Looking at the A and B deduction of KANT- I wonder '' Is this like Hegel?" I mean to say that to receive information from the objective world we need to be a unified subject. [Three people each one thinking one word ''I'', the other thinking ''like'', and the next thinking ''pizza'' does not contain any information. But along with this insight, Kant adds that the objective world itself has to be able to be understood by rules--i.e. by reason. Is that not the same thing as saying reason penetrates and permeates and objectifies the external world.]  

I am not negative towards Hegel, BUT I am upset about how much he is misused. And is also feel that he did miss some important insight of Jacob Fries concerning immediate knowledge--. but as the objection of Michael Huemer, ''Why should we think implanted knowledge has any validity what- so- ever?'' I can answer we can know by the idea of Karl Popper--falsifiability. And, in fact, that is exactly how we got to know that space is not rigid Euclidian. Dr. Kelley Ross has gone into the importance of Popper for the NEW Friesian School. Without the insights of Popper and Kelley Ross, it is hard to hold up the new Friesian School. [To me it is clear that the Friesian  School can not stand without Kelley Ross. Even the brilliant and insightful Leonard Nelson did not accept General Relativity even after it was proven all because it was not in line with Kant's idea that space and have to be immutable hardware in us for with that, no knowledge of the external world is possible. [See deduction B in the Critique.] 

The philosophical; movement back to Kant-has support from Carl Jung who held all philosophy after Kant was garbage. [Referring mainly to the Continental stuff. I am not sure what his take on Frege and Russel or Prichard might have been.] Certainly we know he was highly impressed by Jacob Fries 

The Raavad holds a woman or her carrier that brings her divorce has to establish its validity and it is not enough for either to say it was written and signed in front of me. Rav Shach brings a proof for this opinion comes from a version of the gemara in Gitin page 5b. The gemara brings a teaching that if a carrier brings a get outside of Israel and does not say, ''It was written and signed in front of me,'' the document is not valid, unless its validity was established by witnesses. This is a  question against Rabah who holds the reason for saying, ''It was written and signed before me'' is they do not know about the need to write the doc for the sake of that particular woman.. after all outside of Israel, they do not know about the need for her sake. One answer is this is after they learned the law.  A second version says the answer to Rabah as to the question why does it help to say that formula [or establish its validity by witnesses-if they do not know the need for writing it for her sake] is because the whole worry is maybe the husband might come and complain that the doc was forged. But if he does not come and complain about the need to write it for her sake, why should we complain for him? [To Rav Shach this proves the Raavad because the worry about Lishma we do not worry about unless the husband complain. But the worry about forgery, we do worry about regardless if the husband complains or not.   So if her carrier or she herself bring the document, we do require validation.] This shows that the Raavad was right because for the case where a woman or her carrier bring the document, we do complain and require full validation of the document. However, one can question this because the Gemara itself is saying that if the husband does not come and complain about the need to write it for her sake, why should we complain for him? That seems to imply in all cases (whether she brings her own document or her carrier or his carrier) that we depend on the saying of ''It was written and signed before me'' or we do not even need that if she or her carrier bring her own document.

However the point of Rav Shach is that we do worry about forgery. That is the entire point of this Gemara. That is if the carrier does not say "Before me it was written and signed", then the doc is not valid.  And Rabah is saying that if he does say that formula, then we ask him if it was written for her sake. The question on Rabah is that that is only when he says the formula, but if he does not say it and we depend on establishing the validity of the doc by asking the witnesses if they signed on it, that fact tells us nothing about Lishmah. And the answer of Rabah to this question is if he the husband does not claim it was not lishma, then we don't complain about it. But we certainly do complain about forgery, Therefore the Raavad is correct that we need validation in all cases including if the wife or her carrier bring her own doc.  

_______________________________________________________________________________

The ראב''ד holds a woman or her carrier that brings her divorce has to establish its validity and it is not enough for either to say it was written and signed in front of me. רב שך brings a proof for this opinion comes from a version of the גמרא in גיטין ף ה' ע''ב  b. The גמרא brings a teaching that if a carrier brings a גט outside of Israel and does not say, ''It was written and signed in front of me,'' the document is not valid, unless its validity was established by witnesses. This is a  question against רבה who holds the reason for saying, ''It was written and signed before me'' is they do not know about the need to write the גט for the sake of that particular woman (לשמה). After all, outside of Israel, they do not know about the need for לשמה. One answer is this is after they learned the law.  A second version says the answer to רבה as to the question why does it help to say that formula is because the whole חשש is maybe the husband might come and complain that the גט was forged. But if he does not come and complain, why should we complain for him? [[To רב שך this proves the ראב''ד because the worry about לשמה we do not worry about unless the husband complain. But the worry about forgery, we do worry about regardless if the husband complains or not.   So if her carrier or she herself bring the גט we do require validation. ]]This shows that the ראב''ד was right because for the case where a woman or her carrier bring the document, we do complain and require full validation of the document. However one can question this because the גמרא itself is saying that if the husband does not come and complain , why should we complain for him? That seems to imply in all cases (whether she brings her own גט or her carrier or his carrier) that we depend on the saying of ''It was written and signed before me'' or we do not even need that if she or her carrier bring her own גט.

However the point of רב שך is that we do worry about forgery. That is the entire point of this גמרא. That is if the שליח does not say "Before me it was written and signed", then the גט is not valid.  And רבה is saying that if he does say that formula, then we ask him if it was written לשמה. The question on רבה is that that is only when he says the formula, but if he does not say it and we depend on establishing the validity of the גט by asking the witnesses if they signed on it, that fact tells us nothing about לשמה. And the answer of רבה to this question is if he the husband does not claim it was not לשמה, then we don't complain about it. But we certainly do complain about forgery, Therefore the ראב''ד is correct that we need validation in all cases including if the wife or her carrier bring her own גט.  

הראב''ד אוחז שאישה או שליח קבלה שמביאה את  מסמך הגירושין צריך לבסס את תוקפו ולא מספיק שאחד יאמר שזה נכתב ונחתם בפניי. רב שך מביא שהוכחה לדעה זו באה מגירסת הגמרא בגיטין ף ה' ע''ב. הגמרא מביאה הוראה שאם מוביל מביא גט מחוץ לישראל ולא יאמר ''נכתב ונחתם לפניי'' אין המסמך תקף, אלא אם כן נקבע תוקפו על ידי עדים. זו שאלה נגד רבה שמחזיק שסיבה לומר ''זה נכתב ונחתם לפניי'' הוא לא יודעים בחו''ל על הצורך לכתוב את הגט למען אותה אישה מסוימת (לשמה). הרי מחוץ לישראל לא יודעים על הצורך בלשמה. תשובה אחת היא שזה אחרי שהם למדו את החוק. גרסה שניה אומרת את התשובה לרבה (לגבי השאלה למה זה עוזר לומר את הנוסחה) היא כי כל החשש הוא שאולי הבעל יבוא ויתלונן שהגט מזויף. אבל אם הוא לא יבוא ומתלונן, למה נתלונן בשבילו? 

לרב שך זה מוכיח את הראב''ד כי הדאגה לשמה אין אנו דואגים אלא אם כן הבעל מתלונן. אבל הדאגה לזיוף, אנחנו כן דואגים, ללא קשר אם הבעל מתלונן או לא. אז אם השליח שלה או היא עצמה מביאים את המסמך, אנחנו כן דורשים אימות. 

זה מראה שהראב''ד צדק שכן במקרה שבו אישה או מוביל שלה מביאים את המסמך, אנחנו כן מתלוננים ודורשים תוקף מלא של המסמך. אולם אפשר לפקפק בזה משום שהגמרא עצמה אומרת שאם הבעל לא בא ומתלונן [שהגט מזויף או לא נכתב לשמה], למה נתלונן עבורו? נראה שזה מרמז בכל המקרים (בין אם היא מביאה את הגט שלה או את המוביל שלה או את המוביל שלו) שאנו תלויים באמירת ''נכתב ונחתם לפניי'' או שאפילו אין לנו צורך בכך אם היא או מובילה תביא את  הגט שלה

אולם הנקודה של רב שך היא שאנו דואגים לזיוף. זה כל הכוונה של הגמרא הזו. כלומר אם השליח לא אומר "לפני נכתב ונחתם", אז הגט אינו תקף. ורבה אומר שאם הוא כן אומר את הנוסחה הזו, אז אנחנו שואלים אותו אם היא נכתבה לשמה. השאלה על רבה היא שזה רק כשהוא אומר את הנוסחה, אבל אם הוא לא אומר אותה ואנו תלויים בביסוס תקפות הגט בשאלת העדים אם הם חתמו עליה, עובדה זו לא אומרת לנו דבר על לשמה. ותשובת רבה לשאלה זו היא שאם הוא (הבעל) אינו טוען שזה לא היה לשמה, אז אין אנו טוענים על כך. אבל אנחנו בהחלט טוענים על זיוף, לכן הראב''ד צודק שאנחנו צריכים אישור בכל המקרים כולל אם האישה או המוביל שלה מביאים גט משלה

When the Chatam Sofer [Moshe Sofer] was a disciple of R. Natan Adler

 A herem [excommunication] does have an effect. When the Chatam Sofer [Moshe Sofer] was a disciple of  Rav Natan Adler,  the students learned Torah on the second floor. The first floor was a hall for weddings and other festivities. One Thursday night, a bridegroom was  making a party for his friends and making so much noise that the students upstairs could not learn. Two went down but received insults to themselves and to Rav Natan Adler.  Later Moshe Sofer and others also went to quiet down the party, and blows flowed and a fist fight. The insults were along the lines that ''learners of the Talmud were lazy good for nothings.''  Those students went to Natan Adler, and he answered that it would be proper to put that crowd in herem because of insulting learners of Torah. The students interpreted this as a instruction to do so, and in fact went through with it. Later that night, the bridegroom and a friend walked home. The bridegroom slipped and hit his head on the sharp end of a wall and died. The congregation were sure that the death was the result of the herem, but Rav Natan himself mourned at the funeral. The herem of the Gra has had a different kind of effect [insanity], but no less devastating.  [It is hard to miss this fact]

In Ancient Athens there was a principle that truth can be revealed only through discussion.

 NO ONE has the right to an opinion unless they have  done their homework. People ought to do some background checks before thy form an opinion about anything. -this is an all inclusive principle including the war in Israel. however even after that first step there is the need for discussion. In Ancient Athens there was a principle that truth can be revealed only through discussion.

I don't think anyone ought to be a layman in science

 The problem I see in science for laymen, is that I don't think anyone ought to be a layman. The only reason there are laymen in science is that people have not heard of the way of learning fast--saying the words and going on. Then finishing the book in that way four times. Then going back to do review in depth. If people would do this, they would automatically become way above laymen level--even if the level of expert might still be a bit farther away. [But I think one needs to focus on real science, not pseudo science--see steven dutch's site for explanation of how to tell the difference. And even then it can be hard to know what is worthwhile as opposed to dead ends. Dead ends are not pseudo science -but still paths that have already been looked into and lead nowhere. ]

The fast learning applies also to the two Talmuds and all the midrashim, and along with that an in-depth session --as is the general practice of the great Litvak yeshivot.  

Gitin page 5. Rav Shach writes in Laws of Divorce 7 halacha 1.

 I am pretty sure about something Rav Shach writes in Laws of Divorce 7 halacha 1 so I feel free to write down what I understand so far on condition that I might have to revise this. The issue is why a carrier does not have to say, "It was written and signed before me" in Israel. To Tosfot, the Sages were lenient because of an aguna. [That is a woman that is still attached to her first husband and thus can't remarry ] To the Ran and Rambam the reason the carrier does not have to say this in Israel is because it is not like laws of money. The difference is a  carrier of the wife outside of Israel. To the Rambam, that carrier would not be required to say, "It was written and signed before me"; but to Tosphot, that carrier would. The reason being the requirement is we are afraid the husband will come and say the document was forged. The Gemara page 5 side b is a proof  to Tosphot that if the carrier did not say it, then the validity of the document needs to be established by witnesses, or else it is not valid, So outside of Israel we are not lenient because of aguna, and the document needs validation from the law that all documents need validation before any action can be taken by them, not just a worry about the husband might come and claim  it is not valid, So the reason for validation is like all document of monetary issues like Tophot, and not like the Ran and Rambam.

I admit that this requires some more thought, however it is what I think Rav Shach is saying,

[If can figure out what Rav Shach is saying any better than this, you are doing better than me. ]

_______________________________________________________________

  רב שך writes in גירושין ז' א'. The issue is why a שליח does not have to say, "It was written and signed before me" in Israel. To תוספות, the חכמים were lenient because of an עגונה. [That is a woman that is still attached to her first husband and thus can't remarry ] To the ר''ן and רמב''ם the reason the שליח does not have to say this in Israel is because it is not like laws of money. The difference is a  שליח קבלה outside of Israel. To the רמב''ם that שליח קבלה would not be required to say "It was written and signed before me"; but to תוספןת that שליח would. The reason being the requirement is we are afraid the husband will come and say the גט was forged. The גמרא גיטין ה' is a proof  to תוספות that if the שליח did not say it, then the validity of the גט needs to be established by witnesses, or else it is not valid, So outside of Israel, we are not lenient  because of עגונה, and the גט needs validation from the law that all documents שנפרעים שלא בפניו need validation before any action can be taken by them, not just a חשש THAT the husband might come and claim  it is not valid, So the reason for קיום is like all document of monetary issues like תוספות, and not like the ר''ן and רמב''ם

________________________________________________________________________

רב שך כותב בגירושין ז' א'. העניין הוא מדוע שליח לא צריך לומר "נכתב ונחתם לפני" בישראל. לתוספות, החכמים היו מקלים בגלל עגונה. [זאת אישה שעדיין קשורה לבעלה הראשון ולכן אינה יכולה להתחתן בשנית] לר"ן ולרמב"ם הסיבה שהשליח לא צריך לומר זאת בישראל היא כי זה לא כמו הלכות של כסף. ההבדל הוא שליח קבלה מחוץ לישראל. לרמב''ם לא יידרש שליח קבלה לומר "נכתב ונחתם לפני"; אלא לתוספות כן צריך. הסיבה היא הדרישה היא שאנו חוששים שהבעל יבוא ויגיד שהגט מזויף. הגמרא גיטין ה' הוכחה לתוספות שאם לא אמר השליח אז צריך לקבוע את תוקפו של הגט ע"י עדים, או אינו תקף. אז מחוץ לישראל אין אנו מקילים מחמת עגונה, והגט צריך אישור מהחוק כמו כל המסמכים שנפרעים שלא בפניו שצריכים תוקף לפני שניתן יהיה לבצע כל פעולה על ידם, לא רק חשש שהבעל עלול לבוא ולטעון שזה לא תקף. אז הסיבה לקיום היא כמו כל מסמך של נושאים כספיים כמו תוספות, ולא כמו הר''ן והרמב''ם

fear of religious leaders

 I have a horrible fear of religious leaders having any say in government or in law. as you might have seen in this blog -- my reason is that I do not think they  understand the Torah and teach it, but rather use it as a cover for their own profit and pleasure. However one can claim against me that maybe they understand Torah better. I answer that might be so, but that does not help their position since in any case I have the stronger claim of experience  --knowing by experience that religious leaders are creeps. However, I do admit to rare exceptions like the roshei yeshiva of Litvak yeshivot who definitely know Torah better than anyone else, and also that life in those great yeshivot is in fact whole some and decent.