The problem with inviting immigrants into the USA is אין אורח מזמין אורח a guest can not invite a guest. Besides that there is a problem with using immigration to change the demographics of the USA which intends to change the basic nature of the WASP society. If anywhere else had managed to pull together a decent wholesome society like the USA in its first 200 years then there might be some reason to try and change the USA towards some better model. But since no such society has ever existed with the degree of freedom and justice of the USA it makes no sense to try and change it. And if such a great society elsewhere exist now then why do people still try to get into the USA? Why do they not stay in their utopias?
7.8.19
6.8.19
decrees of the sages
In terms of decrees of the sages, I brought the issue up with my learning partner David Bronson and we went through the commentary of the Rambam and Ramban on the Mitzvot--about the issue.
At the time, I was satified that there is some kind of justification. However, it does seem weak.
[I might add here the importnat fact that the verse in the Torah "לא תתורו" do not go away from what they say refers to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that had legitamate ordination from Sinai that ceased to exist during the period of the Talmud.]
One thing I noticed today was that on the Mishna in Shabat, the Yerushalmi compares the day that the 18 decrees were made into law to the day of the making of the Golden Calf.--Which does not sound like a positive thing. [The 18 decrees were the beginnging of all decrees that were made during the time of the Mishna.]
My original question on this whole thing stemed froman Avot DeRav Natan. Rav Natahn was a person from the time of the Mishna and Gemara and he wrote a commentary on Pirkei Avot which has the status of a Braita. There in the beginning of Pirkei Avot he brings the statement of R Yose that the sages had no permission to make extra laws to put upon the laws of the Torah.
[My own approach to this has varied over time. At one point I just assumed that all decrees "Derabanan" [of the sages during the time of the Mishna] were obligatory. Then at the point when the religious world stated showing its ugly face, and my life was plugged into chaos I realized that keeping everything was not going to be possible. So I decided to pick one basic principle to stick with and as for everything else to depend on the opinions of the lenient authorities.
[This was an idea I got from reading Rav Nahman's books. In his major book the Le''M in two places he brings the idea of not to be strict about anything. And when Rav Natan his disciple asked him about a position of being the rav in some city that was offered to him Rav Nahman said "Why not?" Rav Natan answered, "I am afraid of having to make a legal decision (that might be wrong)."
Rav Nahman said, "As long as there is one authority ("posek") to depend on, you can depend on him."
[Which might refer to a rishon [mediaeval authority] but also might refer to the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch itself.]
Based on that I usually was able to find some lenient opinion in a lot of cases that came up in my chaotic life. But even further--the Raavad and others hold once the reason for a decree is nullified the the decree itself is nullified.
[I might add here the importnat fact that the verse in the Torah "לא תתורו" do not go away from what they say refers to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that had legitamate ordination from Sinai that ceased to exist during the period of the Talmud.]
One thing I noticed today was that on the Mishna in Shabat, the Yerushalmi compares the day that the 18 decrees were made into law to the day of the making of the Golden Calf.--Which does not sound like a positive thing. [The 18 decrees were the beginnging of all decrees that were made during the time of the Mishna.]
My original question on this whole thing stemed froman Avot DeRav Natan. Rav Natahn was a person from the time of the Mishna and Gemara and he wrote a commentary on Pirkei Avot which has the status of a Braita. There in the beginning of Pirkei Avot he brings the statement of R Yose that the sages had no permission to make extra laws to put upon the laws of the Torah.
[My own approach to this has varied over time. At one point I just assumed that all decrees "Derabanan" [of the sages during the time of the Mishna] were obligatory. Then at the point when the religious world stated showing its ugly face, and my life was plugged into chaos I realized that keeping everything was not going to be possible. So I decided to pick one basic principle to stick with and as for everything else to depend on the opinions of the lenient authorities.
[This was an idea I got from reading Rav Nahman's books. In his major book the Le''M in two places he brings the idea of not to be strict about anything. And when Rav Natan his disciple asked him about a position of being the rav in some city that was offered to him Rav Nahman said "Why not?" Rav Natan answered, "I am afraid of having to make a legal decision (that might be wrong)."
Rav Nahman said, "As long as there is one authority ("posek") to depend on, you can depend on him."
[Which might refer to a rishon [mediaeval authority] but also might refer to the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch itself.]
Based on that I usually was able to find some lenient opinion in a lot of cases that came up in my chaotic life. But even further--the Raavad and others hold once the reason for a decree is nullified the the decree itself is nullified.
In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus.
In terms of German Idealism, my feeling is there is a lot there that is important. But I do not feel committed to any one particular thesis.
But I did want to mention just a few thoughts. One is that the way it is presented is usually wrong. The way it is usually understood is that it is some version of Berkeley.
The way I see it is that it is a version of Neo-Platonism.
In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus. But that is just the direction of deriving things. The actual Creation I see as being from Logos until Being. like Plotinus.
As for Shopenhaur I see him as just related to the חלל הפנוי [the Empty Space] of the Ari [Isaac Luria] before the actual sending down of the Infinite Divine Light.--So I do not see him at all in disagreement with Hegel anywhere near the degree he thought he was.
But I did want to mention just a few thoughts. One is that the way it is presented is usually wrong. The way it is usually understood is that it is some version of Berkeley.
The way I see it is that it is a version of Neo-Platonism.
In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus. But that is just the direction of deriving things. The actual Creation I see as being from Logos until Being. like Plotinus.
As for Shopenhaur I see him as just related to the חלל הפנוי [the Empty Space] of the Ari [Isaac Luria] before the actual sending down of the Infinite Divine Light.--So I do not see him at all in disagreement with Hegel anywhere near the degree he thought he was.
5.8.19
Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy.
There is a great of good ideas in the Gra and Rav Nachman and Musar [the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter.] The thing is you need some kind of measuring stick to decide what is applicable to you and what is not. There are lots of false ideas out there and common sense and reason are needed to sort things out. This was the general approach in the Middle Ages. Reason and Faith. For after all if you would take everything in Torah literally, it would be problematic. So you need some common sense. Even to choice who you think is valid also requires common sense.
As Rav Nahman pointed out, there are plenty Torah scholars that are demons. And they have a Torah of the Sitra Achra. The realm of evil. So it does take a certain amount of caution to discern whom to listen to.
Some of the great ideas of the Gra are well known--learning Torah, trust in God, and his signature on the letter of excommunication. [Which did not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you look at the original documents that were later collected in a few famous books. I saw a book that had the original documents in a small public library in Jerusalem in the old city.]
Some of Rav Nahman's ideas were talking with God in one's own language as one talks with a friend. But lots of other great ideas and insights--too many to go into.
[Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy. It seems to ignore the concerns of the Enlightenment philosophers. Is there some way out of that? Maybe. Kant came along to some degree to answer the rationalistic empiricist problem--mind body. In tend to see Hegel as being a good approach to this issue. But with in mind the kinds of concerns of McTaggart.]
I myself do not have a commitment towards any system of beliefs but rather I am committed to seek the truth in all issues. This is kind of personal but also it was the atmosphere of S California where I grew up. But I also recognize the opinion of people that know more than me.
the first important Musar book the Obligation of the Hearts is neo platonic [in the first part, shar hayihud]
As Rav Nahman pointed out, there are plenty Torah scholars that are demons. And they have a Torah of the Sitra Achra. The realm of evil. So it does take a certain amount of caution to discern whom to listen to.
Some of the great ideas of the Gra are well known--learning Torah, trust in God, and his signature on the letter of excommunication. [Which did not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you look at the original documents that were later collected in a few famous books. I saw a book that had the original documents in a small public library in Jerusalem in the old city.]
Some of Rav Nahman's ideas were talking with God in one's own language as one talks with a friend. But lots of other great ideas and insights--too many to go into.
[Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy. It seems to ignore the concerns of the Enlightenment philosophers. Is there some way out of that? Maybe. Kant came along to some degree to answer the rationalistic empiricist problem--mind body. In tend to see Hegel as being a good approach to this issue. But with in mind the kinds of concerns of McTaggart.]
I myself do not have a commitment towards any system of beliefs but rather I am committed to seek the truth in all issues. This is kind of personal but also it was the atmosphere of S California where I grew up. But I also recognize the opinion of people that know more than me.
free stuff in order to get elected
The strategy of promising free stuff in order to get elected is really not all that different from communism. So in order to evaluate if this is a legitimate approach one could look at the history of communism to see if it is workable policy. Well no. It is not workable. It destroys the economy. But what it does do is to get people's votes to put the one that promises into power.
The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money.
What happens in the Mir in NY is that a person is learning Torah for its own sake a few years and then gets married. Then his father and or father in law support him and her a few years. But there was never any intention of using the holy Torah to make money. So he never bothered to learn Yora Deah and get the phony kind of ordination we have nowadays. In Ketuboth page 109 there is a case related to this that is brought in Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yoseph Karo. In the Gemara the case is a person went away and someone else gave money to his wife to support her. The husband does not have to pay it back. But if she borrowed to support herself then he does. [But not anything that she spent, but only the amount that he was obligated that is two meals per day or about a quart of flour per week.]
The casein Shulchan Aruch is the father in law supported the couple for the two years that was stipulated in the marriage contract but then kept on supporting the couple after that. Then he decides to ask his son in law to pay him back.
The Trumat HaDeshen is brought in the Rema [Moshe Isarles] that the son in law does not have to pay back for the wife but only for himself. The achronim over there disagree.
So what happens if someone gives you a present and then later asks you to pay for it?
[The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money. This is what I myself was doing for the years after I got married. And then we got to Israel. In Israel I did not join the kollel in Meor Haim because I thought it was along the lines of using Torah for money. But the State of Israel itself made things easy to settle in. Rent was very low and so were the bills. As for the kollel thing itself I am not sure what to think. Mainly it seems to me to be forbidden and yet still I admit there are those who allow it.]
The casein Shulchan Aruch is the father in law supported the couple for the two years that was stipulated in the marriage contract but then kept on supporting the couple after that. Then he decides to ask his son in law to pay him back.
The Trumat HaDeshen is brought in the Rema [Moshe Isarles] that the son in law does not have to pay back for the wife but only for himself. The achronim over there disagree.
So what happens if someone gives you a present and then later asks you to pay for it?
[The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money. This is what I myself was doing for the years after I got married. And then we got to Israel. In Israel I did not join the kollel in Meor Haim because I thought it was along the lines of using Torah for money. But the State of Israel itself made things easy to settle in. Rent was very low and so were the bills. As for the kollel thing itself I am not sure what to think. Mainly it seems to me to be forbidden and yet still I admit there are those who allow it.]
1.8.19
young men angry? https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/readers-sound-off-on-why-young-american-men-are-so-angry/
Why are we angry?
Let me share my story.
I work a corporate job that routinely demands 70-plus hours a week. I barely have time to think, much less take care of myself mentally and physically. I am so burned out I can barely handle life anymore. I am 43.
I am constantly told how I am wrong at work.
I am seeing on the Internet that white men are toxic. It’s in the popular culture.
I’m a Democrat, and frankly the anti-white rhetoric has gotten ME angry.
I’ve been passed up for several promotions for applicants who were less qualified but met race and gender preference criteria — also known as, not a white male.
It’s not a good time to be one. I can only imagine what a young man who hasn’t established himself yet is going through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)