אהיה אשר אהיה. I will be that I will be. (In King James it is "I Am")

 אהיה אשר אהיה.  "I will be that I will be" is future tense. (In King James, it is "I Am") Unfortunately, this is thought to be present tense. If Being would be God, then this would make sense. But we see in Plotinus that Being is only the last Emanation of God. God is far above Being.

אהיה אצלו שעשועים is not a counter example. It means "I will be by Him delight daily." There is no reason to say it is present tense.  Not that it is wrong to concentrate on Being. But that is not the same as God. It is the lowest manifestation of God.

Gemara Zevachim pg 6. זבחים ו 'ע''א

 I was contemplating that difficult piece in Rav Shach that I mentioned a few days ago.

It occurs to me what the problem is. Let me first bring the gemara. We want to know why one inheritor can do exchange and two can not. And we bring a verse to show that. Then we ask from masar sheni (the second tithe) where we have the same sort of verse and yet two inheritors can do exchange the fruit for money and then when they get to Jerusalem they exchange the money for local fruit and eat it there.. We show that the inheritors of the animal dedicated for sacrifice are joint owners in terms of forgiveness of sin but not monetary value. That can not apply to maasar sheni where there is no relevance to forgiveness so they both can do hilul. 

The question of Rav Shach is from Torat Kohanim [which is something like the Tosephta--a book of tenaim but not included in the Mishna]. There the same idea about maasar sheni is brought and the Raavad explains it in two ways. One that maasar sheni is owned by the owners. The other is that i is owned by heaven. 

So the question Rav Shach is asking is clear. If that teaching [braita] in Torat Kohanim is like the opinion maasar sheni is secular  then that Gemara in zevachim which is apparently going like the opinion light sacrifices are the money of heaven is asking according to a different opinion.

At least the question is clear. The answer? I think Rav Shach is saying that this Gemara hold light sacrifices are the money of heaven and maasar sheni is secular. This does no appear openly in Rav Shach but it is the only way I can make sense of his answer.

__________________________________________________________________________

זבחים ו 'ע''א

 We want to know why one יורש can do תמורה and two can not. And we bring a verse to show that.המיר ימיר. Then we ask from מעשר שני where we have the same sort of verse גאול יגאל, and yet two יורשים can do חילול. We show that the יורשים of the בהמה dedicated for sacrifice are joint owners in terms of כפרה but not ממון. That can not apply to מעשר שני where there is no relevance to forgiveness so they both can do חילול. The question of רב שך is from תורת כהנים. There the same idea about מעשר שני is brought and the הראב''ד explains it in two ways. One that מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט. The other is that  is ממון גבוה. So the question רב שך is asking is clear. If that teaching  in תורת כהנים is like the opinion מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט  then that גמרא זבחים ו ע''א which is apparently going like the opinion קדשים קלים ממון גבוה is asking according to a different opinion. At least the question is clear. The answer? I think רב שך is saying that this גמרא מחזיקה קדשים קלים ממון גבוה and מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט. This does no appear openly in רב שך but it is the only way I can make sense of his answer.

זבחים ו'ע''א

 אנחנו רוצים לדעת למה יורש אחד יכול לעשות תמורה ושניים לא. ואנחנו מביאים פסוק להראות את זה .המיר ימיר. אחר כך אנחנו שואלים את מעשר שני איפה יש לנו אותו סוג של פסוק גאול יגאל, ובכל זאת שני יורשים יכולים לעשות חילול. אנו מראים כי היורשים של הבהמה המוקדשים להקרבה הם בעלים משותפים מבחינת כפרה אך לא ממון. זה לא יכול לחול על מעשר שני שבו אין רלוונטיות לסליחה אז שניהם יכולים לעשות חילול. שאלת רב שך היא מתורת כהנים. שם מובא אותו רעיון על מעשר שני והראב''ד מסביר אותו בשני אופנים. אחד שמעשר שני הוא ממון הדיוט. השני הוא ממון גבוה. אז השאלה שרב שך שואל ברורה. אם ההוראה ההיא בתורת כוהנים היא כדעת מעשר שני הוא ממון הדיוט אזי שגמרא זבחים ו' ע''א שהולך לכאורה כדעת קדשים קלים ממון גבוה שואל לפי דעה אחרת. לפחות השאלה ברורה. התשובה? אני חושב שרב שך אומר שהגמרא מחזיקה קדשים קלים ממון גבוה ומשר שני זה ממון הדיוט. זה לא מופיע בגלוי ברב שך אבל זו הדרך היחידה שבה אני יכול להבין את התשובה שלו.

  

  

one is not supposed to intend to be connected with dead people.

You can see in the Mishna Seder Purity that there is a certain kind of uncleanliness that emanates from a dead body. This is called father of fathers of uncleanliness. In fact you can see in the Book of Numbers  that this is the most severe type of uncleanliness that there is. All other types are fathers of uncleanliness or the derivates.

[I spent a lot of time on this while at Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY but I have forgotten most of it.] But even though I have forgotten most of this subject, it does occur to me to mention that there really is no reason to go to graves of the righteous. 

In Torah, one is not supposed to intend to be connected with dead people. This is well explained in the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin [a major disciple of the Gra.]] Rather, one is supposed to intend to be connected with God. To intend to be connected with the dead is an extremely disgusting sort of idolatry. 

Rav Avraham Abulafia from the Middle Ages

If one looks at Rav Avraham Abulafia from the Middle Ages you will see he held that Jesus was "the seal of the sixth day." [Clearly a reference to the idea of messiah the son of Joseph.] 

However, this does not imply much along the lines of Christian theology. Already Saadia Gaon noted the two basic issues in which Christians got the whole thing wrong. One is that one can be a great tzadik and still not be God. But there are many levels of tzadikim. The greatest are thought to be the patriarchs, Moshe [Moses], Aaron Joseph and David. These are all thought to be souls of Emanation. [But not the only ones. ]And Emanation is something like a cup of water flowing forth and down. That is the Light of God flows forth from him in Adam Kadmon, Akudim, Brudim Nekudim until Emanation. So all these worlds are pure Godliness--in that there is no division between them and God Himself. Even though they are all very far from God and not God himself. So souls of Emanation also are pure godliness but not God.

This applies to Jesus also.

And clearly there are plenty people who have souls whose root is much lower. They might be from Creation, Foundation or Action.[Asiah].

Another issue is "bitul HaMitzvot"--i.e. that Christians think Jesus came to say that the commandments of the Torah no longer are applicable-which contradicts what Jesus said openly about this very issue.

And further, they think Jesus came to disagree with the Oral Law. That also contradicts what Jesus said openly in Mathew chapter 23. "The Scribes sit on the seat of Moses and so everything they say to do that you must obey and do..." And then he goes on to say a very clear fact that the religious tend to be hypocrites. But there were some of the Pharisees that were evil and hypocrites just like today. That does not mean all. Nor does it imply a lack in Torah, not the Oral or Written Law. 

Most of what passes for "Torah" is false.

 Most of what passes for "Torah" is false. The way you know this is by the Mishna in Sanhedrin [perek Chelek] where it lists those who have no portion in the next world. Then there is added to this category "he who reads outside books." The Rif and Rosh both explain "outside books"  as books that give explanations of Torah  that are not from the sages of the Mishna and Gemara.

[What are books of Chazal (the Sages) that explain verses of the Old Testament? The Midrash. e.g. Midrash Raba. Tanchuma, Sifrei Sifra, Mechilta, etc.]

Therefore most of what passes as "Torah" nowadays thus comes under the category of "outside books". 

So outside books do not refer to Natural Sciences. Rather this refers specially to books that claim to be books of Torah but give different explanations from what is brought in the Midrash and Gemara.

"devakut" [attachment with God]

There is an aspect of attachment with God that is not understood in  philosophy. This is the advantage of the Friesian School of thought that has an approach that sees that attachment with God is in the node of value that is all content but no form.

It is a lack in philosophy that does not see "devakut" [attachment with God] this as a legitimate area of value. However a lot of religious inspiration is from the Dark Side.

So I can see the point of avoiding the issue. However I would like to suggest that devekut is a valid area of value.  

[There is an area of value that is all form, no content like logic. Another that has less form and more content. Math which can not be reduced to logic as per Godel. Other areas like music have more content and less for. You can go on until devekut which is all content and no for,

most of what passes today as "Torah "is in fact Torah of the Dark Side.

 You can see in the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov [vol I .perek 33] that there is such a thing as "Torah of the Sitra Achra (Evil Realm.)" And most of what passes today as "Torah "is in fact Torah of the Dark Side.  And even further, you can see in the LeM that there are many teachers of Torah who are demons. תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. So to me it makes no sense to listen to the idiots that spout out what they think is "Torah".

Either you get the real thing--learn authentic Torah at a Litvak Yeshiva based on the Gra, or nothing at all.