Rambam: law of using an object dedicated to the Temple (7:9,10). Bava Metzia page 99, 43 a, tractate Meila page 20.

In terms of the law of Moses I wanted to mention that there is a sacrifice mentioned there for using something that was dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is one of the five guilt offerings. That is not the same as a sin offering.
The prohibition in the Torah come from the verse "You shall not eat in your gates.. and your vows."
So let us say you have money you have dedicated to the Temple. And you give it to a money changer or shop keeper to safeguard it. If it was wrapped in a way to show it should not be used and the money changer used it, he transgresses the prohibition. If it was not wrapped, and you said nothing to him about it, then no one transgresses the prohibition--to the Rambam. A teaching in pg. 43a the end of chapter המפקיד says you yourself did transgress. Why does the Rambam disagree? Because of a Mishna in Tracate Meila 20 that says simply the money changer does not transgress and stops at that. So we have no problem in understanding the Rambam. His opinion was that the Mishna in מעילה דף כ simply disagrees with the ברייתא. But what is the reasoning of the Rambam?
Rav Shach says the argument between the Mishna and the braita is this. The Braita holds if one gave money to a money-changer that was not wrapped up, it is meant as a loan, and thus when the changer gave it out, he meant it as a change in ownership. But since he had permission to exchange it, the prohibition goes back to the original owner who did not warn him that the money belongs to the Temple.  The Rambam holds however, based on that Mishna, that the money can be used by the changer, but not as a loan to the money changer. The money is not a loan. So at no point was there intention to take the money out of the possession of the Temple.

I should mention there are two types of מעילה. One is taking out of the possession of the Temple, and the other is deriving physical benefit from the object. In our case, there is no physical benefit, so the only question is that of taking the object of the the possession of the Temple.

This I think helps explain the Gemara in Bava Metzia 99 שואל One who borrows an ax of the Temple, if he chopped wood with it he transgress the prohibition, and if he did not chop, then he does not transgress. בקע בו מעל לא בקע בו לא מעל.The idea would be the same as in the case of the חלפן. When one borrows something there is no intention to take it out of the possession of the owner. So only when one uses the ax is does he transgress the prohibition of מעילה

______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

In terms of the תורת משה I wanted to mention that there is a קרבן mentioned there for using something that was dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is one of the five קרבן אשם. That is not the same as a קרבן חטאת.
The prohibition in the Torah come from the verse "לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך .. ונדריך."
So let us say you have money you have dedicated to the Temple. And you give it to a money חלפן or shop keeper to safeguard it. If it was wrapped in a way to show it should not be used and the חלפן used it, he transgresses the prohibition. If it was not wrapped, and you said nothing to him about it then no one transgresses the prohibition to the רמב''ם. A teaching in בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א the end of chapter המפקיד says גיזבר did transgress. Why does the רמב''ם disagree? Because of a משנה in מסכת מעילה that says simply the חלפן does not transgress stops at that. So we have no problem in understanding the רמב''ם. His opinion was that the משנה in מעילה דף כ simply disagrees with the ברייתא. But what is the reasoning of the רמב''ם?
רב שך says the argument between the משנה and the ברייתא is this. The ברייתא holds if one gave money to a  חלפן that was not wrapped up it is meant as a loan and thus when the חלפן gave it out, he meant it as a change in ownership. But since he had permission to exchange it the prohibition goes back to the original owner who did not warn him that the money belongs to the Temple.  The רמב''ם holds however based on that משנה that the money can be used by the חלפן but not as a loan to the חלפן. The money is not a loan. So at no point was there intention to take the money out of the possession of the Temple.

I should mention there are two types of מעילה. One is taking out of the possession of the Temple and the other is deriving physical benefit from the object. In out case there is no physical benefit so the only question is that of taking the object of the the possession of the Temple.
This I think helps explain the גמרא בבא מציעא צ''''ט ע''א that says השואל an ax of the Temple. בקע בו מעל לא בקע בו לא מעל.The idea would be the same as in the case of the חלפן. When one borrows something there is no intention to take it out of the possession of the owner. So only when one uses the ax is does he transgress the prohibition of מעילה

בתורת משה יש קרבן של המשתמש במשהו שהוקדש לבית המקדש בירושלים. זהו אחד מחמשת קרבן אשם. זה לא אותו הדבר כמו קרבן חטאת. האיסור בתורה בא מן הפסוק "לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך .. ונדריך." אז בואו נגיד שיש לך כסף שאתה הקדשת לבית המקדש ונתתו לגיזבר והוא נותן את הכסף לחלפן או בעל חנות כדי להגן עליו. אם זה היה עטוף דרך להראות שזה לא אמור לשמש בו והחלפן השתמש בו, הוא עובר איסור. אם זה לא היה עטוף, ואתה אמרת לו לא כלום, על זה אז אף אחד לא עובר את האיסור לדעת רמב''ם. אבל ההוראה בבבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א בסוף פרק המפקיד אומרת הגיזבר עשה עבירה ומעל. מדוע רמב''ם לא מסכים? בגלל משנה במסכת מעילה שאומרת פשוט החלפן לא מעל נקודה. אז אין לנו בעיה בהבנת רמב''ם. דעתו היתה כי המשנה במעילה דף כ' פשוט חולקת על הברייתא. אך מהו ההיגיון של רמב''ם? רב שך אומר הטיעון בין המשנה ואת ברייתא הוא זו. לברייתא אם אחד  נתן כסף לחלפן שלא היה עטוף היטב זה נועד כהלוואה ולכן כאשר החלפן החליף את זה, הוא התכוון ברצינות כשינוי בעלות. אבל מאז הוא קיבל רשות ללכת להחליף אותו האיסור חוזר לבעלים המקורים שלא הזהירו כי הכסף שייך לבית המקדש. רמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה מבוסתס אולם על כי המשנה שהכסף יכול לשמש את החלפן אבל לא כהלוואה אל החלפן. הכסף הוא לא הלוואה. אז בשום שלב לא היה כוונה לקחת את הכסף מתוך החזקה של בית המקדש. אני צריך להזכיר ישנם שני סוגים של מעילה. אחד הוא לוקח מתוך חזקת  המקדש והשני נובע מיתרון פיזי מהאובייקט. במקרה שלנו אין שום תועלת פיזית. אז השאלה היחידה היא לקחת את האובייקט מרשותו של בית המקדש. זה עוזר להסביר את הגמרא בבא מציעא צ'' ט ע''א שאומרת השואל גרזן של בית המקדש. בקע בו מעל, לא בקע בו לא מעל. הרעיון יהיה אותו הדבר כמו במקרה של החלפן. כאשר אחד ישאל משהו אין כוונה לקחת את זה מתוך החזקה של הבעלים. אז רק כאשר האדם משתמש בגרזן הוא עובר על איסור המעילה.

מה שאני עושה כאן הוא לעשות יותר מאשר ספקולציות. אני אומר כאן יש לנו הוכחה על מה שקורה ב''מ צ''ט ע''א. כל העניין הזה כאן של רב שך עולה בבירור  אשר השואל אינו נוטל מתוך החזקה של בית המקדש

The basic idea here was mentioned before in my blog. But what I am doing here is to do more than speculation. I am saying that here we have a proof about what is going on in the Gemara Bava Metzia page 99. This whole idea here of Rav Shach shows clearly that borrowing is not taking out of the possession of the Temple. In fact the relation between our Gemara on Page 99 and what Rav Shach says about the exchange of meila is so clear I am surprised he did not mention it himself!

T 28 A major  t28 in midi

The Rambam understands Physics and Metaphysics as the way to fulfill the mitzvas of Love and Fear of God.

Besides the Rambam my own parents saw something important about Physics.
[Though the Rambam's definition of this was a little different than the modern day one. The Rambam openly wrote he was referring to the Physics of the ancient Greeks which means basically Aristotelian Physics. Still the approach and subject matter is that which the Rambam was referring to. The Rambam did also add Metaphysics-which he did also say meant that of the Ancient Greeks. 
But in that case he would have been referring to the subject as it was developed later by Plotinus.

But in these cases, he was not just referring to the writings, but to the subject itself. Similarly in his approach to the Oral Law he divides it into two sections. One is the actual learning of the material which he meant in the sense of learning the Mishne Torah (of the Rambam himself) itself. The other is the  reasoning it out, which is the kind of process we see Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Shach engaging in. [This process had its beginnings with Rav Joseph Karo, but really came to its summit in the book of Ideas in the Rambam of Rav Soloveitchik and the Avi Ezri. ]

The Rambam understands Physics and Metaphysics as the way to fulfill the mitzvas of Love and Fear of God. This is hinted in the Mishne Torah, but stated openly in the Guide.
[The way that this makes sense to me is by means of Reb Nachman's ideas about the hidden Torah in the work of Creation. And the Hidden Statement of Creation. At least, that is how it makes sense to me.  And it seems to me the Rambam must have been looking at this in a similar fashion, but so far without a copy of the Guide I can't remember a specific place where he might have said this.]

In any case, with the Rambam we get a very elegant way of serving God, that make a lot of sense. It is a balanced approach: The Oral and Written Law of Moses, Physics, Metaphysics. To me this approach has a lot of charm and beauty to it. Besides the fact that it is כיבוד אב ואם honor of my father and mother which is one of the 613, and not a minor one either. 

[You can add this this basic structure to some degree but what ever you add has the danger of being bitul Torah. Bitul Torah the sin of not learning Torah when one has the time to do so.]

(note 1) In the original Musar movement there was the idea of spending as much time as possible learning Ethics {Medieval Musar}, but as you can see that idea was not really accepted in its entirety by the Musar Litvak yeshivas because of the law of limited returns. While important it is, adding to it beyond a half hour daily does not seem to add much.

(note 2) On the side of those that think Physics and Metaphysics are forbidden and also all secular subjects  would have to say that (1) those that supposedly only learn Torah are jerks. I saw enough of this in Israel. Torah without Derech Eretz is not Torah. סופה בטילה. But I have to agree a lot of secular subjects are in fact bitul Torah.

(note 3) Just for the record when I say Physics I am mainly referring to Quantum Field Theory and the later String Theory.  Metaphysics however I think best to confine to Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus, though I see Hegel and Kant as being pretty important also.

(note 4) The Rambam is not referring to mysticism. Though at the time I was learning Musar and the Arizal, I thought he was. Now this is not to say there is no place for a mystic interpretation of the Guide. We know Rav Avraham Abulafia wrote a mystic commentary on the Guide. Still the Rambam in teh Guide itself says exactly what he meant by Physics and Metaphysics.

The attempt to crowd out and eliminate the white race does not stop at WASPs. It goes up to and includes white European Jews.

I tend to look at things in terms of religion just like economists tend to evaluate political issues base on economic considerations. But I feel my mode is more accurate because I believe that people's religious motivations are deeper and much more powerful than they even admit to themselves. 
Thus WASPs have had a hard time of it in the USA because their preachers have been giving them unrealistic messages. I am not saying this is the only problem. But you have to admit that it fits well with the  social justice problem. So if you put Sunday morning compassion for all mankind together with the weekday's social justice professors you get a lethal combination of idiocy.

t27 B flat major   t27 in midi format

learning Torah

The most attractive thing about learning Torah is that it constitutes a life lived for God. Or that is what it ought be be. It is not supposed to be a choice about how to go about making money. This is at least how the Chazal {חז''ל} sages of the Talmud understood it. The choice is supposed to be  along the lines of, "Should I spend my time running after things of this world, or should I devote my life to serving God?"
This aspect of Torah as a holy pursuit is what sparks in me a sense of outrage when I see it being made into a way of making money.  When I see the  religious people (I use the term "people" loosely. It is true they have human DNA, but so do my fingernails.)  being mainly based on  scamming of naive secular Jews, I get a sense of outrage that I feel others ought to share with me.
I feel the religious have turned something holy and precious--the Written and Oral Law of Moses, into something disgusting revolting and unholy and unclean.

Thus the problem of Halaca of using Torah for money is not the kind of focus of attention that I am interested in. Rather there is something about the whole religious world in itself that is perfectly revolting and immoral outside of the few fine and outstanding Litvak yeshivas in NY, or the general world of religious Zionism in Israel that emphases Torah along with Derek Eretz [Human decency]. (This is the same emphasis  as you have in NY Litvak yeshivas. It is just in Israel that the religious world is satanic as is obviously to anyone who has had any experience with them. I do not mean to be critical here of places like Ponovitch or the other few authentic Litvak yeshivas in Israel. The best advice I think is to stop funding the religious world which is highly demonic and does not contribute anything to the Jewish world. Great places like Ponovitch don't need the money. They will manage well on their own. And this way, by cutting off the funding, you stop funding the evil in our midst. ] 

One thing is studiously ignored in the religious world is the enormous human suffering inflicted on people by Torah scholars that are demons. This is swept under the carpet as if it did not exist.
The Talmud itself refers to this problem in the end of Shabat and it comes up in the Rambam, but Reb Nachman (ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק א' פרק ח', י''ב, כ''ח ועוד הרבה) was the only person to make this an issue consistently. The trouble is not so much the character of the demonic Torah scholars with whom I have had the sad misfortune to encounter all too often. Rather it is the suffering they cause to others. And then, after all the damage they cause,  they have the gall to ask to get paid for their services?

This obviously does not refer to sincere Torah scholars that learn Torah for its own sake, and the difference is all too plain. That is why I am careful to recommend only the authentic Litvak yeshivas that I know are learning Torah for its own sake.

What is happening is think is this: People use Torah to gain money power and then go about using their power in horrible, horrific, ways. Everyone knows  Satanic teachers of Torah that make unclean everything they touch. This creates an opposite reaction. People then flee from Torah as if it alone was responsible for this.
This makes it difficult for me to explain the problem is with the demonic teachers that are sent to Earth in order for there to be free will. For if people would only see the Light of the Torah, there would no longer be free will. Everyone would run to learn and keep Torah.  Thus there has to be these agents of the Devil in order for there to be free will.

But people should know, demonic scholars do not learn and keep Torah at all. It is all a scam. The real authentic Torah is only found in authentic Litvak yeshivas.

Joseph Yozel Horvitz-- Trust in God

Faith a trust in God without effort on your own part is  a debate. Joseph Yozel Horvitz depended on Reb Israel Salanter that the Ramban held one needs no effort. But to find that in the Ramban has proven impossible. No one knows from where Reb Israel Salanter got this, However the Gra definitely held this way  --that no effort is necessary. This provided a foundation for Litvak yeshivas in NY. The general approach in NY was to learn Torah and depend on God for a living and shiduch, and not to get the false semicha [ordination]  that gives people the ability to use Torah as a shovel, [i.e. to make money]. In the Mir anyone that got Semicha was looked on as if he was a charlatan and could not really learn.

I hope this does not sound like I am claiming trust in God. I definitely lost that and so my entire service towards God is on a  different wave length. That is trying make up for losing trust. For once it is lost it does not return. The same with the Divine Light or "shechina". 
Trust for me worked as long as I hung onto it. 

In any case, in the Litvak kinds of Yeshiva Musar is learned I felt the real presence of God, the Shechina, and this leads to my general recommendation of making places like this or at least in ones home to have a spot dedicated to learning Torah and Musar.

Shabat: carrying in a public domain

Carrying in a public domain on Shabat is one of the 39 kinds of forbidden work.


Tosphot and Rashi say to be a public domain there must be 600,000 people walking through it. 
The Rif and Rambam do not require any amount of people. But the road does need to be 16 cubits wide. Thus to the Rif and Rambam no Eruv is valid. So is one stuck? I suggest one can depend on Rashi and Tosphot in a case of need along with not setting down the package in the public domain but just carrying through it and setting it down in private domain. Thus there are two reasons to be lenient. But I find  Rashi difficult because in no Gemaras is this 600,000 mentioned and the cities in Persia (where the Gemara is talking about carrying) did not have 600,000.






רש''י and תוספות that say one needs ששים רבוא people walking through the central road to make it a public domain. The reason for doubts about this is the רמב''ם and רי''ף that consider a public domain to be just what it sounds like as long as the road is wide enough.

But the thing that makes this the most curious is that fact that in all the גמרות in שבת and עירובין that deal with carrying in a public domain there never seems to be the slightest consideration of this ששים רבוא. And the Jewish cities in Persia did not have ששים רבוא. 





{That however leaves the question of pockets- that does not seem to be the same as carrying in one's hands. The object is not nullified to the garment, but neither is it the same as carrying in one hands. To carry in one's pockets I think would be forbidden because of a separate law -the lifting and setting of one's body is like the lifting and setting of the object and as Rava says in Shabat page 8 that means even carrying on one' head would be liable. 

So pockets are out but carrying in a way that you do not set anything down in the public domain along with Rashi and Tosphot could be a decent permission.


שבת: נושאת רשות הרבים. רש''י  ותוספות אומרים שצריכים ששים רבוא אנשים הולכים דרך כביש מרכזי כדי להפוך אותה לרשות הציבור. הסיבה לספק לגבי זה היא שהרמב''ם והרי''ף  שוקלים רשות הציבור להיות בדיוק מה שזו נשמע אלא שהכביש הוא צריך  להיות רחב מספיק. אבל הדבר שעושה את זה ביעתי ביותר הוא העובדה כי בכל הגמרות בשבת ועירובין  עם שנושאות בעניין רשות הרבים מעולם לא נראה  שיקול של ששים רבוא,  ובערים היהודיות בפרס לא היו ששים רבוא

I would like to think about pockets more but at this point the issue seems to be in doubt. 

I have lots of areas where I am lenient but I do not write about them because the issues are not 100% clear to me. So I hesitate to tell others though I am lenient for myself. The general things I am lenient about are תקנות דרבנן in which the reason for the decree is bull as per the Raavad and Tosphot and Gemara in Beitza 5 and Gittin end of ch 1


So if you are looking for lenient decisions the general way to do this is to look at the question is the law derabanan and if the reason for it is null. The other common thing I do is simply look for a lenient decision in the rishonim, geonim or in the Beit Yoseph or Rema. 

I am not saying one should look to be lenient in law. However at a certain point I began to see that people could be extra strict in Halacha and still be scum. The extra strictness maybe even hurt. 

Psychiatrists. they are intent on psychologizing the men they attacks: they deal not with what they say and do but with their alleged motives.

the-liars-liar

Psychiatrists.  Dr. Frances The person in charge of creating DSM-IV

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”



This is doubly serious because they are intent on psychologizing the men thet attacks: they deal not  with what they say and do  but  with their alleged motives.

The way I calculate the Hebrew Calendar is not the same as the traditional method.

The way I calculate the Hebrew Calendar is not the same as the traditional method. To  my way of thinking the first day of the month is on what is called the Molad which is when the sun and moon are on the same longitude.  The basic issue really comes from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 10 and Rosh Hashanah around page 19 which seem to be  differing approaches (סוגיות חלוקות). I do not have a lot to say about this because the time I did this subject with my learning partner  I was not taking notes. I believe the chronological order was- we worked on the long Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10b very  thoroughly, and then the subject in Rosh Hashanah, and then we went to Bava Metzia.
[I apologize to the Jewish people for not taking notes at the time which would have been interesting as a very great learner was my learning partner.]  

Maybe a long essay here would be in order, but it would just be going through the basic subject with no new ideas.

Mainly, the idea is that there is no Sanhedrin to sanctify the new moon, and no record of Hillel the second doing so. So it makes sense to go with the Gemara in Sanhedrin that goes with the idea that when there is no beit din on earth to sanctify the new moon then from heaven it is sanctified. When is that? To the first opinion in Tosphot it is the Molad. But the other opinion that Tosphot defends is that it depends on when the new moon can be seen, which is hard to tell and there are no set rules for that.

The proof that the present day calendar was not in use during the time of the geonim is there are dates in their letters that are not according to the present day calendar. 

I admit, that if there would be authentic ordination סמיכה, then obviously we would go with the Sanhedrin. But there is no Sanhedrin, and you can not make up ordination that is not from Sinai out of thin air and pretend it is real. At that rate, why not just make up your own Rosh Hashanah also. If you want to ignore Torah Law, then, hey, go for it. But if it is Torah law we are interested in, then there is no Semicha and no authority to sanctify the new moon. So we have to go with R. Eleazar ben Azariah and the Gemara in Sanhedrin 10B.

I sadly have no Gemara to look up anything but from what I recall there is never a problem about the leap year because [if memory serves] all you need to Passover to occur in the Spring. [Certainly if you needed the beginning of Nisan to be in Spring, that would cause problems. But from what I know you only need either the 16th or 17th day of the month to be in Spring according to the Jerusalem Talmud. So Passover in fact always falls in the same month everyone else is doing it. The only difference is it will usually be one or two days before everyone else. ]

As Hegel pointed out, the other answers of the German Idealists were not very good, and some were simply nonsense.

I should mention that I prefer Neo Platonic thought myself as that looks to me to be the closest to reality. Not Plato alone nor Aristotle alone. Dr. Kelley Ross definitively goes in the Kant-Plato direction. But most of the great thinkers in history that form the basis of Western Civilization go with the Neo Platonic approach.

To Plotinus, Reason can perceive the forms, not just know them from some kind of implanted knowledge.

In any case, my own viewpoint in this direction I should admit was very much influenced by Rav Isaac Luria. When I was in the Mir in NY I spent a great deal of time between Gemara sessions in learning his Tree of Life [עץ חיים] which is thoroughly Neo Platonic. [The Tree of Life [עץ חיים] was actually written by Reb Haim Vital, but it is the teachings of the Ari.] [The Reshash/ Rav Shalom Sharaby I learned only later.] 
[The רש''ש Shalom Sharaby  made an important move back to Aristotle in saying in putting the order of the world horizontally in the time of תחיית המתים revival of the dead. That means saying the universals depend on particulars.]




 But Reality is also radically objective,--  the Schrodinger equation  is about as objective a law as anything that has ever existed as Dr. Kelley Ross wrote to me. In any case, the contradiction between reality being radically subjective and radically objective is exactly the type of thing that Hegel would have thought validates his system.

[I also want to add that to come up with the kind of Neo Platonic thought that is in the Rambam, the Ari, and Aquinas and Hegel is by no means a trivial feat. If you think that with simple faith in the Holy Torah and in Reason, you would have come up with this synthesis on your own then take a look at Hippolytus and see how hard it was to reconcile reason and faith and how radically different Plato is from the Neo Platonic synthesis of the Rambam.]


(note 1) The electron has no one value [energy or time, momentum or position in space] but rather a superposition of possible values until it is measured. This is proved by the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality.
[Feynman makes the point even more clear with his path integral approach.] 


As I put this elsewhere: We know from Einstein locality (causality). This we know by GPS (global positioning satellite). And we know from Bell either that reality is subjective, or non local (one or the other but not both). But we already know from Albert Einstein, that reality is local. Therefore putting 2+2=4 together we know reality is local and subjective (the electron or photon is a superposition of possible values in space time and polarization until measured. At that time the wave function collapses to one space time value.)
I also should mention that we might have known this from the two slit experiment, but there might have been ways to explain that away. So it is in fact that Nature violates the Bell's inequality that proves the point.

Plotinus. Neo Platonic thought is the basis for Western Civilization

Avraham Rosenblum says:

Some aspects of Western Civilization are worth preserving and others not. A good deal of the literature and philosophy is worthless. Allen Bloom suggested just throwing out the entire Humanities and Social studies departments of most universities.

• JPW says:

  If you really are down on certain aspects of Western Culture, I strongly encourage you to go forth and develop a better one. Don’t gripe about the problem. Solve it.
  • Avraham Rosenblum: That is a hard challenge –especially after the greatest minds in history have worked on the problem before me.
  • 
    
  • Brett Stevens says:

    Maybe there is something they have expressed that overlaps, which we have overlooked? Do you think that Platonism (not neo-Platonism) is the basis of Judeo-Christian metaphysical thought?
  • Avraham Rosenblum says:

    That is what I was thinking. But I tend more towards Neo-Platonic as did all the medieval thinkers and up to and including Hegel. Dr. Kelley Ross wants to return to a more pure form of Plato and Kant. But the basis of Western Civilization to me looks to be Plotinus and neo Platonic thought. And the the journal of Medieval Thought from Cornell they mention that even in Aquinas people have proven Neo Platonic influence.     
  • After Thought: The Ari, Shalom Sharabi, Yaakov Abuchatzaira, the Rambam are all clearly straight forward Neo Platonic thought--each one developing it in different directions. Shalom Sharabi in his scheme of things found a way to balance Plato and Aristotle as you can see in his order of the worlds after תחיית המתים which goes like Aristotle in which the universals depend on the particulars.
  • 
    

the Jewish religious world is that of the Sitra Achra (the Dark Side).

The major problem I see in the Jewish religious world is that of the Sitra Achra (the Dark Side).
That is to say that when people thirst for the spirit of God that is in itself not a bad thing. And I agree there is  a  mystic side to Torah as we see in the Gra and the Ari. Still this thirst for spirituality is hijacked to draw people into the Sitra Achra- to the degree that if there is any part of the religious world that is genuinely kosher I would be surprised. 

Still the side of attachment with God in the Torah is difficult to ignore. But it mainly seems to be connected with a pretty well defined path--that of learning Gemara with great intensity until one knows Shas pretty well and then delving into the writings of the Ari. When this is done right as in rare cases, it does open up a door of attachment and dekekut with God (as with Bava Sali). But as a rule the spiritual thirst seems to just get people involved in the Sitra Achra. It is kind of sad to see.

To the religious world, the main thing is to be religious, but not too religious so that the money keeps flowing from the plebeians to them. 
Obviously Reb Israel Salanter and the Gra saw this problem and suggested what I have to admit is probably the best solution to learn Musar Medieaval Ethics.That is the classical Musar Sefarim of the Middle Ages, and to learn Straight Authentic Torah.

In any case the arguments that forbid electricity on Shabat or cooking with electricity are amazingly flimsy and concocted out of thin air.

I just wanted to jot down a few ideas about electricity on Shabat--not a formal essay that I would have liked to have done.
Mainly the issue really boils down the the Gemara in Shabat chapter 3 about cooking with תולדות חמה or in חמי טבריה. [Heat generated by some derivative of solar energy, not fire]. The relevant sources are the Chazon Ish, and  the book of one of his disciples that disagreed with the Chazon Ish, and the Gemaras from where the Chazon Ish derives his law from. They are the gemaras about putting a bed or a candelabra that are made out of parts together. I was back at the Mir in NY for a sort time and looked at the Chazon Ish and was impressed. I then asked Rav Nelkenbaum about it and he said an אדם גדול told him the essay of the Chazon Ish on this subject is simply and plainly wrong.

That is the sum total of the relevant information I have about this subject. The only thing I might add is the argument between the Rambam and Raavad about a vessel that needs to be put together to be operative in laws of טומאה וטהרה but after thinking that over I did not think it was relevant. In any case the arguments that forbid electricity on Shabat or cooking with electricity are amazingly flimsy and concocted out of  thin air. 
As they say in Israel "If you want to be frum, (extra strict) then do it on your own חשבון (expense). Do not force it down the throats of others."

I was unaware of what was going on in the Christian world for a long time. It only occurred to me to notice something going on with what is known as Pentecostal. I imagine because I tend to look more at doctrinal difference between groups that I  was scarcely aware of their existence. Part of this is really not from lack of awareness, but more from the fact that Pentecostal people and groups do not like the name and so go by the more mild sounding "Evangelical."  It only occurred to me recently what really makes them different from every other group. It is the Pentecostal experience. This is way beyond what it sounds like. To them this is the one and only thing that separates a real christian from a fake.
I really only became aware of this after reading a Catholic critique on it.
I really can not tell exactly what they are thinking however from personal experience.

I was pretty solidly into the Torah point of view when I got to Israel, and when the Divine Light started shining, I thought little of it,  and thought it was just the common experience of everyone in Israel. To me experience of the Divine Light is nothing more or less that fulfilling the verse in Deuteronomy 11: 22 ''to be attached to God'' which is one of the 613  commandments.
At any rate, what I wanted to say today was simply this: To me it seems so hard to get to be a decent human being because people are basically depraved and vicious beyond belief. So in my mind, anything that people do to come to gain good character is praiseworthy. 

In other words my viewpoint is the good character is the center of gravity of the Torah. [Based on the אור צפון, the רש''ש Shalom Sharabi,  the Hafetz Chaim, and Rav Yerucham of the Mir in Europe.] So to my point of view, what ever it takes for anyone to come to good character is a good thing.

That is to say besides that people are depraved, I see most groups and especially most religious groups as adding to their inborn depravity a thousand fold. So anything at all on the side of getting people to be a little more honest, to lie a little less, to have a little more compassion on others, is already a great thing and a rare thing. For most groups encourage just the opposite under nice sounding slogans

Sadly Musar [Jewish Mediaeval Ethics] is subject to abuse and that tends to give it a bad rap. What to me makes this sad is that Musar gives the best and most compact explanation of what the Torah requires from a person in the most explicit simple and practical way possible.  That is it is like Bava Sali in the sense that it just tells you what Torah is about and leaves out all the Shtick that people like to add or subtract. There are tons of books supposedly about Torah, but most of them are false. They change the Torah in so many subtle ways that ignorant people can scarcely tell the difference.

t26 B flat major [t26 in midi format]

[t26 in nwc format]

Review of the same section or paragraph many times

The first thing that hit me when I got to yeshiva in NY [Shar Yashuv in Queens County--not Brooklyn] was the idea of review.

Mordechei Freifeld, the son of the Rosh Yeshiva Shelomo Freifeld emphasized this idea of review {חזרה} many times--especially when I would come and say how learning fast was important and I would bring proofs from the book בנין עולם (Building the World) and the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Paths of the Righteous. To some degree I in fact tried this over the years in yeshiva. I even remember in the Mir in NY I would take one paragraph of the Pnei Yehoshua and learn each one more than ten time--sometimes even 15 or twenty. [I had a pencil and would put a dot next to the beginning of the paragraph to note each time I had read through the whole thing.]

Moti Freifeld never changed in this respect and always emphasized review. When I discovered that Reb Nachman also empathized learning fast and getting through lot of material, Moti just kept emphasizing the importance of review all the more so.

I did not know it at the time; but it is the accepted custom in Lithuanian yeshivas to learn in depth in the morning and fast in the afternoon.

I think today that one has to gauge himself.  There is a "law of limited returns." That is a law that goes thus:There is a limit to how many times you can kiss your wife that will add to marital bliss.
So when the material was basically unfamiliar to me [like when I was doing Ketuboth, Yevamot and Nida] I would basically do each Tosphot twice and not more--because I discovered that after two time I got the basic idea and doing any more times did not add anything to my understanding.


My basic compromise about all this is based on a Gemara [Talmud] לעולם לגרוס אדם והדר ליסבר. Always one should learn in the way of "Girsa" (saying the words and going on further) and afterward to make sense of it all. That is: when the material is completely unfamiliar the best thing is just to go through the whole book from beginning to end a few times. Then when you already have some idea of what is going on, then to take some individual section that you noticed seems to be pivotal or a key to the understanding of the whole subject and to do that one section many many times. This I found to be helpful in Physics also.  

When I was learning with David Bronson  in Bava Metzia I found him to be unwilling to budge an inch on anything in Tosphot that was unclear. That led to my long essay in the beginning of my little booklet on Bava Metzia on these words in Tosphot [page 97B] "Even without Abyee we would have to say that the law of Rav Yehuda comes from Shmuel." I should admit we never found an answer to that and after about two or more weeks of just sitting and staring at those couple of words we finally decide to go on. Some years later as you can see in that book, I found a tentative answer. And after  that after getting the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach I found a better answer after about 10 years of wondering about that problem.


What I ended  up saying is that Shmuel hold from certainty is better because חזקא מעיקרא in Ketuboth would not have been enough to believe the woman. That I based on the analysis of Rav Shach about the Gemara in Nida page 2

SO I suggest two sessions in Talmud, and two in Physics. A fast one where one just says the words and goes on. The other in depth in which one finds the key ideas an works on those sections and ten times or more

[So it ended up the things I did the most review on were the Mahrasha, and the Pnei Yehoshua. Those were hard but also the fact that each paragraph or idea was short made the ability to do review practical. This is less practical with Tosphot.

I should add that review seems to work better in Torah because sections in Gemara and Mishna are more or less self contained. In Physics, it seems I need to spend a lot of time in getting the big picture before woring on details becomes practical. 

Jewish religious world

The trouble with the Jewish religious world is that their actions speak so loudly that no one can hear what they are saying. 

The trouble seems to be that Torah really only works well when it is learned and kept for the sake of God. When it becomes a means to make money, it turns to poison. And the first primary commandment in the religious world is to trick and cheat secular Jews and naive baali teshuva. The main hell holes are the yeshivas in Jerusalem and the West Coast the the USA.  

Reb Nachman from Breslov had  a term for religious teachers תלמידי חכמים שדיין יהודאיים. (Torah scholars that are demonic). It is really not from the Zohar. [Reb Nachman had to make a composite of this idea from the Zohar along with the rather severe complaints about Torah scholars that are hypocrites which are brought in the Mishna and Gemara]. In the Zohar itself we have a concept of שדיי יכו''ם and שדיי יהודאים. That is Jewish and gentile  demons. That seems to refer to people that simply are beyond repentance. That is is people with no conscience which are the majority of mankind. People are not naturally good. We are naturally depraved. According to the Rambam even natural law [the laws of the Attic Greeks he calls them] needed Revelation. [The Rambam had an easy option open to him to say natural law was accessible by human reason but he choose not to go down that path.]

In any case this is a real problem that needs addressing because without it, I believe everyone would run to the light of the Torah.
Reb Nachman I should mention brought up this theme with a great deal of consistency throughout the  ten year  period Reb Nathan knew him.  The first time is in Vol I chapter 8 (of Reb Nachman main work) which was I believe the first Hanuka lesson Reb Nathan heard from Reb Nachman. After that it comes up in ch. 12 and then 28 and then it is mentioned over and over until  very last Torah lesson Reb Nachman ever gave Vol II ch 8.[Reb Nachman did not use the same term every time.  Sometime it was דיינים שאינם כשרים judges that are not honest.]
.
Of course you can go overboard with this as some people do. After all there are sincere people that do try to learn and keep Torah for its own sake and a lot of them are in fact in the real Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch and the three great NY yeshivas Mir Chaim Berlin Torah Vedaat. 

The Na Nach group of Breslov take it on principle that all well known Torah teachers are hypocrites  since they feel it takes  too much energy to try to choose which ones are OK. So they simply dismiss the whole lot. That is based on Reb Israel Odesser whose basic advice  they follow.  This rule  works well in practice, since it saves them from teachers of Torah that really are demons but it is hard to tell on the outside. Personally I think I also would have been saved from much trouble if I had followed that rule.  
[The actual subject of Jewish and Gentile demons is covered in the later chapters of the Eitz Chaim of the Ari, but the basic rule is to avoid trouble it is wise to simply avoid religious teachers and if you need a mikve to go to the ocean or a river. The Religious world is simly bad news]

Idolatry

I wanted to share some thoughts about Hulin page 40. The point I would like to get to is that  the Rambam must hold like Tosphot on page 41, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only derabanan, then what would the question of Rava be?  Let's sy teh law of Rav Huna was only derabanan. Then when Rav Nachman comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on Shabat is liable three, then Rav Huna could simply have answered I m saying it is forbidden derabanan but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time.
__________________________________________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

רב שך when he was a young yeshiva student wrote that this רמב''ם is only דרבנן but I think that it must be that it is from the Torah itself. But to me the idea that this is דרבנן would need stronger proofs than what רב שך brings.  Everyone agrees from where the prohibition to the altar comes from, It is one simple גמרא about the כלים  that were used by אחז, were put away by חזקיה. So obviously the תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן  manage to get the איסור still to be from the Torah. So why not the רמב''ם also?

Now I admit that in the end רב שך explains the question of רב נחמן well. That once there is a prohibition to the altar because of the prohibition of idolatry, even דרבנן, at that point it  no longer can be brought to the altar and thus is no longer שחוטי חוץ. But that is not a question. If that was the question, the answer would have been simply אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה היא מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת  החיובים באים בבת אחת.

רב שך כתב רמב''ם זה רק דרבנן אבל אני חושב שזה חייב להיות שזה מן התורה עצמה. להוכיח שזה דרבנן היה צריך הוכחות חזקות ממה שרב שך מביא. כולם מסכימים מאיפה האיסור המזבח בא, זה גמרא אחת פשוטה על כלים ששימש בהם אחז, הונחו בגניזה על ידי חזקיה.  התוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן הצליחו להעביר את האיסור להיות מן התורה. אז למה לא רמב''ם גם? עכשיו אני מודה כי בסופו של דבר רב שך מסביר את השאלה של רב נחמן היטב. כי ברגע שיש איסור על המזבח בשל האיסור של עבודה זרה, אפילו דרבנן, בשלב הזה הבעל חי כבר לא יכול להיות מובא אל המזבח ולכן הוא כבר לא שחוטי חוץ. אבל זה לא שאלה. אם זאת היתה השאלה, התשובה היתה פשוט אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה החי מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת החיובים באים בבת אחת.






______________________________________________________________________________

I wanted to share some thoughts about חולין  דף מ. The point I would like to get to is that  the רמב''ם must hold like תוספות on דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only דרבנן, then what would the question of רב מחמן be?  Let's say the  law of רב הונא was only דרבנן. Then when רב נחמן comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on שבת is liable three חטאות, then רב הונא could simply have answered, "I am saying it is forbidden דרבנן, but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time." So he has to mean it is forbidden from the Torah itself.

 חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע הוא כי רמב''ם חייב להחזיק כמו תוספות על דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, כי אם איסור למזבח של החיה שסגדו לה יהיה רק ​​דרבנן, אז מה הייתה השאלה של רב מחמן ? נניח החוק של רב הונא הוא רק ​​דרבנן. לאחר מכן, כאשר רב נחמן מגיע  עם הוראה אחת כי טובח חטאת לאליל ביום שבת עלול שלוש חטאות, אז רב הונא היה פשוט ענה, "אני אומר שזה איסור דרבנן, אבל מן התורה זה עדיין מתאים המזבח וכך שלושת החובות באות בבת אחת בזמן." אז מוכרח שהוא מהתכוון שזה איסור מן התורה עצמה.









_____________________________________________________________________________
The basic idea is this: Rav Huna  said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe [the windpipe or the food pipe ], it is forbidden to the altar it even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from Ula who said in the name of R. Yochanan even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה (slaughtering) we need two סימנים (windpipe and food pipe)? [Rav Nachman asks on him, but it is not the same question I am asking.]  Rav Nachman asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. "One who slaughters a  sin offering on Shabat, outside the Temple, to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings." Rav Nachman asks, "Why three? If one tube [the windpipe or the food pipe] is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar, and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.

[This is all in the way of introduction. I am hoping to show that the Rambam must hold like Tosphot Hulin page 41 ד''ה ת''ש]

In any case, the problem all begins with Rashi who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. It is learned from a verse in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה [words of the scribes], not from the Torah itself. [You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the Gemara in Bava Kama does learns גזרה שוות from verse in the prophets with verse in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא]. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנהand other achronim [later authorities] are asking on the Rambam that he seems to hold this prohibition is only derabanan. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the Rambam brings this whole sugia  subject is he states flat out: One who serves  the animal of his friend makes it forbidden in פרק ו' הלכה ד' אסורי מזבח . He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal! But when it comes to regular animals, he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself, and also to ignore the whole sugia in Hulin. What I would like to suggest is that the Rambam holds like Tosphot that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא [large act and small act]. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of Hulin. Certainly Tosphot, the Ran and the Ramban hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah  and even though Rashi brings a verse from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the Rambam would disagree with these other people.
The idea is that the Rambam does not say "he bowed to the animal" but "did service". That would be like Tosphot that he did a small act which would be סימן אחד When it comes to a regular animal there when he says he needs an act that means a large act.



________________________________________________________________________________


 חולין דף מ. The point I would like to get to is  the רמב''ם might hold like תוספות on page מ''א.
The basic idea is this: ר''ה said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe the windpipe or the food pipe , it is forbidden to the altar  even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from עולא who said in the name of ר. יוחנן even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act on it.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה we need two סימנים? The גמרא The brings רב נחמן who asks on ר''ה but it is not the same question I am asking. רב נחמן asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. One who slaughters a  sin offering on שבת, outside the בית המקדש to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings. רב נחמן asks why three? If one tube, the windpipe or the food pipe, is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.
The question is on ר''ה himself. To רב נחמן it seems clear the obligation for all three things comes at once after שחיטת רוב שנים. The question I asked is where is the proof in the first place? ר. יוחנן never said anything about סימן אחד

In any case, the problem all begins with רש''י  who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. This רש''י is bringing from a different גמרא.  It is learned from a פסוק in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה not from the Torah itself. You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the גמרא in בבא קמא דף ג does learns גזרות שוות from פסוקים in the prophets with פסוקים in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנה and other אחרונים are asking on the רמב''ם that he seems to hold this prohibition is only דרבנן. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the רמב''ם brings this whole סוגיה  subject is he states: one who bows to the animal of another person makes it forbidden in פסולי המוקדשין. He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal. But when it comes to regular animals he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself and also to ignore the whole סוגיה in חולין. What I would like to suggest is that the רמב''ם holds like תוספות that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of חולין.   Certainly תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah  and even though רש''י brings a פסוק from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the רמב''ם would disagree with these other people.





) רמב''ם משנה תורה ה' איסורי מזבח פ''ד ה''ו הנעבד בין שעבד שלו בין של חבירו בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה בין לפני הקדש בין לאחר הקדש הרי זה אסור וירעה עד שיפול בו מום קבוע ויפדה בו. חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע אליה היא שהרמב''ם עשוי להחזיק כמו תוספות בעמוד מ''א ד'ה ת''ש. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה: ר''ה אמר אם בעל חי שוכב מול אליל ומישהו בא ושוחט אותו, אפילו רק צינור אחד (קנה נשימה או צינור המזון), אסור למזבח למרות שהחיה היא לא שלו. הוא מביא ראיה מן עולא שאמר בשם ר' יוחנן אף אחד מי שקד לעבר בהמה של אדם אחר אינו גורם לה להיות אסורה, אבל הוא יכול לגרום לה ליאסר על-ידי עשיית פעולה. השאלה שלי כאן היא למה זה הוכחה? אולי כשזה בא לשחיטה אנחנו צריכים שני סימנים? הגמרא מביאה רב נחמן ששואל על ר''ה אבל זו לא אותה דבר כשאלה שאני שואל. רב נחמן שואל מן השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. (השוחט חטאת ביום שבת, מחוץ לבית המקדש לאליל נדרש להביא שלוש חטאות). רב נחמן שואל מדוע שלוש? אם צינור אחד, קנה הנשימה או צינור המזון, זה מספיק כדי לגרום לו להיות אסור, אז זה כבר אינו מתאים למזבח וכך הוא צריך להידרש רק שתי  חטאות. השאלה היא על ר''ה עצמו.  לרב נחמן  החובה לכל שלושת הדברים מגיע בבת אחת לאחר שחיטת רוב השנים. (השאלה  היא על ההוכחה מלכתחילה? ר' יוחנן לא אמר שום דבר על סימן אחד.) בכל מקרה, בעית הכל מתחילה עם רש''י שמביא סיבת החיה אסורה. זה רש''י מביא מתוך גמרא שונה. הוא למד מתוך פסוק בנביאים. זה יעשה את זה לכל היותר איסור מדברי קבלה, לא מהתורה עצמה. אתה יכול לטעון כי זה בכלל לא בהכרח. זאת בהתבסס על העובדה שהגמרא בבבא קמא דף ג'  לומדת גזרות שווות מן פסוקים בנביאים עם פסוקים בתורה ורואה את כל זה  להיות דאורייתא. אבל לשאת איתי לרגע. מה קורה בסופו של דבר הוא שהלחם המשנה ואחרונים אחרים שואלים על הרמב''ם שהוא נראה להחזיק איסור זה הוא רק דרבנן. זה בדיוק מה שאני מקווה להתווכח נגד. הדבר שקשה הוא על איך רמב''ם מביא נושא הסוגיה הזה. הוא  קובע: מי שעבד את החיה של אדם אחר עושה את זו אסורה למזבח (רמב''ם איסורי מזבח ). הוא לא הזכיר שום דבר על לעשות כל פעולה על החיה. אבל כשמדובר על חיות רגילות הוא מהצהיר כי כדי לעשות את זה אסור אחד צריך לעשות מעשה. אז כנראה הוא סותר את עצמו וגם מהתעלם מסוגיה שלמה בחולין. מה שאני רוצה להציע הוא כי רמב''ם מחזיק כמו תוספות שעושה הבחנה בין מעשה רב ומעשה זוטרא. אז הסימן האחד נקרא מעשה קטן האוסר קדשים ואת רוב שני סימנים הוא מעשה גדול ובכך אוסר חיה של חולין.  אין ספק שתוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן מהחזיקים את החיה אסור מן התורה. ואף שרש''י מביא פסוק מן הנביאים, אני לא רואה שום סיבה לדמיין  שרמב''ם לא יסכים עם אלה. רמב''ם איסורי מזבח פרק ו' הלכה ד'. הרעיון הוא כי רמב''ם לא אומר שהוא קד לחיה, אבל עשה שירות. זה יהיה כמו שתוספות אמרו שכשהוא עושה מעשה קטן זה יהיה סימן אחד. כשמדובר על חיה רגילה, שם כשהוא אומר שהוא צריך מעשה זה אומר מעשה גדול, שני סימנים.

Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.

Russia I think is keeping up the pressure on the Ukraine to not let them join NATO or the EU. The more the Ukraine goes in that direction politically, the more Russia uses actual violence to stop them. Russia will simply not let NATO get to its door step. Period. That is in chess like guarding the queen. What Russia would like to say is this: "Don't join NATO. If you abide by this, we will respect your borders and sovereignty, and give you special trading privileges as you have always enjoyed and will continue to enjoy. But do not join NATO."
But Russia cannot say this openly because it sounds like violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. So it has to say this in a way that is implicit, not explicit.
I do not see in this problem any solution except what  already some people have seen-- not political, but a religious revival.  To me it seems clear what this area of the world needs is a kind of religious revival--or better put--that each individual makes a commitment to get right with God. Thus I see a place for the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches. That is because I see politics downstream from faith.  Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.
Ayn Rand saw society downstream from its philosophers. I can see this point to some degree. But I think rather the source of values [good or bad] is in religion.
But you can't manufacture religious revival. Even in the good sense. Perhaps in the negative sense it is possible, because human nature is in any case depraved. Even in the good sense, emphasizing the right and godly things, men will find a way of perverting everything and turning it towards their own profits and pleasure. Still from what I have seen a religious revival is possible (in some sense) to create the proper conditions for, and then hope that God will our out his spirit. At least I saw this in the Mir yeshiva in NY and also in Shar Yashuv. My impression is Musar yeshivas tend to be more prepared for the Divine spirit.

  But on the other hand there are plenty of organizations which are open to the spirit of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side]. So I do not know any definite rules about this. 
  
The best idea I have seen about this is Reb Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar which means books of ethics written during the Middle Ages.  What is great about Musar is that it brings one that reads it face to face with his or hers obligations in the most delightful way. No sugar coating. Just plain and simple facts about what one is supposed to do for God.

In any case the question is can government do anything to strengthen this? I think it can. Vouchers for private schools.

getting right with God

The trouble with the religious world is that being religious has nothing to do with getting right with God.

For the religious, rituals become the main thing. 

Getting right with God is something  different. It is paying one's debts, it is having compassion, it is not depending on charity but working honesty for a living. 

In the religious world, it seems the greatest mitzvah is to convince secular Jews to give them money. But instead of gratitude, this creates an attitude of מגיע לי--as if it is owed to them.

Western Civilization- what is the part worth preserving?

Not everything about Western Civilization is worth preserving. The very term in itself implies the kind of discretion that people used to exercise in deciding what were the main aspects of the West that were worthwhile passing on to the next generation. By definition most is mediocre. When I was in high school, the system was more careful about what they were going to give to the next generations. Maybe it was especially in my high school where the teachers were really great. But my impression is that this was pretty universal in the USA.  
So the Music was mainly the classical greats, the literature also. Even USA history concentrated on reading the actual documents from each major period--which for me was the absolute hardest to do. I believe the Rambam exercised a great deal of caution and judgment in his recommendation of Physics, Metaphysics, the Two Talmuds and the Written Law of Moses. 
He certainly considered history to be the sin of bitul Torah wasting time which should be used for learning Torah,  and also forbidden in itself as מושב לצים seat of the scornful. Music also. I can not find an opinion that allows learning history. But the Gra did say the seven wisdoms are required--which do not include history nor literature.
But the Quadrivium includes Music.


I believe the main things are Physics, Metaphysics,  the Written Law of Moses. Most everything else I would throw out. The Gra and many other however did recommend the sevens wisdoms [Trivium Quadrivium]--which does not include literature. Almost everything that is called science today is pseudoscience. The only things that are valid are STEM.  

[Physics I want to mention requires two sessions. One is the going fast one called Bekiut בקיאות. The other is in depth learning. I sometimes find saying the words forwards and backwards of each sentence helpful. I saw this idea in mystic from the Middle Ages. The basic idea was repeated by the Ari, Isaac Luria in the section of unifications for correction to different sins in שער רוח הקודש, and the Ramchal Rav Moshe Chaim Luzato gave a go explanation for this in one of his mysic books --something along the lines of the אור חוזר returning light completes the coming light אור ישר.

Trends in Christianity.

The most public face of Christianity is Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Evangelical, Left Wing Protestant with is apathetic Protestant (with social justice warriors) and Emergent Protestant, Evangelical Protestant.
Evangelical is actually a euphemism for Pentecostal, it is basically the same thing without the theatrics.

So outside of the general constant spitting of Protestant we see a more fundamental splinting along these lines.  Apathetic Protestant, Social Justice politically militant Protestant, Emergent (post modern) Protestant. Apathetic and Evangelical are actually pretty close in doctrine, but differ in amounts of fervor.

All go with Paul, who was as distorting the message of Jesus. (See  the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.] (There is plenty evidence that Simon Magus in the Clementine Recognitions is Paul.)   I can see in the NT itself an obvious difference between what Peter and James were saying was the message of Jesus, and what Paul was saying. Paul was  saying antinomianism (anti-law), and people that got his letters acted on that principle to forsake all moral constraints. When news of that got back to Paul he backtracked. Thus you can prove from Paul's letters anything you want to. See here  about Paul ]

Paul's  message is at odds with what was reported in the name of Jesus. It takes intellectual gymnastics to ignore Jesus, and claim that Paul understood him better that his actual words say. 

Paul had to contradict himself also because of circumstances that arose due to his original letters. The original letters supported "No Laws" [antinomianism]. Then as we see in latter letters people acted on what he wrote. Then he had to go back to the ''Eeny Meeni Miny Moe'' method about which laws of Moses to keep and which not. So Paul ends up being incoherent at best. To Peter and James, that would be the least of his problems. 

Since all historical Christianity comes from Paul who had enormous success in planting churches all throughout the Roman world which even after he was gone kept on spreading like wild fire, thus the problems in Paul keep on being played out every day. What one person wants to prove from one letter, someone else can always find an opposite statement in another letter.
Luther put the antinomian [anti law of Moses] into this explicit phrase: "We do not want to hear about Moses." {See rejection of Moses}
The whole quote is this: "Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses. We don’t want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament." (1967b:170) 

Also from that PhD Thesis: "Nevertheless, we cannot escape Luther’s negative expressions against Moses, for example, “beat Moses to death and throw many stones at him”; “we shall make new Decalogues,” and, “Moses is nothing to us” (Avis 1975:152, 154, 156). 
Luther's sermon on Moses

"But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, (3) wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service."


In any case the Law of Moses is forever as is stated many times about particular commandments, and about the whole law itself in Deuteronomy 6 and also at the very end of the Torah in Haazinu, and at the end of the prophets זכרו תורת משה Remember the Law of Moses. 

So my approach is to say that Paul, Luther, and Calvin, while intending to do well, were mistaken in their approaches and also did not pay much attention to the Law of Moses  in the first place. Their views are simply incoherent and make opposing statements all the time. At least, I have to admit Aquinas and Hegel tried hard to make sense out of it all.

I should add that as many people have noticed, "What does it matter?" For attachment with God, sincere service to God surely is not dependent on doctrines? I have to agree with that, but to understand right from wrong is not possible without the Law of Moses.

See the Rambam's approach to natural law and the law of Moses in the Guide. 
There is an any case an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and R. Yehuda and the sages about if a mizvah applies when the reason for it does not apply. R. Shimon said ''no.'' It is famous that the law is like R Yehuda, but Rav Shach noted that this is  a mistake. The actual Law is like the sages that hold with R. Shimon in certain cases (when both the reason and the law are given together).  



But does the Rambam allow hidden reasons for commandments? Clearly he must as we see in the Guide about the difference between natural Law and Torah Law. He says Natural law was a needed stage before Torah Law. So he obviously sees some difference even in essence. So we have to say like this to R Shimon and the Rambam when the open reason for the law does not apply so the hidden reason also vanishes.

t23 A Flat Major  t23 in midi  t23 in nwc

Attachment with God, The excommunication that was signed by the Gra.

Attachment with God is not given much emphasis in the Lithuanian Yeshiva World--and for good reason. That is an area of value that is liable to deterioration and delusions and eventually insanity.

You can see this in the Talmud itself where the commandment of being attached to God is understood to mean being associated with  true Torah scholars. However I did see R. Eliezer from Mitz [a disciple of Rabbainu Tam] that counts attachment in  itself as one of the Taryag 613 commandments. (Deuteronomy ch. 11)
This tendency you see in the Rambam where in the Guide where he says the commandments to love and fear God are fulfilled by learning Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks. [He hinted to this in the Mishne Torah, the יד החזקה, but his hints there usually go unnoticed.]


 I discovered that attachment to God can come through the straight Litvak path of simply learning and keeping the Oral and Written Law of Moses. There is a path that leads from simple Gemara, Rashi, Topshot that leads to attachment with God. That is not the same as the kind of feeling of holiness you feel when you  learn. It is rather a kind of settling of the Divine presence on you. [שכינה והאור אין סוף. ]


On the other hand there are Torah scholars that are demons.  The excommunication that was signed by the Gra, tried to deal with this problem but if the Gra was ignored, there is no chance that my warnings will be heeded. 

In any case, for the sake of information, I would like to go into this phenomenon. Part of being attached to God I think is dependent on God. I think it is  from God, and but also from a person's state of being prepared. 

There are different aspects of it. Thus with the ancient prophets, it manifested itself in prophecy. During the Middle Ages, it as considered that revelations of knowledge were also gifts from God as you can see in the  חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart] and the Guide of the Rambam. In my own case the basic steps that lead me, were learning Gemara and Musar (Reb Israel Salanter' Ethics),  in the Mir Yeshiva in NY,  then arriving in Israel, and then living in Safed.

[I should mention that there is a kind of philosophy behind this Lithvak idea of "learning Torah" which is this: The Written Law of Moses was given by God and that it will never be replaced and is obligatory for all time, and the Oral Law or Talmud is the proper explanation of it. Also the Torah is God centered. There is no room for worship of corpses or any human beings. 

Thus is it clear that the religious world is demon filled and only uses Torah as camouflage. So anyone that is sincere must run from the religious at all cost. The religious synagogues are dwelling places of the Devil. Run for your life. The  best option is either to learn Torah at home or if you have a Litvak yeshiva in the area then to go there.
Authentic means Mir in NY, Brisk, Ponovitch, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vedaat.--or branches or off shoots of these places.[I might mention that Rv Montag's yeshiva in Netivot I found filled with the spirit of Torah.] 


In any case I want to mention that I am not coming from place of superior knowledge or intuition. Rather from the evidence of the common sense approach to Torah of my parents and Rav Shach and the Gra and the Rambam. I am as liable as anyone to religious deception and manipulation. Especially at the hands of cults that have the accumulated knowledge of generations of how to manipulate native people like myself. That I why I spend the time and energy to warn others to avoid the mind traps I have fallen into.

The four point system of Maimonides [Rambam]

  My idea of education is mainly based on the four point system of Maimonides [Rambam] with a few additions based on my parents.
With Maimonides we already know his four point system (1) the Written Law (the Law of Moses) (2) the Oral Law (the two Talmuds) (even just to read them in English with the Soncino edition is also good. I have heard from Rav Zilverman in the Old City about one good Torah scholar that went through the whole Talmud a bunch of times in that way.) (3) Physics [i.e. Field Theory]. (4) Metaphysics (Aristotle). (He did say he was talking about the Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks. I think he included Plato and Plotinus. I would  have to include Kant and Hegel, both sadly misused. In any case Hegel was trying to do what the Rambam was doing. To create a synthesis Reason and Revelation.

  Based on what I understood from my parents and brothers I would have to add a few things to this list. (5) Gaining a real skill that people will pay cold hard cash for. Not a fake skill and may make money but in reality does nothing for anyone. (6) Survival skills.(7) Some aspect of the Quadrivium  and Trivium (What the Gra and books of Musar call the seven wisdoms). (8) Musar. (Medieval Ethics plus the basic approach to ethics of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter ) Musar was considered by Reb Israel Salanter to be the most important because it gets one to the two most essential aspects of Torah--good character and fear of God. Musar means the four classical books אורחות צדיקים חובות לבבות מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה plus the major works by the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter מדרגת האדם כוכבי אור . That is Joseph Horvitz from Navardok (that in trust in God should be the main emphasis), Isaac Blazer (that is fear of God and good character). 

  This approach more or less defines what I think people ought to learn in order come to what a person ought to be. It is a balanced approach and thus hard to fit into a daily schedule.   

  There are people that feel they can not be in between Torah and other studies and for a time I was like that. This reminds me of Reb Israel Salanter that דעת תורה is to be an איש מדיני but because of the difficulty in doing that one must concentrate on Torah alone. 

  
  I can see the point in the Torah alone approach, but in general I was not very impressed with the people involved in that path. Instead of coming to attachment with God, they seemed to be sanctimonious, and desperate for money of secular Jews. But in the religious world, even balancing values I saw did not work very well. Instead of balance, I usually saw pretty bad character traits combined with attitudes of imagined superiority.
  A lot of the religious world sees Reform and Conservative and Religious Zionism as bad things, but these last three I found a lot closer to actually keeping the Torah which include obligations between man and his fellow man. I would have to say the Religious Zionism and Conservative are closest to Torah. Reform seems a bit too far into "social justice." My brother thinks Temple Israel in Hollywood [where our family went to pray] is Conservative. It is true it had an aspect that was conservative. But at the time we were gong there, I thought it is Reform. Anyway it is a great place. Mount Sinai in Westwood, we also went from time to time [which is conservative].

  [I should mention that I found doing the Talmud in Aramaic was better for me, I did not understand the Soncino translation at all without doing the Gemara also in its regular Aramaic.]
Still the only aspect of the religious world that seemed kosher at all were the Litvak yeshivas in NY (Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Shar Yashuv). The rest of the religious world seems to be a disaster zone full with cults, שדיין of the Dark Side that were just lurking outside the walls of the yeshiva just hoping to catch some innocent unsuspecting yeshiva bachur [student].

Survival skills deserves a whole essay. My Dad's motto  was self sufficiency. He taught us boys and lived this way himself.