I was thinking about the idea of Rav Shach in the Rambam [laws of neighbors chapter 2 halacha 18.] off and on for a few weeks. I felt there was some sort of question that I should ask, but I could not see it exactly until today on my way to the sea. So here it is: 

 I have a question on the way Rav Shach explains the Rashba in Bava Batra page 4 side a , brought in Rambam laws of neighbors chapter 2 halacha 18. . My question is that derara demomona [a relevance of money] goes like this. If there is an argument between two people about who owns a ship or boat and there is no proof one way or the other, we say who ever grabs it first gets it. But for two people holding a garment, we say they divide equally. Or if one says, ''It is all mine'' and the other says, ''It is half mine,'' then 1/4 goes to the last one, and 1/2 to the first. The difference is that with the garment, there is derara demomona. Tosfot Bava Metzia page 2a based on the mishna there and the case of the boat in Bava Batra page 35.  

But in Bava Batra, the first mishna says  two neighbors must build a wall between their properties. Therefor if it falls the stones or bricks are divided equally between them. The gemara on page 4 asks, "Is that not obvious?" The Rashba there asks, "Why is it obvious? What if one says, 'I built all of the wall.' and the other claims each one built half of the wall? Rav Shach explains there that the intension of the Rashba is because each has derara demomona which means there is a doubt to the court even without their claims, and therefore the court ignores their claims and divides the wall equally.

The question on this is that derara demomona in the beginning of Bava Metzia means that the court pays attention to their claims,--as opposed to ignoring their claims, and letting them settle the matter by themselves. But here Rav Shach is saying derara demomona is a reason to ignore their claims, and simply divide the wall equally.     

There is an obvious answer, the Rashba is not Tosphot. But my question is based on the idea that the Rashba had a reason for his approach and the Tosphot also. Thus the question is based on the issues, not on who said what 

 ___________________________________________________________________________

 I have a question on the way רב שך explains the רשב''א in בבא בתרא דף ד' ע''א. (This is brought in the רמב''ם הלכות שכנים פרק ב' הלכה י''ח.) My question is that דררא דממונא [a שייכות of money] goes like this. If there is an argument between two people about who owns a ship or boat and there is no proof one way or the other, we say who ever grabs it first gets it. But for two people holding a garment we say they divide equally. Or if one says it is all mine and the other says it is half mine, then a fourth goes to the last one and חצי to the first. The difference is that with the garment, there is דררא דממונא. And תוספות בבא מציעא דף ב' ע''א based on the משנה there and the case of the boat in בבא בתרא דף ל''ה. But in בבא בתרא, the first משנה says  two neighbors must build a wall between their properties. Therefor if it falls the stones or bricks are divided equally between them. The גמרא בבא בתרא דף ד' ע''א asks, "Is that not obvious?" The רשב''א there asks, "Why is it obvious? What if one says, 'I built all of the wall.' and the other claims each one built half of the wall? רב שך explains there that the intension of the רשב''א is because each has דררא דממונא which means there is a doubt to the בית דין even without their claims, and therefore the בית דין ignores their claims and divides the wall equally. The question on this is that דררא דממונא  in the beginning of בבא מציעא means that the בית דין pays attention to their claims, as opposed to ignoring their claims, and letting them settle the matter by themselves. But here רב שך is saying דררא דממונא is a reason to ignore their claims, and simply divide the wall equally.   

There is an obvious answer, the רשב''א is not תוספות. But my question is based on the idea that the רשב''א had a reason for his approach and the תוספות also. Thus the question is based on the issues, not on who said what 

יש לי שאלה בדרך רב שך מבאר את הרשב''א בבבא בתרא דף ד' ע''א. (זה מובא בהלכות שכנים פרק ב' הלכה י''ח) השאלה שלי היא שדררא דממונא הולך ככה. אם יש ויכוח בין שני אנשים לגבי מי הבעלים של ספינה או סירה ואין הוכחה לכאן או לכאן, אנו אומרים שמי שחוטף אותה קודם מקבל אותה. אבל לשני אנשים שמחזיקים בגד אנחנו אומרים שהם מחלקים שווה בשווה. או אם אחד אומר שהכל שלי והשני אומר  חצי שלי, אז רביעי הולך לאחרון וחצי לראשון. ההבדל הוא שעם הבגד יש דררא דממונא. (תוספות בבא מציעא דף בע''א לפי המשנה שם ומקרה הסירה בבבא בתרא דף ל''ה.) אבל בבבא בתרא, המשנה הראשונה אומרת ששני שכנים חייבים לבנות חומה בין הנכסים שלהם. לכן אם היא נופלת, האבנים או הלבנים מחולקות ביניהם שווה בשווה. שואל הגמרא בבא בתרא דף ד' ע''א "האם זה לא מובן מאליו?" הרשב''א שם שואל: "למה זה ברור? מה אם הראשון יגיד: בניתי את כל החומה", והשני טוען שכל אחד בנה חצי חומה? רב ש"ך מבאר שם שכוונת הרשב"א היא משום שיש לכל אחד דררא דממונא, כלומר יש ספק לבית דין גם בלי טענותיהם, ולכן בית הדין דין מתעלם מטענותיהם ומחלק את החומה שווה בשווה. השאלה על כך היא שדררא דממונא בראשית בבא מציעא משמע שבית דין שם לב לטענותיהם, לעומת התעלמות מטענותיהם, ולתת להם להסדיר את העניין בעצמם. אבל כאן רב שך אומר דררא דממונא סיבה להתעלם מטענותיהם, ופשוט לחלק את הכותל שווה בשווה   

יש תשובה ברורה, הרשב''א אינו תוספות. אבל שאלתי מבוססת על הרעיון שלרשב''א הייתה סיבה לגישתו וגם התוספות. לכן השאלה מבוססת על הנושאים, לא על מי אמר מה

Philosophy is still the servant of religion, but now that religion is the new secular religion of wokism.

Philosophy used to be thought of as being in the service of religion and Kant did not like that and tried to emancipate philosophy from religion.  After Kant  there was still a lot of optimism that philosophy would make some progress. Eventually all that optimism dissipated when philosophy could not show a single positive result. Zilch. So it became the handmaid of science. But even in that, it could not show anything deep nor profound or even relevant. So in her desperation, she became anti-science [with the no truth doctrine] and became the servant of wokism and political correctness. Philosophy is still the servant of religion, but now that religion is the new secular religion of wokism.

Analytic philosophy is good for people that would like to be mathematicians, but do not have talent. It gives them something to do, and keeps them out of the way from people with real talent. Continental philosophy is good for people that would like to be authors, but do not have talent.

Psychology  is good for people that would like to be con-men, but do not have talent.

I think one ought to have a goal of getting through the whole oral and written law, plus basic physics and mathematics. --at least once. You can see in the writings  of the Gra the importance of getting through the whole oral and written law plus the seven wisdoms. 

But how can one accomplish this?--that is by the way of learning called ''girsa'' i.e., just saying the words and going on. That is, to have one session in Gemara i.e.,  to make a place marker and  go through one side of a page of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot with the Maharsha and Maharam printed in the back of the Gemara. Put the place marker in, and the next day to go on to the next page. Do the same with the Yerushalmi and Midrash. Plus go through daily a few pages of Physics and Mathematics. But all of this is what is known as ''bekiut''. Besides this, one should have a few in depth sessions with the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or the Chidushei HaRambam by Reb Chaim of Brisk.     [ Mathematics in depth is not all that different from the fast learning called ''girsa''. The difference is for every chapter you go forward, you go back to all the previous chapters.]

Another aspect of learning in depth I heard from my son Izhak--that of doing lots of review. [The gemara mentions review forty times.But that should be done separately from the fast kind of learning i have mentioned up above. ] 

 To Rav Avraham Abulafia, Jesus was a very great tzadik. But that does not say anything at all about Christianity. Rav Abulafia quite definitely considered the Catholic Church to be straight idolatry. and in that he was going with the opinion of the Rambam. However Tosphot in tractate Avoda Zara considers Christianity to be ''shituf'' (joining anything with God's name ).[Actually in that one short Tosphot there are a few opinions, but the general gist of his argument is that it is shituf.] [Shituf is joining another with God. In the Gemara itself over there, it is talking about the prohibition of joining anything with God's name in an oath--for example when Gideon shouted ''A sword to the Lord and to Gideon'' to arose his men before battle.

Rav Avraham Abulafia lived near the time of the Rambam. The Rambam died in 1204 and Rav Abulafia was born around 1240.

Learning fast--just saying the words in order and going on --is a great piece of advice about learning which really comes straight from the Talmud itself. לעולם לגרוס איניש אע''ג ששוכח ואף על גב שאינו יודע מה שהוא אומר .  and one of the major books of Musar the  אורחות צדיקים brings this path of learning in Shar Hatorah. But they are usually understood to mean learning gemara in this way. However at some point  a few years ago I became aware that learning math and physics is considered as part of the mitzvah to learn Torah and so I applied this path of learning to my studies in Physics at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU.  

So now I try to have both in depth learning sessions with lots of review of every chapter and also fast learning sessions.  [this is very well known in litvak yeshivot where the accepted approach to learning is to do in depth learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon.] [however the fast learning is much slower than the approachof just saying the words and going on]

  I might make clear a few categories. ''Zona'' [זונה] is a woman who has had sex with someone forbidden to her by a prohibition, not an isur ase איסור עשה. A zona is forbidden to a kohen. The Rambam expands the definition to include the common usage of the word to mean a prostitute. That is a woman who is willing to have sex with more than one partner. [It does not mean sex for money--because if it did, then all married women would be in the category of prostitutes.] The actual word for prostitute is kedeisha קדישה. Niuf adultery ניאוף is sex with a married woman. It is not sex outside of marriage, [as many Christians mistakenly believe.]

NOW that I am at it, I might expand this to clarify some more issues. ''Mezonot'' support in what is called alimony is none existent in Torah. But from derabanan [words of the scribes] a widow gets mezonot until she remarries. A divorced woman gets only the ketubah,-- $500 nowadays. There is a ketubah of $1000 for a virgin, but of course there is almost no such thing as a virgin anymore. Any woman getting married nowadays is almost never a virgin.  And there is almost no such thing as a ''good woman''. Almost any woman at 18 years old will be influenced by society and become a fat bitch after about 10 years. 

Even though to some people marriage is thought to be the only legal connection between man and woman -I do not see it that way . To most medieval authorities, a girl friend [concubine ]- is permitted. That includes the Rosh, Raavad, Ramban/Nahmanidess and others that I have forgotten off hand. Even to the Rambam/Maimonides there is no prohibition involved except for lack of doing kidushin [marriage]. That is,- he sees the kidushin as an obligation, but lack of it is not a prohibition in itself. And not all versions of the Rambam have that either. [''Rambam'' is said with emphasis on the first syllable. ''Ramban'' with emphasis on the last syllable ]

Besides that, a girl friend relationship is well established  even after the giving on Mount Sinai of the Torah as we see in Chronicles I chapter 2 verse 46 concerning the concubines of Caleb ben Yefuna. [That is the same Caleb who was a friend of Joshua. See whole incident in the Book of Numbers. Joshua and Caleb were among the 12 spies that Moses sent into the Land of Canaan [Israel] and they brought back a good report as opposed to the other ten spies]

[And even if you find a good woman, she can leave any time she gets tired of you and your beer cans on the couch, and take the kids and half of anything you own, and she will get paid by the government to do so.  Who needs it? ]

the tremendous depth in Tosphot is being forgotten and ignored.

I am very sad because I feel that the tremendous depth in Tosphot is being forgotten and ignored. but i also feel that I am not one who can help recover from this loss. [Tosphot is the commentary on the Talmud on the opposite ide from Rashi.] the only two people i ever knew that could see this depth were naftali yeager [the rosh yeshiva in Shar Yashuv and David Bronson my learning partner in Uman [by the ziun of Rav Nahman]. ] My feeling is that to see this requires a combination of high IQ and talent.

Now I do not mean to belittle the great efforts of that whole school of thought that revolved on Reb Chaim of Brisk and Rav Shach that digs into the Rambam. But I miss the people that could see what is really going on in Tosphot. Believe me,-- I looked . All my years in the Mir Yeshiva in New York I learned every achron [later commentary] I could get my hands on, but never saw this. They certainly have important points -especially the Maharsha. Still my impression is that they are all revolving on the outside of Tosphot--never the inside. 

[i tried to capture a little of this in my little booklet on bava metzia to which i provide a link here.]

but you will see what i mean here only in the parts that i bring the questions and issues brought up by david bronson and my tentative answers. that is from bava mezia pgs 97b to 104b. the rest i wa doing without his insights    

Rambam [in the introduction to the Guide] identifies the Work of Creation [Genesis chapter 1] mentioned in the Gemara with Physics and the Divine Chariot [Ezekiel chapter 1]with Metaphysics as understood by the ancient Greeks

  When the Rambam [in the introduction to the Guide] identifies the Work of Creation [Genesis chapter 1] mentioned in the Gemara with Physics and the Divine Chariot [Ezekiel chapter 1]with Metaphysics as understood by the ancient Greeks  --that took a certain amount of courage. Even though this was an ancient approach that began with Saadia Gaon and the Obligations of the Hearts still it does not sound like how the sages of the Talmud think of the ancient Greeks. [Most of the time in the Talmud you get the idea that they did not like the ancient Greeks very much..And the few places where the Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot are mentioned, the Talmud does not describe them as being what in Attic Greece were the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics. Still I eventually had to depend on this opinion of the Rambam. [but no before i saw this same approach brought in the obligations of the hearts. ] [For some reason I have not been able to understand, I never ''made it'' in the Litvak yeshiva world which I really loved--but they did not love me. So from lack of choices, I went to university to major in Physics]

When the Rambam mentions Physics, he includes Chemistry as you can see in the first four chapters of the Yad Hachazah [Mishne Torah.] When he mentions metaphysics, he is mainly referring to the set of books of Aristotle by that name;- but not that alo ne. He clearly includes Plotinus--as has been noted before that he is not solely going with Aristotle, but rather the synthesis the Plotinus created between Aristotle and Plato. [Nowadays I would include Kant and Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant. see the web site of Kelley Ross]. That is  not the only approach to Kant but it makes a lot more sense to me than the other one's of sensibility first or reason first. See Robert Hanna and Sperber. [I mean that there were critiques on Kant by Schulze, and Maimon and some others. Because of that set of questions, there arose three approaches to Kant --1. reason first, 2. sensibility first, and 3. neither of the above but rather a kind of knowledge that precedes both reason and sensibility--nonintuitive immediate knowledge  ]

בבא בתרא י''ג ורמב''ם הלכות שכנים פרק א' הלכה ב'

 I was at the sea shore and it occurred to me to answer the question that I asked yesterday on the Rambam and the approach of Rav Shach. That is thus. We don't make a law to force someone to buy something they do not want, nor to sell something they need. So the whole point of the Gemara in saying if the yard is too small to divide, then one can tell the other partner, ''I will buy your half, or you can buy my half''' is only a suggestion, not a requirement. So the case of the yard and the half slave are the same with respect to the idea of ''You buy half or I will buy half.'' It can't be a law. So Rava would agree that division in time would be a valid approach since we can not force either party to buy or sell their portion. So now we understand the Rambam who does hold that division in time is a valid approach with  a small yard.

However you might ask if that is so that Rava agrees with division in time when ''I will buy your half, or you can buy my half''' is not possible, then why did he not say so in the first case of the first born son and the second born? I think the reason is that inheritance is not the same kind of thing as buying and selling or a normal partnership. In inheritance, the idea is to divide. So Rava would in fact agree to divide in time only if they refuse the ''I will buy your two thirds, or you can buy my one third.'''  

 +________________________________________________________________________________

 I was at the sea shore and it occurred to me to answer the question that I asked yesterday on the רמב''ם and the approach of רב שך. That is thus. We don't make a law to force someone to buy something they do not want, nor to sell something they need. So the whole point of the גמרא in saying if the yard is too small to divide, then one can tell the other partner, ''I will buy your half, or you can buy my half''' (גוד או אגוד) is only a suggestion, not a requirement. So the case of the yard and the half slave are the same with respect to the idea of ''You buy half or I will buy half.'' It can't be a law. So רבא would agree that division in time would be a valid approach since we can not force either party to buy or sell their portion. So now we understand the רמב''ם who does hold that division in time is a valid approach with  a small yard. 

However you might ask if that is so that רבא agrees with division in time when ''I will buy your half, or you can buy my half''' is not possible, then why did he not say so in the first case of the בכור and the פשוט? I think the reason is that inheritance is not the same kind of thing as buying and selling or a normal partnership. In inheritance, the idea is to divide. So רבא would in fact agree to divide in time only if they refuse the ''I will buy your two thirds, or you can buy my one third.'''

הייתי בחוף הים ועלה בדעתי לענות על השאלה ששאלתי אתמול על הרמב''ם וגישתו של רב שך. כלומר כך. אנחנו לא עושים חוק כדי להכריח מישהו לקנות משהו שהוא לא רוצה, וגם לא למכור משהו שהוא צריך. אז כל העניין של הגמרא באומרו אם החצר קטנה מדי לחלוקה, אז אפשר לומר לשותף השני ''אני אקנה את החצי שלך, או שאתה יכול לקנות את החצי שלי''' (גוד או אגוד) הוא רק הצעה, לא דרישה. אז המקרה של החצר וחצי העבד זהה לגבי הרעיון של ''אתה קונה חצי או אני אקנה חצי'' זה לא יכול להיות חוק. אז רבא יסכים שחלוקה בזמן תהיה גישה תקפה מכיוון שאיננו יכולים להכריח אף אחד מהצדדים לקנות או למכור את חלקו. אז עכשיו אנחנו מבינים שהרמב''ם שאכן מחזיק שהחלוקה בזמן היא גישה תקפה עם חצר קטנה

עם זאת אתה יכול לשאול אם זה כך שרבא מסכים לחלוקה בזמן כאשר ''אני אקנה את החצי שלך, או שאתה יכול לקנות את החצי שלי''' אינו אפשרי, אז למה הוא לא אמר זאת במקרה הראשון של בכור והפשוט? אני חושב שהסיבה היא שירושה זה לא אותו סוג של קנייה ומכירה או שותפות רגילה. בירושה, הרעיון הוא לחלק. אז רבא למעשה יסכים לחלק בזמן רק אם הם יסרבו ל''אני אקנה את שני השלישים שלך, או שאתה יכול לקנות את השליש שלי

בבא בתרא י''ג ע''א Bava Batra page 13 a

Rambam laws of neighbors chapter 1 halacha  2. The law for a courtyard that is owned by two people is that if one wants to divide the other must divide if it is 8 yards by 4 yards. If the courtyard is less, then one can not force the other, but rather one can tell the other, ''Buy my half or I will buy your half.'' The Rambam says if both refuse that arrangement then they divide in time. That is one lives in it for a year and then the other, and they keep on trading off like this.

The Raavad disagrees about trading in time. The opinion of the Raavad is clear in the Gemara itself and it is hard to see how the Rambam would have understood that Gemara. 

The Gemara is Bava Batra 13 side a. Rava asked Rav Nahman,'' You do not agree with the law that one says to the other 'you buy my half or I will buy your half. So what would a first born and second son do with a slave?'' He answered, ''He works for the first born two days for every one day that he works for  the second son.'' A proof is brought from a braita, where a slave becomes free in half. (He had two owners, and one freed him.) He works one day for his master, and one day for himself. Rava answered in that case there is not choice. In our case it is clear that Rava does not hold with dividing in time. Rav Shach says the case of a court yard that has less than  4 yards for each one is different and Rava would agree that dividing in time also makes sense since there is no choice. But refusal to listen to the offer to buy the other half or to sell your half, is not the same kind of case of a half slave who can not become a full slave. So Rava would not agree that dividing in time is a valid substitution for an offer of ''Buy my half, or I will buy your half.'' So the Raavad is right that Rava does not agree in dividing in time unless there is no other alternative. 

_________________________________________________________

 The law for a courtyard that is owned by two people is that if one wants to divide, the other must divide if it is ח אמות על ד אמות. But if the courtyard has less area than that, then one can not force the other.  Rather one can tell the other, ''Buy my half or I will buy your half.'' [ גד או אגוד ] The רמב''ם in  הלכות שכנים פרק א' הלכות א' וב says if both refuse that arrangement, then they divide in time. That is, one lives in it for a year and then the other, and they keep on trading off like this. The ראב''ד disagrees about trading in time. The opinion of the ראב''ד is clear in the גמרא itself and it is hard to see how the רמב''ם would have understood that. רבא שאל רב נחמן, (בבא בתרא י''ג ע''א)'' You do not agree with the law that one says to the other 'you buy my half or I will buy your half. So what would a first born and second son do with a slave?'' He answered, ''He works for the first born two days for every one day that he works for  the second son.'' A proof is brought from a ברייתא. where a slave becomes free in half. (He had two owners, and one freed him.) He works one day for his master, and one day for himself. רבא answered in that case there is not choice. In our case, it is clear that רבא does not hold with dividing in time. רב שך says the case of a court yard that has less than ארבע אמות for each one is different, and רבא would agree that diving in time also makes sense since there is no choice. But refusal to listen to the offer to buy the other half or to sell your half, is not the same kind of case of a half slave who can not become a full Slave. So רבא would not agree that dividing in time is a valid substitution for an offer of ''Buy my half or I will buy your half.'' So the ראב''ד  is right that רבא does not agree in dividing in time unless there is no other alternative. 

הדין לחצר שבבעלות שני אנשים הוא שאם אחד רוצה לחלק, השני חייב לחלק אם זה ח' אמות על ד' אמות. אבל אם בחצר יש פחות שטח מזה, אז אי אפשר להכריח את השני. במקום זאת אחד יכול לומר לשני ''קנה את החצי שלי או שאני אקנה את החצי שלך'' [גד או אגוד] הרמב''ם בהלכות שכנים פרק א' הלכות א' וב', אומר אם שניהם מסרבים להסדר הזה, אז הם מחלקים בזמן. כלומר, אחד גר בו שנה ואחר כך השני, והם ממשיכים ככה. הראב''ד חולק על חלוקה בזמן. דעת הראב"ד ברורה בגמרא עצמו וקשה לראות כיצד היה מבין זאת הרמב"ם. רבא שאל רב נחמן, (בבא בתרא י''ג ע''א) ''אתה לא מסכים עם ההלכה שאחד אומר לשני 'אתה קונה את החצי שלי או אני אקנה את החצי שלך'. אז מה יעשה בכור ובן שני עם עבד?'' הוא ענה, ''הוא עובד יומיים בשביל הבכור על כל יום שהוא עובד לבן השני'' מביאים הוכחה מברייתא שבו עבד הופך חופשי בחצי. (היו לו שני בעלים, ואחד שחרר אותו.) הוא עובד יום אחד עבור אדונו, ויום אחד עבור עצמו. רבא ענה במקרה כזה אין ברירה. בענייננו ברור שרבא אינו מחזיק בחלוקה בזמן. רב שך אומר שהמקרה של חצר שיש בה פחות מארבע אמות לכל אחת שונה ורבא יסכים שגם חלוקה בזמן הגיונית כי אין ברירה. אבל סירוב להקשיב להצעה לקנות את החצי השני או למכור את החצי שלך, אינו אותו מקרה של חצי עבד שאינו יכול להפוך לעבד מלא. אז רבא לא יסכים שחלוקה בזמן היא תחליף תקף להצעה של ''קנה את החצי שלי או אני אקנה את החצי שלך''. אז צודק הראב''ד שרבא לא מסכים לחלק בזמן אלא אם כן יש אין אלטרנטיבה אחרת

 

 i  find it instructive that the only people that have opened their hearts and homes to the many several hundred thousands of Jews that had to escape from the areas in the south of Israel have been the kibbutzim. i was at first unaware of this until i saw an article about a nearby kibbutz givat chaviva that opened all its facilities to thousands of Jews that had to escape--and till cant go back to their homes. now i have become aware that the only places that have been helping the Jews that have had to escape have been the kibbutzim  

 The Russian revolution is for me a case where it is hard to take sides. given what Nicholas II saw what had happened to all the previous tsars when they tried to be soft [they were murdered], it is hard to imagine what else he could have done. On the other hand, the misery of the Russian people was already growing in intensity because of the cities and industry growing and with WWI it is hard to see any recourse to any kind of action than to throw out a czar that seemed insensitive to their trouble. It is also hard to see any party taking power except the Bolshevik who controlled the army with Trotsky at it head. It is all very confusing. Then to try to reason through it all seems to make it worse. Marx was the author of a brilliant hypothesis that like all scientific hypotheses needed to make predictions, and then can be tested based on those predictions. All of Marx's prediction turned out to be false. Maybe it all comes down to what Rasputin told the czar, ''If my death will be caused by you or any of your close relatives, then you and your family will not last one year after that.''

 

 I think I ought to make Kant clear. There is knowledge that is known by way of reason, for example things known by definition. And there are things known by the five senses. But can we know things like universals [things that particulars have in common]?-Yes. Things are in the realm of possibility of experience. We can know them by structures in the mind like computer chips. [E.G. the ideas of time space and causality. But outside of the conditions of possible experience we can not know.

There are some attempts to get past this blockage, and one approach is that of Jacob Fries--and that is to say there is knowledge that is known, but not by reason and not by the senses.

[This is different from reason first Kant [the first interpretation] and from sensibility first Kant [Robert Hanna, Sperber].] This Kant-Friesian approach says neither reason nor sense perception is first. See Kelley Ross's web site To get an idea about this Kant-Friesian approach I think the best idea is to learn the books of Leonard Nelson who is a lot more clear than Fries himself, even though I think most are still in  German.  

When Robert Hanna and Kelley Ross argue for the Kantian position they do not usually bring evidence from physics. [Dr Ross is mainly interested in expanding the position of Kant and Fries--to develop a much wider world view than you could see in either. Dr Hanna is mainly interested   in showing the flaws in those Analytic thinkers that attacked Kant. ] But one little piece of evidence has convinced me for years about the truth of Kant from Physics. The humble little unremarkable electron. As it reacts or is part of the equations that deal with its kinetic and potential energy, it is fine. But if you try to calculate its mass as independent of all interaction [including its own field], its mass comes out to be infinite. 

the command of the Torah is to conquer the land of Israel from the Canaanites

I To the Rambam [Maimonidess], the command of the Torah is to conquer the land of Israel from the Canaanites. To the Ramban/Nahmanidess the command is to live in Israel. However the Rambam agrees that one should live in Israel. I admit I have never been able to figure out the approach of the Rambam. How could it possibly make any sense to conquer Israel and the move somewhere else? But where does one go to get clarity about the Rambam except to Reb Chaim of Brisk and that whole school of thought that started with him up until Rav Shach. And so far I have not seen anything that could bring me clarity about the Rambam.   

[And where is Israel? The boundaries are stated in Torah. And yet right then and there, the children of Gad and Reuben decided to live outside of those borders--and Moses agreed with them!! I imagine that this must be the reason for the Rambam. If it would be a command of the Torah to live in Israel, why did Moses not tell them to do so. Why did Moses agree that after they would help to conquer Israel, then they could live on the other side of the Jordan river? It must be that that was okay.--but you could  answer this that the borders of Israel  promised to Abraham extend from the Nile to the Euphrates River. 

______________________________________________________________________________

 To the רמב''ם, the command of the תורה is to conquer the land of ישראל from the Canaanites. To the רמב''ן the command is to live in ישראל. However the רמב''ם agrees that one should live in ישראל. I admit I have never been able to figure out the approach of the רמב''ם. How could it possibly make any sense to conquer ישראל and the move somewhere else? 

And where is ישראל? The boundaries are stated in תורה. And yet right then and there, the בני גד ובני ראובן decided to live outside of those borders, and משה agreed with them.  This must be the reason for the רמב''ם. If it would be a command of the תורה to live in ישראל, why did משה not  tell them to do so. Why did משה agree that after they would help to conquer ישראל, then they could live on the other side of the Jordan river? It must be that that was okay. But you could  answer this that the borders of ישראל  promised to אברהם extend from the Nile to the Euphrates River. however the borders of ancient israel did not extend that far. 

לרמב''ם, מצוות התורה היא לכבוש את ארץ ישראל מידי הכנענים. לרמב''ן הציווי הוא לגור בישראל. אולם הרמב''ם מסכים שצריך לגור בישראל. אני מודה שמעולם לא הצלחתי להבין את גישתו של הרמב''ם. איך זה יכול להיות הגיוני לכבוש את ישראל ואז ללכת למקום אחר? ויש לתרץ את זאת. איפה ישראל? הגבולות מצוינים בתורה. ובכל זאת, באותו רגע, החליטו בני גד ובני ראובן לחיות מחוץ לגבולות אלה, ומשה הסכים איתם. זו חייבת להיות הסיבה לרמב''ם. אם זו תהיה פקודה של התורה לחיות בישראל, מדוע משה לא אמר להם לעשות זאת. למה משה הסכים שאחרי שהם יעזרו לכבוש את ארץ כנען, אז הם יוכלו לחיות בצד השני של נהר הירדן? כנראה שזה היה בסדר. אבל אתה יכול לענות על זה שגבולות ישראל שהובטחו לאברהם משתרעים מהנילוס ועד נהר הפרת

 In Torah it is important to have an idea about what is the main thing and what are  the side issues. Thus monotheism and good midot [to be a mensch] ought to be the foremost in everyone' mind. Monotheism is certainly the command to worship and serve God alone. But it also means to understand that God is completely ''other''.  HE is not  a close relative of people. He does not share any characteristics of people,  for all characteristics He created. He has nothing in common with any physical objects- no form nor substance. He is not composed of ingredients. He is not a composite.  

Jay shuts down Islam's Origins in ONE HOUR at "Calvary Chapel Chino Hills"!

 

 I have not discussed the State of Israel much, but I ought to make it clear that I feel it is important. --That is mainly because of the Ramban  [Nachmanidess] in his commentary of the Sefer Hamitzvot of the Rambam [Maimonidess]. That is where the Ramban [Nachmanidess/Moshe ben Nahman] states his view that living in Israel is one of the commandments of the Torah. But further more I think the State of Israel is also important because of the opinion of Reb Moshe Feinstein and Reb Aaron Kotler that held that for Israel the same law applies that applies to any legitimate government, ''The law of the land is the law''[bava batra 35]--[ but of course not when it contradicts  the law of the Torah.]

 Even though it is best to learn Torah in a Litvak yeshiva where one can hear a Gemara lesson from an authentic Talmid Chacham [rosh yeshiva], if one is lacking that, I suggest getting the basic set of books that go into the depths of the Talmud. They are the Chidushei Harambam by Rav Chaim of Brisk,  the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the several others that are well known. [However it occurs to me that not everyone is familiar with the whole set so I might mention the others--they are the two disciples of Reb Chaim the Birchat Shmuel and the Shaarei Yosher and Even Haazel by I think the father in law of Rav Shach. ]

[However I should admit that when I was in the Mir in NY,  my main efforts were in the earlier commentaries --Pnei Yehoshua, Maharsha, Aruch Laner]-but in terms of hearing classes in Gemara I mainly heard from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum

So one should learn the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov, but only in conjunction with the regular Musar books of the Rishonim and in the context of a Litvak yeshiva.

 There are  great ideas of Rav Nahman of Breslov. However there is the importance of learning Torah that is lacking in that system. This was not because Rav Nahman himself did not know about it, but rather he was concentrating in his teachings on how to encourage and help people that were not yet able to learn in depth.  There is also in the teachings of Rav Nahman a lot of disparaging of science and philosophy and doctors. A lot of what he says is quite true seeing how much the social studies departments of universities have become saturated with pseudo science. Still, I think it is best not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Among the important ideas of Rav Nahman are hitbodadut--to speak with God as one speaks with a good friend. This is the real authentic meaning of prayer; not prayer from  prayer books, but prayer from the heart. BUT this great and important idea does work best only when one is grounded in a Litvak yeshiva where Torah is learned for its own sake. 

So one should learn the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov, but only in conjunction with the regular Musar books of the Rishonim and in the context of a Litvak yeshiva.

 I have been thinking that the after blessing after pizza and all kinds of cake if one has eaten more that the volume of three or four eggs is birchat hamazon which is for after bread. The reason is it is either פת הבאה בכיסנין [bread that comes in pockets] or just plain bread. And even if it is  פת הבאה בכיסנין, after an amount the equals three or four eggs, it is birchat hamazon anyway. Three or four eggs volume is the amount of a full meal.--as we see in the laws of tithes where the amount of a full meal makes the obligation of taking the tithe to come into force. [If three or four eggs is an argument between Rashi and the Rambam.]]