z6 music file

 z6 B minor

I would like to mention that Rav Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar [Ethics] seems to me to be very important. His point was that a lot of the essentials of Torah are forgotten  because of over much religiosity or sometimes the opposite. While we know from Musar that the essential aspect of Torah is to have good character traits, this point is often ignored or forgotten. And what is good character is well defined in the basic set of Musar from the Middle Ages אורחות צדיקים, חובות הלבבות, שערי תשובה, מעלות המידות, ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם. [ Ways of the Righteous, Obligations of the Hearts, Gates of Repentance, Greatness of Good Character.]  

[The books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter were for me very helpful in getting the idea since the books of the Middle Ages although great can be hard to get the idea.--since after all they are mediaeval.]  

[I might mention that I was aware of the basic idea of the Torah that the essential thing is "to be a mensch" (a decent human being). From my home and also before I got to the Mir in NY. Still one has to have musar to be able to define what good character is.]

וסוגיא בכורות דף נ''ו/ השאלה שיש לרב שך על הרמב''ם בהלכות שקלים

 

חשבתי על השאלה שיש לרב שך על הרמב''ם בהלכות שקלים. ואף על פי ששאלתי על כך עכשיו הצהיר לי להיות הגיוני. אז מאיפה אני מתחיל? תן לי קודם לומר את הנקודה של רב שך. אם נלמד כמו הרמב''ם את המשנה וסוגיה בכורות דף נ''ו באו לומר לנו יש ברירה. זה יהיה כל העניין של הרעיון שהאחים שמתחלקים ואז מצטרפים שוב אינם חייבים במעשר של בהמה. כלומר, הם נותרו חייבים אפילו כשהם מחולקים בגלל יש ברירה. קשה היה לי להבין למה אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם לא צריכים להיות פטורים אם אנחנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. עכשיו אני רואה את הטעם של רב שך .אנו יודעים שהאחים שמצטרפים מחדש הם פטורים. אבל כל העניין של המשנה הייתה לומר שרק כשהם מצטרפים שוב הם לא חייבים. אז המשנה הייתה צריכה לומר שהם [האחים המתחלקים] ממשיכים להיות חייבים עד שהם יצטרפו שוב. ואנחנו יכולים לראות מדוע אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם אינם מחויבים גם אם אנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. הסיבה לכך היא שהצטרפות חזקה יותר מ”יש ברירה”. יש ברירה רק אומר שכאשר הם מתחלקים זה לא כאילו הם קונים כי הם כבר היו מפוצלים בפוטנציאל. אבל זה לא הולך להצטרפות חדשה כי כל העניין של הפסוק שאומר לנו שאחים או שותפים שהצטרפו אינם חייבים. כלומר שני הפסוקים אומרים לנו חייבים רק בעלי חיים שנולדו לאחר שכבר קיימת שותפות. ועכשיו זו הצטרפות חדש

I might just mention for the sake of clarity that Rashi and the Raavad both hold that brothers that inherit are obligated in maasar behema and business partners are not. It is the Rambam that learns the subject differently because of his version in the gemara. 

 I was thinking about the question Rav Shach has on the Rambam in laws of Sheklim. And though i asked on it last week today it stated to make sense to me. So where do I start? Let me first say the point of Rav Shach. If we learn like the Rambam the mishna in bechorot 56 is coming to tell us there is choice. That would be the whole point of the idea that the brothers that divide and then rejoin are not obligated in the tithe of animals. That is that they remained obligated even while divided because of  "there is choice."  But then the simpler thing to do would have simply to say that brothers that divide are still obligated in maasar behema for sheep that were born while they were joined.

Before  it was hard for me to see why if they rejoin they should not be obligated any more if we hold "there is choice." Now I see the point of Rav Shach. In any case we know the brothers that rejoin are not obligated. But the whole point of the mishna was to say that only when they rejoin are they not obligated. So the mishna should have said they [brothers that divide] continue to be obligated until they rejoin. And we can see why if they rejoin they are not obligated  even if we hold there is choice. That is because the rejoining is stronger than there is choice. There is choice only says that when they divide that is not as if they are buyers because\ they were already in potential divided. But that does not go for a new rejoining because the whole point of the  verse that tells us that brothers or partners that joining are not obligated. that is the two verses tell us what comes into the partnership is not obligated. only animals what were born after there is already a partnership are obligated.

\\\

[The Raavad and Rashi learn that subject differently and to them these issues come out fine.]

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 I was thinking about the question רב שך has on the רמב''ם in laws of שקלים. And though I asked on it last week today it stated to make sense to me. So where do I start? Let me first say the point of  רב שך. If we learn like the רמב''ם the משנה וסוגיא in בכורות דף נ''ו is coming to tell us יש ברירה. That would be the whole point of the idea that the brothers that divide and then rejoin are not obligated in the tithe of animals. That is that they remained obligated even while divided because of  יש ברירה."  But then the simpler thing to do would have simply to say that brothers that divide are still obligated in מעשר בהמה for sheep that were born while they were joined. Before it was hard for me to see why if they rejoin they should not be פטורים if we hold יש ברירה." Now I see the point of  רב שך. In any case, we know the brothers that rejoin are פטורים. But the whole point of the משנה was to say that only when they rejoin are they not obligated. So the משנה should have said they [brothers מתחלקים] continue to be obligated until they rejoin. And we can see why if they rejoin they are not obligated  even if we hold יש ברירה. That is because the rejoining is stronger than יש ברירה. There is choice only says that when they divide that is not as if they are buyers because they were already in potential divided. But that does not go for a new rejoining because the whole point of the  verse that tells us that brothers or partners that joining are not obligated. That is the two verses tell us what comes into the partnership is not obligated. Only animals what were born after there is already a partnership are obligated. ועכשיו זו הצטרפות חדש

\\\

חשבתי על השאלה שיש לרב שך על הרמב''ם בהלכות שקלים. ואף על פי ששאלתי על כך עכשיו הצהיר לי להיות הגיוני. אז מאיפה אני מתחיל? תן לי קודם לומר את הנקודה של רב שך. אם נלמד כמו הרמב''ם המשנה וסוגיא בכורות דף נ''ו בא לומר לנו יש ברירה. זה יהיה כל העניין של הרעיון שהאחים שמתחלקים ואז מצטרפים שוב אינם חייבים במעשר של בהמות. כלומר, הם נותרו חייבים אפילו כשהם מפולגים בגלל יש ברירה. קשה היה לי להבין למה אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם לא צריכים להיות פטורים אם אנחנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. עכשיו אני רואה את הטעם של רב שך.אנו יודעים שהאחים שמצטרפים מחדש הם פטורים. אבל כל העניין של המשנה היה לומר שרק כשהם מצטרפים שוב הם לא חייבים. אז המשנה היה צריך לומר שהם [אחים מתחלקים] ממשיכים להיות חייבים עד שהם יצטרפו שוב. ואנחנו יכולים לראות מדוע אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם אינם מחויבים גם אם אנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. הסיבה לכך היא שהצטרפות חזקה יותר מ”יש ברירה”. יש ברירה רק אומר שכאשר הם מתחלקים זה לא כאילו הם קונים כי הם כבר היו מפוצלים בפוטנציאל. אבל זה לא הולך להצטרפות חדשה כי כל העניין של הפסוק שאומר לנו שאחים או שותפים שהצטרפו אינם חייבים. כלומר שני הפסוקים אומרים לנו חייבים רק בעלי חיים שנולדו לאחר שכבר קיימת שותפות. ועכשיו זו הצטרפות חדש

Faster than light travel

 I noted that some have suggest worm holes between black holes in the core of atoms. That was the first time time I had some indication that faster than light might be possible. But now I noticed that someone has noted a similar process https://physicsworld.com/a/spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/

 Copernicus did not predict new effects. Even his calculations were less accurate than that of astronomers working on the Ptolemy model.  But he explained things better. Rather than keeping on adding new rings he was able to make simple sense of the solar system by postulating that the earth goes around the sun.No new rings were needed.

Newton did not predict new effects. He simply explained the same force of gravity we see here on Earth is also in the heavens. It made more sense to explain the Kepler laws rather that leaving them unexplained. But there were no new predictions.

String theory explains things that do not and can not work in quantum gravity. That it has not be developed enough to know what new predictions at present day scales that can be tested  is not a lack. And it is testable.  See this: https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-gravity-could-soon-be-tested-using-ultracold-atoms/ So string theory or other approaches to gravity can be tested. 

Philosophy has been in a rut for some time. Robert Hanna's approach is to place pretty much everything since Kant into the waste basket.  ["Forward to Kant" is his motto.] And judging by the astounding emptiness of academic philosophy, who can blame him? But I still can see a lot of value in the Kant-Fries School of thought that takes an approach based on Kant, but diverges from him in some ways. And this school is so much ignored that even in lists of philosophers you will not even find Fries or Leonard Nelson mentioned.

But my own interest is in understanding my own experience in the world and making sense of it, [not to understand philosophy]. And for that I found the basis of the Kant-Friesian approach to be helpful.

I should add that the Fries approach and also the Nelson approach also have kinks that need to be worked out. I found that the web site of Kelley Ross does this job the best.  [and this seems to be thanks to the efforts of Greta Hermann.]  [Dr Ross is the best of all philosophers in over view and scope. but there is still plenty to learn from Huemer and Hegel. And I can see how some might say there are deep contradictions between them, but I can not see that. Humer bases himself  on the Intuitionists that reason is a faulty,--which is true. But that does not  contradict the subtleties of Kant. And Hegel does not deal with the Mind Body problem at all-. He sees the Notion as being the synthesis of both. But he  does not explain how and that is the very problem for those that deal with it. Hegel is not interested in that at all. He simply sees empirical and a priori knowledge as two outer sides of some inner coin.]  I still must say that Hegel has some good points that seem to be missed by this school of thought, plus the Intuitionists like Michael Huemer also have some points. They all seem to me to be some aspect of a deeper world view that I can not put my finger on exactly. 

{I truly feel guilty that I can not see the great chasm between Hegel and Fries. To me the whole issue is this: the Friesian school is a post Kant  Platonism. (That is the doctrines of Plato, but taking into account the three critiques). Hegel is a post Kant Plotinus. {That is Neo Platonism taking Kant into account.}