I was on my way to the sea and I saw a Breslov [Na Nach] fellow that goes around the main square in town with a shofar wakening people to repentance. I mentioned that I hold from and Gra and Rav Shach and he added that also the Chazon Ish, and Rav Kinyevsky [the Stipler and his son] and really all of the great Litvak sages learned the books of Rav Nahman.

And I definitely saw this myself when I was learning under the great Litvak sages of the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY.

But they did not become "Breslov". They stayed Litvaks that go by the Gra by added to that the insights of Rav Nahman. There is a good reason for this but I have felt for a long time that it is not worth going into in public. In public, I only want to recommend Rav Nahman,- even though I realize that the ideas can be taken in wrong directions. You really need the Gra to stay steady on the straight path of Torah. Rav Nahman within that context can add a great deal  

 The comments of the Ashri [That is the comments in small print on the Rosh] and the Mordechai on Bava Metzia page 75. Most Rishonim say that the Gemara there is not really in doubt if we go by the beginning or the end. But the Ashri and Mordechai say it is a doubt. So if one lends 100 to get back 120 and when the time of payment comes the 120 is worth the same as the original 100, then it is because of the doubt that we might go by the beginning one can not accept the additional 20.

But to most Rishonim we definitely go by the beginning, so not because of doubt,- but because it is openly fixed interest. [That is how the Gra understands the Ashri and Mordechei. But Rav Shach laws of Lender and Borrower 10 law 4 holds that the Ashri [that is a commentary on the Rosh] and the Mordechei do not actually disagree with the other rishonim.

]

But why is it so obvious to most Rishonim that we go by the beginning? Because of  "Seah be'Seah." [A bushel of wheat for a bushel of wheat.] That is forbidden from a decree of the sages because the price of a bushel might go up. 

But to me it seems the Ashri and Mordechai must be thinking that fruit or grain is different than money. While fruit of grain might be clear that it is only forbidden by decree, but money for money (and the value goes up) might very well be forbidden from the Torah itself. We see that the Gemara in Bava Metzia itself is aware that money can change in value. For that is the whole point when it says "He lends 100 for a 120 and at first the hundred is worth a danka and in the end 120 is worth a danka." [Inflation.] [They could have used "a bushel for a bushel" to show the point. So at least the Ashri and Mordechai are saying that money for money is different.]

What mean to say here is that the Ashri and Mordechai are holding only seah for a seah is a decree permitted from the Torah because we go by the beginning for fruit and graain, not money. For in money there is no decree that if one borrows 100 that he can not repay 100 because the value of the hundred might have gone up.

But it occurred to me to ask here that if so money for money ought to be even lighter than fruit for fruit because otherwise why would there not be a similar decree to repay 100 for a 100 in a case when the value has gone up. But that would seem to be the opposite of what makes sense. For if he would have said so in the beginning that would be interest from the Torah.

__________________________________________________________________________

The comments of the אשרי and the מרדכי on גמרא  בבא מציעא דף ע''ה. Most  ראשונים say that the גמרא there is not really in doubt if we go by the beginning or the end. But the אשרי and מרדכי say it is a doubt. So if one lends מאה to get back מאה ועשרים and when the time of payment comes the מאה ועשרים is worth the same as the original מאה, then it is because of the doubt that we might go by the beginning one can not accept the additional עשרים.

[That is how the Gra understands the Ashri and Mordechei. But Rav Shach laws of Lender and Borrower 10 law 4 holds that the Ashri [that is a commentary on the Rosh] and the Mordechei do not actually disagree with the other rishonim.

 But to most ראשונים we definitely go by the beginning, so not because of doubt but because it is openly ריבית קצוצה. 

But why is it so obvious to most  ראשונים that we go by the beginning? Because of  "סאה בסאה." [A סאה of wheat for a סאה of wheat. That is forbidden from a גזירה   because the price of a סאה might go up.]  But to me it seems the אשרי and מרדכי must be thinking that fruit or grain is different than money. While fruit of grain might be clear that it is only forbidden by decree, but money for money (and the value goes up) might very well be forbidden דאורייתא itself. We see that the גמרא  בבא מציעא דף ע''ה itself is aware that money can change in value. For that is the whole point when it says "He lends מאה for a מאה ועשרים and at first the מאה is worth a דנקא and in the end מאה ועשרים is worth a דנקא." [Inflation.]

What I mean to say here is that the הגהות אשרי  and מרדכי are holding only סאה בסאה is a decree אבל permitted from the תורה because we go by the beginning for fruit and grain, not money. For in money there is no decree that if one borrows מאה that he can not repay מאה because the value of the hundred might have gone up.

But it occurred to me to ask here that if so money for money ought to be even lighter than fruit for fruit because otherwise why would there not be a similar decree to repay מאה for a מאה in a case when the value has gone up. But that would seem to be the opposite of what makes sense. For if he would have said so in the beginning that would be ריבית קצוצה דאורייתא.

__________________________________________________

הערות האשרי והמרדכי בגמרא בבא מציעא דף ע''ה. רוב ראשונים אומרים שהגמרא שם לא באמת מוטלת בספק אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף. אבל האשרי ומרדכי אומרים זה ספק. אז אם מלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה ועשרים וכאשר מגיע זמן התשלום, המאה ועשרים שווה כמו המאה המקורית, אז בגלל הספק שנלך בהתחלה אי אפשר לקבל את עשרים הנוספת. אבל לרוב ראשונים אנחנו בהחלט הולכים לפי ההתחלה, אז לא בגלל ספק, אלא בגלל שזה בגלוי ריבית קצוצה. אבל למה זה כל כך ברור לרוב ראשונים שאנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה? בגלל "סאה בסאה". [סאה של חיטה לסאה של חיטה. זה אסור בגזירה כי המחיר של סאה עלול לעלות. אבל לי נראה שהאשרי והמרדכי חושבים שפרי או דגן שונים מכסף. אמנם פרי דגן אולי ברור שהוא אסור רק בגזירה, אבל כסף תמורת כסף (והערך עולה) יכול מאוד להיות אסור דאורייתא עצמו. אנו רואים שהגמרא בבא מציעא דף ע''ה עצמו מודע לכך שכסף יכול להשתנות בערכו. שהרי זה כל העניין כשאומרים "משאיל מאה למאה ועשרים ובתחילה המאה שווה דנקא ובסוף מאה ועשרים שווה דנקא". [אִינפלַצִיָה.]

מה שאני מתכוון לומר כאן הוא שההגות אשרי ומרדכי מחזיקים רק בסאה בסאה זו גזירה אבל מותרת מהתורה כי אנחנו הולכים בהתחלה לפירות ותבואה, לא כסף. (וכסף הוא ספק אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף) כי בכסף אין גזירה שאם לווה מאה אינו יכול לפרוע מאה כי ערך המאה עלול היה לעלות.

אבל עלה בדעתי לשאול כאן שאם כן כסף לכסף צריך להיות אפילו קל יותר מפירות לפירות כי אחרת למה לא תהיה גזירה דומה להחזיר מאה עבור מאה במקרה שהערך עלה. אבל נראה שזה ההפך ממה שהגיוני. כִּי אִם הָיָה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ בִּתְחִלָּה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רַבֵּית קְצוּצָה דְּאוֹרִיתָא.

If you have a free wave that is not limited anywhere,  it can not be quantized. While you might still have quantization for wave packets but these dissipate rapidly. So at least from this consideration, the Universe has to be limited and finite.

This is only to Schrodinger. But in the Heisenberg formulation, quantization doesn't depend on a closed universe.

 A few things I learned in Ukraine. One important one  is what is called "zalonka". This is iodine mixed with some other substance that helps it be absorbed deeper into a wound than regular iodine. Another is boric acid which is an amazing cure all. The other is when I had a ear ache. Instead of putting chemicals into my ear they cleaned it out with some sort of syringe that shots out just plain water. For they knew that ear aches most often are simply from stuff that has accumulated in the ear. It just needs to be cleaned.

I also learned something else--they do not try to fix what is not broken. While in the West, you walk into a dentists office and he will always find things to do that will cost a thousand dollars, in the Ukraine they will not look for problems. If it does not hurt, they they will not touch it. Don't fix what i not broken.

 z50 music file

 I am surprised whenever I talk with someone and in the conversation we are discussing the importance of the Gra as defining authentic Torah --the backbone. And Rav Nahman I see as filling out the flesh. But aswe talk it turns out they have never heard of the herem of the Gra. So I have to explain the background of that and its details and make note that it did not include Rav Nahman.  

 There is a sort of suicidal tendency in the USA that is hard to understand. A lot of white people are simply intent on the destruction of the white race. I can not see why this should be the case. I could see this a long time ago with the slogan that "Black is beautiful." I guess that convinced lot of people to the degree of creating people that want to destroy whites, and the feminists that hate men, and a general lack of common sense.