Bava Sali

David Abuchatzeira was murdered by Muslims on the 14th of Kislev. That is why I thought to write a few words about the Abuchatzeira family. The major thing that was special about this family was their idea of education. They had the basic approach that you would find in any Lithuanian yeshiva straight Gemara and Musar and Poskim. But their way of keeping Torah was significantly simplified..They were not reading too much Dante I should say. At at a certain point they would get into the Ari-Isaac Luria. But that went along with a good deal of fasting.
Let me mention a few things as samples of the events surrounding them. Israel Abuchatzeira once was  one  a bus going going from one town to the next. It go to be time for the afternoon prayer. {Mincha}. He told the person he was with to ask the bus driver to stop the bus so he could get out and pray. The driver laughed at such a ridiculous request.  So the fellow returned to his seat. Then Bava Sali (Israel Abuchatzeira) told him to get ready to get off the bus. Then suddenly the engine broke down. They got off to pray as the bus driver got out to see of he could fix the engine. Bava Sali took his own sweet time to pray as was his custom. After he finished they got back on the bus and he told the person his was with to tell the driver he could start the bus now. The driver  yelled at him and said can't you see I have been trying to start this thing for the last hour? So he returned to his seat. Bava Sali told him to tell the driver to just put the key in the ignition and see what happens. He did so and the bus started with no problem.

One thing you in Bava Sali--is the idea of authentic  Torah. He was not involved with "Tikunim." That is he was not taking any one particular Mitzvah. His was straight learning and keeping Torah. The oral and written law. The פירוש המקובל. That is the explanation of the Written Torah that was received by the sages of the Mishna and Talmud. Things written later are not the oral nor written law. They can at best explain some aspects of the oral or written law but do not override them and when they go off into their own explanation not based on the oral law then they are ספרים חיצוניים-books that the sages say one loses his portion in the  next world by reading them. [That means most so called Torah books today are in fact ספרים חיצוניים]. See the Rif and Rosh there on the mishna in Sanhedrin.

Bava Sali was not a fan of the "great books" education. STEM maybe but not secular education outside of the natural sciences or straight forwards learning a vocation.

Bava Sali

I thought it would be proper to say a few words about David Abuchatzeira, the older brother of Bava Sali. It is after all 14 Kislev on the Jewish Calendar.
The main phenomenon of the Abuchatzeira family was really located in Morroco.. That is where the family lived until the State of Israel was founded.
This family seemed to be blessed with ascetics. That is they would be married but they would be living the kind of life you would associate with a ascetic in other ways. It is hard to explain.
But without going into too much detail let me at least mention that their general path was what you would call straight Torah and Mitzvah. It would be the same thing as you would have in any Lithuanian Yeshiva. The only difference would be that after some member of the family would have gone through Shas a few time they would begin to learn the writings of Isaac Luria and at that point begin to go up in levels of holiness and separation from this world,--but they would still be married.

Though the charlatans called kabalists abound nowadays, still this family was different. They were the real thing. And their powers came from the side of Holiness. {There are plenty of people with powers from the Dark Side, and you need a certain degree of talent to be able to spot them.}

There was a time that you could go anywhere in Israel and just mention the name of Bava Sali and someone would have a story to tell you of how they went to him with some problem and it was magically solved afterwards.

The stories were astounding. And it seemed impossible to say they were all lying or had some agenda.

We have the Rambam in laws of accidental sacrifices 7:3 :  If one does a work on Shabat and he knows it is Shabat but he forgot that kind of work is forbidden or else he forgot the punishment then he brings a sin offering.  Even if he did all 39 he brings 39 sin offerings, Someone asked Avraham the son of the Rambam in what way did he remember it is shabat? {That is needed in order so that this does not deteriorate into a simple case when one forgot it is Shabat and he brings just one sacrifice.}

Avraham said the beginning of the halacha is not connected to the end or he remembered the branches of the work.

The  point of Rav Avraham. The end is not connected to the beginning. For all 38 kinds of work he could have forgotten both or just the עונש, but when we get up to the 39th one it can only be he forgot the עונש. If he forgot both and for all 39 works then that is שכחת שבת and he brings only on sacrifice.

The question of the Beit Yoseph of the son of the Rambam is this: Let us start out at the beginning. He he forgot a work and its punishment, or just the punishment he brings one sin offering. Keep going. He forgot 38 works and their punishment or he knew they were all forbidden but forgot the punishment. He brings 38. Then what? It is no longer symmetrical We can't have he forgot 39 and their punishments because in what way did he remember Shabat?


Later note: The question on the Rav Avraham is simple. The Rambam wrote over there in laws of Shabat [7:8] that even if one forgot all 39 kinds of work he brings 39 sin offerings.There is no scenario where he  does not know some kind of work but knows its punishment. So when the Rambam says he forgot all 39 that has to mean both the works and their punishment. This is a direct contradiction to the son of the Rambam.

_____________________________________________________________________________




We have the רמב''ם in הלכות שגגות ז:ג :  If one does a work on שבת and he knows it is שבת but he forgot that kind of מלאכה is forbidden, or else he forgot the עונש, then he brings a חטאת.  Even if he did all ל''ט he brings ל''ט חטאות, Someone asked רב אברהם the son of the רמב''ם in what way did he remember it is שבת? That is needed in order so that this does not deteriorate into a simple case when one forgot it is שבת and he brings just one חטאת.

רב אברהם said the beginning of the הלכה is not connected to the end, or he remembered the תולדות of the מלאכות.

The  point of רב אברהם. The end is not connected to the beginning. For all ל''ח kinds of work he could have forgotten both or just the עונש, but when we get up to the ל''ט  one it can only be he forgot the עונש. If he forgot both for all ל''ט מלאכות then that is שכחת שבת and he brings only one sacrifice.

The question of the בית יוסף of the son of the רמב''ם is this:
 The question on רב אברהם is: The רמב''ם wrote over there in laws of הלכות שבת ז:ח that even if one forgot all ל''ט kinds of מלאכה he brings ל''ט חטאות. There is no scenario where he  does not know some kind of מלאכה but knows its עונש. So when the רמב''ם says he forgot all ל''ט that has to mean both the מלאכות and their עונש. This is a direct contradiction to the son of the רמב''ם.


הרמב''ם הלכות שגגות ז: ג אם אחד עושה עבודה  בשבת והוא יודע את זה שהוא שבת, אבל הוא שכח  שסוג הזה של מלאכה אסור, או שהוא שכח עונש, אז הוא מביא חטאת. גם אם הוא עשה את כל הל''ט הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. מישהו שאל רב אברהם בנו של רמב''ם באיזה אופן לא הוא זוכר את זה הוא שבת? (למה צריך את זה כך שזה לא יידרדר למקרה פשוט שאחד שכח שהוא שבת שהוא מביא רק  חטאת אחת. רב אברהם אמר שתחילת ההלכה אינה מחוברת לסוף, או שהוא זכר את תולדותיה של מלאכות. הנקודה רב אברהם. הסוף אינו מחובר להתחלה. לכל סוגים ל''ח של עבודה יכול חהיות שהוא שכח את המלאכה או רק העונש, אבל כאשר אנחנו מגיעים  לל''ט יכול להיות רק שהוא שכח את העונש. אם הוא שכח גם לכל הל''ט מלאכות, אז זה שכחת שבת והוא מביא רק קורבן אחד.

השאלה של הבית יוסף של בנו של רמב''ם היא זו
 הרמב''ם כתב  בדיני הלכות שבת ז: ח שאם אחד שכח את כל הל''ט מיני מלאכה הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. אין תרחיש שבו הוא לא יודע איזה סוג של מלאכה אבל יודע את העונש. לכן, כאשר רמב''ם אומר שהוא שכח את כל  הל''ט זה שהוא שכח את המלאכות ועונשן. זוהי סתירה ישירה לבן של רמב''ם

I had an unusual path that took me from California to the Mir Yeshiva in NY and then to Israel. On this path I learned Torah--that is the oral and written Torah  and towards the last few years in NY I added learning the Ari to me regular sessions.

 This path  was a synthesis between Reason and Revelation. It was not faith alone. Nor reason alone. It was the kind of path you see in the Musar medieval ethic books.

After some time I fell from this and so I have no information about how one can fix things in his life after they have fallen apart. 

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.