19.11.17
Torah scholars that are demons create a bad name for the holy Torah
James Madison opposed a bill that required the State to support teachers of Religion.
The arguments he used apply just as much to teachers of Torah.
See the actual essay
If there would be an obligation to give money to Torah scholars, don't you think the Gemara would have said something about it? Instead it talks about not sending them out to build a wall around the city but they are obligated to dig a well because they also need water. But in all the Gemaras about charity, there is nothing about an obligation to give money to Torah scholars. Only to poor people.
This is related to what the Gemara says about teaching Torah. The Talmud says: "God said to the Jewish people, 'Just as I taught Torah for free without pay, so must you teach Torah for free.'"
The Mordechai [a rishon who, along with the Rosh, was a disciple of R. Meir from Rotenburg] brings this in Bava Batra and asks, "Then how it is permissible to pay teachers of Torah even for children?"
To some degree this is related to the Rambam who makes this same point about learning Torah.
[The Rambam holds a somewhat radical position in this regard. He wrote about this at length in his commentary on Pirkei Avot and that caused the first wave of opposition to him even before he had written the Guide for the Perplexed.]
The reason I bring this up is that there is a known problem with Torah scholars that are demons and that creates a bad name for the holy Torah itself. If learning and teaching Torah was not a lucrative profession then it would attract less bad apples.
[The phrase Torah scholars that are demons comes from Reb Nachman who brings it from the Zohar and the Ari and from my own experience it's a fitting epitaph.]
[You can see this theme in the major book of Reb Nachman quite a lot. Sometimes openly but more often in passing. In any case he was obviously aware of this problem and eventually this resulted in the Na Nach group being rightfully suspicious of all religious authorities. I am however not sure what most Na Nach people would say to do except to ignore them. That seems to be the best idea. and certainly if possible to simply make learning and teaching Torah as a voluntary act, not a job that gets paid.]
I am not saying the problem is the money. Rather that the money is what attracts the flies in the first place. Reb Nachman I think in any case is choosing his terminology precisely, and I do not think he i is just using a term of exaggeration. Besides this you can not say Reb Nachman was exaggerating because then it would be lashon hara/slander. So he has to have meant it literally.
The arguments he used apply just as much to teachers of Torah.
See the actual essay
If there would be an obligation to give money to Torah scholars, don't you think the Gemara would have said something about it? Instead it talks about not sending them out to build a wall around the city but they are obligated to dig a well because they also need water. But in all the Gemaras about charity, there is nothing about an obligation to give money to Torah scholars. Only to poor people.
This is related to what the Gemara says about teaching Torah. The Talmud says: "God said to the Jewish people, 'Just as I taught Torah for free without pay, so must you teach Torah for free.'"
The Mordechai [a rishon who, along with the Rosh, was a disciple of R. Meir from Rotenburg] brings this in Bava Batra and asks, "Then how it is permissible to pay teachers of Torah even for children?"
To some degree this is related to the Rambam who makes this same point about learning Torah.
[The Rambam holds a somewhat radical position in this regard. He wrote about this at length in his commentary on Pirkei Avot and that caused the first wave of opposition to him even before he had written the Guide for the Perplexed.]
The reason I bring this up is that there is a known problem with Torah scholars that are demons and that creates a bad name for the holy Torah itself. If learning and teaching Torah was not a lucrative profession then it would attract less bad apples.
[The phrase Torah scholars that are demons comes from Reb Nachman who brings it from the Zohar and the Ari and from my own experience it's a fitting epitaph.]
[You can see this theme in the major book of Reb Nachman quite a lot. Sometimes openly but more often in passing. In any case he was obviously aware of this problem and eventually this resulted in the Na Nach group being rightfully suspicious of all religious authorities. I am however not sure what most Na Nach people would say to do except to ignore them. That seems to be the best idea. and certainly if possible to simply make learning and teaching Torah as a voluntary act, not a job that gets paid.]
I am not saying the problem is the money. Rather that the money is what attracts the flies in the first place. Reb Nachman I think in any case is choosing his terminology precisely, and I do not think he i is just using a term of exaggeration. Besides this you can not say Reb Nachman was exaggerating because then it would be lashon hara/slander. So he has to have meant it literally.
17.11.17
Troubles in the Musar movement
One of the flaws of the Musar movement was that it emphasized the Ethics and Morals of Torah without the underlying philosophy of Torah. I mean to say they did not learn along with the Jewish Ethics of the Middle Ages also the Guide of the Rambam (the Guide for the Perplexed), the אמונות ודעות of Saadia Gaon {Doctrines and Faiths} and a lot of other of the Jewish sages from the Middle Ages that dealt with השקפה world view issues. [Joseph Albo, Abravanel, Ibn Gavirol etc.] But you can not have ethics without world view. The principles of Ethics have nothing to stand on.
One result of this is the Musar movement itself more or less fell into oblivion. The representatives of the movement were ipso facto the "spiritual advisers" in the Litvak yeshivas which simply did not and do not earn much respect.[Not just that most of them are not anything near the level needed to be a decent rosh yehiva, but even in terms of Musar itself they have nothing of interest to say. They have no idea of the background and world view of the mediaeval writers of Musar.
The trouble to a large degree is that the rishonim themselves that were writing on the world view of Torah were well versed in Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus. Without that background, a lot of what they say is incomprehensible.
Even with that background what they say can be hard to understand.
[See the discussion of the Rambam why no predicates apply to God and see Hegel's treatment of the same issue.]
[In fact to come out with a intellectually rigorous moral system s exactly what the Rishonm were doing and in my opinion they did a great job. Much better than any moral theories developed after the so called Enlightenment--a misnomer if I ever heard one. [A better term would be the Endarkenment.]
One result of this is the Musar movement itself more or less fell into oblivion. The representatives of the movement were ipso facto the "spiritual advisers" in the Litvak yeshivas which simply did not and do not earn much respect.[Not just that most of them are not anything near the level needed to be a decent rosh yehiva, but even in terms of Musar itself they have nothing of interest to say. They have no idea of the background and world view of the mediaeval writers of Musar.
The trouble to a large degree is that the rishonim themselves that were writing on the world view of Torah were well versed in Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus. Without that background, a lot of what they say is incomprehensible.
Even with that background what they say can be hard to understand.
[See the discussion of the Rambam why no predicates apply to God and see Hegel's treatment of the same issue.]
[In fact to come out with a intellectually rigorous moral system s exactly what the Rishonm were doing and in my opinion they did a great job. Much better than any moral theories developed after the so called Enlightenment--a misnomer if I ever heard one. [A better term would be the Endarkenment.]
16.11.17
The best way to ruin a good relationship is to get married.
The best way to ruin a good relationship is to get married. I had a friend who was a Russian physicist who was friends for many years with one girl, and then eventually they got married, and that was the end of it. I have seen this plenty of times. If, after all, the Torah does allow a Girl friend פילגש, why be more strict than the Torah itself? Is it is not enough what the Torah forbids that we have to add on extra restrictions?
[The Rishonim in general allow a girl friend. The two well know examples are the Ramban and Raavad, (also the Gra) but there are many more if one takes the trouble to look them up. The Rambam in this case is the opinion of one against many.]
Caleb ben Yefune is the only person in the entire Old Testament upon who it says the unique phrase "וימלא אחרי השם" he went totally after God. It never says anything like that even about the greatest of tzadikim righteous. On others its says "He walked after God" and all other kinds of phrases, but never does it use the word "totally." And Caleb had at least a few girl friends and a few wives. See the Chronicles chapter 2; verses around 46. דברי הימים פרק ב' פסוק מ''ו
However it is good to be married and if one can find the right person for that I am all for it. In fact I would still be married today if i had stayed away and kept my wife away from Torah scholars that are demons (which nowadays pretty much means all of them). It is hard to find a Torah scholar nowadays that is not mixed up somehow or other with the Dark Side.
If people had taken the advice of the Gra and listened to what he wrote on the letter of excommunication, then things would be different.[And there s no reason to think the excommunication is not valid legally. One would have to not only assume the Gra was mistaken but also that that mistake would invalidate the whole thing. But in fact the Gra was not mistaken and even if he had been the cherem would still be perfectly valid.]
[The Rishonim in general allow a girl friend. The two well know examples are the Ramban and Raavad, (also the Gra) but there are many more if one takes the trouble to look them up. The Rambam in this case is the opinion of one against many.]
Caleb ben Yefune is the only person in the entire Old Testament upon who it says the unique phrase "וימלא אחרי השם" he went totally after God. It never says anything like that even about the greatest of tzadikim righteous. On others its says "He walked after God" and all other kinds of phrases, but never does it use the word "totally." And Caleb had at least a few girl friends and a few wives. See the Chronicles chapter 2; verses around 46. דברי הימים פרק ב' פסוק מ''ו
However it is good to be married and if one can find the right person for that I am all for it. In fact I would still be married today if i had stayed away and kept my wife away from Torah scholars that are demons (which nowadays pretty much means all of them). It is hard to find a Torah scholar nowadays that is not mixed up somehow or other with the Dark Side.
If people had taken the advice of the Gra and listened to what he wrote on the letter of excommunication, then things would be different.[And there s no reason to think the excommunication is not valid legally. One would have to not only assume the Gra was mistaken but also that that mistake would invalidate the whole thing. But in fact the Gra was not mistaken and even if he had been the cherem would still be perfectly valid.]
Bava Batra page 18-b. The third Tosphot on the page מכלל דר. יוסי סבר וכו' Tosphot suggest that the first questioner on the page did not know that R. Jose holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו because if he had known this he never would have had a question. The question was that R Yose says one can put mustard next to bees because each hurts the other. The question was if Rava is right that הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול אינו סומך then how could the situation with R Yose arise at all? The answer would be that R Yose holds that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו and that bees cause no damage to mustard and therefore the owner of the bees was allowed to put his bees next to the border. Rava never said a ניזק can not put something next to the border, only the מזיק.
But in this case, I have a question on the last Tosphot on the page where he brings Rabainu Chananel that says the way the Gemara reads is אלא אמר רבינא and from that he concludes that Rava has to have gone back on his entire assumption.
I think the reason for Rabainu Chananel is he wants to question to apply even if the mustard was first.
[It might be a good idea to mention the fact that each of these three Tosphot have a completely different idea about what this Gemara means. The First Tosphot is the Ri. The second is obviously different but maybe it is from one of the later authors of Tosphot. The last is Rabbainu Tam.
The fact that the first and second are different threw me off course for a while until I was ready to give up on what the second one was saying.]
בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב. תוספות השלישית בדף "מכלל דר' יוסי סבר וכו',. תוספות אומר כי השואל הראשון בעמוד לא ידע שר' יוסי מחזיק שהניזק מרחיק את עצמו, כי אילו ידע זאת לא היתה לו שאלה. השאלה היתה שר 'יוסי אומר שאפשר לשים חרדל ליד דבורים, כי כל אחד מזיק השני. השאלה היתה אם רבא צודק כי הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול לא יכול איך המצב עם ר' יוסי בכלל להתעורר? התשובה היא שר' יוסי מחזיק כי על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ודבורים לא גורמות נזק לחרדל ולכן בעל הדבורים הורשה להניח את דבוריו ליד הגבול. רבא מעולם לא אמר ניזק לא יכול לשים משהו ליד הגבול, רק את מזיק. אבל במקרה זה יש לי שאלה על תוספות האחרון בדף שבו הוא מביא רבינו חננאל שאומר את הנוסח של הגמרא הוא אלא אמר רבינא ומכאן הוא מסכם כי רבא חייב לחזור על כל ההנחה שלו. אבל גרסה זו באמת אומר כי התשובות של רבינא ורב פפא הן עצמאיות וזה בדיוק מה תוספות שלנו אומר. אבל תוספות שלנו אומר את זה בלי לגרום לרבא לחזור על מה שהוא אמר..
But in this case, I have a question on the last Tosphot on the page where he brings Rabainu Chananel that says the way the Gemara reads is אלא אמר רבינא and from that he concludes that Rava has to have gone back on his entire assumption.
I think the reason for Rabainu Chananel is he wants to question to apply even if the mustard was first.
[It might be a good idea to mention the fact that each of these three Tosphot have a completely different idea about what this Gemara means. The First Tosphot is the Ri. The second is obviously different but maybe it is from one of the later authors of Tosphot. The last is Rabbainu Tam.
The fact that the first and second are different threw me off course for a while until I was ready to give up on what the second one was saying.]
בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב. תוספות השלישית בדף "מכלל דר' יוסי סבר וכו',. תוספות אומר כי השואל הראשון בעמוד לא ידע שר' יוסי מחזיק שהניזק מרחיק את עצמו, כי אילו ידע זאת לא היתה לו שאלה. השאלה היתה שר 'יוסי אומר שאפשר לשים חרדל ליד דבורים, כי כל אחד מזיק השני. השאלה היתה אם רבא צודק כי הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול לא יכול איך המצב עם ר' יוסי בכלל להתעורר? התשובה היא שר' יוסי מחזיק כי על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ודבורים לא גורמות נזק לחרדל ולכן בעל הדבורים הורשה להניח את דבוריו ליד הגבול. רבא מעולם לא אמר ניזק לא יכול לשים משהו ליד הגבול, רק את מזיק. אבל במקרה זה יש לי שאלה על תוספות האחרון בדף שבו הוא מביא רבינו חננאל שאומר את הנוסח של הגמרא הוא אלא אמר רבינא ומכאן הוא מסכם כי רבא חייב לחזור על כל ההנחה שלו. אבל גרסה זו באמת אומר כי התשובות של רבינא ורב פפא הן עצמאיות וזה בדיוק מה תוספות שלנו אומר. אבל תוספות שלנו אומר את זה בלי לגרום לרבא לחזור על מה שהוא אמר..
15.11.17
To restart the Musar Movement
One thing you see in the Old Testament quite a lot is that people were going through lots of problems and the general approach of the prophets was that the problems they were having were because they were not keeping the Law of God [תורת משה] That suggests that the question is not how religious a person is but rather being religious in the right way.
Therefore what I suggest is to reopen the idea of Reb Israel Salanter about Musar [Jewish Ethics from the Middle Ages] and specifically setting aside a room for that purpose. The reason is that Musar is like concentrated orange juice. It gives you the basic idea of what God requires of you without going into too many details which can get one lost. But I do not mean this in just a personal way. Rather what I suggest is to completely restart the whole Musar Movement concept all over again.
[That is to say that the general approach of the prophets was not to tell people to pray more or to go to some grave to say Psalms. (דורש אל המתים "Seeking the dead" is a bad idea as you can see in Deuteronomy 18:11) It was almost always a two part idea. First was to stop doing idolatry. The second was to get back to the Law of Moses.] [There are too many examples to go into detail but this is clearly what the prophets were saying.]
That is to say that most of the advice you hear from people about how to get out of your problems is not accurate. It is not what prophets who really were in touch with Divine Reality said. What people in touch with the real thing said was to keep the Law of Moses.
What does that mean in a simple vein? First of all to restart the Musar Movement would be a first priority- and this does not have anything to do with Litvak yeshivas. Rather it is a whole separate focus. It also does mean just (like it sounds) to start to be careful about the obligations between man and his fellow man-not to lie or steal etc. It also has a lot to do with government which is unauthorized to a be redistribution mechanism. Keeping Torah is not to vote for other people's money to be given to you.
Therefore what I suggest is to reopen the idea of Reb Israel Salanter about Musar [Jewish Ethics from the Middle Ages] and specifically setting aside a room for that purpose. The reason is that Musar is like concentrated orange juice. It gives you the basic idea of what God requires of you without going into too many details which can get one lost. But I do not mean this in just a personal way. Rather what I suggest is to completely restart the whole Musar Movement concept all over again.
[That is to say that the general approach of the prophets was not to tell people to pray more or to go to some grave to say Psalms. (דורש אל המתים "Seeking the dead" is a bad idea as you can see in Deuteronomy 18:11) It was almost always a two part idea. First was to stop doing idolatry. The second was to get back to the Law of Moses.] [There are too many examples to go into detail but this is clearly what the prophets were saying.]
That is to say that most of the advice you hear from people about how to get out of your problems is not accurate. It is not what prophets who really were in touch with Divine Reality said. What people in touch with the real thing said was to keep the Law of Moses.
What does that mean in a simple vein? First of all to restart the Musar Movement would be a first priority- and this does not have anything to do with Litvak yeshivas. Rather it is a whole separate focus. It also does mean just (like it sounds) to start to be careful about the obligations between man and his fellow man-not to lie or steal etc. It also has a lot to do with government which is unauthorized to a be redistribution mechanism. Keeping Torah is not to vote for other people's money to be given to you.
Reb Nachman against Torah scholars that are demons
The Jewish religious world is a hotbed of cults. The major problem was foreseen by Reb Nachman from Breslov in many of his Torah lessons where he describes the problem with Torah scholars that are demons. Even though this language sounds harsh it actually comes from the Zohar and the Arizal.
The stereotype of Torah teachers is used by scam artists: they dress up like trustworthy people as part of their effort to fool the unsuspecting victim.
The issue many seems to be that people that want to come to learn and keep the Torah have little idea of what authentic Torah is and so they get easily fooled by charlatans.
The Gra already warned about this problem and even put the cults into excommunication but his warning and even his signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored.
Some people even think Reb Nachman was included in the ban, but that is not possible if you look at the actual language of the letter.
[Reb Nachman includes this idea of Torah scholars that are demons in even the very last lesson in his major book. But Reb Israel Odessar emphasized it more than is usually expected. Thus the Na Nach people tend to have automatic suspicion towards anyone that supposedly is a teaching Torah and they assume it is Torah from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Realm. I have to admit that the Na Nach group has a good point in this regard-- as many others have noticed, but have been intimidated from speaking out. I really have no idea why or when the present day situation arose but you have to say it started at least as far back as the time of Reb Nachman. Nowadays the last place one should go for advice is to torah scholars that are demons.]
The stereotype of Torah teachers is used by scam artists: they dress up like trustworthy people as part of their effort to fool the unsuspecting victim.
The issue many seems to be that people that want to come to learn and keep the Torah have little idea of what authentic Torah is and so they get easily fooled by charlatans.
The Gra already warned about this problem and even put the cults into excommunication but his warning and even his signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored.
Some people even think Reb Nachman was included in the ban, but that is not possible if you look at the actual language of the letter.
[Reb Nachman includes this idea of Torah scholars that are demons in even the very last lesson in his major book. But Reb Israel Odessar emphasized it more than is usually expected. Thus the Na Nach people tend to have automatic suspicion towards anyone that supposedly is a teaching Torah and they assume it is Torah from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Realm. I have to admit that the Na Nach group has a good point in this regard-- as many others have noticed, but have been intimidated from speaking out. I really have no idea why or when the present day situation arose but you have to say it started at least as far back as the time of Reb Nachman. Nowadays the last place one should go for advice is to torah scholars that are demons.]
Lashon Hara [slander] versus the Chafez Chaim.
I want to suggest an answer to a question that was raised in the Mir Yeshiva in NY on the Chafez Chaim. concerning the laws of Lashon Hara. I think the law of אפי תלתא [Lashon Hara said in front of three people can be spread further because it is already public] really has to mean that the Lashon Hara is said in front of three people. That does not include the speaker. I think this is really the intent of the law. Yet as far as I recall Rav Israel Meir HaKoken [the Chafez Chaim] allows this even when the speaker is one of the three. I believe he is basing this קולא on the fact that מחאה [objecting to a person that has occupied his property illegally] needs to be said only in front on two people.[and the Gemara compares the two laws] He is I think allowing this because in any case he is being strict about this law in saying that it applies only to אבק לשון הרע. So to make up for one חומרא [being strict in one thing] he is adding one קולא [being lenient in another].
The basic question on the Chafez Chaim is this. He allows the קולא of אפי תלתא (in front of three) that is: if one has said slander in front of three people, then any one of the three can go on and spread it further. The one who said it is included. The question is this: Tell the one who is asking the question not to spread it, and then there will no longer be three people spreading the slander.
My reasoning here is simple. If you look at the Gemara you will see באפי תלתא [in front of three] has to mean in front of three other people. So on the law itself there is no question. The only question is on the Chafez Chaim. And my answer is as I mentioned up above.
Furthermore on a different note I want to suggest that the rishonim that allow straightforward "in front of three" if it is true [not just the "dust of Lashon Hara"] are all deciding the law like Rabbainu Yona in the Shaari Teshuva that there is no Lashon Hara on truth unless it is because of collateral damage. Otherwise, I can not see why they would all allow it to be spread further just because of באפי תלתא [in front of three].[That would seem to make it worse.]
However if lashon hara for truth is allowed anyway, then why would you need באפי תלתא? So maybe the whole thing really just applies to the dust of lashon hara and that lashon hara on truth is forbidden without all the seven conditions for בין אדם לחבירו and the other conditions for בין אדם למקום
I imagine to answer this question you have to say that the whole thing about אפי תלתא is to say that you can repeat what you heard and it has nothing to do with information you know first hand.
The basic question on the Chafez Chaim is this. He allows the קולא of אפי תלתא (in front of three) that is: if one has said slander in front of three people, then any one of the three can go on and spread it further. The one who said it is included. The question is this: Tell the one who is asking the question not to spread it, and then there will no longer be three people spreading the slander.
My reasoning here is simple. If you look at the Gemara you will see באפי תלתא [in front of three] has to mean in front of three other people. So on the law itself there is no question. The only question is on the Chafez Chaim. And my answer is as I mentioned up above.
Furthermore on a different note I want to suggest that the rishonim that allow straightforward "in front of three" if it is true [not just the "dust of Lashon Hara"] are all deciding the law like Rabbainu Yona in the Shaari Teshuva that there is no Lashon Hara on truth unless it is because of collateral damage. Otherwise, I can not see why they would all allow it to be spread further just because of באפי תלתא [in front of three].[That would seem to make it worse.]
However if lashon hara for truth is allowed anyway, then why would you need באפי תלתא? So maybe the whole thing really just applies to the dust of lashon hara and that lashon hara on truth is forbidden without all the seven conditions for בין אדם לחבירו and the other conditions for בין אדם למקום
I imagine to answer this question you have to say that the whole thing about אפי תלתא is to say that you can repeat what you heard and it has nothing to do with information you know first hand.
14.11.17
I think the basic approach of Christians towards Jesus is mistaken because they tend to look at Jesus from the lens and viewpoint of Paul rather than taking his words to mean what he said. Keeping the Law which means for Jesus the Law of Moses was a big part of his platform and focus. Plus the idea that he is not God was also a major point by him, even though he was attached with God in a NeoPlatonic sense.{One person called him "good". Jesus said, "Do not call me good. Only call God good."}
You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.
On the other hand I learned in the book of the Rosh Yeshiva of Slobodka אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.
[The basic issues can be divided into three: (1) The Law of Moses. There you do not see the distinction of Thomas Aquinas between Natural Law and Divine Law. Rather-the law is the law. (2) The idea of attachment with God which is a commandment in the Torah so for anyone to say they are "attached with God" does not mean they are God. Nor does the Son of God mean anything more because of capital letters than it does anywhere else where the same phrase is used: "The Sons of God came to stand before him," "My Son, my first born is Israel" etc. and lots of other places--"Don't make a bald spot on your head because you are the Sons of God." (3) The whole debate between Paul and James and Peter is smoothed over in a very dishonest way. James openly says a statement which is as clear as can be: "Anyone who lacks doing even one commandment of the Torah is as if he transgressed the whole thing."' While Luther had a great point about getting back to original sources, still Christians have never taken the words of Jesus nor James and Peter to mean what they say.
You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.
On the other hand I learned in the book of the Rosh Yeshiva of Slobodka אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.
[The basic issues can be divided into three: (1) The Law of Moses. There you do not see the distinction of Thomas Aquinas between Natural Law and Divine Law. Rather-the law is the law. (2) The idea of attachment with God which is a commandment in the Torah so for anyone to say they are "attached with God" does not mean they are God. Nor does the Son of God mean anything more because of capital letters than it does anywhere else where the same phrase is used: "The Sons of God came to stand before him," "My Son, my first born is Israel" etc. and lots of other places--"Don't make a bald spot on your head because you are the Sons of God." (3) The whole debate between Paul and James and Peter is smoothed over in a very dishonest way. James openly says a statement which is as clear as can be: "Anyone who lacks doing even one commandment of the Torah is as if he transgressed the whole thing."' While Luther had a great point about getting back to original sources, still Christians have never taken the words of Jesus nor James and Peter to mean what they say.
Women today in the West have lost their sense of place and this makes them particularly obnoxious.
But to be without a woman is not really an option. Yet to be married to one gives them way too much leverage over a man. Therefore the פילגש option seems best. [That is the girl friend. ] This you can see was a viable option in the Law of Moses. It is not the same thing as a זונה [prostitute] who is not specifically for one man.
Many people mix up these issues. They think sex outside of marriage is automatically prostitution which is certainly not the case. .
Calev ben Yefune had a few wives and a few girl friends as we can see n Chronicles I ch 2 verse 46.
[That is the friend of Joshua.]
But to be without a woman is not really an option. Yet to be married to one gives them way too much leverage over a man. Therefore the פילגש option seems best. [That is the girl friend. ] This you can see was a viable option in the Law of Moses. It is not the same thing as a זונה [prostitute] who is not specifically for one man.
Many people mix up these issues. They think sex outside of marriage is automatically prostitution which is certainly not the case. .
Calev ben Yefune had a few wives and a few girl friends as we can see n Chronicles I ch 2 verse 46.
[That is the friend of Joshua.]
Torah scholars
Cults and cult leaders usually take off from some established religion. They do not make up their own scriptures but use existing scriptures and then claim that to get to the truth of that system one needs to go through their lunatic leader. This happens in the Jewish world as much as anywhere else.
Thus one needs a certain degree of common sense and a sense of authenticity to be able to avoid the problem. Another alternative that some people take is simply to avoid that particular religion entirely once they become aware of the cults that have infiltrated it.
I have mentioned before that Reb Nachman [of Breslov and Uman] noted this problem though he was not the first. This come up in his book in Volume I chapter 12 where he explains the problem with "Torah scholars that are demons" which he brings down from the Zohar. [I recall this problem arising a lot in all of his five books but mainly in his major one.] As usual in Torah lesson 12 he build up a a whole system based on this idea.
To solve this problem in fact those that decide to avoid the problem entirely and go off into Eastern religions makes a certain degree of sense. But my approach is to simply stick with Torah--the Oral and Written Law and avoid the cults as much as possible. That is mainly by sticking with the basic approach of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter which is collectively called the Litvak Approach based on the fact that this approach was widely accepted in Lithuania.
Today this good approach is mainly found in Ponovitch and NY Litvak Yeshivas and paces that are modeled after them.
Thus one needs a certain degree of common sense and a sense of authenticity to be able to avoid the problem. Another alternative that some people take is simply to avoid that particular religion entirely once they become aware of the cults that have infiltrated it.
I have mentioned before that Reb Nachman [of Breslov and Uman] noted this problem though he was not the first. This come up in his book in Volume I chapter 12 where he explains the problem with "Torah scholars that are demons" which he brings down from the Zohar. [I recall this problem arising a lot in all of his five books but mainly in his major one.] As usual in Torah lesson 12 he build up a a whole system based on this idea.
To solve this problem in fact those that decide to avoid the problem entirely and go off into Eastern religions makes a certain degree of sense. But my approach is to simply stick with Torah--the Oral and Written Law and avoid the cults as much as possible. That is mainly by sticking with the basic approach of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter which is collectively called the Litvak Approach based on the fact that this approach was widely accepted in Lithuania.
Today this good approach is mainly found in Ponovitch and NY Litvak Yeshivas and paces that are modeled after them.
13.11.17
בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב Talmud Bava Batra page 18 side B
In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. I was wondering why the גמרא asks on page י''ח ע''ב a question on רבא from ר' יוסי. Since for all we know the argument between אביי and רבא is only according to the sages of the משנה. After all they can not be arguing about ר' יוסי who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the הלכה would be like ר' יוסי, still they can not be arguing about a statement of ר' יוסי that says "It is allowed". The argument between רבא and אביי is if one can put something by the boundary if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.] It occurred to me that in fact the question of the גמרא must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and ר' יוסי says they do not need to be kept away. But this question on רבא can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all רבא says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border. And that is in fact one answer of the גמרא, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.
בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. תהיתי מדוע הגמרא שואלת בעמוד יח: שאלה על רבא מר' יוסי. שהרי כל הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא הוא רק לפי חכמי המשנה. הרי הם לא יכולים להתווכח על ר' יוסי שאומר שמותר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים. [גם אם ההלכה תהיה כמו ר' יוסי, עדיין לא ניתן להתווכח על אמירה של ר' יוסי שאומרת "מותר". הוויכוח בין רבא לאביי הוא אם אפשר לשים משהו בגבול ואין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק בזמן הזה. אז אם השכן שם שם מאוחר יותר משהו שיכול להינזק אז הראשון היה צריך לקחת את הדבר שגורם נזק משם.] עלה בדעתי כי למעשה שאלת גמרא חייבת להיות רק על הקמת הגן בפועל שבו הדבורים הוצבו ליד הגבול, ועל כך החכמים אומרים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים ור' יוסי אומר לא צריך. אבל שאלה זו על רבא לא יכול להתקיים אלא אם כן החכמים מחזיקים כי דבורים עושים נזק לחרדל. אחרי הכל רבא אומר רק דבר שגורם נזק חייב להיות מרוחק מהגבול. וזו תשובה אחת של גמרא, כלומר שהחכמים מחזיקים שהדבורים לא עושים שום נזק ולכן הם יכולים להיות ליד הגבול
A couple of years later: I have to mention I wrote this note when I did not have a Bava Batra with the Maharsha or Maharam. Yesterday I was able to get over to a Litvak place and take a brief look at this subject and noticed that both of these people go into it in detail. I only had an hour so I did not get the gist of what they were saying.
בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. תהיתי מדוע הגמרא שואלת בעמוד יח: שאלה על רבא מר' יוסי. שהרי כל הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא הוא רק לפי חכמי המשנה. הרי הם לא יכולים להתווכח על ר' יוסי שאומר שמותר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים. [גם אם ההלכה תהיה כמו ר' יוסי, עדיין לא ניתן להתווכח על אמירה של ר' יוסי שאומרת "מותר". הוויכוח בין רבא לאביי הוא אם אפשר לשים משהו בגבול ואין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק בזמן הזה. אז אם השכן שם שם מאוחר יותר משהו שיכול להינזק אז הראשון היה צריך לקחת את הדבר שגורם נזק משם.] עלה בדעתי כי למעשה שאלת גמרא חייבת להיות רק על הקמת הגן בפועל שבו הדבורים הוצבו ליד הגבול, ועל כך החכמים אומרים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים ור' יוסי אומר לא צריך. אבל שאלה זו על רבא לא יכול להתקיים אלא אם כן החכמים מחזיקים כי דבורים עושים נזק לחרדל. אחרי הכל רבא אומר רק דבר שגורם נזק חייב להיות מרוחק מהגבול. וזו תשובה אחת של גמרא, כלומר שהחכמים מחזיקים שהדבורים לא עושים שום נזק ולכן הם יכולים להיות ליד הגבול
A couple of years later: I have to mention I wrote this note when I did not have a Bava Batra with the Maharsha or Maharam. Yesterday I was able to get over to a Litvak place and take a brief look at this subject and noticed that both of these people go into it in detail. I only had an hour so I did not get the gist of what they were saying.
12.11.17
false Torah scholars
The trouble with false Torah scholars is that they cause more damage than if they would be open criminals. It is by the fact they present themselves as knowing Torah and by that gaining people's trust that they cause the terrible evils they bring into the world. This is stated openly in the Talmud tractate Shabat. It's a wonder to me that Reb Nachman who brought up this problem did not quote that Gemara.[He has plenty to say about this problem but for some odd reason he never quoted that Gemara.]
The basic idea is that these false Torah scholars then cause the entire Jewish religious world to fall into the Dark Side and from there problems spread throughout the whole world.
It would be great and simple to follow the Oral and Written Law if not for this particular problem which makes it difficult.
One method I have recommended in some of my blog entries is simply to learn Torah at home. Another good idea is to find an authentic Litvak yeshiva. However neither of these ideas is very simple. [unless one is in NY or Bnei Brak] Especially for working guys. Thus at least what I recommend is to save the first hour every day when one wakes up for a half hour of Torah and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics as per the Rambam and by that to be connected with Torah in an authentic way the whole day.
[The problem with finding an authentic Yeshiva just gets back to the original problem. Thus the best idea is to learn Torah at home--especially to guard that first hour for Torah and Physics.]
The problem I think goes into the area of money. That is that Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money and hen it becomes a means of making money that then it attracts lowlifes.
The basic idea is that these false Torah scholars then cause the entire Jewish religious world to fall into the Dark Side and from there problems spread throughout the whole world.
It would be great and simple to follow the Oral and Written Law if not for this particular problem which makes it difficult.
One method I have recommended in some of my blog entries is simply to learn Torah at home. Another good idea is to find an authentic Litvak yeshiva. However neither of these ideas is very simple. [unless one is in NY or Bnei Brak] Especially for working guys. Thus at least what I recommend is to save the first hour every day when one wakes up for a half hour of Torah and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics as per the Rambam and by that to be connected with Torah in an authentic way the whole day.
[The problem with finding an authentic Yeshiva just gets back to the original problem. Thus the best idea is to learn Torah at home--especially to guard that first hour for Torah and Physics.]
The problem I think goes into the area of money. That is that Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money and hen it becomes a means of making money that then it attracts lowlifes.
Bava Batra 18b
In Bava Batra 18b I was wondering why the Gemara asks on page 18b a question on Rava from R. Yose. Since for all we know the argument between Abyee and Rava is only according to the sages of the Mishna. After all they can not be arguing about R Yose who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the Halacha would be like R Yose, still they can not be arguing about a statement of R Yose that says "It is allowed".] [The argument between Rava an Abyee is if one can put something by the boundary f there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.]
It occurred to me that in fact the question of the Gemara must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and R. Yose says they do not need to be kept away.
But this question on Rava can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all Rava says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border.
And that is in fact one answer of the Gemara, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.
It occurred to me that in fact the question of the Gemara must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and R. Yose says they do not need to be kept away.
But this question on Rava can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all Rava says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border.
And that is in fact one answer of the Gemara, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.
Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] (The verse itself I think is in Leviticus 19.)
One thing they were emphasizing in the Mir Yehiva in NY was Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] and that I never really got into much. Later I found out that Rav Israel Abuchatzeira also was really into that kind of thing but it still never really became one of my major principles to hold onto. Part of the reason is because it is never really all that clear when you are required to warn others about something and when not.
[Rav Israel Abuchazeira had just one picture in his house --that of the Chafez Chaim. And his granddaughters had organized a חוג group in their school of girls that would learn two laws in the Chafez Chaim [the book of Laws of Lashon Hara] every day and they would put their names on a list of people that every person would pray for every day to find their true spouse. So this thing about Lashon Hara was fairly well emphasized by that whole family also.--Not just Bava Sali himself. I think most of the people on that list got married after a very short time.]
The opposite point that one is required to warn people of danger of associating with a bad person is what makes this whole thing difficult to deal with.
In the book of the Gra [collected sayings of the Gra] אבן שלמה it says to give rebuke even when one knows the rebuke will not be accepted. Thus in our case here, it would seem that to warn others of danger is an obligation even when one knows his words will not be accepted.
[The Mir in NY was different from other Litvak yeshivas in this respect -the emphasis on not speaking Lashon Hara. All Litvak yeshivas are unified in the conviction about the prime importance of learning Torah as defined by Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot. But the Lashon Hara was unique to the Mir.
The trouble nowadays with women is they have lost their place. They no longer know who they are and what are their responsibilities. Thus to come to any degree of self respect they need to accuse some man or men of sexual assault. This makes them feel worthy and gives them a feeling of self respect. If they would learn the laws of Lashon Hara all that would be changed.
[One thing I have to add here. That you can learn the whole Chafez Chaim and not notice the argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona about Lashon Hara about what is true. The Rambam holds it is forbidden unless in a court of law. To Rabainu Yona it is only forbidden because of collateral damage that might come out of it but in itself it is not forbidden as you can see clearly in the Shaari Teshuva. And also I must add that extra strictness in this easily deteriorates into not opposing evil where it is warranted and required. So I generally depend on Rabbanu Yona.]
[Rav Israel Abuchazeira had just one picture in his house --that of the Chafez Chaim. And his granddaughters had organized a חוג group in their school of girls that would learn two laws in the Chafez Chaim [the book of Laws of Lashon Hara] every day and they would put their names on a list of people that every person would pray for every day to find their true spouse. So this thing about Lashon Hara was fairly well emphasized by that whole family also.--Not just Bava Sali himself. I think most of the people on that list got married after a very short time.]
The opposite point that one is required to warn people of danger of associating with a bad person is what makes this whole thing difficult to deal with.
In the book of the Gra [collected sayings of the Gra] אבן שלמה it says to give rebuke even when one knows the rebuke will not be accepted. Thus in our case here, it would seem that to warn others of danger is an obligation even when one knows his words will not be accepted.
[The Mir in NY was different from other Litvak yeshivas in this respect -the emphasis on not speaking Lashon Hara. All Litvak yeshivas are unified in the conviction about the prime importance of learning Torah as defined by Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot. But the Lashon Hara was unique to the Mir.
The trouble nowadays with women is they have lost their place. They no longer know who they are and what are their responsibilities. Thus to come to any degree of self respect they need to accuse some man or men of sexual assault. This makes them feel worthy and gives them a feeling of self respect. If they would learn the laws of Lashon Hara all that would be changed.
[One thing I have to add here. That you can learn the whole Chafez Chaim and not notice the argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona about Lashon Hara about what is true. The Rambam holds it is forbidden unless in a court of law. To Rabainu Yona it is only forbidden because of collateral damage that might come out of it but in itself it is not forbidden as you can see clearly in the Shaari Teshuva. And also I must add that extra strictness in this easily deteriorates into not opposing evil where it is warranted and required. So I generally depend on Rabbanu Yona.]
11.11.17
There is something in Tosphot in Bava Batra page 18B that is a little hard to understand. Basically the subject is a Mishna where the sages say one must keep a vat that one uses to soak laundry away from a neighbor's vegetables. Also mustard from bees. R. Jose allows the later because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep away from your bees? You should keep your bees away from my mustard because they also do damage.
Abyee says if the neighbor has not put anything by the boundary yet then one can place mustard of anything else by the boundary until he does. Rava says one must keep things that can cause damage away from the border even if the neighbor has not put anything nearby yet. So how can Rava fit with R.Yose? At that point Tosphot says the Gemara means that Abyee is OK because the owner of the bees has put his bees by the border and then the intention of R.Yose is to say the owner of the mustard can also put his mustard seeds by the border.
The Gemara then answers the question on Rava saying the case of the mishna is when one neighbor sold half his property to the other neighbor. That would then mean that the mustard was there first and then he sold it to the owner of the bees. Then when R Yose says it is permitted that means the mustard can stay where it is and the owner of the bees must keep his bees six hand-breaths away from the border. And Tosphot makes a point in saying the owner of the bees can not put the bees near the mustard. This seems to me difficult to understand why Tosphot is changing things in the middle of his argument.
I only thought of this problem today on Shabat when I was outside walking and am not sure what to make of this situation. I do not know if there is a serious kashe here or just a comment.
The thing is if this is how Tosphot learns in the end then why not when he was explaining R Jose according to Abyee that he did not say that R Jose allows it means he allows the bees to stay where they are and he must keep the mustard 6 hand-breaths away?
בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב. יש משהו בתוספות בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב שהוא קצת קשה להבין. ביסודו של דבר הנושא הוא המשנה שבה החכמים אומרים אחד צריך לשמור על מרחק ממשרה המשמשת כדי להשרות כביסה רחוק מירקות של שכינו. גם חרדל מדבורים. ר יוסי מאפשר את זה האחרון כי הבעלים של חרדל יכולים לומר הבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להתרחק מן הדבורים שלך? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך מהחרדל שלי, כי הם גם עושים נזק. אביי אומר אם השכן לא שם שום דבר על ידי הגבול עדיין אז אפשר למקם חרדל או כל דבר אחר על יד הגבול עד שהשכן שם מה שהוא שם. רבא אומר שצריך לשמור על מרחק מהגבול בכל דברים שיכולים לגרום נזק גם אם השכן לא שם שום דבר בקרבת מקום. אז איך רבא מתאים עם ר. יוסי? בשלב זה תוספות אומר שגמרא מחזיקה שאביי הוא בסדר כי בעל הדבורים שם את הדבורים שלו על הגבול ולאחר מכן כוונתו של ר. יוסי היא כי שבעל החרדל יכול גם לשים את זרעי החרדל שלו על הגבול. גמרא אז עונה על השאלה על רבא ואומרת המקרה של המשנה הוא כאשר אחד מן השכנים מכר חצי רכושו לשכן השני. זה אומר כי חרדל היה שם ראשונה ואז הוא מכר חלק מן השדה לבעלים של הדבורים. ואז כאשר ר. יוסי אומר מותר הכוונה שהחרדל יכול להישאר במקומו ובעל הדבורים חייב לשמור על דבורים שלו שישה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ותוספות עושה נקודה לומר הבעלים של הדבורים לא יכולים לשים את הדבורים ליד החרדל. הדבר הוא אם זה איך תוספות לומד בסופו של דבר, אז למה לא כאשר הוא הסביר ר. יוסי לפי אביי, שהוא לא אומר ש"ר' יוסי מרשה לו" הכוונה שהוא מאפשר לדבורים להישאר במקומן שהן נמצאות, והוא חייב לשמור את החרדל ששה טפחים משם
Abyee says if the neighbor has not put anything by the boundary yet then one can place mustard of anything else by the boundary until he does. Rava says one must keep things that can cause damage away from the border even if the neighbor has not put anything nearby yet. So how can Rava fit with R.Yose? At that point Tosphot says the Gemara means that Abyee is OK because the owner of the bees has put his bees by the border and then the intention of R.Yose is to say the owner of the mustard can also put his mustard seeds by the border.
The Gemara then answers the question on Rava saying the case of the mishna is when one neighbor sold half his property to the other neighbor. That would then mean that the mustard was there first and then he sold it to the owner of the bees. Then when R Yose says it is permitted that means the mustard can stay where it is and the owner of the bees must keep his bees six hand-breaths away from the border. And Tosphot makes a point in saying the owner of the bees can not put the bees near the mustard. This seems to me difficult to understand why Tosphot is changing things in the middle of his argument.
I only thought of this problem today on Shabat when I was outside walking and am not sure what to make of this situation. I do not know if there is a serious kashe here or just a comment.
The thing is if this is how Tosphot learns in the end then why not when he was explaining R Jose according to Abyee that he did not say that R Jose allows it means he allows the bees to stay where they are and he must keep the mustard 6 hand-breaths away?
בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב. יש משהו בתוספות בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב שהוא קצת קשה להבין. ביסודו של דבר הנושא הוא המשנה שבה החכמים אומרים אחד צריך לשמור על מרחק ממשרה המשמשת כדי להשרות כביסה רחוק מירקות של שכינו. גם חרדל מדבורים. ר יוסי מאפשר את זה האחרון כי הבעלים של חרדל יכולים לומר הבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להתרחק מן הדבורים שלך? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך מהחרדל שלי, כי הם גם עושים נזק. אביי אומר אם השכן לא שם שום דבר על ידי הגבול עדיין אז אפשר למקם חרדל או כל דבר אחר על יד הגבול עד שהשכן שם מה שהוא שם. רבא אומר שצריך לשמור על מרחק מהגבול בכל דברים שיכולים לגרום נזק גם אם השכן לא שם שום דבר בקרבת מקום. אז איך רבא מתאים עם ר. יוסי? בשלב זה תוספות אומר שגמרא מחזיקה שאביי הוא בסדר כי בעל הדבורים שם את הדבורים שלו על הגבול ולאחר מכן כוונתו של ר. יוסי היא כי שבעל החרדל יכול גם לשים את זרעי החרדל שלו על הגבול. גמרא אז עונה על השאלה על רבא ואומרת המקרה של המשנה הוא כאשר אחד מן השכנים מכר חצי רכושו לשכן השני. זה אומר כי חרדל היה שם ראשונה ואז הוא מכר חלק מן השדה לבעלים של הדבורים. ואז כאשר ר. יוסי אומר מותר הכוונה שהחרדל יכול להישאר במקומו ובעל הדבורים חייב לשמור על דבורים שלו שישה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ותוספות עושה נקודה לומר הבעלים של הדבורים לא יכולים לשים את הדבורים ליד החרדל. הדבר הוא אם זה איך תוספות לומד בסופו של דבר, אז למה לא כאשר הוא הסביר ר. יוסי לפי אביי, שהוא לא אומר ש"ר' יוסי מרשה לו" הכוונה שהוא מאפשר לדבורים להישאר במקומן שהן נמצאות, והוא חייב לשמור את החרדל ששה טפחים משם
"Torah" is a word like "Democracy" that is notoriously ambiguous. [Like the German Democratic Republic which was the Communist power in East Germany] Even if you would get down to defining it properly , what it would mean in practical terms is subject to debate as wide as the sky. It is almost as if it can mean what ever anyone wants it to mean.
Thus almost anything you do based on what you think Torah says is sure to backfire. It is like walking into a pharmacy and taking the first set of pills that seems to appeal to you--since after all-- all the pills there are good for people one way or the other..
Thus I try to limit my basic principles to things I think are in fact what the Torah requires.
Honor and obedience to my parents, speaking the truth with total self sacrifice, learning the Old Testament and Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot. Learning Math and Physics as per the Rambam. Creation ex nihilo Creation something from nothing as the Rambam and Saadia Gaon go into in detail. Staying away from all the cults.
[Torah does not exist together with counterfeit Torah of the Dark Side. Since the entire religious world has accepted the counterfeit Torah of the Dark Side thus it is almost impossible to find true Torah. True authentic Torah has gone into hiding. One who wants to find it must do the same thing.]
Thus almost anything you do based on what you think Torah says is sure to backfire. It is like walking into a pharmacy and taking the first set of pills that seems to appeal to you--since after all-- all the pills there are good for people one way or the other..
Thus I try to limit my basic principles to things I think are in fact what the Torah requires.
Honor and obedience to my parents, speaking the truth with total self sacrifice, learning the Old Testament and Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot. Learning Math and Physics as per the Rambam. Creation ex nihilo Creation something from nothing as the Rambam and Saadia Gaon go into in detail. Staying away from all the cults.
[Torah does not exist together with counterfeit Torah of the Dark Side. Since the entire religious world has accepted the counterfeit Torah of the Dark Side thus it is almost impossible to find true Torah. True authentic Torah has gone into hiding. One who wants to find it must do the same thing.]
Spiritual intoxication and bad advice.
Spiritual intoxication.
This intermediate zone is dangerous for a reason not mentioned by Aurobindo--the problem with advice.
The problem is that anything one does to help a difficult situation is not likely to help unless one knows the actual mechanics and how things work. For example in 1799, George Washington was sick and the expert doctors were called in, and among the remedies they recommended blood letting.They did it so much that it surely killed him. The reason is that the body is complicated, and they had no idea what they were doing. So it is in spiritual things. Whatever advice the experts give is almost assuredly going to cause more damage than help because the experts themselves are in the Intermediate Zone and have no idea what they are talking about.
[Aurobindo asserted that spiritual aspirants may pass through an intermediate zone where experiences of force, inspiration, illumination, light, joy, expansion, power, and freedom from normal limits are possible. These can become associated with personal aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment and yogic siddhi, and even be falsely interpreted as full spiritual realisation. Those who go astray in it may end in a spiritual disaster, or may remain stuck there and adopt some half-truth as the whole truth, or become an instrument of lesser powers of these transitional planes. According to Aurobindo, this happens to many sadhaks and yogis.]
For this reason it makes sense to follow the advice of the Gra--Trust in God and not your own intellect.
That is to say there is a Gra that Navardok brings about trusting in God with no effort and this seems to conflict with the book the Obligations of the Heart who has trust with effort. What I am suggesting here is the difference between mechanisms that are well understood and those that are speculative.
This intermediate zone is dangerous for a reason not mentioned by Aurobindo--the problem with advice.
The problem is that anything one does to help a difficult situation is not likely to help unless one knows the actual mechanics and how things work. For example in 1799, George Washington was sick and the expert doctors were called in, and among the remedies they recommended blood letting.They did it so much that it surely killed him. The reason is that the body is complicated, and they had no idea what they were doing. So it is in spiritual things. Whatever advice the experts give is almost assuredly going to cause more damage than help because the experts themselves are in the Intermediate Zone and have no idea what they are talking about.
[Aurobindo asserted that spiritual aspirants may pass through an intermediate zone where experiences of force, inspiration, illumination, light, joy, expansion, power, and freedom from normal limits are possible. These can become associated with personal aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment and yogic siddhi, and even be falsely interpreted as full spiritual realisation. Those who go astray in it may end in a spiritual disaster, or may remain stuck there and adopt some half-truth as the whole truth, or become an instrument of lesser powers of these transitional planes. According to Aurobindo, this happens to many sadhaks and yogis.]
For this reason it makes sense to follow the advice of the Gra--Trust in God and not your own intellect.
That is to say there is a Gra that Navardok brings about trusting in God with no effort and this seems to conflict with the book the Obligations of the Heart who has trust with effort. What I am suggesting here is the difference between mechanisms that are well understood and those that are speculative.
10.11.17
To me Communism is just a sophisticated way of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich while claiming to do the opposite as the history of Communism shows clearly.
The Left in the USA is predictable. They believe whatever weakens or hurts the USA or Christianity is good. They will come up with all kinds of sophisticated sounding slogans to make it seem intellectually respectable, but the bottom line is simple and predicable. Just new ways of theft and coveting that which is of their neighbor's.
The Left in the USA is predictable. They believe whatever weakens or hurts the USA or Christianity is good. They will come up with all kinds of sophisticated sounding slogans to make it seem intellectually respectable, but the bottom line is simple and predicable. Just new ways of theft and coveting that which is of their neighbor's.
The trouble with Islam
The trouble with Islam is the entire movement began as the enterprise of crazed robbers of caravans and ruthless killers and sexual perverts. In the USA there was period in which getting back to one's roots was emphasized but this seems to have back fired.
Tolerance towards other religious faiths I think would not apply to a faith that makes the destruction of your home and property and all all infidels as its major goal.
[The whole thing about tolerance is just overcooked. It is OK to be tolerant but there is a line that you can not allow to be stepped over.]
Of course the Sepharadim had to deal with this problem. As history shows the Jewish women in Arab lands were taken as sex slaves for Muslim men and this created a problem with DNA that shows up today. The way that pure blooded Sefardim [like Bava Sali and Shalom Sharabi] dealt with this problem was simple. They looked at the Rambam who says in Mishne Torah that who ever wants to keep Torah can do so. The door is open for all to keep God's Law. Therefore they never mentioned this problem since all people have free will, and whoever wants to be good can do so-- no matter what their genetic code says. Still, the problem has resurfaced. Sefardim today are divided into two camps. Pro-Ashkenaz and Anti-Ashkenaz. And the Anti-Ashkenaz show all the violent tendencies of their Arab DNA.
[The whole thing about tolerance is just overcooked. It is OK to be tolerant but there is a line that you can not allow to be stepped over.]
Of course the Sepharadim had to deal with this problem. As history shows the Jewish women in Arab lands were taken as sex slaves for Muslim men and this created a problem with DNA that shows up today. The way that pure blooded Sefardim [like Bava Sali and Shalom Sharabi] dealt with this problem was simple. They looked at the Rambam who says in Mishne Torah that who ever wants to keep Torah can do so. The door is open for all to keep God's Law. Therefore they never mentioned this problem since all people have free will, and whoever wants to be good can do so-- no matter what their genetic code says. Still, the problem has resurfaced. Sefardim today are divided into two camps. Pro-Ashkenaz and Anti-Ashkenaz. And the Anti-Ashkenaz show all the violent tendencies of their Arab DNA.
The argument that race does not exist because it does not depend on just one gene is ridiculous.There is not one gene for eye sight. Eye sight is complicated operation that depends on many separate DNA molecules. Even so eye sight exists-- and it is genetically transmitted. For example trees do not have eye sight and therefore their offspring also do not have it.
[The whole thing about tolerance needs to be re-thought. It should not be a door that allows all behavior and refuses to recognize evil when it sees it..].
[There are another problems with John Locke's "blank slate" and empirical-ism as Dr Kelley Ross and Dr Michael Huemer have noticed. ]
[The whole thing about tolerance needs to be re-thought. It should not be a door that allows all behavior and refuses to recognize evil when it sees it..].
[There are another problems with John Locke's "blank slate" and empirical-ism as Dr Kelley Ross and Dr Michael Huemer have noticed. ]
9.11.17
In the writings of Reb Nachman.
תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים is a phrase that comes up in the writings of Reb Nachman. It means literally "Torah scholars that are demons." In fact it does not seem to be hard to figure out what Reb Nachman meant by this because the idea of שד יהודי comes up in the Ari [Isaac Luria].
It is borrowed from the Zohar itself and the Ari goes into some detail about it. But the prominence that Reb Nachman places on this concept is unusual. The issue comes up very often in his major book and even in the last Torah lesson he ever said n his lifetime.
But the issue is more than meets the eye. The reason is that every Torah lesson of Reb Nachman is highly structured. And every lesson is a closed unit. I mean he intends every lesson to be able to be taken as a life guide. So only a very few basic הנהגות are mentioned in any given lesson. The idea is to have a small number of basic principles that one can walk in and be assured of coming to that which one must come to.
[In fact, this seems to have been a major concern of Reb Nachman--to find one or more simple basic practices that anyone could hold onto --and then be assured of coming to what he must come to.
For example התבודדות--speaking with God constantly in one's own language as one talks with a close friend.
So then why would this concept of תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים play such a major role in Reb Nachman's thought? I mean to say- apparently from what I can tell, he thought that avoiding Torah scholars that are demons is a prime directive so powerful that if one would just hold on to this one simple principle, then he would be assured of having a good portion in the next world.
I can tell that he was definitely hinting to a major warning, but it is hard to know what are the criteria involved. Who can really tell the good one from the bad ones? Surely Reb Nachman himself was aware of this problem.
Since no one can really tell the difference, the conclusion seems to be simple; to avoid all of them. That way one is safe, and does not have to worry about losing his or her portion in the next world because of associating with a Torah scholar who's a demon. Better safe than sorry.
Apparently Reb Nachman was thinking along the lines of the Rambam who also did not want learning or teaching Torah to be a paid profession.
The Mordechei the friend of the Rosh and disciple of R Meir of Rotenburg brings up the issue of how is it possible to pay teachers of children after that the Gemara itself says מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם God says to the Jewish people: "Just as I taught you Torah for free, so must you teach Torah for free." I forget his answer. But this is not the issue I want to raise here. The focus of Reb Nachman is not whether Torah scholars are paid or not. It is rather that some significant percentage of them are demons. That is to say they are not בטל ברוב nullified by the majority. That is even if you would say the majority are good people that does not nullify or cancel the effect of these bad ones.
It is borrowed from the Zohar itself and the Ari goes into some detail about it. But the prominence that Reb Nachman places on this concept is unusual. The issue comes up very often in his major book and even in the last Torah lesson he ever said n his lifetime.
But the issue is more than meets the eye. The reason is that every Torah lesson of Reb Nachman is highly structured. And every lesson is a closed unit. I mean he intends every lesson to be able to be taken as a life guide. So only a very few basic הנהגות are mentioned in any given lesson. The idea is to have a small number of basic principles that one can walk in and be assured of coming to that which one must come to.
[In fact, this seems to have been a major concern of Reb Nachman--to find one or more simple basic practices that anyone could hold onto --and then be assured of coming to what he must come to.
For example התבודדות--speaking with God constantly in one's own language as one talks with a close friend.
So then why would this concept of תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים play such a major role in Reb Nachman's thought? I mean to say- apparently from what I can tell, he thought that avoiding Torah scholars that are demons is a prime directive so powerful that if one would just hold on to this one simple principle, then he would be assured of having a good portion in the next world.
I can tell that he was definitely hinting to a major warning, but it is hard to know what are the criteria involved. Who can really tell the good one from the bad ones? Surely Reb Nachman himself was aware of this problem.
Since no one can really tell the difference, the conclusion seems to be simple; to avoid all of them. That way one is safe, and does not have to worry about losing his or her portion in the next world because of associating with a Torah scholar who's a demon. Better safe than sorry.
Apparently Reb Nachman was thinking along the lines of the Rambam who also did not want learning or teaching Torah to be a paid profession.
The Mordechei the friend of the Rosh and disciple of R Meir of Rotenburg brings up the issue of how is it possible to pay teachers of children after that the Gemara itself says מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם God says to the Jewish people: "Just as I taught you Torah for free, so must you teach Torah for free." I forget his answer. But this is not the issue I want to raise here. The focus of Reb Nachman is not whether Torah scholars are paid or not. It is rather that some significant percentage of them are demons. That is to say they are not בטל ברוב nullified by the majority. That is even if you would say the majority are good people that does not nullify or cancel the effect of these bad ones.
8.11.17
The four fold lines of the Rambam/ Maimonides.
The four fold lines of the Rambam/ Maimonides. That is: (1) The Written Law [the Old Testament] (2) The Oral Law, that is Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot--mainly Tosphot.(3) Physics [up to and including String Theory] (4) Metaphysics (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel.)
The way to do this is simple. Guard the first hour when you get up in the morning for learning alone. That is a Half hour of Gemara and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics. Just say the words and go on. What you do not understand in this world you will understand in the next world.
[As it says in Avoda Zara and also in Shabat לעלם לגרס אדם אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר]
"One should always learn fast [Derek girsa] even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying."]
The way to do this is simple. Guard the first hour when you get up in the morning for learning alone. That is a Half hour of Gemara and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics. Just say the words and go on. What you do not understand in this world you will understand in the next world.
[As it says in Avoda Zara and also in Shabat לעלם לגרס אדם אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר]
"One should always learn fast [Derek girsa] even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying."]
This brings to attachment with Absolute Spirit as the Rambam makes clear in the Guide.[The Rambam also says the same thing in the Mishne Torah but in such a way that people usually skip over it. That is in the Laws of Learning Torah where the Rambam quotes the Talmud that one should divide the period of one's learning into three parts: The written Law, the Oral Law and Gemara. Then he adds this significant phrase: "and in the category of the Gemara is Pardes" which he defined is the subjects he mentioned in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah. ]
[When I mention Physics I should add the math needed in order to get to Physics. And that is mainly Topology, Algebra, PDE, Lie Algebra and few other important things. ]
[When I mention Physics I should add the math needed in order to get to Physics. And that is mainly Topology, Algebra, PDE, Lie Algebra and few other important things. ]
Education has been turned to Post Modernism
Education has been turned to Post Modernism in the USA and that results in the general Leftist turn in politics. This seems to indicate that a lot depends on how people are educated. Instead of classical education along with STEM, people were fed Leftist propaganda.
To me, this is just one more example of how important it is to educate people in quality things.
To me education ought to be mainly along the four fold lines of the Rambam/ Maimonides. That is: (1) The Written Law [the Old Testament] (2) The Oral Law, that is Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot--mainly Tosphot.(3) Physics [up to and including String Theory] (4) Metaphysics (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel.)
This program does not include any history or pseudo sciences or Shakespeare or any literature. These would all be considered a waste of time to the Rambam. And he specifically pointed out that history is a waste of time. And he was right. Who's history? For every single person today living in NYC there is a completely different history starting from this morning until this afternoon. Whose is more significant? Only the prophets were in a position to tell us the meaning behind the events. And their message was straightforward--all bad things that happen to people are because of worshiping any other being other than the First Cause, God.
[Even though Hegel was misused by the Left he still has valuable points. Even the Kant-Friesian School Dr Kelley Ross brings a point from Hegel in his doctoral thesis. The idea of background where all contractions are resolved.. Being and non Being.]
To me, this is just one more example of how important it is to educate people in quality things.
To me education ought to be mainly along the four fold lines of the Rambam/ Maimonides. That is: (1) The Written Law [the Old Testament] (2) The Oral Law, that is Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot--mainly Tosphot.(3) Physics [up to and including String Theory] (4) Metaphysics (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel.)
This program does not include any history or pseudo sciences or Shakespeare or any literature. These would all be considered a waste of time to the Rambam. And he specifically pointed out that history is a waste of time. And he was right. Who's history? For every single person today living in NYC there is a completely different history starting from this morning until this afternoon. Whose is more significant? Only the prophets were in a position to tell us the meaning behind the events. And their message was straightforward--all bad things that happen to people are because of worshiping any other being other than the First Cause, God.
[Even though Hegel was misused by the Left he still has valuable points. Even the Kant-Friesian School Dr Kelley Ross brings a point from Hegel in his doctoral thesis. The idea of background where all contractions are resolved.. Being and non Being.]
7.11.17
I got excited by the major book of Isaac Blazzer, the Light of Israel which more or less is the definitive work of the Musar Movement. After reading it I got into Musar as much as possible.
In Proverbs there is a list of great things that Wisdom promises to a person that holds onto it. But right before the list starts there is a mention about Fear of God. Proverbs 8:13. To me it seems that that whole list might be in fact referring to Fear of God. יראת השם היא חכמה (לי עצה ותושייה וגו)'
In any case the goal of coming to fear of God is mainly unheard of except in the books of Reb Isaac Blazzer a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter. I got the idea from his book even though in the Torah itself it is pretty explicit: "Do the commandments so that you will come to Fear of God."
[I have to mention that there is a new book by Isaac Blazzer; one that came out recently that was never published before that consists of essays he wrote besides his famous book "The Light of Israel".]
I got excited by the major book of Isaac Blazzer, the Light of Israel which more or less is the definitive work of the Musar Movement. After reading it I got into Musar as much as possible.
This still seems to me to be a great thing-- even though I have fallen from the ideals of Musar. That is to plow through by yourself the works of Mediaeval Ethics and the books of the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter.
In any case the goal of coming to fear of God is mainly unheard of except in the books of Reb Isaac Blazzer a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter. I got the idea from his book even though in the Torah itself it is pretty explicit: "Do the commandments so that you will come to Fear of God."
[I have to mention that there is a new book by Isaac Blazzer; one that came out recently that was never published before that consists of essays he wrote besides his famous book "The Light of Israel".]
I got excited by the major book of Isaac Blazzer, the Light of Israel which more or less is the definitive work of the Musar Movement. After reading it I got into Musar as much as possible.
This still seems to me to be a great thing-- even though I have fallen from the ideals of Musar. That is to plow through by yourself the works of Mediaeval Ethics and the books of the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter.
The Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter
Even though when I mention the Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter which was mainly about learning the books of ethics from the Middle Ages I usually neglect to bring up the later Gedolai Musar like the Ramchal, Rav Moshe Haim Lutzato. His place in Musar in important because he tends to provide a link between the Mystics like the Ari and the Ramak and Musar..And a link between Musar, the Ari and Rational thought also. Though his thought (in books like Derech Hashem) is not exactly philosophical with the usual kind of logical arguments that one would expect in a philosophical treatise, still it deals with many of the familiar philosophic issues that Kant and Hegel do.
Besides that I noticed when I was in Israel that someone had printed up the writings of one of his disciples [of the Ramchal] which looked pretty important to me, though I did not get a chance to learn them.
Though the Musar books of the Middle Ages tend to be based more or less on Saadia Geon and the Maimonides, the connection with the Ari is absent. The Ramchal provides an important link. At least for me during my first years in yeshiva, I found the writings of the Ramchal to be very satisfying in terms of putting what I was doing into proper perspective.
The Ramchal also is important as one of the very good interpretations of the Ari. Sadly the name of the Ari has been dragged through the mud by the use the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] makes of his writings. So to get a proper understanding from a holy source like the Ramchal is a good project.
I should mention that the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter also wrote some really great Musar books.
Besides that I noticed when I was in Israel that someone had printed up the writings of one of his disciples [of the Ramchal] which looked pretty important to me, though I did not get a chance to learn them.
Though the Musar books of the Middle Ages tend to be based more or less on Saadia Geon and the Maimonides, the connection with the Ari is absent. The Ramchal provides an important link. At least for me during my first years in yeshiva, I found the writings of the Ramchal to be very satisfying in terms of putting what I was doing into proper perspective.
The Ramchal also is important as one of the very good interpretations of the Ari. Sadly the name of the Ari has been dragged through the mud by the use the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] makes of his writings. So to get a proper understanding from a holy source like the Ramchal is a good project.
I should mention that the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter also wrote some really great Musar books.
6.11.17
5.11.17
Complaints that people have towards the Jewish religious world.
The major complaint that people have towards the Jewish religious world usually focuses on obligations between man and his fellow man. And these complaints are usually accurate from what I can tell. Even if you have not encountered this problem personally, that does not invalidate most other people's experience. This applies in particular to rich secular American Jews to whom the religious world tries extra hard to seem righteous in order to get their money.
But my complaint is different. I focus more on the obligations between man and God. That is,-- I tend to believe the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] has made a nest there. The worship of their leaders also bothers me. To me it seems that what Khulda the prophetess said about burning incense to Ashterot applies just as much to burning candles for "tzadikim". To me it all looks the same.
One added point is this: the undermining of the State of Israel at every opportunity. Or any state besides themselves. It is not as if they have ever be able to build one single self sustaining community. If we can count on our house and its contents not being taken away from us, if the shops that supply our clothes and fuel and food are able to do their business, if there are roads on which we can get about, schools to send our children to, courts and police to deal with those who would take advantage of us, it is because behind these arrangements, protecting and guaranteeing them, is the power of the state. Without it, we would be at the mercy of the worst elements in our society.
But my complaint is different. I focus more on the obligations between man and God. That is,-- I tend to believe the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] has made a nest there. The worship of their leaders also bothers me. To me it seems that what Khulda the prophetess said about burning incense to Ashterot applies just as much to burning candles for "tzadikim". To me it all looks the same.
One added point is this: the undermining of the State of Israel at every opportunity. Or any state besides themselves. It is not as if they have ever be able to build one single self sustaining community. If we can count on our house and its contents not being taken away from us, if the shops that supply our clothes and fuel and food are able to do their business, if there are roads on which we can get about, schools to send our children to, courts and police to deal with those who would take advantage of us, it is because behind these arrangements, protecting and guaranteeing them, is the power of the state. Without it, we would be at the mercy of the worst elements in our society.
What the Rambam must have thought. If we look in to the book of Numbers ch 34 verses 18-19 we see that Kalev was the head of the tribe of Judah. To the Rambam that must be considered in the category of a king.
As I mentioned that most Rishonim [Mediaeval authorities] allow one to have a girl friend. [e.g. Ramban/Nachmanides, Raavad] The only question on this is the Rambam [Maimonides] who allows a פילגש girlfriend only to a king.
The question of the Gra [Rav Eliyahu from Villna] on this is Kalev ben Yefuna who had a few wives and a few girl friends and was not a king. [See Chronicles I ch 2:46] [You can see that this is in fact Kalev ben Yefuna from the fact that his daughter is Achsa the same as we know Kalev ben Yefuna had in the book of Judges right at the beginning.]]
In any case the achronim [later authorities] on the Shulchan Aruch itself right there on the page say that to the Rambam there is no לאו [prohibition] involved, but rather an איסור עשה [a prohibition that comes from the lack of doing a positive command].
In any case, today I just wanted to share what I think the Rambam must have thought. If we look in to the book of Numbers ch 34 verses 18-19 we see that Kalev was the head of the tribe of Judah.
To the Rambam that must be considered in the category of a king.
The problem however that the Rosh brings up and his son, the Tur, is the mikveh issue. Not everyone is near a river. or an ocean. And even those that are- have a problem in the winter where the rivers are frozen. One thing I wanted to mention about this problem is this: even in winter in places where the water is rough [--like the areas after a waterfall--] the water does not freeze over. So one can go there even without an ax to break through the ice.
[Of course the best thing is to be married, however nowadays that does not seem to be possible for a lot of people for reasons that are well known. Women nowadays tend to devolve into selfish bitches right after they are married. Besides that, it is that it is always better when you come home to be greeted by kiss rather than a nag and complaints. Human flourishing does not usually happen in such conditions. For that reason it is almost always better to have a girl friend rather than a wife.]
The question of the Gra [Rav Eliyahu from Villna] on this is Kalev ben Yefuna who had a few wives and a few girl friends and was not a king. [See Chronicles I ch 2:46] [You can see that this is in fact Kalev ben Yefuna from the fact that his daughter is Achsa the same as we know Kalev ben Yefuna had in the book of Judges right at the beginning.]]
In any case the achronim [later authorities] on the Shulchan Aruch itself right there on the page say that to the Rambam there is no לאו [prohibition] involved, but rather an איסור עשה [a prohibition that comes from the lack of doing a positive command].
In any case, today I just wanted to share what I think the Rambam must have thought. If we look in to the book of Numbers ch 34 verses 18-19 we see that Kalev was the head of the tribe of Judah.
To the Rambam that must be considered in the category of a king.
The problem however that the Rosh brings up and his son, the Tur, is the mikveh issue. Not everyone is near a river. or an ocean. And even those that are- have a problem in the winter where the rivers are frozen. One thing I wanted to mention about this problem is this: even in winter in places where the water is rough [--like the areas after a waterfall--] the water does not freeze over. So one can go there even without an ax to break through the ice.
[Of course the best thing is to be married, however nowadays that does not seem to be possible for a lot of people for reasons that are well known. Women nowadays tend to devolve into selfish bitches right after they are married. Besides that, it is that it is always better when you come home to be greeted by kiss rather than a nag and complaints. Human flourishing does not usually happen in such conditions. For that reason it is almost always better to have a girl friend rather than a wife.]
3.11.17
there is a commandment to have children.
We know in the Torah there is a commandment to have children. That is a male and female. When does one fulfill this mizvah? When the children are born or by sex? It seems to me that Tosphot holds the later opinion. The reason is this: There is n argument between th house of Hillel and the house of Shamai [that is the students of Hillel and Shamai]. Let's say you and another person own a slave. So half is owned by you and half by another. Then the another lets the slave go. [That is he write for him a שטר שחחרור]. Then at that point half the slave is a regular Jew and half is still a gentile. [I forgot to mention that a slave that is let free becomes automatically Jewish and obligated in all the mizvot of the Torah] . So at that point the slave can not have sex with a Jewess because he is still half a slave, and he can not have sex with anyone else because he is half a Jew. Thus the House of Shamai says the court of law forces you to let the slave go free so that he becomes a full Jews. The question of Tosphot is, "Why do we not say עשה דוחה לא תעשה the positive mitzvah of having children פרו ורבו pushes off the negative command of not having sex with a שפחה כנענית? " (Since the general rule is always a positive command pushes off a negative command.] Tosphot answers because the mizvah is fulfilled at the end of the sex while the negative command is violated right at הערה--the beginning.
To me it seems clear that Tosphot is thinking that be fruitful and multiply applies to every act for otherwise the question would not even begin.
To me it seems clear that Tosphot is thinking that be fruitful and multiply applies to every act for otherwise the question would not even begin.
The reason Bitachon [trust in God]comes up in Litvak yeshivas is because it is relevant to the question should one be sitting and learning in a full time Litvak yeshiva of should one go to university or college to learn a profession. This makes the question of Bitachon enormously relevant.
My own experience with this is that I just went along with the system without thinking much into it. I got married and sat in kollel and got the kollel check at the end of the month. Then I went to Israel. At that point the thing that got me out of kollel was not the issue of trust in God but the fact that the kollel system in israel is set up in such a way that to be part of it one has to be using Torah to make money קרדום לחפור בו. [It is set up as a 9-5 job that if you come in you get the money. It is not set up as a kind of charity that is the only permissible way of doing this at least according to Rav Joseph Karo] That however still ignores the question of trust.
In Litvak yeshivas the issue of trust is boiled down to the argument between the חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pekuda] versus the רמב''ן
This is not anything new so far. Everyone knows all this
The reason I bring this up is I notice that the place where this comes up in the Bible is the Story of King Asa.who got sick in his feet and the verse says he sought help from the doctors instead of from God and therefore he died. The obvious question is what does this mean? Could he have sought help from God but also gone to doctors and that would have been OK?
What is interesting is that that was not the first time that King Asa was criticized for not trusting in God. It turns out that before that time, he had been attacked by the king of Israel [the ten tribes] and he had taken all the gold and silver from the Temple in Jerusalem and sent it to the king of Syria asking him for help. The king of Syria then in fact attacked Israel and King Asa was criticized for that action also. Kings I ch 15. Chronicles II 16.
To me today it looks like the Obligations of the Heart was correct when he said that the trouble with King Asa was he sought help from the doctors only. What he should have done was to trust in God but also do the necessary steps according to the way of the world to go to the doctors and listen to their advice. And that seems to have been the conclusion of Reb Israel Salanter also.
The thing which muddles the issue is that yeshivas are often geared towards making money by getting donations. In itself this does not seem so bad but then there should not be any talk about trust in God. Rather they ought to say they are using the Torah as a means to make money and then claim that it is OK to do so. But the last step is impossible. No one can believe that there is any source for such a permission. Thus there is an inherent inconsistency in the system itself.
Great tzadikim like Bava Sali however never had this kind of trouble because of the fact that people wanted to give him money because of his obvious tzidkut righteousness. They counted it as a great privilege to be able to give him money. So he was not using Torah to make money.
My own experience with this is that I just went along with the system without thinking much into it. I got married and sat in kollel and got the kollel check at the end of the month. Then I went to Israel. At that point the thing that got me out of kollel was not the issue of trust in God but the fact that the kollel system in israel is set up in such a way that to be part of it one has to be using Torah to make money קרדום לחפור בו. [It is set up as a 9-5 job that if you come in you get the money. It is not set up as a kind of charity that is the only permissible way of doing this at least according to Rav Joseph Karo] That however still ignores the question of trust.
In Litvak yeshivas the issue of trust is boiled down to the argument between the חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pekuda] versus the רמב''ן
This is not anything new so far. Everyone knows all this
The reason I bring this up is I notice that the place where this comes up in the Bible is the Story of King Asa.who got sick in his feet and the verse says he sought help from the doctors instead of from God and therefore he died. The obvious question is what does this mean? Could he have sought help from God but also gone to doctors and that would have been OK?
What is interesting is that that was not the first time that King Asa was criticized for not trusting in God. It turns out that before that time, he had been attacked by the king of Israel [the ten tribes] and he had taken all the gold and silver from the Temple in Jerusalem and sent it to the king of Syria asking him for help. The king of Syria then in fact attacked Israel and King Asa was criticized for that action also. Kings I ch 15. Chronicles II 16.
To me today it looks like the Obligations of the Heart was correct when he said that the trouble with King Asa was he sought help from the doctors only. What he should have done was to trust in God but also do the necessary steps according to the way of the world to go to the doctors and listen to their advice. And that seems to have been the conclusion of Reb Israel Salanter also.
The thing which muddles the issue is that yeshivas are often geared towards making money by getting donations. In itself this does not seem so bad but then there should not be any talk about trust in God. Rather they ought to say they are using the Torah as a means to make money and then claim that it is OK to do so. But the last step is impossible. No one can believe that there is any source for such a permission. Thus there is an inherent inconsistency in the system itself.
Great tzadikim like Bava Sali however never had this kind of trouble because of the fact that people wanted to give him money because of his obvious tzidkut righteousness. They counted it as a great privilege to be able to give him money. So he was not using Torah to make money.
2.11.17
In most of the books of Musar [Mediaeval Moral Principles] from the school of thought of the Geonim and Rambam [Maimonides] learning natural science and metaphysics comes up as the way to come to love and fear God.
This fact gets hidden in Musar books based on the Ramban [Nachmanides]
And later on Musar books will quote the Rambam but attempt to absorb him into the world view of the Ramban.
On one hand in the years when I was in the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY I did not want to be distracted from learning Gemara and I feel that learning Gemara exclusively did help me in remarkable ways.
However that does not change the fact that the Rambam did see Physics and the Metaphysics of Aristotle as an essential part of Torah learning.
The way to understand the Rambam I think is this: By being exposed to the wisdom of God as revealed in his creation automatically love and fear of God are awakened in one's soul.The Rambam says this openly more or less but still it is a hard concept to grasp after that the general opinion is the reverse.
Empirical evidence seems to show is that the Rambam [Maimonides] was right since the opposite opinion when it is followed seem to lead to religious fanaticism and loss of good character.
This fact gets hidden in Musar books based on the Ramban [Nachmanides]
And later on Musar books will quote the Rambam but attempt to absorb him into the world view of the Ramban.
On one hand in the years when I was in the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY I did not want to be distracted from learning Gemara and I feel that learning Gemara exclusively did help me in remarkable ways.
However that does not change the fact that the Rambam did see Physics and the Metaphysics of Aristotle as an essential part of Torah learning.
The way to understand the Rambam I think is this: By being exposed to the wisdom of God as revealed in his creation automatically love and fear of God are awakened in one's soul.The Rambam says this openly more or less but still it is a hard concept to grasp after that the general opinion is the reverse.
Empirical evidence seems to show is that the Rambam [Maimonides] was right since the opposite opinion when it is followed seem to lead to religious fanaticism and loss of good character.
1.11.17
Education: Stop feeding the kids garbage
People like Maimonides, Aristotle, Plato, and Allan Bloom concentrated a lot on education. That is a major theme in The Republic and also in The Closing of the American Mind. The natural thing to restore Western Civilization then would be to look at education.
Stop feeding the kids garbage would be the first step.
The next step would be to take the advice of the Rambam to learn Physics and Metaphysics. That is to restructure education completely by throwing out the worthless subjects and putting in things of value.
Everything called science nowadays outside of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology is just pseudo science. Allan Bloom was critical of the Humanities and Social Studies departments in universities but still I would have to say they do good work in terms of Music and the Arts.
[Metaphysics in the terminology of the Rambam clearly includes Aristotle's book The Metaphysics. But I think one would have to include also Plato, Kant and Hegel.]
Stop feeding the kids garbage would be the first step.
The next step would be to take the advice of the Rambam to learn Physics and Metaphysics. That is to restructure education completely by throwing out the worthless subjects and putting in things of value.
Everything called science nowadays outside of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology is just pseudo science. Allan Bloom was critical of the Humanities and Social Studies departments in universities but still I would have to say they do good work in terms of Music and the Arts.
[Metaphysics in the terminology of the Rambam clearly includes Aristotle's book The Metaphysics. But I think one would have to include also Plato, Kant and Hegel.]
Torah as a cure
The Sages of the Gemara in Bava Batra bring down that Job said that God created righteous people and evil people. Therefore what can man say to Him? He does what he likes. [That is the problem of Theodicity. The problem with evil. That is there are evil people and they do get punished for their sins even though it seems they had no choice but to be evil as they were created.]
His friends answered ברא יצר הרע ברא לו תורה תבלין God created the evil inclination but he also created the Torah as a cure. So there still is free will. One can choose to learn and thus be saved from the evil inclination.
To the Rambam this would have to include learning Physics and Metaphysics as he includes both in the category of th Oral Law in the Mishne Torah. [And he expands on this in the Guide.]
Obviously other rishonim like the Ramban and the Rashba disagree with the Rambam on this point but to me it seems the Rambam was correct. Not that I am in any position to decide between giants like the Rishonim but rather I had to decide for myself what approach to take.
So Torah as a cure would include the Written Law, the Oral Law, Physics, and Metaphysics.
The last two clearly refer to Aristotle, but more than Aristotle. {The Rambam specifically says he is referring to there subjects as understood by the ancient Greeks.}
My humble opinion is that Physics would include String Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Metaphysics I think would include Neo Platonic approach which came after the Ancient Greeks. Also Kant an Hegel. (That is my opinion.)
The Rambam as is known has an approach towards Midrashim that they are much deeper than meets the eye. The Gra also said the secrets of the Torah are contained in the Midrashim. So here too I think there must be some deeper meaning.
One thing I did notice is that God in the end of the book of Job does not agree with the friends of Job. Rather He said they had sinned in what they said. So the fact that the sages of the Talmud bring the words of Job's friends must mean something beyond the surface meaning.. That is another reason I think the Rambam is looking at the idea of Torah from a wider perspective. That is as including Metaphysics and Physics and objective moral law.
Obviously other rishonim like the Ramban and the Rashba disagree with the Rambam on this point but to me it seems the Rambam was correct. Not that I am in any position to decide between giants like the Rishonim but rather I had to decide for myself what approach to take.
So Torah as a cure would include the Written Law, the Oral Law, Physics, and Metaphysics.
The last two clearly refer to Aristotle, but more than Aristotle. {The Rambam specifically says he is referring to there subjects as understood by the ancient Greeks.}
My humble opinion is that Physics would include String Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Metaphysics I think would include Neo Platonic approach which came after the Ancient Greeks. Also Kant an Hegel. (That is my opinion.)
The Rambam as is known has an approach towards Midrashim that they are much deeper than meets the eye. The Gra also said the secrets of the Torah are contained in the Midrashim. So here too I think there must be some deeper meaning.
One thing I did notice is that God in the end of the book of Job does not agree with the friends of Job. Rather He said they had sinned in what they said. So the fact that the sages of the Talmud bring the words of Job's friends must mean something beyond the surface meaning.. That is another reason I think the Rambam is looking at the idea of Torah from a wider perspective. That is as including Metaphysics and Physics and objective moral law.
31.10.17
היצר רע מתלבש במצוות the Satan dresses up in mitzvot. He never approaches a person saying to do a sin. Rather he always comes saying, "Let's go do a mitzvah." But inside the mitzvah is enclosed a hidden sin that takes away all the value of the mizvah because it is מצווה הבאה בעבירה
Reb Nachman brings this idea from a midrashic statement brought in Bava Batra. But the Gra says the same thing more or less explicitly,
[This is one of the reasons I stay as far as possible from the Jewish religious world. But the major reason is not just the above mentioned reason, rather it is that I try to avoid the straight forward idolatry that is the essence of the religious world. You can see this point in the Nefesh HaChaim of a disciple of the Gra where he explains that idolatry can be directed towards people as much as towards inanimate objects.]
And further I feel a lot of problems that the world faces today are a result of idolatry as you can see quite often in the Old Testament--that troubles come close on the heels of idolatry.
Reb Nachman brings this idea from a midrashic statement brought in Bava Batra. But the Gra says the same thing more or less explicitly,
[This is one of the reasons I stay as far as possible from the Jewish religious world. But the major reason is not just the above mentioned reason, rather it is that I try to avoid the straight forward idolatry that is the essence of the religious world. You can see this point in the Nefesh HaChaim of a disciple of the Gra where he explains that idolatry can be directed towards people as much as towards inanimate objects.]
And further I feel a lot of problems that the world faces today are a result of idolatry as you can see quite often in the Old Testament--that troubles come close on the heels of idolatry.
[That is I think some people like my own Dad work well under pressure. But that is not me.
White society has an underlying current of the drive to excel. -But that is putting it politely. In fact it is the drive to be better than anyone else. This creates a environment in which people that can excel do so. For me however this caused me a great deal of discomfort. In any case it explains why in fact White society does come up with all the new and neat stuff.
[Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. String Theory, The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.]
Things like this:
I found the Beit Midrash environment--in [Litvak yeshivas] much more congenial to my taste. It also had an element of the drive to excel-- but in a much more relaxed form.
And in fact, even today I noticed that I do not work well under pressure.
You might have noted in the two books on Gemara that I put links to that I bring down the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Soloveitchik and Tosphot. But as a rule, I never was able to understand Tosphot except by a kind of learning in which I would just say the entire Tosphot from beginning to end every day for a few weeks without understanding a single word. But then at some point after a few weeks or more the whole Tosphot would become clear. But the learning to get to that point was always in this kind of relaxed way or not even thinking whether I understand it or not
[That was however not when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson who in general took the more direct approach to Tosphot: "Stay on it until you get it."]
[That is I think some people like my own Dad worked well under pressure. But that is not me.]
[Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. String Theory, The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.]
Things like this:
I found the Beit Midrash environment--in [Litvak yeshivas] much more congenial to my taste. It also had an element of the drive to excel-- but in a much more relaxed form.
And in fact, even today I noticed that I do not work well under pressure.
You might have noted in the two books on Gemara that I put links to that I bring down the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Soloveitchik and Tosphot. But as a rule, I never was able to understand Tosphot except by a kind of learning in which I would just say the entire Tosphot from beginning to end every day for a few weeks without understanding a single word. But then at some point after a few weeks or more the whole Tosphot would become clear. But the learning to get to that point was always in this kind of relaxed way or not even thinking whether I understand it or not
[That was however not when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson who in general took the more direct approach to Tosphot: "Stay on it until you get it."]
[That is I think some people like my own Dad worked well under pressure. But that is not me.]
World view used to be connected with the idea of a systematic philosophy. That idea was lost to the degree that people have world views that are immune to realty and employ self contradictory principles. A lot of work during the Middle Ages in philosophy was done to get to a systematic non self contradictory system. This still existed during the time of Hegel. But after that a world view could be just that --a world view unrelated to reality.
The good thing about Musar Ethics of the Middle Ages is that its structure depends on well worked out world views.
[I mean that Musar tends to depend on the books of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam in terms of world view]
The good thing about Musar Ethics of the Middle Ages is that its structure depends on well worked out world views.
[I mean that Musar tends to depend on the books of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam in terms of world view]
30.10.17
The religious world
The religious world is pretty worthless at this point, but there are still a few decent Litvak yeshivas by which a new beginning might be made. That would obviously be Ponovitch and the great NY Litvak yeshivas. But before a new start can be made, the first thing is to clear out the avoda zara--idolatry-that the Gra was trying to warn people about. [I should point out that Reb Nachman was not in the category of the "herem". ]
If there is any way at all to come to authentic Torah, it certainly is not through the religious world.
When I actually try to think about what it would take to come to Torah, my thoughts automatically drift to the שערי תשובה The Gates of Repentance of Rabbainu Yona. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because he gives there the short and simple way. But mainly, my feeling is coming to Torah and the Absolute Spirit is mainly by learning Gemara and Musar [all the mediaeval books of Ethics], not just the Gates of Repentance.
The way to learn Gemara is to have a fast session and an in-depth session. The fast one is by reading the Gemara along with Rashi [line by line, word by word] and at the end of the page to read all the Tosphot. The in depth session is to learn one or more Tosphot many times for many days.
The importance of learning Torah is that it is higher than repentance. So when one does not know what of how his or her actions are objectively wrong, learning Torah in itself sends corrections into the world of Repentance.
Reb Israel Salanter noticed the problem that religious people lose the menschlichkeit of Torah the more religious they become. He wanted to correct this problem by means of the Musar movement. He had a few disciples that went out and spread the good news about Musar/ learning Ethics. This to me seems to be a good idea. The way to do this I think is to get all the books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter and of the rishonim and just plow through them word by word.
The printing house Eshkol in Israel used to print all the major Musar books in one set.
If there is any way at all to come to authentic Torah, it certainly is not through the religious world.
When I actually try to think about what it would take to come to Torah, my thoughts automatically drift to the שערי תשובה The Gates of Repentance of Rabbainu Yona. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because he gives there the short and simple way. But mainly, my feeling is coming to Torah and the Absolute Spirit is mainly by learning Gemara and Musar [all the mediaeval books of Ethics], not just the Gates of Repentance.
The way to learn Gemara is to have a fast session and an in-depth session. The fast one is by reading the Gemara along with Rashi [line by line, word by word] and at the end of the page to read all the Tosphot. The in depth session is to learn one or more Tosphot many times for many days.
The importance of learning Torah is that it is higher than repentance. So when one does not know what of how his or her actions are objectively wrong, learning Torah in itself sends corrections into the world of Repentance.
Reb Israel Salanter noticed the problem that religious people lose the menschlichkeit of Torah the more religious they become. He wanted to correct this problem by means of the Musar movement. He had a few disciples that went out and spread the good news about Musar/ learning Ethics. This to me seems to be a good idea. The way to do this I think is to get all the books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter and of the rishonim and just plow through them word by word.
The printing house Eshkol in Israel used to print all the major Musar books in one set.
Some girls just are interested in you because of your American passport.
Some great points. Some girls just are interested in you because of your American identity. Some are interested in your money. And some are not honest. I have sadlly known all these types.Sometimes you can find all three wrapped up in a single girl.
If you find yourself giving free English lessons to someone who s supposed to be your friend, then you know you are in a bad relationship.
I think reading the news is a kind of evil inclination. History also. If one's intention is to relax, then reading news and history does not accomplish that goal. It just makes one more nervous.
Also the Rambam includes reading history in the category of Outside books that one loses his portion in the next world for reading] [That is in his commentary to the Mishna.]
That is to say there is a short list of what are called secular subjects that were recommended by the Gra and the Rambam. [Physics Metaphysics the Trivium and Quadrivium] but outside of that they forbid.
[Most other Rishonim were against learning things the Rambam recommended like Aristotle. Certainly the Ramban and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura. But I have reason to believe the Rambam was right. Mainly my reasoning is that I did no see much in the way of righteousness of even human decency n the path of religious fanaticism. This observation convinced me that the Rambam and the Gra are correct.\]
I should mention the news does not really add much in terms of objective knowledge about the world in any case. You can tell this yourself. Just think about any event that your were personally present at or involved with that was reported in the news. Was there any connection between the real facts and what was reported?
Also the Rambam includes reading history in the category of Outside books that one loses his portion in the next world for reading] [That is in his commentary to the Mishna.]
That is to say there is a short list of what are called secular subjects that were recommended by the Gra and the Rambam. [Physics Metaphysics the Trivium and Quadrivium] but outside of that they forbid.
[Most other Rishonim were against learning things the Rambam recommended like Aristotle. Certainly the Ramban and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura. But I have reason to believe the Rambam was right. Mainly my reasoning is that I did no see much in the way of righteousness of even human decency n the path of religious fanaticism. This observation convinced me that the Rambam and the Gra are correct.\]
I should mention the news does not really add much in terms of objective knowledge about the world in any case. You can tell this yourself. Just think about any event that your were personally present at or involved with that was reported in the news. Was there any connection between the real facts and what was reported?
29.10.17
listening to one's parents
Rav Naftali Troup does bring the idea that listening to one's parents is a command in the Torah. This is usually ignored but still it should be fairly clear in the Ten Commandments.
One place where you see this is in the Old Testament in the book of Jeremiah. The children of Yonadav ben Rekav were charged by their father not to drink wine and not to dwell in a house but rather only in tents. So when they were ordered by a true prophet Jeremiah (to drink wine) they refused to obey him because of the commandment of their father. This got for them a promise from God that the family of Yonadav ben Rekav will continue forever.
This is interesting from the standpoint of obeying one's parents even when what they say is not related to Torah. Or even further--it seems to imply that listening to one's parents overrides listening to a true prophet.
The idea is that one does not have to think that what one's parents are saying makes sense for this command of the Torah to apply. But it can not be a case when they command one to transgress the more severe kinds of commands in the Torah. This is because a positive command overrides a negative command, but not a negative command that has as a punishment being cut off from one's people.
Rav Naftali Troup was one of the great Litvak sages in litvak yeshivas before WWII.
Why is this relevant? Mainly because my parents did have a set of wishes for me. This includes things they specifically asked for and also things that their wishes were clear even if they did not express them openly. This is is one of the reasons that when I mention about the idea of the Rambam about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics that I sometimes mention my parents.
One place where you see this is in the Old Testament in the book of Jeremiah. The children of Yonadav ben Rekav were charged by their father not to drink wine and not to dwell in a house but rather only in tents. So when they were ordered by a true prophet Jeremiah (to drink wine) they refused to obey him because of the commandment of their father. This got for them a promise from God that the family of Yonadav ben Rekav will continue forever.
This is interesting from the standpoint of obeying one's parents even when what they say is not related to Torah. Or even further--it seems to imply that listening to one's parents overrides listening to a true prophet.
The idea is that one does not have to think that what one's parents are saying makes sense for this command of the Torah to apply. But it can not be a case when they command one to transgress the more severe kinds of commands in the Torah. This is because a positive command overrides a negative command, but not a negative command that has as a punishment being cut off from one's people.
Rav Naftali Troup was one of the great Litvak sages in litvak yeshivas before WWII.
Why is this relevant? Mainly because my parents did have a set of wishes for me. This includes things they specifically asked for and also things that their wishes were clear even if they did not express them openly. This is is one of the reasons that when I mention about the idea of the Rambam about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics that I sometimes mention my parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)