the religious world

I  can not look it up, but I recall that the beginning of the book of Isaiah  starts on rather a negative note. It is just the opposite of what you would normally expect from Isaiah. You would think it would start on some positive theme  But instead he sounds like Jeremiah. His point is Jerusalem which ought to be a faithful city had become full of pus. From this we can see a parallel to the world of the religious today. That is the name "Jerusalem" is made up of two words. יראה שלמה. Perfect Fear of God. So when a person joins the religious world and expects to find encouragement to fear God and serve him faith fully instead he finds it is "full of pus" and is "infected from foot to head," as Isaiah puts it.
Thus there is no choise but to avoid the religious world as much as possible and buy oneself a Gemara, a few books of Ethics {Musar}, and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach [which is as deep, but more self explanatory than the חידושי הרמב''ם ] and to learn Torah at home.
The problem is the religious world seems to have some kind of infectious disease that one picks up just by being around them.  
Unless one is in the vicinity of an authentic Litvak yeshiva, then there is nothing to gain by association with the insane religious. The idea that problems with the religious world is infectious can be understood in light of Toxo-plasmosis. This is juts the first of its kind to be discovered, but it is probable there are millions of such parasites that can jump from person to person to infect others with bad thoughts and false idea. This is like the parasite that can make  a male crab believe it is female and then it goes about digging a place in the sand to bury its eggs. One can go a step further and postulate that a social meme has this same characteristic as the ToxoPlasmosis parasite. It face the same challenge-- it can only reproduce in humans and thus faces a challenge how to get inside of humans? (I know this is a stretch-to say the super-organism ha a mind of its own but this seems to be the way Howard Bloom look at it in hi book the Lucifer Principle)






[Though the groups that follow Reb Nachman are in the same boat, still it is refreshing to see that Reb Nachman himself brought attention to this problem as the Na Nach groups points out. The drawback is that as much as one gains from Reb Nahman's good advice, the eventual outcome is to leave off learning Torah.]

T44 C Major  t44 in midi

essence of Torah

I do not have enough spiritual sense to be able to claim the absolute truth. Truth as in TRUTH. But I do have enough of that kind of sense to be able to tell quality when I see it and to be able to discern fraud.So I do want to share some of the valuable ideas I have see around.
One thing is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. More than any other book I have seen that is the one set that contains the essence of Torah in crystallized form. I saw in my parents the path of Torah of balance-- i.e. Torah with Derech Erertz [That is "to be a mensch"decent human being--with good character and being self sufficient].  Their path as more or less the way of the Rambam with his four fold program of learning the Oral Law, the written Law, Physics and Metaphysics. In Reb Nachman I saw a wealth of great ideas --that is: particular pieces of advice, but all a vision of Torah that makes full use of his predecessors to create tapestry or a vast fresco of Torah. That is he weaves together the Tenach and Talmud with the Ari to create an amazing vision of what Torah is suppose to be about. That is not to give any kind of agreement with the group that supposedly go by his teachings. {Visionary would be a good word for Reb Nachman.}

[Among his good ideas are: (1) talking with God in one's own language. That is the real essence of prayer. (2) Avoidance of doctors. (3) Making an importance issue out of the kind of fast learning mentioned in Gemara and later books of Musar.]

Reb Israel Salanter had two disciples Isaac Blazzer, and the Madragat HaAdam. Both have written really amazing Musar books. The Madragat HaAdam is mainly about trust in God with no effort. If only I could come to that! But at least I am happy to be reminded about that. [A second book by Isaac Blazzer came out recently of his writings after he wrote the אור ישראל.]

Something strange is going on.

I seem to have trouble when it comes to learning Torah. It is as if there is some hidden obstacle(s).
The last day of Pesach was when a rosh yeshiva was having the last meal before the end of Pesach and I did not attend. That blew my chance of marrying his daughter. . Then getting back to Israel finding myself thrown out of every yeshiva that I attempted to sit and learn in got me to wonder if it is החרב המתהפכת לשמור דרך עץ החיים the fiery sword that guards the path to the Tree of Life. The truth is the obstacles to Torah for me are from so many directions that tend to wonder what is it all about?

Something strange is going on. So to some degree I found a kind of compromise by going with the opinion of the Rambam who advocates a four fold path of learning Torah (Oral and Written), Physics and Metaphysics. [The Polytechnic Institute of NYU I went to and majored in Physics]
Still something strange is going on. It is almost as if, even when I manage to get my hands on a book of Torah, that it does not take long until I lose it, or something happens in some way that I can not use it. Maybe I just do not have the merit to learn. Something always happens. So to cherish and love every word of Torah that I can manage to learn is my goal. To at least appreciate it from afar like a long lost love, and being aware that it can easily be taken away from me in the blink of an eye.

Maybe it is just some kind of test? But who knows? Or perhaps it is just a simple way of getting me to pay attention to the Rambam about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics along with learning the Oral Law (Two Talmuds) and the Written Law. If that was the idea, I would have to say that it was effective. Eventually I began to see the importance of the Rambam's four fold path.

The simplest way of understanding this is that it is the battle of the memes, units of social information. Every set tries to get a hold of as many people as possible in order to promulgate itself.

Even specific sins do this.

a problem with Islam

I think there is a problem with Islam in itself. What I have thought until now is that it makes a whole lot of difference whom you admire. That is even if their theology would be OK (I am not saying it is), then there would still be the trouble that they emulate a dark and evil person. Christianity seems to have trouble in the area of theology but has the redeeming value of whom they admire and strive to emulate.

Some people prefer to see only bad things Christians have done, and refuse to see any good. This seems to me to be intellectually dishonest. I have to say that it is an eye opener when you find yourself in a fix and not one of your supposed friends wants to help you or even admit he knows you and it always seems to be  a Christian that comes along to offer a helping hand

Berkeley

 Berkeley people are not dumb. I had a learning partner who had a degree in computer science from Berkeley who is light years smarter than me. The problem is that Leftism and Socialism in various shades from strong RED to Pink were simply the accepted academic university norms and still are until today. [I was horrified to see this in NYU.] Philosophers today are not visionaries and tend to be quite superficial thinkers. [With the exception of Kelley Ross.]  I think it was easier in the USSR to see the problems with the system of communism more than in the USA where people could dream about a socialist paradise without having to feel the jackboots on their necks.

Easter.

Rome at the time was not a democracy. The issue I think was that Pontus Pilate was afraid the people would send a message to Rome that he was a bad governor. That kind of report I vaguely recall would get a governor dismissed and I think sometimes executed. Also religious fanatics (as the super religious people I think were) are not representative of all the Jewish people. I have not thought about the relation of the life and death of Jesus to the question of Democracy but it seems to me that a good deal of American Democracy is based on a long history of thinking about Jesus and natural law and freedom from Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Aquinas, John Locke, and the history of the rise and fall of Athens, and the Roman Republic. It is by no means obvious to me that the story of Jesus tells us something against the kind of Republic that the USA is.

Musar movement

Even though the Musar movement in the sense of Reb Israel Salanter is not all that possible--as a mass movement, still it seems to me important  to try to get through the major works of Musar. That is the basic set of books of Ethics from the Rishonim (medival authorities), mainly because of the need to work on one's character. Tikun HaMidot [self correction of bad character traits]. The Musar movement itself seems to have drifted off into religious fanaticism,- in spite of its original idea being to come to good character traits.

The Musar movement has become part of the fanatic religions world which has set itself against the State of Israel as a primary focus. So there is not much in the way of good character one can gain from it today.
Today in terms of gaining good character, it makes more sense to go to Israel and serve in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) and  learn Torah in some Mizrachi [Religious Zionist Yeshiva like Merkaz HaRav], rather than join groups that are have more in common with Mein Kamp rather than true authentic Torah.
[In terms of Torah learning it is hard to say that the super religious have much of an advantage over the Religious Zionist yeshivas. The religious Zionist yeshivas learn pretty much the same material. The difference in learning seems to be evenly distributed. I have met great learners that were part of the Religious Zionist yeshivas.]


One advantage of the Musar movement is that it calls attention to what is really important in Torah--good character מידות טובות and this ironically the very area where the religious fail miserably.

T45 C Major   T45midi T45 nwc

cults inside of the religious (Jewish) world

Based on my extensive  interactions with cults inside of the religious (Jewish) world I have concluded that such organizations  are terrible groups, like the mafia, that merit social censure. Thus scholars who cover up the horrific criminal activities and other unfavorable aspects of such groups are comparable to a tobacco company scientist who asserts that smoking is not really harmful to one's health.
The problem is not just the cults but also the regular Roshei Yeshiva and Torah scholars who take a passive attitude towards  highly destructive groups as long as they parade and display outer `signs of religiosity. 

At least Reb Shmuel Berenbaum [the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir in NY] was adamant not to give any open agreements in writing or otherwise to any religious organizations. His "thing" was to learn and keep Torah.

Reb Shmuel had high confidence in "learning Torah". He considered this practice as being a cure all for every kind of aliment in mind body and spirit. [That is obviously the same approach as the Gra and the Nefesh HaChaim]. [I to some degree agree with this, but I add also Physics and Metaphysics based on the Rambam who puts these two subjects into the category of the Oral Law, as you can see in הלכות תלמוד תורה in the law where he says to divide one' learning into three parts. One is Talmud. And he adds '' העניינים הנקראים פרדס הם בכלל הגמרא. And he already defined פרדס In the first four chapters of Mishne Torah.]
I also add these two subjects because as the Gra said to the degree one lacks knowledge of the seven wisdoms [Trivium and Quadrivium] to that degree he will be lacking in knowledge of the Torah,  and I by experience have come to see the truth of that observation.

[One side benefit of math, I noticed, is that it tends to weed out pseudo intellectuals. That is-- there are people that think they are smart because they learned some Torah. This they assume means they are super geniuses in everything. Just a drop of math tends to put a damper onto such illusions. Math is an amazing filter. The pseudo intellectuals can get by every other filter, but not this one. This is the one thing that really separates the really talented people from the fakers that pretend to be smart because they give each other credentials.    
In fact , come to think of it, why not give every person in kollel a math test? That would take them down a few notches from "We are the elite of  Israel and so everyone should give us money" to "We are the most stupid and incapable in  Israel and can not do anything productive and so please give us money." It does irk me that people that are really stupid can pretend to be geniuses and by that have caused infinite damage to Israel

I have been around the block a few times and so I have seen  groups claiming that some practice or other will bring one ultimate  salvation in this world and then next, and also seen enough counter examples to falsify all their claims. The only thing left standing in my opinion is learning Torah as the Gra held and  heard from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum.
How do you have a counter examples for a claim about salvation? Mainly things that indicate otherwise. For example a claim if you come to such and such a place and do such a such a ritual you will be saved and have your whole life changed for the better and someone comes there and does that after fasting  for forty days and saying the whole psalms forty days in a row and then comes and dies right then and there, I would say we have a good counter example.  
It is the kind of process you us to falsify a philosophical claim. You find a plausible counter example as e.g.empiricism. Or the same way you falsify a theory in physics. You find one counter example.

And this same process works for spiritual claims. 

[The main groups to avoid are those censured by the Gra for being cults. Reb Nachman I should make an exception for since he was a great tzadik and not within the category of the cherem [excommunication.] Still the groups that supposedly follow his path are problematic. It is not worth leaving a legitimate Litvak yeshiva to run after false leaders.]

The obvious thing to do here is to say the רמב''ם does not hold from the idea that a מיגו can take out from a חזקה. and that opinion in תוספות might very well hold that we do not believe him when he says פתח פתוח מצאתי. But if that תוספות does not hold from that, then we are left with the question on the first משנה. Why make a תקנה for a virgin to be married on Wednesday if we do not believe him when he says פ''פ מצאתי.  What could that תוספות ב''מ ק''י answer for this?


הדבר הברור לעשות כאן הוא לומר שהרמב''ם אינו מחזיק מן הרעיון כי מיגו יכול להוציא מן חזקה. וכי לדעת תוספות אפשר להחזיק שאנחנו לא מאמינים לו כשהוא אומר פתח פתוח מצא. אבל אם תוספות אינו מחזיק מזה, אז נותרנו עם השאלה על המשנה הראשונה. למה לעשות תקנה עבור בתולה להינשא ביום רביעי אם אנחנו לא מאמינים לו כשהוא אומר פ''פ מצאתי. מה יכול תוספות ב''מ ק''י לענות תשובה לכך?

It occurred to me  a question in the  רמב''ם. The wife in הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''א -י''ד  is not going מפטור לפטור. She is saying one thing alone, that she was a virgin. That has nothing to do with the subject  מפטור לפטור. It is a simple case of a מיגו. My  question is simple. Let's believe her when she says she was a virgin because she could have said משארסתני נאנסתי.  So why do we not believe her? She has a חזקה, חזקת הגוף שבתולה הייתה and a מיגו. He has two חזקות, חזקת ממון וחזקה אין אדם טורח הסעודה ומפסידה. So one חזקה cancels the other. And we are left with a מיגו against a חזקה, ואין אומרים מיגו להוציא מחזקת ממון. So the only question here is to תוספות in בבא מציעא ק''י ע''א to one מאן דאמר that a מיגו can take out from a חזקה.


 שאלה של רמב''ם. האשה בהלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''א -י''ד  היא אומרת  כי היא הייתה בתולה. זהו מקרה פשוט של מיגו. השאלה שלי היא פשוטה. בואו להאמין לה כשהיא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה כי היא יכלה לומר משארסתני נאנסתי. אז למה אנחנו לא מאמינים לה? יש לה חזקה, חזקת גוף שבתולה הייתה וכן מיגו. יש לו שני חזקות, חזקת ממון וחזקה אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. אז חזקה אחת מבטלת את השניה. ואנחנו נשארים עם מיגו נגד חזקה, ואין אומרים מיגו להוציא מחזקת ממון. אז השאלה היחידה כאן היא תוספות בבבא מציעא ק''י ע''א לדעה אחת כי מיגו יכול להוציא מן החזקה.

The obvious thing to do here is to say the רמב''ם does not hold from the idea that a מיגו can take out from a חזקה. and that opinion in תוספות might very well hold that we do not believe him when he says פתח פתוח מצאתי. But if that תוספות does not hold from that, then we are left with the question on the first משנה. Why make a תקנה for a virgin to be married on Wednesday if we do not believe him when he says פ''פ מצאתי.  What could that תוספות ב''מ ק''י answer for this?

[In short, we have a question on Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 110. What could he answer for the first mishna in Ketubot? It is almost the time for Shabat to Rabbainu Tam so I have to stop.

There are a least a few good reasons to learn Musar

There are a least a few good reasons to learn Musar [books of Ethics from the Middle Ages and early Renaissance]. 
[There are about 6 classical books that come under this title Musar. It is not an open cannon but already fixed.] [חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, מסילת ישרים, ספר היראה מיוחס לרבינו תם, אורחות צדיקים, מעלות המידות]/
One argument is given by one disciple of Israel Salanter, Isaac Blazzer. He brings down from the Rambam that Musar is a cure for all mental spiritual and physical illnesses. 
Reb Nachman brings down that fear of God is beneficial for length of days. [That is--to have long days in which you do not have to waste your time doing meaningless stuff. After all, the best way to spend one's life is to find the objective meaning and purpose that is already inherent in it. Not to put meaning into it. And to find the purpose of your life and to do it, is usually so hard that it takes almost one's entire life to find out what that purpose is.  

The point of learning Musar is not to find out what good character is. It is a tool to try to work on oneself in order to develop good character.

The whole idea of Reb Salanter was to use learning Musar as a kind of service in itself. Not as a way of acquiring information. 

In terms of the importance of good character a being one of the most essential goals of the Torah, there is the Reshash (Shalom Sharabi from Yemen and then from Yerushalaim, the Rambam in the Guide concerning the reasons for the mitzvot, the Chafetz Chaim, and other sources. They are all unanimous in the ultimate importance of good "midot" good character. [This is one good reason to avoid the religious world-- as they parade good character, but in action do the opposite. ] 

The Ari [Isaac Luria]

Some people take a negative view towards the Ari for different reasons. If it is the fact that all the cults put into excommunication by the Gra claim to be going by the Ari then that would make sense. But my feeling is that abusus non tollit usum, abuse does not cancel use.And if you look into the writings of Rav Yaakov Abuchatzaira you will see he always refers to the Ari as "Rabainu" our teacher. Still there is the problem noticed by many that getting into the Ari before having finished Shas a least a few times seem to cause major delusions.

One thing I think is obvious, that when people learn the Ari for the sake of the מדרגות or רוח הקודש [miracles or Divine spirit ] that definitely leads them down the path to the dark side. And then even when it seems they have powers, it is always powers from the dark side.

My own experience with this was doing Gemara for a few years in NY and then during the last year there getting involved with the writings of the Ari and then coming to Israel and getting a blast of the Divine light, and then at some point feeling I was getting ריבוי אור sunburn I was trying to turn off the bulb. That would have been the end of the story, except after that I got the impression that turning off the bulb was not the right thing to do, and also the daughter of Bava Sali indicated to me as much. So to make up for the mistake involved in that, I try to make up for it to some degree by blogging and I hope that somewhere maybe from my words someone will be inspired to  pick up a Gemara or a book of Musar or Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and by that perhaps I too will eventually merit to learn Torah.

[This idea come from a few books of Musar. I saw the idea of זיכוי הרבים bringing  merit to others in  אגרת המוסר, חובות לבבות, ומדרגת האדם at least three sources.]
[Added note. The only book of the Ari I did in NY before I got to Israel was the Eitz Chaim.]]

People and groups are more characterized by books they do not read than by books they do read.

People and groups are more characterized by books they do not read than by books they do read.The books they do read, or at least want to read represent the aspirations of the group. They books they avoid are represent the social memes they try to avoid. 

In the modern which is characterized by  intellectual and spiritual chaos the books one avoids are more essential than what one does read.
How can one tell what to avoid? The essence of any system is never revealed except by time. [The cult that the Gra put into excommunication is a good example of that. However I think Reb Nachman was not included in that Cherem [excommunication] and if you look closely at the language of that document you will see why.]

This is the one and most essential issue of this age. For every age has some major issue. When kings ruled, politics was non existent. But with the Enlightenment the concept of a State began as an entity in and of itself  and group politics began to take on a life of it own. Everyone had to be part of some "system" in order to be anyone at all. Then the age of cults began as an offshoot  of that energy. Now the issue is how to get rid of the cults--i.e. what books to avoid and throw out.
My own path is mainly based on the Rambam which emphasizes  four areas of study, the Oral Law (the two Talmuds), the Written Law (the Five Books of Moses), Physics, Metaphysics (by which the Rambam was referring to Aristotle set of books called the Metaphysics). [The Rambam was definitely  not referring to any mystic type of learning nor any other book besides Aristotle because he said Physics and Metaphysics as the ancient Greeks understood these subjects. Plus he had to be referring to Aristotle alone because there is in fact no such subject Metaphysics. Aristotle did not write down his lectures. That was left to his disciples. After they collected everything that they could about Physical sciences everything else they put into series of book they made up a name for "Everything after Physics"i.e. metaphysics] A Short Version of the Oral Law is the Rambam's own Mishne Torah. [The best way to do this learning is to go as fast as possible. Say the words and go on. By harping on every detail one usually loses the big picture. I saw a printed Mishne Torah with no commentary at all which is a good way to do it. But the second time around I recommend doing with with the כסף משנה ומגיד משנה, and as a separate session the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. The book of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik on the Rambam is also great but I found it hard to understand. Rav Shach's is a lot more self explanatory. Perhaps today if I had another copy I might appropriate Reb Chaim more.] 
But as I said, the main thing is what to avoid. And that is not everything outside of that list. After all we do have the Gra's emphasis on the "seven wisdoms" as the Trivium and Quadrivium were called during the Middle Ages. But most books of the religious world I find highly objectionable, and they seem  to have a hidden agenda to destroy the Jewish family, and build up their cult in its place.
[The 1800's was the age of throwing out monarchs and making mass movements. Even the Musar movement and yeshiva movement were part of this process. Now the age of movements has come and gone. It is time to get back to personal responsibility and to learn Torah.]

[The problems with the yeshiva movement became clear to me when yeshivas began to  throw out sincere people. So many have become obstacles to Torah. The best thing is thus to have in your own home a place to learn Torah. ]

[I should mention that in terms of halacha my feeling is the best thing out there is the Tur Beit Yoseph and the Shulchan Aruch with the Beer Heiteiv. ]

To depend on any yeshiva tor  a place to learn is to invite destruction into one's Torah life. The religious world excels in destroying faith in Torah. It is almost as if they are trying to give the holy Torah a bad name.

T41 D major

T42 F Major

Just to defend myself, let me, mention that the present day calendar has no basis in the Gemara so we have to go by the actual molad, the time when the moon and sun are at the same longitude. Second day of Yom Tov is more complicated. My feeling about it is that the the reason for it is a debate in the gemara. One holds it is  a law derabanan. Rav Asi holds it is a custom [and that is the law]. But it is not a custom dreamt out of thin air. It has a reason. That is perhaps we might forget the actual time and have to go back to witnesses. So I say, fine, let's go back to witnesses. Once the supreme court in Jerusalem determines the date let them send witnesses by airplane. That is the original custom was not based on there not being a court. Rather it was based on not knowing the right time, and thus having to depend on the court.
Now if it would be a custom established by the Supreme Court, then it would have to be nullified by  a supreme court that is accepted by more חכמי ישראל. But the Supreme Court in Jerusalem did not establish it. It was a custom started in Babylon by the local people  because of the worry of forgetting how to calculate the molad and having to go back to going by the Supreme Court which would have to send witnesses. That is why even outside of Israel any place where witnesses can reach in time never has two days of Yom Tov. For example in Mitzraim. Therefore this law has nothing to do with being outside of Israel. It always depends on where witnesses can reach.

The point here is that the reason the religious world ignores these simple facts is not because they are hard to understand. Rather they simply do not care what the Torah says. Their religiosity is all smoke and mirrors. It is the same reason the Supreme Court thinks it can regulate what you grow in your backyard under the interstate commerce clause. It is not that they are so dense as not to understand the Constitution. It is rather that they do not care what it says.

I wanted to answer a question on the הרמב''ם

 I wanted to answer a question on the הרמב''ם. In the אבי עזרי על  הרמב''ם in הלכות טוען ונטען פרק ו' הלכה ג we see that רב שך defends the רמב''ם by means of several factors. כל factor by itself would not be enough. The הרמב''ם writes that we believe the husband when he says the wife he just married was not a virgin. The reason is simple. We can not say she was not מדקדק (she was careful in her words) when she is coming to ask for money. But we can say that a person that is getting out of  a debt is not careful in his words. But just to make myself a little more clear let me just add some background. The רמב''ם chapter ו law ג of טוען ונטען says: "A person comes to court and says you owe me מנה. The other says in court להד''ם, (I did not borrow). Then two witnesses come and say he borrowed and paid back. He must pay the מנה because כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי "Anyone who says 'I dd not borrow' is as if he said 'I did not pay back.'" And the other needs no oath because the borrower is already considered a liar." To defend this law רב שך needs  ר. עקיבא אייגר, the קצות, the נתיבות, the ר''י מיגאש.
 But to be as short as possible, let me just say he needs that "Anyone who says 'I did not borrow' is as if he said 'I did not pay back.'" is not an open confession. It is simply a statement that implies the result. That is like the רשב''ם says about a different case in בבא בתרא ל''ד. But in order to say that it does not imply the result automatically, it is necessary to say he was not careful in his words as the נתיבות says about the law one can go מפטור לפטור. That is the exact same law as the one in chapter ו law ג except that the borrower changed his plea before the witnesses came]. But we can only say that he was not careful when he is trying to get out of an obligation, not when he is asking for money. How do we know this? Because of the fact that the רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה when the מלווה is not believed by a מיגו when he changes his plea from "It is a good document" to "The document was forged (שטר מזוייך) but I had a real document and it was lost."  So when he comes and says פ''פ (פתח פתוח) מצאתי, he is believed even though she has a מיגו that she could have said משאירסתני נאנסתי. But why should we not believe her. Do we not say a מיגו?  And a person can go from פטור לפטור. The reason is she is not going from פטור לפטור, but asking for the whole כתובה מאתיים.

[I should mention I am taking a guess here about מפטור לפטור. I have no books to look anything up and even when I read Rav Shach's Avi Ezri,]




 רציתי לענות על השאלה הזאת על הרמב''ם. באבי עזרי על הרמב''ם בהלכות טוען ונטען פרק ו' הלכה ג' אנו רואים כי רב שך מגן על הרמב''ם באמצעות מספר גורמים. כל גורם בפני עצמו לא יהיה מספיק. הרמב''ם כותב כי אנו מאמינים הבעל כשהוא אומר שהאישה שהוא נשא לא הייתה בתולה. הסיבה היא פשוטה. אנחנו לא יכולים להגיד שהיא לא מדקדקת (לא הקפידה במילים שלה) כשהיא מגיעה לבקש כל הכתובה. אבל אנו יכולים לומר כי אדם כשהוא רוצה להפטר מחוב אינו זהיר בדבריו. רק להוסיף קצת רקע. הרמב''ם פרק ו' ה''ג של טוען ונטען אומר: אדם מגיע לבית המשפט ואומר "אתה חייב לי מנה." השני אומר בבית המשפט להד''ם, (לא היו דברים מעולם. אני לא לוויתי.). ואז שני עדים באים ואומרים שהוא לווה ושילם בחזרה. הוא חייב לשלם את המנה כי כל האומר "לא לוויתי" כאומר "לא פרעתי". ולמלווה אין שבועה כי הלווה כבר נחשב שקרן. "כדי להגן על החוק הזה רב שך זקוק לר. עקיבא אייגר, את הקצות, את הנתיבות, ואת הר''י מיגאש. אבל כדי להיות קצר ככל האפשר, תן לי רק לומר שהוא צריך שהדין כל מי שאומר, "אני  לא לוויתי" הוא כאילו אמר "אני לא פרעתי.'" אינו אומר שזו הודאה מפורשת. זה פשוט ההוכחה שמשתמע מכך שלא פרע. (זה כמו הרשב''ם אומר על מקרה שונה בבא בתרא ל''ד). אבל כדי שזו לא תהיה תוצאה אוטומטית, יש צורך לומר שהוא לא היה זהיר בדבריו כמו הנתיבות אומר על החוק שאפשר ללכת מפטור לפטור. החוק הזה זהה לזו בפרק ו' הלכה ג' פרט לכך שהלווה שינה את טענתו לפני שהעדים באו.  אנחנו רק יכולים לומר שהוא לא היה זהיר כשהוא מנסה לצאת ידי חובה, לא כשהוא מבקש כסף. איך אנחנו יודעים את זה? בשל העובדה כי הרמב''ם כותב בהלכות מלווה ולווה שהמלווה לא נאמן ידי מיגו ברגע ששינה את הטיעון שלו ממסמך טוב להמסמך מזויף (שטר מזוייף) אבל אומר היה לו מסמך אמיתי, וזה אבד. אז כשהוא בא ואומר פ''פ (פתח פתוח) מצאתי, הוא נאמן למרות שיש לה מיגו שהיא יכולה לומר משאירסתני נאנסתי. אבל למה אנחנו לא מאמינים לה. האם אנחנו לא אומרים מיגו? ואדם יכול לעבור פטור לפטור. הסיבה היא שהיא לא הולכת מן הפטור לפטור, אלא מבקשת כל הכתובה מאתיים

Spiritual Abuse. Quilt of Cults

 A movement that appears  sound with regard to the central doctrines of the Torah, but whose actions and practices are cultic (or cult-like) in nature, can still be considered a cult.  

Thus  the religious world is just a  Quilt of Cults. The issue is not the lip service they pay to Torah in order to look good. The issue is their inner unclean and unholy essence from the dark side, Sitra Achra.  

Reb Nachman rightfully went into this in detail, but that did not help the groups called by his name. Their leaders are just as much cult leaders as any other of the cultic groups. But at least Reb Nachman did focus attention on this important issue [as the Na Nach group never tires of pointing out]. Religious teachers are generally  demonic. Telling women they need to go to these satanic leaders is  a recipe for disaster. [There was one group that the leader said all women need an adviser that is not their husband, and out of 3000 people after two years only a handful were still married. ]

Religious addiction is one problems with cults. And they feel they need to be supported by society in order to support their addiction.Unconditional aid is a social disaster. [Reb Nachman also never tired of this issue. It starts in LM volume 1 chapter 8 and goes up until volume 2 chapter 8--the last lesson he ever said.]

Divine realm

I should say right out that the way I defend Torah is by separating to levels of reality. I hold anything in Torah hard to understand in this world must be referring to some Divine realm. I mentioned this once to my learning partner. Clearly knowing a drop of Isaac Luria is helpful in this respect. [The Rambam held in a similar vein.]
Plato himself has two levels of reality though he links them by some mysterious process called participation. Kant and Hegel also. But to Kant there was no bridge. To Hegel there is a bridge- dialectics which it seems he thought was a kind of group endeavor. 

[Plato was forced into his opinion because of Parmenides. Kant was forced into his because of the problem that all character traits of things depend on the subject. That is Decartes, and also the problem between the rationalist and empiricists and the problem in his on home town between the Pietists and the school of the rationalists of Germany (Johann Salomo Semler,)]
The way Kant navigated between these two extremes was to find a ground of validity of each one, and thus one could know the limits of each one.

The problem is Leftism. I mean to say while the right is splintered, it still seems to be a much better approach, even in its original formulation of being on the side of Monarchy. But my feeling is the original constitution of the Virginia Colony  made the most sense with the obligation of belonging to some church [I do not think they were thinking about Jewish people at that point or what they would have said] while the government would stay out of religious affairs.  

My impression was that original constitution was inspired in some way by John Locke but I might be mistaken.

[This balanced approach was not taken by later colonies that left out all religious obligation. That does not seem right to me. Perhaps they thought the trouble was in the churches themselves with lots of problematic doctrines. And that problem has not seem to have been abated. I guess they could have chosen the best ones, and forbade the less desirable ones;--but instead they choose to say that Federal government ought to stay out of religion altogether. Anyway, I think some of the Founding Fathers were Deists anyhow, so it would not have made any sense to have clause that one has to belong to some church. Instead they focused on the mechanisms of government and tried to get that part right. That seems to work well. In that way they left the power to the states to support whatever religious orders they saw fit- and that seems to have worked well until recently. Even the Mir yeshiva in NY I think was getting state funds for being a  institution of higher learning. So this approach of the founding fathers seems to be a pretty decent model of government.

Hegel and Dr Kelley Ross.

''The second sphere of those manifestations of spirit which are more closely related to philosophy is the area of religious representations in general. Here belongs primarily religion as such, then mythology and the mysteries, and even to a certain extent poetry. Just as the first area of which we spoke had in common with philosophy its formal element, the I and the form of universality, so what is common here is the other side, i.e., the substantial element, the content.''

"...how man is conscious of God, i.e., how in consciousness he represents God, this being the objective form or determination of thought whereby man sets the essence of divinity over against himself, represents it as something other than himself, as an alien being in the beyond. The second characteristic is to be found in devotion and cult, which constitute the overcoming of this opposition, whereby. man raises himself to God and becomes conscious of his unity with God’s being.''

Introduction to the History of Philosophy.

Source: Hegel’s Idea of Philosophy, by Quentin Lauer, S.J. with a new translation of Hegel’s Introduction to the History of Philosophy;

Translated: from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Philosophie, Hamburg, 1940.

It is hard to see here much difference between Hegel and Dr. Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School of Thought. Hegel is not coining a new term for holiness an attachment with God like Otto does with "Numinous" value, but still the message is obviously the same.

tying oneself to a "tzadik"

One of the problems of tying oneself to a "tzadik" is not just the problem that Reb Chaim from Voloshin noticed that it is the exact same prohibition in the Torah of not to type or bind one's soul to any idol. But furthermore when one allows someone to shadow his life as his 'spiritual leader' and dominate his thinking, he takes on the quirks, oddities and idiosyncrasies of his 'spiritual leader'. He becomes a disciple alright, but not of God. I have seen leaders who had produced hundreds of disciples--but every one of them had his obvious mishegasim [bad character and nutty habits] Their God-given distinctiveness has been absorbed by their hovering 'spiritual leader.'
Mainly the way I see it the problem all began with the movement of the Shatz and Natan from Gaza, his false prophet. An examination of the microfilm copies of Natan's book will show I think from where most doctrines of the religious world come from. [Not from the Ari Isaac Luria or Musar.] 
But I am not claiming any special insight into this outside of just plain horrific experiences. I was duped just like everyone else and fell for the polished image of respectability. I in fact fell harder than most and because of that I realize the sinister nature of the religious world. If I could go back today I would imply have stayed in the Mir Yeshiva in NY and not budged an inch. Or if I had to go to Israel--as I felt I needed to based on the Ramban-then I should have made it my business to be in an authentic Litvak yeshiva or Religious Zionist one. The trouble is this: outside of the authentic Litvak and Zionist places, the religious world is a large quilt of cults.


[No disrespect intended towards Reb Nachman who was a true tzadik, but even a true tzadik can make an occasional  mistake --even in doctrine. I think a close examination of the Cherem of the Gra will show it did not apply to Reb Nachman,

What is the connection between Avraham's going down to Egypt and Sara's being taken to the house of Pharaoh and the later escape from Egypt?  It seems to me that that was to prepare the way for Israel later to make the same trip. This is an  about  paving a path that later people can walk on with more ease than he had.

I mentioned before the idea of the Ten Commandments being hidden in the Ten Statements of Creation. [Nine times "And God said" and the first verse "In the beginning God create heaven and earth" which was the first statement but since it doesn't say "God said" it is the hidden statement ] These Ten Statements are hidden inside all things that have been created. But the light of the Torah in them need to be revealed. Avraham paved the way so that later the ten plagues would bring forth the light of the Ten Commandments.  This is the hidden reason for the Rambam seeing in Physics the highest\ light--the light of the hidden statement of Creation.

Clearly this has a relation to ten types song that are mentioned in the Tikunai HaZohar and also in the Tikunim of the Ramchal. That is the fact that the light of God does not extend to unclean places as it "My glory I will not give to another." So from where does an unclean place get it's life force? From the Hidden Statement of Creation. But for that to be revealed, one needs the ten kinds of song.

My original point was however more along the lines of why God wrote the Torah in this way? What  lesson is the story of Avraham's going down and Sara being held prisoner and then being redeemed?
[The connections here are based to some extent on Reb Nachman]

ראב''ד and הרמב''ם
 There is a question when the reason for a law דרבנן no longer applies can the law itself  be nullified.

 But if I recall correctly the ראב''ד puts his comment about רבי יוחנן בן זכאי and the first fruits on הלכה ג and his comment about when the law is accepted throughout all Israel in הלכה ב. That is in laws of ממרים

From what I recall  הלכה ב says when the reason no longer applies for a  גזירה or תקנה or a מנהג that was instituted by the בית דין in Jerusalem and has been accepted by all Israel, then another בית דין can nullify it if it is greater in wisdom and numbers. But how is it possible to be greater in number when the number is already set to be שבעים ואחד. The הרמב''ם answers this refers to teh number of the sage of Israel that agree with the בית דין. The הרמב''ם in all three הלכות deals only with the great בית דין did does not enter into the question of what about a lesser בית דין or a בית דין today with no סמיכה.
On this הלכה I think the ראב''ד say: No, but once it has been accepted by all Israel, even a בית דין with great numbers and wisdom can not nullify it.

Then in  הלכה ג the הרמב''ם writes a law that was made as a סייג לתורה then even  בית דין with greater wisdom and numbers can not nullify it. On that the ראב''ד brings that רבי יוחנן בן זכאי nullified the law to adorn the streets of Jerusalem with the first fruits even though he was not as great as the בית דין that made the law.

What seems to come out from this to the  ראב''ד is that if the law has been accepted by all Israel then even though the reason no longer applies, no בית דין can nullify it, and if it was not accepted by all Israel then even a smaller בית דין can nullify it. To the ראב''ד everything depends on if it has been accepted by all Israel.


) בענין גזירה דרבנן שהתבטל טעמה של הגזירה. הוא מחלוקת בגמרא (ביצה ה.) אם הגזירה בעצמה מתבטלת אם טעמה התבטלה.
רבה אמר שלא נמשכת הגזירה, ורבא אמר שכן היא נמשכת. הרמב''ם פסק כמו רבא שהיא נמשכת (ממרים פרק ב' הלכה א-ג). הראב''ד פוסק כמו רבה אם החוק לא התקבל בכל ישראל. הגם שהראב''ד בא מסוגיית ביכורים. אני חושב שיש סמך לראב''ד מן הגמרא בגיטין (פרק ראשון). הגמרא אומרת לדעת רבא שאם טעם התקנה לומר "בפני נכתב ובפני ונחתם" אינו שייך (כגון במקום ששיירות מצוייות), אז אין לומר "בפני נכתב ובפני ונחתם". (ואפילו אין להחמיר כמו שרואים אחר כך בסוגיית רבי יהושע בן לוי.)  הרמב''ם אינו יכול לתרץ שיש חילוק בין תקנה שהיא עשה דרבנן  ובין גזירה שהיא לא תעשה דרבנן, בגלל שכתב שגם תקנה דרבנן אינה מתבטלת אם טעמה התבטל.
גזירות או תקנות שאומצו על ידי בית דין מאוחר יותר כאשר סיבת החוק היא בטלה, הוא נושא לדיון בין רמב''ם ותוספות והראב''ד. זה נובע מגמרא בביצה דף ה' ע''א. הדבר המעניין הוא שהרמב''ם במבוא למשנה התורה, שם הוא עוסק בנושא אחר על בית הדין מקומי. שם הוא אומר כי לאף אחד אין  הסמכות לבטל חוק של הגמרא. ועל שבגמרא יש מערכת הכללים כיצד להחליט הלכה. בכל מקרה לרמב''ם לא היה ספק בכך. אבל בין הראשונים יש דעות שונות על כללים אלה. הדבר המוזר בהלכות ממרים ב' הלכה ב' לא נראה שהוא מתייחס לבית דין ללא  סמיכה אותנטי מסיני אשר אינו קיים עוד. בהקדמה למשנה תורה הוא מתייחס לסוג של  בית  דין של שלושה בלי סמיכה שיכולים לשפוט קבוצה מאוד מוגבלת של דברים.  ברור כי כפי שאנו רואים שהיתה להם סמכות לעשות גזירות רק  בזמן הגמרא.
רמב''ם בתחילת משנה תורה והן בממרים פ''ב הלכות א-ג אומר בערך אותו הדבר. זה במונחים של הלכה. פסק בית הדין המאוחר אינו מחויב ללכת לפי בית דין הגדול לשעבר בדבר שדנו על פי הי''ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. כלומר זו הלכה א'. אבל כשמדובר בתקנות גזירות ומנהגים בית הדין המאוחר מחוייב להסכים עם בית דין הקודם אלא אם כן הוא גדול בחכמה וכמות. עם זאת חוק שנעשה בתור סייג לתורה, בית הדין המאוחר לא יכול לבטל. זהו החוק הבסיסי של הרמב''ם, וזה גם איך רב שך מבין אותו. הדרך שאתה רואה שכך רב שך מבין את הרמב''ם היא העובדה כי בעדויות הוא אומר שהרמב''ם מדבר על גזירות ותקנות. באותה משנה עדוית א:ה' המשנה מבקשת "למה לכתוב דעת המיעוט?" וזו נותנת תשובה. הרמב''ם אומר  שהמשמעות היא שבית הדין המאוחר יכול להכריע את החוק ככה אם יש לו רוב חכמה ורוב מניין. למה לא מבינים את הרמב''ם פשוט כי הוא מתכוון לפסק הלכה? בגלל שהרמב''ם קישר אותה משנה עם הרעיון כי בית דין אחר עשוי לתלות בדעת המיעוט אם יש לו רוב חכמה ורוב המניין. אנחנו כבר יודעים מתוך משנה תורה שהרמב''ם אינו מחייב בית דין המאוחר להיות יותר במספר ויותר בחוכמה כשמדובר בפסק הלכה.
) ראב''ד  והרמב''ם הלכות ממרים פ''ב הלכות א-ג'. יש שאלה כאשר סיבת חוק דרבנן כבר לא חלה אם החוק עצמו יבוטל? אבל אם אני זוכר נכון, ראב''ד מעמיד את ההערה שלו על רבי יוחנן בן זכאי ואת הביכורים על הלכה ג וההערה שלו על מצב כשהחוק מקובל בכל ישראל בהלכה ב.  הלכה ב' אומרת כאשר הסיבה כבר לא חלה על גזירה או תקנה או מנהג זה שהונהג בידי בית הדין בירושלים שהתקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אז עוד בית דין יכול לבטל את החוק אם הוא גדול בחכמה ומספר. אבל איך אפשר להיות יותר במספר כשמספר כבר מוגדר להיות שבעים ואחד. הרמב"ם עונה זו מתייחסת למספר החכמים של ישראל שמסכימים עם בית הדין. הרמב''ם בכל שלושת ההלכות עוסק רק עם  בית הדין הגדול,  ולא נכנס לשאלה מה לגבי בית הדין רגיל או בית הדין של היום ללא סמיכה.  בהלכה זו  הראב''ד אומר: לא, אבל ברגע שזה התקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אפילו בית דין עם יותר מספר וחוכמה לא יכול לבטל אותו. ואז הלכה ג' הרמב''ם כותב שחוק אשר נעשה בתור סייג לתורה אז אפילו בית הדין עם חוכמה גדולה ויותר ומספרים לא יכול לבטל אותו.  והראב''ד מביא כי רבי יוחנן בן זכאי ביטל את החוק לעטר את רחובות ירושלים עם הביכורים למרות שהוא לא היה גדול כמו בית דין שתקנו את החוק. מה שיוצא מזה אל ראב"ד היא שאם החוק התקבל על ידי כל ישראל, אז למרות שהסיבה כבר לא חלה, אין בית דין יכול לבטל את החוק, ואם זה לא התקבל על ידי כל ישראל אז אפילו  בית הדין קטן יכול לבטל אותו. לראב''ד הכל תלוי אם זה התקבל על ידי כל ישראל.

Jose Faur brings that a lot of Tosphot hold if the reason for the law is gone the law is gone but I do not have any Gemara to be able to look this up. Maybe someday God will grant me to start learning Gemara.


It is upsetting tome that I have no more any sefer of Rav Shach or the Rambam to look this up. Still I want to point out what I recall that the Rambam puts in the idea that teh reason for the law has gone away and on that halacha, halacha 2, that is where the Raavad puts his comment about the law being spread through all Israel and later in halacha 3 where I think the Rambam does  not mention the reason for the law disappearing that is where the Raavad puts his comment about R. Yochanan Ben Zachai.  So does the Raavad make a distinction between a law made for  fence  and other laws that are d'rabanan?And what is the Rambam thinking? Other laws are not made for a fence?! Then why are they made? This is one of those times I wish I had a learning partner to thrash this issue out with. 



Yose Faur brings a lot of places where Tosphot goes with the opinion of Raba that once the reason for the law is gone, the law itself is gone--which is even more radical than the Raavad. Still not having any Gemaras with me to be able to look it up, I do not bring it down.

I had a kind of history with the Bava Sali family.

I had a kind of history with the Bava Sali family. His daughter saw in me a great responsibility for Klal Israel, but I could not figure out what that is supposed to mean. When I look back on it and try to decipher  what kind of responsibility that implies I find I can not figure it out.  What my best guess is that she thought I could help to influence the world towards these simple things, Tur, Beit Joseph Shulchan Aruch and Musar. That is the basic Lithuanian yeshiva path but with an extra emphasis on Halacha and Musar [classical Musar means medieval books of ethics like the חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם,  אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים וספר מוסר של הרמ''ק].

I should mention that Bava Sali did not want to see any mystics when he came to Jerusalem and was accepting visitors that wanted blessings and advice from him. He gave explicit instructions not to let anyone with a name as a mystic in. 
This to me seems to indicate exactly what is brought in the Ari, that the secrets of the Torah--that is the Eitz Chaim is not for anyone, but only those that live a life of great sanctity. 

[Whatever responsibility she saw in me I do not think I fulfilled. Nowhere  near. I seem to have dropped the ball. The hard thing to understand about this is thus: I feel that I had dropped the ball a long time ago, long before I met her. But apparently she thought there was still something I could and should do.]

Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,

It occurs to me to ask on Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,  from the Rambam laws of loans 14:11.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a migo? 

I mean to say this.After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין [engagement]. She is believed and she gets the full Ketubah {מאתיים}.[הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''א] So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. [הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''ד] He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. [אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה] 

Does she not have a migo? {She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.}

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע-he is believed. [That is as long as he changed his mind before the witnesses came.]
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a gift.

[It is not clear to  me why I am asking from these particular laws. Maybe because in the back of my mind I am thinking of the Ri MiGash that one can go fromפטור לפטור because of Migo but that it has to be before witnesses come. I might have been able to ask from other cases of Migo but I imagine there must be some subconscious reason I am asking from these particular cases.]

The only question here that I have is according to one opinion in תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א where he holds a מיגו can take away from a חזקה. But if we do not hold by this opinion then there is no question. She has a מיגו but he has a חזקה plus חקזת ממון. On the other hand she has חזקת הגוף שבתולה הייתה. That is, he has two חזקות against her מיגו וחזקה
So in one opinion that a migo can take out from a חזקה then I have a question.


_________________________________________________





It occurs to me to ask on כתובות דף ט and also page י''ב,  and the רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד:י''א.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a מיגו? 

I mean to say this. After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין . She is believed and she gets the full כתובה מאתיים . So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. Does she not have a מיגו? She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע, the lender is believed.
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a מתנה.
 עולה בדעתי לשאול על כתובות דף ט' וגם דף י''ב, מאת רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד: הי''א. השאלה הבסיסית היא הלא אחד יכול ללכת  מן הפטור לפטור? ובגלל זה יש לה מיגו? אני מתכוון לומר זה. לאחר הנישואין הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה. היא אומרת שהיא נאנסה לאחר אירוסין. היא נאמנת והיא מקבלת את מלוא כתובה מאתיים. אז יש לה טיעון שהיא יכולה לומר ושתאמין. אז השאלה היא על החוק הבא. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם לא קיימת מיגו בשבילה? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה. אדם מגיע לבית משפט ואומר מנה לי בידך. הנטען אומר להד''ם. ואז הוא משנה את דעתו ואומר לווה ופרע. ואז העדים באים ואומרים לווה ופרע, הוא נאמן. זה מפטור לפטור ויש מיגו. ועוד עדים רואים שלווה נותן כסף למלווה אבל לא יודעים מזה אם הוא למען החזר או מתנה והמלווה נאמן  אם הוא אומר שזה החזר עבור הלוואה שונה מאז שהוא יכול היה לומר שזה היה מתנה. אז השאלה היא על החוק הזה. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיאכן הייתה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם אין לה מיגו? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה.

Job suffered

You are trying as hard as you can to be good and still thing are not going your way. Why is that? The Book of Job is pretty clear that the trouble does not lay within you. That seems to be the entire point. At first God is bragging about Job what a great guy he is. Then Satan says, "Sure he is a great guy. Why would he not be? You gave him everything a man could want. Take it away and you will see he will curse You to Your Face." 
God said, "Fine, so take everything away, but leave his soul alone." Thus Job suffered. 
Then Job cursed the day he "will be born." But he did not curse God. Then the friends said God does not bring suffering except for sin. Job answered and said, "I know I am innocent of all sin." God then agreed with Job, and told the friends to ask his forgiveness -for they had spoken falsely.  So at the end, even God agreed that Job suffered not for sin, but to win a bet he had made with the Satan. Apparently, He won the bet. [What I am getting at here is that the area of numinous reality is beyond reason as Kant noticed, and that if one tries to apply reason to such an area, that leads to self-contradictions. I was somewhat aware of this in high school, which led me to believe that not everything in Torah can be proven, though it can be defended by reason.] [Dr. Kelley Ross also goes into this issue. But we know from the Guide of Maimonides that reason  can approach the area of numinous reality. Hegel obviously held the same way. The difference is to the Rambam reason also needs to be revealed from Heaven, and only then can a higher level of numinous reality be revealed. To Hegel the process is dialectical and depends on man--and men working together. To some degree you can see this in someone like Bava Sali who as a tzadik in his own right also  depended on the merit of his ancestors, and also his community to  some degree in order for there to be the kind of environment necessary for him to reach his level.]

So my question is why did not someone offer the explanation of the Mesilat Yesharim (Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato)? [One who is mostly sinful but has some good- gets reward for his good in this world, and suffers for the sins in the next. One who is mostly good but does some evil- suffers for the evil in this world, and get the reward for the good in the next. ] No one, not even God offered this explanation. Furthermore even though I do not own a copy of the Guide for the Perplexed   I recall the Rambam said the Torah agrees with the last of Job's friends.  A further question, is it not open in the Torah, " Do these commandments so that it will be good for you and you will have length of days"? "Behold I have set before you this day life and the good  and death and evil. Therefore choose life to keep these laws."

(1) Just a few thoughts I had in reading the Old Testament. כגן השם. Lot the nephew of Avraham saw that the city of Sodom was like the "Garden of God." When did he ever see the garden of God to be able to compare them?

(2) One does not make a עיר הנידחת [city that worships idols and thus must be destroyed.] of a city that is on the border of Israel. The Rambam brings the reason so as to not let the enemies of Israel have an entry point into Israel. That is the reason of R. Shimon ben Yochai that we are דורשים טעמה דקרא. [The sages say the reason is the verse that says בקרביך in your midst.]
The answer is given that there is not difference in law so the Rambam does always prefer to bring a verse than a drasha.
The Minchas Chinuch asks --but in this case there are many difference in law.
Rav Shach says  once the law does not apply in the opinion of R. Shimon then the city no longer has the category of עיר הנידחת. First I want to bring a proof for Rav Shach since in the opposite kinds of cases where there is  a prohibition we do not say that in the opinion of R. Shimon the prohibition remains in effect but there is a special exception in case the reason does not apply.

Another question is that the Rambam usually brings a verse as a proof of  a law rather than some reasoning process. Here he does just the opposite. It seems to me he is specially going like R Shimon here like he does in Yevamot where he prohibits to marry any woman that serves idols, even if she is not from the seven Canaanite nations -which is the law of R Shimon, not the sages.

(3) In Genesis God says the reason gentiles are forbidden to murder is because בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם. Therefore we have an open verse telling us that gentiles are made in the image of God [as per the Rambam]

(4) King Oshiyahu that in his days the Torah scroll was found in the Temple sent to Chulda the prophetess who said the punish that was decreed was because the Jewish people were not obeying the commands of God. Therefore the laws of the Torah must have been known even before the scroll was found.

(5) The King of Sodom said to Avraham תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך the Satan says to a man "give me your soul and take the money" [That was my first "vort" after I got to yeshivat Shar Yashuv in NY]

(6) One of the arguments that Job had with his friends involved time. One friend said the wicked are punished very soon after they sin. Job said they live all their days in peace and happiness and abundance. The question seems to me to be not if there is punishment for sin but rather is there in this world a connection between crime and punishment?
(7) King Yoshiyahu also found  some graves an spread the bones over the altars of the idol worshipers to make them "tame" unclean. He obviously did not have any religious people around trying to stop him like they do in Israel. I even brought this up with a person in Israel who really did know how to learn. I showed him the law in the Rambam that it is allowed to move graves for building roads. This was right at the time the insane religious people were trying to stop some building project as is their general custom to stop every good thing. One thing I noticed about the religious. They love bones. And they ruin the whole project of Torah. By pretending to keep it, they ruin it for everyone, and make it odious in people' eyes by their disgusting actions and character. How this happened I do not know but but their pretense of righteous is a horrific scam. I avoid them. The only place I would learn and pray at would be a Litvak yeshiva that excludes all the garbage.

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.