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

 x36 D major mp3 file  

x36 midi

x36 nwc

 Rav Nahman of Breslov has in one section of the LeM vol II ch 8 that one ought to seek after a true tzadik. While I can see the point of this, but the problems are the straight forward frauds which are the vast majority. And the people that imagine to themselves that they a have "Ruach Hakodesh" so they are not willfully defrauding others, but are close to that. Then there is the most insidious category of people the Sitra achra (dark side) gives miracles to and reveals things in to to gain acceptance and to be able to trick people after gaining their trust.

Can you by these facts deny the validity of all faith healers? I do not think so. 

Rather what I think is this. That one ought not to go after tzadikim. If one merits to it, the tzadik will come to you. but if you go around searching for one, it is 99.9% guaranteed you will find (and be funding) a phony;--  or even worse, perhaps agent of the Dark Side.

I think there is one true tzadik or one true faith healer among thousands of frauds. The best thing is to seek to serve God by by Torah and prayer and good deeds. Then if one merits to be close to a true tzadik then that will  happen.