In the approach of the Gra there is an emphasis on the "Seven Wisdoms". Rav Baruch of Shkolev was a disciple of the Gra who wrote a small translation of Euclid and in his introduction quotes the Gra: ''Anyone who lacks any knowledge of the Seven Wisdoms will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold.''

Bur what can this mean? The Seven Wisdoms is a well known concept of the Middle Ages. [grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music ]The emphasis on learning them is found in some rishonim  besides the Gra, but certainly not all.

[My approach to this is to emphasize Mathematics, and Physics but Astronomy I feel not ready for until I have a good grasp on General Relativity, QFT and String Theory. For the ultimate test of Strings will have to be in the distribution of the stars and galaxies.

[Even if Physics is hard, I figure that with the approach mentioned in the Gemara about review 400 times, it must get clearer after a few hundred times.[That is the story about the amora who used to review each lesson with his disciple 400 times. Then once his student was not concentrating so that amora reviewed the lesson another 400 times.]]

why not to believe everything doctors say

 Radithor-- or why not to believe everything doctors say--especially about new treatments, This was wifely prescribed by doctors. This was given to a well known athlete who had a minor  discomfort.  After taking it he felt great.  It had all the properties that were advertised. It relieved pain, made him feel great, and gave a tremendous boot of energy  So he kept on taking it until after some time his jaw fell out. It turns out the main ingredient of Radithor is Radium. [radium is radioactive.]

[This is the true story about about Eben Byers]

 I have always strived for monotheism even though I admit that I miss the mark by a wide margin.

See Deuteronomy 13 and the general chapters in that area. There is a lot of emphasis on not serving any other gods besides God the one First Cause with no form nor substance and is not a composite. Just to give you a few examples--Anyone you see that has served other gods, you should stone to death. A city that idolatry is wide spread,... you should burn to the ground and kill all its inhabitants. Any prophet that even gives true of his prophecy and works miracles you should kill. [not by stoning.]  

So once the Gra made it clear with his signature on the letter of excommunication what is included in the prohibition of idolatry, it should be clear. that signature is sadly ignored by all, but I still feel that at least I ought to pay attention to it. 

But why is the Gra ignored-because of the mixture of Torah with money. People make their livings off of Torah and so can not see straight. 

Sadly enough i did not merit to learn Torah.  though I did have a few great years in two very wonderful Litvak yeshivot, still i did not appreciate that enough. Still the amazing thing is that even after I gave up learning for years, somehow God ha mercy on my soul and sent to me a great learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. Sure he had learned in Litvak yeshivot in Israel, but also he had it in his blood. it came naturally to him what it means "knowing how to learn."[and I sort of began to get the idea after learning with him for a few years. in fact you can see some of the fruit of our discussions in two little books I put together after our learning sessions.[chidushei hashas] chidushei bava metzia]]but I still have not got the idea very well. ut it does help me a lot when I get a chance to look at Rav Shach's book the Avi Ezri

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the Raavad and Rambam in Rambam forbidden relations 3:8 I brought the idea that the Raavad derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the Rambam would derive his law from the gemara in Ketuboth 45a נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned.

Rav Shach says that in the view of the Raavad the important thing is that the Chupa was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the Rambam the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the Rambam put more weight onto the Gemara in Ketuboth while the Raavad put more weight onto the Mishna.______________________________________________________________

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the ראב''ד and  רמב''ם in  רמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה חI brought the idea that the ראב''ד derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the רמב'''ם would derive his law from the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned. רב שך says that in the view of the ראב''ד the important thing is that the חופה was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the רמב''ם the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the  רמב''ם put more weight onto the גמרא in כתובות while the ראב''ד put more weight onto the משנה.___________________

בהתייחס למה שכתבתי על ההבדל בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם ברמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה ח' הבאתי את הרעיון שהראב''ד שואב את גישתו מכיוון המשנה "נכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק", ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עדיין לא קיימה יחסי מין עם בעלה וביצעה ניאוף והיא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. והרמב''ם היה גוזר דינו מהגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א "נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק" ושם נראה שזב רומז שאם עשתה אז יחסי מין עם בעלה לאחר הניאוף ש היא נסקלת. רב שך אומר שלדעת הראב''ד הדבר החשוב הוא שהחופה הייתה בטעות. היא רימתה אותו לחשוב שהיא בתולה. לרמב''ם העיקר יחסי מין עם בעלה היו בטעות והיא רימתה אותו באותו שלב. זה יסביר מדוע הרמב''ם שם יותר משקל על הגמרא בכתובות ואילו הראב''ד שם יותר משקל על המשנה

 the most obvious thing about the Litvak Yeshiva [based on the Gra] is the aspect of learning in depth. (Learning "Beiyun") . This is not the same as in something like math where the basic concept is extended. In the Litvak yeshiva the way one learns is by going deeper.

I admit I did not get this for years. i did not see the difference between going deeper and going broader. so after I had finished Ketuboth in Shar Yashuv i went to the Mir and the first half year there i learned Nedarim. but then they started Ketuboth and I said to myself ''I already did ketuboth.'' and did shabat instead. but I did not realize that even though  had in fact finished Ketuboth with Tosphot and Maharsha and even a lot of Rif Rosh and Tur, that is not at all "learning in depth." That is learning a lot but not in depth.

 I can see the importance of אמונת חכמים faith in the wise. even though the verse that is used most often for this is ככל אשר יורוך''you must listen to all they command you'', still it is often taken for granted that this refers to the  stupid religious teachers of this generation. As opposed to this the verse refers to when a doubt in law comes up then one goes to the Sanhedrin which is formed of people with genuine semicha /ordination. but authentic ordination ceased during the middle of the Talmudic period.

 I have mentioned the path of learning of Rav Nahman on occasion to people and the reaction as you can imagine is always the same,-- ''that learning without understanding is worthless.'' And yet I have noticed that these same people, then drop the subject completely because it is too hard, and end up knowing nothing.

Just to be clear the idea is to say the words and go on without worrying if one understands or not.

See the Conversations of Rav Nachman 76. I mean how terrible would it have been if they had picked up a gemara and gone through one whole tractate with Rashi, Tosphot and the Maharsha--whether they understood every single word or not? If they had, they certainly would now know a lot more than what they actually did do--that is learn nothing. And after doing one tractate in that way, they certainly would have had the desire to continue and do another tractate,..and then another,..  and another until they would have finished the whole shas [Talmud] with Rashi and Tosphot and then again and again many times. And then they would learn the Jerusalem Talmud in the same way.

And the same goes for math and physics. I also said to people that this method also applies to these subjects and the reaction was again the same. ''If you do not understand then it is worthless.'' and so they drop these and also end up knowing nothing. But I guarantee to you that if they had picked up a few books on calculus and algebraic topology and quantum field theory, they would surely know a lot more today that what they do know which is zero. 

for general advice i have found learning the section in the LeM of rav nachman to be helpful. for yesterday i was at a breslov place nearby and learned LeM II chapter 3 about healing and in fact after that came tome some clarity about what i need to do for a certain kind of problem i have, 

Rambam Raavad Laws of Forbidden Relations 3 halacha 8.

 On the way to and from the sea it occurred to me to defend what I wrote in my blog blog about the way the Raavad must understand to the Gemara in Ketuboth 45a. I also thinking of mentioning that the way i understand the Raavad seems at first glance  to disagree with Rav Shach. At any rate, for now let me share the Gemara, and then show how the Raavad understands it. דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלאועל כן אם סרחהואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית הסקילה [Rava said really when the category changes so does the type of penalty.] actually I think this Gemara is clear. the whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the chupa and not had sex with her husband yet and when she has had sex with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע  'ןאי with stoning is different that if she has not had sex with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the Raavad there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning because of whole point of the argument of Rava is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית___________________________________________

To defend what I wrote about the way the ראב''ד understands the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א. Here is the Gemara: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. The whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the חופה and not had יחסים with her husband yet and when she has had יחסים with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע   with stoning is different that if she has not had יחסים with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the ראב''ד there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning, because of whole point of the argument of רבא is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה___________________________________________

להגן על מה שכתבתי על האופן שבו הראב''ד מבין את הגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א. הנה הגמרא: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה. ומשבגרה הוציאה שם עליה רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. כל הרעיון של הצירוף וההשוואה של מתי היא נכנסה לחופה ועדיין לא היו לה יחסים עם בעלה ומתי היו לה יחסים עם בעלה זה רק לומר בפשטות שהמקרה של מוציא שם רע עם סקילה שונה מכך אם היא עדיין לא עשתה יחסים עם בעלה ולכן היא נחנקת. לראב''ד אין שום משמעות לגבי דין חדש של מקרה סקילה, כי כל ​​הטענה של רבא היא להגיע לנקודה האחרונה לגבי הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה

I see that Charlotte Baumann is defending an approach to the Transcendental Subject based on the Baden School [as opposed to Marburg] in which the categories themselves are the transcendental subject. There is no thinker inside the thinker, reminiscent of the third man problem. ]

And to me it seems possible that this relates to the Kant-Friesian idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge --that is, the source of knowledge is not derived from anywhere, but is a given.

I might mention that Leonard Nelson [founder of the second Friesian school] actually saw that the later Hermann Cohen of the Marburg school was radically disagreeing with Kant.

כתובות מ''ה ע''א רמב''ם אסורי ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח

 I think what the Raavad is objecting to in Rambam [laws of forbidden relations chapter 3 halacha 8] is that the Rambam claims even if she [the girl] has gone into the chupa [domain of her husband]. and then has sex with someone else. and then comes the case of her husband bringing witnesses that she is stoned.  The Raavad asks on this from a mishna  משנה כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק [''Once she has gone into the chupa, even though she has not yet had sex with her husband, still she is choked.''] What is the question on the Rambam from this mishna? I think from the words ''even though''. Once she has gone into the chupa, even though she has not yet had sex with her husband, still she is choked.  That is ''even though'', and all the more so if she did have sex with her husband she is choked, not stoned. So you see openly that the chupa changes everything--just like the Torah itself seems clear. Sex with another while betrothed is stoned, but sex with another after the chupa is choked.

The reason the Rambam understands this differently than the Raavad has to be from the gemara in Ketuboth נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנקואלו מוציא שם רע בסקילה and here there is no words "even though". It is clear that the juxtaposition means if she had sex with another after the chupa, she is choked. However  if after that, she had sex with her husband and he brings witnesses then she is stoned. This is like the decision of the Rambam in chapter 3 halacha 8. The Raavad would say that Gemara simply means like the Mishna that as different from this case of sex after the chupa , if she had sex before that she is stoned.

_______________________________________ 

I think what the ראב''ד is objecting to in רמב''םlaws of איסור ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח' chapter 3 halacha 8 is that the רמב''פ claims even if she [the girl] has gone into the חופה [domain of her husband] and then has יחסי מין with someone else, and then comes the case of her husband bringing witnesses that she is stoned.  The ראב''ד asks on this from a משנה כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק. What is the question on the רמב''ם from this משנה? I think from the words ''אף על פי''. Once she has gone into the חופה, even though she has not yet had יחסי מין with her husband, still she is choked.  That is ''even though'', and all the more so if she did have sex with her husband she is choked, not stoned. So you see openly that theחופה changes everything--just like the Torah itself seems clear. יחסי מין with another while מאורסה is stoned, but יחסי מין with another after the חופה is choked.

The reason the רמב''ם understands this differently than the ראב''ד has to be from the גמרא in כתובות נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנקואלו מוציא שם רע בסקילה and here there is no words "even though". It is clear that the juxtaposition means if she had יחסי מין with another after the חופה, she is choked. However  if after that, she had יחסי מין with her husband and he brings witnesses then she is stoned. This is like the decision of the רמב''ם in פרק ג' הלכה ח'. The ראב''ד would say that גמרא simply means like the משנה that as different from this case ofיחסי מין after the חופה , if she had יחסי מין before that she is stoned.

_______________________________________

אני חושב שמה שהרב''ד מתנגד לו ברמב''ם הלכות איסור ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח' זה שהרמב''ם טוען גם אם היא [הילדה] נכנסה לחופה [תחום בעלה] ואחר כך יש יחסי מין עם מישהו אחר, ואז מגיע המקרה שבעלה מביא עדים שהיא נסקלת. הראב''ד שואל על זה מהמשנה "כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק." מה השאלה ברמב''ם מהמשנה הזו? אני חושב מהמילים ''אף על פי''. ברגע שהיא נכנסה לחופה, למרות שעדיין לא הייתה לה יחסי מין עם בעלה, היא עדיין נחנקת. כלומר ''אף על פי'', ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עשתה יחסי מין עם אחר ואחר כך עשתה יחסי מין עם בעלה היא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. אז אתה רואה בגלוי שהחופה משנה הכל - בדיוק כמו שהתורה עצמה נראית ברורה. יחסי מין עם אחר בעוד מאורסה נסקלמת, אבל יחסי מין עם אחר לאחר שהחופה נחנקת

הסיבה שהרמב''ם מבין זאת אחרת מהראב''ד צריכה להיות מהגמרא בכתובות נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה. וכאן אין מילים "למרות". ברור שהצירוף אומר שאם הייתה לה יחסים עם אחר אחרי החופה, היא נחנקת. אולם אם לאחר מכן, היו לה יחסים עם בעלה והוא מביא עדים אז היא נסקלת. זה כמו החלטת הרמב''ם בפרק ג' הלכה ח'. הראב''ד היה אומר שהגמרא פשוט פירושו כמו המשנה ששונה ממקרה זה של יחסי מין לאחר החופה, אילו היה לה יחסי מין לפני כן היא נסקלת.

 I did not realize that along with cockroaches come other wormlike creatures that dig into the skin. They borrow in and emit a protective coating so that even if one puts on some sort of ointment, they are protected. I did not even know they was a problem when I moved into the apartment here. But at some point I saw some around and so discovered their nest. Then cleaned up, and sealed the holes they were getting in through. Bur what takes care of the problem with the worms after they have already dug in? The thing I discovered is doctors are not aware of these kinds of parasites They  will proscribe some ointment for some skin disease which has nothing to do with the actual parasite.  what I have discovered is the first thing is to squeeze the protective coating. Then apply alcohol, iodine, and a very diluted mixture of hydrochloric acid.   Also Peroxide.

 Miracles do not count when the worker of the miracle claims that one should worship some idol. That you see in Deuteronomy 13;   ''When some prophet makes a miracle or predicts some future event (and by that authority) says, 'Let us worship some god besides the one true God', you should not listen, but rather kill that prophet.'' I have pointed out before that worship of people is also idolatry. So the religious people that worship their leaders are also idolaters. I now this sounds harsh, but I have considered the religious world to be in the category of a עיר הנידחת [idolatrous city] for along time.

 Even though the  Rav of Satmer was I think a great tzadik, i did not think his approach to the State of Israel was well founded because if you look at his book על הגאולה ועל התמורה it is stating halacha based on midrash. and midrash is not for halacha. Rather Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron Kotler held the law is the law דינא דמלכותא דינא and that makes a lot more sense to me. [That is from the Gemara in Bava bBatra--The law of the country you are living in is the law,'' and you are required to obey it by the Torah itself. Only when it contradicts Torah law do you go by Torah law.]

 It occurred  to me that there is a sort of difficulty in the Gemara  Ketuboth page 45 and Rambam אסורי ביאה chapter 3 halacha 8 of Forbidden Relations..   What I mean is this/ look at Deuteronomy  22 verse 13 and onwards. There you have the law about a girl 12-12,5 years old who is betrothed נערה מאורסה בתולה  that had sex with another man. This is the law that is known as מוציא שם רע. She is stoned.  Then comes the regular law [verse 22] about a married woman. If she had sex with another man, she is choked.  And then comes a law [verse 23] also about a נערה בתולה מאורסה girl 12-12.5 virgin who is betrothed. She also is stoned, but in the regular place of stoning, not at her father's house. 

Now just looking at the verses alone, you would say everything is simple. A girl had sex while betrothed and so she is stoned, If she  had sex after she got married, she is choked. But there is a special case that she had sex, and then got married --and her husband then brought witnesses and she is stoned at front of her father's house. Now off hand, it looks like the entire difference is when the sex was. If while betrothed, she is stoned. If after married, she is choked. But there is a special case where  it seems the sex was while betrothed, and then she got married, and then he husband brings witnesses, and she is stoned at her father's house even though she is now married. But furthermore --looking at the verses you can see that everything depends on when the sex was, not when the case is brought to court.

But since this is different from the regular case of sex while betrothed, so it is possible   that the sex here was after the chupa but before sex with her husband.

But in the Gemara and Tosphot and Rambam it is clear that sex after she got married, but before sex with her husband and then he brings witnesses, then she is stoned. Everything seems to depend on that the sex was before she had sex with her husband and he brought witnesses, They did not come on their own.

Still from the verses themselves, it looks like the sex was while she was betrothed. 

So even though i do not remember the gemara, still i recall that rava derived from somewhere כיוון דאישתני דינא אשתני קטלא  once her category has changed also her type of death has changed. so that if she had sex while betrothed and then married and then witnesses come she is choked. So from where ever rava derives this law, he has managed to show that there is at least one case where the sex was while she was betrothed and yet the type of death is by choking.  

And Rav Shach has a few paragraphs on that Rambam, so i might try to see what he says and if i can find any clarity about this.

 הלא יראתך כסילתיך Is not your fear (of God) your stupidity.  Too many books nowadays claim to be teaching fear of God but are in fact the product of diseased imaginations, [and for this reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication]. The idea is to cancel books that claim to be teaching Torah but are in fact the opposite. However the Gra is ignored.  

That is the exact reason the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter emphasized specifically the books of fear of God of the Middle ages before all the diseased books of later days infected the religious world

 There is a sort of problem in newspapers and in politics --slander- lashon hara. And lashon hara is also on truth unless you have the seven conditions of the Hafez Haim. so while at least for reading newspapers there is some sort of permission because it is supposed tobe true and for benefit, still for politics this does not seem to apply since people commonly say what they themselves know to be false --just in order to gain advantage over the other side.

 There are three places in the gemara that deal with the question when does night start? In tractate shabat it says 13.5 minutes after sunset. 13.5 minutes is the time it takes to walk 3/4 of a Roman mile  [Twilight begins at sunset and ends at 13.5 minutes later.] Then right after that it says when you see three medium stars. Not large ones nor small ones. Then in tractate Peshachim it says after 72 minutes [the time it takes to walk four Roman miles].

Rabbainu Tam says the gemra in Shabat refers to the second sunset. So night really begins at 72 min. This is the opinion of most Rishonim and Rav Hai Gaon. The Gra on the other hand says night starts after 13.5 minutes after sunset and the Gemra in shabat is discussing when people ceased work building the Second Temple. That means when it was dark. Not when the legal night begins.

__________________________________________________________________________

There are three places in the גמרא that deal with the question when does night start? In מסכת שבת it says 13.5 minutes after sunset. 13.5 minutes is the time it takes to walk 3/4 of a Roman mile  [Twilight begins at sunset and ends at 13.5 minutes later.] Then right after that it says when you see three medium stars. Not large ones nor small ones. Then in מסכת]סחים it says after 72 minutes [the time it takes to walk four Roman miles]. רבינו תם says the גמרא in דבת refers to the second sunset. So night really begins at 72 דקות This is the opinion of most ראשונים והאי גאון. The גר''א on the other hand says night starts after 13.5 minutes after sunset and the גמרא in שבת is discussing when people ceased work building the Second Temple. That means when it was dark. Not when the legal night begins. הרדב"ז (דוד בן זימרא) כתב שהדעת בפסחים התקיימה לפני שחכמי ישראל הסכימו עם חכמי אתונה. בתחילה החזיק חכמי ישראל השמש בשקיעה נכנס לפרוזדור ואחר כך בלילה עולה מעל השמים. החכמים מאתונה החזיקו שהשמש הולכת מתחת לכדור הארץ בלילה. הדעה על משך הזמן שבין שקיעת החמה הראשונה ללילה שהיא ארבעה מיל הוא על סמך הדעה של חכמי ישראל בטרם ששינו את דעתם.

יש שלושה מקומות בגמרא שעוסקים בשאלה מתי מתחיל הלילה? במסכת שבת כתוב 13.5 דקות אחרי השקיעה. 13.5 דקות זה הזמן שלוקח ללכת 3/4 מייל רומי. [בין השמשות מתחיל בשקיעה ומסתיים ב-13.5 דקות מאוחר יותר.] ואז מיד אחרי זה כתוב כשאתה רואה שלושה כוכבים בינוניים. לא גדולים ולא קטנים. ואז במסכת פסחים כתוב אחרי 72 דקות [הזמן שלוקח ללכת ארבעה מיילים רומאים]. רבינו תם אומר שהגמרא פסחים מתייחסת לשקיעה השנייה. אז הלילה באמת מתחיל ב-72 דקות. זו דעתם של רוב ראשונים והאי גאון. הגר"א לעומת זאת אומר שהלילה מתחיל אחרי 13.5 דקות אחרי השקיעה והגמרא בשבת דן מתי אנשים הפסיקו לעבוד בבניית בית המקדש השני. זאת אומרת כשהיה חשוך. לא כשהלילה החוקי מתחיל

 There is an argument among the Rishonim mediaeval authorities what is the law of a נערה בתולה מאורסה שזינתה a girl [12 years old to 12.5] that is in this intermediate state between betrothal and marriage who has had sexual relations with another person besides her husband. It is the usual case of an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. [Betrothal is marriage, but before the chupa.]

Just to be clear- a married woman who has sex with someone other than her husband gets the normal death penalty  [choking].\\That is just in the regular laws about עריות forbidden sexual relations in Leviticus.

But in Deuteronomy you get the law about מוציא שם רע which also refers to a married woman --but to a special case of a married woman-- the נערה בתולה מאורסה שזינתה a girl [12 years old to 12.5]

The case you might recall is where a husband makes a false accusation against his wife. He says (after the Chupa, and  they had sex) that he discovered that she was not a virgin. But then it turns out that he was lying. Then he has to pay about $1600 [100 shekels] and 39 lashes. 

But if it turns out to be true she is stoned. 

The case to Rambam is she had sex while betrothed  [ or even after the chupa but before sex with her husband] and thus when the sex with her husband took place, she was already not a virgin. So she is stoned. But here is where the opinion of Tosphot is the law about stoning is parallel to that of מוציא שם רע [slander] that is-- she is stoned only when the husband said to witnesses, ''Come and give testimony.''     

[I admit I am being short here. Sorry about that. Just for the sake of clarity let me add a few details. The case where the husband is found to have lied is when he did ask witnesses to come and they came and said they saw her have sex [on such and such a date and such and such a time] before she was married after being betrothed. They come and say that. Then two other people come along to the court and ask "How could you have seen that? Both of you were with us that that other place that whole day.'' So the husband has to pay the $1600 and gets lashes. But if no second set of witnesses come, then she is stoned. It is a case of a married woman having sex except the difference is that it was while she was betrothed. [Betrothal is marriage but before the chupa.]

[See Ketuboth page 45] 

 Allan Bloom in Closing of the American Mind says as per the title, but shows its deeper roots as being from the ambiguity of what is the ''self''. His solution is more or less along the lines of what you would call classical education. [HE especially recommends The Republic of PLATO.

[I am not clear as to the reason for The Republic since to my mind, the shorter dialogues seem a lot more powerful. But that might just be because of my short attention span. I tend to have the same sort of preference in music for short and to the point rather than long build ups.]

That book Closing of the American Mind is a definite masterpiece, In particular his analysis of the whole problem.--and his solution.

[Even though Aristotle is also great but for what Allan Bloom is aiming at,,- the opening of the American mind,- I agree that nothing could compare to Plato.

Learning Torah tends to be neglected for the fact that many things are substituted for Torah. What defines ''Torah''? The Rambam wrote in his letters  כשם שאין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבכתב כמן כן אין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבעל פה. ''Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the written Torah, so is there no adding nor subtracting from the oral Torah.''

That means the actual books that were the redaction of the oral law written down by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. These and these alone have the right to be called ''Torah''. And learning them is called learning Torah, Later books might have insights and interesting ideas--but they are not ''Torah,''

 In the Eitz Chaim of Rav Isaac Luria, in Shaar HaNukva chap 3 I noticed that keter of Yaakov, which is the tefilin of Yaakov is parallel to wisdom, understanding, kindness and power of Israel.--and thus is parallel to Israel down to his feet. In that same paragraph, he states that keter Yaakov starts at the beginning of the two lower thirds of tiferet of Israel.  I was in the Breslov place looking at this for a while, and then it occurred to me that this refers to the very famous Drush haDaat that is missing in the Eitz Chaim itself, but found in Rav Shalom Sharabi's Nahar Shalom where the whole distinction between the lower and higher daat is made clear. So this particular paragraph in the Eitz Chaim clearly refers to the lower Daat. 

[I have not been looking at the Ari for a while, but then I noticed that Rav Nahman says in Sefer Hamidot '' עלידי עיון עמוק ביסודות התורה יכןלים לפקוד עקרות ולרפאות חולי חזק. by means of depth learning in the secrets of Torah, one can bring about that barren women give birth and to cure a strong illness.'' So I decided to take a look at the Eitz Chaim. 

[I do hold with Rav Nachman because if you look at the actual letter of excommunication signed by the Gra you will see it can not refer to Rav Nahman. In this regard in fact it is helpful to see the Sefer that collected the five letters of excommunication with the transcripts of the testimony given in Villna. [In that book the testimony appears in affidavit form, not as actual testimony in beit din. At any rate, these letters of excommunication were and still are valid  but they do not refer to Rav Nachman who was teaching his own revelation and insights.]

לא תעשה לך כל תמונה ''Thou shalt not make to you any image'' and i ask what is it that you see when you walk into any religious building--images. but not for beauty rather for religious intent.,

In Torah, there is a particular emphasis on not doing idolatry. [especially in the beginning  of Deuteronomy] And this is the reason I avoid the religious world. I consider the entire religious world to be worshipping dead people, and not God. But they attempt to hide this by a distraction. They emphasize rituals. By means of misdirection, they get away with the fact that it is not God who is the center of their worship.

Here is a proof for Tosphot as opposed to the Rambam and the Ran. 

For to Tosphot, the reason to say, ''It was written and signed before me''  [בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם] is a קולא leniency. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the Ran and Rambam, the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two gemaras in Gitin page 5 seem to show that Tosphot is right. For there we have a teaching: ''One who brings a divorce [get] from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the divorce [get\] or else it is considered as null and void.'' The gemara asks from this on Rabah. But no matter how the answer for Rabah turns out, in both answers the final result of the teaching is clear that without validation, the divorce is null. So validation is not just an extra precaution. It is a absolute law. Only because we want to be lenient for an woman with a husband  do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. but without that . validation is an absolute requirement.

__________________________________________________________________

Here is a proof for תוספות as opposed to the ר''ן ורמב''ם. For to תוספות the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a קולא. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation (קיום) of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the ר''ן and רמב''ם the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two גמרות in גיטון דף ה' seem to show that תוספות is right. For there we have a ברייתא: one who brings a גט  from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the גט or else it is considered as null and void. The gגמרא asks from this on רבה. But no matter how the answer for רבה turns out, in both answers, the final result of the ברייתא is clear that without validation the גט is null. so validation is not just an extra precaution. it is a din. only because we want to be lenient for an עגונה do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. But without that. validation is an absolute requirement.

הנה הוכחה לתוספות בניגוד לר''ן ורמב''ם. כי לתוספות הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא קולא. אנו מקילים לאפשר לשליח לומר זאת במקום לדרוש אימות מלא (קיום) של החתימות. הקילו משום עגונה לר''ן ולרמב''ם הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא חומרא. אנחנו מחמירים במיוחד ונוקטים אמצעי זהירות נוסף לדאגה שבאמת לא צריכה להיות דאגה. אבל נראה ששתי גמרות בגיטין דף ה' מראות שתוספות צודקים. שהרי שם יש לנו ברייתא: המביא גט מחוץ לארץ לישראל ואינו אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם צריכים לאמת את הגט, אחרת הוא נחשב בטל ומבוטל. הגמרא שואלת מכאן על רבה. אבל לא משנה איך תתברר התשובה לרבה, בשתי התשובות, התוצאה הסופית של הברייתא ברורה שללא אימות הגט בטל. אז אימות הוא לא רק אמצעי זהירות נווסף. זה דין. רק בגלל שאנחנו רוצים להיות סלחניים עבור עגונה, אנחנו מאפשרים בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לעמוד במקום אימות קיום. אבל בלי זה. אימות הוא דרישה מוחלטת. הרמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שמעיקר הדין אין חשש זיוף אלא בגלל חשש שמא יבוא הבעל ויער על הויוציא לעז על הגט השליח צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם . זה בסוף פרק ז' בהלכות גירושין

 I was in Breslov yesterday and I heard someone learning Zohar. I did not say anything to him about the question of it's validity because I think that some  parts are taken from earlier documents of mystics that were later incorporated into it. Still at the same time he was learning Zohar, I was learning the part in the major book of Rav Nahman about גם בהתקרבות להשם יש יצר הרע של התלהבות יותר מדאי (Also in coming close to God there is a evil inclination of overdoing it.--getting overly fanatic.) And that you see with people that get involved with Zohar.

[The main  issue with the Zohar is the phrase 'even though' עם כל דא which is a phrase from the middle ages. It is used all over the Zohar. It was made by the Ibn Tibon family to replace an older form of saying 'even though' which was אף על פי or אף על גב/ So it was not written by R. Shimon ben Yochai.]

While it is true that many great sages held of the validity of the Zohar, still this historic information was not available at the time.

 Rav Nahman says in the Le.M  vol I:72 that even in coming close to God one needs to be wary of ריבוי אור [excess light or excess excitement. ] This I think accounts for the fanaticism of the religious world

[The same theme is brought in the LeM vol II chapter 5:7 and  chapter 9] 

But in addition i thin the problem with Torah scholars that are demonsa adds to the issue. And that aspect of things is brought up a lot more in the LeM , but not in just so many words, The only times you see this in the LeM explicitly are in Lem I 12 and LeM I 28.

 I have to say that my approach to the State of Israel is based on Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Aaron Kotler. [I am probably repeating myself here, but still I do not recall mentioning this for a long time.] So let me just make clear that oth of these great sages of Torah said: "דינא דמלכותא דינא".The law of the state is the law. [In other words, the State of Israel is a legitimate state like any other legitimate state.] But I know that Neturaai Karta try to make it out  as if the State of Israel is worse than other states.--as if they are all pure and holy and just Israel is ssoehow born in sin. And they bring proof that within the origins of the sstate you find that peple that were trying to bring Jews to Israel [IN opposition to the British] did not want to help the religious Jews. And I assume this to be in fact the case in Europe. [Obviously this was not the case in Sephardi lands]. But so what? The religious always do as much damage as possible to secular Jews. It is just tit for tat. [I know this all too well from long and sad personal experience. I might consider myself to e ssomewhat religious and I certainly love Torah and do my best to keep it-- but as far as the religious world is considered I am not part of their club. And the rest of the story is too sad to relate.

[just for the record I should mention that Torah and the religious are two opposites.]]

 One thing i noticed in Livy--that self confidence does not always win. In fact that seems to be a major theme of the  war with Hannibal. One Roman general after the other thought that they would just walk in and wipe the mat with Hannibal. Little did they know. Hubris before a fall. While it is true that Rome won in the end, but thtat was by the policy of Fabius--to avoid direct battle as much as possible. To wear him down by attrition.

 z85 A little music piece I just finished.

 This may not seem like  big deal but I  have been thinking about the fact that a courier of a divorce document outside of Israel has to declare "It was written and signed in front of me." There is an argument between the Raaavad and the Rambam if a a divorce ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the Raavad and Tosphot are parallels. Because Tosphot says the reason he has to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is to be lenient. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, [Laws of Divorse 12:2] but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עגונה.  But to the Rambam there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is add a "humra" extra requirement  

The main idea here is just to show that Tosphot and the Raavad fit together. I am not dealing with the Rambam except to show that he is not like Tosphot.

[This occurred to me this morning on the way to the sea, but I did not work it out completely until now,]

[it does not seem needed, but perhaps for additional clarity -there are obviously monetary issues in a ''get'' but the Rambam considers them as a collateral issue.

However I just saw Rav Shach on this subject and he sees a difference between the Raavad and Tosphot.{Laws of Divorce chapter 7. Law 1}

  

A שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ  has to declare "בפני נכב ובפני נחתם." There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם if a a גט ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the ראב''ד and תוספות are parallels. Because תוספות says the reason he has to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם' is to be מקיל. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עיגונה.  But to the רמב''ם there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם'' is add a חומרא extra requirement  

שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ צריך להכריז "בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם". יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם אם גט צריך אימות [קיום]. בדרך כלל כל מסמך שמגיע לבית המשפט צריך להיות מאומת. [לדוגמה, הלוואות]. אז למה לא כאן? יש הבדל בסיבות שניתנו לכך. נראה לי שהראב''ד (הלכות גירושין י''ב הלכה ב') והתוספות מקבילים. כי תוספות אומר שהסיבה שהוא צריך לומר ''"בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" היא להיות מקיל. כלומר - באמת צריך לדרוש אימות מלא אבל כאן אנחנו מקילים כדי להקל עליה משום עיגונה. אבל לרמב"ם באמת לא צריך להיות דרישה לאמת את תקפות הגט שכן אין מדובר בדיני ממונות וכן משום שהיא לא תהרוס את נישואיה השניים בזיוף גט. הצורך לומר ''בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם'' הוא הוספת דרישה נוספת

I might add here that I heard from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [a rosh yeshiva at the Mir] that there is קניין אישות וקניין כסף in acquiring a wife. [there are monetary obligation for both husband and wife.] so the Raavad here is going like this idea\that since there are monetary obligation in a divorce--like giving the ketubah-so the document does need validation. 

 I used to study the story of Rav Nachman about the simple son and the smart one. I was not just reading it but studying it it order to absorb the lessons. One of the lessons i learned was that the smart  son was always saying to himself [after he found himself in some goof situation]]  maye there us some place better than here. i.e that one ought not to do that

 It has been noticed that there is little motivation for women to be nice nowadays. If you find a nice girl it has to be because of an extra ordinary amount of effort that she has expended on correcting her character traits. Otherwise, the emphasis of society is to make women as nasty as possible,-- and that shows. The proof is in the pudding. Women nowadays are unlikable.  If they have divorced  their husbands, they get tons of praise for being so brave. And the more damage they can cause to their ex husbands, their friends and general society consider her as a heroine.

The reason for this I believe is מכת מדינה a general plague that has come into the world.  For you see in prayers of Jews a few generations ago, their main concern was Parnasa -making a living. In general prayer books, you do not see much about peace of the home. That was assumed to be ok. In the American Civil War, how many letters do you see of women or men wishing for their spouses to be better? Never. All the letters and prayers of women are, "Please bring my husband back home safely"

Western society has changed. Women think of divorce as getting  merit badge, and think of it not as a way to get away from their husbands --but as a way to get all his money and to ruin his life as much s possible. 

[What I am getting at here is the importance of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement -- that movement he started. The message is everyone ought to learn Musar the  more the better. Musar in this context means four basic works חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, אורחו צדיקים ,מסילת ישרים three were from the middle ages and the last from Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato. [Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda. Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous, and Paths of the Just ]

I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. [rather it need to be 16.5 cubits across]

 I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. The Gemara Shabat (in the chapters about carrying in a public domain) talks like it is a common occurrence. [I am thinking mainly about the chapters about what a man or woman can wear in a public domain.] The reason this number 600,000 seems unreasonable to me is that no ancient cities had anywhere near these numbers, Even Rome had 324,000 according to the census  taken in 152 BC [as brought in Livy in the collected fragments. book 48.]

The Gra brings a proof to the Rambam,Ramban, Rashba that a public domain does not need 600,000. the gemara in Eruvin 6b: Ula said if not for the fact that they close their walls and gates at night, Mehuza (a city in Bavel) would be a public domain. And Ula also said "There is no city in bavel that has ''uchlusa'' 600,000." Besides that, I have noted in this blog before that no ancient cities had anything even close to 600,000.  

There is however such a thing as an eruv, but that can only help in a Carmlit, not an actual public domain. [A  Carmlit is sort of like a private domain in so far as it is permitted from the Torah to carry there. But it is unlike a private domain in so far as carrying to and from there into a public domain is not obligated a sin offering.]

 I discovered that it is hard to swim in rough surf and at the same time to be helping another person get to safety. Much harder than I could have imagined. It is  trying to swim with one hand, and in the other holding a 130 pound person. So even though  I have been doing a little bit of exercise, I now realize  that that little bit is no where near enough.

 I am often in a slightly hidden place at the beach  and today there was a young Arab  walking by about to grab a woman's purse and then he right before he took it he saw I was watching. So he went on some steps. Then came back to me to ask for a cigarette. I had none, and then he walked further back again and asked some girls the same question. [Normally I try to give to whom so ever asks from me something, but in fact I had no cigarette. ] Then after that it occurred to me that that guy was looking for people's stuff to steal. That is why he was about to grab that purse.. So I went over to the police to let them know there was someone around looking for trouble.

I am also still pondering that answer of Rav Shach for the Rambam in Sota [chapter 1 halacha 3] that is related to the gemara in nida page 2 and i am about to give up. i just can not see  how the Rambam can decide like two teachings that the gemara itself says contradict  each other. 

I was at the beach today and thinking about how Rav Shach explains the Gemara in Nida page 2. [The Gemara says the teaching (of the Braita) about the barrel and the teaching (of the Mishna) about the mikve disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the barrel is R. Shimon. And it says R Shimon is learning from Sota.  Then it says maybe R Shimon is learning from the regular case of doubt about purity. At that point Rav Shach says the difference between the first answer of the Gemara and the second is in the second answer the case of the mikve is considered a doubt. The first answer of the Gemara is thinking that the sages consider the case of the mikve is be a sure thing. So that is how the Rambam can say that the law is both like the Mishna and the braita. So the mishna in saying in the case of the mikve that both in a public domain and private that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the Rambam. If we learn from Sota then even the case of the Mikve ought to be pure in a public domain, and if we do not learn from Sota then the case of the barrel ought to be impure in a public domain.

[recently i saw a book by isar meltzer who was a teacher of rav shach and he has a very elegant answer fo the Rambam here but I have not really thought about it long enough to be able to comment ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was at the beach today and thinking about how רב שך explains the גמרא in נידה ב' ע''ב. [The גמרא says the teaching (of the ברייתא) about the חבית and the teaching (of the משנה) about the מקוה disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the חבית is ר' שמעון. And it says ר' שמעון is learning from סוטה.  Then it says maybe ר' שמעון is learning from the regular case of doubt about טומאה וטהרה. At that point רב שך says the difference between the first answer of the גמרא and the second is in the second answer the case of the מקוה is considered a doubt. The first answer of the גמרא is thinking that the חכמים  consider the case of the מקוה is be a sure thing. So that is how the רמב''ם can say that the law is both like the משנה  and the ברייתא. So the משנה in saying in the case of the מקוה that both in a רשות הרבים and רשות היחיד that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the רמב''ם. If we learn from סוטה then even the case of the מקוה ought to be pure in a רשות הרבים, and if we do not learn from סוטה then the case of the חבית ought to be impure in a רשות הרבים.

בחוף וחשבתי איך רב שך מסביר את הגמרא בנידה ב' ע''ב. [הגמרא אומר שההוראה (של הברייתא) על החבית והוראה (של המשנה) על מקוה חולקים כך שנאלץ לומר ההוראה על החבית היא ר' שמעון. וכתוב ר' שמעון לומד מסוטה. ואז כתוב שאולי ר' שמעון לומד מהמקרה של ספק לגבי טומאה וטהרה. באותה נקודה רב שך אומר שההבדל בין התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא לשניה הוא בתשובה השנייה המקרה של מקוה נחשב בספק. התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא היא לחשוב שהחכמים מחשיבים את המקרה של מקוה הוא דבר בטוח. אז כך יכול הרמב''ם לומר שהדין הוא גם כמו המשנה וגם הברייתא. אז המשנה באומרו במקרה של מקוה שגם ברשות הרבים וגם ברשות היחיד שהאדם שנכנס נשאר בספק. ובכל זאת קשה להבין מדוע זה עונה על הרמב''ם. אם נלמד מסוטה, אז אפילו המקרה של מקוה צריך להיות טהור ברשות הרבים, ואם לא נלמד מסוטה אז המקרה של החבית צריך להיות טמא ברשות הרבים

 I have been going to the beach and exerting my arm muscles at the out door gym over there. --though it occurs to me to wonder "Why I bother? After all it is not as if I am lifting weights," Then today I heard some mother yelling at someone in the water that I could barely see. Somehow it sounded different than other people screaming for fun at the beach.  It occurred to me that that fellow in the water might be in trouble. I ran over and the mother called to me in English "It's my son! It's my son!" I got the idea that he needed help. So I ran out there battling the waves until in fact I got to an area where there was no ground anymore. I needed to swim. I finally got to that guy and yelled at him, "Give me your arm" [in Hebrew תן לי את היד!] and grabbed his arm and dragged him back to shore. But I was barely managing on my own. After all I have not been keeping  my muscle strength up. At any rate, I realize now why it is important to keep up one's muscle strength in one's arms===to be prepared for the day that someone might need your help.

here is a link to a old music file from around 1993 --mathematics

here is a link to a more recent file x86

David Bronson suggested to me many times ''Tosphot is always right'' [that is on the outside of the page of the Gemara], and I would have to agree. While on one hand you see a lot of effort to explain the Rambam starting from early Achronim [משנה למלך ]  and that gained a lot of steam from the time of Rav Chaim of Brisk until today, Still it seems this has caused a certain amount of lack of interest and neglect in digging into the depths of Tosphot. I experienced this first hand when I got to the Mir in NY. I had been used to trying to dig into Tosphot, but when I talked to other yeshiva bahurim [students] about  this, they would dismiss this --as irrelevant.  Eventually, I understood the reason for this. They were spending their morning hours  preparing for the classes of the roshei yeshiva [which were along the lines of Rav Chaim of  Brisk. While this is a great and important area of learning, still it leaves that whole area of Tosphot ignored

But even if I would want to recommend a movement of ''Back To Tosphot'', I still would not know how to go about this. The only way I could even begin to see the depths of Tosphot was because I had teachers [in Shar Yashuv] and my learning partner Bronson that showed the way. On my own I could barely manage this except after tremendous efforts. And in the meantime I also have tried to get into the path of Rav Chaim of Brisk as you see in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. 

[The basic reasoning here is two fold. One is that the deeper you dig into Tosphot. the more you see he was right all along even though at first glance it does not seem like that. But the Rambam is different, Very often he contradicts the Gemara openly, and it takes a lot of effort to try to fit him back in. And even then it is only a possibility, not a sure thing. For example Nida pg 2. The Gemara holds the teaching about the barrel and the mikve contradict each other. And for that reason it says the teaching about the barrel is R Shimon, not the sages. So for the Rambam to state the law is like both is more than a stretch. It is a direct contradiction. Can one answer this? Yes--but only if one is committed in the first place to say the Rambam must have had some reason for that. But why even start with that? Why not simply go like the Gemara in the first place? Why not be first committed to the idea that the Gemara must have had some reason to say these two teachings contradict?

[I think R. Shimon holds that  חקת השתא  is not a חזקה]=I mean to say this: The Gemara brings the mishna that says if a mikve is found to e lacking the proper amount then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The Gemara then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to e able to separate truma on it and it was found to be sour. in a public domain all טהרות separated are pure and in a private domain they are a doubt. The Gemara says  the teaching is R Shimon. Though this might be in Tosphot [I forget] I think R Shimon holds   חקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from Sota. A doubt in a public domain is pure and in a private domain is a doubt. And the sages of the Mishna hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

I think ר' שמעון holds that  חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה. I mean to say this: The גמרא brings the משנה that says if a מקוה is found  lacking the proper amount, then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The גמרא then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to be able to separate תרומה on it and it was found to be sour. In a רשות הרבים all טהרות separated are טהורות and in a רשות היחיד they are a doubt. The גמרא says  the teaching is ר' שמעון. Though this might be in תוספות  [I forget] I think  ר' שמעון holds   חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from סוטה. A doubt in a רשות הרבים is טהור and in a רשות היחיד is a doubt. And the חכמי  the משנה hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

אני חושב שר' שמעון סבור שחזקת השתא היא לא חזקה. אני מתכוון לומר כך: הגמרא מביא את המשנה שאומר שאם נמצא מקוה חסרה בכמות הראויה אז כל מי שנכנס אליו עדיין לא טהור. אחר כך שואלת הגמרא מהוראה על חבית שהניחו בצד כדי שיוכלו להפריד עליה תרומה ונמצא חמוץ. ברשות הרבים כל הטהרות שנעשו עליו הן טהורות וברשות היחיד הן בספק. הגמרא אומרת שההוראה היא ר' שמעון. למרות שזה יכול להיות בתוספות [אני שוכח] אני חושב שר' שמעון מחזיק חזקת השתא היא לא חזקה ולכן אז בשני המקרים יש חזקה אחת נגד אחרת.והן מבטלות זו את זו ולכן ספק במקרה של ספק אנו למדים מסוטה. ספק ברשות הרבים הוא טהור וברשות היחיד הוא ספק. וחכמי המשנה מחזיקים חזקת השתא היא חזקה ואז בשני המקרים יש לנו שתי חזקות נגד אחת ולכן אין ספק

There is  a strange dynamics in the religious world. That is  the hatred they have towards fry yidin (non religious). If this would be open that would be better. But they hide it because they need the money of secular Jews. They need to make pretend that we are all one family.

This affects baali teshuva [newly religious]. They are suspected of being flaky and ready on an instant's notice to return to their wayward ways. But I have not mentioned this in my blog before because I am not convinced that they are wrong. Baali teshuva are flaky. How else could it be? They, after all, threw out their parents. How loyal could they be to anyone else? 

The religious however make things worse because they despise fry yiden and that affects their attitude towards baali teshuva who are considered unter menschen [sub human]. After all the religious think that they themselves are uber menschen -super human.  This affects the area of shiduhim [marriage offers]. The baal teshuva thinks he is accepted as one of the family. And when a shiduch [a date with intent to see if marriage is possible] is offered, he thinks it is in good faith. But the religious only offer to baali teshuv baali mumim. [Girls with a hidden defect.]

 It is not well known that the Gra would not have held of the idea of paying people to learn Torah. You can see in his commentary  on Pirkei Avot on the Mishna in the first chapter that says not to use Torah to make money from he brings the event with the vessels of the Temple that were used by the king of Babylon. And also he brings the actual verse of Meila. [That is the prohibition of using something that was dedicated to the Temple for one's own use]. 

How does meila work? It is like this. Let's say you have a pen and you say, ''This pen is sanctified to the Temple.''  At that point, you can not use it,- nor anyone else. It must be brought to the Temple and sold and the proceeds go to different needs of the Temple.  This is how the Gra sees learning Torah. One must not get paid for doing so because that is the same as using a vessel that has been dedicated to the Temple.

 There is a difference in the middle ages from the fall of Rome until around the high middle ages. [Aquinas Rambam, Ibn Rushd.] Until then people were going with the neo platonic philosopher. Plotinus. so in understanding the unity of God, they were going with the idea of emanation --or an overflowing of God's light. but at no point were they saying that only God exists. Rather they understood there is a difference between the Creator and the created. But the problems of reconciling pure Monotheism [Divine Simplicity] with Neo-Platonic thought, led to abandoning Plotinus and going with Aristotle. Muslims had been going with Aristotle for a long time. But Jews and Christians had been trying for  to go with Plotinus. At some point. they gave up and decided that was not going to work. So you get the Rambam going a lot more with Aristotle than his predecessors. [But not completely. He still retains a lot of Neo Platonic thought.] Then finally, Aquinas made the final jump to Aristotle. 

But as Kelley Ross noted, that jump might have landed everyone in more problems than they started out with. When those problems became apparent. it would have made sense to rethink things and return to Plato. [taking kant into accountin understanding plato]

[I should add that not all Rishonim were on board with either philosopher. The one that comes tomind in Nahmanidess. And it is his approach  that is the reason the religious world is against all philosophy [as David Bronson pointed out to me.]  

 z83 music file