I wanted to suggest two types of sessions in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. One is just saying the words and going on and the other is in depth learning. The in depth learning depends on if you have a learning partner or not. When I have found myself without a learning partner -which is more often than not- I suggest just to take one chapter and just run through it from start to finish. Then the next day do the same thing. And thus continue at least for forty days. I admit I did not do this myself with Rav Shach but rather other people like Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's Chidushei HaRambam. This idea of lots of review I mainly picked up from my first rosh yeshiva and his son who were always talking about the importance of review.
25.5.16
Talmud Bava Metzia 98a. Tosphot first word משכחת. It occurred to me to ask what seems like a simple question. To Rabbainu Tam to take an oath of a guard one needs כפירה הודאה ואונס. Why is not just כפירה or אונס enough? Is that not the same thing as מודה במקצת where we say מודה במקצת הטענה חייב שבועה? I guess because it is different than the case of a loan. By a loan we say he takes an oath because he really wanted to deny the whole thing but אין אדם מעיז פניו בפנע בעל חובו because the lender did him a favor by giving him a loan. But here with a guard the person that gave the guard something to watch did him no favor.
The question on this is:
But then there would be more of a reason to have a person that denies the whole transaction to take an oath, not less.
What I mean to say is this we say מודה מקצת takes an oath because two things cancel. There is a reason to say he is denying only part when he could have denied the whole thing so let us believe him. To cancel this we say אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו. So then normally our starting position is there should be an oath, because 1-1 is the same as zero.
It also occurred to me a simple way to explain the question of Tosphot on Rabbainu Tam. Rava asks on Rav and Shmuel "if there is a migo then there would never be a case of a שומר taking and oath." The question of Tosphot on RT is that to RT the case of a guard taking an oath is never a case where there is a migo.
________________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א תוספות ד''ה משכחת. It occurred to me to ask what seems like a simple question. To רבינו תם to take an oath of a שומר one needs כפירה הודאה ואונס. Why is not just כפירה or אונס enough? Is that not the same thing as מודה במקצת where we say מודה במקצת הטענה חייב שבועה? I guess because it is different than the case of a loan. By a loan we say he takes an oath because he really wanted to deny the whole thing but אין אדם מעיז פניו בפנע בעל חובו because the lender did him a favor by giving him a loan. But here with a guard the person that gave the guard something to watch did him no favor.
השאלה על זה:
אבל אז תהיה יותר סיבה לחייב אדם שמכחיש את העסקה כולה לקחת שבועה, לא פחות.
It also occurred to me a simple way to explain the question of תוספות on רבינו תם. In שבועות רבא asks on רב and שמואל if there is a מיגו then there would never be a case of a שומר taking and oath." The question of תוספות on רבינו תם is that to רבינו תם the case of a guard taking an oath is never a case where there is a מיגו because it is always מודה מקצת
בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א תוספות ד''ה משכחת. עלה בדעתי לשאול מה שנראה כמו שאלה פשוטה. לרבינו תם, שומר כדי להישבע צריך כפירה הודאה ואונס. למה לא כפירה לבדה או אונס מספיקים? האם זה לא אותו דבר כמו מודה במקצת שבו אנו אומרים מודה במקצת הטענה חייב שבועה? תרוץ: אני מניח כי זה שונה מאשר במקרה של הלוואה. על ידי הלוואה שאנו אומרים הוא לוקח שבועה כי הוא באמת רוצה להכחיש את העניין, אבל אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו כי המלווה עשה לו טוב על ידי שנתן לו הלוואה. אבל כאן עם שומר, האדם שנתן משהו לשמור לא עשה לו שום טובה.
גם עלה בדעתי דרך פשוטה להסביר את השאלה של תוספות על רבינו תם. בשבועות רבא שואל על רב ושמואל אם יש מיגו אז לעולם לא יהיה מקרה בשומר לקיחת השבועה ". שאלת תוספות על רבינו תם היא לרבינו תם במקרה שהשומר לוקח שבועה הוא לא לעולם במקרה בו קיים מיגו כי זה תמיד מודה מקצת.
_
The question on this is:
But then there would be more of a reason to have a person that denies the whole transaction to take an oath, not less.
What I mean to say is this we say מודה מקצת takes an oath because two things cancel. There is a reason to say he is denying only part when he could have denied the whole thing so let us believe him. To cancel this we say אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו. So then normally our starting position is there should be an oath, because 1-1 is the same as zero.
It also occurred to me a simple way to explain the question of Tosphot on Rabbainu Tam. Rava asks on Rav and Shmuel "if there is a migo then there would never be a case of a שומר taking and oath." The question of Tosphot on RT is that to RT the case of a guard taking an oath is never a case where there is a migo.
________________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א תוספות ד''ה משכחת. It occurred to me to ask what seems like a simple question. To רבינו תם to take an oath of a שומר one needs כפירה הודאה ואונס. Why is not just כפירה or אונס enough? Is that not the same thing as מודה במקצת where we say מודה במקצת הטענה חייב שבועה? I guess because it is different than the case of a loan. By a loan we say he takes an oath because he really wanted to deny the whole thing but אין אדם מעיז פניו בפנע בעל חובו because the lender did him a favor by giving him a loan. But here with a guard the person that gave the guard something to watch did him no favor.
השאלה על זה:
אבל אז תהיה יותר סיבה לחייב אדם שמכחיש את העסקה כולה לקחת שבועה, לא פחות.
It also occurred to me a simple way to explain the question of תוספות on רבינו תם. In שבועות רבא asks on רב and שמואל if there is a מיגו then there would never be a case of a שומר taking and oath." The question of תוספות on רבינו תם is that to רבינו תם the case of a guard taking an oath is never a case where there is a מיגו because it is always מודה מקצת
בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א תוספות ד''ה משכחת. עלה בדעתי לשאול מה שנראה כמו שאלה פשוטה. לרבינו תם, שומר כדי להישבע צריך כפירה הודאה ואונס. למה לא כפירה לבדה או אונס מספיקים? האם זה לא אותו דבר כמו מודה במקצת שבו אנו אומרים מודה במקצת הטענה חייב שבועה? תרוץ: אני מניח כי זה שונה מאשר במקרה של הלוואה. על ידי הלוואה שאנו אומרים הוא לוקח שבועה כי הוא באמת רוצה להכחיש את העניין, אבל אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו כי המלווה עשה לו טוב על ידי שנתן לו הלוואה. אבל כאן עם שומר, האדם שנתן משהו לשמור לא עשה לו שום טובה.
גם עלה בדעתי דרך פשוטה להסביר את השאלה של תוספות על רבינו תם. בשבועות רבא שואל על רב ושמואל אם יש מיגו אז לעולם לא יהיה מקרה בשומר לקיחת השבועה ". שאלת תוספות על רבינו תם היא לרבינו תם במקרה שהשומר לוקח שבועה הוא לא לעולם במקרה בו קיים מיגו כי זה תמיד מודה מקצת.
_
24.5.16
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach
I added an idea here about an idea of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach of Yeshivat Ponovitch.
In short there is question in the Rambam.
First let me say the Etrogs on an Etrog tree do not ripen all at once. They can stay on the tree for years. So there is a question what to do about Maasar [tithes]? The Rambam goes with the opinion you go by the time the etrog was picked. But he also says an etrog that goes from the 6th year into the 7th is obligated in tithes. Direct contradiction. Rav Shach says the fruit of the 7th year is not הפקר. They have owners. All Israel. So when his field is being trampled he would not be obligated in tithes because of trampling,-- not because that from the law they would not be obligated.
I have another answer for the problem, but here I just wanted to defend Rav Shach.[That is since the Etrog has owners it is fruit that is owned by partners and thus obligated in tithes.]
Rav Shach is important-the only area of disagreement I have is STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Math]. But in terms of areas of numinous value, I am in agreement with him. That is that the holy Torah contains all the answers and all the meaning [for human life].
In short there is question in the Rambam.
First let me say the Etrogs on an Etrog tree do not ripen all at once. They can stay on the tree for years. So there is a question what to do about Maasar [tithes]? The Rambam goes with the opinion you go by the time the etrog was picked. But he also says an etrog that goes from the 6th year into the 7th is obligated in tithes. Direct contradiction. Rav Shach says the fruit of the 7th year is not הפקר. They have owners. All Israel. So when his field is being trampled he would not be obligated in tithes because of trampling,-- not because that from the law they would not be obligated.
I have another answer for the problem, but here I just wanted to defend Rav Shach.[That is since the Etrog has owners it is fruit that is owned by partners and thus obligated in tithes.]
Rav Shach is important-the only area of disagreement I have is STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Math]. But in terms of areas of numinous value, I am in agreement with him. That is that the holy Torah contains all the answers and all the meaning [for human life].
Music for the glory of God. I thank God for granting to me to write this and to share with others.
r22 r22midi r22 nwc
r21 r21 midi r21 nwc
r20 r20midi r20 nwc
r18 r18 midi r18 nwc r17 [r17 midi r17 nwc] r16 [r16 midi r16 nwc] r15 [r15 midi i can not find a r15 nwc file--but you can use the midi file to convert this to the original notes] r14 [r14 midi r14 nwc] r13 [r13 midi r13 nwc] r12 [r12 midi r12 nwc] r11 [r11 midi r11 nwc] r10 [r10 midi 10 nwc] r9 [ r9 midi r9 nwc ] r8 [r8 midi r8 nwc] r7 [r7 midi r7 nwc] r6 [r6 midi r6 nwc] r5 [r5 midi r5 nwc] r4 [r4 midi r4 nwc] r3 [r3 midi r3 nwc ] r2 [r2 midi r2 nwc ] r1 [r1 midi r1 nwc]
23.5.16
Most men are shying away from marriage---- comment from Dalrock
A comment from a blog. This is relevant to you to show you why I am telling you with all urgency to marry into a Litvak family and avoid the cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on like the plague. They are trash pretending to be aristocrats. They think rituals can cover up their criminal activities.
Most men are shying away from marriage because they don’t want to get divorced. They don’t want to lose most of what they’ve worked for. They don’t want to end up in the poorhouse. They don’t want to be wage slaves. They don’t want to lose their relationships with their kids. They don’t want to end up as social pariahs, where everyone (including their own religion teachers and parents) blame them for the breakups of their marriages.
Most men are shying away from marriage because they don’t want to get divorced. They don’t want to lose most of what they’ve worked for. They don’t want to end up in the poorhouse. They don’t want to be wage slaves. They don’t want to lose their relationships with their kids. They don’t want to end up as social pariahs, where everyone (including their own religion teachers and parents) blame them for the breakups of their marriages.
These are guys who would happily sign on for marriage if it was a good deal. These are guys who would work hard at it if the odds of failure weren’t around 45%. (If 45% of planes crashed, who would fly them?)
Mud sharking
Mud sharking is what is called on the internet black male and white female
The name comes from the fact of the mud sharks hanging around in the mud at the bottom of the sea.
It does remind me of the importance of genes and DNA.
What I recommend is you should try to find a Litvak shiduch, Religious Zionist also. Not the cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on.
If I have time I would like to collect some thoughts and ideas on this. I have seen enough disasters when it comes to shiduchim with individuals with bad DNA. It is as if stupidity and viciousness go hand in hand.
Even not black and white or the cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on which are all defective. Even among white and white {Ukraine with Tartar-which are white I have seen that the damaged DNA criminal heritage gets passed on. That is some Ukrainian women I have seen are not careful about this. One very nice woman married a tartar and as expected the children are a combination of insane and criminal. I am sure she though she was getting a good guy because, in fact her husband is a pretty decent fellow. But the bad genes came from potential into reality in their deranged children. Another fellow married a gypsy--not knowing she was a gypsy because there also her skin was white. As expected the children are criminals. You can't outsmart biology. There are so many examples of this in front of my eyes, but because of being from the USA I choose to ignore this. But if you think about it you can see the effects of ruining ones DNA with some bad mixture.
Don't ruin your DNA with by joining it with someone who has damaged DNA.
The name comes from the fact of the mud sharks hanging around in the mud at the bottom of the sea.
It does remind me of the importance of genes and DNA.
What I recommend is you should try to find a Litvak shiduch, Religious Zionist also. Not the cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on.
If I have time I would like to collect some thoughts and ideas on this. I have seen enough disasters when it comes to shiduchim with individuals with bad DNA. It is as if stupidity and viciousness go hand in hand.
Even not black and white or the cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on which are all defective. Even among white and white {Ukraine with Tartar-which are white I have seen that the damaged DNA criminal heritage gets passed on. That is some Ukrainian women I have seen are not careful about this. One very nice woman married a tartar and as expected the children are a combination of insane and criminal. I am sure she though she was getting a good guy because, in fact her husband is a pretty decent fellow. But the bad genes came from potential into reality in their deranged children. Another fellow married a gypsy--not knowing she was a gypsy because there also her skin was white. As expected the children are criminals. You can't outsmart biology. There are so many examples of this in front of my eyes, but because of being from the USA I choose to ignore this. But if you think about it you can see the effects of ruining ones DNA with some bad mixture.
Don't ruin your DNA with by joining it with someone who has damaged DNA.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)