I wish I would have something to say about Rav Kinyevsky. The books of his father --the set of Kehilat Yaakov were around when I was in Shar Yashuv, but I did not get a chance to learn them while I was there,-though I am sure that all the books of the great Litvak sages are important. Mainly that would be the Kehilat Yaakov, the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, and the books of his disciples. The thing was that while I was in yeshiva, I was struggling just to get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot and as much Maharsha as I could manage. The later achronim were just too much for meat that point. And later I did not have the merit to be able to sit and learn as I should have. חבל על דאבדין 

--So if I could I would try to make up for my lack of education by getting through the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Kehilat Yaakov of  the father of Rav Kinyevsky.  Part of the problem for me is that I tend to need a sort of Litvak Yeshiva to be able to spend the time on learning. There is a sort of energy I would get when I was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. Without that kind of environment, it is hard to learn. Maybe that is no excuse, but that is just the way things are for me. And maybe there is a lesson to be learned here about how important it is to have a Litvak Study Hall [Beit Midrash] where one can learn. I have not had anything like that for many years. 

Bava Batra 26b and page 81 in the Shita Mekubetzet. Rav Shach in the Rambam הלכות ביכורים פרק ב הלכות י' עד יג'

 I have been thinking about  the argument between Ula and R. Yochanan. To Ula, if one has a fruit bearing tree within 16 amot [cira 16 yards] of the border of his field with his neighbor he can not bring first fruits because he is a thief. To R.Yochanan he can. At first  Rav Shach said the argument is who owns the fruit. To Ula the source of the sustenance is what matters, while the tree itself is just to process the sustenance, So the fruit belong to who owns the ground. [And so in our case the roots of the tree get sustenance partly from the nearby ground partly from that of his neighbor.]     To R. Yochanan the owner of the tree owns the fruit. Later Rav Shach brought a different explanation of Ula.The reason is that he shows the roots of the tree up until 16 amot are  owned by the owner of the tree. This he sees as a contradiction to what he wrote before. This point has eluded me for weeks already.

If the roots are owned by the owner of the tree., what has that to do with the fruit?

I am being a bit short here, for this is really based on Rabainu Chananel 

 z13 this is a recent music file.

 In many verses in the Old Testament it says that God helps those that trust in Him. הבוטחים בהשם כהר ציון לא ימוט לעולם.(Those that trust in God are like Mount Zion which will never be moved ) והבוטח בהשם חסד יסובבנו(He who trusts in God, kindness will surround him.).ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם (Blessed is he who trusts in God) and that last verse in Jeramiah goes into the benefits that are gained by one who trust in God. There does not seem to be any argument about if one is required also to do השתדלות (effort) also or not. For both to Ibn Pakuda [Obligations of the Hearts] and the Gra, effort is not necessary. [There is however a difference. To Ibn Pakuda, effort is not needed for one who accepts on himself the yoke of the service of God. To the Gra effort is not needed at all. One is decreed to come to you, will come whether you like it or not.]

 I was at the sea and pondering the Kesef Mishna and the Gra about that argument in Gitin 47. And it occurred to me that that is the whole issue nowadays about shemitaשמיטה the seventh year. In short the question is: Is property that is owned by an idolater in Israel is obligated in truma and tithes or not? The Kesef Mishna [Rav Josef Karo] has two approaches.  One is that as long as that land has not been bought back, obligations like truma and tithe (and thus also shemita) are not applicable. The Gra and the Maharit consider this answer to be a mistake. To them either יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר או אין לו כוח

Either if the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land apply or they don't. You can not have it two ways.

This is the source of the  argument between the Gra and Beit Yoseph about the meaning of  יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר או אין לו כוח Either if the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land apply or they don't. 

If you hold the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land do not apply means the land becomes not Israel and needs to be reconquered anew is the Gra and Maharit or it does not is the approach of the the Beit Yosef. Rav Shach I saw has a way of justifying the approach of the Beit Yosef even though it seems to be against the simple approach of the Gemara- But I have not yet had a chance to be able to see what Rav Shach says there.

 According to one of the great Litvak sages, Naftali Troup,(חידושי הגרנ''ט) the commandment of honor your father and mother is positive command that has attached to it the punishment of death when not obeyed as in the case of the rebellious son. He brings this directly from the Rambam. You can see why in the religious world this commandment is ignored because religious leaders want the authority to dictate what the Torah commands us.

[Honor of one's parents--to listen and obey them-has a death penalty attached to it as we see in the case of the rebellious son בן סורר ומורה in Deuteronomy. The laws about it are brought in Sanhedrin in the chapter "The rebellious son". Sadly enough I never got to learn this subject in depth with my learning partner. We got close to it by learning to the end of the previous chapter, but then we switched to some other subject--I forget which.]

The religious world however has all values the opposite from Torah. They want to be in charge of you. They want that you should listen to their leaders, not your parents. They are also against family values. They want your wife to listen to them, not to her husband. The religious world is sadly enough, one terrible fraud.

[Later note] It s not that every time your father tells you something, that there is the death penalty for disobeying. Rather the condition of the rebellious son are much harder to get to. Still in essence the idea is the same, though one can not be held liable legally.

But what people do not take into consideration is that even the most simple act of not listening to one's father --or mother--even one time is a component of the death penalty. It is like --for example if one picks up  an object in a private domain and puts his hand into a public domain and someone else picks the object out of his hand. He has done half of what it takes to be liable. I realize this is a hard lesson to swallow, but it is true. Next time your mother or father tell you something, and you do not listen, you ought to think twice.

 black hole music file

רוח הקודש

I had been in Uman for Rosh Hashanah so the last one was written while waiting [in the airport near Kiev] for a plane back to the USA.

The first one I do not recall how or when the basic music line was written. Clearly it was around the same time.