God is simply beyond pure Reason and reaching Him is possible,-- but not by means of having a right set of beliefs

I realize that to cleave to God is not as exclusive as having the right set of beliefs. But nor is it irrelevant to one's beliefs.
The way I see it is that it is really in the realm of the Ding An Sich as Schopenhauer would put it. That is to say God is simply beyond pure Reason and reaching Him is possible,-- but not by means of having a right set of beliefs. Cleaving to God is possible even with mistaken beliefs. And even with right beliefs one can be far from God.
The Rambam already in the Guide wrote that people have no inherent sense of the Divine Law or Moral Law. We depend on the one time revelation on Mount Sinai. A Unique event in History.
That is,-- there is no access by means of reason. But there is access by faith. [What Leonard Nelson would call immediate non intuitive knowledge. I.e. known immediately not through anything nor derived nor senses.

I feel there were great people that had basic belief in Torah, and yet maybe had a few things off. Still I think there were connected with the Divine Realm. I do not think purity of belief is much of a proof or criterion for being kosher. The Sitra Achra has plenty of agents that can get through that test.

השותף ללמידה שלי טען כי אחד יכול להיות מחויב חטאת עבור מתעסק (טעות בעובדות), רק כאשר יש הנאה.

My learning partner argued that one can be obligated a sin offering for מתעסק a mistake in the facts, only when there is הנאה pleasure. The normal case of a חטאת is when there is  a mistake in law, not in the physical facts.
Later I saw that this can not be the case to the רמב''ם as רב שך goes into  in laws of איסורי ביאה א:י''ב. What my learning partner suggested is in fact the opinion of תוספות and all other ראשונים but not the רמב''ם.
To make things short:
The רמב''ם in three places says the reason מתעסק בשבת is not obligated in a sin offering is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. He does not say is is because he was not נהנה These places are ה' שגגות פרק ב' ה''ז פרק ז' הי''א and also in פירוש המשנה כריתות פרק ספק אכל. In all three places the  רמב''ם says the reason מתעסק בשבת is פטור  is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה and he says nothing about whether he was נהנה or not.
However נהנה even to the  רמב''ם can make one a מזיד in order to be obligated in lashes.

השותף ללמידה שלי טען כי אחד יכול להיות מחויב חטאת עבור מתעסק (טעות בעובדות), רק כאשר יש הנאה. המקרה הרגיל של חטאת הוא כאשר יש טעות במשפט, לא בעובדה הפיזית. רק אחר כך הבנתי שזה לא יכול להיות כן לרמב''ם כמו רב שך נכנס בזה בה' איסורי ביאה א: י''ב. מה שותף הלמידה שלי הציע הוא למעשה דעת תוספות והראשונים אבל לא הרמב''ם. כדי לעשות הדברים קצרים. הרמב''ם בשלושה מקומות אומר שהסיבה מתעסק בשבת אינו מחויב בחטאת היא משום מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. הוא לא אומר שהוא משום שהוא לא נהנה. מקומות אלה הם ה' שגגות פרק ב" ה''ז, פרק ז' הי''א וגם בפירוש המשנה כריתות פרק ספק אכל. בכל שלושת המקומות האלה הרמב''ם אומר שהסיבה מתעסק בשבת הוא פטור היא משום מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. והוא לא אומר כלום לגבי השאלה אם הוא היה נהנה או לא. עם זאת נהנה אפילו לרמב''ם יכול לעשות אחד למזיד כדי להיות מחוייב במלקות.

He argued that one can be obligated a sin offering for מתעסק [a mistake in the facts,] only when there is הנאה pleasure.. That is the normal case of a sin offering is when there is a mistake in law, not in the physical facts.

I saw that I had written something in my notes on Shas (Gemara. That is the Oral Law) in the name of my learning partner. He argued that one can be obligated a sin offering for מתעסק [a mistake in the facts,] only when there is הנאה pleasure.. That is the normal case of a sin offering is when there is  a mistake in law, not in the physical facts.
Later I saw that this can not be the case to the Rambam. Rav Shach goes into this in laws of איסורי ביאה א:י''ב. What my learning partner suggested is in fact the opinion of Tosphot and all other rishonim but not the Rambam.
To make things short:
The Rambam in three places says the reason מתעסק בשבת is not obligated in a sin offering is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. He does not say is is because he was not נהנה (get pleasure.) ה' שגגות פרק ב' ה''ז פרק ז' הי''א and also in פירוש המשנה כריתות פרק ספק אכל in all three places the rambam says the reason מתעסק בשבת is פטור  is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה and he says nothing about whether he was נהנה or not.
However נהנה even to the Rambam can make one a מזיד in order to be obligated in lashes.
__________________________________________________________________________

a problem in the רמב''ם about laws of Passover הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.

The שאגת אריה and רב חיים הלוי deal with a problem in the רמב''ם but there is something unsatisfying about their answers. רב שך also deals with this question in  a way that seems to wrap up the issue completely.
The basic question is simple. Why does the רמב''ם say there are מלקות for owning חמץ on פסח against an open גמרא in פסחים  page צ''ה. בל אראה ובלימצא הם לאו הניתק לעשה. There are no lashes because owning חמץ has a correction, getting rid of it.

The basic answer רב שך gives is this. We have an argument between the sages and ר' יהודה about תשביתו. To ר' יהודה  that is by burning. To the sages it is in any way. רש''י says the argument is only before the time the leaven is forbidden and תוספות says after the time.
So the גמרא on page צ'ה to רש''י can only be to the sages and to תוספות it it is both to the sages and ר' יהודה.
The רמב''ם says תשביתו starts before the time of the prohibition הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.
So the correction starts before the time of the prohibition so the prohibition is not a לאו הניתק לעשה to the sages but it is to ר. יהודה if you go by תוספות. Simple. So the גמרא on page צ''ה  is going like ר. יהודה which is not the הלכה.

It could not be more simple. But the שאגת אריה and רב חיים הלוי gives answers why there are lashes to the רמב''ם which would work perfectly well on page צ''ה to be giving מלקות. However רב חיים הלויsays בל יראה is a positive and a negative command. Besides the question from where he would get this, if it would be true then on page צ'ה why is it considered a לאו הניתק לעשה?
The שאגת אריה answers it is two לאווין which is perfectly true, but then again the same question arises. Why would that not be so also on page צ''ה

בעיה רמב''ם על הלכות פסח הלכות חמץ ומצה ג: י''א. השאגת אריה ורב חיים הלוי עסקו עם בבעיה זו הרמב''ם אבל יש משהו מאכזב על בתשובותיהם. רב שך עוסק בשאלה זו בצורה שנראית לפתור את הבעיה לחלוטין. השאלה הבסיסית היא פשוטה. מדוע הרמב''ם אומר שיש מלקות בגין החזקת חמץ על פסח נגד גמרא פתוחה פסחים דף צ''ה. אל יראה ואל ימצא הוא לאו הניתק לעשה. אין מלקות משום שלבעלות בחמץ יש תיקון, תשביתו. התשובה הבסיסית של רב שך נותן היא זו. יש לנו ויכוח בין החכמים ור" יהודה על תשביתו.  ר" יהודה אומר הוא על ידי שריפה. הכחמים אומרים זה בכל דרך. רש''י אומר הטיעון הוא רק לפני זמן שהחמץ אסור והתוספות אומר לאחר הזמן. אז הגמרא בעמוד צ''ה  לרש''י יכול להיות רק לחכמים ולפי תוספות  הוא לפי חכמים או ר" יהודה. הרמב''ם אומר תשביתו מתחיל לפני זמן של איסור חמץ הלכות חמץ ומצה ג: י''א. אז התיקון מתחיל לפני זמן האיסור כך שהאיסור אינו לאו הניתק לעשה לחכמים אבל כן היא לר. יהודה אם אתה הולך לדעת תוספות. פָּשׁוּט. אז הגמרא בעמוד צ''ה הולכת כמו ר. יהודה אשר אינה ההלכה. זה לא יכול להיות יותר פשוט. אבל שאגת אריה ואת רב חיים הלוי נותנים תשובות למה יש מלקות לרמב''ם אשר תתעבדנה היטב בעמוד צ''ה לתת מלקות. ( רב חיים הלוי אומר בל יראה הוא עשה ולא תעשה.  אם זה נכון אז בדף צ"ה למה זה נחשב לאו הניתק לעשה? השאגת אריה עונה זה שני לאווין. זה נכון לגמרי, אבל אז שוב את אותה שאלה נשאלת. למה שלא יהיה כך גם בעמוד צ''ה?

הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.The Shagat Arye and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik deal with a problem in the Rambam but there is something unsatisfying about their answers. Rav Shach also deals with this question in a way that seems to wrap up the issue completely.

The Shagat Arye and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik deal with a problem in the Rambam but there is something unsatisfying about their answers. Rav Shach also deals with this question in  a way that seems to wrap up the issue completely.
The basic question is simple. Why does the Rambam say there are lashes for owning chametz on Pesach against an open Gemara in Pesachim page 95. בל אראה ובלימצא הם לאו הניתק לעשה. {No lashes because owning chametz has a correction--getting rid of it.}

The basic answer Rav Shach gives is this. We have an argument between the sages and R.Yehuda about תשביתו ["you must get rid of all leavened bread']. To R. Yehuda that is by burning. To the sages it is in any way. Rashi says the argument is only before the time the leaven is forbidden and Tosphot says after the time.
So the Gemara on page 95 to Rashi can only be to the sages and to Tosphot it is both to the sages and R Yehuda.
The Rambam says תשביתו starts before the time of the prohibition הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.
So the correction starts before the time of the prohibition so the prohibition is not a לאו הניתק לעשה to the sages but it is to R. Yehuda if you go by Tosphot. Simple. So the Gemara on page 95  is going like R.Yehuda. which is not the halacha.

It could not be more simple. But the Shagat Arye and Reb Chaim gives answers why there are lashes to the Rambam which would work perfectly well on page 95 to be giving lashes. Reb Chaim says בל יראה is a positive and a negative command. Besides the question from where he would get this, if it would be true then on page 95 why is it considered a לאו הניתק לעשה?
The Shagat Arye answers it is two לאווין which is perfectly true but then again the same question arises. Why would that no be so also on page 95

Music for the glory of God

T82  t82 in midi format

Getting out of the rat race

There is something about the basic idea of accepting the yoke of Torah along with trust in God to provide that really works. This was a path I was on for only a few years until the evil inclination got the better of me. Still it is worth while making clear what it means

The basic idea is to learn Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot without having it in mind to use it as a means to make money. That is called Torah "Lishma"--Torah for its own sake.
Most yeshivas nowadays use Torah to make money, and so the higher blessing is obviously absent.

It is not a phrase that I have heard for a long time, but recently Moshe Rosten mentioned it to me: To get out of the "rat race." That reminded me a lot of what I think must have been my original idea in going to yeshiva to learn Torah. I think to  large degree I wanted to get out of the rat race and devote myself to the service of God.
And to a large degree I still think that must be for me a major motivating factor.
It is not that I succeeded so well, but I think that without my actually being able to put it in those terms, I must have been very upset at the idea of spending my life in pursuit of things of this world.
And to a large degree I think this was the motivating idea for a lot of people in the Litvak NY yeshivas.

The idea of escaping the rat race to be attached to God and his service by going to a NY Litvak yeshiva was my approach to escaping the rat race. But where I grew up, most people were thinking in those directions. And those that were serious went into Eastern religions.
But then I came to Israel and there the religious  world was functioning on a different wavelength. Religion was more like a mass movement, and conformity was the goal. Still for my seven years in Safed, I felt absolutely attached to God.
What I suggest for myself and others to regain this basic approach of seeing attachment with God as the ultimate goal  is by means of learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics]

In most of the cases of people joining some religious cause to get out of the rat race--the ultimate end was disappointment --especially with eastern religions. In my own experience in the religious world my own feeling also is largely that of disappointment.  Not that the path is wrong but a lot of the people on the path are not there with the goal of escaping the rate race but rather to use Torah as means to get farther in the rat race than others.

So I can honestly say that my intentions were certainly affected by the larger mentality that was around in California at the time--the search for truth and meaning. But mine was more a kind of philosophical approach to Torah than a religious one. That could be a lack of awareness of a certain area of value.Though I certainly had some religious interest, but still it seems I was more in tune with the rational nature of Torah. The deeper spiritual aspects perhaps not. So when in fact I became somewhat attached to God, perhaps I simply was not prepared, and so jettisoned the whole thing.
So looking back on it all today, I would have to say that the Mir yeshiva was right--learning Torah (that is- the plain and simple Gemara Rashi and Tosphot) is the key to everything--all the good and all the light in all the worlds.
[I should mention that if I had been aware of the Rambam's opinion in the Guide and Mishne Torah that Physics and Metaphysics are a part of the Oral Law then I very well have added them to my learning session. But who knows? I might have felt not ready to take them up before doing Shas a few times. I anyway felt a tremendous surge of energy when I got involved in learning Gemara.

There is a prohibition in the Torah to add to the commandments.

There is a prohibition in the Torah to add to the commandments. This comes up even in places were you would not expect it. The Rambam explains a priest can not add to the three blessings he is commanded to bless the Jewish people. The curious thing is that this is one a lot.People go to those who they think are holy to get a blessing. See the Ramban {Nachmanides} on Deuteronomy ch 4 verse 2. Even in the sidur we have  a father should bless his children on Friday night.
The Ramban explains the basic prohibition is not to make up mitzvot out of one's own heart. This idea of blessing people seems to be in this category.
To me it seems people make up their own mitzvot--all the time.

The questions here are a lot. First of all it is hard to know the definitions. Also we have the Ari giving lots of unifications and saying certain verses as corrections for sins. Reb Nachman also said to say what is called the tikun klali [psalms 16, 31,41,41,59,77,90, 105 137 150 as a general correction for sins.]
But none of that seems to be adding to any commandments. It is already a mitzvah to pray. That is in fact why we say the prayers and psalms.

____________________________________________________________________________


There is a לאו in the Torah to add to the מצוות. This comes up even in places were you would not expect it. The רמב''ם explains a כהן can not add to the three blessings he is commanded to bless the Jewish people. The curious thing is that this is one a lot. People go to those who they think are holy to get a blessing. See the רמב''ן on דברים פרק ד' פסוק ב' .
The רמב''ן explains the basic prohibition is not to make up מצוות out of one's own heart. This idea of blessing people seems to be in this category.


I admit this was a surprise to me. The reason most people including myself are unaware of this is the fact that it is mentioned there in the laws of the blessings of priests that a non kohen transgress the verse you but not strangers only at the time the regular blessing is supposed to be said. But from this Rambam we see  that means only to transgress that particular verse. But to transgress the general prohibition of adding to the mitzvot anyone including a kohen can be considered to transgress at any time-just by saying a blessing to another person.

In the laws in forbidden sexual relations  Rambam 1:22 we have that if there was קינו וסתירה (warning and then she went to a private area with the man she was warned not to go with) and then one witness comes and says he saw her sleep with another man not her husband, then she can not drink מי סוטה (the bitter waters) and if her husband is a priest and then has sex with her, he gets lashes for זונה (prostitute).[When the Torah forbids a priest to sleep with a prostitute it means a woman who has had any forbidden sexual relation (even a prohibition that comes from an  עשה), not the normal definition]
[The normal case is there is קינו וסתירה a warning and privacy and then her husband brings her to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and she drinks the bitter waters. That is: water that is from the regular fountain in the Temple, and then the paragraph about the Sota is blotted out over it, and it is mixed with dirt from a special area in the Temple. She drinks it, and if she is pure, nothing happens, and if she is not pure then it has a bad effect. What is different in our case is one witness comes and says he saw her sleep with the other man. That makes it impossible to drink the bitter waters.]
Reb Chaim [Soloveitchik] says the reason is the prohibition of  זונה comes at the same time he has sex with her..
Rav Shach says this does not seem right for the fact that the very act of sex that makes her a זונה can not be the same one that causes him to get lashes for having sex with a זונה.
Though the proofs of Rav Shach are clear, still I wanted to suggest from where Reb Chaim might have gotten his idea. בור עשרה וזרק לתוכה חוליא פטור.
A person throws dirt in a small private domain on Shabat. Small  means the minimum size. Ten hand-breaths tall and four by four wide. He would normally be obligated to bring a sin offering. But in this case his throwing in the dirt is the same act which makes the private domain become less than the required size.

_________________________________________________________________________________

In the רמב''ם הלכות איסורי ביאה א:כ''ב we have that if there was קינו וסתירה  and then one witness comes and says he saw her sleep with another man not her husband, then she can not drink מי סוטה (the bitter waters) and if her husband is a כהן and then has sex with her, he gets lashes for זונה .
רב חיים הלוי  says the reason is the prohibition of  זונה comes at the same time he has sex with her..
רב שך says this does not seem right for the fact that the very act of sex that makes her a זונה can not be the same one that causes him to get lashes for having sex with a זונה.
Though the proofs of רב שך are clear, still I wanted to suggest from where רב חיים הלוי might have gotten his idea. בור עשרה וזרק לתוכה חוליא פטור.
A person throws dirt in a small רשות היחיד on Shabat. Small  means the minimum size. עשרה טפחים tall and four by four wide. He would normally be obligated to bring a sin offering. But in this case his throwing in the dirt is the same act which makes the רשות היחיד become less than the required size.

the main goal and direction of Torah is to come to fear of God and good character.

The whole Musar Movement idea is not a bad idea but I think that today is is more likely to try to gain fear of God and good character based on home learning. That is to get the basic set of classical Musar [ethics] and to learn at home.

The whole idea of Reb Israel Salanter makes a lot of sense but I think there can not be any kind of mass movement that gets to what he was thinking about.

I mean to say he was right to notice that the main idea of Torah--the main goal and direction of Torah is to come to fear of God and good character. And the best way to achieve both goals is by learning the classical mediaeval books written by the Rishonim that deal with these issues. To me it is clear he was 100% right about this. But today the emphasis has to be on home learning.

[The disciples of Reb Israel Salanter wrote some very great musar books like the Madragat Haadam.]

t83  t83 in midi format

Fake Torah scholars that are actually demons.

FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO KEEP TORAH THERE IS A STUMBLING BLOCK PLACE IN THEIR PATH--THE SO CALLED TEACHERS OF TORAH THAT TEACH TORAH OF THE SITRA ACHRA.
 The Gra tried to deal with this problem by putting his signature on the letter of excommunication that warned people about these fake scholars that are actually demons.

The trouble is that until this problem is taken care of there is really almost no way to keep Torah. The entire religious world is a den of the Satan and his minions. So one can try to keep and learn Torah by oneself. In fact nowadays that might be the only way. [Though I think of  few places that are still pure, like Ponovitch and the great NY Litvak yeshivas. But these kind of places are rare.]

This problem was noticed by the prophets and brought also in the Gemara. It is mentioned also in the Mishna as far as I recall. The place that I remember most vividly is towards the end of Tracate Shabat. There the sages said, "When you see a  generation that troubles are coming upon it, go and check the judges of Israel. For all troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel, as it says in the verse 'שופטיה בשוחד ישפוטו וגו "Its judges judge with bribes."

So we see this problem has been around ever since the time of the prophets and the Mishna. As long as there have been true prophets, there have also been  people that figured out ways of making money  and getting power out of Torah.

[Thus, keeping Torah sincerely has always been a personal project. ]

Clearly the ideal way to go about learning Torah is to combine two factors (1) accepting the yoke of Torah. That is to be committed to sit and learn Torah no matter what the cost. (2) Trust in God with no השתדלות No effort.

The problem with this in Israel is the way the system is set up. It only works in such a way that one need to use Torah to make money--or he can't be learning at all. That is the whole system is set up in such a way as to make only Torah not for its own sake possible. Not Torah for its own sake.

The USA has at least in NY where the system is set up as to make Torah for its own sake possible. But in Israel the only place that seems to work is in Bnei Brak in Ponovitch.

Just one example would be the idea of taking tests to show you did the learning in order to get the paycheck. An open violation of the prohibition of learning Torah to make money.
To me it seems the only way to learn Torah for its own sake in Israel is to do it own one's own time and expensive. And in some way that is probably a good thing because the religious community there is anyway pretty messed up. The leaders tend to be demons in human form and their vicious anti Israel agenda just goes to show it.
The general path that was accepted in the Mir and also in Shar Yashuv was that Torah should be learned without any intention of using it for money. As for a vocation, the general advice was to go and learn a trade or go to university. How it got to be accepted to use Torah to make money as the entire religious world does today is a complete mystery to me.  I thought that everyone knew that Torah should not be used to make money or to be asking for donations. It is not just that it is in Pirkei Avot. It is something I thought was common knowledge. But hanging out in the religious world I found out that using Torah for money seems to be perfectly acceptable nowadays.--even admirable.
And in terms of kollel which comes under the category of accepting money to learn Torah--if it is done in that way then it is OK to Rav Joseph Karo the author of the Shulchan Aruch, but that is not how it is done nowadays.

natural law

Though natural law became a big thing in the West because of Aquinas, I have come to see that to the Rambam there is no essential difference between Torah Law and natural law. Torah Law is simply the fulfillment of natural law. [Or rather let me put it this way. To come to natural law one needs the Torah. But Torah also adds another dimension that is lacking in natural law that is perfection. But my point is the kind of distinction you see in Aquinas between the Divine Law and Natural Law really is just not there to the Rambam.]


Divine Law has always been a problem in the West because of the Antinomianism of Paul. Even Catholics when they appeal to something in the Law of Moses always suggest the reason is because of Natural Law.

Though חוקי השכל [laws of Reason] really was suggested as the reason for the laws of the Torah by Saadia Gaon, still no one made much of a distinction between the laws of reason and the laws of Torah until Aquinas.

There is what to go into about all this from the standpoint of Hegel and the Kant Friesian School.  That is not to mention the Natural Law people (like Dworkin). {See this nice paper}As far as this goes to me the German idealists look something like the pre Soctratics before Plato and Aristotle.  That is each one has a set of very important points but we have yet found any way to combine their collective insights into one cohesive system.

רמב''ם מביא הלכות סוכה ד: י''א גוד אסיק מחיצתא

There is a famous law in Sukka גוד אסיק מחיצתא we consider the walls of a roof to be extended upwards in order to make the Sukka valid. The Rambam brings this in Law of Suka 4:11 [if memory serves correctly.] It says there that if one builds the Suka on the roof with just four poles the walls of the roof are considered to extend upwards to make it valid.

 But then he also brings the law of a mound of dirt in 4:14 to say the walls are not extended upward. There it says if one has a Suka in which the covering branches are too high (above 20 yards) and puts in a mound of dirt (10 hand-breaths high)in the middle to make the difference between the floor and cover to be less that is not valid.
Reb Chaim Soloveitchik brings down this question and so does Rav Shach.
Rav Shach adds an additional piece of information that a mound of dirt is considered a private domain in Shabat.  That means even for a mound of dirt we do say גוד אסיק מחיצתא we bring up the walls even though there is nothing to distinguish between the mound itself and what we would be calling its walls.

I do not know why no one seems to say this but to me it seems the main difference must be that we do not say  גוד אסיק מחיצתא to make the covering branches valid but we do say it to make the wall valid.
I still do not have any idea why this would be so but to me it seems clear that this is the only possible explanation for this problem.

________________________________________________________________________________

The רמב''ם brings in הלכות סוכה ד:י''א גוד אסיק מחיצתא we consider the walls of a roof to be extended upwards in order to make the סוכה valid.  If one builds the סוכה on the roof with just four poles, the walls of the roof are considered to extend upwards to make it valid. But then he also brings the law of   הלכות סוכה ד:י''א  א that is if one has a סוכה in which the סכך is too high למעלה מעשרים אמה and puts in a תל of dirt עשרה טפחים גובה in the middle to make the difference between the floor and cover to be less that is not valid. The מחיצות are not extended upward. צריכים מחיצות הניכרות כמו שאמר רבא.

רב חיים הלוי brings down this question and so does רב שך.
רב שך adds an additional piece of information that a תל of dirt is considered a רשות היחיד in שבת.  That means even for a תל of dirt we do say גוד אסיק מחיצתא we bring up the מחיצות even though there is nothing to distinguish between the תל itself and what we would be calling its מחיצות. To me it seems the main difference must be that we do not say  גוד אסיק מחיצתא to make the סכך valid but we do say it to make the מחיצות valid. I still do not have any idea why this would be so but to me it seems clear that this is the only possible explanation for this problem.



רמב''ם מביא הלכות סוכה ד: י''א גוד אסיק מחיצתא אנו רואים קירות הגג להתארך כלפי מעלה על מנת להפוך את הסוכה תקף. אם אחד בונה את הסוכה על שפת הגג עם רק ארבעה עמודים, קירות הגג נחשבים להאריך כלפי מעלה כדי לגרום לזאת תוקף. אבל אז הוא גם מביא את החוק  בהלכות סוכה ד: י"ד לומר אם לאחד יש סוכה ובה סכך גבוה מדי (למעלה מעשרים אמה) ומכניס עמוד בגבוה עשרה טפחים באמצע כדי להשלים את ההבדל בין הרצפה ולסכך להיות פחות כי הוא לא תקף. המחיצות לא הוארכו כלפי מעלה. צריך מחיצות הניכרות כמו שאמר רבא. רב חיים הלוי מביא את השאלה הזו וכך גם רב שך. רב שך מוסיף   של מידע נוסף כי תל  נחשב רשות היחיד בשבת. כלומר, אפילו עבור עמוד ותל אנחנו אומרים גוד אסיק מחיצתא, אנו מעלים את המחיצות אף אם אין להבחין בין העמוד או התל עצמו ומה שהיינו קוראים מחיצות שלו. לי זה נראה ההבדל העיקרי חייב להיות שאנחנו לא אומרים גוד אסיק מחיצתא להפוך את הסכך חוקי, אך אנו אומרים את זה כדי להפוך את המחיצות תקפות. אני עדיין אין לי שום מושג למה זה יהיה  כך אבל לי זה נראה ברור כי זהו ההסבר היחיד האפשרי עבור בעיה זו.

I am not sure how to put this in short. I saw that Rav Shach has an answer for the Rambam [Laws of Forbidden Sexual Relations 12:1] that is a little different than the answer I put down in my little booklet on Bava Metzia.

In short the Rambam says it is a prohibition from the Torah to marry a gentile. The curious thing about this is that it seems to be going like R Shimon that we look at the reason for  a verse. The gemara in Kidushin and Yevamot says one can not marry a gentile. It asks why not? To R. Shimon it is clear because the verse says בתך לא תתן לבנו Do not give your daughter to his son nor your son to his daughters because they will tilt the hearts of your children towards idolatry. {Deuteronomy.}
But that is only to R. Shimon who looks at the reason for a verse. But to R. Yehuda the verse is only talking about the seven Canaanite nations.[The Gemara answers it is a decree.]

In short Rav Shach brings another argument in Sanhedrin about the verse that says a king should not have many wives because they might tilt his heart. The Sages say no more than 18. R. Yehuda says He can marry more than 18 as long as they do not tilt his heart. R. Shimon says even one that tilts his heart is forbidden. Then why say "He should not have many"? To tell us even if they are a righteous as Abigail.
 The way Rav Shach says it is that we see R. Yehuda holds דורשין טעמא דקרא (we go by the reason for the verse, not the literal meaning) if the reason is stated in the verse. So to R. Yehuda only the seven nations would be forbidden because they are very attached to idolatry but others not. However the Sages would hold that the simple explanation of the verse would be referring to all gentile nations. [This is different than my own explanation  but still closely related.] One problem I see with this is that R Yehuda holds if the reason for the verse is stated then it would mean you could marry anyone as long as they do not tilt your heart. That is one possible question on Rav Shach's approach.

[That is the exact parallel to what R. Yehuda says about a king where there also is written the reason for the verse.]

[I might mention that the Tur, the son of Rabbainu Asher decided the halacha like R. Yehuda that we do no go by the reason for the verse, but rather by the literal meaning which in this case means only the seven Canaanite Nations are forbidden.]

 It is also important to point out that idolatry is not limited to gentiles. Thus anyone doing idolatry would be forbidden to marry. כל המסירות all that could cause one's heart to stray from God to serve false gods.will be forbidden. And the religious world is sadlly jam packed with false gods-(non with standing the extreme emphasis on rituals).




_______________________________________________________________________________

 I saw that רב שך has an answer for the רמב''ם   הלכות איסורי ביאה י''ב:א
In short the רמב''ם says it is a prohibition from the Torah to marry a gentile. The curious thing about this is that it seems to be going like ר. שמעון that we look at the reason for  a verse. The גמרא in קידושין and יבמות says one can not marry a gentile. It asks why not? To ר. שמעון it is clear because the verse says בתך לא תתן לבנו Do not give your daughter to his son nor your son to his daughters because they will tilt the hearts of your children towards idolatry.
But that is only to ר. שמעון who looks at the reason for a verse. But to ר. יהודה the verse is only talking about the שבעת העמים.The גמרא answers it is a דרבנן.

Without being aware of what רב שך had written I wrote my own explanation of the רמב''ם that in fact is closely linked to רב שך, but slightly different.

In short רב שך brings another argument in סנהדרין about the verse that says a king should not have many wives because they might tilt his heart. The חכמים say no more than שמנה עשרה. But ר. יהודה says he can marry more than שמנה עשרה as long as they do not tilt his heart. ר. שמעון says even one that tilts his heart is forbidden. Then why say "He should not have many"? To tell us even if they are a righteous as אביגיל.
 The way רב שך says it is that we see ר. יהודה holds דורשין טעמא דקרא if the reason is stated in the verse. So to ר. יהודה only the seven nations would be forbidden because they are very attached to idolatry but others not. However the Sages would hold that the simple explanation of the verse would be referring to all gentile nations.  One problem I see with this is that ר. יהודה holds if the reason for the verse is stated then it would mean you could marry anyone as long as they do not tilt your heart. That is one possible question on רב שך approach.

לרב יש שך תשובה עבור הרמב''ם הלכות איסורי ביאה י''ב: א'. בקיצור רמב''ם אומר שזה איסור מן התורה להתחתן עם גויה. הדבר המעניין בזה הוא שזה נראה שהולך כמו ר. שמעון שהולכים לפי הסיבה של פסוק. הגמרא בקידושין ויבמות אומרת אחד לא יכול להתחתן עם גויה. זה שואל למה לא? ועונה זה ל ר. שמעון  כי הפסוק אומר בתך לא תתן לבנו (אל תיתן בתך לבנו) ולא בנך לבנותיו כי הם יוכלו להטות את לבם של הילדים שלך כלפי עבודה זרה. אבל זה רק  ר. שמעון שמסתכל על הסיבה של הפסוק. אבל אל לר. יהודה הפסוק רק מדבר על שבעת העמים. גמרא עונה היא דרבנן. בקיצור רב שך מביא טיעון נוסף בסנהדרין על הפסוק שאומר למלך אסור להתחתן עם נשים רבות, משום שהן עלולות להטות את לבו. חכמים אומרים לא יותר משמנה עשרה. אבל ר. יהודה אומר שהוא יכול לשאת יותר משמנה עשרה, כל עוד שהן לא נוטות את לבו. ר. שמעון אומר אפילו אחת שנוטה את לבו אסורה. אז למה הפסוק אומר "לא ירבה"? כדי לדווח לנו שאפילו אם הן צדיקות כמו אביגיל. הדרך שרב שך אומר הוא שאנחנו רואים שר. יהודה מחזיק דורשין טעמא דקרא אם הסיבה נאמרה בפסוק. אז אל ר. יהודה רק שבעת האומות תיאסרנה משום שהן קשורות מאוד לעבודה זרה אבל אחרות לא. אולם חז"ל מחזיקים כי ההסבר הפשוט של הפסוק מתייחס לכל אומות העולם. בעיה אחת שאני רואה עם זה היא כי ר. יהודה מחזיק אם הסיבת הפסוק נאמרה, אז זה אומר שאתה יכול להתחתן עם מישהיא, כל עוד שהיא לא נוטה את הלב שלך.
My own answer here was that when the reason for the verse is written then the Sages and R. Shimon agree. [I think that was my answer, but I have not looked it up to check.] But if so then on my answer also there is a question because R. Shimon and the Sages do not look to agree completely in such a case,

Each group seems to have its own particular variety of the evil inclination.

I can see that people feel they are on the side of good just because of some group they belong to. And there is often some reason that justifies their belief. In the groups I have hung out with I have seen this much. But the Sitra Achara--the Dark Side has its own formulas for each group.
There is always some special brand of evil that attaches itself to every group and none are immune.

Dante is a good cure for that delusion.
That is in Dante,  hell is reserved for people with bad character. That is to say when people do evil, they end up in hell and the social group they belonged to does nothing to help them out of it.
I have found this a lot in Jewish groups, but all groups seem to have this problem with unwarranted pride. That however does not mean all groups are the same. Each one seems to have its own particular variety of the evil inclination.

Even though democracy in itself has drawbacks still a lot depends on who is involved. The Athenian Democracy is different than a democracy that has to take blacks into account. It is not the type of government that is the issue but the kind of people involved.

Sparta after all did not produce anything except warriors and the destruction of Athens. Athens on the other hand produced the greatest Art, Mathematics, literature, music, philosophers that the world had ever seen.
From the Rambam's point of view however there would only seem to be one justification and that is that it is a contract. That is whatever system people decide to live under has the force of Torah Law as long as it does not violate other Torah Laws. The reason is because any contract has the force of Torah validity. This applies to government also as is brought in Bava Batra.

Government of course is not the same as private contracts-. But all the more so that gives it a need and validity that goes beyond private contracts. For without government, no private contract is possible as Dr Epstein makes clear in his debate with Dr Michael Huemer.