Bava Metzia on BM page 98a; Shavuot 45b/

Introduction. According to Rabbainu Tam, Rav Chiya bar Joseph says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. That means a שומר שכר   paid guard you do not need כפירה. So if you have נאנסו והודאה  alone that is enough to take an oath. Rav Chiya bar Aba says שומר שכר   (paid guard) need כפירה in order to take an oath.



That in my book I said Rashi can say he  explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. I don't think in my book I made this point very clear. At any rate, what I was saying makes a lot of sense. But Tosphot when he asks on Rashi tries to fend off this point.  רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this.



רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a Migo then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. Rashi in a different place in Shas says that a שומר  takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. Tosphot asks rightly that that Rashi is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written in my book that Rashi can say Rava is going like רבי חייא בר אבא [you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath] and that the place where Rashi says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.

What Tosphot writes in Shavuot I think is meant to fend off this answer of Rashi. There he writes in his question about Rabbainu Tam "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is no oath with הודאה ונאנסו  he admits there is an oath with הודאה וכפירה" What Tosphot is doing is saying a point not just about his question on Rabbainu Tam but also implying with his "even" to say that רבי חייא בר יוסף also agrees  מודה מקצת that is  כפירה והודאה would have an oath.

___________________________________________________________________________

 רש''י can say he  explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף.   But תוספות when he asks on רש''י tries to fend off this point. That much I did not mention in my notes. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן that is when it says by a שומר the words כי הוא זה we need to put those words somewhere else because they don't fit with the case of a שומר. If the object is there let him give it back.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this. Rather the words fit in their place because we say with a guard he need to be מודה מקצת admission in part in order to take an oath.




  רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a מיגו then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. רש''י in a different place  says that a שומר  takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. What תוספות asks rightly that that רש''י is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written  that רש''י can say רבא is going like רבי חייא בר אבא you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath, and that the place where רש''י says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.

What תוספות writes in שבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך I think is meant to push off this answer of רש''י. There he writes in his question about רבינו תם "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is No oath with הודאה ונאנסו  he admits there is an שבועה with הודאה וכפירה. What תוספות is doing is saying a point not just about his question on רבינו תם but also implying with his אפילו to say that רבי חייא בר also agrees you need מודה מקצת That is you need כפירה והודאה. It is only for נאנסו alone that would get an oath. Thus he is already striving to get to the ריב''א.

It sometimes happens you want to tell someone something that they need to hear but are not ready to hear. This happened with me and my father. He was not happy with my decision to go to yeshiva in at Shar Yashuv. It was not that he was unhappy with the Torah path. He just thought and wanted for me an honest vocation along with learning Torah..  That as a rule is true. But what I tried to tell him was that there is such a thing as learning Torah for its own sake. -And that also is true. but he knew that  if in fact you are learning Torah for its own sake,  then you need a kosher vocation on the side.

 What goes around comes around. My father wanted to tell me things that I was not ready to hear. And as a result of this I decided to turn off my connection with him. I had a kind of spiritual connection with me mother and a deep love for my father.  And that was the only time he had ever used his authority. Never before, nor ever after. And I was not willing to understand that what he was saying was Torah with a vocation. What he was saying was 100% true. But still I could not listen and as a result I lost my connection with him. 

For all the years after that I did not feel I had a connection with my father--because of that incident. But when he died some terrible thing happened to me. I felt like I had lost some kind of outer shielding. I had not realized that just by my father being alive and well there was a deeper connection with him than I had consciously been aware of. 

q48 c major q29   q26 a major  q20  j9 [j9 might need some editing] j10 j12 a minor 

Songs for the glory of God

q35 [q35 in midi] q35 nwc q67  [q67 in midi]  q67 nwc  [This q67 needs editing. But I can not do it right now.] q63  [q63 in midi] q63 midi [This q67 also needs editing] l98  l98 midi  l98 nwc    Exodus4  [exodus 4 midi]  [exodus 4 nwc]   q96 in Eflat major in mp3 [q96 nwc e flat major][q96 e flat major midi][q96 in F major in midi] [q96 nwc--f major][i do not know how two different pieces got the same name of q96]  [Exodus4 was from about 18 years ago on a trip back from Uman to California. We stopped in Philadelphia and I got out of the bus and this song just hit me like that. I spent the whole 1/2 break just writing it down and got back to the bus just as it was pulling out. q66 in midi   q66 in mp3  [q66nwc]

q79 E flat major [q79 needs editing] [q79 in midi] [q79 nwc]

I am surprised that libertarians think people can protect their own rights, but not a whole country. Some libertarian philosophers I have  a great deal of respect for. But in this subject they seem to be off. If a hostile population is intent on invading Europe and the USA, why should the borders be open? After all a country is made up of people. If people can protect their own right and space, so also a whole group of people ought to have the same right. I don't invite jihadists into my home. Why should a country invite them into its boundaries?

And this does not just mean physical boundaries. Every group has laws and norms. In the Talmud we find that to become Jewish there are standards. That is to keep the laws of the Torah. There is a whole formal process that this involves. No anyone can get in the front door. And even after you are in the front door there are standards. This is so in any group. Whether it is the Jewish people, or the Army or Marines. You certainly don't let people in that openly claim to want to break down the country or group. 

There is an argument between Rav Joseph HaLevi [a rishon] and the Ran [on the Rif]. Rav  Joseph says a מיגו does not apply to an oath. It does not patur one from an oath, but it can patur one from an obligation of money.The Ran says it does patur also from an oath. [A מיגו is when we say since he could have said a stronger plea and be believed we believe him when he says a weaker plea]


In Shavuot 46a and Bava Metzia 112 a Braita says we have a case of קציצה. That is the artisan says he was told he would receive two  for his work and the owner of the object says the artisan was told only one. The Braita says we believe the owner with an oath. Another braita says we believe the owner without an oath. Another braita says when the artisan was give a garment to fix then we believe the artisan with an oath. Rav Nachman says the last braita is Rabbi Yehuda of the Mishna. Why did he not say simply that in the last case there is no מיגו? Because in the first case also there is no migo. The gemara at the top of the page says the braita of Raba bar Shmuel is when there are עדים that there was an agreement but they did not hear for how much it was.


Why can't we answer the last braita the owner is not believed because he has no מיגו? He wants his garment. The first two cases were when the work the artisan was doing was not portable. So the object is in the רשות domain of the owner. But the gemara says in any case there is no migo because it has to be like the case of the שכיר where there were witnesses that there was an agreement.

But that was the way that Rav Nachman bar Isaac explained the braita of Raba bar Shmuel. Rava apparently does not agree. Rav Nachman bar Isaac was trying to make the braita go in accord with Rav and Shmuel. Rava disagreed with Rav and Shmuel and so he would leave the braita the way it sounds that there were no witnesses. And still the שכיר נשבע ונוטל and the בעל החפץ pays just one sela. But if so then to rava he has a migo. and so the difference between the two braitot might be in the first ones when the baal bait is believed it is because he has a migo  and in the last case where the talit is in the hands if the artisan he is not believed because he has no migo. This is a proof for Rav Joseph Halevi at least if we are going like Rava.




_______________________________________________________________________________

Here is the same idea but with a bit more Hebrew.


There is an argument between רב יוסף הלוי and the ר''ן. We have רב יוסף הלוי says a מיגו does not apply to an שבועה. It does not פוטר one from an שבועה, but it can פוטר one from an חיוב ממון. The ר''ן says it does פוטר also from an שבועה. A מיגו is when we say since he could have said a stronger plea and be believed we believe him when he says a weaker plea


In שבועות מ''ו ע''א and בבא מציעא קי''ב a ברייתא  של רבה בר שמואל says we have a case of קציצה. That is the אומן says he was told he would receive שתיים  for his work and the בעל החפץ says he told the  אומן  only one. The ברייתא says we believe the בעל החפץ with an שבועה. Another ברייתא says we believe the בעל החפץ without an שבועה. Another ברייתא says when the אומן was given a garment to fix then we believe the אומן with an שבועה. We have that רב נחמן בר יצחק says the last ברייתא is רבי יהודה of the משנה שמודה במקצת הטענה נשבע. Why did he not say simply that in the last case there is no מיגו? Because in the first case also there is no מיגו. The גמרא at the top of the page says the ברייתא of רבה בר שמואל is when there are עדים that there was an agreement but they did not hear for how much it was.


Why can't we answer the last ברייתא the owner is not believed because he has no מיגו? He wants his garment. The first two cases were when the חפץ the אומן was doing was not ניידת. So the object is in the רשות domain of the בעל החפץ. But the גמרא says in any case there is no מיגו because it has to be like the case of the שכיר where there were witnesses that there was an הסכמה.

But that was the way that רב נחמן בר יצחק explained the ברייתא of רבה בר שמואל. We have that רבא apparently does not agree. רב נחמן בר יצחק was trying to make the ברייתא go in accord with רב and שמואל. However רבא disagreed with רב and שמואל and so he would leave the ברייתא the way it sounds that there were no עדים. And still the שכיר נשבע ונוטל and the בעל החפץ pays just one סלה. But if so then to רבא he has a מיגו. And so the difference between the two ברייתות might be in the first ones when the בעל החפץ is believed it is because he has a מיגו  and in the last case where the טלית is in the hands if the אומן he is not believed because he has no מיגו. This is a proof for רב יוסף הלוי at least if we are going like רבא.



In any case, perhaps רבא and רב נחמן בר יצחק are  arguing about when we say a מיגו.  Could that be the יסוד of their מחלוקת?




יש ויכוח בין רב יוסף הלוי והר''ן.  רב יוסף לוי אמר מיגו אינו פוטר מן שבועה. זה אומר לא פוטר אחד משבועה, אבל זה יכול לפטור אחד מחיוב ממון. הר''ן אמר שהיא עושי לפטור גם משבועה. מיגו הוא כאשר אנו אומרים שכן הוא היה יכול  לומר טיעון חזק ולהאמין ולכן אנחנו מאמינים לו כשהוא אומר טיעון חלש. בשבועות  מ''ו ע''א ובבא מציעא קי''ב בברייתא של רבה בר שמואל יש לנו מקרה של קציצה. זה שהאומן אומר שנאמר לו שהוא יקבל שניים על עבודתו ובעל החפץ אומר שהוא אמר לאומן אחד בלבד. הברייתא אומרת שאנחנו מאמינים בעל החפץ  עם שבועה. עוד ברייתא אומרת שאנחנו מאמינים בעל החפץ ללא שבועה. עוד ברייתא אומרת כאשר האומן קיבל בגד לתקן אז אנחנו מאמינים אומן עם שבועה.  רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר ברייתא האחרונה היא רבי יהודה של המשנה שמודה במקצת הטענה נשבעה. למה הוא לא אמר בפשטות כי במקרה האחרון אין מיגו? כי במקרה הראשון גם אין מיגו. הגמרא בראש הדף, אמרה שהברייתא של רבה בר שמואל היא כאשר יש עדים שהיה הסכם אבל הם לא שמעו על כמה זה היה. למה אנחנו לא יכולים לענות שבברייתא האחרונה לא מאמינים לבעל החפץ כי אין לו מיגו? הוא רוצה את בגדו. שני המקרים הראשונים היו כאשר החפפ שהאומן עבד עליו לא היה נייד. אז החפץ ברשותו של בעל החפץ. אבל הגמרא אומרת בכל מקרה אין מיגו כי זה צריך להיות כמו במקרה של השכיר שבו היו עדים שהיה הסכמה. אבל זה היה האופן שבו רב נחמן בר יצחק הסביר את הברייתא של רבה בר שמואל. לי נראה שרבא לא מסכים. רב נחמן בר יצחק היה מנסה לעשות שהברייתא תהיה בקנה אחד עם רב ושמואל. עם זאת רבא לא הסכים עם רב ושמואל, ואז הוא יעזוב את  הברייתא להיות כפשוטו, שלא היו עדים. ועדיין השכיר נשבע ונוטל ובמצב של קציצה עם אומן בעל החפץ משלם רק אחד. אבל אם כן אז לרבא יש לבעל החפץ מיגו. וכך ההבדל בין שתי הברייתות עשוי להיות שבראשונה כאשר בעל חפץ הוא נאמן שזה בגלל שיש לו מיגו ובמקרה האחרון שבו הטלית היא בידיים של האומן בעל החפץ לא נאמן כי אין לו מיגו. זוהי הוכחה לרב יוסף לוי לפחות אם אנחנו הולכים כמו רבא.  בכל מקרה, על פני השטח נראה שרבא ורב נחמן בר יצחק  מתווכחים על שאלת מתי אומרים מיגו. זה יכול להיות היסוד המחלוקת.

Ideas in Bava Metzia     Title page for Ideas in Bava Metzia

the religious teachers

Getting married was an important aspect of yeshiva. It was not really spoken about but it was a powerful undercurrent.
The idea was to be a good yeshiva bachur (student) and you will get a good shiduch. This did not exactly work in my case. After all shiduchim and marriage are not accessible to human intervention. Once you are dealing with the realm of holiness and bringing good children into the world, human reason does not really apply. Still the basic structure was in place to have stable and good families.

Some yeshivas were known to be 90% about shiduchim  and 10% about learning Torah like Lakewood. NY yeshivas were the opposite. They were almost totally about Torah and very little about shiduchim. Shar Yashuv was about half and half. [Shar Yashuv had a sister institution run by the wife of Reb Freifeld which provided the fuel for this arrangement.]

But this really did not apply to divorced people. After a divorce one's social status dropped like lead.

Marriage no longer has the meaning that it used to have. Even in the yeshiva world. You might have expected the world of yeshivas to be like a Noah;s Ark against the tidal waves of feminism and other perversions.

The best I can suggest is: Trust in God-learn Torah. Though yeshivas are no longer bastions of faith and Torah, still one one own one can try to do his best.

1) The way I learned about trust in God with out any efforts on my part was by a book מדרגת האדם that was in the Musar section of the Mir Yeshiva in NY. Before that I had not heard of such a concept and I certainly did not have that kind of trust myself. When I joined the "Yeshiva World" I was simply saying whatever they do that is what I will do. They can't all be starving.

2)  I did not know then that the religious teachers are bad. Now I know.   And even then if I had known that the religious teachers are evil it still would not have stopped me. I still would say just like I do now that they are frauds and do not keep the holy Torah. The way I was then was that nothing was going to stop me from the Torah. Nothing.

3) Now I realize trust in God is an essential part of this whole learning Torah project. What I therefore suggest is to create what you could call Navardok yeshivas. That is places that have all the basic characteristics of a regular Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshiva but add an emphasis on trust [Bitachon].

4) Some places are devoted to money. They talk about trust but really mean to to get the money of secular rich Jews. Others claim that the Torah is a legitimate business. They think learning Torah for pay is kosher. These places are evil. They prey off the naivety of simple Jews.

5) The מדרגת האדם the book that I mentioned above is about trust has some section that are against learning natural sciences. He puts all secular subjects into one big category. I can't agree with this.

q96 e flat major

q96 e flat major  e40 e42 e43 e39 e36  e34  n100 E flat major   q7 B flat major

The trouble with yeshivas is that most of them are rotten to the core. It goes without saying that the make believe yeshivas that are learning anything but Gemara are a joke. But even among the ones learning Gemara it has becomes a business. The idea of a real authentic yeshiva is a great idea but today almost all yeshivas are rotten with demonic religious teachers at their head.

A real revolution is in order. But where could it begin. It is hard to know there are a few real places out there like Ponovitch and Brisk and three NY Giants- Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat. But a real revolution needs to be carried all over the world. Torah for its own sake--not for money. How to do this I do not know. But Obviously some one knew how to do this. Avraham Kalmonovitch, Rav Isaac Hutner, Rav Elazar Menachem Shach. How they did it, I do not know. But it must still be possible

)There is such a thing as trust in God with no effort. But I think the emphasis should go on the first part of the sentence. That is the effort aspect is not as essential as the trust in God part.

) In the Mishna of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi in Pirkei Avot we find two opinions. One is Torah with work. That is stated in the name of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel. The other is Rabbi Nechunya Ben HaKaneh that ''The yoke of work  is removed from anyone who accepts on themselves the yoke of Torah.'' Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi is not deciding the halacha but rather bringing both opinions without a statement which one is right as is his custom in the Mishna.


) And we find that the Altar of Navardok actually had this happen with him. That was the story about the candle in the middle of the night. [He was doing is usual Hitbodadut which in his case meant Hitbodadut in the traditional sense of shaving a hut in the middle of  a forest and spending all day and night alone learning Torah and praying. When his candle ran out, someone knocked on the door and handed to him a candle!

) My own situation was I was in Israel--not doing great but managing. I decided at some point to go with the approach of ''Torah with work.'' That was obviously not happening in Israel, so I thought to get back to California  and do this ''Torah with work'' approach there. That was a disaster. As I was looking for work all the demonic, the religious teachers there told my wife to divorce me because I was not working and learning Torah!! At any rate, I learned a hard lesson about trust in God. If you have a situation in which you are trusting in God and learning Torah and somehow managing, it is mistake to let go off it. And I learned later that this is the universal experience of people that are trusting in God, and then let it go. They fall just as I did.

So what you can see is I think an amazing lesson. You might not be obligated in this level of trust in the first place. But if you have it and let it go, it is accounted as slap in the face of God. Thus if one is a yeshiva or kollel and doing what he knows in his heart for the sake of heaven, then he must not let it go.

) We find in Sanhedrin that Daniel ran away from Nebuchadnezzar because he was afraid of the verse ואת פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש [burn their idols in flames] and Daniel thought this could apply to himself after that fact that Nebuchadnezzar had bowed down to him. That is he thought he himself could be considered an object of worship and thus be liable to be burnt. So worship of God must not be confused with tying oneself to a tzadik.

“wives are being turned against their husbands, and a lot of money is being made.”

dalrock

“wives are being turned against their husbands, and a lot of money is being made.” Far more profit in indulging in vices than healthy solutions.

My thinking about this was that I was not going to be able to fight the system. I have mentioned before that the religious teachers were the direct cause of my wife's turning against me and that the troubling aspect of this is they claim they are pro family.  For example, "Why do people turn against those who fear God? Because they are listening to Torah scholars that are demons."  (תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. This phrase in Hebrew from the Zohar packs a real punch that the English translation just can't duplicate.)

I have good reason though for minimizing the time I spend on this subject. I am afraid people might attribute this problem to the Torah itself. That I am sure is a natural reaction. But I try to defend the Oral and Written Law and try to show that, "Abuse of the Talmud does not cancel use."

My approach was this. Regardless of who convinced her to try to turn me into a slave I decided freedom was better than slavery. She wanted to go on strike, I simply found a peachy strike breaker.

[This opinion can be supported from the example of Calev ben Yefuna. People know this person mainly as the friend of Joshua (that the Bible testifies about that he was a total tzadik). Few learn the Books of Chronicles where the list of his girl friends is given. I figure what is good enough for Calev ben Yefuna is good enough for me. See the Gra on Shulchan Aruch Even Ezer who brings this example.)

How does Japan deal with Islam? From Ann Barnhardt. Why can not we all be as smart as Japan?

Ann Barnhardt

Have you ever read in the newspaper that a political leader or a prime minister from an Islamic nation has visited Japan ?

Have you ever come across news that the Ayatollah of Iran or the King of Saudi Arabia or even a Saudi Prince has visited Japan ?

Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay. Japan has put strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.

The reasons are :

1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.

2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.

3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan .

4) In the University of Japan , Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.

5) One cannot import a ‘Koran’ published in the Arabic language.

6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.

7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.

8) Japanese people are not attracted to Islam at all.

9) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.

10) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.

11) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.

12) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.

13) Muslims cannot even think about renting a house in Japan .

14) If anyone comes to know that his neighbour is a Muslim then the whole neighbourhood stays alert.

15) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic ‘Madrasa’ in Japan .

There is no Sharia law in Japan .

16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim then she is considered an outcast forever.

17) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies , “There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it.”

2. More fanmail, this time via email from a Mister Mohamed Megahed whose email address, if anyone is interested, is mohamedmegahed1@hotmail.com :

To: Ann Barnhardt
Re: Lets do it

I hope your kids get cancer u slut I hope your family dies in the one day and u live to live a sad life. If your parents are alive I hope death upon them too. And if they are dead I will piss on they graves the worthless peasants. I wanna meet up with you so I can make u a c*m bucket.

religious teachers

I had a good wife until psychopathic, religious teachers sunk their claws into her. So it may seem that I am being over cautious about staying away from religious teachers.  But I think I am not.  I think I am not being cautious enough.
When I am critical I do try to point out that they are as a rule as far from keeping the Torah as one could expect from hypocrites that put on religious clothing and make money from doing so.
 I can imagine there are out there religious teachers that sincerely think they are keeping the Torah, but I can reassure them that they are not. They are obstacles keeping people from Torah. It all begins with their using the Torah to make money. After that it is all downhill.
I do not think that they will ever change. So the only point of this is to warn others about the danger  in these people, especially for innocent people that really do want to keep Torah. If you want to keep Torah, the last person you want to be talk with is a religious teacher.
A positive suggestion would be to learn Torah yourself. And if you can find a place that learns and teaches authentic Torah--that is the Oral and Written Law  with no additions masquerading as Torah, then it is a good idea to learn there.  But such places are rare. And most have lost the authenticity. Now they are career orientated. That is they generally are out to make more the religious teachers. May God save us from them.  I wish I did not have to mention this negative aspect. I would rather focus on the positive side of Torah. But I still have an obligation from time to time to mention this important point to warn people.

[I should mention the distinction is simple. There are people in legitimate yeshivas who are sincerely interested in learning and and keeping Torah. And sometimes it happens by mistake they get the name "religious teacher" attached to them. This is confusing. But as a rule yeshiva people are not the kind of monsters that I am referring to here. So this distinction is important to keep in mind. People in straight, Lithuanian yeshivas are  not the kind I am referring to here.

מפסמים את החנפים בשבל חילול השם. The Talmud tells us we are required to shout out the name of the hypocrites to make sure people know about this problem. And the Chafetz Chaim goes into detail about this in chapter 7 of volume I. He makes clear there there are times when one is obligated to say Lashon HaRa, and concerning religious teachers this certainly applies. [In that chapter he deals with the issue of when we are required to warn people.  That is not to only place, but  it is the one I remember off hand.]

I thought about deleting this essay, but for now I will leave it. It brings out an important point. That is that anyone who really cares about Torah, should to get rid of all religious teachers. The only institution that really deserves support are authentic Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshivas where real Torah is learned.

The question is how to get rid of religious teachers? This is highly individual. People have to realize on their own how bad they really are.  There is nothing I can say until people discover this on their own. And by then it is too late.
______________________________________________________________________________

The dividing line is not exact. You have supposedly Lithuanian yeshivas that are cults. On the other hand Breslov which tends to be problematic, still has plenty of people that are sincere  and from the Side of Holiness. In fact, outside of the leaders which everyone knows are crazy, the majority of Breslov are in fact simple, sincere Jews.

_____________________________________________________________________________


So what is the dividing line? How does one tell? It is hard to know. Rav Shach certainly was able to see the difference, but besides him I have not heard of anyone. On the outside appearance there is no difference. The Dark Side  is even more strict in rituals in order to make itself seem kosher.
______________________________________________________________________

The word "religious teacher" is not in itself a proof of evil. After the new kind of ordination started by Rav Joseph  HaLevi from Vienna people started using this term.  But still you have great people that were refereed to as "Rabbi." No one says "Rav Akiva Eiger." It is "Rabbi Akiva Eiger".
So the main indication is probably simply affiliation with the group the Gra put into excommunication.  That seems to be the basic dividing line. The fact that that Gra was ignored in this point is how everything went downhill.

1)The way I learn Gemara is based on the idea that I have limited time each day. It is not the same thing as for a yeshiva student who can spend the whole day on Gemara.

The way I do it is I look at one whole "sugia."(subject) And every sugia in Shas has as a rule a sister sugia and maybe a few sisters.
So if you are like me and you have only about one hour per day this is what you do. You take the one half a page that is your starting sugia and you read through it with Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, Maharam of Lublin and the Rif and Nemukai Joseph. If you have time you add a few achronim like Rav Shach or Reb Chaim. If you read about the same speed as I do that altogether should take about one full hour. So for today you have done about as much as you can do. The next day you go back over the exact same material again.  You do that for about a week and then you go over to the sister sugia. Based on probability that sister sugia will probably be also about a half a page [one amud --one full column ]
2) This way is totally different from what a yeshiva student should do but since not everyone in the world is a yeshiva student it is important to know and do this method.
3) To some degree this idea is well known in the secular world. It is the reason why in high school you have 40 minute classes. And this 40 minute method has advantages and disadvantages. When I was in high school I found it terribly frustrating. It seems to pull me in all directions. So when I finally got to a NY yeshiva and was able to concentrate on one subject all day I was very very happy.
But nowadays when I am not in yeshiva I find this one hour approach to be amazingly effective.
4) Yeshiva is a different world and what one should do there is stick with the order that is set there. But much effort is needed to find a good Litvak yeshiva. When it comes to yeshiva one should not be fooled by the frauds. When it comes to Torah one must insist on authenticity. If it is not authentic is it worst than a waste of time. It is Sitra Achra. [The Dark Side.]

q94 [q94 in midi format] [q94 nwc]  A song of thanks to the God of Israel. q98 [q98 in midi] [q98 nwc] e45 in mp3 [e45 in midi]  [e45 nwc]e46 [e46 in midi] [e46 nwc]e47 [e47 in midi] [e47 nwc] e48 in mp3 [e48 in midi] [e48 nwc]  e51  [e51 in midi] [e51 nwc]  e55 in mp3. [e55 in midi][edited. e55 is my attempt at 6/8 time] [e55 nwc] q96  [q96 in midi]  q96 nwc e files are from about ten years ago. q files are more recent. There were lots of other files but a good deal was lost. q66 in mp3 [q66 in midi] [q66 nwc][q66 i just found buried in some old files so i added it to this blog entry]

People must be familiar with Shalom Sharabi's Nahar Shalom  in which he reduces the Sepherot to three.

[You can't miss it because it is right smack on the first page.]

It is hard not to see the connection between this and Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. I don't make it a point to point out connections like this unless something comes up to remind me. Hegel's Triads are obviously isomorphic the the Reshash who has the actual sepherot being three as per the begining of Nahar Shalom. But Schelling and the Nahar Shalom have an obvious connection.  One has intellectual intuition. But considering that Schelling's intellectual intuition is half subject and half object and not really inside of oneself except as it is perceived it comes out that they are saying what seems to be the same thing.
Faith is needed to get to attachment with God --that is why Jews are called the "Hebrews" which means "to pass over." The original idea was because Jews came from beyond the Jordan from Iraq [Mesopotamia]. To get to the Infinite One one has to pass over --that is to go by faith, not by reason.

Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi  showed that a system of rational knowledge never arrives at the knowledge of God since, for such a system, the unconditioned can only arise as a result of a process where the one conditioned leads to other conditioned in an infinite chain of negativity. To get to Devekut [absolute attachment with] with the Unconditioned, one must begin with the Unconditioned itself  which no rational knowledge ever attains. For Jacobi it is only the leap of faith beyond the system of rational knowledge that enables us to open to the unconditionality of the absolute being.

In this context I should mention that I personally do not know how attachment with God happens and I would assume that one needs the ability to discern object facts from spiritual delusions before he can make progress in this area. I felt myself a great deal of attachment with God when I was in Israel the first time, but I could not say how that occurred, and it was always hard to deal with that kind of level of reality.  But later I learned to appreciate this kind of thing and to realize it has great value.
The way I see value in  a Schelling kind of way. That is I have a normal semi circle of values but with me it is dynamic not static. That is it is a harmonic oscillator.



[And the idea of Schelling about intellectual intuition is the exact same thing that the Intuitionists are defending. 

The Second Temple

The actual Temple was mainly in the hands of the Sadducees who were not running it according to the Law. The Sanhedrin also was mainly packed with the Sadducees.  According to law one does not pay to get into the Temple. Nor does one change a bad animal to a better one. If a animal has a blemish that makes it unfit for a sacrifice then OK, but that is not the same thing. If it is fit for the altar then it must be sacrificed, and one is not allowed to exchange it. The Sadducess were very corrupt and when they were in control, things were miserable.

One way you can see that the Sadducees were in control of the Sanhedrin is that in the reported trial of Jesus, there was almost no law that was not broken.  The was not one single legal procedure that was not flaunted and broken during that trial.

Just one example: saying that one is the son of God is not blasphemy. Blasphemy has a legal definition which is:  May "Jose strike Jose." Jose here is used to stand for the Name of God because during the trial you don't want to keep repeating the phrase. For someone to claim they are the son of God is not unusual because we say this three times a day in every Shmoneh Esra and this comes up very often in the prayer book. We all call God "Our Father" more times than I can count. Doing so is not blasphemy though it might have been to the Sadducee.

Some problems with the trial: At night. Even if a person does a sin that gets the death penalty which did not exist in that case still you need two witness to warn the person right before he does the sin. That is to tell him both the sin and from what verse it comes from and the penalty. None of this existed then There is a whole tractate in the Talmud about this one aspect of laws. It is not a trivial detail.  I could go on but you can just open up a tractate Sanhedrin and Makot and see it all for yourself.

There are yeshivas that are the equivalent of Ivy League schools.

There are two aspects of yeshiva. There are yeshivas that are the equivalent of Ivy League schools. And they are similar in that they lead to advancement --not in money but in other not so tangible  things. The top one in this category is obviously Ponovitch,- with Brisk being a close second.
The great NY yeshivas don't have the same reputation as these two yeshivas in Israel
but still are what I would call Ivy league. [Chaim Berlin, Mir, Torah VeDaat]
There is another aspect of the whole thing that is really an escape from the harshness of the outside world.
These are two opposing dynamics that you can find  in sometimes the same yeshiva. Both the striving to be Ivy league and also the striving to escape from the harshness of reality.


In a practical vein this simply means it is best to go to what is really an Ivy league yeshiva because that is where you find the real Torah. There are many other places that are simply places for people to escape from reality and yet at the same time to claim they are Ivy league.

The world responds to one's character. The way you control your character is two fold. Getting right opinions. That is learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics].

Each problem seems to have actually  two parts. Part is  their flaws and the other part is the flaws of how the world treats them. And each of these is divided into two parts. One's own flaws are 1/2 his own fault for making bad choices. The other part is internal things not in one's control. The world's fault is partly just the way the world is with everyone. Capricious. The other part is the part that when it sees good it retaliates with evil. The part you can control is only your own decisions. You have to start making good choices.

The world responds to one's character. The way you control your character is two fold. Getting right opinions. That is learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics]. That gives right opinions or at least closes to objective truth more so that one would get by the Crowd and the Mob. And this also gets absorbed into the self.

q98 e33 e39 e45 orchestra e46 etc. music files

q98 a song to God e33   e42  e39  e45 orchestra  "Orchestra" was written when I was about 16. You can see the effect of my being in a high school orchestra.

q98 was recent [it still might need some editing.]. The e series was around 2006-2010


e46
g5   e47

Black Hole  q94
 mathematics

1) "Seeing the wisdom in God's creations" in the mediaeval code word for learning Physics and Metaphysics. If you only see this in the חובות לבבות Duties of the Heart , you can miss this.  Refer to the Guide of the Rambam who says this openly. But you can see it also in מעלות המידות by Binjamin the Doctor --one of the classical books of Musar.


2) The idea is  learning these subjects is a good value in itself  The books of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam  show two values in learning the natural sciences.
 To the Rambam learning Physics and Metaphysics is the fulfillment of the highest mitzvot in the Torah, i.e. Love and Fear of God.

3) Later this was hidden. Even though all books of Classical Musar refer to this approach of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam, it is obscured by people that do not want this information to be widely known.

4) The Torah is clothed in the Creation. So when you learn about God's creation, you are learning God's wisdom.

5) See: Rambam beginning of the Guide, and beginning of Mishna Torah. {Plus הלכות ת''ת ברמב''ם איפה שהוא כתב והעניינים הנקראיים פרדס בם בכלל הגמרא}

6) To put this all together you have to start with the idea that the goal of Torah is to come to love and fear of God. Then you need the idea that the the world was created by the ten statements of Genesis, and thus those statements are the life force of all that is in the world. And that those ten statements are the clothing of the Ten Commandments. [as brought in the Tikunei HaZohar] And the highest statement is the first one "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" in which it does not say openly God said. It is the hidden statement which is the life force of everything and everywhere where God's glory is hidden.
Thus Torah is God's revealed wisdom and Physics and Metaphysics is his hidden wisdom.


7) There are people that if exposed to straight Torah will not be able to accept it. In Physics are hidden secrets of Torah. This explains also how often it is better for people to learn the natural sciences rather than open Torah, because זכה נעשית סם חיים, לא זכה נעשית לו סם מוות. By being exposed to open Torah one can become worse. And in fact this often happens before our very eyes.
Also seeing the wisdom inside ever aspect of creation binds ones soul to the purpose of that individual creation which in it s higher source is close to the purpose of all creation which is God's glory.


8) The Rambam defines the "Work of Creation" מעשה בראשית and work of the "Divine Chariot" מעשה מרכבה in the beginning of the Guide for the Perplexed . In the Guide itself he tells us what is the purpose he sees in these--the Work of Creation to come to fear, and the Work of the Divine Chariot to come to love. And this approach of the Rambam is quoted virtually verbatim in all later books of Musar.]

9) The question is how is this jump from knowledge of physical things or mathematical things helps one to make the jump to God? Clearly the Rambam holds this does help to make that jump, but how?
[See Schelling and Jacobi who dealt with this problem.]



10) To justify this approach of the Rambam I would like to bring together a few ideas:

We find that God's glory does not extend everywhere. That is even though His glory "fills the whole world," there are places where his glory does not reach. וכבודי לאחר לא אתן. I will not give of my glory to idols. Now we find that it says in a verse that God created the whole world for his glory. לכבודי בראתיו יצרתיו אף עשיתיו. So his glory is the root and life force of everything that exists. So what about those places where his glory does not extend? They get life force from the hidden statement (מאמר הסתום). "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."  That is hidden because it does not say "He said." [In nine other acts of creation it says, "He said."]

So the areas  the most hidden from God get their life force from the highest levels of holiness.

And when one turns to God from those areas and calls out "where is the place of his glory?" Then he returns to the highest statement of creation.

In Math and Physics there is no open numinosity. But there is the hidden statement by which the world was created. So when one turns to God there, and learns for the sake of Heaven, he brings up all the creation to God.


Appendix:
a) Maimonides held that Torah is only the Written and Oral law. But two of the commandments of the Torah are to love and fear God, and these Maimonides held were only possible by learning Physics and Metaphysics. [He was referring to the two sets of books by Aristotle called the Physics and the other called the Metaphysics].


b) But there are different levels of revelation of Torah.
The world was sustained by the Ten Statements (עשרה מאמרות) before the Torah was given [ten times it says ''And God said'']
But these statements were hidden. Then the ten trials of Abraham were a first step towards the revelation of Torah. The ten plagues on Egypt were the next step to make it possible to reveal the Torah. Then the Ten Commandments were the actual revelation of Torah. [The idea of the plagues was that one has to get rid of evil before the good can be revealed.]

 But because the Torah is in everything, it is possible to serve God with everything.

c) Knowledge of this sub-level comes not by sense perception, and not by logical deductions, but by non intuitive immediate knowledge.

d) in this world is hidden holiness; and even in the lowest regions in spirituality is hidden the highest holiness that comes from the hidden statement of creation. 

e) To put this all together you have to start with the idea that the goal of Torah is to come to love and fear of God. Then you need the idea that the the world was created by the Ten Statements of Genesis, and thus those statements are the life force of all that is in the world. And that those Ten Statements are the clothing of the Ten Commandments. And the highest statement is the first one "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" in which it does not say openly God said. It is the hidden statement which is the life force of everything and everywhere where God's glory is hidden.
Thus Torah is God's revealed wisdom, and Physics and Metaphysics is his hidden wisdom.



f) There are people that if exposed to straight Torah will not be able to accept it. This explains also how often it is better for people to learn the natural sciences rather than open Torah, because זכה נעשית סם חיים, לא זכה נעשית לו סם מוות. By being exposed to open Torah, one can become worse. And in fact this often happens before our very eyes.

g) Also seeing the wisdom inside ever aspect of creation binds ones soul to the purpose of that individual creation which in its higher source is close to the purpose of all creation which is God's glory.


h) The Rambam has  story inside the Guide about learning Physics and Metaphysics. It is the parable of the King's palace. In short in the parable you have a country of a king in which people differ in their closeness to the king. there are people outside the country, inside, in the capital city, around the palace in the outer part of the palace and in the inner part.
The parable refers to how close people are to God. There the Rambam puts philosophers and scientists in the palace with God.

anti Israel and anti Jewish sentiments

The problem with anti Israel and anti Jewish sentiments is serious. German women are discovering that it is uncomfortable to walk on the streets with Muslims. They don't feel like getting raped. And that is understandable. You would think that there would be some sympathy for Jews in Israel who also feel uncomfortable with Muslims on the streets. They don't want to be blow to smithereens. And that is also understandable. But the plague of Muslims in Germany and in Europe does not evoke much sympathy for plight of Jews in Israel. The reason is "חן" (literally: grace or attractiveness).

That is, Jews don't have "חן" [grace]. And this is a powerful thing. When a person or a group has grace in your eyes, then everything and anything they do get excused. Logical reasoning does not come into play.
And when a group has no grace, then even when they are right by all objective standards, nothing they do can help.

The solution to lack of grace is to learn Torah in a Lithuanian Authentic Yeshiva.  Some people learn Pseudo "Torah" but it is superficial. That does not lead to grace. Only Torah in depth does that. And I can't explain what that means except you have to see it done in an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva.

[It is not looking up achronim [commentaries written after the Shulchan Aruch of Joseph Karo]. I can't really explain this very well. You have to see it done on your own. You can however get an idea of what this means by looking up achronim, but looking up what they say is not the same thing as doing it yourself. If you are in NY in Brooklyn, then you get simply walk over to the Mir, Torah VeDaat, or Chaim Berlin and sit in for the Rosh Yeshivas classes. But if you are not in NY. then I don't have much of an suggestion. I am pretty sure this is what they do in Ponovitch. Other places probably don't do this, nor know what it is either. Most other yeshivas are for shiduchim [to get offered a good marriage match ] or parnaah [to make a living by using the Torah] or other things. Almost none are for learning in depth except NY yeshivas.

Which brings me to the obvious conclusion that it would be in everyone's interest to start yeshivas that are devoted to learning Torah in depth--not the superficial way that is common.. And the result of this I predict would be powerful. It would give Jews "grace." And when people have grace, then a lot of problems disappear.
[This does not mean to learn Kabalah. That is not the same thing as learning Torah in depth. In fact the general result of learning Kabalah is delusion. It is rare to find someone become more of a "mensch" from it. There were rare individuals like Bava Sali that could benefit from it but  that is not the rule.And then you have people that really are on the level to be able to learn it and then the Sitra Achra goes all out to destroy them. So in any case it seems like  a no win situation. Either one is ready and then gets entangled in a fight with the Sitra Achra that he is not ready for. Or he is not ready and then he gets delusions.]

polynomic theory ofvalue as in the Kelley Ross Approach]

The major questions about values are: 1) When values conflict what to do. 2) How to decide what is a good value.  3) Even if something is a good value does it apply to this specific individual?

[I am assuming here a polynomic theory ofvalue as in the Kelley Ross Approach]

If there would be only one value then this would not be relevant.  The Rambam held one should do one of two things learn Torah or be involved in an honest vocation.


My own conflicts in the areas of value I solve by the common sense approach of my parents and with input from the Torah, Talmud and Musar books. That basically boils down to the idea of learning Musar (mediaeval ethics) books of Israel Salanter because Musar really resolves these issues very well.  With Musar you get resolution of areas of conflict and hoe to apply the values of the Torah to yourself. So what I recommend is to attend a Musar Litvak kind of Yeshiva for about four years to get the basic approach of Torah embedded in one's self.

Ideas in Bava Metzia
On Bava Metzia page 104
I was looking over what I wrote about cleanliness and uncleaniless and leaning. I think at least at the end of that essay I need to explain that when I was putting the opinion of the Ri and Rabbainy Shimshon together I was intending to explain Rashi. That is leaning in the case of a strong  or weak tree with not make the person that is leaned on by the Zav to be unclean. Only if the Zav moves him as in the case of the weak tree.

Now I think I needed to do this from several reasons. One is that to answer my very first question what kind of unlcleaniness gets transmitted by leaning? After all that is what Rashi says in the case of the weak tree. So I needed the Rash [Rabbainu Shimshon to get some kind of uncleanilness to be by leaning. And then I needed the Ri [Rabbainu Isaac] to get that kind of uncleanliness to only make food or drink unclean. With these two ideas together I hope to explain that Rashi.

_________________________________________________________________________________
\

On ב''מ ק''ד ע''ב
I was looking over what I wrote about טומאה וטהרה והשענה and leaning. I think at least at the end of that essay I need to explain that when I was putting the opinion of the ר''י and ר''ש together I was intending to explain רש''י. That is leaning in the case of a strong  or weak tree with not make the person that is leaned on by the זב to be טמא. Only if the זב moves him as in the case of the weak tree.

Now I think I needed to do this from several reasons. One is that to answer my very first question what kind of טומאה gets transmitted by השענה? After all that is what רש''י says in the case of the weak tree. So I needed the ר''ש to get some kind of טומאה to be by leaning. And then I needed the ר''י  to get that kind of uncleanliness to only make food or drink טמאים. With these two ideas together I hope to explain that רש''י.

 ב''מ ק''ד ע''ב כשאני  משווה את דעתם של ר''י ור''ש ביחד אני מתכוון להסביר רש''י. כי הוא השענה במקרה של עץ חזק  לא עושה את האדם טמא, הגם שהוא נשען על ידי זב. רק אם הזב מזיז אותו כמו במקרה של העץ החלש. עכשיו אני חושב שאני צריך לעשות את זה מכמה סיבות. אחת הוא שכדי לענות על השאלה הראשונה שלי איזה סוג של טומא  מועברת על ידי השענה? אחרי הכל זה מה שאומר רש''י במקרה של העץ החלש. אז אני צריך הר''ש כדי לקבל קצת סוג של טומא להיות על ידי השענה. ואז אני צריך הר''י כדי לקבל תוצאה שסוג כזה של טומאה רק מהפכת מזון או משקה טמאים. עם שני הרעיונות הללו יחד אני מקווה להסביר רש''י

A lot of what Torah is about is laws. The concerns about Torah are mainly about keeping the Law of Moses more that interpretation of the text. But there are also elements of Divine service.

With prayer the hidden self [ding an sich] gets connected with God. It is kind of  away to reach one's own essence and tie it to God. And besides that, I have seen enough people that learn Torah that are far from human perfection.


The basic way to do this is to pack a lunch and go off into the wilderness for a whole day and spend the whole day talking with God. If this is not possible then while you are walking down the street is a perfect time to engage in private conversation with God. One good idea about this is that the evil side disguises itself in good deeds. When people convince themselves they are doing some great mitzvah it is usually a heinous crime. The world would be a lot better off if people would stop doing mitzvas and simply be a selfish as possible. The way the evil side gets people is by conniving and convincing  them that they are doing some good deed. People doing mizvot is the destruction of the world. The Gra said it is better to sit in your room and twiddle your thumbs than to go about and look for mizvas to do. [See Sidur HaGra.]

Here is a very nice link to a interesting video concerning Islam
She is bringing up some very nice and important points and I highly recommend this video.I  heard from the daughter of Bava Sali also things along these lines. The idea was that Islam is bad news

Here is another fellow who also has some interesting ideas about Islam


I see in German News that the Spiegel is comparing the people that do not want Germany destroyed by an Islamic invasion to Nazis. This seems like  an unfair comparison. Islam is a real problem and inviting Jihadists into your country is not a good idea.


Here is a video by a German girl who is afraid of the refugees.

There is something strange going on in the world in terms of marriage.I

There is something strange going on in the world in terms of marriage.It is as if the human race is going through some kind of tidal wave that wrecks everything in its path.It is like a snowball effect. The more arrogant the women are, the more men want nothing to do with them, and then the women wish they were romanced and treated special like in the old days..

When Reb Shmuel Berenabaum the Roh Yeshiva of the Mir in NY was asked questions about human problems his answer was "Learn Torah" and I would have to say that is about as good an answer I have ever heard about almost all human problems.

Simply put that means to have about an hour per day of learning sessions in order The Old Testament. That is read one page word by word and then put in a place marker and put it down. The pick up a Mishna. Read one page or a few pages with the commentary. Put in a place marker and put it down. Then pick up a Talmud and again read one page with Tosphot the Maharsha and Maharam from Lublin. Then the same with a few session in Physics and Math. That is the light of the Torah that is in the physical world.

If you have done the Talmud a few times then you should also do the Ari. The Ari is mystical but based on a Neo Platonic world view. So together with the Ari it is good to have a session in Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages. That is Maimonides's Guide for the Perplexed, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Crescas, Joseph Albo, and the two Abravenel's Isaac and Yehuda, and Ibn Gavirol.
[These people have a lot to tell us but their insights are hidden because of the mediaeval character of their works. It takes some effort to uncover the gems inside them.] [There is an amazing connection between German Idealism and medieval Jewish Philosophy. But this would have to be the subject of a whole new essay. }







No Kabalah after the time of Shabatai Tzvi is kosher. Sometimes knowingly, and sometimes not knowingly it all borrows from Natan of Gaza and brings people that read it into the Sitra Achra. Also there are secular subjects that do not reflect the glory of God and are forbidden to learn . That is almost any secular subject outside of the natural sciences are all from the Sitra Achra. So though I do emphasize certain subjects as being good there are many many more that are seduce people into the Dark Side. Thus we find most religious teachers that read these subjects are in fact agents of the Dark Side. That is the reason I always say to be in a straight Lithuanian yeshiva because every other type is a den of Satan. I am emphasizing the good on purpose.

Everything depends on good teachers. Everything.


I went to a very good high school. It had good teachers. I benefited very much from those teachers, though I did not use all the skills I learned there later. Mr Smart the music teacher was just one example. But I remember the other teachers who were dedicated, and very talented. My only frustration was that I wanted to be able to concentrate on just a few things. But today I can say going to a good school I think is very important.
I had lots of good examples around me of people that were motivated and hard working. Both students and teachers.


[Maybe good teachers can do only so much, but from what I saw, they can make a tremendous amount of difference.]

And later I saw this in yeshiva also. Going to a good school  is of utmost importance to be able to get anywhere.

I am not in yeshiva now, but I can say without having a great learning partner ,I would today not have been able to get anywhere in Gemara.

One trouble I did have was in recognizing what really is a good yeshiva. Shar Yashuv was and still is a Baal Teshuva Yeshiva. And I had trouble recognizing that Reb Naphtali Yeager and the other roshei yeshiva were really learning at the top level. So I admit sometimes you can find exceptions to the rule. Reputation is not everything.  Later, I was at the Mir with who was then the deepest thinker in the yeshiva world besides Rav Shach --Reb Shmuel Berenbaum And there I saw the reputation of being the top place was well deserved.

Musar [Ethics] of Torah does not deal with philosophical issues. And that I think is a flaw.

But if one would want to understand the philosophy of Torah there would be a problem. That is the major works about the world view of Torah are great works but don't deal with issues that are in most people's mind all that relevant. And my own education in these areas is zero.

I read a drop of the Guide. And I read a few times the first chapter of the Duties of the Heart which is neo Platonic. I did a good deal of work on the Ari and the Nahar Shalom of Shalom Sharabi but those later sources are dealing more with the mystic aspects of Torah more than the world view aspects.

If I could I would plow through the philosophical works of Torah, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, the Guide, Joseph Albo, Crescas, Abravenel. Ibn Gavirol.
The point of this is simple.One does not need to be knowledgeable nor smart at all to be a decent human being. But one's actions invariably follow ones "deot" opinions. And with crooked opinions ones actions will be crooked. Without getting the right opinions about Torah from people that understood Torah fairly well like the Rambam and Saadia Gaon one invariably gets his or her opinions from people that do not understand Torah very well.  And thus one's actions will not reflect the Torah but rather the cruddy opinions of charlatans.

There is a lot of stuff going on in mediaeval Jewish philosophy but it takes effort to get to it.
The surface level is, well,..mediaeval. But under that level there are important insights



To sum up. Musar along with השקפה is important. In yeshiva what is needed is  a separate session for learning the philosophical approach of Torah. Without this people absorb their world views from the street but think well of themselves as being kosher because they do rituals. The rituals however have no effect if the inner center of their minds is filled with nonsense.


Some people others were not happy with the philosophical works of Torah. The result is that when people learn the world view of Saadia Gaon or the Rambam they think it is heresy. This can only mean one thing. That without the books of the Rishonim on the world view of Torah people fall into such mistakes that when they hear the truth they reject it.

Two songs for the glory of the God of Israel

q93   q93 midi q93 nwc

 q98  q98 midi  98nwc

religious teachers

Religious teachers that are psychopaths cause perverted desires fall from the Divine Chariot.  I think this explains the reason why sodomy is so pervasive in the USA.

My thinking is that we find in the Talmud some serious criticism about religious teachers. But furthermore we also find that what happens in Israel is reflected in the larger world. So when our own house is not in order this is seen in the large in the general events of the world.

Now it is a good question about how to tell the difference between good and bad religious teachers. It is important to know that there do exist bad religious teachers and that because of them there are problems because of people that follow them naively thinking they are teaching Torah.


Now this problem does beg for a solution. The only possible solution I can see is individual. That is it is up to each individual to learn Torah on their own and thus not to be dependent on others to know what it says. And if it is too much to ask everyone to know the whole Oral and Written Law then at least Musar--the books of Jewish ethics written during the Middle Ages tell us in a practical sense what the essence of Torah is. [Musar is a well known set of books. I do not need to list them here. Mainly they are divided between books from the middle ages and the later books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter that went into more detail in how to apply the lessons of Musar in a practical sense. ] [In my non humble opinion the חובות לבבות Duties of the Heart is the best one.]

I should add that the problem about evil religious teachers is not just in that Torah lesson but begins in the LM from Vol I ch 8 and goes through the entire two volumes. This theme does come up in the Talmud also and even the Mishna. אם אתה רואה דור שפורעניות באות אליו צא ובדוק בדייני ישראל שכל פורעניות שבאות לעולם אינן באות אלא בגלל דייני ישראל I forgot where that particular Gemara is. It is somewhere near the end of Tractate Shabat but I forgot the page number.

So who then can decide a halacha issue? In monetary cases where there are two opposing parties we do know who can decide--מומחה לרבים. someone who has been tested by experts in the Talmud and been found never to make a mistake. But in other cases?

The irony is that the people we would hope and expect to teach us morality and true principles of how to guide our lives are often the source of the most damage. In fact, I think this is so in the majority of cases.

I should mention that none of this is meant to disparage the sincere people who are sitting and learning Torah whether privately or in straight Lithuanian yeshivas.

People of intellect and morality are disqualified and  attacked when the religious  world  is under the control of a tyranny backed by the mob.  Don’t ask where all of the smart people are.  Don’t ask where all of the leaders of men are.  The religious world wants to be ruled by psychopaths and imbeciles. 

The best solution would be to fire all religious teachers. Save the money or give it to yeshivas where real Torah is learned [Lithuanian Yeshivas].

Introduction
I wanted to discuss something that is bothering me about a Tosphot in Shavuot 43a and Bava Metzia 81b. In short, Tosphot is asking two questions on Rabbainu Hananel that could be applied to Rashi. But Tosphot does not want to ask on Rashi. Then the Maharsha gives an answer why one question might be more applicable to Rabbainu Hananel. But if you think about it, the idea of the Maharsha applies just as well to Rashi.

The basic idea is this. Shmuel says if a lender takes a pledge  and loses it, he loses the whole loan. The Gemara asks that this does not seem like Rabbi Eliezer nor Rabbi Akiva. R. Eliezer says the lender takes an oath and loses nothing. R. Akiva says he loses the worth of the pledge. The Gemara answers Shmuel is when he did not explain (that the pledge is for the loan), and the argument between RA and RE is when he did explain. R Hananel reverses this. Shmuel is when he explained and the argument of RE and RA is when he did not.

The Gemara in Bava Metzia, on a relevant note, is trying to get a Mishna there is be like both RE and RA and can't do so. The Mishna there says a lender is a paid guard with respect to the pledge. This is good to RA, but not to RE. Tosphot asks if R Hananel is right then the Mishna in BM is everyone's opinion, and it is when he explained (like Shmuel). The question of the Maharsha is this same question applies to Rashi when he did not explain (like Shmuel).

Another question of Tosphot on RH is RE takes too great a leap from nothing (when he is does not explain) to everything (when he does). The Maharsha says this last point of Tosphot is why Tosphot did not ask their first question on Rashi. My question is the same exact point applies to Rashi.

That is: The Maharsha suggested that Tosphot is thinking that if the right version is like Rashi then RE might make just one step from nothing (when the lender does explain) to the exact amount of the loan when he does not. My question is this same answer works even better to Rabbainu Hananel. He loses nothing when he does not explain and only against the loan when he does.

In more detail my question is this:  The Maharsha says we might says when the Gemara says Re and RA agree with Shmuel it means each makes one step from their starting position up one more step. My question is this works well to Rabbanu Chananel. That is when he explains then RE goes up one step to say the pledge is parallel only to its own value of the loan. and when he does not explain then it is not tied to the loan at all. But to Rashi this would not work. When he does not explain it is  parallel to its own value of the loan but when he does explain it is not tied to the loan at all.

I do not say there is no answer to this. I assume there must be an  answer. But I don't happen to know what it is right now. The Maharsha is probably answering this, but I do not see how.

________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
I wanted to discuss something that is bothering me about a תוספות in שבועות מ''ג ע''ב and ב''מ פ''א ע''ב . In short, תוספות is asking two questions on רבינו חננאל that could be applied to רש''י. But תוספות does not want to ask on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives an answer why one question might be more applicable to רבינו חננאל. But if you think about it the idea of the מהרש''א applies just as well to רש''י.

The basic idea is this. שמואל says if a מלווה takes a משכון  and loses it he loses the whole loan. The גמרא asks this does not seem like רבי אליעזר not רבי עקיבא. The מחלוקת is thus: רבי אליעזר says he takes an oath and loses nothing. רבי עקיבא says he loses the worth of the pledge. In our גרסה  and the גרסה  of רש''י the גמרא answers שמואל is when מלווה did not מפרש, and the  מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזר is when he did מפרש. And רבינו חננאל reverse this. שמואל is when he מפרש and רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא is when he did not.

The גמרא בבא מציעא פא: on a relevant note is trying to get a משנה there is be like both רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא and can't do so. The משנה there says a מלווה is a שומר שכר with respect to the משכון. This is good to רבי עקיבא but not to רבי אליעזר. Then תוספות asks if רבינו חננאל is right then the משנה in בבא מציעא is everyone's opinion and it is when he מפרש like שמואל. The question I had  was this same question applies to רש''י when he did not explain like שמואל. Theמהרש''א asks this same question.
Another question of תוספות on רבינו חננאל is רבי אליעזר takes too great a leap from nothing when מלווה is does not explain to everything when he does. The מהרש''א says this last point of תוספות is why תוספות did not ask their first question on רש''י. My question is the same exact point applies to רש''י.

That is: The מהרש''א suggested that תוספות is thinking that if the right גרסה is like רש''י then רבי אליעזר might make just one step from nothing when does explain to the exact amount of the loan when he does not. My question is this same answer works even better to רבינו חננאל. He loses nothing when he does not מפרש and only against the loan when he does.
_________________________________________________________________________




שבועות מ''ג ע''ב וב''מ פ''א ע''ב. קושיה על תוספות בשבועות מ''ג ע''ב וב''מ פ''א ע''ב. בקיצור, תוספות הוא שואל שתי שאלות על רבינו חננאל שיכול להיות מיושמות על רש''י. אבל תוספות לא רוצה לשאול על רש''י. אז המהרש''א נותן תשובה מדוע שאלה אחת יכולה להיות יותר רלוונטית לרבינו חננאל. אבל הרעיון של מהרש''א חל באותה המידה לרש''י. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה. שמואל אומר שאם מלווה לוקח משכון ומאבד אותו הוא מאבד את כל ההלוואה. הגמרא שואלת זה לא נראה כמו רבי אליעזר ולא רבי עקיבא. המחלוקת היא כך: רבי אליעזר אומר שהוא לוקח שבועה ומאבד שום דבר. רבי עקיבא אומר שהוא מאבד את השווי של המשכון. בגרסה שלנו והגרסה של רש''י הגמרא עונה שמואל הוא כאשר המלווה לא מפרש, והמחלוקת בין רבי עקיבא והרבי אליעזר היא כאשר הוא  מפרש. ורבינו חננאל מהפך את זה. שמואל הוא כאשר הוא מפרש, ורבי אליעזר והרבי עקיבא הם כאשר הוא לא עשה זאת. הגמרא בבבא מציעא פא: בנימה רלוונטית מנסה לקבל תוצאה שהמשנה שם יכולה להיות כמו שניהם, רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא, ולא יכולה לעשות את זאת. המשנה שם אומרת המלווה הוא שומר שכר ביחס למשכון. זה טוב לרבי עקיבא, אבל לא לרבי אליעזר. אז תוספות שואלים אם רבינו חננאל נכון, אז המשנה בבבא מציעא היא דעת של כולם וזה כאשר הוא מפרש כמו שמואל. השאלה של המהרש''א היה שאותה שאלה חלה על רש''י כשהוא לא הסביר כמו שמואל. שאלה נוספת של תוספות על רבינו חננאל.  רבי אליעזר לוקח זינוק יותר מדאי גדול. כאשר המלווה לא מסביר את הכל אז הוא מפסיד את כל החוב וכאשר ביא אינו מסביר הוא אינו מפסיד כלום . מהרש''א אומר הנקודה האחרונה של תוספות זו הסיבה התוספות לא שואלים את השאלה הראשונה שלהם ברש''י.  השאלה שלי היא אותה הנקודה המדויקת חלה על רש''י כלומר: מהרש''א הציע כי תוספות חושב שאם נכון שהגרסה הוא כמו רש''י, אז רבי אליעזר עשוי לעשות רק צעד. אם המלווה מפרש אינו מפסיד כלום, וכאשר הוא אינו מסביר  אז המשכון כנגד שיוווי ההלוואה המדויק. השאלה שלי היא אותה תשובה שזה עובד אפילו טובה יותר לרבינו חננאל. הוא לא מאבד שום דבר כשהוא לא מפרש, ורק כנגד ההלוואה כשהוא מפרש.


Talmud Bava Metzia 81b Shavuot 43B

In more detail my question on Tosphot and the Maharsha is this:  The Maharsha says we might says when the Gemara says RE and RA agree with Shmuel it means each makes one step from their starting position up one more step. My question is this works well to Rabbanu Chananel. That is when he explains then RE goes up one step to say the pledge is parallel only to its own value of the loan. and when he does not explain then it is not tied to the loan at all. But to Rashi this would not work. When he does not explain it is  parallel to its own value of the loan but when he does explain it is not tied to the loan at all.
____________________________________________________________________________



In more detail my question on תוספות and the מהרש'א is this:  The  מהרש'א says we might say when the גמרא says רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא agree with שמואל it means each makes one step from their starting position up one more step. My question is this works well to רבינו חננאל. That is when he explains then רבי אליעזר goes up one step to say the משכון is parallel only to its own value of the loan. and when he does not explain then it is not tied to the loan at all. But to רש''י this would not work. When he does not explain it is  parallel to its own value of the loan but when he does explain it is not tied to the loan at all.
_____________________________________________

 השאלה שלי על תוספות ומהרש''א היא זאת: המהרש''א אומר שאנחנו יכולים לומר מתי הגמרא אומרת שרבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא מסכימים עם שמואל שזה אומר שכל אחד עושה צעד אחד מעמדת המוצא שלהם צעד אחד יותר קדימה. השאלה שלי היא שזה עובד גם לרבינו חננאל. כלומר, כאשר הוא מסביר שרבי אליעזר עולה צעד אחד לומר שלגבי ההלוואה, המשכון מקביל רק לשוויו. וכשהוא לא מסביר ומפרש, אז המשכון לא קשור להלוואה בכלל. אבל לרש''י זה לא יעבוד. כשהוא לא מסביר ומפרש את זה, המשכון מקביל לשוויו, אבל כשהוא מסביר שהמשכון כנגד ההלוואה אז, הוא לא קשור להלוואה בכלל.

While Islam is focused on world conquest, the West is spending it energy on trying to figure out what or if there is a problem.

The question is what people focus on as being a problem and how much energy they are willing to spend on fixing it. Some might consider Islam as a mild problem, but it is no where near their top priority. The question is not even intellectual focus. It is emotional focus. To what end are all their emotions focused on?