Jesus did not claim to be God.

To me it makes sense to see that Jesus did not claim to be God. Most of the time he referred to himself as the son of man. But the one time he agreed that he was the son of God, that still is not God. But tht doe not mean he was just some average guy. Nor does it mean he was a regular sort of saint. If you look at Rav Isaac Luria in Shar HaGilgulim you will find tzadikim whose roots were in Emanation. [And Emanation we know is pure Godliness. That is different from souls whose roots are in Creation Formation or the Physical Universe,] 

i might mention here the opinion of Rav Avraham Abulafia and Rav Yaakov Emden in this regard, but I figure that people can do their own homework if they want to know anything. [I gave up trying to explain anything to anyone long ago.]

ketuba worth [marriage contract for a virgin= 200 zuz. For a woman who is not a virgin, it is 100 zuz.]

the ketubah is what is paid to a wife if the husband divorces her or dies.

 I am unclear about what went wrong with a previous result. But today I noticed in a Demai 2 Mishna 5 in the tosfot yom tov and the tiferet israel] that one zuz is the weight 16 grains of barley. One grain of barley is 0.065 grams. 16 grains then 1.04 grams. So two hundred zuz then is about two hundred grams, and since a gram of silver is about $0,8 that make the ketuba $166.4. [Or look at it like this: 16 barley grains of weight of silver is about one gram of silver and one gram of silver is about $0.8. So a zuz is a little less than a dollar. two hundred zuz is the ketubah for a virgin, In another blog entry I tried to find the value of the Ketubah based on the shekel of the Torah that was three hundred and twenty barley grains in weight and  this came out to be  larger. I have no idea why the amount come out differently. [What I had thought before was based on the Ritva in Bechorot who brings the Gemara there: Rav Ashi sent seventeen zuz to Rav Acha ben Ravina for Pidion Haben. He sent back to him,  ''Add three more for the amount that the sages added to the shekel.] Because of that Gemara, I thought seventeen zuz is five shekel. One shekel is three hundred and twenty barley grains to the Rambam in Laws of Shekalim chapter 1 halacha 2. What Rav Acha said to Rav Ashi was based on the fact that the sages added to the three hundred and twenty to make it three hundred eighty four barley grains like the common sela. So twenty zuz equals five sela. And one sela equals four zuz. And one zuz equals sixteen barley grains. So one sela is sixty four barley grains, not three hundred eighty four. [based on that the ketuba is about $1000.]

----

 

 I am unclear about what went wrong with a previous result. But today I noticed in a דמאי ב' משנה ה'   in the תוספות  יום טוב] that one זוז is the weight שש עשרה grains of barley. One grain of barley is 0.065 grams. 16 grains then 1.04 grams. so two hundred zuz then is about two hundred grams, and since a gram of silver is about $0,8 that make the כתובה $166.4. [Or look at it like this: 16 barley grains of weight of silver is about one gram of silver and one gram of silver is about $0.8. So a זוז is a little less than a dollar. two hundred זוז is the כתובה for a virgin,  I tried to find the value of the כתובה based on the shekel of the Torah that was three hundred and twenty barley grains in weight and  this came out to be  larger. I have no idea why the amount come out differently. [What I had thought before was based on the ריטב''א in בכורות who brings the גמרא there: רב אשי sent seventeen זוז to רב אחא בן רבינה  for פידיון הבן. He sent back to him,  ''Add three more for the amount that the חכמים added to the shekel.] Because of that גמרא, I thought seventeen זוז is five shekel. One shekel is three hundred and twenty barley grains to the Rambam in Laws of שקלים פרק א' חלכה ב' . What אב אחא said to רב אשי was based on the fact that the sages added to the three hundred and twenty to make it three hundred eighty four barley grains like the common סלע . So twenty זוז equals five סלע. And one סלע equals four זוז. And one זוז equals sixteen barley grains. So one סלע is sixty four barley grains, not three hundred eighty four. 

לא ברור לי מה השתבש בתוצאה קודמת. אבל היום הבחנתי בדמאי ב' משנה ה' בתוספות  יום טוב שזוז אחת היא המשקל שש עשר גרגירי שעורה. גרגר שעורה אחד הוא 0.065 גרם. 16 גרגירים הם בערך 1.04 גרם. אז מאתיים זוז זה בערך מאתיים גרם, ומכיוון שגרם כסף הוא בערך 0.8$, מה שהופך את הכתובה ל-$166.4. [או תסתכל על זה כך: 16 גרגירי שעורה במשקל של כסף זה בערך גרם אחד של כסף וגרם אחד של כסף זה בערך $0.8. אז זוז הוא קצת פחות מדולר. מאתיים זוז היא הכתובה לבתולה,] ניסיתי למצוא את ערך הכתובה לפי שקל התורה שהיה במשקל שלוש מאות ועשרים גרגרי שעור= וזה יצא גדול יותר. אין לי מושג למה הסכום יוצא אחרת. [מה שחשבתי קודם לכן היה על הריטב''א בכורות שמביא שם את הגמרא: רב אשי שלח שבעה עשר זוז לרב אחא בן רבינה לפידיון הבן. הוא חזר אליו, ''הוסף עוד שלושה עבור הסכום שהחכמים הוסיפו לשקל.] בגלל אותה גמרא חשבתי שבע עשרה זוז זה חמישה שקלים. שקל אחד הוא שלוש מאות ועשרים גרגרי שעורה לרמב"ם בהלכות שקלים פרק א' חלכה ב' . מה שאמר רב אחא לרב אשי התבסס על כך שחכמים הוסיפו לשלוש מאות ועשרים לעשות ממנו שלוש מאות שמונים וארבע גרגירי שעורה כמו סלע מצוי. אז עשרים זוז שווה חמש סלע. וסלע אחד שווה ארבע זוז. וזוז אחד שווה ששה עשר גרגירי שעורה. אז סלע אחד הוא שישים וארבע גרגירי שעורה, לא שלוש מאות שמונים וארבע

if the shekel is 380 barley grains of silver in weight, that means that is four zuz. 

200 zuz=380*50=19000 barley grain. 16 grain=1.04 gram. 19000/16=1187.5. that times 1.04 =1234.48

16 grains of silver is 1.04 gram. 380 *50=19000, 

so the ketubah is $987.58 

 i do not really hold with the idea of kollel,= that is when people in yeshiva in their collage years go and get married and then get paid to sit and learn even after marriage. But nor do I hold from  with the idea of religious teacher getting paid to learn or teach Torah. For when Torah get mixed up with money, it loses its flavor. Even though this fact that one is not allowed to use Torah to make a living is well known, my objection to this practice come from observation of the disaster  that results when people use Torah to make money.

 One thing you see in the repentance of Henry II--that he identified in what he had sinned. And in a somewhat similar way I decided to look at what went wrong in my own life and try to identify in what areas I had sinned. I decided not to look at books to tell me where I went wrong but rather at personal  experience. I thought back and was able to identify exactly after what decisions that I made did things go wrong drastically. And this process was easy. I was simple to see.oI decided that it was in those areas that I needed to repent

 I have been convinced of the power and importance of repentance ever since i learned the book gates of repentance by R. Yona of Gerondi at the Mir yeshiva in N.Y. In the local breslov place on this side of the pond I once told a story of repentance that I think brings out the point more powerfully than anything else I can think of. It regards Henry II. In short, he had a great friend, Thomas Becket whom he had made archbishop of Canterbury [assuming he would do his bidding]. But something unexpected happened after that. In the Middle Ages there was one authority above the king. Thomas Becket  found God. There after he was going to do God's bidding. This infuriated the king. So one day in a fit of rage he yelled at some of his knights. ''Who will rid me of this priest? They misunderstood him and thought he really meant to kill Becket. So they went to Canterbury and killed becket. after that thing started going terribly wrong. his wife Elenore went to her ex husband the king of France and began plotting to put her on John on the throne of England. And his son John also got the king of Scotland to invade England from the north and the invasion from France and the north had begun. everything wa going a wrong a thing could go for the king of England personally and politically. His own sons and wife were out to get him and had engaged two powerful kings to do so. So what did Henry do. Collect troops and engage in battle? No. He realized his problems were not from kings or princes. It was the hand of Thomas Becket reaching from beyond. So he was going to repent in the most astounding manner that he could. He sailed from France where he was at that time and went straight to Canterbury. Outside the city he removed his boots and began walking toward the cathedral through the streets which were filled with sharp rocks and broken pottery. as he walked he left a bloody trail of his own bleeding feet behind him. When he got to the cathedral he went below  where the shrine of Becket was. There he ordered the monks --each one to whip him with all his might five times each. For the hundred monks that were there that meant he received 500 lashes, He fainted many time before it was over. But by a miracle, the next day  he got the news that the king of Scotland had been captured and the whole rebellion was squashed.

 Even though there is great advice and deep ideas in the book of Rav Nachman of Breslov, there is to be a lack of appreciation of the importance of the Gra. For after all where do you find people really sitting and learning Torah day and night for its own sake except in a Litvak yeshiva that is connected with the path of the GraThis is so obvious that it barely needs mentioning. But still since  not everyone is in the vicinity f a authentic Litvak Yeshiva, for those who have not seen or felt the power and light found in the authentic world of Torah of the Litvak yehivot, for them this is worth mentioning.

 I think Rav Nahman was right about the problem with religious leaders. See the LeM I ch30 where he talks about to be wary off the "Torah of the Dark Side".These religious leaders pretend to be teaching straight legitimate Torah but in fact are teaching the Torah of the Sitra Achra [Realm of Darkness]

I would not have been aware of this even after being in great Litvak yeshivot and even learning the teaching of Rav Nahman, until this problem was brought painfully to my attention --for which reason i avoid the religious world like I would avoid the black plague [except for the nearby na nach place on the name of rav nahman or if there would be a Litvak yeshiva nearby like a branch of Ponovitch.]. After all I say to myself about the religious world ''Fool me once--shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me."  

 I just wanted to make clear a point I wrote  about last week. And also to show what it is in the Rambam that seems unclear, First a straying wife [sota] is in Book of Numbers chapter V verses 11 and on. There are cases when she can drink the bitter waters and there are cases when she can not. To E Eliezer [of the Mishna]she can drink when there are two witnesses for the warning and one witness or the husband himself sees the privacy. But if the privacy was only indicated by the chirping of a bird she does not drink, She is divorced without the marriage contract.  

To R Yehoshua [of the Mishna] both the warning and privacy need two witnesses for her to drink. But even if there are two witnesses but everybody is talking about her saying she strayed then she does not drink.

R Yehoshua ben R Yehuda says only the privacy needs two witnesses.

My question is how and from where can the Rambam derive his statement of the law. 

In Laws of sota he says the law i lie R Yehoshua but also bring the case of a husband sees the privacy [i.e. he saw her walk into a private room with the man he was warned about]. If the warning was with two witnesses she is forbidden to him and does not drink but i divorced immediately. But if the warning was only between him and her with no witness she can drink. That is in the end of law of marriage 24 law 25.

I hope it is clear my question here that this does not seem to go like any opinion in the Mishna at all.

Just to make clear the context here let me add that R Akiva Eiger on the Mishna say we see from Rashi and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura not like the Rambam for they say  what I mentioned before that to E Eliezer [of the Mishna]she can drink when there are two witnesses for the warning and one witness or the husband himself sees the privacy. Thus there is no שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא even to R Yehoshua. And Rav Shach defends the Rambam there in laws of Sota and also in Laws of Marriage. But hi defense of the Rambam is on particcular points. No one seem to notice the fact that what the Rambam says sesms to have no connection with the Gemara.   

 

 

new music file z96

 z96 

I ought to mention here that i jut write music for fun, And I am happy to share with other here on the internet. But it would take too much time to go through all the file that i saved during the years to now what is bet to share. So i just share them as they are written. and most of what was written before i was able to put them on the internet i think was lost

an argument between Rav Shach and R. Akiva Eiger about the case of a straying wife.

 There is an argument between Rav Shach and R. Akiva Eiger if there is any such thing as שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא for a sota [straying wife] that her husband saw her go into a private room with a man she was warned by her husband to stay away from.

The basic issue comes from the Book of Numbers [chapter 5 verse 11] where you have the subject of a straying wife. There it is stated that she drinks the ''bitter waters.' [That is-- water mixed with a little dirt of the temple and in which the paragraph about the straying wife was dissolved in .]

What is the situation in which she drinks? First she is warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man. Then she is seen to go into such a place. To R, Eliezer the warning is in front of two witnesses, but seeing her go into a private place does not require two witnesses.  Anything can be an indication, or her husband sees her go into a private room with that man. In that case, she drinks the water. [I.e, if she wants to. Otherwise she can admit she strayed and is divorced without her ketubah [marriage contract-that is about $1000 if she married as a virgin. If she was not a virgin, the marriage contract gives her $500].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

But one thing you see here. The fact that her husband saw her go into the room does not make her forbidden to him.

Now the law is not like  R Eliezer. but even so, so far you do not see any such thing as  שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [He makes her to be forbidden.] 

What would be a case of "He makes her to be forbidden". That would be if he says he saw her in the act. But here all he saw was that she went into a private room.  

Now against R Eliezer are R. Yehohua who holds you need two witnesses for both [the warning and the seeing her go into a private room] and R, Yehoshua ben R Yehuda  who says you only need two witnesses for the privacy. So what would they hold if the husband sees the privacy?  That is the argument. R. Akiva Eiger says we would not say "He makes her to be forbidden",[to Rashi and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura on the Mishna], However the Rambam הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' holds we would say, "He makes her to be forbidden to himself," and Rav Shach says that even Rashi and the Bartenura might agree with the Rambam since the actual case where R. Eliezer says, ''Even the chirp of a bird is enough to indicate she went into a private room''--that is enough for the courts to force the husband to divorce her. so the argument between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua is about in what case does the court force him to divorce her, not "He makes her to be forbidden."   But this is still unclear to me. Is it not so that R. Eliezer says מקנא עלפי שניים ומשקה על פי עצמו  meaning ''he warns her in front of two, but can himself see the privacy'' --all that means is he has to give her the possibility to drink the water in order to defend herself and show that she is innocent. To R. Yehoshua it could be that since there were not two witnesses we do nothing! I was at the sea and on the way back it occurred to me that you do not see in R. Eliezer the idea of שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא he make her forbidder to himself but rather just ר איעזר אומר מקנא ה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  so there is no reason to think that R Yehoshua holds some special notion that if he sees the privacy that that make her forbidden to himself. This indicate that R Akiva Eiger is right. I admit though that if it could be shown that R Eliezer holds he make her forbidder to himself by just seeing the privacy then one could argue that R Yehohua would agree with that.

Later I saw what the proof of Rav Shach is: the Yerusshalmi that says if one witness sees the privacy in the morning and other sees it in the evening then she drinks, That means you do not need witnesses for the privacy to make a valid category חלות but just as an indication.[Rav Shach brings this in Laws of Marriage 24 law 25]. So if the husband sees the privacy without witnesses that is enough  he himelf seeto make her forbidden to him though not enough to allow her to drink the bitter waters.     

But even with that the opinion of the Rambam seems hard to understand. He holds that if the warning is in front of witnesses and then later he alone sees the privacy then she is forbidden to him forever because he made her forbidden t in the gemara himself by the law   שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא. that is in rambam laws of sota 1 halacha 8. but if the warning was only between himself and her with no witnesses and then later he sees the privacy, then she can drink the water in order to defend herself. and he is only forbidden to him until she drink the water. that i in laws of marriage 24 halacha 25. that does not seem to be like any opinion. to r eliezer only the warning needs witnesses. to r yehoshua both the warning and privacy needs witness and to r yehoshua  be yehuda only the privacy need witnesses.

____________________________________________________________________

 There is an argument between רב שך and רב עקיבא איגר if there is any such thing as שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא for a סוטה [straying wife] that her husband saw her go into a private room with a man she was warned by her husband to stay away from. The basic issue comes from the במדבר where you have the subject of a straying wife. There it is stated that she drinks the ''bitter waters.' [That is-- water mixed with a little dirt of the temple and in which the פרש סוטה was dissolved in .] What is the situation in which she drinks? First she is warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man. Then she is seen to go into such a place. To ר' אליעזר the warning is in front of two witnesses, but seeing her go into a private place does not require two witnesses.  משקה על פי עד אחד, or her husband sees her go into a private room with that man. In that case, she drinks the water. [I.e, if she wants to. Otherwise she can admit she strayed and is divorced without her ketubah [marriage contract-that is about $1000 if she married as a virgin. If she was not a virgin, the marriage contract gives her $500].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

But one thing you see here. The fact that her husband saw her go into the room does not make her forbidden to him.

Now the law is not like  ר' אליער. but even so, so far you do not see any such thing as  שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [He makes her to be forbidden.] 

What would be a case of "He makes her to be forbidden". That would be if he says he saw her in the act. But here all he saw was that she went into a private room.  

Now against ר' אליער are ר' יהושע who holds you need two witnesses for both [the warning and the seeing her go into a private room] and ר' יהושע בן ר' יהודה  who says you only need two witnesses for the privacy. So what would they hold if the husband sees the privacy?  That is the argument. ר' עקיבא איגר says we would not say "He makes her to be forbidden", [to רש''י ו הרב מברטנורה ], However the רמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' holds we would say, "He makes her to be forbidden to himself," and רב שך says that even רש''י and the ר'''ב might agree with the רמ''ם since the actual case where ר' איעזר says, ''Even the chirp of a bird is enough to indicate she went into a private room''--that is enough for the courts to force the husband to divorce her. So the argument between ר' אליעזר and ר' יהושע is about in what case does the court force him to divorce her, not "He makes her to be forbidden."   But this is still unclear to me. Is it not so that ר' אליעזר says מקנא על פי שניים  ומשקהעל פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  meaning ''he warns her in front of two, but can himself see the privacy'' --all that means is he has to give her the possibility to drink the water in order to defend herself and show that she is innocent. To ר' יהושע it could be that since there were not two witnesses we do nothing! I was at the sea and on the way back it occurred to me that you do not see in ר' אליעזר the idea of שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא he make her forbidder to himself, but rather just ר איעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  so there is no reason to think that ר' יהושע holds some special notion that if he sees the privacy that that make her forbidden to himself. This indicate that ר' עקיבא איגר is right. I admit though that if it could be shown that ר' אליעזר holds he make her forbidder to himself by just seeing the privacy then one could argue that ר' יהושע would agree with that.

Later I saw what the proof of רב שך is: the ירושלמי the first chapter of סוטה that says if one witness sees the privacy in the morning and other sees it in the evening then she drinks, That means you do not need witnesses for the privacy to make a valid category חלות but just as an indication.[רב שך bring this in הלכות אישות כ''ה הלכה כ''ד].So if the husband sees the privacy without witnesses that is enough to make her forbidden to him though not enough to allow her to drink the bitter waters.         

  

But even with that the opinion of the רמב''ם seems hard to understand. He holds that if the warning is in front of witnesses and then later he alone sees the privacy then she is forbidden to him forever because he made her forbidden t in the  himself by the law   שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא. that is in רמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק ח הלכה א. but if the warning was only between himself and her with no witnesses and then later he sees the privacy, then she can drink the water in order to defend herself. and he is only forbiddenד to him until she drink the water.  [ הלכות אישות פרק כ''ד הלכה כ''ה]. that does not seem to be like any opinion. to ר' אליעזר only the warning needs witnesses. to ר' יהושע both the warning and privacy needs witness and to ר' יהושע  בן ר' יהודה only the privacy need witnesses.

___________________________________________________________________

יש ויכוח בין רב שך לרב עקיבא איגר אם יש דבר כזה שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא לסוטה שבעלה ראה אותה נכנסת לחדר פרטי עם גבר שבעלה הזהיר אותה ממנו. הנושא הבסיסי מגיע מספר במדבר שבו יש לך נושא של אישה תועה. שם מצוין שהיא שותה את ''המים המרים'. [כלומר-- מים מעורבים במעט אבק של המקדש ובהם התמוססה פרשת סוטה.] מה המצב בו היא שותה? ראשית היא מוזהרת על ידי בעלה שלא תהיה במקום פרטי עם גבר מסוים. ואז רואים שהיא נכנסת למקום כזה. לר' אליעזר האזהרה היא מול שני עדים, אבל לראות אותה נכנסת למקום פרטי לא צריך שני עדים, או שבעלה רואה אותה נכנסת לחדר פרטי עם האיש הזה. במקרה כזה, היא שותה את המים. [כלומר, אם היא רוצה. אחרת היא יכולה להודות שסטתה והיא מגורשת ללא הכתובה שלה [חוזה נישואין - כלומר בערך 1000$ אם היא התחתנה בתור בתולה. אם היא לא הייתה בתולה, חוזה הנישואין נותן לה 500$].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו. אבל דבר אחד אתה רואה כאן. זה שבעלה ראה אותה נכנסת לחדר לא הופך אותה לאסורה עליו. עכשיו החוק הוא לא כמו ר' אליער. אבל אף על פי כן, עד כה אינך רואה דבר כזה כשוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה.] מה יהיה מקרה של "הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה". זה יהיה אם הוא אומר שהוא ראה אותה בשעת מעשה. אבל כאן כל מה שהוא ראה זה שהיא נכנסה לחדר פרטי. עכשיו נגד ר' אליער הם ר' יהושע שמחזיק אתה צריך שני עדים לשניהם [האזהרה והראייה שנכנסה לחדר פרטי] ור' יהושע בן ר' יהודה שאומר שאתה צריך רק שני עדים בשביל הפרטיות. אז מה הם יחזיקו אם הבעל יראה את הפרטיות? זה הטיעון. ר' עקיבא איגר אומר לא היינו אומרים "הוא עושה אותה לאיסור", [לרש''י והרב מברטנורא ], אולם לרמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' היינו אומרים "הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה על עצמו", ורב ש"ך אומר שאפילו רש"י והר''ב עלולים להסכים עם הרמ''ם שכן המקרה בפועל שבו ר' איעזר אומר, ''אפילו ציוץ של ציפור כדי לציין שנכנסה לחדר פרטי''--די בכך שבית הדין יכפו על הבעל להתגרש ממנה. אז הוויכוח בין ר' אליעזר לר' יהושע הוא באיזה מקרה מכריח אותו בית הדין להתגרש ממנה, ולא "הוא עושה אותה לאסור". אבל זה עדיין לא ברור לי. האם זה לא כך שר' אליעזר אומר מקנא על פי שניים ומשקה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו כלומר ''הוא מזהיר אותה מול שניים, אבל יכול בעצמו לראות את הפרטיות'' -- כל מה שאומר שהוא צריך לתת לה את האפשרות לשתות את המים כדי להגן על עצמה ולהראות שהיא חפה מפשע. לר' יהושע יכול להיות שמכיוון שלא היו שני עדים אנחנו לא עושים כלום! הייתי בים ובדרך חזרה עלה בדעתי שאתה לא רואה בר' אליעזר את הרעיון של שוואי עליו חתיכה איסורא הוא גורם לה לאסרה לעצמו, אלא רק ר איעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו אז אין סיבה לחשוב שר' יהושע מחזיק באיזו תפיסה מיוחדת שאם הוא רואה את הפרטיות שהופכת אותה לאסורה על עצמו. זה מצביע על כך שר' עקיבא איגר צודק. עם זאת, אני מודה שאם ניתן היה להוכיח שר' אליעזר מחזיק הוא גורם לה לאסור לעצמו רק על ידי ראיית הפרטיות, אז אפשר לטעון שר' יהושע יסכים עם זה

אחר כך ראיתי מה ההוכחה של רב שך: הירושלמי בפרק הראשון של סוטה שאומר שאם עד אחד רואה את הפרטיות בבוקר ואחר רואה את זה בערב אז היא שותה, כלומר לא צריך עדים בשביל הפרטיות לעשות קטגוריה חוקית [חלות] אלא רק כאינדיקציה.[רב שך מביאים זאת בהלכות אישות כ''ה הלכה כ''ד]. אז אם הבעל רואה את הפרטיות ללא עדים די בכך כדי לעשותה אסורה עליו אף על פי כן. לא מספיק כדי לאפשר לה לשתות את המים המרים

 Stoning is the most severe punishment in Torah and you can tell what things are more stringent than others if this is said in the Torah to be the punishment. Idolatry is one of these. 

[I was reminded about this because i walked into a breslov na nach sort of place and opened up the mishna in sanhedrin]

but it also occurred to me that things can be idolatry even they do not qualify for the full punishment. this is like on Shabat when there are plenty of things which desecrate the Sabbath even if they do not get up to the level of the full punishment. a simple example i if one picks up an object in a public domain but puts it down in a מקום פטור [a non obligated place].   

So what this means is that there is plenty of stuff which is going on in the religious world which i idolatry even if it does not reach the level of full liability.

z95 music file

 z95 

A Mishna in Shavuot says that one who curses another transgress a negative prohibition. and the Gemara Yerushalmi asks if he gets lashes for that?". The friends [peoples sitting in the Beit Midrash study hall] said, "No, because it is  a prohibition that has no act in it." R Yose said but switching one sacrifice for another and swearing a false oath also have no act in them and still he gets lashes.

I have been thinking about this Yeruhalmi. To me it seems clear R Yose is saying לוקים על לאו שאין בו מעשה one can get lashes for a prohibition that does not have an act in it. But that does not seem to be the way the Rambam and Raavad understand this subject because both say there is lashes for this prohibition and also agree that one does not get lashes for a prohibition that does not have an act in it. So they both go with R Yose but apparently for some other reason. I would imagine because of the Babylonian Talmud where there are special reasons why swearing and switching get lashes: one  is a verse, the other is an act and cursing is also a verse והפלא

What is hard to understand here is the Raavad  point to the Yerushalmi for the source of his law and there does not seem to be anything there that indicates what he says--that cursing is liable to  lashes only when using the special name of God [in laws of Sanhedrin ]. Also the Rambam seems also to be problematic since he says even using names used for God like "The Compassionate" is liable and that does not seem to e what that verse indicates.

 I would like to recommend learning  and finishing the two Talmuds and the Midrahim. But the way I have in mind i to finish the Two Talmuds with Tosphot, Maharsha and Maharam of Lublin [printed below the Maharsha]. But this is not to suggest minimizing learning in depth with Reb Chaim of Brisk and his students [Birckat Shmeul etc.  ] up until Rav Shach and his Avi Ezri.

Plus the basic learning of Physics and Mathematics that I have mentioned on this blog [QFT, String Theory, Algebraic Topology.etc.]

This might sound like a lot, but if one does not waste time doing other stuff, there i plenty of time for this.

But how to do this if one does not understand everything? You ay the words in order and go on and what i not clear at first will eventually become clear aa you go on further..

And you do not need to be in any special place to do this. Doing this at home is better than anything else with no one around to distract you from the learning.

[Also I wish to add that the best way to do this is a half page of Gemara with Rashi and Tosphot and Maharsha per day.

. 

 spiritual enlightenment. when the infinite light of God  shines on a person that doe not mean they have knowledge. Rather that is כתר the light of the crown to each one from where ever their root soul is from. [There are ten sepherot. the crown is only one] אשרי מי דעייל ונפיק  Happy is he who come in a goes out as is said about R, Akiva. .

 I was in Breslov Na Nach and opened The Life Of Rav Nahman where I read that he said the famous religious leaders of his time did not know Torah so they had to compensate with their show of religiosity. There is a point to this that you can see nowadays  that the real Torah scholars that sit and learn Torah all day in the Mir and Ponovitch are completely unknown. 

I mentioned this later in Bresslov and it wa pointed out to me the several torah lessons that rav nahman said to warn to stay away from the famous religious leaders מםורסמים של שקר

 I wanted to mention that the situation in Ukraine is different than that of Taiwan. Ukraine was a province of Russia ever since they decided to be under the Russian Tzar Alexei. That i it has been a part of Russia for more than 300 years. Taiwan was never a part of China.

But there i something more to it than that. Ukraine tends to have a lot of people that would rather be under Russian rule a I found out to my great surprise when I lived there for many years and very often asked people what they thought of the present rule from Kiev as opposed to rule from Moscow.   But no one in Taiwan wants to be be under the boots of China--especially after they saw what happened in Hong Kong.

 i am finding it hard to go through the basic set of learning that one is supposed to do. More or less that is the two talmuds and the midrahim. So even though some yeshivot are not up to par I would like to recommend having a place in every city for people to do the learning. Maybe in the merit of recommending to others the importance of getting through Shas, perhaps  little of that merit might  stick with me.

Samuel [Shmuel] the Prophet made it very clear to Israel that their asking  for king was against God's will. This is curious since in the Torah one of the commandment is to make a king.  Though I have heard one answer that they said "a king like the other nations" but so what? The Torah also makes the same sort of reference,  John Locke suggested a king meant the head of the military and he shows proofs of this. One answer that makes sense is the command to make a king in the Torah would be after the whole land of Israel would be conquered. In any case, it does not say how the king would be chosen. Thoughit was through the prophet or sanhedrin I wonder about voting.

 

אספר כל נפאותיך psalm 105. [''I will say over all of Your works.''] Is not the Universe the work of God? Since it is, saying over the Physics and Mathematics that describe it, is  saying over the workss of God. You see this idea in the Rambam and other Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda. In the Rambam you see this in the story of the King where the scholars of Talmud axe outside his palace nd the Physicists are inside. [That is at the end of one of the volumes of the Guide for the Perplexed--but I forget which volume. I think after vol. III or IV.]

to understand Christianity

I spent a good deal of time trying to understand Christianity and my basic impression is that there are different opinions in the four gospels about who Jesus was.  But at no  point did he claim to be God. Being a son of God is not the same thing as God. Saying  to Pontius Pilate "I am" is not saying that he was God. He was not being asked if he was God. The question was if he was king of the Jews. And as for the phrase "I am" that is not the same thing as what God said at the burning bush where he said אהיה אשר אהיה "I will be that who I will be"  

But in any case, there are four different opinions about who Jesus was in the four Gospels. 

And as for nullification of the commandments, that was the idea of Paul who certainly did not get it from Jesus who never said [nor dreamed]such a thing.

 Elections are coming up in Israel and I think to vote Likud is the best idea. The religious tickets I can not agree with because they do not really represent Torah. The religious groups even on their small playing fields create hell on earth in their own communities. 

clashes of empires

 There have been clashes of empires since the dawn of man. See e.g. the histories of the Bronze Age empires and the clash of Sparta and Athens and Rome and Hannibal. It seems to me that it is of upmost importance that the USA and Russia should get along for both are looking out for the welfare of their own citizens. A lot of this conflict stems from misunderstandings.

 I have tried to make clear some of the issues that have caused Russia to see the importance of protecting the Russians in the east areas in Ukraine, But whether i have succeeded or not, you should take my word for it that there are reasons and that it is not worth while to start WWIII because of this issue. 

warning about doctors in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 50

 I would like to mention the warning about doctors in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 50 that make a lot of sense. Not that the field of medicine has not gone forward since then. But that it is possible to see how accurate Rav Nahman was in when you look at the poison vaccines.  But more than that. Psychology i a blatant pseudo science because it come under the definition of pseudo science, A Karl Popper would put it:It is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable experiment that could every be performed that would cancell out any one of their many many elf contradicting theories. A true science ha to be able to give an experiment that would say for example if this thermometer reads above 5, then my theory is wrong. 

Rambam chapter 3 halacha 2 laws of renting Tur hoshen mishpat 390 Bava Metzia 82.

 Bava Metzia 82. a person is hired to carry a barrel and he drops it on a path that is flat. [If the path iss at an angle then everyone agrees he does not paybut takes an oath that it was by accident.]The Tur says he is obligated to pay because stumbling is negligence, like R. Elazar. But the Tur also decided in the case with two people carrying  their own barrels and one falls and the other bumped into him and breaks hiss own barrel, the first does not have to pay because it was not his fault that he fell. 

to Rav Shach the difference is there is a level of obligation when one is hired to carry the barrel of someone else. He is required to guard it. That is a different level of obligation when one is carrying in a public domain. There he doe not have a special obligation to guard other's things.

Rav Chaim of Brisk says that the  the one who was hired to carry a barrel is obligated because a person is always liable to cause damage unless they are especially careful. 

i was thinking that the one who was hired did an act and thus obligated. the second case is where the one who fell did no act. The other person stumbled over him. And so the first does not have to pay, The second should have been more careful.and 

I am not saying that I have a different answer. rather that Rav Chaim of Brisk is right that in some cases making a pit or other kind of obstacle in a public domain is not obligated  and that Rav Shach is right that one hired does have an extra degree of responsibility that any other person. But that here there is a further reason to be obligated since he did an act.  

I also would like to mention here the opinion of the Ramban Nahmanides who holds all that cause damage must pay even if it is by accident as Rav Shach brings his opinion.[This is quoted in the sshita Meubetzet in Bava Metzia] The case of one who is hired to carry a barrel and breaks it in which case the mishna brings that he is not obligated, the Ramban says that is not the same case. A worker  who causes damage in the course of his work is not considered as one who causes damage. So how would the Ramban explain the case of two people carrying barrels and one slips and falls and the other stumbles over him where the first is not obligated even in the case of smooth ground, not at an incline. The Ramban would have to explain that is also referring to two people that are hired to carry barrels. But why would the opinion of R Elazar be left out there? The Ramban would have to say that is simply the same opinion as the Mishna where on who is hired and breaks the barrel by accident is not obligated  even in the case of a straight path not at an inline. _________________________________________________________________________________

 בבא מציעא פ''ב. a person is hired to carry a barrel and he drops it on a path that is flat. The טור חושן משפט ש''צ says he is obligated to pay because stumbling is negligence \[נתקל פושע], like ר' אלאזר. But the טור also decided in the case with two people carrying  their own barrels and one falls and the other bumped into him and breaks his own barrel, the first does not have to pay because it was not his fault that he fell. To רב שך the difference is there is a level of obligation when one is hired to carry the barrel of someone else. He is required to guard it. That is a different level of obligation when one is carrying in a public domain. There he doe not have a special obligation to guard other's things. רב חיים מבריסק says that the  the one who was hired to carry a barrel is obligated because  אדם מועד לעולםa person is always liable to cause damage unless they are especially careful.  i was thinking that the one who was hired did an act and thus obligated. the second case is where the one who fell did no act. The other person stumbled over him. And so the first does not have to pay, The second should have been more careful.

I am not saying that I have a different answer. rather that רב חיים of בריסק is right that in some cases making a בור or other kind of obstacle in a public domain is not obligated  and that רב שך is right that one hired does have an extra degree of responsibility יותר that any other person. But that here there i a further reason to be obligated since he did an act. 

I also would like to mention here the opinion of the רמב''ן who holds all that cause damage must pay even if it is by accident as Rav Shach brings his opinion.[This is quoted in the שיטה מקובצת in בבא מציעא] The case of one who is hired to carry a barrel and breaks it in which case the מששנה brings that he is not obligated, The רמב''ן says that is not the same case. A worker  who causes damage in the course of his work is not considered as one who causes damage. So how would the רמב''ן explain the case of two people carrying barrels and one slips and falls and the other stumbles over him where the first is not obligated even in the case of smooth ground, not at an incline. The רמב''ן would have to explain that is also referring to two people that are hired to carry barrels. But why would the opinion of ר' אלאזר be left out there? The רמב''ן would have to say that is simply the same opinion as the משנה where on who is hired and breaks the barrel by accident is not obligated  even in the case of a straight path not at an inline. 

בבא מציעא פ''ב. אדם נשכר לשאת חבית והוא מפיל אותה על שביל שטוח. הטור חושן משפט ש''צ אומר שהוא חייב לשלם כי מעידה היא רשלנות \[נתקל פושע], כמו ר' אלאזר. אבל הטור הכריע גם במקרה שני אנשים נושאים חביות משלהם ואחד נופל והשני נתקל בו ושובר את החבית של עצמו, הראשון אינו חייב לשלם כי זה לא באשמתו שנפל. לרב שך ההבדל הוא שיש רמת התחייבות כאשר אדם נשכר לשאת חבית של מישהו אחר. הוא נדרש לשמור עליו. זו רמה אחרת של חובה כאשר אדם נושא ברשות הרבים. שם אין לו חובה מיוחדת לשמור על דברים של הזולת. רב חיים מבריסק אומר שמי שנשכר לשאת חבית חייב משום אדם מועד לעולם, [אדם תמיד עלול לגרום נזק אלא אם כן הוא זהיר במיוחד]. חשבתי שמי שנשכר עשה מעשה ובכך התחייב. המקרה השני הוא שבו הנפל לא עשה מעשה. האדם השני מעד עליו. ולכן הראשון לא צריך לשלם, השני היה צריך להיזהר יותר.

אני לא אומר שיש לי תשובה אחרת. אלא שרב חיים מבריסק צודק שבמקרים מסוימים עשיית בור או סוג אחר של מכשול ברשות הרבים אינה חייבת וכי רב שך צודק שלאדם שנשכר יש מידה נוספת של אחריות יותר מכל אדם אחר. אלא שכאן יש עוד סיבה להתחייב כיון שעשה מעשה.

כמו כן, ברצוני להזכיר כאן את דעתו של הרמב''ן המחזיק בכל הנזק חייב לשלם גם אם זה במקרה כפי שהרב שך מביא את דעתו. [הדבר מובא בשיטה מקובצת בבא מציעא] המקרה של מי שנשכר לשאת חבית ושובר אותה שאז מביא המשנה שאינו חייב, אומר הרמב''ן שאין זה אותו מקרה. עובד הגורם נזק במסגרת עבודתו אינו נחשב כמי שגורם נזק. אז איך היה מסביר הרמב''ן דין שני אנשים נושאי חביות ואחד מחליק ונופל והשני מעד עליו במקום שאין חייב הראשון אפילו בקרקע חלקה, שלא בשיפוע. הרמב''ן יצטרך להסביר שהכוונה גם לשני אנשים שנשכרים לשאת חביות. אך מדוע תישאר דעתו של ר' אלאזר בחוץ? הרמב''ן יצטרך לומר שזה פשוט כדעת המשנה שבו על מי שנשכר ושובר את החבית בשוגג אינו חייב אפילו במסלול ישר שלא שיפוע.

 

interest in Kant

 I wanted to mention at some point that I realize interest in Kant is increasing in the academic world since the vacuous nature of twentieth century philosophy has become clear. So as expected the three names of the great Kant interpreters in the English world Sellars, Allison, and Strawson have even come up in German Academia. But also the two versions of Cohen. the Marburg School and the earlier Cohen.

In all of this still Leonard Nelson and his New Friesian School seems neglected. That would not bother me so much since at least their material has been printed. But the rather novel synthesis of Kant Nelson and Schopenhauer of Kelley Ross  seems ignored. Why? I assume it must be that the same accusations of flimsy thinking or psychologism must be at the root of this. But just as this accusation was not true in the case of Nelson, I think it also is unfounded in the case of Kelley Ross. His approach to Kant I find quite refreshing and can help not just in understanding Kant and issues like the transcendental thinking subject but also in understanding the wider world.

 Ukraine was Russian territory since Tzar Alexei in 1654 until 1991. No wonder the Russians want it back.

Besides that everyone I talked with in the Ukraine whether in Uman or Kiev or Odessa thought things were better under Russian rule. But that was a surprise to me. I had thought everyone would have been happy at the fall of the USSR/ But as it turned out, people thought otherwise.

 I wanted to mention at some point that I wish to make clear my dad's role in the U-2 project and the invention of the Infrared telescope.  In both cases, I wrote here on my blog that I thought he did not get enough credit. But recently it was made clear.  First of all, he had made the second camera for the U-2 that could see a toothpick from 20,000 feet. But that was rarely used because of its weight. The people that made the smaller camera that  was the workhorse and did the photos over the USSR and Cuba got the credit they deserved.

And as for his invention of the infrared telescope, he did in fact get the credit that he deserved --not just in Life Magazine but in Time Magazine and on TV shows.

 to accept on oneself the yoke of Torah is a help for oneself and the whole world as you can see in the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin vol IV. So when you see the world falling into chaos, the best thing is to set times to get through the two Talmuds and the midrashim. Commentaries on these also count as "learning Torah". The problem nowadays is there is too much pseudo Torah and false Torah. As we see in Sanhedrin that one who reads outside books has no portion in the next world. And the Rif and Rosh explain outside books are books that explain the Torah but have explanations that are not from the Two Talmuds or the Midrashim. That of course means almost 99.9% of all so calle Torah books today are pseudo Torah.

Why I have not merited to learn Torah

 It occurred to me one reason why I have not merited to learn Torah [see the reason why Ilfa [who was learning Torah with R Yochanan] went to work, while R. Yochanan stayed to learn Torah.] the reason I believe was that I made my learning Torah contingent on circumstances. Before I got married, I made it clear that I was going to learn Torah, and that was that. My future bride asked, "But what if there is no money." I said, ''If it comes a day when there is no food and no money, I will go and work.'' [Just like Ilfa who made the same mistake.] and since I made my Torah learning dependent on circumstances, thus later even though there was plenty of food and money, my wife left me because I was learning Torah.  and  I was praying with the sidur of the Reshash [Sar Shalom Sharabi.]  And then at that point , being a  divorced older guy, I was no longer the type of person that yeshivot beg to come to them and lay out the red carpet. I was thrown out of every place I tried to sit and learn Torah. So eventually, I realized I had no place in the religious world, and went to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU, and went into Physics. [But that, in any case, was after I found support for this in the Chovot Levavot and the Guide for the Perplexed.]

I mention this because I see when one gets married he needs to be committed to learning Torah with no conditions attached and to marry a girl that is similarly committed. 

 People do not realize that pushing  Russia they are playing with fire. Putin does not need 6000 nukes. Just one would destroy NY State and make the entire East Coast uninhabitable  down to South Carolina. Ukraine would be the first to go, Then as the USA continues to "punish Russia" the West and East Coast will be then next to go. [That is why Russia has submarines. They are now sitting off the East and West coast of the USA--right now.]

Ukraine was ready to make a deal until the USA encouraged the government of Ukraine to continue fighting. Believe me, 99.9% of people in Uman  prefer Russian rule rather than the leaders in Kiev. [i was in uman for years and talked with everyone I met about this exact issue.]  No one benefits from the continued fighting.

new music file

 z93  z93 nwcmy music background is not professional. i just write for myself. only a few years ago i found away to share with others a you can scattered on this blog different pieces with labels starting with when i began to share, plus some old music i wrote in high school and later in uman like the piece called mathematics.

 Jesus is misunderstood. He did not say not to keep the commandments of the Torah. What he said about this specific subject is turned into its opposite in a feat of sophistry that even the most brilliant lawyer could never duplicate. [see sermon on the mount]

He never claimed worship or to be God.

But to be fair, Christians that take his words seriously tend to kindness towards others to a degree rarely seen anywhere else.

I should mention that Aquinas and Hegel did try to show the rational foundations of Christianity, but it seems to me that these two issues remain unanswered. I am not the first to notice them,- as you can see in the book of Saadia Gaon who also brings them up.

BUT I tend to see Aquinas as important for defending Divine Simplicity but not that he succeeded. Hegel also i see defending faith, but absorbing it into reason. Rather I think Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross do the best job in defending an approach which sees faith and reason as two separate areas of value. however these philosophers are unknown because Nelson was not translated and Kelley Ross wrote just his PhD thesis which goes into the Kant Friesian Approach in comprehensive depth. It is all just a side route in Kantian Philosophy which the West disregarded a long time ago. 

Besides it deals with Kantian philosophy which asks how reason can recognize universals at all,-- while Michael Huemer [see his pre-graduate papers about objective morality ] deals with what reason can recognize among universals after you accept that it can do so in the first place. See Huemer proof of objective morality:(1) There are moral propositions.

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

(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism) 

in his paper: Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness.

Bava Metzia page 35.Rambam Laws of Guards chapter 1 Halacha 6.

 At first glance, it looks like Rav Shach has a good argument for the Rambam.   The Rambam holds a guard that gives to another guard like R. Jose. And he holds that the reason is not like Rav Idi bar Abin but rather from the reasoning alone of "How can the first guard do business with the cow of another?" And that really Abyee would be right if not for that. But to me this looks weak. If Abyee is right that the first guard owns the cow right away at the time of the accident, then it makes no sense to as how can he do business with the cow of another when it already is his cow. If you are going to decide like R Yose against the sages as the Rambam does, then the only reason has to be because of  Idi bar Abin.

And as for the argument that he brings from Rav Aahron Kotler [later in laws of guards chap 2 law 3] that neglect is a good plea as opposed to "It is not  not in my possession"-that is a good argument for the Raavad and that does not mean that the case in chapter 1 law 6 is from the same reasoning. The case in chap 1 is that of the cow died in a normal way,  not from neglect, and that is a good plea.

Just to give some background as to what I mean here:

The Mishna states a case when  guard gives the  cow that he was hired to guard to another guard. The first is a paid guard. The second is borrowing from the first. The cow then dies naturally. The sages said the first guard takes an oath that it died naturally as is his normal requirement and the second guard who was borrowing from the first pays the first guard. R. Yose asks how can the first guard do business with the cow of another? 

Idi bar Abin says the owner of the cow should just tell the first guard "I do not need you nor your oath" and the go to the second guard, (the borrower) and get paid for the cow--as is the normal case of a borrower who pays in all cases.

The Rambam decides like R. Jose.

Later in chapter 2 law 3 the Rambam writes neglect is he same as causing damage and the Raavad disagrees. Rav Shach says that the reason for the Raavad is that he hold the plea of neglect is a good plea i and of itself even without an oath to back it up.

_______________________________________________________________________

 At first glance it looks like רב שך has a good argument for the רמב''ם,   The  רמב''ם holds a שומר that gives to another שומר like ר' יוסי. And he holds that the reason is not like רב אידי בר אבין but rather from the reasoning alone of "how can the first guard do business with the cow of another". And that really אביי would be right if not for that. But to me this looks weak. If אביי is right that the first guard owns the cow right away at the time of the accident then it makes no sense to ask how can he do business with the cow of another when it already is his cow. If you are going to decide like ר' יוסי against the חכמים as the רמב''ם does, then the only reason has to be because of   רב אידי בר אבין. And as for the argument that he brings later in laws of guards chap 2 law 3 that neglect is a good plea as opposed to "it is not  not in my possession"-that is a good argument for the ראב''ד and that does not mean that the case in chapter 1 law 6 is from the same reasoning. The case in chap 1 is that of the cow died in a normal way,  not from neglect and that is a good plea. Just to give some background as to what I mean here: The משנה states a case when  guard gives the  cow that he was hired to guard to another guard. The first is a paid guard. The second is borrowing from the first. The cow then dies naturally. The חכמים said the first guard takes an oath that it died naturally as is his normal requirement and the second guard who was borrowing from the first pays the first guard. ר' יוסי asks ''how can the first guard do business with the cow of another?'' רב אידי בר אבין says the owner of the cow should just tell the first guard ''I do not need you nor your oath'' and then goes to the second guard, [the borrower] and get paid for the cow, as is the normal case of a borrower who pays in all cases. The רמב''ם decides like ר' יוסי. Later in chapter 2 law 3 the רמב''ם writes neglect is he same as causing damage and the ראב''ד disagrees. רב שך says that the reason for the ראב''ד is that he hold the טענה of פשיעה is a good plea is and of itself even without an oath to back it up.

במבט ראשון נראה שלרב שך יש טיעון טוב לרמב''ם. הרמב''ם מחזיק שומר שנותן לשומר אחר כמו ר' יוסי. והוא גורס שהסיבה אינה כמו רב אידי בר אבין אלא מהנימוק בלבד של "איך יכול השומר הראשון לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר". ובאמת אביי היה צודק אלמלא זה. אבל לי זה נראה חלש. אם אביי צודק שהשומר הראשון מחזיק בפרה מיד בזמן התאונה, אז אין טעם לשאול איך הוא יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר כשהיא כבר הפרה שלו. אם אתה מתכוון להחליט כמו ר' יוסי נגד החכמים כמו הרמב''ם, אז הסיבה היחידה צריכה להיות בגלל רב אידי בר אבין.

[רב שך מביא את תשובת אביי שהשומר זוכה בפרה בזמן התאונה, לא בזמן השבועה, וזו הוכחה לחכמים. אבל רב שך אומר שר' יוסי מסכים עם זה באופן עקרוני, אבל עדיין מחזיק אחרת בגלל השאלה "איך השומר יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר?"]

ולגבי הטענה שהוא מביא בהמשך הלכות שומרים פרק ב' דין ג' שהזנחה היא טענה טובה בניגוד ל"אין זה ברשותי" - זה טענה טובה לראב''ד, וזה לא אומר שהמקרה בפרק א' חוק ו' הוא מאותו נימוק. המקרה בפרק א' הוא שהפרה מתה בדרך רגילה, לא מהזנחה וזו טענה טובה. רק כדי לתת קצת רקע למה אני מתכוון כאן: המשנה מציינת מקרה שבו השומר נותן פרה שהוא נשכר לשמור לשומר אחר. הראשון הוא שומר בתשלום. השני הוא לווה מהראשון. לאחר מכן הפרה מתה באופן טבעי. החכמים אמרו שהשומר הראשון נשבע שהוא מת באופן טבעי כדרישה הרגילה והשומר השני שלווה מהראשון משלם לשומר הראשון. ר' יוסי שואל ''איך השומר הראשון יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר?'' רב אידי בר אבין אומר שהבעלים של הפרה צריך פשוט לומר לשומר הראשון ''אני לא צריך אותך ולא את השבועה שלך'' ואז הולך לשומר השני, [הלווה] ומקבל תשלום עבור הפרה, כמו במקרה הרגיל של הלווה שמשלם בכל המקרים. הרמב''ם מחליט כמו ר' יוסי. בהמשך פרק ב' חוק ג' כותב הרמב''ם שהזנחה היא זהה לגרימת נזק, והרב''ד חולק. רב שך אומר שהסיבה לראב''ד היא שהוא מחזיק בטענה של פשיעה היא טענה טובה אפילו בלי שבועה לגבות אותה.

 I have been thinking about the problems in the world and i recall the advice that i heard while in Litvak yeshivot-- learning Torah brings peace to the world.  Instead of complaining about it or offering solutions that will not work, I  recommend to people to learn Torah. But "Torah" is specific. It is not a word that can be applied to anything. As the Rambam wrote in a letter: "Just like one can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so one can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." That is: the only things which get to be called the Oral Law are the actual books handed down by the sages of the Mishna and Talmud. Later on books are not "Torah" except in a secondhand sort of way in that some of them might be explanations of the Talmud.    

The sad thing is I wanted to learn Torah , but circumstances and my own personal failings led to me not being able to do so, so I had to depend on the opinion of some Rishonim like the Rambam that include Physics and Metaphysics in the category of Learning Torah. [Not that he is saying they are Torah, but rather in the category of ''learning Torah'' that is to clarify the deeper meaning of Torah.]  

 i think one should divide the time half for iyun [deep learning] and half for bekiut./fast learning. even though in the conversation of rav nachman 76 we find the emphasis on jut saying the words as fast a possible and going on, in the LeM vol I ch 78 we see that the main thig is iyun. so clearly there need to be both. but how much of each. i can see the need for both -especially in early ages because when people do not get ''how to learn'' [how to really get into the depths of the subject] they never get it.

when i was young i also did not understand this as i think most people do not. i thought what is the point of spending a few weeks on one page of gemara when i have not even finished the whole tractate at least a few times to get the big picture? but now i see that we people do not get iyun when they are young they never get it. o clearly the great litvak yeshivot that immerse people in iyun right away have the right idea. 

Rav Nahman made a very big deal about sexual purity, and I can see that he was right on one hand. But there is also the danger of adding and or subtracting from what the Torah commands, -as its says in Devarim Deuteronomy,  not to add or subtract from the law. after all in Torah there are things that are emphasizing and things which are less emphasized-- and it is not up to every individual to decide on his or her own what is really important and what is not.

For a simple and well know example: lashon hara [slander]. וויתר הקדוש ברוך הוא על עבודה זרה  גילוי עריות שפיכות דמים ולא וויתר על לשון הרע  God let go and forgave sexual sin, murder and idolatry in the time of the first temple but did not forgive them for lashon hara.

Even though there are specific conditions in which one can speak negatively about others as a rule anything one says about others that is negative comes under the category of lason hara.

So we see that there is a hierarchy of values in Torah and it is not just up to everyone to decide for themselves what is more important and what is less. 

For this reason it is worthwhile to learn the Gates of Repentance which gives a basic overview of the commandments and their degrees of being more or less important 

 I was interested in the issue of idolatry and thus learned Sanhedrin 64 and onwards until the next chapter, and also that Tosphot on shituf שיתוף. Shituf שיתוף is combing the name of God with another. This comes up in the Gemara and right there on the page Tosphot deals with Christianity. To Tosphot it is not idolatry since they worship God, but they join God with a representative. So it is shituf שיתוף.

at least that is one opinion in tosphot. but when i learned that tosphot with david bronson, he noticed that there seemed to be a few other approaches in that very same tosphot.

At any rate, the problems with Christianity are (bitul hamitzvot) nullification of the commandments -which comes from Paul, not Jesus. The other is worship of a person who is not the first cause. that is wrong even given that he was the Messiah son of Josef as held by Rav Avraham Abulafia. a person being considered ''divine'' is not against the torah as stated by the Ari Rav Izhak Luria about Avraham, Izhak yaakov and others who were souls of Emanation which is totally Godliness.  

 My impression in Ukraine was most people were more happy with living in the USSR rather than after the fall of the Soviet state. I base this on the fact that after Rosh Hashanah in Uman , i stayed there for long periods and whenever i went to the local markets i asked people if they were happy that the USSR was gone. And the answer was always the same except for two people. Everyone said ''Things were better under the USSR.'' The two people that disagreed with this were  a good friend of mine. The other was the home owner of the place I was staying at for seven years. He was of Tartar decent so I can see why his feelings would have been different.

 There is a good reason to support someone learning Torah. But there also a  problem about the mentality involved. Far too often people in kollel get the idea that they are the Patrician class while the rest of us plebeians only exist to give them money. But in authentic Torah thought, there is no class distinction. Anyone who wants to sit and learn Torah even on a beginners level  is equal to someone learning at the Mir or Brisk..

 After the Ukraine destroyed the bridge linking the Crimea with mainland, there is no question that russia will retaliate in a massive way including nuclear strikes to defend the four annexed territories. U really don't understand why someone does not try to  the lessen tensions instead of pouring on rhetoric that will ignite global catastrophe.

 I mentioned to someone in the local Breslov [Na Nach ] place that if I had known better, I would have spent half time in Shar Yashuv [a great Litvak yeshiva in NY] and half time in university. But in this conversation, it came up about what I would have majored in.  -- Philosophy. And he pointed out that therefore it was great that I did not go to university.--as we know nowadays how far philosophy has become ''obviously false'' [in the famous words of the great philosopher John Searle]

[Physics would not have been possible for me at that time since I was not aware of the way of learning of Rav Nahman of just saying the words and going on.  With that method I did in fact go to NYU university and majored in Physics]

 I realize that doing lots of review is an essential part of the Litvak world. I recall that when I mentioned the idea of fast learning [saying the words and going on] to Motti Friefeld, he made it clear that review is the proper way of learning. But in Shar Yashuv there was such an emphasis on deep learning and review that i sort of had to rebel in order to  make any progress at all. And this idea of review is mentioned in the Gemara about that disciple who had to learn one thing 400 times in order to get the idea at all.  

In the long run, i think  the general path of the litvak world is deep learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon --and that combination makes the most sense for me.

[fast learning means with tosphot,, just with less staying on the same page.]