I wanted to mention at some point that I wish to make clear my dad's role in the U-2 project and the invention of the Infrared telescope.  In both cases, I wrote here on my blog that I thought he did not get enough credit. But recently it was made clear.  First of all, he had made the second camera for the U-2 that could see a toothpick from 20,000 feet. But that was rarely used because of its weight. The people that made the smaller camera that  was the workhorse and did the photos over the USSR and Cuba got the credit they deserved.

And as for his invention of the infrared telescope, he did in fact get the credit that he deserved --not just in Life Magazine but in Time Magazine and on TV shows.

 to accept on oneself the yoke of Torah is a help for oneself and the whole world as you can see in the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin vol IV. So when you see the world falling into chaos, the best thing is to set times to get through the two Talmuds and the midrashim. Commentaries on these also count as "learning Torah". The problem nowadays is there is too much pseudo Torah and false Torah. As we see in Sanhedrin that one who reads outside books has no portion in the next world. And the Rif and Rosh explain outside books are books that explain the Torah but have explanations that are not from the Two Talmuds or the Midrashim. That of course means almost 99.9% of all so calle Torah books today are pseudo Torah.

Why I have not merited to learn Torah

 It occurred to me one reason why I have not merited to learn Torah [see the reason why Ilfa [who was learning Torah with R Yochanan] went to work, while R. Yochanan stayed to learn Torah.] the reason I believe was that I made my learning Torah contingent on circumstances. Before I got married, I made it clear that I was going to learn Torah, and that was that. My future bride asked, "But what if there is no money." I said, ''If it comes a day when there is no food and no money, I will go and work.'' [Just like Ilfa who made the same mistake.] and since I made my Torah learning dependent on circumstances, thus later even though there was plenty of food and money, my wife left me because I was learning Torah.  and  I was praying with the sidur of the Reshash [Sar Shalom Sharabi.]  And then at that point , being a  divorced older guy, I was no longer the type of person that yeshivot beg to come to them and lay out the red carpet. I was thrown out of every place I tried to sit and learn Torah. So eventually, I realized I had no place in the religious world, and went to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU, and went into Physics. [But that, in any case, was after I found support for this in the Chovot Levavot and the Guide for the Perplexed.]

I mention this because I see when one gets married he needs to be committed to learning Torah with no conditions attached and to marry a girl that is similarly committed. 

 People do not realize that pushing  Russia they are playing with fire. Putin does not need 6000 nukes. Just one would destroy NY State and make the entire East Coast uninhabitable  down to South Carolina. Ukraine would be the first to go, Then as the USA continues to "punish Russia" the West and East Coast will be then next to go. [That is why Russia has submarines. They are now sitting off the East and West coast of the USA--right now.]

Ukraine was ready to make a deal until the USA encouraged the government of Ukraine to continue fighting. Believe me, 99.9% of people in Uman  prefer Russian rule rather than the leaders in Kiev. [i was in uman for years and talked with everyone I met about this exact issue.]  No one benefits from the continued fighting.

new music file

 z93  z93 nwcmy music background is not professional. i just write for myself. only a few years ago i found away to share with others a you can scattered on this blog different pieces with labels starting with when i began to share, plus some old music i wrote in high school and later in uman like the piece called mathematics.

 Jesus is misunderstood. He did not say not to keep the commandments of the Torah. What he said about this specific subject is turned into its opposite in a feat of sophistry that even the most brilliant lawyer could never duplicate. [see sermon on the mount]

He never claimed worship or to be God.

But to be fair, Christians that take his words seriously tend to kindness towards others to a degree rarely seen anywhere else.

I should mention that Aquinas and Hegel did try to show the rational foundations of Christianity, but it seems to me that these two issues remain unanswered. I am not the first to notice them,- as you can see in the book of Saadia Gaon who also brings them up.

BUT I tend to see Aquinas as important for defending Divine Simplicity but not that he succeeded. Hegel also i see defending faith, but absorbing it into reason. Rather I think Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross do the best job in defending an approach which sees faith and reason as two separate areas of value. however these philosophers are unknown because Nelson was not translated and Kelley Ross wrote just his PhD thesis which goes into the Kant Friesian Approach in comprehensive depth. It is all just a side route in Kantian Philosophy which the West disregarded a long time ago. 

Besides it deals with Kantian philosophy which asks how reason can recognize universals at all,-- while Michael Huemer [see his pre-graduate papers about objective morality ] deals with what reason can recognize among universals after you accept that it can do so in the first place. See Huemer proof of objective morality:(1) There are moral propositions.

(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)

(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism) 

in his paper: Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness.

Bava Metzia page 35.Rambam Laws of Guards chapter 1 Halacha 6.

 At first glance, it looks like Rav Shach has a good argument for the Rambam.   The Rambam holds a guard that gives to another guard like R. Jose. And he holds that the reason is not like Rav Idi bar Abin but rather from the reasoning alone of "How can the first guard do business with the cow of another?" And that really Abyee would be right if not for that. But to me this looks weak. If Abyee is right that the first guard owns the cow right away at the time of the accident, then it makes no sense to as how can he do business with the cow of another when it already is his cow. If you are going to decide like R Yose against the sages as the Rambam does, then the only reason has to be because of  Idi bar Abin.

And as for the argument that he brings from Rav Aahron Kotler [later in laws of guards chap 2 law 3] that neglect is a good plea as opposed to "It is not  not in my possession"-that is a good argument for the Raavad and that does not mean that the case in chapter 1 law 6 is from the same reasoning. The case in chap 1 is that of the cow died in a normal way,  not from neglect, and that is a good plea.

Just to give some background as to what I mean here:

The Mishna states a case when  guard gives the  cow that he was hired to guard to another guard. The first is a paid guard. The second is borrowing from the first. The cow then dies naturally. The sages said the first guard takes an oath that it died naturally as is his normal requirement and the second guard who was borrowing from the first pays the first guard. R. Yose asks how can the first guard do business with the cow of another? 

Idi bar Abin says the owner of the cow should just tell the first guard "I do not need you nor your oath" and the go to the second guard, (the borrower) and get paid for the cow--as is the normal case of a borrower who pays in all cases.

The Rambam decides like R. Jose.

Later in chapter 2 law 3 the Rambam writes neglect is he same as causing damage and the Raavad disagrees. Rav Shach says that the reason for the Raavad is that he hold the plea of neglect is a good plea i and of itself even without an oath to back it up.

_______________________________________________________________________

 At first glance it looks like רב שך has a good argument for the רמב''ם,   The  רמב''ם holds a שומר that gives to another שומר like ר' יוסי. And he holds that the reason is not like רב אידי בר אבין but rather from the reasoning alone of "how can the first guard do business with the cow of another". And that really אביי would be right if not for that. But to me this looks weak. If אביי is right that the first guard owns the cow right away at the time of the accident then it makes no sense to ask how can he do business with the cow of another when it already is his cow. If you are going to decide like ר' יוסי against the חכמים as the רמב''ם does, then the only reason has to be because of   רב אידי בר אבין. And as for the argument that he brings later in laws of guards chap 2 law 3 that neglect is a good plea as opposed to "it is not  not in my possession"-that is a good argument for the ראב''ד and that does not mean that the case in chapter 1 law 6 is from the same reasoning. The case in chap 1 is that of the cow died in a normal way,  not from neglect and that is a good plea. Just to give some background as to what I mean here: The משנה states a case when  guard gives the  cow that he was hired to guard to another guard. The first is a paid guard. The second is borrowing from the first. The cow then dies naturally. The חכמים said the first guard takes an oath that it died naturally as is his normal requirement and the second guard who was borrowing from the first pays the first guard. ר' יוסי asks ''how can the first guard do business with the cow of another?'' רב אידי בר אבין says the owner of the cow should just tell the first guard ''I do not need you nor your oath'' and then goes to the second guard, [the borrower] and get paid for the cow, as is the normal case of a borrower who pays in all cases. The רמב''ם decides like ר' יוסי. Later in chapter 2 law 3 the רמב''ם writes neglect is he same as causing damage and the ראב''ד disagrees. רב שך says that the reason for the ראב''ד is that he hold the טענה of פשיעה is a good plea is and of itself even without an oath to back it up.

במבט ראשון נראה שלרב שך יש טיעון טוב לרמב''ם. הרמב''ם מחזיק שומר שנותן לשומר אחר כמו ר' יוסי. והוא גורס שהסיבה אינה כמו רב אידי בר אבין אלא מהנימוק בלבד של "איך יכול השומר הראשון לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר". ובאמת אביי היה צודק אלמלא זה. אבל לי זה נראה חלש. אם אביי צודק שהשומר הראשון מחזיק בפרה מיד בזמן התאונה, אז אין טעם לשאול איך הוא יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר כשהיא כבר הפרה שלו. אם אתה מתכוון להחליט כמו ר' יוסי נגד החכמים כמו הרמב''ם, אז הסיבה היחידה צריכה להיות בגלל רב אידי בר אבין.

[רב שך מביא את תשובת אביי שהשומר זוכה בפרה בזמן התאונה, לא בזמן השבועה, וזו הוכחה לחכמים. אבל רב שך אומר שר' יוסי מסכים עם זה באופן עקרוני, אבל עדיין מחזיק אחרת בגלל השאלה "איך השומר יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר?"]

ולגבי הטענה שהוא מביא בהמשך הלכות שומרים פרק ב' דין ג' שהזנחה היא טענה טובה בניגוד ל"אין זה ברשותי" - זה טענה טובה לראב''ד, וזה לא אומר שהמקרה בפרק א' חוק ו' הוא מאותו נימוק. המקרה בפרק א' הוא שהפרה מתה בדרך רגילה, לא מהזנחה וזו טענה טובה. רק כדי לתת קצת רקע למה אני מתכוון כאן: המשנה מציינת מקרה שבו השומר נותן פרה שהוא נשכר לשמור לשומר אחר. הראשון הוא שומר בתשלום. השני הוא לווה מהראשון. לאחר מכן הפרה מתה באופן טבעי. החכמים אמרו שהשומר הראשון נשבע שהוא מת באופן טבעי כדרישה הרגילה והשומר השני שלווה מהראשון משלם לשומר הראשון. ר' יוסי שואל ''איך השומר הראשון יכול לעשות עסקים עם פרה של אחר?'' רב אידי בר אבין אומר שהבעלים של הפרה צריך פשוט לומר לשומר הראשון ''אני לא צריך אותך ולא את השבועה שלך'' ואז הולך לשומר השני, [הלווה] ומקבל תשלום עבור הפרה, כמו במקרה הרגיל של הלווה שמשלם בכל המקרים. הרמב''ם מחליט כמו ר' יוסי. בהמשך פרק ב' חוק ג' כותב הרמב''ם שהזנחה היא זהה לגרימת נזק, והרב''ד חולק. רב שך אומר שהסיבה לראב''ד היא שהוא מחזיק בטענה של פשיעה היא טענה טובה אפילו בלי שבועה לגבות אותה.