If a Israeli marries, and finds his wife is not a virgin, she is still permitted to him because of doubt of a doubt. ספק ספקא. Ketuboth page 9 side B

 A priest [Kohen from the male descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses] has more restrictions on who he can marry than a regular Israeli. As you can see in the verses in Leviticus the section of "Emor" "Speak to the priests", he can not marry  a "Zona" which is any woman who has had sex with someone that was forbidden to her (by a prohibition from the Torah.). It matters not if it was rape or not.

This is different than a Israeli. If his wife was raped, then she is still permitted to him. But if it was with her agreement, then she is forbidden to her husband from then on.

This is a bit of an introduction. Next between betrothal and marriage there used to be a long time period. But betrothal was done in such a way that she became a married woman. [That is called Kidushin.]

So if a Israeli marries, [that is did kidushin betrothal and much later does nisuin that is the actual bringing her into his home] and finds his wife is not a virgin, she is still permitted to him because of  doubt of a doubt. ספק ספקא. Maybe the sex was before she got married [betrothal] . And even if it was after, maybe it was rape. So because a doubt of a doubt ספק ספקא is permitted, she is permitted to her husband. [The rule is in a case of a doubt about a prohibition of the Torah, the law is to forbid. But if the case is a doubt of a doubt, the law is to permit. ]

The Shita Mekubetzet asks why is this not a case of טומאה ברשות היחיד uncleanliness in a private domain-which we learn from "sota" [a married woman who has strayed] is forbidden? He answers that is when there is a prior status that there can at least begin a doubt. [Like in the case of Sota when there are reasons to believe she strayed. Here there is nothing like that.

Another answer that Rav Shach gives is  this is not really a case of טומאה uncleanliness. but of prohibition. Only if we already know that she is forbidden, then it becomes a case of טומאה uncleanliness, but here we do not know in the first place if she is forbidden. 

Orchestra and piano from around 1994]

 x21 mp3 recent

x21 midi

x21 nwc

mathematics Orchestra and piano from around 1994]

mathematics midi file  mathematics nwc format

 Some people are inherently ambiguous. It is like Kant noticed about some areas in which Reason can not enter and if it tries it ends up with self contradictions "antinomies". So there are people like that..For Example General McClellan. The general that defeated Robert E Lee at Antietam you would imagine there could not possibly anything ambiguous about. The person that defeated one of the smartest and best generals in history has to be clearly a winner. But no. Right after that battle--immediately he was fired by President Lincoln. There are so many sides to this issue that the best of the historians can do is treat different sides of him. Never getting one consistent picture.

Other people are clear. They stand for one thing and pursue that consistently. [Like Winston Churchill.]

A confession--I am more like the first type. The only reason I tend to be consistent in my views is that that is something I learned in Musar books. [Starting from the Chovot Levavot (Obligations of the Hearts). But I also saw that in Orchot Tzadikim.] 

slander even refers to truth.

 Actually slander even refers to truth. There are times that one must say negative things but that is to warn someone. Otherwise even true fact are slander. [There are a few verses that refer to this subject. from different angles. One thing is "Rekilut" saying true things [even positive things] that can bring hatred between one person and another. [Like praising General Grant in front of General Lee.] Another thing is "Lashon Hara" which is saying negative things--even if true unless to warn someone.

[So why is true lashon hara forbidden? To R. Yona of Grondi [author of Shaarai Teshuva] is because of collateral damage. That is: the person might be subject to punishment that otherwise he would not get according to the Law of Moses. An example from the Gemara itself is testifying alone in a court of law. Since he is alone his testimony can not be accepted and so it is lashon hara. Some Rishonim disagree and hold that true lashon hara is forbidden in and of itself. Only in specific cases of the need to warn others is it permitted

[It is somewhat of a shock to me to see that most people do not even know that lashon hara is forbidden. 

 People that think Marxism was meant to bring prosperity and happiness to people have never read the poetry of Marx. But the actual way the Communists Manifesto is stated it sounds as if it is meant for happiness. Marx openly acknowledges the tremendous power of capitalism to create an abundance of good. But he also claims that that is just one last stage before communism in which the middle man the owner of the factory will be eliminated and the workers will have the full share of their labor. To him the factory owner is extracting excess value from the workers. [Based on the labor Theory of Value that the value something has is a result of how much labor went into making it. But that is simply not the case. The value something has is how much you want it. Air has lots of value to me even though no one put any effort into making it.]

That is a cleaver way of getting people to imagine that they have been victimized and the best solution is to kill the rich.

But the real intent I think is contained in the poetry of Marx -that is to destroy everything.

 x20 F Minor

x20 midi  

x20 nwc

So natural law is not the same thing as according to natural desire.

 Without Aristotle or Saadia, or Aquinas mentioning it in those particular passages that deal with specific sins, I believe they are all fitting natural law with their larger system of things having a goal or purpose. So what would not be natural law would be what does not go towards that purpose of being human. [They explain that as being basically what we would say is attachment with God.]

So natural law is not the same thing as according to natural desire.

[I am mentioning this because it is the source of John Locke's "Natural rights" which is a different way of stating the Ten Commandments. That is Thou Shalt Not Steal is the same thing stated in a different way of the fact that people have a right to their own property.