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.
16.10.26
Rav Shach {laws of pleas 1:3} asks on the approach of the Raavad. The Raavad holds in a case of a deposit that if the guard says “I admit I owe it and you can take it,” that that is not considered "Here it is" unless he gives it right then and there. If he says, “It is in my home or on the range, that does not count. [Shita Mekubetzet Bava Metzia, page 98] {This is like the Rambam in Laws of Pleas Chapter 1, law 3.} But for a case of a pledge for a loan, the statement that “I admit I owe the loan, and you can take the pledge wherever it is,” counts as being a plea of "Here it is". [In such a case, he would not be required to take an oath of admission in part. The reason I think the Raavad holds this difference is that R. Isaac said a lender owns the pledge, and this is considered to be the law. Thus, when the lender says, “I admit I owe you the loan, and here is the pledge,” he is giving up what he owns. However the Rambam holds even in a case of a pledge, it has to be given right away, because, in fact, it does not belong to the borrower until it is given back.]-----------------------------רב שך {ה' טוען ונטען 1:3} asks on the approach of the ראב''ד. The ראב''ד holds in a case of a deposit, that if the guard says “I admit I owe it and you can take it,” that that is not considered "Here it is" unless he gives it right then and there. If he says, “It is in my home or on the range, that does not count. [שיטה מקובצת, page צ''ח] {This is like the רמב''ם in הלכות טוען ונטען Chapter 1, law 3.} But for a case of a pledge for a loan, the statement that “I admit I owe the loan, and you can take the pledge wherever it is,” counts as being a plea of "Here it is". [In such a case, he would not be required to take an oath of admission in part. The reason I think the ראב''ד holds this difference is that ר' יצחק said a lender owns the pledge, and this is considered to be the law. Thus, when the lender says, “I admit I owe you the loan, and here is the pledge,” he is giving up what he owns. However, the רמב''ם holds even in a case of a pledge, it has to be given right away, because, in fact, it does not belong to the borrower until it is given back.] To the Rambam, a pledge and a deposit are identical.
