The basic idea of the Tospfot R"id [Rav Isaiah, one of the baali Hatospfot] is that barter would work to acquire a wife if the handkerchief has a penny's worth. His point is: the only thing the Gemara really means to exclude is exchange when one of the objects being exchanged is less than a penny.

This is why Rav Shach is dividing between two kinds of exchange in order to answer for the Tospfot R''id. If it has a penny's worth then it comes under the category of acquiring by means of money. Only when the handkerchief is less is it actually kinyan Sudar which would not acquire a woman.

This answers my question I asked yesterday that the Gemara is interested in eliminating exchange and does not mention kinyan sudar (acquire by exchange of a  handkerchief).

My point today is that kinyan sudar in the view of the Tosfot R''id is in fact a kind of exchange but even exchange is ok if it is more than a penny.
And that is in fact the way Rav Shach answers the questions of the Tospfot R''id

w66 a flat major mp3  w66 midi  w66 nwc

The known calendar seems to be based on Meton from Athens, and was not mentioned in the gemara. Nor is there anywhere mentioned in the Gemara that Hillel II sanctified the calendar.

I think Passover ought to be on the 15th day after the new moon. That is,- if you think of the day of the "molad" [when the moon and sun are joined at the same longitude], as the new moon, then 15 days from that ought to be Passover. But why think this? Mainly because of Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 side b at the top.
The known calendar seems to be based on Meton from Athens, and was not mentioned in the gemara. Nor is there anywhere mentioned in the Gemara that Hillel II sanctified the calendar. That is thought to be the case, but in fact it is no where in Shas.
There are in fact many examples of basic things in the Gemara that people are not aware of.
[One more reason to get through Shas yourself.]

רב שך [ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג'] מביא את תוספות הרי''ד

רב שך [ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג'] מביא את תוספות הרי''ד שקניין סודר תקף אם שווי המטפחת יותר מפרוטה ונמסר בתורת קניין כסף ולא בתורת קניין סודר. כמו כן, תקף אם ניתן בתנאי לתת מאוחר יותר כסף, ובהמשך הזמן הוא למעשה נותן את זה. רב שך מסביר שיש שני סוגים של קניין סודר, האחד הוא חליפין, והשני הוא סוג מיוחד של חליפין שקיים רק כסוג של דרך להשלים עסקה. כמו בימינו לחיצת יד תהיה בקטגוריה מסוג זה. אז התוספות הרי''ד כולל בקניין כסף קניין סודר כאשר זה נעשה כחליפין ללא שום התחייבות נוספת לתת דבר נוסף. וזה יהיה סוג של חילופי כספים שווה בשווה. אבל לא כשזה נעשה במיוחד כמו קניין סודר שהוא קטגוריה משלו (של סוג חילופין). הנושא  מבחינתי כאן שהוא מציג שאלה שנדמה שהגמרא מעוניינת בעיקר לסלק את קניין חליפין, ולא מזכירה קניין סודר. רק כדי שיהיה ברור אני אביא את הגמרא הבסיסי. הגמרא קידושין מביא משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה, וזה נועד להוציא את חליפין. שיכול להיות שהייתה לומד חליפין משדה עפרון, מכיוון שחליפין יכול לקנות שדה. אז אנו יודעים כעת לא, מכיוון שאישה לא תסכים שיקנה אותה בפחות מפרוטה. ומכיוון שחליפין יכולה להיות עבור פחות מפרוטה, לכן כל הסוג של קניית חליפין אינו נכלל, אפילו אם החליפין נעשה יותר מפרוטה.השאלה שלי. הגמרא מעוניין בפשטות להוציא את סוג הרכישה שהוא חליפין ספציפית, ואפילו לא מזכיר את קניין סודר. זה נראה בדיוק ההפך ממה שאמרנו למעלה. זה נראה כאילו קניין חליפין לא יהיה תקפה, אבל אולי קניין סודר רגיל יהיה תקף

רב שך in the הלכות אישות brings the תוספות רי''ד that קניין סודר  would be valid if it had a פרוטה worth in the handkerchief and given as money. That would make it like barter. But if on condition to give more later then that would be like kinyan sudar Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money, and later on he in fact gives it. רב שך explains there are two kinds of קניין handkerchief, one is חליפין barter, and the other is  a special kind of barter that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the תוספות רי''ד is including קניין סודר when it is done as חליפין with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange שווה בשווה. But not a when it is done specially as קניין סודר which is its own category of  kind of exchange.
The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the גמרא is mainly interested in eliminating חליפין, and does not really mention the קניין סודר. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.
Just to be clear I will bring the basic גמרא. The גמרא קידושין brings  משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה,  and that is meant to exclude חליפין. You might have learned חליפין from the field of עפרון, since a field can be bought by חליפין. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a פרוטה. And since חליפין can be for less than a פרוטה, therefore that whole kind of buying חליפין is excluded, even if the חליפין is done for more than a פרוטה.
So you see right away what is bothering me. The גמרא is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically חליפין, and does not even mention קניין סודר.  It seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as חליפין would be not valid, but perhaps as a regular קניין סודר would be valid.

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id that "kinyan sudar" marriage by a handkerchief would be valid if it had a penny's worth in the handkerchief. Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money and later he in fact gives it.

Rav Shach explains there are two kinds of "kinyan sudar" one is exchange and the other is  a special kind of exchange that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the Tosphot Rid is including kinyan sudar when it is done as exchange with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange. But not a when it is done specially as kinyan sudar which is its own category of  kind of exchange.

The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the Gemara is mainly interested in eliminating exchange, and does not really mention the kinyan sudar. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.

Just to be clear I will bring the basic Gemara. The Gemara Kidushin brings the mishna that a woman is acquired in three ways: money, document, sex;-- and that is meant to exclude exchange. You might have learned exchange from the field of Efron, since a field can be bought by exchange. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a penny. And since exchange can be for less than a penny, therefore that whole kind of buying (exchange) is excluded--even if the exchange is done for more than a penny.

So you see right away what is bothering me. The Gemara is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically exchange, and does not even mention kinyan sudar. That is, it seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as exchange would be not valid but perhaps as in fact a regular kinya sudar would be valid!

[The idea here is this: what causes a woman to be married? Being married is a sort of state of being that has with it obligations. When does that state exist? It is similar to when you buy a field. When makes it "bought"?  In the West we understand that a document sometimes is just proof that some exchange happened, but sometimes it itself is what causes the exchange.]

twentieth century philosophy is tremendous logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about.

Someone explained what analytic philosophy is like. [I forget who]. It is like the sword of Saladin as opposed to that of Richard III. Richard's sword was so heavy, you needed to be in the big leagues just to be able to pick it. It weighed a lot. On the other hand Saladin's was light, but was so sharp it could slice through a feather in mid air just by touching it.

Analytic philosophy is like Saladin's sword. Exact and rigorous to an amazing degree about language. It is not nonsense, but who could care less? Possible worlds? It tells me nothing about about possible world since it is not Physics.

[So what you get in the twentieth century philosophy is tremendous` logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about. Or Continental.  So the obvious question is why not just get back to Kant and Hegel? I guess analytic philosophy does not find them "rigorous enough". Continental finds them lacking emotion. In any case, I would be happy to see renewed interest in Leonard Nelson's take on Kant in friesian,com and McTaggart's take on Hegel.

[Even if analytic philosophy meant anything at all, the main rule there is whatever anyone says, it is the solemn responsibility of someone else to contradict it. As Steven Dutch put it twentieth century is vacuous.]

The problem with "Torah Scholars that are demons" that is brought in the LeM I:12 of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, really is an open Gemara in Shabat: "If you see a generation that troubles are coming upon it go out and check of the judges of Israel for all troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel."
So you see it was merely the fact that Rav Nahman choose to emphasize this point for some reasons unknown to me that makes it significant. But it is not as if he was the first to discover it.

To tell who might come into this category however is more difficult since Rav Nahman gives relatively few hints as to what it is that turns a person into a demon.

What my feeling about this is that the best path is to be safe and follow as closely as possible the straight path of Torah of the Gra, and Rav Israel Salanter, and Rav Shach. [Which would be in a practical sense to learn Torah in both in a in depth session and besides that a session of learning quickly and an emphasis on the Ethics of Torah that is the essence of Torah]