I wanted to mention that I think the problem in England is the noble savage myth that was popularized by Rousseau. They think they have found the noble savage in Muslims. They hate their Christian past but can not shake it off, so instead they cater to Muslims and by they get the feeling of spiritual release from the constraints of the Bible. I know I am not stating this properly but they main idea is I think England and France's infatuation with Muslims is highly psychological and not at all based on reason but rather the deep "Id"--more or less discovered by Nietzsche.
4.6.17
rebellion against religious authority
The problem of religious and secular authority and abuse of authority has been around for as long as there has been any kind of human or even primate groups. [Jane Goodall noticed this in primates.]
In history the first time this problem is recorded is in Herodotus. There the question of Democracy versus Monarchy is always just under the surface. Democracy is not a modern option. It is been around for a while. Maybe not has long as monarchy but it has been around. Athens suffered under kings and thus choose democracy. Persia had suffered under Cambyses and the Magi and thus was almost about to choose democracy at the advice of Otanes. The modern approach to democracy began with Calvin. In him and in Luther the problem of abuse of religious authority and abuse of secular authority always looms on the horizon. Calvin is the beginning of the modern day version of representative government --but with a major difference. To him there is not a separation of church an state except in functions-- not as some hypothetical legal dividing line. All are under God's Law and God's Law encompasses all facets of life. But to Calvin the option of rebellion a against authority when it abuses God's Law always exists. [This really began with Luther in terms of rebellion against religious authority when it is abusive. To Calvin the problem is more in the area of abuse of secular authority.
The ramifications of all this took a long time to get into the Jewish world. But in time also in the Jewish world the problem of authority became an issue. And it still is.
The major reaction of abuse of religious authority is Reform Judaism. The reaction of abuse of secular authority resulted in the State of Israel. Both are results of legitimate complaints about intolerable abuses of authority by religious leader and the anti Semitic government of the Czar and Europe's monarchs.
The result today of reaction to abuse of religious authority tends to be what is called חוזר בשאלה return to question.
But the big picture is not the problem in the Jewish world of abuse of authority but rather the larger question of abuse of authority in all human history--and what is possible to do about it?
My impression is that Luther was right about what to do concerning abuse of religious authority. Though for sure he was the polar opposite of a saint, still his basic idea is valid--get back to Torah.
In other words to learn and keep Torah is an individual responsibility. How better can I put it? Though Luther was including the New Testament in his approach I still feel there is a great message in what he says. But from my point of view the main thing would be instead of the NT one should learn the Law of Moses [Written and Oral] and keep it. That is this depends on the individual.
That is to learn the Old Testament and the two Talmuds in depth and with rigorous painstaking work on every page.
This in fact became the approach of the Litvak yeshivas--to simply learn Torah and do what it says. This was the Litvak solution to the problem of abuse of authority. To throw out the phonies and charlatans and get back to what the Torah in fact says.
[The trouble that I see is that it takes some kind of merit to learn Torah. Without some kind of specific merit, obstacles arise that are not surmountable. The evil inclination always comes into the mind telling one how much better it is to do other things. One always finds other things preferable. So what to do? To pray to learn and appreciate Torah. Even one word of Torah is in my eyes a great merit..]
In history the first time this problem is recorded is in Herodotus. There the question of Democracy versus Monarchy is always just under the surface. Democracy is not a modern option. It is been around for a while. Maybe not has long as monarchy but it has been around. Athens suffered under kings and thus choose democracy. Persia had suffered under Cambyses and the Magi and thus was almost about to choose democracy at the advice of Otanes. The modern approach to democracy began with Calvin. In him and in Luther the problem of abuse of religious authority and abuse of secular authority always looms on the horizon. Calvin is the beginning of the modern day version of representative government --but with a major difference. To him there is not a separation of church an state except in functions-- not as some hypothetical legal dividing line. All are under God's Law and God's Law encompasses all facets of life. But to Calvin the option of rebellion a against authority when it abuses God's Law always exists. [This really began with Luther in terms of rebellion against religious authority when it is abusive. To Calvin the problem is more in the area of abuse of secular authority.
The ramifications of all this took a long time to get into the Jewish world. But in time also in the Jewish world the problem of authority became an issue. And it still is.
The major reaction of abuse of religious authority is Reform Judaism. The reaction of abuse of secular authority resulted in the State of Israel. Both are results of legitimate complaints about intolerable abuses of authority by religious leader and the anti Semitic government of the Czar and Europe's monarchs.
The result today of reaction to abuse of religious authority tends to be what is called חוזר בשאלה return to question.
But the big picture is not the problem in the Jewish world of abuse of authority but rather the larger question of abuse of authority in all human history--and what is possible to do about it?
My impression is that Luther was right about what to do concerning abuse of religious authority. Though for sure he was the polar opposite of a saint, still his basic idea is valid--get back to Torah.
In other words to learn and keep Torah is an individual responsibility. How better can I put it? Though Luther was including the New Testament in his approach I still feel there is a great message in what he says. But from my point of view the main thing would be instead of the NT one should learn the Law of Moses [Written and Oral] and keep it. That is this depends on the individual.
That is to learn the Old Testament and the two Talmuds in depth and with rigorous painstaking work on every page.
This in fact became the approach of the Litvak yeshivas--to simply learn Torah and do what it says. This was the Litvak solution to the problem of abuse of authority. To throw out the phonies and charlatans and get back to what the Torah in fact says.
[The trouble that I see is that it takes some kind of merit to learn Torah. Without some kind of specific merit, obstacles arise that are not surmountable. The evil inclination always comes into the mind telling one how much better it is to do other things. One always finds other things preferable. So what to do? To pray to learn and appreciate Torah. Even one word of Torah is in my eyes a great merit..]
2.6.17
T 66 music file
t66 in mp3 [t66 in midi] [t66 in nwc]As I said before I spent a lot of time trying to learn from the greats. like Mozart. One idea I borrow here is to go to the 6th instead of the expected 5th towards the end.
Another important idea of Mozart is to leave the tonic in the bass, while the higher goes to the dominant. I have wanted to use this idea often but was never able to until this piece right towards the end.
Another important idea of Mozart is to leave the tonic in the bass, while the higher goes to the dominant. I have wanted to use this idea often but was never able to until this piece right towards the end.
a conflict between good and evil
It is not so simple that there is a conflict between good and evil in this world. There is this conflict, but there is also a conflict between social memes. Certain memes-sets of social and moral information get into people and at a certain point these values become hardwired into the person. Not just that-- but also in groups that accept a certain meme of set of values--in the history of that group you can see that set of values coming to fruition--both the good and the bad values.
So it is not just important to use reason and common sense to identify the right set of values-but also the groups and their sets of values [which are often hidden from public view.]
The trouble is even when you think you have found the right set of objective values and a good group that will lead you to the good in this world and the next,- the dark side has found a way to penetrate that very group. The trouble in not just the attacks on the Holy Torah from outside. These attack are serious enough. But the greater danger are the attacks on Torah from the inside--people that openly hold with Torah and yet are agents of the Devil.
Some of the principles I have found to be important are sometimes tied to one particular person that embodied that value. In any case I realized I have kind of a long list so for my own sake, I want to jot down some of the things I think are of crucial importance.
(1) The Avi Ezri of Rav Shach which contains the essence of what it means "to learn Torah."
(2) To speak the truth at all cost.
(3) At the Mir in NY I learned a very importance principle of not to steal--which means in a strict sense: not to touch that which does not belong to you. [Nor to acquire things by fraud or force etc,]
(4) From the Rambam and my parents I learned the importance of learning Physics and Mathematics.
(5) From the Gra and the two great Litvak NY yeshivas (that I was in) I learned the importance of learning Torah. [That is the Oral and Written Law--Tenach(Old Testament) and the two Talmuds.]
(6) From the book of Navardok I learned the importance of trust in God without doing any effort.
[These are not just picked at random out of a hat, but a short list of things I have seen and found to be important and that lead to the good and the light. I know there are lot of competing memes- and principles that people say are important, but these are the ones I have seen work towards the good and the light. ]
From experience and from just being around in the world I learned that many of the other so called great principles of life or other causes are mainly fraudulent.
So it is not just important to use reason and common sense to identify the right set of values-but also the groups and their sets of values [which are often hidden from public view.]
The trouble is even when you think you have found the right set of objective values and a good group that will lead you to the good in this world and the next,- the dark side has found a way to penetrate that very group. The trouble in not just the attacks on the Holy Torah from outside. These attack are serious enough. But the greater danger are the attacks on Torah from the inside--people that openly hold with Torah and yet are agents of the Devil.
Some of the principles I have found to be important are sometimes tied to one particular person that embodied that value. In any case I realized I have kind of a long list so for my own sake, I want to jot down some of the things I think are of crucial importance.
(1) The Avi Ezri of Rav Shach which contains the essence of what it means "to learn Torah."
(2) To speak the truth at all cost.
(3) At the Mir in NY I learned a very importance principle of not to steal--which means in a strict sense: not to touch that which does not belong to you. [Nor to acquire things by fraud or force etc,]
(4) From the Rambam and my parents I learned the importance of learning Physics and Mathematics.
(5) From the Gra and the two great Litvak NY yeshivas (that I was in) I learned the importance of learning Torah. [That is the Oral and Written Law--Tenach(Old Testament) and the two Talmuds.]
(6) From the book of Navardok I learned the importance of trust in God without doing any effort.
[These are not just picked at random out of a hat, but a short list of things I have seen and found to be important and that lead to the good and the light. I know there are lot of competing memes- and principles that people say are important, but these are the ones I have seen work towards the good and the light. ]
From experience and from just being around in the world I learned that many of the other so called great principles of life or other causes are mainly fraudulent.
31.5.17
Rambam laws of rent ch 8. Bava Metzia pages 103-105
I think the רמב''ם probably saw this difference in what is owed in the words of רב פפא himself. That is the fact that I pointed out that רב פפא says in terms the משנה on page ק''ג ע''ב that the one can bring with a bucket means to the רמב''ם that one statement of רב פפא was referring to the work that is required to be done on the field by the מקבל and the other statement of רב פפא concerning the difference between the first two משניות and the later ones refer to the percentage that the serf has to pay from his labor.
אני חושב הרמב''ם כנראה ראה את ההבדל זה בדין מה הוא נוגע להתחייבות המקבל בדברי רב פפא עצמו. רב פפא אמר לגבי המשנה בעמוד ק''ג ע''ב כי אפשר להביא עם דלי. הרמב''ם ראה האמירה זו של רב פפא שהתכוון אל העבודה שנדרשת להיעשות על המגרש על ידי המקבל. את תמצית הדוח האחרת של רב פפא לגבי ההבדל בין שתי הראשונות אל המשניות המאוחרות מתייחס לאחוז שהצמית יש לשלם מן העבודה שלו.
בבא מציעא קד. The question was that the רמב''ם ignores רב פפא. The answer I would like to suggest is this. The רמב''ם when he says one does lessen the what is owed by a שוכר and a מקבל in a year drought he means what he always means in that chapter, in reference to the מקבל it is the work that is owed by the מקבל. But when רב פפא say all the משניות after the first two in chapter תשעה refer to either the serf מקבל or the חוכר שוכר but not both, and thus when the later משנה says one lessens the obligation in a year of drought, that means the חוכר but the מקבל still give his percentage. As רש''י says over there. What ever the field gives out he gives from those crops the agreed upon percentage.
בבא מציעא קד. השאלה היתה כי רמב''ם מתעלם מרב פפא. התשובה שאני רוצה להציע היא זו. הרמב''ם כשהוא אומר להפחית את מה שחייבים השוכר וגם המקבל בתוך שנת בצורת, לגבי המקבל הוא מתכוון למה שהוא אומר תמיד בפרק זה, את העבודה שהוא מחוייב. אבל כאשר רב פפא אומר כל משניות אחרי שתי הראשונות בפרק תשעה מתייחסות לצמית (מקבל) או חוכר (שוכר) אך לא את שניהם, ולכן כאשר מאוחר יותר המשנה אומרת אחד מפחית את המחויבות בגין שנת בצורת, כי פירושו חוכר אבל המקבל עדיין מחוייב לתת את האחוזים שלו. זה פי שרש''י אומר שם מה שהשדה נותן הוא נותן האחוז המוסכם.
I think the Rambam probably saw this in the words of Rav Papa himself. That is the fact that I pointed out that Rav Papa says in terms the Mishna on page 103 that the one can bring with a bucket means to the Rambam that one statement of Rav Papa was referring to the work that is required to be done on teh field by the serf and the other statement of Rav Papa concerning the difference between the first two mishnas and the later one refer to the percentage that the serf has to pay from his labor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)