In the laws in forbidden sexual relations  Rambam 1:22 we have that if there was קינו וסתירה (warning and then she went to a private area with the man she was warned not to go with) and then one witness comes and says he saw her sleep with another man not her husband, then she can not drink מי סוטה (the bitter waters) and if her husband is a priest and then has sex with her, he gets lashes for זונה (prostitute).[When the Torah forbids a priest to sleep with a prostitute it means a woman who has had any forbidden sexual relation (even a prohibition that comes from an  עשה), not the normal definition]
[The normal case is there is קינו וסתירה a warning and privacy and then her husband brings her to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and she drinks the bitter waters. That is: water that is from the regular fountain in the Temple, and then the paragraph about the Sota is blotted out over it, and it is mixed with dirt from a special area in the Temple. She drinks it, and if she is pure, nothing happens, and if she is not pure then it has a bad effect. What is different in our case is one witness comes and says he saw her sleep with the other man. That makes it impossible to drink the bitter waters.]
Reb Chaim [Soloveitchik] says the reason is the prohibition of  זונה comes at the same time he has sex with her..
Rav Shach says this does not seem right for the fact that the very act of sex that makes her a זונה can not be the same one that causes him to get lashes for having sex with a זונה.
Though the proofs of Rav Shach are clear, still I wanted to suggest from where Reb Chaim might have gotten his idea. בור עשרה וזרק לתוכה חוליא פטור.
A person throws dirt in a small private domain on Shabat. Small  means the minimum size. Ten hand-breaths tall and four by four wide. He would normally be obligated to bring a sin offering. But in this case his throwing in the dirt is the same act which makes the private domain become less than the required size.

_________________________________________________________________________________

In the רמב''ם הלכות איסורי ביאה א:כ''ב we have that if there was קינו וסתירה  and then one witness comes and says he saw her sleep with another man not her husband, then she can not drink מי סוטה (the bitter waters) and if her husband is a כהן and then has sex with her, he gets lashes for זונה .
רב חיים הלוי  says the reason is the prohibition of  זונה comes at the same time he has sex with her..
רב שך says this does not seem right for the fact that the very act of sex that makes her a זונה can not be the same one that causes him to get lashes for having sex with a זונה.
Though the proofs of רב שך are clear, still I wanted to suggest from where רב חיים הלוי might have gotten his idea. בור עשרה וזרק לתוכה חוליא פטור.
A person throws dirt in a small רשות היחיד on Shabat. Small  means the minimum size. עשרה טפחים tall and four by four wide. He would normally be obligated to bring a sin offering. But in this case his throwing in the dirt is the same act which makes the רשות היחיד become less than the required size.

the main goal and direction of Torah is to come to fear of God and good character.

The whole Musar Movement idea is not a bad idea but I think that today is is more likely to try to gain fear of God and good character based on home learning. That is to get the basic set of classical Musar [ethics] and to learn at home.

The whole idea of Reb Israel Salanter makes a lot of sense but I think there can not be any kind of mass movement that gets to what he was thinking about.

I mean to say he was right to notice that the main idea of Torah--the main goal and direction of Torah is to come to fear of God and good character. And the best way to achieve both goals is by learning the classical mediaeval books written by the Rishonim that deal with these issues. To me it is clear he was 100% right about this. But today the emphasis has to be on home learning.

[The disciples of Reb Israel Salanter wrote some very great musar books like the Madragat Haadam.]

t83  t83 in midi format

Fake Torah scholars that are actually demons.

FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO KEEP TORAH THERE IS A STUMBLING BLOCK PLACE IN THEIR PATH--THE SO CALLED TEACHERS OF TORAH THAT TEACH TORAH OF THE SITRA ACHRA.
 The Gra tried to deal with this problem by putting his signature on the letter of excommunication that warned people about these fake scholars that are actually demons.

The trouble is that until this problem is taken care of there is really almost no way to keep Torah. The entire religious world is a den of the Satan and his minions. So one can try to keep and learn Torah by oneself. In fact nowadays that might be the only way. [Though I think of  few places that are still pure, like Ponovitch and the great NY Litvak yeshivas. But these kind of places are rare.]

This problem was noticed by the prophets and brought also in the Gemara. It is mentioned also in the Mishna as far as I recall. The place that I remember most vividly is towards the end of Tracate Shabat. There the sages said, "When you see a  generation that troubles are coming upon it, go and check the judges of Israel. For all troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel, as it says in the verse 'שופטיה בשוחד ישפוטו וגו "Its judges judge with bribes."

So we see this problem has been around ever since the time of the prophets and the Mishna. As long as there have been true prophets, there have also been  people that figured out ways of making money  and getting power out of Torah.

[Thus, keeping Torah sincerely has always been a personal project. ]

Clearly the ideal way to go about learning Torah is to combine two factors (1) accepting the yoke of Torah. That is to be committed to sit and learn Torah no matter what the cost. (2) Trust in God with no השתדלות No effort.

The problem with this in Israel is the way the system is set up. It only works in such a way that one need to use Torah to make money--or he can't be learning at all. That is the whole system is set up in such a way as to make only Torah not for its own sake possible. Not Torah for its own sake.

The USA has at least in NY where the system is set up as to make Torah for its own sake possible. But in Israel the only place that seems to work is in Bnei Brak in Ponovitch.

Just one example would be the idea of taking tests to show you did the learning in order to get the paycheck. An open violation of the prohibition of learning Torah to make money.
To me it seems the only way to learn Torah for its own sake in Israel is to do it own one's own time and expensive. And in some way that is probably a good thing because the religious community there is anyway pretty messed up. The leaders tend to be demons in human form and their vicious anti Israel agenda just goes to show it.
The general path that was accepted in the Mir and also in Shar Yashuv was that Torah should be learned without any intention of using it for money. As for a vocation, the general advice was to go and learn a trade or go to university. How it got to be accepted to use Torah to make money as the entire religious world does today is a complete mystery to me.  I thought that everyone knew that Torah should not be used to make money or to be asking for donations. It is not just that it is in Pirkei Avot. It is something I thought was common knowledge. But hanging out in the religious world I found out that using Torah for money seems to be perfectly acceptable nowadays.--even admirable.
And in terms of kollel which comes under the category of accepting money to learn Torah--if it is done in that way then it is OK to Rav Joseph Karo the author of the Shulchan Aruch, but that is not how it is done nowadays.

natural law

Though natural law became a big thing in the West because of Aquinas, I have come to see that to the Rambam there is no essential difference between Torah Law and natural law. Torah Law is simply the fulfillment of natural law. [Or rather let me put it this way. To come to natural law one needs the Torah. But Torah also adds another dimension that is lacking in natural law that is perfection. But my point is the kind of distinction you see in Aquinas between the Divine Law and Natural Law really is just not there to the Rambam.]


Divine Law has always been a problem in the West because of the Antinomianism of Paul. Even Catholics when they appeal to something in the Law of Moses always suggest the reason is because of Natural Law.

Though חוקי השכל [laws of Reason] really was suggested as the reason for the laws of the Torah by Saadia Gaon, still no one made much of a distinction between the laws of reason and the laws of Torah until Aquinas.

There is what to go into about all this from the standpoint of Hegel and the Kant Friesian School.  That is not to mention the Natural Law people (like Dworkin). {See this nice paper}As far as this goes to me the German idealists look something like the pre Soctratics before Plato and Aristotle.  That is each one has a set of very important points but we have yet found any way to combine their collective insights into one cohesive system.

רמב''ם מביא הלכות סוכה ד: י''א גוד אסיק מחיצתא

There is a famous law in Sukka גוד אסיק מחיצתא we consider the walls of a roof to be extended upwards in order to make the Sukka valid. The Rambam brings this in Law of Suka 4:11 [if memory serves correctly.] It says there that if one builds the Suka on the roof with just four poles the walls of the roof are considered to extend upwards to make it valid.

 But then he also brings the law of a mound of dirt in 4:14 to say the walls are not extended upward. There it says if one has a Suka in which the covering branches are too high (above 20 yards) and puts in a mound of dirt (10 hand-breaths high)in the middle to make the difference between the floor and cover to be less that is not valid.
Reb Chaim Soloveitchik brings down this question and so does Rav Shach.
Rav Shach adds an additional piece of information that a mound of dirt is considered a private domain in Shabat.  That means even for a mound of dirt we do say גוד אסיק מחיצתא we bring up the walls even though there is nothing to distinguish between the mound itself and what we would be calling its walls.

I do not know why no one seems to say this but to me it seems the main difference must be that we do not say  גוד אסיק מחיצתא to make the covering branches valid but we do say it to make the wall valid.
I still do not have any idea why this would be so but to me it seems clear that this is the only possible explanation for this problem.

________________________________________________________________________________

The רמב''ם brings in הלכות סוכה ד:י''א גוד אסיק מחיצתא we consider the walls of a roof to be extended upwards in order to make the סוכה valid.  If one builds the סוכה on the roof with just four poles, the walls of the roof are considered to extend upwards to make it valid. But then he also brings the law of   הלכות סוכה ד:י''א  א that is if one has a סוכה in which the סכך is too high למעלה מעשרים אמה and puts in a תל of dirt עשרה טפחים גובה in the middle to make the difference between the floor and cover to be less that is not valid. The מחיצות are not extended upward. צריכים מחיצות הניכרות כמו שאמר רבא.

רב חיים הלוי brings down this question and so does רב שך.
רב שך adds an additional piece of information that a תל of dirt is considered a רשות היחיד in שבת.  That means even for a תל of dirt we do say גוד אסיק מחיצתא we bring up the מחיצות even though there is nothing to distinguish between the תל itself and what we would be calling its מחיצות. To me it seems the main difference must be that we do not say  גוד אסיק מחיצתא to make the סכך valid but we do say it to make the מחיצות valid. I still do not have any idea why this would be so but to me it seems clear that this is the only possible explanation for this problem.



רמב''ם מביא הלכות סוכה ד: י''א גוד אסיק מחיצתא אנו רואים קירות הגג להתארך כלפי מעלה על מנת להפוך את הסוכה תקף. אם אחד בונה את הסוכה על שפת הגג עם רק ארבעה עמודים, קירות הגג נחשבים להאריך כלפי מעלה כדי לגרום לזאת תוקף. אבל אז הוא גם מביא את החוק  בהלכות סוכה ד: י"ד לומר אם לאחד יש סוכה ובה סכך גבוה מדי (למעלה מעשרים אמה) ומכניס עמוד בגבוה עשרה טפחים באמצע כדי להשלים את ההבדל בין הרצפה ולסכך להיות פחות כי הוא לא תקף. המחיצות לא הוארכו כלפי מעלה. צריך מחיצות הניכרות כמו שאמר רבא. רב חיים הלוי מביא את השאלה הזו וכך גם רב שך. רב שך מוסיף   של מידע נוסף כי תל  נחשב רשות היחיד בשבת. כלומר, אפילו עבור עמוד ותל אנחנו אומרים גוד אסיק מחיצתא, אנו מעלים את המחיצות אף אם אין להבחין בין העמוד או התל עצמו ומה שהיינו קוראים מחיצות שלו. לי זה נראה ההבדל העיקרי חייב להיות שאנחנו לא אומרים גוד אסיק מחיצתא להפוך את הסכך חוקי, אך אנו אומרים את זה כדי להפוך את המחיצות תקפות. אני עדיין אין לי שום מושג למה זה יהיה  כך אבל לי זה נראה ברור כי זהו ההסבר היחיד האפשרי עבור בעיה זו.