Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam]

Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam] that says there are two kinds of exchange: (1) barter and (2) handkerchief. [It does not have to be a  handkerchief. It could be any vessel.] The buyer takes a handkerchief and gives it to the seller and by that acquires the vessels or whatever the seller is selling. Now actual barter only works for vessels. Not fruit for fruit. But barter has to be for least a penny on both sides. The "kinyan sudar" does not need to be worth a pruta (penny).
But the barter does not have a law of overcharging, because this one wants a  needle and that one wants a coat of armor. [In that way barter is not like monetary exchange. But kinyan Sudar is  not like monetary exchange from the side of its own worth, but what about overcharging if it is used to seal a deal? There are so many questions here about the opinions and reasons for the Rambam I can see why Rav Shach just wrote this piece in short form.]

So barter  has this odd kind of  state. It is on the first way like a deal made with money. But the other side of things it is not like money. Deals made with money have  a law of overcharging. [Up to 1/5 the money is returned. More than 1/5 the deal is nullified.] 
So we know what the Tosphot R''id holds in terms of marriage. He spells it out. If the handkerchief is more than a penny's worth it is a deal made by money [so valid].

But the Rambam? Would he agree? I think not. After all the whole difference about the barter is not really relevant to the handkerchief. There seems to be no reason to think the Rambam would agree with the Ri''d.

Remember Lot's Wife: Diabolical Narcissism, the Overarching Global Pathology

American history

 But I believe American history is not taught well.  My eyes opened when I read Daniel Defoe's pamphlets from the 1700's and I began to see where all the issues that were facing the founding fathers all stemmed from: England. The powers of the King as opposed to Parliament.
I believe that without thorough knowledge of English history that American history is impossible to understand. In particular the years from 1700 until 1776.
[It is a lot easier to understand the Bill of Rights if you see the same issues in England.]



I think to understand the USA at all, one needs to start from Edward I and in fact even William the Conqueror.


I should add that I got real criticism from the teacher of AP History. And he was right. I had no feeling or concept of USA history. But what was I lacking? I realized what I was lacking recently when I read Daniel Defoe. [I recall that I passed the class, but still what was lacking in my understanding? It now know it was the background of the issues back into English history.] 

Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Defector,

From Info Wars: Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Defector, warned Americans of the scientific demoralization campaigns waged in media decades ago. Learn to identify these techniques aimed at subverting American culture.

His basic point was that most of the funds that the KGB had were being used on disinformation and specifically directed to subvert the USA into Socialism.

To me it seems that until the files can be reopened it would be impossible to understand the exact involvement of the KGB in turning the USA towards Socialism. Obvious there has been a tremendous success in that direction. Even though Democrats do not use the word "socialism", still a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Socialism by any other name would still be socialism.  

I discussed this once with a friend that used to work for the KGB and his opinion was that the KGB did not have the resources that could have subverted  the USA. And now I can see his point. Still what exactly were their activities? And how much of the turn was because of the KGB and how much was simply the fact that many intellectuals believed in socialism. It does not have to be a plot. Still the whole history of this affair is curious. You have got to wonder if Russia would ever be willing to let research again into the KGB archives?

I ought to be upfront about my own beliefs just for the record. I do not hold at all from socialism. The reason is mainly that I think people have a right to their hard earned money. That is I believe in the Ten Commandments. Specifically:  "Thou shalt not steal". So I see no merit in stealing from the rich based on some ideology that says that they themselves must have stolen it or other excuses.

Rav Avraham Abulafia went to debate with the pope.

It is well known that Rav Avraham Abulafia went to debate with the pope. The way the events are related is that people were sent to arrest him as he reached the gates of Rome. But somehow or other they could not stop him. At that point the pope ran away to another city.

Now on one hand hand Rav Abulafia had a high opinion about Jesus. So that probably was not the issue of what he wanted to debate. But he had a low opinion of the Catholic church. So maybe that was one of the issues?

[Maybe the Trinity? It seems impossible on one hand, however Hegel seems to have an approach that to me seems reminiscent of the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus.]

There is a book by professor Moshe Idel Sonship which goes into the issue of being a son of God as understood by mystics like Rav Abulafia in the Middle Ages.

 

The "seal of the sixth day" is how Jesus is referred to elsewhere inRav Abulafia That seems to be a reference to the idea in the Talmud about a of a messiah son of yoseph

I noted that most people have no idea of what sexual sin is. So just to make it clear the first category are the things mentioned in Leviticus 18 which are called עריות "revealing the nakedness". That is mostly with the same family but includes a menstruating woman and a married woman and sodomy.
But all those are the most serious as you can see by the punishment "Karet" being cut off from one's people and in most of them there is a death penalty.
But there are plenty of lesser categories in Deuteronomy which are all just plain prohibitions "Lavin".

[Like when it says an Egyptian should not come into the congregation for three generations. That is an example of a regular "Lav" prohibition. 


I mean to say that all sins in the Law of Moses are all plain prohibitions unless something like karet is specified.

 Rav Nahman  said that a kind of correction for sexual sin [what is called "Tikun HaKlali"] is to say ten psalms in order. [16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150]. But that is along the lines of repentance on sin.
Also he mentions going to [and into -totally] a natural body of water like an ocean or river. [That is anyway a good idea.]

[As the Gates of Repentance [Rav Yona of Gerondi] brings right in the beginning of his book that you can not repent until you have an accurate idea of what really is a sin and what is not.

One problem is that people make no distinctions in levels of sin. There are some sins that have "karet" as a spiritual cutting off from the next world or even the death penalty. Now a death penalty is only for things done on purpose.  But for lots of things like that that are done by accident there is a sacrifice. That is the sin offering. [Nowadays we do not bring that anymore since there is no Temple.] But for things that are just prohibitions there is no sacrifice nor any death penalty.

The basic idea of learning Physics that I have mentioned is to some degree based on the Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. But I have seen statements in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov which also indicate as much.

However what is it that stops people from doing so?

One is lack of desire. I have tried to cure that by showing that it is in fact included in the commandment to learn Torah - according to some rishonim.

Another obstacle is lack of energy. I have mentioned a way to solve this by combining coffee and tea in the same drink. [That was something that Israel Abussera  used to have when he got up for the midnight prayer. I heard that from one of his grandchildren (Moshe Buso) that used to prepare that for him].
Another obstacle is method. For that I have mentioned Rav Nahman's way of saying the words as fast as possible and going on with no repeats until one finishes the books, and then doing the whole over from the beginning.

[I ought to add that the same group of Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] that held this way also help from learning Aristotle's Metaphysics. Yet when it comes to that side I am not sure what exactly to include in that subject. On one hand you have the four greats Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel. But those last two seem to be in need of commentary. So as far as that goes I think Leonard Nelson is the best approach to Kant, and McTaggart the best approach to Hegel. [But people that hold with Kant are often at odds with those that go with Hegel and visa versa.]

[One of the best of this generation is Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school. But there are also some other really great people like Ed Feser, and Huemer. There are also some others that maybe are not as great but have really hit some home runs like Habermas and Robert Hanna.]