Lesson: the powers of charm and persuasion do not make up for incompetence.

Toward the end of World War I, a charming but eccentric man by the name of Dr. William Wallace Whitney Christmas founded an aircraft manufacturing company in Washington, DC. This was perhaps a bit of an odd thing to expect him to do, as there exists no evidence that Dr. Christmas, who was a physician by training, had any background or practical experience in aeronautical engineering, or in fact in any kind of engineering at all. He claimed to have built airplanes before that point, but no record has ever been found to support this other than his own word. Despite his complete apparent lack of qualifications in the field he was entering, he nevertheless managed to find a pair of wealthy brothers – Alfred and Henry McCorry – who he was able to talk into providing him with financial backing while he worked on his projects. Since he did not actually own a factory at which airplanes could be built, he traveled to Long Island to visit the Continental Aircraft Company, where, trading both on his remarkable powers of persuasion and on the still-palpable war fever in which the nation had been gripped, he was able to convince its corporate leadership that his newest design, which he had named the “Bullet”, would be the key to the success of a daring plan he had developed to bring an end to the war by secretly landing an airplane behind German lines, kidnapping Kaiser Wilhelm II, flying him to Britain, and forcing him to sign a surrender. Having secured Continental Aircraft’s agreement to build his airplane for him, Dr. Christmas next needed an aeronautical engine, which in those days (and especially with all available production going toward the war effort) were both expensive and not easy to come by. Undaunted by this, Dr. Christmas visited Army headquarters in Washington, on a mission to get them to loan him an example of the most powerful engine they had. Here once again a combination of his personal charm and wartime desperation worked to his advantage, and he was able to talk his way into possession of an experimental Liberty VI engine, which developed a then-incredible 215 horsepower. To the Army’s credit, they were sufficiently skeptical of the entire matter that the loan came with the proviso that their engine was to be used only for ground testing of the prototype Bullet; he was not to take it into the air until the Army had gotten a chance to inspect and do a full evaluation on the new aircraft. Eager to get his hands on a Liberty VI, Dr. Christmas agreed.

As for the actual design of the Bullet, what Dr. Christmas called “innovative”, others would call “ludicrous”. He claimed that its weird-looking, flattened-egg-shaped fuselage – made of veneered wood – was  going to provide unprecedented reductions in aerodynamic drag, and that its flimsy wings, which he said that he had deliberately designed to flex and bend, were more than strong enough to support its weight. In an article about the Bullet in the British Flight magazine (which still publishes today, as Flight Global), Dr. Christmas even went so far as to declare that the Bullet had “a safety factor of seven throughout”, despite the magazine’s observation that “it would seem that such construction would result in a low factor of safety”. The editors of Flight were not, however, the only people who knew a lot about airplanes and who began to voice serious misgivings about the Bullet. When Dr. Christmas finally submitted his blueprints to Continental Aircraft, the company’s in-house head of engineering (Vincent Burnelli – who would go on to make some genuine innovations in the area of “flying wing” type aircraft, of which the modern B-2 bomber is perhaps the most famous example) came up with a long list of changes that needed to be made before the Bullet would be airworthy. Not least among Burnelli’s concerns was Dr. Christmas’s insistence that the Bullet be made out of cheap scrap wood and metal, which the Doctor claimed would minimize both the cost of building it and the strain that its construction would place on supplies of critically-needed resources during wartime. Once again, Dr. Christmas was able to convince others that his plans were sound; Continental’s management sided with him over Burnelli’s objections, and the Bullet was constructed exactly the way that Dr. Christmas wanted.

And then, suddenly, the war ended.

While the rest of the world celebrated, Dr. Christmas found himself with serious reason to worry. The end of the Great War meant that generous wartime contracts for new weapons would quickly evaporate, along with the willingness of the Army, industry, and investors to try just about anything, no matter how strange it might seem, as long as there was the slightest chance that it might contribute to victory. At this point, the first prototype had been finished and a second, for which an engine had not yet been found, was under construction. Dr. Christmas knew that he had finally had to show what the Bullet could do, and show it fast, before both the interest and the money that his supporters had been giving to him began to dry up. Of course, Dr. Christmas had never actually flown an airplane himself, so personally test-flying his airplane was out of the question. Fortunately for him, thousands of freshly-demobilized Army aviators were coming home from the war. The airline industry was not yet even in its infancy, and jobs flying the mail were scarce, so many of them found themselves unemployed and without any prospects for flying for a living. Dr. Christmas put out an offer of generous pay for any who would become test pilot for the Bullet. Man after man turned up, took one look at the Bullet, spun around on their heels, and left, declaring that no amount of money was worth their lives. Finally, Dr. Christmas found one pilot – one Cuthbert Mills – who was either brave or desperate enough to try.

And so one cold day in January of 1919, the first Christmas Bullet took to the air from the Continental Aircraft factory’s airfield. It climbed a few hundred feet in the air, at which point Dr. Christmas’s innovative thin and flexible wings broke off. What was left of the Bullet plunged to the ground, killing Cuthbert Mills instantly.

Vincent Burnelli was livid. Continental Aircraft was deeply embarrassed. The Army, which Dr. Christmas neglected to tell about the crash and the destruction of their expensive loaner engine, was beginning to get impatient. Dr. Christmas, however, was undaunted. Next time, he promised, would be a complete success – all he needed to do was make a few minor adjustments to what was an essentially flawless design. He turned on the charm again. Somehow, he managed to convince Continental Aircraft to finish the second prototype. Somehow, he managed to scrounge up an engine for it (this time, a much less powerful Hall-Scott model L-6). Somehow, he managed to find someone – this time, an Army pilot named Lt. Allington Jolly – to fly it. Somehow, he managed to talk his way into having the second Bullet displayed at Madison Square Garden as a way to gain publicity and public support. The display claimed that the Bullet had been demonstrated to achieve speeds of nearly 200 miles per hour – the fact that it had done so going straight down after its wings had fallen off was a detail that Dr. Christmas felt it unnecessary to mention to the gathered crowds.

And so one warm day in April of 1919, the second Christmas Bullet took to the air. It climbed a few hundred feet, at which point its wings broke off, and it plunged to the ground, killing Allington Jolly instantly.

Continental Aircraft walked away. The McCorry brothers walked away. The Army, which had thousands of now-unneeded surplus airplanes on its hands and no war to fight, and which probably wouldn’t have put any more money into the Bullet even if it had turned out to be everything that Dr. Christmas had promised, walked away without even bothering to sue Dr. Christmas for the lost engine. The world moved on; only two minor pieces of the story remained.

One was the grieving families of Cuthbert Mills and Allington Jolly. The other was Dr. William Wallace Whitney Christmas.

Dr. Christmas never stopped telling anyone who would listen that the Bullet was just one minor alteration away from being a historic, world-changing success. When, in 1930, Flight published an article giving a full account of the affair, Dr. Christmas had his lawyer send an angry letter denouncing them, calling their report “false and scurrilous”, stating that the Bullet had been a tremendous success and that it had only crashed due to careless flying on the part of Cuthbert Mills (the letter made no mention at all of Allington Jolly or the second Bullet), claiming that mountains of evidence (none of which he actually bothered to provide) attested to all of this, and vaguely but unmistakably threatening legal action if any further “injurious and libellous” articles about the Bullet appeared in their pages. In fact, to his dying day, Dr. Christmas continued to insist that he had hundreds of patents to his name (of which no record exists or ever has existed), that he had designed dozens if successful airplanes (the Bullet is the only one that there is any real evidence for), and that he was on the brink of revolutionizing aviation. A New York Times article from 1950 records the 85-year-old Dr. Christmas still darkening the doorstep of the military, this time trying to sell the newly-created U.S. Air Force on his design for a massive “flying battleship” (the Pentagon, in an unusual bout of sanity, passed on the idea).

Dr. Christmas died in the spring of 1960, at the ripe old age of 94, forty-one years after he had killed Cuthbert Mills and Allington Jolly and well into a jet age that had materialized despite him rather than because of him.

And thus ended the story of the Christmas Bullet.

Lesson: the powers of charm and persuasion do not make up for incompetence.

 רמב''ם מלווה ולווה פרק כ''א הלכה א' והלכה י There is a  case of a מלווה a לווה and someone that bought a field from the לווה after the הלוואה. If the שדה is regular, not a אפותיקי for the loan, the מלווה gets it in case of default and חצי the שבח and in 'הלכה א he does not even pay for the הוצאות. In 'פרק כ'א הלכה י when the field is אפותיקי collateral for the הלוואה, the way the מגיד משנה explains it is if the הוצאות are more than the שבח he gets חצי השבח and pays nothing.  If the שבח is  more than the הוצאות, he can take all the שבח and pay for the הוצאות and then the buyer gets paid back for the rest of the שבח from the seller. The first part of the הלכה is clear. The שבח is more than the הוצאה so the בעל חוב says שדה שלי עשה את השבח so he is claiming all the שבח and pays the הוצאה. But then if the שבח is less than the הוצאה, he collects חצי from the בעל חוב and חצי from the מוכר.  At that point the בעל חוב  comes with the claim of normal שיעבוד (not אפותיקי) by which he has  a right to only half the שבח as it says in בבא בתרא. Still the בעל חוב gets the field with all the שבח,  but he has to pay only for a חצי and the other חצי he has a right to. So the lender does not pay anything for that half of the שבח. So for that part  the לוקח has to collect from the according to their agreement where the מוכר wrote, "What I buy will be משועבד to this חוב." In any case, the part the part that the בעל חוב is collecting because of "מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה" he is not paying for. The only part he pays for is that which comes because it is part of the field. So with regards to 'כ''א הלכה י where the רמב''ם brings two opinions if the בעל חוב pays for the הוצאה in the normal case that the field is not אפותיקי he is going like the opinion he does not have to pay.



The thing is here the Rambam is clearly fitting this Halacha of half שבח with Bava Metzia 101 הנכנס לשדה חבירו ונטע אילנות ידו על התחתונה היינו או הוא מקבל את השבח או ההוצאה

There is a lot to think about here because of the relation between Bava Metzia page 101 an 14b that Tosphot sees here. But as I wrote before the Rambam sees these two Gemarot as dealing with different situations. Which leads me to wonder  why here we see the Rambam is apparently seeing them as related. Plus I wonder why 1/2 improvement only comes up with collateral אפותיקי. So I realize this whole subject still needs a lot of work and I have only just begun to scratch the surface.

[However until God grants to me a Gemara or a copy of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri there is little progress I can make here. I am pretty sure that I saw both Rav Shach and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik dealing with these issues in Bava Metzia page 14 and 15, but without being able to look up what they say, I feel limited in ability to make progress here.]

 רמב''ם מלווה ולווה פרק כ''א הלכה א' והלכה י' קיים מקרה של מלווה לווה ומישהו שקנה שדה מן הלווה לאחר ההלוואה. אם השדה הוא רגיל, לא אפותיקי עבור ההלוואה, המלווה מקבל את זה במקרה של ברירת מחדל וחצי השבח ובהלכה א' הוא אפילו אינו משלם עבור ההוצאות. בפרק כ''א הלכה י' כאשר השדה הוא אפותיקי עבור הלוואה, את הדרך שבה מגיד משנה מסביר שזה היא שאם הוצאות יתרות מאשר השבח הוא מקבל חצי השבח ומשלם כלום. אם השבח הוא יותר מאשר ההוצאות, הוא יכול לקחת את כל השבח ולשלם עבור ההוצאות ואז הקונה מקבל תשלום בחזרה עבור שאר השבח מהמוכר. חלק הראשון של ההלכה ברור. השבח הוא יותר מאשר הוצאה ולכן בעל החוב אומר שדה שלי עשה את השבח ולכן הוא תובע את כל השבח ומשלם ההוצאה. אבל אז אם השבח הוא פחות ההוצאה, שהוא אוסף חצי מן בעל החוב וחצי מן מוכר.  כי בעל החוב מגיע עם הטענה  נורמלית של שיעבוד (לא אפותיקי) שבאמצעותה יש לו זכות רק לחצי השבח כפי שכתוב בבבא בתרא. ועדיין בעל החוב מקבל את השדה עם כל השבח, אבל הוא צריך לשלם רק עבור חצי והחצי השני יש לו זכות בו. אז המלווה אינו משלם כלום עבור חצי שבח הזה. אז בשביל זה הלוקח אוסף מן פי הסכמתם שבו מוכר כתב, "מה אני קונה יהיה משועבד אל חוב זה." בכל מקרה, החלק שבעל החוב אוסף בגלל "מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה" הוא לא משלם עבורו. החלק היחיד שהוא משלם עבורו הוא אשר מגיע כי הוא חלק מהשדה.


What I think I going on here is this: [In my hand written notes I go into a lot of the problems that this halacha presents to us. However for right now I want just to write down my thoughts about what I think it means.] I think the main issue here is the difference between a regular loan and a אפותיקי pledge for a loan. In the case of a regular pledge the lender has no choice. He simply gets half of the improvements  for free and if he takes the whole field with all the improvements then he pays for the other half of the improvements. In that case the buyer would collect from the borrower the other half.
But in the case of an אפותיקי I think the Rambam is saying that the lender has a choice. He can take the option in which he pays the least amount. Either he can go with the same option as in the above case where he gets half the improvements for free. The other choice is he can say שדה שלי השביח and then we treat the field as if it was already his field and the borrower is like the case on page 101 היורד לתוך שדה חבירו ונטע שתילים. In that case the lender pays the least amount either the שבח or the הוצאה. But if he pays for the  שבח he would pay only half the שבח.


מה שאני חושב שהולך כאן הוא זה: אני חושב שהנושא העיקרי כאן הוא ההבדל בין הלוואה רגילה לבין הלוואה עם משכון או אפותיקי. במקרה של שעבוד רגיל למלווה אין ברירה. הוא פשוט מקבל מחצית השיפורים בחינם, ואם הוא רוצמ לקחת את כל השדה עם כל השיפורים אז הוא משלם עבור החצי השני של השיפורים. במקרה כזה הקונה  יאסוף מהלווה את החצי השני. אבל במקרה של אפותיקי אני חושב שהרמב''ם אומר כי יש למלווה בחירה. הוא יכול לקחת את האופציה שבה הוא משלם את הסכום הנמוך ביותר. היינו שהוא יכול ללכת לפי האפשרות כמו במקרה הנ"ל, ששם הוא מקבל חצי שיפורים בחינם. הבחירה השנייה היא שהוא יכול לומר "השדה שלי השביח" ולאחר מכן אנו מטפלים השדה כאילו  היה כבר ברשותו של המלווה הוא כמו המקרה בעמוד ק''א היורד לתוך שדה חבירו וניטע שתילים. במקרה כזה המלווה משלם את הסכום .
.הנמוך ביותר או את השבח או ההוצאה. אבל אם הוא משלם עבור השבח הוא ישלם רק חצי השבח


It is tempting  to suggest that perhaps if the lender pays the הוצאה that he would pay only half, but it does not seem to make much sense either. After all half the improvement we can understand the lender already owns. But half the expenses? It seems not.

אבל אם כשהוא משלם עבור השבח הוא משלם רק חצי השבח, מפתה להציע שאולי אם כשהמלווה משלם על ההוצאה שישלם רק חצי, אבל זה לא נראה הגיוני. אחרי הכל חצי השיפור נוכל להבין ששייך למלווה כבר אחרי שהקרקע נחשבת שלו אבל מחצית ההוצאות? כנראה שלא.

 One idea I have hoped to bring into the world is the idea that really is stated most clearly in the Rambam but is mentioned by way of hint in most other Musar books from the Middle Ages--and that is including Physics and Metaphysics along with learning Torah.

That is in part because I see the path of religious addicts to emphasize some ritual   or even something great like learning Torah just makes self righteous ass-holes. The religious world is a frightfully wicked horrifying place. Clearly there is some aspect of Torah they have gotten completely wrong. 
My feeling is it is this very aspect of the combining Torah with Reason.
There is probably much more that that that is wrong but this at least seems to be an essential part.

Incidentally the distinction between between the world of religious Judaism which is a cult, and the world of Jews that observe the Torah is well known in Israel. This is because the religious there horrify  everyone, and no one in their right mind wants to be associated with them. So Jewish people that love the Torah and strive to keep it sincerely, try to distance themselves from being associated with the lunatic world of the religious.

Religious Judaism as opposed to Torah

The fundamental distinction between the religious worldview and the  monotheistic worldview of the Torah.
The characterization of  Pagan  Religious Judaism. The fundamental idea of Pagan Religious Judaism is the idea of pantheism.

In Pagan Religious  Judaism, the will of God ultimately can be countered by the decrees of the tzadik.  The God of the Torah is limited in power because of supreme gods which are the tzadikim of the cult who can decree and the God of the Torah must obey.


In Pagan Religious  Judaism, there's very  a fluid boundary between the Divine, the human, and the natural worlds. They blur into one another because they all emerge ultimately from the same primordial Divine stuff. These distinctions between them are soft.  So there's no real distinction between the worship of God and the worship of a tzadik (i.e."saint") and even graves of tzadikim. Second,  because humans also emerge ultimately from this primordial stuff, there's a confusion of the boundary between the Divine and the human  that's common in Pagan Religious  Judaism,

 Pagan Religious  Judaism, is a system of rites.  Pagan Religious  Judaism cult, is a system of rites that involves a manipulation of objects that are believed to have some kind of inherent power, again, because of their connection to whatever the primordial Divine stuff may be in that tradition. So there's always an element of magic in the Pagan Religious Judaism,. It's seeking through these rituals and manipulations of certain substances to, again, let loose certain powers, set into motion certain forces, that will coerce G-d to be propitiated, for example, or calmed or to act favorably or to vindicate the devotees, and so on. Some of those cultic acts might be defensive or protective. Many of the cultic festivals are keyed in to mythology, the stories of the lives of the tzadikim. Many of the cultic festivals will be reenactments of events in the life of the god/tzadik: a battle that the god had…the death of the god.

One final and very important point, in the polytheistic worldview of Pagan Religious  Judaism,, the primordial realm contains the seeds of all being: everything is generated from that realm, good and bad.

On the other hand, the fundamental idea of the Law of Moses, the Oral and Written Law, which receives no systematic formulation but permeates the entire Torah, is a radically new idea of a God who is himself the source of all being- not subject to a tzadik, a God whose will is absolute and sovereign.
.
 He's not identifiable as  Nature or identified with a force of nature. Nature certainly becomes the stage of God's expression of his will. He expresses his will and purpose through forces of nature in the Torah. But nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's wholly other. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the Divine.  So there's no process by which humans become gods and certainly no process of the reverse as well.

As we know honor of one's parents has certain limits. The way Naphtali Troup in his חידושי הגרנ''ט is simple--it is a מצוות עשה. -a positive command. Thus it does not override a negative command that has karet [being cut off from one's people] attached to it. But as people get  more and more religious this command of honor of ones parents and also most of the commands of בין אדם לחבירו [obligations between man  and his fellow man] get thrown out. This is no secret, and it it fact was one of the primary motivations of Reb Israel Salanter in creating the Musar Movement.

The Litvak Yeshiva world -thank Heavens is aware of this- and in fact tries to walk the middle path of emphasis on both sets of obligations-between man and God and between man and man. It is also tries to avoid the Intermediate Zone by simple concentration of learning Gemara.

Still in the USA, parents as such were despised. And the USA and the West was very anti-parent until the 1990's when instead the USA became anti-father. So I had both from inside and from outside the yeshiva world little motivation to follow in my fathers foot steps. If I would have, I would have learned Torah mainly on Shabat and during the gone to Cal Tech and volunteered for the USA Air Force. All in all I would have to say my father was a hard act to follow.--Besides just being a great father and husband.

Still the wisdom of Time has shown me how right he was and I have tried for some time to make up for my lack of balance. Going to school and majoring in Physics was part of that trying to make up for lost time.

[It might have been helpful if I had found a method for learning Physics which I only discovered later in the writings of the Ari {Isaac Luria} and in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים. The Ari brings the idea of saying the words forwards and backwards in his שער רוח הקודש and that certainly helped me in my few years at NYU. The other thing was what is called דרך גירסה--saying the words and going on with no concern whether I understand or not. That is from the Musar book ארחות צדיקים and that I found helpful more recently.]

Dark Zone, the Intermediate Zone and the secular world.

There is an aspect of value which one gets from the Law of Moses (learning and keeping Torah). The easiest way to see this is in the Kant-Fries school of Dr Kelley Ross. The term that Otto coined for it is numinous value. The West seems to lack that value.
But in this need to get beyond this secular world is the danger of the Intermediate Zone which gives great visions and powers from the Dark Side. 

So which is worse? The Dark Zone, which give no hint of holiness, or the Intermediate Zone which mimics holiness? Or simply the secular world with no hint of transcendence?

Abuse leaders have no compassion, they reveal your secrets, they are constantly at war, they have an entitlement complex they feel they are entitled to other people's money, They use Torah for their own aggrandizement. No wonder Reb Nachman called them Torah scholars that are demons. But that does not mean the Dark Side. It mean the intermediate zone as the Ari goes into detail.

So what can you do? Admit to yourself that you were part of an abusive group and know it is true. Do not listen to stupid religious people that deny that it happened. 
You also should know that the religious world is one gigantic fraud. They have nothing to do with Torah. They use rituals to make it seem as if they do and to keep the money rolling in.
Another problem with the teachers of Torah today is that they simply found a way of using Torah to make money but do not believe any of the basic principles. An asking them usually does no good because they simply will lie about their beliefs. But of all the religious teachers of Torah I would say fewer than 1% actually believe in Torah in the 13 principles of faith.