Advice by a man of wisdom and experience on the topic of personal safety:
Don’t hang out with stupid people, don’t go to stupid places, don’t do stupid things.
6.10.16
The group that the Gra put into excommunication.
The Shelah [שני לחות הברית] says there is a mitzvah of rebuke even if you know the person will not accept it.
Later I saw this in the Gra in the book אבן שלמה that is there is a commentary on that book that brings the actual words of the Gra from his commentary on mishlei an kohelet etc. There I saw this.
Therefore I wanted to take the opportunity to warn people about the group that the Gra put into excommunication. This is completely ignored by the entire Jewish world for reason unknown to me.
I would make an exception for Reb Nachman and the Baal Shem Tov himself as you can see in the actual words of the document they would not be included. The actual document that the Gra signed specified a specific group.
My opinion about that group is they are the Sitra Achra [pure evil] itself and anything they touch becomes unclean. Just to not mince words: I do think they are a cult of idolatry, and should get the death penalty. It does not matter if they pretend to keep Torah.
Later I saw this in the Gra in the book אבן שלמה that is there is a commentary on that book that brings the actual words of the Gra from his commentary on mishlei an kohelet etc. There I saw this.
Therefore I wanted to take the opportunity to warn people about the group that the Gra put into excommunication. This is completely ignored by the entire Jewish world for reason unknown to me.
I would make an exception for Reb Nachman and the Baal Shem Tov himself as you can see in the actual words of the document they would not be included. The actual document that the Gra signed specified a specific group.
My opinion about that group is they are the Sitra Achra [pure evil] itself and anything they touch becomes unclean. Just to not mince words: I do think they are a cult of idolatry, and should get the death penalty. It does not matter if they pretend to keep Torah.
In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.”
On the blog Dalrock Feminism is criticized. Especially Christian Feminism.
For example the author takes to task this deplorable practice:
In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.”
My comment on this is: Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband. [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]
A comment on my comment comes from Lyn87:
I answered to Lyn87 this comment
Lyn87. Sorry I did not make it clear.The reason she is forbidden to her husband comes from some verse about the Sota. I admt I forget the verse. But what comes out of that verse is כשם שהיא אסורה לבועל כך היא אסורה לבעל. Just like she is forbidden to the adulterer so is she forbidden to her husband. It is from a verse in numbers right I think right before the sacrifices of the princes of the tribes. It has nothing to do with her being forbidden to her first husband after being remarried to someone else. It is a totally different issue.
To Lyn 87: As for your quotes from the NT my feeling is that as Rav Yaakov Emden said that Jesus was being more strict than the Mosaic Law. That means in plain English that he was not defining Mosaic Law but rather being more strict. So People following Jesus would certainly not be allowed to remarry because of that statement of Jesus--but not because it is adultery, We find this often in the Old Testament of things not being desirable even though they might not be forbidden from the strict letter of the Law. That is around every mitzvah and every prohibition there is grey area. For example idolatry. Some things are straight forward idolatry and get the death penalty. No problem there. But other things like service not in its way but in a way of honor is forbidden but does not get the death penalty. [I think.]
For example the author takes to task this deplorable practice:
In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.”
My comment on this is: Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband. [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]
A comment on my comment comes from Lyn87:
- The words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 are as follows: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”I think it does make her forbidden to her “husband” – because he is not her husband. If we really believe what Jesus said, a woman divorced for anything other than fornication (a general term for illicit sex) is guilty of adultery (aspecific term for having sex with another man’s wife), if she remarries. It makes no sense to say that a woman is committing adultery with her own husband since that defies the very definition of the word – you can no more commit “adultery” with your own wife than you can steal your own wallet – yet Jesus classifies the sex within those “marriages” as “adultery” (again, a very specific term that means “sex with another man’s wife”). The ONLY possible explanation is that not only is the man she is acting as a wife toward not her husband… but another man is.Other than the exceptions provided for in Matthew 19, any “marriage” subsequent to the first one is not a marriage in the eyes of God, but is simply an adulterous union given sanction by the state and, now, the church. There is really no other way to ready Matthew 19 – most of the “couples” in churches today that are the second marriages of the wives are actually just two people shacking-up with a piece of paper that falsely claims otherwise. The county clerk that issues the license doesn’t care, and Kim Davis doesn’t care, and most pew-sitters and pastors don’t care, but God certainly seems to care. There are exceptions: when my dad was a pastor he flatly refused to perform several wedding ceremonies, including ones that would result in an adulterous union as defined by Matthew 19. He would tell them, “I can’t marry you – you’re already married to someone else.”My current pastor is a generally very straight guy, but he has a few blind spots and this is one of them. I told him that he’s allowing open adultery to exist in the pews and even in the leadership by considering adulterous unions to be valid marriages. I see no way to read the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 without concluding that those women are married to other men in the eyes of God.I asked him a rhetorical question: “What if the former husband of one of the divorced-and-remarried women in the congregation came to you, pointed out the words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and demanded that you take action to have his wife return to him (like Hosea did with Gomer). His response was that the church’s stance was to “help the marriage that (currently) exists.” My response, of course, is that Jesus was very clear that the “current marriage” is not a marriage at all, or else Jesus would not have called it “adultery” – again, a very specific term for when a married woman has sex with someone who is not her husband.He wouldn’t agree to it – like I said, he’s a pretty straight guy with a blind spot. It’s a dangerous trend to tell people that they are legitimately married when God has unambiguously defined such relationships as being adulterous. It’s dangerous for the church leaders who accept “the current marriage” and will answer to God for calling adultery “marriage,” and for the couples themselves, who are committing adultery and being told they are not.
I answered to Lyn87 this comment
Lyn87. Sorry I did not make it clear.The reason she is forbidden to her husband comes from some verse about the Sota. I admt I forget the verse. But what comes out of that verse is כשם שהיא אסורה לבועל כך היא אסורה לבעל. Just like she is forbidden to the adulterer so is she forbidden to her husband. It is from a verse in numbers right I think right before the sacrifices of the princes of the tribes. It has nothing to do with her being forbidden to her first husband after being remarried to someone else. It is a totally different issue.
To Lyn 87: As for your quotes from the NT my feeling is that as Rav Yaakov Emden said that Jesus was being more strict than the Mosaic Law. That means in plain English that he was not defining Mosaic Law but rather being more strict. So People following Jesus would certainly not be allowed to remarry because of that statement of Jesus--but not because it is adultery, We find this often in the Old Testament of things not being desirable even though they might not be forbidden from the strict letter of the Law. That is around every mitzvah and every prohibition there is grey area. For example idolatry. Some things are straight forward idolatry and get the death penalty. No problem there. But other things like service not in its way but in a way of honor is forbidden but does not get the death penalty. [I think.]
5.10.16
Me to Dr Ross>
Your system puts much weight on the individual. The Alt Right has been arguing for some time the problems in the USA are a natural development of the Constitution itself.
Dr Ross" That depends. What the individual cannot do for themselves, the statist thinks the State can do. But libertarians have more trust in private organizations, which de Tocqueville already noticed were robust and active in America – but that now have declined, driven out by the Welfare State. It is clear from Europe and the U.S. that the State actually always creates a moral hazard and political corruption.
Me: I wrote on the blog Amerika :I do think a lot of the problems came with Rousseau and his particular approach to equality more than John Locke.
The answer of the author [Brett Stevens] was "No doubt. But do we need the concept of equality in the first place? Is anything in nature equal?"
My answer to that was : "My learning partner said that the way things are today in the USA are a natural development of the system, and I have almost never been able to out argue him. So I will have to take some time to figure out if perhaps you are right. That will take time. I will have to go through in my own mind what I remember of John Locke, and the pluses and minuses of the American system of government. Plus, I will have to consider the Kant school which does put the center of gravity in the individual."
So is there a way to defend the more John Locke kind of system that is in the USA? Or should we return to Throne and Altar? Or how would you react to all this. These questions about government and culture have become more and more common on the internet.
Sincerely, Avraham Rosenblum
Dr Kelley Ross wrote back : In the decades since the New Deal and the Great Society, where the consequences of both are obvious, with parallel evils in Europe, it is astonishing that people still talk like that they never existed and that the unemployment, slow growth, and dependency evident in Europe and here are the result of Capitalism! This is delusional. Like Greek voters continuing to vote for Leftists, or Americans voting for Obama and Hillary. American government now has more in common with Otto von Bismarck that it does with Locke, Madison, or Jefferson. Complaining about the Constitution as the “System” is like complaining about Las Vegas as the Protestant Work Ethic. The Socialists and Democrats already shredded the Constitution, and when their plans and predictions failed, they have never wanted to admit that the failures were due to their own foolish brainstorms and programs.
Best,
KR
the commentary of the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch
I saw a book in Israel that took the commentary of the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch and expanded it to show what the Gra was getting at in his cryptic notes. This was done on only short sections of the Shulchan Aruch but it seems a good idea to do this with all four volumes.
In any case, it is good to see people waking up to the importance of the Gra.
[The only place that took the Gra seriously in the 1990's was the yeshiva of Rav Zilverman in the Old City of Jerusalem. I have heard that a few more similar kinds of places began.]
[No Critique intended on Reb Nachman. Rather on the entire movement the Gra put into excommunication. Reb Nachman however stands apart from that movement. I do not think that Rav Zilverman would agree, but in any case you can see from the actual documents that Reb Nachman was not in the category of the excommunication.]
[The only place that took the Gra seriously in the 1990's was the yeshiva of Rav Zilverman in the Old City of Jerusalem. I have heard that a few more similar kinds of places began.]
[No Critique intended on Reb Nachman. Rather on the entire movement the Gra put into excommunication. Reb Nachman however stands apart from that movement. I do not think that Rav Zilverman would agree, but in any case you can see from the actual documents that Reb Nachman was not in the category of the excommunication.]
בבא מציעא צ''ז ע'ב
בבא מציעא צ''ז ע'ב This might seem like a minor point but it is possible to bring a proof to the idea we do not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה when it comes toחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע . The proof is this. Why did the גמרא not ask on the משנה on צ''ז the question ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא? It asked this question on page ק and used that question to prove that that משנה is like סומכוס. But the משנה on page צ''ז is just the mirror image of that משנה except that the cases are different. On page צ''ז there is no חזקת רשות except for the חזקת ממון. So we see the גמרא could not have asked from חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע to prove that משנה is like סומכוס
בבא מציעא צ''ז ע''ב אפשר להביא ראיה לרעיון שאנחנו לא אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה כשמדובר בחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. ההוכחה היא זו. מדוע גמרא לא שואלת על המשנה על צ''ז השאלה "ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא"? הוא שאל את השאלה הזאת על דף ק' והגמרא משתמשת בשאלה הזאת להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס. אבל המשנה בעמוד צ''ז הוא פשוט תמונת הראי של המשנה הזאת למעט שהמקרים שונים. בדף צ''ז אין חזקת רשות אלא חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. כך אנו רואים שהגמרא לא יכולה לשאול מן חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס.
בבא מציעא צ''ז ע''ב אפשר להביא ראיה לרעיון שאנחנו לא אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה כשמדובר בחזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. ההוכחה היא זו. מדוע גמרא לא שואלת על המשנה על צ''ז השאלה "ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא"? הוא שאל את השאלה הזאת על דף ק' והגמרא משתמשת בשאלה הזאת להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס. אבל המשנה בעמוד צ''ז הוא פשוט תמונת הראי של המשנה הזאת למעט שהמקרים שונים. בדף צ''ז אין חזקת רשות אלא חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע. כך אנו רואים שהגמרא לא יכולה לשאול מן חזקת כסף, חזקת מטבע להוכיח כי המשנה היא כמו סומכוס.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)