זבחים ט' ע''א Zevahim רמב''ם מעשה הקרבנות פרק י' הלכה ז' rambam laws of sacrifies chap. 10 law #9

 The leftover Passover sacrifice. Rav Shach writes that the Rambam holds it is a regular peace offering and thus is eaten two days and one night. He gets this from the fact that the Rambam does not write anything about it at all. All he does is write the law of the Passover which is eaten only that night and the law of peace offerings which are eaten two days and one night. And he has to answer Tosphot who holds the leftover Passover sacrifice is eaten one day and one night only and Tosphot brings an open Torat Kohanim that says so openly and many other proofs. Rav Shach says that statement from Torat Kohanim go like the opinion that the Pesach sacrifice needs to be uprooted from the name of a pesach to that of a peace offering.

You can argue for this idea in this way. If the Rambam would hold  the pesach needs to be uprooted then he would have written it,  but if he holds it does not need to be uprooted, then he could easily just leave it out, after all, he is not writing all the things you do not need to do.

on the other hand it seems weak. he writes nothing about uprooting and he writes nothing about how long the leftover pesach is eaten. and you can reasonably argue tht even if the law is the pesach does not need uprooting then it remains with the name of pesach and thus has the same law of being eaten only the day and night it is sacrificed-no longer.

Plus one proof Rav Shach brings is weak. He brings that the Rambam writes if the whole year has gone by and then he sacrifices the pesach in his time it is kosher but not accepted. So there the Rambam definitely holds it does not require uprooting, but so what. tosphot writes that the case of when the whole year has gone by everyone agrees it does not require uprooting.  

However Rav Shach brings some proofs that if it does not require uprooting, then it should have all the regular laws of a peace offering, So i need to think about this some more

_____________________________________________________________________________

   מותר הפסח רב שך כותב  that the רמב''ם holds it is a regular peace offering and thus is eaten two days and one night. He gets this from the fact that the רמב''ם does not write anything about it at all. All he does is write the law of the פסח which is eaten only that night and the law of שלמים which are eaten two days and one night. And he has to answer תוספות who holds the leftover קרבן פסח is eaten one day and one night only and תוספות brings a תורת כהנים that says so openly and many other proofs. רב שך says that statement from תורת כהנים goes like the opinion that the קרבן פשח needs to be uprooted from the name of a פסח to that of a שלמים. You can argue for this idea in this way. If the רמב''ם would hold  the  קרבן פסח needs to be uprooted then he would have written it,  But if he holds it does not need to be uprooted then he could easily just leave it out, After all, he is not writing all the things you do not need to do. On the other hand it seems weak. He writes nothing about עקירה and he writes nothing about how long the leftover  קרבן פסח is eaten. And you can reasonably argue that even if the law is the קרבן פסח does not need  עקירה then it remains with the name of  קרבן פסח and thus has the same law of being eaten only the day and night it is sacrificed, no longer. Plus one proof רב שך brings is weak. He brings that the רמב''ם writes if the whole year has gone by and then he sacrifices the קרבן פסח in his time it is kosher, but not accepted. So there the אמב''ם definitely holds it does not require uprooting, But so what? תוספות writes that the case of when the whole year has gone by, everyone agrees it does not require עקירה. However רב שך brings some proofs that if it does not require uprooting, then it should have all the regular laws of a peace offering, Do I need to think about this some more

''''

מותר הפסח רב שך כותב שהרמב''ם מחזיק הוא קרבן שלמים רגיל וכך נאכל יומיים ולילה אחד. הוא מקבל זאת מכך שהרמב''ם לא כותב על זה כלום. כל מה שהוא עושה זה לכתוב את דין הפסח שאוכלים אותו רק באותו לילה ואת דין שלמים שאוכלים יומיים ולילה אחד. וצריך לענות תוספות המחזיק ששארית קרבן פסח נאכל יום ולילה אחד בלבד ותוספות מביא תורת כהנים שאומר זאת בגלוי ועוד הרבה הוכחות. רב שך אומר שהאמירה של תורת כהנים הולכת כמו הדעה צריך לעקור את קרבן פסח [לא בזמנו] משם של פסח לשם של שלמים. אתה יכול להביא ראיה על הרעיון הזה בדרך זו. אם הרמב''ם היה מחזיק את קרבן פסח צריך לעקור אז הוא היה כותב את זה, אבל אם הוא מחזיק שלא צריך לעקור אז הוא יכול בקלות פשוט להשאיר את זה בחוץ, הרי הוא לא כותב כל. הדברים שאתה לא צריך לעשות. מצד שני זה נראה חלש. הוא לא כותב כלום על עקירה והוא לא כותב כלום על כמה זמן אוכלים את שאריות קרבן פסח. ואפשר לטעון באופן סביר שגם אם הדין הוא קרבן פסח לא צריך עקירה אז זה נשאר בשם קרבן פסח ולכן יש לו אותו דין נאכל רק ביום ובלילה שמקריבים אותו, לא עוד. ועוד הוכחה אחת שרב שך מביא היא חלשה. מביא שהרמב''ם כותב אם חלפה כל השנה ואז מקריב את הקרבן פסח בזמנו זה כשר, אבל לא מקובל. אז שם הרמב''ם בהחלט מחזיק שזה לא דורש עקירה, אבל אז מה? תוספות כותב שהמקרה של כשכל השנה חלפה, כולם מסכימים שזה לא מצריך עקירה.

 There is an argument if having a mistress is okay and most rishonim allow this. but even the Rambam who does not hold it is an איסור עשה [prohibition derived from a positive command]. That is how the Beit Shmuel in Even Haezer explains the Rambam. For the Rambam does hold that a girl who is willing to have sex with anyone for money--i..e. a prostitute is forbidden, but  that is not the same thing as when one has a mistress or girlfriend who is only for him alone. But to most rishonim this is permitted outright.

The Gra makes note of Caleb ben yefuna in chronicles I ch 2 verses 43-50 who had a few wives and a few mistresses. And he was not a king. So the Rambam who says that a mistress was permitted only to kings is incorrect. 

As the issue of the monthly period, she should dip in the sea or a river

 The white race is committing suicide. It is not enough that everyone else is trying to wipe them out but at least half of them want to destroy their progeny and traditions. This is sad because if the USA goes under, where could be any bastion of freedom? Maybe Israel?  

 I was looking at vol I chap. 19 in the book of Rav Nahman and noticed a few things. One is the approach that he takes towards sex. The general desire for sex he calls ''desire for adultery''. He is not thinking at all the sex in marriage all of a sudden becomes holy. It might be permitted but still has that aspect of ''desire for adultery''.  But this is not new to me. You can see in the Mesilat Yesharim that sex can be holy once one has gone through all those preliminary steps enumerated in the braita of R .Oinchas ben Yair. Mainly however I would say that a lot depends on intension.

In fact it makes sense to learn the sidur of Rav Yaakov Emden for newly married couples which goes through this subject in detail.

besides that i have no idea why people think marriage makes anything better or holy. i have repeated plenty of times the story about the friend of Joshua [who conquered  the land of Canaan] Caleb ben yefuna in Chronicles chap 2 verses from around 43 to about 50.  it is hard to tell how many wives and how many girl friends he had but clearly they were quite a bunch. and hewas not some low life. וימלא אחרי שם ''he went totally after God'', [see rambam at the start of laws of marriage and the raavad and ramban there. ]

The approach to Kant called the Friesian School does not engage with the major interpretations of Kant. It sort of stands alone  ''Take it or leave it.'' as you might hear when you go to buy at the supermarket.

I think this isolates this school  from academia, and also makes it hard to place in the Kantian Spectrum.  

I mean  to say that the major interpreters of Kant are Cohen [Marburg school], Allison, Strawson, Sellers. [The later Cohen diverged from Kant.] And besides them there are the many approaches influenced by Kant--like the later Cohen. Where does immediate nonintuitive knowledge [of the Friesian school] fit or not fit with all this?  In what areas do they agree and in what areas disagree and why? 

 In the approach of the Gra there is an emphasis on the "Seven Wisdoms". Rav Baruch of Shkolev was a disciple of the Gra who wrote a small translation of Euclid and in his introduction quotes the Gra: ''Anyone who lacks any knowledge of the Seven Wisdoms will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold.''

Bur what can this mean? The Seven Wisdoms is a well known concept of the Middle Ages. [grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music ]The emphasis on learning them is found in some rishonim  besides the Gra, but certainly not all.

[My approach to this is to emphasize Mathematics, and Physics but Astronomy I feel not ready for until I have a good grasp on General Relativity, QFT and String Theory. For the ultimate test of Strings will have to be in the distribution of the stars and galaxies.

[Even if Physics is hard, I figure that with the approach mentioned in the Gemara about review 400 times, it must get clearer after a few hundred times.[That is the story about the amora who used to review each lesson with his disciple 400 times. Then once his student was not concentrating so that amora reviewed the lesson another 400 times.]]

why not to believe everything doctors say

 Radithor-- or why not to believe everything doctors say--especially about new treatments, This was wifely prescribed by doctors. This was given to a well known athlete who had a minor  discomfort.  After taking it he felt great.  It had all the properties that were advertised. It relieved pain, made him feel great, and gave a tremendous boot of energy  So he kept on taking it until after some time his jaw fell out. It turns out the main ingredient of Radithor is Radium. [radium is radioactive.]

[This is the true story about about Eben Byers]