But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.

It was mentioned to me recently the problem of totalitarianism. In answer to this I mentioned the very strange occurrence of Freedom and Justice for All, limited government, and  balance of powers from the English kings who were tyrants in every single possible meaning of that word. How in the world did limited government happen to come into existence under the signature of King John? The Magna Carta. And the provisions of Oxford under Henry III? I have been contemplating this enigma for a long time but have not written about it because it comes under the category of problems in the human situation which seems to be  mysterious. [The dinge an sich of Kant] Or as Michael Huemer puts it, "Why are people irrational about politics?" [Though they defend their beliefs based on some kind of "rational"] How s it then than from that arose the Constitution of the USA? Or the Parliamentary system of England?

If anything, England is the last place on the planet that one would expect limited government to arise from.

[I mean to say that after reading a bit of Kant  and the Friesian School I do not wonder much about issues that I think are beyond human or even pure reason.  I figure once one gets out of the limits of possible experience, reason tends to begin to contradict itself. Even though government is something that people do experience, still it is not possible to know what is best based on experience. You can not derive an is from an ought. Issues of value and morality might be related to how things are, but are not derivable from them.

[I think it is a good idea to learn the development of the English and American system of government in order to gain a clear idea of their essence--what government can not do. Limits on Federal powers. What they can not force you to learn, what they can not force you to pay for, for what they can not force you to say , etc. a long and infinite list of all the things the government can not do. Why is that? Because Federal government has limited and openly stated powers. Anything outside of that very short list is off limits to the government. But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.  

Rav Nahman had a clear idea of learning Torah

 I was looking at the five letters that Rav Nahman wrote to his friends and family. In one he writes to one of his sons in law and tells him to write back telling him how many pages of Gemara he learns every day "for in this is my desire". You certainly see that Rav Nahman had a clear idea of what learning Torah and keeping Torah is all about. So why do you not see the sort of intense study of Torah in Breslov that you see in the most average Litvak yeshiva? The reason is that most people in Breslov are fallen souls like myself, --people that have a hard time studying anything--much less Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha.

People like us need more encouraging things--and for that reason in Breslov people spend more time on the books of Rav Nahman. 

[My own approach to Gemara is that a lot depends on the time one has available.  When I was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir I had the whole day and night. Later when I was at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU doing Physics, I had less time for Gemara. So what I suggest is to divide one's time in equal proportions. Or at minimum to do one half page of Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha--which is about 40 minutes. Or in place of that to do a section of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. (The books of Rav Chaim of Brisk are the beginning of a new way of learning. Before him the emphasis was more on Tosphot. However there is in both ways a great deal of merit.] 

גיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב

The basic issue in  גיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב is this: One says to two people to write a גט and give it to a messenger. The גמרא asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The  רמב''ם says the question is referring to a case when  the גט was found to be null. To רש''י, the issue is if the גט was lost, but if found null obviously one could write another"

 To רב שך the argument depends on the question if writing the גט requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.

What רב שך means is: The difference is this: If writing the גט requires to be a messenger from the husband  שליחות, then we can understand that after he has written a גט and it אבד it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. This might be the doubt in the גמרא on page 63 maybe the  שליחות was filled since he wrote the גט as commanded. This is how רב שך explains רש''י that holds the doubt of the גמרא is  if it was lost. But if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another.  And this part of the answer of רב שך makes sense.

However even if we say that the רמב''ם holds  the writing does not require שליחות  rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends? To write it just once, or at least once.  But to say the argument between רש''י and the  רמב''ם does not seem to depend on the question of if the גט requires שליחות or only a command." 

It occurred to me that we can understand רב שך in this way. Let's think about the difference between שליחות and commanding. Making a messenger to give a גט could not apply in any way to an invalid גט. But commanding to write a גט can apply to an invalid גט. So we can understand the Rambam that telling two people to write a גט can be similar to when the husband himself writes a גט. It can be found to be invalid. And if so he can write another. But if his command to write  a גט can apply twice, that is the question of the גמרא. So in short רש''י holds telling two to write a גט is from  שליחות and thus writing twice can only be a doubt if the גט was lost. But there certainly can be no doubts if the גט was found to be invalid. He certainly did not appoint the two to write an invalid גט. So they can write another. But to the רמב''ם who holds it is merely a command and thus there can Be a doubt if it was found to be invalid if they can write another.

הנושא הבסיסי בגיטין דף ס''ג ע''ב הוא כזה: אחד אומר לשני אנשים לכתוב גט ולתת אותו לשליח שהוא יתן אותו לאשתו. הגמרא שואל, "האם הוא מתכוון לכתוב את זה פעם אחת בלבד, או לכתוב את זה עד שזה נגמר?" הדבר נותר כפקפוק. הרמב''ם אומר השאלה מתייחסת למקרה בו התגלה כי הגט בטל. לרש''י, הבעיה היא אם הגט אבד, אך אם הוא נמצא בטל אפשר לכתוב עוד אחד 
 לרב שך הוויכוח תלוי בשאלה אם כתיבת הגט דורשת שליחות או פשוט פיקוד של הבעל. מה שאומר רב שך הוא: ההבדל הוא זה: אם כתיבת הגט דורשת שליחות, אז נוכל להבין שאחרי שכתב גט וזה אבד ייתכן שיהיה ספק אם מילא את משימתו . זה יכול להיות הספק בגמרא בעמוד 63 אולי השליחות התמלאו מאז שכתב את הגט כמצווה. כך מסביר רב שך רש''י שמחזיק בספק הגמרא אם הוא אבד. אבל אם פשוט יתברר שהוא בטל, כמובן שהוא יכול לכתוב אחר. וחלק זה של התשובה של רב ברור.אולם גם אם נגיד שהרמב''ם מחזיק שכתיבת הגט אינה דורשת שליחות אלא רק פקודה של הבעל, ובכל זאת אני יכול לראות שיש אותו ספק בדיוק עד כמה מצוותו נמשכות? לכתוב את זה רק פעם אחת, או לפחות פעם אחת. אבל לומר שהטיעון בין רש''י לרמב''ם לא נראה תלוי בשאלה אם הגט דורש שליחות או רק פקודה. "

עלה בדעתי שנוכל להבין את רב שך בצורה זו. בואו נחשוב על ההבדל בין שליחות לפיקוד. לעשות שליח לתת גט לא יכול להיות שייך בשום צורה לגט לא חוקי. אבל הפקודה לכתוב גט יכולה לחול על גט לא חוקי. אז נוכל להבין את הרמב"ם שאמירה לשני אנשים לכתוב גט יכולה להיות דומה לבעל עצמו שכותב גט. אפשר אחר כך לגלות שהוא לא חוקי. ואם כן הוא יכול לכתוב אחר. אבל אם הפקודה שלו לכתוב גט יכולה ליישם פעמיים, זו שאלת הגמרא. אז בקיצור רש''י מחזיק שאמירה לשניים לכתוב גט הוא משליחות ולכן כתיבה פעמיים יכולה להיות רק ספק אם הגט אבד. אבל בהחלט לא יכולים להיות ספקות אם הגט לא היה חוקי. הוא בוודאי לא מינה את השניים לכתוב גט פסול. אז הם יכולים לכתוב עוד אחד. אבל לרמב''ם המחזיק היא רק פקודה ולכן יכול להיות ספק אם הוא נמצאה פסולה אם הם יכולים לכתוב אחר

Gitin page 63, side B.

The basic issue in  Gitin is this: One says to two people to write a get and give it to a messenger. The Gemara asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The Rambam says the question is referring to a case when  the get was found to be null. To Rashi, the issue is if the get was lost, but if found null obviously one could write another"

 To Rav Shach the argument depends on the question if writing the get [divorce] requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.

What Rav Shach means is: The difference is this: If writing the get [divorce] requires to be a messenger from the husband, then we can understand that after he has written a get [divorce] and it got lot it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. This might be the doubt in the Gemara on page 63 maybe the messenger-ship was filled since he wrote the get as commanded. This is how Rav Shach explains Rashi that holds the doubt of the gemara is  if it was lost. But if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another.  And this part of the answer of Rav Shach makes sense.

However even if we say that the Rambam holds  the writing does not require messenger-ship rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends? To write it just once, or at least once.  But to say the argument between Rashi and the Rambam does not seem to depend on the question of if the get requires "messenger-ship or only a command." 

I later was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me that we can understand Rav Shach in this way. Let's think about the difference between making a messenger and commanding. Making a messenger to give a divorce doc could not apply in any way to an invalid get. But commanding to write a get can apply to an invalid get. So we can understand the Rambam that telling two people to write a get can be similar to when the husband himself writes a get. It can be found to be invalid. And if so he can write another. But if his command to write  a get can apply twice-that is the question of the gemara. So in short Rashi holds telling two to write a get is from messenger-ship and thus writing twice can only be a doubt if the get was lost. But there certainly can be no doubts if the get was found to be invalid. He certainly did not appoint the two to write an invalid get. So they can write another.

But to the Rambam who holds it is merely a command and thus there can e a doubt if it was found to be invalid if they can write another.

the reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication --warn people about fraud.

Even though I wish I could walk in the path of the Gra after having tasted the fruit, I still find that my situation does no allow me to learn Torah with that kind of diligence which is implicit in that path. I mean to say the problem of  "bitul Torah". [Not learning Torah when one can.] It is hard to be in a Litvak yeshiva even for a short while and not realize the tremendous spirit of Torah that fills the place. Once one really tastes the sweetness of Torah it is like an addiction. Or as Aristotle put it: "Virtue is habit." One has a certain amount of free will to choose what sort of habit he wants to allow himself to get into. He or she knows that after something becomes a habit, it is difficult to break, or sometimes impossible after it gets hardwired. But one can exercise a certain amount of free will about what kinds of habits he or she wants to get into. Learning Torah is the best of all habits.

Yet there is also the need for an intellectual recognition of the value of learning Torah. Otherwise it is all too easy to get detracted. There are too many kelipot that try to distract a person who has merited to e sitting and learning Torah. There is too much fraud around and that would be the reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication --warn people about fraud.   

 I imagine that my dad's (Philip Rosten-Rosenblum) contribution to laser communication will be lost to history for lack of documentation. While he had been hired by TRW for the X ray satellites, when those had been launched, they had him work on a new kind of idea--laser communication. That is the same thing as radio waves except that you super impose signals on lasers instead of radio waves. That was very well known to me who first hand knowledge of his lab at TRW and his associates. However when TRW went under because of the KGB spy that had been found there, all documentation was lost and they sold their records to other aerospace corporations. In the mix up, my dad's name was lost. But I imagine that is no worse than the inventor of fire or the wheel whom we also do not know their names. [And by the way, it had nothing to do with the amazing advantages of laser communication as we see in fiber optics and the Space X laser communication system, but rather to have a signal system between satellites that the Soviets could not eavesdrop into.] That was at the height of the Cold War when the USSR and the USA were almost at the point of total war. Some system to protect American communications had to be found and that was my dad's idea. A way to have a system of communication that the Soviets could not listen into. Radio waves are spread out. Laser signals are focused. {TRW had noticed him because they wanted X ray satellites,-- and who better to get for that than the inventor of the Infra Red ray Telescope and later invented the Copy Mate Machine using X rays to for a perfect image.. Only after the last of those satellites were launched did the focus switch to laser communication.

There is an amazing spirit of Torah that seems to dwell in any place that closely follows the Gra.

 Even though the Shulchan Aruch [by Rav Joseph Karo] was not written as a commentary on the Gemara, when I was learning Ketuboth, I found that opening up the Shulchan Aruch with the side  commentaries always gave a fresh perspective on the subject. [Mainly that was from the Taz who generally was writing in answer to the Bach, and from that sort of back and forth discussion I always saw a deeper understanding of what the Gemara was saying.  As my learning partner David Bronson once told me, that a lot of people saw something really special about the Shulchan Aruch in that they wrote their commentaries that it. [The Gra, Shach, Taz, etc.]

[That was during my third year at Shar Yashuv. And I have to say that my experiences at the few great Litvak yeshivas where I was at for a few years were astounding. There is an amazing spirit of Torah that seems to dwell in any place that closely follows the Gra.  Certainly anyone I know can testify that their years at any Litvak yeshiva were the best of the lives. There really something astonishing about the Gra and the world of Litvak yeshivas which follow that path of straight Torah. What is straight Torah? you might ask. It is the idea of not adding and not subtracting from the Torah. What the Torah says--that is that.]