increase in parasites

 Global warming seems to affect the seas in such a way that there is an increase in parasites.  Most people have heard of this in terms of fish in the North Sea -and Salmon. But they can get under the skin of people also. The way to deal with this is this: If you see something that looks like a sore after going in the water it is possible it is a parasite. These sorts of creatures do not like to be squeezed. But just squishing them is not enough. After squishing that area one should apply alcohol.

[The squishing is to get rid of the protective liquid they set up as a defense. You have to get rid of that liquid first. Then rub the  alcohol into that area --and that gets rid of the parasites.]

[If this does not seem  like the subject for a blog let me mention the Gemara in Hulin סכנתא חמירא מאיסורא "One must be stricter about danger than prohibitions."

Most secular studies are bitul Torah.

 Most secular studies are bitul Torah. As for the issue of making a living, Rav Shach said one should learn Torah until one is married, and then just take whatever job presents itself. [But Physics and Math would be considered as a part of learning Torah according to the Rambam in the Mishna Torah where he says one should divide the day into three: the Written Law, The Oral Law, and the Gemara- and he adds the subjects he brought in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah are in the category of Gemara] [The Rambam and Ibn Pakuda  also hold this idea with Metaphysics. What Ibn Pakuda means is clear--right there on the first page of the Chovot Levavot. But later on Metaphysics went beyond Plato and Aristotle to include Kant and Hegel. 

Rav Nathan, the disciple of Rav Nahman of Breslov got to Israel. The disciples of the Gra were the people that extended hospitality to him.

 Rav Nathan, the disciple of Rav Nahman of Breslov got to Israel. The first place he visited was Safed. The disciples of the Gra were the people that extended hospitality to him. These were not simply Litvaks. They were the actual disciples of the Gra. See "The Days of Rav Natan " vol II, paragraph 134.  It is hard to know if Rav Natan was aware of this.  The head of that group in Safed was Rav Israel of Shkolev and he was a direct disciple of the Gra.

 Another interesting fact about Rav Nathan. On his way to Israel he was cheated by someone who was supposedly helping him get a ticket. And his trip was delayed because of this. Then after R. Natan became aware of this he said something so characteristic of the Litvak mentality I can not refrain from writing it down. על הכסף אני מוחל לך אבל על הביטול תורה שגרמת לי איני מוחל  ובוודאי השם ישלם לך לפי גמולך  ימי מוהרנ''ת For the money I forgive you. But for the Bitul Torah that you caused to me I do not forgive you. [That is for the time I could have been learning Torah but was wasted because of you, I do not forgive you]

  People will always look for prior events in someone's life to explain why they turned to crime.   Yet as any parent will tell you--kids are different from the very first day they are born.  Maybe some of that is DNA. Maybe some of it is from the the inborn soul. [In modern idiotic thought, the soul is non existent. This is due to a very unscientific idea called "scientism" that only what science knows is true. And that view is the opposite of science which assumes that we do not know, and tries to find out what we do not know. Science itself does not assume it is all knowing.  So on one hand, I can see why the Left tries to create a situation in which there is no hierarchy. Everyone has the same amount of stuff- so that their external experiences will all be the same. {Thus "equality"  in the amount of stuff is the goal of Leftists.} Still this disagrees with the inherent differences in DNA and in the soul. And it ignores lobsters which also have a hierarchy as Jordan Peterson points out. [as do all mammals] The hierarchy of lobsters does not come from capitalism. And Communism did not get rid of hierarchies and who would be on top and then second to that etc. Trotsky found out the hard way that Communism did not get rid of hierarchy. He had a simple word to say for him to be the top. He was the leader of the Petrograd Soviet. And that was the top soviet in the USSR and was offered the top job. [He was offered by Lenin to be to leader of the USSR.] He declined because he believed the only hierarchy should be the working people as opposed to the welfare recipients. [i.e the non workers]. He di not think anyone should be on top\except the Central Committee.

The Communist ideal did not lead to an increase in prosperity and freedom which were its stated goals. [This is in spite of the fact that many people in czarist Russia wanted stability before freedom  and prosperity which is why they supported the Bolsheviks] 

אבי עזרי הלכות גיטין פרק ב' הלכה ט'

  רב שך asks on the גר''א. I was at the sea and contemplating this question and it occurred to me a surprising thing that רב שך had a ready made answer to this question which he had just stated before! The basic issue is this: The  שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק רמ''ג ס''ק י''א brings a "some say". The case is one says to two people write a שטר and by it take possession of my field. This alternate opinion holds he can not change his mind about the שטר. [The previous opinion was that he could change his mind]. The גר''א in his notes there ס''ק י''ד brings the source of this alternate opinion from גיטין פרק ג. That a woman can make a messenger to receive her גט even though it has not been written yet.  The questions are these: אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם a person can not cause possession [cause to be possessed or to possess] of  something that has not yet entered into this world. And the source that the גר''א brings for this does not seem to answer this difficulty since the woman is making a messenger which is an extension של her יד. She is not now causing the גט to be possessed. The answer  I believe starts with the observation that the שליח קבלה is not a general messenger, but rather specifically for  גט which has not yet come into the world. But that is just the beginning of the answer. The total answer to the גר''א comes from the very idea that רב שך brings in that law in הלכות גיטין פרק ב' הלכה ט. That is the case where a man says to two people to write a גט and give it to his wife. In this case he is making them messengers on the total divorce process, not specially on the writing of the גט. This is exactly the same thing in that opinion in the שלחן ערוך חושן משפט רמ''ג and also in the law that the גר''א brings. When one says write a שטר and by it  קונה my field, he is not making them specially agents for the writing, but rather agents to cause possession. And that is the same thing with the law the גר''א brings. She is not making her an agent to receive that specific גט but rather any שטר that causes her to become divorced.

רב שך שואל על הגר''א. הנושא  הוא זה:  השלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק רמ''ג סעיף י''א מביא דעה כזו. המקרה הוא אחד אומר לשני אנשים כתבו שטר ובאמצעותו  תקנו את השדה שלי ["כתבו שטר וזכו בו"]. הדעה החלופית הזו גורסת שהוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו לגבי המסמך. [הדעה הקודמת הייתה שהוא יכול לשנות את דעתו]. הגר''א בהערותיו שם ס''ק י''ד מביא את מקור הדעה החלופית הזו מגיטין ריש פרק התקבל שאישה תוכל לעשות שליח לקבל את הגט שלה למרות שזה עדיין לא נכתב. השאלות הן אלה: אדם אינו יכול לגרום קניין [לגרום להחזקה או להחזיק] בדבר שטרם נכנס לעולם. והמקור שהגר''א מביא לכך אינו עונה על הקושי הזה כיוון שהאישה עושה שליח שהוא הרחבה של יד שלה. היא לא גורמת כעת לרכוש את הגט. התשובה מתחילה בהתבוננות שהשליח קבלה אינו שליח כללי אלא דווקא עבור גט שטרם הגיע לעולם. אבל זו רק ההתחלה של התשובה. התשובה הכוללת לגר''א באה מעצם הרעיון שרב שך מביא את בהלכות גיטין פרק ג' הלכה ט'. זה המקרה שבו אדם אומר לשני אנשים לכתוב גט ולתת אותו לאשתו. במקרה זה הוא הופך אותם לשליחים על תהליך הגירושין הכולל, לא במיוחד על כתיבת הגט. זה בדיוק אותו דבר באותה דעה שלחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן רמ''ג סעיף י''א וגם בחוק שהגר''א מביא בס''ק י''ד. כאשר אחד אומר "לכתוב שטר ועל ידי השטר לרכוש את השדה שלי"(כתבו שטר וזכו בו), הוא לא גורם להם להיות לסוכנים במיוחד לכתיבה, אלא רוכשים. וזה אותו דבר לגבי החוק שהגר''א מביא. היא לא הופכת אותה לסוכנת שתקבל את הגט הספציפי הזה, אלא כל שטר שגורם לה להתגרש.

Rav Shach brings in that law in אבי עזריin the Avi Ezri Gitin perek 2 laws 8 and 9.

 Rav Shach asks on the Gra. I was at the sea and contemplating this question and it occurred to me a surprising thing that Rav Shach had a ready made answer to this question which he had just stated before! The  issue is this: The Shulchan Aruch [Choshen Mishpat 241 paragraph 11 ]brings a "some say". The case is one says to two people write a document and by it take possession of my field. This alternate opinion hold he can not change his mind about the document. [The previous opinion was that he could].

The Gra in his notes there brings the source of this alternate opinion from Gitin [פרק התקבל]. That a woman can make a messenger to receive her divorce doc even though it has not be written yet.   

The questions are these: a person can not cause possession [cause to be possessed or to possess] of  something that has not yet entered into this world. And the source that the Gra brings for this does not seem to answer this difficulty since the woman is making a messenger which is an extension o her had. She is not now causing the divorce doc to be possessed.

The answer  I believe starts with the observation that the messenger is not a general messenger but rather specifically for that divorce doc --which has not yet come into the world. But that is just the beginning of the answer. The total answer to the Gra comes from the very idea that Rav Shach brings in that law in אבי עזרי Avi Ezri Laws of Gitin perek 2 law 8 and 9. That is the case where a man says to two people to write a divorce doc and give it to his wife. In this case he is making them messengers on the total divorce process, not specially on the writing of the divorce. This is exactly the same thing in that opinion in the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 243 and also in the law that the Gra brings. When one says write a doc and by it cause so and so to posses my field he is not making them specially agents for the writing but rather agents to cause possession. And that is the same thing with the law the Gra brings. She is not making her an agent to receive that specific doc but rather any doc that causes her to become divorced.

the only places one finds people sitting and learning Torah for its own sake is in Litvak Yeshivot

 One thing is clear -that the only places one finds people sitting and learning Torah for its own sake is in Litvak Yeshivot. It is a curious fact that only people that walk in the path of the Gra have the "heshek" driving desire to learn Torah for no other motive than for itself, not even for the reward of the next world.

{I believe this fact deserves wide spread attention because it is extremely significant. It is obvious to anyone who has stepped for one second into any Litvak Yeshiva, but some people have not and so this fact deserves to be general knowledge.--Even for people like myself who are not up to the level of learning and keeping Torah as we should, at least we ought to know what real authentic Torah is.] 

But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.

It was mentioned to me recently the problem of totalitarianism. In answer to this I mentioned the very strange occurrence of Freedom and Justice for All, limited government, and  balance of powers from the English kings who were tyrants in every single possible meaning of that word. How in the world did limited government happen to come into existence under the signature of King John? The Magna Carta. And the provisions of Oxford under Henry III? I have been contemplating this enigma for a long time but have not written about it because it comes under the category of problems in the human situation which seems to be  mysterious. [The dinge an sich of Kant] Or as Michael Huemer puts it, "Why are people irrational about politics?" [Though they defend their beliefs based on some kind of "rational"] How s it then than from that arose the Constitution of the USA? Or the Parliamentary system of England?

If anything, England is the last place on the planet that one would expect limited government to arise from.

[I mean to say that after reading a bit of Kant  and the Friesian School I do not wonder much about issues that I think are beyond human or even pure reason.  I figure once one gets out of the limits of possible experience, reason tends to begin to contradict itself. Even though government is something that people do experience, still it is not possible to know what is best based on experience. You can not derive an is from an ought. Issues of value and morality might be related to how things are, but are not derivable from them.

[I think it is a good idea to learn the development of the English and American system of government in order to gain a clear idea of their essence--what government can not do. Limits on Federal powers. What they can not force you to learn, what they can not force you to pay for, for what they can not force you to say , etc. a long and infinite list of all the things the government can not do. Why is that? Because Federal government has limited and openly stated powers. Anything outside of that very short list is off limits to the government. But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.  

Rav Nahman had a clear idea of learning Torah

 I was looking at the five letters that Rav Nahman wrote to his friends and family. In one he writes to one of his sons in law and tells him to write back telling him how many pages of Gemara he learns every day "for in this is my desire". You certainly see that Rav Nahman had a clear idea of what learning Torah and keeping Torah is all about. So why do you not see the sort of intense study of Torah in Breslov that you see in the most average Litvak yeshiva? The reason is that most people in Breslov are fallen souls like myself, --people that have a hard time studying anything--much less Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha.

People like us need more encouraging things--and for that reason in Breslov people spend more time on the books of Rav Nahman. 

[My own approach to Gemara is that a lot depends on the time one has available.  When I was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir I had the whole day and night. Later when I was at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU doing Physics, I had less time for Gemara. So what I suggest is to divide one's time in equal proportions. Or at minimum to do one half page of Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha--which is about 40 minutes. Or in place of that to do a section of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. (The books of Rav Chaim of Brisk are the beginning of a new way of learning. Before him the emphasis was more on Tosphot. However there is in both ways a great deal of merit.] 

גיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב

The basic issue in  גיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב is this: One says to two people to write a גט and give it to a messenger. The גמרא asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The  רמב''ם says the question is referring to a case when  the גט was found to be null. To רש''י, the issue is if the גט was lost, but if found null obviously one could write another"

 To רב שך the argument depends on the question if writing the גט requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.

What רב שך means is: The difference is this: If writing the גט requires to be a messenger from the husband  שליחות, then we can understand that after he has written a גט and it אבד it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. This might be the doubt in the גמרא on page 63 maybe the  שליחות was fulfilled since he wrote the גט as commanded. This is how רב שך explains רש''י that holds the doubt of the גמרא is  if it was lost. But if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another.  And this part of the answer of רב שך makes sense.

However even if we say that the רמב''ם holds  the writing does not require שליחות  rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends? To write it just once, or at least once.  But to say the argument between רש''י and the  רמב''ם does not seem to depend on the question of if the גט requires שליחות or only a command." 

It occurred to me that we can understand רב שך in this way. Let's think about the difference between שליחות and commanding. Making a messenger to give a גט could not apply in any way to an invalid גט. But commanding to write a גט can apply to an invalid גט. So we can understand the Rambam that telling two people to write a גט can be similar to when the husband himself writes a גט. It can be found to be invalid. And if so he can write another. But if his command to write  a גט can apply twice, that is the question of the גמרא. So in short רש''י holds telling two to write a גט is from  שליחות and thus writing twice can only be a doubt if the גט was lost. But there certainly can be no doubts if the גט was found to be invalid. He certainly did not appoint the two to write an invalid גט. So they can write another. But to the רמב''ם who holds it is merely a command and thus there can be a doubt if it was found to be invalid if they can write another.

הנושא הבסיסי בגיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב הוא כזה: אחד אומר לשני אנשים לכתוב גט ולתת אותו לשליח שהוא יתן אותו לאשתו. הגמרא שואל, "האם הוא מתכוון לכתוב את זה פעם אחת בלבד, או לכתוב את זה עד שזה נגמר?" הדבר נותר כפקפוק. הרמב''ם אומר השאלה מתייחסת למקרה בו התגלה כי הגט בטל. לרש''י, הבעיה היא אם הגט אבד, אך אם הוא נמצא בטל אפשר לכתוב עוד אחד 
 לרב שך הוויכוח תלוי בשאלה אם כתיבת הגט דורשת שליחות או פשוט פיקוד של הבעל. מה שאומר רב שך הוא: ההבדל הוא זה: אם כתיבת הגט דורשת שליחות, אז נוכל להבין שאחרי שכתב גט וזה אבד ייתכן שיהיה ספק אם מילא את משימתו . זה יכול להיות הספק בגמרא בעמוד 63 אולי השליחות התמלאו מאז שכתב את הגט כמצווה. כך מסביר רב שך רש''י שמחזיק בספק הגמרא אם הוא אבד. אבל אם פשוט יתברר שהוא בטל, כמובן שהוא יכול לכתוב אחר. וחלק זה של התשובה של רב ברור .אולם גם אם נגיד שהרמב''ם מחזיק שכתיבת הגט אינה דורשת שליחות אלא רק פקודה של הבעל, ובכל זאת אני יכול לראות שיש אותו ספק בדיוק עד כמה מצוותו נמשכות? לכתוב את זה רק פעם אחת, או לפחות פעם אחת. אבל לומר שהטיעון בין רש''י לרמב''ם לא נראה תלוי בשאלה אם הגט דורש שליחות או רק פקודה. "

עלה בדעתי שנוכל להבין את רב שך בצורה זו. בואו נחשוב על ההבדל בין שליחות לפיקוד. לעשות שליח לתת גט לא יכול להיות שייך בשום צורה לגט לא חוקי. אבל הפקודה לכתוב גט יכולה לחול על גט לא חוקי. אז נוכל להבין את הרמב"ם שאמירה לשני אנשים לכתוב גט יכולה להיות דומה לבעל עצמו שכותב גט. אפשר אחר כך לגלות שהוא לא חוקי. ואם כן הוא יכול לכתוב אחר. אבל אם הפקודה שלו לכתוב גט יכולה ליישם פעמיים, זו שאלת הגמרא. אז בקיצור רש''י מחזיק שאמירה לשניים לכתוב גט הוא משליחות ולכן כתיבה פעמיים יכולה להיות רק ספק אם הגט אבד. אבל בהחלט לא יכולים להיות ספקות אם הגט לא היה חוקי. הוא בוודאי לא מינה את השניים לכתוב גט פסול. אז הם יכולים לכתוב עוד אחד. אבל לרמב''ם המחזיק היא רק פקודה ולכן יכול להיות ספק אם הוא נמצאה פסולה אם הם יכולים לכתוב אחר

Gitin page 63, side B.

The basic issue in  Gitin is this: One says to two people to write a get and give it to a messenger. The Gemara asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The Rambam says the question is referring to a case when  the get was found to be null. To Rashi, the issue is if the get was lost, but if found null obviously one could write another"

 To Rav Shach the argument depends on the question if writing the get [divorce] requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.

What Rav Shach means is: The difference is this: If writing the get [divorce] requires to be a messenger from the husband, then we can understand that after he has written a get [divorce] and it got lot it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. This might be the doubt in the Gemara on page 63 maybe the messenger-ship was filled since he wrote the get as commanded. This is how Rav Shach explains Rashi that holds the doubt of the gemara is  if it was lost. But if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another.  And this part of the answer of Rav Shach makes sense.

However even if we say that the Rambam holds  the writing does not require messenger-ship rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends? To write it just once, or at least once.  But to say the argument between Rashi and the Rambam does not seem to depend on the question of if the get requires "messenger-ship or only a command." 

I later was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me that we can understand Rav Shach in this way. Let's think about the difference between making a messenger and commanding. Making a messenger to give a divorce doc could not apply in any way to an invalid get. But commanding to write a get can apply to an invalid get. So we can understand the Rambam that telling two people to write a get can be similar to when the husband himself writes a get. It can be found to be invalid. And if so he can write another. But if his command to write  a get can apply twice-that is the question of the gemara. So in short Rashi holds telling two to write a get is from messenger-ship and thus writing twice can only be a doubt if the get was lost. But there certainly can be no doubts if the get was found to be invalid. He certainly did not appoint the two to write an invalid get. So they can write another.

But to the Rambam who holds it is merely a command and thus there can e a doubt if it was found to be invalid if they can write another.

the reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication --warn people about fraud.

Even though I wish I could walk in the path of the Gra after having tasted the fruit, I still find that my situation does no allow me to learn Torah with that kind of diligence which is implicit in that path. I mean to say the problem of  "bitul Torah". [Not learning Torah when one can.] It is hard to be in a Litvak yeshiva even for a short while and not realize the tremendous spirit of Torah that fills the place. Once one really tastes the sweetness of Torah it is like an addiction. Or as Aristotle put it: "Virtue is habit." One has a certain amount of free will to choose what sort of habit he wants to allow himself to get into. He or she knows that after something becomes a habit, it is difficult to break, or sometimes impossible after it gets hardwired. But one can exercise a certain amount of free will about what kinds of habits he or she wants to get into. Learning Torah is the best of all habits.

Yet there is also the need for an intellectual recognition of the value of learning Torah. Otherwise it is all too easy to get detracted. There are too many kelipot that try to distract a person who has merited to e sitting and learning Torah. There is too much fraud around and that would be the reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication --warn people about fraud.   

 I imagine that my dad's (Philip Rosten-Rosenblum) contribution to laser communication will be lost to history for lack of documentation. While he had been hired by TRW for the X ray satellites, when those had been launched, they had him work on a new kind of idea--laser communication. That is the same thing as radio waves except that you super impose signals on lasers instead of radio waves. That was very well known to me who first hand knowledge of his lab at TRW and his associates. However when TRW went under because of the KGB spy that had been found there, all documentation was lost and they sold their records to other aerospace corporations. In the mix up, my dad's name was lost. But I imagine that is no worse than the inventor of fire or the wheel whom we also do not know their names. [And by the way, it had nothing to do with the amazing advantages of laser communication as we see in fiber optics and the Space X laser communication system, but rather to have a signal system between satellites that the Soviets could not eavesdrop into.] That was at the height of the Cold War when the USSR and the USA were almost at the point of total war. Some system to protect American communications had to be found and that was my dad's idea. A way to have a system of communication that the Soviets could not listen into. Radio waves are spread out. Laser signals are focused. {TRW had noticed him because they wanted X ray satellites,-- and who better to get for that than the inventor of the Infra Red ray Telescope and later invented the Copy Mate Machine using X rays to for a perfect image.. Only after the last of those satellites were launched did the focus switch to laser communication.

There is an amazing spirit of Torah that seems to dwell in any place that closely follows the Gra.

 Even though the Shulchan Aruch [by Rav Joseph Karo] was not written as a commentary on the Gemara, when I was learning Ketuboth, I found that opening up the Shulchan Aruch with the side  commentaries always gave a fresh perspective on the subject. [Mainly that was from the Taz who generally was writing in answer to the Bach, and from that sort of back and forth discussion I always saw a deeper understanding of what the Gemara was saying.  As my learning partner David Bronson once told me, that a lot of people saw something really special about the Shulchan Aruch in that they wrote their commentaries that it. [The Gra, Shach, Taz, etc.]

[That was during my third year at Shar Yashuv. And I have to say that my experiences at the few great Litvak yeshivas where I was at for a few years were astounding. There is an amazing spirit of Torah that seems to dwell in any place that closely follows the Gra.  Certainly anyone I know can testify that their years at any Litvak yeshiva were the best of the lives. There really something astonishing about the Gra and the world of Litvak yeshivas which follow that path of straight Torah. What is straight Torah? you might ask. It is the idea of not adding and not subtracting from the Torah. What the Torah says--that is that.]

 Henry II really tells us something about repentance. He had realized that his problem which were great stemmed from a previous sin. And he decided that everything that he was suffering was a result of that sin. He had muttered some words that his knights thought meant that they should kill Thomas Becket. -which they did. After some years his own children, the king of France and the king of Scotland were ready to invade and destroy him. What some people would do in such a situation of absolute crisis I do not know. But he decided he needed to make amends. He went to the place of the crime. Walked bare foot until his feet were bleeding. He went to the basement and ordered the monks to flog him 5 time for each monk. All together he was flogged 300 times. [Five times for 60 monks.] How many of us would repent to that degree after we have recognized what  it was exactly that we did?

I do not see that a worm hole could get any where in this universe --any faster than one could go by regular space--since space seems to be almost flat. The only questions that I wonder about are the branes in String Theory which fill space.

 I do not see that a worm hole could get any where in this universe --any faster than one could go by regular space--since space seems to be almost flat. The only questions that I wonder about  are the branes in String Theory which fill space. [You need branes for the ends of open strings to hold onto]. Also there are the sort of extra folded up dimensions in String Theory. What I am wondering about is if these go anywhere? {String Theory seems the best thing out there in terms of understanding the basic nature of pace and time.}

Another thing that I can see could be helpful in getting around in this universe is a black hole. What I means is that black holes carry around space, and that is what makes the powerful emitters [sometimes]. [Cygnus X-1 is like that. It is powerful emitter of X-rays--that mass comes from its partner. It was a binary system at first.]] I mean inside nothing can leave. But there are black holes that carry around space. And when space is being carried around there is no upper limit about the speed of light. Since it is just space, not matter. So anything attached to space when space is moving around can go at any speed since from its point of view, it is just standing still. It is space that is moving. 

learning every chapter ten times.

 Rav Freifeld the founder of Shar Yashuv used to emphasize learning every chapter ten times. And  when we were doing Ketuboth and Hulin this created for me a certain degree of tension.--For I wanted to "make progress." I think after a few years have passed, I can now see his point. And thus I would even like to share his idea with the world, that one never needs to give up if he or she encounters something hard to understand in his studies. Even after doing one chapter, one still does not understand. What I suggest is doing that chapter 10 times and then going on. [Or going back to the previous chapters if one is inclined at that point to do review.] 

I had a sort of conflict between bekiut and iyun [fast learning and in depth learning]. For that reason I decided on a system of repeat every paragraph But when it comes to some subjects like physics I find the idea of review ten times of each chapter to be the best.]

 Once I saw the operating room in Uman [Ukraine] and I swore to myself that I would never allow myself to be there. As maters turned out later,- I had been injured --the dogs in Sofia Park attacked me one night and I broke my right foot in three different places. I was brought to the local hospital and the doctors and nurses did a better job with much more dedication and efforts than I could ever have received in the West.  The whole episode was a  surprise. I was brought to the hospital and given a bed and never once asked about payment or insurance. Rather the opposite. The very first night [when the incident happened] they ran a whole battery of tests --blood tests, etc. And then I was given a bed and food, and never once was payment ever brought up. The operation that was a few days later certainly saved my life, as I need to walk to keep my metabolism going at a steady rate.  However, I did notice that a lot of the great people I met in the Ukraine had been part of the previous Soviet apparatus. -Or trained under it. [What ever the reason for it, I found a great number of people in the Ukraine that were  kind hearted  to a degree which was astounding. But there were plenty of people that were the exact opposite. The criminal others were restrained during the time of the USSR. But once that fear began to dissipate, at lot of the old criminal elements in the Ukraine began to raise their heads at alarming rates.

[My impression is that I can see that the type of system that fits to USA is not the same sort of system that can find in that area of the world. Even to the degree that I can say that because of the differences between people, the type of system of the USSR worked there. But the efforts of communists to try to overthrow the government of the USA was and is a terrible mistake. The same kind of system should be not  be thought to work uniformly anywhere.  Just the opposite. The system of government of the USAI see I highly superior. If the issue is exploitation of workers, it is now the welfare system in the USA that exploits the workers to the advantage of the supposedly professional victims--people that make a living out of being victims

It is not out of communism that conern arose for the poor and the working class, but rather from Torah valuesas you can see in Prince Albert, the consort of Queen Eliabeth ,The nobility itself. from principles based on Torah.

But the idea that everything would have been nice and peachy in the USSR without Communism is absurd. There is a DNA tendency towards criminality that needed Russian rule to tame. The DNA there is totally different from Angle Saxon DNA. It tends very much towards violence.

Gitin page 63, side B

 Gitin. I can see the difficulty in understanding the argument between Rashi and the Rambam in Gitin page 63, side B. However Rav Shach offers an answer to this great problem that I fail to see really answers it. One says to to two  people "write a get and give it to a messenger." The Gemara wonders if this means to write once,- or at least once. To the Rambam this refers to a case that the get [divorce] was found to be null. To Rashi the case is when the get [divorce] was lost. To Rav Shach the argument depends on the question if writing the get [divorce] requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.

What Rav Shach means is: The difference is this: If writing the get [divorce] requires to be a messenger from the husband, then we can understand that after he has written a get [divorce] and it got lot it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. this might be the doubt in the Gemara on page 63 maybe the messenger-ship was filled since he wrote the get as commanded. this is how Rav Shach explains Rashi that holds the doubt of the gemara is  if it was lost. but if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another. However even if we say that the Rambam holds  the writing does not require messenger-ship rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends--to write it just once or at least once. Like a drill sergeant would say, "I told you to get this done. I did not say to TRY to get it done!!!".  o to say the argument between Rashi and the Rambam does not seem to depend on the question of if the get requires "messenger-ship or only a command."

[The basic issue in  Gitin is this: One says to two to write a get and give it to a messenger. The Gemara asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The Rambam says the question is referring to a case when  the get was found to be null To Rashi, the issue is if the get was lost--but if found null obviously one could write another"]

Even a parakeet can learn to speak the right words of love and peace.

 Even a parakeet can learn to speak the right words of love and peace. All the more so demons and devils. No wonder Rav Nahman [of Breslov] warned us about Torah scholars that are demons. Even demons can learn how to talk the talk and walk the walk. So what I suggest is to learn Torah in Litvack yeshiva where there is no pretense of holiness. There is simply the idea to learn and keep Torah with nothing added nor subtracted. No one pretends to be a "tzadik"

Z30 D minor 

Friesian school [based on Kant, Fries, Nelson]

 The approach of the Friesian school [based on Kant, Fries, Nelson]. Fries had an important insight into the need for immediate non intuitive knowledge [or what I would prefer to say that reason recognizes universals--not that  it knows them. ] As you can imagine Kant is very great but his Copernican revolution leaves a lot to be desired. That we know synthetic a priori because we have the categories implanted in our minds  (space and time and causality). That is in simple language: "I know it because I know it."  Or as mothers tell their children, "Why? Because I said SO!"    

So as Kelley Ross points out --there is a regress of reasons. Somewhere where reason has to 

So Kelley Ross found a ready made system that needed a bit bringing down to earth to show its great implications as he does in his web site the Friesian.

So why was all this ignored?  Academic philosophy since then has gone off into all sorts of odd directions. The reason for this is simple--people in professional philosophy are very smart. And they do a lot of reading. This enters them into the strange worlds. So they lose their common sense. And nothing is so important in philosophy as common sense.

[I should add that there is a certain degree of distain for Hegel in the Friesian school which I can not share. But I only read the Logic part of his encyclopedia and Mc Taggart and Cunningham's PhD thesis which gave me a very positive idea of what Hegel is all about. [Neo Platonism while taking Kant into consideration --i.e. how Kant modifies the Neo Platonic approach.] But to my mind, the Kelley Ross Fries approach is a modification of Plato as Dr Ross says himself about Socratic ignorance [we know what we do not know that we know] and Platonic knowledge.

 I wish the USA had asked the Russians about Afghanistan. It was well known to the Russians that they never had any trouble clearing out an area of  mujahedeen. They would bomb a whole area to smithereens until nothing was left. But usually the mujahedeen had warnings, so they were gone before the Russians arrived. Then in a week or two the mujahedeen would be right back.

[Another source of the trouble was that the Taliban brought stability  where the mujahideen brought chaos. In areas where the mujahideen would go through, the stores would be looted and other much worse crimes. But under the Taliban, thieves lost their right arms. So a lot of people actually liked the Taliban. Person and property were safe as long as one obeyed the rules.]

Just a few conversations with a few Russian generals would have let the USA know the situation there before wasting lives for no reason. 

 Rav Nahman from Uman and Breslov you might have noticed does not emphasize learning Torah very much. And that has always seemed to me to be a minus in his system.  [After all just look the mishna in Peah, "learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot" (and the Yerushalmi says that refers to every sinngle word of learning Torah or Gemara) and at the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Haim of Voloshin and see the importance of learning Torah] In the Nefesh HaHaim you see the main service of God is learning Torah. There he shows this from the Gemara, Midrash and Zohar.

But in the system of Rav Nahman you find the idea of נייחא דמוחין. [relaxing the mind]  And you do see that people that learn all the time tend to lose the ability to think for themselves. They lose common sense. They are so busy thinking other people's thoughts that  they end up having no thoughts of their own.

So clearly one needs some kind of balance. So while I certainly admit about the evil of bitul Torah [wasting time when one could be learning Torah] . How could anyone disagree with the statement of the sages הכרת תיכרת  היכרת מעולם הזה ותיכרת בעולם הבא הנאמר על ביטול תורה still I can see the need for a relaxing period. [That statement of the sages is brought in Sanhedrin. It brings the verse, "'One who despises the word of God will be cut off to be cut off.' And they explain the double language cut off in this world to be cut off in the next world and they explain that verse refers to one who can learn Torah but does not do so."]

If I could learn Torah all the time, I would but somehow I have found obstacles. So perhaps I can see wat the sages said "Sometimes wasting time from Torah is the establishment of Torah"

פעמים ביטולה של תורה זהוה קיומה

Still there is some aspect of the Litvak world that seems problematic. The aspect that I see is the ignoring of the herem of the ra. That the Gra said that there is a deep sitra achra  dark side aspect of the religious. o I say the farther one can be from the entire religious  world the better. There is a etreme emphasis on rituals however there is a lack of sincerity and devotion to T- For the religious  they want is not Torah or trust and faith in God, but that the secular Jews should a=have trust an faith in their religious leaders.

A lot of the of socialist movements forget the somewhat 100 millions of deaths caused by the communist movements of the the Bolsheviks, Chinese communism , Cambodia, etc.

A lot of the of socialist movements forget the somewhat 100 millions of deaths caused by the communist movements of the the Bolsheviks, Chinese communism , Cambodia, etc. The reason is that the see this as a sort of reactions against the opposite extreme forces. None of them have middle of the way that you see in the American Constitution. Some lunatic people tend to see in extremist positions  as the solution to all human kind's problems. [These are religious and political fanatics.] It takes time and experience to see that the extremist positions never lead to utopias, but rather to their opposite. That is why I see the USA Constitution with its careful working out of principles of government based on balance of powers as the best approach. Middle of the road capitalism along with some welfare sort of nets to rescue those through  no fault of their own have fallen into a state of neediness. [ That however does not imply the sort of constant state of neediness of the religious who are always asking for money in order to support their "holiness" is a desirable state of being.

The fact that they are always asking for money might seem like an appreciation for the value of "tzedaka." But a closer examination will show that their value  of charity is solely on the receiving end, not when they are asked to give. So I see the religious world as a sort of fraud--pretending to Torah  while imitating ritual in externals and the holiness of Torah, and doing the opposite.

z28 C minor midi file 

a difficult Rambam and Aba Shaul in tractate Gitin 172.

 I was at the sea again and reflecting on a difficult Rambam and Aba  Shaul in tractate Gitin 172. Aba Shaul said a  get [document of divorce] with witnesses and no time but it says "today" is okay. The Gemara says that seems to imply that "today" means the day she brings forth the get in court. Then it pushes that off and suggests No. Perhaps he holds like R Elazar." To the Rashbam this is simple. To the Rashbam if the law goes like R Elazar [that witnesses that see the get make it valid--not the signers] then we do not need the date in the get at all. But to the Rambam this sugia subject is difficult, because he holds like R Elazar and still also holds [laws of Gitin perek I: law 25] that if there are witnesses that signed, then there must be the date also. The Avi Ezri [of Rav Shach] explains the issue thus [if I got the gist of it]: The Ravaad holds once the date is a decree from the scribes then it is part of the required formula. [Otherwise all he would need to write would be "You are allowed to any man."] But the  Rambam holds the the reason for the decree is what matters--covering up for the daughter of his sister. [who he married and then she had relationships with someone else and thus should be executed for adultery, but since she is his close relative he writes a get with a date before the time of the relations.]]

So how does that help us? By חזקה מעיקרא prior status. We know she was married. So until the last minute when she shows the get and we do not know when it was signed, then we assume it was at the last moment. And as Rav Shach shows in Laws of Sota from the Rashba that present status [which pushes the time backwards] only applies when there was an "act" that we do not know when it occurred. And here we know when the act of adultery happened. We just do not know what her status was at the time.

The question that has been bothering me is if this is so then why ever need a date when there are witnesses on a get [to the Rambam]? Would we now always say  חזקה מעיקרא prior status? And thus always say that the date of the get is always at the last minute and s there would never be a case of covering up for the daughter of his sister? I am sure Rav Shach must answer this question, but so far I have no been able to see what his answer is. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

 I was at the sea again and reflecting on a difficult רמב''ם and אבא שאול in גיטין קע''ב. There אבא שאול said a  גט with witnesses and no זמן תאריך but it says "היום" is בתוקף. The גמרא says that seems to imply that "today" means the day she brings forth the גט in court. Then it pushes that off and suggests "No. Perhaps he holds like ר' אלעזר." To the רשב''ם this is simple. To the  רשב''ם if the law goes like ר' אלעזר [that witnesses that see the גט make it valid, not the signers] then we do not need the date in the גט at all. But to the רמב''ם this סוגיא is difficult, because he holds like ר' אלעזר and still also holds [הלכות of גיטין פקר א:כ''ה  that if there are witnesses that signed, then there must be the תאריך also. The אבי עזרי of  רב שך] explains the issue thus: The ראב''ד holds once the date is a decree from the scribes, then it is part of the required formula [תורף הגט]. [Otherwise all he would need to write would be: "You are allowed to any man."] But the רמב''ם holds the the reason for the decree is what matters: covering up for the daughter of his sister. חיפוי על בת אחותו [who he married and then she had יחסים with someone else and thus should be executed for adultery, but since she is his close relative, he writes a גט with a תאריך before the time of the  יחסים.]

So how does that help us? By חזקה מעיקרא. We know she was married. So until the last minute when she shows the גט and we do not know when it was signed, then we assume it was at the last moment. And as רב שך shows in Laws of סוטה from the רשב''א that present status [which pushes the time backwards] only applies when there was an "act" that we do not know when it occurred. The question botherS me is if this is so, then why ever need a date when there are witnesses on a גט [to the רמב''ם]? Would we now always say  חזקה מעיקרא prior status? And thus always say that the date of the גט is always at the last minute, and  there would never be a case of covering up for the daughter of his sister? I am sure רב שך must answer this question, but so far I have no been able to see what his answer is. 

שוב הייתי בים והרהרתי ברמב''ם קשה ובאבא שאול בגיטין קע''ב. שם אבא שאול אמר גט עם עדים ובלי זמן תאריך אבל כתוב "היום" הוא בתוקף. הגמרא אומרת כי נראה כי "היום" פירושו היום בו היא מביאה את הגט בבית המשפט. ואז הגמרא דוחה את זה ומציע, "לא. אולי הוא מחזיק כמו ר' אלעזר." לרשב''ם זה פשוט. לרשב''ם אם החוק הולך כמו ר' אלעזר [שעדים שרואים את הגט הופכים אותו לתוקף, לא החותמים] אז אנחנו לא צריכים את התאריך בגט בכלל. אבל לרמב''ם זה סוגיא קשה, כי הוא מחזיק כמו ר' אלעזר, ועדיין גם מחזיק בהלכות גיטין פרק א': כ''ה שאם יש עדים שחתמו, אז חייב להיות גם התאריך. האבי עזרי של רב שך מסביר את הנושא כך: הראב''ד מחזיק ברגע שהתאריך הוא תקנה של הסופרים, אז הוא חלק מהנוסחה הנדרשת [תורף הגט]. [אחרת כל מה שהוא יצטרך לכתוב יהיה: "את מותרת  לכל אדם."] אבל הרמב''ם מחזיק שסיבת הגזרה היא מה שחשוב: כיסוי לבת אחותו. הוא התחתן עם בת אחותו והיא קיימה יחסי מין עם מי שהוא אחר, ולכן יש להוציאה להורג בגין ניאוף, אך מכיוון שהיא קרובת משפחתו, הוא כותב גט עם תאריך לפני תקופת יחסים.]

אז איך זה עוזר לנו? בגלל חזקה מעיקרא. אנו יודעים שהיא הייתה נשואה. אז עד הרגע האחרון כשהיא מציגה את הגט, ואנחנו לא יודעים מתי הוא נתנו, אז אנו מניחים שזה היה ברגע האחרון. וכפי שרב שך מראה בהלכות סוטה מהרשב"א שהמעמד הנוכחי [שדוחף את הזמן לאחור] חל רק כאשר היה "מעשה" שאיננו יודעים מתי הוא התרחש. כאן אנו יודעים מתי אירע מעשה הניאוף. אנחנו פשוט לא יודעים מה היה מעמדה באותה תקופה. השאלה שמטרידה אותי אם זה כך, אז למה בכלל צריך תאריך כשיש עדים על גט [לרמב''ם]? תמיד נגיד מעמד קודם של חזקה מעיקרא? וכך תמיד נאמר שתאריך הגט הוא תמיד ברגע האחרון, ולעולם לא יהיה מקרה של כיסוי לבת אחותו 

This I included in Ideas in Shas even though I might still have to devote some more thought to this issue.

 There is a lot of adding to the mitzvot which goes on in the religious world. I mean to say that most or all of what the religious emphasize are not actually things that are from the Written or Oral Torah. [note 1] However it can take a long time of learning until one finds this out. Plus there are hidden memes or sets of principles that are unspoken. One major idea in the religious world is "Yihus" [family lineage.] You might be from a society where the hierarchy is based on competence and assume that the religious world is also based on competence. However it is not. Rather it is based on "Yihus." 

So you might think that if you learn Gemara well you will get ahead. and get the best shiduch. [And I might add that one should not learn Torah for these reasons. However one might learn Torah for its own sake and still hope that he will get a good shiduch.] However competence has nothing to do with getting ahead in the religious world.

 [note 1] the "kipa" is one example. There is a teaching in tractate  sofrim that when one is reading from the Torah scroll in a minyan, then one needs to cover his head. Besides that there is no commandment from the Torah or from the words of the scribes.

But somehow using Torah as a tool to make money which is openly a prohibition is counted as a mitzvah. In fact, this is the most common obsession in the religious world to constantly ask secular Jews for money. "Give us money because we are learning Torah!" If only they would in fact be learning!! [Obviously they are not except for the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or Brisk. Besides the few great Litvak yeshivot, this claim is a lie. And another point is that asking money for learning Torah is against the Torah. A shovel to dig with. See commentary of the Rambam on Pikei Avot perek 4

 

The problem in the religious world is that they think they are morally and intellectually superior and baali teshuva [new comers to their religion] are born to be their slaves. So competence has nothing to do with the hidden values. Rather birth. But baali teshuva that have little worldly experience are taken in by this fraud.-that is the fraud in which the frum pretend to great genius and higher moral standards.

But we know already that גניבת דעת tricking people to gain advantage over them is forbidden from the Torah.  So I do not think the religious should be thought of as keeping the Torah, but rather as serious transgressors of Torah. The religious rituals do not indicate holiness.  They are in the business of using the pretense of Torah to enslave the secular Jews that are not very learned [knowledgeable] in the actual written and oral law. It is upon their ignorance and naivety that the frum [religious in show] play upon.😊

The issue is not the areas in which the law of the Torah is ignored by the so called "frum".The issue is that they lie constantly and therefore nothing they say can be accepted. Even in the few areas where what they say has surface correspondence to the actual Torah. I do not trust anything the frum say. I an smell their BS a mile away. And that is the true path of Torah. To avoid the liars. 

 The problem I see in Trotsky and Lenin is this. In Russia there were class differences to an exaggerated degree. The workers and the non workers. The non workers were the land owners. So that state of affairs made for an easy analysis. But to apply that to the USA was highly flawed. Most people of the world are divided by the State, not by the division of land owner as opposed to worker. For example in the USA there are many people that work and also own property. For instance their own home. Many owners of vast farms and ranches also work.

The trouble was the that the Bolsheviks had accepted a certain sort of set of social memes. [Workers against non workers. And the solution is to get rid of the non workers.] And that became hardwired in their minds. Like the Russian proverb says: To one who has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 My parents were full hearted Americans. They believed in the American system totally. True Justice and the American way.  What you earn, you keep. There was in those days n concept that everyone had to have the same amount of money as there is nowadays.

But even with wide variations of what the USA is, they always believed in it. 

This is in stark contrast to their attitude towards the religious world. Though they never expressed this, still it was clear they thought then religious world is highly corrupt and unjust--as is in fact the case. 

So while they believed in Torah fully, they did not think the religious world has any actual connection with Torah.

I however felt there was and is true Torah in the Litvak world of the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY and Ponovitch in Bnei Brak. Still even the Litvak approach is not perfect. Often a few rotten apples ruin the whole bushel.

[Nowadays with Socialism the direction of the USA, my parents might have second thoughts. 

I also agree fully with my parents. There is something about the founding fathers and the Constitution of the USA which is so remarkable one has to classify the USA as one of the greatest wonders of the ages.--a model of freedom and justice for all. If anything comes anywhere close to the ideal of "peace of the stare [shalom hamedina] " it is the Constituation of the USA. []Peace of the state is one of the goals of the commandments of the Torah as you can look this up in the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam and Sefer HaHinuch

z27 D minor  [It is midi. I can not convert to mp3 anymore.] 

My dad never talked about his work at home--ever. The only reason I was at his lab at TRW was because I expressed always great interest in his work and his service in the USAF.

 LLGT satellites

The regular radio way of communication is by having waves superimposed on a radio wave. 

The idea of laser communication is to have your messages superimposed on a laser frequency wave.

This is already the means by which you have relays communication for the internet.

And this is going to be the prime method of communication when mankind starts to colonize the Solar System. 

So while I realize that there were some things my dad worked on in collaboration with many other great people [like the U-2 camera]. But there were things that were his sole ideas and inventions. One of course is the Infrared Telescope as detailed in Life Magazine.

And I know he was the chief inventor of laser communication at TRW. I actually saw the laser and that was his lab. Not a joint lab. So what was the story after that? Well, TRW was infiltrated by the KGB. When the mole that was stealing the technology was discovered obviously TRW was not going to get any more government contracts. My dad left it and the company because an auto compony until the 1990's when they were rehabilitated. In the meantime what ever they were working on was all sold to the aerospace company and NASA.

My dad never talked about his work at home--ever. The only reason I was at his lab at TRW was because I expressed always great interest in his work and his service in the USAF. And I probably would still not bring this up if not for the fact that I have heard of others claiming credit for his inventions.

Hegel only published four books

Hegel only published four books even though there were plenty of notes that his students took down at his lectures. The only one of these that I read from the beginning to end was the later Logic. [That is the part of Logic in his Encyclopedia.] While I am no expert, still I had the distinct impression of his approach to be simply a post Kantian Plotinus  --that is simply Neo Platonic philosophy, but taking the three critiques of Kant into account. That is that there is the One , then the Logos, then the physical universe of Being.

 I was happy to see Cunningham agree with me.

But I also can see a lot of merit in the later Kantian approach of Kelley Ross who bases his approach on Fries and Leonard Nelson. He however does modify Fries and Nelson--taking just the best aspects of their approach to build his own system.  [Dr Ross does mention that Nelson made some improvements on Fries and I have to say that I believe that Ross made improvements on Nelson.] [Robert Hanna has an idea of "Forward to Kant", but I think that the Friesian school is an improvement on Kant.] [I should mention that interest in Fries has been a lot more in Russia than in the West. [Fries' book were published from 1967 to 2011. Nelson's from 1970 -1977.]

And while seeing the differences between these two schools, I do not see the big differences. There is of course the "immediate non intuitive issue." But I do not think the differences are as great as either school of thought thinks. [Walter Kaufman wrote a nice piece  on Hegel which I think relates to this issue.] 

Dr Ross is basically a Platonist. That is Plato after the Critique. Hegel is basically Plotinus [ie neo Platonic after the Critique.]

[I might add here that the Chovot Levavot and the rishonim go with Plotinus as you can see in all Musar books up to and including the Ramchal. And thought the Rambam was leaning towards Aristotle, still you can much of the influence of Plotinus in him also. [Besides that the Ari and the Ramchal and Rav Avraham Abulafia all are going with Plotinus--Neo Platonism. But you can see a slight variation on this in Rav Shalom Sharabi [the mystic from Yemen who made his way to Jerusalem.] He holds the order of the higher worlds starts out like Plato [all the higher levels are above. That is vertical.] but in the future they wll be like Aristotle--all the higher levels with be in things --horizontal]

The Musar movement [and in a wider context the Litvak Yeshiva] has the advantage of representing authentic Torah.

 There is reality behind the words of the books of Musar of the disciples of Israel Salanter. It is nor the words of their books, but rather there is the reality behind the words. As the Roman saying goes: "Acta non verba" (Actions, not words). When I learn or hear the Or Israel or Madragat HaAdam there is some aspect of fear of God or trust in God that enters my soul. The reason is that these people  worked themselves to come to fear of God and trust in God. 

The Musar movement [and in a wider context the Litvak Yeshiva] has the advantage of representing authentic Torah. Not just intellectually, but rather in the whole spirit of Torah that permeates the Litvak yeshiva. The rest of the religious world seems very false to me. The façade of Torah, the whole showing off is very foreign to Torah. But more so. It is like the pig that stretches out its hoofs to show that it is kosher, but hides that fact that it des not chew the cud. Or like the idol that was dug up on Mount Grizim which showed that the Samaritans were in fact serving idols. But it was hidden. 

China stealing proprietary secrets that is troublesome.

 The feat of the rover of China that landed on Mars and deployed successfully would be more impressive if the feat had been accomplished without stealing American technology. Or at least they might have mentioned their gratitude to the USA for much technology that was transferred legally to them, and also they might be upfront and say openly they hold from the Marxist doctrine that there is no such thing as copy rights or rights of a capitalistic country as to withhold their secrets from China. After all to a Marxists private property is theft by definition. But at least an acknowledgement of gratitude might make sense, Thus they hold stealing from the USA is a virtue. So why should they be embarrassed? They should be proud that they stole.

Elon Musk acknowledged his debt to Russian designs for the raptor engine. At least giving credit where credit is due.[Even though he did not seal anything. Rather it is the theft aspect of the China stealing proprietary secrets that is troublesome.

 normalization of deviance. That is something that creeps into  straight Torah that should not. That is something that hitchhikes off of real Torah. That is the reason the Gra signed his name on the famous letter of excommunication in order not to let any trace of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] have a foothold in Torah. You might be aware of it and yet you get used to it. You get to even expect it. Then one day it comes back to bite you. That is we need vigilance to keep out the Sitra Achra in the first place 

a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics]

Every time I say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman pointed out for Tikun HaBrit, I am struck by how many times it is mentioned, "Remember His wonders, his miracles and the laws of His mouth." To me this seems like a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics] as there are in the revealed Torah. [This idea is mentioned in psalm 77 a few times and also in psalm 105 --also a few times.] You can see this also in the Rishonim that follow the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam.

I realize that Christianity is controversial. That is why I do not comment on it much. My own views are likely to be totally unlike anyone else, so why should I write just to annoy people? My views are too far from traditional Christianity to be acceptable to any Christian. And way too sympathetic towards Jesus to be acceptable to anyone that is against Christianity. 

However, it still seems right to me to mention Rav Avraham Abulafia in this regard. That is at least what he writes חותם של יום ששי the seal of the sixth day referring to the sephera of yesod. [ Also: האירו קשריו] That in addition to the Ari at the end of Sefer Breishit he says more or less the same idea.  

Rav Nahman.

 I was in the Na Nach place again today [Breslov] and they were learning a bit of the book of Rav Natan [Collection of Laws] based on the book of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav Nahman or the LeM as I call it for short.]It is always possible to find fault and something to criticize in the writings of Rav Nahman. But instead, I try to find some way of understanding what Rav Nahman means or his disciple Rav Natan.

איזהו חכם? מי שמיישב דברי חכמים Who is wise? He who finds a way to answer for the words of the wise. [I forget where I saw this statement in the Gemara]

So without further ado let me say what the issue is. Rav Natan is basing himself on the LeM vol II perek 12. [and LeM I:9]. But he adds a bit that is not in the LeM. He says a person was created to reveal the glory of God. I was wondering about this. And after walking outside a bit, I realized that Rav Natan is basing himself on the idea of the Ari [Isaac Luria] that everything was created to reveal the traits of God. [the seven lower sepherot --including malchut which is also known as the Glory of God.] 

You might look in the writings of Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato to see this expanded a bit.

[This brings up another issue that I might mention. A fellow I know in who also hands out in Breslov Isaac also found it hard to see what is going on in the books of Rav Nahman. So I explained to him that Rav Nahman is assumed a knowledge of Gemara and Musar and the Ari in what he writes. But he also wants his idea to bring good advice to those that do not follow his ideas. But he is not trying to explain the basic structure of Torah ethics.--the big picture. To get the big picture one has to learn Musar.\

"Native Americans" had wiped out the first civilization in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]

 Careful analysis of the burial mounds in Ohio show the  Indians that were there when encountered by the first European American were not "native Americans." They had wiped out the first groups of homo sapiens that had an extensive civilization on in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]  In any case, I think a deep study of the history of Ohio helps to get a more balanced picture of the American Indians than the overly romanticized versions. This goes back to the basic problem of all news reporting and all history.  History is the art of getting people to become outraged at sad events. They way this is done is not by only by lies, but by reporting half the truth. [And sometimes by lies.]

People playing loose and fast with truth in fact gave me motivation to spend more time on Math and Physics.  If I am going to spend time on study, I would rather that it be something I can depend on its veracity. [I also will try to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach because even in subject like Torah, there is an objective right an wrong. This is because morality is objective. The best defense of this idea you can see in Michel Huemer on why he does not follow Ayn Rand. [And that bit of writing by Huemer is  a masterpiece.] But the idea of objective morality is well defended also in Hegel, and in the Kant Friesian school of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross.]

Here is a proof of objective morality by Huemer (Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness): 

(1) There are moral propositions.(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth).(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)

[Huemer gives also a larger sort of defense that you have to paste together. That is: There are universals. Moral principles are universals as applied to ethics. How do you know universals exist? Here is a proof by Huemer:  ."..yellow is a universal. It is something that lemons, the sun, and school buses, among other things, all have in common. Yellow is 'abstract' in the sense that it is not a particular object with a particular location; you will not bump into yellow, just sitting there by itself, on the street. Nevertheless, yellow certainly exists. Here is an argument for that:

1.	The following statement is true:      (Y) Yellow is a color.
2.	The truth of (Y) requires that yellow exist.
3.	Therefore, yellow exists. Some philosophers (the 'nominalists') say that the only thing multiple particulars have in common is that we apply the same word or idea to them.(54) Here is an argument against that: 4. Yellow is a color, and lemons have it. 5. No word or idea is a color, nor do lemons 'have' words or ideas. 6. Therefore, yellow is not a word or an idea.

I should add that moral principles are what Kant calls Synthetic a priori. They can not be derived by the five senses. That is Hume's law he can not derive an "ought" from an "is". But not all knowledge is derived by the five senses; The idea that we can is "Empiricism--roughly, the idea that all 'informative' knowledge, or knowledge of the mind-independent, language-independent world, must derive from sense perception". Here, is a better-known counter-example to empiricism. {Laurence BonJour } Nothing can be both entirely red and entirely green. How do I know that? Note that the question is not how I came upon the concepts 'red' and 'green', nor how I came to understand this proposition. The question is why, having understood it, I am justified in affirming it, rather than denying it or withholding judgment.

 I have been thinking about Socialism and because of this I have been looking at Trotsky's writings.[Especially his desperate attempts to get a visa from any democratic country in Europe claiming the right of asylum, though he admitted that he would not stop in trying to undermine those very same governments.] Listening to debates with Bryan Caplan, and Huemer.  On one hand, I can imagine that people have never heard of the USSR in the 1930's and mass famines, mass arrests, etc. and the fact that what ever utopia one dreams up, there are always unforeseen consequences.

Still I am trying to understand this issue. Maybe that everyone should have the exact amount of equal stuff is not what motivates the interest in socialism. Maybe it is that people do not want others to have more stuff than anyone else because of some unfair advantage or exploitation. Maybe no one cares if others have more stuff than them if based on the fact that they put in more effort. Fair competition is fine. It is perhaps people's sense of justice that drives the interest in socialism.

Added to this is the American form of government does not seem transferable to other areas of the world. Even if people see the greatness of the USA, they might be aware that just because lots of other countries have American style constitutions does not change a thing about the ipso facto kind of dictatorships they live under.  Maybe people differ in their DNA?

I  saw this a lot in the former USSR. Almost everywhere I went and asked people how were things during the USSR, their answer always was, "Better than now." [Sometimes they would add: "Everyone worked."]

true authentic Torah

 The importance of the Gra and the straight Litvak approach [note 1] came home to me today at the beach. I was resting there in order to gain enough energy to  start back on my walk home. [And I was mulling over the sugia in Gitin page 86 and how it relates to two hazakot against one.] Then I saw some girls sit down to eat ice cream. Then one got up and went over to throw the wrapping away into the trash can. Then another did the same thing, and when the wind blew away what she had thrown out, she retrieved it and threw it away again. At that point, I could not help myself anymore. I went over and said, "You girls are the daughters of a Litvak Torah scholar." And of course they agreed. It could not have been more obvious. I asked where in fact their father had learned Torah?, and it turned out he had learned by one of the great Litvak yeshivas. 

If you see someone who is has midot tovot [good character traits] and is careful about things between man and his fellow man [bein adam lehavero], then it is clear they are Litvaks.  

[However far from Torah as I am, still I can smell the scent  of true authentic Torah a mile away. ]

[note 1] I wish I could explain what this is exactly. The rough picture has a lot to do with Musar, but there is something else about it besides that. A kind of devotion, fear of God, and good traits.] 

The approach that I think is best is Torah with Derech Ertz.[derech ertetz means roughly theway of the earth. Which have a wide spectrum of meaning fro good characer to getting a job. However in pirkei avot it means most often getting a job כך תורה שאין עמה מלאכה גוררת עוון וסופה בטילה וסופו יורש גהינום] [As you see a few times in Pirkei Avot.] I can however agree with the idea of trust in God. But trust in God in the religious world is mixed and confused with the idea of asking secular Jews to pay for the religious to sit all day and pretend to learn Torah.

The constant refrain in the religious world is: "Give us money." [Or the variant: "Give us money because we are  so holy."] That is already pretty much what the Torah says not to do. But often this goes with a large degree of fraud. Pretense and holy talk of how they are trusting in God.

This is typical primate behavior of using what every advantage or tactic one can in order to get on top. The religious world has found the best tactic is fraud.

[Of course, I do not mean to include the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or its off shoots-- where in fact people learn "Lishma"[for its wn sake and not for money or influence]. Nor do they pretend to learn Torah, but rather learn in truth. Also, I ought to add for praise the two great yeshivot I went to,- Shar Yashuv and Mir in NY. There is no question that there people were in fact learning Torah for its own sake. Rather, it is the general religious world that something is terribly "off", or plain deception.  [And no offence intended towards the path of Rav Nachman. Though people may abuse this approach, still I  found his advice very helpful  and I do not think he could be included in the excommunication of the Gra. You can see this if you see the original letters of the letters of excommunication.

[And while I am at it I should add that I do not think the the excommunication of the Gra should be ignored, To be it seems like a valid halachic category. Once the Gra signed in it, it became legally valid. Even of one does not agree with it or thinks it  was mistaken. That does not take away the legal force of a "herem" which is a valid legal category.]

 there are people that are good and even great writers but not good thinkers. There are others that are great talkers , but terrible writers. I noticed this in the autobiography of Trotsky. He is desperate to get  visa to Germany. Thus he creates out of thin air a right of asylum. I can imagine he must have believed this. But that is not a right in natural law nor in the bill of rights of any democratic state. He just slips it in to the list of right of democratic states since he needed such a right in order not to be murdered by Stalin's agents. 

He was a great writer like Ayn Rand. but not a great thinker. He never seemed to ask if Marxism really made much sense outside of convincing people that they have been exploitered in order to gain power to exploit them for other interests. 

I must add here that the idea of "rights" of democracies is what the government must not do. It is not what the government must provide. Trotsky was being a compelling writer but poor thinker in this regard.

 Just a quick note. Ketubot pg 9.  Kohen A priest marries and finds his wife was not a virgin, she is forbidden to him because of a doubt,--the act of sex was before or after Airusin [engagement]. Tosphot: why not say hezka every person is in the hazaka of being OK until proven otherwise. Answer: because hazaka from the start. That pushes the time of sex as close to now as possible.  R. Akiva Eiger: Why not say like the mikve that was found lacking. I.e., Hazaka of OK with hazaka of now [present status] pushes the assumed time of sex to before the Airusin.[in which case she is permitted to her husband.] Rav Shach brings an idea from the Rashba that answers this. You only use hazaka of now [present status] in a case where you do not know if an act occurred--like the case of pure things which were dipped into the mikve. We do nor know if any "act'' occurred since the mikve is now lacking the 40 seah. But in the case of the wife of the priest we know she was not a virgin at the time of marriage. So there hazaka of now [present status] does not apply.

Why does this come up?, you might ask. The answer is there is an argument in Gitin between Ramban (Nahmanides), Rashbam, and Rambam about the need for the date in a get. And from what I can tell Tosphot is being consistent with his approach [Gitin page 86] that when we know an "act" occurred we use hezkat hashta [present status] to push the assumed time backwards.] but I am very full of hope that God may grant to me to  think about these issues at a future time. I just wanted to write down some of these basic issues. [So far I am thinking that Tosphot is being consistent. But then the questions would automatically arise about the Rambam, Rashbam, and Ramban how to answer the question that Tosphot brings in Ketubot page 9. [which I might mention is perhaps the most famous page in Shas or at least second place to Bava Metzia page 100.]   

 I wanted to mention a sort of odd kind of fact. That Shar Yashuv was and as far as I know still is a yeshiva where beginners start. The Mir in NY is considered the Ivy League. Especially when Rav Shmuel Berenbaum was there it had the reputation of being the place of the deepest learning. 

But Shar Yashuv had an aspect that the Mir did not seem to have. That is after the first year or two when I got out from the beginners mode and began to listen to Rav Naphtali Yegeer I saw this sort of intense focus on the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. This was in stark contrast to the approach of the Mir which was based very much on Rav Chaim of Brisk which is global.

Both approaches are good, but it is from the first one that I began to see the depths of the Gemara. [I however only began to have both approaches reawakened in me when I began to learn with David Bronson in Uman. I had not forgotten the first approach but up until then I did not have the mental vessels to be able to see the depths of Tosphot on my own. Only when I began to learn with him and saw how naturally the sort of awareness of the infinite depth of Tosphot came to him--then I started to gain some sense of what it means to understand the Gemara with Tosphot in a deep way. I tried to relay that in my first little book on Bava Metzia. 

The Musar movement had a good point. That is without Musar people have no idea of what Torah is about, --or worse than that, they substitute their own half baked ideas for the real thing. Musar has the advantage that it is legitimate Torah written by rishonim or by the sages of the achronim period. [I mean to say that when people came up with pseudo Torah, [fake Torah that seems like the real thing but to a trained eye it i clear that it is fake] that is when the Gra signed the letter of excommunication.]

On the other hand, even with Musat it is easy to get off track.

And even to learn Musar in the context of a regular Litvak yeshiva does not see to offer any guarantees.

No matter what one does, it is hard to come to straight forward Fear of God and Good Character Traits [midot tovot].

You would not think that Rav Nahman of Breslov would be one person able to solve this problem, but I found his advice very helpful. [And I did enough research to realize that the letter of excommunication does not apply to him. You can see that yourself if you find the actual language of the five excommunications that were published in Villna.] It was Rav Nahman warning that there is such a think as Torah scholars that are demons that gave me enough insight to realize the danger. That is even if I am not able to come to fear of God as well as I would like, at least I know who to avoid. Torah scholars that are demons--of which there are way too many nowadays.  

 I have never been able to figure out why people do not take the American system of government as their model? As the ideal model. I men if you run s series of experiments with different molecules and one of them simply blows up in your face, the other turns into a foul mixture of mud, and etc,  until you get to one that works and gives you beautiful colors in a stable compound--then why go back to the other models? I can only explain this in one way. When it comes to politics, people are insane.

See the essay of Michael Huemer which goes into this in great detail and that essay itself is based on the original idea of Bryan Caplan. 

[You might ask why I bring this up. The reason is I have been looking at the writings of Trotsky and his My Life after his expulsion from the USSR for anti revolutionary propaganda. At any rate that was article 56, and then later article 58/10 that he was expelled under. And in one sense that was correct. [The USSR was not formed to be a dictatorship but rather a rule of the party of working people, and that party had voted legally to expel Trotsky.] He worked to put the labor party [the proletariat] into power. The idea was that only people that were actually doing physical labor deserved a right to vote. No one else mattered. And if one did not work, she did not get a welfare check. She was shipped off to prison. And that party of the proletariat voted to have Trotsky outed. And in some ironic way that was exactly what he was advocating.--permanent revolution. So if you have a revolution, and then you keep on revolting, that means you are revolting against the revolution. [So to speak.]

[You might suggest that people are always looking for utopia. What ever they have that works is not good enough. They have to find the perfect system. But to do that they first have to work to achieve the goal:"Down with the System!"] [As per the 1960's]. And this explains most of what people complain about concerning the USA. The issue is never the real issue. The main thread of continuity is anything that the USA has done is always shown to be evil. The idea is not to improve anything, but rather to kill the USA with a thousand wounds.  Not any one alone would be fatal. This is the reason for the continuous attacks on anything the USA stands for.

Quantum Mechanics does not violate local causality.

 I think that it makes more sense to say that things do not have classical values in space and time until they interact or are measured. To suggest QM is not local violates Relativity. Or even better perhaps to suggest as Lemaitre did in 1932 is that space and time are the results of quantum interactions. And besides all that, I think that 't Hooft has a few papers showing that QM is a result of fast variables --not hidden variables. [I.e. that it is classical.] [And Springer Verlag has published a book of his on this issue]

Quantum Mechanics does not violate local causality.

[I wrote this a long time ago, but here let me just make clear that because it violates Bell's inequality you have two possibilities: Either (1) it violates causality and Relativity, or (2) particles have no classical values until measured or interact. Since we know Relativity is correct because of many things e.g., GPS (global positioning satellites) or meson decay and many other thing, so it must be (2) that  particles do not have classical values in Space and Time until they interact. ]

Though I did not read the paper of Lemaitre, I assume his idea came from the fact that the quantity of (delta E) times (delta t) is different that delta p delta x. Time is a different ort of quantity in QM. The longer the time goes, the greater uncertainty there is. Time does not strictly act on anything but rather is produced by the uncertainty.

i mean that no uncertainty in time means infinite uncertainty about energy. an accurate value of energy produces infinite time.

z26 midi B minor   [It seems I can not change this to mp3 anymore.]  z26 nwc

 

[In Russia they have something called "Zalonka" which is iodine mixed with something that makes it green. It seems to help the iodine get under the surface of a wound. Any other iodine compound does not do this as far as I have seen. So while putting on iodine might be a good idea but unless you have zalonka, I doubt if that can help.]

[In Russia they also noticed Bornaya kislota (boric acid) as one of their magical medicines which also I have not noticed in the West.] 

I want to add also a nice thing about Russian medicine. That is that there seems to be a philosophy of  "Do not fix what is not broken". This is in stark contrast to the West.

 

Do not expect my dad to get any credit. For some odd reason his name is left out of every single invention he ever came up with.

Laser communication was made by my dad at TRW. [note 1]  [That was made so that the Soviets could not spy on us. They could pick up radio waves, but lasers are focused so that would have made communications secure.] But do not expect my dad to get any credit. For some odd reason his name is left out of every single invention he ever came up with. Look up copy machines. You will never see him get credit for his super sharp X-ray "copy mate machine".  The infra red satellites [Vela] launched by NASA. Look for my dad's name as the inventor of the infra red telescope.  (That was given credit to him at first, but since then no one ever mentions his name as the creator of the amazing infra red telescope Sofia) [I might mention the polaroid camera which was his idea. However that was just suggestion of his to the person that actually made the product, so I would rather not make any big deal about that. (The idea was the problem of glare. My dad suggested using a polarized lens.) 

So for the record my dad's name. Philip Rosten. [Changed from Rosenblum after the time he was the inventor of the infra red telescope and the copy mate machine. [As for the U-2 camera, he invented two components, but not the actual camera itself which was invented by Baker at Harvard.]

 [note 1] After the Vela series of satellites, TRW was hired by the USA government to create SDI. Asa part of that was this idea to create laser communication between satellites. The person put in charge of that was my dad.  

The gemara in avoda zara 23 must be like R. Elazar

 I was at the sea again and it occurred to me that both the sugiot in Avoda Aara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13A are going like R. Elazar in Gitin pg 47.  

Clearly the sugia in Rosh Hashanah 13 has to be like R Elazar because he holds יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מיד תרומות ומעשרות. [grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is not obligated in tithes] Otherwise the question of the Gemara would make no sense. [How could Israel bring the Omer from the grain that grew in the possession of gentiles? The answer would be easy if the Gemara was going like Rabah that even what grows in their possession is still obligated in truma.[Later note--I am aware of the many issues surrounding these opinions of R Elazar and the one against him Rabah. But I simply have not gone into these issues as of this date. Just to see what I mean here you should look up that sugia in Gitin]

 So  lets look at the gemara in avoda zara 23. Why was Israel commanded to burn the asherot when they came into the land of Canaan? After all אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. [a person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] If the Gemara would be holding like Rabah the answer would be simple.  אין קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות אבל יש לו קניין אפילו בגוף הקרקע.grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is obligated in tithes but he still have possession of the land that he bought. Not just to dig and build on it but actual possession of the land itself.

So both of these sugiot must be going like R Elazar.

So what makes this hard to understand is the law is like Rabah, but even more so what is hard to understand is the Rambam is posek like the Gemara in Avoda Zara.  That is if a Israel makes an idol but does not worship it yet. Then a gentile comes and worships it. That idol is forbidden since it was ok to the Israeli to have it worshipped. This is so even though אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] . This law comes directly from the Gemara in Avoda Zara page 23 which we can see is not like Rabah.

[The truth be told, this question is so obvious it is startling to me that it did not occur to me sooner.]

_______________________________________________________________________

 I was at the sea again and it occurred to me that both the סוגיות in עבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב and ראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א are going like ר' אלעזר in גיטין דף מ''ז.

Clearly the סוגיא in ראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א has to be like ר' אלעזר because he holds יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מיד תרומות ומעשרות.  [Grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is not obligated in tithes] Otherwise the question of the גמרא would make no sense. [How could Israel bring the עומר from the grain that grew in the possession of עכו''ם? The answer would be easy if the גמרא was going like רבה that even what grows in their possession is still obligated in תרומות ומעשרות.

 So  lets look at the גמרא in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. Why was Israel commanded to burn the אשירות when they came into the land of Canaan? After all אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. [A person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] If the גמרא would be holding like רבה, the answer would be simple.  אין קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות אבל יש לו קניין אפילו בגוף הקרקע. Grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is obligated in tithes, but he still HAS possession of the land that he bought. NOT just to dig and build on it, but actual possession of the land itself.

So both of these סוגיות must be going like ר' אלעזר.

So what makes this hard to understand is the law is like רבה, but even more so what is hard to understand is the רמב''ם is פוסק like the גמרא in עבודה זרה.  That is if a Israel makes an idol but does not worship it yet. Then a gentile comes and worships it. That idol is forbidden since it was ok to the Israeli to have it worshipped. This is so even though אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] . This law comes directly from the גמרא in עבודה זרה page 23 which we can see is not like רבה.

שוב הייתי בים ועלה בדעתי ששתי סוגיות בעבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א הולכות כמו ר' אלעזר בגיטין דף מ''ז. ברור שהסוגיא בראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א חייבת להיות כמו ר' אלעזר כי הוא מחזיק יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות. [דגן הגדל ברשות עכו''ם  אינו חייב במעשרות]. אחרת שאלת הגמרא לא תהיה הגיונית. [כיצד תוכל ישראל להביא את העומר מהתבואה שצמחה ברשות עכו''ם? התשובה תהיה קלה אם הגמרא הייתה הולכת כמו רבה שגם מה שצומח ברשותם עדיין מחויב בתרומות ומעשרות. אז בואו נסתכל על הגמרא בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. מדוע נצטווה ישראל לשרוף את האשירות בבואם לארץ כנען? אחרי הכל, אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. [אדם אינו יכול לאסור את מה שאינו שייך לו]. אם הגמרא היה מחזיק כמו רבה, התשובה תהיה פשוטה. אין קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות, אבל יש לו קניין אפילו בגוף הקרקע. דגן הגדל ברשותו של גוי חייב במעשרות, אך עדיין יש ברשותו את הקרקע שרכש. לא רק לחפור ולבנות עליה, אלא על החזקה בפועל על הקרקע עצמה. אז שני סוגיות אלה ודאי הולכות כמו ר' אלעזר .אז מה שמקשה על ההבנה הוא שהחוק הוא כמו רבה. אך יותר מכך מה שקשה להבין הוא שהרמב''ם פוסק כמו הגמרא בעבודה זרה. כלומר אם ישראל עשה אליל אבל עדיין לא סגד לו. ואז בא עכו''ם וסוגד לו. האליל הזה אסור מכיוון שהישראלי היה בסדר שיעבדו אותו. זה כך למרות שאדם לא יכול לאסור את זה שאינו שייך לו. החוק הזה בא ישירות מהגמרא בעבודה זרה עמוד כ''ג שאנו יכולים לראות שהוא לא כרבה.

הלכות סוטה פרק א חלכה ג .פירוש של רב שך על הוויכוח בין החכמים לר' שמעון

הייתי בים וחשבתי שוב על פירוש של רב שך על הוויכוח בין החכמים לר 'שמעון הלכות סוטה פרק א חלכה ג. ועל סמך הסבר זה הוא מסביר את הרמב''ם. בהתחלה חשבתי שנדמה כי על פי רב שך שהרמב''ם הוא פוסק כמו ר' שמעון נגד החכמים, [וזו תהיה בעיה אם זה היה המצב.] ואז עלה בדעתי ש למעשה ההסבר שלו לרמב''ם עובד בצורה מושלמת. אולי אני צריך לתת קצת רקע אז מה שרב שך אומר יתברר. הצהרת החכמים היא מקוה שעליו הוכנו דברים טהורים. [האוכל הוכן על ידי מישהו שבתחילה היה נידה או כל מי שהיה טמא והלך למקוה. ] ואז נמצא שהמקוה חסר את הנפח המתאים, ארבעים סאה. כל הדברים הטהורים טמאים אם ברשות היחיד או רשות הרבים. הגמרא שואל מחבית שנמצא חמצמץ. היין הפך לחומץ. חבית זו שימשה להפרדת מעשרות. בשלושת הימים האחרונים כל המעשרות נחשבות פסולות. לפני שלושת הימים הללו כל המעשרות מוטלות בספק. ההסבר הראשון של הגמרא הוא שהמקוה הוא החכמים והחבית היא ר' שמעון. ור' שמעון היה אומר שהמקוה טהור ברשות הרבים וספק ברשות היחיד. ואז ההסבר השני הוא שר' שעעון אומר שאנחנו לומדים מתחילת הטומאה עד הסוף. בדיוק כמו בהתחלה אם יש ספק אם הוא נגע אז הוא טהור. אז גם אם יש ספק אם הלכו למקוה או לא, האוכלים נקיים. החכמים אומרים שאנחנו לא לומדים מהסוף להתחלה. רב שך אומר שהנושא עוסק בשתי חזקות, חזקת השתא וחזקת טומאה נגד חזקא מעיקרא. רב שך אומר כי בהסבר השני הזה של הגמרא, הגמרא חושב שהמקרה הזה של שתי חזקות גורם לספק. [זה לא כמו הדרך הראשונה של הגמרא שמחזיקה שני חזקות נגד אחת היא דבר בטוח, ודאי טמא.] כך שר' שמעון ברור לגבי החבית שזה ספק. החבית שאנו מכירים היא כיום חומץ והטבל מתחיל להיות טבל עד שנודע שמעמדו השתנה. כלומר שני חזקות נגד חזקה אחת שהחבית הייתה בעבר יין ולכן יש לה חזקה מעיקרא. אבל ר' שמעון לא היה מחזיק בדרך זו במקוה מכיוון שישנו עיקרון כללי הנוגע לטוהר וטומאה, אנו לומדים מסוטה. אז הוא לומד ישר מסוטה. האוכל שהוכן על ידי אנשים שהלכו לאותו מקוה ושמקוה הוא ברשות הרבים. כך שהאוכל טהור. אם המקוה היה ברשות היחיד האוכל בספק. אבל החכמים אינם לומדים מסוטה, והגמרא נותן את ההסבר מדוע. הם מחזיקים  שלא לומדים מתחילת הטומאה לסופה. מכיוון שאיננו לומדים מסוטה, אנו מכניסים את הדברים לקטגוריה הרגילה של שני חזקות נגד אחת. אז עכשיו אנחנו מבינים שכאשר החכמים אומרים שהאוכל הוא טמא, זה אומר שהוא במצב של טוהר בספק. וזה בדיוק כמו המקרה של החבית. וכך יכול הרמב''ם לפסוק כאמירת החכמים על המקוה והאמירה על החבית. הוא לא הולך כמו ר' שמעון. בדין החבית אין ויכוח. כולם מסכימים שזה ספק בגלל שני חזקות. חכמים ור' שמעון היו מסכימים בדין המקוה אם היינו מיישמים את העקרונות של שתי חזקות כאן. אבל הוא לא. הוא מיישם את חוק הסוטה. רשות ברבים טהור וברשות היחיד הוא ספק.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1928JqTKoBsbSTZgp8fWXr1q4frLG7t9hFGd74nazQXc/edit