Translate

Powered By Blogger

3.7.16

The way of marriage was rather well defined in yeshiva. At least in Litvak yeshivas. You studied well and the local homeowners when they saw a good guy would offer a date with their daughter.

This was how it was supposed to work in theory. And in the USA in NY that was how things were. The best guys got offers from the Rosh Yeshiva himself. Lesser guys were offered shiduchim from lesser status people.

And how marriage was, it's obligations and responsibilities, was all spelling out in excruciating detail.

In fact it really was humanly impossible to prepare for marriage. You simply could not go through Kidushin, Ketubot, Nida with the Tosphot, Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch. Maybe superman could have but no normal person could. I had a great advantage that someone in Torah DeDaat had written a short book with the basic information with some easy Lumdut. So you could get a basic idea of the arguments between the Shach and Taz without having to go through the whole third volume of the Shulchan Aruch By Joseph Karo.

The general amount of dating was six dates before a decision was reached. These were often planned for Motzai Shabat [the night after Shabat.]


Along with this was a fervent desire on the side of the guys and the girls to follow the Law of Moses and the Oral Law and to make it work. [The Oral Law was not looked on as a burden by rather as the Background information needed to make sense of the Law of Moses. It was understood that without background information and  a context one can make any text mean whatever she wants.

Why is this relevant? Because today few people have any idea of what marriage is.

Along with this was the understanding the wife would work during the first year and the husband would continue learning Torah for at least a few years. In theory this was supposed to go on forever but in NY guys often began to work about five or ten years after marriage. The main idea was based on the will of the wife. She was in theory a girl who respected Torah and thus would want her husband to learn Torah as she made ends meet with the kollel check and he own work and support from both sets of parents.

So far I am trying not to let any value judgments get in the way. I just want to explain the system. You don't have to agree with it. You just have to understand the mechanics.
This is all just marriage 1.01. Nothing new here.
My purpose in writing this concerns the next step. What went wrong? This next step is really why I began this essay. But now I want to take  a break and think about what went haywire?
After some thought I have to say the problems began when the Stra Achra [dark side =the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on ] go in the door. Instead of the basic meme of Torah idol worship was placed at the center. That took the focus off of God and the Law of God




 Dr Kelley Ross asked some questions on Kant in his PhD thesis to show unity of consciousness can not be by synthesis. I am wondering then. It seems to me he must be meaning that consciousness is an epi-phenomenon of the ding an sich. Or something like that. I can not tell. 
Jewish achievement in the hard sciences has gone done drastically.
The reason is that for Jews coming over from Europe, there was a kind of synergy between Reason and Revelation.  This was based to a large degree on European Jew's respect for  Maimonides and the general Mediaeval approach which saw a strong connection between faith and reason. So there was plenty of motivation to see great good in STEM. 
Psychology is pseudo science. It is best to take what they say about others as projection of their own nature.
It is a religion that is used to replace lack of faith in traditional religion.
Just for a simple example: what observation would disprove it? Nothing. There is no conceivable observation that could disprove psychology. Therefore it is not falsifiable and therefor pseudo science. QED.
It is mainly for confused people that are searching for answers, or people looking for a way to hurt others. That is,- psychologists are mentally unstable sadists.

Psychology is for people that want the aura of real science to hurt others.
It is attractive for stupid people that are not smart enough to do real science. 

2.7.16

Ideas in Talmud

Ideas in Talmud updated

I added in Hebrew an idea on how to answer a question in Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 14.
It is simply that Tosphot must be comparing the case of  improvements with teh priceof the field.
Clearly if the first buyer is getting from the borrower then there is something that prevented the lender from getting it. Otherwise how could the lender have collected anything from the first buyer? That is what causes Tosphot to think there is something also that prevents the lender from collecting from the second field
r93 r93 in midi  needs editing I am presenting it because it is basically acceptable, and I do not know how to edit it  right now. I hope for God's inspiration.
I borrowed an idea from Mozart to switch to 6/8 time for the final part as Mozart did in a B flat major piece. Mozart did this at least twice.. Once when I was a teenager and was listening on the radio I heard him do this in a D major suite. Also he did this in one symphony. 

1.7.16

I think you have to say in Bava Metzia page 14B that Tosphot is thinking like this: The Gemara says the first buyer collects his  improvement from the borrower and his main price from the second buyer.
There is no way the lender got a field from the first buyer if the borrower had a field that was available. So something has stopped the lender from being able to collect this field of the borrower that the first buyer can collect from. Therefore when the Gemara says the first buyer collects his main price even from a second buyer it must mean the same thing. That is there is something preventing the original lender from collecting from that second field.

______________________________________________________________

Still this is no proof. You could say simply the lender got his own loan repaid by taking the old field from the buyer and then the borrower bought some new property. Then the first buyer gets that property for his main price and improvements and if there is not enough to cover the main price then he goes to the second buyer.
______________________________________________________________________


Back ground information. You have a lender borrower and a buyer from the borrower after the loan was made. The borrower defaults. The lender collects from the borrower and from field sold by the borrower after the loan was made. Then the first buyer collects his main price and his improvement to the field from the borrower and his main price from the second buyer.
Tosphot asks, "Why is there a second field?" That is why did the lender not collect from the second buyer? My question is why is there a question? Maybe he got his whole loan repaid by what he already collected from the borrower and the first buyer? The above paragraph is my answer to this question

.בבא מציעא דף יד '' ע''ב אני חושב שאתה צריך להגיד  כי תוספות חושב ככה. הגמרא אומרת הקונה הראשון  אוסף שבח שלו מהלווה והקרן שלו מהקונה השני. אין דרך שהמלווה יקבל שדה מהקונה הראשון אם ללווה היה שדה שהיה זמין. אז משהו מפסיק את המלווה מלהיות מסוגל לאסוף בתחום זה של לווה כי הקונה הראשון יכול לגבות. לכן כאשר הגמרא אומרת הקונה הראשון אוסף המחיר העיקרי שלו אפילו מקונה השני אז זה בוודאי אומר את אותו הדבר. כלומר יש משהו שמונע את המלווה המקורי מגבייה מאותו השדה שני.
רקע: יש לך לווה מלווה וקונה מהלווה לאחר ההלוואה נעשתה. יש ברירת המחדל של הלווה. המלווה אוסף מהלווה ומשדה הנמכרים על ידי לווה לאחר ההלוואה נעשתה. ואז הקונה הראשון אוספת המחיר העיקרי שלו והשיפור שלו לשדה מהלווה והמחיר העיקרי שלו מהקונה השני. תוספות שואלת, "מדוע יש בשדה שני?" כלומר מדוע המלווה לא לגבות מהקונה השני? השאלה שלי היא למה יש לך שאלה? אולי הוא קיבל ההלוואה כולה שלו נפרעו על ידי מה שהוא כבר לגביה מאותו לווה לבין הקונה הראשון? הפיסקה לעיל הוא תשובתי לשאלה זו.