Rav Israel Salanter

The Musar ethics movement at its core was meant to learn the books of Ethics of the Middle Ages which had a kind of balance between faith and reason. Later Musar became more fanatic.

But fanatic in the wrong kind of way. That is religious fanaticism. And this can lead to ריבוי אור ושבירת הכלים  [too much light that leads to the breaking of one's mental state].

The best answer to this kind of dilemma I think was the path of my parents which was that of balance and menschlichkeit. Not religious fanaticism.
But a justification for this kind of path I did not see until I saw Dr Kelley Ross's web Site the Friesian school. That is a development of Kant. This is a trend of thought that was developed by Leonard Nelson.

In Dr Ross it is shown mainly in his PhD thesis about what he calls a Polynomic Theory of Value.

Danny Frederick

Danny Frederick and Berkeley, i.e. consequentialist theory of political authority.

[As Blandshard put it: without the state no human good is possible. It is a "sine que non" "not possible without which".

Michael Huemer had a debate with Epstein on political authority and to me it seemed that Epstein was right even though Huemer is the greater philosopher. however the actual point really was not clear to me until I saw Danny Frederick's idea that the critique of Huemer on political authority does not apply to Berkeley's consequentialist theory.
[Dr Kelley Ross also noticed the problems with Huemer's position in that debate.]


And I think this consequentialist theory goes well with all mediaeval authorities that I know about.
The Rambam has peace of the state as one of the purposes of many of the laws of the Torah.
Even though the Gemara does not state the reasons for the commandments still it holds the Torah is a consequentialist approach. See Bava Mezia 119a. and lots of other places where the sagesagree with r shimon ben yohai that there are reasons for the commandments that are known. They however disagree about cases where the reason and the letter of the law differ. But that we know the reasons they do not disagree.

Rav Nelkenbaum [who later became a rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY.]  also pointed out to me that the Ari (Isaac Luria) does not disagree with this point. rather he shows the connections of the commandments with the higher worlds but does not disagree that there are rational and known reasons for them. The Ari certainly does not give reasons himself.

Los Angeles looked better to me when church and state were a part of society. Even as a Jew i felt more comfortable with Merry Christmas and preforming Christian themes in the orchestra in high school than after  radial division of church and state took place. Los Angeles seems to have gone drastically down hill since then. עיר הנידחת. A condemned city.

The actual issue seems to me to have best been dealt with by Rav Avraham Abulafia, Rav Yaakov Emden, the Meiri, the Abravanal, and the Beit Yoseph. These sources I think are well known so there is no reason to go into them. Just Rav Abulafia seems to be ambiguous. You can bring quotes from him that seem to go in two different directions.My own impression is based on his statements that are clearly very positive and also the first PhD thesis of Moshe Idel at Hebrew University.

Gematriot tothe opposite effect do not seem to be proof of anything. After all the numerical value of Moshe is the same as Shemad Heresy. There are lots of examples of that kind of thing. And when they occur no one says they mean that each is identical with teh other. Rather they say זה לאומת זה exact opposites.

תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א Tosphot Bava Mezia page 43 side a

There is one more question i have about Tosphot Bava Mezia page 43 side a.
Tosphot is asking about buying. What is the status of the money before the deal is complete? If the seller who has the money at that point is like a borrower then there is a question from the barber. If he is like a paid guard then there is a question from the case of R. Yohanan. That is they made the decree that only drawing the fruit seals the deal because otherwise the buyer can say your fruit was burnt up in the attic. So if he is only a paid guard for the money then why can he not say your money was burnt up in the attic. On the opposite side of things if he is a borrower then why is the person that gives bedek habait  to a barber not liable to meila until the haircut starts? Money that was donated to the Temple can not be used for private purposes. One that does use it for private purpose is transgressing "Meila" Usage of temple money.
My question that occurred to me as I was leaving a dip in the sea is this. Is not the barber hired? Not bought? That is it occurs to me and probably occurs to everyone else that there is something hard to understand about comparison of the bathhouse attendant and the barber to a buyer and seller.

Even though you can argue that the money given to the barber might have the same staאus as the money given to a seller until the point that the deal is sealed. That could be. But why does Tosphot assume it has to be?

יש לשאול על תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. תוספות שאול מן הדין של ספר. מי שהוא נתן כסף של בדק הבית לספר. הוא לא מעל עד שמתחיל התספורת. מזה יש ראיה שהמוכר שכבר יש לו את הכסף של העיסקא קודם שנגמר העיסקא הוא בכלל שומר שכר. אבל שעניין של הספר הוא עניין של שכירות לא מכירה. ולכן מה הדמיון?

infatuation with Sodomy

Plato already made the point that not all physical desires are good. So pleasure does not equal good.
So the infatuation with Sodomy nowadays seems to be misplaced.

Secular morality is a fluid as water. But the problem is that religious morality is not much better.
One really needs the medieval approach of a synthesis of  Faith with Reason.

Richard Feynman said, "Philosophers are always standing outside and making stupid comments."

I also noticed that philosophy tends to be indefinite and fluid. Malleable as play dough and as ugly as a Picasso portrait.

That is one of the reasons when I became aware of the importance of what the Rambam had emphasized about learning Physics and Metaphysics I thought it would be more worth my while to concentrate on Physics.  [The Rambam was no alone in this but makes it more clear than the round about way other rishonim mention this.]

Still it does not seem possible to ignore the important issues that philosophy brings up and that there ought to be a good way to deal with these issues.


Though the Rambam is refering openly to the ancient Greeks still it seems to me that Kant, Leonard Nelson [That is the Kant Fries School] and Hegel ought to be included.

Still since at some point I thought to myself if I am going to be spending any time learning at all, I want it to be something that is sure and certain.
[Even so I think these people are good enough to be worth some amount of time. I should add however that Hegel was used a lot by the Left. But still I do not think that invalidates him. "Abuse does not cancel use," as the Romans used to say.

Bava Mezia page 43 side a

In terms of Bava Mezia page 43 side a There are two questions I would like to ask.
One is on the end of the sugia there.. Tosphot brings up the Braita about the bathhouse concerning selling and buying. My question is why does the Gemara itself not bring up what looks to me to be a serious question from that same exact Braita. That is to Rav Huna permission to use makes one obligated as a borrower. So in terms of the bathhouse should not the braita be a proof to Rav Huna against Rav Nahman?

ב''מ מ''ג ע''א.תוספות מביא את הברייתא שפוסקת את הדין שאם אחד משלם לבלן כסף של בדק הבית הוא מעל מיד בגלל שהבלן יכול לומר לו המרחץ פתוח לפניך. יש לשאול למה זה בעצמו אינו ראיה לרב הונא שהיתר תשמיש מחייב באונסים? יש עוד שאלה על הרמב''ם כאן. לדעת הרמב''ם אין חיוב מעילה עד שיש הנאה. למה רב הונא אינו עונה את זה מיד שרב נחמן שאל מן הברייתא שמי שנתן כסף של בדק הבית לשולחני חייב במעילה כשהשולחני משתמש עם הכסף?



The other question concerns what Rav Isar Melzar brings about the Rambam. {I think Rav Isar Melzar was the father in law of Rav Shach. I am not sure. But in any case, he is brought up a lot in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.] My question is that Rav Melzar shows clearly that the Rambam holds Meila ("Meila" is using money or things that belong to the Temple.That is "bedek habait".) only applies when there is "Hanaah". ("Hanaah" is usage or some kind of derived please). So in our Gemara BM 43. Why does Rav Huna not answer that right away and why is there even a question in the first place?

Background Information.

The basic subject starts from the Mishna. One gives open money to a money changer. He can use it. So what happens if it is lost? To Rav Huna he has a category of a borrower. To Rav Nahman he only is considered a paid guard. Rav Huna asks from a braita that one gives to a money changer money of the Temple that is open. If the money changer uses it the one who gave it to him is liable Meila.
הרקע כאן הוא זה. המשנה כותבת שאם מי שהוא נתן כסף בלי שאינו חתום לשולחני השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף לכן אם נאבד הוא חייב. רב הונא אמר אפילו אם הכסף נאבד באופן הנקרא אונסים גדולים. היינו יש לו דין של שואל. רב נחמן אמר דווקא אבדה אבל אונסים גדולים לא. היינו שיש לו את הדין של שומר שכר

תוספות שואל מה הדין של מכירה עד שלא נמשכו את הפירות? היינו מה הדין של המוכר לגבי הכסף? הוא שואל או שומר שכר. תוספות מביא את הברייתא של גיזבר נתן כסף בדק הבית לבלן הוא חייב במעילה מיד אבל ספר לא.



Tosphot brings from a Braita that one gives money to a bathhouse attendant. he is liable Meila right away. So my question is why is that braita not already considered a proof to Rav Huna? Permission to use already is thought to be Hanaah! That is a question either on Tosphot or the Gemara itself. Also if the Rambam is right then why does Rav Huna not answer that on the actual question that Rav Nahman asks? I.e., why does he not just say one who gave it to the money changer is not liable until the money changer uses the money because there is no me'ila until one uses it?