hidden levels below apparent reality and above.

I have a belief that there are hidden levels below apparent reality and above. But that one's effort should be directed toward God alone the sole Creator. What seems like miracles are often phenomenon of dark forces. In the Middle Ages I think there were alchemists and mystics who were able to tap in to hidden realities to make changes in physical reality. That however has nothing to-do with service toward God. But what then is service toward God? I think that is best defined by my parents. For my mother service toward God mean to marry a nice Jewish girl (two separate qualifications) and to be a mensch. To my father that mean self reliance.

learning Tosphot, learning the Avi Ezri

The way that yeshivot are oriented is that the centrale feature is the lecture (shiur clalli) on Tuesday where a lesson I given to the whole yeshiva based on the global approach of Reb Chaim of Brisk. This is global and bring in sources from all over shas and the rishonim. And I admit this is important. In fact, I try to continue this a much a I can by learning the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and later go to a Litvak beit midrah where I can try to learn the sources of his lectures. And I would like to recommend this approach to others. But I also want to mention that my learning partner David Bronson held the belief that a lot more effort must be devoted to learning Tosphot. And I think this was also the belief of Rev Friefeld of Shar Yashuv my first yeshiva}.

one has to find the objective set of moral principles to stick with

Authentic morality I think depends on finding the right set of basic principles to stick with at all cost. To go through life as the majority of people, doing whatever seems to provide the best chance of personal gain and pleasure, is not a way to get to Gan Eden. For the majority people, if one is in a politically active community, that means to adopt the principles of that community. For example, in the USA where 99 percent of women are radical leftist that means to find wife one has to adopt the most absurd radical principles. If one is in some other kind of community, that mean to adopt their insane principles in order to get ahead. But to be a n authentic moral person who has a chance of getting to Gan Eden in the next world one has to find the objective set of moral principles to stick with that will sometimes help him or her to fit in with the crowd, but most often will not. My own belief is that he main principle to stick with at all cost is to speak the truth. ------My own son held that one should learn fast, but with review. [i.e., Izhak held with Rav Nachman of Breslov who held that one should learn as fast as possible –saying the words and going on. However, my son also knew that after that, one need review]

I think the Left has gotten more radical during the year the I have not been paying attention. I was reading a leftwing newspaper [Haaretz[ and it was entirely slander against Netanyahu and the attempt to retrieve our captives. In the long distant past, for me “Left wing” meant Kennedy, not Karl Marx. But I see that that has changed, the Left in Israel is committed to hurting Netanyahu and Israeli citizens.

Rather they will do everything they can to make a bomb quickly.

The only way to win a war is not to have one. So I am definitely in favor of any kind of deal that Trump can come up with Iran. But I jut do not see how Iran can agree to dismantle their Nuclear Bomb program when from an early age in school every day they repeat the mantra about how they are dedicating their lives to the destruction of the USA and Irael. It seems to me that it would be impossible for them to reject that a hard wiring of their psyche. It is like a circuit board after the circuit board has been subjected to heat and hardened in. You cannot undo the connections unless you simply break the circuit board. So, it is here. Iran to agree would mean to break their own inner mind set and hardwired connection> To make a deal with Trump would mean to go insane. Rather they will do everything they can to make a bomb quickly.

בבא קמא דף כ''ג. אני תוהה על מה הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא? אביי שאל אם ר' יוחנן צודק (שנזק באש אחראי כי זה החצים שלו, כלומר נזק ישיר מגופו), אז למה שהוא לא יהיה אחראי לדברים נסתרים? ואביי ענה על השאלה שלו. המקרה הוא כשהיה קיר, והוא נפל, ולא היה לו הזדמנות לתקן אותו. לאחר מכן שאל רבא, "אם כן, הוא לא צריך להיות אחראי אפילו על דברים גלויים?" אז רבא אמר, "לכן, ר' יוחנן מחזיק עם ריש לקיש שהאש היא בגלל נזק באמצעות רכושו של אדם, וכל הסיבה שאמר ר' יוחנן בגלל החץ שלו היא בגלל ארבעה מיני נזקים נוספים. שאלתי היא מה המקרה? האם אביי מתכוון שאם היה קיר, והוא הדליק אש, והיא עברה על החומה, אבל למה הוא לא יהיה חייב אפילו אם הייתה חומה, והאש קפצה מעליו. ועל אחת כמה וכמה, אם היה קיר והוא נפל, והוא לא הספיק לתקן אותו, ובכל זאת הוא הדליק מדורה, וכביכול גם שם הוא לא היה אחראי לדברים הנסתרים. ורבא אמר שבמקרה הזה אפילו לדברים פתוחים הוא לא היה חייב. אם האש היא בגלל החצים שלו, אז הוא צריך להיות אחראי גם לדברים נסתרים וגם לדברים פתוחים. הדרך היחידה לדעת רבא לקבל את החובה להיות חייב על דברים פתוחים, ואי אחריות על דברים נסתרים, היא אם האש חייבת רק בגלל נזק על ידי רכושו. מכל מקום, אני יכול לראות את טעם הגר''א שאמר שהרי''ף רמב''ם וסמ''ג קבעו שר' יוחנן אינו אוחז באש הוא מחמת חיציו למעט תוספת אחריות של ארבעה מיני נזקים. הסיבה שהוא יודע זאת מהרמב''ם היא שהרמב''ם כתב לאש אין אחריות על דברים נסתרים. אם נתבונן בדיון בין אביי לרבא, נראה שאם היה חומה, הוא אינו אחראי לכלום, ואם לא היה חומה כלל, אזי הוא צריך להיות אחראי לכל נזק אלא אם כן אש אחראית רק בגלל נזק על ידי רכושוץ ------------------------------------------אציין שהדרך בה שמבין הגר"א את דברי הגמרא שונה ממה שהגמרא עשוי להיראות ממבט ראשון. הגמרא אומרת שר' יוחנן סבור שהאש אחראית גם בגלל חיציו וגם בגלל רכושו. זה נשמע כאילו זה אומר שבכל מקרה הוא אחראי לשניהם. כלומר, "ו" פירושו זה וזה, זה כמו בצומת. הגר''א מבין את המשמעות זה או זה, אבל לא שניהם. בחלק מהמקרים אש אחראית בגלל חיציו (במקרה של ארבעת סוגי הנזקים אחראים כאשר נגרם נזק על ידי הגוף), ובמקרים אחרים אש אחראית לנזק שנגרם על ידי רכוש

Bava Kama page 23. I am wondering what the argument between Abayee and Rava is about

Bava Kama page 23. I am wondering what the argument between Abayee and Rava is about? Abayee asked if R Yochanan is right (that damage by fire is liable because it is his arrows, i.e., direct damage by his body), then why would he be not liable for hidden things? And Abyee answered his own question. The case is when there was a wall, and it fell down, and he did not have a chance to repair it. Rava then asked, “If so, he should not be liable even for open things?” so Rava said, “Therefore, R Yochanan holds with Reish Lakish that fire is because of damage by means of one’s property, and the whole reason R. Yochanan said because of his arrows is because of four extra kinds of damage. My question is what is the case? Does Abaye mean that if there was a wall, and he lit a fire, and it went over the wall, that he would not be liable? But why? Supposedly he lit some kind of bonfire in his backway and there was a wall, and the fire jumped over it. Why would he be not liable? And all the more so, if there was a wall, and it fell, and he did not have time to repair it and still he lit a bonfire, and supposedly there too he would not be liable for hidden things and Rava said in that case even for open things he would not be liable. But this seems even worse. If there was no wall because it fell (even though he did not have time to fix it), if fire is because of his arrows, then he should be liable for both hidden and open things. Why was he lighting a bonfire? Maybe he was cold? But then, he should build the wall and then light the fire? The only way according to Rava to get the obligation to be on open things, and nonliability for hidden things, is if fire is obligated only because of damage by means of one’s property. ______________At any rate, I can see the point of the Gra that the Rif Rambam and Semag held that R Yochanan does not hold fire is because of his arrows except for the added liability of four kind of damage. The reason he knows this from the Rambam is that the Rambam wrote for fire one is not liable for hidden things. If we look at the discussion between Abaye and Rava, we see that if there was a wall, he is not liable for anything, and if there was no wall at all, then he should be liable for all damage unless fire is liable only because of damage by means of one’sproperty. I should mention that the way the Gra understands the statement of the Gemara is different than what the Gemara might appear at first sight. The Gemara says that R. Yochanan holds that fire is liable because of both his arrows and his property. That sounds like it means in all case it is liable for both. That is, “and” means this and that that as in intersection. The Gra understands the meaning is this or that, but not both. In some case fire is liable because of his arrows (in the case of the four types of damage one is liable for when damage is done by one body that are extra), and in other cases fire is liable for damage that would-be caused by one property. _______________________________________________________________________בבא קמא page כ''ג. I am wondering what the argument between אביי and רבא is about? אביי asked if ר’ יוחנן is right (that damage by fire is liable because it is his arrows, i.e., direct damage by his body), then why would he be not liable for hidden things? And אביי answered his own question. The case is when there was a wall, and it fell down, and he did not have a chance to repair it. רבא then asked, “If so, he should not be liable even for open things?” so רבא said, “Therefore, ר’ יוחנן holds with ריש לקיש that fire is because of damage by means of one’s property, and the whole reason ר’ יוחנן said because of his arrow is because of four extra kinds of damage. My question is what is the case? Does אביי mean that if there was a wall, and he lit a fire, and it went over the wall, that he would not be liable? But why? Supposedly he lit some kind of bonfire in his backway and there was a wall, and the fire jumped over it. Why would he be not liable? And all the more so, if there was a wall, and it fell, and he did not have time to repair it and still he lit a bonfire, and supposedly there too he would not be liable for hidden things and רבא said in that case even for open things he would not be liable. But this seems even worse. If there was no wall (even though he did not have time to fix it), if fire is because of his arrows, then he should be liable for both hidden and open things. Why was he lighting a bonfire? Maybe he was cold? But then, he should build the wall and then light the fire? The only way according to רבא to get the obligation to be on open things, and nonliability for hidden things, is if fire is obligated only because of damage by means of one’s property. At any rate, I can see the point of the גר''א that the רי''ף רמב''ם and סמ''ג held that ר’ יוחנן does not hold fire is because of his arrows except for the added liability of four kind of damage. The reason he knows this from the רמב’’ם is that the רמב’’ם wrote for fire one is not liable for hidden things. If we look at the discussion between אביי and רבא, we see that if there was a wall, he is not liable for anything, and if there was no wall at all, then he should be liable for all damage unless fire is liable only because of damage by means of one’s property. I should mention that the way the גר''א understands the statement of the גמרא is different than what the גמרא might appear at first sight. The גמרא says that ר' יוחנן holds that fire is liable because of both his arrows and his property. That sounds like it means in all case it is liable for both. That is, “and” means this and that that as in intersection. The גר''א understands the meaning is this or that, but not both. In some case fire is liable because of his arrows (in the case of the four types of damage one is liable for when damage is done by one body that are extra), and in other cases fire is liable for damage that would-be caused by one property.