The problem with teachers of religion especially in the Jewish world is actually seen from ancient times. That is the false prophets that were documented in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. And you see this in the Mishna and Gemara. The Mishna brings that the prushim [Pharisees] were מכלי עולם (destroyers of the world). [The group of "prushim" ([Pharisees]) are often confused with the sages of the Mishna,- but these are not the same group. The prushim were the religious fanatics. That would be the religious today. This is the opposite of the sages of Mishna who were not trying to make a show of how religious they were, nor trying to use the appearance of Torah to get others to give them money.

[So even though Rav Nahman of Breslov brings up the problem of Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM Vol I ch 12, he is not the first one to notice this problem]

  Here I would like to answer the question I asked on רב שך.  The question was ר' יהודה and ר' שמעון both hold we go by the דרשינן טעמא דקרא, לר' שמעון תמיד ולר' רק כשהטעם נכתב בתוך הפסוק and yet come to opposite conclusions. The answer is this. ר' שמעון מחזיק  we go by both the reason and the literal meaning. You see this in the case in Sanhedrin כ''א ע''א. He says a king may not marry more than שמנה עשרה and also not even one that might turn his heart. It is ר' יהודה that says we go only by the reason when the reason is written.

So back to our subject about marrying a gentile woman. The reason ר' שמעון says not to marry any gentile woman is not because of going by the reason for the verse, but rather because that is the literal meaning of the verse. In that particular verse the seven Canaanite nations are not mentioned even though that is the larger context there. And if he would only go by the reason for the verse he would forbid only seven nations. And the reason ר' יהודה who is the תנא קמא forbids only seven nations is when the reason for the law is written in the verse he goes only by the reason which applies only to the seven nations since they are specially more attached to idolatry more than any other nations.  

כאן ברצוני לענות על השאלה ששאלתי על רב שך. השאלה הייתה שר' יהודה ור' שמעון שניהם מחזיקים שאנחנו הולכים דרשינן טעמא דקרא, לר' שמעון תמיד, ור' יהודה רק כשהטעם נכתב בתוך הפסוק, ובכל זאת מגיעים למסקנות הפוכות. התשובה היא זו. ר' שמעון מחזיק אנחנו הולכים גם לפי הסיבה וגם משמעות המילולית. אתה רואה זאת במקרה בסנהדרין כ''א ע''א. לדבריו, מלך לא יכול להתחתן יותר משמונה עשרה וגם לא אישה כזו שיכולה להפוך את ליבו. ור' יהודה אומר שאנחנו הולכים רק לפי הסיבה כשהסיבה נכתבת בפסוק. אז חזור לנושא שלנו על נישואין לאישה לא יהודיה. הסיבה שר' שמעון אומר שלא להינשא לאישה לא יהודיה אינה בגלל היותה של הסיבה לפסוק, אלא כי זו המשמעות המילולית של הפסוק. באותו פסוק שבעת העמים הכנעניים לא מוזכרים למרות שזה ההקשר הגדול יותר שם. ואם רק נלך לפי הסיבה לפסוק זה היה אוסר רק על שבעת האומות. והסיבה שר' יהודה שהוא התנא קמא אוסר רק שבעת האומות היא כאשר הסיבה לחוק כתובה בפסוק הוא הולך רק לפי הסיבה שמתייחסת רק לשבע העמים מכיוון שהם קשורים במיוחד לעבודת אלילים יותר מכל עם אחר

 Here I would like to answer the question I asked on Rav Shach in my previous two blog entries.  The question was R. Yehuda and R Shimon both hold we go by the reason for the verse and yet come to opposite conclusions. The answer is this. R Shimon hold we go by both the reason and the literal meaning. You see this in the case in Sanhedrin 21a. He says a king may not marry more than 18 and also not even one that might turn his heart. It is R Yehuda that says we go only by the reason when the reason is written.

So back to our sugia/ subject about marrying a gentile woman. The reason R Shimon says not to marry any gentile woman is not because of going by the reason for the verse, but rather because that is the literal meaning of the verse. In that particular verse the seven Canaanite nations are not mentioned even though that is the larger context there. And if he would only go by the reason for the verse he would forbid only teh seven nations. And the reason R Yehuda who is the Tana Kama [sages] forbids only teh seven nations is when the reason for the law is written in the verse he goes only by the reason which applies only to the seven nations since they are specially more attached to idolatry more than any other nations.  

There is an מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן יוחאי and the חכמים if one can marry a woman who is a gentile but not from the seven Canaanite nations יבמות דף כ''ג ע''ב.

 There is an מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן יוחאי and the חכמים  if one can marry a woman who is a gentile but not from the seven nations של כנען יבמות דף  כ''ג ע''ב. To the חכמים this is allowed since the actual verse forbids specifically the seven nations. And in fact that is how the טור decided the halacha which is against the רמב''ם. That verse says more or less לא תתחתן בם בתך לא תיתן לבנו ובתו לא תיקח לבניך Now ר' שמעון says this is not allowed since דורשין טעמא דקרא. The well known question here is clear. ההלכה היא שלא דרשינן טעמא דקרא

 Now רב שך answers based on a גמרא in סנהדרין. In an argument there on page כ''א ע''א the חכמים say a king can not marry more than eighteen wives לא ירבה לו נשים. Now ר' יהודה says he can have more as long as they do not turn his heart, i.e. he goes only  by the reason. ר' שמעון says you go by both the literal meaning and also the reason. So even one that turns his heart, he can not marry. And more than eighteen even like Abigail wife of king David. So what רב שך is saying is the Rambam in fact goes by the first sage תנא קמא not like ר' יהודה nor ר' שמעון. And when the גמרא says the תנא קמא of ר' שמעון can marry a gentile is meaning ר' יהודה. He would allow this because he goes the reason alone. רב שך is saying the verse itself he says is in fact talking about the seven nations but we do not care about that and rather go only by the reason which expands it to all gentiles. THAT IS he is saying the רמב''ם understands that גמרא in יבמות differently that we usually understand it. לי יש קשה. For to ר' שמעון  we go by the reason for the verse and so we forbid marrying all nations עובדי עבודה זרה עכו''ם. And ר' יהודה goes by the reason for the verse when the reason is written into the verse and so he forbids only the seven nations. So I have to admit I am confused here. I assume there must be a way of answering for רב שך but it does not occur to me this minute.  

יש מחלוקת בין ר 'שמעון בן יוחאי לחכמים אם אפשר להתחתן עם אישה שהיא גויה אך לא משבע האומות של כנען יבמות דף כ''ג ע''ב. לחכמים זה מותר שכן הפסוק אוסר רק שבעת האומות. ולמעשה כך החליט טור את ההלכה שהיא נגד הרמב''ם. הפסוק הזה אומר לא תתחתן בם בתך לא תיתן לבנו ובתו לא תיקח לבניך עכשיו  ר’ שמעון אומר שזה לא מותר בגלל שדורשין טעמא דקרא. השאלה הידועה כאן ברורה. ההלכה היא שלא דרשינן טעמא דקרא עכשיו רב שך עונה על סמך הגמרא בסנהדרין. בוויכוח שם בעמוד כ''א ע''א הוא כך. אומרים החכמים מלך לא יכול להינשא ליותר משמונה עשרה נשים לא ירבה לו נשים. עכשיו ר' יהודה אומר שהוא יכול לקבל יותר כל עוד שהן לא הופכות את ליבו, כלומר הוא הולך רק לפי הסיבה של הקרא . ר' שמעון אומר שאתה הולך לפי המשמעות המילולית וגם הסיבה. אז גם אחת שמסירה את ליבו, הוא לא יכול להתחתן איתה. ולא יותר משמונה עשרה אפילו כמו אביגיל אשת המלך דוד. אז מה שרב שך אומר הוא שהרמב"ם למעשה הולך לפי התנא קמא לא כמו ר 'יהודה ולא ר' שמעון. כשהגמרא אומרת שהתנא קמא של ר 'שמעון יכול להתחתן עם גוי פירושו ר' יהודה. הוא יאפשר זאת כי הוא הולך לפי הסיבה לבד. רב שך אומר שהפסוק עצמו הוא אומר מדבר על שבעת האומות, אך לא אכפת לנו מזה, אלא הולכים רק לפי הסיבה שמרחיבה את הפסוק לכל הגויים. כלומר הוא אומר שהרמב''ם מבין הגמרא ביבמות אחרת שאנחנו בדרך כלל מבינים את זה. לי יש קשה. כי לר' שמעון אנו הולכים לפי הסיבה לפסוק ולכן אנו אוסרים להתחתן עם כל העמים עובדי עבודה זרה עכו''ם. ור 'יהודה הולך גם לפי הסיבה לפסוק כאשר הסיבה כתובה לפסוק, ולכן הוא אוסר רק על שבעת האומות. זאת נראית סתירה  

An argument between the Tur and the Rambam if one can marry a woman who is a gentile.

There is an argument between R Shimon ben Yochai and the Sages if one can marry a woman who is a idolater but not from the seven Canaanite nations [Emori, Hiti, etc.] [Yebamot 36b]

To the sages this is allowed since the actual verse forbids specifically the seven nations. [And in fact that is how the Tur decided the halacha which is against the Rambam ] R. Shimon says this is not allowed since you go by the reason for the verse.

[That verse says more or less "Do not marry a woman from them (the context refers to the seven Canaanite nations) because they might tilt your heart"] 

The well known question here is clear. The law like the sages. 

Rav Shach answers based on a Gemara in Sanhedrin. In an argument there on page 21a the sages say a king can not marry more than eighteen wives [לא ירבה לו נשים] R Yehuda says he can have more as long as they do not turn his heart, i.e. he goes only  by the reason. R. Shimon says you go by both the literal meaning and also the reason. so even one that turns his heart he can not marry. and more than 18 even like Abigail wife of king David. So what Rav Shach is saying is the Rambam in fact goes by the first sage [Tana Kama] not like R. Yehuda nor R. Shimon. and when the Gemara says the sages of R. Shimon can marry a gentile is meaning R. Yehuda. he would allow this because he goes the reason alone. Rav Shach is saying the verse itself he says is in fact talking about the seven nations but we do not care about that and rather go only by the reason which expands it to all gentiles. THAT IS he is saying the Rambam understands that Gemara in Yevamot differently that we usually understand it.

I have to admit I am having trouble understanding Rav Shach. I definitely need to spend a lot more time on that section. For to R Shimon we go by the reason for the verse and so we forbid marrying all nations that worship idols [Akum]. And R Yehuda goes by the reason for the verse [when the reason is written into the verse] and so he forbids only the seven nations. So I have to admit I am confused here. I assume there must be a way of answering for Rav Shach but it does not occur to me this minute.  

[Just information for the general public. Idol worshipers means people that worship idols, not all gentiles. But because of the censors it is hard to know what the original Gemara was saying.

[Later note: In a later blog entry I answered this. The basic idea is that the argument in Yevamot is not between R. Shimon and the sages that always go by the literal meaning, but R. Shimon and R Yehuda who goes only by the  spirit of the verse when both are written. R Shimon goes by both when both are written. So back to our case: 

To R Shimon only the 7 nations are forbidden because of the spirit of the verse. To R Yehuda all nations are forbidden since the seven nations are not in fact mentioned openly in that specific verse. 

x40  E Flat Major

Schools of thought that have gone after Kant and other kinds of schools that have gone after Hegel.

 As is well known there has been a lot of  friction between the schools of thought that have gone after Kant and the other kinds of schools that have gone after Hegel.

Most of the critiques on Hegel seem to focus on his political ideas, and how the Communists took over parts of his ideas to justify their actions.

My feeling about all this is that the later schools that took off from Kant are mostly ready for the trash as Robert Hanna goes into excruciating  detail to show. [That is he shows the flaws of all the off shoots of Analytic philosophy of the 20th century.] His motto is "Forward to Kant". Yet I think that the school of thought of Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson is a great development of Kant.

[Some of the questions on Hegel were answered by Cunningham and McTaggart. I feel that there is no system that cannot be misused. So the fact that Hegel is not a socialist at all should count. He does not hold of government control of industry or property.] 

I would be happy if it was possible to take the good on the Kant Fries School of Nelson and Ross and at the same time not ignore the important contributions of Hegel.

So my point here is what is worth spending time on? I mean you only have  a certain amount of hours in each day. So to spend more time on philosophy than is really needed, I would rather not do. I want to get the best, and then move on to other things [the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and Physics] that I need more urgently. So to get a good picture of philosophy it is helpful to have people that are good at building a system or making improvements on existing systems. It is even more helpful to have people that can critique and show the flaws of some supposedly well thought out systems. For example Habermas showed his real genius in a short paper that blew Rawls's Theory of Justice out of the water. Robert Hanna nuked twentieth century philosophy. So by default who is left standing? Kant and Hegel. But there were plenty of detours that lead to dead ends like Marxism and other kinds of off shoots. So that is why I am saying Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson are the  best developments of Kant and Mc Taggart and Cunningham the best to show what Hegel is all about.