Even though learning Torah is the most important of all commandments (as it says in the mishna in Peah  ת''ת כנגד כולם  "Learning  Torah weighs more that all the commandments,'') still I do not think that this value remains if one learns for money. That is to say I think the entire value of the mitzvah disappears when one gets paid to learn. This opinion you can see in Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) chapter four where the Rambam explains what the mishna says about not making Torah into a shovel to dig with that if one does so he takes his life from the world and the Rambam there in his commentary explains: ''from the world i.e., the world to come.''

Serving God is not a money making profession and those that claim that it is are enemies of God and enemies of Torah for its own sake.  [I  mean to say that no matter what, you need to be sure of DIVINE SIMPLICITY--that God does not share of any traits that any human can even imagine. He is totally ''other'' and not a composite.   

difference between Peter and Paul.

 I have thought for along time that there is an essential difference between Peter and Paul. At least there must be between James and Paul. However, recently I noticed that Peter recommends the letters of Paul. Perhaps Peter was unaware of the later letters where Paul becomes more and more against keeping the commandments? [At first Paul did not want the idea of peter that gentiles need to become jewish-by means of brit mila [circumcision] and dipping in a fresh body of water and accepting to keep the commandments. ] in later letters Paul gets more and more insistent that Sinai is Hagar [mother of Ishmael.] Nullification of the commandments has been a problem ever since then until now. Thomas Aquinas tried to answer this basic contradiction with (I think) little success. [from what i recall i think Aquinas writes that the eternal laws of Torah are not the services in the Temple and similar what could be called rituals.] 

[This was the one issue that Saadia Gaon brought up in his book Faiths and Doctrines along with the problem of the Trinity. The Trinity is not in the New Testament --not even in Paul.] [HOWEVER if what the claim about the Trinity is along the lines of what the ARI said about the patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Josef and David that they are souls of Emanation [Azilut] then I do not see any issue. But i am not sure what the claim is. 

getting through the Oral and Written Law.

 Even though I am really not up to doing this myself, but I would like to remind people of what the Gra held by in terms of getting through the Oral and Written Law. But I do not think that people are aware of what that entails. You have to recall what the Rambam wrote in his letter to Yemen ''Just like one can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so one can't add nor subtract from the Oral Law.'' All books written after the completion of the two Talmuds are not the Oral Law. They might be ''second hand'' Oral Law in so far as they are commentary, but not the actual thing in itself.

So I think people ought to have a session every day of doing a half  page of Gemara with Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam. Then the Yerushalmi in the same way. --Plus getting through the midrashim.

However this whole thing I mean mainly for the afternoon. The morning I think should go for in depth learning with the Avi Ezri, Reb Chaim [Brisk], Naftali Troup and the other basic Litvak sages. 

[The Oral Law is the Two Talmuds, Tosephta, Midrash Rabah, Midrash Tanchuma, Sifrei and Sifra,  ]

[When to fit into this the math and physics? I would say that is best in the afternoon, since the morning in-depth sessions are the most important as my son Izhak told me many times (about the importance of in depth learning).  ]

Why is learning Torah important--see vol 4 of the Nefesh Hachaim by Reb Chaim of Voloshin-a disciple of the Gra

I might mention here that objective morality is not something that one can know without this-- as the Rambam showed in the Guide (that even Avraham Avinu would not have known Natural Law unless it was revealed to him from above). 

beginning of the second chapter in Gitin

To Rav Chisda if a carrier of a doc of divorce says, "It was written before me, but only one witness signed before me" and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid -that the doc is not valid. Rava says the doc is valid and that is the law.  Rav Shach [laws of  divorce 7 law 13] suggests the reason of Rav Chisda is because he is holding like the sages (that disagree with R. Yehoshua ben Karcha) who hold testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but they did not testify together is not valid. The law however is like Rava. It seems difficult to me to have an argument between Amoraim [Gemara sages] dependent on an argument between Tenaim [sages of the Mishna]. But Rava agrees that testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but they did not testify together is not valid. but he holds you do not need in our case that the testimony should be together because they are only testifying for the validity of the get, not the act of divorce.

[That problem is why does Rav Chisda say if a carrier of a doc of divorce says it was written before me but only one witness signed before me and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid that the doc is not valid. Is not that by itself validation of the doc/"get" like it says in bava batra 165b ע''א בע''פ וע''א בכתב מצטרפים --that is the carrier himself saw the writing and another signed it.

The question here is there is a clear parallels from Bava Batra 165 to our situation. The answer of Rav Shach is a bit different of a situation of one witness in the morning and one in the evening.

And at any rate, it is odd that the stam Gemara in Bava Batra holds one witness verbally and the other in writing are joined together while both Rav Hisda and Rava in our Gemara in Gitin hold there is no establishing of the get with the testimony of the carrier and the witness on the get. Maybe this is a disagreement between sugiot?

 ________________________________________________________________________

To רב חיסדא if a carrier of a גט says it was written before me but only one witness signed before me and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid that the גט is not valid. רבא says the גט is valid and that is the law.  רב שך [הלכות גירושין ז' הלכה י''ג] suggests the reason of רב חיסדא is because he is holding like the sages (that disagree with  ר' יהושוע בן קרחא) who hold testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but not together is not valid (עדות מיוחדת). The law however is like רבא. It seems difficult to me to have an argument between אמוראים dependent on an argument between תנאים.

But רבא agrees that testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but they did not testify together is not valid. But he holds you do not need in our case that the testimony should be together because they are only testifying for the validity of the גט, not the act of divorce.  

[That problem is why does Rav Chisda say if a carrier of a doc of divorce says it was written before me but only one witness signed before me and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid that the doc is not valid. Is not that by itself validation of the doc/"get" like it says in בבא בתרא קס''ה עד אחד בעל פה ועד אחד בכתב מצטרפים that is the carrier himself saw the writing and another signed it.

The question here is there is a clear parallels from בבא בתרא קס''ה to our situation. The answer of רב שך is a bit different of a situation of one witness in the morning and one in the evening.

And at any rate, it is hard to understand why that the סתם גמרא in בבא בתרא holds one witness verbally and the other in writing are joined together while both רב חיסדא and רבא in our גמרא in גיטין hold there is no קיוםof the גט with the testimony of the carrier and the witness on the גט. Maybe this is a disagreement between סוגיות?

 

לרב חיסדא אם נושא גט אומר נכתב לפני אבל רק עד אחד חתם לפני ויש שני עדים המעידים שהחתימה השנייה תקפה שאין הגט תקף.(או כולו בקיום הגט או כולו בתקנת חכמים) רבא אומר שהגט תקף וזה הדין. רב שך מציע שהטעם של רב חיסדא הוא משום שהוא מחזיק כמו החכמים (החולקים על ר' יהושוע בן קרחא המחזיקים שעדות שהעידו עליה שני עדים אך לא ראו את העניין ביחד אינה תקפה (עדות מיוחדת). החוק לעומת זאת הוא כמו רבא. נראה לי שקשה לומר שוויכוח בין אמוראים תלוי בוויכוח בין תנאים

אבל רבא מסכים שאין תוקף לעדות שהעידו שני עדים אך לא העידו יחד. אבל הוא גורס אתה לא צריך בענייננו שהעדות תהיה ביחד כי הם רק מעידים על תוקף הגט, לא על מעשה הגירושין

 [הבעיה היא מדוע רב חיסדא אומר או כולו בקיום הגט או כל בתקנת חכמים. האם אין זה כשלעצמו אימות של הגט?כמו שכתוב בבבא בתרא קס''ה עד אחד בעל פה ועד אחד בכתב מצטרפים שזהו המוביל עצמו ראה את כתיבת הגט ואחר חתם עליו.]

השאלה כאן היא שיש הקבלה ברורה מבבא בתרא קס''ה למצב שלנו. תשובת רב שך היא קצת שונה שמביא ממצב של עד אחד בבוקר ואחד בערב

ומכל מקום קשה להבין מדוע שהגמרא בבבא בתרא מחזיק עד אחד בעל פה והשני בכתב מחוברים יחדיו ואילו רב חיסדא ורבא בגמרא שלנו בגיטין מחזיקים אין קיום של הגט עם עדות המוביל והעד על הגט. אולי זו מחלוקת בין סוגיות

Ayn Rand was right that human created morality is not any more satisfying that human created physics. Either physics is true objectively without any reference to who is looking at it or it is not true at all. And the same with moral principles.

 https://friesian.com/sunwall2.htm Even though Mark Sunwall shows that Ayn Rand had a good point in her knocking of Kant, I still see the importance of his approach if you combine that approach with the Friesian idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge. Faith and reason are the key to a healthy and wholesome person. But faith alone goes off into insanity, and reason alone goes off into emptiness. While this third source  of knowledge is not the same as faith, but it does provide a basis for it as Otto and Kelley Ross have pointed out.

We sadlly live in an age of deep ignorance and darkness. This is not from a lack of ideas, but rather the ideas of madmen have taken over. [religious madmen and secular madmen and fem-nazis ] The internet can be one hand a great help in finding  good info, but also helps silence dissidents. So in academic philosophy you will find tons of sophisticated sounding garbage but no mention of the Friesian school.

I have been aware for some time about the problems that Kant came to answer. But his answers were not satisfying to anyone. Ayn Rand was right that human created morality is not any more satisfying that human created physics. Either physics is true objectively without any reference to who is looking at it or it is not true at all. And the same with moral principles. The three answers to this that I have found compatible and acceptable are Fries, Hegel, Michael Huemer. All three accept that reason recognizes universal principles including the principles of moral truths. However Fries does not call this faculty that knows the axioms of universals "Reason" but the effect is the same. Huemer is the most clear, but tends to ignore the problems that Kant was addressing. Hegel is on board with the idea that reason recognizes universals. The dialectic does not go with empirical knowledge correcting reason, but with reason correcting reason-and that seems weak, Hegel does not want any part of the Universe to be immune from Reason--that is why he is using his approach. I can see his point, but in fact human knowledge progresses only by reason's theories and empirical facts to test those theories.   

The critics of Kant were sometimes people that agreed with his desire to find a solution to what amounted to the mind body problem and others who were anti enlightenment like Georg Hamann. 

Rav Nahman I think was referring to Kant in a highly negative way. i have thought about that reference for a while and I was never sure whom was referred to but now i think it was probably Kant--even though both Kant and Rav Nahman limited reason. Kant limited it to the phenomenal world. Rav Nahman more or less dismissed reason completely. To Rav Nahman the smarter one is, the more stupid he really is.  [Rav Nahman at in LeM I is quite positive about reason, but in LeM II showed its downfall if taken too far. ]

 How could using Torah to make money be ok? One is not allowed to learn Torah for money, nor teach for money. מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם THE gemara brings down that God says: "Just as I taught Torah [to Moses] for free, you also must teach Torah for free." Maybe a rav was brought in in order to make decision about law? But that can not be so either, כל דיין שנוטל שכר לדון כל דיניו בטילים "Any judge to receives money to judge, all his decisions are invalid."

 Even though in Israel, there is ''מזונות'' money that the ex-wife gets after a divorce, That is not in accord with the law of the Torah. this is odd because the ''rabbanut'' has authority over marriage and divorce.

After divorce, she gets $1000 if she was a virgin and $500 if not,-- but not a continuous stream of cash; nor automatic custody of the children.

[Just for information-- a widow gets money until she remarries but not a divorced woman.] That is not the only thing that bothers me about the state of affairs in the religious world. I also do not think any religious groups should get money from the state.  I see this a being against the spirit of the law not to make Torah into a shovel to dig with. Making Torah into away to make a living is at least against the spirit of the law and perhaps also against the letter of the law. [The idea of not getting money to learn Torah is a ore issue. people can find permission for this in the Kesef Mishna, but to me it looks like the results are negative. See the commentary of the Rambam on Pirkei Avot where that statement comes up in chapter 3 or 4--not in the first chapter where it appears at first. ]