new music file

 z55 music file

 z80 music file

 Rav Nahman of Breslov wrote in Sefer HaMidot לא להיכנס עם היצר הרע בטוען ונטען not to enter into arguments with the evil  inclination. And so on one hand I see Maverick Philosopher has a  piece on the male female insanity that has overtaken the USA, still I feel it is best not to enter into arguments about this or other issues. In the Mir the idea was, ''We should all learn Torah and recommend to others to do the same, and then all confusions will be automatically eliminated.'' 

[Learning Torah means Gemara and Tosphot. However to get to see the depths of Gemara, the best thing  is the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]  

[i do not agree in toto with everything  Rav Nahman says. Rather I try to use the sense of balance and common sense that my parents granted to me to discern.  One thing seems  important to mention --thati see learning Torah in a more important light than is generally thought in Breslov. Also I think Torah is more interested in the Creator than in tzadikim [saints].  On one hand I can see the importance of tzadikim,-- but only as a reminder to direct my hopes and trust onto God,  In fact, the whole tzadikim business has gotten way out of hand and become pure idolatry 

 z82 midi  z82 nwc

There is one time when a head covering is required as is brought in מסכת סופרים, and that is when one takes out the Torah scroll and reads it in the synagogue,-- and even that is never brought down in the gemara nor in the later poskim. So it is hard to know why people get so frantic if you walk into a shul without a head covering. It  has no source in halacha. It is just a sign of a deeper problem,  -- that  nothing they do has any source in Torah. The only people that are making an effort to keep Torah as it says [and not add or subtract] are the Litvaks that follow the path of the Gra and Rav Shach.

[In pictures of Jews in the Middle Ages, there is not one showing any Jew wearing a "Kipa". The only people who wore "kipot" were the pope and bishops.-as they do today. 

תוספות בתחילת קידושין

The Mishna says a woman is acquired by means of money or something worth money. Tosphot asks "How do we know?" Tosphot answers because we learn the worth of money is like money from a Hebrew Slave.  כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. When one redeems a Hebrew slave he must give money to the owner. The sages say that from extra wording of this verse we learn that one can redeem a slave also with property that is worth money. But in the opinion o the Rambam, this does not apply to an owner who is an idolater. He can receive only actual money for his Hebrew slaves.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rav Shach asks on the Rambam how does he answer the question of Tosphot in the beginning of Kidushin: why should שווה כסף [something worth money] buy a bride? Tosphot answers because we learn the worth of money is like money from a Hebrew Slave.  כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף The Rambam could not use this answer because it only applies to a Israeli owner. But to the Rambam,  an owner that is an idolater can only accept money--silver , not anything that is worth money. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים

One might answer that the Rambam holds קידושי כסף is מדברי סופרים words of the scribes and so they can formulate  the law in any way they like. That would mean they can make it to include שווה כסף/ However that is not an answer to this question because when the Rambam writes that  קידושי כסף הם מדברי סופרים he means  that when the Sanhedrin derives a  law by means of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is explained. a later Sanhedrin that sees things differently can change that law. That does not mean it is a גזירה law by decree. Rather, it means the first Sanhedrin sees  it as a law from the Torah and the second one does not. And we go by the Gemara which holds we learn קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון

However, I still have one question. The Rambam holds שווה כסף can buy something because it is קניין חליפין and אין אישה נקנית על ידי קניין חליפין. How do we know the Rambam holds שווה כסף can buy something because it is קניין חליפין Rav Shach point this out because in הלכות מכירה פרק א  the Rambam discuses קניין כסף and later in פרק ה' הוא כוב כל המטלטים קונים זה את זה and there he deals with קניין ליפין  

_____________________________________________________________________________

  רב שך שואל בשיטת הרמב''ם איך הוא עונה לשאלת תוספות בתחילת קידושין: למה שווה כסף קונה אישה? תוספות עונים כי אנחנו לומדים ששווה כסף ככסף מעבד עברי. זה הפסוק: כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. עם זאת הרמב''ם לא יכול להשתמש בתשובה זו כי היא שייכת רק לבעלים ישראלים. אבל לרמב''ם, בעלים שהוא עובד אלילים יכול לקבל רק כסף - כסף, ולא שום דבר אחר ששווה כסף. גזירה שווה לחצאים אין.  .היה אפשר לענות שהרמב''ם מחזיק קידושי כסף זה מדברי סופרים ולכן הם יכולים לנסח את החוק בכל דרך שהם רוצים. זה אומר שהם יכולים לנסח את הגזירה לכלול שווה כסף. אולם כאשר הרמב''ם כותב שקידושי כסף הם מדברי סופרים הוא מתכוון שכאשר הסנהדרין מדייק חוק באמצעות שלוש עשרה העקרונות שעל פיהם מוסברת התורה סנהדרין מאוחר יותר שרואה את הנושא אחרת יכול לשנות את החוק הזה. זה לא אומר שזו גזירה. אלא זה אומר שבית דין הגדול הראשון רואה בזה חוק מהתורה והשני לא. ואנחנו מחזיקים כמו הגמרא שלומדים קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון  אבל עדיין יש לי שאלה אחת. הרמב''ם מחזיק שווה כסף יכול לקנות משהו כי זה קניין חליפין ואין אישה נקנית על ידי קניין חליפין. איך נדע שהרמב''ם מחזיק שווה כסף יכול לקנות משהו על ידי שהוא קניין חליפין?הסיבה היא כפי שציינו רב שך כי בהלכות מכירה פרק א' הרמב''ם דן בקניין כסף ואחר כך בפרק ה' הוא. כותב "כל המטלטים קונים זה את זה", ושם הוא עוסק בקניין חליפין

 So now even Maverick Philosopher agrees that there is a separate source of moral information--the conscience. That is what Leonard Nelson calls non intuitive immediate knowledge.

[I am being short here, but just as a brief explanation: Maverick Philosopher is from the Analytic School and this is a huge step for a very important Analytic Philosopher agree with Leonard Nelson and the Friesian School in this area. It is almost dogma by them to say there is no such thing as immediate knowledge 

Another note: immediate  non intuitive knowledge [not through reason nor the five senses] was postulated in order to find a justification for the questions like where, when, [space time], why, [causality] etc. Empirical knowledge was out because of the problem of induction and knowledge of causality  by reason was attempted by Kant, but that was found to be problematic also. Most think that Kant's justification for these categories simply defies  reason.    It was later that this immediate non intuitive was expanded to include faith. But this expansion is significant in that it is really just an improvement of Kant, and not a completely different approach.