Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,

It occurs to me to ask on Ketubot page 9 and also page 12,  from the Rambam laws of loans 14:11.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a migo? 

I mean to say this.After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין [engagement]. She is believed and she gets the full Ketubah {מאתיים}.[הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''א] So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. [הלכות אישות י''א הלכה י''ד] He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. [אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה] 

Does she not have a migo? {She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.}

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע-he is believed. [That is as long as he changed his mind before the witnesses came.]
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a gift.

[It is not clear to  me why I am asking from these particular laws. Maybe because in the back of my mind I am thinking of the Ri MiGash that one can go fromפטור לפטור because of Migo but that it has to be before witnesses come. I might have been able to ask from other cases of Migo but I imagine there must be some subconscious reason I am asking from these particular cases.]

The only question here that I have is according to one opinion in תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א where he holds a מיגו can take away from a חזקה. But if we do not hold by this opinion then there is no question. She has a מיגו but he has a חזקה plus חקזת ממון. On the other hand she has חזקת הגוף שבתולה הייתה. That is, he has two חזקות against her מיגו וחזקה
So in one opinion that a migo can take out from a חזקה then I have a question.


_________________________________________________





It occurs to me to ask on כתובות דף ט and also page י''ב,  and the רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד:י''א.
The basic question is can not one go from פטור לפטור? And because of that does she not have a מיגו? 

I mean to say this. After the marriage he comes to court and says she was not a virgin. She says she was raped after אירוסין . She is believed and she gets the full כתובה מאתיים . So she has a plea that she can say and be believed. 
So the question is on the next law. He comes to court and says she was not a virgin and she says she was, then he is believed. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. Does she not have a מיגו? She could have said she was raped after the engagement and be believed so let us believe her now that she says she was a virgin.

A person comes to court and says מנה לי בידך. The נטען says להד''ם. Then he changes his mind and says לוויתי ופרעתי. Then witnesses come and say לווה ופרע, the lender is believed.
And witnesses see a borrower giving money to a lender but do not know of it is for payback or a present and the lender says it was payback for a different loan since he could have said it was for  a מתנה.
 עולה בדעתי לשאול על כתובות דף ט' וגם דף י''ב, מאת רמב''ם הלכות מלווה וללוה י''ד: הי''א. השאלה הבסיסית היא הלא אחד יכול ללכת  מן הפטור לפטור? ובגלל זה יש לה מיגו? אני מתכוון לומר זה. לאחר הנישואין הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה. היא אומרת שהיא נאנסה לאחר אירוסין. היא נאמנת והיא מקבלת את מלוא כתובה מאתיים. אז יש לה טיעון שהיא יכולה לומר ושתאמין. אז השאלה היא על החוק הבא. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם לא קיימת מיגו בשבילה? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה. אדם מגיע לבית משפט ואומר מנה לי בידך. הנטען אומר להד''ם. ואז הוא משנה את דעתו ואומר לווה ופרע. ואז העדים באים ואומרים לווה ופרע, הוא נאמן. זה מפטור לפטור ויש מיגו. ועוד עדים רואים שלווה נותן כסף למלווה אבל לא יודעים מזה אם הוא למען החזר או מתנה והמלווה נאמן  אם הוא אומר שזה החזר עבור הלוואה שונה מאז שהוא יכול היה לומר שזה היה מתנה. אז השאלה היא על החוק הזה. הוא מגיע לבית משפט ואומר שהיא לא הייתה בתולה והיא אומרת שהיאכן הייתה, אז הוא אמין. אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה. האם אין לה מיגו? היא יכלה לומר שהיא נאנסה לאחר האירוסין ושתאמין כך הבה להאמין לה עכשיו כי היא אומרת שהיא הייתה בתולה.

Job suffered

You are trying as hard as you can to be good and still thing are not going your way. Why is that? The Book of Job is pretty clear that the trouble does not lay within you. That seems to be the entire point. At first God is bragging about Job what a great guy he is. Then Satan says, "Sure he is a great guy. Why would he not be? You gave him everything a man could want. Take it away and you will see he will curse You to Your Face." 
God said, "Fine, so take everything away, but leave his soul alone." Thus Job suffered. 
Then Job cursed the day he "will be born." But he did not curse God. Then the friends said God does not bring suffering except for sin. Job answered and said, "I know I am innocent of all sin." God then agreed with Job, and told the friends to ask his forgiveness -for they had spoken falsely.  So at the end, even God agreed that Job suffered not for sin, but to win a bet he had made with the Satan. Apparently, He won the bet. [What I am getting at here is that the area of numinous reality is beyond reason as Kant noticed, and that if one tries to apply reason to such an area, that leads to self-contradictions. I was somewhat aware of this in high school, which led me to believe that not everything in Torah can be proven, though it can be defended by reason.] [Dr. Kelley Ross also goes into this issue. But we know from the Guide of Maimonides that reason  can approach the area of numinous reality. Hegel obviously held the same way. The difference is to the Rambam reason also needs to be revealed from Heaven, and only then can a higher level of numinous reality be revealed. To Hegel the process is dialectical and depends on man--and men working together. To some degree you can see this in someone like Bava Sali who as a tzadik in his own right also  depended on the merit of his ancestors, and also his community to  some degree in order for there to be the kind of environment necessary for him to reach his level.]

So my question is why did not someone offer the explanation of the Mesilat Yesharim (Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato)? [One who is mostly sinful but has some good- gets reward for his good in this world, and suffers for the sins in the next. One who is mostly good but does some evil- suffers for the evil in this world, and get the reward for the good in the next. ] No one, not even God offered this explanation. Furthermore even though I do not own a copy of the Guide for the Perplexed   I recall the Rambam said the Torah agrees with the last of Job's friends.  A further question, is it not open in the Torah, " Do these commandments so that it will be good for you and you will have length of days"? "Behold I have set before you this day life and the good  and death and evil. Therefore choose life to keep these laws."

(1) Just a few thoughts I had in reading the Old Testament. כגן השם. Lot the nephew of Avraham saw that the city of Sodom was like the "Garden of God." When did he ever see the garden of God to be able to compare them?

(2) One does not make a עיר הנידחת [city that worships idols and thus must be destroyed.] of a city that is on the border of Israel. The Rambam brings the reason so as to not let the enemies of Israel have an entry point into Israel. That is the reason of R. Shimon ben Yochai that we are דורשים טעמה דקרא. [The sages say the reason is the verse that says בקרביך in your midst.]
The answer is given that there is not difference in law so the Rambam does always prefer to bring a verse than a drasha.
The Minchas Chinuch asks --but in this case there are many difference in law.
Rav Shach says  once the law does not apply in the opinion of R. Shimon then the city no longer has the category of עיר הנידחת. First I want to bring a proof for Rav Shach since in the opposite kinds of cases where there is  a prohibition we do not say that in the opinion of R. Shimon the prohibition remains in effect but there is a special exception in case the reason does not apply.

Another question is that the Rambam usually brings a verse as a proof of  a law rather than some reasoning process. Here he does just the opposite. It seems to me he is specially going like R Shimon here like he does in Yevamot where he prohibits to marry any woman that serves idols, even if she is not from the seven Canaanite nations -which is the law of R Shimon, not the sages.

(3) In Genesis God says the reason gentiles are forbidden to murder is because בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם. Therefore we have an open verse telling us that gentiles are made in the image of God [as per the Rambam]

(4) King Oshiyahu that in his days the Torah scroll was found in the Temple sent to Chulda the prophetess who said the punish that was decreed was because the Jewish people were not obeying the commands of God. Therefore the laws of the Torah must have been known even before the scroll was found.

(5) The King of Sodom said to Avraham תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך the Satan says to a man "give me your soul and take the money" [That was my first "vort" after I got to yeshivat Shar Yashuv in NY]

(6) One of the arguments that Job had with his friends involved time. One friend said the wicked are punished very soon after they sin. Job said they live all their days in peace and happiness and abundance. The question seems to me to be not if there is punishment for sin but rather is there in this world a connection between crime and punishment?
(7) King Yoshiyahu also found  some graves an spread the bones over the altars of the idol worshipers to make them "tame" unclean. He obviously did not have any religious people around trying to stop him like they do in Israel. I even brought this up with a person in Israel who really did know how to learn. I showed him the law in the Rambam that it is allowed to move graves for building roads. This was right at the time the insane religious people were trying to stop some building project as is their general custom to stop every good thing. One thing I noticed about the religious. They love bones. And they ruin the whole project of Torah. By pretending to keep it, they ruin it for everyone, and make it odious in people' eyes by their disgusting actions and character. How this happened I do not know but but their pretense of righteous is a horrific scam. I avoid them. The only place I would learn and pray at would be a Litvak yeshiva that excludes all the garbage.

I never agreed with the general approach towards South Africa. It seemed obvious to me that it would revert to the norm in Africa (a new genocide every year) once the white people were out of power. But this time the target would be white people. Once at the Western Wall I met some people from SA and I said openly to them they ought to escape from SA as fast as possible.

SA is genocide against white people in slow motion.

Bava Metzia 103

I just want to jot down the basic idea of Rav Shach on the fact that the Rambam must agree that after a גמר דין  (a final judgement), then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with Bava Metzia around page 103 to help understand the story with Rav and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור (a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש (the rav of the Rambam) because of migo. (A migo is a case of he could have said a different plea and be believed so let us believe him now) The Ketzot HaChoshen disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

Rav Shach brings the Gemara in Bava Batra to show the Rambam must agree with the Ketzot. The Gemara there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a migo. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the Ketzot gives that it is after גמר דין.

[The original problem was that Rav changed his decision in the case a person went into another's field and planted trees. Rav told the owner at first to pay for the trees the least possible amount but the owner did not accept that and did not even want the trees, and then Rav said nothing. What I think is that since Rav said nothing that meant it was before גמר דין final judgement. Then Rav saw the owner making a fence around the trees and said since it is clear you do want them now pay the full amount. But the way we understand Rav, if he had paid the lower amount the day before and then Rav saw him building a fence rav would have simply said he changed his mind [as David Bronson pointed out to me]




_______________________________________________________________________________
I just want to jot down the basic idea of רב שך on  the fact that the רמב''ם must agree that after a גמר דין  a final judgement, then even  a מיגו can not turn around the decision.  This idea I mentioned in connection with בבא מציעא page ק''ג to help understand the פסק דין של רב and the person that had planted trees in someone else's field.

The basic idea is this that that one can in general go from פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור means a plea that lets one off the hook to another plea that lets one off the hook). The reason is given by the ר''י מיגאש  because of מיגו. The קצות החושן disagrees with this and  says the reason is it is before גמר דין.

רב שך brings the גמרא in בבא בתרא to show the רמב''ם must agree with the קצות החושן. The גמרא there says this: two people come to court and say I was on this land for three years and it was my ancestor's. A set of witnesses comes to court and says, "This one was on the land three years." Another set comes and says, "The land belonged to the ancestors of the other one." If the one that the witnesses say he was on the land for three years says "I considered the land as if it was my ancestors" he is not believed. But if he said, "My ancestors bought it from yours" then he is believed.

Since the law is one can go מטור לפטור then if he had said, "I considered it as my ancestors" before witnesses came he would have been believed. Therefore he has a מיגו. And so why do we not believe him even after witnesses come? It must be because of the reason the קצות החושן gives that it is after גמר דין.

אני רק רוצה לרשום את הרעיון הבסיסי של רב שך על העובדה כי רמב''ם חייב להסכים כי לאחר גמר דין (פסק דין סופי), אז אפילו מיגו לא יכול לשנות את ההחלטה. רעיון זה שהזכרתי בקשר עם בבא מציעא דף ק''ג כדי לעזור להבין את פסק דין של רב והאדם אשר ניטע עצים בשדה של אחר. רעיון הבסיסי הוא זה אשר שאפשר בכלל ללכת מן פטור לפטור. (פטור לפטור פירושו טיעון המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס לטיעון נוסף המאפשר אחד לצאת מהקרס). הסיבה ניתנת על ידי ר''י מיגאש בגלל מיגו. קצות החושן אינו מסכים עם קביעה זו ואומר שהסיבה היא שהוא לפני גמר הדין. רב שך מביא את הגמרא בבא בתרא  להראות שרמב''ם חייב להסכים עם הקצוות החושן. גמרא שם אומרת זה: שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט ואומרים הייתי על הארץ הזאת במשך שלוש שנים והיא הייתה של אבותיי. קבוצה של עדים מגיעה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "זה היה על הקרקע שלוש שנים." קבוצה נוספת באה ואומרת, "הקרקע הייתה שייכת לאבות של השני." אם הראשון (שהעדים אומרים שהוא היה על הקרקע במשך שלוש שנים) אומר "שקלתי את הקרקע כאילו היא הייתה של אבותיי" הוא לא נאמן. אבל אם הוא אמר, "האבות שלי קנו אותה משלך" אז הוא אמין. מאז שהחוק הוא שאחד יכול ללכת מפטור לפטור אז אם הוא היה אומר, "שקלתי את זה כמו של אבותיי" לפני שהעדים באו, הוא היה כבר נאמן. לכן יש לו מיגו. אם כך מדוע אנו לא מאמינים בו גם אחרי שבאו עדים? זה חייב להיות בגלל הסיבה שהקצות החושן נותן שזה לאחר גמר דין.

Music T40

t40 A Major  t40 midi

t40 nwc

I think in the Eddas, Heimdall is noted for his especially white complexion. I forget. And I do not have a copy to look it up. In any case, in my experience, blacks do not make the noble kind of leaders that are shown in movies. Usually [but not always] they use their positions of power to hurt white people (once they get into a position of power over white people. Even in simple office jobs they try to sabotage white people) . And this kind of thing has happened to most people I have talked with about this.