the essence of Torah

What is the essence of Torah? The way I see it, it is the Ten Commandments.

What this means in a practical sense is it is a denial of other things that claim to represent the basic sense of Torah.
So believing in some tzadik or other righteous person would not be the essence of Torah.
This would also mean simply learning Torah or Musar would not be the essence either.
Rather it is a strict Ethical Monotheism that says God is one and he is not the world. And what one would call menschlichkeit. being a decent human being. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not bear false witness.
The essence of Torah is not to follow other groups that make their main thing some other kind of essence.

Religious teachers expect to be treated as if they represented the Torah. But they don't. They represent false Torah. Pseudo Torah. The Torah of Rituals. Not the real authentic Torah.

Of course to keep  the Ten Commandments requires knowledge of  the Oral and Written Law. For example "Thou shalt not steal" requires knowing the laws of Bava Metzia Bava Kama and all seder Nezikim and Nashim.

For more information on Religious teachers look up: "Home Wreckers".

however damaging to family life liberal society is, it can not possibly come close to the damage that religious teachers cause.

There is a kind of paradox in social norms. True that liberal society tends to weaken family bonds.
But you would expect in the religious world, things would be different. At first the religious teachers encourage one to disobey his parents because they are not religious enough. Then they urge ones wife to divorce him because he is not religious enough or religious in the right way that they think is right. Then they urge his children to disparage and ignore him and make false accusations. Somehow however damaging to family life liberal society is, it can not possibly come close to the damage that religious teachers cause.

They must think there is no judge and no judgment.
If you ask your children just one thing. Your whole life you never asked them a thing but there is something important to you, do you have any authority? Would you not think that the Ten Commandments would make a difference? Forget it. Your worth to your children is how much money they can keep on skimming off of you.
Certainly one should never believe them about the time of day, much less about what the Torah says.

False friends are much worse than open enemies. 

The Major Lies of Feminism

Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 98

Introduction. Rabbainu Tam says the only case when a guard swears the object was lost by accident is when there is another object that he admits and he gives back. That is there were two objects or two animals that he was guarding.

Tosphot asks on this in two places. One is in Bava Metzia page 98. The question is based on the Gemara in Shavuot. Over there the Mishna says a employee that says he was not paid takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel say that is where there are witnesses that he is in fact an employee. For if there are not witnesses then the employer is believed that he paid because he could have said a stronger plea and certainly be believed. That is the employer could have said "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life."
Rami Bar Chama said what a nice statement that is. Rava asked, "What is nice about it? If it is true then we would never have  a case of a guard taking an oath."
That is the entire Gemara that is relevant for us right now. It is from that Gemara that Tosphot sees a contradiction to Rabbainu Tam.
The question of Tosphot is this. If Rabbainu Tam is right, then the case of a guard is not that where there is a possibility of denying the whole thing because it is always a case when there is one object he is agreeing that he owes.
Crystal Clear. But then Tosphot adds two words  אהייא קאי which to my learning partner [David Bronson] made no sense.
"Which animal does he deny?" To David these words are problematic.

It is in order to answer the question of David that I wrote the next paragraph.
It occurred to me a possible way to answer the question of my learning partner on Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 98. The original question was on the Tosphot on that page that asks אהייא קאי on which animal does the guard deny?  The answer I think is this. lets say the guard denied both animals? Then that is a straight case on לא היו דבאים מעולם. That is if he denies the animal that he denies then there is an oath because that is the regular case of הודאה וכפירה. If he denies the other animal then that is the case of כפירה  וכפירה. And in fact there would be no oath in that case--but we do not say he could have said that because that is then העזה and we always say that מודה מקצת is נשבע even though he could have denied everything and be believed. But there is no migo because of העזה
In other words this explains the question of Tosphot on Rabbanu Tam.

_____________________________________________________________________________


 עלה בדעתי דרך אפשרית כדי לענות על השאלה של השותף הלמידה שלי על בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א. השאלה המקורית היתה על תוספות בדף זה ששואל אהייא קאי על איזו חיה השומר מכחיש? התשובה לדעתי היא זו. נניח השומר הכחיש שתי החיות? אז זה הוא מקרה ישר "לא היו דברים מעולם". כלומר, אם הוא מכחיש את החיה שהוא מכחיש, אז יש שבועה כי זה המקרה הרגיל של הודאה וכפירה. אם הוא מכחיש את חיה האחרת, אז זה המקרה של כפירה וכפירה. ולמעשה לא יהיה שום שבועה במקרה זה, אבל אנחנו לא אומרים שהוא יכול לומר את זה כי הוא אז זה העזה ואנחנו תמיד אומרים מודה מקצת הוא נשבע למרות שהוא יכול היה להתכחש הכל ושיאמין. אבל אין מיגו בגלל העזה. במילים אחרות זה מסביר את השאלה של תוספות על רבינו תם

Music for the Glory of God

r62  e minor

r 62 midi file

r62 in nwc

Yoga Leads to Idolatry & Possession

yoga leads to idolatry and being possessed by the Dark Side

This brings into question the larger issue of how much of what we do to get closer to God is actually resulting in the the opposite and from the Dark Side?


The problem of the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] is greater than usually understood.
Powers from the Dark Side are what usually produces the kinds of supposed miracles that people think show that a person is holy man. This is a great problem when dealing with groups that think because their leader did some miracle that shows he is holy. The Devil give people the power to do miracles in order to be able to draw them to the Dark Side. 

Western Civilization

One comment of Vox Populi said: "European Christendom has a right to exist and to defend itself and promote it's interests." This seems self evident to me.
For some reason there are people that disagree with this. And it is a puzzle to me, "why?" To me it seems clear Western Civilization is a result of Judaic-Christian values aligned with the ideals of Ancient Athens and the political structure of Rome.
I see nothing to debate here. When other cultures can do something like this then give me a call:

Apollo 11

Shuttle Mission