Even though learning fast is clearly indicated in the Conversations of Rav Nahman שיחות הר''ן סימן ע''ו I noticed today the LeM I:74 ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק א פרק ע''ד where learning with understanding is emphasized. This indicates the sort of compromise that you have in the Litvak world of half the day spent on learning in depth and the second half to be spent on fast learning.

 I do not really hold that marriage is a very good thing anymore. Nor do i see it to be in accord or contrary to holiness. Even though the Rambam held the idea of  concubine פילגש was only for kings, most rishonim disagree. 

And if you want to see this in the Old Testament itself, see Chronicles chapter 2 verse 46 concerning Caleb ben Yefuna. And  Caleb ben Yefuna was not a king, and yet had a few concubines. [And he was righteous as it says in the Book of  Numbers after he returned with Joshua--he went totally with God. וימלא אחרי השם ] So have girl friends and even having children with them does not reduce ones righteousness

Marriage nowadays is like being in an airplane that is losing power, and you are handed a parachute. The flight attendant that hands you the chute tells you that it has a 50/50 percent chance of opening.  

 It has been suggested that Clarence Thomas is the life blood and soul of the Supreme Court. After all no one can imagine Roberts to have the kind of influence that Thomas has. And that means the laws that were supposedly protected by the 14th ammendment will be held under scrutiny. [I.e. homosexual "marriage"? is next on the list of things to e noted that are not mentioned in the 14th ammendment.]

 I did not make it my business, but over the years I became aware of  some of the issues revolving around the Shatz. My conclusions were that most of the major doctrines of the Shatz got accepted into the religious world. So you might have noted that I think the religious world is not based on Torah except for show. The real source is the Shaz. But to go into this subject seems to me to be a waste of time and quite distasteful. But it came up while I was today in Breslov, so I thought to mention it here in case anyone needs some direction if they want to do research into this subject.

 There issue of Christianity I thought was in Avoda Zara but today I was at the near by Na Nach Breslov place and saw a book by the son of Rav Odaviah Yoseph [about using medicine on Shabat]]and hebrought up the fact that Muslims are not idol worshipers and the mentioned that famous Tosphot about Christianity and "Shituf" {joining}.  He brings in from Sanhedrin page 63 and the Rema {Moshe Iserles} in the Shulchan Aruch in Orach Haim chapter 156.

{I did not look these up but I guess I was wrong about the location of that Tosphot.}

 

 I am wondering why Leonard Nelson does not come up in philosophy. There might be one reason that Husserl accused him of psychologism. But I think that was not accurate. It might be we look into our minds to see first principles [empirically], but these first principles we know not from empirical evidence but non intuitive immediate knowledge. 

Especially after Husserl himself does not seem so great. [As Michael Sugrue pointed out.] And in fact most of "Analytic Philosophy" seems to be off track as Robert Hanna has pointed out. I only read some of one of his books about  how "Analytic Philosophy" is ready for the trash bin. But his arguments are very convincing.

The only exception I have to Nelson [who is based on Fries] is the complete dismissal of Hegel which I think is too much based on Hegel's politics which was in reaction to the French Revolution.]

Just as a side note I should add here why I think Nelson is important. Part of the reason is public--that is this: There are problems in Kant that I think Fries and Nelson do the best job in answering. I mean even if we would agree with Robert Hanna about "Forward to Kant," those problems would remain. So you can do some modification and that would be with the Friesian school. 

Another reason is personal--while in Safed in Israel I had what many people in history have had- this sort of "Enlightenment" kind of experience. This indicated a whole new dimension of reality that is not available to empirical knowledge nor to Reason. So it made sense to me to see that there is a different source of knowledge besides pure reason or the senses--immediate non-intuitive knowledge.

 I do not know if this is good advice for other but I have found reviewing a Torah lesson in the major book of Rav Nahman  forty days in a row to be helpful to solving problems that are mentioned in that particular Torah lesson. This advice was first suggested  to me concerning the  lesson LeM II;:44 and II:86 about not seeking extra restrictions. Then LeM I:61 concerning the need for clarity when two different directions are open to one. Then LeM I:6 about finding one's proper spouse. (That did not really work after forty days, but rather I figured that I had been without a wife or girl friend for so many years, that I would just keep on learning that Torah lesson  daily until some sort of breakthrough would occur. And that actually worked. But I had read that Torah lesson daily for almost a year until it did.) Now I am hoping to learn LeM I:72 about how to avoid evil thoughts. 

 Since it seems unlikely that Putin will accept a treaty that would require him to give up already conquered territory it makes sense to allow Ukraine to join NATO already.  After all there is no reason to think they can fight without help. And Russia does seem to be  a threat at this point to the Western Alliance.

Besides that, at this point it is Russia, China, Iran in an alliance against the USA. It makes no sense to let them succeed.

Perhaps I should add that I found the people of the Ukraine to be in general extremely good hearted people. [The problem is the small minority of criminal elements.] 

And I should add here that once the Ukraine is encircled  which is almost the case already, it will be hard to defend. So to join NATO would be the only means that I can see of protection.

 It is interesting to note that in Deuteronomy chapters 3 and 4 there are many lessons to learn. One is about pictures. On one hand in the Talmud we find the main prohibition is three dimensions,  not two. Still the prohibition of idolatry can be applied to anything. And it is also remarkable that verses there specifically mention not to make a picture of a male or female. If the Torah wanted to make it more explicit it is hard to know what else it could have written. Do not make pictures of males or females.

Also, I wonder why did the children of Reuben and Gad return to their lands? Was not the oath of Moses such that they would not return until the entire land of Israel was conquered? And that never happened until Jerusalem was conquered in the days of King David. 

Also it is noticeable the verse, "You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there is none other besides Him." The context there does not imply that nothing exists besides God, but rather that God alone is the true God who has power to redeem and take out one nation from another.  See the context.

Last but not least in chapter 4 verse 2 is the statement not to add or subtract from the Law. That already nullifies a lot of nonsense.

  

 I am happy that Roe and Wade was overturned because I was once a fetus.

But on a broader note: I like the Constitution and I think it is what has made the USA to be the great country it is. So getting back to it makes me happy. [I am also very surprised that someone started noticing that document. ]

The justices rightfully noted the issue is not in the Constitution. And they noted the 2nd ammendment is! What a surprising week this has been.

people get upset with the secular world and look for some place of refugee a religious community

 A dynamic you see is that people get upset with the secular world and look for some place of refugee a religious community that they think is better. The problem is often the solution is a million times worse than the problem. The religious are just better at hiding the corruption. And they depend on good PR to cover it up. 

So in secular places where you are aware of the problems because of free press and free speech are often many times better than the religious.

 

Here is a few older music files [After writing them, it is common that I forget about them and do not share them. But yesterday I looked at a few and it seems they are worth sharing]

 r32  w39 x19 x77 x78 x98 x100

[r32 in midi]  [w39 in midi]  [x19 midi] [x77 in midi]  [x98 in midi]  [x100 midi]

za13midi  za13 nwc

Bava Metzia 16. בבא מציעא דף ט''ז. Rav Shach brings this subject in Laws of Sale 22:1 The argument between Tosphot and the Ramban about R. Meir holds that a person can buy and cause to by owned by another person something that has not yet come into the world,

חזרתי הבוקר מהים ועלה בדעתי שיש שאלה אם רב מחזיק מר' מאיר לגמרי או רק בחצי הדרך ושהשאלה הזו היא באמת מקור הוויכוח בין תוספות לרמב''ן. (רב משה בן נחמן). כוונתי לומר זאת: ר' מאיר מחזיק אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם ורב אמר אם כותב שטר לחברו "כשאקנה את השדה הזה, הוא יהיה בבעלותך מעתה (מעכשיו)". והגמרא אמרה,"זה מראה שרב הסכים עם ר' מאיר." ואז תוספות שואלים, למה רב מוסיף "מעכשיו?" תוספות עונה כי אם המסמך נשרף לפני הקנייה, המכירה יוצאת לפועל רק אם אמר "מעכשיו". אבל בכל מקרה (אם מוסיף "מעכשיו" או לא,) הוא יכול לשנות את דעתו. הרמב''ן מחזיק בהיפך. הוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו אם הוא אמר "מעכשיו". אבל אם המסמך נשרף לפני המכירה, המכירה אינה תקפה בין אם אמר מעכשיו  ובין לאו.

 אז לתוספות, רב לא מסכים עם ר' מאיר במלואו, כי לר' מאיר בין אם המסמך עדיין קיים או לא, החבר יהיה בעל השדה, אבל זה לא יהיה כך לרב. לרב השדה לא מועבר לחבר אלא אם המסמך עדיין קיים. אבל לתוספות, לרב הוא יכול לשנות את דעתו, ואולי ר' מאיר חולק על כך או אולי לא. אנחנו לא יודעים. כי לא אחד, לא רב ולא ר' מאיר, עושים כל הבחנה במקרה של שינוי דעת אם אמר "מעכשיו". 

לרמב''ן יוצא שרב מסכים עם ר' מאיר גם רק בחצי הדרך, אבל בחצי אחר. אז הוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו אם אמר "מעתה", אבל המכירה לא תקפה אם אין מסמך בזמן שהוא קונה את השדה. הרשב''א מביא הר''י (רבינו יצחק הזקן[קידושין ס''ג]) שמחזיק שאם אמר מעכשיו הקניין תקף והוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו וגם אם אמר מעכשיו הקניין תקף גם אם המסמך לא קיים אז. זה מראה שהר''י סבור שרב  מסכים עם ר' מאיר רק באפן חלקי. יכול להיו שהקניין תקף גם בלי שאמר מעכשיו אבל רק בתנאי שלא יבוא איזה עיכוב 

כמובן שאני רק עוסק כאן ברמת פני השטח של הנושא הזה. עדיין ייקח לי זמן להבין איך רב שך מבין את הוויכוח בין תוספות, הר''י והרמב''ן. ואז בנקודה הזאת אולי יהיה לי רעיון איך זה יהיה שונה מר' מאיר. אני מתכוון לומר שבפשטות זה נראה כאילו ר' מאיר מחזיק אדם יכול לקנות או למכור את מה שעדיין לא הגיע לרשותו. לא צריך "מעכשיו" בכלל. אבל תלוי איך אתה מבין את רב באיזה תחום צריך "מעכשיו", אתה יכול להגיד שר' מאיר פשוט לא מסכים עם זה באותו תחום, אבל באחר אולי לא. אז ברור שהנושא הזה ייקח הרבה יותר חשיבה עד שאוכל להגיע למסקנות ברורות כלשהן.

Of course I am just dealing here with the surface level of this subject. It still will take time for me to understand how Rav Shach is understanding the argument between  Tosphot, the Ri, and the Ramban.  and then at that point I might have an an idea of how thi would differ from R. Meir. I mean to say that simply speaking it looks like R Meir holds a person can buy or sell that which has not yet come into his possession. Not need for "from now " at all. But depending on how you understand Rav in what area one needs "from now", you might say that R Meir just disagrees with that in that one area, but in the other maybe not. So clearly this subject will take a lot more thinking until I can reach any clear conclusions.   

_____________________________________________________________________________

I was walking back from the sea this morning and it occurred to me that there is a question if רב holds from ר' מאיר completely or only half way and that this question is really the source of the argument between תוספות and the רמב''ן (רב משה בן נחמן).

I mean to say this: ר' מאיר holds אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם and רב said If one writes a שטר to his friend "When I buy this field, it will be owned by you from now." And הגמרא said "This shows that רב agreed with ר' מאיר.

THEN תוספות asks why does רב add "from now?" תוספות answers because if the doc is burned before the purchase, the sale goes through only if he said "from now". But in either case (if he adds "from now" or not,) he can change his mind.

The רמב''ן holds the opposite. He can not change his mind if he said "from now". But if the document is burned before the sale, the sale does not go through whether he said from now or not.

So to תוספות  it comes out that Rav is  not agreeing with ר' מאיר in full because to ר' מאיר whether the document still exists or not the friend would own the field, but this would not be so to רב.

To the רמב''ן, רב is agreeing with ר' מאיר also only half way, but in a different half. So he can not change his mind if he said from now, but the sale is not valid if there is no document at the time he buy the field.

The רשב''א brings ר''י (רבינו יצחק הזקן) that holds the קניין always goes through and he can not change his mind and it is valid even if the מסמך does not exist then. That shows ר''י hold that רב is agreeing with ר' מאיר רק במצב שאמר מעכשיו.

Of course I am just dealing here with the surface level of this subject. It still will take time for me to understand how רב שך is understanding the argument between  תוספות, the ר''י, and the רמב''ן.  and then at that point I might have an an idea of how this would differ from ר' מאיר. I mean to say that simply speaking it looks like ר' מאיר holds a person can buy or sell that which has not yet come into his possession. Not need for "מעכשיו " at all. But depending on how you understand רב in what area one needs "מעכשיו", you might say that ר' מאיר just disagrees with that in that one area, but in the other maybe not. So clearly this subject will take a lot more thinking until I can reach any clear conclusions.   

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

R. Meir holds that a person can buy and cause to by owned by another person something that has not yet come into the world,[note 1] and Rav said If one writes a doc to his friend "When I buy this field, it will be owned by you from now." And the Gemara said "This shows that Rav agreed with R Meir.

Tosphot asks why does Rav add "from now?" Tosphot answers because if the doc is burned before the purchase, the sale goes through only if he said "from now". But in either case (if he adds "from now" or not,) he can change his mind.

The Ramban [R Moshe ben Nahman] holds the opposite. He can not change his mind if he said "from now". But if the doc is burned before the sale, the sale does not go through whether he said from now or not.

So to Tosphot, Rav is  not agreeing with R Meir in full because to R Meir whether the doc still exists or not the friend would own the field, but this would not be so to Rav.

To the Ramban, Rav is agreeing with R Meir also only half way, but in a different half. So he can not change his mind if he said from now but the sale is not valid if there is no doc at the time he buy the field.

The Rashba [Kidushin page 63]brings Rabbainu Isaac that holds  if he said "from now" and he can not change his mind and it is valid even if the document does not exist then. That shows R Isaac hold that Rav is agreeing with R Meir also only partially. That is: it could be the sale is valid even if he did not say "from now", but only on condition that no obstacle   arises. 

Of course I am just dealing here with the surface level of this subject. It still will take time for me to understand how Rav Shach is understanding the argument between  Tosphot, the Ri, and the Ramban.  and then at that point I might have an an idea of how this would differ from R. Meir. I mean to say that simply speaking it looks like R Meir holds a person can buy or sell that which has not yet come into his possession. Not need for "from now " at all. But depending on how you understand Rav in what area one needs "from now", you might say that R Meir just disagrees with that in that one area, but in the other maybe not. So clearly this subject will take a lot more thinking until I can reach any clear conclusions.   

[note 1] For example I go to buy a field. But before I buy it I give a doc to my friend that says when i buy it  the filed will be owned by you. To R Meir this later doc is valid.

 

 I can see why a lot of companies exported their jobs to China. The situation in the US was such that unions were crushing business. They did not care how much money the actual business had. They would simply make demands and more and more and more. If the business owner tried to explain he did not have the money to pay for that , the unions did not care.  Go take a look at the history of the unions in the USA if you do not believe me. The end result certainly was to strengthen China, but what was a business owner supposed to do? 

 

Russia, China and Iran are forming an alliance against the USA. The New World Disorder.

 Russia, China and Iran are forming an alliance against the USA. This is a period of a new world disorder. I would not worry if not for the black element in the US which is determined on bring down the USA.  It would be hard for the USA to fight against three formidable opponents while at the same time having to deal with a enemies at home that are just waiting to stab the USA in the back. [And all the more so when those enemies are now in the White House and in control of Congress.]]

Other democracies might come to the aid of the USA, but that will not matter as long as you have an enemy within the gates. The black problem is the one most lethal problem that the USA has-mainly because it can not be acknowledged.  If the USA can not admit it has a problem, then finding a solution is impossible.

 The answer: Learn Torah.That is mainly Gemara with Tosphot and Rav Shach. But also with STEM..

You can not change a child's sex. That is simply called castration.  If one tries to drive out Nature, it comes back with a  vengeance.

ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק א' פרק ע''ב

One thing Rav Nahman said was that when one prays often thoughts come that mess up one's prayer. Often you find people tht shake their head and do all kinds of odd motions to get rid of evil thoughts. He said that does not help and in fact just the opposite. The more one fights against them the more they get stronger. The only advice is to ignore them completely and just continue in one's service. I find this advice to be helping me in other situations besides prayer, for example learning.

ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק א' פרק ע''ב

The LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov vol I chapter 72 

It is a fact that King Asa was blamed in the Bible for going to doctors instead of God. In the verses it looks like an "either or ,-but not both" function. This ("Shtims") parallels well with what the mishna says טוב שברופאים לגיהינום. [The best of doctors is destined for Hell]. 

It is well known that Rav Nahman of Breslov also warned against doctors. 

So the whole Covid hoax and vaccination poisons have not seemed to me to be worth paying any attention to. But I have not protested or gotten into arguments about them.

Ad I do not want here either to go into this subject. it is well known that psychology is pseudoscience and even what is thought to be regular medicine. However in Breslov it was the custom to go to doctors anyway--just the best ones. And from what I can understand from my parents is that once a procedure has been well established for  over 50 years (at minimum), then it can be thought to be more or less reliable.

I might add that while I was in Uman in Ukraine God granted to me that i had great doctors when i needed them. the care I received was astounding--but I was nervous because for example  in the same trauma unit where I had an operation there had been in the time of the USSR a doctors who was a butcher.. I knew a girl that was crippled for life after being operated on by him. So I should say that my good experiences were all after Ukraine gained independence. And I should add that the good doctors were very conservative in that they would never use new medicines nor new procedures. 

Besides that I should admit I owe a lot of gratitude to people in Uman for other reasons. When I needed help, may there were there to help.

 

z43 

 I can see where the West keeps on giving out gender studies degrees and China keeps producing STEM mathematicians physicists, and mechanical engineers who is on the rise and who is failing. Even when I was in Polytechnic Institute of NYU the best students were from China.

The USA made war on fathers and now is harvesting the whirlwind.

I was in the Na Nach place today (on the name of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman) and listening. One thing Rav Nahman said was not to pray with the intensions of the Ari {Rav Isaac Luria} because for those who are on that level it is just the plain meaning of the words and for those that are not on that level it is like forbidden magic.

This gets to a subject that is hard to figure out in the Ari. On one hand he had great insights, but on the other hand  people that get involved in that seem to get sidetracked. And it is not clear why. Maybe it is like is usually said in the Litvak world that it is only for people that have learned Shas many times.

Further as to what Rav Nahman said it is only for those for whom the intensions are the simple explanation of the words, I have to admit I do not see any explanation of the Torah that makes sense to me except  the Ari. Just to give a simple example--the flood of Noah. How can you understand that expect that it refers to מים נוקבין (the female waters)? Or the basic time line of Genesis? How can you understand that except by the Ari? It is not as if the time line is ambiguous.  It does not come out to be 13 billion years. It comes out to be a very specific number of years are 7000 [counting the years of life of all those people from Adam until Abraham and from him until Moses and from him until the first Temple.]] Unless you explain the Seven Days of Creation as referring to the seven lower sepherot, it makes no sense at all.

So what I suggest is in fact to pray with the intensions of the Ari in the Sidur HaReshash.  Now there are two sidurim of the Reshash. The three volume small one I think is not any more well established than the large one from the grandson of the Reshash. It is called on the name of the Reshash, but was actually put together by students of the Reshash. I think the large one [five volumes] is better. 

But I agree with the Litvak world that all this is only if one has gone through Shas a few times.

The World's Smartest Students

 

 I also found women in the USA to be difficult. The reason I think has to do with up bringing. In the "old days" women would try to find a good man and start a family together by working together. Nowadays some women see themselves in in opposition to men. Almost as enemies--or at least someone to use and then expel.

Job interview with the new generation.

 

Bava Metzia 100a. Ketuboth 15. Rambam 20. Halachot 14, 15

בבא מציעא ק' ע''א כתובות ט''ו. רמב''ם כ' הלכה י''ד וט''ו.

אני חושב שאתה יכול להסביר את הרמב''ם באמצעות התוספות בנידה ב' ע''ב שחזקת השתא ביחד עם עוד חזקה יכולה לנצח חזקה מעיקרא (מצב נוכחי יחד עם סטטוס אחר יכול להביס סטטוס קודם). בנידה יש ​​לך סטטוס נוכחי ביחד עם סטטוס אחר מביס סטטוס קודם למרות שבאופן כללי סטטוס קודם חזק יותר מסטטוס נוכחי. זה יעזור לרמב''ם. שהרי יש ויכוח בין רוב ראשונים לרמב''ם על מקרה של אחד שמחליף את פרתו עם חמור. והפרה הייתה איתו באותה עת, אבל אז הוא הולך להביא את החמור ומגלה שהוא לא חי. לרוב ראשונים הבעלים של הפרה צריכים להביא הוכחה שהחמור לא היה בחיים בזמן ביצוע ההחלפה. אולם הרמב''ם מחזיק בעלים של החמור צריכים להביא הוכחה שהחמור היה בחיים. אז אתה רואה שהרמב''ם פה מחזיק כיוון שהחמור לא חי עכשיו, לכן אנחנו דוחפים את הזמן אחורה ואומרים שהוא לא היה חי כמה שיותר רחוק עד לזמן שאנחנו יודעים שהוא היה חי. האופן שבו רמב''ם הזה יכול להגיב (על שאלה של חזקה מעיקרא יותר תקפה מחזקת השתא) הוא באמצעות אותה תוספות בנידה ב' ע''ב. כלומר, בעלים של הפרה יש לו חזקת מרא קמא. רב שך מביא גם את הרמב''ם הזה ומציע סיבה אחרת לכך. כלומר, שהשלמת ההחלפה היא תנאי להחלפה. אבל זה לא סותר את ההצעה שלי. וחוץ מזה, קשה להבין למה בדיוק מתכוון רב שך. לדבריו, מדובר במכירה בתנאי שהנכס שהתקבל הוא הנכס שהיה במצב שבו נקנה. בדרך חזרה מהים עלה בדעתי שזה אותו דבר כמכירת טעות, מקח טעות רגילה. ושום מכירה בטעות אינה תקפה. אז מה שונה כאן מכל מכירה אחרת? ברור שעת ההחלפה. אבל אם כן, אין תנאי ישנה. אם החמור היה בחיים בזמן המכירה, אז המכירה תקפה. אז בכל מקרה, הנושא הוא שעת ההחלפה ולשם כך יש לנו את הסטטוס הנוכחי. אבל אפילו עם התשובה שלי, נראה שיש בעיה. כי "כאן נמצא כאן היה" לא אומר שום דבר על חזקה בהווה. זה לא אומר כלום על חזקה  עם חזקה אחרת. למשל, אותו עיקרון חל על חיה שנמצא מחט בבטנה. לא מוזכר שם שום דבר על חזקא.

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

 בבא מציעא ק' ע''א  כתובות ט''ו. רמב''ם כ' הלכה י''ד וט''ו. 

I think you can explain the רמב''ם by means of the תוספות in נידה ב' ע''ב that חזקת השתא ביחד עם עוד חזקה יכולה לנצח חזקה מעיקרא A present situation together with some other status can defeat a prior status. In נידה you have a present status along with another status defeats a prior status even though in general a prior status is stronger than a present status.

This would help the רמב''ם. For there is an argument between most ראשונים and the רמב''ם concerning the case where one exchanges his cow with a חמור. And he had the cow with him at the time. But then he goes to get the חמור and finds it is not alive. To most ראשונים the owner or the cow has to bring a proof that the ass was not alive at the time the exchange was made. However the רמב''ם holds the owner of the חמור has to bring a proof that the חמור was alive. So you see the רמב''ם here is holding since the חמור is not alive now, therefore we push the time backwards and say it was not alive as far back as possible until a time we know it was alive. The way this רמב''ם can make sense is by means of that תוספות in נידה ב' ע''ב.That is, the owner of the cow is the prior owner of the cow so he has חזקת מרא קמא 

רב שך also brings this רמב''ם and suggests a different reason for it. That is, that a completion of the exchange is a condition of the exchange.  But it does not contradict my suggestion. And besides that, it is hard to understand exactly what רב שך means.  He says this is sale on condition that the property received is the property that was in the condition that it was bought as. On the way back from the sea, it occurred to me that this is the same thing as a normal מקח טעות mistaken sale. And no mistaken sale is valid. So what is different here than any other sale? Obviously the time of the exchange. But if so the no condition would make  a difference. If the חמור was alive at the time of the sale, then the sale is valid. So in any case, the issue is the time of the exchange and for that we have the present status. But even with my answer, there seems to be an issue. For כאן נמצא כאן היה is not saying anything about a present חזקה. Not does it say anything about a present  חזקה with another  חזקה. For instance, the same principle applies to an animal that a needle was found in its stomach. There is not mentioned there anything about חזקא.

However I am thinking that Rav Shach must be getting at something other than a regular case of a mistaken sale.

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

 Bava Metzia 100a. Ketuboth 15. Rambam 20. Halachot 14, 15

I think you can explain the Rambam by means of the Tosphot in Nida page 2b that חזקת השתא ביחד עם עוד חזקה יכולה לנצח חזקה מעיקרא A present situation together with some other status can defeat a prior status. In Nida you have a present status along with another status defeats a prior status even though in general a prior status is stronger than a present status.

This would help the Rambam. For there is an argument between most Rishonim and the Rambam concerning the case where one exchanges his cow wth an ass. And he had the cow with him at the time. But then he goes to get the ass and finds it is not alive. To most Rishonim the owner or the cow has to bring a proof that the ass was not alive at the time the exchange was made. However the Rambam holds the owner of the ass has to bring a proof that the ass was alive. So you see the Rambam here is holding since the ass is not alive now, therefore we push the time backwards and say it was not alive as far back as possible until a time we know it was alive. The way this Rambam can make sense is by means of that Tosphot in Nida.  That is, the owner of the cow is the prior owner of the cow so he has חזקת מרא קמא 

Rav Shach also brings this Rambam and suggests a different reason for it. That is, that a completion of the exchange is a condition of the exchange.  But it does not contradict my suggestion. And besides that, it is hard to understand exactly what Rav Shach means.  He says this is sale on condition that the property received is the property that was in the condition that it was bought as. On the way back from the sea, it occurred to me that this is the same thing as a normal מקח טעות mistaken sale. And no mistaken sale is valid. So what is different here than any other sale? Obviously the time of the exchange. But if so the no condition would make  a difference. If the ass was alive at the time of the sale, then the sale is valid. So in any case, the issue is the time of the exchange and for that we have the present status. But even with my answer, there seems to be an issue. For כאן נמצא כאן היה is not saying anything about a present status. Not does it say anything about a present status with another status. For instance, the same principle applies to an animal that a needle was found in its stomach. There is not mentioned there anything about status.

  

 There is an argument to be made that the nature of Anglo American society in the 1950's was a result of DNA plus a Constitution that fit the nature of the people. For my grandparents (owned property in Newark NJ) but when it was clear that certain elements were moving in they gave away their property. They did not sell, but gave away since they realized that even owning property in such an area was a liability.  In a similar way I recall Camden NJ where the sister of my mother used to live. And we visited there every summer. It was wholesome and clean. Now it has become an extremely  violent city. Same reason.

The moral is clear. The South was right. 

 

 

 

 

 The argument for learning Musar is that it is hard to know what is "Daat Torah" without it. [That is to say that the idea of learning Musar depends a lot on the idea that the Rishonim [Mediaeval Authorities] understood Torah better than we do. And this principle to me seems clear even though it sees to be in danger of being forgotten.

And even if you have learned much of Shas {the whole Gemara} and Poskim [the mediaeval authorities that dealt with the Halacha] still to understand the world view of Torah can be difficult.

To me this all seems simple, but I have a hard time of conveying this message to people. I often go to the Na Nach place nearby and I can see the importance of Rav Nachman,  but why is it that some people do not see or at least emphasize the fact that Rav Nachman himself is building on the Rishonim? He is not coming up with a new Torah but rather deepening our understanding of Torah. (But to learn the books of Rav Nachman without Musar seems to me to bring about misunderstandings.)

 

 

 

 Rav Nahman of Breslov warned about doctors in the Conversations of Rav Nahman  and this theme comes up in the LeM (his major work) also. So it did not occur to me to listen to doctors about the vax. I start out with the assumption that what ever in on the market should not be trusted until 5 years have passed and all the quirks have been ironed out.

 I have thought about the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway and realized that it is highly  unlikely I would have come to any understanding of Torah without hearing classes from the great roshei yeshiva in these two places.[Rav Shmuel Berenbaum and Naphtali Yeager] since I can see the same thing when I learn Physics. There is only so much I can get by reading. Without hearing from an expert is like trying to learn how to play the violin from a textbook.

And in the Middle Ages this was also understood--that for any discipline, whether shoe making, or painting or boat making, one needed to learn from an expert.

So what was the question of the Gra about the creation of a "yeshiva" as a seperate institution from the rav of a city? I can imagine the issue was that he saw the future abuse that this would cause. Still, one way or the other it is clear that Rav Chaim of Voloshin decided that it is important --even if we do not know if the Gra agreed or not. [There are two versions of the story.]     

 

 

baali teshuva

 I can see that problems that arise for baali teshuva are a result of the Patrician Plebian dynamic. That is they think that they are accepted into the religious world as equals [because of the love bombing and Shabat table façade], but then are treated as disposables to be disregarded when no longer of use. [For clarity: baali teshuva means newly religious.]

 There is a sort of depth in Tosphot which I feel is being forgotten in even the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or the Mir. The reason is that the emphasis in in depth learning has gone in the direction of Rav Chaim of Brisk. While that in itself is worthy and great, still the effect I think is to lose sight of Tosphot.

And one thing I can definite say about Tosphot: it is hard. It is nothing like the Rambam while at least in a  superficial reading you can get the idea. And even if you learn it with the commentaries and even Rav Chaim of Brisjk, you can still get the idea more or less. That is totally different than Tosphot where the depth clear since even to get the basic idea takes tremendous work. And it is not clear how to penetrate into the depth of Tosphot anyway. Unless you have a learning partner with a genius IQ like I had for awhile in David Bronson. Or you have a rosh yeshiva like I had in Shar Yashuv, Naftali Yegear. Otherwise what can one do? The only approach that I found to be workable is to review that same Tosphot every day word for word for about 40 days in a row. Eventually with that I found the depths of Tosphot began to be revealed.

 z48  z48 nwc

 I have been looking at the news and I feel a lot of issues would be clearer to people if they would know about faith and reason.. Since the Enlightenment, some philosophers have sought to find morality in reason alone with no input from the Bible.  Of course not all philosophers have gone this path. Hegel for one sought to justify faith by means of reason. He was to Protestantism what Aquinas was to the Catholics. [Though I hesitate to state this so openly, since Left Hegelians saw him differently. I admit my understanding Hegel is mainly based on just one thing--the Logic as printed in his Encyclopedia. I think most people's understanding of Hegel comes from their reading of the Phenomenology. ]

A different approach  to faith comes from the Friesian School which I think is just as great as Hegel even though the principles are quite different. There you find a sort of knowledge which is not based on the senses and not based on reason. ["Reason" in this context means to derive one thing from another. It is not the same thing as when Prichard, G.E. Moore or Huemer think of reason as that which recognizes universals. This is an expanded idea of reason.]

 

 I find Physics is easier to understand in the equations rather than the verbal expressions. Time travel to me would be ok if that would fit the equations; that is, if there would be negative mass. But we do not find negative mass, and so that is that. The same thing goes for a lot of the interesting things in Physics. The equations seem to me to express things a lot clearer than when the idea is stated in words.

However in math, I find the opposite. If I hear a lecture in math, that almost always makes things more clear to me than if I just read the material.

to justify faith

 If you want to justify faith, I think you do not have much choice but the Kant Friesian School. I mean to say that Hegel gets to principles of faith, but he does so by reason alone. But if (like me) you believe that faith is a different source of knowledge than reason, then the Friesian School seems the only choice. But this school is not one block. It has developed from Fries to Leonard Nelson until Kelley Ross. 

There are others that have noticed and written on this school, but they all seem to get one point wrong-psychologism. To Nelson this was a thing a fought against his whole life-- [mainly against Husserl].

To the Friesian way, one does get to knowledge of the categories of Kant [which are roughly answers to the basic questions--how? where? when? what? etc.] by looking into ones mind--empirically,--but they are not known by the structure of the mind. Rather by non-intuitive immediate knowledge [which is close to the way Michael Huemer and the original intuitionists thought. It is close because to Huemer we know these things by reason, but in a wider understanding of what reason can tell us. But it is not like Huemer because pure reason is limited as Locke and Hume saw. Rather what Huemer thinks is reason is rather reasonable, but not reason.]

Non-intuitive immediate knowledge  means knowledge that is known not by reason nor by sense perception.

Rav Shach's Avi Ezri Laws of Loans. Rambam 13 halacha 4. Tractate Shavuot page 44 side B

רב שך באבי עזקי הלכות מלווה ולווה. פרק י''ג הלכה ד A lender has an object as a משכון for a loan of 100  and loses it בלי אונס. He says it was worth 50 and the borrower says 75. The lender  takes an oath it is not in his possession and the borrower takes an oath on how much it was worth and pays the 25 besides that that he owes. We have an argument between the רמב''ן and the ר''ן if the borrower has to take an oath on how much the object was worth. This is all clear.  But what has been bothering me is  this. Even though the lender has to take an oath on how much the object was worth, but let's say he does not take an oath. Then what? Anyway the borrower is taking an oath on how much he says it was worth and pays the rest. But the lender without the oath maybe would not get even that? Or maybe the borrower has to pay anyway what he admits he owes. Or gets 25 and pays 100? But then the borrower is taking an oath and getting money which is the opposite of an oath of the תורה which is when one takes an oath and does not pay and it is also not in the category of things that one takes an oath and gets paid which is a hired worker. 

רב שך באבי עזרי הלכות מלווה ולווה. פרק י''ג הלכה ד' למלווה יש חפץ כמשכון להלוואה של 100 ומפסיד אותו בלי אונס. הוא אומר שהיה שווה 50 והלווה אומר 75. המלווה נשבע שבועה זה לא ברשותו והלווה נדר כמה זה שווה ומשלם את ה-25  שהוא חייב. יש לנו ויכוח בין הרמב''ן לר''ן אם הלווה צריך להישבע כמה היה שווה החפץ. כל זה ברור. אבל מה שהפריע לי זה. אף על פי שהמלווה צריך להישבע כמה היה שווה החפץ, אבל נניח שאינו נשבע. ואז מה? בכל מקרה הלווה נשבע כמה הוא אומר שזה שווה ומשלם את השאר. אבל המלווה בלי השבועה אולי לא יקבל אפילו את זה? או אולי הלווה צריך לשלם בכל מקרה את מה שהוא מודה שהוא חייב. או מקבל 25 ומשלם 100? אבל אז הלווה שבועה ומקבל כסף שזה ההפך משבועת התורה שהיא נשבע ולא משלם וגם זה לא בקטגוריית הדברים נשבעים ומשלמים. שהוא שכיר.

 __________________________________________________________________________

Rav Shach's Avi Ezri Laws of Loans. A lender has an object as a guarantee for a loan of 100  and loses it. He says it was worth 50 and the borrower says 75. The lender  takes an oath it is not in his possession and the borrower takes an oath on how much it was worth and pays the 25 besides that that he owes.

 I know I have not been blogging and also not learning Torah. However  there is one small thing that I have been thinking  and puzzling about. It is in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri Laws of Loans 13:4. You have a lender who has an object as a guarantee and he loses it in such a  way that he is obligated. [There are ways in which he would not be obligated for example: robbers.] So we have an argument between the Ramban {Nachmanides} and the Ran {Rabbainu Nisim}if the borrower has to take an oath on how much the object was worth. This is all clear. 

  But what has been bothering me is  this. Even though the lender has to take an oath on how much the object was worth, but let's say he does not take an oath. Then what? Anyway the borrower is taking an oath on how much he says it was worth and pays the rest. But the lender without the oath maybe would not get even that? Or maybe the borrower has to pay anyway what he admits he owes. Or gets25 and pays 100? But then the borrower is taking an oath and getting money which is the opposite of an oath of the Torah which is when one takes an oath and does not pay and it is also not in the category of things that one takes an oath and gets paid which is a hired worker. So this case seems confusing to me.

 

 

Those inside the palace are the physicists.

 I have not been blogging in part because my mental energy I have been trying to direct towards Physics and Mathematics which I find needs a lot more energy and effort than I originally thought. The major emphasis in this direction comes from the Guide for the Perplexed. It is mentioned off hand there and in other places in the Rishonim [mediaeval authorities.], but the one place that makes it clearer is the parable of the King in his palace [end of vol III] There is a king who rules of a vast country. And there are many levels of closeness with the King. Those outside the country are barbarians. Those inside are ruled by Divine Law. Those around the Palace are those that learn and keep the Talmud. Those inside the palace are the physicists. Those with the king himself are the prophets and philosophers.

Though this message is in many other places in the medieval authorities, here  it is without ambiguity.

However there are also many Rishonim that do not hold from this at all. To them learning Torah means Gemara and the other books of the sages of the Talmud-not science. 

However I was forced out of the yeshiva world, and found that I had no choice but to learn to make a living with no help from anyone. So I decided to take up Physics at NYU. Since then, I am not longer at NYU and do not even do Physics for the sake of making a living. But I wanted to make clear that if I had not found this opinion in the Rishonim, I probably would have chosen a different path. The fact that Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam hold from this path, made it make more sense to do the Physics thing rather than hang out where I was not wanted.

 

 

 

 

 Rav Nahman of Breslov makes a distinction between learning halacha and reading ["שונה" {Shone}] halacha.

Learning means you go to the source in the Gemara and see how the law is derived. "Reading" means to read it and go on. 

And this later category he says is what makes Torah Scholars the are demons in the Lekutai Moharan [LeM] vol. I chapter 54. [Learning halacha means learning it with its sources in depth. That is in Lekutai Moharan vol I chapter 62 paragraph 6 and chapter 286]

There he says that the "כוח המדמה" power of delusion is always looking for a place to settle upon. And when that power of delusion finds someone who reads halacha, it settles there. And so it is important to never hear words of Torah from these demonic Torah scholars since their ideas in Torahh contain more evil than good. That is to say that even though their words are about Torah so they contain some good, still that good is less than 50% so the evil is the majority and cancels the good.

 Or one can become conservative by learning the Bible. Reason and Faith was the approach of the Middle Ages. To come to objective morality by Reason alone does not work. You need faith also. [Even though some moral principles might be reasonable, but can not be derived by reason. You need to start with some moral principle that is a beginning, not derived from any where. You can not get an "ought" from an "is". And you can not get a tuna fish  sandwich without tuna. You need to start somewhere. []Though Hegel would disagree, I am mainly saying what I understand by the Kant-Fries Approach.

 In Israel the minister of finance wants that there should be in schools regular studies [Mathematics English, Citizenship. Or such similar things.] And to me this makes sense. After in in the Mir in N.Y.  the high school has secular studies. Besides that I think that there is some hidden dynamics going on that is unstated. After all in the Sefardi world, you do not get the sort of division between Frum from birth and baal teshuva. It is only in the Ashkenazi world that this comes up. The Patricians against the Plebeians. This class difference is reinforced by the firm exclusion of secular studies.

This division I think is sad and in truth while I was at the Mir I did not see any of it. I was accepted as part of the regular Kollel-lite. But this division is sad. And serious. For each group looses out on something.  Especially because it is important for  everyone to learn Torah all the time. It is not a practice that is exclusive to the ruling class of the Patricians while us plebeians are supposed to support them. 

 But in fact many of us are not able to be sitting and learning Torah all day and night. So for that reason I see Musar as being of great importance since it gives over the essence of what Torah is all about--good character traits and fear of God.

 Cure of Cancer in New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445

I used to review each paragraph twice and to go on. Now I am thinking learning in depth is better.

 I thought the best idea in learning was to review each paragraph twice and to go on. This was the compromise that I made for myself in the great Litvak yeshivas Shar Yashuv and the Mir when there was this tension between intense deep learning and the path of Rav Nahman of just saying the words and going on.

Each of these two ways just did not work for me. If I just said the words and went on, I understood nothing. And if I sat on the same page doing lots of review, I also had no idea of what was going on.

So I found this sort of compromise to be the most sensible thing. With review twice, I more or less got the idea, but I did not linger on the same page in such a way that I made no progress.

Anyway that is how I learned in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. After that I did the "Say the words and go on" approach. And that is how I learned most of the time. [ After that I needed to find some way of making a living,  I majored in Physics at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. To do that I needed a lot of review.

[I knew one fellow in Breslov who in fact took this advice of Rav Nahman very much literally, He used to finish Shas every month. (The entire Talmud.) He pointed out to me that this is not hard if you just come in in the morning and start going through page after page. Thus by the end of the day, you have gone through about 100 pages.] But that is only for  the fast bekiut sessions. Nowadays I think one should emphasize the Litvak approach of deep iyun [Deep learning] because I think that is the only way to get to the light of Torah; and in math and Physics also I think deep learning with tons of review on the same chapter is the best approach. But is agree that fast learning is good in the afternoon [as was done at the Mir.]

[Here are two books I wrote which show how I learn gemara chidushei hashas  [ideas in talmud ] iyunei bava meztia studies in Bava Metzia

 It is hard to know why people obsess  on certain things. During the Middle Ages, one fate in the next world was the major issue. And since the right doctrine determined that fate, nations would go to war for that. In the Victorian Age in England , death was the major issue. One tomb or grave stone was just one aspect of this. Mainly people were obsessive about their legacy. But sex could not even be mentioned. Nowadays all that seems ridiculous. Nowadays people obsess about sex and bring it up all the time, --it is on the news constantly. But ones' legacy on the news? Or one's fate in the next world? You will not hear these issues on the news. And besides sex, there is race.  

Why do people obsess about it? Who knows? 

z48 Music file in midi format 

All music files were labeled by "a" through "z" generally going to 100. But this was not done systematically. So a lot of work would be needed to go through old files to see what is worth while to save, or what is worthwhile to edit.

For example: this file. It was finished some months ago, but I thought to go back and take a look at it to see if it was worthwhile to do a bit of editing, and then present it. So here  I am presenting it for the first time though it was finished  some time ago.

faith is a source of knowledge

(1) A flaw in enlightenment philosophy is the attempt to get moral principles from pure Reason.

Pure Reason does not tell us much. It does not even tell us what axioms are "reasonable" to start with.. It is more like a tool to constrain. It can tell us when we are making a mistake. This is the point of David Hume that got this idea from his experience as a teacher of Euclid's Elements (Geometry.) The axioms were not derived by reason. But they were reasonable. The only function of reason in the Elements was to show when some idea could be shown to be in contradiction to one of the axioms.

There might be reasonable moral principles, but they are not derivable by mean of pure reason which can tell us they way things are, not how they ought to be. That is the famous rule of Hume: You can not derive an "ought" from an "is"

(2) What I am getting at is that faith is a source of knowledge that is different from reason. [This is a doctrine of the Kant-Friesian School]. But even those that are adherents of this school often seem to miss out that this is not a form of psychologism. While it is true with Fries that one needs to look into one's own mind to see what the beginning axioms are  that does not mean that the mind knows these things by some kind of implanted knowledge. Rather the mind perceives them but not by reason but by a sort of knowledge that is not sensed nor known by reason. It is non intuitive immediate knowledge.

(3) This was of course obvious in the Middle Ages. The need for faith and reason together was obvious to all. This insight was lost until the Kant Friesian School arose.

 z74 music file

 I must admit that it was not any lack in the Litvak Yeshiva World that caused me to leave. As long as I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, things were great. And coming to Israel would not have been a problem also because there was a Litvak  kollel in Safed that I could have joined. Rather I got involved in Breslov. And you can understand how that might come about since Rav Nahman was in fact a great tzadik. Still, the effect on me was to get me off track. [And in spite of the greatness of Rav Nahman, on occasion people that get involved in Breslov do tend to lose the way, close the Gemara]. The best idea is to stick with the Gra and straight Torah of the Litvak world while at the same time to benefit from the important advice and ideas of Rav Nahman.

One  of the great things I learned in the Litvak world: the importance of Rishonim Mediaeval thinkers. [This mainly refers to the commentator of the Gemara, Tosphot, Rashba, Ritva, Ramban, Rosh. etc.].But by implication it also refers to the Musar and world view philosophy of the Rishonim.

Also I learned the importance of review. 

However not enough emphasis was placed on the Gra.

=And that is the only thing I see amiss in the Litvak world- not enough emphasis on the Gra. [for example the letter of excommunication that he signed and yet is still ignored. ]

 

 

 Russia has made it clear that sending advanced weapons to Ukraine will be considered as an act of war. Do we really think we can wipe the floor with Russia?  How well did we do in Afghanistan with the Taliban who did not have 4,000 nuclear weapons. 

And the Russian doctrine of war is that even a conventional attack on Russia will evoke a nuclear response.

How much easier it would be to sign an agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO? Would that not be better than WWIII that the USA is not prepared for.. The Military has made it clear that it main priority is getting  homosexuals into positions of  high rank.

Are we ready for this: 

zh b

 There is something profoundly insightful about Kant's idea that we really do no understand "things in themselves" This was originally derived from John Locke that noticed that some traits are in things in themselves and others are how we react to them. E.g. how they feel our touch. Kant noticed that even trait that we think of as being in things in themselves are really what we add to them. So if you abstract these traits then what is the thing in itself? We do not know. You see this in Physics.  One one hand Physics recognizes mass and charge as very well understood and measurable in the lab. But  as Kant would that that is how we interact with the mass and charge of the electron. But the "bare mass"? The mass that you calculate in the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy? That bare mass in infinity.  It is hard to understand how the electrons mass can be infinity. So Kant was right that we really do not understand things in themselves. [The "bare mass" is one of the many famous infinities that come up in Quantum Field Theory. Richard Feynman sort of solved the problem by what is called normalization but it is more like sweeping the dust under the rug]

 It is helpful that Rav Nahman of Breslov was aware of the problem of Torah scholars that are demons-which is admittedly a problem, [Le.M. I:12, I:28.] and yet was able to see the importance of the Oral and Written Law.

Abuse does not cancel use. Abusus non tollit usum.

In fact in the very first of the 13 stories of Rav Nahman  is an instructive lesson.  The second to the King, was on a search for the kidnapped daughter of the king.  When he got to giants in a desert that told him to turn back. But he was stubborn and pressed on. You can say this is similar.