Ketuboth page 9. A priest comes to court and says he found his newly wed wife was not a virgin. She is not saying anything. She is forbidden to him because of a doubt when were the relations before or after kidushin? Since there is only one doubt she is forbidden. Tosphot says there are two hazakot [prior state] here. Hezkat she is OK and hezkat of the body. That is she is assumed to have stayed  a virgin until you know otherwise. That puts the act of sex later. R Akiva Eigger says hezkat hashta [the state of things now] does not help her here because you would need it to join with hezkat OK and it can not because it says something different than hezkat OK.  Hezkat OK says there was no sex. Hezkat hashta says you push the act of sex back in time as far as possible and that means the sex was before kidushin.

I have two questions here. One is Hezzkat OK can say either the sex was before kidushin or there was no sex. That that has an intersection with hezkat hashata which says the sex was before kidushin. The other question is no one has even brought up the possibility she did not have sex. So all that hezkat OK says is that the sex was before kidushin. And therefore both hazakot are saying the exact same thing.

Rav Shach asks that Shmuel holds there is no state of now that pushes things back in time (Hezkat Hashta) and Rav who does hold from it holds hazakot [status plural] do not need to join. He answers that is only to tell us a state of being. But in a case like in Nida page 2 where an event happened to change the status, there you need the two hazakot to join.

[There is a time period between betrothal [kidushin] and the marriage. But she is a married woman after the betrothal. [In ancient times, the betrothal was done in the way that makes it actually marriage. Nowadays it is just a promise to marry so it is not the same thing.]] So if she had sex after, then she is forbidden to her husband who is a priest even if it was rape. That not the case of a Israeli, only a priest. This is clear in the verses in the Torah that a Kohen priest can not marry a "zona" that is a woman who has had sex that was forbidden].

The whole idea of  

________________________________________________

 כתובות page 9. A כהן comes to court and says he found his newly wed wife was not a virgin. She is not saying anything. She is forbidden to him because of a doubt when were the relations before or after קידושין? Since there is only one doubt she is forbidden. תוספות says there are two חזקות  here. חזקת כשרות and חזקת הגוף. That is she is assumed to have stayed  a virgin until you know otherwise. That puts the act of sex later. ר' עקיבא איגר says חזקת השתא does not help her here because you would need it to join with חזקת כשרות and it can not because it says something different than חזקת כושר. That is חזקת כשרות says there was no sex. חזקת השתא says you push the act of sex back in time as far as possible and that means the sex was before קידושין. I have two questions here. One is חזקת כשרות can say either the sex was before קידושין or there was no sex. That that has an intersection with חזקת השתא which says the sex was before קידושין. The other question is no one has even brought up the possibility she did not have sex. So all that חזקת כשרות says is that the sex was before קידושין. And therefore both hazakot are saying the exact same thing. רב שך asks that שמואל holds there is no חזקת השתא and רב who does hold from it holds חזקות do not need to join. He answers that is only to tell us a state of being. But in a case like in נידה page 2 where an event happened to change the status, there you need the two חזקות to join.

 כתובות עמוד 9. כהן מגיע לבית המשפט ואומר שמצא שאשתו הטרייה לא הייתה בתולה. היא לא אומרת כלום. היא אסורה עליו בגלל ספק מתי היו היחסים לפני קידושין או אחריהם? מכיוון שיש רק ספק אחד היא אסורה. תוספות אומר שיש כאן שתי חזקות. חזקת כשרות וחזקת הגוף. משערים שהיא נשארה בתולה עד שתדע אחרת. זה מציב את מעשה המין מאוחר יותר. ר 'עקיבא איגר אומר חזקת השתא לא עוזר לה כאן כי היית צריך את זה כדי להצטרף עם חזקת כשרות וזה לא יכול כי זה אומר משהו אחר מאשר חזקת כושר. היינו חזקת כשרות אומרת שלא היה שום יחסי מין. חזקת השתא אומרת שאתה דוחף את מעשה המין לאחור בזמן ככל האפשר וזה אומר שהמין היה לפני קידושין. יש לי שתי שאלות כאן. האחת היא חזקת כשרות יכולה לומר שהמין היה לפני קידושין או שלא היה יחסי מין. זה שיש לו צומת עם חזקת השתא שאומרת שהמין היה לפני קידושין. השאלה השנייה היא שאף אחד אפילו לא העלה את האפשרות שהיא לא קיימה יחסי מין. אז כל מה שאומר חזקת כשרות הוא שהמין היה לפני קידושין. ולכן שתי החזקות אומרות את אותו הדבר בדיוק. רב שך שאל ששמואל מחזיק שאין חזקת השתא ורב שאוחז ממנו מחזיק חזקות לא צריכות להצטרף. הוא עונה שזה רק כדי לומר לנו מצב של הוויה. אבל במקרה כמו בנידה עמוד 2 שבו אירוע קרה כדי לשנות את הסטטוס, שם אתה זקוק לשני החזקות כדי להצטרף

 Communism actually had its beginning in the French Revolution with Babeuf and it is at least indicative of where things are going in the USA. It might even be helpful to learn about the source and history of Communism before recommending it. It is like if a doctor prescribes some compound, and for the last two hundred years it has killed every person that tried it. Before recommending it to others, you might take a few minutes to see if it has ever tried before, and what the results were.

Marx did not simply copy Babeuf, but used ideas of Adam Smith and Hegel to make a more unified structure.

I was aware of Marx when I was much younger, and read the Communist Manifesto and other works by Leftists. The reason none of it impressed me was I had ingrained in me from my earliest youth the idea that no matter how rigorously, logical and scientific and ingenious a theory is, if experiment shows its predictions are wrong, then it is wrong. 

The constant attempts of East Germans to get to West Germany or to West Berlin was plenty of evidence for me to show not all was well in Communist East Germany. That same story has been repeated ad infinitum: the USSR, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, all African countries--anywhere that takes a socialistic model the result is always mass murder, mass starvation, zero freedom. etc.

War is not necessarily a good thing. Why do people think that starting a civil war in the USA is desirable.

It reminds me of what General Sherman before the war between the states [North and South] began: "You people have no idea what you are getting yourselves into."

 Rav Avraham Abulafia's approach to Jesus is important because it establishes a certain amount of legitimacy to him within the context of Torah.

I mean, people can think of lots of things, but those things are not necessarily with the context or borders of Authentic Torah.  In fact, most of what passes today as authentic Torah is anything but that. 

For something to be within the context of authentic Torah, it needs to be accepted by the Rishonim. Without that condition, nothing can even start.

[Rishonim means "first ones" [After Rav Hai Gaon until Rav Joseph Karo as opposed to Ahronim ["later ones"--after Rav Joseph Karo.]

 Slander is a prohibition in the Torah. There are exceptions like when you need to warn someone about a dangerous person. But as a starting point, one needs very urgent and good reason to be able to disparage another person. [I mean the starting position is never to say something negative about another person. Then based on circumstances, there might be a need and even a requirement to say something.]

One of the secrets of success I always thought that the Mir Yeshiva in NY had was the morning session where people would learn the laws of slander after the morning prayers. So there was a great awareness of the issues involved in speaking slander.

Just for clarity:

Lashon Hara can be just saying something negative --but is worse if it is with intention to cause damage or even can cause damage.  It is divided into בין אדם למקום ובין אדם לחבירו and the laws are different. For between man and God issues it is enough if the person is on that path in a constant way. Just just an accidental sin. Then one can say lashon hara and warn others. For issues between man and his fellow man, that is where you need some conditions to be able to say anything negative: for benefit, to see it oneself, rebuke, no other way to get that benefit, to be clear that what one think happened really did happen, it will not cause more damage that would come to the person if he was tried in court, that it really is clear according to the laws of the Torah.

Some examples: it would be forbidden for a woman to lie about her husband in court in order to get more money out of an alimony case. There are lot of reasons for that. One is that Lashon Hara even on true things still needs lots of conditions. All the more so lying about something is worse. And here it is with intention to cause damage.

x17 B Flat Major

 x17 B Flat Major

x17 Midi

x17 nwc file

the kind of wisdom that Rav Nahman says comes from the Empty Space is Philosophy.

 I would assume that the kind of wisdom that Rav Nahman says comes from the Empty Space is Philosophy. I mean to say that there is something odd about philosophy in the first place that seems to retract common sense away from people, and yet does not qualify as simply  a false or man made wisdom with no connection to reality. What I mean is that something like psychology is simply pseudo science and a result of its practitioners delusions and their own childhood experiences. There is nothing real or objective about psychology in the first place. But philosophy is not like that. It deal with real questions, but questions that seem to have contradictory answers and which leads into some kind of mental traps. 

Psychology is insane people pretending to be doctors. But philosophy takes sane people and makes them insane.

[That is in its effect. On the other hand, it does appear that philosophy can help to limit or cancel other kinds of delusions. Particularity religious delusions. So is it possible to find some kind of balance? We see Robert Hanna in fact demolished 20th century analytic philosophy in its entirety--simply by pointing out its circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. But his suggestion of "Forward to Kant" seems difficult  to accept since Kant him is open to many schools of thought, particularity Neo-Kant [Marburg], Leonard Nelson, Hegel.