Idea in Talmud Bava Metzia 98a

I was just thinking over the sugia [Subject in the Talmud] in Bava Metzia 98 and Shavuot and the Tosphot. The first time I learned it Rashi made sense to me. Then my learning partner explained what the question of Tosphot on Rashi is. And thus Tosphot brings Rabbainu Tam. And then there is a question on Rabbainu Tam and so Tosphot then brings the Riva.
As I was thinking it over again as I was out doing shopping it occurred to me again that Rashi makes sense. With no access to a Gemara bear with me as I write down what I remember. But my memory might be playing tricks and I have no way to check. I looked at my own notes so I am not saying I remember this all from scratch. Still I might have forgotten something

At any rate here is what I remember. The Mishna in Shavuot says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel said that is when there are  witnesses. If there are no witnesses then the employer has a Migo. He could have said "who are you? I never saw you before." But instead he says "I paid you already." Rava [I think] asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know Rashi holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
Now full stop. Does this make sense? To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a migo. So if you believe a person because he has a migo then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could Tosphot ask on this?

That is all I really have to say right now. But just for completeness let me add what I recall Tosphot says after this. That is that rabbainu Tam says the only time there is שבועת השומרים is when there is מודה מקצת that is כפירה והודאה

________________________________________________________________________________

 The משנה in שבועות says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. רב and שמואל said that is when there are  witnesses. If there are no witnesses, then the employer has a מיגו. He could have said who are you? I never saw you before. But instead he says I paid you already. רבא  asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know רש''י holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a מיגו. So if you believe a person because he has a מיגו then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could תוספות ask on this?



המשנה בשבועות אומרת שכיר נשבע ונוטל. עובד לוקח שבועה ומקבל תשלום. רב ושמואל אמרו כי זה כאשר יש עדים. אם אין עדים, אז למעסיק יש מיגו. הוא היה יכול לומר מי אתה? מעולם לא ראיתי אותך. אבל במקום זה הוא אומר שילמתי לך כבר. רבא שאל, "אם כן אז לא יכולה להיות שבועת השומרים (שבועה לשומר). עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שרש''י מחזיק שבועת השומרים אפילו כשאינו מודה מקצת. לי זה נשמע הגיוני לחלוטין. המקרה הרגיל של שבועת השומרים היא כאשר יש מיגו. אז אם אתה מאמין אדם כי יש לו מיגו, אז יש לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים. ברור כשמש. מה קורה בעולם של תוספותשהם  שואלים על זה?


Ideas in Bava Metzia


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what Rashi held by כפירה. Tosphot understands that Rashi holds כפירה takes an oath. If so then in fact there is a question on Rashi. The question is there is no migo. But the way I see it, Rashi holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.

___________________________________________________________________________


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what רש''י held by כפירה. The way תוספות understands that רש''י is that if the שומר said  כפירה then he takes an oath. If so, then in fact there is a question on רש''י. The question is there is no מיגו. But the way I see it, רש''י holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.

The local religious teacher as opposed to a person that learns Torah for its own sake.

The local religious teacher  has a little piece of paper that says “certified ” on it, and that little piece of paper assures him that he will never be cast out among the poors, the middle class. But, you see, he earned it, by being the son of a religious teacher. A legacy. An aristocrat.

Have you ever met a minor rabbi?

A minor religious teacher is a snot-nosed kid who went to some big name yeshiva. What does he have? A piece of paper and a "Shtele" gig. [position] Is mr. minor religious teacher , who couldn’t tell over a Tosphot if it hit him in the head, a particularly talented religious teacher? Could he, in a double-blind test, out-compete the poors, the yokels, the disgusting average Jews of gross, inferior white Ashkenazc background ? If minor religious teacher were hit by a truck, his fat guts splattered into a million giblets across the pavement of his coastal gated community, would anyone care? No. minor religious teacher the minor aristocrat, is replaceable. He is privileged, but he is still insecure.

If you ever meet a minor religious teacher, insecurity will be the most obvious thing about him. 

If you ever meet a minor religious teacher, get him drunk, or at least angry. Wait for him to start fantasizing about, burning down the South with everyone in it, herding Christians into gas chambers. I’ve met my share of that lot, and they usually do. Sometimes they don’t bother trying to hide it. 

. The worst ones are the most assured and the least secure—the second-generation religious teachers so sure that they’re part of the ‘elite’ and the first-generation Brahmin unlike the converts from flyover states. 

 Since the "minor religious teacher" exerts influence over his students, and since the students pay the minor rabbi lots and lots of money to attend their cult compounds yeshivas, the minor religious teacher has a strong incentive to justify their position ideologically (by, for example, setting up a binary opposition between the virtuous “religious teachers ” and the un-virtuous “reform Jews and Zionists”) and materially (by turning their certificates of Spiritual Transformation into certificates of ideological ability to hold a job), and that this incentive is shared by the elite, who have the money and the connections to get themselves and their children into the most Spiritually Transforming cult compounds yeshivas of all for to seekers of Spiritual Transformation.

Presumably, one is to question everything except the religious teachers …

But we could always question the idea that an education is something you get by sitting in a room in yeshiva. 

Minor religious teachers are nervous snot-nosed man-children pushing the interests of their class as hard as they can in the desperate hope that they can hold onto their position.

The reason to expose these frauds is this: If you care about cigarettes. and someone you know is selling something which has no tobacco in it. Just empty packets of paper. Then you say something. But only of you care. So I care about Torah and thus I have to warn people that religious teachers  are selling a false product. Not Torah, but phony Torah 

Dear Dr  Ross, In one essay you indicate are going back to Plato and Plato coincides with  Kant in some ways. So Plato could have answered the question how the forms participate with individuals -he could have answered the representation makes the object possible and the object makes the representation possible. Is this in fact an answer that Plato could have given to the question of Aristotle?

Plato was thinking in metaphysical rather than epistemological terms.  So there is no "representation" in Plato's system, which is not a Critical philosophy.  The world of becoming consists of the objects of becoming.  Kant could interpret these as phenomena, but that would be, indeed, an interpretation.  At the same time, Plato's Forms as transcendent objects cannot be consistently represented in Kant's metaphysics, where a theory of transcendent objects will generate Antinomies.  In other words, God cannot be perfectly free and perfect just, yet He must be both.  But Plato's Forms are not God, or gods; and, like Socrates, the gods he does conceive hold no religious appeal.  In Kant, this does not mean there are no Forms, it just means that universals are abstractions whose ontological status is undetermined.  Since, if they exist independent, it would only be among things-in-themselves, Kant could even say that Aristotle was right, and that the Forms, whatever they are, are in the objects, but then as universals they are not accessible by experience or induction alone, as Aristotle thought.

KR

[Southern States of the Union]

Vilification of the south [Southern States of the Union][All States south of and including Virginia] has gone on long enough. I am not sure how a Christian defense of the south would work but from an Old Testament point of view it is fairly simple. One of the 613 Mitzvot is the set of laws that deal with a Jewish slave, and another one of the Mitzvot is the set dealing with a gentile slave. The reason you have a Mitzvah dealing with each is that the laws are many. It is like we have  a  law dealing with a burnt offering. There are plenty of rules dealing with it [as you can see in the very first chapter of Leviticus] but it all comes under one large category. In any case Slavery is allowed in the Torah. But one is not allowed to be inhumane to ones slaves.
You can see in in the Rambam in "Laws of Slaves" in the Book of Laws 
ספר המשפטים.

Kant wanted to redefine morality

Kant wanted to redefine morality in ways that lessened the importance of self denial.
This effected the world of Musar [Jewish Ethics] where fasting and self denial became considered less important. So to some degree you can see that the Musar movement was based on the Old Testament and Oral Law but also you can see it  gained lots of Kantian elements and also other elements from other streams of thought. The Kantian elements are perhaps more in accord with the Talmud. But the memes from other streams of thought seem foreign to me and more based on the Sitra Achra than on Torah.

In short, whatever is left of the Musar movement today has been so infected with foreign elements it scarcely has any resemblance to what the original books of Musar were talking about.

Blacks are the masters, and whites are the slaves.

Isaiah Berlin explained this best by the idea of negative rights. Negative rights are things like what we have in the Bill of Rights. Things that government can not do. This can be expanded to what other people can not take from you. But today when instead of negative rights, we have positive rights, that creates slavery.If someone has a right to things like housing or food, then that means other are forced -forced labor- to provide it. Forced labor is what is usually called ''slavery.'' And so now Blacks are the masters, and whites are the slaves.


Right do exist in Nature. They are the more modern way that ''natural law'' exists. That is;- instead of saying "Thou shalt not steal," John Locke used a concept that means in essence the same thing, but puts the emphasis on the person himself. The ''Right'' is what the man has himself. ''Thou shalt not steal'' is what others can not do to him. He based this on Natural Law which began with Saadia Gaon and the Rambam, and was developed in detail by Aquinas.

I could say simply to read the Two Treaties of Government by John Locke, but even there he does not spell this all out in simple words, so I thought it is upon me to explain this.

Really you have to go in your mind to consider  the "State of Nature." In the "State of Nature" man has full rights. But there is a disadvantage. He can not protect himself. Even the strongest man needs to sleep. Thus, in order to form a community, man gives up some of his rights --property etc., whatever is necessary in order to form that community;- so that the rest of his rights and person will be protected.

This concept of rights is the exact opposite of Rousseau. The John Locke concept gave birth to the American Democracy.  The Rousseau  concept of the "general will" [where the community has all the rights, and give only what it wants to the individual] gave birth to totalitarianism.

Slogans are important. Men's minds are ruled by slogans. Thus I though to suggest two simple slogans. One for the above essay and another for women.

To put this all into a simple slogan: "Black is Ugly"

You could add another complementary slgan for women "Fat is Ugly and Disgusting." 

[In any case this is a very brief account. And you can not learn this in philosophy courses nor in political science. You have got to trace the development of the ideas yourself from Saadia and Maimonides through Aquinas to John Locke and the read very carefully the Two Treaties along with the whole context of the state of nature thinker Hobbes.  Or you can take my word for it that John Locke's approach is the polar opposite of Rousseau.]

" Remember the Law of Moses"

At a certain point you have to stand for what you believe in. The very end of the prophets Malachi ends his prophecy with: " Remember the Law of Moses" {In Hebrew that is: "Remember the Torah of Moshe"}. There is so much idolatry that has sunk into what is called Judaism --especially in the religious world that at some point you have to draw the line.
I mean we have a good idea of what the Law of Moses says. And it is fairly clear that worship of human beings does not have much place in it. That is to say I just have to agree with the Gra that something is wrong with worship of people and I think he was right for putting that group into excommunication. This may not be a popular opinion but still it seems to me clear as day.

i recall a beggar woman in the neighborhood of Geula who told me Moses came to her in a dream and asked her: "What is it about my book that people do not like? why don't they pay attention to what I wrote?"  So every day as she was sitting there, she would read the book of Deuteronomy.