I do appreciate learning Torah but I do not see it as an excuse not to do any other mitzvah,

אחיכם יעלו למלחמה ואתם תשבו Moses asked the two and half tribes that wanted to settle in the land on the opposite side of the Jordan River: ''Your brothers go to war and you will stay behind?" TO me this seems relevant to the yeshiva world that has had a petur  [permission to be excused] from service in the Israeli Defense Force ever since the 1948 war of Independence.  I do appreciate learning Torah, but I do not see it as an excuse not to do any other mitzvah, furthermore, i think that this war is in the category of michemet mitzva [obligatory war]--as opposed to milchemet r'shut [permissible war]. 

American model of government

 I used to think that the American model of government is as good as it gets. But doubt has arisen because of how odd things have become. I do not think it works except for the sort of WASP population that it was originally designed for. [WASP=White Anglo Saxon Protestant] That seems to be an inescapable conclusion. But I also would like to venture a guess that there are two factors that are involved--DNA and also the Judeo-Christian set of values as contained in the Bible. [However, it is interesting that the American form of government was really a duplicate of the English form along with  the Magna Carta and Provisions of Oxford which were developed while England was  Catholic. That is when that form of government was conceived. But, of course, when John Locke wrote the Two Treatises of Government and the  important ideas of Daniel Defoe , England was already Protestant.    ]

From this insight, I am thinking that the attack on American values from inside and out as a negative thing. But in what way this relates to Israel, still befuddles me. After all, after Theodore  Herzl, Israel was founded by communists or hard left socialists. But that is not to say that that was the best approach. I RECALL vividly when the left wing Labor Party was in power in the 1980's, and the inflation was like Weimer Germany in the 1920's. I loaned one fellow a hundred shekels, and when after a half year he returned the money, it was worth 10 shekels.  

To get through the whole Oral and Written Law.

 To the Gra one has an obligation to get through the whole oral and written law. [Old Testament, two Talmuds, the midrashei halacha and midrashei agada.] This clearly implies the fast sort of learning mentioned in the Gemara, ''Always one should be saying the words in order and going on [גורס] even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying,'' [Tractate Shabat and Avoda Zara--i forget the page numbers.] However that is second in priority to learning in depth. So to accomplish that, I recommend getting through the basic Achronim: Reb Chaim of Brisk and his two students (1) the Birchat Shmuel, (2) Shimon Skophf and the Avi Ezri. [There are also the early Achronim that I used to learn--the Pnei Yehoshua and the Aruch La'Ner which are very important.]

[I am saying to do this on one' own, but if possible it is also worth while to learn from a Litvish Rosh Yeshiva. I had such an opportunity [Reb Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir  in NY and Naftali Yeager at Shar Yashuv.] but I realize not everyone has this possibility, and so at least one should do so on one' s own.  ] [the mir was along the lines of reb chaim of brisk while naftali yegear is more along the lines of the early achronim.  ]

The Gra also held with the importance of the Seven Wisdoms, and said that, ''One who lacks any knowledge in the seven wisdoms will lack in Torah a hundred fold more.'' [That refers to the trivium and quadrivium][Grammar, logic, and rhetoric, Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, Music]

Philosophy is not a part of this. However the Rambam held with a different set of the things one should learn,--Old Testament, the Yad HaChazaka, Physics and Metaphysics.

[Learning Torah is the highest of all commandments, however to the Rambam, learning Physics and Metaphysics is considered to be part of the commandment to learn Gemara/Talmud. ] [Metaphysics is the name of a book of collected lectures from Aristotle.] ]

 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.