why my dad {Philip Rosten} doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. It is that the company TRW became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. S

 I just wanted to make clear why my dad {Philip Rosten}doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. The reason is not due to anyone's malice. It is simply that the company TRW more or less became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. So what ever  was developed at TRW was simply sold to the other aerospace companies [like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. ]. And that is the cause that the paper records of who developed the technology was lost.

[No one foresaw that TRW would eventually be rehabilitated and get back into the action in the 1990's] 

Nedarim 91

 I was hoping to have an answer for this question before I write it down. But so far nothing has occurred to me. So I might as well write it and hope that someday I might merit to some answer.

Simply put it is this. There is an argument between the Raavad and the Rambam concerning the case where a woman says to her husband "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the Raavad this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the Rambam, she can go and get married  and gets her ketubah. Rav Shach [Laws of marriage 16:26] brings the source of the Raavad. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the Rambam.

The source is Nedarim 91. The mishna says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her ketubah. One is a woman that says "I am forbidden to you." Then the sages changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. Rav Hamenuna said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed.

The parallel to the case of the mishna   to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her ketubah.

However Rav Shach I think is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the Raavad.

I mean to say that Rav Hamenuna's case is different anyway from the mishna--even the first mishna [before the sages changed their mind.] In the mishna we force him to divorce her. In the case of Rav Hamenuna we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the mishna a woman who is the wife of a priest that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband. She is forbidden to him. And since the rape was against her will, she gets her ketubah. The parallel of Rav hamenunah is when she says you divorc]ed me is not exact. To the Rambam She is believed and gets her ketubah. To the Raavad she does not. The aspect where the Rambam makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the Raavad is that she gets the ketubah because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

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

 There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם concerning the case where a woman says to her husband, "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the ראב''ד this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the רמב''ם, she can go and get married  and gets her כתובה. And רב שך in בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה  כ''ו  brings the source of the ראב''ד. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the  רמב''ם. The source is נדרים צ''א. The משנה says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her כתובה. One is a woman that says, "I am forbidden to you." Then the חכמים changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. רב המנונא said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed. The parallel to the case of the משנה  to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her כתובה. However רב שך is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the ראב''ד. I mean to say that רב המנונא case is different anyway from the משנה, even the first משנה [before the חכמים changed their mind.] In the משנה we force him to divorce her. In the case of רב המנונא we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the משנה a woman who is the wife of a כהן that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband.  And since the rape was against her will, she gets her כתובה. The parallel of רב המנונא is when she says you גירשת אותי is not exact. To the רמב''ם She is believed and gets her כתובה. To the ראב''ד she does not. The aspect where the רמב''ם makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the ראב''ד is that she gets the כתובה because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם בנוגע למקרה שבו אישה אומרת לבעלה "גרשתני". מאמינים לה. לראב''ד זה אומר רק שאם היא מתחתנת עם מישהו אחר, היא יכולה להישאר שם. לרמב''ם, היא יכולה ללכת להתחתן ולהשיג את הכתובה שלה. ורב שך בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה כ''ו מביא את מקור הרב''ד. השאלה שלי היא שמקור זה נראה יותר לצד הרמב''ם. המקור הוא נדרים צ''א. המשנה אומרת בהתחלה היו שלושה מקרים בהם אישה יוצאת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. אחת מהן היא אישה שאומרת: "אסור לי עליך". ואז החכמים שינו את דעתם ואמרו שאולי היא שמה עיניים למישהו אחר. רב המנונא אמר כי עם זאת מאמינים באישה שאומרת "התגרשתי ממך". נראה שההקבלה למקרה של המשנה מרמזת כשהיא אומרת ש"התגרשתי ממך", מותר לה להינשא מחדש ולקבל את הכתובה שלה. עם זאת רב שך מציין כאן שבמקרה של "התגרשתי ממך", אנו לא גורמים לו לתת גט נוסף. אנחנו פשוט מאמינים לה. אז זוהי במובן הזה הוכחה לראב''ד. אני מתכוון לומר שמקרה של רב המנונא בכל מקרה שונה מהמשנה, אפילו המשנה הראשונה [לפני שחכמים שינו את דעתם.] במשנה אנו מכריחים אותו לגרש אותה. במקרה של הרב המנונא אנחנו פשוט מאמינים שהיא גרושה

העניין הוא שלמשנה אישה שהיא אשתו של כהן שנאנסה חייבת להתגרש מכיוון שהיא אסורה לבעלה. ומכיוון שהאונס היה בניגוד לרצונה, היא מקבלת את הכתובה שלה. ההקבלה של הרב המנונא היא כשהיא אומרת שאתה גירשת אותי לא מדויק. לרמב''ם היא נאמנת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. לראב''ד היא לא. ההיבט שבו הרמב''ם הגיוני הוא לעניין קבלת הכתובה. הנקודה של הראב''ד היא שהיא מקבלת את הכתובה במשנה כי היא נאנסה ולכן לא עשתה שום דבר רע. אין לזה מקבילה למקרה שלנו כשהיא אומרת שגרשתני

Rav Nahman has this great idea of talking with God as one talks with a good friend. But to him it was not a casual conversation. For example he would go out in the morning to some secluded spot in the forest and spend the whole day asking God to come close to His service. And I took this idea to heart when I first arrived in Safed. [This did not last long--but the basic idea has remained with me about the importance of this sort of conversation with God.] But I also realize it has to flow out of some deep level under the layer of normal consciousness.

[That is there is some surface level of consciousness. That is the stream of thoughts. Then there is the level under that--the one doing the  thinking. Then under that there is some level that is even hidden from that level. This is commonly called the subconscious--discovered by Leibnitz. [Attributing to him by Nietzsche.] 

Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,

 I think China lost world respect by means of its actions in Hong Kong.  Or put more clearly,- it lost its ability to make friends. It has lots economic power, but not friends. I mean just think about how many friends has in South East Asia?  On the other hand, think about friends of the USA. Especially in that region. Australia and Japan and Taiwan. But in terms of just the simple fact of how many the sorts of liberal democracies are  allies of the USA. So the fact that everyone saw what was done to Hong Kong, how many Western democracies would help China in any future conflicts?

This could be corrected by keeping their word as to respecting the rights of Hong Kong as they promised when Britain gave them control.

[Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,,,   as you can see in the history of the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens. It is not a matter of how many pencils China can produce. It is a matter of how may people have confidence in their word of honor. If they do not tell the truth, then the pencils do not matter.

Civil War

I have been looking at the Civil War and it seems to me the South was right from a Constitutional point of view. "Perpetual union" was mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, but not the Constitution. The union of states in the Constitution is a voluntary union. Thus, the South could leave.

 And as for the issue of slavery,  lots of people have to work. I do not see that as some great evil. [Though it is better to learn Torah. --I mean to say that there is such a thing as one accepting on himself the yoke of Torah, and then there is removed from him the the yoke of work and government. There is also trust in God. But there is nothing wrong with work.  Just the opposite. The fact that welfare recipients force work out of the working population to get free money seems to me to be  wrong.--even if they can get the government to force the issue. That does not make it right.  -( It goes against the "general welfare" clause about what taxes can be used for.) Even if the majority of the people want it, it still is unconstitutional. For welfare to be constitutional , you would have to change the Constitution, and leave out the general welfare clause. 

[Just an added thought: the general welfare clause is for what Congress can make taxes for. One of them is the general welfare which means not to tax one segment of the population (like working people) to benefit a different segment.  ( e.g., those who are not working.) It has to be "general welfare"- that which benefits all. This is just common place knowledge in Constitutional Law about what that clause is meant for.

three tribes of Indians on the east part of Ohio. (Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware) ערוגה בת ששה טפחים על ששה טפחים

 Did it ever occur to you that the mishna ערוגה בת ששה טפחים על ששה טפחים seems a bit strained. 

[Five types of vegetables can be planted in a plot of land 6 handbreadths by 6 handbreadths]

Why plant five types of beans or vegetables in a plot of land that is a square foot? Well, the answer is there were three tribes of Indians on the east part of Ohio. (Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware) Their practice was to plant corn --their main stable. When it sprouted a little they would make a little mound around it and plant beans on that hill. That kept the soil in place [and added nitrogen to the soil afterwards)]. Then planted pumpkins over it--that gave shade and prevented weeds.

So these three crops ["the three sisters"] were in a sort of symbiotic relation. So you can see that planting certain kinds of beans or vegetables in close proximity can be a great help-so one does have to be able to do this without transgressing mixed kinds of vegetables. [So the geometric shapes discussed in that mishna become very practical. --The mishna says 5 types can be planted  there but they have to conform to the restriction that each be not actually mixed with the other.

Litvak yeshiva

 Simchat Torah in Shar Yashuv was a profound experience for me. You could feel the love of Torah just permeating the air. That of course was a result of the fact that he whole year the love of Torah permeated the whole place. It was not just for one day. And that same point I think could be said about most any Litvak yeshiva. However I am sure who ever is reading this must have some complaints about the Litvak yeshiva world. [I have my own list and I am sure everyone else must have a similar list.] 

What sets the Litvak yeshiva apart are the ideas of the Gra. But we also know that these places do not follow the Gra in every respect. Thus, my suggestion is this: whatever you or I see as a lack in the Litvak yeshiva world is a direct result of their not following the Gra in every respect. [And I have in fact seen this. The problems I have seen are in fact related directed and result directly from the divergence from the Gra.] The answer thus is simple. They ought to follow the Gra in every respect, not just some respects.