Benjamin was one of the twelve tribes of Israel and his portion was right next to Judah where is the city of Jerusalem. There is there today a lot of Jewish settlements, and collectivity the whole area is called ''Benjamin''  [very aptly named  I must say.]. Yesterday a Palestinian ran over a young woman soldier  in a parking lot there. The Palestinian had a working permit. [Israel hands out about 150,000 working permits every year to allow Palestians to come into Israel to work.] 

To me this juss]t go to show what Aristotle wrote 2300 years ago: "When two peoples  do not get along together there is no choice but to separate them.

The Riemann hypothesis

 The Riemann hypothesis [+1/(n^ s)as n goes to infinity ] has to do with if you have a function zeta of a prime number if the zeros of that function [besides negative 2.-4, -6 ...] all are on a vertical line x=1/2/ and that is all part of number theory. my question is how would that same question apply to prime ideals? prime ideals are groups, not numbers and their main trait is anything in     the larger group [that they are a part of] that is multiplied by that prime ideal stays inside it --and it is prime [no two smaller ideals multiplied together make it up] 

I mean to say that much has been done with prime ideals but has anyone thought to look at them from the aspect of Riemann? After all there is a lot in common with algebraic ideals and numbers. 

So maybe here too is  connection?[Maybe even some answer about the Riemann hypothesis?]

[To see the connection between the zeta function and algebraic groups let me just mention that the only way that you evaluate the Riemann function is by extending it into the imaginary plane by means of the "i" and the "i" acts like a unitary matrix that rotates the vector, but leaves it's length untouched.]   

[i would surprized if some mathematician had no thought of this since to me it seems so obvious. After all, a main idea of Riemann was to show the the zeta function with a complex "s" [i.e. + n^s as n goes to infinity] equals a product of primes. That is exactly the same construction you use for prime ideals.

Rambam In Laws of Truma chapter 1 halacha 11).

I was noticing in the Rambam that grain that grew in the possession of an idolater in Israel and was bought by a Israeli and it's finishing work was done in the hand of the Israeli is obligated in truma and tithe from the Torah. (In Laws of Truma chapter 1 halacha 11). And yet in chapter 1 halacha 22 grain that grew outside of Israel and was brought to Israel and it finishing work was done in the hand of a Israeli is obligated in truma and tithe only from the words of the scribes.

And Rav Haim of Brisk explains there that the reason is you need two things for grain to be obligated in truma and tithe, First, that when it grew to a third of its full growth (ripe stage), it was in the possession of a Israeli. Second,  it's finishing work was done by the hand of  Israeli. 

 I realize that this is in no contradiction to the first halacha since the law is that possession of a idolater does not cause the obligation of truma and maaser to disappear. [Otherwise you could  that when it grew in the possession of an idolater and only the finishing work was done in the possession of a Israeli then it should be obligated only from the word of the Scribe. ]

[the subject  that possession of a idolater does not cause the obligation of truma and maaser to disappear i brought in a few places but mainly I remember it from Bava Metzia.]

no one really care what I write o I think there i ni much of a point to clarify thing>still for anyone who i interested I will ay a few words. There is an argument in the Gemara i a idolater buys land in Israel if the produce is obligated in the presents to the priests and levites. that i how address the question on the above law that even if it grew in the possession of an idolater still if the finishing work was done by a Jew, the produce i obligated.

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

I was noticing in the רמב''ם that grain that grew in the possession of anssss idolater in Israel and was bought by a Israeli and it מירוח was done in the hand of the Israeli is obligated in תרומה and מעשר from the תורה [דאורייתא]. (In הלכות תרומה פרק א'  הלכה י''א ). And yet in פרק א' הלכה כ''ב grain that grew outside of Israel and was brought to Israel and it's מירוח (smoothing of the stack of grain, it' finishing work) was done in the hand of a Israeli is obligated in תרומה and מעשר only from the words of the scribes [דרבנן].

And רב חיים מבריסק explains there that the reason is you need two things for grain to be obligated in תרומה and מעשר, First, that when it grew to a third of its full growth (ripe stage) it was in the possession of a Israeli. Second,  it's finishing work was done by the hand of  Israeli. 

 I realize that this is in no contradiction to the first halacha since the law is אין קניין לעכו''ם בישראל להפקיע מיי רומה ומעשר  [Otherwise you could  that when it grew in the possession of an idolater and only the finishing work was done in the possession of a Israeli, then it should be obligated only from the words of the Scribes. ]

שמתי לב ברמב''ם שתבואה שגדלה ברשותו של עובד אלילים בישראל ונקנה על ידי ישראלי והמירוח נעשה ביד הישראלי חייבת בתרומה ומעשר מהתורה [דאורייתא] . (בהלכות תרומה פרק א' הלכה י''א ). ובכל זאת בפרק א' הלכה כ''ב תבואה שגדלה מחוץ לישראל והובאה לישראל והמירוח (החלקת ערימת התבואה, זה עבודת גמר) נעשה ביד ישראלי חייבת בתרומה ומעשר רק מדברי סופרים [דרבנן]. ומבאר שם רב חיים מבריסק שהטעם הוא שצריך שני דברים כדי שתבואה תתחייב בתרומה ומעשר. ראשית, שכאשר גדלה לשליש מלוא גידולה (שלב בשל) הייתה ברשותו של ישראלי. שנית, עבודת הגמר שלה נעשתה ביד ישראלי. אני מבין שזה לא עומד בסתירה להלכה הראשונה שכן ההלכה היא אין קניין לעכו''ם בישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר [אחרת אפשר לשאול שכאשר זה גדל ברשותו של עובד אלילים ורק עבודת הגמר נעשתה בהחזקה של ישראלי, אזי יש לחייבה רק מדברי הסופרים. ]

 People are not thinking of idolatry as a problem but to me it is the most serious problem. see Deuteronomy 17. But I suppose that if it is Jewish idolatry that makes it ok. so the cult that the Gra signed the letter of excommunication on is just a much idolatry as if they were worshipping some Hindu god.

the way of learning fast --amazing pieces of advice the Gemara is the way of learning fast [which is actually stated openly in the Gemara Shabat page 63. לעולם לגרס אנש אף על גב משכח ואף על גב דא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר גרסה נפשי לתאווה כי תורך אהבתי

 One of the most amazing pieces of advice the Gemara is the way of learning fast [which is actually stated openly in the Gemara Shabat page 63. לעולם לגרס אנש אף על גב משכח ואף על גב דא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר גרסה נפשי לתאווה כי תורך אהבתי "One should always learn fast, even though he forgets, and even though he does not even know what he  saying"][And this is brought at length in the Musar book Ways of the Righteous.]]And this came in very helpful to me while I was in two great Litvak Yeshivot the Mir in NY and Shar Yahuv. Both emphasize in depth learning --which on one hand is great. But on the other hand I was not  making much progress. The way  is just to say the words in order and go on, and I found that this with trust in God that I would eventually understand did help me a lot.  I know it does not take the place of the deep sort of learning of the Litvak Yeshivot, still this fact kind of learning did help me a lot and even came in useful when I went to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. After  all I had not been in Physics for a long time and had even forgotten high school math, so this  way of learning did help me catch up.[ In fact even in high school I hardly did any math at all, So even just to get into the physics program in the first place I had a ton of work just to catch up.] and even now a few years later I still do this fast kind of learning.

Before I went to prepare, I did not even recall how to divide fractions. I did that fast sort of learning that  and got through Trig and Calculus. When classes started, I was up to speed. But then I needed to the in depth sort of learning of the Litvak world that goes by the Gra. And so I still hold one needs some sessions to learn fast,, and other sessions for in depth.    

 There were amazing experiences in Uman, Ukraine for me. The best was I had a learning partner by the ziun of Rav Nacham who had that way of learning that had almost been forgotten. And it might already be lost. It is a sort of learning that gets into the hidden layers of depth in the Tophot and Gemara. Maybe one just needs the right sort of head for it. This is very different from the sort of in deep learning which is done today which is based on Rav Chaim of Brisk. That usually sees the argument between Tosphot and the Rambam and tries to find the reason for the Rambam. While this is also important, still it misses the depths of Tosphot. Eventually I decided to return to Israel, but I still feel a great debt of gratitude to all the wonderful people there that helped me in so many way. 

 The basic approach of the Gra and the Litvak yeshivot is learning Torah  and trust in God. These two reinforce each other. So when one is spending all day and night in the yeshiva learning Torah one is not thinking about parnasa [making a living]. One tries to walk in this path for his yeshiva years and then  gets married and goes with that same idea that as long as one learns Torah and serves God, God will take care of the needs of his family. So in essence, trust in God is at the very centre of the Learning Torah idea.

On a large scale this is not in practice. but on the individual scale it is. one can still trust and God and God does take care of one.

 For really hard core Litvaks, there is almost no value in learning unless it is learning in depth. This I saw in Shar Yashuv in particular, But at the Mir and many other Litvak yeshivot, the afternoon is devoted to learning bekiut [fast learning].  So as a compromise, I learned every paragraph twice and went on. After all, I had not the intellectual tools to go in depth.  But eventually, I found myself learning with David Bronson in Uman, and his natural ability to see into the depths of Tosphot and the Gemara opened up for me the whole concept of learning in depth. But my learning with him came to an end. 

 For many people like me, I think the best thing is the combination of having some session in depth [review ten times of every thing, and learning the rishonim/early authorities and achronim/later authorities on the sugia (subject)] and another for fast learning. 

Also I would like to add here an idea that the real learning comes by listening to an expert. Rav Nahman brings this idea based on a Midrash that says this: Klal Israel [the House of Israel] at Sinai when offered the commandments said, "We will listen and do." But later they made the Golden Calf. Then God now says to us :"You have lost the we will do. So now at least hold onto we will listen."  Now Rav Nahman explain that saying the words yourself is "doing." But  we have lost that. That means learning yourself is not very effective.  Effective learning happens only by listening.

 Z92

The Rambam writes [Laws of Shkalim 1:2] הרמב''ם כותב [הלכות 'שקלים א הלכה ב]

הרמב''ם כותב [הלכות שקלים א' הלכה ב'] שלש מאות ועשרים שעורה משקל תבואה [לא נפח] שווה שקל אחד. זה היה לפני שהוסיפו לשקל כדי שיהיה שווה לסלע. בבכורות רב אשי שלח שש עשרה זוז של פדיון הבן. אז חמש כפול שלש מאות עשרים שווה שש עשרה זוז. אז זוז אחד הוא מאה שעורה גרגר. אבל החכמים של בית שני הוסיפו לשקל לעשות אותו שלש מאות שמונים וארבע. אז שלש מאות שמונים וארבע כפול חמש שווה עשרים זוז. אז רב אחא שלח הודעה לרב אשי להוסיף שלושה זוז לעשות זאת עשרים זוז. אז זוז זה תשעים ושש שעורה גרגר. איך זה מתאם לרמב''ם מסכת דמאי ב' משנה ה שהזוז הוא שש עשרה גרגרי שעורה

 The  Rambam writes [Laws of Shkalim 1:2] 320 barley grain weight [not volume] i one shekel. before they added to the shekel to make it equal to the sela. Rav Ashi sent 16 zuz to pay the 5 shekels of pidion haben. so 5 times 320=16 zuz. So one zuz is 100 barley grain. but the sages of the second temple added to the shekel to make it 384 grain. so 384 times 5 = 20 zuz. So Rav Acha sent word to Rav Ashi to add three zuz to make it 20 zuz. So a zuz is 96 grain. How does that correlate  with Rambam Tractate Demai chapter 2 mishna 5 that the zuz is 16 barley grain? 

 The רמב''ם writes [Laws of  'שקלים א הלכה ב] שלש מאות ועשרים שעורה grain weight [not volume] שווה one שקל. That was before they added to the שקל to make it equal to the סלע. In בכורות רב אשי sent שש עשרה זוז to pay the מש שקל  of פדיון הבן. So חמש multiplied by שלש מאות  עשרים שווה שש עשרה זוז. So one זוז is מאה barley grain. But the חכמים of the בית שני added to the שקל to make it שלש מאות שמונים וארבה grain. So שלש מאות שמונים וארבה multiplied by חמש שווה עשרים זוז. So רב אחא sent word to רב אשי to add three זוז to make it עשרים זוז. So a זוז is תשעים ושש grain. How does that correlate  with  רמב''ם מסכת דמאי ב' משנה ה that the זוז is שש עשרה barley grain? 

 i am still confused about the ketuba. in the Mishna in Demai chapter 2 mishna 5 the commentary of the rambam says a dinar is 6 zuz. and the dinar during the time of the mishna was the roman danarius. which was about $8,75 so a zuz is about $1.50. so that is about $300. [each zuz was in weight 16 grain of barley. so this works out ok. ] but what to do with the Rambam in Laws of Shekalim where  one shekel is 284grains of barley weight in silver? [and 20 zuz is five shekels in the gemara in bekorot. Rav Ahi sen17 zuz for pidion haben and Rav Acha told him to raise it to 20]

There is a "zona" in Hebrew which is a prostitute. However the legal definition of the word when it comes to the prohibition of a priest to marry a zona is that she is a woman who had sexual relations with someone who was forbidden to her. To R. Meir the first maaser [tithe] is forbidden to someone who is not a Levi. To Tosphot [yevamot page 91 side one] that does not include a zona. To the Rambam [in laws of maaser chapter one law 2] that includes a zona. 

The question comes from the fact that  a non cohen can not eat truma and that prohibition includes a zona and a halala. Rav Shach suggested that the reason of the rambam i that there is a parallel between truma and maaser. It is not just that a zona is excluded from laws relevant to  cohenim, but something about the holiness of the truma itself. But there is a difference. a zona can not be married to  cohen while she can be married to a levi

___________________________________________________________________________

There is a "זונה" in Hebrew which is a prostitute. However the legal definition of the word when it comes to the prohibition of a כהן to marry a זונה is that she is a woman who had sexual relations with someone who was forbidden to her. To ר' מאיר, the first מעשר  is forbidden to someone who is not a לוי. To תוספות [יבמות page צ''א ע''א] that does not include a זונה. To the רמב''ם in הלכות מעשר פרק א' הלכה ב  that includes a זונה. The question comes from the fact that  a non כהן can not eat תרומה and that prohibition includes a זונה and a חללה. AND רב שך suggested that the reason of the רמב''ם iS that there is a parallel between תרומה and מעשר. It is not just that a זונה is excluded from laws relevant to  כהנים, but something about the holiness of the תרומה  itself. But there is a difference. a זונה can not be married to כהן while she can be married to a לוי

יש "זונה" בעברית שהיא זונה. אולם ההגדרה המשפטית של המילה בכל הנוגע לאיסור של כהן להתחתן עם זונה היא שהיא אישה שקיימה יחסי מין עם מי שהיה אסור לה. לר' מאיר, המעשר הראשון אסור למי שאינו לוי. לתוספות [יבמות דף צ''א ע''א] שאינה כוללת זונה. לרמב''ם בהלכות מעשר פרק א' הלכה ב הכולל זונה. השאלה נובעת מכך שמי שאינו כהן אינו יכול לאכול תרומה והאיסור כולל זונה וחללה. ורב שך הציע שטעם הרמב''ם הוא שיש הקבלה בין תרומה למעשר. לא סתם זונה מוחרגת מהחוקים הרלוונטיים לכוהנים, אלא משהו בקדושת התרומה עצמה. אבל יש הבדל. זונה לא יכולה להיות נשואה לכהן בעוד שהיא יכולה להיות נשואה ללוי

written around 2002 [music for orchestra]

[b100 midi] b100 mp3

 

music file

 z97

Jesus did not claim to be God.

To me it makes sense to see that Jesus did not claim to be God. Most of the time he referred to himself as the son of man. But the one time he agreed that he was the son of God, that still is not God. But tht doe not mean he was just some average guy. Nor does it mean he was a regular sort of saint. If you look at Rav Isaac Luria in Shar HaGilgulim you will find tzadikim whose roots were in Emanation. [And Emanation we know is pure Godliness. That is different from souls whose roots are in Creation Formation or the Physical Universe,] 

ketuba worth [marriage contract for a virgin= 200 zuz. For a woman who is not a virgin, it is 100 zuz.]

the ketubah is what is paid to a wife if the husband divorces her or dies.

 I am unclear about what went wrong with a previous result. But today I noticed in a Demai 2 Mishna 5 in the tosfot yom tov and the tiferet israel] that one zuz is the weight 16 grains of barley. One grain of barley is 0.065 grams. 16 grains then 1.04 grams. So two hundred zuz then is about two hundred grams, and since a gram of silver is about $0,8 that make the ketuba $166.4. [Or look at it like this: 16 barley grains of weight of silver is about one gram of silver and one gram of silver is about $0.8. So a zuz is a little less than a dollar. two hundred zuz is the ketubah for a virgin, In another blog entry I tried to find the value of the Ketubah based on the shekel of the Torah that was three hundred and twenty barley grains in weight and  this came out to be  larger. I have no idea why the amount come out differently. [What I had thought before was based on the Ritva in Bechorot who brings the Gemara there: Rav Ashi sent seventeen zuz to Rav Acha ben Ravina for Pidion Haben. He sent back to him,  ''Add three more for the amount that the sages added to the shekel.] Because of that Gemara, I thought seventeen zuz is five shekel. One shekel is three hundred and twenty barley grains to the Rambam in Laws of Shekalim chapter 1 halacha 2. What Rav Acha said to Rav Ashi was based on the fact that the sages added to the three hundred and twenty to make it three hundred eighty four barley grains like the common sela. So twenty zuz equals five sela. And one sela equals four zuz. And one zuz equals sixteen barley grains. So one sela is sixty four barley grains, not three hundred eighty four.[based on that the ketuba is about $1000.]

----

 

 I am unclear about what went wrong with a previous result. But today I noticed in a דמאי ב' משנה ה'   in the תוספות  יום טוב] that one זוז is the weight שש עשרה grains of barley. One grain of barley is 0.065 grams. 16 grains then 1.04 grams. so two hundred zuz then is about two hundred grams, and since a gram of silver is about $0,8 that make the כתובה $166.4. [Or look at it like this: 16 barley grains of weight of silver is about one gram of silver and one gram of silver is about $0.8. So a זוז is a little less than a dollar. two hundred זוז is the כתובה for a virgin,  I tried to find the value of the כתובה based on the shekel of the Torah that was three hundred and twenty barley grains in weight and  this came out to be  larger. I have no idea why the amount come out differently. [What I had thought before was based on the ריטב''א in בכורות who brings the גמרא there: רב אשי sent seventeen זוז to רב אחא בן רבינה  for פידיון הבן. He sent back to him,  ''Add three more for the amount that the חכמים added to the shekel.] Because of that גמרא, I thought seventeen זוז is five shekel. One shekel is three hundred and twenty barley grains to the Rambam in Laws of שקלים פרק א' חלכה ב' . What אב אחא said to רב אשי was based on the fact that the sages added to the three hundred and twenty to make it three hundred eighty four barley grains like the common סלע . So twenty זוז equals five סלע. And one סלע equals four זוז. And one זוז equals sixteen barley grains. So one סלע is sixty four barley grains, not three hundred eighty four. 

לא ברור לי מה השתבש בתוצאה קודמת. אבל היום הבחנתי בדמאי ב' משנה ה' בתוספות  יום טוב שזוז אחת היא המשקל שש עשר גרגירי שעורה. גרגר שעורה אחד הוא 0.065 גרם. 16 גרגירים הם בערך 1.04 גרם. אז מאתיים זוז זה בערך מאתיים גרם, ומכיוון שגרם כסף הוא בערך 0.8$, מה שהופך את הכתובה ל-$166.4. [או תסתכל על זה כך: 16 גרגירי שעורה במשקל של כסף זה בערך גרם אחד של כסף וגרם אחד של כסף זה בערך $0.8. אז זוז הוא קצת פחות מדולר. מאתיים זוז היא הכתובה לבתולה,] ניסיתי למצוא את ערך הכתובה לפי שקל התורה שהיה במשקל שלוש מאות ועשרים גרגרי שעורה וזה יצא גדול יותר. אין לי מושג למה הסכום יוצא אחרת. [מה שחשבתי קודם לכן היה על הריטב''א בכורות שמביא שם את הגמרא: רב אשי שלח שבעה עשר זוז לרב אחא בן רבינה לפידיון הבן. הוא חזר אליו, ''הוסף עוד שלושה עבור הסכום שהחכמים הוסיפו לשקל.] בגלל אותה גמרא חשבתי שבע עשרה זוז זה חמישה שקלים. שקל אחד הוא שלוש מאות ועשרים גרגרי שעורה לרמב"ם בהלכות שקלים פרק א' חלכה ב' . מה שאמר רב אחא לרב אשי התבסס על כך שחכמים הוסיפו לשלוש מאות ועשרים לעשות ממנו שלוש מאות שמונים וארבע גרגירי שעורה כמו סלע מצוי. אז עשרים זוז שווה חמש סלע. וסלע אחד שווה ארבע זוז. וזוז אחד שווה ששה עשר גרגירי שעורה. אז סלע אחד הוא שישים וארבע גרגירי שעורה, לא שלוש מאות שמונים וארבע

 i do not really hold with the idea of kollel,= that is when people in yeshiva in their collage years go and get married and then get paid to sit and learn even after marriage. But nor do I hold from  with the idea of religious teacher getting paid to learn or teach Torah. For when Torah get mixed up with money, it loses its flavor. Even though this fact that one is not allowed to use Torah to make a living is well known, my objection to this practice come from observation of the disaster  that results when people use Torah to make money.

 One thing you see in the repentance of Henry II--that he identified in what he had sinned. And in a somewhat similar way I decided to look at what went wrong in my own life and try to identify in what areas I had sinned. I decided not to look at books to tell me where I went wrong but rather at personal  experience. I thought back and was able to identify exactly after what decisions that I made did things go wrong drastically. And this process was easy. I was simple to see.oI decided that it was in those areas that I needed to repent

 I have been convinced of the power and importance of repentance ever since i learned the book gates of repentance by R. Yona of Gerondi at the Mir yeshiva in N.Y. In the local breslov place on this side of the pond I once told a story of repentance that I think brings out the point more powerfully than anything else I can think of. It regards Henry II. In short, he had a great friend, Thomas Becket whom he had made archbishop of Canterbury [assuming he would do his bidding]. But something unexpected happened after that. In the Middle Ages there was one authority above the king. Thomas Becket  found God. There after he was going to do God's bidding. This infuriated the king. So one day in a fit of rage he yelled at some of his knights. ''Who will rid me of this priest? They misunderstood him and thought he really meant to kill Becket. So they went to Canterbury and killed becket. after that thing started going terribly wrong. his wife Elenore went to her ex husband the king of France and began plotting to put her on John on the throne of England. And his son John also got the king of Scotland to invade England from the north and the invasion from France and the north had begun. everything wa going a wrong a thing could go for the king of England personally and politically. His own sons and wife were out to get him and had engaged two powerful kings to do so. So what did Henry do. Collect troops and engage in battle? No. He realized his problems were not from kings or princes. It was the hand of Thomas Becket reaching from beyond. So he was going to repent in the most astounding manner that he could. He sailed from France where he was at that time and went straight to Canterbury. Outside the city he removed his boots and began walking toward the cathedral through the streets which were filled with sharp rocks and broken pottery. as he walked he left a bloody trail of his own bleeding feet behind him. When he got to the cathedral he went below  where the shrine of Becket was. There he ordered the monks --each one to whip him with all his might five times each. For the hundred monks that were there that meant he received 500 lashes, He fainted many time before it was over. But by a miracle, the next day  he got the news that the king of Scotland had been captured and the whole rebellion was squashed.

 Even though there is great advice and deep ideas in the book of Rav Nachman of Breslov, there is to be a lack of appreciation of the importance of the Gra. For after all where do you find people really sitting and learning Torah day and night for its own sake except in a Litvak yeshiva that is connected with the path of the GraThis is so obvious that it barely needs mentioning. But still since  not everyone is in the vicinity f a authentic Litvak Yeshiva, for those who have not seen or felt the power and light found in the authentic world of Torah of the Litvak yehivot, for them this is worth mentioning.

 I think Rav Nahman was right about the problem with religious leaders. See the LeM I ch30 where he talks about to be wary off the "Torah of the Dark Side".These religious leaders pretend to be teaching straight legitimate Torah but in fact are teaching the Torah of the Sitra Achra [Realm of Darkness]

I would not have been aware of this even after being in great Litvak yeshivot and even learning the teaching of Rav Nahman, until this problem was brought painfully to my attention --for which reason i avoid the religious world like I would avoid the black plague [except for the nearby na nach place on the name of rav nahman or if there would be a Litvak yeshiva nearby like a branch of Ponovitch.]. After all I say to myself about the religious world ''Fool me once--shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me."  

 I just wanted to make clear a point I wrote  about last week. And also to show what it is in the Rambam that seems unclear, First a straying wife [sota] is in Book of Numbers chapter V verses 11 and on. There are cases when she can drink the bitter waters and there are cases when she can not. To E Eliezer [of the Mishna]she can drink when there are two witnesses for the warning and one witness or the husband himself sees the privacy. But if the privacy was only indicated by the chirping of a bird she does not drink, She is divorced without the marriage contract.  

To R Yehoshua [of the Mishna] both the warning and privacy need two witnesses for her to drink. But even if there are two witnesses but everybody is talking about her saying she strayed then she does not drink.

R Yehoshua ben R Yehuda says only the privacy needs two witnesses.

My question is how and from where can the Rambam derive his statement of the law. 

In Laws of sota he says the law i lie R Yehoshua but also bring the case of a husband sees the privacy [i.e. he saw her walk into a private room with the man he was warned about]. If the warning was with two witnesses she is forbidden to him and does not drink but i divorced immediately. But if the warning was only between him and her with no witness she can drink. That is in the end of law of marriage 24 law 25.

I hope it is clear my question here that this does not seem to go like any opinion in the Mishna at all.

Just to make clear the context here let me add that R Akiva Eiger on the Mishna say we see from Rashi and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura not like the Rambam for they say  what I mentioned before that to E Eliezer [of the Mishna]she can drink when there are two witnesses for the warning and one witness or the husband himself sees the privacy. Thus there is no שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא even to R Yehoshua. And Rav Shach defends the Rambam there in laws of Sota and also in Laws of Marriage. But hi defense of the Rambam is on particcular points. No one seem to notice the fact that what the Rambam says sesms to have no connection with the Gemara.   

 

 

new music file z96

 z96 

I ought to mention here that i jut write music for fun, And I am happy to share with other here on the internet. But it would take too much time to go through all the file that i saved during the years to now what is bet to share. So i just share them as they are written. and most of what was written before i was able to put them on the internet i think was lost

an argument between Rav Shach and R. Akiva Eiger about the case of a straying wife.

 There is an argument between Rav Shach and R. Akiva Eiger if there is any such thing as שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא for a sota [straying wife] that her husband saw her go into a private room with a man she was warned by her husband to stay away from.

The basic issue comes from the Book of Numbers [chapter 5 verse 11] where you have the subject of a straying wife. There it is stated that she drinks the ''bitter waters.' [That is-- water mixed with a little dirt of the temple and in which the paragraph about the straying wife was dissolved in .]

What is the situation in which she drinks? First she is warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man. Then she is seen to go into such a place. To R, Eliezer the warning is in front of two witnesses, but seeing her go into a private place does not require two witnesses.  Anything can be an indication, or her husband sees her go into a private room with that man. In that case, she drinks the water. [I.e, if she wants to. Otherwise she can admit she strayed and is divorced without her ketubah [marriage contract-that is about $1000 if she married as a virgin. If she was not a virgin, the marriage contract gives her $500].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

But one thing you see here. The fact that her husband saw her go into the room does not make her forbidden to him.

Now the law is not like  R Eliezer. but even so, so far you do not see any such thing as  שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [He makes her to be forbidden.] 

What would be a case of "He makes her to be forbidden". That would be if he says he saw her in the act. But here all he saw was that she went into a private room.  

Now against R Eliezer are R. Yehohua who holds you need two witnesses for both [the warning and the seeing her go into a private room] and R, Yehoshua ben R Yehuda  who says you only need two witnesses for the privacy. So what would they hold if the husband sees the privacy?  That is the argument. R. Akiva Eiger says we would not say "He makes her to be forbidden",[to Rashi and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura on the Mishna], However the Rambam הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' holds we would say, "He makes her to be forbidden to himself," and Rav Shach says that even Rashi and the Bartenura might agree with the Rambam since the actual case where R. Eliezer says, ''Even the chirp of a bird is enough to indicate she went into a private room''--that is enough for the courts to force the husband to divorce her. so the argument between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua is about in what case does the court force him to divorce her, not "He makes her to be forbidden."   But this is still unclear to me. Is it not so that R. Eliezer says מקנא עלפי שניים ומשקה על פי עצמו  meaning ''he warns her in front of two, but can himself see the privacy'' --all that means is he has to give her the possibility to drink the water in order to defend herself and show that she is innocent. To R. Yehoshua it could be that since there were not two witnesses we do nothing! I was at the sea and on the way back it occurred to me that you do not see in R. Eliezer the idea of שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא he make her forbidder to himself but rather just ר איעזר אומר מקנא ה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  so there is no reason to think that R Yehoshua holds some special notion that if he sees the privacy that that make her forbidden to himself. This indicate that R Akiva Eiger is right. I admit though that if it could be shown that R Eliezer holds he make her forbidder to himself by just seeing the privacy then one could argue that R Yehohua would agree with that.

Later I saw what the proof of Rav Shach is: the Yerusshalmi that says if one witness sees the privacy in the morning and other sees it in the evening then she drinks, That means you do not need witnesses for the privacy to make a valid category חלות but just as an indication.[Rav Shach brings this in Laws of Marriage 24 law 25]. So if the husband sees the privacy without witnesses that is enough  he himelf seeto make her forbidden to him though not enough to allow her to drink the bitter waters.     

But even with that the opinion of the Rambam seems hard to understand. He holds that if the warning is in front of witnesses and then later he alone sees the privacy then she is forbidden to him forever because he made her forbidden t in the gemara himself by the law   שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא. that is in rambam laws of sota 1 halacha 8. but if the warning was only between himself and her with no witnesses and then later he sees the privacy, then she can drink the water in order to defend herself. and he is only forbidden to him until she drink the water. that i in laws of marriage 24 halacha 25. that does not seem to be like any opinion. to r eliezer only the warning needs witnesses. to r yehoshua both the warning and privacy needs witness and to r yehoshua  be yehuda only the privacy need witnesses.

____________________________________________________________________

 There is an argument between רב שך and רב עקיבא איגר if there is any such thing as שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא for a סוטה [straying wife] that her husband saw her go into a private room with a man she was warned by her husband to stay away from. The basic issue comes from the במדבר where you have the subject of a straying wife. There it is stated that she drinks the ''bitter waters.' [That is-- water mixed with a little dirt of the temple and in which the פרש סוטה was dissolved in .] What is the situation in which she drinks? First she is warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man. Then she is seen to go into such a place. To ר' אליעזר the warning is in front of two witnesses, but seeing her go into a private place does not require two witnesses.  משקה על פי עד אחד, or her husband sees her go into a private room with that man. In that case, she drinks the water. [I.e, if she wants to. Otherwise she can admit she strayed and is divorced without her ketubah [marriage contract-that is about $1000 if she married as a virgin. If she was not a virgin, the marriage contract gives her $500].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

But one thing you see here. The fact that her husband saw her go into the room does not make her forbidden to him.

Now the law is not like  ר' אליער. but even so, so far you do not see any such thing as  שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [He makes her to be forbidden.] 

What would be a case of "He makes her to be forbidden". That would be if he says he saw her in the act. But here all he saw was that she went into a private room.  

Now against ר' אליער are ר' יהושע who holds you need two witnesses for both [the warning and the seeing her go into a private room] and ר' יהושע בן ר' יהודה  who says you only need two witnesses for the privacy. So what would they hold if the husband sees the privacy?  That is the argument. ר' עקיבא איגר says we would not say "He makes her to be forbidden", [to רש''י ו הרב מברטנורה ], However the רמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' holds we would say, "He makes her to be forbidden to himself," and רב שך says that even רש''י and the ר'''ב might agree with the רמ''ם since the actual case where ר' איעזר says, ''Even the chirp of a bird is enough to indicate she went into a private room''--that is enough for the courts to force the husband to divorce her. So the argument between ר' אליעזר and ר' יהושע is about in what case does the court force him to divorce her, not "He makes her to be forbidden."   But this is still unclear to me. Is it not so that ר' אליעזר says מקנא על פי שניים  ומשקהעל פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  meaning ''he warns her in front of two, but can himself see the privacy'' --all that means is he has to give her the possibility to drink the water in order to defend herself and show that she is innocent. To ר' יהושע it could be that since there were not two witnesses we do nothing! I was at the sea and on the way back it occurred to me that you do not see in ר' אליעזר the idea of שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא he make her forbidder to himself, but rather just ר איעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  so there is no reason to think that ר' יהושע holds some special notion that if he sees the privacy that that make her forbidden to himself. This indicate that ר' עקיבא איגר is right. I admit though that if it could be shown that ר' אליעזר holds he make her forbidder to himself by just seeing the privacy then one could argue that ר' יהושע would agree with that.

Later I saw what the proof of רב שך is: the ירושלמי the first chapter of סוטה that says if one witness sees the privacy in the morning and other sees it in the evening then she drinks, That means you do not need witnesses for the privacy to make a valid category חלות but just as an indication.[רב שך bring this in הלכות אישות כ''ה הלכה כ''ד].So if the husband sees the privacy without witnesses that is enough to make her forbidden to him though not enough to allow her to drink the bitter waters.         

  

But even with that the opinion of the רמב''ם seems hard to understand. He holds that if the warning is in front of witnesses and then later he alone sees the privacy then she is forbidden to him forever because he made her forbidden t in the  himself by the law   שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא. that is in רמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק ח הלכה א. but if the warning was only between himself and her with no witnesses and then later he sees the privacy, then she can drink the water in order to defend herself. and he is only forbiddenד to him until she drink the water.  [ הלכות אישות פרק כ''ד הלכה כ''ה]. that does not seem to be like any opinion. to ר' אליעזר only the warning needs witnesses. to ר' יהושע both the warning and privacy needs witness and to ר' יהושע  בן ר' יהודה only the privacy need witnesses.

___________________________________________________________________

יש ויכוח בין רב שך לרב עקיבא איגר אם יש דבר כזה שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא לסוטה שבעלה ראה אותה נכנסת לחדר פרטי עם גבר שבעלה הזהיר אותה ממנו. הנושא הבסיסי מגיע מספר במדבר שבו יש לך נושא של אישה תועה. שם מצוין שהיא שותה את ''המים המרים'. [כלומר-- מים מעורבים במעט אבק של המקדש ובהם התמוססה פרשת סוטה.] מה המצב בו היא שותה? ראשית היא מוזהרת על ידי בעלה שלא תהיה במקום פרטי עם גבר מסוים. ואז רואים שהיא נכנסת למקום כזה. לר' אליעזר האזהרה היא מול שני עדים, אבל לראות אותה נכנסת למקום פרטי לא צריך שני עדים, או שבעלה רואה אותה נכנסת לחדר פרטי עם האיש הזה. במקרה כזה, היא שותה את המים. [כלומר, אם היא רוצה. אחרת היא יכולה להודות שסטתה והיא מגורשת ללא הכתובה שלה [חוזה נישואין - כלומר בערך 1000$ אם היא התחתנה בתור בתולה. אם היא לא הייתה בתולה, חוזה הנישואין נותן לה 500$].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו. אבל דבר אחד אתה רואה כאן. זה שבעלה ראה אותה נכנסת לחדר לא הופך אותה לאסורה עליו. עכשיו החוק הוא לא כמו ר' אליער. אבל אף על פי כן, עד כה אינך רואה דבר כזה כשוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה.] מה יהיה מקרה של "הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה". זה יהיה אם הוא אומר שהוא ראה אותה בשעת מעשה. אבל כאן כל מה שהוא ראה זה שהיא נכנסה לחדר פרטי. עכשיו נגד ר' אליער הם ר' יהושע שמחזיק אתה צריך שני עדים לשניהם [האזהרה והראייה שנכנסה לחדר פרטי] ור' יהושע בן ר' יהודה שאומר שאתה צריך רק שני עדים בשביל הפרטיות. אז מה הם יחזיקו אם הבעל יראה את הפרטיות? זה הטיעון. ר' עקיבא איגר אומר לא היינו אומרים "הוא עושה אותה לאיסור", [לרש''י והרב מברטנורא ], אולם לרמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' היינו אומרים "הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה על עצמו", ורב ש"ך אומר שאפילו רש"י והר''ב עלולים להסכים עם הרמ''ם שכן המקרה בפועל שבו ר' איעזר אומר, ''אפילו ציוץ של ציפור כדי לציין שנכנסה לחדר פרטי''--די בכך שבית הדין יכפו על הבעל להתגרש ממנה. אז הוויכוח בין ר' אליעזר לר' יהושע הוא באיזה מקרה מכריח אותו בית הדין להתגרש ממנה, ולא "הוא עושה אותה לאסור". אבל זה עדיין לא ברור לי. האם זה לא כך שר' אליעזר אומר מקנא על פי שניים ומשקה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו כלומר ''הוא מזהיר אותה מול שניים, אבל יכול בעצמו לראות את הפרטיות'' -- כל מה שאומר שהוא צריך לתת לה את האפשרות לשתות את המים כדי להגן על עצמה ולהראות שהיא חפה מפשע. לר' יהושע יכול להיות שמכיוון שלא היו שני עדים אנחנו לא עושים כלום! הייתי בים ובדרך חזרה עלה בדעתי שאתה לא רואה בר' אליעזר את הרעיון של שוואי עליו חתיכה איסורא הוא גורם לה לאסרה לעצמו, אלא רק ר איעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו אז אין סיבה לחשוב שר' יהושע מחזיק באיזו תפיסה מיוחדת שאם הוא רואה את הפרטיות שהופכת אותה לאסורה על עצמו. זה מצביע על כך שר' עקיבא איגר צודק. עם זאת, אני מודה שאם ניתן היה להוכיח שר' אליעזר מחזיק הוא גורם לה לאסור לעצמו רק על ידי ראיית הפרטיות, אז אפשר לטעון שר' יהושע יסכים עם זה

אחר כך ראיתי מה ההוכחה של רב שך: הירושלמי בפרק הראשון של סוטה שאומר שאם עד אחד רואה את הפרטיות בבוקר ואחר רואה את זה בערב אז היא שותה, כלומר לא צריך עדים בשביל הפרטיות לעשות קטגוריה חוקית [חלות] אלא רק כאינדיקציה.[רב שך מביאים זאת בהלכות אישות כ''ה הלכה כ''ד]. אז אם הבעל רואה את הפרטיות ללא עדים די בכך כדי לעשותה אסורה עליו אף על פי כן. לא מספיק כדי לאפשר לה לשתות את המים המרים

 Stoning is the most severe punishment in Torah and you can tell what things are more stringent than others if this is said in the Torah to be the punishment. Idolatry is one of these. 

[I was reminded about this because i walked into a breslov na nach sort of place and opened up the mishna in sanhedrin]

but it also occurred to me that things can be idolatry even they do not qualify for the full punishment. this is like on Shabat when there are plenty of things which desecrate the Sabbath even if they do not get up to the level of the full punishment. a simple example i if one picks up an object in a public domain but puts it down in a מקום פטור [a non obligated place].   

So what this means is that there is plenty of stuff which is going on in the religious world which i idolatry even if it does not reach the level of full liability.

z95 music file

 z95 

A Mishna in Shavuot says that one who curses another transgress a negative prohibition. and the Gemara Yerushalmi asks if he gets lashes for that?". The friends [peoples sitting in the Beit Midrash study hall] said, "No, because it is  a prohibition that has no act in it." R Yose said but switching one sacrifice for another and swearing a false oath also have no act in them and still he gets lashes.

I have been thinking about this Yeruhalmi. To me it seems clear R Yose is saying לוקים על לאו שאין בו מעשה one can get lashes for a prohibition that does not have an act in it. But that does not seem to be the way the Rambam and Raavad understand this subject because both say there is lashes for this prohibition and also agree that one does not get lashes for a prohibition that does not have an act in it. So they both go with R Yose but apparently for some other reason. I would imagine because of the Babylonian Talmud where there are special reasons why swearing and switching get lashes: one  is a verse, the other is an act and cursing is also a verse והפלא

What is hard to understand here is the Raavad  point to the Yerushalmi for the source of his law and there does not seem to be anything there that indicates what he says--that cursing is liable to  lashes only when using the special name of God [in laws of Sanhedrin ]. Also the Rambam seems also to be problematic since he says even using names used for God like "The Compassionate" is liable and that does not seem to e what that verse indicates.

 I would like to recommend learning  and finishing the two Talmuds and the Midrahim. But the way I have in mind i to finish the Two Talmuds with Tosphot, Maharsha and Maharam of Lublin [printed below the Maharsha]. But this is not to suggest minimizing learning in depth with Reb Chaim of Brisk and his students [Birckat Shmeul etc.  ] up until Rav Shach and his Avi Ezri.

Plus the basic learning of Physics and Mathematics that I have mentioned on this blog [QFT, String Theory, Algebraic Topology.etc.]

This might sound like a lot, but if one does not waste time doing other stuff, there i plenty of time for this.

But how to do this if one does not understand everything? You ay the words in order and go on and what i not clear at first will eventually become clear aa you go on further..

And you do not need to be in any special place to do this. Doing this at home is better than anything else with no one around to distract you from the learning.

[Also I wish to add that the best way to do this is a half page of Gemara with Rashi and Tosphot and Maharsha per day.

. 

 spiritual enlightenment. when the infinite light of God  shines on a person that doe not mean they have knowledge. Rather that is כתר the light of the crown to each one from where ever their root soul is from. [There are ten sepherot. the crown is only one] אשרי מי דעייל ונפיק  Happy is he who come in a goes out as is said about R, Akiva. .

 I was in Breslov Na Nach and opened The Life Of Rav Nahman where I read that he said the famous religious leaders of his time did not know Torah so they had to compensate with their show of religiosity. There is a point to this that you can see nowadays  that the real Torah scholars that sit and learn Torah all day in the Mir and Ponovitch are completely unknown. 

I mentioned this later in Bresslov and it wa pointed out to me the several torah lessons that rav nahman said to warn to stay away from the famous religious leaders מםורסמים של שקר

 I wanted to mention that the situation in Ukraine is different than that of Taiwan. Ukraine was a province of Russia ever since they decided to be under the Russian Tzar Alexei. That i it has been a part of Russia for more than 300 years. Taiwan was never a part of China.

But there i something more to it than that. Ukraine tends to have a lot of people that would rather be under Russian rule a I found out to my great surprise when I lived there for many years and very often asked people what they thought of the present rule from Kiev as opposed to rule from Moscow.   But no one in Taiwan wants to be be under the boots of China--especially after they saw what happened in Hong Kong.

 i am finding it hard to go through the basic set of learning that one is supposed to do. More or less that is the two talmuds and the midrahim. So even though some yeshivot are not up to par I would like to recommend having a place in every city for people to do the learning. Maybe in the merit of recommending to others the importance of getting through Shas, perhaps  little of that merit might  stick with me.