זבחים ט ע''א פסחים ס''ב tractate zevachim page 9 and pesachim page 62

 Even though רב שך writes that the רמב''ם holds the leftover פסח sacrifice does not need עקירה from the name פסח and rather becomes automatically a קרבן שלמים I think he must have been aware of how weak this idea is. For he himself brings two powerful refutations of this very idea. One he tries to escape with a weak answer what is called a דוחק. The other he does not answer at all. The first refutation is this: the רמב''ם brings the teaching that says ''if the owners of the פסח die or become unclean [before it is sacrificed] it must be burnt immediately.'' The גמרא brings this teaching and right away says, ''we see from this that the leftover פסח needs uprooting. [Now even though רב שך tries to answer this that the רמב''ם is only referring to specific cases where the owners are pushed off to the second פסח, we see from the language of the רמב''ם that he states the law simply if the owners died it is burnt.] The next question even רב שך does not attempt an answer to. It is the teaching that if the whole year has passed and one brings the פסח for the sake of פסח in its time it is כשר but not accepted. That even the גמרא does not use as a proof that the leftover פסח does not need uprooting for everyone agrees in this case as תוספות says. The גמרא does not in fact use that ברייתא as a proof for רב הונא in the name of רב that the פסח does not need uprooting. 

למרות שרב שך כותב שהרמב''ם מחזיק את קרבן הפסח שנשאר לא צריך עקירה מהשם פסח ודווקא הופך אוטומטית לקרבן שלמים, אני חושב שהוא בטח היה מודע לכמה שהרעיון הזה חלש. שכן הוא עצמו מביא שתי הפרכות עוצמתיות לרעיון זה. אחד הוא מנסה לברוח עם תשובה חלשה מה שנקרא דוחק. על השני הוא לא עונה בכלל. ההפרכה הראשונה היא זו: הרמב''ם מביא את ההוראה האומרת שאם בעלי הפסח מתים או נטמאים יש לשרוף אותו מיד. הגמרא מביאה את ההוראה הזאת ומיד אומרת ''אנו רואים מכאן שצריך לעקור את השאריות הפסח.'' [עכשיו למרות שרב שך מנסה לענות על זה שהרמב''ם מתייחס רק למקרים ספציפיים שבהם הבעלים נדחקים לפסח השני אנחנו רואים מלשון הרמב''ם שהוא קובע את הדין בפשטות אם הבעלים מתו זה נשרף.] השאלה הבאה אפילו רב שך לא מנסה לענות עליה. הלימוד הוא שאם חלפה כל השנה ומביאים את הפסח לשם פסח בזמנו כשר אבל לא מקובל. שאפילו הגמרא אינה משתמשת כהוכחה ששארית הפסח אינה צריכה עקירה שהרי כולם מסכימים במקרה זה כדברי תוספות. הגמרא למעשה אינו משתמש באותה ברייתא כהוכחה לרב הונא בשם רב שהפסח אינו צריך לעקור.

 Loyalty to Torah ought not be confused with affiliation to the religious world.  Even the most straight of all groups, the Lithuanian world of Torah is, after all, only human. You can see this principle in the Torah itself where the emphasis is on loyalty to God and keeping his law. but also [as i have mentioned many times] you see this in the Gemara which deals with the sacrifice that klal Israel brings when we listen to a mistaken Sanhedrin. [The case is when the Sanhedrin rules on a situation which involves the penalty of karet (cutting off) [e.g. idolatry , or shabat] and the Sanhedrin rules that some act of idolatry is permitted when the individual knows it is forbidden. still the individual depends on the ruling of the Sanhedrin and does the act. he has to bring his own sin offering and can not depend on the sin offering that the Sanhedrin must ring for their own acting on their mistaken ruling.]

There is no concept that the religious authorities can not be mistaken. So then what about the statement אפילו אומר לך על ימין שמאל או על שמאל ימין even if he says on right that it is left or on left that it is right this does does not refer to a case where the law is known to the individual as we see in the gemara that one must not depend on a mistaken Sanhedrin. 

 z87 [a midi file]  z87 nwc

 I think that one should accept the yoke of Torah to be learning Torah day and night and trusting in God for parnasa [making a living]. I just want to make it clear that the fact that I am not doing so is not because that I disagree with the basic approach. rather that for reasons that I do not understand very well, I could never ''make it'' in the world of Torah even though I think I tried as hard as I could. But if others can manage to do this, I think that is the best thing.  As for myself when I saw that I had to do so, I went to Polytechnic Institute of NYU to major in Physics for I needed some way of making a living. 

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?