People will believe only in the absurd. Belief is the opposite of knowledge.

 The problem with the news is:  People do not believe in something unless they have read it in the newspapers or seen it on TV. [President Nixon said something like that.] Thus result is that newspapers having that much power began to say what they wanted people to believe. They could create their own news and people would believe it.  

But the issue is really deeper. People will believe only in the absurd. It is not as if they will believe in what is reasonable, and as a second best believe in the absurd also. Not at all. Rather to be absurd is the prerequisite of belief. So you see why the Rambam has the first of the Ten Commandments as being to know the existence of the First Cause, not to believe. Belief is the opposite of knowledge.

Socrates actually dealt with this issue in one of the shorter dialogs--I forget which. But not everything that is absurd is really absurd. Sometimes it is simply beyond reason. 

[Women nowadays -tend to think of themselves as goddesses.-which they are not.]

 Marriage nowadays seems to have devolved. There was a time it was it was a strong institution in people's souls. Nowadays it is all about business. A way for the woman to make money, for a long as it is convenient. So what I think is the approach of the concubine פילגש makes the most sense. Since we find that Caleb ben Yefuna  had a few, as we see on Chronicles chapter 2 verses from around 46.

And he was the only person in Torah of whom it is stated וימלא אחרי השם He went totally after God. So this is not a sin.   

At any rate, this is the Raavad, Ramban, and other Rishonim besides the Rambam. 

[Women nowadays -tend to think of themselves as goddesses.-which they are not.]

 z67 This is a Midi music file. Just finished now. [But that means it probably needs lots of editing. So I present it as it seems best to me this minute.]z67 nwc

 Group identification is a kind of idolatry- when a persons allegiance is towards groups values instead of towards objective morality  And even though objective morality is hard to know, that still is no excuse to abdicate. So while loyalty towards ones family and friends and nation are important that is far different from group identification.

 I wish I would have something to say about Rav Kinyevsky. The books of his father --the set of Kehilat Yaakov were around when I was in Shar Yashuv, but I did not get a chance to learn them while I was there,-though I am sure that all the books of the great Litvak sages are important. Mainly that would be the Kehilat Yaakov, the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, and the books of his disciples. The thing was that while I was in yeshiva, I was struggling just to get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot and as much Maharsha as I could manage. The later achronim were just too much for meat that point. And later I did not have the merit to be able to sit and learn as I should have. חבל על דאבדין 

--So if I could I would try to make up for my lack of education by getting through the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Kehilat Yaakov of  the father of Rav Kinyevsky.  Part of the problem for me is that I tend to need a sort of Litvak Yeshiva to be able to spend the time on learning. There is a sort of energy I would get when I was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. Without that kind of environment, it is hard to learn. Maybe that is no excuse, but that is just the way things are for me. And maybe there is a lesson to be learned here about how important it is to have a Litvak Study Hall [Beit Midrash] where one can learn. I have not had anything like that for many years. 

Bava Batra 26b and page 81 in the Shita Mekubetzet. Rav Shach in the Rambam הלכות ביכורים פרק ב הלכות י' עד יג'

 I have been thinking about  the argument between Ula and R. Yochanan. To Ula, if one has a fruit bearing tree within 16 amot [cira 16 yards] of the border of his field with his neighbor he can not bring first fruits because he is a thief. To R.Yochanan he can. At first  Rav Shach said the argument is who owns the fruit. To Ula the source of the sustenance is what matters, while the tree itself is just to process the sustenance, So the fruit belong to who owns the ground. [And so in our case the roots of the tree get sustenance partly from the nearby ground partly from that of his neighbor.]     To R. Yochanan the owner of the tree owns the fruit. Later Rav Shach brought a different explanation of Ula.The reason is that he shows the roots of the tree up until 16 amot are  owned by the owner of the tree. This he sees as a contradiction to what he wrote before. This point has eluded me for weeks already.

If the roots are owned by the owner of the tree., what has that to do with the fruit?

I am being a bit short here, for this is really based on Rabainu Chananel 

 z13 this is a recent music file.