I thought to mention that my mother in law, Mrs. Rita Finn was on the Kinder-transport that  her parents sent her on to save her from the Nazis. But though being saved, she was severely abused in England which gave her a lifelong hatred of men.  Still she struggled to be a good wife and raise good children--which she did. After all the only reason my wife got married to me was that I was at Shar Yashuv --an authentic Litvak Yeshiva and she could feel and sense the taste of authentic Torah. 

It is sad  that the difficulties that people go through  can end up defining them.

But I do not think there is any cure for this sort of thing. People's emotional wounds can be much deeper than physical wounds.

Still I do have one suggestion, Musar. That is the idea of Rav Israel Salanter to learn the canonical four books of ethics, חובות לבבות מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה  אורחות צדיקים for learning the right attitudes can go a long way to reliving one from the burden of harmful attitudes.

I found that it is best to have the idea that reason recognizes universals and universals exit in many different areas. For example, principles of morality.  This makes the approach of the Rambam to make sense--that the laws of Torah are meant to bring to objective morality.

So even if there are questions about Torah, one does not have to relay on faith alone but also has a justification based on reason.

"Universals" are characteristics that things have in common. For example: I have two pieces of paper in front on me. Do they have something in common? Yes. They are both white.   But there are other areas where universals apply. Eg-numbers. Things have numbers in common. They can be two pieces of paper or two rocks. Rules of mathematics or Physics also are universals. E=mc^2 applies to two pieces of paper or rocks. Similarly rules of morality apply to different individuals. It is wrong to steal from .Reuven and also from Jacob. And they are also under the rule that it is wrong to steal. 

So where is the role  of reason in this? Reason recognizes more than  contradictions in definitions. This is the whole point of the Critique of Pure Reason.

There are many reasons to base one's faith on reason, but at least one good one is that ones faith is thus more solid. So when one discovers contradictions or "questions" it is easier to say to oneself, I am not relaying on faith alone but rather I have good reasons for my beliefs.--These reasons are that Torah is to bring to objective morality. It does not add or subtract then if other people are moral or not. What matters is that i should be 

I hope this explains why I am not so religious in the traditional sense. I may have found the religious world to be a nightmare. The teachers are vicious Torah scholars that are demons [in that memorable phrase of Rav Nahman] and the followers are lunatics. But Torah has a different basis--reason.

And there is sometimes conflicts between Torah and Reason and in those areas I find answers but my general approach is this is the areas of dinge an sich where reason does not penetrate.   

 Even though I believe Rav Nahman was a very great tzadik, I still regret leaving the world of the Litvak Yeshivot. Part of the reason you can see yourself easily. Where do you find the spirit of Torah? People dedicated to learning and keeping Torah with every fiber of their being? Obviously in the Litvak Yeshivot. 

However my own experience in the Litvak world was mixed. So I find it hard to give this a blank endorsement. 

 I did meet in the Ukraine some people that would have objected to Russian rule from Moscow. One was a very good friend that used to be a KGB agent. But even though he worked for the KGB, he was very much against Communism. And I used to discuss this with him at length. The other was my own landlord  who said is the Russian would ever show up he would shoot them. [He is a Tartar-very nice person, but still he recalled the transfer of the Tartars. That is why he was in Uman instead of his homeland. Stalin had seen in the Tartars a threat and so moved them to new areas.] (This explains also why Russians would shoot at civilians that are shooting at them.) The third person was a very nice girl I knew in the Student Dormitory where I was staying for about 7 years. She recalled to state induced famine of the 1930's. Another was a soldier who prided himself on having burned alive the Russian soldiers in Odessa. [That was a famous incident. He was staying in the dorm a few days before he returned to his hometown.]

I mention these exceptions because they are to my recollection the only four people that objected to the government being from Moscow instead of Kiev. 

Other than these, everyone I met thought things were better under Moscow rather than Kiev.

The idea of Rav Nahman not to be מחמיר חומרות יתירות [not to seek extra restrictions] shows what it is about the religious world tat is "off". For the religious world is always seeking new restrictions.

 If people ae not familiar with the Gemara, this might seems to in accord with Torah. But the extra restrictions of the religious are very often not necessary and sometimes made up fanaticisms. However the world of the Litvak yeshiva is much better in thus regard. 

 z52 music file 

 When I would discuss political issues with my learning partner, David Bronson, his answer was always along these lines: כל המקבל על עצמו עול תורה, מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ [When one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, the yoke of the government an of work is removed from him.]Maybe at first it seemed e was just pushing me off but then I realized that he meant it. No one really cares what I think about any of the burning political issues that so much occupy pubic debate. The best I can do for myself and for others is to sit and learn Torah. In fact, I  noticed how easy it is to get all excited about issues that have nothing to do with me and no one cares what I think. Like it says in the verse: כאוחז באזני כלב כן המתערב בריב לא לו [Like one who grabs the ears of a dog, so is he who gets mixed up in a argument that is not his.]

 The West has been thinking of Russia as a nobody ever since the end of the Cold War. But by constantly poking at the Bear, the bear will eventually react. A wise policy would be to notice that the Ukraine has never been an independent state--ever. Not when the area was owned by Poland, nor under the  Romanovs. All you have is a population that feels and thinks Russian, and that other unfortunate part of Ukraine that has always been addicted to murder and crime. Without the firm rule of Russia, they have always been a terror even to Ukrainians. Even now they force the common people to acquiesce to the false profile  that is presented as freedom fighters. Ukraine is divided between the bullies and the bullied. And if the bullied speak up they lose their lives.

 I recall the Cuban Missile Crisis. My mom and dad took us kids along with them to look at buying some underground shelter. [Even though we lived on the West Coast.] And all through the 60's, 70'sand 80's the power and ability of the USSR was never in doubt. No one thought starting a war with the USSR was a good idea. Everyone thought peace and cooperation with Russia was the most important thing.

Why is it that now people think that they can keep on poking the bear without worry? One reason is the fact that Russian advance into Ukraine has been slow. But that does not signal weakness but rather the desire to reincorporate the Ukraine back into the orbit of Russia. There is no desire to ruin things, but to keep everything intact, but just have rule from Moscow.

And for years I asked people what they thought about how things were in the Ukraine as different from the time of the USSR.  This I asked from the women at the markets, from the owners of stores. From random people where ever I went in the Ukraine. And the answer was always the same. "Things were better then than now." [I.e. better under the USSR than the more recent governments.]]

I have been thinking about a a certain problem in the Rambam Laws of Lender and Borrower perek/chapter 19 law 8 for a while but have not come to any clarity.

The basic subject is this: You have a lender and borrower. The borrower sells  a field to a buyer. Then the lender writs to that buyer "דין ודברים אין לי עמך" "You have no obligations to me." Then that buyer sells the field to a second buyer.  Then if the if borrower does not pay the debt, the lender can go to the second buyer and take the field as a repayment of the debt. [This is the regular law of שיעבוד that any property owned by a person at the time of a loan is obligated to pay that loan even if he sells that property or gives it away. The lender can always go after it if there is nothing owned by the borrower.]  

The problem that I have is that then the first buyer can go and collect the field from the lender because he will have lost the money that he had to pay to the second buyer  because of the loss of the field to the lender. I do not see why the first buyer can go and collect the field from the lender, for the lender did not collect the field from him. All he wrote was, "I will not collect the field from you," and he didn't..

I noticed this subject in the Avi Ezri and it is also brought in the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk but how they explain this is not clear to me. I was hoping that thinking about this while at the sea shore would help but so far I have zero ideas.

Baali Teshuva have discovered that the religious enticement by a show of family values is false.

 The age of disappointment. The religious world has made an impression that they are for family values. But this false. They are for power over secular Jews.. They might try to give this impression because the Conservatives have in fat tried to support family values in the face of the left trying to destroy the family. But that is the definition of cult--trying to bring in people to support their power structure by means of a lie and false claim if moral superiority.

In the West the family collapsed. So it made sense for the religious world to pretend to fill the gap. What I discovered was that the claim of the religious as being for family vales is a borrowed value from the Republicans..When they have a chance to destroy the families baali teshuva they do so.

The religious found it useful to use the fiction of support of family values by means of Shabat Table Judaism, the whole thing is Potemkin façade. They are trying to show a value they have borrowed from the Conservatives and Republicans.

 After high school, I went to Shar Yashuv in NY and then the Mir. I learned a lot from both the great rosh yeshiva in Shar Yashuv, Rav Naphtali Yeager and the rosh yeshiva of the Mir, Rav Shmuel Berenbaum.

But I was a wild card sort,  and could not stay put. So even when I tried to get back to the straight Torah path of the Litvak Yeshiva World, I did not manage to reinsert myself into learning Torah.

So I went instead to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU to major in Physics. Yet, I always have a tinge of regret that I did not just stick with the straight Litvak approach. And this actually reminds me of the events that led up to R. Yochanan [of the Gemara] becoming the great sage that he was. When a young man he was learning with his learning partner, and they were in extreme poverty. So they thought perhaps it was time to get up and find a job. They were at that time sitting by a wall. R. Yochanan heard the angels saying one to the other, "Let us knock this wall over them, because they are thinking of leaving off learning Torah to find work."   The other angel said, "No. Let's leave them alone because one of them will stick with it no matter what." R Yochanan heard this exchange, His learning partner did not. So R Yochanan stuck with learning while the other went out and became a business man.

 There is a lot of sort of dumb stuff going on, like many that think war with Russia is a good idea  but I think it is better not to comment on it because Rav Nahman said אף על פי שתוכחה היא דבר גדול ומוטל על כל אחד להוכיח את חברו כשרואה בו דבר שאינו הגון, אם כל זה לאו כל אדם ראוי להוכיח  Even though rebuke is a great thing and it is an obligation on everyone to rebuke their fellow man when they see in him something not proper, still, not everyone is fit to rebuke.

[This seems to be a difference between Rav Nahman and the Gra. To Rav Nahman the emphasis is to say nothing unless one is sure to help the situation by means of rebuke. To the Gra one at least has to say one time his or her opinion that what the other s doing is wrong.

 The very first Litvak Yeshiva I was at [Shar Yashuv in N.Y.] emphasized learning in depth along with lots of review. And recently I have noticed that this seems to be a  correct approach for me. I might go through a Tosphot or a piece in the Avi Ezri or the Chidushim of Rav Haim of Brisk and not understand a word even if I do it lots of times. The only way that I seem to be able to get the idea is when I go through it from beginning to end, and the next day I do it again and so on and so forth the next day--- and this might go on for weeks or a month.  I know this is not how anyone else learns, but this seems to work for me. 

And I noted this idea of review also in Mathematics and Physics. It seems to help if I do one whole section many times over a long period of time.

Later I was at the Mir for a few years and there the emphasis was a bit different with the afternoon being devoted to fast learning. There that was not just saying the words and going on, but it was fast in that one would do Tosphot a few times and then go on.

 z-53 music file

 I have been looking at the situation in the USA with woke-ism and it occurred to me at first thought to blame Paul. The reason is that he first introduced "no Torah law" [anti-nomianism] into Christianity  But then I took note of the Catholic Church which did try to keep Natural Law for centuries. And that is not so far in principle from Torah Law which also has this idea that the commandments are given with a purpose. Only in Torah Law there is an argument whether you go by the reason for the law דורש טעמה דקרא or by the law as stated [I recall this from Bava Metzia page 119 but it is a famous argument found all over the place.]

Still it is hard to imagine that things could have gotten so wrong without Paul introducing the idea of  no law anti-nomianism in the first place

The Torah and the religious world are opposites. This can be known by experience. But it is hard to know why? But if I can express the question clearly, perhaps that might go a long way towards gaining an understanding of the issue.  

The first thing to note is that there is an complicated process by which people people accept certain belief system, and it rarely has anything to do with their stated motives for it.

And these belief system interact. They do not exist in isolation. If the USA would  have been destroyed by wokw-ism, then other systems would not have a foot to stand on.

So to express the problem properly I would like to say what are the major principles of Torah. These are Fear of God, good character, learning Torah. Attachment with God  the Land of Israel. What does good character mean? The Torah goes into detail about this. For we know to desire the money of another is a terrible trait. Yet people still do it  and excuse themselves because they do not know the laws of Torah concerning what truly belongs to one and what does not.

The religious world on the other hand hand is tribal religion with group identity being the prime directive. But in that is the trap. For the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) disguises itself in mitzvot as Rav Nahman brings in the first chapter of the LeM. היצר הרי מתלבש במצוות The Evil Inclination is dressed in mitzvot. But it is all in order to destroy one. Thus we find that many times the very teachers of religion themselves are demons as we also see in the LeM of Rav Nahman concerning תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודים 

 Torah scholars that are demons. The idea is this: there are people that want to serve God but do not know how. But because of their previous sins, even when they want to serve God, the Satan sets up religious teachers from the Dark Side

 z-54 midi file music file

I have a few principles that I try to stick with at all cost.  Part is because I think these are important in themselves, but also I believe that sticking with these basic principles  protects me from all pit-falls and unforeseen traps that life is full of. (1) Speaking the truth at all cost. (2) Not to touch that which does not belong to me. Not just not to steal, but not to have in my possession anything which does not belong tome according to "din Torah" the law of the Torah.  (3) To learn Mathematics, Physics and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, The reason for his last one i that is somehow how things have worked out for me. If I would have a Gemara Bava Metzia or Bava Batra, then I would be doing that. Whatever comes under the category of authentic Torah is the main thing. The emphasis is on the word "authentic".

 A lot of my dad's career was spent trying to avoid WWIII with Russia. First there was the U-2 project which was commissioned by Eisenhauer specifically because we did not know what was going on in the USSR. After they had the A Bomb, and then the H-Bomb, some people in the Eisenhauer administration [e.g sec. of the Navy] thought to strike a pre-emptive strike first. Thank God, Eisenhauer thought that was a dumb idea. But we still did not know what was going on there. Maybe they were preparing a first strike against the West? No one knew. The only way to find out was to go and look. ,We could not just ask them. Thus was born the U-2 project. [After my dad's creation of the camera, he went to invent a super sharp copy machine and marketed that for 5 years.] Then the USA needed his expertise in making infrared satellites -mainly for the same reason--to see what was going on there after the U-2 flights over the USSR were impossible.

After those satellites were launched, they got him to create a system of laser beam communication between satellites. Even though this last one is a major achievement, the reason for it was mundane--simply it was so the Soviets could not eavesdrop on our communications.  All this took the major portion of my dad's professional life.

Here is my dad working on the U-2 project

 I wish I could remember the page in Tractate Avoda Zara where the issue of "joining" comes up. I just recall that the issue had to do with the fact that gentiles are not commanded concerning joining [i.e  joining the name of Heaven with another.] An example is brought in the Gemara there of Gideon "A sword to God and to Gideon". There you see Gideon himself joining the name of Heaven with his own name This the Gemara concludes is forbidden to a Israeli but allowed for gentiles.

Why is that page important? Because of the Tosphot there that brings up the issue of Christianity   and I thought it is such an important Tophot that I asked my learning partner to skip what we were doing at the time and instead concentrate on that Tosphot.

From what I recall Tosphot seems to have three different approaches there.

 On one hand I can see the point of the South. We see in Exodus that there are certain laws that apply to Jewish slaves.  Later on in Deuteronomy we find other kinds of laws that apply to gentile slaves. As for Jewish slaves, they must be let go after 6 years. Gentile slaves are not to be let go of, but they can be if their master wants to set them free. But some of the most interesting points are made later in the books of Solomon. אי ארץ כשעבד ימלוך "Woe to the land when a slave rules." 

 It so happens I was outside and met on the street a Na Nach fellow. I mentioned during our conversation an idea that I thought to bring here.- that I see the path of the Gra as the backbone while Rav Nahman I see as filling in the flesh and bones of Torah thought. For to get to the authentic drive and intensity of Torah one needs the Gra. You can see this in any Litvak yeshiva where the love of Torah hits you in the face the second you walk in the door. But Rav Nahman fills in a lot of what is missing in that approach..  

 "Rule of law" I think is shorthand for England where there is this long standing tradition of listening to pieces of paper [or parchment] like the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford.  I mean to say that countries that derive from England tend to take the law as written very seriously.  In most other countries without English influence, the laws are laws as long as they are convenient.

Many Western Values [Principles of morality] are different from principles of morality of Torah. So what is the relationship?  What makes this question difficult is Western Values change constantly. People think their values are those of Reason but if they change every ten years, then they are not.

Now "Torah values"  are manipulated constantly also. So unless you can come to some bedrock layer, of certainty, that also does not provide a solid basis.  

In the two great Litvak yeshivot which I attended, it was thought that the one important principle is to "learn Torah"  [meaning the Old Testament and the Gemara] because Torah itself will correct false opinions. 

However to me Musar [the mediaeval books of Morality] seems to be the best approach--a synthesis of Faith a Reason that was worked out in painstaking detail during the Middle Ages. 

I was at the sea again and it occurred to me to mention that you see this approach of deriving morality by faith and by reason in the Obligations of the Hearts, Saadia Gaon, Rambam. The first to do this was Philo but you can see that his efforts were somewhat naive. The later Mediaeval approach makes a lot more sense. Now I should add that later people like Kant, Hegel, Jacob Fries, Leonard Nelson Michael Huemer    do not look towards faith to discover morality at all but only towards reason.

But I can not see reason as being such a great guide alone. Try that and you can end up with sophisticated systems like Marxism.

[Just one well known example is slavery. But while I tend to see the point of the North to some degree I think the woke movement shows that the South was right.] 

  

 There are people that routinely cause damage to others without deriving any benefit to themselves.  They do not even consciously think they are causing harm. They are much worse than thieves or similar criminal types. 

You might be vaguely aware of these types but you forget about it. 

And you might even pride yourself that you do not mind hanging out with lowliness. But you forget this very important principle. For these people consistently cause damage to others without gaining any benefit to themselves. It is not an accident, but a pattern.

Slowly imperceptibly you lose what ever good traits you have by hanging out with these types.

There is a sort of "evil inclination" that says to you you do not want to be a "baal gaava" [person with pride] so you hang out with low lives thinking you will bring them up or at least not lose. But that is exactly the trick. --To get you to hang out with people whose ultimate effect is to cause you to lower your standards of decency .

, the vast majority of people I met and talked with thought rule from Moscow was much better than from Kiev.

I think that it is better not to get involved in Ukraine. One thing is that, the more weapons sent to Ukraine, the more the conflict will be drawn out. And that will just make things worse for the average people on the street who do not care if the government is in Moscow or Kiev. Plus sending weapons will just begin to involve a war between the USA and Moscow. And that leaves the USA open to nuclear strikes which can be placed anywhere on the map. Is that worth it?

 And the whole approach of painting the Ukraine as saints  does not seem accurate. [I barely escaped.] 

Plus, the oddest fact is, in a city of about 100,000, the vast majority of people I met and talked with thought rule from Moscow was much better than from Kiev.

I recall this attitude even going back to the 1990's and up until I left in 2018. When I asked whether things were better then under the USSR or now? they always said, "Things were better then."Тогда дела обстояли лучше. And in one of the last incidents when I asked this, the shop owner explained how in the USSR you were given a a free house or apartment. You could swap it with someone else, but it was yours.

[That policy began under Khrushchev.]

 z-70 midi music file

z-70 in nwc format

 I gave upon understanding people along time ago. [In White Anglo Saxon {WASP} USA, I realized I did not "get it", when my girlfriend, Wendy Wilson at BHHS [Beverly Hills High School] invited me to a dinner with her parents. I was so out of place, it was painfully obvious.] But then being in Ukraine [Uman for Rosh Hashana], I just as equally poorly understood what was going on. The best I can say is that Ukraine is an equal mixture of saints and sinners.

And in my own understanding of what human life is all about, I discovered the great books of Musar.--that define two major things-Fear of God and good character traits. This helps me navigate my place in an increasingly confusing world.

Musar means four basic books: Gates of Repentance, Paths of the Just, Ways of the Righteous, Obligations of the Hearts.

In Torah good character is one of the main goals, but how to come to good character is the question. The first step is definitions. Then the actual working on it. 

 Even though there is such a thing as positive religious value, unless  it is tempered down with reason, it gets attached to the Dark Side. That is why in the Middle Ages, the connection between Torah and Aristotle and Plato was a major emphasis. Especially you see this in the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam.

There is such a thing as insane religious fanaticism --. Rav Nahman brings out this point on the verses before the giving of the Torah. פן יעלו בהר "Least they go up into the mountain." In Breslov this is refered to as "ריבוי אור"{ribuy or} "too much excitement" [literally: "Too much light"].

In the major book of Rav Nahman there is brought the fact that most religious leaders are demonic Torah scholars. That is in the LeM I1:2 and I:28. But this sort of problem has been around longer.

In the Five Books of Moses we find that Korah had a bunch of people with him [250] that were against Moses.  The Midrash says those people were the heads of the sanhedrins. [I mean to say that Moses had picked out judges to provide for small courts and larger courts of appeal. These very same people were the ones that later went against Moses.

I do would not trust religious authorities if they told me the sky is blue.

Nowadays if you want to know what the Torah requires of you there the best way of finding a good Litvak yeshiva based on the Gra and Rav Shach and sitting and learning there for a few years. There is a somewhat shorter approach by getting the basic set of Musar books [Ethics] from the Middle Ages plus learning the Tur with the Beit Yoseph and Bach. [The Tur was the son of the Rosh. His is the best book on law that I know of. It certainly helped me gain clarity about scores of issues.]

 

 I think "woke-ism"is on a mission to wipe out the white race from the face of the planet.  This is upsetting to me because I have great admiration for Western Civilization. [And I guess I have a certain compassion for others.] Nor do I see other cultures as being superior. On one hand I have always had great admiration for the Indians of the USA  in terms of the living off the land, and being in harmony with nature, but I also am aware of their wars one with another. [I tried recently to get an idea of the history of Ohio Indians.] I just do not see the way of painting everyone not white as lily white,- and all whites as black as demons  as being accurate. 

In fact I see everything about woke-ism as having one single objective that is approached from many different angles. First the perversion of Western Civilization, then the enslavement of the white race, then the final eradication of the white race as the final step..

 Chametz leavened bread is any one of the main five types of grain that has sat in water for more that 18 up until 24 minutes.  So if one takes pure oatmeal and makes boiled porridge, that is not chametz. And not only that but after one has made boiled porridge it can never become chametz. 

 There does not seem to be a good reason to seek for extra restrictions.לא דייך את מה שאסרה תורה? As the sages said:" It is not enough for you what the Torah has forbidden that you seek to find new things to forbid?] 

Temura 18. On the subject of the Passover Sacrifice. And if one sanctifies a female sheep for that purpose.

 The way Rav Shach sees things is that there are two different kinds of "pushing off" in terms of sacrifices.  That explains the law of the sages (against R. Elazar) that when one sets aside a female pregnant sheep for a passover, the baby sheep and mother must be put to pasture. [That is so even though in terms of a sin offering עובר לאו ירך אמו a fetus is not part of the mother. That is: if you sanctify a pregnant female sheep or cow or goat as a sin offering, she or her infant can be brought as a sin offering--but not both.] So this looks like a direct contradiction..

The answer of Rav Shach is  that  the Rambam goes like the opinion בעלי חיים אינם נדחים but in the case of the female sheep, the essence of the holiness is already pushed off. It is a different sort of being pushed off.

That is where he disagrees with Rav Isaac Zev Soloveitchik.  R.I.Z. wrote in order to answer for the Rambam that even though בעלי חיים אינם נדחים  still when one sanctifies a female sheep that is pregnant, the fetus is one sacrifice with the mother. Rav Shach asks on this. 

The regular case of pushing off is when a sheep is owned by two owners. and one sanctifies his half, then buys the other half and sanctifies that. The sheep can be brought as a sacrifice. That is obviously different from sanctifying a female sheep for a passover--which must be a male sheep. 

If you consider Rav Isaac Zev' answer, it does make some sense. But the answer of Rav Shach makes much more sense since it takes into account something apparently unnoticed by Rav Isaac Zev, these two kinds of "being pushed off".And besides that Rav Isaac Zev's way seems like just away of sneaking עובר ירך אמו into what is in fact the law that עובר לאו ירך אמו

 I found the religious world to be similar to Pangloss all talk. Talk the talk but not walk the walk. That is what in fact has provided a challenge to me in terms to of learning and keeping Torah.  For I found the religious world to be somewhat "cultish", that is partaking of all of the characteristic of small maniac religious Eastern  Cults, but simply more successful in term of numbers.  

In fact I had to study the cult of Adi Ad and Scientology for a while to be able to see what the religious world is really all about .--and it is not Torah. But that does not mean that there is no one that is not sincere and loyal to Torah, but it is not those making a song and dance about it.

The actual trouble with the religious world is not at all obvious to new comers- with tons of enthusiasm and idealism, but low on experience with fraudsters. If fact, the better the homes they were brought up in, the less of the ability to discern fraudsters they will have. That is part of the conundrum of human experience.

 [In short, joining the religious world is the same as joining the Adi Da cult or Scientology. The rituals are different but the essence is the same. ] 

to make clear my previous blog entry.  You have to bring a male sheep on the 14th day of the first month of Spring..[Roughly speaking, that is. The 15 day of that month has to come out in Spring, not the first day of the month.] But what happens if someone makes mistake and sets aside female sheep for his or her passover offering?  It is put to pasture and one waits until it gets a blemish, and then it is sold. With the money one buys and brings a passover, or if all this happens after passover then the money is used to buy a peace offering. [A peace offering is a sacrifice that some of the parts are given to the priests, but most goes to the owners. But it has to be eaten in Jerusalem for two days and one night.

The Rambam apparently contradicts himself in terms of עובר לאו ירך אמו [a sheep's fetus is not part of his mother.] Gemara Temura page 19

 The Rambam apparently contradicts himself  in terms of עובר לאו ירך אמו [a sheep's fetus is not part of his mother.]

For one one hand he writes When  a person who separates a pregnant sin offering (sheep, goats, or cows), the mother or the infant can be brought as a sin offering. Quite openly saying the law that עובר לאו ירך אמו  a fetus is not part of his mother. Yet in laws of Temura replacement he writes when one separates a pregnant female for a Passover sacrifice when she gives birth they both go to pasture until they get a blemish naturally, and then as sold and with that money a Passover offering is brought. Or if she gives birth after Passover, then both are sold for a peace offerings. The reason the for this last law is the exact opposite of the reason for the first law עובר ירך אמו a fetus is part of his mother.

[This last law is subject to a debate. R. Elazar says when one separates a pregnant sheep for a Passover, if she gives birth before Passover, the infant is brought as a Passover sacrifice and the Gemara says the reason for R Elazar is עובר לאו ירך אמו [a sheep's fetus is not part of his mother. So we see the sages hold עובר ירך אמו a fetus is part of his mother.

[Contradictions of this kind are very common in the Rambam and that gives plenty of folder for debate as to why. (Mainly held the best idea is to go with the simple approach of the Gemara like the Rosh. But others have tried to find explanations for these contradictions to the Gemara that you see in the Rambam all the time. ) Mainly the idea that Rav Shach brings is the mother and fetus are possible sin offerings. While in the case of the female separated for a passover sacrifice, the mother is obviously not going to be a passover --the passover must be a male. Okay--that makes some sense. The problem is if  עובר לאו ירך אמו [a sheep's fetus is not part of his mother then why should this matter?  Even if the holiness that descends on the mother is a pushed off holiness (only applicable in terms of money) still fetus should be a regular passover sacrifice just as when sets aside a male sheep for holiness of money, still automatically it becomes set for a regular sacrifice.   

I am hoping to go "vitter" further to the next sugia, but ust for a last note, it seems Rav Shach does agree with this idea that since the holiness that devolves on the mother is pushed off, that make the born sheep also not fit for a sacrifice. I noted tat he brings one of the Baali HaTosfot as a proof to this. 

It looks like I am clocking out. However סוף דבר הכל נשמע את האלוהים ירא ואץ מצוותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם The end of all things, after everything has been heard,, Fear God and keep his commandments, for that is all of a man.  Which in itself seems to indicate the importance of the path of the Gra-that of straight Torah.

Sadly I was not able to stick with this but I still can recognize its importance. 

But you can ask if Fear of God is the main thing, then why not emphasize Musar? The answer is I think there is a limit of how much Musar can help. That is the Law of Limited Returns. Probably it is best to concentrate on Gemara, Tosphot and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.

 T 47  t47 mp3   t47 nwc

One of the great Musar books Gates of Repentance

There are four major things that I can see I did wrong in hindsight. Leaving the Land of Israel, and the advice of Rav Nahman of Brelov, the kind of devekut [attachment with God] that I had while I  was in Safed. and the path of my parents.

This is important because, I decided that I would not try to see where my mistakes were based on books but rather based on what I saw that lead to terrible consequences.

So this awareness of my sins helps me to keep my focus on not repeating the same mistakes.

One of the great Musar books Gates of Repentance helped me to see the importance of discovering what mistakes I have done. But to actually determine the exact sins, takes a lot more that just picking out what at first glance might seem to be wrong.

 There is clearly some sort of obligation to walk in the ways of one's parents, [note 1] but it hard to know how far this goes-especially in cases where one's innate talents are not the same as one's parents. And Western society in definitely based on the idea of one finding his or her talents and going in that direction.  Nor is there any concept in the West of doing both. Rather the way the West works in one person for one job. So how does one decide? I myself was in this sort of predicament, not having the same set of talents as my father. But I have tried somehow to walk the fine line between  the areas where he excelled [STEM] and my own interests Gemara, and Tosphot.

So what comes out for me is more or less along the lines of Torah with Derech Eretz/work. A Balance between Physics and Math and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach  But I admire the great Litvak sages like the Gra, and Rav Shach who were able to devote all their time to Torah learning. Just that I never managed to succeed in that direction for reasons unknown tome.

[note 1] If you do not walk in the path of your parents, you are dishonoring them by definition.

But war is no answer. Rather the USA must say to both sides that they must sit down together and negotiate a peace deal.

The people of Ukraine were extremely kind to me. In the end I had to get back to Israel, but I feel that sticking up for the Ukraine makes a lot of sense. There might be some hot heads, but the vast majority of people there really have great hearts and a spirit of kindness.

But war is no answer. Rather the USA must say to both sides that they must sit down together and negotiate a peace deal.  [This is not my original idea. I heard it on a Tom Woods program. But I present it here because it makes a lot of sense.

the Litvak world is right about the primary importance of learning Torah,

 Even  though I feel the Litvak world is right about the primary importance of learning Torah, תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם that is not to say that I had the greatest time in the Litvak world. The best idea is not to put anyone on a pedestal. The admirable thong about the Litvak world the refusal to admit all of the false doctrines that people claim for Torah are true. Thankfully, they are insistent about straight Torah. But being human means that they do not always [or even very often] measure up to the standards of Torah. Even the roshei yeshivot are flawed human beings -as are the rest of us. But still they refuse to let in all the many insanities  of the religious world.

In every discipline there is the authentic true way, and the host of armies of falsehood that surround it that pretend to authenticity even though they are phonies- pseudo Torah.

This problem could have been avoided if people had been aware of the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication. But due to lack of faith in the wise, that is ignored

There is a series of positive values, and in every area of value there is a Sitra Achra-a Dark Side which imitates that value, but in fact just to to use the real to justify the phony  however I admit that I think of Rav Nahman as a great tzadik and this approach of the Gra should not be taken as a criticism of him.

[Even though learning Torah is an obligation on everyone,  this is often misunderstood. The Rambam wrote "Just as one is not allowed to add or subtract from the Written Law, So one is not allowed to add or subtract from the Oral Law." So only the books of the sages of the Mishna and Gemara count as "Torah". But I should also mention that learning these books counts as learning Torah, so when one learns Tosphot he is "learning Torah" 

I might mention here that i just noticed today a few books that have come out in the litvak world that are pretty good. I only asked my son Izhak at the end of his life to send to me the Avi Ezri, but now I see there are some other really great books out there-- the Birchat Shmuel, the Kehilat Yaakov by the Stipler, Even Haazel, and even nowadays there seem to be some pretty decent roshei yeshiva. Of course these are all along the lines of Reb Chaim of Brisk. But I do miss my great learning partner David Bronson whose path in learning is more along the lines of an electron microscope, but I have not been able to get to that kind of depth myself, nor have I seen any book that approaches that kind of depth. Still these other books in the Litvak world are very impressive. [i tried to capture some of the depththat i saw in david bronson  in my little book on bava metzia and also my other book on shas, but nothing can compare to hearing it from the first source]  

Gitin page 47. The way the Keseph Mishna understands the Rambam.

 It is a startling fact that I realized on my way to the sea.  It is this, the meaning of יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות (an idolater has the power to take away the obligation of truma and tithes)[i.e., if he owns land in Israel, that land is not obligated in truma and tithes.]] is an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam-as far as the Keseph Mishna understands the Rambam. For in Gitin page 47 we have the argument if יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות (an idolater has the power to take away the obligation of truma and tithes) or if not. The way Tosphot understands this is that even an idolater can have possession of land in Israel still, that does not make it not Israel anymore. And the Rambam might agree. But the way the Keseph Mishna understands the Rambam, if the law was that an idolater has the power to take away the obligation of truma and tithes, that means the land itself becomes not Israel [and has to be reconquered]. How do you see this? In this way: the Rambam says if an idolater buys land in Israel the land does not become not Israel but when the Israeli buys it back, the land is obligated in truma and tithe. The Keseph Mishna comments on this: Even though it seems in many places in Shas that the law is יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות (an idolater has the power to take away the obligation of truma and tithes) still the Rambam holds that is not the law. Or that that is the law only when the land is in the possession of the idolater. So we see the Keseph Mishna understands the Rambam to mean that the opinion יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות (an idolater has the power to take away the obligation of truma and tithes) if an idolater buys land in Israel the land does not become not Israel

 גיטין דף מ''ז The meaning of יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות  is an argument between תוספות and the רמב''ם,  as the כסף משנה understands the רמב''ם. For in גיטין דף מ''ז we have the argument if יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות or if not. The way תוספות understands this is that even an idolater can have possession of land in Israel still, that does not make it not Israel anymore. And the רמב''ם might agree. But the way the כסף משנה understands the רמב''ם, if the law was that יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות, that means the land itself becomes not Israel [and has to be reconquered]. How do you see this? In this way: the רמב''ם says if an idolater buys land in Israel the land does not become not Israel but when the Israeli buys it back, the land is obligated in תרומה and tithe. The כסף משנה comments on this: Even though it seems in many places in ש''ס that the law is יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות still the רמב''ם holds that is not the law. Or that that is the law only when the land is in the possession of the idolater. So we see the משנה understands the רמב''ם to mean that the opinion יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות if an idolater buys land in Israel the land does not become not Israel

\

גיטין דף מ''ז הפירוש של יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות הוא ויכוח בין תוספות לרמב''ם, כפי שמבין הכסף משנה את הרמב''ם. כי בגיטין דף מ''ז יש לנו את הטיעון אם יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות או אם לא. הדרך שתוספות מבינים זאת היא שאפילו שעובד אלילים יכול להחזיק בקרקע בישראל, זה לא הופך אותה לא להיות ארץ ישראל יותר. והרמב''ם אולי יסכים. אבל איך שהכסף משנה מבין את הרמב''ם, אם החוק היה שיש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות, זה אומר שהארץ עצמה הופכת לא להיות ישראל [וצריך לכבוש אותה מחדש]. איך אתה רואה את זה? באופן זה: הרמב''ם אומר אם עובד אלילים קונה קרקע בישראל זה לא הופך האדמה לא להיות ישראל אבל כשהישראלי קונה אותה בחזרה, חייבת הקרקע בתרומה ובמעשר. הכסף משנה מעיר על כך: למרות שנראה בהרבה מקומות בש''ס שהדין יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות עדיין הרמב''ם קובע שזה לא הדין. או שכך הדין רק כשהארץ ברשותו של עובד האלילים. אז אנחנו רואים שהכסף משנה מבין את הרמב''ם שהדעת יש קניין לעכו''ם בארץ ישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות אם עובד אלילים קונה קרקע בישראל האדמה לא הופכת לא ארץ ישראל.

When I was in need, it was never the people I had thought would be for me. Rather it was always the Ukrainians that came to help me.

 On my first Rosh Hashanah in Uman the fellow I was sharing a room [note 1] with left to go pray at the ziun but I was very sick. For some reason, the stress and strain of the trip go to me and i had a high fever and could barely move. Still the fellow I was with could not have cared less. It was specifically the Ukrainian owners of the apartment that looked and saw I was sick and brought medicine and food for me. 

This is just one incident of many along these lines, but I thought I should at least write down one event like this to let people know, that I found the people in Ukraine to be exceptionally kind to me.  

When I was in need, it was never the people I had thought would be for me. Rather it was always the Ukrainians that came to help me.  

Friends I had in Ukraine were real friends--people i could rely on in all circumstances. And this was not just friends be just ordinary people. So I would like to suggest that the Ukraine ought to be supported.

 Even the criminal elements were never that criminal. But I had to leave to get back home to Israel. But i still have fond memories of the amazing people that I met in Ukraine.  

[note 1] The room was in  a large apartment building right next to the grave of Rav Nahman 

I was at the beach and ran into Ronen, a friend who often swims a mile a day. He mentioned some of the difficulties that people face and I said, "At the Mir and Shar Yashuv they held There is no answer except to learn Torah."  And that I believe they are right. But I did not add the Rambam's opinion about Physics and Metaphysics.

Torah however is not all the nonsense that people spout out as Torah. It is the Old Testament and Gemara.

 t59 written May 24, 2017 in Uman [That was a year before I had to escape, since it was becoming exceedingly violent. I barely escaped with my life.] 

 I have no hard data about this but I think most Jews that came to the USA before WWII were mostly interested in STEM.  The natural sciences.  This might have just been the natural tendency. For example, my dad went into STEM. [His parents had come to the USA right after WWI. ] Why? I think it was  the influence of his older brother Alex. But did their parents mention this to them, or was it just something that they wanted to do? Violin also. I know my own father was contemplating either a career as a violinist or in STEM. But after those first generations, the interest seems to have waned. Why is this? I think because people are not aware of the statement of the Gra [brought by his disciple Baruch of Shkolev] that "According to the lack of knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms, one will lack hundred fold more in understanding of Torah."  

[The seven wisdoms are not actually STEM, but that would be the modern equivalent.]

When I was in Polytechnic learning Physics, I recall a lot of the the professors were Jewish, but what really got my attention was when I had some complicated problem, the professors were not around, I went to a bunch of Asian students. And they solved my problem in an instant. 

 

 What is the problem with השקפה world view. It is too easy to talk about it for hours without knowing anything. And this is the major problem in the religious world.  They can talk endlessly about "Hashkafa" without the slightest idea of Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot.

It is false religion that pretends to be authentic Torah.

Thank God there were people like Rav Kinyevsky or Rav Shach to set people straight about what Torah is really about. But the general religious world follows "Torah Scholars that are demons," [in that memorable phrase from Rav Nahman.] [If Rav Nahman had come into the world just for that phrase, it would be enough.]]תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים{LeM I:12 and I:28},-- or that other one רברבי עשו [LeM I:8]

In the commentary of the Gra on Proverbs, it brings the idea that a person needs no effort at all -[perhaps even without Trust in God. This seems to be unclear/]. This is based on Rosh Hashana 26b. "The People in the study hall did not know the meaning of the verse 'Throw on the Lord your burden and he will support you.' They thought that one should trust in God and also do effort. However that did not fit the verse which should have said, 'your needs'. What is the 'burden' [in a language that means 'things that you ask for'. ] Then they saw the event with Raba Bar Bar Chana who was walking and carrying a burden. A merchant came by and said, 'Put your burden on my camel.' Then the people in the study hall said, 'We see that even for what a person has to pay for, if it is from Heaven, people will beg to do it for him.'" 

 

I do not know when one should trust, and when one should do effort. But in my own life, doing effort always backfires. So I try to trust in God for everything as much as I can.--That means, I try to minimize the efforts, and instead to trust that what is decreed for me, will come to me, whether I like it or not. 

However I should add that "kollel" is not the same thing as trust in God. Kollel is using Torah to make money. However you might find some permission for that. Okay. But that still does not mean it is trust in God. It is openly using Torah as a means to make money. Let us not mince words about it.

 I would have to root for the Ukraine since I have an endless debt of gratitude for the many people there that helped me when I needed help. The details are not important, but the fact of the matter is that people went far beyond their means to help me in all sorts of difficult situations when I needed help.y life.

 z69 music file.  It seems to me that this piece is basically done-for now. But certainly it will need later editing. So I present it as it is, on condition that people that listen will forgive me for rough spots.

 I know that when I first saw the path of learning of Rav Nahman--saying the words and going on, I mentioned this to Motti Freifeld [the son of Shelomo Freifeld, the founder of the great Litvak yeshiva Shar Yashuv]. Motti was adamant that Review is the only proper path. And to a large degree you see this in Litvak yeshivot--deep intense learning. and tons of review.

So doing "just saying the words and going on", I could not do since by that I understood zilch. But the intense sort of deep learning you have in the great Litvak Yeshivot I also had no idea how to get to that.

So I had a sort of compromise to say every section of the Gemara and Tosphot twice--and then go on. Eventually I added the Maharasha and Pnei Yehoshua. and since these were hard to get at all, I used to review them about ten times or more.

After some time has gone by, I can see the importance of both methods: fast learning and slow painstaking in depth.

[For the kind of in depth learning in the Litvak Yeshivot it is helpful to have a learning partner with a computer like mind [like  I had for awhile, David Bronson]. Without him, it takes a lot more time "to calculate the sugia" [the calculate the subject.] as they call it in Israel. For those like me that are more or less on our own in learning, I recommend getting as many of the books of the great Litvish sages from Rav Chaim of Brisk up to Rav Shach. -]

 I see after last week when an Arab took a machine gun and killed a bunch of people that, Israel is not letting Arabs in to work or to vacation at the sea. --at least for now at the start of Ramadan. I mean to say, that the usual surge of Arabs at the beach is towards the middle and end of Ramadan. But I would usually see plenty at the beginning also. Today I did nor see a single Arab at the beach. Obviously Israel has closed the borders. 

[The actual murders done last week were by Arabs with Israeli Citizenship living in Israel, so closing the border does nothing about that problem. Still I can see why the government is concerned about Arab Violence.]

[After a day of that, Israel let in all the Arabs with work permits. I see most of the regulars are back to work. -But maybe not all. But I see that Arabs without work permits are still not being let in since there were none at the beach.

 Even though the Kesef Mishna and the Gra disagree about what it means יש קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר it is still hard to see if there in ant difference in terms of practice. Though I do admit the approach of the Beit Joseph helps to understand the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah page 13. Thee it asks how could Israel bring the Omer from grain that grew in the property of the Canaanites. [Though I am wondering what the Gemara means there. Did Israel bring the omer after or before they reconquered the land that the grain was grow on.?]

The basic subject is this: The Rambam says there is no acquisition to a idolater IN Israel .So If a Israeli buys the land back, the grain that grows on it will be obligated in truma. The Kesef mishna says :this is even though the Gemara seems to hold there is acquisition, still it must be (according to the Rambam) tat that is not the law. Or that the Gemara is referring to the time when the field is in the possession of the idolater. 

The the Mabit brings that the Kesef Mishna himself was aware of this problem [that even if the land is owned by the idolater, it still is obligated in truma as the Rambam himself says later in that perek.]

So the Beit Yoseph answers the grain is obligated when the smoothing was done by a Israeli. 

Well even though the Beit Yoseph seems like a very new idea--that all agree that when the land is in the possession of the idolater it is not obligated, still if a Israeli buys the grain and does the smoothing of the stack, it is obligated, so where is the argument? The Gra agrees.  The Beit Yoseph himself brings this. So in the long run, where is the argument.

I am sorry for bein short and not explaining what I mean in detail , but it is really really late and I am really tired, To see what I mean look at the the Gemara in Avoda Zara page 47 and the Avi Ezri on First Fruits perek 2, laws 10 and 13

 The West is going crazy trying to turn children into queers and the clear attempts by thousands of “educators”, “counselors”, and other shepherds of the pervertization of children to CONVERT children from normal sexualization to perverted and mutilated sexualization and the Covid Hoaxl.

The over respect for is smart people in the West results in the fact that the social "sciences" and humanities  not worth much. For the professorate are sick-in-mind people who want to have the prestige of a PhD but are too stupid to get one in the real sciences like Physics or Chemistry.

 Jane Goodall showed about about our close relatives in the primates are vicious. "During the first ten years of the study I had believed […] that the Gombe chimpanzees were, for the most part, rather nicer than human beings. […] Then suddenly we found that chimpanzees could be brutal—that they, like us, had a darker side to their nature." Goodall also observed the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop to maintain their dominance, sometimes going as far as cannibalism. And this is in us. [People are evil.] The difference Dr Huemer wrote that we can use reason to see objective morality.

And this certainly goes along with Hegel. However Huemer is coming more from the direction of GE Moore.

But to Leonard Nelson we know good from evil by a third sense--non intuitive immediate knowledge. And I am not at all able to see who among these greats was more correct. But one thing all agree with, we can know the difference between right and wrong--if we try hard enough. But without that effort we are naturally evil.  [See In Praise of Folly by Erasmus, and or Candide.]

When Husserl was arguing against Leonard Nelson, he was on one hand making a false accusation of psychologism..But in general he was arguing against psychologim in his book anyway. And the argument is always based on the idea that the laws of Logic have nothing to do with empirical things. The laws are forever true. So my question is that after that we have logic that is fractional. Does that change the argument? 

I might make clear that to Nelson, the categories, a priori knowledge is not because that is how our minds work, but rather it is knowledge that we know not by the usual ways of pure reason or pure observation.

i think people ought to look at the PhD thesis of. Kelley ross where he goes into great depth about immediate non intuitive knowledge and shows clearly that reality is really two fold. reality includes both physical and mental phenomenon and that neither can be reduced to the other and that knowledge has to start from propositions than can not be proved because they are the start of reasoning and even of any kind of empirical knowledge--without which empirical knowledge can not even begin. 

 It is best not to try to extend reasoning into realms of things in themselves--things that can not be checked by observation

The problem of evil is well known problem since ancient times. To give you an idea of the scope of the issue let me say there are more than 2 billion entries on this issue when you search google. Happy reading. And among these authors have been the deepest and most profound. So what I think is this: We would do well not to try to reason about spiritual things at all. We should mind our own plot of land and be happy with what we have and not be in the category of those that Do not  look at "what is above, what is beneath, what is within, what is outside." מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור/ The Gemara says harsh words about those that look at these. Now the problem of evil is hard to understand, but when it comes to the idea that everything that God does is for the good, we ought to accept the fact and just move on.

[What are "things in themselves"? When you look at a piece of wood it has a shape and a color and a feel to it. These are characteristics that describe how you interact with that  piece of wood. But what is it without your interaction with it? What is it without the adjectives that you add to it?"

So we might know about God, and morality, and souls and angels. But not by reason. Rather by Faith. And faith is important. However one should not confuse faith with knowledge. And when one does confuse these two things, that is where religious insanity begins.

 In Torah the mention to honor and obey one's teachers never appears. Rather it is to honor and fear one's parents. So from where does the modern emphasis on listening to religious authorities come from? not from the Torah. Rather from the Tora of the Dark Side. 

 z56 music file I have not been writing much recently, but I hope that this brings a bit of joy to those that listen.

בבא בתרא דף כ''ו

 I was thinking about the Gemara on the way to the sea and back, Bava Batra 26 and 81. There is an argument between Tosfot and Rabbainu Hananel about the reason for Ula. Ula said if one has a tree within 16 cubits of the field of his neighbor he can not bring first fruits to the Temple. [The law about first fruits is he brings them to the Temple and gives them to the priest.]

Tosphot says that the reason is it is not enough to have a legal right to use the ground but rather because he needs to own the ground. It must be I think that Ula holds like Reish Lakish that קניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף דמי (ownership of the fruits is not like ownership of the ground).On and that is why R. Yohanan says even if he has a tree right next to the very border, he still brings first fruits because על מנת כן הנחיל יהושוע את הארץ. But that alone would not be enough to be thought to own the ground. All that Joshua did was to say that people have a right to plant anywhere on their property even up until the very border with their neighbor. But that would not be enough to be considered as if they own the ground unless you have this other law of R Yohanan: קניין פירות כקניין הגוף דמי

In terms of how Rav Shach explains the sugia/subject according to R. Chananel I would like to say a few points. So what I am going to talk about will be in a different mode that Tosphot.  R. Yohanan holds when one buys a tree with its ground , he will own only four amot around it. That is the reason R. Chananel says the law is not like Ula. For Ula says nothing about ownership and nor does R. Yohanan here in perek 2 of Bava Batra. But the whole point of R Hananel the ground must belong to the owner of the tree in order to bring first fruits  and if this tree is still within 16 amot of the boundary, it still is not all his ground. So we must say that R Yohanan holds he owns only four amot around it. This is like he says on page 81 when he buys three trees he owns everything under and  the length of  plowing around them which is 4 amot. So now it only matters that four amot around the tree belong to him and that is enough to bring first fruits. [Of course within 4 amot of the boundary will still be a problem and that is why I have to add that to R Yohanan קניין פירות כקניין הגוף גמי] This is all to explain that Ula means he is a thief on the fruits. But then Rav Shach changes his mind and notes that the explanation of Ula can in fact hold that the fruit really is owned by the owner of the tree but he is still a thief because he owns  the roots of the tree all around the tree up until 16 amot. and that 16 amot is now sticking into the field of his neighbor. So he is still a thief because of the roots of his tree are bring nourishment to the fruits 

I am still being short here because i am very tired after being at the sea. But not so cold. Still, the best idea is to see inside the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach in Laws of First Fruits 2:10 and 2:13 

I might mention also that Rabbainu Chananel might be thinking in terms of damages. That thus he would say that when Ula said, "He can not bring first fruits because he is a thief," that means the prohibition of damages comes from the prohibition of theft. For after all R. Yose never said anything about ownership but rather that one can plant next to the boundary of his neighbor.

___________________________________________________________

 I was thinking about the גמרא on the way to the sea and back, בבא בתרא דף כ''ו ודף פ''א 26 and 81. There is an argument between תוספות and ר' חננאל about the reason for עולא. There עולא said if one has a tree within שש עשרה אמות of the field of his neighbor he can not bring ביכורים to the מקדש. [The law about ביכורים is he brings them to the מקדש and gives them to the priest.]

תוספות says that the reason is it is not enough to have a legal right שיעבוד to use the ground, but rather because he needs to own the ground. It must be I think that עולא holds like ריש לקיש that קניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף דמי (ownership of the fruits is not like ownership of the ground). and that is why ר' יוחנן says even if he has a tree right next to the very border, he still brings ביכורים because על מנת כן הנחיל יהושוע את הארץ. But that alone would not be enough to be thought to own the ground. All that יהושוע did was to say that people have a right to plant anywhere on their property, even up until the very border with their neighbor. But that would not be enough to be considered as if they own the ground unless you have this other law of ר' יוחנן: קניין פירות כקניין הגוף דמי

There is a long piece by Rav Shach about this subject that explains R Hananel. That Ula means that if the nourishment comes from the ground of his neighbor, then the fruit belongs to his neighbor (even though he himself owns the tree. With this insight he explains the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch that when one buys a tree, he owns only 4 cubits around it, not 16 like Ula.]

In terms of how רב שך explains the סוגיא subject according to רבינו חננאל I would like to say a few points. So what I am going to talk about will be in a different mode than תוספות.  Now ר' יוחנן holds when one buys a tree with its ground , he will own only ארבע אמות around it. That is the reason רבינו חננאל says the law is not like עולא. For עולא says nothing about ownership and nor does ר' יוחנן here in פרק ב'  of בבא בתרא. But the whole point of רבינו חננאל the ground must belong to the owner of the tree in order to bring ביכורים  and if this tree is still within שש עשרה אמות of the boundary, it still is not all his ground. So we must say that ר' יוחנן holds he owns only ארבע אמות around it. This is like ר' יוחנן says on page 81 when he buys three trees he owns תחתיהם וביניהם וחוצה להם כמלוא אורה וסלו everything under and  the length of  plowing around them which is ארבע אמות. So now it only matters that ארבע אמות around the tree belong to him and that is enough to bring first fruits. [Of course within ארבע אמות of the boundary will still be a problem, and that is why I have to add that to ר' יוחנן קניין פירות כקניין הגוף גמי] This is all to explain that עולא means he is a thief on the fruits. But then רב שך changes his mind and notes that the explanation of עולא can in fact hold that the fruit really is owned by the owner of the tree, but he is still a thief because he owns  the roots of the tree all around the tree up until שש עשרה אמות. And that שש עשרה אמות is now sticking into the field of his neighbor. So he is still a thief because of the roots of his tree are bring nourishment to the fruits 

I might mention also that רבינו חננאל might be thinking in terms of damages.  Thus he would say that when עולא said, "He can not bring first fruits because he is a thief," that means the prohibition of damages comes from the prohibition of theft. For after all ר' יוסי  never said anything about ownership, but rather that one can plant next to the boundary of his neighbor.

חשבתי על הגמרא בדרך לים ובחזרה, בבא בתרא דף כ''ו ודף פ''א כ"ו. יש ויכוח בין תוספות לר' חננאל על הסיבה לעולא. שם אמר עולא שאם יש לאחד עץ בתוך שש עשרה אמות מהשדה של שכנו, הוא לא יכול להביא ביכורים למקדש. [החוק לגבי ביכורים הוא שהוא מביא אותם אל המקדש ונותן אותם לכהן.]
תוספות אומר שהסיבה היא שזה לא מספיק שיש לשיעבוד (זכות חוקית) להשתמש בקרקע, אלא בגלל שהוא צריך להחזיק בקרקע. זה חייב להיות אני חושב שעולא מחזיק כמו ריש לקיש שקניין פירות לאו כקניין הגוף דמי (הבעלות על הפירות אינה כמו בעלות על הקרקע). ולכן ר' יוחנן אומר גם אם יש לו עץ ממש ליד הגבול, הוא עדיין מביא ביכורים כי על מנת כן הנחיל יהושע את הארץ. אבל זה לבד לא יספיק כדי להיחשב לבעלות על הקרקע. כל מה שיהושע עשה היה לומר שלאנשים יש זכות לשתול בכל מקום ברכושם, אפילו עד הגבול ממש עם שכנם. אבל זה לא יספיק כדי להיחשב כאילו הם בעלי הקרקע אלא אם כן יש לך דין אחר של ר' יוחנן: קניין פירות כקניין הגוף דמי

בבא בתרא דף כ''ו. לגבי איך רב שך מסביר את הנושא לפי רבינו חננאל אני רוצה לומר כמה נקודות. אז מה שאני הולך לדבר עליו יהיה במצב שונה מתוספות. עכשיו ר' יוחנן מחזיק כשאדם קונה עץ עם האדמה שלו, הוא יחזיק רק ארבע אמות סביבו. זו הסיבה שרבינו חננאל אומר שהחוק אינו דומה לעולא. כי עולא לא אומר דבר על בעלות וגם ר' יוחנן לא אומר כאן בפרק ב' של בבא בתרא. אבל כל העניין של רבינו חננאל הוא שהקרקע חייבת להיות שייכת לבעל העץ כדי להביא ביכורים ואם העץ הזה עדיין בתוך שש עשרה אמות מהגבול, עדיין לא כל הקרקע שלו. אז אנחנו חייבים לומר שר' יוחנן מחזיק ברשותו של בעל העץ רק ארבע אמות סביבו. זה כמו שאומר ר' יוחנן בעמוד 81 כשהוא קונה שלשה עצים שבבעלותו תחתיהם וביניהם וחוצה להם כמלוא אורה וסלו [הכל מתחת ואורך החריש סביבם שהוא ארבע אמות]. אז עכשיו רק ארבע אמות מסביב לעץ שייכים לו וזה מספיק כדי להביא ביכורים. [כמובן שבתוך ארבע אמות מהגבול עדיין תהיה בעיה, ולכן אני צריך להוסיף את זה לר' יוחנן קניין פירות כקניין הגוף גמי.] זה הכל כדי להסביר שעולא אומר שהוא גנב על הפירות. אבל אז רב שך משנה את דעתו ומציין שההסבר של עולא יכול למעשה לקבוע שהפירות באמת בבעלותו של בעל העץ, אבל הוא עדיין גנב כי הוא הבעלים של שורשי העץ מסביב לעץ עד שש עשרה אמות. ושש עשרה אמות האלה נכנסות עכשיו לשדה של שכנו. אז הוא עדיין גנב בגלל שורשי העץ שלו מביאים הזנה לפירות

אציין גם שרבינו חננאל אולי חושב במונחים של נזקים. כך היה אומר שכאשר אמר עולא "אינו יכול להביא ביכורים כיון שהוא גנב", משמע איסור הנזק בא מאיסור גניבה. כי אחרי הכל ר' יוסי מעולם לא אמר דבר על בעלות, אלא שאפשר לשתול ליד גבול שכנו.

 It is an important fact that in the book of Job, we find that Job  doesn't say that God is right. Rather says that we do not understand God. It is his friends that stick  up for God . They say God does not send punishment to a righteous man,   They say everything that the religious say. And GOD at the end of the book says they are wrong.  It says in Isaiah God creates evil. Rather, God's ways are not subject to human understanding.  בורא רעה. This is changed in the first  blessing of the Shema to "He creates everything." But in the Prophet it says openly "He creates Evil."

This sounds like blasphemy. However God in the Book of Job says it was the friends of Job that were saying blasphemy by saying God does not punish the righteous. 

But the friends of Job had good intensions to stick up for God, instead of sticking up for their friend, Job. Still, God did not want or need their good intensions. Rather He said that they sinned, and that Job should pray for them to be forgiven. To Job himself he simply said that Job does not understand.

It is hard to know why God, who is totally good should create evil. But that refers back to an older problem -How do sperate events stem from God who is a Divine Simplicity, a Undifferentiated Unity. He is not made of Separate ingredients, 

We do not know. These issues are in the realm of the "dinge an sich"-things in themselves-where even te most pure Reason can not enter