Daddy's little princess becomes the grown lying bitch. .If one is willing to give up one's values because of what a woman says, then he never had any values in the first place.

 KING SOLOMON wrote in Proverbs: ''One man in a thousand I have found (that I can depend on), but even one woman in all that I have not found.'' Does that mean that there is no woman you can depend on, or that the number of women that you can depend on is less than 1/1000? AT any rate, it is clear that Solomon-the wisest of all men [as mentioned twice in the Bible-the Book of Kings and Chronicles], did not think that depending on women is a good idea. Then why are marriage laws in the West deigned to ruin men and their children? It must be because people that make the laws do not learn the Old Testament.

My own thought about this is along the lines of Rav Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Musar [books on Morality from the Middle Ages]-for when men or women concentrate on their responsibilities, they are able to overcome their natural evil inclinations. 

The trouble nowadays is daddy's little princess becomes the grown lying bitch. And whose fault is that? The fact that every man will always support what ever is perceived as a benefit to women, or more accurately any woman.     For men's loyalty one to another disappears as soon as a woman is involved.

And the religious world is no different. The religious bit is just a nice disguise. All Torah values go out the window as long as the approval of a woman is involved 

What I recommend is to learn Torah, Math and Physics [as per the opinions of the medieval authorities that held these last two part of the mitzvah of learning Torah] and not give it up because of a wife that demands one to stop. One's values have to be more important than the puzzy pass. If one is willing to give up one's values because of what a woman says. then he never had any values in the first place.  

It is hard to get philosophy right--I mean the big picture. Plato, Aristotle, KANT are certainly on top and I would have to add Leonard Nelson --of the new Friesian School. BUT even Nelson needs a good deal of clarification as per the friesian.com  of Kelley Ross. However it is a huge mistake in philosophy to have run into the vast array of 20th century ridiculous vacuous pseudo philosophies. [However, I still think that Hegel is a worthy rival of even this Friesian modification of Kant.]  

I think it is too easy to be impressed with 20th century Analytic Philosophy-so as a cure for that disease i recommend Robert Hanna's  book on Analytic Philosophy's fall into the trash bin of history along with existentialism, Post Modernism, The Frankfurt School's neo Marxism. i do not claim to have studied all this thoroughly but i did read a lot of it. The flaws in all of it can take time to see but some are more obvious. It does become to people that are interested in ''big picture'' philosophy--to go back to the serious thinkers--not the superficial ones that sound profound.

 The issue with Hamas is simple. They started the war. so war it is --like Sherman's March through Georgia to the sea. Grind the enemy into the dust. [Why did Eisenhauer not send humanitarian aid to German civilians during WWII?  Why Stalin did not send humanitarian aid to the German civilians in the cities who were starving even though they were not at the front line battles? Japan's civilians were literally starving in all the major cities. WHY did MacArthur not send them humanitarian  aid? Or PERHAPS suggest to relocate them?]

destroy the enemies of Israel

 I appreciate that the U.S.A is helping and I certainly agree that is owed because of that, but I do not think Israel should be limited by the goals and policies of the U.S.A..There is no serious difference between Hamas and the rest of the population of Gaza. You can't have a neighbor  who is saying the first chance he gets he will kill you in your bed as you sleep at night. You would complain to the police; and if they refuse to do anything, you would do what ever you could to protect yourself. The enemies of Israel have decided to drive the Jews into the sea, and Israel has the right to refuse them that privilege, --and to put them in a position in which they can not accomplish that goal. Gaza is too close to be able to defend against. Therefore, there is no choice but to destroy the enemies of Israel 

Ketubot page 18b and 19 a דעת הרמב''ם, לא ראב''ד הלכות גירושין י''ב ה''ג] Rambam Laws of Divorce 12 law 3.

A wife who has her document of divorce does not need to establish it [by asking the witnesses]  unless the husband says it was forged. [This is the opinion of the Rambam, not Raavad Laws of Gitin 12-3.] But if he says it he lost it and she found it, he is not believed. Losing a document of divorce is not common. But for a document of a loan where the borrower claims a similar weak plea, he is believed. The later authorities question, "Why the difference?" Rav Shach writes the the loan needs establishing and so it it a case the same person that establishes that he wrote it is the same mouth that establishes that he never borrowed anything. The divorce however is valid with the husband not saying anything. The question I have here is that the only time you need to establish a document of a loan is when one is collecting it not in the presence of the borrower. But in our case the borrower is here.  He is saying he wrote it, but he lost it. [i know this seems way to obvious for it to be a simple mistake. i am just writing it down as it is until hopefully i get some answer ]

___________________________________________________________________________

A wife who has her doc of divorce does not need to establish it [by asking the witnesses]  unless the husband says it was forged. [This is the opinion of the רמב''ם, not ראב''ד  Laws of גירושין ] But if he says it he lost it, and she found it, he is not believed. Losing a document of divorce is not common. But for a שטר of a loan where the borrower claims a similar weak plea, he is believed. אחרונים are puzzled by the difference. רב שך writes the the loan needs establishing, and so it it a case the הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר. (The same person that establishes that he wrote it is the same person that says that he never borrowed anything.) The divorce however is valid without the husband saying anything. The question I have here is that the only time you need to establish a שטר of a loan is when one is collecting it not in the presence of the borrower. But in our case the borrower is here.  He is saying he wrote it, but he lost it. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

אשה שיש לה מסמך גירושין אינה צריכה להעמידו [בשאילת העדים] אלא אם כן הבעל אומר שזויף. [זו דעת הרמב''ם, לא ראב''ד הלכות גירושין י''ב ה''ג] אבל אם אמר הפסיד, והיא מצאה, אינו נאמן. אובדן מסמך גירושין אינו שכיח. אבל על שטר של הלוואה שבה הלווה טוען טענה חלשה דומה, הוא נאמן. אחרונים שואלים מההבדל. רב שך כותב את ההלוואה צריכה להקים ולכן זה מקרה הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר. (אותו אדם שקובע שכתב את זה הוא אותו אדם שאומר שמעולם לא שאל כלום.) הגירושין לעומת זאת תקפים מבלי שהבעל אמר דבר. השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהפעם היחידה שאתה צריך להקים שטר של הלוואה היא כאשר גובים אותה לא בנוכחות הלווה. אבל במקרה שלנו הלווה כאן. הוא אומר שהוא כתב את זה אבל הוא איבד את זה

 סביב רשעים יתהלכון ''Around and go the wicked''. [That is from Psalms.] It is hard enough to find a true area of value, but even when you do, the wicked surround it and it is too easy to get caught in the consciousness traps that they set for you. Even if you have found your way into the center of an authentic area of value, the Dark Side still never gives up trying to get you.

[Sometimes the way itself is  lost.]

What I mean by areas of value--I am referring to Dr. Kelley Ross's Approach: Foundations of Value 

This is based on Jacob Fries's modification of Kant and Leonard Nelson. Fries modified Kant's Transcendental Deduction with the new idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge. 

I was at the beach and noticed a few people that looked ''yeshivish'', and asked from where they come. A Litvak yeshiva in Jerusalem. We discussed some of what I am learning nowadays, and I mentioned the sugia [subect] I am in at present--trying to figure out and argument between Rav Shach and Reb Chaim [The Brisker Rav] in the first mishna in Gitin. They asked why I am not in a yeshiva myself, and I made some excuses--while in fact it is my own fault. If I had stuck with the straight Litvak path of the Gra from the beginning, then in fact things would have been different. But once out --always out. So at least I try to hold on to learning and keeping the straight and narrow Torah path--the path of the Gra as best I can on my own.

[Part of the problem is women and men that do not value learning TORAH. Men that do not value LEARNING TORAH might very well be in yeshivot themselves and even kollel-leit--people that learn Torah and have found it a lucrative way to make a quick buck. Or you have most of the women in the world that grew up without valuing learning TORAH. It makes no difference if they are religious or not. they are nightmares.  In fact, if they are religious they are worse --self righteous hags.]