I mentioned trust in God a few times in connection with the idea of learning Torah. That was in fact the foundation stone of the Navardok yeshivas. But if you actually read the חובות לבבות [Chovot Lavavot Duties of the Heart] you can see that he expands the idea of trust in God much wider.
I mean to say that there was an idea in yeshiva "Learn Torah and God will do the rest," (but there was also the idea of השתדלות doing some effort.) But this was a more narrow than the actual idea of trust in the books of Musar. Musar expanded the idea of trust to this world and the next. That is even in terms of the next world the idea was to do your best here and to be confident that things will go OK up there. I was thinking that you could even expand the idea to learning Torah itself. You just do the learning as best as you can and accept that what you understand, you understand and what you do not, then you just go on.

[This would be like you see in the Gemara in Shabat 63 and also in tractate Avoda Zara לעולם לגרס אדם אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר forever one should just say the words of his learning  even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying. I had seen this idea in a secular context but at some point I got to know Reb Simcha Wasserman [the son of Reb Elchanan Wasserman] and he gave to me the Musar book אורחות צדיקים The English title I am not sure of. It might be Paths of the Righteous--maybe. (That book goes into this in great length in שער התורה).]

 Part of the reason Americans feel betrayed by the Establishment is that many Americans went to high school and know the  basic principles upon which the USA was founded.  And they know these principles have been betrayed.

The Constitution of the USA is a good argument for Trump.

That means protection of your life and family and property is the only job of government. To protect the plain old working guy from crime from within society and from foreign invaders. Certainly it is not to bring in foreign invaders and to take your taxes to pay welfare. Nor is it the job of government to take your money and give it to people that refuse to work. [Nor is it the job of government to force people to pay for the queer choices of others. If they want to get Aids and die that is their choice. The government has no business forcing to to pay for it.]



The establishment has violated these principles.  That is both the Democrats and the G.O.P., in a way that the average working class American can feel extremely betrayed.

And the Constitution has halachic validity as it is a contract. Contracts are valid documents and have legal force in Torah law.

And outside of that it can be shown that the Constitution has philosophical validity as it embodies principles that are defensible by means of reason. That is it takes the best from Pericles's Athens, John Lock and Montesquieu and combines them in a way that bring these principles into action.

Part of the reason Americans feel betrayed by the Establishment is that many Americans went to high school and know the  basic principles upon which the USA was founded.  And they know these principles have been betrayed.

And for the general public I should mention that the basic principles of the USA are actually well founded philosophical principles. But more Americans are aware of them because many people learned about thee ideas that got incorporated into the Constitution when in high school. Just for  a fast refresher that means limited government, private property, civil space of private affairs where government has no business [Hobbes], rights to your own stuff and family. Even the USSR never had free stuff. If a person did not work in the USSR he did not collect an unemployment check. He went straight to jail.  [Check it out. I ought to know.]
Everyone was required to have a workbook that showed his present employer. A month that nothing was written there was enough to send  a person to a soviet work camp. And believe me when people had to find work they found all kinds of creative ways to do so.

I was looking at my notes on Bava Kama [in the little booklet that God granted to me to write on the Talmud] and I noticed that there was some points about the Rambam I had not made clear. I might try right now to clarify them but without any Gemara I can not check my work. In any case what I wanted to say was this.

Talmud Bava Kama 19b.
The case is a chicken with a string attached to its foot. A vessel gets caught in the string and breaks.
The Rambam deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the string on purpose. The other case is when the string has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the string on purpose.



What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the Rambam. One is both pay half. (This would be like Rabi Natan on Bava Kama page 59.) One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.

The problem that I addressed in my notes was that the Rambam does not correspond to our Gemara at all. I did not even bring up the issue of these last two possibilities because there is nothing in that Rambam which fits with our Gemara. The way I dealt with that was at first to try tofind some way to get them to fit together. Then I saw the Gra wrote about this Rambam "it is not understandable" I realized there was no way to get them to fit. [The Gra wrote that in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch which brings the words of the Rambam word for word.]

So what I wanted to say now was the I thought either the Rambam had a different version or that because of the question I wrote at the end of my notes that he decided himself the true version was different than what was in front of him. Based on that I reconstructed what I thought was the Rambam's version.

This is all old hat. I wrote all of this before. But what I wanted to add was two points. The first I already added to my notes. It is that according the version I think was the Rambam' version it does come out that both would pay half so full damages would be paid. [But this is still debatable. Even in my version it could be that since it is a Not common thing the total amount would be half damages.]
But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like Rabi Natan on page 59 and that is a good result.
________________________________________________________________________________

The רמב''ם deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the חוט on purpose. The other case is when the חוט has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the חוט on purpose.

What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the רמב''ם. One is both pay half. This would be like רבי נתן on בבא קמא דף נ''ט . One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.

But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like רבי נתן on דף נ''ג and that is a good result.


הרמב''ם עוסק בשני מקרים. האחד הוא כאשר לחוט יש בעלים ובמקרה הזה הבעלים משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. המקרה השני הוא כאשר לחוט אין בעלים. ואז בעלים של העוף משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. מה אם החוט ואת העוף לשניהם יש בעלים? ישנן מספר משמעויות אפשריות של הרמב''ם. אחת הוא שכל אחד משלם חצי. זה יהיה כמו רבי נתן על בבא קמא דף נ''ג. האחרת היא כי הבעלים של החוט לבד משלמים חצי. לפי מה שכתבתי שהיא גירסת הרמב''ם יוצא כמו רבי נתן.

Some people concentrate on the Chafetz Chaim's books of ethics. This is a good idea. It apparently was something Reb Israel Abuchatzaira [Bava Sali] was thinking. Bava Sali did not have pictures of tzadikim in his home except for one alone. The only picture in his home was of the Chafetz Chaim.

His books can certainly be taken as a part of Musar, but they are not the whole picture.

Reb Elchanan Wasserman incidentally told the Chafetz Chaim about a yeshiva he was starting  someplace. The Chafetz Chaim asked him if the students learned Musar. Reb Elchanan said "No." The Chafetz Chaim then said, "If so,  it is better if there was no yeshiva."


I should mention that Reb Elchanan's work the Koveitz Shiurim is very common in yeshivas. I used to hang out with Reb Elchanan's son, Reb Simcha Wasserman. (That is I went there after school and also during the summers and ate by him on Shabat, etc.) But I never got into the Koveitz Shiurim. When I was younger, I mainly concentrated on the Achronim from that middle period, like the Pnei Yehoshua, the Maharsha, etc. I admit today that I probably should have looked more at the basic gedolai Lita [sages of Lithuania] like the school of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and the Koveitz Shiurim.[Today I think even one essay from Rav Shach, or Reb Chaim or Reb Elchanan contains already inside of it a good deal of Shas.]

Reb Shmuel Berenabum [the Rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY] learned the Musar books of the Chafetz Chaim during the Musar sessions.

The granddaughters of Bava Sali started a session in their schools (where they were students) to have a whole list of people that would agree to learn the Chafetz Chaim every day and that list was xeroxed so everyone on the list after their learning would pray a short prayer for all the other people to find their true Zivug [spouse]. From what I heard at the time most people on that list got married in short order.
[The words "Chafetz Chaim" is inter-changeable with the person or the book.]

For the Public: Chafetz Chaim means a book about the law of the Bible-  not to slander. [Leviticus.] The author wrote more than just that one book, so I refer to the larger set in the above essay. His actual name was Israel Meir HaCohen. Bava Sali refers to a person that was a saint. Many people went to him in the last years of his life for advice and blessings and his name is very well respected. Elchanan Wassermann's book is on the Talmud and it is considered easier  that the Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. I find Rav Shach's book to have that same quality of being deep but also easy to read.

Musar/Ethics

Israel Salanter's Musar Movement was to get people to learn Musar which means a basic set of medieval books on ethics. That is about just four books. Then in the penumbra a larger set of about 30 books. written during the Renaissance. Then a even wider penumbra of books that got added to that original set by his disciples. Isaac Blasser. Joseph Yosel Horwitz [the Alter of Navardok], Simcha Zissel from Kelm and the Alter of Slobadka.



I was thinking of finding an argument to prove the point of Reb Israel Salanter that learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] is important. It occurred to me that we can not know our "self." We can know our "self" exists but not what is going on deep inside. Our motivations--what causes us to act or think things is hidden from us. Not only that when we think we know our motivations we come up with contradictions.. One motivation is wrapped up inside of another. One day we think our motivation is one thing and then next day we find ourselves acting in ways that completely and directly contradict what we thought was motivating us the day before. We know the self exists but we do not know what is going on down there. We however know its surface. It is like an ocean. The depths are hidden but the surface we can see plainly. We know if we feel hot or cold, happy or sad, etc. Reb Israel thought the way to penetrate and effect the self is by learning Medieval  Ethics.

Not by prayer or talking with God as in a conversation. Conversing with God is not that different than talking to yourself. You are only reaching the surface level. You know what you are thinking and feeling an that is what you are commuting to God. There is nothing there that penetrates into the hidden levels of the self to change one from evil to good.

We can know one thing about our "self" we know our commitments. We know of we are committed to the Ten Commandments or not. We know if we are committed to keeping the Moral Law. And this commitment is strengthened by learning Musar.


I am borrowing ideas of Kant here.

On a side note Kant thought the ontological proof was not valid. And this goes along with his idea that pure reason can't penetrate into unconditioned realities. But he did write that as far existence goes of the the dinge an sich--we can know it exists. But we cant know it character. Thus a proof of the existence of God is possible. But he did not think the ontological one was very good. And this to some degree shows why I wrote the above proof at the top of my blog  the first cause idea. [Which I really borrowed from Aristotle. Not his first mover idea but rather this very basic idea itself which I saw one a long time ago at the beginning of his set of books called Physics.]

Music for the glory of God

n18  n40 n41 n44   n47 n51 n52 mathematics  r1  q96 E flat major  q96 F major   q1

n90 n89 n87
 n85  n83 n82 n81 n80 n51 r14

a nice utube about counter jihad

Trump on utube  another utube from Judge Jeanine [This last one is very impressive]



I am thinking of what kind of argument can I put forward to support Trump.
I think I would have to approach this from several directions. First the Constitution of the USA. But I do not mean the actual document. I mean this more as what you learn in high school about the principles that went into making the Constitution. But then I would have to  draw on the previous thinkers that their works provided the basis for the Constitution. --Pericles, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes.

Then I would also have to show that the establishment has violated these principles.  That is both the Democrats and the G.O.P. in a way that the average working class American can feel extremely betrayed.