In the Republic of  Plato and i noticed that the just society of Plato is where everyone is minding their own business. In fact,  Plato, is searching  for the answer to what is Justice finds it in this astounding formulation:  to mind one's own business.

He means this in its common sense way but also in the larger scheme of a just society where everyone knows their own job and is doing it. The carpenter, the shoemaker, etc. are all doing their job, and no one else's. And not sticking their nose into other people's business.

And you can see this in the modern world where the emphasis in high school if to and what you are good at and enjoy doing and to do that. 

So you do not have the idea of  the mediaeval period where everyone is supposed to learn the Written Law, the Oral Law, Physics and Metaphysics whether you are good at it or not. 

So the idea brought in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous, and in the writings of Rav Nahman  of Breslov of "Girsa"--saying the words and going on does not resonate with people. They figure if they do not understand what they are learning, then there is no point to it.

Especially in the Gra, we find that learning Torah is the highest ideal. It is not meant to be just for a select few. [In the Gra, himself you do not see this elaborated on, but in the Nefesh HaChaim of his disciple Rav Chaim of Voloshin this idea is brought down in volume 4. ]

Plus you see in the book of Rav Nachman that על  ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבוא לתבונות התורה לעומקה [Le.M vol I:13]  "By means of the word, one can come to the understandings of the Torah to its very depth."-- That is, just by saying the words, something gets absorbed and processed in one's deeper unconscious. 

בבא מציעא ע''ה ע''ב רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק י' הלכה ד' Bava Metzia pg 75 side B. Rambam Laws of a Lender and Borrower chapter 10 law 4

 

I wanted here to give a small introduction to the coming subject. In the Torah we have a prohibition of taking interest for a loan. The language of the Torah is "a bite"[Neshech] and "increase" [tarbit].

In tractate Bava Metzia right at the start of the chapter about interest  it asks why does the Torah use these two different words for interest? After all if he lends 100 in order to get back  hundred but the value of the hundred goes up to 120, then if we go by the beginning of the loan there is no increase and there is no bite. But if we go by the end of the loan there is both increase and bite. Or let's look at a different case. He lends 100 in order to get back 120. But at the time of repayment the value of 120 has gone down to 100. If we go by the beginning, there is both increase and a bite. If we go by the end there is neither increase nor bite. The Gemara after this does come up with a reason the Torah uses these two different words. However at this point there is a disagreement among Medieval authorities. Does the Gemara really have a doubt if we go by the beginning of a loan or the end? And most of them say, "No." For after all we have a vase of lending a bushel of wheat for a bushel of wheat. That is forbidden by a decree because the value might go up. [If the value does go up then he pays back money that is equal to the value of the original bushel.]] But all this is a decree and not from the Torah. So we see the Torah definitely goes by the beginning of a loan. This is the opinion of most medieval authorities. However the commentary on the Rosh called the notes of the Ashri and the Mordechai say that if fact the Gemara is in doubt if the Torah actually goes by the beginning of  a loan or the end. This is more or less what they write and that is how the Gra understands them. However Rav Shach writes that they also must agree with the other mediaeval authorities because of that law of a bushel fir a bushel and he bring a proof that they only say the case when he lends 100 for a 120 and the value of the hundred and twenty goes down to 100. He must give back the extra 20 anyway because we go by the beginning of the loan. But the opposite case they do not mention. It seems that they has no doubt that we do not go by the end of the loan. 

 רציתי לתת כאן הקדמה קטנה לנושא הקרוב. בתורה יש איסור לקחת ריבית עבור הלוואה. לשון התורה היא נשך ותרבית. בבא מציעא ממש בתחילת איזהו נשך הוא שואל מדוע התורה משתמשת בשתי המילים השונות הללו לעניין? הרי אם הלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה אבל ערך המאה עולה למאה ועשרים, אז אם נלך לפי תחילת ההלוואה אין תרבית ואין נשך. אבל אם נלך כפי סוף ההלוואה יש גם תרבית וגם נשך. או בוא נסתכל על מקרה אחר. הוא מלווה מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה ועשרים. אבל בזמן הפרעון ירד ערך מאה ועשרים למאה. אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, יש גם תרבית וגם נשך. אם נלך לפי הסוף אין לא תרבית ולא נשך. הגמרא שאחרי זה אכן מעלה סיבה לכך שהתורה משתמשת בשתי המילים השונות הללו. אולם בשלב זה קיימת מחלוקת בין ראשונים. האם לגמרא באמת יש ספק אם אנחנו הולכים לפי תחילת הלוואה או בסוף? ורובם אומרים "לא". כי אחרי הכל יש לנו הדין של השאלת סאה בסאה. זה אסור בגזרה כי הערך עלול לעלות. [אם הערך אכן עולה אז הוא מחזיר כסף ששווה לערך הסאה המקורית]] אבל כל זה גזירה ולא מהתורה. אז אנחנו רואים את התורה בהחלט הולכת לפי תחילת ההלוואה. זו דעתם של רוב ראשונים. אולם פירוש הרא''ש הנקרא הגהות אשרי והמרדכי אומרים שלמעשה הגמרא מוטל בספק אם התורה אכן הולכת לפי תחילת הלוואה או בסוף. זה פחות או יותר מה שהם כותבים וכך מבין אותם הגר''א. אולם רב שך כותב שגם הם חייבים להסכים עם שאר הראשונים בגלל אותו דין של סאה בסאה והוא מביא הוכחה שאומרים את המקרה רק כשהוא מלווה מאה עבור מאה ועשרים וערך המאה ועשרים ירד עד  מאה. הוא חייב להחזיר את העשרים הנוספים בכל מקרה כי אנחנו הולכים לפי תחילת ההלוואה. אבל את המקרה ההפוך הם לא מזכירים. נראה שאין להם ספק שאנחנו לא הולכים לפי תום ההלוואה.

_________________________________________________________________________________

 I was at sea. There it occurred to me that I ought to explain in what is my disagreement with Rav Shach concerning the Ashri and Mordechai. The point of Rav Shach is that they must agree with the other Rishonim that always go by the beginning of a loan [to determine if there is interest]. Why because they only mention the case where one lends 100 to get back 120. There they say because of the doubt he must give back the extra 20. But they not say anything about the opposite case where he lends 100 to get back 100 but in the end that hundred is worth 120. Why do they not say there that he must give back 17 from the hundred that he gets back? So Rav Shach concludes that really we always go by the beginning. And the proof is "seah beseah" the prohibition to lend a bushel to get back a bushel which is forbidden by a decree but not from the Torah. So we see we always go by the beginning according to the law of the Torah.

My question on this is that if fruit and grain are like money, then even to lend 100 to get back a 100 would be on condition that the hundred does not go up in value. But if it does then one would give back the  value of the original 100.   On my side of this is the Gra who writes that the Ashri and Mordechai do have a doubt if we go by the beginning or the end.

____________________________

 I was at sea. There it occurred to me that I ought to explain in what is my disagreement with רב שך concerning the אשרי and מרדכי. The point of רב שך is that they must agree with the other ראשונים that always go by the beginning of a loan [to determine if there is interest]. Why because they only mention the case where one lends מאה to get back מאה ועשרים. There they say because of the doubt he must give back the extra עשרים. But they not say anything about the opposite case where he lends מאה to get back מאה, but in the end that מאה is worth מאה ועשרים. Why do they not say there that he must give back שבע עשרה from the מאה that he gets back? So רב שך concludes that really we always go by the beginning. And the proof is סאה בסאה the prohibition to lend a bushel to get back a bushel which is forbidden by a decree but not from the תורה. So we see we always go by the beginning according to the law of the תורה. My question on this is that if fruit and grain are like money, then even to lend מאה to get back a מאה would be on condition that the מאה does not go up in value. But if it does, then one would give back the  value of the original מאה.   On my side of this is the גר''א who writes that the אשרי and מרדכי do have a doubt if we go by the beginning or the end.

הייתי בים. שם עלה בדעתי שאני צריך להסביר במה מחלוקתי עם רב שך לגבי האשרי ומרדכי. הטעם של רב שך הוא שעליהם להסכים עם שאר הראשונים שתמיד הולכים לפי תחילת הלוואה [כדי לקבוע אם יש ריבית]. למה כי הם מזכירים רק את המקרה שמלווים מאה כדי לקבל מאה ועשרים. שם אומרים מחמת הספק חייב להחזיר את העשרים הנוסף. אבל לא אומרים כלום על המקרה ההפוך שהוא מלווה מאה כדי לקבל מאה, אלא בסופו של דבר שמאה שווה מאה ועשרים. למה לא אומרים שם שהוא חייב להחזיר שבע עשרה מהמאה שהוא מקבל בחזרה? אז רב שך מסיק שבאמת אנחנו תמיד הולכים לפי ההתחלה. וההוכחה היא סאה בסאה  שאסור בגזירה אבל לא מהתורה. אז אנחנו רואים שאנחנו תמיד הולכים לפי ההתחלה לפי חוק התורה. השאלה שלי על זה היא שאם פירות ותבואה הם כמו כסף, אז אפילו להלוות מאה כדי לקבל בחזרה מאה יהיה בתנאי שהמאה לא תעלה בערכו. אבל אם כן, אז אפשר להחזיר את הערך של המאה המקורית. מצדי בזה הגר''א שכותב לאשרי ולמרדכי כן יש ספק אם הולכים בהתחלה או בסוף.

 I think it is those Dominion machines that tilted the election. All that was needed was to identify the few critical counties where a slight difference would tilt the election and in those counties to add a slight weight to the vote for the Left--instead of 1.0 each vote would be 1.01. That would be enough to turn the election.

And in terms of the later protests on the sixth of January : The first ammendment is the right for peaceful protest. They did not break any law.

That was based on an event in England where someone was imprisoned for the "crime" of petitioning Parliament. See the Pamphlets of Daniel Defoe. So the right is meant for this particular kind of case. 

 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.