The North violated the contract –state’s rights, and the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case

If you look at questions and answers of the Radvaz you will see what I have been saying all along. That if you have two people in a contract, and one breaks the conditions of the contract, the other has the right to leave the partnership. This happened in Egypt where three people had the king’s treasury in partnership, and one Reuven was not active at all, but simply collected a percentage. Part of the agreement was that the other two that were active would not loan out any of the money to anyone. It was simply to collect taxes. And yet even though they swore not to, they violated the contract and later money was found missing. Still Reuven was forced to pay a third of the missing money as per the agreement with the king. If money was found missing, then the partners had to pay with their own money. However, the Radvaz wrote that Reuben had the right to leave the partnership. Why should not the same idea apply to the Civil War? The North violated the contract –state’s rights, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. Why should the South not be allowed to leave the partnership? Think of a wife that wants to leave a marriage. Should the husband wage war to stop her?

I respect Rav Nahman of Breslov a lot, but his critique of science and philosophy is something I think was better to be left out.

It is hard to say that any one person has all the truth. There is a lot of emphasis on finding one person or path to follow, and to stick with that, -- no matter what. But I find that approach to lack this insight that not everything any one person said was always 100% correct. I respect Rav Nahman of Breslov a lot, but his critique of science and philosophy is something I think was better to be left out. It may have applied to people in in his area and in his time, but a blanket condemnation of science seems to me to be contrary to the general approach of Musar which started with the book the chovot levavaot which is clear about the importance of science in chapter 3 of shar habechina. But also the Gra, I think, was right about most things- in particular his emphasis on learning Torah. You see this in the results of the generations that held with his approach-strong sense of morality and decency as you can see today in the Lithuanian kind of yeshivot that follow his path. The proof is in the pudding. (The results show the validity of the recipe.)I am not saying the Litvak world yeshiva world is perfect either. But that is the only address to go to learn what is straight un-adulterated Torah

There was in Egypt during the time of the Radvaz a sort of situation in which people that owned slaves would free the slave-girl, and by that the slave would become ipso facto free and Jewish [and her child who was conceived at the time she was a slave] as can see in many of the questions brought to him {Shut Ha’Radvaz}.] This of course was nothing compared with the time of the Reish Galuta, Butenai when intermarriage was rampant. The common approach of Sephardim toward Ashkenazi is tainted with an implicit assumption (but upspoken) that the Ashkenazi is not really Jewish. That question might as well be reversed. [ Theidea here is that a slave that is dipped into a natural body of water at the time he or she is acquired becomes a gentile slave. Then, if he or she is freed later, he or she becomes Jewish. This was very common in Egypt when many people owned slave girls.]

At least Hegel saw the importance of the USA in his statement that, “America is the state of the future.”

I have been thinking about Kant and the later attempts to fix the perceived short-comings in his system, but I can not seem to get beyond two arch rivals that each one had some good points. It seems very confusing to me. Hegel and Fries had the same points that Reinhold and Fichte saw --you need to start from somewhere. Though it was Leonard Nelson that made that point rigorous. Yet, Hegel had some important points also; and ever since I encountered this debate on both sides, I have neve been able to get beyond it. I tend towards Leonard Nelson [Neo-Friesian] and the exposition of his ideas on the blog of Kelley Ross. But I still can not get beyond the point that Hegel also had some important ideas- that even Kelley Ross brings in his Ph.D. thesis. The question that is most important (on Fries and Hegel) is not the results of their ideas, but the core. And in each one of these thinkers, I find great value in the core, but I cannot get beyond the problems. Maybe just one is right, maybe two, maybe all three have some valuable ideas, or maybe all three are downright wrong? I guess, I have to admit my intellectual shortcomings (which are very great), and get back to learning Gemara (Talmud and Rav Shach). But when I get back from the sea and am totally exhausted, I have no more energy to learn Talmud or Physics or Math. I just have to wind down until I can sleep,------But then I start wondering: "Why did they all think that Rousseau was great?" Kant had the portrait of Rousseau hanging in his room?!!!, and Hegel was an early admirer until the devastation and guillotines of the French revolution got him to re-think his earlier position. At least Hegel saw the importance of the USA in his statement that, “America is the state of the future.” [Hegel saw that the subject and object are not two different things. They are two sides of the same coin.] Read Hegel with an awareness of the Greek idea of identity of opposites, and Plato’s permanent forms, and Aristotle’s, bringing the forms into the here and now -the individual substance, and Schelling's ideas of knowledge, and unite all these disparate ideas into a unity a seamless quilt. Then you can get an idea of what Hegel was getting at.

תוספות בבא קמא דף י''ח ע''א

ברצוני להסביר את גישת תוספות בבא קמא דף י''ח ע''א. רוצה הגמרא להשיב על שאלה של רבא. היא אם צרורות משלמים מגוף הבהמה או לא. תשובה מהיסית היא כן בגלל המשנה עם כיכר הפחם והכלב שגורמים לערימה לעלות בלהבות. המשנה אומרת שמשלם חצי נזק ושחשבו שזה צרורות ואנחנו למדים במקום אחר שהתשלום הוא מהגוף. אחר כך גמרא שאלה מר' אלעזר שאמר שהמקרה חייב בתשלום מלא נזק, ואין זה סביר לשלם נזק מלא מהגוף. אנו עונים שהוא מחזיק כמו ר' יהודה שחציו משולם מהגוף, והחצי השני ממזומן. רב סמא שאל אולי ר' יהודה אמר שרק במקרה שהיה שינוי, לא במקרה של צרורות שזה נורמלי. הגמרא עונה שזה מקרה של אזהרה שלוש פעמים. לקח לי הרבה זמן להבין מה המשמעות של תוספות כאן. בתחילה נראה שלתשובה אין קשר לשאלה. השאלה הייתה כזו. ר' אלעזר מחזיק במקרה של הכיכר פחם הוא נזק מלא, ובכל זאת אנחנו יודעים שהוא משולם גם מהגוף כמו במקרה של חצי נזק. ענינו שר' אלעזר סבור כמו ר' יהודה שצד תמות נשאר במקומו. כלומר, למרות שהתשלום עולה עד נזק מלא, עדיין מחצית ההתחלה נשארת במקום, ומשולם מהגוף. התשובה היא שמדובר באזהרה של שלוש פעמים. והלא זו הייתה השאלה? איך יכול להיות תשלום מהגוף אם מדובר בדרך הרגילה? הבנתי מה המשמעות של תוספות כאן. הוא אומר שהגמרא חולק על רב סמא וקובע שאפילו לא במקרה של שינוי, אלא במקרה רגיל כשיש התראה של שלוש פעמים והנזק עולה לתשלום מלא לר' אלעזר, עדיין משלמים חצי תשלום מהגוף. בהמשך הגמרא משנה זאת ואומרת שלמעשה, גם ר' אלעזר וגם החכמים מסכימים עם סומכוס שאין צורך באזהרה כדי שצרורות ידרשו תשלום מלא. אבל הם חלוקים אם היה שינוי בלי אזהרה, ולכן הפך סוג הנזק לקרן התם, ור' אלעזר מחזיק קרן התם הוא תשלום מלא והחכמים כאן של ר' אלעזר מחזיקים כמו חכמים החולקים על ר' טרפון והם מחזיקים קרן ראשונה (קרן התם) חצי תשלום

Tosphot in Bava Kama page 18. First words of Tosphot: Have you heard this in a case (of pebbles) from the start

I would like to explain the approach of Tosphot in Bava Kama page 18. The gemara wants to answer a question of Rava, if pebbles pay from the body of the animal or not. A tentative answer is yes because of the mishna with the coal loaf and dog that cause a stack to go up in flames. The mishna says that pays half damage and that it thought to be pebbles and we learn elsewhere that payment is from the body. Then we ask from R. Elazar who said that case is required to pay full damage and it is unlikely to pay full damage and also from the body. We answer that he holds like R. Judah that half is paid from the body, and the other half from cash. Rav sama asked, maybe R. Judah said that only in a case when there was change, not in a case of pebbles which is normal. The gemara answers it is a case of three times warning. It took me a long time to realize what Tosphot mean here. At firs the answer seems to have no relation to the question. The question was this. R Elazar holds the case of the loaf and burning coal is full damage and yet we know it is also paid from the body like in case of half damage. We answered that R Elazar holds like R Yehuda that the side of tameness stay in it place. Ie even though the payment goes up to full damage still the beginning half stays in it place and is paid from the body. The answer is it is a case of three times warning. Was that not the question? How could there be payment from the body if it is a case of the normal way? I realized what Tosphot means here. He is a saying that the Gemara is disagreeing with Rav Sama and holds that even not in a case of change, but in a normal case when there are three times waring and the damage goes up to full payment to R Elazar, still half payment is made from the body. The Gemara later on changes this, and says that, in fact, both R Elazar and the sages agree with Sumchos that you need no warning for pebbles to require full payment. But they are disagreeing because there was change, and therefore the type of damage became horn and R Elazar holds first time horn is full payment and the sages here of R Elazar hold like the sages that disagree with R. Tarfon and they hold first time horn is half payment ____________________________________________________________________________________________I would like to explain the approach of תוספותin בבא קמא ע''א ג''ה מועד page 18. The גמרא want to answer a question of רבא is if צרורות pay from the body of the animal or not. A tentative answer is yes because of the משנה with the coal loaf and dog that cause a stack to go up in flames. The משנה says that pays half damage and that it thought to be pebbles and we learn elsewhere that payment is from the body. Then we ask from ר' אלעזר who said that case is required to pay full damage, and it Is unlikely to pay full damage and also from the body. We answer that he holds like ר' יהודה that half is paid from the body, and the other half from cash. רב סמא asked maybe ר' יהודה said that only in a case when there was change, not in a case of צרורות which is normal. The גמרא answers it is a case of three times warning. It took me a long time to realize what תוספות mean here. At first the answer seems to have no relation to the question. The question was this. ר’ אלעזר holds the case of the loaf and burning coal is full damage, and yet we know it is also paid from the body like in case of half damage. We answered that ר’ אלעזר holds like ר' יהודה that the side of tameness stay in its place. I.e., even though the payment goes up to full damage, still the beginning half stays in it place, and is paid from the body. The answer is it is a case of three times warning. Was that not the question? How could there be payment from the body if it is a case of the normal way? I realized what תוספות means here. He is a saying that the גמרא is disagreeing with רב סמא and holds that even not in a case of change, but in a normal case when there are three times waring and the damage goes up to full payment to ר’ אלעזר, still half payment is made from the body. The גמרא later on changes this, and says that, in fact, both ר’ אלעזר and the חכמים agree with סומכוס that you need no warning for צרורות to require full payment. But they are disagreeing because there was change, and therefore the type of damage became horn and ר’ אלעזר holds first time horn is full payment and the חכמים here of ר’ אלעזר hold like the sages that disagree with ר' טרפון and they hold first time horn is half payment.

I was blessed with being in two great yeshivot, Shar Yasuv and the Mir in N.Y., and heard and received guidance in learning from Naftali Yegeer and Shmuel Berenbaum] and also learned from David Bronson.

My impression about learning is that of the medieval authorities like the first Musar book, the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam that learning Torah (the Old Testament and the two Talmuds), Physics and Metaphysics are the things to concentrate on. However, it can be objected that these are hard. But being hard to understand is not a valid objection. These are things that one is supposed to study even with an I.Q. of room temperature. Like it says in the paragraph of the Shema, “Thou shalt teach them to your children, and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walketh on the way.” So the question is not whether to do this study or not? Rather, what is the best way to go about it? In tractate Avoda Zara page 19 it suggests to say the words in order, and to go on. That means, to finishing the whole book, and then to review that same book many times. [It is even said up to 400 times.] [Also to listen to lectures from people that know their subject. I was blessed with being in two great yeshivot, Shar Yasuv and the Mir in NY, and heard and received guidance in learning from Naftali Yegeer and Shmuel Berenbaum] and also learned from David Bronson. Even though, he was considered as nothing by all, I realized his ability -astounding ability- to go into the depths of the Talmud with Tosphot. From that period, began my writing on Ideas in the Talmud and Subjects in Bava Mezia in my two small booklets that have have links to in this blog Nowadays, I do not have the privilege to learn with David Bronson, but Izhak Rosten sent to me a copy of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach which I find very helpful in finding and searching out the depths of the Talmud