19.9.16
Joan of Arch's trial
I have been troubled by Joan of Arch's trial for a number of years. Most of the trial you do not hear what the judges are thinking. Only at the end they state their condemnation but give no support for their conclusions.. In some areas things became more clear to me because other books written at the same time. [Mainly they were thinking of her voices as coming from the Sitra Achra to be a blunt as possible.]
But in the area of dress I still can not figure out what the big deal was. Christians we know do not as a rule follow the law of Moses. So picking out one rule to condemn someone with makes little sense unless they were thinking like Thomas Aquinas about some laws still being binding because they are Natural Law.
In any case the dressing thing does not seem to me to be as bad as the problems that arise in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.
My own take on this is this: Thomas Aquinas was in need of getting the Old Testament and New Testament to not conflict. So he used the idea of Natural Law that Saadia Gaon came up with.
The disparagement of Divine Law has gotten deep within Western thought ever since then. To me Divine Law is on a higher level than Natural Law.
To me it seems you do not need to justify the laws of Moses by means of natural law. Divine Law can stand by itself.
As for Joan of Arc my basic feeling is הוראת שעה. [A prophet can get a revelation to break a rule for a time for the needs of the hour and also a beit din can do the same thing--according to the needs of the time.] She got a revelation that she needed to dress like a man and wear battle armor and go into battle and bring all France under the rule of Charles the rightful king of France. Why is that any different that Eliyahu [Elijah] on Mount Carmel or any of the prophets that had a specific prophecy to accomplish some mission and part of the prophecy involved doing things not according to the Law of Moses.
But what are the needs of the time? That is where the idea of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides becomes important. For we know the Mitzvot are given with certain goals in mind. שלום המדינה,להתרחק מעבודה זרה לתקן את המידות וכולי[Peace of the country, to get as far from idolatry as possible, to correct ones character traits etc.]
I am being short here because I did not want to get into the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages in the end of chapter 10 on Bava Metzia that I dealt with in another blog entry. Mainly I recall that my idea was there is instrumental value and numnious value. To the Sages they are not connected. To R.Shimon they are. But in any case we know the Rambam is a bit ambiguous about this. He poskins in opposite ways in Mishna Torah and see his commentary in Bava Metzia about that Mishna. The commentary משנה למלך in Mishna Torah tries to solve this. [The trouble is in Bava Metzia the Rambam goes like the sages and in Yevamot [seven nations] he goes like R. Shimon. דורשין טעמה דקרא]
God granted to me to write about this in my little booklet on Shas and the other one on Bava Metzia. But I never started out to answer questions in the Rambam--only questions in Tosphot. Along the way it happened that God granted to me answers in the Rambam also. But to answer this kind of problem I think you would have to look up the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or any of the people of the school of thought of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who make it their business to answer questions of this sort.
But in the area of dress I still can not figure out what the big deal was. Christians we know do not as a rule follow the law of Moses. So picking out one rule to condemn someone with makes little sense unless they were thinking like Thomas Aquinas about some laws still being binding because they are Natural Law.
In any case the dressing thing does not seem to me to be as bad as the problems that arise in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.
My own take on this is this: Thomas Aquinas was in need of getting the Old Testament and New Testament to not conflict. So he used the idea of Natural Law that Saadia Gaon came up with.
The disparagement of Divine Law has gotten deep within Western thought ever since then. To me Divine Law is on a higher level than Natural Law.
To me it seems you do not need to justify the laws of Moses by means of natural law. Divine Law can stand by itself.
As for Joan of Arc my basic feeling is הוראת שעה. [A prophet can get a revelation to break a rule for a time for the needs of the hour and also a beit din can do the same thing--according to the needs of the time.] She got a revelation that she needed to dress like a man and wear battle armor and go into battle and bring all France under the rule of Charles the rightful king of France. Why is that any different that Eliyahu [Elijah] on Mount Carmel or any of the prophets that had a specific prophecy to accomplish some mission and part of the prophecy involved doing things not according to the Law of Moses.
But what are the needs of the time? That is where the idea of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides becomes important. For we know the Mitzvot are given with certain goals in mind. שלום המדינה,להתרחק מעבודה זרה לתקן את המידות וכולי[Peace of the country, to get as far from idolatry as possible, to correct ones character traits etc.]
I am being short here because I did not want to get into the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages in the end of chapter 10 on Bava Metzia that I dealt with in another blog entry. Mainly I recall that my idea was there is instrumental value and numnious value. To the Sages they are not connected. To R.Shimon they are. But in any case we know the Rambam is a bit ambiguous about this. He poskins in opposite ways in Mishna Torah and see his commentary in Bava Metzia about that Mishna. The commentary משנה למלך in Mishna Torah tries to solve this. [The trouble is in Bava Metzia the Rambam goes like the sages and in Yevamot [seven nations] he goes like R. Shimon. דורשין טעמה דקרא]
God granted to me to write about this in my little booklet on Shas and the other one on Bava Metzia. But I never started out to answer questions in the Rambam--only questions in Tosphot. Along the way it happened that God granted to me answers in the Rambam also. But to answer this kind of problem I think you would have to look up the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or any of the people of the school of thought of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who make it their business to answer questions of this sort.
18.9.16
I do not think people need my advice about Quantum Mechanics but I just wanted to share this link to what I think is the best book on QM that I have seen. I am not sure what made it so special to me but I think it is how the author goes through the calculations step by step in a way that even I can understand him.
However at the end I found the parts about super conductivity to be way beyond me.
However at the end I found the parts about super conductivity to be way beyond me.
graves of tzadikim [righteous people]
I do not hold much with the idea of graves of tzadikim [righteous people] . I was thinking along the lines of Reb Nachman for some time that this is a good thing but now I am thinking that it is a variation of the idea that Reb Chaim of Volsohin says about worship of tzadikim. I mean to say that he is critical of the idea of worship of tzadikim[]
In the Nefesh HaChaim he says that the intention to attach one's soul to the soul of the tzadik is a form of idolaty. And the fact that a lot of people go to graves of tzadikim for that exact purpose seems to me to be suspicious.
I was hoping in learning the Talmud in Sanhedrin from page 60b to about 64 would help clarify this issue --which it did. But it took a long time for the message to be absorbed.
This should not be taken as disparaging Reb Nachman. Rather the problem seems to be with the people that make him into an idol. He is of course not the only example but just one example that comes to mind. And perhaps the fact that he was a great tzadik makes it a little easier to discuss this problem in his context.
The trouble seems to be that there is a difference between what the Torah actually says and what religious leaders tell us it says, This has been a problem in the religious world ever since Jeremiah cursed the Jewish people that since we have not listened to true prophets that God will from then on give us false prophets and to them we will listen.
In the Nefesh HaChaim he says that the intention to attach one's soul to the soul of the tzadik is a form of idolaty. And the fact that a lot of people go to graves of tzadikim for that exact purpose seems to me to be suspicious.
I was hoping in learning the Talmud in Sanhedrin from page 60b to about 64 would help clarify this issue --which it did. But it took a long time for the message to be absorbed.
This should not be taken as disparaging Reb Nachman. Rather the problem seems to be with the people that make him into an idol. He is of course not the only example but just one example that comes to mind. And perhaps the fact that he was a great tzadik makes it a little easier to discuss this problem in his context.
The trouble seems to be that there is a difference between what the Torah actually says and what religious leaders tell us it says, This has been a problem in the religious world ever since Jeremiah cursed the Jewish people that since we have not listened to true prophets that God will from then on give us false prophets and to them we will listen.
Communism and Socialism
Dr Michael Huemer has a very nice refutation of Communism.http://www.owl232.net/economics.pdf
The idea is that Communism is based the the labor theory of value and he shows that that theory is incorrect.
I myself never saw much value in Communism since private property is a prime value in Torah. It is even encoded in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not steal."
The left have never seen a regulation or tax they didn’t like.
Gun control. Again, fixing a social problem by stripping rights from the law abiding.
They side with criminals instead of civilization. Want to reduce wrongful convictions? Reform the justice system to focus solely on guilt or innocence instead of procedure.
They backed corrupt labor unions that threatened workers, killed reformers, and pushed rules that defended the laziest and most incompetent workers. Just read up on the futile efforts of the NYC school system to get rid of bad teachers.
16.9.16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A friend of mine who worked for the KGB thought the KGB did not have the ability to accomplish this vast project of deleting American traditional values all by itself. Later, he might have changed his mind. If after all, the KGB devoted a large percent of its budget for this purpose, it might have been possible.
In any case we see why the left coming from the Frankfurt school sides strongly with Islam. All its sins are a nothing to the Left. The reason is simple. To the Left Islam is the greatest ally in the destruction of Jewish and Christian Ethics. The left will side with anything they see as conducive towards the destruction of traditional Jewish Christian values.