סוכה י''ז ע''א Tractate Suka page 17 side A. Shulchan Aruch Orach Haim 630 halacha 9. Rambam Laws of Suka chapter four, law four

The Rambam writes that if you have a wall ten handbreadths tall attached to the ground, but does not reach the sechach (roof) of the suka, you consider that wall as continuing until it reaches the roof. However, it needs to be in an exact straight line with the edge of the roof. [Laws of Suka chapter four halacha four.] The Meiri and Shulchan Aruch [Orach Chaim Laws of Suka 630 halacha 9.] disagree with this, and say it does not need to be in a straight line with the roof, but to be within three handbreadths horizontally. The issue is if you can combine two different laws גוד אסיק מחיצתא ולבוד ''bring up'' and everything within three handbreadths is considered attached. The Ran in Suka page 17a brings a proof from the Gemara that you cannot combine two different laws, for we see in the Gemara you cannot combine (lvud) attach and crooked wall. However, the achronim in Shulchan Aruch side with the Shulchan Aruch that in our case of “bring up” and Attach (lvud) you can combine two laws. I would say that the Rambam must have seen that same issue in Suka page 17 which shows you cannot combine two laws of (lvud) “attach” and “crooked wall” and understood from there that you cannot combine two different laws of “bring up” and attach (lvud) as we see here that he says a complete wall of ten handbreadths has to be in a direct line with the roof and you don't say (lvud) attach. [I noticed this subject in the book Even HaAzel of Rav Isar Meltzer, and today I was in a Litvak beit midrash where I had a chance to look up the Shulchan Aruch. I was quite surprized to see him [the Shulchan Aruch/ Rav Josef Karo] disagree with the Rambam without even mentioning the opinion of the Rambam. --unless Rav Karo thought the Rambam did not really mean "in direct line"? And there might be a reason for that in laws of Tumat Met. That is the same place Rav Melzer bring about our subject here and mentions that in fact the Rambam might mean the "upper board" only, not the lower board for this same reason, i.e., that "in direct line" might mean with a slight overlap."] The place over there in tumat met is a case of a small unclean kezait [size that is the volume amount of an olive] on parallel sequential boards that are do not overlap and the mishna says only what is over them is unclean. The Rambam however writes the law with the same words but replaces over them with over the upper board. So there it seems when the Rambam wrote in line he meant approximately ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The הלכות סוכה פרק ד ' הלכה ד' רמב''ם writes that if you have a wall ten handbreadths tall attached to the ground, but does not reach the סכך of the סוכה, you consider that wall as continuing until it reaches the סכך. However, it needs to be in an exact straight line with the edge of the סכך. The מאירי and שלחן ערוך disagree with this, and say it does not need to be in a straight line with the roof, but to be within three handbreadths horizontally. The issue is if you can combine two different laws גוד אסיק מחיצתא ולבוד ''bring up'' and לבוד everything within three handbreadths is considered attached. The ר''ן in סוכה דף י''ז ע''א brings a proof from the גמרא that you cannot combine two different laws, for we see in the גמרא you cannot combine לבוד and דופן עקומה. However, the אחרונים in שלחן ערוך side with the שלחן ערוך that in our case of “bring up” and לבוד you can combine two laws. I would say that the רמב''ם must have seen that same issue in סוכה י''ז ע''א which shows you cannot combine two laws of לבוד and ופן עקומה and understood from there that you cannot combine two different laws of גוד אסיק and לבוד as we see here that he says a complete wall of ten handbreadths has to be in a direct line with the roof and you don't say לבוד. The place over there in טומאת מת is a case of a small unclean כזית on parallel sequential boards that are do not overlap and the משנה says only what is over them is טמא. The רמב''ם however writes the law with the same words, but replaces "over them" with "over the upper board." So there it seems when the רמב''ם wrote מכוון he meant approximately בהלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה ד' הרמב''ם כותב שאם יש לך קיר בגובה עשרה טפחים שמחובר לקרקע, אבל לא מגיע לסכך של הסוכה, אתה מחשיב את הקיר הזה כממשיך עד שהוא מגיע לסכך. עם זאת, זה צריך להיות בקו ישר מדויק עם קצה הסכך. המאירי והשלחן ערוך (שלחן ערוך אורח חיים פרק תר''ל חלכה ט') חולקים על כך, ואומרים שהוא לא צריך להיות בקו ישר עם הגג, אלא להיות בטווח של שלוש טפחים אופקית. הבעיה היא אם אתה יכול לשלב שני חוקים שונים, גוד אסיק מחיצתא ולבוד (''להעלות'' והכל בתוך שלושה טפחים נחשב מצורף. הר''ן בסוכה דף י''ז ע''א מביא הוכחה מהגמרא שלא ניתן לשלב שני דינים שונים, שהרי אנו רואים בגמרא לא ניתן לשלב לבוד ודופן עקומה. אולם אחרונים בשלחן ערוך מצדדים כשלחן ערוך שבמקרה שלנו של "להעלות" ולבוד ניתן לשלב שני דינים. הייתי אומר שהרמב''ם ודאי ראה את אותה סוגיה בסוכה י''ז ע''א שמראה שאינך יכול לשלב שני דינים לבוד דופן עקומה והבין משם שאינך יכול לשלב שני דינים ונים של גוד אסיק ולבוד כפי שאנו רואים כאן שהוא אומר שקיר שלם של עשרה טפחים צריך להיות בקו ישיר עם הסכך ואתה לא אומר לבוד המקום שם בטומאת מת הוא מקרה של כזית מת טמאה קטנה על לוחות רצפים מקבילים שאינם חופפים והמשנה אומרת רק מה שיש עליהם טמא. אולם הרמב''ם כותב את החוק באותן מילים, אבל מחליף את "מעליהם" ב"על הלוח העליון". אז שם נראה כשהרמב''ם כתב מכוון התכוון בערך

Philosophy has not reached any conclusions to any problems for thousands of years. Yet, it is not a waste of time because it is an attempt to gain some understanding about our place in the universe. Thus, to me there is great importance in Kant' s idea of the limits of pure reason. But since Kant, things have gone from intractable problems to insanity in academic gowns of respectability. To ignore Kant and dive into the vacuous philosophies of the twentieth Century also seems a waste. Rather, I suggest a modification of Kant--the Kant-Friesian school which had a rather good start with Leonard Nelson. But has little to no academic respectability. Nelson’s main rival Husserl gained, for some reason, much more respect along with existentialism and post modernism;- and to me it is hard to know why. [To show the fallacies of any philosophy is easy. All you need to do is look up any other philosopher, since all they do is spend their time showing how every philosophy beside their own is incorrect. ] in spite of this I highly recommend Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant Friesian School because to my mind it gets to a deep truth about the connection between Pure Reason and Empirical knowledge. That is it shows a lot of insight about faith and reason conflicts

za41 midi same piece in nwc format i might mention here that I owe a lot of gratitude to my teachers in music, like my violin teachers and Mr Smart who was the conductor of the high school orcestra that I played in. and father who bought for me records of Mozart, Beethoven and also Rossini

za40 midi samein nwc

za39 midi za39nwc

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