רמב''ם הלכות מעשר א' הלכה ט''ו The mishna tractate trumot chapter 4

 There is an argument between the Rambam and the Raavad concerning a case when one takes only a fraction of what he is obligated in Truma and maaser [tithe]. [He is obligated to take a tenth  for maaser from the Torah, and one fiftieth for truma from from the word of the scribes.] To the Rambam nothing has happened. The act of separating is not valid and he has to separate truma and maaser even from what he took. For an example there is 100 seah of tevel and he takes  five seah. He has to take a half a seah on what he took and clearly 9 seah on the stack of grain. To the Ravvad the separation is valid and what he took is valid and on the stack of grain itself he can go and take another five seah because we depend on ''breira''. [ we say what he separates now is thought to have come from the part of the stack that has not yet been fixed].There is a slight proof for the Raavad because Reissh Lakish in the Yeruhalmi holds the mishna that says this law is referring only to truma. so he holds the mishna means that the act of separation is valid and that it can not be valid in the case of maaser and so he says the mishna does not refer to maaser. [The mishna tractate trumah chapter 4 says המפריש מקצת תו''מ מפריש ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר] so even though the poskim hold the mishna refer to both truma and maaser till the meaning is the the separation is valid.

___________________________________________________________________

 There is an argument between the רמב''ם and the ראב''ד concerning a case when one takes only a fraction of what he is obligated in תרומה and מעשר. [He is obligated to take a tenth  for מעשר from the Torah and one fiftieth for תרומה from from the word of the scribes.] To the רמב''ם nothing has happened. The act of separating is not valid and he has to separate תרומה and מעשר even from what he took. For an example there is מאה סאה of טבל and he takes  חמש סאה. He has to take a half a סאה on what he took and תשע סאה on the stack of grain. To the ראב''ד the הפרשה is valid and what he took is valid and on the stack of grain itself he and takeS another five סאה because we depend on ''ברירה''. [ We say what he separates now is thought to have come from the part of the stack that has not yet been fixed].There is a slight proof for the ראב''ד because ריש לקיש in the ירושלמי holds the משנה that says this law is referring only to תרומה. So he holds the משנה means that the הפרשה is valid and that it can not be valid in the case of מעשר and so he says the משנה does not refer to מעשר. [The משנה says המפריש מקצת תו''מ מפריש ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר]. So even though the פוסקים hold the משנה refer to both תרומה and מעשר Still the meaning is the the הפרשה is valid.

יש ויכוח בין הרמב''ם לראב''ד על מקרה שבו אחד נוטל רק חלק ממה שהוא חייב בתרומה ובמעשר. [חייב ליטול עשירית למעשר מהתורה, ואחד מחמישים לתרומה מדברי סופרים.] לרמב''ם לא אירע כלום. מעשה ההפרדה אינו תקף וצריך להפריד תרומה ומעשר אפילו ממה שלקח. לדוגמא יש מאה סאה של טבל והוא לוקח חמש סאה. הוא צריך לקחת חצי סאה על מה שלקח ותשע סאה על ערימת התבואה. לראב''ד הפרשה תקף ומה שלקח תקף ועל ערימת התבואה עצמו הוא ולוקח עוד חמש סאה כי אנחנו תלויים ב''ברירה''. [אנו אומרים שמה שהוא מפריד כעת נחשב למקורו מהחלק של הערימה שעדיין לא תוקן]. יש הוכחה קלה לראב''ד כי ריש לקיש בירושלמי מחזיק את המשנה שאומרת את החוק הזה, שהכוונה רק לתרומה. אז הוא מחזיק שהמשנה אומרת שהפרשה תקפה ושזה לא יכול להיות תקף במקרה של מעשר, ולכן הוא אומר שהמשנה לא מתייחס למעשר. [המשנה אומרת "המפריש מקצת תו''מ מוציא ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום אחר"]. אז למרות שהפוסקים מחזיקים את המשנה מתייחסת גם לתרומה וגם למעשר, עדיין המשמעות היא שההפרשה תקפה

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