Glory to God-I have found a way of answering a difficult Rashi.

Sanhedrin 62.
The Mishna in the beginning of Klal Gadol in Shabat. Case 1) He forgot about Shabat he brings one offering. Case 2) He forgot today is Shabat he brings an offering for each shabat. Case 3) He knows today is shabat, but forgot one or more or all types of work.
The question of Rava is: "What happens if you put case 2) and 3) together?"

The Talmud in Sanhedrin asked: Why don't we answer this from the fact that if one thinks idolatry is allowed, he brings just one sacrifice. [i.e. אומר מותר. He thinks "It is allowed" is liable only one sin offering.]

(The Gemara Sanhedrin started off with explaining אחת מהנה (the verse "one of them")  is שגגת עבודה זרה וזדון עבודות .(i.e. Accidental idolatry and yet knowing the different types of idolatry are unlawful.) Full stop. At this point the Talmud interrupts the flow of the discussion instantly when the words accidental idolatry are mentioned and then asks, "What is it?")

 Now Rashi says אומר מותר (He says to himself "It is allowed") means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava  is not referring to the original question of the Gemara.

 The Ri (Rav Isaac, the grandson of Rashi) asks this question: "The actual question was not the same as if he forgot about Shabat totally שכח עיקר שבת. It was -he forgot today is shabat  and work is forbidden. העלם זה וזה בידו  So it is not parallel to the Mishna in Shabat in chapter 7. And that is why we don't answer the question of Rava from that Mishna. But then how does the statement of Rava about idolatry contain the answer to the question?


The Ri answers,  the Talmud is  thinking idolatry can't be forgotten totally because  is the essence of being a Jew is  to despise idolatry. And that is why idolatry is similar to the subject of the question of Rava about Shabat than the Mishna in Shabat. For the question is dealing with a situation where a simple reminder would perk the guy's memory. And the Mishna is Shabat is dealing with a case where a simple reminder would not work.

 So what we have so far is the Talmud starts with  a limited case accidental idolatry and knowing services. and it finishes with an even more limited case  of forgetting both the major category and subdivisions.
Remember  now this was the case of our original question and this is what caused the Ri to say אומר מותר is also limited to a case when he knows some idolatry somewhere is forbidden but thinks this particular one is allowed.

 Now Rashi here says אומר מותר [He says to himself, "It is allowed."] means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava  is not referring to the original question of the Gemara. These two statements of Rashi are the keys.
Rashi is aware of the question of the Ri. But let us think. We have a case of שגגת ע''ז [accidental idolatry] and we explained what that is. Then we jump and say maybe with this we can answer the question he forgot both. Why? For all we know he says it is allowed could refer to services also? And if he forgot both that is he says both this particular idolatry and also the four types of service are allowed, then maybe there too he would be liable more than one sacrifice?
That is even if you limit the case of אומר מותר like the Ri, you still have no answer to explain the Talmud.

So Rashi says Rava means like it sounds like he means everywhere when this statement of his is brought up --"He says to himself 'It is is allowed,'" means the guy says there is no prohibition to serve idols. And let me ask you now if one has totally forgotten the prohibition to serve idols or never knew it, does he bring a sacrifice for every kind of service and also for the sin of idolatry? Surely not! He brings one sin offering for the whole shebang. And this is what the Gemara is jumping on and this is why he could not answer Rava's question from the Mishna in Shabat. This is so beautiful it is astounding.
For what was our question? He forgot today is shabat and he forgot a  few kinds of work; and we thought maybe he brings a sacrifice for each kind of forgetting. You can't answer this from the Mishna in Shabat. Forgetting  about shabat completely does not tell us anything about our question
But you can answer our question from idolatry where is is obvious he brings one sacrifice  and nothing more. And what was our question? It was based on the idea the more he forgets the more he has to bring. So now we know from idolatry that that surely cant be right because there too he forgot idolatry and all kinds of service and we know he brings only one sacrifice.

א) סנהדרין סב. המשנה בשבת פרק כלל גדול אומרת שלשה דינים לשלשה מצבים. 1) אם בן אדם שכח עיקר שבת הוא מביא קרבן אחד. 2) אם הוא יודע עיקר שבת ושכח שהיום שבת, אז הוא מביא קרבן על כל שבת. 3) אם הוא יודע שהיום שבת ושכח מלאכות, הוא מביא קרבן על כל סוג מלאכה. רבא  שאל מה קורה אם אתה מצרף מצב 2) ומצב 3)? היינו העלם זה וזה בידו?  התלמוד בסנהדרין רוצה לתרץ את השאלה הזאת. הגמרא בסנהדרין התחילה לפרש "אחת מהנה" שהיא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות. והיא שואלת מה היא שגגת ע''ז? והיא מתרצת: אומר מותר. ואז היא המשיכה ואמרה אם כן העלם זה וזה בידו חייב קרבן אחד לבד.
רש''י אומר אומר מותר הוא שהוא אומר אין ע''ז בתורה. וגם שהמשפט של רבא הוא כללי. היינו שבא לומר יותר דברים חוץ מן לתרץ מה היא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות
 הר''י שואל אם כן התירוץ אינו שווה בשווה עם השאלה.(יכול להיות אומר מותר יהיה חייב קרבו אחד אהעלם זה וזה בידו יהיה חייב יותר). והוא מתרץ ש"אומר מותר" הוא יותר מצומצם ממה שרש''י פירש כדי שיהיה מתאים לשאלה של רבא.(אומר מותר על ע''ז מיוחדת). אבל רש''י יכול לשאול אם אומר מותר רק במצב פרטי של איזה ע''ז פרטית, אם כן איך זה מתרץ את שאלת רבא? "אומר מותר" יכול להיות על איזה ע''ז פרטית וגם על עבודות. ולכן רש''י אומר שאומר מותר הוא כללי. ואם אדם שכח ע''ז לגמרי אין סברה לחייבו קרבן אחד על ע''ז וארבעה קרבנות על כל סוג עבודה. ולכן הגמרא מביאה מזה תירוץ לרבא, מה שלא הייתה יכולה לעשות מן המשנה בשבת. ויותר מזה. מה הייתה הסברה לחייבו יותר מקרבן אחד בשבת? בגלל שהיו שיכחות הרבה. וברור שזה לא עובד כאן בע''ז. ולכן יש תירוץ לשאלת רבא


I am not saying this is all wrapped up. Only that it is a beginning of a way to understand Rashi here.
We still have to figure out why the case of idolatry is knowable more than the case of Shabat.
You have to say that Rashi here in Sanhedrin is understanding the question of Rava differently than it is stated in Shabat. The only way idolatry can be an answer to Rava is if Rava's question is like the case he forgot that Shabat even exists at all.

For some reason, I can't understand my learning partner is perfectly happy with Rashi as is. And when I posed this problem with Rashi, he was the one who suggested that Rashi understands the question here differently than in Shabat

_______________________________________________ I came to my learning partner is located. And he asked me "Did you see Tosphot?"
I said "No, What Tosphot?"
He said on the opposite side of the page. It was printed in the wrong place so you did not see it. He asks exactly our question."

I was in shock! And so now I have to present what Tosphot says and how it affects us. The first answer of Tosphot is that the Gemara could have asked this question on תפשוט but instead found a better question. That means it in fact thinks there is no proof from אומר מותר to Shabat.. And the he says what I was saying in the name of the Ri. But one thing he does not say is the answer I wrote above to Rashi.

So what I think now is that Rashi could say what Tosphot says: that the Gemara could have asked one of two questions to throw out the idea and choose a better way.
Or Rashi could say like I wrote: that at this point we are learning division of work and division of services from the same verse so if we can see that adding "forgetting"s  does not add sin offerings for idolatry then it would not do so for Shabat either.
But I am not sure.

Since everything I wrote above is already included in Tosphot I was thinking to erase the whole thing.

But on Shabat it occurred to me that you have to say that both answers of Tosphot depend on each other. Because even if you say אומר מותר he says it is allowed is limited, still it does not mean teh same as case (b) and (c) in that mishna in shabat. One could say for example he says a particular service is allowed. Or a particular idol is allowed. and thus you still would not have any answer. So you end up saying in any case that the Gemera just found a better way of pushing it off.

The kelipa of Noga was an important subject to the Gra. This is the energy of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When people cheat in business that gives power to kelipat Noga which then steals souls and money from the realm of holiness. And the Gra said Hasidim is kelipat Noga. This explains why Chasidim lie and cheat in business, and why they also lie and cheat about spiritual things. That is they lie about what the Torah says, and they get away with it because they get power from the Dark Side. And that is how they steal souls from the realm of holiness.


1) Kelipat Noga mainly refers to something mention in the vision of Ezekiel. It is the kelipa or Dark Force that is closest to holiness and makes a parade of how Jewish it is. The main source of information about it is in the Eitz Chaim of Isaac Luria--the Ari.

It looks like the Gra is saying something  like what we see today in Lithuanian yeshivas.

This comes up as we know in the Nefesh Hachaim of his disciple  volume IV in the most powerful way possible. But in the Gra's writings themselves we see this idea, that (1) Every spare minute should be devoted to learning Torah. And also that: (2) People that are learning Torah should be supported, and not have to work.--Even though (3) They should not be learning for the sake of making a living..

What the Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel and in Brooklyn have done is simply put what the Gra said into action.

This path seems different than that of the Rambam. Maybe I should just accept the fact that this seems to be an argument among Rishonim and leave it at that. This is not any different than I would think about any other argument among Rishonim like between Rashi and Tosphot. Clearly arguments between Rashi and Tosphot don't bother me.

I think what bothered me the most was that for a long time I did not see any support for the yeshiva path. It was not just that it did not look like the Rambam, but it did not look like any Rishonim. [Even the Tashbatz or the Keseph Mishna.]

Furthermore I was unhappy with the way yeshivas were being run. In Uman you can find a wide spectrum of people that agree with me on this point. [Yeshivas often throw out people they feel do not bring something to the table. This hurts people's feelings that when young and successful were welcome but get older and have problems and are not welcome.  But you can say that yeshivas have the right to protect themselves from bad influences.]

But seeing that in fact the Gra is saying pretty much what you see on the ground in the yeshiva world I have to retract my complaint. I guess we will just have to go with the idea that any human institution can and will be abused.
But abuse does not cancel use.

Schopenhauer and facts about the physical world

Schopenhauer claims that facts about the physical world have no internal significance.

In this point, the Rambam surely disagrees. The Rambam holds learning Physics and Metaphysics (of Aristotle) is higher than learning Torah. The Ari ( Isaac Luria) also disagrees. He has a whole list of Divine names that are embodied in the physical universe. See the large Sidur of the Reshash [from the grandson of Shalom Sharabi] for the whole list. (That is besides the smaller list in the Eitz Chaim itself). Some of these Divine names are from the Eitz Chayim itself (The book, Tree of Life of Isaac Luria) but not all. This is common with Shalom Sharabi- to fill in missing gaps in the writings of the Arizal. [The Ramchal also does this,-- e.g. for the intentions of mincha [afternoon prayer] for Shabat which are missing in the Shaar Hakavanot of the Ari and the Ramchal fills the gaps.]

 In this world is hidden holiness; and even in the lowest regions in spirituality is hidden the highest holiness that comes from the hidden statement of creation. [In the first statement of Creation there is no "He said"]  God's holiness is hidden everywhere and in everything.]
But on the question of science,--

To the Rambam when you learn Physics and MetaPhysics you directly fulfill the mitzvah of love and fear of God. These are not means to come to fear of God or love, but direct fulfillment of the actual commandments.
You can see this in the beginning of the "Yad HaChazakah" and also in the Guide. All later Musar books quote the Rambam about this, but seem innocent about what he was actually intending.

This is similar to the mitzvah of being attached to God Deuteronomy 13:5. The Sages ask how is this possible to fulfill. And they answer by marrying off ones daughter to a Torah scholar, and doing business with a Torah scholar, and  giving money to a Torah scholar. (That is how the Gra translates the last phrase.)
The Rambam brings this statement as meaning that doing these things is an actual fulfillment of the commandment;- not just a means to come to attachment with God.


Where do you see that truth is in the ground? In physical matter? Why is it that the Rambam insists on seeing in facts about physics the highest truths? He probably saw it in a Midrash. "God wanted to create Man. The angel of truth came and asked, 'How can you create Man when he is full of lies?' God took the angel of truth and threw him on the ground, as the verse says, 'He threw truth to the ground.'"

A few days ago I asked what seemed to me to be an almost unanswerable question on the Talmud in Sanhedrin 62. That is the fact that the Talmud wants to answer the question in Shabat  of Rava to Rav Nachman by means of a statement about idolatry. The question was: If one forgot both Shabat and work does he bring one sin offering or more? The Talmud in Sanhedrin asked: Why don't we answer this from the fact that if one thinks idolatry is allowed, he brings just one sacrifice.



I noticed today that Rabbainu Isaac [The Ri] answers it.] Now I can't tell what might come up in the future about his answer, but to me it looks fairly good. The Ri asks the question and says like this:the actual question in tractate Shabat was not the same as if he forgot about Shabat totally. It was he forgot shabat is to say and work is forbidden. So it is not parallel to the Mishna in Shabat in chapter 7.This is not new. We assumed it in the first place when we were learning tractate Shabat. But then the Ri says his new idea. It is that when the Gemara quotes the question in Sanhedrin and Kritut, the Talmud is  thinking idolatry can't be forgotten totally because  is the essence of being a Jew is  to despise idolatry. And that is why idolatry is similar to the subject of the question of Rava about Shabat than the Mishna in Shabat. For the question is dealing with a situation where a simple reminder would perk the guy's memory. And the Mishna is Shabat is dealing with a case where a simple reminder would not work.


I saw the Ri in Kritut, not Sanhedrin.

There is a kind of face that I can recognize--one that learns Gemara. The "image of God" radiates from a person that has spent time learning Talmud. It might because I was around people that learned Talmud seriously for years.

But when someone gets the idea to use Torah to make money they get a soul from the Realm of Darkness and slowly imperceptibly\ become agents of the Dark Side.
And people that learn Torah for money also don't get this kind of radiance.



But somehow or other I have not merited to learn Torah myself even if I recognize how great it is. Maybe that is my lot in life--to see greatness but not to be able to reach it.

I don't think the Ukraine can win in the East. And I doubt of they want to either. Surely they can't be thinking of paying peoples pensions over there. It is just the land, not the people that is important. But Russia will take it anyway. The best think is to let it go and to just absorb  losses that can't be recovered anyway. As for the rest of the Ukraine they should be accounted a part of NATO already. I always knew the fact that for the last twenty years the fact that the Ukraine was given a cold shoulder by Europe and the USA and the IMF was not going to end well. I could not believe it when the USA would consider Egypt an ally, when I knew its people had nothing but contempt for the USA, and the Ukraine whom I knew had nothing but respect for Democratic values was shunned.

But obviously none of this advice will be listened to. Not one single word. And the Ukraine will continue fighting in the East and more rivers of innocent blood will flow. And then the Ukraine will have to give it up anyway. But only after thousands of more soldiers will have been killed.
And NATO will still give a cold shoulder to Ukraine as it always has, and then Russia will just come in and take the rest.
I am  sure my advice will not be followed.
I have never been able to talk sense into people.