Ketuboth 78 side a and b.

The library here is usually closed during Sukot so I will not be writing. I just wanted to introduce a subject that i hope to be thinking about during the coming festivals.

The Ran in the start of the next chapter [ perek 9] [HaKotev = "he who writes"] brings this idea. In Hakotev [perek 9] it says the property of the wife belongs to the husband. In perek 8 we see the opposite. property that comes to her when sh is engaged and then she is married belongs to he. [She can sell it].
The Ran [on the Rif] say this is not a question. Perek 8 is the property falls to he when she is engaged. Perek 9 is it falls to her after she is married. Then he asks from the Gemara Yerushalmi that we see just writing "I do not own something" does not make it so that one does not own it. There needs to be some act. [The question here is based on the idea in perek 9 that the husband can write to his wife I do not have any portion in your property and  so she can sell it. But if he does not write that, she can not sell it.

The Ran [R. Nisim,] says the case in perek 9 is he writes it when she is engaged and has not been fully married yet.

Some important background: When an wife works or finds something the property belongs to the husband. מציאת האישה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה פרק ששי של כתובות. But property that comes to her before she is married belongs to her. So the husband can not sell it. But he can eat from its fruits. If it is written in the ketuba it is property of iron sheep  That is if there is heaven forbid a divorce the amount of the property has to go back to the woman. If it was not written in the ketuba [marriage contract] then she still owns it but if it goes down in value he does not have to make up the difference.

The things I want to think about are this and also one side one on page 78. But the library is closing here so I do not have time to write about this subject.

a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter

One of the third generation of Musar was Nathan Zvi Finkel. He learned in Kelm by Rav Simha Zisel who was a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter. In his first lesson in the אור צפון he says that one can be keeping Torah that by all outer appearances seems to be perfect. Yet internally to be the opposite.

This he brings from the gemara in Nedarim 81. That it was asked to all the prophets and sages why was the land destroyed. and no one could answer until God himself said the answer: because they abandoned my teaching [Torah]. Thus we see that in external appearance it seemed everyone was doing things so well than no prophet could see what had gone wrong. It looked on the outside that everyone was keeping Torah. But in the interior of their souls they were not. As God sees the heart and from his perspective they had abandoned him and his teachings.

You can see a hint to this idea from the NT that brings what looks to me to be the same idea. "Do not murder." But I say that even one who gets angry with hi brother has already transgressed this.  It is not saying that now it is OK to murder. rather that it is not enough to keep the Torah in the external physical aspect. But rather one also must keep it in the internal part of one's soul.

Gemara Bava Kama page 2 side a

The mishna says the ox is not like the tooth. The same aspect of them is what makes them obligated in damages [I am going with Shmuel.] Tosphot says the explanation is not like the usual case in the gemara where there is a question if to learn a third thing from two other cases. Here the mishna means the leniency of this is not like the leniency of that. The Maharam [on the bottom of the page of the Maharsha] and the Tiferet Shmuel [in the back of the Gemara] understand this seems to be that the ox has something that makes it lenient in comparison to tooth and tooth has something lenient about it as compared to ox.

This seems to me to be hard to understand because it is essentially the same thing as saying what makes this strict is not the same thing as what would make the other strict and also visa verse. And yet Tosphot insists that that is not what he is saying.

I think what Tosphot means is that the ox has some leniency about it that makes it necessary to be written . That is opposed to everything else that causes damages that would not need to be written. And the tooth has something else that would make it seem lenient and so it is needed to write it. Then the Mishna says since these are two different things the things that makes them obliged in damages are thus and thus.

President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a crime. Is that wrong?

Presidents usually use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things that are legal. For example president Roosevelt asked Churchill to help him with the invasion of Normandy. Churchill wanted to go up from the Mediterranean sea.
In fact all presidents do is to use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things for them. That is most of what they are involved with.

Asking a foreign government to investigate a crime does not seem illegal.

the religious world is polytheistic Torah.

The religious world seems to me to be not exactly like the holy Torah. That is to say My basic idea of what Tora is about is monotheism.  What the religious world is polytheistic Torah. That is they believe in other kinds of deities, i.e. "tzadikim"(saints). And the main concentration of effort is on these other deities.So if in outer appearance they go through regular rituals that seem to be in accord with Torah. But in their focus and energy on the major goal  to bring people to their false deities.

This is not however to imply one should ignore true tzadiks. Often true saints have important advice and ideas that help to focus ones attention and faith on God. Or other good advice.  But there is a bright line (not a thin line) between faith in sages on one hand and worship of tzadikm on the other.


I named this blog by the Gra and the Rav Israel Salanter disciple of Navardok and Rav Shach because I feel they are the closest to advocating Torah with no "Shtick". It seems everyone else tries to fudge the variables to get the Torah to say what they want it to say.

How do you show that the approach of the Gra Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach is the closest thing to straight Torah. The way to do this is based on the idea of prima facie evidence. That is the way things seem before investigating them further. Then after an investigation you find a reason to modify your original positions you do so. Bayesian Probability. So they way Torah seems at first glance is that it does not require worship of tzadikim. There would have to be strong evidence against this conclusion to show that it does require one to worship tzadikm. So the prima facie position holds true and strong.

Talmud Yerushalmi maasrot II mishna 3

In the Talmud Yerushalmi maasrot II mishna 3 it brings an argument between R. Eliezer and the sages if taking truma from a stack of wheat that has not been finished yet makes it into tevel.

[The idea here is that a stack of wheat is usually smoothed down to make it even. So before that final touch is dome one can eat from the stack without taking the gifts of truma and maasar. truma is what goes to the priest and the tithe goes to the Levi. Then there is the second tithe.  [All together there is truma, maasar rishon (first tithe), maasar sheni (second tithe),  and maasar of the poor.]

So what is being said here is that after one has finished the work on the stack one can not eat of it without first taking all the gifts. [Before that one can eat of it in a casual manner. Not to make a meal of it.]

R Eliezer says taking truma makes the whole stack into tevel and the sages say that it does not. [Tevel means that it is necessary to take all the gifts at that point.]

The Gemara [The Jerusalem Gemara] asks what is the law if the same situation would occur with the tithe? I.e. does taking the first tithe make it into tevel or not?

The Gemara asks what does this question refer to? If before the work was done then obviously not. If after the work was done then obviously yes.

The Gemara answers the case is that the work was not finished, but still he took truma. [That means teh truma was not valid and he has to take truma again after he finishes the work on the stack.] Then he decided that he was not going to do any more work on the stack. So the work is considered to be finished. Then he takes the first tithe. So the Gemara concludes if we go backwards in time then the truma that he took makes it tevel. If we go by "from now on" then the first tithe makes it tevel.

What I claim here is that the Gemar means this: if we go backwards then the truma he already took is valid and so when he takes the first tithe that also is valid. [And perhaps he does not even need to take truma again] But if we go by from now on then clearly the truma he already too dis not valid and the tithe is in a kind of state of limbo. That is it is as if he took tithe on a stack of wheat that has been finalized but the truma was not taken yet. So it is valid but he transgressed a sin because he did not take the tithe in the right order. First truma then maasar.

What kind of question am I trying to answer here? First: how does it make sense to say if after the work was done the maasar makes it tevel? It already is tevel. Also a few more questions I forgot this minute. But at any rate my explanation answers the basic questions on this page.

Jerusalem Talmud [Maasrot II:3]

In terms of my brief question on the Jerusalem Talmud [Maasrot II:3] yesterday --I want to just give a drop of background. figs dates wheat and such need to be fixed before they can be eaten. That means you need to take all the gifts from them before you eat them. The gifts are truma first tithe second tithe [or tithe for the poor in every 3rd and 6th year of the seven year cycle.]

But they need to be ripe and the work on them needs to be finished. If the work has not been finished you can eat of them casually but not in a regular manner. [Like just to pick up one or two fruits but not to make a meal.]

The further bit of information you need is that taking truma from an unfinished stack is not considered to make the stack be finished in such a way that eating casually would be forbidden.

So the question is you have a stack that was not finished. The one takes truma from it. Since it was not finished he has to take truma again after he finishes it. But then he decides that the work he has done is enough. Then at that point the work is considered finished. So what happens then if he takes the first tithe before he takes the second truma. That is the question of the Gemara Yerushalmi.
You can see why I am confused here. Why would there not be simply a question he takes truma on an unfinished stack of wheat and then changes his mind to considered it finished. It seems to be a more straightforward question.