Belief in God is rational. Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED.
6.5.26
Mishna (ketuboth page 18b)
Reb Ahron Kotler brings up the possibility that when the Mishna (ketuboth page 18b) says witnesses that say this signature on this doc are ours but we were under age when we signed it, that they are believed, and that the doc is then destroyed. I think there is a good point to this because if this was not the case then what would be the difference between this case where you believe them, and the case when the witnesses say it we signed it but it was with oral agreement that it would not be acted upon or that there was another kind of invalidation that went along with it that in that case we do not belive them. so in this later case clearly we do not accept their word to validate oit not invalidate the doc. so what would be the difference between this and the other case where we do believe them? If there too we believe it is their signature but the doc is anyway invalid and that the we would not do anything to the doc but rather we would wait until it could be validated by other means then the two cases would be equal. Then what difference would it make if we say we believe them or if we do not believe them? In both cases, the law would be identical. So, we must say in the case of the Mishna we destroy the doc.----------------------------ר' אהרון קוטלר brings up the possibility that when the משנה (כתובת י''ח ע''ב)says witnesses that say this signature on this שטר are ours but we were under age when we signed it, that they are believed, and that the שטר is then destroyed. I think there is a good point to this because if this was not the case, then what would be the difference between this case where you believe them, and the case when the witnesses say it we signed it, but it was with oral agreement that it would not be acted upon שטר אמנהor that there was another kind of invalidation that went along with it שטר מודעאthat in that case we do not believe them. So in this later case clearly we do not accept their word to validate oit not invalidate the שטר. so what would be the difference between this and the other case where we do believe them? If there too we believe it is their signature but the שטר is anyway invalid and that the we would not do anything to the שטר but rather we would wait until it could be validated by other means then the two cases would be equal. Then what difference would it make if we say we believe them or if we do not believe them? In both cases, the law would be identical. So, we must say in the case of the משנה we destroy the שטר.
