There is a time in a person's life when a major life decision has to be made. and he or she knows that their entire future depends on that on decision. My idea is that when we talk about sin that this is connected to this major life decision. Though you may not know which is the right way at the time later it does become clear which way was right and which way not.

I usually think of sin as being a daily kind of thing, Lashon Hara, gossip, Bitul Torah, etc. But I think these areas of major decisions are the more determining areas in which sin is relevant.

So how does one go about making the right life decision?

I suggest trust in God can be helpful in this area. That is to make a decision based on the idea that I really do not know which path is right. There can be  a path before  a person that he thinks is right but it ends in death. So we can't depend on our own reason and logic in this area. Especially when we think we are doing a mitzvah. The areas in which we think we are doing a mitzvah are almost always the exact areas of our biggest sins.

I have areas I think are my sins. Many time I was convinced I was doing the right thing, and it turned out that I had made a disastrous decision. So I conclude that there is something about the decision making process itself that needs to be corrected in order for a me or any person to live an upright life. It can't be following reason, nor what he thinks the Torah commands. The Satan dresses up in mitzvot and seduces people by calling to them saying, "Come and do a mitzvah."

The areas that I think are my own sins have given me an amazing perspective and insight about the world. That is doing a sin and getting punished in a way that seems like a direct result of the sin or not listening to my parents because I was sure I knew better than them and finding out that they were right all along has given me more insight about the world the nature of objective morality more than any amount of book learning (even Torah learning) could ever give.

Being against the State of Israel I discovered in this way is  a terrible sin. Since then I have tried to speak for the peace of Jerusalem and Israel. There was the Satmar Rav, Joel [who was a tzadik] who was against the State of Israel. But because of this kind of reasoning I decided he was wrong. [Later I found out his objections to the State of Israel had no basis in Halacha, but were based on obscure midrashim which have no legal validity.]


I also learned how right my parents were when they were so upset that I decided not to go to university and learn a vocation. But that is not to say they were against learning Torah. Just the opposite. They themselves put me into Hebrew school on Shabat and encouraged my learning and keeping Torah. Rather the idea of going to yeshiva instead of learning a vocation they saw as wrong and time proved they were right. That is they saw I was joining the "frum world" and they knew that that has nothing to do with authentic learning and keeping Torah. Rather it has to do with joining a social club where one thinks he will do well. Ane they convince him to join because they see they cant survive without a working class slave group under them

R. Yochanan says [Shabat page 69b ] if one remembers Shabat but forgets any of the 39 types of work forbidden on Shabat or their punishment he brings a sin offering for each one. Even if he does all 39 he brings 39 sin offerings. Reish Lakish says he forgetting the punishment is regarded as doing it on purpose.
[Carrying in a public domain, lighting a fire, cooking, etc]
I mentioned the question on the Rambam that the son of the Rambam answered. This was where the Rambam [Laws of Shegagot 7:3] says forgetting all 39 kinds of work on Shabat with their punishments brings 39 sin offerings. The question was in what way then does he remember Shabat?

Before I get to the answer of Rav Avraham  and the alternative answer of Rav Shach I wanted to say the question is more severe than meets the eye. The reason is that the Gemara says why does the mishna say 39? To tell us in the case he remembered Shabat but forgot all the 39 he brings 39 sin offerings. Then the Gemara says this crucial phrase "בשלמא לרבי יוחנן" "That is fine for Rabbi Yochanan, but to Reish Lakish there is a question. If he forgot the 39 then how does he remember Shabat?"  I ask why is it fine to R. Yochanan? Because of the difference between him and Reish Lakish. If not for that difference it is clear the Gemara would think we have a question on Rabbi Yochanan also.

Just to be more clear: The Gemara thinks 39 is OK to R Yochanan because he can do all 39 and know they are forbidden, but forget the punishment. That is why it is OK. [He brings 39 sin offerings.] So the Gemara has no problem with R Yochanan because obviously he is remembered Shabat in knowing all 39 are forbidden. But when we turn to the Rambam it looks like doing all 39 and  forgetting them and their punishment still brings 39 sin offerings.

Now the son of the Rambam said the only two answers would help if not for the Rambam in laws of Shabat. One. The Rambam in the end of that halacah was not saying it in context of the beginning. Or he remembered the Toldot (branches of work). This last answer of Rav Avraham could help, but not the first because the Rambam in laws of Shabat says forgetting all 39 brings 39 sin offerings. [You can't forget something is forbidden, but know its punishment.] But even the "Toldot" (branches) is not a great answer. The best answer is that of Rav Shach, that  12 mil is forbidden from the Torah.

_______________________________________________________________________________



רבי יוחנן says if one remembers שבת but forgets any of the ל''ט types of work forbidden on שבת or their עונשן he brings a קרבן חטאת for each one. Even if he does all ל''ט he brings ל''ט חטאות sin offerings. ריש לקיש says he forgetting the עונש is regarded as doing it  מזיד.

I mentioned the question on the רמב''ם that the son of the רמב''ם answered. This was where the רמב''ם הלכות שגגות ז:ג says forgetting all ל''ט kinds of מלאכה on שבת with their punishments brings ל''ט sin offerings. The question was in what way then does he remember שבת?

Before I get to the answer of רב אברהם and the alternative answer of רב ש''ך I wanted to say the question is more severe than meets the eye. The reason is that the גמרא says why does the משנה say ל''ט? To tell us in the case he remembered שבת but forgot all the ל''ט he brings ל''ט sin offerings. Then the גמרא says this crucial phrase "בשלמא לרבי יוחנן" "That is fine for רבי יוחנן , but to ריש לקיש there is a question. If he forgot the ל''ט then how does he remember שבת?"  I ask why is it fine to רבי יוחנן? Because of the חילוק between him and ריש לקיש. If not for that difference it is clear the Gemara would think we have a question on רבי יוחנן also.

Just to be more clear: The גמרא thinks ל''ט is OK to רבי יוחנן because he can do all do all ל''ט and know they are forbidden but forget the עונש. That is why it is OK. So the גמרא has no problem with רבי יוחנן because obviously he is remembering שבת in knowing all ל''ט are forbidden. But when we turn to the רמב''ם, it looks like doing all ל''ט and  forgetting them and their עונשן still brings ל''ט sin offerings.

Now the son of the רמב''ם said the only two answers here I can think would help. One. The רמב''ם in the end of that הלכה was not saying it in context of the beginning. Or he remembered the תולדות branches of work.

 רבי יוחנן אומר שאם אחד זוכר שבת אבל שוכח כל ל''ט סוגי העבודה האסורים בשבת או עונשן הוא מביא קרבן חטאת עבור כל אחד. גם אם הוא עושה את הכל שהוא מביא ל''ט חטאות (קורבן חטאת). ריש לקיש אומר שאם הוא שוכח את העונש זה  נחשב שעושה את זה במזיד. הזכרתי את השאלה ברמב''ם שהבן של רמב''ם ענה. זה היה המקום שרמב''ם  אומר שאם שוכחים כל ה  ל''ט מינים של של מלאכה בשבת עם העונשים שלהם מביא ל''ט קורבן חטאת. (הלכות שגגות ז: ג) השאלה הייתה באיזו דרך אז הוא זוכר שבת
לפני שאני דן בתשובה של רב אברהם ותשובה חלופית של רב ש''ך, רציתי לומר השאלה היא חמורה יותר ממה שנראה לעין. הסיבה לכך היא שהגמרא אומרת מדוע המשנה אומרת ל''ט? לספר לנו במקרה שהוא נזכר שבת אבל שכח את כל הל''ט שהוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. אז הגמרא אומרת את המשפט הזה "בשלמא לרבי יוחנן, זה בסדר לרבי יוחנן, אבל לריש לקיש יש שאלה. אם הוא שכח ל''ט אז איך הוא יזכור שבת?" אני שואל למה זה בסדר לרבי יוחנן? בגלל החילוק בינו ובין ריש לקיש. אם לא ההבדל הזה ברור שהגמרא הייתה חושבת שיש לנו שאלה על רבי יוחנן גם. רק כדי להיות ברור יותר: הגמרא חושבת ל''ט הוא בסדר לרבי יוחנן משום שהוא יכול לעשות את כל  הל''ט ויודע שהם אסורות, אבל שוכח את העונשים. זו הסיבה שזה בסדר. אז  לגמרא אין בעיה עם רבי יוחנן, כי ברור שהוא זוכר שבת בידיעה שכל הל''ט אסורות. אבל כאשר אנו פונים לרמב''ם, זה נראה כמו שהוא עושה כל הל''ט ושוכח אותם ועונשן ועדיין מביא ל''ט קורבן חטאת. עכשיו בנו של רמב''ם אמר שתי התשובות שיכולות לעזור. אֶחָד. רמב''ם בסוף ההלכה לא אומר את זה בהקשר של ההתחלה. או שהוא נזכר בתולדות (הסניפים של עבודה).

Anaxagoras and Kant. Instead of things having to conform to the human mind I think it would be a better idea to have things conform to the Mind that Anaxagoras was  suggesting. This would correspond roughly to Plotinus's three step system. First the One--the First Cause emanates the Mind. The Mind then contemplates the One and produces the world soul.

[I am here leaning on my yeshiva education with Maimonides and Saadia Gaon's Neo Platonic approach. I admit this. But in any case, I think to make this kind of modification in Kant makes sense. But it does introduce a kind of Schopenhauer element into Kant. Dr. Kelley Ross would almost surely not go for this since he wants to stick with Kant's "dinge an sich" plural. Not Schopenhauer's "Ding An Sich" singular.

Lithuanian yeshivas.

My basic idea of serving God is the kind of thing that you would have in a regular Lithuanian yeshiva. That would be learning the Babylonian Talmud along with Musar. I know the are questions about even the best of Lithuanian yeshivas.


Torah is  its most simple form the actual Oral and Written Law. {By "Oral Law" I mean the actual tradition that were written down in the time of the Talmud. Not things that were written a thousand years later and some one person claimed it was written  thousand years before that and had been hidden somewhere in Spain. Let's say I had a book that I claimed had been written by Rashi a 900 years ago and only I had ever seen it. And I would not let anyone see the original but made copies of each page and charged a hand and a leg for each page.   Would you believe Rashi had written it?


The lack in Musar is that of the philosophy behind it. Even people that learn Musar often have zero knowledge of the Philosophical systems of Saadia Gaon or the Rambam. השקפה the world view of people that learn and teach Musar is usually directly opposed to the actual worldviews of the Rishonim. Musar has become just another form of religious fanaticism and is very far from the vision of the Rambam or Israel Salanter.

Most of what goes on in the "frum world" I consider far from Torah. Even  groups that supposedly learn secular subjects I think are into pseudo sciences, not real sciences. The more mysticly oriented groups are led by delusional. schizophrenics. That is why I will only mention authentic Litvak yeshivas as presenting authentic Torah teachings.

The fellow that died in Uman on Rosh Hashanah 2015

The wife of the fellow that died in Uman on Rosh Hashanah came there sometime after Sukkot. She supplied some detail to the actual story. [The incident was on Rosh Hashanah itself. She came afterwards I imagine to find some sense of closure.]




 The fellow had epilepsy. There were a few episodes and then he had a dream of Reb Nachman coming to him telling him if he would come for Rosh Hashanah it would all be OK. He was also saying the entire book of Psalms for 40 days in a row. The event happened on the fortieth day. Apparently it was not as some had thought that he went to the river to dip in "tovel." Rather he went out to do Hitbodadut [Talk with God alone as Reb Nachman emphasized.] He fell in the river while doing Hitbodadut and drowned. No one could find him for a week or two.


This is like the normal question of theodicy. But it is worthwhile  knowing that there is a negative side of things when it comes to Breslov. I don't want to minimize it.
But for me Reb Nachman seems  basically very good. I can't answer why this does not seem to apply to everyone across the board, even people that are obviously sincere.

One problem I think is that of "Ribui Or" ריבוי אור ("excess light"). But I should mention that questions on Ren Nachman  are perennial .  And there are new ones all the time. But to me these question just seem like obstacles that are meant to keep me from the good ideas and advice of a tzadik who I feel I in fact get benefit from.

Spiritual things have an aspect of the subject and another of the object. The subject--i.e. the observer supplies the way he sees the reality. So even objective reality will depend on who is the observer. The same reality can turn from good to bad depending on the receiver. סם חיים למימינים וסם מוות למשמאילים בה. That does not mean that that is what happened to that fellow. I imagine he was truly following the advice and path of Reb Nachman to the best of his ability, All I am saying is there are plenty of people that don't and for them it does have a bad effect.


But the bad aspect should not be ignored either. There are pitfalls that need to be avoided. The baali teshuva give great power to their leaders although they are scammers and frauds. There is a tendency to leave one's vocation and or yeshiva and both of these are wrong.

songs for the God of Israel

q70 [q70 in midi]  q1 [q1 in midi] n1 [n1 in midi] b98 [b98 in midi]   b101 [b101 in midi]  b104  [b104 in midi] b105 [b105 in midi] m69 [m69 in midi] g1 [g1 in midi] g2 [g2 in midi] g3 [g3 in midi]   q67 D major   [q67 in midi] g4 [g4 in midi] orchestra exodus4    

q68 [q68 in midi]
      JS 1 [js1 in midi] Mathematics  n2 [n2 in midi]  n3 [n3 in midi] n5 [n5 in midi]  q69 [q69 in midi]  n8  [n8 in midi]

Kabalah . Much of the formal structure of what we have from Isaac Luria comes from the pre-Socratics, Plotinus and Mani (founder of Manichaeism--the faith that Augustine broke away from).  It does not seem all that insightful when you know from where it comes.  On the other hand  once you have the formal structure, it seems often the mystics themselves had  some great insights. It is not a settled question me.

I made a detailed study of this once. Mainly the idea of the ten sepherot comes from a disciple of Plato. The contraction {"tzimtzum"} was from the presocratics. The "sparks of holiness" from Mani. Adam Kadmon also from Mani.

And most of what passes for divine spirit by so called kabalists seems to me to be mainly kelipat Noga. That is the Middle Zone [heichalai hatmurot] between holiness and unholiness that gives one great powers and knowledge about peoples secrets.


Mainly I think that Kabalah is a way of conceiving spiritual reality. And when one gets into it then the reality becomes real. It is like Kant's idea of the representation   of "the thing in itself." The representation is half supplied by the object and half by the observer. That is the believing in it makes it real. Not just the Kabalah but any spiritual reality system has this quality of being able to absorb people that believe it into itself.

Appendix: (1) Plato's disciple did not actually invent ten sepherot. At first there were nine. Only in the Middle Ages was a tenth added to account for the precision of the north star.  And you can see this scheme in the end of the Eitz Chaim. And while we do not think that the Ari was learning Manichaeism but all of these ideas were common in the Middle Ages when people had been learning Plotinius and Mani's beliefs were also wide spread and almost became the primary world religion at one time. All these ideas were put into the Zohar and that is where the Ari found them.

(2) I do not mean to deny the validity of the Ari. Rather I simply say he was seeing the Torah through the worldview of the time of the Zohar. But in any case if one want to learn Torah I think the best option is simply the traditional Oral and Written Law. That is the Old Testament and the two Talmuds. Not Kabalah.

(3) One of the central beliefs of Manichaeism was the notion that every human being had two warring souls: one that was part of the Light, and another that was evil. This was itself based on Zoroastrianism.  

(4) According to Mani through lust and the sin, the Darkness tries to imprison more and more bits of Light within matter. 

(5) Seeing how much of Kabalah incorporates beliefs of ancient religions made it less interesting to me. Unless I would have thought that Mani was a true prophet. I could keep on making excuses but at some point it seemed more interesting just to go back to learning straight authentic Torah and leave the deluded with their delusions.

(6) To get  better idea of what Torah is about I think it makes more sense to look at Maimonides and Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol, and the Duties of the Heart. Though Ari still gives very important insights, still I would not take that as standard.

(7) Another aspect of Manichaeism that became an important part of  the teachings of the Ari is the שם ב'ן in which there was the breaking of the vessels and then the rebirth of the name מ''ה החדש Adam Kadmon after the tikun of the vessels in the form of the the sepherot that is well known.

In Mani we also find the three stages-the first creation. The breaking of the vessels. Then the second creation with Adam Kadmon being reborn. Then the final Redemption. All very well defined in Kabalah and in Mani.


For me this makes the approach of Saadia Gaon and the basically rationalist Jewsih philosophers of the Middle Ages more interesting than Kabalah. Though I have the greatest respect for the Ari and genuine Mystics still their visions do not define the worldview Torah for me.

(8) I spent a great deal of time learning the Ari and I think  that after a good solid background  in Talmud the Ari can serve as a kind of conduit for a kind of Divine light. So I do not want to discount its importance. But by and large it just leads people to delusions. That is its effect on 99% of those involved with it.  It gains mastery over men's minds by the astonishing completeness, minuteness, and consistency of its assertions. They lose themselves in it.

(9) For me I should say I found learning the books of the Ari and the Gra in Kabalah to be very helpful. The trouble without these books the world is drained of its mystery and magic. It becomes a secular  world. The world of  The Guide for the Perplexed is a secular world. The world of the Ari is full of holiness and mystery. And  I learned to find the magic and holiness in everything --especially Physics which to me reveals the greatness and wisdom of God.