Translate

Powered By Blogger

5.5.16

Once you've allowed the barbarians through the gates, any swashbuckling ruffian who is willing to pick up a sword and push them back out again is an ally.

Once you've allowed the barbarians through the gates, any swashbuckling ruffian who is willing to pick up a sword and push them back out again is an ally. We can worry about what the city should look like once we've put out the fires and have stopped the barbarians from actively setting more of them.

Vox Populi

Belief in God. I few ideas i wrote on Roosh V

Belief in God is rational. Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the first step a priori that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing. This makes it a priori, not just an empirical observation).
The idea here is to limit the number of causes. I am not saying everything needs a cause. I am saying just the opposite. That there must be a limit or else nothing could exist.
The idea is similar to what you have in logic concerning the infinite regress.
The quantum mechanics that I am aware of does not say something can come out of nothing. Rather before something it measured it is just a probability.
For those it might be helpful here to look at this from the standpoint of Kant. Unconditioned realities exist but their character is part dependent on the subject and part on the object.

I am not trying to go further than the First Cause.

A priori , not based on observation, is how we know cause and effect. The question of Induction is not my intention here.


I would have mentioned Godel's adaption of Anselm's proof but that seems like too much to discuss here
The Musar Movement of Reb Israel Salanter I think can be divided into different areas of emphasis: Fear of God, Trust in God, good character traits e.g  speaking the truth.
Each disciple came away from Reb Israel with something different.

But I think the track and idea of trying to find a limited numbers of things to emphasize is a better that just "keep Torah" since people have only a limited number of rules they keep in mind on a daily basis. So that set of rules has to be the set that contains the whole Torah in potential.
Cults are the greater danger than  physical means of destroying people's lives. By enslaving a person's mind, you enslave the whole person.
Sadly not enough research has been done in this area. It is hard fir me to believe that there is a single family that has not been touched and ruined by some cult. And yet this problem scarcely gets public mention. I have no idea why something that obviously is very destructive and effects everyone is barely worth public mention? You would think it was just a few odd balls here and there that fall for the shenanigans.

I have from some kind of odd sort of curiosity done much reading on cults. Both their own sets of religious books and also other sources. It is hard to come to any conclusion about any group because they have the power to convince.
Jogging is something that President Kennedy introduced on a large scale in the USA. Very few people engaged in it until he made a very public matter out of it.



He certainly deserves the credit for making jogging popular world wide. I wish I would do more of it.

But I also would like to recommend sit ups. There is something about sit-ups which I find amazing. It is like I get up re- energized in a way I do not see with jogging.

In terms of fat, I recommend putting in a raw egg in your coffee instead of cream. This takes away the desire to eat unhealthy foods the whole day. [This I heard from my learning partner.]

4.5.16

 אין לי גמרא כדי לבדוק את הכול, אבל  עלתה על דעתי שאלה חשובה על בבא מציעא ושבועות מ''ד. אותה הגמרא נמצאת בבא מציעא פרק האומנים. זאת: מה רבי עקיב מחזיק? הגמרא מסכמת בשבועות שהטיעון של רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבה תלוי בטענות של רבה ורב יוסף. אז מה אנחנו יודעים עד כה? הוא שרבי עקיבה מחזיק המלווה הוא שומר שכר על המשכון, ורבי אליעזר מחזיק שהוא שומר חינם.
 אבל השאלה שלי היא זו. מה רבי עקיבה מחזיק? האם הוא מתכוון שהמלווה הוא שומר שכר ובכך פטור במקרה של שוד מזוין לחלוטין? והוא מקבל ההלוואה כולה שלו? ובמקרה של אבידה או גניבה, אז הוא מחויב, כלומר הוא מאבד את ההלוואה כולה? אבל זה לא יכול להיות צודק כי אז תהיה לגמרא דרך להרוויח שרבי עקיבה ושמואל מחזיקים באותה שיטה! והגמרא דחפה את זה בהתחלה! אלא אם כן אתה חושב  שהגמרא שינתה את דעתה פה וחושבת שזה בסדר  ששמואל ורבי עקיבה מסכימים. עכשיו בדרך כלל זה יהיה בלתי אפשרי, אבל במקרה שלנו זה יכול להיות, כי אנחנו יודעים שתוספות החליטו כמו שמואל. אז אפשר לומר לתוספות  שלמעשה הגמרא שינתה את דעתה בלי לומר זאת! אז בסדר אולי ככה תוספות לומדים את הסוגיא. אבל מה לגבי הרי''ף והרמב''ם? אני מתכוון שאפשר להסתכל על הצד השני של הדברים. אולי הגמרא מחזיקה שרבי עקיבה מחזיק שהמלווה שומר שכר ובכך פטור במקרה של שוד מזוין, אבל עדיין מאבד את סכום המשכון? בסדר גמור. אז מה לגבי המקרה של גניבה או אובדן? ואז הוא מחויב ומאבד את ההלוואה כולה. זה בהחלט כמו שמואל. וזה בכלל לא טוב כי הרי''ף והרמב''ם לא מחליטים כמו שמואל. דרך אחת שאני חושב הגיונית כאן היא זו: רבי עקיבה מחזיק הוא שומר שכר ולכן הוא לא מאבד שום דבר במקרה של שוד מזוין.  ובכל מקרה של שוד לא חמוש, אלא גניבה או אובדן, הוא מאבד רק את הסכום של שעבוד המשכון. זה יהיה נהדר אם זה היה נכון. כי אז לא יהיה בכל מקרה בו רבי עקיבה ושמואל מסכימים. ואנחנו בהחלט צריכים את זה על פי תחילת הגמרא וגם העובדה היא שהרמב''ם והרי''ף לא מחליטים כמו שמואל. מה אנחנו יכולים למצוא כאן הוא שתי דרכים שונות של למידת גמרא זו. אחת כמו תוספות והשני כמו הרי''ף והרמב''ם



The truth be told I think there is a lot more to think about here but this is just a little bit of what I was thinking while out walking. The things to check if God grants to me a Gemara is to see if perhaps this way of learning is reflected in Tosphot. Also to see how this fits in teh end of the Gemara where the Gemra further modifies its conclusion with a difference of whether he needs the pledge or not. Would this change anything here?

_______________________________________________________________________________
It also occurred to me that there seems to be a question on the Rif. He does say the lender is a paid guard and also that then it is  a case of armed robbery that he loses the mount of the pledge. We can conclude that in the case of theft or loss he would be obligated more that just the amount of the pledge but rather the whole loan. And on this there is the question that if so then the Gemara would have a way of making Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel coincide in the case of theft or loss. And this contradicts the previous Gemara/

_______________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________________
It also occurred to me that there seems to be a question on the רי''ף. He does say the lender is a שומר שכר and also that then it is  a case of armed robbery that he loses the mount of the משכון. We can conclude that in the case of theft or loss he would be obligated more that just the amount of the pledge but rather the whole loan. And on this there is the question that if so then the גמרא would have a way of making רבי עקיבה and שמואל coincide in the case of theft or loss. And this contradicts the previous גמרא