normalization of deviance. That is something that creeps into  straight Torah that should not. That is something that hitchhikes off of real Torah. That is the reason the Gra signed his name on the famous letter of excommunication in order not to let any trace of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] have a foothold in Torah. You might be aware of it and yet you get used to it. You get to even expect it. Then one day it comes back to bite you. That is we need vigilance to keep out the Sitra Achra in the first place 

a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics]

Every time I say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman pointed out for Tikun HaBrit, I am struck by how many times it is mentioned, "Remember His wonders, his miracles and the laws of His mouth." To me this seems like a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics] as there are in the revealed Torah. [This idea is mentioned in psalm 77 a few times and also in psalm 105 --also a few times.] You can see this also in the Rishonim that follow the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam.

I realize that Christianity is controversial. That is why I do not comment on it much. My own views are likely to be totally unlike anyone else, so why should I write just to annoy people? My views are too far from traditional Christianity to be acceptable to any Christian. And way too sympathetic towards Jesus to be acceptable to anyone that is against Christianity. 

However, it still seems right to me to mention Rav Avraham Abulafia in this regard. That is at least what he writes חותם של יום ששי the seal of the sixth day referring to the sephera of yesod. [ Also: האירו קשריו] That in addition to the Ari at the end of Sefer Breishit he says more or less the same idea.  

Rav Nahman.

 I was in the Na Nach place again today [Breslov] and they were learning a bit of the book of Rav Natan [Collection of Laws] based on the book of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav Nahman or the LeM as I call it for short.]It is always possible to find fault and something to criticize in the writings of Rav Nahman. But instead, I try to find some way of understanding what Rav Nahman means or his disciple Rav Natan.

איזהו חכם? מי שמיישב דברי חכמים Who is wise? He who finds a way to answer for the words of the wise. [I forget where I saw this statement in the Gemara]

So without further ado let me say what the issue is. Rav Natan is basing himself on the LeM vol II perek 12. [and LeM I:9]. But he adds a bit that is not in the LeM. He says a person was created to reveal the glory of God. I was wondering about this. And after walking outside a bit, I realized that Rav Natan is basing himself on the idea of the Ari [Isaac Luria] that everything was created to reveal the traits of God. [the seven lower sepherot --including malchut which is also known as the Glory of God.] 

You might look in the writings of Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato to see this expanded a bit.

[This brings up another issue that I might mention. A fellow I know in who also hands out in Breslov Isaac also found it hard to see what is going on in the books of Rav Nahman. So I explained to him that Rav Nahman is assumed a knowledge of Gemara and Musar and the Ari in what he writes. But he also wants his idea to bring good advice to those that do not follow his ideas. But he is not trying to explain the basic structure of Torah ethics.--the big picture. To get the big picture one has to learn Musar.\

"Native Americans" had wiped out the first civilization in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]

 Careful analysis of the burial mounds in Ohio show the  Indians that were there when encountered by the first European American were not "native Americans." They had wiped out the first groups of homo sapiens that had an extensive civilization on in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]  In any case, I think a deep study of the history of Ohio helps to get a more balanced picture of the American Indians than the overly romanticized versions. This goes back to the basic problem of all news reporting and all history.  History is the art of getting people to become outraged at sad events. They way this is done is not by only by lies, but by reporting half the truth. [And sometimes by lies.]

People playing loose and fast with truth in fact gave me motivation to spend more time on Math and Physics.  If I am going to spend time on study, I would rather that it be something I can depend on its veracity. [I also will try to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach because even in subject like Torah, there is an objective right an wrong. This is because morality is objective. The best defense of this idea you can see in Michel Huemer on why he does not follow Ayn Rand. [And that bit of writing by Huemer is  a masterpiece.] But the idea of objective morality is well defended also in Hegel, and in the Kant Friesian school of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross.]

Here is a proof of objective morality by Huemer (Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness): 

(1) There are moral propositions.(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth).(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)

[Huemer gives also a larger sort of defense that you have to paste together. That is: There are universals. Moral principles are universals as applied to ethics. How do you know universals exist? Here is a proof by Huemer:  ."..yellow is a universal. It is something that lemons, the sun, and school buses, among other things, all have in common. Yellow is 'abstract' in the sense that it is not a particular object with a particular location; you will not bump into yellow, just sitting there by itself, on the street. Nevertheless, yellow certainly exists. Here is an argument for that:

1.	The following statement is true:      (Y) Yellow is a color.
2.	The truth of (Y) requires that yellow exist.
3.	Therefore, yellow exists. Some philosophers (the 'nominalists') say that the only thing multiple particulars have in common is that we apply the same word or idea to them.(54) Here is an argument against that: 4. Yellow is a color, and lemons have it. 5. No word or idea is a color, nor do lemons 'have' words or ideas. 6. Therefore, yellow is not a word or an idea.

I should add that moral principles are what Kant calls Synthetic a priori. They can not be derived by the five senses. That is Hume's law he can not derive an "ought" from an "is". But not all knowledge is derived by the five senses; The idea that we can is "Empiricism--roughly, the idea that all 'informative' knowledge, or knowledge of the mind-independent, language-independent world, must derive from sense perception". Here, is a better-known counter-example to empiricism. {Laurence BonJour } Nothing can be both entirely red and entirely green. How do I know that? Note that the question is not how I came upon the concepts 'red' and 'green', nor how I came to understand this proposition. The question is why, having understood it, I am justified in affirming it, rather than denying it or withholding judgment.

 I have been thinking about Socialism and because of this I have been looking at Trotsky's writings.[Especially his desperate attempts to get a visa from any democratic country in Europe claiming the right of asylum, though he admitted that he would not stop in trying to undermine those very same governments.] Listening to debates with Bryan Caplan, and Huemer.  On one hand, I can imagine that people have never heard of the USSR in the 1930's and mass famines, mass arrests, etc. and the fact that what ever utopia one dreams up, there are always unforeseen consequences.

Still I am trying to understand this issue. Maybe that everyone should have the exact amount of equal stuff is not what motivates the interest in socialism. Maybe it is that people do not want others to have more stuff than anyone else because of some unfair advantage or exploitation. Maybe no one cares if others have more stuff than them if based on the fact that they put in more effort. Fair competition is fine. It is perhaps people's sense of justice that drives the interest in socialism.

Added to this is the American form of government does not seem transferable to other areas of the world. Even if people see the greatness of the USA, they might be aware that just because lots of other countries have American style constitutions does not change a thing about the ipso facto kind of dictatorships they live under.  Maybe people differ in their DNA?

I  saw this a lot in the former USSR. Almost everywhere I went and asked people how were things during the USSR, their answer always was, "Better than now." [Sometimes they would add: "Everyone worked."]

true authentic Torah

 The importance of the Gra and the straight Litvak approach [note 1] came home to me today at the beach. I was resting there in order to gain enough energy to  start back on my walk home. [And I was mulling over the sugia in Gitin page 86 and how it relates to two hazakot against one.] Then I saw some girls sit down to eat ice cream. Then one got up and went over to throw the wrapping away into the trash can. Then another did the same thing, and when the wind blew away what she had thrown out, she retrieved it and threw it away again. At that point, I could not help myself anymore. I went over and said, "You girls are the daughters of a Litvak Torah scholar." And of course they agreed. It could not have been more obvious. I asked where in fact their father had learned Torah?, and it turned out he had learned by one of the great Litvak yeshivas. 

If you see someone who is has midot tovot [good character traits] and is careful about things between man and his fellow man [bein adam lehavero], then it is clear they are Litvaks.  

[However far from Torah as I am, still I can smell the scent  of true authentic Torah a mile away. ]

[note 1] I wish I could explain what this is exactly. The rough picture has a lot to do with Musar, but there is something else about it besides that. A kind of devotion, fear of God, and good traits.] 

The approach that I think is best is Torah with Derech Ertz.[derech ertetz means roughly theway of the earth. Which have a wide spectrum of meaning fro good characer to getting a job. However in pirkei avot it means most often getting a job כך תורה שאין עמה מלאכה גוררת עוון וסופה בטילה וסופו יורש גהינום] [As you see a few times in Pirkei Avot.] I can however agree with the idea of trust in God. But trust in God in the religious world is mixed and confused with the idea of asking secular Jews to pay for the religious to sit all day and pretend to learn Torah.

The constant refrain in the religious world is: "Give us money." [Or the variant: "Give us money because we are  so holy."] That is already pretty much what the Torah says not to do. But often this goes with a large degree of fraud. Pretense and holy talk of how they are trusting in God.

This is typical primate behavior of using what every advantage or tactic one can in order to get on top. The religious world has found the best tactic is fraud.

[Of course, I do not mean to include the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or its off shoots-- where in fact people learn "Lishma"[for its wn sake and not for money or influence]. Nor do they pretend to learn Torah, but rather learn in truth. Also, I ought to add for praise the two great yeshivot I went to,- Shar Yashuv and Mir in NY. There is no question that there people were in fact learning Torah for its own sake. Rather, it is the general religious world that something is terribly "off", or plain deception.  [And no offence intended towards the path of Rav Nachman. Though people may abuse this approach, still I  found his advice very helpful  and I do not think he could be included in the excommunication of the Gra. You can see this if you see the original letters of the letters of excommunication.

[And while I am at it I should add that I do not think the the excommunication of the Gra should be ignored, To be it seems like a valid halachic category. Once the Gra signed in it, it became legally valid. Even of one does not agree with it or thinks it  was mistaken. That does not take away the legal force of a "herem" which is a valid legal category.]

 there are people that are good and even great writers but not good thinkers. There are others that are great talkers , but terrible writers. I noticed this in the autobiography of Trotsky. He is desperate to get  visa to Germany. Thus he creates out of thin air a right of asylum. I can imagine he must have believed this. But that is not a right in natural law nor in the bill of rights of any democratic state. He just slips it in to the list of right of democratic states since he needed such a right in order not to be murdered by Stalin's agents. 

He was a great writer like Ayn Rand. but not a great thinker. He never seemed to ask if Marxism really made much sense outside of convincing people that they have been exploitered in order to gain power to exploit them for other interests. 

I must add here that the idea of "rights" of democracies is what the government must not do. It is not what the government must provide. Trotsky was being a compelling writer but poor thinker in this regard.

 Just a quick note. Ketubot pg 9.  Kohen A priest marries and finds his wife was not a virgin, she is forbidden to him because of a doubt,--the act of sex was before or after Airusin [engagement]. Tosphot: why not say hezka every person is in the hazaka of being OK until proven otherwise. Answer: because hazaka from the start. That pushes the time of sex as close to now as possible.  R. Akiva Eiger: Why not say like the mikve that was found lacking. I.e., Hazaka of OK with hazaka of now [present status] pushes the assumed time of sex to before the Airusin.[in which case she is permitted to her husband.] Rav Shach brings an idea from the Rashba that answers this. You only use hazaka of now [present status] in a case where you do not know if an act occurred--like the case of pure things which were dipped into the mikve. We do nor know if any "act'' occurred since the mikve is now lacking the 40 seah. But in the case of the wife of the priest we know she was not a virgin at the time of marriage. So there hazaka of now [present status] does not apply.

Why does this come up?, you might ask. The answer is there is an argument in Gitin between Ramban (Nahmanides), Rashbam, and Rambam about the need for the date in a get. And from what I can tell Tosphot is being consistent with his approach [Gitin page 86] that when we know an "act" occurred we use hezkat hashta [present status] to push the assumed time backwards.] but I am very full of hope that God may grant to me to  think about these issues at a future time. I just wanted to write down some of these basic issues. [So far I am thinking that Tosphot is being consistent. But then the questions would automatically arise about the Rambam, Rashbam, and Ramban how to answer the question that Tosphot brings in Ketubot page 9. [which I might mention is perhaps the most famous page in Shas or at least second place to Bava Metzia page 100.]   

 I wanted to mention a sort of odd kind of fact. That Shar Yashuv was and as far as I know still is a yeshiva where beginners start. The Mir in NY is considered the Ivy League. Especially when Rav Shmuel Berenbaum was there it had the reputation of being the place of the deepest learning. 

But Shar Yashuv had an aspect that the Mir did not seem to have. That is after the first year or two when I got out from the beginners mode and began to listen to Rav Naphtali Yegeer I saw this sort of intense focus on the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. This was in stark contrast to the approach of the Mir which was based very much on Rav Chaim of Brisk which is global.

Both approaches are good, but it is from the first one that I began to see the depths of the Gemara. [I however only began to have both approaches reawakened in me when I began to learn with David Bronson in Uman. I had not forgotten the first approach but up until then I did not have the mental vessels to be able to see the depths of Tosphot on my own. Only when I began to learn with him and saw how naturally the sort of awareness of the infinite depth of Tosphot came to him--then I started to gain some sense of what it means to understand the Gemara with Tosphot in a deep way. I tried to relay that in my first little book on Bava Metzia. 

The Musar movement had a good point. That is without Musar people have no idea of what Torah is about, --or worse than that, they substitute their own half baked ideas for the real thing. Musar has the advantage that it is legitimate Torah written by rishonim or by the sages of the achronim period. [I mean to say that when people came up with pseudo Torah, [fake Torah that seems like the real thing but to a trained eye it i clear that it is fake] that is when the Gra signed the letter of excommunication.]

On the other hand, even with Musat it is easy to get off track.

And even to learn Musar in the context of a regular Litvak yeshiva does not see to offer any guarantees.

No matter what one does, it is hard to come to straight forward Fear of God and Good Character Traits [midot tovot].

You would not think that Rav Nahman of Breslov would be one person able to solve this problem, but I found his advice very helpful. [And I did enough research to realize that the letter of excommunication does not apply to him. You can see that yourself if you find the actual language of the five excommunications that were published in Villna.] It was Rav Nahman warning that there is such a think as Torah scholars that are demons that gave me enough insight to realize the danger. That is even if I am not able to come to fear of God as well as I would like, at least I know who to avoid. Torah scholars that are demons--of which there are way too many nowadays.  

 I have never been able to figure out why people do not take the American system of government as their model? As the ideal model. I men if you run s series of experiments with different molecules and one of them simply blows up in your face, the other turns into a foul mixture of mud, and etc,  until you get to one that works and gives you beautiful colors in a stable compound--then why go back to the other models? I can only explain this in one way. When it comes to politics, people are insane.

See the essay of Michael Huemer which goes into this in great detail and that essay itself is based on the original idea of Bryan Caplan. 

[You might ask why I bring this up. The reason is I have been looking at the writings of Trotsky and his My Life after his expulsion from the USSR for anti revolutionary propaganda. At any rate that was article 56, and then later article 58/10 that he was expelled under. And in one sense that was correct. [The USSR was not formed to be a dictatorship but rather a rule of the party of working people, and that party had voted legally to expel Trotsky.] He worked to put the labor party [the proletariat] into power. The idea was that only people that were actually doing physical labor deserved a right to vote. No one else mattered. And if one did not work, she did not get a welfare check. She was shipped off to prison. And that party of the proletariat voted to have Trotsky outed. And in some ironic way that was exactly what he was advocating.--permanent revolution. So if you have a revolution, and then you keep on revolting, that means you are revolting against the revolution. [So to speak.]

[You might suggest that people are always looking for utopia. What ever they have that works is not good enough. They have to find the perfect system. But to do that they first have to work to achieve the goal:"Down with the System!"] [As per the 1960's]. And this explains most of what people complain about concerning the USA. The issue is never the real issue. The main thread of continuity is anything that the USA has done is always shown to be evil. The idea is not to improve anything, but rather to kill the USA with a thousand wounds.  Not any one alone would be fatal. This is the reason for the continuous attacks on anything the USA stands for.

Quantum Mechanics does not violate local causality.

 I think that it makes more sense to say that things do not have classical values in space and time until they interact or are measured. To suggest QM is not local violates Relativity. Or even better perhaps to suggest as Lemaitre did in 1932 is that space and time are the results of quantum interactions. And besides all that, I think that 't Hooft has a few papers showing that QM is a result of fast variables --not hidden variables. [I.e. that it is classical.] [And Springer Verlag has published a book of his on this issue]

Quantum Mechanics does not violate local causality.

[I wrote this a long time ago, but here let me just make clear that because it violates Bell's inequality you have two possibilities: Either (1) it violates causality and Relativity, or (2) particles have no classical values until measured or interact. Since we know Relativity is correct because of many things e.g., GPS (global positioning satellites) or meson decay and many other thing, so it must be (2) that  particles do not have classical values in Space and Time until they interact. ]

Though I did not read the paper of Lemaitre, I assume his idea came from the fact that the quantity of (delta E) times (delta t) is different that delta p delta x. Time is a different ort of quantity in QM. The longer the time goes, the greater uncertainty there is. Time does not strictly act on anything but rather is produced by the uncertainty.

i mean that no uncertainty in time means infinite uncertainty about energy. an accurate value of energy produces infinite time.

z26 midi B minor   [It seems I can not change this to mp3 anymore.]  z26 nwc

 

[In Russia they have something called "Zalonka" which is iodine mixed with something that makes it green. It seems to help the iodine get under the surface of a wound. Any other iodine compound does not do this as far as I have seen. So while putting on iodine might be a good idea but unless you have zalonka, I doubt if that can help.]

[In Russia they also noticed Bornaya kislota (boric acid) as one of their magical medicines which also I have not noticed in the West.] 

I want to add also a nice thing about Russian medicine. That is that there seems to be a philosophy of  "Do not fix what is not broken". This is in stark contrast to the West.

 

Do not expect my dad to get any credit. For some odd reason his name is left out of every single invention he ever came up with.

Laser communication was made by my dad at TRW. [note 1]  [That was made so that the Soviets could not spy on us. They could pick up radio waves, but lasers are focused so that would have made communications secure.] But do not expect my dad to get any credit. For some odd reason his name is left out of every single invention he ever came up with. Look up copy machines. You will never see him get credit for his super sharp X-ray "copy mate machine".  The infra red satellites [Vela] launched by NASA. Look for my dad's name as the inventor of the infra red telescope.  (That was given credit to him at first, but since then no one ever mentions his name as the creator of the amazing infra red telescope Sofia) [I might mention the polaroid camera which was his idea. However that was just suggestion of his to the person that actually made the product, so I would rather not make any big deal about that. (The idea was the problem of glare. My dad suggested using a polarized lens.) 

So for the record my dad's name. Philip Rosten. [Changed from Rosenblum after the time he was the inventor of the infra red telescope and the copy mate machine. [As for the U-2 camera, he invented two components, but not the actual camera itself which was invented by Baker at Harvard.]

 [note 1] After the Vela series of satellites, TRW was hired by the USA government to create SDI. Asa part of that was this idea to create laser communication between satellites. The person put in charge of that was my dad.  

The gemara in avoda zara 23 must be like R. Elazar

 I was at the sea again and it occurred to me that both the sugiot in Avoda Aara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13A are going like R. Elazar in Gitin pg 47.  

Clearly the sugia in Rosh Hashanah 13 has to be like R Elazar because he holds יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מיד תרומות ומעשרות. [grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is not obligated in tithes] Otherwise the question of the Gemara would make no sense. [How could Israel bring the Omer from the grain that grew in the possession of gentiles? The answer would be easy if the Gemara was going like Rabah that even what grows in their possession is still obligated in truma.[Later note--I am aware of the many issues surrounding these opinions of R Elazar and the one against him Rabah. But I simply have not gone into these issues as of this date. Just to see what I mean here you should look up that sugia in Gitin]

 So  lets look at the gemara in avoda zara 23. Why was Israel commanded to burn the asherot when they came into the land of Canaan? After all אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. [a person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] If the Gemara would be holding like Rabah the answer would be simple.  אין קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות אבל יש לו קניין אפילו בגוף הקרקע.grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is obligated in tithes but he still have possession of the land that he bought. Not just to dig and build on it but actual possession of the land itself.

So both of these sugiot must be going like R Elazar.

So what makes this hard to understand is the law is like Rabah, but even more so what is hard to understand is the Rambam is posek like the Gemara in Avoda Zara.  That is if a Israel makes an idol but does not worship it yet. Then a gentile comes and worships it. That idol is forbidden since it was ok to the Israeli to have it worshipped. This is so even though אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] . This law comes directly from the Gemara in Avoda Zara page 23 which we can see is not like Rabah.

[The truth be told, this question is so obvious it is startling to me that it did not occur to me sooner.]

_______________________________________________________________________

 I was at the sea again and it occurred to me that both the סוגיות in עבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב and ראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א are going like ר' אלעזר in גיטין דף מ''ז.

Clearly the סוגיא in ראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א has to be like ר' אלעזר because he holds יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מיד תרומות ומעשרות.  [Grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is not obligated in tithes] Otherwise the question of the גמרא would make no sense. [How could Israel bring the עומר from the grain that grew in the possession of עכו''ם? The answer would be easy if the גמרא was going like רבה that even what grows in their possession is still obligated in תרומות ומעשרות.

 So  lets look at the גמרא in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. Why was Israel commanded to burn the אשירות when they came into the land of Canaan? After all אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. [A person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] If the גמרא would be holding like רבה, the answer would be simple.  אין קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות אבל יש לו קניין אפילו בגוף הקרקע. Grain which grows in the possession of a gentile is obligated in tithes, but he still HAS possession of the land that he bought. NOT just to dig and build on it, but actual possession of the land itself.

So both of these סוגיות must be going like ר' אלעזר.

So what makes this hard to understand is the law is like רבה, but even more so what is hard to understand is the רמב''ם is פוסק like the גמרא in עבודה זרה.  That is if a Israel makes an idol but does not worship it yet. Then a gentile comes and worships it. That idol is forbidden since it was ok to the Israeli to have it worshipped. This is so even though אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not make forbidden that which does not belong to him] . This law comes directly from the גמרא in עבודה זרה page 23 which we can see is not like רבה.

שוב הייתי בים ועלה בדעתי ששתי סוגיות בעבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א הולכות כמו ר' אלעזר בגיטין דף מ''ז. ברור שהסוגיא בראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א חייבת להיות כמו ר' אלעזר כי הוא מחזיק יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות. [דגן הגדל ברשות עכו''ם  אינו חייב במעשרות]. אחרת שאלת הגמרא לא תהיה הגיונית. [כיצד תוכל ישראל להביא את העומר מהתבואה שצמחה ברשות עכו''ם? התשובה תהיה קלה אם הגמרא הייתה הולכת כמו רבה שגם מה שצומח ברשותם עדיין מחויב בתרומות ומעשרות. אז בואו נסתכל על הגמרא בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. מדוע נצטווה ישראל לשרוף את האשירות בבואם לארץ כנען? אחרי הכל, אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. [אדם אינו יכול לאסור את מה שאינו שייך לו]. אם הגמרא היה מחזיק כמו רבה, התשובה תהיה פשוטה. אין קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות, אבל יש לו קניין אפילו בגוף הקרקע. דגן הגדל ברשותו של גוי חייב במעשרות, אך עדיין יש ברשותו את הקרקע שרכש. לא רק לחפור ולבנות עליה, אלא על החזקה בפועל על הקרקע עצמה. אז שני סוגיות אלה ודאי הולכות כמו ר' אלעזר .אז מה שמקשה על ההבנה הוא שהחוק הוא כמו רבה. אך יותר מכך מה שקשה להבין הוא שהרמב''ם פוסק כמו הגמרא בעבודה זרה. כלומר אם ישראל עשה אליל אבל עדיין לא סגד לו. ואז בא עכו''ם וסוגד לו. האליל הזה אסור מכיוון שהישראלי היה בסדר שיעבדו אותו. זה כך למרות שאדם לא יכול לאסור את זה שאינו שייך לו. החוק הזה בא ישירות מהגמרא בעבודה זרה עמוד כ''ג שאנו יכולים לראות שהוא לא כרבה.

הלכות סוטה פרק א חלכה ג .פירוש של רב שך על הוויכוח בין החכמים לר' שמעון

הייתי בים וחשבתי שוב על פירוש של רב שך על הוויכוח בין החכמים לר 'שמעון הלכות סוטה פרק א חלכה ג. ועל סמך הסבר זה הוא מסביר את הרמב''ם. בהתחלה חשבתי שנדמה כי על פי רב שך שהרמב''ם הוא פוסק כמו ר' שמעון נגד החכמים, [וזו תהיה בעיה אם זה היה המצב.] ואז עלה בדעתי ש למעשה ההסבר שלו לרמב''ם עובד בצורה מושלמת. אולי אני צריך לתת קצת רקע אז מה שרב שך אומר יתברר. הצהרת החכמים היא מקוה שעליו הוכנו דברים טהורים. [האוכל הוכן על ידי מישהו שבתחילה היה נידה או כל מי שהיה טמא והלך למקוה. ] ואז נמצא שהמקוה חסר את הנפח המתאים, ארבעים סאה. כל הדברים הטהורים טמאים אם ברשות היחיד או רשות הרבים. הגמרא שואל מחבית שנמצא חמצמץ. היין הפך לחומץ. חבית זו שימשה להפרדת מעשרות. בשלושת הימים האחרונים כל המעשרות נחשבות פסולות. לפני שלושת הימים הללו כל המעשרות מוטלות בספק. ההסבר הראשון של הגמרא הוא שהמקוה הוא החכמים והחבית היא ר' שמעון. ור' שמעון היה אומר שהמקוה טהור ברשות הרבים וספק ברשות היחיד. ואז ההסבר השני הוא שר' שעעון אומר שאנחנו לומדים מתחילת הטומאה עד הסוף. בדיוק כמו בהתחלה אם יש ספק אם הוא נגע אז הוא טהור. אז גם אם יש ספק אם הלכו למקוה או לא, האוכלים נקיים. החכמים אומרים שאנחנו לא לומדים מהסוף להתחלה. רב שך אומר שהנושא עוסק בשתי חזקות, חזקת השתא וחזקת טומאה נגד חזקא מעיקרא. רב שך אומר כי בהסבר השני הזה של הגמרא, הגמרא חושב שהמקרה הזה של שתי חזקות גורם לספק. [זה לא כמו הדרך הראשונה של הגמרא שמחזיקה שני חזקות נגד אחת היא דבר בטוח, ודאי טמא.] כך שר' שמעון ברור לגבי החבית שזה ספק. החבית שאנו מכירים היא כיום חומץ והטבל מתחיל להיות טבל עד שנודע שמעמדו השתנה. כלומר שני חזקות נגד חזקה אחת שהחבית הייתה בעבר יין ולכן יש לה חזקה מעיקרא. אבל ר' שמעון לא היה מחזיק בדרך זו במקוה מכיוון שישנו עיקרון כללי הנוגע לטוהר וטומאה, אנו לומדים מסוטה. אז הוא לומד ישר מסוטה. האוכל שהוכן על ידי אנשים שהלכו לאותו מקוה ושמקוה הוא ברשות הרבים. כך שהאוכל טהור. אם המקוה היה ברשות היחיד האוכל בספק. אבל החכמים אינם לומדים מסוטה, והגמרא נותן את ההסבר מדוע. הם מחזיקים  שלא לומדים מתחילת הטומאה לסופה. מכיוון שאיננו לומדים מסוטה, אנו מכניסים את הדברים לקטגוריה הרגילה של שני חזקות נגד אחת. אז עכשיו אנחנו מבינים שכאשר החכמים אומרים שהאוכל הוא טמא, זה אומר שהוא במצב של טוהר בספק. וזה בדיוק כמו המקרה של החבית. וכך יכול הרמב''ם לפסוק כאמירת החכמים על המקוה והאמירה על החבית. הוא לא הולך כמו ר' שמעון. בדין החבית אין ויכוח. כולם מסכימים שזה ספק בגלל שני חזקות. חכמים ור' שמעון היו מסכימים בדין המקוה אם היינו מיישמים את העקרונות של שתי חזקות כאן. אבל הוא לא. הוא מיישם את חוק הסוטה. רשות ברבים טהור וברשות היחיד הוא ספק.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1928JqTKoBsbSTZgp8fWXr1q4frLG7t9hFGd74nazQXc/edit

I was at the sea and thinking again about פירוש של רב שך

   I was at the sea and thinking again about פירוש של רב שך  of the argument between the חכמים and  ר' שמעון in הלכות of סוטה פרק א חלכה ג. And based on that explanation he explains the רמב''ם. At first I was thinking that it seems that according to רב שך  that the רמב''ם was פוסק like  ר' שמעון against the חכמים, [and that would be a problem if it were the case.] And then it occurred to me that in fact his explanation of the רמב''ם works perfectly. 

  Perhaps I should give a bit of background so what רב שך is saying will become clear. The statement of the חכמים is a מקוה that upon it pure things were prepared. [food was prepared by someone who at first was a nida or anyone who was  impure and went to a מקוה. ] Then the מקוה was found to be lacking the proper volume, ארבעים סאה. All the pure things are unclean whether in a רשות היחיד או רשות הרבים. The גמרא asks from a חבית that is found to be sour. The wine turned to vinegar. This חבית was used for separating tithes. For the last three day all the tithes are considered invalid.  Before these three days all the tithes are in doubt. The first explanation of the גמרא is that the מקוה is the חכמים and the חבית is ר' שמעון.  AND ר' שמעון would say the מקוה is pure in  רשות הרבים and a doubt in a רשות היחיד. Then the second explanation is that ר' שעעון says we learn from the beginning of uncleanliness to the end. Just like at the beginning if one is in doubt if he touched then he is טהור. So also if there is a doubt if one went to the מקוה or not, the אוכלים are clean. The חכמים say we do not learn from the end to the beginning. רב שך  says the issue is about שתי חזקות, חזקת השתא and חזקת טומאה against חזקא מעיקרא. רב שך  says that in this second explanation of the גמרא, the גמרא is thinking that this case of two חזקות results in a doubt. [This is not like the first way of the גמרא that holds two חזקות against one is a sure thing.] Thus  ר' שמעון is clear about the חבית.  what he says that it is a doubt. The חבית we know is now vinegar and the טבל starts out as being טבל until we know its status changed. That is two חזקות against one חזקה that the חבית used to be wine so it has a חזקה מעיקרא. But ר' שמעון would not hold this way by the מקוה since there is a general principle that concerning purity and impurity we learn from סוטה. So he learns straight from סוטה. The food prepared by people that went to that מקוה and that מקוה is the רשות הרבים. So that food is pure. If the מקוה was in a רשות היחיד the food is in doubt. But the חכמים do not learn from סוטה, and the גמרא is giving the explanation of why. THEY HOLD we do not learn from the start of impurity to the end. Since we do not learn from סוטה, we put things into the regular category of two חזקות against one. So now we understand that when the חכמים say the food is טמא, that means it is in a state of doubtful purity. And that is exactly like the case of החבית. And that is how the רמב''ם can פוסק like the statement of the חכמים about the מקוה and the statement about the חבית. He is not going like ר' שמעון. Rather by the חבית there is no argument. ALL agree it is a doubt because of two חזקות. The argument is the מקוה and ר שמעון would agree with the חכמים if we would apply the principles of two חזקות here. But he does not. He applies the law of the סוטה. The רשות הרבים in pure and רשות היחיד is a doubt.

 I was at the sea and thinking again about Rav Shach's explanation of the argument between the sages and R Shimon in laws of Sota chapter 1 halacha 3. And based on that explanation he explains the Rambam. At first I was thinking that it seems that according to Rav Shach that the Rambam was posek like R Shimon against the sages, [and that would be a problem if it were the case.] And then it occurred to me that in fact his explanation of the Rambam works perfectly.

Perhaps I should give a bit of background so what Rav Shach is saying will become clear.

The statement of the sages is a mikve that upon it pure things were prepared. [food was prepared by someone who at first was a nida or anyone who was  impure and went to a mikve. ] Then the mikve was found to be lacking the proper volume. All the pure things are unclean whether in a private or public domain.

The gemara asks from a barrel that is found to be sour. The wine turned to vinegar. This barrel was used for separating tithes. For the last three day all the tithes are considered invalid.  Before these three days all the tithes are in doubt.

The first explanation of the Gemara is that the mikve is the sages and the barrel is R Shimon. R shimon would say the mikve is pure in  public domain and a doubt in a private domain.

Then the second explanation is that R Shimon says we learn from the beginning of uncleanliness to the end. Just like at the beginning if one is in doubt if he touched then he is clean. So also if there is a doubt if one went to the mikve or not they are clean. The sages say we do not learn from the end to the beginning.

Rav Shach says the issue is about two hazakot. Hezkat hashta and hezkat tuma against hazaka meikara. Rav Shach says that in this second explanation of the gemara, the gemara is thinking that this case of two hazakot results in a doubt. [This is not like the first way of the gemara that holds two hazakot against one is a sure thing.]

Thus R Shimon is clear about the barrel. that is what he says that it is a doubt. The barrel we know is now vinegar and the tevel starts out as being tevel until we know its status changed. That is two hazakot against one that the barrel used to be wine so it has a hazaka meikara.

But R Shimon would not hold this way by the mikve since there is a general principle that concerning purity and impurity we learn from sota. So he learns straight from sota. The food prepared by people that went to that mikve  and that mikve is the public domain. So that food is pure. If the mikve was in a private domain the food is in doubt.

But the sages do not learn from sota. and the gemara is giving the explanation of why. That is we do not learn from the start of impurity to the end. Since we do not learn from sota we puts things into the regular category of two hazakot against one.

So now we understand that when the sages says the food is impure that means it is in a state of doubtful purity. And that is exactly like the case of teh barrel. and that is how the Rambam can posek like the statement of the sages about the mikve and the statement about the barrel. He is not going like R Shimon. Rather by the barrel there is no argument. al agree it is a doubt because of two hazakot. The argument is the mikve and R Shimon would agree with the sages if we would apply the principles of two hazakot here. But he does not. He applies the law of the sota. The public domain in pure and private is a doubt.

in the religious world that most of the leaders are stupid though they pretend to be Torah geniuses.

 It takes a kind of understanding of Torah to see that many Torah scholars are in fact just playing a game of pretending to be Torah scholars--and people believe them. Thus it is not unusual to find in the religious world that most of the leaders are stupid though they pretend to be Torah  geniuses. It is all an act. On the other hand there are the great Litvak yeshivot like the Mir in NY where in fact the roshei yeshiva were very smart. However the religious world has leaders that are basically stupid but play act with the right gestures.

The sages themselves mention this problem in GemaraShabat and Rav Nahman mentions this issue in his LeM concerning Torah scholars that are demons. Lem vol 1. chapters 12 and 28

 I noticed in the writings of Dr. Kelley Ross [Friesian ] that he believes that Hegel held from a sort of phenomenalism-  the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli]. I can see that  even strong supports of Hegel like McTaggart held this way. But I have never been able to see Hegel in that way and in support of my view I would like to say that this is exactly how Cunningham explains Hegel in his PhD thesis. [Thought and Reality in Hegel's System. GUSTAVUS Cunningham.]\Rather I think that Hegel is thinking of Being as emanating from Logos. Not being identical. This would be like Plotinus. And this aspect of Hegel I have thought to be so for  long time-and also this aspect of Plotinus in that he holds like Aristotle in some particular ways. And in this very discussion I think Hegel holds like Aristotle that universals [the categories of thought] can not exist without  particulars. And via versa. See chapter III in Cunningham to see many examples of Hegel's saying so openly. Not that particulars have no existence outside of thought. 

Flour and sugar and oil are all necessary for a cake to exist. But they are not a cake. Only a cake is a cake.

There is what to complain about in Hegel, but so in Kant. If Hegel was making a big deal out of the "state”, --well Germany had no "state". It had city states that were slightly larger than a mere city but nothing like we could call a state. What seems to me is that Hegel sees the big picture like a giganticThe undecidable conflict between the individual and society find it expression in this conflict

רב שך עונה מדוע איננו לומדים מסוטה [הלכות סוטה פרק א']

 רב שך עונה מדוע איננו לומדים מסוטה [הלכות סוטה פרק א'] לומר אפילו ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים טהור אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. שאלתי את התשובה שלו לפני כמה ימים וחשבתי היום ששאלתי מבוססת על אי הבנה של מה שאמר רב שך. מה שהוא אומר זה. אם היינו לומדים מסוטה לרשות הרבים, אז למעשה אפילו דברים שיש להם חזקת טומאה יהיו טהורים. זה יהיה בגלל גזירת הכתוב. אבל למעשה אנו לומדים רק מסוטה לספק טומאה ברשות היחיד כי ספק נחשב למוחלט.] וזה מסביר את הגמרא שאחרת קשה להבין. הגמרא אומר שחכמים לומדים מסוטה לומר ספק של טומאה ברשות היחיד הוא בהחלט טמא. ואז הוא שואל, אז למה לא ללמוד מסוטה ברשות הרבים. תשובה: המקוה אינו דומה לסוטה. המקוה הוא ספק בגלל חוסר נפח. השאלה אינה קשורה לרשות היחיד או לרשות הרבים. הספק לגבי הסוטה הוא בגלל היותה לבד עם גבר ברשות היחיד. אין סתירה ברשות הרבים. ואז הגמרא שואלת, אבל למרות זאת לא כך שכל ספק לגבי טומאה ברשות הרבים הוא טהור? תשובה: מדובר במקרה של שני דברים שדוחפים לעבר טומאה. חזקת טמא של אובייקט עד שהוא נעשה טהור, או האדם המטפל בחפץ. בנוסף חזקת השתא של המקוה שנמדד ונמצא כי הוא חסר ארבעים סאה. קשה מאוד להבין את הגמרא הזו. בהתחלה הוא אומר שהסיבה שמקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל הטהרות שנעשו על גביו טמאות  היא מכיוון שאנו לומדים מסוטה. ואז נראה שהוא משנה את דעתו ואומר שהסיבה היא כי שני חזקות נגד אחת. אולם כעת אנו מבינים את הגמרא בצורה מושלמת מכיוון שהיא לא לומדת מסוטה על שום דבר ברשות הרבים. רק רשות היחיד. באשר לרשות הרבים אנו לא לומדים דבר מהסוטה כלל. הדברים ברשות הרבים וזה יכלול את סוטה אם אין להם בכלל חזקה קודמת לא טהור או לא טמא יהיו כמו שהם. אבל אם למשהו יהיה חזקה של להיותו טמא זה יהיה טמא.

 רב שך means to answer why we do not learn from סוטה [laws of סוטה פרק א ] to say even ספק טומאה  ברשות הרבים טהור אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. I asked on his answer a few days ago and it occurred to me today that my question was based on a misunderstanding of what רב שך was saying. What he is saying is this. If we would learn from a סוטה to a רשות הרבים then in fact even ספק טומאה בשביל things that have a חזקת טומאה would be טהור. It would be because of גזירת הכתוב. But in fact we don't. We only learn from סוטה in a  רשות היחיד that a doubt is considered to  be definite.] And THIS explains the גמרא that otherwise is hard to understand. The גמרא says the חכמים learn from סוטה to say a doubt of טומאה in a רשות היחיד is definitely טמא. Then it asks, then why not learn from סוטה in a רשות הרבים. Answer: the מקוה is not like a סוטה. The מקוה is a doubt because of the volume. The question about volume is not connected with a private or רשות הרבים. The doubt about the סוטה is because of being alone with a man in a  רשות היחיד. There is no סתירה in a רשות הרבים. Then the גמרא asks but even so is it not so that every doubt about טומאה  a רשות הרבים is pure? Answer: it is a case of two things pushing towards uncleanliness. The חזקת טמא of an object עד it has been made clean, or the person that is handling  the object. Plus the חזקת השתא of the מקוה which was measured and found to be lacking ארבעים סאה. This גמרא is very hard to understand. At first it says the reason the doubt for the מקוה is unclean is because we learn from סוטה. Then it seems to change its mind and says  the reason is because two חזקות against one. Now however we understand the גמרא perfectly because it is not learning from סוטה about anything in a רשות הרבים. Only the  רשות היחיד. As for the רשות הרבים we learn nothing from סוטה at all. Things are clean in a רשות הרבים and that would include סוטה if they have no prior חזקה at all. Not טהור or unclean. But if anything would have a חזקה of being unclean it would be טמא.

 Rav Shach means to answer why we do not learn from Sota [laws of Sota perek I ] to say even a doubt about things [if they are clean or not] are clean in a public domain. I asked on his answer a few days ago, and it occurred to me today that my question was based on a misunderstanding of what Rav Shach was saying. What he is saying is this. If we would learn from a sota to a public domain, then in fact even things that have a prior status of being unclean would be clean. It would be because of gezerat hakatuv. But in fact we don't. We only learn from sota in a  private domain that a doubt is considered to  be definite.] And this explains the Gemara that otherwise is hard to understand. The Gemara says the sages learn from Sota to say a doubt of uncleanliness in a private domain is definitely unclean. Then it asks then why not learn from Sota in a public domain. [i.e.the sages hold a mikve that was measure and found lacking the right volume, all things made on it whether in a public or private domain are unclean.-So the question is why not say in a public domain they are clean?] Answer: the mikve is not like a sota. The mikve is a doubt because of the volume. The question about volume is not connected with a private or public domain. The doubt about the sota is because of being alone with a man in a private domain. There is no privacy in a public domain. Then the gemara asks but even so is it not so that every doubt about cleanliness  a public domain is pure/ Answer it is a case of two things pushing towards uncleanliness. The status of uncleanliness of an object because it has been made clean--or or the person that is handling  the object. Plus the present status of the mikve which was measured and found to be lacking the proper volume. This gemara is very hard to understand. At first it says the reason the doubt for the mikve is unclean is because we learn from Sota. Then it seems to change its mind and says  the reason is because two hazakot against one. Now however we understand the gemara perfectly because it is not learning from sota about anything in a public domain. Only the private domain. As for the public domain we learn nothing from sota at all. Things are clean in a public domain and that would include sota if they have no prior hazaka at all. Not one clean or unclean. But if anything would have a hazaka of being unclean it would be unclean.

_________________________________________________

 There is a sort of question on the whole principle of democracy. It is this Stalin was mourned by the entire USSR at his passing.  If almost in every home there had been one person arrested and sent off into the darkness of the night by the NKVD, then why did people mourn at his passing? You would imagine they would have rejoiced. The reason is that people opinions have no relationship with truth.

Whom so ever controls the press and popular media controls people's opinions. And who controls the newspapers and TV do not have any particular dibs on truth--that is knowledge of the way things really are.

 Learning in depth is the major idea of Litvak yeshivot. The three great Litvak yeshivot in NY were known for this. Chaim Berlin, Mir, Torah VeDaat. Also in Israel there is Ponovitch.  I think in depth learning depends on one's mind, or on having a learning partner with that kind of mind. I saw this when I was learning with my learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. He would almost effortlessly see the depths in Tosphot without blinking an eyelash. This had nothing to do with bekiut -- since, in fact, he had not gone through most of Shas by that point. It was all simply being able to see the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. 

So what does that mean for someone like me? Well, it means if seeing this sort of depth in Gemara and Tosphot does not come so naturally, we must spend much more time on review. 

I admit, I was never able get to this sort of depth while in Shar Yashuv, nor in the Mir. This is the case even though I was exposed to this sort of very depth learning in both places. [I was in the classes of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum aninto the d the other roshei yeshiva], I simply never got the idea. [For myself I simply learned the Tosphot, Maharsha, Pnei Yehoshua and other achronim.] Only later, when I was learning with David Bronson (and saw this sort of depth come naturally to him) did I begin to see the idea. You can see this sort of thing in my little booklet on Shas [which has some accounts of David's approach but also after learning with him and sort of getting the idea --my own expansion of that kind of depth.] Here:    Or better yet look at Rav Chaim of Brisk's Chidushei HaRambam or Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

[The point is in Torah : to get it right is the main thing.  

of course in all major litvak yeshivot the slow in depth learning is for the morning and the fast bekiut is for the afternoon. but for me there are certain kinds of learning that work only one way, not the other. for example--gemara, i can not get the gemara and tosphot at all without slow painstaking digging in depth. math and physics are just the opposite--i cannot understand a word until i have read the whole book saying the words in order from beginning to end at least four times.  in mathematics--going over what i do not understand does nothing to help me understand. i have to go through the whole book at least four times and then it starts to make sense to me. [see gemara avoda zara pg 19 and the musar book ways of the righteous and conversations of rav nahman 76]

 The whole situation with the Bolsheviks is hard to judge. But after being in Iskara Lenina Street in Uman for some time the owner revealed to me the source of the long underground tunnel that stretched  from the river [where the house was] to the main street. That was about a mile of digging through the ground in Uman.   That tunnel  had been dug by the Jewish family that had owned that home during the time of Nicholas II. In other words--those pogroms were no joke. That Jewish family was terrified for their lives. They needed an escape route in case [or rather "when"] they were attacked at night. [I actually know exactly what that means. So while communism in the West seems like a terrible mistake, --I can see how it was important in the USSR. I can not really explain this except to say that a proper form of government seems to depend a lot on the DNA of the people. No one is equal to any other person. All men were created unequal. Some are bandits. Some are liars. Some are saints. To create some sort of safety and stability in those areas around Russia, it is clear that only the Bolsheviks were capable of doing so. Nicholas II while having certainly good intensions, still was sending millions to die in WWI for  some reason that no one can figure out until this very day. Was there some military objective? If so what was it? No one knows.

Southern States

 For a thought experiment: let's say the Southern States had decided the day after they signed the Constitution to secede from the Union? That is the very next day? Would that have been a rebellion? Would that have required Federal troops to come in and enforce them to return to the Union? It seems not. After all it was a voluntary agreement. There was no clause in it that it was perpetual.  So forget the next day. Maybe ten years down the road? Or twenty? Could there have been a  grace period? Or maybe the best idea was not to be stubborn about it and let the South find its own way and perhaps return to the Union in a few years. After all the terms of union had already changed. The Articles of Confederation of 1781 were the first set of agreements. 

The articles of Confederation actually said that that document was perpetual. Articles 13. Not the Constitution. So should the Second Congress have been thought to be traitors to the first agreement?

Should perhaps all the states have invaded and wiped out each other for being traitors to the first agreement? That seems unlikely.

And from the standpoint of objective morality : it is hard to see the preservation of the Union has a greater prima facie value than: "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

However I can see the greatness of the USA and I feel like Allan Bloom wrote that the USA is one of the wonders of the world. I am glad that there is the Union.

רמב''ם in הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג

Introduction. The Gemara in Nida page2 brings one law that a mikve that is lacking the right volume all pure things made on it are unclean. It asks from a different statement that a barrel that is used as tithe and was found to be vinegar--all the tevel [un-tithed wine] before three days is all in doubt. The Gemara answer The first statement is the sages. The second is R Shimon. So how can the Rambam decide the law like both when there is  a clear contradiction?

  The way רב שך explains a difficult רמב''ם in הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג' is this. There is the case of מקוה lacking ארבעים סאה. All unclean. And a barrel for מעשר found to be vinegar. That is a doubt. So רב שך says both come from the same law of two חזקות against one תרתי לריעותא. . The point being that twoחזקות against one is thought to be a doubt. This idea would explain the רמב''ם perfectly. But as for the גמרא it does not seem to fit very well. Look at רב שך explanation of the first answer of the גמרא נידה דף ב' ע''ב and the secondמ= תירוץ. This answer of רב שך says that that רמב''ם borrowed part of the first explanation with part of the second to come up with a third explanation to explain the רמב''ם. Look there at רב שך on הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג' and you will see that  idea of רב שך certainly fits the רמב''ם perfectly, but the question is how does that for with the גמרא? There is the fact that the רמב''ם is פוסק like the מקוה and the חבית. One very good idea to explain this is that both come from the idea that two חזקות are thought to be  a doubt תרתי לריעותא. But when the גמרא itself wants to answer this contradiction it comes up with two totally different explanations. נידה דף ב' ע''ב. 

הדרך בה רב שך מסביר רמב''ם קשה בהלכות סוטה פרק א 'הלכה ג' היא זו. יש מקרה של מקוה חסר ארבעים סאה. כולם טמאים. חבית למעשר שנמצא כחומץ. זהו ספק. אז רב שך אומר ששניהם באים מאותו חוק של שני חזקות כנגד אחת [תרתי לריעותא] . הנקודה היא שתי חזקות כנגד אחת נחשבות לספק. רעיון זה יסביר את הרמב''ם בצורה מושלמת. אבל לגבי הגמרא זה לא נראה מתאים מאוד. עיין בהסבר של רב שך על התשובה הראשונה של גמרא נידה דף ב 'ע''ב   ותירוץ השני. תשובה זו של רב שך אומרת כי רמב''ם לווה חלק מההסבר הראשון עם חלק מהשני כדי להגיע להסבר שלישי כדי להסביר את הרמב''ם. תסתכל שם על רב שך על הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ג' ותראה שהרעיון של רב שך בהחלט מתאים לרמב''ם בצורה מושלמת, אבל השאלה היא איך זה מתאים לגמרא? יש את העובדה שהרמב''ם הוא פוסק שווה במקוה והחבית. רעיון טוב מאוד להסביר זאת הוא ששניהם נובעים מהרעיון ששני חזקות נחשבות ספק (תרתי לריעותא). אך כאשר הגמרא עצמה רוצה לענות על סתירה זו היא מגיעה עם שני הסברים שונים לחלוטין. נידה דף ב 'ע''ב

To answer this let me say that first of all if the Gemara had been thinking like the Rambam it would have had a simple and easy answer for the contradiction between the mikve and the barrel. It could have said when it says a mikve that was measured and found lacking, all the pure things made on it are unclean" means they are in doubt. Just like the barrel. and there would not have been any contradiction in the first place. So what I think is that when the Rambam brings that idea of the mikve that all the pure things made on it are unclean he mean when there is a hazaka purity from the beginning. Therefore it is a case of doubt. There is a hezkat hashta -that the mikve does not have the right volume against a hazaka of pure things. But the Gemara was explaining that statement about the mikve to mean there is  no doubt for example in such a case where there is no original hazaka of purity on the mikve or the pure things. it is not an argument between the gemara and the rambam. rather the gemara understands the statement about mikve to refer to one case and the rambam is quoting the same statement but he means it to refer to a different case. But there is no argument in law. If you have two hazakot against one that would be a doubt. But if you have one hazaka against nothing or two against nothing that is a case of no doubt._______________________________________________________________________

To answer this let me say that first of all if the גמרא had been thinking like the רמב''ם it would have had a simple and easy answer for the contradiction between the מקוה and the הבית. It could have said when it says a מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שעשו על גביו טמאות means הטהרות are in doubt. Just like the חבית. And there would not have been any contradiction in the first place. So what I think is that when the רמב''ם brings that idea of the מקוה that all the pure things made on it are unclean מקווה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שעשו על גביו טמאות he מכוון when there is a חזקה purity from the beginning. Therefore it is a case of doubt. There is a חזקת השתא that the מקוה does not have the right volume against a חזקה of pure things. But the גמרא was explaining that statement about the מקוה to mean there is  no doubt for example in such a case where there is no original חזקה of טהרה on the מקוה or the pure things. It is not an argument between the גמרא and the רמב''ם. rather the גמרא understands the statement about מקוה to refer to one case and the רמב''ם is quoting the same statement, but he means it to refer to a different case. But there is no argument in law. If you have two חזקות against one that would be a doubt. But if you have one חזקה against nothing, or two against nothing, that is a case of no doubt. חזקה כנגד כלום היא וודאי. שתי חזקות כגד אחת  גורמת ספק

יש כאן קשר ל חידושי הש''ס

Robert E Lee was about to be indicted for treason. Yet he refused to accept an offer to go to a stronghold with men that would have provided a safe haven.

 After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was about to be indicted for treason. Yet he refused to accept an offer to go to a stronghold with men that would have provided a safe haven. Besides that, there was an offer from the president of Mexico to accept anyone who needed sanctuary. [Plus offers to go to England to live in a palace and all expenses paid for life.--] Robert E. Lee also did not accept that, nor recommend it to anyone. His idea was, "We are now all American citizens." How does one explain this? It must be he thought there was something unique about the Constitution of the USA, and its system that was an aspect of objective morality. That is some example for all mankind how to live in a just and equitable system. 

He also wanted to provide an example to all people of the South to submit to Federal authority, -even at the cost of his life. He really ought to be considered up here with  Socrates with  the greats of world history. Socrates also would not rebel against Athenian authority even at the cost of his life. And even if you hold that he was on the wrong side of the fence politically speaking--well Socrates also was a Karl Popper shows at great length in his The Open Society and its Enemies 

Rambam in Laws of Sota perek I. Law 3

 The way Rav Shach explains a difficult Rambam in Laws of Sota perek I. Law 3 is this. There is the case of  mikve lacking 40 seah. All unclean. And a barrel for maasar found to be vinegar. That is a doubt. So Rav Shach says both come from the same law of two hazakot against one. The point being that two hazakot against one is thought to be a doubt. This idea would explain the Rambam perfectly. But as for the gemara it does not seem to fit very well. Look at Rav Shach explanation of the first answer of the Gemara in Nida page 3 and the second. This answer of Rav Shach says that that Rambam borrowed part of the first explanation with part of the second to come up with a third explanation to explain the Rambam.

I do not have energy to write out the whole subject. Just look there at Rav Shach on Sota I:3 and you will see what I mean that the end of that idea of Rav Shach certainly fits the Rambam perfectly but the question is how does that for with the Gemara? There is the fact that the Rambam is posek like the mikve and the barrel. One very good idea to explain this is that both come from the idea that two hazakot are thought to be  a doubt. But when the Gemara itself wants to answer this contradiction it comes up with two totally different explanations. Nida page 2 side b. This has bothered me for weeks. I  van not see any answer when I look at Rav Shach. But on the way to the sea and back I ponder this question and hope that someday I may understand what Rav Shach is saying. 

Recently a photo was made of a black hole that shoots energy jets that were predicted a long time ago [Blanford and Znajek]. 

Not just from the virtual particles. So what if you have small black holes like the ER=EPR suggestion? That is that an Einstein Rosen Bridge is in any place where there is entanglement. [The ER is just a different sort of black hole.] So atoms may have this same sort of energy signature. Plus that paper that suggested these sorts of jets from black holes mentions a way to harness this kind of energy.--by some kind of conductor. [That I noticed in the 1978 paper  by Znajek] 

TRW was the maker of the satellites that used infrared to see what was going on in the USSR.

 TRW was the maker of the satellites that used infrared to see what was going on in the USSR. [The USA wanted to know if the Soviets were preparing a first strike.]That was  the reason my dad was hired by TRW. Dad was the creator of infra red telescope. And after that they were making SDI. That was when the KGB had a mole in TRW. My dad's expertise was not in lasers, even though he did create the laser communication system for SDI. But at that point the mole was discovered and TRW went under. [A movie was made about this : The Falcon and the Snowman.] [No more government contracts.] My dad left TRW. I admit I was sad that his career in science was over. 

In every generation comes some insanity

 In every generation comes some insanity that seems to most intuitively obvious that all subsequent generations see for what it really is--utter lunacy. There are plenty of examples of system that seemed to be the highest of intellectual rigor which turned out to be confused delusions--Existentialism for example. Sigmund Freud  would be another example. Not a single thread of his theories has stood up to rigorous testing.  [That is even though at the time he was thought to be the equal of Einstein.] [Psychology has yet to prove that it has cured even one single person of any definable disease-despite the trillions of dollars that have been pored into it.] Communism was thought to bring in the golden age --the workers paradise. It was thought to be built not on theory, but rigorous  scientific facts. [The odd thing is that even Trotsky saw the Soviet system would produce 100 tractors and only 55 would actually work. ] The natives that Columbus encountered begged him to save them from the  Caribbean tribes ("Caribs") that were the most organized group that were eating them.  [Not exactly the noble savages in the delusions of Rosseau.] The Native Americans were busy at war with each other and enslaving each other  and  begging the Europeans for weapons. 

But other times things are not so clear to later generations. Steven Dutch pointed out that old insanities arise anew. Time is not the best test.

Why this comes up is that I have been trying to figure out some sort of justification for the Civil War. Let's say for example I have a wife, and one day she wants out. But I say, "Sure you can leave but only if I can keep keep your right arm." Few people would justify that. So the South entered into a voluntary agreement to be one nation with the North. But one day they want out. So we say, "Sure you can go as long as we kill a half a million of your men and leave you impoverished for the next 150 years."--and all for your own good. [Why have I been thinking about this is I have looked at President Grant's justification of the war. All for the good of the South.] 

And as far as slavery goes-It started because tribes of men have been at war one with another since the beginning of time. But some people decided that instead of killing the tribe that had been at war with--they would spare their lives. But not leave them so free as to be able again to attack them from the inside. Rather they would enslave them.   

Or lets say there is a Mad-Max situation. Civilization has collapsed. And you manage to get around you a group of people that are now just managing to grow crops and start anew. Out of the blue you are attacked. But you win. Do kill them? Or just let them go free to be able to attack you again? Or let them join your group and plot against you from within your gates? Or perhaps the more humane thing is to spare their lives but not give them enough freedom to be able to undermine you and attack you from within. 

In any case, I found the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter to be of the most benefit for me to understand the basic path of straight Torah.

People are not really moral though they have learned to talk in the language of morality. The basic idea of Musar is to awaken the inherent ability of Reason to discern objective morality. One basic idea of the book Light of Israel   is the centrality of Fear of God. His idea there is that it is impossible to enter into the gates of service of God without fear of God. The first time I read this I was looking at it during Musaf on Rosh Hashana at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. And that book was for me somewhat of a revolution in thought. I realized I was spending all my time and effort to get into the depths of the Gemara and here this book was opening up the secret. By fear of God [which comes by learning Musar (mediaeval books on ethics)] one merits to enter into the gates of Torah.

And that had a tremendous effect on me. However I can see why Rav Chaim of Brisk did not want Musar to be part of the learning sessions of a yeshiva.-It can and does get people off track--very quickly. 

So the Litvak yeshiva came up with some sort of compromise. The Goldilocks solution. [Not too hot nor too cold. Just right.] Not -- no Musar. Not hours of Musar. Just 20 minutes before mincha (afternoon prayer) and 15 minutes before arvit (evening prayer).

In any case, I found the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter to be of the most benefit for me to understand the basic path of straight Torah. 

By the time one is 35 years old, 95 percent of one's programming is already built into one. [That is our way of thinking and the information we use to operate on is already set.] But about 50 percent of that is wrong. It is false information.

global warming

 I wanted to mention that global warming is not as high as it was during the time of the dinosaurs. [which was about twenty degrees higher in Celsius which is about 40 degrees higher in Fahrenheit.] Still I think the fact that the oceans are even a slight bit higher seems to cause an increase in parasites.

[I would agree that is the average temperature in Canada was 90 degrees Fahrenheit that there would be cause for concern.]

So even though I go into the water, still I think it is best to do so only once, and to get out of the water since these little parasites seems to get attached to the skin very quickly --and you can not see them.

I do not see others at the sea are worried about this, but still I think this is an issue. The Muslims had a festival last week and were siting in the water for hours. The surfers were out in force today. No one seems concerned about these little parasites. I used to worry more about the jelly fish but after actually touching one as it floated by and nothing happened -I realized that they are not the problem. It is these little parasites that no one seems even to be aware of. 

 

 In The Laws of Plato in book V, the Athenian stranger says the greatest penalty of evil doing is to become like evil doers and to have to hang out with them. We learn something the is brought in books of Musar that one tends to become like those he or she hangs around with.

Also a very interesting observation I found there: that the untrustworthy person ends up alone because eventually it becomes known that he can not be relied on to keep his word

Torah of the Dark Side of the religious world

 The problem with religious clothing is that it is not intended for the stated purpose. Rather the reason is group identification. And that comes under two of the seven categories of Prushim that are the destroyers of the world. [as brought in the Gemara and also in the book by Nisim Gaon Maasei Hagedolim Deeds of the Great in paragraph 740].[See the verse:מה השם אליך שואל ממך   והצנע לכת אם אלוקיך What does the Lord your God ask from you ---and to walk humbly with the Lord your God. That is one must not advertise how religious he or she is. The religious turn this into its opposite to mean that one must advertise one's religious  clothing to show that they are religious. 

והצנע means to hide. The religious advertise their religiosity showing that they could not care less about the Torah but rather the money and power they can make by pretending to seem as if they care.`

Fear of God and keeping his commandments is explained in the books of Musar. But what makes this difficult is the vast majority of the religious world that are into it for money and power and thus the naïve and plain  that do not know better fall into the trap of the  Torah of the Dark Side of the religious world that claim to be keeping Torah .

R. Hanina ben Tradion was killed and the Roman authorities decreed that his daughter must stay in house of prostitution. She was the sister of the wife of R. Meir [of the Mishna]. R. Meir went to redeem her. The owner said, "If I let you redeem her, and the authorities find out, they will kill me." R. Meir said: "Just say this prayer, 'May the God of R. Meir save me.'" The other asked how do I know that will work? RM said lets go and find out. They went to a building that was guarded by savage dogs. The prayer worked. So She was redeemed and later in fact the authorities found out and tried to arrest the owner nd he said the prayer and was saved. Then the authorities found out that it was R. Meir that had caused the trouble and tried to arrest him and he fled to Babylon [in modern day Iraq].

In stories of the sages you see nothing like "stories of tzadikim" that aim to elevate the subject. However in this case there is an aspect of seeing the greatness of one of the sages of the mishna. 

the Prushim [known in the New Testament as the "Pharisees."

I was in the Na Nach Breslov place yesterday  and noticed a book that brings lots of the stories of the Gemara and Midrash. מעשי גדולים. [The third vol by Nisim Gaon paragraph 740] There is brought a statement of the sages that there are seven kinds of Pharisees [Prushim] that are destroyers of the world.[note 1] And there Rav Nisim Gaon brings an event that gives an example of one type of Pharisee that one needs to be careful to avoid. One person was in a foreign country, and had made a lot of money in his work there. Then on his way home, he had to stay over Shabat in one town. He thought to himself, "To whom can I entrust my money over Shabat until Sunday?" He saw someone with all the religious clothing and gear and Talit and Tefilin that advertises that one is religious. He thought to himself "To whom better could I find trustworthy to entrust my money?" So he gave it to the religious guy to hold until after Shabat. On Sunday morning, he went to the fellow's house and asked for his money back. The fellow asked, "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life." 

Since that was all the money he had and for which he had worked for years, he was upset. He prayed to God: "I did not trust that man, I trusted in Your Name, the name of God that is written in the Tefilin. The Elisha the prophet came to him and said, "Go now to that man's house. He is not home and his wife will answer the door and tell her that her husband sent you to pick up the money, and give her certain signs." He did so and got his money back. When the husband returned home and found out what she had done he said, "Enough of this. Let's go back to our original faith"--[They were Samaritans] 

There are other statements of the Chazal [sages] that held the religious hypocrites are to be avoided and they specifically mention the Prushim [known in the New Testament as the "Pharisees." So we see that the groups Jesus was being critical of was not the sages of the Gemara nor their fore-runners. Rather the groups of the super religious just like you have nowadays with their show of religiosity to get money. They have nothing in common with the sages of the Mishna and Gemara.

[Besides that, I might mention that the religious clothing is for me the first sign to run away. ]

[note 1] The actual Gemara starts out that there are seven types of Pharisees that are destroyers f the world and then lists seven that wear out the world.  יש שבעה מיני פרושים שהם מכלה עולם ואלה הם השבעה שהם מבלה עולם. At any rate we see the sages of the Mishna did  not count themselves as part of teh group of the Pharisees. It is common for Christians to put these two groups together, but that is not correct. Nor did Jesus say anything against the sages of the mishna nor they actual forerunners who were the scribes. Not the groups of religious fanatics called the Pharisees. 

[There are however one or two places where it looks as though the prushim are joining with the scribes in being critical of Jesus. However in words of jesus himself you never find a negative word about the scibes. This goes to show what I have always been saying--that true Torah is only in the Litvak world. Not the general religious world which is insane.]

 What do you learn from Sota? This seems complicated though at first it sounds simple. The Gemara in the beginning of tractate Nida says you learn from Sota that a doubt about purity in a private domain is pure. In a public domain it is not. Tosphot asks If we are learning from Sota then why not say a doubt in  apublic domain is pure only when there is prior status of purity? Answer: Sota has no prior status of purity since she was with someone he husband told her not to be with. Questions Tosphot: if so then why say doubt in a private domain is not pure even when there is a status of purity? Answer: the Sota is not definitely unclean. And yet the verse counts her as being unclean until she drinks the bitter waters. [That is in the verse והיא נטמאה] Rav Shach asks here then why not say in a public domain a doubt is pure even when there is prior status of being unclean? [That is Rav Shach [in Laws of Sota] is asking from the standpoint of symmetry. The verse makes unclean in a private domain even against prior status so it ought to make clean in a public domain even against prior status.] This a powerful question. Answer: The Sota does not actually have prior status in a public domain of even being a doubt. [AS Rav Chaim of Brisk points out in his "Chidushei HaRambam" as Rav Shach brings here in Laws of Sota]. [The warning given by her husband is what makes all the laws of Sota come into play. Not that is is in fact any real doubt. As we see in Ketuboth page 9 that a doubt of  a doubt is enough to permit a wife when there was not warning. ]So you learn from Sota to allow a doubt in a public of cleanliness in a public domain--but not when there is an actual prior status of uncleanliness.

So what has been  bothering me is that in some ways you learn from Sota to things that are not like Sota at all.-e.g. doubts about if something is clean of not when there is no actual doubt in the case of a sota.

And yet here we are requiring an exact parallel to Sota. Since she has no prior status of being unclean so we would not learn from her to permit such a case in a public domain.

[I am being a bit short here but I think my question is clear. If we need an exact parallel to Sota to learn from her, then let's do that all the way. If we do not need a exact parallel, then let's do that all the way! Why this sort of divergence?] 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 What do you learn from סוטה? This seems complicated though at first it sounds simple. The גמרא in the beginning of tractate נידה says you learn from סוטה that a doubt about purity in a רשות היחיד is pure. In a public domain it is not. תוספות asks If we are learning from סוטה then why not say a ספק in  a public domain is טהור only when there is חזקת טהורה? Answer: סוטה has no חזקת טהרה since she was with someone he husband told her not to be with. תוספות שואלים: if so, then why say doubt in a private domain is טמא even when there is a חזקת טהרה? Answer: the סוטה is not definitely טמאה. And yet the verse counts her as being טמאה until she drinks the bitter waters. That is in the verse והיא נטמאה. Then רב שך asks here then why not say in a ספק ברשות הרבים  is pure even when there is חזקת טומאה? That is רב שך בהלכות סוטה is asking from the standpoint of symmetry. The verse makes unclean in a private domain even against חזקת טהרה so it ought to make clean in a public domain even against חזקת טומאה.] This a powerful question. Answer: The סוטה does not actually have חזקה in a public domain of even being a doubt. AS רב חיים מבריסק points out in his חידושי הרב''ם as רב שך brings here in הלכות סוטה]. The warning given by her husband is what makes all the laws of סוטה come into play. Not that is any real doubt. As we see in כתובות דף ט that a doubt of  a doubt is enough to permit a wife when there was not warning. So you learn from סוטה to allow a doubt in a רשות הרבים, but not when there is an actual חזקת טומאה. So what has been  bothering me is that in some ways you learn from סוטה to things that are not like סוטה at all -e.g. doubts about if something is clean או not when there is no actual doubt in the case of a סוטה. And yet here we are requiring an exact parallel to סוטה. Since she has no חזקת טומאה so we would not learn from her to permit such a case in a public domain. I am being a bit short here but I think my question is clear. If we need an exact parallel to סוטה to learn from her, then let's do that all the way. If we do not need a exact parallel, then let's do that all the way! Why this sort of divergence? 

מה אתה לומד מסוטה? זה נראה מסובך אם כי בהתחלה זה נשמע פשוט. הגמרא בתחילת מסכת נידה אומרת שאתה לומד מסוטה כי ספק טוהר ברשות היחיד הוא טהור. בתחום הציבורי זה לא. תוספות שואלת אם אנו לומדים מסוטה, אז למה לא לומר ספק ברשות הציבור הוא טהור רק כשיש חזקת טהורה? תשובה: לסוטה אין שום חזקת טהרה מאז שהיא הייתה עם מישהו שבעלה אמר לה לא להיות איתו. תוספות שואלים: אם כן, אז מדוע לומר ספק בתחום פרטי הוא טמא גם כשיש חזקת טהרה? תשובה: הסוטה היא לא בהחלט טמאה. ובכל זאת הפסוק מונה אותה כטמאה עד שהיא שותה את המים המרים. זה בפסוק והיא נטמאה. ואז רב שך שואל כאן אז למה לא להגיד  ספק ברשות הרבים טהור גם כשיש חזקת טומאה? זהו רב שך בהלכות סוטה שואל מנקודת מבט של סימטריה. הפסוק מטמא בתחום פרטי אפילו כנגד חזקת טהרה, ולכן הוא צריך לנקות ברשות הרבים אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. זו שאלה חזקה. תשובה: לסוטה אין למעשה חזקה בתחום הציבורי. היא אינה אפילו ספק. כמו שרב חיים מבריסק מציין בחידושים  שלו כמו שרב שך מביאו כאן בהלכות סוטה]. האזהרה שנתנה בעלה היא שגורמת לכל חוקי סוטה להיכנס בפעולה. לא שזה ספק אמיתי. כפי שאנו רואים בכתובות דף ט' כי ספק ספק ספיקא כדי להתיר לאישה כאשר לא הייתה אזהרה. אז אתה לומד מסוטה לטהר ספק ברשות הרבים, אבל לא כשיש חזקת טומאה בפועל. אז מה שהפריע לי הוא שבמובנים מסוימים אתה לומד מסוטה לדברים שבכלל אינם דומים לסוטה -דוגמא ספקות אם משהו נקי או לא כאשר אין ספק בפועל במקרה של סוטה. ובכל זאת כאן אנו דורשים מקבילה מדויקת לסוטה. מכיוון שאין לה חזקת טומאה ולכן לא נלמד ממנה להתיר מקרה כזה ברשות הרבים. אני קצת קצר כאן אבל אני חושב שהשאלה שלי ברורה. אם אנו זקוקים להקבלה מדויקת לסוטה כדי ללמוד ממנה, אז בוא נעשה את זה עד הסוף. אם אנחנו לא צריכים הקבלה מדויקת, אז בואו נעשה את זה לאורך כל הדרך! מדוע סוג זה של סטייה

I wanted to add here that Rav Shach has a very nice way to answer for the Rambam who holds both the law about the mikve [unclean in private and public domain] and grain that has not been tithed.-the way is this the Gemara says the Rabanan do not learn from the start of uncleanliness to the end. That means they do not learn everything from Sota--only one part. That part is in the private domain she is unclean until she drinks the bitter waters. And the Rabanan do not learn from her law in the public domain. If they would any doubt of uncleanliness in the public domain would be pure. But they do not learn from her that. Rather they say in teh public domain also a doubt about uncleanliness is  unclean. And this has nothing to do with two hazakot joining together. Rather they hold that two hazakot join together to make a doubt, not a definite case.. And thus the barrel that has gone sour  and tithe was taken from grain--the grain is a doubt because two hazakot join to make a doubt. A very clear answer to this very puzzling Rambam. 

Just to make this a bit more clear the Gemara asks this. A mikve can be a pool if the water that got into it was not carried. But it also can not be a vessel. and it must contain 40 seah.