14.9.16
learning fast
1) Along with the idea you find in Chazal [the sages] of learning fast you could add the idea of finishing Shas and the entire Oral Law the work of Creation and מעשה בראשית מעשה מרכבה.
2) The way the Rambam understands these last to they refer to the Physics (eight books) and Metaphysics (14 books) of Aristotle.
3) The way the Rambam understood the Oral Law was such that he considered the entire Oral law to be contained in his major work the Mishne Torah. Thus the basic program of the Rambam would be easily done by going through this small set: Physics, Metaphysics, and Mishne Torah.
4) Though this is commendable, I would like to make a slight modification of this program of the Rambam. That is I think the actual Oral Law really ought to be learned in its entirety -that is the actual books that contained the Oral Law as known to the Chazal [Sages] -- (The Two Talmuds, with the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada.) Plus I think Physics has gone a bit further since the days of Aristotle. There is no exact set, but I think one should at least get through Relativity, QM, Field Theory, String Theory. Abstract Algebra, and Algebraic Topology.
5) This might sound like a lot but it is not at all hard if one follows the program set by the Chazal, לעלם לגרס איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע נאי קאמר= "Say the words in order and go on."
6] Review I do like this. I finish ch 1., then I go back to review from the end to the beginning. Then I do ch 2. Then I go back and review ch 2 and ch 1. etc . The review I usually do thus. Let's say ch 2 is divided into 10 subsections. Then I do 2.10, and then 2,9 then 2.8 etc. That means by the time I get to chapter 10 I have don ch. 1 a lot of times. But not ever subject requires this. You need to see which subject can just go straight with and which ones require more review. It is highly individual.
2) The way the Rambam understands these last to they refer to the Physics (eight books) and Metaphysics (14 books) of Aristotle.
3) The way the Rambam understood the Oral Law was such that he considered the entire Oral law to be contained in his major work the Mishne Torah. Thus the basic program of the Rambam would be easily done by going through this small set: Physics, Metaphysics, and Mishne Torah.
4) Though this is commendable, I would like to make a slight modification of this program of the Rambam. That is I think the actual Oral Law really ought to be learned in its entirety -that is the actual books that contained the Oral Law as known to the Chazal [Sages] -- (The Two Talmuds, with the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada.) Plus I think Physics has gone a bit further since the days of Aristotle. There is no exact set, but I think one should at least get through Relativity, QM, Field Theory, String Theory. Abstract Algebra, and Algebraic Topology.
5) This might sound like a lot but it is not at all hard if one follows the program set by the Chazal, לעלם לגרס איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע נאי קאמר= "Say the words in order and go on."
6] Review I do like this. I finish ch 1., then I go back to review from the end to the beginning. Then I do ch 2. Then I go back and review ch 2 and ch 1. etc . The review I usually do thus. Let's say ch 2 is divided into 10 subsections. Then I do 2.10, and then 2,9 then 2.8 etc. That means by the time I get to chapter 10 I have don ch. 1 a lot of times. But not ever subject requires this. You need to see which subject can just go straight with and which ones require more review. It is highly individual.
Several wives.If something is not forbidden then why say it is? You want to be more strict than Moses?
Not everyone with several wives in the Bible had trouble. With Jacob there was some trouble, but overall I think he did pretty well. King David’s son Solomon came from Bat Sheva who was not David’s first or only wife. Caleb Ben Yefuna had a few wives and few girls friend simultaneously and the Bible says about him the most unique phrase it uses anywhere וימלא אחרי השם He walked totally with God. “Totally” here means “completely,” or 100%.
[Nature abhors a vacuum. I see this a lot. People don't like the Law of Moses so they make up their own prohibitions, and ignore things that are clearly forbidden in the Law of God.]
The general way to understand the Law of Moses is thus: There are things that are forbidden. These always come with the words, "Thou shalt not do such and such." There are things one must do. They always come with the words, "Thou shalt do such and such." Then there are things that are neither forbidden nor obligated. They might be good to do but they are not obligated. There might be things that are not prudent, but they are not forbidden.
Christians try to argue that two wives is not prudent and therefore must be forbidden. However that does not follow. Also the entire existence of the Jewish people is the result of Jacob having four wives. Plus Caleb Ben Yefuna is not a minor figure in the Bible. He is well known as the friend of Joshua and the fact that he had a few wives and girl friends is not ignoble.
I am simply trying to make a difference between what the Law of Moses forbids and that which it does not forbid. The cases of multiple wives that I know about are usually quite happy. The women are attached to some Alpha Male and are willing to put up with anything in order to be with him. And I never saw anything to indicate that the children were worse off. But people that are more familiar with Mormons might have different observations--I admit.
13.9.16
I do not think the world of the religious has anything to do with Torah. There seems to be no judgment that they pass on others that corresponds to common sense or human decency.
There was a time when Torah scholars were esteemed to be the very pattern of nobility. Nowadays religious teachers always decide and judge cases brought before them unjustly, and their judgment can nor be hidden for they are well known and public. Mankind has become indignant at their strange and disgraceful sentences which they pass on good and decent men.
Malice for the Reform and Conservative Jews and contempt for baali teshuva [newly religious] is the major factor in their considerations. Not Torah. It is the rule of the lowest IQ and highest malice towards all.
[There are blogs that are devoted towards critique on the religious world. Their critiques seem true to me, but I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of Torah, But I stay away from the religious because it seems to me they ruin everything they get their hands on, e.g. marriages, families, etc. Who has not heard the horror stories? I bet you most of them are true. I have seen this myself and the stories people tell about what religious teachers did to them always seem to be understated. The facts if you now them up close always seem much worse than what is reported because balali teshiva are always afraid of saying Lashon Hara [slander] so they understate what was one to them.
[I do not think the world of the religious has anything to do with Torah. As far as I can see it is all one big scam. And to the extent of what we see as a long trail of broken families and broken lives and broken marriages the guilt of the religious is a real, dark, and formidable guilt.]
There seems to be no judgment that they pass on others that corresponds to common sense or human decency. They depend on the idea that their judgement will be forgotten or ignored by the rest of mankind. Every marriage they ruin, every family they destroy they figure will be forgotten in time so they can retain their noble reputation.
One consideration is perhaps they are not qualified? This could be true, but to my thinking the problem is deeper. [I mean to say most of the problems comes from religious teachers that have not been in authentic Litvak yeshivas like Ponovicth, Brisk , or the Mir in NY. After all you never hear stories of bad teachers from Europe where to be a religious teacher one really need to have the actual qualifications of having been in an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva and to have excelled.
Still I have to admit I rarely [if ever] saw anything good come from religious teachers. And nothing they said or did seemed to have any connection with the Holy Torah.
In any case, what some people do in such cases is to get cool about the Holy Torah. But it is my impression that the better course of action would be to be stronger and better in Torah and never to have any rabbi who does not come from a legitimate Litvak Yeshiva.
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.
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.
12.9.16
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.]
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)