There is some lack of knowledge about marriage relations in the Bible.
[I was clearer myself about these issue when I was learning Gemara Yevamot. But I have forgotten most of what I knew. Still I would like to mention a few things that I still recall.]
Homosexual relations between males in mentioned twice in Leviticus among the type of relations that are called עריות "Arayot". That is all the things there mentioned "do not reveal the nakedness of your sister." "your mother," etc. Most of them have a death penalty --including homosexual relations.

But relations with  menstruating woman do not. That is just simple Karet. [A spiritual penalty] Adultery is with a married woman has a death penalty. But a man can have many wives. That is not adultery. But in the case of adultery, both the adulterer and adulteress both get the death penalty. [It is clear, but traditional Catholic teaching has made this issue foggy.]


Rav Nahman from Breslov rightfully noted the essential aspect of the human soul of sexuality. In fact he saw this issue at the core of the Torah. So Moharosh [Rav Shick] emphasized getting married  early.  The Tikun HaKlali also I believe is very important. That is to say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman designated on the day one has done  asexual sin. That is 16,32,41,42,59,77,90,105,137,150.

The Torah has a specific set of values which are clear. However politics and government is a different area. The Torah does have some rules about that, but mainly leaves government open. So my approach to this issue is basically to take a look at the Constitution of the USA, and see that it has greatest the most free and amazing society that has ever existed within human memory. I see no contradictions between personal keeping and learning Torah on one hand- and support of the Constitution of the USA or its closest ally Israel.

There is some kind of hidden evil in the religious authorities that only the Gra and Rav Shach saw. Besides those two great sages, everyone else seems to have been taken in.

Hobhouse made a good point about religion and politics. That religion, even though at its core is the Torah, still the religious parties are also people. So even though one ought to learn and keep Torah that does not mean to try to put religious parties into power. In particular Rav Nahman pointed out the problem with Torah Scholars that are demons --(the LeM of Rav Nahman in vol I ch 12 and ch 28.) which he brings from the Zohar. But even without that, there are plenty of statements in the Gemara that indicate that religious leaders ought not to be in power. Learning and keeping Torah is a personal matter.

I would not say so myself years back when I was part of Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. But after that  I began to see the problems of the religious world more clearly. And saw that Rav Nahman was not exaggerating. I guess young people who have not experienced the demonic reign of religious leaders up front and personally might easily be taken in by the facade--like I was. So I think that though the damage has been done to many people who have fallen for their sanctimonious act, still there is hope for future generations.

So in short I do not see the participation of religious parties in Israel in Government to be a positive thing --even from the aspect of Torah and especially not from the aspect of Torah.


[One place for example you see this in the Talmud is in Shabat (--I forget the page number-)"If you see a generation that has problems coming upon it go out and check the judges of Israel. For all problem that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel." Then the gemara brings a verse to prove its point. "Its judges judge with bribes etc." But in any case the issue is  that there is some kind of hidden evil in the religious authorities that only the Gra and Rav Shach saw. Besides those two great sages, everyone else seems to have been taken in. 

I know that L.T. Hobhouse [the English philosopher] blamed WWI on the ideas of Hegel (in his book the Metaphysical Theory of the State) about the State. This did not bother me because I thought it was too far fetched.

But then I noticed that Shirer blamed both Fichte and Hegel for WWII (in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). At that point I am thinking maybe Hobhouse was onto something. After all Shirer you can not exactly accuse of  not understanding the German language!

So perhaps it makes more sense to  do what thinkers were doing in the Middle Ages in terms of getting to a comprehensive world view--to combine faith with reason that is the Old Testament with Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus.

This is at least what Saadia Gaon was doing and all the rishonim that wrote of the issues of the overall world view of Torah.


This has a great deal of support from the best of modern thinkers also for example Ed Feser and Kelley Ross (The Kant-Fries School ). Kelley Ross has stated openly that his point of view is from essentially Plato. Feser is basing himself on Aristotle and Aquinas to some degree but is not trying to explain either one but ratter to use their insights to build his own true and comprehensive world view.] [Huemer is related to what is known as the intuitionist school. But in a nutshell he is basically with Aristotle in terms of universals and that universals depend on particulars.] 

Rav Nahman of Breslov comes about as close as I can see into making the Old Testament and the Gemara into a comprehensive system--that is a interconnected system based on a small number of basic principles.

Rav Nahman of Breslov comes about as close as I can see into making the Old Testament and the Gemara into a comprehensive system--that is a interconnected system based on  a small number of basic principles. This kind of task was taken up to a a large degree by the baali HaMusar [sages and authors of works on Athics.] from the Middle Ages  the  Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pakuda חובות הלבבות and Saadia Gaon. But Rav Nahman brought the task to its completion.

Maimonides was doing something similar--showing that Torah does not contradict Aristotle. But Rav Nahman was trying rather to show that the Torah makes sense. he was not concerned if it agreed with Aristotle.

Still his synthesis seems to leave out a few major principles that were noted by the baali HaMusar and especially the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter. [Midot/good character, learning Torah, trust in God]]

I was reminded about this because on my way to the sea I spoke briefly another secular Jew like myself and he said something along the lines that the main thing is Rav Nahman and that everyone needs the ideas of Rav Nahman. I forget his exact language. But it reminded me of this fact that Rav Nahman has a good advice and ideas about almost any and every human problem.

I think the father in law of Rav Shach [Issar Meltzar] said the Derara dememona is a doubt about where the money ought to go. I forget because I no longer have an Avi Ezri [of Rav Shach] to look up. But if that is what he said it makes sense anyway.
The reason I say this is that the Gemara in Bava Mezia 79 seems to take this as a simple matter.
The basic gemara over there says [in the third case] that if a ship with a cargo of wine sinks the if the ship owner said, "I am renting to you this ship," and the wine owner said "I am hiring you to carry this wine," then wherever the money is that is where it stays. If both said (in forth case) ("stam") "I am renting to you a ship," [not this ship] and "I am hiring you to bring wine," not this wine then they divide.

It looks like a exact copy of the mishna on page 100 and also the mishna on page 97. On page 100 the same issue came up in the Gemara and the Gemara concludes the mishna there is like Sumhos.

No one on page 79 says anything about Sumhos. Not the Tur, the Rosh, the Shulhan Aruch or the Maharsha. But interestingly enough right there the Tosphot says the reason for the case when they are both definite this ship and this wine  is hezkas mamon [prior status of where the money is]. And the reason for the end when they divide is the doubt.

I recall I brought up these issues also on page 100 in my small booklet on Bava Mezia chapters 8 and 9.
[The regular way to understand Derara Demmona is a doubt to the court even without their words. Also the issue seems divided between Bava Metzia page 2b and the Gemara is Bava Batra as to what are the conditions under whcih Sumhos says they divide. Whether you need Derara Demmona or if he hold they divide with D.M. then all the more so without D.M.]

So to make it short, the major issues I see here are these. Why does Rav Papa on page 79 in the forth case not say he is going like Sumhos? And even if he would why is he not saying like Sumhos in the third case? So it looks here that you have to say this Gemara holds Drara Demmona is when there is a doubt. Furthermore why does the Gemara not go straight with the sages that say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה? One who take money out of a prior status needs proof.

The 15th of the Federalist Papers says that the essence of government is to make laws and by implication to enforce them. This in itself seems to be an argument why not to give power or vote for religious parties in Israel. [Even though the argument in the Federalist papers was arguing for a union of the states  as opposed to staying as they were an confederacy with no unifying centre.]

Even religious people in Israel would not like the religious powers to be to have power over their individual lives.

Learning Torah really ought not be mixed with politics.

Mind can not be a epiphenomenon of Body.

 By analytic means it was shown that the epiphenomenon approach to the Mind Body Problem entails and self contradiction in one of the intermediate steps.
That is to say that Mind can not be a epiphenomenon of Body.
[The epiphenomenon approach is a suggestion of John Searle. But Searle himself says that it is not an adequate solution.