The Child Within

If I were old I would be discouraged.

In the Ethics of our Fathers, Elisha Ben Avuyah teaches: One who learns Torah in his childhood, what is this comparable to? To ink inscribed on fresh paper. One who learns Torah in his old age, what is this comparable to? To ink inscribed on erased paper."

I get the first half of the statement. We want to encourage the young to learn while their mind is still fresh and impressionable; but why the second half of the statement that puts down the older learner? Were we not educated on the story of Rabbi Akiva, one of the all time greatest Torah scholars, who began to study Torah at age forty? If Rabbi Akiva would have learnt about the "ink written on erased paper" would he not have been discouraged from learning and the Jewish people would have lost one if greatest minds?

The answer is as simple as it is profound:

The Mishnah is not telling us to learn when we are a child; rather to learn like a child. Not to avoid learning when at old age rather to avoid learning like an older person.

You see, the old person has seen it all. Often, He feels he's got all the answers to all the questions  A new idea cannot creep into his mind unless it squeeze trough his existing knowledge. His subconscious mind is not interested in revolutions, it is interested in ideas that confirm, and conform to, his existing knowledge.

The child, on the other hand, is curious, open to new insights, and intrigued by the mysteries of the universe.

So when your mother told you to "always remain a child", she may have been trying to articulate the Mishnah's point. She wasn't telling you to keep playing in the sand box, she was saying: "you may have a PHD at the end of your name, but next time you pick up a book, do so with an open mind". 

You'll have plenty of time to evaluate and assess at a later point, but at the moment, read like a child.

The Essene of Pleasure

The Hebrew word for affliction - נגע - is made up of the same letters as the Hebrew word for pleasure - ענג. The book of formation, the first work of Kabbalah ever to be written, explains the highest level one can achieve, the greatest pleasure one can experience, is from transforming a negative experience to positivity. Transforming the affliction to pleasure. 

Students of Tradition

Two interesting things happen in the second chapter of the Ethics of our Fathers: 1: The Ethics stops telling us that each Rabbi it quotes received the oral tradition from the previous rabbi (unlike chapter 1 which emphasizes who each rabbi received the oral tradition from). 2. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakay asks his students to offer their own insight (unlike chapter 1 where the teacher is the one doing all the talking).

Perhaps these two are related. After the period of Shammay and Hillel many disagreements broke out amongst the Rabbis. The reason for all the disagreement was that post Shammay and Hillel some of the oral tradition was lost, thus many points needed to be decided through using logic (obviously based on the principles of the oral tradition) rather than through tradition alone.

That is why Rabbi Yochanan turns to his students, because while tradition comes from the previous generation, insight comes from your students.

Briah Yesh M'ayin

In general it is explained in Chassidus that Hashem didn't just create the world as a wristwatch and twist the hand and leave it to its own devices. Rather it is a creation something from nothing and therefore needs a constant creating input. Similar to someone who throws a ball into the air and as long as his power is invested in it it can defy gravity (nature) but once it is finished it falls back and reverts to its resting state. Perhaps a slight weakness in the example is that since one does not clearly see the power constantly invested in the upthrown ball it would seem to be somewhat similar to setting things in motion and leaving and for G-d he just can throw things very strong and far maybe for a billion years.
I was thinking that perhaps a more updated example might be the synthetic elements in the periodic table which have a very limited half-life. Some even just a few instants. That once the creative power ceases they almost instantly cease to exist.
But perhaps a better example might be a little more basic. Similar to a thrown ball. They have an electric blower blowing air and you can place a ball at the top of the jet stream and it will stay there hovering only going as high as the jet stream. And once the motor is turned off it immediately falls down.

Shlichus

In Chelek Yud Zain Lku"s the first sicha, the Rebbe speaks about the contrast, as related in a story of the Alter Rebbe, between the big Aleph of Adam (recognition of one's greatness) and the small Aleph of Moshe (a sense of Bitul). The Rebbe goes on to be meadayek in the Alter Rebbe's wording that Adam still had the advantage of a big Aleph (ac"p b'helem) even after the Chet Etz HaDas.
The Rebbe learns from here a deeper explanation (Ois Zayin) in V'amech Kulam Tzadikkim that we all have this level of Adam HaRishon inherited to us. And therefore even if we were once in a situation the opposite of good (similar to Adam HaRishon l'achrei HaChet), but now we are involved with Torah and Mitzvos we are considered to be doing the Avoda of a tzadik (similar to Adam who after the Chet still had the big Aleph (according to the diyuk in the Alter rebbe's words)). And the Rebbe then contrasts this person with one who has the status of a baal Tshuvah that still needs a shmira me'ula shleo yachzor l'suro even after he is living a Torah life.

Now this whole paragraph seems to be without source, in that it is original, it is the Rebbe's vort. It seems to somewhat fit a gaang of the Rebbe's that even if one is not necessarily holding by a high madreiga it is still incumbent upon him to fir zich, accord himself, with behaviours and hergashos at times that are higher than his level e.g. the Alter Rebbe's deveikus of "ich vill nor dich alayn" and others.

A question that comes up is, what is the difference between the ball tshuvah at the end who needs a shmira me'ula and the yid in the beginning who once did not good things, like Adam once did, though now that he is engaged in Torah and Mitzvos is at the darga of a Tzadik with no connection to evil?

Yesh Lomar, that perhaps the difference is a baal tshuvah who is on shlichus. Maybe there is even a halchaik question if a baal tshuvah is allowed to go on shlichus? Since he needs a shmira me'ula maybe he shouldn't be going into such circumstances where he is surrounded by his former lifestyle. And the Rebbe writes that since he is engaged in Torah and Mitzos he is on the level of a tzadik and doesn't need all of these precautions.

The Mishkan and G-d's Immanence

These ideas are incomplete thoughts, please help me develop them further. Thanks.
The Mishkan is a replacement of Hashem's revealed presence throughout the Jewish camp (as a result of the sin of the golden calf).
If G-d is immanent (Memaleh) (everywhere), why is there a need for a Mishkan?
So simply, the explanation as we all know it, is that we need to reveal G-d's presence in this world. And for that we need a Mishkan. And this applies to Olum (Beis Hamikdosh), Shanah (Shabbos) and Nefesh (Yidden) that each category has its "leader" that infuses the rest with their holiness or revealed state of G-dliness.
And I was thinking about this concept through the lens of pantheism and panentheism. And I felt it gave some extra clarity.
(Now like every time we use any term, it should truly be defined, because there are always different understandings of terms. So for the purpose of this conversation, let me define pantheism as the belief that all is God and that God is not anything more than that. And all is defined as nature. This is attributed to Spinoza.
And panentheism as that that G-d is in all (nature) though he is not confined by it but he is more than that as well. In other osios perhaps, G-d is not just memaleh (immanent) but sovev (transcendent) as well.)
Spinoza wasn't frum, he was put in cherem, but there are letters that say that he rejected in part the idea that G-d wasn't greater than nature as well as part of nature. So the question would be what was wrong in what he believed?
Well for one, Moses Mendelsohn was a supporter of his ideas, so that's not a good sign.
An idea came to me on types of potential relationships between Hashem and the world.
So starting again from the question that if the whole world is G-dly, why do we need a specific location?
How do we make everything holy? Is it by giving autonomy to everything (empowering and calling everything God) or is it by subjugating everything to a higher power? In other words by the idea of pantheism, all is God, we are in a certain way creating a moral equivalency, how can one behaviour be more right than another, since everything is God?
 But the Jewish way that G-d is in everything and gives everything directives how to be properly utilized, therefore creates a paradigm on how everything can become truly, in a revealed state, G-dly.

Infinity

I love the word infinity. Somehow it captures the imagination and evokes images of a beautiful night sky extending endlessly.

You can imagine my disappointment when I, a lover of the Hebrew language, realized that Hebrew does not have a positive word for infinity. Instead the Hebrew uses the negative term of “Bli-Gevul” - without limit.

I mean, could a language as powerful as Hebrew not offer a positive and direct word? Especially that Biblical Hebrew is in the business of describing an infinite G-d so the lack of a positive term to describe the infinity of G-d so essential to it's couture is striking.

It finally occurred to me.

The language is teaching us something. It's saying that we cannot grasp infinity. Sure we can coin a word, but the word cannot help us understand something so foreign to our experience.

“It is impossible for a finite being to know the infinite creator”, argues Maimonides, the best we can do is have “negative knowledge”, meaning we can no what he is not, but we'll never have direct knowledge of what he is.

By using the term “Bli-Gevul” - without limit – Hebrew is reminding us to be humble and acknowledge the limit of our understanding. We must remember that while we try to describe G-d, ultimately we can only know him indirectly – knowing what he is not, but we can never know what he is.

Thank you Hebrew for the philosophic idea embedded in your choice of words.