There is an argument among the Rishonim mediaeval authorities what is the law of a נערה בתולה מאורסה שזינתה a girl [12 years old to 12.5] that is in this intermediate state between betrothal and marriage who has had sexual relations with another person besides her husband. It is the usual case of an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. [Betrothal is marriage, but before the chupa.]

Just to be clear- a married woman who has sex with someone other than her husband gets the normal death penalty  [choking].\\That is just in the regular laws about עריות forbidden sexual relations in Leviticus.

But in Deuteronomy you get the law about מוציא שם רע which also refers to a married woman --but to a special case of a married woman-- the נערה בתולה מאורסה שזינתה a girl [12 years old to 12.5]

The case you might recall is where a husband makes a false accusation against his wife. He says (after the Chupa, and  they had sex) that he discovered that she was not a virgin. But then it turns out that he was lying. Then he has to pay about $1600 [100 shekels] and 39 lashes. 

But if it turns out to be true she is stoned. 

The case to Rambam is she had sex while betrothed  [ or even after the chupa but before sex with her husband] and thus when the sex with her husband took place, she was already not a virgin. So she is stoned. But here is where the opinion of Tosphot is the law about stoning is parallel to that of מוציא שם רע [slander] that is-- she is stoned only when the husband said to witnesses, ''Come and give testimony.''     

[I admit I am being short here. Sorry about that. Just for the sake of clarity let me add a few details. The case where the husband is found to have lied is when he did ask witnesses to come and they came and said they saw her have sex [on such and such a date and such and such a time] before she was married after being betrothed. They come and say that. Then two other people come along to the court and ask "How could you have seen that? Both of you were with us that that other place that whole day.'' So the husband has to pay the $1600 and gets lashes. But if no second set of witnesses come, then she is stoned. It is a case of a married woman having sex except the difference is that it was while she was betrothed. [Betrothal is marriage but before the chupa.]

[See Ketuboth page 45] 

 Allan Bloom in Closing of the American Mind says as per the title, but shows its deeper roots as being from the ambiguity of what is the ''self''. His solution is more or less along the lines of what you would call classical education. [HE especially recommends The Republic of PLATO.

[I am not clear as to the reason for The Republic since to my mind, the shorter dialogues seem a lot more powerful. But that might just be because of my short attention span. I tend to have the same sort of preference in music for short and to the point rather than long build ups.]

That book Closing of the American Mind is a definite masterpiece, In particular his analysis of the whole problem.--and his solution.

[Even though Aristotle is also great but for what Allan Bloom is aiming at,,- the opening of the American mind,- I agree that nothing could compare to Plato.

Learning Torah tends to be neglected for the fact that many things are substituted for Torah. What defines ''Torah''? The Rambam wrote in his letters  כשם שאין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבכתב כמן כן אין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבעל פה. ''Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the written Torah, so is there no adding nor subtracting from the oral Torah.''

That means the actual books that were the redaction of the oral law written down by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. These and these alone have the right to be called ''Torah''. And learning them is called learning Torah, Later books might have insights and interesting ideas--but they are not ''Torah,''

 In the Eitz Chaim of Rav Isaac Luria, in Shaar HaNukva chap 3 I noticed that keter of Yaakov, which is the tefilin of Yaakov is parallel to wisdom, understanding, kindness and power of Israel.--and thus is parallel to Israel down to his feet. In that same paragraph, he states that keter Yaakov starts at the beginning of the two lower thirds of tiferet of Israel.  I was in the Breslov place looking at this for a while, and then it occurred to me that this refers to the very famous Drush haDaat that is missing in the Eitz Chaim itself, but found in Rav Shalom Sharabi's Nahar Shalom where the whole distinction between the lower and higher daat is made clear. So this particular paragraph in the Eitz Chaim clearly refers to the lower Daat. 

[I have not been looking at the Ari for a while, but then I noticed that Rav Nahman says in Sefer Hamidot '' עלידי עיון עמוק ביסודות התורה יכןלים לפקוד עקרות ולרפאות חולי חזק. by means of depth learning in the secrets of Torah, one can bring about that barren women give birth and to cure a strong illness.'' So I decided to take a look at the Eitz Chaim. 

[I do hold with Rav Nachman because if you look at the actual letter of excommunication signed by the Gra you will see it can not refer to Rav Nahman. In this regard in fact it is helpful to see the Sefer that collected the five letters of excommunication with the transcripts of the testimony given in Villna. [In that book the testimony appears in affidavit form, not as actual testimony in beit din. At any rate, these letters of excommunication were and still are valid  but they do not refer to Rav Nachman who was teaching his own revelation and insights.]

לא תעשה לך כל תמונה ''Thou shalt not make to you any image'' and i ask what is it that you see when you walk into any religious building--images. but not for beauty rather for religious intent.,

In Torah, there is a particular emphasis on not doing idolatry. [especially in the beginning  of Deuteronomy] And this is the reason I avoid the religious world. I consider the entire religious world to be worshipping dead people, and not God. But they attempt to hide this by a distraction. They emphasize rituals. By means of misdirection, they get away with the fact that it is not God who is the center of their worship.

Here is a proof for Tosphot as opposed to the Rambam and the Ran. 

For to Tosphot, the reason to say, ''It was written and signed before me''  [בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם] is a קולא leniency. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the Ran and Rambam, the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two gemaras in Gitin page 5 seem to show that Tosphot is right. For there we have a teaching: ''One who brings a divorce [get] from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the divorce [get\] or else it is considered as null and void.'' The gemara asks from this on Rabah. But no matter how the answer for Rabah turns out, in both answers the final result of the teaching is clear that without validation, the divorce is null. So validation is not just an extra precaution. It is a absolute law. Only because we want to be lenient for an woman with a husband  do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. but without that . validation is an absolute requirement.

__________________________________________________________________

Here is a proof for תוספות as opposed to the ר''ן ורמב''ם. For to תוספות the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a קולא. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation (קיום) of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the ר''ן and רמב''ם the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two גמרות in גיטון דף ה' seem to show that תוספות is right. For there we have a ברייתא: one who brings a גט  from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the גט or else it is considered as null and void. The gגמרא asks from this on רבה. But no matter how the answer for רבה turns out, in both answers, the final result of the ברייתא is clear that without validation the גט is null. so validation is not just an extra precaution. it is a din. only because we want to be lenient for an עגונה do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. But without that. validation is an absolute requirement.

הנה הוכחה לתוספות בניגוד לר''ן ורמב''ם. כי לתוספות הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא קולא. אנו מקילים לאפשר לשליח לומר זאת במקום לדרוש אימות מלא (קיום) של החתימות. הקילו משום עגונה לר''ן ולרמב''ם הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא חומרא. אנחנו מחמירים במיוחד ונוקטים אמצעי זהירות נוסף לדאגה שבאמת לא צריכה להיות דאגה. אבל נראה ששתי גמרות בגיטין דף ה' מראות שתוספות צודקים. שהרי שם יש לנו ברייתא: המביא גט מחוץ לארץ לישראל ואינו אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם צריכים לאמת את הגט, אחרת הוא נחשב בטל ומבוטל. הגמרא שואלת מכאן על רבה. אבל לא משנה איך תתברר התשובה לרבה, בשתי התשובות, התוצאה הסופית של הברייתא ברורה שללא אימות הגט בטל. אז אימות הוא לא רק אמצעי זהירות נווסף. זה דין. רק בגלל שאנחנו רוצים להיות סלחניים עבור עגונה, אנחנו מאפשרים בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לעמוד במקום אימות קיום. אבל בלי זה. אימות הוא דרישה מוחלטת. הרמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שמעיקר הדין אין חשש זיוף אלא בגלל חשש שמא יבוא הבעל ויער על הויוציא לעז על הגט השליח צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם . זה בסוף פרק ז' בהלכות גירושין

 I was in Breslov yesterday and I heard someone learning Zohar. I did not say anything to him about the question of it's validity because I think that some  parts are taken from earlier documents of mystics that were later incorporated into it. Still at the same time he was learning Zohar, I was learning the part in the major book of Rav Nahman about גם בהתקרבות להשם יש יצר הרע של התלהבות יותר מדאי (Also in coming close to God there is a evil inclination of overdoing it.--getting overly fanatic.) And that you see with people that get involved with Zohar.

[The main  issue with the Zohar is the phrase 'even though' עם כל דא which is a phrase from the middle ages. It is used all over the Zohar. It was made by the Ibn Tibon family to replace an older form of saying 'even though' which was אף על פי or אף על גב/ So it was not written by R. Shimon ben Yochai.]

While it is true that many great sages held of the validity of the Zohar, still this historic information was not available at the time.

 Rav Nahman says in the Le.M  vol I:72 that even in coming close to God one needs to be wary of ריבוי אור [excess light or excess excitement. ] This I think accounts for the fanaticism of the religious world

[The same theme is brought in the LeM vol II chapter 5:7 and  chapter 9] 

But in addition i thin the problem with Torah scholars that are demonsa adds to the issue. And that aspect of things is brought up a lot more in the LeM , but not in just so many words, The only times you see this in the LeM explicitly are in Lem I 12 and LeM I 28.

 I have to say that my approach to the State of Israel is based on Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Aaron Kotler. [I am probably repeating myself here, but still I do not recall mentioning this for a long time.] So let me just make clear that oth of these great sages of Torah said: "דינא דמלכותא דינא".The law of the state is the law. [In other words, the State of Israel is a legitimate state like any other legitimate state.] But I know that Neturaai Karta try to make it out  as if the State of Israel is worse than other states.--as if they are all pure and holy and just Israel is ssoehow born in sin. And they bring proof that within the origins of the sstate you find that peple that were trying to bring Jews to Israel [IN opposition to the British] did not want to help the religious Jews. And I assume this to be in fact the case in Europe. [Obviously this was not the case in Sephardi lands]. But so what? The religious always do as much damage as possible to secular Jews. It is just tit for tat. [I know this all too well from long and sad personal experience. I might consider myself to e ssomewhat religious and I certainly love Torah and do my best to keep it-- but as far as the religious world is considered I am not part of their club. And the rest of the story is too sad to relate.

[just for the record I should mention that Torah and the religious are two opposites.]]

 One thing i noticed in Livy--that self confidence does not always win. In fact that seems to be a major theme of the  war with Hannibal. One Roman general after the other thought that they would just walk in and wipe the mat with Hannibal. Little did they know. Hubris before a fall. While it is true that Rome won in the end, but thtat was by the policy of Fabius--to avoid direct battle as much as possible. To wear him down by attrition.

 z85 A little music piece I just finished.

 This may not seem like  big deal but I  have been thinking about the fact that a courier of a divorce document outside of Israel has to declare "It was written and signed in front of me." There is an argument between the Raaavad and the Rambam if a a divorce ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the Raavad and Tosphot are parallels. Because Tosphot says the reason he has to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is to be lenient. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, [Laws of Divorse 12:2] but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עגונה.  But to the Rambam there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is add a "humra" extra requirement  

The main idea here is just to show that Tosphot and the Raavad fit together. I am not dealing with the Rambam except to show that he is not like Tosphot.

[This occurred to me this morning on the way to the sea, but I did not work it out completely until now,]

[it does not seem needed, but perhaps for additional clarity -there are obviously monetary issues in a ''get'' but the Rambam considers them as a collateral issue.

However I just saw Rav Shach on this subject and he sees a difference between the Raavad and Tosphot.{Laws of Divorce chapter 7. Law 1}

  

A שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ  has to declare "בפני נכב ובפני נחתם." There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם if a a גט ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the ראב''ד and תוספות are parallels. Because תוספות says the reason he has to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם' is to be מקיל. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עיגונה.  But to the רמב''ם there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם'' is add a חומרא extra requirement  

שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ צריך להכריז "בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם". יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם אם גט צריך אימות [קיום]. בדרך כלל כל מסמך שמגיע לבית המשפט צריך להיות מאומת. [לדוגמה, הלוואות]. אז למה לא כאן? יש הבדל בסיבות שניתנו לכך. נראה לי שהראב''ד (הלכות גירושין י''ב הלכה ב') והתוספות מקבילים. כי תוספות אומר שהסיבה שהוא צריך לומר ''"בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" היא להיות מקיל. כלומר - באמת צריך לדרוש אימות מלא אבל כאן אנחנו מקילים כדי להקל עליה משום עיגונה. אבל לרמב"ם באמת לא צריך להיות דרישה לאמת את תקפות הגט שכן אין מדובר בדיני ממונות וכן משום שהיא לא תהרוס את נישואיה השניים בזיוף גט. הצורך לומר ''בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם'' הוא הוספת דרישה נוספת

I might add here that I heard from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [a rosh yeshiva at the Mir] that there is קניין אישות וקניין כסף in acquiring a wife. [there are monetary obligation for both husband and wife.] so the Raavad here is going like this idea\that since there are monetary obligation in a divorce--like giving the ketubah-so the document does need validation. 

 I used to study the story of Rav Nachman about the simple son and the smart one. I was not just reading it but studying it it order to absorb the lessons. One of the lessons i learned was that the smart  son was always saying to himself [after he found himself in some goof situation]]  maye there us some place better than here. i.e that one ought not to do that

 It has been noticed that there is little motivation for women to be nice nowadays. If you find a nice girl it has to be because of an extra ordinary amount of effort that she has expended on correcting her character traits. Otherwise, the emphasis of society is to make women as nasty as possible,-- and that shows. The proof is in the pudding. Women nowadays are unlikable.  If they have divorced  their husbands, they get tons of praise for being so brave. And the more damage they can cause to their ex husbands, their friends and general society consider her as a heroine.

The reason for this I believe is מכת מדינה a general plague that has come into the world.  For you see in prayers of Jews a few generations ago, their main concern was Parnasa -making a living. In general prayer books, you do not see much about peace of the home. That was assumed to be ok. In the American Civil War, how many letters do you see of women or men wishing for their spouses to be better? Never. All the letters and prayers of women are, "Please bring my husband back home safely"

Western society has changed. Women think of divorce as getting  merit badge, and think of it not as a way to get away from their husbands --but as a way to get all his money and to ruin his life as much s possible. 

[What I am getting at here is the importance of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement -- that movement he started. The message is everyone ought to learn Musar the  more the better. Musar in this context means four basic works חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, אורחו צדיקים ,מסילת ישרים three were from the middle ages and the last from Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato. [Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda. Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous, and Paths of the Just ]

I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. [rather it need to be 16.5 cubits across]

 I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. The Gemara Shabat (in the chapters about carrying in a public domain) talks like it is a common occurrence. [I am thinking mainly about the chapters about what a man or woman can wear in a public domain.] The reason this number 600,000 seems unreasonable to me is that no ancient cities had anywhere near these numbers, Even Rome had 324,000 according to the census  taken in 152 BC [as brought in Livy in the collected fragments. book 48.]

The Gra brings a proof to the Rambam,Ramban, Rashba that a public domain does not need 600,000. the gemara in Eruvin 6b: Ula said if not for the fact that they close their walls and gates at night, Mehuza (a city in Bavel) would be a public domain. And Ula also said "There is no city in bavel that has ''uchlusa'' 600,000." Besides that, I have noted in this blog before that no ancient cities had anything even close to 600,000.  

There is however such a thing as an eruv, but that can only help in a Carmlit, not an actual public domain. [A  Carmlit is sort of like a private domain in so far as it is permitted from the Torah to carry there. But it is unlike a private domain in so far as carrying to and from there into a public domain is not obligated a sin offering.]

 I discovered that it is hard to swim in rough surf and at the same time to be helping another person get to safety. Much harder than I could have imagined. It is  trying to swim with one hand, and in the other holding a 130 pound person. So even though  I have been doing a little bit of exercise, I now realize  that that little bit is no where near enough.

 I am often in a slightly hidden place at the beach  and today there was a young Arab  walking by about to grab a woman's purse and then he right before he took it he saw I was watching. So he went on some steps. Then came back to me to ask for a cigarette. I had none, and then he walked further back again and asked some girls the same question. [Normally I try to give to whom so ever asks from me something, but in fact I had no cigarette. ] Then after that it occurred to me that that guy was looking for people's stuff to steal. That is why he was about to grab that purse.. So I went over to the police to let them know there was someone around looking for trouble.

I am also still pondering that answer of Rav Shach for the Rambam in Sota [chapter 1 halacha 3] that is related to the gemara in nida page 2 and i am about to give up. i just can not see  how the Rambam can decide like two teachings that the gemara itself says contradict  each other. 

I was at the beach today and thinking about how Rav Shach explains the Gemara in Nida page 2. [The Gemara says the teaching (of the Braita) about the barrel and the teaching (of the Mishna) about the mikve disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the barrel is R. Shimon. And it says R Shimon is learning from Sota.  Then it says maybe R Shimon is learning from the regular case of doubt about purity. At that point Rav Shach says the difference between the first answer of the Gemara and the second is in the second answer the case of the mikve is considered a doubt. The first answer of the Gemara is thinking that the sages consider the case of the mikve is be a sure thing. So that is how the Rambam can say that the law is both like the Mishna and the braita. So the mishna in saying in the case of the mikve that both in a public domain and private that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the Rambam. If we learn from Sota then even the case of the Mikve ought to be pure in a public domain, and if we do not learn from Sota then the case of the barrel ought to be impure in a public domain.

[recently i saw a book by isar meltzer who was a teacher of rav shach and he has a very elegant answer fo the Rambam here but I have not really thought about it long enough to be able to comment ]

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

I was at the beach today and thinking about how רב שך explains the גמרא in נידה ב' ע''ב. [The גמרא says the teaching (of the ברייתא) about the חבית and the teaching (of the משנה) about the מקוה disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the חבית is ר' שמעון. And it says ר' שמעון is learning from סוטה.  Then it says maybe ר' שמעון is learning from the regular case of doubt about טומאה וטהרה. At that point רב שך says the difference between the first answer of the גמרא and the second is in the second answer the case of the מקוה is considered a doubt. The first answer of the גמרא is thinking that the חכמים  consider the case of the מקוה is be a sure thing. So that is how the רמב''ם can say that the law is both like the משנה  and the ברייתא. So the משנה in saying in the case of the מקוה that both in a רשות הרבים and רשות היחיד that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the רמב''ם. If we learn from סוטה then even the case of the מקוה ought to be pure in a רשות הרבים, and if we do not learn from סוטה then the case of the חבית ought to be impure in a רשות הרבים.

בחוף וחשבתי איך רב שך מסביר את הגמרא בנידה ב' ע''ב. [הגמרא אומר שההוראה (של הברייתא) על החבית והוראה (של המשנה) על מקוה חולקים כך שנאלץ לומר ההוראה על החבית היא ר' שמעון. וכתוב ר' שמעון לומד מסוטה. ואז כתוב שאולי ר' שמעון לומד מהמקרה של ספק לגבי טומאה וטהרה. באותה נקודה רב שך אומר שההבדל בין התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא לשניה הוא בתשובה השנייה המקרה של מקוה נחשב בספק. התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא היא לחשוב שהחכמים מחשיבים את המקרה של מקוה הוא דבר בטוח. אז כך יכול הרמב''ם לומר שהדין הוא גם כמו המשנה וגם הברייתא. אז המשנה באומרו במקרה של מקוה שגם ברשות הרבים וגם ברשות היחיד שהאדם שנכנס נשאר בספק. ובכל זאת קשה להבין מדוע זה עונה על הרמב''ם. אם נלמד מסוטה, אז אפילו המקרה של מקוה צריך להיות טהור ברשות הרבים, ואם לא נלמד מסוטה אז המקרה של החבית צריך להיות טמא ברשות הרבים

 I have been going to the beach and exerting my arm muscles at the out door gym over there. --though it occurs to me to wonder "Why I bother? After all it is not as if I am lifting weights," Then today I heard some mother yelling at someone in the water that I could barely see. Somehow it sounded different than other people screaming for fun at the beach.  It occurred to me that that fellow in the water might be in trouble. I ran over and the mother called to me in English "It's my son! It's my son!" I got the idea that he needed help. So I ran out there battling the waves until in fact I got to an area where there was no ground anymore. I needed to swim. I finally got to that guy and yelled at him, "Give me your arm" [in Hebrew תן לי את היד!] and grabbed his arm and dragged him back to shore. But I was barely managing on my own. After all I have not been keeping  my muscle strength up. At any rate, I realize now why it is important to keep up one's muscle strength in one's arms===to be prepared for the day that someone might need your help.

here is a link to a old music file from around 1993 --mathematics

here is a link to a more recent file x86

David Bronson suggested to me many times ''Tosphot is always right'' [that is on the outside of the page of the Gemara], and I would have to agree. While on one hand you see a lot of effort to explain the Rambam starting from early Achronim [משנה למלך ]  and that gained a lot of steam from the time of Rav Chaim of Brisk until today, Still it seems this has caused a certain amount of lack of interest and neglect in digging into the depths of Tosphot. I experienced this first hand when I got to the Mir in NY. I had been used to trying to dig into Tosphot, but when I talked to other yeshiva bahurim [students] about  this, they would dismiss this --as irrelevant.  Eventually, I understood the reason for this. They were spending their morning hours  preparing for the classes of the roshei yeshiva [which were along the lines of Rav Chaim of  Brisk. While this is a great and important area of learning, still it leaves that whole area of Tosphot ignored

But even if I would want to recommend a movement of ''Back To Tosphot'', I still would not know how to go about this. The only way I could even begin to see the depths of Tosphot was because I had teachers [in Shar Yashuv] and my learning partner Bronson that showed the way. On my own I could barely manage this except after tremendous efforts. And in the meantime I also have tried to get into the path of Rav Chaim of Brisk as you see in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. 

[The basic reasoning here is two fold. One is that the deeper you dig into Tosphot. the more you see he was right all along even though at first glance it does not seem like that. But the Rambam is different, Very often he contradicts the Gemara openly, and it takes a lot of effort to try to fit him back in. And even then it is only a possibility, not a sure thing. For example Nida pg 2. The Gemara holds the teaching about the barrel and the mikve contradict each other. And for that reason it says the teaching about the barrel is R Shimon, not the sages. So for the Rambam to state the law is like both is more than a stretch. It is a direct contradiction. Can one answer this? Yes--but only if one is committed in the first place to say the Rambam must have had some reason for that. But why even start with that? Why not simply go like the Gemara in the first place? Why not be first committed to the idea that the Gemara must have had some reason to say these two teachings contradict?

[I think R. Shimon holds that  חקת השתא  is not a חזקה]=I mean to say this: The Gemara brings the mishna that says if a mikve is found to e lacking the proper amount then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The Gemara then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to e able to separate truma on it and it was found to be sour. in a public domain all טהרות separated are pure and in a private domain they are a doubt. The Gemara says  the teaching is R Shimon. Though this might be in Tosphot [I forget] I think R Shimon holds   חקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from Sota. A doubt in a public domain is pure and in a private domain is a doubt. And the sages of the Mishna hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

I think ר' שמעון holds that  חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה. I mean to say this: The גמרא brings the משנה that says if a מקוה is found  lacking the proper amount, then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The גמרא then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to be able to separate תרומה on it and it was found to be sour. In a רשות הרבים all טהרות separated are טהורות and in a רשות היחיד they are a doubt. The גמרא says  the teaching is ר' שמעון. Though this might be in תוספות  [I forget] I think  ר' שמעון holds   חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from סוטה. A doubt in a רשות הרבים is טהור and in a רשות היחיד is a doubt. And the חכמי  the משנה hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

אני חושב שר' שמעון סבור שחזקת השתא היא לא חזקה. אני מתכוון לומר כך: הגמרא מביא את המשנה שאומר שאם נמצא מקוה חסרה בכמות הראויה אז כל מי שנכנס אליו עדיין לא טהור. אחר כך שואלת הגמרא מהוראה על חבית שהניחו בצד כדי שיוכלו להפריד עליה תרומה ונמצא חמוץ. ברשות הרבים כל הטהרות שנעשו עליו הן טהורות וברשות היחיד הן בספק. הגמרא אומרת שההוראה היא ר' שמעון. למרות שזה יכול להיות בתוספות [אני שוכח] אני חושב שר' שמעון מחזיק חזקת השתא היא לא חזקה ולכן אז בשני המקרים יש חזקה אחת נגד אחרת.והן מבטלות זו את זו ולכן ספק במקרה של ספק אנו למדים מסוטה. ספק ברשות הרבים הוא טהור וברשות היחיד הוא ספק. וחכמי המשנה מחזיקים חזקת השתא היא חזקה ואז בשני המקרים יש לנו שתי חזקות נגד אחת ולכן אין ספק

There is  a strange dynamics in the religious world. That is  the hatred they have towards fry yidin (non religious). If this would be open that would be better. But they hide it because they need the money of secular Jews. They need to make pretend that we are all one family.

This affects baali teshuva [newly religious]. They are suspected of being flaky and ready on an instant's notice to return to their wayward ways. But I have not mentioned this in my blog before because I am not convinced that they are wrong. Baali teshuva are flaky. How else could it be? They, after all, threw out their parents. How loyal could they be to anyone else? 

The religious however make things worse because they despise fry yiden and that affects their attitude towards baali teshuva who are considered unter menschen [sub human]. After all the religious think that they themselves are uber menschen -super human.  This affects the area of shiduhim [marriage offers]. The baal teshuva thinks he is accepted as one of the family. And when a shiduch [a date with intent to see if marriage is possible] is offered, he thinks it is in good faith. But the religious only offer to baali teshuv baali mumim. [Girls with a hidden defect.]

 It is not well known that the Gra would not have held of the idea of paying people to learn Torah. You can see in his commentary  on Pirkei Avot on the Mishna in the first chapter that says not to use Torah to make money from he brings the event with the vessels of the Temple that were used by the king of Babylon. And also he brings the actual verse of Meila. [That is the prohibition of using something that was dedicated to the Temple for one's own use]. 

How does meila work? It is like this. Let's say you have a pen and you say, ''This pen is sanctified to the Temple.''  At that point, you can not use it,- nor anyone else. It must be brought to the Temple and sold and the proceeds go to different needs of the Temple.  This is how the Gra sees learning Torah. One must not get paid for doing so because that is the same as using a vessel that has been dedicated to the Temple.

 There is a difference in the middle ages from the fall of Rome until around the high middle ages. [Aquinas Rambam, Ibn Rushd.] Until then people were going with the neo platonic philosopher. Plotinus. so in understanding the unity of God, they were going with the idea of emanation --or an overflowing of God's light. but at no point were they saying that only God exists. Rather they understood there is a difference between the Creator and the created. But the problems of reconciling pure Monotheism [Divine Simplicity] with Neo-Platonic thought, led to abandoning Plotinus and going with Aristotle. Muslims had been going with Aristotle for a long time. But Jews and Christians had been trying for  to go with Plotinus. At some point. they gave up and decided that was not going to work. So you get the Rambam going a lot more with Aristotle than his predecessors. [But not completely. He still retains a lot of Neo Platonic thought.] Then finally, Aquinas made the final jump to Aristotle. 

But as Kelley Ross noted, that jump might have landed everyone in more problems than they started out with. When those problems became apparent. it would have made sense to rethink things and return to Plato. [taking kant into accountin understanding plato]

[I should add that not all Rishonim were on board with either philosopher. The one that comes tomind in Nahmanidess. And it is his approach  that is the reason the religious world is against all philosophy [as David Bronson pointed out to me.]  

 z83 music file

 כל העוסק בלימודו כעוסק בבניינו anyone who is involved with its study is considered as though he is involved with its building. But most people are not all that inspired by the idea of building the Temple. Even when the holy mount where the temple needs to be built was in the hands of Israel, the state gave it right back to the Wafk [The Muslim authorities]. So what I recommend is to learn the laws of the Temple. in the hope that someday we may merit to it rebuilding

 I feel sad that i did not get a lot of encouragement in learning Torah. In fact, I had obstacles from people and even mental obstacles. Yet I noticed that Rav Shach points out in one of his introductions to the Avi Ezri  that the way of acquiring Torah is not like acquiring other wisdoms. Other wisdoms come through natural means. Acquiring Torah is not in that way. So I realize that if I have any portion in Torah at all, I probably have to be grateful for the obstacles that have made it hard.

 The New Testament shows that Jesus was a Jewish Tzadik. He is not claiming anything like the Christian churches say he is claiming. He is not breaking the Law nor telling others to do so. He is not claiming worship but says openly to worship God alone not him. examples are too numerous for me to go into here.

Someone called him "good". And he answered do not call me "good". Only God is good.

From where do misunderstandings come from? From the same sort of insane religious idiots that abound today that call anyone who disagrees with them as a apikorus  and breaker of the Law, though they themselves are amei haaretz ignorant of the Law.  

[I wrote the above paragraphs in short form because I was tired and it was late over here on this side of the pond. But even so it is hard to know from what point to expand on this topic. In terms of the Law, see the Rosh (Rabbainu Asher) in Tractate Shabat where adding water to soil in not a desecration of Shabat. Also in terms of washing hands there are  two sources for this. One is a decree because of the priests eating truma. If that is the actual law then in fact, it is required always before eating bread. But then it has laws involved with it that few people observe. E.g., the vessel has to be totally dry because otherwise the water on the sides becomes unclean as so as the hand touches it and that water on the hand does not become pure when water is next poured on it.  That is why you see Lithuanian roshei yeshiva dry the vessel before pouring. The other reason is from the Gemara in Chulin [perek 8] מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה "The first waters are a good deed. The second are allowed. The third are an obligation." Thus the first waters are a good thing to do but not an obligation.

I think a simple reading of the NT will show anyone that Jesus referred to himself as to be a "son of man", [never "son of God"]. And when the idea of "son of God" was applied to him and he agreed  with that, it is not all that different from the verse in Deuteronomy  "אתם בנים להשם אלקיכם אל תשימו קרחה בין עינים למת"  You are the children of the Lord your God, therefore do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a dead person as a sign of mourning" [That is not an exact quote, but anyway you get the idea.]

In Israel many people put on their cars a sign תודה אבא Thank you Father. [That does not refer to their physical father but rather to our Father who art in Heaven. Thus referring to God as one's father in not heresy.  

the disappointment that many people feel when they have had some negative interaction with people that supposedly represent Torah values,

[Why is the coming paragraphs needed-because of the disappointment that many people feel when they have had some negative interaction with people that supposedly represent Torah values, but instead are home wreakers]  

 There is a well known statement of the Chazal [sages of the Talmud] that the Evil Inclination leaves the whole world and settles on Klal Israel [the people of Israel]. Then it leaves the people of Israel and settles on Torah scholars.

The common way to interpret this is to say that Torah scholars have a powerful evil inclination, but they conquer it. But if you think about it you will see that if that would e correct, then the main point is being left out. 

I would suggest that a deeper and truer understanding of that statement is that Torah scholars are the centre of the evil inclination and its root.

But this raises the question is not one supposed to learn Torah? If the end result of that is to become the centre of the evil inclination does that not defeat the whole purpose?

How to answer that? My experience with "Torah scholars" has been highly negative except for the few good years I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY and Shar Yashuv (also in NY).  So after that, I can see exactly what the Sages of the Talmud were getting at.  Torah scholars tend to be home wreckers --as I know and many others from bitter experience.  This clearly shows that the sages were correct.

The solution is that authentic Torah only followed the  Gra and the world of Litvak   yeshivot. Ad in fact I think experience bears out this point. Outside of the Litvak world of the Gra and Israel Salanter, the religious world seems to be the centre and root of the evil inclination.

The scroll of the Law and the veil were taken to Rome along with the candelabrum.

 Titus took the scroll of the law and the veil to Rome along with the candelabrum menora, the show-table the incense, the silver trumpets etc, [as we see in the triumph arch in Rome].[This is from Josephus.] There they were in two different temples until the time of Commodus (when those two temples were destroyed and yet the holy objects were rescued). Later, Genseric took them to Carthage, in the Vandal kingdom. Then Justinian I made war on him and they were taken to Constantinople. Then Procopius [historian] informs us a Jew told a friend of Justinian I that these holy objects could not reside outside of Jerusalem, and Justinian I upon hearing this had them sent to the Christian churches in Jerusalem [In 520 AD]. From that time and onwards, we lost track of them.

inscription om the arch, ''The Senate and the Roman people (dedicate this) to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian''

 It is an odd fact about empty space that in two ways it does not seem so empty. The Bohm effect where you have a solenoid that is all wrapped up so that nearby there is not field. And yet  nearby particles definitely detect something.  There is no field there, so all there is for the particles to feel is some change in the structure of empty space  The other thing is electromagnetism. This is made by an oscillation in something.  That is what we see in the Maxwell equations. These are equations of a harmonic oscillator. But all there seems to be there is empty space. [This has nothing to do with Special Relativity which simply accounts for the fact that the Aether, even it exists is not detectable in the same way as sound waves through a medium. ]

But empty space does not seem to be the thing since we know from GR that it is hard to make a dent in it.

So where do we find this stuff? In String Theory. Open strings need something to be attached to and that is the D Branes

 In the way of learning of Rav Nachman of Uman there is an emphasis on finishing that book that you are doing. That is this way of learning involves two things. One is to say the words and go on [believing] that eventually you will understand even if you think than now you do not understand. The other is to finish that book that you are learning.  You see this in particular with Natan his disciple. When Rav Nathan first became close to Rav Nahman, Rav Nahman told him to go through the entire Shulchan Aruch in one year. 

[The Shulchan is the length of a medium sized encyclopedia. It was written by Rav Josef Karo, and the standard version includes commentaries, the Shach, Taz, Magan Avraham, and the Gra.]  

[I see this idea of how to learn as being something that if people would now about they would be helped in many ways. First of all, knowing Shas. Clearly the slow methodical way of learning in Litvak yeshivot is great for getting to deep understanding of a particular (sugia)/ subject. However it does leave one with a lack of general knowledge. So I think at least some amount of time in learning ought to be דרך גירסא just saying the words and going on Also, this method of learning applies to Physics and Mathematics. And learning Physics is Math is important as we see in the Rambam in the Guide abd also in the Yad HaChazaaka in a amore hidden way.

 https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/ has a whole piece on faith and reason. To me it seems modern philosophy lost an opportunity to gain some ground in this this regard with Leonard Nelson and his Second Friesian School. It is not just that Kelley Ross has made a formidable defense of this position in his web site. but that it is almost a necessary step in Kant himself. For the Transcendental Deduction was the main thesis of the Critique. And yet Kant himself revised it in the 1787 B version. Why? Because Schultz had found the argument unsatisfactory.   And how else is it possible to deal with the main question, "How do the categories provide unity of experience?
 And how do we know them?" To me it seems the only possible answer is immediate non intuitive knowledge.

[However, almost any school  of Kant tends to be highly negative in regards to Hegel, but even Jacob Fries himself had some nice things to say about Hegel's system. [These comments of Fries were in a later book,-- I think it was in his History of Philosophy. And in truth it is hard to be unimpressed with the mature HEGEL, the system of the longer and short logic. but for some reason when they teach Hegel they always go to his first book the Phenomenology.--There the mature Hegel has not yet appeared-but is trying to defend ''"the state".]