The first is  a link to a small booklet on Shas. Mainly Sanhedrin and Bava Kama. Most of the work was done without  a learning partner so it  and I did not review it  very thoroughly. But it still seems to me to be pretty good.


חידושי הש''ס


This is a work in progress. But as it stands right now it is OK. The only thing is that between lines the formatting goes back to English and that needs to be corrected. But the basic work is still pretty OK as far as I can tell. [That is the ideas are sound but the writing of them is a little stilted.]

עיוני בבא מציעא chapter 8 and chapter 9   The formatting here I was able to change in Hebrew. So you don't get the same kinds of ripples that the booklet on Shas has.


This Bava Metzia booklet was done a lot with my learning partner. But there was a period when I was in Israel in which I did some work on my own. For example the ideas on Bava Metzia page 112 were done without my learning partner. In fact I think with him I did only up until page 104. Also the beginning of the booklet where I talk about Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's idea was done on my own.

None of this is anything to be proud of. Without a learning partner, I don't do very well in learning Torah. And that is a fact. But sometimes there is no choice but to do the best I can given my circumstances.

Songs of gratitude to God

n62 g4 n65  n67 n60 n59 n58 n57 n56 n55 n54

The Torah is Never The Principle

When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some Torah or halacha, only to get tangled up very quickly in contradictions.
Mostly it's laziness (or shallowness) and an attempt to seize the moral high ground. It's hard to defend specific issues when you're confronted by someone who simply rejects your basic premises. How do you find out what lines of argument they would find persuasive? (Hint: ask them. Say "what exactly would you accept as proof that I'm right?" Most of the time they don't have a clue, because most people only think about why they're right, not how they might be wrong.) It's far easier to enunciate some broad, high principle like Torah or Halacha, except that it's very easy to get tangled up in contradictions.


So What Is the Principle?
Who Reaps the Rewards?

Both Reform Jews and the insane religious world  argue that the reward system of society should favor those who do the most for the society. For Reform and Conservative, that's workers and intellectuals, without whom there would be no labor force to accomplish anything. Conservative Jews argue that any Third World country illustrates what labor alone can do without vision, capital and direction. Conservative Jews believe the rewards should favor those who provide the vision, direction, resources and structure to make labor productive. The insane religious world  argue that they do the most by invisible means.
Who bears the Costs?

Reform Jews tend to assume that social problems stem from inequality and lack of empowerment. Their suggested approach is to redress the inequality by redistributing wealth and limiting the powerful. In the face of some social problem, their approach is to restructure society to minimize the problem or restrict actions that contribute to the problem. Conservative Jews, on the other hand, tend to assume that social problems stem from sociopaths or stupid individuals. Their approach is to protect the law abiding population while restricting the sociopaths and allowing the stupid to endure the consequences of their actions. Both groups want to place the burden on the people they consider the root of the problem.
the insane religious world want the wealth to be redistributed to themselves and by that they think all problems will disappear. And to eliminate Reform Jews and make Baali Teshuva into the worker class.


Reform Jews want to place tax and regulatory burdens on the wealthy and privileged, conservatives want to place them on criminals and the nonproductive.


Nobody Really Wants Equality or a Classless Society

Since both liberals Jews and conservative Jews favor some groups over others, it's clear that neither group really believes everyone should be equal. Both have their own hierarchy they would like to see in power. The liberal theory is that groups that have been systematically deprived of a place in American society should be empowered, while the forces that have denied them a place should be held in check. Superficially, this attitude looks a lot like favoring equality. Looking below the surface, we find a widespread sentiment that the middle class morality is inferior.



The disdain for the "middle class" on the part of liberals suggests pretty strongly that they consider the middle class drones, whose only value is to generate tax revenue for social programs to benefit the "real people" of society, who don't allow their authenticity to be sullied by deferred gratification. After all, a self-styled "civilized person" says the middle class has no values because they are "99% driven by imitation" and their expressed values are "merely oft-repeated platitudes."


  Conservative Jews hold that "socially constructive" people should govern while the "nonproductive" should change their lifestyles and work their way up. In practice this means conservatives favor
The wealthy over the poor,The managerial class over the working class, Property owners over non-owners,  The law-abiding versus criminals, The self-supporting over those on assistance.
Nobody Really Wants a Meritocracy

More specifically, nobody wants a meritocracy based on actual accomplishment.  What both camps really want is a meritocracy of values, that is, an aristocracy in which position is dictated by attitude and conduct. Class is neither race, nor wealth, but behavior, though different socioeconomic classes have distinctive behaviors that identify their members.
 The problem with meritocracy is there has to be a definition of merit. And liberals and conservatives hold radically differing views on the subject.

my comment on Maggie's Farm  Maggie's Farm


...  The word "liberal" in the way of common usage in the USA ... is Socialism. That is the reason the word "extreme" is being attached to it.  It is not referring to the type of liberal philosophy of John Locke that the USA was founded upon.
And Socialism can in fact be accurately defined as extremist because its methods and goals are extremist. The reason for this is that the socialist recognized the smallest social unit as society, not the family nor the individual. With no individual rights and no freedom, Socialism can rightfully be called extreme in the most prejudiced type of way.

For Believers in "Rights" You believe that gay marriage, Internet access, food, and health care are rights. Okay, prove it.

My own idea about this issue is the need to learn about Natural Law starting with Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Aquinas and John Locke. And then to develop an actual legal system based on natural law and natural rights. Not manufactured rights.

From Steven Dutch

For Believers in "Rights"

You believe that gay marriage, Internet access, food, and health care are rights.

Okay, prove it.

"Proof" does not mean using the Caps Lock key and lots of exclamation points, or calling names or using invective. Anyway, "Fascist" proves nothing except your emotional response to an issue.

No, proof means starting from basic axioms and reasoning, step by step, using logic that can be demonstrated to be valid. See an old-time geometry text for how it's done.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Well, that's the Declaration of Independence and those rights exist because they are "endowed by their Creator." That, by the way, is the only theory of rights in any of our founding documents. So those sentiments have been nullified by separation of Church and State. Talk about your law of unintended consequence

Here is the link: Steven Dutch Essay

My own idea about this issue is the need to learn about Natural Law starting with Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Aquinas and John Locke. And then to develop an actual legal system based on natural law and natural rights. Not manufactured rights.

Now Rav Shach I think would not agree with this. I have heard that he held from Torah as the only valid form of government and law. But that was just yesterday that I heard this from my learning partner. But in Torah we do have the law "the law of the country is law" when it does not contradict the Torah. In any case, in a practical sense it is best not to give power to people that think they know Torah. Democracy might be the only safeguard to prevent people that think they know Torah from taking power.

Clearly the theory of the Rambam is that natural law is necessary in order to be able to keep and understand Torah law. [That is from the Guide.]

See this essay Essay by Kelly Ross

A link to music written for the glory of God

n98 n98 midi  n98 in nwc

The booklet on Bava Metzia edited