Meaning of your life as a whole or per section.

You can ask about the meaning of your life as a whole or also ask about the meaning of particular events and the meaning of certain time periods.
Sometimes certain events are begging for commentary. Sometimes the meaning is all too clear.

For me it seems better to look at certain time periods as defined by geographical location.


However if I try to define the meaning of certain time periods, I find they contradict. [Or they seem to contradict.]

If I look at the period I was in the Mir in NY-the lesson seems awesomely clear--learn Torah. But if I look at later periods the lessons seem to get lost or at least diluted. The answer to this contradiction I find in the period I was growing up in my parent's home --that is the lessons of balance and to be a "mensch" Or as the Sages put it טוב תורה עם דרך ארץ and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה
Good traits and manners comes before Torah. Torah is good with good traits.


Even though listening to hints from what happens to you in your life is one good lesson, still there is  a larger issue of figuring out the meaning of your life in terms of whole sections. The time you were in high school, and later on periods.

A suka on the roof with only poles for walls.

A suka on the roof with only poles for walls. The lower walls are considered to extend upwards.
But only if the poles are on the edges. From where does this law come from?
Reb Haim (HaLevi) holds from Shabat since the version of the Geonim in Suka only writes the argument is in the middle of the roof. So there is no proof from there.

The Raavad holds differently because of the Gemara in Suka page 4.






Reb Haim Soloveitchik holds גוד אסיק מחיצתא only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings  from Shabat 89 that the law  גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that it is from there that the Rambam learned the law  to Sukka

Rav Shach disagrees. He brings the law from Eruvin that one who stays on a mound that is 100^50 yards wide and 10 hand-breaths in height or less can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in Sukka that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא is applicable only when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to Sukka.

What I wish to think about is the Gemara that if you have a pit ten hand-breaths deep and 4^4 wide and long that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The Rashba brings Rav Hai Gaon for one answer why this is and another answer is you need מחיצות הניכרות.This last opinion seems to confirm Reb Haim HaLevi. Perhaps Rav Shach is holding like Rav Hai Gaon, and Reb Haim like the other opinion in the Rashba?
_________________________________________________________________________________

In  חידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה י''א

רב חיים הלווי holds "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings  from שבת פ''ט that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that is is from there that the רמב''ם derived  the law  to סוכה.

However רב שך disagrees. He brings the law from עירובין that one who stays on a תל that is מאה על חמישים אמות wide and עשרה טפחים in height can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in סוכה that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא only is applicable  when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to סוכה.

What I wish to ask is from the גמרא that if you have a pit עשרה טפחים עומק deep and ארבעה על ארבעה length by width  that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The רשב''א brings רב האי גאון for one answer why this is. Then he brings another answer that one  needs מחיצות הניכרות. This last opinion seems to confirm רב חיים הלווי. Perhaps רב שך is holding like רב האי גאון, and רב חיים like the other opinion in the רשב''א?

בחידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה. רב חיים הלווי מחזיק "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" חל רק על מחיצות ניכרות. הוא מביא מן שבת פ''ט שהחוק גוד אסיק חל על קצה גג. הוא כותב כי משם  הרמב''ם גזר החוק בשביל סוכה. אולם רב שך חולק. הוא מביא את החוק מעירובין כי מי נשאר על תל שהוא מאה על חמישים אמות רחב ועשרה טפחים גובה יכול לשאת באותו אזור. זה מוכיח את הנקודה שלו. אין שם מחיצות ניכרות. לכן, כאשר אנו מוצאים בסוכה שהחוק גוד אסיק מחיצתא הוא רק כאשר ישנן מחיצות הניכרות זה מתייחס רק לסוכה. מה שאני רוצה לשאול הוא מן הגמרא שאם יש לך בור עשרה טפחים עמוק וארבעה על ארבעה אורך ברוחב שהוא מלא פירות ואחד זרק חפץ לתוכו, הוא אינו מחויב להביא קרבן חטאת. הרשב''א מביא רב האי גאון בשביל תשובה אחת למה זה כן. אחר כך הוא מביא תשובה נוספת כי צריך מחיצות ניכרות. הדעה האחרונה זו נראית לאשר רב חיים הלווי. אולי רב שך מחזיק כמו רב האי גאון, ואת רב חיים כדעת האחרת ברשב''א

Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success in Torah depend on

Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success  in Torah depend on: (1) Time and (2) the amount of energy put into it. But to combine that with the idea of the Rambam of learning Physics seems hard. If the Rambam would be a lone opinion in this it would be easy to dismiss him. But you find his opinion also in two important Musar books חובות הלבבות Obligations of the Heart and מעלות המדות [The greatness of Good Traits]

I think that one should divide the time of learning into Gemara, Mathematics and Physics. [The Metaphysics part I am not sure how to deal with.]

But I also want to mention that Torah must not be used to make money. So while learning Torah is important, using it to make money is a very terrible sin as you can see in Pirkei Avot.

U-94 G Major  U96 U97 D Major  There used to be on google a nice converter to MP3. No more. So I either can post as MIDI files or another MP3 converter that does not work so well. I am sorry 

Finishing Shas and Poskim.

Finishing Shas and Poskim [note 1] is important. Litvak yeshivas however concentrate on "Iyun" in depth learning. But there is also great importance in finishing at least four times.

This applies also to Math, Physics, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

The best thing is to have two sessions --one in depth and another to just say the words in order as fast as possible and to go on.

[In fact, in both Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY the afternoon was devoted to fast learning.]

For me fast learning meant doing review on the Gemara and Tosphot only once, and then going on. But now I am thinking fast learning ought to be fast--no review until one gets to the end, and then goes back to the beginning.



[note 1] "Shas" means the Talmud. "Poskim" means Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Tur. It is a word used only for Rishonim [mediaeval authorities]. But it has come to include Rav Joseph Karo's and his commentaries. [Magen Avraham, Shach, Taz, etc,...]

My opinion about the Left is that it stems from ideologies that came into the world from the netherworld around 1800. Ideas that took over the minds of men. The USA was far from the scene of turmoil until the insanity came over in the form of socialism. Since then socialism has been taking hold of people's minds. So the Left still attacks anyone that seems to stand for faith and reason..

But I do not like to read or learn about this because it is upsetting and also when I learn about the Dark Side, that in itself seems to invite it in.

Emanation of the Ari

Emanation of the Ari is not the same thing as the belief that nothing exists besides God.

There is a verse: "You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him." אתה הראתה לדעת כי ה' הוא האלהים אי עוד מלבדו.

The Rambam explains this verse  in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the existence of all beings is dependent on God, but his existence is independent.  He writes in halaka 4 that that is the meaning of the verse אין עוד מלבדו.
הוא שהנביא אומר וה' אלקים אמת הוא לבדו אמת ואין לאחר אמת כאמתו והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו
But to get the full picture of what the Rambam is saying it helps to look also at halaka 3 where he explains all beings need Him, but he needs none of them.


I once had  long essay on this where I brought the Ari concerning the צמצום (Contraction). The Ari brings in the beginning of the Tree of Life that God contracted Himself to make a place for Creation.
There is no logical connection between  this and the issue of whether anything else besides God exists.
Even though in ארבע מאות שקל כסף there is one place that the Ari says God contracted his light to make a place for creation, that still does have any logical relation to the question.

The issue is more serious however.
Things exist or they don't. This is a simple result of the law of the excluded middle.
Madmen might deny the existence of reality, but I see no reason to take their views seriously.
Common sense says I exist and you exist. And I am not God, and you are not God. If someone does not see that, there is nothing more plain and simple to appeal to. 



If people are very clever in books, but are reduced to justifying themselves by confusion and lunacy like this, then that is their sufficient refutation.

[Frankly  the whole business seems to me to be part of the general nature  of the Sitra Akra (evil inclination) to go around in the world convincing people of all kinds of terrible nonsense. Each person is approached with some different kinds of nonsense. But there is always some grain of truth to it that makes it sound reasonable. A hundred year ago anyone with brains thought socialist revolutions were the greatest thing since the wheel was invented. It take a long time for nutty ideas to be revealed for what they really are--long after they have done their irreparable damage.