Letter to a friend

Dear ...: That is a long letter with lots of points. As for the first point. Dale Martin is getting all of his material from other sources. He just puts it together very well. Better than I could ever do. But the actual sources are difficult. At Polytechnic I saw a few books in the library about the hypothetical documents.  But this is a long and involved study.

The Rambam [Maimonides] concerning Maase Breishit is also a difficult subject. I think looking into the Ramban [Nachmanides] is a good area of investigation. All the Rishonim are worthy of study. I do not think there will be any great kashe about the Rambam however because he seems to be uniform in his opinion from the beginning of his life until the end and hinted at it in many places. You are right that without the Ramban (Nachmanides) the Rambam (Maimonides) would have been forgotten and marginalized to the point of vanishing.

Besides that I think that it is helpful to get a general idea of all the rishonim in order to understand any particular one. Context makes a difference.

[I should add that Yaakov Abuchatzeira and the Gra clearly held from the Ari.]

the belief system of Torah is Monotheism

The Sages asked why was Mordechai called a "Yehudi". Today we understand the word to mean a Jew (or Jewish). But it means from the tribe of Yehuda [Judah].
He was from the tribe of Benjamin. So what could it mean?

They answer because he denied idolatry -- because anyone who denies idolatry is  as if he confess to the whole Torah.  Anyone who admits idolatry is as if he denied the whole Torah. [Yehuda comes from the word admit.]

Thus I decided to stay away from idolatrous cults that seem to infest Orthodx Judaism like lice.  Even if they are the only show in town. To me it is more important to stay away from idolatry.

This clarity only came to me after learning Sanhedrin 63 fairly well. Before I learned that page in Sanhedrin the whole concept of idolatry was fairly ambiguous to me. I wrote some of my ideas about that Gemara in my little booklet on the Talmud. Mainly I was concentrating on the Tosphot there. But learning it in depth helped me understand the subject better.

An example of idolatry a person says any created thing besides God, "You are my god, save me" that makes the thing itself into an idol. The person himself gets the normal penalty for idolatry.

I should mention in this context that the belief system of Torah is Monotheism.  That is that God made the world something from nothing. That is Torah belief excludes pantheism. And it excludes worship of tzadikim.

God also is a simple One. He is not a composite of substance and form. He has no form nor substance nor anything that we can conceive of. There is a limit to human reason and even to pure reason in this regard. We can know he exists and that is all.

Also in the Torah there is no sense that God is imminent in nature or tied to natural substances or phenomena.  Nature also is not divine. It's  de-divinized; the created world is not divine, it is not the physical manifestation of God. The line of demarcation therefore between the divine and the natural and human worlds is clear. 


Nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's wholly other. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine. 

So, to summarize, the view of God is that there is one supreme God, who is creator and sovereign of the world, who simply exists, who is  incorporeal, and for whom the realm of nature is separate and subservient. 

Indeed, creation takes place through the simple expression of his will. "When God began to create heaven and earth," and there's a parenthetical clause: "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." He expressed his will that there be light, and there was light and that's very different from many Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies in which there's always a sexual principal at work in creation. 

r22 g minor  r22 in midi  r22 nwc

Why do you need to speak out against cults?

Is it slander to speak about cults?

The illusion of being careful about Slander.


Selective enforcement.


Force includes relying on the legal system, which ultimately rests on the use of force as a last resort. Goading your opposition beyond endurance to the point where they respond violently is non-violence only in the most hypocritical, specious sense.

Putting people in the position where they either have to yield to your demands or resort to violence to stop you is emphatically not non-violence.


The three items on the list are calculated, manipulative, and deceptive practices.
 Can you really claim to be non-violent if you threaten someone else's position to the point where they feel they must resort to violence to protect their interests?


Forms of  peace



The only truly non-violent tactic, in the sense that it neither commits nor provokes violence, is complete non-resistance and submission to the demands of the power elite.


Women would have to submit meekly to rape rather than struggle to resist. And no "pacifist" I have ever heard of advocates that.

Generally, what passes for "non-violence" or "pacifism" is one of the following: Relying on the law. This is not non-violence because if all other measures fail, the legal system will use force to achieve its ends. That's why we speak of enforcing the law.

Maintaining a facade of pacifism while provoking the opposition to violence, or creating an intolerable obstruction that can only be removed by force, or threatening their position to the point where they feel they have to resort to violence to protect their interests. This position, as already noted, is hypocritical, manipulative, and deceptive.




The Cycle of Violence


Before we go any further, take your mouse and put the cursor on the bold lettering above.Now, notice what you did. In order to move the mouse, you had to exert force, and very precise and gentle force at that. You didn't rip the mouse cord out of the computer, or crush the mouse in your grip, or push so hard on it that you mashed the trackball flat. The notion that force inexorably spirals out of control is precisely that trivially easy to refute. Now it's probably true that resorting to unnecessary violence may very well lead to retaliation. So restraint in dealing with confrontations is usually a good idea.




Most pacifists react to this issue by simply pretending that it doesn't exist, that people either never deliberately choose violence, that violence always stems from earlier violence, poverty, or injustice, or that if people do deliberately choose violence, it's in rare cases that are not really of great importance. But history abounds with examples of people who have deliberately chosen violence. The ease with which people from non-violent backgrounds have been induced to commit atrocities in wartime shows how easy it can be for the violent to recruit assistants, and for the gratification factor to take hold. Thus, a single individual who opts for violence because he enjoys domination may succeed in recruiting many others less bold than he is.







How do we respond to people who have opted for violence? Appeasement merely reinforces the conviction that violence gets results. Moreover, it provides gratification by reinforcing the feeling of dominance. When confronting people who have already opted for violence, non-violence has a very good chance of perpetuating the cycle of violence. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, makes the results of violence a lot less simple, a lot less effective in getting results, and a lot less gratifying.



Furthermore, violence is only the far end of the spectrum of force. Every screaming brat who throws a temper tantrum in public is testimony to the fact that children do not need to be taught the use of force. And regardless how loving, benevolent and diligent a parent is in meeting and supplying the child's needs, every child sooner or later runs into the fact that other people, much less the physical universe, will not. Sooner or later every human being has to face the fact that some desires will not be gratified.



Throwing the First Punch



Pacifists are vociferous in denouncing "aggression." I can think of a number of cases where "aggression" either shortened a war or ended genocide. None involve the United States, by the way.In 1971, civil war broke out in Pakistan, which was then made up of two ethnically and geographically separate areas. A million people died and ten million fled into India. Faced with an overwhelming refugee crisis, India invaded East Pakistan, which became independent as Bangladesh.







Not only is it morally permissible to commit aggression, sometimes it's morally obligatory.







So What's Your Plan?





There are intellectual pacifists whose real though un-admitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism.
Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.

 Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty....


 Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

The basic reason people support Trump

The basic reason people support Trump is mainly frustration of the vast majority of Americans of seeing the Left destroy the USA and its values. This might not be felt by people that are part of bureaucracy of government. But this frustration is felt deeply by most ordinary Americans.

But what are the forces at work to destroy the USA? Mainly Socialists, Muslims and blacks on welfare. These three are the three headed hydra that is hard at work to destroy everything good and godly  and wholesome about the USA.

The basic reasons I do not agree with socialism are outlined in an essay by Michael Huemer. I will try to find the link. Mainly the reason is that socialism in its very core is based on the labor theory of value which is simply not a true doctrine. I just found the link. Here is the essay: The Theory of Economic Value.

I can not be accused of being ignorant of the arguments for Socialism. I spend a good deal of time learning the whole game plan from Russeou, Hegel, Marx, etc. Probably I spent a lot more time on this than it deserved.  [Not all of the above authors. Just a lot of their writings and also more modern treatments of their thought, like the Cambridge Companion Edition of Hegel, plus  the vast site on the internet devoted to Hegel and Marx.]

What makes more sense to me is: The Talmud, Maimonides, Israel Salanter, the Chafetz Chaim, John Locke, Kant, Schopenhauer, Popper, Jung. These are all on the side of the individual and private property  and the main job of government is to protect the private sphere of activity [civil society].
To help to put all the above together it is helpful to learn The Closing of the American Mind by Allen Bloom and the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom.

But I have carefully considered all sides of the arguments. I have also discussed these issues with many people that lived under socialist systems and also in the USA before the age of political correctness. With ordinary people and with people thoroughly entrenched in both systems.

Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.

To my understanding it would make sense to get the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. The reason is this. Knowing Hebrew is in fact some help to understanding Torah, but not as much as you might think. 

What you need because of limited time is something small and simple that gives you the basic idea. That is definitely Rav Shach's book the Avi Ezri. What he does is to give a good idea on how to analyze any given halacha in the Torah in a very deep way, but also in a very simple way. 

I could recommend Rav Chaim HaLevi Soloveitchik's book the Chidushei HaRambam, but there is something about Rav Shach's book that goes way beyond the Chidushei HaRambam. But since the Chidushei Harambam is smaller you might try to get that and to work on just one long essay.  
I cant really explain very well what the thing is bout Rav Shach's book. It is simultaneously simple to understand and yet very deep. However I admit that it was Rav Chaim Soloveitchik who opened the door to the Rambam.  There were some preliminary steps before him but they were just cracks in the door. Reb Chaim opened it swung it open. Rav Shach then walked in. That being said if possible the best thing would be to get the books of his two disciples Barch Ber and Shimon Shkop and just plow through them.

blaming Israel

I had thought that people would notice a problem with Islam after 9/11. But instead everyone went about claiming it is a religion of peace and blaming Israel. I do not see why this should be any different. Everyone will keep on saying it is the fault of the Jews and that it is because they don't give enough territory  and that Islam is wonderful.

In fact, American were so convinced Islam is great they voted twice for a Muslim President. On the other hand I have to admit I am not really sure what seems to be the problem with it. I can see why people might make a mistake. It took me a long time to realize there might be a problem with Islam. I was certainly willing to give Muslims a chance. It is a long story. But at some point it began to dawn on me that something is really really wrong with it.

אין אדם עומד על דבר אלא אם כן נכשל בו
I had to learn the hard way about a lot of things. But I am not recommending this procedure. It is just the only way I found out about things that had good reputations that were really insidious cults.
And sometimes personal experience is not enough to evaluate things. You know your own experience is just a microcosm of the large picture. So you need a kind of balance and common sense.