11.5.16
ברוך השם. אני חושב שאני מצאתי דרך כלשהי להבין תוספות ואת מהרש''א על בבא מציעא פ''ד ושבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב. הייתי רוצה להביע את הרעיון הבסיסי ולאחר מכן להיכנס לפרטים בעזרת השם. אני חושב תוספות והמהרש''א קרוב לוודאי שכבר הבינו מה שאמרתי על רבינו חננאל כי במקרה שלו זה לא רק שהוא משנה המקרה של מפרש אלא גם מיהו מפרש. אפשר לקחת את זה כנתון, ואקסיומה. רעיון זה כשלעצמו לא עוזר בהתחלה. אבל הבה נחשוב מה ההשלכות הן. נניח רבינו חננאל אומר שהמקרה של שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש. בהתחלה זה לא נראה שיחול שינוי משמעותי. אבל זה משנה משהו חיוני. כלומר זה. כי שמואל הוא כאשר הלווה הוא מפרש המשכון הוא עבור כל הלוואה. המקרה של רבי עקיבא הוא כאשר הלווה לא מסביר כלום. אז מה קורה אם המלווה הוא מפרש? זה יהיה אותו הדבר כמו לא הסביר שום דבר. רבי אליעזר היה אומר שהוא מקבל את ההלוואה כולה. זה אותו דבר של קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. אבל לרש''י הדברים שונים. המקרה של רבי עקיבא ורבי אליעזר הוא כאשר המלווה הוא מפרש. ואז שמואל הוא כשהוא לא מפרש. אז מה קורה אם הלווה הוא מפרש לרש''י? אפילו רבי אליעזר היה מודה שזה לא אותו בדבר כמו אם אף אחד לא אמר כלום. במקום זאת החוק יחזור לרבי עקיבא כי סכום שהמשכון היה שווה לא צריך לפרוע אל המלווה. לכן אין קפיצה של שני שלבים שתוספות לא אוהבים. ולכן דעתו של רש''י יוצאת טוב יותר מאשר רבינו חננאל
Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
How Radical Muslims Will Get Nukes They will simply vote themselves in and take over the UK and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
An example that people choose their beliefs based on the social group they identify with, not based on rational criteria. What makes the social group believe a certain set of beliefs is they are often founded on a schizoid typal personality who has contradictory beliefs.
It is not radical Muslims that are a problem as oppose to normal Muslims. It is the whole "meme" The difference between a Catholic nun and radical Muslim is in what they believe in. Not amount of fervor they believe in it.
See this how-radical-muslims-will-get-nukes
the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all.
Heidegger saw this in a metaphysical kind of sense. He thought this is indicative of the idea of coming into being. The past is the potential which gives birth to the present. Dr Kelly Ross thinks of this more in the sense that the past has gone from a mode of possibility into necessity.
But I myself have not yet had time to delve into these interesting approaches. I am just mentioning them for points of possible exploration.
The thing here that is curious is that the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all. Instead of it going from potential into actuality, it passed from potential into actuality into nothingness.
I think that this indicates what Kant was saying about time-it is an unconditioned reality. When pure reason ventures into that area it produces contradictions. The past is the most necessary. It can no long be changed. But it also is the most non existent.
But I myself have not yet had time to delve into these interesting approaches. I am just mentioning them for points of possible exploration.
The thing here that is curious is that the past has gone from potential to no longer existing at all. Instead of it going from potential into actuality, it passed from potential into actuality into nothingness.
I think that this indicates what Kant was saying about time-it is an unconditioned reality. When pure reason ventures into that area it produces contradictions. The past is the most necessary. It can no long be changed. But it also is the most non existent.
Nature makes the choice."
(1) Free will and Quantum Mechanics with Henry Stapp see min 33:44 "Nature makes the choice."
[Which is locality.The observer is Nature, not the experimenter nor the electron.]
(2) That is straight Neo Platonic thought--the observer is the Logos--not the individual.
(3) What the individual sees is representation of reality. Pixels on a screen. What do the pixels represent? Hermitian matrices on a Hilbert Space..
That is a kind of matrix that stays the same if you flip it over and every "i" you turn to a "-i." And the Hilbert Space simply has a linear inner product defined on it.
The hermitian matrix is really a tensor. It has different values according to which direction it is pointed. So it is not a vector. But it might be made up of lots of vectors (forces whose value depends on direction). [Think of a corner stone in a building. At a single point the stresses and strains with will be different depending on direction.]
Anyway--these are the things that are real. What we see are merely representations. As Kant said the dinge an sich is hidden. But Schopenhauer thought there is only one real Ding an sich the Will. The rest of reality is a representation of that Ding an sich.
(4) And that brings us to Hegel that there is a hierarchy with each level being a representation of the previous one. [Not thesis anti thesis synthesis which appears no where in Hegel and is not even an accurate representation of his thought. Rather he thought the concept internally had some self contradiction in potential that needed resolution. Not some anti thesis coming from without.]
[Which is locality.The observer is Nature, not the experimenter nor the electron.]
(2) That is straight Neo Platonic thought--the observer is the Logos--not the individual.
(3) What the individual sees is representation of reality. Pixels on a screen. What do the pixels represent? Hermitian matrices on a Hilbert Space..
That is a kind of matrix that stays the same if you flip it over and every "i" you turn to a "-i." And the Hilbert Space simply has a linear inner product defined on it.
The hermitian matrix is really a tensor. It has different values according to which direction it is pointed. So it is not a vector. But it might be made up of lots of vectors (forces whose value depends on direction). [Think of a corner stone in a building. At a single point the stresses and strains with will be different depending on direction.]
Anyway--these are the things that are real. What we see are merely representations. As Kant said the dinge an sich is hidden. But Schopenhauer thought there is only one real Ding an sich the Will. The rest of reality is a representation of that Ding an sich.
(4) And that brings us to Hegel that there is a hierarchy with each level being a representation of the previous one. [Not thesis anti thesis synthesis which appears no where in Hegel and is not even an accurate representation of his thought. Rather he thought the concept internally had some self contradiction in potential that needed resolution. Not some anti thesis coming from without.]
10.5.16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)