The Rambam held learning Physics and Metaphysics is a part of what one must learn every day

To make a synthesis between faith and reason was a major concern of the Rambam. However in his emphasis on learning Physics and Metaphysics [of the ancient Greeks as he says in the intro to the Guide] was not meant to provide answers for this issue, but rather as things that are in themselves a part of what one must learn every day. That is he saw these as part of the Mitzvah of learning Torah.--a view that was unique to rishonim [medieval people up until about the 1500's] but never comes up in achronim [later on people after the Beit Yoseph].

It is my feeling that the rishonim were right about this issue and I have trouble understanding why Rav Israel Salanter did not mention this in his Musar Movement program.

 Chesterson-- "The trouble with women is not that that they feel too much. It is that they do not feel at all!." That is they have no conscience. If they feel they can lie and get away with it, then they will lie.
 Like King Solomon said " One man among a thousand I have found, but even one women like that I have not found."

This is the opposite of what is thought nowadays that whatever lie  woman says is always believed. And I fear this might even get to Israel someday. It is already the case in the USA.

That is the reason Robert Foster, a state representative in Mississippi decided to refuse to let a woman reporter go along with him on his campaign . The trouble is that instantly that she would claim he had done something wrong she would be believed.

Rav Nahman railed against doctors

Even though sitting and learning Torah [Gemara) all day is a great thing --and I am happy that I merited for a few years to do this at the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY, at this point I tend to believe that it is best to also learn Physics and Math.

Even though it is thought that Rav Nahman disagreed with this, I noted many places in his major book  that seemed to go in the opposite direction. The first time I saw this was about the issue of vaccination. As is well know Rav Nahman railed against doctors often and warned people to stay away from them. Yet when the first vaccinations arrived in Europe Rav Nahman said you have to take your child even in the middle of winter to whatever city is administering the vaccinations. So I got the idea at that point that Rav Nahman was against false medicine. So from that I decided his being against science was meant against false science pseudo science as almost all science was in his days. They still were going with the "four elements"!!


[Psychology is just plain pseudo science anyway.] But in terms of Rav Nahman, the fact is that medicine in his days was quite primitive. Oxygen had not yet been discovered. Blood letting was still the big cure all. George Washington in those days woke up one day with a sore throat. So what to do? Bloodletting is what the doctors prescribed. Well that did not work. So do it again! And again. and again...!

The actual obligation to support a wife really does not add up to much. In the Mishna in Ketuboth [pg 63 and 64] it comes out to about a quart of wheat flour.

The actual obligation to support a wife really does not add up to much. In the Mishna in Ketuboth [pg 63  and 64] it comes out two kavs of wheat per week or about a quart of wheat flour. That is more or less about what you would need to bake two loaves of bread per day. But the issue that I wanted to bring up is the issue of the wording of the ketubah where it says " I will work for you."

The odd thing about this is the argument between the Rambam and the Raavad brought in the Tur Beit Yoseph in Hoshen Mishpat 176 in paragraph 3. The obligation is of course not to make money in an illegal way. So when people use Torah to make money as in kollel they are certainly not "working for  a living" since it is forbidden to use Torah to make money. But besides that can the document in itself make one obligated in something that he would not be obligated in? Not to the Rambam (and the Ramban). However the Raavad (and the Rashba) both hold that he can make himself obligated by a document that says "I will work". The Raavad brings two proofs. One from a slave. We know a slave is obligated to work. Also from the case יקדשו ידי לעושיהם. [That is: a woman can say to her husband "My hands are holy for Him who made them." And by that what she makes at her job becomes the possession of the Temple--if she also adds איני ניזונת ואיני עושה [I will not need support nor will I work for you)

The Gold Standard in the Torah world is unquestionably the Litvak Yeshiva World. The problem with any gold standard is the people that commit forgery and pretend to be the real thing. That is one good reason for me to warn people that the religious world outside the few straight Lithuanian yeshivas like the Mir or Ponovitch are false Torah, pseudo Torah or as Rav Nahman put it Torah of the Sitra Achra--the realm of evil.

Musar [Movement of Rav Israel Salanter

I was in a synagogue over here that is mainly for Lithuanian types of Yeshiva types. And I noticed a book of letters by Rav Israel Salanter. One letter I opened to was emphasizing the importance of learning Musar [Books teaching Morality]. Some one had apparently written to him about some kind of hilul hashem (note 1) when someone was learning Musar but was not acting very properly.
What's the surprise? Is not that the exact reason most of us do not learn Musar? Too many people that supposedly do and do not seem like very nice people.

The point however of Rav Israel Salanter is that it helps. And that point I have to agree with just from simple observation of the Litvak Yeshiva World. Apparently they manage to raise fine families and are basically in accord with Torah as far as one can tell. (2) So then why is it that you or I apparently encounter not the best exemplars?
I am not sure about others but as for myself it seems the reason is I once walked away from it. I imagine if I had just stuck with the basic Litvak Torah path that things would have been different. But somehow I got sidetracked.





(note 1) "Hilul hashem" means acting in such a way that brings doubt on the value of Torah. That is it gives Torah a reputation as if it is not worth much. That was from the letter what had happened. Someone was known to be  a person that learnt Musar but was not acting nicely.


(2) That is while I was at the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv I did notice  very good family values  and loyalty to Torah. That was pretty inspiring for me. But apparently not inspiring enough for me to stick with it.

I ought to add here that what I see great about the Musar movement is that it advocates true values of Torah--character, menschlickeit, fear of God. And to a large degree seems to accomplish these ends from what I can tell even though I am outside that world. 

Bava Metzia page 99. בב''מ צ''ט ע''א A New Idea based on Rav Shach.

I have a great deal of trouble in getting to learn Torah. Certainly no new ideas are coming to me since I stop learning with David Bronson my learning partner. But for what it is worth I wanted just to mention a few random thoughts I had about Bava Metzia page 99.




The first thing I think is important is in Tosphot very first question. At first glance it looks hard to understand why Tosphot just does not use the end of the Tosephta that he brings to answer his own question. I mean to say this. Rav Ami in our Gemara on page 99 says one who lends to another person an ax of hekdesh (that was dedicated to the Temple) transgresses the prohibition and the second person can use it.  In the Tosephta it says (as far as I can recall from a few days ago when I had a chance to take a look at that page) that ten people that use an ax one after the other,--they all transgress the prohibition of using hekdesh [an object dedicated to the Temple]. But then it says if one gives it to another, then the first person transgress, and the second is allowed to use it. Tosphot uses the end of the Tosephta to show that we are not talking about vessels used in the sacrifices (which never go out to be secular even if used for a secular purpose).  But why not use that end statement of the Tosephta simply to show that change of domain makes one liable in Meila [using temple goods]?
[התוספתא כותבת שאם עשרה אנשים משתמשים עם קרדום אחד כולם מעלו. זה מיצג קושיה על רב אמי שאומר  שאומר בב''מ צ''ט ע''א המשאיל קרדום לחבירו הוא מעל וחבירו מותר להשתמש בו. תוספות אומר שאי אפשר לומר שהתוספתא מדבר בכלי שרת בגלל שבסוף התוספתא כתוב שאחד נתן את הקרדום לחבירו הוא לבד מעל וחבירו מותר להשתמש בו. אפשר לשאול למה סוף התוספתא בעצמה אינה תירוץ על קושיית התוספות? אני חושב שהתירוץ הוא זה. יש מחלוקת אם מעילה שייכת רק בשוגג או רק במזיד. זאת מחלוקת תנאים במשנה. אני מתכוון לומר שמעילה במצב שהחפץ יוצר לחולין.. ברור שיש איסור בכל מצב. ולכן תוספות רוצים להגיד תירוץ ששייך לשתי הדעות. למשל שהם יודעים שהחפץ הוא הקדש אבל אינם רוצים להוציאו מרשות הקדש. איך זה שייך? רק במצב שהמשתמשים הם גיזברים.





Now I am not really asking a question as much as simply making an observation since it does seem that this is exactly what Tosphot says himself in his answer. That the beginning of the Tosephta is talking about Gizbarim (people appointed to watch and take care of things dedicated to the Temple).
So Tosphot in fact is simply saying the obvious--that the first case of the Tosephta is where each person uses it without intending to change domain.

But what I wanted to bring out which I think is more important is the fact that Tosphot is not making any claims about whether anyone in the Tosphot is doing it on purpose or by accident. That is to say- Tosphot is thinking that his idea applies in either case. If you hold that meila [using a holy object  takes the object out of the catagory of holiness and makes it secular) is only in  case of shogeg (accident) then his idea applies. And if you hold it only applies in a case of Mezid [on purpose] it also applies.
(That is an argument among the tenaim of the Mishna). So in plain English that means that in one case the people that use the ax know that it is hekdesh, but are not intending to take it out of the domain of hekdesh since they are all gizbarim (people appointed over Temple treasury). In the other case they in fact do not know that the ax is hekdesh. And so this answer my first question or observation. Why do the Tosephta have to be talking about Gizbarim? Because that is the only way they can know it is hekdesh and still not intend to take it out of the domain of Hekdesh.[That is to say that Tosphot wants his answer to fit both opinions. Including the one that Meila is only in a case of knowing it is hekdesh.]
I think this is an elegant answer for the observation why Tosphot needs to say the Tosephta is a case of Gizbarim instead of just any group of people.[Incidently I think one of the Tenaim that I mentioned is R Meier.]

The other observation I wanted to make is that perhaps Rav Huna over here can provide some support to the opinion of the Rambam that Meila is only when one actually derives some benefit out of the object. [Since I am not learning Torah, this is all a bit vague --but what I am thinking has to do with Rav Huna here and also on page 43a. That is to say that from what I can recall on page 99 we do not have any proof. But what the Rambam might have noticed is that if Rav Huna on page 43 would hold that meila only applies in a case where one derives benefit then he would have an answer to Rav nahman. So the Rambam decided that in fact that must be the opinion of Rav Huna and decided for some reason to state that that is the law. [I only noticed this opinion of the Rambam after seeing it pointed out in the Even haAzel by Rav Meltzer one of the teachers of Rav Shach.]
[I do not recall what the Even Hazel said about this Rambam. He might have had a different idea of how the Rambam derived his result. I just do not recall.]

עוד דבר. ראיתי באבן האזל שהרמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שמעילה שייך רק במצב שאחד נהנה מהחפץ. נראה לי שהרמב''ם דייק את זה מרב הונא. היינו שרב הונא בב''מ צט. מחזיק שהמשאיל קרדום לחבירו אם בקע בו קנאו לא בקע בו לא קנאו. אם רב הונא יחזיק בשיטה הזאת גם לגבי מעילה זה יתרץ את קושיית רב נחמן עליו בדף מג ע''א. הרקע כאן הוא שהמשנה שם בדף מ''ג כותבת שהמפקיד כסף אצל שולחני בלא מכסה השולחני יכול להשתמש בו ולכן אם נאבד הוא חייב. רב הונא מחזיק בשיטה שגם אם נאנסו גם הוא חייב. היינו שיש לו דין שואל. רב נחמן מחזיק שרק אם נאבדו המעות  הוא חייב לא אם נאנס. היינו שיש לו דין שומר שכר.
רב נחמן מביא קושייה על רב הונא מהברייתא. גיזבר נתן כסף של הקדש לשולחני-והשולחני השתמש בו ונאבד הכסף,  הגזבר מעל. היינו רק אם השתמש בו הוא מעל אבל היתר השתמשות אינה מחייב אלא כמו שומר שכר. אני לא זוכר את זה בדיוק בגלל שאני לא לומד תורה בעוונותיי הרבים. אבל איך שהוא, אם רב הונא היה מחזיק בשיטה שם שמעילה שייך רק במצב של הנאה אז אין קושיא עליו מן הברייתא. ולכן הרמב''ם הסיק מסקנה שבאמת שה מה שרה הונא חייב להחזיק. וזה יוצא טוב עם שיטתו בדף צ''ט ע''א. ואז בגלל איזו סיבה הוא פסק כרב הונא.