17.9.21
16.9.21
t the type of government has nothing to do with anything.. It is the people and their attitudes.
Too much emphasis is given to types of government. You can see this cases where some superpower supports types of government that are in alignment with its own type--all the while not seeing that the type of government has nothing to do with anything.. It is the people and their attitudes. One example: The USA supported the nationalist in China against the communists. So while the sort of government of the USA works well for WASPs, it is clear to me that the nationalist in China were out of touch with the common people. One reporter [Audrey Topping] was driving with a officer of the nationalist party during the Chinese civil war, and while the nationalists were living high on the hog [like the maharaja as she said--parties every night] she saw people starving in the streets [eating grass]. She said to the government official she was with : "Though seeing these people suffering hurts me, it must hurt you more so.?" The answer she got was, "We do not consider them to be people." She thought to herself, "No wonder why there is a revolution."
[The same principle applies in spiritual areas where people accept doctrines which have little or no support from reason. They believe that they have arrived at this or that system because of rational reasons but in fact all follows from the desire to be part of some group .]
{That is not to say that some system might have indeed some support. In fact Kelley Ross in his formulation of the Kant Fries approach has a positive idea of spiritual values. And it i well founded on the extremely rigorous approach of Leonard Nelson.]
hidden motivations
I realize that I have hidden motivations. And I can see in others as well--almost too obviously. It is kind of like what Michael Huemer wrote about why people are irrational about politics. They are trying to fit in with a certain group they want to identify with. And I can see that this goes deeper than what Dr. Huemer suggests. Rather, I see that people often from their real and intense desire to fit with with a group, adopt all the opinions of that group, but believe sincerely and with all their heart that they came to their conclusions totally rationally.
14.9.21
אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב.
I have been hanging out at the sea and while there I have been pondering the issues that come up in the Avi Ezri [laws of Gitin 2] This relates to the Gemara Arachin pg 21 and kidushin 50.
What is puzzling to me is the difference between gitin and sales --besides the need of desire. What I mean is there is the difference that in gitin you need desire. But what is hard for me to understand is that there seems to be some further difference.
For in selling if one makes a protest before the sale, the sale is void even if he nullifies the protest at the time of the sale. In gitin the get [divorce document] is valid.
Just for background. In Arachin Rav Sheshet said if one makes a protest at the time of a get [divorce document] his protest in valid. The Gemara asks: is this not obvious? Answer: It is a case where he was forced to give the get [divorce document] and agreed. You might have thought since he agreed, the protest is void. So now we know the protest stands until he explicitly nullifies the protest. Rav Shach notes that this is the source of the law that says at the time of a forced get the husband has to say "I want it." For otherwise, why should we think he nullifies the protest? [The point of Rav Shach is that a forced sale is valid. The act is an act, even with the desire to sell. So is the case with gitin. The act of giving the get is valid but one needs an extra ingredient. The desire to divorce. So if he is forced according to the law of the Torah, then it should be valid automatically since his inner desire to to listen to the wise. Why should we think he then also nullifies the protest? I must be that he is forced to say I want it.
But now we know if he nullifies the protest explicitly, then the get [divorce document] is valid. Not so with selling. So there seems to be some added difference between gitin and selling.
Later I saw that Rav Shach answers this question. So, in fact, the only difference between gitin and selling is desire. But in giving a divorce document one must say "I want". And so when he nullifies all the previous protests, what is left is the current statement "I want" and so the get in valid. But in the case of selling he does not say "I want". So when he nullifies all previous objections, all that is left is the present statement against the previous ones, Both have equal weight. and so the sale is not valid.
_____________________________________________________________________________
אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב. This relates to the גמרא ערכין דף כ''א and קודושין דף נ. What is hard to understand for me is the difference between גיטין and sales, besides the need of desire. What I mean to say is that there is one difference that in גיטין you need רצון. But what is hard for me to understand is that there seems to be some further difference. For in selling, if one makes a protest מודעה before the sale, the sale is void even if he nullifies the protest מודעה at the time of the sale. In גיטין the גט is valid. Just for background. In ערכין רב ששת said if one makes a מודעה at the time of a get his מודעה in valid. The גמרא asks: is this not obvious? Answer: It is a case where he was forced to give the get and agreed. You might have thought since he agreed, the protest is void. So now we know the protest stands until he explicitly nullifies the protest. רב שך notes that this is the source of the law that says at the time of a forced get the husband has to say "I want it." For otherwise, why should we think he nullifies the protest מודעה? [The idea of רב שך is that a forced sale is valid. The act is an act, even with the desire to sell. So is the case with גיטין. The act of giving the גט is valid but one needs an extra ingredient. The desire to divorce. So if he is forced according to the law of the Torah, then it should be valid automatically since his inner רצון to listen to the wise. Why should we think he then also nullifies the protest מודעה? I must be that he is forced to say, "I want it".But now we know if he nullifies the protest מודעה explicitly then the get in valid. Not so with selling. So there seems to be some added difference between גיטין and selling.
Later I saw that רב שך answers this question. So, in fact, the only difference between גיטין and selling is desire. But in giving a divorce document one must say "I want". And so when he nullifies all the previous מודעות, what is left is the current statement "I want" and so the גט valid. But in the case of selling, he does not say "I want". So when he nullifies all previous מודעות, all that is left is the present statement against the previous ones, Both have equal weight. and so the sale is not valid.
אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב. זה מתייחס לגמרא ערכין דף כ''א וקודושין דף נ. מה שקשה לי להבין הוא ההבדל בין גיטין למכירה, מלבד הצורך ברצון. מה שאני מתכוון לומר הוא שיש הבדל אחד שבגיטין אתה צריך רצון. אבל מה שקשה לי להבין הוא שנראה שיש הבדל נוסף. שכן במכירה, אם מבצעים מודעת מחאתה לפני המכירה, המכירה בטלה גם אם הוא מבטל את מודעת המחאה בזמן המכירה. בגיטין הגט תקף. רק לרקע. בערכין רב ששת אמר אם עושים מודעה בעת גירושין המודעה שלו בתוקף. הגמרא שואל: האם זה לא מובן מאליו? תשובה: זה מקרה שבו הוא נאלץ לתת את הגט והסכים. יכול להיות שחשבתם מאז שהסכים, המודעה בטלה. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שהמחאה עומדת עד שהוא מבטל במפורש את המחאה. רב שך מציין כי זהו המקור של התקנה שאומרת בזמן הכפייה בעלה צריך להגיד "אני רוצה את זה". כי אחרת, מדוע שנחשוב שהוא מבטל את המחאה? [רב שך מציין שמכירה כפויה תקפה. המעשה הוא מעשה, אפילו אם אין רצון למכור. כך גם לגבי גיטין. פעולת מתן הגט תקפה אך יש צורך במרכיב נוסף, הרצון להתגרש. אז אם הוא נאלץ על פי חוק התורה, אז זה צריך להיות תקף אוטומטית מאז הרצון הפנימי שלו להקשיב לחכם. מדוע שנחשוב שהוא גם מבטל את המחאה? חייב להיות שהוא נאלץ לומר, "אני רוצה את זה". אבל עכשיו אנחנו יודעים אם הוא מבטל את מודעת המחאה במפורש ואז גט תקף. לא כך לגבי מכירה. אז נראה שיש הבדל נוסף בין גיטין למכירה.
מאוחר יותר ראיתי שרב שך עונה על שאלה זו. כך שלמעשה ההבדל היחיד בין גיטין למכירה הוא רצון. אך במתן מסמך גירושין יש לומר "אני רוצה". ולכן כשהוא מבטל את כל הדברים האחרונים, מה שנותר הוא המשפט הנוכחי "אני רוצה" ולכן הגט תקף. אבל במקרה של מכירה, הוא לא אומר "אני רוצה". אז כשהוא מבטל את כל הדברים הקודמים, כל שנותר הוא ההצהרה הנוכחית מול הקודמים, לשניהם יש משקל שווה. ולכן המכירה אינה תקפה.
13.9.21
The issue is never the issue. Rather anything the Left can do in order to undermine the USA is fair game.
The main objective of the Left is to undermine the USA in any way possible. Instead of noting hat the average temperature during the age of the dinosaurs was 5 to 10 degrees Celsius higher than today. The Left tries to create panic that all life would vanish at such temperatures.
The issue is never the issue. Rather anything the Left can do in order to undermine the USA is fair game.
12.9.21
society divides naturally into classes.
I wanted to mention that society divides naturally into classes. This is similar to what Jordan Peterson mentions about the fact that even lobsters have a hierarchy. There is always one on top. But what I would like to suggest is that once the population of a society gets to be any more than a village, the natural order draws people to divide into classes. [I mean not just division of labor, but rather actual upper, middle, and lower classes. Like a wedding cake.] And people naturally get drawn consciously or unconsciously into the class where they belong.
It is not that some societies are divided into the land owners and the peasants just by law, rather that there is a natural order. In the West the natural order is based on competence. [Not birth].
For it is the custom to force the husband against his will
Even though I am not intending to blog, still it did occur to me to mention something that I was pondering about while at the sea today. That is the fact that a "get" [doc of divorce] needs the desire of the husband, not just his willingness. This is a startling fact that casts doubt on almost all gitin nowadays. For it is the custom to force the husband against his will by many different means. Financial and others sorts of threats. That is OK as far as gaining his willingness to give a valid get--but it does not mean he wants to give the "get". He would rather that his wife would be nice as she once was.
I know I am getting a bit ahead of myself here--saying my conclusion before building the case. So let me just mention the basic issues. First: In laws of buying and selling you have a case where a man is forced to sell his field. That is valid. We nowadays might not like this but still it is a fact. We say that even though he is being forced, still because of the force he decided to in fact make a valid sell. This same thing is in the case of a get. He might be forced and thus actually intend to give a valid get. But in terms of gitin there is an extra condition--he has to want to divorce her. And so when he is being forced according to the law, then we say his inner desire is to fulfill the law of the Torah. So a forced get that is being forced by law is valid. But the cases of gitin nowadays are rarely [if ever] being forced not by law. As you can see in the teshuvot HaRema. There was a man who was playing cards and did not keep Shabat. The Rema said that is not a case where the law says he must give a get.
I am tired right now. I was out the whole day. Still I think it might be a good idea to go into this sugia in more depth. In the meantime you might look at the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach Laws of Gitin where he brings this issue.
11.9.21
There was in fact one extremely successful lawyer [who almost invariably won all his cases] who made it a point to take a break from his work about five months out of every year
Sorry for not blogging for the people that have been loyal readers. I am finding learning difficult. I do not know if this is permanent or that I need to "give a rest". There was in fact one case of a extremely successful lawyer [who almost invariably won all his cases] who made it a point to take a break from his work about five months out of every year.--That is to completely forget about law. Maybe I also need a break. Or maybe I need to move on. [Anyway people have stopped looking at my blog- perhaps because my opinions do not follow the party line. (People lie to read opinions which more or less agree with their own and that includes me.) That seems to be at least one reason. Also in terms of Torah, I have not made much progress in laws of Gitin, so I have nothing to add. Also my thoughts have been about the USA Civil War which I am tending to go with the idea that the South was right--which is certainly not a popular opinion. So I can see why people would not read this blog anymore and I can well see their point.
10.9.21
psychologists are insane and attempt to use their pseudo science to normalize their pathological mental makeup
I can not prove this, but I would like to suggest the idea that all psychologists are insane and attempt to use their pseudo science to normalize their pathological mental makeup and to disenfranchise normal functioning people. However there is nothing to regret. It is a part of normal human development that we encounter obstacles. Thus the psychologists are a normal obstacle for functioning humans and the only people that fall prey to them are those that deserve to fall prey to them. Normal people already know to avoid psychologists at all cost.
9.9.21
a lot of people claim to be learning Torah,
I know a lot of people claim to be learning Torah, but all their claims can always be proven false by a simple walk into the doors of their supposed "yeshivot". This fact is too well known for me to go into this. [It is by means of their claim to be learning Torah that they ask for money from secular Jews.] Their lies only work on completely secular Jews who never bother to check the claims. The only people and places one can find authentic learning of Torah are Litvak yeshivot that go in the path of the Gra.
[Not that I have the merit to be in any Litvak yeshiva. But even if I do not have the merit of walking in the truth of authentic Torah, at least I can hope that my friend can have that merit. So I feel a responsibility at least to let people know the truth. There is a good reason why I name this blog on the name of the Gra. It is because that is what defines authentic Torah. After one has that then it is possible and even desirable to learn from Rav Nahman of Breslov. Still one does need to be careful about from whom one learns. As Rav Nahman himself pointed out the problem with Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM vol I perek 12 and 28. So one does need to be careful from whom one learns. I would go so far as to suggest that mot of what passes today as "Torah" is the "Torah of the Dark Side." [That is invariably what the religious world claims as Torah.]
So what I suggest is to learn in a Litvak Yeshiva or not at all. Better to have nothing to eat rather than chocolate pudding mixed with cyanide [which is what the religious world is]
I feel that the herem-excommunication of the Gra ought to be heeded to since the fat that it has been ignored has made an open door for the Sitra Achra to enter into the world of Torah. And that is the reason why you will only find authentic Torah in the yeshivot that walk in the path of the Gra. The rest is phony--just making an act to get money and power.
The sad fact is that I myself did not merit to realize the greatness of the Litvak world that walks in the path of the Gra. This I think is because society is divided naturally into classes. [This is similar to the fact that even lobsters have a natural hierarchy. There is always one on top. In a similar way society does not just get one person on top, but divided naturally into layers like a wedding cake.] And thus people are drawn naturally towards their level. People with low traits are drawn towards people like that. People with high standards are drawn toward others like that. Sadly I felt out of place in a great place like the Mir in NY. Only much later did I begin to realize my mistake.
8.9.21
In Uman itself there was a large murder of Jews as commemorated there on a place outside Privat Bank [on Lenina Street--the main street].
The Nazis had a sort of secret weapon --the assault gun which looked more or less like a tank. The StuG III Strumgeschutz that more or less allowed them to get through the Stalin Line which was the proper border of the USSR. The Red Army had a very smart Commander of the Western Forces (Bundyonny) who was able to escape [the 6th and 12th armies] at amazing speed which astounded even the Germans. Still the Nazis were able to form a pincher type of action which joined together at Uman which encircled the Red Army. Around that area was made a lot of very large prisoner of war camps. Most of the prisoners died because they were not provided with shelter, and also were given very sparse rations. In Uman itself there was a large murder of Jews as commemorated there on a place outside Privat Bank [on Lenina Street--the main street].
I might mention that even among the German lines there were good hearted people. In one of those prisoner of war camps, a woman from Uman passed by and pointed to a prisoner and said to one of the German guards, "That is my husband," (even though she and he had never met before then). That prisoner of war was then let go (and married her) and became the father of a KGB agent whose home I used to stay in when I came to Uman for Rosh Hashanah.
6.9.21
Rosh Hashanah
What people ought to do for Rosh Hashanah I believe is to go out into some forest or place where they can be alone and talk or commune with God. [This is what Rav Nahman calls Hitbodadut.] It is not meditation but rather actual talking from your heart towards God. Part of the reason for this I think can be explained thus: It is too easy to lose who you are. When one is surrounded all the time by other people it becomes too easy to lose who you really are deep inside. (It can get to the point where one's inner essence disappears. All that is left is the consciousness of the crowd.) You think all the time other people's thoughts. You worry all the time what others will think. That is why one must go out to a place where he or she can be alone and talk to God from his heart.
{This would be in balance with learning Torah. I myself was unclear about this issue. The Gemara makes it clear that every word of Torah is a mitzvah which equals all the other mitzvot. Still, to get to Torah for its own sake depends on being in contact with one's good essence.]
4.9.21
Baali teshuva ( newly religious-) are traitors to their parents
Baali teshuva ( newly religious-) in spite of their supposed loyalty to Torah, are traitors to their parents. And a traitor once- can be a traitor twice. In fact, this is the reason for the general lunacy of the religious world. The fact that people who are newly religious and traitors to their parents are also traitors to Torah and they pervert it. And this is the bulk of the religious world- that neither understand Torah nor are loyal towards it.
They might have asked themselves before they jettisoned their loyalty to their parents: "What to do with the fifth commandment?"
[The issue was noticed long ago and was the reason Litvak yeshivot did not accept newly religious in knowledge that the newly religious are flakey. That is--they can hold with all their might and soul to one opinion today, and to the opposite tomorrow.]
3.9.21
faith of the Torah
The basic tenet of faith of the Torah is that God made the world from nothing. Not from Himself.😊
I have gone into this a few years ago. But what I wanted to add is that the religious accept pantheism and that besides being not what the Torah holds-it is also hard to see why a good and wise God would reincarnate Himself in a world of infinite torture. We might look at the surface of the sea as calm and benevolent. But underneath the surface everything is waging total war to the death against every other creature. It is a realm the insane torture of chemical warfare. God who by the basic understanding of that word is someone infinitely kind and wise would find no better better way to spend his time than be incarnated in creatures that torture others? And all the more so that vicious of all creatures mankind?
While on the other hand I can see that a wise and kind God would create the world with some deep purpose in mind. But that He should be spending his time torturing all creatures is absurd and contradictory to Torah as you can see in any and all Rishonim who wrote about the faith of the Torah.
{Where did the rishonim write about this? you might ask. Mainly in the books of Musar and world view issues like the Guide. Besides that, the Ari brings at the beginning of the Eitz Chaim that God made the world from nothing --not from Himself. So there is in fact no argument on this point.]
There are plenty of Jews which worship dead people
There is no good reason to assume that idolatry is limited to non Jews. There are plenty of Jews which worship dead people- and hang their portraits all over the place. We know that to marry a worshiper of idols is forbidden, but that does not mean a gentile. Rather all religious Jews worship dead people. \[The fact of their worship of dead people does not help them to be considered Jewish even though they might make a show and dance of their adherence to rituals. The religious Jews that worship the pictures of dead people shows they are idolaters. [In fact the overly strict adherence חומרות יתירות to rituals might be thought to hide an intension to pretend to be kosher, while in fact hiding some hidden agenda to entice others to their worship of dead people. []
2.9.21
to stick with the path of straight Torah requires a test
I think that to stick with the path of straight Torah requires a test. Or at least that might have been the case with me. For I certainly tasted the taste of Torah in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. But all that time I would say the book of prayers of Rav Natan, the disciple of Rav Nahman. So I was aware of the light of straight Torah of the Gra , but also had a feeling for the teachings of Rav Nahman.
The most obvious approach would have been to hold onto the good in each path. I however got off on a tangent. So today I would like to correct that fault--but that apparently is easier said than done. And furthermore, it still seems to me to be unclear how to strike a proper balance. Still the rule seems to be that if one has merited to be in a straight Litvak yeshiva that walks in the path of the Gra, one should never leave that under any circumstances. For that is where the real light of Torah is. But on the side I see learning the ideas and good advice of Rav Nahman to be helpful.
It seems to me that in the religious world there are many people that pretend to learn Torah for the sake of money or to get some sort of stupid job. But these are not people that have tasted the light of Torah. --even though these are the vast majority of the religious world that need their show and public performance of their great devotion in order to make money. For simple people like me, we might ask why is there such a tremendous need of the religious to show off their great religiosity? Perhaps because it is not for God, but rather for men to gain jobs using Torah as their means of making money.
i might mention that Rav Nahman himself made a point to warn people about the Torah scholars who are demons which are the vast majority or the religious authorities.] And it is well known in Breslov the problem of the מפורסמים של שקר the famous and great religious authorities who are in fact demons.--even the authorities in Breslov itself.]
{This explains the serious problem that the religious world is quite lunatic(as is all too obvious). The reason is not from any lack of sincerity, but rather that they follow leaders who are demons. sadly, the true Torah scholars in the Litvak yeshivot do not object. --so secular Jews think that everyone agrees with the demons. That reminds me of the incident of Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza in which you see there is a need to object against the Torah scholars that are demons--even if you know that no one will listen.
Baali teshuva [newly religious] are probably the reason the religious world is somewhat insane. The problem is this: how can you trust anyone who has abandoned the path of their parents? If they can betray once, they can betray again.
1.9.21
I must state for a fact that my dad developed laser communication between satellites for that was the exact thing he created at TRW and I knew from first hand knowledge.
There does not seem to be much I can do about making the record clear, but I must state for a fact that my dad developed laser communication between satellites for that was the exact thing he created at TRW and I knew from first hand knowledge. I saw that laser at TRW itself, and knew from conversations with my dad and his coworkers and friends what it was for. [The USA had been struggling to catch up with the USSR during the 1960's, and that creation of laser communication between satellites was an essential part of that. It was so that the Soviets would not be able to eavesdrop on USA communications. But there are a lot more advantages to that than just keeping communications secure. Still my dad, Philip Rosten, ought to be mentioned as the inventor .[This is the same principle of fiber optics. and is what is used even now for Internet connections.] [He had been brought in at first because TRW was developing infrared satellites. Only when these were launched he started work on laser communication.
[The adopted name Rosten was changed from the family name Rosenblum at the time he started work at TRW. But when in the USAF and when he invented the Infra Red telescope his name was Philip Rosenblum.] [He had vowed to himself to change his name to a shorter one because after WWII he had to interrogate Germans to see if they were part of the Nazi Party. When it was clear they were not he had to sign his name Rosenbloom to their release papers. That meant singing his name thousands and tens of thousands of times.]
You can imagine that I admired my dad a lot and wished to walk in his ways, but I simply found that I had zero ability in Mathematics and Physics subjects that came as naturally to him as drinking water.
Eventually I discovered the idea of "Girsa" just saying the words and going on brought in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים and that helped a lot towards gaining some small understanding, but not much. Just enough I guess to get me in a the Polytechnic Institute of NYU, but that doesn't change my basic lack of ability.
the USSR stood for the union of soviet republics. Yet the actual soviets were defunct after 1920. There were no more trade unions.
It is an odd fact that that the USSR stood for the union of soviet republics. Yet the actual soviets were defunct after 1920. There were no more trade unions. Trade functions were incorporated into the Bolshevik party and under the control of political commissars. While strikes were the prime tool to bring down the previous government, a strike during the time of the USSR was straightforward treason-and punished accordingly.
bitul Torah
Rav Nathan, the disciple of Rav Nahman made his way to Israel about 11 years after Rav Nahman died. The first stop after was Istanbul where he encountered a middle man that cheated him. He was aware of this but since he could not speak the language he had no choice but to go along with it. People there in Istanbul told him later the story of a fellow who was a tremendous "matmid" [diligent] in learning Torah. (Leib Ashkenazi) who some years before that also had been cheated. He bought a ticket and entered the ship to wait for its departure. He waited for a long time until he decided something was "off". He went to find out, and it turned out that that ship had been out of service for years. So he went to the person that sold him the ticket and said, "For the loss of the money I forgive you. But for the bitul Torah I do not, and surely God will give you what you deserve." [Soon after that the cheater died.] {Autobiography of Rav Nathan vol II. paragraph 105] [Bitul Torah refers to the sin of being able to learn Torah but not doing so. A loose translation would be "wasting time from learning."]
You can ask why did this catch my attention? It is because you usually do not hear about the problem of bitul Torah anywhere except in the Litvak world. And in fact in most of the Litvak places I have hung out in, most people would be learning Torah even if there was no such sin as bitul Torah. The people that I knew in Shar Yashuv and the Mir would be learning Torah even if they would have no reward for it at all. There is some inner essence of Torah that one can be connected to that goes beyond the borders of this world. The reason for this is that one needs to be connected in some sense to the Gra.[as are Litvak yeshivot]. When one is connected with the Gra, the light of Torah gets through to one's soul.
asking secular Jews for money
The religious world asking secular Jews for money is the greatest of all possible spiritual levels. Even though they say that "learning Torah" is their goal, the actual goal is to get money from secular Jews --i. e that means the show and pretense of keeping some rituals of Torah. Emphasis on rituals provides a disguise for this fraud. And there is a tendency to present their leaders as super smart, where as reality shows the religious leaders are stupid, and use the appearance of Torah to provide a a show
You can count on religious Jews begging for money--and why? For the purpose they they uphold the whole world in their merit. [Thus they say.]
Religious Jews have discovered that by a show of religiosity, they can get money from secular Jews. Therefore the main emphasis is on a show of rituals.
31.8.21
increase in parasites
Global warming seems to affect the seas in such a way that there is an increase in parasites. Most people have heard of this in terms of fish in the North Sea -and Salmon. But they can get under the skin of people also. The way to deal with this is this: If you see something that looks like a sore after going in the water it is possible it is a parasite. These sorts of creatures do not like to be squeezed. But just squishing them is not enough. After squishing that area one should apply alcohol.
[The squishing is to get rid of the protective liquid they set up as a defense. You have to get rid of that liquid first. Then rub the alcohol into that area --and that gets rid of the parasites.]
[If this does not seem like the subject for a blog let me mention the Gemara in Hulin סכנתא חמירא מאיסורא "One must be stricter about danger than prohibitions."
Most secular studies are bitul Torah.
Most secular studies are bitul Torah. As for the issue of making a living, Rav Shach said one should learn Torah until one is married, and then just take whatever job presents itself. [But Physics and Math would be considered as a part of learning Torah according to the Rambam in the Mishna Torah where he says one should divide the day into three: the Written Law, The Oral Law, and the Gemara- and he adds the subjects he brought in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah are in the category of Gemara] [The Rambam and Ibn Pakuda also hold this idea with Metaphysics. What Ibn Pakuda means is clear--right there on the first page of the Chovot Levavot. But later on Metaphysics went beyond Plato and Aristotle to include Kant and Hegel.
29.8.21
Rav Nathan, the disciple of Rav Nahman of Breslov got to Israel. The disciples of the Gra were the people that extended hospitality to him.
People will always look for prior events in someone's life to explain why they turned to crime. Yet as any parent will tell you--kids are different from the very first day they are born. Maybe some of that is DNA. Maybe some of it is from the the inborn soul. [In modern idiotic thought, the soul is non existent. This is due to a very unscientific idea called "scientism" that only what science knows is true. And that view is the opposite of science which assumes that we do not know, and tries to find out what we do not know. Science itself does not assume it is all knowing. So on one hand, I can see why the Left tries to create a situation in which there is no hierarchy. Everyone has the same amount of stuff- so that their external experiences will all be the same. {Thus "equality" in the amount of stuff is the goal of Leftists.} Still this disagrees with the inherent differences in DNA and in the soul. And it ignores lobsters which also have a hierarchy as Jordan Peterson points out. [as do all mammals] The hierarchy of lobsters does not come from capitalism. And Communism did not get rid of hierarchies and who would be on top and then second to that etc. Trotsky found out the hard way that Communism did not get rid of hierarchy. He had a simple word to say for him to be the top. He was the leader of the Petrograd Soviet. And that was the top soviet in the USSR and was offered the top job. [He was offered by Lenin to be to leader of the USSR.] He declined because he believed the only hierarchy should be the working people as opposed to the welfare recipients. [i.e the non workers]. He di not think anyone should be on top\except the Central Committee.
The Communist ideal did not lead to an increase in prosperity and freedom which were its stated goals. [This is in spite of the fact that many people in czarist Russia wanted stability before freedom and prosperity which is why they supported the Bolsheviks]
28.8.21
אבי עזרי הלכות גיטין פרק ב' הלכה ט'
רב שך asks on the גר''א. I was at the sea and contemplating this question and it occurred to me a surprising thing that רב שך had a ready made answer to this question which he had just stated before! The basic issue is this: The שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק רמ''ג ס''ק י''א brings a "some say". The case is one says to two people write a שטר and by it take possession of my field. This alternate opinion holds he can not change his mind about the שטר. [The previous opinion was that he could change his mind]. The גר''א in his notes there ס''ק י''ד brings the source of this alternate opinion from גיטין פרק ג. That a woman can make a messenger to receive her גט even though it has not been written yet. The questions are these: אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם a person can not cause possession [cause to be possessed or to possess] of something that has not yet entered into this world. And the source that the גר''א brings for this does not seem to answer this difficulty since the woman is making a messenger which is an extension של her יד. She is not now causing the גט to be possessed. The answer I believe starts with the observation that the שליח קבלה is not a general messenger, but rather specifically for גט which has not yet come into the world. But that is just the beginning of the answer. The total answer to the גר''א comes from the very idea that רב שך brings in that law in הלכות גיטין פרק ב' הלכה ט. That is the case where a man says to two people to write a גט and give it to his wife. In this case he is making them messengers on the total divorce process, not specially on the writing of the גט. This is exactly the same thing in that opinion in the שלחן ערוך חושן משפט רמ''ג and also in the law that the גר''א brings. When one says write a שטר and by it קונה my field, he is not making them specially agents for the writing, but rather agents to cause possession. And that is the same thing with the law the גר''א brings. She is not making her an agent to receive that specific גט but rather any שטר that causes her to become divorced.
רב שך שואל על הגר''א. הנושא הוא זה: השלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק רמ''ג סעיף י''א מביא דעה כזו. המקרה הוא אחד אומר לשני אנשים כתבו שטר ובאמצעותו תקנו את השדה שלי ["כתבו שטר וזכו בו"]. הדעה החלופית הזו גורסת שהוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו לגבי המסמך. [הדעה הקודמת הייתה שהוא יכול לשנות את דעתו]. הגר''א בהערותיו שם ס''ק י''ד מביא את מקור הדעה החלופית הזו מגיטין ריש פרק התקבל שאישה תוכל לעשות שליח לקבל את הגט שלה למרות שזה עדיין לא נכתב. השאלות הן אלה: אדם אינו יכול לגרום קניין [לגרום להחזקה או להחזיק] בדבר שטרם נכנס לעולם. והמקור שהגר''א מביא לכך אינו עונה על הקושי הזה כיוון שהאישה עושה שליח שהוא הרחבה של יד שלה. היא לא גורמת כעת לרכוש את הגט. התשובה מתחילה בהתבוננות שהשליח קבלה אינו שליח כללי אלא דווקא עבור גט שטרם הגיע לעולם. אבל זו רק ההתחלה של התשובה. התשובה הכוללת לגר''א באה מעצם הרעיון שרב שך מביא את בהלכות גיטין פרק ג' הלכה ט'. זה המקרה שבו אדם אומר לשני אנשים לכתוב גט ולתת אותו לאשתו. במקרה זה הוא הופך אותם לשליחים על תהליך הגירושין הכולל, לא במיוחד על כתיבת הגט. זה בדיוק אותו דבר באותה דעה שלחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן רמ''ג סעיף י''א וגם בחוק שהגר''א מביא בס''ק י''ד. כאשר אחד אומר "לכתוב שטר ועל ידי השטר לרכוש את השדה שלי"(כתבו שטר וזכו בו), הוא לא גורם להם להיות לסוכנים במיוחד לכתיבה, אלא רוכשים. וזה אותו דבר לגבי החוק שהגר''א מביא. היא לא הופכת אותה לסוכנת שתקבל את הגט הספציפי הזה, אלא כל שטר שגורם לה להתגרש.
Rav Shach brings in that law in אבי עזריin the Avi Ezri Gitin perek 2 laws 8 and 9.
Rav Shach asks on the Gra. I was at the sea and contemplating this question and it occurred to me a surprising thing that Rav Shach had a ready made answer to this question which he had just stated before! The issue is this: The Shulchan Aruch [Choshen Mishpat 241 paragraph 11 ]brings a "some say". The case is one says to two people write a document and by it take possession of my field. This alternate opinion hold he can not change his mind about the document. [The previous opinion was that he could].
The Gra in his notes there brings the source of this alternate opinion from Gitin [פרק התקבל]. That a woman can make a messenger to receive her divorce doc even though it has not be written yet.
The questions are these: a person can not cause possession [cause to be possessed or to possess] of something that has not yet entered into this world. And the source that the Gra brings for this does not seem to answer this difficulty since the woman is making a messenger which is an extension o her had. She is not now causing the divorce doc to be possessed.
The answer I believe starts with the observation that the messenger is not a general messenger but rather specifically for that divorce doc --which has not yet come into the world. But that is just the beginning of the answer. The total answer to the Gra comes from the very idea that Rav Shach brings in that law in אבי עזרי Avi Ezri Laws of Gitin perek 2 law 8 and 9. That is the case where a man says to two people to write a divorce doc and give it to his wife. In this case he is making them messengers on the total divorce process, not specially on the writing of the divorce. This is exactly the same thing in that opinion in the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 243 and also in the law that the Gra brings. When one says write a doc and by it cause so and so to posses my field he is not making them specially agents for the writing but rather agents to cause possession. And that is the same thing with the law the Gra brings. She is not making her an agent to receive that specific doc but rather any doc that causes her to become divorced.
27.8.21
the only places one finds people sitting and learning Torah for its own sake is in Litvak Yeshivot
One thing is clear -that the only places one finds people sitting and learning Torah for its own sake is in Litvak Yeshivot. It is a curious fact that only people that walk in the path of the Gra have the "heshek" driving desire to learn Torah for no other motive than for itself, not even for the reward of the next world.
{I believe this fact deserves wide spread attention because it is extremely significant. It is obvious to anyone who has stepped for one second into any Litvak Yeshiva, but some people have not and so this fact deserves to be general knowledge.--Even for people like myself who are not up to the level of learning and keeping Torah as we should, at least we ought to know what real authentic Torah is.]
26.8.21
But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.
It was mentioned to me recently the problem of totalitarianism. In answer to this I mentioned the very strange occurrence of Freedom and Justice for All, limited government, and balance of powers from the English kings who were tyrants in every single possible meaning of that word. How in the world did limited government happen to come into existence under the signature of King John? The Magna Carta. And the provisions of Oxford under Henry III? I have been contemplating this enigma for a long time but have not written about it because it comes under the category of problems in the human situation which seems to be mysterious. [The dinge an sich of Kant] Or as Michael Huemer puts it, "Why are people irrational about politics?" [Though they defend their beliefs based on some kind of "rational"] How s it then than from that arose the Constitution of the USA? Or the Parliamentary system of England?
If anything, England is the last place on the planet that one would expect limited government to arise from.
[I mean to say that after reading a bit of Kant and the Friesian School I do not wonder much about issues that I think are beyond human or even pure reason. I figure once one gets out of the limits of possible experience, reason tends to begin to contradict itself. Even though government is something that people do experience, still it is not possible to know what is best based on experience. You can not derive an is from an ought. Issues of value and morality might be related to how things are, but are not derivable from them.
[I think it is a good idea to learn the development of the English and American system of government in order to gain a clear idea of their essence--what government can not do. Limits on Federal powers. What they can not force you to learn, what they can not force you to pay for, for what they can not force you to say , etc. a long and infinite list of all the things the government can not do. Why is that? Because Federal government has limited and openly stated powers. Anything outside of that very short list is off limits to the government. But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.
Rav Nahman had a clear idea of learning Torah
I was looking at the five letters that Rav Nahman wrote to his friends and family. In one he writes to one of his sons in law and tells him to write back telling him how many pages of Gemara he learns every day "for in this is my desire". You certainly see that Rav Nahman had a clear idea of what learning Torah and keeping Torah is all about. So why do you not see the sort of intense study of Torah in Breslov that you see in the most average Litvak yeshiva? The reason is that most people in Breslov are fallen souls like myself, --people that have a hard time studying anything--much less Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha.
People like us need more encouraging things--and for that reason in Breslov people spend more time on the books of Rav Nahman.
[My own approach to Gemara is that a lot depends on the time one has available. When I was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir I had the whole day and night. Later when I was at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU doing Physics, I had less time for Gemara. So what I suggest is to divide one's time in equal proportions. Or at minimum to do one half page of Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha--which is about 40 minutes. Or in place of that to do a section of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. (The books of Rav Chaim of Brisk are the beginning of a new way of learning. Before him the emphasis was more on Tosphot. However there is in both ways a great deal of merit.]
25.8.21
גיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב
The basic issue in גיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב is this: One says to two people to write a גט and give it to a messenger. The גמרא asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The רמב''ם says the question is referring to a case when the גט was found to be null. To רש''י, the issue is if the גט was lost, but if found null obviously one could write another"
To רב שך the argument depends on the question if writing the גט requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.
What רב שך means is: The difference is this: If writing the גט requires to be a messenger from the husband שליחות, then we can understand that after he has written a גט and it אבד it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. This might be the doubt in the גמרא on page 63 maybe the שליחות was fulfilled since he wrote the גט as commanded. This is how רב שך explains רש''י that holds the doubt of the גמרא is if it was lost. But if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another. And this part of the answer of רב שך makes sense.
However even if we say that the רמב''ם holds the writing does not require שליחות rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends? To write it just once, or at least once. But to say the argument between רש''י and the רמב''ם does not seem to depend on the question of if the גט requires שליחות or only a command."
It occurred to me that we can understand רב שך in this way. Let's think about the difference between שליחות and commanding. Making a messenger to give a גט could not apply in any way to an invalid גט. But commanding to write a גט can apply to an invalid גט. So we can understand the Rambam that telling two people to write a גט can be similar to when the husband himself writes a גט. It can be found to be invalid. And if so he can write another. But if his command to write a גט can apply twice, that is the question of the גמרא. So in short רש''י holds telling two to write a גט is from שליחות and thus writing twice can only be a doubt if the גט was lost. But there certainly can be no doubts if the גט was found to be invalid. He certainly did not appoint the two to write an invalid גט. So they can write another. But to the רמב''ם who holds it is merely a command and thus there can be a doubt if it was found to be invalid if they can write another.
הנושא הבסיסי בגיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב הוא כזה: אחד אומר לשני אנשים לכתוב גט ולתת אותו לשליח שהוא יתן אותו לאשתו. הגמרא שואל, "האם הוא מתכוון לכתוב את זה פעם אחת בלבד, או לכתוב את זה עד שזה נגמר?" הדבר נותר כפקפוק. הרמב''ם אומר השאלה מתייחסת למקרה בו התגלה כי הגט בטל. לרש''י, הבעיה היא אם הגט אבד, אך אם הוא נמצא בטל אפשר לכתוב עוד אחד
לרב שך הוויכוח תלוי בשאלה אם כתיבת הגט דורשת שליחות או פשוט פיקוד של הבעל. מה שאומר רב שך הוא: ההבדל הוא זה: אם כתיבת הגט דורשת שליחות, אז נוכל להבין שאחרי שכתב גט וזה אבד ייתכן שיהיה ספק אם מילא את משימתו . זה יכול להיות הספק בגמרא בעמוד 63 אולי השליחות התמלאו מאז שכתב את הגט כמצווה. כך מסביר רב שך רש''י שמחזיק בספק הגמרא אם הוא אבד. אבל אם פשוט יתברר שהוא בטל, כמובן שהוא יכול לכתוב אחר. וחלק זה של התשובה של רב ברור .אולם גם אם נגיד שהרמב''ם מחזיק שכתיבת הגט אינה דורשת שליחות אלא רק פקודה של הבעל, ובכל זאת אני יכול לראות שיש אותו ספק בדיוק עד כמה מצוותו נמשכות? לכתוב את זה רק פעם אחת, או לפחות פעם אחת. אבל לומר שהטיעון בין רש''י לרמב''ם לא נראה תלוי בשאלה אם הגט דורש שליחות או רק פקודה. "
עלה בדעתי שנוכל להבין את רב שך בצורה זו. בואו נחשוב על ההבדל בין שליחות לפיקוד. לעשות שליח לתת גט לא יכול להיות שייך בשום צורה לגט לא חוקי. אבל הפקודה לכתוב גט יכולה לחול על גט לא חוקי. אז נוכל להבין את הרמב"ם שאמירה לשני אנשים לכתוב גט יכולה להיות דומה לבעל עצמו שכותב גט. אפשר אחר כך לגלות שהוא לא חוקי. ואם כן הוא יכול לכתוב אחר. אבל אם הפקודה שלו לכתוב גט יכולה ליישם פעמיים, זו שאלת הגמרא. אז בקיצור רש''י מחזיק שאמירה לשניים לכתוב גט הוא משליחות ולכן כתיבה פעמיים יכולה להיות רק ספק אם הגט אבד. אבל בהחלט לא יכולים להיות ספקות אם הגט לא היה חוקי. הוא בוודאי לא מינה את השניים לכתוב גט פסול. אז הם יכולים לכתוב עוד אחד. אבל לרמב''ם המחזיק היא רק פקודה ולכן יכול להיות ספק אם הוא נמצאה פסולה אם הם יכולים לכתוב אחר
Gitin page 63, side B.
The basic issue in Gitin is this: One says to two people to write a get and give it to a messenger. The Gemara asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The Rambam says the question is referring to a case when the get was found to be null. To Rashi, the issue is if the get was lost, but if found null obviously one could write another"
To Rav Shach the argument depends on the question if writing the get [divorce] requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.
What Rav Shach means is: The difference is this: If writing the get [divorce] requires to be a messenger from the husband, then we can understand that after he has written a get [divorce] and it got lot it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. This might be the doubt in the Gemara on page 63 maybe the messenger-ship was filled since he wrote the get as commanded. This is how Rav Shach explains Rashi that holds the doubt of the gemara is if it was lost. But if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another. And this part of the answer of Rav Shach makes sense.
However even if we say that the Rambam holds the writing does not require messenger-ship rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends? To write it just once, or at least once. But to say the argument between Rashi and the Rambam does not seem to depend on the question of if the get requires "messenger-ship or only a command."
I later was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me that we can understand Rav Shach in this way. Let's think about the difference between making a messenger and commanding. Making a messenger to give a divorce doc could not apply in any way to an invalid get. But commanding to write a get can apply to an invalid get. So we can understand the Rambam that telling two people to write a get can be similar to when the husband himself writes a get. It can be found to be invalid. And if so he can write another. But if his command to write a get can apply twice-that is the question of the gemara. So in short Rashi holds telling two to write a get is from messenger-ship and thus writing twice can only be a doubt if the get was lost. But there certainly can be no doubts if the get was found to be invalid. He certainly did not appoint the two to write an invalid get. So they can write another.
But to the Rambam who holds it is merely a command and thus there can e a doubt if it was found to be invalid if they can write another.
the reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication --warn people about fraud.
Even though I wish I could walk in the path of the Gra after having tasted the fruit, I still find that my situation does no allow me to learn Torah with that kind of diligence which is implicit in that path. I mean to say the problem of "bitul Torah". [Not learning Torah when one can.] It is hard to be in a Litvak yeshiva even for a short while and not realize the tremendous spirit of Torah that fills the place. Once one really tastes the sweetness of Torah it is like an addiction. Or as Aristotle put it: "Virtue is habit." One has a certain amount of free will to choose what sort of habit he wants to allow himself to get into. He or she knows that after something becomes a habit, it is difficult to break, or sometimes impossible after it gets hardwired. But one can exercise a certain amount of free will about what kinds of habits he or she wants to get into. Learning Torah is the best of all habits.
Yet there is also the need for an intellectual recognition of the value of learning Torah. Otherwise it is all too easy to get detracted. There are too many kelipot that try to distract a person who has merited to e sitting and learning Torah. There is too much fraud around and that would be the reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication --warn people about fraud.
24.8.21
I imagine that my dad's (Philip Rosten-Rosenblum) contribution to laser communication will be lost to history for lack of documentation. While he had been hired by TRW for the X ray satellites, when those had been launched, they had him work on a new kind of idea--laser communication. That is the same thing as radio waves except that you super impose signals on lasers instead of radio waves. That was very well known to me who first hand knowledge of his lab at TRW and his associates. However when TRW went under because of the KGB spy that had been found there, all documentation was lost and they sold their records to other aerospace corporations. In the mix up, my dad's name was lost. But I imagine that is no worse than the inventor of fire or the wheel whom we also do not know their names. [And by the way, it had nothing to do with the amazing advantages of laser communication as we see in fiber optics and the Space X laser communication system, but rather to have a signal system between satellites that the Soviets could not eavesdrop into.] That was at the height of the Cold War when the USSR and the USA were almost at the point of total war. Some system to protect American communications had to be found and that was my dad's idea. A way to have a system of communication that the Soviets could not listen into. Radio waves are spread out. Laser signals are focused. {TRW had noticed him because they wanted X ray satellites,-- and who better to get for that than the inventor of the Infra Red ray Telescope and later invented the Copy Mate Machine using X rays to for a perfect image.. Only after the last of those satellites were launched did the focus switch to laser communication.
There is an amazing spirit of Torah that seems to dwell in any place that closely follows the Gra.
Even though the Shulchan Aruch [by Rav Joseph Karo] was not written as a commentary on the Gemara, when I was learning Ketuboth, I found that opening up the Shulchan Aruch with the side commentaries always gave a fresh perspective on the subject. [Mainly that was from the Taz who generally was writing in answer to the Bach, and from that sort of back and forth discussion I always saw a deeper understanding of what the Gemara was saying. As my learning partner David Bronson once told me, that a lot of people saw something really special about the Shulchan Aruch in that they wrote their commentaries that it. [The Gra, Shach, Taz, etc.]
[That was during my third year at Shar Yashuv. And I have to say that my experiences at the few great Litvak yeshivas where I was at for a few years were astounding. There is an amazing spirit of Torah that seems to dwell in any place that closely follows the Gra. Certainly anyone I know can testify that their years at any Litvak yeshiva were the best of the lives. There really something astonishing about the Gra and the world of Litvak yeshivas which follow that path of straight Torah. What is straight Torah? you might ask. It is the idea of not adding and not subtracting from the Torah. What the Torah says--that is that.]
Henry II really tells us something about repentance. He had realized that his problem which were great stemmed from a previous sin. And he decided that everything that he was suffering was a result of that sin. He had muttered some words that his knights thought meant that they should kill Thomas Becket. -which they did. After some years his own children, the king of France and the king of Scotland were ready to invade and destroy him. What some people would do in such a situation of absolute crisis I do not know. But he decided he needed to make amends. He went to the place of the crime. Walked bare foot until his feet were bleeding. He went to the basement and ordered the monks to flog him 5 time for each monk. All together he was flogged 300 times. [Five times for 60 monks.] How many of us would repent to that degree after we have recognized what it was exactly that we did?
23.8.21
I do not see that a worm hole could get any where in this universe --any faster than one could go by regular space--since space seems to be almost flat. The only questions that I wonder about are the branes in String Theory which fill space.
I do not see that a worm hole could get any where in this universe --any faster than one could go by regular space--since space seems to be almost flat. The only questions that I wonder about are the branes in String Theory which fill space. [You need branes for the ends of open strings to hold onto]. Also there are the sort of extra folded up dimensions in String Theory. What I am wondering about is if these go anywhere? {String Theory seems the best thing out there in terms of understanding the basic nature of pace and time.}
Another thing that I can see could be helpful in getting around in this universe is a black hole. What I means is that black holes carry around space, and that is what makes the powerful emitters [sometimes]. [Cygnus X-1 is like that. It is powerful emitter of X-rays--that mass comes from its partner. It was a binary system at first.]] I mean inside nothing can leave. But there are black holes that carry around space. And when space is being carried around there is no upper limit about the speed of light. Since it is just space, not matter. So anything attached to space when space is moving around can go at any speed since from its point of view, it is just standing still. It is space that is moving.
22.8.21
learning every chapter ten times.
Rav Freifeld the founder of Shar Yashuv used to emphasize learning every chapter ten times. And when we were doing Ketuboth and Hulin this created for me a certain degree of tension.--For I wanted to "make progress." I think after a few years have passed, I can now see his point. And thus I would even like to share his idea with the world, that one never needs to give up if he or she encounters something hard to understand in his studies. Even after doing one chapter, one still does not understand. What I suggest is doing that chapter 10 times and then going on. [Or going back to the previous chapters if one is inclined at that point to do review.]
I had a sort of conflict between bekiut and iyun [fast learning and in depth learning]. For that reason I decided on a system of repeat every paragraph But when it comes to some subjects like physics I find the idea of review ten times of each chapter to be the best.]
21.8.21
Once I saw the operating room in Uman [Ukraine] and I swore to myself that I would never allow myself to be there. As maters turned out later,- I had been injured --the dogs in Sofia Park attacked me one night and I broke my right foot in three different places. I was brought to the local hospital and the doctors and nurses did a better job with much more dedication and efforts than I could ever have received in the West. The whole episode was a surprise. I was brought to the hospital and given a bed and never once asked about payment or insurance. Rather the opposite. The very first night [when the incident happened] they ran a whole battery of tests --blood tests, etc. And then I was given a bed and food, and never once was payment ever brought up. The operation that was a few days later certainly saved my life, as I need to walk to keep my metabolism going at a steady rate. However, I did notice that a lot of the great people I met in the Ukraine had been part of the previous Soviet apparatus. -Or trained under it. [What ever the reason for it, I found a great number of people in the Ukraine that were kind hearted to a degree which was astounding. But there were plenty of people that were the exact opposite. The criminal others were restrained during the time of the USSR. But once that fear began to dissipate, at lot of the old criminal elements in the Ukraine began to raise their heads at alarming rates.
[My impression is that I can see that the type of system that fits to USA is not the same sort of system that can find in that area of the world. Even to the degree that I can say that because of the differences between people, the type of system of the USSR worked there. But the efforts of communists to try to overthrow the government of the USA was and is a terrible mistake. The same kind of system should be not be thought to work uniformly anywhere. Just the opposite. The system of government of the USAI see I highly superior. If the issue is exploitation of workers, it is now the welfare system in the USA that exploits the workers to the advantage of the supposedly professional victims--people that make a living out of being victims
It is not out of communism that conern arose for the poor and the working class, but rather from Torah valuesas you can see in Prince Albert, the consort of Queen Eliabeth ,The nobility itself. from principles based on Torah.
But the idea that everything would have been nice and peachy in the USSR without Communism is absurd. There is a DNA tendency towards criminality that needed Russian rule to tame. The DNA there is totally different from Angle Saxon DNA. It tends very much towards violence.
Gitin page 63, side B
Gitin. I can see the difficulty in understanding the argument between Rashi and the Rambam in Gitin page 63, side B. However Rav Shach offers an answer to this great problem that I fail to see really answers it. One says to to two people "write a get and give it to a messenger." The Gemara wonders if this means to write once,- or at least once. To the Rambam this refers to a case that the get [divorce] was found to be null. To Rashi the case is when the get [divorce] was lost. To Rav Shach the argument depends on the question if writing the get [divorce] requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.
What Rav Shach means is: The difference is this: If writing the get [divorce] requires to be a messenger from the husband, then we can understand that after he has written a get [divorce] and it got lot it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. this might be the doubt in the Gemara on page 63 maybe the messenger-ship was filled since he wrote the get as commanded. this is how Rav Shach explains Rashi that holds the doubt of the gemara is if it was lost. but if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another. However even if we say that the Rambam holds the writing does not require messenger-ship rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends--to write it just once or at least once. Like a drill sergeant would say, "I told you to get this done. I did not say to TRY to get it done!!!". o to say the argument between Rashi and the Rambam does not seem to depend on the question of if the get requires "messenger-ship or only a command."
[The basic issue in Gitin is this: One says to two to write a get and give it to a messenger. The Gemara asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The Rambam says the question is referring to a case when the get was found to be null To Rashi, the issue is if the get was lost--but if found null obviously one could write another"]
20.8.21
Even a parakeet can learn to speak the right words of love and peace.
Even a parakeet can learn to speak the right words of love and peace. All the more so demons and devils. No wonder Rav Nahman [of Breslov] warned us about Torah scholars that are demons. Even demons can learn how to talk the talk and walk the walk. So what I suggest is to learn Torah in Litvack yeshiva where there is no pretense of holiness. There is simply the idea to learn and keep Torah with nothing added nor subtracted. No one pretends to be a "tzadik"
19.8.21
Friesian school [based on Kant, Fries, Nelson]
The approach of the Friesian school [based on Kant, Fries, Nelson]. Fries had an important insight into the need for immediate non intuitive knowledge [or what I would prefer to say that reason recognizes universals--not that it knows them. ] As you can imagine Kant is very great but his Copernican revolution leaves a lot to be desired. That we know synthetic a priori because we have the categories implanted in our minds (space and time and causality). That is in simple language: "I know it because I know it." Or as mothers tell their children, "Why? Because I said SO!"
So as Kelley Ross points out --there is a regress of reasons. Somewhere where reason has to
So Kelley Ross found a ready made system that needed a bit bringing down to earth to show its great implications as he does in his web site the Friesian.
So why was all this ignored? Academic philosophy since then has gone off into all sorts of odd directions. The reason for this is simple--people in professional philosophy are very smart. And they do a lot of reading. This enters them into the strange worlds. So they lose their common sense. And nothing is so important in philosophy as common sense.
[I should add that there is a certain degree of distain for Hegel in the Friesian school which I can not share. But I only read the Logic part of his encyclopedia and Mc Taggart and Cunningham's PhD thesis which gave me a very positive idea of what Hegel is all about. [Neo Platonism while taking Kant into consideration --i.e. how Kant modifies the Neo Platonic approach.] But to my mind, the Kelley Ross Fries approach is a modification of Plato as Dr Ross says himself about Socratic ignorance [we know what we do not know that we know] and Platonic knowledge.
18.8.21
I wish the USA had asked the Russians about Afghanistan. It was well known to the Russians that they never had any trouble clearing out an area of mujahedeen. They would bomb a whole area to smithereens until nothing was left. But usually the mujahedeen had warnings, so they were gone before the Russians arrived. Then in a week or two the mujahedeen would be right back.
[Another source of the trouble was that the Taliban brought stability where the mujahideen brought chaos. In areas where the mujahideen would go through, the stores would be looted and other much worse crimes. But under the Taliban, thieves lost their right arms. So a lot of people actually liked the Taliban. Person and property were safe as long as one obeyed the rules.]
Just a few conversations with a few Russian generals would have let the USA know the situation there before wasting lives for no reason.
Rav Nahman from Uman and Breslov you might have noticed does not emphasize learning Torah very much. And that has always seemed to me to be a minus in his system. [After all just look the mishna in Peah, "learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot" (and the Yerushalmi says that refers to every sinngle word of learning Torah or Gemara) and at the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Haim of Voloshin and see the importance of learning Torah] In the Nefesh HaHaim you see the main service of God is learning Torah. There he shows this from the Gemara, Midrash and Zohar.
But in the system of Rav Nahman you find the idea of נייחא דמוחין. [relaxing the mind] And you do see that people that learn all the time tend to lose the ability to think for themselves. They lose common sense. They are so busy thinking other people's thoughts that they end up having no thoughts of their own.
So clearly one needs some kind of balance. So while I certainly admit about the evil of bitul Torah [wasting time when one could be learning Torah] . How could anyone disagree with the statement of the sages הכרת תיכרת היכרת מעולם הזה ותיכרת בעולם הבא הנאמר על ביטול תורה still I can see the need for a relaxing period. [That statement of the sages is brought in Sanhedrin. It brings the verse, "'One who despises the word of God will be cut off to be cut off.' And they explain the double language cut off in this world to be cut off in the next world and they explain that verse refers to one who can learn Torah but does not do so."]
If I could learn Torah all the time, I would but somehow I have found obstacles. So perhaps I can see wat the sages said "Sometimes wasting time from Torah is the establishment of Torah"
פעמים ביטולה של תורה זהוה קיומה
Still there is some aspect of the Litvak world that seems problematic. The aspect that I see is the ignoring of the herem of the ra. That the Gra said that there is a deep sitra achra dark side aspect of the religious. o I say the farther one can be from the entire religious world the better. There is a etreme emphasis on rituals however there is a lack of sincerity and devotion to T- For the religious they want is not Torah or trust and faith in God, but that the secular Jews should a=have trust an faith in their religious leaders.
17.8.21
A lot of the of socialist movements forget the somewhat 100 millions of deaths caused by the communist movements of the the Bolsheviks, Chinese communism , Cambodia, etc.
16.8.21
a difficult Rambam and Aba Shaul in tractate Gitin 172.
I was at the sea again and reflecting on a difficult Rambam and Aba Shaul in tractate Gitin 172. Aba Shaul said a get [document of divorce] with witnesses and no time but it says "today" is okay. The Gemara says that seems to imply that "today" means the day she brings forth the get in court. Then it pushes that off and suggests No. Perhaps he holds like R Elazar." To the Rashbam this is simple. To the Rashbam if the law goes like R Elazar [that witnesses that see the get make it valid--not the signers] then we do not need the date in the get at all. But to the Rambam this sugia subject is difficult, because he holds like R Elazar and still also holds [laws of Gitin perek I: law 25] that if there are witnesses that signed, then there must be the date also. The Avi Ezri [of Rav Shach] explains the issue thus [if I got the gist of it]: The Ravaad holds once the date is a decree from the scribes then it is part of the required formula. [Otherwise all he would need to write would be "You are allowed to any man."] But the Rambam holds the the reason for the decree is what matters--covering up for the daughter of his sister. [who he married and then she had relationships with someone else and thus should be executed for adultery, but since she is his close relative he writes a get with a date before the time of the relations.]]
So how does that help us? By חזקה מעיקרא prior status. We know she was married. So until the last minute when she shows the get and we do not know when it was signed, then we assume it was at the last moment. And as Rav Shach shows in Laws of Sota from the Rashba that present status [which pushes the time backwards] only applies when there was an "act" that we do not know when it occurred. And here we know when the act of adultery happened. We just do not know what her status was at the time.
The question that has been bothering me is if this is so then why ever need a date when there are witnesses on a get [to the Rambam]? Would we now always say חזקה מעיקרא prior status? And thus always say that the date of the get is always at the last minute and s there would never be a case of covering up for the daughter of his sister? I am sure Rav Shach must answer this question, but so far I have no been able to see what his answer is.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I was at the sea again and reflecting on a difficult רמב''ם and אבא שאול in גיטין קע''ב. There אבא שאול said a גט with witnesses and no זמן תאריך but it says "היום" is בתוקף. The גמרא says that seems to imply that "today" means the day she brings forth the גט in court. Then it pushes that off and suggests "No. Perhaps he holds like ר' אלעזר." To the רשב''ם this is simple. To the רשב''ם if the law goes like ר' אלעזר [that witnesses that see the גט make it valid, not the signers] then we do not need the date in the גט at all. But to the רמב''ם this סוגיא is difficult, because he holds like ר' אלעזר and still also holds [הלכות of גיטין פקר א:כ''ה that if there are witnesses that signed, then there must be the תאריך also. The אבי עזרי of רב שך] explains the issue thus: The ראב''ד holds once the date is a decree from the scribes, then it is part of the required formula [תורף הגט]. [Otherwise all he would need to write would be: "You are allowed to any man."] But the רמב''ם holds the the reason for the decree is what matters: covering up for the daughter of his sister. חיפוי על בת אחותו [who he married and then she had יחסים with someone else and thus should be executed for adultery, but since she is his close relative, he writes a גט with a תאריך before the time of the יחסים.]
So how does that help us? By חזקה מעיקרא. We know she was married. So until the last minute when she shows the גט and we do not know when it was signed, then we assume it was at the last moment. And as רב שך shows in Laws of סוטה from the רשב''א that present status [which pushes the time backwards] only applies when there was an "act" that we do not know when it occurred. The question botherS me is if this is so, then why ever need a date when there are witnesses on a גט [to the רמב''ם]? Would we now always say חזקה מעיקרא prior status? And thus always say that the date of the גט is always at the last minute, and there would never be a case of covering up for the daughter of his sister? I am sure רב שך must answer this question, but so far I have no been able to see what his answer is.
שוב הייתי בים והרהרתי ברמב''ם קשה ובאבא שאול בגיטין קע''ב. שם אבא שאול אמר גט עם עדים ובלי זמן תאריך אבל כתוב "היום" הוא בתוקף. הגמרא אומרת כי נראה כי "היום" פירושו היום בו היא מביאה את הגט בבית המשפט. ואז הגמרא דוחה את זה ומציע, "לא. אולי הוא מחזיק כמו ר' אלעזר." לרשב''ם זה פשוט. לרשב''ם אם החוק הולך כמו ר' אלעזר [שעדים שרואים את הגט הופכים אותו לתוקף, לא החותמים] אז אנחנו לא צריכים את התאריך בגט בכלל. אבל לרמב''ם זה סוגיא קשה, כי הוא מחזיק כמו ר' אלעזר, ועדיין גם מחזיק בהלכות גיטין פרק א': כ''ה שאם יש עדים שחתמו, אז חייב להיות גם התאריך. האבי עזרי של רב שך מסביר את הנושא כך: הראב''ד מחזיק ברגע שהתאריך הוא תקנה של הסופרים, אז הוא חלק מהנוסחה הנדרשת [תורף הגט]. [אחרת כל מה שהוא יצטרך לכתוב יהיה: "את מותרת לכל אדם."] אבל הרמב''ם מחזיק שסיבת הגזרה היא מה שחשוב: כיסוי לבת אחותו. הוא התחתן עם בת אחותו והיא קיימה יחסי מין עם מי שהוא אחר, ולכן יש להוציאה להורג בגין ניאוף, אך מכיוון שהיא קרובת משפחתו, הוא כותב גט עם תאריך לפני תקופת יחסים.]
אז איך זה עוזר לנו? בגלל חזקה מעיקרא. אנו יודעים שהיא הייתה נשואה. אז עד הרגע האחרון כשהיא מציגה את הגט, ואנחנו לא יודעים מתי הוא נתנו, אז אנו מניחים שזה היה ברגע האחרון. וכפי שרב שך מראה בהלכות סוטה מהרשב"א שהמעמד הנוכחי [שדוחף את הזמן לאחור] חל רק כאשר היה "מעשה" שאיננו יודעים מתי הוא התרחש. כאן אנו יודעים מתי אירע מעשה הניאוף. אנחנו פשוט לא יודעים מה היה מעמדה באותה תקופה. השאלה שמטרידה אותי אם זה כך, אז למה בכלל צריך תאריך כשיש עדים על גט [לרמב''ם]? תמיד נגיד מעמד קודם של חזקה מעיקרא? וכך תמיד נאמר שתאריך הגט הוא תמיד ברגע האחרון, ולעולם לא יהיה מקרה של כיסוי לבת אחותו
This I included in Ideas in Shas even though I might still have to devote some more thought to this issue.
15.8.21
There is a lot of adding to the mitzvot which goes on in the religious world. I mean to say that most or all of what the religious emphasize are not actually things that are from the Written or Oral Torah. [note 1] However it can take a long time of learning until one finds this out. Plus there are hidden memes or sets of principles that are unspoken. One major idea in the religious world is "Yihus" [family lineage.] You might be from a society where the hierarchy is based on competence and assume that the religious world is also based on competence. However it is not. Rather it is based on "Yihus."
So you might think that if you learn Gemara well you will get ahead. and get the best shiduch. [And I might add that one should not learn Torah for these reasons. However one might learn Torah for its own sake and still hope that he will get a good shiduch.] However competence has nothing to do with getting ahead in the religious world.
[note 1] the "kipa" is one example. There is a teaching in tractate sofrim that when one is reading from the Torah scroll in a minyan, then one needs to cover his head. Besides that there is no commandment from the Torah or from the words of the scribes.
But somehow using Torah as a tool to make money which is openly a prohibition is counted as a mitzvah. In fact, this is the most common obsession in the religious world to constantly ask secular Jews for money. "Give us money because we are learning Torah!" If only they would in fact be learning!! [Obviously they are not except for the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or Brisk. Besides the few great Litvak yeshivot, this claim is a lie. And another point is that asking money for learning Torah is against the Torah. A shovel to dig with. See commentary of the Rambam on Pikei Avot perek 4
The problem in the religious world is that they think they are morally and intellectually superior and baali teshuva [new comers to their religion] are born to be their slaves. So competence has nothing to do with the hidden values. Rather birth. But baali teshuva that have little worldly experience are taken in by this fraud.-that is the fraud in which the frum pretend to great genius and higher moral standards.
But we know already that גניבת דעת tricking people to gain advantage over them is forbidden from the Torah. So I do not think the religious should be thought of as keeping the Torah, but rather as serious transgressors of Torah. The religious rituals do not indicate holiness. They are in the business of using the pretense of Torah to enslave the secular Jews that are not very learned [knowledgeable] in the actual written and oral law. It is upon their ignorance and naivety that the frum [religious in show] play upon.😊
The issue is not the areas in which the law of the Torah is ignored by the so called "frum".The issue is that they lie constantly and therefore nothing they say can be accepted. Even in the few areas where what they say has surface correspondence to the actual Torah. I do not trust anything the frum say. I an smell their BS a mile away. And that is the true path of Torah. To avoid the liars.