President Trump offered a concise, powerful statement of western achievements and why they are worth defending. “We write symphonies,” he said. “We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers. . . . We cherish inspiring works of art that honor God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression. We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives. And we debate everything.”-
Reminds me of Pericles. On the other hand the basic things I think are important about the West are actually more limited. The Law of Moses, Aristotle, Plato, Physics and Music. Most of the literature I am not happy with. Music sadlly fell after Beethoven. Philosophy after Hegel and Schopenhauer is vacuous.
Even in terms Attic Greek literature  am not sure of how much is of value. I think the West does best when it looks back towards Attic Greece, Rome, the scholastics of the  Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. That gives it direction and stability.

To the Rambam and the Gra there is a limit to how much is of value. The Rambam has Physics and Metaphysics and the Gra the Seven wisdoms (Trivium and Quadrivium). Outside of that it is all pretty much "Bitul Torah"  wasting time from Torah.
Myself I would have to add survival skills and the Boy Scouts as being important.
Learning a vocation was very low on Rav Shach's list. Not that he forbade it but rather he said people ought to learn Torah and after they get married of they need to to just to do any kind of vocation that presents itself. Not to waste years of bitul Torah in university learning nonsense just to get a piece of worthless paper.

[A great deal of what is taught in high school and 90% of what is in universities is all bitul Torah--wasting time from learning Torah, plus the obvious fact that most of it is positively destructive.]

The truth  told -the Musar movement needs repair.It has basically gone into high gear into fanaticism. And that is not what Torah is about. The basic idea was to come to good character and fear of God. Not extra doses of religious insanity.
There were a few great disciples of Reb Israel Salanter that managed to get the high ideals of Musar into the great Litvak yeshivas but nowadays the work on character has fallen off and been replaced by Anti-Israelism.

t80 D major unedited. [t80 midi]

I can not tell how this sounds until I get headphones.

One of the difficulties in Israel are the Trojan Horses.

One of the difficulties in Israel are the Trojan Horses. It seemed to me that when I was there, everyone was more or less on a crusade to get rid of me. Sefardim certainly did their utmost to get rid of me as I certainly am not one of them. The religious certainly did their utmost to get me as  I was not one of their sick cults.  Arabs never tired of trying to kill me whenever they got a chance.  The few friends I had were mainly useless.in terms of any help. [Not that all Sefardim are like that. The trouble is there always is at least one like that in every group, and none of the others does anything to stop them. ]

My advice to Zionists: If you want to build a state, don't invite your enemies. And if your enemies are already there, then ask them politely to leave. Otherwise they will make it impossible for people that really want to help to be there. Get rid of the sick religious cults and the Arabs, and you will be swamped by millions of people making aliyah that really appreciate the State of Israel.

The Gra identified idolatry inside the Jewish world

 Idolatry is equivalent  the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side.] This simple thesis I have thought for a long time but have not been able to bring much in the way of proof. But going by this simple identification much becomes clear as to why the Torah makes such a huge issue out of it.   And this has more practical consequence nowadays than people realize. For many of the mitzvot have a purpose to keep one away from idolatry and to in fact do everything just the opposite of what idolaters do.
There are numerous instantiations of this in the "reasons for the statutes" portion of the Guide. These all involve turning some idol custom around to its opposite. For example, the idolaters are clean-shaven, the Jewish men are to wear beards (Guide III, 37); the idolaters practice hybrid aboriculture, the Jews are forbidden to graft certain trees onto one another (ibid. III, 37); the idolaters pray to the morning sun in the east, the Jews are to set the Holy of Holies in the west and pray in that direction (ibid. III, 45); the tolemistic animals of the idolaters become the sacrificial animals of the Mosaic covenant (ibid. III, 46).
So while idolatry per se  nowadays can be hard to identify, the Dark Side is a lot easier.

The Gra helped a lot in this subject by identifying idolatry inside the Jewish world that was pretending to be keeping Torah. The verse in Proverbs also helps אוהב מוסר אוהב דעת ושונא תוכחת בער. People that hate Musar are from the Sitra Achra.
I should mention a few years ago there was a great edition of all the major works of Musar from the Publishing House Eshkol. They had all five books in one set. חובות לבבות, מסילת ישרים, שערי תשובה אורחות צדיקים ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם. [I managed to get through them in my spare time and that added  a lot to character I think.]

I was looking at my notes on bava metzia page 101 and I realized my treatment of the subject there was incomplete. here is a new link Ideas in bava metzia.

I added a drop but in truth I realized there are a lot of issues I did not deal with over there that really need to be addressed. Besides that even my explanation was not written out completely.

here is one thing I added:סנהדרין לג. המשנה בסנהדרין אומרת כשדיין טועה בדין, הדין חוזר. הגמרא שואלת על זה מן המשנה בבכורות שאומרת שהדין קיים והדיין משלם הכיסו. אם אנחנו הולכים לפי גירסת רש''י, הוא מובן שההלכה לרב יוסף הוא שלגבי מומחה הדין חוזר, ולגבי אינו מומחה הוא משלם מביתו.
So the whole few paragraphs are these:) ב''מ קא. אחד נכנס לשדה של חברו ונטע אילנות- מה הדין? רב אמר, בעל השדה משלם את המחיר הכי נמוך של השוק. שמואל אמר, בעל השדה משלם את המחיר הרגיל (לפי הפירוש של בעל המאור). (הגמרא אומרת שאין חילוק בין רב לשמואל. אם השדה עשוי  לטעת, הוא משלם את המחיר הרגיל. ואם אינו עשוי לטעת, הוא משלם את המחיר הנמוך.) רב פפא אמר שהמימרא של רב לא נאמר בפירוש רק מובן מסיפור. מי שהוא בא לרב ואמר, "מי שהוא נטע בשדה שלי בלי רשותי." רב אמר, "תשלם לו." הוא ענה, "אני לא רוצה." רב אמר, "תשלם את המחיר הכי נמוך." הוא ענה, "איני רוצה." רב שתק. איזה זמן אחר זה, רב ראה אותו בן אדם שהוא בונה גדר סביב שדהו. רב אמר לו, "גילית דעתך שזה בסדר לדעתך, ולכן תשלם את המחיר הרגיל ויד העובד על העליונה." לפי המשנה פה, נראה שאחד יכול להמתין עד זמן נטיעת אילנות או עבודות אחרות כגון לתקן גג, ואז לטעת אילנות או לתקן גג בלי רשות,-- ואז להזמין את בעל הבית לבית דין, והם יחייבו את בעל הבית לשלם את המחיר השוק. איך זה יתכן? הרמב''ם ושאר הראשונים מתרצים שלא כן הוא. הבעל הבית יכול להגיד לבן אדם לקחת האילנות שלו ולצאת. (ומה קורה אם עשה עבודה כמו נקיון?)
אבל עדיין לפי פירוש הרמב''ן, הגמרא הזאת מייצגת קושיא. זה נשמע כמו שאנחנו נותנים קנס בגלל השערה ונתונים שלא נוגעים לגוף השאלה.
למה זה משנה אם הבעל הבית בנה גדר? תגיד למשל שהבעל הבית היה משלם מה שרב אמר לו--המחיר הנמוך. וביום המחרת יצא וראה אותו בונה גדר. מה היה קורה? שום דבר. למה? בשביל שרב היה אומר, "עכשיו הוא שינה את דעתו ורוצה לקיים את האילנות." אז שיגיד אותו דבר בדיוק הגם שאתמול הוא לא שילם!

תירוץ: סנהדרין לג. המשנה בסנהדרין אומרת כשדיין טועה בדין, הדין חוזר. הגמרא שואלת על זה מן המשנה בבכורות שאומרת שהדין קיים והדיין משלם מכיסו. אם אנחנו הולכים לפי גירסת רש''י, הוא מובן שההלכה לרב יוסף הוא שלגבי מומחה הדין חוזר, ולגבי אינו מומחה הוא משלם מביתו. היינו אם בעל השדה היה משלם אחר כך רב היה רואה אותו בונה גדר, רב היה אומר שהוא בעצמו טעה בדין והדין היה חוזר.




The other issues are these: to the Rivam there is no such thing as changing one's mind. This comes from the idea that an owner of crops of grain that finishes work on the sheaves in order to sell them is not obligated to give a tithe. The obligation of tithes is only if he finishes the work for his own use, not to sell. But if he did in fact sell them, we say he did not change his mind. rather we say that was his original intention. OK so maybe the source for the Rivam is this Gemara in Bava Metzia? That is one point.
Another point is the beginning on Yoma about sudden change. And in out case was there in fact sudden change or did the owner simply lie?  This is relevant to the subject of: a person that admits  a debt outside a court of law can he deny it in court? plus another important thing is חזקת השתא. We see he is now building a fence. Does that mean yesterday his intention was to build a fence?
[Of course the beginning of Yoma is based on three words in one verse. It might not be that in general we think a sudden unexpected change is worth preparing for. It might be there only that there are three wors that tell us to separate the cohen gadol before Yom kippur and before burning the Red heifer (calf).]



The issues seem to be endless. I do not know where I could even begin to deal with them.
At any rate just for the sake of the couple  of people that might not know Hebrew very well let me just say over the basic gemara in English. A person went into someone else's field and planted trees.They went to the court of Rav. The owner complained. Rav said to the owner "Pay the person that planted." The owner said, "I do not want to." Rav said pay the lowest price. The owner said "I don't want to." The next day Rav went and saw him building a fence around his property. Rav said You have revealed you want the trees. Go and pay the planter the highest price.

(Maybe the owner did not want the trees? Maybe he was just making a fence so that no one else would come in a and plant more trees and then later plans to uproot the trees?)


This whole story is brought by the Gemara as being relevant to what looks like an argument between Rav and Shmuel. The original discussion was this: A person plants in someone else's field. what is the law? Rav said he pays the lowest price. Shmuel said he pays the higher regular price that is available in the market place. The Gemara says there is no argument. One is a case of a field that is meant to be planted. The other is a case in which the field is not meant to be planted. [That is the explanation of the Baal ha'Meor.]

So what was Rav thinking? That is the question. I think he must have been thinking along the lines of Tosphot in Nida page 2 side b. There Tosphot says חזקת השתא and  חזקה מעיקרא have equal strength. [others hold חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. Perhaps Rav was thinking further-that חזקת השתא עדיף? so if we see him building a fence now we say that was his intention yesterday even to take out of חזקת ממון

Just a side note; in the above essay my basic answer for the gemara is that the planter and the owner both have some percentage in the trees. That is the source of the difference between whether the field is meant to plant or not. In any case the issues are just too many to go into right now

The way I understood Paul even before I read the some of the Recognitions and Homilies of Clement of Rome {the first pope, the direct disciple Peter) was the aspect of circumcision that is a part of the process of conversion. My later reading of Clement of Rome {not Alexandria} merely confirmed this reading. In any case, it does seem there was a serious debate about circumcision between Paul as opposed to Peter and James.

This debate is almost reduced to nothing in the minds of modern day Christians. it is so to speak "papered over."
That is to put it simply modern day Christianity is Pauline, not Peterine.
[This seems to me to be a serious matter and why it is ignored by all Christians is a mystery to me. The idea of getting back to the core values of the original Christians seems like a worthy goal, but in that case wold it not make more sense to go back to Peterine Christianity? What seems more authentic Paul's version that he knew from hearsay, never from the mouth of Jesus, or Peter and James who knew him personally and heard directly what he had to say? If just hearing in the spirit is enough then why bother to come in the flesh at all?

There is a lot of time and effort in the Christian based on getting back to the original church. This comes a lot from the Protestant side but it is also a general tendency. Still for some reason no one considers the fact that the original church did not include Paul and that he never saw it. The original church only include Jesus, James, Peter, John and the other first disciples.

To get a good description of the original church one would have to go to the actual witnesses.

The direct contractions between Jesus and Paul are numerous. Too many to count. But for the sake of consistency Christians ignore them, and consider Paul to be authoritative and then try to get the words of Jesus to fit with Paul. The place you see this approach is flawed in in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions where the differences between Peter, James and Paul are not edited out but spelled out.

The basic difference is this: to Peter and James there is only one revelation defining absolute and unchanging standards of human behavior and opinion, that of Moses from Sinai. Everything else throughout history which is not of it is the product of reason, imagination, or madness. To Paul, the Torah was a stumbling block. Anti-nomianism it is called-anti Law.
UNDOUBTEDLY the opinion of Peter was based on Jesus, and this opinion you can see in the Sermon on the Mount and in the letters of the apostles.