[slowly wearing down the USA by a constant small wounds. Never a open fight

The Fabian approach of the communists [slowly wearing down the USA by a constant small wounds. Never a open fight], was revealed in private meeting of Communists in Berkeley in around 1993. [I forget the exact year.] So adoption of standards to wear down and break American resistance to Communism took place by infiltration into all sections of industry, university and government. The plan was to constantly knock down Christian-American traditional values.
I can see that process is finally completed. That is why the next stage of takeover is to take to the streets and start the violent communist revolution. That is stage 2.

[Being aware of this does not really help anything, since values are inside of people. If Americans no longer retain the core Christian values that the USA was founded on, then there is not much one can do.] If they go to church, then all they hear anyway is leftist agenda. Accepting of all the communist points, and rejection of everything of the Bible.

[Not that I agree with everything Christians say. Some things seem right, and other things seem wrong. For example the concept that: "Jesus is the same as God" seems obviously wrong. But also the idea of his being simply a prophet seems wrong also. Prophecy stems from (Victory) Netzah and Hod (Splendor) [two sepherot of Emanation], but that does not mean the soul of a prophet comes from Emanation. However, there are souls of Emanation like the Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David. The Ari said also the soul of Rav Haim Vital. And a soul of Azilut (Emanation) is "divine". Since between God and Azilut (Emanation) there is no curtain. And based on Rav Avraham Abulafia, my opinion of Jesus he was from Azilut. [Light of Kindness (Hesed) contained in the in the vessel of Foundation (Yesod)].

Another area where I disagree with Christians is events like the disciples in the field picking corn. If the grain no longer needed the soil and was already ripe, then that is not a "work". So it is hard to understand what the complaint might have been. But it would not have been that the disciples were desecrating the Sabbath. What probably happened is you had a bunch of the usual sort of insane religious fanatics (of which there are plenty of examples nowadays) looking for something to complain about, while at the same time not really having any idea of the actual law. Nosey neighbors.

[There are other examples. mixing mud with water is subject to an argument in the Rosh. Some rishonim hold mixing water with dirt is desecration of the Shabat; others hold it is permissible. See the Rosh. Washing the hands is another example. The Sages say מים ראשונים מצוה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה the washing before the meal is a good thing. In the middle of a meal, it is permissible. After the meal it is an obligation.

Fourth of July

To celebrate the Fourth of July I think people ought to start a learning session in the Federalist Papers and get through them --word for word. I do not mean to get through them all on the 4th, but rather to start a daily session of one or more pages. This explains a lot of what the Constitution of the USA is about. And the wisdom there does not just apply to the USA but to all people that want to be free. Not free as in anarchy but free as in a peaceful law abiding country which maximizes freedom.

In defense of Hegel I want to say that I think he was looking for a synthesis between freedom and law after he saw the horrors that the French Revolution produced.

So it not that he was simply a "statist". And even if he was so what. His point was to show how truth logos gets revealed through a process of dialectics.  And that that process shows that any concept has some elements of self contradiction until it come to a higher level. And that by that process of getting to teh higher level one can go higher and higher until one reaches Absolute Spirit. It is a thoroughly Neo Platonic approach.

My grandparents--themselves immigrants to the USA did not even bother to sell their property in Newark, NJ. They saw where the wind blows and donated all their property to the city and hightailed it out of there.
In fact, these were the same grandparents that left Poland when it was still part of the Russian Empire and the tzars. [They had left even before WWI]

Sometimes it just is not worth the effort to fight.
So what I am thinking is that people ought to come to Israel.
The USA is just heating up too fast and things are getting close to the boiling point.
I mean if there are no police then things can get ugly fast.

The only thing I can imagine that might help at this point would be to outlaw protests in the interest of public peace and order. And if people do not want to go home peaceably, then to deal with that with extreme prejudice. And as for the police, to give them double their present salary. To back them to the hilt. Give them medals and public acclaim.

x2

To me it seems sad that there are some differences between Hegel and the Kant-Friesian school of Leonard Nelson. I can see how each complements the other. But the differences that started between Hegel and Fries have just kept on going. It is not that I see peace in itself as a goal. Rav Nahman said there are two kinds of debate one is between tzadikim and other is when a tzadik is making effort to be rid of the Sitra Achra and the wicked.
He brings this in LeM  I:5 and that and also at the end of LeM vol I about King David. [There the issue was the Saul was persecuting David, even though Saul was in fact a greater tzadik than David. See the Gemara that Saul was asking God "You said You would give my kingdom to my friend who is better than me. Now you say you are giving it to David. God answer when you were in the Physical world, (a world of lies), I told you a lie. Now I am telling you I am giving the kingdom to David." So we see in the Gemara itself that Saul was greater. And this is clear in the later prophets where there is counted 7 shepherds and 8 princes that would protect Israel if they were around. And there Saul is counted not King David. 

[The idea of "arguments between tzadikim (the righteous)" is one very useful bit of information in Rav Nahman. It sort of hints to the idea of Kant of the "dinge an sich" areas where Reason can not enter.]]

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט''ו -י''ח

רב שך  במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט''ו -י''ח and in chapter 24 law 9  of selling brings an argument between the רשב''ם, תוספות, and רמב''ם. The issue is that the רמב''ם seems to decide  the law in ways that at least the גמרא in ערכין would hold to be contradictory. רב הונא בערכין דף י''ד ע''א says one who מקדיש a field full of trees redeemed the trees according to their value and the field according the חמישים שקלים for a field of standard size. Background: One who sanctifies a field for the הקדש can redeem it himself if he gives to the הקדש 50 shekels. If other kinds of objects, then he redeems them according to their value but adds a 1/4. [what is called 1/5 but means 1/5 from the outside.

The גמרא asks does that not disagree with the ברייתא that one who sanctifies trees redeems them and the field goes along with it. And the גמרא מתרצת that רב הונא was saying like ר' עקיבא that one who sanctifies, sanctifies with a good eye. The הקדש would get more. That ברייתא is like ר' שמעון that one sanctifies with an unkind eye. So that the הקדש would get less if redeemed.

The גמרא here clearly holds these two teachings disagree with each other.

So how is it the רמב''ם decides the law like both?

And in fact the ראב''ד says the law is not like רב הונא but rather like רב פפא on ערכין י''ד ע''ב.

There רב פפא says one who sanctifies trees redeems the trees according to their value.

The גמרא asks Let the קרקע go with them to be sanctified and to go out with them to be  redeemed? Answer: this is where he said openly the קרקע does not go with them. So we see that if it would they would be sanctified together. רב שך answers that  גמראה on ערכין י''ד ע''ב clearly holds רב הונא and רב פפא disagree. But not that they in fact disagree. It could be that the sanctifying a field with trees makes everything go together. But sanctifying the trees alone, even if the field goes along with them, still it is not two separate acts of sanctifying. So redeeming would also be in just one act.

The question is, then where did the רמב''ם see this? There does not seem to be any גמרא anywhere that indicates that רב פפא and רב הונא agree with each other.

The answer is that רב שך has a different גמרא. It is the one where there is a difference between R Akiva and the sages about the case one sells three trees. The גמרא there agrees that to both the קרקע under between and around  them the width of 4 אמות is sold along with the trees.But if he says he is keeping the קרקע to the חכמים that is valid and to ר' עקיבא still the קרקע under them belongs to the new owner of the trees. The reason is all who sell sell with a good eye. So in our case, the גמרא can hold like ר' עקיבא and that even when he says he is sanctifying the trees without  קרקע still the קרקע under them comes along with them. But there is only one act of sanctification, so they are redeemed together. That is the גמרא that sees a difference between רב פפא and רב הונא hold like the חכמים and ר' שמעון that one who sanctifies does so with a grudge, evil eye. But if a גמרא would hold like ר' עקיבא then the גמרא would say sanctifying three with no mention of ground the ground comes along both in and out of הקדש. But the law of רב הונא is where he mentioned both field and trees so both are redeemed separately

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט'ו -י''ח

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט'ו-י''ח ובפרק 24 הלכה 9 הלכות מכירה מביא ויכוח בין הרשב’'ם, התוספות והרמב'’ם. העניין הוא כי הרמב'’ם מחליט את החוק בדרכים שלפחות הגמרא בערכין היה סותר. רב הונא בערכין דף י''ד ע''א אומר מי שקידש שדה מלא עצים פודה את העצים לפי ערכם והשדה לפי חמישים שקלים לשדה בגודל סטנדרטי. רקע: מי שמקדש שדה עבור הקדש יכול לפדות אותו בעצמו אם ייתן לקדש 50 שקל. אם סוגים אחרים של חפצים, אז הוא פודה אותם לפי ערכם אך מוסיף 1/4. [מה שנקרא 1/5 אבל פירושו 1/5 מבחוץ

הגמרא שואלת האם זה לא מסכים עם הברייתא שמי שמקדש עצים גואל אותם והשדה הולך איתם. והגמרא מתרצת שרב הונא אמר כמו ר' עקיבא שמי שמקדש, מקדש בעין טובה. הקדש היה מקבל יותר. שברייתא זה כמו ר' שמעון שאחד מקדש בעין לא נאה. כך שהקדש היה מקבל פחות אם ייפדה.

הגרמרה כאן מחזיקה בבירור את שתי הדעות הללו חולקות זו את זו.

אז איך זה שהרמב'’ם מחליט את החוק כמו שניהם?ולמעשה הראב''ד אומר שהחוק אינו כמו רב הונא אלא כמו רב פפא על ערכין י''ד ע''ב.

שם אומר רב פפא מי שמקדש עצים גואל את העצים לפי ערכם. הגמרא שואלת שהקרקע תלך איתם להתקדש ולצאת איתם להיגאל? תשובה: זה שהמקדש אמר בגלוי שהקרקע לא הולכת איתם. אז אנו רואים שאם זה היו מקדשים יחד. רב שך עונה שגמרא על ערכין י''ד ע''ב מחזיק בבירור את רב הונא ורב פפא חולקים על כך. אך לא שהם למעשה לא מסכימים. יכול להיות שקידוש שדה עם עצים גורם להכל להתקדם. אך קידוש העצים בלבד, אפילו אם השדה עובר איתם, עדיין אין מדובר בשתי פעולות קידוש נפרדות. אז הגאולה תהיה גם במעשה אחד בלבד.

השאלה היא אם כן איפה הרמב'ם ראה את זה? לא נראה שיש שום גמרא בשום מקום שמצביע על כך שרב פפא ורב הונא מסכימים זה עם זה.

התשובה היא שלרב שך יש גמרא אחרת. זה שיש בו הבדל בין ר עקיבא לחכמים לגבי המקרה שמוכרים שלושה עצים. הגמרא שם מסכים כי לקונה הקרקע מתחתם ולסביבתם ורווח של 4 אמות נמכר יחד עם העצים. אבל אם המוכר אומר שהוא שומר את הקרקע לעצמו לחכמים זה תקף. אבל לר 'עקיבא עדיין הקרקע מתחת וביניהם שייכים לבעלים החדשים של העצים. הסיבה היא שכל מי שמוכר מוכר בעין טובה. כך שבמקרה שלנו, הגמרא יכולה להחזיק כמו ר' עקיבא, וכי אפילו כשהוא אומר שהוא מקדש את העצים בלי קרקה, עדיין הקרקע שתחתם באה איתם. אבל יש רק מעשה אחד של קידוש, ולכן הם נגאלים יחד. זה הגמרא הרואה הבדל בין רב פפא לרב הונא מחזיקה כמו חכמים ור' שמעון שמי שמקדש עושה זאת בעין רעה. אבל אם גמרא היה מחזיק כמו ר' עקיבא, הגמרא הייתה אומרת שקידוש שלושההעצים  ללא אזכור של האדמה האדמה באה ביחד הקדש. אבל החוק של רב הונא הוא שם הוא הזכיר גם שדה וגם עצים ולכן שניהם מתקדשים בנפרד

Three trees. Rav Shach in Mishna Torah in Arachin 4: 15-18 (and in chapter 24 law 9 of selling)

Rav Shach in  Mishna Torah in Arachin 4: 15-18 (and in chapter 24 law 9  of selling) brings an argument between the Rashbam, Tosphot, and Rambam. Rav Shach as is the custom starting from Rav Haim of Brisk is spending most of his efforts to understand the Rambam.

The issue is that the Rambam seems to decide  the law in ways that at least the Gemara in Arachin would hold to be contradictory. 

Rav Huna Arachin page 14a says one who sanctifies a field full of trees redeemed the trees according to their value and the field according the 50 shekels for a field of standard size. [Background: One who sanctifies a field for the Temple can redeem it himself if he gives to the Temple 50 shekels. If other kinds of objects then he redeems them according to their value but adds a 1/4 [what is called 1/5 but means 1/5 from the outside.]  ]

The Gemara asks does that not disagree with the teaching that one who sanctifies trees redeems them and the field goes along with it. and the Gemara answer that Rav Huna was saying like R Akiva that one who sanctifies sanctifies with a good eye. [The Temple would get more]. That teaching is like R Shimon that one sanctifies with an unkind eye. So that the Temple would get less if redeemed.

The Gemara here clearly holds these two teachings disagree with each other.

So how is it the Rambam decides the law like both?

And in fact the Raavad says the law is not like Rav Huna but rather like Rav Papa on Arachin 14b.

There Rav Papa says one who sanctifies trees redeems the trees according to their value.

The Gemara asks Let the ground go with them to be sanctified and to go out with them to be  redeemed? Answer this is where he said openly the ground does not go with them. So we see that if it would they would be sanctified together.

Rav Shach answers that The gemara on Arachin 14b clearly holds Rav Huna and Rav Papa disagree. But not that the in fact disagree. It could be that the sanctifying a field with trees makes everything go together. But sanctifying the trees alone-even if the field goes along with them, still it is not two separate acts of sanctifying. So redeeming would also be in just one act.

The Question is then where did the Rambam see this? There does not seem to be any Gemara anywhere that indicates that Rav Papa and Rav Huna agree with each other.

The answer is that Rav Shach has a different Gemara. It is the one where there is a difference between R Akiva and the sages about the case one sells three trees. The Gemara there agrees that to both the ground under between and around  them the width of 4 yards is sold along with the trees.But if he says he is keeping the ground to the sages that is valid and to R akiva still the ground under them belongs to the new owner of the trees. The reason is all who sell sell with a good eye.


So in our case the Gemara can hold like R Akiva and that even when he says he is sanctifying the trees without teh land still the land under them comes along with them. But there is only one act of sanctification so the y are redeemed together. That is the Gemara that sees a difference between Rav papa and Rav huna hold like the sages and R Shimon that one who sanctifies does so with a grudge. evil eye. But if a Gemara would hold like R Akiva as is in fact teh law then the Gemara would say sanctifying three with no mention of ground the ground comes along both in and out of hekdesh. But the law of Rav Huna is where he mentioned both field and trees so both are redeemed separately