Individualism

Individualism seems to be a debate between Kant and Hegel. In Communist Russia, Individualism was considered as bad as capitalism.  This seems like an important issue because my basic approach is to side with Kant but I admit some validity to Hegel.

Individualism is seen by religious and totalitarian people as being the height of evil.


I think that Kant was basically an individualist. That would be the natural conclusion of his idea of the "self" which to him is quite individual. I mean to say that to Kant the "self" is in the category of the dinge an sich. That is the basic idea of his idea of aperception. That was the basis of his Transcendental deduction. I mean that we perceive our own self in a way that is not any different than how we perceive external reality. This is perhaps the most important part of Kant. And it certainly goes in the direction of self autonomy. The only person that I know of who offers argument otherwise is Hegel.

After Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden there were placed angels with swords to guard the path back.

I like to concentrate on my major sins. That is things that I am aware of that seem to  have caused bad things in  my life.
 I figure that there are a lot of requirements in the Torah, but there seems to be a level of responsibility about certain areas.
For example honor of one's parents. If one person has great parents does that imply more responsibility than if than if they were bad parents? At least, based on the book the Obligations of the Heart [חובות לבבות] it would seem so.  And for me this seems to be  a pattern. It is almost as if God gives me some kind of taste of real excellence, and then waits to see if I walk away from it.

That certainly happened with my parents. It also happened with Israel, and also with a kind of numinous energy that I felt in Israel. And last but not least it happened with learning Torah.
But going back to any of these things seems impossible. There seems to be a kind of energy that prevents one from going back to some state of excellence once he has walked away from it. [Like we see in the Bible that after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden there were placed angels with swords to guard the path back].

But I did see in three books of Musar a possible correction. The Obligations of the Heart, Reb Israel Salanter and Joseph Yosel Horvitz of Navardok all claim that even if one has sinned to the degree of leading others astray there is a correction. That  is to lead people back to the right path.

But that seems to me to be easier said than done. For example I have  a hard time advocating any yeshiva--even the great one's like Ponovitch--just because I know they are human institutions with all the drawbacks that go along with that. And honor of parents? This is just as hard to recommend since no everyone has as great a set of parents as I had. Same with learning Torah. Same with Israel.

The best I can think of is to simply try and keep Torah as best I can according to my own situation. But to imagine I can point to some ideal path seems impossible. "כל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה all paths are dangerous." It is just that certain paths are more dangerous than others,

There were a few bits of wisdom that I picked up from my yeshiva years, and from my parents.
One thing I got in Shar Yashuv was this idea: Finish Shas. [That is get through the Oral and Written Law.]
Another there were to things I picked up from Reb Shmuel Berenabum [The Mir Rosh Yeshiva in NY], 1) Learn Torah. 2) Don't speak slander (Lashon Hara.)
 From my parents I gained a great respect for Torah and for the learning of Physics and Math and for classical Music and for the value of self sufficiency.

I should give credit to David Bronson my learning partner for the two books on Shas and Bava Metzia. I was so disgusted with with the religious world [and still am] that I could not even bear the thought of opening up a Gemara  until David suggested that we learn Gemara together.  Also I would not have been able to learn without his help. He was able to find the questions and interesting points in Tosphot that I would normally just skip over. Still, if I mention an answer to a question then that means I myself answered it unless I say specifically that David answered it.

I have respect for great roshei yeshiva like Rav Shach and try to make a distinction between heads of legitimate yeshivas and fakers and frauds. But the difference can be hard to tell since the frauds also like to claim authenticity.]

Is a girl friend permitted?

The whole issue of having a girl friend  or in the language of the Bible פילגש I have noticed that a lot of people are not aware of.  This comes up mainly in Chronicles  2:46 with the friend of Joshua כלב בן יפונה. I have mentioned before that Calev Ben Yefuna was the only person in the Bible that it says the amazing phrase: "וימלא אחרי השם" ["He went totally after God"].

The basic outline of the subject  you can easily see in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.

The Rambam it is known is against this, and allows a girl friend only to  a king. The Gra pointed out that that can't work in the case of Calev Ben Yefuna. [who had many girl friends but was not a king.]  But the Gra has a different explanation of the whole thing. He says  a פלגש is with kidushin but without a ketubah.  The חלקת מחוקק and בית שמואל point out that even to the Rambam, a girl friend is only an אסור עשה that is a prohibition that is derived from the lack of doing something--that is making kidushin. [I can not answer for how the Rambam might have explained כלב בן יפונה.]

That is to say it is not that same thing as זנות which is a לאו a straight forward prohibition.


In any case, on the side of permission, we have at least the Raavad and the Ramban, and some say the Rosh also. The reason is the Rosh only mentions the problem of she might be embarrassed to go to the mikveh. People like the Radvaz and later achronim went through the trouble to find how many rishonim allow it, and  as far as I know there is no doubt that the majority of Rishonim allow it.

This really would not even need to be necessary to mention except for the fact that I have heard  people confuse this with adultery,-- which it is clearly not. This opinion I imagine can only have originated with people that can't read Hebrew. Adultery is a totally different story. It is an act of sex with a married woman.  It has nothing to do with a girl friend. Thus a man can have many wives, but a wife can not have two husbands since each act of sex would be an act of adultery which gets the death penalty as we see in Leviticus 20

Trump stands for traditional values.

In terms of the American elections. Trump stands for traditional moral values  and Hillary stands for socialism and as far as I am concerned that is unjust and that settles the issue.

 There is not  a way to learn one page of Gemara and come away with any kind of socialism. Theft is theft.

This however does not answer the the problem of abuse of power which seems to be the motivating factor for socialists that are sincere. 

Another point is that during the 1800's and early 1900's that most promising and convincing doctrine was that of Socialism, so it was natural for people to be convinced by the arguments. What is different today is that Socialism is not longer believable.





You could see this towards the end of the USSR when the books of Marx would sit in bookstores with thick layers of dust over them. No one that actually lived in a socialist society had any confidence that that system was just in any sense.


This does however open new horizons. If we consider that the major motivating factor for socialism was "Leshem Shamayim"--for the sake of Heaven and that what was wrong was simply that it does not reflect reality then is there a better system? If we look at all the alternatives that people came up with it seems to me that while no system is perfect, I still think the basic approach of the Constitution of the USA is about the best thing out there as far as the structuring of a moral decent society--as long as there is a Torah ethics that underlies it. 

I think it makes some sense to go into some detail about what I mean here. I see Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. as mainly trying to come up with alternatives to Torah Ethics. The reason was abuses that were part of European society. So it was natural to try to come up with alternatives. This same motivation is what lies at the core of people that go along with these systems. That is judge on the scales of merit. You do not need to assume the underlying motivation of the socialism is hatred of the rich and the desire to find a rational in order to take away from them their money.


So I try to defend the Law of Moses as being the best system [that is the Oral and Written Law] and instead of ignoring the abuses I try to find ways of correcting the abuses --instead of throwing out the whole system as some people want to do.

I just do not think any kind of Marxism is very good. I think it is inherently violent. Oleg Penkovsky revealed that Krushev was actually planning on raining down a barrage of nuclear missiles on the USA until a strong reaction from Kennedy stopped him.
[It was by the U-2 and Penkovsky that the SS-4 was identified and then the S-5]


The Ultra Religious approach also seems very problematic. My feeling is the best thing is the Litvak Yeshiva approach which is basically an emphasis on moral values and learning Torah together. They might not put it in that way but that is in fact how it comes out.

a proof that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam

There seems to be a proof that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam in terms of the beginning of the night.It occurs to me that the Radvaz also says the same thing and brings a proof of this idea in his Teshuvot volume 4 chapter 282 I think also from what the Rambam wrote in laws of קידוש החודש

But this is my proof of this idea also from הלכות קידוש החודש


This I think is not an exact proof but simply something which points in this direction because of the obvious reason that Rosh Hodesh to the Rambam is dependent on the later calculations that are done today which come from the calendar of Meton.

I would be surprised if the Radvaz uses the same proof that I brought here. Rather it is probable that he found some other proof. That would be this is most likely to be stadard in בלכות קידוש החודש





) לתרץ את קושיית של נוגנבוער על ברמב''ם קידוש החודש פרק י''א הלכה ט''ז הרמב''ם קובע ניסן ג'  בשעה 18:00 כבסיס בשנת 1,178  והוא אומר שהשמש הממוצעת היה ב 7/3/32. אם הולכים בחזרה שני ימים מוצאים המולד האמצעי היה ניסן א' 6:23 בערב. אבל אם מסתכלים בפרק ו' איפה שהוא מסביר איך למצוא את המולד הממוצע, יוצא המולד בניסן א' ב7:40 בערב.
שמעתי  שויסנבערג תירץ את זה על ידי שהשקיעה הייתה ב6:14  ועוד הוא מוסיף עשרים דקות לראות את הלבנה, אבל עדיין נשארות חמישים דקות בלי הסבר.
 דָּוִד אמר: התירוץ הוא, שאם היה מולד ממוצע אחד, זה היה קשה. אבל יש שנים,- יש המהירות הממוצעת של הלבנה סביב הגלגל הגדול. ויש מהירות של הלבנה סביב הטבעת הקטנה. בשביל שהלבנה קבועה בתוך הטבעת הקטנה, היא הולכת במהירות יתירה כשהיא הולכת בכיוון גלגל הגדול. והיא הולכת לאט כשהיא הולכת בכיוון להיפוך. אגב הרמב''ם כתב שהחישובים שלו הם רק השערות, שלמעשה המולד באותו יום היה ב5:57 בערב." אגבת נראה שהרמב''ם פוסק כמו רבינו תם בעניין שקיעה, שאם לא כן והוא מחזיק המולד בשבע וארבעים, אז זה ניסן ב'.אבל אם הרמב''ם מחזיק שמן השקיעה הראשונה עד הלילה תשעים דקות אז המולד חל בניסן א'.

The actual idea on Rabbainu Tam is this other thing I wrote elsewhere:

) בענין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. קשה להבין את הגר''א.  אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות  כוכב בינוני אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות.
  זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב בינוני אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה "בינוני". ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים בינוניים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא יוצאים כוכבים בינוניים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.
תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון  (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם אמרו שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה.  רב נטרונאי גאון אוחז בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון אוחז בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד'). אני חושב ההלכה כמו רבינו תם. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את שיטת הגר''א בקושי.
הגם שאני חושב הלכה כר''ת עדיין אני רוצה לתת תירוץ אפשרי לגר''א: החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר  לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים בינוניים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שאוחז בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שכל הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיועה לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים בינונים רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את  הלילה.

s36 E Major  s36 midi  s36 nwc

Gra made his decision to sign the excommunication

The Gra made his decision to sign the excommunication. No compromises. I have already shown many times the problems that the Gra must have seen and I can not believe that people do not still see these same things. You do not need to look into history to see what that Gra felt was wrong. You can see it today.
It is strange they everyone thinks they are smarter than the Gra. Compromise with evil can not result in anything good.
The main trouble seems to be idol worship of their leaders. But the basic belief structure comes from the Shatz which also is a problem. But what ever the reason once you accept that the Gra had the halachic authority to make an excommunication then it in itself has halachic validity no matter if you agree with the reasons or not.

The trouble is there is no spark. No one seems outraged at the constant incessant trail of abuses. They figure as long at it does not hurt them directly, "Why get involved?" And when the abuse finally gets around to them then no one else wants to listen to their tale of woes.


And the further trouble is few people really can uphold the path of the Gra and Rav Shach and Reb Israel Salanter including me. For I have my own set of obligations including honor of my parents which mean I can not stand for the Torah alone approach. [My parents were clear about Torah with a Vocation.]

[Or perhaps it could be said that Rav Zilverman in the old city of Jerusalem in what could be called a yeshiva based on the path of the Gra is following that path faithfully. Also the Lithuanian Musar yeshivas to some degree seem to be adhering somewhat closely to the authentic path of Torah though they do ignore the signature of the Gra on that excommunication. This means the exact problems the Gra meant to avoid entered into the Litvak yeshiva world. The effects of ignoring the Gra are apparent.


For some reason in Israel in fact by a lot of Litvaks it seems to me that this subject of the cherem is taken more seriously than in the USA. I noted this a few time by Rav Shlanger the Mashgiach of Porat Yoseph in talking with his older married sons. [That is the father in law of Eliyahu Zilverman.]

And I have heard that a good number of places have spouted up based on the Gra's approach. [So when you see someone walking around with tefilin on that does not mean they are a part of Rav Zilverman's yeshiva. There are from what I have heard many other places that started up in the meantime that also take the Gra seriously.]

The major reason I think the Gra signed the Cherem was that he considered the whole business to be a scam of the Sitra Achra. --a way to penetrate the world of Torah.