I think the basic approach of Christians towards Jesus is mistaken because they tend to look at Jesus from the lens and viewpoint of Paul rather than taking his words to mean what he said. Keeping the Law which means for Jesus the Law of Moses was a big part of his platform  and focus. Plus the idea that he is not God was also a major point by him, even though he was attached with God in a NeoPlatonic sense.{One person called him "good". Jesus said, "Do not call me good. Only call God good."}

You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.

On the other hand I learned in the book of the Rosh Yeshiva of  Slobodka  אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.



[The basic issues can be divided into three: (1) The Law of Moses. There you do not see the distinction of Thomas Aquinas between Natural Law and Divine Law. Rather-the law is the law. (2) The idea of attachment  with God which is a commandment in the Torah so for anyone to say they are "attached with God" does not mean they are God. Nor does the Son of God mean anything more because of capital letters than it does anywhere else where the same phrase is used: "The Sons of God came to stand before him," "My Son, my first born is Israel" etc. and lots of other places--"Don't make a bald spot on your head because you are the Sons of God." (3) The whole debate between Paul and James and Peter is smoothed over in a very dishonest way. James openly says a statement which is  as clear as can be: "Anyone who lacks doing even one commandment of the Torah is as if he transgressed the whole thing."'  While Luther had a great point about getting back to original sources, still Christians have never taken the words of Jesus nor James and Peter to mean what they say.

Women today in the West  have lost their sense of place and this makes them particularly obnoxious.
But to be without a woman is not really an option. Yet to be married to one gives them way too much leverage over a man. Therefore the פילגש option seems best. [That is the girl friend. ] This you can see was a viable option in the Law of Moses. It is not the same thing as a זונה [prostitute] who is not specifically for one man.

Many people mix up these issues. They think sex outside of marriage is automatically prostitution which is certainly not the case. .


Calev ben Yefune had a few wives and a few girl friends as we can see n Chronicles I ch 2 verse 46.
[That is the friend of Joshua.]

Torah scholars

Cults and cult leaders usually take off from some established religion. They do not make up their own scriptures but use existing scriptures and then claim that to get to the truth of that system one needs to go through their lunatic leader.  This happens in the Jewish world as much as anywhere else.
Thus one needs a certain degree of common sense and a sense of authenticity to be able to avoid the problem. Another alternative that some people take is simply to avoid that particular religion entirely once they become aware of the cults that have infiltrated it.

I have mentioned before that Reb Nachman [of Breslov and Uman] noted this problem though he was not the first. This come up in his book in Volume I chapter 12 where he explains the problem with "Torah scholars that are demons" which he brings down from the Zohar. [I recall this problem arising a lot in all of his five books but mainly in his major one.] As usual in Torah lesson 12 he build up a a whole system based on this idea.

To solve this problem in fact those that decide to avoid the problem entirely and go off into Eastern religions makes a certain degree of sense. But my approach is to simply stick with Torah--the Oral and Written Law and avoid the cults as much as possible. That is mainly by sticking with the basic approach of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter which is collectively called the Litvak Approach based on the fact that this approach was widely accepted in Lithuania.

Today this good approach is mainly found in Ponovitch and NY Litvak Yeshivas and paces that are modeled after them.

בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב Talmud Bava Batra page 18 side B

In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. I was wondering why the גמרא asks on page י''ח ע''ב a question on רבא from ר' יוסי. Since for all we know the argument between אביי and רבא is only according to the sages of the משנה.  After all they can not be arguing about ר' יוסי who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the הלכה would be like ר' יוסי, still they can not be arguing about a statement of ר' יוסי that says "It is allowed". The argument between רבא and אביי is if one can put something by the boundary if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.] It occurred to me that in fact the question of the גמרא must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and ר' יוסי says they do not need to be kept away. But this question on רבא can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all רבא says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border. And that is in fact one answer of the גמרא, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.


בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. תהיתי מדוע הגמרא שואלת בעמוד יח: שאלה על רבא מר' יוסי. שהרי כל הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא הוא רק  לפי חכמי המשנה. הרי הם לא יכולים להתווכח על ר' יוסי שאומר שמותר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים. [גם אם ההלכה תהיה כמו ר' יוסי, עדיין לא ניתן להתווכח על אמירה של ר' יוסי שאומרת "מותר". הוויכוח בין רבא לאביי הוא אם אפשר לשים משהו בגבול ואין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק בזמן הזה. אז אם השכן שם שם מאוחר יותר משהו שיכול  להינזק אז הראשון היה צריך לקחת את הדבר שגורם נזק משם.] עלה בדעתי כי למעשה שאלת גמרא חייבת להיות רק על הקמת הגן בפועל שבו הדבורים הוצבו ליד הגבול, ועל כך החכמים  אומרים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים ור' יוסי אומר  לא צריך. אבל שאלה זו על רבא לא יכול להתקיים אלא אם כן החכמים מחזיקים כי דבורים עושים נזק לחרדל. אחרי הכל רבא אומר רק דבר שגורם נזק חייב להיות מרוחק מהגבול. וזו תשובה אחת של גמרא, כלומר שהחכמים מחזיקים  שהדבורים לא עושים שום נזק ולכן הם יכולים להיות ליד הגבול


A couple of years later: I have to mention I wrote this note when I did not have a Bava Batra with the Maharsha or Maharam. Yesterday I was able to get over to a Litvak place and take a brief look at this subject and noticed that both of these people go into it in detail. I only had an hour so I did not get the gist of what they were saying.

false Torah scholars

The trouble with false Torah scholars is that they cause more damage than if they would be open criminals. It is by the fact they present themselves as knowing  Torah and by that gaining people's trust that they cause the terrible evils they bring into the world. This is stated openly in the Talmud tractate Shabat. It's a wonder to me that Reb Nachman who brought up this problem did not quote that Gemara.[He has plenty to say about this problem but for some odd reason he never quoted that Gemara.]

The basic idea is that these false Torah scholars then cause the entire Jewish religious world to fall into the Dark Side and from there problems spread throughout the whole world.

It would be great and simple to  follow the Oral and Written Law if not for this particular problem which makes it difficult.

One method I have recommended in some of my blog entries is simply to learn Torah at home. Another good idea is to find an authentic Litvak yeshiva.  However neither of these ideas is very simple. [unless one is in NY or Bnei Brak]  Especially for working guys. Thus at least what I recommend is to save the first hour every day when one wakes up for a  half hour of Torah and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics as per the Rambam and by that to be connected with Torah in an authentic way the whole day.

[The problem with finding an authentic Yeshiva just gets back to the original problem. Thus the best idea is to learn Torah at home--especially to guard that first hour for Torah and Physics.]

The problem I think goes into the area of money. That is that Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money and hen it becomes a means of making money that then it attracts lowlifes.

Bava Batra 18b

In Bava Batra 18b I was wondering why the Gemara asks on page 18b a question on Rava from R. Yose. Since for all we know the argument between Abyee and Rava is only according to the sages of the Mishna.  After all they can not be arguing about R Yose who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the Halacha would be like R Yose, still they can not be arguing about a statement of R Yose that says "It is allowed".] [The argument between Rava an Abyee is if one can put something by the boundary f there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.]


It occurred to me that in fact the question of the Gemara must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and R. Yose says they do not need to be kept away.


But this question on Rava can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all Rava says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border.
And that is in fact one answer of the Gemara, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.

Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] (The verse itself I think is in Leviticus 19.)

One thing they were emphasizing in the Mir Yehiva in NY was Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] and that I never really got into much. Later I found out that Rav Israel Abuchatzeira also was really into that kind of thing but it still never really became one of my major principles to hold onto. Part of the reason is because it is never really all that clear when you are required to warn others about something and when not.

[Rav Israel Abuchazeira had just one picture in his house --that of the Chafez Chaim. And his granddaughters had organized a חוג group in their school of girls that would learn two laws in the Chafez Chaim [the book of Laws of Lashon Hara] every day and they would put their names on a list of people that every person would pray for every day to find their true spouse. So this thing about Lashon Hara was fairly well emphasized by that whole family also.--Not just Bava Sali himself. I think most of the people on that list got married after a very short time.]





The opposite point that one is required to warn people of danger of associating with a bad person is what makes this whole thing difficult to deal with.

In the book of the Gra [collected sayings of the Gra] אבן שלמה it says to give rebuke even when one knows the rebuke will not be accepted. Thus in our case here, it would seem that to warn others of danger is an obligation even when one knows his words will not be accepted.

[The Mir in NY was different from other Litvak yeshivas in this respect -the emphasis on not speaking Lashon Hara. All Litvak yeshivas are unified in the conviction about the prime importance of learning Torah as defined by Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot. But the Lashon Hara was unique to the Mir.

The trouble nowadays with women is they have lost their place. They no longer know who they are and what are their responsibilities. Thus to come to any degree of self respect they need to accuse some man or men of sexual assault. This makes them feel worthy and gives them a feeling of self respect. If they would learn the laws of Lashon Hara all that would be changed.

[One thing I have to add here. That you can learn the whole Chafez Chaim and not notice the argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona about Lashon Hara about what is true. The Rambam holds it is forbidden unless in a court of law. To Rabainu Yona it is only forbidden because of collateral damage that might come out of it but in itself it is not forbidden as you can see clearly in the Shaari Teshuva. And also I must add that extra strictness in this easily deteriorates into not opposing evil where it is warranted and required. So I generally depend on Rabbanu Yona.]