Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat on Bitachon [trust in God]

In the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat [end of perek 6] there is a story about a person that became "ger" [convert].
Before that he had been an astrologer. He was about to go on a trip but he then saw in the star charts that it was dangerous. Then he rethought the matter. "Why did I join this nation in the first place if not to desist from such things. He went and was in danger of being eaten by a lion. He gave it his ass and he was saved. The Talmud asks why did he fall into danger? Because he checked the star charts. why was he saved because in the end he trusted.

Rav Joseph Yozel Horvitz [the disciple of Rav Israel] brings this event in his book the Level of Man.

So what is the thing about trust in God? When I was in the Mir in NY I assumed it to mean to sit and learn Torah and assume that one's needs will be taken care of. Now I am thinking that that is basically correct except that I would not limit the learning Torah thing to be confined to the basic cannon but to include Physics and Metaphysics as Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold. [You can see this mainly in rishonim based in Spain like Benjamin the doctor or Maimonides who was born in Spain.]

[I am not sure what to say about the Metaphysics aspect however. What would that include? Chesterson noted that almost all philosophy after the 1600's is nuts. [Exact quotation: :Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; it what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."] Now normally that would not be a complaint except that to go against common sense prima facie evidence you need to have some reason. You can not just make some nice statement that seems reasonable at first and then draw conclusion that are clearly off.  That is not how science works. The way science goes is you try to explain what it "out there". You do not postulate at the start what is allowed to be "out there."

When evidence comes in that goes against the original common sense, then you change your assumptions. Modern philosophy works in the exact opposite way. It starts with some profound sounding platitude and then derives some nutty result from it. Then it assumes the nutty result has been proven.

So when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics it might make the most sense to stick with the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the scholastics from the Middle Ages.

Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10

Rosh Hashanah = the actual new moon. This of course is going according the Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 that you go according to the time of the "molad"--the conjunction. 

Prince Philip [husband of the Queen of England]: pearls of wisdom.

"British women can't cook"

"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed" (during the 1981 recession).

"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in Kenya after accepting a small gift from a local woman).

"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed" (to a group of British students during a royal visit to China).

"You can't have been here that long, you haven't got pot belly" (to a Briton he met in Hungary).

"Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (to a wealthy islander in the Cayman Islands).

"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test" (to a Scottish driving instructor).

"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).

"Still throwing spears?" (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).

"There's a lot of your family in tonight" (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).

"The Philippines must be half-empty as you're all here running the NHS" [National Health Service] (on meeting a Filipino nurse at Luton and Dunstable Hospital). 

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. ]