I am a bit surprized that the herem of the Gra [that is, his signature on the famous letter of excommunication published in Villna] is so widely ignored. I mean to say that if people  do not pay attention to the law of the Torah--that I can understand though I can not agree. But if people  are interested in keeping Torah, why would ignoring that herem be considered to be ok? 

Now perhaps in previous generations, it was not so obvious. But nowadays it ought to be clear.--worship of dead corpses [even if they want to call the corpse a "tzadik"] ought to be easy to see that that has nothing to do with Torah.

The pretense of Torah is not Torah, no matter how many people that can be fooled. [ I learn and hold very much with Rav Nahman because I believe that the herem was not relevant to him. There was a book that contained  all the five herems and testimonies gathered that I read in a library in the old city of Jerusalem. According to what  the herem aid, Rav Nahman would not be included    ]

 the only reason to get married commitment and for having children. It doe not make sex holy not even allowed. For in Torah law sex with an unmarried woman i allowed. That is the  law of pilegesh.

For good children, I think sex ha to be Friday night after midnight. see the sidur of yaakov emden for this subject in detail 

bastard [ממזר]

A bastard [ממזר]is born from sex that is with guilt of Karet [כרת].  It has nothing to do with marriage.

An example would be a woman that is married to one man and then has sex with another, or any of the types of karet in Viyakra (Leviticus) 18 and 20. [There is an exception of nida [menstruating'--seeing blood  ] who is under penalty of karet and yet one born from a nida is not a bastard ]

There is an opinion of R. Akiva who holds a bastard can come from sex is merely prohibited by a prohibition, .but that is not the law.

 Guilt of Karet is a kind of prohibition that gets the death penalty if done on purpose in front of two witnesses or has to bring a in offering if done by accident. [e.g. idolatry]

sex with an unmarried woman is not prohibited at all Tothe Rambam it just i lacking a positive command of getting married. But to most Rishonim it is not prohibited at all.

see Chronicle I chapter 2. verse 46

[But I can see good reasons to be married in term of commitment..That is it tends to reinforce mutual  commitment. But it does not make sex holy ]

To the Rashbam [Bava Metzia 96] לרש''י ולרא''ש גנב יכול להחזיר רק כלים שלמים או בכסף. לרשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו]

 To Rashi Tosphot and the Rosh a thief can pay back only with whole vessels or money. To the Rashbam [Bava Metzia 96] even with anything that is worth money. But we also have a law that אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object. [That is the object that was stolen and broken according to the time it was stolen]. To the Rashbam it looks that this must mean one evaluate the object at the time he stands before the court. But to Rashi and the Rosh the meaning of "one does not evaluate" is to pay back whole vessels, for if one could   evaluate then he could give back teh broken pieces and jut pay for the damaged part.

However the Rambam might hold like the Rosh and Rashi  or like the Rashbam. But in any case, he holds the law "one does not evaluate" and the law of how the thief must pay are not related because he holds one does not evaluate refers to what value the object lost by being broken,--not the whole object and what it was worth.. I have written about this in my little book on Bava Metzia but I see Rav Shach  is explaining the subject according to the Rambam that the two laws are unconnected. At any rate, it is hard to see the difference between אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object or one does not evaluate the worth of the damage. The reason is the only way to evaluate the worth of the damage is by seeing what the object was worth at first before the damage. . 

____________________________________________________________________ 

 To רש''י תוספות and the רא''ש a thief can pay back only with whole vessels or money. To the רשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו] even with anything that is worth money[שווה כסף]. But we also have a law that אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object. [That is the object that was stolen and broken according to the time it was stolen]. To the רשב''ם it looks that this must mean one evaluate the object at the time he stands before the court. But to רש''י and the רא''ש the meaning of "אין שמין לגנב" is to pay back whole vessels, for if one could   evaluate then he could give back  broken pieces and  pay for the damaged part. However the רמב''ם might hold like the רא''ש and רש''י  or like the רשב''ם. But in any case, he holds the law "one does not evaluate" and the law of how the thief must pay are not related because he holds ''אין שמין לגנב'' refers to what value the object lost by being broken,,not the whole object and what it was worth..  רב שך  is explaining the subject according to the רמב''ם that the two laws are unconnected

____________________________________________________________________ 

לרש''י ולרא''ש גנב יכול להחזיר רק כלים שלמים או בכסף. לרשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו] אפילו בכל דבר ששווה כסף אבל יש לנו גם חוק שלגנב לא מעריכים את ערך החפץ. [זה החפץ שנגנב ונשבר לפי הזמן שנגנב]. לרשב''ם נראה שזה מכוון שמעריכים את החפץ בזמן שהוא עומד בפני בית המשפט. אבל לרש''י ולרא''ש פירוש "אין שמין לגנב" הוא להחזיר כלים שלמים, שהרי אם היה אפשר להעריך אז הוא יכול להחזיר חתיכות שבורות ולשלם על החלק הפגום. אולם הרמב''ם עשוי להחזיק כמו הרא''ש והרש''י או כמו הרשב''ם. אבל בכל מקרה, הוא מחזיק בדין "אין מעריכים" ודין איך הגנב משלם אינם קשורים כי הוא מחזיק ''אין שמין לגנב'' מתייחס לאיזה ערך החפץ איבד בשבירה,,לא כל החפץ ומה שהיה שווה.. רב שךמסביר את הנושא לפי הרמב''ם ששני החוקים לא קשורים. בכל מקרה, קשה לראות את ההבדל בין "אין שמין לגנב" לא מעריכים את ערך החפץ או לא מעריכים את ערך הנזק. הסיבה היא שהדרך היחידה להעריך את שווי הנזק היא לראות מה היה שווה החפץ בהתחלה לפני הנזק. .

 The religious world bears only a superficial resemblance to Torah. But at least  those that follow the Gra get most things right. But not all.  They learn Torah in depth and love Torah for it's own sake.  They are aware that good character [to be a mensch] is the essence of Torah--. But by ignoring the herem [letter of excommunication] of the Gra, they tend to fall into the same Dark Side trap. [Sitra achra]

[I admit that I could be wrong about my particular liking of Rav Nahman of Breslov in that he might be thought to be in the category of te excommunication of the Gra. But I tend to believe that he stands outside of it. In fact I have seen that the Litvak world in general considers him to be a great tzadik.]

first night of pesach

 Next Tuesday night should be the first night of Pesach according to the approach of the gemara in Sanhedrin page 10 side b.--that is you go by the conjunction of the moon with the sun on the same longitude.[not the same latitude also because that would be  lunar ellipse]. And that is the first opinion of Tosphot over there. But if you go by the gemara in Rosh Hashana, there it is clear you go by the time when you can see the new moon, and that would be a day later. [That is the gemara that Tosphot bringc to argue on that first opinion. [ But in my opinion,  that Gemara in Sanhedrin disagrees with the Gemara in Rosh Hashana]  But none of that has anything to do with the calendar. All this means is if there would be a court that had authentic semicha from Sinai then they would go by one of these opinions the conjunction or when they see the new moon

 A lot of people that present themselves as ""talmidei hachamim" are actually from the dark side but there is a way to be rescued from them. That is by inviting true Torah scholars into one's home. That is--at any rate, what I gathered today by reading the Le.M. (Lekutei Moharan) of Rav Nahman of Breslov vol I chap 28in the local Na Nach place