Even though there are great people like the Litvak sages, e.g. Rav Kinyevsky and others that are devoted to Torah for its own sake, still the religious world is a sort of nightmare. That is to say that some are sincerely devoted to serving God, still the general group character is a  kind of problem. There is a sort of attempt to present themselves as righteous as a group. This is obvious. Yet the fact is there are very few that are in fact like Rav Kinyevsky. The majority are just regular mammals. Not particularly good.

For a test run one ought to spend one day living in Mea Shearim and then see how all the love bombing is all a façade. I can think of no worse nightmare than the religious being in control.. And I know this from the experience of many, many people who have experienced what the religious world is really like minus all the pretense.

What is however true and great is the holy Torah, and that is in fact important. But the religious themselves are the in the business of using the appearance of keeping rituals of Torah to make money and gain power. They are as righteous as a Venus fly trap.

[If you are young and naïve there is a lot of effort spent on trapping you into a net in which there is no escape. But the reality is the religious world is a Kafkian nightmare. I hope than when I discuss the importance of learning and keeping Torah , that I do not sound as if I am giving any sort of approval of the religious world which is the opposite of Torah.]

Rav Elyashiv

 I am really not very aware of the great Litvak sages [gedolim] that are around nowadays. It is only by a sheer miracle that I have heard of Rav Shach.

But today I was in the Na Nach place and saw an interesting book about the wife of Rav Kinevsky. [Sadly she passed away this year.] [Rav Kinyevsky I think is the son of the author of the series of books called Kehilat Yaakov. I saw that book when I was in Shar Yashuv but did not have much of a chance to learn it.] 

At any rate there is a nice story I saw in that book. Rav Elyashiv is apparently one of the present day Litvak sages. [From what I understood from that book he is apparently a grandson of the Leshem, a commentary on the Eitz Chaim.] 

So the story goes like this. There is a fellow who was married for ten years but did not have children. So he and his wife agreed to divorce. Then right after the divorce, it turned out that she was already pregnant. That means there was no reason to divorce in the first place. But sadly enough he is a Koken [priest] so he is not allowed to remarry. A kohen can not marry a divorced woman as you can see in the Book of Leviticus [in the section of Emor].  So he went to Rav Elyashiv. Rav Elyashiv told him to go to the Western Wall. Though that seems to have  nothing to do with the problem at hand still this fellow had "faith in the sages" so he went there and prayed his heart out. Then someone there walked over to him and asked what he is crying about. He said, "It does not matter there is nothing anyone can do to help me." The fellow that walked over to him was stubborn and kept insisting that he tell him what is the matter. So finally he gave in and told him. That fellow that had walked over to him then said to him, "You need to go to your father." [His father was in a hospital in the USA]. This also seemed to have no bearing on teh issue at hand. Still in his confidence in the advice of Rav Elyashiv he decided to go visit his father.  When he got to the USA it was in fact close to the end of the life of his father. He got to the hospital.  When he walked into his father's room his father told him it is very good that he came just then because he had something to tell him that he had never told him before. But since he knew it was time to leave this world , he decided he must tell him. That he is adopted.  That means that he really is not a kohen in the first place. Thus he returned to Israel and remarried his wife.

 

 In Rav Shach's Laws of Gitin chapter 1 law 25 he brings Tosphot Gitin page 86. The Mishna says a divorce document with no witnesses but written by the hand of the husband is not valid. Tosphot says the reason is because of the time. Rav Shach explains that means Tosphot would be going by the present status to push the time of the divorce backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from teh death penalty.  So this is what Tosphot means. If the doc would be his own writing with no time on it we would think to put the time in the past and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to Tosphot this is only the opinion of R Meir (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not R Elazar (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like R. Elazar. So the law is the writing of his own hand with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to Tosphot.]

My question here is that even R Elazar might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that Rav Shach is holding that R Elazar goes by prior status  and R Meir by present status. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that Rav Shach is saying the argument about the status is what cause the argument about the writing of his own hand. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the signing witnesses is what causes the validity to depend on present status. 

[Sorry if I am being a bit short on details here. Just to fill in one issue that might cause confusion, let me say  that "status now" means what is the state of being now you assume goes back in time. Status from the being means going forward. So e.g. you have a married woman who commits adultery. Then shows up with a divorce doc. You do not know when it was given. If you go back the status now then you assume that what is the state now was probably the state as far back in time until the minute you know it was not the case. So At least there is a doubt that at the time of the act perhaps she was not married and therefore not liabe to the death penalty. But if you go by prior status then you assume she was married until the minute she shows up with the doc.]

___________________________________

 In רב שך's Laws of גיטין chapter 1 law 25 he brings תוספות גיטין page 86. The Mishna says a גט divorce document  כתב ידו is not valid. תוספות says the reason is because of the time. רב שך explains that means תוספות would be going by the present status חזקא דהשתא to push the time of the גט backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a גט divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from  death penalty.  So this is what תוספות means. If the גט would be his own writing with no time on it, we would think to put the time in the past, and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to תוספות this is only the opinion of ר' מאיר (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not ר' אלעזר (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like ר' אלעזר. So the law is the כתב ידו with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to תוספות. My question here is that even ר' אלעזר might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that רב שך is holding that R Elazar goes by חזקא מעיקרא  and ר' מאיר by חזקא דהשתא. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that רב שך is saying the argument about the חזקות is what cause the argument about the כתב ידו. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the עדי חתימה כרתי to depend on חזקא דהשתא. 

____________________________________________________________________________

בהלכות גיטין של רב שך פרק 1 הלכה 25 הוא מביא את תוספות גיטין עמוד 86. המשנה אומרת כי  גט של כתב ידו אינו תקף. תוספות אומר שהסיבה היא בגלל הזמן. רב שך מסביר שפירוש התוספות הוא שהסטטוס הנוכחי חזקא דהשתא דוחף את הזמן של הגט לאחור בזמן. [הסיבה שיש זמן בגט היא מכיוון שהוא עלול להתחתן עם בת אחיו והיא עלולה לנאוף ומכיוון שהיא קרובת משפחתו הוא היה כותב מסמך גירושין אחרי זמן של הניאוף עם זמן מוקדם כדי להציל אותה מעונש מוות.] אז זה מה שתוספות אומר. אם הגט היה הכתיבה שלו ללא זמן עליו, היינו חושבים לשים את הזמן בעבר, וכך היא לא תחויב בעונש מוות על ניאוף. אך לתוספות זו רק דעתו של ר' מאיר (העדים החתומים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין), ולא ר' אלעזר (שהעדים הרואים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין). והחוק כמו ר' אלעזר. אז החוק הוא כתב ידו ללא זמן וללא עדים תקף. [כתיבת ידו שלו תופסת את מקומם של עדים לתוספות. השאלה שלי כאן היא שאפילו ר' אלעזר עשוי להחזיק שאנחנו הולכים לפי הסטטוס הנוכחי כדי לדחוף את זמן הגירושין אחורה בזמן. אני מתכוון לומר שרב שך קובע כי ר' אלעזר מחזיק  בחזקא מעיקרא ור' מאיר בחזקא דהשתא. אני חושב שזה לא משתמע בטיעון שלהם לגבי איזו קבוצת עדים גורמת לתוקף הגירושין. אבל אני יכול לראות שרב שך מכווין שהוויכוח על החזקות הוא הגורם לוויכוח על כתב היד. אך למרות זאת, קשה לראות כי הדעה  שעדי חתימה כרתי תלויה בחזקת דהשתא

 I have been thinking about an argument between the Rashbam and the Ramban [Nachmanides] if a divorce document needs to have the time of its writing put into it. [In Rav Shach, Laws of Divorce perek I chapter 25]

The Rashbam [Shmuel ben Meir,  a grandson of Rashi] holds it never needs the time in it. The only opinion that holds it needs the time is R. Meir who holds the witnesses on the document cause the divorce to become valid. But the law goes like R. Elazar that the witnesses that see the giving of the document to the woman cause the validity of the divorce.  So he would hold there is no worry about the daughter of his brother.  [The opinion that holds the reason the time is in the document is because of the fact that he might have married the daughter of his brother, and then she might have committed adultery. Then, since she is his relative, he might write a divorce document, and put in a time before the time of the adultery to save her from the death penalty.] But to R. Elazar there is no worry about that because if there is not time in the document, then we would assume she was married until right now and thus there is not worry about the daughters of his brother.  

What occurred to me today was this question. Why does this have to do specially with the opinion of R Elazar?  I think the idea is that R Meir not have the same idea--that we would assume the divorce did not happen until the last minute. So the time needs to be put in so that he does not put in a latter time. But would not the same go for R. Elazar? He could have a divorce now and have no time in it and later put in a time? That is to say I am not really clear about what the explanation of Rav Shach is here.

 The way the Native Americans are presented in schools nowadays seems to leave out half the story. I noticed this concerning the Iroquois. Their genocide of the Erie, and later attempt to do the same to the Shawnee is simply left out of the story.   

[I am just mentioning one example. Of people are going to learn about the history of the Native Americans, then it ought to be done right and thoroughly, or not at all.]

 Rav Avraham Abulafia is unknown to most people.  partly because he is considered a "mekubal" the last thing he would have liked to be known as. He wrote--the Christians believe in three gods and the mekubalim in ten. And until today you can see he was right. I was in the Breslov place today and learned LeM 33 and tried to explain that God is beyond time and space since these two are His creations. One can not say God is here nor that he is absent from here since neither predicate are applicable to Him.  Most people that learn the Lem of Rav Nahman seem to think that pantheism is correct, but in spite of this being not the Torah approach it is also incorrect from the aspect that has no plurality in Him. If everything is God and everything is a plurality then one introduces a plurality into Divine simplicity--that God is not a composite. he has no predicates. Not time nor space. nor any sort of ingredients.

[Just to be clear--God has no characteristics that can be applicable to finite beings--as Saddia gaon makes clear.

There is no such thing as tolerance.

 There is no such thing as people that do not have a cut off point... of what is acceptable and what is not. There is no such thing as tolerance. The Left will not tolerant the political right. Everyone has some cut off point of what they will tolerate and what they will not. Often it will be a case of self deception. Where people are congratulating themselves of how tolerant they are by not tolerating the intolerant. (I wish they would see the logical contradiction in that.) [This is not my own new idea. I heard this in Uman by a fellow that I had  known in Safed. ]

Maybe you can see this in people that will not tolerant "racism" in whites, but hate males or whites etc. But This is just one example. I am sure most people an find examples of their own. There is no such thing as tolerating a little bit of cyanide in your chocolate pudding.