divorce laws

The trouble in divorce laws is there is something about them that goes against natural law. In natural law, a woman depends on a man. In the Law of Moses also  a woman can leave her husband, but she gets no support from him for doing so. The Torah says to the woman, "If you feel you not longer need him, then you can leave [that divorce is allowed, but it has to be that the husband desires it], but then do not suppose you can bankrupt him in desire for revenge that you did not get Superman." That is in plain language, there is no such thing as alimony.

[In Ketuboth there is for a widow alimony until she remarries. Not a divorcee. In any case, it seems to me proper to write this down as I have noticed a large degree of misunderstandings about this issue. It all comes from the simple fact that people do not learn tractate Ketuboth as thoroughly as they ought.

Not that I learned it so well either. But in Shar Yashuv [Rav Friefeld's Yeshiva] that was the tractate they were learning during my second year there, so I did try to do it as well as I could with the Tosphot, Tosphot HaRosh, Pnei Yehoshua and the Tur and other achronim. Still that was just my second year, so I did not learn it very thoroughly since I was more or less a beginner.

In any case, there is no reason to reward women for doing evil.

[Furthermore there is no reason to think that the government can just make up laws at random that goes against natural law. This is spelled out in the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution that people retain whatever rights they naturally have. That includes rights to their private property. The government can not just make up laws at random which benefit one part of the population at the expense of another. The "General Welfare"  clause means the general welfare of all the states--not one state at the expense of another.]

Aquinas was bringing down Avicenna's note on complex substance.

 I was able to look at Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle and then I realized substance does not have to be simple.
 Aquinas was bringing down Avicenna's note on complex substance.

[In any case it seems to me that to reward women for doing evil, is not the best kind of law to have on the books.]

There are laws on the books that allow women to get rid of their husband and get  his money and support for the rest of her life. There is also a law in the Gemara דינא דמלכותא דינא [the law of the State is the law.]. So I ask can a woman depend on this? Or does she have to go by the Law of Moses which  does not give her that right?

[The basic law in tracate Ketubot is there are three divisions of a woman's property. נכסי מלוג, נכסי צאן ברזל, מה שקנה אישה קנה בעלה] Property that she brings into the marriage that she owned before the marriage she still owns but the husband can use the profits. Then there is property she acquires after she is married and that is owned fully by the husband.
Thus  she has no right to her husband's property after she is divorced.
Also in terms of  "the law of the state is the law" I would say that is not the case where the law of the state contradicts a Torah law. The main issues in terms of the law of the state are not clear to me but the major sources are the Rashbam and Maimonides in terms of how it is applied.

I have been thinking of mentioning that there is a school of thought among Christians that they themselves believe they are required to keep  the Law of Moses. That is called the Theonomic Position   See that essay by Gregory Bahnsen.


The Theonomic postion does take into account that some  laws of the Holy Torah apply to the Land of Israel, But other laws are general. And I should mention that Gregory Bahnsen says that this Theonomic Position corresponds with Paul, and that was kind of a surprise to me. 



[In any case it seems to me that to reward women for doing evil, is not the best kind of law to have on the books.]

Gehazi a major disciple of Elisha the prophet

Gehazi is one of the lesser known people in the Old Testament. He is brought down in tractate Sanhedrin as one of the people that have no portion in the next world.

The sin there is denial of the revival of the dead.

In the Old Testament itself we find a different kind of sin. He wanted to make money from a healing miracle that was brought about through Elisha the prophet.

This I think is the source of the idea brought in the Mishna that to make money from learning or teaching Torah gets one to lose their portion in the next world. [I recall that in the commentary of the Gra on those two mishnas, I saw him bring that idea from the events surrounding the king or Persia that used the vessels of the Temple in his feasting. But the fact that גחי Gehazi wanted to make money from the area of value of holiness and also that fact that that is the major sin attributed to him in the Old Testament, seems also a proof of that idea of the mishna.

[It is kind of a surprise that the connection that Gehazi had with Elisha the prophet does not seem to have helped him much. That is not what is usually expected from a disciple of a great person.]

Elisha the prophet I admit has always fascinated me. There is a lot more to learn from his life but this will have to do for now.



The lesson from Gehazi seems to be that it is important to repent and fear God and learn Torah but not to make Torah into a business. Not to advertise how religious one is.

Elijah did not excel in tolerance.

Even though Eliyahu the prophet {Elijah} is well known for the events at Mount Carmel, still the subsequent events are less well known. The events were thus: Israel were worshiping the Lord along with the idolatry called the Baal. The Baal was considered in control of the Earth,- and the Lord in charge of events in heaven.
Elijah asked Israel to make up their minds, and set up a test. The priests of the Baal would make an altar and bring sacrifices. Elijah also would make an altar; and the  god that would answer will show that he is the true God. The Lord  answered Elijah in fire. Then Elijah said, "Grab the priests of the Baal and kill them." And that is what happened. Elijah did not excel in tolerance. He does not seem to have held from religious freedom either.
The unique thing is that Israel listened to him. They killed the priests of the Baal.
Later Elijah from Vilna [Gra] tried to do the same thing. But he was not listened to. That was the whole point of the letter of excommunication that he put his signature on.

But in fact, even Elijah the prophet did not have much great success either. From Ahab until the actual exile of Israel [for the sin of idolatry] was not that long.

I should mention that Yehu, the king, also killed the priests of the Baal at a later date. In other words, in terms of legal issues, he felt that priests of the Baal did not need עדים והתראה (two witnesses and a warning). He probably depended on אנן סהדי "we testify." That is,-- once something is well established publicly, then the courts consider it to be known by witnesses.

[I mean to say that normally you need עדים והתראה witnesses and a court of 23 judges.  So it is interesting why both Elijah and Yehu did not feel the need to stand on legal minutiae. ]

What I mean to say that even though Litvak yeshivas generally go by the Gra in most points, still in this crucial issue, the Gra is totally ignored--as if we know better!

The repercussions of ignoring the Gra are as vast and and harmful as ignoring the warning of Elijah the prophet. Yet just as then Israel said, "Yes" to Elijah and then just went straight back to doing what they were doing beforehand.  So it is with the Gra. And there is no question that unless people wake up, the results will be the same.

If you go by the idea of the Rambam that learning Physics and Metaphysics fulfills the commandment to love and fear God it makes sense to start the day with those two things right when one gets up.

If you go by the idea of the Rambam that learning Physics and Metaphysics fulfills the commandment to love and fear God it makes sense to start the day with those two things right when one gets up. [The main thing to understand is that you do not need to understand,.. Say the words and go on in order. as the sages said in the Gemara Shabat.]

The thing is that both have to be directed and intended towards the worship of God.

I am referring here to the parable the Rambam writes in the Guide about the state of the king. There was a state with people outside the state, others in the state, others in the capital city and still other close to king in his palace. These to the Rambam are barbarians, people with natural law morals, people that learn the Oral and Written Law, and still others closer to God --physicists and philosopher and prophets. But all need to be facing the King.

["Metaphysics" refers in the Rambam to that of Ancient Athens. But the hint is clear that he means specifically the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Though not called by that name by Aristotle himself, still by the time of the Rambam, that was well known as the name of that set of books.] 

Music for the glory of God

U-41 C Major Not edited. Simply a rough draft.  u-41 midi  u-41 nwc