלב ב', ואם התשובה היא לא אז ללכת לג'. הדרך הזו התבררה להיות לא יעילה. זה עדיין איך הלכה כתובה. וזה לא דבר רע.  צריכים לדעת את העקרונות הבסיסיים של תורה. במקום זאת, מה שמתכנתים גילו שרצויות טכניקות  מבוססות על ציפורים ודבורים. זה אתה מחפש את התבנית הבסיסית של מה שאתה רוצה. זו הסיבה שהרמב''ם מסביר את הסיבות המצוות. זה הוא לתת מושג שבאיזה כיוון אתה רוצה ללכת. זה איזה סוג של דפוס שאתה רוצה להגיע בסוף. אז אתה יודע כמה רחוק לקחת כל מצווה. אתה יודע מה הגבול לכל מצווה. ואתה יודע שזה לא אמור לקחת עד אינסוף אבל יש הקשר עם מצוות האחרים והתוצאה אמורה להיות משהו כמו הרעיונות הבסיסיים רמב''ם נותן שם במורה הנבוכים. זה קשור להסוגיה בבא מציעא בסוף הפרק ט'. יש לנו הוויכוח בין רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון. בסוגיא אנו רואים שחכמים חשבו סיבות מצוות  ידועות. השאלה הייתה האם ללכת על פי הסיבה או על יפי המילים בפועל כתובות בתורה. בסוגיא הרמב''ם מחליט כמו רבי יהודה שנלך לפי מה שאומר הפסוק ולא על פי הסיבה לחוק. ביבמות הרמב''ם החליט בכיוון ההפוך. זה בגיון עם מי אסור להתחתן. שבעת עמים או כל גויים. המגיד משנה נכנס לשאלה כיצד הרמב''ם יכול להחזיק את החבל בשני קצותיו, כלומר להחליט על  דעה אחת במקום אחד, והדעה ההפוכה באחר. במובן מעשי אזורי עימות המוסרי אלה מספקים האזור שבו חופשי רצון פועל. כלומר יש שני סוגים של רצון חופשי. אחת הוא לבחור בטוב או לרע. האחר הוא כאשר יש סכסוך בין שני ערכים. ומה הוא הקריטריונים? הקריטריונים  עשויים להיות היצר הרע ובן אדם לא יכול להיות מודע לכך. אתה חושב שאולי אתה פשוט הולך על פי הלכה, אבל אתה לא יכול להיות מודע שהרצון ללכת על פי ההלכה נובעת מרצון להשתלב עם קבוצה חברתית מסוימת. זה לא בהכרח דבר רע ואבל זה פונקציה פשוטה של הטבע החייתי שלנו. אין מצווה מעורבת עם זה. זה רלוונטי לשאלות רבות. לדוגמא,  אנו מוצאים אנשים שמנסים לחתור תחת חברה נוצרית. הם נוטים לצדד במוסלמים ושחורים וכל אחד אחר שהוא נגד ערכים נוצריים. אבל אם אנחנו מסתכלים על הסיבות של הרמב''ם למצוות, אנו יכולים לראות שהם מסתכמים במינימום של כמה עקרונות פשוטים. אחת מהן הוא "שלום של המדינה." באיזה סוג החברה אתה רוצה לחיות? אני מתאר לעצמי שלא בסודאן או סעדיה הסעודית. למה לא? כי בחברה נוצרית שיש לך "שלום של המדינה." אז לנסות לערער את זה, הולך נגד  התורה. מלבד כל זה, הניסיון לפגוע בחברה נוצרית כבר הבחינה. וזה אולי כבר הביא לתוצאות רעות, ועדיין עושה. תחום נוסף ברור של סכסוך הוא כבד את האב ואת אימך

Music for the glory of the God of Israel

q1 q3 q30 q31 q36  q37  q38 b100 b101 orchestra piece b105 q40 q41 e39 e36  q89   j93
e71 e72 e69  q43 q45 q44 6/8 time b36
j1 j2 j6 j7 n51 edited n52 n53 p120
I edited q89 a little. It probably needs more. n52 also seems to need edting

This is on Google drive because the way these files sound on Midi is not very great.

here is q36 in mp4 I would put it on utube but that seems to be hard for me to accomplish. I seem to need to put some pictures with it.

The Left's position is that all people are equal and by nature good [noble savage]

The Left's position is that all people are equal and by nature good [noble savage] and any differences in material goods come from exploitation, and ought to be eliminated. Combine this with the idea that it is the right of every person to have the same amount of goods as you have and you get the situation in the USA today. Though this is supposed to be scientific, it is at odds with Darwin. With Darwin we have the idea that one species can divide into different species. The way that begins is by race. The two groups are separated for some time and develop along different lines. At some point what began as a separation of race becomes a separation of species. And fighting this process is fighting nature. And in this case I think Nature will win. And that fighting nature is going to be destructive to those who fight. Nature will win and she will take revenge on those who thought they could out-wit her.

This has implications for Jewish people. We tend to do well in Christian society. And we do not like being kicked out of Christian society. But we don't want to be Christian. But among ourselves we can find the problems that we faced in Christian society become multiplied many times over in Jewish society. An American Jew in Israel is sure to find a Sephardi Jew that will stop at nothing to get him thrown out of the city or area he lives in. By and large Sephardi people in an Ashekenzic environment will be cold and polite, but nothing beyond that. But in a Sephardi environment, there will always be at least one that will make it his life's mission to get rid of an Ashkenazic Jew.
So we ought to admit Christian society is not as bad as we like to paint it. And we certainly ought not to be supporting the Black and Muslim forces that try to undermine it. Unless we would actually prefer to live in the Sudan or Syria, why would we think it a good thing to undermine Christian society?

Donald Trump on this problem:

And see this idea

The idea of keeping Muslims and blacks out of the USA has some justification as expressed in this comment I saw on a blog

"The fact is that some animals are territorial, and they typically do not let other species or subpecies of animal that consume the same resources into their territory. For this reason, different species of squirrel will often fight, wildcats will fight, lions and cheetas will kill hyenas, all kinds of animals fight for survival. Evolution is competitive. Deal with it.

I am xenophobic because I want my great-great-great-great-great grandchildren to look like me and carry my genes."

Gemara Learning

The basic Lithuanian yeshiva approach I think is good even in small measure..
I mean what really is the essence of a Litvak yeshiva? Learning Gemara in depth and Musar {Ethics}. It could not be more simple. (The only other thing there is no tolerance odd balls. This particular  aspect I am not very happy with.)  But in a practical sense could not you do this on your own?   Not just that but looking at the state of the world today it seems to me that you almost have to do this on your own. You can't really depend on others setting up a Beit Midrash where you could walk in and learn.

So how would one do this on his own? A hour of in depth learning I think to do like this: take one page of Gemara Rashi Tosphot Maharsha and the basic achronim like Rav Shach, R Akiva Eiger, etc and do that one page as thoroughly as you can in one hour. Then the next day do the same material again. And keep this up every day for a few weeks. That is the one in depth session.

Then there is a fast session that is to  have a separate session--also about one hour to go though the whole Oral Law--i.e. Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, Maharam from Lublin, then after the Talmud Bavli the Talmud Yerushalmi, then the Tosphta etc. until you have gone through the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada.

If this seems a bit above your level then you could start with something more like an introduction like Shimshon Refael Hirsh's Horev. The books of  Musar  give I think a very good introduction to what Torah is all about. [Musar means the books of ethics from the middle ages plus the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter who were able to bring  don those teachings in a digestible way.   MOST books from the middle ages tend tobe hard to digest in modern times, so there does exist a need to bring them down to a practical level.    ]


One advantage of this is when  the rest of the world is going crazy at least you have some sanity to hold onto. And the problem of the world going crazy is not just in your imagination. It is real.  The evil inclination today is כח הדמיון --delusion.