Rambam: law of using an object dedicated to the Temple (7:9,10). Bava Metzia page 99, 43 a, tractate Meila page 20.

In terms of the law of Moses I wanted to mention that there is a sacrifice mentioned there for using something that was dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is one of the five guilt offerings. That is not the same as a sin offering.
The prohibition in the Torah come from the verse "You shall not eat in your gates.. and your vows."
So let us say you have money you have dedicated to the Temple. And you give it to a money changer or shop keeper to safeguard it. If it was wrapped in a way to show it should not be used and the money changer used it, he transgresses the prohibition. If it was not wrapped, and you said nothing to him about it, then no one transgresses the prohibition--to the Rambam. A teaching in pg. 43a the end of chapter המפקיד says you yourself did transgress. Why does the Rambam disagree? Because of a Mishna in Tracate Meila 20 that says simply the money changer does not transgress and stops at that. So we have no problem in understanding the Rambam. His opinion was that the Mishna in מעילה דף כ simply disagrees with the ברייתא. But what is the reasoning of the Rambam?
Rav Shach says the argument between the Mishna and the braita is this. The Braita holds if one gave money to a money-changer that was not wrapped up, it is meant as a loan, and thus when the changer gave it out, he meant it as a change in ownership. But since he had permission to exchange it, the prohibition goes back to the original owner who did not warn him that the money belongs to the Temple.  The Rambam holds however, based on that Mishna, that the money can be used by the changer, but not as a loan to the money changer. The money is not a loan. So at no point was there intention to take the money out of the possession of the Temple.

I should mention there are two types of מעילה. One is taking out of the possession of the Temple, and the other is deriving physical benefit from the object. In our case, there is no physical benefit, so the only question is that of taking the object of the the possession of the Temple.

This I think helps explain the Gemara in Bava Metzia 99 שואל One who borrows an ax of the Temple, if he chopped wood with it he transgress the prohibition, and if he did not chop, then he does not transgress. בקע בו מעל לא בקע בו לא מעל.The idea would be the same as in the case of the חלפן. When one borrows something there is no intention to take it out of the possession of the owner. So only when one uses the ax is does he transgress the prohibition of מעילה

______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

In terms of the תורת משה I wanted to mention that there is a קרבן mentioned there for using something that was dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is one of the five קרבן אשם. That is not the same as a קרבן חטאת.
The prohibition in the Torah come from the verse "לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך .. ונדריך."
So let us say you have money you have dedicated to the Temple. And you give it to a money חלפן or shop keeper to safeguard it. If it was wrapped in a way to show it should not be used and the חלפן used it, he transgresses the prohibition. If it was not wrapped, and you said nothing to him about it then no one transgresses the prohibition to the רמב''ם. A teaching in בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א the end of chapter המפקיד says גיזבר did transgress. Why does the רמב''ם disagree? Because of a משנה in מסכת מעילה that says simply the חלפן does not transgress stops at that. So we have no problem in understanding the רמב''ם. His opinion was that the משנה in מעילה דף כ simply disagrees with the ברייתא. But what is the reasoning of the רמב''ם?
רב שך says the argument between the משנה and the ברייתא is this. The ברייתא holds if one gave money to a  חלפן that was not wrapped up it is meant as a loan and thus when the חלפן gave it out, he meant it as a change in ownership. But since he had permission to exchange it the prohibition goes back to the original owner who did not warn him that the money belongs to the Temple.  The רמב''ם holds however based on that משנה that the money can be used by the חלפן but not as a loan to the חלפן. The money is not a loan. So at no point was there intention to take the money out of the possession of the Temple.

I should mention there are two types of מעילה. One is taking out of the possession of the Temple and the other is deriving physical benefit from the object. In out case there is no physical benefit so the only question is that of taking the object of the the possession of the Temple.
This I think helps explain the גמרא בבא מציעא צ''''ט ע''א that says השואל an ax of the Temple. בקע בו מעל לא בקע בו לא מעל.The idea would be the same as in the case of the חלפן. When one borrows something there is no intention to take it out of the possession of the owner. So only when one uses the ax is does he transgress the prohibition of מעילה

בתורת משה יש קרבן של המשתמש במשהו שהוקדש לבית המקדש בירושלים. זהו אחד מחמשת קרבן אשם. זה לא אותו הדבר כמו קרבן חטאת. האיסור בתורה בא מן הפסוק "לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך .. ונדריך." אז בואו נגיד שיש לך כסף שאתה הקדשת לבית המקדש ונתתו לגיזבר והוא נותן את הכסף לחלפן או בעל חנות כדי להגן עליו. אם זה היה עטוף דרך להראות שזה לא אמור לשמש בו והחלפן השתמש בו, הוא עובר איסור. אם זה לא היה עטוף, ואתה אמרת לו לא כלום, על זה אז אף אחד לא עובר את האיסור לדעת רמב''ם. אבל ההוראה בבבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א בסוף פרק המפקיד אומרת הגיזבר עשה עבירה ומעל. מדוע רמב''ם לא מסכים? בגלל משנה במסכת מעילה שאומרת פשוט החלפן לא מעל נקודה. אז אין לנו בעיה בהבנת רמב''ם. דעתו היתה כי המשנה במעילה דף כ' פשוט חולקת על הברייתא. אך מהו ההיגיון של רמב''ם? רב שך אומר הטיעון בין המשנה ואת ברייתא הוא זו. לברייתא אם אחד  נתן כסף לחלפן שלא היה עטוף היטב זה נועד כהלוואה ולכן כאשר החלפן החליף את זה, הוא התכוון ברצינות כשינוי בעלות. אבל מאז הוא קיבל רשות ללכת להחליף אותו האיסור חוזר לבעלים המקורים שלא הזהירו כי הכסף שייך לבית המקדש. רמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה מבוסתס אולם על כי המשנה שהכסף יכול לשמש את החלפן אבל לא כהלוואה אל החלפן. הכסף הוא לא הלוואה. אז בשום שלב לא היה כוונה לקחת את הכסף מתוך החזקה של בית המקדש. אני צריך להזכיר ישנם שני סוגים של מעילה. אחד הוא לוקח מתוך חזקת  המקדש והשני נובע מיתרון פיזי מהאובייקט. במקרה שלנו אין שום תועלת פיזית. אז השאלה היחידה היא לקחת את האובייקט מרשותו של בית המקדש. זה עוזר להסביר את הגמרא בבא מציעא צ'' ט ע''א שאומרת השואל גרזן של בית המקדש. בקע בו מעל, לא בקע בו לא מעל. הרעיון יהיה אותו הדבר כמו במקרה של החלפן. כאשר אחד ישאל משהו אין כוונה לקחת את זה מתוך החזקה של הבעלים. אז רק כאשר האדם משתמש בגרזן הוא עובר על איסור המעילה.

מה שאני עושה כאן הוא לעשות יותר מאשר ספקולציות. אני אומר כאן יש לנו הוכחה על מה שקורה ב''מ צ''ט ע''א. כל העניין הזה כאן של רב שך עולה בבירור  אשר השואל אינו נוטל מתוך החזקה של בית המקדש

The basic idea here was mentioned before in my blog. But what I am doing here is to do more than speculation. I am saying that here we have a proof about what is going on in the Gemara Bava Metzia page 99. This whole idea here of Rav Shach shows clearly that borrowing is not taking out of the possession of the Temple. In fact the relation between our Gemara on Page 99 and what Rav Shach says about the exchange of meila is so clear I am surprised he did not mention it himself!

T 28 A major  t28 in midi

The Rambam understands Physics and Metaphysics as the way to fulfill the mitzvas of Love and Fear of God.

Besides the Rambam my own parents saw something important about Physics.
[Though the Rambam's definition of this was a little different than the modern day one. The Rambam openly wrote he was referring to the Physics of the ancient Greeks which means basically Aristotelian Physics. Still the approach and subject matter is that which the Rambam was referring to. The Rambam did also add Metaphysics-which he did also say meant that of the Ancient Greeks. 
But in that case he would have been referring to the subject as it was developed later by Plotinus.

But in these cases, he was not just referring to the writings, but to the subject itself. Similarly in his approach to the Oral Law he divides it into two sections. One is the actual learning of the material which he meant in the sense of learning the Mishne Torah (of the Rambam himself) itself. The other is the  reasoning it out, which is the kind of process we see Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Shach engaging in. [This process had its beginnings with Rav Joseph Karo, but really came to its summit in the book of Ideas in the Rambam of Rav Soloveitchik and the Avi Ezri. ]

The Rambam understands Physics and Metaphysics as the way to fulfill the mitzvas of Love and Fear of God. This is hinted in the Mishne Torah, but stated openly in the Guide.
[The way that this makes sense to me is by means of Reb Nachman's ideas about the hidden Torah in the work of Creation. And the Hidden Statement of Creation. At least, that is how it makes sense to me.  And it seems to me the Rambam must have been looking at this in a similar fashion, but so far without a copy of the Guide I can't remember a specific place where he might have said this.]

In any case, with the Rambam we get a very elegant way of serving God, that make a lot of sense. It is a balanced approach: The Oral and Written Law of Moses, Physics, Metaphysics. To me this approach has a lot of charm and beauty to it. Besides the fact that it is כיבוד אב ואם honor of my father and mother which is one of the 613, and not a minor one either. 

[You can add this this basic structure to some degree but what ever you add has the danger of being bitul Torah. Bitul Torah the sin of not learning Torah when one has the time to do so.]

(note 1) In the original Musar movement there was the idea of spending as much time as possible learning Ethics {Medieval Musar}, but as you can see that idea was not really accepted in its entirety by the Musar Litvak yeshivas because of the law of limited returns. While important it is, adding to it beyond a half hour daily does not seem to add much.

(note 2) On the side of those that think Physics and Metaphysics are forbidden and also all secular subjects  would have to say that (1) those that supposedly only learn Torah are jerks. I saw enough of this in Israel. Torah without Derech Eretz is not Torah. סופה בטילה. But I have to agree a lot of secular subjects are in fact bitul Torah.

(note 3) Just for the record when I say Physics I am mainly referring to Quantum Field Theory and the later String Theory.  Metaphysics however I think best to confine to Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus, though I see Hegel and Kant as being pretty important also.

(note 4) The Rambam is not referring to mysticism. Though at the time I was learning Musar and the Arizal, I thought he was. Now this is not to say there is no place for a mystic interpretation of the Guide. We know Rav Avraham Abulafia wrote a mystic commentary on the Guide. Still the Rambam in the Guide itself says exactly what he meant by Physics and Metaphysics.

The attempt to crowd out and eliminate the white race does not stop at WASPs. It goes up to and includes white European Jews.

I tend to look at things in terms of religion just like economists tend to evaluate political issues base on economic considerations. But I feel my mode is more accurate because I believe that people's religious motivations are deeper and much more powerful than they even admit to themselves. 
Thus WASPs have had a hard time of it in the USA because their preachers have been giving them unrealistic messages. I am not saying this is the only problem. But you have to admit that it fits well with the  social justice problem. So if you put Sunday morning compassion for all mankind together with the weekday's social justice professors you get a lethal combination of idiocy.

t27 B flat major   t27 in midi format

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.

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.