האמונה באלוהים היא רציונלית. לכל דבר יש סיבה. אם לא הייתה סיבה ראשונה  אז הייתה צריכה להיות רגרסיה אינסופית. ואז שום דבר לא יכול להתקיים. לכן חייבת להיות סיבה ראשונה. לכן יש אלוהים. הסיבה הראשונה, קיימת. אתה יכול להוכיח את הצעד הראשון אַפְּרִיוֹרִי שכל דבר יש סיבה בציינו ששום דבר לא יכול לבוא מצד עצמו. זה עושה את ההוכחה אַפְּרִיוֹרִי, לא רק תצפית אמפירית

גישה מקראית כללית לנשיות A general Biblical approach to womanhood

A general Biblical approach to womanhood would be first of all not like the feminist movement. It would also include the idea of dipping in a natural body of water once a month. It would also include a day of rest, not on Sunday. It would go against socialism, as being opposed to "Thou shalt not covet."

It would  not be liberal with commandments. That is, it would not expand them beyond their actual definitions. But it would not contract them either. And it would assume that what God means to say in the Bible, is what it actually says.

We know that, as a matter of fact, most of the commandments of the Bible were addressed to the Jewish people in the desert. But that does not preclude anyone from joining the club who wants to join. But if you join the club you have to obey the rules. You don't get to change them. Even Jews don't get to change them. The rules stay fixed like the Northern Star.
The idea that anyone can join is based on the Maimonides כל מי שרוצה "anyone who wants." It depends on nothing but ones own desire to keep the commandments of God.
[But you want to keep the laws of God, for God's sake don't ask a anyone. It is not up to them. Sometimes the Dark Side gets so strong that it is able to close the door to holiness completely. And if that would happen, it would not be possible to come to holiness--for anyone. So what does God do? He puts a person that fears G-d in the door so the Dark Side can't close it completely. But this also has the side effect that anyone who want to get into holiness has the problem that the someone who fears G-d will fight him at every turn.


גישה מקראית כללית לנשיות תהיה קודם כל לא אוהבת את התנועה הפמיניסטית. כמו כן, תכלול את הרעיון של טבילה בגוף טבעי של מים פעם בחודש. כמו כן, יכלול יום מנוחה, לא ביום ראשון. זו הייתה הולכת נגד סוציאליזם, שכהתנגד ללאו שבתורה" לא תחמוד ".

זו לא תהיה ליברלי עם מצוות. כלומר, זאת אומרת לא להרחיב אותם מעבר להגדרות שלהם בפועל. אבל זה לא הייתה מצמצמת אותן. וזה יהיה להניח כי מה שאלוהים אומר  בתנ"ך, זה מה שזה אומר בעצם.

אנחנו יודעים את זה, כעניין שבעובדה, רוב המצוות של התנ"ך הופנו לעם היהודי במדבר. אבל זה לא מונע מאף אחד להצטרף למועדון שרוצה להצטרף. אבל אם אתה מצטרף למועדון אתה צריך לציית לכללים. אתה לא יכול לשנות אותם. יהודים אפילו לא יכולים לשנות אותם. הכללים נשארים קבועים כמו כוכב הצפון. הרעיון שכל אחד יכול להצטרף מבוסס על הרמב"ם כל מי שרוצה "כל מי שרוצה לכסות תחת כנפי השכינה יכול". זה לא תלוי בשום דבר חוץ מן הרצון  כדי לשמור את מצוות ה '. [אבל אתה רוצה לשמור על החוקים של אלוהים, למען השם אל תשאלו רב. זה לא תלוי בם. והרבי נחמן אמר שהסיבה לרבנים היא להרחיק אנשים מהתורה. הוא מביא את זה מהזוהר שלפעמים הצד האפל מקבל כל כך כוחות שהוא יכול לסגור את הדלת לקדושה לגמרי. ואם זה היה קורה, זה לא יהיה אפשרי להגיע לקדושה - לאף אחד. אז מה אלוהים עושה? הוא מניח רב בדלת כדי הצד האפל לא יכול לסגור אותו לחלוטין. אבל זה יש גם את תופעת הלוואי שכל מי שרוצה להיכנס לקדושה הבעיה היא שהרבנים יילחמו בו בכל צעד ושעל. בסיכום יש סיבה לרבנים להתקיים. אבל הדבר הטוב ביותר עבור אנשים הוא להתרחק מהם בתכלית הריחוק

That is the best I can do to translate. The truth be told I am not sure how to do this. when I say "to join] the club" in English it sounds a little less formal than the Hebrew "מועדון"  In fact in Hebrew I think it might be better to leave out that metaphor completely. I don't mean to join officially. I mean rather an informal arrangement in which ever person that wants can keep the Holy Torah and in that way be in a sense joining the Jewsih people.

לא תאכלו על הדם Don't eat on the blood. [Leviticus circa 18]
The Talmud in Sanhedrin says this verse refers to the Temple in Jerusalem. There are some sacrifices that are eaten for example the sin offering to priests. The verse then tells us not to eat teh sacrifice while the blood of the animal has not been sprinkled yet on the altar. It tells the Sanhedrin not to eat anything the day they sentence someone to death. It tells us not to eat the blood of a living animal.
Why do the sages of the Talmud tells us this? Because the verse makes no sense otherwise. The context is: "Don't eat the fruit of a tree within the first three years it has been planted. In the fourth year bring it fruits to the Temple in Jerusalem, and don't eat on the blood." What blood? The blood of the fruits? The watermelon? And what is it one is not supposed to eat? It does not say! It just says don't eat on the blood. What should one not eat on the blood?

Music written for the glory of God

e40 in mp3  [e40 in midi]

This is  version in which I changed the string section to individual violins or cellos which seems to be better. And it saves me from having to change the actual score.


  great title in mp3  great title in midi

n17 [in midi]

black hole in mp3 black hole in midi

j94 [in midi]
j6  in midi

Bava Metzia 101 I was confused about a certain passage in the Talmud until I discovered that Rav Elazar Menachem Shach has a nice explanation for it.
One goes into the field of another and plants crops. Rav says the owner gives the lesser of the improvement or the expense. I have to run but the basic idea come from the law of an abandoned field . If one plants it he has to give trumah [tithes]. So what comes from ones efforts is his.
In our case the field is not abandoned so we say the field did contribute something.
 I would not mention this but in my little booklet on Bava Metzia I left this law of page 101 with a question and it was just now that I realized that Rav Shach answers my question.

On who is involved in one mitzva does not have to do another. This has farther ramifications than most people think. The reason is the Shulchan Aruch puts together the opinions that one does have to stop in order to do another mitzvah along with the opinion one does not have to stop.

It is an argument in Suka 25a. Rashi, Tosphot, and the Baal Hameor all hold the argument there is going according to the opinion one has to stop. But the halacha is like R. Jose HaGalili that one does not have to stop. See the Rif, and the Baal HaMeor in the back.

I would like to suggest a halacha [Jewish Law] session like this.


You could do the Tur, Beit Yoseph, with the Shulchan Aruch also. I can imagine that that is a workable program.
But I must mention that the Shulchan Aruch just does not work with out the Tur. It is not just because the Beit Yoseph wrote that he did not write the Shulchan Aruch to be anything but a reminder of what he wrote in the Tur. But if you look at the Taz you will see he is always fighting with his father in law. There is almost no issue in the Taz that openly or not that he is not dealing with the Bach on the Tur, and disagreeing with him.

I should mention for the general public that halacha is not a made up concept or just because of some power trip of some control freaks.The Talmud itself give guidelines of how to poskin decide halacha from the Mishna and from the Talmud. It says the order of tenaim that the halacha is like against another tana in the mishna. So R Yehuda against R Jose, the halacha is like Rabbi Jose, etc. And in the Gemara also we have similar rules.

But it should be noted that the the insane religious world  and Torah are opposites. They might claim to be keeping Torah. But the facts show the reverse. There is no intersection between Torah and the the insane religious world . Those are two mutually exclusive sets.
Lithuanian Yeshivas do however have some connection with Torah. Also Mizrachi and Benei Akiva and  religious Zionist.