12.3.18
But in some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves to be thrown out.
A lot of times, movements are caused by perceived abuse of an existing system. Not that the newer system (that is promised) turns out so much better. It does not matter so much if the old system was really all that bad. What matters is that people got mad enough to decide to change it.
I am thinking of Communism for one example. Enough people were upset by the abuses they saw under capitalism. And to a large degree the abuses were real.
But then Communism did not exactly turn out the way most people expected in Russia. So they went back to capitalism. I was kind of shocked when I asked people in the former USSR how were things? And I always expected an answer "terrible." But instead they always said "Better than now.."
[Even today I asked one woman, "I guess you did not love the USSR?"
She answered me "What do you mean not love? Things were better. I went to school for free. I went to a technical college for free. All my brothers and sisters went to university for free, and families stayed together. Now I can barely pay for my daughter to go to a local college. People's children go off into foreign countries because there is nothing doing here. No work no nothing." And she went on but since my Russian is really rusty I did not get the whole gist. Sometimes they mention they got their homes for free or else bought a new home for $200. And as I was walking along one street today I looked across the river at the numerous and enormous buildings the soviets built for housing.I can not tells the differences in style. But I assume they were built after the 1960's.]
The same thing applies to Martin Luther. Enough people got upset with the Catholic Church to throw it out. But that is not to say that what they got instead was much of an improvement.
In the Middle Ages this dynamic existed in what was considered "fair price" of goods.
This dynamic still take place when people wander from movement to movement.
[The thing about Russia is that the abuses were bad enough for enough people to revolt against the czar. Better systems try to alleviate the abuses to the degree that people have less reason to be angry. The whole dynamic of Leftist movements is mainly to get people angry at real or imagine abuses in the USA. The main idea of Leftists is that whatever the USA does is by definition wrong. The reason why it is wrong always come after the aforesaid conclusion.]
But some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves to be thrown out.
This dynamic I think is a good thing. The question.is how to tell when a system has gotten bad enough to need to be scraped? And what to replace it with? A lot of times people decide to go back to the old system they previously threw out because the abuses already have been forgotten.
[The Litvak yeshiva world certainly has a degree of trouble in it. But it seems much less than any other system I have seen. But it is not irrelevant. The question really is how much abuse is tolerable until you decide to overthrow the system and with what will you replace it with? Something better? Or worse?]
Thus my own kind of solution is to simply avoid the problem by learning Torah at home and minding my own business. And the few great Litvak yeshivas I have seen [like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway] to recommend them to anyone that will listen.
Of course Ponoviz I have not seen,-- but any place that could produce a masterpiece like the Avi Ezri has to have something gong for it.
[ Rav Silverman's yeshivas in Jerusalem that go by the Gra also are excellent.]
I am thinking of Communism for one example. Enough people were upset by the abuses they saw under capitalism. And to a large degree the abuses were real.
But then Communism did not exactly turn out the way most people expected in Russia. So they went back to capitalism. I was kind of shocked when I asked people in the former USSR how were things? And I always expected an answer "terrible." But instead they always said "Better than now.."
[Even today I asked one woman, "I guess you did not love the USSR?"
She answered me "What do you mean not love? Things were better. I went to school for free. I went to a technical college for free. All my brothers and sisters went to university for free, and families stayed together. Now I can barely pay for my daughter to go to a local college. People's children go off into foreign countries because there is nothing doing here. No work no nothing." And she went on but since my Russian is really rusty I did not get the whole gist. Sometimes they mention they got their homes for free or else bought a new home for $200. And as I was walking along one street today I looked across the river at the numerous and enormous buildings the soviets built for housing.I can not tells the differences in style. But I assume they were built after the 1960's.]
The same thing applies to Martin Luther. Enough people got upset with the Catholic Church to throw it out. But that is not to say that what they got instead was much of an improvement.
In the Middle Ages this dynamic existed in what was considered "fair price" of goods.
This dynamic still take place when people wander from movement to movement.
[The thing about Russia is that the abuses were bad enough for enough people to revolt against the czar. Better systems try to alleviate the abuses to the degree that people have less reason to be angry. The whole dynamic of Leftist movements is mainly to get people angry at real or imagine abuses in the USA. The main idea of Leftists is that whatever the USA does is by definition wrong. The reason why it is wrong always come after the aforesaid conclusion.]
But some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves to be thrown out.
This dynamic I think is a good thing. The question.is how to tell when a system has gotten bad enough to need to be scraped? And what to replace it with? A lot of times people decide to go back to the old system they previously threw out because the abuses already have been forgotten.
[The Litvak yeshiva world certainly has a degree of trouble in it. But it seems much less than any other system I have seen. But it is not irrelevant. The question really is how much abuse is tolerable until you decide to overthrow the system and with what will you replace it with? Something better? Or worse?]
Thus my own kind of solution is to simply avoid the problem by learning Torah at home and minding my own business. And the few great Litvak yeshivas I have seen [like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway] to recommend them to anyone that will listen.
Of course Ponoviz I have not seen,-- but any place that could produce a masterpiece like the Avi Ezri has to have something gong for it.
[ Rav Silverman's yeshivas in Jerusalem that go by the Gra also are excellent.]
11.3.18
בבא בתרא דף ב' ע''א
The תוספות ד''ה לפיכך in the beginning of בבא בתרא seems to me hard to understand. The משנה says partners that have decided to divide up a courtyard are forced to build wall. If it falls, it is therefore belongs to both of them. Then תוספות asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is this. In the beginning of בבא מציעא we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in the case of a מציאה a found object.
My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our משנה in בבא בתרא. It is this. In our משנה we say we divide the wall and the גמרא says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The משנה in בבא מציעא says מחבירו עליו הראיה. What is the difference? Answer: in the משנה in בבא בתרא they are both forced to build the wall. That is the reason the משנה itself gives and it makes perfect sense.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his רשות.
The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (sumhos) also.
בבא בתרא דף ב" ע''א. התוספות ד''ה לפיכך בתחילת בבא בתרא נראה לי קשה להבין. המשנה אומרת שותפים שהחליטו לחלק את החצר שלהם נאלצים לבנות קיר.ולכן אם זה נופל, הוא שייך לשניהם. ואז תוספות שואלים אפילו בלי סיבה זו, זה צריך להיות של שניהם מאז שלא היינו אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה זה. הסיבה שאנחנו לא היינו אומרים את זה בגלל שהוא לא היה ברור מההתחלה שהוא היה שייך רק אחד. השאלה יש לי על זה זה. בתחילת בבא מציעא אנחנו .אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה של חפץ של מציאה.
השאלה שלי כאן היא שהאובייקט שאבד לא היה שייך רק אחד מהם ולא של האחר. ובכל זאת הגמרא עדיין רוצה להחיל את העיקרון של המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
לי נראה שיש הסבר פשוט יותר של המשנה בבבא בתרא. זה הוא זה. המשנה שלנו בבבא בתרא אומרת שאנחנו מחלקים את הקיר והגמרא אומרת זה הדין גם אם נפל לתוך התחום של אחד. משנה בבבא מציעא אומרת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. מה ההבדל? תשובה: במשנה בבבא בתרא הם נאלצים לבנות את הקיר. זוהי הסיבה שהמשנה עצמה נותנת וזה הגיוני. אותו הדבר חל במקרה שבו הם לא נאלצו לבנות את הקיר אבל הסכימו לבנות אותו. בכל מקרה קיימת הנחה מקורית כי הוא שייך לשניהם ובגלל זה אנחנו לא אומרים שזה שייך רק אחד אפילו אם הוא נמצא ברשות שלו.
התשובה לכך לדעתי היא כי המשנה בבבא מציעא לא אומרת המע''ה. הגמרא אומרת אותו שם אבל זה לא בגלוי במשנה. למעשה הגמרא סוברת כי המשנה יכולה להיות של כסומכוס גם
אני חושב שיש לך להגיד כי הר"י פשוט משתמש בשכל ישר. רק בגלל שהקיר נפל לתוך התחום של אחד מהשותפים, מדועזה זה צריך לתת לו טיעון יותר חזק מאשר השותף השני
My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our משנה in בבא בתרא. It is this. In our משנה we say we divide the wall and the גמרא says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The משנה in בבא מציעא says מחבירו עליו הראיה. What is the difference? Answer: in the משנה in בבא בתרא they are both forced to build the wall. That is the reason the משנה itself gives and it makes perfect sense.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his רשות.
The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (sumhos) also.
I admit this is all vague to me since I do not actually have the Gemara Bava Metzia to look it up. It is just that off hand I seem to recall the Gemara saying המע''ה over there.
בבא בתרא דף ב" ע''א. התוספות ד''ה לפיכך בתחילת בבא בתרא נראה לי קשה להבין. המשנה אומרת שותפים שהחליטו לחלק את החצר שלהם נאלצים לבנות קיר.ולכן אם זה נופל, הוא שייך לשניהם. ואז תוספות שואלים אפילו בלי סיבה זו, זה צריך להיות של שניהם מאז שלא היינו אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה זה. הסיבה שאנחנו לא היינו אומרים את זה בגלל שהוא לא היה ברור מההתחלה שהוא היה שייך רק אחד. השאלה יש לי על זה זה. בתחילת בבא מציעא אנחנו .אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה של חפץ של מציאה.
השאלה שלי כאן היא שהאובייקט שאבד לא היה שייך רק אחד מהם ולא של האחר. ובכל זאת הגמרא עדיין רוצה להחיל את העיקרון של המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
לי נראה שיש הסבר פשוט יותר של המשנה בבבא בתרא. זה הוא זה. המשנה שלנו בבבא בתרא אומרת שאנחנו מחלקים את הקיר והגמרא אומרת זה הדין גם אם נפל לתוך התחום של אחד. משנה בבבא מציעא אומרת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. מה ההבדל? תשובה: במשנה בבבא בתרא הם נאלצים לבנות את הקיר. זוהי הסיבה שהמשנה עצמה נותנת וזה הגיוני. אותו הדבר חל במקרה שבו הם לא נאלצו לבנות את הקיר אבל הסכימו לבנות אותו. בכל מקרה קיימת הנחה מקורית כי הוא שייך לשניהם ובגלל זה אנחנו לא אומרים שזה שייך רק אחד אפילו אם הוא נמצא ברשות שלו.
התשובה לכך לדעתי היא כי המשנה בבבא מציעא לא אומרת המע''ה. הגמרא אומרת אותו שם אבל זה לא בגלוי במשנה. למעשה הגמרא סוברת כי המשנה יכולה להיות של כסומכוס גם
אני חושב שיש לך להגיד כי הר"י פשוט משתמש בשכל ישר. רק בגלל שהקיר נפל לתוך התחום של אחד מהשותפים, מדועזה זה צריך לתת לו טיעון יותר חזק מאשר השותף השני
Tosphot in the beginning
The Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra seems to me hard to understand. The Mishna says partners that have decided to split up a courtyard are forced to build a wall. If it falls, it is therefore of both of them. Tosphot asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (One who wants to claim money that is in the domain of his friend must bring a proof). In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is that in the beginning of Bava Metzia we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (his must bring a proof) in the case of a מציאה a found object.[My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our Mishna in Bava Batara. It is this. In our Mishna we say we split the wall and the Gemara says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The Mishna in Bava Metzia says הממע''ה (his must bring a proof). What is the difference? Answer: in the Mishna in Bava Batra they are both forced to build the wall.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his domain.
The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not actually say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (Sumhos) also.
[In any case it is obvious that the Ri [Rabainu Isaac] must have felt this question on the was so great as to be forced to say something in answer that is clearly not the great kind of answer. He must have felt the question on the mishna to be really powerful to force him into a corner. Even with my answer for the Ri I have trouble seeing the force of the question.] In any case it is clear to me that I need to do a lot more thinking into this to understand exactly why the Ri thinks this is such big question.
[I do not have a Gemara Bava Metzia to look this up]
I think you have to say that the Ri is simply using common sense. Just because the wall has fallen into the domain of one of the partners, why should that give him more claim to it than the partner?
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our Mishna in Bava Batara. It is this. In our Mishna we say we split the wall and the Gemara says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The Mishna in Bava Metzia says הממע''ה (his must bring a proof). What is the difference? Answer: in the Mishna in Bava Batra they are both forced to build the wall.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his domain.
The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not actually say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (Sumhos) also.
[In any case it is obvious that the Ri [Rabainu Isaac] must have felt this question on the was so great as to be forced to say something in answer that is clearly not the great kind of answer. He must have felt the question on the mishna to be really powerful to force him into a corner. Even with my answer for the Ri I have trouble seeing the force of the question.] In any case it is clear to me that I need to do a lot more thinking into this to understand exactly why the Ri thinks this is such big question.
[I do not have a Gemara Bava Metzia to look this up]
I think you have to say that the Ri is simply using common sense. Just because the wall has fallen into the domain of one of the partners, why should that give him more claim to it than the partner?
10.3.18
9.3.18
serving in the IDF
The Gemara does give some kinds of פטור (no obligation) to people that are learning Torah for taxes, street sweeping, building a wall {Bava Batra 7.} -- but not for digging wells, since they also need water. Thus to me it seems clear that serving in the IDF also would be included in things they are obligated in since they also need נטירותא guarding. When the rockets from Syria were raining down on Safed, they all ran south. No one said their Torah learning would protect them.
In any case, what do you call "learning Torah"? If that means simple straight Litvak yeshivas learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,-- then these places are very rare. Most yeshivas in Israel were made in the first place in order to avoid the draft. Learning Gemara is the last thing on their minds. [Other ones were made to make money for the rosh yeshiva and his close buddies. They are basically country clubs made for sitting and talking all day. They also have nothing to do with learning Torah except for show.]
In fact, the enormous amount of fraud that got into the whole thing tempts me to say the best thing is to shut them all down except Ponoviz and a few of its offshoots and branches.
The major advantage of Litvak yeshivas is that they learn straight Torah. Also they take seriously the חרם the excommunication with the signature of the Gra which is important in that it warns people to stay away from the Dark Side. That is one advantage. Another advantage of paying attention to the signature of the Gra is from the standpoint of law--even if it would have no basis in reality.
In any case, what do you call "learning Torah"? If that means simple straight Litvak yeshivas learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,-- then these places are very rare. Most yeshivas in Israel were made in the first place in order to avoid the draft. Learning Gemara is the last thing on their minds. [Other ones were made to make money for the rosh yeshiva and his close buddies. They are basically country clubs made for sitting and talking all day. They also have nothing to do with learning Torah except for show.]
In fact, the enormous amount of fraud that got into the whole thing tempts me to say the best thing is to shut them all down except Ponoviz and a few of its offshoots and branches.
The major advantage of Litvak yeshivas is that they learn straight Torah. Also they take seriously the חרם the excommunication with the signature of the Gra which is important in that it warns people to stay away from the Dark Side. That is one advantage. Another advantage of paying attention to the signature of the Gra is from the standpoint of law--even if it would have no basis in reality.
Hegel and Leonard Nelson
I feel a little guilty in recommending Hegel because this is quite different from the Kant-Friesian School which started with Leonard Nelson. Still, I feel the total dismissal of Hegel is not warranted.
The problem is that while Hegel to me seems very great, a lot of misuse still is made of him. Now Popper thought that he was the cause of all totalitarian movements that came later, but that does not seem accurate at all. Never the less, nowadays self-identified Hegelians do seem to have gone off into the deep end of the swimming pool.
[You might look at the debate between Dr Kelley Ross and a self identified Hegelian on his web site , and you will see what I mean. The weak part of Hegel. in fact. seems to be when people try to apply his ideas to politics.]
So far, I like to look at German Idealism as one. That is one solid body of knowledge. The differences I like to think are only the result of looking at different aspects of the same thing. So I tend to see Hegel, McTaggart as not all that different from Leonard Nelson. Just different aspects.
[Anyway just take McTaggart's critique of Hegel --in particular his "take" on dialectics, and you do not end up much different than Leonard Nelson. That is his idea that dialectics corrects mistakes.]
[ I have tried to ignore one German idealist after the other. It does not seem to work. You can try to take Hegel in a vacuum, and that does not work. Try to take Kant in a vacuum, and that works even worse. Try to ignore them all, and that goes down blind alleys. I think you really in the end have to accept Kant Hegel and Leonard Nelson.
If you try to go with the basic Rambam approach in the Guide, you end up immediately in the Middle Ages. The Logic works, but the axioms do not. That is the problem with all Medieval Philosophy.The Logic is always rock solid, but the axioms seem clearly false. Try to go with later Rationalists or Empiricist the logic is mostly circular, and the axioms are false. So, to avoid Kant and Hegel which is what a lot of people would like to do just does not work. --Unless you like twentieth century philosophy which is sheer gibberish.]
Looking at for one example, "The real is rational" in terms of time, and Bradley and McTaggart's dealing with it leads me to notice the same thing that Dr Kelley Ross does, and Job also,--the universe now is not perfect. Whether it is with Hegel or Dr. Ross I get the same idea that perfection is only in the Platonic spheres, not down here.
[McTaggart's concept of time is also just not all that different from Kant, but from different reasons., i.e. there is no time. However, here too it seems necessary to divide reality into two parts, the dinge an sich (thingsin themselves ) and phenomena as Kant does.
In terms of Quantum Mechanics, this idea of the problem with time come up in so far that thing are superpositions of many possible values in space and time before they are actually measured.
But that doe not mean there is no time. Rather, that things do not have any one value in space or time until measured. This you know from the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality. [Bell did not like QM, and based on the Einstein [EPR] set up he showed that any hidden variable theory would come out differently that QM. Nature shows QM is right. [Bell used the EPR set up to build his inequality. ]
However I have to add that the moon is there even before you see it because of coherence lifetime. That is the atoms are not in a vacuum. They interact with each other, and that causes the wave function to collapse to just one state. Coherence lifetime is the reason quantum computing is hard --it is hard to get atoms all by themselves.
The problem is that while Hegel to me seems very great, a lot of misuse still is made of him. Now Popper thought that he was the cause of all totalitarian movements that came later, but that does not seem accurate at all. Never the less, nowadays self-identified Hegelians do seem to have gone off into the deep end of the swimming pool.
[You might look at the debate between Dr Kelley Ross and a self identified Hegelian on his web site , and you will see what I mean. The weak part of Hegel. in fact. seems to be when people try to apply his ideas to politics.]
So far, I like to look at German Idealism as one. That is one solid body of knowledge. The differences I like to think are only the result of looking at different aspects of the same thing. So I tend to see Hegel, McTaggart as not all that different from Leonard Nelson. Just different aspects.
[Anyway just take McTaggart's critique of Hegel --in particular his "take" on dialectics, and you do not end up much different than Leonard Nelson. That is his idea that dialectics corrects mistakes.]
[ I have tried to ignore one German idealist after the other. It does not seem to work. You can try to take Hegel in a vacuum, and that does not work. Try to take Kant in a vacuum, and that works even worse. Try to ignore them all, and that goes down blind alleys. I think you really in the end have to accept Kant Hegel and Leonard Nelson.
If you try to go with the basic Rambam approach in the Guide, you end up immediately in the Middle Ages. The Logic works, but the axioms do not. That is the problem with all Medieval Philosophy.The Logic is always rock solid, but the axioms seem clearly false. Try to go with later Rationalists or Empiricist the logic is mostly circular, and the axioms are false. So, to avoid Kant and Hegel which is what a lot of people would like to do just does not work. --Unless you like twentieth century philosophy which is sheer gibberish.]
Looking at for one example, "The real is rational" in terms of time, and Bradley and McTaggart's dealing with it leads me to notice the same thing that Dr Kelley Ross does, and Job also,--the universe now is not perfect. Whether it is with Hegel or Dr. Ross I get the same idea that perfection is only in the Platonic spheres, not down here.
[McTaggart's concept of time is also just not all that different from Kant, but from different reasons., i.e. there is no time. However, here too it seems necessary to divide reality into two parts, the dinge an sich (thingsin themselves ) and phenomena as Kant does.
In terms of Quantum Mechanics, this idea of the problem with time come up in so far that thing are superpositions of many possible values in space and time before they are actually measured.
But that doe not mean there is no time. Rather, that things do not have any one value in space or time until measured. This you know from the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality. [Bell did not like QM, and based on the Einstein [EPR] set up he showed that any hidden variable theory would come out differently that QM. Nature shows QM is right. [Bell used the EPR set up to build his inequality. ]
However I have to add that the moon is there even before you see it because of coherence lifetime. That is the atoms are not in a vacuum. They interact with each other, and that causes the wave function to collapse to just one state. Coherence lifetime is the reason quantum computing is hard --it is hard to get atoms all by themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)