My intension in learning theArizal was because I had seen in Rav Moshe Haim Lutzato [Ramhal] the emphasis on doing so. That is in a small booklet attached at the end of Mesilat Yesharim. So my intension was not  for mystic powers or enlightenment. It was simply to continue my studies in the Oral Law. However there were side effects. One was when I got to Israel, the light that shines there did enter my soul in a powerful way. Another side benefit was that many of the questions that people have on the Written Torah evaporated since the Ari explains all the verses of Torah in a mystic fashion and he considers this to be the פשוט פששט simple explanation.

 Referendum if to join the Russian Federation. I had a friend in the Ukraine whose daughter was in the Crimea at the time of that referendum,  and she  became a Russian citizen instead of Ukraine. From my experience I can not see the people of those eastern regions as objecting to Russian citizenship. I think they will vote unanimously to join Russia.

 When Litvak yeshivot mean to learn in depth, I think most people do not really understand what they mean. Even to me it seemed ridiculous. The first week in yeshiva you learn at most one page of gemara, And that does not mean to learn the commentaries at all. It means that there is inherent in the gemara itself that amount of depth that it takes at least a week of about 5 hours per day [in the morning session] to even begin to scratch the surface. And I freely admit that this really requires a very high IQ in the first place to see this. So when I was there just by force of circumstances I would read through all the commentaries that I could get my hands on. [For example the Shita Mekubetzet on the first page of Ketuboth is about twenty pages of tiny close lined print] but that was because I really was not on the level needed to see the depth on my ow,. And in fact never got there until many years later I began learning with David Bronson in Uman. and then I started getting the idea. [You can see a bit of this in my two booklets on Shas and Bava Metzia.]

 z90 midi music file

 Rav Nahman said there is a evil inclination in the service of God of going overboard. It is hard to know what are the exact parameters of this. I for one took myself to study of the Ari while at the Mir Yeshiva in NY and this certainly can be considered to be going overboard. After all right at the Introduction of the Eitz Chaim you have the warning and oath of Rav Chaim Vital that no one should look at his book who has not fulfilled a set of enumerated conditions. Take a look at them and you will see that no one who has looked at that book can possibly have fulfilled those conditions in the couple hundred years. No one is fasting from after Shabat to the next kidush.

  

[not to leave the subject in the middle let me say that the issue still is unclear to me --since after all i think that this learning helped me in many ways. Still  i feel i jumped in too soon and still needed to do a lot more of Shas] at any rate i do think that learning the ari for some time helped prepare me for the land of israel and the amazing light which shines there. so i would have to say that rav shmuel berenbaum was right when i asked him about thissort of learning. he said first finish shas. i said i already did. he said do it again. [of course when reb smuel said finish shas he did not mean the way some do it. rather he meant beiyun with tosphot, maharsha and reb chaim of brisk. ] 

 I noticed an odd fact. Julius Caesar was from the family of the Julii. The Julii were not originally Romans but rather from Alba which made war on Rome but the war was resolved by combat of three soldiers against three. The last one standing was a Roman so Alba came under  Rome. But then in the next war against the Sabians, Alba rebelled. So Rome killed their commander who ordered his troops to defect. Then the city of Alba was destroyed and all the citizens were  moved to Rome and some of their leading families were made patricians in the Senate.  And one of those families was the Julii.

There is some irony here. on one hand Caesar was from a people that were not originally Roman. And he in fact was the end of the Roman Republic, Yet on the other hand, it is hard to think of any Roman greater than Caesar. There must be a lesson here about baali teshuva [don't trust the newly religious.]

[actually I can think of one roman who was greater than Caesar, i,e., the philosopher Plotinus.]

 z88 music file

Rav Nachman did not say to go to his grave on Rosh Hashanah. He did however say so for the tikun klali, but not Rosh Hashanah. For Rosh Hashanah he said to come to him. He never said anything about his grave in connection with Rosh Hashanah. 

 דאשתמש בתגא חלף "One who uses the crown passes away." מכאן אמרו כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל חייו מן העולם "From here they said, 'Anyone who derives benefit from words of Torah, takes his life out of the world.'"

Pirkei Avot chapter 4 mishna 7. see commentary of Rambam who writes that the roshei yeshiva who say it isamitzvah to give money to yeshivot are liars It is a strong sort of language that you do not see usually in the words of the Rambam. But it seems that he saw that Torah was becoming a business and saw this would    bring about a situation lie we see nowadays--when the vast majority of those who claim to be learning and teaching Torah are hypocrites.

זבחים ט ע''א פסחים ס''ב tractate zevachim page 9 and pesachim page 62

 Even though רב שך writes that the רמב''ם holds the leftover פסח sacrifice does not need עקירה from the name פסח and rather becomes automatically a קרבן שלמים I think he must have been aware of how weak this idea is. For he himself brings two powerful refutations of this very idea. One he tries to escape with a weak answer what is called a דוחק. The other he does not answer at all. The first refutation is this: the רמב''ם brings the teaching that says ''if the owners of the פסח die or become unclean [before it is sacrificed] it must be burnt immediately.'' The גמרא brings this teaching and right away says, ''we see from this that the leftover פסח needs uprooting. [Now even though רב שך tries to answer this that the רמב''ם is only referring to specific cases where the owners are pushed off to the second פסח, we see from the language of the רמב''ם that he states the law simply if the owners died it is burnt.] The next question even רב שך does not attempt an answer to. It is the teaching that if the whole year has passed and one brings the פסח for the sake of פסח in its time it is כשר but not accepted. That even the גמרא does not use as a proof that the leftover פסח does not need uprooting for everyone agrees in this case as תוספות says. The גמרא does not in fact use that ברייתא as a proof for רב הונא in the name of רב that the פסח does not need uprooting. 

למרות שרב שך כותב שהרמב''ם מחזיק את קרבן הפסח שנשאר לא צריך עקירה מהשם פסח ודווקא הופך אוטומטית לקרבן שלמים, אני חושב שהוא בטח היה מודע לכמה שהרעיון הזה חלש. שכן הוא עצמו מביא שתי הפרכות עוצמתיות לרעיון זה. אחד הוא מנסה לברוח עם תשובה חלשה מה שנקרא דוחק. על השני הוא לא עונה בכלל. ההפרכה הראשונה היא זו: הרמב''ם מביא את ההוראה האומרת שאם בעלי הפסח מתים או נטמאים יש לשרוף אותו מיד. הגמרא מביאה את ההוראה הזאת ומיד אומרת ''אנו רואים מכאן שצריך לעקור את השאריות הפסח.'' [עכשיו למרות שרב שך מנסה לענות על זה שהרמב''ם מתייחס רק למקרים ספציפיים שבהם הבעלים נדחקים לפסח השני אנחנו רואים מלשון הרמב''ם שהוא קובע את הדין בפשטות אם הבעלים מתו זה נשרף.] השאלה הבאה אפילו רב שך לא מנסה לענות עליה. הלימוד הוא שאם חלפה כל השנה ומביאים את הפסח לשם פסח בזמנו כשר אבל לא מקובל. שאפילו הגמרא אינה משתמשת כהוכחה ששארית הפסח אינה צריכה עקירה שהרי כולם מסכימים במקרה זה כדברי תוספות. הגמרא למעשה אינו משתמש באותה ברייתא כהוכחה לרב הונא בשם רב שהפסח אינו צריך לעקור.

 Loyalty to Torah ought not be confused with affiliation to the religious world.  Even the most straight of all groups, the Lithuanian world of Torah is, after all, only human. You can see this principle in the Torah itself where the emphasis is on loyalty to God and keeping his law. but also [as i have mentioned many times] you see this in the Gemara which deals with the sacrifice that klal Israel brings when we listen to a mistaken Sanhedrin. [The case is when the Sanhedrin rules on a situation which involves the penalty of karet (cutting off) [e.g. idolatry , or shabat] and the Sanhedrin rules that some act of idolatry is permitted when the individual knows it is forbidden. still the individual depends on the ruling of the Sanhedrin and does the act. he has to bring his own sin offering and can not depend on the sin offering that the Sanhedrin must ring for their own acting on their mistaken ruling.]

There is no concept that the religious authorities can not be mistaken. So then what about the statement אפילו אומר לך על ימין שמאל או על שמאל ימין even if he says on right that it is left or on left that it is right this does does not refer to a case where the law is known to the individual as we see in the gemara that one must not depend on a mistaken Sanhedrin. 

 z87 [a midi file]  z87 nwc

 I think that one should accept the yoke of Torah to be learning Torah day and night and trusting in God for parnasa [making a living]. I just want to make it clear that the fact that I am not doing so is not because that I disagree with the basic approach. rather that for reasons that I do not understand very well, I could never ''make it'' in the world of Torah even though I think I tried as hard as I could. But if others can manage to do this, I think that is the best thing.  As for myself when I saw that I had to do so, I went to Polytechnic Institute of NYU to major in Physics for I needed some way of making a living. 

זבחים ט' ע''א Zevahim רמב''ם מעשה הקרבנות פרק י' הלכה ז' rambam laws of sacrifies chap. 10 law #9

 The leftover Passover sacrifice. Rav Shach writes that the Rambam holds it is a regular peace offering and thus is eaten two days and one night. He gets this from the fact that the Rambam does not write anything about it at all. All he does is write the law of the Passover which is eaten only that night and the law of peace offerings which are eaten two days and one night. And he has to answer Tosphot who holds the leftover Passover sacrifice is eaten one day and one night only and Tosphot brings an open Torat Kohanim that says so openly and many other proofs. Rav Shach says that statement from Torat Kohanim go like the opinion that the Pesach sacrifice needs to be uprooted from the name of a pesach to that of a peace offering.

You can argue for this idea in this way. If the Rambam would hold  the pesach needs to be uprooted then he would have written it,  but if he holds it does not need to be uprooted, then he could easily just leave it out, after all, he is not writing all the things you do not need to do.

on the other hand it seems weak. he writes nothing about uprooting and he writes nothing about how long the leftover pesach is eaten. and you can reasonably argue tht even if the law is the pesach does not need uprooting then it remains with the name of pesach and thus has the same law of being eaten only the day and night it is sacrificed-no longer.

Plus one proof Rav Shach brings is weak. He brings that the Rambam writes if the whole year has gone by and then he sacrifices the pesach in his time it is kosher but not accepted. So there the Rambam definitely holds it does not require uprooting, but so what. tosphot writes that the case of when the whole year has gone by everyone agrees it does not require uprooting.  

However Rav Shach brings some proofs that if it does not require uprooting, then it should have all the regular laws of a peace offering, So i need to think about this some more

_____________________________________________________________________________

   מותר הפסח רב שך כותב  that the רמב''ם holds it is a regular peace offering and thus is eaten two days and one night. He gets this from the fact that the רמב''ם does not write anything about it at all. All he does is write the law of the פסח which is eaten only that night and the law of שלמים which are eaten two days and one night. And he has to answer תוספות who holds the leftover קרבן פסח is eaten one day and one night only and תוספות brings a תורת כהנים that says so openly and many other proofs. רב שך says that statement from תורת כהנים goes like the opinion that the קרבן פשח needs to be uprooted from the name of a פסח to that of a שלמים. You can argue for this idea in this way. If the רמב''ם would hold  the  קרבן פסח needs to be uprooted then he would have written it,  But if he holds it does not need to be uprooted then he could easily just leave it out, After all, he is not writing all the things you do not need to do. On the other hand it seems weak. He writes nothing about עקירה and he writes nothing about how long the leftover  קרבן פסח is eaten. And you can reasonably argue that even if the law is the קרבן פסח does not need  עקירה then it remains with the name of  קרבן פסח and thus has the same law of being eaten only the day and night it is sacrificed, no longer. Plus one proof רב שך brings is weak. He brings that the רמב''ם writes if the whole year has gone by and then he sacrifices the קרבן פסח in his time it is kosher, but not accepted. So there the אמב''ם definitely holds it does not require uprooting, But so what? תוספות writes that the case of when the whole year has gone by, everyone agrees it does not require עקירה. However רב שך brings some proofs that if it does not require uprooting, then it should have all the regular laws of a peace offering, Do I need to think about this some more

''''

מותר הפסח רב שך כותב שהרמב''ם מחזיק הוא קרבן שלמים רגיל וכך נאכל יומיים ולילה אחד. הוא מקבל זאת מכך שהרמב''ם לא כותב על זה כלום. כל מה שהוא עושה זה לכתוב את דין הפסח שאוכלים אותו רק באותו לילה ואת דין שלמים שאוכלים יומיים ולילה אחד. וצריך לענות תוספות המחזיק ששארית קרבן פסח נאכל יום ולילה אחד בלבד ותוספות מביא תורת כהנים שאומר זאת בגלוי ועוד הרבה הוכחות. רב שך אומר שהאמירה של תורת כהנים הולכת כמו הדעה צריך לעקור את קרבן פסח [לא בזמנו] משם של פסח לשם של שלמים. אתה יכול להביא ראיה על הרעיון הזה בדרך זו. אם הרמב''ם היה מחזיק את קרבן פסח צריך לעקור אז הוא היה כותב את זה, אבל אם הוא מחזיק שלא צריך לעקור אז הוא יכול בקלות פשוט להשאיר את זה בחוץ, הרי הוא לא כותב כל. הדברים שאתה לא צריך לעשות. מצד שני זה נראה חלש. הוא לא כותב כלום על עקירה והוא לא כותב כלום על כמה זמן אוכלים את שאריות קרבן פסח. ואפשר לטעון באופן סביר שגם אם הדין הוא קרבן פסח לא צריך עקירה אז זה נשאר בשם קרבן פסח ולכן יש לו אותו דין נאכל רק ביום ובלילה שמקריבים אותו, לא עוד. ועוד הוכחה אחת שרב שך מביא היא חלשה. מביא שהרמב''ם כותב אם חלפה כל השנה ואז מקריב את הקרבן פסח בזמנו זה כשר, אבל לא מקובל. אז שם הרמב''ם בהחלט מחזיק שזה לא דורש עקירה, אבל אז מה? תוספות כותב שהמקרה של כשכל השנה חלפה, כולם מסכימים שזה לא מצריך עקירה.

 There is an argument if having a mistress is okay and most rishonim allow this. but even the Rambam who does not hold it is an איסור עשה [prohibition derived from a positive command]. That is how the Beit Shmuel in Even Haezer explains the Rambam. For the Rambam does hold that a girl who is willing to have sex with anyone for money--i..e. a prostitute is forbidden, but  that is not the same thing as when one has a mistress or girlfriend who is only for him alone. But to most rishonim this is permitted outright.

The Gra makes note of Caleb ben yefuna in chronicles I ch 2 verses 43-50 who had a few wives and a few mistresses. And he was not a king. So the Rambam who says that a mistress was permitted only to kings is incorrect. 

As the issue of the monthly period, she should dip in the sea or a river

 The white race is committing suicide. It is not enough that everyone else is trying to wipe them out but at least half of them want to destroy their progeny and traditions. This is sad because if the USA goes under, where could be any bastion of freedom? Maybe Israel?  

 I was looking at vol I chap. 19 in the book of Rav Nahman and noticed a few things. One is the approach that he takes towards sex. The general desire for sex he calls ''desire for adultery''. He is not thinking at all the sex in marriage all of a sudden becomes holy. It might be permitted but still has that aspect of ''desire for adultery''.  But this is not new to me. You can see in the Mesilat Yesharim that sex can be holy once one has gone through all those preliminary steps enumerated in the braita of R .Oinchas ben Yair. Mainly however I would say that a lot depends on intension.

In fact it makes sense to learn the sidur of Rav Yaakov Emden for newly married couples which goes through this subject in detail.

besides that i have no idea why people think marriage makes anything better or holy. i have repeated plenty of times the story about the friend of Joshua [who conquered  the land of Canaan] Caleb ben yefuna in Chronicles chap 2 verses from around 43 to about 50.  it is hard to tell how many wives and how many girl friends he had but clearly they were quite a bunch. and hewas not some low life. וימלא אחרי שם ''he went totally after God'', [see rambam at the start of laws of marriage and the raavad and ramban there. ]

The approach to Kant called the Friesian School does not engage with the major interpretations of Kant. It sort of stands alone  ''Take it or leave it.'' as you might hear when you go to buy at the supermarket.

I think this isolates this school  from academia, and also makes it hard to place in the Kantian Spectrum.  

I mean  to say that the major interpreters of Kant are Cohen [Marburg school], Allison, Strawson, Sellers. [The later Cohen diverged from Kant.] And besides them there are the many approaches influenced by Kant--like the later Cohen. Where does immediate nonintuitive knowledge [of the Friesian school] fit or not fit with all this?  In what areas do they agree and in what areas disagree and why? 

 In the approach of the Gra there is an emphasis on the "Seven Wisdoms". Rav Baruch of Shkolev was a disciple of the Gra who wrote a small translation of Euclid and in his introduction quotes the Gra: ''Anyone who lacks any knowledge of the Seven Wisdoms will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold.''

Bur what can this mean? The Seven Wisdoms is a well known concept of the Middle Ages. [grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music ]The emphasis on learning them is found in some rishonim  besides the Gra, but certainly not all.

[My approach to this is to emphasize Mathematics, and Physics but Astronomy I feel not ready for until I have a good grasp on General Relativity, QFT and String Theory. For the ultimate test of Strings will have to be in the distribution of the stars and galaxies.

[Even if Physics is hard, I figure that with the approach mentioned in the Gemara about review 400 times, it must get clearer after a few hundred times.[That is the story about the amora who used to review each lesson with his disciple 400 times. Then once his student was not concentrating so that amora reviewed the lesson another 400 times.]]

why not to believe everything doctors say

 Radithor-- or why not to believe everything doctors say--especially about new treatments, This was wifely prescribed by doctors. This was given to a well known athlete who had a minor  discomfort.  After taking it he felt great.  It had all the properties that were advertised. It relieved pain, made him feel great, and gave a tremendous boot of energy  So he kept on taking it until after some time his jaw fell out. It turns out the main ingredient of Radithor is Radium. [radium is radioactive.]

[This is the true story about about Eben Byers]

 I have always strived for monotheism even though I admit that I miss the mark by a wide margin.

See Deuteronomy 13 and the general chapters in that area. There is a lot of emphasis on not serving any other gods besides God the one First Cause with no form nor substance and is not a composite. Just to give you a few examples--Anyone you see that has served other gods, you should stone to death. A city that idolatry is wide spread,... you should burn to the ground and kill all its inhabitants. Any prophet that even gives true of his prophecy and works miracles you should kill. [not by stoning.]  

So once the Gra made it clear with his signature on the letter of excommunication what is included in the prohibition of idolatry, it should be clear. that signature is sadly ignored by all, but I still feel that at least I ought to pay attention to it. 

But why is the Gra ignored-because of the mixture of Torah with money. People make their livings off of Torah and so can not see straight. 

Sadly enough i did not merit to learn Torah.  though I did have a few great years in two very wonderful Litvak yeshivot, still i did not appreciate that enough. Still the amazing thing is that even after I gave up learning for years, somehow God ha mercy on my soul and sent to me a great learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. Sure he had learned in Litvak yeshivot in Israel, but also he had it in his blood. it came naturally to him what it means "knowing how to learn."[and I sort of began to get the idea after learning with him for a few years. in fact you can see some of the fruit of our discussions in two little books I put together after our learning sessions.[chidushei hashas] chidushei bava metzia]]but I still have not got the idea very well. ut it does help me a lot when I get a chance to look at Rav Shach's book the Avi Ezri

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the Raavad and Rambam in Rambam forbidden relations 3:8 I brought the idea that the Raavad derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the Rambam would derive his law from the gemara in Ketuboth 45a נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned.

Rav Shach says that in the view of the Raavad the important thing is that the Chupa was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the Rambam the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the Rambam put more weight onto the Gemara in Ketuboth while the Raavad put more weight onto the Mishna.______________________________________________________________

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the ראב''ד and  רמב''ם in  רמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה חI brought the idea that the ראב''ד derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the רמב'''ם would derive his law from the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned. רב שך says that in the view of the ראב''ד the important thing is that the חופה was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the רמב''ם the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the  רמב''ם put more weight onto the גמרא in כתובות while the ראב''ד put more weight onto the משנה.___________________

בהתייחס למה שכתבתי על ההבדל בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם ברמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה ח' הבאתי את הרעיון שהראב''ד שואב את גישתו מכיוון המשנה "נכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק", ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עדיין לא קיימה יחסי מין עם בעלה וביצעה ניאוף והיא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. והרמב''ם היה גוזר דינו מהגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א "נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק" ושם נראה שזב רומז שאם עשתה אז יחסי מין עם בעלה לאחר הניאוף ש היא נסקלת. רב שך אומר שלדעת הראב''ד הדבר החשוב הוא שהחופה הייתה בטעות. היא רימתה אותו לחשוב שהיא בתולה. לרמב''ם העיקר יחסי מין עם בעלה היו בטעות והיא רימתה אותו באותו שלב. זה יסביר מדוע הרמב''ם שם יותר משקל על הגמרא בכתובות ואילו הראב''ד שם יותר משקל על המשנה

 the most obvious thing about the Litvak Yeshiva [based on the Gra] is the aspect of learning in depth. (Learning "Beiyun") . This is not the same as in something like math where the basic concept is extended. In the Litvak yeshiva the way one learns is by going deeper.

I admit I did not get this for years. i did not see the difference between going deeper and going broader. so after I had finished Ketuboth in Shar Yashuv i went to the Mir and the first half year there i learned Nedarim. but then they started Ketuboth and I said to myself ''I already did ketuboth.'' and did shabat instead. but I did not realize that even though  had in fact finished Ketuboth with Tosphot and Maharsha and even a lot of Rif Rosh and Tur, that is not at all "learning in depth." That is learning a lot but not in depth.

 I can see the importance of אמונת חכמים faith in the wise. even though the verse that is used most often for this is ככל אשר יורוך''you must listen to all they command you'', still it is often taken for granted that this refers to the  stupid religious teachers of this generation. As opposed to this the verse refers to when a doubt in law comes up then one goes to the Sanhedrin which is formed of people with genuine semicha /ordination. but authentic ordination ceased during the middle of the Talmudic period.

 I have mentioned the path of learning of Rav Nahman on occasion to people and the reaction as you can imagine is always the same,-- ''that learning without understanding is worthless.'' And yet I have noticed that these same people, then drop the subject completely because it is too hard, and end up knowing nothing.

Just to be clear the idea is to say the words and go on without worrying if one understands or not.

See the Conversations of Rav Nachman 76. I mean how terrible would it have been if they had picked up a gemara and gone through one whole tractate with Rashi, Tosphot and the Maharsha--whether they understood every single word or not? If they had, they certainly would now know a lot more than what they actually did do--that is learn nothing. And after doing one tractate in that way, they certainly would have had the desire to continue and do another tractate,..and then another,..  and another until they would have finished the whole shas [Talmud] with Rashi and Tosphot and then again and again many times. And then they would learn the Jerusalem Talmud in the same way.

And the same goes for math and physics. I also said to people that this method also applies to these subjects and the reaction was again the same. ''If you do not understand then it is worthless.'' and so they drop these and also end up knowing nothing. But I guarantee to you that if they had picked up a few books on calculus and algebraic topology and quantum field theory, they would surely know a lot more today that what they do know which is zero. 

for general advice i have found learning the section in the LeM of rav nachman to be helpful. for yesterday i was at a breslov place nearby and learned LeM II chapter 3 about healing and in fact after that came tome some clarity about what i need to do for a certain kind of problem i have, 

Rambam Raavad Laws of Forbidden Relations 3 halacha 8.

 On the way to and from the sea it occurred to me to defend what I wrote in my blog blog about the way the Raavad must understand to the Gemara in Ketuboth 45a. I also thinking of mentioning that the way i understand the Raavad seems at first glance  to disagree with Rav Shach. At any rate, for now let me share the Gemara, and then show how the Raavad understands it. דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלאועל כן אם סרחהואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית הסקילה [Rava said really when the category changes so does the type of penalty.] actually I think this Gemara is clear. the whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the chupa and not had sex with her husband yet and when she has had sex with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע  'ןאי with stoning is different that if she has not had sex with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the Raavad there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning because of whole point of the argument of Rava is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית___________________________________________

To defend what I wrote about the way the ראב''ד understands the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א. Here is the Gemara: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. The whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the חופה and not had יחסים with her husband yet and when she has had יחסים with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע   with stoning is different that if she has not had יחסים with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the ראב''ד there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning, because of whole point of the argument of רבא is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה___________________________________________

להגן על מה שכתבתי על האופן שבו הראב''ד מבין את הגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א. הנה הגמרא: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה. ומשבגרה הוציאה שם עליה רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. כל הרעיון של הצירוף וההשוואה של מתי היא נכנסה לחופה ועדיין לא היו לה יחסים עם בעלה ומתי היו לה יחסים עם בעלה זה רק לומר בפשטות שהמקרה של מוציא שם רע עם סקילה שונה מכך אם היא עדיין לא עשתה יחסים עם בעלה ולכן היא נחנקת. לראב''ד אין שום משמעות לגבי דין חדש של מקרה סקילה, כי כל ​​הטענה של רבא היא להגיע לנקודה האחרונה לגבי הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה

I see that Charlotte Baumann is defending an approach to the Transcendental Subject based on the Baden School [as opposed to Marburg] in which the categories themselves are the transcendental subject. There is no thinker inside the thinker, reminiscent of the third man problem. ]

And to me it seems possible that this relates to the Kant-Friesian idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge --that is, the source of knowledge is not derived from anywhere, but is a given.

I might mention that Leonard Nelson [founder of the second Friesian school] actually saw that the later Hermann Cohen of the Marburg school was radically disagreeing with Kant.

כתובות מ''ה ע''א רמב''ם אסורי ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח

 I think what the Raavad is objecting to in Rambam [laws of forbidden relations chapter 3 halacha 8] is that the Rambam claims even if she [the girl] has gone into the chupa [domain of her husband]. and then has sex with someone else. and then comes the case of her husband bringing witnesses that she is stoned.  The Raavad asks on this from a mishna  משנה כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק [''Once she has gone into the chupa, even though she has not yet had sex with her husband, still she is choked.''] What is the question on the Rambam from this mishna? I think from the words ''even though''. Once she has gone into the chupa, even though she has not yet had sex with her husband, still she is choked.  That is ''even though'', and all the more so if she did have sex with her husband she is choked, not stoned. So you see openly that the chupa changes everything--just like the Torah itself seems clear. Sex with another while betrothed is stoned, but sex with another after the chupa is choked.

The reason the Rambam understands this differently than the Raavad has to be from the gemara in Ketuboth נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנקואלו מוציא שם רע בסקילה and here there is no words "even though". It is clear that the juxtaposition means if she had sex with another after the chupa, she is choked. However  if after that, she had sex with her husband and he brings witnesses then she is stoned. This is like the decision of the Rambam in chapter 3 halacha 8. The Raavad would say that Gemara simply means like the Mishna that as different from this case of sex after the chupa , if she had sex before that she is stoned.

_______________________________________ 

I think what the ראב''ד is objecting to in רמב''םlaws of איסור ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח' chapter 3 halacha 8 is that the רמב''פ claims even if she [the girl] has gone into the חופה [domain of her husband] and then has יחסי מין with someone else, and then comes the case of her husband bringing witnesses that she is stoned.  The ראב''ד asks on this from a משנה כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק. What is the question on the רמב''ם from this משנה? I think from the words ''אף על פי''. Once she has gone into the חופה, even though she has not yet had יחסי מין with her husband, still she is choked.  That is ''even though'', and all the more so if she did have sex with her husband she is choked, not stoned. So you see openly that theחופה changes everything--just like the Torah itself seems clear. יחסי מין with another while מאורסה is stoned, but יחסי מין with another after the חופה is choked.

The reason the רמב''ם understands this differently than the ראב''ד has to be from the גמרא in כתובות נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנקואלו מוציא שם רע בסקילה and here there is no words "even though". It is clear that the juxtaposition means if she had יחסי מין with another after the חופה, she is choked. However  if after that, she had יחסי מין with her husband and he brings witnesses then she is stoned. This is like the decision of the רמב''ם in פרק ג' הלכה ח'. The ראב''ד would say that גמרא simply means like the משנה that as different from this case ofיחסי מין after the חופה , if she had יחסי מין before that she is stoned.

_______________________________________

אני חושב שמה שהרב''ד מתנגד לו ברמב''ם הלכות איסור ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח' זה שהרמב''ם טוען גם אם היא [הילדה] נכנסה לחופה [תחום בעלה] ואחר כך יש יחסי מין עם מישהו אחר, ואז מגיע המקרה שבעלה מביא עדים שהיא נסקלת. הראב''ד שואל על זה מהמשנה "כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק." מה השאלה ברמב''ם מהמשנה הזו? אני חושב מהמילים ''אף על פי''. ברגע שהיא נכנסה לחופה, למרות שעדיין לא הייתה לה יחסי מין עם בעלה, היא עדיין נחנקת. כלומר ''אף על פי'', ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עשתה יחסי מין עם אחר ואחר כך עשתה יחסי מין עם בעלה היא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. אז אתה רואה בגלוי שהחופה משנה הכל - בדיוק כמו שהתורה עצמה נראית ברורה. יחסי מין עם אחר בעוד מאורסה נסקלמת, אבל יחסי מין עם אחר לאחר שהחופה נחנקת

הסיבה שהרמב''ם מבין זאת אחרת מהראב''ד צריכה להיות מהגמרא בכתובות נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה. וכאן אין מילים "למרות". ברור שהצירוף אומר שאם הייתה לה יחסים עם אחר אחרי החופה, היא נחנקת. אולם אם לאחר מכן, היו לה יחסים עם בעלה והוא מביא עדים אז היא נסקלת. זה כמו החלטת הרמב''ם בפרק ג' הלכה ח'. הראב''ד היה אומר שהגמרא פשוט פירושו כמו המשנה ששונה ממקרה זה של יחסי מין לאחר החופה, אילו היה לה יחסי מין לפני כן היא נסקלת.

 I did not realize that along with cockroaches come other wormlike creatures that dig into the skin. They borrow in and emit a protective coating so that even if one puts on some sort of ointment, they are protected. I did not even know they was a problem when I moved into the apartment here. But at some point I saw some around and so discovered their nest. Then cleaned up, and sealed the holes they were getting in through. Bur what takes care of the problem with the worms after they have already dug in? The thing I discovered is doctors are not aware of these kinds of parasites They  will proscribe some ointment for some skin disease which has nothing to do with the actual parasite.  what I have discovered is the first thing is to squeeze the protective coating. Then apply alcohol, iodine, and a very diluted mixture of hydrochloric acid.   Also Peroxide.

 Miracles do not count when the worker of the miracle claims that one should worship some idol. That you see in Deuteronomy 13;   ''When some prophet makes a miracle or predicts some future event (and by that authority) says, 'Let us worship some god besides the one true God', you should not listen, but rather kill that prophet.'' I have pointed out before that worship of people is also idolatry. So the religious people that worship their leaders are also idolaters. I now this sounds harsh, but I have considered the religious world to be in the category of a עיר הנידחת [idolatrous city] for along time.

 Even though the  Rav of Satmer was I think a great tzadik, i did not think his approach to the State of Israel was well founded because if you look at his book על הגאולה ועל התמורה it is stating halacha based on midrash. and midrash is not for halacha. Rather Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron Kotler held the law is the law דינא דמלכותא דינא and that makes a lot more sense to me. [That is from the Gemara in Bava bBatra--The law of the country you are living in is the law,'' and you are required to obey it by the Torah itself. Only when it contradicts Torah law do you go by Torah law.]

 It occurred  to me that there is a sort of difficulty in the Gemara  Ketuboth page 45 and Rambam אסורי ביאה chapter 3 halacha 8 of Forbidden Relations..   What I mean is this/ look at Deuteronomy  22 verse 13 and onwards. There you have the law about a girl 12-12,5 years old who is betrothed נערה מאורסה בתולה  that had sex with another man. This is the law that is known as מוציא שם רע. She is stoned.  Then comes the regular law [verse 22] about a married woman. If she had sex with another man, she is choked.  And then comes a law [verse 23] also about a נערה בתולה מאורסה girl 12-12.5 virgin who is betrothed. She also is stoned, but in the regular place of stoning, not at her father's house. 

Now just looking at the verses alone, you would say everything is simple. A girl had sex while betrothed and so she is stoned, If she  had sex after she got married, she is choked. But there is a special case that she had sex, and then got married --and her husband then brought witnesses and she is stoned at front of her father's house. Now off hand, it looks like the entire difference is when the sex was. If while betrothed, she is stoned. If after married, she is choked. But there is a special case where  it seems the sex was while betrothed, and then she got married, and then he husband brings witnesses, and she is stoned at her father's house even though she is now married. But furthermore --looking at the verses you can see that everything depends on when the sex was, not when the case is brought to court.

But since this is different from the regular case of sex while betrothed, so it is possible   that the sex here was after the chupa but before sex with her husband.

But in the Gemara and Tosphot and Rambam it is clear that sex after she got married, but before sex with her husband and then he brings witnesses, then she is stoned. Everything seems to depend on that the sex was before she had sex with her husband and he brought witnesses, They did not come on their own.

Still from the verses themselves, it looks like the sex was while she was betrothed. 

So even though i do not remember the gemara, still i recall that rava derived from somewhere כיוון דאישתני דינא אשתני קטלא  once her category has changed also her type of death has changed. so that if she had sex while betrothed and then married and then witnesses come she is choked. So from where ever rava derives this law, he has managed to show that there is at least one case where the sex was while she was betrothed and yet the type of death is by choking.  

And Rav Shach has a few paragraphs on that Rambam, so i might try to see what he says and if i can find any clarity about this.

 הלא יראתך כסילתיך Is not your fear (of God) your stupidity.  Too many books nowadays claim to be teaching fear of God but are in fact the product of diseased imaginations, [and for this reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication]. The idea is to cancel books that claim to be teaching Torah but are in fact the opposite. However the Gra is ignored.  

That is the exact reason the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter emphasized specifically the books of fear of God of the Middle ages before all the diseased books of later days infected the religious world

 There is a sort of problem in newspapers and in politics --slander- lashon hara. And lashon hara is also on truth unless you have the seven conditions of the Hafez Haim. so while at least for reading newspapers there is some sort of permission because it is supposed tobe true and for benefit, still for politics this does not seem to apply since people commonly say what they themselves know to be false --just in order to gain advantage over the other side.

 There are three places in the gemara that deal with the question when does night start? In tractate shabat it says 13.5 minutes after sunset. 13.5 minutes is the time it takes to walk 3/4 of a Roman mile  [Twilight begins at sunset and ends at 13.5 minutes later.] Then right after that it says when you see three medium stars. Not large ones nor small ones. Then in tractate Peshachim it says after 72 minutes [the time it takes to walk four Roman miles].

Rabbainu Tam says the gemra in Shabat refers to the second sunset. So night really begins at 72 min. This is the opinion of most Rishonim and Rav Hai Gaon. The Gra on the other hand says night starts after 13.5 minutes after sunset and the Gemra in shabat is discussing when people ceased work building the Second Temple. That means when it was dark. Not when the legal night begins.

__________________________________________________________________________

There are three places in the גמרא that deal with the question when does night start? In מסכת שבת it says 13.5 minutes after sunset. 13.5 minutes is the time it takes to walk 3/4 of a Roman mile  [Twilight begins at sunset and ends at 13.5 minutes later.] Then right after that it says when you see three medium stars. Not large ones nor small ones. Then in מסכת]סחים it says after 72 minutes [the time it takes to walk four Roman miles]. רבינו תם says the גמרא in דבת refers to the second sunset. So night really begins at 72 דקות This is the opinion of most ראשונים והאי גאון. The גר''א on the other hand says night starts after 13.5 minutes after sunset and the גמרא in שבת is discussing when people ceased work building the Second Temple. That means when it was dark. Not when the legal night begins.

יש שלושה מקומות בגמרא שעוסקים בשאלה מתי מתחיל הלילה? במסכת שבת כתוב 13.5 דקות אחרי השקיעה. 13.5 דקות זה הזמן שלוקח ללכת 3/4 מייל רומי. [בין השמשות מתחיל בשקיעה ומסתיים ב-13.5 דקות מאוחר יותר.] ואז מיד אחרי זה כתוב כשאתה רואה שלושה כוכבים בינוניים. לא גדולים ולא קטנים. ואז במסכת פסחים כתוב אחרי 72 דקות [הזמן שלוקח ללכת ארבעה מיילים רומאים]. רבינו תם אומר שהגמרא פסחים מתייחסת לשקיעה השנייה. אז הלילה באמת מתחיל ב-72 דקות. זו דעתם של רוב ראשונים והאי גאון. הגר"א לעומת זאת אומר שהלילה מתחיל אחרי 13.5 דקות אחרי השקיעה והגמרא בשבת דן מתי אנשים הפסיקו לעבוד בבניית בית המקדש השני. זאת אומרת כשהיה חשוך. לא כשהלילה החוקי מתחיל

 There is an argument among the Rishonim mediaeval authorities what is the law of a נערה בתולה מאורסה שזינתה a girl [12 years old to 12.5] that is in this intermediate state between betrothal and marriage who has had sexual relations with another person besides her husband. It is the usual case of an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. [Betrothal is marriage, but before the chupa.]

Just to be clear- a married woman who has sex with someone other than her husband gets the normal death penalty  [choking].\\That is just in the regular laws about עריות forbidden sexual relations in Leviticus.

But in Deuteronomy you get the law about מוציא שם רע which also refers to a married woman --but to a special case of a married woman-- the נערה בתולה מאורסה שזינתה a girl [12 years old to 12.5]

The case you might recall is where a husband makes a false accusation against his wife. He says (after the Chupa, and  they had sex) that he discovered that she was not a virgin. But then it turns out that he was lying. Then he has to pay about $1600 [100 shekels] and 39 lashes. 

But if it turns out to be true she is stoned. 

The case to Rambam is she had sex while betrothed  [ or even after the chupa but before sex with her husband] and thus when the sex with her husband took place, she was already not a virgin. So she is stoned. But here is where the opinion of Tosphot is the law about stoning is parallel to that of מוציא שם רע [slander] that is-- she is stoned only when the husband said to witnesses, ''Come and give testimony.''     

[I admit I am being short here. Sorry about that. Just for the sake of clarity let me add a few details. The case where the husband is found to have lied is when he did ask witnesses to come and they came and said they saw her have sex [on such and such a date and such and such a time] before she was married after being betrothed. They come and say that. Then two other people come along to the court and ask "How could you have seen that? Both of you were with us that that other place that whole day.'' So the husband has to pay the $1600 and gets lashes. But if no second set of witnesses come, then she is stoned. It is a case of a married woman having sex except the difference is that it was while she was betrothed. [Betrothal is marriage but before the chupa.]

[See Ketuboth page 45] 

 Allan Bloom in Closing of the American Mind says as per the title, but shows its deeper roots as being from the ambiguity of what is the ''self''. His solution is more or less along the lines of what you would call classical education. [HE especially recommends The Republic of PLATO.

[I am not clear as to the reason for The Republic since to my mind, the shorter dialogues seem a lot more powerful. But that might just be because of my short attention span. I tend to have the same sort of preference in music for short and to the point rather than long build ups.]

That book Closing of the American Mind is a definite masterpiece, In particular his analysis of the whole problem.--and his solution.

[Even though Aristotle is also great but for what Allan Bloom is aiming at,,- the opening of the American mind,- I agree that nothing could compare to Plato.

Learning Torah tends to be neglected for the fact that many things are substituted for Torah. What defines ''Torah''? The Rambam wrote in his letters  כשם שאין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבכתב כמן כן אין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבעל פה. ''Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the written Torah, so is there no adding nor subtracting from the oral Torah.''

That means the actual books that were the redaction of the oral law written down by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. These and these alone have the right to be called ''Torah''. And learning them is called learning Torah, Later books might have insights and interesting ideas--but they are not ''Torah,''

 In the Eitz Chaim of Rav Isaac Luria, in Shaar HaNukva chap 3 I noticed that keter of Yaakov, which is the tefilin of Yaakov is parallel to wisdom, understanding, kindness and power of Israel.--and thus is parallel to Israel down to his feet. In that same paragraph, he states that keter Yaakov starts at the beginning of the two lower thirds of tiferet of Israel.  I was in the Breslov place looking at this for a while, and then it occurred to me that this refers to the very famous Drush haDaat that is missing in the Eitz Chaim itself, but found in Rav Shalom Sharabi's Nahar Shalom where the whole distinction between the lower and higher daat is made clear. So this particular paragraph in the Eitz Chaim clearly refers to the lower Daat. 

[I have not been looking at the Ari for a while, but then I noticed that Rav Nahman says in Sefer Hamidot '' עלידי עיון עמוק ביסודות התורה יכןלים לפקוד עקרות ולרפאות חולי חזק. by means of depth learning in the secrets of Torah, one can bring about that barren women give birth and to cure a strong illness.'' So I decided to take a look at the Eitz Chaim. 

[I do hold with Rav Nachman because if you look at the actual letter of excommunication signed by the Gra you will see it can not refer to Rav Nahman. In this regard in fact it is helpful to see the Sefer that collected the five letters of excommunication with the transcripts of the testimony given in Villna. [In that book the testimony appears in affidavit form, not as actual testimony in beit din. At any rate, these letters of excommunication were and still are valid  but they do not refer to Rav Nachman who was teaching his own revelation and insights.]

לא תעשה לך כל תמונה ''Thou shalt not make to you any image'' and i ask what is it that you see when you walk into any religious building--images. but not for beauty rather for religious intent.,

In Torah, there is a particular emphasis on not doing idolatry. [especially in the beginning  of Deuteronomy] And this is the reason I avoid the religious world. I consider the entire religious world to be worshipping dead people, and not God. But they attempt to hide this by a distraction. They emphasize rituals. By means of misdirection, they get away with the fact that it is not God who is the center of their worship.

Here is a proof for Tosphot as opposed to the Rambam and the Ran. 

For to Tosphot, the reason to say, ''It was written and signed before me''  [בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם] is a קולא leniency. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the Ran and Rambam, the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two gemaras in Gitin page 5 seem to show that Tosphot is right. For there we have a teaching: ''One who brings a divorce [get] from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the divorce [get\] or else it is considered as null and void.'' The gemara asks from this on Rabah. But no matter how the answer for Rabah turns out, in both answers the final result of the teaching is clear that without validation, the divorce is null. So validation is not just an extra precaution. It is a absolute law. Only because we want to be lenient for an woman with a husband  do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. but without that . validation is an absolute requirement.

__________________________________________________________________

Here is a proof for תוספות as opposed to the ר''ן ורמב''ם. For to תוספות the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a קולא. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation (קיום) of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the ר''ן and רמב''ם the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two גמרות in גיטון דף ה' seem to show that תוספות is right. For there we have a ברייתא: one who brings a גט  from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the גט or else it is considered as null and void. The gגמרא asks from this on רבה. But no matter how the answer for רבה turns out, in both answers, the final result of the ברייתא is clear that without validation the גט is null. so validation is not just an extra precaution. it is a din. only because we want to be lenient for an עגונה do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. But without that. validation is an absolute requirement.

הנה הוכחה לתוספות בניגוד לר''ן ורמב''ם. כי לתוספות הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא קולא. אנו מקילים לאפשר לשליח לומר זאת במקום לדרוש אימות מלא (קיום) של החתימות. הקילו משום עגונה לר''ן ולרמב''ם הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא חומרא. אנחנו מחמירים במיוחד ונוקטים אמצעי זהירות נוסף לדאגה שבאמת לא צריכה להיות דאגה. אבל נראה ששתי גמרות בגיטין דף ה' מראות שתוספות צודקים. שהרי שם יש לנו ברייתא: המביא גט מחוץ לארץ לישראל ואינו אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם צריכים לאמת את הגט, אחרת הוא נחשב בטל ומבוטל. הגמרא שואלת מכאן על רבה. אבל לא משנה איך תתברר התשובה לרבה, בשתי התשובות, התוצאה הסופית של הברייתא ברורה שללא אימות הגט בטל. אז אימות הוא לא רק אמצעי זהירות נווסף. זה דין. רק בגלל שאנחנו רוצים להיות סלחניים עבור עגונה, אנחנו מאפשרים בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לעמוד במקום אימות קיום. אבל בלי זה. אימות הוא דרישה מוחלטת. הרמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שמעיקר הדין אין חשש זיוף אלא בגלל חשש שמא יבוא הבעל ויער על הויוציא לעז על הגט השליח צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם . זה בסוף פרק ז' בהלכות גירושין

 I was in Breslov yesterday and I heard someone learning Zohar. I did not say anything to him about the question of it's validity because I think that some  parts are taken from earlier documents of mystics that were later incorporated into it. Still at the same time he was learning Zohar, I was learning the part in the major book of Rav Nahman about גם בהתקרבות להשם יש יצר הרע של התלהבות יותר מדאי (Also in coming close to God there is a evil inclination of overdoing it.--getting overly fanatic.) And that you see with people that get involved with Zohar.

[The main  issue with the Zohar is the phrase 'even though' עם כל דא which is a phrase from the middle ages. It is used all over the Zohar. It was made by the Ibn Tibon family to replace an older form of saying 'even though' which was אף על פי or אף על גב/ So it was not written by R. Shimon ben Yochai.]

While it is true that many great sages held of the validity of the Zohar, still this historic information was not available at the time.

 Rav Nahman says in the Le.M  vol I:72 that even in coming close to God one needs to be wary of ריבוי אור [excess light or excess excitement. ] This I think accounts for the fanaticism of the religious world

[The same theme is brought in the LeM vol II chapter 5:7 and  chapter 9] 

But in addition i thin the problem with Torah scholars that are demonsa adds to the issue. And that aspect of things is brought up a lot more in the LeM , but not in just so many words, The only times you see this in the LeM explicitly are in Lem I 12 and LeM I 28.

 I have to say that my approach to the State of Israel is based on Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Aaron Kotler. [I am probably repeating myself here, but still I do not recall mentioning this for a long time.] So let me just make clear that oth of these great sages of Torah said: "דינא דמלכותא דינא".The law of the state is the law. [In other words, the State of Israel is a legitimate state like any other legitimate state.] But I know that Neturaai Karta try to make it out  as if the State of Israel is worse than other states.--as if they are all pure and holy and just Israel is ssoehow born in sin. And they bring proof that within the origins of the sstate you find that peple that were trying to bring Jews to Israel [IN opposition to the British] did not want to help the religious Jews. And I assume this to be in fact the case in Europe. [Obviously this was not the case in Sephardi lands]. But so what? The religious always do as much damage as possible to secular Jews. It is just tit for tat. [I know this all too well from long and sad personal experience. I might consider myself to e ssomewhat religious and I certainly love Torah and do my best to keep it-- but as far as the religious world is considered I am not part of their club. And the rest of the story is too sad to relate.

[just for the record I should mention that Torah and the religious are two opposites.]]

 One thing i noticed in Livy--that self confidence does not always win. In fact that seems to be a major theme of the  war with Hannibal. One Roman general after the other thought that they would just walk in and wipe the mat with Hannibal. Little did they know. Hubris before a fall. While it is true that Rome won in the end, but thtat was by the policy of Fabius--to avoid direct battle as much as possible. To wear him down by attrition.

 z85 A little music piece I just finished.

 This may not seem like  big deal but I  have been thinking about the fact that a courier of a divorce document outside of Israel has to declare "It was written and signed in front of me." There is an argument between the Raaavad and the Rambam if a a divorce ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the Raavad and Tosphot are parallels. Because Tosphot says the reason he has to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is to be lenient. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, [Laws of Divorse 12:2] but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עגונה.  But to the Rambam there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is add a "humra" extra requirement  

The main idea here is just to show that Tosphot and the Raavad fit together. I am not dealing with the Rambam except to show that he is not like Tosphot.

[This occurred to me this morning on the way to the sea, but I did not work it out completely until now,]

[it does not seem needed, but perhaps for additional clarity -there are obviously monetary issues in a ''get'' but the Rambam considers them as a collateral issue.

However I just saw Rav Shach on this subject and he sees a difference between the Raavad and Tosphot.{Laws of Divorce chapter 7. Law 1}

  

A שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ  has to declare "בפני נכב ובפני נחתם." There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם if a a גט ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the ראב''ד and תוספות are parallels. Because תוספות says the reason he has to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם' is to be מקיל. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עיגונה.  But to the רמב''ם there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם'' is add a חומרא extra requirement  

שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ צריך להכריז "בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם". יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם אם גט צריך אימות [קיום]. בדרך כלל כל מסמך שמגיע לבית המשפט צריך להיות מאומת. [לדוגמה, הלוואות]. אז למה לא כאן? יש הבדל בסיבות שניתנו לכך. נראה לי שהראב''ד (הלכות גירושין י''ב הלכה ב') והתוספות מקבילים. כי תוספות אומר שהסיבה שהוא צריך לומר ''"בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" היא להיות מקיל. כלומר - באמת צריך לדרוש אימות מלא אבל כאן אנחנו מקילים כדי להקל עליה משום עיגונה. אבל לרמב"ם באמת לא צריך להיות דרישה לאמת את תקפות הגט שכן אין מדובר בדיני ממונות וכן משום שהיא לא תהרוס את נישואיה השניים בזיוף גט. הצורך לומר ''בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם'' הוא הוספת דרישה נוספת

I might add here that I heard from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [a rosh yeshiva at the Mir] that there is קניין אישות וקניין כסף in acquiring a wife. [there are monetary obligation for both husband and wife.] so the Raavad here is going like this idea\that since there are monetary obligation in a divorce--like giving the ketubah-so the document does need validation. 

 I used to study the story of Rav Nachman about the simple son and the smart one. I was not just reading it but studying it it order to absorb the lessons. One of the lessons i learned was that the smart  son was always saying to himself [after he found himself in some goof situation]]  maye there us some place better than here. i.e that one ought not to do that