Gemara in Zevachim pg 6.

  The book called "Torat Kohanim" [behukatai 12 perek 5] [which is from the sages of the Mishna but not included in the Mishna. Written around 160 A.D.] asks how do you know one the receives the second tithe as an inheritance can redeem it? Answer: הכתוב אומר גאול יגאל he will surely redeem it. [The extra word comes to include not just the owner but also one that inherits from him. ]

This has a  difficulty in getting it to correspond to the Gemara in Zevachim  pg 6.

The Raavad there explains that Braita in two ways. One way is that it is going according to "the second tithe is the money of the owner". The other is "the second tithe is the money of heaven"

The second way seems  fine. But the first way --which works in its place does not seem to fit that Gemara. Rav Shach has an answer for this difficulty in Laws of Temura,

The Gemara in Zevachim says How do we know that one who inherits an animal that has been dedicated as a sacrifice can do Temura [An illegal exchange which nonetheless puts holiness on the second animal]? Because the verse says "he shall surely exchange". המיר ימיר. [And that should work for the second tithe also.] But in terms of temura, only one inheritor can make an exchange, not two. That is they are not partners in ownership. Rather they own as far as "forgiveness of sin" is concerned. That is: they bring the animal that their father or mother left to them as an inheritance But not as joint owners but as far as accomplishing the sacrifice. 

This Gemara does not seem like the opinion of light sacrifices and or the second tithe are property of their owners, not of heaven.

Rav Shach says that is only in the very end of that Gemara does that conclusion arise, not in the middle discussion. But I can not see how even the end of that Gemara can be in accordance with "light sacrifices are the property of their owners." 

Later I saw what Rav Shach says. It is this: the end part of that Gemara means that light sacrifices are the property of their owners means property as far as forgiveness for sin goes. Not monetary ownership. This answers my question completely.

So from the side of 'light sacrifices are the property of heaven" it all makes sense: one inheritor can do exchange because to do exchange one does not need to own the animal but rather to be the one that is receiving forgiveness for sin.[Just two inheritors are excluded by means of the verse.] And two inheritors can bring the flour offering because they do not own it at all. And maasar sheni they can do"hilul" make a valid exchange because of the verse that includes inheritors and it can not include them as owners because maasar sheni is the property of heaven, so it must include them as being able to make exchange.

But from the side of "light sacrifices are the property of the owners" the way I think Rav Shach is explain this is that the owners only own the animal in so far as forgiveness of sin is concerned. But maasar sheni comes out well. But what about the flour offering that can be brought only by one individua;? So I am still pondering what Rav Shach means here.

But in the meantime I just want to add a bit of info. the first tithe everyone knows about. You have a field of grain. You take 1/10 and give it to a Levi. The next tithe is in years 1,2,4,5 of the Sabatical cycle. That means to take the next 1/10  of what is left and take it to Jerusalem and eat it within the walls of the city.

But if that is too much to take there you can redeem it. You take a coin and say the holiness of these fruits and or grains of maasar sheni the second tithe is by this declaration now upon this coin. Then you take the coin to Jerusalem and there you buy fruit or grain and eat there. [That is called redeeming the second tithe maasar sheni][You can find this procedure in the Bible in the Book of Deuteronomy.]

Religious fanaticism takes up too much bandwidth. The Evil Inclination is dressed in mitzvot.

religious fantasticism takes up too much bandwidth. [note 1] Even if one manages to get to authentic Torah, still religious obsession tends to sidetrack.[note 2]

That is the reason for Torah with the way of the Earth. Torah with Derech Eretz.

{All the more so that religious fanaticism is not coupled to truth. It is an epiphenomenon of a schizoid personality as Robert Sapolsky mentions in one of his lectures.) 

[note 1] What I mean is it leaves no room for other positive areas of value. You might be concentrating on Tosphot, which is great and important, but then you might find you have no mental energy to concentrate on anything else.

[note 2] See  the LeM vol I, perek1 of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman,"The Evil Inclination  is dressed in mitzvot." The evil inclination does not come and says to do evil for its own sake. 

For I do not trust any totalitarian system.

 A lot of people in Ukraine were pro USSR. I was very surprised by this since I thought that everyone would have been happy to be free of the yoke of Communism. But most people were unhappy with the chaos that came after that. [Areas in each city became subject to some mafioso]. Still if the orientation is towards the West, that ought to be embraced.

For I do not trust any totalitarian system. So when England handed Hong Kong over to China, I never thought for one minute that would end up in anything but disaster and tragedy. I never had any illusions when Venezuela became socialist that that would end up in anything but mass famine. 

I just do not trust any totalitarian system, no matter if it comes from the Left or the Right. I can see on one hand, when there is chaos, that you need some sort of rule of law to impose order. So instead of chaos, I can see why in the Ukraine people would always say the USSR was better. But that does not mean they would not rather have the rule of law and a Western sort of Democracy --as long as there is order and peace. So I do not trust China at all, and do not for  second believe in any of her intentions in the South China Sea nor in Taiwan.

[Even in High School when I read the Communist Manifesto I was totally unimpressed. Not everything that someone owns was gained by theft. Is the computer you are reading this on was gained by theft? Did you exploit someone to get it? Probably not.] So why think all private property is theft?

[I believe that there should be order just enough for people to be safe and proper, but not more. After there is peace and rule of law, people must be free.

the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation are the subjects that the Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics

 In the book (Nefesh Hachaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin) of the disciple of the Gra  we find [volume 4] the importance of learning Torah. He brings this from many statements of the Chazal [Sages]. So the idea you find in the Litvak yeshiva world about the prime importance of learning Torah is not made up or pulled out of a hat. It is a basic axiom of the Sages. 

The only thing in which I differ is Mathematics and Physics which you find are thought to be  part of the commandment of learning Torah in some rishonim. Mainly Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam but hints to this opinion exist in other rishonim as well.

The in Guide for the Perplexed you find the Rambam saying that the work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation are the subjects that the Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics. [He repeats this same idea in the Mishna Torah--so it is not just something he decided towards the end of his life.]

[Not that I can do any learning myself anymore. So I figure even if I can not do what is best and good, why should I not want my friend to know and do what is right? And who knows if perhaps someday God may grant to me to get back to learning?] 

The American Civil War.

I figure that the Supreme Court could have been appealed to if the South had not seceded from the Union. But even if they did, the North did not recognize that as being valid. So the South always had a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. And what could the North have said? That it was legal for some states to wage war on other states because they did not like some of their practices?

I guess the role of the Supreme Court as being the arbitrator of Constitutional issues had not been firmly established by that point. 

[Besides I can not figure out what the North was thinking. If the Southern States were still part of the Union, then how could one state make war on another? Is not that a  violation of the Constitution? (And so what if the president orders it? So what? That does not make it legal.) So the North must have thought the South had legally seceded. Okay. Then they had seceded. Fine. End of Story. [I am not ignoring Fort Sumter. True that it had been attacked, but the North was not fighting the South to take back Fort Sumter!!]

(As General R.E. Lee put it ironically in one of his letters (I forget which one), the issue of secession had been "decided by arms."---i.e., it had not been decided at all.] 

music file z54

z54 A minor   z54 nwc

Zevachim page 6 side A.

I apologize for not writing on Torah for awhile. At any rate, I wish now to share an issue that I have still not worked out but just as a beginning I still want to mention.

There are basically two issues which I have not worked out. One is that light sacrifices are the money of the owner. (קדשים קלים ממון בעלים לפי ר' יוסי הגלילי)Plus if one is not able to inherit a sacrifice then it should be the same with maasar sheni (I imagine). And we know that two inheritors can redeem maasar sheni.

What I mean to say is Zevachim page 6 side A. A inheritor can make exchange but not two inheritors. (יורש ממיר. אחד ממיר ולא שנים ממירים ) Not because of owning  jointly, but because they do not own the animal at all. Proof: R. Yochanan said a two inheritors of a flour offering can bring it. Why is this so? Is it not the case that only an individual can ring a flour offering? Answer: they do not own it at all. But if so then why can one inheritor make exchange? Because while in terms of monetary value, the inheritors do not own the sacrifice, but in terms of forgiveness of sin, they do.

So my first question is obvious. The second one maybe not so much Still I am mulling these issues over. I imagine Rav Shach must have an answer for these difficulties, if I can get around to seeing what he says.

[I might mention here that exchange of an animal dedicated to be a sacrifice is not allowed. But if one does it anyway, the second animal becomes holy--in so far that it is not sacrificed but is not allowed to be used for work or shearing.

The second maasar can be redeemed by two inheritors even though the same  kind of verse applies אם גאול יגאל

אם המיר ימיר