R. Shimon [Tractate Temura page 19B ] said if a person sanctified female sheep to be a guilt offering it should be sold without a blemish. [Not like the First Tana who said it can be sold only after it gets a blemish]/(A guilt offering can only be male.) Rav Shach [laws of things that invalidate a sacrificee] makes a comment on this that he should have said what is relevant to the altar does not leave the altar. This comment is based on the shita mekubetzes that says there is no such thing as having an animal that is totally secular, and yet one has to bring the money he sells it for to the Temple. [He means of course outside of the context of oaths and vows.] Rav Shach is asking why R Shimon did not make it clear that he means that the female sheep would-be old and money of that sale has holiness of money. Or maybe he even means that that money has to be used to buy a male sheep to bring as a guilt offering. This last possibility seems to me to be the clearest since R Shimon is going on the word of the first tana who said it goes to pasture until it gets blemish and then is old and the money of that ale goes to buy a guilt offering. And on that R Shimon inert his comment it is sold without a blemish. The idea of the Shita Mekubezet comes from this subject. bar pada said one cannot sanctify a fetus. the gemara asks on this from the mishna. One who wants to avoid of having to give the first-born sheep to a priest says, “What is in the womb of this sheep will be a burnt offering.” If it gives birth to a male, it burnt offering. Bar Pada answered that means the money of its sale will be for a burnt offering. Tosphot asks but what about the end of the Mishna that says, “If it gave birth two males, one is a burnt offering and the other is sold for a burnt offering.” If bar pade is right then both are equal. So why does the Mishna say they are different? Tosphot answers it must be the tana holds if an animal is fit for the altar and yet only has been sanctified with holiness of money, then the holiness of body comes on it automatically. the shita asks on tosphot why not answer the question tosphot thus: the first has holiness of money and the second does not and yet it still has to be sold to buy a sheep for a burnt offering. The shita answers if that money does not have holiness of money ten one could buy groceries with it. That means that this suggested answer cannot be true. and that is from where Rav shach learned his point that if the animal has neither holiness of body or monetary vale then there i no reason to buy a sacrifice with the money of its sale. _____________________________________________________ ר' שמעון בתמורה י''ט ע''ב said if a person sanctified female sheep to be a אשם it should be sold without a מום. [Not like the תנא קמא who said it can be נמכר only after it gets a מום]. רב שך בהלכות פסולי המוקדשין makes a comment on this that ר' שמעון should have said what is relevant to the altar does not leave the altar. This comment is based on the שיטה מקובצת that say there is no such thing as having an animal that is totally חולין and yet one has to bring the money he sells it for to the מקדש. [He means of course outside of the context of oaths and vows.] so I think רה שך is asking why ר' שמעון did not make it clear that he means that the female sheep would-be נמכר and money of that sale has holiness of money. Or maybe he even means that that money has to be used to buy a male sheep to bring as a guilt offering. This last possibility seems to me to be the clearest since ר' שמעון is going on the word of the תנא קמא who said it goes to pasture until it gets מום and then is נמכר and the money of that מכירה goes to buy a guilt offering. And on that ר' שמעון inserts his comment it is sold without a blemish. THE idea of the שיטה מקובצת comes from this subject. בר פדא said one cannot sanctify a עבר. the גמרא asks on this from the משנה . One who wants to avoid of having to give the first-born sheep to a priest says, “What is in the womb of this sheep will be a burnt offering.” If it gives birth to a male, it burnt offering. בר פדא answered that means the money of its sale will be for a burnt offering. תוספות, asks but what about the end of theרמשנה that says, “If it gave birth two males, one is a burnt offering and the other is sold for a burnt offering.” If בר פדא is right, then both are equal. So why does the משנה say they are different? צוספות answers it must be the תנא holds if an animal is fit for the altar and yet only has been sanctified with קדושת דמים then the קדושת הגוף comes on it automatically. the שיטה asks on תוספות why not answer the question תוספות thus: the first has holiness of money and the second does not, and yet it still has to be sold to buy a sheep for a עולה. The שיטה answers if that money does not have קדושת דמים then one could buy groceries with it. That means that this suggested answer cannot be true. And that is from where רב שך learned his point that if the animal has neither קדושת הגוף or קדושת דמים, then there is no reason to buy a קרבן with the money of its sale. ___________________________________________________ ______ ר' שמעון בתמורה י''ט ע''ב אמר אם אדם קידש כבשה נקבה להיות אשם צריך למכור אותה בלא מום. [לא כמו התנא קמא שאמר יכול להיות נמכרת רק לאחר שהיא שתקבל מום]. רב שך בהלכות פסולי המוקדשין מעיר על כך שר' שמעון היה צריך לומר מה שרלוונטי למזבח אינו יוצא מהמזבח. הערה זו מבוססת על שיטה מקובצת שאומר שאין דבר כזה שיש בהמה שהיא חולין לגמרי, ובכל זאת צריך להביא את הכסף שהוא מקבל ממכירתה למקדש. [הוא מתכוון כמובן מחוץ להקשר של השבועות ונדרים.] אז אני חושב שרב שך שואל למה ר' שמעון לא הבהיר שהוא מתכוון שהכבשה הנקבה תהיה נמכרת וכסף של המכירה הזו יש קדושה של כֶּסֶף (קדושת דמים שהולך לבדק הבית). או אולי הוא אפילו מתכוון שצריך להשתמש בכסף הזה כדי לקנות כבשה זכר כדי להביא כאשם. אפשרות אחרונה זו נראית לי הכי ברורה שכן ר' שמעון הולך על דברי התנא קמא שאמר הולכת למרעה עד שתקבל מום ואז נמכרת וכספי מכירה ההיא הולך לקנות קרבן אשם. ועל זה מכניס ר' שמעון את הערתו הוא נמכר ללא מום הרעיון של השיטה מקובצת נובע מהנושא הזה. בר פדא אמר אי אפשר לקדש עובר. הגמרא שואלת על זה מהמשנה. מי שרוצה להימנע מהצורך לתת את הכבשה הבכורה לכהן אומר: "מה שברחם הכבשה הזו יהיה לעולה". אִם תוֹליד זָכָר, הוא עוֹלָה. ענה בר פדא שכסף מכירתו יהיה לעולה. תוספות, שואלת אבל מה עם סוף המשנה שאומרת "אם ילדה שני זכרים, האחד הוא עולה והשני נמכר בעולה". אם בר פדא צודק, אז שניהם שווים. אז למה המשנה אומרת שהם שונים? תוספות עונה שזה חייב להיות התנא מחזיק אם בהמה מתאימה למזבח ובכל זאת רק התקדשה בקדושת דמים אז הגוף נעשה אוטומטית. השיטה שואלת על תוספות למה לא לענות על השאלה של תוספות כך: לראשון יש קדושת כסף ולשני אין, ובכל זאת צריך למכור אותו כדי לקנות כבש לעולה. השיטה עונה אם לכסף הזה אין קדושת דמים, אז אפשר לקנות איתו מצרכים. זה אומר שהתשובה המוצעת הזו לא יכולה להיות נכונה. ומכאן למד רב שך את דבריו שאם אין לבהמה לא קדושת גוף ולא קדושת דמים, אזי אין סיבה לקנות קרבן בכספי מכירתו

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.