Hell, or Gehinom. [A great deal of human activity is to get distracted from the all important subject of Hell. That almost everything of what goes on in the world are tricks from the Sitra Akra/Dark Side to distract people from what really matters.]

גהינום Gehinom is really a very important subject. After all eternity is a long time to be tormented by demons in hell. Especially for people like me that have a low tolerance for pain. I must have mentioned once before my basic idea of Gehinom [hell]  and how to avoid it mainly comes from Reb Israel Salanter and his disciple Rav Isaac Blazzer. In one word it can all be summed up : Midot.

"Midot" means basically what my parents meant by the words "to be a mench." The basic idea is rather simple. Do not lie, do not cheat and do not steal.

[In high school I saw the same idea in one of my favorite books, Dante (The Divine Comedy ), who lays out the structure of Hell quite clearly. Later I saw the same basic idea in the very great  Musar book ראשית חכמה [Beginning of Wisdom]. [In the back in the additions, not in the book itself.]

In any case the idea is incredibly simple --have good traits--or else suffer the consequences.
And I have to add that in fact you can see this by implication in the Rambam. He gives the basic reasons for the commandments of Torah, and one is "midot" (to have good traits). The implication is that  what is going to matter in the long run--when one arrives at the seat of judgement in Heaven. What is going to matter then is not how strict one was in rituals whose only purpose is to remind one to have good traits. What is going to matter is midot tovot (good traits).
[A great deal of human activity is to get distracted from the all important subject of Hell. That almost everything of what goes on in the world are tricks from the Sitra Akra/Dark Side to distract people from what really matters.]

Even though keeping Torah is very important, I still feel once in a while to warn people about the religious world which pretends to keep Torah, but in fact is quite opposite to Torah.  A few words of warning I guess ought to suffice since this is not a very happy subject for me. Still the warning still is written in Torah, אל תעמוד על דמך רעיך. [Thou shalt not stand by as the blood of your neighbor is split.]

Which amazingly enough is in the same context as the commandment not to speak lashon hara/slander. The obvious implication is sometimes you need to warn people about some unknown danger even though it might seem to be lashon hara. (That is n my mind the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.)

So  run from any group that  displays its religiosity. The more they appear religious, the worse they are.

If they display religiosity or claim religious authority, you know something is rotten in them that is just waiting  to crawl out of them and attach itself to you.

Background -to Rabbainu. Tam twilight starts 58.5 minutes after sunset and night 72 min. The morning is the same. dawn עלות השחר is 72 min., and נץ החמה is an hour before sunrise.
The Gemara in Shabat has a long description of how the sky changes at the beginning of the night. The way the Gemara describes it makes no sense if you think the night starts at 13.5 minutes after sundown. There are then no changes in the sky that the Gemara talks about.. But if you think like Rabbainu Tam, the Gemara makes perfect sense as you can see by this coming paragraph which I wrote having in mind an audience of people that know the Gemara in Shabat.




I was in Israel a few years and  I saw something that confirmed the approach of ר''ת concerning the time the night starts. That is, for the first 59 minutes after sunset, nothing dramatic changes in the sky. The sky  becomes  dark. Then right at 59 minutes something dramatic happens. A kind of dome forms over the area where the sun went down. Then that dome itself begins to sink until at exactly 72 minutes it sinks below the horizon, and the sky is dark. You can see how this corresponds to the גמרא in שבת. There is also something about what you call average. The word average has no meaning except as compared to something else. Thus the number 5 is average between 0 and 10, but not average compared to 100 and 1,000,000. So to be able to determine or measure what is an average star you need to see what all stars in the middle of the night. Once you see all the stars that can be seen by the naked eye, then you pick three medium stars. Then you learn how to identify them by learning thoroughly the map of the sky. One needs to learn to identify the constellations and the place of each star in a constellation. Then after you know what is a medium star, you go out and see on some night when it becomes visible. Three are visible at 72 minutes.

However stars that are seen a half hour after sunset when you compare them with other stars in the middle of the night are not medium stars. They are giants compared to all the others. They are what the גמרא calls large stars. Large stars do not tell you when the night begins. Only three medium stars.
In terms of stars, I also saw something there and also in desert regions in Israel. No stars are seen at sunset. None. So if twilight begins at sunset, where are the two medium stars? According to the גמרא, twilight begins when one average star is seen, not large stars which can be seen before then. So it is curious that at sunset, no large large stars, nor average stars are visible. That seems to knock the idea of בין השמשות  beginning at that time.

הייתי בישראל כמה שנים וראיתי משהו שאישר את הגישה של ר''ת בדבר הזמן שמתחיל הלילה. כלומר, עבור 59 הדקות הראשונות לאחר השקיעה, אין שינויים דרמטיים בשמים. השמים הופכים כהים. ואז ב59 דקות קורה משהו דרמטי. סוג של צורות כיפה נעשה מעל האזור שבו שקעה החמה. ואז כי הכיפה עצמה מתחילה לשקוע עד בדיוק 72 דקות הוא שוקע מתחת לאופק, והשמים כהים לגמרי. אתה יכול לראות איך זה מתאים לגמרא בשבת. יש גם משהו על מה שאתה קורא ממוצע. למילה "ממוצע" אין שום משמעות מלבד לעומת משהו אחר. לכן מספר 5 הוא ממוצע בין 0 ו10, אבל לא ממוצע לעומת 100 ו1,000,000. אז כדי להיות מסוגל לקבוע או למדוד מהו כוכב ממוצע אתה צריך לראות כל הכוכבים באמצע הלילה. ברגע שאתה רואה את כל הכוכבים שניתן לראות בעין בלתי מזוינת, אז אתה בוחר שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. אז אתה לומד לזהות אותם על ידי לימוד יסודי של מפת השמים. אחד צריך ללמוד לזהות את הכוכבים ואת המקום של כל כוכב בקונסטלציה. ואז אחרי שאתה יודע מה הוא כוכב בינוני, אתה יוצא לראות באיזה לילה כאשר הוא הופך להיות גלוי. שלושה גלויים ב72 דקות. עם זאת, הכוכבים שנראים חצי שעה אחרי השקיעה, כאשר אתה משווה אותם עם כוכבים אחרים באמצע הלילה הם לא כוכבים ממוצעים. הם ענקים לעומת כל האחרים. הם מה שהגמרא קוראה כוכבים גדולים. כוכבים גדולים לא אומרים לך כאשר הלילה מתחיל. רק שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. במונחים של כוכבים, ראיתי גם משהו שם גם באזורים מדבריים בישראל. אין כוכבים נראים בשקיעה. אף אחד. אז אם בין השמשות מתחיל בשקיעה, איפה הם שני כוכבים בינוניים? על פי הגמרא, בין השמשות מתחיל כאשר כוכב ממוצע אחד נראה, לא כוכבים גדולים אשר ניתן לראות לפני כן. אז זה מעניין כי בשקיעה, אין כוכבים גדולים, ולא כוכבים ממוצעים גלויים. זה סותר את הרעיון שבין השמשות מתחיל באותה עת.. הרדב"ז (דוד בן זימרא) כתב שהדעת בפסחים התקיימה לפני שחכמי ישראל הסכימו עם חכמי אתונה. בתחילה החזיק חכמי ישראל השמש בשקיעה נכנס לפרוזדור ואחר כך בלילה עולה מעל השמים. החכמים מאתונה החזיקו שהשמש הולכת מתחת לכדור הארץ בלילה. הדעה על משך הזמן שבין שקיעת החמה הראשונה ללילה שהיא ארבעה מיל הוא על סמך הדעה של חכמי ישראל בטרם ששינו את דעתם.

I was in Safed a few years and made it a point to be near the grave of Rav Isaac Luria around sunset.

And pretty much every day I saw something that confirmed the approach of Rabbainu Tam concerning the time the night starts.

That is for the first 59 minutes after sunset, nothing dramatic changes in the sky except for it slowly getting  darker. Then right at 59 minutes something dramatic happens. A kind of dome forms over the area where the sun went down. Then that dome itself begins to sink until at exactly 72 minutes it sink below the horizon and the sky is consistently dark. [You can see how this corresponds to the Gemara in Shabat.]


There is also something about what you call "medium." The word medium has no meaning except as compared to something else. This the number 5 is medium between 0 an 10 but not medium compared to 100 and 1000000. So to be able to gauge what is a medium star you need to first get an idea of what all stars look like in the middle of the night. Once you see all the stars that can be seen by the naked eye, then you pick three medium stars. Then you learn how to identify them by learning thoroughly the map of the sky. That is to learn to identify the constellations and the place of each star in a constellation. Then after you know what is a medium star, you go out and see on some night when it becomes visible. Three are visible at 72 minutes.
However stars that are seen a half hour after sunset when you compare them with other stars in the middle of the night are not medium stars. They are giants compared to all the others. They are what the Gemara calls large stars. Large stars do not tell you when the night begins. Only three medium stars.



In terms of stars I also saw something there and also in desert regions in Israel. No stars are seen at sunset. None. So if twilight begins at sunset, where are the two medium stars? According to the Gemara twilight begins when one medium star is seen, not large stars which can be seen before then. So it is curious that at sunset no large large stars, nor medium stars are visible. That seems to knock the idea of twilight beginning at that time.

The main task in life is to find the right principles to hold onto, the right subjects to learn, the right books to read, the right institutions to support.

The Obligations of the Heart {חובות לבבות} holds there can be individual obligations that are not required of everyone. So the above list can be divided into personal obligations and obligations that are upon all.


My own search has resulted in some conclusions and some areas remain ambiguous.
Right principles:  Speak the truth no matter what you think the consequence may be. This provides an אור מקיף Surrounding light or surrounding force field that evil can not penetrate. Obviously being careful about Lashon Hara is important but to me it is unclear when it is required to warn others.
Right subjects: The Oral and Written Law (Gemara, Tosphot and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri), Math Physics, Music.
Institutions is a hard one.  I am very impressed with the Mir in NY and the other great Litvak Yeshivas in NY and Ponoviz in Bnei Brak.

[Though the Rambam emphasized the Metaphysics of Aristotle, I just can not see why. Though I have great interest in the subject, I can not see much that comes out of it. From what I can tell the best thing in Metaphysics is Leonard Nelson's continuation of Kant which in Europe is called the Critical school and in the USA it is called the Kant-Friesian School. The reason this stream of thought gets no attention in academia, I think is that they are a little over the top when it comes to criticizing Hegel or Heidegger. תפסת מרובה לא תפסת they grab too much. That is: they claim Hegel has nothing to say; and that simply is not the case. They ought to satisfy themselves  that they have an important continuation of Kant's thought that answers many of the problems and also makes considerable progress.


The Ran of Breslov also emphasized "תיקון הברית" sexual purity and it seems to me  he was quite right about that. He also recommended what he called the תיקון הכללי. That is if one has spilled seed in vain to say that same day these ten psalms in order without interruption 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150.  (and to intend the Divine name אל אלהים in full which is אלף למד אלף למד הי יוד מם)

My feeling about marriage.-- good genes and DNA

My feeling about marriage.

And a lot depends on good genes and DNA. I mean to say that perhaps some aspects of her traits might be hard --but DNA is stronger than picked up  traits. So if her DNA is good then you might overlook attitudes picked up from her environment.

This was obvious to me when I was very young. The issue might be race. After all, some races have a predominance of criminal DNA. It might have to do with faith. But in elementary school and high school, I realized that determining good genes from bad genes is not simple. There are not a lot of obvious signs.
This is why in Anglo Saxon countries an emphasis was placed on looking at the family of the prospective bride. But in high school, how could I tell who came from a good family? To to be honest, I looked at the only criteria that was available to me: good grades.

[Though I can not tell how much this had to do with whom I picked to hang out with. A lot of who my friends were seemed to depend more on who picked me. That was certainly the case with my first set of friends--the string quartet. They definitely picked me -not visa versa. I even remember the exact moment. We were on an orchestra tour in Vancouver. And the elite of the high school, the top brass-invited me to sit down with them. I still have no idea why. I was mediocre in grades, and also in playing the violin.

Later, the actual girl I did marry, in fact had a straight A average (and came from a very fine family), but our relationship in those days was with zero romantic interest. We were simply friends. Only after I disappeared off the horizon because I went to Yeshiva in NY, did her interest in me begin to take on a different kind of aspect.

The irony is that by that time I was not looking at genes or DNA, but whom was the Rosh Yeshiva's daughter [whom I did not get].  So I actually married someone that was very much along the lines of my original intention--good family and good DNA (thank God). That was in spite of the fact that at that time I was not looking at that at all.

The Mishna {Bava Metzia page 100-a} brings a case:  a person bought a cow. It is discovered that it gave birth to a calf.  We do not know when it gave birth before or after the deal. So who owns the calf?
The Gemara asks why is there a question? Just say it belongs to the person whose domain it is in?
Answer: It is in an alley. Question: Lets give it to the first owner? Answer: הא מני סומכוס It is Somhos [or Rather it is Sumhos].
[Sumhos holds money in doubt is divided. The Sages on the other hand hold the law is: "Taking money out of its domain requires a proof.] If the version of Gemara is "Rather it is Sumhos," that means it is retracting its the answer of the alley. But if the version is  "It is Sumhos" is right then, that implies that we would not give it to the first owner because the mishna is like Sumhos. That leaves the answer of the alley in its place. That mean Sumhos would agree with חזקת רשות







If your version of the Gemara is Bava Metzia [page 100] is הא מני סונכוס or אלא הא מני סומכוס is going to make a difference if  סומכוס agrees with חזקת רשות or not.
If you hold הא מני סומכוס that means סומכוס agrees with חזקת ממון חזקת רשות

The Rashbam is פוסק the law is like סומכוס.
This is related to Bava Batra page 34 in this way. The Rashbam holds there is  migo for the person that grabbed the נסכא דר' אבא, he can disagree and claim that he never grabbed anything. Instead he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. Rav and Shmuel decided the law is the person that grabbed it can keep it. The Rashbam holds the reason is that there is a migo. But it seems to me that there is a further  reason for the Rashbam. That is, that there is חזקת ממון.
Otherwise why would this migo be strong enough to leave the object in the possession of the one that grabbed it.
But you could argue that חזקת ממון here really would give the object to the person that originally had it. So it could be that סומכוס does not go with חזקת ממון and here they would split the amount the object is worth except for the Migo.
This would depend on the Tosphot in Nida if חזקה מעיקרא ו חזקת השתא שוות or if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. If חזקה מעיקרא is stronger it seems that would apply in this case also of the נסכא דר' אבא that we would say the חזקת ממון would go to the first person from whom the object was grabbed.






_________________________________________________________________________________
The משנה בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א  brings a case in which a person bought a cow. It is discovered that it gave birth to a calf.  We do not know when it gave birth. Before or after the deal? So who owns the calf?
The גמרא asks why is there a question? Should not it  to belong to the person whose domain it is in?
Answer: It is in an alley. Question: Let's give it to the first owner? Answer: הא מני סומכוס. It is סומכוס [or Rather it is סומכוס].
[סומכוס holds money in doubt is divided. The חכמים on the other hand hold the law is: "Taking money out of its domain requires a proof.] If the version of גמרא  is "Rather it is סומכוס," that means it is retracting its the answer of the alley. But if the version is  "It is סומכוס", that implies that we would not give it to the first owner because the משנה is like סומכוס. That leaves the answer of the alley in its place. That mean סומכוס would agree with חזקת רשות
__________________________________________________________________________________



If your version of the גמרא is בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א is הא מני סונכוס or אלא הא מני סומכוס is going to make a difference if  סומכוס agrees with חזקת רשות or not.
If you hold הא מני סומכוס that means סומכוס agrees with חזקת ממון חזקת רשות

The רשב''ם is פוסק the law is like סומכוס.
This is related to בבא בתרא ל''ד in this way. The רשב''ם holds there is  מיגו for the person that grabbed the נסכא דר' אבא, he can disagree and claim that he never grabbed anything. Instead he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. רב and שמואל decided the law is the person that grabbed it can keep it. The רשב''ם holds the reason is that there is a מיגו. But it seems to me that there is a further  reason for the רשב''ם. That is, that there is חזקת ממון.
Otherwise why would this מיגו be strong enough to leave the object in the possession of the one that grabbed it.
But you could argue that חזקת ממון here really would give the object to the person that originally had it. So it could be that סומכוס does not go with חזקת ממון and here they would split the amount the object is worth except for the מיגו.
This would depend on the תוספות in נידה דף ב' ע''ב if חזקה מעיקרא ו חזקת השתא שוות or if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. If חזקה מעיקרא is stronger it seems that would apply in this case also of the נסכא דר' אבא that we would say the חזקת ממון would go to the first person from whom the object was grabbed.


המשנה בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א מביאה מקרה שבו אדם קונה פרה ונתגלה כי זו הולידה עגל. אנחנו לא יודעים מתי זה קרה. לפני או אחרי העסקה? אז מי הבעלים של עגל? הגמרא שואלת למה יש שאלה? הלא זה אמור להיות שייך לאדם אשר בתחומו  הוא נמצא? תשובה: זה בסמטה. שאלה: בואו לתת אותו לבעל הראשון? תשובה: הא מני סומכוס. זהו סומכוס [או אלא זה סומכוס]. סומכוס מחזיק כסף בספק מחולק. החכמים סוברים מצד שני שהחוק הוא: "אם לקחת כסף מתוך התחום שלו דורשת הוכחה]. אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא. 'במקום זה הוא סומכוס,' הכוונה שהיא חוזרת בה מן התשובה של הסמטה. אבל אם הגרסה היא "זהו סומכוס", הכוונה כי היינו נותנים לו לבעלים הראשונים משום שהמשנה היא כמו סומכוס. זה משאיר את התשובה של הסמטה במקומה. זה אומר סומכוס יסכים עם חזקת רשות.


אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא (בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א) הא מני סונכוס או אלא הא מני סומכוס הוא עושה את ההבדל אם סומכוס מסכים עם  חזקת ממון (חזקתרשות) או לא. אם הגרסה "הא מני סומכוס" זה אומר סומכוס מסכים עם חזקת ממון (חזקת רשות). רשב''ם הוא פוסק החוק הוא כמו סומכוס. זה קשור לבבא בתרא ל''ד בדרך זו. הרשב''ם מחזיק יש מיגו עבור האדם  שתפס את נסכא דר' אבא, (הוא יכול לטעון שמעולם לא תפס כלום). במקום זאת הוא מודה כי הוא תפס אותו אבל הוא טוען החפץ שייך לו. רב ושמואל החליט שהחוק הוא האדם אשר תפס אותו ניתן לקחת אותו. רשב''ם מחזיקה הסיבה היא שיש מיגו. אבל נראה לי שיש סיבה נוספת עבור רשב''ם.  אחרת למה  המיגו הזה  חזק מספיק כדי להשאיר את החפץ ברשותו של האחד שתפס את הנסכא. אבל (מצד שני) אפשר לטעון כי חזקת ממון כאן באמת תיתן את האובייקט לאדם שבמקור היה לו הנסכא. אז זה יכול להיות כי סומכוס לא הולך עם חזקת ממון וכאן הם היו חולקים  את כמות הכסף ששווה הנסכא אם לא היה מיגו. כל זה  תלוי תוספות בנידה דף ב' ע''ב אם חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה של עכשיו שווות או אם חזקה מעיקרא הוא חזקה. אם חזקה מעיקרא חזקה נראה כי זו תחול במקרה זה על של נסכא דר" אבא כי היינו אומרים חזקת ממון תלך לאדם הראשון שממנו האובייקט נתפס.