It is an odd sort of fact that western sort of approaches have the parents being not very worthy of respect.--starting with the faith of the Greeks where the child of Chaos kills him and takes over the throne. Then his child kills him... etc. A whole series of children killing their father until you get to Zeus.

 This is so much different than Confucius where you find the root of all virtue is piety towards ones parents--emulating their ways and actually serving them in gratitude for all they did for him or her even much more before they can remember.

[One thing you see in Confucius is an important point-is that  baalei teshuva [people that have left the way of their parents in order to join the religious] are by definition wicked. And you can see this. This is the reason why the great yeshivas like Brisk do not accept baali teshuva-- after all, if they can abandon the path of their parents, they can not be stable decent human beings. [No matter how religious they imagine themselves.]

 I was reading a bit more about the wife of Rav Kinyevsky [she passed away 17 Tishrei] and noted an interesting fact. That he would make a sium [a small party in honor of finishing a tractate] every year on the whole Shas, that is the regular Gemara [Babylonian ] and also the Yerushalmi [Written in Tiberias] with the rishonim [medieval authorities] and some achronim [authorities after the Middle Ages]. That would be on the day before Passover. And the wine from that party would be called the sium wine and people would save it and later apply it as a remedy for different kinds of maladies.

It puts a sort of nostalgia in me for the golden years that I was in two great yeshivas where Torah was learned for its own sake.  [Both in NY , Shar Yashuv and Mirrer.]

[This however was not exactly like the path of my parents who had great respect for Torah, but their path was more along the line of emphasizing other aspects of Torah like "to be  a mensch"[decent human being], to be self reliant--never to ask or accept charity. My dad had gone to Cal Tech, and I certainly showed a lot of interest in following him in that path when I was young. 

So nowadays I try to walk in this sort of middle path of trying to learn Torah along with Math and Physics as I think my parents would have approved of.

Rav Kinyevsky  is the son of the Steipler who wrote some great books on Shas and who was one of the great sages of the Litvak world which walk more or less in the path of the Gra. (Not enough so , since they ignore the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I never got into the books of the Steipler since they were around in yeshivot when I was just trying to manage with Gemara Rashi and the Maharsha. Much less get into achronim. Only much later when I was learning with David Bronson did I learn --or relearn- the path of study in depth .

I should mention that learning Torah seems to require a wife that appreciates that approach. While the way of learning Torah for its own sake --and not receive money for doing so-still there a need for wife that appreciates this service of learning Torah. 

 A Zava (a woman who has seen blood more than seven days) needs living waters [-a sea or spring,-- not a regular mikve ( a place where rain waters have collected). So if we are worried about Ziva [seeing blood for longer than seven days]--which apparently we are since we require seven clean days, then why not also require a spring or sea? 

The wife of Rav Kinyevsky

I noticed in the book about the wife of Rav Kinyevsky a point about "bitul Torah". [Bitul Torah means not learning Torah when one can.] What I could gather from the book is that she held strongly to the idea that you see in the Gemara that a good wife is one who helps her husband to learn Torah. I forget the exact Gemara but from what I can recall it goes something like this: טל אורות טלייך ["The dew of lights is your dew."] Who will rise in the time of the revival of the dead? One who has the dew of Torah.  If so, then how can women merit to the revival of the dead? By enabling their husbands to learn Torah and by bringing up their children to learn Torah. 

So this is apparently what she did. There is brought lots of stories in that book showing this. She would heat and reheat the meals of her husband so that when he would get home it would be already warm so he could have his meal immediately and then get back to learning.  When there was almost nothing to eat, she would make a full meal for her husband and for herself have just bread and margarine. One time someone wanted to talk with her husband when he was learning and she said, "He is learning now." They countered this with, "What would be the big deal to spend a few minutes away from learning?" She answered "Do you want my husband to be an am haaretz (ignoramus)?"  

{I recall this sort of atmosphere at the Mir and in Shar Yashuv. However over the years I have taken a slightly different approach. That is what you see in some rishonim that Physics and Metaphysics and a part of the commandment of learning Torah.] [Even  the Gra held that ignorance of any fact in the seven wisdoms causes ignorance in Torah a hundred fold.]

 Even though there are great people like the Litvak sages, e.g. Rav Kinyevsky and others that are devoted to Torah for its own sake, still the religious world is a sort of nightmare. That is to say that some are sincerely devoted to serving God, still the general group character is a  kind of problem. There is a sort of attempt to present themselves as righteous as a group. This is obvious. Yet the fact is there are very few that are in fact like Rav Kinyevsky. The majority are just regular mammals. Not particularly good.

For a test run one ought to spend one day living in Mea Shearim and then see how all the love bombing is all a façade. I can think of no worse nightmare than the religious being in control.. And I know this from the experience of many, many people who have experienced what the religious world is really like minus all the pretense.

What is however true and great is the holy Torah, and that is in fact important. But the religious themselves are the in the business of using the appearance of keeping rituals of Torah to make money and gain power. They are as righteous as a Venus fly trap.

[If you are young and naïve there is a lot of effort spent on trapping you into a net in which there is no escape. But the reality is the religious world is a Kafkian nightmare. I hope than when I discuss the importance of learning and keeping Torah , that I do not sound as if I am giving any sort of approval of the religious world which is the opposite of Torah.]

Rav Elyashiv

 I am really not very aware of the great Litvak sages [gedolim] that are around nowadays. It is only by a sheer miracle that I have heard of Rav Shach.

But today I was in the Na Nach place and saw an interesting book about the wife of Rav Kinevsky. [Sadly she passed away this year.] [Rav Kinyevsky I think is the son of the author of the series of books called Kehilat Yaakov. I saw that book when I was in Shar Yashuv but did not have much of a chance to learn it.] 

At any rate there is a nice story I saw in that book. Rav Elyashiv is apparently one of the present day Litvak sages. [From what I understood from that book he is apparently a grandson of the Leshem, a commentary on the Eitz Chaim.] 

So the story goes like this. There is a fellow who was married for ten years but did not have children. So he and his wife agreed to divorce. Then right after the divorce, it turned out that she was already pregnant. That means there was no reason to divorce in the first place. But sadly enough he is a Koken [priest] so he is not allowed to remarry. A kohen can not marry a divorced woman as you can see in the Book of Leviticus [in the section of Emor].  So he went to Rav Elyashiv. Rav Elyashiv told him to go to the Western Wall. Though that seems to have  nothing to do with the problem at hand still this fellow had "faith in the sages" so he went there and prayed his heart out. Then someone there walked over to him and asked what he is crying about. He said, "It does not matter there is nothing anyone can do to help me." The fellow that walked over to him was stubborn and kept insisting that he tell him what is the matter. So finally he gave in and told him. That fellow that had walked over to him then said to him, "You need to go to your father." [His father was in a hospital in the USA]. This also seemed to have no bearing on teh issue at hand. Still in his confidence in the advice of Rav Elyashiv he decided to go visit his father.  When he got to the USA it was in fact close to the end of the life of his father. He got to the hospital.  When he walked into his father's room his father told him it is very good that he came just then because he had something to tell him that he had never told him before. But since he knew it was time to leave this world , he decided he must tell him. That he is adopted.  That means that he really is not a kohen in the first place. Thus he returned to Israel and remarried his wife.

 

 In Rav Shach's Laws of Gitin chapter 1 law 25 he brings Tosphot Gitin page 86. The Mishna says a divorce document with no witnesses but written by the hand of the husband is not valid. Tosphot says the reason is because of the time. Rav Shach explains that means Tosphot would be going by the present status to push the time of the divorce backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from teh death penalty.  So this is what Tosphot means. If the doc would be his own writing with no time on it we would think to put the time in the past and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to Tosphot this is only the opinion of R Meir (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not R Elazar (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like R. Elazar. So the law is the writing of his own hand with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to Tosphot.]

My question here is that even R Elazar might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that Rav Shach is holding that R Elazar goes by prior status  and R Meir by present status. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that Rav Shach is saying the argument about the status is what cause the argument about the writing of his own hand. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the signing witnesses is what causes the validity to depend on present status. 

[Sorry if I am being a bit short on details here. Just to fill in one issue that might cause confusion, let me say  that "status now" means what is the state of being now you assume goes back in time. Status from the being means going forward. So e.g. you have a married woman who commits adultery. Then shows up with a divorce doc. You do not know when it was given. If you go back the status now then you assume that what is the state now was probably the state as far back in time until the minute you know it was not the case. So At least there is a doubt that at the time of the act perhaps she was not married and therefore not liabe to the death penalty. But if you go by prior status then you assume she was married until the minute she shows up with the doc.]

___________________________________

 In רב שך's Laws of גיטין chapter 1 law 25 he brings תוספות גיטין page 86. The Mishna says a גט divorce document  כתב ידו is not valid. תוספות says the reason is because of the time. רב שך explains that means תוספות would be going by the present status חזקא דהשתא to push the time of the גט backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a גט divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from  death penalty.  So this is what תוספות means. If the גט would be his own writing with no time on it, we would think to put the time in the past, and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to תוספות this is only the opinion of ר' מאיר (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not ר' אלעזר (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like ר' אלעזר. So the law is the כתב ידו with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to תוספות. My question here is that even ר' אלעזר might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that רב שך is holding that R Elazar goes by חזקא מעיקרא  and ר' מאיר by חזקא דהשתא. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that רב שך is saying the argument about the חזקות is what cause the argument about the כתב ידו. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the עדי חתימה כרתי to depend on חזקא דהשתא. 

____________________________________________________________________________

בהלכות גיטין של רב שך פרק 1 הלכה 25 הוא מביא את תוספות גיטין עמוד פ''ו. המשנה אומרת כי  גט של כתב ידו אינו תקף. תוספות אומר שהסיבה היא בגלל הזמן. רב שך מסביר שפירוש התוספות הוא שהסטטוס הנוכחי חזקא דהשתא דוחף את הזמן של הגט לאחור בזמן. [הסיבה שיש זמן בגט היא מכיוון שהוא עלול להתחתן עם בת אחיו והיא עלולה לנאוף ומכיוון שהיא קרובת משפחתו הוא היה כותב מסמך גירושין אחרי זמן של הניאוף עם זמן מוקדם כדי להציל אותה מעונש מוות.] אז זה מה שתוספות אומר. אם הגט היה הכתיבה שלו ללא זמן עליו, היינו חושבים לשים את הזמן בעבר, וכך היא לא תחויב בעונש מוות על ניאוף. אך לתוספות זו רק דעתו של ר' מאיר (העדים החתומים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין), ולא ר' אלעזר (שהעדים הרואים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין). והחוק כמו ר' אלעזר. אז החוק הוא כתב ידו ללא זמן וללא עדים תקף. [כתיבת ידו שלו תופסת את מקומם של עדים לתוספות. השאלה שלי כאן היא שאפילו ר' אלעזר עשוי להחזיק שאנחנו הולכים לפי הסטטוס הנוכחי כדי לדחוף את זמן הגירושין אחורה בזמן. אני מתכוון לומר שרב שך קובע כי ר' אלעזר מחזיק  בחזקא מעיקרא ור' מאיר בחזקא דהשתא. אני חושב שזה לא משתמע בטיעון שלהם לגבי איזו קבוצת עדים גורמת לתוקף הגירושין. אבל אני יכול לראות שרב שך מכווין שהוויכוח על החזקות הוא הגורם לוויכוח על כתב היד. אך למרות זאת, קשה לראות כי הדעה  שעדי חתימה כרתי תלויה בחזקת דהשתא