Translate

11.7.18

I think my high school PE teacher had the best idea of push ups sit-ups and around the track four times [one mile] every day. He told  me that some gym teachers give a regimen to their students thinking the students would continue it in collage and later. He said that is not his philosophy. Rather his philosophy was to get his students into shape then and there an not depend on what would happen after high school. 

8.7.18

I think that though Leonard Nelson had some good critiques on the Neo Kant School and is way too much ignored. Still that the whole Neo Kant tradition tends to dismiss Hegel more than is proper. 
Blanhard Rational Will  http://www.anthonyflood.com/blanshardrationalwill.htm

Discusses this. The thing is without a state we would all be at the mercy of the least merciful.


3.7.18

I think that the Rambam was right for considering Islam to be  Monotheism-not idolatry. Even if there are troubles with Islam today, that does not seem any different that the troubles with violent Islam in the days of the Rambam. And even so the Rambam said what ever the problems with Islam are, that does not mean to deny that it is Monotheism. [That is, it is not idolatry].

In the laws about lashon hara [slander] what is an apikorus [heritic] comes up. The Hafetz Haim makes that clear in Klal 4. Yet what is an apikorus [heritic] seems to me to be unclear. There is the three way debate between the Rambam, Joseph Albo and the Abravenal about how many principles of faith are really required.

24.6.18

Toxo Plasmosis is a parasite that causes the mouse to think the cat is attractive.
Dr Sapolsky  from Stanford asks in the video where he talks about this "Who knows what else is out there?"

You see a similar things with wasps and caterpillars. It is not just that the wasp uses the caterpillar's body as a hot house for its eggs but that the mid of the caterpillar is taken over as you can see in this article.

This brings to the larger problem of the fact that the Dark Side can take over people's minds. People can become possessed by forces not of their own making.

[The force of the Dark Side I got an impression about by reading about the many revolutionary movements of the 1800's. The main idea there was that just by throwing out the "System", and all authority, everything would somehow become peachy. People would just work for altruistic reasons. There would never be a worker who slacked off. Now it is easy to see the lunacy of the political movements of the 1800's. But how can we tell nowadays what other lunatic ideas have taken over our minds?


15.6.18

The book The Wisdom of Man says it is forbidden to hear the music that people sing toward an idol or to smell the incense of to look at its beauty. If he has to walk there he must close his eyes and ears for otherwise it would be פסיק רישא and it would be forbidden. His intention is that since he closes his eyes and ears it is no longer פסיק רישא. The חפץ חיים however asks that once it is no longer פסיק רישא then it ought to be allowed even without his closing his eyes. But I think the Wisdom of Man is saying that it is the closing of the eyes in itself which makes it not פסיק רישא

It is hard to figure out the גמרא in פסחים דף כ''ה that the case of possible but not intending is the case of the argument between ר' יהודה and ר' שמעון. The whole גמרא goes like this. Pleasure that comes to a person against his will is a debate between אביי and רבא. The גמרא says the argument between אביי and רבא is a case of not possible but he intends. The case of possible but he intends is the argument between ר' שמעון  and ר' יהודה. The question I have is that the argument between ר' שמעון and ר' יהודה seems to be a case of דבר שאינה מתכווין. The case of אפשר and not possible seems to be totally different. It is when he can walk a different path but take this one anyway that goes by a house of idolatry. But if he is already on that path then it is automatic they he will get lease from the sounds and sights. I think this question must have been what was bothering the חכמת אדם and the חפץ חיים that the חפץ חיים brings in section 6 law 5.
The Hafetz gives a different answer but I think his answer is strained.
The wisdom of man says it is forbidden to hear the music that people sing toward an idol or to smell the incense of to look at its beauty. If he has to walk there he must close his eyes and ears for otherwise it would be פסיק רישא and it would be forbidden. His intention is that since he closes his eyes and ears it is no longer פסיק רישא. The חפץ חיים however asks that once it is no longer פסיק רישא it ought to be allowed even without his closing his eyes.But to me it seems that it is the closing of the eyes in itself which makes it not פסיק רישא




 פסחים דף כ''ה. קשה להבין את הגמרא בפסחים דף כ''ה כי במקרה של אפשרי אך לא מתוך כוונה הוא המקרה של הוויכוח בין רבי יהודה לבין רבי שמעון.  הגמרא הולכת ככה. תענוג שמגיע לאדם בעל כורחו הוא ויכוח בין אביי ורבא. הגמרא אומרת הטיעון בין אביי ורבא הוא מקרה שאין אפשרי אך מתכווין. המקרה של אי אפשר אך אין כוונתו ליהנות הוא ויכוח בין ר' שמעון ור' יהודה. השאלה שיש לי היא שהטיעון בין ר' שמעון ור' יהודה היא במקרה עשיית איסור שאינו מתכווין ואינו פסיק רישא. המקרה של אפשר ולא אפשרי בפסחים נראה שונה לחלוטין. זה כשהוא יכול ללכת בדרך אחרת אלא לקח בכל מקרה זו שהולכת על יד בית עבודה זרה. אבל אם הוא כבר על הנתיב ההוא, אז זה אוטומטי שהוא יקבל הנאה מן הקולות ומראות. זו הסיבה שהחכמת אדם אומר שגם בדרך שאפשר שאינה פסיק רישא שיהנה. עיין החפץ חיים שמקשה עליו בכלל ו' הלכה ה'.


החכמת אדם כותב שאסור לשמוע את המוזיקה ששרים כלפי אליל או להריח את הקטורת שלו או להסתכל על היופי שלו. אם הוא צריך ללכת דרך שם עליו לעצום את העיניים והאוזניים שלו, אחרת זה יהיה פסיק רישא וזה יהיה אסור. הכוונה שלו היא שמכיוון שהוא עוצם את העיניים והאוזניים שלו שהוא כבר לא פסיק רישא. החפץ חיים שואל אם זה כבר לא פסיק רישא אז זה צריך להיות מותר גם בלי שעוצם את עיניו . אבל אני חושב שהחכמת אדם מתכווין שסגירת העיניים בפני עצמה זו מה שהופך אותו לא פסיק רישא.



Gemara in Pesachim 25

It is hard to figure out the Gemara in Pesachim 25 that the case of possible but not intending is the case of the argument between R. Yehuda and R. Shimon.

The whole Gemara goes like this. Pleasure that comes to a person against his will is  a debate between Abyee and Rava. The Gemara says the argument between Abyee and Rava is a case of not possible but he intends. The case of possible but he intends is the argument between R Shimon and R Yeshuda. The question I have is that the argument between RS and RY seems to be a case of דבר שאינה מתכווין. The case of possible and not possible seems to be totally different. It is when he can walk a different path but take this one anyway that goes by a house of idolatry. But if he is already on that path then it is automatic they he will get lease from the sounds and sights.

I think this question must have been what was bothering the חכמת אדם and the חפץ חיים that the חפץ חיים brings in section 6 law 5.

12.6.18

I see I deleted the events that happened to one fellow who had a dream of Reb Nahman telling him to say the whole tehilim every day for 40 days in a row and to come to Uman on Rosh Hashanah and he would be save from his problem of epilepsy. That was the fellow that died in Uman on Rosh Hashanah circa three years ago. Rosh Hashana was the 40th day. My reason for deleting the story was obviously because I felt it reflected something that I felt I did not want to say.