Everyman will one day have to give an account of his life.

The world to come does not get enough press. You can go through your whole day and not think about it once. You and I can completely forget about it as if it was completely irrelevant.

The trouble is that it is not clear upon what it depends.
A play from the Middle Ages brings out the urgency of the issue.
God calls to Death and Death comes and declares:
 ''Lord, I will in the world go run over all, And cruelly out-search both great and small; Every man will I beset that liveth beastly, Against God's laws, and dreadeth not folly: He that loveth riches I will strike with my dart, His sight to blind, and from heaven to depart, Except that alms be his good friend, In hell for to dwell, world without end.''

Everyman says: "Though I be a sinner most abominable, Yet let my name be written in Moses' table"

And he adds: "For fair promises men to me make; But, when I have most need, they me forsake"


But nowadays it seems largely forgotten.

To some degree I imagine I was always aware that I will one day have to give an accounting. But when I first began to think more seriously about it was when I read the Musar book (אור ישראל) of a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter [Isaac Blazer].

So upon what does the next world depend? Good Deeds. Acts of kindness.

Temple Mount. In terms of law I generally think it is OK to depend on any opinion in the rishonim

I am not sure why the Ramban [M. ben Nahman] [not the Rambam] is ignored when it comes to the question of entering into the area of the Temple [in Yerushalaim].  His opinion is stated in tracate Avoda Zara 52b.

It comes up concerning the subject of holiness of body קדושת הגוף. That is there are things like a sacrifice that can not become חולין secular. There are other things that become secular if one puts money in their place. An example is if one puts aside his lot or some object for the use of the Temple.  That can go out to be secular if one put money in its place. The question over there is the altar. It is there that the Ramban states his opinion that the Temple itself went out to be secular.

[Thus the people that go up to the Temple Mount at least have the Ramban to depend on. I vaguely recall the Raavad has a similar opinion.]

[Years ago I was definitely aware of the Raavad but not the Ramban.]

In terms of law I generally think it is OK to depend on any opinion in the rishonim.

interpretations of the New Testament

There are many interpretations of the New Testament. So I might be excused if I suggest my own.
My idea is to some degree based on the  Rav Isaac Luria. And some have suggested it beforehand. A "tzadik" [saint]. But not an average tzadik [saint]. What do I mean "not average."  In the Rav Isaac Luria you find certain tzadikim [saints] have a high source for their soul. For example Abraham the Patriarch in Kindness of Emanation.

[It would be going too far to suggest this on my own without any support. So I bring as support the Ari himself and also Rav Avraham Abulafia.]

The Rav Isaac Luria himself did not write much. What we have from him is from Reb Haim Vital. Rav Vital has about three books in which he writes the ideas of the Rav Isaac Luria on the Five Books of Moses. In the end of Genesis in all three books he hints to this idea.

Also Rav Abulafia deals with this in scattered places. [If you piece it all together the picture that comes out is clear.] ]

My basic idea is based on an idea of the Rav Isaac Luria that after the "breaking of the vessels" and the period of correction began, the light of foundation was contained in the vessel of kindness of Emanation.

[For some background, I might mention that the Rashba was very much not in favor of Rav Abulafia. But I think Rav Abulafia can be depended on as Rav Vital does bring his unifications in the end of his Musar book Gates of Holiness. [I.e. in volume four].] [Also you can find his books quoted in the Pardes.]
I might add that "son of man" ought to refer to  the son of zeir anpin זעיר אנפין.

u99 music file

U-99 F major Midi file [I can not convert to MP3 anymore. Sorry. If you can do it yourself this would be for strings, horns, flute, timpani.] In general the last part in most pieces are for strings on top with timpani. the timpani is usually saved for this last part. the beginning sections can be for flute, oboe or french horns. but since i am not writing any more music i do not know how i might have put this in orchestra form --but i just  want togive some hints to how it might be done.

Rav Shach [of Ponoviz]

Rav Shach [of Ponoviz] points [in the Avi Ezri] out that there are a lot of crazy world views flying around that are just waiting and hoping to grab young people. And he suggests that the only advice to be protected from them is by learning a lot of Torah.

So what would he say about the four fold program of the Rambam to learn the (1) Written Law, (2) Oral Law (3) Physics (4) Metaphysics?

I heard that Rav Shach held that people ought to simply sit and learn Torah until marriage, and only after marriage to worry about making a living. But that was not exactly what the Rambam was thinking about. The interest of the Rambam in Physics and Metaphysics had nothing to do with making a living. [In any case, I would have to say that Metaphysics nowadays is not exactly what the Rambam was thinking about. To me it seems clear he meant Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus. The Rambam's interest in these two subjects were because he held by learning them one fulfills the commandments to love and fear God.]


I should mention that because of personal failings  in my own traits, I did not "make it" [be successful] in the yeshiva world. These are the same traits that indicated to Reb Freifeld of Shar Yashuv that I was really not a good prospect for his daughter. Even so, from afar off, I can see the greatness of siting and learning Torah -- even though I am far from it myself.  So if  God grants to me even a minute or a second or just one word of learning Torah, I value it about rubies.

u98 music file

U-98 in midi - E Flat then A major then E flat u-98 nwc

u-2 mp3  u-2 midi

The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.

We do not just know about our (1) sensations or know things by (2) deductive  logical reasoning. It does not take a genius to figure out that pain is not the same thing or the same kind of thing as the point of a sword.
Thus Idealism Berkley is a non starter.

What seems to me is that after Descartes, the system of Aristotle  about the mind and sensations fell because of lack of credibility. It was hard to know what to replace it with.

At the same time Aristotle was falling in terms of some areas, the Reformation took place.

The Reformation did create a vacuum that was just begging to be filled.
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.


[Thomas Reid did a good job in showing the fallacies of idealism. Hobhouse did a nice job in demolishing the socialist state. But I would not have paid much attention to either writer if I thought there was much good anyway in Idealism or Socialism.]

Allen Bloom dealt with this issue [what is human nature and its connection to politics] to some degree in his book the Closing of the American Mind. I think he was saying the the Enlightenment with its faulty understanding of human nature brought the world to what it is now,

You don't always belong where you think you belong.

A priest in the Temple in Jerusalem has certain jobs that only a priest can do. A Levi has other kinds of jobs that only a Levi is allowed to do,  E.g. singing, playing instruments, opening the gates, etc.

A priest who does the job of  Levi is subject to a debate on what the punishment is. Death by Heaven or only a regular לאו prohibition.

But a Levi who does the job of a priest there is no doubt. The punishment is death by heaven.

[הלכות כלי המקדש ג:י] To Abyee even a levi who helps another levi is also punished with death from heaven.

From this it is possible to learn that often a person has  a certain place in the world and a certain kind of work that only he should do. It can happen for example that a person loves learning Torah --as all people ought. Still he might not really find his place in the Mir in NY or Ponoviz in Israel. Everyone has their own place that they need to find.

Sometimes a person's place is in the IDF. sometimes it is in Ponoviz or the Mir. You don't always belong where you think you belong.
The American Indians had something called a "vision quest" where one goes out to find their real place in the world.

הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך

הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשך איכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן

The גמרא writes if there is interest on a loan there is also profit to the lender. The reason is this. If the lender gave a loan of hundred for a hundred and twenty and in the end they are worth the same amount, then if you go by the beginning, there are both נשך and profit. If you go by the end, then there is neither one. If the loan was a hundred for a hundred, and the value of the last hundred increased, then if we go by the beginning, there is no נשך nor profit. If we go by the end, there are both.

רב שך זצ''ל writes אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירות' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן

I think the answer to this is that we do not go by the end. If we would go by the end then in fact משכנתא בלא נכייתא would be דאורייתא.  But we go by the beginning. This is similar to the last case of the גמרא. The last hundred went up in value, and yet there is no נשך דאורייתא if we go by the beginning. The law of משכנתא בלא נכייתא is different because the lender gave the field על מנת שיאכל פירות, but since the fruit will not come automatically, there remains a doubt if there will be any fruit. So it is only אבק רבית

[I admit that I still have to think about this to be certain that this would answer Rav Shakh's question.]






_____________________________________________________________________________



הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשךאיכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
הגמרא כותבת אם יש ריבית על הלוואה קיימת גם רווח למלווה. הסיבה היא זו. אם המלווה נתן הלוואה של מאה על מאה ועשרים ובסופו של דבר הם שווים את אותה כמות, אז אם אתה הולך כפי ההתחלה, ישנם שניהם, נשך ורווח. אם אתה הולך כפי הסוף, אז אין אף אחד. אם ההלוואה הייתה מאה על מאה, ואת הערך של המאה גדל, אז אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, אין נשך ולא רווח. אם נלך לפי הסוף, ישנם שניהם. רב שך זצ''ל כותב אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירותי' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור. וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן. אני חושב שהתשובה לכך היא שאנחנו לא הולכים כפי הסוף. אם היינו הולכים כפי הסוף אז למעשה משכנתא בלא נכייתא תהיה דאורייתא. אבל הולכים לפי ההתחלה. זה דומה למקרה האחרון של הגמרא שהמאה עלו בערך, ובכל זאת אין נשך דאורייתא בגלל שהולכים לפי ההתחלה. החוק של משכנתא בלא נכייתא שונה כי המלווה נתן את השדה על מנת שיאכל פירות, אבל מאז שהפרי לא יגיע באופן אוטומטי, נותר ספק אם יהיה כל פרי. אז זה רק אבק רבית

German Idealism

German Idealism really depended on Descartes and that whole train of thinkers from John Locke and Hume. However it was mainly Berkeley who brought out the major conflict between notions and sensations. [Thoughts and states of mind are not like sensations.]
But largely ignored was Thomas Reid who blew the whole boat out of the water.

Still people wonder about the epistemology of Thomas Reid.
To me it seems clear that it must be like Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Also there is the point of Kelley Ross that he made in his PhD Thesis "Ontological undecidability." That neither axis is primary--not the subject nor object.
So how do thoughts and sensations interact? Kelly Ross suggests by the pole of intentionality.



Maybe  you could say this is looking backwards. After you read Kelley Ross [the Kant Fries system] and then you look at Thomas Reid you can see how Reid was already implying those ideas. But still to me these ideas look to be really from Reid.
As Reid says: we do not need to consult with Aristotle or Locke in order to know that pain is nothing like the edge of a sword. And it is not by logical deduction that we understand what the edge of a sword is. And if so the whole theory of idealism falls.

Plato has the idea of recognizing universals by remembering our state before birth. This is in fact like Reid that there are plenty of things we know not based on reason and not based on the senses.

Some people complain about Thomas Reid that he did not explain how we know them.

Also they do not see how he refutes Hume. But Reid refutes Hume simply by this. Hume assumes that reason only tells us a very limited set of things. Things that are contained in definitions. He never proves this, or even brings any kind of evidence. To refute Hume all you have to do is not accept his absurd premise. Reason recognizes lots of things that are not known by definitions nor by the senses.


[This fact is very important in terms of politics. Communism is built of a modification of  German Idealism. If German idealism is based on a mistake, it might be well to drop communism.]
[I really do not mean to deride good points made by Idealists. Rather, my point is more along the lines of emphasis. As Reid himself noted, Berkeley made some important points. But as far as I am concerned,  Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus are enough for me.

I might mention that today I think the best philosophers are Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer. Not that everything is 100%. Danny Frederick and others have made of good points and critiques. Still over all I think they are about the best thing out there.

Kelley Ross takes the Leonard Nelson approach based on Kant and Fries to it utmost limits. And Huemer does the same with the intuitionist foundational ideas. To me they seem tantalizingly close.

one kind of false prophet

In terms of one kind of false prophet it is odd that the major point seems to be that he claims a new law of Torah was revealed to him from Heaven. The funny thing is that it seems easy to get out of this problem. He can just claim he is not stating a new law, but a new custom that is important to do.
Or claim what is called רוח הקודש Divine spirit as is very common for people to do nowadays. Or דעת תורה [a "Torah mind"]

There are multiple subterfuges that people use to get out of the fact that  they are in fact fulfilling the conditions needed for them to be considered a false prophet.

Things exist but their existence is dependent on God

It is  good idea to look at the beginning of Mishne Torah of the Rambam in order to get an idea of what the verse אין עוד מלבדו ["You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him"] means. The way the Rambam explains it is this שכל הנמצאים צריכים לו והוא ברוך הוא אינו צריך להם ולא לאחד מהם...והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו.
"For all things that exist need him, and He (blessed is He) does not need them, nor even one of them."

That is the idea is that things exist, but they need God in order to exist. There is no denial of the fact that things exist. But rather that their existence is dependent on God, while his existence is independent.
[This really ought not to be a surprise since the same idea can be found in any number of Musar books and books of the Geonim and Rishonim, e.g. אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Doctrines) of Saadia Gaon and the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart)]

attachment with God

The problem with attachment with God is that it is the highest Torah value, so when it decays, it falls into the lowest level of darkness.
So you can see why in Litvak yeshivas there is a certain amount of hesitance to emphasize  attachment with God as a primary value. It is not that they are thinking it is not possible for people to come to. After all, since it is a primary commandment of the Torah, it must be by definition possible for every person to come to. Otherwise, it would not be commanded of every person. But the fact is this high level can decay. ["Better a wall of ten inches that stands than a wall of 100 feet tall that falls."]

[I am thinking here along the lines of a system of values somewhat like Dr. Kelley Ross and the Rambam. With the Rambam you actually have two areas of value--moral virtue and intellectual virtue. And in his system these two areas are connected because the moral area leads into the intellectual area. As he says one's portion in the next world depends on שכל הנקנה acquired intellect.
The related system of Dr.  Ross originates with Leonard Nelson but goes back to Kant and Schelling. I think it was Schelling who proposed not all value is moral value.]
But I do not think one needs to be committed to German idealism for this to be a workable idea. See Thomas Reid. German Idealism is built on shaky foundations. In spite of the fact that Thomas Reid tears the whole thing (German Idealism) apart, still people have wondered what his (Reid's) system actually is. To me it seems that Leonard Nelson got the right idea--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Knowledge that you know not by the senses and not by reason. To me this seems to fit exactly with what Thomas Reid was getting at.]



[The larger world does have this idea of attachment with God directly in certain medieval mystics. Meister Eckhart was one I had heard about, but there were more. The Protestant world more or less however forgot about this entirely. I do not mean there was no value in the Reformation, but still this seems to be a weak spot for Protestants.]

[One thing I did do in this regard was when I was in Israel [Safed] I spent some time daily in talking with God directly from my heart in the forests and fields in that area. That is the idea of prayer towards God that is not scripted, but spontaneous. That is not the same as attachment with God, but when I was in Safed, it seemed to be closely related. The best I can imagine is that attachment with God seems to be  gift that comes from on high--but one can work on being prepared by means of learning straight Litvak Torah e.g. the Avi Ezri. And also private prayer with God. And to act like a mensch in all situations.]

Attachment with God does not get much attention.

Attachment with God does not get much attention as a primary goal in life. Most people do not even know that it is a positive commandment.

I certainly was unaware of its importance when I got to Israel.

Thus when I felt attachment with God in Israel, I did not value it, and after seven years I thought to escape.
I had in fact once before that time learned the Musar book the Light of Israel by Isaac Blazer. And he brings from the commentary with no name on the beginning of the Rambam that all the commandments are to bring one to attachment with God.
I had forgotten that.

[The verse in Deuteronomy says to do the commandments in order to fear God. Another verse says fear God in order to do his commandments. The explanation is there is a lower fear --fear of punishment. And there is a higher fear--awe of God. Thus the idea is to fear God with the lower fear in order to do the commandments; and do the commandments in order to come to the awe of God,-- and that will lead to love and then attachment.]

Later I saw  that just showing up in Israel by itself does not bring to attachment with God. Rather there is the whole learning Torah thing that you have in Litvak yeshivas that apparently is a prerequisite. [Anyway I was there during the last year of the life of  Bava Sali when there was a kind of  time of awakening. That seems to have passed. Thus the best thing to do is just to go about learning Torah in the straight Litvak path. With that-- attachment to God will come again.]

In any case, what you see is that if you are attached with God ((devekut)), then there is no reason to go out of it since that is the primary goal in the first place. The other commandments are meant to bring to that goal.

"Give a philosopher enough paper, and he can prove anything."

Rav Shach did not think very highly of books about the world view of Torah [השקפה]. He brings the verses that criticize making books "of making books there is no end" עשות ספרים אין קץ, and the end of that verse shows it is all vanity  and a waste of time. On the other hand he brings statements that are indicative that books on Torah are important.

The resolution is books that continue the process of the Oral Law are good. Books that try to get world view issues are a waste.  "Give a philosopher enough paper, and he can prove anything."

[However what would Rav Shach say about the Guide for the Perplexed or the Faiths and Doctrines of Rav Saadia Gaon? Apparently he would have to agree that a certain limited amount of  this kind of study is important.]

Meaning of your life as a whole or per section.

You can ask about the meaning of your life as a whole or also ask about the meaning of particular events and the meaning of certain time periods.
Sometimes certain events are begging for commentary. Sometimes the meaning is all too clear.

For me it seems better to look at certain time periods as defined by geographical location.


However if I try to define the meaning of certain time periods, I find they contradict. [Or they seem to contradict.]

If I look at the period I was in the Mir in NY-the lesson seems awesomely clear--learn Torah. But if I look at later periods the lessons seem to get lost or at least diluted. The answer to this contradiction I find in the period I was growing up in my parent's home --that is the lessons of balance and to be a "mensch" Or as the Sages put it טוב תורה עם דרך ארץ and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה
Good traits and manners comes before Torah. Torah is good with good traits.


Even though listening to hints from what happens to you in your life is one good lesson, still there is  a larger issue of figuring out the meaning of your life in terms of whole sections. The time you were in high school, and later on periods.

A suka on the roof with only poles for walls.

A suka on the roof with only poles for walls. The lower walls are considered to extend upwards.
But only if the poles are on the edges. From where does this law come from?
Reb Haim (HaLevi) holds from Shabat since the version of the Geonim in Suka only writes the argument is in the middle of the roof. So there is no proof from there.

The Raavad holds differently because of the Gemara in Suka page 4.






Reb Haim Soloveitchik holds גוד אסיק מחיצתא only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings  from Shabat 89 that the law  גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that it is from there that the Rambam learned the law  to Sukka

Rav Shach disagrees. He brings the law from Eruvin that one who stays on a mound that is 100^50 yards wide and 10 hand-breaths in height or less can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in Sukka that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא is applicable only when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to Sukka.

What I wish to think about is the Gemara that if you have a pit ten hand-breaths deep and 4^4 wide and long that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The Rashba brings Rav Hai Gaon for one answer why this is and another answer is you need מחיצות הניכרות.This last opinion seems to confirm Reb Haim HaLevi. Perhaps Rav Shach is holding like Rav Hai Gaon, and Reb Haim like the other opinion in the Rashba?
_________________________________________________________________________________

In  חידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה י''א

רב חיים הלווי holds "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings  from שבת פ''ט that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that is is from there that the רמב''ם derived  the law  to סוכה.

However רב שך disagrees. He brings the law from עירובין that one who stays on a תל that is מאה על חמישים אמות wide and עשרה טפחים in height can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in סוכה that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא only is applicable  when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to סוכה.

What I wish to ask is from the גמרא that if you have a pit עשרה טפחים עומק deep and ארבעה על ארבעה length by width  that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The רשב''א brings רב האי גאון for one answer why this is. Then he brings another answer that one  needs מחיצות הניכרות. This last opinion seems to confirm רב חיים הלווי. Perhaps רב שך is holding like רב האי גאון, and רב חיים like the other opinion in the רשב''א?

בחידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה. רב חיים הלווי מחזיק "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" חל רק על מחיצות ניכרות. הוא מביא מן שבת פ''ט שהחוק גוד אסיק חל על קצה גג. הוא כותב כי משם  הרמב''ם גזר החוק בשביל סוכה. אולם רב שך חולק. הוא מביא את החוק מעירובין כי מי נשאר על תל שהוא מאה על חמישים אמות רחב ועשרה טפחים גובה יכול לשאת באותו אזור. זה מוכיח את הנקודה שלו. אין שם מחיצות ניכרות. לכן, כאשר אנו מוצאים בסוכה שהחוק גוד אסיק מחיצתא הוא רק כאשר ישנן מחיצות הניכרות זה מתייחס רק לסוכה. מה שאני רוצה לשאול הוא מן הגמרא שאם יש לך בור עשרה טפחים עמוק וארבעה על ארבעה אורך ברוחב שהוא מלא פירות ואחד זרק חפץ לתוכו, הוא אינו מחויב להביא קרבן חטאת. הרשב''א מביא רב האי גאון בשביל תשובה אחת למה זה כן. אחר כך הוא מביא תשובה נוספת כי צריך מחיצות ניכרות. הדעה האחרונה זו נראית לאשר רב חיים הלווי. אולי רב שך מחזיק כמו רב האי גאון, ואת רב חיים כדעת האחרת ברשב''א

Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success in Torah depend on

Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success  in Torah depend on: (1) Time and (2) the amount of energy put into it. But to combine that with the idea of the Rambam of learning Physics seems hard. If the Rambam would be a lone opinion in this it would be easy to dismiss him. But you find his opinion also in two important Musar books חובות הלבבות Obligations of the Heart and מעלות המדות [The greatness of Good Traits]

I think that one should divide the time of learning into Gemara, Mathematics and Physics. [The Metaphysics part I am not sure how to deal with.]

But I also want to mention that Torah must not be used to make money. So while learning Torah is important, using it to make money is a very terrible sin as you can see in Pirkei Avot.

U-94 G Major  U96 U97 D Major  There used to be on google a nice converter to MP3. No more. So I either can post as MIDI files or another MP3 converter that does not work so well. I am sorry 

Finishing Shas and Poskim.

Finishing Shas and Poskim [note 1] is important. Litvak yeshivas however concentrate on "Iyun" in depth learning. But there is also great importance in finishing at least four times.

This applies also to Math, Physics, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

The best thing is to have two sessions --one in depth and another to just say the words in order as fast as possible and to go on.

[In fact, in both Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY the afternoon was devoted to fast learning.]

For me fast learning meant doing review on the Gemara and Tosphot only once, and then going on. But now I am thinking fast learning ought to be fast--no review until one gets to the end, and then goes back to the beginning.



[note 1] "Shas" means the Talmud. "Poskim" means Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Tur. It is a word used only for Rishonim [mediaeval authorities]. But it has come to include Rav Joseph Karo's and his commentaries. [Magen Avraham, Shach, Taz, etc,...]

My opinion about the Left is that it stems from ideologies that came into the world from the netherworld around 1800. Ideas that took over the minds of men. The USA was far from the scene of turmoil until the insanity came over in the form of socialism. Since then socialism has been taking hold of people's minds. So the Left still attacks anyone that seems to stand for faith and reason..

But I do not like to read or learn about this because it is upsetting and also when I learn about the Dark Side, that in itself seems to invite it in.

Emanation of the Ari

Emanation of the Ari is not the same thing as the belief that nothing exists besides God.

There is a verse: "You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him." אתה הראתה לדעת כי ה' הוא האלהים אי עוד מלבדו.

The Rambam explains this verse  in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the existence of all beings is dependent on God, but his existence is independent.  He writes in halaka 4 that that is the meaning of the verse אין עוד מלבדו.
הוא שהנביא אומר וה' אלקים אמת הוא לבדו אמת ואין לאחר אמת כאמתו והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו
But to get the full picture of what the Rambam is saying it helps to look also at halaka 3 where he explains all beings need Him, but he needs none of them.


I once had  long essay on this where I brought the Ari concerning the צמצום (Contraction). The Ari brings in the beginning of the Tree of Life that God contracted Himself to make a place for Creation.
There is no logical connection between  this and the issue of whether anything else besides God exists.
Even though in ארבע מאות שקל כסף there is one place that the Ari says God contracted his light to make a place for creation, that still does have any logical relation to the question.

The issue is more serious however.
Things exist or they don't. This is a simple result of the law of the excluded middle.
Madmen might deny the existence of reality, but I see no reason to take their views seriously.
Common sense says I exist and you exist. And I am not God, and you are not God. If someone does not see that, there is nothing more plain and simple to appeal to. 



If people are very clever in books, but are reduced to justifying themselves by confusion and lunacy like this, then that is their sufficient refutation.

[Frankly  the whole business seems to me to be part of the general nature  of the Sitra Akra (evil inclination) to go around in the world convincing people of all kinds of terrible nonsense. Each person is approached with some different kinds of nonsense. But there is always some grain of truth to it that makes it sound reasonable. A hundred year ago anyone with brains thought socialist revolutions were the greatest thing since the wheel was invented. It take a long time for nutty ideas to be revealed for what they really are--long after they have done their irreparable damage.

ב''מ צח Bava Metzia

This might seem trivial but it occurs to me to bring it up anyway. Rav Shakh brings a doubt  about a guard who makes a plea, "the object was  taken by force." Is that really a good plea? The Torah does believe him with an oath, but still perhaps the actual plea in itself has little merit.  Or perhaps it is just like a regular plea of "לא היו דברים מעולם" ["I was never asked or paid to guard the object".]

The reason I bring this up is in the old notes on Bava Metzia [which I might bring here] there is a question that my learning partner [who asked me not to name him or mention him in my notes--that is why his name does not appear there] brought up about Tosphot. In the same Tosphot page 98  Tosphot treats, "I do not know if the object was taken by force or not" as כפירה [denial] that he was ever under an obligation to guard it. And he also treats it as a plea of "נאנסו" ("It was taken by force").

So if, "It was taken by force" is really not a  good plea in the first place, then "I do not know if it was taken by force" is not any better. But if "It was taken by force" is a good plea, then "I do not know" might be thought to be like straight denial of any obligation.

[The reason I bring this up is mainly because I simply would like to introduce the subject, and I am thinking that with the aid of this idea from Rav Shakh it might be possible to answer the question I bring up on Tosphot. But so far I do not know how it could help. I am only pointing out that the two views in Tosphot are parallel with the two views Rav Shakh brings. Does that help anything? I am not sure--but it might be. If so it would be great because that question on Tosphot has been sitting in my notes for a few years already. I am optimistic because it has happened to me that I saw an idea from Rav Shakh that helped me to answer questions that had been sitting in my notes for years.[I do not have a Bava Metzia and I also can not read  my notes very easily unless I can get a printed version. But still I have hope that maybe some solution can be found.(The problem is not if you can find a way to say איני יודע is כפירה or אונס. The problem is that Tosphot treats it both ways and seems obligated to treat it both ways according to the reasoning n Tosphot.])



These are some of my notes on that Tosphot:


ב''מ צח. תוספות משכחת. בתחלה תוספות [בענין שיטת הריב''א] צריכים להגיד ש"איני יודע" של המשנה היא כפירה- דאם "איני יודע" הוא טענת אונס (שבויה או נשברה) אזי לריב''א אין צורך לעוד בהמה.- והגמרא בפירוש מצריכה עוד בהמה. ואחר זה תוספות אומרים "איני יודע" הוא טיעון של טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה). איך רואים את זה? בשביל שהגמרא אומרת שכדי שתהיה שבועה, חייב להיות שלש בהמות: (1) הודאה, (2) כפירה, (3) ואיני יודע. אם "איני יודע" הוא כפירה, אז יש לך רק כפירה והודאה. סתירה ישרה.
למה תוספות נלכדו בזו? בשביל שהם מתעמלים לתרץ את הריב''א בדיוק כמו שעשו בבבא קמא. לר''ת אין צורך בכל זה ואצלו "איני יודע" הוא פשוט טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה).
אני חשבתי לתרץ את הקושיא הזאת על תוספות כך. בתחלה תוספות מחזיקים  שהשיטה של ש"איני יודע" הוא כפירה בשביל שיש בו קצת אונס,- תגיד למשל ארבעים אחוז. וזה אינו מספיק העזה להגיד שהוא מעיז להצריך שבועה אלא אם כן יש גם הודאה ביחד אתו. אחר זה תוספות מחזיקים את השיטה  של ש"איני יודע" הוא מספיק טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) כדי להיחשב שונה מכפירה סתם- וכדעת רמי בר חמא שצריך טענות כפירה והודאה באונס.
נחזור לזאת אחר כך, משום שזה אינו מתרץ את השאלה בגלל שהעזה שייכת רק למַלְוֶה. ופשוט הוא.] יש תירוץ יותר טוב. היינו טענת "איני יודע אם נאנס" נחשבת טענת אונס, וטענת "איני יודע אם היתה שם עוד בהמה בכלל" נחשבת טענת כפירה.  [להסביר את השאלה כאן במילים פשוטות-- בשיטת הריב''א, טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) צריך שבועה. ולכן בתחלה כשהגמרא מחייבת הודאה ביחד עם "איני יודע" אנחנו חייבים להבין "איני יודע" הוא כפירה. אחר כך, הגמרא מחייבת הודאה וכפירה ביחד עם "איני יודע" ולכן נראה שם ש"איני יודע" משמשת במקום טענת אונסים. (אם "איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה לרמי בר חמא אז לא צריכים עוד בהמה של כפירה), ואין לתרץ שטענת "איני יודע" יכולה לשמש במקום שתיהן, שאם כן בתחלה היתה מספקת טענת "איני יודע" להיות נחשבת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) וחייב בשבועה ואינו יכול להישבע, ולכן משלם.
לתרץ את זה, נראה לומר ש"איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה להריב''א, אבל לקמן בסוגיא של רמי בר חמא צריכים בהמה של "איני יודע" כדי שלא יהיה אפשר להישבע. רק הקושיא עם זה היא שתוספות בעצמם אומרים בענין אותה סוגיא ש"איני יודע" היא טענת אונס ,שבורה או מתה או שבויה.] נראה לי כעת שאפשר לתרץ את הקושיה הזאת על ידי החילוק של רב שך באבי עזרי בתחלת ספר המשפטים שטענת איני יודע בעצמה תלויה באיך שאתה מסתכל על טענת אונס.
היינו רב שך מביא ספק אם טענת אונס היא טענה חזקה או לא.
אם היא טענה חלשה אז איני יודע אם נאנסו אינה טענה כלל אינו פטור בגלל מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם אלא בגלל שאין לו טענה. אם היא טענה חזקה אז איני יודע חייב בגלל מתוך. וזה מקיים התנאי להתחייב שבועה.


 גם אפשר לחלק בין איני יודע אם נאנסו ובין איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך. וגם אפשר לומר שאיני יודע אם נאנסו היא טענת הודאה כמו איני יודע אם שילמתי את החוב שמודה שחייב. איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך היא טענת כפירה.

To Mueller: Have you no decency?

There are tons of laws in the USA. This is not a metaphor. The laws on the books in the USA could be used for ballast on a nuclear submarine.  There is no question if you get the best prosecutors around and have them examine any one individual for as long as it takes, you could convict anyone of countless crimes.
So to just keep investigating and then send for the best prosecutors in Manhattan to get at President Trump seems unfair. Usually what prosecutor does is investigate a crime after it is obvious that it has been committed. They do not look for crimes to investigate just because they do not like someone.

To Mueller: Have you no decency?

Hillel was thrown out of the yeshiva of Shemaia and Avtalion

From what is possible to tell, I think that Hillel was thrown out of the yeshiva of Shemaia and Avtalion until he could pay the entrance fee. [You see this  from the fact that on days he couldn't pay the fee he went up to the roof to listen through a crack in the ceiling.]

And Rav Shach brings the idea אף חכמתי עמדה לי "The knowledge I learned with pain stood with me."

What this seems to indicate  is that the trouble people go through in Litvak yeshivas is the only way to merit to Torah.

When people ask about some hard experience they went through in a Litvak yeshiva, they often consider the question to be unanswerable and use it as a reason to leave off learning. And the questions are often very good questions. Yet the answer seems to be that going through what they go through is the only way to come to Torah.

I am not saying to ignore the questions. But rather I suggest that the attitude ought to be to hang on even though there are questions.

ויגרש את האדם מן הגן וישם שם את הכרוב עם חרב המתהפכת לשמור את הדרך

When God threw out Adam from the Garden of Eden he placed at the entrance an angel with a fiery sword to guard the path to the tree of life. We see one can not get to Torah without going through these kinds of questions and difficulties.

[Sometimes there is just cause for the fact that people get thrown out, sometimes not. But what I am suggesting here is that when you have gone through problems, you ought to assume that there is something internal that is the cause.]

philosophy of Torah

The Ran of Breslov [Reb Nahman] had a low opinion of the Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed.
Also when he  listed subjects one must finish every year in such a way that the day does not seem long enough he listed the whole Talmud, and the poskim Rif, Rosh and the major book of Rav Joseph Karo The Laid Out Table. But he skipped the Rambam. It seems to me that he skipped it on purpose.
The Gra wrote his comments on the Laid Out Table,  not the Rambam.

The book I was most impressed with in terms of law is the Tur with the commentary of Rav Yoseph Karo.

But I also think the Rambam's Mishne Torah is good to learn with the basic commentary of Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri.

As for the Guide itself,  I can see the that the Ran of Breslov had a point, -- it seems a little out of date. In terms of the philosophy of Torah, I think Saadia Gaon's Faiths and Doctrines is better. In any case, Reb Nahman did not think learning any philosophy makes sense, and from that fact I thought  not to do so. Though I wanted to listen to the Rambam about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, but because of the warning of Reb Nahman, I decided not to spend any effort on philosophy except as a pastime to relax.   I think anyone looking at philosophy today would have to agree that it is a waste land.

[However Leonard Nelson had a good point about non-intuitive immediate knowledge. That is knowledge that one knows,- but not through sense perception and not through any intellectual deductions (and not through anything. It is immediate, not mediate).  It is akin to Michael Huemer's idea of what reason perceives. Direct awareness of facts and of external objects. Not through anything. Huemer builds on Thomas Reid, but the idea seems close to Leonard Nelson's immediate non intuitive knowledge.--another word for faith.]

The smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.

Can great people make a mistake?
The first time I heard this issue was in my first Litvak (Lithuanian) Yeshiva Shar Yashuv. This was brought up in reference to Moses (Moshe) accepting the mixed multitude and the other mistakes mentioned in the Torah [hitting the rock]. And the fact that when a great person makes a small mistake it can lead to terrible consequences.

John von Neumann brought a proof against the hidden variable theory. It turned out that the proof was wrong. [That is what led John Bell to reconsider hidden variable theories and to reexamine the EPR experiment, and that is when he discovered his famous inequality. --the one that Nature violates.]

Apparently, even the smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.

Even more than that.- Ahia Hashiloni anointed Yeravam ben Navat as king of Israel. And Ahia is considered the greatest prophet after Moshe. That is indicative that some things must happen-- even though they seem less than desirable.
Oddly enough even with Moses there seem to things than are not considered mistakes, but still seem to have been less than desirable, e.g sending of the spies to see if Israel was a great as all that.

Taking Musar seriously

The beginning of my taking Musar seriously was on Rosh Hashanah in the Mir in NY. It was during Musaf [a prayer on Rosh Hashana] and I had the book of a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter, The Light of Israel by Rav Isaac Blazer.
Going through the introduction, I got an idea of what it is all about. However I should add, that I was in any case attracted to the Mir in the first place because I felt it had an atmosphere of Fear of God.

At any rate, I got into it deeply. But that was in a way I can not describe now at all because I fell from that higher state of consciousness.

And I would like to add that it is possible for people to come to a higher state of consciousness and to fall to a lower state. Not just individuals, but even whole countries.


The main way I got into that  higher state of consciousness was simply doing the Musar thing as it had been originally accepted in Litvak Yeshivas--that is to learn Musar about a 1.5 hours per day and the rest of the day Gemara. I do not say that I could do that now, but that is what I was doing back then, and I found it   to be an amazing method and path.

[I admit I might have over done it. But I figure it is better to overdo it than to under do it.]



What I'm trying to say is that at the Mir in NY and also in other Litvak yeshivas, the Musar session is short. It is 20 minutes before Minha [afternoon prayer] and 15 minutes before Maariv [evening prayer]. However in Europe the Musar sessions were longer and if you added them up, they came to about about 1.5 hours per day.

I also think that the approach of the Boy Scouts is important--that is one learn good traits by action. The way the Boy Scouts do that is to learn good traits as an aspect of survival skills. [The Boy Scouts used to be more based on faith. Sadly they fell from that.]


[I should add that Rav Shach thought that the Musar movement was very important. I mainly can see the importance of Musar in terms of the ideas that it implants into one. It helps to develop a healthy world view. And people in their teens and 20's are looking for making sense of the world around them. And Musar does a great job in giving an accurate representation of what the world is actually like, and what one's responsibilities in it are.  And for me I think the main effect of Musar was to help me form my world view and correct mistakes. I did not perceive any effect on my traits--though I might have missed that.]

[So why do Litvak yeshivas learn less Musar than advocated by Reb Israel Salanter. I imagine it is because of the "law of limited returns."That law indicates that there is an upper limit as to how effective it can be. It is like drinking water. It is good for you, but there is a limit.]

u92 music file

u92 F Major

"History is just one damn thing after another." (anonymous) This to some degree helps to understand the Rambam who saw learning history as Bitul Torah, a waste of time.

"History is just one damn thing after another." (anonymous)
This to some degree helps to understand the Rambam who saw learning history as Bitul Torah, a waste of time.
Yet there is some aspect of history that I think is important because it helps to understand the USA.  English History [especially the history of England after Elizabeth.] helps to understand the issues that became part of the USA Constitution.
And the USA was until around 1960 one of the great wonders of the world. But socialists could not stand to see the good times, and came over from Europe to destroy it by means of socialism, Therefore, it is important to understand the basic principles upon which the USA was founded.

After thought:
Democracy as in the USA actually stems from England with modifications based on English experiences with conflicts between with Parliament, and the King. So it has a long history. Even in ancient Rome elections took place. So the way democracy is understood in the USA is not actually all that new and has deep roots. So I feel it is unlikely to disappear any time soon.

On running for office in Rome

[The basic formula that made America great was the combination of Reason and Revelation. That is faith with reason.]

if you take the Rambam seriously about the importance of learning Physics that the way to go about it is to guard the first hour of the morning when you wake up for that alone. T

I am no expert but to seems to me that if you take the Rambam seriously about the importance of learning Physics that the way to go about it is to guard the first hour of the morning when you wake up for that alone. That is,- to get up and start right away immediately with no time lapse between waking up and getting started. [I think however a quike coffee is OK.]. And then just to say the words and go on as I mentioned before lots of times. [That is brought down in tractate Sabbath I think around page 63. Also the Musar book Paths of the Righteous brings that kind of learning. ]

[If you have a copy of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri or a Gemara,I think that is a good idea to  do them along with the Physics.  In fact I found learning Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and Tosphot to be a help to understanding Physics.]

Economic Equality

It seems if A lives a good life and B lives a vastly better life there is nothing wrong. Just the fact that they are not equal does not seem to matter at all to either one of them but only to  academic economists.

 Economic Equality seems to have nothing to recommend it as a goal except jealousy.   "Redistribution" is a kind way of saying "theft."

The problem seems to be kind of what you see in the philosophy of the Middle Ages. Axioms are picked that to them sounded good but to our ears seem strange. Then they go on to logical deductions from those axioms. But the deductions do not seem to hold water since the axioms themselves did not look solid.
Nowadays to convince young people of things the same process is done. They find some nice sounding slogan. Then draw the logical consequences from that slogan. Yet if you think about it you can tell there was nothing holding up the slogan in the first place but the fact that young people want to fit in with their peer group and the fact  that the slogan sounded nice.

critique against the Hegelian State by L T Hobhouse.

There was a well known critique against the Hegelian State by L T Hobhouse. Now it is more or less forgotten, but to me he makes some great points especially in the appendix where he brings out a major fallacy in Hegel's Theory of Right.

Edward Feser has gone back to Aquinas Michael, Huemer to Thomas Reid and the Intuitionists. But to me the best approach seems to be along the lines of Leonard Nelson. That Nelson school of thought [Kant-Friesian] anyway seems pretty close to Saadia Gaon and Maimonides--a lot more so than Hegel.

u91 u95 music files--bot in midi format

U-91 A MIDI File  U-95 B Minor

But I can not help but feel sad that the basic approach of combining Torah with Physics and Metaphysics as the Rambam suggested is not implemented at least a little bit.

On one hand I can see that to learn Torah well one needs to concentrate on it like they do in Litvak yeshivas. All day, every day. But I can not help but feel sad that the basic approach of combining Torah with Physics and Metaphysics as the Rambam suggested is not implemented at least a little bit.
[As I mentioned, the other major Musar books agree with the Rambam. This you can see in the Obligations of the Heart  שער הבחינה he mentions learning the wisdom in God's creation. It is hard to see it there at first, but if you are exacting in the language you can see it.] However when one is involved in Torah to the degree that you see in Litvak yeshivas, I can see why people would not want to be distracted.

And after all, I am the biggest time waster of all-so who am I to talk? Still I can see the advantage in knowing at least a bit of Quantum Mechanics and Aristotle's book Metaphysics.
Today after Kant, I think one ought to approach Metaphysics along the lines of Leonard Nelson and the Kant-Friesian approach. [In terms of Metaphysics that means mainly Schopenhauer who is close to Plato. As such the whole thing is in fact close to Saadia Gaon and the Rambam.]

Much of philosophy has become absurd so most of the approaches are not worth the time and trouble. But I am very impressed with  Leonard Nelson. Where things went wrong seems to be when people spent just too much time and effort either defending Hegel or disagreeing with Hegel. Hegel seems to be like a kind of collapsed star-- that once one is in its orbit, there is no escape. It is like one gets trapped in that world view.





[The Rambam is tilting towards Aristotle but still remains in a Neo Plato context. So along with Saadia Gaon he corresponds well with the Kant/Fries and Schopenhauer streams of thought.  ]

U-90 A Major U-90 midi  U-90 nwc

First Americans (apparently they were from Stone Age France.

First Americans (apparently they were from Stone Age France. click on link) The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route to the New World (click on link)


The basic idea depends on a computer model. People  took all the known data from that time period and feed it into the computer [the largest in the world] and they discovered the current near the glaciers of the Ice Age flowing toward North America. Plus the discovery in Virginia of a spear head that was made by a method known only in Ice Age France.
This current towards N America still exists today as you can see here off the coast of Greenland



And here are the currents from 20,000 years ago: (https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/the-once-and-future-circulation-of-the-ocean) [See: Circulation of Atlantic Ocean currents reversed 20,000 years ago]

u89music file

U-89 B Flat Major  U-89 in midi

Musar of Reb Israel Salanter

The world view of Musar is really radical and simple. That good traits [note 1] are what really matters.
[Not that everyone that learns Musar is a decent person. I think my own parents were about the best thing I ever saw in terms of personal traits.  We attended Temple Israel [Reform] so we were not really into learning Musar. But the fact is my parents knew well that Torah is about good traits. I assume they got that from their parents.

But there is the "spirit of Torah" that I found in NY Litvak yeshivas that I did not feel as a part of Reform Judaism That being said Reform Jews are in general a lot better when it comes to the aspect of Torah that relate to obligations "between man and his fellow man."


And sometimes Musar can provide some ideological excuse. Although Musar is important, the proof is in the pudding   --good traits are what matters, not the learning about good traits.
I also went to the Boy Scouts, and there also was an emphasis on traits and self improvement.

At any rate, the message about good traits and fear of God I saw in Musar so much that at some point I got the message that: that is what "it's all about." That is, one's portion in the next world, and also in this world. Further, that holding on to good traits tends to create a force field around one-imperfect but still a kind of protection.
You might not think of Dante as an authority about Gehinom [Hell],-- but his opinion is also that the people in Hell did not have good traits.


[note 1] This is called "midot tovot". Not to lie, or steal. There are more details but that is the basic idea. Musar  goes into the details, not just in the mediaeval books, but also the Musar books that were written by the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. The books of Reb Israel helped me to get a clear idea of what Torah is all about even more than the classical books of Musar.

Since the Lithuanian Yeshiva world is as difficult to figure out as much as politics and since politics is nowhere near being an exact science, therefore it makes no sense to analyse it but rather to identify the particulars places that are worthy of support and emulation. Regardless of what ever the reason for their excellence might be.

The well known Ivy League is obviously Ponoviz in Bnei Brak and the Litvak yeshivas in NY.
But what makes them great seems to be for me an impossible question to answer.


The Litvak Yeshiva = Straight Torah. And that is the main thing which makes this kind of institution unique and important.

Litvak yeshivas

Even though people do not look on Litvak yeshivas as hippe communes they do have something in common. A kind of attempt to escape from the world and to build a private Utopia.
The flaw in the system is that it is not self contained.

There is unquestionably an aspect of utopia in the whole thing. And when it works--it works well.
And when things are going OK, you never have any reason to doubt that this is the "true path."
It is like me and my stomach. I never noticed how my digestive system is working, until  something went haywire. Same in the Litvak yeshiva world. There are plenty of good reasons to say that it in fact is about as close to utopia in this world than one can get. One learns and follows objective morality and is able to ignore the awful horrifying secular world.
The reason I am asking about it is for the cases when it does not seem to work--like for me. I am no where near being able to do an analysis on this but it begs to be done.
It is like political theory. When a state seems to be abusing people, the tendency is to attack theories that support the state. When on the other hand chaos and crime reign, one looks for justification of the State. 

What I mean is the Litvak yeshiva context was very nice for me for a while, but at some point something seems to have gone off course. And I can have no idea how to account for that.  

u87 u88 u89 music files

U-87 G Major [U-87 in midi] [u-87 nwc]This I converted from MIDI to MP3 by Zamzar which is very different than the google converter. So I deleted a lot of the parts besides the main line and bass. This is based on the fact that in this converter the other parts do not seem to work very well. [here is u-8 in midi format.] u8 nwc  u8 mp3
U-88  [u-88 midi format

u88 in nwc

U-89 B flat major [u-89 midi format\ [u89 nwc]

What I have noticed in Physics and Math is that sometimes there is a key concept that everything revolves upon. I had forgotten all math for a long time and only took it up in Israel after I became convinced that it is not separate from Torah but a part of God's Law.
At the time I bought a small book that had  basic concepts of Math. On one page was the idea of of a tangent function laid out simply. To my surprise, I understood it [only after review]. Then in Hebrew University, someone showed me the basic idea of how to solve an algebraic equation, and [the same person] later the basic idea of a derivative.
Over time, I began to see that for me there were certain points of leverage or focus that made everything else clear.
It might be different according to the person. But for me, I found it useful to identify key points, and review them.


I also think that often a lot depends on finding the right book.
Furthermore, the idea of "Girsa" [saying the words in order and go on--as fast as possible] I think is important in the way it is first introduced in tractate Sabbath [I think around page 63]. ליגמור והדר ליסבר "to finish, and then to understand" [delve into it deeply].

What is Torah all about?

There seem to be  lot of opinions about "What Torah is all about." The Musar opinion of Isaac Blazer [good traits and fear of God] is not the only one. There is Abraham Isaiah  [author of the חזון איש] that the main thing is to be careful about law. The commentary on the beginning of Mishne Torah of the Rambam holds the main thing is to come to the higher awe of God. The Ran of Breslov held it is שמירת הברית [sexual sanctity]. The Torah itself puts a lot of emphasis on coming and staying in Israel in Deuteronomy פרשת היראה.

I think the higher awe of God is certainly among the major goals of Torah. But I can also see that Rav Isaac Balzer was right because I see  most of the books of the great sages of the Middle Ages and also the Reshash [Rav Shalom Sharabi] seconded his motion.

The opinion that the ultimate purpose of Torah is to come to awe of God has an important practical application. For if one merits to this awe of God, he might be tempted to push it off by ignorence of its value. So simply being aware of this idea is important.



The approach of the Gra and his disciple Reb Haim of Voloshin  is that the major way of coming to Oneness with God and Awe of him is by learning Torah. This idea is in fact mentioned openly in the Yerushalmi Gemara in Peah.כל חפציך לא ישוו בה. כל חפצים לא ישוו בה אפילו חפצי שמיים אינם שווים לדיבור אחד של תורה All the commandments are equal to even one word of learning Torah.
[This idea of the Gra I think is quite right.]]

New Left

My basic feeling is to notice the connections between the New Left and the Old Left of 1848. That is the militant approach to impose the dictatorship of the low class on all others. Also I recall that I would also have been a Leftist if not for learning the Old Testament along with the commentary called the Oral Law. In the Oral Law a great deal of Leftist ideas are opposed. For example the emphasis on good traits, working on improving one's own faults instead of the faults of others, and PRIVATE PROPERTY. The emphasis ought to be on personal transformation, not transforming "society." When one improves himself, then everyone around him also improves.

This did not come all at once though. Mainly it was diffused until I started taking Musar more seriously. Then at that time I started to see the whole thing about good traits {midot tovot) and fear of God as being the things that Torah requires above everything else.

(What makes sense to me to learn in terms of politics is L. T. Hobhouse in his Metaphysical Theory of the State. And I might mention that English History in itself gives a great background to understanding the Constitution of the USA.
L. T. Hobhouse in his Metaphysical Theory of the State is important because he brings a great deal of common sense to the issues.)

Bryan Caplan goes into the source of the problem in Hume

Bryan Caplan goes into the source of the problem in Hume in that Hume thinks reason does nothing but detect contradictions. He asserts this over and over again as if it is simple, yet without ever giving any kind of argument for it. It is as if he has packed the jury against reason without giving it a chance to defend itself. (To me it seems obvious that Hume got this idea from his learning of Geometry and saw there that one way reason  functions is to detect contractions.) But as Kant noted reason does more. But how? With Hegel it is by a dialectical process. With Fries it is by non intuitive immediate knowledge [non sensed and not through anything else].

Self defense and Dr Huemer

Dr. Huemer has a nice essay on self defense where he brings new points. Mainly that people have the right to defend themselves, and the police have no obligation to defend anyone as upheld in USA courts consistently.

Dr Kelley Ross also has an essay about this.

Reb Israel Salanter -the Musar movement

In the book of one of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter, Isaac Blazer, is brought the idea that there are two levels of fear of God. Fear of punishment and awe. And he brings that the lower fear is to bring to the higher fear which then leads to attachment with God.
In the prophets of old, it is clear that this attachment sometimes brought with it some kind of new revelation as with Moses who came to the highest level of attachment with God at Mount Sinai -but he did not stay there, but then brought the Torah to Israel.

The Musar movement [of Reb Israel Salanter] itself  in itself is a great idea. To get people to learn and try to keep the basic books of Ethics from the Middle Ages that encapsulated the basic lessons of how to live according to the Law of Moses.
The trouble is that it got mixed up with institutions. Real faith is personal. Torah was not meant to be a business.

One of the reasons for the divide of faith and state in the USA Constitution was the abuses of clergy in England of the Anglican Establishment. This same dynamic you can see today when people use Torah for money.

In any case, Musar itself is divided, into Musar of the disciples of Reb Israel, Musar based on esoteric literature [post Middle Ages], Musar of the Middle Ages. 
[In any case, the basic emphasis is on good traits and fear of God and pointing out that both are essential aspects of Torah.]

There is a difference of opinion about secular learning. All later Musar condemn it. Musar of the Middle Ages recommends parts of it--not all. The Rambam/Maimonides recommends Physics and Metaphysics as leading to fear and love of God.] [This same opinion you can see in the Obligations of the Heart and other Musar books of the Middle Ages that also go along with this idea. But even back then there were plenty of opposite opinions (like the Ramban/Nahmanides). But even the Nahmanides was a doctor. It seems he was against Aristotle but not learning a secular discipline for the sake of making an honest living.]

Learning Musar did in fact help orient me towards the importance of good traits and also to come to Israel. In fact, the whole mind set [paradigm-and world view] has stayed with me even after times when I have not been learning Musar.

second amendment

Gun rights and natural law

There is a lot of material on natural law. Though the start of it being stated explicitly began with Saadia Gaon.  Still the basic idea in the Constitution itself seems clear from two angles. One is the grammar of the second amendment. In grammar, the prefatory clause [being that] is subordinate to the main clause [therefore]. Second of all, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are natural rights that the Constitution does not cover, and it limits the power of government to infringe on those rights. Though not tied openly to the second amendment, the implication is clear that natural law and natural rights are the underlying structure.

Gun rights in England were made clear by the Bill of Rights in 1689: Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. But the USA Constitution, while depending  a lot on England for the basic ideas, is still different in particulars. 

[The whole thing began with King Alfred, but the more modern problem was with King James the Second who used the militia to collect taxes. James the Second was removed peacefully and thus came the Bill of Rights of 1689.]


In any case, I just can not see this working in Ukraine. The trouble is that different kinds of people make this whole thing improbable. See Sapolsky about DNA [at Stanford University]. 

There is a kind of similarity in witch trials in Salem and accusations of sexual harassment in the USA. Just the fact of being accused is the same as being convicted.  One can perhaps trace this to the Puritan roots of the USA. But to me it seems to be already mentioned in the Gemara itself: "Lashon hara [slander], if it does not convince completely, at least it does so by half." And this dynamic seems to be a regular human trait --nothing to do with Puritans. Just accuse someone you do not like of some dastardly, wicked deed, and you already get at least half of what you want. There is no loss.  You get everything or half. But you do not lose anything--[at least at first]. Eventually, the ball  bounces back.

[The trouble of tracing this to the Puritans is that you find it enough in England and on the Continent to suggest it was more wide spread.] 

The problem of Reb Nahman is that he has advice and ideas that are amazingly insightful, and yet the observation of many is that people that get involve in Breslov lose the desire to learn Torah, and often seem to go off on awkward tangents.
You can try to answer this question in different ways, by ignoring it, or denying the reality of the situation.
It is like the Mind-Body problem that seems to defy solution.

The great Litvak roshei yeshiva seemed to have dealt with this problem in a uniform way. They always refused the option of considering Reb Nahman anything but a great tzadik. Yet as for the issues that I have raised, they said, "It is high things." That is: too high for them to deal with. It was thought to be outside their ares of expertise. That is what I myself heard from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum of the Mir in NY, and also Rav Montag in Netivot in Israel and also Rav Issahar Meir the friend of Bava Sali and rosh yeshiva of the Yehivat HaNegev and that whole group of yeshivas that were started by Rav Issahar Meir.

In general the way it became clear to me that Lithuanian roshei yeshiva are strongly pro-Reb Nahman was that I would usually approach them trying hard to get some kind of negative comment about Reb Nahman. Any slight criticism, anything at all. But no matter how hard I tried I could never get any of them to utter the slightest negative comment about Reb Nahman.

U-86 B Flat Major I have no ear phones and so I do not really know how this sounds. Also I use a new app Zamzar.com which coverts midi to mp3 in  in different ways than the converter from google.
So if this sounds OK to you, I am pleased.

Reb Moshe and Reb Aaron Kotler were both of the opinion that דינא דמלכותא דינא "the law of the state is the law"

In the USA there are insane people that hate you if you say one nice word about Israel. Better to avoid the subject. As for the actual subject of the army [IDF]  the idea is if people enjoy a certain benefit from the State -[for example their lives which they would lose if the Arabs would attack]-they ought to contribute.
When I was at the Mir in NY and making preparations to make alyia [go to Israel] I was made aware of this and all the more so in Israel itself. The whole anti Israel thing is really a kind of antisemitism.
The whole anti Israel thing seems  like a mistake. But still I swallowed the view because that s what I thought I was supposed to think. It was only very much later that I saw Reb Moshe and Reb Aaron Kotler were both of the opinion that דינא דמלכותא דינא "the law of the state is the law" that I began to open my eyes.  [The view of Reb Aaron I saw in the introduction to a sort of Musar book that he wrote. The view of Reb Moshe I forget where I saw it.]

Their view of course is not as positive as others that consider Israel the fulfillment on ancient prophecy. But one way or the other, in terms of Torah, serving in the IDF is a good deed and also an obligation.

forms of totalitarian systems

Karl Popper hated all forms of totalitarian systems. That is great. But his blaming Hegel seems misplaced. The reason he blamed Hegel is fairly clear that he was depending on the Scribner’s Hegel Selections [and Gans’s additions]. But furthermore in fact the communists made a very big deal out of Hegel even though they specifically repudiated him.  But still they found in his writing someone that they felt they needed to fight and repudiate.
Still what is sad about this is that Hegel does seem to have a lot of good ideas.
If you hate socialism-which is a proper approach as we learned from Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and more recently Venezuela, still it makes little sense to blame Hegel. Why not blame Socialism itself?

In an case, philosophy and politics seem to be separate. Hegel and Plato both seem to have been trying to get too much out of their ideas.  It seems that when philosophers step into politics they misstep and overstep. I think in terms of politics the founding fathers of the USA saw a lot further than any philosophers.


There is a moral aspect to politics. To advocate socialism has an aspect to it that is not moral. That is even if you do not do it yourself, but if you recommend to others to deprive people of their property, that is like אבק גזילה [the dust of theft.] If you vote for such a thing that also has a aspect to it of stealing other people's property.  Even though you do not do it yourself, but to use you vote to empower the government to steal also is אבק גזילה the dust of theft. [We find this concept in the Talmud. Some things are not slander but אבק לשון הרע the dust of slander, and some things are not forbidden relations but אבק עריות the dust of forbidden relations.]

Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries School] and Michael Huemer do not think much of Hegel. And I am not one to stand between giants. But to me it looks like Hegel, the Kant Friesian School and also Michael Huemer have good points. Just for one example:Michael Huemer noted that Hume's limitation of what we can know a priori is not true. Hume just assumes that all that can be known without observation is what can be derived from definitions. Hume states this over and over again without any proof or argument. And there is no reason to belive it is true. But still that does not invalidate kant of Hegel. since there is still a different kind of thinking that goes into a priori knowledge than what you can know from induction.

I might add that for some reason or other the only people that seem to pay attension to the Kant Fries School are in Poland [and maybe some in Germany]. I get the impression that for most people that are interested in Kant go with the Neo Kant School of Marburg and Herman Cohen. However, to me it seems to Friesian school is better.

low class people

Hanging out with low class people [in terms of "Midot" that is traits like honesty, compassion etc] tend to damage one's own traits. I have definitely not been careful about this myself partly as  result of naivety, and partly because in the USA it is considered that all people are equal. So I did really not get an idea of dividing people by traits.
But for myself, now I can see in retrospect that it should have been easy to identify groups that I could have avoided by simply being aware of the difference between groups that excel in traits and those that do not. The difference is obvious if you look for it.

That is to say I see "midot tovot" [That is what is called "being a mensch"] as being the main key to Gan Eden. Another way to look at this is simply to fulfill the Ten Commandments.
However the Rambam did add to this in הלכות תשובה that one's portion in the next world also depends on his wisdom.

It is easy to lose one's portion in the next world. The Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter.

Rav Isaac Blazer -the original disciple of Reb Israel Salanter-makes a point in his book אור ישראל the Light of Israel that making it to Gan Eden is harder than most people realize. That is even with one's good deeds, it is easy to lose one's portion in the next world.
While it seems that there are are no guarantees, his implication is that by learning Musar (note 1) in order to come to have good traits and fear of God can go a long way to helping.
It is my impression that what most people think is important in this world really does not matter much. But also what people think will guarantee them a good place in the next world, probably does not work as well as they imagine.   [Even the promise  of the Ran of Breslov to come to Uman and say the ten psalms, while it probably works to some degree, but not as much as people imagine. His promise was to try and help in the next world. He did not promise that he would succeed. In the long run I think Rav Isaac Blazer was correct, that everything depends on good traits and fear of God.
[However the Rambam did add one's "wisdom" in laws of repentance as was pointed out to me by someone in the Mir. That in fact goes along with something Reb Nahman also brings from the Rambam about שכל הנקנה acquired intellect as the last stage in potential intellect and intellect in action. This is a well known Rambam doctrine that Reb Nahman brings--without however mentioning the source.]

The Musar movement I ought to mention really concentrated on action not words. The idea was to learn Musar in order to do it. The movement itself was more or less absorbed into the Litvak yeshivas started by the disciple of the Gra Reb Haim from Voloshin. (note 2)


(note 1) Musar means medieval Ethics books like the Obligations of the Heart. But now the term has been widened to include the books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. It also now refers to post medieval books like the Paths of the Righteous מסילת ישרים. The main points of these books are to define one ethical obligations. The idea of learning Musar is that by learning these books every day one eventually changes for the better.

(note 2) Dr Huemer of the University of Colorado holds that liberalism is gaining traction because it is objective morality. And that people tend to start seeing moral principles more clearly over time. This might correspond to what the Rambam was saying about the laws of the Torah--that they have reasons and the reasons are known.  One of the reasons is "to bring to peace of the state." It is possible that methods to bring this about can become more clear over time.
On the other hand,  to be able to discern the difference between right and wrong depends on learning and doing the Law of Moses. Without that, we would have no moral sense. He ignores how the Bible shaped Western Civilization and especially the USA  and it is the astounding success of the USA which is the light on the hill that others see and want to copy that causes the values of the Bible to spread,

Different ways of learning.

 Different ways of learning.
One I have mentioned--say the words in order and go on until the end of the book and then review over again. [This I have been doing for recent years]
The other I found very helpful when I was learning Gemara with the  Soncino translation was to read through the Gemara and commentary of Rashi once through the whole paragraph. Then the English. And then the Gemara again with Rashi. [This I did for about seven years-my first years in NY Litvak yeshivas.]

The third method I found helpful in Tosphot and also Physics is  to take just one section  and read through it every day from beginning to end for forty days straight.

The path of Lithuanian yeshivas is to take note of the advantage of learning fast idea  for the afternoon and learning in depth in the morning.

Religious Zionism

The Land of Israel is a difficult subject in terms of "Aliya."(Returning to Israel by exiles.)  On one hand the Torah make it clear that it is important. In the end of פרשת היראה [Section that starts "And now Israel what does God require of you but to fear him? in Deuteronomy.] the Torah says do the commandments in order to come to the land of Israel. And once you are there, then do the commandments in order to stay there.
On the other hand there is a kind of odd sort of tension that exists in religious areas. Even if you are religious yourself, if it is not the specific brand in that area, people make you feel unwelcome.
Thus it seems best to avoid religious areas.

{There also does not seem to be any real difference between newly religious and people that were born religious. The whole mind set in itself is basically hostile. This seems to apply also in the USA. Rav Israel Salanter noticed this same problem which is exactly why he started the Musar Movement. However even with people that learn Musar, the problem still seems to linger.
It all come down to one word "balance." That is to find the proper balance between בין אדם לחבירו ובין אדם למקום obligations between man and his fellow man with obligations between man and God.

Litvak yeshivas like the Mir and Ponoviz do try to bridge the gap between the different sets obligation. But to me it seems Religious Zionism is the closest to success. They learn Torah and serve in the IDF and seem to take both sets of obligation seriously--not just in words.


The fourth day of the Omer.

It was pointed out to me by the blog writer  "A Mother in Israel" the importance of Hegel, and  assume she must have been thinking that Religious Zionism is largely based on Hegel's ideas.

[The Shas party did a lot to aggravate tensions between Ashkenazi and Sephardi.]

In any case I can see clearly that to get to Israel takes a lot more than a passport and a plane ticket and just to imagine that once you get there everything will be OK. One can be faced instantly with a Sephardi that tells you you are not even Jewish. The very same yeshivas that asked you for money, will be likely to throw you out if you attempt to sit in learn in one of them. Things can go wrong in all kinds of directions by people playing on your trust and naivety.  Therefore to get to Israel seems to me to depend on trust in God and prayer and hope that it will happen in the right time and in the right way.  A lot of trouble in fact is caused by the State supporting institutions that supposedly learn Torah. This just creates a class of people with nothing to do but think of ways of undermining the State of Israel.

[טוב לאדם שלא נברא. ועכשיו שנברא מה יעשה?יעסוק בתורה The Gemara says [from Hillel] it would be better for a person not to be born. But now that he has been born what to do? Learn Torah.]

 [טוב לאדם שלא נברא. ועכשיו שנברא מה יעשה?יעסוק בתורה The Gemara says [from Hillel] it would be better for a person not to be born. But now that he has been born what to do? Learn Torah.]
 At any rate, what I wanted to suggest today was something  have mentioned before--that the path of my parents was actually pretty close to the four point seder of the Rambam. The Written Law. The Oral Law. Physics. Metaphysics. But my parents would have added learning a vocation plus outdoor skills.
But in terms of the Oral Law, I think the best thing is the Avi Ezri which is a very underestimated book. For it is the kind of book that teaches one how to learn better than anything else I have seen. [Other than that for an introduction into the Law of Torah Shimshon Refael Hirsh's Horev is great.]  ]
The Physics thing I think the Rambam would agree today would be Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. He would agree, I think, that Aristotle's Physics is not all that accurate.
Metaphysics I also think he would agree to include Kant, Hegel, and Thomas Reid. [It is hard to know what he would decide about the differences between Hegel  and the Kant-Fries School that started with Leonard Nelson. [The actual Guide of the Rambam itself I also think is important to learn.]

[Quantum Field Theory is complex and hard. Still it seems to me to be important because it is the way to combine Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. It seems inevitable. Therefore it must be considered as a part of Nature that one is obligated to learn according to the Rambam.

I also want to mention that Quantum Field theory and the Oral Law in depth are things that people say ought to wait until one is prepared. Yet as one gets older his ability to absorb new material lessens. And in Shar Yashuv the approach was to plunge immediate into learning in depth.]
I also believe that String Theory is important to learn. But that should wait until one has mastered QFT.] String Theory is similar to QFT in that QFT underwent difficulties and even the people that put in the basic idea were really to give up on it until Feynman and other post war physicists came along.] 

U-85 D Major  [No ear phones so I can not really hear how this sounds. So please forgive my mistakes. I can barely hear it through the speaker but not very well.] 

u-85 in midi format  u-85 nwc

political systems

In considering political systems few people acknowledge the different strokes for different folks applies. When there are  lot of people with no moral conscious, a system like the USA is really just not workable. That is why Russia had to have either the czar or the USSR. In areas around the Russia Empire like the Ukraine, there are simply too many people that are criminals and are proud of it  What works for White Anglo Saxon Protestants can not work in the Ukraine [or any of the republics]. They need a strong central government and a strong police presence.  The more money they put into their police force to make it more efficient the better.

I see libertarian writings as being kind of naive in terms of the Ukraine. They write as if  a John Locke democracy would work in Ukraine as well as in the USA.  You can tell they never spent any time in the Ukraine.

It is astounding how much time and effort is spent in the USA about law and economics. The reason is simple. Most people in the USA obey the law because that is the kind of people they are. This obviously can not work in the Ukraine. What gets people to obey the law in the former republics of the USSR is the police and Fear. And even today not just in Communist China, but also in the former republics of the USSR, the systems and infrastructure that work were all built by the communists. And the buildings also and everything else included.

[It is odd that people admit the role of DNA in everything except politics.]

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication can be defended on a few accounts. One is purely legal. A חרם excommunication has legal authority. That is it has no legal authority from the state. But from conscience. It is like many other moral principles that can not be enforced by the state, and yet are still obligations.
[Still I feel it is clear that Reb Nahman was not included and furthermore I also feel that he was a true tzadik with important insights and advice. You have to see the actual language of the excommunication to see why.]

Another way it can be defended is understanding that the Sitra Akra [Dark Side] ought to be isolated and separated and expelled. The Torah excludes idolatry rigorously. Monotheism is the basic belief system of the the Old Testament.
But a third way is this: Any system that contradicts itself, makes people insane. attempts to bring others into it web of lies, ought to be sent back to the underworld from which it emerged.

[However in this world, opposite are tied together. Pleasure and pain are opposites but they are tied in such a way that when you reach for one, they other comes along in inextricably. So are wisdom and foolishness. Genius and lunacy. Holiness and the Sitra Akra the Dark Side.
To separate one from the other is one's major task in this world.


[The major ideas of Reb Nahman that I think are important to mention are the Tikun Klali--ten psalms to say on the day one had accidentally spilled his seed in vain. They are 16, 32, 41,42, 59,77, 90, 105 137 150 . Also speaking with God in one's own language as one talks with his or her best friend.]

So a commitment to walk in the way of the Gra does not imply excluding Reb Nahman's good ideas.
And Reb Nahman's idea about the Tikun Klali makes sense in terms of the Ari, Isaac Luria. Though  have not said it for a long time, it still seems to be correct. Spilling seed in vain certainly needs a correction and the actual unifications that the Ari gives for this seem to require a certain flow of the Divine light in order to be effective. But when one has sinned, that seems in itself to cut off the flow of the "Infinite Light." So Reb Nahman's idea is based on solid reasoning