new music file z100 for orchestra

 z100  z100 nwc

 It is possible that the problem in the USA is the woke indoctrination that stems from  the anti-enlightenment traditions [anti reason], and that the rise of China stems from its adoption of the enlightenment tradition stemming from Hegel. [Marx was after all in the Hegelian tradition.]

See Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind that in fact traces the difficulties in the USA education system to this contradiction between the Enlightenment philosophers and the Anti Enlightenment ones.

The rise of the USA was during the time it was firmly embedded in the Enlightenment with John Locke. But after the 1960's this has all been changing.

Now China and Russia teach their students Calculus and Quantum  Mechanics. The USA teaches its students "gender pronouns".  Where this will lead to is fairly clear, 

to avoid WWIII

 I am concerned about the decision in Washington to send Patriot batteries to Ukraine. I am not sure why a war between Russia and the USA does not seem to bother anyone. I thought to avoid WWIII would be on the top of everyone's agenda. 

And it is not true that the average Ukrainian does not want Russian rule. I asked Ukrainians in Uman about this over the period of many years, and they always said to me that things were better under the USSR than after Ukrainian independence when things were in a state of lawlessness and chaos.

The Kant-Fries school is important because it shows and corrects many of the flaws in Neo-Kantian thinkers. A side benefit i that it shows a connection between faith and reason.

 I see in Germany there are large efforts to go mining and digging into Kant and some of his major commentators: Hermann Cohen [in Germany] Allison, Strawson, Sellars in the USA.

I asked Dr Kelley Ross  [of The Kant-Fries School ] and this was his answer:

I wrote: Let me  say she [Bauman] is saying that the categories of Kant are not a ''thing in itself''' but rather the structures that make thinking possible.

Dr Ross: "The categories do apply to things in themselves, but we don't know how.  Once they are "schematized" with space and time, they make phenomenal objects possible.  But then causality, in particular, can mean free will among things in themselves; but the evidence for that only comes with morality.""

I wrote : ""She [Charlotte Bauman] shows there is a difference between the early Hermann Cohen which was like this and the later Cohen that Nelson was disagreeing with."

KR: "As soon as Cohen rejects things in themselves, then really nothing is left of Kantian philosophy.  Whether that is "early" or "late" doesn't make much difference to me."

I wrote : "That is as well as I can understand her point of view right now. Why this is relevant to the Friesian school is that in this way the categories are not derived, but given and thus similar to non intuitive immediate knowledge."

Kelley Ross: "Kant thought that the categories are somehow derived directly from the forms of logic, which is what people call the "metaphysical deduction" of the First Critique.  This is nonsense.  His move is a leap of imagination, not inference, and his epistemology has nothing to explain it.  Before Fries, one could only appeal to Platonism for a more sensible explanation.

If the "early" Cohen was more like Kant, he is still stuck with Kant's problems and improbabilities.  I doubt that Bauman fixes that up. "

The Kant-Fries school is important because it shows and corrects many of the flaws in Neo-Kantian thinkers. A side benefit  i that it shows a connection between faith and reason.

One benefit about the combination of faith a reason is that one can have faith that is false. [just like when reason can be flawed.] When one combines faith reason it is more likely to hit the truth.

One can see what happens in Philosophy by means of the mathematical notion of flabby sheaves. There is loss of exactness in a case where one wants to go from a smaller domain into the whole space. There is then loss of exactness. And this is what happen in philosophy when  people do not look at the big picture-or refuse to acknowledge the role that faith plays in coming to truth. [This is hinted at in Torah:אנחנו מאלמים אלומים בשדה ] We were gathering sheaves in the field. For to correct the problem of loss of exactness one must go to the stalks that make the sheaves,--but you do not worry about gluing the stalks together.

 The new drone attack inside Russia is no surprise since Ukrainians freely went to work in Russia with no visa until this year. I knew Ukrainian people in Uman that  went to work in Russia. The border was open in both direction until recently..   I even knew of a sad case where someone  in Uman [Ukraine] was a travel agent and arranged trips for a large gathering and then simply took all the money and disappeared into Russia. Or so he thought, until some of the people he had cheated tracked him down. I forget how that ended, but for sure the cheater was not served tea and cookies  

new music file z99

 z99

Gemara Nida2. The Mishna says a person went into a mikve [pool] and it was found lacking the full volume, all the pure things which were handled [based on the  assumption that that mikve was okay] are impure. R Shimon says in a private domain they are in doubt. In a public domain they are pure. The Gemara asks from this braita: ''a barrel of wine was separated in order to use it for separating truma, and was found to be sour. For three days, the wine that was fixed is ok. After that it is a doubt.'' R Hanina from Sura says the teaching about barrel is R Shimon. And both learn from sota. What is the case with Sota? Even though she is in doubt, she is considered to be definitely not ok until she drinks. So all the pure things are impure. But then just like sota they should be considered pure in a public domain? No, because for in a public domain there is no privacy. That is why the sota is ok there. But for a mikve what difference is there in a public domain if it was found lacking? But even so since we learn from sota they should be pure in a public domain? No because here there are two status's to make impure. R Shimon also learns from sota. Just like sota in a public domain is pure, so are the pure things. But then in a private domain they should be impure. No, because there is valid suspicion on her in private domain.The question that Rav Shach asks here [in Laws of Truma 5:24 ] is that once you come on two status's, you do not need the answer of sota. Also, I ask that the Gemara asks on the first Tana that since we learn from sota, the law should be like sota in all cases. I think they mean that if we learn by a Gezera shava. אין גזירה שווה לחצאים. So why do they not ask the same question on R Shimon? Since he learns from Sota. the law of the pure things should be like sota in all cases. And also, I would like to ask that if we are learning from a gezera shava or הקיש, then what type of answer could it be that sotaa is different because of such and such a reason. Is that not the whole point of a gezera shava,- to put the law of one case into another case even though they are different?Also I would like to ask that in any case, the teaching about the barrel is not like R Shimon. The braita says for three days it is ok, and after that a doubt. But if it would be R Shimon it should be a doubt right away in a private domain and ok in a public domain.[What I am getting at is that in fact Rav Shach is right that even though the gemara puts this together, it seems clear that these are two separate answers, ]I know there i a lot here that might be unclear but I am really tired from being at the sea the whole day. But just tp help a little bit let me say:A sota is a woman who was warned by her husband not to be in a private place with a certain man, and she did so anyway. She is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the waters in the Temple--or she can refuse and admit her guilt, and is divorced.The "two status's" means the fellow that went into the mikva was impure, and the mikve is now not okay. That is two against one status that we know in the past it was ok That is sstatus of impure, plus status now against status of the past. You might have run into this subject in Ketuboth page 9 I might add that the whole comparison of the barrel used for truma with sota or the mikve is difficult to understand. What we learn from sota is a doubt about purity in a private domain is impure, and in a public domain it is pure. This does not seem to have any relation to separation of truma. Also the difference in reasoning is hard to understand because certainly R Shimon agrees there is not privacy in a public domain. so why does he disagree with the firt tana [as the Gemara itself usually asks in similar type of arguments]. And certainly the first tana agrees that the reason for suspicion in a private domain for the sota. And also, if that is the reason for suspicion in a private domain for the sota, perhaps any other case should be totally pure? Why does that reasoning only result in having the case of mikve just a doubt?_____________________________________________________________גמרא נידה ב ע''ב The משנה says a person went into a מקווה and it was found lacking the full volume all the טהרות which were handled based on the assumption that that מקווה was okay are impure. ר' שמעון says in a רשות היחיד they are in doubt. In a רשות הרביםthey are pure. The גמרא asks from this ברייתא a barrel of wine was separated in order to use it for תרומה and was found to be sour. For three days the תרומה is ok. After that it is a doubt. ר' חנינא from סורא says the teaching about barrel is ר' שמעון. And both learn from סוטה. What is the case with סוטה? Even though she is in doubt she is considered to be definitely not ok until she drinks. So all the טהרות are impure. But then just like סוטהthey should be considered pure in aרשות הרבים? No, because for in a רשות הרבים there is no privacy. That is why the סוטהis ok there. But for a מקווה what difference is there in a רשות הרביםif it was found lacking? But even so since we learn from סוטה they should be pure in a רשות הרבים? No because here there are two חזקות  to make impure. ר' שמעון also learn from סוטה. Just like סוטה in a רשות הרבים is pure So are the טהרות. But then in a רשות היחידthey should be impure. No because there  is valid suspicion on her in ברשות היחיד. The question that רב שך asks here is that once you come on two חזקות you do not need the answer of סוטה. Also I ask that the גמרא asks on the first תנא that since we learn from סוטה, The law should be like סוטה all cases. I think they mean that if we learn by a גזירה שווה ולכן אין גזירה שווה לחצאים. So why do they not ask the same question on ר' שמעון? Since he learns from סוטה. the law of the טהרותshould be like סוטהin all cases. And also I would like to ask that if we are learning from a גזירה שווה or הקיש then what type of answer could it be that סוטהis different because of such and such a reason? Is that not the whole point of a גזירה שווה to put the law of one case into another case even though they are different?Also I would like to ask that in any case, the teaching about the barrel is not like ר' שמעון. The ברייתא says for three days it is ok and after that a doubt. But if it would be ר' שמעון it should be a doubt right away in a רשות היחיד and ok in a רשות הרבים.I might add that the whole comparison of the barrel used for truma with sota or the mikve is difficult to understand. What we learn from סוטה is a doubt about טהרה in a private domain is טמא and in a רשות הרביםit is טהור. This does not seem to have any relation to separation of תרומה. Also the difference in reasoning is hard to understand because certainly ר' שמעון agrees there is not יחוד in a רשות הרבים so why does he disagree with the תנא קמא as the גמרא itself usually asks in similar type of arguments. And certainly the תנא קמא agrees that the is reason for suspicion in a רשות היחיד for the סוטה. And also if the is reason for suspicion in a רשות היחיד for the סוטה perhaps any other case should be totally pure? Why does that reasoning only result in having the case of מקוה just a doubt.