I find Woody Allen helpful. He said something that helped me in NYU. I forget exactly his words but it was something like "70% of success is showing up." When I was in fact having lots of trouble even showing up because of demands being made on my time, I found that this helped at least to pass my courses.
14.5.16
The fruits of immigration. Radical Islamists.
6 arrested, weapons seized ‘en route to Swedish militants’ - Bosnian Serb officials
Six people have been arrested on suspicion of smuggling weapons to radical Islamists in Sweden, the Local reported, citing Bosnian Serb authorities.
13.5.16
repentance on character flaws?
Do you have to do repentance on character flaws? I claim you do. In other words you need to correct more that just bad deeds but to get the core of bad deeds in one's very attitudes and character. This was the whole-point of Reb Israel Salanter's Musar (Ethics) movement and the Boy Scouts both.
The Boy Scouts was in order to teach good character by means of outdoor skills. The actual intention of the movement was as far as I know to actually teach good character. But that is something that needs to be learned through practice and working together with others. It can't be learned in a vacuum.
That movement has fallen into the Dark Side but the original intention is admirable and ought to be resurrected.
The Musar (Ethics) movement was intending to teach both good character and also Fear of God in a more direct fashion--learning the actual texts many hours every day until the ideas become ingrained. This idea also fell completely and no one does this anymore.
But here just like with the Boy Scouts the original idea was sound and good and ought to be resurrected.
In fact I suggest both together. Learning Musar (Ethics) while camping in the wilderness.
Further I claim all external problems people have are a reflection of internal problems. personality flaws. Not that the external problems are not real. They are real but they are an epi-phenomenon of an internal problem.
So when learning good character by outdoor activity one is also correcting internal flaws.
The Boy Scouts was in order to teach good character by means of outdoor skills. The actual intention of the movement was as far as I know to actually teach good character. But that is something that needs to be learned through practice and working together with others. It can't be learned in a vacuum.
That movement has fallen into the Dark Side but the original intention is admirable and ought to be resurrected.
The Musar (Ethics) movement was intending to teach both good character and also Fear of God in a more direct fashion--learning the actual texts many hours every day until the ideas become ingrained. This idea also fell completely and no one does this anymore.
But here just like with the Boy Scouts the original idea was sound and good and ought to be resurrected.
In fact I suggest both together. Learning Musar (Ethics) while camping in the wilderness.
Further I claim all external problems people have are a reflection of internal problems. personality flaws. Not that the external problems are not real. They are real but they are an epi-phenomenon of an internal problem.
So when learning good character by outdoor activity one is also correcting internal flaws.
abuse of religious authority.
In your own personal experience, what was an incredible abuse of power you have ever witnessed?
In my experience it has been abuse of religious authority.
There is no name for this but the basic idea is that people believe some authority who uses his authority not to teach what he is supposed to but rather for criminal and non moral purposes.
This is kind of related to what you see in cults but not exactly.
In my experience it has been abuse of religious authority.
There is no name for this but the basic idea is that people believe some authority who uses his authority not to teach what he is supposed to but rather for criminal and non moral purposes.
This is kind of related to what you see in cults but not exactly.
Practice of Torah has nothing to do with the religious world.
Practice of Torah has nothing to do with the religious world. These are two exact opposites.
This is obvious to anyone with an experience. That is to say the principles are opposed one to the other.
One is to concentrate on Jewish rituals in order to get secular Jews to give them money. That is the basic meme of the religious world.
The essence of practice of Torah on the other hand is modesty--to serve God privately without public display and to be self sufficient and to work on one's character trait and keep the commandments.
For example, "Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not steal, etc." The polar opposite of the religious world.
Just to be fair, I have to exclude from this critique authentic Lithuanian yeshivas and their surrounding communities that do make an effort to keep Torah sincerely as it says, and not from any alternative motivations.
This is obvious to anyone with an experience. That is to say the principles are opposed one to the other.
One is to concentrate on Jewish rituals in order to get secular Jews to give them money. That is the basic meme of the religious world.
The essence of practice of Torah on the other hand is modesty--to serve God privately without public display and to be self sufficient and to work on one's character trait and keep the commandments.
For example, "Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not steal, etc." The polar opposite of the religious world.
Just to be fair, I have to exclude from this critique authentic Lithuanian yeshivas and their surrounding communities that do make an effort to keep Torah sincerely as it says, and not from any alternative motivations.
[There was in fact an incident with a group of followers of Rav Nahman of Breslov. They were living in a different city, and in that city the rav was against Rav Nahman. There was at the time some questions about Halacha [Law]. Rav Nahman told them, what ever that rav says is teh law, be sure to do just teh opposite. And in fact what ever law that rav said , the followers of Rav Nahman opened up the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and saw that the exact opposite of what that rav said is the true law. This incident can be taken as an archetype. What ever the religious say is the law of the Torah, in all likelihood if you open up the Shulchan Aruch you will in general see the exact opposite.
12.5.16
[marriage ideas]
Yeshiva [beit midrash] starts at 18 years old. The emphasis is at that point to start thinking about shiduchim [marriage ideas]. In the USA it was expected to marry sometime during the first four years --from 18-22. The idea was to be supported by one's parents or in laws for a few years after that until some viable other form vocation becomes available.
This seems to me to be the best idea and applicable to everyone. Even for people in STEM.
A lot depends on the kind of institution one is in. People depend a lot on their immediate environment for their attitudes towards life.
This seems to me to be the best idea and applicable to everyone. Even for people in STEM.
A lot depends on the kind of institution one is in. People depend a lot on their immediate environment for their attitudes towards life.
Kant and Hegel
The ground of knowledge is in the long run intuitive. It is almost the same kind of thing as intellectual intuition.
neither the subject nor the object is primary. Neither causes the other. Both need a Ground--the subject itself.
For Hegel, the ground is the Subject.
For both this is the privileged position. The bird's eye view. I have difficulty seeing how any of this is all that different from neo-Platonic thought with the Logos Mind having the privileged position.
And I should mention this is not God as the Rambam already made clear. He knows there is a kind of internal spiritual principle in the Universe a kind of Gaia spirit. But that is not God and worship of it is idolatry.
neither the subject nor the object is primary. Neither causes the other. Both need a Ground--the subject itself.
For Hegel, the ground is the Subject.
For both this is the privileged position. The bird's eye view. I have difficulty seeing how any of this is all that different from neo-Platonic thought with the Logos Mind having the privileged position.
And I should mention this is not God as the Rambam already made clear. He knows there is a kind of internal spiritual principle in the Universe a kind of Gaia spirit. But that is not God and worship of it is idolatry.
Oral Law in capsule form
Fast food is an idea I like. Even in home cooking I do not like to wait. And in learning also from a very young age I loved the idea of condensed learning. You know what I mean. This is the difference between reading and outline series or reading text.At about 7 I remember getting an outline of college chemistry. That is I do not have the ability to concentrate for a long time so I like things that get to the point immediately.
So it occurred to me how to get the Oral Law in capsule form. I think the best condensation is "Musar and Gemara." And in Musar itself the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות and or the Or Israel by Isaac Blazer and in Gemara I think the most powerful pill form is any essay from Rav Shach in the Avi Ezri. That is to learn it with the Gemara and the Rambam it is going on. That would contain the basic essence of the Oral Law in fast food form. In that way you do not have to wait for twenty years until you have gone through the actual entire oral law and even then to probably have not gotten the idea. [If you like you could take an essay from Reb Chaim Solovieitchik also. It is just that I personally often end up more confused than I started out when I read Reb Chaim. Rav Shach makes the most complex and difficult subjects as simple as apple pie.]
You could apply the same idea to Isaac Luria. The fact is the Eitz Chaim
really is the whole thing in capsule form.
{Just for clarity. I am not saying this makes one an expert-or can take the place of the normal four year program in an Authentic Lithuanian Yeshiva or studying STEM in college. Rather I am talking to people like me to whom options like these are not available.}
So it occurred to me how to get the Oral Law in capsule form. I think the best condensation is "Musar and Gemara." And in Musar itself the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות and or the Or Israel by Isaac Blazer and in Gemara I think the most powerful pill form is any essay from Rav Shach in the Avi Ezri. That is to learn it with the Gemara and the Rambam it is going on. That would contain the basic essence of the Oral Law in fast food form. In that way you do not have to wait for twenty years until you have gone through the actual entire oral law and even then to probably have not gotten the idea. [If you like you could take an essay from Reb Chaim Solovieitchik also. It is just that I personally often end up more confused than I started out when I read Reb Chaim. Rav Shach makes the most complex and difficult subjects as simple as apple pie.]
You could apply the same idea to Isaac Luria. The fact is the Eitz Chaim
really is the whole thing in capsule form.
{Just for clarity. I am not saying this makes one an expert-or can take the place of the normal four year program in an Authentic Lithuanian Yeshiva or studying STEM in college. Rather I am talking to people like me to whom options like these are not available.}
radical Muslims
It is not "radical" Muslims as opposed to normal Muslims that are the problem. It is the whole "meme." In any group with any belief system there will be those that are fanatical about the beliefs. A fanatical Catholic nun is different than a radical Muslim because of the type of belief system. Not because the personalities are so different. Rather it is what they believe in that matters.
libertarian-ism.Ann Rand
There are good arguers for libertarian-ism. Off hand I can think of Michael Huemer [an intuitionist but he agrees with Ann Rand on important points] and Bryan Caplan and Friedman. The ones that have good arguments against it are the very famous Edward Fesser. Dr Ross was once part for the movement but went away but today I think he classifies himself a "a kind of libertarian." Steven Dutch has some pointed critique on the movement. The more powerful thinkers here are the one that argue the libertarian doctrines are flawed.
11.5.16
Alt Right. "Blame it on Jews"
A drop too much "Blame it on Jews" exists in the Alt Right. This is disturbing because I agree with almost everything else.There is an sad attempt to wipe out the white race. This is in the Jewish people as well with anti Ashkenazim prejudice. The values of private property, limited government, everything the opposite of socialism, are Torah values that I share with the Alt Right. Feminizes are certainly something that I see as a problem.
Talmud Shavuot 43b , Tosphot,
Conclusion
Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically. I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case. That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.
I do not have any kind of opinion that Tosphot can not be wrong. Rather. It is simply not possible that he did not think through something thoroughly.
מסקנה, בעיקר הרעיון הוא כי התוספות שואלים שאלה על רבינו חננאל שנראתה שחל על רש''י באותה מידה. אבל מסיבה כלשהי תוספות לא רוצים לשאול אותה על רש''י. ואז מהרש''א נותן תשובה לענות מדוע תוספות שואלים על רבינו חננאל במיוחד. שאלתי שהרעיון של המהרש''א לא נראה שתעזור כלום. הוא מנצל את הרעיון של קפיצה שני צעדים היא יותר מדי. שאלתי, אבל יש לך את אותם שני צעדים רש''י? התשובה. יש למעשה קיים מקרה שלישי. כלומר כל אחד, רש''י ורבינו חננאל עסקים עם מקרה שמישהו, אנחנו לא יודעים מי, אמר שהמשכון הוא בגין הסכום של ההלוואה. הבדל דעות מי אמר את זה. הרעיון שאני מנסה להציג הוא כי לכל אחד יש מקרה שלישי. הווה רש''י יש לנו שני מקרים כאשר המלווה דיבר וכאשר שמלווה לא דבר. המקרה השלישי הוא כאשר הלווה דיבר. ואנחנו יכולים לראות בקלות כי זה יהיה שונה משני המקרים הראשונים לרבי אליעזר. אבל לרבינו חננאל יש לנו שני מקרים, הלווה דיבר, והוא לא דיבר. אבל מה קורה לדעתו אם המלווה דיבר. אז זה יהיה זהה כאשר הלווה לא דיבר. כך דילוג על שלב הביניים חל עליו, ולכן הוא רש''י יוצא טוב יותר.
Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically. I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case. That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.
I do not have any kind of opinion that Tosphot can not be wrong. Rather. It is simply not possible that he did not think through something thoroughly.
מסקנה, בעיקר הרעיון הוא כי התוספות שואלים שאלה על רבינו חננאל שנראתה שחל על רש''י באותה מידה. אבל מסיבה כלשהי תוספות לא רוצים לשאול אותה על רש''י. ואז מהרש''א נותן תשובה לענות מדוע תוספות שואלים על רבינו חננאל במיוחד. שאלתי שהרעיון של המהרש''א לא נראה שתעזור כלום. הוא מנצל את הרעיון של קפיצה שני צעדים היא יותר מדי. שאלתי, אבל יש לך את אותם שני צעדים רש''י? התשובה. יש למעשה קיים מקרה שלישי. כלומר כל אחד, רש''י ורבינו חננאל עסקים עם מקרה שמישהו, אנחנו לא יודעים מי, אמר שהמשכון הוא בגין הסכום של ההלוואה. הבדל דעות מי אמר את זה. הרעיון שאני מנסה להציג הוא כי לכל אחד יש מקרה שלישי. הווה רש''י יש לנו שני מקרים כאשר המלווה דיבר וכאשר שמלווה לא דבר. המקרה השלישי הוא כאשר הלווה דיבר. ואנחנו יכולים לראות בקלות כי זה יהיה שונה משני המקרים הראשונים לרבי אליעזר. אבל לרבינו חננאל יש לנו שני מקרים, הלווה דיבר, והוא לא דיבר. אבל מה קורה לדעתו אם המלווה דיבר. אז זה יהיה זהה כאשר הלווה לא דיבר. כך דילוג על שלב הביניים חל עליו, ולכן הוא רש''י יוצא טוב יותר.
Tosphot
In the previous essay in Hebrew I bring together a few ideas. Mainly the idea is that the Tosphot was asking a question in Rabbainu Chananel that seems to apply to Rashi just as well. But for some odd reason Tosphot does not seem to want to ask it on Rashi. Then the Maharsha gives and answer why Tosphot asked on Rabbainu Chananele specifically. In my original essay I simply pointed out that the idea of the Mahrasha does not seem to help anything.. He uses the idea that a quantum jump two steps is too much. I asked, "You have the same two steps to Rashi?" But frankly it bothered me. There simply is no way on God's dear Earth that this could a have escaped the attention of the Tosphot and the Maharsha. Therefore I spent something thinking about this as I was out shopping and God granted to me to figure out the answer. That in fact there is a third case. That is this each one -Rashi and Rabbainu Chananel deal with a case someone [we do not know who] said the pledge is for the amount of the loan. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to Rashi we have the two cases when the lender spoke and when the lender did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to Rabbi Eliezer.
But to Rabbainu Chananel we have two cases that the borrower spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the lender spoke. Then it would be the same as when the borrower did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus Rashi comes out better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically. I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case. That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.
But to Rabbainu Chananel we have two cases that the borrower spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the lender spoke. Then it would be the same as when the borrower did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus Rashi comes out better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically. I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case. That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.
This would be the main idea of the previous essay. Here I set forth the question. Then I give a preliminary idea that does not seem to help much but it does clarify things. Then in the end I use that idea to obtain and answer for the Tosphot and Maharasha
) שבועות מ''ג ע''ב וב''מ פ''א ע''ב. קושיה על תוספות בשבועות מ''ג ע''ב וב''מ פ''א ע''ב. בקיצור, תוספות הוא שואל שתי שאלות על רבינו חננאל שיכולות להיות מיושמות על רש''י. אבל תוספות לא רוצה לשאול על רש''י. אז המהרש''א נותן תשובה מדוע שאלה אחת יכולה להיות יותר רלוונטית לרבינו חננאל. אבל הרעיון של המהרש''א חל באותה המידה על רש''י. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה. שמואל אומר שאם מלווה לקח משכון ואיבד אותו, הוא מאבד את כל ההלוואה. הגמרא שואלת, זה לא נראה כמו רבי אליעזר ולא רבי עקיבא. המחלוקת היא כך: רבי אליעזר אומר שהוא לוקח שבועה ואינו מאבד שום דבר. רבי עקיבא אומר שהוא מאבד את השווי של המשכון. בגרסה שלנו והגרסה של רש''י, הגמרא עונה: שמואל הוא כאשר המלווה לא מפרש, והמחלוקת בין רבי עקיבא ורבי אליעזר היא כאשר הוא מפרש. רבינו חננאל מהפך את זה: היינו שמואל הוא כאשר הוא מפרש, ורבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא הם כאשר הוא לא מפרש. הגמרא בבבא מציעא פא: בנימה רלוונטית מנסה לקבל תוצאה שהמשנה שם יכולה להיות כמו שניהם, (רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא), ולא יכולה לעשות את זאת. המשנה שם אומרת: המלווה הוא שומר שכר ביחס למשכון. זה טוב לרבי עקיבא, אבל לא לרבי אליעזר. אז תוספות שואלים אם רבינו חננאל נכון, אז המשנה בבבא מציעא היא דעת של כולם וזה כאשר הוא מפרש כמו שמואל. השאלה של המהרש''א היתה שאותה שאלה חלה על רש''י כשהוא לא הסביר כמו שמואל. שאלה נוספת של תוספות על רבינו חננאל. רבי אליעזר לוקח זינוק יותר מדאי גדול. כאשר המלווה לא מסביר את הכל, אז הוא מפסיד את כל החוב, וכאשר הוא אינו מסביר הוא אינו מפסיד כלום. מהרש''א אומר הנקודה האחרונה של תוספות זו הסיבה שהתוספות לא שואלים את השאלה הראשונה שלהם על רש''י. השאלה שלי היא אותה הנקודה המדויקת חלה על רש''י. כלומר: המהרש''א הציע שתוספות חושב שאם זה נכון שהגרסה הוא כמו רש''י, אז רבי אליעזר עשוי לעשות רק צעד. אם המלווה מפרש אינו מפסיד כלום, וכאשר הוא אינו מסביר, אז המשכון כנגד שיווי ההלוואה המדויק. השאלה שלי היא אותה תשובה עובדת אפילו טוב יותר לרבינו חננאל. הוא לא מאבד שום דבר כשהוא לא מפרש, ורק כנגד ההלוואה כשהוא מפרש. בפירוט יותר: השאלה שלי על תוספות ומהרש''א היא זאת: המהרש''א אומר שאנחנו יכולים לומר מתי הגמרא אומרת שרבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא מסכימים עם שמואל שזה אומר שכל אחד עושה צעד אחד מעמדת המוצא שלהם צעד אחד יותר קדימה. השאלה שלי היא שזה עובד גם לרבינו חננאל. כלומר, כאשר הוא מסביר שרבי אליעזר עולה צעד אחד לומר שלגבי ההלוואה, המשכון מקביל רק לשוויו. וכשהוא לא מסביר ומפרש, אז המשכון לא קשור להלוואה בכלל. אבל לרש''י זה לא יעבוד. כשהוא לא מסביר ומפרש את זה, המשכון מקביל לשוויו, אבל כשהוא מסביר שהמשכון כנגד ההלוואה, אז הוא לא קשור להלוואה בכלל.
) מחלוקת בין רש''י ואת רבינו חננאל. שאלת הגמרא המקורית הייתה זאת: האם יש מחלוקת בין שמואל לבין רבי עקיבה ורבי אליעזר? גמרא משיבה אין. האחת היא כאשר המלווה הסביר והמקרה השני הוא כאשר הוא לא עשה את זאת. רש''י אומר במקרה של שמואל הוא כאשר הוא לא עשה זאת.
זה הגיוני לומר שרבינו חננאל התכוון כי הגמרא לא השתמשה במילת "מלווה" כי זה לא הגיוני עבור המלווה להסביר שהמשכון הוא עבור ההלוואה כולה אם כי להחליש את עמדתו.
אני המצביע על כך שהגמרא עלתה חזרה למיקום המקורי שלה על פי תוספות ואת הרי''ף. אז עכשיו הגמרא מבינה שאת עמדתה המקורית זו הגיוני. והעובדה הפשוטה היא על פי הרעיון הזה כי רבינו חננאל הוא כאשר הלווה דיבר, רש''י הוא כאשר המלווה דיבר. אנחנו יוצאים עם המסקנה המצטיינת והמדהימה שאין ויכוח. אם הלווה דיבר, אז הגדיל את כוחו ולכן אם המלווה איבד את המשכון זה נערך על ההלוואה כולה. אם המלווה דבר, אז זה היה הוא שהגדיל את כוחו ואת המשכון נערך רק על פי ערך כספי שלו. בנוסף לזה, על פי מה שכתבתי לפני כן כי המקרים בבבא מציעא ק''ד ובשבועות מ''ד שונים גם זה עשוי לעשות את ההבדל. כלומר: שבועות הוא כאשר המשכון אבד ואת הגמרא בבבא מציעא ק''ד היא כאשר ההלוואה לא שולמה בחזרה ולכן מלווה יכולה ללכת אחרי כל המשכון. היציאה בעקבות המשכון כולו עשויה להיות כשזה היה המלווה שדבר. המקרה בשבועות הוא כאשר הלווה דיבר. וכך שני אלה בהסכמה. והרעיון הזה כי הגמרות במקומות שונים מסכימות בהחלט אקסיומה התחלתי של תוספות. זה עשוי לעזור לנו מבחינת ראש החודש גם. שהשני גמרות בראש השנה וסנהדרין ע' ע''ב נראות שלא בהסכמה. הגמרא בסנהדרין נראה שיום ראש החודש אינו תלוי בסנהדרין ודעה אחת בתוספות זה אומר שמולד למרות שאתה לא יכול לראות אתו בפועל ראש חודש. הגמרא בראש השנה הופך את הכל וברור שהכל תלוי ביכולת לראות את הלבנה . כדי לפתור בעיה זו אפשר לומר ההבדל הוא כאשר קיים ישיבת הסנהדרין או לא.
ברוך השם. אני חושב שאני מצאתי דרך כלשהי להבין תוספות ואת מהרש''א על בבא מציעא פ''ד ושבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב. הייתי רוצה להביע את הרעיון הבסיסי ולאחר מכן להיכנס לפרטים בעזרת השם. אני חושב תוספות והמהרש''א קרוב לוודאי שכבר הבינו מה שאמרתי על רבינו חננאל כי במקרה שלו זה לא רק שהוא משנה המקרה של מפרש אלא גם מיהו מפרש. אפשר לקחת את זה כנתון, ואקסיומה. רעיון זה כשלעצמו לא עוזר בהתחלה. אבל הבה נחשוב מה ההשלכות הן. נניח רבינו חננאל אומר שהמקרה של שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש. בהתחלה זה לא נראה שיחול שינוי משמעותי. אבל זה משנה משהו חיוני. כלומר זה. כי שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש המשכון הוא עבור כל הלוואה. המקרה של רבי עקיבא הוא כאשר הלווה לא מסביר כלום. אז מה קורה אם המלווה הוא מפרש? זה יהיה אותו הדבר כמו לא הסביר שום דבר. רבי אליעזר היה אומר שהוא מקבל את ההלוואה כולה. זה אותו דבר של קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. אבל לרש''י הדברים שונים. המקרה של רבי עקיבא ורבי אליעזר הוא כאשר המלווה הוא מפרש. ואז שמואל הוא כשהוא לא מפרש. אז מה קורה אם הלווה הוא מפרש לרש''י? אפילו רבי אליעזר היה מודה שזה לא אותו בדבר כמו אם אף אחד לא אמר כלום. במקום זאת החוק יחזור לרבי עקיבא כי סכום שהמשכון היה שווה לא צריך לפרוע אל המלווה. לכן אין קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. ולכן דעתו של רש''י יוצאת טוב יותר מאשר רבינו חננאל
ברוך השם. אני חושב שאני מצאתי דרך כלשהי להבין תוספות ואת מהרש''א על בבא מציעא פ''ד ושבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב. הייתי רוצה להביע את הרעיון הבסיסי ולאחר מכן להיכנס לפרטים בעזרת השם. אני חושב תוספות והמהרש''א קרוב לוודאי שכבר הבינו מה שאמרתי על רבינו חננאל כי במקרה שלו זה לא רק שהוא משנה המקרה של מפרש אלא גם מיהו מפרש. אפשר לקחת את זה כנתון, ואקסיומה. רעיון זה כשלעצמו לא עוזר בהתחלה. אבל הבה נחשוב מה ההשלכות הן. נניח רבינו חננאל אומר שהמקרה של שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש. בהתחלה זה לא נראה שיחול שינוי משמעותי. אבל זה משנה משהו חיוני. כלומר זה. כי שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש המשכון הוא עבור כל הלוואה. המקרה של רבי עקיבא הוא כאשר הלווה לא מסביר כלום. אז מה קורה אם המלווה הוא מפרש? זה יהיה אותו הדבר כמו לא הסביר שום דבר. רבי אליעזר היה אומר שהוא מקבל את ההלוואה כולה. זה אותו דבר של קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. אבל לרש''י הדברים שונים. המקרה של רבי עקיבא ורבי אליעזר הוא כאשר המלווה הוא מפרש. ואז שמואל הוא כשהוא לא מפרש. אז מה קורה אם הלווה הוא מפרש לרש''י? אפילו רבי אליעזר היה מודה שזה לא אותו בדבר כמו אם אף אחד לא אמר כלום. במקום זאת החוק יחזור לרבי עקיבא כי סכום שהמשכון היה שווה לא צריך לפרוע אל המלווה. לכן אין קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. ולכן דעתו של רש''י יוצאת טוב יותר מאשר רבינו חננאל
Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
How Radical Muslims Will Get Nukes They will simply vote themselves in and take over the UK and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
An example that people choose their beliefs based on the social group they identify with, not based on rational criteria. What makes the social group believe a certain set of beliefs is they are often founded on a schizoid typal personality who has contradictory beliefs.
It is not radical Muslims that are a problem as oppose to normal Muslims. It is the whole "meme" The difference between a Catholic nun and radical Muslim is in what they believe in. Not amount of fervor they believe in it.
See this how-radical-muslims-will-get-nukes
the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all.
Heidegger saw this in a metaphysical kind of sense. He thought this is indicative of the idea of coming into being. The past is the potential which gives birth to the present. Dr Kelly Ross thinks of this more in the sense that the past has gone from a mode of possibility into necessity.
But I myself have not yet had time to delve into these interesting approaches. I am just mentioning them for points of possible exploration.
The thing here that is curious is that the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all. Instead of it going from potential into actuality, it passed from potential into actuality into nothingness.
I think that this indicates what Kant was saying about time-it is an unconditioned reality. When pure reason ventures into that area it produces contradictions. The past is the most necessary. It can no long be changed. But it also is the most non existent.
But I myself have not yet had time to delve into these interesting approaches. I am just mentioning them for points of possible exploration.
The thing here that is curious is that the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all. Instead of it going from potential into actuality, it passed from potential into actuality into nothingness.
I think that this indicates what Kant was saying about time-it is an unconditioned reality. When pure reason ventures into that area it produces contradictions. The past is the most necessary. It can no long be changed. But it also is the most non existent.
Nature makes the choice."
(1) Free will and Quantum Mechanics with Henry Stapp see min 33:44 "Nature makes the choice."
[Which is locality.The observer is Nature, not the experimenter nor the electron.]
(2) That is straight Neo Platonic thought--the observer is the Logos--not the individual.
(3) What the individual sees is representation of reality. Pixels on a screen. What do the pixels represent? Hermitian matrices on a Hilbert Space..
That is a kind of matrix that stays the same if you flip it over and every "i" you turn to a "-i." And the Hilbert Space simply has a linear inner product defined on it.
The hermitian matrix is really a tensor. It has different values according to which direction it is pointed. So it is not a vector. But it might be made up of lots of vectors (forces whose value depends on direction). [Think of a corner stone in a building. At a single point the stresses and strains with will be different depending on direction.]
Anyway--these are the things that are real. What we see are merely representations. As Kant said the dinge an sich is hidden. But Schopenhauer thought there is only one real Ding an sich the Will. The rest of reality is a representation of that Ding an sich.
(4) And that brings us to Hegel that there is a hierarchy with each level being a representation of the previous one. [Not thesis anti thesis synthesis which appears no where in Hegel and is not even an accurate representation of his thought. Rather he thought the concept internally had some self contradiction in potential that needed resolution. Not some anti thesis coming from without.]
[Which is locality.The observer is Nature, not the experimenter nor the electron.]
(2) That is straight Neo Platonic thought--the observer is the Logos--not the individual.
(3) What the individual sees is representation of reality. Pixels on a screen. What do the pixels represent? Hermitian matrices on a Hilbert Space..
That is a kind of matrix that stays the same if you flip it over and every "i" you turn to a "-i." And the Hilbert Space simply has a linear inner product defined on it.
The hermitian matrix is really a tensor. It has different values according to which direction it is pointed. So it is not a vector. But it might be made up of lots of vectors (forces whose value depends on direction). [Think of a corner stone in a building. At a single point the stresses and strains with will be different depending on direction.]
Anyway--these are the things that are real. What we see are merely representations. As Kant said the dinge an sich is hidden. But Schopenhauer thought there is only one real Ding an sich the Will. The rest of reality is a representation of that Ding an sich.
(4) And that brings us to Hegel that there is a hierarchy with each level being a representation of the previous one. [Not thesis anti thesis synthesis which appears no where in Hegel and is not even an accurate representation of his thought. Rather he thought the concept internally had some self contradiction in potential that needed resolution. Not some anti thesis coming from without.]
10.5.16
Alt Right
Private property, limited government, individual rights to be left alone from government interference, the stopping of the importation of Muslims into the USA are good ideas. The Alt Right is correct about these things. But when they throw antisemitism into the mixture, I have to draw a line.
the religious world
In the religious world, the obedient people who go to school and memorize zombie nonsense, then go to official positions of power and recite more zombie nonsense, and finally socialize with other people like them, get the most money. In theory they have the most children; reality seems to be mixed, on that point. But either way, the religious world, is selecting for these ideologically-correct conformists. When another century passes, if our the religious world, has not snuffed itself , all that will be left will be people be pleasant, dependent on the system, and anything wider than that will be a mystery to them.
[Not everything is zombie nonsense, but most of it. This comes from the zombies in power. No wonder the religious world since it became separated from the Jewish People has never produced one single original thinker. Not one new idea, not one noble prize. not one single contribution to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter.]
[Not everything is zombie nonsense, but most of it. This comes from the zombies in power. No wonder the religious world since it became separated from the Jewish People has never produced one single original thinker. Not one new idea, not one noble prize. not one single contribution to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter.]
Kant
"Concepts, or predicates, are always universals, which means that no individual can be defined, as an individual, by concepts." (Kelley Ross in his essay on universals)
This brings out a point that דע אלהי אביך ועבדהו [What Kind David said to his son Know the God of your father and serve Him] has to be by a different kind of knowledge.
This may seem like a small point, but it is not. Reason in its most expanded form perceives only universals. Hume made a mistake thinking that it only can perceive contradictions. And he built on this idea his entire book. See the Essay by Bryan Caplan which goes into detail about Hume's misunderstanding. From where did Hume get mixed up? Elementary High School Geometry. Though he never says it, but this is clearly the source of his confusion. He saw Euclid had a few self evident axioms, and could build his vast and complex system on these alone and by the principle of contradiction. Hume concluded that that is all Reason can do. Clearly he was confused. Reason can do much more. It can know universals. But that is the limit.
Knowing an individual even by an infinite number of adjectives- still means one does not know the individual.
It is a different kind of knowing. Different in quality, not different in quantity.
This brings out a point that דע אלהי אביך ועבדהו [What Kind David said to his son Know the God of your father and serve Him] has to be by a different kind of knowledge.
This may seem like a small point, but it is not. Reason in its most expanded form perceives only universals. Hume made a mistake thinking that it only can perceive contradictions. And he built on this idea his entire book. See the Essay by Bryan Caplan which goes into detail about Hume's misunderstanding. From where did Hume get mixed up? Elementary High School Geometry. Though he never says it, but this is clearly the source of his confusion. He saw Euclid had a few self evident axioms, and could build his vast and complex system on these alone and by the principle of contradiction. Hume concluded that that is all Reason can do. Clearly he was confused. Reason can do much more. It can know universals. But that is the limit.
Knowing an individual even by an infinite number of adjectives- still means one does not know the individual.
It is a different kind of knowing. Different in quality, not different in quantity.
9.5.16
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach
I realize not everyone has the time to go through the entire Talmud while at the same time going to university to learn a vocation. So I thought to myself what could encapsulate in an easy way the basic essence of the Oral Law so that even the simplest person could understand it.
In other words I understand the idea of time limit.
So it occurred to me the best way to do this is to take almost at random any chapter or essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and learn it well in connection with the sources he brings.
You could ask why not Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's Chidushei HaRambam?
First of all because Rav Shach is understandable and even easy to understand once you are familiar with the Gemara and Rambam that he is discussing. Second, I simply think it is a better book. I have great respect for Reb Chaim, but I think Rav Shach saw further and better.
There is a degree you have to trust my judgement on this issue. After all anyone learning any vocation has lots of difference of opinions than his mentors. It is just something that anyone and everyone has to go through to learn any subject properly. You just have to take my word for it until you yourself have gone through Shas and enough poskim rishonim and achronim to see what I am saying.
I had the same doubts when I was learning Gemara. I also thought, "What good is the in-depth learning, when I have not even finished Shas once yet?" Eventually I began to see that people that did not learn in-depth at the beginning of their yeshiva years, never even begin to understand Talmud. They think they know what they do not know.
In other words I understand the idea of time limit.
So it occurred to me the best way to do this is to take almost at random any chapter or essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and learn it well in connection with the sources he brings.
You could ask why not Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's Chidushei HaRambam?
First of all because Rav Shach is understandable and even easy to understand once you are familiar with the Gemara and Rambam that he is discussing. Second, I simply think it is a better book. I have great respect for Reb Chaim, but I think Rav Shach saw further and better.
There is a degree you have to trust my judgement on this issue. After all anyone learning any vocation has lots of difference of opinions than his mentors. It is just something that anyone and everyone has to go through to learn any subject properly. You just have to take my word for it until you yourself have gone through Shas and enough poskim rishonim and achronim to see what I am saying.
I had the same doubts when I was learning Gemara. I also thought, "What good is the in-depth learning, when I have not even finished Shas once yet?" Eventually I began to see that people that did not learn in-depth at the beginning of their yeshiva years, never even begin to understand Talmud. They think they know what they do not know.
The purpose of the attacks directed both against Christianity in itself as a system of thought and belief and against Wasps (White Christians) is unknown to me. The degree of animosity is striking and confusing. I asked my learning partner about this a few times and he also is confused by it. You do not see anything like it directed towards for example Hinduism with more gods than man can count. You don't see anything like it directed against Muslims with their open and stated purpose as the total destruction of all Jews. If idolatry would be the problem then you would not have warm and explicit borrowing Hindu mediation into Jewish meditation. If antisemitism would be the problem then the bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims in Israel that I saw constantly would not exist. And if my learning partner can not understand why this is the case then all the more so I.
The actual reason is simple. People have some degree of control over their beliefs. And they choose their beliefs based on the super-organism they want to fit in with. There is no reason to look for rational reasons that underline anyone's belief system or world view because it always is based on the social group they identify with. The reasons they give are merely excuses made in order to sound reasonable.
And the people that spend a lot of time and effort on perfecting their belief system are schizoid typal personalities. So for the average working guy, there are not many options. He knows well worked out systems seem to be coming from weird people. He does not have the time and effort himself to work it all out. So he just buys into the system that he identifies with emotionally.
Howard Bloom claims that the real organism is the super-organism. When one buys into any given system, it begins to take over. At a certain point one's thoughts are not one's own.
In order to correct this problem one can make a effort to go without judgement on issues that he knows may be subject to group bias. Also one can make an effort to ground his or her beliefs in reason.
So along with learning Torah I recommend learning the books of the Middle Ages on the philosophy of Torah -specifically the Guide of the Rambam but also the critiques on the Guide by Crescas Joseph Albo and others --all with the purpose in mind to come to a synthesis between Torah and Reason. [But I would not overdo it. The main learning of Torah ought to be the meat and potatoes of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, Maharsha, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
The actual reason is simple. People have some degree of control over their beliefs. And they choose their beliefs based on the super-organism they want to fit in with. There is no reason to look for rational reasons that underline anyone's belief system or world view because it always is based on the social group they identify with. The reasons they give are merely excuses made in order to sound reasonable.
And the people that spend a lot of time and effort on perfecting their belief system are schizoid typal personalities. So for the average working guy, there are not many options. He knows well worked out systems seem to be coming from weird people. He does not have the time and effort himself to work it all out. So he just buys into the system that he identifies with emotionally.
Howard Bloom claims that the real organism is the super-organism. When one buys into any given system, it begins to take over. At a certain point one's thoughts are not one's own.
In order to correct this problem one can make a effort to go without judgement on issues that he knows may be subject to group bias. Also one can make an effort to ground his or her beliefs in reason.
So along with learning Torah I recommend learning the books of the Middle Ages on the philosophy of Torah -specifically the Guide of the Rambam but also the critiques on the Guide by Crescas Joseph Albo and others --all with the purpose in mind to come to a synthesis between Torah and Reason. [But I would not overdo it. The main learning of Torah ought to be the meat and potatoes of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, Maharsha, and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
Working on one's character was an original part of the Musar movement. The idea was besides the overall emphasis on learning Ethics, there was also an emphasis in each yeshiva for a different trait, Trust in God for Navardok. The Greatness of Man-for Slobadka, [self esteem].[Slobadka is where Rav Avigdor Miller went to yeshiva.]
The Mir was a late comer to the Musar scene and their emphasis remained learning Torah in as great a depth as possible. And that was also in Far Rockaway the emphasis in Shar Yashuv.
[I think that is a good emphasis because I can see that learning in depth is totally different than the superficial learning that is generally done. I am convinced that if I had not been exposed to it from the beginning I never would have gotten the idea.]
But what I wanted to bring up is that in the Musar movement there was a concept of working on one's own personal character traits.
Now this fact is obvious if you look at the three Musar books that Reb Israel Salanter himself printed up in Villna. One was a book that incorporated a program of self improvement on certain traits per week. And Rav Miller himself mentioned once when asked how to work on the trait of trust in God He said to go through the Shar HaBitachon in the Obligations of the Heart ten times.
What I am trying to say-is that one way the masters of Musar thought one could work on ones traits was by finding the particular subject that one knows he needs work on in some book o Ethics and to keep and learning that chapter over and over again many times.
I tried this myself with the chapter on anger in the אורחות צדיקים the paths of the righteous and I believe it helped me. Very much.
[And this goes along with the idea of "Review," that Rav Freifeld and his son Motti were always talking about--in the context of learning Gemara.
I also worked on speaking the truth always and also avoiding gossip, (lashon Hara).
The Mir was a late comer to the Musar scene and their emphasis remained learning Torah in as great a depth as possible. And that was also in Far Rockaway the emphasis in Shar Yashuv.
[I think that is a good emphasis because I can see that learning in depth is totally different than the superficial learning that is generally done. I am convinced that if I had not been exposed to it from the beginning I never would have gotten the idea.]
But what I wanted to bring up is that in the Musar movement there was a concept of working on one's own personal character traits.
Now this fact is obvious if you look at the three Musar books that Reb Israel Salanter himself printed up in Villna. One was a book that incorporated a program of self improvement on certain traits per week. And Rav Miller himself mentioned once when asked how to work on the trait of trust in God He said to go through the Shar HaBitachon in the Obligations of the Heart ten times.
What I am trying to say-is that one way the masters of Musar thought one could work on ones traits was by finding the particular subject that one knows he needs work on in some book o Ethics and to keep and learning that chapter over and over again many times.
I tried this myself with the chapter on anger in the אורחות צדיקים the paths of the righteous and I believe it helped me. Very much.
[And this goes along with the idea of "Review," that Rav Freifeld and his son Motti were always talking about--in the context of learning Gemara.
I also worked on speaking the truth always and also avoiding gossip, (lashon Hara).
8.5.16
Howard Bloom has made a point considering the super-organism and its effect on each person. This is in his book the Lucifer Principle. He takes this super organism as a kind of being in itself.
The point is hanging around in with people you recognize are a cult is a bad idea. If the whole group does not have the kind of character traits you think are admirable, you should leave. The Rambam made a similar point that a person is drawn in his traits and charter by the group he hangs out in.
Howard Bloom brings from the idea of hard wiring a computer. Once the circuits are set, that is it. It only takes a short time for the groups dynamics to get set inside ones cerebral cortex, and then get hard wired.
I think there is a difference between groups behavior individual behavior. There is such a thing as a Bell curve. While individual can rise above the group norms, that is still no reason to ignore the fact that there are groups norms. And the group norm is what one will be dragged into if he stays.
The point is hanging around in with people you recognize are a cult is a bad idea. If the whole group does not have the kind of character traits you think are admirable, you should leave. The Rambam made a similar point that a person is drawn in his traits and charter by the group he hangs out in.
Howard Bloom brings from the idea of hard wiring a computer. Once the circuits are set, that is it. It only takes a short time for the groups dynamics to get set inside ones cerebral cortex, and then get hard wired.
I think there is a difference between groups behavior individual behavior. There is such a thing as a Bell curve. While individual can rise above the group norms, that is still no reason to ignore the fact that there are groups norms. And the group norm is what one will be dragged into if he stays.
7.5.16
12 + 7 blessings
There are 12 + 7 blessings which are ignored. 12 are when the constellations rise in the east. 7 are when any of the planets enter the constellation of Nissan (the lamb) I forgot what it is called in English.
If people would take my advice as to the learning of Ethics {Musar} as being part theory and part practice by outdoor skills then this would be great project:-to learn to identify the constellations and the planets.
Each one is עושה מעשה בראשית.
To be able to tell the constellations is an important survival skill.
If people would take my advice as to the learning of Ethics {Musar} as being part theory and part practice by outdoor skills then this would be great project:-to learn to identify the constellations and the planets.
Each one is עושה מעשה בראשית.
To be able to tell the constellations is an important survival skill.
Gemara Shavuot מ''גע''ב 44 a שבועות
The מחלוקת between רש''י and רבינו חננאל. The גמרא original question was this: is there an מחלוקת between שמואל and רבי עקיבה and רבי אליעזר? The גמרא answers no. One is when the מלווה explained and the other case is when he did not. רש''י says the case of שמואל is when he did not.
To me it makes sense to say רבינו חננאל must have meant that the גמרא did not use the word "מלווה" because it would make no sense for the מלווה to explain the משכון is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position.
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the גמרא as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this? For I have been suggesting that the גמרא did go back to its original position according to תוספות and the הרי''ף. So now understanding this original position makes sense.
And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that רבינו חננאל is when the לווה spoke and רש''י is when the מלווה spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the לווה spoke he increased his power and so if the מלווה lost the משכון it goes for the whole loan. If the מלווה spoke then it was he who increased his power and the משכון is only according to it monetary value.
Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in בבא מציעא ק''ד and שבועות מ''ד are different this also might make a difference. That is: I wrote שבועות is when the משכון was lost and the גמרא in בבא מציעא is when the loan was not paid back and so the מלווה can go after the whole משכון. Going after the whole משכון might be when it was the מלווה who spoke. The case in שבועות is when the לווה spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all.
And this idea that the different גמרא in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting axiom of תוספות.
This might help us in terms of ראש חודש also.
I wrote in my little booklet עיוני בבא מציעא that the two גמרות in ראש השנה and סנהדרין seem to disagree. The גמרא in סנהדרין the day of ראש חודש does not depend on the סנהדרין and to one opinion in תוספות that means the מולד even though you can never see the actual מולד
The גמרא in ראש השנה makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the מולד. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting סנהדרין or not.
To me it makes sense to say רבינו חננאל must have meant that the גמרא did not use the word "מלווה" because it would make no sense for the מלווה to explain the משכון is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position.
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the גמרא as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this? For I have been suggesting that the גמרא did go back to its original position according to תוספות and the הרי''ף. So now understanding this original position makes sense.
And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that רבינו חננאל is when the לווה spoke and רש''י is when the מלווה spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the לווה spoke he increased his power and so if the מלווה lost the משכון it goes for the whole loan. If the מלווה spoke then it was he who increased his power and the משכון is only according to it monetary value.
Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in בבא מציעא ק''ד and שבועות מ''ד are different this also might make a difference. That is: I wrote שבועות is when the משכון was lost and the גמרא in בבא מציעא is when the loan was not paid back and so the מלווה can go after the whole משכון. Going after the whole משכון might be when it was the מלווה who spoke. The case in שבועות is when the לווה spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all.
And this idea that the different גמרא in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting axiom of תוספות.
This might help us in terms of ראש חודש also.
I wrote in my little booklet עיוני בבא מציעא that the two גמרות in ראש השנה and סנהדרין seem to disagree. The גמרא in סנהדרין the day of ראש חודש does not depend on the סנהדרין and to one opinion in תוספות that means the מולד even though you can never see the actual מולד
The גמרא in ראש השנה makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the מולד. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting סנהדרין or not.
schizoid typal personality types.--they are anything but maladjusted when it comes to reproduction.
Dr Hoffman at Irvine has some articles that are very suggestive of the system of thought of Kant. I am pretty sure he has not heard of the Kant approach for otherwise I think he would have mentioned it.
I saw Dr Hoffman mentioned on this blog
amerika
ted talk dr hoffman fitness cancels perception of all of reality
This explains schizoid typal personality types.--they are anything but maladjusted when it comes to reproduction. It is them and their children and friends that get all the good shiduchim [marriage proposals].
Even though their perception of reality is highly flawed.
You have to say this was the implied approach of the Rambam as per his idea that even natural law of Avraham the Patriarch had to be revealed by God and could not have been known by reason. This is implied in other places in the Guide and in the Eight Chapters {on Avot} where the Rambam continuously makes a distinction between perceiving the difference between true and false and knowing the difference between right and wrong.
But to claim the Rambam had already worked out a system like Kant would take a lot more than a few hints here and there. It would take a detailed study of the Guide for the perplexed with knowledge of Aristotle to even begin to get an idea of what he was talking about. Sadly knowledge of Aristotle nowadays is very superficial and of the Guide even less so.
6.5.16
A comment about women today in the West and why it is important to learn Musar
LEARN FROM MY EXAMPLE AND DO NOT MARRY!
From this interesting blog
We know from the Rambam (Maimonides) that the laws of the Torah do not change according to the times. But on the other hand we also know from the Rambam the laws were made to specification according to the times. Therefore times do not change. The same idolatry that existed at the time of the giving of the Torah exists now, but in different form. Now it is worship of dead people, instead of sticks and stones.
We know the place of the husband and wife and their roles were declared by the Torah. But the idea of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam is this does not change. Their roles and obligations are today just as they were specified in the Torah.
Obligations of marriage are well outlined in the Shulchan Aruch by Joseph Karo. There was a great little booklet put out by a teacher in the Litvak NY Yeshiva Torah VeDaat that was an amazingly simple but deep introduction to the laws of nida and marriage.
I would like to divide human problems into different areas, physical and biological, psychological, spiritual, super-organism, social meme's etc.
The Musar (Ethics) movement of Israel Salanter deserves more attention than it gets. Its claims are great.
The way to understand this is to see the beginning of Isaac Blazar's book the אור ישראל. Plus you have to see the lectures of Sapolsky at Stanford. And then you need to put 2+2 together to realize the vast implications of what Israel Salanter was implying.
I would like to divide human problems into different areas, physical and biological, psychological, spiritual, super-organism, social meme's etc.
What Sapolsky is suggesting is schizoid personalities comes from biology. What people call nowadays a chemical imbalance. That is the source of all shamans and people that make a living by meta magical thinking. But others sources of human problems come from attitudes. or social memes picked up the super organism. Others have some spiritual component. Some are genetic and hard wired. Some are software--not hard wired. That is attitudes or reactions that have been absorbed into ones personality but are like software programming and can be easily changed.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
The claim of Reb Israel Salanter is that learning Musar is a cure for all of the above mentioned aliments. And he is referring to a limited number of books. To him, not anything that talks about things that sounds like Musar are authentic Musar. They most often are pseudo Musar. Phoney and opposite in effects.
You know the Drill. Authentic Musar is Medieval Musar. There was something about that time period that the spirit of the fear of God existed in a way that got condensed and distilled and bottled into the works of Ethics written during that time period. [Much like Hegel claims about the Spirit.]
Phony Musar works just as well as taking phony aspirin.
The way to understand this is to see the beginning of Isaac Blazar's book the אור ישראל. Plus you have to see the lectures of Sapolsky at Stanford. And then you need to put 2+2 together to realize the vast implications of what Israel Salanter was implying.
I would like to divide human problems into different areas, physical and biological, psychological, spiritual, super-organism, social meme's etc.
What Sapolsky is suggesting is schizoid personalities comes from biology. What people call nowadays a chemical imbalance. That is the source of all shamans and people that make a living by meta magical thinking. But others sources of human problems come from attitudes. or social memes picked up the super organism. Others have some spiritual component. Some are genetic and hard wired. Some are software--not hard wired. That is attitudes or reactions that have been absorbed into ones personality but are like software programming and can be easily changed.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
The claim of Reb Israel Salanter is that learning Musar is a cure for all of the above mentioned aliments. And he is referring to a limited number of books. To him, not anything that talks about things that sounds like Musar are authentic Musar. They most often are pseudo Musar. Phoney and opposite in effects.
You know the Drill. Authentic Musar is Medieval Musar. There was something about that time period that the spirit of the fear of God existed in a way that got condensed and distilled and bottled into the works of Ethics written during that time period. [Much like Hegel claims about the Spirit.]
Phony Musar works just as well as taking phony aspirin.
r51 e minor 6-8 time Edited r51 midi r51 nwc
Plato was not thrilled with the role of arts and thought that they are destructive of morals and justice. In Western Europe, in civilization, there was a kind of awareness of this problem and they sought to combine the Arts with a kind of spirit of "up", a lifting people to a higher plane of morality and justice.
There were probably aware of this because of reading Plato.
Plato was not thrilled with the role of arts and thought that they are destructive of morals and justice. In Western Europe, in civilization, there was a kind of awareness of this problem and they sought to combine the Arts with a kind of spirit of "up", a lifting people to a higher plane of morality and justice.
There were probably aware of this because of reading Plato.
Mediaeval Ethics, Musar, Pirkei Avot and learning Gemara in depth.
The year before I went to the yeshiva called Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway I spent a lot of time on Pirkei Avot with Shimshon Refael Hirsches' Commentary. In Far Rockaway the attitude was to plunge the students into hard core lumdut [deep learning of Talmud] as soon as possible on the theory that if one does not get it then and there, one will never get it. And I have seen this theory is substantiated in fact.
As for Gemara, I would in fact recommend going as deeply as possible as soon as possible-because otherwise people never get it at all. I would prioritize going deep into the Gemara with the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.[Rav Elazar Menachem Shach from the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak]. [Why is learning in depth important? According the Hegel once a people stops questioning its institutions and beliefs, then Spirit dies and cannot
further develop.]
What happens when people do not learn Gemara in depth at the very beginning of their yeshiva years is a kind of self delusion. They think they understand that which they do not understand. This is different than you find in other fields in which there are experts that know the different between real expertise and phony. In yeshivas nowadays the phonies are the majority. To find the real thing you have to dig deep or go to authentic yeshiva like Ponovitch or the Mir in NY.
In short what I recommend is medieval ethics plus the oral law.
Learning Pirkei Avot today I would recommend with Avot DeRabbi Natan, the Gra the Rambam and Shimshon Refael Hirsch also.
But that is for Musar.[Learning Ethics= "Musar"]
As for Gemara, I would in fact recommend going as deeply as possible as soon as possible-because otherwise people never get it at all. I would prioritize going deep into the Gemara with the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.[Rav Elazar Menachem Shach from the Ponovitch Yeshiva in Bnei Brak]. [Why is learning in depth important? According the Hegel once a people stops questioning its institutions and beliefs, then Spirit dies and cannot
further develop.]
What happens when people do not learn Gemara in depth at the very beginning of their yeshiva years is a kind of self delusion. They think they understand that which they do not understand. This is different than you find in other fields in which there are experts that know the different between real expertise and phony. In yeshivas nowadays the phonies are the majority. To find the real thing you have to dig deep or go to authentic yeshiva like Ponovitch or the Mir in NY.
In other words the problem of phonies is unique in the Torah world, and does not have an equivalent or parallel in the academic world.
[You could take instead of Rav Shach's book the book of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik or his disciples Reb Baruch Ber or Shimon Shkop. But Rav Shach is easier to understand.]
[You could take instead of Rav Shach's book the book of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik or his disciples Reb Baruch Ber or Shimon Shkop. But Rav Shach is easier to understand.]
In short what I recommend is medieval ethics plus the oral law.
Blacks as group behavior
I think Blacks are more interested in taking down the USA than in who will pay for things after whites are gone. [That is Blacks as group behavior and attitude. Individuals can and sometimes are completely different than the bell curve of their group. That is because people have free will. But that does not change the fact that there is such a thing as group behavior. And in particular group behaviors as directed towards a certain goal. For example Muslim behaviors to destroy Christianity and Israel.
5.5.16
Once you've allowed the barbarians through the gates, any swashbuckling ruffian who is willing to pick up a sword and push them back out again is an ally.
Once you've allowed the barbarians through the gates, any swashbuckling ruffian who is willing to pick up a sword and push them back out again is an ally. We can worry about what the city should look like once we've put out the fires and have stopped the barbarians from actively setting more of them.
Vox Populi
Vox Populi
Belief in God. I few ideas i wrote on Roosh V
Belief in God is rational. Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the first step a priori that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing. This makes it a priori, not just an empirical observation).
The idea here is to limit the number of causes. I am not saying everything needs a cause. I am saying just the opposite. That there must be a limit or else nothing could exist.
The idea is similar to what you have in logic concerning the infinite regress.
The quantum mechanics that I am aware of does not say something can come out of nothing. Rather before something it measured it is just a probability.
For those it might be helpful here to look at this from the standpoint of Kant. Unconditioned realities exist but their character is part dependent on the subject and part on the object.
The Musar Movement of Reb Israel Salanter I think can be divided into different areas of emphasis: Fear of God, Trust in God, good character traits e.g speaking the truth.
Each disciple came away from Reb Israel with something different.
But I think the track and idea of trying to find a limited numbers of things to emphasize is a better that just "keep Torah" since people have only a limited number of rules they keep in mind on a daily basis. So that set of rules has to be the set that contains the whole Torah in potential.
Each disciple came away from Reb Israel with something different.
But I think the track and idea of trying to find a limited numbers of things to emphasize is a better that just "keep Torah" since people have only a limited number of rules they keep in mind on a daily basis. So that set of rules has to be the set that contains the whole Torah in potential.
Cults are the greater danger than physical means of destroying people's lives. By enslaving a person's mind, you enslave the whole person.
Sadly not enough research has been done in this area. It is hard fir me to believe that there is a single family that has not been touched and ruined by some cult. And yet this problem scarcely gets public mention. I have no idea why something that obviously is very destructive and effects everyone is barely worth public mention? You would think it was just a few odd balls here and there that fall for the shenanigans.
I have from some kind of odd sort of curiosity done much reading on cults. Both their own sets of religious books and also other sources. It is hard to come to any conclusion about any group because they have the power to convince.
Sadly not enough research has been done in this area. It is hard fir me to believe that there is a single family that has not been touched and ruined by some cult. And yet this problem scarcely gets public mention. I have no idea why something that obviously is very destructive and effects everyone is barely worth public mention? You would think it was just a few odd balls here and there that fall for the shenanigans.
I have from some kind of odd sort of curiosity done much reading on cults. Both their own sets of religious books and also other sources. It is hard to come to any conclusion about any group because they have the power to convince.
Jogging is something that President Kennedy introduced on a large scale in the USA. Very few people engaged in it until he made a very public matter out of it.
He certainly deserves the credit for making jogging popular world wide. I wish I would do more of it.
But I also would like to recommend sit ups. There is something about sit-ups which I find amazing. It is like I get up re- energized in a way I do not see with jogging.
In terms of fat, I recommend putting in a raw egg in your coffee instead of cream. This takes away the desire to eat unhealthy foods the whole day. [This I heard from my learning partner.]
He certainly deserves the credit for making jogging popular world wide. I wish I would do more of it.
But I also would like to recommend sit ups. There is something about sit-ups which I find amazing. It is like I get up re- energized in a way I do not see with jogging.
In terms of fat, I recommend putting in a raw egg in your coffee instead of cream. This takes away the desire to eat unhealthy foods the whole day. [This I heard from my learning partner.]
4.5.16
אין לי גמרא כדי לבדוק את הכול, אבל עלתה על דעתי שאלה חשובה על בבא מציעא ושבועות מ''ד. אותה הגמרא נמצאת בבא מציעא פרק האומנים. זאת: מה רבי עקיב מחזיק? הגמרא מסכמת בשבועות שהטיעון של רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבה תלוי בטענות של רבה ורב יוסף. אז מה אנחנו יודעים עד כה? הוא שרבי עקיבה מחזיק המלווה הוא שומר שכר על המשכון, ורבי אליעזר מחזיק שהוא שומר חינם.
אבל השאלה שלי היא זו. מה רבי עקיבה מחזיק? האם הוא מתכוון שהמלווה הוא שומר שכר ובכך פטור במקרה של שוד מזוין לחלוטין? והוא מקבל ההלוואה כולה שלו? ובמקרה של אבידה או גניבה, אז הוא מחויב, כלומר הוא מאבד את ההלוואה כולה? אבל זה לא יכול להיות צודק כי אז תהיה לגמרא דרך להרוויח שרבי עקיבה ושמואל מחזיקים באותה שיטה! והגמרא דחפה את זה בהתחלה! אלא אם כן אתה חושב שהגמרא שינתה את דעתה פה וחושבת שזה בסדר ששמואל ורבי עקיבה מסכימים. עכשיו בדרך כלל זה יהיה בלתי אפשרי, אבל במקרה שלנו זה יכול להיות, כי אנחנו יודעים שתוספות החליטו כמו שמואל. אז אפשר לומר לתוספות שלמעשה הגמרא שינתה את דעתה בלי לומר זאת! אז בסדר אולי ככה תוספות לומדים את הסוגיא. אבל מה לגבי הרי''ף והרמב''ם? אני מתכוון שאפשר להסתכל על הצד השני של הדברים. אולי הגמרא מחזיקה שרבי עקיבה מחזיק שהמלווה שומר שכר ובכך פטור במקרה של שוד מזוין, אבל עדיין מאבד את סכום המשכון? בסדר גמור. אז מה לגבי המקרה של גניבה או אובדן? ואז הוא מחויב ומאבד את ההלוואה כולה. זה בהחלט כמו שמואל. וזה בכלל לא טוב כי הרי''ף והרמב''ם לא מחליטים כמו שמואל. דרך אחת שאני חושב הגיונית כאן היא זו: רבי עקיבה מחזיק הוא שומר שכר ולכן הוא לא מאבד שום דבר במקרה של שוד מזוין. ובכל מקרה של שוד לא חמוש, אלא גניבה או אובדן, הוא מאבד רק את הסכום של שעבוד המשכון. זה יהיה נהדר אם זה היה נכון. כי אז לא יהיה בכל מקרה בו רבי עקיבה ושמואל מסכימים. ואנחנו בהחלט צריכים את זה על פי תחילת הגמרא וגם העובדה היא שהרמב''ם והרי''ף לא מחליטים כמו שמואל. מה אנחנו יכולים למצוא כאן הוא שתי דרכים שונות של למידת גמרא זו. אחת כמו תוספות והשני כמו הרי''ף והרמב''ם
The truth be told I think there is a lot more to think about here but this is just a little bit of what I was thinking while out walking. The things to check if God grants to me a Gemara is to see if perhaps this way of learning is reflected in Tosphot. Also to see how this fits in teh end of the Gemara where the Gemra further modifies its conclusion with a difference of whether he needs the pledge or not. Would this change anything here?
_______________________________________________________________________________
It also occurred to me that there seems to be a question on the Rif. He does say the lender is a paid guard and also that then it is a case of armed robbery that he loses the mount of the pledge. We can conclude that in the case of theft or loss he would be obligated more that just the amount of the pledge but rather the whole loan. And on this there is the question that if so then the Gemara would have a way of making Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel coincide in the case of theft or loss. And this contradicts the previous Gemara/
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
It also occurred to me that there seems to be a question on the רי''ף. He does say the lender is a שומר שכר and also that then it is a case of armed robbery that he loses the mount of the משכון. We can conclude that in the case of theft or loss he would be obligated more that just the amount of the pledge but rather the whole loan. And on this there is the question that if so then the גמרא would have a way of making רבי עקיבה and שמואל coincide in the case of theft or loss. And this contradicts the previous גמרא
אבל השאלה שלי היא זו. מה רבי עקיבה מחזיק? האם הוא מתכוון שהמלווה הוא שומר שכר ובכך פטור במקרה של שוד מזוין לחלוטין? והוא מקבל ההלוואה כולה שלו? ובמקרה של אבידה או גניבה, אז הוא מחויב, כלומר הוא מאבד את ההלוואה כולה? אבל זה לא יכול להיות צודק כי אז תהיה לגמרא דרך להרוויח שרבי עקיבה ושמואל מחזיקים באותה שיטה! והגמרא דחפה את זה בהתחלה! אלא אם כן אתה חושב שהגמרא שינתה את דעתה פה וחושבת שזה בסדר ששמואל ורבי עקיבה מסכימים. עכשיו בדרך כלל זה יהיה בלתי אפשרי, אבל במקרה שלנו זה יכול להיות, כי אנחנו יודעים שתוספות החליטו כמו שמואל. אז אפשר לומר לתוספות שלמעשה הגמרא שינתה את דעתה בלי לומר זאת! אז בסדר אולי ככה תוספות לומדים את הסוגיא. אבל מה לגבי הרי''ף והרמב''ם? אני מתכוון שאפשר להסתכל על הצד השני של הדברים. אולי הגמרא מחזיקה שרבי עקיבה מחזיק שהמלווה שומר שכר ובכך פטור במקרה של שוד מזוין, אבל עדיין מאבד את סכום המשכון? בסדר גמור. אז מה לגבי המקרה של גניבה או אובדן? ואז הוא מחויב ומאבד את ההלוואה כולה. זה בהחלט כמו שמואל. וזה בכלל לא טוב כי הרי''ף והרמב''ם לא מחליטים כמו שמואל. דרך אחת שאני חושב הגיונית כאן היא זו: רבי עקיבה מחזיק הוא שומר שכר ולכן הוא לא מאבד שום דבר במקרה של שוד מזוין. ובכל מקרה של שוד לא חמוש, אלא גניבה או אובדן, הוא מאבד רק את הסכום של שעבוד המשכון. זה יהיה נהדר אם זה היה נכון. כי אז לא יהיה בכל מקרה בו רבי עקיבה ושמואל מסכימים. ואנחנו בהחלט צריכים את זה על פי תחילת הגמרא וגם העובדה היא שהרמב''ם והרי''ף לא מחליטים כמו שמואל. מה אנחנו יכולים למצוא כאן הוא שתי דרכים שונות של למידת גמרא זו. אחת כמו תוספות והשני כמו הרי''ף והרמב''ם
The truth be told I think there is a lot more to think about here but this is just a little bit of what I was thinking while out walking. The things to check if God grants to me a Gemara is to see if perhaps this way of learning is reflected in Tosphot. Also to see how this fits in teh end of the Gemara where the Gemra further modifies its conclusion with a difference of whether he needs the pledge or not. Would this change anything here?
_______________________________________________________________________________
It also occurred to me that there seems to be a question on the Rif. He does say the lender is a paid guard and also that then it is a case of armed robbery that he loses the mount of the pledge. We can conclude that in the case of theft or loss he would be obligated more that just the amount of the pledge but rather the whole loan. And on this there is the question that if so then the Gemara would have a way of making Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel coincide in the case of theft or loss. And this contradicts the previous Gemara/
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
It also occurred to me that there seems to be a question on the רי''ף. He does say the lender is a שומר שכר and also that then it is a case of armed robbery that he loses the mount of the משכון. We can conclude that in the case of theft or loss he would be obligated more that just the amount of the pledge but rather the whole loan. And on this there is the question that if so then the גמרא would have a way of making רבי עקיבה and שמואל coincide in the case of theft or loss. And this contradicts the previous גמרא
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)