3.3.20
conditions by which natural science can flourish
You see in most rishonim that learning natural science is a part of Torah. You see this in the Chovot Levavot and the Mishna Torah in the very first chapter that by learning the works of God one fulfills the first commandment to love God.
There are certain conditions by which natural science can flourish. There have been plenty of societies that had the exact same intelligence as Western European. But no where else did natural science flourish because the conditions for it to come into its own did not exist.
Most societies never developed conditions where science was possible. And all human societies started at the same starting line.
There are certain conditions by which natural science can flourish. There have been plenty of societies that had the exact same intelligence as Western European. But no where else did natural science flourish because the conditions for it to come into its own did not exist.
Most societies never developed conditions where science was possible. And all human societies started at the same starting line.
2.3.20
My point about trust in God --since I did not make it clear before is that it is not the same thing as depending in the Divine Decree. For even if you hold by the Gra that you do not need any effort. And Like the מדריגת האדם madragat Haadam says מכאן שאין אדם צריך לשום סיבה אלא מה שנגזר בשבילו יבוא בעצמו בלי שום סיבה כלל [from here we see that a person needs no cause, but rather what is decreed for him will come automatically without any cause whatsoever] still something happens with trust that does not happen without trust as many verses make clear.
There is a law brought in tractate Ketuboth concerning the support given to daughters in a Ketubah.
The argument is between Rav Hai Gaon and the Rosh.
You have the basic law brought in the Mishna which is this. Girls do not inherit. However they do get support until a certain age. (i.e. 12.5). Boys inherit. But since one of the added things on the Ketubah is support for the girls, if the property is too small for both the boys to inherit and the girls, then the girls have a "shibud" [hold] in the property and it goes for their support. But if the boys sell it anyway the girls lose their rights. [That is to say the boys anyway owned it.]
Rav Hai Gaon [the last gaon] said after the decree of the geonim that a ketubah is also collected from movable property then in our case here the girls would also get support--even if the boys sold it.
The Rosh [Rabbainu Asher] says no. The reason Rav Shach explains is that the money is not "grabbed" or "Nitfas" as money that is exchange for Masar Sheni. [Rav Shach in Laws of Marriage. Chapter 19. Law 19]
What the Rosh brings as a proof against Hai Geon is that Rav Asi said you know the boys also have a hand in the property even when it is too little for both because if they sell it is is valid. [That is the law in Rav Shach Laws of Marriage 19:19]. So there is no "התפסה" [the money is in place of the land]. The question the achronim bring on the Rosh is how is that Gemara about Rav Asi any proof about the law of the geonim? Rav Shach explains that law shows that there is no "התפסה" [the money is in place of the land].
That is you have a rule that money now is thought to be like land. So like the Ketuba could be collected from land and also the support of the daughters until 12 years old, so after the law of the geonim now all that can be collected from movable property. But you still do not get to the idea that land that is sold that the money paid for the land would be in place of that land. That is what the Rosh means and the proof is even in the law of the Gemara when the girls get land, if that land is sold, that money is not in place of the land.
The basic decree was thus: In the Gemara only land can be used to pay a Ketubah. The Geonim established that movable objects or money.
According to the law of the Gemara, if the boys sold land that they inherited, the girls do not get support from the money of that transaction. And in fact they could even from the first sell that land because it is not in any way held by the girls. All that the Ketubah says is that the rents or fruit of the land they get, from that the girls must be supported until after the age of 12.5. But if they sell the land that money does not go to the girls. Also if there is only enough property to support the girls, and so the profits of the property at that point should go to the girls, still if the boys sell the land the sell is valid and that money from the sell does not go to the girls. That is the straight law of the Gemara. But then after that the geonim said the ketubah and things mentioned in it can be collected not just from land but also movable property. So Rav Hai Gaon says that in that case if the boys sell the property they inherited the girls get supported from the proceeds of the sell.
The point of Hai Gaon is that the girls have no shibud but the boys support them by what is inherited. So the proceeds of the sell is considered to be in the category of what they inherited. The Rosh says that can not be so for there is no special decree that proceeds of a sell is thought to be in place of the object--in any case. As you see in the law about an oral loan that would be paid by by the orphans if the land is still in their possession but not if they sold it. Also in the case of little property that normally would be used to support the girls but if sold the sell is valid and the girls lose. So in terms of the Gemara there is clearly no law that the money goes in place of a thing sold. It is gone and that is that. So if the Geonim would have made a special decree to change that well fine. But that was not the decree. It simply was movable objects also get collected in need be to pay for the Ketuba or its conditions like support for the girls. But that is what was inherited. Not proceeds of a sell of what they inherited.
[In short, Hai Gaon agreed there is no shibud. If there was then the girls could nullify the sell. But what he says is that even without shibud there is the idea that money is in place of the object. The Rosh says there would have had to be a express decree to that effect if it were so. For we see no such concept in the Gemara.
The argument is between Rav Hai Gaon and the Rosh.
You have the basic law brought in the Mishna which is this. Girls do not inherit. However they do get support until a certain age. (i.e. 12.5). Boys inherit. But since one of the added things on the Ketubah is support for the girls, if the property is too small for both the boys to inherit and the girls, then the girls have a "shibud" [hold] in the property and it goes for their support. But if the boys sell it anyway the girls lose their rights. [That is to say the boys anyway owned it.]
Rav Hai Gaon [the last gaon] said after the decree of the geonim that a ketubah is also collected from movable property then in our case here the girls would also get support--even if the boys sold it.
The Rosh [Rabbainu Asher] says no. The reason Rav Shach explains is that the money is not "grabbed" or "Nitfas" as money that is exchange for Masar Sheni. [Rav Shach in Laws of Marriage. Chapter 19. Law 19]
What the Rosh brings as a proof against Hai Geon is that Rav Asi said you know the boys also have a hand in the property even when it is too little for both because if they sell it is is valid. [That is the law in Rav Shach Laws of Marriage 19:19]. So there is no "התפסה" [the money is in place of the land]. The question the achronim bring on the Rosh is how is that Gemara about Rav Asi any proof about the law of the geonim? Rav Shach explains that law shows that there is no "התפסה" [the money is in place of the land].
That is you have a rule that money now is thought to be like land. So like the Ketuba could be collected from land and also the support of the daughters until 12 years old, so after the law of the geonim now all that can be collected from movable property. But you still do not get to the idea that land that is sold that the money paid for the land would be in place of that land. That is what the Rosh means and the proof is even in the law of the Gemara when the girls get land, if that land is sold, that money is not in place of the land.
The basic decree was thus: In the Gemara only land can be used to pay a Ketubah. The Geonim established that movable objects or money.
According to the law of the Gemara, if the boys sold land that they inherited, the girls do not get support from the money of that transaction. And in fact they could even from the first sell that land because it is not in any way held by the girls. All that the Ketubah says is that the rents or fruit of the land they get, from that the girls must be supported until after the age of 12.5. But if they sell the land that money does not go to the girls. Also if there is only enough property to support the girls, and so the profits of the property at that point should go to the girls, still if the boys sell the land the sell is valid and that money from the sell does not go to the girls. That is the straight law of the Gemara. But then after that the geonim said the ketubah and things mentioned in it can be collected not just from land but also movable property. So Rav Hai Gaon says that in that case if the boys sell the property they inherited the girls get supported from the proceeds of the sell.
The point of Hai Gaon is that the girls have no shibud but the boys support them by what is inherited. So the proceeds of the sell is considered to be in the category of what they inherited. The Rosh says that can not be so for there is no special decree that proceeds of a sell is thought to be in place of the object--in any case. As you see in the law about an oral loan that would be paid by by the orphans if the land is still in their possession but not if they sold it. Also in the case of little property that normally would be used to support the girls but if sold the sell is valid and the girls lose. So in terms of the Gemara there is clearly no law that the money goes in place of a thing sold. It is gone and that is that. So if the Geonim would have made a special decree to change that well fine. But that was not the decree. It simply was movable objects also get collected in need be to pay for the Ketuba or its conditions like support for the girls. But that is what was inherited. Not proceeds of a sell of what they inherited.
[In short, Hai Gaon agreed there is no shibud. If there was then the girls could nullify the sell. But what he says is that even without shibud there is the idea that money is in place of the object. The Rosh says there would have had to be a express decree to that effect if it were so. For we see no such concept in the Gemara.
It is an odd thing about philosophy today that it seems to set itself against science.[See the Alan Sokol affair.] As a philosophy student (Sandra Lehman) at Hebrew University once told me: "There is something about philosophy that deprives people of common sense."
Leonard Nelson [based on Kant ] was one of the very few philosophers that made it their business to respect their boundaries, and had a healthy respect for straight science. And in fact his program in philosophy was parallel to David Hilbert.
In Gottingen, the whole philosophy department was against the math and physics. Now on one hand Husserl was smart. But that did not put him on the level of a David Hilbert. Smart is one thing and genius is something else.
[I on the other hand have to add that this critique should not be applied to Hegel. Some have said about Hegel that he wanted to derive all science out of his dialectic, but as you can see in John Mctaggart that this is a misunderstanding of Hegel.]
[Or Modern Philosophy is all about words--as if that tells you anything!!]
Leonard Nelson [based on Kant ] was one of the very few philosophers that made it their business to respect their boundaries, and had a healthy respect for straight science. And in fact his program in philosophy was parallel to David Hilbert.
In Gottingen, the whole philosophy department was against the math and physics. Now on one hand Husserl was smart. But that did not put him on the level of a David Hilbert. Smart is one thing and genius is something else.
[I on the other hand have to add that this critique should not be applied to Hegel. Some have said about Hegel that he wanted to derive all science out of his dialectic, but as you can see in John Mctaggart that this is a misunderstanding of Hegel.]
[Or Modern Philosophy is all about words--as if that tells you anything!!]
The issue of trust in God is not as clear as I would like it to be.There does not seem to be any formula that you can plug in the question "In this situation should I do action or trust in God to take care of it?" The reason why there is no formula I think is that there are levels of trust. If one trust with more strength, then things work out better.
That seems to be what the Gra means in his commentary on Proverbs 3. וסוד העניין שתהפוך לבך לבטוח בה' בכל ואז יברך ה' אותך בכל.
That seems to be what the Gra means in his commentary on Proverbs 3. וסוד העניין שתהפוך לבך לבטוח בה' בכל ואז יברך ה' אותך בכל.
1.3.20
The issue of Rav Avraham Abulafia seems to me to be important. [He was a well known medieval mystic who was quoted extensively by Rav Haim Vital and the Remak [Rav Moshe of Cardoba known as RavMoshe Cordovaro".]
I discovered him originally in the microfilms in the basement of Hebrew University, but since then all his books were printed.
Obviously his major thesis about the importance of unifications [thinking and saying of the Divine names] is known but there are many other very interesting side issues he brings up that are worthy of attention.
The thinking and "intending" of Divine Names for me was a very major issue at one time since I was praying with the Sidur of Sar Shalom Sharabi and his grandson. That is the small three volume Sidur HaReshash [in red] and the large Sidur HaReshash.[The large one five volumes was written by the grandson.] [That is usually not around but I found someone who lived at the very edge of Mea Shearim who sold it to me.]
The smaller Red Sidur Hareshash as far as i know was printed in Aram Zova [Syria] and is not the same as his grandson. Rav Mordehei Sharabi said the small one has mistakes. [None of which I found but after he said so I assume I must have missed them.] In any case, the larger one is much more reliable. [There are major differences, but as for mistakes? I have no idea what Rav Mordehei Sharabi meant.]]
I discovered him originally in the microfilms in the basement of Hebrew University, but since then all his books were printed.
Obviously his major thesis about the importance of unifications [thinking and saying of the Divine names] is known but there are many other very interesting side issues he brings up that are worthy of attention.
The thinking and "intending" of Divine Names for me was a very major issue at one time since I was praying with the Sidur of Sar Shalom Sharabi and his grandson. That is the small three volume Sidur HaReshash [in red] and the large Sidur HaReshash.[The large one five volumes was written by the grandson.] [That is usually not around but I found someone who lived at the very edge of Mea Shearim who sold it to me.]
The smaller Red Sidur Hareshash as far as i know was printed in Aram Zova [Syria] and is not the same as his grandson. Rav Mordehei Sharabi said the small one has mistakes. [None of which I found but after he said so I assume I must have missed them.] In any case, the larger one is much more reliable. [There are major differences, but as for mistakes? I have no idea what Rav Mordehei Sharabi meant.]]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)