Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle

The Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle. But this leaves him in a predicament when it comes to power. [potential] (Potential means able to do something that one is not actually doing.]) Since the Rambam and Aristotle  say the God has no matter that would mean he has no ability to do anything other than what he is doing. You need to get to the idea that action does not use up possibility.
for the Rambam is that universals represent a kind of mode of necessity.



I think that we can see why the Rambam was so firm that God can't have any physical aspect. Not just from a Torah perspective but also from the perspective of Aristotle.  [That is he is not specifically trying to knock Christianity or any specific doctrines. He just holds that matter and the universe is not a part of God. That is what is usually called Monotheism. Pantheism is a different belief system  of Torah which is that God made the world, but is not the world. (This is one reason  the Gra signed the  excommunication.)  After all if "Everything is godliness then maybe it does not hurt so much if their "tzadik"  leader is a little more godly than anyone else.]

As Kelley Ross writes:

 ..In Aristotle ... matter is potential; but then matter is so intrinsically amorphous, merely the passive recipient of actualizing "form," that the Neoplatonists identified it with Not-Being (and evil) -- quite apt when Prime Matter, or pure potential, is not actual at all and so in fact doesn't exist -- and both Aristotle and the Neoplatonists eliminated any material component to God (or the One). 

Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle

The Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle. But this leaves him in a predicament when it comes to power. Since the Rambam and Aristotle  say the God has no matter that would mean he has no ability to do anything other than what he is doing. You need to get to the idea that action does not use up possibility. 


What I am trying to say is what Kelley Ross is saying and what I think we have to consider as going for the Rambam is that universals represent a kind of mode of necessity.



I think that we can see why the Rambam was so firm that God can't have any physical aspect. Not just from a Torah perspective but also from the perspective of Aristotle.  [That is he is not specifically trying to knock Christianity or any specific doctrines. He just holds that matter and the universe is not a part of God. That is what is usually called Monotheism. Pantheism is a different belief system introduced by the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on to get people to worship their leaders.  After all if "Everything is godliness then mybe it does not hurt so much if their "tzadik"  leader is a little more godly than anyone else.]

As Kelley Ross writes:

 ..In Aristotle ... matter is potential; but then matter is so intrinsically amorphous, merely the passive recipient of actualizing "form," that the Neoplatonists identified it with Not-Being (and evil) -- quite apt when Prime Matter, or pure potential, is not actual at all and so in fact doesn't exist -- and both Aristotle and the Neoplatonists eliminated any material component to God (or the One). 

Bava Metzia

Bava Metzia page 14b.  ideas in Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9

 On the way to the bank it occurred to that there is one significant difference between Rashi and Tosphot concerning Shmuel and that that difference may very well indicate some serious revising of how to understand the Tosphot. The difference between Rashi and Tosphot is in area of Shmuel. To Rashi when Shmuel says the buyer gets the price he paid for the field but not improvements it means he does not get the improvement from the owner nor the thief. (I have a remarkable proof for this but I can't write it this minute.)
There is no difference between Rashi and Tosphot that is true as far as the opinion of Rav is concerned.


But now this reflects on Tosphot also. For Tosphot says the law on page 14 is the same as the law on page 101. So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of Tosphot the owner would pay the buyer the lesser amount, improvement or expense. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of Tosphot concerning Rav. If the thief did no work why would the owner pay anything to the thief? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as Tosphot in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the owner pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the owner pays the buyer the full amount of the improvement is when the buyer was the one to do the work.

Bli'neder if I get a chance I will try to present the whole subject in more detail.
_______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא י''ד ע''ב

There is one significant difference between רש''י and תוספות concerning שמואל. The difference between רש''י and תוספות is in area of שמואל. To רש''י when שמואל says the לוקח gets the price he paid for the field קרן but not שבח it means he does not get the שבח from the בעל השדה nor the thief.


So when I wrote there is no difference between רש''י and תוספות that is true as far as the opinion of רב is concerned.
But now this reflects on תוספות also. For תוספות says the law on page י''ד ע''ב is the same as the law on page ק''א ע''א So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of תוספות the  בעל השדה would pay the buyer the lesser amount, שבח or יציאה. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of תוספות concerning רב. If the גנב did no work why would the בעל השדה pay anything to the גנב? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as תוספות in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the בעל השדה pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the בעל השדה pays the לוקח the full amount of the שבח is when the לוקח was the one to do the work.


בבא מציעא י '' ד ע''ב יש הבדל משמעותי אחד בין רש''י ותוספות בנוגע לשמואל. ההבדל בין רש''י ואת התוספות הוא בתחום של שמואל.  לרש''י כאשר שמואל אמר שהלוקח מקבל את המחיר ששילם עבור השדה, קרן אבל לא שבח, זה אומר שהוא אינו מקבל את שבח מן בעל השדה ולא את הגנב.  אין הבדל בין רש ''י ותוספות בנוגע לדעת רב. אבל עכשיו זה משקף על תוספות גם. לתוספות החוק על דף י''ד ע''ב זהה לחוק בעמוד ק''א ע''א.
 שלדעת תוספות בעל השדה ימשלם לקונה הסכום הפחות, שבח או יציאה.  אבל בואו נראה אז על דעתו של תוספות בנוגע רב. אם הגנב לא עשה שום עבודה מדוע בעל השדה ישלם כלום לגנב? החיצים כתבתי צדקו אבל הנקודה שלי היא שהמקרים שונים. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם את הגנב את הכמות הפחותה זה כאשר הגנב עשה את העבודה על המגרש. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם לוקח את הסכום המלא של השבח הוא כאשר הלוקח היה זה שעשה את העבודה.

sex confusion

Behavior once deemed as a sign of mental disturbance, e.g., gender confusion, is now foisted upon us as normal and worth celebrating; in the name of this new "normal," our daughters must now share bathrooms with men and those "transitioning" or "confused" about their gender--I am certain this will go well. The press, furthermore, must not report race or ethnicity in their descriptions of suspected criminals lest we allow our inner racist to emerge; after every attack from Muslim killers, we are warned not to engage in a backlash against Islam; all sorts of shows and statements can be made ridiculing Christianity and Judaism, but let not a single acrid word on Islam slip from your lips if you want to keep your job or not put yourself at physical risk; leftist thugs openly try to disrupt political meetings of those with whom they do not agree; demanding that our immigration laws be respected, gets one labelled a xenophobe and a racist; requiring voters to identify themselves comprises racist voter "suppression"; agencies of the state openly suppress political dissent and "offensive" speech and positions; men are considered the enemy; women, once proudly roaring out their equality, now demand special protections from men; relations between black and white have become the most tense and nauseating in my lifetime.

from here

Sidur of Yaakov Emden. The idea was sex that can result in conception should be only Friday night after the middle of the night.

I was thinking of mentioning something about the Sidur of Yaakov Emden.
This was given to me by Reb Shelomo Friefeld. It had a whole section in it about marriage which I could not even read at the time. But before I was married I did study that section. And today it seems to me to be  a good thing to give to yeshiva students before they get married.

You want a shiduch with me? Then learn all of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri, and then call me.

Y

Ideas in Talmud

I wanted to mention something about Rashi on Bava Metzia page 14. I think Rashi and Tosphot are not having a big argument here and also perhaps no argument at all. It seems to me that Tosphot is assuming the case is when only the buyer did any work on the field and that is why the owner pays the buyer for the improvement. Just think. If the only person to do improvements on the field was the thief, then why would the owner pay the buyer anything?

However even given this, there is the difference that to Tosphot when the owner pays for the improvement he would be giving the least amount to the thief, and then the thief would give the entire improvement to to the buyer. But if the thief did nothing in the first place, why would this make any sense? Is it possible that perhaps Rashi and Tosphot would not be disagreeing at all?
__________________________________________________________________________________

I wanted to mention something about רש''י.   I think רש''י and תוספות are not having a big argument here and also perhaps no argument at all. It seems to me that תוספות is assuming the case is when only the buyer did any work on the field and that is why the בעל השדה pays the לוקח. Just think. If the only person to do  שפוצים on the שדה was the גנב, then why would the בעל השדה pay the לוקח anything?
__________________________________________________________________



However even given this, there is the difference that to תוספות when the בעל השדה pays for the improvement he would be giving the least amount  שבח או יציאה to the גנב and then the גנב would give the entire שבח to to the לוקח. But if the גנב did nothing in the first place why would this make any sense? Is it possible that perhaps רש''י and תוספות would not be disagreeing at all?

_________________________________________________________________________


) בבא מציעא יד: יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם את השבח (השיפוץ)? אחרי הכל, הוא מקבל שדה שהשתפץ. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור (הניח אותו להתדרדר) והיה שבח בידיו של הלוקח. מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה, עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח השביח הוא מקבל [או מן הגנב או מן בעל השדה]. וזה כמו שרב אלעזר מנחם שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה. שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצב שהלוקח לא עבד על השבח, כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן.
אני רוצה להזכיר משהו על רש''י. אני חושב שבין  רש''י ולתוספות אין ויכוח גדול כאן. נראה לי כי לתוספות יש הנחה שהמקרה הוא כאשר רק הקונה עשה כל העבודה על המגרש. רק תחשוב. אם האדם היחיד שעשה שפוצים על השדה היה הגנב אז מדוע  בעל השדה משלם ללוקח כלום?

There really is no short cut towards Torah, but one thing I have discovered that does help the learning is the book Chafetz Chaim.

I had in mind to mention the 10,000 hour rule. That is the amount of time it takes to become expert in any serious discipline. And I wanted to discuss the problem this makes for learning Torah and a vocation. Plus the time factor that people adding to the prayers during the ages has made. These are interesting topics.

There really is no short cut towards Torah, but one thing I have discovered that does help the learning is the book Chafetz Chaim. That is care in Lashon Hara. [Not to slander.] [I should add that warning people about a bad group is not slander--even if they do not accept what you say.]
. People in yeshiva that were more careful in Lashon Hara simply did better in their studies. This might not help a lot to shorten the 10,000 hours but at least it helps that the time accumulates. And in any case as far as Torah is concerned 10.000 was no where near enough for me to get anywhere. That is even with learning with Reb Shmuel Berenabum, and doing the Maharasha and Tosphot and the Pnei Yehushua still I had no even gotten my feet wet. It took many years after that to finally start figuring out what was going on in Shas. It is like playing the violin. It is not just the time but the continued effort over many years.

In any case because learning a vocation also takes a similar amount of time it is hard to know how to balance Torah with a vocation.

One thing I think would help would be  to shorten the daily prayers. Look at the Sidur of Saadia Gaon. The entire first blessing of Shema is two lines. Why the prayers are so long is simple. People found that they were going through times of persecution and the regular prayers were not helping. Some person came along and said "these is the way I have been praying all these years and if you add these things to the prayer that will help." and thus the prayers got longer and longer. It is organized schizo tendencies.
Birchat Hamazon is another example. And besides this the grammar needs correcting. Bore nefashot should be בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא להחיות בהן נפש כל חי ברוך אתה ה' חי העולמים, That is nefesh is feminine. and one needs a bracha at the end.





It did also occur to me to explain a little bit about what Reb Chaim Soloveitchik  and Rav Shach are doing. You might say they are writing the Tosphot that the Rambam would have written. That is they see the Rambam is totally different than Tosphot. So they ask why? What would the Rambam have answered to the kinds of questions that Tosphot was asking in order to bring the Rambam to his conclusions?