Bringing in from a public domain on Shabat is one kind of work. Bringing out to a public domain is another. Are these two separate things or or they both just one kind of work?

Mishna in Shabat. יציאות השבת שתיים שהן ארבע בפנים ושתיים שהן ארבע בחוץ



Bringing in from a public domain on Shabat is one kind of work. Bringing out to a public domain is another. Are these two separate things or or they both just one kind of work?

To Tosphot they are both just one kind of "av melacha" [principle kind of work. lit. father of work.]
To the Baal Hameor (Rav Zarahia Halevi) taking out is an "av" (father, principle). Taking in is a tolada [offspring].

The Ball HaMeor goes into this in the beginning of Shabat and Rav Moshe Margolit (the author of the Pnei Moshe and Mareh Panim on the Jerusalem Talmud) goes into more detail.

The way he see it is that this is an argument between Rav Ashi and Rava. The Gemara asks on the Mishna. It says taking out and then talks about bringing in? Rav Ashi says the author of the Mishna is calling bringing in also taking out. Rava said it means domains of Shabat.
To Moshe Margolit, Rava holds bringing in is a tolada and there are two verses. To Rav Ashi they are both the same av and there is only one verse.
To me the question here seems to be the beginning of the Gemara in Bava Kama which says that something that is in the Mishkan and also important is a av. [It says nothing about whether there is a verse or not. ] That seems to be the main question here. But there are others that I forgot about. [I recall that when I was learning Shabat that that particular Tosphot in the beginning of Shabat had other questions.

Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

A disciple of Rav Nahman, that is Rav Natan brings in Hoshen Mishpat, laws of guards [that is the part of Shulchan Aruch that deals with monetary laws and deposited object] the idea of trust in God that you see also in Rav Israel Salanter, and his disciple Rav Joseph Horvitz of Navardok. 

To Rav Natan, trust with effort brings up the sparks of holiness that fell because of the breaking of the vessels. Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

Clearly he is holding that trust with effort is a good thing, but not as great as trust without effort.

In fact the idea is that only by trust with no effort can one bring up the sparks that come from the deepest kelipot [forces of evil.]

Top some degree you see this in Napoleon. He was in prison in Elba. Then broke out to retake France. A army of the new king came out to fight him. As these two armies stood face to face with their arms and weapons raised ready to fire the general of the kings troops called out to Napoleon to surrender. Napoleon told his men to lower their weapons and walked out in front of all his troops and called to the other army. "Here I am, your emperor. If any of you want to kill me here is your chance!" There came a voice from one of the captains of the kings army "Fire!" But no one fired. Instead they all lowered their weapons and shouted long live the Emperor!

So you have to say that the Mishna that says all Torah without work is useless and brings to sin and in the end he merits only to hell has to be talking about Torah without trust. That is: these are independent variables. Torah and work are different variables than trust with or without effort.

To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

Why not to marry American women.

To read that article is a good idea, but to put it simply. To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

truth is divided up

The Litvak Yeshiva world has noticed the importance of the Middle Ages. [That is the people that follow the Torah path like the Gra and Rav Shach.]

That is: the Lithuanian Yeshiva World [i.e. straight Torah]  holds highly of Rishonim (mediaeval authorities like the Tosphot, Rif,  Rosh etc.) [more than achronim (later authorities after the 1500's) ] and of the Musar (Ethics) of the Middle Ages. [Learning teh Ethics of the Middle Ages was the whole point of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar movement. Later on, the books of his disciples got added in. But the original idea was the Middle Ages.]

So what do do with Metaphysics? [Emphasized by Maimonides and Ibn Pakuda [the author of  the Obligations of the Hearts] right in the beginning of  חובות לבבות, [Obligations of the Heart by Behayee Ibn Pakuda].

Medieval metaphysics can not be taken simply simply because some of the axioms do not seem all that correct, even though the logic is correct.

You need to some degree Kant and Hegel. But in the same way that the Litvak world takes achronim--as modifications of Rishonim, not as standing on their own.


[My own opinion is that true Torah is only found in yeshivas that go by the Gra like Brisk or Ponovitch. However, as the sages said-- in the future the truth will be divided. האמת יהיה נעדרת --עדרים עדרים. Since the truth is divided up and you can not find it in just one place. so you need to do a process of "birur" taking the good and discarding what is wrong. But you can not do that until the lies and delusions have fallen. Truth can only come together after lies have been destroyed.]

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Professor Moshe Ideal brings a doubt  as to the development of Rav Avraham Abulafia. That is what was the trigger for the new revelations of 1270? Was it his method of Divine Names or was it grace?

This rings a bell with me because I think that it is a combination of factors. That is to say in my view there are certain stages to come to "Devekut" [literally "attachment"] (or prophecy in the language of the Middle Ages) and there are also certain stages to leaving that and coming back down to Earth as we find in Plato's cave where those who left it were forced to come back and instruct those that remained inside.

In my view coming to Devekut is simply a matter of following the straight, simple path of Torah as defined by the Gra and Rav Shach.  That is Devekut comes by grace. But then to contain the light and focus it one needs the Divine names. And then one is forced to leave in order to help thoese that are left inside the cave.

[But what to do with the problem of ego inflation and religious delusions? To me it seems that one needs to be rid of evil before one can come to truth. To be rid of evil I think depends a lot on the art of discernment. To take literally the advice of the Gra in his letter of excommunication.  But not to use that to dismiss Rav Nahman who I think would not be included as can easily be seen from the language used there.]

See Moshe Idel on this subject

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.