My learning partner thinks conversion to Torah is mainly dependent on the will of the person..
And Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach] says it is mainly dependent on the will of the court. Just that they can't do it if the convert objects. This subject comes up in Reb Chaim of Brisk [Chidushei HaRambam] where my partner  and I spent some time.

[1] I did not realize it before, but now I understand  that Tosphot  [Sanhedrin 63a] is not concerned with explaining what is not right about Rabbi Zakai. That was already explained on page 62a. Rather Tosphot wants to explain what is right about Rabbi Ami. [Because we see R. Yochanan  did not ask on Rabbi Ami.]
[2] R. Yochanan says to R. Ami, "I can understand you because you are basing yourself on the drasha 'Don't serve.' If not for that, you would have used 'bowing' to divide everything. But now you use it only for itself. That is fine. But Rabbi Zakai is not basing himself on that drasha [explanation]. He would say 'bowing' comes for a mere prohibition even if we did not have 'Don't serve' --that is even if the services were in fact divided for some other reason."
[3] The Maharsha understands that the reasoning of R. Ami is that there is one verse to tell us serving idols is prohibited. So why is there another verse? [There are three verses total.] It is to limit something. That is it limits the three services [inner services that were done in the Temple]that if one does them in one span of forgetting he is liable only one sin offering.
[4] The basic reason why the opinion of R Zakai was rejected was explained on pg 62. R Aba thought it was a parallel case to Rabbi Yose. But it turned out that it was not because R. Yose would have used fire to teach about the whole category if he was able. But there was nothing to teach so he used fire for  a prohibition. [work on Shabat was already divided by  אחת מהנה]
But R Ami uses "Don't serve" for something, so "Don't bow" comes to teach on what is left-- which is just itself and perhaps also service according to its way.
[5] The question I have here is why is it in fact so clear that R. Zakai is not using "Dont serve?"  Could he use it to put the three together maybe and "Don't bow" for a mere prohibition?
It seems the answer is that if was doing that it would violate the principle whatever was in a category and came out to be mentioned by itself has to teach something about the whole category.
But does this seem all that different from R Ami to you? To R. Ami also bowing is coming out for itself alone. Just what it is saying about itself is what it would have said about the whole category if it had been able. So maybe the same goes for if it comes for a mere prohibition? Maybe I could say bowing wanted to tell you the whole category was only a prohibition but it could not do that because the verse already tells us idolatry brings a sin offering. so then it teaches about itself alone.!!! In other words I am not so sure that there is all that much difference between R. Ami and Rabbi Zakai.
Of course this last suggestion does seem ridiculous after all the Torah itself tells us there is a sin offering one must bring for idolatry. Maybe after all that is what Rabbi Yochanan thought was not right about the opinion of R. Zakai.


[6] The braita on 61b said that bowing comes to teach about itself  which is different from Abyee who is explaining r  ami and says it comes to divide. There might not be any question here.

My learning partner thinks that the braita on page 61 is no contradiction to our "sugia" [subject] here on page 63a. It is just dealing with a different subject--that is how to derive the different services. Not if they are divided.


[7] Anyway at this point we seem to have gotten the idea of what Tosphot is saying--more or less. There might be now a thousand unanswered questions but so what. We are not trying to answer all the questions. we are trying sipy to understand what tsophot is saying which means how do we understand the verse of the Bible "Don't bow and don't serve idols."

 סנהדרין סג.תוספות בראש הדף. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק "לא תעבדם". הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. רבינו תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של רבי זכי לא במשפטו של רבי אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות "לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם."  הפסוק אסר כל מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להיזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש, ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו למה ר' יוחנן אמר לר' זכאי "פוק תני לברא" שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות הפנימיות נחשבות אחת אבל לא השתטחות.לא מעניין לתוספות להסביר מה שאינו נכון בשיטת ר' זכאי בגלל שזה כבר מוסבר למעלה בדף סב.. מעניין לתוספות להסביר מה נכון בשיטת רבי אמי. צריך להיות חילוק בגלל שרבי יוחנן שאל על ר' זכאי ולא על רבי אמי. הסיבה ששיטת ר' זכאי נדחה לעיל היא מוסברת בדף סב. רבי אבא רצה להשוות בין רבי יוסי ורבי זכאי. והתברר שזה אינו יכול להיות בגלל שרבי יוסי היה משתמש בפסוק לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת לחלק את המלאכות אם היה יכול. אבל לא היה יכול בגלל שהמלאכות כבר מוחלקות על ידי הפסוק אחת מהנה. ולכן הוא משתמש עם אש בשביל "ללאו יצאה". אבל רבי אמי משתמש עם לא תעבוד הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת ולכן לא תשתחווה לא יכולה לחלק את כולן אלא באה לחלק על עצמה.רבי יוחנן  הוא בסדר עם רבי אמי בגלל שר' אמי היה משתמש עם השתחוייה לחלק את כל העבודות אם היה יכול, אבל אינו יכול בגלל לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת. ולכן נשאר רק להשתמש אתו לחלק על עצמה (ואולי גם עבודה כדרכה). אבל ר' זכאי אינו דורש לא תעבדם לעשות כולן עבודה אחת. והמהר''ם הסביר שאינו צריך לא תעבדם לזה שאין סיבה מראש לחלק אותן.אבל איך יודעים שר' זכאי אינו משתמש עם לא תעבדם? הלא אפשר שיגיד לא תעבדם עשה כולן עבודה אחת ולא תשתחווה ללאו אצאה?תירוץ: אם זה הוא מה שהוא עושה  זה הולך כנגד הכלל כל מה שהוא בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא על עצמו בא ללמד אלא על בכלל כולו יצא ללמד
אגב המברש''א סובר שלא תעבדם הוא מיעוט בגלל שיש שלשה פסוקים  לא תעבדם, ולכן אחד הוא הכלל ואחד בא למעט.
עוד הערה: הברייתא בדף סא: אומרת שהשתחוויה באה ללמד על עצמה באופון אחר מן אביי שאמר שהיא באה לחלק על עצמה. יכול להיות שאין כאן סתירה משום שהברייתא דנה בשאלה אחרת--איך ללמוד את העבודות האסורות. ואביי דן בשאלה אם לחלק את העבודות

I am skipping here the fact that the Maharsha thinks it is Ok to use "bowing" for itself alone and that is still called teaching on the whole category and my idea that bowing also teaches on service according to its way.-which just makes things better.

The thing that I don't understand in the Maharsha is this: Why does he need don't serve to be a מיעוט  and exclusionary principle? I am not arguing that it is not possible. There is another verse for the general principle dont serve idols. So clearly the next verse has to be telling us something different and it has nothing it can expand into so it must contract. Clear. But why does the Maharsha need this?
I thought everything was hunky dory before that. We had "Don't serve" for a principle that puts all three services [inner services that were done in the Temple]. And then we have bowing to come out to divide for itself [that if done with the others still requires its own sin offering]. I mean to say that it is still teaching about the whole category--whatever was left in it after you excluded the big three. Or is it possible that the Maharsha is just saying what  I am saying? After all it does occur to me I just used the idea that don't serve does exclude the big three. David thought the words "the exclusionary principle of 'Don't serve'"was the key to the Maharsha.

The thing about Israel is it very much group based. It is almost impossible to make it there unless one is part of some group. I am not sure why this is but experience shows it to be the case. My own experience was such that the first time I went there I was part of a group. Rav Ernster was staring the place in Safed called Meor Chaim and he invited me from the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY to be part of his Kollel. So in fact without my being aware of its importance I was in fact part of a group. Later on I tried to go there on my own and it always ended in failure.


It is easy to ignore what you have when you don't realize how important it is. My first trip to Israel the road was paved by the State of Israel itself and the community in Meor Chaim. Later on I made several attempts at just showing up and paying rent in any old place and someone found that it was impossible to survive.
So I do think living in Israel is a Mitzvah, but it must be done in the context of some "misgeret" group.
I should mention that it is a positive command [one of the 613 mitzvot] according to the Ramban (Nachmanides). But not to the Rambam [Maimonides]. But it still is a mitzvah to the opinion of the Rambam.

If you grew up in a time in the USA when individuality was the primary principle, and to shoot straight from the hip (speak your mind straight), then this idea of the need to be part of a group is almost impossible to accept. But in a practical sense it is impossible to avoid if one wants to succeed in making Aliyah.
 Israel however even as a short stop over is an amazing place. Though it is hard to stay there on any kind of long term basis, still ever time I went there I had some kind of breakthrough in different subjects. Torah Music, Math etc.

Before going to Israel I recommend getting an appreciation for the place perhaps from the books of Avraham Kook or the books of the Gra like the Kol HaTor

I have been dealing with the Tosphot on the top of the page in Sanhedrin 63a.

I wrote about this in a blog entry a few days ago but now I want to add.

The way Tosphot is looking at this according to the Maharsha is that "Don't serve" is a exclusionary principle. [It comes to exclude something] We had before that all kinds of services were forbidden and then "Don't serve"  puts the three inner services into one and comes to exclude the three from the normal category.
And then what is left for "Don't bow" to tell us? Only what is left in the larger category--that is- itself.
That is how the Maharsha is explaining Tosphot. [This is the view of R Ami. And this is good because it allows bowing to tell us about the whole category. And this shows why R Yochanan did not accept R Zakai's approach since it has bowing to teach about itself alone. And that is no good. It goes against the principle what ever was in a category and is mentioned separately goes out to teach about the whole category.]
The Maharam adds an important observation  that R. Zakai never needed "Don't serve" to make  any kinds of idolatry into one category. There was no reason in the first place to divide them.[Not like in Shabat where we have אחת מהנה to divide.] [That is: that bowing did not leave the category of "Don't serve" because don't serve was not a general category.]
But to the Maharsha everyone agrees with Abyee that  "bowing" comes to divide. Only  the fact that "Don't serve" took the three inner services out of the larger category means that they don't get divided.
In any case, both the Maharsha and Maharam explain Tosphot well and differently than I was doing. Because I thought that R. Zakai was in fact using "Don't serve" to include all four services. This is clearly not what Tosphot was saying, and it was a mistake on my part.

In the long run, however, it looks like the fact is that R. Zakai is considering R. Ami's idea that "bowing" can be refering to the whole category when it is in fact only referring to itself as wrong.
But the way I was putting this idea was sloppy and I apologize for that.

In summary:

What is happening is Tosphot says that R Zakai is not using the "drasha" on  "Don't serve." The way the Maharsha explains that is to say "Don't serve" came out of the general category of service, not the opposite in which bowing comes out. So bowing is in the category and never left it and so does not need to teach anything about the general category. The Maharam deals with it by saying R. Zakai never needed "Don't serve."

[I am not saying everything here is fine. This obviously still needs a lot of work. But right now all I am doing is to try and get how the Maharsha and Maharam understand Tosphot. If we can get that down pat, then we can then go and try to figure out the many obvious questions here. ]

Torah has two things neat about it. One is its luminous, numinous aspect that you get to when you learn in a Lithuanian yeshiva. [Other places or synagogues are worthless when it comes to this aspect of Torah. It has to be someplace on the path of the Gra. ] The other neat thing about Torah is it opens a window to the realm of Light and Holiness. And this last function is what I think it was made for. The first aspect I think is secondary. [My reasoning is based on a commentary on the Rambam that was mentioned in the Musar book Or Israel. That is a foundational text about the Musar Movement of Israel Salanter.]

What I suggest is to learn Torah at home.  For beginners that means the Old Testament, and the Soncino Talmud in English and just plow through them.  

The Rambam thinks people are not inherently moral. Even the level of natural law before Mount Sinai had to be revealed in some way.

 When reading the Guide  for the Perplexed of the Rambam straight it is easy to miss this. This is why Reform Jews are right for making a study of the Rambam's Guide. If you don't make it into a serious subject of study, it is easy to miss important points.
Or what often happens is people come up with their own ideas of what Torah ought to say, and then think that that is what is actually says even though their ideas contradict the Rambam. As if they think they understand the Torah better than the Rambam. Now sometimes they depend on Nachmanides, and that is OK.

There is no prohibition baking a cake for sinners.
But if there is a possibility they will listen you should tell them that what they are doing is a sin.
According to the Gra you should tell them even if you are sure they will not listen. At least I think that is what the Gra holds. And I think I saw something like that in the Shelah once.
  any case baking cakes for them is the best possible thing. White flour and vegetable oil and all the other stuff they put into cakes is like feeding them poison.  Delete the "like." It is feeding them poison. The question is are you allowed to bake a cake for hetrosexuals? I doubt it.