Ketuboth page19.כתובות דף י''ט Rav Shach brings this subject in Laws of Loans perek 2 halacha 6.

 I have been thinking about a גמרא brought in כתובות דף י''ט. There ר' נתן said if you have a case where לוי owes ראובן 100 and ראובן owes שמעון 100, you take from לוי and give to שמעון. If ראובן has a document showing that לוי owes him and לוי says it is paid already and ראובן agrees, we pay no attention to them since they might have conspired. What has been bothering me about this is that the property of לוי is anyway going to ראובן and from there to שמעון. So mainly what IS going on is the middle step. But then even more so you have the ר''ן there that asks  this: Why not just collect the document from ראובן. And he answers שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון.  Documents can not be taken as payment for a loan because they are not money in themselves. The general case when someone does not pay back a loan, the court can go and get land or movable property. What was bothering me was this question and answer of the ר''ן [רבינו ניסים]. Not that I have an actual question, just a sort of question in which I am wondering what is going on? Apparently in the first case we already know that לוי owes money to ראובן. So how do we know that? By the document! So what is collecting the document going to add anything to the situation? How would it help שמעון any more than we already are helping him recover the debt?

The ר''ן here asks why not collect the document showing that לוי owes money to ראובן. I wondered why this would make any difference if we already know that he owes money. Answer: because a loan with a document is more powerful than a loan without. It gets from property that was sold after the loan was made. 

The thing that makes the question of the Ran powerful is that if you have a case of a loan which is verbal, not with a document, the lender is believed if he says I paid it.  However I should add that this is not the normal case of a verbal loan since here the lender would not be believed because of the possibility that he is conspiring with the middle borrower to cheat Shimon.   

I have thought of a way of explaining the power of the question of the ר''ן.  It seems like this: The middle person, ראובן, has a document that לוי owes him money. And שמעון has a document showing that ראובן owes him money. But  ראובן has no money, nor any property that he sold after he borrowed.  But he has a document showing that Levi owes him money. So none of the property of לוי would come to  ראובן directly if not for the law of ר' נתן in כתובות י''ט. The point of the ר''ן is that perhaps the document of  ראובן ought to be given to שמעון in which case he would have a stronger claim on לוי. As it is is now, if לוי says the document has been paid and  ראובן agrees, we do not believe them because of a doubt. Maybe they are conspiring against שמעון. But if שמעון would have the document itself  that shows לוי owes him  money then from the basic law of loans לוי would not be believed because in the case of a loan with a document, the plea "I paid already" is not believed. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 I have been thinking about a gemara brought in Ketuboth page19. There R. Natan said if you have a case where Levi owes Reuben 100 and Reuben owes Simon 100, you take from Levi and give to Simon. If Reuben has a document showing that Levi owes him and Levi says it is paid already and Reuben agrees, we pay no attention to them since they might have conspired. What has been bothering me about this is that the property of Levi is anyway going to Reuben and from there to Simon. So mainly what i going on is the middle step. But then even more so you have the Ran there that asks  this: Why not just collect the document from Reuben. And he answers שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון.  Documents can not be taken as payment for a loan because they are not money in themselves. [The general case when someone does not pay back a loan, the court can go and get land or movable property]

What was bothering me at the beach the whole day was this question and answer of the Ran [Rabbainu Nisim]. Not that I have an actual question, just a sort of question in which I am wondering what is going on? Apparently in the first case we already know that Levi owes money to Reuben. So how do we know that? By the document! So what is collecting the document going to add anything to the situation? [How would it help Simon any more than we already are helping him recover the debt?]

The ר''ן here asks why not collect the document showing that לוי owes money to ראובן. I wondered why this would make any difference if we already know that he owes money. Answer: because a loan with a document is more powerful than a loan without. It gets from property that was sold after the loan was made.

The thing that makes the question of the ר''ן powerful is that if you have a case of a loan which is verbal, not with a document, the lender is believed if he says, "I paid it."  However I should add that this is not the normal case of a verbal loan, since here the lender would not be believed because of the possibility that he is conspiring with the middle borrower to cheat שמעון.   

I have thought of a way of explaining the power of the question of the Ran.  It seems like this: The middle person Reuven has a document that Levi owes him money. And Shimon has a document showing that Reuven owes him money. But Reuven ha no money nor any property that he sold after he borrowed.  But he has a document showing that Levi owes him money. So none of the property of Levi would come to Reuven directly if not for the law of R. Natan in Ketuboth 19. The point of the Ran is that perhaps the document of Reuven ought to be given to Shimon in which case he would have a stronger claim on Levi. As it is is now, if Levi says the document has been paid and Reuven agrees , we do not believe them because of a doubt. Maybe they are conspiring against Shimon. But if Shimon would have the document itself  that shows Levi owes him  money then from the basic law of loans Levi would not be believed because in the case of a loan with a document, the plea "I paid already" is not believed. 

______________________________________________________

חשבתי על גמרא שהובאה בכתובות דף י''ט. שם ר' נתן אמר אם יש לך מקרה שבו לוי חייב לראובן 100 וראובן חייב לשמעון 100, אתה לוקח מלוי ונותן לשמעון. אם לראובן יש מסמך שמראה שלוי חייב לו ולוי אומר שזה כבר שולם וראובן מסכים, אנחנו לא שמים לב אליהם כי ייתכן שהם קשרו קשר. מה שהפריע לי בזה הוא שהרכוש של לוי ממילא הולך לראובן ומשם לשמעון. אז בעיקר מה שקורה הוא הצעד האמצעי. אבל אז עוד יותר יש לך את הר''ן שם ששואל את זה: למה לא פשוט לאסוף את המסמך מראובן. והוא עונה שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון. לא ניתן לקחת מסמכים כתשלום עבור הלוואה כי הם אינם כסף בפני עצמם. במקרה הכללי כאשר מישהו לא מחזיר הלוואה, בית המשפט יכול ללכת לקבל קרקע או מטלטלין. מה שהפריע לי זו השאלה והתשובה של הר''ן [רבינו ניסים]. לא שיש לי שאלה ממשית, רק מעין שאלה שבה אני תוהה מה קורה? כנראה שבמקרה הראשון אנחנו כבר יודעים שלוי חייב כסף לראובן. אז איך אנחנו יודעים את זה? לפי המסמך! אז מה איסוף המסמך יוסיף משהו למצב? איך זה יעזור לשמעון יותר ממה שאנחנו כבר עוזרים לו לגבות את החוב?

הר''ן כאן שואל למה לא לאסוף את המסמך שמראה שלוי חייב כסף לראובן. תהיתי למה זה ישנה משהו אם אנחנו כבר יודעים שהוא חייב כסף. תשובה: כי הלוואה עם  מסמך חזקה יותר מהלוואה בלי. זה מגיע מנכס שנמכר לאחר מתן ההלוואה (משועבדים). הדבר שעושה את שאלת הר''ן חזקה הוא שאם יש לך מקרה של הלוואה שהיא מילולית (מלווה על פה), לא עם מסמך, מאמינים למלווה אם הוא אומר "שילמתי". עם זאת אוסיף שאין זה המקרה הרגיל של הלוואה מילולית, שכן כאן לא יאמינו למלווה בגלל האפשרות שהוא קושר קשר עם הלווה האמצעי לרמות את שמעון. חשבתי על דרך להסביר את כוחה של שאלת הר''ן. זה נראה כך: לאדם האמצעי ראובן יש מסמך שלוי חייב לו כסף. ולשמעון יש מסמך שמראה שראובן חייב לו כסף. אבל לראובן אין כסף או רכוש שהוא מכר אחרי שהוא לווה. אבל יש לו מסמך שמראה שלוי חייב לו כסף. אז ששום דבר מרכושו של לוי לא היה מגיע ישירות לראובן אלמלא דין ר' נתן בכתובות י''ט. הנקודה של הר''ן היא שאולי צריך למסור את המסמך של ראובן לשמעון שבמקרה כזה תהיה לו תביעה יותר חזקה על לוי. כפי שזה עכשיו, אם לוי אומר שהמסמך שולם וראובן מסכים, אנחנו לא מאמינים להם בגלל ספק. אולי הם קושרים קשר נגד שמעון. אבל אם לשמעון היה המסמך עצמו שמראה שלוי חייב לו כסף אז מחוק ההלוואות היסוד לוי לא היה נאמן כי במקרה של הלוואה עם מסמך, לא מאמינים לטענת "כבר שילמתי".

 Someone mentioned to me today about the problems he noticed in the USA on his recent trip there. That gave me a chance to explain a little behind the philosophy of  "learning Torah." In the Litvak Yeshiva world [at least as I experienced it at Shar Yashuv and the Mir] learning Torah is the best way to help oneself and the whole world. It is not considered as hiding from the world but rather as the only true and effective means to help the world. And you can see this to some degree in the way politics is practiced in the USA which involves a lot of Lashon Hara and Bitul Torah. Are things so much better now than they were in Elizabethan England? People then also had some say in things because of he House of Commons, but not to the degree that we see now. 

gentile slaves.

 You are not actually allowed to free a gentile slave. However as we know, a Jewish slave is freed after 6 years of work. [That is right after the Ten Commandments in Exodus.] The prohibition to free a gentile slave is from the verse בהם לעולם תעבודו (When the Torah discusses the case when one buys gentile slave it adds "you should work with them forever" i.e. not free them.  So you can see the point of the South. They realized that the slaves were not seeking freedom. They were seeking mastery--i.e. to become the masters. and that has happened.

So on one hand I can see the point of Abraham Lincoln in wanting to keep the Union together, still I do not know where he found that idea in the Constitution , not even if he had, why it would supersede states rights [the tenth Ammendment.] And besides all that, the real point comes to the fore in the verse that states on three things the land is destroyed and one of them is "עבד כי ימלוך (When a slave rules)." 

And the logical conclusion is that the USA should not let slaves rule.

[Rabban Gamliel had a gentile slave Tabi who was a great Torah scholar. But even so, Rabban Gamliel did not free him. Tabi himself was strict not to eat in a Suka, because slaves and women are not obligated to eat in a suka (during Sukot]).

 You do not really see in the Gra the idea of making yeshivot. And if he agreed with Rav Chaim of Voloshin about this is not clear. [Rav Chaim had come to ask him about this and there are a few versions of what the answer was. Some say he never answered.]  

So while this issue is unclear, there are at least some points which are clear. Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money. While on one hand learning Torah is the greatest of all mitzvot, still the general approach of yeshivot going around asking for money does not really mean that this is a good thing.

The religious seem intent on using Torah in one way or the other to get profit. In fact. I encountered a sort of odd attitude in which people in kollel would present themselves as "astronauts" [super achievers] which therefore deserved to be supported by all us plebeians. So it seems impossible to say that people in kollel are not doing it for money. Just the opposite--that seems to be their entire intension.

So what is the best thing is to learn Torah, but not to make a business out of it.

If you are learning Torah [which you should] then you should trust in God to support you. And if that trust is not fulfilled and you find yourself in need then you should find a job, but not go around asking people for money to support you. That is not trust in God. That is trust in flesh and blood. That is trust of the Dark Side

 I can understand to some degree why the Friesian School of thought is ignored in Philosophy. It is not exactly Kantian because of significant disagreements with Kant e.g the discursivity thesis. So if one is interested in Kant, he would not think of looking into almost any of the Neo Kantian philosophers. Plus Fries is not exactly constructing a tightly intricately constructed  Gothic Structure like Kant did or Hegel.

It takes generations for the implications of the Fries doctrine of immediate non intuitive knowledge to get put together in any sort of structure that could rival Kant of Hegel.

Still I find that the final synthesis of Dr Kelley Ross to where he pulls together all the threads of the Frisian approach to be quite impressive. See: https://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm

Mainly because this corresponded with my own experience in which I felt I had faith that was not derived by logic nor by experience.  And this makes sense in terms of the Middle Ages in which Faith and reason were considered two different kinds of sources of knowledge.

And as Hume noted: reason does not tell us any where as much. as it was thought to show.

 In the Gemara there are places that seem to reflect negatively on Jesus. I noted in the Tosphot HaRosh that that particular Yeshu could not have been Jesus since the Yeshu referred to in the Talmud was a disciple of R. Yehoshua ben P'rachia. That is he was right in the middle of the period of the second Temple. And Jesus was at the end of that period. That is a difference of about 150 years or more.

[Mixing this up is like mixing yourself up with someone born in 1872. ]

The disadvantage of this is that Christians do not gin from the perspective of the gemara [Talmud] in which the laws of the Torah are taken literally, not allegorically. And it is this allegorical interpretation of the laws which is the Achilles heel of  Christianity. So the prohibition against homosexuality is thought to be an allegory. There have to be laws they understand in order to have a functioning society, but then instead of God's laws they have to have man made laws.

 The Lagrange formulation of Physics sort of gets around causality by things going to their lowest energy levels. That is to say things things seem to know where to go. And all Physics today is formulated in the Lagrange or Hamiltonian formulation. In classical physics this was not really any different from Newton. Only in Quantum Mechanics the results are different.

So what I am saying is that  causality does not seem fundamental.

So even if I use the idea of causality in showing the existence of God, a more rigorous proof is really from Godel [known as the Ontological proof.]

[Space, time and causality are all challenges to Kant.  These challenge can be met in different ways, [e.g. Hegel, or Fries] But they must be met.

To Kant, space and time are synthetic a priori. We must conceive of things in terms of where and when  but they have no relation to things in themselves. They might exist or they might not. This was a particular challenge to  the second Frisian school of Leonard Nelson. It is answered in the PhD dissertation of Kelley Ross where he divides the question of the nexus of things (where they are) and the question of the objective existence of Space-Time. 

And to me space has always seemed quite real from the fact that though ether does not exist, still photons are produced by oscillation in some kind of medium. Also the Bohm effect shows space has mathematical structure.  That is all besides General Relativity. There the main formula is that curvature of space time is the source of the energy momentum tensor.

Russia can wipe out every man woman and child in the USA in ten minutes.

 Why not get into a war with Russia?. Let's us be practical before we go on a moral crusade.  Russia can wipe out every man woman and child in the USA in ten minutes. And even  if you take the nuclear approach off the table, they are not weak. The are taking an approach to Ukraine where they want to preserve lives because they want it to be part of the Russian Empire. Not destroy it. The USA they can cripple without firing a shot. Just one EMP. Or just take out all the satellites. [i.e. the Internet.]]

Another reason is I think you could say there is a generational divide in the Ukraine. The vast majority of older people that lived under the USSR remember those times as significantly better than the disastrous corrupt rule from Kiev. The younger generation is the opposite. getting involved in a moral crusade, while it might be right, but in this case it looks to be disastrously wrong. People could not care less if they are ruled from Moscow or Kiev as long as they have peace and stability. They did not have that under Kievian rule. And no prolonging the war does not add anything except  more casualties.

So in conclusion: End the war. Do not imagine you are going to "win".What could that mean "Win"" What are you going to do wipe out Russia? That is your idea of win? Les see how that works out. So far trying to win has come a wee close to destroying the American economy. So you want to see have far that can go?

In the Republic of  Plato and i noticed that the just society of Plato is where everyone is minding their own business. In fact,  Plato, is searching  for the answer to what is Justice finds it in this astounding formulation:  to mind one's own business.

He means this in its common sense way but also in the larger scheme of a just society where everyone knows their own job and is doing it. The carpenter, the shoemaker, etc. are all doing their job, and no one else's. And not sticking their nose into other people's business.

And you can see this in the modern world where the emphasis in high school if to and what you are good at and enjoy doing and to do that. 

So you do not have the idea of  the mediaeval period where everyone is supposed to learn the Written Law, the Oral Law, Physics and Metaphysics whether you are good at it or not. 

So the idea brought in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous, and in the writings of Rav Nahman  of Breslov of "Girsa"--saying the words and going on does not resonate with people. They figure if they do not understand what they are learning, then there is no point to it.

Especially in the Gra, we find that learning Torah is the highest ideal. It is not meant to be just for a select few. [In the Gra, himself you do not see this elaborated on, but in the Nefesh HaChaim of his disciple Rav Chaim of Voloshin this idea is brought down in volume 4. ]

Plus you see in the book of Rav Nachman that על  ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבוא לתבונות התורה לעומקה [Le.M vol I:13]  "By means of the word, one can come to the understandings of the Torah to its very depth."-- That is, just by saying the words, something gets absorbed and processed in one's deeper unconscious. 

בבא מציעא ע''ה ע''ב רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק י' הלכה ד' Bava Metzia pg 75 side B. Rambam Laws of a Lender and Borrower chapter 10 law 4

 

I wanted here to give a small introduction to the coming subject. In the Torah we have a prohibition of taking interest for a loan. The language of the Torah is "a bite"[Neshech] and "increase" [tarbit].

In tractate Bava Metzia right at the start of the chapter about interest  it asks why does the Torah use these two different words for interest? After all if he lends 100 in order to get back  hundred but the value of the hundred goes up to 120, then if we go by the beginning of the loan there is no increase and there is no bite. But if we go by the end of the loan there is both increase and bite. Or let's look at a different case. He lends 100 in order to get back 120. But at the time of repayment the value of 120 has gone down to 100. If we go by the beginning, there is both increase and a bite. If we go by the end there is neither increase nor bite. The Gemara after this does come up with a reason the Torah uses these two different words. However at this point there is a disagreement among Medieval authorities. Does the Gemara really have a doubt if we go by the beginning of a loan or the end? And most of them say, "No." For after all we have a vase of lending a bushel of wheat for a bushel of wheat. That is forbidden by a decree because the value might go up. [If the value does go up then he pays back money that is equal to the value of the original bushel.]] But all this is a decree and not from the Torah. So we see the Torah definitely goes by the beginning of a loan. This is the opinion of most medieval authorities. However the commentary on the Rosh called the notes of the Ashri and the Mordechai say that if fact the Gemara is in doubt if the Torah actually goes by the beginning of  a loan or the end. This is more or less what they write and that is how the Gra understands them. However Rav Shach writes that they also must agree with the other mediaeval authorities because of that law of a bushel fir a bushel and he bring a proof that they only say the case when he lends 100 for a 120 and the value of the hundred and twenty goes down to 100. He must give back the extra 20 anyway because we go by the beginning of the loan. But the opposite case they do not mention. It seems that they has no doubt that we do not go by the end of the loan. 

 רציתי לתת כאן הקדמה קטנה לנושא הקרוב. בתורה יש איסור לקחת ריבית עבור הלוואה. לשון התורה היא נשך ותרבית. בבא מציעא ממש בתחילת איזהו נשך הוא שואל מדוע התורה משתמשת בשתי המילים השונות הללו לעניין? הרי אם הלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה אבל ערך המאה עולה למאה ועשרים, אז אם נלך לפי תחילת ההלוואה אין תרבית ואין נשך. אבל אם נלך כפי סוף ההלוואה יש גם תרבית וגם נשך. או בוא נסתכל על מקרה אחר. הוא מלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה ועשרים. אבל בזמן הפרעון ירד ערך מאה ועשרים למאה. אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, יש גם תרבית וגם נשך. אם נלך לפי הסוף אין לא תרבית ולא נשך. הגמרא שאחרי זה אכן מעלה סיבה לכך שהתורה משתמשת בשתי המילים השונות הללו. אולם בשלב זה קיימת מחלוקת בין ראשונים. האם לגמרא באמת יש ספק אם אנחנו הולכים לפי תחילת הלוואה או בסוף? ורובם אומרים "לא". כי אחרי הכל יש לנו הדין של השאלת סאה בסאה. זה אסור בגזרה כי הערך עלול לעלות. [אם הערך אכן עולה אז הוא מחזיר כסף ששווה לערך הסאה המקורית]] אבל כל זה גזירה ולא מהתורה. אז אנחנו רואים את התורה בהחלט הולכת לפי תחילת ההלוואה. זו דעתם של רוב ראשונים. אולם פירוש הרא''ש הנקרא הגהות אשרי והמרדכי אומרים שלמעשה הגמרא מוטל בספק אם התורה אכן הולכת לפי תחילת הלוואה או בסוף. זה פחות או יותר מה שהם כותבים וכך מבין אותם הגר''א. אולם רב שך כותב שגם הם חייבים להסכים עם שאר הראשונים בגלל אותו דין של סאה בסאה והוא מביא הוכחה שאומרים את המקרה רק כשהוא מלווה מאה עבור מאה ועשרים וערך המאה ועשרים ירד עד  מאה. הוא חייב להחזיר את העשרים הנוספים בכל מקרה כי אנחנו הולכים לפי תחילת ההלוואה. אבל את המקרה ההפוך הם לא מזכירים. נראה שאין להם ספק שאנחנו לא הולכים לפי תום ההלוואה.

_________________________________________________________________________________

 I was at sea. There it occurred to me that I ought to explain in what is my disagreement with Rav Shach concerning the Ashri and Mordechai. The point of Rav Shach is that they must agree with the other Rishonim that always go by the beginning of a loan [to determine if there is interest]. Why because they only mention the case where one lends 100 to get back 120. There they say because of the doubt he must give back the extra 20. But they not say anything about the opposite case where he lends 100 to get back 100 but in the end that hundred is worth 120. Why do they not say there that he must give back 17 from the hundred that he gets back? So Rav Shach concludes that really we always go by the beginning. And the proof is "seah beseah" the prohibition to lend a bushel to get back a bushel which is forbidden by a decree but not from the Torah. So we see we always go by the beginning according to the law of the Torah.

My question on this is that if fruit and grain are like money, then even to lend 100 to get back a 100 would be on condition that the hundred does not go up in value. But if it does then one would give back the  value of the original 100.   On my side of this is the Gra who writes that the Ashri and Mordechai do have a doubt if we go by the beginning or the end.

____________________________

 I was at sea. There it occurred to me that I ought to explain in what is my disagreement with רב שך concerning the אשרי and מרדכי. The point of רב שך is that they must agree with the other ראשונים that always go by the beginning of a loan [to determine if there is interest]. Why because they only mention the case where one lends מאה to get back מאה ועשרים. There they say because of the doubt he must give back the extra עשרים. But they not say anything about the opposite case where he lends מאה to get back מאה, but in the end that מאה is worth מאה ועשרים. Why do they not say there that he must give back שבע עשרה from the מאה that he gets back? So רב שך concludes that really we always go by the beginning. And the proof is סאה בסאה the prohibition to lend a bushel to get back a bushel which is forbidden by a decree but not from the תורה. So we see we always go by the beginning according to the law of the תורה. My question on this is that if fruit and grain are like money, then even to lend מאה to get back a מאה would be on condition that the מאה does not go up in value. But if it does, then one would give back the  value of the original מאה.   On my side of this is the גר''א who writes that the אשרי and מרדכי do have a doubt if we go by the beginning or the end.

הייתי בים. שם עלה בדעתי שאני צריך להסביר במה מחלוקתי עם רב שך לגבי האשרי ומרדכי. הטעם של רב שך הוא שעליהם להסכים עם שאר הראשונים שתמיד הולכים לפי תחילת הלוואה [כדי לקבוע אם יש ריבית]. למה כי הם מזכירים רק את המקרה שמלווים מאה כדי לקבל מאה ועשרים. שם אומרים מחמת הספק חייב להחזיר את העשרים הנוסף. אבל לא אומרים כלום על המקרה ההפוך שהוא מלווה מאה כדי לקבל מאה, אלא בסופו של דבר שמאה שווה מאה ועשרים. למה לא אומרים שם שהוא חייב להחזיר שבע עשרה מהמאה שהוא מקבל בחזרה? אז רב שך מסיק שבאמת אנחנו תמיד הולכים לפי ההתחלה. וההוכחה היא סאה בסאה  שאסור בגזירה אבל לא מהתורה. אז אנחנו רואים שאנחנו תמיד הולכים לפי ההתחלה לפי חוק התורה. השאלה שלי על זה היא שאם פירות ותבואה הם כמו כסף, אז אפילו להלוות מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה יהיה בתנאי שהמאה לא תעלה בערכו. אבל אם כן, אז אפשר להחזיר את הערך של המאה המקורית. מצדי בזה הגר''א שכותב לאשרי ולמרדכי כן יש ספק אם הולכים בהתחלה או בסוף.

 I think it is those Dominion machines that tilted the election. All that was needed was to identify the few critical counties where a slight difference would tilt the election and in those counties to add a slight weight to the vote for the Left--instead of 1.0 each vote would be 1.01. That would be enough to turn the election.

And in terms of the later protests on the sixth of January : The first ammendment is the right for peaceful protest. They did not break any law.

That was based on an event in England where someone was imprisoned for the "crime" of petitioning Parliament. See the Pamphlets of Daniel Defoe. So the right is meant for this particular kind of case. 

 I was on my way to the sea and I saw a Breslov [Na Nach] fellow that goes around the main square in town with a shofar wakening people to repentance. I mentioned that I hold from and Gra and Rav Shach and he added that also the Chazon Ish, and Rav Kinyevsky [the Stipler and his son] and really all of the great Litvak sages learned the books of Rav Nahman.

And I definitely saw this myself when I was learning under the great Litvak sages of the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY.

But they did not become "Breslov". They stayed Litvaks that go by the Gra by added to that the insights of Rav Nahman. There is a good reason for this but I have felt for a long time that it is not worth going into in public. In public, I only want to recommend Rav Nahman,- even though I realize that the ideas can be taken in wrong directions. You really need the Gra to stay steady on the straight path of Torah. Rav Nahman within that context can add a great deal  

 The comments of the Ashri [That is the comments in small print on the Rosh] and the Mordechai on Bava Metzia page 75. Most Rishonim say that the Gemara there is not really in doubt if we go by the beginning or the end. But the Ashri and Mordechai say it is a doubt. So if one lends 100 to get back 120 and when the time of payment comes the 120 is worth the same as the original 100, then it is because of the doubt that we might go by the beginning one can not accept the additional 20.

But to most Rishonim we definitely go by the beginning, so not because of doubt,- but because it is openly fixed interest. [That is how the Gra understands the Ashri and Mordechei. But Rav Shach laws of Lender and Borrower 10 law 4 holds that the Ashri [that is a commentary on the Rosh] and the Mordechei do not actually disagree with the other rishonim.

]

But why is it so obvious to most Rishonim that we go by the beginning? Because of  "Seah be'Seah." [A bushel of wheat for a bushel of wheat.] That is forbidden from a decree of the sages because the price of a bushel might go up. 

But to me it seems the Ashri and Mordechai must be thinking that fruit or grain is different than money. While fruit of grain might be clear that it is only forbidden by decree, but money for money (and the value goes up) might very well be forbidden from the Torah itself. We see that the Gemara in Bava Metzia itself is aware that money can change in value. For that is the whole point when it says "He lends 100 for a 120 and at first the hundred is worth a danka and in the end 120 is worth a danka." [Inflation.] [They could have used "a bushel for a bushel" to show the point. So at least the Ashri and Mordechai are saying that money for money is different.]

What mean to say here is that the Ashri and Mordechai are holding only seah for a seah is a decree permitted from the Torah because we go by the beginning for fruit and graain, not money. For in money there is no decree that if one borrows 100 that he can not repay 100 because the value of the hundred might have gone up.

But it occurred to me to ask here that if so money for money ought to be even lighter than fruit for fruit because otherwise why would there not be a similar decree to repay 100 for a 100 in a case when the value has gone up. But that would seem to be the opposite of what makes sense. For if he would have said so in the beginning that would be interest from the Torah.

__________________________________________________________________________

The comments of the אשרי and the מרדכי on גמרא  בבא מציעא דף ע''ה. Most  ראשונים say that the גמרא there is not really in doubt if we go by the beginning or the end. But the אשרי and מרדכי say it is a doubt. So if one lends מאה to get back מאה ועשרים and when the time of payment comes the מאה ועשרים is worth the same as the original מאה, then it is because of the doubt that we might go by the beginning one can not accept the additional עשרים.

[That is how the Gra understands the Ashri and Mordechei. But Rav Shach laws of Lender and Borrower 10 law 4 holds that the Ashri [that is a commentary on the Rosh] and the Mordechei do not actually disagree with the other rishonim.

 But to most ראשונים we definitely go by the beginning, so not because of doubt but because it is openly ריבית קצוצה. 

But why is it so obvious to most  ראשונים that we go by the beginning? Because of  "סאה בסאה." [A סאה of wheat for a סאה of wheat. That is forbidden from a גזירה   because the price of a סאה might go up.]  But to me it seems the אשרי and מרדכי must be thinking that fruit or grain is different than money. While fruit of grain might be clear that it is only forbidden by decree, but money for money (and the value goes up) might very well be forbidden דאורייתא itself. We see that the גמרא  בבא מציעא דף ע''ה itself is aware that money can change in value. For that is the whole point when it says "He lends מאה for a מאה ועשרים and at first the מאה is worth a דנקא and in the end מאה ועשרים is worth a דנקא." [Inflation.]

What I mean to say here is that the הגהות אשרי  and מרדכי are holding only סאה בסאה is a decree אבל permitted from the תורה because we go by the beginning for fruit and grain, not money. For in money there is no decree that if one borrows מאה that he can not repay מאה because the value of the hundred might have gone up.

But it occurred to me to ask here that if so money for money ought to be even lighter than fruit for fruit because otherwise why would there not be a similar decree to repay מאה for a מאה in a case when the value has gone up. But that would seem to be the opposite of what makes sense. For if he would have said so in the beginning that would be ריבית קצוצה דאורייתא.

__________________________________________________

הערות האשרי והמרדכי בגמרא בבא מציעא דף ע''ה. רוב ראשונים אומרים שהגמרא שם לא באמת מוטלת בספק אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף. אבל האשרי ומרדכי אומרים זה ספק. אז אם מלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה ועשרים וכאשר מגיע זמן התשלום, המאה ועשרים שווה כמו המאה המקורית, אז בגלל הספק שנלך בהתחלה אי אפשר לקבל את עשרים הנוספת. אבל לרוב ראשונים אנחנו בהחלט הולכים לפי ההתחלה, אז לא בגלל ספק, אלא בגלל שזה בגלוי ריבית קצוצה. אבל למה זה כל כך ברור לרוב ראשונים שאנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה? בגלל "סאה בסאה". [סאה של חיטה לסאה של חיטה. זה אסור בגזירה כי המחיר של סאה עלול לעלות. אבל לי נראה שהאשרי והמרדכי חושבים שפרי או דגן שונים מכסף. אמנם פרי דגן אולי ברור שהוא אסור רק בגזירה, אבל כסף תמורת כסף (והערך עולה) יכול מאוד להיות אסור דאורייתא עצמו. אנו רואים שהגמרא בבא מציעא דף ע''ה עצמו מודע לכך שכסף יכול להשתנות בערכו. שהרי זה כל העניין כשאומרים "משאיל מאה למאה ועשרים ובתחילה המאה שווה דנקא ובסוף מאה ועשרים שווה דנקא". [אִינפלַצִיָה.]

מה שאני מתכוון לומר כאן הוא שההגות אשרי ומרדכי מחזיקים רק בסאה בסאה זו גזירה אבל מותרת מהתורה כי אנחנו הולכים בהתחלה לפירות ותבואה, לא כסף. (וכסף הוא ספק אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף) כי בכסף אין גזירה שאם לווה מאה אינו יכול לפרוע מאה כי ערך המאה עלול היה לעלות.

אבל עלה בדעתי לשאול כאן שאם כן כסף לכסף צריך להיות אפילו קל יותר מפירות לפירות כי אחרת למה לא תהיה גזירה דומה להחזיר מאה עבור מאה במקרה שהערך עלה. אבל נראה שזה ההפך ממה שהגיוני. כִּי אִם הָיָה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ בִּתְחִלָּה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רַבֵּית קְצוּצָה דְּאוֹרִיתָא.

If you have a free wave that is not limited anywhere,  it can not be quantized. While you might still have quantization for wave packets but these dissipate rapidly. So at least from this consideration, the Universe has to be limited and finite.

This is only to Schrodinger. But in the Heisenberg formulation, quantization doesn't depend on a closed universe.

 A few things I learned in Ukraine. One important one  is what is called "zalonka". This is iodine mixed with some other substance that helps it be absorbed deeper into a wound than regular iodine. Another is boric acid which is an amazing cure all. The other is when I had a ear ache. Instead of putting chemicals into my ear they cleaned it out with some sort of syringe that shots out just plain water. For they knew that ear aches most often are simply from stuff that has accumulated in the ear. It just needs to be cleaned.

I also learned something else--they do not try to fix what is not broken. While in the West, you walk into a dentists office and he will always find things to do that will cost a thousand dollars, in the Ukraine they will not look for problems. If it does not hurt, they they will not touch it. Don't fix what i not broken.

 z50 music file

 I am surprised whenever I talk with someone and in the conversation we are discussing the importance of the Gra as defining authentic Torah --the backbone. And Rav Nahman I see as filling out the flesh. But aswe talk it turns out they have never heard of the herem of the Gra. So I have to explain the background of that and its details and make note that it did not include Rav Nahman.  

 There is a sort of suicidal tendency in the USA that is hard to understand. A lot of white people are simply intent on the destruction of the white race. I can not see why this should be the case. I could see this a long time ago with the slogan that "Black is beautiful." I guess that convinced lot of people to the degree of creating people that want to destroy whites, and the feminists that hate men, and a general lack of common sense.

 The main source of ambiguity the straight and holy Path of the Gra, come from the fact that after  Yeshiva years,  things tend to go haywire  This led me to consider the vey important fact that according to the Rishonim, Torah is not Divine Decree Theory but rather that Divine decree is based on Reason.{And of course Reason was created by God. In fact in the Middle Ages there was no Divine Decree Theories even among Muslims and Christians. Things were not thought to be right or wrong because they were decreed by God but rather they were decreed by God because they were good.

Thus I noted that Torah is meant to bring to objective morality.

 In the west Boric Acid  is totally unknown as a cure for all sorts of skin problems but well known in Uman. This was prescribed for all kinds of problems included ear aches in liquid form

 s-1 midi file slightly edited   s1 nwc

Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In Interest do you go by the beginning or the end? Most Rishonim hold you go by the beginning. So even if the 100 that one borrows goes up to be worth 120, one still gives back 100. [In Torah law --deUraita] [If you would go by the end that would be interest.] Rav Shach says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law, "a guarantee without reduction." That is one borrows money, and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not interest. But Rav Shach sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow 100 and say he is going to pay back 100 [and then the 100 at time of payment goes up to be worth 120] this would be considered interest if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is interest from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the lender lends 100 and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth 120. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ribit]? The reason it is not ribit when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a guarantee without reduction also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  The two Gemaras where this all comes up are Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In נשך do you go by the beginning or the end? Most ראשונים hold you go by the beginning. So even if the מאה that one borrows goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים, one still gives back מאה. [If you would go by the end that would be נשך.] רב שך says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law a משכנתא בלי נכייתא. That is one borrows money and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This is not forbidden from the תורה. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not נשך. But רב שך sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow מאה and ואומר  he is going to pay back מאה [and then the מאה at time of payment goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים] this would be considered נשך if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is נשך from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the מלווה מלווה מאה  and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth מאה ועשרים. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ריבית]? The reason it is not ריבית when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a משכנתא בלא ניכייתא also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  

בבא מציעא ס''ז  וע''ה ע''א  

בנשך הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף? רוב ראשונים מחזיקים  בהתחלה. אז גם אם המאה שאדם לווה עולה להיות שווה מאה ועשרים, עדיין מחזירים מאה. [אם היית הולך על סוף זה יהיה נשך.] רב שך אומר כאן משהו שאני לא מבין. הוא שואל מדין אחר: משכנתא בלא נכייתא. כלומר לווים כסף וכערבות נותן שדה ללא הפחתת התשלום המגיע. זה לא אסור מהתורה. זה נשמע לי בדיוק אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה כך שגם זה לא נשך. אבל רב שך רואה בזה קושי באופן זה: אם היה לווה מאה ואומר הוא הולך להחזיר מאה [ואז המאה בשעת התשלום עולה לשווה מאה ועשרים] זה ייחשב נשך אם לאו על העובדה שאנחנו הולכים בהתחלה. [בטח חסר לי כאן משהו כי לי שני החוקים נשמעים אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה אז אינם נשך מהתורה.]

לראות את הנקודה שלי דמיינו מתי המלווה מלווה מאה והוא יודע שבזמן התשלום זה יהיה שווה מאה ועשרים. האם יש ספק שזה ריבית ? הסיבה שזה לא ריבית כשהוא לא יודע את העתיד  כי העתיד בספק. ואנחנו יודעים שהסיבה שמכנתא בלא ניכייתא היא גם משום שאינו יודע שירוויח בחרישה ובזריעה.

 There are problems in the religious world that are hard to understand. The major solution is that the higher one goes on the scale of numinous value, the easier it is to fall from positive value to negative value. That is -if you take the scale of values to be increasing from pure form [the vessel] with no content to infinite God with no form, then you can see that for every true positive value, there are many negative values. The Sitra Achra. 

But in areas of all form no content -Logic-the fall from the true is not evil, but simply mistakes. But as ne goes into areas of greater content, the mistakes become the Dark Side.  

So you can see how the religious world (outside of the straight and narrow of authentic Torah--the Gra), becomes fanaticism for he Dark Side.

See the Friesian School approach.

Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change

 Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change. From balmy 70 degrees Fahrenheit or about 21 Celsius to around 1,000,000 Celsius. They changed their doctrine of when to go to climate change about two years ago to include the sort of scenario that is going on now.

And as for they have been saying about that Ukraine is run now by Fascists --that is not so absurd as it sounds. I myself barely escaped with my life. 

 I think I had a kind of attachment with God when I got to Israel after some years of study in the great Litvak Yeshivot of NY. But I have never been able to figure out "what it meant". Was there some sort of special mission for for or what?  In mystic writings this kind of "Devekut" attachment is referred to as attachment to the Infinite Light. אור אין סוף. It does not say a lot but it is is indicative of what happens when the ight of the Next World Seeps into this world.

The best clarity I came to about this issue was when I began to consider that "Reason" alone can not justify Torah. There is a gap. So for about ten days I realized that questions on Torah were not all motivated by hearts that were not seeking the truth. So I wondered what justification for Torah could there be? Then I discovered the web site of Dr Kelley Ross who answers this in this way. There is a third source of knowledge [ besides empirical and besides reason.]

I was reminded of this because Ronen a friend of mine here has said to me a few times that he can not see the Litvak approach ["Learning Torah is the best thing"] as anything but an intellectual approach.

I have tried to explain to him  that there is a sort of Divine light that comes along with learning simple and plain Gemara Tosphot and the Maharsha.

I think that the subject of Meta-Physics is important but I have not come to any sort of clarity about what approach is best. From what I can tell there are three major schools, Hegel, Leonard Nelson and the Intuitionists. [GE Moore, Prichard.]

It has already been noted by very great philosophers the problems with 20th Century philosophy. E,g, Robert Hanna.. Michael Sugrue.

[See the criticism of Analytic Philosophy by Robert Hanna and the criticism of the existentialists by Michael Sugrue ] but what is left standing after all the bullets have settled? Mainly these three that I have mentioned.

Now I see Dr Kelley Ross is not updating his blog anymore. This makes me very sad for I have gained greatly from his insights in the Kant/Fries/Leonard Nelson approach. Even though Many think Kant can stand on his own, I can not  see it. I think Kant needs the modifications of Fries and Nelson.

I should mention that the Kant-Fries approach made a lot of sense for me in terms of its idea that there are truths that can not be known by reason or empirical knowledge. This idea was to provide a foundation for the Kantian categories. But with Dr Kelley Ross got expanded towards the experience of the Divine. But it looks as though his writings are now lost.

 

This would definitely be "climate change."

 I imagine that people are not afraid of nuclear war with Russia. I am not sure why this is>I used to think that that the end of the human race would have been a issue of concern. So to try and establish some kind of  accord is far from people's mind. 

But on the other hand, an accord was established--those were the Minsk accords which were ignored by the Ukraine. So I guess if the words of the Ukraine mean nothing, they would understand force.

But instead of the Minsk Accords people think that a nuclear war with Russia would be okay. I truly do not see this. I have a  certain degree of hope for mankind. I would rather not see the Human Race melt away in an hydrogen bomb fireball. 

This would definitely be "climate change."

I mean there are already US forces in active duty in Ukraine. So would perhaps Moscow think that the USA is a legitimate target?  And who says that Russia would not respond? And if you think this is some kind of moral crusade to defend the innocent, you have not had any experience with the Ukraine.

Peel half of the potatoes or half of (each) potato?

 

In Ukraine even the churches have armed guards.

 A concentrated nuclear war would not be the end of all mankind. But it still ought to be considered a sufficient risk that would prevent France and NATO to stop sending troops to  attack Russian soldiers. And besides the unstated principle here is that Russia considers this war to be justified. And though no one in the West cares to take that into consideration, still it is what Russia thinks. Not just because  of Ukraine always being a part of the Russian Empire, but also because the criminal elements have taken over. You can not really see this from the West, but if you have ever been there, you know exactly what I mean.

In fact there is no such thing as one united Ukraine. Anyone can tell you that there are two distinct Ukraines. One is the well known bandits --the people that have theft and murder deep inside their DNA. The other are the vast majority who are close to angels in their good character. The trouble is that it is always the bandits that get the power and control. Thus without Russian rule the place becomes a nightmare even for the average Ukrainian. This is the reason even the churches there need armed guards. There is just a bit too much of the wrong kind of element.

 While at the Mir in NY I heard once from the head of the kollel there a musar "shmooze" on Tuesday night. He is the grandson of the Mashgiach of Ponovitch. And that was the very start of his giving a Musar talk on Tuesday night. It was devoted to the subject of "to bear a yoke with your friend".That is one of the 48 means by which Torah is acquired. He had heard from his grandfather that that is the most important of them all. 

 

 

 

לא תעשה לך כל תמונה "Do not make an picture"

 Even though I do not want to be overly legalistic, still it occurred to me yesterday how a lot of the laws of the Torah are ignored or even worse--explained away. לא תעשה לך כל תמונה "Do not make a picture." ''Temuna'' means image or form. It does not say that it has to be 3-d. [In fact, this was noticed by Protestants who then spent their creative efforts in the direction of music instead of the visual arts--as had been the case with the Catholics.]

There are other examples. Interest is well known example, for the banks in Israel have the "היתר עיסקא" (heter iska) which is sort of ok, but also somewhat awkward. This is towards the end on Bava Metzia [I forget the page number.] But the main idea is still that the possibility of loss has to be included in the deal which doesn't seem to happen in practice. 

The Gemara says: אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו "The verse does not come out of its simple explanation." The Gra said this principle applies to all verses. 

[There are lots more: Honor thy father and thy mother. Thou Shalt Not Steal. etc. ]

 I thought to mention that my mother in law, Mrs. Rita Finn was on the Kinder-transport that  her parents sent her on to save her from the Nazis. But though being saved, she was severely abused in England which gave her a lifelong hatred of men.  Still she struggled to be a good wife and raise good children--which she did. After all the only reason my wife got married to me was that I was at Shar Yashuv --an authentic Litvak Yeshiva and she could feel and sense the taste of authentic Torah. 

It is sad  that the difficulties that people go through  can end up defining them.

But I do not think there is any cure for this sort of thing. People's emotional wounds can be much deeper than physical wounds.

Still I do have one suggestion, Musar. That is the idea of Rav Israel Salanter to learn the canonical four books of ethics, חובות לבבות מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה  אורחות צדיקים for learning the right attitudes can go a long way to reliving one from the burden of harmful attitudes.

I found that it is best to have the idea that reason recognizes universals and universals exit in many different areas. For example, principles of morality.  This makes the approach of the Rambam to make sense--that the laws of Torah are meant to bring to objective morality.

So even if there are questions about Torah, one does not have to relay on faith alone but also has a justification based on reason.

"Universals" are characteristics that things have in common. For example: I have two pieces of paper in front on me. Do they have something in common? Yes. They are both white.   But there are other areas where universals apply. Eg-numbers. Things have numbers in common. They can be two pieces of paper or two rocks. Rules of mathematics or Physics also are universals. E=mc^2 applies to two pieces of paper or rocks. Similarly rules of morality apply to different individuals. It is wrong to steal from .Reuven and also from Jacob. And they are also under the rule that it is wrong to steal. 

So where is the role  of reason in this? Reason recognizes more than  contradictions in definitions. This is the whole point of the Critique of Pure Reason.

There are many reasons to base one's faith on reason, but at least one good one is that ones faith is thus more solid. So when one discovers contradictions or "questions" it is easier to say to oneself, I am not relaying on faith alone but rather I have good reasons for my beliefs.--These reasons are that Torah is to bring to objective morality. It does not add or subtract then if other people are moral or not. What matters is that i should be 

I hope this explains why I am not so religious in the traditional sense. I may have found the religious world to be a nightmare. The teachers are vicious Torah scholars that are demons [in that memorable phrase of Rav Nahman] and the followers are lunatics. But Torah has a different basis--reason.

And there is sometimes conflicts between Torah and Reason and in those areas I find answers but my general approach is this is the areas of dinge an sich where reason does not penetrate.   

 Even though I believe Rav Nahman was a very great tzadik, I still regret leaving the world of the Litvak Yeshivot. Part of the reason you can see yourself easily. Where do you find the spirit of Torah? People dedicated to learning and keeping Torah with every fiber of their being? Obviously in the Litvak Yeshivot. 

However my own experience in the Litvak world was mixed. So I find it hard to give this a blank endorsement. 

 I did meet in the Ukraine some people that would have objected to Russian rule from Moscow. One was a very good friend that used to be a KGB agent. But even though he worked for the KGB, he was very much against Communism. And I used to discuss this with him at length. The other was my own landlord  who said is the Russian would ever show up he would shoot them. [He is a Tartar-very nice person, but still he recalled the transfer of the Tartars. That is why he was in Uman instead of his homeland. Stalin had seen in the Tartars a threat and so moved them to new areas.] (This explains also why Russians would shoot at civilians that are shooting at them.) The third person was a very nice girl I knew in the Student Dormitory where I was staying for about 7 years. She recalled to state induced famine of the 1930's. Another was a soldier who prided himself on having burned alive the Russian soldiers in Odessa. [That was a famous incident. He was staying in the dorm a few days before he returned to his hometown.]

I mention these exceptions because they are to my recollection the only four people that objected to the government being from Moscow instead of Kiev. 

Other than these, everyone I met thought things were better under Moscow rather than Kiev.

The idea of Rav Nahman not to be מחמיר חומרות יתירות [not to seek extra restrictions] shows what it is about the religious world tat is "off". For the religious world is always seeking new restrictions.

 If people ae not familiar with the Gemara, this might seems to in accord with Torah. But the extra restrictions of the religious are very often not necessary and sometimes made up fanaticisms. However the world of the Litvak yeshiva is much better in thus regard. 

 z52 music file 

 When I would discuss political issues with my learning partner, David Bronson, his answer was always along these lines: כל המקבל על עצמו עול תורה, מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ [When one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, the yoke of the government an of work is removed from him.]Maybe at first it seemed e was just pushing me off but then I realized that he meant it. No one really cares what I think about any of the burning political issues that so much occupy pubic debate. The best I can do for myself and for others is to sit and learn Torah. In fact, I  noticed how easy it is to get all excited about issues that have nothing to do with me and no one cares what I think. Like it says in the verse: כאוחז באזני כלב כן המתערב בריב לא לו [Like one who grabs the ears of a dog, so is he who gets mixed up in a argument that is not his.]

 The West has been thinking of Russia as a nobody ever since the end of the Cold War. But by constantly poking at the Bear, the bear will eventually react. A wise policy would be to notice that the Ukraine has never been an independent state--ever. Not when the area was owned by Poland, nor under the  Romanovs. All you have is a population that feels and thinks Russian, and that other unfortunate part of Ukraine that has always been addicted to murder and crime. Without the firm rule of Russia, they have always been a terror even to Ukrainians. Even now they force the common people to acquiesce to the false profile  that is presented as freedom fighters. Ukraine is divided between the bullies and the bullied. And if the bullied speak up they lose their lives.

 I recall the Cuban Missile Crisis. My mom and dad took us kids along with them to look at buying some underground shelter. [Even though we lived on the West Coast.] And all through the 60's, 70'sand 80's the power and ability of the USSR was never in doubt. No one thought starting a war with the USSR was a good idea. Everyone thought peace and cooperation with Russia was the most important thing.

Why is it that now people think that they can keep on poking the bear without worry? One reason is the fact that Russian advance into Ukraine has been slow. But that does not signal weakness but rather the desire to reincorporate the Ukraine back into the orbit of Russia. There is no desire to ruin things, but to keep everything intact, but just have rule from Moscow.

And for years I asked people what they thought about how things were in the Ukraine as different from the time of the USSR.  This I asked from the women at the markets, from the owners of stores. From random people where ever I went in the Ukraine. And the answer was always the same. "Things were better then than now." [I.e. better under the USSR than the more recent governments.]]

I have been thinking about a a certain problem in the Rambam Laws of Lender and Borrower perek/chapter 19 law 8 for a while but have not come to any clarity.

The basic subject is this: You have a lender and borrower. The borrower sells  a field to a buyer. Then the lender writs to that buyer "דין ודברים אין לי עמך" "You have no obligations to me." Then that buyer sells the field to a second buyer.  Then if the if borrower does not pay the debt, the lender can go to the second buyer and take the field as a repayment of the debt. [This is the regular law of שיעבוד that any property owned by a person at the time of a loan is obligated to pay that loan even if he sells that property or gives it away. The lender can always go after it if there is nothing owned by the borrower.]  

The problem that I have is that then the first buyer can go and collect the field from the lender because he will have lost the money that he had to pay to the second buyer  because of the loss of the field to the lender. I do not see why the first buyer can go and collect the field from the lender, for the lender did not collect the field from him. All he wrote was, "I will not collect the field from you," and he didn't..

I noticed this subject in the Avi Ezri and it is also brought in the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk but how they explain this is not clear to me. I was hoping that thinking about this while at the sea shore would help but so far I have zero ideas.

Baali Teshuva have discovered that the religious enticement by a show of family values is false.

 The age of disappointment. The religious world has made an impression that they are for family values. But this false. They are for power over secular Jews.. They might try to give this impression because the Conservatives have in fat tried to support family values in the face of the left trying to destroy the family. But that is the definition of cult--trying to bring in people to support their power structure by means of a lie and false claim if moral superiority.

In the West the family collapsed. So it made sense for the religious world to pretend to fill the gap. What I discovered was that the claim of the religious as being for family vales is a borrowed value from the Republicans..When they have a chance to destroy the families baali teshuva they do so.

The religious found it useful to use the fiction of support of family values by means of Shabat Table Judaism, the whole thing is Potemkin façade. They are trying to show a value they have borrowed from the Conservatives and Republicans.

 After high school, I went to Shar Yashuv in NY and then the Mir. I learned a lot from both the great rosh yeshiva in Shar Yashuv, Rav Naphtali Yeager and the rosh yeshiva of the Mir, Rav Shmuel Berenbaum.

But I was a wild card sort,  and could not stay put. So even when I tried to get back to the straight Torah path of the Litvak Yeshiva World, I did not manage to reinsert myself into learning Torah.

So I went instead to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU to major in Physics. Yet, I always have a tinge of regret that I did not just stick with the straight Litvak approach. And this actually reminds me of the events that led up to R. Yochanan [of the Gemara] becoming the great sage that he was. When a young man he was learning with his learning partner, and they were in extreme poverty. So they thought perhaps it was time to get up and find a job. They were at that time sitting by a wall. R. Yochanan heard the angels saying one to the other, "Let us knock this wall over them, because they are thinking of leaving off learning Torah to find work."   The other angel said, "No. Let's leave them alone because one of them will stick with it no matter what." R Yochanan heard this exchange, His learning partner did not. So R Yochanan stuck with learning while the other went out and became a business man.

 There is a lot of sort of dumb stuff going on, like many that think war with Russia is a good idea  but I think it is better not to comment on it because Rav Nahman said אף על פי שתוכחה היא דבר גדול ומוטל על כל אחד להוכיח את חברו כשרואה בו דבר שאינו הגון, אם כל זה לאו כל אדם ראוי להוכיח  Even though rebuke is a great thing and it is an obligation on everyone to rebuke their fellow man when they see in him something not proper, still, not everyone is fit to rebuke.

[This seems to be a difference between Rav Nahman and the Gra. To Rav Nahman the emphasis is to say nothing unless one is sure to help the situation by means of rebuke. To the Gra one at least has to say one time his or her opinion that what the other s doing is wrong.

 The very first Litvak Yeshiva I was at [Shar Yashuv in N.Y.] emphasized learning in depth along with lots of review. And recently I have noticed that this seems to be a  correct approach for me. I might go through a Tosphot or a piece in the Avi Ezri or the Chidushim of Rav Haim of Brisk and not understand a word even if I do it lots of times. The only way that I seem to be able to get the idea is when I go through it from beginning to end, and the next day I do it again and so on and so forth the next day--- and this might go on for weeks or a month.  I know this is not how anyone else learns, but this seems to work for me. 

And I noted this idea of review also in Mathematics and Physics. It seems to help if I do one whole section many times over a long period of time.

Later I was at the Mir for a few years and there the emphasis was a bit different with the afternoon being devoted to fast learning. There that was not just saying the words and going on, but it was fast in that one would do Tosphot a few times and then go on.

 z-53 music file