Or one can become conservative by learning the Bible. Reason and Faith was the approach of the Middle Ages. To come to objective morality by Reason alone does not work. You need faith also. [Even though some moral principles might be reasonable, but can not be derived by reason. You need to start with some moral principle that is a beginning, not derived from any where. You can not get an "ought" from an "is". And you can not get a tuna fish  sandwich without tuna. You need to start somewhere. []Though Hegel would disagree, I am mainly saying what I understand by the Kant-Fries Approach.

 In Israel the minister of finance wants that there should be in schools regular studies [Mathematics English, Citizenship. Or such similar things.] And to me this makes sense. After in in the Mir in N.Y.  the high school has secular studies. Besides that I think that there is some hidden dynamics going on that is unstated. After all in the Sefardi world, you do not get the sort of division between Frum from birth and baal teshuva. It is only in the Ashkenazi world that this comes up. The Patricians against the Plebeians. This class difference is reinforced by the firm exclusion of secular studies.

This division I think is sad and in truth while I was at the Mir I did not see any of it. I was accepted as part of the regular Kollel-lite. But this division is sad. And serious. For each group looses out on something.  Especially because it is important for  everyone to learn Torah all the time. It is not a practice that is exclusive to the ruling class of the Patricians while us plebeians are supposed to support them. 

 But in fact many of us are not able to be sitting and learning Torah all day and night. So for that reason I see Musar as being of great importance since it gives over the essence of what Torah is all about--good character traits and fear of God.

 Cure of Cancer in New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445

I used to review each paragraph twice and to go on. Now I am thinking learning in depth is better.

 I thought the best idea in learning was to review each paragraph twice and to go on. This was the compromise that I made for myself in the great Litvak yeshivas Shar Yashuv and the Mir when there was this tension between intense deep learning and the path of Rav Nahman of just saying the words and going on.

Each of these two ways just did not work for me. If I just said the words and went on, I understood nothing. And if I sat on the same page doing lots of review, I also had no idea of what was going on.

So I found this sort of compromise to be the most sensible thing. With review twice, I more or less got the idea, but I did not linger on the same page in such a way that I made no progress.

Anyway that is how I learned in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. After that I did the "Say the words and go on" approach. And that is how I learned most of the time. [ After that I needed to find some way of making a living,  I majored in Physics at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. To do that I needed a lot of review.

[I knew one fellow in Breslov who in fact took this advice of Rav Nahman very much literally, He used to finish Shas every month. (The entire Talmud.) He pointed out to me that this is not hard if you just come in in the morning and start going through page after page. Thus by the end of the day, you have gone through about 100 pages.] But that is only for  the fast bekiut sessions. Nowadays I think one should emphasize the Litvak approach of deep iyun [Deep learning] because I think that is the only way to get to the light of Torah; and in math and Physics also I think deep learning with tons of review on the same chapter is the best approach. But is agree that fast learning is good in the afternoon [as was done at the Mir.]

[Here are two books I wrote which show how I learn gemara chidushei hashas  [ideas in talmud ] iyunei bava meztia studies in Bava Metzia

It is hard to know why people obsess  on certain things. During the Middle Ages, one fate in the next world was the major issue. And since the right doctrine determined that fate, nations would go to war for that. In the Victorian Age in England , death was the major issue. One tomb or grave stone was just one aspect of this. Mainly people were obsessive about their legacy. But sex could not even be mentioned. Nowadays all that seems ridiculous. Nowadays people obsess about sex and bring it up all the time, --it is on the news constantly. But ones' legacy on the news? Or one's fate in the next world? You will not hear these issues on the news. And besides sex, there is race.Why do people obsess about it? Who knows?

z48 Music file in midi format 

All music files were labeled by "a" through "z" generally going to 100. But this was not done systematically. So a lot of work would be needed to go through old files to see what is worth while to save, or what is worthwhile to edit.

For example: this file. It was finished some months ago, but I thought to go back and take a look at it to see if it was worthwhile to do a bit of editing, and then present it. So here  I am presenting it for the first time though it was finished  some time ago.

faith is a source of knowledge

(1) A flaw in enlightenment philosophy is the attempt to get moral principles from pure Reason.

Pure Reason does not tell us much. It does not even tell us what axioms are "reasonable" to start with.. It is more like a tool to constrain. It can tell us when we are making a mistake. This is the point of David Hume that got this idea from his experience as a teacher of Euclid's Elements (Geometry.) The axioms were not derived by reason. But they were reasonable. The only function of reason in the Elements was to show when some idea could be shown to be in contradiction to one of the axioms.

There might be reasonable moral principles, but they are not derivable by mean of pure reason which can tell us they way things are, not how they ought to be. That is the famous rule of Hume: You can not derive an "ought" from an "is"

(2) What I am getting at is that faith is a source of knowledge that is different from reason. [This is a doctrine of the Kant-Friesian School]. But even those that are adherents of this school often seem to miss out that this is not a form of psychologism. While it is true with Fries that one needs to look into one's own mind to see what the beginning axioms are  that does not mean that the mind knows these things by some kind of implanted knowledge. Rather the mind perceives them but not by reason but by a sort of knowledge that is not sensed nor known by reason. It is non intuitive immediate knowledge.

(3) This was of course obvious in the Middle Ages. The need for faith and reason together was obvious to all. This insight was lost until the Kant Friesian School arose.

 z74 music file

 I must admit that it was not any lack in the Litvak Yeshiva World that caused me to leave. As long as I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, things were great. And coming to Israel would not have been a problem also because there was a Litvak  kollel in Safed that I could have joined. Rather I got involved in Breslov. And you can understand how that might come about since Rav Nahman was in fact a great tzadik. Still, the effect on me was to get me off track. [And in spite of the greatness of Rav Nahman, on occasion people that get involved in Breslov do tend to lose the way, close the Gemara]. The best idea is to stick with the Gra and straight Torah of the Litvak world while at the same time to benefit from the important advice and ideas of Rav Nahman.

One  of the great things I learned in the Litvak world: the importance of Rishonim Mediaeval thinkers. [This mainly refers to the commentator of the Gemara, Tosphot, Rashba, Ritva, Ramban, Rosh. etc.].But by implication it also refers to the Musar and world view philosophy of the Rishonim.

Also I learned the importance of review. 

However not enough emphasis was placed on the Gra.

=And that is the only thing I see amiss in the Litvak world- not enough emphasis on the Gra. [for example the letter of excommunication that he signed and yet is still ignored. ]

 

 

Russia has made it clear that sending advanced weapons to Ukraine will be considered as an act of war. Do we really think we can wipe the floor with Russia?  How well did we do in Afghanistan with the Taliban who did not have 4,000 nuclear weapons. And the Russian doctrine of war is that even a conventional attack on Russia will evoke a nuclear response.

How much easier it would be to sign an agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO? Would that not be better than WWIII that the USA is not prepared for.. The Military has made it clear that it main priority is getting homosexuals into positions of high rank. Are we ready for this?

 There is something profoundly insightful about Kant's idea that we really do no understand "things in themselves" This was originally derived from John Locke that noticed that some traits are in things in themselves and others are how we react to them. E.g. how they feel our touch. Kant noticed that even trait that we think of as being in things in themselves are really what we add to them. So if you abstract these traits then what is the thing in itself? We do not know. You see this in Physics.  One one hand Physics recognizes mass and charge as very well understood and measurable in the lab. But  as Kant would that that is how we interact with the mass and charge of the electron. But the "bare mass"? The mass that you calculate in the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy? That bare mass in infinity.  It is hard to understand how the electrons mass can be infinity. So Kant was right that we really do not understand things in themselves. [The "bare mass" is one of the many famous infinities that come up in Quantum Field Theory. Richard Feynman sort of solved the problem by what is called normalization but it is more like sweeping the dust under the rug]

 It is helpful that Rav Nahman of Breslov was aware of the problem of Torah scholars that are demons-which is admittedly a problem, [Le.M. I:12, I:28.] and yet was able to see the importance of the Oral and Written Law.

Abuse does not cancel use. Abusus non tollit usum.

In fact in the very first of the 13 stories of Rav Nahman  is an instructive lesson.  The second to the King, was on a search for the kidnapped daughter of the king.  When he got to giants in a desert that told him to turn back. But he was stubborn and pressed on. You can say this is similar. 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the Torah says so

Thee are eleven ingredients of the incense in the holy Temple. The teaching that lists them mentions at the end that if they would had added a drop of honey, no one could resist [it would be so inspiring]. So why did they not add any honey?  כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו No leaven nor any honey shalt you offer to the Lord your God.

This explains the simple path of the Gra. The Litvak yeshivot do not add nor subtract from the Torah because the Torah says so.  [And in fact that is actually a verse in Deuteronomy: Thou shalt not add nor subtract from the Law.]

Two Treaties of Government

To understand the situation in the USA I think the best idea is to learn the Two Treaties of Government of John Locke plus the Declaration of Independence. There you see even though the USA is a republic  (not direct democracy), still it is based on fair elections. Since there was doubt about the validity of the count of the Dominion machines, the election should not have been certified.

[The Two Treaties is all about: when is it moral to rebel against the government?]

Just to be clear: I hold from the Two Treaties and the Constitution of the USA because they are the best in coming to peace of the state which is one f the major goals of Torah. On a small scale a Litvak yeshiva tends to be the best in creating a decent group based on objective morality. But on a larger scale the model based on the American Constitution brings the best results of creating a just society. --I mean to say that how to create such a thig has been a subject of debate ever since Plato wrote the Republic. But his answers seem lacking. Nor do any intellectual answers since then get any better results. The odd fact is the model based on Medieval England (Parliament, the Magna Carta, etc which got translated into the American system  get the best results in terms of a just society.) Kings on occasion were okay but often they were not.

universities ought to simply become technical schools.

 In the time of Kant many thought that the universities ought to simply become technical schools. (What is called today: "STEM fields".) But the "liberal arts" won and so we have the social studies and humanities parts of the university.

{I mean to say that the theological aspect of the universities was already on its way out. So the question arose what should be the nature of the university?}

However I think the original idea was best --of just having universities being technical schools. The liberal arts departments are of negative value.

But not everything in university ought to be for the sake of making a living. So while the socialist departments ought to be disbanded, not everything else should be for making a living. Rather I see certain things in STEM as having ontological value in themselves [like Mathematics and Physics.]

{You see this in Rishonim mediaeval authorities. But how far does this go? [To consider some "secular subjects" has having value to learn just for their own sake?] 

two important lessons to learn from Robert E Lee. Lee was always strongest when he was considered weak.

I noticed that there are two important lessons to learn from Robert E Lee. One of the most astounding facts about him is that he was more dangerous in retreat than in offensive attack. You learn this from the Antietam battle with General McClellan.  G. McClellan was dismissed by Lincoln because of his perceived mistake of not following Lee in his retreat back to Virginia across the Potomac.  I do not know from where Lincoln was getting his information from because in fact McClellan did pursue Lee! At the river crossing where Lee was retreating, there was an eye witness from a Northern newspaper that wrote that when McClellan tried to attack Lee (in this retreat), the air was filled with bullets as thick as rain attacking McClellan.

The other very important fact about Lee is defense. He created a system of breastworks [makeshift fences] after the battle of Mine Run.  The Northern general looked and looked for the slightest opening and found nothing and so retreated. Later Lee was do the same with Grant. [The northern general at that time made his own instant retreat at night knowing that Lee would immediately in the morning pursue him.]

So you see Lee was always strongest when he was considered weak.

z73 music file

 

 The issue of my core belief system came up today and I wanted to mention that the way I see Torah is that what matters is "to be a mensch" midot tovot. Everything else is secondary. So I really do not care much how one comes to good midot.  This idea is based to some degree on the books of Musar [mediaeval books about morality] but also on the Gemara itself that says the commandments do have known reasons. But the Gemara does not give them. The later rishonim give the reasons for the commandments and they are in short--to be a mensch. But to be a mensch of course means a lot more than being a decent human being. So one does have to learn the basic core books of Musar to understand what being a mensch means.

Being a mensch should be common sense, but I guess that is no longer common.  

כתובות דף י''ט. רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ב' הלכה ו' Ketuboth 19 Rambam 2:6

כתובות דף י''ט  

לוי borrows from ראובן and ראובן borrows from שמעון. Comes time of payment and ראובן has no money. You take from לוי and give to שמעון. If both לוי and ראובן say the loan was paid you pay no attention to them since they might be conspiring against שמעון. The ר''ן asks: Why not collect the document  שטר of the loan from ראובן and give it to שמעון? He answers because the document itself is not money.  I was wandering around at the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a very good reason not to collect the document of the loan from ראובן and give it to שמעון as the ר''ן asks. If שמעון would have the שטר then he could collect the משועבדים the property that לוי sold after  he borrowed money  from ראובן. So why does the ר''ן not answer this answer which seems like a better answer?

[Just to make this clear: Just think about it. Giving the document to שמעון would make it seem that the original loan was from לוי to שמעון. And thus all of לוי's property would be obligated in that loan. But that is way too much. The only thing that ר' נתן says in כתובות י''ט  is that if ראובן has no property we take from לוי and give to שמעון, not even property that לוי sold. And even more so. If שמעון could גובה from  property that לוי sold, you would have an infinite regress. No one would buy anything. So on one hand giving the document to שמעון does not give to שמעון any more power than ראובן had. But still שמעון might at some future date borrow from someone else and also have no money to pay back the loan, and so on and so forth forever. The property of לוי would never be safe.

Ketuboth page 19. Rambam Laws of  Loans. 2:6 

Levi borrow from Reuven and Reuven borrows from Shimon. Comes time of payment and Reuven has no money. You take from Levi and give to Shimon. If both Levi and Reuven say the loan was paid you pay no attention to them since they might be conspiring against Shimon.

The Ran asks why not collect the document of the loan from Reuven and give it to Shimon. He answers because the document itself is not money.   

 I was wandering around at the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a very good reason not to collect the document of a loan from Reuven and give it to Shimon as the Ran asks. If Shimon would have the document then he could collect the Meshuabadim --the property that Levi sold after he borrowed money  from Reuven. So why does the Ran not answer this answer which seems like a better answer?

[Just to make this clear: Just think about it. Giving the document to Shimon would make it seem that the original loan was from Levi to Shimon. And thus all of Levi's property would be obligated in that loan. But that is way too much. The only thing that R. Natan says in Ketuboth 19 is that if Reuven has no property we take from Levi and give to Shimon, not even property that Levi sold. And even more so. If Shimon could collect from even property that Levi sold you would have an infinite regress. No one would buy anything. So on one hand giving the document to Shimon does not give to Shimon any more power than Reuven had. But still Shimon might at some future date borrow from someone else and also have no money to pay back the loan, and so on and so forth forever. The property of Levi would never be safe.

כתובות דף י''ט

לוי לווה מראובן וראובן לווה משמעון. מגיע זמן התשלום ולראובן אין כסף. אתה לוקח מלוי ונותן לשמעון. אם גם לוי וגם ראובן אומרים שההלוואה שולמה, אתה לא שם לב אליהם מכיוון שהם עלולים ליצור קשר נגד שמעון. שואל הר''ן: למה לא לגבות את מסמך שטר ההלוואה מראובן ולתת אותו לשמעון? הוא עונה כי המסמך עצמו אינו כסף. (שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא). הסתובבתי על שפת הים ועלה בדעתי שיש סיבה טובה מאוד לא לאסוף (לגבות) את מסמך ההלוואה מראובן ולתת אותו לשמעון כפי שהר''ן מבקש. אם לשמעון היה את השטר, אז הוא היה יכול לאסוף את המשועבדים (את הרכוש שמכר לוי לאחר שהוא לווה כסף מראובן). אז למה הר''ן לא עונה על התשובה הזו שנראית כמו תשובה טובה יותר

רק כדי להבהיר את זה: רק תחשוב על זה. מתן המסמך לשמעון יראה שההלוואה המקורית תהיה מלוי לשמעון. ולפיכך יתחייבו כל רכושו של לוי באותה הלוואה. אבל זה יותר מדי. הדבר היחיד שאומר ר' נתן בכתובות י''ט הוא שאם לראובן אין רכוש, אנחנו לוקחים מלוי ונותנים לשמעון, לא רכוש שמכר לוי. ועוד יותר מכך. אם שמעון היה יכול לגבות מנכס שלוי מכר, הייתה לך נסיגה אינסופית. אף אחד לא היה קונה כלום. אז מצד אחד מתן המסמך לשמעון לא נותן לשמעון יותר כוח ממה שהיה לראובן. אבל בכל זאת שמעון עלול באיזשהו תאריך עתידי ללוות ממישהו אחר וגם לא יהיה לו כסף להחזיר את ההלוואה, וכן הלאה וכן הלאה לנצח. רכושו של לוי לעולם לא יהיה בטוח.

 

Rittenhouse trial: Key state witness admits he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

 KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- The sixth day of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial shifted focus from the first shooting to the second and third. Witnesses recalled the moments when Anthony Huber was shot in the chest and killed, and Gaige Grosskreutz testified about being shot in the arm and surviving. Grosskreutz was the most anticipated witness called to the stand so far.

The state tried to show Grosskreutz was not a threat and even had his hands up when he approached Rittenhouse in the street. But the defense got Grosskreutz to admit he had a loaded gun in his hand, and that Rittenhouse did not shoot him until Grosskreutz lowered his hands and pointed that gun at him.

Eyewitness video from the scene shows as more people approached Rittenhouse, he was knocked to the ground. Grosskreutz was roughly five feet away, with his Glock pistol in his right hand and his cellphone in his left hand. At first, his hands were raised.

Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked him on the stand, "What was going through your mind at this particular moment?" Grosskreutz replied, "That I was going to die."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

knowing what is an "extra" as opposed to what is essential [really obligated].

There is nothing wrong with trying to be as strict as possible in keeping the holy Torah. The issue is that without having gone through Shas at least once, one does not have any means of knowing what is an "extra" as opposed to what is essential [really obligated]. While at the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY this distinction did not make much difference to me because I was trying in fact to keep everything, including when there are differences of opinion I would go after the stricter opinion. This is a great thing to do.

However after I got to Israel and was learning the Le.M of Rav Nahman, I noted that he mentioned II:44 and II:86 that to serve God, one does not need any extra restrictions. And later when my world started crumbling around me (note 1), I found this distinction to be of great importance--i.e., to know what is really obligated and what is just an extra.

[I would think this to be obvious, but a few days ago I was talking with a friend on the street and this issue came up. After all I had suggested to him the importance of learning Torah, and so he now goes often to a place where there people are in fact very focused on learning Torah. But he also noticed this same aspect of things: to strive to be extra strict. So he was wondering why and in what ways is my path different, even though I am in total agreement with the importance of learning Torah and striving to keep every detail to the last atom and molecule. 

[But to know what the Torah really requires, it is also mostly enough to learn the Mishna with the Rav of Bartenura who explains things well and also gives the actual way the law is decided. After doing that a few times, then to get through Shas.]  

(note 1) It is hard to keep everything when you have no place to sleep. No place to learn. All your "friends turn out to be fair weather friends.

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.