King David changed a command of the Torah in a permanent way. So you have to say he held like R. Shimon Ben Yohai that we go by the reason for the verses, not by the literal meaning.

The command to build the משכון Tabernacle was not confined to the Sinai desert. If you look at the verses you will see that making the holy Ark of the Covenant and the Table for the Show Bread etc is all on the same level as building the Tabernacle with curtains of goat hairs. That is right away in the beginning of the command to build the Tabernacle, and it all comes under one large commandment ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם "They shall make for me a Tabernacle and I will dwell among them."[and then the verse explains how to build the Tabernacle.] Then look at the end of Chronicles I where King David gives the blue prints to the new Temple that he wanted Solomon to build. There is nothing there about curtains but rather walls.
So we find a later prophet can change things. What is there then that a later prophet can not change? I think it is natural Law.

I mentioned this a day ago when I brought down the Gemara in makot that later prophets reduced the obligations of the Torah until all that was left was faith. וצדיק באמונתו יחיה. If you look at Rashi over there in tractate Makot [last page] you will see he explains that Gemara literally. He says that these prophets saw that if people would have to keep all the commandments, then no one would merit to a portion in the next world. So they lessened the requirements.

The point here is I think you have to say that when the Torah talks about a false prophet, it says specifically one that says to do idolatry. [That is how the verse over there in Deuteronomy actually looks. It only refers to a prophet that says to worship idols.] There is an opinion that a false prophet is one that changes a commandment in a permanent way. But if that would be the case then King David would be a false prophet since he changed a command of the Torah in a permanent way. That does not seem like a likely scenario.
Some of the commands of the Torah it says are forever. But those are not all. Most of the time the Torah simply says to do such and such a thing without giving a time frame.


The gemara in Eruvin also brings down a number of things that later prophets changed like the fact that in the Torah it is stated that children can bear the guilt of their parents and Ezekiel changes that. And besides that he also changes the dimensions of the Temple.

Another thing which I do not think is really that important, but it still seems worth mentioning. That the place of the Temple was not stated in the Torah openly but the simple way of looking at the verses seems to indicate it should be at Mount Eval. This is because in the early verses it says to bring your sacrifices in a place I will choose. And to put the altar of God in a place I will choose. And then later it says when you cross the Jordan river you should build the Altar of God at Mount Eval and bring your sacrifices there. So God did choose a place and it is not Jerusalem. So what do you do with that? I think you have to say what the Gemara says in Eruvin, that later prophets changed things.

I ought to add that it is not uncommon to use verses to prove a point. An example is the פלגש girlfriend that the Rambam forbids to anyone who is not a king, and the Gra counters that with the example of Caleb ben Yephuna from Chronicles I 2:46 who had a few girls friends and was not a king.

after a certain age there is a clear connection between one's looks and one's character.

Abraham Lincoln said after a certain age there is a clear connection between one's looks and one's character.
The actual event was that he said something along the lines that you can tell a lot about a person';s character by their looks. They someone objected. And Lincoln answered that it has to be after a certain age for this to work. Teenagers clearly it does not work with.

I think in Eruvin that says there were things that were decreed by Moses and nullified by later prophets.

In Torah there is one place where a false prophet is dealt with--and the way to know is when he says a prophecy and it does not come to pass within the time frame given by that person. So what about Yona at Ninve? the Sages ask. They answer a negative prophecy can be nullified if people repent. So I ask from Jeremiah 18:9 and 18:10 where it says God can make a good decree and then change his mind if people do evil. But that seems to leave the criterion of the Torah with no way to be evaluated.

The only possible answer I can imagine is that there is a Gemara I think in Eruvin that says there were things that were decreed by Moses and nullified by later prophets. In particular that Gemara brings the example of punishment coming on subsequent generations as brought in the Ten Commandments. Later that was nullified by Ezekiel who said children will not die for the sins of their parents. The Gemara there brings a few more examples.

That is not the only place you see something like that. In the last page of tractate Makot you find later prophets nullifying actual commandments as explained there by Rashi. [Rashi over there says that the reason was that these later on prophets saw that if you would require of people to keep all the commandments, then No One would merit to the next world. That he says is the reason most of the requirements were nullified. Look up the Rashi if you can find a gemara.]

two schools of thought that came from Kant, Leonard Nelson and the Marburg school.

There are two schools of thought that came from Kant, Leonard Nelson and the Marburg school. [Both based on early interpretations of Kant.

If you look at Cassirer's (from the Marburg) critique on Nelson you can see an important point -that a priori knowledge has to be with the limits of conditions of experience. So it looks to me that both schools had some important points.

But what I would like to suggest is that Nelson and Hegel are not as far apart as Nelson thought. To Nelson we have a kind of knowledge that comes not through pure reason and not through experience and has no intermediate point at all: immediate non-intuitive. Though Hegel does not have that he certainly expands the role of reason itself far beyond perceiving contradictions as Kant thought. But Hegel mechanism is far different from Nelson's. It is the dialectic. Which is right I am not sure. But I think all three schools of thought are important.
[As opposed to Twentieth century philosophy which just a result Physics Envy. Empty and ridiculous.]

My search for truth ultimately led me to learn Gemara which which is an area of value of Numinosity. Still that leaves issues of world view aside. Gemara is mainly about how to keep the commandments of the Torah and does not deal with world view issues at length.

So even though it is a great thing to concentrate on one thing at a time and not get too spread out, it still leaves a lot of important questions unanswered. To some degree Saadia Gaon and the Rambam fill gaps left over.
[Though you could argue about that. There is a tendency to seek out in Rishonim hidden truths. Still there is a more relevant issue. It is that world view affects actions. From what I can see the religious world is a disaster zone in terms of decent character traits. You can not be holy if you are not a decent human being first. So in my view, the world view issues have not been addressed well.

To some degree I made up for that by learning the books of Rav Nahman who does deal with the larger issues in a powerful and relevant way.

Today my view is that learning Gemara is one important area of value, but there is a separate area of value that is philosophy. So if I could I would simply plow through the basic works of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Leonard Nelson, Hegel. But there seem to be time constraints. 

The religious world is anti Torah. But they are anti Torah in a way that is disguised.

The Gaon of Villna issued a warning and then later Rav Shach. In fact on the actual letter of excommunication --the top signature is of the Gra. So why is the supposed religious world completely filled with what both these great tzadikim warned against? Because the religious world is anti Torah. But they are anti Torah in a way that is disguised. They camouflage themselves with things that seem  Torah-dik.

However, I do not think the excommunication applies to Rav Nahman for reasons I mentioned elsewhere. So I feel free to follow his good advice and even bring on this blog ideas from him.

My tendency to to make peace between scholars of I can. However there are times when you have to draw a line. The Jewish religious world though it presents this facade of holiness, is very much on the opposite side--the Sitra Achra as can be easily attested for by the countless of people that have been burnt and destroyed by it --those that were seduced by its appearance of holiness.

I usually like to make peace, but for peace you have to be able to tell when something really is a Trojan horse.

I think my own motivation for going to learn in a NY yeshiva was a philosophical quest for the truth.And to some degree I think I found that in terms of numinious value [as per the Kant Fries School]. Learning Gemara is important--but I lost a sense of balance. Getting involved in the religious world tends to make one crazy.

beginning of Reform Judaism.

Rav Nahman was the only one that warned about the Dark Side in the religious world openly. The more I see of it, the more I am alarmed. But it is hard to know what to do. I thought at one point to mind my own business, but it gets worse at an exponential rate and it is "in your face".

Even if you just try to avoid the religious world in total, they still get in through the cracks.

This is probably not a new problem as you can see in the Bible and the false prophets of Ahab. further warnings are given in the Gemara. But Rav Nahman was the first to pin point the issue: "Torah Scholars that are Demons." That would be  right in the beginning of his major book in section 12 and 28. But it comes up in lots of other areas. So what does it mean? In a practical sense I think the meaning is clear. Avoid the religious world. But could Rav Nahman have meant that? Maybe when he was alive he was able to warn his disciples about whom to avoid. But nowadays? How can you tell?

So it is possible to understand the reasons for the beginning of Reform Judaism. It was probably for these exact reasons.

I was thinking of King Yoshiyahu who got rid of all the idolatry in Israel during his reign. He must have been alarmed at the same kind of phenomenon that I am seeing nowadays.


[After I wrote that above essay, it occurred to me why Rav Nahman used the terminology of demons for religious leaders. He must have been referring to their malevolence. -I mean to say that clearly Rav Nahman was basing himself on the Zohar and the writings of the Ari where the subject of Torah Scholars that are demons comes up. But my question is why did Rav Nahman choose to concentrate on that issue and in such a way that sounds not nice? It must be that he noticed what i noticed. In the Jewish religious world the leaders tend to rejoice in doing harm to innocent people that they feel they can hurt without repercussions. While being extra nice to secular Jews they think they can get donations from.