the religious talk a good talk. All lovey dovey--especially when they think or know you are a naïve American with rich parents.

 People that parade their religiosity are not religious. This you know from the verse מה השם אלוהיך שואל ממך כי אם והצנע לכת עם אלוהיך What does the Lord your God ask from you but to do kindness and judgment and to walk modestly with the Lord your God. No matter how you want to interpret this verse, advertising how religious you are to get peoples donations and trust does not come under the heading of "walking modestly with God."

But even more compelling to me is that the religious talk a good talk. All lovey dovey--especially when they think or know you are a naïve American with rich parents. But when it comes to actual actions of sincere kindness, the religious have to take a back seat. They will do almost anything to get out of helping anyone in need except themselves. And to me this seems like a serious flaw in their character. And that is especially noticeable when you learn in Torah that the primary action that is needed is good character. Not religious rituals or identification with the religious. [See any of the Rishonim for verification on this point which should not need emphasis. No where in in the Torah or Gemara or Rishonim do you find any value attributed to identification, rather with objective right and wrong. So the wearing of the kipa as the first obligation is clearly a show of values quite opposed to Torah. The religious excel in bragging how kind they are. My experience shows the opposite to be the case. And woe to the person that thinks he can depend on them in time of need. [While to show off how wonderful they are is their main goal. And who falls for this? people of the same character. So there really is littlee reason to have sympathy. Those that are fooled are the same people that have a similar sort of wish to show off how wonderful they are.

 Hennry I had a daughter Matilda who he named as the next ruler of England. But the crown was seized by Stephen her cousin. She fought to keep the crown. One day her son Henry II came of age and continued the fight. He came to relive the forces of Matilda at a castle. When the forces of Stephen and Henny II met they decided not to fight. [That is to say their commanders decided not to have this civil war any longer.] So Stephen and Henry had to meet and talk it over. The decision: Stephen would remain king and after him Henry would be the rightful king of England.

 I have wondered for months what would have happened if in the American Civil War both sides had simply decided not to kill each other? [Maybe there are wars that must be fought. But doubtful wars -like the Civil War seem to me to have been better not to have been fought.]

[good character]

 People that are religious seem to think that they are morally superior to secular Jews. Though I do not know people inner thoughts or motivations, still this seems apparent in their speech and actions. [And experience generally show the opposite.] If you need a kindness, the last person  that will help is religious. Thus to me, it seems the  message of Torah of the prime importance midot tovot [good character] is lost. For me it reached  the point that  what ever damage the religious could do to me, they would do. [These same people asked me to get money for them from John Factor my neighbor because these people were supposedly learning Torah not for money--while asking me to get money from my neighbor John Factor for millions of dollars. Clearly they [and all the religious world ] want money, and especially for the fact of their learning Torah not for money. The hypocrisy shouts out to the heavens.]

Rav Israel Salanter tried to correct this fault, but I have not seen that people that learn Musar are all that more decent than anyone else.

But this is not possible to see or know by learning.  In the religious world all the words are right. But the actual acts of kindness are lacking. [Except to themselves]. It is only the shock of reality, of how people actually act that shoes the religious illusions of  moral superiority to be lacking in all substance.

What the lesson is this. There is something about the religious world that is off kilter. [Seethe LeM of Rav Nahman vol II chapter 8  That even the kindness of the religious  is really cruelty. It is the same kindness of the fisherman that gives a worm on his hook free of  charge to the fish. It is not really from the motivation of kindness that teh fisherman gibes a worm to the fish  but rather to catch it in his hook.  The kindness if of the religious is really cruelty as Rav Nahman puts it in the LeM vol II chapter 8.

outside wisdoms"

 The translation of Euclid [a small part of the actual massive volumes of Euclid] by a disciple of the Gra brings in the introduction that the Gra said "One will lack in understanding and knowledge  of Torah a hundred times in proportion to one lack of knowledge in the seven widoms."

And this is the common opinion among the rishonim that built on Saadia Gaon.  [like the Chovot Levavot.] However there are other rishonim and even geonim that disagree with this.

I take the first approach to be best, but I also recognize the validity and value of the second approach.

Right after writing the above I went over to the Breslov place  and listened to someone reading the books of Rav Nathan [a disciple of Rav Nahman] on  the subject of "outside wisdoms" he disparages those that learn or teach them. But that while going with Rav Hai Gaon and some rishonim like the Ramban that goes with that approach, I still prefer the Saadia Gaon, Chovot Levavot, Rambam approach, which is exactly opposite. 

To my way of thinking it all depends on what one is learning. If we are talking about the social studies departments of universities, well Rav Nathan was 100% correct.  [As Allan Bloom goes into great depth in his Closing of the American Mind]. But if we we would be talking about STEM fields then clearly Saadia gaon and the Hovot Levavot are correct.

 People in the USSR at the end did not want to USSR to continue. However what they got after that was generally not to their liking either. When I would ask people [often the women selling their products at the local bazar how were things during the time of the USSR, they would always answer the same thing: "Better than now." And sometimes they would elaborate: "Everyone was working." Or sometimes even more extensive elaborations. What I generally take that to mean is that you have to take things in perspective. To try and make the USA into a socialist state is to try and take it down. But to compare the USSR to the kinds of chaos that things sank to after the fall of the USSR --well obviously the USSR was better.

To accept things the way they are is a important trait.

 i was thinking about the advantages of having one's own space. But also thinking that the best idea is to accept things the way they are.as long as these things at least least to tolerable and lovable in some degree. To accept things the way they are is a important trait. There can be a point where one must act but it is best not to hurry that point along.

my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot.

The Litvak yeshiva world. True that it is the prime example of loyalty to Torah. Especially the verse "Do not add nor subtract." 

However my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot. Not that I disparage those that learn Torah all the time. Still I try to walk on this sort of middle path. [All of one's complaints about the straight Litvak world can be balanced by the fact that whatever actions taken against you can be balanced by your own faults that led at it least in half to that very situation.] Besides that see the story of Rav Nahman [the first]about the giants and the mishne lemelech second in authority to the king. the giants that were obstacles in the end turned out to be the very thing needed.

 

It is a subject mentioned in the Mishna, and Gemara itself. Torah with Derech Eretz in one mishna. And there is removed the yoke of derech eretz from all who receive on themselves the yoke of Torah.

I can not really say one or the other is right. It seems to depend on one's root soul

.

[I do however say that that the area of dinge an sich is inherently contradictory as Kant said. So simply going by reason and deciding things based on texts alone is inherently wrong. Rather the basis of Torah is objective morality. So the right path is not the issue. The real issue is how to be a mensch. how to come to the right moral decisions. That is objective morality.

Musar [books on ethics]

 You see in Musar [books on ethics] an emphasis on correction of character traits. The reason I think is this. One might be aware of his own sins and try to correct them. But that leaves the root of the sin not fixed --the kind of fault that led to the sin. And also sins can be hard to identify, and sometimes even if one is aware of them, they might contradict each other. That is the very nature of the spirituality--It does not lend itself well being reasoned about. Thus it is best to work on one's character and by that uproot the source of ones faults. 

I have tried to identify my sins by mean of experience. That is: to see what actions caused problems. This is often easy because one can see immediate results. Other times the results of certain actions can be a long time coming. But in any case, this is better than reasoning from books, for the mind is often highly misleading. One can find anything he wants in any books. This is unreliable.  

 I am not saying what kind of path one ought to take. My father as you can see was more along the lines of what you could call secular, while I went to Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY. So what seems best to me is along the lines of Dr Kelley Ross's modification of the Kant Fries school where he shows an array of values. That is to say: I think every person is or can be connected to a certain area of value. Clearly that area is what ought to spend his or her time perfecting. [I do not think Mozart ought to have tried to become a Physicist. Nor do I think he would have been a great one even if he had. Rather he found or was guided by his dad into the area of value that was right for him.]

However I also think every area of value has an opposite area that  one can get pulled into if he or she is not careful. E.g., one who has talent in music must be careful not to be pulled into anti-music.  

[{Also, I think one ought to be balanced. Even if one concentrates on one area, he should also have some balanced with the other areas of positive value.]

why my dad {Philip Rosten} doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. It is that the company TRW became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. S

 I just wanted to make clear why my dad {Philip Rosten}doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. The reason is not due to anyone's malice. It is simply that the company TRW more or less became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. So what ever  was developed at TRW was simply sold to the other aerospace companies [like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. ]. And that is the cause that the paper records of who developed the technology was lost.

[No one foresaw that TRW would eventually be rehabilitated and get back into the action in the 1990's] 

Nedarim 91

 I was hoping to have an answer for this question before I write it down. But so far nothing has occurred to me. So I might as well write it and hope that someday I might merit to some answer.

Simply put it is this. There is an argument between the Raavad and the Rambam concerning the case where a woman says to her husband "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the Raavad this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the Rambam, she can go and get married  and gets her ketubah. Rav Shach [Laws of marriage 16:26] brings the source of the Raavad. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the Rambam.

The source is Nedarim 91. The mishna says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her ketubah. One is a woman that says "I am forbidden to you." Then the sages changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. Rav Hamenuna said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed.

The parallel to the case of the mishna   to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her ketubah.

However Rav Shach I think is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the Raavad.

I mean to say that Rav Hamenuna's case is different anyway from the mishna--even the first mishna [before the sages changed their mind.] In the mishna we force him to divorce her. In the case of Rav Hamenuna we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the mishna a woman who is the wife of a priest that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband. She is forbidden to him. And since the rape was against her will, she gets her ketubah. The parallel of Rav hamenunah is when she says you divorc]ed me is not exact. To the Rambam She is believed and gets her ketubah. To the Raavad she does not. The aspect where the Rambam makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the Raavad is that she gets the ketubah because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם concerning the case where a woman says to her husband, "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the ראב''ד this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the רמב''ם, she can go and get married  and gets her כתובה. And רב שך in בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה  כ''ו  brings the source of the ראב''ד. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the  רמב''ם. The source is נדרים צ''א. The משנה says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her כתובה. One is a woman that says, "I am forbidden to you." Then the חכמים changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. רב המנונא said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed. The parallel to the case of the משנה  to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her כתובה. However רב שך is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the ראב''ד. I mean to say that רב המנונא case is different anyway from the משנה, even the first משנה [before the חכמים changed their mind.] In the משנה we force him to divorce her. In the case of רב המנונא we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the משנה a woman who is the wife of a כהן that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband.  And since the rape was against her will, she gets her כתובה. The parallel of רב המנונא is when she says you גירשת אותי is not exact. To the רמב''ם She is believed and gets her כתובה. To the ראב''ד she does not. The aspect where the רמב''ם makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the ראב''ד is that she gets the כתובה because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם בנוגע למקרה שבו אישה אומרת לבעלה "גרשתני". מאמינים לה. לראב''ד זה אומר רק שאם היא מתחתנת עם מישהו אחר, היא יכולה להישאר שם. לרמב''ם, היא יכולה ללכת להתחתן ולהשיג את הכתובה שלה. ורב שך בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה כ''ו מביא את מקור הרב''ד. השאלה שלי היא שמקור זה נראה יותר לצד הרמב''ם. המקור הוא נדרים צ''א. המשנה אומרת בהתחלה היו שלושה מקרים בהם אישה יוצאת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. אחת מהן היא אישה שאומרת: "אסור לי עליך". ואז החכמים שינו את דעתם ואמרו שאולי היא שמה עיניים למישהו אחר. רב המנונא אמר כי עם זאת מאמינים באישה שאומרת "התגרשתי ממך". נראה שההקבלה למקרה של המשנה מרמזת כשהיא אומרת ש"התגרשתי ממך", מותר לה להינשא מחדש ולקבל את הכתובה שלה. עם זאת רב שך מציין כאן שבמקרה של "התגרשתי ממך", אנו לא גורמים לו לתת גט נוסף. אנחנו פשוט מאמינים לה. אז זוהי במובן הזה הוכחה לראב''ד. אני מתכוון לומר שמקרה של רב המנונא בכל מקרה שונה מהמשנה, אפילו המשנה הראשונה [לפני שחכמים שינו את דעתם.] במשנה אנו מכריחים אותו לגרש אותה. במקרה של הרב המנונא אנחנו פשוט מאמינים שהיא גרושה

העניין הוא שלמשנה אישה שהיא אשתו של כהן שנאנסה חייבת להתגרש מכיוון שהיא אסורה לבעלה. ומכיוון שהאונס היה בניגוד לרצונה, היא מקבלת את הכתובה שלה. ההקבלה של הרב המנונא היא כשהיא אומרת שאתה גירשת אותי לא מדויק. לרמב''ם היא נאמנת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. לראב''ד היא לא. ההיבט שבו הרמב''ם הגיוני הוא לעניין קבלת הכתובה. הנקודה של הראב''ד היא שהיא מקבלת את הכתובה במשנה כי היא נאנסה ולכן לא עשתה שום דבר רע. אין לזה מקבילה למקרה שלנו כשהיא אומרת שגרשתני

Rav Nahman has this great idea of talking with God as one talks with a good friend. But to him it was not a casual conversation. For example he would go out in the morning to some secluded spot in the forest and spend the whole day asking God to come close to His service. And I took this idea to heart when I first arrived in Safed. [This did not last long--but the basic idea has remained with me about the importance of this sort of conversation with God.] But I also realize it has to flow out of some deep level under the layer of normal consciousness.

[That is there is some surface level of consciousness. That is the stream of thoughts. Then there is the level under that--the one doing the  thinking. Then under that there is some level that is even hidden from that level. This is commonly called the subconscious--discovered by Leibnitz. [Attributing to him by Nietzsche.] 

Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,

 I think China lost world respect by means of its actions in Hong Kong.  Or put more clearly,- it lost its ability to make friends. It has lots economic power, but not friends. I mean just think about how many friends has in South East Asia?  On the other hand, think about friends of the USA. Especially in that region. Australia and Japan and Taiwan. But in terms of just the simple fact of how many the sorts of liberal democracies are  allies of the USA. So the fact that everyone saw what was done to Hong Kong, how many Western democracies would help China in any future conflicts?

This could be corrected by keeping their word as to respecting the rights of Hong Kong as they promised when Britain gave them control.

[Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,,,   as you can see in the history of the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens. It is not a matter of how many pencils China can produce. It is a matter of how may people have confidence in their word of honor. If they do not tell the truth, then the pencils do not matter.

Civil War

I have been looking at the Civil War and it seems to me the South was right from a Constitutional point of view. "Perpetual union" was mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, but not the Constitution. The union of states in the Constitution is a voluntary union. Thus, the South could leave.

 And as for the issue of slavery,  lots of people have to work. I do not see that as some great evil. [Though it is better to learn Torah. --I mean to say that there is such a thing as one accepting on himself the yoke of Torah, and then there is removed from him the the yoke of work and government. There is also trust in God. But there is nothing wrong with work.  Just the opposite. The fact that welfare recipients force work out of the working population to get free money seems to me to be  wrong.--even if they can get the government to force the issue. That does not make it right.  -( It goes against the "general welfare" clause about what taxes can be used for.) Even if the majority of the people want it, it still is unconstitutional. For welfare to be constitutional , you would have to change the Constitution, and leave out the general welfare clause. 

[Just an added thought: the general welfare clause is for what Congress can make taxes for. One of them is the general welfare which means not to tax one segment of the population (like working people) to benefit a different segment.  ( e.g., those who are not working.) It has to be "general welfare"- that which benefits all. This is just common place knowledge in Constitutional Law about what that clause is meant for.

three tribes of Indians on the east part of Ohio. (Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware) ערוגה בת ששה טפחים על ששה טפחים

 Did it ever occur to you that the mishna ערוגה בת ששה טפחים על ששה טפחים seems a bit strained. 

[Five types of vegetables can be planted in a plot of land 6 handbreadths by 6 handbreadths]

Why plant five types of beans or vegetables in a plot of land that is a square foot? Well, the answer is there were three tribes of Indians on the east part of Ohio. (Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware) Their practice was to plant corn --their main stable. When it sprouted a little they would make a little mound around it and plant beans on that hill. That kept the soil in place [and added nitrogen to the soil afterwards)]. Then planted pumpkins over it--that gave shade and prevented weeds.

So these three crops ["the three sisters"] were in a sort of symbiotic relation. So you can see that planting certain kinds of beans or vegetables in close proximity can be a great help-so one does have to be able to do this without transgressing mixed kinds of vegetables. [So the geometric shapes discussed in that mishna become very practical. --The mishna says 5 types can be planted  there but they have to conform to the restriction that each be not actually mixed with the other.

Litvak yeshiva

 Simchat Torah in Shar Yashuv was a profound experience for me. You could feel the love of Torah just permeating the air. That of course was a result of the fact that he whole year the love of Torah permeated the whole place. It was not just for one day. And that same point I think could be said about most any Litvak yeshiva. However I am sure who ever is reading this must have some complaints about the Litvak yeshiva world. [I have my own list and I am sure everyone else must have a similar list.] 

What sets the Litvak yeshiva apart are the ideas of the Gra. But we also know that these places do not follow the Gra in every respect. Thus, my suggestion is this: whatever you or I see as a lack in the Litvak yeshiva world is a direct result of their not following the Gra in every respect. [And I have in fact seen this. The problems I have seen are in fact related directed and result directly from the divergence from the Gra.] The answer thus is simple. They ought to follow the Gra in every respect, not just some respects.

So when people criticize the USA for having had slaves

 Forcing people to work without recompense is slavery. So should not all the people that see slavery as the greatest of all evils object to welfare? Is not the whole idea of welfare is making people work for the non working part of the population in order to get their (of the non workers) votes? So former slaves do not object to slavery when they get to be the masters.

So when people criticize the USA for having had slaves, you might ask these same people if they object as strongly to welfare? i.e. giving money to people for not working. Why do they not lobby the Congress to abolish all welfare payments? [Maybe they like the money?]

[I thought to add that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (i.e. for what the Congress can make taxes for) means the general welfare of all the people of the USA--not to take from one group to give to another. This is a common place fact in Constitutional Law]

advice I heard from my father--many times. The idea of self reliance

 There is another bit of advice I heard from my father--many times. The idea of self reliance. So when I went to Shar Yashuv  and later the Mir in NY,I was thinking of Torah Lishma --[learning Torah for its own sake.]And the idea is more or less thus: that when one learns Torah for its own sake, then parnasah [a living] and all one's other needs come to him automatically. That is the ideal which I was striving for. And I still hold that is is a viable approach--that when one turns all his focus on learning Torah then everything else falls into place. 

But there is an aspect of Avodat Hashem [service of God] that is working at an honest job. This is gone into in the LeM of Rav Nahman vol II perek 4 [I think]. 

My mother and father were highly suspicious of new medicines. They strongly advised against taking any new medicine that has not been on the market for at least fifty years.

 There is a piece of advice I would like to share with others. My mother and father were highly suspicious of new medicines. They strongly advised against taking any new medicine that has not been on the market for at least fifty years. And this in fact corresponds to a large degree of the idea of Rav Nahman [Conversations of Rav Nahman paragraph 50] to be wary of doctors. However I realize that one  might merit to have a good and honest doctor, and that seem to depend on Divine providence. [When I was in Uman in fact the medical care I received was amazing. It was always with great competence--but also with a complete and utter refusal to deal with anything that was not an immediate threat. They would never treat anything because of some new toy they had as you find all the time in the West.

The County hospital [near Uman but not connected with Uman but rather with the county called the raiyona bolnitza] had a great reputation and in fact I was there twice. What ever was wrong with me was cleared up within a minute of taking the medicines they prescribed. The doctors and nurses at the Trauma unit in Uman proper gave me such care when I was in need of their help that I was flabbergasted.

Pluto

 What is wrong with scientists? They came up with three criterion for something to be  planet? The three is it has to be massive enough to clear all the dust and particles surrounding it. Thus Pluto they do not count as a planet. Well they ought to take out Saturn also that has vast dust clouds called "rings". From where do they come up with stuff? [Though I admit that besides Physicists and Mathematicians, they are all pseudo scientists-especially doctors. They think they know what they do not know.]

[However I saw in the former USSR that doctors were aware of their limitations and did held by the idea "Do nor fix that which is not broken". I was very impressed by the doctors in Uman -both in the local nd also the regional hospital.

But on the other hand -what is it with the "religious"? They even more so believe they know that which they do not know. They get a little bit of religion and all of a sudden wearing\ a kipa is the foremost commandment [Forget about parents.] [Even though there is no requirement to wear a kipa not from the Torah nor from the sages.] And about that Gemara where wearing a head covering is thought to bring to fear of God00well that is not why people wear a kipa.. Rather they ear a kipa in order t show how religious they are. And that in itself  prohibition--הצנע לכת עם אלהיך  to walk modestly with God --that is not to show off how religious you are. 

the being that wrestled with Yaakov Avinu {Jacob}was God himself

 You can see in Book of Hoshea 12 verse 3 that the being that wrestled with Yaakov Avinu {Jacob}was God himself. [That incident is recounted in Genesis 32]. This leaves room for some questions. Could not God have won? Why did He find it so hard to wrestle with Yaakov who after all was only a man? And when the morning came God said "Let me go because the morning has come." ("I have got things to do?" Or maybe He has to work in the dark where his actions are hidden?). And He could not leave until Yaakov let Him go? You would imagine that God could leave any time he wanted--even if Yaakov did not let Him go. 

And you can see that that being was God in the verses themselves where Yakov calls the place "pnuel" [the Face of God]. for I have seen God face to face and my soul was saved. [There is a danger in seeing the Face of God as the verse says "no man can see me and live."

What I am getting at is the idea of of the Kant -Fries School of thought that there is some area beyond what is accessible to human or even pure reason. That is the "dinge an sich." That is, there are two kinds of knowledge: (a) what can be checked--empirical and (b) what can not--a priori.  Also two kinds of fact. Synthetic and Analytic. Analytic proven true by definition, and synthetic true but does not have to be true by definition. So what about Synthetic a priori like a figure can be formed by  less than three lines. You can not make a figure with two lines. So how can u know if synthetic a priori is true? to Kant that is by structures in the mind. To Fries that is by immediate non intuitive. Hegel disagreed that this could be a true source of knowledge, but to me this makes sense--that Reason has limits.

This area of reasoning about God is one of those areas that is beyond reason--but still possible to know. See Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant Fries approach.

argument between Rav Shach and the Chazon Ish-

 Witnesses on a doc is an argument between Rav Shach and the Chazon Ish--if they are considered to have made their testimony before or after the plea.

I mean to say that Rav Shach is trying to prove that  the obligation of an oath in the case of a woman says to her ex husband that he owes 100 zuzim. He says he paid fifty.--that case he is obligated an oath. Rav Shach says this is a case here there is no document [Ketubah], for if there was, he would not be required an oath since the admission in half happened in such a way that he could not deny and also  there would be witnesses on the doc their testimony would be considered as coming before the claims. Thus also he would be not obligated in taking an oath. The Chazon Ish holds in this last case witnesses are thought to be coming after the plea so it is like admission in  half and he would be obligated to take an oath.

On the way back from the sea I was thinking about this and it seems to me clear. The Chazon Ish is thinking about  witnesses. If you have two witnesses that come to court and say he is obligated in half the sum that is demanded he is required to take an oath.--even if they say that they already testified to this ion a previous occasion. And that is true. But Rav Shach's point is witnesses on the document  is not the same thing.  They only signed it once and that was before the plaintiff came to make his plea.

Thus the only case that the law in the Rambam in laws of marriage  16 is possible is in a place where it is not the custom to write a ketubah.

 

Mediterranean Sea is called the "ים הגדול." That was the common name for it. For example the name the Italian people gave to it was "Mare Magnum"

 I was at the sea again and it occurred to me that the Mediterranean Sea is called the "ים הגדול." That was the common name for it. For example the name the Italian people gave to it was "Mare Magnum". The great sea. [That was before it became a Roman lake at which time the Romans began to refer to it as "Mare Nostrum"--"Our Sea". At any rate you see the common usage was to refer to it as the "great sea". So there is no doubt in my mind that the blessing "who made the great sea" refers to the Mediterranean.

{But I think it can also refer to the Atlantic which is the source of the Mediterranean which was just a dry desert until the Atlantic made an opening through the area of the Rock of Gibraltar.

Not to add extra restrictions. What people try to pass off as the Law, is almost always their own additions or even perversions.

 In the LeM of Rav Nachman vol. II perek 44 is a lesson about not to add extra restrictions. חומרות יתירות And I used to say that Torah lesson over every day for 40 days. At some point the message got through  and I began to see that a lot of what people try to pass off as the Law, is almost always their own additions or even perversions.    I became skeptical of the religious world. The only part of the religious world that  have respect for is the Litvak yeshiva [based on the Gra]. Litvak yeshivot bear in mind this principle: "Do not add and do not subtract from the Law"

[Though even with this principle, it is not always easy to tell what is the actual law and what is the fraud that the religious try to pull over our eyes.] 

At any rate, you might notice that this message did not get through to me until I read it in the book of Rav Nahman. But however I got the message, I wish to convey this important idea--which is in fact a verse in Deuteronomy, "Do not add and do not subtract from the Law."

Climate change --the worse consequences for mankind

 The so called ""Climate scientists" are all liars. They hide the fact that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is lower than it has ever been. Pluss the highly relevant fact that if there would be any less Carbon Dioxide all plant life would cease to exist. And that would have worse consequences for mankind than a slight warming of the atmosphere.  CO2 is the food of plants. So why is it that all so called "Climate scientists" keep on lying about this? Because of money. If they say a word about this fraud, they lose all their funding.

not to be extra strict.

 There are three places in the writings of Rav Nahman that emphasize not to be extra strict. I realize this looking for extra things to be strict about is a fundamental flaw in my own personality. One is supposed to keep Torah plain and simple --not to add and not to subtract. However I would like to suggest that this is not to say there is nothing one ought to be strict about. Rather it is a matter of getting the priorities straight. Things that the Torah itself is strict, (like not to do idolatry), one ought to be extra strict. Good character also is high on the list of the things the Torah is strict about. As gaining good character trait is one of the reasons for the mitzvot as all the Rishonim that list the mitzvot go into [for example Sefer HaChinuch].

Henry VIII really could marry Catherine because that is the exact case of Yibum.

 Henry VIII really could marry Catherine because that is the exact case of Yibum. Arthur had married Catherine but did not leave any children. So Henry was obligated to marry her.   He did not need the excuse that the marriage had not been consummated. And when he wanted to annul it, he did not understand the verse that marrying one's brother's wife is a an "erva" [prohibition of the sex because of close family relations.]because that verse refers to a case where the brother has had children.

I should add that the sexual acts of Leviticus 18 are not all because of family relations. But all are under the category of "erva". E.g., a nida is an erva. [That is a woman who has seen blood. She is forbidden because of Erva until she dips herself into a natural body of water like a river or sea or spring. All the "arayot" are ae guilty of a " Karet offence, but not all get the death penalty. Nida is an example of that. It is Karet but not a death penalty. A homosexual relation is also an "erva but does get the death penalty.]" 

Musar Ethics

I think the most benefit of Musar [books from the Middle Ages about ethics] for me comes from the idea of finding in what particular areas I am lacking and to find that specific topic discussed in Musar. Then to take some paragraph about that subject and repeat it to myself every day when I get up in the morning. 

[Musar refers books about Ethics from the Rishonim {medieval authors}and a few achronim [later authors]. Rishonim means people from the Middle Ages. The books of Achronim refers to a few books written about ethics after around 1520 or any time during or after Rav Joseph Karo. But the term {Musar} also got expanded to mean even the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter. While I was at the Mir in NY, I made it a point to go through as much of that material as I could. (But not during the two official learning sessions which were for Gemara only. The Musar study I did on my own time.) The two books that affected me the most were the Or Israel by Rav Isaac Blazer and the Madragot HaAdam by Joseph Yozel Horwitz of Navardok. The first brings out the importance of Fear of God and good character traits. The second shows the importance of trust in God.]

my dad's contribution to science

 I wanted to explain what was my dad's contribution to science besides the InfraRed telescope. That is this:  a radio is imposing a signal on a preset signal. Thus laser communication is the same thing except that you are using laser frequency instead of radio frequency. This he developed at TRW until the incident with the KGB stealing secrets from TRW was revealed, and TRW lost all their contracts and became a car company for 20 years. All their aerospace technology was sold to the other aerospace companies.

[The paper trail I think was lost. However I was very well aware of his work because I saw it myself, and it was explained to me at TRW itself in some detail when I visited there. But I should add that even though this is an incredible advance comparable with radio communication because of the much wider band width, still the reason for its development was not to improve communications,  but rather to keep secrets away from the Russians that could listen to radio waves that spread, while laser beams don't spread out much.]

I should mention that my dad was not embarrassed of his name Rosenblum. Rather he had decided to change it to something shorter [Rosten] when he had to sign the release papers of German civilians after WWII. [He was able to speak German fluently [since he grew u in a Yidish speaking home] and thus was placed in position to interrogate German civilians to make sure they were not part of the Nazi Party.] {Yidish is a off shoot of German so it is easy to switch from one to the other.]

"Seven Wisdoms."

 There is an aspect of the Gra that is less known than the learning Torah part. That is the emphasis of the "Seven Wisdoms." [As mentioned by Rav Baruch of Shkolav in his introduction to his translation of Euclid's Elements.  {the Gra: "According to the lack of knowledge in any one of the Seven Wisdoms, one will lack knowledge of Torah a hundred fold. "}

So while Litvak yeshivot tend to follow the Gra in many important aspects, there is still this part that tends to be left out.

Why? One reason is that to gain any real expertise in any field there is the 10,000 hour rule. [Which almost equals four years of college in that field.]So to gain any real understanding of Torah, one requires at least a good four years in an advanced Litvak yeshiva. 

 So the lack of emphasis is not a problem, but rather a lack of awareness  of this approach of the Gra--such that at least after the basic four years, one can start to begin his or her education in Mathematics and Physics.

The "proletariat" [the lower class workers] is interchangeable with anyone that wants to claims to be oppressed. {As we see today in the USA.}

 Trotsky believed that Marx and Lenin achieved the highest spiritual level possible for mankind.[Thus he wrote in his My Life] And this is what seems to me to point to a sort of self contradiction in his thinking. He believed that Communism was the perfect system. --Or at least the most perfect up until that stage of development of mankind. (It was thought to be the natural development of Capitalism. Thus there is no reason to say that it might not lead to some further advance in that kind of Marxist thought.]

Yet in the thought of Trotsky, Stalin had subverted and uprooted the Communist Revolution. [He called it the "Thermidor".] So one might be inclined to ask how is it that the will of one person can uproot the "Perfect System?"

Besides  this there is another flaw in this system. The "proletariat" [the lower class workers] is interchangeable\ with anyone that wants to claims to be oppressed. {As we see today in the USA.} 

It thus starts with a world in which there in unlimited plenty, and assumes that the only reason anyone does not have plenty of stuff is because they are being oppressed. 

music file z31

 z31 B minor

t the type of government has nothing to do with anything.. It is the people and their attitudes.

 Too much emphasis is given to types of government. You can see this cases where some superpower supports types of government that are in alignment with its own type--all the while not seeing that the type of government has nothing to do with anything.. It is the people and their attitudes. One example: The USA supported the nationalist in China against the communists. So while the sort of government of the USA works well for WASPs, it is clear to me that the nationalist in China were out of touch with the common people. One reporter [Audrey Topping] was driving with a officer of the nationalist party during the Chinese civil war, and while the nationalists were living high on the hog [like the maharaja as she said--parties every night] she saw people starving in the streets [eating grass]. She said to the government official she was with : "Though seeing these people suffering hurts me, it must hurt you more so.?" The answer she got was, "We do not consider them to be people." She thought to herself, "No wonder why there is  a revolution." 

[The same principle applies in spiritual areas where people accept doctrines which have little or no support from reason. They believe that they have arrived at this or that system because of rational reasons but in fact all follows from the desire to be part of some group .]

{That is not to say that some system might have indeed some support. In fact Kelley Ross in his formulation of the Kant Fries approach has a positive idea of spiritual values. And it i well founded on the extremely rigorous approach of Leonard Nelson.]

hidden motivations

 I realize that I have hidden motivations. And I can see  in others as well--almost too obviously. It is kind of like what Michael Huemer wrote about why people are irrational about politics. They are trying to fit in with a certain group they want to identify with. And I can see that this goes deeper than what Dr. Huemer suggests. Rather, I see that people often from their real and intense desire to fit with with a group, adopt all the opinions of that group, but believe sincerely and with all their heart that they came to their conclusions totally rationally.

אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב.

 I have been hanging out at the sea and while there I have been pondering the issues that come up in the Avi Ezri [laws of Gitin 2] This relates to the Gemara Arachin pg 21 and kidushin 50. 

What is puzzling to me is the difference between gitin and sales --besides the need of desire. What I mean is there is the difference that in gitin you need desire. But what is hard for me to understand is that there seems to be some further difference.

For in selling if one makes a protest before the sale, the sale is void even if he nullifies the protest at the time of the sale. In gitin the get [divorce document] is valid. 

Just for background. In Arachin Rav Sheshet said if one makes a protest at the time of a get [divorce document] his protest in valid. The Gemara asks: is this not obvious? Answer: It is a case where he was forced to give the get [divorce document] and agreed. You might have thought since he agreed, the protest is void. So now we know the protest stands until he explicitly nullifies the protest. Rav Shach notes that this is the source of the law that says at the time of a forced get the husband has to say "I want it." For otherwise, why should we think he nullifies the protest? [The point of Rav Shach is that  a forced sale is valid. The act is an act, even with the desire to sell.  So is the case with gitin. The act of giving the get is valid but one needs an extra ingredient. The desire to divorce. So if he is forced according to the law of the Torah, then it should be valid automatically since his inner desire to to listen to the wise. Why should we think he then also nullifies the protest? I must be that he is forced to say I want it.

But now we know if he nullifies the protest explicitly, then the get [divorce document] is valid. Not so with selling. So there seems to be some added difference between gitin and selling.

Later I saw that Rav Shach answers this question. So, in fact, the only difference between gitin and selling is desire. But in giving a divorce document one must say "I want". And so when he nullifies all the previous protests, what is left is the current statement "I want" and so the get in valid. But in the case of selling he does not say "I want". So when he nullifies all previous objections, all that is left is the present statement against the previous ones, Both have equal weight. and so the sale is not valid.  

_____________________________________________________________________________

  אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב. This relates to the גמרא ערכין דף כ''א and קודושין דף נ. What is hard to understand for me is the difference between גיטין and sales, besides the need of desire. What I mean to say is that there is one difference that in גיטין you need רצון. But what is hard for me to understand is that there seems to be some further difference. For in selling, if one makes a protest מודעה before the sale, the sale is void even if he nullifies the protest מודעה at the time of the sale. In גיטין the גט is valid. Just for background. In ערכין רב ששת said if one makes a מודעה at the time of a get his מודעה in valid. The גמרא asks: is this not obvious? Answer: It is a case where he was forced to give the get and agreed. You might have thought since he agreed, the protest is void. So now we know the protest stands until he explicitly nullifies the protest. רב שך notes that this is the source of the law that says at the time of a forced get the husband has to say "I want it." For otherwise, why should we think he nullifies the protest מודעה? [The idea of רב שך is that  a forced sale is valid. The act is an act, even with the desire to sell.  So is the case with גיטין. The act of giving the גט is valid but one needs an extra ingredient. The desire to divorce. So if he is forced according to the law of the Torah, then it should be valid automatically since his inner רצון  to listen to the wise. Why should we think he then also nullifies the protest מודעה? I must be that he is forced to say, "I want it".But now we know if he nullifies the protest מודעה explicitly then the get in valid. Not so with selling. So there seems to be some added difference between גיטין and selling.

Later I saw that רב שך answers this question. So, in fact, the only difference between גיטין and selling is desire. But in giving a divorce document one must say "I want". And so when he nullifies all the previous מודעות, what is left is the current statement "I want" and so the גט  valid. But in the case of selling, he does not say "I want". So when he nullifies all previous מודעות, all that is left is the present statement against the previous ones, Both have equal weight. and so the sale is not valid.  

אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב. זה מתייחס לגמרא ערכין דף כ''א וקודושין דף נ. מה שקשה לי להבין הוא ההבדל בין גיטין למכירה, מלבד הצורך ברצון. מה שאני מתכוון לומר הוא שיש הבדל אחד שבגיטין אתה צריך רצון. אבל מה שקשה לי להבין הוא שנראה שיש הבדל נוסף. שכן במכירה, אם מבצעים מודעת מחאתה לפני המכירה, המכירה בטלה גם אם הוא מבטל את מודעת המחאה בזמן המכירה. בגיטין הגט תקף. רק לרקע. בערכין רב ששת אמר אם עושים מודעה בעת גירושין המודעה שלו בתוקף. הגמרא שואל: האם זה לא מובן מאליו? תשובה: זה מקרה שבו הוא נאלץ לתת את הגט והסכים. יכול להיות שחשבתם מאז שהסכים, המודעה בטלה. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שהמחאה עומדת עד שהוא מבטל במפורש את המחאה. רב שך מציין כי זהו המקור של התקנה שאומרת בזמן הכפייה בעלה צריך להגיד "אני רוצה את זה". כי אחרת, מדוע שנחשוב שהוא מבטל את המחאה? [רב שך מציין  שמכירה כפויה תקפה. המעשה הוא מעשה, אפילו אם אין רצון למכור. כך גם לגבי גיטין. פעולת מתן הגט תקפה אך יש צורך במרכיב נוסף, הרצון להתגרש. אז אם הוא נאלץ על פי חוק התורה, אז זה צריך להיות תקף אוטומטית מאז הרצון הפנימי שלו להקשיב לחכם. מדוע שנחשוב שהוא גם מבטל את המחאה?  חייב להיות שהוא נאלץ לומר, "אני רוצה את זה". אבל עכשיו אנחנו יודעים אם הוא מבטל את מודעת המחאה במפורש ואז גט תקף. לא כך לגבי מכירה. אז נראה שיש הבדל נוסף בין גיטין למכירה.

מאוחר יותר ראיתי שרב שך עונה על שאלה זו. כך שלמעשה ההבדל היחיד בין גיטין למכירה הוא רצון. אך במתן מסמך גירושין יש לומר "אני רוצה". ולכן כשהוא מבטל את כל הדברים האחרונים, מה שנותר הוא המשפט הנוכחי "אני רוצה" ולכן הגט תקף. אבל במקרה של מכירה, הוא לא אומר "אני רוצה". אז כשהוא מבטל את כל הדברים הקודמים, כל שנותר הוא ההצהרה הנוכחית מול הקודמים, לשניהם יש משקל שווה. ולכן המכירה אינה תקפה.

The issue is never the issue. Rather anything the Left can do in order to undermine the USA is fair game.

 The main objective of the Left is to undermine the USA in any way possible. Instead of noting hat the average temperature during the age of the dinosaurs was 5 to 10 degrees Celsius higher than today. The Left tries to create panic that all life would vanish at such temperatures.

The issue is never the issue. Rather anything the Left can do in order to undermine the USA is fair game.

society divides naturally into classes.

 I wanted to mention that society divides naturally into classes. This is similar to what Jordan Peterson mentions about the fact that even lobsters have  a hierarchy. There is always one on top. But what I would like to suggest is that once the population of a society gets to be  any more than a village, the natural order draws people to divide into classes. [I mean not just division of labor, but rather actual upper, middle, and lower classes.  Like a wedding cake.] And people naturally get drawn consciously or unconsciously into the class where they belong.

It is not that some societies are divided into the land owners and the peasants just by law, rather that there is a natural order. In the West the natural order is based on competence. [Not birth]. 

For it is the custom to force the husband against his will

 Even though I am not intending to blog, still it did occur to me to mention something that I was pondering about while at the sea today. That is the fact that a "get" [doc of divorce] needs the desire of the husband, not just his willingness. This is a startling fact that casts doubt on almost all gitin nowadays. For it is the custom to force the husband against his will by many different means. Financial and others sorts of threats. That is OK as far as gaining his willingness to give a valid get--but it does not mean he wants to give the "get". He would rather that his wife would be nice as she once was.

I know I am getting a bit ahead of myself here--saying my conclusion before building the case. So let me just mention the basic issues. First: In laws of buying and selling you have a case where a man is forced to sell his field. That is valid. We nowadays might not like this but still it is a fact. We say that even though he is being forced, still because of the force he decided to in fact make a valid sell. This same thing is in the case of a get.  He might be forced and thus actually intend to give a valid get. But in terms of gitin there is an extra condition--he has to want to divorce her. And so when he is being forced  according to the law, then we say his inner desire is to fulfill the law of the Torah. So a forced get that is being forced by law is valid. But  the cases of gitin nowadays are rarely [if ever] being forced not by law. As you can see in the teshuvot HaRema. There was a man who was playing cards and did not keep Shabat. The Rema said that is not a case where the law says he must give  a get. 

I am tired right now. I was out the whole day. Still I think it might be a good idea to go into this sugia in more depth. In the meantime you might look at the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach Laws of Gitin where he brings this issue.

There was in fact one extremely successful lawyer [who almost invariably won all his cases] who made it a point to take a break from his work about five months out of every year

 Sorry for not blogging for the people that have been loyal readers. I am finding learning difficult. I do not know if this is permanent or that I need to "give a rest". There was in fact one case of a extremely successful lawyer [who almost invariably won all his cases] who made it a point to take a break from his work about five months out of every year.--That is to completely forget about law. Maybe I also need a break. Or maybe I need to move on. [Anyway people have stopped looking at my blog- perhaps because my opinions do not follow the party line. (People lie to read opinions which more or less agree with their own and that includes me.) That seems to be at least one reason. Also in terms of Torah, I have not made much progress in laws of Gitin, so I have nothing to add. Also my thoughts have been about the USA Civil War which I am tending to go with the idea that the South was right--which is certainly not a popular opinion. So I can see why people would not read this blog anymore and I can well see their point.

psychologists are insane and attempt to use their pseudo science to normalize their pathological mental makeup

 I can not prove this, but I would like to suggest the idea that all psychologists are insane and attempt to use their pseudo science to normalize their pathological mental makeup and to disenfranchise normal functioning people. However there is nothing to regret. It is a part of normal human development that we encounter obstacles. Thus the psychologists are a normal obstacle for functioning humans and the only people that fall prey to them are those that deserve to fall prey to them. Normal people already know to avoid psychologists at all cost.

a lot of people claim to be learning Torah,

 I know a lot of people claim to be learning Torah, but all their claims can always be proven false by a simple walk into the doors of their supposed "yeshivot". This fact is too well known for me to go into this. [It is by means of their claim to be learning Torah that they ask for money from secular Jews.] Their lies only work on completely secular Jews who never bother to check the claims. The only people and places one can find authentic learning of Torah are Litvak yeshivot that go in the path of the Gra.

[Not that I have the merit to be in any Litvak yeshiva. But even if I do not have the merit of walking in the truth of authentic Torah, at least I can hope that my friend can have that merit. So I feel a responsibility at least to let people know the truth. There is a good reason why I name this blog on the name of the Gra. It is because that is what defines authentic Torah. After one has that then it is possible and even desirable to learn from Rav Nahman of Breslov. Still one does need to be careful about from whom one learns. As Rav Nahman himself pointed out the problem with Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM vol I perek 12 and 28. So one does need to be careful from whom one learns. I would go so far as to suggest that mot of what passes today as "Torah" is the "Torah of the Dark Side." [That is invariably what the  religious world claims as Torah.] 

So what I suggest is to learn in a Litvak Yeshiva or not at all. Better to have nothing to eat rather than chocolate pudding mixed with cyanide [which is what the religious world is]

I feel that the herem-excommunication of the Gra ought to be heeded to since the fat that it has been ignored has made an open door for the Sitra Achra to enter into the world of Torah. And that is the reason why you will only find authentic Torah in the yeshivot that walk in the path of the Gra. The rest is phony--just making an act to get money and power.  

The sad fact is that I myself did not merit to realize the greatness of the Litvak world that walks in the path of the Gra. This I think is because society is divided naturally into classes. [This is similar to the fact that even lobsters have a natural hierarchy. There is always one on top. In a similar way society does not just get one person on top, but divided naturally into layers like a wedding cake.] And thus people are drawn naturally towards their level. People with low traits are drawn towards people like that.  People with high standards are drawn toward others like that. Sadly I felt out of place in a great place like the Mir in NY.  Only much later did I begin to realize my mistake.

In Uman itself there was a large murder of Jews as commemorated there on a place outside Privat Bank [on Lenina Street--the main street].

 The Nazis had a sort of secret weapon --the assault gun which looked more or less like a tank. The StuG III Strumgeschutz that more or less allowed them to get through the Stalin Line which was the proper border of the USSR. The Red Army had a very smart Commander of the Western Forces (Bundyonny) who was able to escape [the 6th and 12th armies] at amazing speed which astounded even the Germans. Still the Nazis were able to form a pincher type of action which joined together at Uman which encircled the Red Army. Around that area was made a lot of very large prisoner of war camps.  Most of the prisoners died because they were not provided with shelter, and also were given very sparse rations. In Uman itself there was a large murder of Jews as commemorated there on a place outside Privat Bank [on Lenina Street--the main street].

I might mention that even among the German lines there were good hearted people. In one of those prisoner of war camps, a woman from Uman passed by and pointed to a prisoner and said to one of the German guards, "That is my husband," (even though she and he had never met before then). That prisoner of war was then let go (and married her) and became the father of a KGB agent whose  home I used to stay in when I came to Uman for Rosh Hashanah.

z32 music file

z32 B flat major  z32 in nwc

music file z29

 z29  D major