The problem with exact rules and an order of daily sessions in the service of God is the subject object aspect that Kant brings. That is objective rules will apply to different people according to their root souls and essential traits and tendencies differently.
Still there are general principles that apply across the board. To have good traits (Midot Tovot).
But plenty of things that at first glance might seem to be worthy practices can often be distractions -to divert one's attention from what is really important.

כל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה All paths are dangerous. No path in the service of God is safe. There are no guarantees.

In the book of Job we find that the Satan is constantly going around the world to see whom he can trick an seduce and fool to think good is evil and evil good. The most dangerous thing is to imagine that one is immune.

[Still the best set of guidelines that I know about is the basic path of Musar. That is to learn the essential set of Medieval Musar books that are well known in Litvak yeshivas.]

U-62 E Flat Major  U-64 D Minor   

U-62 in midi format   u62 nwc  u64 in midi format  u64 nwc

If one marries a girl he thinks is a virgin and it turns out she is not then  one opinion is she is not married. Another is she loses the כתובה of מאתים and gets only מנה. Or gets no כתובה at all?

In terms of a regular מקח טעות [purchase by mistake] there seems to be a similar disagreement of opinion in בבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב. If one buys an ox for plowing and it turns out to be unsuitable because it is not tamable. So the deal is off, but what about the money given to the seller. Does he owe the money as would a borrower? Or is there not deal at all and if he spends he money it is considered that he is  a מזיק? The רשב''ם considers that money is owed even though he thinks of the seller as a מזיק. That is confusing enough all by itself. If the seller is  a מזיק, then it ought to be the case that if the money is still around, then he gives it back; and if not, he pays like any מזיק. And that is in fact exactly what the ר''י says. Thus it is in fact hard to know what the רשב''ם is thinking here. The רשב''ם brings from a ר' חננאל  and that ר' חננאל does seem to consider the  מקח טעות  as being akin to a regular debt. That  is the seller pays back money if he has and שווה כסף if not. That at least makes sense. In any case, what I am trying to say is if the seller is considered to be a מזיק that means he does not own the money. So before he spends the money, it still belongs to the buyer. So then why would it not make a difference if he gives back that money or other money? If the seller would be thought to be a בעל חוב, then I can understand why giving back any money is the same as giving back the actual coins of the transaction. But if he is thought to be a מזיק then the coins were not his at any time.


אם אחד מתחתן עם נערה שהוא חושב היא בתולה ומתברר שהיא לא אז דעה אחת היא שהיא לא נשואה. דעה אחרת היא שהיא רק מאבדת את הכתובה של מאתים ומקבלת רק מנה. או אולי אינה מקבלת שום כתובה בכלל? במונחים של מקח טעות רגיל [רכישה בטעות] נראה שיש חילוקי דעות דומות לאלו הדעות בבבא בתרא צ''ב ע''ב. אם אחד קונה שור לחריש ומתברר כי הוא אינו מתאים משום שהוא אינו בַּר אִלוּף. אז העסקה מבוטלת, אבל מה עם הכסף הנתון למוכר. האם הוא חייב את הכסף כלווה? או האם הוא נחשב כמזיק? הרשב''ם סבור כי  המוכר נחשב מזיק, אבל לא משנה איזה כסף הוא מחזיר. אם המוכר הוא מזיק, אז זה צריך להיות כך שאם הכסף הוא עדיין ברשותו, אז הוא מחזיר אותו; ואם לא, הוא משלם כמו כל מזיק. וזה למעשה בדיוק מה ר''י אומר. לכן קשה לדעת מה הרשב''ם חושב כאן. רשב''ם מביא מן ר' חננאל וכי ר' חננאל כנראה שוקל את המקח טעות כמו חוב רגיל. כלומר המוכר משלם כסף [איזה כסף שיהיה] אם יש לו, ואת שווה כסף אם לא. זה הגיוני. בכל מקרה, מה שאני מנסה לומר הוא שאם המוכר נחשב להיות כמזיק זה אומר שהוא אינו בעלים של הכסף. אז לפני שהוא מוציא את הכסף, זה עדיין שייך לקונה. אז למה זה לא משנה אם הוא נותן בחזרה את כסף או כסף אחר? אם המוכר יהיה נחשב להיות בעל חוב, אז אני יכול להבין למה להחזיר איזה כסף זהה להחזיר את המטבעות בפועל של העסקה. אבל אם הוא נחשב להיות מזיק המטבעות לא היו שלו.  

I do not have a Gemara Ketuboth. However I recall the issue over there if one marries a girl he thinks is a virgin and it turns out she is not that one opinion is she is not married. Another is she loses the Ketubah of 200 and gets only 100. [Or gets no Ketubah at all?]

In terms of a regular מקח טעות [purchase by mistake] there seems to be a similar disagreement of opinion in Bava Batra 92

If one buys an ox for plowing and it turns out to be unsuitable because it is not tamable. So the deal is off, but what about the money given to the seller. Does he owe the money as would a borrower? Or is there no deal at all, and if he spends he money, it is considered that he is  a מזיק [a person that causes damage]?

The Rashbam considers that money is owed even though he thinks of the seller as a מזיק [one that causes damage]. That is confusing enough all by itself. If the seller is  a מזיק [damager], then it ought to be that if the money is still around, then he gives it back;- and if not, he pays like any מזיק [damager]. And that is in fact exactly what the Ri says.

Thus it is in fact hard to know what the Rashbam is thinking here.

The Rashbam brings from a Rav Hananel from Rome [not the other famous one that I think taught the Rif.] and that Rav Hananel does seem to consider the  מקח טעות {a deal done by mistake} as being akin to a regular debt. That  is the seller pays back money if he has and שווה כסף if not.That at least makes sense.

To be short I am not sure how to understand the Rashbam and I also wonder if in fact one can tie this into the case in Ketuboth.

[I also am wondering why when I was learning Ketuboth in Shar Yashuv in NY that the connection with Bava Batra escaped me. To me today it seems highly relevant.]

In any case what I am trying to say is if the seller is considered to be a מזיק that means he does not own the money until he spends it. So before he spends it it still belongs to the buyer. So then why would it not make a difference if he gives back that money or other money? If the seller would be thought to be a בעל חוב then I can understand why giving back any money is the same as giving back the actual coins of the transaction. But if he is thought to be a מזיק the the coins were not his at any time. {I figure there must be an answer for this but it escapes me this minute.}

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Even though Christians take it as a given that Jewish mystics are off limits, still to me it seems that they are by that missing a key element of support for their position.

One example I have mentioned before is Rav Avraham Abulafia. However it was pointed out to me that Rav Abulafia's position is not all that clear.

Another key element of support for their position is the Ari, Rav Isaac Luria. The one place I recall off hand is in one of the books of Reb Haim Vital on the Torah on the very last verses of Genesis concerning Joseph HaTzadik. However in all the writings of the Ari I think there are about three places where those same verses are explained, and I recall the same kind of approach of the Ari in all three places.


The reason I did not take it as a proof against the Christian position the comment of Rav Abulafia concerning the numerical value [Gematria] is mainly that that same kind of proof by means of Gematria is used for Moses himself and other tzadikm to claim זה לעומת זה [this one against that one] in many places. I do not have off hand any examples because I simply am not learning any of this stuff nowadays at all, and have not been learning it for many years. [One example with Moses is משה גימטריה שמ''ד with the value of the word itself being one.]




I could also bring a few proofs for Rav Joseph Karo concerning his opinion on גרי השער {Converts of the Gate} as a different category from גר תושב [a stranger that dwells in the Land] but I do not happen to have that responsa at my fingertips. [The issue over there was that גר תושב is one category but Rav Joseph Karo apparently found some support in the Rishonim that Christians occupy a higher category called גרי השער  Converts of the Gates. ]

At any rate, it is clear that there is some advantage in believing in a true tzadik as mentioned in Pirkei Avot אמונת חכמים (faith in the wise).


Lots of people I should mention have אמונת חכמים faith in the wise  The point is to be able to discern who is a real tzadik. That kind of discernment is hard to come by. So what you might do is take the word of people that are more or less well known to have a kind of perception in that area. That is why I take the word of the Ari and Rav Abulafia and the Gra as evidence.
[My position about the Ari is very positive. However in learning the Ari there is dangerous pitfall. If one can learn the Ari while avoiding the groups under the excommunication of the Gra that is the only way I know that one can come out safe from the whole thing. Otherwise interest in the Ari most often leads people into the Dark Side. Reb Nahman however I think is not under that excommunication for the simple reason that the actual letter of excommunication is more specific than most people realize. And the Ran from Breslov besides that was in fact a great tzadik.]

The trouble is that the Dark Side has managed to wiggle itself into the Torah world to the degree that there is no escape except to the Reform or Conservative.

The effects of any given system. Does it really lead to the great things it promises?

In every generation there is a system  that promises that it is the solution to human problems if only people would accept it. That system is so powerful that its pull is almost impossible to resist. An example is Socialism. About a hundred years ago this was thought to be the solution to all human problems. Even the greatest of intellects actively advocated it. But then that subsided, and then spiritual systems were thought to provide the answers to all questions.   The systems were different, but the idea was the same. Some spiritual system was thought to be the absolute truth-- such that if everyone would accept it, all human problems would disappear.

These are just two examples. But there are others. In any case, in every instance the system that presented itself as the solution ended up being the cause of all human problems. It turned out people would have been better off with no system at all rather that the illusion of one that was thought to be the solution.
[No matter however. Once a person has accepted that system there is no going back. All the evidence in the world will not change his mind. Only later on generations will see the foolishness of the whole thing.]

[One thing I should mention: I am not against Numinous Value. Rather I think it is beyond Pure Reason. So it does not fit squarely into a definable box.  Rather it is like an electron that can be condensed into a particle state only by superposition of many k states [different value of k or momentum..So what I think is rather that one needs a balance of values.]
But while striving for a balance of values often one can fall into the Sitra Akra the Dark Side.. And most often happens by trying to do good. Like the Gra said in Proverbs that the Sitra Akra seduces to sin by means of suggesting to do some good deed. Which leaves one with the question then what can one use for a yardstick?
The thing to do is to identify the major practices to do daily and the major things to avoid. This might be a combination of common sense,  learning from history about the effects of any given system. Does it really lead to the great things it promises?]

My basic approximation of the right path is to look for examples of human excellence like I saw in my parents. Also to follow the path of the Gra as closely as possible--to learn Torah and to have trust in God and to be careful to take his signature on the letter of excommunication as being based on  objective truth. Not some kind of mistake based on faulty information. But rather based on fact.]

There is  a story of the Cock and the Horses. The cock was put to roost in the stable among the horses; and there being no racks or other conveniences for him, it seems, he was forced to roost upon the ground. The horses jostling about for room, and putting the cock in danger of his life, he gives them this grave advice, “Pray, Gentlefolks! let us stand still! for fear we should tread upon one another!”
  There are some people in the world, who, now they are unperched, and reduced to an equality with other people, and under strong and very just apprehensions of being further treated as they deserve, begin, with the cock, to preach up peace and union and the duty of moderation; forgetting that, when they had the power in their hands, those virtues were strangers in their gates!

Even though we tend to look at sins as being separate. On the Day of Atonement we go through a long list. Still I tend to think that they are all connected. A first sin causes the second and so on. But not just that but that in their essence they all boil own to the same thing. Some kind of particular attitude. It might be some small thing that leads to big consequences. Like for the loss of a nail the shoe was lost as that old rhyme goes until it finishes for loss of the battle the kingdom was lost.

It might be some ignoring of the advice of the Gra about the importance of learning Torah and trust in God.  Or other things the Gra emphasized or the books of Musar.

The problem is how to find the right balance. For the sharp blade of fanaticism cuts as deeply and wounds as grievously as any other, and often much worse. 

I learned in Organic Chemistry that a molecule of fat takes twice the energy to break down than a molecule of sugar. After I was in the hospital for a month, my stomach started hurting very badly, and I went to the regional hospital where they gave me four medicines.  They worked immediately. But then recently my stomach stated hurting again, and I went there again. There was only one doctor working, so the line was so long I realized I would be there for  a very long time until the doctor would see me. So I went to the nurses, and they said either tomorrow or Monday there will be three doctors working. [In Uman the "Regional hospital" has a better reputation than the Uman Hospital. However I have had excellent care in the Uman hospital. Both for a kidney stone and my broken foot. However I still decided to go to the regional hospital for my stomach pains. I do not think I could have had better care anywhere in the world.]

So  went back home and on the way back the taxi driver told me he had the same problem and the main thing he said is to stop having fried foods and no fat. Rather vegetables --like a vegetable soup with beets, carrots, potatoes, water and salt and spice [what they call petrushka-- green leaves] but no oil.

David Bronson said something like that in relation to bread that causes the walls of the intestine to expand and makes it harder to digest food. I think David Bronson always has good advice but n this case I think it is too many fat molecules that cause the problem.

My basic impression of the idea of Reb Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Ethics is positive. But like all human systems it can be corrupted. Abuse does not cancel use. Abusus non tollit Usum.

There is something in fact not just about Musar [Ethics] but the emphasis of Musar from the  Middle Ages.


The most relevant questions in one's life are sometimes hard to define. What are the proper questions to ask in the first place. All the more so it is hard to find the proper answers. In older times people would go to some wise man. After the Reformation people would look into the Bible directly.
Also in old times people would try to find the answers in faith. After the Enlightenment people would look for the answers in Reason.

Since the Dark Side is so able to confuse and subvert even good answers to the proper questions, there does not seem to be any accurate guide or yardstick.


There are public questions and personal questions and sometimes they overlap. Still how can one find an answer that works and is accord with reason and faith and not be fooled by the Sitra Akra, the Dark Side?

The thing to do is not to prove or disprove a doctrine, but to ask what are the logical results. What are the results in the past as seen in people that follow that path.

Reason together with faith may not provide all the answers, but it is better than anything else out there. Musar Ethics of the Middle Ages provides the best ground for a synthesis between Reason and Faith and by doing so provides the best answers to human problems.

[What I am getting at is that the first thing is to learn the Books of Ethics from the Middle Ages staring from Obligations of the Heart. Then to go to post Rishonim books like מסילת ישרים.] 

בבא בתרא ע''ו ע''א

ר' יהודה הנשיא holds the opinion that a ship is acquired by מסירה. However ר' נתן holds by pulling.

אביי ורבא said מסירה works in a public domain and משיכה works as a mode of acquisition in an alley. My question is this. If we would go with ר' יהודה הנשיא then how could you ever acquire a ship in an alley?  And if we would be going with ר' נתן, then how could one ever acquire a ship in a public domain?  Now you have to limit the scope of this question. If the ר''י is right that משיכה works everywhere, then to ר' יהודה הנשיא how could you acquire a ship in an alley? If ר' תם is right that מסירה is more powerful then to ר' נתן how could you ever acquire a ship in a public domain? Now to some degree these questions are dealt with. The ראשונים say where one kind of mode is not possible, then you do the other kind. But then what is the point of saying how a ship is acquired at all?


ר' יהודה הנשיא מחזיק בדעה שספינה נקנית במסירה. אולם ר' נתן מחזיק  על ידי משיכה. אביי ורבא סוברים מסירה עובדת בתחום ציבורי ומשיכה עובדת כאופן רכישה בסמטה. השאלה שלי היא כזאת. אם היינו הולכים עם ר' יהודה הנשיא אז איך יכול אי פעם לרכוש ספינה בסמטה? ואם היינו הולכים עם ר' נתן, אז איך יכול אי פעם אחת לרכוש ספינה ברשות הציבור? עכשיו אתה צריך להגביל את היקף השאלה הזאת. אם הר''י נכון כי משיכה עובדת בכל מקום, אז אל ר' יהודה הנשיא איך אפשר לרכוש ספינה בסמטה? אם ר' תם נכון כי מסירה הוא יותר חזקה, אז לר' נתן איך אתה יכול בכלל לרכוש ספינה ברשות הציבור? עכשיו במידה מסוימת השאלות הן מטופלות. הראשונים סוברים היכן שסוג אחד של רכישה בלתי אפשרי, אז אתה עושה את הסוג השני. אבל אז מה הטעם לומר איך ספינה נקנית בכלל

Bava Batra 76a A question in the Gemara.

R.Yehuda Hanasi said a ship is acquired by handing over. R. Natan said by pulling.

Abyee and Rava said handing over works in a public domain and pulling works as a mode of acquisition in an alley.

The kind of obvious question David Bronson, my learning partner, would ask is if we would go with R Yehuda then how could you ever acquire a ship in an alley.  And if we would be going with R. Natan then how could one ever acquire a ship in a public domain? 

Now you have to limit the scope of this question. If the Ri is right that pulling works everywhere then to R Yehuda how could you acquire a ship in an alley?

If R. Tam is right that handing over is more powerful then to R Natan how could you ever acquire a ship in a public domain?

Now to some degree these questions are dealt with. The Rishonim say where one kind of mode is not possible then you do the other kind. But then what is the point of saying how a ship is acquired at all?

In answer to the question I raised yesterday about Tosphot in Bava Batra  page 76a.
What the Ri means to say is this: The Gemara puts the argument between R. Yehuda Hanasi and the sages in a public domain. But that leads to a problem in understanding the sages. We have to say that they mean pulling from a public domain into an alley because there is no kind of acquisition by pulling in a public domain. But if R. Tam would be right that handing over works in an alley then we could say the argument between R Yehuda Hanasi an the sages is simply in alley in the first place and that they are arguing about when the owner said Go and pull as we do say anyway later. This in no way disagrees with what the Gemara is trying to say now that there ought not to be an argument between R Yehuda Hanasi and the two sages R. Natan and the first opinion of R Natan. The Gemara was suggesting ספינה נמי תיקני במסירה, let the ship be acquired by handing over  means that instead of those two sages saying the ship is acquired by pulling let them agree with R Yehuda Hanasi that it is acquired by handing over.


_______________________________________________________________________
In answer to the question I raised yesterday about ר''י in תוספות בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א
What the ר''י means to say is this: The גמרא puts the argument between ר' יהודה הנשיא and the sages in a public domain. But that leads to a problem in understanding the חכמים. We have to say that they mean pulling from a public domain into an alley because there is no kind of acquisition by משיכה in a public domain. But if ר' תם would be right that מסירה works in an alley, then we could say the argument between ר' יהודה הנשיא and the sages is in an alley in the first place, and that they are arguing about when the owner said go and pull, as we do say anyway later (in a public domain) . This in no way disagrees with what the גמרא is trying to say now that there is no argument between ר' יהודה הנשיא and the two sages ר' נתן  and the first opinion of ר' נתן . The גמרא was suggesting ספינה נמי תיקני במסירה, let the ship be acquired by handing over  means that instead of those two sages saying the ship is acquired by pulling, Rather let them agree with ר' יהודה הנשיא that it is acquired by handing over.

_____________________________________________________________________________

בתשובה לשאלה שהרמתי על ר''י בתוספות בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א.  הר''י רוצה להגיד את זה: הגמרא מעמידה את הטיעון בין ר' יהודה הנשיא והחכמים בתוך מרחב ציבורי. אבל זה מוביל לבעיה בהבנת החכמים. אנחנו חייבים לומר כי הם מתכוונים למשוך מן מרחב הציבורי אל תוך סמטה כי אין סוג של רכישה על ידי משיכה בתוך מרחב ציבורי. אבל אם ר' תם יהיה תקין כי מסירה עובדת בסמטה, אז נוכל לומר הטיעון בין ר' יהודה הנשיא והחכמים הוא בסמטה מלכתחילה, וכי הם מתווכחים כאשר הבעלים אמרו ללכת למשוך (אם יש הקפדה), כפי שאנו אומרים בכל מקרה אחר כך (בתוך תחום ציבורי). זה בשום אופן לא חולק עם מה שהגמרא מנסה לשאול כעת למה יהיה ויכוח בין ר' יהודה הנשיא ושני החכמים ר' נתן ואת הדעה הראשונה של ר' נתן (התנא קמא). הם אמרו משיכה ור' יהודה אמר מסירה. למה יש ויכוח

Music for the glory of God

U-60 E Flat Major [u-60 in midi] U-61  [u61 in midi format]

In the Torah the word adultery ניאוף is always used to refer to sex with a married woman as in Leviticus 20. It does not refer to sex outside of marriage. If it would mean sex outside of marriage then even the most righteous kings of Israel  would have been guilty of a crime that carries the death sentence.

Rather the issue of  a concubine--what today would be called a girl friend--is a totally different subject- a debate between rishonim. [Rambam is against it as is well known but not in the way that people think. See the חלקת מחוקק in אבן העזר. To the Rambam it is not זנות but an איסור עשה. To most other Rishonim like the Ramban and Raavad it is totally permitted. Besides the fact that the actual opinion of the Rambam himself is in doubt since the Ramban brings an older version of the Rambam.

The reason this is not well known is that in the New Testament the issue gets mixed up.

The attitude of Paul is  in the letters that are printed is against sex out of marriage, but in the Book of Tecla his attitude is any sex at all even in marriage causes one to lose their portion in the next world.

That is not to imply that sex outside of marriage is a good thing. Rather nowadays, marriage is not marriage. Marriage is no longer  a bond of souls, but a formal financial contract, money for sex. It has lost all semblance of a holy thing.

בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א

The ר''י has a question on ר''ת that to me seems hard to understand. The ר''י holds מסירה is less powerful than משיכה. However ר' תם holds מסירה over is more powerful. [If ר' ת''ם is right, then מסירה  works in an סימטא.. But the ר''י disagrees with that.] The question of the ר''י is based on the following גמרא. A ship is acquired by pulling and אותיות by מסירה. Then ר' נתן agrees with the ship but with a document he needs מסירה and write another document. The גמרא asks this question. Since the first opinion, the תנא קמא, goes like ר' יהודה הנשיא in letters, why does he not also say like ר' יהודה הנשיא by a ship?  For we learn that a ship is acquired by handing over these are the words of ר' יהודה הנשיא. The sages said by pulling. The גמרא answers, no problem. One case is a  רשות הרבים and the other a סימטא. Then the גמרא brings  אביי ורבא that said מסירה works in a  רשות הרבים and משיכה in an alley. Could it be there are going like ר' יהודה הנשיא instead of the חכמים? No. The חכמים agree in a  רשות הרבים one acquires by מסירה. But here they say one needs משיכה because the owner said to the buyer to go acquire the ship by pulling. The ר''י asks if ר' תם would be right, why does the גמרא answer the original question by saying one is in a רשות הרבים and the other in an סימטא? Why not say both are in an alley, but the argument is in a case when the owner said "Go pull". Does the buyer acquire only by pulling, or perhaps also by  handing over?  The question I have is this. The reason the גמרא said "one case is  a public domain and the other an alley" is so that the opinion of the the תנא קמא of ר' נתן would be the same as ר' יהודה הנשיא. That is it would be just one שיטה saying both statements. A ship is acquired by מסירה in a רשות הרבים and in an alley it is acquired by משיכה.  The גמרא was trying to get out of the idea that the first opinion the תנא קמא  would be different than ר' יהודה הנשיא so saying we could say they disagreed would defeat the entire purpose.

בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א
לר''י יש שאלה על ר''ת. השאלה נראית לי קשה להבין. הר''י מחזיק מסירה היא פחות חזקה מאשר משיכה. היינו מסירה היא אופן רכישה חלש ממשיכה. אולם ר' תם מחזיק מסירה היא יותר חזקה. [אם ר' תם נכון, אז מסירה עובדת בסימטא, אבל לר''י לא.] שאלת ר''י מבוססת על הנחות היסוד הבאות בגמרא. הוראה אחת אומרת ספינה נרכשת על ידי משיכה ואותיות על ידי מסירה. אז ר' נתן מסכים עם הספינה אבל עם מסמך הוא מצריך מסירה ולכתוב מסמך אחר. הגמרא שואלת את השאלה הזאת. מאז דעת הראשונה, תנא קמא, הולכת כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא באותיות, מדוע הוא אינו גם סובר כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא בספינה? שהרי אנו למדים כי ספינה נרכשת על ידי מסירה. אלה הם דבריו של ר' יהודה הנשיא. החכמים אמרו על ידי משיכה. גמרא עונה, אין בעיה. מקרה אחד הוא רשות הרבים והשני בסימטא. ואז גמרא מביאה אביי ורבא שסוברים מסירה עובדת בתוך רשות הרבים ומשיכה בסמטה. הייתכן שהם הולכים כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא במקום החכמים? לא, החכםים מסכימים בתוך רשות הרבים שאחד רוכש ידי מסירה. אבל כאן הם אומרים אחד צריך משיכה כי הבעלים אמרו לקונה ללכת לרכוש את הספינה על ידי משיכה. ר''י שואל אם ר' תם יהיה תקין, ומדוע הגמרא  ענתה על השאלה המקורית  ר' יהודה דיבר כשהספינה נמצאת ברשות הרבים והת''ק דר' נתן בסימטא? למה הגמרא לא ענתה שניהם נמצאים בסמטה, אך הטיעון הוא במקרה כאשר בעל הספינה דייק לומר לקונה "לך משוך". האם הקונה רוכש רק על ידי משיכה, או אולי גם על ידי מסירה? השאלה שיש לי היא זו. הסיבה שהגמרא אמרה "במקרה אחד הוא רשות הרבים והשני סמטה" היא כך כי דעתו של של תנא קמא ר' נתן תהיה זהה ר' יהודה הנשיא. כלומר זה יהיה רק ​​ שיטה אחת שאומרת שתי ההצהרות. ספינה נרכשת על ידי מסירה בתחום ציבורי ובסמטה היא נרכשת על ידי משיכה. הגמרא ניסתה לצאת מן הבעיה כי הדעה הראשונה (התנא קמא) תהיה שונה מאשר ר' יהודה נשיא. כך אם אנחנו יכולים לומר שהם לא מסכימים זה יסכל את המטרה כולה.
__________________________________________________________________________

Gemara Bava Batra 76-A

The Ri has a question on Rabainu Tam that to me seems hard to understand.
The Ri holds handing over is less powerful than pulling.  Rabainu Tam hold handing over is more powerful. [If R. Tam is right then handing over works in an alley.. But the Ri disagrees with that.]
The question of the Ri is based on the following Gemara.
A ship is acquired by pulling and letters by handing over. R.Natan agrees with the ship but with letters he needs to handover and write another document.
The Gemara asks that since the first opinion (the תנא קמא) goes like R. Yehuda Hanasi in letters why doe he not also say like R.Yehuda Hanasi by a ship?  For we learn that a Ship is acquired by handing over these are the words of Yehuda Hanasi. The sages said by pulling. The Gemara answers, "No problem. One is a public domain and the other an alley."
Abyee and Rava said: "Handing over works in a public domain, and pulling in a alley." Could it be there are going like R. Yehuda Hanasi instead of the sages? No. The sages agree in a public domain one acquires by handing over. But here they say one needs pulling because the owner said to the buyer to go acquire the ship by pulling.
The Ri askes if R.Tam would be right why does the Gemara answer the original question by saying one is in a public domain and the other in an alley? Why not say both are in an alley but the argument is if when the owner said go pull that the buyer must acquire by pulling, not handing over or not.

The question I have is this. The reason the Gemara said "one is  a public domain and the other an alley" is so that the opinion of the the תנא קמא of R.Natan would be the same as R. Yehuda Hanasi. That is it would be just one person saying both statements  a ship is acquired by pulling and a ship is acquired by handing over.  The Gemara was trying to get out of the idea that the first opinion the תנא קמא  would be different than R. Yehuda so saying we could say they disagreed would defeat the entire purpose.

U-59 D Minor

One has a certain amount of control on what groups to join. The general nature of those groups ought to be  a factor in such a decision.. Even if a group has nice sounding ideas, the thing to watch for is the general stereotype. If it is well known as having an over abundance of criminal types or insane people, then you ought to assume there is something behind that reputation.
[But if that is going to be the criterion of how to decide which group to join, that would leave relatively few groups that pass the test.]

[Litvak Yeshivas would probably be the top of the list in terms of good character. However this is not a fast and steady rule. My own  experience with Litvak yeshivas was mixed. In any case, there is a need to find and be part of a group that in fact has a bell curve above average in terms of traits like honesty dependability etc.]

When does the suggestion of a parent become a command that is included in כיבוד אב ואם {honor of one's father and mother}?

Is every suggestion to be included?

From Reb Naphtali Troup (חידושי הגרנ''ט) it certainly looks that when they give a command, that comes under the category of a מצוות עשה (positive command). But how far does this go?

One way of looking at this is by the בן סורר ומורה (the rebellious son) which is a subcategory of the general command of honor of one's parents.

Another way is to look at the events with Rav Masud Abuzeira and his eldest son Reb David. Rav David as a rule took honor of his parents very seriously but one day said a very slight word to his father lacking respect. He then went into exile for a month. But at any rate, from that event t is possible to learn that honor of one's parents is a very wide category to include not just things they say.

Even when parents are against things that are supposedly good things one ought to listen. They are against joining some group? Often groups present themselves as great things and parents might very well be right for being suspicious.

Exodus 23 has a few verses that look something like a mediator. That is to say some thing that does not look to be the way one usually understands Torah to be that one goes directly to G-d. There G-d says he will send an angel before Israel to guide them.And the verses go on beyond that to say one should not disobey the angel because G-d's name is in him.

Besides that I should mention there are many verses in Torah which are not exactly PC. Like the whole case of G-d wanting to kill Moses before he did circumcision on his son. The verses over there certainly do not look PC.

There are plenty of things in the Talmud also that are definitely not PC. Like the barber that gave the haircut to the king of Assyria that the Gemara says things about that do not seem very PC.

The way I generally deal with these kinds of issues is the idea of Kant-that reason  must not venture into the realm of the dinge an sich (things in themselves) as contradictions  inevitably follow.

[There were others who noticed this aspect of Kant and used it to defend faith. In particular you can see this in the Kant=Friesian school.]

To me it seems helpful that faith should be unconcerned with doctrines and more concerned with simply learning Torah and keeping it whether I understand it or not.
In any case, I should mention that non PC stuff comes up all the time in Torah and most of the time there seems to be no good explanation. 

decrees from the sages

There is a debate about decrees from the sages if once the reason for the decree has gone, if the decree itself is automatically null. This is an argument in the Gemara itself [Beiza page 5]. Tosphot takes it as a simple fact that the decree itself is null and so does the Raavad and most other rishonim.

The reason this is relevant is that for most decrees we know the reason for (as they are stated openly in the Gemara itself). In any case, the Rambam disagrees and hold the decree continues until another court of law can be convened to nullify the decree. However that is not the opinion of most Rishonim.

In fact, there is even a debate if there is any authority in the first place to make a decree which is not stated openly in the Torah, the  Law of Moses. This come up in the beginning of אבות דר' נתן which is a commentary on Tractate Avot by an Amora printed in the Vilna Shas at the end of Nezikim.

Besides that there is also the issue of ר' שמעון דורש טעמה דקרא {Shimon ben Yohai goes by the reason for the verse, not the letter of the law. This is actually how the Rambam decided in one place in Mishne Torah. In another place the Rambam decided like the sages that go by the letter of the law. The commentaries on the Rambam are at a loss how to deal with that, however the Avi Ezri answers the question quite well.] In any case I want to point out that Shimon ben Yohai is quite serious about going for the reason for  a verse as you can see in the case of a wealthy widow. He says a lender can take a pledge from her even though the verse openly says one can not do so. The reason is that he goes by the reason for the verse, not the letter of the law.

The Rambam does have an emphasis learning Physics and the Metaphysics. Learning דרך גירסא just saying the words and going on.

Even though the Rambam does have an emphasis learning Physics and the Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks, to me it seems better to learn these two subjects as they are understood today.
Even though the Rambam when he mentions this idea of learning these two things as understood by the ancient Greeks, and that learning these two things are included in what the sages said about מעשה מרכבה and מעשה בראשית [both brought down in the beginning of the book of the prophet יחזקאל Ezekiel], still the actual works of Aristotle on these two subjects look to be not as impressive as the Rambam must have thought they are.

The actual work on Physics of Aristotle seems to be a little antiquated. And besides that here I present a link to a criticism that resounds with sense.
Furthermore the actual Metaphysics of Aristotle also seems a bit antiquated. Not that the moderns have done much better. As for Metaphysics I have already mentioned my basic idea that Leonard Nelson got that basically right basing himself on Kant. [Outside of Nelson I think most of twentieth century Philosophy is unworthy to take up space in a trash can.] [Hegel has some very good points but does not seem all that logical or rigorous as some thought. Once you get past the jargon, it is hard to see much insight. In terms of political thought, I think the founding fathers of the USA were a lot more insightful--see the Federalist Papers.]

As for Physics, the best thing is to get up to String Theory which to me looks about as good as it gets.[That needs a little background in Quantum Field Theory--which in turn needs a drop of background about the harmonic oscillator.]

I ought to add that there is no reason to think the Gra disagreed with the Rambam in this.  His statement about the seven wisdoms shows this."To the degree that one lacks knowledge in the seven wisdom, he will lack knowledge in Torah a hundred fold."

My basic idea of how to do Physics is to say the words in order and no review until you have finished the entire book and then go back over the same book lots of times. This kind of learning is called "Girsa" and to me it makes a lot more sense than getting stuck on every detail and then getting frustrated and then dropping the whole thing. [See the Musar book אררחות צדיקים that goes into this in detail.]

The three  major points of the Gra were to learn Torah, to have trust in God (without effort), and the fact that he put his signature on the letter of excommunication.[note 1]
The founding of institutions to learn Torah was definitely not his "thing." And the time for that seems to have passed. [I am not the first person to notice this.] [note 2]

But the first three things seem to me to be vastly important.

[note 1] I think the Ran from Breslov is not to be considered in the category of the excommunication from the reading of the actual documents and letter that the Gra signed.
[note 2] There is a question if the Gra ever agreed with Reb Haim of Voloshin about this issue. And even though at that time it was "the need of the hour", nowadays the situation is different. It is hard to put my finger on the exact nature of the problem. My learning partner however put this issue succinctly: "They are private country clubs."   [That is to say the whole thing is usually "purchase by mistake." One is not getting what he paid for. In a מקח טעות buying something that turns out to be not what you expected it is not needed that the seller openly makes claims about his product as you can see in Bava Batra 92. It is enough that the buyer is known what he is buying for, If what he gets is different, then the deal is off, an he gets his money back. Some say also the money that is equal to the time and effort he spent. That is later on in the Gemara on around page 94.]


[In any case, to me the whole thing seems to be a subset of the general kind of thinking that was going on in Western Europe at the time. That more or less started with the Revolution in France and then extended  out to intellectual revolutions. The idea was to make movements and institutions all based on some new fashionable idea.    The overthrow of old systems got to be the "in thing."]

To obey one's parents is not considered a worthy thing to do.However that seems to be a mistake. There is one section in חידושי הגרנ''ט the book of Reb Naphtali Troup which goes into this and shows that to obey one's parents is a מצוות עשה positive commandment.

To obey one's parents is not considered a worthy thing to do. However that seems to be a mistake. There is one section in חידושי הגרנ''ט the book of Reb Naphtali Troup which goes into this and shows that to obey one's parents is a מצוות עשה positive commandment. The reason this is not obvious nowadays is that often one's parents are not very worthy. Still the issue seems to be ignored more than I would think to be proper. You can see this in Jeremiah 35 where the grandchildren of יונדב בו רכב Yonadav obeyed his order not to drink wine and were rewarded for that by an exceptional blessing.

The whole issue is gone into in the Tur {son of the Rosh, Rabbainu Asher}. 

The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view

The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view of the commandments. He even gives a few times the consequences they are supposed to bring to. This goes along well with the consequentialist theory of political authority. See this paper by Danny Frederick.  The reason that a state has authority does not need to be supported by philosophical arguments, (arguments that are often convoluted) . The reason is much more simple than that. The issue is not just human flourishing. The point is that no human good would be possible without a state.  We all would be subject to the most sadistic  kinds of criminals. Nothing we have, nor our very lives would be safe.

[The consequentialist view of the commandments is from the Gemara itself. There is an argument between  R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages if we go by the reasons for the commandments or by the letter of the law. R. Shimon Ben Yohai holds we go by the reason. But no one argues if we know the reasons or not. The Gemara assumes point blank that we know the reasons an the reasons are obvious but the question is if we use that reason in applying the law or if we go by the letter of the law. 

The argument for the state goes even for states that one does not agree with its laws.
All the more so states that are founded on objective principles of justice like the USA and Israel.


The argument against socialist states is stronger than most people imagine. The issue is not how to justify socialism but rather what are the logical results. Once it can be shown the results are not good then all other arguments for justifying  do not matter.
This argument holds for any system that claims superiority over the USA Constitution or the State of Israel. The question that matters is what are the logical results of any system?

carrying in one's pocket on the Sabbath Day

It might be a good idea to explain why I think carrying in one's pocket on the Sabbath Day is OK. To do that in a structured way.
The basic idea comes from the gemaras [Bava Batra 85] about acquisition. The question is if an object in the vessel of a person is thought to be in the domain of the person or the larger domain. There are differences if the vessel belongs to the seller or the buyer or to a third party. But the fact remains that the major question is if the object is considered to be in the larger domain or the bag. That is how the Rashbam explains it. Then the connection with Shabat comes from the Gemara that equates the two issues in Bava Batra 86.


The reason this is important is that a public domain does not seem to need 600,000. Even though Rashi and Tosphot both say that it does still it is hard to see how this could have been fulfilled in ancient Persia and the Gemaras in Shabat seem to treat the streets there as public domains.  

פ''ה in בבא בתרא

There seems to be a proof to carry in a כיס on the שבת is permitted.




This is because the גמרא in בבא בתאר says one who steals  a כיס on שבת and carries it out is obligated to pay back because the prohibition of שבת and theft happen at different times.
But if he drags it out, then he is not obligated. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה.
Now if the object in the כיס was considered different then that כיס itself then the two sins would be happening at different times. The object or money in the כיס would be considered to have been taken at one second in terms of laws of  שבת and the bag as far as acquisition would precede it.
So when the גמרא says the object in terms of acquisition goes with the bag then the same applies to שבת.
So when on שבת one is allowed to walk in a public domain with a pocket sewn into one's coat the object in the pocket is also considered to be in the pocket not in the public domain.
If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and שבת, then in fact carrying in a כיס would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a כיס might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a כיס that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
The  משנה says she is divorced but the גמרא puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the רשב''ם on page פ''ה in בבא בתרא does mention this question in terms of acquisition, whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought to be part of the person, not the domain. That is רב יהודה in the name of שמואל, and ריש לקיש.


The major point is the רשב''ם says the question of an object in a bag in terms of acquisition is if the object s thought to be in the bag or in the larger domain.

[This is important because a public domain does not seem to need 600,000.]


נראה שיש הוכחה שמותר לשאת בתוך כיס בשבת. הסיבה לכך היא הגמרא בבבא בתרא שאומרת שהגונב כיס בשבת מחויב להחזיר את הכסף משום איסור השבת והגניבה קורים בזמנים שונים. אבל אם הוא גורר אותו החוצה, ואז הוא אינו מחויב. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה. עכשיו אם אובייקט בכיס נחשב שונה מן הכיס עצמו אזי שני החטאים קורים בזמנים שונים.  הכסף בכיס יחשב גנוב שנייה אחת קודם מבחינת דיני שבת. אז כאשר הגמרא אומרת האובייקט במונחים של רכישה הולך עם הכיס אז כן הוא לגבי שבת. לכן, כאשר ביום שבת אחד מותר ללכת בתוך מרחב ציבורי עם כיס תפור לתוך המעיל כן האובייקט בכיס נחשב להיות בטל בכיס. אבל אם היית מחזיק חיבור ישיר בין רכישה לשבת, אז למעשה לשאת בתוך כיס לא יורשה בגלל כלי של לוקח אינו יכול לרכוש בתחום ציבורי. אבל כיס תפור בבגד יכול מאוד להיות טוב יותר מאשר שקית. המקרה של האיש שזורק גירושין לתוך השקית של אשתו מראה כי כיס מחובר עם הגוף של אישה הוא שונה משקית שהיא מחזיקה. המשנה אומרת שהיא גרושה, אבל הגמרא מכניסה כמה תנאים כמו שהתיק צריך להיות קשור אליה. 

carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath

There seems to be a proof that carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath is permitted.
This is because the Gemara in Bava Batra says one who steals  a pocket book on Shabat and carries it out is obligated to pay back because the prohibition of Shabat and theft happen at different times.
But if he drags it out, then he is not obligated. קם ליה בדרבא מיניה.
Now if the object in the bag was considered different then that bag itself then the two sins would be happening at different times. The object or money in the bag would be considered to have been taken in terms of Shabat and the bag as far as acquisition would precede it.
So when the Gemara says the object in terms of acquisition goes with the bag then the same applies to Shabat.
So when on Shabat one is allowed to walk in a public domain with a pocket sewn into one's coat the object in the pocket is also considered to be in the pocket not in the public domain.

I think this fact was note in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv when we were learning אלו מערות where the same mishna comes up.



If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and Shabat, then in fact carrying in a pocket would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a pocket might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a pocket that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
[The  Mishna says she is divorced but the Gemara puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the Rashbam on page 85 in Bava Batra does mention this question in terms of acquisition-- whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought part of the person -not the domain. [That is Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, and others.]

Gemara says what it means.

The way I look at the Gemara (i.e. Talmud) is that it says what it means. This is different than interpretations of charity--looking at it in the way that agrees with what one already thinks.

It did not occur to me to mention this until yesterday when I mentioned that the path of my parents is Reform.


So I thought today just to mention a few Gemaras that go along with this idea.
One would be the Gemara in Bava Batra [14b] that Moses wrote his book (that is Deuteronomy) , the Book of Job, and the parsha [section] of the Holy Torah that deals with Bileam. [משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב]  The simple way of understanding this is that that is all that he wrote. Not the rest of the Five Books of Moses. The Five Books were certainly Divinely inspired, but that does not mean that Moses {Moshe} wrote them. [There is a Gemara in the very first tractate of the Talmud that says that Moses wrote all Five Books, but that seems to disagree with the Gemara in Bava Batra. [The 13 principles of Faith then would be deciding like the other  Gemara].
[At any rate, the Gemara in Bava Batra can not mean that Moses wrote all Five Books because that would include the section on Bileam. It has to mean just "his book", ספר דברם Deuteronomy



The other very well known Gemara is in the end of Makot where the obligations of the commandments are lessened.  Rashi explains that if people would be required to keep all the commandments then no one would merit to the next world. Therefore the obligations were lessened down from 613 to one [faith]. It was a long process starting with King David and Isaiah.

Another lesser known example is the opinion of Hillel [the Amora] in the Gemara that the whole idea of a final redemption does not apply since we already had a final redemption in the days of King Hezekiah.

There are many more examples of where you can see that the Gemara is not "PC." It says lots of things which offend many people's sensibilities.

[The author of the regular commentary on the Guide for the Perplexed, Joseph Albo also wrote on the principles of faith in a separate book  where he disagrees with the Rambam about the actual principles. I vaguely recall that Rav Joseph Albo reduced the principle one must believe in down to six and I think Abravenal down to three.]

u37 u57 music files

U-37 D Major U-57 D Major in this last piece I used an idea you can find in the Middle Ages of let's say you have a major scale as the tonic and then you go down to C Major instead of the expected A Major. Its's also found in Irish Music. [here is U-57 in midi format so that the scores can be downloaded by who ever wants] both pieces need slurs that i neglected to put in.

The Rashbam explains there [Bava Batra 76b]

It might seem trivial but to me there seems to be another place where you can see that you do not need 600,000 people walking on a street to make it a public domain. That is the opinion of Yehuda HaNasi that a boat is acquired through מסירה [passing--not pulling] in a public domain. The Rashbam explains there [Bava Batra 76b] because pulling is not possible in a public domain like a רקק מים [a water-way].
Even though it is a perhaps over doing it to apply that to Shabat, still the implication seems clear. It is a water-way that ships can sail through. And on no water-way do 600,000 people walk every day.

[However pockets seem to me to be OK from the case of the divorce that is thrown into a woman's bag.  It is also the Rashbam there that says openly [pgs 85-86 ]that the issue over there is if an object in a bag is thought to be in the bag or in the domain. If the bag is tied or hanging on her it is thought to be in the bag, not the domain.] [I mean to carry things in one's pockets I think is OK on Shabat even in a public domain. There is nothing in tracate Shabat to suggest otherwise and the issue I addressed in Bava Batra in the sense of  acquisition.]

We were Reform Jews.

The way I was raised by my parents seems to have been very purposeful. I mean to say that I think their decisions where to live and where to send my brothers and me to school were with lots of thought and planning. At the time this also seemed to be the case.

So I want to jot down some of the basic details. We were Reform Jews. We had gone to a Reform school when we were in Newport Beach and later when we moved to Beverly Hills we went to Temple Israel of Hollywood.  The decision to move to Beverly Hills I think was largely influenced by the need to find a good high school for their children. Otherwise my parents could have moved closer to my Dad's place of work which was the TRW building where my Dad was working on laser communication between satellites.  [I am pretty sure his research was stolen by the KGB and ended up in the USSR. That was a well known event which ended up as a motion picture.]

In any case the Reform path I think was  very much a conscious decision. Not to be fanatic.

[However there were some aspects of Reform that my parents did not go with. Certainly the "Social Justice" thing was viewed with skepticism. And almost immediately after my bar mitzah we went to a Recontructionist person to do the bar mizvah of my younger brother. The actual views of my parents I think were closer to what today would be called Conservative. Faith in Torah was very important to them and also support of the State of Israel.]


I was encouraged to go into Physics and Math because I was showing a lot of interest in those subjects on my own. But I think that my parents saw a kind of numinous value in those subjects kind of the way I do nowadays. You can see this in the Rishonim [Medieval Authorities] that stem from the school of thought of Maimonides and the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart.
In any case the path of fanaticism was really very far away from the concept of my parents about the proper path in life.

That is a balanced path of values was what they were striving for. [To conceptualize this you could look at the Polynomic Theory of Value of Dr Kelley Ross which in turn is base on Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant.]

I have to admit that at the time I did not see how I could have gone into the hard sciences. The only way I was able to make progress in that direction was by the kind of learning I saw in a Musar book אורחות צדיקים  where he goes into the idea of learning fast--saying the words and going on.

Law of Moses

In the book of Ezra we see that bringing the proper sacrifices as taught in the Law of Moses was the first priority. Even before there was a building, people put up an altar and brought the sacrifices. Only later did they start to build the walls of Jerusalem and the buildings of the Temple.
The reason this is hard to do nowadays is the lack of a red cow. That lack means that one can not be made pure from the kind of uncleanliness that results by touching a dead body.
But this is simply remedied by genetic engineering. At that point one who has touched a dead body would have to be sprinkled on by the ashes of the red cow and go into a natural body of water.
[The issue with having touched a dead body s that one can not go into the Temple nor eat sacrifices. So the red cow is a requirement before anything can be done.]


The calendar also that is in use today would have to be scraped. It was invented by Meton in Athens and is not a Torah idea. Rather the Torah has the new moon being in fact on the day of the new moon--the conjunction.
In terms of the actual laws the best book to learn is the ערוך השלחן which was written by a very great sage. It is in fact one of the best books written by the אחרונים. The other great books of אחרונים are the Avi Ezri of Rav Shac and the Pnei Yehoshua.


[Different groups have claimed that sacrifices are no longer needed but I think it is clear from internal evidence in the Old Testament itself  that the obligation is even today.]

[In terms of who is  a priest who can offer sacrifices, I think Yemenite people have been careful to guard that information accurately.]

[Most Christians believe that sacrifices are not necessary however that seems based on misunderstandings. The basic way I understand the actual statements of Jesus is that he had no intention to nullify the Law of Moses. To me this seems obvious. However it is customary in Christian circles to claim the opposite. I even tried once or twice to argue this point and I not get very far.]

U58 music file

U-58 D Minor   [U-58 in midi]

a good way to argue for Kant and Plato in terms of there being two levels of reality

There is a good way to argue for Kant and Plato in terms of there being two levels of reality. The dinge an sich things in themselves and the level of phenomenon.

This you can see by the collapse of the wave function into just one state from many possible states.
So on that level there are no classical values of space or time until something is measured. This is like Kant that space and time are imposed by the subject. This also goes along with Plato that there is some higher realm of Ideas not dependent on objects or the classical world.

The other level of reality is the classical world where causality exists and is definitely local. This is seen in GPS satellites. [They have to be calibrated to account for Special Relativity and General Relativity both. The speed they go around the Earth makes them lose time. The fact they are far out from the gravitational center of the Earth means they go faster. In fact the effect of General Relativity is far stronger in this case than Special Relativity. The clocks on the satellites do go fast compare to earth. To get them to correspond they have to be slowed down.]
But there also is some connection between these two realms because the wave function also collapses when there is a thermal bath in the area of the quantum particle.   


[But this would not be the general way Kant was understood by what was called the Neo Kantian schools that denied the very existence of dinge an sich. The only way this would work would be the way that Leonard Nelson understood Kant--which was definitely not the main stream.]

[I should mention that not all schools of thought based on Leonard Nelson are equal. There seems to be  a lot of interest in England and Germany, but the major proponent is Dr Kelley Ross in California and he builds on Nelson, but also on others. ]

To be quite frank I have to say that Leonard Nelson seems a lot better than anything else being done in academia. For some reason people seem to be attracted to Heidegger and/or Marx for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with logical rigor or even the slightest possibility of validity.

The altar in the Temple was set up even before the walls of Jerusalem were built.

There seem to me to be good reasons to bring sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem. The well known reason is in Leviticus where different kinds of sacrifices are commanded.
But to me there is more evidence. One is the statement of the King of Judah  when he was arguing with Jeroboam ben Navat where he was claiming that his position was correct because in his territory they were bringing the sacrifices taught in the Law of Moses.
Another proof is in the book of Ezra where the people that returned to Israel did not just build the walls of Jerusalem, but also the altar and began to bring sacrifices, and they said the reason they were bringing the sacrifices was because that is what is commanded in the Law of Moses.

I mean to argue against those that think that sacrifices are not an essential aspect of the Torah.

[There are people that say that the Law of Moses is still obligatory, but that the sacrifices were something added on later. But from what I can tell there is plenty of internal evidence from the entire Old Testament that the sacrifices are an essential part of the Law.]


In fact the altar in the Temple was set up even before the walls of Jerusalem were built. That means to bring the regular sacrifices was a high priority.
One very positive thing about this would be to have a nice family outing and a barbecue by bringing what is called שלמים peace offerings.  You can see how this kind of nice family outing would be instrumental in bringing families together.

[You would however have to genetically engineer a red cow before any of this would be practical. But that seems to be simple. Even without genetically engineering you could get something close to a red cow by simple mating over a few generations. The whole process ought to be simple nowadays.]

The reason this has not been done already is beyond me. It seems to be an extremely simply thing with genes to get a red cow.

בבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א

בבבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א ר' עקיבא איגר asks a question on the רשב''ם.
That רשב''ם brings the idea that if a bull gored a cow and the calf is found next to it the law is to divide ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. That is like סומכוס. The רשב''ם says that is the law even if either one is sure and the other in doubt. רב עקיבא איגר asks that if המוחזק the one that is is possession of the money is sure, then even סומכוס agrees המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה as it says in the משנה in בבא מציעא צ''ז ע''א השואל אומר שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע פטור. The גמרא says there is a debate. One person says ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. The other person says the משנה is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם. So the simple thing is to say the רשב''ם is talking according to the opinion עסק שבועה ביניהם.  I mean even in a case of ברי ושמא the rule is to סומכוס ממון המוטל בספק חולקים בלי שבועה and only in a case of עסק שבועה that ברי עדיף
[I should mention the mishna there is like Sumhos.]


בבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א
בבבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א ר" עקיבא איגר שואל שאלה על הרשב''ם. רשב''ם זה מביא את הדין שאם שור נגח פרה ועגל נמצא לידו החוק הוא לחלק, ממון המוטל בספק חולקים כמו סומכוס. הרשב''ם אומר כי זה החוק אפילו אם אחד הוא בטוח ושני בספק. רב עקיבא איגר שואל שאם המוחזק (זה שנמצא ברשותו את הכסף) הוא בטוח, אז אפילו סומכוס מסכים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה כפי שכתוב משנה בבבא מציעא צ''ז ע''א השואל אומר שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע פטור. הגמרא אומרת שיש ויכוח. אחד אומר ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. השני אומר המשנה הוא מקרה של עסק שבועה ביניהם. אז הרשב''ם מדבר כדעת עסק שבועה ביניהם. 

Bava Batra 92a

It does not seem like a big deal because the questions of Rav Akiva Eiger are often only to one opinion.  In any case in Bava Batra 92a he asks a question on the Rashbam.
That Rashbam in itself is of great interest but just to be short he brings the idea that if a bull gored a cow and the calf is found next to it the law is to divide the amount of the cow and calf in half.-That is like Sumhus. The Rashbam says that is even if either one is sure and the other in doubt.
Rav Akiva Eiger asks that if the one that is is possession of the money is sure then even Sumhus agrees המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה as it says in the Mishna in Bava Metzia 97 השואל אומר שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע פטור.
The Gemara  says there is a debate. One person says ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. The other person says the Mishna is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם.
So the Rashbam is talking according to the opinion עסק שבועה ביניהם.

(I noticed this aspect of Rav Akiva Eiger at the Mir in NY. There was some question of his somewhere in Shabat and I noticed an opinion somewhere that would have answered it.)

Tikun HaKlali [general correction]

I tend to believe that the Ran from Breslov was right about the Tikun HaKlali [general correction] mainly because it makes sense to me in itself. Plus this was an area he gave a lot of time and thought and effort towards. If you look at writings of Isaac Luria and previous writers you can see that sexual sin is significant and requires some kind of repentance. But the general ways of going about it seem either impossible or difficult.
Also I tend to give confidence in people that are experts in their fields.--So when Reb Nahman says something that clearly he spent a great deal of effort on, I tend to trust him.

The basic idea is that in the Torah there are different levels of sexual sin. The most famous ones are in Leviticus called the עריות forbidden relations. Some of those get the death penalty and some are merely lashes, but they all get כרת {what the Torah calls being cut off from ones people which more or less means being cut off from one's portion in the next world.} [You can go through the list if you want, but right now I would rather continue my train of thought. Homosexual relations are included in this most severe category.]
After the עריות [forbidden relations] there are other things that are לאווין simple prohibitions from the Torah. Off hand I would say a Kohen with a divorced woman is one example. But there are many other examples.
The aspect and insight that Reb Nahman brings to this is in his Magnum Opus Vol I:29 that שמירת הברית (sexual purity) is the key.
Since "spilling seed in vain" comes under the category of sexual sin, he spent time and effort to find some correction and came up with two things. First to go to a natural body of water like a river that same day. Next is to say ten psalms 16,32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90,105 137 150. [And to intend the Divine Names אלף למד אלף למד הי יוד מם.]


While  I am not expert in Rav Isaac Luria, I would have to say that this idea of the Ran from Breslov makes a lot of sense based on what I do know. The עשרה מיני נגינה [ten types of song] are certainly brought up in the Tikunei HaZohar. The whole thing seems well based on the Ari and the Zohar.
[The actual things Rav Isaac Luria says to do are fasting and certain unifications. Unifications to me seems to work only if the "electric current" is running. If one is disconnected with the Divine light, then they simply do nothing. So Reb Nahman's idea makes a lot of sense.]

The סטרא אחרא [Realm of Darkness] has the ability to give people true spiritual powers to enable them afterwards to trick them.

The events surrounding the fall of King Ahab [the King of Israel] are  not well known. The basic thing was he was together with Yehoshaphat (King of Judah) and all the prophets were telling him to go up to retake Ramot HaGilead.
  Yehoshaphat asked him, "Is there no true prophet here to tell us the word of God?" They brought Mihayu.

  He said, "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne asking, 'Who will go and trick Ahab?' A lying spirit came forth and said 'I will.'

The Lord asked him 'How?' He said 'I will be  a lying spirit in the mouths of his prophets.'[Ahab then in fact went to war and fell in battle.]

To me this seems to be a warning about the problem when some people get some things right and that lends to them credibility. So then they have the ability to cause people to fall later because of their initial credibility.

The סטרא אחרא [Realm of Darkness] has the ability to give people true spiritual powers to enable them afterwards to trick them. [In Lithuanian Yeshivas this kind of phenomenon is well understood and thus people there are more careful.]

[It should be noted that the actual sin involved was not idolatry but rather the fact that Ahab had murdered someone Navot and taken his field-even though it was done according to the laws of the Torah. Two witnesses came and testified that Navot had cursed. That is something there is a death penalty for. At any rate, what I want to point out is בין אדם לחבירו obligations between man and his fellow man were the reason Ahab was killed. This goes along with Rav Israel Salanter who did make a point of the aspect of Torah that is between man and one's fellow man. You can see this in particular in the books of Musar of his disciples like Navardok and the אור צפון. [This last one I do not know if it is in print anymore.]]

What I am trying to get to is this: the actual falling at Ramot Gilead was the result of an original sin. That is a first sin that caused Ahab later to be able to be fooled by the lying spirit. This is the issue: to identify one's first sin that caused all the later problems. For the bed one makes that is the bed he sleeps in. Everything goes by the original pattern that one chooses--the original set of rules one decides to go with. If you get that wrong, then you  have no one to blame for subsequent problems.

In other words real, authentic attachment with God is only on a personal private level.

The Ran from Breslov is the only one who warned against false teachers of Torah on a huge scale.

This type of warning you can see in the Talmud itself and also in the Rishonim . But nothing like the force that the Ran from Breslov brings to this issue.

Why this is important is that good intended people can easily be fooled.

This is one good reason to  attend  Reform Temples only-- because that is the only safe way to avoid this problem.  There are other very good reasons to attend Reform Temples --for example the emphasis on balance and the awareness that a good deal of Torah is all about good traits.

The end result of all this is the longing for God and the ultimate meaning of life really has to be personal and at home or in the forest--another point that the Ran himself emphasized.

I should mention that I was very inspired to walk on this path of the Ran [Nahman from Breslov]  and felt great attachment to God while on that path for the few years I was in Safed.
[That is the path of personal prayer towards God while alone in a forest or some other lonely spot.]

In other words real, authentic attachment with God is only on a personal private level.

Is carrying something in one's pocket is considered carrying on the Sabbath?

To me it is not clear that carrying something in one's pocket is considered carrying on the Sabbath Day. In laws about acquisition this issue comes up.  The basic question is if the vessels of a buyer acquire in the domain of a seller. The law comes out that they do acquire in any place the buyer has permission to put his vessels.

The Rashbam over there in Bava Batra says the question is if an object in a vessel is considered to be in the vessel or the domain.

What I mean to say is that it is considered in general simple that e.g. a key in a pocket is not thought to be nullified to the pocket in terms of carrying and in tractate Shabat itself there does not seem to be anything to indicate whether this is so;  one way or the other. But in laws of acquisition in Bava Batra 85 this  comes up.
Now what is a public domain itself is a debate. The Rif, Rambam hold you do not need 600,000 people walking through it every day. Rashi and Tosphot hold you do. So to me it seems putting Rashi and Tosphot together with the above idea that an object in a  pocket is thought to be in the pocket, not in the domain, then there comes out a permission to carry something in one's pocket, but not to take it in one's hand until one reaches a private domain.


What I find is that it is curious that the Gemara does not deal with carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath at all, and yet when it comes to the issue of acquisition it goes into great detail.

If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and Shabat, then in fact carrying in a pocket would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a pocket might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a pocket that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
[The  Mishna says she is divorced but the Gemara puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the Rashbam on page 85 in Bava Batra does mention this question in terms of acquisition-- whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought part of the person -not the domain. [That is Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, and others.]





[The nice thing about carrying in one's pocket is that a public domain is probably like the Rif and Rambam --just a public street  that is 16 yards wide. Rome was the largest city the ancient world had ever seen and it was a million strong. To imagine the cities of Sura and Pumbadita in Persia were more than 600,000 on public streets every day is just not likely. And the way the people in the Talmud deal with a public domain in Persia is very simple--as if a public domain is common place even in Persia.
[Besides that, a large city is impossible without running water. No city in Persia had anything like an aqueduct of the Romans nor did they have the know-how or type of concrete the Romans had. [The Romans had a special type of concrete mixed with volcanic ash that was much stronger ] Therefore there simply were no large cities like Rome in Persia. Period. At best they would have had to be spread out villages.





The thing to be careful about is not to take anything out of the pocket as long as one is walking outside unless he stands still. Also carrying from a public domain to a private one is forbidden.

connection to a thermal bath can cause a collapse of the wave function

I really do not know if it makes any difference to the Kelley Ross Kant-Friesian system the fact that connection to a thermal bath can cause a collapse of the wave function of an electron even before it is observed. This is a well known phenomenon and is known as coherence lifetime.

The Kant/Fries system depends on questions on Kant that result n the necessity of non intuitive immediate knowledge. One of those questions is the fact that Kant has causality among dinge an sich things in themselves, even before the observer is introduced.


The nice thing about the Kant/Fries system is faith. Knowledge that is not based on logic nor on sense perception. Plus that a lot of the arguments of Michael Huemer and the whole intuitionist school tend to fit in to the Kant Fries system even better than they do with intuintionism. For the intuinionists stake a lot of how things seem before reasoning. But seeming in senses is not the same as seeming to the mind. Thus what Huemer really is arguing for is non intuitive immediate knowledge.

[If you would extract from Hegel all the extraneous things and just leave the good insights and do the same with the intuitionists like G.E. Moore and Huemer, I think you would end up with a system that more or less would correspond with the Kant Fries system.

This is similar to what Dr Huemer himself does with alternative systems. He tends to reduce them to their essential details and then argue against them--which is a perfectly nice approach. Getting through the maze of extraneous words to the basic essence. But then you could do the same with the intuitionists and the Kant Fries School and say they are really in essence the same.

Tthe good Samaritan story

Sometimes I find the good Samaritan story to seem to have affected people.
When I have been in trouble, for some odd reason I find people with a basic Christian point of view willing to help me.  That seems often to me to be in stark contrast to the general apathy or even downright malevolence of people of other faiths (or people of no faith).

For example today I was cold. I had been in a cold river and my clothing was wet. I was on my way home, but at some point I realized my body temperature was going dangerously low. I was beginning to wonder if i could make it back. Out of the blue a car [husband and wife] stopped by to pick me up and take me home even though they had thought I was homeless and they might have to put me up in their own home.

I have found this attitude to be fairly common in the Christian world. A willingness to help. The contrast to people of other faiths could hardly be more pronounced -- they often do as much damage to me as they can while trying to be careful not to get in trouble with the law.


[Other events like this were in Uman on Rosh Hashanah when I was sick--maybe from the strain of travelling. The room mate I had for those few days simply ignored me though I was burning up with fever and could not move , while the owners of the apartment saw I was sick and brought to me food and medicine.

Other events were with a fellow in Kiev that dropped his affairs for a month to help me get my papers together to I could go to the USA. Recently also I was in the hospital in Uman where they treated me for free, and only to help get better materials for the operation did they ask for a a small amount.

What I am trying to say is that this does not seem to me to be normal human reaction that generally consists of malice. There is something about the Good Samaritan story and the Golden Rule that seems to have sunk deeply into Christian consciousness.

[This type of thing was noticed by the Ran of Breslov in the last lesson he gave on Rosh Hashanah [Vol II:8.] There he mentions this fact that מעט הרחמנות הנשארת אצלינו היא בחינת אכזריות. I forget the context but the idea is that because of some reason: "the little bit of compassion that is left by us is in essence cruelty." So you really have a hard time  finding compassion when you need it. I do not have his book to look this up.]

[There are some essays from Bryan Caplan and Steven Dutch which deal with similar issues.]

Bryan Caplan has his essays contra-Christianity on his site along with a rebuttal that I could not down load.
In any case if it would just be my own personal experience that would not say much but I do have at least the Ari and Rav Abulafia. [To see this in the Ari you have to see what he says about the very end of the Book of Genesis.]  Rav Abulafia's opinion means a lot to me but on the same hand he does consider Christianity itself highly negative. It is well known he went to debate the pope.

But to get a clear idea of Rav Abulafia it is helpful to read the Gra's Voice of the Dove קול התור and also the book of Rav Luzatto "The New Corrections" תיקונים חדשים.--That is if this at all interests you. As for myself I have grown weary of these kinds of topics. The book of the Rav Luzatto is not well known. He is more famous for his book the מסילת ישרים but his other more mystical writings shed some light on this subject.


Some sent to me the actual quote from the Ran of Breslov:

Things involved with religion. The problem seems to be that positive value can all too easily turn into negative value, and that seems to be what has happened on a vast scale.

They do not tend to lead towards a more sincere heart.

In any case things involved with religion make me nervous. I think it is best if we do not discuss them. Ayn Rand and Kant are different, but  other issues--even with M. Idel and Abulafia make me upset and nervous. They do not tend to make me happy nor help me be closer to God. If we can just drop it, all the better.
  I can manage to learn Gemara and try to keep the Law of Moses (in private), but besides that of what is involved in religion nowadays just makes me upset and nervous.
The whole thing just got  to be in bad taste.
  [The problem seems to be that positive value can all too easily turn into negative value, and that seems to be what has happened on a vast scale.]
So the approach of my parents to find positive value in Torah but not to make a parade out of it seems best to me. 

music files u56 u57

U-56 A Flat Major  U-57 D Major

Kant-Fries School

 I really have to say that the Kant-Fries School makes the most sense to me. [That is what is called in Germany the Critical school.] That means more or less Leonard Nelson who kind of revived the whole thing and then Dr Kelley Ross.

There are some good reasons for this. One is the the best second seems to be Hegel, but Hegel seems to have enough problems to make his approach not really as good as the Kant/Fries one.
 It is not just the maddening maze of words--which is a challenge. But rather, outside of certain basic insights, he does not seem to have a lot to offer, even after you get by the challenge  of  his writing style. [It is like reading a book of free associations].

Another second best seems to be the intuitionists like G.E. Moore and Dr. Michael Huemer. But there also there seem to be enough problems as Danny Frederick noted.

It is not to say that there is nothing to learn from Hegel or Huemer. But rather it seems if one is going to spend the time and effort, it might as well be on the best thing available.

Of course you might want to avoid all the issues by going back to the Middle Ages. But that also does not seem like much of an option. Too many axioms that just do not seem right. [It is almost medieval you might say.] Even though almost all scholastics were amazingly rigorous about what they derive from their axioms. The problems with later philosophers are the opposite,-- often nice sounding axioms, but amazingly sloppy logic about what they would derive from them. 

It might make some sense to write an essay about this all, but it would just be covering ground that has already been worked on.

I really think that if you do your own work, you will have to agree that that Kant-Fries School is about the best thing out there.

[The reason in Germany the Kant Fries approach is called Critical  is based on Kant's idea that there is a limit to how far Pure Reason can go. ["Critique" means "limit".] His answer was however unsatisfactory. He put objective knowledge into the subject. So you can see the problem with that. The Kant Fries answer is non intuitive immediate knowledge. A kind of knowledge than does not depend on reason, nor sense perception. The best idea to see what this means is to see Dr Kelley Ross's Phd Thesis and the books of Leonard Nelson.]
[One thing Dr Ross noted in his PhD thesis is that Kant requires causality among dinge an sich things in themselves and to me that seems to be fine since interaction with its environment causes a collapse of the wave function to just one state.]

IDF (Israeli Defense Force)

I think there are at least three good proofs in the Old Testament that show it is important to serve in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force).

One is well known already in the Book of Numbers אחיכם יעלו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה.
["You will sit here while your brothers go up to war?"]

Another is the other less known events surrounding the פילגש בגבעה.
The third are the even less known events concerning Ezra and the building of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.

The major point I wanted to bring out today is about the פילגש בגבעה. The Concubine of Giveah.
There the Tribes of Israel were upset that the tribe of Benjamin had sat by quietly while a terrible crime had been committed. The tribe of Benjamin said "It is not our business. It is not our affair."
The other tribes said, "We will make it your business." At that point in time the grandson of Aaron was around;-- Pinhas. And he asked consul from God directly by means of the Urim and Tumim and received an answer to go to war against Benjamin. One city (יבש בגלעד) did not go up to war. They also said it is not our affair. So after the war with Benjamin was over the tribes went to war with that city and wiped them out.

The same idea that came up in Numbers is here again. To sit by while everyone else has to go to war is not an acceptable course of action.

As was noted by Shimon Buso that when missiles were raining down on the north of Israel, everyone fled south. No one said their learning Torah would protect them.


The other thing is the fact that a lot of people were against the return of Israel to build Jerusalem and the Second Temple. This is gone into in great detail in the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah.
The book of Nehemiah has a major theme about the wicked people that tried to stop Ezra and Nehemiah from rebuilding Jerusalem.]




[There are problems today that remind me of the problems that Ezra had. Sefardim often make it their most essential business to get rid of Ashkenazic people--especially in Jerusalem. That is just one example. There are many kinds in Israel that make it their business to get rid of anyone not like their own social group. Sometimes this might even be justified. Still, this is  a factor to consider. Aliya to Israel without taking into account this tremendous animosity is ignoring a factor that might come to one's attention later.]
However my first time in Israel was quite amazing. If you can find a good group, then it is probably a good idea. Probably the best idea is to go to Tel Aviv.

group-think

The power of "group-think" is so powerful that often one can get mixed up whether his own thoughts and attitudes are actually his or her own or from the group. The Spartans were well aware of this when they developed their system of keeping the boys and adolescents away from their family and rather had them hanging out with each other in order to develop the kind of group solidarity needed for the kind of warriors they needed to sustain their system.
[In warfare, the whole strength of the Spartan system was the group locking shields together.]


After all how much of your own attitudes do you really think you came up with all on your own?

[The best idea then is to choose carefully with whom you want to hang out with.]

Bava Batra page 75

There are ways to argue for Christianity. One way is from Bava Batra page 75 from a statement of the Gemara that in the future saints will be called by the name of God. Then the next statement is that they are already called by the name of God. And R. Gershom says they are called the absolute name of God.  The first  idea come from a verse in Isaiah 43. The Gemara only quotes the verse itself but to see why the verse means that you have to go to the whole paragraph and get the context.

This is not to say that everything Christians say is right. Rather the automatic dismissal of everything they say is not in accord with Torah. They have some good and important points.

The events of the barber that gave Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, a haircut. The Gemara in Sanhedrin that was G-d coming down in a physical body. The Gemara itself says that if not for the open implication of the verses it would be impossible to say this.


The other most obvious aspect of this is of course Avraham Abulafia, the famous mystic. [Quoted in the last volume of שערי קדושה  and also brought in the Remak.]  [Professor M Idel has made a lot of books surrounding Rav Avraham Abulafia and it is worth while to pick up and read his essays. ] [The Ari also has at least one hint to what Rav Abulafia was saying.]