To obey one's parents is not considered a worthy thing to do.However that seems to be a mistake. There is one section in חידושי הגרנ''ט the book of Reb Naphtali Troup which goes into this and shows that to obey one's parents is a מצוות עשה positive commandment.

To obey one's parents is not considered a worthy thing to do. However that seems to be a mistake. There is one section in חידושי הגרנ''ט the book of Reb Naphtali Troup which goes into this and shows that to obey one's parents is a מצוות עשה positive commandment. The reason this is not obvious nowadays is that often one's parents are not very worthy. Still the issue seems to be ignored more than I would think to be proper. You can see this in Jeremiah 35 where the grandchildren of יונדב בו רכב Yonadav obeyed his order not to drink wine and were rewarded for that by an exceptional blessing.

The whole issue is gone into in the Tur {son of the Rosh, Rabbainu Asher}. 

The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view

The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view of the commandments. He even gives a few times the consequences they are supposed to bring to. This goes along well with the consequentialist theory of political authority. See this paper by Danny Frederick.  The reason that a state has authority does not need to be supported by philosophical arguments, (arguments that are often convoluted) . The reason is much more simple than that. The issue is not just human flourishing. The point is that no human good would be possible without a state.  We all would be subject to the most sadistic  kinds of criminals. Nothing we have, nor our very lives would be safe.

[The consequentialist view of the commandments is from the Gemara itself. There is an argument between  R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages if we go by the reasons for the commandments or by the letter of the law. R. Shimon Ben Yohai holds we go by the reason. But no one argues if we know the reasons or not. The Gemara assumes point blank that we know the reasons an the reasons are obvious but the question is if we use that reason in applying the law or if we go by the letter of the law. 

The argument for the state goes even for states that one does not agree with its laws.
All the more so states that are founded on objective principles of justice like the USA and Israel.


The argument against socialist states is stronger than most people imagine. The issue is not how to justify socialism but rather what are the logical results. Once it can be shown the results are not good then all other arguments for justifying  do not matter.
This argument holds for any system that claims superiority over the USA Constitution or the State of Israel. The question that matters is what are the logical results of any system?

carrying in one's pocket on the Sabbath Day

It might be a good idea to explain why I think carrying in one's pocket on the Sabbath Day is OK. To do that in a structured way.
The basic idea comes from the gemaras [Bava Batra 85] about acquisition. The question is if an object in the vessel of a person is thought to be in the domain of the person or the larger domain. There are differences if the vessel belongs to the seller or the buyer or to a third party. But the fact remains that the major question is if the object is considered to be in the larger domain or the bag. That is how the Rashbam explains it. Then the connection with Shabat comes from the Gemara that equates the two issues in Bava Batra 86.


The reason this is important is that a public domain does not seem to need 600,000. Even though Rashi and Tosphot both say that it does still it is hard to see how this could have been fulfilled in ancient Persia and the Gemaras in Shabat seem to treat the streets there as public domains.  

פ''ה in בבא בתרא

There seems to be a proof to carry in a כיס on the שבת is permitted.




This is because the גמרא in בבא בתאר says one who steals  a כיס on שבת and carries it out is obligated to pay back because the prohibition of שבת and theft happen at different times.
But if he drags it out, then he is not obligated. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה.
Now if the object in the כיס was considered different then that כיס itself then the two sins would be happening at different times. The object or money in the כיס would be considered to have been taken at one second in terms of laws of  שבת and the bag as far as acquisition would precede it.
So when the גמרא says the object in terms of acquisition goes with the bag then the same applies to שבת.
So when on שבת one is allowed to walk in a public domain with a pocket sewn into one's coat the object in the pocket is also considered to be in the pocket not in the public domain.
If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and שבת, then in fact carrying in a כיס would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a כיס might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a כיס that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
The  משנה says she is divorced but the גמרא puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the רשב''ם on page פ''ה in בבא בתרא does mention this question in terms of acquisition, whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought to be part of the person, not the domain. That is רב יהודה in the name of שמואל, and ריש לקיש.


The major point is the רשב''ם says the question of an object in a bag in terms of acquisition is if the object s thought to be in the bag or in the larger domain.

[This is important because a public domain does not seem to need 600,000.]


נראה שיש הוכחה שמותר לשאת בתוך כיס בשבת. הסיבה לכך היא הגמרא בבבא בתרא שאומרת שהגונב כיס בשבת מחויב להחזיר את הכסף משום איסור השבת והגניבה קורים בזמנים שונים. אבל אם הוא גורר אותו החוצה, ואז הוא אינו מחויב. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה. עכשיו אם אובייקט בכיס נחשב שונה מן הכיס עצמו אזי שני החטאים קורים בזמנים שונים.  הכסף בכיס יחשב גנוב שנייה אחת קודם מבחינת דיני שבת. אז כאשר הגמרא אומרת האובייקט במונחים של רכישה הולך עם הכיס אז כן הוא לגבי שבת. לכן, כאשר ביום שבת אחד מותר ללכת בתוך מרחב ציבורי עם כיס תפור לתוך המעיל כן האובייקט בכיס נחשב להיות בטל בכיס. אבל אם היית מחזיק חיבור ישיר בין רכישה לשבת, אז למעשה לשאת בתוך כיס לא יורשה בגלל כלי של לוקח אינו יכול לרכוש בתחום ציבורי. אבל כיס תפור בבגד יכול מאוד להיות טוב יותר מאשר שקית. המקרה של האיש שזורק גירושין לתוך השקית של אשתו מראה כי כיס מחובר עם הגוף של אישה הוא שונה משקית שהיא מחזיקה. המשנה אומרת שהיא גרושה, אבל הגמרא מכניסה כמה תנאים כמו שהתיק צריך להיות קשור אליה. 

carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath

There seems to be a proof that carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath is permitted.
This is because the Gemara in Bava Batra says one who steals  a pocket book on Shabat and carries it out is obligated to pay back because the prohibition of Shabat and theft happen at different times.
But if he drags it out, then he is not obligated. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה.
Now if the object in the bag was considered different then that bag itself then the two sins would be happening at different times. The object or money in the bag would be considered to have been taken in terms of Shabat and the bag as far as acquisition would precede it.
So when the Gemara says the object in terms of acquisition goes with the bag then the same applies to Shabat.
So when on Shabat one is allowed to walk in a public domain with a pocket sewn into one's coat the object in the pocket is also considered to be in the pocket not in the public domain.

I think this fact was note in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv when we were learning אלו מערות where the same mishna comes up.



If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and Shabat, then in fact carrying in a pocket would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a pocket might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a pocket that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
[The  Mishna says she is divorced but the Gemara puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the Rashbam on page 85 in Bava Batra does mention this question in terms of acquisition-- whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought part of the person -not the domain. [That is Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, and others.]

Gemara says what it means.

The way I look at the Gemara (i.e. Talmud) is that it says what it means. This is different than interpretations of charity--looking at it in the way that agrees with what one already thinks.

It did not occur to me to mention this until yesterday when I mentioned that the path of my parents is Reform.


So I thought today just to mention a few Gemaras that go along with this idea.
One would be the Gemara in Bava Batra [14b] that Moses wrote his book (that is Deuteronomy) , the Book of Job, and the parsha [section] of the Holy Torah that deals with Bileam. [משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב]  The simple way of understanding this is that that is all that he wrote. Not the rest of the Five Books of Moses. The Five Books were certainly Divinely inspired, but that does not mean that Moses {Moshe} wrote them. [There is a Gemara in the very first tractate of the Talmud that says that Moses wrote all Five Books, but that seems to disagree with the Gemara in Bava Batra. [The 13 principles of Faith then would be deciding like the other  Gemara].
[At any rate, the Gemara in Bava Batra can not mean that Moses wrote all Five Books because that would include the section on Bileam. It has to mean just "his book", ספר דברם Deuteronomy



The other very well known Gemara is in the end of Makot where the obligations of the commandments are lessened.  Rashi explains that if people would be required to keep all the commandments then no one would merit to the next world. Therefore the obligations were lessened down from 613 to one [faith]. It was a long process starting with King David and Isaiah.

Another lesser known example is the opinion of Hillel [the Amora] in the Gemara that the whole idea of a final redemption does not apply since we already had a final redemption in the days of King Hezekiah.

There are many more examples of where you can see that the Gemara is not "PC." It says lots of things which offend many people's sensibilities.

[The author of the regular commentary on the Guide for the Perplexed, Joseph Albo also wrote on the principles of faith in a separate book  where he disagrees with the Rambam about the actual principles. I vaguely recall that Rav Joseph Albo reduced the principle one must believe in down to six and I think Abravenal down to three.]

u37 u57 music files

U-37 D Major U-57 D Major in this last piece I used an idea you can find in the Middle Ages of let's say you have a major scale as the tonic and then you go down to C Major instead of the expected A Major. Its's also found in Irish Music. [here is U-57 in midi format so that the scores can be downloaded by who ever wants] both pieces need slurs that i neglected to put in.