intermarriage

When Pinchas saw a Israeli sleeping with a Midianite woman, he killed them both as is related in Parshat Pinchas 
[In that place God agreed with Pinchas and gave him an everlasting covenant.]
The major problem there I think is that of idolatry, not DNA or nationalism. I mean to say that intermarriage seems to be subject to an argument between Shimon ben Yochai and the Sages. To Shimon Ben Yochai the problem is with anyone that serves idols.  That is because he goes by the reason for a verse, not the literal meaning. But the sages confine the verses that forbid intermarriage  to their literal meaning --that is the seven Canaanite nations and any other that are mentioned. The verses about Pinchas I think are related to this issue. But it is hard to tell because of the censors.  
In any case, after thinking about it I would have to say that the Bible is mainly interested in the problem of idolatry in that place, not so much nationalism. [There is another issue which is if the children are counted as one's own--even if marriage is permitted. After all a Jewish slave is allowed to sleep with a non Jewish slave woman as it says in Exodus in Parshat Mishpatim, but the children are not counted as his.]
I mention this because the blog http://amerika.org brought this up about nationalism. However  a friend of mine who learns in a kollel in Jerusalem mentioned to me that Rav Kook defends nationalism.\
[This came up because he was in a mixed kollel in which some people were more on the Religious Zionist side, and others on the reverse side. He asked me about this.  I said the nationalism side had support from the Zohar.}

[I have heard a defense of nationalism from Hegel and that makes sense to me. He was not thinking of every state or every nation, but one that had a kind of higher ideal. That is his kind of combination of  Platonic forms that participate in the particulars. 

From the aspect of Darwin,  there is a kind of process of Nature which begins to separate races into different species-- and that is more based on biology more than nationalism.]

[I am not really sure what to say about Christians. The prohibition of intermarriage is an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages but in that argument the only question that comes up is either just the seven Canaanite Nations [That is the opinion of the Tur ] or all idol worshipers (that is the opinion of the Rambam). In the context it is clear that the issue is idolatry. And Christianity itself is subject to debate on this issue. The opinions range all the way from the Rambam to most strict until the Meiri and the Abravanel. Tosphot I once tried to work on  with David Bronson, but in the exact same Tospot [In Avoda Zara I forget the page number] there seems to have been a few opinions.  I never got very far with the issues of idolatry. The most I can say is that Christianity does not seem to be idolatry to me. In terms of a legal decision all I can say is I usually go by the most lenient opinions of the Rishonim or opinions in the Gemara which are not pushed out of Halacha. [That is to say in the Gemara itself we have a few different ways of deciding. The Rambam and Rif always go by the לישנא בתרא. Other Rishonim go by לישנא קמא. That is to say to make a decision anywhere it is needed to know the actual sugia in the Gemara itself. In any case I am usually lenient a long as there is at least one Rishon that backs me. (A Rishon means Tosphot, Rif Rosh, Tur, Rambam etc.)   

Someone sent to me a few volumes of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and I see he has an essay on this subject of the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages.  I have not figured out what he is saying exactly but he does have away of getting the decision of the Rambam to fit with the Sages {that are not דורשים טעמה דקרא}
The Tur goes with the simple way of understanding the halacaha that since in deciding a law we do not look at the reason for the law לא דורשים טעמה דקרא;--  so only the seven Canaanite nations are forbidden. [That is the Tur decides plain and simple like R. Yehuda. The Rambam decides like the sages  in the law of the king not to have wives above number 18. That is like R. Shimon when the reason for the law is stated in the verse, and like R. Yehuda when it is not. ]

Nationalism I should mention is best dealt with with Richard Epstein -who is a kind of Libertarian. Thus he has a similar problem as does the Talmud which is this: what is the status of a nation? Obviously the Talmud does not deal with that. At most it gets up to the collective level of the Sanhedrin. The most it can do is דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the country is the law. Obviously libertarians have a great deal of trouble also in recognizing the existence of any state. As far as they are considered, it is a non existing entity. Richard Epstein does deal with this problem.   Mainly he does this by means of the Constitution which is more or less the approach of the Rashbam in Bava Batra חזקת הבתים where he considers government to a kind of contract.  Thus Richard Epstein agrees with the existence of government, and it is not the same thing as a collection of individuals, but he puts limits on its power because of the Constitution. See  for example this review.
Also look right at the beginning of the Tur חושן משפט the argument between Rav Joseph Karo and the Bach concerning שותפות. Joining. Partnership. That is a bunch of people put together a collective "purse"  of money to do business with. Is it nothing more than a collection of individuals, or is a new entity created?
This is relevant to the State of Israel.  Halacha has had for a long time great difficulty in dealing with any State. So people that learn Gemara as a rule have great difficulty in seeing any validity in the rules created by any state.  All the more so in the USA where Richard Epstein believes every piece of legislation from 1937 [the New Deal] until now is invalid. 

See this debate between Epstein and Huemer  Epstein you will notice does  justify the existence of government and recognizes it as a separate entity. But he does believe in limited government. That is Epstein is not depending on the Constitution.  As far as he is concerned even a monarchy or any kind of government needs to be limited.
How does he justify government? Epstein says contract does not help unless there is a force to enforce contract. It is a Kantian idea of a "ground" of validity.
A libertarian state is by definition unstable and a gang will automatically take over in which a small group of elites enslave everyone else. This is not an a posteriori argument but a a priori argument and thus Epstein wins the debate. Epstein depends of the Just restitution clause a lot. Not restitution but just restitution--the amount the person would be willing to sell his property for to another individual not the government.

t21 A flat major [t21 in midi]  t22 F Major [t22 in mp3] [t22 in midi]

a law in the Rambam

Just some fast information about this essay. A woman that is married and sleeps with another man is forbidden to her husband from then on of if was by her desire. If she is the wife of a cohen (priest) even if it as rape she is forbidden to her husband because of the prohibition of prostitute. The word "zona" which in general means prostitute in the Torah means a woman that slept with anyone who is forbidden to her. [that is by a prohibition of the Torah or close relations]
A Sota (unfaithful wife) is a woman who was warned by her husband not to be alone with a certain man, and she was alone with him after  that. She drinks the water as mentioned in the book of Numbers right before the section on being a Nazir. At that before she drinks the waters she is forbidden to her husband. If a witness says he saw her sleep with that other man, then she does not drink the waters and must be divorced. [Almost anything can cause her not to drink. It does not have to be a witness. Even a bird flying by that says she was unfaithful.]


Here the Rambam deals with the question is she was warned and was alone and a witness says he saw her with the other man in the act and her husband is  a kohen from the seed of Aaron the high priest and her husband did sleep with her after that.







I wanted to share some thoughts about a law in the Rambam. (הלכות איסורי ביאה א:כ''ב) Sleeping with a woman who has seen blood and not waited seven days and gone down to to the river gets lashes. Even though it is ערווה it is still is only lashes. If she is known to her neighbors as being a nida (seeing blood) he also gets lashes. The reason: the Rambam uses the words הוחזקה נדה בשכינותיה.
In the same Halacha the Rambam goes on  to say this hard thing to understand: She is a Sota (There was קינוי וסתירה [warning (קינוי) and she was alone with the guy her husband told her not to be alone with] and then one witness comes and says he saw the actual deed (she slept with another man -not her husband) and then her husband who is a Kohen sleeps with her, he gets lashes for sleeping with a זונה.

The Raavad says for טומאה not זונה.
A "Zona" זונה is generally translated prostitute  but that does not convey the actual meaning.
A זונה is a woman who has slept with a person that she is forbidden to sleep with  from either a לאו negative commandment or an איסור עשה and thus forbidden to a kohen from the Torah itself,

Now in any case once there is a warning (קינוי) and she was alone with the guy her husband told her not to be alone with she is in any case a סוטה  and he can not sleep with her and if a witness comes ad says he say her sleep together with that guy, then she can not drink the מי סוטה waters of the Sota. So she is anyway forbidden to her husband but from where does this idea of the Rambam come from that she is a זונה?  --as the Raavad so rightly asks.Here we believe the one witness so the lashes have to be because of טומאה not זונה

Reb Chaim Soloveitchik answers she becomes a זונה by her husband sleeping with her. This answer is obviously unsatisfactory and goes against a few Gemaras [like קידושין דף ע''ז] There it says a kohen that sleeps with his sister makes her a זונה. If he sleeps  with her again he makes her a חללה. Thus we see the act that makes her a זונה does not confer that status until after the act.] Rav Shach answers an answer that is much better. That is one witness is usually believed in איסורים. That is the famous statement עד אחד נאמן באיסורים. So we would usually believe one witness in a case like this except that here the woman is married which is the one exception when we do not believe a single witness. But here Rav Shach suggest the combination of קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד  makes a חזקה and that would fit perfectly  with the beginning of the halacah in which case the Rambam is talking about establishing a presumed state חזקה.
What I think is that here we have a case similar to the beginning of Nida with the famous case of the Mikve there that lacks the volume 40 Seah. Here we have a חזקה to start with,- חזקת כשרות which means חזקת הגוף

What seems right to me is this. That normally we always believe one witness in איסורים. It is just in the particular case of a woman living with her husband we do not believe one witness to forbid her to her husband.  But here after there has already been קינוי וסתירה we no longer want to make an exception and we return to the original rule of עד אחד נאמן באיסורים.
I also think you have to say this because the idea of עד אחד and קיניו וסתירה  to make a חזקה  does not seem to work here, because even if it would work, it would be going against two other חזקות חזקת כשרות וחזקת הגןף.  But also there does not seem to be any reason to say there is a חזקה now of זונה. That is חזקת השתא usually means we know the state of affairs now and we work למפרע to establish a previous state.
What I am getting at is that in Nida the Gemara only uses חזקת השתא to go against  חזקה מעיקרא if the חזקה דהשתא  has another חזקה working with it. But here  we have a previous חזקה going against a חזקה דהשתא. Now in Nida page 2 Tosphot says that חזקה דהשתא can also work against חזקה מעיקרא by itself to make a doubt. But here with the סוטה we consider it definite so as to give lashes to her husband.
After writing the above essay I noticed that Rav Shach might be meaning what my answer is.That it is simply a case of believing one witness.
Now even later I think that Rav Shach did not mean my answer. He specially mention חזקה/ And my answer is rather that the Torah believes עד אחד period.


_________________________________________________________________________________ רמב''ם הלכות איסורי ביאה א:כ''ב. The law is ביאה with a נידה and not waited seven days and טבלה בנהר או מעין gets מכות. Even though she is an ערווה it is still is only מלקות. If she is known to her neighbors as being a נידה he  gets lashes. The reason is  הוחזקה נדה בשכינותיה.
In the same הלכה the רמב''ם goes on  to say this hard thing to understand: There is a case in which she is a סוטה. That is there was קינוי וסתירה warning  and she was alone with the man her husband told her not to be alone with, and then one witness comes and says he saw the actual deed  and then her husband who is a כהן slept with her. He gets מכות for sleeping with a זונה.

The ראב''ד says for טומאה, not זונה.
A זונה is generally translated prostitute  but that does not convey the actual meaning.
A זונה is a woman who has slept with a person that she is forbidden to sleep with  from either a לאו  or an איסור עשה and thus forbidden to a כהן from the Torah itself,

Now in any case once there is a warning קינוי and she was alone with the guy her husband told her not to be alone with she is in any case a סוטה  and he can not sleep with her, and if a witness comes and says he saw her sleep together with that guy, then she can not drink the מי סוטה waters of the סוטה. So she is anyway forbidden to her husband but from where does this idea of the רמב''ם come from that she is a זונה? as the ראב''ד so rightly asks.

רב חיים הלוי בחידושי הרמב''ם answers she becomes a זונה by her husband sleeping with her. This answer is obviously unsatisfactory and goes against a few גמרות. Instead רב שך answers an answer that is much better. That is one witness is usually believed in איסורים. That is the famous statement עד אחד נאמן באיסורים. So we would usually believe one witness in a case like this except that here the woman is married which is the one exception when we do not believe a single witness. But here רב שך suggests the combination of קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד  makes a חזקה and that would fit perfectly  with the beginning of the הלכה in which case the רמב''ם is talking about establishing a presumed state חזקה.
What I think is that here we have a case similar to the beginning of נדה ב' ע''ב  with the famous case of the מקוה there that lacks the volume ארבעים סאה. Here we have two חזקות to start with. חזקת כשרות and חזקת הגוף and we have a חזקה  with a witness. What is the normal law of one witness and  a חזקה? Is this the reason the רמב''ם gives her a חזקת זונה? Or what else might be going on here? I really do not know.

What seems right to me is this. That normally we always believe one witness in איסורים. It is just in the particular case of a woman living with her husband we do not believe one witness to forbid her to her husband.  But here after there has already been קינוי וסתירה we no longer want to make an exception and we return to the original rule of עד אחד נאמן באיסורים.
I also think you have to say this, because the idea of one witness and קיניו וסתירה  to make a חזקה  does not seem to work here because even if it would work, it would be going against two other חזקות, חזקת כשרות וחזקת הגוף.  But also there does not seem to be any reason to say there is a חזקה now of זונה. That is חזקת השתא usually means we know the state of affairs now and we work למפרע to establish a previous state.  But in our case it is exactly the state now that is in doubt.
What I am getting at is that in נדה ב' ע''ב the גמרא only uses חזקת השת to go against  חזקה מעיקרא if the חזקה דהשתא  has another חזקה working with it. But here on the contrary we have two previous חזקות going against a חזקה דהשתא. Now in נדה ב' ע''ב תוספות says that חזקה דהשתא can also work against חזקה מעיקרא by itself to make a doubt. But here with the סוטה we consider it definite so as to give lashes to her husband.

רמב''ם הלכות איסורי ביאה א: כ''ב. החוק הוא ביאה עם נידה ולא חיכה שבעה ימים וטבלה בנהר או מעין מקבל מכות. למרות שהיא מהווה ערווה זה עדיין רק מלקות. אם היא ידועה לשכניה כנידה הוא מקבל מלקות. הסיבה היא הוחזקה נדה בשכינותיה. באותה הלכה רמב''ם ממשיך ואומר דבר קשה זה להבין: יש מקרה שבו היא היא סוטה. כלומר היה קינוי (אזהרה) וסתירה, ולאחר מכן עד אחד  בא ואמר שראה את המעשה בפועל ולאחר מכן בעלה שהוא כהן שכב איתה. הוא מקבל מכות  בגלל זונה.ראב''ד אומר עבור טומאה, לא זונה.זונה מתורגמת זונה בדרך כלל אבל זה לא מעביר את המשמעות בפועל.זונה היא אישה ששכבה עם מי שהיא אסורה לישון אתו בגלל לאו או איסור עשה ובכך אסורה לכהן מן התורה. עכשיו בכל מקרה פעם יש אזהרה קינוי וסתירה. היא בכל מקרה סוטה והוא לא יכול לישון איתה. ואם עד בא ואמר שראה את המעשה, אז היא לא יכולה לשתות את מי סוטה. אז היא אסורה בכל מקרה לבעלה אבל מהיכן הרעיון הזה של רמב''ם  כי היא זונה? כמו ראב''ד בצדק שואל. רב חיים הלוי בחידושי הרמב''ם השיב שהיא הופכת זונה על ידי בעלה ששוכב איתה. תשובה זו היא ללא ספק אינה משביעת רצון ונוגדת כמה גמרות. במקום זה רב שך עונה תשובה  הרבה יותר טובה. כלומר עד אחד בדרך כלל הוא נאמן באיסורים. זוהי ההצהרה המפורסמת עד אחד נאמן באיסורים. אז אנחנו בדרך כלל  מאמינים עד אחד במקרה כזה אלא שכאן האישה נשואה ובמצב כזה  אנחנו לא מאמינים לעד אחד. אבל כאן רב שך מציע ששילוב של קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד עושה חזקה. וזה מתאימן באופן מושלם עם תחילת ההלכה במקרה שהרמב''ם מדבר על חזקה. מה שאני חושב הוא כי כאן יש לנו מקרה דומה לתחילת נדה ב' ע''ב עם המקרה המפורסם של מקוה שהוא חסר את נפח ארבעים סאה. כאן עם סוטה יש לנו שתי חזקות. חזקת כשרות ואת חזקת הגוף ויש גם עד עד.  האם זו הסיבה שרמב''ם נותן לה חזקת זונה? או מה עוד יכול להיות קורה כאן? אני באמת לא יודע. מה שנראה לי נכון הוא זה. כי בדרך כלל אנחנו תמיד מאמינים עד אחד באיסורים. רק במקרה מסוים של אישה החיה עם בעלה אנחנו לא מאמינים עד אחד שיאסור עליה בעלה. אבל כאן אחרי שיש כבר קינוי וסתירה אנחנו כבר לא רוצים לנהוג לפנים משורת הדין, ונשוב לכלל המקורי של עד אחד נאמן באיסורים. אני גם חושב כי  עד אחד וקינוי וסתירה אינה עושה חזקה. לא נראה שזה עובד כאן, כי גם אם זה יעבוד, זה יהיה הולך נגד השתי  חזקות אחרות,  חזקת כשרות וחזקה הגןף. אבל גם כאן לא נראה שיש סיבה לומר קיימת חזקת השתא של זונה. כלומר חזקת השתא בדרך כלל אומרת שאנחנו יודעים את מצב העניינים עכשיו ואנחנו עובדים למפרע למצב  קודם. אבל במקרה שלנו זה בדיוק השאלה,המצב עכשיו מוטל בספק. מה שאני מנסה לומר כי נדה ב' ע''ב הגמרא רק משתמשת עם חזקת השתא ללכת נגד חזקא מעיקרא אם לחזקת דהשתא יש עוד חזקה לעבוד עמה. אבל כאן להפך, יש לנו שתי חזקות קודמות שהולכות נגד חזקת השתא. עכשיו ב נדה ב' ע''ב תוספות אומר כי חזקה דהשתא גם יכול לעבוד נגד חזקה מעיקרא מעצמו לעשות ספק. אבל כאן עם סוטה אנו רואים את האיזה כוודאי זונה על מנת לתת מלקות לבעלה. אבל גם שם לא נראה שיש סיבה לומר קיימת חזקה עכשיו של זונה. כלומר חזקת השתא בדרך כלל אומר שאנחנו יודעים את מצב העניינים עכשיו ואנחנו עובדים למפרע להקים מדינה קודמת. אבל במקרה שלנו זה בדיוק המדינה עכשיו מוטלת בספק. מה אני מנסה לומר כי נדתי ב 'ע''ב גמרא רק משתמש חזק השת ללכת נגד חזקת מעיקרא אם חזק דהשתא יש עוד חזקה לעבוד עם זה. אבל כאן להפך יש לנו שתי חזקות קודמות הולכות נגד חזקת דהשתא. עכשיו ב נדה ב 'ע''ב תוספות אומר כי חזקה דהשתא גם יכול לעבוד נגד חזקה מעיקרא מעצמו לעשות ספק. אבל כאן עם סוטה אנו רואים את זה מובהק על מנת לתת מלקות לבעלה.


[On a side note I think in general the law is like Rabainu Tam that Shabat starts 72 minutes after sunset but that is only of you go by the 18 minute "mil". A 24 minute mil puts the night at 96 minutes after sunset. And the disciple of Rabbainu Tam goes Eliezer from Mitz goes by five mil, not four mil which means 2 hours.
I had to write that essay fast before Shabat started. In any case I hope it is clear that my difference with Rav Shach is very minor. I basically accept his answer, but with slight twist.Instead of "Hazaka" I go with the idea of "one witness is believed.' And for all I know this might have been exactly what he was getting at.

The religious world is a mess as is well known and yet it came as a shock to me to realize this.
I was really in love heads over heels in love with Torah in the most powerful way possible. But it was like getting a bucket of ice cold water poured over my head to realize how corrupt and dishonest and unholy and unclean the religious world is. The world that claims to be keeping the Torah is not the same as the people that actually keep the Torah. 

If the authentic Lithuanian yeshivas are overly cautious about whom they let in their doors it is because they have been burnt too many times and thus err on the side of caution.  [Of course the trouble is they end up most often throwing out the sincere people and leaving the hypocrites that have rich parents.  Still I think it is obvious that the religious world needs a thorough Chametz cleaning. Throw out every single last bit of chametz leaven is my recommendation.

n11 mp3 n11 midi  n11 nwc

Musar movement and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik

I think you can see from the coolness of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and the Chazon Ish towards the Musar movement (Ethics) a kind of unvoiced criticism towards the whole thing. People are eager to jump on any kind of positive statement they or anyone else made about Musar (Ethics) but no one really knows what was the reason for their coolness.

   We know from all the books of Musar from the Rishonim, and especially from the Guide for the Perplexed about the importance of good character traits. So no one is doubting that. Rather their question was, "How effective is learning lots of Musar every day in terms of correcting bad character traits?"
  I am pretty sure they were not the only ones to question this. Almost anyone who has had any experience with any modern day mashgiach [spiritual adviser] always walks away wondering, "If that is the result of Musar, then what good is it?'' (I can at least say that I have asked myself this question many times.)

  For the last few days, I have been wondering about a kind of combination between learning Musar and outdoor skills and survival skills. We already know the entire purpose of the creation of the Boy Scouts was to teach young men good character. And to a large degree it was effective (in the distant past).
   I suggest to combine both approaches, Reb Israel Salanter and the Boy Scouts. [My parents encouraged me and my younger brother to go to the Boy Scouts, but we never got very far. I was anyway in those days dealing with school work and other kinds of extra curricular activities and studies. And I had to walk home after school which was a long hike every day. I simply did not have the energy for everything. And I have heard that nowadays teachers assign a lot more homework that they did in my days.
In any case, for health my feeling is there is nothing quite as good as fresh air, sunshine and lots of hiking. And basic thing about camping and survival skills and learning to work with other as team is important for character building--not just learning about good character from books.

Western Civilization

To my mind it is clear the the basis is the Bible, Plato, Aristotle -as the basic bricks but the cement was Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas. The reason I say this is that it is not at all trivial how the put the first three together, or even if it is possible at all. You can see the enormous amount of confusion in involved in this in history.

I should add that I do not think Christians have the right kind of understanding about what was going on with Jesus. However I do think they are right about the emphasis that they place on him.

I must have written about all this sometime in the past but I might as well repeat it just for information's sake.

Mainly after having studied the Ari {Isaac Luria} for a year or so in NY and then seeing and studying the writings of Reb Nachman the whole issue looks different to me than it does to Christians.
I never share my opinion because everyone is already set in their mind pro or con.
Son of Man is rather basic name for זעיר אנפין (Zeir Anpin the sephirah of Tiferet) and another possibility is it refers to יסוד יוסף (Sepherah of Foundation). There is no reason to assume anything more about it. Other people were considered to be unified with some sepherah of Aztilut (Emanation). For example, Avraham is considered to be unified with the sephirah of Kindness. And since the sephirot of Emanation are pure Godliness according to the Zohar thus all the seven shepards are one with G-d. [Avraham, Isaac, Yaakov, Moshe, Aaron, Joseph, David.][This however does not have anything to do with Divine Simplicity. God is not a composite and has no ingredients.] (Bava Sali said his son, Rav Meir Abuchatzeira,  was a soul of Emanation.)

[The sephirot of the lower worlds  the Zohar says are not Godliness.]






Picking wheat from standing sheaves that no longer need the soil is not forbidden on Shabat. Mixing ground also is not the same as kneading wheat--see the Rosh in Shabat. Washing hands before  a meal is according to the Gemara in Chulin a good thing. מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה. "First water is  a mitzvah, water in the middle of the meal is allowed, water after the meal is an obligation." Thus the idea that Jesus violated any mitzvah is not supported except by people that do not know the laws.


See the Recognitions and Homilies of Clement to see that Paul [code name Simon Magnus] was against Peter's and James's understanding of Jesus. And Paul's letters have become the consensus even though they are clearly not accurate, nor were they counted as Scripture by any of the early church fathers. (I do not remember the dates involved, but for anyone who wants this is easy to look up.)