real authentic Oral Law

 In the Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] there is an emphasis on Reason and Faith. But they do not mean  faith in anything  nor any reasonable sounding doctrines. As the Rambam puts it: "Just like one can not add nor subtract from the written Law so one can not add nor subtract from the Oral Law." So he means to eliminate pseudo Torah and books that pretend to be Torah. To him there is a cut-off point when the Oral Law was redacted.  That means the Two Talmuds, and the Midrashim are the only real authentic Oral Law and everything else which claims to be Torah is Torah from the Dark Side. [Midrash means two things Midrash Agada and Midrash Halacha]. [Zohar does not count as midrash because of the phrase עם כל ד "although". That way of saying although was an invention of the Ibn Tibon family during the Middle Ages. In the time of the Mishna this was said as "אף על פי" or "אף על גב"

 something is odd about mysticism. But I would rather not dismiss it in toto. 

     

When the Rambam refers to Reason he also makes it clear he is referring to Aristotle [and to a lesser degree Plotinus] 

How the Gemara approaches this issue of learning in depth. There is brought the event of the teacher that used to review 400 times the lesson with his student and there is also the suggestion of 40 time review,  Four times review is mentioned in the Gemara also in terms of how much the Children of Israel reviewed each lesson from Moshe Rabbainu [Moses] in the Sinai desert.

I would like to suggest John Locke's Two Treaties as a better idea of government.

 In some great Jewish Philosophers you find the importance of learning Philosophy and Physics . But in those days not much had gone beyond Plato and Aristotle. And the ideas of Plato as regards government I think require a bit of modification. I would like to suggest John Locke's Two Treaties as a better idea of government. Government is an area which is not gone into in the Gemara and in Plato there is a sort of spartan government. I think John Locke provides a better model of government which protects individual liberties.

Other kinds of government do not respect the values of Torah. For example, socialist  government does not respect private property. But religious leaders do not either as they tend to be demons as Rav Nahman [in the LeM I:112 and I:28] pointed out about Torah scholars that are demons Part of the reason for that is they want power and money and use Torah to get them. But Torah is transcendental. It has nothing to  do with social structures. Torah does not give any significance to group dynamics or forms of government. It i personal between a man and God  

My favorite theme about John Locke is that people need to be aware of the development of his ideas in the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford. 

new Friesian school

The Abhandlungen [published journal] of the new Friesian school was quite critical of the Special Theory of Relativity. However it was pointed out by Kelley Ross that that rejection of Relativity did not flow or come automatically from Friesian principle as you can see in  Dr. Ross's web site.

[The reason of Dr. Ross is that non intuitive immediate knowledge is not infallible. Rather that it can be modified because of empirical findings. And that synthetic a priori knowledge has to flow from starting axioms  and not be self contradictory.

[I can see why the Friesians were alarmed by Relativity because to Kant all reason has to start  with space and time--the categories.]

This is close to Michael Huemer's idea that what is known by reason is not necessarily infallible, but can and must be modified by new information. [This is his approach by means of probability (of Bayes)]. And it is not too far from Hegel either in which the door to the real reality can be opened by means of the dialectical approach of Socrates. But that dialectic in Socrates was not meant to be the only way in,  [though it is possible that for Hegel, only the dialectical method is an open the door to real reality, but I am not sure . Concrete abstract synthesis might be almost by definition contain an element of empirical ''concrete''evidence. ]   

 in high school most people thought I was a philosopher.  Even people who were much smarter than me thought I had a certain insight in that direction. And yet I never went into philosophy in college because I could already tell that 20th century philosophy was on its way toward a train wreck, But even so I consider the subject to be important. Of course Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Kant are important but I would like to suggest Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross at his web site to be the best [i think the approach of Nelson is great, but had a serious flaw in the categories of space and time that only Kelley Ross was able to correct.]

My reasoning is that the British American "Analytic Philosophy" is a train wreck and so well pointed out in  books by Robert Hanna. The other 20th century ones are beyond contempt since they are incoherent. Heidegger just substituted Being in place of God and being authentic to oneself instead of moral obligations  to others. Freud I have always thought was a fraud since I could not stand his steam engine model of the human mind. Marx was wrong since the Labor theory of value is false--things have value outside of what amount of work went into making them--for example: AIR.    

 one important idea of Rav Nahman {of Uman and  Breslov}is that not everyone is fit to rebuke, o even though it is one of the 613 commandments to rebuke anyone who is not acting properly, still not everyone i able to give rebuke. For by rebuke that is not proper one can make things worse.  However  "מחאה" is different than rebuke. That is the need to object  in public to actions that are not right. Like in the incident of Kamza and Bar Kamza. One person was invited to a wedding feast by accident. There was a mixup of the wedding invitations. so an enemy of the family was invited to the wedding. When he was thrown out many of the religious scholars were there but did not object. Because of that incident the sages aid the second Temple was destroyed

When a woman or a slave cause damage, Gemara in Bava Kama [perek hachovel] page 87:a.[בבבא קמא פז ע''א] Rambam laws of damage 4 law 21

Ideas in Shas

 When a woman or a slave cause damage,  they do not pay [because they do not own property].רמב''ם הלכות חובל ומזיק 4' כ''א My question here is why should not she sell her ketubah for the benefit of the person she damaged? (After all, someone could buy it for a reduced price because the husband might die before the wife, and then the buyer would collect the whole amount. Or the husband might die first, and then the buyer would collect nothing.)

The Gemara in Bava Kama [perek hachovel] asks this question about property she owns but which is not written in the ketubah. [נכסי מלוג] But that suggestion is only going according to Rav Huna ben Yehoshua who holds even if she would sell that property, the fruit would still go to her husband. [That is how Rav Shach answers this question:  why the Rif, Rambam and Rashi leave out this suggestion of the Gemara?] But I ask about selling the actual ketubah. . And the money from that buyer would then belong to the wife as the Rambam writes in laws of marriage 22 law 27. And then she would then pay for the damage that she caused 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 When a woman or a slave cause damage,  do not pay [because they do not own property]. My question here is why should not she sell her ketubah for the טובת הנאה ? The גמרא in  בבא קמא פז ע''א ] asks this question about property she owns but which is not written in the ketubah [נכסי מלוג]. But that suggestion is only going according to רב הונא בן יהושע who holds even if she would sell that property, the fruit would still go to her husband. [That is how רב שך answers this question:  why the רי''ף רמב''ם ורש''יleave out this suggestion of the גמרא?] But I ask about selling the actual כתובה. After all, someone could buy it for a reduced price because the husband might die before the wife, and then the buyer would collect the whole amount. But thee husband might die first, and then the buyer would collect nothing. And the money from that buyer would then belong to the wife as the רמב''ם writes in הלכו אישות  כ''ב הלכה כ''ז. And then she would then pay for the damage that she caused 

בבבא קמא פז ע''א

כשאישה או עבד גורמים נזק, לא משלמים [כי אין להם רכוש].(רמב''ם הלכות חובל ומזיק ד' הלכה כ''א) השאלה שלי כאן היא למה שהיא לא תמכור את הכתובה שלה עבור טובת הנאה? (כי יכול להיות שהבעל ימות לפני האישה, ואז הקונה יגבה את כל הסכום. אבל אם האישה תמות קודם, אחר כך הקונה לא יגבה דבר.) הגמרא בבבא קמא פז ע''א  שואלת שאלה על הרכוש שבבעלותה אך אינו כתוב בכתובה [נכסי מלוג]. אבל ההצעה הזאת הולכת רק לפי רב הונא בן יהושע שמחזיק אפילו אם הייתה מוכרת את הנכס הזה, הפירות עדיין היו הולכים לבעלה. [כך עונה רב שך לשאלה זו: מדוע הרי"ף רמב"ם ורש''י משאירים את הצעת הגמרא הזו בחוץ?] אבל אני שואל לגבי מכירת הכתובה בפועל. הרי מישהו יכול לקנות אותו במחיר מופחת. הכסף מאותו קונה היה אז שייך לאישה כמו שכותב הרמב''ם בהלכות אישות כ''ב הלכה כ''ז. ואז היא תשלם על הנזק שהיא גרמה