The all-women engineering team that designed the ill-fated pedestrian foot bridge at Miami’s Florida International University were highly touted for their advances in a field that is typically dominated by men.

The all-women engineering team that designed the ill-fated pedestrian foot bridge at Miami’s Florida International University were highly touted for their advances in a field that is typically dominated by men.

But critics are pointing the finger of blame at the female engineers for design flaws that may have brought the bridge down.


Investigators are still on the scene of last week’s bridge collapse that killed 6 peopleple and injured 9 on the FIU campus in Southwest Miami.


My learning partner suggested this same reason for the cutting back of the Space Program after the Lunar Landings. I mean to say the later accidents were because of promoting incompetent people--so instead of changing the policy to have only white, male engineers,- they simply cut back the program.

[Promoting people that are competent is what ought to be the measuring stick. It should not matter if they are white or male or Martians. The problem is promoting people because they are female or some color other than white. ]

Even though the mystic writings are not supposed to be the basis of Torah, they have assumed a degree of confidence that questioning them is thought to be tantamount to a capital crime.
This was pointed out to me by my learning partner that the Ramban [Nahmanides] is the start of the most fanatic forms of Torah observance. The Rambam [Maimonides] forms the basis of a whole different kind of approach--which never really took off.--the more rational approach.

The mystic "thing" certainly is brought to the attention of anyone at the first step into the world of fanaticism.

One thing that is curious about the mystic thing is that most of the ideas come from the pre-Soctratics. That does not disqualify anything, but makes it less probable that it is Torah from Sinai.

There is nothing innocent about this. It is the pretense to secret knowledge that is used to further personal ambitions and those that suppose and project their own superiority.
Among the signs of idol worship is the ingenious variety of techniques devised to advance the human ambitions in the name of God.

The trouble is rewriting Oral and Written Torah which has been revealed and recorded once and for all time, and with the dangers of misleading others, seeming to claim spiritual merit for oneself, or indulging in simple self-aggrandizement. 

[However I do have confidence in the insights of the Ari and other great tzadikim like the Gra and Rav Shach of Ponoviz.]

I have already written an essay a long time ago showing the ten sepherot to the 10 spheres around the earth in the Ptolemy Model, and the "Contraction" and drawing down of the light to the pre Socratics.

The empty space is one of the most remarkable ideas in the Ari and yet the original concept comes from Anaximader. Nevertheless it is a potent and important idea as note by Heidegger. In fact the original  seems to have been forgotten by Metaphysics until Heidegger noticed it. The empty space--or negative transcendence was merely conceived as a background for existing things. It was forgotten to ask and understand what it is in itself.  [What Heidegger and the Rav Isaac Luria were asking was what allows existing things to come into existence in the first place. Now what do existing things have in common.]

It is natural for people to wonder about the meaning of life. Some feel the need more than others, but it is fairly common. [Some people however could not care less.] The Talmud does not deal with meaning of life issues, so it is natural for people to look into the Zohar.  The elephant in the room is the problem that the Zohar is a forgery. It is not what it claims to be. If from the start it had been made clear that  saying over the ideas in the name of R Shimon ben Yohai was just a literary device, that is no big deal. But presenting it as actually being from R Shimon ben Yohai I think has to be considered less than honest.
The thing that makes it clear to me is עם כל דא a translation of עם כל זה. And עם כל זה is a phrase invented by the Ibn Tibon family of translators to take the place of "although". Before that ''although'' was אף על פי or אף על גב


[ I have however confidence that the Ari and Rav Yaakov Abuhaziera and Shalom Sharabi had important insights. Much of their ideas come from other sources --their own personal service towards God and other mystic books that came before the Zohar for example Sefer Yezira. There were plenty of mystics around during the Middle Ages.

[In any case , did you ever see anyone improve in their traits after learning the Zohar?]]

Music for the glory of God

U-78 C Major mp3 u-78 midi   u78 nwc

Litvak yeshivas on השקפה world view issues

There is little or no emphasis in Litvak yeshivas on השקפה world view issues. The accepted approach is  simple: whatever the Torah says, that is what we believe.
The emphasis is on learning Torah. This goes along well with the idea expressed in Bava Batra ברא יצר הרע ברא תורה תבלין.[God created the Evil Inclination but he also created Torah as a cure for it.] As R.Gershom explains there. Everyone has an opportunity to be delivered from the hands of the evil inclination. ילמד תורה ויהיה צדיק Learn Torah and you will be a righteous person.


[My own interest in world view issues is mainly personal. I realize not a lot of people share this interest with me. Still it seems important to get it right.]

 The basic Mir Yeshiva approach "Learn Torah" seems a lot more important to me than world view issues. Just for clarity I should add "Learning Torah" means basically to take one tracatate of Gemara and to do to thoroughly for about a year with every single Tosphot. The "later on" people like the Pnei Yehoshua and Maharsha also seem very important to me even though neither one is emphasized in yeshivas. [I do not want to give the idea that I understood the Maharsha or Pnei Yehoshua. I would try to review the particular paragraph each about ten times  or more and still only get a vague idea of what they meant.]

The Gemara is not "Politically Correct".

To say in the Gemara Bava Batra pg 14b that "Moses wrote his book and the section on Bilaam and the Book of Job," seems to imply that he did not write the rest. This is just one example of many things I noticed in the Gemara and Rishonim that are not sensitive to people's sensibilities. The Gemara is not "Politically Correct".

The Rambam's high recommendation of Aristotle also is  not PC [politically correct].  It seems to fly in the face of the Gemara itself.

Natural Law and Natural Rights

I did not realize that Dr Kelley Ross had written a letter to the NY Post about an article attacking the Second Amendment. I did not even know he reads the NY Post -- being a Californian like myself.

And there also he brings this idea of John Locke about "natural rights"that do not depend on the will of the Majority. Natural rights is mostly traced to Aquinas who deals with "natural law" in great detail and at great length. But the idea natural  law was also brought  by Saadia Gaon in his Doctrines and Views אמונות ודעות and the Rambam in the Guide.

[The view of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson I think is that the state is created to secure natural rights and that one gives up no rights in order to live within a state. I had seen once a different view -that one gives up certain rights to live in a state  but later I noticed that that view does not appear in the Two Treaties on Government. Also in Dr Kelley Ross's treatment of natural rights, it also doe not appear. And  would have to say that in the Declaration of Independence the view is that the entire purpose of a state is to secure natural rights. So I think that in no sense is the existence of  the state thought to conflict with natural rights.]
The obvious question then is to trace this all back to Saadia Gaon and the Rambam {Maimonides}. Natural Law they both have and natural rights is simply a statement of the laws of Torah as applied. [That is "Thou Shalt not Steal" etc. Meaning one has a right to his own possessions. But what about a state?]


In term of a state I think it is clear that the Rambam holds from a consequence theory--that is you need a state because  no human good is possible without it. As he explains in the Guide, that many laws of the Torah are for the sake of peace of the state.
[As for the kind of government, it seems to me that the Torah requires a king only when the people ask for a king. Look at the actual verse. And that in itself explains why Samuel the prophet was upset with Israel for asking for a king.]

Should there be any such thing as a yeshiva? That is an independent institution--not just a local lace where people gather together to learn Torah or pray. This question was asked of the Gra by Reb Haim of Voloshin. It is unclear if the Gra ever gave any answer.

Clearly people would gather in a local building to learn Torah. But that was never an institution. People would simply learn Torah wherever it was convenient. The whole idea of an institution that you give money to certainly not in the Gemara.




This is related to the question should there be a state. Even if the answer is yes that does not mean that any state is legitimate and only acts within its legitimate range of powers. In fact the likelihood is that even a legitimate state will deteriorate into one that is not legitimate because of the kinds of people that desire power.

At one time during my life I would have answered the question with a booming "YES!" if by a yeshiva one meant a Lithuanian kind of place like Shar Yashuv or the Mir in NY. Today as you can guess my answer is far from affirmative because of the exact same reason why even legitimate states deteriorate. It is the people that are the problem, not the institution.

The Rif learned in fact in something that is almost the exact equivalent of a modern day Litvak yeshiva. It was not connected with the community, but rather was a private institution owned by a particular person.

In any case, the situation today seems to be that most so called yeshivas are private country clubs that one ought to run away from because of the fraud and scams. That is unless we would be discussing the Mir in NY or Ponoviz in Bnei Brak.

U-76 B Flat Major

To get the big picture in the Talmud.

I imagine the best way to do Shas [Talmud] the first time is the way I was learning at the Mir --that is with the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua. The reason I say this that the first time through Shas I think it is very difficult to have any idea of what the "Lumdus" (note 1) of Rav Shach and Reb Haim Soloveitchik is all about. That is my suggestion. This is not the general way people do it. Most people just spend the morning preparing for the rosh yehiva's class at 12:00 P.M.. Then in the afternoon, to just plow through as many pages  as they can with Tosphot.

It is hard to explain why I think these basic אחרונים [later commentaries] are important. You might say -it is to get the big picture before you get bogged down in the details.



So the Maharsha and the Pnei Yehoshua are perfect for that. You get an idea of the basic issues in Tosphot and the Gemara, but you do not have to spend a whole month on one Tosphot if you had been doing it with the Avi Ezri (note 2) and Reb Haim.
It is like a middle ground of Lumdus,--not too much, and not too little. But just right.
[If you are doing something that does not have the Pnei Yehoshua on it, you should probably change venue. But in any case, most things have something along the lines of the Pnei Yehoshua--like the ערוך לנר or the new edition of  R. Akiva Eiger arranged in the order of Shas..]


(note 1) Lumdus means learning in depth and great detail.
(note 2) Rav Shach's book. It is arranged according to the order of the Rambam like Reb Haim's book the חידושי הרמב''ם

My learning partner emphasized diet  to me --especially fresh vegetables some time ago. After that I started having raw beets and black bread in the morning. But he never took kindly to the idea of exercise. [Though in theory he agrees with exercise because of the Rambam in הלכות דעות]

On the other hand there is one fellow -that sends his whole day in the gym. The older he gets, the more exercise he does.

Both approaches I think ought to be combined.
One thing I did notice, however. The idea of waiting between exercise sessions a full day that I heard from my learning partner does not seem valid. Rather, I think what ever amount of exercise one does ought to be be done every day.

Exercise for some reason in high school revolved around several focal points. Running around the track 4 times [one mile] and sit-ups, push-ups. For some reason squatting and standing was never a part of it. [Squats I think were part of Physical Education in Russia, but not in California.]


I once discussed with the P.E. instructor his views on physical fitness. He said some PE instructors imagine that what they teach in high school, the kids will continue later.  He said that is not his view. His view rather was to get his students as physically fit as possible while in high school and then just hope that later they will continue. [This conversation took place when I was a senior so I might have told him that I was going to Shar Yashuv Yeshiva in NY which meant --not a lot of physical education.] In any case, that four times around the track was done every single day (except weekends) for the entire four years of high school.

The awkward thing about Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra is that it seems to contradict the Tosphot on page 34b. Over there on page 34 Tosphot [ד''ה ארבא] brings from the Riva  that the law of   שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים applies even if neither is holding it. The reason is that the same law applies to a document. So the reason is rather that it is possible that they both own it. Such a case is possible if they both picked it up at the same moment. If on the other hand there is a case where it could not be of both then the law would be כל דאלים גבר.
But the Gemara there makes clear that the reason for the law that they divide it is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra says we do not say המע''ה in a case where could be of both. We only say המע''ה when the object must have been of one and not the other.

[I admit I just am relaying on my vague memory that the Gemara holds שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים because of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.]
I am not saying this is a "קושיא" rather just something that needs to be worked out.
_____________________________________________________________________________


The awkward thing about תספות in the beginning of בבא בתרא is that it seems to contradict the תספות on page ל''ד ע'ב. Over there on page 34 תספות ד''ה ארבא brings from the ריב''א  that the law of   שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים applies even if neither is holding it. The reason is that the same law applies to a document. So the reason is rather that it is possible that they both own it. Such a case is possible if they both picked it up at the same moment. If on the other hand there is a case where it could not be of both then the law would be כל דאלים גבר.
But the בבא בתרא there makes clear that the reason for the law that they divide it is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And תספות in the beginning of בבא בתרא says we do not say המע''ה in a case where could be of both. We only say המע''ה when the object must have been of one and not the other.

דבר המביך בתספות בתחילת בבא בתרא הוא שנראה שסותר את התספות בעמוד ל''ד ע''ב ד''ה לפיכך. שם על דף ל''ד תספות ד''ה ארבא מביא מן הריב''א שהחוק של שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים חל גם אם לא מחזיקים אותו. הסיבה לכך היא כי אותו החוק חל על מסמך. אז הסיבה היא כי יתכן ששניהם הבעלים שלה. מקרה כזה הוא אפשרי אם שניהם הרימו אותו באותו הרגע. אם מצד שני יש מקרה שבו זה לא יכול להיות אז החוק יהיה כל דאלים גבר. אבל בבבא מציעא שם מבואר כי סיבת החוק כי הם מחלקים אותו הוא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. ותספות בתחילת בבא בתרא אומרים שאנחנו לא אומרים המע''ה במקרה שבו יכול להיות של שניהם. אנחנו אומרים המע''ה רק כאשר האובייקט חייב להיות של אחד מהם ולא את שלשניהם.

Metaphysics.In any case, I think it is safe to assume that the Rambam had a fairly decent understanding of what Torah is all about.

Do you include Kant,  Hegel  in the category of Metaphysics that the Rambam requires. I think so. It is the subject matter and its development that the Rambam is thinking about. [However I do not know how to decide between them. What I assume about Kant and Hegel is that it is similar to the debate between Plato and Aristotle in this way. Philosophy tends to come up to some kind of problem once in about 1000 years. It takes a long time until the problem is understood and even longer to come to any kind of solution. Thus the problem of change was formulated by Parmenides and answered by Plato and Aristotle. But the difference between them led to new problems until the synthesis of Neo Platonic thought. I assume this same kind of process is going on with Kant and Hegel with the Mind-Body problem. There is a lot of tension between these two streams of thought.


[The Rambam's opinion about this is in הלכות תלמוד תורה where he says the עניינים הנקראים פרדס that he explained in the first four sections of Mishne Torah are included in learning the Gemara. He is much more open about this in the Guide, but it come up throughout his writings. It is not something he decided only when he was older,-- but rather he held by this approach from the beginning.]
Some people were upset with the Rambam because his opinions offended their sensibilities. However "faith in the wise" require us to hold with the wise even when we imagine that we know better. In any case, I think it is safe to assume that the Rambam had a fairly decent understanding of what Torah is all about. In any case the Rambamis safely within the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus. But how would he stand in regard to the issues raise by Kant and Hegel?]




This is not all that different than when the Rambam requires learning Physics. I do not think that I have to learn Attic Greek and the set of books, The Physics  by Aristotle. Rather I think it refers to the subject matter.

On the other hand, the Rambam limits severely  the subjects one ought [or is allowed] to learn. The Rambam does not give a free pass into modern day pseudo sciences.

He also has a large category of what you would call ספרים חיצוניים "outside books" that one is not allowed to learn- Does he decide like R Akiva that one loses his portion in the next world by reading them? I do not see him bring down R Akiva as law.  Still there the plenty of things he forbids to read. And what is most interesting is the opinion of the Rif and Rosh that say ספרים חיצוניים outside books are books that explain the Torah not like דרשת חז''ל [the way the verses are explained in the Midrash and Gemara.]  That would mean that to understand the meaning of Torah one would have to go into the many Midrashim מדרש רבה מדרש תנחומא ספרי ספרא וכו

I actually had a learning partner in the Mir that spent all his free time learning Midrash. [Eventually he became rosh yeshiva in Leningrad and later in Jerusalem.] If I had been smart I would have done the same thing.

Midrash however is sometimes hard to get. For example, many amoraim [sages of the Talmud] take a highly negative view of Job. That is a bit hard to swallow. However there is a another sage of the Talmud that says Job was greater than Abraham the Patriarch. 

U-75 G Major

But in some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves to be thrown out.

A lot of times, movements are caused by perceived abuse of an existing system. Not that the newer system (that is promised) turns out so much better. It does not matter so much if the old system was really all that bad. What matters is that people got mad enough to decide to change it.
I am thinking of Communism for one example. Enough people were upset by the abuses they saw under capitalism. And to a large degree the abuses were real.
But then Communism did not exactly turn out the way most people expected in Russia. So they went back to capitalism. I was kind of shocked when I asked people in the former USSR how were things? And I always expected an answer "terrible." But instead they always said "Better than now.."
[Even today I asked one woman, "I guess you did not love the USSR?"
She answered me "What do you mean not love? Things were better. I went to school for free. I went to a technical college for free. All my brothers and sisters went to university for free, and families stayed together. Now I can barely pay for my daughter to go to a local college. People's children go off into foreign countries because there is nothing doing here. No work no nothing." And she went on but since my Russian is really rusty I did not get the whole gist. Sometimes they mention they got their homes for free or else bought a new home for $200. And as I was walking along one street today I looked across  the river at the numerous and enormous buildings the soviets built for housing.I can not tells the differences in style. But I assume they were built after the 1960's.]



The same thing applies to Martin Luther. Enough people got upset with the Catholic Church to throw it out. But that is not to say that what they got instead was much of an improvement.
In the Middle Ages this dynamic existed in what was considered "fair price" of goods.


This dynamic still take place  when people wander from movement to movement.


[The thing about Russia is that the abuses were bad enough for enough people to revolt against the czar. Better systems try to alleviate the abuses to the degree that people have less reason to be angry. The whole dynamic of Leftist movements is mainly to get people angry at real or imagine abuses in the USA. The main idea of Leftists is that whatever the USA does is by definition wrong.  The reason why it is wrong always come after the aforesaid conclusion.]

But some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves  to be thrown out.

This dynamic I think is  a good thing. The question.is how to tell when a system has gotten bad enough to need to be scraped? And what to replace it with? A lot of times people  decide to go back to the old system they previously threw out because the abuses already have been forgotten.


[The Litvak yeshiva world  certainly has a degree of trouble in it. But it seems much less than any other system I have seen. But it is not irrelevant. The question really is how much abuse is tolerable until you decide to overthrow the system and with what will you replace it with? Something better? Or worse?]
Thus my own kind of solution is to simply avoid the problem by learning Torah at home and minding my own business. And the few great Litvak yeshivas I have seen [like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway] to recommend them to anyone that will listen.

Of course Ponoviz I have not seen,-- but any place that could produce a masterpiece like the Avi Ezri has to have something gong for it.
[ Rav Silverman's yeshivas in Jerusalem that go by the Gra also are excellent.]

בבא בתרא דף ב' ע''א

The תוספות ד''ה לפיכך in the beginning of בבא בתרא seems to me hard to understand. The משנה says partners that have decided to divide up a courtyard are forced to build  wall. If it falls, it is therefore belongs to both of them. Then תוספות asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is this. In the beginning of בבא מציעא we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in the case of a מציאה a found object.
My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our משנה in בבא בתרא. It is this. In our משנה we say we divide the wall and the גמרא says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The משנה in בבא מציעא says מחבירו עליו הראיה. What is the difference? Answer: in the משנה in בבא בתרא they are both forced to build the wall. That is the reason the משנה itself gives and it makes perfect sense.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his רשות.

The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not  say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (sumhos) also.

I admit this is all vague to me since I do not actually have the Gemara Bava Metzia to look it up. It is just that off hand I seem to recall the Gemara saying המע''ה over there.  

בבא בתרא דף ב" ע''א. התוספות ד''ה לפיכך בתחילת בבא בתרא נראה לי קשה להבין. המשנה אומרת שותפים שהחליטו לחלק את החצר שלהם נאלצים לבנות קיר.ולכן אם זה נופל, הוא שייך לשניהם. ואז תוספות שואלים אפילו בלי סיבה זו, זה צריך להיות של שניהם מאז שלא היינו אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה זה. הסיבה שאנחנו לא היינו אומרים את זה בגלל שהוא לא היה ברור מההתחלה שהוא היה שייך רק אחד. השאלה יש לי על זה זה. בתחילת בבא מציעא אנחנו .אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה של חפץ של מציאה.

השאלה שלי כאן היא שהאובייקט שאבד לא היה שייך רק אחד מהם ולא של האחר. ובכל זאת הגמרא עדיין רוצה להחיל את העיקרון של המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

לי נראה שיש הסבר פשוט יותר של המשנה בבבא בתרא. זה הוא זה. המשנה שלנו בבבא בתרא אומרת שאנחנו מחלקים את הקיר והגמרא אומרת זה הדין גם אם נפל לתוך התחום של אחד. משנה בבבא מציעא אומרת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. מה ההבדל? תשובה: במשנה בבבא בתרא הם נאלצים לבנות את הקיר. זוהי הסיבה שהמשנה עצמה נותנת וזה הגיוני. אותו הדבר חל במקרה שבו הם לא נאלצו לבנות את הקיר אבל הסכימו לבנות אותו. בכל מקרה קיימת הנחה מקורית כי הוא שייך לשניהם ובגלל זה אנחנו לא אומרים שזה שייך רק אחד אפילו אם הוא נמצא ברשות שלו.

התשובה לכך לדעתי היא כי המשנה בבבא מציעא לא אומרת המע''ה. הגמרא אומרת  אותו שם אבל זה לא בגלוי במשנה. למעשה הגמרא סוברת כי המשנה יכולה להיות של כסומכוס גם

אני חושב שיש לך להגיד כי הר"י פשוט משתמש בשכל ישר. רק בגלל שהקיר נפל לתוך התחום של אחד מהשותפים, מדועזה זה צריך לתת לו  טיעון יותר חזק מאשר השותף השני

Tosphot in the beginning

The Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra seems to me hard to understand. The Mishna says partners that have decided to split up a courtyard are forced to build a wall. If it falls, it is therefore of both of them. Tosphot asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (One who wants to claim money that is in the domain of his friend must bring a proof). In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is that in the beginning of Bava Metzia we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (his must bring a proof) in the case of a מציאה a found object.[My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our Mishna in Bava Batara. It is this. In our Mishna we say we split the wall and the Gemara says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The Mishna in Bava Metzia says הממע''ה (his must bring a proof). What is the difference? Answer: in the Mishna in Bava Batra they are both forced to build the wall.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his domain.

The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not actually say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (Sumhos) also.

[In any case it is obvious that the Ri [Rabainu Isaac] must have felt this question on the was so great as to be forced to say something in answer that is clearly not the great kind of answer. He must have felt the question on the mishna to be really powerful to force him into a corner. Even with my answer  for the Ri I have trouble seeing the force of the question.] In any case it is clear to me that I need to do a lot more thinking into this to understand exactly why the Ri thinks this is such  big question.

[I do not have a Gemara Bava Metzia to look this up]

I think you have to say that the Ri is simply using common sense. Just because the wall has fallen into the domain of one of the partners, why should that give him more claim to it than the partner?

U-74 B Flat Major mp3  u-74 midi  u-74 nwc

serving in the IDF

The Gemara does give some kinds of פטור (no obligation) to people that are learning Torah for taxes, street sweeping, building a wall {Bava Batra 7.} -- but not for digging wells, since they also need water. Thus to me it seems clear that serving in the IDF also would be included in things they are obligated in since they also need נטירותא guarding. When the rockets from Syria were raining down on Safed, they all ran south. No one said their Torah learning would protect them.


In any case, what do you call "learning Torah"? If that means simple straight Litvak yeshivas  learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,-- then these places are very rare. Most yeshivas in Israel were made in the first place in order to avoid the draft.  Learning Gemara is the last thing on their minds. [Other ones were made to make money for the rosh yeshiva and his close buddies. They are basically country clubs made for sitting and talking all day. They also have nothing to do with learning Torah except for show.]
In fact, the enormous amount of fraud that got into the whole thing tempts me to say the best thing is to shut them all down except Ponoviz and a few of its offshoots and branches.

The major advantage of Litvak yeshivas is that they learn straight Torah. Also they take seriously the חרם the excommunication with the signature  of the Gra which is important in that it warns people to stay away from the Dark Side. That is one advantage. Another advantage of paying attention  to the signature of the Gra is from the standpoint of law--even if it would have no basis in reality. 

Hegel and Leonard Nelson

I feel a little guilty in recommending Hegel because this is quite different from the Kant-Friesian School which started with Leonard Nelson. Still, I feel the total dismissal of Hegel is not warranted.

The problem is that while Hegel to me seems very great, a lot of misuse still is made of him. Now Popper thought that he was the cause of all totalitarian movements that came later, but that does not seem accurate at all. Never the less, nowadays self-identified Hegelians do seem to have gone off into the deep end of the swimming pool. 

[You might look at the debate between Dr Kelley Ross and a self identified  Hegelian on his web site , and you will see what I mean. The weak part of Hegel. in fact. seems to be when people try to apply his ideas to politics.]
So far, I like to look at German  Idealism as one. That is one solid body of knowledge. The differences I like to think are only the result of looking at different aspects of the same thing. So I tend to see Hegel, McTaggart as not all that different from Leonard Nelson. Just different aspects.

[Anyway just take McTaggart's critique of Hegel --in particular his "take" on dialectics, and you do not end up much different than Leonard Nelson. That is his idea that dialectics corrects mistakes.]

[ I have tried to ignore one German idealist after the other. It does not seem to work. You can try to take Hegel in a vacuum, and that does not work. Try to take Kant in a vacuum, and that works even worse. Try to ignore them all, and that goes down blind alleys. I think you really in the end have to accept Kant Hegel and Leonard Nelson.

If you try to go with the basic Rambam approach in the Guide, you end up immediately in the Middle Ages. The Logic works, but the axioms do not. That is the problem with all Medieval Philosophy.The Logic is always rock solid, but the axioms seem clearly false. Try to go with later Rationalists or Empiricist the  logic is mostly circular, and the axioms are  false. So, to avoid Kant and Hegel which is what a lot of people would like to do just does not work. --Unless you like twentieth century philosophy which is sheer gibberish.]



Looking at for one example, "The real is rational" in terms of time, and Bradley and McTaggart's dealing with it leads me to notice the same thing that Dr Kelley Ross does, and Job also,--the universe now is not perfect. Whether it is with Hegel or Dr. Ross I get the same idea that perfection is only in the Platonic spheres, not down here.

[McTaggart's concept of time is also just not all that different from Kant, but from different reasons., i.e. there is no time. However, here too it seems necessary to divide reality into two parts, the dinge an sich (thingsin themselves ) and phenomena as Kant does.

In terms of Quantum Mechanics, this idea of the problem with time come up in so far that thing are superpositions of many possible values in space and time before they are actually measured.
But that doe not mean there is no time. Rather, that things do not have any one value in space or time until measured. This you know from the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality. [Bell did not like QM, and based on the Einstein [EPR] set up he showed that any hidden variable theory would come out differently that QM. Nature shows QM is right. [Bell used the EPR set up to build  his inequality. ]
However I have to add that the moon is there even before you see it because of coherence lifetime. That is the atoms are not in a vacuum. They interact with each other, and that causes the wave function to collapse to just one state. Coherence lifetime is the reason quantum computing is hard --it is hard to get atoms all by themselves.

The Metaphysics of the Rambam

The Metaphysics of the Rambam was not Kabalah. You can see in the Guide where he defines it as the Metaphysics  of the ancient Greeks. But even in his commentary and in the Mishne Torah itself you can see this when he makes references to Plato and Aristotle' s system.
Besides that I do not feel the Zohar is all that it is cracked up to be.   But on the other hand I have great respect for the Ari and the Remak but not because of their insights into the Zohar but rather from their own personal service by which they gained insight.
The Zohar itself I think is a work from the Middle Ages. As for example" גרדני" [guards] is not an Aramaic word. "עם כל דא" also is a clear red light. It is  a translation of  a phrase invented by the Ibn Tibon family to stand for "although" which before the Middle Ages was "אף על פי" or "אף על גב".
Rav Yaakov Emden already went into this. [The phrase invented by Ibn Tibon was עם כל זה]

The Zohar itself basically takes the world view of the Middle Ages and expands on it.
The oddest thing about it is when Rav Isaac from Acco asked the author about it, he answered with an oath that more or less said may G-d strike him down if it is not from R. Shimon ben Yohai and that he would show him the original manuscript if Rav Isaac would visit him and that promise was not fulfilled since in fact G-d struck him down afterwards. But stories are not proof. The main point is that internal evidence shows it is a work of the Middle Ages. If one wants to know and understand the deeper nature of reality, it is better to abide by the approach of the Rambam.

I decided a long time ago to go along with the idea of faith in the wise and I think there is no doubt that the Rambam fits the category of "wise."

But Metaphysics has made progress since the Neo Platonic School that the Rambam was basing himself on. Thus I think to fulfill what the Ramam was saying the best idea is to learn, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel. [To understand Hegel the best idea is to learn McTaggart.]

U-72 C Major  u-72 midi  u-72 nwc

Straight Torah.The problem however is not money. It is that the people that claim to speak in the name of the Torah are generally liars.

In the prophet Zephaniah 3 there is a verse that compares the judge of Israel to evening wolves that are constantly hunting new prey, so that they do not even bother with the bones and leftovers from their old prey.

This goes along with the idea brought in the end of tractate Shabat "If you see a generation upon that troubles come go and check the judges of Israel. For all the troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel."

To some degree this can be seen even in the Rambam  in his commentary on Pirkei Avot that כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל את חייו מן העולם. [Whosoever derives monetary benefit from the words of Torah takes is life out of the world. The Rambam says that means the world to come.]
The actual statement of Hillel was in the beginning of Pirkei Avot not to make money off of Torah nor get paid for learning or teaching. קרדום לחפור בהם. But later in Pirkei Avot  that same statement is brought a second time with the explanation כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל את חייו מן העולם,- and that is where the Rambam goes into detail about this problem.

The problem however is not money. It is that the people that claim to speak in the name of the Torah are generally liars.




This does however leave a kind of problem about how to give a divorce or other aspects of Law.
In fact in order to have a good idea of how to keep Torah, knowledge of Gemara and Musar is necessary. But you need to find a kind of legitimate Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva to get straight Torah.
Or learn at home. The only straight Torah places I know of are the great NY Litvak yeshivas or Ponoviz where Rav Shach taught. [There are possibly places with people that learned in Ponoviz or in the Mir in NY that might be good places. I am really not sure.]
[If one is out in the woods where there is not a Litvak yeshiva, then the main thing is to learn Tosphot along with the Pnei Yehoshua and the Avi Ezri.]
Instead of getting through a lot of tractates what I think is best is to work on just one tracate per year and to do with with Tosphot, Pnei Yehohua, and the new R.Akiva Eiger which they printed up in such a way that you can find what he wrote on each page and the Aruk LaNer. [For Nida, Sukka etc where there is no Pnei Yehoshua.] [The Avi Ezri should be learned as a session in itself.]

I might mention my own experience here. In the Mir in NY, people mainly spent theri morning hours getting ready for the classes. That is: Year 1- the Sukat David. Year 2- Rav Shmuel Brudny. Year 3- Rav Shraga Moshe Kalmenoviz. Year 4- Rav Shmuel Berenbaum. Each rosh yeshiva has his own new ideas on the subject matter every day that was along the lines of the Avi Ezri or Rav Haim HaLevi.
The fact that I was doing  a lot of the Pnei Yehoshua and the Maharsha was not the general practice.
[Th reason is not that I was so advanced. Just the opposite. Everyone was far beyond me. But the kind of classes in the Mir were  versions of the kind of deep learning you find in the Avi Ezri and חידושי הרמב''ם of Reb Haim Brisker. And that was beyond me even though officially I could attend any class that I wanted. But for me I found these middle level אחרונים to be something I could grasp.
The fact is the rosh yeshiva, Reb Shmuel Berenbaum did me a favor by letting me join the yeshiva because I was no where near their level of learning. And the saying "smart Mir yeshiva guys" has definite a basis in fact.]

[ might mention the fact that every one of the teachers had an enormous amount of new and original ideas that they gave over every day in class. I have no idea why they did not bother to write them down.  Today the original teachers are gone but in their places are people of genius level like Rav Nelkenbaum.] But if you are far from there you can still get an idea of what is going on at the Mir if you learn the Avi Ezri and Reb Haim.--that at least can give you  a taste of real Torah.

In NY I did not like the NY Times much. I preferred the NY Post and NY Daily. They fell in quality after around 2000 but then recently seemed to be getting better. In any case the Times always seemed slanted to me to the degree that I could not stand reading it. It felt like reading the Pravda.

Something similar with the Haaretz. Even at a meeting with a reporter from Haaretz I felt the force of "Politically Correct"  in his complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that went against the basic "Party line". Yediot I found a lot better,  and yet quality there too fell after 2000. Maybe it picked up recently like the NY Post. I am not sure.

U-73 C Major   [U-73 midi]  [U-73 nwc]

To some degree I can see the process that Hegel calls dialectics  in how Relativity was discovered. The basic idea of Hegel was if you take some concept and just go with it taking it as far as you can, you will eventually end up with some kind of contradiction. That is more or less what Einstein did. He simply took Maxwell's equations and asked what would happen if you took them for a moving body? That in fact led to a problem in the equations themselves, unless you took the speed of light in a vacuum be constant in all frames of reference.  And in fact at that point in time there was the result of the Michelson/Morley experiment indicating just that. [Though I got the impression that that experiment was not very important for Einstein's results which him came to even without it.] And after that Einstein just took the next logical step in asking what would happen in an accelerating frame of reference? And then came up with his idea that a person in free fall would not know he is in an accelerating frame of reference. But to get the equation for that, Einstein needed to do some more work. But still the basic process of reasoning was more or less straightforward.


[As pointed out by McTaggart, the dialectics of Hegel is not meant to be separate from observation. That. in fact, had been a critique on Hegel that was answered by McTaggart, and also I think that it is more or less clear in Hegel himself. --In his treatment of immediate knowledge.]

I have to say that I see a lot of parallels between Plato and the Kant.Fries system and also a strong connection between Hegel and Plotinus [Neo Platonic]. [Dr Kelley Ross wrote that the Rambam is pretty much a straightforward Neo Platonist, so that puts him somewhat closer to Hegel in that regard. [In Kelley Ross's web site there is an essay which presents a case that the Rambam was in fact close to the Kant Fries approach --which does seem to be right in the areas he points out there.]

[Popper puts to much blame on Hegel. When Marx and Lenin openly rejected the major points of Hegel I can not see how Hegel is to blame. Besides that Hegel was supporting a system like that of the USA.  The Estates  wanted to go back to feudal laws against the constitution proposed by the Prussian Monarch which was saying equal rights under the law! So Hegel supporting that constitution was actual supporting something close to the USA constitution].

my search for truth

In my search for truth, I believe I came upon a remarkable theory of the Kant/Friesian approach of Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson. But that is in terms of philosophy. I do not think that can substitute for the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach nor of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Pnei Yehoshua,, and R Akiva Eiger,.Aruck LaNer These are separate areas of value.
Getting philosophy and politics right is just as important as Gemara.

For a long time I was unaware of German Idealism. Most philosophers  nowadays think they can by- pass it as irrelevant. In the meantime twentieth century thought is astoundingly empty of meaning and reason. I do not think you can bypass German Idealism, but nor do I think it is the strongest basis for politics. In terms of Politics, I think English thought --John Locke, De Foe, Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson are a lot better as you can see in the papers they wrote to convince NY to vote for the Constitution.

[In terms of Hegel, however, I do not share the general disdain  that some of the German Idealists held for him. I can see that in Russia, the Marxists were dealing with different kinds of problems than the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with. The thing about the USSR is that the czar and the later USSR had to deal with a totally different kind of population than WASP's  {White Anglo Saxon Protestants}. That means that things and ideas that worked for the newly formed USA could not work for Russia.]

In any case, I feel that Leonard Nelson deserves a lot more credit than he is usually given-- and that goes for the German Idealists also. [Somehow I imagine that Nelson's books have not even been translated. And that is surprising and sad.]

The idea of  balance of values is one that I got from my parents. Under their guidance I went to publc schools -which in those days were much better than now. My parents definite advocated a balance of values.

[In the USA there seems to have been a default position that everything and anything slightly related to German Idealism was out and out wrong. This even penetrated high school. You could not even find books old or new in that area. It was almost as if Kant and Hegel never existed. To replace that vacuum all kinds of really dumb stuff was suggested.] 

Nowadays the trend seems  a lot better. There is Dr Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer, Edward Fesser and others. The dark pit of insane twentieth century philosophy seems to be in the past--thank God.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject when I was growing up. In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject around (in high school) when I was just entering my teen age years.
For some this was the age of the rise of many movements that laid claim to the "Truth."
On my own I did some reading on this. It seems to me today that a great deal of my motivation was internal as well as external.

I did not know anyone in particular who went deeply into Hindu or Buddhist religion, or the different gurus around then. But there were plenty of people that went that way (to their own later regret).

Philosophy at that time was well known to be empty of meaning, so no one that I knew went in that direction.

I did my own reading of Plato, Dante, Spinoza and a compilation of about 1000 Chinese philosophies.

[Neither in book stores nor the public library, nor the high school library were Hegel, nor anyone representing Idealism. However I do recall I think one book of Kant in the high school library.
The philosophical fads in those day  were ridiculous vacuums --but no one knew it at the time.]

Today I think avoiding these kinds of movements that lay claim to "the Truth" is the first step towards "the Truth". Truth lays in living a moral life, talking with God in one's own language, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have other do unto you.

[To some degree I can see why there was no interest in Hegel or any part of German Idealism. But the philosophies that attempted to replace that were empty wallets. You can see this in Dr. Kelly Ross's web site where he goes into detailed about the failed philosophies of the twentieth century. Dr Michael Huemer also goes into some detail about that.]

In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

In terms of knowledge, nothing is immune to disproof. Lots of things people were 1000% sure of turned out to be false. [Frege's self evident axioms, the world is the center, etc, ] Even in your own life you can see this in things you thought you remembered in 100% certainly that later you found out were wrong. The mark of truth is that it s fallible as Popper said.  It must be falsifiable.

Maimonides and Saadia Gaon went a long ways in getting the ideas of Plato and Aristotle as considred a part of "The Truth." I feel today a similar effort is needed to get Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson also to be lifted from the pit of obscurity  into the light.

Hegelian Idealism

Hegel has had a curious history. Hegelian Idealism was totally gone by 1850.  Marx and Kierkegaard also disagreed with Hegel about most major points but still adopted his methods. Now these two philosophies of Marx and Kierkegaard  encompass a large part of the globe. And a great deal of twentieth century philosophy is a kind of struggle to escape Metaphysics. Is not it time to give Leonard Nelson and the Kant/Fries approach due consideration?

Opposed to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel is most of 20th century philosophy.

A great deal of twentieth century philosophy is  really quite horrible. As Dr John Searle put it "It is obviously false"--that is referring to the linguistic (British-American) and analytical (continental).

But never the less getting it right is still important.


[In high school I was very interested in philosophy but thankfully I did not go into it as a profession or even a hobby.  I guess I did not see much going on there of any value.

Allen Sokal and Allen Bloom already made these points. But you can see this for yourself when present day philosophers say anything that even vaguely is related to science. That is one  area you can see they went off the path of sanity.]

The places and people you might think to go to to learn Torah are actually Trojan horses.Torah scholars demons.

The Ran from Breslov had a good point in emphasizing the fact that many times the places and people you might think  to go to to learn Torah are  actually Trojan horses. Traps laid out by the Dark Side to entice people.

This to a large degree goes along with his emphasis on private service towards God. However there are some good a holy places that I am thrilled and very happy about that I went to like the Mir in NY and also Shar Yashv of Rav Friefeld.

The problem  is that authentic Litvak yeshivas are rare. However dens of the Dark Side are common.

So the best  is to learn Gemara Rashi Tosphot and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach at home unless one happens to be in an area like NY where the great Litvak yeshivas are located --or Bnei Brak.

Reb Nahman had a great deal of other important points, though for some reason when people get involved a bit too much in his books they tend to lose perspective.


Still this idea of Reb Nahman is not commonly known. But it comes often in the writings of Reb Nahman himself. For example in Volume I "the reason why people argue and make problems for those who fear God is because they (the problem makers ) hear Torah lessons from Torah scholars that are demons. שדין יהודאיים תלמידי חכמים. As a source the notes on bottom of the page say to look up the Zohar in Pinhas which I did not find there (though I did not look hard.). But this is a subject which comes up in the Ari. In any case it ought to be more well known
How many homes would be spared, how many lives would be save from ruin if this lesson was more well known and people would know to be wary and on guard?
[This theme is brought up also in the Rambam concerning people that make money off of Torah.The Rambam says they have no portion in the next world which means they lose their holy soul. That is in fact quite close to what Reb Nahman says in different words.]
The fact is that most people do not have much knowledge in Torah and thus are easily conned and deceived. And no one stands up except Reb Nahman to warn people.

It is interesting to note that the people who were with קורח  (Korah) who argued against Moses were the heads of the Sanhedrin. Some things just keep on recurring.




In any case if one is learning at home, the thing to do is to get one Gemara and concentrate on it for a year with the Maharsha and Tosphot. Then to get one or two of the major later on אחרונים that deal with that particular Gemara. Most often that will be the Pnei Yehoshua., if you choose Ketuboth or the Bava's or Shabat. There is also a very great edition of R.Akiva Eiger that collected his works along the seder of Shas. Also the ערוך לנר.  The Avi Ezri I think should just be learned in order independently. [That is in its own order, not according to the order of Shas. Just learn it from the beginning to end, and then review many times.]

Even though this is not a popular message, still judging from Yeravam ben Navat who refrained from the truth because of fear of losing his popularity and support, I would say that even at the certainty of losing popularity one ought to say the truth.

Music for the Glory of God

U-71 B Flat Majormp3  u71 in midi  u71 nwc

Esther apparently went twice to the king without being called. The second time was after the original event that is well known. The second time she went in again at the risk of her life in order to get the decree of annihilation rescinded. You know this because the second time it says the king again held out the golden staff to her.

It is also interesting to note the 10 sons of Haman were apparently hung as examples but were actually killed before then.

The main things of interest about this is that it seems it was this king that gave the final decree to grant permission to rebuild the Temple. [As far as I can tell from the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah]

Another point of interest is how this relates to Herodotus and the events of this king invading Greece and being stopped by 300 Spartans. These events are not even hinted at which is curious. Apparently the invasion of Greece happened later. 

To come up with a political system based on the best philosophy ends up with the worst system in politics.

WWI and WWII brought an end to interest in German Idealism.

As a matter of fact it was mainly WWI but WWII finished the job. And in place of Kant and Hegel you got a host of  vacuous philosophies of the twentieth century.  

The reason was that the connection between philosophy and politics  is non trivial.

On the other hand, I think this is somewhat tragic since Kant was  the best thing that happened in philosophy ever since Aristotle and Plotinus. But in fact when it comes to politics, philosophy  is weak.
Starting from Plato, philosophers have come up with one ridiculous scheme after the other when it comes to politics and in understanding human nature.

What makes this confusing is that in some cases Hegel and Communism seem still to be functioning like in China. And even in Czarist Russia,  the simple implementation of some kind of Parliament  system [the Duma] did not help any of the problems of WWI nor the civil war.


The best idea in political thought to me still seems to be the Constitution of the USA. Politics and Philosophy seem best to be divided. To come up with a political system based on the best philosophy ends up with the worst system in politics.

The Constitution was based in part on John Locke, but mainly on the English system that had evolved in the 1700's along with a great deal of understanding of ancient systems like Athens and Rome. The Natural Law ideas of Aquinas certainly played a role. But the philosophical element was weak.
And the great effect and force of philosophy in the USA seems to constantly to be directed at undermining the Constitution-- starting from the Frankfurter School at Colombia,- but also including just about every other stream of philosophy.  It is like a great hobby -to throw darts at Christianity and at the Constitution. It is almost as if people get up the morning and wonder: "What can we do today to undermine the Constitution and/or faith."

Appendix: (1) Dr. Michael does not think any state is legitimate. He also favors open borders along with Dr Bryan Caplan. The Frankfurt School is well known to have been plotting the downfall of the USA since its inception.
Socialists on one hand, anarchists on the other. All brilliant philosophers. Where has common sense disappeared to?

(2) To some degree you can see that the Constitution based on a WASP population simply would not have worked in Czarst Russia. But the problem seems to be that people expert in their own field often get so caught u in their own worlds that they cannot see the limits of their ideas when applied  elsewhere. A good example is the war in Vietnam when the presidents of the USA were taking advice of economist on how to wage the war. That was to make it non cost effective for the North Vietnamese. But what works in economics does not necessarily work in governments and politics.

(3) I think getting philosophy right is important. And Kant, and the Kant Friesian School of Dr Ross  go a long way. But Philosophy still seems to have some kind of stumbling block in it when it comes to politics or common sense. [My impression is that Kant, Schopenhauer and Leonard Nelson are somewhat better than Hegel, even though I do not share their complete dismissal of him.]
I am thinking that as much as getting philosophy right, it is just as important to get politics right, and for that I think learning the Federalist Papers should be first priority.

Or perhaps to be more accurate in terms of political theory the best thing is to learn the background of the Constitution which is England in starting from Elizabeth plus John Locke and DeFoe. For starting to learn about the USA Constitution at the time it was written is losing the entire perspective.

Dates on the calendar have a problem.

Dates on the calendar have a problem that I have mentioned before. The reason is there does not seem to be any evidence that the calendar was in place during the period of the geonim. There are letters from the early geonim that have dates that do not correspond the the regular calendar that is in use.
So to say it was established by Hillel II  is false. The earliest record of the calendar is from the time of the later geonim. So it is impossible that Hillel II sanctified all future new moons.  And there is no Gemara which even hints to such an event.
The logical thing to do is simply count the day of the מולד the conjunction as the day of the new moon. That is at least what Tosphot says in Sanhedrin page 10 side b. But you could make a case for the Molad to be the actual date of the new moon from the actual people mentioned in the Gemara over there like R. Elazar who holds if the court sanctifies the new moon on time fine, but if not then anyway they sanctify it from heaven. Also from Rava and Rav Ashi you could make  good case in this direction. But what seems to be the most compelling  about this is that there is nothing else to go by. There is no other calendar,- since the present day one was adopted under false pretenses.

The main reason why this is serious  is things like Passover when the issue of leaven bread is about as serious as it gets.  When most people are still eating leavened bread, it is already 15 days after the Molad.

It is an odd fact about the Ketubah marriage document that sometimes it is written and signed before the actual marriage. If the שטר/document is dated in the day and the wedding takes place at night, the שטר/document is a שטר מוקדם/predated document.



One way that it might be OK is the fact that a קניין סודר acquisition made by handing over a handkerchief . So perhaps the obligations start right  then and there even though the actual marriage does not take place until the evening.
The trouble is what makes the obligations is the marriage.



Otherwise a  שטר מוקדם [document that has a date before the actual acquisition was made.] is straight forward not valid.

[This I think happens in the summer when days are long and the wedding might be called for 7:30 P.M., but then the wedding does not take place until an hour later. In NY 730 is still daytime.

One way to get out of this problem is to in fact have the date on the document the next day [which starts at night]. Also an important fact  to know is that a  כתב יד [hand written] obligates. That is even if the actual Ketubah is not valid because of the above mentioned problem, one can always just write on any scrap of paper, that he is obligated to pay the מאתיים זוז [the two hundred zuz] to his wife and have the date. This in fact seems a lot better than a Ketubah written by someone else because of  a number of problems that exist in the regular document. Another thing might be simply to write the regular document himself. [or just print the regular version and put in the names by your own handwriting.]

The fact that a כתב יד [hand written by the person himself] is much better that a שטר written by a scribe also is relevant to Gitin. 

U-69 D Major

u-69 midi file 

u-69 in nwc format

Serving in the IDF {Israeli Defense Force}. "Your brothers will go to war and you will sit here?"

Serving in the IDF {Israeli Defense Force} to me seems to be a great thing and also an obligation. Not just from the Gemara which makes it clear but also from the Old Testament. One place you can see this is in the Five Books Of Moses when Moses gathered troops together to fight Og and Sihon
But also many places in the Old Testament. One striking example is in Judges 12 when the tribe of Ephraim  were upset with Jephthah that he did not draft them. He went to war without drafting them into his army. So they threatened to burn down Jephtah's home and Jephtah went to war with them. --all because of the sin that he did not demand that they join his army.

From a simply legal point of view, there is no question that for מלחמת מצווה [a war of defense] one drafts even a bridegroom and bride out the the marital bed.

אחיכם יעלו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה? Moses asked the tribes that wanted to stay on the other side of he Jordan river, "Your brothers will go to war and you will sit here?"
And Moses went on to say further that if the would not go to war and by that weaken the resolve of their brothers, then God would leave them all in the wilderness and they would destroy the entire people.[Numbers 32:6 is the start of the whole idea.]

In the Gemara a difference is made concerning community projects like digging outside the walls of the city and local taxes for which people that are involved in learning Torah are not obligated and between defense for which they are obligated.  [See the relevant Gemaras in Bava Metzia and Bava Batra. The Gemara makes does say people that are sitting and learning Torah do not have to go out to dig ditches nor pay taxes but it makes no exceptions concerning a defensive war.]

The Book of Nehemiah also has an account of people that lived in Israel and did whatever they could to stop the return of the People of Israel back to the Land of Israel and to prevent the building of the walls and the Temple. So it is no surprise that the reincarnation of those same wicked men exist today. The builders of the walls in fact had to build with their tools in one hand and their weapons in the other because of the wicked men that were trying to prevent the return of the people of Israel back to the promised Land.

Thus the fact that many people in the Land Israel give comfort and support to the enemies of  Israel really ought to be considered as treason and they ought to be expelled from the land.

trust in God

I certainly never got the trust in God (Bitahon) subject straightened out. I never knew [nor  know now] when it is proper to trust in God and when it is proper to make some effort. Even learning the two books of Musar that deal with this subject [חובות לבבות ומדרגת האדם] never helped me much in getting the subject straightened out in my own mind.
I assume the reason is the "need to know" thing that you have in the USA Military. This is one area where free will has to play a role and therefore it is left ambiguous.

In the Mir in NY they get a certain stipend from the government. And that much I got when I was married and part of the Mir Yeshiva  group of married guys that received that stipend.
I learned before I was married that people supplement that stipend in different ways.  In any case, after  a short time, I was invited to join the group in Meor Haim in Safed.

But the subject still remains fuzzy in my own mind. From what I can tell, if one can receive that stipend that the State of Israel offers, and just sit and learn, that is the best idea. Running around for money just does not seem like a great way to spend time when one can be learning Torah. There is also what I think is a somewhat better idea;- to be part of the kind of yeshivas that are coordinated with the State of Israel in such a way that one learns Torah for a few years, and then serves in the IDF for a year, and then back to learning. Back and forth. 

John Locke

The basic idea of John Locke about natural rights is not spelled out as clearly as one might expect in the Two Treaties of Government. But from the general approach he takes in most of his writings, you can see the basic idea. That man in a state of nature possesses all his rights.  But he is vulnerable. Without the State, he in effect has no rights because any criminal can come along and take what he wants from him. Without a state we would all we vulnerable to the very worst criminals--and the most evil and most violent would have all the power. So in order to form a state, we give up some natural rights. We pay taxes. And limit our activities to things that will not hurt others and we obey the law.
So to John Locke rights are not made by the state. People have natural rights that the State is there to protect. It is subtle and you do not see it clearly in the Two Treaties.

The right to self protection is therefore not made by the state. It is a natural right that no one gives up.

[There are problems however with the social contract theory as Danny Frederick pointed out. John Locke works better with a consequential theory that goes according to the lines of the Rambam. That most of the commandments including the one to have  a king are consequential. Their purpose is to bring to peace of the state.]

To continue in this same  line of reasoning Karl Popper pointed out that the best way to evaluate a system is to see the natural consequences of the system. Not to look to see how well it can be defended by logic. But the thing is that any system has already been tried. You never have to evaluate what would be the natural consequences of the system. All you need to do is to look at what were in fact the actual consequences that actually happened. That idea cancels almost any social system I can think of except the Constitution of the USA.

[I have noticed that German and English thought seem to excel in different areas.That is the English in the 1600 and 1700 set the foundations of the kind of thinking that created the USA. While German thought seems very weak in politics but gets to amazing depth in the natural sciences and in philosophy. Thus it seems to me when it comes to politics it is a good idea to read the English authors of the 1600's and 1700's. In fact there is no understanding of the USA Constitution without knowledge of the Glorious Revolution in England and John Locke and Defoe.

Bava Batra 102b

 In the Mishna in Bava Batra 102b it says the owner of a field says to another , "I will sell to you a field that contains one Koor".  [(75000 square yards)]. If there are there stones that are higher than 10 hand-breaths, or crevices that are deeper than 10 hand-breaths deep not measured with the field. The owner has to give a full Koor land usable land. If the rocks are less high or deep than 10, then they are included.  R. Isaac says those stones are 4 "Kav." [טרשים שאמרו  ד' קבים] The Rashbam says that means even rocks that are less that the 10 (עשרה טפחים), if they are horizontally 4 Kav or more, they are not included as part of the field, but the owner must make up for the space they take with usable land. Rav Ukba said those 4 Kav are in 5 Kav of land. [ והוא שמובלעים בה' קבים] Rav Hiya said "If they are in most of the field." [והוא שמובלעים ברובה של שדה] The next mishna [103b] says if one says "I sell about a Koor" then even a 1/4  kav in a  Seah is included. The amount 1/4 Kav in a Seah is 1/24.
 Rav Hiya Bar Aba disagrees with  Rav Ukba bar Hama. But in what way? Rav Ukba said 4 Kav stone in 5 Kav of land. In that  the stones that are up until 4 Kav horizontally, but less that 10 hand-breaths are measured with the field. But more that 4 Kav are not included. This amount of Rav Hiya goes along perfectly with the general idea that when one buys a Seah of grain, it is natural to expect 1/24 of dirt or pebbles got mixed up in it. Rav Ashi said "I sell a Koor" is the same as "I sell about a Koor." So presumably the entire first mishna is talking about a case of "about a Koor", but then if the deal would be for exactly a Koor, no stones would be allowed? That in any case seems to go along with Rava on page 90 כל דבר שבמידה אפילו פחות משתות חוזר [For anything that is measured, if the amount is at all different than the stated amount the whole deal is off. ] because of מקח טעות [faulty deal, or faulty purchase]. This in fact is the approach of Tosphot ד''ה אלא [circa page 104].
Tosphot asks from the Mishna that in the case the owner said I will sell to you about a Koor then even if 1/24 of land is not there at all, the deal is still valid. All the more so if the land is there but filled with stone. Tosphot answers the case of stones is meant to be able to be joined with lack of land. That is if lack of land along with stones of a   high density of 4 in 5 or 4 in most of the field  gets up to more than 1/24 [ שבריר אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה] then the deal is null and void.

_________________________________________________________________________________
 In the משנה in בבא בתרא דף ק''ב ע''ב  it says the owner of a field says to another , I will sell to you a field that contains one כור.   If there are there stones that are higher than עשרה טפחים, or crevices that are deeper than עשרה טפחים deep not measured with the field. The owner has to give a full כור land usable land. If the rocks are less high or deep than עשרה טפחים, then they are included.  רב יצחק says those stones are ארבע קבים. טרשים שאמרו  ד' קבים The רשב''ם says that means even rocks that are less that the עשרה טפחים, if they are horizontally ארבעה קבים or more, they are not included as part of the field, but the owner must make up for the space they take with usable land. רב עוקבא said those ארבעה קבים are in  חמישה קבים of land.  והוא שמובלעים בה' קבים Then רב חייא בר אבא said "If they are in most of the field." והוא שמובלעים ברובה של שדה The next משנה ק''ג ע''ב says if one says "I sell about a כור" then even a fourth of a קב in a  סאה is included. The amount a fourth of a קב in a סאה is אחד חלקי עשרים ארבעה.
 Then רב חייא בר אבא disagrees with  רב עוקבא בר חמא. But in what way? רב עוקבא בר חמא said  ארבעה קבים stone in חמישה קבים of land.  The stones that are up until ארבעה קבים horizontally, but less than 10 hand-breaths are measured with the field. But more that ארבעה קבים are not included. This amount of רב חייא בר אבא goes along perfectly with the general idea that when one buys a סאה of grain, it is natural to expect אחד חלקי עשרים ארבעה of dirt or pebbles got mixed up in it. רב שאי said "I will sell a כור" is the same as "I sell about a כור." So presumably the entire first משנה is talking about a case of "about a כור", but then if the deal would be for exactly a כור, no stones would be allowed? That in any case seems to go along with רבא on page צ' כל דבר שבמידה אפילו פחות משתות חוזר [For anything that is measured, if the amount is at all different than the stated amount the whole deal is off. ] because of מקח טעות faulty deal, or faulty purchase. This in fact is the approach of תוספות ד''ה אלא. There וספות asks from the משנה that in the case the owner said I will sell to you about a כור then even if אחד חלקי עשרים ארבעה of land is not there at all, the deal is still valid. All the more so if the land is there but filled with stone. תוספות answers the case of stones is meant to be able to be joined with lack of land. That is if lack of land along with stones of a   high density of 4 in 5 or 4 in most of the field  gets up to more than 1/24 שבריר אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה then the deal is null and void.



במשנה בבא בתרא דף ק''ב ע''ב: הבעלים של מגרש אומרים ללוקח, אני מוכר לך שדה המכיל כור אחד. אם יש שם אבנים שגבוהות עשרה טפחים, או נקיקים עמוקים יותר מעשרה טפחים לא נמדדים עם השדה. לבעלים יש לתת את מלוא כור קרקע- קרקע שמישה. אם הסלעים הם פחות גבוהים או  הנקיקים עמוקים פחות מעשרה טפחים, אז הם כלולים. רב יצחק מחזיק בשיטה שאבנים אלה הן ארבעה קבים ברוחב. טרשים שאמרו ד' קבים. הרשב''ם כתב שזה אומר סלעים שהם פחות מעשרת הטפחים, אם הם באופק יותר מארבעת הקבים, הם אינם נכללים במסגרת השדה, אבל הבעלים חייבים לפצות על החלל עם קרקע שמישה. ולפי רב עוקבא אלה הארבעה קבים נמצאים בחמישה קבים של קרקע. היינו קב אחד של עפר וד' של אבן ביחד מגיעים לחמישה קבים (והוא שמובלעים בה' קבים). ולפי רב חייא בר אבא הוא שמובלעים ברוב השדה. הינו רב עוקבא בר חמא סובר ארבעה קבים אבן בחמישה קבים של הקרקע. האבנים שהן עד ארבעה קבים באופק, ופחות מעשרה טפחים בגובה נמדדות עם השדה. אבל יותר מארבעת הקבים אינם כלולים. סכום זה של רב חייא בר אבא הולך יחד באופן מושלם עם הדין הכללי שכאשר אחד קונה סאה של תבואה, טבעי הוא לצפות שאחד חלקי עשרים וארבע של עפר או חצץ התבלבל בה. רב אשי סובר "אני אמכור כור" זהה ל"אני מוכר  ככור". אז יש להניח שמשנה הראשונה כולה מדברת על מקרה של "כור" או "ככור", אבל  אם העסקה הייתה עבור כור בדיוק, לא שום אבנים יורשו.  בכל מקרה זה נראה שהולך יחד עם רבא בעמוד צ': "כל דבר שבמידה אפילו פחות משתות חוזר". [לכל דבר נמדד, אם הסכום הוא בכלל שונה מהסכום הנקוב, העסקה כולה בטילה.] היינו בגלל טעות במקח העסקה בטלה.  זה למעשה הוא הגישה של תוספות ד''ה אלא (ק''ד ע''א). שם תוספות שואלים מן המשנה כי במקרה שאמרו הבעלים שאני אמכור לך ככור, אז גם אם אחד חלקי עשרים וארבע אדמה חסר, העסקה עדיין בתוקף. על אחת כמה וכמה אם הקרקע נמצאת שם, אבל מלא אבנים. תוספות עונות המקרה של אבנים נועד להיות מסוגל שישולב עם מחסור בקרקע. כלומר אם מחסור בקרקע יחד עם אבנים של צפיפות גבוהה של ארבעה בחמישה או ארבעה ברוב של השדה קם ליותר מ 1/24  אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה אז העסקה בטלה ומבוטלת.


The main thing I wanted to say was that you have to modify the case on age 102 to be like the case o age 103 "I will sell about a Koor" and after that I saw that that is exactly what Tosphot does.

Physics and Metaphysics bring one to love and fear of God.

It is hard to know what the Rambam meant by the idea he brings in the Guide for the Perplexed that learning Physics and Metaphysics brings one to love and fear of God. A few years ago, at the time I decided to start taking the Rambam seriously, I decided pretty much to concentrate on the Physics aspect of what he was saying.

[I first had to be sure that I was understanding the Rambam properly. So I looked at various different editions of the Guide and I looked carefully in the Mishne Torah also to see that this opinion of the Rambam was not just something he came to at the end of his life but rather was something he had held to even during the earlier years.]

It was not that I did not trust the judgment of the Rambam. It was rather that I figured I had enough to do with trying to get to Physics.

The way I approach this subject is not like they do in universities. There the basic idea that Physics is only for those who are talented at it. There is no concept there that it is a worthwhile project even for one who is not talented. With that approach I disagree. I base my approach on the Rambam and also the many Musar books that take the identical approach of the Rambam like the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות and מעלות המידות by Benjamin the Doctor. [A famous Musar book from the Middle Ages that used to be part of the regular set.] Thus a proper day of learning for me means about an hour of Physics and as much of Tosphot as I can fit into the rest of the day. [i.e. Gemara,  Tosphot and the Avi Ezri.]

[Since I admit I am not particularly talented, I do the basic kind of session that the sages said לעולם לגרס אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר "One should learn by just saying the words and going on even though he forgets and even though he does not even know what he is saying." [That Gemara is brought I think in tractate Shabbat and Avoda Zara and also in te book of Musar אורחות צדיקים]


[It seems clear to me that in terms of Metaphysics the Rambam was referring to the book of Aristotle by that name.] Today if I had the time, in order to listen to the Rambam I would learn Plato, Aristotle, the Enneads, Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson (the Kant-Friesian approach).]


[But a lot of secular subjects are terrible waste of time. And most are absolutely harmful. My advocating the Rambam's Physics and Metaphysics in no way implies anything good about most subjects in high school.] I also am not sure what to think about the issue of "פרנסה" that is the reason most people learn secular subjects. That is one area I have to say that I think I failed in. For if I had just stuck with the Mir yeshiva path of just learning Torah and letting פרנסה [money] take care of itself, I think I would be doing a lot better today. But that fact that I failed in that test gives me no higher perspective to comment on the subject.

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication is generally ignored even by people that try to follow the letter of the law and have "faith in the wise" concerning the Gra himself.
The reason is more or less connected with Ahijah Hashiloni the prophet who anointed Yeravam ben Navat as king over Israel [i.e. the ten tribes.]

Even though אחיה השילוני Ahijah does not get much space or attention in the Old Testament, he does get an extraordinary amount of attention from Rav Isaac Luria who held he was the greatest of all prophets after Moses. Yet the sum total effect of Ahiah seems to have been negative. He anointed Yeravam ben Navat who then proceeded to make two golden calves which resulted in the eventual disappearance of the ten tribes.
The reason is that sometimes a מכשול a stumbling block has to come into the world for unknown reasons and that itself gets Divine approval.

That does not mean the stumbling block is good. It means that according to some vast Divine plan it has to be there (even though it is evil).

The issue is what can be called a "Consciousness Trap." There are great and important ideas you might hear, but they are placed there in order to trap your mind and heart into the other things which are  there to hurt you. It is the Trojan Horse idea. Something that seems great and that you need, but there is a hidden poison inside.
But the fact that Yeravam ben Navat was set up by Ahijah meant that no one could stop it. The strength of the Dark Realm comes from what ever power they derive from holiness. Since the top and peak of all prophets [besides Moses] set it up, no one, not even Eliyahu nor any later prophets could change it.




Just for public information the basic idea of Rav Isaac Luria is that prophecy proceeds from נצח and הוד two Divine traits Victory and Splendor. The prophecy of Moses came from the face of both. The Ari then goes into details how the prophecy of Ahia was one step lower and that of Samuel and Eliyahu one step after that. [Ahiah from the front halves of the two. Shmuel from the front of Victory but not Splendor. Eliyahu from the back halves of both.]]

The basic idea here is the same as in honor of one's parents usually involves doing things that one does not understand, but simply takes on faith that one's parents know best. The idea is whom do you follow? Your own ideas or do you take the Ten Commandments seriously enough to disregard you own ideas and decide to listen to your parents? It is similar here. Do you follow you own ideas or do you in fact have "faith in the wise?"

Nowadays it is common to hear the phrase, "No one can tell me what to do." as an axiom of faith. This is in spite of the fact that it is obviously false. A person gets hired to work at the counter in a grocery store. It turns out he has sticky fingers when it comes to money. The manager comes over and asks him to stop pocketing the money. And he answers: "No one can tell me what to do."
You are on a scouting trip in the mountains, and you do not know how to put up your tent. You have been struggling for hours to make sense of it. Someone with more experience comes over, and tells you, "You are doing it wrong. Let me show you how it is done." And you answer "No one can tell me what to do."

You are in class with Paula who gets straight A's in all her subjects. You know you are bright, but you still just barely manage a B+ average. You get some problem in Algebra that you think you have the answer to. It turns out that Paula raises her hand and suggests a different answer than the one you got. How much confidence do you now have that your answer is right?


[Few people acknowledge or admit that they use their own intellect in deciding who to follow. They might claim they have "faith in the wise,"-- but they use their own intellect about who they call "wise" according to what they want to hear and what appeals to their own interests.]


After thought. The idea that the signature of the Gra has validity in law came to me when I was reading a commentary on the Rambam. The idea I saw there is that  חרם excommunication derives its legal status from the law about נדרים vows. The law of vows is a legal category from the Torah itself. The basic idea is that a person can forbid use of his object to another person by saying, "This object is to you like a קרבן sacrifice." And that had legal validity. That is where the strength of a excommunication comes from. That is: a court [even in Babylon where there was no ordination] has the ability to forbid interaction with any said individual by means of a חרם, and that has legal validity in so far as one that transgresses the rule gets on himself automatically the same status. [That is one who ignores a חרם is under the same חרם.]

There was a biography of the Gra that came out a few years back that I think also made this same point. However I never saw it. My conclusions are based on a book that had the actual transcripts and letters of the court at Vilna.

U-67 C Major   u67 midi  u67 nwc

 S-20 A Major [s20 midi] [s20 nwc]This S20 was put on the internet before, but I just did a few corrections that I think are very necessary. U-68 D Major mp3    [u68 midi]  [U68 nwc]

Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach.

I must say that in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach was more "global." The kind of small questions that I ask would not have  occupied much attention by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but rather big issue questions like how does this subject [sugia] relate to other sugiot as you would see in Reb Haim HaLevi's חידושי הרמב''ם or in Rav Shach's אבי עזרי.
But in Shar Yashuv, the kind of questions that would have been raised by Rav Naphtali Yeger were more of the kind that deal with "calculating the sugia".

While at the Mir itself I never got into the "big issues" types of learning. It is only later that I began  the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the חידושי הרמב''ם by Reb Haim Halevi. [Frankly speaking, I was no where near the general high level of learning that was at the Mir. Most of the learning there was somewhere in the stratosphere  while I was just barely prodding along. 
[I had done Hulin in my first year in Shar Yashuv. Then my mother died. Then my second year was spent doing Ketuboth. Then the third year was Yevamot then I went to the Mir in NY. There I did Nedarim and then Shabat and then got married and to Israel. Israel was amazing.]

Reb Shmuel himself could have written his own amazing ideas which were astonishing   insights along the lines the Reb Haim, but for some odd reason he and all the other amazing roshei yeshiva there confined themselves to just giving over their ideas in class. The only one who saw fit to write his stuff down was the the Sukat David, and that was only the beginner's level at the Mir. The other roshie yeshiva (as far as I know) never wrote down a word. It is sad. Every single class of Reb Shmuel was a astounding structure of amazing ideas.

I am upset that Reb Shmuel's classes were not written down. But there is nothing I can do about it. Thank God, at least Rav Shach wrote down his ideas which were along the same kinds of lines.

I any case, overall I have to admit the yeshiva experience in a genuine Litvak Yeshiva like the Mir in NY was an astounding experience. If people would know about what the authentic Litvak yeshiva experience is like, you would not be able to find room to sit down. Everyone would flock like bees to honey. But I have to add that a lot depend on the rosh yeshiva. The kind of person he is. [Because of some kind of Divine grace my steps were led to two amazing yeshivas, Shar Yashuv and the Mir of NY. But to merit to the real thing apparently is either from some kind of merit one needs or simple undeserved grace from above. ]

[The Mir and Shar Yashuv for me were very enjoyable I should add. I can not really say what aspect I found best.]  [At any rate, the main idea is to learn how to be a "mensch" and good traits along with the fulfillment of the command to learn Torah. All I am saying is that there are some institutions like Ponoviz in Bnei Brak or the Mir in NY which do in fact help to bring to these goals.]

The whole Litvak (Lithuanian Yeshiva) idea is quite remarkable in that it the closest thing I know of that brings to learning and keeping Torah. What I mean is that there are institutions that do a fairly good job in bringing about the basic goals that they believe in. The Litvak Yeshivas --at least in Bnei Brak and NY do a fairly good job.
[I might mention that the basic idea there was to learn Talmud and Musar. Musar is a small set of Ethical books that were authored during the Middle Ages, and  now also includes the works of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. These books I have to say are very impressive, and do a wonderful job in explaining the world view of the Holy Torah.]  

[In terms of general education before the yeshiva years, I ought to mention that I mainly hold with the Rambam about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. Even though the Rambam openly said he was referring to how these subjects were understood in ancient Athens, I feel that today Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, String Theory,  Kant and Hegel, the Enneads of Plotinus and of course Plato and Aristotle ought to be part of that. Obviously the Gra would have added Music and Astronomy also, but the above seems like a basic minimum.]
[I was officially in the class of Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but I not go regularly. I also was there at his home almost every Shabbat even after I got married.]
I have gone back and forth on Hegel. While in NY I borrowed from the Brooklyn Public Library a Cambridge Companion to Hegel which I liked. Later I got into Kant, Leonard Nelson, and Kelley Ross and kind of accepted  along with their very amazing ideas also their negative attitude towards Hegel. At some point I decided to do a more thorough reading of Hegel on my own and then became very impressed again. The strong part of Hegel is Metaphysics. His weak part is politics.  Thus for politics I think it makes more sense to read the documents of the founding fathers of the USA.