To be מוחה to object to evil even when you will not be listened to I heard from Leibel (the son of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [the head of the Mir in NY.]). 

He was saying this to me in terms of the Eruv issues that came up then. [What counts as an enclosure for the Sabbath Day.] I had asked something along those lines. He said that there is a point to object.

Now as I think about it I recall that you can see this with the war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin. פילגש בגבעה. Look at the verses and you will see the main objection was not what was done the the concubine--which was horrible in itself. Rather the major issue was that no one objected. Israel had gone to the town and asked the criminal to be handed over. And that is the point. Everyone in Benjamin went along with it and no one objected.

Also in the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. What was done was evil. But that in itself was not enough to bring about the destruction of the Temple, The main issue was that מדלא מחו שמע מינה דניחא להו--that no one of the sages objected.

This would be the same reason that the Gra put his signature of the letter of excommunication. To object to evil even if one will not be listened to. [Just to be clear the actual "herem" did not include Rav Nahman of Uman]. One could look up the books that contain  all the letters and testimony in Villna to see this.

x11 B Flat major mp3 file

 x11 B Flat major mp3 file

 

I am thinking of putting links to the NWC [Noteworthy Composer] and Midi versions of the music so that people that want to see the notes can do so. 

x11 nwc file

x11 midi file

return to Feudalism.

 I see in the former USSR that people tend to form a village around their place of employment. I mean this is a return to Feudalism. I actually saw this when I was in the hospital in Uman and saw this kind of dynamics. And I heard this from a former KGB agent also.

This is I think also the basic idea around the "Litvak Yeshiva". Even though Litvak yeshivas tend to do a great job in what they were created for--to teach Torah. [Especially the Mir in NY and also Shar Yashuv]. Still the subtle aspect is that it provides a Feudal Castle to protect one from robbers.

After all this is what the whole Feudal system came about from. Rome was collapsing. The roads were no longer safe. People wanted protection from roaming bands of "protesters." So they aggregated around a strong man that could protect them. But in return they had to work and and pledge loyalty. 

This is in fact one of the reasons why people go into Litvak yeshivas--not just to learn Torah but also to be in an environment where they can learn Torah. The secular world used to be able to provide a degree of security. You lived in a safe USA. Jobs were available. Now secular society is falling apart. 

[Does this reciprocal relationship in fact exist? That is if you pledge loyalty and obey all the rules  do you get some kind of protection like in a feudal castle where you get protection by pledging loyalty? I would say it does exist to a degree. Maybe not as much as one might hope, but it still seems to be so to a degree.]

For a mediaeval feudal system to work there needs to be a hierarchy. Sometimes there is good reason for that. Like in the case of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum the head of the Mir Yeshiva in NY.  Or Rav Freifeld of Shar Yashuv. But often, not. 

argument between the Rosh and Rav Hai Gaon

There is an argument between the Rosh  and Rav Hai Gaon. Normally when there is enough land for the males to inherit and the daughters to be feed then that is what happens. [That is to say that daughters and a widow do not inherit, but they do get feed from the proceeds of the land.] If there is not enough land for both the boys and girls then only the girls get feed. But if the sons sell the property the sell is valid. That is straight from the Gemara itself. But what happens  after during the time of the Geonim there was made a decree that movable property is also used to pay for the Ketuba and all the conditions of the Ketubah.

That is where Rav Hai Gaon says after that decree now the girls would get feed from the proceeds of the sell. The Rosh disagrees.. The question that Rav Shach brings is that the proof that the rosh brings is hard to understand. 

The Gemara says that there is  a proof to Rav Asi that the boys have some rights to נכסים מועטים [small amount of land], because if they sell, the sell is valid. The Rosh brings this as a proof that they keep the money of the sell.--even after the decree of the Geonim.

I admit that I have trouble understanding the answer of Rav Shach to this question. It does look that you can not bring a proof from the sell being valid before the decree and the sell being valid after the decree that the boys might in fact have to feed the girls with the proceeds.

Basically Rav Shach is saying that the point of the Rosh is that you  see there is a no "halot" settling of the land on the money, such that the money is in place of the land. We do see that with Maasar Sheni but not here. So while there is a decree to use movable property to pay for the Ketubah, that means money that was actually inherited. Not money that came because something that was inherited was sold. 

When communism is brought up, someone has to blame Hegel.

On one hand almost invariably when ever communism is brought up, someone has to blame Hegel.  Not that he was a communist, but clearly a capitalist. See his Philosophy of Right and his views about private property. But the reason he gets blamed is because the individual gets meaning only by being part of a larger group. However there is no freedom for the individual without the state. 

However I think he was trying to get to freedom for the individual without the craziness  and reign of terror of the French Revolution. And in fact looking at the kings of Prussia during that period do show them on the side of a liberal Constitution.

What the situation in Germany was lacking I think was people like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison whose forte was how to frame a political question and how to answer it with a just Constitution. That simply was not the forte of Hegel nor Kant.

See Walter Kaufman on Hegel.

I would suggest to blame Marx and Communism all you want, but leave Hegel alone. In fact. it could be that allowing the communists to hijack Hegel, is what gave them the small amount of credibility that they had. After all it could not have been simple to convince the average peasant in a Russian village that the success of the more well to do peasants was all because they had stolen it from the less successful.Just the opposite --to anyone living in a village or small Russian town it is clear where the prosperity comes from--the few smart peasants that bring in all the business..It is always just the few who are the big producers. So the Marxists had to use word play to convince the poor peasants to murder the wealthy peasant and steal his property and rape his daughters, and do it in name of social justice.

[Is it possible, I might suggest that communists took a hitch hiked with Hegel on some issues because he was the best thing out there?]

x-9 D Major

 x-9 D Major

to betray those that do the most good to us

 It is not just that people have a evil inclination [yezer hara]. Rather people have a very specific yezer hara--to betray those that do the most good to us and we owe the greatest gratitude. Not just lack of gratitude but even to do positive harm to those that have helped us the most. So while there are all kinds of yezer hara, this one seems to me to be the worst of all

[You can see examples with the hatred of people towards the USA, when according to their enlightened views they might have done better by staying in Somalia. Instead they come to the USA to turn us into another Somalia. [which recently blamed whites for not staying there and teaching them how to run an economy. Or course it is hard to blame the whites for leaving since they were being murdered.]

Another example is fathers who are by default the arch villain in the minds of most people. Again the same reason--to repay good with evil. 

I am no prophet, but I can say with some degree of confidence that this can not end well. There is a Judge and justice. People that betray those that have done the most for them will almost certainly not end well.