evolution

Racism is simply evolution. Every species changes and diverges in different directions. There is nothing wrong or evil about that. It is just the way things change.And every group has to find some way to fit into their niche and to do so means it changes to fit its niche.

Talking with God as one talks with a good friend- Hitbodadut

Talking with God as one talks with a good friend is not mentioned much in the LeM of Rav Nahman. The first place is vol. 2. And even there not anything more than saying it is a great thing.

Then at the very end it is brought up as the main thing to be doing all the time.

You can say that it simply was not known to Rav Nahman how important it is until the end of his life.

And in fact that seems clear from the Conversations of Rav Nahman.

The emphasis  comes from a very short two paragraphs in LeM vol II section 96 that the greatest Avodat Hashem ("service towards God") is to do hitbodadut. "And since most people are not able to do this much, at least it is necessary to command them to do it at least an hour a day. But for one who really wants to serve God, it is the best thing to spend the whole day talking with God as one talks with a friend."

But I have had mixed feeling about this. At first, when I started taking the ideas of Rav Nahman more seriously I went in for the Hitbodadut thing also. So instead of learning Torah I would go out into the fields and forest around Safed to spend the whole day "doing Hitbodadut."

Then I noticed that in Breslov, that is people that were consciously following the path of Rav Nahman, there seemed to be a need to be spending more time on learning Torah. And on the other hand I noticed that "learning Torah" also did not seem to bring people to a higher moral and spiritual level.

It was hard to put it all together. Another thing that made it hard to figure out was that in fact the beginning of this period in Safed when I was concentrating on Hitbodadut, I felt a tremendous surge of energy, what then I would refer to as אור אין סוף ("the infinite light of God"). So after all is said and done, I have to agree that the Hitbodadut thing is just as important and even more so that Rav Nahman said it is. 

So it is the best thing to have a balance between Hitbodadut and learning Torah.  

At any rate, in Torah thought, Learning Torah is what one must do if he can. Taking away any time from learning Torah is forbidden except for doing a commandment that can not be done by anyone else.

In fact I sometimes would hear the old Yidish expression: "Abi Nisht zu learning" [anything but learning]. That is one ought to sit and learn Torah and trust in God for parnasah. But if parnasah doesnot come, then one ought to work. But the idea is that learning Torah iswhat one ought to spend his tome and energy on. 

[However in my case I have an expanded idea and a contracted idea of what learning Torah means: I.e. it includes Mathematics and Physics as per the Rishonim like the Inb Pakuda and Rambam. But also a contracted idea because the Oral Law mean the actual books handed down to us by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. Everything after that is not, "The Oral Torah."

  

If a Israeli marries, and finds his wife is not a virgin, she is still permitted to him because of doubt of a doubt. ספק ספקא. Ketuboth page 9 side B

 A priest [Kohen from the male descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses] has more restrictions on who he can marry than a regular Israeli. As you can see in the verses in Leviticus the section of "Emor" "Speak to the priests", he can not marry  a "Zona" which is any woman who has had sex with someone that was forbidden to her (by a prohibition from the Torah.). It matters not if it was rape or not.

This is different than a Israeli. If his wife was raped, then she is still permitted to him. But if it was with her agreement, then she is forbidden to her husband from then on.

This is a bit of an introduction. Next between betrothal and marriage there used to be a long time period. But betrothal was done in such a way that she became a married woman. [That is called Kidushin.]

So if a Israeli marries, [that is did kidushin betrothal and much later does nisuin that is the actual bringing her into his home] and finds his wife is not a virgin, she is still permitted to him because of  doubt of a doubt. ספק ספקא. Maybe the sex was before she got married [betrothal] . And even if it was after, maybe it was rape. So because a doubt of a doubt ספק ספקא is permitted, she is permitted to her husband. [The rule is in a case of a doubt about a prohibition of the Torah, the law is to forbid. But if the case is a doubt of a doubt, the law is to permit. ]

The Shita Mekubetzet asks why is this not a case of טומאה ברשות היחיד uncleanliness in a private domain-which we learn from "sota" [a married woman who has strayed] is forbidden? He answers that is when there is a prior status that there can at least begin a doubt. [Like in the case of Sota when there are reasons to believe she strayed. Here there is nothing like that.

Another answer that Rav Shach gives is  this is not really a case of טומאה uncleanliness. but of prohibition. Only if we already know that she is forbidden, then it becomes a case of טומאה uncleanliness, but here we do not know in the first place if she is forbidden. 

Orchestra and piano from around 1994]

 x21 mp3 recent

x21 midi

x21 nwc

mathematics Orchestra and piano from around 1994]

mathematics midi file  mathematics nwc format

 Some people are inherently ambiguous. It is like Kant noticed about some areas in which Reason can not enter and if it tries it ends up with self contradictions "antinomies". So there are people like that..For Example General McClellan. The general that defeated Robert E Lee at Antietam you would imagine there could not possibly anything ambiguous about. The person that defeated one of the smartest and best generals in history has to be clearly a winner. But no. Right after that battle--immediately he was fired by President Lincoln. There are so many sides to this issue that the best of the historians can do is treat different sides of him. Never getting one consistent picture.

Other people are clear. They stand for one thing and pursue that consistently. [Like Winston Churchill.]

A confession--I am more like the first type. The only reason I tend to be consistent in my views is that that is something I learned in Musar books. [Starting from the Chovot Levavot (Obligations of the Hearts). But I also saw that in Orchot Tzadikim.] 

slander even refers to truth.

 Actually slander even refers to truth. There are times that one must say negative things but that is to warn someone. Otherwise even true fact are slander. [There are a few verses that refer to this subject. from different angles. One thing is "Rekilut" saying true things [even positive things] that can bring hatred between one person and another. [Like praising General Grant in front of General Lee.] Another thing is "Lashon Hara" which is saying negative things--even if true unless to warn someone.

[So why is true lashon hara forbidden? To R. Yona of Grondi [author of Shaarai Teshuva] is because of collateral damage. That is: the person might be subject to punishment that otherwise he would not get according to the Law of Moses. An example from the Gemara itself is testifying alone in a court of law. Since he is alone his testimony can not be accepted and so it is lashon hara. Some Rishonim disagree and hold that true lashon hara is forbidden in and of itself. Only in specific cases of the need to warn others is it permitted

[It is somewhat of a shock to me to see that most people do not even know that lashon hara is forbidden. 

 People that think Marxism was meant to bring prosperity and happiness to people have never read the poetry of Marx. But the actual way the Communists Manifesto is stated it sounds as if it is meant for happiness. Marx openly acknowledges the tremendous power of capitalism to create an abundance of good. But he also claims that that is just one last stage before communism in which the middle man the owner of the factory will be eliminated and the workers will have the full share of their labor. To him the factory owner is extracting excess value from the workers. [Based on the labor Theory of Value that the value something has is a result of how much labor went into making it. But that is simply not the case. The value something has is how much you want it. Air has lots of value to me even though no one put any effort into making it.]

That is a cleaver way of getting people to imagine that they have been victimized and the best solution is to kill the rich.

But the real intent I think is contained in the poetry of Marx -that is to destroy everything.