Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id that "kinyan sudar" marriage by a handkerchief would be valid if it had a penny's worth in the handkerchief. Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money and later he in fact gives it.

Rav Shach explains there are two kinds of "kinyan sudar" one is exchange and the other is  a special kind of exchange that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the Tosphot Rid is including kinyan sudar when it is done as exchange with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange. But not a when it is done specially as kinyan sudar which is its own category of  kind of exchange.

The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the Gemara is mainly interested in eliminating exchange, and does not really mention the kinyan sudar. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.

Just to be clear I will bring the basic Gemara. The Gemara Kidushin brings the mishna that a woman is acquired in three ways: money, document, sex;-- and that is meant to exclude exchange. You might have learned exchange from the field of Efron, since a field can be bought by exchange. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a penny. And since exchange can be for less than a penny, therefore that whole kind of buying (exchange) is excluded--even if the exchange is done for more than a penny.

So you see right away what is bothering me. The Gemara is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically exchange, and does not even mention kinyan sudar. That is, it seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as exchange would be not valid but perhaps as in fact a regular kinya sudar would be valid!

[The idea here is this: what causes a woman to be married? Being married is a sort of state of being that has with it obligations. When does that state exist? It is similar to when you buy a field. When makes it "bought"?  In the West we understand that a document sometimes is just proof that some exchange happened, but sometimes it itself is what causes the exchange.]

twentieth century philosophy is tremendous logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about.

Someone explained what analytic philosophy is like. [I forget who]. It is like the sword of Saladin as opposed to that of Richard III. Richard's sword was so heavy, you needed to be in the big leagues just to be able to pick it. It weighed a lot. On the other hand Saladin's was light, but was so sharp it could slice through a feather in mid air just by touching it.

Analytic philosophy is like Saladin's sword. Exact and rigorous to an amazing degree about language. It is not nonsense, but who could care less? Possible worlds? It tells me nothing about about possible world since it is not Physics.

[So what you get in the twentieth century philosophy is tremendous` logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about. Or Continental.  So the obvious question is why not just get back to Kant and Hegel? I guess analytic philosophy does not find them "rigorous enough". Continental finds them lacking emotion. In any case, I would be happy to see renewed interest in Leonard Nelson's take on Kant in friesian,com and McTaggart's take on Hegel.

[Even if analytic philosophy meant anything at all, the main rule there is whatever anyone says, it is the solemn responsibility of someone else to contradict it. As Steven Dutch put it twentieth century is vacuous.]

The problem with "Torah Scholars that are demons" that is brought in the LeM I:12 of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, really is an open Gemara in Shabat: "If you see a generation that troubles are coming upon it go out and check of the judges of Israel for all troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel."
So you see it was merely the fact that Rav Nahman choose to emphasize this point for some reasons unknown to me that makes it significant. But it is not as if he was the first to discover it.

To tell who might come into this category however is more difficult since Rav Nahman gives relatively few hints as to what it is that turns a person into a demon.

What my feeling about this is that the best path is to be safe and follow as closely as possible the straight path of Torah of the Gra, and Rav Israel Salanter, and Rav Shach. [Which would be in a practical sense to learn Torah in both in a in depth session and besides that a session of learning quickly and an emphasis on the Ethics of Torah that is the essence of Torah]

w65  [w65 in midi format]

God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.

I have wondered about the issue of trust in God because the only time I actually saw an approach like that that was real to people was for the short time I was at the Mir in NY. It was a general approach there that if you sit and learn Torah, God will take care of everything else. And that was done in deeds, not words.

What helped me get the message was the book of Navardok [Madragat HaAdam] but even without that, this attitude was simply embedded at the Mir.
Maybe it was also in Shar Yashuv to some degree but I do not recall.

It also helped me understand the idea of doing some effort in order to make  a vessel to receive the blessings from God, but that over exertion of effort is lack of trust.

The surprise for me was that as long as I stuck with that approach it worked. But when I abandoned it in order to "do effort",-- that is exactly when God stopped helping me.
So it is like the verses in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Psalms and many other places say--God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.
[The main verses that I am thinking of are a few in Jeremiah] ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם והיה השם מבטחו..."Blessing is the man who trusts in God and makes God his trust. He will be like a tree planted on streams of flowing water... Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and places his trust in human efforts. He will be like a broken well that can not hold any water."

[Please look at the Musar [Ethics] books that deal with trust in God: Obligations of the Hearts, and Madragat HaAdam. You will see the issue of trust as opposed to effort is an argument among the rishonim.]

From a Physics blog about the Virus

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/04/lockdowns-are-man-made-not-how-nature.html#disqus_thread

Sadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from theSadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from the "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem. "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem.

I try to model my attitude towards the issue of the virus based on a few statements of Rav Nahman of Breslov. One is that he was not thrilled with doctors. He certainly did not trust everything they were saying. Sometimes there are basic areas that they have got down pat, but sometimes when they venture into areas they that are new they really are just guessing. See the end of the Conversations of Rav Nahman.
Another thing is the idea of  ריבוי השתדלות [over effort]. He held that in terms of trust in God, one still ought to do some kind of minimal effort;-- but doing more than the minimum shows lack of trust in God.