War is unpredictable. For some reason it seems that things were on the side of the North. In the battle of Chancellorsville, the Union general made an absurd mistake to give up a high ground with every possible military advantage  and go into the thick woods.  But it seems that mistake was the cause of General Stonewall Jackson being accidently shot and killed by his own men due to the darkness and thickness of the woods that made fighting in them incomprehensible. To that loss even General R.E. Lee more or less implied that after that,  the war was almost guaranteed to be lost.. 

Still it is hard to know. There is a verse in Proverbs ,"Woe to the land that a slave becomes its king." [as happened in the USA]. And there is a statement from the sages: "A person who does a favor for one who does not appreciate it is as one who throws a stone at Markulis." [Markulis is an idol whose worship was in the fashion of throwing stone at it.] And in the USA, it is hard to find a black person who is grateful to the USA for freeing them. Most hate the USA, and are determined to bring it down.  

I can not see why people don't learn Mathematics and Physics. Certainty most people are curious about the nature of reality.

 I can not see why people don't learn Mathematics and Physics. Certainty most people are curious about the nature of reality.  So why do they go into alternative subjects that they must know [at least subconsciously are mixed with delusions. Whether in politics or religion, what people say are poorly thought out delusions.- at least most.

All I can say is that they must think that these subjects [Mathematics and Physics] are too hard. So I suggest the saying the words in order and going on--- from the beginning to the end  and only after one has finished , then to review.

 And to believe that by saying the words/ the idea become absorbed in the subconscious.]

daughter of a Torah Scholar

 If you want to learn Torah there is this idea of the sages "to marry the daughter of a Torah "."

After thinking about this I can see that there is here not a hard fast rule. Good character is not the sole domain of daughters of Torah scholars. If fact, I was advised to take whom was available at the time who had been running after me for years. [Paula Finn.] And I think this was in fact a good choice. Rav Arye Kaplan was the first person to suggest to me to agree to marry her. I said, "But she is not a bat talmid chacham [the daughter of a Torah]! He answered, "If you wait for the religious, they will offer to you a baalat mum [one with a hidden defect.]".

He knew the reality of the religious as opposed to the abstract idea divorced from actual human beings.

[That is not the only example of his great skepticism about the religious world.]

On the other hand I must say that one needs to get married to a girl that is devoted to the idea  that her husband and children must learn Torah. If she is wishy washy about that, then it is hard to imagine one will learn Torah.

For the sake of clarity and openness  I should mention that I consider Physics and Mathematics as being in the category of Learning Torah as is clear in the Laws of Learning Torah in the Rambam, chapter 3 about the subjects defined in th first four chapters as eing in the category of Gemara.

Peah 2:11. But that initial stalk is considered by the Jerusalem Talmud to obligate., and thus not obligated

 The basic issue of "peah" is you are to harvest your field up until 1/60. That us all that unharvested standing corn in left for the poor. But lets say one is tempted to go beyond that boundary? He harvests the next stalk that is part of that 1/60. Then the obligation of peah goes to what was already harvested.

And in fact this is the case the Rambam is talking about in Peah 2:11. But that initial stalk is considered by the Jerusalem Talmud to obligate., and thus not obligated. So that whole 59/60 of the field becomes possible to be made into peah. [In peah one can made all except for the sheaf that beings the process. But he can not make less than 1/60.

So if he says all that I have harvested in peah that is valid since there is still that first sheaf that in not obligated .

What bothers me here is this. The initial stalk is what makes the obligation of peah go to the harvested wheat מן העומד לעומרים. Fine. And we are talking about where he simply went ahead and reaped the whole field. So now the question is why does the Rambam say is he makes most of it to be peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar? It should be 59/60. And if you would hold that that initial stalk of the 1/60 [that was supposed to be let alone and become peah with the rest of the 1/60]  is obligated in peah then fine so the next stalk is not and that is the thing that would make the whole 59/60 plus that one more stalk all possible to be made into peah. So the first question I have here is why does the Rambam not simply say then that if he makes the 59/60 into peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar [or the 59/60 plus that one stalk then it is not obligated in truma and maasar.] What is this "most" the Rambam puts there?

 [I am referring here to the answer of Rav Shach about this difficult Rambam which takes care of the issue to some degree but still leaves this gap between what should be 59/60  not "most". 

Also I admit that I am still mulling over this sort of odd state of affairs where he cuts into the 1/60 and then as per the Yerushalmi the obligation goes to the 59/60 that was already reaped. Let us say that first stalk is obligated in peah? then what makes the reaped sheaves into peah? Nothing. Everything else is standing! Or may that is the exact point of the Yerushami? So that first stalk is in fact not able to be made peah. But there are lots of other issues here which I am not sure if are issues or simply that I have not leaned the subject well.

If you are wondering then I will tell you: The issues that are bothering me are simply these: Surely not all the reaped sheaves are peah [the second he goes over the 1/60 line of demarcation. He has to declare them or some part of them to be peah. So what is left besides what he made peah could be the none peah part which makes the peah valid? And what is the law about what was standing at that minute? Presumably it can not be made peah even if he wants to? He can give it as a present to the poor but it will till be obligated in truma and maasar.

"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.]