Talmud Sanhedrin 61b. I want to mention something that seems curious to me. The Gemara asks why don't we learn from bowing that all of quadrant II is forbidden? [That is idolatry not according to its usual way but in a way of honor.] As things are we use bowing for ללאו אצאת. So if we would use it for quadrant II then quadrant II would only be forbidden by a לאות not by כרת. Well clearly the answer to this question is obvious. The only reason we say השתחוויה  is ללאו יצאת is because there was nothing else to do with it. So if we would use it for all of quadrant II, Then all quadrant II would be כרת. So why mention this? Because now the more powerful question comes up. When the Gemara asks if we would learn from bowing then what would we use איכה יעבדו for? Why do we not ask if we would use לא תשתחחוה for quadrant II then what would זביחה come to tell us? And the answer would have to be just like in the teaching that זביחה would come for ללאו יצאת. That would end up meaning all three עבודות פנים would only be a לאו and not כרת. And that is curious. This might not seem like a big deal but to me making all three עבודת פנים to be only לאוים seems curious.


Appendix: The actual teaching goes like this: We use "How do they serve" {Deuteronomy 16}to tell us service to an idol according to its way is forbidden. We use "And so not sacrifice to them" to forbid the three kinds of service done in the Temple to God. That is sacrifice, pouring  wine, offering incense. Do not bow comes for itself. Rashi says it is just a לאו. I was thinking that perhaps our Gemara does not agree with Rashi because our Gemara treats bowing as a כרת.

___________________________________________________________________

 The actual teaching goes like this. We use איכה יעבדו  to tell us service to an idol according to its way is forbidden. We use זובח לאלהים יחרם  to forbid the three kinds of service done in the Temple to an idol. That is sacrifice, pouring  wine, offering incense. לא תשתחווה comes for itself. רש''י says it is just a לאו. I was thinking that perhaps our גמרא does not agree with רש''י because our גמרא considers bowing as a כרת



______________________________________________________________________________

סנהדרין ס''א ע''ב ס''ב ע''א. I want to mention something that seems curious to me. The גמרא asks why don't we learn from bowing that all of the second quadrant  is forbidden?  Idolatry not according to its usual way but in a way of honor.  As things are we use bowing for ללאו אצאת. So if we would use it for the second quadrant  then the second quadrant  would only be forbidden by a לאות not by כרת. Well clearly the answer to this question is obvious. The only reason we say השתחוויה  is ללאו יצאת is because there was nothing else to do with it. So if we would use it for all of the second quadrant, then all the second quadrant  would be כרת. So why mention this? Because now the more powerful question comes up. When the גמרא asks if we would learn from לא תשתחווה then what would we use איכה יעבדו for? Why do we not ask if we would use לא תשתחחוה for  the second quadrant  then what would זביחה come to tell us? And the answer would have to be just like in the Braita that זביחה would come for ללאו יצאת. That would end up meaning all three עבודות פנים would only be a לאו and not כרת. And that is curious.

סנהדרין ס''א ע''ב ס''ב ע''א. הגמרא שואלת למה אנחנו לא לומדים שכל רביע השני אסור מהשתחוויה? (עבודה זרה לא על פי דרכה הרגילה אבל בדרך של כבוד). כפי הדברים הם משתמשים עם השתחוויה עבור "ללאו אצאת." אז אם היינו משתמשים בו עבור רביע השני אז רביע השני יהיה אסור רק  על ידי לאו ולא כרת. אבל ברורה התשובה לשאלה זו. הסיבה היחידה שאנחנו אומרים ההשתחוויה  ללאו יצאת היא כי לא היה משהו אחר לעשות עם זו. אז אם היינו משתמשים בו עבור כל רביע השני, אז כל רביע השני יהיה כרת. אז למה להזכיר את זה? כי עכשיו השאלה חזקה יותר עולה. כאשר הגמרא שואלת אם היינו לומדים עם לא תשתחווה אז מה היה "איכה יעבדו" אומר? למה אנחנו לא שואלים: אם היינו משתמשים עם "לא תשתחחוה" עבור ברביע השני, אז מה היה זביחה בא לספר לנו? והתשובה תצטרך להיות בדיוק כמו הזביחה: יצאת ללאו. זה היה בסופו של דבר כלומר כל שלוש עבודות פנים היו רק להיות לאוים ולא כרת.

the importance of learning Mediaeval books of Ethics

So we can defend Musar [that is the importance of learning Mediaeval books of Ethics] According to my last blog entry because it shows the underlying meaning of the Oral and Written Law. Plus it gives a good idea of the actual world view of Torah without distorting it to promote some agenda.

There are other reasons and I am not sure this minute how to state them.

I need I think a bouncing board like when you play tennis by yourself you have something to knock the balls against back to you.

The bouncing board I want to use is the book Plato not Prozac.

In the first chapters, Lou Marinoff, (the president of the American Philosophical Practitioners Association)  mercilessly attacks, for good reason, the dominating establishment of psychiatric therapy and counseling -- its premises, views and accomplishments. He rightly believes that this pseudo-scientific occupation has no reasonable credibility left for anyone, not even its self-serving practitioners who have become so influential in our society.

But his answer of paying for philosophical counseling seems to be exact thing that Socrates was complains about with the sophists.

But a dubious trivialization of Torah to use it in the same way or as a substitute for psychology has disturbing resemblance to modern day cults.

So what I suggest is this idea that became the modern day Lithuanian yeshiva. In spite of the problems you have with all institutions there are some institutions that have an overall good effect. The fact that by the Bell Curve most of them will be mediocre does not provide an argument against any institution.You have rather to look at the basic values and see if they correspond to Reason--that is objective morality.

Philosophy in the way mentioned by Plato not Prozac is not a good approach. But still the author has a very good idea about the fact that philosophy helps to bring to truth by  helping us separate fiction from non fiction. The approach which I think is best would combine Musar [Ethics] with the Philosophy of the Middle Ages [like the Guide of the Rambam of the book of Saadia Gaon the אמונות ודעות, Cresca, Albo, Aberbenal, etc.]

The idea of Socrates was in good measure continued by Plato and Aristotle. And Socrates wanted to find out what is right living--not happy living. And he demolished all attempts define right living in pseudo intellectual ways. This gives us a good hint to what the Rambam was thinking. He thought that Torah tells us what right living is and that the idea of the Torah could be defended even in a debate with Socrates himself in person. But he also knew Socrates would be able to demolish any attempts to justify Torah by pseudo intellectual means. And he knew the philosophy is important in order to discern what the actual message of Torah is. He was aware on the attempts of delusional people to redefine Torah in accord with their delusions.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The issue of Ethics and Musar

The issue of Ethics and Musar was never emphasized in either yeshiva. Mainly yeshiva was for learning Talmud. Period. Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway was not a Musar Yeshiva at all. Reb Freifeld did give talks once a week about world view issues. The Mir however was a Musar yeshiva but in a practical sense that meant learning Ethics 35 minutes per day. 20 minutes before the afternoon prayer and 15 minutes before the evening prayer.

But I was turned on by Musar. To me it answered some basic questions and issues. E.g what am I doing here? The reason is some people go to yeshiva for various reasons that did not apply in my case. I had a happy home. I was accepted into UCLA before I had gone to NY. There was no reason for me to be in yeshiva at all except one thing alone --the search for Truth.

So learning Gemara (i.e.Talmud) all day you can understand was a good and great thing --but it needed a context.

Why is it relevant?

Some yeshivas did not introduce Musar because I think they were afraid of spin. That is people going off into some wild tangent, as did happen with me.
But eventually the general consensus got to be to be  a kind of compromise--not too much Musar and not too little. And that is the basic approach of good yeshivas today.

And this is the approach I think is right.

What makes this difficult to advocate is the same problem you have with all institutions. Only the top ten percent will have any real quality. Everything under that will be pure bureaucracy of no value what so ever.

The Rambam  holds by R. Natan in Bava Kama page 53a.
[A ox knocks a person into  a pit. The person that dug the pit and the owner of the ox each pays half. But we do not know if that means each is obligated in the full damages or only half. The difference is if let's say the ox had no owner. Would the person that dug the pit pay full damages?

But what was unclear if if one page 19a if the string and the chicken both have an owner if both pay 1/2.

But  the Rambam does not fit the Gemara there at all on page 19.
What I had to do to get the Rambam to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the Gemara so that Rav Huna was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ, [This might have been the actual version of the Rambam or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned at the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.]


But there are two possibilities for Rabbi Natan. One is  when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable to half the damages. So now we know that the Rambam holds the later way. Because in the case on page 19 if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.
All I am saying here is just that if we say the Rambam was thinking of the law of Rabbi Natan and the sugia on page 19 as being related we come out with lots of nice results. Too many to go into here. But without this idea then  our sugia on page 19 is not what the Rambam was saying.

________________________________________________________________________________

I admit we do not have to say this. We could say the whole סוגיה on page י''ט is talking about דרך שינוי and then the two סוגיות will be unrelated. Fine. And that is clearly how the רא''ש understood it. But that will leave u in a position of not understanding the רמב''ם nor having any way to get him to click with our גמרא. Or we could say like I wrote and live happily ever after.





_________________________________________________________________________________

What we know to the רמב''ם is he holds by רבי נתן in בבא קמא page נ''ג. But what was unclear was on page י''ט ע''א if the חוט and the chicken both have an owner if both pay a half.
From the language of the Rambam alone it could be that if there is an owner of the חוט Then only he pays damages at all. The reason is the only time the Rambam says the owner of the chicken pays is when there is no owner to the string.


But  the רמב''ם does not fit the גמרא there at all on page י''ט.
What I had to do to get the רמב''ם to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the גמרא so that רב הונא was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ. This might have been the actual version of the רמב''ם or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned t the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.


But there are two possibilities for רבי נתן. One is  when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable for half the damages. So now we know that the רמב''ם holds the last way. Because in the case on page י''ט if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.

_________________________________________________________________________________ מה שאנחנו יודעים על הרמב''ם הוא שהוא מחזיק  בשיטת רבי נתן בבבא קמא דף נ''ג. אבל מה שלא היה ברור היה בעמוד י''ט ע''א אם החוט והתרנגולת  יש להן בעלים אם שניהם משלמים חצי. מלשון הרמב"ם לבד זה יכול להיות שאם יש בעלים של חוט ואז רק הוא משלם פיצויים בכלל. הסיבה לכך היא שהפעם היחידה שהרמב"ם אומר בעלים של העוף משלמים הוא כשאין בעלים לחוט
 הרמב''ם אינו תואם עם הגמרא  בעמוד י''ט. מה שהייתי צריך לעשות כדי להתאים את הרמב''ם היה לומר שהוא שינה את סדר השאלות של גמרא כך שרב הונא בא לענות על השאלה של "איש בור ולא שור בור". ייתכן שזו היתה הגירסה בפועל של רמב''ם או שהוא עצמו בגלל כמה שאלות שהזכרתי אולי החליט לשנות את הגרסה. אבל יש שתי אפשרויות עבור רבי נתן . אחת היא כאשר זה וזה גורם אז כל אחד מהם הוא אחראי לכל הנזקים. השני הוא שכל אחד עלול לחצי הנזקים. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים כי רמב''ם מחזיק הדרך האחרונה. כי במקרה בעמוד י''ט אם לחוט אין בעלים, הבעלים של העוף משלמים רק חצי, לא מלוא הנזקים

I was thinking of writing about my yeshiva years. 


 The yeshiva high school experience tends to be different from the Beit Midrash  type of experience. 
I only went to yeshiva during the Beit Midrash [18-26] years. Not high school. But I went to Reb Simcha Wassermann's yeshiva in the afternoon after school (during my high school years).

 The main thing about yeshiva is it is a powerful all encompassing experience. It is when I really got into the Torah in a way that was different than just intellectual. 
[The intellectual aspect I must admit must seem dry to people. But there is a deep energy inside the Oral and Written Law that you need to dig into in order to find.]





The basic information is that I was at Shar Yashuv for 3.5 years. 


After my first year, I was home during the summer, and that was the time I called my future wife that renewed the friendship we had had during high school. My telling her about the amazing world of yeshiva definitely lit a fuse under her. She really like hearing about how great learning Torah is. 

But Far Rockaway was  not considered in those days an Ivy League school. So I set my sights on the yeshiva that in those day had the reputation of having the deepest Torah giant in the world and that was the Reb Shmuel Berenabum at the Mir. 

Rav Shach [author of the Avi Ezri] was considered the greatest Torah scholar along with Rav Kinevsky [the author of the Kehilat Yaakov] But Reb Shmuel had the reputation of being the deepest thinker. People said about him "If you can understand his classes you can understand anything." I can not say what the difference is but I am just saying over how people thought about Rav Shach as compared to Rav Berenabum.

The was definitely a kind of atmosphere in both yeshiva that was what you would expect to find in the Garden of Eden. Some unearthly beauty. But it had a kind of numinous property which would not be the same kind of thing would feel when listening to Mozart. 


The first yeshiva learned only Gemara. It was not a Musar Yeshiva. The Mir however was a Musar yeshiva and learned about 35 minutes of Musar per day. 

In any case, there were always cults around trying to get recruits. I myself fell for their tactics. They were using the Trojan horse strategy. They would use some kind of bait to convince people that by joining their cult everything would be so much better. To me today, it seems very Satanic, but in those days there were very few warning signs. Just like in Eastern cults, like Adi Da. They had a very respectable public image that hid the deep dirt inside them.
 Only now I know the truth. But if I try to tell people no one listens because cults always work on their public image to seem respectable.

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.