What is education?

 STEM and Survival Skills, The Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. [Without that it is hard to know how to learn. I mean that knowing "how to learn" is a skill which needs to be acquired by just like playing the violin.
So even with study of the two Talmuds, people usually have no idea of the depths without something like the Avi Ezri or the hidushim of Rav Haim of Brisk]


However moral education is imparted by example. Not by books.

[Rishonim  held one ought also to learn Metaphysics.  When the Rambam says so openly in the Guide he says specifically he is referring to the Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks. So that is clear. Plato and Aristotle. But when the Obligations of the Hearts also brings this same idea on the first page of his book, he is referring to that study as learned and understood by the Muslims. So what does that mean? So that has to refer to later commentaries on Aristotle.
So at least to these Rishonim, some philosophy is important. Others held the exact opposite. Yet as philosophy developed I feel Kant and Hegel are important. But I can see the problems in philosophy also. But I found Dr Kelley Ross [based on Fries and Leonard Nelson] and his approach to be a great defense of faith. More than Hegel. Hegel has some areas where he is great. But he does not really recognize the existence of a kind of non intuitive immediate knowledge--faith.]

I think punishment is personal. While certainly the point about whole peoples and nations getting punished seem valid to some degree, however my feeling is that nothing happens to any individual that comes without there being a specific judgment. That is even if you see it happening to a whole people- nothing happens to me that has to do with others being punished. It always is about Me. Some evil deed I did, or some good deed I neglected.

You certainly see this in the Gates of Repentance which brings it from the Gemara Shabat "אין יסוריים בלי עוון" There are no trouble without sin.

[That is a debate in the Gemara. The Gemara concludes that death can come without sin but troubles always have some sin that is their cause. You can see this in Deuteronomy also אל אמונה ואין עוול צדיק וישר הוא God is a just God--with no perversion of judgement. He is righteous and straight.

The debate between Kant and Hegel

To me the issue in philosophy is still the debate between Kant and Hegel. But the issue seems to boil down to the differences between McTaggart and Leonard Nelson.
Besides that I just do not see that much or any of twentieth century philosophy has any worth or merit. Not the British American Analytic, nor the Continental versions.
Not that McTaggart was perfect when it comes to understanding Hegel. There were blind spots. See Cunningham on Hegel. Leo Nelson is clearly not straight with Kant, but seems to be about the best understanding of his system with proper modifications. See the blog of Dr Kelley Ross for information abut that.


Why I bring this up is that Dr. Kelley Ross shows how Kant fit in well with Quantum Mechanics. [He has an essay on a Kantian approach to QM based on Fries and Leonard Nelson.] But what I am wondering is would not Hegel also work? After all with Hegel the whole point of the dialectic is not just how knowledge proceeds. It is in the very fabric of reality itself. So this duality between the particles or wave seem to be exactly what Hegel was talking about. Each is some aspect of  a deeper reality just like Hegel always says about opposites- that you get to a higher level and the apparent contradiction disappears of becomes sublimated in the higher level. That is kind of what happens with Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. 






So when people start realizing how dumb 20th century philosophy, then was Kant and Hegel will start to matter more. And then so will the debate between Leonard Nelson and Herman Cohen and the Marburg school and McTaggart. [But I think the Marburg School is obsolete. The only approach to Kant that makes sense to me is Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross.]

The silliness of 20th century philosophy was noted by Allan Bloom, Robert Hanna, Kelley Ross, and Steven Dutch.

Russian Revolution and justified anger. But the anger needs to be directed towards legitimate targets.

I wanted to bring a few ideas and then to tie them in.
[1] One is that to some degree I can see the point of the Russian Revolution. People feel hurt.  And sometimes that is justified. So from one aspect I can that there is such a thing as justified anger.

You can see this in the אורחות צדיקים [Paths of the Righteous] in the Gate of Anger.

The problem is that often the anger is directed towards the wrong targets. Capitalists, kulaks etc. Though it must have been that in tzarist Russia these powerful kulaks and capitalists were abusing people to the degree that their anger spilled over.

But also people were angry at religion. And that is also often justified. Not that in the Law of Moses, there is anything wrong. Not the Oral or Written Law. However people use that as a cover to hide their evil. This Rav Nahman pointed out often. So what people did was to reject all religion.

That was because people did not have the ability to be able to discern what is right and what is wrong. So they just said all religion is wrong. They did not have the insight and understanding of the Gra and Rav Shach to be able to tell the difference between the holy  and the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side.]
What they could have done was to have "faith in the wise" and just trust that the Gra and Rav Shach knew what they were talking about.

But furthermore, sometimes there is a point to the secular. It is not to say that if if just have the right religious values everything is OK. Not really. Often religion opens the door towards other things. People might start out with faith in a true tzadik like Rav Nahman but then get side tracked. That is in fact almost guaranteed. That is because it is in the very nature of things, that religion gets side tracked
all too quickly and easily.

I think this whole situation gives to me and others a chance to finally get to sit down and get through the Oral Law [that is the two Talmuds with Tosphot and Maharsha], the basic set of Ethics (Musar) books of Rav Israel Salanter, and Physics and Mathematics.
[Many Rishonim said also Metaphysics referring to besides Plato and Aristotle's Metaphysics as the Rambam stated openly in the beginning of the Guide for the Perplexed.

F Major w69mp3  w69 midi  w69 nwc

Trust in God draws good things. That is not the same as trusting in the Divine decree. Rather it is trust in itself which God answers. והבוטח בה' חסד יסובבנו  Kindness surrounds one who trusts in God. Not that kindness surrounds everyone. [I am just picking one verse, but there are many more all over.]

On one hand you do not hear about trust in God outside the Litvak Yeshiva World. And even there not so much. I heard about it at the Mir, but in Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway not so much.

The interesting thing about trust in God as understood at the Mir in NY was that it was active, not passive. That is to say--it was trust in God in such a way that one was left free to learn Torah. It was a kind of way of being freed from constraints.--Constraints that would normally prevent one from learning Torah.

קניין סודר acquiring by means of handkerchief  as far as I can tell in the Raavad  and the R''id (Yeshaya of Trany) seems to work because of a kind of acquiring by means of money.
With the Rambam it seems a different kind.

The Tosfot Ha'Rid right at the beginning of kidushin says if the handkerchief is worth more than a penny then the kidushin is valid.
[That must be how he understands the gemara there that "exchange'' would not work because it is valid even for less than a penny.]
However the Rambam understands that that type of acquiring would not work for kidushin nor for letting a slave go free.

That is based on the Gemara in Kidushin i think around pg 79. One fellow had a Hebrew maid servant and threw at her a vessel and said, "With this vessel you go free." That the Gemara there says is not valid. At first the thought it is not valid because of acquiring by means of a  handkerchief. And in they end they decided it was because the vessel was owned by the owner.
So the Raavad in fact says that letting a slave go free by means of acquiring by handkerchief is valid. The Rambam says not.

So what I see here is the an argument about the handkerchief.

I admit this is the way it looks to me. From what I can see in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri, he seems to understand this sugia differently and I can not figure out what he is saying.

Capitalism

Capitalism causes prosperity, e.g. USA, England, Europe. Communism causes mass starvation (USSR in the 1920-'s and 1930's ) and mass murder. Example Venezuela.
Steven Dutch: Correlation, in and of itself, doesn't prove causation. But correlation, coupled with a reasonable causal explanation, does constitute strong evidence of causation.


Working class people work, and they worked hard to get what they have. So they don't want it threatened. They don't want criminals in their neighborhoods and they don't want the value of their homes threatened. And they're smart enough to realize that if you can take down the wealthy and the powerful, you can squash working class people like a bug. So many of them don't buy into the "soak the rich" philosophy because they know perfectly well who will be next to get soaked.


Leftists: buy a clue. We are not going to seize the wealth of the top 10% of the population and pass it out among everybody else. First, it wouldn't go all that far. Second, once it was spent, there would be no more. See Chile, 1974 for additional information, or take notes during Zimbabwe 2007-. We are not going to cure poverty by printing a million dollars for everybody. See Germany, 1923 for details. 

Politics and Philosophy seem to have a dividing line between them. If you take the top philosophers their ideas about politics seem not so great. Hegel, Kant, Leonard Nelson. Even John Locke came after the Glorious Revolution in order to justify it.

While the system of the USA Constitution and the Limited Monarchy in England seem to be the results of circumstances and not any well thought out system. The whole idea of having a Parliament was because Edward I needed money from the lords. Money that he did not have a right to under the  feudal system. So he had to come up with Parliament so he could get their money with representation. And later the  reason for the House of Commons was the same. The Magna Carta same as just being a way to stop the king from getting as much as he wanted from the nobles.
I could go on, but the idea seems the same. Whatever really works in politics is never the result of some well thought out policy but the result of circumstances and later is found to be working well.

I noticed Leonard Nelson on the Friesian web site of Dr Kelley Ross. But for some reason it was ignored by most of academia. My learning partner David Bronson asked me about that. I said well it makes sense because the top philosophers are not at the Ivy League places, Ed Feser after all is in Pasadena. Michael Huemer in Colorado.
For some odd reason the people of philosophy at the Ivy League schools are mediocre or less.

[it is like Allan Bloom said about the drastic decline and fall of the universities--but specifically pointing out the-social studies and humanities as being less than worthless but of actual negative value.] 

If you take the Gra at his word, then the main problem that people have is lack of trust in God. After all, take the principle "as much as you trust in God, that is how much he helps you" then the problem is not how to get help. It is rather to get trust.

Sometimes you notice that people that are against the path of learning fast of Rav Nahman of Uman are not in fact doing so much learning. On one hand the idea of learning in depth is important. But often the same people that learn the deepest are also the same ones that learn very fast as separate sessions.

As if you consider what the Gra said that one has an obligation to get through the Oral and Written Law [the two Talmuds, Sifra, Sifrei, Michilta, the Midrash Raba, Tosephta.] at least once it seems that that would be difficult without this idea of Rav Nahman of learning as  fast as possible [i.e saying the words in order and going on until the end of the book and then review.].
And if you take into account the obligation of doing Physics and Metaphysics also as  the rishonim [medieval authorities] that went along with this basic approach of Saadia Gaon, then all the more so that the path of learning fast is the only possible way. [That is Ibn Pakuda of the Obligations of the Heart, Benjamin the Doctor, and the Rambam and others.]
[The most open about Metaphysics and Physics was Ibn Pakuda right on the first page of the Obligations of the Hearts. Later in the third chapter of Shaar HaBehina for Physics]


[It is not that in depth is not important. It is just that I am saying that experience showed that 1/2 of learning time ought to be in depth and the other half for going fast. This is in every Litvak yeshiva. The morning is for in depth. The afternoon for fast learning.]

It is the same with coffee. Those against it you notice are not anything like super-achievers. Rather it is just they do not want anyone else to be an achiever and thus to show them up. 

Bach

There is a subject I want to introduce. It is in Rav Shach's commentary on the Rambam Laws of Marriage. 18. law 10. The subject itself is well known but since the public might not know I bring it here. Let's say a priest כהן marries a girl גדולה או קטנה [she could be before 12 years old, but even after 12 she still would be forbidden. That is to say,-- we do not say that since she is after 12 maybe the signs of virginity fell off automatically as sometime happens with girls after twelve.] and finds she is not a virgin. [That is we assume she is not a virgin because of sex, not because of the hymen falling off by itself, or because of playing rough at skiing or as such.] ] She is forbidden because even if she was raped, she still is a "halala" חללה which is forbidden to a priest. [that is one of the few categories that are forbidden to a priest bur allowed to a Israeli] But if a Israel marries a girl and she is not a virgin she still is allowed to him. Why? Because it is a case of a ספק ספיקא doubt of a doubt. Maybe she had sex before engagement. Then she is allowed to him. Or maybe the sex was after the engagement, but it might have been rape. So she is still allowed. [Only if she had sex after engagement willingly with someone else is she forbidden. That is to say a married woman who has sex with anyone besides her husband willingly becomes forbidden to her husband. That is learned from Sota סוטה והיא נטמאה אחד לבעל אחד לבועל  So what makes the woman forbidden to a priest? It is the fact that even rape makes her forbidden. So Tosphot in Ketuboth pg 9 asks why not say she is allowed because we put her on her original status חזקת כשרות. That is to say there is only one doubt. One doubt might make her forbidden, however here we have a case where there is a original status [hazaka   חזקת כשרות] which ought to solve the doubt. Tosphot answers that there is a another status working against that status חזקת כשרות.  That is status that she was a virgin and so continues to be assumed to be so until the second we know it is not so. חזקא מעיקרא That is we push the act of sex up until the last minute until it was found out that she was not a virgin. So it had to be during the time of engagement ["Arusin" אירוסין]Rav Akiva Eigger askes what about חזקת השתא that is a status of the way we know things are now. And so we push that back in time as far as possible. So חזקת השתא [hazaka of now] ought to work with חזקת כשרות to allow her to her husband. [This is like the case in Nida page 2 where  חזקת השתא [hazaka of now] would not work against חזקא מעיקרא unless there is another חזקא working together with it. I.e. by itself it would not hold but with another it would.]R Akiva Eigger answers in Nida page two the two hazakot חזקות work together and can be joined since they both indicate the same thing. However in our case with the wife of the priest חזקת השתא does not help.  חזקת כשרות since they indicate different things.  One is that the sex was before the engagement. The other indicates there was no sex at all. So the two   חזקות do not join. So on this Rav Shach asks from other places in Rav Akiva Eigger himself which indicate that we would joining two hazakot even when they do not indicate the same thing. The only thing I want to mention here is just something odd about the answer of Rav Akiva Eigger even before we get into Rav Shach. I want to ask a simple question. Why do the two hazakot not indicate the same thing? One says she is OK, that means that either there was no sex before engagement or there was. It makes no difference. All it says is there was no sex after engagement. That is all. It is hezkat A.O.K. That is all. The other pushes the sex back in time before the engagement. So the two hazakot do not contradict. Nor do they have to be indicating different things. It is like a case if "this or that" along with "that". So you know "that". So the answer of R Akiva Eigger is hard to understand even before we could get into Rav Shach's questions.
____________________________________________________________________

רב שך הלכות אישות י''ח: הלכה י'  כהן marries a girl גדולה או קטנה ומוציא שהיא בתולה.  She is forbidden because even if she was raped, she still is a חללה which is forbidden to a כהן. But if a ישראלי marries a girl and she is not a virgin, she still is allowed to him. Why? Because it is a case of a ספק ספלקא. Maybe she had ביאה before אירוסין. Then she is allowed to him. Or maybe the ביאה was after the engagement, but it might have been באונס. So she is still allowed. Only if she had ביאה after אירוסין willingly with someone else.  She forbidden. That is to say a married woman who has ביאה with anyone besides her husband willingly becomes forbidden to her husband. That is learned from  סוטה והיא נטמאה אחד לבעל אחד לבועל  So what makes the woman forbidden to a כהן? It is the fact that even rape makes her forbidden. So תוספות in כתובות דף ט' ע''ב  asks why not say she is allowed because we put her on her  חזקת כשרות. That is to say there is only one doubt. One doubt might make her forbidden, however here we have a case where there is a חזקת כשרות which ought to solve the doubt. תוספות answers that there is a another חזקה working against חזקת כשרות.  That is חזקת הגוף that she was a virgin and so continues to be assumed to be so until the second we know it is not so. חזקא מעיקרא That is we push the act of ביאה up until the last minute until it was found out that she was not a virgin. So it had to be during the time of אירוסין רב אקיבא איגר asks what about חזקת השתא that is a status of the way we know things are now. And so we push that back in time as far as possible. So חזקת השתא ought to work with חזקת כשרות to allow her to her בעל. This is like the case in נידה ב' ע''ב  where  חזקת השתא  would not work against חזקא מעיקרא unless there is another חזקא working together with it. היינו by itself it would not hold, but with another it would. רב אקיבא איגר answers in נידה דף ב' ע''ב the  החזקות work together, and can be joined since they both indicate the same thing. However in our case with the wife of the כהן חזקת השתא does not help חזקת כשרות since they indicate different things.  One is that the ביאה was before the אירוסין. The other indicates there was no sex at all. So the two   חזקות do not join. So on this רב שך asks from other places in רב אקיבא איגר himself which indicate that we would joining two  החזקות even when they do not indicate the same thing. The only thing I want to mention here is about the answer of רב אקיבא איגר. I want to ask a simple question. Why do the two  החזקות not indicate the same thing? One says she is OK. That means that either there was no ביאה before אירוסין, or there was. It makes no difference. All it says is there was no ביאה after אירוסין. That is all. It is חזקת כשרות. That is all. The other pushes the ביאה back in time before the אירוסין. So the two חזקות do not contradict. Nor do they have to be indicating different things. It is like a case  "this or that" along with that. So you know that.

רב שך בהלכות אישות י''ח: הלכה י 'כהן מתחתן עם אישה ומוציא שאינה בתולה. אסורה לו כי גם אם נאנסה, היא עדיין חללה שאסורה לכהן. אבל אם ישראלי מתחתן עם בחורה והיא לא בתולה, היא עדיין מורשית לו. למה? כי זה מקרה של ספק ספיקה. אולי הייתה לה ביאה לפני אירוסין. ואז מותרת לו. ואולי הביאה הייתה אחרי האירוסין, אבל יכול להיות שזו באונס. אז היא עדיין מותרת. רק אם הייתה לה ביאה אחרי אירוסין ברצון עם מישהו אחר. היא אסרה. כלומר, אישה נשואה שיש לה ביאה עם מישהו ברצון מלבד בעלה, נאסרת על בעלה. זה נלמד מסוטה  "והיא נטמאה" אחד לבעל אחד לבועל אז מה הופך את האישה לאסורה על כהן? העובדה שאונס אף גורם לה להיות אסורה. אז תוספות בכתובות דף ט' ע''ב שואל למה לא לומר שמותרת לו בגלל חזקת כשרות שלה. כלומר יש רק ספק אחד. ספק אחד עשוי לאסור אותה, אולם כאן יש לנו מקרה שיש חזקת כשרות שצריכה לפתור את הספק. תוספות עונה שיש חזקה אחרת הפועלת נגד חזקת כשרות. זה חזקת הגוף שהיא הייתה בתולה ולכן ממשיכים להניח שהיא כזו עד השנייה שאנחנו יודעים שזה לא כך. חזקא מעיקרא. כלומר אנו דוחפים את מעשה הביאה עד לרגע האחרון עד שהתברר שהיא לא בתולה. אז זה היה צריך להיות בתקופת אירוסין. רב אקיבא איגר שואל מה לגבי חזקת השתא שזה מעמד של הדברים של עכשיו. וכך אנו דוחפים את זה אחורה בזמן ככל האפשר. אז חזקת השתא צריכה לעבוד עם חזקת כשרות כדי להתיר לה. זה כמו המקרה בנידה ב' ע''ב. שם חזקת השתא לא הייתה עובדת נגד חזקא מעיקרא אלא אם כן יש חזקה אחרת שעובדת יחד איתה. היינו כשלעצמו זה לא יחזיק, אבל עם אחר זה היה כן. רב אקיבא איגר עונה בנידה דף ב' ע''ב החזקות עובדות יחד, וניתן לחבר אותם מאחר ושניהם מציינים את אותו הדבר. אולם במקרה שלנו עם אשתו של כהן חזקת השתא לא עוזרת לחזקת כשרות שכן הם מצביעים על דברים שונים. האחת היא שהביאה הייתה לפני אירוסין. האחרת מעידה על שלא היה קיום יחסי מין כלל. כך ששני החזקות לא מצטרפים. הדבר היחיד שאני רוצה לציין כאן הוא על תשובתו של רב אקיבא איגר. אני רוצה לשאול שאלה פשוטה. מדוע שני החזקות אינם מציינות את אותו הדבר? אחת אומרת שהיא בסדר. זה אומר שלא היה ביאה לפני אירוסין, או שהיה. זה לא משנה. כל מה שמשנה הוא שלא הייתה ביאה אחרי אירוסין. זה הכול. זה חזקת כשרות. השנייה דוחפת את הביאה אחורה בזמן לפני האירוסין. כך ששני החזקות אינן סותרות. הן גם לא צריכות להיות מציינות דברים שונים. זה כמו מקרה "זה או אחר" יחד עם "זה". אז אתה יודע את זה

w68 c major  w68 in midi  w68 in nwc

I have gained a lot by the idea's Kant, Fries, and Leonard Nelson.  That is a branch of Kant's thought that answers Kant's question about, "How is synthetic a prior knowledge possible?" [That means adjectives that can apply to many things.[Synthetic means knowledge that is so but it might not be so like "there is a continent between Europe and Asia. A priori means not based on observations nor dependent on such. ] And in a different way can apply to laws. [As Danny Frederick points out.]

Fries and Leonard Nelson answered this by a kind of knowing that is not by reason and not by sense perception. [immediate non intuitive.] Kant's answers was different. It is that we know the synthetic a priori by logic and reason but that reason has to fit within the confines of conditions of possible experience. [Hegel thought that this imposes conditions of reason that really do not exist. It all starts with Hume saying all that Reason can do is show contradictions. That was based on his being a teacher of Euclidean Geometry. But in fact Reason can do a lot more. It recognizes the synthetic a priori. It was up to Hume to prove his point before assuming it, and then messing up Western Philosophy ever since then.]

Yet I do not see the way that this is thought to be totally different than Hegel.

To me it seems both Hegel and Kant have lots of important points.

[I am no expert in this, but still I find these issues to be of great importance.]
One area that I think this is important is faith. That seems to be a kind of synthetic a priori knowledge that is different that logic or sensory evidence.

However when you try to apply these great thinkers to politics things seems to fall apart. But is that all that different from Plato himself! When he gets into politics, that is where things to go haywire. [In the Republic and the Laws.]

I have no idea why this is, but I can suggest that these are different areas of value. When it comes to politics, the founding fathers of the USA Constitution got things right.


But come to think about it, you find great thinkers that get just one thing right and everything else wrong. It is just the second level of talented people that see what is right, and see what is wrong.
An example would be Max Plank (the one who discovered that matter is quanta). It was said he wrote so much that eventually he had to hit on one right thing.

[I want to mention Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries field of thought who has a lot more of "system" than either Kant or Fries. Kant is mainly limiting Reason and Fries modifies that. Dr Ross builds on that.]

The virus thing I think is just the flu. When I see the masks I am reminded on the bird masks that people would put on in the Middle Ages. The whole thing is just the king's clothes.
A real plague is like the black death or 1918 Influenza. This is nothing. It is all some kind of agenda.

Rav Nahman wrote that by trust in God, good thoughts are drawn to a person. [In Sefer HaMidot].

This is the usual approach of Rav Nahman --that is to find some human problem that someone is struggling with and to find an indirect solution. He is aware that human problems are is hard that a direct solution is impossible. So he looks and finds some side route approach it from.

For instance in our case, lots of people are struggling with wrong and or crazy thoughts. So instead of just advising "Do not think them." which can not work since the person is struggling anyway. So he finds an effective way that is indirectly related to the problem. 
Same thing with sexual sin. The ten psalms [16, 32,41,42,58,77,90,105,137,150] are a way to correct something that does not have any simple solution.

w67 C major 3/4 time  W67 IN MIDI FORMAT   w67 in nwc format

Rav Avraham Abulafia, Jesus and Professor Moshe Idel.

The phrase which I noticed in Rav Abulafia in one of his unpublished books while siting in Hebrew University was this "האירו קשריו" [his bonds became light] in relation to his being on the cross.
This to me seemed a world shaking revolution in world view. So after that, I looked up some of Moshe Idel's books on Abulafia  and other mystics from the middle ages,-- and that seemed to confirm the basic positive attitude of Rav Abulafia towards this subject.

Sen. Dr. Jensen's forced to say that anyone that dies has to be because Coronavirus: “Well, fear is a great way to control people.”

https://www.valleynewslive.com/content/misc/Sen-Dr-Jensens-Shocking-Admission-About-Coronavirus-569458361.html


He states that he was sent a seven page document from the Department of Health that he must fill out death certificates saying who ever dies must be because of Covid 19. 

The Closing of the American Mind

Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind  has this theses: the problems in the USA are a direct result of a basic conflict between Enlightenment philosophers and Anti Enlightenment Philosophers. To this he adds the question of what the Self is?
The question has not gotten less urgent.
But what I have not understood is why he did not bring Kant and Hegel who both meant to answer that exact question!

Was he dissatisfied with their approaches? It does not sound like that in the one time he mentions in a very positive light Kant's three Critiques and Hegel as the greatest of university philosophers.

After pinpointing the problem it is frustrating not to see him point towards a solution.

One thing about Hegel is he is often used by people against the ideals of the American Constitution. Is it possible that this is why Bloom was did not suggest Hegel? And that just leads to the natural question are the many movements that use Hegel all misusing him? [I think so. Still it is hard to know.]

[The way I suggest understanding Kant would be the approach of Leonard Nelson and to understand Hegel would be by the commentary of McTaggart.]

[But I should add that Kant and Hegel I see as mainly for the philosophical aspects, not the political. When it comes to the political issues, the writers of the Constitution of the USA got it right.]

Media Myths About Trump

Bankrupting America

When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some lofty general principle. The Issue is Never the Issue

The Issue is Never the Issue

Steven Dutch: "When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some lofty general principle, only to get tangled up very quickly in contradictions. Conservatives claim to be for personal freedom and against regulation, but then face the question why they don't support freedom for others, and are often willing to impose regulations on others, especially when it comes to sex." 

I have had a feeling like this for a long time but could never could express it.
It was like when I was learning American History. It always seemed superficial since the justifications always seemed hollow to me. Not that the justifications were dishonest. But rather I always felt something deeper was going on. Something under the surface.

Since I discovered Daniel Defoe a light went on in my head. I realized all the issues that were and still are facing the USA are simply continuations of the exact issues that were facing Great Britain in the 1700's. So if you want to understand America, you have to understand England.
And I notice this in other areas as well as Steven Dutch points out.
Another example would be American Independence. Taxation without representation never struck me as being something to make war over.  So what with or without representation? I always felt that could not possibly be what was really going on. 

As for Slavery:  There is no human transaction, either sexual or fiscal, that can be free from coercion.  People have to work or else give something in exchange for something else. No one in the USA is bothered by having forcing the middle class to work to pay for Baltimore or Detroit disaster zones. So making some work to pay for others is not the issue. Rather the issue of Slavery is a way to punish WASP's [White Anglo Saxon Protestants] for not giving others as much as others want.

There is an odd thing about marriage in that it does not sanctify sex. This is I think one area in which people are interested in making marriage to be acceptable as a cover and way of sanctifying sin.
Especially Christians seems to have this idea that marriage automatically sanctifies sex. So that deteriorates into using marriage as a way of sanctifying anything.
And that in itself accounts for the panic about a virus that hurts people that have no previous illness --but they do not count obesity or Sodom as previous conditions since that would show bias against those things.

The thing about marriage is that it is no where near as great a thing nowadays as it once was. At best the length of the best of marriages nowadays is about ten years. [I am not talking about marriages from the previous decades.]
And Christians get the subject of sex outside of marriage wrong also. It is not forbidden. לא תהיה קדשה מבנות ישראל is a "kedesha". That is not the same thing as "zona" which is translated as prostitute but in fact mean something completely different. [It is an argument. Either a woman who strays from her husband. Or to some a woman who has sex with one who is forbidden to her.]
In any case sex outside of marriage is a Pilegesh concubine as in Chronicles I 2:46 where we see one of the greatest of all of the generation that accepted the Torah Caleb ben Yefuna, has a few concubines and wives also. [See the Gra in the Shulchan Aruch of R. Joseph Karo. Even HaEzer who brings  a few more examples.]


And the issue of sex with an idolater is not the same thing as gentile. As we see in the argument between R Shimon ben Yochai that the actual prohibition of the Torah is sex with idolaters. And the sages say only the seven nations that were in in the land of Canaan.

Since the world is going into the Dark Ages, I would like to suggest a path of learning to sustain civilization for the small remnant.
The Written and Oral Law of Moses. [Which means  mainly the two Talmuds but also includes other books that contain the basic oral law it was all written down. That  midrashim of law (Sifrei Sifra etc), and midrash that are agada. The reason I bring Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is that is provides a way to understand how to learn the Oral Law in depth.]
Also Physics and metaphysics.

I hope that the basic idea is clear. I am talking about learning fast--saying the words and going on until you have finished the two Talmuds. That is Gemara with every Tosphot and Maharsha. The Yerushalmi with the two side commentaries Pnei Moshe and Karban Eda.
Plus the same with Physics and Metaphysics.
[That means Physics up until and including String Theory and Math which means mainly Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology.] [Metaphysics means Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson.]
[Rav Avraham Abulafia, from the Middle Ages seems very important, but I have not had a chance to study his works thoroughly so I am hesitant to recommend what I am not that familiar with. See Moshe Idel's books of Abulafia. One aspect of Rav Abulafia that I find fascinating is his positive approach towards Jesus, and yet I have not really had the chance to go into the issue in detail. The basic idea seems similar to how you consider the Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David. I.e., souls of Emanation.

Fix bayonets. You will be forcibly removed from your home and family. Negative tests mean nothing.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/04/07/fix-bayonets-you-will-be-forcibly-removed-from-your-home-and-family-negative-tests-mean-nothing/

To approach God is thought to be by spiritual things -not by Physics and Mathematics.

And to some degree you see this in later achronim [authors after Rav Yoseph Karo] like The Paths of the Just. 

However this does not look like the opinion of Ibn Pakuda [author of The Obligations of the Hearts] nor other rishonim [mediaeval authorities] that followed the path of Saadia Gaon.

And the reason seems plain and simple. That Physics and Math deal with the wisdom of God that is at the core of Creation. 

That is where you see the glory and wisdom of God.

But in the world of ethics, and morals and spirituality you see things are messy. That even morality is subject to people's opinion seems to be thought to be  a desirable thing. So fine. If so, then fine,-- but that does not make it objective and revealing God's wisdom.

[You see this in the Gemara where God said one thing, and the yeshiva in Heaven said something else; and they said 'a certain amora would decide between them''. And also in the events with R Yehoshua that in Bava Metzia the law goes like the majority opinion because "the Torah is not in Heaven". [However the issue is that to get to God's deeper wisdom in the work of Creation, one needs to learn and keep the Laws as they apply to people in order to get there.]

So you can see why in the parable of the palace in Guide why the Physicts are put into the palace of the King and the people that learn and keep the Oral and Written Law ("talmudiim) outside.

[The parable is in the Guide for the Perplexed. There you have  a king who rules in a country and there are levels of closeness to the king. People outside the country, those inside, those close to teh palace, and those inside the palace. In that parable those who keep the whole Torah perfectly are outside the palace. Those who learn Physics are inside.] 

[The most practical way to do this is to have a few books of Math and Physics and go through them in order from beginning to end--in order. As you see in Rav Nahman's Conversations  section 76. Say the words and go on. But to do this you need faith and trust in God that He will help you understand what you think you do not understand.]

תוספות הר''יד קידושין דף ג Rav Shach explains the Tosphot HaRi''d

The basic idea of the תוספות הר''יד  is that חליפין would work to acquire a wife if the handkerchief has a פרוטה worth. His point is the only thing the גמרא really means to exclude is קניין חליפין when one of the objects being exchanged is less than a פרוטה. This is why רב שך is dividing between two kinds of exchange in order to answer for the תוספות הר''יד. If it has a פרוטה's worth, then it comes under the category of acquiring by means of money. Only when the handkerchief is less is it actually קניין סודר היינו מטפחת which would not acquire a woman. This answers my question I asked yesterday that the גמרא is holds חליפין does not acquire a woman, and does not mention קניין סודר היינו מטפחת. My point today is that קניין סודר  in the view of the תוספות הר''יד is a kind of חליפין, but even חליפין is OK if it is more than a פרוטה. And that is the way רב שך answers the questions on the תוספות הר''יד

רב שך ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג' מביא את תוספות הרי''ד שקניין סודר תקף אם שווי המטפחת יותר מפרוטה. כמו כן, תקף אם ניתן בתנאי לתת מאוחר יותר מנה כסף, ובהמשך הזמן הוא נותן את זה. רב שך מסביר שיש שני סוגים של קניין סודר, האחד הוא חליפין, והשני הוא סוג מיוחד של חליפין שקיים רק כסוג של דרך להשלים עסקה. כמו בימינו לחיצת יד תהיה בקטגוריה מסוג זה. אז התוספות הרי''ד כולל בקניין כסף קניין סודר כאשר זה נעשה כחליפין ללא שום התחייבות נוספת לתת דבר נוסף. וזה יהיה סוג של חילופי כספים שווה בשווה ולא כשזה נעשה במיוחד כמו קניין סודר שהוא קטגוריה משלו (של סוג חילופין). שאלה, הגמרא מעוניינת בעיקר לסלק את קניין חליפין, ולא מזכירה קניין סודר. רק כדי שיהיה ברור אני אביא את הגמרא הבסיסי. הגמרא קידושין מביא משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה, וזה נועד להוציא את חליפין. שיכול להיות שהייתה לומד חליפין משדה עפרון, מכיוון שחליפין יכול לקנות שדה. אז אנו יודעים כעת לא, מכיוון שאישה לא תסכים שיקנה אותה בפחות מפרוטה. ומכיוון שחליפין יכולה להיות עבור פחות מפרוטה, לכן כל הסוג של קניית חליפין אינו נכלל, אפילו אם החליפין נעשה יותר מפרוטה .השאלה שלי. הגמרא מעוניין להוציא את סוג הרכישה שהוא חליפין ספציפית, ואפילו לא מזכיר את קניין סודר. זה נראה בדיוק ההפך ממה שאמרנו למעלה. זה נראה כאילו קניין חליפין לא יהיה תקפה, אבל אולי קניין סודר רגיל יהיה תקף.

הרעיון הבסיסי של התוספות הר''יד הוא שחליפין תפעל לרכישת אישה אם ערך המטפחת  יותר מערך פרוטה. הנקודה שלו היא הדבר היחיד שגמרא באמת מתכוון להוציא הוא קניין חליפין כאשר אחד החפצים המוחלפים הוא פחות מפרוטה. זו הסיבה שרב שך מחלק בין שני סוגים של חילופים כדי לענות עבור התוספות הר''יד. אם יש לו ערך פרוטה אז זה נכלל בקטגוריה של רכישה באמצעות כסף. רק כאשר המטפחת פחותה מפרוטה, זה בעצם קניין סודר היינו מטפחת שלא היה קונה אישה. זה עונה על שאלתי שהגמרא מחזיקה חליפין לא רוכש אישה, ולא מזכיר את קניין סודר היינו מטפחת. הנקודה שלי שקניין סודר בתוספות הר''יד הוא סוג של חליפין, אבל אפילו חליפין זה בסדר אם זה יותר מפרוטה. וככה רב שך עונה על שאלות על התוספות הר''יד.

Now Rav Shach explains the Tosphot HaRi''d that if the handkerchief is more than a pruta/penny the acquiring of the wife is valid. But it looks at that that might not be so to the Rambam. On one hand the Rambam says in three ways a woman is acquired, money, sex or a document. The Mishna says the same thing and the Gemara itself says that the Mishna is meaning to exclude a handkerchief. However  after Rav Shach makes clear there are two kinds of acquiring by handkerchief. One is when the handkerchief is meant to accomplish more than just the handkerchief. Like as the Ri''d says along with it he says he will give another amount of money. But by itself it is simple barter.
This opens the possibility if perhaps the Ramabm would agree with the Tosphot HaR''id inthe same case. But why would he? because in laws on Buying and Selling he says barter does not have a law of overcharging. That law says if one overcharges more than a 1/5 the sell is null. The Rambam brings from the Rif that that law does not apply to barter because this one wanted a needle and that one wanted a suit of armor. But the Rambam says that law does apply to fruit with fruit. That means barter would come under the category of  a sell by money.  So that would apply to marrying a woman also. So the handkerchief --if more than a penny-is an act of acquiring by money, not barter.

Rac Shach does not actually say all this but it is clearly what he is implying as raising this possibility. But also he brings the case of letting a slave go tat he says does not work if that was done by handkerchief. . There he makes no difference. So perhaps marriage is the same.

The basic idea of the Tospfot R"id [Rav Isaiah, one of the baali Hatospfot] is that barter would work to acquire a wife if the handkerchief has a penny's worth. His point is: the only thing the Gemara really means to exclude is exchange when one of the objects being exchanged is less than a penny.

This is why Rav Shach is dividing between two kinds of exchange in order to answer for the Tospfot R''id. If it has a penny's worth then it comes under the category of acquiring by means of money. Only when the handkerchief is less is it actually kinyan Sudar which would not acquire a woman.

This answers my question I asked yesterday that the Gemara is interested in eliminating exchange and does not mention kinyan sudar (acquire by exchange of a  handkerchief).

My point today is that kinyan sudar in the view of the Tosfot R''id is in fact a kind of exchange but even exchange is ok if it is more than a penny.
And that is in fact the way Rav Shach answers the questions of the Tospfot R''id

w66 a flat major mp3  w66 midi  w66 nwc

The known calendar seems to be based on Meton from Athens, and was not mentioned in the gemara. Nor is there anywhere mentioned in the Gemara that Hillel II sanctified the calendar.

I think Passover ought to be on the 15th day after the new moon. That is,- if you think of the day of the "molad" [when the moon and sun are joined at the same longitude], as the new moon, then 15 days from that ought to be Passover. But why think this? Mainly because of Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 side b at the top.
The known calendar seems to be based on Meton from Athens, and was not mentioned in the gemara. Nor is there anywhere mentioned in the Gemara that Hillel II sanctified the calendar. That is thought to be the case, but in fact it is no where in Shas.
There are in fact many examples of basic things in the Gemara that people are not aware of.
[One more reason to get through Shas yourself.]

רב שך [ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג'] מביא את תוספות הרי''ד

רב שך [ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג'] מביא את תוספות הרי''ד שקניין סודר תקף אם שווי המטפחת יותר מפרוטה ונמסר בתורת קניין כסף ולא בתורת קניין סודר. כמו כן, תקף אם ניתן בתנאי לתת מאוחר יותר כסף, ובהמשך הזמן הוא למעשה נותן את זה. רב שך מסביר שיש שני סוגים של קניין סודר, האחד הוא חליפין, והשני הוא סוג מיוחד של חליפין שקיים רק כסוג של דרך להשלים עסקה. כמו בימינו לחיצת יד תהיה בקטגוריה מסוג זה. אז התוספות הרי''ד כולל בקניין כסף קניין סודר כאשר זה נעשה כחליפין ללא שום התחייבות נוספת לתת דבר נוסף. וזה יהיה סוג של חילופי כספים שווה בשווה. אבל לא כשזה נעשה במיוחד כמו קניין סודר שהוא קטגוריה משלו (של סוג חילופין). הנושא  מבחינתי כאן שהוא מציג שאלה שנדמה שהגמרא מעוניינת בעיקר לסלק את קניין חליפין, ולא מזכירה קניין סודר. רק כדי שיהיה ברור אני אביא את הגמרא הבסיסי. הגמרא קידושין מביא משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה, וזה נועד להוציא את חליפין. שיכול להיות שהייתה לומד חליפין משדה עפרון, מכיוון שחליפין יכול לקנות שדה. אז אנו יודעים כעת לא, מכיוון שאישה לא תסכים שיקנה אותה בפחות מפרוטה. ומכיוון שחליפין יכולה להיות עבור פחות מפרוטה, לכן כל הסוג של קניית חליפין אינו נכלל, אפילו אם החליפין נעשה יותר מפרוטה.השאלה שלי. הגמרא מעוניין בפשטות להוציא את סוג הרכישה שהוא חליפין ספציפית, ואפילו לא מזכיר את קניין סודר. זה נראה בדיוק ההפך ממה שאמרנו למעלה. זה נראה כאילו קניין חליפין לא יהיה תקפה, אבל אולי קניין סודר רגיל יהיה תקף

רב שך in the הלכות אישות brings the תוספות רי''ד that קניין סודר  would be valid if it had a פרוטה worth in the handkerchief and given as money. That would make it like barter. But if on condition to give more later then that would be like kinyan sudar Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money, and later on he in fact gives it. רב שך explains there are two kinds of קניין handkerchief, one is חליפין barter, and the other is  a special kind of barter that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the תוספות רי''ד is including קניין סודר when it is done as חליפין with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange שווה בשווה. But not a when it is done specially as קניין סודר which is its own category of  kind of exchange.
The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the גמרא is mainly interested in eliminating חליפין, and does not really mention the קניין סודר. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.
Just to be clear I will bring the basic גמרא. The גמרא קידושין brings  משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה,  and that is meant to exclude חליפין. You might have learned חליפין from the field of עפרון, since a field can be bought by חליפין. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a פרוטה. And since חליפין can be for less than a פרוטה, therefore that whole kind of buying חליפין is excluded, even if the חליפין is done for more than a פרוטה.
So you see right away what is bothering me. The גמרא is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically חליפין, and does not even mention קניין סודר.  It seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as חליפין would be not valid, but perhaps as a regular קניין סודר would be valid.

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id that "kinyan sudar" marriage by a handkerchief would be valid if it had a penny's worth in the handkerchief. Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money and later he in fact gives it.

Rav Shach explains there are two kinds of "kinyan sudar" one is exchange and the other is  a special kind of exchange that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the Tosphot Rid is including kinyan sudar when it is done as exchange with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange. But not a when it is done specially as kinyan sudar which is its own category of  kind of exchange.

The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the Gemara is mainly interested in eliminating exchange, and does not really mention the kinyan sudar. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.

Just to be clear I will bring the basic Gemara. The Gemara Kidushin brings the mishna that a woman is acquired in three ways: money, document, sex;-- and that is meant to exclude exchange. You might have learned exchange from the field of Efron, since a field can be bought by exchange. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a penny. And since exchange can be for less than a penny, therefore that whole kind of buying (exchange) is excluded--even if the exchange is done for more than a penny.

So you see right away what is bothering me. The Gemara is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically exchange, and does not even mention kinyan sudar. That is, it seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as exchange would be not valid but perhaps as in fact a regular kinya sudar would be valid!

[The idea here is this: what causes a woman to be married? Being married is a sort of state of being that has with it obligations. When does that state exist? It is similar to when you buy a field. When makes it "bought"?  In the West we understand that a document sometimes is just proof that some exchange happened, but sometimes it itself is what causes the exchange.]

twentieth century philosophy is tremendous logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about.

Someone explained what analytic philosophy is like. [I forget who]. It is like the sword of Saladin as opposed to that of Richard III. Richard's sword was so heavy, you needed to be in the big leagues just to be able to pick it. It weighed a lot. On the other hand Saladin's was light, but was so sharp it could slice through a feather in mid air just by touching it.

Analytic philosophy is like Saladin's sword. Exact and rigorous to an amazing degree about language. It is not nonsense, but who could care less? Possible worlds? It tells me nothing about about possible world since it is not Physics.

[So what you get in the twentieth century philosophy is tremendous` logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about. Or Continental.  So the obvious question is why not just get back to Kant and Hegel? I guess analytic philosophy does not find them "rigorous enough". Continental finds them lacking emotion. In any case, I would be happy to see renewed interest in Leonard Nelson's take on Kant in friesian,com and McTaggart's take on Hegel.

[Even if analytic philosophy meant anything at all, the main rule there is whatever anyone says, it is the solemn responsibility of someone else to contradict it. As Steven Dutch put it twentieth century is vacuous.]

The problem with "Torah Scholars that are demons" that is brought in the LeM I:12 of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, really is an open Gemara in Shabat: "If you see a generation that troubles are coming upon it go out and check of the judges of Israel for all troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel."
So you see it was merely the fact that Rav Nahman choose to emphasize this point for some reasons unknown to me that makes it significant. But it is not as if he was the first to discover it.

To tell who might come into this category however is more difficult since Rav Nahman gives relatively few hints as to what it is that turns a person into a demon.

What my feeling about this is that the best path is to be safe and follow as closely as possible the straight path of Torah of the Gra, and Rav Israel Salanter, and Rav Shach. [Which would be in a practical sense to learn Torah in both in a in depth session and besides that a session of learning quickly and an emphasis on the Ethics of Torah that is the essence of Torah]

w65  [w65 in midi format]

God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.

I have wondered about the issue of trust in God because the only time I actually saw an approach like that that was real to people was for the short time I was at the Mir in NY. It was a general approach there that if you sit and learn Torah, God will take care of everything else. And that was done in deeds, not words.

What helped me get the message was the book of Navardok [Madragat HaAdam] but even without that, this attitude was simply embedded at the Mir.
Maybe it was also in Shar Yashuv to some degree but I do not recall.

It also helped me understand the idea of doing some effort in order to make  a vessel to receive the blessings from God, but that over exertion of effort is lack of trust.

The surprise for me was that as long as I stuck with that approach it worked. But when I abandoned it in order to "do effort",-- that is exactly when God stopped helping me.
So it is like the verses in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Psalms and many other places say--God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.
[The main verses that I am thinking of are a few in Jeremiah] ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם והיה השם מבטחו..."Blessing is the man who trusts in God and makes God his trust. He will be like a tree planted on streams of flowing water... Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and places his trust in human efforts. He will be like a broken well that can not hold any water."

[Please look at the Musar [Ethics] books that deal with trust in God: Obligations of the Hearts, and Madragat HaAdam. You will see the issue of trust as opposed to effort is an argument among the rishonim.]

From a Physics blog about the Virus

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/04/lockdowns-are-man-made-not-how-nature.html#disqus_thread

Sadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from theSadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from the "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem. "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem.

I try to model my attitude towards the issue of the virus based on a few statements of Rav Nahman of Breslov. One is that he was not thrilled with doctors. He certainly did not trust everything they were saying. Sometimes there are basic areas that they have got down pat, but sometimes when they venture into areas they that are new they really are just guessing. See the end of the Conversations of Rav Nahman.
Another thing is the idea of  ריבוי השתדלות [over effort]. He held that in terms of trust in God, one still ought to do some kind of minimal effort;-- but doing more than the minimum shows lack of trust in God. 

When one marries a woman by money, document, or sex, two kinds of acquisition take place. But acquisition by handkerchief does not work.

The subject of קניין סודר ("Kinyan" by handkerchief) acquisition by means of exchange of a handkerchief needs some clarity.
It comes up in the Tosphot HaR''id in Kidushin page 3.
But just for background information, I want to explain what the issue is.
It all starts from the Mishna there that, "A woman is acquired by money, document, or sex." The Gemara says that is meant to exclude barter. That also excludes exchange of a handkerchief.
["Why would we think that a woman is acquired by barter? Because we learn קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון acquisition is said by the field of Ephron. And the same word acquisition is used in discussing when one marries a woman. כי יקח איש אישה. From where we learn a man can acquire a woman by money just like a field is bought with money. (That is why you see nowadays people marry by means of a ring.) So you might think barter also would work since a field can also be bought by barter. But the Gemara says we would not learn that way because barter can be less than a penny and  a woman would not want to be acquired for less than a penny."]


The idea is that when one marries a woman two kinds of acquisition take place; (a) acquisition of marriage.   The idea is that a person can be obligated by means of a "Kinyan" [acquisition]. For example to sign a contract to produce an F-35 in a certain amount of time. This creates an obligation on a person to do the work. [It does not have to be a document. It can be by any kind of kinyan (acquisition) that an obligation is made. Nowadays we depend a lot on documents, but in fact acquisitions can be made by lots of things. [Pulling, pushing, lifting up. For example, if one buys a piano. How do you acquire it? Not by lifting surely. Not by money either. If you paid money and then want out of the deal you get the money back. So you would have to move the piano. And then the deal is finished.]] Another thing that happens when you marry a woman-(b) an acquisition of monetary obligations.

So the idea of the mishna is if one marries a woman by any one of those three ways in front of two witnesses, then these obligations are חל ("hal") that settle on you and her. That is: the acquisition takes place.

[The ring used nowadays is for שווה כסף (something worth money). That is learned from a Jewish slave that can be redeemed by money (if he is owned by another Jew). However let's say a Jew is sold or sells himself to a gentile in order to pay for some obligation. Then how can he be let go if the owner wants to let him go? One way is if someone gives to the owner some money. [I do not think paper money works here.] Another way is a document. But not by means of something worth money. So we see there are times that something worth money is not counted as money. -even if the owner wants to accept the object worth money instead of money, that does not help. It has to be money. But in terms of marriage it is thought to be considered as money.

[This actually brings up a question asked by Rav Shach and Rav Haim of Brisk. That is, that acquiring a woman by something worth money is learned from a Jewish slave. So since it does not work in all cases with a Jewish slave, why should it work at all with a woman? It is a half a gezera shava. [That is sometimes when the same word is used to two places the laws of one place are applied to the other place  except when you can only learn half. Then it does not apply at all.]

At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.

 Kant in his three critiques limits what we can know and what we can reason about. [That is things that fall into the category of conditions of possible experience. Outside of that are "things in themselves" Hegel takes this into account in order to determine how to stretch these boundaries.

Both seem important but to understand Kant I would go with Kelley Ross [the Friesian School.]

To understand Hegel I would go with Mctaggart.

Hegel is important because you want the big picture. What is the universe all about. Without that question there is absolutely no point to philosophy at all. So Kant can limit what we can understand but you still after him to see what is possible to understand in the big picture but to attempt that understanding taking into account Kant's point about how far human reason can go.


Kant limits what you can build. The reason is limits on reason. Hegel gets around those limits in order to build based on a process of dialectics based on what you see in Plato and Socrates. But with Hegel you get to conclusions that do not end until you get to God. That is he starts with Being and gets up to God. The Friesian approach has faith [non intuitive immediate knowledge] so in that way gets to God in a way, but not like Hegel. [My own impression here is that knowledge does progress. It is not pure empirical nor pure reason. See the paper of Michael Huemer that shows this. But Michael Huemer goes more with probability. [The kind you learned about when new evidence is added to your original probability based on Bayes.]
The Friesian approach needs a bit of study. Probably the best approach is that of Kelley Ross in his blog the Friesian School. The reason is that there are flaws in Fries's approach (that I admit I forgot) that Leonard Nelson corrected. But then in Nelson there were other flaws. So the best seems to be the modified Fries approach of Kelley Ross.]

At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.

w64 A Major   w64 in midi

Trust in God to help the way it was understood in the Mir in NY was to learn Torah and believe that God will take care of things like getting married and having a living. So the idea of sitting and learning even after marriage was along the lines of trusting in God. In Israel however the approach is to make political parties whose sole purpose is to extract money from secular Jews. That is not trust in God at all. But I should add that my idea of learning Torah since then has been expanded to include Physics and Metaphysics because of Saadia Gaon and people that followed his lead in this subject like Ibn Pakuda of the Obligations of the Heart.

But the basic structure of belief I still hold that the Mir was right. Trust in God and do not worry because God will take care of those that trust in Him. That is to say help and salvation is not at all assumed. Rather it is assumed according to the degree that one trusts in God.
The problem however can be that of self delusion. People can imagine that they are trusting in God while in fact being blind to the fact that they are trusting in their political parties to extract money from secular Jews.

My own impression is that God has often helped me whether I trusted or not. So I am not saying what will happen if they think they trust in God. I think people can fool themselves thinking they are trusting in God. But I can say that is one really does trust in God, God definitely helps.  

My learning partner David Bronson sent to me a video about the virus that I have not seen yet. But I think to put it up here since I have a great deal of confidence in my learning partner's common sense because almost always when we disagree about Tosphot, he ends up being right

I wanted to bring a subject for the sake of background information. It is about marriage and slavery. Allan Bloom's introduction to Kojeve's lectures on Hegel. Plus the incident of a virus spread in Soth America in Bolivia as a result of a civil war when they got rid of the land owners and divided the land equally. The peasants offered the land owners to sell back to them their land and sheep and cows. The landowners said, "We will not buy back what belonged to us," and left to start life elsewhere. The peasants cleared the jungle to make way for planting corn and upset the ecology in the area, and the rats came to settle in their village. So not just because society in organized in a way with some people on top does not mean they are exploiting. Every army knows letting the troops fight-the way they want is a disaster and recipe for defeat.

So in short for right now let me just bring the Gemara in Kidushin page 3. The Mishna says, "A woman is acquired in three ways: money, a document, or sex." The Gemara says this is to exclude exchange, because you might have thought just like a field is acquired by exchange so a woman. So we learn not so because exchange exists even less than a penny and a woman does not allow herself to be bought for less than a penny. The Tosphot Rid asks " If the handkerchief [for the exchange] is in fact worth more than a penny, she is bought."

The issue here is this. If you have ever sat at a marriage ceremony, you have seen this acquisition made by a handkerchief. And maybe you wondered "What kind of  acquisition it is?" It is not exactly a gift on condition to give back--but like it in some ways.
The answer is based on a verse in Ruth where a person takes off his shoe and gives it to another to seal a deal. It is a kind of mode of acquisition in which at that point the acquisition is made, It is in modern terms like signing a document.

So just to wrap this up for now I want to bring an idea of Rav Shach that will help to resolve these issues. It is that there are two kinds of קניין סודר ("kinyan sudar") exchange by handkerchief. One is where the act of exchange of the handkerchief [or any kind of vessel] finishes a deal--as a kind of way of making an acquisition as you see at marriages. Another kind is the normal act of exchange-barter. This for that.

I would like to go into this more but just quickly I want to add that the relation to slavery is that one can not let go of a slave  by this means exchange by handkerchief. It is to be by one of the three ways a slave is let go. Money, document or by injury to one of his external limbs. And the issue itself I just want to mention that slavery is not all that different from having to get up every day and go to school and then go to work. There are lots of things you are forced to do and if you do not then force is used against you. Slavery is  different in degree, not in kind. So why is it thought to be wrong? Where is the dividing line? A master does not own him? Do you own yourself? Can you do anything you want to yourself? No. Can you do anything you want? No. Everyone has his place and his job in society. Or you could live in the wilderness with no knife produced by society--- and see how you manage.


[The fact is that Hegel's politics does not seem so great. On the other hand "back to Kant" does not seem so great either. Nor "Analytic" vacuous philosophy of the Anglo Saxon world of the 20th century  nor Continental philosophy. Some synthesis of Hegel, Kant, Leonard Nelson seem to me the most promising. A "back to Plato" or "back to Kant" seems a bit difficult. Hegel does seem to hold a lot of promise. But lacking clarity about these issues what I would like to do would be to get through the three critiques of Kant, the four books published by Hegel and the writings of Leonard Nelson before I could draw a conclusion or see a direction forward.]


At any rate, I just wanted to say the basic point of Rav Shach [but not in his words]. Th Gemara is pretty clear that קניין חליפין [exchange by barter] does not apply to acquiring a wife. So to explain the Tospfot Rid is the question. The Tospfot Rid says if the handkerchief is worth more than a "pruta" penny then she is acquired. This is in spite of the fact that usually this acquisition by a handkerchief which is handed back is a kind of acquisition by barter not by money. So to explain this Rav Shach has to go into a  long explanation.

I think to get through these difficulties nowadays the best idea is to trust in God and learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. [But I do not think one should be paid for teaching or learning Torah.]
How to go about this I am not sure. Since God has granted to me a few of the volumes I finding it helpful to do a little review.