4.11.15
The Rambam combined Torah with Aristotle. This leaves open the question what would he do today?
I do not ask what he would think of 20th century philosophy? That is clear. But the question I ask is more along the lines of what he would do with Kant? [Or the different schools based on Kant--or stemming from Kant?]
I have suggested that he would continue in his approach. That is his way is really a kind of synthesis between Plato and Aristotle. So what I have thought is he would simply continue this process.
Mainly I think he would accept Kant's structure of the mind but he would justify knowledge by a kind of third kind of knowledge that is not reason and not sensed--but known. [The Rambam was not in the habit of denying the truth based on criteria like, "Who said it?' ]
I wish I could show this more clearly but you can see this idea in this essay on Kelley Ross's site.
See also this article in the this Philosophy magazine from Cornell.
Here is
my picture of Kant's idea of the way the Mind works.
If you go with the Rambam (Maimonides) you have to add another kind of knowledge that is known not by sensory perception and not by reason, i.e. immediate non-intuitive knowledge.
I do not ask what he would think of 20th century philosophy? That is clear. But the question I ask is more along the lines of what he would do with Kant? [Or the different schools based on Kant--or stemming from Kant?]
I have suggested that he would continue in his approach. That is his way is really a kind of synthesis between Plato and Aristotle. So what I have thought is he would simply continue this process.
Mainly I think he would accept Kant's structure of the mind but he would justify knowledge by a kind of third kind of knowledge that is not reason and not sensed--but known. [The Rambam was not in the habit of denying the truth based on criteria like, "Who said it?' ]
I wish I could show this more clearly but you can see this idea in this essay on Kelley Ross's site.
See also this article in the this Philosophy magazine from Cornell.
Here is
If you go with the Rambam (Maimonides) you have to add another kind of knowledge that is known not by sensory perception and not by reason, i.e. immediate non-intuitive knowledge.
3.11.15
I have seen a good deal of cults. Maybe it is just human nature to be curious about exotic religions. But what people involve in these cults don't seem to get is how it affects their children. Maybe that is in other religions also. I have heard that Muslims like to train their children as suicide bombers. So apparently the problem of cults is not confined.
The best remedy for this is common sense reason.
The best remedy for this is common sense reason.
The Rambam understood Torah as intending to bring to natural law. Common sense morality.
The more reason is divorced from belief, the more problems with cults we get. When cultural relativism started in the USA, this provided the model for people to look for true values in all kinds of exotic places.
So what I suggest is to reunite Reason and Faith, Natural Law with Torah Law, This was certainly the approach of the Rambam. At any rate you can see why Lithuanian yeshivas are so strict to keep out cults and cult members. They would not have to be so careful if Torah was a secular discipline. It is because Torah is holy that the flies are attracted as to honey.
Every value has an opposite value. And when the positive value loses its purity it decays into it opposite. So when people use the Torah for personal motives, it causes the holiness of the Torah to leave it and in its place is unholiness.
I have heard that Germany is especially concerned with the problem of cults, but I doubt if they made much progress in understanding or dealing with the problem. And I myself only became aware of my own weakness in this area recently. It is a hard problem. I have suggested before the idea of Rishonim. That is if you are Jewish then the best place to learn about it is books from the Middle Ages before cults became a problem and the emphasis was to combine reason with revelation. I suggest that this applies to Christians also. That is to go back to the Middle Ages and read the source material from that time --like Aquinas etc would be the best approach. I got this idea in my first yeshiva and I think it is the cure for cults. [That is go back to medieaval sources.]
So what I suggest is to reunite Reason and Faith, Natural Law with Torah Law, This was certainly the approach of the Rambam. At any rate you can see why Lithuanian yeshivas are so strict to keep out cults and cult members. They would not have to be so careful if Torah was a secular discipline. It is because Torah is holy that the flies are attracted as to honey.
Every value has an opposite value. And when the positive value loses its purity it decays into it opposite. So when people use the Torah for personal motives, it causes the holiness of the Torah to leave it and in its place is unholiness.
I have heard that Germany is especially concerned with the problem of cults, but I doubt if they made much progress in understanding or dealing with the problem. And I myself only became aware of my own weakness in this area recently. It is a hard problem. I have suggested before the idea of Rishonim. That is if you are Jewish then the best place to learn about it is books from the Middle Ages before cults became a problem and the emphasis was to combine reason with revelation. I suggest that this applies to Christians also. That is to go back to the Middle Ages and read the source material from that time --like Aquinas etc would be the best approach. I got this idea in my first yeshiva and I think it is the cure for cults. [That is go back to medieaval sources.]
Ideas in Bava Metzia edited
Ideas on the Talmud edited
Title page for the book on Bava MetziaTitle page
Ideas on the Talmud edited
Title page for the book on Bava MetziaTitle page
In Bava Metzia page 110 we have a case of נכייתו or משכנתא דסורא. You have a lender and borrower that come to court. Just to make this concrete lets say it is a case of משכנתא דסורא. That is when a person borrows money and as a guarantee for the loan he lets the lender use his field for some period and after that time the field returns to the borrower even if he did not pay back the loan.
The lender says the period was five years (and has been there three years) and the borrower says it was only for three years. Rav Yehuda says we believe the lender. To Ravina we believe the borrower. (I am saying this according to Tosphot.) Rav Yehuda says we believe the lender because he could have said "I bought this field."
The normal way of a migo is one person could have said a plea and be believed so we believe him when he says a weaker plea. So at first glance this looks like Rav Yehuda and Ravina are agreeing that if the lender would in fact say "I bought it he would be believed". But Tosphot asks on this and says that Ravina disagrees with very premise in itself. He would hold if the מלווה said "I bought it" and the other says it is משכנתא דסורא the borrower would be believed.
On this Tosphot asks according to this way that we understand Ravina then in the normal case in Bava Batra 28 side a of one person says I bought it and the other says you stole it that we would believe the one who says you stole it because he has amigo and he could have said it was aמשכנתא דסורא.
This question of Tosphot is going only to Ravina. To Rav Yehuda in fact the one that says "You stole it" does not have any option of saying it was a משכנתא דסורא.
______________________________________________________________________________
In בבא מציעא page ק''י we have a case of נכייתו or משכנתא דסורא. You have a לווה and מלווה that come to court. Just to make this concrete lets say it is a case of משכנתא דסורא. That is when a person borrows money and as a guarantee for the loan he lets the lender use his field for some period and after that time the field returns to the לווה even if he did not pay back the loan.
The lender says the period was five years and has been there three years and the borrower says it was only for three years. רבי יהודה says we believe the lender. To רבינא we believe the lender. I am saying this according to תוספות. In this case רבי יהודה says we believe the לווה because he could have said לקוחה היא בידי.
The normal way of a מיגו is one person could have said a plea and be believed so we believe him when he says a weaker plea. So at first glance this looks like רבי יהודה and רבינא are agreeing that if the lender would in fact say I bought it he would be believed. But תוספות asks on this and says that רבינא disagrees with very premise in itself. He would hold if the lender said לקוחה היא בידי and the other says it is משכנתא דסורא the borrower would be believed.
On this תוספות asks according to this way that we understand רבינא then in the normal case in בבא בתרא כ''ח ע''א of one person says I bought it and the other says you stole it that we would believe the one who says you stole it because he has a מיגו and he could have said it was aמשכנתא דסורא.
This question of תוספות is going only to רבינא. To רבי יהודה in fact the one that says you stole it does not have any option of saying it was a משכנתא דסורא
בבא מציעא דף ק''י יש לנו מקרה של נכייתא או משכנתא דסורא. יש לך לווה ומלווה שמגיעים לבית המשפט. מקרה של משכנתא דסורא הוא כאשר אדם לווה כסף וכערובה להלוואה הוא מאפשר למלווה להשתמש בשדה שלו לתקופה מסוימת ולאחר שהזמן חוזר השדה ללווה בלי כסף.וזה נחשב כמו ששילם את החוב. המלווה אומר התקופה הייתה חמש שנים והיה שם שלוש שנים. והלווה אומר שהתקופה הייתה רק לשלוש שנים. רבי יהודה אומר שאנחנו מאמינים המלווה. לרבינא אנו מאמינים המלווה. [אני אומר את זה על פי תוספות.] במקרה זה רבי יהודה אומר שאנחנו מאמינים המלווה כי הוא יכול לומר לקוחה היא בידי. הדרך הרגילה של מיגו היא אדם אחד היה יכול לומר טיעון ולהאמין. ולכן נאמין לו כשהוא אומר טיעון חלש. אז במבט ראשון זה נראה כמו שרבי יהודה ורבינא מסכימים שאם המלווה היה למעשה אומר שקניתי אותו הוא היה נאמן. אבל תוספות אומר שרבינא לא מסכים עם הנחה בעצמה. הוא יחזיק אם המלווה אמר לקוח הוא בידי והלווה אומר שזה משכנתא דסורא הלווה יהיה נאמן. תוספות שואל שעל פי דרך זו שאנו מבינים רבינא, אז במקרה הרגיל בבא בתרא כ''ח ע ' "א של אדם אחד אומר שקניתי אותו והשני אומר שאתה גנבת אותו כי עלינו להאמין האומר "גנבת אותו" כי יש לו מיגו והוא היה יכול לומר שזה היה משכנתא דסורא. שאלה זו של תוספות היא רק הולכת רבינא. לרבי יהודה זה שאומר "אתה גנבת אותו" אין לו שום אפשרות לומר שזה היה משכנתא דסורא .
Education
How to teach children? What subjects should they learn? In particular Jewish children? I have not thought about this much. From what I can tell the Mir yeshiva in New York had the right idea. [I did not go to the high school there but I saw what they were doing.]
In the high school they were learning secular subjects in the afternoon. The morning was devoted to Talmud. And from what I could tell the secular aspect was just as strong as the Talmud aspect. I had friend there in the Mir, Shelomo Berger, and his son was going to the high school there and he got amazingly high scores on the State examinations that they give in NY for each subject desperately.
What it also seems to me is that parents nowadays are kind of messed up. They can't help that. But at least I would say they must to give their children a good education like I saw at the Mir.
In New York I assume there is not much choice about what they teach the kids. But as far as secular subjects go I would stick with natural sciences and the arts. That is things that have value in themselves besides the "parnash" (making a living) issue. If a kid wants to college they could pursue a law degree or go to a technical school. I don't think people should be taught to use Torah for money. Nor should that be held up as a proper example of how to live.
[In fact in NY you don't see that much, but in Israel, it is considered the highest ideal. That never sat very well with me.]
I see today parents are interested in all kinds of nonsense that it will take them years to see that it is nonsense. At least I suggest to them not to subject their children to that. And some of the know just what I mean--because they were subject to crazy stuff when they were young and now they know the damage this causes.
Maybe a better way of putting is: Don't go to cults, and don't put your children in one.
But I can understand parents that are confused about education for their children. What sometimes happens is people get sore at the the the religious world for good reasons and so they don't feel there is any worth in teaching their children Talmud. I admit I fell into this trap myself. That is what happens when you have nasty people pretending to keep Torah. It gives Torah a bad name and makes it hard even for simple Jews to give their children a proper Torah background.
In any case if your children are gong to a cult, then get them out now.
In the high school they were learning secular subjects in the afternoon. The morning was devoted to Talmud. And from what I could tell the secular aspect was just as strong as the Talmud aspect. I had friend there in the Mir, Shelomo Berger, and his son was going to the high school there and he got amazingly high scores on the State examinations that they give in NY for each subject desperately.
What it also seems to me is that parents nowadays are kind of messed up. They can't help that. But at least I would say they must to give their children a good education like I saw at the Mir.
In New York I assume there is not much choice about what they teach the kids. But as far as secular subjects go I would stick with natural sciences and the arts. That is things that have value in themselves besides the "parnash" (making a living) issue. If a kid wants to college they could pursue a law degree or go to a technical school. I don't think people should be taught to use Torah for money. Nor should that be held up as a proper example of how to live.
[In fact in NY you don't see that much, but in Israel, it is considered the highest ideal. That never sat very well with me.]
I see today parents are interested in all kinds of nonsense that it will take them years to see that it is nonsense. At least I suggest to them not to subject their children to that. And some of the know just what I mean--because they were subject to crazy stuff when they were young and now they know the damage this causes.
Maybe a better way of putting is: Don't go to cults, and don't put your children in one.
But I can understand parents that are confused about education for their children. What sometimes happens is people get sore at the the the religious world for good reasons and so they don't feel there is any worth in teaching their children Talmud. I admit I fell into this trap myself. That is what happens when you have nasty people pretending to keep Torah. It gives Torah a bad name and makes it hard even for simple Jews to give their children a proper Torah background.
In any case if your children are gong to a cult, then get them out now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)