I never agreed with the general approach towards South Africa. It seemed obvious to me that it would revert to the norm in Africa (a new genocide every year) once the white people were out of power. But this time the target would be white people. Once at the Western Wall I met some people from SA and I said openly to them they ought to escape from SA as fast as possible.

SA is genocide against white people in slow motion.

Bava Metzia 103

I just want to jot down the basic idea of Rav Shach on the fact that the Rambam must agree that after a גמר דין  (a final judgement), then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with Bava Metzia around page 103 to help understand the story with Rav and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור (a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש (the rav of the Rambam) because of migo. (A migo is a case of he could have said a different plea and be believed so let us believe him now) The Ketzot HaChoshen disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

Rav Shach brings the Gemara in Bava Batra to show the Rambam must agree with the Ketzot. The Gemara there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a migo. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the Ketzot gives that it is after גמר דין.

[The original problem was that Rav changed his decision in the case a person went into another's field and planted trees. Rav told the owner at first to pay for the trees the least possible amount but the owner did not accept that and did not even want the trees, and then Rav said nothing. What I think is that since Rav said nothing that meant it was before גמר דין final judgement. Then Rav saw the owner making a fence around the trees and said since it is clear you do want them now pay the full amount. But the way we understand Rav, if he had paid the lower amount the day before and then Rav saw him building a fence rav would have simply said he changed his mind [as David Bronson pointed out to me]




_______________________________________________________________________________
I just want to jot down the basic idea of רב שך on  the fact that the רמב''ם must agree that after a גמר דין  a final judgement, then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with בבא מציעא page ק''ג to help understand the פסק דין של רב and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור means a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש  because of מיגו. The קצות החושן disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

רב שך brings the גמרא in בבא בתרא to show the רמב''ם must agree with the קצות החושן. The גמרא there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a מיגו. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the קצות החושן gives that it is after גמר דין.

אני רק רוצה לרשום את הרעיון הבסיסי של רב שך על העובדה כי רמב''ם חייב להסכים כי לאחר גמר דין (פסק דין סופי), אז אפילו מיגו לא יכול לשנות את ההחלטה. רעיון זה שהזכרתי בקשר עם בבא מציעא דף ק''ג כדי לעזור להבין את פסק דין של רב והאדם אשר ניטע עצים בשדה של אחר. רעיון הבסיסי הוא זה אשר שאפשר בכלל ללכת מן פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור פירושו טיעון המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס לטיעון נוסף המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס). הסיבה ניתנת על ידי ר''י מיגאש בגלל מיגו. קצות החושן אינו מסכים עם קביעה זו ואומר שהסיבה היא שהוא לפני גמר הדין. רב שך מביא את הגמרא בבא בתרא  להראות שרמב''ם חייב להסכים עם הקצוות החושן. גמרא שם אומרת זה: שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט ואומרים הייתי על הארץ הזאת במשך שלוש שנים והיא הייתה של אבותיי. קבוצה של עדים מגיעה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "זה היה על הקרקע שלוש שנים." קבוצה נוספת באה ואומרת, "הקרקע הייתה שייכת לאבות של השני." אם הראשון (שהעדים אומרים שהוא היה על הקרקע במשך שלוש שנים) אומר "שקלתי את הקרקע כאילו היא הייתה של אבותיי" הוא לא נאמן. אבל אם הוא אמר, "האבות שלי קנו אותה משלך" אז הוא אמין. מאז שהחוק הוא שאחד יכול ללכת מפטור לפטור אז אם הוא היה אומר, "שקלתי את זה כמו של אבותיי" לפני שהעדים באו, הוא היה כבר נאמן. לכן יש לו מיגו. אם כך מדוע אנו לא מאמינים בו גם אחרי שבאו עדים? זה חייב להיות בגלל הסיבה שהקצות החושן נותן שזה לאחר גמר דין.

Music T40

t40 A Major  t40 midi

t40 nwc

I think in the Eddas, Heimdall is noted for his especially white complexion. I forget. And I do not have a copy to look it up. In any case, in my experience, blacks do not make the noble kind of leaders that are shown in movies. Usually [but not always] they use their positions of power to hurt white people (once they get into a position of power over white people. Even in simple office jobs they try to sabotage white people) . And this kind of thing has happened to most people I have talked with about this.

"Does God Still give Revelation?"



 The most disturbing aspect of the religious world and their thirst for supernatural experience and supernatural encounter is their claim that God is still revealing Himself verbally to them. They claim that God is speaking to them; that is a constant claim.

It has been a curiosity to me and should be to us, I think, that if God is still giving revelation, the only ones that He gives it to are founders of various cults.


The Rambam said just like one can not and must not add to the written law so he must not add to thee oral law.




In the more spiritual sense the oral and written law [Old Testament and the two Talmuds]  are the standard by which you measure truth.


Just to give you a little deeper insight into that, the Old Testament Canon was closed about 425 B.C.. The last prophecy was written by Malachi, placed into the canon.

Now there were many attempts made by Satan to infiltrate the Old Testament with uninspired books. At least 14 of them have been accumulated and together they are called the Apocrypha.  They are not a part of our Torah. They are not inspired books. They are books 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon,  Baruch,  the History of Susanna,  the Prayer of Manassas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. All spurious. They were clearly fakes. How do we know they were fakes? They were written long after the canon was completed and they lacked the prophetic quality and authorship to stamp them as inspired Scripture. None of their writers claimed divine inspiration and some openly disclaimed it. And Apocrypha books contained errors of facts, errors of ethics, errors of doctrine.

For example, some of the Apocrypha books advocate suicide. Some of them advocate assassination and some of them teach praying for dead people.  The Old Testament was unquestioned; it is still unquestioned because it is so evident what was inspired.



There is now also a formidable group of fakes


These are were attempts to pollute the authentic Law of Moses text with spurious revelation. Now, listen to me. That attempt didn't end in those days; it is still going on. People and groups have continued to claim their works and their writings are inspired by God, and are true, and authoritative and binding. And whenever they do that, it leads to aberrant doctrine.

To add anything to Torah or to downplay the singular, unique, inspiration of Torah, then is to not only go against the Word of God ("Thou shalt not add nor subtract from this law I give unto you this day."), but it is to bring yourself into the very dangerous place where you are susceptible to the curse of God. And, of course, what happens when you introduce something as true is you open up a spiritual free-for-all, unintentionally perhaps.

The religious world today has initiated that free-for-all as serious as any error in that movement is the error of claiming revelation from God. It is reckless; it is indiscriminate. 

Musar means the books of Ethics of the Middle Ages which focus on character development and fear of God.
The aspect of Musar that is the most important is the lack of "Shtick."
I mean to say, there is the basic message of what the Torah says to do--which is contained in the written and oral law--the Tenach and two Talmuds.
But the Middle Ages were unique in decoding that message.
And after the middle ages an onerous amount of garbage got mixed in to what is supposedly authentic Torah.
[Thus I avoid all religious groups because they teach pseudo Torah. The only kind of religious place I would be willing to walk into would be a Litvak Yeshiva. (These places are roughly based on the path of Gra and Reb Israel Salanter.)]

[The basic approach is that what ever the Torah says that is what we believe. There is no emphasis on doctrine but rather learning and keeping Torah, and it is God centered, not man centered. This is what makes Litvak Judaism unique-there is not idolatry of human beings, but rather worship of God.]

[The truth be told the basic set of Mediaeval Musar books does the best job of giving over the essence of Torah, that is the Obligations of the Heart, Gates of Repentance, אורחות צדיקים ,ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם]


[I am not uniformly against Musar based on mystics. Mystics like the Ari and Avraham Abulafia I have a lot of respect for. It is just after the events of 1648 A.D. that the Sitra Achra {Dark Side} got mixed up with almost all religious Judaism. So books written after that period tend to lead people down the road to hell.] 


The idea of getting which books form a legitimate part of Torah is important, and excluding the books that pretend to be part of this tradition but in fact are promoting an agenda is important. The word אפיקורוסות heresy is a harsh word but useful. Every group has defining beliefs.  If it would not then it would not be a group. As distasteful as the word can be, it is  normal and inevitable in the process of marking boundaries, drawing lines of exclusion, and defining group identity. The term marks the most important boundaries of a group, beyond which a group understands its own identity to be profoundly harmed or compromised. It is a key flag in trying to determine how a group perceives its fundamental essence. All groups, religious or not, have boundaries. Without boundaries of some kind it would be impossible to have a sense of group identity. Granted, religious boundaries often make claims to truth, but these are hardly more exceptional than claims made by ethnic groups or political parties. Religions, when speaking of heresy, are simply doing what groups do generally. 

Black and white sex relations

The ultimate and irreversible repudiation of one’s identity is to have children with someone of another race. This is a particularly stinging repudiation when done by a woman, and it is especially true in the context of the state-engineered genocidal assault on white peole, from aggressive desegregation in the United States to the massive importing of immigrants into European homelands. Fifty years ago in homogeneous places, a White woman who crossed racial lines may have been benevolently dismissed as a rare curiosity. Today, she is an unwitting tool in a global war on our people.

South Africa is a great example of what happens when blacks are in charge. No one is safe.