tying oneself to a "tzadik"

One of the problems of tying oneself to a "tzadik" is not just the problem that Reb Chaim from Voloshin noticed that it is the exact same prohibition in the Torah of not to type or bind one's soul to any idol. But furthermore when one allows someone to shadow his life as his 'spiritual leader' and dominate his thinking, he takes on the quirks, oddities and idiosyncrasies of his 'spiritual leader'. He becomes a disciple alright, but not of God. I have seen leaders who had produced hundreds of disciples--but every one of them had his obvious mishegasim [bad character and nutty habits] Their God-given distinctiveness has been absorbed by their hovering 'spiritual leader.'
Mainly the way I see it the problem all began with the movement of the Shatz and Natan from Gaza, his false prophet. An examination of the microfilm copies of Natan's book will show I think from where most doctrines of the religious world come from. [Not from the Ari Isaac Luria or Musar.] 
But I am not claiming any special insight into this outside of just plain horrific experiences. I was duped just like everyone else and fell for the polished image of respectability. I in fact fell harder than most and because of that I realize the sinister nature of the religious world. If I could go back today I would imply have stayed in the Mir Yeshiva in NY and not budged an inch. Or if I had to go to Israel--as I felt I needed to based on the Ramban-then I should have made it my business to be in an authentic Litvak yeshiva or Religious Zionist one. The trouble is this: outside of the authentic Litvak and Zionist places, the religious world is a large quilt of cults.


[No disrespect intended towards Reb Nachman who was a true tzadik, but even a true tzadik can make an occasional  mistake --even in doctrine. I think a close examination of the Cherem of the Gra will show it did not apply to Reb Nachman,

What is the connection between Avraham's going down to Egypt and Sara's being taken to the house of Pharaoh and the later escape from Egypt?  It seems to me that that was to prepare the way for Israel later to make the same trip. This is an  about  paving a path that later people can walk on with more ease than he had.

I mentioned before the idea of the Ten Commandments being hidden in the Ten Statements of Creation. [Nine times "And God said" and the first verse "In the beginning God create heaven and earth" which was the first statement but since it doesn't say "God said" it is the hidden statement ] These Ten Statements are hidden inside all things that have been created. But the light of the Torah in them need to be revealed. Avraham paved the way so that later the ten plagues would bring forth the light of the Ten Commandments.  This is the hidden reason for the Rambam seeing in Physics the highest\ light--the light of the hidden statement of Creation.

Clearly this has a relation to ten types song that are mentioned in the Tikunai HaZohar and also in the Tikunim of the Ramchal. That is the fact that the light of God does not extend to unclean places as it "My glory I will not give to another." So from where does an unclean place get it's life force? From the Hidden Statement of Creation. But for that to be revealed, one needs the ten kinds of song.

My original point was however more along the lines of why God wrote the Torah in this way? What  lesson is the story of Avraham's going down and Sara being held prisoner and then being redeemed?
[The connections here are based to some extent on Reb Nachman]

ראב''ד and הרמב''ם
 There is a question when the reason for a law דרבנן no longer applies can the law itself  be nullified.

 But if I recall correctly the ראב''ד puts his comment about רבי יוחנן בן זכאי and the first fruits on הלכה ג and his comment about when the law is accepted throughout all Israel in הלכה ב. That is in laws of ממרים

From what I recall  הלכה ב says when the reason no longer applies for a  גזירה or תקנה or a מנהג that was instituted by the בית דין in Jerusalem and has been accepted by all Israel, then another בית דין can nullify it if it is greater in wisdom and numbers. But how is it possible to be greater in number when the number is already set to be שבעים ואחד. The הרמב''ם answers this refers to teh number of the sage of Israel that agree with the בית דין. The הרמב''ם in all three הלכות deals only with the great בית דין did does not enter into the question of what about a lesser בית דין or a בית דין today with no סמיכה.
On this הלכה I think the ראב''ד say: No, but once it has been accepted by all Israel, even a בית דין with great numbers and wisdom can not nullify it.

Then in  הלכה ג the הרמב''ם writes a law that was made as a סייג לתורה then even  בית דין with greater wisdom and numbers can not nullify it. On that the ראב''ד brings that רבי יוחנן בן זכאי nullified the law to adorn the streets of Jerusalem with the first fruits even though he was not as great as the בית דין that made the law.

What seems to come out from this to the  ראב''ד is that if the law has been accepted by all Israel then even though the reason no longer applies, no בית דין can nullify it, and if it was not accepted by all Israel then even a smaller בית דין can nullify it. To the ראב''ד everything depends on if it has been accepted by all Israel.


) בענין גזירה דרבנן שהתבטל טעמה של הגזירה. הוא מחלוקת בגמרא (ביצה ה.) אם הגזירה בעצמה מתבטלת אם טעמה התבטלה.
רבה אמר שלא נמשכת הגזירה, ורבא אמר שכן היא נמשכת. הרמב''ם פסק כמו רבא שהיא נמשכת (ממרים פרק ב' הלכה א-ג). הראב''ד פוסק כמו רבה אם החוק לא התקבל בכל ישראל. הגם שהראב''ד בא מסוגיית ביכורים. אני חושב שיש סמך לראב''ד מן הגמרא בגיטין (פרק ראשון). הגמרא אומרת לדעת רבא שאם טעם התקנה לומר "בפני נכתב ובפני ונחתם" אינו שייך (כגון במקום ששיירות מצוייות), אז אין לומר "בפני נכתב ובפני ונחתם". (ואפילו אין להחמיר כמו שרואים אחר כך בסוגיית רבי יהושע בן לוי.)  הרמב''ם אינו יכול לתרץ שיש חילוק בין תקנה שהיא עשה דרבנן  ובין גזירה שהיא לא תעשה דרבנן, בגלל שכתב שגם תקנה דרבנן אינה מתבטלת אם טעמה התבטל.
גזירות או תקנות שאומצו על ידי בית דין מאוחר יותר כאשר סיבת החוק היא בטלה, הוא נושא לדיון בין רמב''ם ותוספות והראב''ד. זה נובע מגמרא בביצה דף ה' ע''א. הדבר המעניין הוא שהרמב''ם במבוא למשנה התורה, שם הוא עוסק בנושא אחר על בית הדין מקומי. שם הוא אומר כי לאף אחד אין  הסמכות לבטל חוק של הגמרא. ועל שבגמרא יש מערכת הכללים כיצד להחליט הלכה. בכל מקרה לרמב''ם לא היה ספק בכך. אבל בין הראשונים יש דעות שונות על כללים אלה. הדבר המוזר בהלכות ממרים ב' הלכה ב' לא נראה שהוא מתייחס לבית דין ללא  סמיכה אותנטי מסיני אשר אינו קיים עוד. בהקדמה למשנה תורה הוא מתייחס לסוג של  בית  דין של שלושה בלי סמיכה שיכולים לשפוט קבוצה מאוד מוגבלת של דברים.  ברור כי כפי שאנו רואים שהיתה להם סמכות לעשות גזירות רק  בזמן הגמרא.
רמב''ם בתחילת משנה תורה והן בממרים פ''ב הלכות א-ג אומר בערך אותו הדבר. זה במונחים של הלכה. פסק בית הדין המאוחר אינו מחויב ללכת לפי בית דין הגדול לשעבר בדבר שדנו על פי הי''ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. כלומר זו הלכה א'. אבל כשמדובר בתקנות גזירות ומנהגים בית הדין המאוחר מחוייב להסכים עם בית דין הקודם אלא אם כן הוא גדול בחכמה וכמות. עם זאת חוק שנעשה בתור סייג לתורה, בית הדין המאוחר לא יכול לבטל. זהו החוק הבסיסי של הרמב''ם, וזה גם איך רב שך מבין אותו. הדרך שאתה רואה שכך רב שך מבין את הרמב''ם היא העובדה כי בעדויות הוא אומר שהרמב''ם מדבר על גזירות ותקנות. באותה משנה עדוית א:ה' המשנה מבקשת "למה לכתוב דעת המיעוט?" וזו נותנת תשובה. הרמב''ם אומר  שהמשמעות היא שבית הדין המאוחר יכול להכריע את החוק ככה אם יש לו רוב חכמה ורוב מניין. למה לא מבינים את הרמב''ם פשוט כי הוא מתכוון לפסק הלכה? בגלל שהרמב''ם קישר אותה משנה עם הרעיון כי בית דין אחר עשוי לתלות בדעת המיעוט אם יש לו רוב חכמה ורוב המניין. אנחנו כבר יודעים מתוך משנה תורה שהרמב''ם אינו מחייב בית דין המאוחר להיות יותר במספר ויותר בחוכמה כשמדובר בפסק הלכה.
) ראב''ד  והרמב''ם הלכות ממרים פ''ב הלכות א-ג'. יש שאלה כאשר סיבת חוק דרבנן כבר לא חלה אם החוק עצמו יבוטל? אבל אם אני זוכר נכון, ראב''ד מעמיד את ההערה שלו על רבי יוחנן בן זכאי ואת הביכורים על הלכה ג וההערה שלו על מצב כשהחוק מקובל בכל ישראל בהלכה ב.  הלכה ב' אומרת כאשר הסיבה כבר לא חלה על גזירה או תקנה או מנהג זה שהונהג בידי בית הדין בירושלים שהתקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אז עוד בית דין יכול לבטל את החוק אם הוא גדול בחכמה ומספר. אבל איך אפשר להיות יותר במספר כשמספר כבר מוגדר להיות שבעים ואחד. הרמב"ם עונה זו מתייחסת למספר החכמים של ישראל שמסכימים עם בית הדין. הרמב''ם בכל שלושת ההלכות עוסק רק עם  בית הדין הגדול,  ולא נכנס לשאלה מה לגבי בית הדין רגיל או בית הדין של היום ללא סמיכה.  בהלכה זו  הראב''ד אומר: לא, אבל ברגע שזה התקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אפילו בית דין עם יותר מספר וחוכמה לא יכול לבטל אותו. ואז הלכה ג' הרמב''ם כותב שחוק אשר נעשה בתור סייג לתורה אז אפילו בית הדין עם חוכמה גדולה ויותר ומספרים לא יכול לבטל אותו.  והראב''ד מביא כי רבי יוחנן בן זכאי ביטל את החוק לעטר את רחובות ירושלים עם הביכורים למרות שהוא לא היה גדול כמו בית דין שתקנו את החוק. מה שיוצא מזה אל ראב"ד היא שאם החוק התקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אז למרות שהסיבה כבר לא חלה, אין בית דין יכול לבטל את החוק, ואם זה לא התקבל על ידי כל ישראל אז אפילו  בית הדין קטן יכול לבטל אותו. לראב''ד הכל תלוי אם זה התקבל על ידי כל ישראל.

Jose Faur brings that a lot of Tosphot hold if the reason for the law is gone the law is gone but I do not have any Gemara to be able to look this up. Maybe someday God will grant me to start learning Gemara.


It is upsetting tome that I have no more any sefer of Rav Shach or the Rambam to look this up. Still I want to point out what I recall that the Rambam puts in the idea that teh reason for the law has gone away and on that halacha, halacha 2, that is where the Raavad puts his comment about the law being spread through all Israel and later in halacha 3 where I think the Rambam does  not mention the reason for the law disappearing that is where the Raavad puts his comment about R. Yochanan Ben Zachai.  So does the Raavad make a distinction between a law made for  fence  and other laws that are d'rabanan?And what is the Rambam thinking? Other laws are not made for a fence?! Then why are they made? This is one of those times I wish I had a learning partner to thrash this issue out with. 



Yose Faur brings a lot of places where Tosphot goes with the opinion of Raba that once the reason for the law is gone, the law itself is gone--which is even more radical than the Raavad. Still not having any Gemaras with me to be able to look it up, I do not bring it down.

I had a kind of history with the Bava Sali family.

I had a kind of history with the Bava Sali family. His daughter saw in me a great responsibility for Klal Israel, but I could not figure out what that is supposed to mean. When I look back on it and try to decipher  what kind of responsibility that implies I find I can not figure it out.  What my best guess is that she thought I could help to influence the world towards these simple things, Tur, Beit Joseph Shulchan Aruch and Musar. That is the basic Lithuanian yeshiva path but with an extra emphasis on Halacha and Musar [classical Musar means medieval books of ethics like the חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם,  אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים וספר מוסר של הרמ''ק].

I should mention that Bava Sali did not want to see any mystics when he came to Jerusalem and was accepting visitors that wanted blessings and advice from him. He gave explicit instructions not to let anyone with a name as a mystic in. 
This to me seems to indicate exactly what is brought in the Ari, that the secrets of the Torah--that is the Eitz Chaim is not for anyone, but only those that live a life of great sanctity. 

[Whatever responsibility she saw in me I do not think I fulfilled. Nowhere  near. I seem to have dropped the ball. The hard thing to understand about this is thus: I feel that I had dropped the ball a long time ago, long before I met her. But apparently she thought there was still something I could and should do.]

Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,

It occurs to me to ask on Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,  from the Rambam laws of loans 14:11.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a migo? 

I mean to say this.After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין [engagement]. She is believed and she gets the full Ketubah {מאתיים}.[הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''א] So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. [הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''ד] He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. [אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה] 

Does she not have a migo? {She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.}

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע-he is believed. [That is as long as he changed his mind before the witnesses came.]
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a gift.

[It is not clear to  me why I am asking from these particular laws. Maybe because in the back of my mind I am thinking of the Ri MiGash that one can go fromפטור לפטור because of Migo but that it has to be before witnesses come. I might have been able to ask from other cases of Migo but I imagine there must be some subconscious reason I am asking from these particular cases.]

The only question here that I have is according to one opinion in תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א where he holds a מיגו can take away from a חזקה. But if we do not hold by this opinion then there is no question. She has a מיגו but he has a חזקה plus חקזת ממון. On the other hand she has חזקת הגוף שבתולה הייתה. That is, he has two חזקות against her מיגו וחזקה
So in one opinion that a migo can take out from a חזקה then I have a question.


_________________________________________________





It occurs to me to ask on כתובות דף ט and also page י''ב,  and the רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד:י''א.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a מיגו? 

I mean to say this. After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין . She is believed and she gets the full כתובה מאתיים . So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. Does she not have a מיגו? She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע, the lender is believed.
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a מתנה.
 עולה בדעתי לשאול על כתובות דף ט' וגם דף י''ב, מאת רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד: הי''א. השאלה הבסיסית היא הלא אחד יכול ללכת  מן הפטור לפטור? ובגלל זה יש לה מיגו? אני מתכוון לומר זה. לאחר הנישואין הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה. היא אומרת שהיא נאנסה לאחר אירוסין. היא נאמנת והיא מקבלת את מלוא כתובה מאתיים. אז יש לה טיעון שהיא יכולה לומר ושתאמין. אז השאלה היא על החוק הבא. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם לא קיימת מיגו בשבילה? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה. אדם מגיע לבית משפט ואומר מנה לי בידך. הנטען אומר להד''ם. ואז הוא משנה את דעתו ואומר לווה ופרע. ואז העדים באים ואומרים לווה ופרע, הוא נאמן. זה מפטור לפטור ויש מיגו. ועוד עדים רואים שלווה נותן כסף למלווה אבל לא יודעים מזה אם הוא למען החזר או מתנה והמלווה נאמן  אם הוא אומר שזה החזר עבור הלוואה שונה מאז שהוא יכול היה לומר שזה היה מתנה. אז השאלה היא על החוק הזה. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיאכן הייתה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם אין לה מיגו? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה.

Job suffered

You are trying as hard as you can to be good and still thing are not going your way. Why is that? The Book of Job is pretty clear that the trouble does not lay within you. That seems to be the entire point. At first God is bragging about Job what a great guy he is. Then Satan says, "Sure he is a great guy. Why would he not be? You gave him everything a man could want. Take it away and you will see he will curse You to Your Face." 
God said, "Fine, so take everything away, but leave his soul alone." Thus Job suffered. 
Then Job cursed the day he "will be born." But he did not curse God. Then the friends said God does not bring suffering except for sin. Job answered and said, "I know I am innocent of all sin." God then agreed with Job, and told the friends to ask his forgiveness -for they had spoken falsely.  So at the end, even God agreed that Job suffered not for sin, but to win a bet he had made with the Satan. Apparently, He won the bet. [What I am getting at here is that the area of numinous reality is beyond reason as Kant noticed, and that if one tries to apply reason to such an area, that leads to self-contradictions. I was somewhat aware of this in high school, which led me to believe that not everything in Torah can be proven, though it can be defended by reason.] [Dr. Kelley Ross also goes into this issue. But we know from the Guide of Maimonides that reason  can approach the area of numinous reality. Hegel obviously held the same way. The difference is to the Rambam reason also needs to be revealed from Heaven, and only then can a higher level of numinous reality be revealed. To Hegel the process is dialectical and depends on man--and men working together. To some degree you can see this in someone like Bava Sali who as a tzadik in his own right also  depended on the merit of his ancestors, and also his community to  some degree in order for there to be the kind of environment necessary for him to reach his level.]

So my question is why did not someone offer the explanation of the Mesilat Yesharim (Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato)? [One who is mostly sinful but has some good- gets reward for his good in this world, and suffers for the sins in the next. One who is mostly good but does some evil- suffers for the evil in this world, and get the reward for the good in the next. ] No one, not even God offered this explanation. Furthermore even though I do not own a copy of the Guide for the Perplexed   I recall the Rambam said the Torah agrees with the last of Job's friends.  A further question, is it not open in the Torah, " Do these commandments so that it will be good for you and you will have length of days"? "Behold I have set before you this day life and the good  and death and evil. Therefore choose life to keep these laws."

(1) Just a few thoughts I had in reading the Old Testament. כגן השם. Lot the nephew of Avraham saw that the city of Sodom was like the "Garden of God." When did he ever see the garden of God to be able to compare them?

(2) One does not make a עיר הנידחת [city that worships idols and thus must be destroyed.] of a city that is on the border of Israel. The Rambam brings the reason so as to not let the enemies of Israel have an entry point into Israel. That is the reason of R. Shimon ben Yochai that we are דורשים טעמה דקרא. [The sages say the reason is the verse that says בקרביך in your midst.]
The answer is given that there is not difference in law so the Rambam does always prefer to bring a verse than a drasha.
The Minchas Chinuch asks --but in this case there are many difference in law.
Rav Shach says  once the law does not apply in the opinion of R. Shimon then the city no longer has the category of עיר הנידחת. First I want to bring a proof for Rav Shach since in the opposite kinds of cases where there is  a prohibition we do not say that in the opinion of R. Shimon the prohibition remains in effect but there is a special exception in case the reason does not apply.

Another question is that the Rambam usually brings a verse as a proof of  a law rather than some reasoning process. Here he does just the opposite. It seems to me he is specially going like R Shimon here like he does in Yevamot where he prohibits to marry any woman that serves idols, even if she is not from the seven Canaanite nations -which is the law of R Shimon, not the sages.

(3) In Genesis God says the reason gentiles are forbidden to murder is because בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם. Therefore we have an open verse telling us that gentiles are made in the image of God [as per the Rambam]

(4) King Oshiyahu that in his days the Torah scroll was found in the Temple sent to Chulda the prophetess who said the punish that was decreed was because the Jewish people were not obeying the commands of God. Therefore the laws of the Torah must have been known even before the scroll was found.

(5) The King of Sodom said to Avraham תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך the Satan says to a man "give me your soul and take the money" [That was my first "vort" after I got to yeshivat Shar Yashuv in NY]

(6) One of the arguments that Job had with his friends involved time. One friend said the wicked are punished very soon after they sin. Job said they live all their days in peace and happiness and abundance. The question seems to me to be not if there is punishment for sin but rather is there in this world a connection between crime and punishment?
(7) King Yoshiyahu also found  some graves an spread the bones over the altars of the idol worshipers to make them "tame" unclean. He obviously did not have any religious people around trying to stop him like they do in Israel. I even brought this up with a person in Israel who really did know how to learn. I showed him the law in the Rambam that it is allowed to move graves for building roads. This was right at the time the insane religious people were trying to stop some building project as is their general custom to stop every good thing. One thing I noticed about the religious. They love bones. And they ruin the whole project of Torah. By pretending to keep it, they ruin it for everyone, and make it odious in people' eyes by their disgusting actions and character. How this happened I do not know but but their pretense of righteous is a horrific scam. I avoid them. The only place I would learn and pray at would be a Litvak yeshiva that excludes all the garbage.