In relation to what I mentioned about honor of ones parents I wanted to add from Naphtali Troup [חידושי הגרנ''ט] that to listen to one's parents is a Positive command. That it it can not negate a negative with a positive command nor a command that has Karet.
Naphtali Troup is usually considered on the same plane as Reb Chaim Solveitchik and his ideas are commonly cited in Litvak yeshivas.[That is in the חידושי הגרנ''ט which I used to own a copy of. After Rav Shach's Avi Ezri I think it is one of the best books I have read. It has that same quality that you find in Rav Shach of being clear and deep all at the same time. ]

Connection with one's father and mother

Connection with one's father and mother is deeper than most people accept. The main way to see  this is in Isaac Luria's Shar Ruach HoKodesh where he goes  into the idea that one's inner light that comes from one's mother and outer light that come from one's father. 
The outer light provides the protection.
The problem is when one's parents are not so great or perhaps worse.

The Torah never even suggests honor towards religious teachers.
Yet the command to honor one's parents is ignored, while honor towards religious teachers is elevated as a direct command.

Reb Nachman noticed the fact that religious teachers are not trustworthy of relaying to us what the Torah says. He used a harsh kind of terminology to describe them. תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. Torah scholars that are demons. But obviously he had some kind of deep thought about this. He was not just picking out a nice sounding insult. That means at some point he felt that people that make their living by being religious, gain a kind of satanic presence inside of them.

The religious world is messed up. Therefore a person with religious interest ought to be very careful to which group to join or be involved with. Straight honest Torah ought to be the criterion--that is the general approach of the Litvak yeshiva which basically says "We do not have any (שיטות) doctrines. What ever the Torah says, that is our doctrine."


The religious are the most possible corrosive force  for one's own family, life, vocation and the Jewish nation. The main rule is keep them out. Their pretense of keeping Torah is terrifying.


It is not as if the religious do not know what the Ten Commandments mean by Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not  bear false witness, Honor thy father and they mother. Rather they could not care any less what the Torah says. They only care to make the Jewish people into a caste system with them at the top and everyone else enslaved and impoverished.

What is Matzah? Flour and water that have been mixed and cooked in less than 18-24 minutes. I think there is a lot of confusion about this simple issue. I am not sure from where the confusion comes from. The basic idea is simple. And it does not need to be crunchy. One could simply put it in a frying pan and fry it like pancakes. The only thing then would be not to put in much oil. Just enough so it does not stick to the bottom. Also it has to be thick. if the batter one puts into the frying pan pours out then it is not [hamotzie]--bread but rather [mezonot] cake. The thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. After 18 minutes the dough is hametz (leavened bread). ["How far astray we can go (often with practically disastrous consequences, particularly in medicine and agriculture) when we haughtily ignore the proper names of things, disregard the small but distinctive differences among real species, and falsely assume that all things looking basically alike, and coming from the same broad region, must be the "same" animal."] That means on pesach you can have hot oatmeal cereal in the morning. In fact it is preferable to do your own cooking on pesach. The matza they sell in stores I would not touch with a ten foot pole. I should not need proof because this is obvious. However, just to make a point, I want to mention how Hillel would wrap the meat of the Passover offering in matza. How is that possible if it is crunchy? [This might be the place to clear up another misunderstanding in the New Testament about the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, not Talmud. Leaven is not the same thing as bread.] Therefore the main thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. But the frying pan or pot is no problem because once the mixture has been cooked, it can not become hametz--ever. Thus the plate you mix the flour and water in has to be washed in cold water before you you it again. This is very very important--because the remaining dough in the dish is pure chametz after 18 minutes,

What is Matzah? Flour and water that have been mixed and cooked in less than 18-24 minutes. I think there is a lot of confusion about this simple issue. I am not sure from where the confusion comes from. The basic idea is simple. And it does not need to be crunchy. One could simply put it in a frying pan and fry it like pancakes. The only thing then would be not to put in much oil. Just enough so it does not stick to the bottom. Also it has to be thick. If the batter one puts into the frying pan pours out, then it is not [hamotzie]--bread, but rather [mezonot] cake.

The thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. After 18 minutes the dough is hametz (leavened bread).

["How far astray we can go (often with practically disastrous consequences, particularly in medicine and agriculture) when we haughtily ignore the proper names of things, disregard the small but distinctive differences among real species, and falsely assume that all things looking basically alike, and coming from the same broad region, must be the "same" animal."]




That means on Pesach you can have hot oatmeal cereal in the morning. In fact, it is preferable to do your own cooking on Pesach. The matza they sell in stores I would not touch with a ten foot pole.

I should not need proof because this is obvious. However,  just to make a point, I want to mention how Hillel would wrap the meat of the Passover offering in matza. How is that possible if it is crunchy?


[This might be the place to clear up another misunderstanding in the New Testament about the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, not Talmud. Leaven is not the same thing as bread.]

Therefore the main thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. But the frying pan or pot is no problem because once the mixture has been cooked, it can not become hametz--ever.
Thus the plate you mix the flour and water in has to be washed in cold water before you you it again. This is very important--because the remaining dough in the dish is pure chametz after 18 minutes,

Bava Metzia page 110 in Tosphot concerning Migo and page 80 and Rambam laws of טעון ונטען

 תוספות בבא מציעא ק''י
בבא מציעא ד''פ
A person  rented a חמור to carry goods to a certain place and a condition was set, "Do not take such and such a road because there is there a river that will be hard to cross." He took it on the path he was told not to, and the animal died, and he says that he took the wrong path, but the river had dried up and and so it was not his fault. He is not believed because מיגו במקום עדים לא אומרים. So my question here is then what about רבה who says we do say a מיגו when there are witnesses? And furthermore I want to ask when did the witnesses come? Clearly after he came to the court and made his claim. But if so then that seems to be a case when we do listen to a migo when there are witnesses because it is like מפטור לפטור that the ר''י מיגש says the reason we believe him is because of מיגו. That is, we have a case in which the טוען says you own to me a מנה and the נטען says לא היו דברים מעולם. Now if witnesses comes and say לווה ופרע then he is obligated to pay because כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי. But if witnesses have not come and he on his own initiative changes his plea and and לוויתי ופרעתי then he is פטור even if witnesses come and say לווה ופרע. This law is not disputed. But what I think is possible to answer is in the case of לווה ופרע The witnesses support everything he is saying. He said לוויתי ופרעתי and then they come and say לווה ופרע. But in the case of the river they are not supporting what he is saying.

I had a lot more thoughts about this today, but I forgot most of it. Mainly, the idea is in case of a שטר שאינו מקויים and the לווה says לוויתי ופרעתי, and then witnesses come and  are מקיים את השטר, then in fact we do not say מיגו because the witnesses are not supporting what he is saying.

It is possible to suggest that the argument between Rav Yehuda and Ravina  in Bav Metzia 110 depends on this argument between Raba and Abyee in Bava Batra 31  about מיגו במקום עדים
I don't have a Bava Metzia, but if anyone out there does have one, I suggest looking into the possibilities of a connection between the two opinions in Tosphot on Page 110 also. From what I recall it is the Ri [Rabbainu Isaac] that says that Ravina disagrees in total with Rav Yehuda in that he says the borrower is believed.[That means the Ri has to have an answer why in the normal case the other guy i on the land for more than three years we do not believe the borrower because of a migo.]


בבא מציעא ק''י. אדם שכר חמור לשאת סחורה למקום מסוים ותנאי נקבע, "אל תיקח  כביש מסוים, מכיוון שיש שם נהר, יהיה קשה לעבור." הוא לקח את הדרך  האמורה שלא לקחת, ובעל החי מת, והוא אומר שהוא לקח את הנתיב הלא הנכון, אבל הנהר התייבש ולכן לא היה באשמתו. הוא לא נאמן כי מיגו במקום עדים לא אומרים. אז השאלה שלי כאן היא אז מה לגבי רבה שאומר שאנחנו אומרים מיגו כשיש עדים (בבא בתרא לא)? ויתר על כן אני רוצה לשאול, מתי העדים הגיעו? ברור אחרי שהוא הגיע לבית המשפט וטען את טענתו. אבל אם כך אז נראה שזה מקרה שאנחנו צריכים להקשיב למיגו כאשר ישנם עדים, כי זה כמו מפטור לפטור כי הר''י מיגש אומר הסיבה שאנחנו מאמינים לו הוא בגלל מיגו. כלומר, יש לנו מקרה שבו טוען אומר שאתה חייב לי מנה, ואת הנטען אומר לא היו דברים מעולם. עכשיו אם העדים מגיעים ואומרים לווה ופרע, אז הוא מחויב לשלם כי כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי. אבל אם עדים לא באו והוא ביוזמתו משנה את הטיעון שלו  ללווה ופרע, אז הוא פטור אפילו אם עדים באים אחר כך ואומרים לווה ופרע. אבל מה שאני חושב שאפשר לענות הוא שבמקרה של לווה ופרע  העדים תומכים  בכל מה שהוא אומר. לדבריו לווה ופרע, ואז הם באים ואומרים לווה ופרע. אבל במקרה של הנהר הם אינם תומכים מה הוא מדבר. וגם יש להעיר שבמקרה של שטר שאינו מקוים והלווה אומר לווה ופרע, ואז עדים באים והם מקיימים את השטר, אז למעשה אנחנו לא אומרים מיגו כי העדים אינם תומכים מה הוא מדבר.




) בבא מציעא דף ק''י.  אני מחויב לעשות הקדמה קצרה. משכנתא דסורא הוא סוג של ערבות להלוואה שנעשה בבבל בעיר הנקראת סורא. בסורא היה מנהג לעשות הלוואה, ובתור משכון המַלְוֶה יקבל שדה לעבוד עליו ולאכול את פירותיו למספר שנים, ובסופו של אותו זמן השדה יחזור לבעלים (ללווה) ללא כל התחייבות נוספת על הלווה. זה שונה מאשר נכייתא שהוא הפחתה של ההלוואה. במקרה של נכייתא השדה חוזר אבל חלק של ההלוואה עדיין נשאר. נניח שיש לנו מַלְוֶה ולווה באחד מהמקרים לעיל והמַלְוֶה אומר ההסכם היה במשך חמש שנים והלווה אומר שלוש שנים. המסמך אבד. ומַלְוֶה כבר היה שם שלוש שנים. רב יהודה אמר המַלְוֶה הוא נאמן כי אחרי שלוש שנים הוא היה יכול לומר "לקוחה היא בידי"  היינו "קניתי את השטח". להיות שהיה שם שלוש שנים הוא יהיה נאמן, אלא אם כן ראיות בניגוד מיוצרות. לדברי רבינו יצחק (הר''י) בתוספות רבינא לא מסכים בכלל עם רב יהודה ואומר הלווה נאמן. הדרך שתוספות מבין את זה היא שרבינא חולק כל הדרך. כלומר גם אם המַלְוֶה אמר שהוא קנה אותו עדיין הלווה נאמן. תוספות שואל על ר''י ממקרה בבבא בתרא כ''ח ע''א, במקרה שיש שדה שאדם אחד היה שם לשלוש שנים או יותר והוא אומר שהוא קנה אותו, והבעל דין אומר שזה נגנב. אנו מאמינים מי שהיה שם שלוש שנים, כי אנחנו אומרים שאם זה נכון שנגנב הבעלים האמיתיים היו אומרים משהו בינתיים ולא היו מחכים שלוש שנים. השאלה מזה להר''י היא זו: אם הר''י נכון, אז במקרה בבבא בתרא שאחד אומר שזה נגנב הוא צריך להיות נאמן כי הוא יכול לומר שזה היה ערובה להלוואה. יש לו מיגו. מאז שהוא היה יכול לומר שזה היה ערובה ולהאמין, ולכן אנחנו צריכים להאמין לו גם כשהוא לא אומר את זה, אבל אומר טיעון חלש. תוספות עונה זה מיגו במקום עדים. (לפי אביי בבא בתרא דף ל'א לא אומרים מיגו במקום עדים, ולרבה כן אומרים את זה.) [היינו המקרה הוא כאשר יש עדים נגדו, ומיגו במקום עדים לא אמרינן.] יש שאלה. בבבא מציעא דף פ' יש לנו מקרה של "מיגו במקום עדים לא אמרינן" שנראה שונה ממקרה זה.  יש  שתי דרכים. אחת עם נהר שצריך להיות חצוי. ואחרת בלי נהר, ואדם שכר חמור לשאת אותו. ואמרו לו לא לקחת את זה על הכביש עם הנהר. הוא לקח את זה ככה והחמור מת. הוא אומר כשהוא היה שם, לא היה שם נהר כיוון שהתייבש. אנחנו לא מאמינים לו, כי אנחנו לא הולכים עם "הוא יכול היה לומר" במקרה שבו יש עדים (לדעת אביי). אז השאלה שלי היא, שעל דף פ' אנחנו לא אומרים ", הוא יכול היה לומר" כי יש עדים נגד המיגו. זה שאנחנו לא יודעים על הנהר, אבל אנחנו יודעים שהוא לקח את  הכביש הלא נכון. זה נראה שונה מהמקרה שלנו בבא בתרא ובבא מציעא דף ק''י בתוספות שבו אין עדים נגד המיגו. אלא שהעדים נגד הטיעון עצמו. אנן סהדי שאם זה נגנב הוא היה אומר כך. אני רוצה להציע שזאת הקושיה היא הסיבה שחלק השני של תוספות  אומר שרבינא אינו חולק על רב יהודה ושכן מאמינים למַלְוֶה. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את הקושיה הזאת. שם בדף פ''א הר''י היה מפרש את הענין של לא אומרים מה לו לשקר במקום עדים שפירושו הוא שהעדים הם כנגד הטיעון שלו ישיר, והם אומרים שהנהר לא התיבש.(ראיתי הפירוש הזה בפירוש הנימוקי יוסף.)
There are tons of important points here that need study. But at least two points need to be mentioned. One is the Ketzot HaChoshen's approach to explain why in case one changes his plea from "I never borrowed" to "I borrowed and paid back" is OK even if witnesses come later. The reason he gives is it is before  a final decision of the court. Rav Shach bring a proof that the Rambam has to agree with this approach along with the Ri Migah' answer. But in any case this helps understand Bava Metzia page 101 the case where Rav told the fellow whose land had been planted on "Go pay the lesser amount."  and the next day when he saw him building a fence  said Pay the greater amount.--thi goes along with what I already wrote there that there it was before the final decsion since the fellow had not accepted what Rav had said.

Te other point is about an oath that is not for proof but for the sake that the person will admit in case he is saying something not true. This also is important and comes up in Bava Metzia page 97b, and 100b.

Reb Nachman however was a great tzadik and had some amazing insights. So, in spite of some people making some mistakes, it is still very worthwhile to listen to his great lessons. For example, what he suggested about constant private prayer with God, and his way of learning quickly. And his advice about length of days which come from fear of God, which I understand to refer to learning Musar.
Even when people make mistakes, still the simple belief in a true tzadik has great value in itself. 

 The Evil One never comes and tries to seduce a person by saying, "Come and do a sin".

Rather the Devil comes and asks a person, "Come and do a mitzvah."
[See the Gra at the beginning of Proverbs on the verse "זבחי שלמים עלי"]

The idea is that often  a person tries to convince himself that something he is doing is a mitzvah, when in fact he knows deep inside that it is no such thing.
.
 But this never happens with learning Torah.  The Devil never comes and tells a person, "Come and learn Torah."[The main approach of Navardok, Joseph Yozel a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter was Trust and Torah, i.e. to learn Torah and trust God would take care of everything else.]

It was a well known critique on the group the Gra out into excommunicattion until it became a saying: "Anything but Torah." "Abi nisht Torah." I actually heard people use this expression in Israel when they saw some people doing some kind of "shtick" (games).


What I suggest is two hours a day of Torah for everyone. One hour of in depth learning, and one hour of fast learning. If you have no idea of what Torah is about in the first place, the best thing is just to plow through the whole Old Testament in English and Hebrew and the Mishna  of Yehuda HaNasi.
[When I did the Mishna I used the Rav from Bartenura and that might be the best idea, but also I found the commentary of the Rambam to be short and sweet and I could make more progress that way. I should mention the Tisferet Israel is great but time consuming.] 


The main principle to keep in mind when coming to learn Torah is to avoid cults at all cost. Many groups will present themselves as teaching Torah, but it is only a facade to get you involved in their cult worship of their leader. Events similar to this are repeated ad nauseam in the history of 
Jewish cults"-a charismatic (in the generic sense) leader, claiming a special calling, and extraordinary powers, will, little by little, gain control over people’s hearts, minds, and (significantly) their property and family.

Better to join Hari Krishna's who do not lie about what they are doing. Or the Buddhists for that matter.

[The best way to get a good idea of what Torah is about is to take one Tosphot and to work on it until it becomes clear. By doing this you will have a good idea of what is going on in many other places in the Torah.]


What you ought to notice is that people that you encounter in a movement that have no taste, no trace of good character, and no Torah pretend to be tzadikim in order to get your money. And they use a good sounding motto to make what they are doing sound kosher. 

Breslov as a group is based on Reb Nathan's understanding of Reb Nachman. It tends to have great insanity problems. All the groups under the excommunication of the Gra tend to have a problem with demonic possession for some reason I have not understood. But obviously the Gra saw something that everyone else has missed. 


I have written about this before in some essays, most of which I deleted because I did not want people to think I was critical of Reb Nachman. Reb Nachman was a very great tzadik with a tremendous vision. Reb Natan however made a cult out of him, and wrote innumerable mistakes. For example: there are times he attacks the Rambam for things the Rambam never said. He attacks the ancient Greek philosophers for questions they asked, and then proceeds to use their answers!
A general observation is that Breslov is sex craved and mainly consists of lunatics which seems to indicate some kind of problem that is not readily obvious or observable. All the young breslovers come to Uman for sex while claiming it is for the mitzvah of being by Reb Nachman on Rosh Hashanah. It is an amazing scam. And the sad part is that these types of scams are part and parcel of it. Thus as a rule, I think the best thing is to follow the advice of the Gra. When he put his signature of the document of excommunication that was not the same thing as a שמתא (legal form of rebuke) but rather a חרם (a halachic category of excommunication) which is much more severe. And it applies to the entire world of of the religious today. Maybe in his days it was limited, but today the poison has spread through the entire religious world except for the few Authentic Litvak yeshivas (Ponovitch, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Mir in NY.)
[The general tendency of the cult that the Gra put into "Cherem" (excommunication) seems to be to take people away from sanity.]
Still research into the cherem will show that it did not apply to Reb Nachman. I would rather not dwell on this here but the books about the Cherem along with the original documents are available.

And I never saw or heard of any great rosh yeshiva or authentic Torah scholar that had a problem with Reb Nachman. It was always understood that Breslov is a problem, not Reb Nachman.
My own feeling about Reb Nachman is that he dared greatly. His vision of seeing the whole Torah along with the Ari Isaac Luria is as an organic whole and to show how it applies today is inspiring.
But is the exact opposite of Reb Nachman. What ever he said to do they do the opposite. Breslov uses Reb Nachman to trap and bait people's minds but in terms of conduct has nothing to do with Reb Nachman.

The problem is not Reb Nachman but the whole sick , insane religious world that makes a show of rituals to hide their uncleanliness in spirit and body.  Especially the so called teachers of Torah who are in general agents of the Satan. 

t38 F major edited  t38 in midi format