Translate

17.11.17

The main letter of Paul in which he attacks keeping the Law of God is in Galatians. However there is enough internal evidence for theonomic people to hold that  the entire Law of Moses applies to everyone Jew and gentile.
The basic approach that some people have is that Paul wavered.. He first went against keeping the Law at all. Then reports got back to him as you can see in some letters of people taking his anti law approach to extremes [antinomianism] and this caused him to write letters condemning all who ignore the Law.  See Baring-Gould, M.A. The Lost and Hostile Gospels.
Lashon Hara speaking bad about others is a very delicate subject.  King David accepted Lashon Hara about Mefi-boshet who was a grandson of King Saul and from that the sages say his kingdom was divided. This goes to show how serious an issue it is. But one can go in the wrong direction from this also. the person that was set up in Israel after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple, was a man named Gedaliah and he was warned about the people that wanted to kill him and he did not accept the warning because he was afraid of the sin of Lashon Hara. And in fact he was killed.

The Chafez Chaim makes a point to go into this in detail.

15.11.17

בבא בתרא י''ח.ע''ב The third תוספות on the page מכלל דר. יוסי סבר וכו'  That תוספות suggests that the first questioner on the page did not know that ר' יוסי holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו because if he had know this he never would have had a question. The question was that ר' יוסי says one can put mustard next to bees because each hurts the other. The question was if רבא is right right that הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול אינו  סומך The how could the situation with ר' יוסי  arise at all? The answer would be that ר' יוסי holds that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו and that bees cause no damage to mustard and therefore the owner of the bees was allowed to put his bees next to the border. רבא never said a ניזק can not put something next to the border, only the מזיק.
But in this case I have a question on the last תוספות on the page where he brings רבינו חננאל that says the way the גמרא reads is אלא אמר רבינא and from that he concludes that רבא has to have gone back on his entire assumption. But that version really just says that the answer of רבינא and רב פפא are independent which is exactly what our תוספות says. But our תוספות says this without having to make רבא go back on what he said.


בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב. תוספות השלישית בדף "מכלל דר' יוסי סבר וכו',. תוספות אומר כי השואל הראשון בעמוד לא ידע שר' יוסי מחזיק שהניזק מרחיק את עצמו, כי אילו ידע זאת לא היתה לו שאלה. השאלה היתה שר 'יוסי אומר שאפשר לשים חרדל ליד דבורים, כי כל אחד מזיק השני. השאלה היתה אם רבא צודק כי הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול לא יכול איך המצב עם ר' יוסי בכלל להתעורר? התשובה היא שר' יוסי מחזיק כי על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ודבורים לא גורמות נזק לחרדל ולכן בעל הדבורים הורשה להניח את דבוריו ליד הגבול. רבא מעולם לא אמר ניזק לא יכול לשים משהו ליד הגבול, רק את מזיק. אבל במקרה זה יש לי שאלה על תוספות האחרון בדף שבו הוא מביא רבינו חננאל שאומר את הנוסח של הגמרא הוא אלא אמר רבינא ומכאן הוא מסכם כי רבא חייב לחזור על כל ההנחה שלו. אבל גרסה זו באמת אומר כי התשובה של רבינא ורב פפא הם עצמאיים וזה בדיוק מה תוספות שלנו אומר. אבל תוספות שלנו אומר את זה בלי לגרום לרבא לחזור על מה שהוא אמר..
Bava  Batra page 18-b. The third Tosphot on the page מכלל דר. יוסי סבר וכו'  Tosphot suggest that the first questioner on the page did not know that R. Jose holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו because if he had know this he never would have had a question. The question was that R Yose says one can put mustard next to bees because each hurts the other. The question was if Rava is right right that הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול אינו  סומך The how could the situation with R Yose arise at all? The answer would be that R Yose holds that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו and that bees cause no damage to mustard and therefore te owner of the bees was allowed to put his bees next to the border. Rava never said a ניזק can not put something next to the border, only the מזיק.
But in this case I have a question on the last Tosphot on the page where he brings Rabbainu Chananel that says the way the Gemara reads is אלא אמר רבינא and from that he concludes that Rava has to have gone back on his entire assumption. 
More dumb people are being born than smart people That means even among WASPs and Jews smartness is not a determining factor in selecting a mate. I mean those are the two groups where you would think smartness should play some role. I definitely have noticed this for a long time.

14.11.17

Reb Nachman; Reb Israel Odessar versus Torah scholars that are demons

The Jewish religious world is a hotbed of cults. The major problem was foreseen by Reb Nachman from Breslov in many of his Torah lessons where he describes the problem with Torah scholars that are demons. Even though this language sounds harsh it actually comes from the Zohar and the Arizal.

The issue many seems to be that people that want to come to learn and keep the Torah have little idea of what authentic Torah is and so they get easily fooled by charlatans.

The Gra already warned about this problem and even put the cults into excommunication but his warning and even his signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored.
Some people even think Reb Nachman was included in the ban, but that is not possible if you look at the actual language  of the letter.


[Reb Nachman includes this idea of Torah scholars that are demons in even the very last lesson in his major book. But Reb Israel Odessar emphasized it more than is usually expected. Thus the Na Nach people tend to have automatic suspicion towards anyone that supposedly is  a teaching Torah and they assume it is Torah from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Realm.]]

13.11.17

I think the basic approach of Christians towards Jesus is mistaken because they tend to look at Jesus from the lens and viewpoint of Paul rather than taking his words to mean what he said. Keeping the Law which means for Jesus the Law of Moses was a big part of his platform  and focus. Plus the idea that he is not God was also a major point by him, even though he as attached with God in a NeoPlatonic sense.

You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.

On the other hand I learned in the book of the rosh Yeshiva Slobodka  אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.

12.11.17

Often you find great men that emphasized a particular rule of conduct. This I noticed a long time ago. What I did at a certain point was to take just one rule from each. That is the one rule that each one thought was the most important.
For example with Reb Nachman I thought the most important thing seemed to be to be in Uman for Rosh Hashanah. With the Mir Yeshia in NY, the thing seemed to be not to speak Lashon Hara. So putting together a whole string of basic rules appealed to me.

Mainly speaking the truth always no matter what was the major rule I stuck with based on the idea that truth is like an invisible force field that keeps out evil forces

11.11.17

There is something in תוספות in בבא בתרא  page י''ח ע''ב that is a little hard to understand. Basically the subject is a משנה where the חכמים say one must keep a משרה that one uses to soak laundry away from a neighbors vegetables.  Also mustard from bees. R. Jose allows the later because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep away from your bees? You should keep your bees away from my mustard because they also do damage.אביי says if the neighbor has not put anything by the boundary yet then one can place mustard of anything else by the boundary until he does. רבא says one must keep things that can cause damage away from the border even if the neighbor has not put anything nearby yet. So how can רבא fit with ר. יוסי? At that point תוספות says the גמרא means that אביי is OK because the owner of the bees has put his bees by the border and then the intention of ר. יוסי is to say the owner of the mustard can also put his mustard seeds by the border.
The גמרא then answer the question on רבא saying the case of the משנה is when one neighbor sold half his property to the other neighbor. That would then mean  that the mustard was there first and then he sold it to the owner of the bees. Then when  ר. יוסי says it is permitted that means the mustard can stay where it is and the owner of the bees must keep his bees six טפחים away from the border. And תוספות makes a point in saying the owner of the bees can not put the bees near the mustard. This seems to me difficult to understand why תוספות is changing things in the middle of his argument.

I only thought of this problem today on Shabat when I was outside walking and  am not sure what to make of this situation. I do not know if there is  a serious kashe here or just a comment.

The thing is if this is how תוספות learns in the end, then why not when he was explaining ר. יוסי according to אביי that he did not say that "ר. יוסי allows it" means he allows the bees to stay where they are, and he must keep the mustard ששה טפחים away?


יש משהו בתוספות בבא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב שהוא קצת קשה להבין. ביסודו של דבר הנושא הוא המשנה שבה החכמים אומרים אחד צריך לשמור על מרחק ממשרה המשמשת כדי להשרות כביסה רחוק  מירקות של שכינו. גם חרדל מדבורים. ר יוסי מאפשר את זה האחרון כי הבעלים של חרדל יכולים לומר הבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להתרחק הדבורים שלך? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך מהחרדל שלי, כי הם גם עושים נזק. אביי אומר אם השכן לא שם שום דבר על ידי הגבול עדיין אז אפשר למקם חרדל או כל דבר אחר על יד הגבול עד שהשכן שם מה שהוא שם. רבא אומר שצריך לשמור על מרחק מהגבול בכל דברים שיכולים לגרום נזק  גם אם השכן לא שם שום דבר בקרבת מקום. אז איך רבא מתאים עם ר. יוסי? בשלב זה תוספות אומר שגמרא מחזיקה שאביי הוא בסדר כי בעל הדבורים  שם את הדבורים שלו על הגבול ולאחר מכן  כוונתו של ר. יוסי היא כי שבעל החרדל יכול גם לשים את זרעי החרדל שלו על הגבול. גמרא אז עונה על השאלה על רבא ואומרת המקרה של המשנה הוא כאשר אחד השכנים מכר חצי רכושו לשכן השני.  זה אומר כי חרדל היה שם ראשונה ואז הוא מכר חלק מן השדה לבעלים של הדבורים. ואז כאשר ר. יוסי אומר  מותר הכוונה שהחרדל יכול להישאר במקומו  ובעל הדבורים חייב לשמור על דבורים שלו שישה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ותוספות עושה נקודה לומר הבעלים של הדבורים לא יכולים לשים את הדבורים ליד החרדל. הדבר הוא אם זה איך תוספות לומד בסופו של דבר, אז למה לא כאשר הוא הסביר ר. יוסי לפי אביי, שהוא לא אומר ש"ר' יוסי מרשה לו"  הכוונה שהוא מאפשר לדבורים להישאר במקומן  שהן נמצאות, והוא חייב לשמור את החרדל ששה טפחים משם





There is something in Tosphot in Bava Batra page 18B that is a little hard to understand. Basically the subject is a Mishna where the sages say one must keep a vat that one uses to soak laundry away from a neighbors vegetables.  Also mustard from bees. R. Jose allows the later because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep away from your bees? You should keep your bees away from my mustard because they also do damage.
Abyee says if the neighbor has not put anything by the boundary yet then one can place mustard of anything else by the boundary until he does. Rava says one must keep things that can cause damage away from the border even if the neighbor has not put anything nearby yet. So how can Rava fit with R.Yose? At that point Tosphot says the Gemara means that Abyee is OK because the owner of the bees has put his bees by the border and then the intention of R.Yose is to say the owner of the mustard can also put his mustard seeds by the border.
The Gemara then answer the question on Rava saying the case of the mishna is when one neighbor sold half his property to the other neighbor. That would then mean  that the mustard was there first and then he sold it to the owner of the bees. Then when R Yose says it is permitted that means the mustard can stay where it is and the owner of the bees must keep his bees six hand-breaths away from the border. And Tosphot makes a point in saying the owner of the bees can not put the bees near the mustard. This seems to me difficult to understand why Tosphot is changing things in the middle of his argument.

I only thought of this problem today on Shabat when I was outside walking and  am not sure what to make of this situation. I do not know if there is  a serious kashe here or just a comment.


The thing is if this is how Tosphot learns in the end then why not when he was explaining R Jose according to Abyee that he did not say that R Jose allows it means he allows the bees to stay where they are and he must keep the mustard 6 hand-breaths away?