I think that the רמב’’ם in [('ניזקי ממון פרק ב' הלכות ה' ו] holds that there cannot be three kinds of payment for צרורות לתנא אחד and that that is how he understands the גמרא on דפים י''ח וי''ט בבא קמא. I mean that there can be half damage and a fourth; or a half and a whole, but not all three. To explain what I mean let me bring the גמרא on דף י''ט. THERE רב אשי asked if there can be change for צרורות to bring down the payment from חצי to רביע. The גמרא suggests that we can know this from the question of רבא if there can be warning for צרורות? The גמרא says since this is a question to רבא, therefore there cannot be change to a רביע. (This is a problem because רב אשי had a doubt if change is applicable. If the answer is simple he would not have had a question). so גמרא then suggests that perhaps רבא meant to say that if there is no change, then there must be a question if warning can be applied. (That Is to say that it is not that there is no change for sure. Rather there might be change, and therefore we have no question about warning. Or there might be no change and therefore there is a question about warning.) This גמרא can be summed up thus. If there is a question about warning, then change is not applicable. I.e. the question about warning causes there to be no change. Then the גמרא turns that around, and says if there is no change, there has to be a question about warning. That means to say that the arrow of causation is turned around. But at any rate, the רמב’’ם is first bothered by the same question that bothers תוספות. How can there be three kinds of payment, רביע, חצי and a whole. The רמב’’ם that you can have three kinds of payment, but only two kinds for every תנא (teacher). ר’ אלעזר holds there is חצי with no warning, and that goes up to full payment when there is warning, (and change does not matter at all, whether it is present or not). The חכמים hold there is חצי payment, and if there is change, that goes down to רביע, (and warning does not apply at all, whether warning was given or not). One thing still bothers me about the conclusion of this גמרא is this: how would the fact that there is no change cause there to be a question about warning? I would like to add one more idea here. רב שך brings up a question on the רמב’’ם. Why does he bring the question about change but not the question about warning? I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question. I think the רמב’’ם holds that in our גמרא, we can see that change and warning are incompatible variables. If there is change going down to רביע, there cannot be warning. If there is warning going up to full payment, there cannot be change going down to a רביע. Therefore, he brought only the question about change because the law is not like ר’ אלעזר who holds that with warning the payment goes up to full payment. (ר’ אלעזר holds this in the situation in the משנה about the dog with the loaf and burning coal. He holds this requires full payment when there is warning given three times). But the רמב’’ם decided the law is like the חכמים that that case required only half payment. But רב אשי asked according to the sage if change is possible that would bring the payment down to a fourth. The רמב’’ם therefore decided that change for צרורות is a doubt and leave out the possibility of a warning bring up the payment to full damage because the law is not like ר' אלעזר. However, תוספות however holds that the explanation of our גמרא on דף י''ט is different. He holds that the meaning of the גמרא is this. If warning is applicable to צרורות (so that the payment would be full damage), then it would also be applicable to a change in צרורות. That is to say there is change in צרורות that bring it down to a fourth and that warning is applicable in such a way that would bring it back up to a half. (It would not bring to full damage because that would be too much of a jump as תוספות said before. תוספות also holds that the גמרא holds that if warning is not applicable to צרורות (to bring payment to full damage), then warning cannot be applicable to change either. That is, at this point there might be change, but warning would not apply to it to bring it to half payment. Or there might not be change at all. That is even if change happen the payment is still חצי

Gemara on page 18 and 19 of Bava Kama. A difference between Rambam and Tosphot.

I think that the Rambam holds that there can not be three kinds of payment for pebbles, and that that is how he understands the Gemara on page 18 and 19 of Bava Kama. I mean that there can be half damage and a fourth; or a half and a whole, but not all three. To explain what I mean let me bring the Gemara on page 19. Rav Ashi asked if there can be change for pebbles to bring down the payment from 1/2 to 1/4. The Gemara suggests that we can know this from the question of Rava if there can be warning for pebbles? The Gemara says since this is a question to Rava, therefore there cannot be change to a 1/4. (This is a problem because Rav ashi had a doubt if change is applicable. If the answer is simple he would not have had a question ). so Gemara then suggests that perhaps Rava meant to say that if there is no change, then there must be a question if warning can be applied. (That Is to say that it is not that there is no change for sure. Rather there might be change, and therefore we have no question about warning. Or there might be no change and therefore there is a question about warning.) This Gemara can be summed up thus. If there is a question about warning, then change is not applicable. I.e. the question about warning causes there to be no change. Then the Gemara turns that around, and says if there is no change, there has to be a question about warning. That means to say that the arrow of causation is turned around. But at any rate, the Rambam is first bothered by the same question that bothers Tosphot. How can there be three kinds of payment, 1/4, 1/2 and a whole. The Rambam that you can have three kinds of payment, but only two kinds for every tana (teacher). R Elazar holds there is 1/2 with no warning, and that goes up to full payment when there is warning, (and change does not matter at all, whether it is present or not). The sages hold there is 1/2 payment, and if there is change, that goes down to ¼, (and warning does not apply at all, whether warning was given or not). One thing still bothers me about the conclusion of this Gemara is this: how would the fact that there is no change cause there to be a question about warning? I would like to add one more idea here. Rav Shach brings up a question on the Rambam. Why does he bring the question about change but not the question about warning? I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question. I think the Rambam holds that in our Gemara, we can see that change and warning are incompatible variables. If there is change going down to 1/4, there cannot be warning. If there is warning going up to full payment, there cannot be change going down to a 1/4. Therefore, he brought only the question about change because the law is not like R Elazar who holds that with warning the payment goes up to full payment. (R Elazar holds this in the situation in the mishna about the dog with the loaf and burning coal. He holds this requires full payment when there is warning given three times). But the Rambam decided the law is like the sages that that case required only half payment. But Rav Ashi asked according to the sage if change is possible that would bring the payment down to a fourth. The Rambam therefore decided that change for pebbles is a doubt and leave out the possibility of a warning bring up the payment to full damage because the law is not like R. Elazar. Tosphot however holds that the explanation of our Gemara on page 19 is different. He holds that the meaning of thee Gemara is this. If warning is applicable to pebbles (so that the payment would be full damage), then it would also be applicable to a change in pebbles. That is to say there is change in pebbles that bring it down to a fourth and that warning is applicable in such a way that would bring it back up to a half. (It would not bring to full damage because that would be too much of a jump as Tosphot said before. Tosphot also holds that the gemara holds that if warning is not applicable to pebbles (to bring payment to full damage), then warning cannot be applicable to change either. That is at this point there might be change, but warning would not apply to it to bring it to half payment. Or there might not be change at all. That is even if change happen the payment is till 1/2

The need to combine two principles in learning that at first glance seem contradictory

It is worth mentioning that my son Izhak was aware of the need to combine two principles in learning that at first glance seem contradictory. One is the idea of saying the words and going on until the end of the book or chapter, and then the other of review. He was aware of the greatness and importance of Rav Nahman's idea of “saying the words and going on.” But on the other hand, often people often forget the importance of review as Rav Nachman said himself in Sefer Hamidot, “He who learns, but does not review etc.” some people are naturally brilliant in one field or the other but that does not exclude the importance of learning Gemara Physics and mathematics even if you are not naturally talented in this area. It is like saying you do not need to be moral even if you are not naturally moral. Positive values need to be adhered to even against one’s natural inclination, The issue is not how talented you are, but rather what are the areas that are important to concentrate on even if you are not in order to become a whole and wholesome human being.

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.