Western Civilization- what is the part worth preserving?

Not everything about Western Civilization is worth preserving. The very term in itself implies the kind of discretion that people used to exercise in deciding what were the main aspects of the West that were worthwhile passing on to the next generation. By definition most is mediocre. When I was in high school, the system was more careful about what they were going to give to the next generations. Maybe it was especially in my high school where the teachers were really great. But my impression is that this was pretty universal in the USA.  
So the Music was mainly the classical greats, the literature also. Even USA history concentrated on reading the actual documents from each major period--which for me was the absolute hardest to do. I believe the Rambam exercised a great deal of caution and judgment in his recommendation of Physics, Metaphysics, the Two Talmuds and the Written Law of Moses. 
He certainly considered history to be the sin of bitul Torah wasting time which should be used for learning Torah,  and also forbidden in itself as מושב לצים seat of the scornful. Music also. I can not find an opinion that allows learning history. But the Gra did say the seven wisdoms are required--which do not include history nor literature.
But the Quadrivium includes Music.


I believe the main things are Physics, Metaphysics,  the Written Law of Moses. Most everything else I would throw out. The Gra and many other however did recommend the sevens wisdoms [Trivium Quadrivium]--which does not include literature. Almost everything that is called science today is pseudoscience. The only things that are valid are STEM.  

[Physics I want to mention requires two sessions. One is the going fast one called Bekiut בקיאות. The other is in depth learning. I sometimes find saying the words forwards and backwards of each sentence helpful. I saw this idea in mystic from the Middle Ages. The basic idea was repeated by the Ari, Isaac Luria in the section of unifications for correction to different sins in שער רוח הקודש, and the Ramchal Rav Moshe Chaim Luzato gave a go explanation for this in one of his mysic books --something along the lines of the אור חוזר returning light completes the coming light אור ישר.

Trends in Christianity.

The most public face of Christianity is Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Evangelical, Left Wing Protestant with is apathetic Protestant (with social justice warriors) and Emergent Protestant, Evangelical Protestant.
Evangelical is actually a euphemism for Pentecostal, it is basically the same thing without the theatrics.

So outside of the general constant spitting of Protestant we see a more fundamental splinting along these lines.  Apathetic Protestant, Social Justice politically militant Protestant, Emergent (post modern) Protestant. Apathetic and Evangelical are actually pretty close in doctrine, but differ in amounts of fervor.

All go with Paul, who was as distorting the message of Jesus. (See  the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.] (There is plenty evidence that Simon Magus in the Clementine Recognitions is Paul.)   I can see in the NT itself an obvious difference between what Peter and James were saying was the message of Jesus, and what Paul was saying. Paul was  saying antinomianism (anti-law), and people that got his letters acted on that principle to forsake all moral constraints. When news of that got back to Paul he backtracked. Thus you can prove from Paul's letters anything you want to. See here  about Paul ]

Paul's  message is at odds with what was reported in the name of Jesus. It takes intellectual gymnastics to ignore Jesus, and claim that Paul understood him better that his actual words say. 

Paul had to contradict himself also because of circumstances that arose due to his original letters. The original letters supported "No Laws" [antinomianism]. Then as we see in latter letters people acted on what he wrote. Then he had to go back to the ''Eeny Meeni Miny Moe'' method about which laws of Moses to keep and which not. So Paul ends up being incoherent at best. To Peter and James, that would be the least of his problems. 

Since all historical Christianity comes from Paul who had enormous success in planting churches all throughout the Roman world which even after he was gone kept on spreading like wild fire, thus the problems in Paul keep on being played out every day. What one person wants to prove from one letter, someone else can always find an opposite statement in another letter.
Luther put the antinomian [anti law of Moses] into this explicit phrase: "We do not want to hear about Moses." {See rejection of Moses}
The whole quote is this: "Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses. We don’t want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament." (1967b:170) 

Also from that PhD Thesis: "Nevertheless, we cannot escape Luther’s negative expressions against Moses, for example, “beat Moses to death and throw many stones at him”; “we shall make new Decalogues,” and, “Moses is nothing to us” (Avis 1975:152, 154, 156). 
Luther's sermon on Moses

"But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, (3) wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service."


In any case the Law of Moses is forever as is stated many times about particular commandments, and about the whole law itself in Deuteronomy 6 and also at the very end of the Torah in Haazinu, and at the end of the prophets זכרו תורת משה Remember the Law of Moses. 

So my approach is to say that Paul, Luther, and Calvin, while intending to do well, were mistaken in their approaches and also did not pay much attention to the Law of Moses  in the first place. Their views are simply incoherent and make opposing statements all the time. At least, I have to admit Aquinas and Hegel tried hard to make sense out of it all.

I should add that as many people have noticed, "What does it matter?" For attachment with God, sincere service to God surely is not dependent on doctrines? I have to agree with that, but to understand right from wrong is not possible without the Law of Moses.

See the Rambam's approach to natural law and the law of Moses in the Guide. 
There is an any case an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and R. Yehuda and the sages about if a mizvah applies when the reason for it does not apply. R. Shimon said ''no.'' It is famous that the law is like R Yehuda, but Rav Shach noted that this is  a mistake. The actual Law is like the sages that hold with R. Shimon in certain cases (when both the reason and the law are given together).  



But does the Rambam allow hidden reasons for commandments? Clearly he must as we see in the Guide about the difference between natural Law and Torah Law. He says Natural law was a needed stage before Torah Law. So he obviously sees some difference even in essence. So we have to say like this to R Shimon and the Rambam when the open reason for the law does not apply so the hidden reason also vanishes.

t23 A Flat Major  t23 in midi  t23 in nwc

Attachment with God, The excommunication that was signed by the Gra.

Attachment with God is not given much emphasis in the Lithuanian Yeshiva World--and for good reason. That is an area of value that is liable to deterioration and delusions and eventually insanity.

You can see this in the Talmud itself where the commandment of being attached to God is understood to mean being associated with  true Torah scholars. However I did see R. Eliezer from Mitz [a disciple of Rabbainu Tam] that counts attachment in  itself as one of the Taryag 613 commandments. (Deuteronomy ch. 11)
This tendency you see in the Rambam where in the Guide where he says the commandments to love and fear God are fulfilled by learning Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks. [He hinted to this in the Mishne Torah, the יד החזקה, but his hints there usually go unnoticed.]


 I discovered that attachment to God can come through the straight Litvak path of simply learning and keeping the Oral and Written Law of Moses. There is a path that leads from simple Gemara, Rashi, Topshot that leads to attachment with God. That is not the same as the kind of feeling of holiness you feel when you  learn. It is rather a kind of settling of the Divine presence on you. [שכינה והאור אין סוף. ]


On the other hand there are Torah scholars that are demons.  The excommunication that was signed by the Gra, tried to deal with this problem but if the Gra was ignored, there is no chance that my warnings will be heeded. 

In any case, for the sake of information, I would like to go into this phenomenon. Part of being attached to God I think is dependent on God. I think it is  from God, and but also from a person's state of being prepared. 

There are different aspects of it. Thus with the ancient prophets, it manifested itself in prophecy. During the Middle Ages, it as considered that revelations of knowledge were also gifts from God as you can see in the  חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart] and the Guide of the Rambam. In my own case the basic steps that lead me, were learning Gemara and Musar (Reb Israel Salanter' Ethics),  in the Mir Yeshiva in NY,  then arriving in Israel, and then living in Safed.

[I should mention that there is a kind of philosophy behind this Lithvak idea of "learning Torah" which is this: The Written Law of Moses was given by God and that it will never be replaced and is obligatory for all time, and the Oral Law or Talmud is the proper explanation of it. Also the Torah is God centered. There is no room for worship of corpses or any human beings. 

Thus is it clear that the religious world is demon filled and only uses Torah as camouflage. So anyone that is sincere must run from the religious at all cost. The religious synagogues are dwelling places of the Devil. Run for your life. The  best option is either to learn Torah at home or if you have a Litvak yeshiva in the area then to go there.
Authentic means Mir in NY, Brisk, Ponovitch, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vedaat.--or branches or off shoots of these places.[I might mention that Rv Montag's yeshiva in Netivot I found filled with the spirit of Torah.] 


In any case I want to mention that I am not coming from place of superior knowledge or intuition. Rather from the evidence of the common sense approach to Torah of my parents and Rav Shach and the Gra and the Rambam. I am as liable as anyone to religious deception and manipulation. Especially at the hands of cults that have the accumulated knowledge of generations of how to manipulate native people like myself. That I why I spend the time and energy to warn others to avoid the mind traps I have fallen into.

The four point system of Maimonides [Rambam]

  My idea of education is mainly based on the four point system of Maimonides [Rambam] with a few additions based on my parents.
With Maimonides we already know his four point system (1) the Written Law (the Law of Moses) (2) the Oral Law (the two Talmuds) (even just to read them in English with the Soncino edition is also good. I have heard from Rav Zilverman in the Old City about one good Torah scholar that went through the whole Talmud a bunch of times in that way.) (3) Physics [i.e. Field Theory]. (4) Metaphysics (Aristotle). (He did say he was talking about the Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks. I think he included Plato and Plotinus. I would  have to include Kant and Hegel, both sadly misused. In any case Hegel was trying to do what the Rambam was doing. To create a synthesis Reason and Revelation.

  Based on what I understood from my parents and brothers I would have to add a few things to this list. (5) Gaining a real skill that people will pay cold hard cash for. Not a fake skill and may make money but in reality does nothing for anyone. (6) Survival skills.(7) Some aspect of the Quadrivium  and Trivium (What the Gra and books of Musar call the seven wisdoms). (8) Musar. (Medieval Ethics plus the basic approach to ethics of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter ) Musar was considered by Reb Israel Salanter to be the most important because it gets one to the two most essential aspects of Torah--good character and fear of God. Musar means the four classical books אורחות צדיקים חובות לבבות מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה plus the major works by the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter מדרגת האדם כוכבי אור . That is Joseph Horvitz from Navardok (that in trust in God should be the main emphasis), Isaac Blazer (that is fear of God and good character). 

  This approach more or less defines what I think people ought to learn in order come to what a person ought to be. It is a balanced approach and thus hard to fit into a daily schedule.   

  There are people that feel they can not be in between Torah and other studies and for a time I was like that. This reminds me of Reb Israel Salanter that דעת תורה is to be an איש מדיני but because of the difficulty in doing that one must concentrate on Torah alone. 

  
  I can see the point in the Torah alone approach, but in general I was not very impressed with the people involved in that path. Instead of coming to attachment with God, they seemed to be sanctimonious, and desperate for money of secular Jews. But in the religious world, even balancing values I saw did not work very well. Instead of balance, I usually saw pretty bad character traits combined with attitudes of imagined superiority.
  A lot of the religious world sees Reform and Conservative and Religious Zionism as bad things, but these last three I found a lot closer to actually keeping the Torah which include obligations between man and his fellow man. I would have to say the Religious Zionism and Conservative are closest to Torah. Reform seems a bit too far into "social justice." My brother thinks Temple Israel in Hollywood [where our family went to pray] is Conservative. It is true it had an aspect that was conservative. But at the time we were gong there, I thought it is Reform. Anyway it is a great place. Mount Sinai in Westwood, we also went from time to time [which is conservative].

  [I should mention that I found doing the Talmud in Aramaic was better for me, I did not understand the Soncino translation at all without doing the Gemara also in its regular Aramaic.]
Still the only aspect of the religious world that seemed kosher at all were the Litvak yeshivas in NY (Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Shar Yashuv). The rest of the religious world seems to be a disaster zone full with cults, שדיין of the Dark Side that were just lurking outside the walls of the yeshiva just hoping to catch some innocent unsuspecting yeshiva bachur [student].

Survival skills deserves a whole essay. My Dad's motto  was self sufficiency. He taught us boys and lived this way himself. 

Bava Metzia page 100

The ר''י holds  we have חזקה מעיקרא that pushes the time forwards along with חזקת רשות thus it belongs to the buyer. What works against this is חזקת השתא since the cow gave birth, we push that back in time and that helps חזקת מרא קמא.

ר''י מחזיק יש לנו חזקה מעיקרא שדוחפת את הזמן קדימה יחד עם חזקת רשות ובכך הולד שייך לקונה. מה שעובד נגד זה חזקת השתא מאז שפרה ילדה, אנחנו דוחפים בחזרה הזמן וזה עוזר חזקת מרא קמא
In Ketuboth page 9 where this all comes up in Tosphot. The basic issue there is the fact that a Cohen finds his bride not to be a virgin, she is forbidden to him. The reason is we do not know if the act of sex happened before the kidushin or afterwards [in those days there was a long wait between kidushin and  Hupa]. If it was after Kidushin then she is forbidden even if it was rape. Tosphot asks why not go with חזקת כשרות? Answer: On the contrary חזקת הגוף
The truth is I am not sure what Tosphot means here. I think he means חזקת הגוף is what we normally call חזקא מעיקרא and that just like the mikve in Nida page 2 we would put חזקה דהשתא together with and another חזקה and together they have the power to defeat a חזקה מעיקרא. Thus she would be permitted to her husband. 

But if so what is Tosphot answering? That חזקה מעיקרא can defeat both חזקה דהשתא along with חזקת כשרות? That is I think not what Tosphot means. Rather I think he means that those two חזקות can not defeat חזקה מעיקרא but they can make the whole situation into a doubt. And after all that is all we are looking for in Ketubot.

 Rav Shach says when there is a doubt the חזקת השתא and חזקה מעיקרא cancel each other, and if you combine some other חזקה  with חזקת השתא then you get  a וודאי. But when there is no reason to start doubting anything in the first place, then you only look at חזקה מעיקרא and not at חזקת השתא at all. He also ties this with an argument between Rav and Shmuel. 

I am not sure if this change anything in our case here in Bava Metzia.

What I mean is that Rav Shach and R.Akiva Eigger disagree about the reason the wife of the cohen is forbidden to him. Tosphot brings two contrary חזקות and R Akiva Eiger asks why not add חזקה דהשתא to the חזקת כשרות to allow her? He answers צירוף חזקות only works if they both indicate the same thing. Rav Shach answers a different answer as I mentioned up above. You need to start with a doubt when the crucial event took place. How doe this relate to the way I look at Bava Metzia page 100? There we have 4 חזקות, two against two.
The way I think we can look at this is this. The Gemara puts the calf into an alley. Then the חזקה that determines ownership should be מרא קמא. And to the Gemara that would work except for the fact that the mishna is Sumchos. So I wonder why not bring in חזקה מעיקרא here to tell us the birth came later and to make ownership a doubt so the mishna could be the sages also? The way I have been thinking for about 24 hours is that this is the argument between the Ri and the Rashbam. The Ri holds we  have a doubt about when the calf was born and so חזקה דהשתא וחזקה מעיקרא mutually cancel. The Rashba holds until the animal was born there was no reason to doubt when it will be born. It is not like the mikve that is constantly getting less over a period of time and thus we have a doubt when it go to be less that 40 seah.
_______________________________________________________________________________

ר''י מחזיק יש לנו חזקה מעיקרא שדוחפת את הזמן קדימה יחד עם חזקת רשות ובכך הולד שייך לקונה. מה שעובד נגד זה חזקת השתא מאז שפרה ילדה, אנחנו דוחפים בחזרה הזמן וזה עוזר חזקת מרא קמא. In כתובות דף ט  this all comes up in תוספות. The basic issue there is the fact that a כהן finds his bride not to be a virgin, she is forbidden to him. The reason is we do not know if the act of sex happened before the קידושין or afterwards. In those days there was a long wait between קידושין and  חופה. If it was after קידושין then she is forbidden, even if it was rape. תוספות asks why not go with חזקת כשרות? Answer, on the contrary, חזקת הגוף works against it. What does תוספות mean here? I think he means חזקת הגוף is what we normally call חזקא מעיקרא and that just like the מקוה in נדה גף ב' ע''א we would put חזקה דהשתא together with and another חזקה and together they have the power to defeat a חזקה מעיקרא. Thus she would be permitted to her husband. But if so what is תוספות answering? That חזקה מעיקרא can defeat both חזקה דהשתא along with חזקת כשרות? That is I think not what תוספות means. Rather I think he means that those two חזקות can not defeat חזקה מעיקרא but they can make the whole situation into a doubt. And after all that is all we are looking for in כתובות. רב שך says when there is a doubt the חזקת השתא and חזקה מעיקרא cancel each other, and if you combine some other חזקה  with חזקת השתא then you get  a וודאי. But when there is no reason to start doubting anything in the first place, then you only look at חזקה מעיקרא and not at חזקת השתא at all. He also ties this with an argument between רב and שמואל. How does this relate to our case here in בבא מציעא. What I mean is that רב שך and ר' עקיבא אייגר disagree about the reason the wife of the כהן is forbidden to him. תוספות brings two contrary חזקות and ר' אקיבא אייגר  asks why not add חזקה דהשתא to the חזקת כשרות to allow her? He answers צירוף חזקות only works if they both indicate the same thing. רב שך answers a different answer as I mentioned up above. You need to start with a doubt when the  event took place. How does this relate to the way I look at בבא מציעא  דך ק' ע''א? There we have 4 חזקות, two against two.The way I think we can look at this is this. The גמרא puts the calf into an alley. Then the חזקה that determines ownership should be מרא קמא. And to the גמרא that would work except for the fact that the משנה is סומכוס. So I wonder why not bring in חזקה מעיקרא here to tell us cow gave bith came later and to make ownership a doubt so the משנה could be the sages also? The way I have been thinking for about 24 hours is that this is the argument between the ר''י and the רשב''ם. The ר''י holds we  have a doubt about when the calf was born and so חזקה דהשתא וחזקה מעיקרא cause mutual cancellation. So in an alley when there are only three חזקות the מרא קמא has ownerhip. The רשב''ם holds until the animal was born there was no reason to doubt when it will be born. It is not like the מקוה that is constantly getting less over a period of time and thus we have a doubt when it got to be less than a volume of  forty סאה


________________________________________________________________________


ר''י מחזיק יש לנו חזקה מעיקרא שדוחפת את הזמן קדימה יחד עם חזקת רשות ובכך הולד שייך לקונה . מה שעובד נגד זה חזקה דהשתא מאז שפרה הולידה, אנחנו דוחפים בחזרה הזמן וזה עוזר חזקא דמרא קמא . בכתובות דף ט' זה עולה בתוספות. הסוגיה הבסיסית: יש את העובדה כי כהן מוצא כלתו לא להיות בתולה, היא אסורה לו. הסיבה לכך היא שאנחנו לא יודעים אם קיום יחסי המין קרה לפני הקידושין או לאחר מכן. בימים ההם  היתה המתנה ארוכה בין הקידושין והחופה. אם זה היה אחרי קידושין ואז היא אסורה, גם אם זה היה אונס. תוספות שואל למה לא ללכת עם חזקה דכשרות? תשובה, להיפך, חזקת הגוף עובד נגדה.  מה תוספות מתכוון כאן? אני חושב שהוא מתכוון חזקת הגוף היא מה שאנחנו בדרך כלל קוראים חזקא מעיקרא וכי בדיוק כמו מקוה בנדה דף ב' ע''א  שמים חזקה דהשתא יחד עם עוד חזקה ויחד יש להן את הכוח להביס חזקה מעיקרא. כך בכתובות היא תהיה מותרת לבעלה. אבל אם כך מה הוא תוספות מענה? כי חזקה מעיקרא יכולה להביס הן חזקה דהשתא יחד עם חזקת כשרות? כלומר אני חושב שזה  לא מה שתוספות מתכוון. במקום זאת אני חושב שהוא מתכוון ששתי אלו החזקות לא יכולות להביס חזקה מעיקרא אבל הן יכולות לעשות את כל המצב לספק. ואחרי הכל זה הוא כל מה שאנחנו מחפשים בכתובות.  רב שך אומר כשיש ספק חזקת השתא וחזקא מעיקרא אחת מבטלת זו את זו, ואם אתה משלב עוד חזקה עם חזקת השתא אז אתה מקבל וודאי. אבל כאשר אין שום סיבה להתחיל לפקפק את הדבר מלכתחילה, אז אתה רק מסתכל על חזקה מעיקרא ולא השתא בכלל. הוא גם קושר את זה עם הויכוח בין רב ואת שמואל.  איך זה מתקשר לענייננו כאן בבא מציעא. כוונתי היא כי רב שך ור' עקיבא אייגר חלוקים בנוגע לסיבה שאשתו של כהן אסורה לו. תוספות מביא שתי חזקות נוגדות  ור' אקיבא אייגר שואל למה לא להוסיף חזקת דהשתא אל החזקה של כשרות על מנת להתיר לה? הוא עונה צירוף חזקות עובד רק אם שתיהן מצביעות אותו דבר. רב שך עונה תשובה אחרת כפי שציינתי למעלה. אתה צריך להתחיל עם ספק כאשר האירוע התרחש. איך זה מתקשר אל בבא מציעא דך ק' ע''א? יש לנו 4 חזקות, שתיים נגד שתיים. הדרך אני חושב שאנחנו יכולים להסתכל על זה היא זו. הגמרא מעמידה את העגל לתוך סמטה. ואז החזקה הקובעת בעלות צריך להיות מרא קמא. וכדי שהגמרא יכולה למעט את זה היא לומר כי המשנה היא כסומכוס. אז אני תוהה למה לא להביא חזקה מעיקרא כאן כדי לספר לנו הפרה הולידה מאוחר יותר כדי להפוך את בעלות לספק כך שהמשנה יכולה להיות כחכמים גם? הדרך שבה אני כבר חושב על כ -24 שעות היא שזהו הטיעון בין ר''י ואת רשב''ם. ר''י מחזיק יש לנו ספק לגבי כאשר העגל נולד וכך חזקא דהשתא וחזקה מעיקרא גורמות לביטול הדדית. אז בסמטה כאשר יש רק שלוש חזקות למרא קמא יש בעלות. רשב''ם מחזיק עד שהחיה נולדה אין כל סיבה להטיל ספק כשזה ייולד. זה לא כמו מקוה כי הוא מקבל כמעט באופן קבוע פיחות על פני תקופה של זמן ולכן יש לנו ספק כשזה התחיל להיות פחות נפח של ארבעים סאה


Appendix: background information. If one dips in a river or ocean that is fine as a mikve. But if the rain water is collected in one spot you need a few things. 40 seah volume which is not much. I forget the actual amount about it is around 1^1^1.5 meters. Also it can't be a swimming pool because it can be lifted whole and stick together since it is made of concrete. It also has plastic under it which separates it from the ground. The best thing I think is to go to a nearby ocean--and loose garments are not a separation.At any rate, the issue here is if a mikveh is measured and found less than 40 seah. The question is do we push the present state back in time?  
The other issue is the wife of the cohen. She was found not to be a virgin. The kidushin makes a woman married but she does not live with her husband until Hupa and in ancient times there was a long wait. So the question is when did the act of sex happen? If after kidushin then she is forbidden to her husband because even if it was against her will she is forbidden. If we would be talking about a Israel, not a Cohen then there would be two questions, If it was before or after kidushin and if it was after if the act of sex was willingly or not. So it is a ספק ספקא  a doubt of a doubt and so she is permitted.

End chapter nine in Bava Metzia בבא מציעא.

End chapter nine in בבא מציעא. There ר' יהודה holds we are not  דורשים טעמא דקרא. Against that opinion is ר' שמעון בן יוחאי holds we go by the reason for the law דורשים טעמא דקרא.  When there is an argument between ר' יהודה and ר' שמעון  the הלכה is like ר' יהודה. In a פסוק in the Torah it says not to marry any of the seven nations. Or more exactly do not give your children in marriage to them so they will not turn the heart of your children towards idolatry. ר' יהודה who does not look at the reason for a verse says we go by the literal meaning. It forbids only the seven (Canaanite) nations. ר' שמעון says it forbids all nations that do idolatry because we go by at the reason for the verse, not by its literal meaning. So why does the רמב''ם decide marriage with all nations that do idolatry is forbidden? The key factor to notice is the case of a king. The פסוק says he should not have many wives "לא ירבה לו נשים". The  חכמים, say that means not to have more than שמנה עשרה 18 wives. ר' יהודה says, he can have as many as he  wants as long as they do not tilt his heart. ר' שמעון says even one that tilts his heart he must not marry. So when it says "לא ירבה לו נשים" it means even like Abigail. רב שך points out that here the חכמים and ר' שמעון agree.  The  sages obviously agree with ר' יהודה that we do not go by the reason for the law.  But here we see ר' יהודה does go by the reason for the law because the reason is written explicitly. So what does ר' שמעון do when the reason is given openly? He  learns from both the regular פסוק, and he learns something extra from the reason. So even though in general the חכמים go with ר' יהודה, but in  a case when the reason for the law is given openly, then they go like ר' שמעון.  This now gives us enough information to explain the  רמב''ם. That is this. When the reason for the law is given openly in the פסוק the חכמים agree with ר' שמעון. And that is exactly the case with intermarriage. So in that case the חכמים will agree with ר' שמעון that all nations that serve idols are forbidden, not just the seven nations. And that is how the  רמב''ם decides. He decides this not because it is the opinion of ר' שמעון but because it is the reason of the חכמים

סוף פרק תשעה בבא מציעא. יש ר' יהודה מחזיק אנחנו לא דורשים טעמא דקרא. נגד הדעת הזאת הוא ר' שמעון בן יוחאי שמחזיק שהולכים לפי סיבת החוק, דורשים טעמא דקרא. כשיש ויכוח בין ר' יהודה ור' שמעון, הלכה היא כמו ר' יהודה. בתוך פסוק בתורה כתוב לא להתחתן עם מישהו שבעת העמים. או לייתר דיוק לא לתת לילדים שלך בנישואים להם כדי שהם לא יהפכו את לב ילדיך כלפי עבודה זרה. ר' יהודה שאינו מהסתכל על הסיבה של פסוק אומר נלך לפי המשמעות המילולית. הוא אוסר רק את שבעת העמים. ר' שמעון אומר שזה אוסר כל הגוים אשר עושים עבודה זרה, כי נלך לפי הסיבה של הפסוק, לא לפי המשמעות המילולית שלו. אז למה עושה את רמב''ם מחליט נישואים עם כל העמים שעושים עבודה זרה אסורה? הגורם המרכזי הוא לשים לב במקרה של מלך. הפסוק אומר שהוא "לא ירבה לו נשים". החכמים אומרים לא יותר משמנה עשר נשים. ר' יהודה אומר שהוא יכול להרבות ככל שהוא רוצה, כל עוד שהן לא נוטות את לבו. ר' שמעון אומר אפילו אחת  שמטה את לבו אסור לו לשאת. אז כאשר הוא אומר לא ירבה לו נשים זה אומר אפילו כמו אביגיל. רב שך מציין שכאן חכמים ור ' שמעון מסכימים. החכמים ברור שמסכימים עם ר' יהודה כי אנחנו לא הולכים לפי הטעם של החוק. אבל כאן אנו רואים ר' יהודה אימו מתחמק מסיבת החוק כי הסיבה כתובה במפורש. אז מה עושה ר' שמעון כאשר הסיבה ניתנת בגלוי? הוא לומד גם את הפסוק הרגיל, והוא לומד משהו נוסף מן הסיבה. אז למרות באופן כללי החכמים אומרים ללכת עם ר' יהודה, אולם במקרה כאשר סיבת החוק ניתנת בגלוי, ואז הם הולכים כמו ר' שמעון. זה עכשיו נותן לנו מספיק מידע כדי להסביר את רמב''ם. כלומר זה. כאשר סיבת החוק ניתנת בגלוי בפסוק החכמים מסכימים עם ר' שמעון. וזה בדיוק המקרה עם נישואי תערובת. אז במקרה זה חכמים  מסכימים עם ר' שמעון כי כל העמים אשר משרתים אלילים אסורים, לא רק שבעת העמים. וזה איך שרמב''ם מחליט. הוא מחליט זה לא בגלל כי זו הוא דעתו של ר' שמעון, אלא משום שזו הדעת של חכמים.


I should mention the Tur says simply only the seven nations are forbidden as the simple explanation of the sages is. That is we do not go by the reason for any verse but by what its says openly. Therefore only the seven (Canaanite) nations are forbidden. No other nations.
I can not say that my answer here is what Rav Eleazar  Shach meant in his essay. In any case that is what I thought makes sense based on ideas that were triggered in me when I read his essay.

Take a look yourself at Rav Shach's essay on the Rambam in הלכות אסורי ביאה. Maybe what I wrote here is what he means, but so far I cannot tell.

I am not trying here to go into all the issues. I am simply trying to understand the Rambam. And  I believe the answer here is right. The answer I had before I saw the essay of Rav Shach was really crummy. And other answers I have seen did not hold much water.