Translate

Powered By Blogger

5.3.17

learning Torah

The most attractive thing about learning Torah is that it constitutes a life lived for God. Or that is what it ought be be. It is not supposed to be a choice about how to go about making money. This is at least how the Chazal {חז''ל} sages of the Talmud understood it. The choice is supposed to be  along the lines of, "Should I spend my time running after things of this world, or should I devote my life to serving God?"
This aspect of Torah as a holy pursuit is what sparks in me a sense of outrage when I see it being made into a way of making money.  When I see the  religious people (I use the term "people" loosely. It is true they have human DNA, but so do my fingernails.)  being mainly based on  scamming of naive secular Jews, I get a sense of outrage that I feel others ought to share with me.
I feel the religious have turned something holy and precious--the Written and Oral Law of Moses, into something disgusting revolting and unholy and unclean.

Thus the problem of Halaca of using Torah for money is not the kind of focus of attention that I am interested in. Rather there is something about the whole religious world in itself that is perfectly revolting and immoral outside of the few fine and outstanding Litvak yeshivas in NY, or the general world of religious Zionism in Israel that emphases Torah along with Derek Eretz [Human decency]. (This is the same emphasis  as you have in NY Litvak yeshivas. It is just in Israel that the religious world is satanic as is obviously to anyone who has had any experience with them. I do not mean to be critical here of places like Ponovitch or the other few authentic Litvak yeshivas in Israel. The best advice I think is to stop funding the religious world which is highly demonic and does not contribute anything to the Jewish world. Great places like Ponovitch don't need the money. They will manage well on their own. And this way, by cutting off the funding, you stop funding the evil in our midst. ] 

One thing is studiously ignored in the religious world is the enormous human suffering inflicted on people by Torah scholars that are demons. This is swept under the carpet as if it did not exist.
The Talmud itself refers to this problem in the end of Shabat and it comes up in the Rambam, but Reb Nachman (ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק א' פרק ח', י''ב, כ''ח ועוד הרבה) was the only person to make this an issue consistently. The trouble is not so much the character of the demonic Torah scholars with whom I have had the sad misfortune to encounter all too often. Rather it is the suffering they cause to others. And then, after all the damage they cause,  they have the gall to ask to get paid for their services?

This obviously does not refer to sincere Torah scholars that learn Torah for its own sake, and the difference is all too plain. That is why I am careful to recommend only the authentic Litvak yeshivas that I know are learning Torah for its own sake.

What is happening is think is this: People use Torah to gain money power and then go about using their power in horrible, horrific, ways. Everyone knows  Satanic teachers of Torah that make unclean everything they touch. This creates an opposite reaction. People then flee from Torah as if it alone was responsible for this.
This makes it difficult for me to explain the problem is with the demonic teachers that are sent to Earth in order for there to be free will. For if people would only see the Light of the Torah, there would no longer be free will. Everyone would run to learn and keep Torah.  Thus there has to be these agents of the Devil in order for there to be free will.

But people should know, demonic scholars do not learn and keep Torah at all. It is all a scam. The real authentic Torah is only found in authentic Litvak yeshivas.







4.3.17

Joseph Yozel Horvitz-- Trust in God

Faith a trust in God without effort on your own part is  a debate. Joseph Yozel Horvitz depended on Reb Israel Salanter that the Ramban held one needs no effort. But to find that in the Ramban has proven impossible. No one knows from where Reb Israel Salanter got this, However the Gra definitely held this way  --that no effort is necessary. This provided a foundation for Litvak yeshivas in NY. The general approach in NY was to learn Torah and depend on God for a living and shiduch, and not to get the false semicha [ordination]  that gives people the ability to use Torah as a shovel, [i.e. to make money]. In the Mir anyone that got Semicha was looked on as if he was a charlatan and could not really learn.

I hope this does not sound like I am claiming trust in God. I definitely lost that and so my entire service towards God is on a  different wave length. That is trying make up for losing trust. For once it is lost it does not return. The same with the Divine Light or "shechina". 
Trust for me worked as long as I hung onto it. 

In any case, in the Litvak kinds of Yeshiva Musar is learned I felt the real presence of God, the Shechina, and this leads to my general recommendation of making places like this or at least in ones home to have a spot dedicated to learning Torah and Musar.

3.3.17

Shabat: carrying in a public domain

Carrying in a public domain on Shabat is one of the 39 kinds of forbidden work.


Tosphot and Rashi say to be a public domain there must be 600,000 people walking through it. 
The Rif and Rambam do not require any amount of people. But the road does need to be 16 cubits wide. Thus to the Rif and Rambam no Eruv is valid. So is one stuck? I suggest one can depend on Rashi and Tosphot in a case of need along with not setting down the package in the public domain but just carrying through it and setting it down in private domain. Thus there are two reasons to be lenient. But I find  Rashi difficult because in no Gemaras is this 600,000 mentioned and the cities in Persia (where the Gemara is talking about carrying) did not have 600,000.






רש''י and תוספות that say one needs ששים רבוא people walking through the central road to make it a public domain. The reason for doubts about this is the רמב''ם and רי''ף that consider a public domain to be just what it sounds like as long as the road is wide enough.

But the thing that makes this the most curious is that fact that in all the גמרות in שבת and עירובין that deal with carrying in a public domain there never seems to be the slightest consideration of this ששים רבוא. And the Jewish cities in Persia did not have ששים רבוא. 





{That however leaves the question of pockets- that does not seem to be the same as carrying in one's hands. The object is not nullified to the garment, but neither is it the same as carrying in one hands. To carry in one's pockets I think would be forbidden because of a separate law -the lifting and setting of one's body is like the lifting and setting of the object and as Rava says in Shabat page 8 that means even carrying on one' head would be liable. 

So pockets are out but carrying in a way that you do not set anything down in the public domain along with Rashi and Tosphot could be a decent permission.


שבת: נושאת רשות הרבים. רש''י  ותוספות אומרים שצריכים ששים רבוא אנשים הולכים דרך כביש מרכזי כדי להפוך אותה לרשות הציבור. הסיבה לספק לגבי זה היא שהרמב''ם והרי''ף  שוקלים רשות הציבור להיות בדיוק מה שזו נשמע אלא שהכביש הוא צריך  להיות רחב מספיק. אבל הדבר שעושה את זה ביעתי ביותר הוא העובדה כי בכל הגמרות בשבת ועירובין  עם שנושאות בעניין רשות הרבים מעולם לא נראה  שיקול של ששים רבוא,  ובערים היהודיות בפרס לא היו ששים רבוא

I would like to think about pockets more but at this point the issue seems to be in doubt. 

I have lots of areas where I am lenient but I do not write about them because the issues are not 100% clear to me. So I hesitate to tell others though I am lenient for myself. The general things I am lenient about are תקנות דרבנן in which the reason for the decree is bull as per the Raavad and Tosphot and Gemara in Beitza 5 and Gittin end of ch 1


So if you are looking for lenient decisions the general way to do this is to look at the question is the law derabanan and if the reason for it is null. The other common thing I do is simply look for a lenient decision in the rishonim, geonim or in the Beit Yoseph or Rema. 

I am not saying one should look to be lenient in law. However at a certain point I began to see that people could be extra strict in Halacha and still be scum. The extra strictness maybe even hurt. 







Psychiatrists. they are intent on psychologizing the men they attacks: they deal not with what they say and do but with their alleged motives.

the-liars-liar

Psychiatrists.  Dr. Frances The person in charge of creating DSM-IV


Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:
There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
BANG.
That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”



This is doubly serious because they are intent on psychologizing the men thet attacks: they deal not  with what they say and do  but  with their alleged motives.

The way I calculate the Hebrew Calendar is not the same as the traditional method.

The way I calculate the Hebrew Calendar is not the same as the traditional method. To  my way of thinking the first day of the month is on what is called the Molad which is when the sun and moon are on the same longitude.  The basic issue really comes from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 10 and Rosh Hashanah around page 19 which seem to be  differing approaches (סוגיות חלוקות). I do not have a lot to say about this because the time I did this subject with my learning partner  I was not taking notes. I believe the chronological order was- we worked on the long Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10b very  thoroughly, and then the subject in Rosh Hashanah, and then we went to Bava Metzia.
[I apologize to the Jewish people for not taking notes at the time which would have been interesting as a very great learner was my learning partner.]  

Maybe a long essay here would be in order, but it would just be going through the basic subject with no new ideas.

Mainly, the idea is that there is no Sanhedrin to sanctify the new moon, and no record of Hillel the second doing so. So it makes sense to go with the Gemara in Sanhedrin that goes with the idea that when there is no beit din on earth to sanctify the new moon then from heaven it is sanctified. When is that? To the first opinion in Tosphot it is the Molad. But the other opinion that Tosphot defends is that it depends on when the new moon can be seen, which is hard to tell and there are no set rules for that.

The proof that the present day calendar was not in use during the time of the geonim is there are dates in their letters that are not according to the present day calendar. 

I admit, that if there would be authentic ordination סמיכה, then obviously we would go with the Sanhedrin. But there is no Sanhedrin, and you can not make up ordination that is not from Sinai out of thin air and pretend it is real. At that rate, why not just make up your own Rosh Hashanah also. If you want to ignore Torah Law, then, hey, go for it. But if it is Torah law we are interested in, then there is no Semicha and no authority to sanctify the new moon. So we have to go with R. Eleazar ben Azariah and the Gemara in Sanhedrin 10B.

I sadly have no Gemara to look up anything but from what I recall there is never a problem about the leap year because [if memory serves] all you need to Passover to occur in the Spring. [Certainly if you needed the beginning of Nisan to be in Spring, that would cause problems. But from what I know you only need either the 16th or 17th day of the month to be in Spring according to the Jerusalem Talmud. So Passover in fact always falls in the same month everyone else is doing it. The only difference is it will usually be one or two days before everyone else. ]




As Hegel pointed out, the other answers of the German Idealists were not very good, and some were simply nonsense.

I should mention that I prefer Neo Platonic thought myself as that looks to me to be the closest to reality. Not Plato alone nor Aristotle alone. Dr. Kelley Ross definitively goes in the Kant-Plato direction. But most of the great thinkers in history that form the basis of Western Civilization go with the Neo Platonic approach.

To Plotinus, Reason can perceive the forms, not just know them from some kind of implanted knowledge.

In any case, my own viewpoint in this direction I should admit was very much influenced by Rav Isaac Luria. When I was in the Mir in NY I spent a great deal of time between Gemara sessions in learning his Tree of Life [עץ חיים] which is thoroughly Neo Platonic. [The Tree of Life [עץ חיים] was actually written by Reb Haim Vital, but it is the teachings of the Ari.] [The Reshash/ Rav Shalom Sharaby I learned only later.] 
[The רש''ש Shalom Sharaby  made an important move back to Aristotle in saying in putting the order of the world horizontally in the time of תחיית המתים revival of the dead. That means saying the universals depend on particulars.]




 But Reality is also radically objective,--  the Schrodinger equation  is about as objective a law as anything that has ever existed as Dr. Kelley Ross wrote to me. In any case, the contradiction between reality being radically subjective and radically objective is exactly the type of thing that Hegel would have thought validates his system.

[I also want to add that to come up with the kind of Neo Platonic thought that is in the Rambam, the Ari, and Aquinas and Hegel is by no means a trivial feat. If you think that with simple faith in the Holy Torah and in Reason, you would have come up with this synthesis on your own then take a look at Hippolytus and see how hard it was to reconcile reason and faith and how radically different Plato is from the Neo Platonic synthesis of the Rambam.]


(note 1) The electron has no one value [energy or time, momentum or position in space] but rather a superposition of possible values until it is measured. This is proved by the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality.
[Feynman makes the point even more clear with his path integral approach.] 


As I put this elsewhere: We know from Einstein locality (causality). This we know by GPS (global positioning satellite). And we know from Bell either that reality is subjective, or non local (one or the other but not both). But we already know from Albert Einstein, that reality is local. Therefore putting 2+2=4 together we know reality is local and subjective (the electron or photon is a superposition of possible values in space time and polarization until measured. At that time the wave function collapses to one space time value.)
I also should mention that we might have known this from the two slit experiment, but there might have been ways to explain that away. So it is in fact that Nature violates the Bell's inequality that proves the point.






Plotinus. Neo Platonic thought is the basis for Western Civilization

Some aspects of Western Civilization are worth preserving and others not. A good deal of the literature and philosophy is worthless. Allen Bloom suggested just throwing out the entire Humanities and Social studies departments of most universities.
  • JPW says:
    If you really are down on certain aspects of Western Culture, I strongly encourage you to go forth and develop a better one. Don’t gripe about the problem. Solve it.

        • Avraham Rosenblum says:
          That is what I was thinking. But I tend more towards Neo-Platonic as did all the medieval thinkers and up to and including Hegel. Dr. Kelley Ross wants to return to a more pure form of Plato and Kant. But the basis of Western Civilization to me looks to be Plotinus and neo Platonic thought. And the the journal of Medieval Thought from Cornell they mention that even in Aquinas people have proven Neo Platonic influence.     
        • After Thought: The Ari, Shalom Sharabi, Yaakov Abuchatzaira, the Rambam are all clearly straight forward Neo Platonic thought--each one developing it in different directions. Shalom Sharabi in his scheme of things found a way to balance Plato and Aristotle as you can see in his order of the worlds after תחיית המתים which goes like Aristotle in which the universals depend on the particulars.