a decree that is not accepted by all Israel has not validity

Ezra made a decree not to give the first tithe to the tribe of Levi (but rather to the kohanim priests) because they did not come with him to Jerusalem. This decree was ignored as there are plenty of places in the Gemara where maasar [tithe] was given to a Levi. That includes the famous event of Rabban Gamliel and his friends were on a ship and he separated the first tithe to give to R. Yehoshua who was a Levi.

This fits well with the law stated in the Gemara that a decree that is not accepted by all Israel has not validity. Even is so even though at first it was thought that the decree was accepted, and then the courts went out and checked and saw that people did not in fact accept it.

The implication for us nowadays is that we ought to concentrate on keeping the laws of the Torah which are divine, and be aware that much of what people think are obligatory decrees from the later sages are no longer applicable since most of Israel do not abide by them.  [That is the case even though the religious imagine that only they are Israel and everyone else is a goy.]

But even though Forward to Kant looks like a very good development, still I would be more happy if Hegel was included

 There is a movement in Philosophy to get back to basics. Back to Kant. Or "Forward to Kant" as Robert Hanna puts it. Very different from the Post Kantians. But also not taking Fries and Leonard Nelson into account. But at least the destitute Analytic Philosophy about words is over. The sooner the better.

Still there is still the tendency to see Kant as being all about the human mind, not about access to the ground of Being-as a way to get beyond us humans into what is actually the basis of actual reality.

But even though Forward to Kant looks like a very good development, still I would be more happy if Hegel was included. (And why is it that there are no more Right Hegelians? To me this looks odd since the simple reading of Hegel I think is a kind of modification of Plotinus.

the vaccine is concerned I think it intends to reduce world population

 As far as the vaccine is concerned I think it intends to reduce world population from seven billion to five billion. And probably much lower. I do not see it (or them) as having any medical value at all. All Covid is is a mild cold. And the vaccines do nothing to reduce it except to make people sick from the vaccine.

Gemara in Zevachim pg 6a. גמרא בזבחים ו ע''א.

 There seems to be some sort of inherent difficulty in the We say the inheritors of a sacrificial animal can do exchange only if they own it. But they can not own it in its monetary value because we know the flour offering can only be brought if it is owned by one person and not two, and the inheritors can bring the flour offering that they have inherited. So we say they own the sacrifice only in so far as forgiveness of sin. This looks like the opinion ''light sacrifices are the money of Heaven.'' But the Gemara also brings the same kind of verse for the second tithe and there the inheritors can do "hilul" to have the value of the tithe settle on money, and that has to be because of a special verse that includes them, but not because they own it in terms of forgiveness of sin.

[This is a question that Rav Shach asks on the Raavad but it seems to fall on the Gemara itself.]

The only answer I can see is maasar sheni is secular while light sacrifices are the money of Heaven.

_________________________________________________________________________________

 There seems to be some sort of inherent difficulty in the גמרא in זבחים ו ע''א. We say the יורשים of a בהמה המקודשת לשם קרבן can do תמורה only if they own it. But they can not own it in its monetary value because we know the מנחה can only be brought if it is owned by one person and not two, and the inheritors can bring the flour offering that they have inherited. So we say they own the קרבן only in כפרה. This looks like the opinionקדשים קלים הם ממון גבוה.'' But the גמרא also brings the same kind of verse גאול יגאל for the מעשר שני and there the יורשים can do "חילול" to have the value of the tithe settle on money, and that has to be because of a special verse המיר ימיר  that includes them, but not because they own it in terms of כפרה. This is a question that רב שך asks on the ראב''ד but it seems to fall on the גמרא itself. The only answer I can see is מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט  while קדשים קלים ממון גבוה.

נראה שיש איזה קושי מובנה בגמרא בזבחים ו ע''א. אנחנו אומרים שהיורשים של בהמה המקודשת לשם קרבן יכולים לעשות תמורה רק אם הם הבעלים שלה. אבל הם לא יכולים להחזיק אותו בערכו הכספי כי אנחנו יודעים שאפשר להביא את המנחה רק אם הוא בבעלותו של אדם אחד ולא שניים, והיורשים יכולים להביא את מנחת הקמח שהם ירשו. אז אנחנו אומרים שהם הבעלים של הקרבן רק בכפרה. זה נראה כמו הדעה שקדשים קלים הם ממון גבוה. אבל הגמרא מביא גם את אותו סוג של פסוק גאול יגאל עבור מעשר שני ושם היורשים יכולים לעשות חילול [כדי שערך המעשר ייקבע בכסף], וזה חייב להיות בגלל פסוק מיוחד המיר ימיר שכולל אותם, אבל לא בגלל שהם הבעלים שלו מבחינת כפרה. זו שאלה שרב שך שואל על הרב''ד, אבל נראה שהיא נופלת על הגמרא עצמו. התשובה היחידה שאני יכול לראות היא מעשר שני זה ממון הדיוט בעוד קדשים קלים ממון גבוה.

Ukraine-Russia

 There is some aspect of the Ukraine-Russia subject that is inherently ambiguous.

When I first got to the Ukraine I was more than shocked to discover that no one was happy about the fall of the USSR. No one. They may have not liked totalitarianism [which the USSR was], but they liked chaos even less. The West however turned a deaf ear to the attempts of the Ukraine to join the West. Probably because of the well known tendencies. Even after being there for some period [that I think was long enough for me to gain some familiarity with the situation], I still have little idea of what the West should do. And besides that, as David Bronson [my learning partner] mentioned to me once, it seems that Russia is becoming more of a  bastion of Western Values even more than the USA. 

But still it is hard to know, since the political part of Ukraine still openly is trying to integrate with Europe and the USA.

One thing is clear, the people and the politics are two very different things. 

The situation in most Ukrainian cities was such that after the USSR, and you asked people when was better, they almost always said things were better in the time of the USSR. But like the time of the civil war of the Whites against the Reds, neighbors would kill each other when they thought their neighbor was on the other side. {I knew the people this happened to.} So even if people would prefer to be back to the way things were during the USSR, they dare not say so openly. --Except to someone like me that they knew would not tell their neighbors about their feelings. There however were exceptions--people that told me if Russia would show up there, they would take a rifle and shoot them.

So what you have is a sort of Hidden Civil War--hidden because it is unknown and hidden from public view. And the Russians were well aware of this from at least back to around 2012.

אהיה אשר אהיה. I will be that I will be. (In King James it is "I Am")

 אהיה אשר אהיה.  "I will be that I will be" is future tense. (In King James, it is "I Am") Unfortunately, this is thought to be present tense. If Being would be God, then this would make sense. But we see in Plotinus that Being is only the last Emanation of God. God is far above Being.

אהיה אצלו שעשועים is not a counter example. It means "I will be by Him delight daily." There is no reason to say it is present tense.  Not that it is wrong to concentrate on Being. But that is not the same as God. It is the lowest manifestation of God.

Gemara Zevachim pg 6. זבחים ו 'ע''א

 I was contemplating that difficult piece in Rav Shach that I mentioned a few days ago.

It occurs to me what the problem is. Let me first bring the gemara. We want to know why one inheritor can do exchange and two can not. And we bring a verse to show that. Then we ask from masar sheni (the second tithe) where we have the same sort of verse and yet two inheritors can do exchange the fruit for money and then when they get to Jerusalem they exchange the money for local fruit and eat it there.. We show that the inheritors of the animal dedicated for sacrifice are joint owners in terms of forgiveness of sin but not monetary value. That can not apply to maasar sheni where there is no relevance to forgiveness so they both can do hilul. 

The question of Rav Shach is from Torat Kohanim [which is something like the Tosephta--a book of tenaim but not included in the Mishna]. There the same idea about maasar sheni is brought and the Raavad explains it in two ways. One that maasar sheni is owned by the owners. The other is that i is owned by heaven. 

So the question Rav Shach is asking is clear. If that teaching [braita] in Torat Kohanim is like the opinion maasar sheni is secular  then that Gemara in zevachim which is apparently going like the opinion light sacrifices are the money of heaven is asking according to a different opinion.

At least the question is clear. The answer? I think Rav Shach is saying that this Gemara hold light sacrifices are the money of heaven and maasar sheni is secular. This does no appear openly in Rav Shach but it is the only way I can make sense of his answer.

__________________________________________________________________________

זבחים ו 'ע''א

 We want to know why one יורש can do תמורה and two can not. And we bring a verse to show that.המיר ימיר. Then we ask from מעשר שני where we have the same sort of verse גאול יגאל, and yet two יורשים can do חילול. We show that the יורשים of the בהמה dedicated for sacrifice are joint owners in terms of כפרה but not ממון. That can not apply to מעשר שני where there is no relevance to forgiveness so they both can do חילול. The question of רב שך is from תורת כהנים. There the same idea about מעשר שני is brought and the הראב''ד explains it in two ways. One that מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט. The other is that  is ממון גבוה. So the question רב שך is asking is clear. If that teaching  in תורת כהנים is like the opinion מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט  then that גמרא זבחים ו ע''א which is apparently going like the opinion קדשים קלים ממון גבוה is asking according to a different opinion. At least the question is clear. The answer? I think רב שך is saying that this גמרא מחזיקה קדשים קלים ממון גבוה and מעשר שני is ממון הדיוט. This does no appear openly in רב שך but it is the only way I can make sense of his answer.

זבחים ו'ע''א

 אנחנו רוצים לדעת למה יורש אחד יכול לעשות תמורה ושניים לא. ואנחנו מביאים פסוק להראות את זה .המיר ימיר. אחר כך אנחנו שואלים את מעשר שני איפה יש לנו אותו סוג של פסוק גאול יגאל, ובכל זאת שני יורשים יכולים לעשות חילול. אנו מראים כי היורשים של הבהמה המוקדשים להקרבה הם בעלים משותפים מבחינת כפרה אך לא ממון. זה לא יכול לחול על מעשר שני שבו אין רלוונטיות לסליחה אז שניהם יכולים לעשות חילול. שאלת רב שך היא מתורת כהנים. שם מובא אותו רעיון על מעשר שני והראב''ד מסביר אותו בשני אופנים. אחד שמעשר שני הוא ממון הדיוט. השני הוא ממון גבוה. אז השאלה שרב שך שואל ברורה. אם ההוראה ההיא בתורת כוהנים היא כדעת מעשר שני הוא ממון הדיוט אזי שגמרא זבחים ו' ע''א שהולך לכאורה כדעת קדשים קלים ממון גבוה שואל לפי דעה אחרת. לפחות השאלה ברורה. התשובה? אני חושב שרב שך אומר שהגמרא מחזיקה קדשים קלים ממון גבוה ומשר שני זה ממון הדיוט. זה לא מופיע בגלוי ברב שך אבל זו הדרך היחידה שבה אני יכול להבין את התשובה שלו.