There is a difference between keeping Torah as opposed to being part of the religious world.

 There is a difference between keeping Torah as opposed to being part of the religious world. In fact, there is a kind of fraud in the religious world in that the major effort and drive is to get converts. But the hidden message is that the converts will then be the servants of those that are already religious.

The trouble is that the religious world keeps external rituals, but gains evil character. So trying to get people to join is really not in the category of  a good deed.

It might be that the religious think they are righteous. But they are not. They are religious, not righteous.

[ The closest to pure Torah is the Litvak yeshivas, but there the Sitra Achra also has some hold.]

To understand the issue it might be helpful to take note that just simply "being religious" in itself tends to be  a problem. It is to easy to get it wrong and fall into fanaticism.

You can understand this based on the idea of Dr Kelley Ross [of the Kant-Friesian school of thought] that there is an array of "value".So the values of knowledge and beauty are not along the same lines as value of attachment with God. But  that area of spiritual value --can  fall into its opposite. That is the case with every positive value. When it decays it becomes its opposite.

Millie Weaver from InfoWars Arrested

Knowing a bit about Trotsky, nothing the Left does surprises me.

That is anyone against the Marxists at this point is subject to arrest.

 Infowars reporter Millie Weaver. Infowars 

But I ought to add here that nothing that is going on in the USA is a surprise because Americans do not believe even their own eyes until they see it on the Internet or CNN. So truth and facts matter--but only the truth and facts that are reported on CNN and being taught in high schools and "Gender Studies." 

So to see the USA turn into a Marxists State is expected.  

My letters to Warren Siegel [Physics] about the 26 simple groups and the possibility that they represent symmetries of the 26 curled up dimensions. [This exchange was in 2016]

Dear Professor Siegel,

I am just a beginner but still I just wanted to ask a question.

 I am wondering if we start with Emmy Noether's theorem and put groups of fractional symmetry in the Lagrangian of QFT (Quantum Field Theory). I mean to say I have been fascinated by the idea of fractional derivatives and higher order symmetries for  awhile. So we have from Noether that for every symmetry you can put into the Lagrangian a conservation law why not just postulate symmetries and thus higher conservation laws up to any order?  What I am thinking of is not the same as translational symmetry of fractional charges like quarks. 

This might sound like a ridiculous suggestion but sometimes this kind of idea gives results. Originally it was Leibniz himself who thought of fractional derivatives but he did not think the results would interesting so he did not pursue the idea. It turned out there are some interesting results. 

I would have liked to have thought of some examples.

I am really sorry if this sounds stupid. I really like learning about QFT but I admit I am just struggling at this point.

Sincerely,

Avraham Rosenblum 

The answer of Dr Siegel quoted the above letter and added :I'm not sure what symmetries you're thinking of, but in general if you impose too much symmetry you find that only a free theory can satisfy it.

Then at the end he added: If by fractional derivative you mean some arbitrary noninteger power of the differential operator, the result is nonlocal (does not depend on just infinitesimally nearby points).  Locality is a basic physical property that field theory requires.  It follows from special relativity & causality.

Then I wrote another letter: Dear Professor Siegel,

What I am thinking is that according to the number of dimensions there are, we would have the same number of conservation laws. So for our little world we have conservation of energy and mass, electric charge, etc. In string theory we get some crumbled up dimensions for the normal 26. So what I would like to find are groups to put into the Lagrangian that will correspond to each conservation law for a different quantity. I still need to think about what kinds of groups I am looking for. But the most obvious would be those 26 simple groups I was reading about when I was studying group theory. 

Does any of this make any sense?

Sincerely, Avraham Rosenblum

Answer of Dr Siegel: I'm not sure what you're saying.

If you compactify some dimensions into a symmetric space, you'll get the symmetry of that space.

E.g., if you compactify some extra N dimensions into a submicroscopic sphere, you'll get the rotational group for those N dimensions, i.e., the orthogonal group O(N+1).

It will appear as an "internal" symmetry with respect to the uncompactified dimensions (i.e., not affecting them directly).

[So I am not thinking of the regular symmetries but some new kinds,[i.e., new kinds of conservation laws].  I do not know how they would be made manifest in our 4 dimensional world.

After all that discussion I thought of another point. That is the Feynman integral what really matters is not all the trajectories but rather just the ones that have no derivative. So even if you have lots of complicated homotopies as you go to higher dimension, still not all the closed circles matter. That is because the smooth ones that have a derivative cancel out in the final result. So what matter is the lines that are continuous but are shaped in the way that every point makes a sharp corner with the next point. Also the last dimension matters because with no other dimension to go into it would lack a derivative. 

 To be מוחה to object to evil even when you will not be listened to I heard from Leibel (the son of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [the head of the Mir in NY.]). 

He was saying this to me in terms of the Eruv issues that came up then. [What counts as an enclosure for the Sabbath Day.] I had asked something along those lines. He said that there is a point to object.

Now as I think about it I recall that you can see this with the war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin. פילגש בגבעה. Look at the verses and you will see the main objection was not what was done the the concubine--which was horrible in itself. Rather the major issue was that no one objected. Israel had gone to the town and asked the criminal to be handed over. And that is the point. Everyone in Benjamin went along with it and no one objected.

Also in the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. What was done was evil. But that in itself was not enough to bring about the destruction of the Temple, The main issue was that מדלא מחו שמע מינה דניחא להו--that no one of the sages objected.

This would be the same reason that the Gra put his signature of the letter of excommunication. To object to evil even if one will not be listened to. [Just to be clear the actual "herem" did not include Rav Nahman of Uman]. One could look up the books that contain  all the letters and testimony in Villna to see this.

x11 B Flat major mp3 file

 x11 B Flat major mp3 file

 

I am thinking of putting links to the NWC [Noteworthy Composer] and Midi versions of the music so that people that want to see the notes can do so. 

x11 nwc file

x11 midi file

return to Feudalism.

 I see in the former USSR that people tend to form a village around their place of employment. I mean this is a return to Feudalism. I actually saw this when I was in the hospital in Uman and saw this kind of dynamics. And I heard this from a former KGB agent also.

This is I think also the basic idea around the "Litvak Yeshiva". Even though Litvak yeshivas tend to do a great job in what they were created for--to teach Torah. [Especially the Mir in NY and also Shar Yashuv]. Still the subtle aspect is that it provides a Feudal Castle to protect one from robbers.

After all this is what the whole Feudal system came about from. Rome was collapsing. The roads were no longer safe. People wanted protection from roaming bands of "protesters." So they aggregated around a strong man that could protect them. But in return they had to work and and pledge loyalty. 

This is in fact one of the reasons why people go into Litvak yeshivas--not just to learn Torah but also to be in an environment where they can learn Torah. The secular world used to be able to provide a degree of security. You lived in a safe USA. Jobs were available. Now secular society is falling apart. 

[Does this reciprocal relationship in fact exist? That is if you pledge loyalty and obey all the rules  do you get some kind of protection like in a feudal castle where you get protection by pledging loyalty? I would say it does exist to a degree. Maybe not as much as one might hope, but it still seems to be so to a degree.]

For a mediaeval feudal system to work there needs to be a hierarchy. Sometimes there is good reason for that. Like in the case of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum the head of the Mir Yeshiva in NY.  Or Rav Freifeld of Shar Yashuv. But often, not. 

argument between the Rosh and Rav Hai Gaon

There is an argument between the Rosh  and Rav Hai Gaon. Normally when there is enough land for the males to inherit and the daughters to be feed then that is what happens. [That is to say that daughters and a widow do not inherit, but they do get feed from the proceeds of the land.] If there is not enough land for both the boys and girls then only the girls get feed. But if the sons sell the property the sell is valid. That is straight from the Gemara itself. But what happens  after during the time of the Geonim there was made a decree that movable property is also used to pay for the Ketuba and all the conditions of the Ketubah.

That is where Rav Hai Gaon says after that decree now the girls would get feed from the proceeds of the sell. The Rosh disagrees.. The question that Rav Shach brings is that the proof that the rosh brings is hard to understand. 

The Gemara says that there is  a proof to Rav Asi that the boys have some rights to נכסים מועטים [small amount of land], because if they sell, the sell is valid. The Rosh brings this as a proof that they keep the money of the sell.--even after the decree of the Geonim.

I admit that I have trouble understanding the answer of Rav Shach to this question. It does look that you can not bring a proof from the sell being valid before the decree and the sell being valid after the decree that the boys might in fact have to feed the girls with the proceeds.

Basically Rav Shach is saying that the point of the Rosh is that you  see there is a no "halot" settling of the land on the money, such that the money is in place of the land. We do see that with Maasar Sheni but not here. So while there is a decree to use movable property to pay for the Ketubah, that means money that was actually inherited. Not money that came because something that was inherited was sold.