קטרת מבטלת ארס נחש

See (תורה לשמה (שאלה שס"ו     and see   ליקוטי ר שמשון מאסטרופולי  pg 9 ("איתא בתקונים דרשו ד, קליפות ביחזקאל וכו"


ויאמר יהוה אל-משה קח-לך סמים, נטף ושחלת וחלבנה, סמים, ולבנה זכה:  בד בבד, יהיה


משחית אף חמה

More Trig - Vilna Gaon - איל משולש

Was reading more of the איל משולש. This part just blew me away (Ayil Meshulash, 356). Hope I can write it down clearly.

First he notes that in every multiplication of fractions we have 6 items (3 numerators and 3 denominators).
Ex. a/b * c/d = e/f 

[Ex using hebrew letters:   א/ב * ג/ד = ה/ו]

[The using of the hebrew letters instead of a,b,c, etc is how the Gaon writes it and imho is a critical piece of knowledge in regard to other issues]

Now what he points out beautifully is that there are exactly only 72 ways to manipulate the equation above [a/b *c/d = e/f] while still maintaining equational balance according to the laws of mathematics. You can work it out yourself or you can look at the chart he made there (אות שנ"ו) or mine below.

Additionally, he points out, and this was the brainstorm for me, if you work out all 72 possible ways of rearranging the equation you'll find that the possibilities as to how the numbers can be rearranged and swapped among each other is actually fairly simply broken down into just 2 groups:
a,c,f   &  b,d,e   or in the hebrew    אג"ו  בד"ה

That means to say that it's impossible for an integer of one of the groups to switch places with an integer from the other group alone and for the equation to still be correct. Example:

2/3 * 6/8 =  5/10     2=a,  3=b,  6=c,  8=d,  5=e,  10=f

2,6,10  v  3,8,5  -- you can switch the 6 with the 2 or 10 but you cannot switch it with the 3,8,or 5 (without making other rearrangements) and still have the equation correct and balanced.

It sounds complicated but it's really not, it's just hard to show in a blog.

So I guess in essence what I found so intriguing about this insight is the revelation of this funny new relationship  -- אג"ו  & בד"ה

[p.s. Note the word of והי"ה only appearing in אג"ו of the עשר מכות - in דם, כנים, ושחין ]

[Made an amateurish list of the 72 expressions]

Outdated Gittin (Divorce) Process - כתיבה וחתימת גיטין

I observed 2 Gittin proceedings a couple of years ago. I was really struck by how outdated the process is in the context of our modern world and technology. When considering the core Gemara issues  from which the halachot come from it seems downright farcical some of the practices we still have in place nowadays in the כתיבת גיטין process.  A few points that readily come to mind:

• Writing the גט with a stylus (קולמוס) is fine by me but the signing of the witnesses (עדי חתימה) with a stylus makes absolutely no sense. Literally no one nowadays signs their name or even uses a stylus hence the entire concept of קיום עדי חתימה is out the window if no one can connect the witness' stylus signature with the witness!!.... I don't understand why no one sees this as an issue...
  
  Assuming one wants to continue the halachot of עדי חתימה nowadays (one could argue that modern day databases and archives could take the place of עדי חתימה particularly since we hold עדי כתיבה כרתי) it still would make alot more sense to require the witnesses to sign the Get in the same manner they sign on their financial statements-- a pen-- so that the mechanism of קיום חתימה is logically possible.

• The witnesses signing their name as Reuven ben Yaakov also could use a fine tuning. Nowadays there are a plethora of better criteria that could be used as a form of ID of a witness such as Last Name, Social Security #, fingerprint, saliva sample, etc; who in the world even references their friends or business associates by "Reuven ben Yaakov"? Again, the whole mechanism to allow for קיום עדי חתימה ceases to apply. 

• The meticulousness of writing all various names and spellings of the location of the man and woman.... wouldn't the use of the International Standard of Longitude and Latitude be a better and more precise way of  getting the point across. I mean you can still keep writing the city you're located in and all that but once you add in the Longitude and Latitude coordinates there would then be no need to further add details such as  דיתבא על נהרא פלן and the like....

All this I say while admitting the fact that my knowledge of Gittin is truly very limited and כל שאינו יודע בטיב  גיטין וקידושין לא יהא לא עסק עמהן but still I feel the issue should be raised and as yet I haven't seen it anywhere... will keep searching...

בד, לבד v. נגד, כנגד

Note the seeming superflousness in the preceding 'ל' and 'כ' of לבד and כנגד, respectively.

זהר הקדוש, ויקרא דף מ"ד ע"ב -- וכי לבדו הוה, והא כתיב, (בראשית ה) זכר ונקבה בראם. ותנינן אדם דו פרצופין אתברי, ואת אמרת, לא טוב היות האדם לבדו. אלא דלא אשתדל בנוקביה, ולא הות ליה סמך לקבליה, בגין דהות בסטרוי, והוו כחדא מאחורא, וכדין הוה האדם לבדו.

בד meaning "solitary/unitary" by itself (see Yoma 71b), לבד then does not really mean "alone" but rather "towards solitarianism/solidarity" even if being done by more than one person (see Janus' Groupthink in Sociology as an example).

The difference between נגד and כנגד being clearly obvious then:
 כנגד -  "like" or "as if to be" נגד, but in truth not נגד at all because it's ultimately towards a mutual consensus and השלמה in the larger scheme. Hence the meaning of כנגד as complementary/alongside/ parallel to.

לא טוב היות האדם לבדו אעשה לו עזר כנגדו


[Also, besides for "bad"/ בד having negative connotations in both english and persian, see שער הכוונות תפלת השחר ג that kabbalistically as well בד is related to negative realms]

פר - Separation

יישר כח to "Phil" who posted on the balashon blog here who insightfully pointed out that all forms of פ-ר having meanings of "separation" - פרק,פרש, פריקה, פרד,  מספר, פרי, אפר?, פריכה, פרת וכו

Far-reaching indeed..... מנצפ"ך

4 Parts of a Sound (קול)

From Wikipedia:

ADSR envelope

When an acoustic musical instrument produces sound, the loudness and spectral content of the sound change over time in ways that vary from instrument to instrument. The "attack" and "decay" of a sound have a great effect on the instrument's sonic character. Sound synthesis techniques often employ an envelope generator that controls a sound's parameters at any point in its duration. Most often this is an "ADSR" (Attack Decay Sustain Release) envelope, which may be applied to overall amplitude control, filter frequency, etc. The envelope may be a discrete circuit or module, or implemented in software. The contour of an ADSR envelope is specified using four parameters:

1-Attack time is the time taken for initial run-up of level from nil to peak, beginning when the key is first pressed.

2-Decay time is the time taken for the subsequent run down from the attack level to the designated sustain level.

3-Sustain level is the level during the main sequence of the sound's duration, until the key is released.

4-Release time is the time taken for the level to decay from the sustain level to zero after the key is released.
 
 
חגת"מ וצע"ע

מצבה ומזבח

מצבה ומזבח / Obelisk & Altar / Male & Female

Immensely enjoyed the observations in Isaiah Cox's writings on Pillars although I still feel there is a need for further understanding of ולא תקים לך מצבה אשר שנא ה' אלהיך

Particularly enjoyed the insight that מזבח is a functional (process-oriented) structure whereas מצבה is simply an object of static Being without need for services and functions. This being far-reaching indeed. See here as one example post of many.

Just one note to jot down:
the מצבה as in ה' צבאות  vs. the  מזבח as in זבחי אלהים.

גימטריה - רחוק וקרוב

 רחוק = 314 = שדי
קרוב =308 = שח

314-308 = 6 = ו

כי קרוב יום אידם וחש עתידות למו
כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו
קרוב אתה בפיהם
אראנו ולא עתה אשורנו ולא קרוב

רחוק מה שהיה ועמק עמק מי ימצאנו


[ועיין בשער מאמרי רז"ל מסכת אבות - נספח ליקוטים על המשנה נתאי הארבלי אומר]

Hindu "Maya" and דובר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני

A startling resemblance and connection between the concept of Maya in Indian religions and Rabbi Akiva's water in Chagiga 14b:

ת"ר ארבעה נכנסו בפרדס ואלו הן בן עזאי ובן זומא אחר ורבי עקיבא אמר להם ר"ע כשאתם מגיעין אצל אבני שיש טהור אל תאמרו מים מים משום שנאמר (תהלים קא, ז) דובר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני


Also, compare with Thales' belief that everything comes from water.

Happiness Of An Abstract

זוהר חלק ג דף ח

פתח רבי יהודה ואמר (תהלים ק ב) עבדו את יהו"ה בשמחה וגו', עבדו את יהו"ה בשמחה, הכי אוליפנא, דכל פולחנא דבעי בר נש למפלח לקודשא בריך הוא, בעי בחדוותא ברעותא דלבא, בגין דישתכח פולחניה בשלימו. ואי תימא פולחנא דקרבנא הכי הוא, לא אפשר, דהא ההוא בר נש דעבר על פקודא דמאריה, על פקודא דאורייתא, ותב לקמי דמאריה, במאן אנפין יקום קמיה, הא ודאי ברוח תבירא ברוח עציב, אן הוא שמחה אן הוא רננה. אלא תמן תנינן, ההוא בר נש דחטי קמי מאריה, ועבר על פקודוי, ואתי לקרבא קרבנא ולתקנא גרמיה, ברוח תבירא ברוח עציבא בעי לאשתכחא, ואי בכי, שפיר מכלא, הא שמחה הא רננה לא אשתכח. אלא במאי אתתקן, בהנהו כהני וליואי, דהא אינון אשלימו שמחה ורננה בגיניה. שמחה בכהנא אתקיים, בגין דהוא רחיקא מן דינא תדיר, וכהנא בעי לאשתכחא תדיר באנפין נהירין, חדאן יתיר מכל עמא, דהא כתרא דיליה גרים. רננה בליואי, והכי הוא, דהא ליואי משתכחי על שיר לעלמין, כמה דאוקמוה. ואלין קיימין עליה, וביה אשתלים פולחנא לקודשא בריך הוא, כהנא קאים עליה, וכוון מילין בחדוותא ברעותא, ליחדא שמא קדישא כדקא יאות, וליואי בשיר, כדין כתיב, דעו כי יהו"ה הוא אלהי"ם, דא הוא קרבן, לקרבא רחמי בדינא ומתבסם כלא. השתא דלא אשתכח קרבנא, מאן דחטי קמי מאריה, ותב לגביה, ודאי במרירו דנפשא בעציבו בבכיה ברוח תבירא, היאך אוקים שמחה ורננה, הא לא אשתכחו גביה. אלא הכי אוקמוה, דתושבחן דמאריה, וחדוותא דאורייתא, ורננה דאורייתא, דא הוא שמחה ורננה. והא תנינן, ולא מתוך עצבות וכו', דלא יקום בר נש קמי מאריה בעציבו....

לענ"ד -- Q: How can one find a connection to happiness within the confines of an actual life so marred and broken (or simply in layman's terms "screwed up")? 

A: In the recognition in reality's abstract potential for perfection (חדוותא ורננה דאורייתא). In the abstract truth and eternalism of a mathematical formula; in a world that theoretically could work right; in the existence of a commandment (מתוך שמחה של מצוה) so perfectly fitting within the proper context (צדקו יחדיו) even if oddly peculiar within our own. One has to "pick oneself up" from his personal actual life of innefficiency (עומדין להתפלל) and hone in on the happiness, perfection, and beauty that he knows is embedded within reality's potential to offer, even if only someday in the future. The future is bright...

"I see babies cry... I watch them grow... they'll learn much more... then I'll ever know... and I think to myself... what a wonderful world..."

That's why I'd suggest Chazal were so ridiculously verbose here- אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך צחוק ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים --(i.e. even though these things are the modi operendi in the kind of  world we currently physically live in),  but rather 'pick yourself up" from all that and focus on the happiness within Life's abstract potential for perfection (מתוך שמחה של מצוה); soon to be expressed one day we pray.

It's a somewhat muddled thought.... needs fine tuning... but needed to write it down for my notes in the meantime...

Frederick Douglass - כי ברב חכמה רב כעס וגו

Certifiable gold!! That's all I can say.

Frederick Douglass below is describing his situation as he gradually was self-educating himself while being a slave... smart and free is one thing; dumb and enslaved another; smart and enslaved, an agony...

(Narratives of the Life of Frederick Douglass p.20)
The reading of these docoments enabled me to utter my thoughts, and to meet the arguments brought forward to sustain slavery; but while they relieved me of one difficulty, they brought on another, even more painful than the one of which I was relieved. The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers. I could regard them in no other light than a band of successful robbers, who had left their homes, and gone to Africa, and stolen us from our homes, and in a strange land reduced us to slavery. I loathed them as being the meanest as well as the most wicked of men. 

As I read and contemplated the subject, behold! that very discontentment which Master Hugh had predicted would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable anguish. As I writhed under it, I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out. 

In moments of agony, I envied my fellow slaves for their stupidity. I have often wished myself a beast. I preferred the condition of the meanest reptile to my own. Any thing, no matter what, to get rid of thinking! It was this everlasting thinking of my condition that tormented me. There was no getting rid of it. It was pressed upon me by every object within sight or hearing, animate or inanimate. The silver trump of freedom had roused my soul to eternal wakefulness. 

Freedom now appeared, to disappear no more forever. It was heard in every sound, and seen in every thing. It was ever present to torment me with a sense of my wretched condition. I saw nothing without seeing it, I heard nothing without hearing it, and felt nothing without feeling it. It looked from every star, it smiled in every calm, breathed in every wind, and moved in every storm. 

I often found myself regretting my own existence, and wishing myself dead; and but for the hope of being free, I have no doubt but that I should have killed myself, or done something for which I should have been killed.

כי ברב חכמה רב כעס ומוסיף דעת מוסיף מכאוב -קהלת

Download -  Narratives of the Life of Frederick Douglass - Guttenberg Library

[P.S. I've often considered the thought that the above-mentioned anguish is the same logic behind discouraging unmarried men the study of kabbalistic texts i.e. the strong emphasis and centrality of male-female interaction throughout kabbalistic texts is bound to enlighten the young bachelor towards the path of interrelational perfection but with no means of immediately attaining it... that could be why I relate to this piece so strongly.... my humble thoughts... (ועיין שער הכוונות דרוש פסח יב) ]

Julius Nyerere Quote

Great thinker in my humble opinion. Man with depth. My kind of man. Check out some of his speeches.

Anyway, just one quote I loved:

Learning has not liberated a man, if all he learns to want is a certificate on his wall and the reputation of being a learned person, a possessor of knowledge,  for such a desire is merely another aspect of the disease of the acquisitive society—the accumulation of goods for the sake of accumulating them. The accumulation of knowledge or, worse still, the accumulation of pieces of paper which represent a kind of legal tender for such knowledge, has nothing to do with development

Albert Schweitzer Doctrine

While certainly it does not concur with a Torah view in it's entirety (primarily because in the absence of a belief in תורה מסיני one must maintain there being no objective moral values, or in other words- "objective reality is ethically neutral"),  I thought these few lines from Wikipedia were fundamental to much of the Torah concepts we do find, beginning from חסד שבחסד and onward as R' Matis explained.

Scientific materialism (advanced by Spencer and Darwin) portrayed an objective world process devoid of ethics, entirely an expression of the will-to-live.

Schweitzer wrote: "True philosophy must start from the most immediate and comprehensive fact of consciousness, and this may be formulated as follows: 'I am life which wills to live, and I exist in the midst of life which wills to live'."  In nature one form of life must always prey upon another. However, human consciousness holds an awareness of, and sympathy for, the will of other beings to live. An ethical human strives to escape from this contradiction so far as possible.

Though we cannot perfect the endeavour we should strive for it: the will-to-live constantly renews itself, for it is both an evolutionary necessity and a spiritual phenomenon. Life and love are rooted in this same principle, in a personal spiritual relationship to the universe. Ethics themselves proceed from the need to respect the wish of other beings to exist as one does towards oneself. Even so, Schweitzer found many instances in world religions and philosophies in which the principle was denied, not least in the European Middle Ages, and in the Indian Brahminic philosophy.

For Schweitzer, Mankind had to accept that objective reality is ethically neutral. It could then affirm a new Enlightenment through spiritual rationalism, by giving priority to volition or ethical will as the primary meaning of life. Mankind had to choose to create the moral structures of civilization: the world-view must derive from the life-view, not vice-versa. Respect for life, overcoming coarser impulses and hollow doctrines, leads the individual to live in the service of other people and of every living creature. In contemplation of the will-to-life, respect for the life of others becomes the highest principle and the defining purpose of humanity.

------------------------------------------------

The other quote of his that I just loved:

"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of Life: music and cats" 

both being forms of מלכות....

Winona Ryder - 20/20 Interview, Girl Interrupted - Excerpt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZogBCYlLm3A

"I used to drive around at night and listen to music because I couldn't sleep, and I was driving around and I was wishing so badly that I had someone to talk to... a friend, and I didn't... and I saw this magazine stand... an outdoor magazine stand... and I saw myself on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, and it said something like "Winona Ryder - The Luckiest Girl In The World" and it broke my heart because there i was, you know in so much pain... feeling so confused, feeling so lost in my life... I wasn't allowed to complain because I was "so lucky", you know, and I was "so blessed", and, "I made alot of money", and, you know "my problems weren't real problems", and...and you know I'm as nauseated as the next person when actors' complain about their lives because we are blessed, we are lucky..... but the stuff that I was going through was difficult... "

Existential Growing Pains

Children I find are so deeply in tune with their existential layer that often they can articulate an existential dynamic within themselves effortlessly.

The following is a follow-up of the post on Existential Hatred. See there.

Was staying at a family recently for shabbos. At some point during, one of the daughters (probably around 6 or 7 years old I'd say) was taking a liking to me and initiated holding my hand or sitting on my lap. I neither encouraged nor discouraged the behavior (although admittedly it was nice to feel some closeness to someone after such long times of being alone).

In any event, it was a matter of time before she came and jumped on my lap in front of her mother. Her mother quickly intervened gently in the affair and told her daughter in a very right-of-fact but gentle manner (and commendably so) that the daughter may only hug and touch her close family relatives. Any boy that was non-family she could talk to freely but she wasn't allowed to hug them or sit on their lap.

"Okay?" she asked her daughter, looking to make sure the ground rules of affection she had just laid out to her  daughter were being successfully processed.

To which the daughter, in a flinch of a second, shot back "If I can't touch him then I won't to talk to him at all!"

Existential Separatism.  What can you do? :-)

Andrew Carnegie's Efficiency- True, But Screw It Sometimes

Was reading about Andrew Carnegie and his essay on Wealth. Really impressed not so much by the magnitude of his philanthropy but more so by the depth and substance of his philosophy. There were however one or two points in his thinking that I'm not so sure I'd agree.

....we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.

If we consider what results flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the best portion of the race in New York not possessed of means, and compare these with those which would have arisen for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the race which lie embedded in the present law of the accumulation of wealth. Much of this sum if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use,that of adding to the comforts of the home, would have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well this thought.

The best uses to which surplus wealth can be put have already been indicated. These who,would administer wisely must, indeed, be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown in to the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure. A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend. He knew nothing of the habits of this beggar; knew not the use that would be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly. This man professed to be a disciple of Herbert Spencer; yet the quarter-dollar given that night will probably work more injury than all the money which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity will do good. He only gratified his own feelings, saved him- self from annoyance,-- and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life, for in all respects he is most worthy.

In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race is improved by alms-giving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in cases of accident or sudden change. Every one has, of course, cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he will not overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in alms-giving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue.

The rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples of Peter Cooper, Enoch Pratt of Baltimore, Mr. Pratt of Brooklyn, Senator Stanford, and others, who know that the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise--parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste, and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people ;--in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good. -

On the one hand, everything is soundly logical and I understand it, but at the same time, I can't help feeling that such a cogent, logical argument of efficiency can only be the result of a deficiency of love on the part of it's supporter; when you love someone enough, when the thought of their suffering is an intolerable circumstance for you to bear, you do waste your money ineffciently because even though it may objectively be a waste of money, to the object of your love it's meaningful nonetheless. At that very moment, in so doing, you've accomplished something far greater than the utilitarian efficacies of philanthropy-- you've demonstrated that the strength of bond and commitment between the two of you is such that it even defies the logic of efficiency. 


The child begging their parents for an ice cream or the beggar for a pack of cigarettes so he can engage in some form of temporary escapism; these are things that you give to- not because they yield the greatest ROI (Return On Investment)- but because you love... and dare I say, the more frivolous and wasteful the request, the more it allows for the demonstration of your love and commitment to the other, and in so doing contributes to the world one of the most "productive" things of all- connection, relationship, unity.  [אחד=אהבה= 13]
(Note: All this is predicated on your conscious intentions, your כוונה, were you to give simply as a form of avoiding annoyance as Carnegie mentions then of course that's not something worthy of practicing)

Moshe Rabbeinu turning down an offer of a "bigger,better nation", not because it's the more prudent choice, but because he loves the nation that he has, and that love is what instantiates the logic of an illogical choice. It's this nuance that I think is missing in Carnegie's analysis of philanthropic activity.

See תענית כג ב regarding the "inefficient" preference of more direct and closer giving [מקרבא הנייתיה]
ומאי טעמא קדים סלוק ענני מהך זויתא דהוות קיימא דביתהו דמר לעננא דידיה משום דאיתתא שכיחא בביתא ויהבא ריפתא לעניי ומקרבא הנייתה [ואנא יהיבנא] זוזא ולא מקרבא הנייתיה

רמזי סוד

ב' רמזי סוד שלמדתי מאבי מורי בשם האדמו"ר מקאמרנה (לא הצלחתי למצוא בכתב ספר

שמ"ע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד -1118
בשכמל"ו -1358
ביחד עולים עם הכולל 2477 דהיינו בדיוק
כט,כ וַיַּעֲבֹד יַעֲקֹב בְּרָחֵל, שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים; וַיִּהְיוּ בְעֵינָיו כְּיָמִים אֲחָדִים, בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ אֹתָהּ
הפרשם עולה עמל"ק

במלת "את" אותיות א' עד ת' עולים 1495 ואלף בינה חוזר לא' ונמצא 496 דהיינו מלכו"ת

City Life and Evil

There is an abundance of sociological literature on the challenges and detriments of city life: the migration from primary to secondary relationship groups, from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft, from a mindset of mutual kinship to the expedient rat-race of "every man for himself" (essentially). Notably in the writings of Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tonnies, and Louis Wirth among others (though I've read none of their works directly myself, only through my sociology textbooks).

A small excerpt of Wikipedia on Wirth which I think expresses it well:

Wirth writes that urbanism is a form of social organisation that is harmful to culture, Wirth details the city as a “Substitution of secondary for primary contacts, the weakening of bonds of kinship, the declining social significance of the family, the disappearance of neighbourhood and the undermining of traditional basis of social solidarity”.^[1]   Wirth was concerned with the effects of the city upon family unity, and he believed urbanization leads to a ‘low and declining urban reproduction rates … families are smaller and more frequently without children than in the country’. Wirth continues, marriage tends to be postponed, and the proportion of single people is growing leading to isolation and less interaction.

What I'd like to point out is that the hebrew word for 'city' עיר touches on both the positive and negative aspects of urbanization.

Similar to the Gemara's (Sotah 17a) comparing of איש and אש
איש ואשה, זכו, שכינה ביניהם, לא זכו, אש אוכלתן
so too I'd suggest where you have a "זכו" you have an עיר, where you have a "לא זכו" you have a ער/רע.

(note the Zohar teaches the letter 'yud' being representative of brit, committed relationship)

Judge Judy

Have you seen some of the behavior Judge Judy displays towards her litigants? It's absolutely outrageous! Not to mention there are serious ethical & moral issues with a judge who gets paid $30 million dollars a year to conduct an "entertaining" courtroom experience and a show who's producers coax litigants to appear by paying them off and promising to cover their costs.... at the very least you realize the serious conflict of interest in her awarding plaintiffs a money judgement since that money will directly come out of the pocket of her employers!! The whole thing is ridiculous and sad that this gets passed off as judicial process.

Judge Wapner put it very well:

Joseph Wapner criticized Judge Judy's courtroom behavior, stating, "She is not portraying a judge as I view a judge should act. Judge Judy is discourteous, and she's abrasive. She's not slightly insulting. She's insulting in capital letters... She is a disgrace to the profession. She does things I don't think a judge should do. She tells people to shut up. She's rude. She's arrogant. She demeans people. If she does this on purpose, then that's even worse. Judges need to observe certain standards of conduct. She just doesn't do it and I resent that. The public is apt to gain the impression that this is how actual judges conduct themselves..."


Related links:
 http://judgejudyisascam.com/
 http://www.rateitall.com/i-25569-judge-judy.aspx

I and Me

I found parts of the George Herbert Mead concept of "I and Me" to be fascinating and thought they could offer deeper understanding in the concepts of אור ישר ואור חוזר

See how beautifully it works within the context of an earlier blog, Versions of the Truth i.e. in my knowing that my listener "can't handle the truth" I am in turn forced to readjust to a version that he will be capable of handling. That need for readjustment on my part is exactly me being impacted by him i.e. his אור חוזר

Just a thought, I'm not much of a kabbalist.

[Note Berachot 55a :  אין מעמידין פרנס על הצבור אלא אם כן  נמלכים בצבור שנא׳ ״ראו  קרא ה׳ בשם בצלאל אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה משה הגון עליך בצלאל אמר לו רבונו של עולם אם לפניך  הגון לפגי לא כל  שכן אמר לו אף על פי כן לך אמור להם הלך  ואמר להם לישראל הגון עליכם בצלאל אמרו לו אם לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ולפניך חוא הגון לפנינו לא כל  שכן]

[I realized afterwards something very beautiful. The hebrew for 'I' and 'me' is אני and אותי. Now אותי is actually a referencing of the person by way of his sexuality/penis (אות see Zohar below), his "lower half", whereas אני is referencing the veritable initial existential core of what a person is, the "upper half" as it were (אין) so that "I and me" or אני ואותי are essentially Top-Down and Bottom-Up respectively i.e. אור ישר ואור חוזר... Very beautiful.


זוהר סוף חקת  ויאמר יי' אל משה אל תירא אותו וכו'.... מיד אמר קודשא בריך הוא אל תירא אותו, לא תדחל לההוא את דיליה וכו' עיין שם]

Genie - Feral Child

See a famous essay of Maya Pines entitled "The Civilizing of Genie" about an abused girl who was essentially tied up and deprived of all verbal interaction up until  ~12 years old.

Excerpts:

Unlike normal children, however, Genie never asked questions, despite many efforts to train her to do so... Among human beings, four-week-old babies can recognize the difference between some 40 consonants that are used in human languages, as shown by how their sucking and heartbeats change when different consonant sounds are presented by audiotape. That ability seems to be innate, since babies respond to many more consonants that are used in their parents’ language—English, for example, has only 24 consonant sounds, yet babies of English-speaking parents react to the consonants present in Japanese. Babies lose that ability as they grow up. By the age of six, when children enter school, their ability to hear the difference between sounds to which they have not been exposed in their own language is severely reduced.....Genie, unlike 99 percent of righthanded people, seemed to use the right hemisphere of her brain for language.... extraordinary attention to the visual world....All of her first two-word phrases were about static objects. While normal children usually start talking about people and actions or about the relations between people and objects, Genie spoke primarily about the attributes of things: “black shoe,” “lot bread.”

If I were to give an analysis from my way of thinking I'd lay it down thus:

Given that the act of birth is an introducing of an already extant existential being, and the living of Life being only the process by which that existential being comes to manifest/actualize itself, a feral child having been cut off from living life's processes will consequently be "stuck" in the existential state i.e. things are as they are, visual, static.

Questions are superfluous in such a mindset because there's no need for the process of discovery innate in questioning. 

[Questioning btw being at the very begining of bnei yisrael's birth at Pesach as well] 

Furthermore, the actions that objects perform, to a person with a purely existentialist mindset, will be of lesser significance compared to the existential state of what those objects are i.e. black shoe, lot bread.

I personally would have thought that engaging in a loving sexual relationship would be the best course of rehabilitation for such a child. Namely because sexual intercourse and interaction is the epitome of process as opposed to stasis, Becoming as opposed to Being. My unprofessional abstract philosophical 2 cents, nothing more. Moreover, the essay does in fact mention that Genie masturbated excessively...

Freud: Life and Death Drives; Becoming v. Being

See Freud's postulations regarding the Life and Death drives, Eros & Thanatos.
I think he's dangerously close to the conceptual duality of Becoming v. Being, חיים  v. הויה, Process v. Existential Truth/Fact, Essence v Phenomena/Manifestation, etc

[Note "becoming" having libidinal associations both in the Torah ביאה and להבדיל בין קדש לחול in it's vulgar usages]

והלא דבר שכינה פרויד לדרגא הפנימי ביותר בשם
"id"
דהיינו בדיוק מלת ז"ה כנזכר בספרים

[הנה באה ונהיתה נאם אדני יהוה -- יחזקאל כא ויחזקאל לט]

Intro to Sociology - מושל מקשיב על דבר שקר כל משרתיו רשעים

Started a course in Sociology. My textbook (John Macionis) begins with explaining Sociology as (my loose translating from Hebrew to English)

Sociological insight is essentially the recognition that the social world guides our actions and choices similar to the change in seasons affecting our manner of dress.... and since the sociologists have abundant knowledge as to the modes of action of the society, they can analyze and foresee with a certain degree of precision how we (individuals) will act in the future.

There's of course a lot more to quote but I like to keep my writing brief. In any event, my thought being that the verse in Mishlei 29 is really appropriate to Sociology.

  מושל מקשיב על דבר שקר כל משרתיו רשעים  because the individuals within any system, by definition, must function within the underlying foundations of that system, be they good or bad. On the micro level, of course, each individual has free choice for good or bad, but there's no escaping his place in the larger scope of the system that he's in... and if that larger scope is a system of מושל מקשיב על דבר שקר then he is, on that level of scale, a משרת רשע.   (See Chullin 4b)

In general, it seems to me that Sociology deals heavily with the issues of ספירת מלכות as explained by R' Matis in his Sefirat HaOmer shiurim among others...

[I would further throw out the possibility (most probably out of aarogance and carpriciousness) that the 3 Paradigms of Sociology: (1) Structural Functionalism, (2) Conflict Theory, and (3) Symbolic Interactionism are essentially loose emphasis' of different dimensions in מלכות--  aיסוד שבמלכות, bגבורה שבמלכות, and cמלכות שבמלכות, respectively. Needs further thought...]

Rav Yosef Tendler z"l

After writing my last post I got to thinking about Rabbi Tendler again and I realized just how much I owe him and am indebted to him.

I don't necessarily agree with him on some of his  השקפות but facts are facts: I am forever indebted to him for what he gave me and did for me.

There wasn't really much reason to accept me. I was coming from a modern orthodox high-school, modern-orthodox community, modern orthodox family asking to join in for 11th grade. I'm sure R' Tendler knew at the time (as opposed to my innocent naivete) that I wasn't going to fit into Ner Yisroel or my particular classmates with the smoothest of ease. It was definitely going to be a kink in their program.

But he took me in nonetheless. And when he saw things were going difficult for me he tried to help me. He would learn with me b'chavrusa in the middle of the beis medrash just to "put me on the map" with the other guys and help facilitate their warming up to me (atleast that's what I surmise was his motive). At the time I didn't think anything special of it but looking back I realized how outrageous it was for the Rosh Mechina to be sitting among the Mechina desks in the back learning with a "newbie" talmid.

And those years in Ner Yisroel were probably some of the best of my life, where I grew in just about everything on account of chaverim, rebeim, avreichim, hanhala, and the yeshiva atmosphere in general. All this from R' Tendler.... and I never really took the opportunity to express just how shamefully indebted I am to him for what he gave me.... Thank you Rabbi Tendler. Truly.


Hesped of R' Tendler

Tactile Needs and God, He vs It.

Note the subtle deviation in pronunciation by english speakers for the word "Hashem" . Instead of people pronouncing it correctly as Hasheim (with a tzerei under the 'shin') which would then carry the meaning of "The Name" everyone pronounces it as "Hashem" with a segol (which doesn't then carry any meaning other than sounding like someone's name).

My opinion. Man's subconscious need for The Creator to be personified. Something we can touch. Something we can get our arms around. As humans we have such a difficult time with worshipping an entity of Prime Existence (י-ה-ו-ה), an 'it", that we go out of our way to make that "it" into a "he".

So whereas the Torah and Chazal were sensitive to describe the creator as an "it":
"The Holy One, Blessed is He הקדוש ברוך הוא", "The Name השם"

we go out of our way in our daily language to personify that Prime Existence as a "He"

e.g. "Hashem did this and Hakadosh Baruch Hu did that", to the point that every word for Prime Existence or The Creator becomes bastardized as a regular person's name: Hashem, God, Allah, Moe, Larry, Curly, etc

I never asked him his reason but I now really appreciate how R' Yosef Tendler in Ner Yisroel used to always say "The Kadosh Baruch Hu" and not the standard "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" like everyone else.

To be fair though, personification of The Creator as a "He" rather than an "It" may not be so far off the mark as you might think since in truth every "He" is a description of an existential "third-person" dimension that can't be accessed directly --(הוא (הויה

[ועיין שבועות כט ע"א "משום דעבודת כוכבים נמי אקרי אלוה", ועיין תוס' שם דאפילו בשם המפורש]

A Sum Greater Than Its Parts

Note that both English and Russian depart grammatically from their conventional forms of pluralizing nouns when it comes to human beings/ people.

English: Person -- People  (as opposed to Persons).

Russian: человек -- люли (as opposed to человекы)

I would suggest it stems from a subconscious recognition as to the transformative nature of an individual's integration in to a ציבור / collective.

איפה כתוב?

Along the lines of the Hebrew/Aramaic nuance of לפי vs אליבא and the Yerushalmi/Bavli contrast of תא חזי vs תא שמע I realized a similar difference when wanting to challenge the veracity of a statement.

In english we'll say "Who says?" or "Where does it say that?" but in hebrew we say איפה כתוב?

One for כתב and one for על פה...

Different 'World' Views

First see what we said here:

Got an email:


1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate (more than once but less than 10)
2. Multiply this number by 2 (just to be bold)
3. Add 5
4. Multiply it by 50 -- I'll wait while you get the calculator
5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1760 ..
If you haven't, add 1759..
6... Now subtract the four digit year that you were born.
You should have a three digit number
The first digit of this was your original number
(i.e., how many times you want to have chocolate each week).
The next two numbers are YOUR AGE! (Oh YES, it is!!!!!)
THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2010) IT WILL EVER WORK.


Why this works can easily be seen when formulated algebraically:

pick a number , x, between 1 and 9
double it.. add 5.. then multiply it by 50 ---- (2x+5) * 50
which simplified becomes
100x + 250
they tell you to add 1760 (this is done so when added with 250 it becomes the current year of 2010)
100x + 250 +1760 == simplified becomes >>
100x + 2010
if you subtract the year you were born from 2010 you by definition will get your age in numbers... (those are the last 2 digits)
and the first digit will be whatever x was which is what you picked in the beginning.

Now my realization is this: the "world" viewpoint from which you view this process is the difference between the miraculous and the self-evident, the chaotic/probabilistic vs the rational deterministic.

Follow the exercise by plugging in for 'x' (the number of times you want to eat chocolate) makes it essentially humanly impossible to then, in the course of the exercise, realize the interrelationship of the various operations and numbers and to "see" how essentially you're just subtracting the birth year from the current year and adding an extra third digit which you started with. You can only see the inescapable logic and self-evidence by viewing it from a "higher world" of algebra.

הויה וחיים / Past Perfect vs. Past Perfect Continuous

Came to a startling realization. English grammar itself reflects the subtle distinction between simple actions of Life (חיים) and existential realities (הויה) .

Ron said he had done it already. אמר שעשה אותו כבר

Just points out the mundane fact that it occured.

Ron said he had been doing it for hours. אמר שהוא כבר היה עושה אותו לשעות

He was in an existential state of doing it.....

I equally could have pointed out from the Present Simple and Present Continuous, just happened to realize it in the Past.

Also see Nedarim 61b
 עד הקציר עד הבציר עד המסיק אינו אסור אלא עד שיגיע זה הכלל כל שזמנו קבוע ואמר עד שיגיע אסור עד שיגיע אמר עד שיהא אסור עד שיצא וכל שאין זמנו קבוע בין אמר עד שיהא בין אמר עד שיגיע אינו אסור אלא עד שיגיע.

שותה בעציצו

Taken from Wikipedia - "Free Love"

After the October Revolution in Russia, Alexandra Kollontai became the most prominent woman in the Soviet administration. Kollontai was also a champion of free love.

In what may be an apocryphal conversation, she defended free love to Lenin, saying "Love should be free, like drinking water from a glass."

Lenin is supposed to have replied, "but who wants to drink from a soiled glass?

[עי' זוהר אמור דף צ ע"א אלא אתתא איהי כוס דברכה טעמו פגמו]

Truth vs Life

I smile when I’m angry.

I cheat and I lie.
I do what I have to do
To get by.
But I know what is wrong,
And I know what is right.
And I’d die for the truth
In My Secret Life.

(Leonard Cohen, In My Secret Life)

א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מע"ז גילוי עריות וכו

כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת שמד אבל בשעת שמד אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור ... מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב אפילו לשנויי ערקתא דמסאנא

Strange paradox the Gemara is presenting: If you need to eat pig in order to live then "do what you've got to do" but the moment you're being forced to eat pig (or tie your shoes) as an expression of a statement of Existential Truth, you must die for it. You must die rather than give up your faith (אמונה) in that which is Truth (אמת) even though, in action, you may have to live by that which is False.

Part of a larger thought I had about הויה vs חיים or as I like to capture it as the paradox in Dan Akroyd's selling a $12,000 Swiss watch in Harlem for $50 (in the movie Trading Places) because "In Harlem it's worth $50." This Gm' is essentially saying you're permitted to sell that watch for $50 so that you can survive but only so long that you're allowed to maintain your position/belief that in Truth the watch is really worth $12k. The moment the world is demanding of you to not only live as though the watch is $50 but also maintain existentially that's it's only $50 is the moment you have to give up your life.

וצדיק באמונתו יחיה

I smile when I’m angry.
I cheat and I lie.

I do what I have to do
To get by.
But I know what is wrong,
And I know what is right.
And I’d die for the truth
In My Secret Life.


[Additionally can be seen then as the paradox between normative v. empirical or מצוי נגד רצוי]

Versions of The Truth

Harry: I have never lied to you. I have always told you some version of the truth.

Erica Barry: The truth doesn't have versions, okay?

(Quote from the movie "Somethings Got To Give")

The more I think about it the more I've realized that Harry is actually right. There are "versions of Truth"; not because there is no one objective set of Truth out there in the world [I believe that there is i.e. Torah sh'Bichtav] but because of the deficiencies on the side of the "receiver" the "Truth" must sometimes be "distorted" so as to conform appropriately to the receiver. Or in other words, telling over the Pure Truth to someone "who can't handle the Truth" is not Truth at all.

Take the issue of גר הבא על אמו for example. The Torah defines for us the pure existential Truth of the matter-- גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי , therefore Truth sees no ערוה in the relationship whatsoever. But we, as flesh and blood humans have difficulty making that distinction, we're so accustomed at looking through pure physical lenses that we see as nothing less than incest. Hence the רבנן come and prohibit it. Which one is therefore "the Real Truth"? Both are, depending on what dimension you're coming from. Existentially, objectively גר הבא על אמו is מותר. Practically, in reality, in practice it's forbidden because the world cannot handle that Truth...

This is also לענ"ד the deeper understanding in דן דין אמת לאמתו beyond it's being an objective דין אמת it also is subjectively, in it's application, לאמתו.

Harry: I have never lied to you. I have always told you some version of the truth.

[P.S. Afterwards I saw that the של"ה in his comments on פרשת בראשית says a very similar thing. ברוך שכוונתי ]

Finicky Etymology & a Website of New Interest

Just had thought today of the connection of english "finicky" with the hebrew פינוק, מפונק

Googled and came across this website of interest:

http://theoriginoflanguage.com/un-confounding-dictionary/

Will have to look at that further.

דרך Etymology - Russian

Note the connections:

Russian word for דרך being "putee" пути--> Puta as vagina or prostitute (Spanish Vulgar)-->. פות in Hebrew--> 

... פת -->

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל--> all fitting into דרך גבר בעלמה and ובלכתך בדרך-- חתן פטור מק"ש לילה הראשונה

Possibly also related to the English "path".


[Forgot one:   והפתות לדלתות הבית הפנימי לקדש הקדשים in מלכים א ז פסוק נ ]

Nice Lyrics - John Mayer

Fathers, be good to your daughters
Daughters will love like you do
Girls become lovers who turn into mothers
So mothers, be good to your daughters too

-- John Mayer

Masturbation In Vegetables

Noticed the phenomenon in atleast onions and garlic if not more; when left alone for enough time in the kitchen cupboard the onion continues to sprout forth from within itself a light-green center outgrowth.

See שביעית ו ג where the Mishna recognizes this phenomenon and distinguishes between these kind of light-green, "masturbatory" sprouts and strong, darkish-colored sprouts which result from having received external energies e.g. soil, rainwater.

בצלים שירדו עליהם גשמים וצמחו--אם היו העלין שלהן שחורים, אסורים; הוריקו, הרי אלו מותרין.

The way I see it, in the absence of ideally being able to receive its energies externally, the organism nonetheless seeks to tap into a release of it's energies from within. [Note also that the production of the light green shoots are, if I'm not mistaken, "weaker" and empirically contain less nutrients than those of the dark-green shoots, but it remains a "giving forth of energies" nonetheless...]

I would be very interested to know, scientifically, what in fact are the onions/garlics sacrificing internally that allows them to perform this "growth from within"... there must be some trade off...

And see Zohar Teruma 166b:

האי אור זרע ליה קב"ה בגנתא דעדנוי...ואי תימא בזמנא דגלותא כתיב אזלו מים מני ים....ואי תימא דאינון תולדין ואיבין הוו כמו דהוה בזמנא דגננא תמן, לאו הכי, אבל לא אתמנע זרוע דא לעלמין עיי"ש

[Addendum: not certain of the scientific validity but found discussion atleast that in humans increased masturbation causes increase of body's osteoclasts which break down bone... is there a plant equivalent to the human bone?... צע"ע]

[ועיין שער מאמרי רז"ל - מסכת בבא קמא - מאמר א' ]

World/עולם Dimensions

It's always been hard to even conceptualize the sense of ד' עולמות -- עשייה, יצירה, בריאה, אצילות

Particularly, how can all 4 be extant simultaneously.

Would like to offer atleast possibly a משל of the distinctions between them through Math.

On the lowest level/"world" we have Constant Numbers. They are completely defined. No variability. Also note they have no rate of change i.e. their derivative equals 0. Represented on a graph as a constant Y-value running to infinity along the x-axis [עשייה]

The subsuming world above that would be that of Linear Equations like y= 2x. Represented by a straight, sloping line with a fixed rate of change (i.e. slope or derivative). Note how every constant in the "lower world" ultimatley has it's place somewhere in this higher world as a particular manifestation of the linear equation. Also note how essentially Linear Equations can be said to be composed of an infinity of constants. [יצירה]

The subsuming world above Linear would be that of Non-Linear equations [בריאה] e.g. x^2 [x raised to the 2nd power]. Note how it can be said that essentially a Non-Linear Equation is made up of an infinity of Linear Equations.

I don't know what would then be the next step in mathematics for the final World... 3 Dimensional/ Multivariable Calculus??? i don't know....

At the very least it's just a parable as a means of helping with the conceptualization. Specifically that a particular detail unit- say the number 5 for example- can simultaneously act as the end-all in the world of constants and yet only a particular solution of a much larger solution set of a variable equation...

Clear as mud?

כי אם החרש תחרישי בעת הזאת רווח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ואת ובית אביך תאבדו

Triangle Breakdown

A fundamental realization. Not all 3 lines of a triangle are equal. It's really a relationshop of 2 and 1.

By definition, a hypotenuse line is nothing more than a composite vector (or a 'child' you could say) of one x-axis vector and one y-axis vector.

In other words, all hypotenuses are made up of adjacents and opposites but adjacents and opposites (running parallel to the axis') are not made up of hypotenuse lines.

Note then that sine and cosine are essentially אבות of the tangent. Note also the often interchanging/interweaving (התכללות) of sine and cosine together in various areas (their derivatives for example), moreso than with tangent.

Table of Elements and Torah

Was thinking of exploring connections between Torah and the Table of Chemical Elements when I was pleasantly surprised to see the area has already been considered by a Yitzchak Ginsburgh of www.inner.org . Here.

My limited writing on the subject was said here regarding Completed Systems.

[Looked further at the website and was pretty disappointed to find alot of distasteful parts like "Jewelry by Rav Ginsburgh" selling little kabbala-style necklaces of 14K gold ..... what the heck is that about?! That's a big no-no in my book. I'll keep this post up and the link to his paper but don't approve or support the author]

Greek Alphabet

People don't take seriously enough the richness that is laden in the greek alphabet and to what degree of meaningfulness it held to the Greeks themselves.

בראשית רבה א ו-- וייצר שני יצירת יצירה לאדם ויצירה לחוה יצירה לשבעה ויצירה לתשעה רב הונא אמר נוצר לשבעה ונולד לח' או לתשעה חי נוצר לתשעה ונולד לשמונה אינו חי קל וחומר לשבעה בעון קמיה דרבי אבהו מנין שהנוצר לשבעה חי אמר להון מדידכון אנא ממטי לכון זיט"א אפט"א איט"א אוכט"א

Also see Wikipedia that the Greet letter Theta (ט) being a circle with a dot in the middle had significance and symbolism of soul and body. Further interesting is the connection to the Egyptian religion of 9 Gods called the Ennead.

Bereishit Letter Count

Came to me (but maybe honestly I read it somewhere and just forgot..),

If you sequence the letter count of the first Pasuk in the Torah by the sentence punctuation you yield the following interesting sequence 14,7,7 -- בראשית ברא אלהים, את השמים, ואת הארץ .

Now, if you'd want to balance that series/equation with the a final 14 you'd end at the letter ב of ובהו....

... which is then directly followed by a ה first and then a ו...

Kabbalistic Gemara

Unfortunately can't say I've been doing much learning in general these past few years... what I have been doing is something of a "perusal" if you will, of some kabbalistic works (particularly Zohar with the new edition of מתוק מדבש). To the neglect unfortunately of my Gemara studies...

Anyway, recently started going back to some Gemara here and there (joined a Gemara shiur in the area which is also nice) and I'm really struck by a realization-- the Gemara is LOADED with kabbalistic hints and references! Of course!! really... it should have been so obvious... all the roundabout ways of saying things... all the strange organizing of sugyot in the strangest of orders... it should have been so apparent really. So last night was just one case of many that I thought to point out, not as a lesson in kabbala, but as an encouragement to בני תורה to see further beyond the conventional array of approaching a Gemara that we're all so accustomed to from yeshiva.

סנהדרין מט: --סקילה חמורה משריפה שכן ניתנה למגדף ולעובד {עבודה זרה} מאי חומרא שכן פושט ידו בעיקר אדרבה שריפה חמורה שכן ניתנה לבת כהן שזינתה ומאי חומרא שכן מחללת את אביה קסברי רבנן נשואה יוצאה לשריפה ולא ארוסה ומדאפקה רחמנא לארוסה בסקילה ש"מ סקילה חמורה

סקילה חמורה מסייף שכן ניתנה למגדף ולעובד {עבודה זרה} ומאי חומרא כדאמרן אדרבה סייף חמור שכן ניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת ומאי חומרא שכן ממונן אבד אמרת איזה כח מרובה כח המדיח או כח הנידח הוי אומר כח המדיח ותניא מדיחי עיר הנדחת בסקילה

סקילה חמורה מחנק שכן ניתן למגדף ולעובד {עבודה זרה} ומאי חומרא כדאמרן אדרבה חנק חמור שכן ניתן למכה אביו ואמו ומאי חומרא שכן הוקש כבודן לכבוד המקום מדאפקיה רחמנא לארוסה בת ישראל מכלל נשואה בת ישראל מחנק לסקילה ש"מ סקילה חמורה

שריפה חמורה מסייף שכן ניתנה לבת כהן שזינתה ומאי חומרא שכן מחללת את אביה אדרבה סייף חמור שכן ניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת ומאי חומרא שכן ממונן אבד נאמר אביה בסקילה ונאמר אביה בשריפה מה אביה האמור בסקילה סקילה חמורה מסייף אף אביה האמור בשריפה שריפה חמורה מסייף

[just focusing on the highlighted end] what kind of crazy proof is that?!! because it mentions אביה by both נערה מאורסה and בת כהן so what? anyone studying this can sense the weakness here...

Now I don't know kabbala and can't say exactly what it's getting at but I have no doubt this is part of it:

the Gemara is pointing out-- beautifully-- that only 2 parshiot of חייבי מיתות ב"ד mention the administering of the punishment because of the חילול האב (the בן סורר ומורה does not make reference to his parents in the actual context of his death penalty but only ומת ובערת הרע מקרבך ).

Now there are ד' מיתות ב"ד כנגד הוי"ה with סקילה ושריפה corresponding to י"ה or otherwise known as אבא ואמא...... see where this going... nuff said I think... like I said, I'm not trying to teach Kabbala (since I really don't know it) but just wanted to encourage the need for better perspective on approaching the conventional.


Also see Zohar Pinchas 244  ורבנן דמתניתין ואמוראין כל תלמודא דלהון על רזין דאורייתא סדרו ליה

The Problems of Medical Thought

Watched a PBS documentary on DNA and Curing Cancer. Really fascinating and informative. So if I've walked away from it correctly... If I had to sum up in a few lines the current endeavors of the medical genetic field it would be as follows:

With the Genome mapped and many if not all markers of various "cancerous" genes/amino acids?? (don't really know the correct terms) identified we plan to develop drugs that hone in and target those parts of the gene outputting the corrupted instructions, shut them down, and thereby allow the DNA to resume it's functions as it should. The first paradigm of that being Gleevec.

Now before I give my 2 cents of critique I'd like to request the granting of one assumption for the purposes of this argument. That assumption being that God is dead i.e. no God/atheism. This way there shouldn't be any confusing my logic for religion.

Now, as an atheist (for the course of this post) let me express my concerns with the current Medical approach/attitude. Namely, that it gives no thought or concern to the higher sources of causation that caused the cancer genes to go bad in the first place. It assumes that the point of corruption in the gene code is like the first point of origin in time with no history or causations before it.

It fails to ask the begging questions as to why and how do the genes go corrupt in the first place (other than to attribute everything to randomness of events). And so you may think you're solving the problem but in actuality what you're doing is cutting off a venue for the "real problem" to express itself or manifest.

A metaphor: When I worked in the cafeteria giving out servings everyone wanted an extra portion of chicken beyond their allotment per their ticket. Now, what would happen if I obliged to all of them and gave them? Sure initially everyone is happy with their extra portions but in the end the catering service has to shut down because they go broke.

In other words, when dealing with any complex system, you can't "hijack" the system from within a particular middle stage in the process and think there will be no reprecussions of your actions on more macro/higher levels.

So here you plan on hijacking the gene. Shutting down it's "bad output" and forcing it to output what you want... but until you know what was the cause for the corruption in the first place how do you know you're not just creating bigger problems on higher more broader levels? How do you know that the corrupt output wasn't needed for manifesting a different more fundamental problem that now must find a different way for expression? How do you know that the "bad gene instructions" are really bad?

My problem is not at all with the further studying of our genes, nor with the administering of current treatments that do seem to cure the patients with no visible side effects. Wonderful.

My problem is with the attitude of it all; in thinking that this is the end-all; that you can ignore any deeper levels of causality and think you can hold this particular level of reality hostage and have it meet all of your demands as you wish them.

If we must take this path so be it, but let it be done with trepidation and respect, not brash aarogance and exploitation.

It essentially becomes the same issue as the hiding of the Sefer Refuot by Chizkiyahu or the engaging in קבלה מעשית through השבעת שמות למלאכים.