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.
21.12.17
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.]
[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.
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.
20.12.17
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.
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.]
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.]
19.12.17
18.12.17
Sometimes criminal behavior is simply encoded in some people's DNA
Even though according to the Rambam the peace of the State is one of the major goals of the Torah it seems to me that the system depends highly on the kind of people involved. That is I think that the Constitution of the USA is the crowning peak of political thought--the summit of thousands of years of political thought starting from Plato. Still it only works for a certain kind of person, that is a WASP. Surely no one can imagine that in the turmoil that Russia was in during its civil war crisis, that simply adopting something like the Constitution would have solved anything at all. Russia became the USSR because that was the only viable option on the table that would put an end to the nightmare of chaos that they were in. This in not my own insight. I was once talking with a Mormon that was a professional economist about capitalism as opposed to socialism in the context of the USA in the 1920's and 1930's. He mentioned this idea to me -- that when things area mess sometimes one needs to central government to assume greater powers which can happen only in a socialistic system.
It was the exact argument that the Founding Fathers of the USA made in the Federalist Papers about the need for a central unified federal government. But what worked in the USA would not have worked in Russia and the Ukraine where there already was a central government-- the last Tzar who was a disaster.
Some people who are in Russia and the Ukraine are so criminally minded in their very DNA that nothing like the Constitution would have helped. The Russians themselves were very much aware of this. It was not spoken, but it was clear that in the vast empire of Russia there were populations that had and still have criminal elements above the percentage in which a Constitution like the USA would have worked. As Sapolsky says--a lot depends on DNA. Sometimes criminal behavior is simply encoded in some people's DNA and there is nothing one can do to change it.
It was the exact argument that the Founding Fathers of the USA made in the Federalist Papers about the need for a central unified federal government. But what worked in the USA would not have worked in Russia and the Ukraine where there already was a central government-- the last Tzar who was a disaster.
Some people who are in Russia and the Ukraine are so criminally minded in their very DNA that nothing like the Constitution would have helped. The Russians themselves were very much aware of this. It was not spoken, but it was clear that in the vast empire of Russia there were populations that had and still have criminal elements above the percentage in which a Constitution like the USA would have worked. As Sapolsky says--a lot depends on DNA. Sometimes criminal behavior is simply encoded in some people's DNA and there is nothing one can do to change it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)