Translate

8.2.16

songs for the glory of God the Creator. Not the same as on the other blog Path of the Gra except for l89 which is also there.

  l98 B flat major l97 l96 l94  l89  b104  l99  
When I first got to yeshiva in Far Rockaway I discovered the magic method of review.
I was in a kind of dilemma because I wanted to make progress and the yeshiva was spending about a week of more on each page of Gemara. And I wanted to go faster. But going too fast left me without understanding at all. So I discovered this method of one review per paragraph.

This probably worked because of the unique kind of learning that I was doing. The Soncino Talmud had a great translation that was divided into paragraphs. So I could take the Gemara with Rashi and say over the equivalent of one paragraph. Then I would say word for word the English Translation of Soncino. And all that time I would have not understood anything. Then I would review the Gemara again in its original Aramaic and it would become clear on this second reading.

This combines two things that you have in the Gemara. One is the idea of גרסה (Girsa) that is just saying the words and gong on. The other is the importance of review. The tension between these two ideas gave me the impetus to do this middle ground method.  


What this means in terms of hard kinds of learning like Field Theory is to do the same kind of thing. Say each paragraph twice and go on.

[It is not as if I discovered all this on my own. Rabbi Freifeld and his son were always talking about the importance of "Review, Review, Review, ..." And when I was in Simcha Wasserman's yeshiva in Los Angeles he had give me a book of Musar called אורחות צדיקים which talked about going fast and also review. So it was the tension between these two opposites that caused me to come up with this middle approach. [Read the paragraph twice  and go on.]

7.2.16

6.2.16

I did not get very far in the yeshiva world so I tried my luck in physics. There also I got sidetracked by a Unified Field Theory of George Rayzanov that I decided at some point was not worth much. But from time to time I go back in my mind over it. I threw out all my notes on it and all copies. That might have been a mistake because he had some good results in it.  He had the electron giving out waves in a classical fashion  and returning. But in his model the waves went through four worlds that were attached. One with forwards entropy and forward time, one with opposite signs, and two with signs not agreeing. In his calculations he could show how the mass of electron and photon were a direct result of this process.   What makes this interesting is not just the predictions that were actually tested in a lab at HU, but also it is  a fact that we do calculate through imaginary time. That is his approach is only slightly different than the Feynman path integral approach. It was this a a good deal of intersection with string theory that made his theory look interesting to me.

I think that I am a sucker for grand theories. Still this particular one seems to have had some merit.
But I seem to have knack for finding off beat stuff and then going into it deeply and then at some point finding the flaws in it. And sometimes I find good stuff also. It is hard to know in advance.

Normally people get into these off beat trails and lose themselves and their entire human soul.  God seems to have given me a kind of common sense that I can go into them and still see clearly enough so that when a flaw becomes obvious, I run for cover. But this is a dangerous path and I do not recommend it.

4.2.16

The chasidim that have a false messiah and are still considered as a kosher part of Orthodox Judaism. 
As for a detailed analysis I put one on my blog about 5 years ago but deleted it because I did not want to deal with negative things.  They say they don't believe their mashiach sheker is G-d but he himself said so in his first sicha. I know how to read Hebrew and I read a lot from each of their false teachers so I have a decent idea of what they say. I know all the years before they were claiming him to be the messiah they were denying that that is what they were saying and believing. They lie. Not just about this but about much more. If they do not  mind lying about their fundamental beliefs all the more so about other things. 
The Chafetz Chaim would not condone being quiet about apikorsus heresy. You can read about this in the Chafetz Chaim vol.1:ch 4.
According to the Torah God made the world from nothing. Not from His Divine substance. According to the Torah God is simple He is not substance and form. He is not a composite. He has no substance. So nothing can be make from his substance. The world and God are not the  same thing. The Rambam goes into this in depth in the Guide Vol II. And he considers this to be the foundation of all of the Torah.  So what that so called chasidut teaches is apikurusus and there was a good reason why the Gra put them into excommunication. And he had the writings from them burnt publicly in Villna. There is no doubt that the Gra knew the laws of Lashon Hara. 
We are warned by our sages not to read "outside books." The Rif and Rosh explain this to mean  ספרים שפירשו את התורה נביאים כתובים ע''פ דעתם ולא סמכו על מדרש חכמים>That is books that explain the Torah not in accord with the sages of the Talmud. Our Sages taught us the world was created from nothing. It is not Divine and it is not made of Divine substance nor sparks. And I should mention I have some idea of what Rabbainu the Arizal holds. I learned the Eitz Chaim with great kabalists. It is not anything like what they claim. That is one of their tricks to try to make believe that sages of Israel held from their heresy.
But the deeper problem is that they are unclean and what they touch becomes unclean.

I hope this letter addresses some of the issues you brought up. I know it is brief but I hope I touched on some of the major points.  But in this case all I am doing is asking you to keep what the Torah says to stay away from the wicked so as not to partake of the punishments that will definitely come upon them.



Schelling is highly Neo Platonic. He is almost an modification of Plotinus. And this is relevant from a Jewish point of view since the Ari and are both based on Neo Platonic thought of the Middle Ages.  For example Schelling holds the first presupposition of all knowledge is: “the knower and that which is known are the same”. 
This is a straight quote from Plotinus.
But Schelling develops this idea to show how this proposition immediately puts into question the correspondence theory of truth and knowledge.



Also his approach to God is also a modification of Plotinus:
To Schelling [from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]: 
God as absolute identity is an essential, qualitative identity. Absolute indifference follows from this essential identity of the absolute. Therefore, absolute indifference is not in-itself essential but a quantitative identity. There is thus a difference between absolute identity and absolute indifference. The opposition between real and ideal, subject and object arises out of this indifference. This is the birth of the finite world. Schelling here introduces the theory of potencies in triplicates that are “the necessary modes of appearances of the real and ideal universes”.


All this is important since all Jewish thought was openly Neo Platonic from Saadia Gaon until the Rambam. And after the Rambam all Jewish though was an attempt to get back to neo Platonism. That was because Abravenel and Joseph Albo and all other Jewish thinkers after the Rambam were not happy with his Aristotelian thought. With the advent of the Arizal then this background was all but forgotten. But even so Plotinus provides the basic backbone of the Ari.

3.2.16



There is an argument between Rav Joseph HaLevi and the Ran. Rav  Joseph says a מיגו does not apply to an oath. It does not patur one from an oath, but it can patur one from an obligation of money.The Ran says it does patur also from an oath. [A מיגו is when we say since he could have said a stronger plea and be believed we believe him when he says a weaker plea]


In Shavuot 46a and Bava Metzia 112 a Braita says we have a case of קציצה. That is the artisan says he was told he would receive two  for his work and the owner of the object says the artisan was told only one. The Braita says we believe the owner with an oath. Another braita says we believe the owner without an oath. Another braita says when the artisan was give a garment to fix then we believe the artisan with an oath. Rav Nachman says the last braita is Rabbi Yehuda of the Mishna. Why did he not say simply that in the last case there is no מיגו? Because in the first case also there is no migo. The gemara at the top of the page says the braita of Raba bar Shmuel is when there are עדים that there was an agreement but they did not hear for how much it was.


Why can't we answer the last braita the owner is not believed because he has no מיגו? He wants his garment. The first two cases were when the work the artisan was doing was not portable. So the object is in the רשות domain of the owner. But the gemara says in any case there is no migo because it has to be like the case of the שכיר where there were witnesses that there was an agreement.

But that was the way that Rav Nachman bar Isaac explained the braita of Raba bar Shmuel. Rava apparently does not agree. Rav Nachman bar Isaac was trying to make the braita go in accord with Rav and Shmuel. Rava disagreed with Rav and Shmuel and so he would leave the braita the way it sounds that there were no witnesses. And still the שכיר נשבע ונוטל and the בעל החפץ pays just one sela. But if so then to rava he has a migo. and so the difference between the two braitot might be in the first ones when the baal bait is believed it is because he has a migo  and in the last case where the talit is in the hands if the artisan he is not believed because he has no migo. This is a proof for Rav Joseph Halevi at least if we are going like Rava.



The Ran can answer however that in the last braita if we would try to answer migo it would be doing too much. It would take the object from the domain of the artisan and put it in the owner's domain.

And Rav Joseph could answer back that the artisan anyway does not has חזקת רשות on the object. everyone agrees he does not own it.


2.2.16

בבא מציעא pages צ''ח
We know in the תורה there is a law about a שומר חינם  takes an שבועה. This is in שמות כ'' ב . And a שומר שכר pays for a case of גנבה and אבידה and takes an שבועה on אונסים גדולים לסטים מזויין

To רבינו תם this is only where there is הודאה וכפירה. That is to רבינו תם it needs to be a regular case of מודה במקצת in which case he admits one object and denies another object. And at that point he will be liable an שבועה. And when he takes the שבועה then if he is also saying some object was נאנס then he will be not obligated.
רש''י holds  שומרים are liable an שבועה even when there is no מודה במקצת.
the ריב''א holds a טענת אונס will be מחוייב an שבועה even when there is no מודה במקצת but a plea of כפירה will not be liable unless it comes with הודאה

These ideas form the basis of the questions on תוספות on רש''י and רבינו תם in ב''מ צ''ח and שבועות מ''ה.
The משנה in שבועות says a שכיר נשבע ונוטל

In our גמרא we have רב ורב נחמן בר יצחק in the name of שמואל  who said the משנה is only when there are עדים. Without עדים the בעל הבית has a מיגו and he is believed.   רמי בר חמא said what a nice statement this is. רבא asked why is it nice? If it is true then we would never have an שבועת השומרים. Since the שומר can says לא היו דברים מעולם he should be believed when he says נאנסו
תוספות asks on רש''י: If רש''י is right then even if he says לא היו דברים מעולם he still takes an oath so there is no מיגו. And תוספות asks on רבינו תם thus: When is the case we says נאנסו takes and oath? When there comes along with it הודאה וכפירה. So when he says לא היו דברים מעולם which is כפירה He still is saying one plea of הודאה. So he is a regular מודה במקצת and thus also takes an oath. So again there is no מיגו. Only the ריב''א comes out OK. Since just like our גמרא is saying if he says כפירה He is not liable an oath and if he says נאנסו he is liable an oath. So רבא question makes sense.



__________________________
בא מציעא דף צ''ח
אנחנו יודעים בתורה יש חוק על שומר חינם שלוקח שבועה. זה בשמות כ''ב. ושומר שכר משלם במקרה של גנבה ואבדה, ולוקח שבועה על אונס גדול כגון לסטים מזוינים.  לרבינו תם, זה רק במצב שיש הודאה וכפירה. היינו לרבינו תם צריך להיות מקרה רגיל של מודה במקצת, היינו מקרה שהוא מודה באובייקט אחד ומכחיש באובייקט אחר. ובשלב הזה הוא יהיה מחוייב שבועה. וכשהוא לוקח שבועה אז אם הוא גם אמר שהחפץ נאנס, אז הוא יהיה לא מחויב. רש''י מחזיק שומר מחוייב שבועה גם כאשר אין הוא מודה במקצת. הריב''א מחזיק שטענת אונס יהיה מחויב שבועה גם כאשר אין הוא מודה במקצת. אבל טיעון של כפירה לא יהיה מחוייב שבועה, אלא אם כן הוא מגיע עם הודאה גם. רעיונות אלה מהווים את הבסיס של השאלות על תוספות על רש''י ורבינו תם ב''מ צ''ח ושבועות מ''ה. המשנה בשבועות אומרת שכיר נשבע ונוטל. בגמרא רב ורב נחמן בר יצחק בשם שמואל אמרו המשנה היא רק כאשר יש עדים. ללא עדים, לבעל הבית יש מיגו והוא נאמן. רמי בר חמא אמר מה  נחמד הוא זה. רבא שאל למה זה נחמד? אם זה נכון אז  לא צריך שבועת השומרים, מאחר ששומר יכול לומר לא היה דברים מעולם, הוא צריך להיות נאמן כשהוא אומר נאנס. תוספות שואלים על רש''י: אם רש''י נכון, אז גם אם הוא אומר לא היה דברים מעולם, הוא עדיין לוקח שבועה ולכן אין מיגו. ותוספות שואלים על רבינו תם כך:  המקרה שאנחנו אומרים נאנס לוקח השבועה הוא כאשר מגיעות יחד עם זה הודאה וכפירה. לכן, כאשר הוא אומר לא היה הדברים מעולם שהוא כפירה הוא עדיין אומר טיעון אחד של הודאה. אז הוא מודה במקצת רגיל וכך גם לוקח שבועה. אז שוב אין מיגו. רק ריב''א יוצא על אישור.  וזה בדיוק כמו הגמרא אומרת, אם הוא אומר כפירה הוא אינו מחוייב שבועה, ואם הוא אומר נאנס הוא מחוייב שבועה, ושאלת רבא הגיונית.







In the little book that God granted to me to write about Bava Metzia there are a few paragraphs about Bava Metzia pages 98 and 112. I wanted just to make clear some basic points that I might have to insert into the book in order that it should be more clear.
We know in the Torah there is a law about a unpaid guard--he takes an oath.[Exodus 22]. And a paid guard pays for a case of theft and lose and takes an oath on אונסים גדולים לסטים מזויין

To Rabbainu Tam this is only where there is הודאה וכפירה. Admission and denial. That is to Rabbainu Tam it needs to be a regular case of מודה במקצת in which case he admits one object and denies another object. And at that point he will be liable an oath. And when he takes the oath then if he is also saying some object was נאנס then he will be not obligated.
Rashi holds  guards are liable an oath even when there is no מודה במקצת.
the Riva holds a plea of אונס will be liable an oath even when there is no מודה במקצת but a plea of כפירה will not be liable unless it comes with הודאה

These ideas form the basis of the questions on Tosphot on Rashi and Rabbainu Tam in BM 98 and Shavuot 45b.
The Mishna in Shavuot says a שכיר נשבע ונוטל

In our Gemara we have Rav Nachman Bar Isaac in the name of Shmuel and Rav who said the Mishna is only when there are עדים. Without עדים the בעל הבית has a מיגו and he is believed.   Rami Bar Chama said what a nice statement this is. Rava asked why is it nice? If it is true then we would never have an oath of guards. Since the guard can says לא היו דברים מעולם he should be believed when he says נאנסו
Tosphot asks on Rashi: If Rashi is right then even if he says לא היו דברים מעולם he still takes an oath so there is no מיגו. And Tosphot asks on Rabbainu Tam thus: When is the case we says נאנסו takes and oath? When there comes along with it הודאה וכפירה. So when he says לא היו דברים מעולם which is כפירה He still is saying one plea of הודאה. So he is a regular מודה במקצת and thus also takes an oath. So again there is no מיגו. Only the Riva comes out OK. Since just like our Gemara is saying if he says כפירה He is not liable an oath and if he says נאנסו he is liable an oath. So Rava's question makes sense.

__________________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא pages צ''ח
We know in the תורה there is a law about a שומר חינם  takes an שבועה. This is in שמות כ'' ב . And a שומר שכר pays for a case of גנבה and אבידה and takes an שבועה on אונסים גדולים לסטים מזויין

To רבינו תם this is only where there is הודאה וכפירה. That is to רבינו תם it needs to be a regular case of מודה במקצת in which case he admits one object and denies another object. And at that point he will be liable an שבועה. And when he takes the שבועה then if he is also saying some object was נאנס then he will be not obligated.
רש''י holds  שומרים are liable an שבועה even when there is no מודה במקצת.
the ריב''א holds a טענת אונס will be מחוייב an שבועה even when there is no מודה במקצת but a plea of כפירה will not be liable unless it comes with הודאה

These ideas form the basis of the questions on תוספות on רש''י and רבינו תם in ב''מ צ''ח and שבועות מ''ה.
The משנה in שבועות says a שכיר נשבע ונוטל

In our גמרא we have רב ורב נחמן בר יצחק in the name of שמואל  who said the משנה is only when there are עדים. Without עדים the בעל הבית has a מיגו and he is believed.   רמי בר חמא said what a nice statement this is. רבא asked why is it nice? If it is true then we would never have an שבועת השומרים. Since the שומר can says לא היו דברים מעולם he should be believed when he says נאנסו
תוספות asks on רש''י: If רש''י is right then even if he says לא היו דברים מעולם he still takes an oath so there is no מיגו. And תוספות asks on רבינו תם thus: When is the case we says נאנסו takes and oath? When there comes along with it הודאה וכפירה. So when he says לא היו דברים מעולם which is כפירה He still is saying one plea of הודאה. So he is a regular מודה במקצת and thus also takes an oath. So again there is no מיגו. Only the ריב''א comes out OK. Since just like our גמרא is saying if he says כפירה He is not liable an oath and if he says נאנסו he is liable an oath. So רבא question makes sense.