Is a girl friend permitted?

The whole issue of having a girl friend  or in the language of the Bible פילגש I have noticed that a lot of people are not aware of.  This comes up mainly in Chronicles  2:46 with the friend of Joshua כלב בן יפונה. I have mentioned before that Calev Ben Yefuna was the only person in the Bible that it says the amazing phrase: "וימלא אחרי השם" ["He went totally after God"].

The basic outline of the subject  you can easily see in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.

The Rambam it is known is against this, and allows a girl friend only to  a king. The Gra pointed out that that can't work in the case of Calev Ben Yefuna. [who had many girl friends but was not a king.]  But the Gra has a different explanation of the whole thing. He says  a פלגש is with kidushin but without a ketubah.  The חלקת מחוקק and בית שמואל point out that even to the Rambam, a girl friend is only an אסור עשה that is a prohibition that is derived from the lack of doing something--that is making kidushin. [I can not answer for how the Rambam might have explained כלב בן יפונה.]

That is to say it is not that same thing as זנות which is a לאו a straight forward prohibition.


In any case, on the side of permission, we have at least the Raavad and the Ramban, and some say the Rosh also. The reason is the Rosh only mentions the problem of she might be embarrassed to go to the mikveh. People like the Radvaz and later achronim went through the trouble to find how many rishonim allow it, and  as far as I know there is no doubt that the majority of Rishonim allow it.

This really would not even need to be necessary to mention except for the fact that I have heard  people confuse this with adultery,-- which it is clearly not. This opinion I imagine can only have originated with people that can't read Hebrew. Adultery is a totally different story. It is an act of sex with a married woman.  It has nothing to do with a girl friend. Thus a man can have many wives, but a wife can not have two husbands since each act of sex would be an act of adultery which gets the death penalty as we see in Leviticus 20

Trump stands for traditional values.

In terms of the American elections. Trump stands for traditional moral values  and Hillary stands for socialism and as far as I am concerned that is unjust and that settles the issue.

 There is not  a way to learn one page of Gemara and come away with any kind of socialism. Theft is theft.

This however does not answer the the problem of abuse of power which seems to be the motivating factor for socialists that are sincere. 

Another point is that during the 1800's and early 1900's that most promising and convincing doctrine was that of Socialism, so it was natural for people to be convinced by the arguments. What is different today is that Socialism is not longer believable.





You could see this towards the end of the USSR when the books of Marx would sit in bookstores with thick layers of dust over them. No one that actually lived in a socialist society had any confidence that that system was just in any sense.


This does however open new horizons. If we consider that the major motivating factor for socialism was "Leshem Shamayim"--for the sake of Heaven and that what was wrong was simply that it does not reflect reality then is there a better system? If we look at all the alternatives that people came up with it seems to me that while no system is perfect, I still think the basic approach of the Constitution of the USA is about the best thing out there as far as the structuring of a moral decent society--as long as there is a Torah ethics that underlies it. 

I think it makes some sense to go into some detail about what I mean here. I see Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. as mainly trying to come up with alternatives to Torah Ethics. The reason was abuses that were part of European society. So it was natural to try to come up with alternatives. This same motivation is what lies at the core of people that go along with these systems. That is judge on the scales of merit. You do not need to assume the underlying motivation of the socialism is hatred of the rich and the desire to find a rational in order to take away from them their money.


So I try to defend the Law of Moses as being the best system [that is the Oral and Written Law] and instead of ignoring the abuses I try to find ways of correcting the abuses --instead of throwing out the whole system as some people want to do.

I just do not think any kind of Marxism is very good. I think it is inherently violent. Oleg Penkovsky revealed that Krushev was actually planning on raining down a barrage of nuclear missiles on the USA until a strong reaction from Kennedy stopped him.
[It was by the U-2 and Penkovsky that the SS-4 was identified and then the S-5]


The Ultra Religious approach also seems very problematic. My feeling is the best thing is the Litvak Yeshiva approach which is basically an emphasis on moral values and learning Torah together. They might not put it in that way but that is in fact how it comes out.

a proof that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam

There seems to be a proof that the Rambam holds by Rabbainu Tam in terms of the beginning of the night.It occurs to me that the Radvaz also says the same thing and brings a proof of this idea in his Teshuvot volume 4 chapter 282 I think also from what the Rambam wrote in laws of קידוש החודש

But this is my proof of this idea also from הלכות קידוש החודש


This I think is not an exact proof but simply something which points in this direction because of the obvious reason that Rosh Hodesh to the Rambam is dependent on the later calculations that are done today which come from the calendar of Meton.

I would be surprised if the Radvaz uses the same proof that I brought here. Rather it is probable that he found some other proof. That would be this is most likely to be stadard in בלכות קידוש החודש





) לתרץ את קושיית של נוגנבוער על ברמב''ם קידוש החודש פרק י''א הלכה ט''ז הרמב''ם קובע ניסן ג'  בשעה 18:00 כבסיס בשנת 1,178  והוא אומר שהשמש הממוצעת היה ב 7/3/32. אם הולכים בחזרה שני ימים מוצאים המולד האמצעי היה ניסן א' 6:23 בערב. אבל אם מסתכלים בפרק ו' איפה שהוא מסביר איך למצוא את המולד הממוצע, יוצא המולד בניסן א' ב7:40 בערב.
שמעתי  שויסנבערג תירץ את זה על ידי שהשקיעה הייתה ב6:14  ועוד הוא מוסיף עשרים דקות לראות את הלבנה, אבל עדיין נשארות חמישים דקות בלי הסבר.
 דָּוִד אמר: התירוץ הוא, שאם היה מולד ממוצע אחד, זה היה קשה. אבל יש שנים,- יש המהירות הממוצעת של הלבנה סביב הגלגל הגדול. ויש מהירות של הלבנה סביב הטבעת הקטנה. בשביל שהלבנה קבועה בתוך הטבעת הקטנה, היא הולכת במהירות יתירה כשהיא הולכת בכיוון גלגל הגדול. והיא הולכת לאט כשהיא הולכת בכיוון להיפוך. אגב הרמב''ם כתב שהחישובים שלו הם רק השערות, שלמעשה המולד באותו יום היה ב5:57 בערב." אגבת נראה שהרמב''ם פוסק כמו רבינו תם בעניין שקיעה, שאם לא כן והוא מחזיק המולד בשבע וארבעים, אז זה ניסן ב'.אבל אם הרמב''ם מחזיק שמן השקיעה הראשונה עד הלילה תשעים דקות אז המולד חל בניסן א'.

The actual idea on Rabbainu Tam is this other thing I wrote elsewhere:

) בענין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. קשה להבין את הגר''א.  אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות  כוכב בינוני אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות.
  זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב בינוני אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה "בינוני". ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים בינוניים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא יוצאים כוכבים בינוניים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.
תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון  (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם אמרו שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה.  רב נטרונאי גאון אוחז בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון אוחז בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד'). אני חושב ההלכה כמו רבינו תם. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את שיטת הגר''א בקושי.
הגם שאני חושב הלכה כר''ת עדיין אני רוצה לתת תירוץ אפשרי לגר''א: החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר  לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים בינוניים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שאוחז בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שכל הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיועה לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים בינונים רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את  הלילה.

s36 E Major  s36 midi  s36 nwc

Gra made his decision to sign the excommunication

The Gra made his decision to sign the excommunication. No compromises. I have already shown many times the problems that the Gra must have seen and I can not believe that people do not still see these same things. You do not need to look into history to see what that Gra felt was wrong. You can see it today.
It is strange they everyone thinks they are smarter than the Gra. Compromise with evil can not result in anything good.
The main trouble seems to be idol worship of their leaders. But the basic belief structure comes from the Shatz which also is a problem. But what ever the reason once you accept that the Gra had the halachic authority to make an excommunication then it in itself has halachic validity no matter if you agree with the reasons or not.

The trouble is there is no spark. No one seems outraged at the constant incessant trail of abuses. They figure as long at it does not hurt them directly, "Why get involved?" And when the abuse finally gets around to them then no one else wants to listen to their tale of woes.


And the further trouble is few people really can uphold the path of the Gra and Rav Shach and Reb Israel Salanter including me. For I have my own set of obligations including honor of my parents which mean I can not stand for the Torah alone approach. [My parents were clear about Torah with a Vocation.]

[Or perhaps it could be said that Rav Zilverman in the old city of Jerusalem in what could be called a yeshiva based on the path of the Gra is following that path faithfully. Also the Lithuanian Musar yeshivas to some degree seem to be adhering somewhat closely to the authentic path of Torah though they do ignore the signature of the Gra on that excommunication. This means the exact problems the Gra meant to avoid entered into the Litvak yeshiva world. The effects of ignoring the Gra are apparent.


For some reason in Israel in fact by a lot of Litvaks it seems to me that this subject of the cherem is taken more seriously than in the USA. I noted this a few time by Rav Shlanger the Mashgiach of Porat Yoseph in talking with his older married sons. [That is the father in law of Eliyahu Zilverman.]

And I have heard that a good number of places have spouted up based on the Gra's approach. [So when you see someone walking around with tefilin on that does not mean they are a part of Rav Zilverman's yeshiva. There are from what I have heard many other places that started up in the meantime that also take the Gra seriously.]

The major reason I think the Gra signed the Cherem was that he considered the whole business to be a scam of the Sitra Achra. --a way to penetrate the world of Torah.

The after blessing

בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא להחיות בהן נפש כל חי ברוך אתה השם חי העולמים

חי is with a Tzerei 
נפש is feminine. Therefore the endings have to fit. Not "בהם"  and not "וחסרונם."

And there is no such thing as a bracha that simply ends baruch etc without a name of Hashem as the Gra noted. Then the end has to be like the Yerushalmi. 

Computer models

Avraham: Computer models are only as good as the assumptions they are built on which are often wrong, and often leave out external factors which are more important, and they depend on expansions which miss infinities.
For example see this lecture by Arthur Mattuck concerning y'=y^2. What ever the computer does it will not find the singularity.
{I should mention that all I really know about computer modeling is based on a few books, one was Numerical analysis that dealt in detail with the Runge Kutta method  that I read through about four times I think.But the books that deal with how to program computers do not usually deal with the above mentioned problem by Arthur  Mattuck that the computer can be mislead when trying to graph a ODE.]
In fact come to think of it, I do not think I ever saw any book on computer modeling that mentions this problem.

Reference Frame:

But they are also often - and maybe predominantly - demonstrably right, accurate, if not downright ingenious, and - especially - more accurate than predictions made without any models. This is an essential point that you, like O'Neill, try to obscure.
I didn't understand what this topic has to do with "infinities".

Avraham:
I meant the Taylor expansions or Numerical method. The computer will miss infinities as you go from point to close point unless by accident the computer happens to land on the infinity itself. So all I am saying is that when the computer shows a nice smooth line the reality might be that between those two points the graph goes to infinity. That is is all I meant.

In relation to this I think Catastrophe theory might be able to dig up those infinities, but I am not sure about that.
_______________________________________________________________________________


Computer models are used everywhere and are used to defend crazy stuff. Sometimes 9/11 conspiracies sometimes global warming the list is unlimited. Here is another comment I wrote:The Reference Frame mentioned this and also Steven Dutch. My own feeling about this I wrote in a comment on the Reference Frame. My comment was to the effect that after the first few floors of a building people depend on Finite Element Theory which is great approximation but not exact. To really understand what is going on after the first few floors you need Catastrophe Theory.

How can I put this? A lot of what goes on is dependent on computer modeling which is complete depends on the assumptions you start with which often is complete absurdity. So many papers start out with “We have found…” when in fact they found out nothing at all. They mean their computer model found ….

And even if their model somehow represents reality in some way which it usually does not anyway they always depends on expansions–which can miss infinities unless you expand at the exact point where the infinity is found.

Let me try to find the links I mentioned:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/09/europhys-news-911-saw-controlled.html

Last thought. BYU is the same place that thought they came up with cold fusion with an amazingly sloppy chemistry set. I see no reason to pay attention to them.