You Can't Turn a Whore into a Lady · Rebel Son.

Listen to me friend I know her kind
She'll just tear up your nerves if you fall for her
So just walk away and leave her behind
'Cause when you fall in her lap, you're falling in her trap
And she'll rob you blind of your last dime

She'll lie to you and leave you
With nothing but depression
A heartache and sorrow and shame

 

To Rav Shach when we say R Shimon goes by the reason for the verse

 To Rav Shach when we say R Shimon goes by the reason for the verse that means when both are written, the reason and the isur [[prohibition] then we go by both. So when it says by a king not to have more than 18 wives because she might tilt his heart away from God -- that means we go by both the letter of the law and also the reason.

That is how Rav Shach explains the contradiction in the Rambam where in general he does not go by R Shimon. [Well, no one does because that is R Shimon against the sages. That is the reason the Tur does not decide like R Shimon either.] But in the debate if one can not marry any girl from the nations that worship idols [עכו''ם] or only a girl from the seven Canaanite nations-- it is R. Shimon who says all nations (that worship idols) are forbidden. So why does the Rambam decide the law like that against the sages? Answer (of Rav Shach): because the letter of the law means all nations, and there R Shimon forbids all nations because of the letter of the law.

On the way by from the sea, I thought about this and asked myself,  "What about a widow?" There we know R. Shimon says one can take a pledge from a rich widow. And then I realized what Rav Shach means. He means to say that when both the isur (prohibition) and the reason are written, then R Shimon goes by both. But if only one is written, then he goes by the reason. 

This is the opposite of R Yehuda. For to R Yehuda, if only the prohibition is written then he goes by the letter of the law,-- but if both are written, then he goes only by the reason for the verse. That is why he say a king can marry as many women as he likes as long as they do not turn his heart. 

[This is  a three way debate. It is R Shimon who goes by the reason for the verse always. Do we know the reasons for the verses? Yes. No one in the Gemara disagrees with that. If that would be in doubt, then the sages would bring that objection against R Shimon and ask him, "but we do not know the reasons for the verses." And in fact what are the reasons? they are spelled out in Sefer HaHinuch from a disciple of Nahmanides. Generally they are these: peace of the state, to lessen pleasures, to get rid of idolatry, to gain good character.]

 There is something very odd about judges in the USA. I would not be surprised if somehow the Frankfurt school had a hand in getting Marxist ideas into the legal system in the USA. I used to think it was from the KGB, but now I think that the infiltration was too vast and comprehensive for it to be from the KGB. It has to be from the inside. And from where else but the Frankfurt school in Columbia University? That is where the main policy makers of the the American education system were trained.

 I had a chance today to look at the last Torah lesson Rav Nahman of Breslov said in his lifetime the Le.M. vol. II, chapter 8, and I thought to bring here a few of the ideas he mentions there. 

One idea he says is not to give rebuke because unless one has great merit, because he can make things worse by giving rebuke in the wrong kind of way.\אף על פי שתוכחה היא דבר גדול ומוטל על כל אחד להוכיח את חברו כשרואה בו דבר שאינו הגון אף על פי כן לאו כל אחד ראוי להוכיח כמו שאמר ר. עקיבא תמה אני אם יש בדור הזה מי שראוי להוכיח כי כשהמוכיח אינו ראוי הוא יכול להביש את השומעים את תוכחתו  ["Even though rebuke is a great thing and it is incumbant on every person to rebuke his friend when he sees in him something not proper ,still not everyone is fit to rebuke as R. Akiva said, 'I would be surprized if there was anyone in this generation that is fit to give rebuke,' because when the one who gives rebuke is not fit, he can cause damage and make ugly the souls of those who hear his rebuke."

 x43

"revival of the dead"

 I think about the issue of the "revival of the dead" that you see it very clearly in Ezekiel. You have there the valley of bones and then God telling Ezekiel that that whole event of reviving those people was a sort of preliminary example of what would be eventually with all Israel. That is, that He would bring about the revival of the dead for all Israel.

So that means when the Gemara asks How do we know revival of the dead from the Torah, it must mean how do we know it from the Five Books of Moses. They can not be asking how do we know it from teh Prophets. 

Leonard Nelson

The thing about Leonard Nelson that I think is a bit off putting to people is that his approach of non intuitive immediate knowledge is thought to be a  species of psychologism. That is that truths of logic or science depend on the human mind. Well Dr. Kelley Ross shows that that is not what Nelson was saying at all. But Husserl attacks that problem head on. He brings three proofs against it.[in the first part of Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Teil: Prolegomena zur reinen Logik (Logical Investigations, Vol. 1)] 

The thing that I noticed  is Husserl's proof depends on there being absolute truth. That is, that there are truths that do not depend on the observer. And the best proof of that from what I have seen is John Searle's.  Searle shows that if all truth is relative it sinks into there being no truth at all by means of "dis-quotation." That is the "sentence snow is white", only if snow is white. (And  snow is white is true only if it is true with respect to a background in which things can be white or not white.) It is a short proof.  [It is good that Searle was attacked, since nowadays when universities attack someone, it just shows the greatness of that person.] 

I noticed there is a new Kant-Friesian on the horizon- Michael Cuffaro.   

The answer of Rav Shach for the Rambam Laws of Divorce chapter 3 law 9

[The idea here is that a divorce has to be written on a piece of paper that says "You are herby permitted to any man," and given into her hand or her courtyard. That is the basic essence of divorce. But I must add that it must be done in front of two witnesses. Also there is a decree of the scribes that the date should be on the document.]

 If  a husband gives a divorce  document to his wife and says that it will be valid after 30 days, and she puts it in an alley, and on the thirtieth it is still in the alley but after that it is stolen she is divorced.

This seems to be in contradiction to the Gemara in Ketuboth 86 which says the law of saying to one's wife, "This document of your divorce will be valid after 30 days," equals the law when one sells an animal and also says, "This sell will be valid after 30 days." In both cases if the object is in an alley on the thirtieth day, the transaction is valid. And the Gemara on page 82 says in the case of a sell that he must say "from now" and only then it is valid.

And in fact Tosphot says this exact fact. So the question is why does the Rambam ignore this and say "from now" only in the case of a sell, [but in the case of a divorce, he ignores this distinction.]

Rav Shach says because these are two different kinds of things. The divorce has to be in her domain or he hand and it is so on the thirtieth day. But the sell is valid by means of pulling the animal and that is no longer happening on the thirtieth day. The point of Rav Shach is clear. [The Magid Mishna says the difference is that the document in still around on the 30th day which is not the case with pulling. But it is not clear what that has to do with the need to say "from now."

[There is a possibility that this is what the Magid Mishna meant even though he did not say so openly.]

 x42 B flat major  x42 midi   x42 nwc

There are some laws that are from the sages [called "from the words of the scribes"]

 There are some laws that are from the sages [called "from the words of the scribes"] but not from the Torah itself. For most of these laws, the reason for them is known. [But for some of them there is some doubt. E.g. the laws of Mukza on Shabat. There is an argument as to the reason.]

In any case, most rishonim [mediaeval sages] hold when the reason for a law from the words of the sages no longer applies then the law itself is automatically null and void. [This is brought in Tosphot and in the Raavad in laws of Mamrim. There the discussion is about the first fruits that have to be brought to Jerusalem. The Raavad holds since the reason for that law no longer applies so the law no longer applies. 

You could apply this to marriage also. There is an argument if one is forbidden to marry someone from the Seven Canaanite nations or from all nations of idolatry. Since we do not hold from R Shimon Ben Yochai against the sages, so   לא דרשינן טעמא דקרא so only the seven nations are forbidden to the opinion of the Tur.  

 Okinawa should tell us a thing or two about the causalities that we could have expected in getting to mainland Japan. If 66 miles by 7 miles wide cost  95,000 Imperial Japanese Army troops and 20,195 Americans that were killed, then just dare to calculate what mainland Japan would have been like.

So the arguments against the American use of the Atom Bomb I think ignore the situation. Plus the arguments also ignore the issue of self defense. America was attacked --therefore it fought back as is the most basic human right of all--life.

And the demonstration is not a good argument since Japan was given a demonstration. That did not change anything. Then a second demonstration and that also changed nothing. Then the Russians invaded. And that is when the war cabinet assembled to discuss surrender. And even then there were not enough votes for a surrender until the emperor himself intervened and said that, "We are surrendering." [The military thought they still had a few aces up their sleeves--which is true. They had advanced airplanes in development. ] 

[The larger perspective here is this: The people entering this argument have a different purpose in mind. It is this. That whatever the USA does (or has done, or will do) is (was, and will be always) wrong. Their purpose is to disparage the USA at all costs. It does not matter what the subject is. It could be the American Indians or the Civil War or the Middle East. The one major principle of Leftist is always to disparage the USA.

 x41 G Major

Herem [חרם excommunication] of the Gra

 So why is it that the Herem [חרם excommunication] of the Gra is ignored? [That is his signature on the letter of excommunication.] I think it is because people do not realize that a herem is a regular halacha (law) based on nedarim נדרים (vows). The only question would be if a herem is made by someone qualified.  Clearly he was qualified. So it applies according to the strict law.

[Why do I say it comes from nedarim (vows). That is because I saw this in the commentaries on Laws of Shavuot and Nedarim.

So what is a neder (vow)? It is when someone says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to you like a karban."(קרבן sacrifice brought in the Temple) If that loaf belongs to the speaker, then the neder [vow] is valid, and the other person can not eat from that loaf. אדם יכול לאסור את שלו. So in the case of the Gra,  the herem was valid, and anyone transgressing it even until today  transgresses a prohibition of the Torah.

Rav Nahman I believe was a great tzadik and not under the herem. However he does not seem to have been aware of its validity.   So while `I think the best idea is to be part of a straight Litvak yeshiva, I can see the importance of following the advice of Rav Nahman in the many areas that he touches on. [Rav Nahman himself said a prophet knows only what is revealed to him. He is not "all knowing". It is a mistake to think of any tzadik as impervious to mistake--even the greatest like Moses as we see in the Torah in the case of the waters of Meriva

SO in short there are two reasons to be careful about the herem of the Gra. One: it matters not if one agrees with it. It still has halachic validity. Two: is refers to objective reality.

. 

 Avraham Abulafia [the mystic from the Middle Ages I have mentioned before] had an approach צירוף אותיות combining the letters of the Divine names of God. His approach is brought at length in the Remak (Moshe of Cordoba) and Rav Chaim Vital.

There was a  debate because of his books of prophecy. That I imagine was too much to swallow for many people. But even the Chida (Rav Chaim David Azulai) brings him in Shem HaGedolim.  

[One thing I noticed was his sympathetic approach to Jesus but from what I can tell that was not the reason the Rashba was against him.]

Nachmanides asks in the first mishna in Ketuboth this. We know that if the husband comes to court and says he found his wife not to be a virgin we believe him until she brings proof that she was. [So she loses the Ketubah and also to one opinion the marriage itself is not valid. [It is like when you buy something and what you get were two different things. The whole deal is null in the first place.] ]

The Gemara says the reason is that the Ketubah is from the words of the scribes, not from the Torah. So if it would be from the Torah she would be believed? And he would need to bring proof? But why? In general when a document comes to court that has a condition stated in in it do not we usually say first show that the condition has been fulfilled and then we can deal with the document?

The Ramban [Nachmanides] says the reason she would be believed is there is a Hazaka and a Rov [prior status and a majority that most women are married as virgins.]

So we see a hazaka (status) alone would not be enough. Rav Shach shows why this is the case from Ketuboth 76. There is an exchange of an ass with a cow. The owner of the ass now get the cow. But when the owner of the cow goes to take possession of the ass he finds it dead. Rav Yehuda said in the name of  Shmuel the owner of the ass has to show it was alive at the time of the deal. Tosphot askes over there but why? The owner of the ass already has a hazaka (status) in the cow. [He has already taken possession,] So should not the other party have to bring the proof the ass was not alive at the time of the deal? Answer. It is only a Hazaka. That is not enough when we need clear proof, not just prior assumptions. So we see from this that Where you need proof a Hazaka (status) is not enough, but a hazaka (status) with a rov (majority) would be. [Why would the Rov help? I did not look into this enough yet. But I assume it comes from that Gemara in Ketuboth where you collect the Ketubah because she got married in a garment that is reserved for virgins. That is a Rov (majority).]

There is such a thing as being too smart. Rav Nahman brings this up in the LeM in a few places but the most famous place is around LeM Vol II, chapter 12. "החכמות מטעות את האדם מאד".

You can see this in universities.  On one hand the stupidest people in universities are the students in the psychology departments. That is those are the students and teaches with the lowest IQ. They mostly have two digit IQs. But among the smartest are in the Philosophy departments. [They are not the smartest which are the Physicists.] But in the philosophy department you see this phenomenon that Rav Nahman talks about. They are too smart. At some point the smartness takes them off on some crazy tangent.

Even in Physics it is not the smartest that make the greatest advances. Anything more than an 150 IQ is  detrimental. The super IQ people that get on game shows are never the ones that make real advances. 

To combine faith with reason

To combine faith with reason was a major goal of the Middle Ages. But by means of Torah scholars that are demons as Rav Nahman [of Breslov] brings in the LeM vol I chapter 12 and 28 the Dark Side now tries to destroy faith under the cloak of faith.[It is like Daniel Defoe wrote that in every generation the Dark Side changes and develops new tactics.]

Another  method by which the Dark Side tries to destroy faith is by the disguise of "reason" which as a political system became Socialism. 

Socialism is not a good thing since I do not relish the prospect of the world de-evolving into socialist banana republics like in Africa or South America. I mean who in their right mind would want to live in Niguarda, the Sudan or Venezuela? You really think socialism is so great the  take a look at how it destroys everything in its path.

 The problem with teachers of religion especially in the Jewish world is actually seen from ancient times. That is the false prophets that were documented in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. And you see this in the Mishna and Gemara. The Mishna brings that the prushim [Pharisees] were מכלי עולם (destroyers of the world). [The group of "prushim" ([Pharisees]) are often confused with the sages of the Mishna,- but these are not the same group. The prushim were the religious fanatics. That would be the religious today. This is the opposite of the sages of Mishna who were not trying to make a show of how religious they were, nor trying to use the appearance of Torah to get others to give them money.

[So even though Rav Nahman of Breslov brings up the problem of Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM Vol I ch 12, he is not the first one to notice this problem]

  Here I would like to answer the question I asked on רב שך.  The question was ר' יהודה and ר' שמעון both hold we go by the דרשינן טעמא דקרא, לר' שמעון תמיד ולר' רק כשהטעם נכתב בתוך הפסוק and yet come to opposite conclusions. The answer is this. ר' שמעון מחזיק  we go by both the reason and the literal meaning. You see this in the case in Sanhedrin כ''א ע''א. He says a king may not marry more than שמנה עשרה and also not even one that might turn his heart. It is ר' יהודה that says we go only by the reason when the reason is written.

So back to our subject about marrying a gentile woman. The reason ר' שמעון says not to marry any gentile woman is not because of going by the reason for the verse, but rather because that is the literal meaning of the verse. In that particular verse the seven Canaanite nations are not mentioned even though that is the larger context there. And if he would only go by the reason for the verse he would forbid only seven nations. And the reason ר' יהודה who is the תנא קמא forbids only seven nations is when the reason for the law is written in the verse he goes only by the reason which applies only to the seven nations since they are specially more attached to idolatry more than any other nations.  

כאן ברצוני לענות על השאלה ששאלתי על רב שך. השאלה הייתה שר' יהודה ור' שמעון שניהם מחזיקים שאנחנו הולכים דרשינן טעמא דקרא, לר' שמעון תמיד, ור' יהודה רק כשהטעם נכתב בתוך הפסוק, ובכל זאת מגיעים למסקנות הפוכות. התשובה היא זו. ר' שמעון מחזיק אנחנו הולכים גם לפי הסיבה וגם משמעות המילולית. אתה רואה זאת במקרה בסנהדרין כ''א ע''א. לדבריו, מלך לא יכול להתחתן יותר משמונה עשרה וגם לא אישה כזו שיכולה להפוך את ליבו. ור' יהודה אומר שאנחנו הולכים רק לפי הסיבה כשהסיבה נכתבת בפסוק. אז חזור לנושא שלנו על נישואין לאישה לא יהודיה. הסיבה שר' שמעון אומר שלא להינשא לאישה לא יהודיה אינה בגלל היותה של הסיבה לפסוק, אלא כי זו המשמעות המילולית של הפסוק. באותו פסוק שבעת העמים הכנעניים לא מוזכרים למרות שזה ההקשר הגדול יותר שם. ואם רק נלך לפי הסיבה לפסוק זה היה אוסר רק על שבעת האומות. והסיבה שר' יהודה שהוא התנא קמא אוסר רק שבעת האומות היא כאשר הסיבה לחוק כתובה בפסוק הוא הולך רק לפי הסיבה שמתייחסת רק לשבע העמים מכיוון שהם קשורים במיוחד לעבודת אלילים יותר מכל עם אחר

 Here I would like to answer the question I asked on Rav Shach in my previous two blog entries.  The question was R. Yehuda and R Shimon both hold we go by the reason for the verse and yet come to opposite conclusions. The answer is this. R Shimon hold we go by both the reason and the literal meaning. You see this in the case in Sanhedrin 21a. He says a king may not marry more than 18 and also not even one that might turn his heart. It is R Yehuda that says we go only by the reason when the reason is written.

So back to our sugia/ subject about marrying a gentile woman. The reason R Shimon says not to marry any gentile woman is not because of going by the reason for the verse, but rather because that is the literal meaning of the verse. In that particular verse the seven Canaanite nations are not mentioned even though that is the larger context there. And if he would only go by the reason for the verse he would forbid only teh seven nations. And the reason R Yehuda who is the Tana Kama [sages] forbids only teh seven nations is when the reason for the law is written in the verse he goes only by the reason which applies only to the seven nations since they are specially more attached to idolatry more than any other nations.  

There is an מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן יוחאי and the חכמים if one can marry a woman who is a gentile but not from the seven Canaanite nations יבמות דף כ''ג ע''ב.

 There is an מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן יוחאי and the חכמים  if one can marry a woman who is a gentile but not from the seven nations של כנען יבמות דף  כ''ג ע''ב. To the חכמים this is allowed since the actual verse forbids specifically the seven nations. And in fact that is how the טור decided the halacha which is against the רמב''ם. That verse says more or less לא תתחתן בם בתך לא תיתן לבנו ובתו לא תיקח לבניך Now ר' שמעון says this is not allowed since דורשין טעמא דקרא. The well known question here is clear. ההלכה היא שלא דרשינן טעמא דקרא

 Now רב שך answers based on a גמרא in סנהדרין. In an argument there on page כ''א ע''א the חכמים say a king can not marry more than eighteen wives לא ירבה לו נשים. Now ר' יהודה says he can have more as long as they do not turn his heart, i.e. he goes only  by the reason. ר' שמעון says you go by both the literal meaning and also the reason. So even one that turns his heart, he can not marry. And more than eighteen even like Abigail wife of king David. So what רב שך is saying is the Rambam in fact goes by the first sage תנא קמא not like ר' יהודה nor ר' שמעון. And when the גמרא says the תנא קמא of ר' שמעון can marry a gentile is meaning ר' יהודה. He would allow this because he goes the reason alone. רב שך is saying the verse itself he says is in fact talking about the seven nations but we do not care about that and rather go only by the reason which expands it to all gentiles. THAT IS he is saying the רמב''ם understands that גמרא in יבמות differently that we usually understand it. לי יש קשה. For to ר' שמעון  we go by the reason for the verse and so we forbid marrying all nations עובדי עבודה זרה עכו''ם. And ר' יהודה goes by the reason for the verse when the reason is written into the verse and so he forbids only the seven nations. So I have to admit I am confused here. I assume there must be a way of answering for רב שך but it does not occur to me this minute.  

יש מחלוקת בין ר 'שמעון בן יוחאי לחכמים אם אפשר להתחתן עם אישה שהיא גויה אך לא משבע האומות של כנען יבמות דף כ''ג ע''ב. לחכמים זה מותר שכן הפסוק אוסר רק שבעת האומות. ולמעשה כך החליט טור את ההלכה שהיא נגד הרמב''ם. הפסוק הזה אומר לא תתחתן בם בתך לא תיתן לבנו ובתו לא תיקח לבניך עכשיו  ר’ שמעון אומר שזה לא מותר בגלל שדורשין טעמא דקרא. השאלה הידועה כאן ברורה. ההלכה היא שלא דרשינן טעמא דקרא עכשיו רב שך עונה על סמך הגמרא בסנהדרין. בוויכוח שם בעמוד כ''א ע''א הוא כך. אומרים החכמים מלך לא יכול להינשא ליותר משמונה עשרה נשים לא ירבה לו נשים. עכשיו ר' יהודה אומר שהוא יכול לקבל יותר כל עוד שהן לא הופכות את ליבו, כלומר הוא הולך רק לפי הסיבה של הקרא . ר' שמעון אומר שאתה הולך לפי המשמעות המילולית וגם הסיבה. אז גם אחת שמסירה את ליבו, הוא לא יכול להתחתן איתה. ולא יותר משמונה עשרה אפילו כמו אביגיל אשת המלך דוד. אז מה שרב שך אומר הוא שהרמב"ם למעשה הולך לפי התנא קמא לא כמו ר 'יהודה ולא ר' שמעון. כשהגמרא אומרת שהתנא קמא של ר 'שמעון יכול להתחתן עם גוי פירושו ר' יהודה. הוא יאפשר זאת כי הוא הולך לפי הסיבה לבד. רב שך אומר שהפסוק עצמו הוא אומר מדבר על שבעת האומות, אך לא אכפת לנו מזה, אלא הולכים רק לפי הסיבה שמרחיבה את הפסוק לכל הגויים. כלומר הוא אומר שהרמב''ם מבין הגמרא ביבמות אחרת שאנחנו בדרך כלל מבינים את זה. לי יש קשה. כי לר' שמעון אנו הולכים לפי הסיבה לפסוק ולכן אנו אוסרים להתחתן עם כל העמים עובדי עבודה זרה עכו''ם. ור 'יהודה הולך גם לפי הסיבה לפסוק כאשר הסיבה כתובה לפסוק, ולכן הוא אוסר רק על שבעת האומות. זאת נראית סתירה  

An argument between the Tur and the Rambam if one can marry a woman who is a gentile.

There is an argument between R Shimon ben Yochai and the Sages if one can marry a woman who is a idolater but not from the seven Canaanite nations [Emori, Hiti, etc.] [Yebamot 36b]

To the sages this is allowed since the actual verse forbids specifically the seven nations. [And in fact that is how the Tur decided the halacha which is against the Rambam ] R. Shimon says this is not allowed since you go by the reason for the verse.

[That verse says more or less "Do not marry a woman from them (the context refers to the seven Canaanite nations) because they might tilt your heart"] 

The well known question here is clear. The law like the sages. 

Rav Shach answers based on a Gemara in Sanhedrin. In an argument there on page 21a the sages say a king can not marry more than eighteen wives [לא ירבה לו נשים] R Yehuda says he can have more as long as they do not turn his heart, i.e. he goes only  by the reason. R. Shimon says you go by both the literal meaning and also the reason. so even one that turns his heart he can not marry. and more than 18 even like Abigail wife of king David. So what Rav Shach is saying is the Rambam in fact goes by the first sage [Tana Kama] not like R. Yehuda nor R. Shimon. and when the Gemara says the sages of R. Shimon can marry a gentile is meaning R. Yehuda. he would allow this because he goes the reason alone. Rav Shach is saying the verse itself he says is in fact talking about the seven nations but we do not care about that and rather go only by the reason which expands it to all gentiles. THAT IS he is saying the Rambam understands that Gemara in Yevamot differently that we usually understand it.

I have to admit I am having trouble understanding Rav Shach. I definitely need to spend a lot more time on that section. For to R Shimon we go by the reason for the verse and so we forbid marrying all nations that worship idols [Akum]. And R Yehuda goes by the reason for the verse [when the reason is written into the verse] and so he forbids only the seven nations. So I have to admit I am confused here. I assume there must be a way of answering for Rav Shach but it does not occur to me this minute.  

[Just information for the general public. Idol worshipers means people that worship idols, not all gentiles. But because of the censors it is hard to know what the original Gemara was saying.

[Later note: In a later blog entry I answered this. The basic idea is that the argument in Yevamot is not between R. Shimon and the sages that always go by the literal meaning, but R. Shimon and R Yehuda who goes only by the  spirit of the verse when both are written. R Shimon goes by both when both are written. So back to our case: 

To R Shimon only the 7 nations are forbidden because of the spirit of the verse. To R Yehuda all nations are forbidden since the seven nations are not in fact mentioned openly in that specific verse. 

x40  E Flat Major

Schools of thought that have gone after Kant and other kinds of schools that have gone after Hegel.

 As is well known there has been a lot of  friction between the schools of thought that have gone after Kant and the other kinds of schools that have gone after Hegel.

Most of the critiques on Hegel seem to focus on his political ideas, and how the Communists took over parts of his ideas to justify their actions.

My feeling about all this is that the later schools that took off from Kant are mostly ready for the trash as Robert Hanna goes into excruciating  detail to show. [That is he shows the flaws of all the off shoots of Analytic philosophy of the 20th century.] His motto is "Forward to Kant". Yet I think that the school of thought of Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson is a great development of Kant.

[Some of the questions on Hegel were answered by Cunningham and McTaggart. I feel that there is no system that cannot be misused. So the fact that Hegel is not a socialist at all should count. He does not hold of government control of industry or property.] 

I would be happy if it was possible to take the good on the Kant Fries School of Nelson and Ross and at the same time not ignore the important contributions of Hegel.

So my point here is what is worth spending time on? I mean you only have  a certain amount of hours in each day. So to spend more time on philosophy than is really needed, I would rather not do. I want to get the best, and then move on to other things [the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and Physics] that I need more urgently. So to get a good picture of philosophy it is helpful to have people that are good at building a system or making improvements on existing systems. It is even more helpful to have people that can critique and show the flaws of some supposedly well thought out systems. For example Habermas showed his real genius in a short paper that blew Rawls's Theory of Justice out of the water. Robert Hanna nuked twentieth century philosophy. So by default who is left standing? Kant and Hegel. But there were plenty of detours that lead to dead ends like Marxism and other kinds of off shoots. So that is why I am saying Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson are the  best developments of Kant and Mc Taggart and Cunningham the best to show what Hegel is all about.

the subject of ספק ספיקא

 I wanted to go into the subject of ספק ספיקא in short. The wife of a kohen was found not to have been a virgin, so she is forbidden since the sex might have been after she was betrothed. Tosphot asks what about the status that she is assumed Ok חזקת כשרות until proven otherwise? Answer: the  prior status of the body חזקת הגוף goes against that since it shows she remained a virgin until the last possible minute. That pushes the act to be during the time she was betrothed. R. Akiva Eigger asks but status of "now" [חזקת השתא] pushes that back in time. I.e. we assume the way things are now goes back in time until the farthest possible moment. He answers that status does not join with status of her being allowed to her husband since these two different kinds of status say different things.(החזקות לא מצטרפות)

Rav Shach asked that R Eigger himself say elsewhere that that point itself is subject to an argument between Rav and Shmuel. His answer requires showing his point from a lot of places, but the short of it is that status of now only can put a prior status in doubt if the prior status was already weak. But if it is strong, then the status of now does not count at all.

 A lot of people get affected by some mental trap. There is a remarkable cure for this from Rav Nahman of Breslov: i.e., the prayer of Chavakook the prophet. That is the last part of that book. You can find this in the Bible in the minor prophets.

The fact is that nowadays with the whole world going insane, this seems like a good idea for people to say and even to say it as they are walking on the street. For the Evil Inclination, the Satan is attacking everyone in their thoughts. Bringing people to think exactly the things that are wrong and hurtful for them to think. This is a new technique of the evil inclination. For in former years people had to seek out evil ideas and insanities. Now these same evil thoughts come to everyone uninvited.  

[the prayer is השם שמעתי שמעך יראתי  השם פעלך בקרב שנים בקרב שנים תודיע ברוגז רחם תזכור Load i have heard about you and i was afraid. Lord you works are in the midst of years, in the midst of years let there be known, in anger remember to have mercy, etc.]

"Iyun" in depth learning and combine that with fast learning.

The idea of saying the words forwards and backwards as a way of doing "Iyun" in depth learning I found amazingly helpful when I was at Polytechnic Institute of NYU. I certainly see that it can get one bogged down if he does no fast learning either. Still in a situation where I found I had a time limit on how much I could study before exams, this method of saying the words forwards and backwards was helpful.

You can see this method in Rav Avraham Abulafia, a mystic of the Middle Ages [who is brought a lot as an authority by Rav Haim Vital and the Remak/Rav Moshe of Cordoba.]

When I first got to Shar Yashuv [beginner's yeshiva in NY] my first year was very difficult because there were no structured classes. I had to beg people to teach me anything. But I did manage to sort of get started. The second year was Hulin and that is when I began to understand the Litvak emphasis on "Iyun" in depth learning. The third year there was a class but instead I joined the group of Naphtali Yegger and then I began to see the depths of Gemara and Tosphot. But I could not do that own my own. So on my own I did just Tosphot along with the Maharsha and whatever Rishonim that seemed relevant to the sugia.

But all that time I had my separate sessions of learning fast in order to finish each tractate with Rashi and Tosphot. So I began to gain an appreciation for the idea of combining these two kinds of learning.

 I tend to be careful about rebuke because of Rav Nahman of Breslov's last Torah lesson. LeM vol II section 8. "Even though rebuke is a commandment in the Torah and everyone is required to rebuke their fellow man when they see him acting not properly, still not everyone is fit to rebuke as R. Akiva said, 'I would be surprised if anyone in this generation is fit to give rebuke.'"

What makes this especially significant is the in the thought of Rav Nahman, the later a Torah lesson was the more important it was. 

So by implication the idea of not giving rebuke (even when you think it is required) is the peak of all his Torah lessons.

Separation of religion and state. Even the thought that the religious authorities would have power gives me nightmares.

 Separation of religion and state is a big issue in Israel. But I can not see any source in Torah for this. Nor is it in the Constitution. "No national church" written in the Constitution of the USA is not the same as separation of church and state.

Still, in Israel I can see the point of this since the religious tend to be insane. [There is also the problem of group insanity besides individual insanity.] Even the thought that the religious authorities would have power gives me nightmares.

So why is this important principle not found in Torah? ANSWER: one of the reasons for the mitzvot is "shalom ha'Medina" (peace of the country), and experience has shown than power of religious authorities is highly detrimental to peace of the state and of the family, therefore one should have separation of religion and state.

 

Who is "Akum" עכו''ם עובד כוכבים ומזלות [idolater]

 Who is "Akum" עכו''ם עובד כוכבים ומזלות [idolater]? This is an argument among rishonim. The Rambam (as is well known) holds Christians are in that category. To Tosphot in Tractate Avida Zara, they are not because "shituf" ["joining" with God ] is not idolatry. This comes up because this argument is often ignored and people think the Rambam is the only opinion. That is just not so.

However the particular Tosphot that deals with this issue seems to have about three separate reason for the fact that Christians are not idolaters. [But besides his depending on that Gemara itself that Shituf is not idolatry, I forgot the other reasons.]

I might add here that Aquinas spent a good deal of effort in defining and defending the idea of Divine simplicity. He shows that according to the Torah, God is "simple" which means not a composite. And he shows that that does work within his context.  Divine simplicity is central to Torah faith as no one in the Middle Ages disagreed with.

[Divine simplicity was a major issue in the middle ages and in fact probably was the reason that the Platonic model of Emanation was dropped and the Aristotelean model was adopted.]

 

 In the History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides there is a passage about revolutions. It is very accurate and gives one the chills. The idea is that  it brings out the worst in people.

[Though the War of Independence is called "revolution," it was to preserve the structure that had been in place from before Parliament started treating the colonies as serfs.]

A head covering, there is no requirement of such a thing except for during the public reading of Torah as brought in Mesechet Sofrim.

 The religious clothing has always seemed a little "off " to me. For one thing, you are not supposed to advertise how religious you are. מה השם אלוהיך שואל ממך ... והצנע לכת עם אלוהיך

"What does the Lord your God ask from you ... and to walk modesty with your God".

The skull cap itself has seemed to me to be even worse. There is no record of Jews wearing such a thing until long after it was the custom of popes and bishops. [Take a look at all paintings and drawings of Jews from the Middle Ages. There is not one skull cap.]

If the issue is a head covering, there is no requirement of such a thing except for during the public reading of Torah as brought in Mesechet Sofrim [not from the Mishna but one of the books on halacha from chazal/the sages.  The Taz wants to add that not wearing a head covering is the custom of gentiles. That is odd, since the skull cap itself is the custom of popes and bishops. So the Kipa itself is minhag hagoyim (custom of the gentiles). 

יצחק קדורי Rav Isaac Kaduri one of the most well respected mystics in Israel left a not that was not to be opened until after he died. It was opened and said the name of the true messiah is Yeshua [the well known name of Jesus in Hebrew]. It was ignored as you can imagine. Still, it does lend a degree of credibility to Rav Avraham Abulafia [a "mekubal" mystic from the Middle Ages] who wrote that Jesus is the messiah son of Joseph that is mentioned in the end of the Talmud tractate of Suka [Also this subject is brought up in Kol HaTor of the Gra and the New Tikunim  of the Ramchal.]

 Leftists used to hold up Venezuela as the best example of Socialism. They actually wrote that the USA needs to learn how to run a country from Venezuela. 

Now if you really want to know about the results of Socialism take  look at this:

The Neo Kantian

The Neo Kantian schools of thought  were either about justifying science or culture which clearly were the last things on Kant's mind. Rather the question of Kant and of Metaphysics in general is "What is it all about?"

I might offer here a suggestion--that had he known about Leonard Nelson,[friesian.com] he might have seen the exact kind of development of Kant that he was seeking. [With Leonard Nelson the answer to How is synthetic a priori possible? The answer is by means of immediate non intuitive knowledge--i.e.  faith.]

I certainly did. For faith needs a certain amount of justification. Those that think they are supporting faith by divorcing it from reason, are undermining real faith and fall and bring others into lying faiths. 

[As Brand Blanshard wrote in a similar vein: "Now the result of this line of defense [of faith and morality by means of divorcing faith from reason] is not really to save morality, but to throw all morality into confusion." 

So as all Rishonim [sought for a synthesis of faith and reason] I see in Leonard Nelson a way forward. 

x39  E Flat Major  x39 midi   x39 nwc 

x40 E Flat Major  same piece in midi same piece in nwc

On my way back from Uman by Grayhound bus I traveled through South Dakota. I am happy to see they have a great governor

 

 I had a lot of benefit from the advice of Rav Nahman of Breslov. Even though I had wanted very much to go into Physics when I was young, still I had no method of learning whereby I could do well until I discovered the way of learning of Rav Nahman. [Conversation of Rav Nahman 76.]

That helped me at first to do a considerable amount of Gemara. Then later I applied it to Physics.

[It is mainly just saying the words in order and going on. But it only works if you believe. For after all, the learning does not go in right away. Rather by saying the words, the learning gets absorbed into one subconscious and there is processed until much later it bears fruit. ]

[Rav Nahman only said this method in reference with Torah learning, but since I saw some rishonim the importance of Physics and Math I decided to try that method in an expanded way. I am not saying to be "Breslov". In fact, some kind of combination seems to be needed for me. A sort of balance. Torah with Derech Eretz.  [Torah with the way of the Earth. That is balance. It seems to me that the major way to gain learning Torah is only with the path of the Gra. In spite of the amazing advice of Rav Nahman about learning Torah, still the major benefit seems to be only within the context of the path of the Gra. and Rav Shach.  On the other hand I can see that the path of the Lithuanian yeshivot can be lacking some of the major benefits of the path of Rav Nahman. So  And even both of them have some areas where they are lacking. You can see this spelled out clearly in the 13 stories of Rav Nahman where each the king's ministers were all dispersed at the time of the great hurricane. So where you find one kind perfection you do not find another. So the thing to do is to bring teh different aspects of God's light together. See that story in detail and you will see what I mean.]

"Bitul Torah" [Wasting time which could be used for learning Torah.]

 Rav Natan the student of Rav Nahman of Breslov told over an event that happened a little before his time about "Bitul Torah". [Wasting time which could be used for learning Torah.]]

This came about because Rav Natan was on his way to Israel and dealing with dishonest agents in the Ukraine trying to pay for a ticket on a ship to Israel. He was aware of cheating agents and within telling this over he told a story about a person he had heard about who was a tremendous matmid [diligent] in Torah. That person [Leib Ashkenazi] also wanted to go to Israel and pay for a ticket from some agent and went into the boat and waited there until it was to start the trip. He waited there a day. Then another day. Then a week. Then a month. Then 6 months. Then decided to leave the ship and ask what was going on? He found out the ship had been out of service already for a few years. So he went and told the agent, "For the money I lost I forgive you. But I do not forgive you for the bitul Torah [casuing me to lose time from learning Torah]." That agent had two daughters. One died. Then the other. And then the agent himself. 

I can definitely relate to this. But it is hard to explain to someone who has not felt the awesome power and beauty of Torah. 

I know it sounds like bitul Torah when I suggest learning Physics and Mathematics. However I am depending on Saadia Gaon and a couple of Rishonim that hold they are part of learning Torah. [Not all rishonim.]

[I can also relate to the story of Rav Natan because I felt also that there were forces pulling me away from learning Torah that I regret.]

I would say the words or every page of my Physics texts forwards and backwards. This helped a lot in the short term for me to pass tests. But it was too slow for an over all understanding.

The basic approach of Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov was the learn fast and this was not just for himself, but told all his students to do so. You can see this in the end of the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 where he goes into all the things one must finish every year. (I.e. the two Talmuds and all the midrashei agada and midrashei halacha). Still review is a part of his system also. The doubt is where does review fit in? A little, or  a lot? And when? It is hard to know.

But I wanted to mention that I found a kind of balance to be the best approach, and this helped me also when I was majoring in Physics. 

I think you can understand this in this way. The fast kind of learning("just say the words in order and go on with no review until you finish the book, and then go back to the beginning and start again") seems to work over a long period of time. It helps to get the overall outline of the subject. The detailed kind of learning with lots of review and in depth analysis seems to work best for having to past tests and get a degree. It does not take the place of the other.''

AT Polytechnic of NYU, I used to do my old forward and backwards method of learning in depth. That is, I would say the words or every page of my Physics texts forwards and backwards. But that is the in-depth class. The fast learning sessions was done also but not when I actually had to take tests. During that time, I had little time for the fast learning.  

Kant-Fries school

https://www.friesian.com/ross/#curse

The curse of the Friesian school: "Nevertheless, I have not met a single contemporary academic colleague whop was the least interested in the Friesian School, or my work, or who, upon acquaintance, barely took the trouble to give me the time of day. If that."

I am on board with Leonard Nelson of the Kant-Fries school. Faith there is contained in an area of knowledge which is known, but not by sensory perception nor by reason.

So this seems to strike the right balance between Enlightenment Reason and Faith. Kant had tried the same balance but his solution seems a bit lacking.

So reason applies to experience.. Beyond that there is a kind of non intuitive immediate knowledge. [Hegel also tried to find this same kind of balance, but the Leonard Nelson Kelley Ross seems a bit better to me.] 

Someone asked me then how do we know natural law? 

I answered: "I guess you must mean Natural law known by reason. But reason might have limits. That was the point of Hume. The point was weak in one way in that he never showed the limits of reason. [And so you get G.E Moore and Dr Huemer because of that.] But still it does seem clear  that knowing things true by definition is different [analytic a priori ] than knowing things you have to put together [synthetic a priori] . And even in that area of things you need to put together it seems there is a kind of limit about things that you can sense, [conditions of possible experience]. Once you get into moral law it does look that a different kind of knowledge is used to understand things.[un-condioned realities]" 

[The well known proponent of Kant-Fries is Kelley Ross, but Robert Hanna goes into more detail in showing the attacks against Kant in the "Analytic school" are wrong. Dr. Ross does bring Jerold Katz, but Robert Hanna goes into much more detail.]

Georg Hamann was I think the best of those pointing out flaws in the Enlightenment, Still I think a balance is the best. Kind of like the mediaeval synthesis of faith and reason.

 x33 G major mp3 file

x33 midi

x33 nwc [noteworthy composer file]

 God knows that not all Litvish yeshivot [based on the Gra] are all of the same caliber. Especially the places that are shiduch yeshivot.  [That is people are there for the name of the place in order to get a good shiduch,] This becomes apparent in the approach of people that come from there to use Torah to make money. Often this is not limited to Shiduch yeshivot but places that people and out there just for the name.

But you have to ask yourself what the alternative is? No other kinds of places have authentic Torah.

And there issue is not just authentic Torah which one could learn on one's own. I mean one could learn Tosphot, R Akiva Eiger , the Ketzot etc in order to see and understand a drop of the depths of authentic Torah on one's own. But the way I see it that this is very difficult to do without an environment of Torah learning.

 And almost no one stands against the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] that has penetrated into the Torah world except for Litvak yeshivas. Most of the religious world is highly highly compromised by the Dark Side. At least the Litvak yeshiva based on the Gra provide a kind of shield.

The two places I was at were both great: Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. But from what I can tell most Litvak yeshivas are great. Probably the best is Ponovitch in Bnei Brak. [Or off-shoots of Ponovitch.]

If only there would be a straight Gra type of Litvak yeshiva in my area I would rejoice.

But there is not. So all I can do is to try to learn the one single volume of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri that I do have. [It is the only Torah book that I have.]

 The unpatriotic academia has been putting down anything that even slightly has a hint of American patriotism. Robert E Lee was a patriot to the USA but also of his state of Virginia. When there was a conflict he choose Virginia--so as not to be fighting against his own flesh and blood. Nowadays the ties that once bound Americans together are gone as a result of this constant attack against the USA within Academia.

See the paper by Robert Hanna that shows an example of sheer pure hatred of the USA has been a part of academia for about 70 years. [https://againstprofphil.org/2020/10/05/how-not-to-live-a-double-life-the-ballad-of-donald-kalish-and-angela-davis/]

 x37 F minor mp3  x37 midi format  [x37 nwc]

 

I ought to mention that I see he has great points which are worthy of bringing up but my approach is simply that in the Torah there is private property as we see in Bava Kama, Bava Mezia and Bava Batra and so for me that is the end of the conversation.

 Rav Shach noticed an argument between Old Tosphot ([תוספות ישנים] )and the regular Tosphot plus Rambam that most people have not noticed. [Old Tosphot is the version of Tosphot before the final editing.]

In a  case of מוציא שם רע (slander) a נערה מאורסה [engaged girl from 12-12.5 ] that has had sex with someone other than her husband gets stoned at the entrance of her father's home. [That is engagement makes her married. "Kidushin" what makes her engaged, and the Hupa is when she comes into her husband's domain;--but she is still married at the engagement. Nowadays, engagement is just an official agreement to get married. That is different from "kidushin".]

But there is also a case of a engaged girl that gets stoned regularly, not at the door of her father's home.

That is when she did not fool him. That is she might let's say have committed adultery when engaged, but after that told her husband and still witnesses come. So there is regular stoning, not at her father's home.

The difference we know from Tosphot [תוספות ישנים] is if she fooled him. [Based on Rav Shila in Ketuboth pages 45 to 46.] That is,--lets says she had sex before the Chupa and then goes through with the Chupa without telling him. Or there was Chupa and she had sex and then sleeps with her husband after that. In these cases to Tosphot she fooled him so she gets stoned at her father's home.

But in Mishna Torah [Laws of forbidden relations chapter 3. Halacha 8 and halacha 10] there are the exact same situations except the difference between regular stoning and stoning at her father's house is if the later case is מוציא שם רע [slander]. That is her husband calls to witnesses and askes them to testify for him.

x35  D minor mp3

Rav Yaakov Emden and the Zohar.

 Rav Yaakov Emden was the beginning of looking at the Zohar in a way that would precede academia.

He decided that some parts were probably authentic documents from ancient sources like ספרא דצניעותא.

Besides that, it is mostly midrashim translated into Aramaic, and has a basic idea that is taking one word to mean the shechina and another word to mean tiferet. It also takes plenty of previous mystics of the Middle Ages [like the Ramban himself]  and translates them into Aramaic,

I did not find all that terribly inspiring. I have to add that the mystic tradition never started with the Zohar, but rather with Sefer Yezira, and there were plenty of mystics around in the Middle Ages way before the Zohar. [e.g the Ramban.]

But I would not think to spend time on it because of the phrase עם כל דא a medieval innovation of how to say "although" instead of the regular אף על פי. [How can an invention of the Middle Ages be in a book by R. Shimon ben Yochai? Answer: It is not. The book was written during the Middle Ages. The "Im kol da" is the smoking gun that shows when it was written.

So it is not from R. Shimon Ben Yochai.

[In short, the original events were thus.-- Isaac from Acco was in Spain, and met up with Moshe De'Leon and asked him about the Zohar. Moshe had been selling it page by page claiming it was from an ancient manuscript. So Isaac asked him about this, and said that people were claiming that there is no original. Moshe swore, "May G-d strike me down if I do not have an original manuscript, and I will show you when you come to my home." They had met up in a different city. On the way to his city Moshe de'Leon, in fact, was struck down, but Isaac continued and got to his home where his widow was. He offered to her a large sum of money just to see the original manuscript. She said, "There is no such thing. Rather he (Moshe DeLeon) was writing it from his head."]

The problem with Torah scholars that are demons as brought in the LeM of Rav Nahman is that once you know about the existence of these demons, it becomes hard to know where to find and learn true authentic Torah.

For that reason it occurs to me that it would be  a good idea to an authentic Litvak yeshiva in every city so that at least people could have an idea of what the Torah actual teaches- even if it is hard to keep everything.

The problem simply is that the Sitra achra has gotten mixed up with authentic Torah.  

However these so called "kollels" do not count. The problem with kollel is using Torah to make money simply is not legitimate. And the proof is in the pudding. But that is not teh only trouble. So some reason the entire religious world got to be so infiltrated by the Dark Side that there is almost no mitzvah one can do that counts. I mean to say for example an Etrog of the Sitra Achra or idolatry one does not fulfil the obligation of Etrog since  any object of idolatry has to be crushed up and destroyed. And since an Etrog requires a size, an etrog of the Sitra achra does not fulfill the mitzvah.

So even before you could have any yeshiva that is legitimate you would have to start listening to the Gra in the first place and his signature on teh letter of excommunication. 

[In the LeM vol I sec. 12 it seems the main thing about Torah scholars that are demons is the "shelo Lishma" aspect. [I.e., they learn Torah for money or honor. But I have avoided mentioning that because sometimes you can have a person in kollel who is learning Torah for its own sake but still just to survive has to accept money. He is not using Torah to make money but rather accepting charity as being the only way he can manage to continue learning Torah.  So the distinction between and authentic Torah scholar and a Torah scholar who is a demon is not at all that clear or easy to see. The best rule of thumb is to go by the Gra. Even though there might be exceptions even when people are following the path of the Gra, still that is the best indication of one learning Torah for its own sake.]