a mystic tradition

 What is the status of the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria] or the Remak [Moshe Cordoba]-if we notice that the Zohar is not really from R. Shimon ben Yochai? (note 1) But there was a mystic tradition.

 I think the closer we get to  areas outside  of conditions of possibility of experience, the easier it is to get into worlds of delusions.   So while the Ari and Moshe Cordoba were great tzadikim, it is hard to distinguish. to get an idea of legitimate continuance of the Ari, it is too easy to get involved in pure delusion.  [The best that are okay, are the Reshash (Sharabi), Rav Yakov Abuchazeira, the Ramchal.]  

(note 1) the world "although" in the Zohar is always expressed as "with all of this" עם כל דא and that is the Aramaic translation of עם כל זה and that is an expression invented by the Ibn Tibon family of translators during the Middle Ages. Therefore it could not have been written by R. Shimon ben Yochai.

Bava Batra page 26

 I know that most people are unclear about the issue of three trees. Or at least that is what I imagine to myself. After all I do not see anyone walking around at the sea that is worrying about that confusing issue in Bava Batra page 26. Or maybe they all have it clear so it does no bother them anymore. But at least for me I should say that in spite of my having written a few ideas on the Tosphot,  still I am unclear. One thing that has helped is looking at Rav Shach's Avi Ezri on Laws First Fruits.  

Just as an introduction let me just bring some basic facts. Ula said one who has owns a tree within 16 amot [circa yards] of the boundary of his friend, can not bring first fruits since he is a thief. [Thank God that someone noticed the problem. Rav Shach brings the Rashba on page 81 that asks this very question. There it says: one who buys tree owns around it כמלא אורה וסלו around it the width of one that  plows and his basket. The Rashba asks the obvious question: That is not 16 amot!  

Rav Shach himself brings this long and difficult subject and brings a few answers.

That does not look like the Mishna where there is an argument about how close to the boundary of his friend one can dig a pit or plant a tree. R.Yose says he can go right up until the edge, since one plants in hi own, and the other digs in his own.

 I wanted to mention that my dad was nothing like the sort of nerdy scientist that people have the stereo type image of. I mean he was the exact opposite.  But neither a macho he-man. He came across just as a regular guy. The only perceivable difference between him and the average Joe on the street was that he was a genius when it came to inventing Stuff that the USA government wanted. The Infrared Telescope, satellites using laser communication, the U-2 camera, plus tons of stuff that even to his family he could not say a word about.

I mean--he was not studying when he got home. As I knew him, he did his work at the lab at TRW and when he got home he did not think about it. But I knew that he and my mother were always thinking about how they were raising their children. That was their number one priority.

"Bitul Torah". I see myself obligated in learning Torah and the natural sciences -even when I can not do so.

 I see that where my world view disagrees with that of everyone else I meet is concerning the issue of "Bitul Torah". [Note 1]

This does not mean that I learn Torah much at all. And I admit that my idea of what constitutes learning Torah is  broader than what most people assume and much narrower also. I include the natural sciences as per the Rambam [in the Laws of Learning Torah Yad Hachazaka concerning what is included in learning Gemara.] And I exclude all the religious babble that is not Torah. [I.e. I only include in Oral Torah the exact books of the Mishna and Talmud and Midrashim. Plus on secondary level the commentaries. Nothing more.  That is like the Rambam wrote in one of his letters "Just like one can not add or subtract from the written Torah so one can not add or subtract from the Oral Torah."] [I see all Divine Law as one. The difference is as it applies to different things. Divine Law as it applies to physical things is comes to e known as Physics.  As it applies to human relationships and human affairs it is known as Torah.

But what I mean to say is that I see myself obligated in learning Torah and the natural sciences -even when I can not do so. That is to say, I am not looking for ways of having fun. I might need to relax in order to get energy up in order to learn. But my intension is to get up enough energy and enough mental energy to be able to learn. 

However I know that most people do not see things in this way. Even those that are sitting and learning most of the day and getting paid to do so. They see themselves as obermenschen. The rest of us plebeians were created to give them money --not to be learning Torah.

So there is almost no point of intersection that I have with almost anyone else--except for those that do learn Torah Lishma.[for its own sake]. And I must add that there certainly are people that learn lishma even though they get a kollel check. But those are people that get the check in order to learn,. 

[Note 1] Bitul Torah is the sin of not learning Torah when one has the time to do so. It is not the same thing as the minimum amount one is supposed to learn

 z65 music file  [most z files are in midi] z65 nwc

there is a limit to how far any ideas in the spirit realm can be taken as accurate.

 One should not get too impressed with spiritual ideas. That is the whole point of the Critique of Pure Reason. So while the ideas of Rav Nahman are great and important in terms of practical advice, there is a limit to how far any ideas in the spirit realm can be taken as accurate. They can only be accurate in the realm of conditions of possible experience. Outside of that we might have knowledge, but nothing like the religious babble.

The religious world is fraught with talk about spiritual ideas that they know nothing about.

Not that you can know nothing about spiritual reality. But that is immediate non intuitive knowledge that we know, but not through sense nor through reason [to Kelley Ross]. And to Hegel reason can reach even the Absolute. but that is not what religious babble is about. 

The most important responsibility of parents is to make sure their children grow up in a wholesome, moral society.

 The most important responsibility of parents is to make sure their children grow up in a wholesome, moral  society. This is because the influence of parents is highly limited-even in a society of ancient times where the role of parents was highly respected. Nowadays, the role of parents is thought be negative. 

הרבה שכנים עושים The priest says to the wayward woman "Confess your sin for neighbors (the general society) have a huge effect. "

\In a similar vein, one might be in a wholesome moral society like a Litvak yeshiva. The responsibility would be to stay within that context even if the parents think that for themselves a different context would be preferable. In fact, this fact alone shows how right the Gra was.

Parents might be highly motivated to do the best for their children, but if they do not know this principle, they are likely to believe what is good for them, is good for their kids. They do not stop and think what kind of group they are in already that is decent and wholesome.