There was tremendous pressure on Israel to leave the Sinai desert from the 1950's until 1967 from both the USA the Soviet Union. [that had been the source of constant raids on Israel until it was taken. ] Israel lost nothing by sticking up for itself. The courts of the Hague which are backed by the U.N. should better investigate the constant calls of the enemies of Israel for final solution of the Jewish problem.

As concerning the general situation in Israel, take the advice of my learning partner-[David Bronson from Uman]-people are just born one side of the issue or the other, and all the arguing in the world will not change anyone's mind. I have a lot of respect for that advice and for him. It is kind of like when you were in your high school algebra class, and the teacher asked  a question that you were sure of the answer. But before you could answer, the smart kid in the class was called on and gave a different answer. How confident are you now about your answer? Not very much. YOU go back and check it again and again before you feel prepared to answer,--or by that time you have discovered your miscalculation. That is the same way people ought to check and recheck their ''facts'' before having an opinion about what they really know next to nothing about. 

 

All Torah institutions should be dropped except Litvak yeshivot that follow the Gra , Reb Israel Salanter and Rav Shach.

 I can understand the  great LITVAK YESHIVOT who just want to sit and learn Torah, but I can't understand the religious world  that makes Torah into a shovel to dig their means of making a living. The whole religious world looks  like a private club that uses the money of secular Jews to make it run. The whole enterprise seems like fraud. They want to be an exclusive private club? Then let them pay for it themselves. To me it seems that anyone wants to support a worthy cause, they ought to volunteer for IDF or the friends of IDF. 

All Torah institutions should be dropped except Litvak yeshivot that follow the Gra , Reb Israel Salanter and Rav Shach. All the rest are pure garbage. 

[The yeshivot that I think are worthy are Ponovitch, Mir, Shar Yashuv,] 

reform in Israel

 My opinion about the the attempt at reform in Israel is mainly based on my little knowledge about the Constitution of the USA  in which James Madison and the other founding fathers made sure that no branch of government would be totally independent of the people.  So judges could not appoint themselves;--they needed to go through people that had been elected by the people. That is why in the  US, there is no such thing as a judge appointing his underlings. So I think judicial reform was quite in order in  Israel. Judges appointing themselves  to me seems like straight tyranny. And all the more so that now that same Israeli Supreme Court has voted itself the right to annul any law they do not like [for not being constitutional when there is no constitution!], and to also remove any member of parliament that they do not like,-- including the prime minister.  Even in Rome where the Senate and most public positions could be held only by the Patrician class, still no public office (including judges) could be held without a vote from the people of Rome. [I mean physical voting in Rome itself.] [Thus the signature  of Rome was SQPR. The Senate and the People of Rome.] There is a lesson from this that extends beyond just the confines of Rome or the USA.

 Politics I think got mixed up with philosophy in a way that tends to blur the lines. I feel that here is a great insight of the Chatam Sopher [Sorry that I forgot his name. That is the name of his book.] He felt that in learning he made sure to make a clear divide between each discipline.  When it comes to politics I think John Locke provides the greatest insights, but I would not say as much when it comes to his philosophy. And even though Kant and Leonard Nelson provide the greatest insights in philosophy, I think their ideas in politics are way too high in the clouds. [THE mix-up between philosophy and politics began with Plato. The road to clarity IN POLITICS began  when Rome by force of necessity [not from philosophy] made a compromise between the plebeians (--the people), and the SENATE. --The story was that the plebeians ran away and the patricians in instead of war offered them the office of the tribune and equal representation and authority for their  elected bodies of the commons [one for each tribe.]] I would be amiss if I did not mention Marx. The flaw that I have held about any system of government from my early youth is the principle that no matter how logical system is , if when put to empirical testing, it does not hold up, then it is wrong. Marxism predicts material abundance way beyond anything that the free market can provide. It does not pass its own test.

 According to the Talmud there is a point in learning fast even if one understands not a single word. it says ''forever a person should be ''gores'' (which means saying the words in order and going on" even though he forgets and even though he does not even know what he is saying.'' And in fact it seems impossible to get through the  Oral Law without doing this. The Oral Law  refers to the parts of the law which were no written until the Mishna and Talmud. [It means the two Talmuds and the midrashei halacha and midrashei agada] It does not refer to any commentaries that were written after the completion of the Talmud. but the many commentaries come under the category of learning the Oral Law. [In depth learning also is important. SO one needs both a fast session and a fast session.]

Some Rishonim that hold learning Physics and Metaphysics are also included in the mitzvah of learning the Oral Law as the Rambam says in the third chapter of Laws of Talmud Torah that ''the things called     Pardes are in the category of Gemara'' and he [the Rambam] defined those things called Pardes in the first four chapters of the Yad haHazaka, and at the end of those four chapters writes ''the subjects explained in these four chapters are what the sages called Pardes. 

 Rav Kook  held with nationalism while the Rav of Satmer [Reb Yoel] did not. and neither held from radical nationalism. To me, nationalism has always seemed to be weak.  It had a slow start.  Somewhere in English history there came an idea- ''England for the English''. Much later, under Louis IVX, it became much stronger. But for most of history, whatever area was ruled by a king--that was the nation. The king mattered, not the area, nor language, nor any sense of identity what so ever. 

[To me personally, keeping Torah is what mattered and matters. I have never been able to see any case for nationalism. Berkley came up with an idea that makes a lot of sense to me-- a nation is not a good in itself. It has a purpose: creating conditions that make human flourishing possible. Thus when it does not serve that purpose, it ha no legitimacy.][This I noticed in Danny Frederick [a libertarian critic of Michael Huemer  who believes in anarchy]. ]

Hegel is known for his defense of the metaphysical state. Hobhouse wrote a critique on that.--

Hegel [and Howard Bloom] are advocates for the collective while Kant is an advocate for the individual. 

Bava Batra page 22 בבא בתרא כ''ב

On the way back from the sea today, there occurred to me a way to explain the Rishonim on Bava Batra page 22. Thus: the law is like Rava except in yal keyam. Also the law is like the later authority which clearly Ravina is. The Gemara says "Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of horah"--the ability to make a peak din. If you put these two facts together you are forced into some compromise, some middle position that can contain both. [Otherwise they directly contradict each other.] The Gemara Bava Batra page 22 says Rava says one can't dig a hole next to the borderline and Abyee says he can. The Gemara asks on Rava from the Mishna מרחיקין את המשרה מן הירק  והחרדל מן הדבורים רבי יוסי אומר עד שאתה אומר הרחק חרדלך מדבוראי הרחק דבוריך מן חרדלי שבאות ואוכלות לגלוגי חרדלי ואי לא סמיך היכא  משכחת לה רב פפא אמר בלוקח  But almost all Rishonim say the law is not like Rava except for digging a pit alone because a pit is like shooting arrows. Still once there is something the neighbor has put there that can be damaged, he has to take away what can cause damage.  The Rambam holds  if you have something that could cause damage to one's neighbor on the boundary between oneself and his neighbor, but there is nothing there right now, he has to take it away if the neighbor puts something there that could be damaged. Most other rishonim hold he does not have to take away  his object if he came first.

Thus the main idea of the Rishonim is that Ravina means the person that can be damaged he himself has to keep away (because the law is like R. Yose)  unless the thing that can cause damage causes damage immediately.   Thus that is the case of Rava. Other than that there is a right of who came first can stay. the argument then is how long can he stay? Forever?, or until the neighbor puts something that can be damaged there?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the way back from the sea today, there occurred to me a way to explain the ראשונים on בבא בתרא כ''ב ע''ב. Thus: the law is like רבא except in יעל כגם. Also the law is like the later authority which clearly רבינא is. The גמרא says "רבינא and רב אשי are the סוף הוראה"--the ability to make a פסק דין. If you put these two facts together you are forced into some compromise, some middle position that can contain both . [Otherwise they directly contradict each other. ]  רבא says one can't dig a hole next to the borderline and אביי says he can. The גמרא asks on רבא from   מרחיקין את המשרה מן הירק  והחרדל מן הדבורים רבי יוסי אומר עד שאתה אומר הרחק חרדלך מדבוראי הרחק דבוריך מן חרדלי שבאות ואוכלות לגלוגי חרדלי ואי לא סמיך היכא  משכחת לה רב פפא אמר בלוקח  But almost all ראשונים say the law is not like רבא except for digging a בור alone because a בור is like shooting arrows גיריה דיליה. Still once there is something the neighbor has put there that can be damaged, he has to take away what can cause damage.  The רמב''ם holds  if you have something that could cause damage to one's neighbor on the boundary between oneself and his neighbor, but there is nothing there right now, he has to take it away if the neighbor puts something there that could be damaged. Most other ראשונים hold he does not have to take away  his object if he came first. Thus the main idea of the ראשונים is that רבינא means the person that can be damaged he himself has to keep away unless the thing that can cause damage causes damage immediately. Thus that is the case of רבא. Other than that, there is a right of who came first can stay. The argument then is how long can he stay? Forever? or until the neighbor puts something that can be damaged? there._____________________________________________________________________________

כדי להסביר את הראשונים על בבא בתרא כ''ב ע''ב. הלכך: הדין כרבא אלא ביע''ל קג''ם. גם הדין הוא כמו הסמכות המאוחרת שברור שרבינא היא. הגמרא אומרת "רבינא ורב אשי סוף הוראה"--היכולת לעשות פסק דין. אם אתה מחבר את שתי העובדות האלה יחד אתה נאלץ לבצע איזושהי פשרה, איזו עמדה אמצעית שיכולה להכיל את שניהם. רבא אומר שאי אפשר לחפור בור ליד הגבול ואבי אומר שהוא יכול. הגמרא שואלת על רבא מרחיקין את המשרה מן הירק והחרדל מן הדבורים רבי יוסי אומר עד שאתה אומר הרחק חרדלך מדבוראי הרחק דבוריך מן חרדלי שבאות ואוכלות לגלוגי חרדלי ואי לא סמיך היכא משכחת לה רב פפא אמר בלוקח אבל כמעט כל הראשונים אומרים שהחוק אינו כמו רבא חוץ מחפירת בור לבד כי בור הוא כמו ירי חיצים (גיריה דיליה). ובכל זאת ברגע שיש משהו שהשכן שם שם שיכול להינזק, הוא צריך לקחת מה שיכול לגרום לנזק. הרמב''ם אוחז אם יש משהו שעלול לגרום נזק לשכן בגבול שבינו לבין שכנו, אבל אין שם כלום כרגע, הוא צריך לקחת אותו אם השכן שם משהו שעלול להינזק. רוב ראשונים אחרים טוענים שהוא לא צריך לקחת את החפץ אם הוא הגיע ראשון. לפיכך הרעיון המרכזי של הראשונים הוא שרבינא פירושו של האדם שיכול להינזק שהוא עצמו צריך להרחיק (כי הדין הוא כמו ר' יוסי) אלא אם הדבר שיכול לגרום נזק גורם נזק מיד. אז זה המקרה של רבא. מלבד זאת, יש זכות מי בא ראשון יכול להישאר. הטענה אם כן היא כמה זמן הוא יכול להישאר? לָנֶצַח? או עד שהשכן שם משהו שיכול להינזק?