Cool stuff thousands of years old on the power and influence of human thought.(Human Mind.)

                                                                Article on Linkedin.

Knowledge is Power -- G-dly Knowledge is SUPER Power.

As the field of science discovers more and more, we are infatuated by the tremendous dazzle of physics, string theory, quantum mechanics, quantum electro dynamics, etc.

Remember. For the most part all these discoveries and newly found theories are for the most part not older than 100 years old.

I will share with you words from the medieval Jewish scholar and codifier of Jewish law, that is entirely based on the holy words of our G-dly Torah. You will be amazed at the words put in writing by the “Great Eagle” Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon – Maimonides, the Rambam, circa 1166 AD.

Only (an opposite) DEED can cancel the direction of ones THOUGHTS……

“All vessels can become susceptible to impurity through thought, (the moment a person DECIDES to use them for personal use) but do not lose that susceptibility unless a deed is performed to change their function. (only a deed to destroy the vessel from human use can cancel, the resolution to use this vessel for human use.) A deed negates the influence of a previous deed or thought, but thought does not negate the influence of a previous thought or deed.

What is implied? A ring used for an animal or a vessel that one thought to use as a ring for a person. That thought itself, causes a change in the ring's status and makes it subject to ritual impurity, as if originally it was made with the intent of being used for a human.

If, afterwards, one reconsidered and thought to leave it as a ring for an animal as it was, it remains susceptible to impurity, even though a person never used it as an ornament.

 For, one thought does not negate the effect of another thought, unless one performs a deed in the actual physical substance of the entity, for example, to polish it or to adjust it as is done for an animal.

If there was a ring used for humans and one thought to use it for an animal, it is still susceptible to impurity as it was originally, for a vessels susceptibility to impurity cannot be nullified by thought. If one performed a deed, changing it into an animal's ring, it is not susceptible to impurity, for deed can negate the influence of a previous deed.”

The willful impression of a person on water lasts for three days….

“When a person draws water with a cylinder, the water remaining in the cylinder is considered as having been willfully uprooted (and is now susceptible to impurities) for three days. After being left for three days, however, it is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. Instead, if liquid remains there, it does not make foods subject to impurity.”

 INSTANT TRANSMISSION......

“We have already explained that when a person gathered endives for an animal (only food for human consumption are susceptible to impurity) and washed them, (only food in contact with water intended for human consumption make food susceptible to impurity) and then changed his mind afterwards and thought to use them for human consumption, they need to be exposed to water a second time (since until now only animals where in his mind) to make foods susceptible to impurity.
If, however, there was tangible moisture on them when he thought to use them for human consumption, (his thoughts are instantly transmitted to the liquid on the food and) they are susceptible to impurity.”

The power of one’s thoughts pass through the animal to the water….

“When a person leads an animal down to a stream to drink, the water that ascend with its mouth is considered as having been uprooted willfully. (by the person who brought the animal to the water) The water that ascends on (the animal) its feet are not considered as having been uprooted willfully, unless he had the intent that its feet be rinsed. When the animal's feet are diseased, and in the threshing season, (and the owner benefits from the water cleaning the animals’ feet) even the water on its feet is considered as having been uprooted willfully.

If a deaf mute, a mentally or emotionally compromised person, or a minor brought the animal to drink, (their thoughts aren’t considered complete) even if they intended that its feet be washed, the water that ascends on (the animals) its feet is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because, (only) the DEEDS of such individuals are halachically (legally) significant, but their intent is not.”

===================

“The deeds of a deaf mute, a mentally or emotionally compromised individual, or a minor are significant. Their thoughts are not significant, as explained above with regard to making foods susceptible to impurity.”