There is  a strange dynamics in the religious world. That is  the hatred they have towards fry yidin (non religious). If this would be open that would be better. But they hide it because they need the money of secular Jews. They need to make pretend that we are all one family.

This affects baali teshuva [newly religious]. They are suspected of being flaky and ready on an instant's notice to return to their wayward ways. But I have not mentioned this in my blog before because I am not convinced that they are wrong. Baali teshuva are flaky. How else could it be? They, after all, threw out their parents. How loyal could they be to anyone else? 

The religious however make things worse because they despise fry yiden and that affects their attitude towards baali teshuva who are considered unter menschen [sub human]. After all the religious think that they themselves are uber menschen -super human.  This affects the area of shiduhim [marriage offers]. The baal teshuva thinks he is accepted as one of the family. And when a shiduch [a date with intent to see if marriage is possible] is offered, he thinks it is in good faith. But the religious only offer to baali teshuv baali mumim. [Girls with a hidden defect.]

 It is not well known that the Gra would not have held of the idea of paying people to learn Torah. You can see in his commentary  on Pirkei Avot on the Mishna in the first chapter that says not to use Torah to make money from he brings the event with the vessels of the Temple that were used by the king of Babylon. And also he brings the actual verse of Meila. [That is the prohibition of using something that was dedicated to the Temple for one's own use]. 

How does meila work? It is like this. Let's say you have a pen and you say, ''This pen is sanctified to the Temple.''  At that point, you can not use it,- nor anyone else. It must be brought to the Temple and sold and the proceeds go to different needs of the Temple.  This is how the Gra sees learning Torah. One must not get paid for doing so because that is the same as using a vessel that has been dedicated to the Temple.

 There is a difference in the middle ages from the fall of Rome until around the high middle ages. [Aquinas Rambam, Ibn Rushd.] Until then people were going with the neo platonic philosopher. Plotinus. so in understanding the unity of God, they were going with the idea of emanation --or an overflowing of God's light. but at no point were they saying that only God exists. Rather they understood there is a difference between the Creator and the created. But the problems of reconciling pure Monotheism [Divine Simplicity] with Neo-Platonic thought, led to abandoning Plotinus and going with Aristotle. Muslims had been going with Aristotle for a long time. But Jews and Christians had been trying for  to go with Plotinus. At some point. they gave up and decided that was not going to work. So you get the Rambam going a lot more with Aristotle than his predecessors. [But not completely. He still retains a lot of Neo Platonic thought.] Then finally, Aquinas made the final jump to Aristotle. 

But as Kelley Ross noted, that jump might have landed everyone in more problems than they started out with. When those problems became apparent. it would have made sense to rethink things and return to Plato. [taking kant into accountin understanding plato]

[I should add that not all Rishonim were on board with either philosopher. The one that comes tomind in Nahmanidess. And it is his approach  that is the reason the religious world is against all philosophy [as David Bronson pointed out to me.]  

 z83 music file

 כל העוסק בלימודו כעוסק בבניינו anyone who is involved with its study is considered as though he is involved with its building. But most people are not all that inspired by the idea of building the Temple. Even when the holy mount where the temple needs to be built was in the hands of Israel, the state gave it right back to the Wafk [The Muslim authorities]. So what I recommend is to learn the laws of the Temple. in the hope that someday we may merit to it rebuilding

 I feel sad that i did not get a lot of encouragement in learning Torah. In fact, I had obstacles from people and even mental obstacles. Yet I noticed that Rav Shach points out in one of his introductions to the Avi Ezri  that the way of acquiring Torah is not like acquiring other wisdoms. Other wisdoms come through natural means. Acquiring Torah is not in that way. So I realize that if I have any portion in Torah at all, I probably have to be grateful for the obstacles that have made it hard.

 The New Testament shows that Jesus was a Jewish Tzadik. He is not claiming anything like the Christian churches say he is claiming. He is not breaking the Law nor telling others to do so. He is not claiming worship but says openly to worship God alone not him. examples are too numerous for me to go into here.

Someone called him "good". And he answered do not call me "good". Only God is good.

From where do misunderstandings come from? From the same sort of insane religious idiots that abound today that call anyone who disagrees with them as a apikorus  and breaker of the Law, though they themselves are amei haaretz ignorant of the Law.  

[I wrote the above paragraphs in short form because I was tired and it was late over here on this side of the pond. But even so it is hard to know from what point to expand on this topic. In terms of the Law, see the Rosh (Rabbainu Asher) in Tractate Shabat where adding water to soil in not a desecration of Shabat. Also in terms of washing hands there are  two sources for this. One is a decree because of the priests eating truma. If that is the actual law then in fact, it is required always before eating bread. But then it has laws involved with it that few people observe. E.g., the vessel has to be totally dry because otherwise the water on the sides becomes unclean as so as the hand touches it and that water on the hand does not become pure when water is next poured on it.  That is why you see Lithuanian roshei yeshiva dry the vessel before pouring. The other reason is from the Gemara in Chulin [perek 8] מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה "The first waters are a good deed. The second are allowed. The third are an obligation." Thus the first waters are a good thing to do but not an obligation.

I think a simple reading of the NT will show anyone that Jesus referred to himself as to be a "son of man", [never "son of God"]. And when the idea of "son of God" was applied to him and he agreed  with that, it is not all that different from the verse in Deuteronomy  "אתם בנים להשם אלקיכם אל תשימו קרחה בין עינים למת"  You are the children of the Lord your God, therefore do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a dead person as a sign of mourning" [That is not an exact quote, but anyway you get the idea.]

In Israel many people put on their cars a sign תודה אבא Thank you Father. [That does not refer to their physical father but rather to our Father who art in Heaven. Thus referring to God as one's father in not heresy.