the Rambam and Tosphot about a private domain on Shabat.

There is an argument between the Rambam [Shabat chapter 14] and Tosphot about what constitutes a private domain.
Tosphot and the Rashba both hold three walls constitutes a private domain on Shabat. But the Rambam makes a difference. If the alley is open to a public domain then it is just a Carmalit. [A place that is not a private domain nor a public domain.] But if open to a carmalit then it is a private domain. That is the three walls reduce it one level down.
There is a lot to go into here because of a few gemaras in Eruvin which seem to be clearly like Tosphot. [And I wanted to add that the Karban Eda in the Yerushalmi holds that the Rambam holds a Lehi is considered a wall from the Torah but an overhead board is just derabanan.]


But the thing I wanted to point out here is something I mentioned a few years ago--that you really do not see the Gemara making the distinction about a public domain having 600,000 people walking through it. So on Shabat my approach is to carry only in a pocket. This you can see in Ketubot chapter 3 and also in Bava Batra that the thief taking out a purse on Shabat is obligated for Shabat when the purse has changed domain, not when the object in the purse has changed domains.[You can see this more clearly in Bava Batra but I have forgotten the sugia over there.]


But unless it is really absolutely necessary I think it is best to stay home on Shabat and avoid all the problems. Besides that usually people need to recover from Shabat ion Sunday. So it really is not much of a day of rest for most people. 

the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [

 the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים].
The way Rav Nahman understands this is based on a few statements of the sages about the problem of using Torah to make money or gain power.

This idea can be expanded to groups that use the appearance of Torah also to gain power or money.


The idea of Rav Nahman has a few sources in the Gemara. One being the gemaras about demons that were in fact knowledgeable in Torah--and could take over people's souls. So it really is no surprise to find Torah scholars that are in internally demons. 

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison.

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison. It might be in part because of the super organism idea of Howard Bloom.

In fact this kind of behavior I have seen a lot. This was in fact one of the causes that the Gra put his signature on the letter of excommunication. In order to stop that type of action on the part of people that were deeply into religious delusions.

You can see that people that are involved in the good side of Torah like in the Mir or Brisk, never try to go out and change others or make mass movements.

Torah scholars that are demons תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים

The basic idea of Torah scholars that are demons [Le"M vol I chapter 12]. [The Gemara itself brings the idea  that demons can be knowledgeable in Torah and  also that they can possess a person. Therefore the logical deduction is that a person possessed by a demon that is knowledgeable in  Torah will be knowledgeable in Torah. [The note on the bottom of the page in the Le.M brings the source of Rav Nahman from the Zohar, but I do not see why since Rav Nachman also had a source in the Gemara itself. 

 [It is brought in expanded form in the Ari also. ] This seems to me to be one of Rav Nahman's most important ideas. It provides a warning to people that could be too easily taken in.

Is there any test, to know the difference between good and evil in this regard? There is, but I can not tell what it is exactly. 

However I did want to add a comment. First that David Bronson did point out to me that even Rav Yaakov Emden did hold that some parts of the Zohar are authentic. (Large portions of it were added to.)
Furthermore there are plenty of warnings about religious leaders in the Talmud and the Prophets also.

Ari [Isaac Luria]- The way the Ari understands the creation of the universe

The way the Ari [Isaac Luria] understands the creation of the universe is by a process of צמצום of the Divine Presence of God from an empty space within his Infinite Light and then sending down first the light of the divine name 52 or Adam Kadmon of the Circles. Then the name 45 which became Adam Kadmon of the form of Man.

This explains to some degree why Buddha would have seen Nirvana as the peak of things and that perfection means to be self-annihilated.  Buddha [and Schopenhauer] would be seeing the level of the empty space as being the bringing. Thus forgetting that there was one level before that.

However Hegel did incorporate the level of Adam kadmon and the previous levels in his system. [Though I do not know how he learned the Ari or even heard about him. But he certainly brings him in his books. And his system is a kind of commentary on the Ari.]

immigrants into the USA

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?

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 begging 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.