ברוך השם. אני חושב שאני מצאתי דרך כלשהי להבין תוספות ואת מהרש''א על בבא מציעא פ''ד ושבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב. הייתי רוצה להביע את הרעיון הבסיסי ולאחר מכן להיכנס לפרטים בעזרת השם. אני חושב תוספות והמהרש''א קרוב לוודאי שכבר הבינו מה שאמרתי על רבינו חננאל כי במקרה שלו זה לא רק שהוא משנה המקרה של מפרש אלא גם מיהו מפרש. אפשר לקחת את זה כנתון, ואקסיומה. רעיון זה כשלעצמו לא עוזר בהתחלה. אבל הבה נחשוב מה ההשלכות הן. נניח רבינו חננאל אומר שהמקרה של שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש. בהתחלה זה לא נראה שיחול שינוי משמעותי. אבל זה משנה משהו חיוני. כלומר זה. כי שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש המשכון הוא עבור כל הלוואה. המקרה של רבי עקיבא הוא כאשר הלווה לא מסביר כלום. אז מה קורה אם המלווה הוא מפרש? זה יהיה אותו הדבר כמו לא הסביר שום דבר. רבי אליעזר היה אומר שהוא מקבל את ההלוואה כולה. זה אותו דבר של קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. אבל לרש''י הדברים שונים. המקרה של רבי עקיבא ורבי אליעזר הוא כאשר המלווה הוא מפרש. ואז שמואל הוא כשהוא לא מפרש. אז מה קורה אם הלווה הוא מפרש לרש''י? אפילו רבי אליעזר היה מודה שזה לא אותו בדבר כמו אם אף אחד לא אמר כלום. במקום זאת החוק יחזור לרבי עקיבא כי סכום שהמשכון היה שווה לא צריך לפרוע אל המלווה. לכן אין קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. ולכן דעתו של רש''י יוצאת טוב יותר מאשר רבינו חננאל
11.5.16
Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
How Radical Muslims Will Get Nukes They will simply vote themselves in and take over the UK and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
An example that people choose their beliefs based on the social group they identify with, not based on rational criteria. What makes the social group believe a certain set of beliefs is they are often founded on a schizoid typal personality who has contradictory beliefs.
It is not radical Muslims that are a problem as oppose to normal Muslims. It is the whole "meme" The difference between a Catholic nun and radical Muslim is in what they believe in. Not amount of fervor they believe in it.
See this how-radical-muslims-will-get-nukes
the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all.
Heidegger saw this in a metaphysical kind of sense. He thought this is indicative of the idea of coming into being. The past is the potential which gives birth to the present. Dr Kelly Ross thinks of this more in the sense that the past has gone from a mode of possibility into necessity.
But I myself have not yet had time to delve into these interesting approaches. I am just mentioning them for points of possible exploration.
The thing here that is curious is that the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all. Instead of it going from potential into actuality, it passed from potential into actuality into nothingness.
I think that this indicates what Kant was saying about time-it is an unconditioned reality. When pure reason ventures into that area it produces contradictions. The past is the most necessary. It can no long be changed. But it also is the most non existent.
But I myself have not yet had time to delve into these interesting approaches. I am just mentioning them for points of possible exploration.
The thing here that is curious is that the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all. Instead of it going from potential into actuality, it passed from potential into actuality into nothingness.
I think that this indicates what Kant was saying about time-it is an unconditioned reality. When pure reason ventures into that area it produces contradictions. The past is the most necessary. It can no long be changed. But it also is the most non existent.
Nature makes the choice."
(1) Free will and Quantum Mechanics with Henry Stapp see min 33:44 "Nature makes the choice."
[Which is locality.The observer is Nature, not the experimenter nor the electron.]
(2) That is straight Neo Platonic thought--the observer is the Logos--not the individual.
(3) What the individual sees is representation of reality. Pixels on a screen. What do the pixels represent? Hermitian matrices on a Hilbert Space..
That is a kind of matrix that stays the same if you flip it over and every "i" you turn to a "-i." And the Hilbert Space simply has a linear inner product defined on it.
The hermitian matrix is really a tensor. It has different values according to which direction it is pointed. So it is not a vector. But it might be made up of lots of vectors (forces whose value depends on direction). [Think of a corner stone in a building. At a single point the stresses and strains with will be different depending on direction.]
Anyway--these are the things that are real. What we see are merely representations. As Kant said the dinge an sich is hidden. But Schopenhauer thought there is only one real Ding an sich the Will. The rest of reality is a representation of that Ding an sich.
(4) And that brings us to Hegel that there is a hierarchy with each level being a representation of the previous one. [Not thesis anti thesis synthesis which appears no where in Hegel and is not even an accurate representation of his thought. Rather he thought the concept internally had some self contradiction in potential that needed resolution. Not some anti thesis coming from without.]
[Which is locality.The observer is Nature, not the experimenter nor the electron.]
(2) That is straight Neo Platonic thought--the observer is the Logos--not the individual.
(3) What the individual sees is representation of reality. Pixels on a screen. What do the pixels represent? Hermitian matrices on a Hilbert Space..
That is a kind of matrix that stays the same if you flip it over and every "i" you turn to a "-i." And the Hilbert Space simply has a linear inner product defined on it.
The hermitian matrix is really a tensor. It has different values according to which direction it is pointed. So it is not a vector. But it might be made up of lots of vectors (forces whose value depends on direction). [Think of a corner stone in a building. At a single point the stresses and strains with will be different depending on direction.]
Anyway--these are the things that are real. What we see are merely representations. As Kant said the dinge an sich is hidden. But Schopenhauer thought there is only one real Ding an sich the Will. The rest of reality is a representation of that Ding an sich.
(4) And that brings us to Hegel that there is a hierarchy with each level being a representation of the previous one. [Not thesis anti thesis synthesis which appears no where in Hegel and is not even an accurate representation of his thought. Rather he thought the concept internally had some self contradiction in potential that needed resolution. Not some anti thesis coming from without.]
10.5.16
Alt Right
Private property, limited government, individual rights to be left alone from government interference, the stopping of the importation of Muslims into the USA are good ideas. The Alt Right is correct about these things. But when they throw antisemitism into the mixture, I have to draw a line.
the religious world
In the religious world, the obedient people who go to school and memorize zombie nonsense, then go to official positions of power and recite more zombie nonsense, and finally socialize with other people like them, get the most money. In theory they have the most children; reality seems to be mixed, on that point. But either way, the religious world, is selecting for these ideologically-correct conformists. When another century passes, if our the religious world, has not snuffed itself , all that will be left will be people be pleasant, dependent on the system, and anything wider than that will be a mystery to them.
[Not everything is zombie nonsense, but most of it. This comes from the zombies in power. No wonder the religious world since it became separated from the Jewish People has never produced one single original thinker. Not one new idea, not one noble prize. not one single contribution to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter.]
[Not everything is zombie nonsense, but most of it. This comes from the zombies in power. No wonder the religious world since it became separated from the Jewish People has never produced one single original thinker. Not one new idea, not one noble prize. not one single contribution to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter.]
Kant
"Concepts, or predicates, are always universals, which means that no individual can be defined, as an individual, by concepts." (Kelley Ross in his essay on universals)
This brings out a point that דע אלהי אביך ועבדהו [What Kind David said to his son Know the God of your father and serve Him] has to be by a different kind of knowledge.
This may seem like a small point, but it is not. Reason in its most expanded form perceives only universals. Hume made a mistake thinking that it only can perceive contradictions. And he built on this idea his entire book. See the Essay by Bryan Caplan which goes into detail about Hume's misunderstanding. From where did Hume get mixed up? Elementary High School Geometry. Though he never says it, but this is clearly the source of his confusion. He saw Euclid had a few self evident axioms, and could build his vast and complex system on these alone and by the principle of contradiction. Hume concluded that that is all Reason can do. Clearly he was confused. Reason can do much more. It can know universals. But that is the limit.
Knowing an individual even by an infinite number of adjectives- still means one does not know the individual.
It is a different kind of knowing. Different in quality, not different in quantity.
This brings out a point that דע אלהי אביך ועבדהו [What Kind David said to his son Know the God of your father and serve Him] has to be by a different kind of knowledge.
This may seem like a small point, but it is not. Reason in its most expanded form perceives only universals. Hume made a mistake thinking that it only can perceive contradictions. And he built on this idea his entire book. See the Essay by Bryan Caplan which goes into detail about Hume's misunderstanding. From where did Hume get mixed up? Elementary High School Geometry. Though he never says it, but this is clearly the source of his confusion. He saw Euclid had a few self evident axioms, and could build his vast and complex system on these alone and by the principle of contradiction. Hume concluded that that is all Reason can do. Clearly he was confused. Reason can do much more. It can know universals. But that is the limit.
Knowing an individual even by an infinite number of adjectives- still means one does not know the individual.
It is a different kind of knowing. Different in quality, not different in quantity.
9.5.16
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach
I realize not everyone has the time to go through the entire Talmud while at the same time going to university to learn a vocation. So I thought to myself what could encapsulate in an easy way the basic essence of the Oral Law so that even the simplest person could understand it.
In other words I understand the idea of time limit.
So it occurred to me the best way to do this is to take almost at random any chapter or essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and learn it well in connection with the sources he brings.
You could ask why not Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's Chidushei HaRambam?
First of all because Rav Shach is understandable and even easy to understand once you are familiar with the Gemara and Rambam that he is discussing. Second, I simply think it is a better book. I have great respect for Reb Chaim, but I think Rav Shach saw further and better.
There is a degree you have to trust my judgement on this issue. After all anyone learning any vocation has lots of difference of opinions than his mentors. It is just something that anyone and everyone has to go through to learn any subject properly. You just have to take my word for it until you yourself have gone through Shas and enough poskim rishonim and achronim to see what I am saying.
I had the same doubts when I was learning Gemara. I also thought, "What good is the in-depth learning, when I have not even finished Shas once yet?" Eventually I began to see that people that did not learn in-depth at the beginning of their yeshiva years, never even begin to understand Talmud. They think they know what they do not know.
In other words I understand the idea of time limit.
So it occurred to me the best way to do this is to take almost at random any chapter or essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and learn it well in connection with the sources he brings.
You could ask why not Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's Chidushei HaRambam?
First of all because Rav Shach is understandable and even easy to understand once you are familiar with the Gemara and Rambam that he is discussing. Second, I simply think it is a better book. I have great respect for Reb Chaim, but I think Rav Shach saw further and better.
There is a degree you have to trust my judgement on this issue. After all anyone learning any vocation has lots of difference of opinions than his mentors. It is just something that anyone and everyone has to go through to learn any subject properly. You just have to take my word for it until you yourself have gone through Shas and enough poskim rishonim and achronim to see what I am saying.
I had the same doubts when I was learning Gemara. I also thought, "What good is the in-depth learning, when I have not even finished Shas once yet?" Eventually I began to see that people that did not learn in-depth at the beginning of their yeshiva years, never even begin to understand Talmud. They think they know what they do not know.
The purpose of the attacks directed both against Christianity in itself as a system of thought and belief and against Wasps (White Christians) is unknown to me. The degree of animosity is striking and confusing. I asked my learning partner about this a few times and he also is confused by it. You do not see anything like it directed towards for example Hinduism with more gods than man can count. You don't see anything like it directed against Muslims with their open and stated purpose as the total destruction of all Jews. If idolatry would be the problem then you would not have warm and explicit borrowing Hindu mediation into Jewish meditation. If antisemitism would be the problem then the bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims in Israel that I saw constantly would not exist. And if my learning partner can not understand why this is the case then all the more so I.
The actual reason is simple. People have some degree of control over their beliefs. And they choose their beliefs based on the super-organism they want to fit in with. There is no reason to look for rational reasons that underline anyone's belief system or world view because it always is based on the social group they identify with. The reasons they give are merely excuses made in order to sound reasonable.
And the people that spend a lot of time and effort on perfecting their belief system are schizoid typal personalities. So for the average working guy, there are not many options. He knows well worked out systems seem to be coming from weird people. He does not have the time and effort himself to work it all out. So he just buys into the system that he identifies with emotionally.
Howard Bloom claims that the real organism is the super-organism. When one buys into any given system, it begins to take over. At a certain point one's thoughts are not one's own.
In order to correct this problem one can make a effort to go without judgement on issues that he knows may be subject to group bias. Also one can make an effort to ground his or her beliefs in reason.
So along with learning Torah I recommend learning the books of the Middle Ages on the philosophy of Torah -specifically the Guide of the Rambam but also the critiques on the Guide by Crescas Joseph Albo and others --all with the purpose in mind to come to a synthesis between Torah and Reason. [But I would not overdo it. The main learning of Torah ought to be the meat and potatoes of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, Maharsha, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
The actual reason is simple. People have some degree of control over their beliefs. And they choose their beliefs based on the super-organism they want to fit in with. There is no reason to look for rational reasons that underline anyone's belief system or world view because it always is based on the social group they identify with. The reasons they give are merely excuses made in order to sound reasonable.
And the people that spend a lot of time and effort on perfecting their belief system are schizoid typal personalities. So for the average working guy, there are not many options. He knows well worked out systems seem to be coming from weird people. He does not have the time and effort himself to work it all out. So he just buys into the system that he identifies with emotionally.
Howard Bloom claims that the real organism is the super-organism. When one buys into any given system, it begins to take over. At a certain point one's thoughts are not one's own.
In order to correct this problem one can make a effort to go without judgement on issues that he knows may be subject to group bias. Also one can make an effort to ground his or her beliefs in reason.
So along with learning Torah I recommend learning the books of the Middle Ages on the philosophy of Torah -specifically the Guide of the Rambam but also the critiques on the Guide by Crescas Joseph Albo and others --all with the purpose in mind to come to a synthesis between Torah and Reason. [But I would not overdo it. The main learning of Torah ought to be the meat and potatoes of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, Maharsha, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
Working on one's character was an original part of the Musar movement. The idea was besides the overall emphasis on learning Ethics, there was also an emphasis in each yeshiva for a different trait, Trust in God for Navardok. The Greatness of Man-for Slobadka, [self esteem].[Slobadka is where Rav Avigdor Miller went to yeshiva.]
The Mir was a late comer to the Musar scene and their emphasis remained learning Torah in as great a depth as possible. And that was also in Far Rockaway the emphasis in Shar Yashuv.
[I think that is a good emphasis because I can see that learning in depth is totally different than the superficial learning that is generally done. I am convinced that if I had not been exposed to it from the beginning I never would have gotten the idea.]
But what I wanted to bring up is that in the Musar movement there was a concept of working on one's own personal character traits.
Now this fact is obvious if you look at the three Musar books that Reb Israel Salanter himself printed up in Villna. One was a book that incorporated a program of self improvement on certain traits per week. And Rav Miller himself mentioned once when asked how to work on the trait of trust in God He said to go through the Shar HaBitachon in the Obligations of the Heart ten times.
What I am trying to say-is that one way the masters of Musar thought one could work on ones traits was by finding the particular subject that one knows he needs work on in some book o Ethics and to keep and learning that chapter over and over again many times.
I tried this myself with the chapter on anger in the אורחות צדיקים the paths of the righteous and I believe it helped me. Very much.
[And this goes along with the idea of "Review," that Rav Freifeld and his son Motti were always talking about--in the context of learning Gemara.
I also worked on speaking the truth always and also avoiding gossip, (lashon Hara).
The Mir was a late comer to the Musar scene and their emphasis remained learning Torah in as great a depth as possible. And that was also in Far Rockaway the emphasis in Shar Yashuv.
[I think that is a good emphasis because I can see that learning in depth is totally different than the superficial learning that is generally done. I am convinced that if I had not been exposed to it from the beginning I never would have gotten the idea.]
But what I wanted to bring up is that in the Musar movement there was a concept of working on one's own personal character traits.
Now this fact is obvious if you look at the three Musar books that Reb Israel Salanter himself printed up in Villna. One was a book that incorporated a program of self improvement on certain traits per week. And Rav Miller himself mentioned once when asked how to work on the trait of trust in God He said to go through the Shar HaBitachon in the Obligations of the Heart ten times.
What I am trying to say-is that one way the masters of Musar thought one could work on ones traits was by finding the particular subject that one knows he needs work on in some book o Ethics and to keep and learning that chapter over and over again many times.
I tried this myself with the chapter on anger in the אורחות צדיקים the paths of the righteous and I believe it helped me. Very much.
[And this goes along with the idea of "Review," that Rav Freifeld and his son Motti were always talking about--in the context of learning Gemara.
I also worked on speaking the truth always and also avoiding gossip, (lashon Hara).
8.5.16
Howard Bloom has made a point considering the super-organism and its effect on each person. This is in his book the Lucifer Principle. He takes this super organism as a kind of being in itself.
The point is hanging around in with people you recognize are a cult is a bad idea. If the whole group does not have the kind of character traits you think are admirable, you should leave. The Rambam made a similar point that a person is drawn in his traits and charter by the group he hangs out in.
Howard Bloom brings from the idea of hard wiring a computer. Once the circuits are set, that is it. It only takes a short time for the groups dynamics to get set inside ones cerebral cortex, and then get hard wired.
I think there is a difference between groups behavior individual behavior. There is such a thing as a Bell curve. While individual can rise above the group norms, that is still no reason to ignore the fact that there are groups norms. And the group norm is what one will be dragged into if he stays.
The point is hanging around in with people you recognize are a cult is a bad idea. If the whole group does not have the kind of character traits you think are admirable, you should leave. The Rambam made a similar point that a person is drawn in his traits and charter by the group he hangs out in.
Howard Bloom brings from the idea of hard wiring a computer. Once the circuits are set, that is it. It only takes a short time for the groups dynamics to get set inside ones cerebral cortex, and then get hard wired.
I think there is a difference between groups behavior individual behavior. There is such a thing as a Bell curve. While individual can rise above the group norms, that is still no reason to ignore the fact that there are groups norms. And the group norm is what one will be dragged into if he stays.
7.5.16
12 + 7 blessings
There are 12 + 7 blessings which are ignored. 12 are when the constellations rise in the east. 7 are when any of the planets enter the constellation of Nissan (the lamb) I forgot what it is called in English.
If people would take my advice as to the learning of Ethics {Musar} as being part theory and part practice by outdoor skills then this would be great project:-to learn to identify the constellations and the planets.
Each one is עושה מעשה בראשית.
To be able to tell the constellations is an important survival skill.
If people would take my advice as to the learning of Ethics {Musar} as being part theory and part practice by outdoor skills then this would be great project:-to learn to identify the constellations and the planets.
Each one is עושה מעשה בראשית.
To be able to tell the constellations is an important survival skill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)