Sadly Musar [Jewish Mediaeval Ethics] is subject to abuse and that tends to give it a bad rap. What to me makes this sad is that Musar gives the best and most compact explanation of what the Torah requires from a person in the most explicit simple and practical way possible. That is it is like Bava Sali in the sense that it just tells you what Torah is about and leaves out all the Shtick that people like to add or subtract. There are tons of books supposedly about Torah, but most of them are false. They change the Torah in so many subtle ways that ignorant people can scarcely tell the difference.
1.3.17
Review of the same section or paragraph many times
The first thing that hit me when I got to yeshiva in NY [Shar Yashuv in Queens County--not Brooklyn] was the idea of review.
Mordechei Freifeld, the son of the Rosh Yeshiva Shelomo Freifeld emphasized this idea of review {חזרה} many times--especially when I would come and say how learning fast was important and I would bring proofs from the book בנין עולם (Building the World) and the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Paths of the Righteous. To some degree I in fact tried this over the years in yeshiva. I even remember in the Mir in NY I would take one paragraph of the Pnei Yehoshua and learn each one more than ten time--sometimes even 15 or twenty. [I had a pencil and would put a dot next to the beginning of the paragraph to note each time I had read through the whole thing.]
Moti Freifeld never changed in this respect and always emphasized review. When I discovered that Reb Nachman also empathized learning fast and getting through lot of material, Moti just kept emphasizing the importance of review all the more so.
I did not know it at the time; but it is the accepted custom in Lithuanian yeshivas to learn in depth in the morning and fast in the afternoon.
I think today that one has to gauge himself. There is a "law of limited returns." That is a law that goes thus:There is a limit to how many times you can kiss your wife that will add to marital bliss.
So when the material was basically unfamiliar to me [like when I was doing Ketuboth, Yevamot and Nida] I would basically do each Tosphot twice and not more--because I discovered that after two time I got the basic idea and doing any more times did not add anything to my understanding.
My basic compromise about all this is based on a Gemara [Talmud] לעולם לגרוס אדם והדר ליסבר. Always one should learn in the way of "Girsa" (saying the words and going on further) and afterward to make sense of it all. That is: when the material is completely unfamiliar the best thing is just to go through the whole book from beginning to end a few times. Then when you already have some idea of what is going on, then to take some individual section that you noticed seems to be pivotal or a key to the understanding of the whole subject and to do that one section many many times. This I found to be helpful in Physics also.
When I was learning with David Bronson in Bava Metzia I found him to be unwilling to budge an inch on anything in Tosphot that was unclear. That led to my long essay in the beginning of my little booklet on Bava Metzia on these words in Tosphot [page 97B] "Even without Abyee we would have to say that the law of Rav Yehuda comes from Shmuel." I should admit we never found an answer to that and after about two or more weeks of just sitting and staring at those couple of words we finally decide to go on. Some years later as you can see in that book, I found a tentative answer. And after that after getting the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach I found a better answer after about 10 years of wondering about that problem.
What I ended up saying is that Shmuel hold from certainty is better because חזקא מעיקרא in Ketuboth would not have been enough to believe the woman. That I based on the analysis of Rav Shach about the Gemara in Nida page 2
SO I suggest two sessions in Talmud, and two in Physics. A fast one where one just says the words and goes on. The other in depth in which one finds the key ideas an works on those sections and ten times or more
[So it ended up the things I did the most review on were the Mahrasha, and the Pnei Yehoshua. Those were hard but also the fact that each paragraph or idea was short made the ability to do review practical. This is less practical with Tosphot.
I should add that review seems to work better in Torah because sections in Gemara and Mishna are more or less self contained. In Physics, it seems I need to spend a lot of time in getting the big picture before woring on details becomes practical.
Mordechei Freifeld, the son of the Rosh Yeshiva Shelomo Freifeld emphasized this idea of review {חזרה} many times--especially when I would come and say how learning fast was important and I would bring proofs from the book בנין עולם (Building the World) and the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Paths of the Righteous. To some degree I in fact tried this over the years in yeshiva. I even remember in the Mir in NY I would take one paragraph of the Pnei Yehoshua and learn each one more than ten time--sometimes even 15 or twenty. [I had a pencil and would put a dot next to the beginning of the paragraph to note each time I had read through the whole thing.]
Moti Freifeld never changed in this respect and always emphasized review. When I discovered that Reb Nachman also empathized learning fast and getting through lot of material, Moti just kept emphasizing the importance of review all the more so.
I did not know it at the time; but it is the accepted custom in Lithuanian yeshivas to learn in depth in the morning and fast in the afternoon.
I think today that one has to gauge himself. There is a "law of limited returns." That is a law that goes thus:There is a limit to how many times you can kiss your wife that will add to marital bliss.
So when the material was basically unfamiliar to me [like when I was doing Ketuboth, Yevamot and Nida] I would basically do each Tosphot twice and not more--because I discovered that after two time I got the basic idea and doing any more times did not add anything to my understanding.
My basic compromise about all this is based on a Gemara [Talmud] לעולם לגרוס אדם והדר ליסבר. Always one should learn in the way of "Girsa" (saying the words and going on further) and afterward to make sense of it all. That is: when the material is completely unfamiliar the best thing is just to go through the whole book from beginning to end a few times. Then when you already have some idea of what is going on, then to take some individual section that you noticed seems to be pivotal or a key to the understanding of the whole subject and to do that one section many many times. This I found to be helpful in Physics also.
When I was learning with David Bronson in Bava Metzia I found him to be unwilling to budge an inch on anything in Tosphot that was unclear. That led to my long essay in the beginning of my little booklet on Bava Metzia on these words in Tosphot [page 97B] "Even without Abyee we would have to say that the law of Rav Yehuda comes from Shmuel." I should admit we never found an answer to that and after about two or more weeks of just sitting and staring at those couple of words we finally decide to go on. Some years later as you can see in that book, I found a tentative answer. And after that after getting the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach I found a better answer after about 10 years of wondering about that problem.
What I ended up saying is that Shmuel hold from certainty is better because חזקא מעיקרא in Ketuboth would not have been enough to believe the woman. That I based on the analysis of Rav Shach about the Gemara in Nida page 2
SO I suggest two sessions in Talmud, and two in Physics. A fast one where one just says the words and goes on. The other in depth in which one finds the key ideas an works on those sections and ten times or more
[So it ended up the things I did the most review on were the Mahrasha, and the Pnei Yehoshua. Those were hard but also the fact that each paragraph or idea was short made the ability to do review practical. This is less practical with Tosphot.
I should add that review seems to work better in Torah because sections in Gemara and Mishna are more or less self contained. In Physics, it seems I need to spend a lot of time in getting the big picture before woring on details becomes practical.
Jewish religious world
The trouble with the Jewish religious world is that their actions speak so loudly that no one can hear what they are saying.
The trouble seems to be that Torah really only works well when it is learned and kept for the sake of God. When it becomes a means to make money, it turns to poison. And the first primary commandment in the religious world is to trick and cheat secular Jews and naive baali teshuva. The main hell holes are the yeshivas in Jerusalem and the West Coast the the USA.
Reb Nachman from Breslov had a term for religious teachers תלמידי חכמים שדיין יהודאיים. (Torah scholars that are demonic). It is really not from the Zohar. [Reb Nachman had to make a composite of this idea from the Zohar along with the rather severe complaints about Torah scholars that are hypocrites which are brought in the Mishna and Gemara]. In the Zohar itself we have a concept of שדיי יכו''ם and שדיי יהודאים. That is Jewish and gentile demons. That seems to refer to people that simply are beyond repentance. That is is people with no conscience which are the majority of mankind. People are not naturally good. We are naturally depraved. According to the Rambam even natural law [the laws of the Attic Greeks he calls them] needed Revelation. [The Rambam had an easy option open to him to say natural law was accessible by human reason but he choose not to go down that path.]
In any case this is a real problem that needs addressing because without it, I believe everyone would run to the light of the Torah.
Reb Nachman I should mention brought up this theme with a great deal of consistency throughout the ten year period Reb Nathan knew him. The first time is in Vol I chapter 8 (of Reb Nachman main work) which was I believe the first Hanuka lesson Reb Nathan heard from Reb Nachman. After that it comes up in ch. 12 and then 28 and then it is mentioned over and over until very last Torah lesson Reb Nachman ever gave Vol II ch 8.[Reb Nachman did not use the same term every time. Sometime it was דיינים שאינם כשרים judges that are not honest.]
.
Of course you can go overboard with this as some people do. After all there are sincere people that do try to learn and keep Torah for its own sake and a lot of them are in fact in the real Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch and the three great NY yeshivas Mir Chaim Berlin Torah Vedaat.
The Na Nach group of Breslov take it on principle that all well known Torah teachers are hypocrites since they feel it takes too much energy to try to choose which ones are OK. So they simply dismiss the whole lot. That is based on Reb Israel Odesser whose basic advice they follow. This rule works well in practice, since it saves them from teachers of Torah that really are demons but it is hard to tell on the outside. Personally I think I also would have been saved from much trouble if I had followed that rule.
[The actual subject of Jewish and Gentile demons is covered in the later chapters of the Eitz Chaim of the Ari, but the basic rule is to avoid trouble it is wise to simply avoid religious teachers and if you need a mikve to go to the ocean or a river. The Religious world is simly bad news]
The trouble seems to be that Torah really only works well when it is learned and kept for the sake of God. When it becomes a means to make money, it turns to poison. And the first primary commandment in the religious world is to trick and cheat secular Jews and naive baali teshuva. The main hell holes are the yeshivas in Jerusalem and the West Coast the the USA.
Reb Nachman from Breslov had a term for religious teachers תלמידי חכמים שדיין יהודאיים. (Torah scholars that are demonic). It is really not from the Zohar. [Reb Nachman had to make a composite of this idea from the Zohar along with the rather severe complaints about Torah scholars that are hypocrites which are brought in the Mishna and Gemara]. In the Zohar itself we have a concept of שדיי יכו''ם and שדיי יהודאים. That is Jewish and gentile demons. That seems to refer to people that simply are beyond repentance. That is is people with no conscience which are the majority of mankind. People are not naturally good. We are naturally depraved. According to the Rambam even natural law [the laws of the Attic Greeks he calls them] needed Revelation. [The Rambam had an easy option open to him to say natural law was accessible by human reason but he choose not to go down that path.]
In any case this is a real problem that needs addressing because without it, I believe everyone would run to the light of the Torah.
Reb Nachman I should mention brought up this theme with a great deal of consistency throughout the ten year period Reb Nathan knew him. The first time is in Vol I chapter 8 (of Reb Nachman main work) which was I believe the first Hanuka lesson Reb Nathan heard from Reb Nachman. After that it comes up in ch. 12 and then 28 and then it is mentioned over and over until very last Torah lesson Reb Nachman ever gave Vol II ch 8.[Reb Nachman did not use the same term every time. Sometime it was דיינים שאינם כשרים judges that are not honest.]
.
Of course you can go overboard with this as some people do. After all there are sincere people that do try to learn and keep Torah for its own sake and a lot of them are in fact in the real Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch and the three great NY yeshivas Mir Chaim Berlin Torah Vedaat.
The Na Nach group of Breslov take it on principle that all well known Torah teachers are hypocrites since they feel it takes too much energy to try to choose which ones are OK. So they simply dismiss the whole lot. That is based on Reb Israel Odesser whose basic advice they follow. This rule works well in practice, since it saves them from teachers of Torah that really are demons but it is hard to tell on the outside. Personally I think I also would have been saved from much trouble if I had followed that rule.
[The actual subject of Jewish and Gentile demons is covered in the later chapters of the Eitz Chaim of the Ari, but the basic rule is to avoid trouble it is wise to simply avoid religious teachers and if you need a mikve to go to the ocean or a river. The Religious world is simly bad news]
27.2.17
Idolatry
I wanted to share some thoughts about Hulin page 40. The point I would like to get to is that the Rambam must hold like Tosphot on page 41, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only derabanan, then what would the question of Rava be? Let's sy teh law of Rav Huna was only derabanan. Then when Rav Nachman comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on Shabat is liable three, then Rav Huna could simply have answered I m saying it is forbidden derabanan but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time.
__________________________________________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
רב שך when he was a young yeshiva student wrote that this רמב''ם is only דרבנן but I think that it must be that it is from the Torah itself. But to me the idea that this is דרבנן would need stronger proofs than what רב שך brings. Everyone agrees from where the prohibition to the altar comes from, It is one simple גמרא about the כלים that were used by אחז, were put away by חזקיה. So obviously the תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן manage to get the איסור still to be from the Torah. So why not the רמב''ם also?
Now I admit that in the end רב שך explains the question of רב נחמן well. That once there is a prohibition to the altar because of the prohibition of idolatry, even דרבנן, at that point it no longer can be brought to the altar and thus is no longer שחוטי חוץ. But that is not a question. If that was the question, the answer would have been simply אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה היא מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת החיובים באים בבת אחת.
רב שך כתב רמב''ם זה רק דרבנן אבל אני חושב שזה חייב להיות שזה מן התורה עצמה. להוכיח שזה דרבנן היה צריך הוכחות חזקות ממה שרב שך מביא. כולם מסכימים מאיפה האיסור המזבח בא, זה גמרא אחת פשוטה על כלים ששימש בהם אחז, הונחו בגניזה על ידי חזקיה. התוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן הצליחו להעביר את האיסור להיות מן התורה. אז למה לא רמב''ם גם? עכשיו אני מודה כי בסופו של דבר רב שך מסביר את השאלה של רב נחמן היטב. כי ברגע שיש איסור על המזבח בשל האיסור של עבודה זרה, אפילו דרבנן, בשלב הזה הבעל חי כבר לא יכול להיות מובא אל המזבח ולכן הוא כבר לא שחוטי חוץ. אבל זה לא שאלה. אם זאת היתה השאלה, התשובה היתה פשוט אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה החי מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת החיובים באים בבת אחת.
______________________________________________________________________________
I wanted to share some thoughts about חולין דף מ. The point I would like to get to is that the רמב''ם must hold like תוספות on דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only דרבנן, then what would the question of רב מחמן be? Let's say the law of רב הונא was only דרבנן. Then when רב נחמן comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on שבת is liable three חטאות, then רב הונא could simply have answered, "I am saying it is forbidden דרבנן, but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time." So he has to mean it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע הוא כי רמב''ם חייב להחזיק כמו תוספות על דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, כי אם איסור למזבח של החיה שסגדו לה יהיה רק דרבנן, אז מה הייתה השאלה של רב מחמן ? נניח החוק של רב הונא הוא רק דרבנן. לאחר מכן, כאשר רב נחמן מגיע עם הוראה אחת כי טובח חטאת לאליל ביום שבת עלול שלוש חטאות, אז רב הונא היה פשוט ענה, "אני אומר שזה איסור דרבנן, אבל מן התורה זה עדיין מתאים המזבח וכך שלושת החובות באות בבת אחת בזמן." אז מוכרח שהוא מהתכוון שזה איסור מן התורה עצמה.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The basic idea is this: Rav Huna said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe [the windpipe or the food pipe ], it is forbidden to the altar it even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from Ula who said in the name of R. Yochanan even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה (slaughtering) we need two סימנים (windpipe and food pipe)? [Rav Nachman asks on him, but it is not the same question I am asking.] Rav Nachman asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. "One who slaughters a sin offering on Shabat, outside the Temple, to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings." Rav Nachman asks, "Why three? If one tube [the windpipe or the food pipe] is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar, and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.
[This is all in the way of introduction. I am hoping to show that the Rambam must hold like Tosphot Hulin page 41 ד''ה ת''ש]
In any case, the problem all begins with Rashi who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. It is learned from a verse in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה [words of the scribes], not from the Torah itself. [You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the Gemara in Bava Kama does learns גזרה שוות from verse in the prophets with verse in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא]. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנהand other achronim [later authorities] are asking on the Rambam that he seems to hold this prohibition is only derabanan. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the Rambam brings this whole sugia subject is he states flat out: One who serves the animal of his friend makes it forbidden in פרק ו' הלכה ד' אסורי מזבח . He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal! But when it comes to regular animals, he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself, and also to ignore the whole sugia in Hulin. What I would like to suggest is that the Rambam holds like Tosphot that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא [large act and small act]. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of Hulin. Certainly Tosphot, the Ran and the Ramban hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah and even though Rashi brings a verse from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the Rambam would disagree with these other people.
The idea is that the Rambam does not say "he bowed to the animal" but "did service". That would be like Tosphot that he did a small act which would be סימן אחד When it comes to a regular animal there when he says he needs an act that means a large act.
________________________________________________________________________________
חולין דף מ. The point I would like to get to is the רמב''ם might hold like תוספות on page מ''א.
The basic idea is this: ר''ה said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe the windpipe or the food pipe , it is forbidden to the altar even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from עולא who said in the name of ר. יוחנן even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act on it.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה we need two סימנים? The גמרא The brings רב נחמן who asks on ר''ה but it is not the same question I am asking. רב נחמן asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. One who slaughters a sin offering on שבת, outside the בית המקדש to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings. רב נחמן asks why three? If one tube, the windpipe or the food pipe, is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.
The question is on ר''ה himself. To רב נחמן it seems clear the obligation for all three things comes at once after שחיטת רוב שנים. The question I asked is where is the proof in the first place? ר. יוחנן never said anything about סימן אחד
In any case, the problem all begins with רש''י who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. This רש''י is bringing from a different גמרא. It is learned from a פסוק in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה not from the Torah itself. You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the גמרא in בבא קמא דף ג does learns גזרות שוות from פסוקים in the prophets with פסוקים in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנה and other אחרונים are asking on the רמב''ם that he seems to hold this prohibition is only דרבנן. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the רמב''ם brings this whole סוגיה subject is he states: one who bows to the animal of another person makes it forbidden in פסולי המוקדשין. He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal. But when it comes to regular animals he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself and also to ignore the whole סוגיה in חולין. What I would like to suggest is that the רמב''ם holds like תוספות that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of חולין. Certainly תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah and even though רש''י brings a פסוק from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the רמב''ם would disagree with these other people.
) רמב''ם משנה תורה ה' איסורי מזבח פ''ד ה''ו הנעבד בין שעבד שלו בין של חבירו בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה בין לפני הקדש בין לאחר הקדש הרי זה אסור וירעה עד שיפול בו מום קבוע ויפדה בו. חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע אליה היא שהרמב''ם עשוי להחזיק כמו תוספות בעמוד מ''א ד'ה ת''ש. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה: ר''ה אמר אם בעל חי שוכב מול אליל ומישהו בא ושוחט אותו, אפילו רק צינור אחד (קנה נשימה או צינור המזון), אסור למזבח למרות שהחיה היא לא שלו. הוא מביא ראיה מן עולא שאמר בשם ר' יוחנן אף אחד מי שקד לעבר בהמה של אדם אחר אינו גורם לה להיות אסורה, אבל הוא יכול לגרום לה ליאסר על-ידי עשיית פעולה. השאלה שלי כאן היא למה זה הוכחה? אולי כשזה בא לשחיטה אנחנו צריכים שני סימנים? הגמרא מביאה רב נחמן ששואל על ר''ה אבל זו לא אותה דבר כשאלה שאני שואל. רב נחמן שואל מן השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. (השוחט חטאת ביום שבת, מחוץ לבית המקדש לאליל נדרש להביא שלוש חטאות). רב נחמן שואל מדוע שלוש? אם צינור אחד, קנה הנשימה או צינור המזון, זה מספיק כדי לגרום לו להיות אסור, אז זה כבר אינו מתאים למזבח וכך הוא צריך להידרש רק שתי חטאות. השאלה היא על ר''ה עצמו. לרב נחמן החובה לכל שלושת הדברים מגיע בבת אחת לאחר שחיטת רוב השנים. (השאלה היא על ההוכחה מלכתחילה? ר' יוחנן לא אמר שום דבר על סימן אחד.) בכל מקרה, בעית הכל מתחילה עם רש''י שמביא סיבת החיה אסורה. זה רש''י מביא מתוך גמרא שונה. הוא למד מתוך פסוק בנביאים. זה יעשה את זה לכל היותר איסור מדברי קבלה, לא מהתורה עצמה. אתה יכול לטעון כי זה בכלל לא בהכרח. זאת בהתבסס על העובדה שהגמרא בבבא קמא דף ג' לומדת גזרות שווות מן פסוקים בנביאים עם פסוקים בתורה ורואה את כל זה להיות דאורייתא. אבל לשאת איתי לרגע. מה קורה בסופו של דבר הוא שהלחם המשנה ואחרונים אחרים שואלים על הרמב''ם שהוא נראה להחזיק איסור זה הוא רק דרבנן. זה בדיוק מה שאני מקווה להתווכח נגד. הדבר שקשה הוא על איך רמב''ם מביא נושא הסוגיה הזה. הוא קובע: מי שעבד את החיה של אדם אחר עושה את זו אסורה למזבח (רמב''ם איסורי מזבח ). הוא לא הזכיר שום דבר על לעשות כל פעולה על החיה. אבל כשמדובר על חיות רגילות הוא מהצהיר כי כדי לעשות את זה אסור אחד צריך לעשות מעשה. אז כנראה הוא סותר את עצמו וגם מהתעלם מסוגיה שלמה בחולין. מה שאני רוצה להציע הוא כי רמב''ם מחזיק כמו תוספות שעושה הבחנה בין מעשה רב ומעשה זוטרא. אז הסימן האחד נקרא מעשה קטן האוסר קדשים ואת רוב שני סימנים הוא מעשה גדול ובכך אוסר חיה של חולין. אין ספק שתוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן מהחזיקים את החיה אסור מן התורה. ואף שרש''י מביא פסוק מן הנביאים, אני לא רואה שום סיבה לדמיין שרמב''ם לא יסכים עם אלה. רמב''ם איסורי מזבח פרק ו' הלכה ד'. הרעיון הוא כי רמב''ם לא אומר שהוא קד לחיה, אבל עשה שירות. זה יהיה כמו שתוספות אמרו שכשהוא עושה מעשה קטן זה יהיה סימן אחד. כשמדובר על חיה רגילה, שם כשהוא אומר שהוא צריך מעשה זה אומר מעשה גדול, שני סימנים.
__________________________________________________________________________________
רב שך when he was a young yeshiva student wrote that this רמב''ם is only דרבנן but I think that it must be that it is from the Torah itself. But to me the idea that this is דרבנן would need stronger proofs than what רב שך brings. Everyone agrees from where the prohibition to the altar comes from, It is one simple גמרא about the כלים that were used by אחז, were put away by חזקיה. So obviously the תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן manage to get the איסור still to be from the Torah. So why not the רמב''ם also?
Now I admit that in the end רב שך explains the question of רב נחמן well. That once there is a prohibition to the altar because of the prohibition of idolatry, even דרבנן, at that point it no longer can be brought to the altar and thus is no longer שחוטי חוץ. But that is not a question. If that was the question, the answer would have been simply אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה היא מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת החיובים באים בבת אחת.
רב שך כתב רמב''ם זה רק דרבנן אבל אני חושב שזה חייב להיות שזה מן התורה עצמה. להוכיח שזה דרבנן היה צריך הוכחות חזקות ממה שרב שך מביא. כולם מסכימים מאיפה האיסור המזבח בא, זה גמרא אחת פשוטה על כלים ששימש בהם אחז, הונחו בגניזה על ידי חזקיה. התוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן הצליחו להעביר את האיסור להיות מן התורה. אז למה לא רמב''ם גם? עכשיו אני מודה כי בסופו של דבר רב שך מסביר את השאלה של רב נחמן היטב. כי ברגע שיש איסור על המזבח בשל האיסור של עבודה זרה, אפילו דרבנן, בשלב הזה הבעל חי כבר לא יכול להיות מובא אל המזבח ולכן הוא כבר לא שחוטי חוץ. אבל זה לא שאלה. אם זאת היתה השאלה, התשובה היתה פשוט אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה החי מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת החיובים באים בבת אחת.
______________________________________________________________________________
I wanted to share some thoughts about חולין דף מ. The point I would like to get to is that the רמב''ם must hold like תוספות on דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only דרבנן, then what would the question of רב מחמן be? Let's say the law of רב הונא was only דרבנן. Then when רב נחמן comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on שבת is liable three חטאות, then רב הונא could simply have answered, "I am saying it is forbidden דרבנן, but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time." So he has to mean it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The basic idea is this: Rav Huna said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe [the windpipe or the food pipe ], it is forbidden to the altar it even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from Ula who said in the name of R. Yochanan even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה (slaughtering) we need two סימנים (windpipe and food pipe)? [Rav Nachman asks on him, but it is not the same question I am asking.] Rav Nachman asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. "One who slaughters a sin offering on Shabat, outside the Temple, to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings." Rav Nachman asks, "Why three? If one tube [the windpipe or the food pipe] is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar, and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.
[This is all in the way of introduction. I am hoping to show that the Rambam must hold like Tosphot Hulin page 41 ד''ה ת''ש]
In any case, the problem all begins with Rashi who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. It is learned from a verse in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה [words of the scribes], not from the Torah itself. [You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the Gemara in Bava Kama does learns גזרה שוות from verse in the prophets with verse in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא]. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנהand other achronim [later authorities] are asking on the Rambam that he seems to hold this prohibition is only derabanan. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the Rambam brings this whole sugia subject is he states flat out: One who serves the animal of his friend makes it forbidden in פרק ו' הלכה ד' אסורי מזבח . He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal! But when it comes to regular animals, he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself, and also to ignore the whole sugia in Hulin. What I would like to suggest is that the Rambam holds like Tosphot that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא [large act and small act]. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of Hulin. Certainly Tosphot, the Ran and the Ramban hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah and even though Rashi brings a verse from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the Rambam would disagree with these other people.
The idea is that the Rambam does not say "he bowed to the animal" but "did service". That would be like Tosphot that he did a small act which would be סימן אחד When it comes to a regular animal there when he says he needs an act that means a large act.
________________________________________________________________________________
חולין דף מ. The point I would like to get to is the רמב''ם might hold like תוספות on page מ''א.
The basic idea is this: ר''ה said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe the windpipe or the food pipe , it is forbidden to the altar even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from עולא who said in the name of ר. יוחנן even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act on it.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה we need two סימנים? The גמרא The brings רב נחמן who asks on ר''ה but it is not the same question I am asking. רב נחמן asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. One who slaughters a sin offering on שבת, outside the בית המקדש to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings. רב נחמן asks why three? If one tube, the windpipe or the food pipe, is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.
The question is on ר''ה himself. To רב נחמן it seems clear the obligation for all three things comes at once after שחיטת רוב שנים. The question I asked is where is the proof in the first place? ר. יוחנן never said anything about סימן אחד
In any case, the problem all begins with רש''י who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. This רש''י is bringing from a different גמרא. It is learned from a פסוק in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה not from the Torah itself. You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the גמרא in בבא קמא דף ג does learns גזרות שוות from פסוקים in the prophets with פסוקים in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנה and other אחרונים are asking on the רמב''ם that he seems to hold this prohibition is only דרבנן. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the רמב''ם brings this whole סוגיה subject is he states: one who bows to the animal of another person makes it forbidden in פסולי המוקדשין. He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal. But when it comes to regular animals he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself and also to ignore the whole סוגיה in חולין. What I would like to suggest is that the רמב''ם holds like תוספות that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of חולין. Certainly תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah and even though רש''י brings a פסוק from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the רמב''ם would disagree with these other people.
) רמב''ם משנה תורה ה' איסורי מזבח פ''ד ה''ו הנעבד בין שעבד שלו בין של חבירו בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה בין לפני הקדש בין לאחר הקדש הרי זה אסור וירעה עד שיפול בו מום קבוע ויפדה בו. חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע אליה היא שהרמב''ם עשוי להחזיק כמו תוספות בעמוד מ''א ד'ה ת''ש. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה: ר''ה אמר אם בעל חי שוכב מול אליל ומישהו בא ושוחט אותו, אפילו רק צינור אחד (קנה נשימה או צינור המזון), אסור למזבח למרות שהחיה היא לא שלו. הוא מביא ראיה מן עולא שאמר בשם ר' יוחנן אף אחד מי שקד לעבר בהמה של אדם אחר אינו גורם לה להיות אסורה, אבל הוא יכול לגרום לה ליאסר על-ידי עשיית פעולה. השאלה שלי כאן היא למה זה הוכחה? אולי כשזה בא לשחיטה אנחנו צריכים שני סימנים? הגמרא מביאה רב נחמן ששואל על ר''ה אבל זו לא אותה דבר כשאלה שאני שואל. רב נחמן שואל מן השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. (השוחט חטאת ביום שבת, מחוץ לבית המקדש לאליל נדרש להביא שלוש חטאות). רב נחמן שואל מדוע שלוש? אם צינור אחד, קנה הנשימה או צינור המזון, זה מספיק כדי לגרום לו להיות אסור, אז זה כבר אינו מתאים למזבח וכך הוא צריך להידרש רק שתי חטאות. השאלה היא על ר''ה עצמו. לרב נחמן החובה לכל שלושת הדברים מגיע בבת אחת לאחר שחיטת רוב השנים. (השאלה היא על ההוכחה מלכתחילה? ר' יוחנן לא אמר שום דבר על סימן אחד.) בכל מקרה, בעית הכל מתחילה עם רש''י שמביא סיבת החיה אסורה. זה רש''י מביא מתוך גמרא שונה. הוא למד מתוך פסוק בנביאים. זה יעשה את זה לכל היותר איסור מדברי קבלה, לא מהתורה עצמה. אתה יכול לטעון כי זה בכלל לא בהכרח. זאת בהתבסס על העובדה שהגמרא בבבא קמא דף ג' לומדת גזרות שווות מן פסוקים בנביאים עם פסוקים בתורה ורואה את כל זה להיות דאורייתא. אבל לשאת איתי לרגע. מה קורה בסופו של דבר הוא שהלחם המשנה ואחרונים אחרים שואלים על הרמב''ם שהוא נראה להחזיק איסור זה הוא רק דרבנן. זה בדיוק מה שאני מקווה להתווכח נגד. הדבר שקשה הוא על איך רמב''ם מביא נושא הסוגיה הזה. הוא קובע: מי שעבד את החיה של אדם אחר עושה את זו אסורה למזבח (רמב''ם איסורי מזבח ). הוא לא הזכיר שום דבר על לעשות כל פעולה על החיה. אבל כשמדובר על חיות רגילות הוא מהצהיר כי כדי לעשות את זה אסור אחד צריך לעשות מעשה. אז כנראה הוא סותר את עצמו וגם מהתעלם מסוגיה שלמה בחולין. מה שאני רוצה להציע הוא כי רמב''ם מחזיק כמו תוספות שעושה הבחנה בין מעשה רב ומעשה זוטרא. אז הסימן האחד נקרא מעשה קטן האוסר קדשים ואת רוב שני סימנים הוא מעשה גדול ובכך אוסר חיה של חולין. אין ספק שתוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן מהחזיקים את החיה אסור מן התורה. ואף שרש''י מביא פסוק מן הנביאים, אני לא רואה שום סיבה לדמיין שרמב''ם לא יסכים עם אלה. רמב''ם איסורי מזבח פרק ו' הלכה ד'. הרעיון הוא כי רמב''ם לא אומר שהוא קד לחיה, אבל עשה שירות. זה יהיה כמו שתוספות אמרו שכשהוא עושה מעשה קטן זה יהיה סימן אחד. כשמדובר על חיה רגילה, שם כשהוא אומר שהוא צריך מעשה זה אומר מעשה גדול, שני סימנים.
Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.
Russia I think is keeping up the pressure on the Ukraine to not let them join NATO or the EU. The more the Ukraine goes in that direction politically, the more Russia uses actual violence to stop them. Russia will simply not let NATO get to its door step. Period. That is in chess like guarding the queen. What Russia would like to say is this: "Don't join NATO. If you abide by this, we will respect your borders and sovereignty, and give you special trading privileges as you have always enjoyed and will continue to enjoy. But do not join NATO."
But Russia cannot say this openly because it sounds like violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. So it has to say this in a way that is implicit, not explicit.
I do not see in this problem any solution except what already some people have seen-- not political, but a religious revival. To me it seems clear what this area of the world needs is a kind of religious revival--or better put--that each individual makes a commitment to get right with God. Thus I see a place for the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches. That is because I see politics downstream from faith. Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.
Ayn Rand saw society downstream from its philosophers. I can see this point to some degree. But I think rather the source of values [good or bad] is in religion.
But you can't manufacture religious revival. Even in the good sense. Perhaps in the negative sense it is possible, because human nature is in any case depraved. Even in the good sense, emphasizing the right and godly things, men will find a way of perverting everything and turning it towards their own profits and pleasure. Still from what I have seen a religious revival is possible (in some sense) to create the proper conditions for, and then hope that God will our out his spirit. At least I saw this in the Mir yeshiva in NY and also in Shar Yashuv. My impression is Musar yeshivas tend to be more prepared for the Divine spirit.
But on the other hand there are plenty of organizations which are open to the spirit of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side]. So I do not know any definite rules about this.
The best idea I have seen about this is Reb Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar which means books of ethics written during the Middle Ages. What is great about Musar is that it brings one that reads it face to face with his or hers obligations in the most delightful way. No sugar coating. Just plain and simple facts about what one is supposed to do for God.
In any case the question is can government do anything to strengthen this? I think it can. Vouchers for private schools.
But Russia cannot say this openly because it sounds like violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. So it has to say this in a way that is implicit, not explicit.
I do not see in this problem any solution except what already some people have seen-- not political, but a religious revival. To me it seems clear what this area of the world needs is a kind of religious revival--or better put--that each individual makes a commitment to get right with God. Thus I see a place for the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches. That is because I see politics downstream from faith. Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.
Ayn Rand saw society downstream from its philosophers. I can see this point to some degree. But I think rather the source of values [good or bad] is in religion.
But you can't manufacture religious revival. Even in the good sense. Perhaps in the negative sense it is possible, because human nature is in any case depraved. Even in the good sense, emphasizing the right and godly things, men will find a way of perverting everything and turning it towards their own profits and pleasure. Still from what I have seen a religious revival is possible (in some sense) to create the proper conditions for, and then hope that God will our out his spirit. At least I saw this in the Mir yeshiva in NY and also in Shar Yashuv. My impression is Musar yeshivas tend to be more prepared for the Divine spirit.
But on the other hand there are plenty of organizations which are open to the spirit of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side]. So I do not know any definite rules about this.
The best idea I have seen about this is Reb Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar which means books of ethics written during the Middle Ages. What is great about Musar is that it brings one that reads it face to face with his or hers obligations in the most delightful way. No sugar coating. Just plain and simple facts about what one is supposed to do for God.
In any case the question is can government do anything to strengthen this? I think it can. Vouchers for private schools.
26.2.17
getting right with God
The trouble with the religious world is that being religious has nothing to do with getting right with God.
For the religious, rituals become the main thing.
Getting right with God is something different. It is paying one's debts, it is having compassion, it is not depending on charity but working honesty for a living.
In the religious world, it seems the greatest mitzvah is to convince secular Jews to give them money. But instead of gratitude, this creates an attitude of מגיע לי--as if it is owed to them.
For the religious, rituals become the main thing.
Getting right with God is something different. It is paying one's debts, it is having compassion, it is not depending on charity but working honesty for a living.
In the religious world, it seems the greatest mitzvah is to convince secular Jews to give them money. But instead of gratitude, this creates an attitude of מגיע לי--as if it is owed to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)