z88 music file

Rav Nachman did not say to go to his grave on Rosh Hashanah. He did however say so for the tikun klali, but not Rosh Hashanah. For Rosh Hashanah he said to come to him. He never said anything about his grave in connection with Rosh Hashanah. 

 דאשתמש בתגא חלף "One who uses the crown passes away." מכאן אמרו כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל חייו מן העולם "From here they said, 'Anyone who derives benefit from words of Torah, takes his life out of the world.'"

Pirkei Avot chapter 4 mishna 7. see commentary of Rambam who writes that the roshei yeshiva who say it isamitzvah to give money to yeshivot are liars It is a strong sort of language that you do not see usually in the words of the Rambam. But it seems that he saw that Torah was becoming a business and saw this would    bring about a situation lie we see nowadays--when the vast majority of those who claim to be learning and teaching Torah are hypocrites.

זבחים ט ע''א פסחים ס''ב tractate zevachim page 9 and pesachim page 62

 Even though רב שך writes that the רמב''ם holds the leftover פסח sacrifice does not need עקירה from the name פסח and rather becomes automatically a קרבן שלמים I think he must have been aware of how weak this idea is. For he himself brings two powerful refutations of this very idea. One he tries to escape with a weak answer what is called a דוחק. The other he does not answer at all. The first refutation is this: the רמב''ם brings the teaching that says ''if the owners of the פסח die or become unclean [before it is sacrificed] it must be burnt immediately.'' The גמרא brings this teaching and right away says, ''we see from this that the leftover פסח needs uprooting. [Now even though רב שך tries to answer this that the רמב''ם is only referring to specific cases where the owners are pushed off to the second פסח, we see from the language of the רמב''ם that he states the law simply if the owners died it is burnt.] The next question even רב שך does not attempt an answer to. It is the teaching that if the whole year has passed and one brings the פסח for the sake of פסח in its time it is כשר but not accepted. That even the גמרא does not use as a proof that the leftover פסח does not need uprooting for everyone agrees in this case as תוספות says. The גמרא does not in fact use that ברייתא as a proof for רב הונא in the name of רב that the פסח does not need uprooting. 

למרות שרב שך כותב שהרמב''ם מחזיק את קרבן הפסח שנשאר לא צריך עקירה מהשם פסח ודווקא הופך אוטומטית לקרבן שלמים, אני חושב שהוא בטח היה מודע לכמה שהרעיון הזה חלש. שכן הוא עצמו מביא שתי הפרכות עוצמתיות לרעיון זה. אחד הוא מנסה לברוח עם תשובה חלשה מה שנקרא דוחק. על השני הוא לא עונה בכלל. ההפרכה הראשונה היא זו: הרמב''ם מביא את ההוראה האומרת שאם בעלי הפסח מתים או נטמאים יש לשרוף אותו מיד. הגמרא מביאה את ההוראה הזאת ומיד אומרת ''אנו רואים מכאן שצריך לעקור את השאריות הפסח.'' [עכשיו למרות שרב שך מנסה לענות על זה שהרמב''ם מתייחס רק למקרים ספציפיים שבהם הבעלים נדחקים לפסח השני אנחנו רואים מלשון הרמב''ם שהוא קובע את הדין בפשטות אם הבעלים מתו זה נשרף.] השאלה הבאה אפילו רב שך לא מנסה לענות עליה. הלימוד הוא שאם חלפה כל השנה ומביאים את הפסח לשם פסח בזמנו כשר אבל לא מקובל. שאפילו הגמרא אינה משתמשת כהוכחה ששארית הפסח אינה צריכה עקירה שהרי כולם מסכימים במקרה זה כדברי תוספות. הגמרא למעשה אינו משתמש באותה ברייתא כהוכחה לרב הונא בשם רב שהפסח אינו צריך לעקור.

 Loyalty to Torah ought not be confused with affiliation to the religious world.  Even the most straight of all groups, the Lithuanian world of Torah is, after all, only human. You can see this principle in the Torah itself where the emphasis is on loyalty to God and keeping his law. but also [as i have mentioned many times] you see this in the Gemara which deals with the sacrifice that klal Israel brings when we listen to a mistaken Sanhedrin. [The case is when the Sanhedrin rules on a situation which involves the penalty of karet (cutting off) [e.g. idolatry , or shabat] and the Sanhedrin rules that some act of idolatry is permitted when the individual knows it is forbidden. still the individual depends on the ruling of the Sanhedrin and does the act. he has to bring his own sin offering and can not depend on the sin offering that the Sanhedrin must ring for their own acting on their mistaken ruling.]

There is no concept that the religious authorities can not be mistaken. So then what about the statement אפילו אומר לך על ימין שמאל או על שמאל ימין even if he says on right that it is left or on left that it is right this does does not refer to a case where the law is known to the individual as we see in the gemara that one must not depend on a mistaken Sanhedrin. 

 z87 [a midi file]  z87 nwc

 I think that one should accept the yoke of Torah to be learning Torah day and night and trusting in God for parnasa [making a living]. I just want to make it clear that the fact that I am not doing so is not because that I disagree with the basic approach. rather that for reasons that I do not understand very well, I could never ''make it'' in the world of Torah even though I think I tried as hard as I could. But if others can manage to do this, I think that is the best thing.  As for myself when I saw that I had to do so, I went to Polytechnic Institute of NYU to major in Physics for I needed some way of making a living.