Leonard Nelson

The thing about Leonard Nelson that I think is a bit off putting to people is that his approach of non intuitive immediate knowledge is thought to be a  species of psychologism. That is that truths of logic or science depend on the human mind. Well Dr. Kelley Ross shows that that is not what Nelson was saying at all. But Husserl attacks that problem head on. He brings three proofs against it.[in the first part of Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Teil: Prolegomena zur reinen Logik (Logical Investigations, Vol. 1)] 

The thing that I noticed  is Husserl's proof depends on there being absolute truth. That is, that there are truths that do not depend on the observer. And the best proof of that from what I have seen is John Searle's.  Searle shows that if all truth is relative it sinks into there being no truth at all by means of "dis-quotation." That is the "sentence snow is white", only if snow is white. (And  snow is white is true only if it is true with respect to a background in which things can be white or not white.) It is a short proof.  [It is good that Searle was attacked, since nowadays when universities attack someone, it just shows the greatness of that person.] 

I noticed there is a new Kant-Friesian on the horizon- Michael Cuffaro.   

The answer of Rav Shach for the Rambam Laws of Divorce chapter 3 law 9

[The idea here is that a divorce has to be written on a piece of paper that says "You are herby permitted to any man," and given into her hand or her courtyard. That is the basic essence of divorce. But I must add that it must be done in front of two witnesses. Also there is a decree of the scribes that the date should be on the document.]

 If  a husband gives a divorce  document to his wife and says that it will be valid after 30 days, and she puts it in an alley, and on the thirtieth it is still in the alley but after that it is stolen she is divorced.

This seems to be in contradiction to the Gemara in Ketuboth 86 which says the law of saying to one's wife, "This document of your divorce will be valid after 30 days," equals the law when one sells an animal and also says, "This sell will be valid after 30 days." In both cases if the object is in an alley on the thirtieth day, the transaction is valid. And the Gemara on page 82 says in the case of a sell that he must say "from now" and only then it is valid.

And in fact Tosphot says this exact fact. So the question is why does the Rambam ignore this and say "from now" only in the case of a sell, [but in the case of a divorce, he ignores this distinction.]

Rav Shach says because these are two different kinds of things. The divorce has to be in her domain or he hand and it is so on the thirtieth day. But the sell is valid by means of pulling the animal and that is no longer happening on the thirtieth day. The point of Rav Shach is clear. [The Magid Mishna says the difference is that the document in still around on the 30th day which is not the case with pulling. But it is not clear what that has to do with the need to say "from now."

[There is a possibility that this is what the Magid Mishna meant even though he did not say so openly.]

 x42 B flat major  x42 midi   x42 nwc

There are some laws that are from the sages [called "from the words of the scribes"]

 There are some laws that are from the sages [called "from the words of the scribes"] but not from the Torah itself. For most of these laws, the reason for them is known. [But for some of them there is some doubt. E.g. the laws of Mukza on Shabat. There is an argument as to the reason.]

In any case, most rishonim [mediaeval sages] hold when the reason for a law from the words of the sages no longer applies then the law itself is automatically null and void. [This is brought in Tosphot and in the Raavad in laws of Mamrim. There the discussion is about the first fruits that have to be brought to Jerusalem. The Raavad holds since the reason for that law no longer applies so the law no longer applies. 

You could apply this to marriage also. There is an argument if one is forbidden to marry someone from the Seven Canaanite nations or from all nations of idolatry. Since we do not hold from R Shimon Ben Yochai against the sages, so   לא דרשינן טעמא דקרא so only the seven nations are forbidden to the opinion of the Tur.  

 Okinawa should tell us a thing or two about the causalities that we could have expected in getting to mainland Japan. If 66 miles by 7 miles wide cost  95,000 Imperial Japanese Army troops and 20,195 Americans that were killed, then just dare to calculate what mainland Japan would have been like.

So the arguments against the American use of the Atom Bomb I think ignore the situation. Plus the arguments also ignore the issue of self defense. America was attacked --therefore it fought back as is the most basic human right of all--life.

And the demonstration is not a good argument since Japan was given a demonstration. That did not change anything. Then a second demonstration and that also changed nothing. Then the Russians invaded. And that is when the war cabinet assembled to discuss surrender. And even then there were not enough votes for a surrender until the emperor himself intervened and said that, "We are surrendering." [The military thought they still had a few aces up their sleeves--which is true. They had advanced airplanes in development. ] 

[The larger perspective here is this: The people entering this argument have a different purpose in mind. It is this. That whatever the USA does (or has done, or will do) is (was, and will be always) wrong. Their purpose is to disparage the USA at all costs. It does not matter what the subject is. It could be the American Indians or the Civil War or the Middle East. The one major principle of Leftist is always to disparage the USA.

 x41 G Major

Herem [חרם excommunication] of the Gra

 So why is it that the Herem [חרם excommunication] of the Gra is ignored? [That is his signature on the letter of excommunication.] I think it is because people do not realize that a herem is a regular halacha (law) based on nedarim נדרים (vows). The only question would be if a herem is made by someone qualified.  Clearly he was qualified. So it applies according to the strict law.

[Why do I say it comes from nedarim (vows). That is because I saw this in the commentaries on Laws of Shavuot and Nedarim.

So what is a neder (vow)? It is when someone says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to you like a karban."(קרבן sacrifice brought in the Temple) If that loaf belongs to the speaker, then the neder [vow] is valid, and the other person can not eat from that loaf. אדם יכול לאסור את שלו. So in the case of the Gra,  the herem was valid, and anyone transgressing it even until today  transgresses a prohibition of the Torah.

Rav Nahman I believe was a great tzadik and not under the herem. However he does not seem to have been aware of its validity.   So while `I think the best idea is to be part of a straight Litvak yeshiva, I can see the importance of following the advice of Rav Nahman in the many areas that he touches on. [Rav Nahman himself said a prophet knows only what is revealed to him. He is not "all knowing". It is a mistake to think of any tzadik as impervious to mistake--even the greatest like Moses as we see in the Torah in the case of the waters of Meriva

SO in short there are two reasons to be careful about the herem of the Gra. One: it matters not if one agrees with it. It still has halachic validity. Two: is refers to objective reality.

.