מוקצה מחמת גופו would be coins on Shabat. But that itself is an argument between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel concerning  bones. To Rashi that refers to bones that are totally inedible. And yet and thus. מוקצה מחמת גופו. In the Mishna Beit Hillel forbids and then the Gemara turns to Mishna around so that Beit Hillel turn out to be the ones who permit. And that goes along with the regular law that to R. Shimon Muktze only applies to Yom Tov. 

Still there are opinions in the Gemara that limit what R Shimon says--even though everyone agrees that the law is like him. So I have never written about this because people that want to be strict have some opinions to depend on. It is just that I am not looking for ways of being extra stringent. What the Torah forbids is enough for me

 

x81 short song i thought of at the beach I am thinking to work on this a bit.  X81 in midi

General Robert E Lee. And the Union was voluntary. So it is like you have a marriage where both enter into the agreement voluntarily, and then one starts to abuse the other. Is there any question that one has the right to leave that arrangement? What right would the other party have to bring guns and cannon to the table to make the other party stay?

 I was thinking about General Robert E Lee and his devotion to do what is right at all cost. So I thought about what was he thinking at the beginning of the Civil War? And it occurred to me that he must not have been thinking about secession as much as the Constitution itself.(And as far as slavery went, the Supreme Court had decided the issue based on the Constitution in the Dred Scot decision. For the Constitution itself never addressed the issue so automatically it went under the 9th and tenth ammendment that everything not addressed in the Constitution goes to the states.). So as far as anyone could see, the North was trampling's the rights of the states. And the Union was voluntary. So it is like you have a marriage where both enter into the agreement voluntarily, and then one starts to abuse the other. Is there any question that one has the right to leave that arrangement? What right would the other party have to bring guns and cannon to the table to make the other party stay?

 Rav Israel Salanter began the Musar Movement with the awareness that to be a mensch [good character] is a main thing-- even though this might not be clear from a straight reading of the Oral and Written Law. to be aware of the importance of 'midot tovot' good character really takes faith in the Rishonim. But this message has been lost in time. Even in the great Litvak yeshivot where Musar is learned, this emphasis on good character traits has been lost while religious fanaticism has taken its place [or all sorts of other weird ideas]. What ever happened to straight Torah? The best idea therefore is to renew the Musar Movement--but this time not to mix it with foreign ideas. Just straight Musar of the Rishonim [and the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter that go along with that approach.] 

And remember what the Rif and Rosh wrote about "Outside books" ספרים חיצונים [that one loses his portion in the next world by reading]-books that explain the Torah in ways other than the Midrash of the sages. Most religious books come under this category. 

Why Rishonim are important is that in philosophy and logic the Middle Ages excelled in rigorous logic even though the axioms were often faulty. After the Middle Ages even the best of  authors were often guilty of circular logic..

 Even though there is a lot to be learned in the Litvak world, I think that the essential flaw is making use of Torah for the sake of making a living. But if that would be all that was problematic I would say one could depend on the Beit Yoseph in his commentary on the Rambam where he defends this practice. But where I find the problem is that it leads to the attitude: "I deserve your money because in my merit the whole world stands". I mean, this sort of odd attitude of the religious that they are somehow superior beings that the rest of us low-lives are supposed to support.

[However I must make an exception for the great roshei yeshivot that I knew, Rav Friefeld of Shar Yashuv, and Rav Shmuel Berenbaum of the Mir.--who were really sincere and dedicated to Torah for its own sake.]

review once per day for a long extended period

I had heard that in Breslov, there was this idea of review forty day in a row of that specific Torah lesson that relates to one's problem. To a large degree this idea of review once per day for a long extended period of time seemed to help me in understanding in  other areas besides the book of Rav Nahman. For example the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk. When I would read through one section one day several times, that never seemed to help me understand as well as if I would just read it through once and then the next day read it through again-just once. And thus continue for a few weeks.[That was when I did not have my learning session with David Bronson where we went through Reb Chaim in his usual painstaking word by word sort of way.] 

I also found this in Physics and Mathematics. I would take one subject and review it for forty days in a row and that helped a lot more than review one day many times.