Rav Yaakov Emden and the Zohar.

 Rav Yaakov Emden was the beginning of looking at the Zohar in a way that would precede academia.

He decided that some parts were probably authentic documents from ancient sources like ספרא דצניעותא.

Besides that, it is mostly midrashim translated into Aramaic, and has a basic idea that is taking one word to mean the shechina and another word to mean tiferet. It also takes plenty of previous mystics of the Middle Ages [like the Ramban himself]  and translates them into Aramaic,

I did not find all that terribly inspiring. I have to add that the mystic tradition never started with the Zohar, but rather with Sefer Yezira, and there were plenty of mystics around in the Middle Ages way before the Zohar. [e.g the Ramban.]

But I would not think to spend time on it because of the phrase עם כל דא a medieval innovation of how to say "although" instead of the regular אף על פי. [How can an invention of the Middle Ages be in a book by R. Shimon ben Yochai? Answer: It is not. The book was written during the Middle Ages. The "Im kol da" is the smoking gun that shows when it was written.

So it is not from R. Shimon Ben Yochai.

[In short, the original events were thus.-- Isaac from Acco was in Spain, and met up with Moshe De'Leon and asked him about the Zohar. Moshe had been selling it page by page claiming it was from an ancient manuscript. So Isaac asked him about this, and said that people were claiming that there is no original. Moshe swore, "May G-d strike me down if I do not have an original manuscript, and I will show you when you come to my home." They had met up in a different city. On the way to his city Moshe de'Leon, in fact, was struck down, but Isaac continued and got to his home where his widow was. He offered to her a large sum of money just to see the original manuscript. She said, "There is no such thing. Rather he (Moshe DeLeon) was writing it from his head."]

The problem with Torah scholars that are demons as brought in the LeM of Rav Nahman is that once you know about the existence of these demons, it becomes hard to know where to find and learn true authentic Torah.

For that reason it occurs to me that it would be  a good idea to an authentic Litvak yeshiva in every city so that at least people could have an idea of what the Torah actual teaches- even if it is hard to keep everything.

The problem simply is that the Sitra achra has gotten mixed up with authentic Torah.  

However these so called "kollels" do not count. The problem with kollel is using Torah to make money simply is not legitimate. And the proof is in the pudding. But that is not teh only trouble. So some reason the entire religious world got to be so infiltrated by the Dark Side that there is almost no mitzvah one can do that counts. I mean to say for example an Etrog of the Sitra Achra or idolatry one does not fulfil the obligation of Etrog since  any object of idolatry has to be crushed up and destroyed. And since an Etrog requires a size, an etrog of the Sitra achra does not fulfill the mitzvah.

So even before you could have any yeshiva that is legitimate you would have to start listening to the Gra in the first place and his signature on teh letter of excommunication. 

[In the LeM vol I sec. 12 it seems the main thing about Torah scholars that are demons is the "shelo Lishma" aspect. [I.e., they learn Torah for money or honor. But I have avoided mentioning that because sometimes you can have a person in kollel who is learning Torah for its own sake but still just to survive has to accept money. He is not using Torah to make money but rather accepting charity as being the only way he can manage to continue learning Torah.  So the distinction between and authentic Torah scholar and a Torah scholar who is a demon is not at all that clear or easy to see. The best rule of thumb is to go by the Gra. Even though there might be exceptions even when people are following the path of the Gra, still that is the best indication of one learning Torah for its own sake.]

 There are certain values that are embedded in the holy Torah Private property is one. This is hard to miss in the  tractates that are learnt in Litvak yeshivot, Bava Kama, Bava Mezia, Bava Batra.

The idea of taking from rich people is mere theft. 

Theft is not a side or periphery issue in Torah but right in the Ten Commandments.

So there is not way a honest Jew can vote for the  Marxist agenda. 

You can not vote to steal money from people and then think you are a good Jew.

The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court,

As long as she is a nominee of President Trump, the Left will stop at nothing to try to destroy her. I do not think the Catholic thing is the major issue. The real issue is she is not a Marxist. She believes in the Ten Commandments. And to the Left, that is damning evidence.

The Left ought to just come out with it and ask:

 "Judge  Barrett, have you at any time obeyed your husband. Yes or No?"

the main repentance is that when one hears his insult to be quite and not answer.

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick  could have learned the LeM volume I section 6 and saved his life.

There is brought that the main repentance is that when one hears his insult to be quite and not answer. עיקר התשובה כשישמע בזיונו יידום וישתוק.

He had been insulted terribly by King Edward IV. He had been sent to France to arrange a marriage that would connect him to the royal family of France. When he returned Edward announced that he was already married. I.e. he made a joke out of Warwick. That kind of thing happened enough that finally Warwick took it to heart. [note 1] He was not in the category of hearing his insult and being quiet and accepting. One day after a few years Edward needed the help of Warwick. The reply was a deafening silence. Why? Because he was already making plans to overthrow Edward. That rebellion eventually failed and Warwick was killed. Can you imagine what would have happened if Warwick had been learning the LeM Torah lesson 6 about accepting one's insult?

But it is not just Warwick. Often people do not want to suffer a small hurt or insult and because of that end up suffering a much larger insult or hurt.

So the lesson to learn is to learn Torah lesson 6 in the LeM to remind oneself how important it is to not answer even though one has been insulted.

[note 1] The problem was it was not just an insult. Warwick felt that that was poor gratitude for helping Edward become king in the first place.

 I have a question on the ראב''ד. In Laws of forbidden relations [chapter 1. law 22] the ראב''ד says the reason a כהן gets lashes in a case of קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד is because of והיא נטמאה שכתוב לגבי סוטה. Now רב שך explains it thus. Normally והיא נטמאה means it is like the ערווה של היחסיים האסורים of ויקרא י''ח  which we learn from יבמות דף י''א about a סוטה. But a כהן is different. If his wife has had sex with someone even by rape she still is forbidden to her husband and so it is an איסור כהונה not ערווה. and so one witness is enough to get her husband lashes since it is  a regular law and one witness is believed in regular prohibition that are not עריות. To the ראב''ד, she is not a זונה because we do not believe one witness in the case of  a married woman. The question I have here is that the גמרא in יבמות makes no distinction between a כהן and a ישראל when it comes to an איסור סוטה which is the איסור of "והיא נטמאה". I mean to say that it say a סוטה does not get ייבום because טומאה is written by her and by that there is a גזירה שווה to עריות. So we see openly the גמרא makes no distinction between whether she is the wife of a  כהן or not. It is all עריות and if it is all עריות you need two witness!

יש לי שאלה על הראב''ד. בהלכות איסורי ביאה פרק א’ הלכה כ’’ב הראב''ד אומר הסיבה שכהן מקבל מכות במקרה של קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד היא בגלל והיא נטמאה שכתוב לגבי סוטה. עכשיו רב שך מסביר זאת כך. בדרך כלל והיא נטמאה פירושו שזה כמו הערווה של היחסים האסורים של ויקרא י''ח אותה אנו למדים  מן יבמות דף י''א על סוטה. אבל כהן הוא שונה. אם אשתו קיימה יחסי מין עם מישהו אפילו על ידי אנוס, היא עדיין אסורה לבעלה הכהן ולכן זהו איסור כהונה ולא ערווה. ולכן די בעד אחד כדי לקבל מלקות מכיוון שזה חוק רגיל ועד אחד נאמן באיסורים קבוע שאינם עריות. [בעיני הראב''ד היא איננה זונה משום שאיננו מאמינים לעד אחד במקרה של אישה נשואה.] השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהגמרא ביבמות לא מבחינה בין כהן לישראל כשמדובר באיסור סוטה שהוא האיסור של "והיא נטמאה". אני מתכוון לומר שזה אומר שסוטה לא מקבל ייבום כי טומאה נכתב על ידה ועל ידי כך יש גזירה שווה לעריות. אז אנו רואים בגלוי שבגמרא אין הבחנה בין אם היא אשתו של כהן או ישראל. הכל עריות ואם הכל עריות אתה צריך שני עדים

I just wanted to add here that the whole issue comes from the Gemara Yerushalmi that if you have a case of a husband warns his wife not to be alone with so and so and then she is alone with him and then there is one witness that saw her sleeping with him, then if her husband is a priest, then he gets lashes. The yerushalmi does not say why. The Rambam says because of Zona. The Raavad says because of "and she is unclean". Zona is only a prohibition for a priest. The issue of "and she is unclean" means that a sota is forbidden to her husband until she drinks water mixed with the ink of the parchment of the paragraph of Sota and some dust of the Temple. But if there is already one witness then even that solution is not possible. What makes our situation here worse is her husband is a priest.

A further question here is  that I am not sure I understand the answer of רב שך in explaining the ראב''ד at all. The idea that since והיא נטמאה is different for a כהן than for a ישראלי therefore it is an איסור כהונה. In what way is it different? If the יחסי מין  rape, then she is forbidden to her husband because of זונה. But that is the very thing the ראב''ד is holding no one would get lashes for since we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman for the איסור of זונה. If the sex was willingly, then it is the same prohibition for a Israeli and a כהן.

שאלה נוספת כאן היא שאני לא בטוח שאני מבין את התשובה של רב שך בהסבר על הראב''ד בכלל. הרעיון שמאז "והיא נטמאה" שונה עבור כהן מאשר עבור ישראלי ולכן הוא איסור כהונה. באיזה אופן זה שונה? אם היחסי מין היו באונס, אז אסור לבעלה בגלל זונה. אבל זה בדיוק הדבר שראב''ד מחזיק, שאף אחד לא יקבל מלקות מכיוון שאנחנו לא מאמינים לעד אחד במקרה של אישה נשואה לאיסור זונה. אם המין היה ברצון, אז זה אותו איסור עבור ישראלי וכהן.

I have a question on the Raavad. In Laws of forbidden relations [chapter 1. law 22] the Raavad says the reason a priest gets lashes in a case of warning and then her being alone with the other person (kinui and stira) and one witness is because of "and she is unclean".   

[Unclean is written  by a sota -a married woman who has been warned not to be alone with so and so and then in fact goes and is alone with so and so. ]

Rav Shach explain it thus. Normally "and she is unclean" means it is like the forbidden relations of Leviticus 18 [arayot] which we learn from Yevamot page 11 about a Sota. But a priest is different. If his wife has had sex with someone even by rape, she still is forbidden to her husband and so it is an isur [prohibition] priesthood (khuna) not arayot [forbidden relations which requires two witnesses]. And so one witness is enough to get her husband lashes since it is  a regular law and one witness is believed in regular prohibition that are not arayot.

[To the Raavad she is not a zona [a woman who is forbidden to a priest because she has sex with someone forbidden to her] because we do not believe one witness in teh case of  married woman.]

The question I have here is that the gemara in Yevmot makes no distinction between a kohen and a Israeli when it comes to an isur Sota which is the isur of "and she is unclean". I mean to say that it say a Sota does not get yibum because uncleanliness is written by her and by that there is a gezera Shava to arayot.. So we see openly the Gemara makes not distinction between whether she is the wife of a  kohen or mot. It is all Arayot and if it is all aryot you need two witness!

[I can not tell if my question is on the Raavad or Rav Shach or both.]

\

A further question here is  that I am not sure I understand the answer of Rav Shach in explaining the Raavad at all. The idea that since והיא נטמאה is different for a kohen than for a Israeli therefore it is an isur kehuna. Well in what way is it different? If the sex was rape then she is forbidden to her husband because of Zona. But that is the very thing the Raavad is holding no one would get lashes for since we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman for the isur of Zenut. If the sex was willingly, then it is the same prohibition for a Israeli and a kohen.