General Grant in his book on the Civil War

General Grant in his book on the Civil War wrote that the Constitution does not forbid succession, nor allows it. From that fact, I would say that the Federal Government can not go against it because the Federal Government has only enumerated powers. But Grant himself did not draw that conclusion, but rather wrote that since the idea of succession was not stated in the Constitution, therefore the country founded on the Constitution has the right of self-defense. What I think this brings forth is the question of how different politics is different from civil law between individuals. In mean in individuals, what I written in a contract is exactly what I there, nothing more or less—unless things are unclear. And if that would be applied to the Constitution then this issue is not ambiguous, it clearly stated that the government has only enumerated powers. How however politics in terms of nation states is different from civil law between individuals. How much so and why is unclear to me. In the tradition of England [upon which the American concept of government is based] a written document of the government is absolutely binding. But if you look at countries like the ussr, contracts are approximate indication of intention, but what matters is the individuals in power.

Rav shach does not usually state a halacha, but in his pamphlet of keeping damages away, he does actually bring the idea that most first authorities hold with the law of Tophot on page 22 of Bava Batra that the kind of damages that are brought in chapter 2 of Bava Batra are only considered to cause damage if on the other side of the border, there is already placed there something that could cause damage. And also, that if that is the case (that one has placed there something that can cause damage), then it can stay there even after the other person has placed his object there. And example would be like a tub used to soak linen that can cause vegetables on the other side of the border to absorb the noxious fumes. so, if that tub was already there, then even if the neighbor plants vegetables on the other side of the border, the tub can stay there [within three handbreaths of the border].

za66 C Minor Midi File za66 nwc

I have been thinking about politics and it occurred to me that it is a significant subject that deserves study. One thing I learned when very young is the approach taken by the hard sciences that even if one has the most logical consistent system, and most developed with rigor and painstaking logic, if that theory predictes a result that turns but to be false, then that theory is wrong. And this fact is what always seemed to me to be wrong with communism. It is a powerful logical system based on great thinkers like Adam smith in economics [who came up with the Labor Theory of Value which is an essential building block of communism, and on Hegel. And like any respectable scientific theory, it makes specific predictions. The problem is all its predictions turned out to be false. And this was obvious even to Lenin himself when he established the first communist state, and therefore tried to patch up the system by claiming certain outside forces were propping up Capitalism. But even since then, there has never been a communist state with prosperity as claimed in the communist manifesto. But if you try to find logical rigor in capitalism, you will have a hard time trying. The kind of system that results in prosperity and human flourishing wherever it is tried is based on the Constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights. And these were not created by any kind of abstract theory, but came about as a result of a cruel King, John I who was so overbearing that the lords of the land decided to force him to sign a document—the Magna Carta. And later, a religious crusader (Simon DE Monfort) forced a king to sign an even more extensive document, the Provisions of Oxford. And the English system as developed was taken over almost in its entirety by the American Colonies who kept the system. The idea of the America Revolution was in order to keep on living under the same kind of system that they had been already. The objection to England was that the Parliament was treating the colonies not as Englishmen with the same rights as all other Englishmen. The reason that "Reason" fails that the important task of figuring out a decent system of government is that there is a limit to pure reason, and that when it attempts to go beyond its limits, it begins to come up with aburdities.

za65 B Minor in midiza65 nwc format

I want to mention that my learning partner, David Bronson would not have left that 2nd Tosphot on page 18B of Bava Batra unless he understood it fully. And yet I tend to go along with the approach of Rav Nachman of Breslov in learning “to say the words in order and then to go on” in learning Torah and Math and Physics. (And then later to review and Izhak Rosten once told me. I.e. even with this approach of “just saying the words”, it Is very important to later to do review until you get the idea thoroughly) .. That was definitely not the approach of David Bronson. However, it could be that if I can try understand the great Rav Shach and Reb Aaron Kotler on this subject, perhaps I can answer that later question I was asking on that Tosphot, (i.e., “why he changes the original assumption) .Obviously Tosphot himself was worried about this difficulty and tried to answer it, but I still cannot see how their answer helps. It possible that because of this problem that Tosphot himself in the third Tosphot on that page decided to start looking at the approach of Rabbainu Tam and Rabbainu Chanaanel. {I think at least for me, I will not be able to understand rabbainu Tamuntil I get that second Tosphot approach of Rabbainu Izhak}

za64 F minor midi ditto in nwc format