People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy.

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy. It is a conspiracy to keep the corrupt and evil leaders in control. Thus it seems to me that the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyayu ought not to have religious people in his cabinet.  Though I can not figure out why or how the religious world got to be such a nightmare still the facts on the ground indicate that the more power they gain the worse it is for everyone.

[My own approach to Torah is more along the lines of balance. and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה and not to seek out new restrictions. To some degree This approach is based on the book of Rav Nahman the LeM vol II. 42. Where he defines the service of God as not to be seeking out new restrictions. but rather learning and keeping Torah simply.


[The trouble with parliamentary systems as noted by the founding fathers of the USA. At the time even King George assumed the English Parliament had absolute power over the colonies. [Besides that the Parliament in fact needed to pay the war debt that they had incurred because of the war with France which in fact was a benefit for Americans. But Americans though willing to contribute money and arms and people to the war effort did not think Parliament had power over them.. The king yes, but Parliament no. This same kind of system still plagues Europe. The founding fathers on the other hand did not think to give to even their own parliament [Congress and Senate] such power. This is the reason for three branches of government in the USA. In Israel this problem is such that the religious have power to bring down the government any time they feel they are not getting enough money.

Profesor Moshe Idel (Hebrew University)

Profesor Moshe Idel (Hebrew University) has a new book on the issue of the Sonship which looks at the issue from the standpoint of mystics from the Middle Ages.

I have noticed this subject come up in various places in the Gemara. [One place I noticed this was in Bava Batra. God calls a tzadik by his name.]

But the major thing seems to be a kind of take on Emanation that is common enough in the Ari [Isaac Luria] and Moshe Cordovaro.

The idea of Jesus being a tzadik that partakes of this  aspect of things seems to me to be more or less clear after I saw this in Avraham Abulafia and also in Moshe Idel's PhD thesis.

[Son in the Remak always refers to Tiferet. In the Ari himself I saw the idea of the vessel of yesod containing the light of kindness which I figured was in reference to Jesus.]

With Kant I go with the idea that certain areas of value are not accessible to human reason, so to speculate about them makes little sense. And you see this also with Fries and Leonard Nelson who hold from a kind of knowledge that is not by reason nor by sense perception. So besides basic faith I have that Rav Avraham Abulafia knew what he was talking about, I do not like to make any further speculations.



Another thing is this: The Christian "take" on Jesus to me seems wrong. He did not advocate the nullification of the commandments--as explained in the Theonomic Position on the web site of Anthony Flood. He said one must keep all the Torah. The Oral and Written Law. [Everything the prushim say to do you must do...] [He said anyone who teaches you to not keep the Torah shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven for verily I say unto you heaven and earth shall pass away but not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away] So it does not sound like he is saying not to keep the Law.]

American War of Independence as opposed to the Revolution in France.

The reasons for the American War of Independence do not seem to be based on the idea of John Locke. There was a soldier who fought at bunker hill who was interviewed many years later and he was asked about it. He never had heard of John Locke. As for the Stamp act --also he had never seen one. There was a whole list of the usual reasons given  that he was asked about and he never heard of any of them. So when finally he was asked then why did you fight? He said because we had been taking care of our own business  by ourselves and the British wanted to interfere.

What you see is that the colonies were not beholden to England for more than a hundred years--since 1620. They had been taking care of themselves They just wanted to continue their traditions and organizations with no interference from Britain. It was not a revolution to change the order of things.--Completely opposite of the Revolution in France that aimed at overturning the old order.

[I want to add here that the American system even after the War of Independence was based 99% on the English system. The Colonies had no reason to rebel except for the tyranny of Parliament. But that alone would not have caused the break from England until they appealed to the king, King George, and he refused to hear their complaints.]

Species can change

Species can change from one into another. [It is also brought in the Babylonian Talmud in Bava Kama around page 16--I forget exactly].[It is in the Jerusalem Talmud also. I saw it as I was flipping through the pages. I forget where I saw it. It was I think in Shabat or Eruvin.]
You see there that even bones can become living things. And many different examples are given on one species changing into another every seven years.
So I do not see why this seems to be an issue of contention. [That is in terms of evolution. As for the math probability of evolution I think that is not the best way of looking at it. After all if you take any point on a line and ask before you hit it with your pencil what is the probability of hitting it you get zero. 1/infinity. --Since there are an infinite number of points on a line. So after you have hit any random point you can prove mathematical that you could never have hit it. ]

argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot

The argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot concerning an alley with three walls.
To the Rambam it has a category of a carmlit [a middle state that is not a private domain nor a public domain] To Tosphot and the Rashba it is a private domain.


One of the commentators of the Yerushlmi brings this subject and the opinion of the magid mishna on the Rambam.
What is hard to understand about the Rambam here is the gemara in Suka page 7: an alley that is open on two sides--if equipped with a lehi is a private domain and if with overhead board is a carmlit.

If the Rambam would be right why should the Gemara deal with an alley with two walls?

In this area there is an argument between the Magid Mishna on the Rambam and Rav Moshe Margolit [the author of the Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi].

To Rav Moshe the three wall alley that is open to a carmlit and has a lehi is a reshut Hayakid. And to me it looks like he is using this idea to answer for the Rambam. I do not see how this helps the Rambam. If a simple lehi helps an open alley [open on two sides] then why should an alley closed on three sides be worse.

I guess he must be saying the open alley also is just open to a carmlit. Still I admit it is hard for me to see how the Ramabm could fit into the Gemara over here.

[Sorry if I do not have any more ability to concentrate on things in order to make my remarks clearer--after my experience with getting arrested because of false accusations I have little ability to concentrate on anything.]]

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism. Moshe Idel conserning his approach to the idea of "the Son" and the start of his interest in Rav Avraham Abulfia.

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism

https://shi-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/Havruta_2009_Issue3_MosheIdelInterview.pdf

" In my Ph.D. dissertation, I wrote a section dealing with the son of God in Avraham Abulafia."
[Abraham ben Shmuel Abulafia (1240-C.1291), the founder of the ecstatic brand of Kabbalah]


In that thesis, you can see the Rav Abulafia held that Jesus was a tzadik.[משיח בן יוסף, החותם של יום ששי] I had seen that beforehand in Rav Abulafia, but seeing this idea also brought in Moshe Idel made it more clear. [I asked him later about this issue on the phone.]

Sonship

https://www.amazon.com/Ben-Sonship-Mysticism-Library-Studies/product-reviews/0826496660/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews


See also Kabalah and Elites

[Myself I never got into Rav Abulafia but I see him as a very important aspect of Torah. However I did see some of this subject in the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria]. The most obvious place for me is after the breaking of the vessels the vessel of Foundation was brought up into Emanation and filled with the light of Kindness. כלי של יסוד נעלה לאצילות ובו ירד האור של חסד. The Ari also brings this up concerning Joseph in Egypt.
Hegel has his own take on this which is known to be hard to understand. However it seems to me that Hegel is thinking more about Adam Kadmon more than Joseph. [While Hegel brings both subjects he does not tie them specifically together.]]

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.