cults of worship of tzadikim

The most important thing in the Torah is not to do idolatry.  How things are in the wider world others will have to answer for. But in the Jewish world the cults of worship of tzadikim are great and many.
And we know from the sages of the Talmud, כל הכופר בעבודה זרה כאילו שהוא מודה בכל התורה כולה Anyone who denies idolatry is as if he admitted the truth of the entire Torah

The way this was brought home to me originally was by reading the Old Testament when I was in Tzefat (Safed) in Israel.That is if you just start at the beginning and go through the whole thing you will see the one thing the prophets are always upset about is idolatry.

At a later date, I was going through the book of Daniel, and there it was clear that Daniel and this friends were praying to God directly. Not through anyone, nor in the merit of anyone.

 But furthermore, I would like to ask people to be careful about this. With every ounce of my being, with every bone in my body, I ask you to stay away from the cults at all cost. This will certainly be accounted to you as a great merit of listening to the Torah.

After that we have come to this, then I was thinking about the next step of learning the whole Torah in order to keep it. But first things first.

That is I was thinking of a small program of learning through the entire Oral Law  by just devoting a 40 min. to it daily.

Because that is all it takes in order to get though a 1/2 page of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Mahrasha and Maharam from Lublin. Then you could continue through the Jerusalem Talmud, etc. until you have finished all the sefarim of the Chazal. [Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri,  Mechita, Torah Cohanim, Midrash Raba, Midrash Tanchuma.]

I have thought about learning for sometime. How to learn? Does it depend on what one is learning?

Does every subject need a different approach? And what is worthwhile to learn?

I mentioned here a there a few ideas that I heard from different sources over the years.Maybe it would be a good idea to put it all together in one essay. But just for now I will just say over some random ideas and maybe organize it all later.
(1) Whatever is the hardest-do it first thing when you wake up for the first hour.
(2) I also heard about the last 20 minutes before bed but I have not been able to do that myself.
(3) Saying the words and going on as it says in the Talmud Shabat and Avodah Zara. This is also brought down in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים.
(4) The main things I think to learn are the 1. The Written and Oral Torah, 2. Physics, 3. Survival skills, 4. A Vocation.
(5) Because of the difficulty of Physics I find that for myself it is best to do the Physics session right when I wake up. But others might prefer a different schedule.
(6) The desirability of Physics I based on the Rambam and the Musar book the חובות לבבות
(7) I have found doing Physics in Hebrew, Russian and German to be helpful. Often there is some missing piece that you find in the Hebrew, Russian or German that the English does not cover.
(8) Gemara learning. Besides the basic need to go through the whole Oral Law word for word, I have found it helpful to stay on one Tosphot for a long time and an essay from Rav Elazar Menachem Shach or Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. ["Long time" can mean a week or a month or more.]

[9] The Rambam does say Metaphysics and Physics. He is referring to Aristotle. But what that would mean today? It means I think a whole vast realm of learning that I do not feel up to. But the way I see it it would mean Aristotle's Metaphysics , the Guide, Crescas, Joseph Albo, Ibn Gavirol, Abravenal, Kant. Hegel.

Trump's Foreign policy is not to start WWIII.

Trump's Foreign policy is not to start WWIII.

I do not see much reason to start WWIII. And besides that I do not see anything Russia doing that is anything different than their usual policy of protecting their own people and interests. In the Ukraine they sent support for people that either were actual Russians that happen to live in the Ukraine [moved there during the time of the USSR] or people that wanted an alliance with Russia, and we know anyway Russian does not want NATO expansion.
If the Ukraine had not taken the first steps towards NATO by trying to be part of the economic union of the EU, then nothing would have happened. 

In the ME [Middle East], Russia is also just protecting its own interests as usual. What is the surprise?


Trump's is the best foreign policy I have seen so far.
Trump is not encouraging the creation of a vast Islamic Caliphate as the USA has been doing for the last eight years. (And this would by definition mean WWIII.) Nor is he backing down from any real confrontation. But to start up with Russia when Russia is not doing anything wrong to the USA or to anyone else makes no sense.

You might think this is just common sense. But I have heard people that are more or less perfectly happy with the idea of war with Russia. They might not put it in that way, but that is what it amounts to. Personally, I can not think of a worse idea.

Bava Metzia 104a-b I would like to present this idea:(a wild guess) That the Gemara changed its mind about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha.

Bava Metzia 104a-b

I would like to present this idea: That the Gemara changed its mind about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha.

That is at first the Gemara thought he hold דורשין לשון הדיוט ["We explain the language of a document"] but then changed its mind.

I do not have the Gemara in front of me but from what I recall it can be looked at in this way.

So I admit I might be wrong. But let me present what I remember. The Gemara suggests that R Yehoshua holds דורשים לשון הדיוט ("We explain the language of a document"). The reason is because he says a lender can not take a pledge that is worth more than the loan. The gemara asked It seems the reason is he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי. Then what if he did not write this? Then he would not acquire the whole pledge? This would contradict Rabbi Yochanan who said he can collect the pledge from the orphans. Rather it is for the פחת.
I think that this Gemara is obviously making a difference between if the words were written or not [like the Maharsha] that ["We explain the language of a document"] דורשין לשון הדיוט here has a different meaning than the way Tosphot explained it beforehand on 104 A. [Not like the Mahrashal who said Tosphot continues his regular way of explaining it.]

So the simple way the Gemara sounds to me, and the way the Mahrasha must have looked at it, is this. At first we thought R. Yehoshua was דורש לשון הדיוט ["We explain the language of a document"]which here means it has to be written  and דורש ["We explain the language of a document"] means like we are דורש  "We explain the language of a verse." We analyze its language exactly. But then we ask from Rabbi Yochanan that it does not matter if it is written. So then we change the original premise. We say R yehoshua does not hold דורשין["We explain the language of a document"]. So it does not need to be written. So then why do we write it? For the פחת
_________________________________________________________________________________בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א ע''ב

I would like to present this idea: That the גמרא changed its mind about רבי יהושע בן קרחה.

That is at first the  גמרא thought he hold דורשין לשון הדיוט but then changed its mind.

I do not have the  גמרא in front of me but from what I recall it can be looked at in this way.

So I admit I might be wrong. But let me present what I remember. The  גמרא suggests that רבי יהושע בן קרחה  hold דורשים לשון הדיוט. The reason is because he says a lender can not take a pledge that is worth more than the loan. The  גמרא asked It seems the reason is he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי. Then what if he did not write this? Then he would not acquire the whole משכון? This would contradict  רבי יוחנן who said he can collect the משכון from the orphans. Rather it is for the פחת.
I think that this  גמרא is obviously making a difference between if the words were written or not [like theמהרש''א  that דורשין לשון הדיוט here has a different meaning than the way תוספות explained it beforehand on ק''ד ע''א. Not like the מהרש''ל who said תוספות continues his regular way of explaining it.

So the simple way the  גמרא sounds to me, and the way the מהרש''א must have looked at it, is this. At first we thought רבי יהושע בן קרחה was דורש לשון הדיוט which here means it has to be written  and דורש means like we are דורש  verse. We analyze its language exactly. But then we ask from Rabbi רבי יוחנן that it does not matter if it is written. So then we change the original premise. We say רבי יהושע בן קרחה does not hold דורשין. So it does not need to be written. So then why do we write it? For the פחת

בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א ע''ב

אני רוצה להציג את הרעיון הזה: עובדה שהגמרא שינתה את דעתה על רבי יהושע בן קרחה.
כלומר בהתחלת הגמרא חשבה להחזיק דורשין לשון הדיוט אבל אז שינתה את דעתה. הגמרא עולה כי רבי יהושע בן קרחה מחזיק דורשים לשון הדיוט. הסיבה לכך היא כי הוא אומר המלווה לא יכול לקחת על ההתחייבות משכון שהוא שווה יותר מאשר ההלוואה. הגמרא שאלה נראה כי הסיבה היא שהוא כותב, "כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי". אז מה אם הוא לא כתב את זה? אחר כך הוא לא יכול לקחת את המשכון מהיתומים? זה יסתור רבי יוחנן שאמר שהוא יכול לאסוף את המשכון מהיתומים. במקום זה הוא עבור הפחת.
אני חושב כי גמרא זו הוא ללא ספק עושה את ההבדל בין אם המילים נכתבו או לא [כמו מהרש''א כי דורשין לשון הדיוט כאן יש משמעות שונה מאשר הדרך שתוספות הסבירו את זאת מראש על ק''ד ע''א. לא כמו המהרש''ל שאמר תוספות ממשיכים בדרך הרגילה שלהם]. לכן הדרך הפשוטה שאת הגמרא נשמעת לי, ואת האופן שבו המהרש''א בוודאי הסתכל בה, היא זו. בהתחלה חשבנו רב יהושע בן קרחה היה דורש לשון הדיוט אשר כאן זה אומר שזה צריך להיות כתוב. דורש פירושו כמו שאנחנו דורשים פסוק. אנחנו מנתחים את שפתו בדיוק. אבל אז אנו מבקשים מרבי יוחנן שזה לא משנה אם זה כתוב. אז נשנה את ההנחה המקורית. אנחנו אומרים רבי יהושע בן קרחה אינו מחזיק דורשין. אז זה לא צריך להיות כתוב. אז למה אנחנו כותבים את זה? עבור הפחת.

Ideas in Bava Metzia updated




But then what is the conclusion of the Gemara? Not like at first that we are דושין לשון הדיוט but rather that it does not need to be written. and then how is the Gemara understanding R Yehoshua ben Karcha? What is the reason he can not take a pledge more than the loan? Because the pledge corresponds to the loan whether it is written or not. and this would then be like the Gemara in Shavuot. which would be great. And then the Gemara asks why then write it? for the פחת


But then what is the conclusion of the גמרא? Not like at first that we are דושין לשון הדיוט but rather that it does not need to be written. and then how is the גמרא understanding רבי יהושע בן קרחה? What is the reason he can not take a pledge more than the loan? Because the pledge corresponds to the loan whether it is written or not. and this would then be like the גמרא in שבועות which would be great. And then the גמרא asks why then write it? for the פחת

אבל אז מה המסקנה של הגמרא? לא כמו בהתחלה שאנחנו דושין לשון הדיוט אלא שזה לא צריך להיות כתוב. ואז איך היא הגמרא מבינה רבי יהושע בן קרחה? מהי הסיבה שהוא לא יכול לעבוט יותר על ההלוואה? בגלל השעבוד תואם את ההלוואה אם ​​זה בכתב או לא. אז זה יהיה כמו הגמרא בשבועות. זאת תהיה נהדרת. ואז הגמרא שואלת למה אז לכתוב את זה? עבור הפחת.

The Libertarian Party

Steven Dutch had some critique about the libertarian party that made sense to me. Plus there are some philosophical critiques I think I saw on Edward Fesser. Plus Dr Kelley Ross left that party for enough good reasons. While getting back to the actual Constitution of the USA is important I do not think the libertarian party would do so. I think Trump would do so.

The Edward Fesser critique I think was based on the idea of  desert island with two people: "Suppose, for example, that you and I are castaways and wash up on some tiny island upon which no human beings have ever trod.  You immediately pass out on the beach, while I get to work constructing a bamboo fence whose perimeter happens entirely to enclose your body.  Upon waking, you accuse me of imprisoning you and thereby violating your self-ownership rights, and demand to be released.  Suppose I then respond as follows: “I have not imprisoned you at all!  I’ve simply homesteaded all the land around you -- which you had no right to, since it was virgin territory -- and I’ve built a fence around it, to make sure you don’t come onto my land and take any of the resources I’ve justly acquired.  True, you’ve got nothing in the way of resources in the seven-foot by four-foot plot of sand I’ve left you, but that’s not my fault.  That’s just your bad luck, sorry.  I suppose it would be nice of me to give you some of mine, but at most I’d be unkind rather than unjust if I decide not to do so.  And I was very careful not to touch you as I built my fence.  I do respect your right of self-ownership, after all!' "

See also




A major philosopher of the Libertarians in Ann Rand and  she is a great writer, but a sloppy thinker as Dr Michael Huemer pointed out in his critique.


The deepest and most thorough of all these people is Kelley Ross. Edward Fesser is pretty much up there with him in sheer intellectual power, but slightly less because less thorough. Michael Huemer is simply brilliant but I put him in third place after the first two. Not because of intellect. He is maybe smarter than the first two but the first two are more thorough and take longer to get to a conclusion.

I wondered for a long time what Kelley Ross would say about Huemer. Two Titans. Finally I found out in a letter and also in an essay. Which was along the lines of what I had been thinking anyway.

Shimshon Refael Hirsch. Rav Cook and Reb Israel Salanter

I have thought and wondered for some time what could provide a simple introduction to Torah
The trouble that I see is that of schizo-typal personalities. That is mentally unbalanced people that feel they already understand the Torah perfectly and have to bring everyone else to their perverted version of it. All books that supposedly provide an introduction to Torah though are from these kind of insane individuals or followers of said individuals.

And even if one would have the time and effort to go through the entire Oral and Written Law that still is no guarantee to come out with  an authentic approach.
Thus it occurs to me that there is a great need for the Horev of Shimshon Refael Hirsch. I would add Rav Cook also to this list of recommended introductions, except that I am not that familiar with his writings.

Reb Israel Salanter's Musar movement and all of the books that came from from his immediate disciples are very good, but the movement itself got sidetracked in strange fanatical ways.

Reb Israel wrote a letter called the Igeret HaMusar which he meant to inaugurate a kind of Musar Movement. Later one of his disciples Isaac Blazer wrote a book called Or Israel and the letter of Israel Salanter is in the middle of that book. The basic message in plain English is to fear God and to work on one's Midot [character traits]. That is a book that inspired me greatly to look more deeply into Musar when I was at the Mirrer yeshiva. It is slightly different than the Madragat HaAdam which also is basic Musar but with a special emphasis on trust in God. Both of these books however are in Hebrew and the Horev of Shimshon Refael Hirsch is in English already and also provides a kind of Introduction to Torah thought that Musar already assumes. 


So to get a proper picture of Torah the best idea would be I think the Horev by Rav Hirsch, Rav Cook's writings, the entire school of thought of Reb Israel Salanter [this means his direct students], plus the actual Musar from the Middle Ages, plus Saadia Gaon's אמונות ודעות and the Rambam's Guide. 

Music for the glory of God

r46  r47   [r46 midi r46 nwc]  [r47 midi   r47 nwc]