True tzadik. Is there is such a thing as a false tzadik?
But what could a false tzadik be? If he is false, then he is not a tzadik. Stay away from fraudulent tzadikim. מפורסמים של שקר [I should mention that  even if you have heard about miracles that is not much help because we know that not just Shabati Tzvi could do miracles but also average people could do miracles in his name. So we see there can be miracles of the Dark Side. That is spiritual powers do not tell us anything. \\

And this seems to apply to Torah also. He openly says there is such a thing as Torah of the Sitra Achra (the Dark Side).

I bring this up because I think it was the search for authenticity which brought me in the first place to the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY. And this is relevant today.  If you want authentic Torah today you pretty much are stuck. Because the kelipa of  "pseudo Torah" is everywhere.
However there are a few places that are left that I think realized this problem and have made it a point of getting back to the real thing-- Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot and Rishonim.


What I mean is that we know there are the general run of the mill Lithuanian yeshivas which have always been learning authentic Torah and emphasizing that. But Achronim were learnt to some degree. And nothing is really wrong with that. But there was always an awareness that Achronim are often flawed. But that was tolerated to some degree. Apparently some people finally got tired of it and decided to get back to learning real Torah. [That is learning any achronim tends to open the door to learning the tons of garbage that poses as real Torah].
I should add that I am not against all achronim. I am just pointing out that some people have decided that enough is enough and  even good achronim they don't want to learn because they are afraid of not being able to tell the difference.

mp3 folder


I am putting this here because my attempts to put other music into mp3 form have failed. I don't know if this is temporary or not. So at least these older files I think I ought to share.

I am gaining some clarity about work and Torah. To me it looks like an argument. Even though in most classical Musar books we have the preference for work with Torah, still you have things that indicate that it is best to just learn and depend on God to provide  a living.
You see this last opinion in the מדרגת האדם. [Navardok] But it is not his opinion alone.[See the Gra on Proverbs 26:3 בטח אל השם בכל לבך]

Depending on charity or when the Torah is made into a means of making money inspires a certain degree of rage in most people that are aware of the scam involved in that. But that does not mean that the second opinion is not valid. It just means that there are bad people out there that misuse the Torah.

What I mean to say is that I think there is a distinction between the opinion of the מדרגת האדם [Navardok] and how this question is approached in kollels.

What we have traditionally is the well known argument between the Duties of the Heart and Navardok which really boils down to the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and R. Ishmael.
It is not clear how the Rambam decided here. As far as I can tell he might have been going  with R Shimon. But all this is simply whether it is best to simply sit and learn Torah and expect a miracle that manna will flow from heaven. Or is it better not to trust in this kind of miracle and learn and get involved in legitimate profession. Both have valid source in Torah thought.

But today kollels while pretending to be following the opinion of R Shimon are in fact using Torah as a means to make money, and at the same time are claiming to be trusting in God. This is not according to either legitimate opinion. If you are trusting in God then you are not coercing the Israeli government to give to you charity. The the insane religious world  considers the Israeli government evil for existing and also for not giving them enough money. It is not a world in which virtue, intelligence or hard work is rewarded. It is a world which is unjust. But so what? You don't have to join it. But if you do then be aware of what you are getting yourself into.
[But I admit they do try to make a show that the Rosh yeshiva is virtuous and hard working and a genius in order to continue this scam. But no Rosh Yeshiva is ever choose because of these virtues. Not nowadays at least.] Clearly in the past there were rosh yeshivas who had all these virtues like Chaim Soloveitchik etc.

My question is that we have according to Kant and area where reason can't go. That is uncondioned realities. And yet we also have knowledge of things that are not empirical.  And we know there is more to a priori knowledge more than definitions. So my question to Dr Kelly Ross in California is how to decide how far reason can go.







I wrote :Kant held that Reason applied to unconditioned realities would produce contradictions..

K.R.: In theoretical Reason, that is.

I wrote: "But that it is valid in the realm of a priori synthetic knowledge.The question is if these are really all that different? How do you tell the difference between unconditioned realities and  just plain regular a priori things?"

KR: " With unconditioned realities, we cannot determine between freedom and determinism.  However, practical Reason does determine, for freedom.

You tell the difference between unconditioned and conditioned realities where the series of applications of the categories (particularly causality and substance) has termination points or does not.  Thus, freedom is the beginning of an unconditioned causal series, and God (or, to an extent, the soul) is an unconditioned substance.  There is a similar idea in Buddhism, where all reality is conditioned but for certain "unconditioned dharmas," such as Nirvana.  This would fit in nicely with Kant.

These principles result in a nice meeting between physics and metaphysics.  Phenomenal space is all conditioned, but the whole of space is unconditioned, which is why physics cannot decide whether the universe if finite or infinite.  This problem is currently dishonestly evaded in discussions of physics.

Best wishes,
Kelley Ross"



After note: Kant really requires  a lot of work. And I admit to have not spent enough time on him.
At any rate we  here a classic example of Kelly Ross writing. It is jam packed with sub-layers, It is like each word requires a few semesters of study.

Rav Shach says that the fruit of the seventh year is not automatically הפקר [abandoned].

He is weaving together a complicated picture in order to solve a difficult Rambam. This Rambam is in the Laws of Maasar Sheni I: 5-6
For the general audience here let me just preface my remarks with the fact that years 1,2, 4,6 of the sabbatical cycle one gives the second Maasar. That is you give Truma to the priest every year. Then you take a tenth of your crop and give it to a Levi. Then you take another tenth and bring it to Jerusalem to the Temple. You give a basket there and the rest you eat in Jerusalem.  But in years 3 and 6 instead of the second tenth you give a tenth to the poor.

The Etrog [a  kind of fruit] you count the year by the time of picking. But still the Rambam says if it ripened in the 6th year you give truma and the tenth.

The Beit Yoseph says the Rambam is doubtful and so goes both ways to be strict. This is nonsense. The Rambam would have said so if he was doubtful. And also what about other years besides the seventh? Why not bring two tenths in the fourth year if he was doubtful?
The Gra says he is going by R. Yochanan that even though we go by the time of picking still in terms of the seventh year, if it ripened in the 6th we give truma.

The picture Rav Shach is painting  is built of several components. One is the question the Minchas Chinuch brings if the Torah makes the fruit abandoned of if one is required to abandon it. The other is the point the Or Sameach brings up of the fruit is the fruit of the seventh year even while attached or only after it is picked. The other is the point I started with that the Torah does not say it is abandoned rather the Torah gives it to all Israel.
 But I am still fumbling around trying to figure out how these points can answer the Rambam.
I mean if the fruit is not הפקר  then truma could apply. But why should it? We still have a verse that fruit of the seventh year is not obligated in Truma.

e17 edited

e63 edited  [e63 in midi] e63 nwc