I am not sure about how much philosophy is responsible for present day problems in politics. They ought to be separate fields. After all, they deal with different subject matters. But the effect of philosophy on politics has been mostly detrimental. England became a forerunner of modern democracies without the slightest influence of philosophy, but rather from the need of Edward the First to collect taxes with the tacet agreement of the lords [thus creating Parliament], and the result of Simon de Montfort [a crusader]] seizing power from a corrupt king, and thus creating the provision of Oxford. (Magna Carta was the result of a desire of the lords to limit the power of the king. )[John Locke was after the fact of the Glorious Revolution, not the cause.] Whenever philosophy professors venture into politics, their effect is almost always detrimental. [Take a look at the short dialogues of Plato and you will see tremendous depth, freshness and insight. but when Plato gets into politics in the republic and the laws, all that goes out the window.

Rav Isar Melzer [one of the two teachers of rav shach, the other was r. izhak zev soloveitchik] noted a hard to understand fact that in the opinion of Shmuel that a animal with a external defect is more strict in regards to temura {exchange} than an animal with an internal defect (traif). But when it comes to holiness of body, we see in the mishna in temura page 17b the opposite is the case. One can not sanctify an animal with a mum, but temura can be applied to it. He anwers this by an idea in Reb Chaim from Brisk. But I might mention that this is most likely to be the reasoning of R' Oshiya that held holiness [of body] can not be applied to a trifa. [Rambam Things Forbidden to the Altar 3 law 10] I.e., the mishna says tmura applies to a baal mum but not to a traifa [according to r elazar]. Therefore R Oshiya holds that holiness which can not be applied to a baal mum certainly can't be applied to a traifa. ___ [Holiness of body applied to an animal would be a case of an animal that one dedicated as a sin offering, and then afterwards it got an external defect. Then it would have to be sold, and with the money one brings another animal to be a sin offering. Holiness of money means like in our case one tried to sanctify an animal with an external defect. Well, the holiness of body can not be applied, but of monetary value can.] I might mention that Rav Meltzer says that the point of Shmuel is that he agrees that a mum [external defect] is more strict than traif [since temura can come on it] but the reason holiness of body can't come on it [while it canon a traifa] is that a mum is the reason in itself why holiness of body can not come on anything. It is the reason why something that already has holiness of body can be redeemed. ____ Rav Shach makes a point that if one says about something that can't be sacrificed on the altar that it makes a difference if one said this is a sacrifice. In that case it is nothing. But if he said this is for a sacrifice or for the altar that it gets holiness of money. That is it has to be sold and the proceeds go to buy sacrifices for the altar. and before it is sold it has a regular category of holiness of money. And in that case, it is forbidden to be used for plowing or shearing until after it has been sold. To Rav Shach there is no middle category of something that ha holiness of money and yet can be used for plowing. And if the Rambam wanted to come up with such a new category then he should have said so, instead of making an ambiguous statement that one who sanctifies a traifa, it totally hulin just a if he ha sanctified wood or stones. That statement on its face makes no sense. If one sanctified wood or stone they are not absolute hulin but rather have holiness of money. if the Rambam had wanted to create a new category that no one has heard of then he should have aid so openly instead of writing a statement that makes no sense. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ רב איסר מלצר אבן האזל ה' איסורי המזבח ג' ה''י noted a hard to understand fact that in the opinion of שמואל that a animal with a מום is more strict in regards to תמורה than an טריפה . But when it comes to קדושת הגוף, we see in the משנה in תמורה דף י''ז ע''א the opposite is the case. One can not sanctify an animal with a מום, but תמורה can be applied to it. He anwers this by an idea in ר' חיים מבריסק. But I might mention that this is most likely to be the reasoning of ר' אושיעיא that held קדושת הגוף can not be applied to a טריפה. [קדושת הגוף applied to an animal would be a case of an animal that one dedicated as a sin offering, and then afterwards it got an מום קבוע. Then it would have to be sold, and with the money one brings another animal to be a sin offering. קדושת מים means like in our case one tried to sanctify an animal with an מום. Well, the קדושת הגוף can not be applied, but of monetary value can.] I might mention that רב מלצר says that the point of שמואל is that he agrees that a מום is more strict than טריף since תמורה can come on it, but the reason holiness of body can't come on it [while it can on a טריפה] is that a מום is the reason in itself why קדושת הגוף can not come on anything. It is the reason why something that already has קדושת הגוף can be נפדה. רב שך makes a point that if one says about something that can't be sacrificed on the altar that it makes a difference if one said, "This is a sacrifice." In that case, it is nothing. But if he said, "This is for a sacrifice" or "for the altar", thaמ it gets קדושת דמים. That is it has to be sold and the proceeds go to buy sacrifices for the altar. and before it is sold it has a regular category of קדושת דמים. And in that case, it is forbidden to be used for plowing or shearing until after it has been sold. To רב שך there is no middle category of something that haS קדושת דמים and yet can be used for plowing. And if the רמב''ם wanted to come up with such a new category, then he should have said so, instead of making an ambiguous statement that one who sanctifies a טריפה, it totally חולין just aS if he haD sanctified wood or stones. That statement on its face makes no sense. If one sanctified wood or stone, they are not absolute חולין but rather have קדושת דמים. if the רמב''ם had wanted to create a new category that no one has heard of, then he should have Said so openly, instead of writing a statement that makes no sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ רב איסר מלצר [אבן האזל ה' איסורי המזבח ג' ה''י] ציין עובדה קשה להבנה שלדעת שמואל שבהמה עם מום חמורה יותר ביחס לתמורה מאשר לטריפה. אבל כשמדובר בקדושת הגוף רואים במשנה בתמורה דף י''ז ע''א ההיפך. אי אפשר לקדש בהמה עם מום, אבל אפשר להחיל עליה תמורה. הוא עונה על כך ברעיון מר' חיים מבריסק. אבל אני יכול להזכיר שזה ככל הנראה הנימוק של ר' אושיעיא שלא ניתן להחיל את קדושת הגוף על טריפה כלומר, המשנה אומרת שתמורה חלה על בעל מום, אבל לא על טריפה לפי ר' אלעזר. לכן ר' אושעיא סבור שקדושה שלא ניתן להחיל על בעל מום בהחלט לא יכולה להיות מיושמת על טריפה קדושת הגוף המיושמת על בהמה תהיה מקרה של בהמה שהקדישה אותה כקורבן חטאת, ואחר כך היא קיבלה מום קבועה. אז היה צריך למכור אותו, ובכסף מביאים בהמה אחרת להיות קורבן חטאת. קדושת דמים פירושו כמו במקרה שלנו שניסו להקדיש בעל חיים עם מום. ובכן, את קדושת הגוף לא ניתן ליישם, אבל קדושת מים יכול.] אני יכול להזכיר שרב מלצר אומר שהטעם של שמואל הוא שהוא מסכים שמום יותר חמור מטריף כיון שתמורה יכולה לבוא עליו, אבל הסיבה שקדושת הגוף לא יכולה לבוא עליו [בעוד שאפשר על טריפה] היא שאם היא הסיבה בפני עצמה לכך שקדושת הגוף לא יכולה לבוא על שום דבר. זו הסיבה שמשהו שכבר יש לו קדושת גוף יכול להיות נפדה רב שך מדגיש שאם אומרים על דבר שאי אפשר להקריב על המזבח יש הבדל אם אמר "זהו קרבן". במקרה כזה, זה כלום. אבל אם אמר "זה לקרבן" או "למזבח", זה מקבל קדושת דמים. כלומר צריך למכור את זה, וההכנסות הולכים לקניית קרבנות למזבח. ולפני שהוא נמכר יש לו קטגוריה רגילה של קדושת דמים. ובמקרה כזה אסור להשתמש בו לחריש או לגזירה עד לאחר מכירתו. לרב שך אין קטגוריה אמצעית של דבר שיש לו קדושת דמים ובכל זאת יכול לשמש לחריש. ואם רצה הרמב''ם לעלות על קטגוריה חדשה כזו, אז היה צריך לומר זאת, במקום לומר משפט דו-משמעי שמי שמקדש טריפה, זה לגמרי חולין כאילו היה הקדיש עצים או אבנים. האמירה הזו על פניו אינה הגיונית. אם אחד קידש עץ או אבן, אין הם חולין מוחלטים אלא יש להם קדושת דמים. אם הרמב''ם היה רוצה ליצור קטגוריה חדשה שאף אחד לא שמע עליה, אז הוא היה צריך לומר זאת בגלוי, במקום לכתוב אמירה חסרת היגיון

za37 midi za37 nwc

za36 midi za36 nwcformat

Rambam in Laws of Things that are Forbidden to bring upon the Altar chapter 3 law 10 . In chapter three, the Rambam brings the statement of R. Oshiya that if one sanctifies a traifa [animal with an internal defect that would cause it to die within a year], the sanctification is not valid at all. It is as if he sanctified wood or stones. He must sell the animal and bring that money to the temple to bring sacrifices on the altar, for it is not like an animal with an external defect. In chapter 2 law 10, he says one who brings a sacrifice and it is found to be traif, it is not redeemed, but is sent to pasture until it dies on its own. Clearly, the first case is when he sanctified an animal that he knew is traif. It is not like an animal with either a passing external defect or a permanent defect. The law in that case is if it has a permanent external defect then it is redeemed and the proceeds go the Temple. Before it is redeemed it cannot be sheared or used for plowing. But in a case when became traif came before it was sanctified, the sanctification is not valid except in so far as the proceeds of the sale go to the altar. The Raavad asks in chapter 3 law what is the difference between the case of one who sanctified a traif and one who sanctified a baal mum? Both are sold and the proceeds go to the Temple. Because of this some achronim say when the Rambam wrote, "It is not like an animal with an external defect," he means a non-permanent one in which case it goes to pasture until it gets permanent one and then is redeemed. However, it appears to me that there is a difference between being sold and being redeemed. In being redeemed, the cohen needs to evaluate the value of the animal before it is sold, and it can only be sold for that much. I think in the case of one who sanctified a traifa, that it is totally hulin, but the money of the sale goes to buy sacrifices. It is as if he had made an oath to bring sacrifices. The money is not sanctified at all, nor the animal that is sold to bring get that money. I might mention that Rav Shach sides with the Raavad. He says if he says this animal is a karban then it is nothing, but if he said it is for the altar then it is like a permanent defect. Rav Isar Meltzer writes that in the case of one who sanctified a traifa, it is unlike the case of a permanent defect because one who sanctifies an animal with a permanent defect, it can be sheared and used for work after it is redeemed, while in our case it can be sheared even before it is sold I think there is a middle category between total hulin and an animal that has sanctification of monetary value. Such a middle category is something that you have to sell and bring the money as a karban even though it does not have sanctification of monetary value. [e.g., a person says on a male goat "This is for a sin offering," it has no holiness, not of body nor of monetary value but is sold in order to buy a female goat tobring as a sin offering.] However, there is a possible refutation of this idea because in the Gemara Temura 17b the gemara brings a refutation of Shmuel from a braita that says in the case of one who sanctified a traifa, it does not need a permanent defect to be redeemed. There the language is to be redeemed, not to be sold. However, the Rambam uses the language to be sold and furthermore he writes that it is not like an animal with a defect. He does not say it is not like an animal with a temporary defect. It is possible that the Rambam understands the law of R, Oshiya that the animal has no category of holiness at all. However the stronges argument that the Rambam means that the traifa has holines of monetary value is he awrite one who sanctifie a traifa it is as if he asanctified wood or stones, and in fact if one say s about wood or stones these are for a in offering they get holiness of monetay value wood ____ רמב''ם in איסורי המזבח פרק ג' ה''י . The רמב''ם brings the statement of ר' אושעיא that if one sanctifies a טריפה [animal with an internal defect that would cause it to die within a year], the הקדשה is not valid at all. It is as if he sanctified wood or stones. He must sell the animal and bring that money to the temple to bring sacrifices on the altar, for it is not like an animal with an מום. In פרק ב' ה''י, he says one who brings a קרבן and it is found to be טריף, it is not נפדה, but is sent to pasture until it dies on its own. Clearly, the first case is when he sanctified an animal that he knew is טריף. It is not like an animal with either a מום עובר or a מום קבוע. The law in that case is if it has a מום קבוע then it is נפדה and the כסף go the Temple. Before it is נפדה it cannot be sheared or used for plowing. But in a case when became טריפה came before it was sanctified, the sanctification is not valid except in so far as the proceeds of the sale go to the altar. The Raavad asks in פרק ג' ה''י what is the difference between the case of one who sanctified a טריף and one who sanctified a בעל מום? Both are sold and the proceeds go to the Temple. Because of this some אחרונים say when the רמב''ם wrote, "It is not like an animal with an מום," he means a מום עובר one in which case it goes to pasture until it gets permanent one and then is redeemed. However, it appears to me that there is a difference between being sold and being נפדה. In being redeemed, the כהן needs to evaluate the value of the animal before it is sold, and it can only be sold for that much. I think in the case of one who sanctified a טריפה, that it is totally חולין, but the money of the sale goes to buy sacrifices. It is as if he had made an oath to bring sacrifices. The money is not sanctified at all, nor the animal that is sold to bring get that money. I might mention that רב שך sides with the ראב''ד. He says if he says this animal is a קרבן then it is nothing, but if he said it is for the altar then it is like a מום קבוע. רב איסק מלצר writes that in the case of one who sanctified a טריפה, it is unlike the case of a permanent defect because one who sanctifies an animal with a permanent defect, it can be sheared and used for work after it is redeemed while in our case it can be sheared even before it is sold I think there is a middle category between total חולין and an animal that has קדושת דמים. Such a middle category is something that you have to sell and bring the money as a קרבן even though it does not have קדושת דמים. [e.g., a person says on a male goat "This is for a חאטת," it has no holiness, not of body nor of קדושת דמים but is sold in order to buy a female goat to bring as a חאטת.] However, there is a possible refutation of this idea because in the גמרא תמורה י''ז ע''ב the גמרא brings a refutation of שמואל from a ברייתא that says in the case of one who sanctified aטריפה, it does not need a מום קבוע to be redeemed. There the language is to be נפדה, not to be sold. However, the רמב''ם uses the language to be sold and furthermore he writes that it is not like an animal מום. He does not say it is not like an animal with a מום עובר. It is possible that the רמב''ם understands the law of ר' אושיעא that the animal has no category of holiness at all. However the strongest argument that the רמב''ם means that the טריפה has קדושת דמים is he writes “one who sanctifies a טריפה it is as if he sanctified wood or stones,” and in fact if one says about wood or stones these are for a חאטת they get holiness of monetary value רמב''ם באיסורי המזבח פרק ג' ה''י . הרמב''ם מביא את דברי ר' אושעיא שאם מקדשים טריפה [בהמה עם מום פנימי שיגרום למותה תוך שנה], אין הקדשה תקפה כלל, וכאילו הוא קידש עצים או אבנים. הוא חייב למכור את הבהמה ולהביא את הכסף הזה למקדש כדי להביא קרבנות על המזבח, כי אין זה דומה לבהמה עם מום. בפרק ב' ה''י אומר המביא קרבן ונמצא טריף, אינו נפדה, אלא נשלח למרעה עד שמת מעצמו. ברור שהמקרה הראשון הוא כאשר הוא קידש בהמה שידע שהיא טריף. זה לא כמו בהמה עם מום עובר או מום קבוע. הדין במקרה כזה הוא שאם יש לו מום קבוע אז זה נפדה והכסף ללכת למקדש. לפני שהוא נפדה אי אפשר לגזור או להשתמש בו לחריש. אבל במקרה שנעשה טריפה בא לפני שנתקדשה, אין ההקדיש תקף, אלא במידה שתמורת המכירה עולה למזבח. הראב"ד שואל בפרק ג' ה''י מה ההבדל בין מי שהקדיש טריף למי שהקדיש בעל מום? שניהם נמכרים והרווחים הולכים לבית המקדש. משום כך אומרים אחרונים כשכתב הרמב''ם "אינו דומה לבהמה עם מום", כוונתו למום עובר, שאז היא הולכת למרעה עד שהיא מקבלת מום קבוע ואז נפדה. עם זאת, נראה לי שיש הבדל בין להימכר לבין להיות נפדה. בפדיון צריך הכהן להעריך את שווי הבהמה לפני מכירתה, וניתן למכור אותה רק בסכום כזה. אני חושב שבמקרה של מי שקידש טריפה, שזה לגמרי חולין, אבל הכסף של המכירה הולך לקנות קרבנות. זה כאילו נדר שבועה להביא קרבנות. הכסף אינו מקודש כלל. אני יכול להזכיר שרב שך מצדד כראב''ד. הוא אומר שאם הוא אומר שהבהמה הזו קרבן אז זה לא כלום, אבל אם הוא אמר שהיא למזבח אז זה כמו מצב של מום קבוע. רב איסר מלצר כותב שבמקרה של מי שקידש טריפה, אין זה דומה לפגם קבוע כי מי שמקדש בהמה עם מום קבוע, ניתן לגזור ולהשתמש לעבודה לאחר שנפדה, אבל במקרה שלנו ניתן לגזור אותה עוד לפני שהיא נמכרת. אני חושב שיש קטגוריית ביניים בין חולין טוטאלית לבין חיה שיש לה קדושת דמים. קטגוריה אמצעית כזו היא משהו שצריך למכור ולהביא את הכסף כקרבן למרות שאין בה קדושת דמים. [למשל, אדם אומר על עז "זה לחטאת", אין לו קדושה, לא של גוף ולא של קדושת דמים אלא נמכר כדי לקנות עז נקבה להביא כחטאת.] אולם ישנה הפרכה לרעיון זה משום שבגמרא תמורה י''ז ע''ב מביא הגמרא הפרכת שמואל מברייתא שאומר במקרה של מי שהקדיש טריפה, אינו צריך מום קבוע להיות נפדה. שם השפה להיות נפדה, לא להימכר. אולם הרמב''ם משתמש בלשון למכירה, ועוד הוא כותב שזה לא כמו בהמה עם מום. הוא לא אומר שזה לא כמו בהמה עם מום עובר. יתכן שהרמב''ם מבין את דין של ר' אושעיא שלבהמה אין כלל קטגוריית קדושה. אולם הטיעון החזק ביותר שהרמב''ם מתכוון לכך שלטריפה יש קדושת דמים הוא כותב "מי שמקדיש טריפה כאילו הקדיש עצים או אבנים", ולמעשה אם אומרים על עצים או אבנים "אלו הם בשביל חטאת" הם מקבלים קדושת דמים

contradiction between John Locke's idea of basic human rights and Darwin

it is an odd sort of fact that peopleare not aware that there is a basic contradiction between John Locke's idea of basic human rights and Darwin. According to Darwin,there is no such thing. There is no such thing as an immutable species with immutable traits. Rather, species evolve and small differences in the DNA are just begining stages of complete separation between the groups that eventually become completely different species. [THE PROBLEM that i am adressing here is that some unfortunate souls think that they can believe both at the same time and in that way can get points for their profile. They are not aware that these two theseses are in direct oppositiThe point is that it is not clear that John Locke had the absolute truth--as we see the system of the USA is not immune to corruption from within. It all was foreseen in Alan Bloom's the Closing of the American Mind. So, between the emphasis on the individual of John Locke and the emphasis of Hegel on the state there is still no clear solution. It is along the lines of being undecidable

za35 midi za35 nwc