16.5.15
The Torah path
I love Torah. When I got to yeshiva I felt like I was in Gan Eden.
I believe that the light of the Torah can change everything in one's life to good.
I think the best way to approach Torah is to take the straightforward Lithuanian yeshiva approach
[] Stay away from doctors. [They make people sick.]
[] Stay away from psychologists and other charlatans and frauds. [They make people sick mentally.]
[] Talk with God in nature. Thank him for the good in your life, and ask for the things you need. (If a forest is not available, then talk to God an hour per day in any situation. But not from a prayer book. It has to be your own words.)
[] Finish the Written Law in Hebrew.
[] Learn and finish the Oral Law. [i.e. the two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifi and the Midrash Raba.]
[] Learn Musar. (That is, classical books of morality from the Middle Ages, plus the books of the disciples of Israel Salanter and the Gra.) If nothing else learn these two books: (1) מדרגת האדם of the Altar of Narvardok about trust in God. (2) אור ישראל by Isaac Blasser a disciple of Israel Salanter about Musar.
[] Serve in the IDF (Israel Defense Force). If you are not in Israel, then go there and serve in the IDF.
[] There is an important piece of advice in the Guide ( Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam )--to learn Physics [String Theory] and Metaphysics [i.e. a book by Aristotle].
Appendix
1) I do think the Litvaks go a little drop too much in the religious direction. But my goal in this essay is to indicate what I think is the best approach. Not to deal with how far any particular groups falls from this straightforward approach. You can find fault in any of the groups that hold most strongly with anything I wrote above. I can't deal with that issue right now. Rather I am just saying what approach people should aim for.
2) To be able to learn string theory, you need a little bit of math. Mainly Algebra and Geometry.
And it takes time. In fact, I admit I have not spent as much time on this as I should have. But let us not make this about me. Mainly you need to get a book on Relativity and one on Field Theory. Also Allen Hachter's book Algebraic Topology. Say the words out-loud and fast and go on.
Also it is good to have an slow session in Math to take one particular subject and keep at it until you get it.
2) To be able to learn string theory, you need a little bit of math. Mainly Algebra and Geometry.
And it takes time. In fact, I admit I have not spent as much time on this as I should have. But let us not make this about me. Mainly you need to get a book on Relativity and one on Field Theory. Also Allen Hachter's book Algebraic Topology. Say the words out-loud and fast and go on.
Also it is good to have an slow session in Math to take one particular subject and keep at it until you get it.
15.5.15
A person involved in a mitzvah does not have to stop to do another one. Suka 25
"A groom and his friends do not have to sit in the Suka."
Braita: "A groom and his friends do not have to pray or put on Tefilin, but have to say the Shema."
Rashi says that Braita is going like the opinion: When is doing one mitzvah, he is obligated to do another one."
From what I can tell by looking at the back of the Gemara in the Rif at the Raavad, Ramban and Meor there is that this is an argument of tenaim [sages of the Mishna] and that we poskin [decide ] that one does not have to stop. So a groom would not even have to say Shema.
This looks to me how the Gra was thing about learning Torah. He says one can stop to do a mizvah. Not must.
The reason for the confusion is the Rif brings both braitas; and after him the Shulchan Aruch also.
So what is happening is the is an essential contradiction that is being presented as a consistent opinion.
So why the Rif does this no one knows. But they all come out saying that even if we don't know what the Rif was thinking, still we do know the actual pesak halacha.[decided law] העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה
This has far reaching ramifications, as you can imagine.
I have not learned this "sugia" with a learning partner, so I must say my conclusions are only tentative.
Also I should mention that not everything can be called a mitzvah in this context. People like to expand the definition of mitzvah beyond what the Torah says is a mitzvah. And that kind of thinking would not work here.
"A groom and his friends do not have to sit in the Suka."
Braita: "A groom and his friends do not have to pray or put on Tefilin, but have to say the Shema."
Rashi says that Braita is going like the opinion: When is doing one mitzvah, he is obligated to do another one."
From what I can tell by looking at the back of the Gemara in the Rif at the Raavad, Ramban and Meor there is that this is an argument of tenaim [sages of the Mishna] and that we poskin [decide ] that one does not have to stop. So a groom would not even have to say Shema.
This looks to me how the Gra was thing about learning Torah. He says one can stop to do a mizvah. Not must.
The reason for the confusion is the Rif brings both braitas; and after him the Shulchan Aruch also.
So what is happening is the is an essential contradiction that is being presented as a consistent opinion.
So why the Rif does this no one knows. But they all come out saying that even if we don't know what the Rif was thinking, still we do know the actual pesak halacha.[decided law] העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה
This has far reaching ramifications, as you can imagine.
I have not learned this "sugia" with a learning partner, so I must say my conclusions are only tentative.
Also I should mention that not everything can be called a mitzvah in this context. People like to expand the definition of mitzvah beyond what the Torah says is a mitzvah. And that kind of thinking would not work here.
Bava Metzia page 14. You have a case where a field was stolen and now goes back to the original owner. Rashi asks why the owner does not pay for the improvement? After all he is getting an improved field. Rashi says it is a case where the thief let it go fallow and it was improved in the hands of the buyer.
What you see here is even though this Rashi disagrees with Tosphot and the Rambam, still the foundation principle is the buyer who improved it gets back the improvement. Just like how Rav Shach explains things on page 15 where the case is the buyer ate fruit, and has to pay back. Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach of the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.]says that is fruit he did not work on. See the Avi Ezri.
מציעא בבא 14. יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם לשיפור? אחרי כל מה שהוא מקבל שדה שהשתפר. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור והיה שיפור בידיו של הקונה
מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח שיפר הוא מקבל. וזה כמו שרב שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה
שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצה שלא עבד על השבח כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן
What is bothering me and has bothered me for a long time is that we seem to be letting the thief off the hook because of what the owner of the field pays. This is a question in my mind to the Tosphot Rambam Alliance, and all the more so to Rashi.
What I mean here is this. From the Rambam we have that the owner pays the lesser amount of one of two things, the improvement or the expense. And in the case the expense is less then that is all he pays and the thief pays the rest of the difference. But my question is what would happen if the owner would pay nothing? Then the thief would have to pay the entire improvement--not just the difference between the expense and the improvement.
All the more so to Rashi who puts the major burden of paying to the buyer on the back of the owner. Rashi says if the owner got back his field in a better state than when it was stolen he would have to pay for all the improvement. Then I ask what does the thief pay? Nothing except to give back the money to the buyer?
What you see here is even though this Rashi disagrees with Tosphot and the Rambam, still the foundation principle is the buyer who improved it gets back the improvement. Just like how Rav Shach explains things on page 15 where the case is the buyer ate fruit, and has to pay back. Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach of the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.]says that is fruit he did not work on. See the Avi Ezri.
מציעא בבא 14. יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם לשיפור? אחרי כל מה שהוא מקבל שדה שהשתפר. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור והיה שיפור בידיו של הקונה
מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח שיפר הוא מקבל. וזה כמו שרב שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה
שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצה שלא עבד על השבח כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן
What is bothering me and has bothered me for a long time is that we seem to be letting the thief off the hook because of what the owner of the field pays. This is a question in my mind to the Tosphot Rambam Alliance, and all the more so to Rashi.
What I mean here is this. From the Rambam we have that the owner pays the lesser amount of one of two things, the improvement or the expense. And in the case the expense is less then that is all he pays and the thief pays the rest of the difference. But my question is what would happen if the owner would pay nothing? Then the thief would have to pay the entire improvement--not just the difference between the expense and the improvement.
All the more so to Rashi who puts the major burden of paying to the buyer on the back of the owner. Rashi says if the owner got back his field in a better state than when it was stolen he would have to pay for all the improvement. Then I ask what does the thief pay? Nothing except to give back the money to the buyer?
14.5.15
The Talmud says makes says that kissing and hugging an idol would be לאו שבכללות an prohibition that includes lots of things and so can't get lashes.
[That was not the original statement of Rav Avin bar Kahana. At first he had said one does lashes for it. Frankly this makes a lot more sense to me. But I can't go into that right now.]
At any rate Tosphot this is not like on Passover one can't eat Passover sacrifice raw or boiled in which the Prohibition for each is stated openly. This is fine except that tosphot says the lashes are for "only roasted" "כי אם צלי אש". The problem is raw is one of the 613 commandments. And so is boiled. So why would they not get lashes because of themselves? Why only because of "only roasted" "כי אם צלי אש". I am not asking this as a question as much as just something that means we have to study Pesachim 41 where this comes up. [Lashes are the punishment for a prohibition in the Torah when the punishment is not stated explicitly. It can only be given if there were two witnesses that gave warning beforehand. It is a version of Miranda rights. There is never any punishment unless a warning is issued beforehand that is accepted by the perpetrator.]]
The end of this Tosphot however says something that is at face value really difficult. that don't serve idols is not specific enough while don't do work on the festival is specific.
to me it seems that it is impossible to know what Tosphot could mean by this without first spending time on pesachim pg 41. What could be the difference? I thought perhaps the festival has 39 kinds of work while honoring an idol could have an infinite range of things. But still why is it different? Don't do any work and don't do anything that honors an idol seem to be specific in the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)