Ketuboth page19.כתובות דף י''ט Rav Shach brings this subject in Laws of Loans perek 2 halacha 6.

 I have been thinking about a גמרא brought in כתובות דף י''ט. There ר' נתן said if you have a case where לוי owes ראובן 100 and ראובן owes שמעון 100, you take from לוי and give to שמעון. If ראובן has a document showing that לוי owes him and לוי says it is paid already and ראובן agrees, we pay no attention to them since they might have conspired. What has been bothering me about this is that the property of לוי is anyway going to ראובן and from there to שמעון. So mainly what IS going on is the middle step. But then even more so you have the ר''ן there that asks  this: Why not just collect the document from ראובן. And he answers שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון.  Documents can not be taken as payment for a loan because they are not money in themselves. The general case when someone does not pay back a loan, the court can go and get land or movable property. What was bothering me was this question and answer of the ר''ן [רבינו ניסים]. Not that I have an actual question, just a sort of question in which I am wondering what is going on? Apparently in the first case we already know that לוי owes money to ראובן. So how do we know that? By the document! So what is collecting the document going to add anything to the situation? How would it help שמעון any more than we already are helping him recover the debt?

The ר''ן here asks why not collect the document showing that לוי owes money to ראובן. I wondered why this would make any difference if we already know that he owes money. Answer: because a loan with a document is more powerful than a loan without. It gets from property that was sold after the loan was made. 

The thing that makes the question of the Ran powerful is that if you have a case of a loan which is verbal, not with a document, the lender is believed if he says I paid it.  However I should add that this is not the normal case of a verbal loan since here the lender would not be believed because of the possibility that he is conspiring with the middle borrower to cheat Shimon.   

I have thought of a way of explaining the power of the question of the ר''ן.  It seems like this: The middle person, ראובן, has a document that לוי owes him money. And שמעון has a document showing that ראובן owes him money. But  ראובן has no money, nor any property that he sold after he borrowed.  But he has a document showing that Levi owes him money. So none of the property of לוי would come to  ראובן directly if not for the law of ר' נתן in כתובות י''ט. The point of the ר''ן is that perhaps the document of  ראובן ought to be given to שמעון in which case he would have a stronger claim on לוי. As it is is now, if לוי says the document has been paid and  ראובן agrees, we do not believe them because of a doubt. Maybe they are conspiring against שמעון. But if שמעון would have the document itself  that shows לוי owes him  money then from the basic law of loans לוי would not be believed because in the case of a loan with a document, the plea "I paid already" is not believed. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 I have been thinking about a gemara brought in Ketuboth page19. There R. Natan said if you have a case where Levi owes Reuben 100 and Reuben owes Simon 100, you take from Levi and give to Simon. If Reuben has a document showing that Levi owes him and Levi says it is paid already and Reuben agrees, we pay no attention to them since they might have conspired. What has been bothering me about this is that the property of Levi is anyway going to Reuben and from there to Simon. So mainly what i going on is the middle step. But then even more so you have the Ran there that asks  this: Why not just collect the document from Reuben. And he answers שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון.  Documents can not be taken as payment for a loan because they are not money in themselves. [The general case when someone does not pay back a loan, the court can go and get land or movable property]

What was bothering me at the beach the whole day was this question and answer of the Ran [Rabbainu Nisim]. Not that I have an actual question, just a sort of question in which I am wondering what is going on? Apparently in the first case we already know that Levi owes money to Reuben. So how do we know that? By the document! So what is collecting the document going to add anything to the situation? [How would it help Simon any more than we already are helping him recover the debt?]

The ר''ן here asks why not collect the document showing that לוי owes money to ראובן. I wondered why this would make any difference if we already know that he owes money. Answer: because a loan with a document is more powerful than a loan without. It gets from property that was sold after the loan was made.

The thing that makes the question of the ר''ן powerful is that if you have a case of a loan which is verbal, not with a document, the lender is believed if he says, "I paid it."  However I should add that this is not the normal case of a verbal loan, since here the lender would not be believed because of the possibility that he is conspiring with the middle borrower to cheat שמעון.   

I have thought of a way of explaining the power of the question of the Ran.  It seems like this: The middle person Reuven has a document that Levi owes him money. And Shimon has a document showing that Reuven owes him money. But Reuven ha no money nor any property that he sold after he borrowed.  But he has a document showing that Levi owes him money. So none of the property of Levi would come to Reuven directly if not for the law of R. Natan in Ketuboth 19. The point of the Ran is that perhaps the document of Reuven ought to be given to Shimon in which case he would have a stronger claim on Levi. As it is is now, if Levi says the document has been paid and Reuven agrees , we do not believe them because of a doubt. Maybe they are conspiring against Shimon. But if Shimon would have the document itself  that shows Levi owes him  money then from the basic law of loans Levi would not be believed because in the case of a loan with a document, the plea "I paid already" is not believed. 

______________________________________________________

חשבתי על גמרא שהובאה בכתובות דף י''ט. שם ר' נתן אמר אם יש לך מקרה שבו לוי חייב לראובן 100 וראובן חייב לשמעון 100, אתה לוקח מלוי ונותן לשמעון. אם לראובן יש מסמך שמראה שלוי חייב לו ולוי אומר שזה כבר שולם וראובן מסכים, אנחנו לא שמים לב אליהם כי ייתכן שהם קשרו קשר. מה שהפריע לי בזה הוא שהרכוש של לוי ממילא הולך לראובן ומשם לשמעון. אז בעיקר מה שקורה הוא הצעד האמצעי. אבל אז עוד יותר יש לך את הר''ן שם ששואל את זה: למה לא פשוט לאסוף את המסמך מראובן. והוא עונה שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא שאין גופם ממון. לא ניתן לקחת מסמכים כתשלום עבור הלוואה כי הם אינם כסף בפני עצמם. במקרה הכללי כאשר מישהו לא מחזיר הלוואה, בית המשפט יכול ללכת לקבל קרקע או מטלטלין. מה שהפריע לי זו השאלה והתשובה של הר''ן [רבינו ניסים]. לא שיש לי שאלה ממשית, רק מעין שאלה שבה אני תוהה מה קורה? כנראה שבמקרה הראשון אנחנו כבר יודעים שלוי חייב כסף לראובן. אז איך אנחנו יודעים את זה? לפי המסמך! אז מה איסוף המסמך יוסיף משהו למצב? איך זה יעזור לשמעון יותר ממה שאנחנו כבר עוזרים לו לגבות את החוב?

הר''ן כאן שואל למה לא לאסוף את המסמך שמראה שלוי חייב כסף לראובן. תהיתי למה זה ישנה משהו אם אנחנו כבר יודעים שהוא חייב כסף. תשובה: כי הלוואה עם  מסמך חזקה יותר מהלוואה בלי. זה מגיע מנכס שנמכר לאחר מתן ההלוואה (משועבדים). הדבר שעושה את שאלת הר''ן חזקה הוא שאם יש לך מקרה של הלוואה שהיא מילולית (מלווה על פה), לא עם מסמך, מאמינים למלווה אם הוא אומר "שילמתי". עם זאת אוסיף שאין זה המקרה הרגיל של הלוואה מילולית, שכן כאן לא יאמינו למלווה בגלל האפשרות שהוא קושר קשר עם הלווה האמצעי לרמות את שמעון. חשבתי על דרך להסביר את כוחה של שאלת הר''ן. זה נראה כך: לאדם האמצעי ראובן יש מסמך שלוי חייב לו כסף. ולשמעון יש מסמך שמראה שראובן חייב לו כסף. אבל לראובן אין כסף או רכוש שהוא מכר אחרי שהוא לווה. אבל יש לו מסמך שמראה שלוי חייב לו כסף. אז ששום דבר מרכושו של לוי לא היה מגיע ישירות לראובן אלמלא דין ר' נתן בכתובות י''ט. הנקודה של הר''ן היא שאולי צריך למסור את המסמך של ראובן לשמעון שבמקרה כזה תהיה לו תביעה יותר חזקה על לוי. כפי שזה עכשיו, אם לוי אומר שהמסמך שולם וראובן מסכים, אנחנו לא מאמינים להם בגלל ספק. אולי הם קושרים קשר נגד שמעון. אבל אם לשמעון היה המסמך עצמו שמראה שלוי חייב לו כסף אז מחוק ההלוואות היסוד לוי לא היה נאמן כי במקרה של הלוואה עם מסמך, לא מאמינים לטענת "כבר שילמתי".

 Someone mentioned to me today about the problems he noticed in the USA on his recent trip there. That gave me a chance to explain a little behind the philosophy of  "learning Torah." In the Litvak Yeshiva world [at least as I experienced it at Shar Yashuv and the Mir] learning Torah is the best way to help oneself and the whole world. It is not considered as hiding from the world but rather as the only true and effective means to help the world. And you can see this to some degree in the way politics is practiced in the USA which involves a lot of Lashon Hara and Bitul Torah. Are things so much better now than they were in Elizabethan England? People then also had some say in things because of he House of Commons, but not to the degree that we see now. 

gentile slaves.

 You are not actually allowed to free a gentile slave. However as we know, a Jewish slave is freed after 6 years of work. [That is right after the Ten Commandments in Exodus.] The prohibition to free a gentile slave is from the verse בהם לעולם תעבודו (When the Torah discusses the case when one buys gentile slave it adds "you should work with them forever" i.e. not free them.  So you can see the point of the South. They realized that the slaves were not seeking freedom. They were seeking mastery--i.e. to become the masters. and that has happened.

So on one hand I can see the point of Abraham Lincoln in wanting to keep the Union together, still I do not know where he found that idea in the Constitution , not even if he had, why it would supersede states rights [the tenth Ammendment.] And besides all that, the real point comes to the fore in the verse that states on three things the land is destroyed and one of them is "עבד כי ימלוך (When a slave rules)." 

And the logical conclusion is that the USA should not let slaves rule.

[Rabban Gamliel had a gentile slave Tabi who was a great Torah scholar. But even so, Rabban Gamliel did not free him. Tabi himself was strict not to eat in a Suka, because slaves and women are not obligated to eat in a suka (during Sukot]).

 You do not really see in the Gra the idea of making yeshivot. And if he agreed with Rav Chaim of Voloshin about this is not clear. [Rav Chaim had come to ask him about this and there are a few versions of what the answer was. Some say he never answered.]  

So while this issue is unclear, there are at least some points which are clear. Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money. While on one hand learning Torah is the greatest of all mitzvot, still the general approach of yeshivot going around asking for money does not really mean that this is a good thing.

The religious seem intent on using Torah in one way or the other to get profit. In fact. I encountered a sort of odd attitude in which people in kollel would present themselves as "astronauts" [super achievers] which therefore deserved to be supported by all us plebeians. So it seems impossible to say that people in kollel are not doing it for money. Just the opposite--that seems to be their entire intension.

So what is the best thing is to learn Torah, but not to make a business out of it.

If you are learning Torah [which you should] then you should trust in God to support you. And if that trust is not fulfilled and you find yourself in need then you should find a job, but not go around asking people for money to support you. That is not trust in God. That is trust in flesh and blood. That is trust of the Dark Side

 I can understand to some degree why the Friesian School of thought is ignored in Philosophy. It is not exactly Kantian because of significant disagreements with Kant e.g the discursivity thesis. So if one is interested in Kant, he would not think of looking into almost any of the Neo Kantian philosophers. Plus Fries is not exactly constructing a tightly intricately constructed  Gothic Structure like Kant did or Hegel.

It takes generations for the implications of the Fries doctrine of immediate non intuitive knowledge to get put together in any sort of structure that could rival Kant of Hegel.

Still I find that the final synthesis of Dr Kelley Ross to where he pulls together all the threads of the Frisian approach to be quite impressive. See: https://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm

Mainly because this corresponded with my own experience in which I felt I had faith that was not derived by logic nor by experience.  And this makes sense in terms of the Middle Ages in which Faith and reason were considered two different kinds of sources of knowledge.

And as Hume noted: reason does not tell us any where as much. as it was thought to show.

 In the Gemara there are places that seem to reflect negatively on Jesus. I noted in the Tosphot HaRosh that that particular Yeshu could not have been Jesus since the Yeshu referred to in the Talmud was a disciple of R. Yehoshua ben P'rachia. That is he was right in the middle of the period of the second Temple. And Jesus was at the end of that period. That is a difference of about 150 years or more.

[Mixing this up is like mixing yourself up with someone born in 1872. ]

The disadvantage of this is that Christians do not gin from the perspective of the gemara [Talmud] in which the laws of the Torah are taken literally, not allegorically. And it is this allegorical interpretation of the laws which is the Achilles heel of  Christianity. So the prohibition against homosexuality is thought to be an allegory. There have to be laws they understand in order to have a functioning society, but then instead of God's laws they have to have man made laws.

 The Lagrange formulation of Physics sort of gets around causality by things going to their lowest energy levels. That is to say things things seem to know where to go. And all Physics today is formulated in the Lagrange or Hamiltonian formulation. In classical physics this was not really any different from Newton. Only in Quantum Mechanics the results are different.

So what I am saying is that  causality does not seem fundamental.

So even if I use the idea of causality in showing the existence of God, a more rigorous proof is really from Godel [known as the Ontological proof.]

[Space, time and causality are all challenges to Kant.  These challenge can be met in different ways, [e.g. Hegel, or Fries] But they must be met.

To Kant, space and time are synthetic a priori. We must conceive of things in terms of where and when  but they have no relation to things in themselves. They might exist or they might not. This was a particular challenge to  the second Frisian school of Leonard Nelson. It is answered in the PhD dissertation of Kelley Ross where he divides the question of the nexus of things (where they are) and the question of the objective existence of Space-Time. 

And to me space has always seemed quite real from the fact that though ether does not exist, still photons are produced by oscillation in some kind of medium. Also the Bohm effect shows space has mathematical structure.  That is all besides General Relativity. There the main formula is that curvature of space time is the source of the energy momentum tensor.