It has been noticed that there is little motivation for women to be nice nowadays. If you find a nice girl it has to be because of an extra ordinary amount of effort that she has expended on correcting her character traits. Otherwise, the emphasis of society is to make women as nasty as possible,-- and that shows. The proof is in the pudding. Women nowadays are unlikable.  If they have divorced  their husbands, they get tons of praise for being so brave. And the more damage they can cause to their ex husbands, their friends and general society consider her as a heroine.

The reason for this I believe is מכת מדינה a general plague that has come into the world.  For you see in prayers of Jews a few generations ago, their main concern was Parnasa -making a living. In general prayer books, you do not see much about peace of the home. That was assumed to be ok. In the American Civil War, how many letters do you see of women or men wishing for their spouses to be better? Never. All the letters and prayers of women are, "Please bring my husband back home safely"

Western society has changed. Women think of divorce as getting  merit badge, and think of it not as a way to get away from their husbands --but as a way to get all his money and to ruin his life as much s possible. 

[What I am getting at here is the importance of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement -- that movement he started. The message is everyone ought to learn Musar the  more the better. Musar in this context means four basic works חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, אורחו צדיקים ,מסילת ישרים three were from the middle ages and the last from Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato. [Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda. Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous, and Paths of the Just ]

I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. [rather it need to be 16.5 cubits across]

 I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. The Gemara Shabat (in the chapters about carrying in a public domain) talks like it is a common occurrence. [I am thinking mainly about the chapters about what a man or woman can wear in a public domain.] The reason this number 600,000 seems unreasonable to me is that no ancient cities had anywhere near these numbers, Even Rome had 324,000 according to the census  taken in 152 BC [as brought in Livy in the collected fragments. book 48.]

The Gra brings a proof to the Rambam,Ramban, Rashba that a public domain does not need 600,000. the gemara in Eruvin 6b: Ula said if not for the fact that they close their walls and gates at night, Mehuza (a city in Bavel) would be a public domain. And Ula also said "There is no city in bavel that has ''uchlusa'' 600,000." Besides that, I have noted in this blog before that no ancient cities had anything even close to 600,000.  

There is however such a thing as an eruv, but that can only help in a Carmlit, not an actual public domain. [A  Carmlit is sort of like a private domain in so far as it is permitted from the Torah to carry there. But it is unlike a private domain in so far as carrying to and from there into a public domain is not obligated a sin offering.]

 I discovered that it is hard to swim in rough surf and at the same time to be helping another person get to safety. Much harder than I could have imagined. It is  trying to swim with one hand, and in the other holding a 130 pound person. So even though  I have been doing a little bit of exercise, I now realize  that that little bit is no where near enough.

 I am often in a slightly hidden place at the beach  and today there was a young Arab  walking by about to grab a woman's purse and then he right before he took it he saw I was watching. So he went on some steps. Then came back to me to ask for a cigarette. I had none, and then he walked further back again and asked some girls the same question. [Normally I try to give to whom so ever asks from me something, but in fact I had no cigarette. ] Then after that it occurred to me that that guy was looking for people's stuff to steal. That is why he was about to grab that purse.. So I went over to the police to let them know there was someone around looking for trouble.

I am also still pondering that answer of Rav Shach for the Rambam in Sota [chapter 1 halacha 3] that is related to the gemara in nida page 2 and i am about to give up. i just can not see  how the Rambam can decide like two teachings that the gemara itself says contradict  each other. 

I was at the beach today and thinking about how Rav Shach explains the Gemara in Nida page 2. [The Gemara says the teaching (of the Braita) about the barrel and the teaching (of the Mishna) about the mikve disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the barrel is R. Shimon. And it says R Shimon is learning from Sota.  Then it says maybe R Shimon is learning from the regular case of doubt about purity. At that point Rav Shach says the difference between the first answer of the Gemara and the second is in the second answer the case of the mikve is considered a doubt. The first answer of the Gemara is thinking that the sages consider the case of the mikve is be a sure thing. So that is how the Rambam can say that the law is both like the Mishna and the braita. So the mishna in saying in the case of the mikve that both in a public domain and private that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the Rambam. If we learn from Sota then even the case of the Mikve ought to be pure in a public domain, and if we do not learn from Sota then the case of the barrel ought to be impure in a public domain.

[recently i saw a book by isar meltzer who was a teacher of rav shach and he has a very elegant answer fo the Rambam here but I have not really thought about it long enough to be able to comment ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was at the beach today and thinking about how רב שך explains the גמרא in נידה ב' ע''ב. [The גמרא says the teaching (of the ברייתא) about the חבית and the teaching (of the משנה) about the מקוה disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the חבית is ר' שמעון. And it says ר' שמעון is learning from סוטה.  Then it says maybe ר' שמעון is learning from the regular case of doubt about טומאה וטהרה. At that point רב שך says the difference between the first answer of the גמרא and the second is in the second answer the case of the מקוה is considered a doubt. The first answer of the גמרא is thinking that the חכמים  consider the case of the מקוה is be a sure thing. So that is how the רמב''ם can say that the law is both like the משנה  and the ברייתא. So the משנה in saying in the case of the מקוה that both in a רשות הרבים and רשות היחיד that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the רמב''ם. If we learn from סוטה then even the case of the מקוה ought to be pure in a רשות הרבים, and if we do not learn from סוטה then the case of the חבית ought to be impure in a רשות הרבים.

בחוף וחשבתי איך רב שך מסביר את הגמרא בנידה ב' ע''ב. [הגמרא אומר שההוראה (של הברייתא) על החבית והוראה (של המשנה) על מקוה חולקים כך שנאלץ לומר ההוראה על החבית היא ר' שמעון. וכתוב ר' שמעון לומד מסוטה. ואז כתוב שאולי ר' שמעון לומד מהמקרה של ספק לגבי טומאה וטהרה. באותה נקודה רב שך אומר שההבדל בין התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא לשניה הוא בתשובה השנייה המקרה של מקוה נחשב בספק. התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא היא לחשוב שהחכמים מחשיבים את המקרה של מקוה הוא דבר בטוח. אז כך יכול הרמב''ם לומר שהדין הוא גם כמו המשנה וגם הברייתא. אז המשנה באומרו במקרה של מקוה שגם ברשות הרבים וגם ברשות היחיד שהאדם שנכנס נשאר בספק. ובכל זאת קשה להבין מדוע זה עונה על הרמב''ם. אם נלמד מסוטה, אז אפילו המקרה של מקוה צריך להיות טהור ברשות הרבים, ואם לא נלמד מסוטה אז המקרה של החבית צריך להיות טמא ברשות הרבים

 I have been going to the beach and exerting my arm muscles at the out door gym over there. --though it occurs to me to wonder "Why I bother? After all it is not as if I am lifting weights," Then today I heard some mother yelling at someone in the water that I could barely see. Somehow it sounded different than other people screaming for fun at the beach.  It occurred to me that that fellow in the water might be in trouble. I ran over and the mother called to me in English "It's my son! It's my son!" I got the idea that he needed help. So I ran out there battling the waves until in fact I got to an area where there was no ground anymore. I needed to swim. I finally got to that guy and yelled at him, "Give me your arm" [in Hebrew תן לי את היד!] and grabbed his arm and dragged him back to shore. But I was barely managing on my own. After all I have not been keeping  my muscle strength up. At any rate, I realize now why it is important to keep up one's muscle strength in one's arms===to be prepared for the day that someone might need your help.

here is a link to a old music file from around 1993 --mathematics

here is a link to a more recent file x86

David Bronson suggested to me many times ''Tosphot is always right'' [that is on the outside of the page of the Gemara], and I would have to agree. While on one hand you see a lot of effort to explain the Rambam starting from early Achronim [משנה למלך ]  and that gained a lot of steam from the time of Rav Chaim of Brisk until today, Still it seems this has caused a certain amount of lack of interest and neglect in digging into the depths of Tosphot. I experienced this first hand when I got to the Mir in NY. I had been used to trying to dig into Tosphot, but when I talked to other yeshiva bahurim [students] about  this, they would dismiss this --as irrelevant.  Eventually, I understood the reason for this. They were spending their morning hours  preparing for the classes of the roshei yeshiva [which were along the lines of Rav Chaim of  Brisk. While this is a great and important area of learning, still it leaves that whole area of Tosphot ignored

But even if I would want to recommend a movement of ''Back To Tosphot'', I still would not know how to go about this. The only way I could even begin to see the depths of Tosphot was because I had teachers [in Shar Yashuv] and my learning partner Bronson that showed the way. On my own I could barely manage this except after tremendous efforts. And in the meantime I also have tried to get into the path of Rav Chaim of Brisk as you see in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. 

[The basic reasoning here is two fold. One is that the deeper you dig into Tosphot. the more you see he was right all along even though at first glance it does not seem like that. But the Rambam is different, Very often he contradicts the Gemara openly, and it takes a lot of effort to try to fit him back in. And even then it is only a possibility, not a sure thing. For example Nida pg 2. The Gemara holds the teaching about the barrel and the mikve contradict each other. And for that reason it says the teaching about the barrel is R Shimon, not the sages. So for the Rambam to state the law is like both is more than a stretch. It is a direct contradiction. Can one answer this? Yes--but only if one is committed in the first place to say the Rambam must have had some reason for that. But why even start with that? Why not simply go like the Gemara in the first place? Why not be first committed to the idea that the Gemara must have had some reason to say these two teachings contradict?

[I think R. Shimon holds that  חקת השתא  is not a חזקה]=I mean to say this: The Gemara brings the mishna that says if a mikve is found to e lacking the proper amount then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The Gemara then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to e able to separate truma on it and it was found to be sour. in a public domain all טהרות separated are pure and in a private domain they are a doubt. The Gemara says  the teaching is R Shimon. Though this might be in Tosphot [I forget] I think R Shimon holds   חקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from Sota. A doubt in a public domain is pure and in a private domain is a doubt. And the sages of the Mishna hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

I think ר' שמעון holds that  חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה. I mean to say this: The גמרא brings the משנה that says if a מקוה is found  lacking the proper amount, then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The גמרא then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to be able to separate תרומה on it and it was found to be sour. In a רשות הרבים all טהרות separated are טהורות and in a רשות היחיד they are a doubt. The גמרא says  the teaching is ר' שמעון. Though this might be in תוספות  [I forget] I think  ר' שמעון holds   חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from סוטה. A doubt in a רשות הרבים is טהור and in a רשות היחיד is a doubt. And the חכמי  the משנה hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

אני חושב שר' שמעון סבור שחזקת השתא היא לא חזקה. אני מתכוון לומר כך: הגמרא מביא את המשנה שאומר שאם נמצא מקוה חסרה בכמות הראויה אז כל מי שנכנס אליו עדיין לא טהור. אחר כך שואלת הגמרא מהוראה על חבית שהניחו בצד כדי שיוכלו להפריד עליה תרומה ונמצא חמוץ. ברשות הרבים כל הטהרות שנעשו עליו הן טהורות וברשות היחיד הן בספק. הגמרא אומרת שההוראה היא ר' שמעון. למרות שזה יכול להיות בתוספות [אני שוכח] אני חושב שר' שמעון מחזיק חזקת השתא היא לא חזקה ולכן אז בשני המקרים יש חזקה אחת נגד אחרת.והן מבטלות זו את זו ולכן ספק במקרה של ספק אנו למדים מסוטה. ספק ברשות הרבים הוא טהור וברשות היחיד הוא ספק. וחכמי המשנה מחזיקים חזקת השתא היא חזקה ואז בשני המקרים יש לנו שתי חזקות נגד אחת ולכן אין ספק

There is  a strange dynamics in the religious world. That is  the hatred they have towards fry yidin (non religious). If this would be open that would be better. But they hide it because they need the money of secular Jews. They need to make pretend that we are all one family.

This affects baali teshuva [newly religious]. They are suspected of being flaky and ready on an instant's notice to return to their wayward ways. But I have not mentioned this in my blog before because I am not convinced that they are wrong. Baali teshuva are flaky. How else could it be? They, after all, threw out their parents. How loyal could they be to anyone else? 

The religious however make things worse because they despise fry yiden and that affects their attitude towards baali teshuva who are considered unter menschen [sub human]. After all the religious think that they themselves are uber menschen -super human.  This affects the area of shiduhim [marriage offers]. The baal teshuva thinks he is accepted as one of the family. And when a shiduch [a date with intent to see if marriage is possible] is offered, he thinks it is in good faith. But the religious only offer to baali teshuv baali mumim. [Girls with a hidden defect.]

 It is not well known that the Gra would not have held of the idea of paying people to learn Torah. You can see in his commentary  on Pirkei Avot on the Mishna in the first chapter that says not to use Torah to make money from he brings the event with the vessels of the Temple that were used by the king of Babylon. And also he brings the actual verse of Meila. [That is the prohibition of using something that was dedicated to the Temple for one's own use]. 

How does meila work? It is like this. Let's say you have a pen and you say, ''This pen is sanctified to the Temple.''  At that point, you can not use it,- nor anyone else. It must be brought to the Temple and sold and the proceeds go to different needs of the Temple.  This is how the Gra sees learning Torah. One must not get paid for doing so because that is the same as using a vessel that has been dedicated to the Temple.

 There is a difference in the middle ages from the fall of Rome until around the high middle ages. [Aquinas Rambam, Ibn Rushd.] Until then people were going with the neo platonic philosopher. Plotinus. so in understanding the unity of God, they were going with the idea of emanation --or an overflowing of God's light. but at no point were they saying that only God exists. Rather they understood there is a difference between the Creator and the created. But the problems of reconciling pure Monotheism [Divine Simplicity] with Neo-Platonic thought, led to abandoning Plotinus and going with Aristotle. Muslims had been going with Aristotle for a long time. But Jews and Christians had been trying for  to go with Plotinus. At some point. they gave up and decided that was not going to work. So you get the Rambam going a lot more with Aristotle than his predecessors. [But not completely. He still retains a lot of Neo Platonic thought.] Then finally, Aquinas made the final jump to Aristotle. 

But as Kelley Ross noted, that jump might have landed everyone in more problems than they started out with. When those problems became apparent. it would have made sense to rethink things and return to Plato. [taking kant into accountin understanding plato]

[I should add that not all Rishonim were on board with either philosopher. The one that comes tomind in Nahmanidess. And it is his approach  that is the reason the religious world is against all philosophy [as David Bronson pointed out to me.]  

 z83 music file

 כל העוסק בלימודו כעוסק בבניינו anyone who is involved with its study is considered as though he is involved with its building. But most people are not all that inspired by the idea of building the Temple. Even when the holy mount where the temple needs to be built was in the hands of Israel, the state gave it right back to the Wafk [The Muslim authorities]. So what I recommend is to learn the laws of the Temple. in the hope that someday we may merit to it rebuilding

 I feel sad that i did not get a lot of encouragement in learning Torah. In fact, I had obstacles from people and even mental obstacles. Yet I noticed that Rav Shach points out in one of his introductions to the Avi Ezri  that the way of acquiring Torah is not like acquiring other wisdoms. Other wisdoms come through natural means. Acquiring Torah is not in that way. So I realize that if I have any portion in Torah at all, I probably have to be grateful for the obstacles that have made it hard.

 The New Testament shows that Jesus was a Jewish Tzadik. He is not claiming anything like the Christian churches say he is claiming. He is not breaking the Law nor telling others to do so. He is not claiming worship but says openly to worship God alone not him. examples are too numerous for me to go into here.

Someone called him "good". And he answered do not call me "good". Only God is good.

From where do misunderstandings come from? From the same sort of insane religious idiots that abound today that call anyone who disagrees with them as a apikorus  and breaker of the Law, though they themselves are amei haaretz ignorant of the Law.  

[I wrote the above paragraphs in short form because I was tired and it was late over here on this side of the pond. But even so it is hard to know from what point to expand on this topic. In terms of the Law, see the Rosh (Rabbainu Asher) in Tractate Shabat where adding water to soil in not a desecration of Shabat. Also in terms of washing hands there are  two sources for this. One is a decree because of the priests eating truma. If that is the actual law then in fact, it is required always before eating bread. But then it has laws involved with it that few people observe. E.g., the vessel has to be totally dry because otherwise the water on the sides becomes unclean as so as the hand touches it and that water on the hand does not become pure when water is next poured on it.  That is why you see Lithuanian roshei yeshiva dry the vessel before pouring. The other reason is from the Gemara in Chulin [perek 8] מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה "The first waters are a good deed. The second are allowed. The third are an obligation." Thus the first waters are a good thing to do but not an obligation.

I think a simple reading of the NT will show anyone that Jesus referred to himself as to be a "son of man", [never "son of God"]. And when the idea of "son of God" was applied to him and he agreed  with that, it is not all that different from the verse in Deuteronomy  "אתם בנים להשם אלקיכם אל תשימו קרחה בין עינים למת"  You are the children of the Lord your God, therefore do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a dead person as a sign of mourning" [That is not an exact quote, but anyway you get the idea.]

In Israel many people put on their cars a sign תודה אבא Thank you Father. [That does not refer to their physical father but rather to our Father who art in Heaven. Thus referring to God as one's father in not heresy.  

the disappointment that many people feel when they have had some negative interaction with people that supposedly represent Torah values,

[Why is the coming paragraphs needed-because of the disappointment that many people feel when they have had some negative interaction with people that supposedly represent Torah values, but instead are home wreakers]  

 There is a well known statement of the Chazal [sages of the Talmud] that the Evil Inclination leaves the whole world and settles on Klal Israel [the people of Israel]. Then it leaves the people of Israel and settles on Torah scholars.

The common way to interpret this is to say that Torah scholars have a powerful evil inclination, but they conquer it. But if you think about it you will see that if that would e correct, then the main point is being left out. 

I would suggest that a deeper and truer understanding of that statement is that Torah scholars are the centre of the evil inclination and its root.

But this raises the question is not one supposed to learn Torah? If the end result of that is to become the centre of the evil inclination does that not defeat the whole purpose?

How to answer that? My experience with "Torah scholars" has been highly negative except for the few good years I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY and Shar Yashuv (also in NY).  So after that, I can see exactly what the Sages of the Talmud were getting at.  Torah scholars tend to be home wreckers --as I know and many others from bitter experience.  This clearly shows that the sages were correct.

The solution is that authentic Torah only followed the  Gra and the world of Litvak   yeshivot. Ad in fact I think experience bears out this point. Outside of the Litvak world of the Gra and Israel Salanter, the religious world seems to be the centre and root of the evil inclination.

The scroll of the Law and the veil were taken to Rome along with the candelabrum.

 Titus took the scroll of the law and the veil to Rome along with the candelabrum menora, the show-table the incense, the silver trumpets etc, [as we see in the triumph arch in Rome].[This is from Josephus.] There they were in two different temples until the time of Commodus (when those two temples were destroyed and yet the holy objects were rescued). Later, Genseric took them to Carthage, in the Vandal kingdom. Then Justinian I made war on him and they were taken to Constantinople. Then Procopius [historian] informs us a Jew told a friend of Justinian I that these holy objects could not reside outside of Jerusalem, and Justinian I upon hearing this had them sent to the Christian churches in Jerusalem [In 520 AD]. From that time and onwards, we lost track of them.

inscription om the arch, ''The Senate and the Roman people (dedicate this) to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian''

 It is an odd fact about empty space that in two ways it does not seem so empty. The Bohm effect where you have a solenoid that is all wrapped up so that nearby there is not field. And yet  nearby particles definitely detect something.  There is no field there, so all there is for the particles to feel is some change in the structure of empty space  The other thing is electromagnetism. This is made by an oscillation in something.  That is what we see in the Maxwell equations. These are equations of a harmonic oscillator. But all there seems to be there is empty space. [This has nothing to do with Special Relativity which simply accounts for the fact that the Aether, even it exists is not detectable in the same way as sound waves through a medium. ]

But empty space does not seem to be the thing since we know from GR that it is hard to make a dent in it.

So where do we find this stuff? In String Theory. Open strings need something to be attached to and that is the D Branes

 In the way of learning of Rav Nachman of Uman there is an emphasis on finishing that book that you are doing. That is this way of learning involves two things. One is to say the words and go on [believing] that eventually you will understand even if you think than now you do not understand. The other is to finish that book that you are learning.  You see this in particular with Natan his disciple. When Rav Nathan first became close to Rav Nahman, Rav Nahman told him to go through the entire Shulchan Aruch in one year. 

[The Shulchan is the length of a medium sized encyclopedia. It was written by Rav Josef Karo, and the standard version includes commentaries, the Shach, Taz, Magan Avraham, and the Gra.]  

[I see this idea of how to learn as being something that if people would now about they would be helped in many ways. First of all, knowing Shas. Clearly the slow methodical way of learning in Litvak yeshivot is great for getting to deep understanding of a particular (sugia)/ subject. However it does leave one with a lack of general knowledge. So I think at least some amount of time in learning ought to be דרך גירסא just saying the words and going on Also, this method of learning applies to Physics and Mathematics. And learning Physics is Math is important as we see in the Rambam in the Guide abd also in the Yad HaChazaaka in a amore hidden way.

 https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/ has a whole piece on faith and reason. To me it seems modern philosophy lost an opportunity to gain some ground in this this regard with Leonard Nelson and his Second Friesian School. It is not just that Kelley Ross has made a formidable defense of this position in his web site. but that it is almost a necessary step in Kant himself. For the Transcendental Deduction was the main thesis of the Critique. And yet Kant himself revised it in the 1787 B version. Why? Because Schultz had found the argument unsatisfactory.   And how else is it possible to deal with the main question, "How do the categories provide unity of experience?
 And how do we know them?" To me it seems the only possible answer is immediate non intuitive knowledge.

[However, almost any school  of Kant tends to be highly negative in regards to Hegel, but even Jacob Fries himself had some nice things to say about Hegel's system. [These comments of Fries were in a later book,-- I think it was in his History of Philosophy. And in truth it is hard to be unimpressed with the mature HEGEL, the system of the longer and short logic. but for some reason when they teach Hegel they always go to his first book the Phenomenology.--There the mature Hegel has not yet appeared-but is trying to defend ''"the state".] 

Rav Shach asks how could the Rambam derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the value of money. See Tosphot at the very beginning of tractate Kidushin

 Rav Shach asks how could the Rambam derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the value of money. Tosphot derives this from a Hebrew slave. [כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף] For a Hebrew slave is acquired by money or the value of money. But the Rambam holds that if the owner is a idolater he can only accept money. [כסף ממכרו. And I would say that Tosphot agrees with this because it is an open verse]  At any rate, Rav Shach says the sort of acquisition by which a Hebrew slave is bought back from his owner who is an idolater is monetary. This is different from the type of acquisition he is acquired from an Israeli master. That is an acquisition that applies to his work, not his body. For we know that by monetary acquisition we need something to be the coin that does the acquiring, and something else to be the thing that is acquired. [Now the value of money can also cause a monetary acquisition, but that is by trade or barter.] At any rate, I was at the beach and wondering why this makes a difference? After all if a Hebrew slaves is acquired by a Israeli master by the value of money and from a idolater master only by money then anyway it is a half of a derivation. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים But on the way back it occurred to me that we learn a wife from a Hebrew slave being acquired from a Israeli master because she is more like that. I mean both the Hebrew slave and the wife are not property in the same way as a in a monetary transaction. Rather the acquisition applies to certain obligations that they are required to do and certain  rights they get by way of their status as a slave or as a wife. So if we have a choice to learn from which case then from which case do we learn? Obviously the one that is closer. David Bronson was the first one to point out to me that there are different types of acquisitions. The most obvious example is that of renting. There is there an acquisition but not the same type as if there was a sale. 

____________________________________________________________________

 רב שך asks how could the רמב''ם derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the שווה כסף. While תוספות derives this from a עבד עברי. The verse says  כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף] For a  עבד עברי is acquired by money or the value of money. But the רמב''ם holds that if the owner is a idolater he can only accept money. [כסף ממכרו. And I would say that תוספות agrees with this because it is an open verse].  At any rate, רב שך says the sort of acquisition by which a עבד עברי is bought back from his owner who is an idolater is monetary. This is different from the type of acquisition he is acquired from an Israeli master. That is an acquisition that applies to his work, not his body. For we know that by קניין כסף we need something to be the coin that does the acquiring and something else to be the thing that is acquired. [Now the value of money can also cause a monetary acquisition, but that is by קניין חליפים.] At any rate, I was at the beach and wondering why this makes a difference? After all if a Hebrew slave is acquired by a Israeli master by the value of money and from a idolater master only by money, then anyway it is a half of a derivation. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים But on the way back it occurred to me that we learn a wife from a Hebrew slave being acquired from a Israeli master because she is more like that. I mean both the Hebrew slave and the wife are not property in the same way as  in a monetary transaction. Rather the acquisition applies to certain obligations that they are required to do and certain  rights they get by way of their status as a slave or as a wife. So if we have a choice to learn from which case then from which case do we learn? Obviously the one that is closer. David Bronson was the first one to point out to me that there are different types of acquisitions. The most obvious example is that of renting. There is there an acquisition, but not the same type as if there was a sale. 

רב שך שואל כיצד יכול היה הרמב''ם ללמוד את העובדה שאישה נרכשת על ידי שווה כסף. בעוד שתוספות לומדים א זאת מעבד עברי. הפסוק אומר כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. שכן עבד עברי נרכש בכסף או בערך כסף. אבל הרמב''ם מחזיק שאם הבעלים הוא עובד אלילים הוא יכול לקבל רק כסף. [כסף ממכרו. והייתי אומר שתוספות מסכימים עם זה כי זה פסוק פתוח]. מכל מקום, רב שך אומר שסוג הרכישה שבאמצעותו עבד עברי נקנה בחזרה מבעליו שהוא עובד אלילים היא כספית. זה שונה מסוג הרכישה שהוא נרכש ישראלי. זו רכישה שחלה על העבודה שלו, כי אנחנו יודעים שעל ידי קניין כסף אנחנו צריכים שמשהו יהיה המטבע שעושה את הרכישה ומשהו אחר שיהיה הדבר הנרכש. [עכשיו ערך הכסף יכול לגרום גם לרכישה כספית, אבל זה על ידי קניין חליפים.] בכל מקרה, תהיתי למה זה משנה? הרי אם עבד עברי נרכש על ידי אדון ישראלי בערך כסף ומאדון עובד אלילים רק בכסף, אז ממילא זה חצי גזירה. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים. אבל עלה בדעתי שאנחנו לומדים אישהמעסד עברי שנרכש מאדון ישראלי כי היא יותר כזו. כלומר גם העבד העברי וגם האישה אינם רכוש כמו בעסקה כספית. אלא הרכישה חלה על חובות מסוימות שהם נדרשים לעשות וזכויות מסוימות שהם מקבלים בדרך של מעמדם כעבד או כאישה. אז אם יש לנו ברירה ללמוד מאיזה מצב אז מאיזה מצב אנחנו לומדים? ברור המצב היותר קרוב. דיוויד ברונסון היה הראשון שציין בפניי שיש סוגים שונים של רכישות. הדוגמא הברורה ביותר היא זו של שכירות. יש רכישה, אבל לא אותו סוג כאילו הייתה מכירה.

new music file

 z55 music file

 z80 music file

 Rav Nahman of Breslov wrote in Sefer HaMidot לא להיכנס עם היצר הרע בטוען ונטען not to enter into arguments with the evil  inclination. And so on one hand I see Maverick Philosopher has a  piece on the male female insanity that has overtaken the USA, still I feel it is best not to enter into arguments about this or other issues. In the Mir the idea was, ''We should all learn Torah and recommend to others to do the same, and then all confusions will be automatically eliminated.'' 

[Learning Torah means Gemara and Tosphot. However to get to see the depths of Gemara, the best thing  is the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]  

[i do not agree in toto with everything  Rav Nahman says. Rather I try to use the sense of balance and common sense that my parents granted to me to discern.  One thing seems  important to mention --thati see learning Torah in a more important light than is generally thought in Breslov. Also I think Torah is more interested in the Creator than in tzadikim [saints].  On one hand I can see the importance of tzadikim,-- but only as a reminder to direct my hopes and trust onto God,  In fact, the whole tzadikim business has gotten way out of hand and become pure idolatry 

 z82 midi  z82 nwc

There is one time when a head covering is required as is brought in מסכת סופרים, and that is when one takes out the Torah scroll and reads it in the synagogue,-- and even that is never brought down in the gemara nor in the later poskim. So it is hard to know why people get so frantic if you walk into a shul without a head covering. It  has no source in halacha. It is just a sign of a deeper problem,  -- that  nothing they do has any source in Torah. The only people that are making an effort to keep Torah as it says [and not add or subtract] are the Litvaks that follow the path of the Gra and Rav Shach.

[In pictures of Jews in the Middle Ages, there is not one showing any Jew wearing a "Kipa". The only people who wore "kipot" were the pope and bishops.-as they do today. 

תוספות בתחילת קידושין

The Mishna says a woman is acquired by means of money or something worth money. Tosphot asks "How do we know?" Tosphot answers because we learn the worth of money is like money from a Hebrew Slave.  כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. When one redeems a Hebrew slave he must give money to the owner. The sages say that from extra wording of this verse we learn that one can redeem a slave also with property that is worth money. But in the opinion o the Rambam, this does not apply to an owner who is an idolater. He can receive only actual money for his Hebrew slaves.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rav Shach asks on the Rambam how does he answer the question of Tosphot in the beginning of Kidushin: why should שווה כסף [something worth money] buy a bride? Tosphot answers because we learn the worth of money is like money from a Hebrew Slave.  כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף The Rambam could not use this answer because it only applies to a Israeli owner. But to the Rambam,  an owner that is an idolater can only accept money--silver , not anything that is worth money. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים

One might answer that the Rambam holds קידושי כסף is מדברי סופרים words of the scribes and so they can formulate  the law in any way they like. That would mean they can make it to include שווה כסף/ However that is not an answer to this question because when the Rambam writes that  קידושי כסף הם מדברי סופרים he means  that when the Sanhedrin derives a  law by means of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is explained. a later Sanhedrin that sees things differently can change that law. That does not mean it is a גזירה law by decree. Rather, it means the first Sanhedrin sees  it as a law from the Torah and the second one does not. And we go by the Gemara which holds we learn קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון

However, I still have one question. The Rambam holds שווה כסף can buy something because it is קניין חליפין and אין אישה נקנית על ידי קניין חליפין. How do we know the Rambam holds שווה כסף can buy something because it is קניין חליפין Rav Shach point this out because in הלכות מכירה פרק א  the Rambam discuses קניין כסף and later in פרק ה' הוא כוב כל המטלטים קונים זה את זה and there he deals with קניין ליפין  

_____________________________________________________________________________

  רב שך שואל בשיטת הרמב''ם איך הוא עונה לשאלת תוספות בתחילת קידושין: למה שווה כסף קונה אישה? תוספות עונים כי אנחנו לומדים ששווה כסף ככסף מעבד עברי. זה הפסוק: כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. עם זאת הרמב''ם לא יכול להשתמש בתשובה זו כי היא שייכת רק לבעלים ישראלים. אבל לרמב''ם, בעלים שהוא עובד אלילים יכול לקבל רק כסף - כסף, ולא שום דבר אחר ששווה כסף. גזירה שווה לחצאים אין.  .היה אפשר לענות שהרמב''ם מחזיק קידושי כסף זה מדברי סופרים ולכן הם יכולים לנסח את החוק בכל דרך שהם רוצים. זה אומר שהם יכולים לנסח את הגזירה לכלול שווה כסף. אולם כאשר הרמב''ם כותב שקידושי כסף הם מדברי סופרים הוא מתכוון שכאשר הסנהדרין מדייק חוק באמצעות שלוש עשרה העקרונות שעל פיהם מוסברת התורה סנהדרין מאוחר יותר שרואה את הנושא אחרת יכול לשנות את החוק הזה. זה לא אומר שזו גזירה. אלא זה אומר שבית דין הגדול הראשון רואה בזה חוק מהתורה והשני לא. ואנחנו מחזיקים כמו הגמרא שלומדים קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון  אבל עדיין יש לי שאלה אחת. הרמב''ם מחזיק שווה כסף יכול לקנות משהו כי זה קניין חליפין ואין אישה נקנית על ידי קניין חליפין. איך נדע שהרמב''ם מחזיק שווה כסף יכול לקנות משהו על ידי שהוא קניין חליפין?הסיבה היא כפי שציינו רב שך כי בהלכות מכירה פרק א' הרמב''ם דן בקניין כסף ואחר כך בפרק ה' הוא. כותב "כל המטלטים קונים זה את זה", ושם הוא עוסק בקניין חליפין

 So now even Maverick Philosopher agrees that there is a separate source of moral information--the conscience. That is what Leonard Nelson calls non intuitive immediate knowledge.

[I am being short here, but just as a brief explanation: Maverick Philosopher is from the Analytic School and this is a huge step for a very important Analytic Philosopher agree with Leonard Nelson and the Friesian School in this area. It is almost dogma by them to say there is no such thing as immediate knowledge 

Another note: immediate  non intuitive knowledge [not through reason nor the five senses] was postulated in order to find a justification for the questions like where, when, [space time], why, [causality] etc. Empirical knowledge was out because of the problem of induction and knowledge of causality  by reason was attempted by Kant, but that was found to be problematic also. Most think that Kant's justification for these categories simply defies  reason.    It was later that this immediate non intuitive was expanded to include faith. But this expansion is significant in that it is really just an improvement of Kant, and not a completely different approach.    

Rav Kinievky said that it is best not to emphasize different aspects of Torah, but instead just to keep Torah plain and simple. He noted that when people emphasize one aspect over others, that is the very thing they fail in. 

But even so I think he would agree with the primacy of the mitzvah of learning Torah.

And I would in fact lie to emphasize that aspect, but I would like to include Physics and Mathematics along with that. 

But I admit that the Rishonim that included Physics along with Torah also included Metaphysics, [i.e. Aristotle's book The Meta-Physics] I have trouble emphasizing philosophy. Especially academic philosophy.

The show of religiosity

 One of the problems with Torah Scholars that are demons as mentioned in the Le.M of Rav Nahman of Breslov is in family relations. The problem itelf is mentioned in the Ari in the Eitz Chaim itself. And of course the Gemara itself mentions this in several places.  אם אתה רוה דור שצרות באים עליו צא ןבדוק בדייני ישראל, שכל הצרות הבאות לעולם לא באות אלא בגלל דייני ישראל. The problem is mainly that these sort of pseudo Torah Scholars is that they use their positions of authority to destroy families. This is very common, but is forbidden to mention Lason Hara [the prohibition of slander] is often mentioned. Still at times it is important to warn people that those that make the most effort to make a show of how religious they are, most often have an alternative agenda in mind.  After all you should ask yourself if the Torah itself saysהצנע לכת עם אלקיך  to walk modestly with your God (i e. Do not advertise how walk with God  then why does the religious world make such a point about appearing religious --in exact opposition to the Torah?

. 

 

the vaccine industry

 Food purity and warnings against additives came from a lifelong crusade by a chemist named Wiley. But it was a battle against corporations and Congress. The corporations that were making money by putting formaldehyde into our food did not care about the effects. The parallel to this nowadays in the vaccine industry.

To clarify: Congress was not against him but rather simply refused to pass food purity laws. It was mainly the newspapers and corporations that were against him. So when we but soda we now what is in it and we are not worried about formaldehyde additives Why? Because of Wiley. But who remembers him nowadays?

Myself I admit that I would probably be more susceptible to the Covid-Vaccine-scam if not for the warning of Rav Nahman in the Conversations of Rav Nahman perek 50

בבבא בתרא דף כ''ד

אביי בבבא בתרא דף כ''ד מדייק מן המשנה שרוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב. מה אומרת המשנה ההיא? היא אומרת: "דם הנמצא בפרוזדור ספיקו טמא שחזקתו בא מן המקור." המשנה אומרת שיש חזקה. ושהחזקה גורמת לדם להיות ספק. ואביי מדייק מזה כשיש רוב אין ספק. רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב. אם כן מה זה מכוונת המשנה? הוא שמאמצע המסדרון ולמעלה, הדם הוא ספק בגלל החזקה, ומאמצע ולמטה, הדם הוא ודאי טמא בגלל שיש רוב. רוב הדם באזור זה הוא מהמקור. זה מתאים לגמרא בבא בתרא כ''ד והוא מה שאמר רב הונא דם בתוך פרוזדור מן הלול ולמעלה ספק טמא, מן הלול ולמטה בודאי טמא. כי מהאמצע ולמטה יש חזקה ורוב, ומאמצע ומעלה יש רק חזקה. זה נראה ברור אם תהיה רק ​​הגמרא בבבא בתרא. אבל אביי שואל על רב הונא במסכת נידה י''ז ע''ב, "אם אתה אזלת (הולך) לפי הספק, אז הדם שנמצא בכל המסדרון צריך להיות טמא. אם אתה הולך לפי החזקה, אז הדם שנמצא באזור התחתון צריך להיחשב טמא ודם שנמצא באזור העליון צריך להיחשב טהור בהחלט. זה נשמע יותר כמו שאלה על המשנה. איך זה שהמשנה אומרת בגלל חזקה יש ספק? אלא אם יש לנו חזקה, צריך להיות שאין ספק. ואם יש לנו ספק, אז אין חזקה. כנראה גירסת הרמב''ם הייתה כך ששאל אביי על המשה וכך ענה אותו רב הונא וזה לדעתי מסביר מדוע מביא הרמב"ם את הדין שאמר רב הונא ומתעלם משאלת אביי. הסיבה היא שאבי עצמו מסכים בבירור עם ההלכה של רב הונא וביאור רב הונא במשנה. כי שם זה אביי בעצמו שאומר מהמשנה נלמד רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב.  זה אומר שאפילו אביי חושב שחזקה לא תספיק לומר שהדם בהחלט טמא וצריך רוב גם. זה בדיוק כמו רב הונא. אז אביי שאל את שאלתו בנידה י''ז ואחר כך הסכים עם רב הונא

עכשיו רב שך מביא את הרמב''ם הזה באסורי ביאה ה:ה אבל עוסק מדוע דם באזור התחתון צריך להיות יותר מסתם רוב, אלא מצוי גם. התשובה לכך היא כמו שאומר רב שך: שכאן אתה צריך רוב טוב יותר, כי החזקה של האשה שהיא טהורה עד שאתה יודע אחרת. אבל יותר מכך אני רוצה להציע שזו הייתה אותה נקודה בדיוק של רבא נגד אביי: "רוב ומצוי קא אמרת". וזה לא הולך כמו ר' חנינא שמחזיק רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב. כך ברור שהרמב''ם פשוט הוסיף את הנקודה הנוספת (של מצוי) בגלל הדעה האחרת שרוב וקרוב אנחנו הולכים לפי הקרוב.

Introduction. Blood in the lower part of the hallway is רוב but considered near to the attic. So for it to be considered to have come from the חדר you have to sayרוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב

 אביי in בבא בתרא דף כ''ד derives from a משנה that רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב what does that mishna say? It says דם הנמצא בפרוזדור ספיקו טמא שהזקתו בא מן המקור the משנה says there is a חזקה and that חזקה makes the blood to be a doubt. And אביי derives from this a  רוב is no doubt. רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב  Thus what this must mean is from the middle of the hallway and upwards, the blood is a doubt because of the  חזקה/ And from the middle and downwards the blood is definitely טמא because of there is a רוב. Most of the blood in that area is from the source. This fits in the גמרא in בבא בתרא and is what רב הונא said דם הנמצא בפרוזדור מן הלול ולמעלה ספיקו טמא מן הלול ולמטה ספיקו בודאי טמא that would be because from the middle and down there is a  חזקה ורוב and from the middle and up there is only a  חזקה. This seems clear if there would only be the גמרא in בבא בתרא. But אביי asks on רב הונא in מסכת נידה י''ז ע''ב."if you go by a doubt then the blood found in entire hallway should be impure. If you go by חזקה then the blood found in the lower area should be considered impure and blood found in the upper area should be considered definitely pure. This sounds more like a question on the משנה. How is it that the משנה says because of a חזקה there is a doubt? Rather is we have a חזקה there should be no doubt. And if we have a doubt then there is no חזקה This I think explains why the רמב''ם brings the law as stated by רב הונא and ignores the question of אביי, The reason is that אביי himself clearly agrees with the explanation of רב הונא in the משנה. For there it is אביי himself who says from the משנה we learn.רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב That mist mean that even אביי thinks חזקה would not be enough to say the blood is definitely impure and we need a "רוב"also. This is exactly like רב הונא. So אביי asked his question in נידה י''ז and then later agreed with רב הונא. 

In other words if you would have the mishna and then the questioning of Abyee on the mishna [instead of on Rav Huna]and then the approach of Rav Huna, everything would be clear. 

I might have been more clear, but i think if you think about it you will see my point. For the Mishna is saying something that at first glace does not make sense and you can understand the statement of Rav Huna a coming to clarify it.

 I really do not have any Gemara to look this up, and  it occurs to me  that without a Gemara to look this up I might be wrong. Still I would like to suggest this idea: Abyee in Bava Batra pg 24 derives from a mishna that רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב what does that mishna say? It says דם הנמצא בפרוזדור ספיקו טמא שהזקתו בא מן המקור the Mishna says there is a חזקה and that חזקה makes the blood to be a doubt. And Abyee derives from this a ''most'' רוב is no doubt. רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב  Thus what this must mean is from the middle of the hallway and upwards, the blood is a doubt because of the  חזקה/ And from the middle and downwards the blood is definitely impure because of there is a "most". Most of the blood in that area is from the source. This fits in the Gemara in Bava Batra and is what Rav Huna said דם הנמצא בפרוזדור מן הלול ולמעלה ספיקו טמא מן הלול ולמטה ספיקו בודאי טמא that would be because from the middle and down there is a  חזקה ורוב and from the middle and up there is only a  חזקה

This seems clear if there would only be the Gemara in Bava Batra. But Abyee asks on Rav Hunaa in Nida pg 17b."if you go by a doubt then the blood found in entire hallway should be impure. If you go by חזקה then the blood found in the lower area should be considered impure and blood found in the upper area should be considered definitely pure. This sounds more like a question on the Mishna. How is it that the Misshan says because of a חזקה there is a doubt? Rather is we have a חזקה there should be no doubt. And if we have a doubt then there is no חזקה This I think explains why the Rambam brings the law as stated by Rav Huna and ignores the question of Abyee, The reason is that Abyee himself clearly agrees with the explanation of Rav Huna in the Mishna in Bava Batra. For there it is Abyee himself who says from the Mishna we learn.רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב That must mean that even Abyee thinks חזקה would not be enough to say the blood is definitely impure and we need a "most "also. This is exactly like Rav Huna. So Abyee asked his question in Nida 17 and then later agreed with Rav Huna. 

I should mention here that I do not recall all these gemaras off hand but rather aw them in the book of Rav Shach in Laws of Forbidden Relations 5 law 5. There I see he has a deep explanation of the Rambam. But here I was concentrating just on the statements of Abyee and Rav Huna. Just the logistics, not the deeper reasons for what they are saying. That I leave to Raav Shach. 

  Some people have noticed the problems with Kant's way of showing how and why principles of science work. This started a long time ago. The issue is this do we know principles like space, time, causality by induction or a priori reasons. Induction does not work as Hume showed, so Kant tried the a priori approach. The ways he goes about this are considered to be flimsy. Some people are even harsh about this. Danny Frederick wrote that the way Kant does this is  invalid and dogmatic.  So I wonder why the Kelley Ross's  approach [based on Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson] is not more looked into. This is thoroughly Kantian, but   corrects this one area by the idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge. I would think that people that are Kantians would look into this approach.`

i realize to some extent that the whole Friesian approach has taken a long time to get into shape. You can see this yourself if you look at Fries. And as for Leonard Nelson, well things are a lot better but still there was a lot of difficulty when Relativity came on the scene. Altogether would say that the Kelley Ross approach puts it altogether in the best way  the link is to the general information site of dr ross but you might take a look at his phd thesis at that site which has a lot more detail. 

[I was motivated to mention this because Fries and Nelson were both mentioned by an Analytic philosopher] and that fellow also noticed the Nelson Affair. [Nelson was a pariah for the philosophers at  Gottingen. but very much in favor by David Hilbert. Personally I would go with David Hilbert any day of the week.

 z81 music file  z81 nwc

dipping in vessels as far as a mikve/goes is a problem

טובל בכלים dipping in vessels as far as a mikve/goes is a problem/ The major problem comes from the fact that a lot of mikvot are made with a separation between the concrete structure of the mikve and the ground. But this problem would exist anyway [even without that plastic that they put between the walls of the mikve and the ground]. Though I admit is is hard to imagine how all women would go to the sea after their period. One might make a mikve with a thin layer of concrete such that if it would be pulled up it would fall apart. [That would make the mikve ok since that concrete structure would not be a vessel.].

I am tired when I get back from the sea so i is hard for me to learn Torah this minute. So I thought to take a few minutes to explain a very important aspect of all this. A separation between one's body and the water is only a separation is it is  רוב הגוף ומקפיד stops the water from touching most of the body and one wants the water not to touch. If the clothing stops the water from touching only less than most of the body and one wants the water not to touch that makes the dipping not valid by a decree from the sages. but what you usually have with clothing is the water touches all of the body and one does not mind. that is not even a decree. So a woman can go to the sea with her regular swim suit even during the day of the seventh day and that is a valid dipping--if she dips in all of her body including her head.

i mean to say that if the period is less than seven days [which is usual]then she goes into a natural body on water even during the seventh day and becomes pure at night. but in the unusual situation that she sees again  after that then she waits a day שומרת יום כנגד יום and  goes again into water. If again she sees then again waits a day and again into water. But if she sees for three days then that is a zava and she  needs seven clean days --that means to check on the first day and seventh. If all those days are clean then she goes into a natural body of water But here I have again a problem because at that point she needs a spring. Not a river, nor even the sea but an actual spring. מים חיים   [well as rivers are concerned, that is an argument among the rishonim since rivers are fed from springs underneath them.] 

 I have thought about spheres in higher dimensions for  along time--that is the subject called homotopy but never came to any new ideas there except that the more symmetries you have in higher dimensions the less fields should be available which would limit any worlds there. So you can see why a world like in String Theory with 10 dimensions should still be limited to 3 space and one time just to have a place to have interesting results. Knots is a good example where adding dimensions makes a place where you can not have knots . They can slip.

מוקצה מחמת גופו would be coins on Shabat. But that itself is an argument between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel concerning  bones. To Rashi that refers to bones that are totally inedible. And yet and thus. מוקצה מחמת גופו. In the Mishna Beit Hillel forbids and then the Gemara turns to Mishna around so that Beit Hillel turn out to be the ones who permit. And that goes along with the regular law that to R. Shimon Muktze only applies to Yom Tov. 

Still there are opinions in the Gemara that limit what R Shimon says--even though everyone agrees that the law is like him. So I have never written about this because people that want to be strict have some opinions to depend on. It is just that I am not looking for ways of being extra stringent. What the Torah forbids is enough for me

 

x81 short song i thought of at the beach I am thinking to work on this a bit.  X81 in midi

General Robert E Lee. And the Union was voluntary. So it is like you have a marriage where both enter into the agreement voluntarily, and then one starts to abuse the other. Is there any question that one has the right to leave that arrangement? What right would the other party have to bring guns and cannon to the table to make the other party stay?

 I was thinking about General Robert E Lee and his devotion to do what is right at all cost. So I thought about what was he thinking at the beginning of the Civil War? And it occurred to me that he must not have been thinking about secession as much as the Constitution itself.(And as far as slavery went, the Supreme Court had decided the issue based on the Constitution in the Dred Scot decision. For the Constitution itself never addressed the issue so automatically it went under the 9th and tenth ammendment that everything not addressed in the Constitution goes to the states.). So as far as anyone could see, the North was trampling's the rights of the states. And the Union was voluntary. So it is like you have a marriage where both enter into the agreement voluntarily, and then one starts to abuse the other. Is there any question that one has the right to leave that arrangement? What right would the other party have to bring guns and cannon to the table to make the other party stay?

 Rav Israel Salanter began the Musar Movement with the awareness that to be a mensch [good character] is a main thing-- even though this might not be clear from a straight reading of the Oral and Written Law. to be aware of the importance of 'midot tovot' good character really takes faith in the Rishonim. But this message has been lost in time. Even in the great Litvak yeshivot where Musar is learned, this emphasis on good character traits has been lost while religious fanaticism has taken its place [or all sorts of other weird ideas]. What ever happened to straight Torah? The best idea therefore is to renew the Musar Movement--but this time not to mix it with foreign ideas. Just straight Musar of the Rishonim [and the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter that go along with that approach.] 

And remember what the Rif and Rosh wrote about "Outside books" ספרים חיצונים [that one loses his portion in the next world by reading]-books that explain the Torah in ways other than the Midrash of the sages. Most religious books come under this category. 

Why Rishonim are important is that in philosophy and logic the Middle Ages excelled in rigorous logic even though the axioms were often faulty. After the Middle Ages even the best of  authors were often guilty of circular logic..

 Even though there is a lot to be learned in the Litvak world, I think that the essential flaw is making use of Torah for the sake of making a living. But if that would be all that was problematic I would say one could depend on the Beit Yoseph in his commentary on the Rambam where he defends this practice. But where I find the problem is that it leads to the attitude: "I deserve your money because in my merit the whole world stands". I mean, this sort of odd attitude of the religious that they are somehow superior beings that the rest of us low-lives are supposed to support.

[However I must make an exception for the great roshei yeshivot that I knew, Rav Friefeld of Shar Yashuv, and Rav Shmuel Berenbaum of the Mir.--who were really sincere and dedicated to Torah for its own sake.]

review once per day for a long extended period

I had heard that in Breslov, there was this idea of review forty day in a row of that specific Torah lesson that relates to one's problem. To a large degree this idea of review once per day for a long extended period of time seemed to help me in understanding in  other areas besides the book of Rav Nahman. For example the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk. When I would read through one section one day several times, that never seemed to help me understand as well as if I would just read it through once and then the next day read it through again-just once. And thus continue for a few weeks.[That was when I did not have my learning session with David Bronson where we went through Reb Chaim in his usual painstaking word by word sort of way.] 

I also found this in Physics and Mathematics. I would take one subject and review it for forty days in a row and that helped a lot more than review one day many times.

 I do not see anything wrong with slavery. You have it in Exodus and in Leviticus. In Exodus it discusses the laws concerning a Hebrew slave. Six years he serves and is let go in the seventh.  In the end of Leviticus, it also goes into the laws of a Hebrew slave that sells himself in order to pay for a a debt. Then it also brings the law of a gentile slave--who must not be let go of. 

In the New Testament also this issue is brought up several times. There the exhortation is for  slaves not to rebel but rather to serve their masters faithfully.  No where is it suggested that a owner of slaves should let them go.

Beside this I might mention that one who does  a favor for someone who does not appreciate it is as he threw a stone at Markulit, an idol that its worship was by throwing stones at it. Few black people feel gratitude towards the USA. Just the opposite. Most are determined to destroy the USA.

 In the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov, there is brought the importance of learning with understanding. [Le.M vol. I chapter 74.]. /This seems to disagree with Conversation of Rav Nachman chapter 76. But I did notice today that the chapter in the LeM is not saying to be sitting  on the same page for a long time. Rather the implication is by learning fast, one can come to deep understanding.  

But this does not seem to be the Litvak Path. [Lithuanian Yeshivot based on the Gra.]    I recall Rav Shelomo Freifeld emphasizing reviewing  everything that one learns ten times.

And over time I discovered that people that do not get the deep learning approach of the Litvak Yeshivot right away when they are young, never get it afterwards. But on the other hand I realize it takes a lot of fast learning to discover what one ought to concentrate on.

 z79 music file

 I find insights in the great philosophers when I get a chance to read them. But I am not saying everything they said was right. One example I recall from a few years ago was when I was reading Hegel and noticed when he wrote that matter is energy--point blank relativity! Another  time I was reading Hobhouse  in his critique on the Metaphysical State. [That was an attack on people that were building  a co we do not know nception of such a state and to do so were borrowing some ideas from Hegel.  Some of the attacks were true but one I recall was that Hegel had said matter is gravity. I do not remember exactly this minute what Hegel had said but it seemed to me to indicate that matter bend space and creates gravitational waves .

I might look this up to give you a better idea of what I mean. 

Another  place I noticed where a great philosopher had a great idea was where Kant said we can not know matter itself, only 0characteristics. Matter in Quantum Field Theory by itself is well understood. It is the "m" in the Lagrangian density or the Hamiltonian. But when it interacts it becomes infinite-an absurd conclusion.
 

I find also in tzadikim that it is not always the best idea to follow everything they say but rather to find the things that make the most sense and leave off the rest. 

And Leibniz said something similar about the followers  of Descartes -that they were not following his path by following every word he said. That in fact dishonored him. It was more people like Spinoza that were following his path  of rigorous logical inquiry that were really following his path.

You might say the same about Rav Nahman.

 During the time of Kant there was a debate whether to close the universities which had been mainly for teaching theology combined with secular studies on the side. One side of the debate was to have only tech schools. --i.e. vocation schools. The other side won--the liberal arts. To the determent of all.

 I say it is time has come for the vocation schools. Learning how to weld, solder, do the jobs that civilization depends on is worth a million PhDs in sex studies.