w87 E Flat Major
22.5.20
Philosophy is supposed to give some direction in life. It is meant to apply reason to questions about life and the universe in general. Yet is it has not been providing much direction for a long time. So instead of philosophy people would look into different religions.
Now in the Middle Ages there actually was direction one could gain from philosophy since the general line then was Faith with Reason. But since then this balance has been lost.
That balance and synthesis was lost to some degree I would guess because of the Enlightenment that meant to push out priest and princes and replace them with intellectuals [as Allan Bloom points out in his Closing of the American Mind].
But Kant and Hegel meant to find a balance. Kant on one hand looked towards Newton as a paradigm of what a rigorous logical philosophy ought to be, [as Nataliya Palatnik in Kant's Moral System points out in her PhD.] Kant however knows there are no experiments that can be done. So he substitutes the idea that certain kinds of things, dinge an sich [things beyond the capability of experience] if reason goes into them comes up with self contradictions. And Hegel simply stretched that idea further to come to the conclusion that reason (--no matter what it is applied to) will come up with self contradictions until it rises up one level to a higher level where that contradiction disappears and then at that level the process is continued until one gets to God.
However Kant and Hegel only lasted until the 1900's. Then came "analytic philosophy". That Robert Hanna has shown well is overdue for the trash bin. So people are waking up again to Kant and Hegel. [But I have no idea what kind of approach to Kant and Hegel, Robert Hanna would take. Which Neo Kant school? If any? Which approach to Hegel? McTaggart? Maybe someone would start to look at them afresh?]
Now in the Middle Ages there actually was direction one could gain from philosophy since the general line then was Faith with Reason. But since then this balance has been lost.
That balance and synthesis was lost to some degree I would guess because of the Enlightenment that meant to push out priest and princes and replace them with intellectuals [as Allan Bloom points out in his Closing of the American Mind].
But Kant and Hegel meant to find a balance. Kant on one hand looked towards Newton as a paradigm of what a rigorous logical philosophy ought to be, [as Nataliya Palatnik in Kant's Moral System points out in her PhD.] Kant however knows there are no experiments that can be done. So he substitutes the idea that certain kinds of things, dinge an sich [things beyond the capability of experience] if reason goes into them comes up with self contradictions. And Hegel simply stretched that idea further to come to the conclusion that reason (--no matter what it is applied to) will come up with self contradictions until it rises up one level to a higher level where that contradiction disappears and then at that level the process is continued until one gets to God.
However Kant and Hegel only lasted until the 1900's. Then came "analytic philosophy". That Robert Hanna has shown well is overdue for the trash bin. So people are waking up again to Kant and Hegel. [But I have no idea what kind of approach to Kant and Hegel, Robert Hanna would take. Which Neo Kant school? If any? Which approach to Hegel? McTaggart? Maybe someone would start to look at them afresh?]
in the path of the Gra is the pure essence of Torah.
I knew the head of the Aderet Eliyahu a yeshiva in the old city of Jerusalem that goes totally by the Gra. And I used to eat the third meal of Shabat every week with him and his family. That is Rav Eliyahu Silverman.
But I was at the time not going totally by the Gra in all respects.
But there was a time that I was trying to go by the Gra in every way. But that path was too pure and too hard for me, so I got sidetracked. But even so, I remain with the conviction that in the path of the Gra is the pure essence of Torah.
So here I would like to bring a few of the important points of the Gra. But before I do I would like to reiterate the idea: that as much and as well one can follow the Gra in every single detail, all the better.
One of the first ideas of the Gra [as is well known] is that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments of Torah put together. [I have to say that I became aware of this right at the start of my time at Shar Yashuv in NY and that lit a fuse underneath me.] I am sure everyone knows the Mishna "Learning Torah is equal to them all" תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם. Now in the Mishna itself when it says ""equal to all of them" it is not actually referring to all the commandments, but rather to the other commandments mentioned above in the Mishna. [So there is not contradiction here between this mishna and other places in the Torah itself which make it clear that coming to love and fear of God and attachment with God is the purpose of the commandments.]
However the Yerushalmi actually explains that mishna to mean in fact that every word of Torah is worth more than all the other commandments, and the Gra simply quotes the Yerushalmi.
Also in terms of actually keeping what the Gra says here there are two aspects. One is Torah in depth. The other is getting through the entire set, the Babylonian Gemara and Yerushalmi, and the Midrash Raba and all the midrashim. That is all the books written by the sages of the Gemara.
[He probably would not hold that Physics and Metaphysics are in the category of learning Torah. But like I said before, my own path diverges from the Gra and there does not seem to be any way to reconnect. So I try just to do the best I can in my own situation. But even if I can not walk fully in the Gra's path, I at least try to hang on the the knowledge of how special and important it is. And I even remember how that path helped me to get to Israel and also the a special kind of feeling of attachment with God which i think is a fulfillment of those two verses that command one to be attached to God.]
Now Litvak yeshivas are based on the Litvak yeshivas in Lithuania which all stemmed from the Gra. But they do not follow the Gra in every detail. That is sad. That the reason they are not very effective. If they would be more loyal and straightforward about going with the Gra in every detail they would be doing a lot better. So why do they not follow the Gra in every respect? Because of the fifth column--the traitors in their midst. The insincere people that are there using Torah simply as a way to make money. The traitors are often the top people. It is like the idea of the "Against Professional Philosophy" blog. But here the idea is, "Against Professional Torah."
The problem with diverging from the path of the Gra is that one can easily fall as I have seen many times. [Side note: Rav Nahman I considered not to have been under the excommunication, so I feel free to quote him.]
But I was at the time not going totally by the Gra in all respects.
But there was a time that I was trying to go by the Gra in every way. But that path was too pure and too hard for me, so I got sidetracked. But even so, I remain with the conviction that in the path of the Gra is the pure essence of Torah.
So here I would like to bring a few of the important points of the Gra. But before I do I would like to reiterate the idea: that as much and as well one can follow the Gra in every single detail, all the better.
One of the first ideas of the Gra [as is well known] is that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments of Torah put together. [I have to say that I became aware of this right at the start of my time at Shar Yashuv in NY and that lit a fuse underneath me.] I am sure everyone knows the Mishna "Learning Torah is equal to them all" תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם. Now in the Mishna itself when it says ""equal to all of them" it is not actually referring to all the commandments, but rather to the other commandments mentioned above in the Mishna. [So there is not contradiction here between this mishna and other places in the Torah itself which make it clear that coming to love and fear of God and attachment with God is the purpose of the commandments.]
However the Yerushalmi actually explains that mishna to mean in fact that every word of Torah is worth more than all the other commandments, and the Gra simply quotes the Yerushalmi.
Also in terms of actually keeping what the Gra says here there are two aspects. One is Torah in depth. The other is getting through the entire set, the Babylonian Gemara and Yerushalmi, and the Midrash Raba and all the midrashim. That is all the books written by the sages of the Gemara.
[He probably would not hold that Physics and Metaphysics are in the category of learning Torah. But like I said before, my own path diverges from the Gra and there does not seem to be any way to reconnect. So I try just to do the best I can in my own situation. But even if I can not walk fully in the Gra's path, I at least try to hang on the the knowledge of how special and important it is. And I even remember how that path helped me to get to Israel and also the a special kind of feeling of attachment with God which i think is a fulfillment of those two verses that command one to be attached to God.]
Now Litvak yeshivas are based on the Litvak yeshivas in Lithuania which all stemmed from the Gra. But they do not follow the Gra in every detail. That is sad. That the reason they are not very effective. If they would be more loyal and straightforward about going with the Gra in every detail they would be doing a lot better. So why do they not follow the Gra in every respect? Because of the fifth column--the traitors in their midst. The insincere people that are there using Torah simply as a way to make money. The traitors are often the top people. It is like the idea of the "Against Professional Philosophy" blog. But here the idea is, "Against Professional Torah."
The problem with diverging from the path of the Gra is that one can easily fall as I have seen many times. [Side note: Rav Nahman I considered not to have been under the excommunication, so I feel free to quote him.]
21.5.20
I really never asked my parents why they thought that the USA is great. My Dad spent his entire career helping the USA and that was certainly the attitude I heard at home.
First of course was his volunteering for the USAF, and then later inventing the Infra Red telescope, then laser beam communication between satellites. And of course the camera for the U-2.
But an actual discussion about the greatness and importance of the USA never came up to my recollection. I guess it was just simply clear that the USA provided the best hope to have a just and decent society with a balance between freedom and responsibility.
Nowadays clearly they would be appalled, but what would they say? I am not sure since they were not talkers, but doers. Beyond the basics--be a mensch [decent human being] and be self reliant, it is hard to know.
I myself was not able to come to any insight about this until I read Daniel Defoe's pamphlets from the 1700's. I realized at that point the the USA was really a continuation of England and the Magna Carta. Still is it just the political system that makes a nation great? I would say with Hobhouse that what measures a nation's greatness is the ability of the families to sit around the fireplace and talk with each other.
[Any place that was once an English Colony now has success and prosperity. USA, Israel, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, Normandy, India. Extend that to places that were administered by the USA after WWII--Japan and Germany. Compared to places that were never subjected to English rule you generally find ruin and misery, South America, Africa, etc. But take away the institutions of the English as in Hong Kong and you get problems. So what is so special about the English? I have no idea. It is almost as if there is a permanent curse on anyone that was never subjected to English rule. No matter how hard they try, they just can not make it.]
First of course was his volunteering for the USAF, and then later inventing the Infra Red telescope, then laser beam communication between satellites. And of course the camera for the U-2.
But an actual discussion about the greatness and importance of the USA never came up to my recollection. I guess it was just simply clear that the USA provided the best hope to have a just and decent society with a balance between freedom and responsibility.
Nowadays clearly they would be appalled, but what would they say? I am not sure since they were not talkers, but doers. Beyond the basics--be a mensch [decent human being] and be self reliant, it is hard to know.
I myself was not able to come to any insight about this until I read Daniel Defoe's pamphlets from the 1700's. I realized at that point the the USA was really a continuation of England and the Magna Carta. Still is it just the political system that makes a nation great? I would say with Hobhouse that what measures a nation's greatness is the ability of the families to sit around the fireplace and talk with each other.
[Any place that was once an English Colony now has success and prosperity. USA, Israel, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, Normandy, India. Extend that to places that were administered by the USA after WWII--Japan and Germany. Compared to places that were never subjected to English rule you generally find ruin and misery, South America, Africa, etc. But take away the institutions of the English as in Hong Kong and you get problems. So what is so special about the English? I have no idea. It is almost as if there is a permanent curse on anyone that was never subjected to English rule. No matter how hard they try, they just can not make it.]
home schooling
People would be better off with home schooling. Allan Bloom anyway thought the social studies and humanities departments have negative value, [in his Closing of the American Mind]. Why pay good money [or tax money] to have your kids brainwashed?
20.5.20
A question. Rav Shach in the start of laws of marriage comes out that a type of kinyan sudar is kinyan money not barter. Later in section three , law one that kinyan of things worth money are because of barter. But then that would not help to marry. [This is not my question, but just an introduction to my question.]]
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)