I have been convinced of the power and importance of repentance ever since i learned the book gates of repentance by R. Yona of Gerondi at the Mir yeshiva in N.Y. In the local breslov place on this side of the pond I once told a story of repentance that I think brings out the point more powerfully than anything else I can think of. It regards Henry II. In short, he had a great friend, Thomas Becket whom he had made archbishop of Canterbury [assuming he would do his bidding]. But something unexpected happened after that. In the Middle Ages there was one authority above the king. Thomas Becket  found God. There after he was going to do God's bidding. This infuriated the king. So one day in a fit of rage he yelled at some of his knights. ''Who will rid me of this priest? They misunderstood him and thought he really meant to kill Becket. So they went to Canterbury and killed becket. after that thing started going terribly wrong. his wife Elenore went to her ex husband the king of France and began plotting to put her on John on the throne of England. And his son John also got the king of Scotland to invade England from the north and the invasion from France and the north had begun. everything wa going a wrong a thing could go for the king of England personally and politically. His own sons and wife were out to get him and had engaged two powerful kings to do so. So what did Henry do. Collect troops and engage in battle? No. He realized his problems were not from kings or princes. It was the hand of Thomas Becket reaching from beyond. So he was going to repent in the most astounding manner that he could. He sailed from France where he was at that time and went straight to Canterbury. Outside the city he removed his boots and began walking toward the cathedral through the streets which were filled with sharp rocks and broken pottery. as he walked he left a bloody trail of his own bleeding feet behind him. When he got to the cathedral he went below  where the shrine of Becket was. There he ordered the monks --each one to whip him with all his might five times each. For the hundred monks that were there that meant he received 500 lashes, He fainted many time before it was over. But by a miracle, the next day  he got the news that the king of Scotland had been captured and the whole rebellion was squashed.

 Even though there is great advice and deep ideas in the book of Rav Nachman of Breslov, there is to be a lack of appreciation of the importance of the Gra. For after all where do you find people really sitting and learning Torah day and night for its own sake except in a Litvak yeshiva that is connected with the path of the GraThis is so obvious that it barely needs mentioning. But still since  not everyone is in the vicinity f a authentic Litvak Yeshiva, for those who have not seen or felt the power and light found in the authentic world of Torah of the Litvak yehivot, for them this is worth mentioning.

 I think Rav Nahman was right about the problem with religious leaders. See the LeM I ch30 where he talks about to be wary off the "Torah of the Dark Side".These religious leaders pretend to be teaching straight legitimate Torah but in fact are teaching the Torah of the Sitra Achra [Realm of Darkness]

I would not have been aware of this even after being in great Litvak yeshivot and even learning the teaching of Rav Nahman, until this problem was brought painfully to my attention --for which reason i avoid the religious world like I would avoid the black plague [except for the nearby na nach place on the name of rav nahman or if there would be a Litvak yeshiva nearby like a branch of Ponovitch.]. After all I say to myself about the religious world ''Fool me once--shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me."  

 I just wanted to make clear a point I wrote  about last week. And also to show what it is in the Rambam that seems unclear, First a straying wife [sota] is in Book of Numbers chapter V verses 11 and on. There are cases when she can drink the bitter waters and there are cases when she can not. To E Eliezer [of the Mishna]she can drink when there are two witnesses for the warning and one witness or the husband himself sees the privacy. But if the privacy was only indicated by the chirping of a bird she does not drink, She is divorced without the marriage contract.  

To R Yehoshua [of the Mishna] both the warning and privacy need two witnesses for her to drink. But even if there are two witnesses but everybody is talking about her saying she strayed then she does not drink.

R Yehoshua ben R Yehuda says only the privacy needs two witnesses.

My question is how and from where can the Rambam derive his statement of the law. 

In Laws of sota he says the law i lie R Yehoshua but also bring the case of a husband sees the privacy [i.e. he saw her walk into a private room with the man he was warned about]. If the warning was with two witnesses she is forbidden to him and does not drink but i divorced immediately. But if the warning was only between him and her with no witness she can drink. That is in the end of law of marriage 24 law 25.

I hope it is clear my question here that this does not seem to go like any opinion in the Mishna at all.

Just to make clear the context here let me add that R Akiva Eiger on the Mishna say we see from Rashi and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura not like the Rambam for they say  what I mentioned before that to E Eliezer [of the Mishna]she can drink when there are two witnesses for the warning and one witness or the husband himself sees the privacy. Thus there is no שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא even to R Yehoshua. And Rav Shach defends the Rambam there in laws of Sota and also in Laws of Marriage. But hi defense of the Rambam is on particcular points. No one seem to notice the fact that what the Rambam says sesms to have no connection with the Gemara.   

 

 

new music file z96

 z96 

I ought to mention here that i jut write music for fun, And I am happy to share with other here on the internet. But it would take too much time to go through all the file that i saved during the years to now what is bet to share. So i just share them as they are written. and most of what was written before i was able to put them on the internet i think was lost

an argument between Rav Shach and R. Akiva Eiger about the case of a straying wife.

 There is an argument between Rav Shach and R. Akiva Eiger if there is any such thing as שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא for a sota [straying wife] that her husband saw her go into a private room with a man she was warned by her husband to stay away from.

The basic issue comes from the Book of Numbers [chapter 5 verse 11] where you have the subject of a straying wife. There it is stated that she drinks the ''bitter waters.' [That is-- water mixed with a little dirt of the temple and in which the paragraph about the straying wife was dissolved in .]

What is the situation in which she drinks? First she is warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man. Then she is seen to go into such a place. To R, Eliezer the warning is in front of two witnesses, but seeing her go into a private place does not require two witnesses.  Anything can be an indication, or her husband sees her go into a private room with that man. In that case, she drinks the water. [I.e, if she wants to. Otherwise she can admit she strayed and is divorced without her ketubah [marriage contract-that is about $1000 if she married as a virgin. If she was not a virgin, the marriage contract gives her $500].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

But one thing you see here. The fact that her husband saw her go into the room does not make her forbidden to him.

Now the law is not like  R Eliezer. but even so, so far you do not see any such thing as  שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [He makes her to be forbidden.] 

What would be a case of "He makes her to be forbidden". That would be if he says he saw her in the act. But here all he saw was that she went into a private room.  

Now against R Eliezer are R. Yehohua who holds you need two witnesses for both [the warning and the seeing her go into a private room] and R, Yehoshua ben R Yehuda  who says you only need two witnesses for the privacy. So what would they hold if the husband sees the privacy?  That is the argument. R. Akiva Eiger says we would not say "He makes her to be forbidden",[to Rashi and Rav Ovadia from Bartenura on the Mishna], However the Rambam הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' holds we would say, "He makes her to be forbidden to himself," and Rav Shach says that even Rashi and the Bartenura might agree with the Rambam since the actual case where R. Eliezer says, ''Even the chirp of a bird is enough to indicate she went into a private room''--that is enough for the courts to force the husband to divorce her. so the argument between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua is about in what case does the court force him to divorce her, not "He makes her to be forbidden."   But this is still unclear to me. Is it not so that R. Eliezer says מקנא עלפי שניים ומשקה על פי עצמו  meaning ''he warns her in front of two, but can himself see the privacy'' --all that means is he has to give her the possibility to drink the water in order to defend herself and show that she is innocent. To R. Yehoshua it could be that since there were not two witnesses we do nothing! I was at the sea and on the way back it occurred to me that you do not see in R. Eliezer the idea of שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא he make her forbidder to himself but rather just ר איעזר אומר מקנא ה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  so there is no reason to think that R Yehoshua holds some special notion that if he sees the privacy that that make her forbidden to himself. This indicate that R Akiva Eiger is right. I admit though that if it could be shown that R Eliezer holds he make her forbidder to himself by just seeing the privacy then one could argue that R Yehohua would agree with that.

Later I saw what the proof of Rav Shach is: the Yerusshalmi that says if one witness sees the privacy in the morning and other sees it in the evening then she drinks, That means you do not need witnesses for the privacy to make a valid category חלות but just as an indication.[Rav Shach brings this in Laws of Marriage 24 law 25]. So if the husband sees the privacy without witnesses that is enough  he himelf seeto make her forbidden to him though not enough to allow her to drink the bitter waters.     

But even with that the opinion of the Rambam seems hard to understand. He holds that if the warning is in front of witnesses and then later he alone sees the privacy then she is forbidden to him forever because he made her forbidden t in the gemara himself by the law   שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא. that is in rambam laws of sota 1 halacha 8. but if the warning was only between himself and her with no witnesses and then later he sees the privacy, then she can drink the water in order to defend herself. and he is only forbidden to him until she drink the water. that i in laws of marriage 24 halacha 25. that does not seem to be like any opinion. to r eliezer only the warning needs witnesses. to r yehoshua both the warning and privacy needs witness and to r yehoshua  be yehuda only the privacy need witnesses.

____________________________________________________________________

 There is an argument between רב שך and רב עקיבא איגר if there is any such thing as שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא for a סוטה [straying wife] that her husband saw her go into a private room with a man she was warned by her husband to stay away from. The basic issue comes from the במדבר where you have the subject of a straying wife. There it is stated that she drinks the ''bitter waters.' [That is-- water mixed with a little dirt of the temple and in which the פרש סוטה was dissolved in .] What is the situation in which she drinks? First she is warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man. Then she is seen to go into such a place. To ר' אליעזר the warning is in front of two witnesses, but seeing her go into a private place does not require two witnesses.  משקה על פי עד אחד, or her husband sees her go into a private room with that man. In that case, she drinks the water. [I.e, if she wants to. Otherwise she can admit she strayed and is divorced without her ketubah [marriage contract-that is about $1000 if she married as a virgin. If she was not a virgin, the marriage contract gives her $500].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

But one thing you see here. The fact that her husband saw her go into the room does not make her forbidden to him.

Now the law is not like  ר' אליער. but even so, so far you do not see any such thing as  שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [He makes her to be forbidden.] 

What would be a case of "He makes her to be forbidden". That would be if he says he saw her in the act. But here all he saw was that she went into a private room.  

Now against ר' אליער are ר' יהושע who holds you need two witnesses for both [the warning and the seeing her go into a private room] and ר' יהושע בן ר' יהודה  who says you only need two witnesses for the privacy. So what would they hold if the husband sees the privacy?  That is the argument. ר' עקיבא איגר says we would not say "He makes her to be forbidden", [to רש''י ו הרב מברטנורה ], However the רמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' holds we would say, "He makes her to be forbidden to himself," and רב שך says that even רש''י and the ר'''ב might agree with the רמ''ם since the actual case where ר' איעזר says, ''Even the chirp of a bird is enough to indicate she went into a private room''--that is enough for the courts to force the husband to divorce her. So the argument between ר' אליעזר and ר' יהושע is about in what case does the court force him to divorce her, not "He makes her to be forbidden."   But this is still unclear to me. Is it not so that ר' אליעזר says מקנא על פי שניים  ומשקהעל פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  meaning ''he warns her in front of two, but can himself see the privacy'' --all that means is he has to give her the possibility to drink the water in order to defend herself and show that she is innocent. To ר' יהושע it could be that since there were not two witnesses we do nothing! I was at the sea and on the way back it occurred to me that you do not see in ר' אליעזר the idea of שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא he make her forbidder to himself, but rather just ר איעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו  so there is no reason to think that ר' יהושע holds some special notion that if he sees the privacy that that make her forbidden to himself. This indicate that ר' עקיבא איגר is right. I admit though that if it could be shown that ר' אליעזר holds he make her forbidder to himself by just seeing the privacy then one could argue that ר' יהושע would agree with that.

Later I saw what the proof of רב שך is: the ירושלמי the first chapter of סוטה that says if one witness sees the privacy in the morning and other sees it in the evening then she drinks, That means you do not need witnesses for the privacy to make a valid category חלות but just as an indication.[רב שך bring this in הלכות אישות כ''ה הלכה כ''ד].So if the husband sees the privacy without witnesses that is enough to make her forbidden to him though not enough to allow her to drink the bitter waters.         

  

But even with that the opinion of the רמב''ם seems hard to understand. He holds that if the warning is in front of witnesses and then later he alone sees the privacy then she is forbidden to him forever because he made her forbidden t in the  himself by the law   שוויא עליו חתיכה איסורא. that is in רמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק ח הלכה א. but if the warning was only between himself and her with no witnesses and then later he sees the privacy, then she can drink the water in order to defend herself. and he is only forbiddenד to him until she drink the water.  [ הלכות אישות פרק כ''ד הלכה כ''ה]. that does not seem to be like any opinion. to ר' אליעזר only the warning needs witnesses. to ר' יהושע both the warning and privacy needs witness and to ר' יהושע  בן ר' יהודה only the privacy need witnesses.

___________________________________________________________________

יש ויכוח בין רב שך לרב עקיבא איגר אם יש דבר כזה שוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא לסוטה שבעלה ראה אותה נכנסת לחדר פרטי עם גבר שבעלה הזהיר אותה ממנו. הנושא הבסיסי מגיע מספר במדבר שבו יש לך נושא של אישה תועה. שם מצוין שהיא שותה את ''המים המרים'. [כלומר-- מים מעורבים במעט אבק של המקדש ובהם התמוססה פרשת סוטה.] מה המצב בו היא שותה? ראשית היא מוזהרת על ידי בעלה שלא תהיה במקום פרטי עם גבר מסוים. ואז רואים שהיא נכנסת למקום כזה. לר' אליעזר האזהרה היא מול שני עדים, אבל לראות אותה נכנסת למקום פרטי לא צריך שני עדים, או שבעלה רואה אותה נכנסת לחדר פרטי עם האיש הזה. במקרה כזה, היא שותה את המים. [כלומר, אם היא רוצה. אחרת היא יכולה להודות שסטתה והיא מגורשת ללא הכתובה שלה [חוזה נישואין - כלומר בערך 1000$ אם היא התחתנה בתור בתולה. אם היא לא הייתה בתולה, חוזה הנישואין נותן לה 500$].מקנא בה על פי שנים ומשקה אוה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו. אבל דבר אחד אתה רואה כאן. זה שבעלה ראה אותה נכנסת לחדר לא הופך אותה לאסורה עליו. עכשיו החוק הוא לא כמו ר' אליער. אבל אף על פי כן, עד כה אינך רואה דבר כזה כשוויא עליו חתיכה דאיסורא. [הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה.] מה יהיה מקרה של "הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה". זה יהיה אם הוא אומר שהוא ראה אותה בשעת מעשה. אבל כאן כל מה שהוא ראה זה שהיא נכנסה לחדר פרטי. עכשיו נגד ר' אליער הם ר' יהושע שמחזיק אתה צריך שני עדים לשניהם [האזהרה והראייה שנכנסה לחדר פרטי] ור' יהושע בן ר' יהודה שאומר שאתה צריך רק שני עדים בשביל הפרטיות. אז מה הם יחזיקו אם הבעל יראה את הפרטיות? זה הטיעון. ר' עקיבא איגר אומר לא היינו אומרים "הוא עושה אותה לאיסור", [לרש''י והרב מברטנורא ], אולם לרמב''ם הלכות סוטה פרק א' הלכה ח' היינו אומרים "הוא גורם לה להיות אסורה על עצמו", ורב ש"ך אומר שאפילו רש"י והר''ב עלולים להסכים עם הרמ''ם שכן המקרה בפועל שבו ר' איעזר אומר, ''אפילו ציוץ של ציפור כדי לציין שנכנסה לחדר פרטי''--די בכך שבית הדין יכפו על הבעל להתגרש ממנה. אז הוויכוח בין ר' אליעזר לר' יהושע הוא באיזה מקרה מכריח אותו בית הדין להתגרש ממנה, ולא "הוא עושה אותה לאסור". אבל זה עדיין לא ברור לי. האם זה לא כך שר' אליעזר אומר מקנא על פי שניים ומשקה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו כלומר ''הוא מזהיר אותה מול שניים, אבל יכול בעצמו לראות את הפרטיות'' -- כל מה שאומר שהוא צריך לתת לה את האפשרות לשתות את המים כדי להגן על עצמה ולהראות שהיא חפה מפשע. לר' יהושע יכול להיות שמכיוון שלא היו שני עדים אנחנו לא עושים כלום! הייתי בים ובדרך חזרה עלה בדעתי שאתה לא רואה בר' אליעזר את הרעיון של שוואי עליו חתיכה איסורא הוא גורם לה לאסרה לעצמו, אלא רק ר איעזר אומר מקנא לה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו אז אין סיבה לחשוב שר' יהושע מחזיק באיזו תפיסה מיוחדת שאם הוא רואה את הפרטיות שהופכת אותה לאסורה על עצמו. זה מצביע על כך שר' עקיבא איגר צודק. עם זאת, אני מודה שאם ניתן היה להוכיח שר' אליעזר מחזיק הוא גורם לה לאסור לעצמו רק על ידי ראיית הפרטיות, אז אפשר לטעון שר' יהושע יסכים עם זה

אחר כך ראיתי מה ההוכחה של רב שך: הירושלמי בפרק הראשון של סוטה שאומר שאם עד אחד רואה את הפרטיות בבוקר ואחר רואה את זה בערב אז היא שותה, כלומר לא צריך עדים בשביל הפרטיות לעשות קטגוריה חוקית [חלות] אלא רק כאינדיקציה.[רב שך מביאים זאת בהלכות אישות כ''ה הלכה כ''ד]. אז אם הבעל רואה את הפרטיות ללא עדים די בכך כדי לעשותה אסורה עליו אף על פי כן. לא מספיק כדי לאפשר לה לשתות את המים המרים

 Stoning is the most severe punishment in Torah and you can tell what things are more stringent than others if this is said in the Torah to be the punishment. Idolatry is one of these. 

[I was reminded about this because i walked into a breslov na nach sort of place and opened up the mishna in sanhedrin]

but it also occurred to me that things can be idolatry even they do not qualify for the full punishment. this is like on Shabat when there are plenty of things which desecrate the Sabbath even if they do not get up to the level of the full punishment. a simple example i if one picks up an object in a public domain but puts it down in a מקום פטור [a non obligated place].   

So what this means is that there is plenty of stuff which is going on in the religious world which i idolatry even if it does not reach the level of full liability.