We see  that "spilling seed in vain" is a sin in Genesis [with Er and Onan]. However Rav Nahman was certainly right about the importance of the Tikun Klali [saying the ten psalms: 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150] as a correction for this.  But how do we know that it is possible to correct? That comes from all the idea that repentance is always possible --but not always effective. That is one might repent in terms of not doing again what he or she has done. But that obviously does not take care of the effects of the sin.

The idea here is that sometimes one might do a sin. So how does one go about correcting it? In almost all books of Musar it is explained  by not doing it again is the main repentance. However they also add (2) regret and (3) confession.

You see this also in the Gemara Yoma. if one has transgressed a positive command then if he repents, then he is forgiven. If a Negative command then if he repents that protects from the pains and problems that result until Yom Kippur and then Yom Kippur finishes. If one has transgressed a negative command that has karet [cutting of from one's people] attached to it, then repentance and Yom Kippur help and troubles and problems that one goes through and accepts as repentance finish.
Desecrating the Divine Name is even more severe. For that repentance, Yom Kippur troubles help but only death  finishes if it is accepted as repentant. [It is not that anyone that dies gets their sins forgiven. Rather it is dying in a certain kind of way.]

[This "desecrating the Divine Name" is kind of what the religious people do. They make a show of how religious they are, and then act not nicely. That makes the name of Torah to lose  its grace and charm.]

There is something awkward in Rav Shach between the first law in laws of marriage  [chapter  one] and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out at least to the Tosphot Ri''d that there are two kinds of barter and the type that is  "this equals that" is works as money. The other type of barter is handkerchief  and that works  to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the handkerchief. So the first type works as a kind of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money].
But if that is the case then look at Rav Shach in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף [something worth money] to be a kind of barter, because if it would be because of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money] then it would work to redeem a Hebrew slave from  a gentile. [But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money that does not matter. The Hebrew slave remains a slave until redeemed with actual money.

But then the question comes up how can marriage become valid by שווה כסף [something worth money]. That Rav Shach answered showing that the type of ownership of  a wife or Hebrew slave [owned by an Israeli] is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if barter would work [to marry} if it has the worth of a penny that would be ok in terms of something worth money [also to marry] except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a Hebrew slave from a gentile--which in fact it does not.

Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a Hebrew slave then leave it at that. Answer, he needs it to be like a קניין סודר so that it can cause a קניין just like he is explaining that the Hebrew slave עבד עברי or the wife is not physically owned but rather obligations are owned. [That is the slave is obligated to work similar to the same kind or arrangement you have as an employee. The obligations are not monetary obligation. They are physical obligations of the body of the employee. He must work as he agreed to. But his body is not owned. He simply has obligation that he must fulfill.]


However even we could answer this, still the question is if the kinyan sudar is worth more than a penny and thus becomes money does it still retain teh ability cause a kinyan?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something awkward in רב שך between the first law in הלכות אישות  פרק א and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out to the תוספות הרי''ד that there are two kinds of חליפין.  The type that is  שווה בשווה  works as כסף. The other type of חליפין is סודר and that works  to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the סודר. So the first type works as a kind of קניין כסף. But if that is the case then look at רב שך in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף  to be a kind of חליפין, because if it would be because of קניין כסף  then it would work to redeem a עבד עברי from  a gentile. But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money, that does not matter. The עבד עברי remains a slave until redeemed with actual money. But then the question comes up. How can קידושין become valid by שווה כסף . That רב שך answered showing that the type of ownership of  a wife or עבד עברי owned by an יהודי is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case, there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if חליפין would work to marry if it has the worth of a פרוטה that would be OK in terms of something worth money also to marry except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a עבד עברי from a gentile, which in fact it does not.
Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a עבד עברי, then leave it at that. Answer. He needs it to be like a קניין סודר handkerchief so that it can cause a קניין just like he  explained that the עבד עברי או a wife is not physically owned, but rather שיעבודים are owned. However even we could answer this, still the question is if the קניין סודר is worth more than a פרוטה and thus becomes money does it still retain ability cause a קניין?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

יש משהו קשה להבין ברב שך בין החוק הראשון בהלכות אישות פרק א לחוק הראשון של פרק 3. בחוק הראשון רב שך מסיק לתוספות הרי''ד שיש שני סוגים של חליפין. הסוג שהוא שווה בשווה עובד כמו כסף. הסוג האחר של חליפין הוא סודר וזה פועל להשגת עסקה סופית וזה לא בגלל הערך הכספי של הסודר. אז הסוג הראשון עובד כסוג של קניין כסף. אבל אם זה נכון, התבונן ברב שך בפרק השלישי. שם הוא דורש ששווה כסף הוא סוג של חליפין, כי אם זה היה בגלל קניין כסף זה היה עובד לפדות עבד עברי מגוי, אבל זה לא. רק כסף או פגיעה בפועל או מסמך ישחררו אותו או אותה. גם אם הבעל הגוי רוצה לקבל משהו ששווה כסף, זה לא משנה. עבד עברי נשאר עבד עד שיגאל בכסף בפועל. אבל אז עולה השאלה. כיצד קידושין יכולים להיות תקפים על ידי שווה כסף. כי רב שך ענה כי סוג הבעלות על אישה או עבד עברי בבעלות יהודי איננו בעלות פיזית על חפץ, אלא בעלות על התחייבויות כמו חוזה עם עובד. בכל מקרה, נראה שיש כאן סתירה.

אני מתכוון שאם חליפין הייתה עובדת להתחתן אם יש לזה ערך של פרוטה זה יהיה בסדר מבחינת משהו ששווה כסף גם כדי להתחתן בגלל קניין כסף. אבל אם משהו ששווה כסף זה בגלל כסף, לא חליפין הוא צריך לעבוד כדי לשחרר עבד עברי מגוי, שלמעשה זה לא.

עכשיו אתה יכול לשאול מדוע רב שך צריך שווה כסף כדי להיות קניין מסוג מסוים? כל עוד זה נלמד מעבד עברי, אז השאר אותו בזה. תשובה. הוא צריך שזה יהיה כמו קניין סודר כדי שזה יכול  לגרום  לקניין בדיוק כמו שהסביר שהעבד עברי או אשה אינם בבעלות פיזית, אלא שיעבודים הם בבעלות. עם זאת, אפילו אנו יכולים לענות על זה, עדיין השאלה היא אם קניין סודר שווה יותר מפרוטה וכך הופך לכסף האם הוא עדיין שומר על היכולת לגרום לקניין

PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL

I have not heard that term for a long time and even when I did, I was not sure what it meant.
 I think it means people that are good talkers, but do not really know what they are talking about. They know how to use the jargon and fancy sounding words.

Like when you are are at a cocktail party and you see everyone crowding around the guy at the fire place straining to hear him talk. It sounds like he really knows what he is talking about.
There is a difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who sound like they do. And the later are dangerous.

Dr. Michael Huemer is certainly a brilliant philosopher. But the problem with his idea of anarcho-capitalism that occurs to me is the Federalist Papers, paper number 6.  [Danny Frederick discusses one other possible critique. That is; he brings the idea of Berkeley that the legitimacy of government is because of the consequences of not having one. But I can already predict that Dr. Huemer would not be convinced by that argument. He just thinks governments are just awful.] However the arguments of the Federalist papers I think do answer his points. Not that any government is OK. The Federalist Papers are arguing for a certain kind of government. [The authors of the Federalist Papers might very well agree with Dr. Huemer about most governments except for the one they were advocating. That is a Republic based on the English model.

So Anarchy or Communism would certainly fall under the critique of Huemer on government, but a lot depends on the type of people and situation. He says financial interests would cause different groups to not make war on each other but that is only refuted in Federalist Papers 6 and 7.

learning as fast as possible

I wanted to mention that even though learning as fast as possible was certainly one aspect of Rav Nahman (of Breslov) thought as you can see in the Conversations of Rav Nahman section 76. And in fact we know that he told  Rav Natan his disciple to learn that way. Still if you look in the Sefer HaMidot about learning, he brings up the issue of review as being very important.
So on one hand you could say, "Well, anyway he holds from review in the Conversations of Rav Nahman. But there the idea of review is to finish the whole book you are doing, and then go back and review it many times." That you can say just so as not to have him being contradictory. Still in a practical sense, I find it hard to review after I have finished  a book. It lacks the freshness of the first time, and also I have forgotten everything by the time I start a second time. So the best idea is like what they do in the Mir in NY. The morning for intense depth learning--which means lots of review then and there. Not some distant time in the future. And the afternoon for fast learning. [In the Mir fast learning meant Gemara with Tosphot,]

"Identity" based ideology is the modern idolatry. That is the idea that truth is determined by what group one belongs to. Rather one ought to strive to be moral based on what the Torah says. That often differs from group identity. In fact the only two groups that I see that really strive to live according to what the Law of Moses says are Shar Yashuv and the Mir [both in NY]. Though I think most Litvak based Musar yeshivas do the same.

It is not the amount of Musar [Ethics] that they learn but rather the mental orientation. For in fact most Musar yeshiva learn very little Musar. But that little bit still forms the mental attitude.

w86 G Major w86 midi w86 nwc