"shver Rambam" [hard Rambam] Peah 2:11

I was not thinking about that "shver Rambam" [hard Rambam] Peah 2:11 at all. Sadly to say I was just lazing off at the beach. But now and then it occurred to me to wonder what he could mean? And what is the answer of Rav Shach to explain him?  Oddly enough right before I drifted off to sleep, the answer hit me.

The answer is this. I knew Rav Shach suggested that that Rambam is based on the Yerushalmi. And now I see what this means. If one reaps the whole field, he is supposed to leave 1/60 as the edge/peah for the poor. If he then goes ahead and reaps one sheaf of the 1/60 then the obligation of peah switches from the standing sheaves to the  stacks that he harvested. The question the Yerushalmi asks then is what is the law about that first sheaf? Is it obligated in peah?

That Yerushalmi is the reason the Rambam writes "If he makes most of the field that he harvested as peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar."[The whole statement is if he reaped the whole field he can still give the peah from what is reaped. And if he makes most of what was reaped as peah that is valid and not obligated in truma and maasar.]] That is referring to our case. He reaped the first sheaf of the 1/60. The obligation went to the stacks. But he said "all that is harvested is now peah." Well if that first sheaf of the 1/60 is also obligated in peah then there is nothing left to be not peah. Therefore the Rambam is poskining/deciding that first sheaf is not obligated in peah. So when peah goes over to the stacks, that has validity as peah and therefore not obligated in truma and maasar.   And that is 59/60 of the field. Which is the majority of the field. [The problem was what is this majority? Why not say if he harvested his field and made all of it except for one stalk as peah that has validity as peah and it is all not obligated in truma.]

music file z45

 z45 D Minor  z45 in nwc

morals are objective.

 I have been having a debate on the blog of Michael Huemer about rights and the issue of government came up. I just wanted to say that my idea about government is what I think John Locke meant [even though I do not recall seeing it stated openly in the Two Treaties]. That is this: in the state of nature man has rights. [That is not hard to see that some principles of morality are objective. We do not think it is right to torture millions of people for the fun of it is okay. So there is an objective right of millions of people not to be tortured for the fun of it. Even if someone might do that, it still is wrong.]

But we give up some of our rights in order to form a government. Even though the government is formed to preserve our rights still some of our rights we agree to relinquish in order to have a government in the first place. E.g we agree to have judges instead of deciding argument ourselves. We agree the government can make laws for the common good instead of our deciding our own good and acting on that by ourselves. etc. 

[I am also saying that morals are objective. This is well argued by Huemer in some of his papers on his web site and all those arguments are put together in his book Ethical Intuitionism.] 

This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "

What is called mysticism is thought to have great insights into spiritual reality. This is obviously a mistake since it is too mixed up with falsehood.  While I do agree that the Ari and Rav Nahman had great spiritual insights, that has nothing to do with the basic question. A person can have great spiritual insights because of their work and efforts in learning Torah and in separating himself from the vanities of this world. But that has nothing to do with "Mysticism".

Better it is to stay away from the self deluded.  This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "

Delusion of the religious is, "Because we are strict in certain rituals, therefore we are smarter, more moral, and more holy than anyone else." [And the corollary to this axiom is "And thus we are not begging for charity as it seems we do all the time. Rather we are asking for what is justly ours since we uphold the whole world."]

One aspect of this delusion is the idea that the religious are more moral than anyone else. But experience shows this to be false. They seem nice until you ask for a favor (after you have done tons of favors.]) 

[I hope it is clear that I do not mean to cast aspersions on the truly sincere or the great Litvak yeshvot which are far from all these faults. Rather my hope is to warn the naïve about what is all too obvious to those with experience. And in the Torah there is a specific command ""Do not stand by the blood of your neighbor"אל תעמוד על דם רעיך

the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson

 Once John Searle makes it clear that he thinks the whole problem that started "Idealism" in Berkley is a mistake that caused philosophy to sink into the mud for 300 hundred years is a mistake [See5:16 of this video]-a simple mistake in the word "aware".[The idea is that we are only aware of the picture of an object that we have in our mind] [The logical fallacy of ambiguity, aware of an external thing. Aware of an inner thing.] This lends a lot of support to ideas of Huemer that we have direct awareness of what we see and feel. Otherwise you might say that most of us simple people have not the wherewith all mental capacities to understand the deep logic of the philosophers. However I have been aware of this issue for a long time, I still think the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson  still have very important points. And all the more so that there is no evidence to say that Hegel agreed with Berkley at all. Just the opposite. I have always thought that his point is the exact point of Huemer that we have direct awareness of the real world and the mistake of the later philosophers is just misuse of the double meaning of the word awareness.

The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible.

 How is it that Marxism is so entrenched the English departments of American universities? The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible. Even as freedom was granted to the republics, there was an attempt to keep Communism. The result was the Russian people elected to have Yeltsin and freedom. Clearly those who knew a thing or two about the joys of Socialism decided it was nothing like its promises.

Laws of Peah 2:11 See Rav Shach

 There is an extremely puzzling Rambam that I have no idea how to deal with. It is this statement "If he gives most of the peah to the poor then that part is not obligated in truma and maasar." [Truma is what is given to priests. Maasar is the tithe given to Levites]

I would like to show what is hard to see in this. Normally if one has a field he must leave 1/60 for the poor at the edge. [That is he must leave of what is standing.] But lets say he reaps the whole field. Then he gives the same amount to the poor [from the reaped sheaves even though he was supposed to give from the standing grain]. The Rambam brings this law and then adds this phrase, "If he gives most of the field as peah, that which he gives is not obligated in trumah and maasar.]"

Obviously he can give the whole field as peah except for the first stalk that he cuts. He cuts the stalk and then automatically he is required to give a "edge" peah of the field. [And that edge is not obligated in Trumah nor Maasar], So what is this "most". Why not just "all except that stalk"?