R. Hanina ben Tradion was killed and the Roman authorities decreed that his daughter must stay in house of prostitution. She was the sister of the wife of R. Meir [of the Mishna]. R. Meir went to redeem her. The owner said, "If I let you redeem her, and the authorities find out, they will kill me." R. Meir said: "Just say this prayer, 'May the God of R. Meir save me.'" The other asked how do I know that will work? RM said lets go and find out. They went to a building that was guarded by savage dogs. The prayer worked. So She was redeemed and later in fact the authorities found out and tried to arrest the owner nd he said the prayer and was saved. Then the authorities found out that it was R. Meir that had caused the trouble and tried to arrest him and he fled to Babylon [in modern day Iraq].

In stories of the sages you see nothing like "stories of tzadikim" that aim to elevate the subject. However in this case there is an aspect of seeing the greatness of one of the sages of the mishna. 

the Prushim [known in the New Testament as the "Pharisees."

I was in the Na Nach Breslov place yesterday  and noticed a book that brings lots of the stories of the Gemara and Midrash. מעשי גדולים. [The third vol by Nisim Gaon paragraph 740] There is brought a statement of the sages that there are seven kinds of Pharisees [Prushim] that are destroyers of the world.[note 1] And there Rav Nisim Gaon brings an event that gives an example of one type of Pharisee that one needs to be careful to avoid. One person was in a foreign country, and had made a lot of money in his work there. Then on his way home, he had to stay over Shabat in one town. He thought to himself, "To whom can I entrust my money over Shabat until Sunday?" He saw someone with all the religious clothing and gear and Talit and Tefilin that advertises that one is religious. He thought to himself "To whom better could I find trustworthy to entrust my money?" So he gave it to the religious guy to hold until after Shabat. On Sunday morning, he went to the fellow's house and asked for his money back. The fellow asked, "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life." 

Since that was all the money he had and for which he had worked for years, he was upset. He prayed to God: "I did not trust that man, I trusted in Your Name, the name of God that is written in the Tefilin. The Elisha the prophet came to him and said, "Go now to that man's house. He is not home and his wife will answer the door and tell her that her husband sent you to pick up the money, and give her certain signs." He did so and got his money back. When the husband returned home and found out what she had done he said, "Enough of this. Let's go back to our original faith"--[They were Samaritans] 

There are other statements of the Chazal [sages] that held the religious hypocrites are to be avoided and they specifically mention the Prushim [known in the New Testament as the "Pharisees." So we see that the groups Jesus was being critical of was not the sages of the Gemara nor their fore-runners. Rather the groups of the super religious just like you have nowadays with their show of religiosity to get money. They have nothing in common with the sages of the Mishna and Gemara.

[Besides that, I might mention that the religious clothing is for me the first sign to run away. ]

[note 1] The actual Gemara starts out that there are seven types of Pharisees that are destroyers f the world and then lists seven that wear out the world.  יש שבעה מיני פרושים שהם מכלה עולם ואלה הם השבעה שהם מבלה עולם. At any rate we see the sages of the Mishna did  not count themselves as part of teh group of the Pharisees. It is common for Christians to put these two groups together, but that is not correct. Nor did Jesus say anything against the sages of the mishna nor they actual forerunners who were the scribes. Not the groups of religious fanatics called the Pharisees. 

[There are however one or two places where it looks as though the prushim are joining with the scribes in being critical of Jesus. However in words of jesus himself you never find a negative word about the scibes. This goes to show what I have always been saying--that true Torah is only in the Litvak world. Not the general religious world which is insane.]

 What do you learn from Sota? This seems complicated though at first it sounds simple. The Gemara in the beginning of tractate Nida says you learn from Sota that a doubt about purity in a private domain is pure. In a public domain it is not. Tosphot asks If we are learning from Sota then why not say a doubt in  apublic domain is pure only when there is prior status of purity? Answer: Sota has no prior status of purity since she was with someone he husband told her not to be with. Questions Tosphot: if so then why say doubt in a private domain is not pure even when there is a status of purity? Answer: the Sota is not definitely unclean. And yet the verse counts her as being unclean until she drinks the bitter waters. [That is in the verse והיא נטמאה] Rav Shach asks here then why not say in a public domain a doubt is pure even when there is prior status of being unclean? [That is Rav Shach [in Laws of Sota] is asking from the standpoint of symmetry. The verse makes unclean in a private domain even against prior status so it ought to make clean in a public domain even against prior status.] This a powerful question. Answer: The Sota does not actually have prior status in a public domain of even being a doubt. [AS Rav Chaim of Brisk points out in his "Chidushei HaRambam" as Rav Shach brings here in Laws of Sota]. [The warning given by her husband is what makes all the laws of Sota come into play. Not that is is in fact any real doubt. As we see in Ketuboth page 9 that a doubt of  a doubt is enough to permit a wife when there was not warning. ]So you learn from Sota to allow a doubt in a public of cleanliness in a public domain--but not when there is an actual prior status of uncleanliness.

So what has been  bothering me is that in some ways you learn from Sota to things that are not like Sota at all.-e.g. doubts about if something is clean of not when there is no actual doubt in the case of a sota.

And yet here we are requiring an exact parallel to Sota. Since she has no prior status of being unclean so we would not learn from her to permit such a case in a public domain.

[I am being a bit short here but I think my question is clear. If we need an exact parallel to Sota to learn from her, then let's do that all the way. If we do not need a exact parallel, then let's do that all the way! Why this sort of divergence?] 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 What do you learn from סוטה? This seems complicated though at first it sounds simple. The גמרא in the beginning of tractate נידה says you learn from סוטה that a doubt about purity in a רשות היחיד is pure. In a public domain it is not. תוספות asks If we are learning from סוטה then why not say a ספק in  a public domain is טהור only when there is חזקת טהורה? Answer: סוטה has no חזקת טהרה since she was with someone he husband told her not to be with. תוספות שואלים: if so, then why say doubt in a private domain is טמא even when there is a חזקת טהרה? Answer: the סוטה is not definitely טמאה. And yet the verse counts her as being טמאה until she drinks the bitter waters. That is in the verse והיא נטמאה. Then רב שך asks here then why not say in a ספק ברשות הרבים  is pure even when there is חזקת טומאה? That is רב שך בהלכות סוטה is asking from the standpoint of symmetry. The verse makes unclean in a private domain even against חזקת טהרה so it ought to make clean in a public domain even against חזקת טומאה.] This a powerful question. Answer: The סוטה does not actually have חזקה in a public domain of even being a doubt. AS רב חיים מבריסק points out in his חידושי הרב''ם as רב שך brings here in הלכות סוטה]. The warning given by her husband is what makes all the laws of סוטה come into play. Not that is any real doubt. As we see in כתובות דף ט that a doubt of  a doubt is enough to permit a wife when there was not warning. So you learn from סוטה to allow a doubt in a רשות הרבים, but not when there is an actual חזקת טומאה. So what has been  bothering me is that in some ways you learn from סוטה to things that are not like סוטה at all -e.g. doubts about if something is clean או not when there is no actual doubt in the case of a סוטה. And yet here we are requiring an exact parallel to סוטה. Since she has no חזקת טומאה so we would not learn from her to permit such a case in a public domain. I am being a bit short here but I think my question is clear. If we need an exact parallel to סוטה to learn from her, then let's do that all the way. If we do not need a exact parallel, then let's do that all the way! Why this sort of divergence? 

מה אתה לומד מסוטה? זה נראה מסובך אם כי בהתחלה זה נשמע פשוט. הגמרא בתחילת מסכת נידה אומרת שאתה לומד מסוטה כי ספק טוהר ברשות היחיד הוא טהור. בתחום הציבורי זה לא. תוספות שואלת אם אנו לומדים מסוטה, אז למה לא לומר ספק ברשות הציבור הוא טהור רק כשיש חזקת טהורה? תשובה: לסוטה אין שום חזקת טהרה מאז שהיא הייתה עם מישהו שבעלה אמר לה לא להיות איתו. תוספות שואלים: אם כן, אז מדוע לומר ספק בתחום פרטי הוא טמא גם כשיש חזקת טהרה? תשובה: הסוטה היא לא בהחלט טמאה. ובכל זאת הפסוק מונה אותה כטמאה עד שהיא שותה את המים המרים. זה בפסוק והיא נטמאה. ואז רב שך שואל כאן אז למה לא להגיד  ספק ברשות הרבים טהור גם כשיש חזקת טומאה? זהו רב שך בהלכות סוטה שואל מנקודת מבט של סימטריה. הפסוק מטמא בתחום פרטי אפילו כנגד חזקת טהרה, ולכן הוא צריך לנקות ברשות הרבים אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. זו שאלה חזקה. תשובה: לסוטה אין למעשה חזקה בתחום הציבורי. היא אינה אפילו ספק. כמו שרב חיים מבריסק מציין בחידושים  שלו כמו שרב שך מביאו כאן בהלכות סוטה]. האזהרה שנתנה בעלה היא שגורמת לכל חוקי סוטה להיכנס בפעולה. לא שזה ספק אמיתי. כפי שאנו רואים בכתובות דף ט' כי ספק ספק ספיקא כדי להתיר לאישה כאשר לא הייתה אזהרה. אז אתה לומד מסוטה לטהר ספק ברשות הרבים, אבל לא כשיש חזקת טומאה בפועל. אז מה שהפריע לי הוא שבמובנים מסוימים אתה לומד מסוטה לדברים שבכלל אינם דומים לסוטה -דוגמא ספקות אם משהו נקי או לא כאשר אין ספק בפועל במקרה של סוטה. ובכל זאת כאן אנו דורשים מקבילה מדויקת לסוטה. מכיוון שאין לה חזקת טומאה ולכן לא נלמד ממנה להתיר מקרה כזה ברשות הרבים. אני קצת קצר כאן אבל אני חושב שהשאלה שלי ברורה. אם אנו זקוקים להקבלה מדויקת לסוטה כדי ללמוד ממנה, אז בוא נעשה את זה עד הסוף. אם אנחנו לא צריכים הקבלה מדויקת, אז בואו נעשה את זה לאורך כל הדרך! מדוע סוג זה של סטייה

I wanted to add here that Rav Shach has a very nice way to answer for the Rambam who holds both the law about the mikve [unclean in private and public domain] and grain that has not been tithed.-the way is this the Gemara says the Rabanan do not learn from the start of uncleanliness to the end. That means they do not learn everything from Sota--only one part. That part is in the private domain she is unclean until she drinks the bitter waters. And the Rabanan do not learn from her law in the public domain. If they would any doubt of uncleanliness in the public domain would be pure. But they do not learn from her that. Rather they say in teh public domain also a doubt about uncleanliness is  unclean. And this has nothing to do with two hazakot joining together. Rather they hold that two hazakot join together to make a doubt, not a definite case.. And thus the barrel that has gone sour  and tithe was taken from grain--the grain is a doubt because two hazakot join to make a doubt. A very clear answer to this very puzzling Rambam. 

Just to make this a bit more clear the Gemara asks this. A mikve can be a pool if the water that got into it was not carried. But it also can not be a vessel. and it must contain 40 seah.  

 't Hooft has an approach to Quantum Mechanics that is realistic. That is he derives the regular equations based on information loss of black holes which is a classical result. [That is what happens when black holes evaporate.] So it occurred to me that this is related to the ER= EPR conjecture in which all entangled states have worm holes connecting them. If this is so--as much evidence seems to indicate--then 't Hooft approach would be right.

And as Dr Kelley Ross pointed out that would be like Kant's empirical realism approach.[Empirical realism plus transcendental idealism.] And that is not like Bohr. That is in the debate between Einstein and Bohr, Einstein would be correct.

I have long thought that Rav Nahman is trying in the LeM to accomplish something along the lines that the Rambam was doing in the Guide for the Perplexed. While the Rambam was trying to find the right balance between Torah and Aristotle, Rav Nahman was trying to find the deeper meaning of Torah  in a way that relates to people. But I think that Rav Nahman is often taken out of context. I think it would be best to understand in him in a sense of continuing the Musar tradition of trying to see the practical implications of Torah and the big picture. 

I basically try to walk as much as I can in the path of my parents who were Reform Jews. That is ,-- I long for the the straight path of Torah, but I think the so called "religious" have nothing to do with Torah at all.

 I was reminded about the book Or Israel [The Light of Israel] on Rav Israel Salanter by his disciple Rav Isaac Blazer that had a powerful effect on me. I was thinking what was it? The basic thesis of the book is that the fear of God is the key to everything--all good in the world to come and to Torah.  I was struggling with Gemara at the Mir and I think that that was part of the effect this book had on me. It was giving me the key to come to understand Torah--and that is by fear of God which comes by learning Musar.  And even more so, it was showing that all good in the world to come is dependent on fear of God. People are not automatically moral. Rather--as Michael Huemer puts it, people are basically Amoral. They just learn to talk in moral terms but what really matters to them is not right and wrong what so ever. Only very few individuals have any real moral sense and because of them, others gain some vague sense of morality. [Kelley Ross would put it differently. He would say the people know moral principles but do not know that they know. This is Socratic ignorance that we do not know consciously  what we really deep inside do know. Our knowledge need to be brought into the open like the slave boy that did in fact know the answer to an geometric problem but did not know that he knew until Socrates by careful questioning brought his knowledge into the open.

[But I should add just for the sake of disclose that I basically try to walk as much as I can in the path of my parents who were Reform Jews. That is I  long for the the straight path of Torah, but I think the so called "religious" have nothing to do with Torah at all and if anything are on teh opposite extreme from Torah. All except teh straight Litvak yeshivot.]

z25 music file

 z25 C minor  midi   [z25 mp3]  [z25 nwc]