This may not seem like  big deal but I  have been thinking about the fact that a courier of a divorce document outside of Israel has to declare "It was written and signed in front of me." There is an argument between the Raaavad and the Rambam if a a divorce ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the Raavad and Tosphot are parallels. Because Tosphot says the reason he has to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is to be lenient. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, [Laws of Divorse 12:2] but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עגונה.  But to the Rambam there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is add a "humra" extra requirement  

The main idea here is just to show that Tosphot and the Raavad fit together. I am not dealing with the Rambam except to show that he is not like Tosphot.

[This occurred to me this morning on the way to the sea, but I did not work it out completely until now,]

[it does not seem needed, but perhaps for additional clarity -there are obviously monetary issues in a ''get'' but the Rambam considers them as a collateral issue.

However I just saw Rav Shach on this subject and he sees a difference between the Raavad and Tosphot.{Laws of Divorce chapter 7. Law 1}

  

A שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ  has to declare "בפני נכב ובפני נחתם." There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם if a a גט ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the ראב''ד and תוספות are parallels. Because תוספות says the reason he has to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם' is to be מקיל. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עיגונה.  But to the רמב''ם there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם'' is add a חומרא extra requirement  

שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ צריך להכריז "בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם". יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם אם גט צריך אימות [קיום]. בדרך כלל כל מסמך שמגיע לבית המשפט צריך להיות מאומת. [לדוגמה, הלוואות]. אז למה לא כאן? יש הבדל בסיבות שניתנו לכך. נראה לי שהראב''ד (הלכות גירושין י''ב הלכה ב') והתוספות מקבילים. כי תוספות אומר שהסיבה שהוא צריך לומר ''"בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" היא להיות מקיל. כלומר - באמת צריך לדרוש אימות מלא אבל כאן אנחנו מקילים כדי להקל עליה משום עיגונה. אבל לרמב"ם באמת לא צריך להיות דרישה לאמת את תקפות הגט שכן אין מדובר בדיני ממונות וכן משום שהיא לא תהרוס את נישואיה השניים בזיוף גט. הצורך לומר ''בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם'' הוא הוספת דרישה נוספת

I might add here that I heard from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [a rosh yeshiva at the Mir] that there is קניין אישות וקניין כסף in acquiring a wife. [there are monetary obligation for both husband and wife.] so the Raavad here is going like this idea\that since there are monetary obligation in a divorce--like giving the ketubah-so the document does need validation. 

 I used to study the story of Rav Nachman about the simple son and the smart one. I was not just reading it but studying it it order to absorb the lessons. One of the lessons i learned was that the smart  son was always saying to himself [after he found himself in some goof situation]]  maye there us some place better than here. i.e that one ought not to do that

 It has been noticed that there is little motivation for women to be nice nowadays. If you find a nice girl it has to be because of an extra ordinary amount of effort that she has expended on correcting her character traits. Otherwise, the emphasis of society is to make women as nasty as possible,-- and that shows. The proof is in the pudding. Women nowadays are unlikable.  If they have divorced  their husbands, they get tons of praise for being so brave. And the more damage they can cause to their ex husbands, their friends and general society consider her as a heroine.

The reason for this I believe is מכת מדינה a general plague that has come into the world.  For you see in prayers of Jews a few generations ago, their main concern was Parnasa -making a living. In general prayer books, you do not see much about peace of the home. That was assumed to be ok. In the American Civil War, how many letters do you see of women or men wishing for their spouses to be better? Never. All the letters and prayers of women are, "Please bring my husband back home safely"

Western society has changed. Women think of divorce as getting  merit badge, and think of it not as a way to get away from their husbands --but as a way to get all his money and to ruin his life as much s possible. 

[What I am getting at here is the importance of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement -- that movement he started. The message is everyone ought to learn Musar the  more the better. Musar in this context means four basic works חובות לבבות, שערי תשובה, אורחו צדיקים ,מסילת ישרים three were from the middle ages and the last from Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato. [Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda. Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous, and Paths of the Just ]

I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. [rather it need to be 16.5 cubits across]

 I do not see how a public domain can be 600,000. The Gemara Shabat (in the chapters about carrying in a public domain) talks like it is a common occurrence. [I am thinking mainly about the chapters about what a man or woman can wear in a public domain.] The reason this number 600,000 seems unreasonable to me is that no ancient cities had anywhere near these numbers, Even Rome had 324,000 according to the census  taken in 152 BC [as brought in Livy in the collected fragments. book 48.]

The Gra brings a proof to the Rambam,Ramban, Rashba that a public domain does not need 600,000. the gemara in Eruvin 6b: Ula said if not for the fact that they close their walls and gates at night, Mehuza (a city in Bavel) would be a public domain. And Ula also said "There is no city in bavel that has ''uchlusa'' 600,000." Besides that, I have noted in this blog before that no ancient cities had anything even close to 600,000.  

There is however such a thing as an eruv, but that can only help in a Carmlit, not an actual public domain. [A  Carmlit is sort of like a private domain in so far as it is permitted from the Torah to carry there. But it is unlike a private domain in so far as carrying to and from there into a public domain is not obligated a sin offering.]

 I discovered that it is hard to swim in rough surf and at the same time to be helping another person get to safety. Much harder than I could have imagined. It is  trying to swim with one hand, and in the other holding a 130 pound person. So even though  I have been doing a little bit of exercise, I now realize  that that little bit is no where near enough.

 I am often in a slightly hidden place at the beach  and today there was a young Arab  walking by about to grab a woman's purse and then he right before he took it he saw I was watching. So he went on some steps. Then came back to me to ask for a cigarette. I had none, and then he walked further back again and asked some girls the same question. [Normally I try to give to whom so ever asks from me something, but in fact I had no cigarette. ] Then after that it occurred to me that that guy was looking for people's stuff to steal. That is why he was about to grab that purse.. So I went over to the police to let them know there was someone around looking for trouble.

I am also still pondering that answer of Rav Shach for the Rambam in Sota [chapter 1 halacha 3] that is related to the gemara in nida page 2 and i am about to give up. i just can not see  how the Rambam can decide like two teachings that the gemara itself says contradict  each other. 

I was at the beach today and thinking about how Rav Shach explains the Gemara in Nida page 2. [The Gemara says the teaching (of the Braita) about the barrel and the teaching (of the Mishna) about the mikve disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the barrel is R. Shimon. And it says R Shimon is learning from Sota.  Then it says maybe R Shimon is learning from the regular case of doubt about purity. At that point Rav Shach says the difference between the first answer of the Gemara and the second is in the second answer the case of the mikve is considered a doubt. The first answer of the Gemara is thinking that the sages consider the case of the mikve is be a sure thing. So that is how the Rambam can say that the law is both like the Mishna and the braita. So the mishna in saying in the case of the mikve that both in a public domain and private that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the Rambam. If we learn from Sota then even the case of the Mikve ought to be pure in a public domain, and if we do not learn from Sota then the case of the barrel ought to be impure in a public domain.

[recently i saw a book by isar meltzer who was a teacher of rav shach and he has a very elegant answer fo the Rambam here but I have not really thought about it long enough to be able to comment ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was at the beach today and thinking about how רב שך explains the גמרא in נידה ב' ע''ב. [The גמרא says the teaching (of the ברייתא) about the חבית and the teaching (of the משנה) about the מקוה disagree so that it is forced to say the teaching about the חבית is ר' שמעון. And it says ר' שמעון is learning from סוטה.  Then it says maybe ר' שמעון is learning from the regular case of doubt about טומאה וטהרה. At that point רב שך says the difference between the first answer of the גמרא and the second is in the second answer the case of the מקוה is considered a doubt. The first answer of the גמרא is thinking that the חכמים  consider the case of the מקוה is be a sure thing. So that is how the רמב''ם can say that the law is both like the משנה  and the ברייתא. So the משנה in saying in the case of the מקוה that both in a רשות הרבים and רשות היחיד that the person that went in remains in doubt. Still it is hard to see why this answers for the רמב''ם. If we learn from סוטה then even the case of the מקוה ought to be pure in a רשות הרבים, and if we do not learn from סוטה then the case of the חבית ought to be impure in a רשות הרבים.

בחוף וחשבתי איך רב שך מסביר את הגמרא בנידה ב' ע''ב. [הגמרא אומר שההוראה (של הברייתא) על החבית והוראה (של המשנה) על מקוה חולקים כך שנאלץ לומר ההוראה על החבית היא ר' שמעון. וכתוב ר' שמעון לומד מסוטה. ואז כתוב שאולי ר' שמעון לומד מהמקרה של ספק לגבי טומאה וטהרה. באותה נקודה רב שך אומר שההבדל בין התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא לשניה הוא בתשובה השנייה המקרה של מקוה נחשב בספק. התשובה הראשונה של הגמרא היא לחשוב שהחכמים מחשיבים את המקרה של מקוה הוא דבר בטוח. אז כך יכול הרמב''ם לומר שהדין הוא גם כמו המשנה וגם הברייתא. אז המשנה באומרו במקרה של מקוה שגם ברשות הרבים וגם ברשות היחיד שהאדם שנכנס נשאר בספק. ובכל זאת קשה להבין מדוע זה עונה על הרמב''ם. אם נלמד מסוטה, אז אפילו המקרה של מקוה צריך להיות טהור ברשות הרבים, ואם לא נלמד מסוטה אז המקרה של החבית צריך להיות טמא ברשות הרבים