the main repentance is that when one hears his insult to be quite and not answer.

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick  could have learned the LeM volume I section 6 and saved his life.

There is brought that the main repentance is that when one hears his insult to be quite and not answer. עיקר התשובה כשישמע בזיונו יידום וישתוק.

He had been insulted terribly by King Edward IV. He had been sent to France to arrange a marriage that would connect him to the royal family of France. When he returned Edward announced that he was already married. I.e. he made a joke out of Warwick. That kind of thing happened enough that finally Warwick took it to heart. [note 1] He was not in the category of hearing his insult and being quiet and accepting. One day after a few years Edward needed the help of Warwick. The reply was a deafening silence. Why? Because he was already making plans to overthrow Edward. That rebellion eventually failed and Warwick was killed. Can you imagine what would have happened if Warwick had been learning the LeM Torah lesson 6 about accepting one's insult?

But it is not just Warwick. Often people do not want to suffer a small hurt or insult and because of that end up suffering a much larger insult or hurt.

So the lesson to learn is to learn Torah lesson 6 in the LeM to remind oneself how important it is to not answer even though one has been insulted.

[note 1] The problem was it was not just an insult. Warwick felt that that was poor gratitude for helping Edward become king in the first place.

 I have a question on the ראב''ד. In Laws of forbidden relations [chapter 1. law 22] the ראב''ד says the reason a כהן gets lashes in a case of קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד is because of והיא נטמאה שכתוב לגבי סוטה. Now רב שך explains it thus. Normally והיא נטמאה means it is like the ערווה של היחסיים האסורים of ויקרא י''ח  which we learn from יבמות דף י''א about a סוטה. But a כהן is different. If his wife has had sex with someone even by rape she still is forbidden to her husband and so it is an איסור כהונה not ערווה. and so one witness is enough to get her husband lashes since it is  a regular law and one witness is believed in regular prohibition that are not עריות. To the ראב''ד, she is not a זונה because we do not believe one witness in the case of  a married woman. The question I have here is that the גמרא in יבמות makes no distinction between a כהן and a ישראל when it comes to an איסור סוטה which is the איסור of "והיא נטמאה". I mean to say that it say a סוטה does not get ייבום because טומאה is written by her and by that there is a גזירה שווה to עריות. So we see openly the גמרא makes no distinction between whether she is the wife of a  כהן or not. It is all עריות and if it is all עריות you need two witness!

יש לי שאלה על הראב''ד. בהלכות איסורי ביאה פרק א’ הלכה כ’’ב הראב''ד אומר הסיבה שכהן מקבל מכות במקרה של קינוי וסתירה ועד אחד היא בגלל והיא נטמאה שכתוב לגבי סוטה. עכשיו רב שך מסביר זאת כך. בדרך כלל והיא נטמאה פירושו שזה כמו הערווה של היחסים האסורים של ויקרא י''ח אותה אנו למדים  מן יבמות דף י''א על סוטה. אבל כהן הוא שונה. אם אשתו קיימה יחסי מין עם מישהו אפילו על ידי אנוס, היא עדיין אסורה לבעלה הכהן ולכן זהו איסור כהונה ולא ערווה. ולכן די בעד אחד כדי לקבל מלקות מכיוון שזה חוק רגיל ועד אחד נאמן באיסורים קבוע שאינם עריות. [בעיני הראב''ד היא איננה זונה משום שאיננו מאמינים לעד אחד במקרה של אישה נשואה.] השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהגמרא ביבמות לא מבחינה בין כהן לישראל כשמדובר באיסור סוטה שהוא האיסור של "והיא נטמאה". אני מתכוון לומר שזה אומר שסוטה לא מקבל ייבום כי טומאה נכתב על ידה ועל ידי כך יש גזירה שווה לעריות. אז אנו רואים בגלוי שבגמרא אין הבחנה בין אם היא אשתו של כהן או ישראל. הכל עריות ואם הכל עריות אתה צריך שני עדים

I just wanted to add here that the whole issue comes from the Gemara Yerushalmi that if you have a case of a husband warns his wife not to be alone with so and so and then she is alone with him and then there is one witness that saw her sleeping with him, then if her husband is a priest, then he gets lashes. The yerushalmi does not say why. The Rambam says because of Zona. The Raavad says because of "and she is unclean". Zona is only a prohibition for a priest. The issue of "and she is unclean" means that a sota is forbidden to her husband until she drinks water mixed with the ink of the parchment of the paragraph of Sota and some dust of the Temple. But if there is already one witness then even that solution is not possible. What makes our situation here worse is her husband is a priest.

A further question here is  that I am not sure I understand the answer of רב שך in explaining the ראב''ד at all. The idea that since והיא נטמאה is different for a כהן than for a ישראלי therefore it is an איסור כהונה. In what way is it different? If the יחסי מין  rape, then she is forbidden to her husband because of זונה. But that is the very thing the ראב''ד is holding no one would get lashes for since we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman for the איסור of זונה. If the sex was willingly, then it is the same prohibition for a Israeli and a כהן.

שאלה נוספת כאן היא שאני לא בטוח שאני מבין את התשובה של רב שך בהסבר על הראב''ד בכלל. הרעיון שמאז "והיא נטמאה" שונה עבור כהן מאשר עבור ישראלי ולכן הוא איסור כהונה. באיזה אופן זה שונה? אם היחסי מין היו באונס, אז אסור לבעלה בגלל זונה. אבל זה בדיוק הדבר שראב''ד מחזיק, שאף אחד לא יקבל מלקות מכיוון שאנחנו לא מאמינים לעד אחד במקרה של אישה נשואה לאיסור זונה. אם המין היה ברצון, אז זה אותו איסור עבור ישראלי וכהן.

I have a question on the Raavad. In Laws of forbidden relations [chapter 1. law 22] the Raavad says the reason a priest gets lashes in a case of warning and then her being alone with the other person (kinui and stira) and one witness is because of "and she is unclean".   

[Unclean is written  by a sota -a married woman who has been warned not to be alone with so and so and then in fact goes and is alone with so and so. ]

Rav Shach explain it thus. Normally "and she is unclean" means it is like the forbidden relations of Leviticus 18 [arayot] which we learn from Yevamot page 11 about a Sota. But a priest is different. If his wife has had sex with someone even by rape, she still is forbidden to her husband and so it is an isur [prohibition] priesthood (khuna) not arayot [forbidden relations which requires two witnesses]. And so one witness is enough to get her husband lashes since it is  a regular law and one witness is believed in regular prohibition that are not arayot.

[To the Raavad she is not a zona [a woman who is forbidden to a priest because she has sex with someone forbidden to her] because we do not believe one witness in teh case of  married woman.]

The question I have here is that the gemara in Yevmot makes no distinction between a kohen and a Israeli when it comes to an isur Sota which is the isur of "and she is unclean". I mean to say that it say a Sota does not get yibum because uncleanliness is written by her and by that there is a gezera Shava to arayot.. So we see openly the Gemara makes not distinction between whether she is the wife of a  kohen or mot. It is all Arayot and if it is all aryot you need two witness!

[I can not tell if my question is on the Raavad or Rav Shach or both.]

\

A further question here is  that I am not sure I understand the answer of Rav Shach in explaining the Raavad at all. The idea that since והיא נטמאה is different for a kohen than for a Israeli therefore it is an isur kehuna. Well in what way is it different? If the sex was rape then she is forbidden to her husband because of Zona. But that is the very thing the Raavad is holding no one would get lashes for since we do not believe one witness in the case of a married woman for the isur of Zenut. If the sex was willingly, then it is the same prohibition for a Israeli and a kohen.

 Objective truth. Objective morality.

The Left denies these things.

For that reason I have thought to try to find some philosophical approach that would make sense to me. The best I could come up with was a draw between Leonard Nelson [Kant Fries], Michael Huemer [that is the intuitionists] and Hegel. All believe in objective morality, but after that point, I can not see who is right. I think Kelley Ross of the Kant-Friesian school is the best, but I can see some areas where the other schools of thought are a little better.

[I might try to do more work in this but I am not smart enough to enter into a debate among titans. Still the little I can grasp goes like this.

The problem in the Intuitionist school based on GE Moore was pointed out by Robert Hanna.

The difficulty I have with Kant goes back to his very basis in Hume. All reason can know is contradictions? Really? Who says?

The difficulties with Hegel are a little harder to define. Off hand it seems some English people solved many of the problems like McTaggart and Cunningham.

Still if I would have to choose, I would go with Kelley Ross of the Kant-Friesian School.

 Allan Bloom [Closing of the American Mind] pointed out the problem is the universities. After young people hear Marxist stuff for years it sinks in. It becomes hardwired as Howard Bloom pointed out. [Lucifer Principle]

To me it seems that if the founding fathers had known about this future Marxist threat to the USA, they might have come up with a solution.

 x34 B flat major  x34 midi   x34 nwc

This might need editing but I am not sure. So I am presenting this as it is.

 x32 D major  x32 midi  x32 nwc