Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach.

I must say that in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach was more "global." The kind of small questions that I ask would not have  occupied much attention by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but rather big issue questions like how does this subject [sugia] relate to other sugiot as you would see in Reb Haim HaLevi's חידושי הרמב''ם or in Rav Shach's אבי עזרי.
But in Shar Yashuv, the kind of questions that would have been raised by Rav Naphtali Yeger were more of the kind that deal with "calculating the sugia".

While at the Mir itself I never got into the "big issues" types of learning. It is only later that I began  the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the חידושי הרמב''ם by Reb Haim Halevi. [Frankly speaking, I was no where near the general high level of learning that was at the Mir. Most of the learning there was somewhere in the stratosphere  while I was just barely prodding along. 
[I had done Hulin in my first year in Shar Yashuv. Then my mother died. Then my second year was spent doing Ketuboth. Then the third year was Yevamot then I went to the Mir in NY. There I did Nedarim and then Shabat and then got married and to Israel. Israel was amazing.]

Reb Shmuel himself could have written his own amazing ideas which were astonishing   insights along the lines the Reb Haim, but for some odd reason he and all the other amazing roshei yeshiva there confined themselves to just giving over their ideas in class. The only one who saw fit to write his stuff down was the the Sukat David, and that was only the beginner's level at the Mir. The other roshie yeshiva (as far as I know) never wrote down a word. It is sad. Every single class of Reb Shmuel was a astounding structure of amazing ideas.

I am upset that Reb Shmuel's classes were not written down. But there is nothing I can do about it. Thank God, at least Rav Shach wrote down his ideas which were along the same kinds of lines.

I any case, overall I have to admit the yeshiva experience in a genuine Litvak Yeshiva like the Mir in NY was an astounding experience. If people would know about what the authentic Litvak yeshiva experience is like, you would not be able to find room to sit down. Everyone would flock like bees to honey. But I have to add that a lot depend on the rosh yeshiva. The kind of person he is. [Because of some kind of Divine grace my steps were led to two amazing yeshivas, Shar Yashuv and the Mir of NY. But to merit to the real thing apparently is either from some kind of merit one needs or simple undeserved grace from above. ]

[The Mir and Shar Yashuv for me were very enjoyable I should add. I can not really say what aspect I found best.]  [At any rate, the main idea is to learn how to be a "mensch" and good traits along with the fulfillment of the command to learn Torah. All I am saying is that there are some institutions like Ponoviz in Bnei Brak or the Mir in NY which do in fact help to bring to these goals.]

The whole Litvak (Lithuanian Yeshiva) idea is quite remarkable in that it the closest thing I know of that brings to learning and keeping Torah. What I mean is that there are institutions that do a fairly good job in bringing about the basic goals that they believe in. The Litvak Yeshivas --at least in Bnei Brak and NY do a fairly good job.
[I might mention that the basic idea there was to learn Talmud and Musar. Musar is a small set of Ethical books that were authored during the Middle Ages, and  now also includes the works of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. These books I have to say are very impressive, and do a wonderful job in explaining the world view of the Holy Torah.]  

[In terms of general education before the yeshiva years, I ought to mention that I mainly hold with the Rambam about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. Even though the Rambam openly said he was referring to how these subjects were understood in ancient Athens, I feel that today Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, String Theory,  Kant and Hegel, the Enneads of Plotinus and of course Plato and Aristotle ought to be part of that. Obviously the Gra would have added Music and Astronomy also, but the above seems like a basic minimum.]
[I was officially in the class of Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but I not go regularly. I also was there at his home almost every Shabbat even after I got married.]
I have gone back and forth on Hegel. While in NY I borrowed from the Brooklyn Public Library a Cambridge Companion to Hegel which I liked. Later I got into Kant, Leonard Nelson, and Kelley Ross and kind of accepted  along with their very amazing ideas also their negative attitude towards Hegel. At some point I decided to do a more thorough reading of Hegel on my own and then became very impressed again. The strong part of Hegel is Metaphysics. His weak part is politics.  Thus for politics I think it makes more sense to read the documents of the founding fathers of the USA.

Bava Metzia page 102-B, Bava Batra page 105.

When I was going over my notes I had taken when I was learning Bava  Metzia page 102-B with David Bronson I apparently had forgotten or did not understand what he was saying about Bava Metzia page 102B פרושי קא מפרש in Tosphot. However it just occurred to me what probably was bothering David.




I think it was this. Tosphot asks a question on Rashi from Bava Batra page 165B from the Mishna that says if in a document it says So and so borrowed 100 zuzim which are 20 selaim.  (Normally 100 zuz are 25 sela.)The lender gets only 20 selaim. Tosphot answer for Rashi that the words in the document are far apart. What probably bothered David and which bothers me now is that there does not seem to be any difference between the case in Bava Batra page 165 and the cases of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי nor the case of "I will rent to you this bathhouse for a year for 12 gold coins which is one gold coin per month." So the question of Tosphot seems to apply just as much to the explanation of Tosphot as it does to Rashi and the answer he gives for Rashi does not seem very justified. After all the words "100 zuz" do not seem very far from "20 selaim". The only word that separates them is דאינון "which are" which should serve to connect the words rather than separate them.

The basic sugia as it is brought in Bava Batra page 105 is this. There is a Mishna [Baba Metzia 102a] that says One person says to another I will rent to you this bathhouse for a year for 12 gold coins which are 1 per month. Rav said he would give the whole 13th month to the owner. They ask on this: "Why did Rav need to say this again? He already had said  אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי?" That means תפוס לשון אחרון. We go by the last words. The Gemara answers "we might have said פרושי מפרש"

There are three explanations. The Rashbam and the Ri who both say פרושי מפרש would go on the bathhouse. But they differ in this.The Rashba says If Rav had only stated the case of bathhouse we might have thought the owner meant 12 per year but if it is a leap year then  one gold coin per month. The Ri explains  if Rav had only stated the case of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי  (which we would know means תפוס לשון אחרון)then when we would come to a case of a bathhouse we would say the owner meant to explain that he meant the rent ought to be paid at the end of every month. Not the end of the year. But that still the whole overall price would be 12 gold coins.
Rashi says פרושי מפרש goes on אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי and that it means a אסתרא גרועה a low value אסתרא. But that would not imply in general to go by לשון אחרון.
The question on Rashi come from Bava Batra page 165. 100 zuz that are 20 selaim where the law is he gets the least amount.20 selaim. Also if the document said 100 zuz which are 30 sela he gets only 100 zuz. This seems to be a question on everyone. Not just on Rashi. And the answer Tosphot gives seems hard since דאינון means "that are" which would seem to connect more than to disconnect.
However Tosphot does bring a different version of the Mishna on page 165 that says 100 zuz דהוו קיימין "that equal". So that might help explain Tosphot. What are the extra words דהוו קיימין there for except to separate? But still it is not clear why the question of Tosphot would not apply equally well to the Rashbam and to the Ri himself.





I must say that in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach was more "global." This kind of question would not have  occupied much attention by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but rather big issue questions like how does this sugia relate to other sugiot as you would see in Reb Haim HaLevi's חידושי הרמב''ם or in Rav Shach's אבי עזרי.
But in Shar Yashuv, this is exactly the kind of question that would have been raised by Rav Naphtali Yeger. 
I also should mention that I assume Tosphot answers this somehow in his laconic language but I just so far have not been able to  see how Tosphot answer this.

It should be mentioned that the Ri himself is hard to understand.He says if we would only have the statement of the איסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי the when we come to bathhouse we would say he gets 12 because it is not a case of two statements but one statement which explains something about the first statement. But our Gemara in Bava Batra is assuming we already have the statement of bathhouse..I can imagine that my learning partner David Bronson might have been wondering about the Ri also. But that much is fuzzy in my mind. I do not recall. But the part about the question from Bava Batra 165 is somewhat clear to me --that he was bothered by that.

In any case the Ri seems more or less clear. He is going on the Gemara in Bava Metzia where we have the statement of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי and from that we would not know the bathhouse.

My impression is that the Ri held if something changes the basic meaning of an idea, then it can not be called "explaining it". So if the owner said 12 and then 1 per month which in a leap year means 13, then that is not called "explaining".
Other than that I can not see what else the Ri was saying here.














___________________________________

בבא בתרא ק''ה ע''ב
תוספות ד''ה פרושי מפרש
 תוספות asks a question on רש''י from בבא בתרא page קס''ה ע''ב from the משנה that says if in a document it says "So and so borrowed מאה זוז which are עשרים סלעים." (Normally מאה זוז are עשרים וחמשה סלעים.) The lender gets only עשרים סלעים. Then תוספות answers for רש''י that the words in the document are far apart. What  bothers me now is that there does not seem to be any difference between the case in בבא בתרא page קס''ה and the cases of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי nor the case of "I will משכיר to you this bathhouse for a year for שנים עשר זהובים which is one gold coin per month." So the question of תוספות seems to apply just as much to the explanation of תוספות as it does to רש''י and the answer he gives for רש''י does not seem very justified. After all the words מאה זוז do not seem very far from עשרים סלעים. The only word that separates them is דאינון (which are) which should serve to connect the words rather than separate them. The basic סוגיא as it is brought in בבא בתרא page ק''ה ע''ב is this. There is a משנה בבא מציעא ק''ב ע''א that says one person says to another I משכיר to you this bathhouse for a year for שנים עשר זהובים which are דינר זהב per month. רב said he would give the whole 13th month to the owner. They ask on this: "Why did רב need to say this again? He already had said  אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי?" That means תפוס לשון אחרון. We go by the last words. Theגמרא answers "we might have said פרושי מפרש" There are three explanations. The רשב''ם and the ר''י who both say פרושי מפרש would go on the bathhouse. But they differ in this. The רשב''ם says If רב had only stated the case of bathhouse, then we might have thought the owner meant שנים עשר זהובים per year, but if it is a leap year then  one דינר זהב per month. The ר''י explains  if we only  had  the case of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי  (which we would know means תפוס לשון אחרון), then when we would come to a case of a bathhouse, we would say the owner meant to explain that he meant this. The rent ought to be paid at the end of every month. Not the end of the year. But that still the whole overall price would be שנים עשר זהובים. However רש''י says פרושי מפרש goes on אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי and that it means a אסתרא גרועה, a low value אסתרא or a low grade אסתרא. But that would not imply in general to go by לשון אחרון.
The question on רש''י come from בבא בתרא page קס''ה. The משנה says when the document says מאה זוז that are עשרים סלעים  the law is he gets the least amount. That is עשרים סלעים. Also if the document said מאה זוזים which are שלשים סלעים he gets only מאה זוזים. This seems to be a question on everyone. Not just on רש''י. And the answer תוספות gives seems hard since דאינון means "that are" which would seem to connect more than to disconnect. However תוספות does bring a different version of the משנה on page קס''ה that says מאה זוזים דהוו קיימין "that equal". So that might help explain תוספות. What are the extra words דהוו קיימין there for except to separate? But still it is not clear why the question of תוספות would not apply equally well to the רשב''ם and to the ר''י himself.

בבא בתרא ק''ה ע''ב תוספות ד''ה פרושי מפרש. תוספות שואלים שאלה על רש''י מן בבא בתרא דף קס''ה ע''ב מן המשנה שאומרת שאם במסמך כתוב  "פלוני לווה מאה זוז שהם עשרים סלעים." (בדרך כלל מאה זוז הם עשרים וחמשה סלעים.) המלווה מקבל רק עשרים סלעים. ואז תוספות נותנים תשובה לרש''י כי המילים במסמך הן רחוקות אחת מהשניה. מה שמטריד אותי עכשיו הוא שלא נראה כל הבדל בין המקרה בבא בתרא דף קס''ה ואת המקרים של "אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי" ולא המקרה של "אני משכיר לך מרחץ זה במשך שנה עבור שנים עשר זהובים אשר הם מטבע זהב אחד לחודש." אז השאלה של תוספות נראה שחלה באותה מידה להסבר של תוספות כפי שהיא חלה לרש''י והתשובה שהוא נותן עבור רש''י לא נראה מוצדק מאוד. אחרי הכל, המילים מאה זוז לא נראות מאוד רחוקות מעשרים סלעים. המילה היחידה שמפרידה אותן היא דאינון (שהם) אשר היא אמורה לשרת לקשר את המילים ולא להפריד ביניהם. סוגיא הבסיסי כפי שהיא מובא בבבא בתרא דף ק''ה ע''ב זו. ישנה משנה בבא מציעא ק''ב ע''א שאומרת אדם אחד אומר לשני שאני משכיר לך מרחץ זה במשך שנה עבור שנים עשר זהובים אשר הם דינר זהב לחודש. רב אמר שייתן בעבור החודש השלשה עשר כולה למשכיר. הם שואלים על זה: "למה רב צריך להגיד את זה שוב? הוא כבר אמר אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי"? כלומר תפוס לשון אחרון. אנחנו עוברים למילים האחרונות. גמרא עונה התשובה "יכולנו אולי לומר פרושי מפרש". ישנם שלושה הסברים. רשב''ם והר''י  אומרים "פרושי המפרש" ילך על המרחץ. אבל הם נבדלים בזה. רשב''ם אומר אם רב הגיד רק את המקרה של בית המרחץ, אז אנחנו עלולים לחשוב הבעלים מכוונים שנים עשר זהובים לשנה, אבל אם היא שנה מעוברת אז דינר זהב לחודש. ר''י מסביר שאם  רק היה המקרה של אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי (אשר היינו יודעים אמצעי תפוס לשון אחרון), אז כאשר היינו מגיעים למקרה של מרחץ, היינו אומרים הבעלים  להסביר התכוונו לזה. דמי השכירות צריכים להיות משולמים בסוף כל חודש. לא סוף השנה. אבל עדיין המחיר הכולל כולו יהיה שנים עשר זהובים לשנה. עם זאת רש''י אומר "פרושי מפרש" נמשך לאסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי וכי פירושו אסתרא גרועה, (ערך נמוך). אבל זה לא היה להגיד בכלל ללכת על לפי לשון אחרון. השאלה על רש''י באה מבבא בתרא דף קס''ה במשנה שאומרת כאשר המסמך אומר "מאה זוז  שהם עשרים סלעים" החוק הוא שהוא יקבל את הסכום הנמוך ביותר. כלומר עשרים סלעים. כמו כן אם מסמך  מאה זוזים אשר שלשים סלעים הוא מקבל רק מאה זוזים. זה נראית שאלה על כולם. לא רק על רש''י. והתשובה שתוספות נותן נראית קשה מאז המילה דאינון (שהם) הקובעת לכאורה לקשר יותר מלנתק. אולם תוספות מביא גרסה שונה של המשנה בעמוד קס''ה שאומרת מאה זוזים דהוו קיימין (ששווים). כך שזה עשוי לעזור להסביר תוספות. מהן מילות  "דהוו קיימין" עושות מלבד להפריד? אבל עדיין לא ברור מדוע שאלת התוספות לא תחול באותה מידה על הרשב''ם ועל הר''י עצמו

I am not sure if the Book of Job is taught in public schools but when I went to high school in California, it was part of the curriculum. So what I am saying about Rav Moshe Lutzato (Ramhal) is very relevant. For I have not heard of anyone so far actually tying in the Ramhal with Job. But the approach of the Ramhal makes the book of Job highly understandable.




[I was in California  because my Dad had gone to Cal Tech for his master's degree, and then liked it so much that he decided to move out West when he began raising a family. His parents were penniless immigrants from Poland. In any case, there was a debate if to have the Bible in public schools. Apparently by the time I got to high school, the issue was settled to have the book of Job in English literature. classes. In Israel, the entire Old Testament is taught in public school.]

That is when a person has mostly sin he gets the reward for his good deeds in this world and the punishment for sin in the next. But Job had mostly good deeds. Therefore he was punished for bad deeds in this world and rewarded in the next.

Part of the reason for the fact that the Ramhal is ignored in the academic world is probably due to the fact that the academic world in understanding Job they think Job was totally righteous. They think the Satan was picking on him for no reason except spite and jealously. Still they have a point that it is hard to see anything wrong with Job. Even in God's answer to Job which is "my ways are inscrutable"[not possible to understand] there is no hint that Job had done anything wrong.

In any case I feel that in high schools is the USA, this approach of the Ramhal ought to be given attention. [And it is in accord with the Talmud  which assumes that Job was not as great as he thought. Also it is in accord with Maimonides who as far as I recall hold the fourth friend was the only one who got the issues right. It also goes along with the Rambam who also has this idea that one can have a certain percent of good deeds and an opposite percent of evil deeds.]
[The Secular world does not recognize this because either they are Christians who believe one is saved or not. It is a simple matter of this or that and nothing in between. Or they are thinking like Kant of radical sin or radical virtue. Once one decides to be righteous in everything then he is totally righteous because of good will. Even if he makes mistakes. One who has not decide to be righteous in everything is by definition radically wicked. That is Kant.  Far be in from me to disagree with Kant. However the opinion of the Ramhal I think also should be considered as it certainly goes along the lines of Hegel. Hegel would more approach virtue as steady progress towards a goal.
[Catholics thankfully do have a concept of Purgatory which is to clean from sins that remain unwashed. [.e. non mortal sins. However Catholics do agree that there are sins for which one stays in Hell. But that is not the same as Purgatory.] In general, in Torah though things are slightly different. In Torah, we have seven levels of Hell, but only the very lowest level is permanent. Otherwise Hell itself is a cleansing process. The Ramhal [Rav Luzato] goes into this a little but it is well known from the Zohar.]



The issue of Job is not if he was sinless. We see later on in the statements of Eliphaz [cira 22 where Eliphaz goes through a whole list of Job's sins. ]that there is reason to believe that Job had some sin. Probably his sins were due to a fact about all good deeds.They always entail something evil. You can see this if you imagine yourself in politics. You know that any good measure your enact will entail some evil consequences and some good.  So you try to maximize the good. But that is not limited to politics. It s the same in every individual's life.
Rather the issue with Job is that he was doing the best he could. So the question the Book of Job raises is not: If objectively a saint can suffer? Rather it is: If a person that is doing the best he knows how can suffer?

Support for Reform and Conservative

The best support for Reform and Conservative groups is the opinion of R. Shimon Ben Yohai that דורשים טעמה דקרא. [We go by the reasons for the verse, not the literal meaning when the two conflict.]
And there is no mystery about the reasons for the verses since the Gemara itself assumes as a simple matter that we in fact do know the reasons. The only question is when the reason conflicts with the literal meaning.
[The sages that disagree with R. Shimon do not say we do not know the reasons for the verses. They agree we know the reasons, but the question is if to go by the literal meaning, or the reason. But in any case, to me it seems clear that the very concept of ends and means to get to that end implies that the end--the goal-has primary importance over the means. That is the simple implication of the idea of ends and means by definition.]


And the Rishonim (including the Rambam) do in fact state openly the reasons for the verses.
And we in fact see a conflict in so far as that often keeping the literal meaning does seriously conflict with the reasons for the verses.
The Rambam gives the basic reasons. To learn to come to good traits [to be a mensch], not to do idolatry, peace of the State. We see most times that people supposedly keeping the Torah are in serious conflict with all three reasons.

[The opinion of R. Shimon is in Bava Metzia circa page 119 and in other places.]

I am not saying that the actual law is like R. Shimon. Rav Shach asks this question as do others and Rav Shach's answer is elegant. He says the law comes out not like R. Shimon nor R. Yehuda  but the first opinion in a Mishna which is a combination of both.


In any case it is hard to know the right path. My basic impression is I should have listened to my parents who knew and understood a lot more about life that I realized at the time. And they were definitely Reform minus some of the problem in Reform like "social justice."
The problem with the religious is they are always looking to add some extra restriction that is not contained in Torah. Then they claim it is from the Torah. And then impose it on everyone else.

And since no one else is convinced of the fraud, they do not accept it. And so the religious do not see secular Jews as human. For any rational human would accept the vast intellectual and moral superiority of the religious people and thus serve them. The religious think being religious absolves them from being decent human beings. They do not realize that Natural Law precedes Divine Law. [The Guide of Maimonides says that the level of natural law revealed to Abraham was needed before there could be the level of Divine Law at Sinai. ]

Rav Shach agreed about the importance of learning Musar [Ethics of Torah] as you can see in the introduction of the Avi Ezri. However Musar can be a distraction. It can lead to one thing that leads to another that eventually gets one away from learning,- sometimes incompletely and other times completely.
In fact, the problem with distractions  has been something that has bothered me for a long time. The Dark Side never comes along and says, "Come and do a sin." It rather finds ways to distract one's attention from things that really matter to things that in fact are trivial.[As the Gra says in the beginning of the Book of Proverbs.]

Thus I found for myself that it  it makes a big difference to find what are the things that really require attention.  Learning Musar can be a big help in that direction because it more or less helps to define what really matters in in Torah. But it can be a distraction in itself --and often it is.
[That is the reason in fact that Brisk--the prime Litvak yeshiva is not a Musar yeshiva. Reb Haim did not agree with the Musar movement.]

On a personal note, I am not in any yeshiva at all, but I found the few years I spent at the Mir in NY to be refreshing and inspiring even many years after I left. And a great deal of that I attribute to the fact that it is a Musar Yeshiva.

Rav Moshe Haim Luzato and the Book of Job

Rav Moshe Haim Luzato has a remarkable approach towards sin that helps to explain the book of Job. The main idea is when one has 51% sin he gets punished in the next world [for the 51% sins] and rewarded for his good deeds in this world. If he has 49% sin or less then he gets punished in this world for his sins and rewarded for his good deeds in the next. [The percentage of sin does not go by just the number of sins, but also their weight.]

He does not tie this in with the book of Job directly, but it still helps to explain the basic issues that come up in the book of Job.

The major problem in the Book of Job is that it seems to be in contradiction to the rest of the Old Testament. The major question is this: Do righteous people suffer?  The answer of the book of Job seems to be "Yes." The rest of the Old Testament answers, "No."
So the רמח''ל Rav Luzato answers as I mentioned above. [In דרך השם and in the other well famous book of dialog, but I forget the title.]
Thus, when the Old Testament calls Job a צדיק and תמים (a saint or a righteous man.) it does not mean without sin. Rather it means 51% good deeds and 49% sins. This corresponds directly with the Rambam who says exactly the same thing in הלכות תשובה (Laws of Repentance.) (The translation in English of תם  for Job is "perfect" but the meaning therefore confuses English speakers who think it means without sin. תם or תמים means more accurately "simple" as in איש תם a simple man).



[The academic world tends to look at the Book of Job as in fact contradicting the rest of the Old Testament as you can hear in the lectures of Christine Hayes at Yale University.]

Sin is a big subject in the Old Testament: that is the question what counts as a sin and how to measure the severity of sins. In the secular world these issues do not come in the same appearance. But there still are sins like lack of tolerance or racism etc. These things however in the Old Testament are not considered sins. Lack of tolerance is praised and to be rid of wicked people  is  a major goal. Racism is also considered a virtue. That is to discern between good and evil even in groups.


[The Christian world dismisses sin since belief nullifies it. The secular world has another set of actions and thoughts that are considered sinful. Being male is considered the primal sin by many people in the USA. That is  a sin for which eternal repentance is declared obligatory.Fasting and prayer are not enough to wipe out that sin.]

Rav Isaac Blazer (the major disciple of Reb Israel Salanter) also goes into the issue of the weight of sins, and shows that one sin can cancel lots of good deeds. He uses this idea to show the importance of learning Musar.

In the two Litvak yeshivas I was in-Shar Yashuv and the Mir of NY the emphasis was on: learning Torah, not to speak lashon hara and kindness in cases of need. That is to say it was considered that certain kinds of good deeds like kindness and learning Torah can cancel sins as the נפש החיים {Soul of Life} by a disciple of the Gra (Reb Haim of Voloshin) brings down.

[Tolerance really began in England as virtue after the disastrous Civil Wars between different Protestant groups.--the dissenters (Puritans, Quakers, etc.) versus the establishment until the Edict of Tolerance. But even then people recognized there were limits to tolerance as Defoe goes into. The colonies in America were supported by the English government all through the 1700's. They did not grow as a result of escaping persecution in England since the Edict had been passed in Parliament.]


Appendix: 1. I have to mention the Gemara in Bava Batra that also takes a negative view of Job. Also the Gemara Shabat--אין יסורים בלי עוון No problems without sin.

2. My own take on all this is thus: that there are major sins [weighty] and minor sins . And that there are major good deeds and minor good deeds. And that Reb Haim from Voloshin was correct that learning Torah  is weighty and can cancel a lot on the other side of the balances. The difference is that I include learning Physics and Metaphysics as the Rambam considered both of these are part of the Oral Law.

U-66 F major  mp3  u-66 midi  u-66 nwc