There is a sort of question on the whole principle of democracy. It is this Stalin was mourned by the entire USSR at his passing.  If almost in every home there had been one person arrested and sent off into the darkness of the night by the NKVD, then why did people mourn at his passing? You would imagine they would have rejoiced. The reason is that people opinions have no relationship with truth.

Whom so ever controls the press and popular media controls people's opinions. And who controls the newspapers and TV do not have any particular dibs on truth--that is knowledge of the way things really are.

 Learning in depth is the major idea of Litvak yeshivot. The three great Litvak yeshivot in NY were known for this. Chaim Berlin, Mir, Torah VeDaat. Also in Israel there is Ponovitch.  I think in depth learning depends on one's mind, or on having a learning partner with that kind of mind. I saw this when I was learning with my learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. He would almost effortlessly see the depths in Tosphot without blinking an eyelash. This had nothing to do with bekiut -- since, in fact, he had not gone through most of Shas by that point. It was all simply being able to see the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. 

So what does that mean for someone like me? Well, it means if seeing this sort of depth in Gemara and Tosphot does not come so naturally, we must spend much more time on review. 

I admit, I was never able get to this sort of depth while in Shar Yashuv, nor in the Mir. This is the case even though I was exposed to this sort of very depth learning in both places. [I was in the classes of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum aninto the d the other roshei yeshiva], I simply never got the idea. [For myself I simply learned the Tosphot, Maharsha, Pnei Yehoshua and other achronim.] Only later, when I was learning with David Bronson (and saw this sort of depth come naturally to him) did I begin to see the idea. You can see this sort of thing in my little booklet on Shas [which has some accounts of David's approach but also after learning with him and sort of getting the idea --my own expansion of that kind of depth.] Here:    Or better yet look at Rav Chaim of Brisk's Chidushei HaRambam or Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

[The point is in Torah : to get it right is the main thing.  

of course in all major litvak yeshivot the slow in depth learning is for the morning and the fast bekiut is for the afternoon. but for me there are certain kinds of learning that work only one way, not the other. for example--gemara, i can not get the gemara and tosphot at all without slow painstaking digging in depth. math and physics are just the opposite--i cannot understand a word until i have read the whole book saying the words in order from beginning to end at least four times.  in mathematics--going over what i do not understand does nothing to help me understand. i have to go through the whole book at least four times and then it starts to make sense to me. [see gemara avoda zara pg 19 and the musar book ways of the righteous and conversations of rav nahman 76]

 The whole situation with the Bolsheviks is hard to judge. But after being in Iskara Lenina Street in Uman for some time the owner revealed to me the source of the long underground tunnel that stretched  from the river [where the house was] to the main street. That was about a mile of digging through the ground in Uman.   That tunnel  had been dug by the Jewish family that had owned that home during the time of Nicholas II. In other words--those pogroms were no joke. That Jewish family was terrified for their lives. They needed an escape route in case [or rather "when"] they were attacked at night. [I actually know exactly what that means. So while communism in the West seems like a terrible mistake, --I can see how it was important in the USSR. I can not really explain this except to say that a proper form of government seems to depend a lot on the DNA of the people. No one is equal to any other person. All men were created unequal. Some are bandits. Some are liars. Some are saints. To create some sort of safety and stability in those areas around Russia, it is clear that only the Bolsheviks were capable of doing so. Nicholas II while having certainly good intensions, still was sending millions to die in WWI for  some reason that no one can figure out until this very day. Was there some military objective? If so what was it? No one knows.

Southern States

 For a thought experiment: let's say the Southern States had decided the day after they signed the Constitution to secede from the Union? That is the very next day? Would that have been a rebellion? Would that have required Federal troops to come in and enforce them to return to the Union? It seems not. After all it was a voluntary agreement. There was no clause in it that it was perpetual.  So forget the next day. Maybe ten years down the road? Or twenty? Could there have been a  grace period? Or maybe the best idea was not to be stubborn about it and let the South find its own way and perhaps return to the Union in a few years. After all the terms of union had already changed. The Articles of Confederation of 1781 were the first set of agreements. 

The articles of Confederation actually said that that document was perpetual. Articles 13. Not the Constitution. So should the Second Congress have been thought to be traitors to the first agreement?

Should perhaps all the states have invaded and wiped out each other for being traitors to the first agreement? That seems unlikely.

And from the standpoint of objective morality : it is hard to see the preservation of the Union has a greater prima facie value than: "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

However I can see the greatness of the USA and I feel like Allan Bloom wrote that the USA is one of the wonders of the world. I am glad that there is the Union.

רמב''ם in הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג

Introduction. The Gemara in Nida page2 brings one law that a mikve that is lacking the right volume all pure things made on it are unclean. It asks from a different statement that a barrel that is used as tithe and was found to be vinegar--all the tevel [un-tithed wine] before three days is all in doubt. The Gemara answer The first statement is the sages. The second is R Shimon. So how can the Rambam decide the law like both when there is  a clear contradiction?

  The way רב שך explains a difficult רמב''ם in הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג' is this. There is the case of מקוה lacking ארבעים סאה. All unclean. And a barrel for מעשר found to be vinegar. That is a doubt. So רב שך says both come from the same law of two חזקות against one תרתי לריעותא. . The point being that twoחזקות against one is thought to be a doubt. This idea would explain the רמב''ם perfectly. But as for the גמרא it does not seem to fit very well. Look at רב שך explanation of the first answer of the גמרא נידה דף ב' ע''ב and the secondמ= תירוץ. This answer of רב שך says that that רמב''ם borrowed part of the first explanation with part of the second to come up with a third explanation to explain the רמב''ם. Look there at רב שך on הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג' and you will see that  idea of רב שך certainly fits the רמב''ם perfectly, but the question is how does that for with the גמרא? There is the fact that the רמב''ם is פוסק like the מקוה and the חבית. One very good idea to explain this is that both come from the idea that two חזקות are thought to be  a doubt תרתי לריעותא. But when the גמרא itself wants to answer this contradiction it comes up with two totally different explanations. נידה דף ב' ע''ב. 

הדרך בה רב שך מסביר רמב''ם קשה בהלכות סוטה פרק א 'הלכה ג' היא זו. יש מקרה של מקוה חסר ארבעים סאה. כולם טמאים. חבית למעשר שנמצא כחומץ. זהו ספק. אז רב שך אומר ששניהם באים מאותו חוק של שני חזקות כנגד אחת [תרתי לריעותא] . הנקודה היא שתי חזקות כנגד אחת נחשבות לספק. רעיון זה יסביר את הרמב''ם בצורה מושלמת. אבל לגבי הגמרא זה לא נראה מתאים מאוד. עיין בהסבר של רב שך על התשובה הראשונה של גמרא נידה דף ב 'ע''ב   ותירוץ השני. תשובה זו של רב שך אומרת כי רמב''ם לווה חלק מההסבר הראשון עם חלק מהשני כדי להגיע להסבר שלישי כדי להסביר את הרמב''ם. תסתכל שם על רב שך על הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג' ותראה שהרעיון של רב שך בהחלט מתאים לרמב''ם בצורה מושלמת, אבל השאלה היא איך זה מתאים לגמרא? יש את העובדה שהרמב''ם הוא פוסק שווה במקוה והחבית. רעיון טוב מאוד להסביר זאת הוא ששניהם נובעים מהרעיון ששני חזקות נחשבות ספק (תרתי לריעותא). אך כאשר הגמרא עצמה רוצה לענות על סתירה זו היא מגיעה עם שני הסברים שונים לחלוטין. נידה דף ב 'ע''ב

To answer this let me say that first of all if the Gemara had been thinking like the Rambam it would have had a simple and easy answer for the contradiction between the mikve and the barrel. It could have said when it says a mikve that was measured and found lacking, all the pure things made on it are unclean" means they are in doubt. Just like the barrel. and there would not have been any contradiction in the first place. So what I think is that when the Rambam brings that idea of the mikve that all the pure things made on it are unclean he mean when there is a hazaka purity from the beginning. Therefore it is a case of doubt. There is a hezkat hashta -that the mikve does not have the right volume against a hazaka of pure things. But the Gemara was explaining that statement about the mikve to mean there is  no doubt for example in such a case where there is no original hazaka of purity on the mikve or the pure things. it is not an argument between the gemara and the rambam. rather the gemara understands the statement about mikve to refer to one case and the rambam is quoting the same statement but he means it to refer to a different case. But there is no argument in law. If you have two hazakot against one that would be a doubt. But if you have one hazaka against nothing or two against nothing that is a case of no doubt._______________________________________________________________________

To answer this let me say that first of all if the גמרא had been thinking like the רמב''ם it would have had a simple and easy answer for the contradiction between the מקוה and the הבית. It could have said when it says a מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שעשו על גביו טמאות means הטהרות are in doubt. Just like the חבית. And there would not have been any contradiction in the first place. So what I think is that when the רמב''ם brings that idea of the מקוה that all the pure things made on it are unclean מקווה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שעשו על גביו טמאות he מכוון when there is a חזקה purity from the beginning. Therefore it is a case of doubt. There is a חזקת השתא that the מקוה does not have the right volume against a חזקה of pure things. But the גמרא was explaining that statement about the מקוה to mean there is  no doubt for example in such a case where there is no original חזקה of טהרה on the מקוה or the pure things. It is not an argument between the גמרא and the רמב''ם. rather the גמרא understands the statement about מקוה to refer to one case and the רמב''ם is quoting the same statement, but he means it to refer to a different case. But there is no argument in law. If you have two חזקות against one that would be a doubt. But if you have one חזקה against nothing, or two against nothing, that is a case of no doubt. חזקה כנגד כלום היא וודאי. שתי חזקות כגד אחת  גורמת ספק

יש כאן קשר ל חידושי הש''ס

Robert E Lee was about to be indicted for treason. Yet he refused to accept an offer to go to a stronghold with men that would have provided a safe haven.

 After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was about to be indicted for treason. Yet he refused to accept an offer to go to a stronghold with men that would have provided a safe haven. Besides that, there was an offer from the president of Mexico to accept anyone who needed sanctuary. [Plus offers to go to England to live in a palace and all expenses paid for life.--] Robert E. Lee also did not accept that, nor recommend it to anyone. His idea was, "We are now all American citizens." How does one explain this? It must be he thought there was something unique about the Constitution of the USA, and its system that was an aspect of objective morality. That is some example for all mankind how to live in a just and equitable system. 

He also wanted to provide an example to all people of the South to submit to Federal authority, -even at the cost of his life. He really ought to be considered up here with  Socrates with  the greats of world history. Socrates also would not rebel against Athenian authority even at the cost of his life. And even if you hold that he was on the wrong side of the fence politically speaking--well Socrates also was a Karl Popper shows at great length in his The Open Society and its Enemies 

Rambam in Laws of Sota perek I. Law 3

 The way Rav Shach explains a difficult Rambam in Laws of Sota perek I. Law 3 is this. There is the case of  mikve lacking 40 seah. All unclean. And a barrel for maasar found to be vinegar. That is a doubt. So Rav Shach says both come from the same law of two hazakot against one. The point being that two hazakot against one is thought to be a doubt. This idea would explain the Rambam perfectly. But as for the gemara it does not seem to fit very well. Look at Rav Shach explanation of the first answer of the Gemara in Nida page 3 and the second. This answer of Rav Shach says that that Rambam borrowed part of the first explanation with part of the second to come up with a third explanation to explain the Rambam.

I do not have energy to write out the whole subject. Just look there at Rav Shach on Sota I:3 and you will see what I mean that the end of that idea of Rav Shach certainly fits the Rambam perfectly but the question is how does that for with the Gemara? There is the fact that the Rambam is posek like the mikve and the barrel. One very good idea to explain this is that both come from the idea that two hazakot are thought to be  a doubt. But when the Gemara itself wants to answer this contradiction it comes up with two totally different explanations. Nida page 2 side b. This has bothered me for weeks. I  van not see any answer when I look at Rav Shach. But on the way to the sea and back I ponder this question and hope that someday I may understand what Rav Shach is saying. 

Recently a photo was made of a black hole that shoots energy jets that were predicted a long time ago [Blanford and Znajek]. 

Not just from the virtual particles. So what if you have small black holes like the ER=EPR suggestion? That is that an Einstein Rosen Bridge is in any place where there is entanglement. [The ER is just a different sort of black hole.] So atoms may have this same sort of energy signature. Plus that paper that suggested these sorts of jets from black holes mentions a way to harness this kind of energy.--by some kind of conductor. [That I noticed in the 1978 paper  by Znajek] 

TRW was the maker of the satellites that used infrared to see what was going on in the USSR.

 TRW was the maker of the satellites that used infrared to see what was going on in the USSR. [The USA wanted to know if the Soviets were preparing a first strike.]That was  the reason my dad was hired by TRW. Dad was the creator of infra red telescope. And after that they were making SDI. That was when the KGB had a mole in TRW. My dad's expertise was not in lasers, even though he did create the laser communication system for SDI. But at that point the mole was discovered and TRW went under. [A movie was made about this : The Falcon and the Snowman.] [No more government contracts.] My dad left TRW. I admit I was sad that his career in science was over. 

In every generation comes some insanity

 In every generation comes some insanity that seems to most intuitively obvious that all subsequent generations see for what it really is--utter lunacy. There are plenty of examples of system that seemed to be the highest of intellectual rigor which turned out to be confused delusions--Existentialism for example. Sigmund Freud  would be another example. Not a single thread of his theories has stood up to rigorous testing.  [That is even though at the time he was thought to be the equal of Einstein.] [Psychology has yet to prove that it has cured even one single person of any definable disease-despite the trillions of dollars that have been pored into it.] Communism was thought to bring in the golden age --the workers paradise. It was thought to be built not on theory, but rigorous  scientific facts. [The odd thing is that even Trotsky saw the Soviet system would produce 100 tractors and only 55 would actually work. ] The natives that Columbus encountered begged him to save them from the  Caribbean tribes ("Caribs") that were the most organized group that were eating them.  [Not exactly the noble savages in the delusions of Rosseau.] The Native Americans were busy at war with each other and enslaving each other  and  begging the Europeans for weapons. 

But other times things are not so clear to later generations. Steven Dutch pointed out that old insanities arise anew. Time is not the best test.

Why this comes up is that I have been trying to figure out some sort of justification for the Civil War. Let's say for example I have a wife, and one day she wants out. But I say, "Sure you can leave but only if I can keep keep your right arm." Few people would justify that. So the South entered into a voluntary agreement to be one nation with the North. But one day they want out. So we say, "Sure you can go as long as we kill a half a million of your men and leave you impoverished for the next 150 years."--and all for your own good. [Why have I been thinking about this is I have looked at President Grant's justification of the war. All for the good of the South.] 

And as far as slavery goes-It started because tribes of men have been at war one with another since the beginning of time. But some people decided that instead of killing the tribe that had been at war with--they would spare their lives. But not leave them so free as to be able again to attack them from the inside. Rather they would enslave them.   

Or lets say there is a Mad-Max situation. Civilization has collapsed. And you manage to get around you a group of people that are now just managing to grow crops and start anew. Out of the blue you are attacked. But you win. Do kill them? Or just let them go free to be able to attack you again? Or let them join your group and plot against you from within your gates? Or perhaps the more humane thing is to spare their lives but not give them enough freedom to be able to undermine you and attack you from within. 

In any case, I found the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter to be of the most benefit for me to understand the basic path of straight Torah.

People are not really moral though they have learned to talk in the language of morality. The basic idea of Musar is to awaken the inherent ability of Reason to discern objective morality. One basic idea of the book Light of Israel   is the centrality of Fear of God. His idea there is that it is impossible to enter into the gates of service of God without fear of God. The first time I read this I was looking at it during Musaf on Rosh Hashana at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. And that book was for me somewhat of a revolution in thought. I realized I was spending all my time and effort to get into the depths of the Gemara and here this book was opening up the secret. By fear of God [which comes by learning Musar (mediaeval books on ethics)] one merits to enter into the gates of Torah.

And that had a tremendous effect on me. However I can see why Rav Chaim of Brisk did not want Musar to be part of the learning sessions of a yeshiva.-It can and does get people off track--very quickly. 

So the Litvak yeshiva came up with some sort of compromise. The Goldilocks solution. [Not too hot nor too cold. Just right.] Not -- no Musar. Not hours of Musar. Just 20 minutes before mincha (afternoon prayer) and 15 minutes before arvit (evening prayer).

In any case, I found the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter to be of the most benefit for me to understand the basic path of straight Torah. 

Dale Comstock says an interesting idea in this video [around at 28 minutes into the video]. By the time one is 35 years old, 95 percent of one's programming is already built into one. [That is our way of thinking and the information we use to operate on is already set.] But about 50 percent of that is wrong. It is false information.

global warming

 I wanted to mention that global warming is not as high as it was during the time of the dinosaurs. [which was about twenty degrees higher in Celsius which is about 40 degrees higher in Fahrenheit.] Still I think the fact that the oceans are even a slight bit higher seems to cause an increase in parasites.

[I would agree that is the average temperature in Canada was 90 degrees Fahrenheit that there would be cause for concern.]

So even though I go into the water, still I think it is best to do so only once, and to get out of the water since these little parasites seems to get attached to the skin very quickly --and you can not see them.

I do not see others at the sea are worried about this, but still I think this is an issue. The Muslims had a festival last week and were siting in the water for hours. The surfers were out in force today. No one seems concerned about these little parasites. I used to worry more about the jelly fish but after actually touching one as it floated by and nothing happened -I realized that they are not the problem. It is these little parasites that no one seems even to be aware of. 

 

 In The Laws of Plato in book V, the Athenian stranger says the greatest penalty of evil doing is to become like evil doers and to have to hang out with them. We learn something the is brought in books of Musar that one tends to become like those he or she hangs around with.

Also a very interesting observation I found there: that the untrustworthy person ends up alone because eventually it becomes known that he can not be relied on to keep his word

Torah of the Dark Side of the religious world

 The problem with religious clothing is that it is not intended for the stated purpose. Rather the reason is group identification. And that comes under two of the seven categories of Prushim that are the destroyers of the world. [as brought in the Gemara and also in the book by Nisim Gaon Maasei Hagedolim Deeds of the Great in paragraph 740].[See the verse:מה השם אליך שואל ממך   והצנע לכת אם אלוקיך What does the Lord your God ask from you ---and to walk humbly with the Lord your God. That is one must not advertise how religious he or she is. The religious turn this into its opposite to mean that one must advertise one's religious  clothing to show that they are religious. 

והצנע means to hide. The religious advertise their religiosity showing that they could not care less about the Torah but rather the money and power they can make by pretending to seem as if they care.`

Fear of God and keeping his commandments is explained in the books of Musar. But what makes this difficult is the vast majority of the religious world that are into it for money and power and thus the naïve and plain  that do not know better fall into the trap of the  Torah of the Dark Side of the religious world that claim to be keeping Torah .

R. Hanina ben Tradion was killed and the Roman authorities decreed that his daughter must stay in house of prostitution. She was the sister of the wife of R. Meir [of the Mishna]. R. Meir went to redeem her. The owner said, "If I let you redeem her, and the authorities find out, they will kill me." R. Meir said: "Just say this prayer, 'May the God of R. Meir save me.'" The other asked how do I know that will work? RM said lets go and find out. They went to a building that was guarded by savage dogs. The prayer worked. So She was redeemed and later in fact the authorities found out and tried to arrest the owner nd he said the prayer and was saved. Then the authorities found out that it was R. Meir that had caused the trouble and tried to arrest him and he fled to Babylon [in modern day Iraq].

In stories of the sages you see nothing like "stories of tzadikim" that aim to elevate the subject. However in this case there is an aspect of seeing the greatness of one of the sages of the mishna. 

the Prushim [known in the New Testament as the "Pharisees."

I was in the Na Nach Breslov place yesterday  and noticed a book that brings lots of the stories of the Gemara and Midrash. מעשי גדולים. [The third vol by Nisim Gaon paragraph 740] There is brought a statement of the sages that there are seven kinds of Pharisees [Prushim] that are destroyers of the world.[note 1] And there Rav Nisim Gaon brings an event that gives an example of one type of Pharisee that one needs to be careful to avoid. One person was in a foreign country, and had made a lot of money in his work there. Then on his way home, he had to stay over Shabat in one town. He thought to himself, "To whom can I entrust my money over Shabat until Sunday?" He saw someone with all the religious clothing and gear and Talit and Tefilin that advertises that one is religious. He thought to himself "To whom better could I find trustworthy to entrust my money?" So he gave it to the religious guy to hold until after Shabat. On Sunday morning, he went to the fellow's house and asked for his money back. The fellow asked, "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life." 

Since that was all the money he had and for which he had worked for years, he was upset. He prayed to God: "I did not trust that man, I trusted in Your Name, the name of God that is written in the Tefilin. The Elisha the prophet came to him and said, "Go now to that man's house. He is not home and his wife will answer the door and tell her that her husband sent you to pick up the money, and give her certain signs." He did so and got his money back. When the husband returned home and found out what she had done he said, "Enough of this. Let's go back to our original faith"--[They were Samaritans] 

There are other statements of the Chazal [sages] that held the religious hypocrites are to be avoided and they specifically mention the Prushim [known in the New Testament as the "Pharisees." So we see that the groups Jesus was being critical of was not the sages of the Gemara nor their fore-runners. Rather the groups of the super religious just like you have nowadays with their show of religiosity to get money. They have nothing in common with the sages of the Mishna and Gemara.

[Besides that, I might mention that the religious clothing is for me the first sign to run away. ]

[note 1] The actual Gemara starts out that there are seven types of Pharisees that are destroyers f the world and then lists seven that wear out the world.  יש שבעה מיני פרושים שהם מכלה עולם ואלה הם השבעה שהם מבלה עולם. At any rate we see the sages of the Mishna did  not count themselves as part of teh group of the Pharisees. It is common for Christians to put these two groups together, but that is not correct. Nor did Jesus say anything against the sages of the mishna nor they actual forerunners who were the scribes. Not the groups of religious fanatics called the Pharisees. 

[There are however one or two places where it looks as though the prushim are joining with the scribes in being critical of Jesus. However in words of jesus himself you never find a negative word about the scibes. This goes to show what I have always been saying--that true Torah is only in the Litvak world. Not the general religious world which is insane.]

 What do you learn from Sota? This seems complicated though at first it sounds simple. The Gemara in the beginning of tractate Nida says you learn from Sota that a doubt about purity in a private domain is pure. In a public domain it is not. Tosphot asks If we are learning from Sota then why not say a doubt in  apublic domain is pure only when there is prior status of purity? Answer: Sota has no prior status of purity since she was with someone he husband told her not to be with. Questions Tosphot: if so then why say doubt in a private domain is not pure even when there is a status of purity? Answer: the Sota is not definitely unclean. And yet the verse counts her as being unclean until she drinks the bitter waters. [That is in the verse והיא נטמאה] Rav Shach asks here then why not say in a public domain a doubt is pure even when there is prior status of being unclean? [That is Rav Shach [in Laws of Sota] is asking from the standpoint of symmetry. The verse makes unclean in a private domain even against prior status so it ought to make clean in a public domain even against prior status.] This a powerful question. Answer: The Sota does not actually have prior status in a public domain of even being a doubt. [AS Rav Chaim of Brisk points out in his "Chidushei HaRambam" as Rav Shach brings here in Laws of Sota]. [The warning given by her husband is what makes all the laws of Sota come into play. Not that is is in fact any real doubt. As we see in Ketuboth page 9 that a doubt of  a doubt is enough to permit a wife when there was not warning. ]So you learn from Sota to allow a doubt in a public of cleanliness in a public domain--but not when there is an actual prior status of uncleanliness.

So what has been  bothering me is that in some ways you learn from Sota to things that are not like Sota at all.-e.g. doubts about if something is clean of not when there is no actual doubt in the case of a sota.

And yet here we are requiring an exact parallel to Sota. Since she has no prior status of being unclean so we would not learn from her to permit such a case in a public domain.

[I am being a bit short here but I think my question is clear. If we need an exact parallel to Sota to learn from her, then let's do that all the way. If we do not need a exact parallel, then let's do that all the way! Why this sort of divergence?] 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 What do you learn from סוטה? This seems complicated though at first it sounds simple. The גמרא in the beginning of tractate נידה says you learn from סוטה that a doubt about purity in a רשות היחיד is pure. In a public domain it is not. תוספות asks If we are learning from סוטה then why not say a ספק in  a public domain is טהור only when there is חזקת טהורה? Answer: סוטה has no חזקת טהרה since she was with someone he husband told her not to be with. תוספות שואלים: if so, then why say doubt in a private domain is טמא even when there is a חזקת טהרה? Answer: the סוטה is not definitely טמאה. And yet the verse counts her as being טמאה until she drinks the bitter waters. That is in the verse והיא נטמאה. Then רב שך asks here then why not say in a ספק ברשות הרבים  is pure even when there is חזקת טומאה? That is רב שך בהלכות סוטה is asking from the standpoint of symmetry. The verse makes unclean in a private domain even against חזקת טהרה so it ought to make clean in a public domain even against חזקת טומאה.] This a powerful question. Answer: The סוטה does not actually have חזקה in a public domain of even being a doubt. AS רב חיים מבריסק points out in his חידושי הרב''ם as רב שך brings here in הלכות סוטה]. The warning given by her husband is what makes all the laws of סוטה come into play. Not that is any real doubt. As we see in כתובות דף ט that a doubt of  a doubt is enough to permit a wife when there was not warning. So you learn from סוטה to allow a doubt in a רשות הרבים, but not when there is an actual חזקת טומאה. So what has been  bothering me is that in some ways you learn from סוטה to things that are not like סוטה at all -e.g. doubts about if something is clean או not when there is no actual doubt in the case of a סוטה. And yet here we are requiring an exact parallel to סוטה. Since she has no חזקת טומאה so we would not learn from her to permit such a case in a public domain. I am being a bit short here but I think my question is clear. If we need an exact parallel to סוטה to learn from her, then let's do that all the way. If we do not need a exact parallel, then let's do that all the way! Why this sort of divergence? 

מה אתה לומד מסוטה? זה נראה מסובך אם כי בהתחלה זה נשמע פשוט. הגמרא בתחילת מסכת נידה אומרת שאתה לומד מסוטה כי ספק טוהר ברשות היחיד הוא טהור. בתחום הציבורי זה לא. תוספות שואלת אם אנו לומדים מסוטה, אז למה לא לומר ספק ברשות הציבור הוא טהור רק כשיש חזקת טהורה? תשובה: לסוטה אין שום חזקת טהרה מאז שהיא הייתה עם מישהו שבעלה אמר לה לא להיות איתו. תוספות שואלים: אם כן, אז מדוע לומר ספק בתחום פרטי הוא טמא גם כשיש חזקת טהרה? תשובה: הסוטה היא לא בהחלט טמאה. ובכל זאת הפסוק מונה אותה כטמאה עד שהיא שותה את המים המרים. זה בפסוק והיא נטמאה. ואז רב שך שואל כאן אז למה לא להגיד  ספק ברשות הרבים טהור גם כשיש חזקת טומאה? זהו רב שך בהלכות סוטה שואל מנקודת מבט של סימטריה. הפסוק מטמא בתחום פרטי אפילו כנגד חזקת טהרה, ולכן הוא צריך לנקות ברשות הרבים אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. זו שאלה חזקה. תשובה: לסוטה אין למעשה חזקה בתחום הציבורי. היא אינה אפילו ספק. כמו שרב חיים מבריסק מציין בחידושים  שלו כמו שרב שך מביאו כאן בהלכות סוטה]. האזהרה שנתנה בעלה היא שגורמת לכל חוקי סוטה להיכנס בפעולה. לא שזה ספק אמיתי. כפי שאנו רואים בכתובות דף ט' כי ספק ספק ספיקא כדי להתיר לאישה כאשר לא הייתה אזהרה. אז אתה לומד מסוטה לטהר ספק ברשות הרבים, אבל לא כשיש חזקת טומאה בפועל. אז מה שהפריע לי הוא שבמובנים מסוימים אתה לומד מסוטה לדברים שבכלל אינם דומים לסוטה -דוגמא ספקות אם משהו נקי או לא כאשר אין ספק בפועל במקרה של סוטה. ובכל זאת כאן אנו דורשים מקבילה מדויקת לסוטה. מכיוון שאין לה חזקת טומאה ולכן לא נלמד ממנה להתיר מקרה כזה ברשות הרבים. אני קצת קצר כאן אבל אני חושב שהשאלה שלי ברורה. אם אנו זקוקים להקבלה מדויקת לסוטה כדי ללמוד ממנה, אז בוא נעשה את זה עד הסוף. אם אנחנו לא צריכים הקבלה מדויקת, אז בואו נעשה את זה לאורך כל הדרך! מדוע סוג זה של סטייה

I wanted to add here that Rav Shach has a very nice way to answer for the Rambam who holds both the law about the mikve [unclean in private and public domain] and grain that has not been tithed.-the way is this the Gemara says the Rabanan do not learn from the start of uncleanliness to the end. That means they do not learn everything from Sota--only one part. That part is in the private domain she is unclean until she drinks the bitter waters. And the Rabanan do not learn from her law in the public domain. If they would any doubt of uncleanliness in the public domain would be pure. But they do not learn from her that. Rather they say in teh public domain also a doubt about uncleanliness is  unclean. And this has nothing to do with two hazakot joining together. Rather they hold that two hazakot join together to make a doubt, not a definite case.. And thus the barrel that has gone sour  and tithe was taken from grain--the grain is a doubt because two hazakot join to make a doubt. A very clear answer to this very puzzling Rambam. 

Just to make this a bit more clear the Gemara asks this. A mikve can be a pool if the water that got into it was not carried. But it also can not be a vessel. and it must contain 40 seah.  

 't Hooft has an approach to Quantum Mechanics that is realistic. That is he derives the regular equations based on information loss of black holes which is a classical result. [That is what happens when black holes evaporate.] So it occurred to me that this is related to the ER= EPR conjecture in which all entangled states have worm holes connecting them. If this is so--as much evidence seems to indicate--then 't Hooft approach would be right.

And as Dr Kelley Ross pointed out that would be like Kant's empirical realism approach.[Empirical realism plus transcendental idealism.] And that is not like Bohr. That is in the debate between Einstein and Bohr, Einstein would be correct.

I have long thought that Rav Nahman is trying in the LeM to accomplish something along the lines that the Rambam was doing in the Guide for the Perplexed. While the Rambam was trying to find the right balance between Torah and Aristotle, Rav Nahman was trying to find the deeper meaning of Torah  in a way that relates to people. But I think that Rav Nahman is often taken out of context. I think it would be best to understand in him in a sense of continuing the Musar tradition of trying to see the practical implications of Torah and the big picture. 

I basically try to walk as much as I can in the path of my parents who were Reform Jews. That is ,-- I long for the the straight path of Torah, but I think the so called "religious" have nothing to do with Torah at all.

 I was reminded about the book Or Israel [The Light of Israel] on Rav Israel Salanter by his disciple Rav Isaac Blazer that had a powerful effect on me. I was thinking what was it? The basic thesis of the book is that the fear of God is the key to everything--all good in the world to come and to Torah.  I was struggling with Gemara at the Mir and I think that that was part of the effect this book had on me. It was giving me the key to come to understand Torah--and that is by fear of God which comes by learning Musar.  And even more so, it was showing that all good in the world to come is dependent on fear of God. People are not automatically moral. Rather--as Michael Huemer puts it, people are basically Amoral. They just learn to talk in moral terms but what really matters to them is not right and wrong what so ever. Only very few individuals have any real moral sense and because of them, others gain some vague sense of morality. [Kelley Ross would put it differently. He would say the people know moral principles but do not know that they know. This is Socratic ignorance that we do not know consciously  what we really deep inside do know. Our knowledge need to be brought into the open like the slave boy that did in fact know the answer to an geometric problem but did not know that he knew until Socrates by careful questioning brought his knowledge into the open.

[But I should add just for the sake of disclose that I basically try to walk as much as I can in the path of my parents who were Reform Jews. That is I  long for the the straight path of Torah, but I think the so called "religious" have nothing to do with Torah at all and if anything are on teh opposite extreme from Torah. All except teh straight Litvak yeshivot.]

z25 music file

 z25 C minor  midi   [z25 mp3]  [z25 nwc]

 The Gra said to Rav Chaim of Voloshin not to be afraid in the issues involved with the law--pesak din. Therefore I do not pay attention to what is politically correct in the religious world. When it comes to issue of the Law of the Torah --right against wrong, public opinion is worthless. 

I should add here that there is an amazing spirit of Torah that can be found in yeshivot that walk in the path of the Gra. [Commonly known as Litvak yeshivot because of coming from "Litva" as said in Russian  or "Lithuania" in English.] The way this can be understood is the idea of numinous. I am really not sure if any words can really capture the spirit of Torah that I felt in an immediate and powerful way. But I can see that it takes a certain sort of overcoming of obstacles to be able to stick with this path. Plus a kind of appreciation for it that I fell from. But for right now I would like to try just to convey this kind of power of holiness that can be found in such places. [Though I can see that a lot depends on the place --since they are not all so great, and the person.] So perhaps I might just mention my own experience. I was in one Litvak yeshiva Shar Yashuv where I really began to feel this intense aspect of Torah. I could draw myself away from learning Gemara only with great difficulty.  The same goes for the Mir in NY. That also had this sort of intense feeling of the primal necessity to learn and keep Torah in the most simple straightforward way. I fell from this after a few years, but those years were something I imagine the Garden of Eden must be like.

 I noticed that the old Orion idea of using atomic energy to power space flight is back.

Also see this NASA site

  My feeling about space flight is that it is great and important, --that is to have a base on the Moon and Mars, but for a long time I have hoped there would be some insight on how to get to the stars. Part of my motivation for learning the Physics of String Theory is is that hope. [Also there is the opinion of some medieval authorities that learning Physics and Metaphysics is a part of learning Torah]. But the main hope for getting to the stars seems to me to be due to a suggestion that ER=EPR that is an Einstein Rosen Bridge is the same thing that keeps atoms entangled.   If this is true, then there are plenty of wormholes around. The question would be then how to expand them and put them together and then get them to attach themselves to "somewhere else". 

i do not know if my dad was involved in this particular project, though there were projects between the U-2 and Star Wars SDI that he was involved with but they were so top secret that he did not share anything about his work with his children. The only thing i knew about was his camera on the U-2 and the later work at TRW on Star Wars,--In between i was aware later that he also was involved in top secret projects for the USA government but never knew what they were. [It was not that he was so educated.  True he had gone to Cal-Tech. But the fact is that the USA wanted his talents in inventing stuff- not because of any academic degrees, but because in invention  he was a genius as they had already seen in his inventing the Infra Red Telescope.  

Even though the Musar movement was based on the idea of learning the four basic Musar books חובות לבבות, אורחות צדיקים, שערי תשובה, מסילת ישרים ,  I found the Light Of Israel and other books by the disiples of Rav Israel Salanter to be of the most help to me. Musar also helps to understand what Torah is all about. It is all too easy to go off on confused  directions because of lack of understanding the hierarchy of principle in Torah.  

[Though I do find the books of Rav Nahman very helpful even though they are  not a part of the regular Musar books still I should add that I think Rav Nahman is mostly good if people already have a good background in Gemara, the Ari, and Musar. --But I do not deny that he can be helpful for everyone also. Still without the prerequisites, there is a tendency to go off in odd directions.

[Musar is based on the idea of learning these books of morals from the Middle Ages, Obligations of the Hearts, Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous and also the book of Rav Moshe Haim Lutzato The Ways of the Just.

 There is a connection between Devekut [attachment with God] and learning Torah even though this is often denied. In fact I think that the sort of learning in depth at Shar Yashuv and the Mir were for me a sort of bridge towards a deep attachment --devekut [attachment with God]. But talking with people you always hear how learning Torah is dry intellectualism as opposed to real attachment with God. I think this dichotomy is false. In fact I believe the only real path towards authentic attachment with God is by learning Torah.

And the enemies of the Gra and the straight Litvak path  I think are in deep self delusion that their idiocies somehow amount to attachment with God. In fact, you can see the exact opposite of their claims. Good character is connected with true attachment with God. Since good honest character is found in the Litvak world therefore by definition that is where you will find true attachment with God. [I am not saying good character is universal in the Litvak world but rather that it characterizes that world. Exceptions do not discount the rule.] [I admit the Dark Side has enter into the Litvak world. however there still is a trace of authentic Torah.]

 The actual source from where Rav Nahman [Breslov] (LeM vol I ch 12 annd 28 ) brings the idea of Torah scholars that are demons does not say that exact idea. The actual Zohar [Parshat Pinchas] does say there are demons that are expert in Torah. But then Rav Nahman deduces that since there are Jewish demons and Gentile demons thus it seems that these demons can enter into people and take over their minds and souls. Actually there are plenty of examples as we know about some murderers that actually feel that their minds were taken over. 

The problem with demonic Torah scholars I think is that they ruin the reputation of Torah when it becomes clear to people what they actually are under the fancy clothing and pretense. [This is think is the reason you see this subject raised in the LeM  so many times.--Not however always in the same way. Sometimes he talks about מפרסמים של שקר famous religious leaders that are deceivers. Sometimes he talks about not giving authority to those who are not fit. 

My impression is that if people would simply pay attention to the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication and to Rav Shach, they they would be better off. After all the general Litvak yeshiva world is about straight Torah with no pretenses or claims. What you see is what you get.

[There is no question that Rav Nachman undderstands that there are demonic forces in the world a a large portion of them occupy the souls of people that look and act like Torah scholars. Thee is however a way to be saved from them and that is by  faith in the wise. That is to believe that the Gra must have had some reason for putting his signature on the letter of excommunication even if we may not understand the reason right now. --However I think I can see the reason. The Gra saw through the façade of deception.

 It is an odd sort of fact that western sort of approaches have the parents being not very worthy of respect.--starting with the faith of the Greeks where the child of Chaos kills him and takes over the throne. Then his child kills him... etc. A whole series of children killing their father until you get to Zeus.

 This is so much different than Confucius where you find the root of all virtue is piety towards ones parents--emulating their ways and actually serving them in gratitude for all they did for him or her even much more before they can remember.

[One thing you see in Confucius is an important point-is that  baalei teshuva [people that have left the way of their parents in order to join the religious] are by definition wicked. And you can see this. This is the reason why the great yeshivas like Brisk do not accept baali teshuva-- after all, if they can abandon the path of their parents, they can not be stable decent human beings. [No matter how religious they imagine themselves.]

 I was reading a bit more about the wife of Rav Kinyevsky [she passed away 17 Tishrei] and noted an interesting fact. That he would make a sium [a small party in honor of finishing a tractate] every year on the whole Shas, that is the regular Gemara [Babylonian ] and also the Yerushalmi [Written in Tiberias] with the rishonim [medieval authorities] and some achronim [authorities after the Middle Ages]. That would be on the day before Passover. And the wine from that party would be called the sium wine and people would save it and later apply it as a remedy for different kinds of maladies.

It puts a sort of nostalgia in me for the golden years that I was in two great yeshivas where Torah was learned for its own sake.  [Both in NY , Shar Yashuv and Mirrer.]

[This however was not exactly like the path of my parents who had great respect for Torah, but their path was more along the line of emphasizing other aspects of Torah like "to be  a mensch"[decent human being], to be self reliant--never to ask or accept charity. My dad had gone to Cal Tech, and I certainly showed a lot of interest in following him in that path when I was young. 

So nowadays I try to walk in this sort of middle path of trying to learn Torah along with Math and Physics as I think my parents would have approved of.

Rav Kinyevsky  is the son of the Steipler who wrote some great books on Shas and who was one of the great sages of the Litvak world which walk more or less in the path of the Gra. (Not enough so , since they ignore the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I never got into the books of the Steipler since they were around in yeshivot when I was just trying to manage with Gemara Rashi and the Maharsha. Much less get into achronim. Only much later when I was learning with David Bronson did I learn --or relearn- the path of study in depth .

I should mention that learning Torah seems to require a wife that appreciates that approach. While the way of learning Torah for its own sake --and not receive money for doing so-still there a need for wife that appreciates this service of learning Torah. 

 A Zava (a woman who has seen blood more than seven days) needs living waters [-a sea or spring,-- not a regular mikve ( a place where rain waters have collected). So if we are worried about Ziva [seeing blood for longer than seven days]--which apparently we are since we require seven clean days, then why not also require a spring or sea? 

The wife of Rav Kinyevsky

I noticed in the book about the wife of Rav Kinyevsky a point about "bitul Torah". [Bitul Torah means not learning Torah when one can.] What I could gather from the book is that she held strongly to the idea that you see in the Gemara that a good wife is one who helps her husband to learn Torah. I forget the exact Gemara but from what I can recall it goes something like this: טל אורות טלייך ["The dew of lights is your dew."] Who will rise in the time of the revival of the dead? One who has the dew of Torah.  If so, then how can women merit to the revival of the dead? By enabling their husbands to learn Torah and by bringing up their children to learn Torah. 

So this is apparently what she did. There is brought lots of stories in that book showing this. She would heat and reheat the meals of her husband so that when he would get home it would be already warm so he could have his meal immediately and then get back to learning.  When there was almost nothing to eat, she would make a full meal for her husband and for herself have just bread and margarine. One time someone wanted to talk with her husband when he was learning and she said, "He is learning now." They countered this with, "What would be the big deal to spend a few minutes away from learning?" She answered "Do you want my husband to be an am haaretz (ignoramus)?"  

{I recall this sort of atmosphere at the Mir and in Shar Yashuv. However over the years I have taken a slightly different approach. That is what you see in some rishonim that Physics and Metaphysics and a part of the commandment of learning Torah.] [Even  the Gra held that ignorance of any fact in the seven wisdoms causes ignorance in Torah a hundred fold.]

 Even though there are great people like the Litvak sages, e.g. Rav Kinyevsky and others that are devoted to Torah for its own sake, still the religious world is a sort of nightmare. That is to say that some are sincerely devoted to serving God, still the general group character is a  kind of problem. There is a sort of attempt to present themselves as righteous as a group. This is obvious. Yet the fact is there are very few that are in fact like Rav Kinyevsky. The majority are just regular mammals. Not particularly good.

For a test run one ought to spend one day living in Mea Shearim and then see how all the love bombing is all a façade. I can think of no worse nightmare than the religious being in control.. And I know this from the experience of many, many people who have experienced what the religious world is really like minus all the pretense.

What is however true and great is the holy Torah, and that is in fact important. But the religious themselves are the in the business of using the appearance of keeping rituals of Torah to make money and gain power. They are as righteous as a Venus fly trap.

[If you are young and naïve there is a lot of effort spent on trapping you into a net in which there is no escape. But the reality is the religious world is a Kafkian nightmare. I hope than when I discuss the importance of learning and keeping Torah , that I do not sound as if I am giving any sort of approval of the religious world which is the opposite of Torah.]

Rav Elyashiv

 I am really not very aware of the great Litvak sages [gedolim] that are around nowadays. It is only by a sheer miracle that I have heard of Rav Shach.

But today I was in the Na Nach place and saw an interesting book about the wife of Rav Kinevsky. [Sadly she passed away this year.] [Rav Kinyevsky I think is the son of the author of the series of books called Kehilat Yaakov. I saw that book when I was in Shar Yashuv but did not have much of a chance to learn it.] 

At any rate there is a nice story I saw in that book. Rav Elyashiv is apparently one of the present day Litvak sages. [From what I understood from that book he is apparently a grandson of the Leshem, a commentary on the Eitz Chaim.] 

So the story goes like this. There is a fellow who was married for ten years but did not have children. So he and his wife agreed to divorce. Then right after the divorce, it turned out that she was already pregnant. That means there was no reason to divorce in the first place. But sadly enough he is a Koken [priest] so he is not allowed to remarry. A kohen can not marry a divorced woman as you can see in the Book of Leviticus [in the section of Emor].  So he went to Rav Elyashiv. Rav Elyashiv told him to go to the Western Wall. Though that seems to have  nothing to do with the problem at hand still this fellow had "faith in the sages" so he went there and prayed his heart out. Then someone there walked over to him and asked what he is crying about. He said, "It does not matter there is nothing anyone can do to help me." The fellow that walked over to him was stubborn and kept insisting that he tell him what is the matter. So finally he gave in and told him. That fellow that had walked over to him then said to him, "You need to go to your father." [His father was in a hospital in the USA]. This also seemed to have no bearing on teh issue at hand. Still in his confidence in the advice of Rav Elyashiv he decided to go visit his father.  When he got to the USA it was in fact close to the end of the life of his father. He got to the hospital.  When he walked into his father's room his father told him it is very good that he came just then because he had something to tell him that he had never told him before. But since he knew it was time to leave this world , he decided he must tell him. That he is adopted.  That means that he really is not a kohen in the first place. Thus he returned to Israel and remarried his wife.

 

 In Rav Shach's Laws of Gitin chapter 1 law 25 he brings Tosphot Gitin page 86. The Mishna says a divorce document with no witnesses but written by the hand of the husband is not valid. Tosphot says the reason is because of the time. Rav Shach explains that means Tosphot would be going by the present status to push the time of the divorce backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from teh death penalty.  So this is what Tosphot means. If the doc would be his own writing with no time on it we would think to put the time in the past and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to Tosphot this is only the opinion of R Meir (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not R Elazar (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like R. Elazar. So the law is the writing of his own hand with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to Tosphot.]

My question here is that even R Elazar might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that Rav Shach is holding that R Elazar goes by prior status  and R Meir by present status. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that Rav Shach is saying the argument about the status is what cause the argument about the writing of his own hand. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the signing witnesses is what causes the validity to depend on present status. 

[Sorry if I am being a bit short on details here. Just to fill in one issue that might cause confusion, let me say  that "status now" means what is the state of being now you assume goes back in time. Status from the being means going forward. So e.g. you have a married woman who commits adultery. Then shows up with a divorce doc. You do not know when it was given. If you go back the status now then you assume that what is the state now was probably the state as far back in time until the minute you know it was not the case. So At least there is a doubt that at the time of the act perhaps she was not married and therefore not liabe to the death penalty. But if you go by prior status then you assume she was married until the minute she shows up with the doc.]

___________________________________

 In רב שך's Laws of גיטין chapter 1 law 25 he brings תוספות גיטין page 86. The Mishna says a גט divorce document  כתב ידו is not valid. תוספות says the reason is because of the time. רב שך explains that means תוספות would be going by the present status חזקא דהשתא to push the time of the גט backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a גט divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from  death penalty.  So this is what תוספות means. If the גט would be his own writing with no time on it, we would think to put the time in the past, and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to תוספות this is only the opinion of ר' מאיר (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not ר' אלעזר (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like ר' אלעזר. So the law is the כתב ידו with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to תוספות. My question here is that even ר' אלעזר might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that רב שך is holding that R Elazar goes by חזקא מעיקרא  and ר' מאיר by חזקא דהשתא. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that רב שך is saying the argument about the חזקות is what cause the argument about the כתב ידו. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the עדי חתימה כרתי to depend on חזקא דהשתא. 

____________________________________________________________________________

בהלכות גיטין של רב שך פרק 1 הלכה 25 הוא מביא את תוספות גיטין עמוד פ''ו. המשנה אומרת כי  גט של כתב ידו אינו תקף. תוספות אומר שהסיבה היא בגלל הזמן. רב שך מסביר שפירוש התוספות הוא שהסטטוס הנוכחי חזקא דהשתא דוחף את הזמן של הגט לאחור בזמן. [הסיבה שיש זמן בגט היא מכיוון שהוא עלול להתחתן עם בת אחיו והיא עלולה לנאוף ומכיוון שהיא קרובת משפחתו הוא היה כותב מסמך גירושין אחרי זמן של הניאוף עם זמן מוקדם כדי להציל אותה מעונש מוות.] אז זה מה שתוספות אומר. אם הגט היה הכתיבה שלו ללא זמן עליו, היינו חושבים לשים את הזמן בעבר, וכך היא לא תחויב בעונש מוות על ניאוף. אך לתוספות זו רק דעתו של ר' מאיר (העדים החתומים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין), ולא ר' אלעזר (שהעדים הרואים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין). והחוק כמו ר' אלעזר. אז החוק הוא כתב ידו ללא זמן וללא עדים תקף. [כתיבת ידו שלו תופסת את מקומם של עדים לתוספות. השאלה שלי כאן היא שאפילו ר' אלעזר עשוי להחזיק שאנחנו הולכים לפי הסטטוס הנוכחי כדי לדחוף את זמן הגירושין אחורה בזמן. אני מתכוון לומר שרב שך קובע כי ר' אלעזר מחזיק  בחזקא מעיקרא ור' מאיר בחזקא דהשתא. אני חושב שזה לא משתמע בטיעון שלהם לגבי איזו קבוצת עדים גורמת לתוקף הגירושין. אבל אני יכול לראות שרב שך מכווין שהוויכוח על החזקות הוא הגורם לוויכוח על כתב היד. אך למרות זאת, קשה לראות כי הדעה  שעדי חתימה כרתי תלויה בחזקת דהשתא

 I have been thinking about an argument between the Rashbam and the Ramban [Nachmanides] if a divorce document needs to have the time of its writing put into it. [In Rav Shach, Laws of Divorce perek I chapter 25]

The Rashbam [Shmuel ben Meir,  a grandson of Rashi] holds it never needs the time in it. The only opinion that holds it needs the time is R. Meir who holds the witnesses on the document cause the divorce to become valid. But the law goes like R. Elazar that the witnesses that see the giving of the document to the woman cause the validity of the divorce.  So he would hold there is no worry about the daughter of his brother.  [The opinion that holds the reason the time is in the document is because of the fact that he might have married the daughter of his brother, and then she might have committed adultery. Then, since she is his relative, he might write a divorce document, and put in a time before the time of the adultery to save her from the death penalty.] But to R. Elazar there is no worry about that because if there is not time in the document, then we would assume she was married until right now and thus there is not worry about the daughters of his brother.  

What occurred to me today was this question. Why does this have to do specially with the opinion of R Elazar?  I think the idea is that R Meir not have the same idea--that we would assume the divorce did not happen until the last minute. So the time needs to be put in so that he does not put in a latter time. But would not the same go for R. Elazar? He could have a divorce now and have no time in it and later put in a time? That is to say I am not really clear about what the explanation of Rav Shach is here.

 The way the Native Americans are presented in schools nowadays seems to leave out half the story. I noticed this concerning the Iroquois. Their genocide of the Erie, and later attempt to do the same to the Shawnee is simply left out of the story.   

[I am just mentioning one example. Of people are going to learn about the history of the Native Americans, then it ought to be done right and thoroughly, or not at all.]

 Rav Avraham Abulafia is unknown to most people.  partly because he is considered a "mekubal" the last thing he would have liked to be known as. He wrote--''the Christians believe in three gods, and the mekubalim in ten.'' And until today you can see he was right. I was in the Breslov place today and learned LeM 33 and tried to explain that God is beyond time and space since these two are His creations. One can not say ''God is here,'' nor that he is absent from here since neither predicate are applicable to Him.  Most people that learn the LeM of Rav Nahman seem to think that pantheism is correct, but in spite of this being not the Torah approach it is also incorrect from the aspect that has no plurality in Him. If everything is God, then one introduces a plurality into Divine simplicity--(Divine simplicity means that God is not a composite. He has no predicates. Not time nor space, nor any sort of ingredients.

[Just to be clear--God has no characteristics that can be applicable to finite beings--as Saddia gaon makes clear.

There is no such thing as tolerance.

 There is no such thing as people that do not have a cut off point... of what is acceptable and what is not. There is no such thing as tolerance. The Left will not tolerant the political right. Everyone has some cut off point of what they will tolerate and what they will not. Often it will be a case of self deception. Where people are congratulating themselves of how tolerant they are by not tolerating the intolerant. (I wish they would see the logical contradiction in that.) [This is not my own new idea. I heard this in Uman by a fellow that I had  known in Safed. ]

Maybe you can see this in people that will not tolerant "racism" in whites, but hate males or whites etc. But This is just one example. I am sure most people an find examples of their own. There is no such thing as tolerating a little bit of cyanide in your chocolate pudding. 

z24 E major 

 I have been mulling over in my mind back and forth  the subject of documents. It is something that at first seems like a direct contradiction that I must have seen plenty of times but never paid attention to the fact that these two statements directly contradict. One is עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמו נחקרה עדותן בבית דין (witnesses signed on a document are as if their testimony was already investigated and confirmed in court. ) and the another statement is מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. (from their mouths, not from their writing.) I would never have noticed this if I did not see in the Avi Ezri  this exact issue. [In Laws of Gitin] chapter I halacha 24.] 

The law  is that in a "get" (divorce) document there is time.

The  sanhedrin there is a mishna that monetary laws need to be investigated and verified.  The gemara right there asks if so why are loans OK if the time put on them is after the actual loan was made? The gemara answers so as to not shut the door in front of people that want to borrow money. [That is-to lessen the restrictions] The Nemukai Yoseph asks then want about a get or kidushin?

Rav Chaim of Brisk answers there are documents that cause an event.-like gitin or kidushin or a document of  a present. This type is what the gemara refers to as עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמו נחקרה עדותן בבית דין (witnesses signed on a document are as if their testimony was already investigated and confirmed in court.  The another type of document is simply a proof that an event happened--like a loan. For that we know that it needs to be verified by bringing in the witnesses. This seems to answer the question of the Nemukai Yoseph. However Nahmanides/ the Ramban however disagrees with this sort of division. To him documents of loans are also regular documents. You do not divide between them and documents of kidushin. So the whole answer of Rav Chaim falls off in this case.[]

Rav Shach answers a different answer.  He notes that sometimes documents involve a court case that needs to be investigated.--a "din Torah". That can mean loans  or documents of presents. These are  cases where the doc. is a doc. but loans have the advantage that the sages lessened the requirements in order not to shut the door. But cases like kidushin do not need a court and so do not require verification in the first place in a court. So you would not even need to say "witnesses signed on a document are as if their testimony was already investigated and confirmed in court"--because you do not even need a court.

 I wanted to mention some of the major aspects of the path of the Gra. (1) Learning Torah is the most essential part of it. It is not just from his comment on the Mishna in Peah אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור וכו'.. ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם והגמרא ירושלמי אומרת שאין לו שיעור היינו אפילו על ידי דבר [דיבור] אחר מן התורה אדם מקיים את המצווה של לימוד התורה. [These are the things that have no measure... and learning Torah is equal to them all. The Talmud Yerushalmi says that means no lowest measure. That is even by one word of Torah one fulfills the commandment of learning Torah.] Rather the spirit of Torah is embedded in the path of the Gra. Learning in depth also is an essential part of the Gra's path, i.e. Tosphot, Maharsha , R. Akiva Eiger, the Ketzot etc.

(2) Not to speak lashon hara. [i.e. not to speak evil about others.]

(3) Trust in God --as you can see in the Madragat HaAdam who brings the comment of the Gra on Mishlei.

(4) Great caution in dinei mamonot --monetary laws--Choshen Mishpat.

[5] "The seven wisdoms". This is a forgotten part of the Gra. Most people assume that math and physics are not in the Gra's approach. But you can see that it is in the intro of the translation of Euclid by Baruch of Shkolov who was a disciple of the Gra. There he quotes the Gra: "For every lack of knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms, one will lack a hundred fold more in Torah."]

There is some sort of problem with Torah scholars that are demons [mentioned in the Zohar parshat Pinchas that seems to cloud the issue of keeping Torah. [This often comes up in conversations with people that have found their lives irretrievably ruined due to these so called Torah scholars. This is an amazingly popular subject among people that have tried to keep Torah, but then find that the supposed representatives of Torah are demons--in the picturesque language of Rav Nahman. ] That is you might find a person that is seriously devoted to keeping Torah, But then he encounters one of these demons that dress and talk like true Torah scholars. This makes the whole possibility of keeping and learning Torah difficult. For he might fall for the deception and be pulled into the net of the demons, or he might give up on the whole possibility of learning and keeping Torah.   At least it is helpful to know that someone deals with this problem as is brought in the LeM of Rav Nahman. [Lem vol I 12and 28. But also mentioned many times in the LeM, e.g., vol I 61 or vol II perek 1 and perek 8. ] Even of one is suffering from the troubles caused to him or her by being fooled and tricked by these Torah scholars that are demons, still it is a comfort to know that he or she is not alone. 

One solution to this problem is the yeshivas founded in the path of the Gra, i.e. straight Torah with no pretenses. However the demons have extended their reign so far as to enter, and sometimes even take over these basically good places. I personally have not found a solution to this problem except to try to learn Torah in my own space--as far as I am able--which is not very much.

[I might mention here that in fact I am not in a place where there is any straight Litvak yeshiva. If there was, I might very well change my approach and try to learn there. I have hear that there are extensions of Ponovitch in different areas. but I have not heard of anything like that near my area. Recently. I saw  a group from the Aderet Eliyahu [based on the Gra] just visiting from Jerusalem, but so far I have not heard of any real presence of a Gra sort of yeshiva in this area. [I might add to learn the the Birchat Shmuel--also a disciple of Rav  Chaim of Brisk and Rav Naftali Troup. I do not know of learning these could take the place of  an authentic Litvak yeshiva but nowadays, learning at home might be the only possibility because the immense confusion that exists in the Torah world.   

[I should mention that Torah scholars that are demons  is a wide spread problem in the Torah world. It is almost impossible to avoid unless one learns at home. So what one might do is simply get some of the basic Torah books, e.g. the Chidushei of Rav Chaim of Brisk  and learn at home.[Or the book of Rav Shimon Skopf, or the Avi Ezri.]  

The Ari'zal [Rav Isaac Luria] says in this world the evil is the majority. So if one finds that someone is presented as a great tzadik, the likelihood is that he is a demon

 should at least be taken as a possibility.

Trotsky said to the Politburo, they should tax people, but let them keep what they own.

 Trotsky in his autobiography recounts an amazing detail. In 1920 he told the Politburo that unless they got off of "war communism"  and stopped confiscating goods the economy would collapse. He says they should  tax people, but let them keep what they own. (Hey! So what about Communism?)) So he noticed the problem. There was no incentive to work in the communist system except fear of arrest and prison. But no positive motivation. Why work if all your needs are given for free?

[However I wonder if he ever wondered about the system he helped put in place. ]

 When things do not go my way I wonder what I did wrong. After all this is an open Gemara in tractate Shabat אין ייסורים בלי עוון "there are no troubles without sin."

I figure that my major sins are probably hidden from me since that is the nature of sin--to cloud one's vision. Still, I figure that at least there are a few I am well aware of. And I think that if I could at least correct some of the smaller ones, maybe I could eventually get to the bigger ones.

So I came up with a list of four major sins that I am sure were really sins. Not just from book learning, but from results of those sins. When I went through this process in my mind I think I was in Uman, Then sometime later I decided to add a fifth sin to the list--bitul Torah [not learning Torah when one can]. Or more exactly walking away from the straight path of the Gra and Musar of Israel Salanter. 

The other four I am not sure if I should write down here because they might not be applicable to others. However, I do not think I have really been able to correct the sin of bitul Torah very well. And even to suggest to others how to go about avoiding bitul Torah does not seem simple. To support yeshivas that walk in  the path of the Gra should be the simplest way, or to start one's own group that walks in the path of the Gra.  [There are some places like that. For example the Aderet Eliyahu in the old city of Jerusalem. Then there are Litvak yeshivas which tend towards the Gra to some degree. Those are a mixed bunch. Some Litvak yeshivas are great like Ponovitch and Brisk. [I myself was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY and both I think are also very great. Both were learning in depth but in  different ways. Shar Yashuv was like looking at Tosphot through an electron microscope. The Mir in NY was like  looking at Shas in a global way--something like you will see in the books of Rav Chaim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri]    

what is decreed for one will happen anyway no matter what. Navardok [the disciple of Rav Israel Salanter, Joseph Yosel Horwitz]

 So how much effort should one expend to get to his goals? None at at all? Or trust in God? This seems ambiguous. The way the Madragat HaAdam [the disciple of Rav Israel Salanter, Joseph Yosel Horwitz] understands things is that what is decreed for one will happen anyway no matter what. But more often it seems that it is by trust that one needs no effort. Even if this can no be right still it is useful to conceive as if trust takes the place of effort. And does a better job.

[I am not dealing here with the opinion of Ibn Pakuda that one should expend effort, but also trust in God--the very thing the Gra says not to do. But ven Ibn Pakuda agrees that when one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah there is removed from him the yoke of work,

And the "yoke  of Torah" includes Physics and Metaphysics as stated in Ibn Pakuda and Rambam.