I never agreed with the general approach towards South Africa. It seemed obvious to me that it would revert to the norm in Africa (a new genocide every year) once the white people were out of power. But this time the target would be white people. Once at the Western Wall I met some people from SA and I said openly to them they ought to escape from SA as fast as possible.

SA is genocide against white people in slow motion.

Bava Metzia 103

I just want to jot down the basic idea of Rav Shach on the fact that the Rambam must agree that after a גמר דין  (a final judgement), then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with Bava Metzia around page 103 to help understand the story with Rav and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור (a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש (the rav of the Rambam) because of migo. (A migo is a case of he could have said a different plea and be believed so let us believe him now) The Ketzot HaChoshen disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

Rav Shach brings the Gemara in Bava Batra to show the Rambam must agree with the Ketzot. The Gemara there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a migo. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the Ketzot gives that it is after גמר דין.

[The original problem was that Rav changed his decision in the case a person went into another's field and planted trees. Rav told the owner at first to pay for the trees the least possible amount but the owner did not accept that and did not even want the trees, and then Rav said nothing. What I think is that since Rav said nothing that meant it was before גמר דין final judgement. Then Rav saw the owner making a fence around the trees and said since it is clear you do want them now pay the full amount. But the way we understand Rav, if he had paid the lower amount the day before and then Rav saw him building a fence rav would have simply said he changed his mind [as David Bronson pointed out to me]




_______________________________________________________________________________
I just want to jot down the basic idea of רב שך on  the fact that the רמב''ם must agree that after a גמר דין  a final judgement, then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with בבא מציעא page ק''ג to help understand the פסק דין של רב and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור means a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש  because of מיגו. The קצות החושן disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

רב שך brings the גמרא in בבא בתרא to show the רמב''ם must agree with the קצות החושן. The גמרא there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a מיגו. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the קצות החושן gives that it is after גמר דין.

אני רק רוצה לרשום את הרעיון הבסיסי של רב שך על העובדה כי רמב''ם חייב להסכים כי לאחר גמר דין (פסק דין סופי), אז אפילו מיגו לא יכול לשנות את ההחלטה. רעיון זה שהזכרתי בקשר עם בבא מציעא דף ק''ג כדי לעזור להבין את פסק דין של רב והאדם אשר ניטע עצים בשדה של אחר. רעיון הבסיסי הוא זה אשר שאפשר בכלל ללכת מן פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור פירושו טיעון המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס לטיעון נוסף המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס). הסיבה ניתנת על ידי ר''י מיגאש בגלל מיגו. קצות החושן אינו מסכים עם קביעה זו ואומר שהסיבה היא שהוא לפני גמר הדין. רב שך מביא את הגמרא בבא בתרא  להראות שרמב''ם חייב להסכים עם הקצוות החושן. גמרא שם אומרת זה: שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט ואומרים הייתי על הארץ הזאת במשך שלוש שנים והיא הייתה של אבותיי. קבוצה של עדים מגיעה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "זה היה על הקרקע שלוש שנים." קבוצה נוספת באה ואומרת, "הקרקע הייתה שייכת לאבות של השני." אם הראשון (שהעדים אומרים שהוא היה על הקרקע במשך שלוש שנים) אומר "שקלתי את הקרקע כאילו היא הייתה של אבותיי" הוא לא נאמן. אבל אם הוא אמר, "האבות שלי קנו אותה משלך" אז הוא אמין. מאז שהחוק הוא שאחד יכול ללכת מפטור לפטור אז אם הוא היה אומר, "שקלתי את זה כמו של אבותיי" לפני שהעדים באו, הוא היה כבר נאמן. לכן יש לו מיגו. אם כך מדוע אנו לא מאמינים בו גם אחרי שבאו עדים? זה חייב להיות בגלל הסיבה שהקצות החושן נותן שזה לאחר גמר דין.

Music T40

t40 A Major  t40 midi

t40 nwc

I think in the Eddas, Heimdall is noted for his especially white complexion. I forget. And I do not have a copy to look it up. In any case, in my experience, blacks do not make the noble kind of leaders that are shown in movies. Usually [but not always] they use their positions of power to hurt white people (once they get into a position of power over white people. Even in simple office jobs they try to sabotage white people) . And this kind of thing has happened to most people I have talked with about this.

"Does God Still give Revelation?"



 The most disturbing aspect of the religious world and their thirst for supernatural experience and supernatural encounter is their claim that God is still revealing Himself verbally to them. They claim that God is speaking to them; that is a constant claim.

It has been a curiosity to me and should be to us, I think, that if God is still giving revelation, the only ones that He gives it to are founders of various cults.


The Rambam said just like one can not and must not add to the written law so he must not add to thee oral law.




In the more spiritual sense the oral and written law [Old Testament and the two Talmuds]  are the standard by which you measure truth.


Just to give you a little deeper insight into that, the Old Testament Canon was closed about 425 B.C.. The last prophecy was written by Malachi, placed into the canon.

Now there were many attempts made by Satan to infiltrate the Old Testament with uninspired books. At least 14 of them have been accumulated and together they are called the Apocrypha.  They are not a part of our Torah. They are not inspired books. They are books 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon,  Baruch,  the History of Susanna,  the Prayer of Manassas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. All spurious. They were clearly fakes. How do we know they were fakes? They were written long after the canon was completed and they lacked the prophetic quality and authorship to stamp them as inspired Scripture. None of their writers claimed divine inspiration and some openly disclaimed it. And Apocrypha books contained errors of facts, errors of ethics, errors of doctrine.

For example, some of the Apocrypha books advocate suicide. Some of them advocate assassination and some of them teach praying for dead people.  The Old Testament was unquestioned; it is still unquestioned because it is so evident what was inspired.



There is now also a formidable group of fakes


These are were attempts to pollute the authentic Law of Moses text with spurious revelation. Now, listen to me. That attempt didn't end in those days; it is still going on. People and groups have continued to claim their works and their writings are inspired by God, and are true, and authoritative and binding. And whenever they do that, it leads to aberrant doctrine.

To add anything to Torah or to downplay the singular, unique, inspiration of Torah, then is to not only go against the Word of God ("Thou shalt not add nor subtract from this law I give unto you this day."), but it is to bring yourself into the very dangerous place where you are susceptible to the curse of God. And, of course, what happens when you introduce something as true is you open up a spiritual free-for-all, unintentionally perhaps.

The religious world today has initiated that free-for-all as serious as any error in that movement is the error of claiming revelation from God. It is reckless; it is indiscriminate. 

Musar means the books of Ethics of the Middle Ages which focus on character development and fear of God.
The aspect of Musar that is the most important is the lack of "Shtick."
I mean to say, there is the basic message of what the Torah says to do--which is contained in the written and oral law--the Tenach and two Talmuds.
But the Middle Ages were unique in decoding that message.
And after the middle ages an onerous amount of garbage got mixed in to what is supposedly authentic Torah.
[Thus I avoid all religious groups because they teach pseudo Torah. The only kind of religious place I would be willing to walk into would be a Litvak Yeshiva. (These places are roughly based on the path of Gra and Reb Israel Salanter.)]

[The basic approach is that what ever the Torah says that is what we believe. There is no emphasis on doctrine but rather learning and keeping Torah, and it is God centered, not man centered. This is what makes Litvak Judaism unique-there is not idolatry of human beings, but rather worship of God.]

[The truth be told the basic set of Mediaeval Musar books does the best job of giving over the essence of Torah, that is the Obligations of the Heart, Gates of Repentance, אורחות צדיקים ,ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם]


[I am not uniformly against Musar based on mystics. Mystics like the Ari and Avraham Abulafia I have a lot of respect for. It is just after the events of 1648 A.D. that the Sitra Achra {Dark Side} got mixed up with almost all religious Judaism. So books written after that period tend to lead people down the road to hell.] 


The idea of getting which books form a legitimate part of Torah is important, and excluding the books that pretend to be part of this tradition but in fact are promoting an agenda is important. The word אפיקורוסות heresy is a harsh word but useful. Every group has defining beliefs.  If it would not then it would not be a group. As distasteful as the word can be, it is  normal and inevitable in the process of marking boundaries, drawing lines of exclusion, and defining group identity. The term marks the most important boundaries of a group, beyond which a group understands its own identity to be profoundly harmed or compromised. It is a key flag in trying to determine how a group perceives its fundamental essence. All groups, religious or not, have boundaries. Without boundaries of some kind it would be impossible to have a sense of group identity. Granted, religious boundaries often make claims to truth, but these are hardly more exceptional than claims made by ethnic groups or political parties. Religions, when speaking of heresy, are simply doing what groups do generally. 

Black and white sex relations

The ultimate and irreversible repudiation of one’s identity is to have children with someone of another race. This is a particularly stinging repudiation when done by a woman, and it is especially true in the context of the state-engineered genocidal assault on white peole, from aggressive desegregation in the United States to the massive importing of immigrants into European homelands. Fifty years ago in homogeneous places, a White woman who crossed racial lines may have been benevolently dismissed as a rare curiosity. Today, she is an unwitting tool in a global war on our people.

South Africa is a great example of what happens when blacks are in charge. No one is safe.

The option of a girl friend is much better than marriage.
See Chronicles I  2:46 on the girl friends that Caleb the friend of Yoshua Ben Nun had.
To most rishonim this is perfectly allowed, Raavad, Ramban, Rosh etc.
This issue is brought up right in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in Even HaEzer [by RavJoseph Karo] and the commentaries there show that the Rambam is not so far from the Raavad as people think.



On marriage, the  guys I know,  are telling me the same story; don't do it. It just turns to garbage no matter what you do. They'd rather be independent. At best it's a tedious bore. At worst a living hell with financial ruin thrown in for good measure. The problem is that when you're young, you just naturally fall into this mind set where your whole self image is based on how women regard you, and so you spend all your money and energy trying to make yourself acceptable to them. Then later in life the shine wears off and you finally realize that you've wasted yourself on a bunch of garbage.


I couldn't even begin to list all of the  folks I know from work or through my family with kids they either don't get along with, are disappointed in, or are so distant as to not even be a factor in each other's lives.


Marriage is a sham for men. There is no benefit. If you are about to get married, think it over. Don't let your sexual desire do your thinking for you. Don't let your  "I'm in love" euphoria put you on auto-pilot. You will wake up in a hell of a hangover staring at this woman who will control your life.

A few years ago  I started talking to all the  guys I knew...and they all said the same thing; "don't do it, it's hell. Even when it's not bad, it's hell." You end up being closely tied to an old woman. Think about that. I can go to Europe or the south seas tomorrow. If I was married I wouldn't have the money and I'd have to ask HER permission. Don't get married unless you are absolutely, religiously in love with her. Like you'd carry her sick aged body to the toilet and wipe her ass and be happy to do it kind of love.

What I'm saying is that human beings are nasty weak treacherous creatures that are for the most part totally untrustworthy. Experience is my basis for this statement, both mine and others who I know or who have written reliable histories. If you can find a woman to be your companion who is not treacherous, a deceitful little actress, a sly whore or a manipulative nag or a shrieking hag, then you are among the lucky few. Congratulations. I hope your luck continues to hold out.

OK, assume that you will end up divorced and won't see your kids and lose half of your assets, how different is that from being married? The religious world makes a show as if they are pro marriage but did everything they could to destroy mine, and to rape my children. Their facade of righteousness is largely a scam to get money.

Most married guys I know are working their asses off to pay bills, rarely to get to spend time with their families, mediocre or no sex life, and have wives that spend as much of their money as absolutely possible.

My problem with marriage isn't a fear of divorce; it is that the whole thing sucks divorce or not.

What security is there for men in marriage?

If I cheat on my wife, she gets half my stuff.

If she cheats on me, she still gets half my stuff.

Why the hell should I get married?

Man, it's easy to get depressed about not being married when we live in a society that constantly feeds us the image of the happy couple. It's one big lie. The happiest person alive is someone who isn't a prisoner dependent on another human being... We only have 80 or so years on this rock to achieve true freedom

Very few marriages last nowadays, and even guys older than me are telling me not to even think about it... It's a grossly overrated source of happiness. And for the 80% that do go through divorce, it will financially ruin you for life. Period. You can take your best 10 earning years from say, 35 to 45 and take all the wealth you would have accumulated and flush it down the toilet. Because it will go to her and her lawyer. If it happens naturally and it's good then great, good luck. But the worst thing is to force it, to make gross exertions and ignore all sorts of red lights going off just to be hooked up and "normal." Get some hobbies. Relax. Hang out. Enjoy. Take life as it comes.

As men, we all know that a woman's primary objective is to marry. After years of experience I've discovered their most commonly used strategy. here it is:

1. Girl pressures guy for marriage.

2. Guy delays.

3. Girl gradually starts destroying guy's self-esteem and eliminating his friends.

4. Guy becomes too weak and too much of a loser to find something better than what he has.

5. Girl starts to limit sex. In effect, she's controlling the only good thing in the guy's life.

6. Guy is in despair. Capitulates to marriage.

Then 5-10 years later the guy is an empty shell of his former self. Girl is a ruthless manipulating machine. Girl divorces loser husband. Girl takes 80% of guy's stuff because the guy is too brain-dead to find a good lawyer. Girl lives happily ever after. Guy becomes bald alcoholic who dies of heart attack at 45 years old.

Marriage turns to garabage no matter what you do. At best, it's a tedious bore - at worst, a living hell with financial ruin thrown in for good measure.
American women put up a "pre-marital  show" to impress you. Make you think you're in love. But once you sign the dotted line of marriage, BAM, they get fat, bitchy, cheat on you, and screw you in divorce court.
American women offer up a  worm sandwich and then get pissed off when men go elsewhere to eat.
If I ever think I want to get married, I'll find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

If not for that previous president, the USA never would have awoken. He showed people the rate of decline  under socialism. That is, people realized it would not stop, but go from worse to worse.

Are men and women really of light and good will and love?

Are men and women really  of light and good will and love?

This does not seem to be so according to the Torah. The Torah states that God wanted to destroy all human beings because "their thoughts are only evil all day." [מחשבות לבו רק רע כל היום] Then he brought the flood. And that did not change anything. So then He decided not to destroy mankind because "their thoughts are only evil,"  so why bother?  What' the use anyway? Why take the trouble? Let them tear each other to pieces. Who could care less?
Rousseau disagrees with this and John Locke also.

 Rousseau paints a picture of someone sitting by the rill of a stream,  away from the corrupt sophistication of
the cities, listening to the whistling of the wind in the reeds and to
the peaceful grazing of cows, and therefore able to get himself into
a state of moral tranquility. This picture is pure fantasy. It is not valid. 

Nature is a world in which every animal rips every other animal to pieces. I would go to the mikveh in a river frozen in the winter and almost every day I saw the remains of birds that had sat down to rest in the cold with no heat or food, and some other animal sneaked  up on them and torn them to pieces.  
The Jewish religious world likes to capitalize on this view of Russeou, painting themselves as people of light and good will, the protector from the forces of evil, the secular Jews and the gentiles.
 Nature is a world in which there is nothing but bloodshed; fearful struggle goes on between various races of animals, even between those of plants. In fact, nature is one enormous slaughterhouse.
A power of violence is permeates everything. Each species  of animal  devours the others. Over all these numerous races of animals man is placed, and his destructive hand spares nothing that lives. He kills to obtain food and he kills to clothe himself. He kills to adorn himself, he kills in order to attack, and he kills in order to defend himself. He kills to instruct himself and he kills to amuse himself. He kills for fun and he kills in anger. He kills to kill. 
 The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar, upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.
The earth calls for blood. The whole of the world is filled with
slaughter and the sounds of slaughter. Dark and irrational
forces move men, and  to treat them as if they were creatures
of light, to treat them as if they were rational or benevolent, is
simply an empirical error. Anyone who does so  leads men to their doom.  Anyone who pretends to be a being of light and good will is most certainly leading men to their doom. 

So what is my solution? People that see religious communities as the answer have never lived under the rule of religiosity and pseudo righteousness. Even in religious groups in Israel, things are better because of the secular government which limits the tyranny the religious want, but can not have.

(1) I was looking at the Old Testament and I had just a few random thoughts that I just wanted to jot down.

Caleb the friend of Joshua, the disciple of Moses had more children from his concubines [girl friend] than he had from his wives. His family tree is spelled out in Chronicles I 2:46 (chapter 2 verse 46) and later on the chapter 4 of that same book. The Gra pointed out that this seems to disprove the idea that only a king can have  a concubine. 
(That is to say: The Gra used this fact as a proof against the Rambam and in support of the Raavad and the Ramban and most other rishonim.)


The fascinating thing here is that Caleb seems to be one of the only persons in the Old Testament that never a word of reproach is uttered against by God. He is declared "וימלא אחרי השם" "He went totally after God." Everyone else seems to get some words of critique.
(2) The snake when he wanted to get Eve to eat from the Fruit of the Tree said a true statement. "You will  be like God knowing the difference between good and evil." Later when God threw them out of the Garden of Eden in fact it says He said to his angels "See tat man has become like us knowing the difference between good an evil."

He also said another half true statement.לא מות תמותון You will not die. As God had said on the day that they eat from the fruit they would die. Well again the snake won the debate. They did not die on that day. [But they did die eventually Adam 930 years later.]

Hegel also noticed that the snake at least in his statement, "You will be like God" did not lie. [The Talmud says any lie that does not have some truth mixed with it can not stand.]


(3) I also wanted to mention that it is not clear to me right now if the Rambam [טעון ונטען פרק ו' הלכה ג] hold by the idea of the Ketzot HaChoshen that I mentioned in my previous essays. I still need to do some thinking about that.

(4) Reb Shmuel Berenbaum noted that the same complain about mankind that was used to destroy mankind by the flood was the exact same argument used to save mankind. First it was "I will destroy mankind because his thoughts are only evil all day." Then it was "I will never destroy mankind again because his thoughts are  evil (and therefore what would be the point)?"

(5) Who are the "sons of God" (in Genesis) that came on the daughters of men and gave birth to the great heroes of old? 

The truth is there is lot more to go into here about the הרמב''ם concerning מנה לי בידך להד''ם באו שני עדים שלווה ופרע ואמר לוויתי ופרעתי that the הרמב''ם seems to need a lot of factors to get to his law that he pays because הוחזק כפרן not because he admitted he owed the money. One factor in fact seem to be that his admission came before there was גמר דין

_____________________________________________
האמת היא שיש הרבה יותר להיכנס כאן על הרמב''ם לגבי מנה לי בידך להד''ם באו שני עדים שלווה ופרע ואמר לוויתי ופרעתי כי הרמב''ם נראה צריך הרבה גורמים בדרך ליעדו היינו החוק כי הוא משלם כי הוחזק כפרן לא בגלל שהוא הודה שהוא חייב את הכסף. גורם אחד למעשה נראה כי הודאתו באה לפני שהיה גמר דין.



The in question here is One person comes to court and says to the other you owe me a hundred dollars. The other says "I never borrowed." Two witnesses come and say he borrowed and paid back. He says true I borrowed and paid back. He has to pay because when one  says I never borrowed that is as if he said I never paid back and the other person requires no oath because the borrower here is already considered a liar. The Raavad says "No need for that"--meaning since he already admitted it we do not need the Rambam's reason.


What I mean here is in reference to my previous essay. The idea is to get to the Rambam's law about the לווה paying in that case requires these conditions לא דקדק, מיגו לפני גמר דין and לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי and only then can the Rambam get to his law that the borrower pays because הוחזק כפרן. otherwise the Raavad would be prefect correct that as he said it so simply "No need for that".

I have been considering a question I heard from my learning partner David Bronson on Bava Metzia chapter 8, Though without a Gemara I might have forgotten some details.The Gemara I think says something like this: Someone went into a field and planted trees. The owner came before Rav. Rav said ''go pay him.'' The owner said, "I do not want to." Rav said ''still you must pay him and ידו על התחתונה'' [He gets the least possible price for his work and for the trees]. The owner said, "I still do not want to." That is the owner was planning on uprooting the trees.
Rav said nothing. The next day Rav was out walking and saw him making a fence around the area with the tree on it. Rav said you have revealed your real thought, that you in fact want the trees and so pay him וידו על העליונה [the higher price for work and trees (See Rashi and the Baal HaMaor what this phrase means).]
What David asked was ''what would have happened if the owner had paid the amount Rav had suggested at first, and then the next day he had come out and saw the man building a fence? Presumably nothing at all. Rav would have assumed he had changed his mind about the trees. So now also, let's just assume he changed his mind and have him pay the lesser amount.'' [See the Ramban  that if in fact he does not want the trees at all and gets rid of them, then he does not pay for anything.] 

What I have been considering here is the idea of גמר דין [the fact that a judgement has been rendered.] At the time of learning with David I had suggested this, but he did not seem thrilled with this answer.
. One answer is דיין שטעה בדבר משנה שחוזר הדין --that is there are cases when a faulty judgment by a judge is reversed  and there are other times when a faulty judgment is not reversed but the judge pays out of his own pocket for the mistake. [So there is something like גמר דין a final judgment that is not reversed even when the was a mistake,and sometimes it is reversed] The other answer is the Ketzot HaChoshen [a famous yeshivish sefer]about this very idea of גמר דין In this case: A person denies and loan and then one witness comes and says he borrowed and then the borrower says "True I borrowed, but paid back". 
The discussion there I would rather not go into this minute but in short the קצות החושן Ketzot Hachoshen says that one can change hi plea from innocent to innocent [מפטור לפטור] as long as he has not already been found guilty. What is important here is that Rav Shach said the Rambam has to agree with the Ketzot and that that fact can I think explain why there would be a difference between a final judgement and before a final judgment.

In short, the basic idea comes from the fact that the Rambam ignores Bar Kapara in Bava Batra page 37. Over there Rava said a person that makes a מחאה (objection on that fact that someone else is occupying his field) has to make this objection every three years. Bar Kapara said "and the objection has to be for the same reason," and the Rambam ignores Bar Kapara. The Rosh over there said the in the first three years he can change his plea because of the law that a person can change his plea from פטור לפטור from one kind of innocence to another kind, but if in the first three years he said the fellow is on his field from גזל [robbery] and in the second three he said משכון [guarantee for a loan] then he is admitting his first plea was invalid and thus the fellow was on the field for three year with no objection from anyone and thus he is presumed to be the owner.
The Rambam ignores this whole thing. Rav Shach says therefore we see the Rambam is just going with the idea that a person can change his plea if it is before a final judgment.  That is even in the second three years, he can still change his plea since the person on the field has not yet acquired it by a חזקה presumption.
Even though the cases are different still we can see that after a decision has been rendered certain kinds of pleas are not considered. In our case in Bava Metzia it is very possible that if Rav's judgement had been accepted then the next day he ha seen the owner building a fence that that would have made no difference after the final judgment had been accepted. 
Or according to my first suggestion it is possible that Rav would have seen his mistake and reversed the judgement.____________________________

This is as short as I can make this. The truth is there is lot more to go into here about the Rambam concerning מנה לי בידך להד''ם באו שני עדים שלווה ופרע ואמר לוויתי ופרעתי that the Rambam seems to need a whole bunch of factors to get to his law that he pays because הוחזק כפרן not because he admitted he owed the money. One factor in fact seem to be that his admission came before there was גמר דין


________________________________________________________________________I have been considering a question I heard from my learning partner on בבא מציעא פרק שמיני. The גמרא says something like this: Someone went into a field and planted trees. The owner came before Rav. Rav said go pay him. and ידו על התחתונה [He gets the least possible price for his work and for the trees.] The owner said, "I do not want the trees." Rav said still you must pay him and ידו על התחתונה. He gets the least possible price for his work and for the trees. The owner said, "I still do not want the trees at all." That is the owner was planning on uprooting the trees.
רב said nothing. The next day רב was out walking and saw him making a fence around the area with the tree on it. רב said you have revealed your real thought, that you in fact want the trees and so pay him וידו על העליונה, the higher price for work and trees. See רש''י and the בעל המאור what this phrase means.
What David asked was what would have happened if the owner had paid the amount רב had suggested at first and then the next day he had come out and saw the man building a fence? Presumably nothing at all. רב would have assumed he had change his mind about the trees. So now also let's just assume he changed his mind and have him pay the lesser amount. See the רמב''ן that if in fact he does not want the trees at all, and gets rid of them, then he does not pay for anything.

What I have been considering here is the idea of גמר דין, the fact that a judgement has been rendered. 


But now I want to think about this from two angles. One is דיין שטעה בדבר משנה שחוזר הדין --that is there are cases when a faulty judgment by a judge is reversed  and there are other times when a faulty judgment is not reversed but the judge pays out of his own pocket for the mistake. So there is something like גמר דין a final judgment that is not reversed even when the was a mistake. The other thing is the קצות החושן about this very idea of גמר דין In this case: A person denies and loan and then one witness comes and says he borrowed and then the borrower says "True I borrowed, but I paid back". 
The discussion there I would rather not go into this minute but in short the קצות החושן  says that one can change his טענה from מפטור לפטור as long as he has not already been found חייב. What is important here is that רב שך said the הרמב''ם has to agree with the קצות and that that fact can I think explain why there would be a difference between a final judgement and before a final judgment.

In short, the basic idea comes from the fact that the הרמב''ם ignores בר קפרא in בבא בתרא page ל''ז. Over there רבא said a person that makes a מחאה , objection on that fact that someone else is occupying his field, has to make this objection every three years. בר קפרא said "and the objection has to be for the same reason," and the הרמב''ם ignores בר קפרא. The רא''ש over there said the in the first three years he can change his plea because of the law that a person can change his plea from פטור לפטור from one kind of innocence to another kind, but if in the first three years he said the fellow is on his field from גזל [robbery] and in the second three he said משכון [guarantee for a loan] then he is admitting his first plea was invalid and thus the fellow was on the field for three year with no objection from anyone and thus his is presumed to be the owner.
The הרמב''ם ignores this whole thing. רב שך says therefore we see the הרמב''ם is just going with the idea that a person can change his plea if it is before a final judgment.  That is, even in the second three years he can still change his plea since the person on the field has not yet acquired it by a חזקה presumption.
Even though the cases are different still we can see that after a decision has been rendered certain kinds of pleas are not considered. In our case in בבא מציעא it is very possible that if the judgement of רב had been accepted, then the next day he had seen the owner building a fence, than that would have made no difference after the final judgment had been accepted. 
Or according to my first suggestion it is possible that רב would have seen his mistake and reversed the judgement. 
 הייתי שוקל שאלה ששמעתי משותף הלמידה שלי על בבא מציעא פרק השמיני. הגמרא אומרת: מישהו הלך לשדה וניטע עציים. הבעלים באו לקמיה דרב. רב אמר ללכת לשלם לו. הבעלים אמרו, "אני לא רוצה."  רב אמר עדיין אתה חייב לשלם  וידו על התחתונה. הוא מקבל את המחיר הפחות עבור עבודתו ועבור העצים. הבעלים אמרו, "אני עדיין לא רוצה בכלל." כלומר הבעלים מתכננים לעקור את העצים. רב לא אמר כלום. למחרת רבא טייל וראה אותו עושה גדר מסביב לאזור עם העצים עליו. רב אמר ברור כי אתה בעצם רוצה העצים וכך לשלם לו וידו על העליונה, המחיר גבוה יותר עבור עבודה ועצים. (ראה רש''י ואת בעל המאור מה זה  הביטוי). מה דוד ביקש היה מה היה קורה אם הבעלים שלמו הסכום שרב הציע בהתחלה, ואז למחרת הוא יצא וראה את האיש בונה גדר? יש להניח שום דבר בכלל. רב היה מניח שהבן אדם שנה את דעתו על העצים. אז עכשיו גם  פשוט אפשר  להניח שהוא שינה את דעתו ויש לו לשלם את הסכום הפחות? עיין רמב''ן שאם למעשה הוא לא רוצה עצים בכלל, אז הוא לא משלם על כלום. מה אני כבר שוקל כאן הוא הרעיון של גמר דין, העובדה שפסק דין הפך לסופי. אבל עכשיו אני רוצה לחשוב על זה משתי זוויות. האחת היא דיין שטעה בדבר משנה שחוזר הדין  וישנם מקרים כאשר שיפוט לקוי על ידי שופט מתהפך ויש פעמים אחרות, כאשר פסק דין פגום אינו מבוטל, אך השופט משלם מהכיס שלו על הטעות. אז יש משהו כמו גמר דין (פסק דין סופי) כי אינו מבוטל גם כאשר הייתה טעות. הדבר השני הוא קצות החושן על הרעיון הזה של דין גמר במקרה זה: אדם מכחיש הלוואה ולאחר מכן עד אחד בא ואמר שהוא לווה ואז הלווה אומר "נכון שלוויתי, אבל שילמתי בחזרה".  בקצרה קצות החושן אומר שאפשר לשנות טענה שלו מפטור לפטור כל עוד הוא לא כבר נמצא חייב. מה שחשוב כאן הוא כי רב שך אמר הרמב"ם מסכים עם הקצות וכי עובדה הזו יכולה לדעתי להסביר מדוע  יהיה הבדל בין פסק דין סופי ולפני פסק דין סופי. בקיצור, הרעיון הבסיסי נובע מהעובדה כי הרמב''ם מתעלם מבר קפרא בבבא בתרא דף ל''ז.  שם רבא אמר אדם שעושה מחאה, התנגדות על העובדה שמישהו אחר שכובש תחומו, יש לעשות את ההתנגדות הזו כל שלוש שנים. בר קפרא אמר "ואת ההתנגדות צריכה להיות מאותה הסיבה," והרמב''ם מתעלם מבר קפרא. הרא''ש שם אמר בשלוש השנים הראשונות הוא יכול לשנות נימוקיו שכן החוק כי אדם יכול לשנות הטיעון שלו מפטור לפטור (מן סוג אחד של  לסוג אחר), אבל אם בשלוש השנים הראשונות אמר  "הוא על המגרש שלי בגזל [שוד]" ובשלושת השנים השניות אמר טענת משכון [ערבות להלוואה] אז הוא מודה שהטיעון הראשון שלו היה לא חוקי ולכן הבן אדם היה על השדה במשך שלוש שנים ללא התנגדות מאף אחד ובכך שלו חזקה כי הוא הבעלים. הרמב''ם מתעלם מעניין בא קפרא. רב שך אומר ולכן אנו רואים שהרמב''ם הולך עם הרעיון שאדם יכול לשנות הטיעון שלו אם הוא לפני פסק דין סופי. כלומר, גם בשלוש השנים השניות הוא עדיין יכול לשנות הטיעון שלו מאז שהאדם על המגרש טרם רכש אותו על ידי חזקה. למרות המקרים שונים עדיין אנו יכולים לראות כי לאחר החלטת הדין כבר ניתנה, סוגים מסוימים של טיעונים לא נחשבים. במקרה שלנו בבא מציעא ייתכן מאוד כי אם פסק הדין של רב היה מקובל, אז למחרת שרא הבעלים עם בניית הגדר, זה לא היה עושה הבדל לאחר פסק הדין הסופי שהתקבל. או לפי ההצעה הראשונה שלי זה אפשרי כי רב היה רואה טעותו ומהפך את פסק הדין.

Music T39

T39 A Major

As I mentioned before with the Rambam we have  a four square system of learning.The Tenach [the Written Law and the prophets], the Oral Law [Talmud and Midrash], Physics and Metaphysics.
[The one best book that I think contains the basic essence of the Oral Law is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. The best of Metaphysics I think is Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and the Guide for the Perplexed, even though the Rambam was referring specifically to Aristotle. ] [If you have finished the Avi Ezri then I recommend the basic books of the disciples of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, Baruch Ber, and Shimon Skopf.]




There are a few ideas I had about Physics which mainly are base on the statement in the Talmud לעולם לגרוס ואחר כך להבין One should just say the words in order and after that understand. But along with that I found a few more ideas like review of the same material forty day in a row helpful. That is to read about a hundred page or so and then the next forty day to review the material forwards and backward. That is let's say you have got up to chapter 10, then to go back over chapter 10, then 9, then 8 etc.
But you must not think too hard about what you learn.  The
source of authority must be dark, impenetrable and uncriticisable. Learning Physics is like learning Torah. The inner essence must be beyond human understanding and only by grace does one come to grasp. 

In relation to what I mentioned about honor of ones parents I wanted to add from Naphtali Troup [חידושי הגרנ''ט] that to listen to one's parents is a Positive command. That it it can not negate a negative with a positive command nor a command that has Karet.
Naphtali Troup is usually considered on the same plane as Reb Chaim Solveitchik and his ideas are commonly cited in Litvak yeshivas.[That is in the חידושי הגרנ''ט which I used to own a copy of. After Rav Shach's Avi Ezri I think it is one of the best books I have read. It has that same quality that you find in Rav Shach of being clear and deep all at the same time. ]

Connection with one's father and mother

Connection with one's father and mother is deeper than most people accept. The main way to see  this is in Isaac Luria's Shar Ruach HoKodesh where he goes  into the idea that one's inner light that comes from one's mother and outer light that come from one's father. 
The outer light provides the protection.
The problem is when one's parents are not so great or perhaps worse.

The Torah never even suggests honor towards religious teachers.
Yet the command to honor one's parents is ignored, while honor towards religious teachers is elevated as a direct command.

Reb Nachman noticed the fact that religious teachers are not trustworthy of relaying to us what the Torah says. He used a harsh kind of terminology to describe them. תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. Torah scholars that are demons. But obviously he had some kind of deep thought about this. He was not just picking out a nice sounding insult. That means at some point he felt that people that make their living by being religious, gain a kind of satanic presence inside of them.

The religious world is messed up. Therefore a person with religious interest ought to be very careful to which group to join or be involved with. Straight honest Torah ought to be the criterion--that is the general approach of the Litvak yeshiva which basically says "We do not have any (שיטות) doctrines. What ever the Torah says, that is our doctrine."


The religious are the most possible corrosive force  for one's own family, life, vocation and the Jewish nation. The main rule is keep them out. Their pretense of keeping Torah is terrifying.


It is not as if the religious do not know what the Ten Commandments mean by Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not  bear false witness, Honor thy father and they mother. Rather they could not care any less what the Torah says. They only care to make the Jewish people into a caste system with them at the top and everyone else enslaved and impoverished.

What is Matzah? Flour and water that have been mixed and cooked in less than 18-24 minutes. I think there is a lot of confusion about this simple issue. I am not sure from where the confusion comes from. The basic idea is simple. And it does not need to be crunchy. One could simply put it in a frying pan and fry it like pancakes. The only thing then would be not to put in much oil. Just enough so it does not stick to the bottom. Also it has to be thick. if the batter one puts into the frying pan pours out then it is not [hamotzie]--bread but rather [mezonot] cake. The thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. After 18 minutes the dough is hametz (leavened bread). ["How far astray we can go (often with practically disastrous consequences, particularly in medicine and agriculture) when we haughtily ignore the proper names of things, disregard the small but distinctive differences among real species, and falsely assume that all things looking basically alike, and coming from the same broad region, must be the "same" animal."] That means on pesach you can have hot oatmeal cereal in the morning. In fact it is preferable to do your own cooking on pesach. The matza they sell in stores I would not touch with a ten foot pole. I should not need proof because this is obvious. However, just to make a point, I want to mention how Hillel would wrap the meat of the Passover offering in matza. How is that possible if it is crunchy? [This might be the place to clear up another misunderstanding in the New Testament about the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, not Talmud. Leaven is not the same thing as bread.] Therefore the main thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. But the frying pan or pot is no problem because once the mixture has been cooked, it can not become hametz--ever. Thus the plate you mix the flour and water in has to be washed in cold water before you you it again. This is very very important--because the remaining dough in the dish is pure chametz after 18 minutes,

What is Matzah? Flour and water that have been mixed and cooked in less than 18-24 minutes. I think there is a lot of confusion about this simple issue. I am not sure from where the confusion comes from. The basic idea is simple. And it does not need to be crunchy. One could simply put it in a frying pan and fry it like pancakes. The only thing then would be not to put in much oil. Just enough so it does not stick to the bottom. Also it has to be thick. If the batter one puts into the frying pan pours out, then it is not [hamotzie]--bread, but rather [mezonot] cake.

The thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. After 18 minutes the dough is hametz (leavened bread).

["How far astray we can go (often with practically disastrous consequences, particularly in medicine and agriculture) when we haughtily ignore the proper names of things, disregard the small but distinctive differences among real species, and falsely assume that all things looking basically alike, and coming from the same broad region, must be the "same" animal."]




That means on Pesach you can have hot oatmeal cereal in the morning. In fact, it is preferable to do your own cooking on Pesach. The matza they sell in stores I would not touch with a ten foot pole.

I should not need proof because this is obvious. However,  just to make a point, I want to mention how Hillel would wrap the meat of the Passover offering in matza. How is that possible if it is crunchy?


[This might be the place to clear up another misunderstanding in the New Testament about the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, not Talmud. Leaven is not the same thing as bread.]

Therefore the main thing to be careful about is the plate you mix the flour and water in. But the frying pan or pot is no problem because once the mixture has been cooked, it can not become hametz--ever.
Thus the plate you mix the flour and water in has to be washed in cold water before you you it again. This is very important--because the remaining dough in the dish is pure chametz after 18 minutes,

Bava Metzia page 110 in Tosphot concerning Migo and page 80 and Rambam laws of טעון ונטען

 תוספות בבא מציעא ק''י
בבא מציעא ד''פ
A person  rented a חמור to carry goods to a certain place and a condition was set, "Do not take such and such a road because there is there a river that will be hard to cross." He took it on the path he was told not to, and the animal died, and he says that he took the wrong path, but the river had dried up and and so it was not his fault. He is not believed because מיגו במקום עדים לא אומרים. So my question here is then what about רבה who says we do say a מיגו when there are witnesses? And furthermore I want to ask when did the witnesses come? Clearly after he came to the court and made his claim. But if so then that seems to be a case when we do listen to a migo when there are witnesses because it is like מפטור לפטור that the ר''י מיגש says the reason we believe him is because of מיגו. That is, we have a case in which the טוען says you own to me a מנה and the נטען says לא היו דברים מעולם. Now if witnesses comes and say לווה ופרע then he is obligated to pay because כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי. But if witnesses have not come and he on his own initiative changes his plea and and לוויתי ופרעתי then he is פטור even if witnesses come and say לווה ופרע. This law is not disputed. But what I think is possible to answer is in the case of לווה ופרע The witnesses support everything he is saying. He said לוויתי ופרעתי and then they come and say לווה ופרע. But in the case of the river they are not supporting what he is saying.

I had a lot more thoughts about this today, but I forgot most of it. Mainly, the idea is in case of a שטר שאינו מקויים and the לווה says לוויתי ופרעתי, and then witnesses come and  are מקיים את השטר, then in fact we do not say מיגו because the witnesses are not supporting what he is saying.

It is possible to suggest that the argument between Rav Yehuda and Ravina  in Bav Metzia 110 depends on this argument between Raba and Abyee in Bava Batra 31  about מיגו במקום עדים
I don't have a Bava Metzia, but if anyone out there does have one, I suggest looking into the possibilities of a connection between the two opinions in Tosphot on Page 110 also. From what I recall it is the Ri [Rabbainu Isaac] that says that Ravina disagrees in total with Rav Yehuda in that he says the borrower is believed.[That means the Ri has to have an answer why in the normal case the other guy i on the land for more than three years we do not believe the borrower because of a migo.]


בבא מציעא ק''י. אדם שכר חמור לשאת סחורה למקום מסוים ותנאי נקבע, "אל תיקח  כביש מסוים, מכיוון שיש שם נהר, יהיה קשה לעבור." הוא לקח את הדרך  האמורה שלא לקחת, ובעל החי מת, והוא אומר שהוא לקח את הנתיב הלא הנכון, אבל הנהר התייבש ולכן לא היה באשמתו. הוא לא נאמן כי מיגו במקום עדים לא אומרים. אז השאלה שלי כאן היא אז מה לגבי רבה שאומר שאנחנו אומרים מיגו כשיש עדים (בבא בתרא לא)? ויתר על כן אני רוצה לשאול, מתי העדים הגיעו? ברור אחרי שהוא הגיע לבית המשפט וטען את טענתו. אבל אם כך אז נראה שזה מקרה שאנחנו צריכים להקשיב למיגו כאשר ישנם עדים, כי זה כמו מפטור לפטור כי הר''י מיגש אומר הסיבה שאנחנו מאמינים לו הוא בגלל מיגו. כלומר, יש לנו מקרה שבו טוען אומר שאתה חייב לי מנה, ואת הנטען אומר לא היו דברים מעולם. עכשיו אם העדים מגיעים ואומרים לווה ופרע, אז הוא מחויב לשלם כי כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי. אבל אם עדים לא באו והוא ביוזמתו משנה את הטיעון שלו  ללווה ופרע, אז הוא פטור אפילו אם עדים באים אחר כך ואומרים לווה ופרע. אבל מה שאני חושב שאפשר לענות הוא שבמקרה של לווה ופרע  העדים תומכים  בכל מה שהוא אומר. לדבריו לווה ופרע, ואז הם באים ואומרים לווה ופרע. אבל במקרה של הנהר הם אינם תומכים מה הוא מדבר. וגם יש להעיר שבמקרה של שטר שאינו מקוים והלווה אומר לווה ופרע, ואז עדים באים והם מקיימים את השטר, אז למעשה אנחנו לא אומרים מיגו כי העדים אינם תומכים מה הוא מדבר.




) בבא מציעא דף ק''י.  אני מחויב לעשות הקדמה קצרה. משכנתא דסורא הוא סוג של ערבות להלוואה שנעשה בבבל בעיר הנקראת סורא. בסורא היה מנהג לעשות הלוואה, ובתור משכון המַלְוֶה יקבל שדה לעבוד עליו ולאכול את פירותיו למספר שנים, ובסופו של אותו זמן השדה יחזור לבעלים (ללווה) ללא כל התחייבות נוספת על הלווה. זה שונה מאשר נכייתא שהוא הפחתה של ההלוואה. במקרה של נכייתא השדה חוזר אבל חלק של ההלוואה עדיין נשאר. נניח שיש לנו מַלְוֶה ולווה באחד מהמקרים לעיל והמַלְוֶה אומר ההסכם היה במשך חמש שנים והלווה אומר שלוש שנים. המסמך אבד. ומַלְוֶה כבר היה שם שלוש שנים. רב יהודה אמר המַלְוֶה הוא נאמן כי אחרי שלוש שנים הוא היה יכול לומר "לקוחה היא בידי"  היינו "קניתי את השטח". להיות שהיה שם שלוש שנים הוא יהיה נאמן, אלא אם כן ראיות בניגוד מיוצרות. לדברי רבינו יצחק (הר''י) בתוספות רבינא לא מסכים בכלל עם רב יהודה ואומר הלווה נאמן. הדרך שתוספות מבין את זה היא שרבינא חולק כל הדרך. כלומר גם אם המַלְוֶה אמר שהוא קנה אותו עדיין הלווה נאמן. תוספות שואל על ר''י ממקרה בבבא בתרא כ''ח ע''א, במקרה שיש שדה שאדם אחד היה שם לשלוש שנים או יותר והוא אומר שהוא קנה אותו, והבעל דין אומר שזה נגנב. אנו מאמינים מי שהיה שם שלוש שנים, כי אנחנו אומרים שאם זה נכון שנגנב הבעלים האמיתיים היו אומרים משהו בינתיים ולא היו מחכים שלוש שנים. השאלה מזה להר''י היא זו: אם הר''י נכון, אז במקרה בבבא בתרא שאחד אומר שזה נגנב הוא צריך להיות נאמן כי הוא יכול לומר שזה היה ערובה להלוואה. יש לו מיגו. מאז שהוא היה יכול לומר שזה היה ערובה ולהאמין, ולכן אנחנו צריכים להאמין לו גם כשהוא לא אומר את זה, אבל אומר טיעון חלש. תוספות עונה זה מיגו במקום עדים. (לפי אביי בבא בתרא דף ל'א לא אומרים מיגו במקום עדים, ולרבה כן אומרים את זה.) [היינו המקרה הוא כאשר יש עדים נגדו, ומיגו במקום עדים לא אמרינן.] יש שאלה. בבבא מציעא דף פ' יש לנו מקרה של "מיגו במקום עדים לא אמרינן" שנראה שונה ממקרה זה.  יש  שתי דרכים. אחת עם נהר שצריך להיות חצוי. ואחרת בלי נהר, ואדם שכר חמור לשאת אותו. ואמרו לו לא לקחת את זה על הכביש עם הנהר. הוא לקח את זה ככה והחמור מת. הוא אומר כשהוא היה שם, לא היה שם נהר כיוון שהתייבש. אנחנו לא מאמינים לו, כי אנחנו לא הולכים עם "הוא יכול היה לומר" במקרה שבו יש עדים (לדעת אביי). אז השאלה שלי היא, שעל דף פ' אנחנו לא אומרים ", הוא יכול היה לומר" כי יש עדים נגד המיגו. זה שאנחנו לא יודעים על הנהר, אבל אנחנו יודעים שהוא לקח את  הכביש הלא נכון. זה נראה שונה מהמקרה שלנו בבא בתרא ובבא מציעא דף ק''י בתוספות שבו אין עדים נגד המיגו. אלא שהעדים נגד הטיעון עצמו. אנן סהדי שאם זה נגנב הוא היה אומר כך. אני רוצה להציע שזאת הקושיה היא הסיבה שחלק השני של תוספות  אומר שרבינא אינו חולק על רב יהודה ושכן מאמינים למַלְוֶה. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את הקושיה הזאת. שם בדף פ''א הר''י היה מפרש את הענין של לא אומרים מה לו לשקר במקום עדים שפירושו הוא שהעדים הם כנגד הטיעון שלו ישיר, והם אומרים שהנהר לא התיבש.(ראיתי הפירוש הזה בפירוש הנימוקי יוסף.)
There are tons of important points here that need study. But at least two points need to be mentioned. One is the Ketzot HaChoshen's approach to explain why in case one changes his plea from "I never borrowed" to "I borrowed and paid back" is OK even if witnesses come later. The reason he gives is it is before  a final decision of the court. Rav Shach bring a proof that the Rambam has to agree with this approach along with the Ri Migah' answer. But in any case this helps understand Bava Metzia page 101 the case where Rav told the fellow whose land had been planted on "Go pay the lesser amount."  and the next day when he saw him building a fence  said Pay the greater amount.--thi goes along with what I already wrote there that there it was before the final decsion since the fellow had not accepted what Rav had said.

Te other point is about an oath that is not for proof but for the sake that the person will admit in case he is saying something not true. This also is important and comes up in Bava Metzia page 97b, and 100b.

Reb Nachman however was a great tzadik and had some amazing insights. So, in spite of some people making some mistakes, it is still very worthwhile to listen to his great lessons. For example, what he suggested about constant private prayer with God, and his way of learning quickly. And his advice about length of days which come from fear of God, which I understand to refer to learning Musar.
Even when people make mistakes, still the simple belief in a true tzadik has great value in itself. 

 The Evil One never comes and tries to seduce a person by saying, "Come and do a sin".

Rather the Devil comes and asks a person, "Come and do a mitzvah."
[See the Gra at the beginning of Proverbs on the verse "זבחי שלמים עלי"]

The idea is that often  a person tries to convince himself that something he is doing is a mitzvah, when in fact he knows deep inside that it is no such thing.
.
 But this never happens with learning Torah.  The Devil never comes and tells a person, "Come and learn Torah."[The main approach of Navardok, Joseph Yozel a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter was Trust and Torah, i.e. to learn Torah and trust God would take care of everything else.]

It was a well known critique on the group the Gra out into excommunicattion until it became a saying: "Anything but Torah." "Abi nisht Torah." I actually heard people use this expression in Israel when they saw some people doing some kind of "shtick" (games).


What I suggest is two hours a day of Torah for everyone. One hour of in depth learning, and one hour of fast learning. If you have no idea of what Torah is about in the first place, the best thing is just to plow through the whole Old Testament in English and Hebrew and the Mishna  of Yehuda HaNasi.
[When I did the Mishna I used the Rav from Bartenura and that might be the best idea, but also I found the commentary of the Rambam to be short and sweet and I could make more progress that way. I should mention the Tisferet Israel is great but time consuming.] 


The main principle to keep in mind when coming to learn Torah is to avoid cults at all cost. Many groups will present themselves as teaching Torah, but it is only a facade to get you involved in their cult worship of their leader. Events similar to this are repeated ad nauseam in the history of 
Jewish cults"-a charismatic (in the generic sense) leader, claiming a special calling, and extraordinary powers, will, little by little, gain control over people’s hearts, minds, and (significantly) their property and family.

Better to join Hari Krishna's who do not lie about what they are doing. Or the Buddhists for that matter.

[The best way to get a good idea of what Torah is about is to take one Tosphot and to work on it until it becomes clear. By doing this you will have a good idea of what is going on in many other places in the Torah.]


What you ought to notice is that people that you encounter in a movement that have no taste, no trace of good character, and no Torah pretend to be tzadikim in order to get your money. And they use a good sounding motto to make what they are doing sound kosher. 

Breslov as a group is based on Reb Nathan's understanding of Reb Nachman. It tends to have great insanity problems. All the groups under the excommunication of the Gra tend to have a problem with demonic possession for some reason I have not understood. But obviously the Gra saw something that everyone else has missed. 


I have written about this before in some essays, most of which I deleted because I did not want people to think I was critical of Reb Nachman. Reb Nachman was a very great tzadik with a tremendous vision. Reb Natan however made a cult out of him, and wrote innumerable mistakes. For example: there are times he attacks the Rambam for things the Rambam never said. He attacks the ancient Greek philosophers for questions they asked, and then proceeds to use their answers!
A general observation is that Breslov is sex craved and mainly consists of lunatics which seems to indicate some kind of problem that is not readily obvious or observable. All the young breslovers come to Uman for sex while claiming it is for the mitzvah of being by Reb Nachman on Rosh Hashanah. It is an amazing scam. And the sad part is that these types of scams are part and parcel of it. Thus as a rule, I think the best thing is to follow the advice of the Gra. When he put his signature of the document of excommunication that was not the same thing as a שמתא (legal form of rebuke) but rather a חרם (a halachic category of excommunication) which is much more severe. And it applies to the entire world of of the religious today. Maybe in his days it was limited, but today the poison has spread through the entire religious world except for the few Authentic Litvak yeshivas (Ponovitch, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Mir in NY.)
[The general tendency of the cult that the Gra put into "Cherem" (excommunication) seems to be to take people away from sanity.]
Still research into the cherem will show that it did not apply to Reb Nachman. I would rather not dwell on this here but the books about the Cherem along with the original documents are available.

And I never saw or heard of any great rosh yeshiva or authentic Torah scholar that had a problem with Reb Nachman. It was always understood that Breslov is a problem, not Reb Nachman.
My own feeling about Reb Nachman is that he dared greatly. His vision of seeing the whole Torah along with the Ari Isaac Luria is as an organic whole and to show how it applies today is inspiring.
But is the exact opposite of Reb Nachman. What ever he said to do they do the opposite. Breslov uses Reb Nachman to trap and bait people's minds but in terms of conduct has nothing to do with Reb Nachman.

The problem is not Reb Nachman but the whole sick , insane religious world that makes a show of rituals to hide their uncleanliness in spirit and body.  Especially the so called teachers of Torah who are in general agents of the Satan. 

t38 F major edited  t38 in midi format

pseudo yeshivas.[The terrible sin of the religious is they make tremendous effort to show they are your friends when they need your money, but when in positions of power they do as much damage as possible to you]

Learning Torah is important but it is something that can not be relegated  to others. The trouble is that the religious world spends most of its time and efforts to try to get money out of Secular Jews because supposedly they are "learning Torah." Most of the time this is impossible to check up on because pseudo yeshivas are generally in Israel, but they do all their collecting in the USA.
In doing this, they do not often mention their own anti-Israel agenda and anti-Secular Jews agenda. They make a song and dance about  how, "We are all brothers." But when a secular Jew needs help, they always act in the most brotherly fashion possible. [That is the terrible sin of the religious is they make tremendous effort to show they are your friends when they need your money, but when in positions of power they do as much damage as possible to you]
The whole business is a terrible scam and all under the pretense of learning Torah. What a joke.
In doing this they blacken the name and reputation of Torah. For after all, the only reason people learn Torah is to learn how to be a "mensch." When they religious act in such disgusting ways, this reflects on the holy Torah.

The best advice is to learn Torah at home on your own, and forget about the pseudo institutions. 

[That is unless the institutions are legit, like Ponovitch, or the three NY yeshivas, Chaim Berlin Mir, Torah VeDaat]. In any case, any institution that is anti Israel, you can cross off your list of places to donate to. If they are against service in the IDF, all the more so. But also anything under the Cherem [excommunication] of the Gra also should be off the list.  And the main thing is, "No Compromise." 


I should mention my own approach to Torah is more or less based on my parents and the Rambam, which can be summed up in one word "balance." That is to try to have a balanced day, learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,  Avi Ezri, Musar, Math, Music, Exercise, Survival Skills. 


We can go far astray often with practically disastrous consequences, (particularly in medicine and agriculture) when we haughtily ignore taxonomy (calling things by their right name), disregard the small but distinctive differences among real species and things, and falsely assume that all  looking basically alike, and coming from the same broad region, must be the "same" animal.

Rambam laws of pleas in court ch 6 law 3 and ch 7 law 8

I wanted to bring here a debate between different Rishonim and Achronim concerning two laws in the Rambam.

[Just for background I should mention the Keztos HaChohen and the Netivot belong to the category of achronim before Reb Chaim Soloveitchik--the class of achronim that I used to learn all the time.
That is my own education was more or less founded on Achronim starting from the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua and onward down the line.] (Normal yeshiva education involves this class but also goes on to include Reb Chaim, and Rav Shach.)



I already mentioned the Rambam in in this case: two people come to court. One says you owe me 100. The other says "I never borrowed " Two witnesses comes and say person B borrowed and paid back the sum. The first collects because anyone who says ''I never  borrowed'' implies he never paid back
כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי
The issue I wanted to bring out is if person B changed his mind before the two witnesses came, and he says: "I borrowed and paid".--And then the set of witnesses comes.
That is called מפטור לפטור in which case there is no doubt that he does not pay the 100. and the Ri Migash [the teacher of the Rambam and the father of the Rambam] said the reason is מיגו [he could have stuck with the original claim]. The Ketzot HaChoshen [on Chohen Mishpat] asks on the Ri Migash from a woman come to court and says, "I was married and now divorced." Then two witnesses say she was married. We do not believe her that she is divorced,-- until there is proof. He also asks from a document of  a loan that was not ratified by a court, and then the borrower says, "I borrowed but paid back," and the two witnesses come and say, "the document is valid."
In both these later cases the coming of the witnesses take away the strength of the statements of woman and the borrower, so why not in the first case also?


You can see right away what is bothering me. In our original case in the Rambam, the witnesses actually support everything  the borrower is saying, which they are not doing in the later cases. And this might be what Rav Shach is asking on the Ketzot but I have not had time to take  a close look at what he writes there.

I looked a second time and in short I think  Rav Shach is saying something like this:
We know the reason of the Ri Migash is not enough because of the questions of the Ketzot HaChoshen. That is clear. But what Rav Shach I think wants to do is to join the idea of the Netivot Hamishpat of ''לא דק'' the borrower was "not precise" along with the idea that   from לא היו דברים מעולם to לוויתי ופרעתי  is only a implication of  לא פרעתי but not a direct confession--because if it as a direct confession then we would not say he was not precise.
Rav Shach also requires the idea of the ketzot hachoshen in order for the answer of the ri migash to work. the answer of the ketzot on why does מפטור לפטור work even after witnesses have come was that there it is before גמר דין. The Ketzos is saying those cases when one can not change his plea from Ptur to ptur is after גמר דין. Rav Shach needs this for the Rambam to work because of a question a student in his yeshiva asked --that even if in our case in Bava Batra  the borrower said "i considred it like my father's" he should be believed because of a מיגו that he could have said "My fathers but it from your fathers."





****************************************************************
I already mentioned the רמב''ם in  this case two people come to court. One says you owe me מנה The other says "I never borrowed " Two witnesses comes and say the נטען  borrowed and paid back the sum. The first collects because anyone who says, ''I never  borrowed'' implies he never paid back
כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי. The issue I wanted to bring out is if הנטען changed his mind before the two witnesses came, and he says: "I borrowed and paid", and then the set of witnesses comes. That is called מפטור לפטור in which case there is no doubt that he does not pay the מנה. and the ר''י מיגש said the reason is מיגו, he could have stuck with the original claim. The קצוות החושן asks on the ר''י מיגש from a woman come to court and says, "I was married and now divorced." Then two witnesses say she was married. We do not believe her that she is divorced,-- until there is proof. He also asks from a document of  a loan that was not ratified by a court, and then the borrower says, "I borrowed but paid back," and the two witnesses come and say, "the document is valid."
In both these later cases the coming of the witnesses take away the strength of the statements of woman and the borrower, so why not in the first case also? You can see right away what is bothering me. In our original case in the רמב''ם, the witnesses actually support everything  the borrower is saying, which they are not doing in the later cases. And this might be what רב שך is asking on the קצוות but I have not had time to take  a close look at what he writes there.


כבר הזכרתי את רמב''ם במקרה של שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט. אחד אומר "אתה חייב לי מנה". השני אומר, "לא לוויתי". שני עדים מגיעים ואומרים "הנטען לווה ושילם את הסכום בחזרה."   הדין הוא מי שאומר, "לא לוויתי מעולם," שהוא לא שילם בחזרה. כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי. בסוגיה הזו רציתי להביא את זה: אם הנטען שינה את דעתו לפני  ששני העדים באו, והוא אומר: "אני לוויתי ושלמתי", ולאחר מכן הסט של עדים מגיע. זה נקרא מפטור לפטור ובמקרה הזה אין ספק כי הנטען  לא  משלם את המנה. הר''י מיגש אמר שהסיבה היא מיגו, הוא יכול היה להחזיק עם הטענה המקורית. קצוות החושן שואל על הר''י מיגש מאישה שבאה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "הייתי נשואה ועכשיו גרושה." ואז שני עדים אומרים שהיא נשואה. אנחנו לא מאמינים לה כי היא גרושה,  עד שלא תהיה הוכחה. הוא גם שואל ממסמך של הלוואה שלא אושר על ידי בית משפט, ולאחר מכן הנטען אומר "לוויתי אבל שלמתי בחזרה," ואת שני העדים באים ואומרים, "המסמך תקף. בשני המקרים האלה ביאת העדים לוקחת את הכוח של טענות של האישה והלווה, אז למה לא במקרה הראשון גם? מה מציק לי? במקרה המקורי שלנו הרמב''ם, העדים למעשה תומכים  את הכל  שהלווה אומר ,מה שהם לא עושים במקרים המאוחרים.

n100 edited [E flat major]

n100 edited [E flat major] [n100 in midi format]   

This was left unfinished and I looked at it and was not sure what to do with it, but I figured the way Bach finished the 3rd Brandenburg was to make a straightforward recapitulation, so I thought maybe that would work here also.
[That is,-- Bach finishes the first movement with the same way he begins it--absolutely no change at all.]

Is it a small world after all?

I should admit, I also absorbed the "It's a small world after all'' mentality until numerous attacks on me  by Muslims made it clear that they do not need any provocation to hate White Westerners. Their desire to murder White people  is either spontaneous, or just a bad habit that they pick up from  from their native environment. Their desire to rape  white girls, and murder Jews and Christians I think for them has a religious motivation based on the Koran (which certainly encourages these bad habits).  And people without religious motivations can not see or understand how intense religious motivations can be.

History brings the ideas or memes to light. It is the incubator which shows what was inside the original egg. It may have been in doubt what Islam was, but history shows its true essence in a way that book learning can never do.

I just can not see the Negro people are any better off now than they were under slavery. Just the opposite. At least under slavery they had the dignity of working for the living. Now they just live off welfare.Even when they go to school they mainly pass the courses because of Affirmative Action.

My feeling is you can not outsmart the Torah. 

t36 D Minor  [t36 in midi format]  t36 nwc

Probably the most important thing I learned in yeshiva was the idea of trust in God. That is that it is possible, and even desirable, and perhaps even necessary to sit and learn Torah and to trust in God that He will provide. In an amazing way this worked for me very well, until the day I decided that it is better to work for a living. When that simple decision was made, almost instantaneously the whole situation disintegrated. 
But my view of this is slightly different than the Madragat HaAdam. He was simply against all secular learning period. I hold however from the Rambam approach which requires learning the Oral and Written  Law, Physics and Metaphysics.  But not for Parnasah [making a living] but for themselves.
[In any case, the Madragat HaAdam, Joseph Horvitz is misunderstood. His idea was all you need to do is to sit and learn and God will take care of the rest and that message is exactly what his disciples did. The idea was not to create a movement nor lots of yeshivas. The enormous amounts of Navardok Yeshivas were simply a result of people acting on this philosophy. ]




When I learned this idea at the Mir in NY, no one was saying that one can use Torah to make money, as the religious world does. That is,--- it was always clear that there is a distinction between using Torah for money [as is done universally in the religious world when they are constantly asking for charity and yet never giving it to others in need] --and trusting in God, which is specifically never to ask anyone for money. 
Besides this, it is no mitzvah try and bankrupt the State of Israel and the religious try to do with their false kollels which are just private country clubs.

Therefore what I suggest is to create your own space at home for learning Torah.  Do not wait for the rest of the world to fix itself--especially since the problems are too complex. That is to have a space in your own home for Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Musar, and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. In fact, it is better not to go to any of the religious institutions for Torah because by and large, they use Torah to make money, not visa versa. Better a little Torah lishma [for its own sake], rather than a lot of Torah for money.
I am suggesting the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, but it is a good idea to get the basic set of books from Gedolei Litva, that is Reb Chaim's חידושי הרמב''ם, and Naphtali Troup חידושי הגרנ''ט.\

What this will do will hopefully change you to be a more moral and more decent human being, more aware of your obligations between yourself and others and yourself and God. That is in short --better at keeping the Ten Commandments and all of the holy Torah.

Yeshiva as an independent institution from the "kahal" was a great idea at the time but it has deteriorated into using Torah to make Money. Therefore the age of the individual learner has begun--the age when it is best not to be connected or go to any institution o learn Torah bu rather to do it on your own at home.
[Even the great institutions like Ponovitch and the three great NY yeshivas Chaim Berlin, Mir, Torah VeDaat are limited to their areas. Unless you are in walking distance there is not much you can do.]

Socialism In Venezuela. 

The religious world is always looking for pseudo enemies

There are lots of bad things out there. But the religious world uses a kind of misdirection approach to make itself seem better and nicer.
It is always looking for pseudo enemies to make people think if they run into the religious group they will be safe.

This however does not apply to all and every religious group. For example I was in two great yeshivas which were seriously involved in the arduous task of learning and keeping Torah  in an authentic way. [Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY].

The entire question is how to tell the authentic from pretense? [History of a group that follows a certain idea or set of ideas can help to discern, because that history is that idea in itself in motion--coming out from potential into actuality.]

But if one has in fact fallen into a  cult, there is no escape. The only thing one can do and should do is to scream at the top of his or her lungs the real truth. ["All who leave idolatry immediately die." כל הפורש בעבודה זרה מיד מת. That is  a famous statement of the sages. One place I think it is is around Sanhedrin 66. Also the events of the spies that Moses sent show that simple repentance is never a possibility. When they tried to enter Israel in spite of not having God's blessing in order to repent when they refuse to come to Israel with God's blessing--that did not succeed.



Because the religious cults are certainly always seeking for more human sacrifices.   But that is not the top of their Agenda. The top of their agenda is to keep people quite after they have been abuses so that the religious can continue doing what they do best, seduce and subvert the Holy Torah.

Plus it is important to keep on learning and keeping Torah on an individual basis in spite of the bad demons that use Torah as a cover up for their true nature.

[The people that could do the documenting would be Na Nach who are already aware of the problems. The question is how to get rid of the kelipot/shells but to retain the nut. ]