Bava Metzia 100A, the argument between the Rashbam and Tosphot in the light of Rav Shach.

Bava Metzia page 100a.
A cow is sold and gives birth and we do not know when. If before the deal was concluded, the calf belongs to the first owner. If after the deal was concluded the calf belongs to the second owner.

There is an argument between the Rashbam and Rabbainu Isaac about the the word אלא "rather". That is the Gemara asks, why does חזקת מרא קמא [possession of the first owner] [first owner] not help? The Gemara answers, "rather it is Sumchos." [Sumchos holds money in doubt is divided], That means the Gemara throws out the idea that the calf is in an alley. Rather it is in the property of the second owner, and still there is no חזקת ממון [assumption that since it is in the property of the second owner we give it to him] because the Mishna is like Sumchos.
That is one version.
The other version leaves out the אלא ("rather"). Then this is what the Gemara says: "Why does מרא קמא [first owner] not help? Because it is Sumchos. That is: it is in an alley, but if it was in the property of the second owner, the second owner would acquire it-- even against חזקת מרא קמא  even to Sumchos. So we have חזקה מעיקרא that pushes the time forwards along with חזקת רשות thus it belongs to the second fellow. What works against this is חזקת השתא since it gave birth we push that back to time and that helps חזקת מרא קמא

What is important here to notice is the חזקת השתא [what is the present state of affairs we push backwards as far as possible -like a mikve that lacks 40 S'eah We say it was lacking the right amount as far back as the time it was last measured.]. In the beginning of Nida we have חזקא דהשתא  can at least put חזקא מעיקרא into doubt if it works together with another חזקא. There is another argument between Tosphot and the Rashbam if that is only in that case of a mikve or if it is a general rule.[Rav Shach mentions this at the beginning of laws of divorce in the Rambam.]  Thus in general חזקא דהשתא works to even the odds against חזקא מעיקרא even with no help.

 In Bava Metzia pg.100 we have חזקא דהשתא along with חזקת רשות.  It is possible I think to say that Tosphot and the Rashbam are being consistent in Bava Metzia with their opinions in Nida. [Tosphot in Bava Metzia actually brings this up in his arguments against the Rashbam in the second Tosphot on the page.]


The major issue that I see here is this: how strong is חזקא דהשתא by itself? Does it just make a doubt and with another חזקא make a certainty? Or even with another חזקא Just make a doubt a it does in Nida?
The reason I mention this is that on the page [BM 100] there is an argument between the Rashbam and Tosphot if  שמא with חזקת רשות  gets the calf or not.

Appendix: The full Gemara is this ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא בסימטא Let's see where the calf is now? Answer: It is in an alley. So let's just give it to the first owner? It is Sumchos. [Or ''Rather it is Sumchos."] "It is Sumchos" means we leave it in the alley and there מרא קמא would have answered the question but if it had been in the רשות  the the second fellow he would now own the calf  even to Sumchos. If the Gemara reads "rather it is Sumchos" that means we reject even the idea of the alley. So to answer the first question Let's see where it is? we answer it is Sumchos and that is why even in the domain of the second fellow, he would not own the calf.



What is important to notice is to the sages המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה means that if it is in the actual property of the second owner then it goes to him even against מרא קמא ( the first owner who we know owned it at a certain point in time.)

______________________________________________________
בבא מציעא ק' ע''א A cow is sold and gives birth and we do not know when. If before the deal was signed and sealed, then the calf belongs to the first owner. If after the deal was signed, the calf belongs to the second owner.

There is an argument between the רשב''ם and רבינו יצחק about the the word אלא "rather". That is the גמרא asks, why does חזקת מרא קמא  not help? The גמרא answers, "rather it is סומכוס." סומכוס holds money in doubt is divided. That means the גמרא throws out the idea that the calf is in an alley. Rather it is in the property of the second owner, and still there is no חזקת ממון because the משנה is like סומכוס.
That is one version.
The other version leaves out the אלא. Then this is what the גמרא says: "Why does מרא קמא  not help? Because it is סומכוס. That is: it is in an סימטא, but if it was in the property of the second owner, the second owner would acquire it, even against חזקת מרא קמא even to סומכוס.

What is important here to notice is the חזקת השתא like a מקוה that lacks ארבעים סאה. We say it was lacking the right amount as far back as the time it was last measured. In the beginning of נדה we have חזקא דהשתא  can at least put חזקא מעיקרא into doubt if it works together with another חזקה. There is another argument between תוסות and the  רשב''ם if that is only in that case of a מקוה or if it is a general rule. רב שך mentions this at the beginning of laws of divorce in the רמב''ם.  Thus in general חזקא דהשתא works to even the odds against חזקא מעיקרא even with no help.

 In בבא מציעא ק' ע''א we have חזקא דהשתא along with חזקת רשות.   Is it possible  to say that תוספות and the  רשב''ם are being consistent in בבא מציעא with their opinions elsewhere? תוספות in  actually brings this up in his arguments against the רשב''ם in the second תוספות on the page.]


The major issue that I see here is this: how strong is חזקא דהשתא by itself? Does it just make a doubt and with another חזקא make a certainty? Or even with another חזקא just make a doubt as it does in נדה ב' ע''ב?
The reason I mention this is that on the page בבא מציעא ק' ע''א there is an argument between the רשב''ם and תוספות if  שמא with חזקת רשות  gets the calf or not.

 The full גמרא is this ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא בסימטא Let's see where the calf is now? Answer: It is in an alley. So let's just give it to the first owner? It is סומכוס. Or rather it is סומכוס.
What is important to notice is to the sages המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה means that if it is in the actual property of the second owner then it goes to him even against מרא קמא 

_____________________________________________________



בבא מציעא ק' ע''א פרה נמכרה ויולדה ואנחנו לא יודעים מתי. אם לפני שהעסקה נחתמה וחתומה, אז העגל שייך לבעליה הראשונים. אם לאחר שהעסקה נחתמה, העגל שייך לבעלים השניים. יש ויכוח בין רשב''ם ורבינו יצחק על המילה אלא. זוהי הגמרא:  מדוע חזקת מרא קמא לא עוזרת? הגמרא משיבה ",אלא היא סומכוס." סומכוס מחזיק כסף בספק מחולק. כלומר, הגמרא זורקת את הרעיון כי העגל הוא בסמטה. במקום זה הוא ברשות של הבעלים השניים, ועדיין אין חזקת ממון משום המשנה היא כמו סומכוס. זו גרסה אחת. הגרסה האחרת משמיטה את "אלא".  בבבא מציעא ק' ע''א לנו חזקא דהשתא יחד עם חזקת רשות. האם ניתן לומר כי  תוספות  ואת הרשב''ם הם בקו אחד עם דעותיהם במקום אחר? תוספות  למעשה מעלה את  השאלה הזו בטיעוניו נגד הרשב''ם בהתוספות השניה בדף.] הנושא המרכזי שאני רואה כאן הוא זה: כמה חזקה היא  חזקה דהשתא? האם  לחזקת השתא לבדה יש מספיק כח להפוך  שאלה לספק ועם חזקה אחרת  להפוך לודאות? או רק עם עוד חזקא היא יכולה להפוך לספק כפי שהיא עושה נדה ב' ע''ב? הסיבה שאני מזכיר זאת היא כי בבבא מציעא ק 'ע''א יש ויכוח בין הרשב''ם ותוספות אם שמא עם חזקת הרשות מחליטה את הבעלות על העגל או לא.  הגמרא המלאה היא זה ולחזי ברשות דמאן דקיימא? בסימטא. (בוא נראה לאן העגל הוא עכשיו? תשובה: זה בסמטה.) אז בואו פשוט לתת אותו לבעל הראשון? זה סומכוס, (או ליתר דיוק זה סומכוס). מה חשוב לשים לב הוא לחכמים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. זה אומר שאם זה ברשות  של הבעלים השניים אז זה הולך להם אפילו נגד מרא קמא.

the father of Trump

I know of at least one story in which the father of Trump helped someone. My father-in-law had a few unpleasant run ins with the Nazis in Western Poland until he escaped to the East and was caught by the Red Army. His papers said was a German Jew, so they sent him to a labor camp in Siberia. [I do not know why they simply did not enlist him like his brother Shmuel. I think the reason may have been that Bill (Binyamin) had German papers while his brother had Polish papers ] Since he could fix almost anything they made him in charge. After the war he came to the USA with no money and no job, and he knew no one, and it was the father of Trump that hired him and helped him get set up. He knew Rita [who had been on the Kindertransport, the only time the Nazis let Jewish children go to England.] Her parents survived by going Far East and came to California. So after the war Rita went from NY to CA, and Binyamin [Bill Finn] joined her there.[Bill changed his name when he got to the USA from some Jewish name that I forgot.]
That is the basic story. I met their oldest daughter in my second year in high school in Mr. Smart's orchestra practice.
We were friends all through high school but things only got serious after I went to yeshiva Shar Yashuv in NY with her letters. Then by the time I got to the Mir she came to NY and began calling me for different reasons. We were married after two years at the Mir and I learned there in kollel for another few years until the idea of making Aliya to Israel came along.

T-19 B flat Major r2 r1 r3 r4 r5 r6 r7 r8 r9 r10

Learning Torah.

Rav Shach in the introduction to the Avi Ezri mentions the importance of learning Torah in several contexts. This type of idea really became common in the Lithuanian yeshiva world after the time of the Gra. It is kind of the basic "culture" (if you can call it that) of the Litvak yeshiva world. It is is based on statements in the Mishna, Gemara, Midrashim, and Zohar. The most commonly known statement to this effect is the Mishna אלו דברים that ends with תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם. ["The Mitzvah of learning Torah goes above all other mitzvot."] [The basic idea I mentioned about culture is this. In the Litvak world the idea of learning Torah is not just a slogan the essential element. It is the essential goal in life. There is this, however, only in authentic yeshivas. Some people have found they can make good money by pretending to be on this wavelength and so try to make copycat yeshivas without the spirit. ]

The trouble is to discern real Torah from Torah of the Sitra Achra [Torah of the Kelipot, Dark Side.]

What I mean by this is a statement from Reb Nachman that once there is found a true tzadik (saint), there come many copycats to try to get the same level of money and success they see the true tzadik got. This same idea goes for yeshivas. After there were authentic Litvak yeshivas like Voloshin, Mir, Ponovitch and Brisk, there came copycats that seem to learn Torah but in fact only learn Torah of the Dark Side, demonic Torah. 

What makes the false Torah places particularly pernicious is they makes learning Torah for sincere people almost impossible.

However most Litvak places are pretty straightforward as to what they are about. If you have any kind of Lithuanian yeshiva in your area I do not urge caution, but assume it is OK. There surely are exceptions  but you do not have to worry about them unless it comes to your attention.

Torah is incidentally against sin. The hope in learning Torah is know what sin is, and to stop doing it. It is not to lift up people, and to be positive and make people feel good. That is, to feel comfortable and not to feel bad about sin. There is an alternative Torah that is taught nowadays that is made to make people feel good and to get the money keep coming in. That is not the Torah of God. When you hear teaching that is against authentic Torah, run for your life. The first verse in Tehilim says "I did not sit in the seat of the scoffers." I stay away from counterfeit Torah for I am afraid of God's punishment for sin.


[Sin is incidentally, how the Torah defines sin. It is not how people try to redefine sin in order to fit their lust for money. Therefore the best way to keep Torah is to learn Musar [basic Torah ethics]. ]

the child of a Jewess and a gentile

Tosphot holds in at least three places in Shas that the child of a Jewess and a gentile is not Jewish. [for example Kidushin 75 Tosphot first words ור''י סבר לה כר''ע וכו נינהו. 
Also יבמות ט''ו ע''ב תוס' ד''ה  אמוראי 
This is obviously not like the Rambam.

This is obviously relevant nowadays to groups that pride themselves on being Jewish when in fact it can be shown historically they are descended from mixtures like this. If people's sense of pride and identity was rather their effort to learn and keep the holy Torah --that would a lot better. This whole idea of Jewish pride seems vacant to me. 


Sephardim have a private approach to Ashkenazim. They say Ashkenazim are not Jewish, but they feel they have to pretend. But they definitely feel they are not the same tribe nor kosher.[Any Ashkenazim in  Sephardi community will experience an enormous amount of pressure to leave. There will always be at least one Sephardi determined to get rid of the Ashkenazim at all cost.] Still in all history books about the original conquest of Islam, the general rule was Muslims took Jewish wives as spoils of war. Therefore Spanish Jewry when exiled to North Africa always made a point to write ס''ט  ספרדי טהור in cases when they could trace their lineage father from father back to people that were certainly Jewish. That is why ס''ט is how the Rambam signed his name and Bava Sali also.
Outside of a few amazing people like Bava Sali the general problem in the Sefardi world stems from their origins from Muslims. This seems to create a kind of problem that still exists. If they would simply be committed to keeping Torah then I would have nothing to say, but instead their commitment in Israel seems to be to find fault in Ashkenazic Jew and then to try to kick them out. 
As one fellow mentioned to me they have the trait of Sedom and Amora [That fellow I believe is from the family of Bava Sali--at least I know his wife is a granddaughter of Bava Sali's older brother David. The one that was martyred.]

T-18 A Major   T18 in midi format  the reason for offering this in midi beside the mp3 is in case anyone wants to see or copy the notes, they can download the notes in midi. these were written in nwc which i would also share if people had access to it but it is a private compony.  

But what if you are a person that has not stood in some test and you only realize it afterwards?

There are unique individuals that  may not have any talent, but stand in some kind of test.נסיון. The archetype example  is Avraham [Abraham the patriarch]. And by that they merit to some kind of Divine light, or revaluation, or Divine Spirit. One recent example  would be Bava Sali. 

  But what if you are a person that has not stood in some test and you only realize it afterwards? You can not undo the damage because if you already know your mistake then the same issue can not be a test. You can not give a student after after he has glance at the answers.

In my opinion the best thing to do is to work on correcting the areas you made  a mistake

Today Hegel looks to me better than Kant,

Today Hegel looks to me better than Kant, but I think they really have to be learned together. Kind of Like Plato and Aristotle. There are aspects of things that Kant brings out which to me seem very important that you can miss in Hegel
The most obvious example is the limits of reason--even pure reason. Now to Kant  "pure reason" merely means not based on observation. But to me it seems the implication is clear that he was saying even pure reason in itself, not just human reason.


Red used to be thought of as in the object. Descartes noticed there are things that are not really in the object itself but depend on the subject observing. Kant noticed all  characteristics depend on the subject. So what is left? The thing in itself. 
Also universality and necessity as abstract ideas can not be derived by induction, no matter how many times you see them.
 Kant  argues against  universality and necessity are not  in objects, while  universality and necessity are true, as in mathematics and natural science. 
As Hegel puts it:  "But if universality and necessity do not exist in external things, the question arises “Where are they to be found?” Kant maintains that they must be  that they must rest on reason itself, and on thought as self-conscious reason; their source is the subject, “I”. This, simply expressed, is the main point in the Kantian philosophy. What makes them valid is that the object depends on the subject for its character."
Thus reason can not enter into "unconditioned reality" (things in themselves) that in no way is connected with physical objects.
To Hegel the kind of dialectical method used by Socrates is the very nature of reason in itself and allows reason to progress clearly and definitely into un-conditioned reality. 

.
The way the Stanford Encyclopedia puts it:  Kant’s mistake was that he fell short of saying that these contradictions are in the world itself. He failed to apply the insights of his discussion of the antinomies to “things in themselves”  Indeed, Kant’s own argument proves that the dialectical nature of reason can be applied to things themselves. The fact that reason develops those contradictions on its own, without our heads to help it, shows that those contradictions are not just in our heads, but are objective, or in the world itself.

[In any case I should mention I learned at lot from Dr. Kelly Ross and his particular approach to Kantian philosophy. And I see Kant as being a kind of umbrella and bringing out important points.]

So what would happen if you had someone expert in both Talmud Law and also Constitutional Law?

That is we know the American Constitution is valid from the basic standpoint of: (1) a contract which is binding. (2)  The law of the country is the law. [Bava Batra ch 3. This is brought in the Rambam as being applicable much more than you would expect.](3) It embodies natural law as understood by the Rambam {Maimonides} and Saadia Gaon.

So what would happen if you had someone expert in both Talmud Law and also Constitutional Law? What kind of perspective would this bring? [ Probably an emphasis on traditional values and private property and limited power of the state]
In yeshiva I always considered Talmud law to the same thing as objective morality. And the civil laws of the state I thought of as more or less irrelevant.  I am pretty sure this was the general attitude. And I still consider that Talmud law to be basically Revelation--but not exactly. After all it is Revelation combined with human reasoning trying to figure out how keep the written law.
Still the whole concept of a State and its laws is morally relevant even on the personal level. Richard Epstein makes a very strong case against libertarians in regard to the State.

[A lot of Israeli judges have the Talmud in their private chambers.]

One thing about this is false  and demonic teachers of Talmud sprout up all the time like mushrooms after a rain. Unless you can really tell the difference between the real authentic holy teachers of Torah from Litvak places like Ponovitch or Brisk, and the Sitra Achra/Dark Side teachers, it is just not worth it to get involved. The religious world is basically mentally ill and therefore choose their leaders according to the higher degree of mental illness.

panic of the Left

What adds to the panic of the Left is that their intellectual support collapsed. I still remember how Socialism was considered the only intellectual wave of the future. It was like Ayn Rand said--the people follow where the thinkers lead. 

The weight of reason no longer leads towards socialism. Post Modernism is dead. Classical education, free market, STEM, traditional Torah and Biblical values are thankfully on the rise. 

When people stop believing in a system it collapses.
It is the same basic thing that happened in the USSR, --people stopped believing in the system.

I am very grateful to God that in my high school classics were learned. And what was not officially learned was still considered important. Job, Chaucer, etc. Even in music the teacher, Mr. Smart was very much into classical music. But not just him. It was the same in elementary school and even in Idyllwild Music Camp. So I am a big fan the the Trivium and Quadrivium.

Bava Metzia 14b

There is some connection between what I wrote in Bava Metzia 14 and Rav Shach concerning a Ketubah. [Rav Shach's essay is found in the Avi Ezri on אישות laws of marriage]

In short the Rambam says if you have a man that has a few wives and then dies they all have equal right to מזונות [cakes] even if he married them one after the other because they are getting מזונות [cake and staples] from מטלטלים (movable property). The Raavad said even if the situation would be such that they get mezonot (cake) from land (non movable property). [The idea here is that in the Ketubah (marriage contract) the husband obligates his property to support her in case he dies until she remarries. There is no such stipulation in case of divorce however. This rule is sadly ignored today in most courts of law.]

At any rate, the ראב''ד (Raavad) brings from לווה ולווה וקנה (someone borrowed and then borrowed again from someone else and then bought property which is considred collateral for the loan) to show that the שיעבוד (right to collect cake and staples from the movable property) of all the wives is equal. And the Magid Mishna (commentary on the Rambam) disagrees with the Raavad. He adds if the Raavad would be right then the same would apply to the Ketubah itself



Rav Elazar Shach says that the Raavad is right because the obligation of the ketubah is not the same as מזונות. The obligation of the ketubah is because they were married. The obligation of mezonot is because he died. The obligations start at different time periods.
Thus in the case of a lender borrower and the borrower buys a field and sells it and then buys another field. At that point the lender would go after the second field. But then the borrower sells the second field. After which one does the lender go after?

If we go by the time the obligation starts then clearly the obligation on the first field came first.It was owned by the borrower before he bought the second field. That is the first answer of Tosphot in Bava Metzia.
But what does the  Rambam hold? He says only in the case where the wives are getting mezonot [their meals] from movable property that there is no order of who gets what first. But in case of land there is an order. Thus it seems he also goes by this idea that we look at who was married first and thus we look at when the obligation started.





_________________________________________________________________________________






There is some connection between what I wrote in בבא מציעא י''ד:ב and רב שך concerning the כתובה.

In short the רמב''ם says if you have a man that has a few wives and then dies, they all have equal right to מזונות  even if he married them one after the other, because they are getting מזונות from מטלטלים. Movable property. The ראב''ד said even if the situation would be such that they get מזונות from land. The idea here is that in the כתובה the husband obligates his property to support her in case he dies until she remarries.

At any rate, the ראב''ד brings from לווה ולווה וקנה to show that the שיעבודof all the wives is equal. And the מגיד משנה disagrees with the ראב''ד. He adds if the ראב''ד would be right then the same would apply to the כתובה itself



רב שך says that the ראב''דmakes sense  because the obligation of the כתובה is not the same as מזונות. The obligation of the כתובה is because they were married. The obligation of מזונות is because he died. The obligations start at different time periods.
Thus in the case of a מלווה לווה and the לווה buys a field and sells it and then buys another field. At that point the מלווה would go after the second field. But then the borrower sells the second field. After which one does the מלווה go after?

If we go by the time the obligation starts then clearly the obligation on the first field came first. It was owned by the borrower before he bought the second field. That is the first answer of תוספות in בבא מציעא.
But what does the רמב''ם hold? He says only in the case where the wives are getting מזונות  from מיטלטלים that there is no סדר גבייה. But in case of קרקע there is an סדר. Thus it seems he also goes by this idea that we look at who was married first and thus we look at when the obligation started.





_________________________________________________________________________________

 הקשר בין בבא מציעא י''ד: ורב שך בדבר הכתובה. בקיצור רמב''ם אומר שאם יש לך אדם שיש לו כמה נשים ולאחר מכן מת, יש להן את כל הזכות השווה במזונות אפילו אם הוא היתחתן אתן אחת אחרי השניה, משום שהן מקבלות מזונות מן מטלטלים. הראב''ד אמר גם אם המצב יהיה כזה כי הן מקבלות מזונות מקרקע. הרעיון כאן הוא כי בכתובה הבעל מחייב את רכושו לתמוך בה במקרה שהוא מת עד שהיא נישאת מחדש. בכל מקרה, את ראב''ד מביא מן הדין "לווה ולווה וקנה" להראות כי שיעבוד של כל הנשים שווה. והמגיד משנה חולק על ראב''ד. הוא מוסיף אם ראב''ד יהיה תקין, אז אותו חוק יחול על הכתובה עצמה. רב שך אומר כי הראב''ד הגיוני, כי חובתה של הכתובה היא לא אותו הדבר כמו מזונות. חובתה של הכתובה משום שהם (הוא והן) היו נשואים. חובת מזונות היא כי הוא מת. החובות מתחילות בתקופות זמן שונות. 
כך במקרה (בבבא מציעא יד:) של מלווה ולווה והלווה קונה שדה ומוכר אותו ולאחר מכן קונה אחר. בשלב זה מלווה ילך אחרי השדה השני. אבל אז הלווה מוכר את שדה השני. לאחר איזה מהם עושי המלווה ללכת? אם נלך לפי זמן שהחובה מתחילה, אז ברור החובה על השדה הראשון באה קודם. זה היה בבעלות הלווה לפני שהוא קנה את השדה השני. זוהי התשובה הראשונה של תוספות בבבא מציעא יד:. אבל מה הרמב''ם מחזיק? הוא אומר רק במקרה שבו הנשים מקבלות מזונות מן המיטלטלים שאין סדר גבייה. אבל במקרה של קרקע קיים סדר. לפיכך נראה שהוא גם הולך לפי הרעיון הזה שאנחנו מסתכלים במי הייתה נשואה ראשונה וכך נסתכל כאשר ההתחייבות נכתבה

T 17 E flat major in mp3 format.    T17 [in midi format.]

Navardok yeshivas

The way Navardok yeshivas were first made was by two students from the yeshiva just showing up in some town and sitting and learning Torah without asking for any favors. [It was part of that path to trust in God so asking people for favors was out.] I wonder if perhaps a similar approach is possible today. If there is no authentic Litvak yeshiva nearby then at least I suggest an hour a day of learning Torah [Old Testament, Mishna, Talmud, Midrash,  and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.].That is to restart the whole idea of Torah for its own sake, and trust in God.

In fact doing this at home is better as a rule. That means to have a session every day in Tenach, Mishna, Gemara, and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. 



In essence Navardkok consisted of two complementary concepts (1) to learn Torah without monetary compensation. (That is known as "Torah Lishma," for it's own sake, not for the sake of anything else.) (2) Trust in God without effort. That is to trust in God without doing anything to get that help. That is not to do what is called Hishtadlus "השתדלות". (The the מדרגת האדם by Rav Joseph Horwitz-the Alter of Navardok for details.)

The reason this is important is: to receive the yoke of Torah really there is a need of a Beit Midrash where one can learn Torah without being bothered. But the religious world itself needs a thorough house cleaning. It is full of Chametz/leaven. That is the leaders as a rule are demons from the Hell and that tends to leave a bad effect on the regular people. So in  a practical sense, I would not walk into any religious place but pray in a Conservative or Reform. The only kind of religious place I would walk into would be an authentic Litvak yeshiva. [There are very few of these. In the USA the only ones that are true and authentic are in New York. In Israel there are only Ponovitch and its branches or startups from people that learned in Ponovitch. ]

[The basic idea of learning Torah Lishma is not to use Torah for money. So to  large degree all the yeshivas in Israel that do so are lying as the Rambam wrote (commentary of Chapters of the Fathers, Pirkei Avot, chapter 4). Still the ironic thing is when they do learn for its own sake, then I think there is  mitzvah to give. I think this is clear in a few places in the Gemara.]

The false yeshivas use Torah to justify their sins and lies and covetousness and lust for money. They way they do this is to justify sin to make people feel good and positive. They say "We do not want any doom and gloom here. We want only positive messages. No Musar here."
The sin of the religious world is to use Torah to justify their lust for money. So I go no where near them.

[The classical example is the history (in the book of Kings) of Achav and Chizkia and the four hundred prophets that said, "You will be successful." Chizkiah however thought they were lying. So the called a prophet of God, Michayahu. He came and said also "Go up and you will be successful." Achav said to him How many times have I told you tell me only the truth in the name of God. Michaya said, "OK, you really want the truth? The truth is --you will not return alive." Achav said to Chizkia you see he always speaks bad about me. He is always negative.

T16 C major

Rambam 21:10 מלווה ולווה Laws of Lending and Borrowing

Rambam 21:10 מלווה ולווה Has been a confusing halacha for me for a long time. I did not realize that the Magid Mishna had actually explained it simply,-- even though he left it with  צ''ע (not clear why it is so.)

The basic idea is the same case that I have mentioned before in this blog many times. You have a lender a borrower and someone that bought a field from the borrower after the loan.
If the field is regular [not a guarantee for the loan] the lender gets it in case of default and 1/2 the improvements and in Halacha 21:1 he does not even pay for the expenses.

In Halacha 2:10 [when the field is collateral for the loan] the way the Magid Mishna explains it if the expenses are more than the improvement he gets half the improvement and pays nothing.  If the improvement is  more than the expenses, he can take all the improvement and pay for the expenses.
This would not be worth the time writing if not for the fact that the Rambam there is so unclear.
The way to see this in the Rambam is in the wording. The first part of the halacha is clear. The שבח is more than the הוצאה so the בעל חוב says "my field made the שבח" so he is claiming all the שבח and pays the הוצאה. Clear enough. But then: The שבח is less than the הוצאה he collects 1/2 from the בעל חוב and 1/2 from the מוכר. That is where the Magid Mishna and Rav Shach come in. At that point the בעל חובis coming by the claim of normal שיעבוד by which he has only a right to half the שבח as it says in Bava Batra. Still the בעל חוב gets the field with everything on it --all the שבח - but he has to pay only for a half and the other half he has a right to. So the part he has a right to the לוקח has to collect from the מוכר as per the same agreement "What I buy will be משועבד to this חוב."

It is clear but only with Magid Mishna and Rav Shach. [In any case the part the part that the בעל חוב is collecting because of מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה he is not paying for. The only part he pays for it that which comes because it is part of the field. So with regards to 21:1 where the Rambam brings two opinions if the בעל חוב pays for the הוצאה in the normal case that the field is not collateral he is going like the opinion he does not have to pay.]






In any case there is still a lot to talk about in this halacah as you can see in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and I have had occasion to bring this up also in my notes on Shas, and I also recall that Reb Chaim Soloveitchik brought it up.
This is what I wrote about this about a year ago:
  ב''מ קי: ב''מ י''ד: בבא בתרא קנז: הסוגיה כאן הוא בב''מ יד: ובבבא בתרא קנז: יש מחלוקת בין תוספות בב''מ ותוספות בבא בתרא. המחלוקת תלויה בסברת רב חיים הלוי מבריסק. הסברא היא זאת: לפי דעת הרמב''ם, בדיון של מַלְוֶה לווה ולוקח (ויש ברירת מחדל) שהמַלְוֶה גובה רק חצי השבח (השיפוצים) וחצי נשאר אצל הלוקח בגלל ששיעבוד שניהם עובר דרך הלווה. אבל המַלְוֶה גובה את כל השבח שגדל ממילא בגלל ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמו ישיר, ולא דרך הלווה [שהוא המוכר]. (זאת אומרת שאחר שהשיעבוד חל על השדה, הוא נשאר שם, ואינו שם בגלל המשכה של כח המוכר.) זאת היא סברת תירוץ הראשון בתוספות בבא בתרא במצב שלנו איפה שהמַלְוֶה גובה את הקרקע מן הלוקח, אף על פי שיש קרקע אחרת ללוקח השני. הסיבה היא ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. מצד השני, תירוץ השני ותוספות ב''מ יד: אוחזים שאם יש לוקח שני, המַלְוֶה צריך לגבות ממנו בגלל ששיעבודו הולך דרך המוכר, ואינו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. ועכשיו מחלוקת שני שתירוצים היא מחלוקת ראשונים. שהסברא של תירוץ הראשון היא שיטת הרמב''ם לפי פירושו של רב חיים ברמב''ם. והרמב''ן והראב''ד חולקים על הרמב''ם.  ותירוץ השני ותוספות בב''מ יד: הולכים לפי שיטת הראב''ד והרמב''ן
ואין להקשות על זה מדברי הרמב''ן שכתב שהמַלְוֶה אומר: "ארעאי [הקרקע שלי] השביח", בגלל שכוונת הרמב''ן היא שבגלל שיעבודו על הלווה הקרקע נחשב של המַלְוֶה והשיעבוד בא דרך הלווה

 להבין את מה הרמב''ם יחזיק כאן קשרתי את החוק הזה לחוק של לווה ולווה וקנה. קודם כל יש שני תרחישים בתוספות. אחד מהם הוא שבו השדה השני נקנה לאחר הגבייה. אם זה המקרה שלנו אז יש קשר ברור לדין לווה ולווה וקנה. במקרה שלנו יש מַלְוֶה וקונה ולמַלְוֶה כמובן יש שיעבוד ראשון. אבל אם שדה השני נקנה לאחר הגבייה, אז שיעבוד של שניהם באים כאחת [באותו הזמן]. זה כמעט אותו המקרה. אבל אנחנו יודעים מה רמב''ם אומר בלווה ולווה וקנה, שהם חולקים את השדה. אם זה אותו העיקרון אז למה החוק כאן לא יהיה אותו הדבר
 תירוץ: יכול להיות שזו כן דעת הרמב''ם שיכול לגבות מאיזה מהם שהוא רוצה. זה כמו בלווה ולווה וקנה שיש לנו ספק ומניחים הברירה בידם לפי פירוש הרמב''ם
אבל יש תרחיש אחר בתוספות. כלומר, כאשר השדה השני היה בבעלות בעת הגבייה (או  של הלווה או של לוקח השני). כאן אפשר רמב''ם מחזיק כמו  חוות דעתו של תוספות שמַלְוֶה חייב לגבות את שדה הראשון או השני. אנחנו לא באמת יודעים מלשון רמב''ם. כל מה שאנחנו יודעים הוא שהרמב''ם אינו מחזיק אותו שהוא מצב של  אפותיקי (או משכון) להלוואה.

That is I had gone back and forth on the idea if this is related to לווה ולווה וקנה as you can see. And in the end I guess I decided it was.
I do not recall if it was there in that place but I do know I used Rav Shach's idea about the difference between what grows on its on and what grows by means the efforts of the buyer. In any case I wanted to bring up this halacah because of the clarity the Magid Mishna and Rav Shach both bring to it.

I should mention that שיעבוד of a field whether a field that is collateral or just plain is the same when it comes through מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד that is the buyer and the lender divide the שבח.

problem with Islam

I noticed the problem with Islam but only after it was brought to my attention in the most unpleasant ways possible. Personal experience. Before that I had assumed as many others that we are all just people underneath our skins and everyone really just wants the same things security and happiness. I had to learn the hard way what Brett Stevens is suggesting apparently simply from thinking things out thoroughly.

It might be considered a fault of mine to give people and groups the benefit of  a doubt long after they have shown their true colors.
But on the other hand when I finally do decide that some group is bad, then at least I being a reliable source.

The Mishna says כל המקבל עליו עול תורה מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ "The yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the world is removed from one who accepts on himself the yoke of Torah."
I took this to heart a few years ago thinking that I needed to get back to Torah.
Then I noted the Rambam brings this idea in an expanded way in Laws of Repentance ch 9, where he brings the idea that "all fears" are removed from one that accepts the yoke of Torah. This is the same idea but in a more general sense.
This idea can be used by unscrupulous people that try to get money out of secular Jews. Still abusus non tolit usum. Abuse does not nullify use. And I can see that there is a great need to sit and learn Torah.

Since the really great and authentic Lithuanian kinds of Yeshivas based on the Gra are few and far and the evil yeshivas that are hot beds of the sitra achra [the Dark Side] are close and many, thus there really is no choice but to get yourself the basic set of Torah and learn at home. The most important I think is Rav Shach's Avi Ezri which contains the basic principles of how to learn and most of the basic principles of Torah.

But in case people are reading this that might need a more basic introduction: the best of introductory books I have seen are those of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsh --that is his book, the Horev. After that The English Soncino Talmud I think is great. I am not exaggerating. The translations there are works of genius. After that the best book of Jewish Law is the Tur with the Beit Yoseph. I really loved learning that book with the Bach also.

Race mixing

Stephen Gould suggested the fact of female choice as being an important factor--that is when there is freedom for the female of a species to choose upward that tends to bring the species to a higher level.

In any case, the problem with mixing that I see is that race is the beginning of one species being divided into two or more. That means race mixing is going directly against Nature and fighting against nature usually results in Nature winning the battle.

reason can perceive universals

To me it seems reason can perceive universals. I tend to go with Michael Huemer on this and Hegel also. The idea that there is some upper limit to reason Hegel answered by means of a dialectical approach.  [That is Hegel does not really hold of what is called intellectual intuition and is like Kant on that score. But he holds by thinking reason penetrates into the ding an sich by a dialectical process.]

As Bryan Caplan pointed out Kant is based on Hume and Hume assumes that all reason can do is perceive contradictions. He never proves this but just accepts it as an axiom. But clearly Reason does much more. It recognizes general principles.  Thus the whole basis of Kant falls away. Still there is much in the Intuitionist school of Michael Huemer that seems like quietism and does not address the issues raised by Kant--like how does reason go further? For this we need Hegel.

That is the Intuitionists deals with Kant's question how can reason perceive synthetic a priori like this: It just does. Period. clearly Huemer is more subtle than that and goes with probability. He is an amazing writer but still things there that needs critique. 

[I would rather not go into this, but just look up Hegel and Huemer's writings  Prichard's, John Searle, and the Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed.  You will see with this background what I mean.] [When the Rambam says to learn Metaphysics, I think that though he meant the set of books of Aristotle by that name, this should be applied to Kant and Hegel.]


[I should mention I have tried hard to defend the Kant/Fries school of Kelley Ross, but in the end I have had to go with Hegel. It is not necessarily one particular problem. Kelley Ross is an amazing thinker, but to me Hegel just makes a lot more sense.]

There is a Jewish mother blog "Mother in Israel" that suggested on her blog Hegel a long time ago that I ignored because I had found some important insights on Kelley Ross's Kant Fries site.  The thing I think that got me most interested in Hegel was when I realized his jargon was philosophical an that statements taken out of context or poorly understood did not constitute a true critique. Also just seeing  some of the problems in Kant that simply are not well answered brought me around to seeing the importance of Hegel. That is in a nut shell: The critiques on Hegel I thought were not accurate.

It occurs to me I was never very impressed with implanted knowledge especially since it can't be falsified-not with any of the things Kant though were unconditioned, but even things like Math.   Still all in all Dr Kelley Ross is an amazingly thorough thinker. I still have to go with Hegel.

Hegel as opposed to Leftism

I think the left made its progress by taking the name of Hegel in vain and misappropriating some of his slogans and and misunderstanding him (maybe on purpose) to fit. That is,-- if all they had was Rousseau, that would not have been enough.


So one step in the right direction I believe is to retake the battle field. They have got Hegel? Then take him back. Show how he was opposite to everything the left is about. 
And after all is said and done even the real intellectuals of the Left were aware they had to repudiate Hegel.  Just for an example with Hegel morals are real and objective and can be perceived by reason, though not directly. Hegel is a plain rebuke to Hume who limits reason to perceiving contradictions.

to learn Torah and trust in God

My own set of convictions [core principles] while in the Mir in NY were to learn Torah and trust in God that He would take care of everything else.  If my test was to stick with that set of principles, then I failed.  Adding principles add subtracting got me into  one mess after the other.

The basic order of events was interest in Rav Shick's ideas which appealed to me because it was the closest thing I saw to the Litvak path that just seemed to add some other important principles. It did not occur to me the problem of what is called "fly paper" where the fly smelling something of beauty and wonder lands on the fly paper but then can't get up again. Some refer to it as a "consciousness trap" = a way to capture people's mind.
So the real first step away from Torah was in my own faulty decision making process. I did decide to go to Israel mainly based on Navardok's idea when there is a command in the Torah to do something  then by definition it is possible. You do not look at if it is possible and then decide whether to do it or not. But I did not do much learning Gemara in Israel and when I decided to take a break from the problems in Israel and got home to Los Angeles the people that supposedly are there to learn Torah made it their job to destroy my family. Thanks a lot.
So as William James put it, "The difference has to make a difference." So for me the charlatans made my own desire to learn Torah much less since I saw they could learn Torah and still be evil.  Still that is more of a question on the way people that are using Torah to make a living  can get away with their fraud and no one is the wiser rather than a question on the Torah which in any case they are not listening to. But it also shows how a general rule is fulfilled. Once one walks away from Torah, then he can't get back and even the supposed supporters of Torah join together to keep him away.

So I today I try to learn Torah as best I can. What is Torah in this context? That is the Oral, Written Torah, and Musar. [I include the Rambam's idea of adding to this also Physics and Metaphysics for many reasons.  Part because of the Rambam, another reason is my parents and the basic Torah with Dersch Eretz approach. But I do regret not just sitting and learning Gemara when I had the chance. A far as I can see if one accepts just to sit and learn Torah and not budge, then מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ the yoke of government and the way of the world are removed from him.]
I can not be a advocate of just sitting and learning Torah since I failed in that test, but I can honestly say that if one chooses Torah at all cost, the Torah will stand by him and he will never regret it. 
Normally I would say the best thing is to sit and learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach straight. The thing is that in spite of its amazing clarity still I think a certain familiarity with the actual Gemaras that he bring are sometimes necessary. Sometimes on the other hand he brings all the necessary information right in the page. There are times I realize that without having the Gemara in front of me, it is not always clear what he means.
It might be possible I imagine to restart the whole Narvardok thing with the combination of Trust in God plus learning Torah. That I would think is  a good thing. But I also imagine it would have to be every person on his own. You cant really depend in others in this endeavor. 
The biggest obstacle to Torah is the phony evil disgusting people that pretend to keep Torah and are really demons from the Dark Side sent on earth to keep people from Torah by their pretense of keeping it will in fact doing everything they can to destroy it.

 

core principles. super-organism

Identification with one's group or super-organism is the central theme of Howard Bloom in his Lucifer Principle. He also shows how super-organisms are always based on some social meme - set of principles. And at the very end he makes a value judgment that the USA is superior to all other nations because of its social meme. So to my way of thinking the Fabian School or what is more well known as the Frankfurt School were really undermining the very essence of the USA. The basic infiltration of communist ideas into the USA I see as very bad. 


 It is not just the super-organism but also the individual I believe is usually centered around some social meme or core principles.

The thing to do is to make a conscious decision to make sure your core principles are right and moral. They might change with time as one gains experience and realizes that some of his core principles did not really correspond to reality.


[The best approach in my judgment is  that of the Rambam which is learning of Physics, Metaphysics, the entire Oral Law [the two Talmuds], and the entire Written Law in Hebrew [Old Testament]. And avoid cults at all cost. Especially those that claim to teach Torah. Better to learn Torah at home than to be involved in the religious world which is mainly built on lies. {Reb Nachman pointed this out many times in his Magnum Opus and called these kinds of teachers "Torah scholars that are demons," with the implication  that he meant it seriously and literally and not as an exaggeration.} However I admit there might be one or two places in the religious world that are OK like Ponovitch or Merkaz HaRav of Rav Kook (Religious Zionism). Or there might be individual  synagogues built on the straight Torah model of Ponovitch or the Mir in NY. The best thing to do to stop the cults is to pull away their funding. Get the State of Israel to stop the endless flow of money into the cults, and I predict they will all vanish overnight.]

F Major T15  mp3  T15 MIDI Format

When Torah is used for money as in kollel, this tends to cause what is known as Chilul Hashem.חילול השם desecration of the Divine Name.

This idea was not stated as such by the Rambam who simply said it is forbidden to use the Torah to make money or even to accept charity for learning.
Still the basic effect seems clear. When yeshivas are run to make money, they chase away all sincere people, and that leaves just the dregs.
This leaves great doubts about the Torah itself in the minds of many people that see this.

I myself have experienced this kind of thing,-- as I am sure many others have also. If you try to sit in a yeshiva and just learn Torah (as they claim to be doing), you will as a rule be thrown out unless they think they can make money off of you.

"תורתו אומנתו" does not mean to use the Torah as a means to make a living. {The permission not to pray is for a person whose Torah is his occupation.} The  yeshiva world as a rule purposely confuses this issue to make simple Jews think they ought to give them money. Maybe they should as some scholars thought like the Beit Yoseph. And maybe they should not as the Rambam thought. But one way or the other, that does not give permission to pervert the meaning of statements of the Chazal (Sages) in order to trick people.
[שכר בטלה means שכר הניכר. That is also a flimsy excuse. You can pay a person to judge a case if h is occupied in a job. You pay him the same amount that he was making. Not what he would have been making if had a job. plus שכר בטלה is for a judge and has nothing to do with our subject here.]


Still, in any case, I always  depend on lenient opinions when I find myself in need (which is all the time). So I can not blame people for depending on the Beit Yoseph. [In fact I have told people to stay in their kollels in Israel because of my being aware of their situations.] All I am saying is: the effect of this in the long run seems to cause something which is a sin to all opinions-- Chilul Hashem.

That being said I should admit that I was very impressed with a few Litvak yeshivas in NY and Ponovitch in Bnei Brak. But that is about it. Everything else seems to be  a scam. THEY LEARN Gemara in order to impress people. Not because of any real love of the holy Torah.

Branches of Ponovitch or places that were started by those that learned in Ponovitch also seems very good. I have to mention Shar Yashuv which is a place with no reputation, but to me it seemed to be the most sincere and also had an amazing level of learning, not just for a baal teshuva yeshiva but even the best of yeshivas. You might think I am being silly but to me it seemed that the Mir in NY was a step down from Shar Yashuv. [Being in Israel I think was a major step up but it seems to me today that for that to have been permanent I would have had to be learning Torah in some kind of Litvak environment.]

kollels were never right in the first place. They were invented by Reb Israel Salanter and were only because of the need of the hour. But since then the whole concept has deteriorated into using the Torah to make  a living.

Muslim immigrants

Many Jews and myself included felt like Walt Disney "It's a small world after all," and we are all brothers, until dealing with people from other countries and nations and being treated in the most unbrotherly fashion imaginable (up to and  attempted murder) convinced me we are not all brothers. We are tribes. And as Hegel noted some tribes and some states are more devoted towards justice and goodness than others. I mean the social meme is different. Some people will just do anything to hurt white people or Jews, no matter how much it hurts themselves.


The Muslim immigrants as far as I could see did not contribute anything. The USA when I was growing up was much more wholesome and lovely. I grew up in a totally Wasp area [Orange County, Newport Beach] which and things were very nice.  But we moved, and since then I have have to deal with all kinds of immigrants [not Jews] and they always use whatever power or positions they have to hurt Jews and Wasps. Always. I think Jews knew this, but thought that, "If we are nice to them, they will be nice back." But it never worked that way. Wasps I think went along with it because that was more or less the message they were getting in church.




More or less this is what I experienced in Israel with Sepharim that say openly the rights words, "We are all brothers," but if an Ashkenazic Jew is stupid enough to move into their neighborhood, he will soon find out otherwise. There will always be at least one or more that will take upon themselves the holy mission of getting rid of the Ashkenazic Jew no matter how long it takes and no matter the risk to himself. [Of course a Sephardi in an Ashkenazic neighborhood tries to behave better, until the number of Sephardim rises above a certain percent. It is thye same with Muslims. The soft jihad starts at around 15% and when their numbers get to around 30% then hard jihad begins. I learned this because I learned the history of Spain. in the Middle Ages  and I have alwayys been facinated with the history of Europe in a real power way. If I see a book on Roman or any nation from Europe's history I feel  a tremendous urge to grap it and learn it.]

Rav Shach brings a difficult Rambam

Rav Shach brings a difficult Rambam in the laws of idolatry. ch 4 law 2. The Rambam says for a עיר הנדחת [a city that does idolatry] you need 100 or more to be seduced to worship an idol, and you need the area to be  a city with no less than 100 people. And he also says you need a majority of the city.
Then it gets the category of a city that does idolatry which must be destroyed. The max limit is the majority of a tribe for the size of the city. And the max limit of the number of people is also the majority of a tribe.


This does not seem to be in accord with any opinion in the Gemara.
R. Yoshiyah says you need the city to be from 10 people  up until 100 people. R. Yonatan says from 100 people until the majority of  a tribe. Sanhedrin 15b

So the Rambam does decide like R. Yonatan, but if we go by the majority of a city, then 51 should be enough if the city has 100 people.




I am wondering how Rav Shach answers this which I did not understand.

I am also wondering if "and" could help us. That is intersection. Perhaps the Rambam is thinking that "and" in the verse means you need two conditions- both: (1)100 people and (2) a city of a hundred.



Since "and" is an argument between these two amoraim perhaps that is how the Rambam understood the Amora that he is deciding like. But intersection is the opinion of R. Oshiyah and that does not seem to help.
But since in this case the only difference between R Yoshiya and R Yonatan in the numbers, not in the verses so the Rambam might hold both hold the "and" is to cause intersection. {This and that. Not "this or that".}

trust in God --the message of Navardok (Musar)

Since there is a deeper kind of knowledge beyond empirical knowledge and reason that both empirical knowledge and knowledge based on reason depend on for their ground of validity-therefore that ground conditions  reality. Faith. 
This explains what you see in the Altar of Navardok in terms of his trust in God when he was in the forest in his hut there and learning Torah, and in the middle of the night his candle ran out and someone knocked on his door and handed to him   new candle. Faith determines reality. [The Altar of Navardok, Reb Joseph Yozel Horvitz, was a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter.]

In short what I am saying here is that there is knowledge which is not derived from experience [five senses] nor from reason. Faith.  And the claim is that faith is a deeper sort of knowledge than reason. So I am adopting a version of Kant's principle that phenomena must be conditioned by the structure of knowledge. I am going a bit further and saying that both knowledge and also phenomena must be conditioned according to faith. This is a simple one step further than Kant.

But to the Rambam and Hegel,  Faith and reason are not two things. They are the same essence but differ in degree. 

to oppose Islam.

I do not think the West is in any state to oppose Islam. Christianity is in essence lukewarm. It is good for a Sunday morning thrill to make people feel good, but that is all. As soon as they are out again on the street, everything is forgotten. I simply do not see anything in the West capable of stopping Islam in its attempt to expand and take over. 

Once Christianity was vibrant and powerful enough to stop it But certainly no longer. 
And what else could stop it?

Tanks and guns against ideas? That is no match. Ideas will win every time. People willing to blow themselves up along with as many Jews and Christians as possible simply can not be stopped by all the guns and bullets in the world. The more you throw at them the happier they are.



Personally I see Christianity not just as lukewarm, but also mistaken on a few fronts. 

My own approach is that of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter and Rav Elezar Menachem Min Shach on three fronts. Learning Torah, Ethics, Learning Torah in depth. 

This more or less goes along with Reb Shmuel Berenbaum's (the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir in New York) idea when he was confronted with life problems that people asked him about. His answer was "Learn Torah" but never at the expense of doing kindness in places that were needed.

That was his idea of the one and only solution to all individual and all of mankind's problems. Thus it is my suggestion for people to acept on themselves to learn Torah every day for at least one hour (that is to accept bli neder [with no oath]).


That is for one hour to learn either the Written Law (Old Testament) or the Oral Law [The Two Talmuds] in such a way as to finish them at least once. Girls that are not required to learn Torah should be committed to marry guys that learn Torah.
[What counts as Torah? Books of חז''ל the sages of the Talmud which includes the midrashei halacha and midrashei agada. Rishonim mediaeval sages. Musar. Plus a few achronim like the Maharsha and Rav Shach.] [To the Rambam, Physics and Metaphysics are included in the Oral Law, but in my view that would mean to learn the Talmud in one hour per day session, and in another session learn Physics or Metaphysics. The Rambam obviously meant Plato,  Aristotle Plotinus, but I would add Kant and Hegel

The battle against socialism.

Part of the battle is to provide support from thought, for everything starts at thought and then goes down to word and then to action. Ayn Rand did some work in the right direction and Howard Bloom also. I think Richard Epstein also is doing good work. 

(The Lucifer Principle)

Since I read Howard Bloom (The Lucifer Principle) I definitely agree with nationalism. But as a rule I felt that people have a right to their own stuff and therefore leftism never made any sense to me. I think leftism is a way to justify greed and theft. 
I think the main reason I think people have a right to their own stuff is mainly because of the Ten Commandments but I believe that my sense of this was probably deepened by learning Torah and Ethics. Since then whenever I see government schemes to take stuff from people as in Socialism or when I see theft and fraud not from government my sense of outrage is ignited.  But that does need a kind of taking back Hegel from the Left. If you want to defend people's right you can not let the Left use Hegel anymore. You need to take from them their ammunition.
My neighbor, John Factor, (brother of Max Factor) really summed up the problem one day for me. He as (all Reform Jews in those days) adopted the basic world view of Leftism. He must have thought all blacks needed was a helping hand. So he gave them a million dollars to build a sort of sports center (in or near the black areas in downtown LA). His comment to me was "They never even said, 'Thank you.'" Six immortal words that to me sums up the whole problem.

I remember one black fellow telling me the same basic idea way back then before any of this problem had started. I forget the exact words but his idea was essentially this “We (the black community) are gong to bring down and destroy the USA.” That is he meant it as intention, not as a by product of wrong polices.

E Major  C Major

The Sitra Achra (Dark Side) gives awesome powers and miracles--true powers and miracles to people so as to when the real question arises --what is God's will?--then they will be believed when they say to worship false gods.

Why would Achav believe false prophets? [In the biblical book of Kings] Was it not clear to him that they knew nothing? Answer: because up until then everything they said was right. Every prediction came to pass exactly like they said. They were given power and miracles so that when the time would come to say something false,then they would be believed. That is the way of the Sitra Achra Dark Side. It gives awesome powers and miracles--true powers and miracles to people so as to when the real question arises --what is God's will?--then they will be believed when they say to worship false gods.

The history of the events was thus: Chizkiah and Achav got together to go to war. But before they went Achav called all his prophets  to hear what they had to say. (Why would he do this, unless they had been proven accurate on every other occasion that he consulted with them?)

They all came and said he will win the war. Chizkiah then asked:
 "Is there no prophet of God here?"
Achav said: "There is one; Michaihu is his name. and I hate him.
"Why is that?"
"Because he speaks only badly of me all the time."
"Call him and let's hear hat he has to say."

He came and said you will win the war. Achav said to him how many times do I have to tell you to say in prophecy only the truth in Gods name?

The Michaihu said that he would be killed in battle.
Achav then commanded he be put into prison until his return.
Michaihu said "If you return alive, then I am not a prophet of God."


Achav was killed. He had been fooled because everything else the prophets of the Baal had said had always turned out right.

The Republic (of Plato), Law of Moses, and Western Civilization

The Republic (of Plato) is very important but not the sole basis for Western Civilization. The West was built out of the Mediaeval synthesis of Reason and Revelation. Plato and Aristotle form and important part of that. But so does the Law of Moses.[As Hegel noted this. The Jews gave devotion to the Law part of Western Civilization and Christians the compassion part.] What is the right synthesis is a good question, but that knowledge that such a synthesis is necessary is the  condition for Western Civilization.
[When Rambam talks about Metaphysics he is referring to Aristotle, but his understanding of Aristotle seems to me to be clearly the neo Platonic synthesis of Aristotle and Plato.]
I am no scholar, but from the little I read I saw a great deal of the advancement of the West after 1350 was based on foundations that that were created during the Middle Ages.

Things like parliamentary system of government, universities, water systems that became adapted to electricity, Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides were huge influences with Natural Law. I guess you could disagree but that is the way I see it. 

[It is my impression that  Kant,  and Hegel are as important for Western Civilization as Plato and Aristotle.]
People do not give enough credit to the Middle Ages. The way to put Reason and Faith together is by no means simple as we can see in the many Gnostic schools and also in Philo and Plotinus. Just looking at that you get the idea that there were infinite possibilities of false and wrong and really dumb ideas about whether such a synthesis is possible and desirable at all and if it it then what is it? But only one possible right answer.

The Rambam's four fold way. Learning the Written Law (Old Testament), the Oral Law (the two Talmuds), Modern Physics, and the Metaphysics of Aristotle.

To understand any thinker it is usually necessary to understand their background and what they were reacting against. But then not to limit them to just a reaction.

The idea is similar to Kant. In his city there were people that were very pious and others that were super rational. And on the larger world that he was born into there was a school of the rationalists like Spinoza and Leibniz and another school of empiricists. like Locke and Hume. But I do not limit Kant's insights to mere reaction but that reaction caused a spark to ignite. His search for a ground of validity in both schools gave the spark that created the three great Critiques.

So with the Rambam. He also wanted to find a path that synthesized Reason and Revelation and not just find a middle path. 

In a similar way my own thinking is thus: I want to find out what is the service of God? And after I know that I want to know what is the service of God with מיסרת נפש [self sacrifice]? And after that I would like to share with others my insights. My own conclusions are largely a reaction to the world I found myself in.

That is to say: I was in yeshivas in NY which more or less concertized and personified the Nefesh HaChaim [נפש החיים]of Reb Chaim from Voloshin (disciple of the Gra). That is.-- yeshivas that accepted the basic idea of the Gra that the prime service of God is to learn Torah. Though one must keep all the commandments, still the focus should be on learning Torah and then everything else good will flow from that.

On the other hand I also saw a world of events after my divorce that got me thinking there must some ways that that yeshivish approach is right, and in some ways it is missing out on something.
While this was going on I returned to Israel and noticed the Guide of the Rambam in a Beit Midrash in Ramot Gimel that said something that got me interested  לא הצם והמתפלל הוא הנרצה אלא היודעו (Not he who fasts and prays is desirable rather he who knows Him.). Over  the years I was in Israel at the time the ideas of the Rambam began to crystallize in me and though I might have been vaguely aware of his ideas before that, during my time in Israel it became more and more clear that he was on a slightly different track than Reb Chaim from Voloshin and that his track also had some ground of validity.

So to a large degree my own ideas of what is the service of God come as trying to find what is valid in both approaches. 

My set of experiences I take as a background to understanding this question and I take my own experiences as empirical evidence. Ad Hominem what kinds of people are on one path or the other is not an irrelevant consideration when it comes to the service of God. It cant be the entire  determining issue but it must not be ignored. 

That I hoe gives to anyone reading this a bit of understanding in what way I arrived at my basic approach which more or less centers on the Rambam's four fold way. Learning the Written Law (Old Testament), the Oral Law (the two Talmuds), Modern Physics, and the Metaphysics of Aristotle.
That is to say I did not arrive at this by picking up a rabbit  out of a hat. Not by going "Ei Mini Mini Mo"closing my eyes and picking something that appealed to me at random. Rather this came as a long process of observation of myself and others and close consideration of the different opinions involved.


Appendix:
{1}Getting divorced was very important to this process because it showed me how people act towards someone that has no social status as opposed to someone that has social status and money that they want. Being "down and out' is the best way to see the reality of what people are like as very different from what they say and pretend. 
{2} My path is not only the Rambam. The whole Gra thing is very important in terms of the prime mitzvah being the learning of Torah
Also in terms of learning in depth, not just the Gemara but the Rambam also. That is the whole school of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and his disciples and Rav Elazar M. Shach.  But I also see the great importance of Rav Kook and the State of Israel--which many great people in the Torah world did  not see.



(3) I learned the hard way that the  religious world is  place to stay as far from as possible in order to survive [Unless we are talking about the great Litvak Yeshivas in Bnei Brak and New York.]. [They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. Acta non verba.] But I also realized the importance of the Gra and the Rambam and Reb Israel Salanter. I think it is possible that my choice to go to authentic Litvak yeshivas in NY and then to Israel made all the difference.